Sidgwick XXXIV

But the ape, seeing this, was indignant: for the man seemed to him to be ungrateful and impudent, seeing that he (say ‘who,’ ὅστις) having found the water by reason of him[1] (reflexive) was not (say ‘is not’) willing to give him any share.

[1] See §17

Answer from key:

ὁ δὲ πίθηκος τοῦτο ἰδὼν ἐσχετλίαζε· ἀχάριστος γὰρ ἔδοξεν εἶναι καὶ ἀναιδὴς ὁ ἀνήρ, ὅστις δι’ αὑτοῦ εὑρὼν τὸ ὕδωρ ὀὐδὲν θέλει μεταδοῦναι.

Section §17: ‘Him’ Reflexive

It should be, however, observed, that in English we do not always say ‘himself,’ but often simply ‘him’ (‘her,’ ‘it,’ etc.), even where the Pronoun is really reflexive. Thus:–

They knew he was hostile to them.
[them is relexive = themselves]
ᾔδεσαν αὐτὸν σφίσιν ἐχθρὸν ὄντα.

He said it was his cloak
[his = of himself.]
ἔφη ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι τὸ ἱμάτιον.

He took it away with him.
ἀπέφερε μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ.

αὑτοῦ (ἑαυτοῦ) makes sense to me here, while αὐτοῦ or ἐκείνου would be confusing, but I’m not sure that I could explain it. The man seems to be the subject in that part of the phrase.

In Oratio Obliqua, ἑαυτόν may refer emphatically to the speaker or to the subject of its own clause.

Thank you. I’m sure that it’s related to this, but I’m not sure that the above is exactly Oratio Obliqua. Here is Smyth: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D41%3Asection%3D86

I think that the important section is 1225 and following, for Indirect Reflexives.

The reflexive pronouns are used indirectly when, in a dependent clause, they refer to the subject of the main clause.

However, 1227 makes me worry that Sidgwick’s usage here is somewhat rare. Maybe a bit of a Latinism?

  1. ἑαυτοῦ, etc., are rarely used as indirect reflexives in adjectival clauses: τὰ ναυά_για, ὅσα πρὸς τῇ ἑαυτῶν (γῇ) ““ἦν, ἀνείλοντο” they took up the wrecks, as many as were close to their own land” T. 2.92.