! — . - - 
 
 
 PA 
 
 
 305 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 G35 
 
 
 1897 
 
 111 
 
 MAIN 
 
 B H D3S 111 
 
""* * 
 
 >N 
 
 ON THE 
 
 USE OF m* WITH THE PARTICIPLE 
 
 IN CLASSICAL GREEK. 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
 
 THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM FRANCIS GALLAWAY. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOHN MURPHY & CO. 
 
 1897. 
 
ON THE 
 
 USE OF mi WITH THE PARTICIPLE 
 
 IN CLASSICAL GREEK. 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
 
 THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM FRANCIS GALLAWAY. 
 
 r V of Tax ^ ' 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOHN MURPHY & CO 
 1897. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introduction, 5 
 
 1. Subject, 5 
 
 2. Scope, 6 
 
 3. General view of ov and yA\, ------ 7 
 
 4. General view of the Participle, - - - - - 11 
 
 5. Combination of the Negatives with the Participle, - - 13 
 
 I. — M^ with the Participle, the Principal Verb being Ex- 
 pressed, 14 
 
 1. In Imperative Sentences, ------- 14 
 
 2. In Optative Sentences, ------- 24 
 
 3. With Verbs of Swearing, 27 
 
 4. In Final Sentences, -------- 28 
 
 5. In Conditional Clauses with ei and Finite Verb Expressed, 30 
 
 6. In Generic Relative Sentences, ------ 35 
 
 7. Elliptical Expressions et ,idj, Saov, %<ra p4 with the Parti- 
 
 ciple, 38 
 
 8. With the Infinitive, 40 
 
 9. Supplementary Participle with nt, ----- 45 
 10. In Interrogative Sentences, .--..- 46 
 
 II. — The Independent Participle with ^, 49 
 
 1. Conditional, --------- 49 
 
 (a) Participle and finite verb antithetical or parallel, - 50 
 
 (6) Pure conditional, - 51 
 
 2. Concessive Participle, ------- 56 
 
 3. The Generic Participle with p4, ----- * 59 
 
 (a) With the article, 59 
 
 (6) Without the article — participle being in the predi- 
 cative position, ------- 63 
 
 (c) Without the article, not in the predicative position, 65 
 
 4. M$j ob with the Participle, 67 
 
 5. Miscellaneous, 69 
 
 III.— Conclusion, 75 
 
 IV.— Bibliography, 79 
 
 3 
 
 209393 
 
ON THE USE OF M>* WITH THE PARTICIPLE IN 
 CLASSICAL GREEK. 
 
 Introduction. 
 1 . Subject. 
 
 In classical Greek the spheres of ov and fir] were more or less 
 clearly differentiated. But in later time, when the appreciation 
 for the delicate shades of meaning conveyed by these negatives 
 had been lost, the classical distinctions were, to a greater or less 
 extent, effaced. For example, in Greek of the best period firj is 
 the regular negative employed in the protasis of the conditional 
 sentence, the few passages in which ov occurs being readily 
 explained in accordance with the laws of the language. For 
 either a single word is negatived, or the condition is really 
 equivalent to a causal sentence (el — ye — eirel), or the negative of 
 the original thought is retained. In Hellenistic Greek, however, 
 e. g., that of the New Testament, ov regularly follows el when a 
 fact is expressed and even in generic and future conditions. 1 
 
 Cf. John, V, 47 : el Be rots eiceivov ypd/ifiacnv ov Trio-revere — 
 ib., X, 37: el ov ttocco /ere — Heb., XII, 25: el yap ifceivoc ov/c 
 e^e<f>vyov — I Cor., IX, 2 ; XI, 6 ; XV, 32 ; James, ill, 2 : el ™? ev 
 \6yw ov irralei — Luke, xr, 8 : el koi ov 8ooo-ei — Rom., VIII, 9. 
 
 Modern Greek goes one step further than this and uses the 
 negative 8iv (probably short for ovSev) in all kinds of conditional 
 sentences. 2 
 
 The encroachment of ov on fir/, however, is slight in com- 
 parison with that of firj on ov. The lines of this intrusion have 
 
 1 Cf. Jebb, Appendix to Vincent and Dickson's Primer of Modern Greek. 
 ' Cf. Mullach, Grammatik der griechischen Vulgarsprache, pp. 389-90. 
 
 2 5 
 
6 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 been clearly pointed out by Prof. Gildersleeve, American Journal 
 of Philology, i, pp. 45-57. 
 
 They are as follows : 0-) m with the infinitive in oratio 
 obliqua — an extension of the classical usage after verbs of assev- 
 eration and belief; (2) on firj with the finite verb as a form of 
 oratio obliqua — perhaps due to the desire to avoid hiatus, which 
 frequently led later writers to sacrifice grammar to artistic effect ; . 
 (3) causal firj ; (4) fir] in relative sentences, and lastly participial 
 firj, where in all probability the most extensive invasion took 
 place. Here again, as in the case of ov in the conditional sen- 
 tence, modern Greek makes an advance on the writers of the 
 post-classical period and does not combine any negative but firj 
 with the participle. 1 
 
 In view, therefore, of this gradual extension and finally uni- 
 versal application of firj with the participle, it becomes highly 
 important to make a thorough examination of the classical usage 
 in order to ascertain how far later writers were justified in their 
 use of fir]. 
 
 2. Scope. 
 
 To this end the entire body of classical Greek, from Homer 
 to Demosthenes, has been examined and all the instances of firj 
 with the participle noted. From the material thus collected we 
 hope to be able to show how far and in what connection the 
 writers of the best period made use of this construction. 
 
 It may be well to cite here a list of the authors examined and 
 editions referred to. 
 
 Homer. Ameis-Hentze. 
 
 Hesiod. Flach, Teubner, 1878. 
 
 Lyric Poets. Bergk, Teubner, 1878. 
 
 Aeschylus. Weil, Teubner, 1889. 
 
 Sophocles. Dindorf-Mekler, Teubner, 1889. 
 
 Euripides. Nauck, Teubner, 1891. 
 
 Fragmenta Tragicorum Greecorum. Nauck, Teubner, 1889. 
 
 Aristophanes. Bergk, Teubner, 1884. 
 
 Fragmenta Coraicorum. Kock, Teubner, 1880-88. 
 
 1 Mullach, 1. c. ; Gildersleeve, 1. a, p. 66. 
 
On the Use of Mr} with the Participle in Classical Greek. 7 
 
 Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon. Teubner editions. 
 
 Plato. Teubner. 
 
 Orators. Teubner. 
 
 All bracketed portions of the text and all laws and documents 
 have been omitted, unless cited for purposes of comparison. In 
 the case of Hypereides, only the speech 'T7re/j ILv^eviinrov has 
 been examined, as the fragmentary state of the others would 
 invalidate any argument that might be drawn from them. The 
 sixth volume of Plato, containing the spurious dialogues, opoi, 
 letters, etc., has also been left out of our investigation. The 
 doubtful dialogues of Plato and the doubtful orations of the 
 orators have been included, as our object is not so much to show 
 the individual usage of any special author as the origin and 
 development of the construction in the Greek of the best period. 
 
 Before entering upon our subject proper, it is necessary to 
 discuss briefly three points: (1) the use of ov and /irj in classical 
 Greek ; (2) the function of the participle, and (3) the combination 
 of the negatives with the participle. 
 
 3. General View of ov and firj. 
 
 Both ov and fir} are doubtless Indo-European. We are sure 
 of this in the case of fir}, which is identical with the Sanskrit, 
 Zend, and Old Persian prohibitive particle md y l and we may 
 perhaps connect ov with Zend ava, Latin hand. 
 
 The etymology, however, gives us very little except the original 
 tone of firj. But we can afford to dispense with its aid in seeking 
 to determine the classical distinctions between the two negative 
 particles, for already in Homer their uses are so clearly defined 
 that there is no possibility of confusion. 2 What then are the 
 distinctions now generally accepted ? In brief as follows : ov is 
 the negative of fact, firj, in accordance with its derivation, of the 
 will ; ov is objective and belongs to the thing spoken of, fir} is 
 subjective and refers to the thought and will of the speaker. 3 
 These broad outlines were fully recognized and clearly marked 
 
 1 Cf. Prellwitz, Etymologische Worterbuch, sub voc. 
 
 s Cf. Gildersleeve, 1. c, p. 48. 
 
 3 Cf. Baumlein, Die griechischen Partikeln, p. 257. 
 
8 On the Use of Mi] with the Participle in Classical Gi % eek. 
 
 by the ancients. 1 Negation with ov was called apwqo-is = denial. 
 So Hesychius says ov = €7ripprjfia dpvrjrcKov Kara areprjaiv. On 
 the other hand, negation with fitf was called airayopevo-is = 
 prohibition. 
 
 First, then, let us treat briefly the negative ov. This being 
 the negative of the statement, we find it combined (1) with the 
 indicative of the independent sentence and everything that repre- 
 sents the indicative; (2) with the optative with av = potential of 
 the present and future, and with the past tenses of the indicative 
 with av = the potential of the past. These sentences are, it is 
 true, subjective, but they are assertions and not mere conceptions, 
 and hence take ov, not /a??. 2 (3) ov is used with the subjunctive 
 in Homer when it is equivalent to the future; (4) in questions 
 that expect an affirmative answer; (5) in subordinate sentences 
 that represent the indicative, i. e., the indicative or optative after 
 otl or a>?, relative sentences that express a mere statement, tem- 
 poral, causal, and consecutive sentences with the finite verb, the 
 infinitive after verbs of saying and thinking, and the participle 
 when it represents a sentence in which ov would have been used, 
 unless the force of the principal verb is sufficient to cause /^. 
 (6) ov is also used to negative a single word or to change it into 
 its opposite, e. g., ovtc ayaOos = /catcos. Here it forms a quasi- 
 compound, and the union is so close that, as a rule, ov remains 
 even though the phrase represents or forms part of a sentence that 
 demands firj. Cf. Iliad, in, 288 fol. : el . . . Upta/mos Tlpidfioio re 
 TralSes rlveiv ov/c i6e\(ocrtv ; Lysias, XIII, 62 : el p,ev ov iroWol 
 rfaav? 
 
 At times also the image of oratio obliqua comes in and preserves 
 ov where we should expect pr). Cf. Plato, Gorgias, 458 E : 
 taar ev o^\o> iriOavov elvat ov StSdaKOvra aXka ireiOovra. <$>r}s 
 precedes. 4 
 
 This, then, is all that need be said of the negative ov. For 
 examples under any of the above heads see Baumlein. 
 
 1 Cf. Ety. Magnum, 585-49 to 586-30, also under oi> X i- 
 
 *C(. Aken, Tempus und Modus, \\ 54, 72, 315; Baumlein, p. 259. 
 
 * Aken, Frohberger, and Rehdantz deny this, especially in the conditional sen- 
 tence, oi, they say, represents the negative of the original thought. Cf. Aken, 
 \ 229; Frohberger to Lysias, 13, 62. 
 
 4 Cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., vn, 174. 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek, 9 
 
 We turn dow to the consideration of fir). We have already 
 seen that this was originally not a negative at all, but a pro- 
 hibitive particle, an interjection accompanied by a gesture of 
 repulsion or rejection. 1 As such it was connected in Sanskrit with 
 the injunctive. 2 Greek, however, has no injunctive, the functions 
 of which have been merged into the subjunctive. Hence we 
 find in the earliest monuments of Greek literature prohibition 
 expressed by the aorist subjunctive with fir). The present sub- 
 junctive appears only in the first person plural. For example, 
 cf. Homer, Iliad, u, 435 : 
 
 fir/Ken vvv Bj)6^ avOi Xeycofieda, fir/B' en Br/pbv 
 afi/3aWa>/i€da ep<yov. 
 
 The original prohibitive force of fir) with the present subjunc- 
 tive also appears in hesitating statements, e. g., Plato, Gorgias, 
 462 E : firj aypocKorepov fj to a\r)0e<; elirelv. 
 
 From the subjunctive fir) spread naturally to the imperative. 
 For the imperative was used originally only in a positive sense, 
 prohibition being always expressed by firj with the subjunctive. 
 This step had already been taken by Sanskrit, which in the classi- 
 cal period combined md with the imperative and optative as well 
 as with the injunctive, fir) with the imperative, then, is but an 
 analogical imitation of fir) with the subjunctive. 
 
 We next find fir) combined with the optative in the inde- 
 pendent sentence, a construction that is readily understood when 
 we remember that the pure optative expresses all shades of mean- 
 ing from a command to a simple wish. Cf. Homer, Iliad, xxrv, 
 178 : fcrjpvl; Tt? €7rocTo ; Od., XXIV, 491 : igeXdcbv Tts foot* 
 
 The next extension of fir) was to the infinitive, which when 
 used as an imperative takes fir) as a matter of course. Likewise 
 after verbs of will and command, povXofiai, /ceXevco, etc., the 
 infinitive has an imperative force and hence is negatived by fir]. 
 The use of this negative was further extended to verbs that 
 involve the will, i. e., verbs of swearing, believing, etc. Hence in 
 
 1 Cf. Vogrinz, Horn. Gram., p. 234. 
 
 a Cf. Delbriick, Altind. Syn., \ 267; Miller, A. J. P., 13, 423. 
 
 8 Cf. Aken, \ 49 ; Whitney, Skt. Gram., \ 573. 
 
10 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 the early period pr) was the negative of the infinitive throughout. 
 When oratio obliqua came in, the infinitive after verbs of saying 
 and thinking being the representative of the indicative, naturally 
 took ov. 
 
 Strictly speaking, firj has no right to be combined ( with the 
 indicative, the proper negative of which is, as we have already 
 seen, ov. Only with great difficulty, therefore, did it take this 
 step, and it appears in only a few constructions — as, for instance, 
 in the protasis of the unreal condition, past wishes, oaths, ques- 
 tions that anticipate a negative answer, oiroxi with the future 
 indicative, with verbs of fear when the action is present or past, 
 and in purpose clauses with the historical tenses. Finally fiij 
 came to be used with the participle, and it is with the develop- 
 ment and use of this construction that our present investigation 
 deals. 
 
 We may sum up the uses of firj in classical Greek, all of which 
 go back to the will of the speaker, as follows : 
 
 I. In the independent sentence firj is used with : 
 the subjunctive = prohibition ; 
 the imperative ; 
 
 the optative and past tenses of the indicative in wishes ; 
 hesitating statements and dubitative questions ; 
 questions that anticipate a negative answer ; 
 oaths. 
 II. In the dependent sentence it is used : 
 
 after verbs of fear — where the subordinate clause is only 
 
 semi-dependent ; 
 in final clauses with Xva, &>?, 07ra><? ; 
 in the protasis of conditional clauses ; 
 in relative sentences if they express final, conditional, or 
 
 generic relations; 
 in temporal sentences when they are equal to conditional 
 
 or generic sentences; 
 with the infinitive after verbs and expressions that involve 
 
 the will and after cocre ; 
 and finally with the participle when it represents or forms 
 
 part of a sentence that demands ym). 
 

 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 11 
 
 The combinations of the negatives ov fjurj and firj ov should also 
 be considered. But it is not our intention to enter into a full 
 discussion of the negatives. We only propose to give a general 
 view, a brief outline, in order that the development of fitf with 
 the participle may be seen in its historical connection. Hence 
 we may pass over ov fir} as having no direct bearing on our 
 subject and postpone the discussion of firj ov until we come to 
 that chapter in our treatment of \x,r\ with the participle. 1 
 
 4. General View of the Participle. 
 
 Another preliminary subject that calls for attention is a general 
 view of the participle and its employment as a representative of 
 the finite clause. 
 
 The Greeks were very fond of the participle, and hence they 
 not only developed a large number of forms, but also used them 
 freely. 2 This free use is shown in two directions : (1) by the 
 actual number of participles used, and (2) by the great freedom 
 with which the participle is employed as a substitute for the finite 
 verb. As to the first, and the stylistic effect produced thereby, 
 since it has no direct connection with our subject, we may pass it 
 over without comment. 3 It is with the second that we are more 
 directly concerned. 
 
 We might suppose that the Homeric poems, the first monu- 
 ments of Greek literature, would show us the participle in an 
 undeveloped state. And so they do to some extent, but not nearly 
 so much as we should suppose. Indeed, Classen, as cited above, 
 p. 44, even claims, on the basis of a complete study of the parti- 
 ciple in Homer, that the Homeric use is as fully developed as 
 that of later times. 
 
 " Wir finden," he says, " den ganzen reichtum an form en, 
 welchen die griechische sprache im participium entwickelt hat, 
 in der homerischen poesie entfaltet, und wir sehen ihn mit einer 
 
 1 For the treatment of ov ^, cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., in, 202 fol. ; Morris, 
 Proceedings Arner. Phil. Asso., 1882, vol. 13, p. 35. 
 
 2 Cf. Classen, Beobachtungen iiber den homerischen Sprachgebrauch, p. 41. 
 
 3 For treatment, cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., ix, 137 ff. ; J. H. U. Circular, 
 1888, p. 23. 
 
12 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 freiheit und feinheit jedera bediirfniss des gedankens angepasst, 
 die in keiner beziehung dem gebildetsten ausdruck der attischen 
 prosa nachsteht." We must, 1 think, accept this with some 
 modification, for while it may be true that all the germs of later 
 constructions are found in Homer, it is nevertheless also true that 
 the participle in these early poems has not the same sweep as 
 in later works, but is still largely adjectival in its character ; and 
 by. nothing is this adjectival nature better shown than by the 
 reluctance, we might almost say absolute refusal, of Homer to 
 join firj with the participle. 
 
 Assuming, therefore, that the development of the participle is 
 largely pre-Homeric, we shall simply give a brief resume* of its 
 use in classical Greek, without attempting to trace its growth. 
 
 The three broad divisions into which the uses of the participle 
 fall are the nominal, the verbal, and the supplementary. Under 
 the first head come those participles which are used to modify 
 a noun like an ordinary attributive adjective, e. g., rod irapovTos 
 aywvos, Dem., 18, 12, or with the article as a substantive, e. g., 
 ra ireirpa^fieva, Dem., 18, 4, or as a predicate with el/ii, e. g., 
 /3aSi%(ov eifd, Aristoph., Ranse, 36. 
 
 Under the second head come those cases where the participle 
 modifies the verb, not the noun, taking the place of a subordinate 
 clause. So widespread is this use that almost without exception 
 may a subordinate clause be thus represented. So the various 
 relations of time, cause, finality, concession, limitation, condition, 
 manner, result, may all be expressed by the participle. But under 
 temporal clauses we must exclude ea>? av with the subjunctive, 
 which cannot be so represented, 1 and under final clauses verbs of 
 fear, after which the participle is not used. 2 After cocrre, also, the 
 participle is rare, and found chiefly after verbs of perception in 
 the leading clause. 8 
 
 Under the head of the supplementary participle are included 
 those cases in which the participle is used to complete the mean- 
 
 1 According to Prof. Gildersleeve. 
 
 *Cf. Kiihner, Ausfuhrliche Gram., $ 490, 1, and Lodge, Participle in Euripides, 
 who do not make even these exceptions, but say that every subordinate clause 
 may be represented by the participle. 
 
 a Cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., vn, 172. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 13 
 
 ing of a verb, e. g., ala^vvofiat Xeycov. It very often takes the 
 place of an accusative and the infinitive, e. g., olBd ae Xeyovra, 
 Xen., Cyr., 1, 6, 6. 
 
 5. Combination of the Negatives with the Participle. 
 
 After this brief and rapid survey of the negatives and the parti- 
 ciple, we are now prepared to see how the two were combined. 
 
 Whatever was the original feeling of the participle, it came to 
 be regarded, in the classical period at least, as an abridged sentence. 
 This is most manifest, perhaps, from the fact that we occasionally 
 find el fiev with the finite verb contrasted with a conditional 
 participle with Be, or vice versa, e. g., Xen., Cyr., vni, 1, 12: 
 fir) ovtcov fiev olwv Bet . . . el 8' ovtoc elev oiovs Beoc /ere. 
 
 As the representative, therefore, of a finite verb, we may state 
 it as a general rule that the participle takes the negative of the 
 clause into which it may be resolved. Thus the participle used as 
 an adjective or as the representative of a causal or adversative 
 sentence would naturally take ov, since it is then a mere statement 
 of fact and has no connection with the will ; but, on the other 
 hand, the participle used as a substitute for a conditional or a 
 concessive clause takes fir), since here the will of the speaker 
 enters. But another element must also be taken into considera- 
 tion, i. e., the influence of the principal verb of the sentence. 
 We have already seen (p. 8) that the image of oratio obliqua 
 is sometimes sufficient to produce ov where fir] would be more 
 natural. The opposite is also true. For not infrequently the 
 force of the principal verb, especially an imperative, is sufficient 
 to cause firj to be used with the participle, although the latter 
 would more naturally take ov. 1 This is contrary to the view 
 held by Aken, Tempus und Modus, pp. 224-227, who asserts 
 that the principal verb has no influence whatever on the choice 
 of the negative with the participle, but that this choice depends 
 entirely on the nature of the participle itself. 2 This view, how- 
 ever, is not accepted by other grammarians, and our investiga- 
 
 1 Cf. Kiihner, \ 515, 3, 2 ; Baumlein, p. 295. 
 
 2 See page 227, where he says: u Dem satz in welchein sie stehen fur sich kann 
 kein influss zugestanden werden." 
 
14 On the Use of Mr} with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 tion will show that the principle stated above is correct. Of 
 course, when the participle is only loosely connected with the 
 main sentence, or is remote from the principal verb, or where on 
 or o>9 intervenes, an original ov may be retained. 
 
 Having thus, by our discussion of these preliminary points, 
 shown the place that fjurj with the participle holds in the develop- 
 ment of the negatives, we turn now to a detailed examination 
 of the actual occurrences of this construction in classical Greek, 
 following the two broad lines just laid down : (1) where the 
 participle forms part of a sentence that demands ftij, and (2) where 
 the participle by the nature of its own predication takes fir}. 
 
 I. 
 
 mr} with the participle, the principal verb being 
 Expressed. 
 
 1. In Imperative Sentences. 
 
 Following the course of the development of fir} as already 
 traced (pp. 9 f.), let us see first to what extent the participle is 
 used as the representative of the imperative sentence and how far 
 the force of the principal verb extends when the participle is not 
 capable of being resolved into another imperative. 
 
 In all there are about one hundred and thirty-eight participles 
 negatived by fir} that form a more or less integral part of an 
 imperative clause. They may be divided for the sake of cou- 
 venience into five classes : First, where the participle agrees with 
 the subject of the principal verb and may in most cases be 
 resolved into another imperative ; secondly, where the participle 
 is in the genitive absolute, either with or without o>9 ; thirdly, 
 where the participle is in the predicate, either taking the place 
 of an object clause or agreeing with the object of the verb; 
 fourthly, where the imperative appears in an indirect form, i. e., 
 after verbs like tceXeva), irapaivw, etc., and the participle is con- 
 nected with the subordinate clause. This really belongs under 
 the head of the infinitive, but as being an indirect form of the 
 imperative it may be included here. The fifth class embraces 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 15 
 
 those participles that cannot conveniently be included under the 
 other heads. 
 
 Of these classes the first is by far the largest, containing eighty- 
 five examples out of the total number. It does not appear in 
 Homer, but two examples are found in Hesiod, i. e., Works and 
 Days, 696, and Shield, 98. The first passage reads : 
 
 aypalos 8e yvvaifca rebv ttotI ol/cov ayeaOcu 
 firjre TpcwfcovTcov irecov fidXa tt6X)C diroXeiiroyv 
 
 flTJT 67Ti^6t9 fiaXd TTOXkd. 
 
 dyeaOat is equivalent to an imperative. The other passage is 
 similar. 
 
 (Such cases as Horn., Od., ill, 96, fivBe re fi alSofievo? 
 fieiklo-aeo fiij$> iXeaipav, have not been included, as here the 
 negatives go with the verb and not with the participles. For 
 similar examples, however, cf. Od., n, 231 ; Soph., Antig., 267 ; 
 Eurip., Hecuba, 373; Plato, Politicus, 264 A. We have also 
 excluded passages like Xen., Mem., I, 4, 1, <nce"tydfievoi fir) fibvov 
 h ifeeivos ipcoroov rj\ey%€v — dWd zeal a \eycov avvrj/J-epeve — 
 SoKifia^ovTcov, as here the position of the negative shows that it 
 belongs to the following substantive idea and not so much to the 
 participle. For similar examples, cf. Hdt, IV, 46 ; Aeschines, 
 in, 255 ; Plato, Crito, 47 D ; Phjedrus, 260 C ; Menex., 247 B ; 
 Rep., iv, 464 C; vn, 534 C; Laws, vn, 817 C. Moreover, not 
 only in the case of the imperative, but also in regard to the other 
 constructions that follow, we have omitted those examples in 
 which the negative precedes both participle and verb and goes 
 with both of them, e. g., in a purpose clause, Thuc, in, 22, 2 : 
 hiexovre? ttoXv f/aav, oVg)? tcl oir\a fir) /cpovofieva 7rpo? aWrfka 
 aiadncrtv irapkypi.) 
 
 In lyric poetry, especially in the hortatory elegies of Tyrtseus 
 and Theognis, the construction is more frequently employed than 
 in Epic poetry. Eight examples have been noted, e. g., Pindar, 
 Pythia, iv, 176 f. : 
 
 i^OiaroLai fir) yjrevSeaiv Karafiidvai^ elire yivvav. 
 
 Of the tragedians, Aeschylus and Sophocles make but slight 
 use of the participle as a substitute for the imperative. The 
 
16 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 former has but two examples, the latter but three. Note Soph., 
 Electra, 1014 : 
 
 avrr) Be vovv <r^e? aXka tc5 yjpovvi irore, 
 aOevovaa firjBiv, rot? Kparoicriv elicadeZv. 
 
 The participle is causal, but owing to the preceding imperative 
 (and possibly also to the following infinitive), the negative is 
 /jbrj, not ov. 
 
 Euripides is more free in his use of this construction and has 
 sixteen instances of it. In some cases the verb has to be supplied 
 from the context. Cf. Alcestis, 1094 : 
 
 a>9 fitjTTOT avBpa rovBe vv/j,(j)lov koXwv — 
 
 where alvei is to be supplied from the preceding line. In Hera- 
 clidae, 263, fitf is due to the prohibitive force of the sentence : 
 
 AH. ovkovv iya) rcov ivOdB* elfil /cvpios ; 
 
 KO. fikaTTTOiV y i/ceivovs fMrjBiv, rjv re aaxfrpovrj*;. 
 
 In Comedy, we find a few instances in the minor poets, but 
 none in Aristophanes. Nor does Herodotus or Xenophon, in his 
 historical works, use the construction. Thucydides, however, has 
 seven instances of it, all but one of which occur in speeches. In 
 the other writings of Xenophon seven examples are found, five of 
 which occur in the Cynegeticus, where, however, imperatives and 
 imperative infinitives abound. 
 
 Of the orators, Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isaeus, Lycurgus, 
 and Hypereides do not use it at all. Isocrates has four examples, 
 three of which are in the first speech, which is generally regarded 
 as spurious. Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Deinarchus have one 
 each. This small number of passages in the orators in which the 
 imperative is represented by a participle seems rather surprising 
 at first, in view of the large number of imperatives used by 
 them ; l but we must remember that the orators are not wont to 
 use the imperative at all, except under stress of emotion, and then 
 the pure imperative is more appropriate than a participle, which 
 belongs rather to a leisurely manner of utterance and not to 
 passionate language. 
 
 1 i. e., 2,445, according to Miller, A. J. P., xnr, 402. 
 
On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 17 
 
 Plato bulks largely, and we should expect to find a large 
 number of examples in his works. The total number, however, is 
 only thirty, fifteen of which occur in the Laws. Many dialogues 
 have none at all, many only one. Note especially Protag., 
 336 C : ScaXeyecrdco^/Jbr) — [Acucpov Xoyov viroreivcov, i/c/cpovcov 
 rot/? X070V? teal ovk iOeXcov BcBovai Xoyov. Here viroreivcov 
 continues the imperative, while i/c/cpovcov and ideXcov are merely 
 descriptive participles. Aken, in accordance with his theory, 
 would doubtless say that the difference in the negatives is due 
 to this fact. But we frequently find ovk ideXco coalescing into 
 a quasi-compound and remaining unchanged in spite of its sur- 
 roundings, and to such cause the retention of ov here might 
 be due. 
 
 Aken, p. 227, quotes Gorgias, 463 A, elire fiwo'ev i/xe mayyv- 
 deis, as an example of the final participle. It is, however, as far 
 as we can see, nothing more than a continuation of the imperative. 
 Cf. Politicus, 269 C : Xeye fivSev iXXeiTrcov ; ib., 277 E : Xeye 
 /jLwSev 6/jlov ye eve/ca cittokvcov. 
 
 In Laws, VI, 754 A, we have p,-r\ with the participle equivalent 
 to irplv dv with the finite verb : M?) tolvvv <ytyvcoaKovre^ ye 
 Trapiofiev avro dpprjrov, fiwo'ev 8iao~a<f>7]o-avT€$ rjfuv civtoIs, where 
 fMvSev Stacra<f>r]aavTe<; = 7rplv av Siao-a(f)i]crco/jb€V. 
 
 For other examples of this construction, cf. Aeschylus, Sup., 
 209; Eurip., Tro., 1166; Hdt,, ix, 45; Thuc, II, 2, 3; 44, 2; 
 Dem., xx, 90; Plato, Laws, 11, 653 B. 
 
 For convenience of reference, and also to show at a glance the 
 range of a construction, a complete list of the passages in which 
 that construction is found is appended to each section, unless all 
 the passages have been cited in the treatment of that section. 
 For the construction just treated we have the following list : 
 
 Hesiod : 
 
 Op. et D., 696 f. 
 
 Scutum, 98. 
 
 Mimnermus : 
 VII, 1 f. 
 
 Pindar : 
 Pythia, iv, 100 (176). 
 
 
 Theognis : 
 283, 
 364, 
 764. 
 
 
 Tyrtseus : 
 x, 14. 
 xii, 44. 
 xv, 5. 
 
 Aeschylus: 
 
 Agam., 510, 
 
 906. 
 
18 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 Sophocles : 
 
 Electra, 1014. 
 
 O. R., 310. 
 
 0. C, 489. 
 
 Thucydides : 
 
 1, 124, 2. 
 
 n, 87, 8. 
 
 in, 40, 7, 
 
 48, 1. 
 
 iv, 17, 3. 
 
 V, 20, 2. 
 
 vii, 77, 5. 
 
 Plato: 
 Theset., 153 E. 
 Sophistes, 239 B, 
 240 A, 
 242 B. 
 
 Euripides: 
 
 Alcestis, 1094. 
 
 Hec 874 
 
 Politicus, 263 E, 
 2'69 C, 
 277 E. 
 
 Philebus, 14 B, 
 
 Heraclidse, 175, 
 263, 
 619. 
 H. F., 505, 
 1110. 
 Iph. Au., 140, 
 409, 
 818. 
 
 Xenophon : 
 Cyr., in, 1, 37. 
 vii, 5, 20. 
 Cyn., 11, 1. 
 iv, 5. 
 vi, 10, 14. 
 x, 12. 
 
 28 D, 
 
 58 D. 
 Laches, 189 B. 
 Protag., 336 C. 
 (jrorgias, 463 A. 
 Hip. Maior, 398 D. 
 Kep., 11, 361 C. 
 Laws, vi, 754 A. 
 
 Medea, 1122. 
 
 Or., 657. 
 
 Tro., 723. 
 
 Phce., 1234. 
 
 Frag., 286, 4, 
 
 779. 
 
 Isocrates : 
 
 1, 13, 17, 42. 
 
 in, 57. 
 
 vii, 818 E. 
 vm, 828 B, 
 
 844 A, 
 
 D, 
 
 849 E. 
 
 ix, 868 C, 
 
 871 A, 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 xxii, 47. 
 
 
 879 D, 
 
 Comici Minores: 
 
 Pherecrates, 80. 
 
 Strattis, 37. 
 
 Aeschines : 
 in, 247. 
 
 882 B. 
 
 x, 887 C. 
 
 xi, 919 D, 
 
 Antiphanes, 52, 14. 
 /Menander, 128, 3.] 1 
 V Demonax, 2. / 
 
 Deinarchus : 
 in, 20. 
 
 932 C. 
 
 xn, 943 C, 
 
 958 E. 
 
 Our second division of /jltj with the participle in imperative 
 sentences is that in which the participle appears in the genitive 
 absolute. This class is much smaller than the preceding, and 
 does not invariably take firj, ov, in fact, being found almost as 
 frequently. This is doubtless due in most cases to the fact that 
 the genitive absolute is not felt to be as closely connected with 
 the principal verb as when the participle agrees with the subject. 
 In other cases we can see special reasons for the retention of ov. 
 
 The genitive absolute in this construction is generally preceded 
 by &>9, but one exception to this rule being noted, i. e., Hdt., vn, 
 10 8 : av S)V fjLTj fiovXev e? iclvhvvov firjBiva toiovtov airiKeo-Ocu, 
 fiTj&efiLrjs avdytcTjs iovar)<;, dXXa ifiol ireidev. Here the participle 
 is temporal or causal — "When or since there is no necessity ," 
 hence firj must be due to the force of the imperative. 
 
 1 The examples from the New Comedy have been cited for the sake of com- 
 pleteness. They have not been counted, however, in making up the totals. 
 
On the Use of Mr} with the Participle in Classical Greek. 1 9 
 
 For an example with a>9, cf. Aristoph., Frogs, 128 : 
 
 HPA. {3ov\et, fcardvrrj kcli ra^eldv croc (f>pd(ro) ; 
 AIO. V7] TOP A/' ft)9 ovtos ye flT) ^aScarcKov. 
 
 Here we must supply <£pa£e from the preceding line, /jltj, it is 
 true, goes with fiaSco-Titcov, but it is a good example of the 
 influence of the imperative. For other examples, cf. Thuc, vn, 
 15, l(bis); 77, 7; Xen., Cyr., I, 6, 11; Plato, Phsedo, 77 E: 
 009 SeSiorcov (rj/jiojv) — ireipoy dvaireiOeiv ■ puaXkov Be fir) a>9 r)fia>v 
 SeStorcov. Here the whole phrase fir) &>9 rjfi&v BeSiorow is con- 
 trasted with the preceding o>9 SeBiorcov. Hence the position of 
 the negative. For other examples in Plato, cf. Char., 176 B; 
 Eep., I, 327 C; Laws, XI, 915 E; (Menander, 492). This con- 
 struction is conversational, the example from the Laws being the 
 only exception. Hence we are not surprised to find that it does 
 not occur in the Orators. In the four examples that follow, C09 
 ov with the participle is connected with an imperative. In three 
 of the cases the imperative follows, and its force is felt less than if 
 it preceded. It must be noticed also that 009 with the participle is 
 virtually a form of oratio obliqua, and as such its natural negative 
 is ov, not firj. l This may help to account for the retention of ov 
 here. The passages are as follows: Eurip., Medea, 1311 : 
 
 a>9 ov/cer ovtcov tojv reKvwv <f>p6vri%e Brf. 
 
 Here also the negative of fact may be retained, as is commonly 
 done when speaking of the dead. Xen., Mem., 11, 6, 32 : 009 ov 
 wpoo-olcrovTos ra<; %e£/oa9 — 8i$ao-/ce, where a whole line intervenes 
 between the participle and the principal verb ; ib., Cyr., viii, 4, 
 27 : o>9 avapbevovvTOs ical ovk diroOavovfievov ovrco irapao-iceva^ov. 
 Plato, Apol., 30 B : rj dfyiere 7) fir) a<j)L6T€, C09 ifiov ovk av 
 Troirjo-ovTos aWa. In this latter case the force of the assertion 
 is evident. 
 
 In the third class are included those cases in which the parti- 
 ciple appears as the object of an imperative, generally of a verb 
 of saying and thinking. The participle frequently takes the place 
 of an object clause, and hence, owing to the peculiarity of the 
 
 1 Cf. Gildersleeve, Justin Martyr, 1, 4, 19. 
 
20 On the Use of Mt? with the Participle in Classical Greek, 
 
 Greek idiom, may be in the nominative when its subject is the 
 same as that of the principal verb. When not used as an object 
 clause, it agrees with the object of the verb. g>9 is sometimes 
 used with the participle, but more frequently not. 
 The first example noted is in Aeschylus, Sup., 209 : 
 
 c5 Zed, kottcov otKTipe fir) a7ro\&)Xora9, 
 
 where fir) airoXcokoTa? seems to be equal to irpXv airoXecraL. 
 Another example is found in Agam., 932 : 
 
 yvcofivv fiev i<rdt fir) BiafyQepovvT ifii. 
 
 In Persae, 435, vvv too" XaOt finBeTrw fieaovv kclkov, it is hard to 
 decide whether we have the participle or the infinitive, as both have 
 the same form. Baumlein, however, p. 268, takes it as the participle. 
 Sophocles has five examples of this construction, four of which 
 have o>9. The passages are Antig., 1063, 1064; O. C, 1155; 
 Phil., 253, 415. The last example is as follows : 
 
 &>9 fin/cer ovra Kelvov iv cfrdei voce. 
 
 Cf. Hdt., in, 65, where the same construction occurs, and where 
 Stein, groundlessly it seems to me, objects to fir). 
 
 Euripides has but four examples of the participle so used, of 
 which the most noteworthy is Heraclidae, 693 : 
 
 IO. fir} tol fi epv/ce Bpav Trapeaicevacrfievov, 
 ®E. Bpav fiev av y ov% 0I09 re, /3ovXeo~6ai 6° t<x&)9. 
 IO. ft>9 fir) fievovvra raXXa aoc Xeyeiv irdpa. 
 
 Here Reiske, quoted by Elmsley, makes the participle depend on 
 epvice ; others supply Xadt ; but Elmsley and most editors take the 
 participle as the accusative absolute. We still, however, have to 
 explain fir], and the explanation is doubtless found in the impera- 
 tive tone of the sentence. Cf. Thuc, vi, 40, 1 : rcov roiwvBe 
 dyyeXicov oxj 777909 aladofiivovs teal fir) iiriTpetyovTas diraXXaynre, 
 where fir] seems to be due to the same cause. Cf. Classen's note. 
 But on the other hand in Rhesus 145 (which, however, is generally 
 regarded as not by Euripides) we find : 
 
 adXnriyyos avBr)v irpoarBoKOiv tcapaBotcet, 
 o>9 ov fievovvra fie. 
 
On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 21 
 
 These examples seem to show that in the case of the accusative 
 absolute, as in that of the genitive absolute, the same choice of 
 negatives is permitted. 
 
 If Ion 313 belongs under this head we have to supply the impera- 
 tive from the preceding line, as in the case of Aristoph., Frogs, 128, 
 
 KP. rjiieZ? cr dp* clvOls, <b %ev avTOitcripOfiev. 
 
 KIN. ft>5 fJUT) el$60' rfTL? fl 6T6K6V If OTOV T €(j)VV. 
 
 " Yes ; pity me who know neither mother nor father." 
 
 The historians, orators, and Plato make but little use of this con- 
 struction, which belongs apparently to the language of the drama. 
 The complete list of occurrences is as follows : 
 
 Aeschylus : 
 
 Sup., 209. 
 
 Agam., 932. 
 
 Persae, 435. 
 
 Tragici Minores : 
 
 Frag, incert., 122, 
 
 quoted by Dem., 
 
 xviii, 267. 
 
 Xenophon : 
 Cyn. ix, 15. 
 
 Isocrates : 
 
 
 Comici Minores : 
 
 Antiphanes, 177. 
 
 (Philemon the 
 
 younger, 1, 2.) 
 
 v, 133. 
 
 
 
 Sophocles : 
 
 0. C, 1155. 
 
 Antig., 1063, 1064. 
 
 Phil., 253, 415. 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 
 xxvii, 59. 
 
 lv, 35. 
 
 
 Herodotus : 
 
 in, 65. 
 viii, 144. 
 
 
 
 
 Euripides : 
 Androm., 726. 
 
 Aeschines : 
 1, 161. 
 
 Heraclidae, 693, 
 982. 
 Ion, 313. 
 
 Thucydides : 
 1, 141, 1. 
 
 Plato : 
 Gorgias, 488 B. 
 
 Mt; is not invariably found in this construction. Indeed, as 
 the participle here is a form of oratio obliqua we should rather 
 expect to find ov than ^77, and it seems to point to the strong 
 influence of the imperative that so many of the cases have /jltj and 
 so few ov (see page 19). An example with ov has already been 
 cited from [Euripides] Rhesus, 145. Others are Soph. Phil., 567: 
 
 ax; ravr eiriarco hp(OfjLev ov /niWovr en. 
 
 Thuc, I, 36, 1 : yvdorco — ov — fiovKonevo? koX ov irpovocov. Here 
 three lines intervene between the principal verb and the partici- 
 ples, and hence ov is retained ; ib., 1, 122, 2 : Xarco ovk aXko ri 
 3 
 
22 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Geeek. 
 
 <f>€povo~av rj avrfcpv? hovkeiav. Demos., XXII, 29 : rj Sel^ov ov 
 ireiroinKOTa ravra aavrov, rj Slkwv vire^e. 
 
 We see then from these few passages that, although ov is per- 
 mitted with the participle in this construction, the tendency is to 
 assimilate the negative to that of the imperative. 
 
 Our fourth class includes what we have called the indirect 
 imperative, i. e., where the participle forms part of an infinitive 
 clause after verbs of exhortation or command, e. g., 7rapaiva>, 
 KeXevG), &c. The first example noted is in Euripides, Frag., 317 : 
 
 /ecu vvv irapcuvS) iraxn tol$ vewrepois 
 fir) irpbs to yrjpas arroftoXa*; rroiov pivots, 
 tryp\jj T€/cvovcr0cu 7ral$a<:. 
 
 Aristoph., Clouds, 966, is a good example : 
 
 €it av rrpofiaOeiv acrfi iBLBacr/cev to> firjpco fir) gwexovras. 
 
 Other examples are, Hdt., I, 80, 170 ; Thuc, I, 82, 1 ; 90, 3 ; IV, 
 38, 3 ; 98, 8 ; vm, 14, 1 ; Xen. Anab., IV, 3, 28 ; Dem., xv, 9 ; 
 (LIX, 75) : vdfiov edevro do-rrjv elvcu /ecu fir) eirifiefiiyfikvnv irepa) 
 avhpi; Plato, Laws, m, 702 C; vn, 810 E; xi, 930 B. Hence, 
 we see that the construction belongs chiefly to prose. In one or 
 two cases ov seems to be used contrary to the geueral rule, cf. 
 Hdt., IX, 122 : avroicrt, irapalvee /ceXevcov irapao-Kevd^eadai a>? 
 ov/ekri apgovTas dXX' dpgojievovs ; also Thuc, I, 28, 1 ; i/eeXevov 
 Koptv0i,ov<; Toi>9 iv ^rnhdfivoy <f>povpov<; re /ecu ol/crfropas dirdyeiVy 
 a>9 ov fierbv avrol<; 'FiiriSafivov, cf. M orris , note. 
 
 It is to be noticed that in both of these instances the participle 
 is preceded by a>? while in all the examples cited above have the sim- 
 ple participle. Perhaps this has something to do with the retention 
 of ov. In the latter case also we have the accusative absolute which, 
 as we have already seen, permits ov after an imperative. 
 
 A few passages still remain to be discussed in which firj is appar- 
 ently due to the force of the imperative, but which cannot well be 
 classed under any of the above heads. So Euripides, Hipp., 306 r 
 
 dXX' ladi fievToc, irpb*; rdS* avdaBecrrepa 
 ylyvov da\dcrcrr)<;, el Oavel, irpohovaa aovs 
 iral&as Trarpaxov fir) fieOe^ovras Boficov, 
 
 The fir] may be due to the preceding imperative, and is so ex- 
 plained by Lodge, Participle in Euripides, p. 20, but the participle 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 23 
 
 seems rather to express result, and Barthold suggests that (xtj may 
 depend on some subordinate idea, as axrre firj iieOe^eiv avTovs. This 
 is at least possible. 
 
 Xen., Cyn., VI, 5 : ttjv 8e (ttoXtjv 6 dp/cvcopb? igiTco fyav iir\ 
 Orjpav fir} exova-av fidpos. The force of the imperative is evident 
 here, and also in Antiphon, in, 8, 10: fjbrjre ovv ^a? et? firj 
 irpo<T7)Kovaa^ crvjjLfyopas ifAf3d\wT€. Cf. also Plato, Laws, vin, 
 833 E ; 847 B. 
 
 This, then, finishes our treatment of firj with the participle in 
 the imperative sentence. We see that the force of the principal 
 verb is very frequently sufficient to produce fit] in the subordinate 
 clause, even when the participle cannot be resolved into another 
 imperative. A few exceptions have been noted, but their number 
 is small in comparison with those that take fjurj, and many of them 
 admit of a satisfactory explanation on other grounds. 
 
 Putting the results of the preceding pages into a tabular form, 
 we get the following table, showing the use of yJ\ with the parti- 
 ciple in imperative sentences : 
 
 Authors. 
 
 Ptc. 
 Agreeing 
 
 with 
 Subject. 
 
 Gen. Abs. 
 
 Ptc. 
 
 Agreeing 
 
 with 
 
 Object. 
 
 Indirect. 
 
 MlSCEl> 
 
 LANEOUS. 
 
 
 Homer 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Lyric Poets, 
 not includ- 
 ing Pindar... 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Aeschylus 
 
 Sophocles 
 
 Euripides 
 
 Tragici 
 
 
 3 
 fi 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 Comici 
 
 3+C2) 1 
 
 l+(2)i 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 4+(4)i 
 5 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 Thucydides 
 
 Xenophon 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 30 
 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 14 
 
 Plato 
 
 4 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 85-K2) 1 
 
 10 
 
 23-h(2) i 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 138+(4y 
 
 1 From the New Comedy. 
 
24 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek, 
 
 2. In Optative Sentences. 
 
 From the imperative we pass next to /a?/ with the participle in 
 wishes, including both the optative and the past tenses of the indic- 
 ative. The dividing line between the optative and the imperative 
 is often very faint. As the imperative may express a command, 
 an exhortation, and an entreaty, so the optative may express vary- 
 ing shades of feeling from that which comes very close to a com- 
 mand to the most humble prayer (cf. p. 9). The negative of this 
 independent optative is fjurj. Hence a participle that represents such 
 an optative or forms an integral part of a clause depending on it 
 must also be negatived by firj. Examples of participles so used are 
 not very numerous, but they are found in all periods of the language 
 from Homer on. They fall most readily into two classes: first 
 where the principal verb is in the optative or indicative and the 
 participle either agrees with the subject, or the object, or some sub- 
 ordinate word, and secondly where the participle forms part of 
 an infinitive clause after verbs of praying and wishing, evyp^ai, 
 @ov\oficu, etc. We take them up in this order. 
 
 The single passage in Homer in which this construction is found 
 is Od., IV, 684 : 
 
 fir) fjuvr)crT€V(ravT€<; finb^ aXkod* 6fiCKrj(TavTe^ 
 vcrrara /cat irvfiara vvv evddhe Seiirvrfcreiav. 
 
 " May they (after their wooing) have no other meeting, but dine 
 here now for the last time." Monro. 1 
 
 There is another passage somewhat similar to this in Od., xi, 
 
 613: 
 
 fir) re^vna-diievo^ fine" a\Xo tl re^vijaairo, 
 
 where, however, fit] does not go with Teyynaaiievos but merely, as 
 a sort of free negative, serves to introduce the whole sentence. 
 
 Hesiod has three examples of this construction,Works and Days, 
 444, 489, 591 ; 444 is as follows : 
 
 roU & dfia TeaaapaKOvraeTr)? alfobs €7rotTO, 
 09 k epyov fxeKerSiV IBelav av\aic iXavvoi, 
 fiVKerc irairTaiv(ov fjL€$ y ofirfKiKa^. 
 
 1 For full discussion of the passage see Ameis-Hentze, Anhang, and Aken, p. 38. 
 
On the Use of M.r) with the Participle in Classical Greek, 25 
 
 The generic sentence that intervenes may also have some influence 
 on the choice of the negative. 
 
 Theognis is the only one of the lyric poets who uses the 
 participle with fir/ in this construction. In 1154 and 1156 he 
 has two examples : 
 
 elt) fioL 7t\ovt€vvtl Kaictov airdrepde fi€pifivi(ov 
 £cbeiv aySXa/3ea)? firfBev e^ovrt kclkov. 
 
 The other example is similar. 
 
 Neither iEschylus nor Sophocles has any instances of the participle 
 so used. Euripides, Alcestis, 536, shows still another position of 
 the participle : 
 
 eW 7}VpOfA€V a y 'A8fJ,7]T€, fMT) \V7T0V/JL€V0V. 
 
 Euripides has seven more examples, Aristophanes one, Lysias one, i 
 
 Demosthenes two, if we include xxiv, 171, 8i a iroWm ctv el/corm I f^^ 4 
 fir/ 0€\r)cravT€<; aKovaac gov Qclvcltov Kara^r)^>io-aLvB > ovtol i) Be 
 *AvBporiav afairjerav, where firj seems to be due to the general 
 optative tone running through the whole sentence. Or, if this 
 explanation is not satisfactory, we may adopt that employed in 
 somewhat similar cases by Spieker in A. J. P., vi, 323, and take 
 fjLf) with the following infinitive. Plato has but one example, 
 Laws, vii, 823 E. 
 
 The complete list of occurrences is as follows : 
 
 Homer : 
 Od. iv, 684. 
 
 Euripides : 
 
 Alcestis, 536. 
 
 Iph. Tau., 518, 
 
 535. 
 
 Ion, 632. 
 
 Or., 1580. 
 
 Frag., 201. 
 
 360, 27, 
 
 399. 
 
 (Diphilus, 73, 9 = 
 Eurip. Iph. Tau., 535). 
 
 
 
 Hesiod : 
 
 Op. et D., 444, 
 489, 
 591. 
 
 Lysias : 
 xxiv, 26. 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 
 
 Aristophanes : 
 Plutus, 892. 
 
 xx, 109, 
 xxiv, 171. 
 
 Theognis : 
 1154, 
 1156. 
 
 Comici Minores: 
 Eubulus, 72.5 = 
 Incert., 155. 
 
 Plato : 
 Laws, vn, 823 E. 
 
26 On the Use of Mtj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 The wish, as is well known, is characteristic of Euripides, and 
 we have a confirmation of it here. Notice the entire absence of 
 the construction from the historians and, indeed, its small use in 
 prose generally ; but, then, prose writers have little opportunity of 
 using this optative, so that their small use of the participle in this 
 construction is not surprising after all. 
 
 In Euripides, Helena, 730, ov seems to be employed contrary to 
 the general rule : 
 
 iya) fiev etrjv, tcel irtyvx o/i©9 Xarpis 
 iv t<h? yevvaloHTiv ^ptO/jbrj/juivo^ 
 8ovXoio~i, tovvo/jl ovk €%(ov ikevdepov 
 rbv vovv Be. 
 
 The participial clause is not felt as an integral part of the wish, 
 hence the negative of fact is retained. 
 
 Under the second head are included those passages in which the 
 participle forms part of a clause depending on verbs of praying 
 and wishing. Again, as in the case of the indirect imperative, 
 we have, strictly speaking, a subdivision of the infinitive construc- 
 tion, but the general optative tone of the sentences warrants us in 
 classifying them under this head. The first instance of the con- 
 struction is in Pindar, Pythia, IV, 297 : evxerai — oIkov Ihelv — 
 IL7)T oav tlvl irr\\ia vropcov, airaOr]<i 8avTO<; 7T/0O? aar&v. 
 
 The next is Soph., O. C, 1509 : 
 
 6eXa> iroXiv re Trjvhe fjurj yjrevo-as Oavelv. 
 
 Other examples are Eurip., Iph. Au., 378 (ftovXoficu) ; Aristoph., 
 Knights, 7H6 (evxofiai) ; Lys., 474 (deXco) ; Thuc, II, 2, 3, 
 ifiovXovTo T7]v UXdraiav — en iv elpijvrj re teal rov iroXeixov firfrrto 
 <j>avepov Kadeo~T<oTo<;, irpoo-KaTaXaftelv. The participial clause is 
 part of the wish and is equivalent to irplv with the infinitive ; ib., 
 Vin, 92, 11 (ovk tfdeXov) : Xen., Cyr., I, 4, 26 (PovXofiai) ; Hell., 
 VI, 2, 39 (PovXoficu) ; Lysias, Vin, 2 (fiovXoifivv av) ; Isoc, VI, 
 8 (eXolfirjv av); Dem., XV, 12 (ffovXofiai) ; Aeschines, II, 7 
 (hiofiai); Plato, Laches, 195 A (eTndvfieiv). 
 
 In tabular form the use of fiij with the participle in wishes 
 appears as follows : 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 27 
 
 Authors. 
 
 Homer 
 
 Hesiod 
 
 Lyric Poets, not including Pindar 
 
 Pindar 
 
 Aeschylus 
 
 Sophocles 
 
 Euripides , 
 
 Aristophanes 
 
 Comici Minores 
 
 Herodotus 
 
 Thucydides 
 
 Xenophon 
 
 Orators 
 
 Plato 
 
 Total 
 
 20 
 
 DIRECT. 
 
 Indirect. 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 
 
 ... 
 
 2 
 
 ... 
 
 
 1 
 
 ... 
 
 "i 
 
 8 
 
 l 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 14 
 
 3. With Verbs of Swearing. 
 
 Closely allied with the use of fir/ in expressions of a wish is its 
 use with verbs of swearing, in which the will of the speaker is 
 also exerted. In a very few passages, four or five in all, we find 
 the participle forming part of an infinitive clause after such verbs. 
 This construction is again but a subdivision of the use of the 
 participle with the infinitive, which will be treated later, but its 
 connection with the indirect optative just discussed is sufficient 
 excuse for placing it here. 
 
 Pindar, Neraea, vii, 71, furnishes the first example : 
 
 VTTOfivva> 
 fir) repfia Trpofia? cucovff Sire yaXKOirapaov opaac 
 Ooav <y\co(raav. 
 
 It is true that there is a variant reading here, i. e., aTrofivvm, 
 which Christ adopts and which would cause firj to be taken with 
 opaac. Bergk and Bury, however, accept the reading given, which, 
 on the whole, seems to be preferable. The other passages in which 
 the construction occurs are Eurip., Iph. Tau., 739 ; Aristoph., Wasps, 
 1281; Antiphon, vi, 16. In Xen., Cyr., vi, 1, 3, firj goes with both 
 participle and verb — aircofioo-ev rj pJr)v firj vtto rov 'Ta-Taairov 
 Treicrdels ravra yiyvcba/cew. In Antiphon, I, 28, there is some 
 doubt as to the correct reading : to hiofxoaacrOai virep 7-779 finrpb? 
 
28 On the Use of Mr] with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 e& elBivai fir) ireirovqKvlav ravra. This is the reading of Blass 
 following Cobet. The MSS., however, have Trenrovqicevat,, which 
 Maetzner retains. 
 
 The rarity of the participle in this construction is doubtless due 
 to the fact that verbs of swearing are not very frequently employed 
 by the classical writers, and hence opportunities for using it are 
 infrequent, 
 
 4. In Final Sentences. 
 
 Having thus far treated the participle with fir] as the representa- 
 tive of the imperative, the wish, and the oath, all of which are 
 capable of being expressed as independent sentences, we turn now 
 to its use in dependent sentences. Here, as we have already 
 seen (p. 10), fir] is the negative when the clause expresses finality, 
 or condition, or depends on an infinitive. A participle that belongs 
 to such sentences must also be negatived by fir). 
 
 Let us first take up the final sentence, including besides the pure 
 final, object clauses after verbs of striving for or effecting, and after 
 verbs of fear. 
 
 The number of participles so used is not very large, and they do 
 not appear before the time of iEschylus. In the majority of cases 
 the final particle is expressed, but in some fir] seems to be due to 
 the general idea of purpose running through the whole sentence. 
 The first example noted is iEschylus, Prometheus, 824 : 
 
 07TO)9 8' av elBfj fir) fidrrjv /cXvovad fiov. 
 
 In Soph., Ajax, 472, the particle is not expressed and fir] must 
 depend on the general idea of purpose : 
 
 Treipd Tt? Irjrrjrea 
 toiglK d<j) r}$ yipovri Br)\axro) irarpX 
 fir) toi <j>v(nv y aarirXayxyos e/c tcelvov 7670)9. 
 
 Examples of object clauses are, Xen., Cyr., viii, 1, 42: ifieXirrjae 
 Q)<; fir) TTTvovre? firjSe dirofivrTOfievoi <f>avepol elev, firjSe fiera- 
 arp€(f)6fi€vot eVt 6eav firfhevos, to? ovBev 6avfid£ovT€<;. The 
 clause with a>? is not felt as an integral part of the sentence, 
 and hence ov is retained. lb., Rep., Lac, vi, 1 ; Isoc., vi, 94 ; 
 ib., XXI, 13 : a><rre fir) irepl tovt elvai Nt/cta 07ra>9 avtcofyavT&v 
 rdWorpia XrjyjrotTO a A, A,* 07ra>5 fir) firjSev d8i/ca>v kclkov tc ireiaoLTO. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 29 
 
 This is the reading of Bekker, Muller and Baiter. Blass reads 
 07tg>5 fj,rj ovBkv /ere. The MSS. have simply 07r&>? fjbrjBev aBt/cwv. 
 The sense seems to require the participle to be negatived, and firjBiv 
 seems to be more natural than ovBev ; and it is easier to see how 
 fir/ could be dropped before firjBev than before ovBev. Other ex- 
 amples of the object clause are : Dem., v, 13 ; vm, 13 ; (x, 41) ; 
 Plato, Laws, VI, 770 D. 
 
 Of /At] with the participle forming part of a clause depending on 
 a verb of fear but one example has been noted, i. e., Plato, Char., 
 166 D : (frofiovfievo? jjlt) ttotc XaSto ol6/j,6vo<; fiev re elBivcu, el&GDS Be 
 fiTj. ov properly follows jay/ after verbs of fear (cf. Thuc, VII, 25, 7 : 
 Beivov — fir) ov irpoiBoav tis, coairep irepl epp,a irepifiakr) rrjv vavv, 
 where ov belongs only to the participle), but (*q is sometimes found, 1 
 and this passage seems to be an instance of this construction. 
 
 In (Theages, 122 C) the participle forms part of a cautious 
 assertion, the verb not being expressed. Cf. Antiphon, v, 75. 
 The list of passages in which the participle forms part of a final 
 clause is as follows : 
 
 Aeschylus : 
 Pro., 824. 
 
 Xenophon : 
 
 Anab., vn, 2, 33. 
 
 Cyr., iv, 6, 11. 
 
 vm, 1, 42. 
 
 Rep. Lac, vi, 1. 
 
 Cyn. x, 1. 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 v, 13. 
 vin, 13. 
 
 Sophocles : 
 Ajax, 472. 
 0. R, 1389. 
 
 (x, 41). 
 (xvii, 2). 
 xix, 38. 
 xx, 136. 
 
 0. C, 1279. 
 
 Isocrates : 
 
 vi, 94. 
 
 xvn, 47. 
 
 xxi, 13. 
 
 xxiv, 28. 
 (LXI, 10). 
 
 
 
 Herodotus : 
 iv, 139. 
 ix, 45. 
 
 Plato : 
 Alcib., i, 122 A. 
 
 
 Isaeus : 
 
 v, 5. 
 
 vin, 4. 
 
 (Theages, 122 C.) 
 
 Thucydides : 
 IV, 67, 4. 
 
 Char., 166 D. 
 Euthyd , 304 A. 
 Laws, vi, 770 D. 
 
 As in the preceding classes, so in this, ov is occasionally found 
 where we should expect firj y but it can generally be explained on 
 the principle of adhaerescence. So Soph., Electra, 584 : 
 
 elaopa fjurj o-terjyfnv ovtc ovaav tlOws. 
 
 1 Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, \ 306. 
 
30 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 Also Eurip., Phoe., 1319 : 
 
 07TG>9 
 
 \ovo~r) irpodrjTaL T ovtcer ovra iralK ifiov. 
 
 ov is regular when speaking of the dead. Hdt. i, 99 : o/cw? av 
 fir) 6p5)VTe<$ oi Ofir/Xifces, ovt€<; — olfcir)*; ov <j>\avpoTepa<; ov8e e? 
 avSpayadinv XetTrofievoc, Xvireoiaro. 
 
 ov <f)\avpoTepa<; can be explained by adhaerescence, then ovSe 
 follows as a matter of course. Thuc, viii, 45, 2 : ha clvtwv fir) ol 
 vavrac — Ta9 vavs airoXeiTrcoo'LV ovx v7ro\nr6vT€<; rbv jxiaOov. The 
 MSS. vary in regard to ou% — some omitting it, others retaining it, 
 and still others having fir] on the margin. The majority of editors 
 retain ovx — wn i°h ma y be explained on the ground of the causal 
 nature of the participle and its distance from fir) and ha. Dem. 
 xxix, 46 (cited by Aken, p. 229), seems to be a real exception : 
 Xv ef €lk6to<; ovBev 7rpoo~f)Kov r)fiiv <f>avf}. The other passage cited 
 by Aken, i. e., Dem. Proem., v, is easily explained as above. It 
 reads : ha — 8c avrov, dWa fir) 8i vfias ovk iOeXovra? cucoveiv 
 tovto ireirovOkvai Bofcf). 
 
 5. In Conditional Clauses with el and the finite 
 Verb expressed. 
 
 Next after the final sentence we take up the use of fir} with the 
 participle in the conditional proposition. There are two broad 
 divisions — First, where the conditional particle and the finite 
 verb are expressed, the participle serving to introduce some parallel 
 or subordinate idea, and secondly, where the participle itself forms 
 the protasis of a conditional proposition. The latter is much the 
 larger class and constitutes the main development of fir) with the 
 participle. But at present we are only treating those cases of the 
 participle in which the principal verb is expressed, so that we must 
 now confine ourselves to the former class. 
 
 About two hundred and seventy-nine instances of this con- 
 struction have been noted. The first example is in the Odyessy, 
 but it does not occur again until Sophocles, after whom, however, 
 it is found very frequently in all departments of the language. 
 As the conditional sentence belongs largely to argumentative dis- 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 31 
 
 course, so our construction abounds in Xenophon's Memorabilia, 
 the orators, and some of the dialogues of Plato. 
 
 The participle appears in a variety of forms, sometimes in the 
 nominative agreeing with the subject of the principal verb, some- 
 times as genitive absolute, sometimes as object of the verb. Aken, 
 true to his theory that the principal verb does not influence the 
 participle, is often put to great straits to explain the negative. So 
 in respect to Xen., Mem., in, 5, 23, idv tl ato-dy aavrbv fir) elBora, 
 he says : " nicht wegen idv, sondern weil der ace. c. ptc. einem ace. 
 c. inf. gleich steht ; ist es moglich gewahlt aber weil der sinn ist 
 idv ti fir) elBrj? ical alo-6r)," and in respect to Dem. xxxi, 5, he 
 says : H el <f>aveir) fir) Xeyayv = el fir) \eyoi." 
 
 As this class presents but few difficulties, after citing some 
 examples by way of illustration, we shall simply give the com- 
 plete list of occurrences in order to show its range. 
 
 The first example noted is in Odyssey, I, 289, which is 
 repeated in n, 220 : 
 
 el Be tee TeOvrjwTo? aicover}?, firjB? en iovTO?. 
 
 The next example is Soph., Ajax, 1317 : 
 
 aval; ^OBvaaev, icaipbv t&B* iXrjXvdcbs, 
 el firj ^vvatycov, dWa avWvacov irdpei. 
 
 The participles here express purpose, and fir) might possibly be 
 due to this cause, but the other explanation is simpler and better. 
 Notice again Trach., 411 : 
 
 Ar. irolav d%iol<; Bovvai Bl/crjv, 
 
 r)v evpeOrjs e? rrjvSe fir) Sl/caio? ojv ; 
 AI. 7tw? fir) BiKaios ; 
 
 Here fir) Blicaios are to be taken together, as the answer shows, 
 but the example well illustrates the force of the preceding condi- 
 tion. Notice the following passages also, in which fir) seems to 
 depend on the condition, although such dependence in all the cases 
 is not really clear. Eurip., Androm., 845 : 
 
 a\V el (T d<f>€Lr)v fir) (j>povov(rav, ft)? Odvoi? ; 
 
32 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek, 
 
 Troades, 874 : 
 
 KTdvelv ifjioi viv eSocrav, elre fir) icravcov 
 deXoifi ayecrOai irdXiv e? 'Apyeicov %66va. 
 
 Xen., Hell., i, 7, 19 : crvfiftovXevco B' vfiiv, ev oh ovk ecrriv itja- 
 TrarrjOrjvai itfia?, tcaX rov<; aSttcovvTa? et'SoVe? KoXdcrecrOe f) av 
 fiovXrjcrde hlicr) — el fir) rrXeov dXXa kclv filav rjfiepav Sovres avroi? 
 — diroXoyr]cracrdai y fir) aXXoi? iricrrevovres r) vfiiv avrois. 
 
 In Hdt., vii, 10 f, the participle seems to be used instead of 
 the finite verb : ev 8e rco eiria^elv evecrri ay add, el fir) irapavriKa 
 Bo/ceovra elvai, dXX' dva xpovov egevpoi ri<; av. Cf. Stein's note. 
 
 In pseudo-Lysias, XX, 20, the position of the negative deserves 
 notice : eX ri$ rcov evOdhe fir) to, apicrra Xeycov irelQei vfias. fir] 
 may be taken with Xeycov or with to, apicrra = ra fir) apicrra, 
 Cf. §§ 5 and 10, where the same construction occurs and where fir] 
 undoubtedly depends on the principal verb. But see Dem. (xxvi, 
 21) : c!>9 rrpdrrovra ical Xeyovra fir) ra apicrra to5 8r]fico — irdXiv 
 i/coXdcrare, where there seems to be no other explanation than ra 
 fir) apicrra. The whole phrase is a legal formula, and occurs in 
 the speech of Hypereides, Pro Euxenippo, several times, and in 
 every instance fir] depends on the general idea of the sentence. 
 Cf. Col. XVIII : 6 Be pr]rcop cbv (alriav e%6^) Xeyeiv fir) ra apicrra 
 rco Srffico ; Col. XX : ire pi rod Xeyeiv fir) ra apicrra to5 8r]ficp ; 
 Col. XXXIX : elcrayyeXlav eypayfra — pr]ropa ovra Xeyeiv fir) ra 
 apicrra rco Brjficp ; but in Col. XL we have raft elirev ov ra apicrra 
 to5 8r)fiG). In view of these examples, therefore, it seems better 
 in the passage from Lysias to take fir] with Xeycov as conditional, 
 rather than with ra apicrra as generic. 
 
 The complete list of the passages in which fir] with the parti- 
 ciple forming part of a conditional proposition occurs is as follows : 
 
 Homer : 
 
 Euripides : 
 
 Od., i, 289. 
 
 Androm., 845 
 
 
 Ion, 1301. 
 
 
 Med., 242. 
 
 Sophocles : 
 
 Or., 1174, 
 
 Ajax, 1317. 
 
 1198. 
 
 0. C, 976. 
 
 Tro., 874. 
 
 Trach., 411. 
 
 Frag., 313. 
 
 Aristophanes : 
 
 Clouds, 415. 
 
 Wasps, 1119. 
 
 Lys., 1112. 
 
 Plutus, 910. 
 
OF 
 
 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 33 
 
 Comici Minores : 
 
 Antiphon : 
 
 n,l. 
 
 Eupolis, 357, 4. 
 
 1,10. 
 
 vn, 2. 
 
 Anaxandrides, 52, 7. 
 
 n, 8, 7. 
 
 ix, 7. 
 
 / Men., 325, 15. \ 
 VEuphro, 10, 14./ 
 
 in. B, 5. 
 
 
 11 ) *^> v j 
 
 7, 9, 10, 
 
 5,4. 
 iv, 5, 3. 
 v, 32. 
 
 Isaeus : 
 
 Herodotus : 
 
 in, 63, 
 64. 
 
 ii, 13. 
 
 vi, 19. 
 
 vi, 52. 
 
 in, 69. 
 iv, 157. 
 
 
 vn, 19. 
 
 
 VIII, 11, 
 
 vn, 10 c, 
 
 Andocides : 
 
 31. 
 
 50, 
 
 n, 1, 
 
 4, 
 
 ix, 27. 
 
 139. 
 
 x, 23. 
 
 vin, 94. 
 
 xi, 19 (bis). 
 
 ix, 51. 
 
 
 38. 
 
 
 Lysias : 
 i,38. 
 
 Thucydides : 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 
 in, 14, 1. 
 46,2. 
 
 iv, 18, 5, 
 73,3, 
 85, 2. 
 
 vi, 23, 1, 
 38,4, 
 80,2. 
 
 vn, 70, 8, 
 78,1. 
 
 in, 26. 
 ix, 10. 
 xm, 75. 
 xiv, 13, 
 22. 
 xix, 37. 
 (xx, 20). 
 xxv, 4. 
 xxvii, 8. 
 xxxi, 28. 
 
 ii, 23 (bis), 
 iv, 38. 
 (vn, 45.) 
 vni, 18. 
 ix, 14. 
 (xi, 19.) 
 xvn, 65, 220. 
 xviii, 201. 
 xix, 8, 214, 
 233, 239, 
 
 
 
 267. 
 
 Xenophon : 
 
 
 xx, 24, 43, 
 
 Anab., iv, 1, 14. 
 
 Isocrates : 
 
 46, 113, 
 
 vn, 6, 27. 
 
 ft 17,) 
 V 24./ 
 
 137, 139. 
 
 Cyr., i, 6, 22. 
 
 xxi, 51, 100, 
 
 v, 4, 48, 
 
 in,ll. 
 
 128, 134. 
 
 5,13. 
 
 iv, 14. 
 
 186, 206. 
 
 vn, 1, 42. 
 
 v,24, 
 
 xxti, 18, 36, 
 
 viii, 1, 32. 
 
 29, 
 
 62. 
 
 Hell., i, 7, 19. 
 
 45, 
 
 xxin, 42, 57, 
 
 Mem., i, 2, 29, 
 
 81, 
 
 68, 77, 
 
 7,2, 
 
 105. 
 
 96, 192, 
 
 3. 
 
 viii, 17. 
 
 218. 
 
 ii, 6, 4, 
 
 xi, 7, 
 
 xxiv, 35, 47, 
 
 38. 
 
 50. 
 
 95. 
 
 hi, 1, 2, 
 
 xn, 23, 
 
 xxv, 38, 99. 
 
 9, 
 
 24, 
 
 xxvn, 69. 
 
 5,23. 
 
 269. 
 
 xxx, 23. 
 
 iv, 1, 5, 
 
 xiv, 61. 
 
 xxxi, 5. 
 
 (five times) 
 
 xv, 42, 
 
 xxxvi, 2, 
 
 2,17, 
 
 90, 
 
 32. 
 
 3,12, 
 
 129. 
 
 xx xviii, 2. 
 
 6,13. 
 
 xvi, 48, 
 
 (xl, 61.) 
 
 Oec, ii, 15 (bis). 
 
 50. 
 
 (xiivn, 1.) 
 (xlviii, 2.) 
 
 m, 2, 
 
 XVII, 1. 
 
 11. 
 
 xviii, 65. 
 
 (l, 67.) 
 
 De Vec, v, 9, 
 
 xix, 32. 
 
 (LII, 2.) 
 
 13. 
 
 Epis., i, 9. 
 
 liv, 43. 
 
 r y 
 
 jp^** 
 
 
 tat 
 
34 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 
 Theaet, 152 D, 
 
 Ion, 542 A. 
 
 l*V, 33. 
 
 162 A, 
 
 Menex, 247 A. 
 
 LVII. 3, 
 
 165 A, - 
 
 Cleitophon, 408 E. 
 
 44. 
 
 181 B. 
 
 Rep, ii, 368 D, 
 
 (lviii, 52.) 
 Proem., vi, 1. 
 
 Politicus, 296 B, 
 
 370 E. 
 
 A 
 
 in, 393 D. 
 
 XXI 1. 
 
 300 A. 
 
 iv, 429 E. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Par, 136 C, 
 
 v, 461 B, 
 
 
 164 D, 
 
 478 D. 
 
 
 165 E. 
 
 vi, 492 A. 
 
 
 Aeschines : 
 
 Philebus, 56 E. 
 
 493 B, 
 
 Sym, 178 D. 
 
 499 E. 
 
 i, 85 (bis.) 
 
 Phaedrus, 259 A. 
 
 ix, 579 C. 
 
 131. 
 
 269 B. 
 
 Laws, i, 638 C, 
 
 ii, 5, 88, 
 
 (Alcib, ii, 142 D.) 
 
 ii, 653 B, 
 
 163. 
 
 /Hipp, 226 E,\ 
 V 231 B./ . 
 Char, 175 E. 
 
 658 A, 
 
 
 660 a 
 
 
 663 D. 
 
 Hypereides : 
 
 Laches, 200 E. 
 
 iv, 705 E. 
 
 Pro Eux. 
 
 Euthyd, 287 A. 
 
 vi, 762 A, 
 
 Col. xxxiii, = \ 21. 
 
 Gorgias, 460 A, 
 
 C. 
 
 
 461 B, 
 466 E, 
 
 vin, 841 E, 
 
 844 C, 
 
 
 Deinarchus : 
 
 482 C, 
 486 B, 
 
 ■p 
 
 845 A*. C. 
 
 i, 112. 
 
 488 A, 
 
 ix, 862 A, 
 
 
 514 D, 
 
 516 A, 
 
 872 C, 
 
 
 874 C. 
 
 Plato: 
 
 522 D. 
 
 xi, 921 A, 
 
 Euthyphro, 15 B. 
 
 Meno, 71 D, 
 
 923 D, 
 
 Apol., 41 E. 
 
 85 E, 
 
 924 B, 
 
 Phaedo, 62 C, 
 
 97 B (bis). 
 
 936 D. 
 
 80 E. 
 
 Hip. Maior, 292 D. 
 
 xii, 943 A, 
 
 Crat, 439 E. 
 
 " Min., 372 A. 
 
 D. 
 
 We see then from this list that the frequency with which this 
 construction is used depends largely on the nature of the discourse. 
 The dramatists and the historians use it comparatively rarely, 
 while it abounds in the orators and Plato. But these latter 
 writers, from the nature of their writings, have many more oppor- 
 tunities to use the hypothetical proposition, and consequently the 
 participle is more frequently found. In the same author likewise 
 differences are noted. For instance, the Protagoras of Plato does 
 not have any examples of this use of the participle, while the 
 Gorgias has nine. 
 
 Here, too, as in the constructions previously treated, ov is 
 occasionally found, but the instances are very rare in comparison 
 to those in which fir} is used. The retention of ov is frequently 
 due to adhaerescence. E. g., Eurip., Iph. Au., 995 : 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 35 
 
 el B* ov irapovans ravra rev^ofiai aedev, 
 fievero) tear olkovs. 
 
 Cf. also Dem., xxiv, 48 ; xxix, 38. 
 
 In other cases the negative of fact is retained or the sentence is 
 really causal in its nature. Cf. Aristoph., Wasps, 466 : 
 
 el 0~V J€ 
 T&v vo/jlcdv rj/JLas anrelpyeis 
 ovre rev eycov Trpofyaaiv 
 ovre Xoyov evrpaireXov. 
 
 Cf. also Thuc, i, 124, 1 ; in, 66, 2 ; Isoc., xn, 120 ; Plato, Sym., 
 185 B (bracketed by Hug). 
 
 Sometimes ov and /jltj are used in consecutive clauses, without 
 any apparent difference in feeling. Cf. Dem., xxn, 36 : ro3 yap 
 eariv ovet,8o$, el o-lcottoovto^ avrov teal fiwSev ypdcfrovTO?, Ictcd? 8' 
 ov8e ra 7roXV els to fiovXevrrfpiov elcnovros, /jltj Xdfioi rj ftovXrj 
 rov o-re<bavov. 
 
 W9 with the participle, especially in the genitive absolute, is 
 sometimes found with ov, although forming part of a conditional 
 sentence. The retention of ov may be due to the oratio obliqua 
 force of this construction (see p. 19). Examples are Dem., 
 XVIII, 207 : el yap, o>9 ov ra fieXriaT e/xov iroXiTevaafievov, tovBI 
 KaTa-tyr)(j>LeZo~de. Lysias, xiv, 31 ; Plato, Sym., 183 D. 
 
 6. In the Generic Relative Sentence. 
 
 A relative sentence frequently implies a condition or a generic 
 idea. The negative of this clause is y*) according to the principle 
 already laid down (pp. 9 f.). A participle that forms an inti- 
 mate part of such a clause is also negatived by fiy. It is to this 
 class that we now turn our attention under the general head of firj 
 with the participle in the generic relative sentence. There are 
 about one hundred and twenty-nine participles so used. The 
 construction does not occur before Theognis. For neither Homer, 
 nor Hesiod, nor Pindar uses it, although both Homer and Pindar 
 have examples of the generic relative with pjf, Cf. Homer, II., 
 II, 302 ; Pindar, Pyth., I, 13 ; ix, 94. 
 
36 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 The first example in which a participle appears is Theognis, 734 : 
 
 Scttis aOeipr)? Teyya^oiTO Oecov fjbrjBev OTn^ofievo?. 
 -5£schylus has but a single example, Septem, 3 : 
 
 oort? <f>v\d<r<T€i 
 
 . fi\e<f>apa fir) icoifiwv vttvg). 
 
 Sophocles is also sparing in its use, having but four instances. 
 Euripides, however, uses it more freely, if we include phrases like 
 ore or a fir) XP € ™ V > which occur in Bacchae, 515, 912 ; Hec, 282 ; 
 Electra, 223; Frag., 193, 417. 
 
 Aristophanes has but two examples. Herodotus but one. Thu- 
 cydides and Xenophon, in his historical writings, use it more freely. 
 It occurs most frequently in the philosophical works of Xenophon, 
 in the later orators, and Plato. 
 
 The following table shows the range and frequency of the con- 
 struction. 
 
 Theognis : 
 734, 
 745. 
 
 Tragici Min.: 
 Critias, 4. 
 
 ii, 44, 2. 
 
 vn, 74, 3. 
 
 92,6. 
 
 
 Aristophanes : 
 Clouds, 619. 
 Frogs, 358. 
 
 
 Aeschylus : 
 Septem, 3. 
 
 Xenophon : 
 
 Anab., iv, 2, 17. 
 
 Cyr., in, 3, 31. 
 
 iv, 5, 21. 
 
 Mem., i, 2, 44. 
 
 (thrice) 
 
 2,45. 
 
 (thrice) 
 
 7,5. 
 
 TT 3 7 
 
 Sophocles : 
 Ajax, 1094. 
 O. R, 875. 
 O. C, 1186. 
 Trach., 384. 
 
 Comici Min.: 
 
 Antiphanes, 244. 
 
 Alexis, 269, 2. 
 
 |— Men., 628, ""1 
 
 640. 
 
 Philemon, 4, 7, 
 
 94,4. 
 
 Demoxenus, 2, 13. 
 
 Euripides : 
 Bacchae, 515, 
 912 
 
 11, o, /. 
 
 Hell., ii, 3, 12. 
 
 33. 
 
 v, 3, 11. 
 
 Hec, 282. 
 Elec, 223. 
 Tro., 1166. 
 Frag., 193, 
 417, 
 
 Herodotus : 
 vn, 132. 
 vni, 27. 
 
 Oec, i, 16. 
 
 Hiero, vn, 9. 
 
 (Rep. Ath., ii, 20) 
 
 De Vect., n, 2. 
 
 Cyn., ii, 21. 
 
 501, 
 
 784, 
 
 910, 
 
 1049. 
 
 Thucydides : 
 I, 40, 2. 
 71,1. 
 
 
 Andocides : 
 (rv„ 37.) 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek, 37 
 
 Lysias : 
 in, 41. 
 xxv, 22. 
 xxvr, 10. 
 
 xxvin, 21. 
 xxxi, 12. 
 xlv, 68. 
 /l, 36A 
 
 v 44.; 
 
 LVIII, 51. 
 
 (lix, 103.) 
 Proem., i, 3. 
 
 Euthyd., 277 E, 
 306 A. 
 Gorgias, 485 D. 
 Meno, 86 B, 
 99 C, 
 D. 
 Hip. Mai., 290 C. 
 302 C. 
 Rep., hi, 379 D, 
 vn, 533 C, 
 vni, 549 D, 
 (bis) 
 ix, 571 E, 
 572 A, 
 x, 615 E. 
 Tim., 84 B. 
 Laws, hi, 687 E. 
 v, 733 B, 
 735 E. 
 
 Isocrates : 
 
 v, 26. 
 
 29. 
 
 vi, 61. 
 vni, 22. 
 139. 
 ix, 6. 
 xni, 7. 
 xv, 143. 
 xvin, 43. 
 xix, 33. 
 
 Aeschines : 
 hi, 226. 
 
 Plato : 
 Phsedo, 65C.E, 
 
 82 D. 
 Theaet., 155 B, 
 175 E. 
 Soph., 219 B, 
 230 B, 
 238 B, 
 C. 
 Polit., 311 C. 
 Philebus, 14 B, 
 Phsedrus, 232 D. 
 (Alcib., ii, 147 C.) 
 (Hipp., 231 A.) 
 Laches, 191 A, 
 193 C. 
 Lysis, 213 C. 
 
 Isseus : 
 in, 35, 
 iv, 19. 
 xi, 29. 
 
 vi, 753 C. 
 
 vni, 829 C, 
 
 847 C. 
 
 ix, 855 E, 
 873 C, 
 876 B, 
 
 880 E, 
 
 881 B. 
 x, 885 A, 
 
 908 B. 
 xi, 913 C, 
 
 924 C, 
 
 925 C, 
 
 926 A. 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 
 ix, 65. 
 
 xix, 161. 
 
 xx, 113. 
 
 xxi, 109. 
 
 xxn, 71. 
 
 Some few passages of special interest or importance deserve a 
 few words of comment. So the construction in Thuc, vii, 92, 6 : 
 ocroL? fir) ftovkofievoi? ravra r)v. The only other instance of this 
 use of the participle with fir] is found in Xen., Cyr., iv, 5, 21 : 
 ore* vfjLayv fir] axdofiivqy etrj. In Thuc, n, 3, .2, ov is used because 
 a definite body is referred to : rq> TrXrjdet ov fiovXofievq) r)v. 
 
 Pseudo-Andocides, rv, 37, has been included in the above list, 
 although Aken thinks the fir] inexplicable. The passage reads : 
 ovkovv tou9 toiovtovs Slkcuov iicftaWeLV, ov<; woWd/cis i\ey- 
 %ovre<; €vpiar/c€T€ firjSev d&i/covvras, d\\d tovs fir) Oekovras /ere. 
 tovs fir) Oekovra? is plainly generic, and I can see no objection to 
 explaining o{/? — firjSev aBc/covvras in the same way. 
 
 Isaeus, XI, 29, deserves notice : ovtc dv irore ravr iiroirfaav ovS' 
 lire^elpriaav, elSore? ore, or iv rf} d^yio-rsia fir) ovre<; el^ov ri tcov 
 4 
 
38 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 firj irpoarjtcovreov, tovt av virb rcov eyyvrara yevovs paBico<; a<j>y- 
 peOrjaav. There seems to be no other explanation of /nrj with 6We? 
 than to make the sentence generic. It is true the MSS. have oirore, 
 instead of ore, ore, but this does not alter the construction, ore or 
 oirore with the indicative in a generic sentence is not common, but 
 it is found, as the following examples show : Dem., xx, 24 : ore 
 Be rovro fir) iroiovaiv — ib., XXII, 71 : oirore — /jltj irpoaypayjrdfjuevof; 
 — fyaivei, and these are sufficient to warrant the use of fir/ with 
 the participle above. 1 
 
 ov is also occasionally found in these conditional relative sentences 
 where we should expect /iq to be used. Cf. iEschylus, Agam., 13: 
 
 evr av Be vvicriifKayKrov evBpoabv r' eyw 
 evvrjv oveipocs ov/c einaKoirov/jLevrjv. 
 
 Adhaerescence would suffice to explain ov here. Eurip. Sup., 425 : 
 
 orav irovr\po<$ d^icofi avrjp e^rj 
 
 yXcoaarj Karaayoiv BrjfMOv, ovBev gov rb irpiv. 
 
 The participial clause is here separated from the principal sentence. 
 
 Plato, Theaet., 195 C: orav avco Kara) rovs \6yov$ eX/cy re? 
 virb vG)6eias ov Bvvdfievo? ireiaOr\vai. Adhaerescence again. 
 
 Generally we have oaoi, oaa fxr/, but occasionally ov is found as in 
 Thuc, I, 7 : oo-oi ovres ov daXdaaiot Karoo ookovv. Plato, Phaedo, 
 104 B ; Aristoph., Plutus, 754-5. 
 
 o>5 again shows its tendency to take ov in spite of the force of 
 the principal sentence in Isoc, vi, 61 : orav op&fiev r)fia<; /lev 
 avrovs ovrcos evr\voyora<; ras av/jL(j)opd<;, o>9 ovBeves aXXoi ircoirore 
 — rov<; Be firjBe t<z<? evrv^ta^ <j>epecv Bwafxevovs. 
 
 7. Elliptical Expressions — el fir), oaov, oaa /jltj with the Participle. 
 
 Closely connected with the last two classes are certain elliptical 
 expressions with el firj and oaov or oaa fir/, in which the participle 
 
 1 Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, \ 535 ; Kriiger, § 67, 4, 2. Other examples 
 are Plato, Phaedo, 84 E: 8V« 76 /iTj8' upas Zvvafiai ireleeiv — Rep., 1, 354 C: 6t6tc 
 ykp rb Slicaiov p)) o!5a, and perhaps Lysias, xxvi, 10, although here the sentence 
 seems to be more causal than generic, which would not take yA\ : vvv 56, ire yb\ 
 u6vov lirirtvKws nrjSk &tfiou\tvKu>s — (paiutTat. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 39 
 
 is occasionally used. At first the principal verb was doubtless 
 supplied from the context, and we had an ordinary conditional or 
 generic relative sentence. But as time went on the ellipsis became 
 less apparent, and el fir/ and oaov fir/ became mere phrases with 
 the meaning "except," and were used to limit a previous asser- 
 tion. And so we find them used, not only with the participle, 
 but also with nouns and adjectives. This is the explanation 
 usually adopted for this construction. For a different one see 
 Madvig, Syntax, p. 206, who takes fjutj with the participle as a 
 negative condition, the el being added to strengthen the con- 
 ditional force. The passages in which the participle is employed 
 are as follows, Aeschylus, Agam., 1139 : 
 
 7tol Br) fie Sevpo tt]v raXatvav rjyayes ; 
 ovBev 7tot el /jltj %vv6avov/jLevr)v. 
 
 We could supply here e/jue Bevpo r/yayes, but it is not necessary. 
 Eurip., Medea, 369 : 
 
 So/cet? yap av fie rovBe dwirevaai Trore, 
 el fir/ n /cepSalvovaav rj Texvcofievrjv ; 
 
 Also (Rhesus, 118); Aristoph., Clouds, 229; Fragment, 217; 
 Thuc, v, 47, 5; VII, 38, 1 ; Xen., Cyr., II, 2, 11; Dem., xxiv, 
 46 ; Plato, Crito, 52 B, in which both on firj and el /jurj are found, 
 although the clause with on firj is bracketed by Wohlrab. 
 
 Hdt., in, 72, shows the original construction in which the verb 
 had to be supplied : c^uXa/ca? yap 8rj BieaTecbaa? olBd? kov real 
 avros, el /jlt) ISoov, a\V cucovaa?. 
 
 With oaov or ova p,r) the sense is less clearly " except," and the 
 
 participle seems to have more of a conditional force. Cf. Soph., 
 
 O.K., 348: 
 
 XaOi yap Sofcwv ifAol 
 
 koX %v/jL<f>VTevo~ai rovpyov elpydadac 6\ oaov 
 
 fir) %ep<rl Kalvcov. 
 
 i. e., "as far as you were able to do it without killing him with 
 your own hands." Cf. Trach., 1214 : 
 
 oaov y av avrbs /jlt) iron^avoav ^epotv. 
 
40 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 Lycurgus, § 94 : eh tovtov? firj ore dfiaprelv a\X.' ore fir) evepye- 
 tovvto,? rbv avrcov /3lov KaravakSso-ai fiiyiarov daeftrjfid ecrnv. 
 For oaa fir}, cf. Thuc, I, 111, 1 : rr}? fiev 7775 i/epdrovv oaa fir) 
 7rpoiovT€<; tto\v e'/c TOiv ottXcov. lb., IV, 16, 1. 
 
 In the sense of " almost," " all but," oaov ov is used, and the 
 union is so close that ov is retained even in a sentence that demands 
 nr). Cf. Thuc, I, 36, 1 : orav e<? rbv fieXkovra koX oarov ov nra — 
 povra nroXefiov — ivBoid^r). 
 
 8. With the Infinitive. 
 
 The infinitive regularly takes fir) except after verbs of saying 
 and thinking, and even after these when they have an asseverative 
 force, as we shall see below. A participle depending on such an 
 infinitive is also generally negatived by fir). It is to this use of 
 jjlt) with the participle that we now direct our attention. Three 
 subordinate classes that belong under this head have already been 
 treated, i. e., the indirect imperative (p. 22) after such verbs as 
 wapaivelv, iceKeveiv, the indirect optative after ev^ec-dai, ftovXe- 
 adai (p. 26), and finally after verbs of swearing (p. 27). We have 
 now to consider the use of the participle in connection with a 
 more general use of the infinitive. The most common form in 
 which it appears is with expressions denoting necessity, Bet, yjpr), 
 dvdytcr), dvayicaiov eari, <j>r)fil Belv (another indirect form of the 
 imperative), and the verbals in -reov, -reo<;. Out of a total of 
 two hundred and seventeen examples of firj with the participle in 
 infinitive clauses, seventy-four belong to this class. The articular 
 infinitive, the infinitive after ware, the infinitive as a substantival 
 amplification of a pronominal idea, e. g., tovto ian cro(f)6v, o~a>£et>v to 
 o-(bfia fir/ i/c rv\r)<; aypfito-fievov, and various minor categories make 
 up the rest. 
 
 Homer and the early lyric poets do not make any use of this 
 construction. The first example is found in Theognis, 280 : et/co? 
 rbv kclkov av&pa tfa/cw? ra hlicaia vofii^eiv, finhefiiav KaroTnO* 
 d^ofievov vefieaiv, where the participle is causal, but takes fir) owing 
 to the force of the infinitive. 
 
 Pindar has two possible instances, although they are both 
 explained otherwise by some scholars. The first is Nemea, v, 
 

 On the Use of Mij with the Participle in Classical Greek. 41 
 
 14 : alBeofiai fieya elirelv ev Bi/ca re fir] KeKivBvvevfievov. Here 
 Rumpel, Lex. Pind., ascribes fir] to the force of the infinitive, and 
 this seems to be a possible explanation. Bury, however, The 
 Nemean Odes of Pindar, takes fir] with iv BUa and makes it sub- 
 jective — " peradventure not justly risked." The position of the 
 negative is against this explanation, although Boeckh thinks it 
 possible. 
 
 The other passage is Nemea, VIU, 4: dyairara Be /caipov 
 fir) irXavaOevra epyov e/caarov rcav apewvcov epcorcov iiriKparelv 
 BvvacrOcu. Here Rumpel explains fir] as being due to the con- 
 ditional force of the participle. It seems to me, however, that the 
 conditional force is very faint and that the participle is simply 
 descriptive = " without wandering." In this event fir] depends on 
 the infinitive. 
 
 It may be well to notice here that these two classes, conditional 
 and infinitive, continually cross each other, and it is often hard to 
 tell which exerts the greater influence. Take for instance an ex- 
 ample like Eurip., Hecuba, 743 : 
 
 ovroi 7re(f)v/ca fidvri?, axrre fir) /cXvav 
 itJMTTopfjcrai awv 6Bbv ftovXevfidrcov. 
 
 Here, by comparison with Dem., in, 21, and Isaeus, xn, 3, where 
 the same construction occurs, I prefer to class the participle as con- 
 ditional, but in all of them fir] might depend on the force of the 
 infinitive. One is obliged to follow his own feeling in such cases, 
 and no two persons would be likely to make exactly the same 
 classification. 
 
 These passages, as well as those from Pindar, show the diffi- 
 culties we encounter under this head. Other doubtful passages 
 are : Eurip., Medea, 813 : 
 
 <to\ Be (Tvyyvcofir) Xeyetv 
 rdB" 1 early fir) rrda^ovaav a>9 eycb /ca/cw9. 
 
 There seems to be no other explanation of fir] here than to make it 
 depend on the infinitive. 1 
 
 Thuc, II, 83, 5 : erdgavro kvkXov r&v ve&v o>? fieyicrrov olol 
 T* r)<rav (sc. rroirfaaC) fir) BiB6vre<$ BieiarXovv — ib., Ill, 16, 1 : 
 
 1 Cf. Jebb to Soph. Ajax, 1007. Aken, p. 228, would prefer ov. 
 
42 On the Use of M?/ with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 SyXaxrcu fiovXofievoi on ovk 6p0(o$ iyvay/cao-w, dXX } oloi re etai 
 
 flT) KtVOVVT€$ TO €7Tt AeO-/3(p VCLVTIKOV Kdl TO CLITO IleX. ilTlbv 
 
 paStco? afivvecrdcu — ib., VIII, 44, 1 : rjyov/juevoi — SwcltoI eo-eadcu 
 Ttacracfrepvr) firj aiTOvvTes xprjfiaTCi, Tpi<f)€(,v Ta<; vav$. 
 
 I believe that in all of these cases p,rj is due to the fact that the 
 participles form part of the infinitive clause. It is true that in 
 the first case the participle could be explained as conditional, but 
 scarcely in the others. Cf. Dem., iv, 15, and Isoc, vin, 12, which 
 are thus explained by Rehdantz. 
 
 Notice also Lysias, xxrv, 18 : toI$ p,ev lo"%vpoi<; iy^copet firjBev 
 avTol? 7rdcrxovo-Lv — vBpi&w, where the participle, though attracted 
 into the case of the subject, really belongs to the infinitive. Simi- 
 lar examples are Isoc., in, 64 ; XV, 225, 289. 
 
 In Plato, Rep., in, 389 C, the participle seems to be used instead 
 of the infinitive : irphs — tov$ toiovtovs ap^ovTa^ IBmottj yfrev- 
 aao-Oai tclvtov koli fiel^ov d/judpTrj/ia <f>r)o-ofiev r) KafjuvovTi 7rpo? 
 laTphv r) daKOvvTL TTpo? 7rac8oTpLJ3r}v — fjurj TaXrjOrj Xeyecv, rf 7rpo? 
 Kvfiepvr)TT)v — fjurj tcl ovTa XkyovTi. This participle could be ex- 
 plained as conditional, but from the preceding part of the sentence 
 we should expect the infinitive to be used here also. Plato seems 
 to have substituted the participle instead. Cf. Laws, vi, 773 E, 
 where a similar construction is thus explained by Stallbaum. 
 
 Notice finally Laws, IV, 717 D, E : TeXevTrjaavTcov Be yovicov 
 Ta<j>rj fjuev r) cr(0(f)pov€arTdT7j KaXXiaTTj, firfO* virepatpovTa T(ov 
 eldio-fiivav oy/ccov fi^T eXXeiTrovTa. The participles depend on 
 the verbal idea in Ta$r) — /caXXio-Trj which equals Qdirreiv koCK- 
 Xlo-tov icTTi. Cf. Stallbaum. 
 
 The full list of passages in which the participle with p.rj form- 
 ing part of an infinitive clause occurs, is as follows : 
 
 Theognis : 
 280. 
 
 Sophocles : 
 Ajax, 1007. 
 O. R., 1110. 
 
 Iph. Tau., 1288. 
 Medea, 239, 
 815 
 
 Pindar : 
 
 (Rhesus, 590.) 
 Frag., 950. 
 
 Nemea, v, 14, 
 vui, 4. 
 
 Euripides : 
 Hel., 814. 
 H. F., 203, 
 285. 
 Hipp., 249. 
 
 
 • 
 
 Aeschylus : 
 
 Sup., 409. 
 
 Eumen., 301. 
 
 Tragici Min. : 
 Incert., 324, 
 546. 
 
On the Use of Mt; with the Participle in Classical Gi-eeh. 43 
 
 Aristophanes : 
 
 Hell., iv, 1, 35. 
 
 Isaeus : 
 
 Achar., 354. 
 
 v, 2, 38. 
 
 in, 51. 
 
 Knights, 905. 
 
 vi, 1, 12. 
 
 vi, 12. 
 
 Clouds, 268. 
 
 Oec, vi, 7. 
 
 IX, 11. 
 
 Eccl., 788. 
 
 xn, 19. 
 
 xi, 21. 
 
 Plutus, 552, 
 
 Conv., v, 4. 
 Hiero, n, 8. 
 
 
 802. 
 
 
 
 Rep. Lac., vin, 2. 
 Cyn., iv, 1. 
 
 Demosthenes : 
 
 
 i,6. 
 iv, 15. 
 
 Comici Min. : 
 
 vi, 25. 
 
 Archippus, 43. 
 Antiph., 187, 5. 
 
 
 (vn, 6.) 
 vm, 76. 
 
 
 Xenarchus, 4, 10. 
 
 Antiphon : 
 
 ix, 67. 
 
 TMenander, 252, "1 
 
 n, a, 8, 
 
 (x, 45.) 
 
 532, 11, 
 
 IV, a, 1. 
 
 (xiii, 3.) 
 
 L 543, 4. J 
 
 V, 18. 
 
 xiv, 33. 
 
 
 VI, 1. 
 
 xv, 28. 
 
 
 xviii, 58, 
 
 Herodotus : 
 
 
 100, 
 
 v, 18. 
 vi, 7. 
 
 Andocides : 
 I, 113. 
 
 125, 
 ■ 159. 
 
 j 
 vii, 24. 
 ~~ ix, 41. 
 
 (iv, 2.) 
 
 xix, 64, 
 114, 
 
 218, 
 
 
 
 
 Lysias : 
 in, 25. 
 
 237. 
 xx, 72, 
 90. 
 
 Thucydides : 
 
 i, 72, 1, 
 
 iv, 4. 
 
 xxi, 61, 
 
 74,3, 
 
 xn, 69. 
 
 67. 
 
 86,3, 
 
 xix, 33, 
 
 xxn, 56, 
 
 120, 2. 
 
 51. 
 
 57. 
 
 n, 43, 1, 
 
 xxrv, 18. 
 
 xxin, 122. 
 
 65,8, 
 
 xxxn, 19. 
 
 xxiv, 65, 
 
 83,5. 
 
 
 69, 
 
 m, 16, 1, 
 
 
 77. 
 
 39,5, 
 
 Isocrates : 
 
 xxvii, 55. 
 
 42,5, 
 
 in, 16, 
 
 xxx, 29. 
 
 59,1. 
 
 58, 
 
 xxxi, 14. 
 
 iv, 78, 2, 
 
 64. 
 
 (xxxiv, 52.) 
 
 118, 4. 
 
 vi, 89 (bis). 
 
 xxxvi, 12. 
 
 vi, 36, 3, 
 
 105. 
 
 (xlvi, 5.) 
 
 70,1, 
 
 vm, 12. 
 
 (xlvii, 56.) 
 
 84, 1, 
 
 ix, 39. 
 
 lvii, 24. 
 
 vn, 44, 5. 
 
 x, 15. 
 
 Tlviii, 1, "1 
 
 vm, 44, 1, 
 
 xn, 123, 
 
 22, 
 
 68,4. 
 
 147, 
 
 25, 
 
 
 181. 
 
 xiv, 8. 
 
 41, 
 
 
 L 47.J 
 
 Xenophon : 
 
 55 (bis). 
 
 Proem., 34, 3, 
 
 Cyr., ii, 4, 32. 
 
 xv, 225, 
 
 56,1. 
 
 vm, 8, 11. 
 
 265, 
 
 Epis., ii, 1. 
 
 Mem., ii, 8, 1, 
 
 289. 
 xvi, 9. 
 
 
 7 7 7 7 
 
 10,3. 
 
 
 in, 9, 14. 
 
 xix, 48. 
 
 Aeschines : 
 
 14,6. 
 
 xxi, 15. 
 
 i, 126. 
 
 IV, 1, 1. 
 
 Epis., ii, 3. 
 
 m, 68. 
 
44 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 Lycurgii8 : 
 
 480 C, 
 
 644 E. 
 
 §28. 
 
 494 A, 
 
 iv, 717 D, E. 
 
 
 501 D, 
 513 D, 
 
 V, 730 A, 
 
 
 732 B, 
 
 Plato: 
 
 Rep., i, 334 C, 
 
 D, 
 
 Apol., 28 D, 
 
 341 A. 
 
 739 A. 
 
 29 A, 
 
 ii, 380 C, 
 
 vi, 773 E, 
 
 32 C. 
 
 383 A. 
 
 777 E. 
 
 Phaedo. 78 A. 
 
 in, 389 C, 
 
 vn, 793 C. 
 
 Oat., 432 E. 
 
 394 D, 
 
 802 B, 
 
 Theaet., 160 A, 
 
 416 D. 
 
 806 A, 
 
 172 A, 
 
 iv, 443 D. 
 
 816 E. 
 
 188 A. 
 
 v, 474 C. 
 
 vni, 829 B, 
 
 Soph., 229 C. 
 
 vi, 488 B, 
 
 831 D, 
 
 Polity 286 C, 
 
 D. E. 
 
 838 E, 
 
 295 D. 
 
 vn, 520 B, 
 
 857 B. 
 
 Sym., 204 A. 
 
 539 D. 
 
 ix, 873 D, 
 
 Phaedrus, 242 E. 
 
 vni, 548 D, 
 
 877 A. 
 
 Alcib., i, 117 D. 
 
 552 A, 
 
 x, 890 A. 
 
 Laches, 201 A. 
 
 554 A. 
 
 xn, 942 A, 
 
 Lysis, 210 E. 
 
 Tim., 32 A. 
 
 958 E, 
 
 Gorgias, 456 E, 
 
 (Minos, 321 D.) 
 
 965 A. 
 
 459 C, 
 
 Laws, i, 640 B, 
 
 Epinomis, 983 C. 
 
 When ov is found instead of firj in this construction, the 
 cause is usually apparent. It is either adhaerescent, as in 
 Eurip., Frag., 578: 
 
 wo-t ov irapovra irovria^ virep TrXa/co? 
 
 TCLKel KQ7T OtKOV? TT&VT eiTlCTTaO-Qai /ca\a><;. 
 
 Cf. Thuc, II, 65, 8; vm, 68, 4; Isocr., vm, 25; Xen., Cyr., 
 II, 1, 16. Or a verb of saying or thinking precedes and throws 
 the image of oratio obliqua over the whole sentence, so that we 
 have ware — ov with the participle. Examples are Hdt., I, 189 ; 
 Plato, Gorgias, 458 E. 1 
 
 In Xen., Oec, vni, 21 : egeo-Tt teal irelpav Xa/x^dveiv clvtcov ovre 
 tl fyfAModevTas ovre Ti TroKkh 7rovr/o-avTa<;, the negatives must 
 be taken with the principal verb ; otherwise we should have fjurf, 
 Cf. De Re. Eq., ix, 5 : ov Bel efa7r«Wa>9 o-irav dXX* ^pe/iata)? 
 Trpoadyeo-Oac to5 ')(aklv<p, irpavvovra, ov j3ia%6/jL€vov rjpefielv. 
 
 Dem., XV, 25 : aroirov i<m wepX r<ov Sitealeov v/j,a<z 8t,8do~tc€ip 
 avrbv ov ret Sl/ccaa iroiovvra. The fact is emphasized, hence ov 
 is retained. 
 
 1 Cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., vn, 174. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 45 
 
 In xix, 218, the negative changes from fxrj to ov after coo-re. 
 The sentence is long and the principal verb at the end in the 
 indicative. Perhaps Demosthenes started it with the intention 
 of using the infinitive, but changed to the indicative before he 
 finished it. Hence the change in the negatives. 
 
 9. Supplementary Participle with fir/. 
 
 The participle frequently takes the place of an accusative with 
 the infinitive after verbs of sense action. The negative of this 
 participle is generally ov when the force of the oratio obliqua is 
 strongly felt, except, as we have already seen, when the principal 
 verb is an imperative or expresses a condition (cf. p. 20). But 
 even when this is not the case we frequently find jxrj both with 
 the infinitive and the participle after olBa, vofxi^co, and other similar 
 verbs. The cause of this change must lie in the force of the verb 
 itself. The explanation usually advanced is as follows : The verb 
 of knowing or thinking is no longer felt as such, but becomes 
 to all intents and purposes a verb of will y and hence takes pij after 
 the analogy of such verbs as ofivvfit, Trio~Tevio, and the like. 1 
 
 The first example of this construction is found in Soph., O. C, 
 656: 
 
 olcf iycb o~e fjbrj rcva 
 evOevh" dird^ovr avBpa 7rpo9 $Lav ifiov. 
 
 Similar examples are found in vv. 797, 1121 ; Phil., 79; Thuc, 
 i, 76, 1 ; II, 17, 2; v, 60, 5; vi, 18, 7; vn, 8, 2; Xen., Cyr., vn, 
 2, 22; Aeschines, n, 126. Thuc, vn, 8, 2, is the least clear of 
 these examples, but even there vofiL^cov seems to have the force 
 of i\,7ri%cov : eypaifrev iTriaroXrjv, vo/nl^cov ovtcos av fjudXicrra ttjv 
 avroif yvcb/jLWV finBev iv rco dyyekco dcftavtorOelcrav /j,ad6vTa<; tov$ 
 ^Adwvaiovs povXevcraadai irepl t^9 dXnOeias. 
 
 Not only after these verbs of knowing and thinking, where 
 asseverative force is easily postulated, do we find this construction 
 used, but also after verbs of showing, BeUvvfii, diroc^aivco, etc., 
 
 1 Cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., i, 48; xni, 259; Humphreys to Soph., Antigone, 
 1064. 
 
46 On the Use of Mtj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 where such an explanation is more difficult. Cf. Eurip., Tro., 
 970: 
 
 Kal rr/vBe hel%(D fir) Xeyovaav evBitca. 
 
 Similar examples are Xen., Ages., I, 12; Isoc., xn, 58 {evpoi Tt? 
 av) ; XV, 144 (ov followed by fir/); Dem., xix, 212 (wcrre c. inf. 
 precedes) ; xxvil, 47 (7rw? av ti<; eVtSetf eie, where the question 
 might account for fir/) ; Plato, Euthyd., 286 A. Perhaps the same 
 explanation suffices here as above, but it is rather more difficult to 
 feel it. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, §§ 685 and 688, explains 
 the irregularity in the use of fir) in the former class, as well as in 
 the latter, by saying that " the fixed earlier use of fir) in other 
 constructions of the infinitive affected the later constructions of 
 indirect discourse." This, however, does not explain why the 
 construction is only sporadic and not universal. It seems better, 
 therefore, to resort to the explanation adopted above. 
 
 10. M?; with the Participle in Interrogative Sentences. 
 
 As the last class of the first division of our subject we have to 
 treat firj with the participle in the interrogative sentence. M77 is 
 the regular negative in direct questions when the answer expected 
 is negative or when the question is put in a dubitative form, either 
 with the subjunctive, which is the interrogative form of the pro- 
 hibition, (cf. Plato, Phaedo, 79 A), or with the optative and av, 
 which implies prevention. 1 The indirect question takes fir) if this 
 negative would have been used in the direct form, and also in the 
 second member of the disjunctive question with el — r) or elre — eire, 
 where, however, ov is also found. 
 
 In most of these classes we find fir} with the participle used, not 
 as a substitute for the principal verb, but as forming a subordinate 
 part of the interrogative sentence. 
 
 Of the direct questions that expect or anticipate a negative 
 answer, but a single example has been noted in which fit} with the 
 participle appears, i. e., Plato, Sophistes, 267 C : M<bv ovv iravTe? 
 aTTOTWfxavovat, tov Sokclv elvat, Slfcaioi firjSa/icbs ovre? ; 
 
 1 Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, \\ 291, 292. 
 
On the Use of Mr] with the Participle in Classical Greek. 47 
 
 The direct dubitative question is somewhat better represented. 
 Examples are, Aeschylus, Agam., 786 : 
 
 7ra)9 ere Trpoa-eiiray ; 7Tg3? ere 0-€y3tfft> 
 firjd' V7re papas fir) 6* viroKafi^ras 
 /caipbv xdpiTO<; ; 
 
 Dem., xix, 320 ; xx, 60 ; Plato, Phaedo, 79 A j Sophistes, 218 E. 
 Possibly we may also include here sentences like Plato, Philebus, 
 43 A : Xeyovac yap ovv, /cal So/codal <ye ov (fravXax; \eyetv. 7nw9 
 yap av fir) (j>av\oL ye ovres ; which commentators usually explain 
 by the Latin translation "quippe cum or qui." Cf. also Alcib., 
 11, 141 C; Laws, 639 C. and D. 
 
 If the dubitative question is put in an indirect form, fir] is of 
 course retained. Examples are Theognis, 913 : 
 
 <j>povTi%(0 rovrcov r)v tlv ico Trporepnv, 
 
 rj fjLT)8ev Ba7rava>v rpv^co ftiov iv fca/corvTi, ktc. 
 
 Aristoph., Peace, 21 : 
 
 7ro0ev av irpialfinv plva fir) rerprffievnv. 
 
 Tt9 — ifiol KareL7raT(o 
 
 Cf. Xen., Cyr., iv, 3, 4; Hell., v, 4, 29; Isaeus, IV, 14 : aKeirreov 
 Brj vfiiv Trpwrov fiev el iiroirjaaro ra$ Biadrj/cas, eirena el fir) irapa- 
 vodov Biedero. Plato, Apol., 22 E : coare fie ifiavrbv dvepcorav — 
 irorepa Be^alfirjv av ovrw coairep €%g) eyeiv firjre re o-o<j>b<; cov rr)v 
 i/celvcov cro(J3Lav firjre dfia6r)<$ rrjv dfiadlav. 
 
 Cf. also Char., 167 D; 168 A; Rep., m, 412 E; VI, 504 E. 
 As has been said already, the disjunctive question may take fir] 
 as well as ov in its second member. The participle is also occa- 
 sionally found in this position and is of course also negatived by 
 fir). Examples occur chiefly in prose, but there is one in Aeschylus, 
 Agam., 261 : 
 
 crv t? ei tl feeSvov, etre fir) ireirva-fievr), 
 
 evayyiXoio-iv ekiria-iv 6vr)7ro\el<; 
 
 kXvocfi av evefypcov. 
 
 In prose we have Xen., Mem., 1, 2, 45 : oo~a Tt? fir) Treio~a$ dvay- 
 fcd&i Tt,va 7roi€iv, etre ypd^xov e'lre fir]^ypd<f>a)v). Lysias, IV, 15, 
 
48 On the Use of Mr} with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 is similar. Isseus, VII, 12 : ttr 3 ovv EvttoXk; yeyivTjTai atrios 
 (fir)) Sovvcu (ftovXijOel?), eiT y ' AiroXXohcapo^ Xafielv fir) idekrjaas, 
 ras e^Opa?, ore Stefieivav to epyov BeSrjXcjKe. firj-ftovXrjOei? in the 
 first member of the sentence is due to the correction of the editors. 
 The MSS. have simply Bovvai. 
 
 Plato, Sophistes, 222 B : ^9 Be farg x a h € ^ € ' T€ M& v ™0ei? 
 rjfiepov etre dvdpco7T(ov firjBefiiav r)yei 6r}pav. 
 
 Other examples are Char., 171 C; Laches, 184 B; 189 A; 
 Laws, ix, 856 B ; xn, 962 E. 
 
 The following table sums up in a brief compass the results of 
 the preceding pages in which the use of fir} with the participle 
 depending on the principal verb of the sentence has been treated. 
 
 Authors. 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 98 
 
 I 
 
 .a 
 s 
 
 -a 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 t 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 *o3*S 
 SI 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 Homer 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 "T 
 
 9 
 
 
 2 
 
 Hesiod 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 1 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 22 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 
 40 
 
 138 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 Lyric Poets, not in- 
 cluding Pindar 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 17 
 
 85 
 
 64 
 
 217 
 
 ...... 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 '2" 
 
 ....... 
 
 13 
 
 Pindar 
 
 1 
 ...... 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 Aeschylus 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 ""3 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 4 
 11 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 19 
 31 
 49 
 
 129 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 ..„., 
 
 ..„.. 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 Sophocles 
 
 27 
 
 Euripides 
 
 62 
 
 Tragici Min 
 
 4 
 
 Aristophanes 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 ...... 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 2 
 
 34 
 
 1 
 ...... 
 
 4 
 
 ...... 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 13 
 5 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 30 
 
 130 
 
 75 
 
 270 
 
 21 
 
 Comici Min 
 
 12 
 
 Herodotus 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 Thucydides 
 
 4 
 2 
 5 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 '3" 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 28 
 
 62 
 
 Xenophon 
 
 90 
 
 Orators 
 
 293 
 
 Plato 
 
 253 
 
 Total 
 
 882 
 
 
 
 From this summary we see that the use of fir} with the participle 
 in clauses that demand that negative is very rare in Epic poetry, 
 and not much more frequent in Lyric. It begins to be common 
 in the dramatists and reaches its highest development, both in 
 respect to frequency of occurrence and variety of constructions, in 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 49 
 
 the orators and Plato. In many of the passages cited the parti- 
 ciple could not possibly be resolved into a finite verb similar to 
 the principal one and hence we must conclude, contrary to Aken's 
 view, that the principal verb does frequently exert a sufficient 
 influence on an adjacent participle to cause firj to be used when, 
 strictly speaking, it ought to be negatived by ov. 
 
 II. 
 The Independent Participle with fir). 
 
 We turn now to the second main division of our subject. We 
 have seen in the preceding pages what influence the principal verb 
 exerts over a participle that forms an integral part of the thought ; 
 we have now to consider what effect the predication that the parti- 
 ciple itself implies has on the choice of the negative. According 
 to the principle already laid down in the introduction, when the 
 participle can be resolved into a declarative sentence it takes as its 
 negative ov, but when, on the other hand, it represents a conditional 
 proposition it must have fir). This is the element that lies at the 
 basis of the independent use of the participle with fitf. 
 
 The participle may appear in a variety of forms : It may repre- 
 sent the protasis of a condition, the apodosis of which is either 
 expressed or understood ; it may take the form of a concessive 
 sentence ; it may appear as a generic sentence, with or without the 
 article, but in all these uses it is the conditional element that 
 requires fir) rather than ov. 
 
 The two main classes into which these participles fall are : first, 
 those in which the conditional force is actually expressed in the 
 form of a condition, the participle representing the protasis ; and 
 secondly, those in which the conditional force appears in the generic 
 use of the participle, generally with the article, but sometimes 
 without. Let us take them up in this order. 
 
 1. The Conditional Participle with /at}. 
 
 The Greeks were not very fond of the conditional participle. 
 It was too shadowy, too inexact for them. Hence their avoidance 
 
50 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 of it in laws and decrees. In classical Greek we have noted about 
 six hundred examples of the conditional participle with which the 
 negative firj is employed. But even when thus negatived the 
 conditional force is sometimes hard to distinguish, and this diffi- 
 culty is increased when, as we have already seen in connection with 
 the infinitive, the firf might be due to some other cause. The cases 
 that are absolutely certain are those in which the participle is used 
 in antithesis to, or parallel to, el with the finite verb, fiev and Be 
 being frequently employed to bring out the antithesis more clearly. 
 To this class of the conditional participle we first direct our atten- 
 tion. The number of them is not large, and the construction 
 belongs chiefly to prose. To take an extreme case first, notice how 
 two different authors, speaking about the same subject and using 
 almost exactly the same words, employ, the one, the participle, the 
 other, the finite verb. In Aeschylus, Septem, 427 f., Capaneus 
 
 Oeov re yap deXovro<s eicrrepcreiv itoXlv 
 Kal /jlt) Oekovros. 
 
 while Euripides, in the Supplices, 499 f., makes him say : 
 
 cofioaev iroXiv 
 irepaeiv Oeov OeXovros, rjv re firj deXrj. 
 
 Note again Soph., O. R., 1158 : 
 
 OI. a\V et<? rob* rj%6L<; /jltj Xeyo&v ye tovvBikov. 
 OE. 7roXXo) ye /jlclXXov, rjv (f>pdo-Q) } BcoXXv/juat,. 
 
 In Euripides, Andromache, 382, the contrast is heightened by 
 the use of Be : 
 
 a>5 rjv ddvys o~v, irals 08? eicfyevyei fiopov, 
 aov 8* ov OeXovans /cardaveiv, rovBe /crevcb. 
 
 ov is due to adhserescence. 
 
 In Thuc, V, 46, 2, the Athenians bid their ambassadors say 
 to the Spartans : rrjv Boicotwv ^vfifia^lav avelvai, rjv fit) e? ra$ 
 <nrovSa<; iaitoa-i, while in § 4 the ambassadors say : el firj ttjv 
 
On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 51 
 
 ^v/jL/na^iav avrjaovau BotcoTOt? /^rj iaiovacv e? ra<; <T7rovha<; /ere. 
 Here firj with the participle is but a repetition of the preceding 
 condition. Other examples in which this parallelism exists are 
 Plato, Sophistes, 263 C; Par., 139 C; 145 D (bis) ; 165 E; 
 Philebus, 42 E. 
 
 Examples in which the two clauses are antithetical are, in addi- 
 tion to those quoted above, Hdt., I, 187; XeU., Mem., in, 6, 14; 
 Cyr., v, 2, 32; vm, 1, 12; Antiphon, n, 7, 8; Isseus, iv, 5; 
 Dem., xvi, 30; xxin, 110; xxvn, 20; Plato, Meno, 98 E; 
 Rep., 1, 337 E; v, 459 C; Laws, vi, 783 E; vn, 820 D; 822 C; 
 xi, 930 B; Philemon, Frag, 213 (with fjurj ov). These examples 
 show better than any others how nearly the Greeks had come to 
 regard the participle as a substitute for the finite verb. 
 
 We turn now to those conditional participles which stand by 
 themselves and do not have this antithetical or parallel clause to 
 render certain the conditional force. We are thus left to the 
 general context to decide as to the nature of the participle. Some- 
 times the decision is by no means easy, as the conditional force is 
 frequently not very strong, especially when the apodosis is not 
 expressed. 
 
 This class forms one of the largest divisions of our subject, 
 being only surpassed by the generic participle with the article. 
 With the exception of Epic poetry, it is found in all spheres of 
 literature, and abounds most in the orators and Plato, who, as I 
 have no doubt statistics would prove, make more frequent use of 
 the conditional proposition than any other writers. 
 
 We give at once a table showing the use of the construction by 
 the different authors, as the class is too numerous to permit us to 
 cite all the passages in which it occurs : 
 
 Homer 1 Tragici Minores 4 
 
 Hesiod Aristophanes 8 
 
 Lyric Poets, not including Comici Minores 6 
 
 Pindar 2 Herodotus 30 
 
 Pindar Thucydides 42 
 
 Aeschylus 11 Xenophon 52 
 
 Sophocles 11 Orators 161 
 
 Euripides 30 Plato 202 
 
 Total 560 
 
52 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek 
 
 We notice that Epic poetry is represented by but a single 
 example, and even this is not a good one, as the negative goes 
 more closely with the following noun. The passage is Iliad, xm, 
 47 f.: 
 
 AXavre o~<f)(b fiev re o-acoaere \abv ^A^accov 
 okicr)? jivrjaafieveo, firfBe Kpvepoio <f>6/3oio. 
 
 This avoidance of fir] with the conditional participle in Epic 
 poetry is certainly not due to a lack of opportunity to use it. 
 Doubtless it is caused by the adjectival nature of the participle 
 itself, to which reference has already been made, and which does 
 not permit the use of fir], and to Homer's reluctance to combine 
 the negative fir] with anything else but the verb. 
 
 The orators vary much in this use of the participle — Demos- 
 thenes having seventy-four examples, while Lycurgus, Deinarchus 
 and Hypereides (in the single speech examined) do not use it at 
 all. In the dialogues of Plato, also, we see the same variation. 
 The Parmenides, for instance, has twenty-seven examples, while 
 the Phaedrus, a slightly longer dialogue, has but one, and the 
 Gorgias, a much longer dialogue, but three. 
 
 Some subordinate classifications, and some few passages that 
 need explanation, will now be mentioned. 
 
 We sometimes find fir] with the participle equivalent to a con- 
 ditional wish = " provided that not, if only not," Latin dum ne 
 with the subjunctive. Examples are, Aeschylus, Eumen., 693 : 
 
 iv he tc3 creftas 
 acrrcbv <j>o/3o<; re avyyevrjs to fir) ahacelv 
 o~%r]crei to T 3 r)fiap Kal kclt* €v<ppovrjv o//,w?, 
 
 aVTCJV 7TO\lTGt)V fJ/Tj TTLKaLVOVVT(OV VO/JLOVS. 
 
 ye is sometimes added to strengthen this force, as in Euripides, 
 Alcestis, 1106 : 
 
 Xprj, aov ye fir) /xiWopTos opyalveiv ifioi. 
 
 Other examples are Euripides, Helena, 1050, 1052 ; Heraclidae, 
 264; Trag. Min., Frag. Incert., 166; (Menander, Mon., 563); 
 Thuc, v, 41, 2; Xen., Anab., 1, 9, 13; Plato, Theaet., 160 D; 
 
On the Use of Mr] with the Participle in Classical Greek. 53 
 
 Kep., v, 465 B; ix, 586 E; Laws, vm, 824 B, 844 A; x, 
 895 B. 
 
 In Soph., O. R., 289, there is a construction, an exact parallel 
 to which has not been noted. It is the oft cited passage : 
 
 iraXat Be fir) irapiinv Oavfid^erai. 
 
 fir) Trapcov = el fir) irdpeaTi, and this full expression is not infre- 
 quently found. Cf. Thuc, IV, 85, 2 : Oavfid^co — el fir) d<rfievoi<; 
 vfjLLV d<j)l<yfiai. 
 
 We may, however, include in this same category of fit) with 
 the participle after verbs of emotion those cases in which the 
 participle is used after alcrxvvofiai, and is equivalent to the pro- 
 tasis of a condition. Cf. Xen., Cyr., in, 2, 16 : alcryyvoifieff av 
 <roi fir) a7roBtB6vre<;. See Hertlein's note. Other examples are 
 Cyr., vm, 2, 13; Hell, VI, 5, 44; Lysias, xxv, 34; Plato, Pro- 
 tag., 312 A; Sym., 218 D; Hip., Maior, 298 B. 
 
 In Soph., O. R., 1368, we have another rare use of the par- 
 ticiple : 
 
 tcpelaacov yap rjo-Oa jirj/cer cbv r) %wv tv<j>\6<;. 
 
 The peculiarity here lies in the use of the personal instead of the 
 impersonal construction. It really stands for Kpela-aov r)v ere firj- 
 Ker elvai, but the participle may be explained as conditional. 
 Only two other examples have been noted in classical Greek. 
 These are Lysias, xxvi, 4 ; Aeschines, I, 192. 1 
 
 The equivalence of cause and condition, as expressed by the 
 participle, was one of the most direct lines by which later writers 
 arrived at the use of fir] with the purely causal participle. It may 
 be well, therefore, to cite some examples of this construction to 
 show how easily they could be led astray. Cf., for instance, 
 Aristoph., Clouds, 792 : 
 
 dirb yap 6\ovfiac fir) fiaOoav xXcoTToaTpofetv. 
 
 = "For want of learning." Cf. Humphreys' note. Hdt., in, 
 65 : ovtos fiev TereXevre/ce — tovtov Be firf/cero eovros — yiyveTai 
 fioc dvayKaiorarov /ere. = "since he is no longer living," but this is 
 
 1 For examples in late Greek, cf. Lobeck to Soph., Ajax, 634. 
 5 
 
54 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 put in a conditional form. Cf. Plato, Sym., 180 C : el pev yap 
 el? r)v 6 "Epa>9 /caXco? av el^e. vvv Be ov yap ecrnv el<z. /xrj ovtos 
 Be ei/09 opOorepov eo~n ktL Xen., Mem., I, 6, 12 : St/caio? fiev ovv 
 av eXris, on ovk e^airaTas eirl irkeove^ia, o-o<f>b$ Be ovk av, fiwBevo? 
 ye a%ia €7rio-rdfievo<;. Notice that in this case the participle is 
 parallel with a clause with on. Antiphon, II, y@, 4 : a&\ia fiev 
 ovv izaayjto /jltj airokoyelo-dai fjuovov /3i,a%6/j,€VO$. Lysias, XIX, 29 : 
 irporepov fir] virap^ovcrrj^ ovaias (here the causal force seems to 
 predominate). Isoc, xvin, 52 : Bacafyw fiev ovk rjglov — aUw? 
 re real /jltj irapovro^ tovtov firjBe fieWovro? iroir)aeiv ktc. Isseus, 
 III, 72 : d\\' ovre iyevero ovt eo~Ti, /jlt) yevo/juevcov Brj iralBcov 
 yvrjo-lcov eiceivq*, iyyvrepo) rjficbv ovBe eh — ib., V, 16 : dfi<f)olv 
 Be ralv BiaOr\Kaiv aKvpoiv yiyvofjuevaiv, Kal erepa? /jLwBefjbias 
 6/JLo\oyov/jL€vw<; eivai, Kara Bocriv fiev ovBevl irpoar)Ke tov Kkrjpov. 1 
 Cf. further Dem. (xin, 36) ; xxxvi, 6 ; xxxix, 35. 
 
 We see, then, from passages like these and some few others to 
 be mentioned later, in which firj seems to be used with the purely 
 causal participle, how easily men whose sensibilities for the deli- 
 cate shades of the language had been dulled to some extent, and 
 who were always striving for that which was more forcible and 
 expressive, could be led to feel that firj was the proper negative 
 of the causal participle. 
 
 The following are a few rather difficult passages in which the 
 conditional force of the participle is not very manifest, but which, 
 I think, may be classed under this head. 
 
 The first is Soph., Philoctetes, 1161 : 
 
 Tt? a>8' iv avpais rpe^erai 
 fiv/cen fiwBevbs Kparvvcov oca irefiireu ftioBwpos ala ; 
 
 The participle is generic, says Jebb, with his usual explanation 
 when in a difficulty. Aken, p. 229, prefers ov. I believe, how- 
 ever, that while the participle is largely temporal, there is sufficient 
 conditional force implied to cause fit] to be used. 
 
 1 For another explanation of yA\ here, see Spieker, A. J. P., vi, 323, who says 
 that the participle has no conditional force and that " p{ follows 6fio\oyovfi4vrjs 
 grammatically as the regular negative after that verb." But the similarity of 
 this passage with the others cited leads me to believe that it may be explained 
 in the same way as they. 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 55 
 
 Hdt. VI, 130 : iraac vfilv, el oldv re eirj, yapitpifirfv av, firjr eva 
 vfiecov e^aiperov diroKpiv(ov firjre tou? Xoittovs diroBoKifid^v. 
 Here we apparently have firj with the participle in the apodosis ; 
 but the participle really contains a separate condition. Hence fir]. 
 For a similar example cf. Xen., Cyr., vn, 5, 86. 
 
 Thuc, I, 90, 1 : AaKeBaifioviot, Be alaOofievoi rb fieXXov rjXOov 
 irpecrPeLa, ra fiev Kal avrol r)Biov av 6p<ovre<$ firjr i/celvov? firjr 
 aXXov firjBeva T6t%09 e^ovra. — firj is doubtless due to the condi- 
 tional force of eyovra. But the sentence is really a wish and this 
 would also demand firj. Cf. Plato, Sym., 216 C : rjSico? av cBocfit 
 avrbv fir) ovra iv avOpcoirois, where firj can also be explained as 
 depending on the conditional force of ovra. 
 
 With Xen., Hipp., I, 18 : to fiev ttvkvcl igdyeiv fir) iroXefiov 
 ovto? tcro)9 oxXrjpov, compare Dem., I, 27 ; Xen., Apol. Soc, § 24. 
 
 Plato, Laws, IV, 718 D : ra, rolvvv Br) Xe^Oevra eBo%e ri fioi 
 trpovpyov Bpav et? to irepl wv av irapaivf) fir) iravrdiraa-iv G&fir)<; 
 'xfrv^rj^ Xafibfieva, fiaXXov 6" r)fiepa>rep6v re av cucoveuv Kal evfieve- 
 o-repov. Stallbaum explains firj — Xa/36fieva as conditional. But 
 we seem to need an infinitive rather than a participle and unless 
 something has been dropped from the text, I should assume that 
 the participle here takes the place of the infinitive ; cf. Rep., in, 
 389 C; Laws, vi, 773 E; Thuc, vi, 1, 2 (MSS. reading), where 
 such a substitution seems to have taken place. 
 
 There still remain to be noticed a few passages in which ov 
 appears to be used contrary to the general rule. The first is Hdt., 
 VII, 172 : ftorjdeeiv Be ov ftovXofievou avay/caLrjv r)fiiv ovBefiiav oloi 
 re eo~re irpocrfyepeiv. Here Stein, who seems to think that Hero- 
 dotus is careless in his use of the negatives, says, " ov fiovXofievoi 
 ist wohl nur ein versehen far fir) fiovXo/ievoi." It is much better, 
 however, to explain a negative, if possible, than to accuse an author 
 of making a mistake. This may possibly be an instance of ad- 
 haerescence, which, it is true, is rare with /3ovXofiai, but which 
 the analogy of ovk eOeXco might easily induce, or Herodotus' rather 
 frequent use of ov in the protasis may have produced ov here. Cf. 
 I, 212, el Be ravra ov iroLrjcre^ — VI, 9, el Be ravra fiev ov 7rot- 
 rjaovcri — VII, 10 0, el Be ravra fiev viroBvveLV ovk eBeXrjae^ — 
 VII, 16, el Be — ovk old re avrb rraparpetyai. 
 
56 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek, 
 
 Plato, Apol., 20 C, is another example of ov in what seems to 
 be a condition : ov yap hrjirov, aov ye ovSev rcov aWeov ireptT- 
 rorepov irpayfiarevofievov, eiretTa rocravrr) (j>r}fir) re koX X0705 
 yeyovev. Here the participle seems to be conditional, but it really 
 states a fact, and hence ov not fir} is used. So Aken, "nicht ' wenn' 
 aber ' weil.' " 
 
 Phaedo, 63 B : el <pfir)v fir/ r)%eiv irap avQpoairovs a/xelvovs r)8l- 
 kovv av ovk ayavaKTtav to5 Savdrco. Again the participle seems 
 to have a conditional force, but Socrates wishes to emphasize the 
 fact that he is not displeased with the idea of death. So Hein- 
 dorf, " ego qui non indignor aut quod non indignor." 
 
 Theaet., 193 B: ovBiiror iyco — tcl yfrevBr) Sogdo-co — ovre yiyvco- 
 o-kodv, ovre dyvotav afi<f><0, ovre top fiev, top $* ov ytyvdbo-Kow. 
 Here ov yiyvdoo-fccov is conditional, as are also the other parti- 
 ciples, ov can be explained by adhaerescence corresponding to 
 dyvour preceding, or as due to the influence of the other negatives 
 which simply continue the preceding ovheiroTe. 
 
 Rep., VII, 51 8 C : <f>ao~l Be irov ovk eVouo-779 iv rrj yfrvxf} eVt- 
 o-TrjfjLT)? a<f>eU ivrtdevcu. Here the use of ov rather than fir} shows 
 the impudence of these so-called professors, who deny that the 
 soul has any knowledge until it has been instructed by them. 
 
 2. Concessive Participle with fir}. 
 
 After the pure conditional participle we take up the concessive 
 participle. Our justification for placing it here is that it most 
 frequently appears in the form koX fir} with the participle, which 
 is virtually conditional. We must distinguish at the outset the 
 concessive from the adversative participle. Theoretically this is 
 very easy to do, for the adversative states an opposing fact, and 
 hence has the negative ov, while the concessive grants an opposing 
 notion, and hence has the negative fir}} Practically, however, it 
 is often very hard to distinguish them, especially when fir} may be 
 due to the influence of the principal sentence. Take for example 
 Xen., Mem., IV, 1,1: eVel koX to i/ceivov fiefivrjo-Oat, firj irapovTo? 
 ov fitKpa oxfreXei. Here the participle is undoubtedly adversative, 
 
 1 Gildereleeve, Justin Martyr, 1, 7, 7. 
 
On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek, 57 
 
 and fir) depends on the infinitive clause to which the participle 
 belongs. . So Soph., O. R., 1110 : 
 
 el yjpr] rt, icdfie fir) o-vva\\d^avrd 7TG>, 
 irpea-fteLSy o-raOfiacrdai, rov ftorrjp opav So /cob. 
 
 Again the participle is adversative, and fir] depends on the infini- 
 tive. Ellendt says " icaiirep fir}," but tca'nrep is always construed 
 with ov in classical Greek. 
 
 Isoc. (i, 24) : iav fir) Seo/ievo? rb Betadac irpoo-nroif). Here the 
 participle might be regarded as concessive, since it is a mere 
 assumed case, but firj might just as well depend on the condition. 
 
 These and similar instances we have classified under the head to 
 which their principal verbs belong. We take up here only those 
 participles that seem to be more truly concessive. 
 
 Another class which all the grammarians place under the head 
 of the concessive participle is illustrated by Eurip., Frag., 440 : 
 
 tyvvaacl rrelQov firj&e rdXr)6r) kXvcov. 
 
 and by Aristophanes, Acharnians, 222 : 
 
 fir) ryap €<y%dvOL 7TOT€ 
 
 firjBe irep yepovras ovras i/ccfrvyobv 'A^a/^ea?. 
 
 where, however, strictly speaking, the participle is not negatived, 
 and fir) really depends on the preceding verb. For other examples, 
 cf. Soph., Ajax, 1010 f . ; Eurip., Alcestis, 367 (parodied by 
 Aristoph., Achar., 895) ; Antiphon, v, 16; Dem., xix, 42. 
 
 A particle is frequently used to bring out the adversative or con- 
 cessive force of the clause more clearly. Those generally employed 
 are Kairrep, kclL ravra and /caL Of these, /caLrrep is always con- 
 strued with ov (as has been said above), and hence the participle 
 connected with it must be adversative, ical ravra is also generally 
 found with ov, but sometimes fir] is used. Cf. Aristoph., Plutus, 
 802 : 
 
 o>9 r)Bv rrpdrreiv, (ovBpe?, ear evScufiovcos 
 
 /cat ravra firjSev igevey/covr oi/coOev. 
 
 Isseus, X, 23 : el fir)8e rov rr}<; firjrpb? icXfjpov Xtf-fro/iai, real ravra 
 firjBe eypvrusv rovrcov errevey/celv Trap orov rror etXr)<fraat,. In 
 
58 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek, 
 
 both these cases ^77 might depend on the principal sentence. With 
 zeal, however, fit] is more frequently found, and where, too, the 
 concessive force is more evident. Cf. Soph., O. C, 666 : 
 
 0/LfcG>9 8e KOLfJLOV /JL7) TTdpOVTOS 61K OTl 
 
 rovfibv (f>v\d^ai <r ovofia. 
 
 Possibly Aeschylus, Sup., 79, belongs here, but the text is 
 uncertain. Instead of /cal firj reXeov Sovres, some editors read 
 fjfia fir) reXeov S<We<?, which entirely changes the construction. 
 Other examples are Euripides, Electra, 531 ; Frag. Trag., Sosi- 
 phanes, 3; Hdt., II, 5; II, 35; vn, 214; Thuc, VI, 16, 5; VII, 
 63, 3; vm, 73, 5; Xen., Ages., vm, 1; De Re Eq., vi, 16; 
 Antiphon, v, 87; Andoc, I, 114; Isoc, xvn, 29; xvin, 25; 
 Isseus, vi, 54 ; Dem., xxn, 18 ; xxm, 163 ; xxxvn, 18 ; Li, 7 ; 
 (lxi, 28); Epis., n, 12; Plato (Alcib., n, 139 E). Tn the 
 passages underlined the participle forms part of a clause that 
 demands /mtj, but in the others the cause of fxrj must lie in the 
 participle itself. It is fair to assume, therefore, that in the former 
 class also p,r) could depend on the participle. 
 
 ov is occasionally found in this connection, owing to the influ- 
 ence of adhaerescence. Cf. Homer, Iliad, iv, 300 : 
 
 6<j>pa teal ovk iOeXcov tl<$ avay/calr) 7ro\€/j,i£oi. 
 
 = even if or though he does not wish. Cf. Sappho, i, 24 : 
 
 Ta^ect)? fyikrjaei, kcovk iOeXoiaa. 
 
 Theognis, 392, 1342. 
 
 In the following passages no particle is used, but the participles 
 seem to have a concessive force. Plato, Gorgias, 492 B : oh iijbv 
 diroXavevv ra>v ayad&v kcu firjSevbs ifnroSojv ovto$, avTol iavrovs 
 heaTroTTjv liraydyoivTO ; Ion, 535 D : o? av K€Koo~firj/jLevo<; io-dfjTC 
 TroitciXrj — kXairj t iv dvalaw /cal koprals, firjBev a7ro\co\€tcax; rov- 
 tcov — fiTjBevb? airohvovTOs. Laws, I, 648 C : rj to irapdirav ovk av 
 XP<P°> ptfifo olKKo iytcaXwv t^> irdi^iarv ; these could be explained 
 as conditional or generic. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek, 59 
 
 3. The Generic Participle with fiij. 
 
 The next division of the independent participle with fir} is the 
 generic participle, or that in which the condition, if expressed in 
 full, would not appear in the form of a protasis, but in that of a 
 general relative sentence. This participle generally has the article, 
 but the article is not absolutely necessary to bring out the generic 
 force, as we shall see below. The presence or absence of the 
 article, however, enables us to divide this class into two subordi- 
 nate categories. Let us take up first those in which the article is 
 expressed. This class is the most numerous of all, and embraces 
 over nine hundred participles. With the exception of Epic poetry 
 it is almost universal. 
 
 ov is also frequently found with the articular participle, some- 
 times side by side with fir}. The distinction between the two, 
 however, is generally observed, i. e., when ov is used a definite 
 person or set of persons is referred to, and when fir] is employed 
 the reference is to an indefinite class. 
 
 The first instance of the construction with fir} is in Pindar, 
 Nemea, IV, 31 : 6 fir) fwnfc, cf. also Frag., 81 : to Be fir) At 
 fylXrepov, who thus marks a distinct advance on Homer. 1 The 
 lyric poets furnish but one other example, and that from the late 
 poet Tiraotheus, Frag., 15 : 6 fir) rivcov. The examples found in 
 the Anacreontea and the Pseudophocylidea have not been included 
 on account of the manifestly late origin of these works. The 
 dramatists do not use it very freely, but it abounds in prose, 
 especially the Orators and Plato. The following table shows the 
 range of the construction : 
 
 Homer Tragici Min 3 
 
 Hesiod Aristophanes 3 
 
 Theognis 1 Comici Min 5 
 
 Pindar 1 Herodotus 14 
 
 Timotheus 1 Thucydides 49 
 
 Aeschylus 6 Xenophon , 117 
 
 Sophocles 14 Orators ■ 322 
 
 Euripides , 23 Plato 367 
 
 Total 926 
 
 1 Cf. Gildersleeve, Pindar, Intro., p. ci. 
 
60 On the Use of Mi} with the Participle in Classical Geeek. 
 
 The absence of this construction from Epic poetry, its small use 
 in lyric and Aristophanes, and its frequent use in the philosophical 
 works of Xenophon, in the orators, and Plato, seem to point to the 
 fact that it belongs neither to the very highest sphere of the lan- 
 guage nor to that of every day life, but rather to that of argument 
 and philosophy. 
 
 A few passages that present points of special difficulty and im- 
 portance deserve mention. So Soph., O. R., 397 : 
 
 iya> /jloXcov, 
 6 fivBev etSft)? OlSitrov?, eiravcra viv. 
 
 The use of firj here has been the subject of much discussion, but is 
 now generally explained as generic with concessive force. So 
 Whitelaw, Trans. Cambridge, Phil. Society, 1886, p. 17, and this 
 explanation is now accepted by Jebb. Whitelaw compares Dem., 
 XIX, 31 : rj ftovkrj & r) firj K<okv6elcr atcovacu, where the generic 
 participle has a causal force. A great number of examples can be 
 cited in which the generic participle is used with a definite ante- 
 cedent; e. g., Eurip., Iph. Au., 384: iy<*)—6 firj afyaXels — also 
 Aristoph., Wasps, 1048 ; Xen., Con., 11, 4 ; Hell., vi, 1, 11 ; 
 Antiphon, 11, a, 3 ; V, 65; Isaeus, I, 11 ; in, 63; IV, 14; Dem., 
 xix, 224 ; xxxvii, 8, 28, 57 ; xlv, 38. In most of these the 
 antecedent is the personal pronoun. Again notice Soph., Antigone, 
 771: 
 
 XO. dfi(f>co yap avrcb ical KCLTaKTeZvai voel$ ; 
 
 KP. ov rr)V ye firj Otyovaav ' ev yap ovv \eyet9. 
 
 "The fir] implies a logical condition, a concession of her inno- 
 (^06." — Humphreys. 
 Philoctetes, 1006 : 
 
 & fiv&ev vyies /iw& y iXevOepov (frpov&v. 
 
 Baumlein thinks that ovSiv would be better here. Kiihner, § 515, 
 N. 3, says that the mental emotion causes fir}. Jebb thinks that 
 the frequent use of fivSkv vyih with the infinitive causes fir} here 
 by analogy. Aken says, " fiy&ev vyU? wie to firj tcaXov." Could 
 we not take the whole expression as generic, with w taking the 
 place of the article = O thou who thinkest, <fec. ? 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 61 
 
 Eurip., Alcestis, 322 : 
 
 aXX avri/ca iv roZ<s firjKer ovari Xei-ojiai. 
 
 The MSS. vary between fin/circ and ov/ceri. Since the usual dis- 
 tinction between 6 fir) &v and 6 ovk a>v is that the former refers to 
 a man who is good-for-nothing, and the latter to one who is 
 actually nothing, 1 and since the reference here is evidently to the 
 dead, perhaps ovk£ti would be better than fty/ceri, although both 
 Kirchhoff and Nauck read fir)K€Tc. Cf. Thuc, II, 44, 3 : tcov ovk 
 ovtcov — 55, 1, top ovk ovra, both of which refer to the dead. 
 
 Aristoph., Eccl., 115 : Becvbv 8'iorlv r) fir) ' fiire cp la, though not 
 containing a participle, is interesting in view of Thucydides' use of 
 ov with abstract nouns. Cf. 1, 137, 4 : rrjv — ov BtaXvacv — in, 95, 
 2, rrjv ov irepLTei^io-iv — V, 35, 2, rrjv — ovk avroBoo-iv — 50, 4, rr)v 
 ovk i^ovcrlav — VII, 34, 6, rrjv — ovKeri eTravaycoyqv. Cf. also 
 Plato, Laws, XII, 966 C: rrjv fir) eiriTpoirr^v. Postgate, 1. c, 
 thinks that the distinction between ov and fir] here is merely an 
 artistic one, fir) being used in the nominative case to avoid hiatus, 
 but ov being employed in the oblique cases. We may notice first 
 that the passage from Plato is opposed to this view, where hiatus 
 could have been avoided by the use of ovk. Since all the passages 
 from Thucydides are in the oblique case, it is impossible to say with 
 certainty what he would have used in the nominative, but, in all 
 probability, it would have been ov also, for he wished to negative 
 the noun and yet to preserve the negative of fact, and other 
 writers did not care to follow him in this respect. 
 
 Hdt., VI, 94 : o Aapeto? TavTrjs fyofievos Trjs Trpofyaa-LO? Kara- 
 G-rpe<f>eadaL rr}<; 'EXXaSo? rovs fir) Sovran avroj yrjv re kcu vBwp. 
 Here Stein, who, as we have already seen, thinks Herodotus' use 
 of the negatives is not irreproachable, says that ov would be better 
 than fir] since it refers to a past event, and hence cannot denote 
 an indefinite class. But cf. I, 64, where we have a similar pas- 
 sage, and where fir] is also used. Herodotus merely conforms to 
 the general tendency of the language which is more apt to use fir] 
 than ov with the articular participle. 
 
 1 Cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., I, 56; Postgate, Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc, 1886, 
 p. 56. 
 
62 On the Use of Mr] with the Participle in Classical Cheek. 
 
 In regard to Antiphon, v, 65, ifiol fiev yctp tq> firj elpya<rfiev(p y 
 Maetzner says that the participle is causal, and cites a number of 
 passages from classical Greek to support the use of firj with this 
 participle. These will be taken up later. For the present we can 
 simply say that the tendency just mentioned, to use fir) with the 
 articular participle, would be a sufficient explanation of firj here, 
 even if the generic force were weaker. All through the passage 
 the doer is contrasted with the non-doer in a generic, not in a 
 specific sense. For the use of the generic participle with a definite 
 antecedent see page 60. 
 
 A few passages in which ov and firj are used in consecutive 
 clauses may be mentioned. So Isoc, xv, 269 : fjyovficu yap ra$ 
 fiev roiavrm Teparo\oyia<; 6fiola$ elvat, rah OavfiaroTrodais Tal<$ 
 ovSev fiev Go^eXouoYM? . . . 8elv 8e tov$ irpovpyov re iroielv fiov- 
 Xo/ievovs fcal t<ov Xoycov tov<z fiaraiovs kcl\ twv irpdl^ewv ra$ 
 fir/Sev 7rpo9 rbv ftlov fapovaas dvatpelv. In the former case we 
 have simply useless works of magic referred to, while in the latter 
 case we have a contrast between a useful and a useless class of 
 deeds, as the partitive genitive shows. 1 
 
 Again Aeschines, I, 107 : rr/v iroktv efSkatye Xa-fiftdvwv irapa 
 rcov ov Sifcaiws dpgdvrcov, fidXiara & iavKo^avrrjo-e rcov virev- 
 dvvcav tovs firfSev r/Si/crj/coTas. Again the preceding partitive 
 genitive shows that we have, in the latter case, a contrast between 
 two classes. 
 
 Lycurgus, § 43 : a>o~T€ — rbv firjre oirXa Oifievov — firjre to awfia 
 irapaa-^ovra — tls av 8iKao-Trj<; — ajroXvo'ecev — rbv ov8e o-VfiirevOr)- 
 aai ra<z rfjs iraTpLBo*; o~vfi<f>opa<; ToXfifja'avra /ere. As the same 
 person seems to be referred to throughout it is rather difficult to 
 see a reason for the change in the negatives. Kiihner, § 515, 3, 
 suggests that in the first case the participle is indefinite, in the 
 latter the defendant is referred to. 
 
 Plato, Phaedo, 79 C : ret ovBeirore Kara ravr e^ovra — E, to> — 
 
 firfheirore Kara ravrct e^ovTi — Gorgias, 459 A, toIs firj elBoaiv — 
 
 B, 6 ovk elScos. In these cases it is difficult to see any other 
 
 explanation for the change in the negatives except that in the 
 
 course of his argument Plato is passing from generic to particular, 
 
 or vice versa. See Lodge's note to the latter passage. 
 % 
 1 Cf. Baumlein, p. 277. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek, 63 
 
 In poetry avrfp is often used where, in prose, we should have 
 an article, and those examples of fir] with dvrjp, yvvrj or yjpr\fia 
 would, as Professor Gildersleeve has suggested in his lectures on 
 this subject, fall into line. Cf. Theognis, 69 : 
 
 TroXvirkoKias t i<f>L\r)o~av 
 
 o{/TO)<?, ft>5 av8p€? fl7}fC€Tl <T(p^0fieV0L. 
 
 = ol fit) Ken o-(p£6/jL€Vot ; also Soph., O. C, 73 : 
 
 Tt? 7T/309 avSpb? fir) ftXenrovTOs; ap/ceci? ; 
 
 and Plato, Rep., IV, 426 D : otet olov r elvai dvBpl fir) iiricrTafikvio 
 fierpelv ; In these latter cases, however, while we might explain 
 avSpbs fir) ^Xiirovro^ and avBpl fir) eirnrTafikvco as equivalent to 
 tov fir) /3\e7rovTo<; and tco fir) iiriaTafievcp, the participles have a 
 more distinctly conditional force and fir\ could also be accounted 
 for in this way. 
 
 We see, then, how large a role the articular participle plays in 
 the history of fir] with the participle. The other division, i. e. that 
 in which the article is lacking, is much smaller. 
 
 We may divide this class also into two subordinate categories ; 
 first, that in which the participle stands in the predicative position 
 and hence regularly loses its article, the negative fir/, however, 
 being retained ; and secondly, that in which the participle stands 
 by itself and seems not to differ from the articular participle. 
 
 The first class is not very widely represented in classical Greek. 
 In post- classical Greek, however, it is much more common. 1 
 
 The following passages seem to come under this head. A few 
 with adjectives are included in the list. 
 
 Soph., Frag., 755 : 
 
 ovk ear air epycov fir) /caXaov eirrj icaka. 
 = epycov T(ov fir) /ca\cov. 
 Euripides, H. F., 311 : 
 
 o xpr) yap ovBel? fir) xpecov drjaei irork. 
 1 Cf. Gildersleeve, Justin Martyr, I, 9, 4. 
 
64 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 With this example compare Frag. Trag., Incert., 368. Plato 
 (Alcib., II, 139 A) : e<rri ti Bid fikcrov rplrov irdOos, b iroiel top 
 av6p(DTTov fxrjTe <\>povifiov firjre a<j>pova. In § 4 the same words 
 are repeated with the addition of elvcu after a<f>pova showing the 
 causative force of iroiel. 
 Aristoph., Eccl., 855 : 
 
 irol fiaBiel <rv fir) fcaraOels rrjv overlap ; 
 
 = crv 6 fir) tcaTa06L<s. Cf. Xen., Mem., I, 6, 5 : to2$ fiev \a/i- 
 ftdvovai dpyvpiov dvayicaZov icrri direpyd^ea-Bai — ifiol Be fir) 
 Xafiftdvovri ov/c dvdyicr) BiaXeyeo'Oat. The antithesis seems to 
 warrant us in taking fir) Xafifidvovri as generic, although it could 
 be very well explained as conditional ; cf. ib., I, 6, 6 ; Hell., VI, 
 1, 11 and 12; Cyr., I, 3, 8 ; Dem., Proem., xix. 
 
 On Thuc, i, 118, 2, cf. Morris' note. The passage reads: 
 ovres fiev real irpo rod fir) raxels. 
 
 Xen., Mem., rv, 8, 5, shows how far the Greeks carried the 
 generic idea : ovx opa? on ol 'Adr/vrjai, BtKacrTal ttoWovs fiev rjBrj 
 firjBev dBucovvTa? — direicieivav ; here Postgate, 1. c, p. 55, ex- 
 plains the phrase as being equal to 7ro\\ov<; t&v /irjBev dBacovvrayv. 
 Some such explanation seems to be necessary. An exactly similar 
 example is Dem., LV, 20 : to — elaireo-ov vBcop efiXayjre — 7ro\\ot>9 
 fir) <f>v\af;afievov$. Cf. also Antiphon, V, 82 : ttoWoI — avOpcoiroi 
 fir) /cadapol ^elpaf;. 
 
 Plato, Politicus, 288 E : avvdera iic fir) avvTi6efievcov eiBrj 
 yevwv. Laws, VII, 808 D: e^ei irwyrjv rod <j>povelv firjirco Karrjp- 
 TVfievrjv. Ib., XII, 951 B : <j>v6fievoi ovBev fiaXXov ev evvofiov- 
 fikvais iroXecnv rj ical fir}. These examples are not quite as clear 
 as the others and possibly other influences cause the fir). 
 
 Passages like Eurip., Hec, 984 : 
 
 d\\a G7)fiaLvuv o~e xpfjv 
 rl xpr) rbv ev irpdaaovTa fir) irpdcrvovaiv €# 
 <f>i\oi<; iirapKelv. 
 
 may also be classed here, but inasmuch as in such cases the ele- 
 ment of doubt enters whether fir] does not depend on the principal 
 verb, here XPV> they are ^ ess convincing than the preceding 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 65 
 
 examples. Similar passages are, however, Eurip., Hipp., 997 ; 
 Xen., Mem., I, 3, 4; H, 1, 15; Isoc, xn, 240; Dem., xix, 334. 
 
 In addition to these participles that are used in the predicative 
 position we also have a second class in which the participle stands 
 by itself and yet has the negative fir] just as the articular participle. 
 The reason for dropping the article is often not at hand, indeed we 
 sometimes find the participle with the article used side by side with 
 that without. The total number of these participles is not large 
 compared with those that have the article, but they are sufficient 
 to show that the article, while generally present, is not absolutely 
 necessary to bring out the generic relation. 
 
 To cite some examples see Eurip., Helena, 433 : 
 
 e\7Tt9 S y etc ye ttXovg-'mdv hofieov 
 Xctfieiv tc vavrcu? • eic Be fir) ^ovtcov ftlov 
 ovB 1 el Oekoiev, axfreXelv e^oiev dv. 
 
 It would be easy to supply Bofieov here in which case the example 
 would be similar to those that precede. lb. (Rhesus, 904) : 
 
 oaov Trpocrr/tcei, fir) yevovs Kotvcovlav 
 e^ovrt, Kayo) rbv gov ol/cTLpeo yovov. 
 
 = one who has, etc. Cf; Frag., 1034. 
 
 Xen., Cyr., I, 6, 6 : olBd ere \eyovra del a>? ovBe Oe/ju? eXn 
 ahelo-Oat irapa rebv Oecov lirireveLV fir) fiadovra? l7nrofiaxovvra<; 
 vucav, and below fir) eiriarafievov? (bis), fir) erireipovTa*;, fir) <f>v\ar- 
 rofievovs. These participles might also be regarded as conditional. 
 
 lb., Ill, 1, 19 : coa-irep dv Tt? TV<f>\ov$ /ecu /ccocfrovs icaX fine? 
 otlovv (frpovovvras e^airarrferetev — VIII, 1,2: Tt? dv tto\l<; virb fir) 
 ireiOofievwv dXotn ; tl<; t? dv <f>i\ia virb fir) iretOoiievayv BiafyvXa- 
 'XQein ; ri K dv aXko dyaObv reXeaOelr) virb fir) ireidofieveov ; 
 
 Other examples are Mem., I, 1, 9; Hell., n, 3, 22; Dem., in, 
 35 : ov/c eo-Tiv oirov finSev iyoo iroiovaiv rd rcav ttocovvtcov elirov 
 a>? Sec vifieiv — ib., xviii, 128 (adjective); Proem., 56, 3; Plato, 
 Phaedo, 67 B : fir) ica6ap<p yap icaOapov e^dirrea-Bai fir) ov 6efic~ 
 tov rf — ib., 82 B ; Theaet., 189 E : m ye fir) el8d>s eroc diro<\>aivo- 
 fiai = as one who does not know. " The use of fir] assists the 
 ironical tone of Socrates who avoids categorical statements." — 
 
66 On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 Campbell. Cf. Phaedrus, 264 B, where Socrates is also speaking : 
 ifiol fiev yap eho^ev a>? firjSev elSori, and further Crat., 400 E, 
 401 D, where, however, fir) might depend on the principal verb, 
 but where it is most likely generic and where Socrates is again the 
 spokesman. 
 
 In the Sophistes and the Parmenides and certain parts of the 
 Republic we very frequently find fir) ov, fir) ovra, &c. In many 
 cases we can see a conditional force that is sufficient to explain fir], 
 but in others such interpretation seems strained, and we have to 
 suppose either that fir) ov = to fir) ov, or else that Plato for the 
 sake of the argument wished to have " the predicate in the same 
 verbal form as the adjectival part of the subject," to quote Cook- 
 Wilson, On some apparent Anomalies in the Use of fir], Trans. 
 Oxford Phil. Soc, 1889-90, pp. 16, 17. For an example of this 
 last use, cf. Plato, Sophistes, 258 C : &o"rrep to fir) tcaXbv rjv fir) 
 tcaXov, ovrco Be teal to fir) ov KaTa tcuvtov r)v T€ Kal eaTt fir) ov — 
 also Timaeus, 38 B : to fir) ov fir) 6v elvac — cf. also such expres- 
 sions as to ev fir) 8v, in Par., 162 D, 163 A, B, 165 C. 
 
 Examples of the conditional use have been included under that 
 head. The following is an example of the generic use : ov yap fir]- 
 7tot€ tovto bar}?, <j)r)crLV, elvau fir) iovTa, where fir) iovTa = to, fir) 
 iovTa. (This is a quotation from Parmenides, an examination of 
 the fragments of whom reveals but one other example similar to 
 this, i. e., ovt itc fir) ovtos iaaco kt£.) Other passages from the 
 Parmenides are 238 A, 245 E, 262 C, 263 D ; also Rep., v, 477 
 A, 478 C, 479 C. 
 
 In the Phaedrus, alongside of 6 firj ipwv, &c, we frequently 
 find fir) ip&v, &c, used in a generic sense, although in a majority 
 of cases the participle forms part of a clause depending on xprj or 
 the verbal in -Teov, which may possibly have influenced the nega- 
 tive ; cf. 227 C : \iyei yap a><? ^aptaTeov fir) ip&vTi fiaXXov r) 
 ipwvTt — 235 E : yjpr) fir) ipwvTi fiaXXov rj ipcovTi %api£€o-dai — 
 237 B, C, D : 6 tl $ av Kal fir) ip<avT€<; eTridvfiovo-t, tcjv tcaXcov, 
 co-fiev. In this example fir] must depend on the participle. Cf. 
 also 238 E, 241 C, 243 D. It may be worth while to note that 
 none of these examples occur in the Lysianic speech, while the 
 articular form does occur several times. Nor does Lysias in his 
 genuine speeches use the anarthrous form, so that we may have 
 
On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 67 
 
 here a slight proof of the genuineness of this speech, or at least 
 of Plato's close imitation of Lysias' style. 
 
 Other examples of firj with the participle without the article are 
 Kep., 1, 332 E (both with and without the article) ; iv, 430 B 
 (adjective) ; x, 599 A ; Laws, in, 688 B ; vn, 795 B : 8ia<f>epei, 
 8e irafnroXv fiadcov fir) fiaOovros teal 6 <yvfivaaafievo<$ rod fir) 
 yeyvfivao-jievov — 799 C. 
 
 The following examples also belong here, I think, but as in 
 each case the clause as a whole demands fir] they are less con- 
 vincing than the preceding. 
 
 Aristoph., Eccl., 578 : 
 
 aXXa irepatve fibvov 
 fir]re SeBpafieva firjT 
 elprjfieva ttco irporepov. 
 
 Xen., Cyr., V, 1, 11 : el he y, €<f>r), v6fio<$ reOelr) fir) io-Oiovras fir) 
 iretvr)v teal fir) irivovTas fir) Bcyfrrjv ktc, ib., Hipp., VII, 8 ; Dem., 
 Proem., 56, 1, to Se fir) fiovXofievov? ateoveiv /3td£ecrdai — Plato, 
 Soph., 237 E, 238 B, C; Rep., 11, 377 E ; Laws, xi, 916 C. 
 
 4. M^ ov with the Participle, 
 
 In classical Greek literature there are eight passages in which 
 fir) ov is combined with the participle. In order to understand 
 this construction we must go back to fir) ov with the finite verb, 
 as the order of development seems to have been fir) ov with 
 the finite verb, fir) ov with the infinitive, and lastly fir) ov with the 
 participle. Under the first head it is used of an apprehended 
 negative, chiefly with the subjunctive, after verbs of fear, etc., and 
 equals Latin ne non ; see any grammar or lexicon for examples. 
 From this use comes fir) ov with the infinitive, which is only used 
 after a negative or negative idea, and, at first, only in passionate 
 language. It represents fir) ov with the subjunctive taken up 
 into oratio obliqua, both negatives being retained to preserve the 
 apprehension and to show the practical interest of the speaker. 
 Then the construction became more and more common until it 
 became a mere phrase. It was always confined to Herodotus, and 
 Attic writers and their imitators. The use of fir) ov with the 
 
68 On the Use of Mr] with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 participle is explained in the same way as the use with the infini- 
 tive. It denotes the personal, practical interest of the speaker in 
 the subject. As the infinitive it is only used when a negative 
 idea precedes. Most authorities agree in explaining the parti- 
 ciple in this construction as conditional, 1 although an attempt has 
 recently been made by Whitelaw, Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1886, 
 p. 38 f., to prove that it is consecutive. The examples are all 
 cited by Prof. Gildersleeve in Liddell and Scott under fir) ov, and 
 by Goodwin, 1. c. The construction first appears in Sophocles, 
 O. R., 13 : 
 
 8vo~d\yrjTO<; yap av 
 €L7)v rocdvBe fir) ov KaToiKTipcov eBpav. 
 
 = el fir) KdTOLKTipoifii. lb., 221 : 
 
 ov yap av fiaicpav 
 fyvevov avTo? fir) ovk eyjnv ti o~vfi/3o\ov. 
 
 Cf. Jebb, 1. c, and Goodwin, § 511. The latter translates — "for 
 I should not be very far on the track, if I were attempting to trace 
 it alone, without a clue/' thus supplying another protasis, which 
 Jebb does also. lb., O. C, 360 : 
 
 r}/cei<; yap ov Kevr] ye - - - - 
 
 - - - - fir) ou%l Belfi ifiol <f>epovo~d ti. 
 
 There is an irregularity here also, as ov Kevr] is virtually positive, 
 not negative. Cf. Jebb, and Kuhner, § 516, 5, N. 8. The latter 
 thinks it should not be classed with the other examples, but with 
 such as ovk dpvovfiai fir) ov% ovtcds e^eiv. He compares O. II., 57. 
 
 Hdt., II, 110, 2 : ovk &v 81/catov elvai eardvai efiirpoo-Qev tcov 
 eiceLvov dvadwfidrcov fir) ovk virepfiaXkofievov rolat epyoto-i, = 
 el fir) virepftdWrfTai ; ib., VI, 9 : KarappdoBrjcrav fir) ov Svvarol 
 yevtovrai virepfiaXeaOai kclI ovtco ovtc rr)v MlKtjtov oloi re ecoac 
 egeXelv firj ovk eovres vavKpdrope*;. (Their thought was el fir) 
 vavKpdrope? ea/iev). Ib., VI, 106, 3 : elvdrrj Be ovk egeXevaeo-Oai 
 efyaaav firj ov irXrjpeos eovro? tov kvkXov. "They refused to 
 march out on the ninth day (and thereafter) until the moon should 
 
 1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., \ 818 ; Jebb, Appendix to Soph., O. R., p. 221. 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 69 
 
 be full " (edv fir) irXjpffl rj). Dem. (LVni, 13) : Tt? av ePovXrjOt) 
 fAi/cpa /cepSdvai, efjbv rd rj/jLLcrrj \aj3eiv ; ovtf av el$ fir) ov o-vvet&obs 
 eavroj avKofyavTOvvTi, = el fir) avvyhei. Plato Lysis, 212, D : 
 ovk dp icrrl cfrCkov toj (JhXovvti ovSev fir) ov/c dvrt(j)iXovv as el fir) 
 avTicfriKeZ. Philemon, Frag., 213, 5 : ovt dvr)p irevr)*; yeyobs fir) 
 ov reyyvv fiaOcbv BvvatT av do~<ba\<o<; ^rjv tov filov = el fir) fiddoi. 
 
 We see, then, that with the exception of two passages (Soph., 
 O. E., 221, and Hdt., vi, 106, 3) these participles are all plainly con- 
 ditional and even those two may be explained as sueh without any 
 undue straining of the language. It is hardly necessary therefore 
 to seek a remote explanation, as Whitelaw does, when one is so 
 near at hand. 
 
 Two other passages where fir) ov occurs with nouns may be 
 mentioned. Isoc, X, 47 : Tavrvs Be rifirjs Tv^eiv ofy oldv re 
 fir) ov rbv iroXv rrj yvcofiy 8ta<f>epovTa. Dem., XIX, 123 : ^aXeiral 
 Xaftelv al tcov <&(DKe<DV TroXei? fir) ov ypovw KTe. 
 
 5. Miscellaneous. 
 
 There still remain to be discussed a few passages which, either on 
 account of the uncertain state of the text or of the peculiar nature 
 of the participles themselves, could not be classed elsewhere. 
 
 The Homeric Hymns were composed at different times, but they 
 all doubtless belong near the Epic age, and they are Epic in the 
 avoidance of firj with the participle. The only example noted is 
 in the Hymn to Hermes, line 92 : 
 
 Kai re IBcbv fir) ISobv elvai ical /caxfrb? dicovaa*;. 
 
 There is a lacuna just before the line, and this prevents us from 
 deciding as to the true nature of the negative. It appears, how- 
 ever, to be due to the infinitive. The phrase at a later period 
 became a proverb. Cf. Dem., xxv, 89. 
 
 The Batrachomyomachia belongs to a later date than the Homeric 
 Hymns, and by some is thought not to belong to the classical period 
 at all. There is one example of fir) with the participle in it, i. e., 
 
 line 235: 
 
 ^lydpira^ S' rjfivv erdpcov irepl redveuorayv 
 
 Kal ftdXe JJpao-o-atov fir)ir(o yalr)<; ein^avra. 
 
 6 
 
70 On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 firjiray yair)? iirifiavTa = irplv yatrj<; bri/Srjvait but in classical 
 Greek fir] c. ptc. = irpiv c. inf. is only found in clauses which of 
 themselves demand fir] (cf. p. 1 7), and this is not the case here. 
 There is, however, another reading which Stadtmiiller gives on 
 the authority of MSS. examined by him, i. e. : 
 
 ical f3a\e UpcMrcralov vrjSvo? €9 fieaov r\irap. 
 
 This seems to suit the general character of the poem better than 
 the former reading. 
 
 Aeschylus, Septem, 436 : 
 
 Tt? avBpa KOfiird^ovra fir) rpeaa^ fievet; 
 
 Verrall makes fir) rpeo-as = ware fir) rpeaat, but Paley's explana- 
 tion is perhaps better, i. e. f " the not trembling is regarded as a 
 condition of withstanding the boastful foe, i. e., no one who does 
 tremble will meet him." He compares Eurip., Heraclidae, 533, 
 and Isoc, vin, 41, which are, however, more plainly conditional 
 than the present passage ; cf. Jebb to Soph., O. C, 360, who adopts 
 a similar explanation of a difficult negative there. Mr] might 
 possibly depend on the negative character of the question. 
 Soph., O. R., 57 : 
 
 ft>9 OvBiv €<TTl OVT6 TTVpyOS OVT€ VdVS 
 
 epr)fio$ avSpwv fir) gvvoi/covvrcov eaco. 
 
 It is possible to take dvBpcov fir) %vvolkovvtcov together as genitive 
 absolute with conditional force. But as this would simply be a 
 repetition of the preceding thought, commentators are almost 
 unanimous in taking avSpwv with eprjfios and making the parti- 
 ciple merely epexegetic of it. In this case fir] is really superfluous 
 and is due to the tendency to repeat it after negative ideas, cf. 
 Kiihner, § 516, 5, N. 8. In O. R., 1530, fir) is due to the influ- 
 ence of the irplv av clause : 
 
 ware — firjSev d\j3i&w irpiv &v 
 
 repfia rod fSLov irepdarj firjBev akyeivov iraOcov. 
 
 Antigone, 1042 : 
 
 ovft &)? fiiaafia rovro fir) rpeaa<; iyo) 
 BdirreLv iraptjcreo icelvov. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 71 
 
 Ellendt cites fir) Tpeaas as an example of fir] with the participle, 
 but ov and fir] though separated must be taken together and with 
 irapr)o-(0. 
 
 Philoctetes, 171 : 
 
 OLKTLpO) VLV 676)7', 07Tft>? 
 fir] TOV K7)Sofl€VOV ffporayv 
 fl7]8e %VVTpO<j)OV Oflfl €%0)V 
 
 voael. 
 
 The force of fir] is much discussed here. Jebb makes it generic 
 with causal force. Ellendt says, " non eVet firjSels rer/Serai, sed 
 Kaiirep firjSevbs /crjSofievov," but this wrong use of Kaiirep has 
 already been mentioned. Kiihner, § 515, 3, 3, takes the participle 
 as causal pure and simple. Perhaps the mental emotion shown 
 by ol/cTupa) and the question indicated by oVo)? have something to 
 do with the negative. 
 
 lb., 935 : C09 fie6r]o-cov firjiroS* wS' opa iraKiv. Again we 
 have a difficult negative and scholars vary in their explanation. 
 Kiihner, § 515, 3, explains as future participle expressing purpose; 
 Baumlein, p. 295, as purpose or generic, " wie in der absicht oder 
 wie einer der nicht will ; " Jebb as subjective. Aken, p. 230, 
 says it is surprising even for Sophocles. I believe the generic 
 force is sufficient to account for fir). Cf. Xen., Cyr., 1, 3, 8 : rov 
 "Kvpov eirepecrOaL irpoirerS)^ <w? av Trails fir)8iirco viro r rrTf]o'o'wv. 
 
 Eurip., Iph. Au., 1586: 
 
 aira? eirrj^rjae o-Tparos, 
 aekirrov elo~i86vT€s i/c 6eS)V twos 
 (frdo-fi, ov ye fir)& opeofievov tticttis Traprjv. 
 
 The participle seems to be purely adversative = " of whom, though 
 not seen, a pledge was present," and hence the negative should be 
 ov. These closing lines are bracketed by many editors, and we 
 seem to have here an evidence of later authorship. 
 
 The Epistles of Aeschines are universally recognized as spurious, 
 and their late origin appears to be attested by some anomalous uses 
 of firj. Cf. X, 2: SiarptfiovTcov yap rjficov TroWas rjfiepa? eV'IXift) 
 Kal firj 7r\7)povfievcov rrjs 0ea<? t&v rd<fxov, rjv Si /10c yvoofirj fikveiv. 
 The participle is purely circumstantial, and ov would be expected. 
 Again, in § 6 of the same Epistle, we have: r) 8e vv/kj>t) ISovaa top 
 
72 On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 K.Lfiwva a>9 fiijBev avro} kclkov o-vveiBora kt£. Here fir) is unjusti- 
 fiable, unless we explain it as generic, as in the passage from 
 Sophocles treated above. Again, Epis. vn, 4 : vfilv Be tt)<; evvouas, 
 rjv airovTL /jlol irapeayeaOe dopvPovvre? Btj teal fit) OeXovre? dicpod- 
 o~aadai ra>v XocBopovvroov rjfias, 7roXXr)v %dpiv e^o). Mtj cannot 
 be defended, unless we take it with the following infinitive. Again, 
 Epis. XII, 3 : ovk dXa^ovevofiac irpo<; v/jlcl? a>? 7roXXd irdvv Xaftelv 
 e^ov pot, 'xprjfiara fit) Xafiwv. This example is the more surprising 
 as we have had occasion to notice that this subjective a>9 invariably 
 takes ov in Greek of the best period, except when the principal 
 verb demands fj,rj, and frequently even then. 
 
 Plato, Philebus, 60 C : ovkovv tg3 Xoyw iireipaOriiiev %<wpk 
 etcarepov e/carepov devres eh rbv ftlov eicaoT<ov aju/crov fiev rjBovrjv 
 fypovqaei, fypovnow 8* axravTco*; r)Bovf)<; /jbrjBe to a/jbi/cporaTov e^ov- 
 aav. We may take the participle as equivalent to coo-re with the 
 infinitive, or explain the fir/ as being due to its predicative position. 
 
 In Pseudo-Plato, Anterastae, 135 A : rj tc-o>9 alcrxvvofieOa, cocnrep 
 e<f>r) rovs fJLvrjo-rfjpas "Ofjurjpos, firj cl%lovvt<ov elvai Tiva dXXov 
 oo-ti? evreiveu to rogov, firj must be taken with elvai. Cf. Thuc, 
 VII, 50, 3 : firj (j>avepo3<; ye d\-i<ov 'y]rrj(f)l^eo'dai — Dem., XXI, 205 ; 
 xxxvi, 48. 
 
 In the following passages from the Laws firj seems to be due to 
 the general character of the sentences : v, 733 C, ravra Be irdvTa 
 earl irXrjdei teal fieyeOet, zeal o-cfroBpoTwo-iv Io-otwctl re koX oaa evav- 
 ria earl iraai rols toiovtois 777)09 j3ovXr)o~i,v Bca^epovrd re kol 
 firjBev Bta^epovra 7rpo9 aipeaiv e/cdo~T(ov — X, 901 C, ov yap irov, 
 orav ye dBvvarov f) t&v dirdvToav eirLfieXelaBai, Tore d/ieXeia 
 earai t<ov o-fiL/cp&v rj fieydXcov fjurj ein/JLeXovfieva), ktc ; XI, 913 A, 
 Orjaavpov Be Xeyay/nev — ov tis eOero p.rj T(ov ifi&v cov irarepayv, 
 yrf\& evpelv iroTe. Oeois ev^aifjLrjv. 
 
 We have already noticed under the head of the conditional 
 participle passages in which cause and condition seem to be united 
 in the participle, the result being that it is negatived by fit]. We 
 have now to consider the few passages in classical Greek in which 
 an apparently purely causal participle takes this negative. Some 
 scholars even maintain that this is a legitimate construction. So 
 Maetzner to Antiphon, v, 65 : "non abhorret a Graecorum usu fiij 
 particula cum participio copulata." See also Kuhner, § 515, 3, 3 ; 
 
On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 73 
 
 Gayler, Particularum Graeci Sermonis Negativarum Disputatio, 
 p. 279. And quite recently Cook- Wilson, Trans. Oxford Phil. 
 Soc, 1889-90, has made a systematic attempt to prove that firj 
 with the causal participle is justified by analogy with the causal 
 relative with yJ). 
 
 Let us proceed to examine the passages and see what justifica- 
 tion there is for this argument. That the causal participle takes 
 ov even when it could easily have a conditional force is shown by 
 Eurip., Bacchae, 271 : 
 
 6pa<rv<; re 8vvarb<; ical Xeyetv oZo9 re avrjp 
 tcatc6$ 7To\lttj<; yiyverai vovv ovtc e%a>z>. 
 
 where we must translate " since he has no sense," not " if, &c. ; " 
 cf. also Plato, Apol., 20 C. 
 
 The first passage noted in which firf is apparently used with 
 the causal participle is Thuc, I, 77, 3 : ov rov irXeovos /j,tj 
 arepLa-KOjMevoL r )(a? LV ^X 0V<TLV ' M o-Tepio-tco/jLevoi gives the ground 
 of xapiv exovaiv, and hence should have ov. It is possible to 
 see a slight conditional force in the participle, and perhaps the 
 fact that ov precedes led to the use of p,r) to avoid a repetition. 1 
 lb., IV, 73, 4 : f}o-v%aZov Be koI avrol fjurj eiriovTwv (sc. twv 
 Aa/ceSaifAovlcov). The participle is purely causal here, and there 
 does not seem to be any justification for using fit]. We can only 
 take refuge in a corrupt state of the text. Cf. Kriiger, ad loc. 
 
 Xen., Cyr., Ill, 1, 37 : ovBe yap ecXfj^dat, eyayye alyjiaKoarov 
 ravrnv vofii^a), crov ye p^iroairoTe <f>vyovTO<i rjfid^. Again fir) is 
 apparently unjustified. lb., VI, 3, 15 : ol 8* aXXoi, wo-irep el/cb? 
 fni$ev elBores, ifCTreirXeyfjuevoi rjo-av. Cook- Wilson says that "per- 
 haps elBoras should be read or elBores may stand by a kind of 
 attraction for elBoras, in which case firj would be natural." And 
 fiwBev elSores might stand for ol finBev elBores. 
 
 Dem., XL.IV, 28 : &aff r/yeto-dai Belv — rrjv irarpwav ovaiav 
 e^ecv, icf> a t elo-eirotrjOr), fir} 6W09 ev tS oXkco vlov, teal tovtcov 
 tcvpLos yeveadai. M77 with the causal participle can here be 
 explained as forming part of the infinitive clause. 2 
 
 1 For Hdt., in, 65, see p. 53 ; Thuc, 1, 118, 2, p. 64. 
 
 2 For Xen., Mem., 1, 6, 12, see p. 54; Antiphon, 11, £, 4, ditto; Antiphon, v, 
 65, p. 62 ; Lysias, xxvi, 10, p. 38. 
 
74 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 Aeschines, II, 62 : Xoycov yap firj TrporeOevTOiv eU rrjv varepav 
 iKKkwcTlav, twv Be 7rpoe8pcov kco\v6vt(qv, ovk evrjv elirelv. The 
 participle seems to be causal, but the passage is doubtless corrupt. 
 Cf. Cobet, V. L., p. 353. 
 
 Plato, Timseus Locrus, 101 D, and Epinomis, 985 B, are also 
 apparently causal, but are not included on account of the spurious 
 character of these writings. 
 
 We see, then, that the passages in which yJ] is used with the 
 causal participle, and which do not admit of explanation, are in 
 reality very few. Perhaps the trouble is with our text, but cf. 
 A. J. P., xii, 520, where Prof. Gildersleeve, speaking of Cook- 
 Wilson's paper, calls them " free negatives." These examples, 
 however, taken in connection with those in which cause and con- 
 dition meet, show us how easily later writers could be led to feel 
 that firj was the proper negative to be used with the causal 
 participle. 
 
 In tabular form the results of the preceding pages in which 
 the independent participle with /jltj has been discussed appear as 
 follows : 
 
On the Use of M77 with the Participle in Classical Greek. 75 
 
 Authors. 
 
 *3 
 
 a g 
 
 — — 
 
 1| 
 
 a 
 
 II 
 P 
 
 "2 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 « 
 
 & 
 1 
 
 6 
 S 
 
 I 
 
 - 
 
 [3 
 
 £ 
 
 "3 
 
 I 
 
 — 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 O 
 
 d 
 
 
 - — 
 
 P 
 
 "C.2 
 
 § 
 
 3 & 
 
 S q 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 !& 
 
 *3 
 
 1 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 ja 
 
 -*> 
 
 1 
 
 -» 
 
 
 ,p- 
 
 a. 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 3 
 g 
 
 Homer 
 
 Homeric Hymns 
 
 
 
 
 
 "T 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 Hesiod 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lyric Poets, not in- 
 cluding Pindar.... 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 23 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 49 
 
 117 
 
 322 
 
 367 
 
 926 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Pindar 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 jEschylus 
 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 30 
 
 42 
 
 52 
 
 161 
 
 202 
 
 560 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 ...... 
 
 3 
 2 
 
 14 
 4 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 "3"" 
 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 Sophocles 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 35 
 
 Euripides 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 64 
 
 Tragici Min 
 
 
 9 
 
 Aristophanes. 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 Comici Min 
 
 (I) 1 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 13 
 
 (I) 1 
 3 
 
 '"2" 
 3 
 
 6 
 5 
 
 11+2 
 51 
 
 Herodotus 
 
 
 
 Thucydides 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 Xenophon 
 
 7 
 4 
 3 
 
 12 
 3 
 
 31 
 
 
 196 
 
 Orators 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 516 
 
 Plato 
 
 626 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 25+1 
 
 19 
 
 50 
 
 8+1 
 
 23 
 
 1646+2 
 
 
 
 We see, then, from this table that, just as in the case of the 
 dependent participle, so in that of the independent, the construc- 
 tion is but little used in Epic and Lyric poetry, but begins to be 
 employed quite freely by the dramatists, especially Sophocles, after 
 whom it is exceedingly common. The two main lines of develop- 
 ment are the pure conditional and the generic participle with the 
 article. 
 
 III. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 In conclusion let us first unite the table on page 48 and the 
 one above, which sum up, respectively, the dependent and the 
 independent uses of firj with the participle : 
 
 1 From Philemon, hence after the classical period. 
 
76 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 'STOOX 
 
 COr-ii© N«ON«5WNWN05!OOsa 
 r-t r-i (MOO OC 
 
 
 ©1 
 
 + 
 
 00 
 <M 
 I© 
 ©1 
 
 •snoouBiposjH 
 
 |i-h : : :iH^t"i-i : : : :cmooco»© 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 •apTppjBj eifl my*, no Url 
 
 : : : : : : eo : : : C^co : : th »h 
 
 rH 
 
 + 
 
 00 
 
 ■jnotoiA oidppjBj oiianao 
 
 : : : : : : : : : : :i-h co 
 
 o 
 
 •a^Borpajd 'opj^iy 
 ^noqjtM ojdppjjBj ouanao 
 
 : i : : : : jwrHi-i • • j^^co 
 
 - 
 
 •appxy 
 qp atdpi^JCBj ouaaao 
 
 : : : ©* rH co t* co co co *© rt< o» r~ <m i>- 
 : : : hn rHTtirH<Mco 
 
 . . . rHCOCO 
 
 c© 
 ©1 
 a* 
 
 •9AISS90n00 
 
 ::: . { . • j <n eo »-h co : co co <m ^ t^ 
 
 CO 
 
 TBnopxp no O 9-m<I 
 
 : : :hhm co^icco© 
 : : : ■ ■ —km 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 •pirBJBJ 10 
 
 IBOiprnpuy qJ9A m^lS. 
 pire eidpRJBJ iBnoptpuoQ 
 
 : : : : : : »-h i-h : : ' w 'i-i »-h co »o co 
 
 + 
 
 
 •0ai^b8oxi9^ui 
 
 ::: r-t :©* • • ;«h- ...... :coi©co 
 
 00 
 (M 
 
 •AjB^U9raap!dng 
 
 : I i : i • "* rH • • • j ^ <m "5 —• 
 
 1^ 
 
 •9AmugiT[ 
 
 : : : ©*rnooco 
 
 *1 
 
 'Url i» suoTS89Jdxa IBopdijjg 
 
 : : : : :— kmc<j :c<i : jr* — inh 
 
 o 
 
 tftAflVpH DU9U9f) 
 
 - :. : : ... ©q ♦ -^ ■**< i-h »-< <m o* c* i© o* — i os 
 
 ! 5 S I rH i-i CO "T 
 
 OS 
 <M 
 
 *qJ9A 9^nrg pUB 
 
 « '0 'oidpi^jrej jBuopxpuoo 
 
 — , : t ': : : co t~ :^n»ooo»o 
 : : : : : : i-imojn 
 
 • rH 
 
 o' 
 
 <M 
 
 •89S11BO IBUJJ 
 
 : : : : :.-hco • ' ' ic*r-nacoiQ 
 : : : : : : : : : »-' 
 
 8 
 
 •8uUB9Mg jo sqjt9A 
 
 ::: irn : :rH : i-h : : : :»-h : 
 
 "* 
 
 •9ApB^dO 
 
 i-( |00 NH JrHOS j CO »H j C<> <M t~ Ctt 
 
 CO 
 
 •9ApBJ9duiI 
 
 ' I(M t- r-( l© 00 ©J rH ©1 Tt< I© «C rH "^ © 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 i 
 
 © 
 
 I 
 
 < 
 
 Homer... 
 
 Homeric Hymns 
 
 Lyric Poets, exclusive of 
 
 Pindar 
 
 Pindar 
 
 Sophocles 
 
 Euripides. 
 
 Tragici Minores 
 
 Comici Minores 
 
 Thucydides. 
 
 Orators 
 
 1 
 
 J 
 
 - 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
On the Use of Mr) with the Participle in Classical Greek. 77 
 
 We see, then, that we have studied in round numbers twenty- 
 five hundred (2,500) examples of pr} with the participle. Of 
 these about one-third (882) are indebted for the special character 
 of their negative to the principal verb on which they depend, 
 while in the remaining two-thirds it is the nature of the participle 
 itself that demands fir}. At the bottom of this latter class is 
 found to lie the conditional proposition, although the participle 
 may be classed under the heads of generic and concessive in addi- 
 tion to the pure conditional. When ov appears in any of the above 
 categories it can usually be explained by recourse to the principle 
 of adhaerescence, or of oratio obliqua, or to the retention of the 
 negative of fact. But very few cases have been noted where some 
 such explanation cannot be legitimately employed. 
 
 Special attention has been called to the frequency with which 
 cause and condition meet, and the ease with which later writers 
 could be led into the habit of using fitf with the purely causal 
 participle. We ought also to notice under the head of the supple- 
 mentary participle the not infrequent use, from Sophocles on, of 
 fir} with the participle after verbs of knowing and thinking when 
 the will of the speaker enters, which was another point at which 
 the later use of fir} with the participle made inroads on the classi- 
 cal use of ov. 
 
 As to the usage of the individual authors but little has been 
 said in the preceding pages, chiefly on account of the absence of a 
 suitable basis of comparison, a page of poetry not being by any 
 means equal to a page of prose. Still we may gather from the 
 preceding table some points of interest and profit. Notice first 
 the almost entire absence of the construction from Epic poetry 
 and its small use in Lyric. Doubtless the themes treated had 
 much to do with this infrequent use, but it also seems probable 
 that in this early literature the participle itself was not felt to be 
 as good a substitute for the finite verb as in later times. Be this 
 as it may, it is nevertheless a fact that it is not until we come to 
 dramatic poetry, and especially to Sophocles, that we find the con- 
 struction used with any freedom. 
 
 Of the dramatic poets Aristophanes is lowest in the use of fir} 
 with the participle. Counting 8000 lines for Aeschylus, 10000 
 for Sophocles, 26000 for Euripides and 15000 for Aristophanes, 
 
78 On the Use of Mrf with the Participle in Classical Greek. 
 
 the average per 10000 lines without counting the examples from 
 the fragments is : Aeschylus 36, Sophocles 61, Euripides 37, and 
 Aristophanes 24. We cannot ascribe this small use in Aristophanes 
 to the participle itself as by his time it had reached its full develop- 
 ment, but it must be due to the simplicity and directness of his 
 style. 
 
 Of the historians Xenophon in the Anabasis and the Hellenika 
 has a lower percentage than either Herodotus or Thucydides, while 
 both the former fall much below the latter. Xenophon has on 
 an average 9 — per one hundred Teubner pages, Herodotus 9 -f-, 
 and Thucydides 26, which again coincides with the simplicity of 
 the style of the former writers, and the close, argumentative style 
 of the latter. 
 
 Of the orators Antiphon (Thucydides' teacher (?)) has the highest 
 average, having 64 examples to one hundred pages, Deinarchus the 
 lowest with but 9 — . The averages of the others are as follows : 
 Andocides 26, Lysias 27, Isocrates 40, Isaeus 39, Demosthenes 28, 
 Aeschines 20, Lycurgus 40. Notice that all but Deinarchus and 
 Aeschines have a higher average than Thucydides, who stands at 
 the head of the historians. 
 
 Xenophon in his other writings, exclusive of the Anabasis and 
 the Hellenika, averages 30 per one hundred pages, while Plato's 
 average is 38. Thus in oratory and philosophy fir) with the 
 participle reached its highest development. 
 
 We see, then, from the tragic poets on a steadily increasing use 
 of fit] with the participle, both in regard to the actual number of 
 participles used, and in the variety of constructions in which they 
 are employed. We can see also how later writers noticing, but 
 not fully understanding these legitimate constructions, and striv- 
 ing for more forcible and energetic expressions, would be led to 
 extend more and more the use of yJ\ with the participle into 
 domains where it properly did not belong, until they finally felt 
 that this and this alone was its legitimate negative. 
 
On the Use of Mrj with the Participle in Classical Greek. 79 
 
 IV. 
 
 Bibliography. 
 
 The following are the principal works consulted in the prepara- 
 tion of this paper. Others have been cited in the foot-notes. 
 
 Aken. — Die Grundzuge der Lehre von Tempus und Modus im 
 Griechischen, Rostock, 1861. 
 
 Baumlein. — Untersuchungen iiber Griechische Partikeln, Stutt- 
 gart, 1861. 
 
 Kuhner. — Ausfiihrliche Grammatik, Hanover, 1869. 
 
 Madvig. — Syntax der Griechischen Sprache, Braunschweig, 1884. 
 
 Goodwin. — Moods and Tenses, Boston, 1890. 
 
 Kniger-Pokel. — Griechische Sprachlehre, Leipzig, 1891. 
 
 In addition to the articles by Prof. Gildersleeve cited in the 
 foot-notes, I am also deeply indebted to his lectures on the parti- 
 ciple and the negatives which it has been ray privilege to attend. 
 
 re TH E J 
 
 OF 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 .11 1M ft 1945 
 
 
 JUN 4 1945 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Al R " : ' 
 
 
 |W>-«" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !.D 21 -100m-12, , 48 (8796») 
 
RETURN MAIN CIRCULATION 
 
 TO— +> 
 
 ALL BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL 
 RENEW BOOKS BY CALLING 642-3405 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 JUIv 7 4 J996 
 
 
 
 REHFIVFP 
 
 
 
 HIM 1 U 1QQ C 
 
 
 
 J UN It 133* 
 
 
 
 OBMOULATION DE 
 
 PL 
 
 
 UtL US W! 
 
 II) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720