from a common origin, that we shall hardly be justified in considering the Article of Homer as being different in its nature from that of Pindar, Xenophon, or Lucian as well might we assert, that the language of Homer is radically distinct from that of succeeding Greek writers, because some of his words gradually fell into disuse, or were afterwards employed in a somewhat different acceptation. But let us attend to Homer's use of the Article, and observe whether the supposed difference really exist in other words, whether if, as is admitted, the Article of Homer be a Pronoun, the Article of other Greek writers must not be allowed to be the same Pronoun.

The first occurrence of the Article in the Iliad is A. v. 6. τà πρŵτа, in which there is nothing peculiar : κατὰ τὰ ὄντα πρῶτα πράγματα will complete the Ellipsis. In v. 9. we have 'O yap Baoiλñi xoλwdeis in which sense, indeed, subsequent writers generally used αὐτὸς οι ἐκεῖνος. In v. 11. we meet with ΤΟΝ Χρύσην, i. e. with the Article prefixed to a proper name, than which nothing is more common in the Greek prose writers: but of this more will be said in the sequel. V. 12. O yap 10 resembles v. 9.-In v. 19. TA ♪ ἄποινα (unless it be τάδ' ἄποινα, as Heyne suspects, I think without cause) is the proffered ransom of Chryseis. V. 33. ἔδδεισεν δ' Ο γέρων Chryses had been called γέρον above, v. 26.-In v. 35. Ο γεραιός differs from yépwv only in having the Article prefixed to an Adjective.-In v. 47. 'O Sie, &c. is similar to v. 9.-In v. 54. we have TH dekáтy scil. nuépa.-In v. 55. T used with reference to Achilles just mentioned. In addition to these examples, which are not

selected, but taken without any omission, I will notice Z. 467. o maïs, the child spoken of before.-A. 847. Tò ἕλκος the wound of Eurypylus.—Π. 358. Αἴας ὁ μέγας by way of distinction.—A. 576. τὰ χερείονα νικά. Κ. 11. ἐς πεδίον τὸ Τρωϊκόν.-Β. 278 ἡ πληθύς.Ι. 342. τὴν αὐτοῦ φιλέει καὶ κήδεται. scil. γυναῖκα.— Δ. 399. τὸν υἱὸν his son.E. 146. τὸν δ ̓ ἕτερον.— Ε. 414. τὸν ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν.—Ζ. 41. οἱ ἄλλοι.—Α. 198. τῶν ἄλλων.—Ξ. 31. τὰς πρώτας. Many other examples might easily be collected. Now the question is, with respect at least to the latter class, in what do they differ from the examples, which occur in the writers of succeeding ages? Would the reader, supposing them to have been taken from Thucydides or Demosthenes, have doubted for a moment in what light they should be considered? And if he were told, that in all such instances, what he took for an Article was in truth a Pronoun, would he not immediately ask, wherein then lay the difference? for assuredly, if he were not acquainted with the dispute respecting the usage in Homer, he would never suspect the slightest peculiarity in the nature or use of the Article (or Pronoun) in any one at least of the examples last adduced; and if he were convinced with the critics, that Homer's Article was every where a Pronoun equivalent to αὐτὸς or ἐκεῖνος, he would be compelled to acquiesce in the conclusion, that the same might be affirmed of the Article universally. But would this conviction immediately ensue? Certainly, an apparent difference between the latter class of examples and some of the former ones, such as ỏ yap λ0€, &c. might induce him to adhere to the commonly

66

66

66

received opinion, that Articles and Pronouns are distinct things; especially if that opinion had been derived from any of the high authorities, which may be found in its favour. "That there is," says HARRIS,' "a near relation between Pronouns and Articles, the old Grammarians have all acknow"ledged; and some words it has been doubtful to "which class to refer. The best rule to distinguish "them is this: The genuine Pronoun always stands by itself, assuming the power of a Noun and supplying its place. The genuine Article never stands by "itself, but appears at all times associated to something else, requiring a Noun for its support, as much

66

66

66

66

as Attributes or Adjectives." The Grammarians, however, of whom Harris speaks, are not all those of antiquity, since the Stoic School, of whom Grammar and Dialectics were the favourite studies, did, according to Priscian, consider the Pronoun and the Article as the same thing, making only this distinction, that they called the Pronoun the defined, and the Article itself the undefined Article'. There is, therefore, no great presumption in proceeding to inquire, whether the former opinion, not indeed as it is limited to Homer, but asserted generally, be not founded in truth.

It is obvious, that in such phrases as o yàp λ0€, ò d''žie, tŷv pèv éyú, &c. A. 183. ò and Tv must be con

1 Herm. p. 73.

"Articulis autem pro

2 This passage is quoted by Harris. "nomina connumerantes, finitos ea articulos appellabant: ipsos "autem articulos, quibus nos caremus, infinitos articulos dicebant.” Herm. p. 74.

sidered as Pronouns. The pronominal nature of ò is, therefore, in some instances established beyond contradiction; and we have only to ascertain whether this pronominal nature be ever lost. Thus we read Iliad I. 341.

ὅστις ἀγαθὸς καὶ ἐχέφρων,

ΤΗΝ αὐτοῦ φιλέει καὶ κήδεται, ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ ΤΗΝ
Εκ θυμοῦ φίλεον,

where the latter Tv is a Pronoun relating to Briseis,
and the former, if we attend to the common distinc-
tion, is no other than the Article to yvvaika under-
stood: but is not the one as much the representative
of yuvaîka, as the other is of Briseis? Here, indeed,
yuvaîka is so evidently implied, that no obscurity
γυναῖκα
arises from its being omitted. But suppose the case
otherwise; and that, though the context would afford
a tolerable clue to the sense, some little obscurity were
still to remain. For instance, if A. 33. we had read s
ἔφατ'· ὁ δ ̓ ἔδδεισεν 3, the sense could hardly have been
mistaken, but yet would not have been absolutely cer-
tain: гEPON makes every thing clear; for though
independently of the context ò might refer to any
male already mentioned, yet o yépwv must refer to the
only old man hitherto spoken of: but does ò on this
account lose its nature? In the former instance it is
admitted on all hands to be strictly a Pronoun: and
how does the addition of yépwv v. 33. or yepaιos v. 35.
destroy its essence? As well might we say that the
ille of the Latin ceases to be a Pronoun, as often as it
is associated with a Substantive, Adjective, or Parti-
ciple, with all of which it is so frequently found.

3 As in o yàp be, &c.

But there are instances, by which it may be clearly proved, that Homer himself entertained no idea of the difference between the Pronoun and the Article; for that it was an even chance, supposing a difference, which of the two he had used: which could not consistently happen, were the difference essential. Thus in narrating the conflict between Hector and Patroclus, II. 793. he says,

ΤΟΥ δ' ἀπὸ μὲν κρατὸς ΚΥΝΕΗΝ βάλε Φοῖβος Απόλλων, Ἡ δὲ κυλινδομένη καναχὴν ἔχε ποσσὶν ὑφ ̓ ἵππων.

Supposing the sentence to conclude thus, which unquestionably it might do, 'H would according to the vulgar distinction be a Pronoun referring to Kuvéŋv, exactly as Toù refers to Patroclus: but so it happens, that the writer has added in the next verse Avλ@πis Tрupáλeia. The common doctrine will teach us, that this makes a prodigious difference, and that though we had determined, as might the writer also, to regard 'H as a Pronoun, it is at once degraded on the appearance of Tρupáλeia, and sinks into a mere Article; and yet the only alteration which takes place, is, that instead of relating to Kuvény, as was supposed, it is made to relate to the synonymous word тpupáλeia. It is plain, therefore, in this example, that the difference between the Article and the Pronoun is not essential but accidental; and consequently, when we are speaking of the nature of the Article, that there is no difference at all. Now if we recollect that there is no conceivable instance, in which the very same thing may not happen without the least violation of the