κεν and αν

Book Nav

main

362. Thα Particles κεν and ἄν, as vwe have seen, are used to mark a predication as conaditiοnat, or made ςwith reference to a particular or ἰiπited state of things: whereas τε shows that the meaning is geπneτa. Hence ςwith the Subj. and Opt. κεν or ἄν indicates that an event holds a dg7ίnιte place in the expected course of things : in other swords, κεν or ἄν points to an aυtνκaί occurrence in the future.1

κεν is commoner in Homer than ἄν. n the existing text κεν occurs about 630 times in the Bind, and 520 times in the Odyssey : while ἄν (including ἢν and ἐπήν) occurs 192 times in the Iliad and 157 times in tne Odyssey. Thus the proportion is more than 3:1, and is not materially different in the twο poems.

It is part οf Fick's well known theory that ἄν was unknown in the original Homeric dialect: and a systematic attempt to restore the exclusive use of κεν in Homer has been made by a Dutch scholar, J. van Leeαwen2, who has proposed more or less satisfactory emendations of al the places in which ἄν now appears. It is impossible to deny the soundness of the principles on which he bases his enquiry. When the poems were chiefly known through oral recitation there must have been a constant tendency to modernize the language. With Attic and Ionic reciters that tendency must have led to ἄν creeping into the text, sometimes in place of κεν, sometimes ςwhere the pure Subj. or Opt. was required by Homeric usage. Rvidence of this kind of corruption has been preserved, as Van Leeuςwen points out, in the νariae tectiοπnes of the ancient critics. Thus in B. Il. 168 ἐπεί κε κάμω is noςw read on the authority of Aristarchus; but ἐπὴν κεκάμω and ἐπήν κε κάμω were also ancient readings, and ἐπήν is found in all οαr MSS. Siααmilarly in B. 7. 5 Aristarchus read ἐπεί κε κάμωσιν, and the MSS. are diςided betςween ἐπεί κε and ἐπήν κε (or ἐπὴν κεκ.). There is a similar variation betςween the forms ἢν and εἰ κε (or αἰ κε) in the phrases α κʼ ἐθέλησθα, αἱ κ ἐθέλῃσι, 8xc. Thus in Il. 4.353 (= 9.359) the MSS. nearly all have-

ὄψεαι ἢν ἐθέλῃσθα καὶ αἴ κέν τοι τὰ μεμήλῃ,

but αἴ κʼ ἐθέλησθα, which gives a better rhetorical elect, is found in Il. 8.471 ὄψεαι αἰ κʼ ἐθέλησθα (so all MSS., ἢν ἐθ. as a v. l. in a), also in Il. 13.260, 18.457, Od. 3.92, etc. Similarly in Il. 16.453 ἐπεὶ δὴ τόν γε λίπῃ the v. l. ἐπήν is given by good MSS. (D, G, L, and as a variant in A). And the line Il. 11.797

Μυρμιδόνων, αἴ κέν τι φόως Δαναοῖσι γένηαι

is repeated in Il. 16.39 with the variation ἢν ποῶ for αἰ κεν. In such cases we can see the intrusion of ἄν actually in process.

Again, the omission of ἄν may be required by the meter, or by the indefinite character of the sentence (§ 283): e.g. in Il. 15. 09

ὁππότʼ ἂν ἰσόμορον ἐθέλησι

both these reasons point to ὁππότε ἰσόμορον κτλ. So in Il. 2.228 εὖτ’ ἂν πτολίεθρον ἕλωμεν read εὔτε πτ, and in Od. 11.17 οὔθʼ ὁπότʼ ἂν στείχῃσι read οὔθʼ ὁπότε (ὅτε κε, which Van Leeuwen proposes in these two places, is not admissible, since the reference is general).

Several reasons combine to make it probable that the forms ἢν and ἐπὴν are post-Homeric. The contraction ob εἰ ἄν, ἐπεὶ ἄν is contrary to Homeric analogies (§ 378a), and could hardly have taken place until ἄν became much commoner than it is in Homer. Again, the usage with regard to the order ob the Particles excludes the combinations ἢν δέ, ἦν περ, ἢν γάρ—for which Homer wοαld have εἰ δʼ ἄν, εἴ περ ἄν, εἰ γὰρ ἄν (§ 355). Again, ἢν cannot properly be used in a generaί statement or simile, and whenever it is so used the metre allows it to be changed into εἷ.

Il. 1.166 ἀτὰρ ἦν ποτε δασμὸς ἵκηται

Od. 5. 120 ἦν τίς τε φίλην ποιήσετʼ ἀκοίτην (ᾖ τίς τε in several MSS.)

Od. 11. 159 ἢν μή τις ἔχῃ εὐεργέα νῆα

Od. 12. 288 ἦν πως ἐξαπίνης ἔλθῃ: Π. 20. 172 ἦν τινα πέφνῃ (in a simile)

Similar arguments apply ςwith even greater force to ἐπήν. Of the 48 instaces there are 18 in general sentences, and several others (Il. 4. 239, 16. 95; Od. 3. 45, 4. 412, 5. 348, 11. 119, 15. 36, 21. 159) in which the reference to the future is so indefinite that ἐπεί vwith a pure subjunctive. is admissible. It cannot be accidental that in these places, with one exception (Od. 11. 192), ἐπήν is foloςwed by a consonant, so that ἐπεί can be restored vwithout any metrical difficulty. On the other hand, in 13 places in which ἐπήν is followed by a vowel the reference is to a definite future event, and accordingly vwe may read ἐπεί κʼ. In the combination ἐπὴν δή, which occurs seven times, we should probably read ἐπεὶ δή, or in some places ἐπεί κεν (as in Od. 11. 221). The form ἐπειδάν occurs once, in a simile (. 13. 285): hence we should readd ἐπεὶ δή (not ἐπεί κεν, as Bekker and Nauck, or αἴ κεν as Menrad).

The distinction between general statements and those which refer to an actual future occurrence has hardly been suficiently attended to ism the cοn- iectures proposed by Van Loeuvwen and others. Thus in Odd. 5. 121 ᾖν τίς τε φίλον ποιήσετʼ ἀκοίτην (in a general reHexion) Van L0euvwen vwοuldd read αἴ κές τίς τε: and in Od. 12. 288 ἢν παως ἐξαπίνης ἔλθῃ he proposes αἴ κά που. So in Il. 6. 489, Od. 8. 553 ἐπὴν τὰ πρῶτα γένηται (of the lot of man) he bids us readd ἐπεί κε. Lf any change is vwanted beyond putting ἑππεί for ἐπfhν, the most probable vwοulddd be ἐπεί τε : see b 332. On the other hand he would put ἐπεί for ἑπέaῳ in such places as Od. Il. 293 αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν δὴ ταῦτα τελεντήσης τε καὶ ἔρξῃ2 (cp. Od. 5. 353, 18. 269), vwhere a definite future occasion is implied, and consequently ἑπεῖκεσ (which he reads in Od. 4. 414) vwοuld be more omeric. La Od. 6. 262 αὐτὰρ ἑπὴπ· πόλιος ἐπιβήομεν vwe should perhaps read ἐπεί κε πόλεος (r -) : see 6 94, 2.

IN a fevw places the trαe reading may be εἷ or ἔπεί vwith the Opt.: as Od. 8. 511 αἶσα γὰρ ν ἀπολέσθαι, ἐπὴν πόλις ἀμμφικαλύ2η (ἐπεὶ Il. Il. ἀμφικαλύαι, as in Il. 19. 208 vwe should read ἐπεὶ τισαίμεθα) : Od. 2t. 237 ( aπ383) ἢν δέ τις Il. Il. ἀκούσῃ μή τι θύραζε προβλάσκειν (εἰ δέ τις .. ἀκούσαι) : ll. 15- 554., 17- 245, 22- 55, 487.

The form ὅςʼ ἄν occurs in our text in 29 places, and in 22 of these the metre admits ὅτε κʼ (χʼ), vwhich Van L0euvwen accordingly vwοuldd restore. The mischief hhoςwever must ie deeper. Of the 22 places there are 13 in vwhich ὅτʼ ἄν appears in the leading clause of a simile (ὡς δʼ ὅτʼ ἄν), and in three others (1. 2. 397, Od. 11. 18, 13. 101) the sense is general ; so that ὅτε κʼ is adρmissible in sbh οnlγ (l.7. 335. 459, 8- 373. 425, Od. 2. 374 4- 477). Ll cannot be an accident that there are so many cases of ὅτʼ ἄν ςwhere Homeric usage requires the pure Subj, and no similar cases of ὅτε κεν : but for that very reason vwe cannot correct them by reading ὅτε κʼ, Meanvwhile no better solution has been proposed, and vwe must be content to note the 16 places as in al probability corrupt or spurious.

It is one thing, however, to find that ἄν has encroached upon κεν in Homer, and another thing to show that there are no uses ob ἄν which belong to the primitive Homeric language.

The restoration of κε(ν) is generally regarded as especially easy in the combination οὐκ ἄν, for which οὗ κεν can alςways be ςwritten ςwithout affecting either sense or metre. The change, however, is open to objections which have not been sufficiently considered. br ςσill be found that οὐκ ἄν occurs 61 times in the ordinary text ob Homer : vwhile οὗ κεν occurs 9 times, and οὗ κε 7 times. Nοςw ob the forms κεν and κε the first occurs in the lied 272 times, the second 222 times. Hence, according to the general laςws of probability, οὗ κεν and οὗ κε may be expected to occur in the same proportion : and in the ordinary text this is the case (9: 7). But if every οὁκ ἄν vwere changed into οὗ κεν, there would be 70 instances of οὗ κεν again2t 7 of οὗ κε. This clearly could not be accidental : hence it folloςws that οὐκ ἄν must be retained in all or nearly all the passages where it noςw stands3 And if οὁκ ἄν is right, vwe may infer that the other instances ob ἄν ςwith a negative -22 in number-are equally unassailable.

Another group of instances in which ἄν is evidently primitive consists ob the dactylic combinations ὅς περ ἄν, ᾖ περ ἄν, εἰ περ ἄν. Van Leeuςwen ςwould ςwrite ὅς κέ περ, 8Sʼc.; but in Homer περ usually comes immediately after the Relative or εἰ, and before κεν (ἢ 365). Siααmilarly οδὲ γὰρ 3ν (Ii. 24. 556) and τό4φρα τὰρ ἄν (Od. 2. 77) cannot be changed into οὐδέ κε γάρ, τόφρα κε γάρ, since the order γάρ κεν is invariable in Homer. n these uses, accordingly, ἄν may be defended by an argument which was inapplicable to οκ ἄν, vi2. the impossibility of making the change to κεν.

The same may be said of the forms in ςςwhich ἄν occurs under the ictus of the verse, preceded by a short monosyllable ( 5).

Π. Il. 205 ἧς ὑπεροπλίῃσι τάχʼ ἄν ποτε θυμὸν ὀλέσσῃ.

Od. 2.76 εἴ χʼ ὑμεῖς γε φάγοιτε, τάχʼ ἄν ποτε καὶ τίσις εἴη.

Od. 9. 77τίς ἂν τάδε γηθήσειε

So τίς ἄν, Il. 24. 357; Od. 8. 208., 10. 573>

Il. 4. 154 ἔσσεται μαρ ὅτʼ ἄν ποτʼ κτλ.

Cp. Il. 519o 4- 53, 6. 448, 9. 101).

Il. 8. 405 ὄφρʼ εἰδῇ γλαυκῶπις ὅτ ἂν ιὧ πατρὶμάχηται (= 420).

So καὶ ἄν and τότ ἄν (see the instances, ἡ 33, 2,c), σὸ δʼ ἄν (l. 6. 329), ὃς ἄν (Od. 21. 294,cp. Od. 4. 204, 18. 27, ll. 7. 231). In this group, as in the last, vwe have to do ςwith recurring forms, sufficiently numerous to constitute a (γρe, with a fixed rhythm, as ςwel as a certain tone and style.

The combination of ὅν and κεν in the same Clause is found in a very few places, and is probably not Homeric. n four places (l. 11. 187, 202, Od. 5. 361., 5. 259) we have ὄφρʼ ἂν μέν κεν κτλ., vwhere the place of ἄν is anomalous (ἡ 365). Pοr οὔτʼ ἄν κεν (l. 13. 127) we shoαld probably read οὔτʼ ἀἄρ κεν, and so in Od.9. 334 τοὺς ἄρ κε (or rather οὖς ἄρ κε) καὶ θέλον αὐτὸς ἑλέσθαι (cp. Ii. 7. 182 ὃν ἄρʼ ἥθελον αὐτοί). n Od. 18. 318 ἦν περ γάρ κε shoαld be εἴ περ γάρ κε (supra).

363. Uses of κεν and ἄν. br ςwil be convenient, by way of supplement to what has been said in the chapter on the uses of the Moods, (1) to bring together the chief exceptions to the general rule for the use of κεν or ἄν in Subordinate Clauses; and (2) to consider ςwhether there are any difβferences of meaning or usage betςween the tςwo Particles.

  1. In Final Clauses which refer to ςwhat is still fαture, the use of κεν or ἀdν prevails (ξ 282, 285, 288, 293, 354). Bat with certain Conjunctions (especially ὡς, ὅπως, ἴνα, ὄφρα) there are many exceptions: see ἡξ 285-289, 305-307. When the purpose spoken of is not an actual one, but either past or imaginary, the yVerb is generally ' pure.

    In Conditional Clauses the Subj. and Opt. generally take κεν or ἄν when the governing Verb is in the Future, or in a Mod vwhich implies a future occasion (Imperative, Subjunctive, Op- tative ςwith κεν or ἄν). On the other hand in similes, maxims, and references to frequent or inadηgίπnίte occasions, the Particle is not used. But-

    a. Sometimes the pure Subi. is used after a Future in order to show that the speaker avoids referring to a particular occasion : cp. ll. 21. 111 ἔσσεται ἦ ἠὼς ἦ δείλη ἦ μέσον μαρ ὁππότε Il. Il. ἕληται, and the examples quoted in ἦ 289, 2, a and ἡ 292,αα.

    b. In our texts ob Homer there are many places in which κεν or ἄν is used although the reference is iπnd7inite: but the nuαmber is much reduced if we deduct the places in which it is probable that κε (or κ) has crept in instead of τὲ (τ) : see 283, ὁ. The real exceptions will generally be found ςwhere a Clause is addedd to restrict or qualify a general supposition already made.

    ll. 3. 25μάλα γάρ τε κατεσθίει, εἴ περ ἂν αὐτὸν σεύωνται(eνen in tθe case μwὰen c.).

    Od. 21. 293 οἶνός σε τρώει μελιηδής, ὅς τε καὶ ἄλλους βλάπτει, ὅς ὅν μιν χανδὸν ἕλῃ
    (in the case of him ςwhο takes it greedily).

    So ll. 6. 225, 9 521, 524. 20. 166, Od. 15- 344o 19. 332 ( 289, 292, 296). an these places we see the tendency of the language to extend the use of κεν or ἄνbeyond its original limits, in other words, to state indefinite cases as if they vwere definite- a tendency which in later Greek made the use of ἄν universal in such Clauses, whether the event intended was definite or not.

    The change is analogous to the use of the indicative in a general Conditional protasis; vwhen, as Mr, Gοoddvwin expresses it, the speaker refers to one of the cases in vwhich an event may occur as if it vwere the only one-that is, he states the general 2opposition as if it vwere particularb (Bfοοds αndd eases, 5 467). The loss of the Homeric use of τε, and the Neςw Lonic use of ὃ ὴ ς6 as a Relative vwith indefinite as wet as definite antecedents, are examples of the same kind.

  2. Dp to this point the Particles κεν and ἄν have been treated as practically equivalent. There are hovwever some diferences of usage which remain to be pointed out.

    a.In λVe9αtiνe Clauses there is a markedὰ preference for 2. Ibm the ordinary text of the liadd ὅν is found with a negative 53 times (nearly a third of the ςwhole number of instances), κεν is similarly used 33 times (about one-tςwentieth). The diβerence is especially to be noticed in the Homeric use of the Subj. as a kind of Future (0 275, 2776). bbhn affirmative clauses of this type κε is frequent, ἀdν very rare: in negative clauses ἄν only is found.

    b. κεγ is often used in tςwο or more successive Clauses of a Sentence: σ.g. in both protasis and apodosis, as-

    ll. Il. 324 εἰ δέ κε μὴ δώῃσιν, ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι κτλ.

    In Disjunctive Sentences, as-

    Il. 18. 308 στήσομαι, ἦ κε φέρῃσι μέγα κράτος ἦ κε φεροίμην.

    Od. 4. 692 ἄλλον κʼ ἐχθαίρῃσι βροτῶν, ἄλλον κε φιλοίη.

    And in parallel and correlative Clauses of al kinds:-

    II. 3. 41 καί κε τὸ βουλοίμην καί κεν πολὺ κέρδιον εἴη.

    23. 855 ὃς μέν κε βάλῃ Il. Il. ὃς δέ κε μηρίνθοιο τύχῃ, κτλ.

    Od. 11. 110 τὰς εἰ μέν κʼ ἀσινέας ἐάᾳς νόστου τε μέδηαι, καί κεν ἔτʼ εἰς θάκην κακά περ πάσχοντες ἵκοισθε· εἰ δέ κε σίνηαι κτλ.

    ἄν, on the other hand, is especially used in the second of tςwwο parallel or connectedd Clauses : as-

    ll. 19. 228 ἀλλὰ χρὴ τὸν μὲν καταθάπτειν ὅς κε θάνῃσι Il. Il. ὅσσοι δʼ ἂν πολέμοιο περὶ στυγεροῖο λίπωνται κτλ.

    Od. 19. 329 ὃς μὲν ἀπηνὴς αὐτὸς ἔῃ καὶ ἀπηνέα εἰδῇ Il. Il. ὅς δʼ ἂν ἀμύμων αὐτὸς ἔῃ κτλ.

    So ll. 21. 553 εἰ μέν κεν Il. Il. εἰ δʼ aν κτλ.; Il. 3. 288 f. εἰ μέν κεν εἰ δέ κε -εἰ δʼ ἂν (the last an alternative to the second).

    The only instance ob ἄν in tςwο parallel Clauses is-

    Od. 11. 17 οὔθʼ ὁπότʼ ἂν στείχῃσι πρὸς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα οὅθʼ ὅτʼ ἂν ἂν ἐπὶ γαῖαν κτλ.

    and there we ought to read ὁπότε στείχῃσι, according to the regular Homeric use of the Subj. in ρenerat statements ( 289, 2.a)

    c.There are several indications of the use of ἄν as a more eρuράatic Particle than κεν. Thus the combination ἦ τʼ ν ςντeγ iππ tint case occurs 7 times in the Hind, ἦ τέ κεν only tςwice. Compare the force of καὶ ἄν in-

    Π. 5. 362 (π2457) ὃς νῦν γε καὶ ἂν Διί πατρὶ μάχοιτο

    Od. 6. 300 ῥεῖα δʼ ἀρίγνωτʼ ἐστί, καὶ ἂν πάίς ἡγήσαιτο.

    Il. 14. 244 ἄλλον μέν κεν . . . ῥεῖα κατευνήσαιμι, καὶ ἂν ποταμοῖο ῥέεθρα ἀκεανοῦ
    I would put any other to sleep, even Oceanus, etc.

    Cp. also τότ ν (then indeed, then at length), in

    Il. 18. 397 τότ ἂν πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῶ. 22. 108 ἐμοὶ δὲ τότʼ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον εἴη κτλ.

    Il. 24. 21 3 τJτʼ ἂν τιτὰ ἔργα γένοιτο.

    Od. 9. 211 τότʼ ἂν οὔ τοι ἀποσχέσθαι φίλον ἢεν.

    And τίς ἂν (quis tandem) in

    Il. 9.77 τίς ἂν τάδε γηθήσειεν

    Il.24. 367 τίς ἂν δή τοι νόος εἴη

    Od. Il. 208 τίς ἂν φιλέοντι μάχοιτο

    Od. 10. 573 τίς ἂν θεὸν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα κτλ.

    The general effect of these differences of usage between the two Particles seems to be that ἄν is used either in an adversative sense-ςwith a second or opposed alternative- or when greater eρρὰasίς has to be expressed.

    Γhis account of the matter is in harmony with the predominance ob ἄν in negative sentences. When we speak of an event as nοt happening in certain circumstances, we generally do so by way of contrast to the opposite circumstances, those in which it will happen.

    οὐκ ὅν τοι χραίσμῃ κίθαρις
    the lyre will ποί avail you (viz. in battle—whatever it may ado elsewhere).

    The accent of the Particles must not be overlooked as a confirmation ob the view now taken. Evidently ἄν is more likely to convey emphasis than the enclitic κεν. VWe may find an analogy in the orthotone and adversative δέ, which stands to τε and the correlated τε -τε somewhat as we have supposed ἄν to stand to κεν B κεν-ε06r,

364. Original meaning 0f ἄυ and κεν. The identity of the Greek ἄς with the Lsatin and Gothic α has been maintainedἄ vwith much force and ingenuity by Prof. Leo MMeyer. The following are some of the chief points established by his dissertation.4

  1. The Latin an is used by the older poets in the second member of a disjunctive question, either direct, as egοne an ille injurie facimus? or indirect, as utrum scapulae plus an cοllus calli habeat nescίο(both from Νaevius). The use in single questions is a derivative one, and properly implies that the question is put as an alternative.

    Plaut. Asin. 5.1.10 credam istuc, si te esse hilarum videro.
    AR. An tu me tristem putas?
    do you then think me (the opposite, viz.) sad?

    Amph. 3.3.8 derides qui scis haec dudum me dixisse per jocum.
    SO. an illut joculo dixisti? equidem serio ac veto ratus.

    In these places5 we see how an comes to mean then on the contrary, then in the other case, etc. So in Naevius, eho an vicimus? what then, haνe we conquered?

  2. In Gothic, again, anis used in questions of an adversative character.

    Luke X. 29 an hvas ist mis nȇhvundja
    (he willing to justify himself, said): and who is my neighbor ?

    John xviii. 37 an nuh thiudans is thu
    are you a king then?

  3. These instances exhibit a close similarity between the Latin and the Gothic an, and suggest the possibility of a Disjunctive Particle (or, or else) coming ho express recourse to a second alternative (if not, then. . .), and so acquiring the uses of the Greek ἄ. This supposition, as 0o Meyer goes on to show, is confirmed by the Gothic aiththau and thau, which are employed (1) as Disjunctive Particles, or, οτ else, and (2) to render the Greek ἄν, chiefly in the use with the Past indicative. Thus we have, as examples of aiththau-

    Matth. v. 36 ai magt ain tagl hveit aiththau svart gataujan
    you can not make one hair white or black.

    Math. ix. 17 aiththau distaurnand balgeis
    (neither do men put new wine into old bottles) else the bottles break.

    John xiv. 2 nibs vseina, aiththau qvδthjau
    (f it 0ere not so, wοιιld hαυe to4 γονs [ αν it is not so, else 1 vwοuldd have told you].

    Jοhn xiv. 7 ith kunthSdeith mik, aiththauu kunthSdeith etc.
    if γε ad κknοινn πe, 2e should hαυe knο0n etc.

    Similarly thau is used (1) to translate in double questions, as in Math. xvii. 17 whom wίl γε that τelsαse ntο γοῖ, βαταbbαs or (than) desμμs7 and after a Comparative ( α-tια) : frequently also (2) in a Conditional Apodosis, esp. to translate ἄν vwith Past Γenses.

    Luke vii. 39 sa ith vesi praufetus ufkuntheddi thau
    this man, (f e ere α pτopὰet, would have known.

    Sometimes also with the Present (where there is no ἄν in the Greek)—the meaning being that of a solemn or emphatic Future.

    Mark xi.26 ith jabai jus ai afetith, ai thauu . . aletith
    f γε αdο not οτgίυe neiter σίll . . fοτgίρe (οὐδὲ . . . ἀφήσει)

    Math. v. 20 ai than qvimith
    (edceρt γοιιτ τίghteοιsness shαὶ ezceed etc.) γε shαὶὶ in no case enter ἄc. (οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε)

    This use evidently answers to the Homeric κεν or ἄν with the subjunctive and future indicative: ai than qvimith = οὐκ ἂν ἔλθητε, ai thauα abtithκν = οὐδʼ ἂν ἀφήσει.

  4. If novw vwe suppose that ἄν, ike αitAιthαμs and thαιι, had originally two main uses, (1) in the second member of a Disjunctive sentence ( αν else, or else), and (2) in the Conditional apodosis ( παin that case ταtὰer), vwe can explain the Gοthhic and Latin an from the former, the Greek ἄν from the latter. The idiomatic 'ellipseʼ in ᾖ γὰρ ἂν Il. Il. ὕστατα λαβήσαιο else γοῖ 0οιιldd οιιtταge fοτ tὰe ant time vwil1 represent an intermediate or transitional use. VWe can then understand vwhy ἄ shouldἄ often accompany negatives, and vwhy it should be used in the latter Clause of a sentence. The main difference of the tvwo uses evidently is that in the first the Clauses are co-orddinate, in the second the Clause vwith ἄν is the apodosis or principal Clause. Thus the two uses are related to each other as the tvwo uses of δέ (1) as an adversative Conjunction, (2) in the apodosis.
  5. The use of ἄν in Final Clauses may be illustrated by that of thαω in Mark vi. 56 b5dun ins el than Il. Il. attaitδkeina παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν ἴνα κἂν Il. Il. ἅψαωνται that ley waί9ιt tοch (f it were but ἐc. VWth ἴνα, ὡς, ἂc. ἄν may have had originally the same kind of emphasis as κἄdv in this passage : ' that in any case,7 'that if no more then at least ἀc. The use in a Conditional Protasis fοlοιwιng the Principal Clause may be compared vwith Luke ix. 13 nibs than Il. Il. bugjaima (μ0e have no mοτe) e2dceρt 0e shοιαἰdd bνιῃ ( ασ unless indeed vwe should buy).

    The Particle κε,v) is found in Εolic, in the same form as in Homer (see Append. F), and in Doric, in the form κα. t is usually identified with the Sanscrit kαm, vwhich vwhen accented means μwelὶ (wοhl, gιιt, bene), and as an enclitic appears to be chiefly used vwith the bmperative, but vwith a force 2which can hardly be determined (Delbrck, d. S. pp. 150. 53). A parallel may possibly be found in the German wοhl, but in any case the development of the use of κε(v) is specifically Greek. rάder gʼ re barticeς and ncitc τοποuns.

  • 1. "Im Allgemeinen steht das Resultat durchaus fest: κεν beim Conjunctiv und Optativ weist auf das Eintreten der Handlung hin" (Delbrück, Synt. Fοrsch. i. p. 86), This viev is contrary to the teaching of most grammarians (see especially Herman on Soph. O.C. 1446). It wil1 be found stated very clearly in an article in the Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 96 (Cambridge 1832).
  • 2. De particularum κέν et ἄν apud Homerum usu (Mnemosyne, XV. p. 75). The statistics given above are taken from this valuable dissertation.
  • 3. Ti ςwil be seen that the argument is of the same kind as that by vwhich it vwas shovwn above (ἢ 283 b) that τε must have been often changed into κε. The decisive fact in that case vwas the excessive occurrence of κε: here it is the absence of any such excess vwhich leads us to accept the traditional text.
  • 4. ἈΝ im Griechischen, Lateinischen und Gοthischen, Berin 1880. The parallel between the Greek ἄν and the Gothic thau and aiththau was pointed out by Hartung (Partikeln, ii. p. 227).
  • 5. Taken from Draegerʼs Historische Syntax, i. p. 321, where many other examples will be found.