MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 91-80039 MICROFILMED 1991 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the 'ToundatioiiN of Western Civilization PTQ^--'-":-^'[on Project" Funded b\' the NATIONAL LNDOWMENT FOR THE Hm-AxrriES Reprodiictl-Hr^ may not be made withou- .x n:;; s- 1 ^^p from Columbia Umversitv Libran' COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States ^^ Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copynghted material... Columbia University Librar>' reserves the vlmi to refuse to accept a copy order if, m its^udgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. Al JHOli FORMAN, LtWIS riTLE: THE GENITIVE... PLACE : BALTIMORE DATE: 1894 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESi ivATION . f Master Negative # PlitC MICROFORX % H Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bib liographic Record BKS/PROD Boaks FUL/BIB NYCG91-B21319 Record 1 of -- Record added today Acquisitions MYCG-PT IDsNYCG91-B2:l319 CCs9668 BLT:am CP rnyu PCsr MMD: GAG :I.GO IG 245 14 BT:p \u O »^ " :) • FRN: MOD: BIO:? CPI'^? |v|Q t) RR BNR FIC FSI COL 7 ELs ATCs CON IL( EML AD:G3-22-91 UDsG3-22-91 - '? 7 9 M . ■ • •^.797'? ME I GEN II s BSE 2 ew 26G 1 3GG LDG QD RTYP:a DCF5? Lseng INT:? GPC PD: 1991/1894 REF OR: POL: DM NNC=:- I cNHC Thrd^ffer-ence between the genitive and datxve = I hCmn. crof arm.] -^M cby i. s L.. e -a m i ri g F o i" ni a n , A , N . Bal t i mo r e , •••• I c 1 894 . 68 p. R I G G3-22-91 Restrictions on Use: TECHNirAL MICROFORM DATA i It :'«'.« I : \ ; _■ \ \ , r I „.'^ / \ I. I . - rf '■ \th ■ 4 Ai-.rf<^^itA. -*- ^. ^: f MENT: I A QiA" 115 IIB i^ :_4_i J_3_r_^/. REDUCTION RATIO:__lJ INITIALS_'7?^A^ Ri Sh \RCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOOPBRIDGE. CT , c Association for Information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 IllllllllilUlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll T Inches I I I 1 Hi 6 7 8 9 iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii TTT T 1.0 I.I 1.25 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 1^ 2.8 150 2.5 la ¥■' 2.2 163 lllll 3.6 1^ 11^ ■ so IS. 2.0 *- u i£:uu 1.8 1.4 1.6 TTT MflNUFfiCTURED TO flllM STfiNDfiRDS BY APPLIED IMnCE, INC. f. ^K ^? ■A^ ■ ^ <-^.^v ^! /■ *^i,. * * --^ 1 ^; i 'n - >-' oo *%• m i^>^. f- -mi % 1 v« .1 v,- /i i \ %, i^r. £:«'feS^M ^,SI mi^ f% r^ WF] ©olumbla (HolU^^ + ! T f-^ I II I' list -I GIVEN BY TuvDVvsn ^Y > > » J 13 ) » ^ ^ A ~1 - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN k THE GENITIVE AND DATIVE USED WITH £7rc TO DENOTE SUPERPOSITION BY V— J LEWIS LEAMING FORMAN, A. M * • « / A DISSERTATION ACCEPTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, FEBRUARY, 1 894 BALTIMORE 1894 • • I » I • •• • • • •• • • • •• :• • • • • • • • • • f I , • • • t • • • • •• ••••• • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • V • • • • • • i • • •••••••• PRESS OF THE FRIEDENWAIiD COMPANY BALTIMORE N ■ ^^ CO >• • •• • • ••••••••• • •• r* ••'> • • • • ••••• • .*. ••• : • • " • , • • • • ••••• ••• • n • ••• ••••• • •••• • • • •<••• <>•• • • • « • • * " Vix quidquani tam lubricum est in syntax! linguarum, quam hi loci, qui sunt de praepositionibus et de coniunctionibus." These words of G. Hermann/ though written many years ago (1831), must be recognized, however regretfully, as still true by any one who has attempted to answer even some less important question in prepositional usage. Classification he finds difficult, at times impossible, and the opinions of authorities widely diver- gent. On the general theory of prepositions, it is true, Delbriick announced in 1879 the following consensus of judgment : ** Ueber die urspriingliche Anwendung dieser Prapositionen (avd, inly napa, TTfpiy Trpdy, npo, fV, fK, $Cv) ist man jetzt zu einer iibereinstimmenden Meinung gelangt. Man nimmt allgemein an, dass die Praposi- tionen urspriinglich wie alle Worter Freiworier (sog. Adverbia) waren, und dann Begleiiworter wurden, und zwar von Anfang an in grosster Ausdehnung verbale Begleitworter, dagegen Anfangs seltener und erst im Laufe der Zeit haufiger werdend nominale Begleitworter. In der altesten Zeit war es die wesentliche Auf- gabe der Prapositionen, die Richtung der im Verbum ausge- driickten Handlung naher zu bestimmen, die Beziehung der Handlung aber auf einen Gegenstand driickte der Casus allein aus, ohne Beihiilfe der Prapositionen.'" So essentially say Kiihner,' Curtius,* Whitney^ and others before this date, and so Paul,* Brugmann,' Vogrinz' and others since. But it is only upon this general theory that a consensus can be obtained — so general indeed that it must ignore the question of the ultimate origin of ' Opuscula, vol. V, p. 50, quoted by Sobolewski, De Praepositionum Usu Aristophaneo. '^ Syniaktische Forschungen^ IV 126. 3 Grammatik der griech. Sprache (1870), II, §428, 3 and 4. ^ Erlduterungen (1875), p. 176. ^Language and the Study of Lang. (1877), p. 276. ^ Principien der Sprachgeschichte (1886), p. 316. ' Griechische Gramtnatik (Miiller's Handbuch, II, 1890), §195. ^ Grammatik des homerischen Dialektes (1889), p. 206. • • • • • preposItidnV*!?/. K WJi'd-ther or not they contain the stems of Begriff^ivbrUry ^htxeksy'l^ one enters into particulars even so slightly 4s*to afek for.*il .dt^fimtion of the difference between the true'a'nd the '^ imprbpeV"' preps., or what preps., if any, go with the true gen. case, he will obtain a great diversity of answers. Curtius, for instance, finds that the gen. depends upon avrl, npo, didy vTTfp "und vielen andern— gerade in der Weise wie von unserm Angesichts, laut, kraft.'" Delbriick takes issue with him, though admitting the Curtius-constructionas a probability for apri and a pos- sibility for 8id, because they may belong to the class of " unechten, d. h. aus Nominalstammen gebildeten Prapositionen.'" Vogrinz, Gram, des homerischeii Dialekies, takes the gen. to be adnominal with am (p. 2Il),5ia (p. 214), fcani sometimes (p. 215), v7r€>(p. 2 16), napd "schwer zu entscheiden" (p. 222), irpos ''allem Anschein nach " (p. 223). Delbriick now says : " Der echte Genitiv findet sich bei avri, vnep, fiia, eVi, irori, dvd, dpcpij ncpl, /ifra. Bei avTi, vnep und 8id diirfte es der alte adnominale Genitiv sein, welcher uns bei den unechten Prap. begegnet."* It will be observed that as these lists are not co-extensive, the slipperiness of which Hermann complains is still present. For the purposes of the present essay, however, these larger questions need not be taken up and the general theory as above presented may be subscribed to. We proceed therefore to the proper subject of the essay — the difference between the gen. and dat. used with firi to express superposition, or, to take a concrete case, What is the Attic Greek prose for ' with his hat on his head ' ? Is it fVt T?is K€(^aX^9, or fVi TJ KfcjiaXj} ? Or if either, is there any shade of difference in the meaning? For the translation of so simple a phrase, one might expect 'See Grassmann, Ursprung der Prdpositionen, Kuhn's Zeitschrift, XXIII (1877), p. 559. He maintains (p. 563): " Keine achte Praposition ist aus einem Begriffswort entsprungen," as also : " Keine achte Prap. ist als Casus zu fassen.'* See on the contrary for rrapa, Osthoff, Morph. UnUrs. IV 283, Anm., " der alte Instrumental," and for Trt/oi and m, Brugmann, Gr. Gram., ^194 (locat.). So too did (6iai), npo, and others have been reckoned among the preps, "in quibus terminatio alicuius nominis latet, ex quo genetivus pendeat," J. A. Heilmann, Z>e Genetivi Graeci maxima Homerici usu (1873), p. 25, note 2, "^ Erlduterungejiy ^. 1*^"] . ^ Syttt. Forsch. IV 134. * Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen (1893), p. 762. y ^ i s clear rules and distinctions laid down even in the elementary books. The question is not one of origins. No matter what its derivation, affinities or ultimate meaning, eV/ is certainly the proper preposition, while the case of the substantive should be setded by an examination of the remains of Greek literature ; and, if both cases prove to be allowed, the difference between them, if worth anything, should appear at the same time. Only in this last matter need one feel drawn beyond the Greek in search of the Indo-Germanic basis of distinction. Yet simple as the question seems, scholars are much at vari- ance about it. Stated in general terms the question is: i) Does Attic Greek prose employ €7rt with both genitive and dative to express concrete superposition of one body upon another ? 2) If so, what is the difference, if any, between the two forms of expression ? The answers of the following authorities I quote at some length, that their text may be at hand for reference. i) Kiihner, Grammatik der griech. Sprache (1870), II, §438: "fVt mit dem Dativ, i) raumlich zur Angabe des Verweilens nicht nur, wie beim Gen., auf, sondern, und zwar haufiger, in erweiterter Bedeutung an od. bei einem Orte od. Gegenstande." He then quotes among other instances of az^/Xen. An. VII 4, 4 ol QpaKii rat d\(07r€Kidas (ul rais KCC^aXmy 0opo{}(ri Ka\ rols oxri kqI ((^pds (Oberkleider) pexpt twi/ Troba>v enl tZ)v lirntav €xov(nvy remarkmg '' firi c. dat. rein raumlich, aber eVt t5>v tn-Tro)*/, insofern die Pferde als thatig gedacht werden ; so Plat. Conv. 2i2v, a beggar sits eVl Oupai^. In tragedy this distinc- tion is not observed, and em c. dat. is also used to convey the sense which prose writers confine to the genitive. In Thucydides the prose usage has not yet become absolute, and although several deviations from the rule, such as aKdnov enl afid^rj KaraKOfMiCetu (4, 67), admit of easy correction, yet the undoubted dat. in 2, 80 tovs onXiras em vavai 7r€fM7rovv on board ships." (But for the Greeks before Troy was (Vt vr)!i>v a more familiar location than em prjval ?) Further quotation is needless to prove variety of opinion.^ Mr. Rutherford is perhaps alone in denying to Attic Greek prose the use of the dat. in the sense of superposition. This point is natu- rally the first to be taken up, and could perhaps be determined by an appeal simply to Att. Greek prose. But it will be better to present at the same time and in historic order the whole material of the question. The following lists i) include only concrete substantial things, admitting abstrac- tions, metaphors or other unrealities only when they vividly sug- gest their originals, e. g. Soph. Ant. 189-90 (speaking of the jToXt?) ravrrjs em irXeopres ] Ar. Av. 39-4O ot fxep yap ovp Temyii .... f. Twi' Kpadiop adova, *A6r]paioi 5' del f . tS)P diKap adovai ; Xen. An. 11 5, 23 of the wearing of the tiara e. rrj KecpaXij and also e. -nj Kapbla. 2) exclude on the contrary concrete objects where evidently the meaning is not purely local, e. g. z 423-24 ndpras ydp Kare- necf)Pi .... ^ova\ en elXinoSeaai (cf. VV. 209, 22l) ; Xen. Cyr. V * I may, however, quote Kuemmell, /?|r 309 nlTTTev. [3] ^w/xof 240 rraa-i . . . prjpi eKrjn. y 273 /Sw/Liotf. [1.2. 3. Ar. X.6] yaiT) r II4*caT€^ei/T0. A 161. N 654 K€iTo. 11 310 (v. /.) KciTTTreo-e. 413 Ktimrfcre. P 5^ (^eravvvae. S^Kfipevov. * 1 18 K€tro. ^876 Trayrf (Nauck COnj. tvi). k 165 KaTa<\ivas» 55 Bfiaa, [X. 6] 8L(f)p(0 Z 354 eC^o. r lOI avTas IjSaXXei/. [Hm. Hy. Hs. 4. X.] Sovpa ship-timbers p 444 k^op^vo^ 6 tTTt TOl^2 Xft^^ai. 10 II Innoiiv * 362 fidariyas aeipav. o Io2 fjidariv ^d\€P. See notes at end of this list. laros mast y. ^22 avr^, ^(^\r)To. [Hd.] itap7razt;m/'(?)E458. 883. 9328. P 601. 2 594. * 489- Q 671. (T 258. X 277- ^ 398. KktafJiolcn G 436 kciOICov = A 623 = p 90. [Hy.] koXtto} Z 400. 'cpari r 336 eBrjKfv. E 743 ^ 3^* Xpoi P 210 TJppoaf. yjrapaBois A 486 vrja epvaaap. ^853 €(TTrj(rap, y ^S Xbpva^p. 1/119 yj/apdBay eBecrap. 284 cKfiprjp. X 387 Ke^vvTat. pots o 61 ^aXcTo. [Hm. 3. Hd. 6. PL] Proper Names and References to Persons, 'l(fiibdp,apTi A 261. KaWiKoXapr) Y 53* "Ocrarj X 315 Bep^iP. OvKvpL-nco X 315 B€p€P, linrpoKKto P 706. aXXjJXoio-i X 3^9 pvrjOTTJpts . . . «- Xvi^ro. [Pl«] aurw (of various persons) S 419. n 661. Q 666. A 470. P 236, where note contrast with vtto. ^ 381 (?). (o 525. Also in the phrase dpd^ijae 6e tcvx«' fV' avT<^ A 504. E (42). 58. 294. 540. G 260. N 187. P50. 311. o) 525. T« E 101 = 283 = 347. "ir 188. O 445 rotfft. Despite varying opinion I have here and throughout put the words ^(opos and kaxdpa under the head of superposition rather than of proximity. For whenever fire is mentioned, it is clearly a case of superpos., while elsewhere it must be borne in mind that the ^ KOPlTiaiP i In Imroiip of the above list Giseke in Ebeling's Lex. Homer, sees the genitive. And it is true that except once in Aesch. /m' always takes the genitive of this word. But ^aXXw in o 182 can hardly take the gen.,^ nor would that vjonstruction be supported by the usage of €m^d\\a> (4 times in Hm.), for in the only passage where the gen. appears with it (z 68) the verb is in the middle voice. In B 89 ireTOPTai eV' apBeai, iirl is * tOWards.' So tOO in ^ 821 eV' avxivi Kvpe. In t) I20-2I oyxpr} fV oyxvr) yripdaKci, prjXop d' iirX pri\(Oy aiirap cVt (TTa(f)v\rj crra^uXjJ, (tvkop 5' eVi avKco, the image of SUperpos. is almost as strong (yrjpdaKfi = iriiTTfi) as in the phrases poipav (jiopop, ^ See infra p. 56 ^ 12 SXy.a, .08o., oWa, /r49. [Hd. 6] jcdTTT/o-i e 434 KUTibrja-av. d 40 »caW- KXrjIai^ n 170. ^ 419 «^^tCov = a 579. 37 d;?(ru^«t'oi. t 103 i'27 Y 390. vrfvaiA 559. B 4. A 513. E 79I. Z 50. e l80 76Va)/xat. 380. 531 €y€lpofi€v. I 425- K 306. 381. A 135. M 38. 90. 246. 403. N 107. 333 v€€(r(TU 381. 762. 832. 3 5I»/«a-a-t. 57. 65. 367. O 44. 248. 459. 494- 722 v(€(T(Ti. U 18. 201. 547. 2 7 K\oueovTai. 259. 294. 304. T71. 135 Weo-o-t. 160. 236. * 135- X334- ^ 254. fi 248.' [Hm. 3. Ar. Hd. Th. X.] 65(0 z 15. M 168. n 261. TTfipaai yairjs i 284. TTTOs B 523. [Hm.] noTafi^ E 598. e 490 ayayo)!/. [X 6] npoxoTjai P 263. rrpvfxvijiii e 475. S 32- O S^S- 2 76. 447. [Eur.] pr}ypriPiA^37' ©501- ^430- 575- i 150.169. 547.559- ti86. /x6. 0499. po.^y n 719. araSp-olai p 20. rn<^pa)A48. 51. M 76. 85. S67^f [Hd.] Tflxop H 440 ai»TW. I 349 a^^<{P- [X. Cf. Tcix^W Eupolis] (^cir*/?; E 271. Z 506. K 568 KaT€- biiuav. o 263 (i^'/y. Magn. 5 1 , 10 reads (^uTj/i/p). Q 280. a 535 = X 411. Always at end of V. exc. in K 568. [4] ^ KArjideq = aKaAuoi, not l^vyd. So Doederlein, Homertsches Glossarium , §2115, followed by Eberhard in Ebeling's Lexicon, and by Buchholz, Horn. Real. II I, p. 262. »€7ri V7]val = towards after eAawEtv (E 327. A 274. 400- 259. Q 392). (ftkpeadaL (0 743), kyeipELv (0 603) and vUaOai (X 392). ^3 U'}. 'aX(^«w a 712. 'A(ra)7r«» K 287. 'EXXi;(r7rdi/T<» H 86. K^XabovTi H 133. ZavBcd E 479. O) 82. 2aT»'idcm * 87* 2Kapdvdp//■ 244. The contents of this list should be noted, that its primitive con- creteness may be compared with the wide development of the later period. Nine words are the names of rivers, with which should be classed Kprjvjjy Xifxvr), m^y.^s, norafK^y Trpo^offai, norjsy rdc^po), as all denoting waters upon whose margin the subject stands. Now since the step from i-nX ^etXfi ra^pov (a dat. of superpos.) to fVt rac^po) is an easy one, and since the image of superpos. remains as clear in the latter as in the former phrase, all the above words, as also oSw, could be entered without much forcing among the dats. of superpos., leaving the present list to consist of eleven words. Of these eleven, (oxariri ^ind ivtipaai (yairjs) might also readily join the other group, but that the superpos. of the one object upon the other, owing to the distance of the image called up, fades away and we descry only proximity. Three others— KdTrrjaiy (jidTprfy KXT/Icri— need historical interpretation. As a conse- quence the list almost disappears, and eVi c. dat. in Homer when with concrete things is found to present almost invariably super- position. To be excluded from both lists, because not purely local or not sufficiently concrete, are eVi ^oval Z 424. v 209. 221. 363, Kredrecrai E 154. I 482. a 218. o 89, o€iTot(ri v 60. fVt c. Gen. — dyKUiVOi K 80 dp^a)^€tV. H 702 /S^ {V, I. vir''). ^ 494. dypov a 185 earrriKiP. l<^0. tt 33^* 383. x47- 0)212.308. uKfirji {^vpov) K 173 to-Tarai. aKprjs 6 508 epvaapTus. [Th. X.] oKT^ff Y 50 -diop. (^ 1 25 La Roche reads KaB d' ap okt^s with six MSS.) € 82 KndijiJi€Pos. 151 Ka6r]p€POs. K 140 KaTr)yay6p.€p bases rj 100 ((xraaap. [l. 2. 3. Ar. Hd. Th.] yairjs N 565 (v. /. dat.). p 27 yfjs. ^Ss^SxTip. 041. [1.3. X. PI.] di(f)pov G 578 Kab d\ . . elarap. p 602 (CfT. T 97 avTov = v mule-car Q 702 K^ififvov. Tjneipoio, -ov A 485 tpvacrav. a 1 62. y 90. 185 /S^/iCV = K 56. ^ 1 36. »r 325 €pv(T/^ 164. [Hm.] tTTTra)!/ chariot E 249. M 82. 2 531 ^avTii. Q 356. (In P 459 rolcrt is perhaps the Trojans.) KOpv(f)ris N 12 5(/' 1 7^ *'^*'* <" ^ 1 7 (iTfadai. 301 e(XjiXi;^ay. [Hm. 3. 4. X. PI.] ovdov threshold a 104 o-t^. 6718 r^. K 62 «Co/x€^'. p 339 *C«- o- 33. ;( 203 €(f)t(TTa(rap. 6x^ S^ ^^' aavpajT^pos K 153* (rxeStf/? f 33. 163 avTTjs, Tr?i$ai. 338 rt€. T? 264. 274. [X.] TcXapo)!/ A 38 avTov {v, I. avT^'- [l- 2. 3] copap A 46. K 170 aJpou. [Hm. 3] Box>iTpa 339- [Hm. 2. 3. 4. Th. X. 6. PL] •yXooo-o-J? Theog. 83 ;^eioucrti/. [2] yovpaai Epigr. 4. Batr. 3 BrjKa. [X. 6] Ipyoii fields Op. 549 dr]p . . TfTarai. ^oipjiai Sc. 233 dnrjapevvT . ^XeVrpo) Epigr. 15, 10. BeipiXia 2, 117 avTolSi tdrjKf. e^peeXois [Theog. 816]. KapTjPois Sc. 236 edoP€iTo . . . T(0 Op. 544 apc^i^aXiy. [Hd. Th.] ovSfi 3, 149, 284 Ka6i(rarai. ov6a> (yrjpaos) Op. 3.3^' ox^DSy -rjariy -ais Batr. 1 66 earrjaap. 223. 247. [X.] [oxotcrt 5, 19 at end of v. "lam Vossius, postea Grashof, ox«- o-(^ti/ pro oxoKTip scribendum esse iure censuerunt." Ebe- ling's Lex., s. v. oxos (2).] [Hm.] TTcSio) 2, 42 a-TTJs. irerpij Sc. 406. 375 aXXijXi/y. Hy. 3, 124,404. [2. 3. Ar.] nXarapoiPi 3, 1 28 ilpvaaro. irnpTQi 2, 216. 7rpo(ra)7rQ) lO, 2. [Hs. 4* "] (r;/paTi Epigr. 3. [Hd.] Tvp^co Epigr. 3. vdari Batr. 74. 99. (In v. 61 eV should be read with 3 MSS, Matthiae, and Franke. In v. 89 v0', Bothe's correction, is necessary to the sense). [Hd.] x6opI Theog. 556. 564. Sc. 162. 462 icd/SjSaXe. Op. 90. 157. 252. Frg. 14, 4. [i. 2. 3] 4i i6 ^afxd6ois 2, 329 fpva-avTO. 3, 79 €ppi\lr€v. *^fvj} 3, 388. aXXjjXot? Sc. [379] ntarov, SC. (Ji^dpcr. avT« Batr. 205 apa^rjare 5* rci;^* €7r auTW. 'Ayx**^?? 4' ^70 ^^^°^ ^X^^^' fir I I c. Dat = Proximity, (axarij Theog. 622 fW. Frg. 156,5. [Hm.Pl.] evpvai 3, 26. Epigr. II. [Hd.6] icpm 19. 20. [Hs.] mlpaari 4> 227. p€(0poi9 I, 18. piyy/xli/i 2, 312, 327, 330. 'AX<^fic3 34, 3. Excluded from both lists are jSov^t' Theog. 290. Hy. 3, 200, 316, 556. npo^dro^a. 3. 571- <^P-^' 2, 197, SS^- 4> 1 5 because either not purely local or not concrete. Op. 750 M^' ^'^' aKiv^roLai Kad^C^pev is of problematic meaning, while in Op. 162 Rzach reads lct> instead of 6<^'. fVi c. Gen. = Superposition. aHapavTOi 5c. 231* dTT^vrji Sc. 273. [Hm.] ^a>pS>p Theog. [557]- [i- 2. 3. Ar. Hd. Th.] dii/. Op. 236 vr]aiVy via-a-ovrai. Hy. 2, 3IO opovaa. 7, 10 eicrai/. 45. [Hm. 3. 4. X. PL] 7rpo7Tov Sc. I47. [Hy. 2. 4. PL] TTtVyoi/ Sc. 242. [Hm. 3. Hd.X.] (TfXpuTos 7> 47' [3] x6ov6s I, 133. 20, 3. [i. 3] Xo>pr]S 3, 123 Kflr, A^Xov I, 49 f^i](Taro. I 1 5 e^ati/e. Kui/^ou 1, 141 c^n^ao. T€\(l>ov^'^°^- Find. F. 8, 46. [Hm. 3] arpdKTo, Adesp. 52 (MS -TO,). ^aBi^lZo, Find. N. 5' i ^'^^^^'■'• ^co^^i. Bacchyl. 13) 3- [i- 2. 3- Ar. Hd. Th.] -y;)? Tyrtae. 10, 31 aTrjpixO^is - II, 22. [i. 3- ^- ^^-1 Y\c;,<7crr?v Theogn. 815 ^oO. . . . eTn^alv" Bergk). [i. 2. 3- ^^-3 u^Xco. Hippon.42,1. Seedppi- ra)i/ supra. l>Lv6, Herodas ^ ^ . - - rfjv xo^^ . . . €X' MSS plpas. pvridcov FlatO 30, 2 enecTTiP €>?. (r(/)i'po»' Sappho 70 ra ^pa/c€' ?XKr,^. [2] rpax^Xou Adesp. 22 ^m.e. xetpo. Theogn. 490 (doubtful). [Hm.J ^^pa, Find. F. 4, 273- [^^-1 There seems to be but one passage in which proximity might i nere secuia t'-' ^ r ^:*:^r» w hotter \]Z. novrov be denoted, though here, too, superposition is better, .'„' Ei^cW Simonid. (? See Bergk, III, p. 516.) 19 3. — Tragedy. €7ri c. Dat. = ayKuXaty Iph. A. 615 Se^ao-^e. Iph. T. 7-?5'0.^ Ion 761 Xa^fiv. oKTais Fers. 9^j ("fortas. dyais,'' Wecklein). Hec. 28. 36. 698. Hipp. 1179 (Kirchh. and Wilam.-MoUend. a/cray). Andr. 1018 -alai. Hel. 609 -ai(TL. 739. Iph. A. 807. Iph. T. 272. 932. Eur. Frg. 636, 2. [Hm. 3. 6] avTvyi RheS. 2j6 ^air) (avTvya ?). a^ocrt Phoen. 1 194 f'frTjBdip a^0P€S. apfxari Fhoen, II 10 (T(f)dyi ex<»>V' [2. 3. Ar. Hd. X. FL] da-mdi Fhoen. [1120]. 1 124 eVi- ar]p.a. \_2. 3. Ar. Hd. X.] ^oarpvxois Bacch. 757 "^'^'P ^ii^pop* ^cafxols Aesch. Suppl. 6^4 Biiar. Alces. 133. [i. 2. 3. Ar. X. 6] ya Ant. IJ4 7r€(r€. [Hm. 2. 3. 4. ' Th. X.^ 6. FL] yXoiaa-Tj Ag. 36 ^ovs. Aesch. Frg. 316 kXtjs. O. C. I0J2 kXtJs . . . ^e/Sa/ce. [2] SeXro) Iph. A. 155. dippLOia-i Cycl. 4pp. deprj Orest. 1653. dofiois Med. I2yo ttItpopt . . . axq. [3] ep/cft bezel of ring Trach. 615 €(Txdpa Eum. 108. [X. 6] ^vy^ befich Ag. 16 1 8. Fhoen. 74 Ka6i(€T. yoke Heracl. 854 a-radiPT. RheS. 766. 6dKois Iph. A. 795. [2] Superposition . iTTTTot? Aesch. Frg. 38 €fin€(f)vp- fiepoi. [2.3. Ar. Hd.X.6. FL] Kapa Bacch. 833. Troad. 937. KapTT^ ivrist Ion 1009. ACO^TW Alces. 2^4 €Xp. Iph. T. nog (MSS ip). [i. 2. 3. Ar. Hd. Th. X.] i/coTO) Aesch. Suppl. go TrtTrrei. Hel. 774 T^dprov. 842 Tvfx^ov, 984 ru/iiSou. [Hd. Th.] ofifxacTL Aj. 51 ^aXov(Ta. O. C. 1 68^ ^€^aK€. Fhoen. 950 ^aX Orest. 471 X"«^ ;^eo/ifi'Op. Hel. 986 KetaopeaOa. [Hd. 6] ToixoKTi Ion 115^" rpirrodi Orest. /<5^. )(^6ovi Trach. 8ii. Hec. 486. (TTi c. Dai. — bpocTois I ph. A. 182 Kpr]vaiai(ri. dojpaai Oi est. I2SS' Phoen. iSJJ- €ax(ipais Alces. iig. [X.] iGTois loom Bacch. 514. KOiirrj Alces. 361. 4JP -a. Xalcpeai Troad. 690. p(\d6pois Here. Fur. 6pi. P€Kp(2 Aj. 1 3 19. orrXois Eur. Suppl. 674. nayah Eur. Frg. //J, 33. TToXei Trach. 246 /3e^coy (local signif. is sufficient). [3] TTuXots Prom. 729. Sept. 631. Ant. 141. Aj. 49. Alces. loo, TTvpa Troad. 483. [3] Med. 4J4 ^ivq vaUii x^' Herc. Fur. 849. Iph.A. 1587. [1,3] XpoiTL Ant. 246 TraKvvas, yl^ap-ddois Hipp. 235. (ofiois Trach. 564 (pepau. Phoen. 1 131 (})€pQiv. Bacch. 755 tOeauv. Eur. Frg. 863 (j)epa>p. [Hm. 3. Hd. 6. PI.] dWrjXoKTi Pers. 506 ttItttov. O. C. 1620 dp(f)iK€ip(voi. [P^'J yvvT] Aj. 1295 ((P Jl Xa^a>v . . . avhpa. 'iXiciai Androm. JOI (vyov fjXvdc. pot Trach. ^81 ^apos. Trapdevoi O. C 161I avrals, irrC^ai . . . ;^€rpay. o-oi Eur. EleC. I344 "^X^os ^dWovai. Proximity. prjyplai Iph. T. 253. poalff Phoen. 574. Hel. 52. 124. Eur. Elec. 1273. Eur. Frg. 14. (TKrjvais Aj. 3. Hec. 733. arirodco O. T. 21. (TT€(l)dpoiai Phoen. y86. (T(Pay^ Hel. 1582 ravpfico, aradiU. Tfpdpvois Hipp. ^j'<5. Tvp^(p Eur. Elec. 1326. Xfvpaai Phoen. 79J. KvKXandoiai Here. Fur. 998. 2ip6€VTi Troad. 810. Tpoia Phil. 353. 611. It is not certain whether superpos. or proxim. should be under- stood in Choeph. 4 rvp^ov 5' eV' oxOa T<^d€ K^pvaao) noTpi, and in Soph. Frg. 342 ptdeis ivavipLOv Xipvas e'0' v\lrr)Xah (XTnXddeaai (of PoSCl- don). The readings are corrupt in Herc. Fur. 1003 e. X6(f)v (SC. daKTvXayp) Aj. I23O. [Cf. X.] aKTrjSf 'ds Pers. 449. p6^ Oeivovras. Phil. 272. Hec. 778 (dKTals of the same fact in v. 698). Iph. T. 1170. [1.2.3] aTTTjvrjs O. T. 802 f>^€/3a)ff, [Hm.] appiUTos Aesch. Frg. 38. [3] See hifra. ao-TTifioy Sept. 387. 400. 478. 510. 512. 520. 559. 661. [Hm.3] doTpd^rjs Adesp. 210. avx€V(ov Pers. 191 TiOrjai. (Orest. 51 fV' avx^'vos ^aXflv is spurious. Seep. 57.) [Hy.2.Hd.Pl.] fia'K^iScov Ant. IJ2. ^X€(f)dp(ov F.ur. Suppl. 284. [1.2] ^(opov Androm. 112^ carr]. Note Heracl. 238 Zevs) 60' ov av ^oyptoi: 6aKf7s. [l. 2. 3. Ar. Th.] y?}s Soph. Elec. 1 136. Aj. 235 yaias. O.T. 1 13. .416. O. C. 7705 yds. iyi2. Orest. 233 yalas, dppoaai noSas. Hipp. y6j €^aaav. Alces. 869 iroba ne^evcov. Hel. S^S '^'oda p^pt/MTrrd/xepos. Troad. 884. [i. 3. X. PL] ypapprj Eur. Frg. 382, 9 eV' avrijs Tpels KaTea-TijpiypivaL (i. e. 'e'). Sopojv Orest. 1574 "Kpoiv. [3] 8op6s ship Androm. ygj. edpas O. C. 85. iarias Ag. I435. [6] LTTTToyp Pers. 18. Eur. Frg. 675. [Aesch.] Kupopos Agathon Frg. 4 e^' tVds-. KXipaKos Iph. T. 1382 SopQiP ( Wecklein reads accus.). [X.] Kpr]7Tl8(op Herc. Fur. 1008 e/ceiro. Ion 38 rienpL. [X.] Xdos O. C. ip^, Xexovs Orest. 313 pep€. [2] vaa>v temples Eur. Elec. 6 t€0€ik€. vccoff Pers. 18 vaiip. Phil. 5/<5. 648. Iph. T. 102. 1000. Rhes. 72 6p(tixTK03P. 97 p(Q)p. [Hm. 3. 4. X. PL] pTjorov Phil. 613 ^ff paid. ^€pr)9 O. C. 184. 563. Androm. 136. ^vpod Aesch. Frg. 99, 22 €^r}p (so Wil.-Mollen.). Ant. 996. Herc. Fur. 630 ejBrjT. o^ov Bacch. 1070 l8pv(Tas. [Hm. 2] oppdrcop Ag. 1428. Eur. Suppl. 286 ^aXovaa. Plioen. 1452 TiOrjcri. [Hm. 3] 6p6p. [Hm. 3. Hd. X.] TTbiikov O. L-. 312 ^e^coaap. piTTos Eur. Frg. 397 nXeois. po7rrj9 Hipp. 1 163. [Cf. Th. and PI., also gen.] pojfirjs Orest. 68 6xovp.€6a, (TKa\p.a)P Iph. T. 1347- o-w/zaror Ag. 14^2. [3. 7] Tponis Hel. 412 €0' rjs €als Nub. 270. [Hm.] KpoK(>>T(2 Ran. 46. \vxv€i(o Frg. 5^/. /ijJXotf /. e. breasts Eccl. poj. 6(t)da\fxw Lys. 1026. Ran. 1247 neTpais Eq. 783. [2. 3. Ar.] ^Italic figures denote lyric, black figures anapaestic passages. 23 t 4 nXevpah Vesp. 1 293. [PL] TrpoKoyoKTi Ran. 1 246. (T^fxa Thesm. 886 e0' f [Hd.] rpaTTtCn Ach. 7/55. [4. Hd.] vypa Vesp. 678. xelXcai Ran. d/p. [Cf. Hd. and Th. ;^ciXi/. oU Plut. 185 iTnKa6e^r)TaL. (TOL Ran. 1040 \iKd6r)To. iirl c. Dat* = Proximity, dvanavXais Ran. 195* ^(i>po7s Lys. 1 140 iKiTTjs Kade^ero. [l. 2. 3. X. 6] drifxaaloia-i Eccl. 027« 8pv(f)dKToi9 Vesp. 552, dCpais Eccl. 865. 997. 1 1 14. Ran. 163. Nub. 46^. Vesp. 362. 1482 Bd(r(T€i. [Hd. 6] Krjpois Vesp. 754. KiyKXidi Vesp. 124. Kovpeioiari Plut. 33^* oiKiaiai Vesp. 801. TTvXais Eq. 1246. 1247. 1398. poalai Thesm. 864. arop-ari Eccl. I IO7 rrjs ia^oXrjs* TpaneCr] Pax 770. [Hm. 4. Hd.] Tvpi^co Ran. 1 139. 'AprapiTLca LyS. 12^1. Arjvaico Ach. 504 (Sobolewski, on), UaXXadla Frg. 585. Sobolewski is sure that en iaxdpais Av. 1232 means at, not o?t, I prefer to class it here, as doubtful ; also e. KWTrm? Eq. 546, as lacking satisfactory analogies. fV' 6x6a Ran. 1172 belongs to Aesch., see tragedy supra. Examples such as Pax 123 KoXXvpav fxeydXrjv Ka\ k6v8vXop oyj/ov eV avrrj are not usually reckoned as purely local. See Append. A, i. fTTi c. Ge7i, = aKfirjs Plut. 256 (iamb, tetram.). d/xd^iy? Plut. 101^ 6xoufiepr}v. [Th.] dv6pdK(op Frg. 68. 135. apfiaros Eq. 968. Ran. 1403 (from Aesch.). dpp.ap,a^a)v Ach. 70* da-mB(ov Ran. 928 ewovras (iamb, tetram.). [i. 3] ^^fjLaros Plut. 382. ^(OfjLos Pax 938 e<^' oTov, Cf. Eq. 131 2 TTt Ta>v aep-pcov Oecov (trOCh. tetram.). [i. 2. 3. Th.] Superposition. y?}s Pax 896. [i. 3. X. PL] diKwp (as Kpadcop) Av. 41* eXnis (as a ship) Eq. 1244 ec^' rjs oxovfieda, Frg. I50> II f« Xenrav eX. c^x^^o^B • Lnrrcop Lys. 6yg. [Aesch.] Kapddpov Pax 81. KeXrjTcop Lys. 60. K€(f)aX?js Eccl. 222. Av. 487. 515. Plut. 1 198. [Hd.X.PL] KXivrjs Lys. 575. 732. Eccl. 909. [PL] 24 Koprifiaros Frg« 474' Kpadav Av. ^O. Kpefxddpas Nub. 2 1 8. Xldos Vesp. 332 e>' o^. [Hm.] Xo0G)i/ Av. 293 (troch. tetram.). [X.] Xvxvidiov Frg. 281. peXias Av. 7^^. /x»7ptW (as /Soj/Lxo)!/) Thesm. 693. j-eo)? Ran. 52. [Hm. 3. 4. X. PI.] $v\ov Nub. 1 43 1 (iamb, tetram.). Vesp. 90. oXiyov LyS. 31 ftx^TO. Cr. ayKupay. 3p^,.Ach.82. [Hm. Hd.X. PL] irarraXov Vesp. 8o8. [3] TTcpiBpopov balcony Frg. 133. TreVpaff Eq. 754. 956. Av. 836 [i. 2. 3. An] -cuy. TXivaKo^ Plut. 996 erroi/ra. [Cf. TTlVaKlCTKOlS 4] TrpoorooTTouNub. II76. [1.2.4. PI.] TTvyiSt'coj/ Ach. 638 UKpOiV. pinos Pax 699 TrXe'oi. (TKrjTrTp(ov Av. 510. [3. Hd.] arpovOov Lys. 723. Wyouff Vesp. 68. Nub. 1502. Frg.//. Lys. 389 rey^i'. 395. Toj/ou Lys. 923. TpajT^Crji Eq. 771. [4. Cf. 6 and PI. = dank'] Tpoxov Lys. 846. Pax 452. Plut. 875. TvpoKPqaridos Lys. 23 1. epaKTjs Lys. 103. Av. 1369. Pax 283. Ach. 602. Vesp. 288. Eq. 1 31 2 Kadrjadai ....€. twv a€pvQ)i> Becov lias been admitted in the above list, s. v. ^ / V J iiroiQovfX . eVi c, Dat == Proximity. TTjyavois Pherecr. 127 (I). 2dypa Alexis ,^05 (II). 6vpat9 Eubul. 53 (II). [Hd. 6] XaxdpoLs vegetable- market Cvditin. 49(1)- nopveioiai Xenarch. 4, 4 (II). Proximity is perhaps also in Hermipp. 53 (I) &pa fiaTrup e. vols Upols. Menand. 1091 (III) seems corrupt. With Theopomp. 64 (I) KaTaK€ip€voi fxaXaKcoTQT €. TpiKXivi(o may be compared Eur. Phoen. 1533 ^' 8oi>pa(Ti. im c. Gen. = Superposition. apa^a>v Menand. 396 (III). Adesp. 497 -T]9. [Th.] dvOpaKias Cratin. 143 (I) hexam. (Porson's emend.). dvOpaKtov Ophel. I (I). ^ijfiaros Menand. 1121 (III). y?is Adesp. 352. [i. 3. X. PL] a/(^pou Menand. 877 (III). [Hm.] fOTias Adesp. 463. [6] Kiopoiv Crates 15 (I). Koirpov Menand. 544, 5 (III). Koxcopap Crat. 27 (I) ras rpixas Kadeifiepai. KpapLov Cratin. 7 1 (I). [Cf. Kpdp€t 3] KpoTd(j)(OP Plat. 84 (I) aKpa>p. [Hm. Hs. Batr.] pa6{]paT09 Amphis. 3 (II) ia-TrjKcas, as on a ship. ^vXov Alex. 222, 10 (II). Her- mipp. 9 (I) ovnl Ta>v ^vXcdP (prob. not here official. See Append. A, 2). Trpoaoyrrov Anaxandr. 58 (II). [2. 4. P1.3 T€LxtQ)p Eupol. 207 (I). [rci;(ft I. Th. X. 6] rrjydpov Eubul. 76 (II). [4] rpdneCa Alex. 26 1, 3 (II) €(f)' ?$• eVe'Acar'. [4. (6. PL)] Tpoxov Theophil. 7 (II). opaKTjs Adesp. 12 19. I should prefer the elliptic theory, or better yet, say that deuv, didaoKaXov, etc., were new indeclinable substantives (in the gen. with £/c, dat. with £v, ace. with flf), the neuter subst. 6L6acKa}^,ov, etc., presenting a notion as dis- tinct from that called up by di^daKokoq as e. g. cashmere the stuff is distinct from Cashmere. 26 eni c. Gen. = Proximiiy, ^aTvi\i Adesp. 719, from Photius. [Hm. X.] Menand. 202 (III) L rov o-anSiov is problematic, Epinic. i, i (III) is corrupt, but has been emended by Cobet, Mnemos, IV 322, who reads €7ra\(f)iTovTa for eV' aX^iVov nipovra, 5. — History. a) Herodohis. em c. Dat = SuperposUion, 27 5k/)6) 4, 195. 7, 85. [X.] aKpcoTrfpioi (rov opfoi) 7 j 2 1 7 ^y^vovTo. [Th.]' avx'^vi.{Tov Boa-TTopov) 4, 1 1 8. [Cf. 3] /Sd^po) 2, 176. [Hd. 6. PI.] /3cD/x(p 4, 35. [i. 2. Hd. X. 6] hopauL 7, 4^' rjlJLlirXipSioV I, 5^ ^'' TOfTOKTl . . . idpVTO. Kav€(o I, 119* K€(j)a\rj 5, 12 (cf. gen. in same cap.). Plur. in 5, 49. 7, 70, 72,74,75,76,79,84. [4. Hd. X. PL] fXfToonat 3> 28. erri c. DaU = Proximity, oiKTjpaTa 2, 148 €K€ipoi(ri. |_^' ^J olKodoprjfxaTi 2, 121 ^. op€(ri 2, 12. [3. 4. Hd. X.] ovficp (^yfjpaos) 3' ^4* TTupt 9, 120. TTvpa/jLides 2, 1 49 (ip^^fiOTepTjai. L-^'J TTup-yo) I, 181 (2) €7n^€^r]K€. [1.3] p/o) 4, 85. (rKr)irTp 77- [2. 3] [Ar.] repatdrep 9, IO5. Tairapo) I, 24. dia(r(f)dyt 3> 117 'TiiXa? . . . tarrjcrf. BaXaaarf 2, I59 (2). 3, I7. 4, I3, 172. 6, 20, 118. 7, 89. [Hd. PL] ^vpT^frt 3, 16. [Hd. 6] fp'7»'^ 9» 51 f'^r' .7- [Hs.] Xovrpd 7) 17^ ai/ToZat. TToXt 6, 7 V^(T09 . . . KfipeVTJ. [3] -norapLCd I, 189. 2, IO3, I08. 4, 18, 86, 124. 5, 13, 52 (3 w €7ra(7i, avTW, ^), 119. 7, 124, 154. 9, 16. See also list of proper names. [X. 6] TrpoTTvXa 2, 9^^ avrotcrt. TTvXrjai I, 89. o-rdpart 2, 1 54. 4, 5 1, 53» ^I' ^7' *ApT€iJiL(Ti(o 7, 183. 8, 21 (2), 42 (2), 43. 45, 46 (2), 66, 76. 9, 98. 'Ao-6)7rw 9, 19, 30, 38, 43. QfpiJicodopTi 4, 110. 9) 43* larpo) 4> 80. AaKaiva X^PV 7) 235 *'"" "^T/ ^W^^ iiriKiiixipr]. Ar]fxp(o 7» 6 j'tJo'oi €iriK€ifji€pai, i Ai^Crj 4, 153 i/ijo-off, 156, 195. UcXoTTOPPrjaat 3> 59 *'^<^o*'« 2Kapdp8pat 5> 65. 2Kid6(o 8, 92. Srpvpoj't 7, 25, 75. 8, 118. 2ovpi(o 6, 87* TpcoTTio) 7) 153 vriaov, 'Ymipi 4, 53. QA(.€ai/c3 4* 8. In 8, no €. rd) TrXoto) and 123 e. Tw 3a)/xw it is doubtful whether ini means on or at; in 5, 121 rrjp e. MvXdaoia-i 6d6p it means fo. im c. Gen. = Superposition, dyKvp€CL>p 6, 12 €x^(TK€. 7, iSS copfxeop. dyopfjs 5, 89. aypSyp I, 1 7, 1 20 -ov. 6, 23. aKfjLTJs (^^vpov) 6, II. dfid^r)9 I, 31' 9, 80 -eooi/. [Th.] apfxaros J, 40, ICO. [3] da-TTiBos 9, 74. [Hm. 3] ^dOpcop 7, 23. [Hd.] ^afj-ov I, 183 (2, ^i;eii/ and Karayi- Covai). 2, 39 €7r' avrov o-0d^ou(ri. 6, 81 ^u€t»/, 97 (dviiirja^. [Hd. Th.] y€(f)vpe(op 7, 54. doKTvXcOl/ 6, 63. 8€\(f)2po9 I, 23, 24 enewp, S€p8p€a)P 2, 32 eneopTos* [2] ^cvyetop I, 199* 4» 46. ^tdi/oy 2, 113. 7> 44* iKpicop 5> 16. tTTTTOi; 2, 162. 3> 86 -(OP. 4> ^4 ■^^'5 no TovTCdP, 116 -coi/. 5» ^12. 9, 44. [Aesch.] i(rrov mast 8, 122, [l] KaTaarpaypaTOs 8, 1 18 eVcdirwi', 119' K€(f)a\ijs 2, 35 -e'coj/. 5, 12 (dat. in same cap.). [Hd. X. PI.] kUptjs I, 182. [PL] Kpd(f)ov I, 92. Ko\(CPOV 7> 44* [^s.] Kprjppov 4, 103. [2. Th.] /cpyordXXov 4) 28. KvpaToay-qs 9> lOO. Xd^ow 2, 124 (2), 127. [X.] prixapPjs 2, 125. /liao-ToO 3, 133. [Hm.] red?, -wi/ 5, 33 (2), 36 eninXeopras, 6, 15 €7n^aT€vopTas, 43 fVt^dy. In 7, 96, 181, 184 €7rf ^drcvop. 8, 92 tV ?ff, 118 eViiSdy. [l. 3. 4. X. PL] PQ>Tov 2, 68. 3, 28. [3. Hs. PL] ^v\a I, 186 (TT lop. 4 J 64 -<*>P, 103 -ou. oj'cov 2, 12Iy iTTiOetvai, 6(f)ios 9> ^I fVeoTcd)?. dpeW 7, 1 1 1. [Hm. Hd. X. PL] noir) I, 132 TavTTjs €$rjK€. nXoloiP I, 205. npcoprfs 7> 180. TTvp^ff I, 86. 7, 167. [6. PL] pd;(tos' (rov 6p€os) 3» 54 fVcdi/Trt. ar]Kov 4) 62. (TTjfxaTos I, 93 at/o). [Hm. & Ep. 4] fTTavpwp 5» 16. OTi^ddos 4» 7^* (TTOLXOV 2, 125. avp^oXrjs (of ^woTjyp) 4> ^O (iKpijt. Td(f)ov 5> 47 l^pvadpfpoi. [3* 6J Td(f)pov 4, 201. [Hm. Th. X.] rpdne^a 6, 1 29 avrrjs oipxriO-aro. [4» Cf. 6. 7] vdcop 3> 23 avrov eirinXeeip. [Batr. 2] 28 VTTlOpfTJS 9> 19* X^tXeos (jroTa^ov) 2, 70* 4» 14^* [Hm. Cf. 2. 4] X«pos 2, 141. [Hm. 4] i/xo)!/ I, 209 (2). 2, 35. [Hm. 3] epTjiKT]s 6, 33. X^pcroprjaov 6, 39. TratSes- 2, 107 fKiivoiv iiri^aivovras. em c. Gen. = Proximity. y<0PiT)s I, 51. 8, 122. BdaTTopos 4, 87 avrov. 6a\da(Trjs 3, 5. [Hd. Th. X. 6. PL] Bvp€a>p 3, 120. 5, 92 y. [l. 2. 4. Hd. X. 6. PI.] fV oiKTjfjLQTos 2, 121 €, 126 wouM sccm to belong here, yet his- torical knowledge on the matter might give the phrase, at least for some early period, its literal meaning. See Append. A, 6. In koXttov top e. Uoaidrjiov J, 115 the prep, is toward. For the official gen. rovi e. rouro)*/ enecrTecoTas 4, 84 see Append. A, 2. b) TJmcydides. enl c. Dat. = Superpositioji. at-ytaXoIf I 7? I* [^O a/cpatff Vn 34, 2. Vni 106, 4 -a. [Hm.] dpa^ri IV 67, 3. [l. 4. Hd. X.] ^(Ofxos VI 3, I e^' CO 6vovai. [l. 2. 3« 4* Hd. X. 6. Cl. roup OeoiP I 126, 11] iV^/i« I 56, 2. [Th.] Kpr]ppoh VI 97, 5 uKpois. [Hd.] vavai IV 10, 4. [l. 2. 3. Ar. Hd. Th. X. 6] eVi ^. Dat. = Proximity. r6t>t VIII 69, I. [Th. X. T€l)(l(i>P 4] Cf. Airriy III 1 16, I. 'EninoXals VI 97, 4. I02, I. AevKippT] I 30, I. 47, 2. 'Pt'o) II 84, 4. V 52, 2. dXX^Xoiai II 52, 2. VII 85, I. 87,2. [PI.] eaXuaarjl ^S,2. II 9, 4. IV 26, 2. 54,1. 57, I. VI 2, 6. VII 4, 2. [Hd. PL] Xi/xf'crt III 6, 2. IV 54, 4 Xt/zeVt. noXixP'O VII 4, 6. •noTap(^ I 100, I. Ill 99. IV 50, I. 78, 3, 5- 102, I. VI 65, I. VII 35, I, 2. 78, 3 alT(^. 80, 5, 6. 84, 2 auT«. [X. 6] OTopaTi I 29, 3. 55, I. IV 49. 75, 2. 102, 4. VIII 90, 4. ra^po) III 24, 2. [Hd,] 29 X(opiov VII 34, 2 6(^' eS copfxovp. [Th.] At'ytVjy I 105, 2. Apre/uttrio) III 54 » 4' Ad(rKa>pi VI 66, 2. At/X/o) IV 101,5. V14, I. 15,2. *Ep€Tpia VIII 60, I. KcKpvffiaXeia I IO5, I. KepdvXlcp V 6, 3, 5. Kprjpais III 106, 3. AaiSaaXo) VI 97, 5. AaKtopiKfj IV 54, 4 prjaov cniKeip.fprji. Aa VIII 91, 2. A/o-^o) III 16, I. AevKififiJ) I 51, 4. Ao/cpoiff II 32 prj(Tos. Ill 89, 3. MiX^ro) VIII 26, 2. UvXio IV 14, 5. 28, 3. 2/cta)»//? IV 131, 3. 133, 4 alr^. 2Tpvp6pi I 98, I. TpOTTlO) VIII 35, 3. In four passages it may be doubted whether superpos. or proxim. be meant, viz. 'AktIco I 30, 3. AevKcpfxr] I 30, 4. v^aco IV 55, I. 'ETTiTroXatff VII 45, I. Two instances are excluded because lacking concreteness, viz. IV 105, 2 e. rols eavrov pep^p. VIII 86, 3 e. Tols cr(f)€T€pois avTa>p pepeip. For the official e. pavalp of II 8o, 2 see Append. A, 2. cTTi r. 6^p. VI 37, I -SiP. 91, 4 -a>p. VII 25, I avrwv. 71,5 -S>p. VIII 74, I avTTJs. [l. 3. 4. Th. X. Pi.] pTov IV 4, 2. [Hs. 3. PI ] ^;7pov I 109, 4. poTT^ff V 103, 2. (TX€8iSiP VI 2, 4. [X.] rfi;(ovff IV 32, 2. IOC, 4 avToii. V 7, 5. VII 28, 2. [ Th. 6] ;^eiXovs (r^? rdi^pov) III 23. 2, 4. Xa>pioiP III 97, 2. IV 102, 2 60' o^;. [Th.] 'ETrtTroXaJv VII 43, 4. QP«W I 56, 2. 57, 5. 59, I. 60, 3. 68, 4. II 9, 4. 29, 4, 5. 58, I. 67, 4. 79, T. 95, I, 2. IV 7, 3. 78, I. 79, 2. 82. 102, I. 104, 4. 122, 2. V 2, I. 12, I. 21, I. 26, 2. 30, 2. 31, 6. 35. 3. 5- 67, I. 80, 2. 83, 4. VI 7, 3. 10, 4. VIII 64, 2. For I 1 26, II KadeCopipovs . . . . e. tS>p atppap Bfcop See supra p. 24. 30 eVt c. Gen. — Proximity. pi Con v. I, 13 ards. dpKvai Cyr. II 4, 25. apx^t'ots- Cyr. VII 7, 85. ^uo-iXci'ot? Cyr. VII 5, 26. v(f)dKTots Hell. II 3, 50 €7ri(TTrjpai. 3» 55- OaXdrrrj An. I 4, I, 6. V 3, 2. 5,2. VI 4, 4 (2). VII I, 28. 2, 36, 38. 3. 16. 6,43. Cyr. VII 4, 9. HelL I 4, 3. IV 8, 26. [Hd. PL] I ^upaif An. I 9, 3. II 4, 4. 5, 31 (2). Ill I, 2. VI 5, 23. VII 3, 16. Cyr. I 3, 2. VI I, I. VIII I, 33. 34- 6, 10. 8, 13. HelL III I, 28. [Hd. 6] KpiiPri An. I 2, 13 i(f) rj. [Hs.] Xi/im Hell. II I, 23. VI 2, 7 e(t)(!i)pp.€i. vdirrj Hell. V 4, 44 iyiypovTO. i/arrci An. VI 5, 12 tyeVoi/ro. TTijyals An. I 2, 8. [Hm.] iroTap(o An. I 3, 20. Cyr. VII 5, II. [X. 6] TTvkais An. I 4, 5. VII I, 17. (TKriPals Cyr. IV 2, 32. VII 5, 6 iy€POPTO. a-Topari An. Ill 4, 43 rov nXaKriov. Cyr. 11 4, 25 -crt ro)»' TTo/jcov. Hell. HI I, 23 (TTpaT€VfiaTOS. Td(f3pp Cyr. VIII 8, 19. [2] e(f)i7nriov De Re Eq. 7, 5. dpopov Cyr. VI I, 6 (KaOeC^ro. HelL I 5, 3 e0' ov. Conv. 9, 3 ^Kad(^€TO. [l] Imrapioip Cyr. I 4, 1 9. , -oai/ An. Ill 2, 19. 4, 47, 49. VII 3, 26 o5. 4, 4. Cyr. I 3.3- 4.7.25. Ill 3,27. IV I, II. 3, 14. 20. 5,49, 54, 58. 6, I (2). V 2, I, 17. VIII 3. 15. 8, 19. HelL V 2, 29. VI 4, II. Ages. 2, 25. De Re Eq. 7. 5- 8, 10. 9, 9. II, 8. 12, I. Mag. Eq. 6, 5. 8, 13. [Aesch.] LTTTTOV 32 KdfxrjXoi Cyr. VI 2, 1 8 Iv. VII, I 48 avrav. Kovadpov Ages. 8, 7. K.aTaaTpa>fxaTOS Hell. I 4» 1 8. KfcpaXrjs An. IV 3, 6. Cyr. Ill 3, 66 TJjff Ta(j)pov. Cf. ;^€tXcoff Td(f)pov. [Hd. X. PI.] KXipaKos An. IV 5, 25. [X.] KOpv(f)^s An. IV 2, 20 eyevovTo. [2] Xi^o? De Re Eq. 4, 4 roiV©*/. [i] \6v An. I 4, 3. Hell. I 6, 35 avrw*/. 7, 32 -wy. IV 8, 21. [I. 3. 4. Th. X. PI.] VTJaoiv Hell. V T, 2 TTot d(f)iyp€i/os. ^€vi]s De Rep. Lac. 14, 4. oiKr)paTOi Cyr. VI 1,53-0)1/. Hell. IV 5, 6. [Hd.] dp((op An. IV I, II. 3, 7 -toy. 7, 21 -eoff, iyivovro. 8, 9 -eoy. VII 4, II -eof. [i. Hd. X. PL] oxnpaTos An. in 2, 19. Hell. Ill 4, 19 -a>v. Ages. I, 28 -oav. SxOm An. IV 3, 5 Ip. [i. 2. X. Cf. 5;t^oy 3] ttcXtt;? An. I 10, 12. TTTjXoV OeC. 19, 14 aVO) KaTa0€L7]S. TTvpafiis An. HI 4, 9Tai;ri79. [Hd.] •nvpyoiu Cyr. VII I, 39 dva^Tjvau [X.] paTrra Hell. IV I, 30 l>v. a-Ti^ddo^ Cyr. V 2, 15. ramdcov Cyr. VI H 8, 1 6 Tideaaiv. T€ix(ov An. VI 2, 8. Cyr. V 2, 2. HelL IV 4, 12. vn 2,8. [i. Th. 6] Ttv^ovs Hell. I 7) II' Tpii)p(op An. VI 2, 14. Hell. V 4, 56 -oti/. VI 4, 18 Wf. rpo;^off Conv. 7, 2 ov. 7> 3 'OV. iyj^riXov Hell. IV 5, 4. De Re Eq. 12, II. [X.] xiopos An. IV 5, 19. w/uoTrXarat De Venat. 5, 30 avTav. epaKTjs An. VII 6, 25. Hell. I 3, 17. II 2, 5. V 2, 12, 24. NoTiov HelL I 5) l4-Tpd7raiov aTtj(Tus. avTUiV (^SC. a rj yrj (fyvei) De Venat. 5, 8 KaraKXipovTai. €T€pov (sc. dpBpos) Cyr. VII 5, 8 fVi c. Gen, = Proximity. TTorapoi An. II 5, 18 Z>p, IV 3, 28. Hell. VII 4, 29. [i. Hd. Th. X. 6] 6. — Oratory. eVt c. Dat. = Superposition. drvxqp-CKTi Din. I, 29 iinyeypanpfpop. yopaai Lys. 1 8, lO KaTe6r)KiP. [X. 6] ypappariiop Dem. 45, 18 w, ycypd- I. (Xnidi [Dem.] 17 IjKOPjja-ap . . . $vpovs» €TTiypdp.paTL Isae. 5, 38. earlais Dem. Frg. 17. [3. 4] icrxaria Dem. 42, 5 opos tireuTip. Cf. §§9, 26, 28 ^pf'ctfff e. T7 i(TX- [Cf. I. PL] B^piKiois Hyper. 4, 6 oiKodofMovai. 33 t pPr]p.aTl Dem. 44, 30 €Cf)€(TTr]K€P. Alcid. Odys. 24 imypdpfiaTa. [X. PL] p€P€avi€vp.€Pois (jois) Dem. 21, 1 8 iirWriKiP. o5w (yijpcos^ Lyc. 40. Hyper, i , 20. opiois Tov ^lov {i. €. grave-stones) Lyc. 109. TTvpa Aesch. I, 146 (wff (^jyoriv 6 TTOLTJTrjs). [3. Hd.] Td(f)a> Dem. 44> I^ €(f)€(TTT}K€P. [Hd. 6] rfi;^eo-i LyC. 47. [Th. X. reiXLcap 4] (f)idXais Dem. 22, 73 -yeypaTTTat, gen. in same §. 24, 181. [6] \l/Tj(f)i(Tpa Aesch. 2, 68 w eVrye- ypOTTTO. *Epp?is statue of H, Aesch. 3, 184 eVtyeypaTTTo. *H5uXeia) Dem. 19, 148. yvvx) Aesch. I, 183 e0' 7 5»/ dXw ddpapri LyS. I, 30 /:ioi;^6i' XajScai/. Dem. 23, 55. Cf. also 59, §§41, 65, 67, 72, 85, 86. eV dorms' is found in an oracle supposed to be quoted by Aesch. 3, 112 and inserted in the text from Pausanias. Isoc. 17, 42 6X*cdSa c(^' fj ;^pj5/^a7-' ^v eyo) dedcoKODs^ is of coursc graphic (sce p. 8), but if admitted to the list would make it difficult to exclude many other instances only slightly less so. Dem. 58, 55 tovs e. rois puKpols nXoiois and many similar phrases, as also Din. i, 62 6 e. tw opvypaTL and the like, are official, for which see Append. A, 2. eVt ddnapri seems to be an old legal phrase, and though perhaps weakened in the classical period, must have been literal originally. em c. Dat. = Proximity. diKaa-TTj plots LyS. 30, 3. IsoC. 1 5, 38. Dem. 23, 63. [6] (pyaarr] plots IsoC. 1 8, 9. [6] BuXaTTrj Isoc 4, 1 45, 1 63. Dem. 6,12. 23,78,155. [Hd. Cf. PL] Bupats Lys. 3, 27, 29. 12, 16 -a, Dem. 10,34. 47>37-a' [Hd. 6] purpart Dem. 47, 69. [X. 6. PL] odok Aesch. I, 124. TTorap-co Aesch. 3, 1 83. 57. 64. 48, 12. 49, 17, 42. 52, 24. [PL Cf. I. 4. Hd.] ^Aprepta-la Dem. 1 8, 2o8. 59, 95. Aesch. 2, 75. AeX0m6) Isae. 1 2, 9. Dem. 23, 74. ArjXla [And.] 4, 13. ^ Prof. Gildersleeve conjectures deSaveiKojg, comparing Dem. 36, 6. \ I 34 35 Evpinat Lys. 24, 25. EvpvfjLcdovTL Lyc. 72. 'HioVi Dem. 13, 23. 23, 199. Aesch. 3, 184. GpaavXXcp Aesch. I, loi. SchoL: e. OpacT. de qttikcos qptI tov npos TO) QpaatWov fivrjixari. 'Up(^ Dem. 20, 36. SchoL: tottos KwXiaSi Dem. 59, 33. (TTi c. Gen. = ayKvpai Dem. 1 8, 281 e. rrjs avrrjs (^SC. ay.) oppel. 50, 22 anocra- Xfveip. 56) 44 "«*»'> oppelv. aypa>v IsOC. 7, 52. dAcriys- Ant. 5, 44. [l. 2. 3] darrpdl3r)s LyS. 24, II, 12. Dem. 21, 133- 3a^/ja)i/ Lys. 13, 37. [Hd.] QrifxaTos Ant. 6, 40. Lys. 10, 15. IsOC. 5, 82, 129. 8, 54, I2I. 12. 143. Isae. 5, 25. Dem. 6, 30. 7, 1. 12, 2, 19. 14, 41. 18, 312. 22, 68. 26, 19. 48, 31. 5"» 4^ ^'' "^^^ diKaarrjpLcov Koi TOV ^T]p.aTos. Aesch. I, 35. 2,44. 3^167,257. [Demad.] 17- ^(ofiod And. I, 112. Lys. 2, 12 -(OP. 6, 52 -^p. 13, 52. Isae. Frg-. 65 (= Teubner 14) -Syp, €Tid€To. Isoc. 6, 68. Dem. 7, 40 eVi'ypa/i/ia. [l. 2. 3. 4. Hd. Th.] yr)s Isoc. 4, 32. 10, 50 dWorpias (SC. yiji). Dem. 19, 267 ecf)' 5sr. [1.3.x. PL] yopdroap [Aesch.] Epist. 4, 3. [i. 4. X. 6] 8ia$rjKi]S Dem. 45, 21 eTrrjp. Aavpicp And. I, 38.* IlaXXaSia) Isoc. 1 8, 52. Dem. 23, 71. 47, 70. 59, 9. Aesch. 2, 87. UaWrjPicp And. I, 106. upvTap€Lp. Isae. 5, I, 19, 25, 29. Frg. 4. Hyper. 2, 2. Dem. 29, 16, 18. 48, 50. 58, 32, 40 -a>p. 59, 66. Aesch. i, 114. [6] fpyaarrjpiap IsOC. 7, 1 5. Hyper. 3. 33 -f>V' dvpoip Lyc. 40. [i. 2. 4. Hd. X. 6. PL] larpeiov AeSch. 1,40, 4I, [50]. p,pr]paTos Isae. 8, 27. [6. PL] TTOTafxov Dem. 18, 216. [i. Hd. Th. X. 6] Tcicj^ov [Dem.] 60, 30. [3. 6] Topidip Dem. 23, 68 (ttcis. Epp€aKpovpov Isoc. 1 5, 287 y\rv)(ov- (TIV OiVOP. As doubtful may be reckoned Dem. 59, 67 eV ipyacrrripiov Kadap- rat (see Append. A, 6), Aesch. i, 74 e. tow olKijpdTojp Kad^^op-ipov^ Din. I, 23 67r' olKTjpaTos €(TTr]a€P, Dem. 34, 37 «. r^? (TTodst Proble- matic is Dem. 19, 156 TdrnT^x^p. For official designations, as 6 e. TOV opvypnTos, See Append. A, 2. 7. — Philosophy (P/ato). iiri c. Dat. = Superposition, avx^pi Symp. 189 e. Phaed. 89 d, kodXois Timae. 76 e (aKpois). [3] _ yevos Timae. J^Oto tSup dpSpdiTTOiP yepos a'apKoidr] exoi^ (

Coip€Ba as on a raft. cLppdroju Lys. 208 a €, TLVos Tv apfi, Critias 116 e -os. [3] acnraXddiov Rep. 6l(> a, ^ddpoav Protag. 315 r. 325 e, [Hd.] y€(f)vp5)v Critias 116^ eTncrrrjaatfres* yrjs Symp. 195 e, Menex 246 d, Gorg. 523 e. Laws 906 b. Phaed. 109^ aj/o). iio^. 114^. Timae. 22 c, d. 43 v, [Hd. X. PL] KKivuiv Rep. 372 i/ KaraKfla-dai. [PL] KoWoiTcov Rep. 531 b. Kopprj? Gorg. 486 c. 508 d (2J. 527 a. KpavLodP Symp. 195 e. Kprjnldos Laws 736 e, [X.] kvkXcov Rep. 617 ^ (2) dv(o6€v, and f0 (Kdarov* p.aX6aKov Symp. 195 e. fifaov Parmen. 138^. d. fxrjxavris CHtOph. 407 U, gcviay CratyL 429 e, ^VXOV Rep. 479 C 60' ov. 6p(f)aXov Rep. 427 e KaBrjfXfvos. [3] oxTjparos Phaed. S^d, 113^ tov- rav. nXfvpds Rep. 38S a quoting IL 24, 10. [4] TTobos Polit. 270 a. 7rpoiJK€(f)aXaLOv Rep. 328 C. ponds Locr. Timae. 97 e. Cf. Th. V 103, 2. (TKfXoli' Symp. 190^^(2, o-/cAov?). (tkXtjpov Symp. 195 e, apiKpov Timae. 62 b. ari^ddav Rep. 372^. (Tx^dias Phaed. 85 d. [X.] rpoxov Euthyd. 294 e. xafiaiCrjXov Phaed. 89 b (2). w/iwr Rep. 613^. [i. 3] dXXT]Xwv Theaet. 195 ^. [i. 3. 4. Th.] i 37 fVi c. Gen, = Proximity, Tparr€(5iv banks ApoL 17 c. [6. PL Cf 4.] Doubtful again is eV olKrjpaTos Kadrjfieva Charm. 163 ^, see Ap- pend. A, 6. Summary.^ Dative. Superposition. Proximity. Genitive. Superposition. Proximity. Homer, Hes. and Hy. Lyric, Tragedy, Aristoph. Com. Frgs. Herodot. Thucyd. Xenoph. Orators, Plato, 223 61 40 105 24 13 33 19 46 31 22 617 121 II 22 37 25 5 68 56 58 65 13 481 138 28 29 97 65 22 95 80 142 65 71 834 9 o o (or I ?) o o 6 2 3 24 I 46 Such then is the evidence offered by the remains of Greek litera- ture down to the time of Aristotle. Simple inspection of this evidence closes the first point of the inquiry at once. The dative case with ini was certainly 2ised in Attic speech to express simple superposition. Of course exceptions may be taken to the lists, many of the rulings may seem arbitrary in the matter of admis- sions and exclusions, many cases may be explained away on the score of phraseology and quotation, as iirX ddpapn, cnl yrjpas oSw, and others. But excluding these and ruling out of the Attic court the evidence of Thucydides and Xenophon, as Mr. Rutherford does, there still remain too many datives to be ignored in comedy, in the orators, and in Plato, free respectively from all suspicion of parody, Sicilian flavor, and poetic flight. And yet in comparing the words of the Homeric list with the lists of the historians, orators and Plato, we feel that the atmos- phere has changed. Objects are not so concrete, and, in the ^The table shows the whole number of instances given in the lists, but does not include those words mentioned in the notes as of doubtful classi- fication, hence does not represent the whole local usage. 4 38 classic period, there is a sort of unreality about many of the datives of superposition. Although their number reads fairly high, we cannot help feeling that it would not be right to say t6v nlXov excop em rj K€(pa\^. Nor could the Greeks have regarded the cases as a matter of indifference, else their use of the dative would have more nearly approached in number that of the genitive. Their feeling may have been a vague one— one perhaps for which they could have assigned no reason. But since an acquirement of the feeling for these almost insensible distinctions is the ulti- mate essential to a complete appreciation of any language, and since the search for these more delicate distinctions is not consid- ered hopeless, e. g. between ava and Kard,^ between the imperf. and aor., between subjunc. and optat., so in the present matter we shall not lose hope, but take up in Part II. The Difference between eVi c. Gen. and eVi c. Dat. Denoting Superposition. A brief examination of the distinctions set forth by the authori- ties above quoted will suffice to show how unclear and untenable they are. Whether or not Kiihner's distinction for Xen. An. 7, 4, 4 was intended for general application is not clear, as it does not stand at the head of its paragraph. Nor is the remark itself clear, for wherein the horses or Alcibiades' head could exhibit a " Thatig- keit " is not obvious. And yet dimly as Klihner has uttered it, there may be a grain of truth in his words, for which see p. 46. By no possible mental strain can Kriiger's distinction be applied even to any single list, much less carried through the language. We soon find that the use of the gen. to express ** eine mehr zuf allige freiere Verbindung " is itself zufallig, while to connect the notion of " Zugehorigkeit " with the dat. rather than with the gen. is to do violence to all the ordinary associations of both cases. How for^instance can the notion oi Zugehorigkeit be sug- gested by the dat. in ?ri r\kiov dvai e. roli 6p€(Ti Phaed. 116 e, nape- KadrjPTO de avrcd i. rah ttXtjo-lov kXivois Protag. 315 dy e. rrj KecfyaXj} ^xoiv ^ For the^distinction between ava c. ace. and /card c. ace. see J. B. Bury, The Isthmian Odes of Pindar (1892), Append. H, founded on Hermann, Opusc, V 41. See Keelhoff in Rev. de Philologie for 1892, p. 157. i 4 (r i» 39 ras raivias Symp. 212 ^, eKelvov jjicp KaTfOrjKfp e. rols yopaai rols Uavaapiov Lysias 18, 10, e. BeKufiPM (sc. 3apaKi) . . . Ka6qiJi€Pos Av. Pax 1235? Sobolewski also, p. 100, footnote, of the work cited above, says : " ut 7iecessaria est coniunctio rerum in Nub. 1176 et Av. 487, sic fortuita in Lys. 1026, Thesm. 1182, aliis multis." So far is Kriiger's notion from giving satisfaction that Professor Gildersleeve would " expect the natural position to be expressed by eVi c. gen., the unnatural by the dat.," etc., see p. 6. This, coupled with what he has said elsewhere (^Pindar, Introductory Essay, p. 99: ''eW is used most frequently with the dat., when the superposition sense makes itself felt "), is the correct view, as will be shown, it is hoped, later. Mr. Monro's distinction seems only to echo Kiihner's— '' the gen. usually with less definitely local force than the dat."— though in clearer terms. Yet no reason is suggested why the gen. should be used to designate the *' great divisions of space, etc." Per- haps, however, this is well ; for the rule goes no further than the .examples. Why, for instance, should it not apply as well to aKr^ and 6ii as to dypov ? And why do not yair] and x^^wr come under the rule? And— which is yet more difficult— how reconcile the rule with the fact stated in his Gram., §145, 2, that the locat. dat. though ''restricted to a comparatively narrow range," is also especially used to designate these same '' great divisions of the world, the chief spheres of action, etc., as m^epi, ovpapf arsyavSg—the fact remains that the complex presents one image. (I 45 » guish them. Against Giseke (who would contravene these asso- ciations) all that the present thesis recommends is this : Drop the preposition and let the cases speak for themselves. Thirdly, by thus making the distinction one of imagery and representation rather than of logical coherence, we free ourselves from the necessity of predicting with the book closed how an author in any given case will prove to have expressed himself. For, on a logical basis, things must be so, and not otherwise. Hence the chains of argumentation which the logical Giseke must throw about the Protean Homer to compel him to take on a logical form. Hence, too, the widespread opinion among schoolboys, painfully drilled into seeing and explaining the logical basis of the various phenomena of the Greek language, that the Greeks were the most illogical people in the world. Whereas, regarded as imagery, all is plain, for all is subjectivity. Homer in a given case felt the locality as a mere background and used his brush in the gen. We, if the same case be given us, may feel the need of more color in the scene, and prefer the dat. Both are right, as subjectivity justifies itself. But on examination of the lists, subjectivity will not often be called upon to justify itself. In proportion to the whole number of examples the number will be small where we should expect a different case-usage, or where recourse need be had to a vaulting fancy before reaching the author's point of view. Due allowance of course must be made for the individual. Xenophon, for example, may become flowery, as sometimes other soldiers or travellers (one may compare Stanley's lectures and books on Africa). But the broad distinction is this : Where there is paint- ing in detail, where the march of thought is leisurely, or where on the other hand there is excitement or pathos— the mind dart- ing and insistent— there we expect the dat. Where there is but one image to present, all else being subordinated, there we look for the gen. One further point must be disposed of before applying the dis- tinction to the lists. The phraseology and habits of the language cannot be ignored. They will at times, though rarely, seem to traverse the rule that has been proposed. Yet on examination they will bear good evidence to its truth. The first item, phrase- ology, enters the question very slightly. eV dypov (-wi/), tor example, runs through the language (including Apoll. Rhod. and Theocr.), never with modifier and only four times with article, ) (^ 6771 Ta>v dypoav. 46 The dat. is not used. The phrase is in fact one word, as much so as eViSe^io?, though lacking declension. But there are only twenty instances in all. So a few other fixed phrases, as fVi Ovpms (but with exceptions), eVi yi]p\os, ovos, Kdfxr]\os, arpovdos, Kdvdapos, dcXcpis, Tpo-ms . On examining the passages where the underscored words appear in the dat., it will be seen that in the following cases at least the objects are not regarded as vehicles for the action expressed by the verb. C 75 ^'o-^^^a • • • Kar€6i]K€v . . . eV dnljvr]. Aesch. Prom. 710 ireddpa-Loi vaiova-' eV' €vkvkKois oxois (where the sur- prising nature of the habitation requires the dat.) Hm. Hy. 5, 19 dpTrd^a? . . . eVi xP^^^^'^''' h^'^^'^ ^^ corrupt; see the list. Plat. Protag. 315 d TrapcKddrjvro Se avra cm rals TrXrjalop kKlvqls (a Defregger interior, where kXIvt} is of course not used as a litter, as in Andoc. 1,61. Dem. 17, 20 (rpiTjpeis') koI arparriyov fir avrais hd^are M€i/e(T^ea— an official dat., see App. A, 2. Dem. 58, 55 rovs arparr^yovs Ka\ rovs cVi roh fxaKpols TrXoi'ots— official. ^ 362 60' irrrrou^ pdanyas iUipaV. O 182 €(^' tTTTTOUV fldoTlV ^dXeV. Aesch. Frg. 38 ITTTTOl 8' 60' Ittttois ncrav tfiiTCCpvptxevoi. p. 425 iCop^voi 8' eTTt roh (sC. TpoTTidi and torw) (f)€p6prjv oXooh dvepoKTiP— where the caesura indicates the proper connection of rot? with iCopevos. For xt^aXj? see p. 52. B 351 vrjvaiv cV il^Kvnopoiaip Z^uivov is a disputed reading, iv being preferred dl 47 by La Roche, Nauck, Christ, Faesi, and others, o 388 ^vurolm, Td pd o-(^' eVi vrjvatv eVetro. /3 414 ndpra (j)ipovT€s evaae^^pcp itiX vrjl Kdreea-av. o) 419 rovs Se . . . Boijs eVi vrjixrl ti6cvt€s. Soph. Phil. 891 ovTiX vr)t , . . TTovos. Eur. Iph. T. 1 109 €771 vavaXv t^av — where the eVi is Elmsley's, as the MSS. have ivi and iv. Thuc. IV 10, 4 cm yap rah vavaX pqaroi claiv dpvvecrOaL — locality merely, Or at any rate with no notion of a vehicle. Xen. Hell. IV 3, 12 .Vi r^ prjt finxdpcpov d7roeav€lv—\oC3.\\ty. Plat. Laches 183 d (pais) e'0' ,^eVe- ^dr€vef— official. Hermipp. Frg. 63, 1 1 e'^oXccrcicv pavalp fVt'— not as a vehicle. In the remaining six instances (four in poetry, two in prose) we might expect the notion of a vehicle, but can by no means be sure that such a notion was intended to be conveyed, especially as the notion of pure locality or of instrument is quite as satis- factory. It is worthy of remark that the four poetical passages came from Euripides, viz. Phoen. 11 10 at^dyt' e>^ e(^' dppart 6 pdpns: 'Apcfiidpaos, Troad. 569 Xcva-a-eis Trjpd' ' Aphpopdxqp i^^tKoh in S;^^? TTopOpcvopiprip — both passages highly picturesque, the chariot being the first object to strike the sight, like Xenophon's sweating horse , Rhes. 236 ^6idb(cp d' Imroip nor en avrvyi ^alr) — which may be corrupt, as two MSS., followed by Paley, Matthiae and others, read ^prvya, and yet may stand with the other instances as an example of Euripides' exaggerated poetical style—, Helen 1135 pccfycXap (i. 6a Xe'y€iv Koi iv dyopa eVl Ta)u Tpairc^coVy iva vfiojp TroXXot aKTjKoaai, koi nXXo^i, a solitary instance of em TpaneCf^v in the sense of banks, for not only Lys., Isoc. and Dem. use the dat., but also Plato himself, Hipp. Min. 368 d cos iyoi rroW aov tJkovov p,€yaXav)(ovpL€vov, noWrjv ao(f)iav Kol ^r]\oiTriv aavTov di€^i6vTos iv dyopa eVi rais rpane^ais — . And yet the difference is clear. The former passage is colloquial, to be sure, and circumstantial, yet melting into one thought, uncon- scious, making no point of the locality. The Hippias passage, on the contrary, is sarcastic, there are pauses between the ciaui^es, each word tells, and a slight emphasis on the locality is not with- out significance in the case of the money-making sophist. In Lys., Isoc. and Dem. the dat. is of course in place, as in all busi- ness transactions dates and places must be carefully designated. 2) dX\rj\o)v. — Plat. Theaet. 195 ^ eav Be Trpoff nda-L tovtois en dWrjXcov o-v/xTrcTrTW/coTa 17 vno aT€VO)((i>pias, Elsewhere always €7r dXXjy- Xots, as would be expected, the very purpose of the word being to evoke two objects, and in the phrase cV' dXXjjXotff to set one upon the other. But just here it is not Plato's purpose to call up two objects, but their mixture. The things are uypd, the context tells us, and they have melted. eV dW^Xois would be positively wrong. 3) laQjxov. — Thuc. I 13, 5 oiKovvm yap rrjv noXiv 01 Kopivdioi eVt tov laOfxov dft hi) TTOTf eprropiov iixP^ — • Thuc. I 56, 2 vTroTonr)aapT€s rrjv €\Bpav avToav {SC. roiv KopivBiav) 01 ABi^valoi IJoTiBauiTas, 01 olKovaiv eni t(o 1(t6(x(o t^s UaXXtji/T^s, KnpivBidiif uTToiKovSy iavriov di gvufid^ovs (l)6pov inon- ! I 49 Xcr?, eKeXevop — . These passages Kuemmell cites as proof of the indifference of the cases. To me no two passages could better prove the difference. In 13, 5 the thought-accent lies on del 8^ TTore epndpiop dxop, as is shown by what follows, while the parti- cipial clause is wholly subordinate. In 56, 2 the Potidaeans, their locality, origin, political status, are circumstantially pre- sented, laOfxa, has a gen. with it, all points are itemized. In our own language we draw hundreds of just such distinctions, unaware of their existence until some unlucky foreigner fails to observe them. 4) avxep4). This completes the list of words which depart in only one instance from the habits of the language. Before proceeding to those of greater variation, a second habit of the language may here be stated once for all, to which the last example from Homer, eV' avrdoiv, has led us, viz. the unemphatic pronoun avTov decidedly prefers the unemphatic gen. case, there being in post- Homeric Greek sixteen instances of eV' avrov to five of eV' avra>, or, if cases of superposition alone be reckoned,^ to only one eV' alrco. This solitary instance of airco to denote superposition (Xen. Cyr. VI I, 54) is worth inspection. Cyrus builds a portable tower and stations men upon it Ka\ ttoXv paov ijye TO. OKTOJ C^vyr) Tov TTvpyov /cat tovs en avTu> (ivdpas fj ktX. The graphic eV' avT<} is not * upon it,' but * perched on top of it,' men and tower, two objects. The rule, however, requires the gen., as the figures 16 to i certainly show, although the unusual nature of the event would at times cause us to expect the dat. So, e. g: Hd. 6, 129 6 'iTrnoKXeidrjs . . . e/ceXcuo-e 01 Tiva rpdne^av eaevuKai, ecrcXOova-rjs de rrjs rpaire^rjs npara fxiv in avrrjs- aypxwnro AaKQiviKci p) occurs three times : Hdt. 3, 120. 5, 92 y. Lycurg. contra Leocr. 40. I confess here to seeing no reason whatever for the departure from usage. In the Herodotean passages one is almost led to suspect corruption of the text, some one of Herodotus' late admirers substituting by slip the phrase of his own times. For that the use of enl c. gen. to denote proximity became more common — though never exten- sive—in later times is seen by reference to Polybius (see Krebs, Die Praepos, bei Polyb., 1882) and to the New Testament. Ly- curgus' break with the habitual phrase is the more possible, or rather probable, as already in his time eni c. gen. had lost its earHer stability of signification and showed various metaphoric uses and connections with abstracts. Why not, therefore, also in connection with concretes show development ? Besides, in his desire to increase the tensity of his expression (already through- out quite tense enough), he may have seized on the less emphatic gen. because unusual, and by this contravention of the usual attained the emphasis aimed at.^ Or can it literally mean {hpdv ^This method of obtaining an effect (viz. by reversal of the natural means) may be seen in any art which has reached its full growth. In modern music, for example, love scenes and the andante movement of the symphony are often given fortissimo^ iht Jinale on the QonUdiTy pianissimo. 52 8 T)v eVt fiev rap Bvpa>v yvvai 12 (TKiva.(TavT€s TT]P dd€\(f)€r)p COS €2x_0P apiara, eV' vScop errfpnop ayyoi cVt 777 KecfyaXrj exovcrap koi €K tov ^paxlopos Itttvop enfXKOvoap Koi KXcadovaap Xlvop, while in the last sentence of the same chapter the same woman appears cpepovcra t6 Zdcop cm rijs K€(f)aXf]s koi eneXKOvara €K TOV ^paxiopos TOP Ittttop Koi (rTpi(j)ovaa top uTpaKTOP. " Here again nO difference," say some. "The gen. and dat. are as undistinguish- able here in function as in the dual they are in form." But the true explanation is this : Herodotus having once painted the picture in detail, has no further need of the itemizing dat. Like a good artist, he chooses for the repetition the more summary and incidental gen., at the same time shifting it, as Plato did, into the less prominent position after the verb.^ In his minutely- detailed account of the dress of the various tribes under Xerxes, Herodotus invariably uses, when describing their head-gear, cVt Tjjai K€(t)aXj(n, as might be expected (VII 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 84), the dat. preceding the verb in every instance but once — one other ^This same lightening of the touch on repetition is seen in Eur. Hec, where in v. 698 the slave-woman tells of the dead Polydorus ctt' aKtaig viv Kvpu da/Mffaiaig full of the horror of the scene, while in v. 778 the grim Hecuba, still self-restrained before Agamemnon, responds to his question as to the finder ^6\ kvrvxovaa Trovriag aKTr/q eki. See also Herod. IH 28 L pev TU) pETQTru , . . £. de tov vutqv. i . S3 instance lacking its verb. Xenophon also uses the dat. in describ- ing head-gear (An. V 4, 13. VII 4, 4); further, in an instructive instance of the attributive position, where the attributes are them- selves contrasted, and do not, as is usually the case, stand sub- ordinate and in the gen., viz. An. II 5, 23 t^p ^^p y6p .VI t^ KecpaXj} Tiapap /SaoriXel fx6p<^ e^ecTTip dpdfjp ^x^ip, rfjp 8' eVi rij Kap8ia tacos &p hp.5>p napopTcop Kol cTepos ev-rreTtos e;^oi. lo) TTOTapov, eaXdrro-T)s. — Proximity to water is regularly expressed by eVt c. dat. But Xenophon three times, and Demosthenes once, has em'TTOTapod, HerodotUS once em daXdaa-rjs and once eV avToi (^sc. Boo-TTo'pov). The distinction is clear. The gen. presents the object as immediately over the water, its image reflected in and one with it; the dat. denotes proximity merely, but the water remains a distinct object. In Xenophon's first passage eVl noTapoC is literally tlpon, An. II 5, l8 noTapoi) ecf)' hp ^eaTip ^plp TapuCeaOai oTToVots- &p vpayp i3ovX(ofX€da pdxeoOai (J. p nepylra, ayyeXop AceXeuet avTov p-ehai enl tov rroTapLov prj 8ial3dpT€s— they were therefore actually in or on the river, not somewhere in the neigh- borhood, as eVt rep TTora/xcp might mean. His third gen.. Hell. VII 4, 29 cVt 8€ TOV KXa8dov noTapov irapcTd^apTo niust mean, as in Hesiod's eVl Kpripda>p, 'on the very brink of,' as the seat of the Olympian games could have offered only close quarters for a battle. Dem. 18, 216 8is T€ (7vp,7rapaTa^dp€Poi rasr npwTas, t^p t eVt ivoTapov Ka\ t^p X€ifi€pip^p is of doubtful historical reference and must be passed over or else taken as an instance of the crumbling of Greek idiom already alluded to. Of the two Herodotean passages, one shows the pronoun of reference and is properly in the gen. (see above, p. 50), derjo-dpfpos 8€ Kai top Boanopop crr^Xay earrjat 8vo in avTOv Xidov XevKOv (IV 87), while in the other (III 5) aVi TavTrj, (SC. Ka8vTws: TToXtoff) Ta ipTTopta TO. eVi eaXd(T(Tr]s fxexpi 'irjpvaov ndXios eWt Tod 'Apa^iov, Herodotus is mapping out the land and uses the sea as an adjec- tive (the sea-ports). The gen., consequently, is the only proper case. We turn next to those cases in Aristophanes which to Sobo- lewski prove the indifference of gen. and dat. He compares Eq. 752 ff: 6 yap yepap oiKoi pep dp8pa>p eorri fie^tcoraroy, oTap 8 em TavTTjal KadrJTai Trjs neTpas, KexfjP^P ktX '1 1 54 55 with Eq. 783 ere yap .... fVt Tni(Tl TTcVpat? OV (f)pOVTl^€l CrK\r]pQ)S 6\ayyos (Kepc,, eVoV, rpidKoura, 6Xiyou ttX^Iv), where the gen. is the " characteristic of the motion " and goes as immediately with its verb as the word west in our phrase 'to go west.'^ In all cases the gen. presents an object which melts at once into the chief object of the thought or serves as a mark by which it may be recognized. The developed uses there- fore of .V/ c. gen. and ini c. dat. favor the distinction maintained. A second support may be found in the behavior of the sister preposition hn6. Why does it prefer the dat. in its local sense ? (That it does so may be seen by reference to Appendix C.) Evidently for this reason. If one thing be upon another, we see it without effort, there is nothing to call forth remark, and, on ordinary occasions, we would use the gen. ini tlpos. But the being under a thing does not strike us as a natural (normal) position. Things under other things are apt to be hidden and to be passed over, as proved by eni 1455 times against M 345 times (not in- cludmg Plato entire or the lyric fragments). But if we do see things under other things, their situation cannot but impress us. And what case can better draw attention to locality than the dative ? Hence vtto tlvi, just as eV/ nvt, to emphasize the place. A third point in favor of the theory that the distinction between the gen. and dat. with fVi must be based in imagery and not in logic is the remarkable difference of construction shown by cer- tain verbs, e, g. by ^dW^.v and Uvai. The latter prefers the gen., ^oKUiv and ini^dWiLv the dat. or accus., never perhaps in all classic Greek taking the gen. They are not found with the gen. 1 Definition of the cases may as well be abandoned. If the nearest defi- nition of the accus. is : « eine Erganzung oder nahere Bestimmung des Verbalbegriffs," then countless genitives are accusatives. For, as s.iid above, the dispute as to whether it is the verbal element in a noun or the nominal element in a verb which attracts the gen. seems sheer logomachy, particularly supererogatory in the case of the Greeks, who cudgelled their brains many a century before discovering (or fancying they had discovered) the difference between a noun and a verb. Query : did the Greeks lack dis- cernment here or is it we, warped by early training into seeing distinctions where none exist? Yet at last we may be floating back to the definition- less open sea of the Greeks. See Professor Gildersleeve,>//«. Ifopkins Un, Circulars for 1883, p. 67 : "The adjec. is a ptc. at rest, the ptc. is an adjec. in motion. A similar difference is seen between the abstract noun and the infinitive." But if rest and motion are relative, then verb and noun are one. k I 57 in Homer,! Hesiod, Pindar,^' Aeschylus, Sophocles, Aristophanes Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato,^ or Theocritus. All editors are dissatisfied with Sappho 102 ?p' ?rt nape^via, em^dWof^ai, and Eur. Orest. 51 has been rejected as an interpolation, while yovpdrcop in Eur. Suppl. 272 goes of course with dwlaaop, and 'eaxdpa^ m Cycl. 384 is accus., thus leaving as the solitary example in classic Greek* of ^dXX.Lp with the gen. Eur. Suppl. 286 W kUUl, XeVr' eV ofMfxdrap cfydpr} \ ^aXodaa t5>p (t5>v \ ^ Why this difference of construction in verbs of the same signification ? Clearly because of the mental image evoked by them. With ^aXXo, our eyes follow the missile to its goal, while leVat simply lets it fly.« UvaL therefore chooses the subjective case, /3aXXa> the objective. But if verbs elect their construction by reference to the imagery of the cases, why may not also prepositions ? It would be an additional acceptable support to the theory if the use of modifiers and of the definite article gave evidence for it. For on first thought we might expect that the case which tended to phraseological formations would seldom show modifi- cation, or, if any, that it too would be of the stereotyped sort ; also that the article would be more frequently lacking than with the livelier dative. Now, though the figures do not run counter to this surmise, yet the difference between the number of modified genitives and modified datives is not great (28 per ce7it of the genitives to ^^ per cent, of the datives). And on second thought we could not expect it to be otherwise; for stereotyped phrases and brevity of phrase are just as necessary when speaking of two ^Z(i%kvapi^vmi^aXk6tiEvoq\^ the nearest approach, but the verb is here in the middle voice, the thrower is the missile, 2 01. I 58 Kz<^akaq jSaXdv is ' from the head.' 3 Sisyphus [Plato] 391 a does indeed show rbv n?.eiardKic ^dnovra tov cKOTTov, but Sisyphus is not Plato's. *The following examples of f^dUeiv c. gen. are quoted iu N. T. lexicons : l38^X^^ivov, -nv, 8Kl Klcvng Mt. 9, 2, Mk. 7, 30 (which hardly count, as (3drA(o is in the perfect), edv dvdpunoq f^dkri tov onopov em rfiq yrjg Mk. 4, 26. (Sa/iovaa yap avrrj to fivpov tovto im tov (j^/xaTdg uov Mt. 26, 12. ^ If the gen. be allowed here, however, to the introspective and erratic Euripides, koxdpag may be gen. in Supp. 272. «See Schmidt, Sy^ionymik der Griechischen Sprache III, §104, p. 151 : '^^dllELv unterscheidet sich so von />/7rmv und Ikvai, dass die Erreichung des Orts-Objekts dabei direkt ins Auge gefasst wird." Page 155: " Endlich ist auch hervorzuheben, dass mit Ikvai nicht einmal notwendig die Tren- nung von dem Subjekte angegeben wird. Od. 6, 231. II. 19, 383. 22, 316." 58 • objects as when speaking of one, if not more so. For example, we speak of the man eV* avrot^copo) (without the article) briefly, yet clearly see culprit and crime, while the phrase ovm. tov dpvyixaro^ (with the article) calls up but one image— the hangman's. Here, therefore, there is no evidence either for or against the distinction maintained. I am well aware that the principle oirepraesentatio here claimed must, if true, be of much greater extension than the present essay has set forth. A picturesque use of the cases would hardly con- fine its exhibition to a connection with two prepositions (eVt and vn-d). But certainly there is nothing in the nature of the two cases to render such a distinction improbable. On the contrary many points have been presented in its favor.^ If repraesentaiio has been found so potent in the moods of indirect discourse, why not also in the cases ? Its images may sometimes appear illogi- cal, and logic be compelled to retire baffled. But if analogy is admitted to have played many pranks with logic, why may not repraesentatio do so ? Reason is not yet dominant in language. Thanks to imagery, the sun still ' rises.' Without absolute revolt, therefore, from logic and statistics, we may do well at times (especially if we have statistics with us) to go back to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and judge the phenomena of language by aXo-yoy aiadrjcTis, OT at any rate to avoid the Chary bdis of dvala-eqros Xdyoy. ^ Other small points maybe pointed out, ^. ^^ that vv. of action prefer Tztpi c. ace, vv. of thought and speech nepl c. gen. For the difference between 6id c. gen. and did c. ace. I quote Gildersleeve, Introductory Essay to Pindar, p. 98 : ♦* With the gen. the passage is already made, or as good as made. In Pyth. 9, 133 TrapOevov dyev iTnrevrdv Nofxdduv 6c^ bfiiTMv^ we may imagine elbowing, but it may be imagination." But it is more than that. k t 59 APPENDICES. A. Ex c hided Instances of inl. A necessary complement to the lists presented in this essay is a list of exclusions, the heads of which will be here given. The question what to omit and what to include has been by no means always an easy one, and the decision will often perhaps seem arbitrary. For while in this special inquiry the guiding principle is apparently simple, viz. that of the concreteness of an object, or, in the case of metaphors, the vividness of the image presented, yet just what the vivid image is and just what metaphor has become so remote as to be dead are questions which can be cor- rectly answered only as one approximates to Greek thought and feeling. Neither logic nor the analogies of our own language should be allowed to influence the decision. Yet I think such has been the case in the first of the following heads : I. It seems to be the common opinion that in such phrases as iaSUiv irrX rw gltco oy^ov (Xeu. Mem. Ill I4, 2), KapBapov exeiv eVt t(o aircp (Cyrop. I 2, 11), eVt c. dat. is not purely local but means 'in addition to' or 'with.' In deference to this opinion I have omitted such phrases from the lists. Yet if our own phrases had been ' bread on meat ' and ' butter on bread ' instead of what they are, perhaps the purely local notion would have been more readily allowed to the Greek. This error of classifying the phenomena of a language by the translations made from it into one's own is an old one, against which Rumpel raised a warning voice in his Casuslehre, p. 80. The following is a complete list of such exclu- sions : dXi Ar. Ach. 835 naUiv . . . pdhhav. dXcpiTOLs Ar. Plut. 628 pcpvariXr)' pi VOL. dpiSpoaia PI. Phaedr. 247 e in aVTT) VCKTap €7r6TLv 6nXnS>v Lys. 32, 5. o eVi Toi dpvyparos LyCUrg. 121. rovy ,Vt r^s rroXiretay ic^iecrrr^Kdras I 6i Dem. 19. 298. Toi,! fVi Tw ■Kpay^uTa>v Dem. i8, 247. Dem. Proem. 30, I. fVi Tav ffpa'|e<»i" Dem. Proem "si; 7 ->.„ ,■_; - < Aeschin. 2, 73. rois inX roirav fn^rrfmras Herod. 4, 84 • etc For the difference between these and the dat. see p. 55. 3. A third more difficult and indeed impossible line to draw was that which should separate the local eW and the more vivid of the temporal eV.'s from the gradually less vivid temporal use which finally loses all imagery in e. g. (.A) ,vi ro.Vo.. (..^g,). Beginning, therefore, with , 120 o'y;^., ,V' o'y;,., and 2 130 i^' k^r a.of, I have excluded all those instances which involved any notion of time (<^rf.„. i^X ^< /3.(3^«., where the sense seems merely local, with n 661 .oX/„ y^p .V air^ .,!..,.„. and W'lth * 776 3„i.) ot, .Vi narp6^\c. W^„^ . . . 'A;^.XXcO., where .,.^ao-< fiaa.T« ro« iavTi,„ Ka, noU, or„o„ .W/o..r« eV airoZf. Aesch. Ag. 1547 rU S' povpa, Ki'pa, oVXois- camp, etc. 2) (though admitting S«aar,p/o«) ay5TdToi5 Xen. Hell. VI 5, 24. Kepa (of army, either rz^^/if or le/^) Hd. 9, 102. Thuc. I 49, 6. II 90, 2. IV 43, 4 6'0' ,^. 93, 4. 94, I. V 67, I (2). VI 67, 2. loi, 4. Xen. An. I 8, 20. VI 5,11. Hell. Ill 2,15 (2). IV 4, 9. V 2, 40, 41. Oec. 4, 19. AuSoIff Soph. Trach. 356. XovTpoiai Soph. Elec. 445. fieaco (of army, like Kepas) Xen. An. VI 5, II. oTrXoty camp Com. Erg. Adesp. 663 (III). Thuc. VII 28, 2. VIII 69, 2. Xen. Cyr. VII 2, 8. opiois Thuc. II 12, 3. Xen. An. V 4, 2. Cyr. II 4, 31. VIII 5, 21. Hell. VII 2, I. 4, 39. Andoc. I, 45. Lycurg. 47. Dem. 18, 174, 230. opufj Plat. Timae. 27 c. opfxco Thuc. Ill 76, I. opois Aesch. Prom. 666. Eur. Med. 540. Hd. (o0poto-t) 3, 91. 5, 52. Xen. Hell. VII 2, 20. ovpa (of column of men) Xen. Hell. IV 3, 4. 'irpo9vpoia{i) 2 496. a I03. Plat. Com. 4, 2 (II) (Bergk eVi', legebatur hi). Eur. Alces. loi. Plat. Phileb. 64 r. Trpu/Mi/orp (ayopay) Pind. Pyth. V 93. aKonnls Xen. Cyr. VI 3, 6. (TT€v(o Xen. Hell. VI 4, 3, 27. (TTpaTevpLaTi Isae. 4, 26. (TTpaTOTTedat Xen. An. VII 3, i. reXcvr^ Xen. Mem. I 5, 2 toC ^iov, AeSChin. 3, 205 r^y aTroXoyiay. Plat. Gorg. 516 <2 roC ^tou. reXei Plat. Euthyd. 291 ^, of a discussion. Menex 234 a. Leg. 730 r. 818 «. Polit. 268 d. Rep. 506 d. 532 (5 6 77* atiro) yiyperai rep rov i/ot/tov rAft a)(T7T€p e/cett'oy rdre fVt rw roO oparov. Ttpfiari, -a-i Aesch. Eum. 633. Eur. Heracl. 278. Charmus (perh. See Bergk, II, p. 379). Hd. 7, 54. Xen. De Rep. Lac. 10, I Tov /Siou. TOTTO), -oLs Soph. Trach. iioo. Xen. Cyr. VIII 6, 17. Isoc. 5, 120. vTrepjSoXiJ Xen. An. IV 6, 6 (2), 24. (f)povpa Dem. 54, 3 (Blass fV). ylrvxrj Soph. Ant. 317. 63 Instances of the genitive case are the following : KapT€pa>v Thuc. Ill 18, 5. Keparos Hd. 9, 47. Xen. An. I 8,9. Hell. II 4, 13. VII 5, 25. ottXcoj/ camp Xen. De Rep. Lac. 12, 7. TrXevpmv (of column of men) Xen. An. Ill 2, 36. TTpoaardov Thuc. II 34, 5. aKOTTTjs Xen. Cyr. VI 3, 12. (TTpaTOTTcdov XcU. An. VI 5, 4. Plat. Leg. 674 a, TcXevTrjs (tov Xoyov) AeSchin. 3, 257. TOTTov Dem. 10, 23. (fypovpas Xen. De Rep. Lac. 13, I, II. Here too, it appears, is there an oscillation between gen. and dat., but it is not a vacillation. The context will show that the dat. is deictic, the gen. adjectival— a difference strikingly shown by the two following passages : Dein. 3, 8 eVi /xeV tS>p 5XXa,v ddiKrj- fidroip (rK€\lrap€Povs dKpi^S>9 ScI fxed' rjavxias Kal Td\r)e(s e^crdaapras, ovt(09 TTiTidepai Tols ^diKrjKoa-i, ttjp Tifxapiav, eVt de rals (f)ap€pah Kal napd irdproip iop.o\oyripipais npoboalais kt\. IsOC. I5, 20 icat yap alaxpov int ph tS>v aXXap 7rpaypdT(op iXsYipopeardTovs opoXoyeladai . . . , eVt de rols dySxri rms ep6d8€ yiypoptpois rdvapTca tiJ do^rj ravrrj (fyaipeadai Trpdrrovras. It will be seen that secondary matters (aXXa) are disposed of with the geni- tive, important matters emphasized by the dative (note roly epddBe yiypofxepois in the last example). o. rmally, the phrase eV' oUripaTos (epyaarrjpiovf reyovs^ has been excluded, when signifying places of prostitution. The passages are; Hd. 2, 121 e, 126. Dem. 59, 67 ipyaar^piov, by euphemism. Aeschin. i, 74. Dein. i, 23. Plat. Charm. 163 d. In view of the fact that Grecian houses were built low — perhaps especially the case with cheap houses of prostitution, mere slaves' quarters — Professor Gildersleeve has suggested as somewhat more than probable that the women literally sat upon them, just as other wares would be exposed to view.' See his note on eV* reyovs, Justin Martyr Apol. I 26, 15. One would be inclined to connect fV epyaoTrjpluip wovksJiops thus immediately with the literal sense of eW. But whether fVi diKaarrjpiov (see the orators) should also be so treated is doubtful, in view of the rather extended use of em c. gen. in the sense of coram. One passage, however, certainly favors the literalness of the phrase, viz. Dem. 58, 40 tVl rw»/ dticao-- riy/jio)!/ K(u TOV ^rjpaTos — 3 passage to which Lutz fails to draw atten- tion. ^Seethe scholiast, however, on Plat. Charm. 163^: c. tov decjuur^piov, tjg Avaiag, y e. TzopveioVf ug ^AttikoI, 64 B. Examples of eVt' in the Attic Inscriptions. The following are the instances of .V/ c. gen. and dat. in local sense in the Attic Inscriptions down to 300 B. C. : €7rt c, Dat. Vol. I I, 40 /3a)/x«. 273, 22 naXXaS/o), also in 1. 5. 321, 20 rot;^Q), also in 1. 43. = at. 322, 9 yovla ad anguluvi Boeckh. 322, 83 7rpo(TTd(T€i ad porticum B. Vol. I 322, 90 eVt(n-i;X/oiy in epi- styliis B. 324 ^ I 44 KVfJLclriOV . , . TO €771 {STCJ T(o €7naTv\i(p, So 324 C II 12. 432 a, 32 2tdd(o C' is locus, ubi terrarum situs fuerit igno- ramus," Kirchh.). Vol. II 163, 19 i3p eVi epaV. So 181, 3. 446, 46. I57> 6 /cop;; ;tpvcr^ eVt crT^Xrjs. So 170, II. 173, 6. 319, 19 U. c. Tad/e showing the Local Use of vnu. Gen. =su6 Horn, and Hym. 28 Hesiod Pindar Aesch. •Soph. Eurip. Aristoph. Herodot. Thucyd. Xenoph. Orators Plato 12 3 7 10 12(13) ^(?) o o o o [6 = VTreK 17(18) 2 4 o o 5(4) i(?) i(?) o 2 o o Total Gens. Dative. 133(134) 109 14 12 15 10 41 6 14 4 28 8 5 32 12 48 60 135 157 457 366 702 1294 ? Total Dats. 2 T '> 25 26 22 10 45 9 40 13 52 Accus. 70 2 5 M 5 29 9 22 6 24 63 See note. 16 13 Total Aces. 72 2 6 14 6 30 12 45 43 33 26 15] 1 > 6s In preparing this table I have relied in the case of Homer Pindar Aesch., Soph., Aristoph., Thucyd., the Orators an"?kto upon the lexicons of Ebeling, Rumpel, Dindorf, Ellendt slbo' lewsk, (d,ssertat.on). Van Essen. Lutz. and Ast r spective ly The tuZ F ".. T"' '"'^^"P'^'^' ^"^ ' h-- bracketed The figures. For the other authors the count is my own. The fol- lowmg notes may be added as explanatory, or of interest ine phrases Wo ^kotov, -„„, -^ (^^^ ^^,^ . , , , .find ""h "?'^ '" ''' '"' '' '°^^'' '^^ "-'^Ph- being a vv d one f mdeed they are to be reckoned as metaphors. Bui the phrases «a,,.„. (.^.„. etc.) i^, ,,,„i (,„x„>.,.„ etc.) „.„„ or -M Z have been excluded from the purely local list, as also J ,ax,.. This last wo'ditseTrTT'"'"' ^" "'"^^ ^'^"'«-"-- -shown'; he phrase T "x b °7^^°"'>' '" ^^e genitive and only in'thi marks ofe' v ? l^' '"""' ^°^'^)- ^hese are almost certain marks of adverb.ale Erstarrung," ■ rendered doubly certain here adVi sibSti^r'f?.' """ "''''''''' -^ "^^-->' - --etd Lvs at y H n' tT"^'' "^^^^ " '^ ^°""d, viz. Aristoph. Lys- 985. Xen. Hell. H 3, 23. Lysias Erg. 54. Dem. 20 12 admu this: "nesc.o an hie quoque (Lys. 985) haec significat o iclanculun. vel occulted praeferenda sif," Lt Lutz qu^o"es the Lysu,s fragment as " das einzige lokale Beispiel fiir L c gen bei den attischen Rednern." ^ betfed"'^' °^"' "'"'''"'' '"'^°" "^^ '"""^'"^ P-"'s «-y Homer shows but two cases where i.6 c. ace. may be taken as bee ns°l Ho ^'^:,"^'^."^'^ .'^ «^^^dy and frequent throughout, stand ""u "'"" '"'*^""^' ^' 'be head of which may stand v^o a<,^rpa,-the source perhaps of all the others. _ Hes,od, according to Rzach's constitution of the text, shows V.O c. ace. only twice, one of these being i^l, ^e6.a Theog ,04 theotheroupifa'e„„',Op. 512. *"eog- 304, Pindar uses ino c. dat. seven times to express agent, against r.h f "•, 'T'- "'' P--"^"^"" bere therefore, a well as m the local use should decide for the dat. in 01. VI 40 Xo^o. Z ..a«„,., altogether aside from the question of picturesqueness (Is one ,tem of which note the imperf tense of J„). Note also the difference between W' Ktr.a. Ol. XIII i„ and I' a^,,. „„,.„.'„ 'See Brugmann, Gruch. Gram., §175 (p. 200). 66 V. io6, the latter in a careftU enumeration. Among the five local accusatives, vti6 yap once, hnb x^opa twice. Like Hesiod, he has no temporal accus. Aeschylus.— In the seven Jocal orenitives, three are x^ovos, one 7^?. Again there appears no temporal accusative. Sophocles.— In the ten instances of the local gen. two are x^ovos, three yaia^ (ySf, -y^O- Note the difference between {-tto ariyrjs Ant. 1248, which means no more than under cover, clam, and r^b' Inb arreyrj pathetically pointed out by Philoctetes, Phil. 286. Sophocles too avoids the temporal accusative. Euripides, as might be expected, reverts to the epic {^tto', signi- fying hjrU, four times— or, if we follow Weil in Orest. 1457, five times. (Phoen. 792 being surely corrupt (see Paley), has been'excluded.) But he follows Hesiod, Pindar, Aesch., Soph, in using no tem- poral vTTo c. accusative. Aristophanes Av. 1070 l^ i^ias nTcpvyos has been admitted as local, with Sobolewski (sud ala mea), but is doubtful. Kock reads eV. So too Vesp. 206 hnobv6^^vo9 , . . in6 t5>v K€pafxid