περὶ ταὐτὰ μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ὅ τε δειλὸς καὶ ὁ θρασὺς καὶ ὁ ἀνδρεῖος, διαφόρως δ’ ἔχουσι πρὸς αὐτά· οἳ μὲν γὰρ ὑπερβάλλουσι καὶ ἐλλείπουσιν, ὃ δὲ μέσως ἔχει καὶ ὡς δεῖ· καὶ οἱ μὲν θρασεῖς προπετεῖς, καὶ βουλόμενοι πρὸ τῶν κινδύνων ἐν αὐτοῖς δ’ ἀφίστανται, οἱ δ’ ἀνδρεῖοι ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις ὀξεῖς, πρότερον δ’ ἡσύχιοι. (Aristotle, EN 1116 a)
Why are the articles (?) in bold accented?
The relative pronouns often look exactly like the articles but are, instead, accented. So what you have here are different versions of ὅς.
So, in “ὃ δὲ μέσως…”, the ὃ is neuter, right?
It’s not a relative pronoun (wouldn’t make sense), and it’s not neuter (it’s obviously masc.). It’s just the familiar ὁ μὲν … ὁ δὲ construction, or rather οἱ μὲν … ὁ δὲ, since the first is plural (the two extremes), but this editor (Bekker?) evidently prefers to accent them as οἳ and ὃ when they stand without an adjective (contrast οἱ μὲν θρασεῖς). He regards them not as articles but as demonstrative pronouns. It’s a fiddly grammatical point. Cf. LSJ ὁ A.III.2.
Thanks a lot, Michael! I’m not finding LSJ ὁ A.III.2, though. Would you be so kind as to direct my gaze to a proper place? http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=+ὁ&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o(1-contents
I was giving the Middle Liddell reference, sorry. In the online LSJ it’s ὁ A.VI. There’s no substantial difference. They give it without accent, effacing the distinction that ?Bekker makes.
OIC. A tricky thing indeed (the distinctions not found in print, that its)! Thanks again!!!