^ 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
US 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 PA 161.H16 
 
 The anticipatory subjunctive in Greek an 
 
 3 1924 021 599 695 
 
 Zhe Iflnivcrsit^ of ^icagcr" 
 
 STUDIES 
 
 IN 
 
 'CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 
 
 EDITED BY A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENTS 
 
 OF GREEK, LATIN, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND 
 
 COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY 
 
 preprint from volume i. 
 The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin 
 
 By WM. GARDNER HALE 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 1894 
 
PA 
 
 The Departments of Greek, Latiii, Archaeology, and Compara- 
 tive Philology in the University of Chicago purpose to publish, 
 at irregular intervals, collections of papers, written by instructors 
 and graduate students of the 'University, upon subjects within the 
 general domain of classical philology. 
 
 The following instructors will constitute an editorial com- 
 mittee : — 
 
 Wm. Gardner Hale, for the Department of Latin. 
 
 Paul Shorey, for the Department of Greek. 
 
 Frank B. Tarbell, for the Department of Archaeology. 
 
 Carl D. Buck, for the Department of Comparative Philology. 
 
tCbe innlwtsit? of (tWcago 
 
 STUDIES 
 
 IN 
 
 CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 
 
 EDITED BY A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENTS 
 
 OF GREEK, LATIN, ARCHEOLOGY, AND 
 
 COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY 
 
 PREPRINT FROM VOLUME I. 
 
 The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin 
 
 By V^^M. GARDNER HALE 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 Wi)t Uni&ergits ^vtes of CI)tC3g0 
 1894 
 

 3. S. CuaijinB & ffin. 
 ISoetan, jiflaes. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE IN GREEK AND LATIN: 
 A CHAPTER OF COMPARATIVE SYNTAX. 
 
 For many years no one has thought of pursuing the study of 
 Latin sounds and inflections by any but the comparative tnethod. 
 Latin has not been supposed to be able, by and of itself alone, 
 to afford sufficient light for the solution of the problems which 
 it offers. Yet students of the syntax of the Latin verb have been 
 content to work with eyes fixed upon Latin only.^ The result has 
 been, that, in my judgment, though in this and that detail much 
 and most excellent work has been accomplished, especially by the 
 younger school of German syntacticists, many details yet remain 
 in an unsatisfactory condition, while the general ground-plan of 
 the whole final structure of the syntax of the Latin verb is yet 
 to be drawn. 
 
 A complete treatment of the Latin verb would of course deal 
 at the same time with all the languages of the Indo-European 
 family. A task of this sort is possible only for a worker like 
 Delbriick, who, in addition to what he himself can do, can com- 
 mand the help of specialists in many fields. My only hope had 
 been to deal with Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. Even of this hope, 
 however, I am now obliged reluctantly to surrender a part. In 
 order to use Sanskrit with independence and facility, one must 
 have been introduced early to Sanskrit studies, and have devoted 
 a generous amount of time to them for many years. My own 
 power over the language (which was not taught in America in my 
 undergraduate days) is not that of an independent worker, and 
 cannot be made so without the sacrifice of what is now of greater 
 consequence. 
 
 1 The popular manual of King and Cookson is based upon a sound conception, but 
 involves no searching study of either Greek or Latin syntax. Miles's bold and someYifhat 
 whimsical "Comparative Syntax of Greek and Latin" has not yet advanced to the 
 methodical treatment of the verb. 
 
 3 
 
4 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 When this reservation is made, however, it may at once be 
 added that comparative work of considerable importance for the 
 whole family of related languages may be done within the field 
 of two languages only. The main lines of Delbriick's treatment 
 in his forthcoming volume on the Comparative Syntax of the 
 Verb will in all probability prove to have been laid down in his 
 book of the year 1871, in which he treated the subjunctive and 
 optative within the field of Sanskrit and Greek only. Fortunately 
 for me, too, the language which I can employ in addition to Latin 
 — the Greek — is clearly, from the point of view of the syntax of 
 the verb, the most important of the entire family. Others, like 
 Sanskrit, possess distinct subjunctive and optative forms ; but 
 no other possesses, in full and regular use, a system of further 
 subdivision of modal forces through the use of accompanying (or 
 not-accompanying) particles like av and «e. The Greek may 
 fairly be said to have two subjunctives and two optatives. Accord- 
 ingly, while I am sure that, in not a few of their details, and 
 perhaps even in some of their main features, the results reached 
 by the student of Greek and Latin will have to be modified in 
 the light of those which shall be reached by workers like Delbriick, 
 yet I also believe that, — supposing the procedure to be itself 
 sound, — the main results will stand, and that they even will be 
 found to give the basis for the decision of many questions in the 
 syntax of languages not included in the material studied. 
 
 For Latin itself, the results will, I am convinced, be of con- 
 siderable moment. Under the light of a comparative treatment, 
 if Greek be included in the comparison, much that now stands « « 
 in our grammars will disappear ; and, — perhaps more important 
 still, — where we now have masses of particulars of which the 
 relations are dim or wholly dark, we shall then have clearly 
 related parts of an organic whole.^ 
 
 1 The objection may possibly be urged that the study of other languages will not 
 enable us to draw conclusions with regard to the nature of the Latin modal construc- 
 tions, since the so-called Latin subjunctive is a congeries of modes, at one moment 
 subjunctive, at another optative, without corresponding distinction of modal uses. But 
 the inference does not follow from the premises. Most of the Latin modal uses, e.g., the 
 expression of a wish and the expression of an exhortation, are unquestionably inherited 
 from the parent speech. There is no reason why the confusion of forms, which took 
 place after the separation, should in itself have changed the character of the modal feeling 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 5 
 
 Such a piece of work, conceived in such a spirit of hope, I 
 have myself desired to put forth. My plans have been shaping 
 themselves, and my material has been accumulating, for some 
 fourteen years ; and in the five years since the publication of the 
 second part of my Cwwz-Constructions, I have devoted all the time 
 at my command to this end. Much of my material has long been 
 in nearly finished form ; and the vifhole would before this time 
 have appeared in print, had it not been for the fact that, in the 
 last three years, my available time has, through special causes, 
 been temporarily diminished. It seems to me best, therefore, to 
 put out a chapter without further delay, — even though a part 
 of a structure necessarily appears imperfect if seen out of con- 
 nection with the rest. 
 
 In this work my great indebtedness to Delbriick will be evi- 
 dent. Indeed, though my impulses to the study of Latin syntax 
 go back to a time that antedates my knowledge of his studies, 
 my work would have been of a different character had Delbriick 
 never written. His book upon the Subjunctive and Optative in 
 Sanskrit and Greek contains no word of Latin ; yet I distinctly 
 recall that, at my first reading of it, I recognized that no other 
 book was of equal consequence to the student of Latin syntax. 
 If a formal dedication were to be made, I should dedicate this 
 chapter, and the chapters to be published later, to Berthold Del- 
 briick, — for many years my teacher through his writings, and in 
 recent years my friend. 
 
 Yet it by no means follows that my own work has been that 
 of a mere translator of Delbriick's categories into terms of Latin. 
 On the contrary, the reader who is really familiar with Delbriick's 
 book of 1871, and his more recent book of 1888 upon Early Vedic 
 Syntax, will find that my treatment differs at many points from 
 his. For example, I have not adopted the division of dependent 
 clauses into prior and posterior, since such a division seems to me 
 
 in either of these constructions. Further, if, after this confusion of forms, constructions 
 peculiar to the Latin were developed, yet clearly betraying certain modal feelings, of 
 precisely the same types as those which are indicated by certain modes in existing con- 
 structions in Greek, Sanskrit, etc., it is a sound scientific method to group these later 
 novelties with the constructions through which the modal feelings in question have been 
 kept up, instead of treating them as unclassifiable particulars. 
 
6 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 to cut across the lines of more important divisions founded upon 
 more vital relationships. At many points, I have explicitly defined 
 the functions of types of dependent clauses which Delbriick has 
 only grouped, without such definition of function, under general 
 families. At other points, I have adduced types not noticed in 
 his work. At others, I have set up conceptions of dependent 
 clauses opposed to his conceptions. I have emphasized the 
 presence of a drift in the province of the subjunctive which 
 seems to me of great consequence in the study of the history of 
 the mode, but which he does not notice. And even in the matter 
 of the general subdivision of the optative uses into families I differ 
 from him, in that I do not accept his category of a " futurischen 
 Optativ," and in that I find it necessary to divide the so-called 
 potential optative into two divisions, the true potential, and the 
 optative of ideal certainty. 
 
 With this general introduction, we may proceed to our specific 
 task. 
 
 In Greek we are able to distinguish, for the subjunctive, two 
 families of constructions. One of these is undoubtedly the parent 
 of the other, since it is not credible that the mode, when first used, 
 had the power of conveying both of two ideas so considerably 
 removed from each other. It may even seem, — as indeed to me 
 it does, — that an extremely probable genesis can be shown for 
 one of these meanings out of the other. But, however that may 
 be, the fact is sure that, in historical times, the two families of 
 meanings existed. In one of these families the mode indicates an 
 action as willed, demanded, required, planned, aimed at, etc. (Del- 
 briick's "Subjunctive of Will"). The subjunctives of this fam- 
 ily may, then, be called Volitive. In the other family, the mode 
 indicates an act as predicted, counted upon, foreseen, looked for- 
 ward to, and the like (Delbriick's "futurischer Conjunctiv"); and 
 the subjunctives of this family may, then, be called Anticipatory, 
 or Prospective} 
 
 ^ My earliest notes show the use of both of these words. Both have their advan- 
 tages. The second is briefer, and accords in form with the words " volitive," " optative," 
 and " indicative." The first, however (for which I have the warrant of Professor Gilder- 
 sleeve's employment of it in his Greek syntactical work), has a distinct advantage in 
 being accompanied by a corresponding abstract noun (" anticipation "), indicating the 
 state of mind under which the mode is used. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 7 
 
 For the optative, three families at least may be shown. Only 
 two are recognized in the grammars ; namely, the family known 
 as the true optative, in which the mode indicates a wish, and the 
 family known as the potential. The second is really made up of 
 two families, — the strict potential, in which the mode asserts that 
 something may possibly take place, etc., etc., and the optative of 
 ideal certainty, in which it is asserted that, under conceivable cir- 
 cumstances, the act would (surely') take place. The latter family 
 asserts with a completeness as great as that of the indicative 
 itself, and differs from it only in that it asserts, not an actuality, 
 but a mental certainty. 
 
 The potential in the strict sense and the optative of ideal 
 certainty are, in the larger part of their range, entirely distinct. 
 They have, however, their points of contact with each other ; for 
 there are examples obviously belonging to the one or the other, 
 but not easily to be assigned to either to the sure exclusion of the 
 other. We may well believe that one of these families is descended 
 from the other ; and we may also believe that the true optative of 
 wish was likewise descended from one of these, or was the parent 
 of both. As yet no satisfactory solution of the problem of the 
 earliest force of the optative and of the genesis of the other forces 
 has been reached. The future may yield the solution. I shall 
 myself, in another chapter, make certain proposals. All that is 
 sure, however (and all that will be sure, after my proposals are 
 made), is that three distinct families of the Greek and Sanskrit 
 optative may be shown. ^ 
 
 The larger part of the treatment of the syntax of the two 
 modes in Greek and Latin would fall under the following heads, 
 each constituting the title of a chapter in the treatment : — 
 
 1. The Volitive Subjunctive. . 
 
 2. The Anticipatory Subjunctive. 
 
 3. The (true) Optative. 
 
 4. The Potential Optative. 
 
 5. The Optative of Ideal Certainty. 
 
 1 It is a question, not to be argued here, whether the Prescriptive Optative is not 
 important enough to deserve to be regarded as constituting a family by itself. 
 
8 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 To these five chapters would be added others upon 
 
 6. Constructions resulting from a fusing of similar uses of 
 differing modal origin ; and 
 
 7. Constructions resulting from the influence of a set or sets 
 of modal uses upon some other modal use.^ 
 
 My study of the CM»«-Constructions (in the Cornell Uni- 
 versity Studies in Classical Philology, Ithaca, N. Y., Andrus and 
 Church, 1888-89, and, in a German translation by Neizert, Leipzig, 
 B. S. Teubner, 1891) contains, in addition to a good deal upon 
 indicative qui- and w^w-constructions, and a few things, in passing, 
 upon certain volitive and potential ^?«'-constructions, a nearly com- 
 plete treatment of Chapter V. (the Optative of Ideal Certainty) 
 upon the Latin side, with sufficient indication of what the general 
 nature of a treatment upon the Greek side would be. 
 
 In the present study, it is my purpose to put forth the second 
 
 1 For Latin, in which the so-called subjunctive is a conglomerate of subjunctive and 
 optative forms, the scheme of division would be : — 
 
 1. The Volitive Subjunctive. 
 
 2. The Anticipatory Subjunctive. 
 
 3. The Optative Subjunctive, or Subjunctive of Wish. 
 
 4. The Potential Subjunctive. 
 
 5. The Subjunctive of Ideal Certainty. 
 
 6. Constructions resulting from Fusion. 
 
 7. Constructions due to the influence of one or more usages upon another. 
 
 A Latin Grammar, or a Latin " Modes and Tenses," arranged upon this scheme, — so 
 that the very place of the treatment of a construction would show its essential original or 
 still-remaining force, and its relationship to other constructions, — would gain greatly in 
 organic unity, in clearness, and in the power of awakening interest and developing intel- 
 ligence. And this would be true even if, in an elementary book, the constructions the 
 history of which is more difficult to grasp were left without explanation, and merely, by 
 their placing, associated in the young mind with other constructions, their relations to 
 which would be made clear in due time in more advanced books. 
 
 For something like eight years I have given to my students an outline treatment 
 based upon this plan ; but, though I have received many requests for it from outsiders, 
 I have not printed it, my desire being first to publish my comparative treatment of the 
 syntax of the verb in Greek and Latin, and my projected larger " Latin Modes and 
 Tenses." The same delays, however, that have led me to put out the present chapter 
 will lead me to publish my "Outlines" without further waiting (from the press of 
 Ginn & Co., Boston). 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. g 
 
 chapter. I am especially minded to do this, for the reason that 
 there belong under this head, in my opinion, a number of Latin 
 constructions, the nature of which, simple though it is, has been 
 misunderstood. 1 Among these are the construction with antequam 
 and priusquam, the construction with dum, donee, and quoad, and 
 certain constructions with cum and other relatives. 
 
 In a paper in the Classical Review for February, 1893, Pro- 
 fessor Sonnenschein discussed some of the Latin constructions 
 mentioned above, treating them as "prospective." He expressed 
 himself as having held and taught this doctrine for a number of 
 years. It gratified me to find his agreement with a doctrine which 
 I also had taught, with the same proofs which I give here, for 
 many years (at least, as notes in the possession of pupils show, 
 since 1886),^ and which I had for some time been on the point of 
 publishing; indeed, the present study, so far as concerns the 
 constructions with which his paper dealt, has not been materially 
 changed from the shape in which it already stood in writing at 
 the time when the latter appeared. Professor Sonnenschein has 
 anticipated me in publishing the doctrine. He has, however, 
 divined, rather than established, the nature of these constructions ; 
 for, as I have said in the article cited, he has not supported his 
 propositions with definite proof, such as the Greek might have 
 afforded, if a study had been made of the significance of the 
 presence or absence of the particle av (or Ke). He has left it for 
 me, therefore, even in that part' of the field which he has touched, 
 to show the strength of the argument to be gained by the com- 
 parative method.^ 
 
 1 1 have given a sketch of my scheme in an article entitled " The ' Prospective ' 
 Subjunctive in Greek and Latin," in the Classical Review for April, 1894. 
 
 ^ The phrases " an act in view " and " an act looked forward to from a certain 
 time," which I employed in 1887 and 1888 in dealing with the tenses of the clauses with 
 antequam, priusquam, dum, donee, and quoad in articles upon the " Sequence of Tenses 
 in Latin" (American Journal of Philology, VIII. I and IX. 2) were chosen to be in 
 accord with this teaching, and to be still correct whan I should take up the problem of 
 the mode in a general comparative treatment of the Greek and Latin verb. 
 
 8 It of course lay within the power of any student of Latin, since the appearance of 
 Delbriick's bock in 1871, and, indeed, since the appearance of Baumlein's "Unter- 
 suchungen fiber die griech. Modi " in 1846, to find the key to the nature of the Latin 
 constructions here placed under the head of the anticipatory subjunctive, and to bring 
 evidence to support his findings. No one, however, so far as published records show. 
 
lO STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 I shall pass over, in the present paper, the question of the 
 historical relation of the volitive and the anticipatory subjunctives, 
 and simply deal with the latter as an existing force. 
 
 The treatment will fall into three parts. In the first, those 
 types will be taken up in which the sentence stands by itself, 
 independent not only in outward form, but in thought, of any other 
 sentence. In the second, those types will be taken up in which 
 the sentence is independent so far as its outward form is con- 
 cerned, but nevertheless is evidently connected in thought with 
 another, and subordinate to that ; in other words, in which the 
 construction is paratactic. In the third, those types will be taken 
 up in which the sentence is subordinated, both in meaning and in 
 outward form, to another ; in other words, is hypotactic. 
 
 In Latin and in Sanskrit, as indeed in languages generally, 
 there is no means of distinguishing by the outward form whether 
 a given subjunctive is volitive or anticipatory. We are fortunate 
 in that, even as early as Homer, Greek generally marks the 
 anticipatory subjunctive through the use of the particles av or /ce. 
 It is true that the feeling of futurity is expressed by the verb 
 itself, and that the av or ae, if employed, is only an additional note 
 in harmony with that feeling. Nevertheless, while the absence 
 of the particle proves nothing with certainty about the force of 
 the mode in a given subjunctive, its presence is positive evidence 
 that the force is that of anticipation, not that of will, — or, at the 
 least, is proof that the construction has been under the influence 
 of constructions of the anticipatory type. And, on the other 
 hand, we may at times, from the necessary force of a sentence 
 
 has done it. It is of course true that, in individual subjunctive uses, as, e.g., in a com- 
 mand, the mode has been recognized as possessing a future force. But this conception 
 is a very different one from that which is to be attached to the anticipatory subjunctive. 
 The distinction on which the whole matter of classification turns does not lie between 
 a present sense and a future sense, — it lies between a volitive future sense and an 
 anticipatory future sense; in other words, between the conception of an act as willed, 
 and the conception of an act as expected or imminent. Even the use of the subjunctive 
 in conditions referring to the future has not sufficed to set grammarians on the track of 
 a generalization, perhaps because of the existence of an independent subjunctive con- 
 dition which is clearly of what is called a jussive {i.e., volitive) nature. For this 
 reason, Mr. Inge's attitude of mind toward Professor Sonnenschein's paper (expressed 
 in the Classical Review for April, 1893) '^ certainly a different one from that in which, 
 under similar circumstances, I should have found myself - 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. li 
 
 in its context, draw a sure inference that the subjunctive is 
 anticipatory, even though av is lacking, i 
 
 It is an interesting and significant fact that, except in the first 
 person singular, the formula by which English expresses the voli- 
 tive idea is, just as in Latin, Sanskrit, and Greek (barring the 
 matter of the use or non-use of av), identical with the formula 
 by which it expresses, or may express, the anticipatory idea ; 
 namely, the use of the auxiliary " shall." " You shall," " he shall" 
 and "Va&y shall," etc., express the speaker's will; but that which 
 the speaker expects may, in older English, equally well be ex- 
 pressed, even in main sentences, by the same auxiliary ; while in 
 modern English the use still holds in dependent clauses, — in some 
 of which, in fact, the auxiliary of the future indicative, the neigh- 
 boring mode of prediction, cannot possibly be employed. 
 
 Examples of the independent use may be found in abundance 
 in the King James translation of the Bible, e.g., in Psalm xxxiv. 22: 
 " The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants : and none of them 
 that trust in him shall be desolate." 
 
 Examples of modern use in dependent clauses may be seen in 
 such sentences as " let us wait till every member of the party shall 
 be here," for which the substitution of the future indicative form, 
 " till every member of the party will be here," is simply impossible. 
 
 In my translations of examples I have used the auxiliary "shall" 
 without farther hint, wherever our feeling for the English word 
 would make it quite sure that it would be taken in the anticipatory 
 sense, and not in the volitive. Where this is not the case I have 
 either translated by the nearest English equivalent, the "will" of 
 the second and third persons of the future, or have given the 
 word "shall," with the interpreting word "will" alongside of it. 
 
 As regards the way in which, in my translations, main and 
 subordinate sentences are connected, I should premise that I have 
 occasionally, where the paratactic form would better express the 
 essential character of the modal mechanism, employed this form, 
 though in the original the clause was hypotactic. 
 
 We are ready, now, to pass to the detailed treatment of our 
 subject, under the three heads that have been mentioned. 
 
 1 I purposely omit, for the present, all discussion of the primitive force or forces of 
 Hv and Ke. _ 
 
12 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 I. In independent sentences in Homeric Greek, the subjunc- 
 tive of anticipation, when declarative, expresses a confident ex- 
 pectation of a future occurrence ; or, when interrogative, inquires 
 with regard to such expectation. Its function may then be defined 
 as the conveying of 
 
 Simple Expectation, Declarative or Interrogative. 
 
 In the isolated sentence, the expectation is always that of the 
 speaker. 
 
 The negative is ov. As has already been said, the subjunctive 
 form may stand alone, or it may be accompanied by av or /te. 
 
 ov '^dp TTft) Toiov; 'iSov avepa^ ouSe tBcofiaL. — A 262. 
 " I never beheld such warriors, nor ska/i behold." 
 
 KaL TTOre rt? ecTrrjcn Kal oyfriyovav avdpdnrav. — H 8y. 
 
 " So s/tal/ one say even of men that be late born." Cf. w? 
 TTore Tt? epiec, four lines below. 
 
 la-Tov Se crT7?<ra? avd 0' icrria \evKa irerdcrcra'; 
 rjcrOai • ttjv Se Ke rot irvoi-f] Bopiao (fjepijaiv. — k 506. 
 
 " But set up the mast, spread the white sails and take thy seat ; 
 and the breath of the North Wind s/zail {= wi//) hear the ship * 
 along." 
 
 OiiK dv TOL 'X^paia-fiy Kidapi^. — T 54. 
 
 " The lyre ska//{ = wzH) not avail thee." (A warning prophecy.) 
 
 In Latin, the strictly independent construction has been en- 
 tirely displaced by the future indicative, before the time when 
 Latin literature begins,— as, indeed, it had been in Greek before 
 Attic times. 
 
 The phenomenon is not an isolated one. Again and again, in 
 the present chapter, the onward movement of the future indicative 
 into the earlier field of the anticipatory subjunctive will be seen. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 13 
 
 This movement is, of course, connected with the fact that the 
 future indicative in Greek is largely of subjunctive origin, and in 
 Latin largely of subjunctive and optative origin (after the dis- 
 tinction between these two sets of forms had been lost) ; but there 
 is undoubtedly also, in spite of a community of origin, a tendency 
 toward a real differentiation of force. The receding of the antici- 
 patory subjunctive from the independent uses must have been 
 accompanied by a loss of the power of complete assertion. 
 
 2. A confident assertion that something will not happen may 
 amount to a 
 
 Virtual Expression of Impossibility. 
 
 ovK eaS' 0UT09 av-qp oiiB' ea-cerai oiiSe jevrjrai, 
 09 . . . — TT 437. 
 "The man lives not, nor will live, nor s/iall live {= ever can 
 live) who," etc. Similarly §" 201. 
 
 TfKrjOiiv S' OVK av iym fivOrjaojJbai ovK ovojj/i^va), 
 ov8' e'i fioi Sixa fiev yX&a-a'ai, Sexa Se crTOfiar elev, 
 ^cov^ 8' apprjKTO<;, •)(akKeov Si fiot rjTop eveir). — B 488. 
 "But the common sort shall I (= can I) not number and name, 
 — not if ten tongues were mine and ten mouths, and a voice 
 unwearied, and the heart were bronze within me." The same 
 phrase occurs in S 240, \ 328 and 517. 
 
 3. In the interrogative form, so far as I have noticed, the con- 
 struction, though taking the shape of a question with regard to 
 what is to be expected, is in reality a 
 
 Virtual Expression of Anxiety or Distress, 
 w /iot 6706, tL irddeo ; ro vv /xoi p,i]Ki,aTa lyevrjTai, ; — e 465. 
 " Alas for me ! what am I going to suffer .? ^ What now is my 
 end to be } " 
 
 1 The mode oiyivriTai cannot possibly, in spite of the absence of &v, be taken as 
 volitive; and this fact warns us against resorting to any forced conception of the mean- 
 ing ofvdSw (viz. as "what shall I ^0?") in the desire to make it volitive. The natural 
 meaning appears, e^., in tI KUKbv rbSe irdffxeTe ; 1/351; oi /i^v yip ti KaKiirepov &\\o 
 irdSociu, T 321. The familiar tI TdSw of Attic Greek should then be regarded as a sur- 
 vival of the anticipatory subjunctive in the independent interrogative sentence (cf. the 
 forms fSoiMi, rto/juu, and xM- Yet undoubtedly the line of distinction between this 
 
14 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 4. The announcement, by the speaker, of his future action, or 
 of the action of others asserted by him without reference to their 
 attitude of mind, may be the practical equivalent of the expression 
 of his will, and may therefore be named a 
 
 Virtual Resolve. 
 
 Tr\v fiev iycb crvv vr)i t efiy kuI e'/iot? erdpoia-iv 
 Tre/Myfro), iyo) Be k djm BpLcrrjiBa KaXKmdpyov 
 avTo<; l(bv KkicrLTjvSe. — A 183. 
 " And her I shall send back with my ship and comrades ; but 
 I sAa// myself go to thy tent, and take Briseis of the fair cheeks." ^ 
 
 ft) 'OBvcrev TToKvaive, BoXmv dr ^Se ttovoio, 
 crrjfiepov rj Boiolcnv irrev^eai 'Iv-jraalBrjcTiv, 
 TOicoB' dvBpe KaTUKTeivwi Kal Tev)(e aTTOvpa^, 
 fi KBV e/iaJ i"ro Bovpl rvireh diro Ovfiov oXecrcrrji;. — A 430. 
 "Renowned Odysseus, insatiable of wiles and toils, to-day 
 shalt thou either boast over two sons of Hippasos, having killed 
 two men like these and stripped them of their armor, or sMli thy- 
 self be slain, under the blow of my spear." 
 
 oil yap Tt? fie ^ly je eKwv aeKovra Birjrai, 
 ovBe n IBpeirj. — H 197. 
 "No one by force s/ia/l{ = u)i//) chase me against my will, nor 
 yet by skill." 
 
 and tI ttoiS in time became blurred, as appears in Soph. O. C. 216, where tI irdBu follows 
 ri yeydivu, is answered by the imperative, and then followed by the future indicative 
 of resolve. 
 
 ^ The earliest expression of the will of the speaker for his own act, i.e., the statement 
 of a resolve, is of course made by the volitive subjunctive, corresponding to the emphatic 
 English " I will " and the German " ich will." A good many instances of this are recog- 
 nized in Homer, as, e.g., xfi^w /3 222, Idoi/xai f 126, iviinru i 37, (paehoi n 383, Sffl u 296. 
 I strongly suspect that we have relics of the same thing in Latin, not only in simple 
 statements of the will, as in enarrem Ter. Haut. 273, sic agamus Cic. Verr. I, 51, 133, 
 neu morer Ov. Met. 7, 520, but in certain phrases in which a subjunctive is combined 
 with credo or opinor (cf. the English phrases " I think I'll do so aiid so," " I believe I'll 
 do so and so ") ; e.g., sed maneam etiam, opinor Plaut. Trin. 1 136, ad precatorem adeami 
 credo Ter. Phorm. 140 (in which the thought is of course ironical), sed opinor quiescamus 
 Cic. Att. 9, 6, 2, sed opinor excipiamus et expectemus Cic. Att. 2, 5, i. 
 
 In general, however, both Greek and Latin take the same course, and come to 
 express resolve for one's own action by the future indicative, as in a 397 (^o-o/iai) and 
 Ter. Heaut. 607 (ibo'). 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 15 
 
 Compare the future indicative of similar feeling in the fol- 
 lowing : — 
 
 OX) nt e/iev fwi/To? Kal i-rrl x^ovX SepKO/iivoto 
 (701, KotXy'i irapa vrjval ^apeia'i %et/3as eiroicrei 
 (TVjjL'irdvTajv Aava&v. — A 88. 
 
 " For while I live and have my sight upon the earth, no man 
 of all the Achaeans sAa// lay heavy hands upon you by the hollow 
 ships." 
 
 The negative is to be noticed in both sentences (of. the volitive 
 Ki)(eico, with the volitive negative fii], in A 26). 
 
 5. The statement by the speaker that an action to which he 
 would naturally be opposed will take place may, in certain con- 
 texts, be equivalent to an expression of 
 
 Acquiescence, Willingness, Consent. 
 
 iroWol ev djJi(f}idX<p 'Idd/cr;, veoi r)Ze waXaiol, 
 
 Tcbv /civ Ti? ToS^ ey^rjatv, i-jrel 6dve Sio? 'OSucro-ei;?. 
 
 avrdp iyav o'Ikolo dva^ eaofi rifierepoio 
 
 KOi Sftcowv, ov<; fioi XrjiacraTO Slo^ 'OSvcraeiK;. — a 395. 
 
 "But there are many other kings of the Achaeans in sea-girt 
 Ithaca, both young and old, some one of whom s/tal/ {= wz//) have 
 this kingship, now that noble Odysseus is dead. But as for 
 myself, I will be king of my own house and servants, which noble 
 Odysseus won for me as the prize of war." ^ 
 
 The construction is rare ; whereas the optative (without dv or 
 Are) in the same force is very common. 
 
 6. When, in any of the types that have been given, the sen- 
 tence as a whole contains some expression of that upon which the 
 expectation hinges, i.e., of the circumstances upon the fulfilment 
 
 1 Monro's translation in his Homeric Grammar, p. 252 ("let one of them have 
 this "), is too like the proper rendering for a volitive. 
 
l6 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 of which the expectation is conditioned, the main sentence is 
 called a 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Tov y el' TTO)? (7V Svvaio \o^ricrd/J,evoi; XeKa^eadai, 
 
 o? Kev TOi etirrjaiv oBov Koi fieTpa iceXevffov 
 
 vocTTOv 6\ £09 iirl TTOVTOv eKev(Teai l')(j9v6evTa. — S 388. 
 
 "If thou canst in any way lie in ambush and take him, he 
 shall {= will) tell the way and the measure of thy path, how thou 
 shalt go over the teeming sea." 
 
 el Si Ke fir) Scacoaiv, ejo) Be Kev avro<i eXcofiai, 
 
 fj reov rj AoavTO<; Imv <yepa<;, fj 'OSvcrfjo';. — A 137. 
 
 " And if they do not give it, I myself skall go and take a prize, 
 or thine, or Ajax's, or Odysseus'." (Resolve conditioned.) 
 
 B. 
 
 THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE IN PARATAXIS. 
 
 It would be easy to show, from hypotactic examples, what, in 
 the case of many constructions, the original paratactic form must 
 have been (see, for example, under the head of the characterizing 
 clause and the construction of plan below).i My actual collection, 
 however, includes illustration of only three types. These are : 
 
 I. The Substantive Clause of Direct ftuotation. 
 
 a\X e« Tot epio), to Se ical TeKieaOai oia • 
 
 J7? virepoTrXirjo-i, to,^ av Trore BvfjLov oXecra-rj. — A 204. 
 
 " But this I tell you, and I deem it will come to pass : by his 
 own insolence shall he soon lose his life." 
 
 1 For any modal usage whatever, the paratactic constructions are relatively in- 
 frequent. It is not strange, therefore, that fevf examples of parataxis are to be found for 
 this particular mode, vphich, except in dependent clauses, is by Homer's time already 
 rare. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 1 7 
 
 2. The Assumption, 
 
 upon the fulfilment of which the act of the main sentence is 
 
 conditioned.^ 
 
 ov fiiv iyco j€ 
 <f)€v^ofjt,ai £K iroXefioio Svarj^eo's, aXXa fiaX' avrrjv 
 aTt)aojji,ai, fj ks (jteprjai /Meya KpdTO<i, fj xe (pepoifirjv. — X 306. 
 
 aXV ^ Toi Kelvov fji^v idao/iev, rj k€V 'irjaiv 
 rj Ke fiivy. — I 701. 
 
 " Yet will we suffer him, he skail go or he skall stay " 
 (= "whether he skal/ go or whether he sAaH stay"). 
 
 aW' ^ TOi Kelvov fiev idaofiev, fj k€V akmr) 
 fj Ke ^vji) Kai Kev oi VTripa^rj %6t/3a TLpoviwv. — ^ 183. 
 " But we will let him pass, he skall be slain, or he skall escape 
 
 and the son of Kronos hold his hand over him" (= "whether he 
 
 skall . . . or . . . skall"). Similarly 2 308. 
 
 3. A possible instance of the paratactic construction occurs in 
 £1 551, in which the Tr/jiVsentence stands to the main sentence, 
 so far as the mere mechanism goes, in the relation of a loose 
 
 Time-determinative Clause. 
 
 ov lydp Ti irprj^ei'; dKa-)(rifievo^ vie; erjo<;, 
 
 ov8e fiiv av(T'triaei<; • irplv koi kukov dXKo 7ra0r)(r6a. — fl 5 S^- 
 
 "Thou wilt accomplish nothing by grieving for thy son, nor 
 wilt thou bring him back to life. Ere this skall {= will) a. new 
 evil come to thee" (thine own death). The meaning is "never in 
 all the days before thy death, — in all the days of thy life, — wilt 
 thou," etc. 
 
 The same feeling is more clearly seen, because the thought is 
 simpler, in the case of the future indicative in v 427 : 
 
 1 1 use the word " assumption " in preference to the word " condition," both because 
 it more accurately describes the state of mind under which the grammatical mechanism 
 is originally employed, and because it is matched with a verb " to assume " of exactly 
 corresponding force; whereas the verb " to condition '' does not correspond to the noun 
 " condition." 
 
l8 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 aXKa TO. y oiiK oim • TTplv KUi nva jaia Kade^et. 
 "But I do not look for these things: ere that shall(^=will) 
 the earth hold certain of the suitors" (= "never, while they live, 
 are these things likely to happen "). 
 
 In effect, however, this time-determining sentence practically 
 serves only to strengthen the negative of the main sentence. 
 
 C. 
 
 THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE IN HYPOTAXIS. 
 
 In dependent clauses the anticipatory subjunctive varies 
 through a long range of forces, from that of full and confident expec- 
 tation, such as we have seen in the isolated and paratactic uses 
 above to the bare picturing (anticipation) of an act as impending, 
 — even if it be of an act which the speaker or actor desires to 
 prevent. They all, however, have in common this element of 
 looking forward, and lack (except possibly in some cases of a 
 special development^) the element of will which belongs to the 
 volitive. 
 
 At the period at which, in any given construction, hypotaxis 
 began, the anticipatory clause must have represented the expecta- 
 tion of the speaker ; but it of course came, through use in the 
 reporting of the expectation of a first person, to express the ex- 
 pectation of a second or third person as well. 
 
 The types of the hypotactic clause are many : — 
 I. The relative with the anticipatory subjunctive may consti- 
 tute a 
 
 Characterizing Clause (or Clause of Foreseen Behavior, Experience, 
 
 Plight, etc.). 
 
 The mechanism and the feeling of such a clause are illustrated 
 in the second sentence in the following English example, from the 
 Chicago Herald oiW2iXz\\. 12, 1894: — 
 
 1 See the discussion on p. 31. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 19 
 
 There are over three hundred patents on electric conduits and machinery 
 pertaining thereto. In none of them is there a solution of the problem of vehicle 
 propulsion which will be at once safe, economical, and easy of repair. 
 
 Characterizing clauses are especially frequent after indefinite 
 or negative antecedents, for the reason that nothing can be predi- 
 cated of such an antecedent except behavior, experience, plight, 
 etc. In other words, any predication after a negative or indefinite 
 must be of the nature of an adjective.^ 
 
 ovK effd', o? Ke <T eKyai iMeTaXfJievo';,, oiiSe irapeKdy. — '^ 345. 
 " There is none that shall overtake thee from behind, or pass 
 thee by." 
 
 ecrereTai, ^f^ap, or av ttot' oX(BA,j;."I\t09 Iprj. — Ti 448 (= A 164). 
 "A day will come when sacred Troy shall(^ = will) fall." Sim- 
 ilarly, without av, in $ 103. 
 
 earat, fidv, or av avre (ftiXrjv jXavKWTnSa eXirrj. — © 373' 
 " Surely a day will come when he shall { = will^ again call me 
 his bright-eyed darling." 
 
 The idiom still appears in New Testament Greek (but see 
 II. Tim. 4, 3, on the next page). 
 
 ^hevcrovrav Se "^fiepat orav aTrapdrj air avrav 6 vvficpioi, Kal rare 
 vr)<TTev<Tovaiv iv ixeivr] rfj rjfiepa. — Mark 2, 20. 
 
 The construction shows the same movement toward the future 
 indicative which has been noted above, and the tendency is already 
 apparent in Homer. 
 
 vvv avre fiaXiaTO, fie (jjiXai, Adr]vr], 
 So? Be TtdXcv eVt v7Ja<! eu^Xeta? d^iKeadac, 
 pe^avrai; fieya epyov, o Ke Tpaieacn ixeX-rjaei. — K 280. 
 "... Having done a great work, which will be a sorrow to 
 the Trojans." Cf. also the following examples : — 
 
 1 The word "characterizing" must be understood merely as a single word adopted 
 for convenience, where a full statement would require many. The only word which 
 would exactly cover the complete ground would be the word " qualitative," employed in 
 my " C«)!«-Constructions." This is, to my mind, the one that should be used; but I 
 hesitate to urge it, on account of its over-technical air. Possibly the word " descriptive " 
 would combine intelligibility with exactness. 
 
20 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 vvv S" a^iwOeh el(7i KUKOvawi y i/J^ov 
 
 TotavO' a rov rovB' ov ttot evj>pavei ^iov. — Soph. O. C. 1352. 
 
 ws 01 revxea KoXa •jrapea-aerai,, old Tt? aiire 
 
 dv9pa>irwv iroXewv Oav/jida-a-eTai, o? Kev 'ihrjTai. — Z 466. 
 
 vv^ S' ea-TM, ore Stj arvyepo^ ydfio<; dvTi^oXrjaei 
 
 ov\ofiev7]<; e/iedev, Tr)<; re Zeus oX^ov drrrjipa. — ff 272. 
 
 /i^ yap o 7' IXQoi dvijp, 09 ri<; a-' deKOvra ^Irjipiv 
 
 Krrjfiar aTroppaia-ei, 'I^aw??? en vaierom(Trj<;. — a 403. 
 
 ovheh dvdpdiirmv ovr eaaerai ovre •7re<j)VKev 
 
 oarK rrdaiv dhoav Bvaerai et? 'At'Seo). — Theog. 80 1. 
 
 ov yap Tts 'icrrLV o? irdpoiO' alpija-erai. — Eur. Heracl. 57- 
 
 earai yap icaipos ore tjjs vyiaivova-rji; SiBaaKaXla'; ovk dve^ovrat.. 
 
 — II. Tim. 4, 3. 
 
 The construction is especially interesting to a Latinist, as 
 affording a probable key to a group of difficult examples. 
 
 Veniet lustris labentibus aetas, 
 cum domus Assaraci Phthiam clarasque Mycenas 
 servitio premet ac victis dominabitur Argis. 
 nascetur pulchra Troianus origine Caesar, 
 imperium Oceano, famam qui terminet astris, 
 lulius, a magno demissum nomen lulo. — Verg. Aen. i, 283. 
 " There shall {= will) be born a Trojan of noble origin, Caesar, 
 who shall ( = will) make the ocean the boundary of his power, the 
 stars the boundary of his fame, — called Julius, a name descended^ 
 from great lulus." 
 
 The example is often explained as one of purpose (so by Allen 
 and Greenough, Frieze, Sidgwick, — the last of whom says " sub- 
 junctive expressing purpose, viz. the purpose of destiny"). But 
 it is forcing the meaning to say that Caesar shall be born "for the 
 purpose of" . . . ; and the moment one recedes from this strict 
 interpretation of the clause, one is driven toward the idea of simple 
 prophecy. Further, the construction is evidently closely parallel 
 to that of the clause cum premet above, which is clearly anticipa- 
 tory (the future indicative is the nearest neighbor and the suc- 
 cessor of the anticipatory subjunctive), and to the independent 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 21 
 
 prophetic indicatives accipies, vocabitur, mitescent, dabunt, clauden- 
 tur, fremet, wliich immediately follow. 
 
 Alter erit turn Tiphys, et altera quae vehat Argo 
 
 delectos heroas. — Verg. Eel. 4, 34. 
 " There shall be a second Argo, that shall bear a chosen band 
 of heroes." (The example might be taken as expressing purpose, 
 but, in view of the previous one, and of the fact that the whole 
 of this passage also is loaded with prophetic future indicatives, 
 it seems better to regard it as anticipatory.) 
 
 His te cogitationibus recrea et interim epistulis nostris vacando. 
 veniet aliquod tempus, quod nos iterum iungat et misceat. — Sen. 
 Ep. 10, 2, 28. 
 
 " A time will come that shall (= wiW) again unite us and make 
 us one." 
 
 Veniet iterum, qui nos in lucem reponat dies. — Sen. Ep. 4, 7, 10. 
 " There will come again (after death) a day that shall bring us 
 once more into the light of life." 
 
 Huius unius rei usum qui exigat dies veniet. — Sen. Ep. 8, i, 18. 
 " A day will come that shall demand the exercise of this one 
 
 thing." 
 
 Venient annis saecula seris 
 
 quibus Oceanus vincula rerum 
 
 laxet et ingens pateat tellus 
 
 Tethysque novos detegat orbes 
 
 nee sit terris ultima Thule. — Sen. Med. 378. 
 f'A time will come in years remote when Ocean shall relax 
 the bonds that bind the world, and the great globe lie open, and 
 Tethys shall disclose new realms, and Thule be no more the last 
 of earth." 
 
 Compare the following, from Matthew Arnold's " Stanzas from 
 the Grande Chartreuse " : — 
 
 Years hence, perhaps, may dawn an age 
 ****** 
 Which without hardness will be sage, 
 And gay without frivolity. 
 
22 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 I am strongly inclined to put in the same category examples 
 like the following, which ordinarily are reckoned as " consecutive," 
 i.e., derived from the subjunctive of ideal certainty (see my Cum- 
 Constructions, p. 88 of the English edition, 98 of the German). 
 
 Veniet de plebe togata 
 qui iuris nodos et legum aenigmata solvat. — luv. 8, 49. 
 
 Siquid vacui sub umbra 
 lusimus tecum, quod et hunc in annum 
 vivat et pluris ... — Hor. Carm. I. 32, i. 
 
 However that may be, the construction of our category, put as 
 from a past point of view, may certainly be seen in the first exam- 
 ple following : — 
 
 Progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci 
 audierat, Tyrias olim quae.verteret arces. — Verg. Aen. i, 19. 
 "But she feared for Carthage, for she had heard that a race 
 was springing from the Trojan blood x!a.z.\. should (^ = would) ?,Qva.Q 
 day lay low the Tyrian citadels." Cf. Aen. 4, 229. 
 
 I find the same meaning, rather than that of purpose, in the 
 next example : — 
 
 Sic alid ex alio peperit discordia tristis, 
 
 horribile humanis quod gentibus esset in armis, 
 
 inque dies belli terroribus addidit augmen. — Lucr. S, 1305. 
 
 The force here is that of "historic prevision," — which was to 
 affright " (see p. 87). 
 
 Finally, it seems to me that a somewhat difl&cult example from 
 Terence may be explained more satisfactorily under this general 
 head, than under the head of ironical purpose : — 
 
 Si quid velis, 
 huic mandes, qui te ad scopulum e tranquillo auferat. — Phorm. 688. 
 " If you want anything, put yourself in the hands of this man, 
 who will bring you on a rock out of a smooth sea." 
 
 The clause in question is in logic independent ( = " and he 
 will "), but is in form dependent, and so might take this subjunctive 
 in Terence's time, though the usage had disappeared from the 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 23 
 
 independent sentence. The relation of the two clauses will then 
 be somewhat as in the following, in which the second is likewise 
 in strictness of thought independent : — 
 
 ToSe (^dp/iaKov ia-OXov e'^atv i<s Safiara K.ipKr]<s 
 epy(ev, o xev toi KpaTO<; aXaKKrjaiv kukov ^fiap. — k 287- 
 "As thou goest to Circe's house, take in thy hand this herb : 
 it wtli keep from thy head the evil day." 
 
 2. In the examples that have preceded, the act of the subordi- 
 nate verb is not in any way dependent upon the agency of the 
 speaker or actor in the main sentence. 
 
 But it is of course perfectly possible that the speaker or actor 
 should himself, through the choice of a suitable person, thing, etc. 
 (the antecedent), set in motion agencies the working of which he 
 foresees and reckons upon, and so carry out a plan, — fulfil a pur- 
 pose, — accomplish an aim. Such a combination of ideas appears 
 in the following example, which is taken from a private letter : — 
 
 " Will you please send me publications of the University, — 
 calendars, bulletins, etc., — wkick will give iniormation about the 
 organization of the work ? " 
 
 In sentences of this kind, character, aim, and anticipated effect 
 flow together, and the construction may therefore be called the 
 
 Clause of Character and Plan (or Clause of Character chosen for its 
 Foreseen Working). 
 
 airap iym Hpidfim fxe'fak'qTopi, ''Ipiv itpija-a) 
 XvcracrOai <pb\ov viov lovr iiri inja^ 'A^atwi', 
 B&pa S' 'A^tW^f <j)epe/iev, rd Ke Ovfiov I'ljvrj. — fl 1 17. 
 "But I will send Iris to set free his son for great-hearted 
 Priam, going to the ships of the Achaeans, and to bear to Achilles 
 gifts that sAall ( = will) cheer his soul." (The clause expresses 
 both the character of the gifts and the aim of the sender.) Cf. 
 Hes. Op. 57: Scoaeo kukov m Kev airavre'i \ repTravTai. 
 Kai fioi reov ovvojia eiire 
 avrUa vvv, Xva roi Sw ^elviov, to «e a-ii ')(aipri<;. — i 3 S S • 
 "And tell me now your name, that I may give you a gift, in 
 which you shall { = ivill) be glad." 
 
24 
 
 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 CToi Be, yepov, dair)v i'mdija-o/J.ev, rjV k ivl Ou/mw 
 
 TLV(OP aa-)(^aXKri<; • 'X_a\€-irov Se rot eaaeTai aXyo';. — ^ 192. 
 
 "And on you, old man, we shall put a fine, which it skaH { = 
 will) grieve you to the soul to pay; and hard will be your 
 distress." 
 
 a/i(j}l Se \al(f>o<; 
 ea-a-m, o Ke a-rvyerjaiv ISwv dvBpcoiro'i e')(pvTa. — v 399. 
 
 "And I will put a cloak about you, which a man shall { = will) 
 shudder at seeing you wear." (The construction is parallel with 
 a clause of plan with m? av, immediately attached to it.) 
 
 3. The clause of anticipation may also be employed to express 
 mere aim (without suggestion of character). The actor chooses 
 means through which, as he foresees, the ends he desires will 
 follow. Such a construction may bear the simpler name of the 
 
 Clause of Plan ^ (Purpose). 
 
 The introductory words in Greek are o?, <»?, "va, ocppa. These 
 are all originally demonstratives, and, like German "der" and 
 English " that," have come to their relative power through being 
 used in sentences in which they take up again a person, act, etc., 
 mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding. The antece- 
 dent of OS is a person, the antecedent of to?, iva, 6<^pa an act, with 
 or without modifiers. 
 
 As to derivation, it is uncertain whether to? is to be associated 
 with 10-, Greek 6'?, Skt. yas, or with crpo- (the FOTI of a Locrian 
 inscription, upon which the question turns, is contradicted by 
 HOT I, HOTTO, H OTTOS of another inscription of the same dialect. 
 Wackernagel, Rh. M. XLVIIL, p. 301, suggests the emendation 
 rj '6ti; J. Schmidt, K.Z. XXXIII., p. 455, argues against this, and 
 in favor of FOTI). Nor is it certain whether the form is an 
 instrumental or an ablative. In any case, however, to? means "in 
 
 1 In not a few examples, especially, perhaps, of the vohtive type, the common title 
 " clause of purpose " is too narrow. The main act does not exist merely in order to 
 bring about the subordinate one (as must be the case where the idea is strictly that of 
 purpose), but exists independently and for its own sake. The better word, therefore, 
 would be the word " plan," which covers both cases, and which has also the advantage 
 that it can be used of the original independent aim. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 25 
 
 consequence of this" or "through this," and so "thereby," — and 
 then, with relative power, " whereby." 
 
 "Ottoj?, to which we shall need to allude (though it does not 
 occur with av or m in this construction), is involved in the same 
 doubt with to?, but is in any case a relative plus an indefinite ; viz. 
 wS- plus an indefinite ttw?, or, on the theory based upon the in- 
 scriptional FOTI above, afot- plus ttw?. Either derivative would 
 give, for the earliest meaning, " thereby (whereby) in some way 
 or other." 
 
 "\va is an instrumental (originally sociative) form of the demon- 
 strative relative, meaning "by this means," and then "by which 
 means." The demonstrative force still appears, though not the 
 original case force, in K 127. 
 
 "0<f)pa is more difficult. It is probably an accusative relative 
 from *'6-<j}pa(Brugma.nn, Gr. Gramm., § 201). The -(j)pa is connected 
 (cf. Prellwitz, Et. Worterb.) with I.-E. root dAer, not infrequently 
 found in adverbs of time : cf. ii^ap, Lith. dabd.r, " now," Skt. tatah 
 prdbhrti, "from this time on." Its original force probably appears 
 in the many passages where it is found in company with an ante- 
 cedent T6(f>pa, and is therefore "so long as," "while." 
 
 Examples follow, arranged in the order of the connectives now 
 discussed : — 
 
 aXXd fioi ev 6^ vir66ev koX a/ju ■^ye/Mov' ea6\ov OTraara-ov, 
 8? KB /Me kela aydyr/. — 3IO- 
 
 " But counsel me wisely, and send a good guide with me, who 
 (originally Ae) will lead me thither." 
 
 aX\' aye p-oi Sore vfja dor)v koI ecKoa eraipov;, 
 
 o'i Ke fioi evda Koi evda htairprjacrwaL KeXevdov. — /3 212. 
 
 " Come, then, give me a swift ship and twenty comrades, who 
 wiV/help me make a journey up and down the sea." ^ 
 
 The indicative construction, toward which the clause of plan 
 with the relative pronoun tends, and which completely triumphs 
 in Attic prose, is already to be seen in Homer : — 
 
 1 The subjunctive without S,v or Ke appears only in T 287 and its duplicate V 460. 
 The discussion of these passages belongs to the chapter upon the volitive. 
 
26 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 fiTjSe Tt oi 6dvaTo<; fieXero) ^peal firfhe rv rdp^ois • 
 Tolov '■/ap oi -iro/jLTTOV oirdtraofiev dpye'i<f>0VT'r]V, 
 o? d^ei, et'fi)? Kev dytov 'A')(^l\)]i irekdcrcrri. — il 1 52. 
 " Let not death be in his thoughts, nor fear ; such a guide will 
 
 we give him in the slayer of Argos, who will lead him till in his 
 
 leading he bring him to the tent of Achilles." 
 
 •ireiOeo B\ w? rot iyo) fwOov Te\o? eV (f)peal Oeio), 
 CO? dv /J,oi Tt/J^rjv fieydXTjV Kal kvBo<; dprjat. — 11 83. 
 " Obey . . . ; whereby (originally thereby) thou shall win great 
 honor and glory in my sight " (= "in order that thou mayest win "). 
 
 Mup/iiSoVey, erapoi TJTjXi^idSea) 'A'^iXfjov, 
 dvepe'i e'ffTe, (f)i\oi, fivrjaacrOe he 6ovpiBo<; aXwij?, 
 to? dv TlrjXeiBrjv n/irjaofiev. — 11 269. 
 "Myrmidons, comrades of Achilles, Peleus' son, be men, my 
 
 friends, and bethink you of impetuous valor; thereby shall we 
 
 (= that we maj) do honor to the son of Peleus." 
 
 aW' ipeoo fiev eyciov, Xva elSoTei rj Ke ffdvcofiev 
 1] Kev akevdfievoi Odvarov Kal KTjpa ^vyoifiev. — fi 1 56. 
 "But I will tell you; thereby knowing we shall either die, or 
 we may perhaps escape, avoiding death and destruction" (= "in 
 order that," etc.). (The only case of this construction with cva.) 
 
 I shall presently give reasons for believing that the oldest type 
 of all the subjunctive final constructions, whether with 6'?, w?, 
 oTTd)?, o^pa, or Lva, is the true volitive. The way in which, accord- 
 ing to the conception which commends itself to my mind, thek 
 volitive introduced by o^pa originally served to express plan may 
 be seen in the following : — 
 
 dfi(pi7ro\oi, (rrrjff' ovrm diroTrpodev, o(f)p' iyo) avTOV 
 
 a\,fJ.rjv (OfMOUV aTTokovcrofiai. — f 2 1 8. 
 " Women, stand here aside : the while I will myself wash 
 the brine from my shoulders" (="that during that time I may 
 wash," "that I may have time to wash," "that I may wash"). 
 
 The corresponding early point in the development of the 
 anticipatory construction is to be seen in an example of similar 
 form with dv. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 27 
 
 dvipei; eare, </)t\oi, fivijcraa-Oe Se 6ovpiSo<! dX/e^?, 
 o<f)p' av iyiav 'A^tX^o? afivfiovo<s evrea Svm 
 Ka\d. — P 185. 
 
 " Be men, my friends, and bethink you of impetuous valor, the 
 while I s/iall put on the goodly arms of noble Achilles " (= "that 
 I may the while," "that I may have time to," "that I may"). 
 
 Before Homer's time, however, the original temporal force of 
 o(f)pa has given way in this construction. The following illustrates 
 the ordinary type : — 
 
 Tov ^eivov hva-Trjvav ay e? iroXiv, o<j>p^ av eKeWi 
 Salra Trrco^evrj. — p lO. 
 
 " Lead the poor stranger to the city, that there he may earn 
 his portion by begging." ^ 
 
 It is not surprising to find that the construction with m?, the 
 connective nearest in form to 6'?, approaches the construction with 
 09, in outward form, in that it shows an av or /ce with greater 
 relative frequency than either o(f)pa or tva. The one particle or 
 the other appears in 29 cases with to? out of a total of 41. 
 
 "Ottw? does not occur in Homer with dv or we in this construc- 
 tion, though it occurs once without dv or k6, and 7 times with the 
 optative representing a subjunctive after a past tense. "Ottw? dv 
 with the subjunctive makes its appearance first in Aeschylus, and 
 becomes afterward a common Attic mechanism. In the Attic 
 inscriptions of the fifth, fourth, and third centuries, there are 75 
 cases of ottw? dv to 3 of the bare oircoii. After this, the proportion 
 
 1 The general opinion, held, e.^., by Goodwin and Weber, is that the clause of pur- 
 pose with 6(ppa was in its beginning a mere temporal clause, meaning " until." The 
 behavior of the ^ws-clause certainly proves that such a shift of meaning is possible; but I 
 find the conception which I have given above to be indicated, if the original meaning of 
 6<ppa is as I have taken it, and if the construction, which certainly is a very old one (see 
 the statistics on p. 30), began at a time when this original meaning still remained. 
 Further, if the construction began in a true temporal clause, it ought to be parallel in 
 feeling to the one seen in iil/ivere irivres . . . airov, els S Kev &<rTv ij,iya Tlpidiioio 
 ?\ci)/<€y, B 331. In that case, the clause would in the great mass of instances show dv or 
 Ke; whereas, in fact, the S^pa-clause of purpose takes &p or Ke in only 12 out of 183 
 instances. If it be answered that these particles disappeared because a clear feeling of 
 purpose sprang np, that very statement is equivalent to a waivingof all objection to the 
 volitive as the original starting-point of the construction. 
 
28 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 is about three to one the other way, though the total number of 
 examples is small. (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschriften, p. 212.) 
 
 "O^pa takes av or /ce in 12 out of 183 Homeric examples, and 
 'Iva in I out of 194. 
 
 All such examples are treated by Delbruck (Synt. Forsch. I. 
 PP- 3S> 85, and 130), and in agreement with him, by Monro 
 (Homeric Grammar, p. 257), and Weber (Entwickelungsgeschichte 
 d. Absichtssatze, p. 6},, and passim), as expressions of the will. 
 
 In a paper upon " The Origin and Later History of the Clause 
 of Purpose in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit" (Proceedings of the 
 American Philological Association for 1892), I have advocated the 
 conception of two types of the clause of purpose, the first being 
 volitive, the second anticipatory, as said above. My reasoning 
 was as follows : — 
 
 Delbruck regards the future force of the subjunctive as having 
 been developed out of an earlier force in which it expressed the 
 will of the speaker, the change being brought about through a 
 fading away of the sharpness of the feeling of will. The presence 
 of av or ice marks a given example as expressing expectation, not 
 will. This canon Delbruck applies rigorously in the independent 
 sentence ; but when he comes to the relative clause of purpose, 
 expressed regularly by av or /ce with the subjunctive, he treats it 
 as a construction of the will, and accounts for the apparent 
 anomaly on the ground that in the dependent clause the force 
 of the will is weakened. But this is precisely the reason which 
 Delbruck has given before, in the treatment of the independent 
 sentence, for the passage of the subjunctive of will into the sub-» 
 junctive of futurity. His own doctrine, then, if fully carried out, 
 should lead him to regard the mode in the Homeric relative clause 
 of purpose as the subjunctive of futurity.^ 
 
 1 As has been seen and will be seen again later (pp. 14 and 32), I grant a secondary 
 development of the anticipatory subjunctive and the future indicative, by which they 
 virtually come to express will, through a use in which they state what is going to happen 
 without regard to the mental attitude of any one but the speaker. There is no reason, 
 however, for resorting to this secondary power in the present case, and abandoning for 
 the moment the stricter and entirely sufficient force of the anticipatory subjunctive, 
 to which one is immediately forced to return to explain the great mass of subjunctive 
 constructions with i.v or (ce. In other words, the secondary power is not to be resorted 
 to except under absolute necessity. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 29 
 
 Delbriick's conception, then, is not consistent with itself, and, 
 in addition, it leaves an unbridged gulf between the commoner 
 Homeric construction and the Attic ; whereas the conception 
 which I have advocated places the Attic construction close to 
 the Homeric and in the natural line of succession to it, in the 
 regular drift of the anticipatory constructions into the future 
 indicative form. 
 
 The subsequent fate of these various constructions of plan is 
 instructive. 
 
 The construction which in Homer is already overwhelmingly 
 of the anticipatory type, namely, the o?-clause, takes in Attic the 
 future indicative. The clause with to?, which in a majority of 
 instances in Homer takes the anticipatory form, maintains itself 
 in this form in the Attic poets, and also appears in prose in 
 Xenophon, and (in one passage, VI. 91, 4) in Thucydides, but occurs 
 with the future indicative only once (Eur. Bacch. 784). The 
 clause with o^pa, which in a relatively small number of cases 
 takes the anticipatory form (and even, in three cases, @ 1 10, S 163, 
 and p 6, the future indicative), loses the accompanying particle 
 in Attic, and shows no future indicative ; and "va, which appears 
 in Homer but once with the particle (ji 156), likewise never appears 
 with it in Attic, and likewise shows no future indicative. 
 
 It would seem, then, that a tendency toward the use of the 
 future idea, showing itself first by the use of the anticipatory 
 subjunctive, established itself in overwhelming force in the 09- 
 clauses, and was even strong enough to carry them over, for good 
 and all, into the future indicative ; that this tendency influenced 
 the ft)?-clauses to the extent of carrying them into the anticipatory 
 form, and was powerful enough to hold them there in Attic, though 
 not to carry them over, in any considerable numbers, into the 
 indicative form ; that the younger clauses with oVm? (only j ust 
 beginning to be used in Homer's time) shared the fate of their 
 obvious relatives, the (»?-clauses, in being carried into the antici- 
 patory form, and even, under the influence of the 07ra)?-clauses 
 after verbs of striving (originally, as I think, interrogative; see 
 pp. 35-57, below) took on the future indicative, which shows itself 
 already with these clauses in Homer ; that the tendency, though 
 strong enough in Homer's time to affect the o(^|oa-clause slightly. 
 
30 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 and even, in one instance, the iWclause, was not sufBciently 
 powerful to carry them further, or even to hold them at this point, 
 but died out, and allowed them to go back to what was pre- 
 sumably the earlier form. 
 
 Two interesting questions concerning these clauses of plan are 
 yet to be answered. The first has been already suggested by the 
 closing sentence of the last paragraph ; viz. what was the form of 
 the final clause, as inherited by Greek from the parent speech ?i 
 
 The great majority of the final clauses with conjunctions in 
 Homer are introduced by o^pa and Xva, viz. 277 cases out of 318. 
 This makes it appear probable that the clause with m (as certainly 
 the clause with oTrta?) was of later origin. Further, in this pre- 
 sumably earlier type, 264 cases out of the 277 are without av or 
 «e ; and of the 13 cases with av or ks, 10 are in the younger book, 
 the Odyssey. The original mode of the clause of purpose with 
 conjunctions in Greek would seem, then, to have been the volitive 
 subjunctive, not the anticipatory. 
 
 What was the case with the clause of purpose introduced by 
 the relative pronoun ">. It is unlikely that clauses of purpose with 
 the relative pronoun and clauses of purpose with the relative con- 
 junction took from the beginning different constructions. It is 
 more probable that they began at the same point, and that the 
 one afterwards experienced a development which the other shared 
 but slightly. Did they begin together as volitive constructions, 
 or did they begin together as anticipatory constructions .' If our 
 inference for the clauses with conjunctions is sound, then we see 
 that the relative clauses also must have begun with the volitive.* 
 Further than this, looking at the general drift of things in Greek 
 once more, one sees clearly enough that it is a current moving 
 from the anticipatory constructions toward the future indicative 
 constructions. The only place in which one can put the volitive 
 construction in an historical scheme is therefore back of the 
 anticipatory construction. We come again, then, to the proba- 
 bility that the volitive was the original construction in Greek for 
 clauses with relative pronouns and conjunctions. And this con- 
 clusion accords perfectly with the certain fact that the clause 
 introduced by /xr? was originally volitive, and always remained so. 
 
 1 The reasoning here given is from the paper referred to just above. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 31 
 
 The Other question is a more difificult one, but of consequence 
 in the discussion of a construction to be treated elsewhere (the 
 construction with m? and Sttw? after such verbs as (^pa\^o^aC)\ 
 viz. did the final clause with the future indicative keep the true 
 anticipatory feeUng, or did it take on the feeling of the volitive 
 clauses with Xva and o^pa ? 
 
 At first sight, it would seem as if the use of the negative \x-q 
 would decide the question in favor of the second alternative. But 
 I doubt the soundness of such an inference. The use of /^t?, to 
 my mind, points only to the conclusion that the original final 
 clause was volitive. In the 2s-clauses there is, in the nature of 
 things, no room for a negative of any kind. We send a man (to 
 adopt a common example) to do something, not not to do some- 
 thing. The to?-, ocjjpa-, and li/a-clauses of the anticipatory type 
 are relatively so few that they would be likely simply to accept 
 the established negative, not to force a new one into the con- 
 struction.^ In general, too, Greek tends toward uniformity 
 in the use of particles in constructions apparently related.^ 
 The established firj, then, would be likely to remain, and I see, 
 in consequence, no evidence for supposing that the distinction 
 between subjunctive and indicative would be obliterated. It seems 
 more probable that the indicative continues to express the feeling 
 of expectation with which the construction began (" expecting 
 that . . . will," "counting upon so-and-so"), while the sub- 
 junctive expresses will ("determining, intending, that . . . shall"). 
 The force of the indicative, then, will be as in the following, 
 from the Chicago Herald ol June 14, 1894:^ — 
 
 Members of the Apollo Club hope to make an arrangement with Leader 
 Tomlins, whereby he will remain as director. 
 
 1 In the clauses after verbs of planning and striving the feeling of the deliberative 
 idea is so strong as to crop up at times, and show itself in the use of an undoubted 
 interrogative form, even after so uninterrogative a verb as Tp&ffaw; and the Greek 
 deliberative question, unHke the Latin, has kept the negative of the declarative sentence. 
 The idiom after verbs of striving seems, then, to afford no evidence in favor of a volitive 
 feeling in the future indicative. 
 
 2 So in the case of the generalizing assumption (the general condition), which often 
 appears in Homer without S,v or Ke, but in Attic prose never. The original construction 
 must have been a true volitive, with the same feeling as in the English " let A happen : 
 B always happens "; but, since the great mass of dependent clauses with the subjunctive 
 take ic for inherent reasons, this also came to take it as a matter of form. 
 
22 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Yet I hold this opinion subject to correction, distinctly recog- 
 nizing, as I do, that the anticipatory subjunctive and the future 
 indicative gain in certain constructions a virtually volitive power. 
 
 So much for the Greek. As for the Latin, it is possible to say 
 in this chapter only that no sign exists, such as we have seen in 
 Greek in the drift of the final clauses into the future indicative 
 form, that a departure had ever been made from the true volitive 
 construction. At any rate, it is sure that the anticipatory final 
 clause, if it did make its appearance in Latin, at least played no 
 important part in the development of the type ultimately reached.i 
 
 4. In Latin, the anticipatory subjunctive introduced by ut may 
 stand, after certain verbs, as a 
 
 Substantive Clause. 
 
 Nisi exspectare vis, 
 ut earn sine dote f rater nuptum conlocet. — Plant. Trin. 734. 
 " Unless you wish to wait for her brother to give her in mar- 
 riage without a dowry." 
 
 Rusticus exspectas ut non sit adultera Largae 
 
 filia. — luv. 14, 25. 
 " You stupidly look to see Larga's daughter not turn out an 
 adulteress." (For the force of the mode, compare rusticus exspe- 
 ctat dum defluat aninis, Hor. Ep. i, 2, 42.) 
 
 Similarly Cic. Cat. 2, 12, 27; Rose. Am. 29, 82; Caes. B. C. 
 I, 6, 6; Liv. 23, 31, 7 ; 26, 18, 5 ; 35, 8, 5; Quintil. 7, 10, 14;. 
 Sen. Ep. 86, 11. 
 
 Hoc quoque te manet, ut pueros elementa docentem 
 occupet extremis in vicis balba senectus. — Hor. Ep. i, 20, 17. 
 " This, too, awaits you : lisping old age will find you teaching 
 boys their A B C's on the outskirts of the town." 
 
 ^ In Sanskrit, which does in a few cases show the future indicative in final clauses, 
 the anticipatory feeling may have played a part of some consequence; but there is no 
 outward mark of its presence, such as Greek affords us by the use of the two extremely 
 helpful little particles. 
 
 For the part which the potential may have played in the Latin clause of plan, 
 I can only say without argument, in advance of the chapter dealing with that mode, that 
 the potential feeling likewise seems to have been, at the least, an unimportant factor. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 33 
 
 The use of ut as a conjunction of course did not arise in this 
 construction, which is evidently a secondary one, but in the 
 construction of plan. 
 
 S. The anticipatory subjunctive may be attached to another 
 sentence as a 
 
 Dependent ftuestion of Fact. 
 
 The connectives are the interrogatives and el and si (see p. 60 
 below, for the transition of these particles from the conditional 
 force to the interrogative). 
 
 e'lBofiev, OTTTTOTepq) xev 'OXv/j,Tno<; eux°l opi^r/. — X 1 30. 
 " Let us know upon which of us two the Olympian sAail bestow 
 glory." 
 
 Tt? S' olS', e'l Ke TTore a^i ^ia<; a-KOTiaerai eX0a>v ; — 7 216. 
 
 " Who knows if he shall yet some day return and recompense 
 their outrages .' " 
 
 Tt'5 S' olK, et Ke Koi avro? loav KOi\r]<; eVi ^770? 
 
 TTJ\e (f)i\a)v airoXrjTai aKcofievo<; w? irep 'OBvaaev'i ; — ^ 332. 
 
 In the following, as in many examples, the idea of possibility 
 has attached itself to the mode, from its use in cases where ithe 
 thing inquired about is the thing desired. 
 
 TL'i 8' otS', eo Kev 01 criiv Saifiovi 0vfibv opivco 
 irapenrciov ; — O 403- 
 "Who knows whether, with Heaven's help, I s kail {= can) 
 arouse him with my words .■' " 
 
 vvv aire o-kottov dXKov, ov ov ttco ri<; ^aXev avrjp, 
 eicrofiai, ai Ke Tu_jj;£B/*t, iropri Be fioi eS^os 'Atto'XX&ji'. — % 6. 
 " And now as to another mark, which no man ever yet struck, 
 I shall know whether I shall {= can) hit it, and Apollo grant me 
 glory." 
 
 For the potential force compare the actual potential mode in 
 A 792 : 
 
34 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Ti? S' oiS', et Kiv 01 auv Saifiovi Ovfiov opivai<; 
 irapeiiTuv ; 
 " Who knows whether, with Heaven's help, you maj rouse him 
 with your words ? " 
 
 The anticipatory subjunctive is already giving way before the 
 future indicative in Homer, as in o 523 : Zeu? olBev . . . e'l ke . . . 
 TeXevTrjcrei, A 83 and a 401, k 192, and frequently elsewhere. 
 
 In Latin, the construction seems to betray itself in questions 
 in which the verb, instead of being in the periphrastic form, as the 
 regular idiom would require,^ is in the present or imperfect. 
 
 Exspectant veluti, consul cum mittere signum 
 volt, omnes avidi spectant ad carceris oras, 
 quam mox emittat pictis e faucibu' currus. — Enn. Ann. 82. 
 "They wait, just as, when the consul is at the point of giving 
 the signal, all gaze eagerly at the front of the enclosing gates, 
 watching to see how soon they shall set free the chariots from 
 the painted passages." 
 
 Exspecto quam mox recipiat sese Geta. — Ten Phorm. 606. 
 Quam timeo, quorsum evadas. — Ter. And. 127. 
 Quid exspectas quam mox ego Luscium et Manilium dicam 
 ordine esse senatores.'' — Cic. Rose. Com. 15, 44. 
 
 . . . Ut ne utile quidem, quam mox indicium fiat, exspectare. 
 
 — Cic. Inv. 2, 28, 85. 
 
 Quid hostes consilii caperent, exspectabat. — Caes. B. G. 3, 24, \, 
 " He waited to see what plan the enemy would form.'' 
 
 6. (a) The anticipatory subjunctive may be attached to an- 
 other sentence as a 
 
 Dependent Question of Deliberation. 
 
 The construction, as we find it in the examples which are first 
 to be given, is derived from the secondary stage of meaning of 
 
 1 £^., exspecto, quo pacto meae techinae processurae sient, Plaut. Poen. 817; ita- 
 que exspectante Antonio quidnam esset actura detractum alteram mersit et liquefactum 
 dbsdrbuit, Plin. N. H. 9, 35, 58, 121 ; nisi sane curaest, quorsum eventurum hoc siet.— 
 Ter. Hec. 193. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 35 
 
 the declarative anticipatory subjunctive, in which it has come 
 to express a Virtual Resolve, seen in such sentences as 670) Se «' 
 arim Bpiai^iSa, A 184 (given under A 4, p. 14). The direct form 
 of the question, which has disappeared before Homer's time, 
 would bear the same relation to the declarative form that the 
 deliberative future indicative in Greek and Latin (as in negabon ? 
 Ter. And. 612) bears to the declarative future (as in negabo). 
 
 avTO'i crv fiera (f>p€crl crfjcrt vorjcrov 
 Alveifiv, rj kIv fuv ipvajeai rj Kev edar]^. — T 310. 
 "But do thou thyself with thine own mind take counsel, 
 whether thou shalt save Aeneas or shalt abandon him." 
 
 obfjba S' Tjol (j)aivofj,evricf)iv 
 (ppaaao/LteO', r) kb vecofied' i4>' rifiirep' rj ks p,ev(Ofiev. — I 618. 
 
 " And at break of day will we take counsel, whether we sAa// 
 depart unto our own, or shall abide." 
 
 evOev S' av fidXa iraaav eTricfipaaaatfieda ^ovKr/v, 
 
 rj Kev ivl vrjeacri, •jrokvKXrjia-i Treaeofiev, 
 
 al K ede\r]cn 6eo<; Sofievai Kpajoi;, fj Kev e-rreira 
 
 Trap vr}u>v eXdcofiev aTrijfiove^. — N 741- 
 "Then we may take all counsel carefully, whether we ska// 
 fall upon the benched ships, if Heaven wills to give us victory, or 
 j,^rt// return unharmed from the ships." 
 
 The independent construction of the anticipatory deliberative 
 has already in Homer's time been superseded by the construction 
 with the future indicative. 
 
 (b) I am inclined, in view of the evidence as a whole, to place 
 under the same head of the deliberative subjunctive the genesis 
 of the subjunctive clauses with tu? dv and oVw? dv, after such 
 verbs as (fypd^ofiai, crKOTrew, and Trpdaaay. 
 
 The general tendency of grammarians ^ seems to have been 
 toward this view, and the commonness of the formula "how," 
 "wie," etc., in translations of the idiom, shows the same leaning 
 in those who have approached the question from the side of inter- 
 
 1 So Goodwin (M. andT. § 342) and Kuhner (Griech. Gramm., § 552, i, Anm. 3). 
 Kruger (Griech. Sprachl., § 84, 8, 6) puts the construction under the final relative clause. 
 
36 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 pretation only. On the other hand, Delbriick (Synt. Forsch. I., 
 p. 6i) objects that, while ottcb? is an interrogative as well as a 
 relative, co? is only a relative, and accordingly finds the origin of 
 both the a)9-clause and the oTrwy-clause in the relative clause 
 expressing will. Weber, whose paper (" Entwickelungsgeschichte 
 der Absichtsatze," in Schanz's Beitrage) is the fullest treatment 
 that has appeared upon the general subject of the group to which 
 our construction, if it originates in a relative clause, is to be 
 assigned, follows Delbriick, though dealing with the subject in 
 greater detail. His view is that the construction is an incomplete 
 (" unvollstandig ") final clause, i.e., a relative clause which expresses 
 a purpose, but lacks an antecedent stating the exact means chosen 
 to accomplish this purpose. The connectives employed, viz. m 
 and OTTO)?, are, in his opinion, suited to this indefiniteness of the 
 antecedent, as 'iva and o^pa would not be. 
 
 The antecedent objection to a theory of deliberative origin, on 
 the ground that o>'i cannot be interrogative, seems now to be 
 removable. 
 
 It is well known that the relative o? practically gains interroga- 
 tive power, through being used in cases where the antecedent, 
 though possible to insert, is not necessary ; as in jvaia-r] e7rei,d\ o? 
 0' rjyefJLOvwv Kaico<; o? ri vv \aa)v, \ ?;S' o? k e'cr^Xo? eycri (B 365 ; cf. 
 N 278, <E> 609, ■^ 498, 7 185). In this way an interrogative power 
 is developed which makes it possible to use 09 in co-ordination with 
 6aTi<;, as in yvoirj 6', o'i Tivei elcnv ivalaifiot 0" t' aOefiicnoL (/a 363 ; 
 cf. O 664). The full interrogative power is likewise found in other 
 writers ; e.g., Sophocles {e^oi,K aicoiKov twvK 09 iad^ 6 TrpoaTaTrj^, 
 O. C. 1171; cf. Ai. 1259), Herod. 6, 124; 9, 71; Plat. Euthyd. 
 283 D. Other relative words like 00-09, 0109, ^x*' ^^'^ '^^"' ^^ the 
 sense of place) are also used interrogatively {e.g., '6ao^ in tt 236, 
 A 186; oto9 in S 689, <E> 108, A 653, Plato, Rep. 329 A, Soph. El. 
 334; rjxt in 7 87 ; Lva in Soph. O. T. 687). 
 
 It would be surprising, then, if to? did not also gain such a 
 power, even if we could account for the existence of its use in the 
 sense of "that " ("dass ") in introducing quotations, without sup- 
 posing it first to have gone through the stage of "how.?" ("wie.'"). 
 In point of fact twenty-six clearly interrogative cases are found 
 by Schmitt (Schanz's Beitrage, 8, " Uber d. Ursprung d. Substan- 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 37 
 
 tivsatzes mit Relativpartikeln im Griech.," p. 53) to occur in Homer 
 after verbs of knowing and saying. No objection, then, need be 
 made on antecedent grounds to an examination of the question 
 whether the evidence points rather to an interrogative than to a 
 relative origin of the clause after ^pd^ofiai. 
 
 At first sight, a more serious objection (I don't know that it 
 has been advanced by any one) would appear to lie in the fact that 
 such a construction as an independent deliberative subjunctive 
 with av or KB is not recognized as existing. The objection has, 
 however, no real weight. There are two other types of subjunctive 
 sentences with av or we, viz. the question of fact and the quasi- 
 volitive question (seen just above in 5 and 6, a), the interrogative 
 character of which is unimpeachable, yet for which no corre- 
 sponding direct questions are to be found. 
 
 There is, in fact, nothing surprising in the absence of examples 
 of the independent construction. The tendency of the anticipatory 
 subjunctive in all its uses, independent and dependent alike, is to 
 pass over into the future indicative. The dependent construction, 
 however, constantly lags behind the independent ; so that in Attic 
 times, for example, though no instances of the independent con- 
 struction occur, the corresponding dependent construction is in 
 regular use in many kinds of clauses. It is entirely in accordance 
 with these facts, that, while the regular form of the independent 
 deliberative in Homer, when not in the volitive subjunctive (the 
 subjunctive without av or «e), has already passed over into the 
 future indicative, the dependent construction, when not in the 
 volitive, still remains in the anticipatory subjunctive (with av 
 or Ke). 
 
 These antecedent objections being removed, two concessions 
 may at once be made on both sides. 
 
 At whichever of the two points the construction originated, 
 the power attributed to it upon the theory of the other origin 
 would surely in time be gained. This Weber recognizes, so far 
 as his side of the matter is concerned, in saying (I. 6t), "das bei 
 engerer Verbindung das to? fast wie ein Fragewort gefuhlt werden 
 muss, liegt in der unbestimmten Natur des Hauptsatzes," and 
 (I. 63), "bei der relativischen Natur des m? kann aber der Aus- 
 druck der Absicht zurucktreten ; das fast als ' wie ' gefuhlte ws 
 
38 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 kann mehr die Art und Weise der Vollziehung der Absicht her- 
 vortreten lassen, z. B. a 205 (ppda-aerai m «e verjrai, ' er wird sich 
 iiberlegen, wie er etwa fortgehen kann,' wahrend K^pdaaeTat co? 
 ver)Tai, er wird sich iiberlegen, er will fortgehen," and (footnote 
 on same page), "ob eine Absicht vorhanden ist, kann nur aus dem 
 Gedanken erschlossen werden. So liegt keine mehr vor in der 
 Formel j>pd^eo '6ira><; earuL rdhe epya 3 3 u. a." On the other 
 hand, it is equally easy to see that a formula originally conveying 
 the idea " I am planning how he shall get well " would come in no 
 long time, even if the growth were not helped by the use of the 
 same particles ai? and Sttw? in final clauses, to be capable of 
 suggesting the idea "I am planning that he shall get well," and 
 so would' be employed after other main verbs with which it would 
 not naturally have been used if the force had always remained 
 that of a pure question. 
 
 Further, whichever may have been the starting-point, both of 
 the stages already exist in Homer. In certain examples the force 
 is, on a fair interpretation, that of a question, while in others it is 
 that of an object-clause in the ordinary sense of the phrase. 
 
 It still remains, however, before taking up the examples in 
 detail, to ask the question whether each of the two theories can 
 really yield a satisfactory starting-point for the construction. 
 
 Our discussion of this question will deal primarily with the 
 examples that have dv or Ke. The difficulties which the presence 
 of these two particles raises do not exist in the case of the sub- 
 junctive examples without dv or Are. On the other hand, whatever 
 conclusion is reached with regard to the former set will be held 
 for the latter, since the latter are satisfactorily accounted for on 
 either theory, and since the two are probably of the same origin. 
 
 We have already seen reason to dissent from Delbriick's con- 
 ception of the genesis of the purpose-clause with the subjunctive 
 and dv or ks. For the same reason Weber's conception of the 
 genesis of the w? dv clauses with (jjpd^ofiai, cannot be accepted ; 
 namely, the conception that the earlier stages may be shown in 
 the formulae "er sinnt nach, er will gesund werden," and " er 
 sinnt nach, so will er gesund werden." The independent sub- 
 junctive with dv or Ke cannot be regarded as a volitive. It is 
 also worth remarking, in passing, that in the paratactic stage the 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 30 
 
 will, the wish, etc., must be the will, the wish, etc., not of a second 
 or third person, but of the speaker.^ The languages with which 
 we are dealing never developed a form which, in an independent 
 use, could express the idea " it is his will to do so and so." The 
 formula for the paratactic starting-point of the construction without 
 av or Ke, as Weber conceives it, should be " I am planning : it is 
 my will that I (or you, or he, etc.) get well." When, however, 
 such a construction had passed into the hypotactic form ("I am 
 planning that I, you, he, shall get well"), a transference to the 
 planning of a second or third person would of course follow, so 
 that in the end Weber's general conception of this class might 
 be justified. 
 
 For the examples with av or «e, Weber's doctrine would need 
 to be thrown into a form in which the construction should be 
 regarded as never having had an independent or paratactic stage, 
 but as having been built up, in the hypotactic stage, on the general 
 model of the complete (" vollstandig ") purpose-clause with av or we 
 and the subjunctive. And even on this theory Weber's con- 
 ception " er will" can be justified only on condition (see the 
 discussion on p. 31, above) that the anticipatory purpose-clause is 
 believed finally to have given up its original feeling, and to have 
 gone over to the force of the volitive purpose-clause, which ex- 
 pressed the will of the speaker. If, on the other hand, the 
 anticipatory subjunctive did not gain this force, then no satis- 
 factory origin in the relative clause can be found. Such sentences 
 as " I am planning : I shall get well," " I am planning : thereby 
 I shall get well " (which would be consistent with the force of the 
 anticipatory subjunctive) do not represent a natural attitude of 
 '"^ human mind, which, in the very act of weighing things, is 
 .ecluded from an expression of certainty ("I shall get well," 
 "ichwerde gesund werden ") about the result, and driven rather 
 to a consideration of the question what means, being set in opera- 
 tion, will bring about the desired result, i.e., to such a thought as 
 "I am planning: by the taking of what means shall I get well.?" 
 or, as we should more naturally express the idea in our English 
 idiom, " I am planning : what means, being taken, will make me 
 
 ^ This very obvious fact is again and again overlooked in important investigations 
 and commentaries. 
 
40 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Well ? " Compare the following, from a newspaper report of an 
 interview with Zola : " To tell the truth, I think all the means tried 
 insufficient to stop the rising tide of anarchistic doctrines. What, 
 I am asked, will be a preventive?" and, again, the following from 
 Pliny, N. H. i8, 6, 39 : qnonam igitur modo utilissime colentur agri, 
 "In what way, theti, will the culture of the fields be most successful, — 
 how may we best cultivate the fields?" The natural emphasis, in 
 other words, would lie upon the way, the method {"die Art und 
 Weise")of bringing about the desired end; and this is precisely 
 what the anticipatory subjunctive in its strict force, coupled with 
 an interrogative of manner, would mean. Moreover, in a number 
 of examples which we have seen above (pp. 13 and 33), the 
 anticipatory subjunctive has shown itself capable of conveying the 
 idea of possibility. In effect, then, the force of the mechanism in 
 the paratactic stage would be " I am considering : by what means, 
 in what way, can I do so and so," and, in the hypotactic stage, 
 " I am considering how I can do so and so," — a force perfectly 
 suited to nearly all of the actually occurring examples of our 
 disputed idiom in Homer. Further, the association of this feeling 
 of possibility with the construction accounts for the frequent later 
 use of the true potential form in place of the subjunctive, as in 
 ri ovv ov aKOTTovfiev, irw'i av avroiv fjLij Sia/xapTavoi/jbev (Xen. Mem. 
 3, I, 10), aKOirS) ^TTO)? av d><; pacrra Sidyoiev (Xen. Symp. 7, 2). 
 Compare also the frequent form illustrated in Latin sentences like 
 Liv. 22, 7) I4> consultantes quonam duce aut quibus copiis resisti 
 victoribus Poenis posset, and in English sentences like " in consider- 
 ing how we might best satisfy a want," Paley and Stone, " Intro- 
 duction to Martial." 
 
 On the other hand, as has already been shown above (p. 34), 
 there existed a deliberative anticipatory subjQnctive, corresponding 
 to the deliberative future indicative in Greek and Latin, and closely 
 approaching in force the deliberative volitive. Such a construction 
 would at once yield a perfectly satisfactory starting-point for our 
 idiom, upon the theory of an interrogative origin. 
 
 The conclusion, then, of the discussion under this head is that, 
 while the theory of an interrogative origin is free from difficulty on 
 the score of the inherent meaning of the mode, the theory of a 
 relative origin may or may not be. So far, consequently, as 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 41 
 
 regards an immediate settlement, the way cannot be regarded as 
 barred against either theory. 
 
 We pass, therefore, to the consideration of the examples. For 
 convenience' sake, I give them in full, instead of by citations, as 
 Weber's general plan required him to do. In a number of cases 
 (which I have specified), I add examples not cited by him. 
 
 Optatives after secondary tenses are of course included with 
 subjunctives after primary tenses. The text is Dindorf's. The 
 purpose of the division into four classes will appear in the 
 discussion. 
 
 A. 
 
 1. W9 ap ecfii], 'TTOTa/jLO'; Se 'XpKaxraTO KrjpoOi fJ,aX\ov, 
 &pijLr)vev S' ava 6vfi6v, ^ttg)? Travaeie ttovoio 
 
 Blov ' A'x^tWrja. — * 136. 
 
 2. aW' ov'x^ 'Epfj,eiav epiovviov virvo^ efiap'Ttrev, 
 opfjLaivovT ava dvfiov, otto)? Tlpiafiov ^aaiXija 
 VTjSiv eKTre/Myjreie XaOoav iepov<; "TrvXaeopoiK;. — 12 679- 
 
 3. dW' o 76 fiep/jLTipi^e Kara (f)piva, w? 'A^^tXTja 
 TiHrjcrri, oXeay Se TroXea? eiri vrjvalv A'xaiwv. 
 ^Se Be ol Kara dvfwv dpia-rr] (paivero /SovKi], 
 
 •7refJ.y}rai eir ^ArpeiBrj ^Aiyafiifivovi otXov oveipov. — B 3- 
 
 4. fiepfiripi^e B' 'inreiTa ^oain^ 'n-6TVLa"ilpri, 
 ^TTTTft)? i^aTrdcfioiro Ato? voov alyco^oio, 
 ■^Be Be oi Kara Ovfiov apia-rr} cj}aiveTO /3oii\??, 
 eXdelv eh "IBrjV iii evrvvaaav e avrijv, 
 
 ei TTO)? IfielpaiTO irapaBpadeeiv (piXoTrjro 
 
 V XP°''V- — ^ ^59- 
 
 5. S' oiiK ifiTrd^ero Ipwv, 
 dW' '6 ye fjbepfiijpi^ev, Stto)? airoXolaro irdaai 
 vrje^ eva-a-eXiMOi Kal i/Jiol iplrjpe'i eraipoi. — i 553- 
 
 6.. roia-i Be 'Nea-roplBrjv UeicricrrpaTO^ VPX^'^° fivBap- 
 " (ppd^eo Bi], MeveXae BioTpe^k, opxafie Xawv, 
 fj vmv ToS' e(f>rjve ^eo? re'/sa? ^e aol avrm." 
 
 w? (f/dro, fjLepiJtrjpi^e B' dp'qli^iXo'; MeveXao^, 
 ^TTTTO)? ot Kara fioipav viroKplvaiTo voijaa<;. 
 TOV K 'EXev-q ravvTre-TrXo'; v7ro^6a/J,ivr] ^dro fivdov. — 166. 
 
42 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 7. aXX' eVi KoX vvv 
 (ppa^cofiead', w? Kev fiiv apeercrdfievot TremOcofJLev 
 Bcopoicriv r ayavoicriv eTreaa-i re fj.eiXi'^Loicni'. — I III. 
 
 8. avTov ere cjipd^eaOai iv 'Apyeioiaiv dvayev, 
 
 ^TTTTM? Kev vrjd'i re a6(p<; koI \aov 'A'^aioov. — I 680. 
 
 9. Keldev B' auTo^ eytu ^pdaofiai epyov re c'tto? re, 
 
 W9 K6 KoX avTi'i 'A')(^aiol dvairvevaoiab irovoio. — O 234. 
 
 10. aW' dyer, auToi -jrep ^pa^difieda fiririv dplffTTjv, 
 r]p.ev OTTO)? rov veKpov epvaaofiev, ^Se Kol avTOi, 
 
 •^dpfJ-a cf>l\oL'; erdpoiai, yevoo/Meda voaTrjo-avTe^. — P 634' 
 
 11. rjfieK S' avTol irep (fipa^Mfieda fjLrjTbV dpLarrjv, 
 r]fjL,ev oTTft)? Tov veKpov epvacrofiev, ^Se koI avTOi 
 Tpd)0)v i^ evoiTi}<i ddvaTov koI Kfjpa (^vywfxev. — P 712. 
 
 12. dXX! dyed' rip,el<; o"$e irepicfipa^dj/j.eda •7rdvTe<i 
 voa-TOV, ^TTiB? ekOrjcn • ^ Yloaeihaav Se fiedijaei 
 
 bv j^oKov • ov fiev ydp n Svvt^aerai dvrla irdvrcov 
 dQavdraiv deKTjTi Oewv ipiBaive/JLev oio<;. — a 76. 
 
 i^. ^pda-aerai, w? k€ ve-qrat., iirel TToXu/CtJ^^ai'o? iartv. — a 205. 
 
 14. ce Be (^pd^ecrdai dvcoya, 
 
 ^TTTTft)? K6 iivr)aTrjpa>i dirdicreaL e« fieydpoio. — a 269. 
 
 15. (ppd^ecrdao Br] eireiTa /card <j)peva Kal Kara 0vfi6v, 
 OTTTTW? Ke fivTjarripa^ ivl fieydpoicri reolaiv 
 KTeivr/'i r)e Bokfp rj dfi^aBov. — a 294. 
 
 16. TToXecrbv Be koI dWoicriv kukov earaif 
 ot vefiofiecrd' 'IddKrjv ivBeieXov. dWd ttoXu Trplv 
 <j)pa^d)Hea6 , &<; Kev Kara-Traviro/Mev. — yS 166. 
 
 17. ol Be rot, avriK lovri, KaKa (ppdaaovrai, orriacra), 
 
 w? Ke BoXcp ^dirj';, rdBe B' avrol irdvra Bdcrovrai. — ;S 367. 
 
 1 Cf. the following : — 
 
 Tkv y' el irus ffi Sivaio Xoxijcd/icxos \e\a^4(r0a.i., 
 
 Ss Kiv Toi efTTijiriv oSbv Kal fiirpa KeKeidov 
 
 vbffTov ff, is iirl TrbvTov i'Kciireai, lx6vUvTa. — S 388. 
 
 etpeffdat S^, BgCjv Ss ris (re xttX^Trret, 
 v6irTov 0\ is iirl irdinov ^Xeiiireoi IxSvSevra. — S 423. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 43 
 
 18. hiff r] Toi etftj? (lev e'^a) koI Bio'; '08v(r(rev<; 
 
 0VT6 TTOT elv ajopfi hi-)(^ i/Sd^ofiev ovr ivl ^ovXfj, 
 aW eva dvfiov e-)(pvTe voai Koi eiri^povi ^ovXfi 
 <f>pa^6fie6' 'Apyeioia-iv, ^ttiu? 6';;^' apiffra yevoiro. — y 126. 
 
 19. Tt's vv Tot, 'Arpeo? vie, 6eS>v <TVfi^pdaaaTO ^ovXd<;, 
 o^pa fi eXoL'i deKOvra \o^7]ad/jLevo<; ; — B 462. 
 
 20. oWa ■)(^prifjiaTa fikv p-vx^ dvrpov OecnrecrioLo 
 Oeiofiev avTiKa vvv, Xva irep rdhe rot aoa /J.ifJ'Vrj • 
 avrol Se (f)pa^a)fie6', ottox; o^ dpierra yevrjrai. — v 363. 
 
 21. c5? (f)dTO, NecTTopt'S);? S' dp' ea> avfitppdacraTO ffvfio), 
 OTTTTO)? ol Kara fiolpav v'iroa')(PP'evo<; TeXecreiev. 
 
 a>Se Be 01 (j)poviovTi Bodaaaro KepBiov eivai. — 202. 
 (Cf. Neo-TO/at'ST;, ttw? kSv fioi virocrxofJ'evo^ TeXetretas | fivdoi 
 ifiov, seven lines above.) 
 
 22. rj/jLel^ Be (f)pa^d)fied', ottw? o^ dpio'Ta yevrjTai,. 
 
 — yfr 117 (= v 365, with slight change) 
 
 23. ov yap Br} tovtov jxev e/3ovXev(ra<; voov avrrj, 
 
 (B? ^ Toi Kelvovi} 'OBvcrev'i diroTiaeTai iXOdv ; — e23( = £B 479) 
 
 24. vv/j.<f)r] ivirXoKdiKp elirelv VTjfiepria ^ovXrjv, 
 voiTTov 'OBva-arjo^ TaXatTi<f)povo';, &5? «e verjrav 
 oiire 6e5)V Trofnrfj ovre dvrjrav dvdpwTTwv. — e 30. 
 
 25. 'Epfieiav fiev eireira BidicTopov dpyei<f)0VT7]v 
 vrjaov e? 'Slyvyiijv OTpvvofiev, b^pa ra^icrTa 
 vvfK^r] ivTrXotcdfiq) e'lTry VTjfiepria ^ovXrjV, 
 
 vocTTOV 'OBva-arjo^ raXacri<ppovo'i., w? Ke verjrai. — a 84. 
 
 26. avrap iya) ^ovXevov, ottoj? o-^ dpia-ra yevoiro, 
 e" TLV kraLpoiaiv Oavdrov Xvaiv rjB' ep-ol avrw 
 evpoifirjv • Trai'Tfl? Be B6Xov<; kuI pLrfTiv ix^yaivov 
 &<; re irepl ylrv^V'^ " /^eya yap KaKov iyyvdev r)ev. 
 
 fjBe Be p,oi Kara 0v/j.ov dpiaTrj (fjaLvero jSovXij. — t 420. 
 
 27. al B' dfi(f)' alfia KeXat,vov doXXee<; rjyepeOovTO, 
 avrap iyo) ^ovXevov, oVa)? epioifii eKdcTTrjV. 
 ■>]Be Be /loi Kara dv/J,ov dpla-rr} (palvero ^ovXi]. 
 
 Not cited by Weber, though he cites the substantially identical example e 30. 
 
 1 
 
44 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 a-TracradiJLevo'i TavvrjKe<; dop 'ira-)(eo<s irapa iir)pov 
 
 ovK etojv iriveiv afia ■jrdaa'i al/J,a KeXaivov. 
 
 a'l Be irpofivriffTivai, eTrrjiaav, rjhe eKaaTrj 
 
 ov <y6vov i^ayopevev • iyo) B' ipeeLvov dirdaa'i. — A. 228. 
 
 28. Tov S' 6? A.coB(ov7]v (ftdro ^ijfievat, o^pa 6eolo 
 eK Bpvo<: v^lkoiiolo ^i,o<; ^ovXrjv iTTaKovari, 
 OTTTTfu? voarija-rj 'WdKTj'i e? iriova Brjfxov, 
 
 ffB-q Brjv dvedyv, v dfi.<f)aBov ^e /<;jOU(/)r;SoV. — ^ 327 ( = t 297).! 
 
 29. w 'A-^iXev Hi/Xtjo? vie, jiiya (^eprar 'K-xaioiv, 
 ^X6ov lecpeaiao Kara %jOeo?, e'i Ttva jSovXrjv 
 
 eiTToi, OTTW? 'IddKTjv 6? TTaiTTaXoeaffav LKoifi'qv. — A 478. 
 
 30. ov yap Brj TOVTOV /xev e^ovKevaa<; voov avrr], 
 
 0)9 ?) TOi Keivov; 'OSvaev'i diroTiaerai eXdcov ; — a> 479- 
 
 31. Toiai Be TToXX' eVereXXe Teprjvioi; 'nrirora Ne'o-Tfi)/), 
 BevBiXXav e? eKacrrov, 'OBvcrcyiji, Be faaXoaTa, 
 ireipav, co? ireTr iOouev dfivfiova JlrjXetwva. — I 179- 
 
 32. (TV Be ddaaov 'Adrjvair) eTTtrelXac 
 iXdeiv 6? Tpcocov Kal 'A'x^aiav (fivXainv alvijv, 
 •ireipav B', &<; Ke Tptiie? vTrepKvSavra'i A^atoi/? 
 dp^acri TTporepoi virep opKia BrfKrjaacrdaL. — A 64. 
 
 33. (Xti/ra /xttV €? arparbv eX9e fiera T/acoa? Kal 'A^^atov?, 
 ireipav B\ m? kb T/awe? virepKvBavTa's 'Aj^aLov^ 
 dp^aai, irpoTepoi virep opKia BrjXrjaaaOai. — ^A yo. 
 
 34. TOV Brj vvv Xaolcri <^epei<s '^dpiv, ovBe fieO' rj/zecov 
 Treipa, ai? Ke TpcSe? virep^iaXoi aTroXaivTai 
 
 irpo'^vv KaKa)<; avv Traial Kal alBoirj<; dX6y(^0Laiv. — $ 45 S- 
 
 35. Treipri(Ta>, &<; k vfifii KaKa.'i iirl Krjpat; lijXo), 
 
 ^6 HvXovB' eXOoiv 7) avrov tmB' evl Brj/Mm. — /3 316. 
 
 36. dXXd Td)(iaTa 
 
 ireipa, oTrco<; Kev Brj arjv irarpiBa yalav 'iKrjai,. — B 544- 
 
 37- dXX dye firjriv iKJjrjvov, ottco? dwoTia-ofjLab avTov<;. — v 386. 
 
 1 This example is not cited by Weber (p. 61), but should of course be added. Its 
 resemblance to e 30 is interesting. Cf. also X 478, here given. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 45 
 
 38. pe^ofiev lepa KoXd, eireiTa Be Kal Trepl Tro/iTT^s 
 fivrjcrofieO', &<; ')^ 6 ^eivo<; dvevOe irovov Koi avirji; 
 irofiirfi vcf) rj/ieTeprj fjv -TrarpiBa jalav 'Ur)Tai, 
 j(aipa)v KapTraXifiax}, el Kal fidXa Tr)\66ev eariv, 
 fJ-riBe Tt fi6a-a-7]'YV'; ye kukov Kal irfifia TvaOya-lv, 
 irpiv ye rov ^9 yair}'; eTri^ijfievai. — r) 191. 
 
 B. 
 
 39. avrov fiev ere Trpmra ado), Kal (j)pd^eo 6v/j,m, 
 fit] Ti irdOrj's. — p 595. 
 
 C. 
 
 40. Xiaa-ea-dai, Be fiiv avTO'i, otto)? vrjfiepTea elVj? • 
 
 ■(/revSo? B' oiiK ipeef fidXa yap ■jreTrvvp,evo<s iarlv. — 7 19.^ 
 
 41. XiaaeaOai Be fiiv aiiro';, tva vrj/xepre'; iviaTrrj • 
 
 y}revBo<; B' ovk ipeei • fxaXa yap TreTrvvp.evo'} eariv. — 7 327. 
 
 42. tu? ecpar, iv Be yeXw; oypr dOavdronri OeoicTiv. 
 oiiBe HoaeiBdmva ^eXco? e'X^e, Xiaaero B' alel 
 
 "Ji(pai(rTov KXvToepyov, oVo)? Xvcreiev "Aprja. — 6 343. 
 
 D. 
 
 43. <5s ol fiev Toiavra ttjOO? dWrjXovq dyopevov, 
 avrdp 'AttoWcov ^oc/3o<; eBvaero "iXtoy Iprjv • 
 fiifjL^Xero ydp ol rel^oi; evBfi'^TOio iroKrjO'i, 
 
 fiT) Aavaol irepaeiav virep (lopov rjnaTi Keivm. — <I> 514. 
 
 44- f' ^^ fioi oiiK iireecra-' eTnireiaeTai, aXX dXoyijaei, 
 (jspa^eadfo Br) e-jreira Kard (ppeva Kal Kara Ovfiov, 
 fiTj fi oi/Be KpaTep6<; irep imv iTnovra TaXaaarj 
 fielvai, iirel ev (f)7]/j,i ^irj •jroXi) <f)epTepo<; eivac 
 Kal yevefj irporepo^. — O 162. 
 
 45. TcS vvv TvBeiBTji;, el Kal fidXa KapTep6<; icrriv, 
 <f>pa^ea-6a), fit] ti<; ol dfieivav aelo fia^rjTai, 
 /irj B^v AlyidXeta "rrepicppcov 'ABpTjarivr) 
 i^ VTTVOU yodaxra (plXov; olKfja<; eyeiprj, 
 KovplBiov TToOeovaa Troatv, top dpiarov 'A'X^ai&v. — E 410.^ 
 
 1 Not cited by Weber. 
 
 " Not in Weber, but having as good a right in his list as any of the others of this 
 particular type except p 595 (No. 39). 
 
46 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 46. (f)pd^eo vvv, firj to/ tl 6ea)V firjvi/Ma lyevcofiai. — X 358. 
 
 47. at K6 ^wv 7re/J.yjrr)i; "Xap-TTTjSova ovBe S6/jL0vSe, 
 (^pd^eo, firj Tt? eireiTa 6eS)v iOeXricn Koi aXko<; 
 -Tre/Mreiv ov (j)i\ov vlov onro KpaTepi}'; vanlvq:;. — 11 445. 
 
 48. oh K 6 yepav fieriria-iv, d/j,a irpocrcrai koX oTnacrco 
 
 Xevcraei, ottw; o^ dpLcrra /tier' dfJi,<f)OTepoi(n yevriTai,. — T 109. 
 
 49. ev6' avT dXX' evorjae 6ed, yXavKcoiri^ 'AOijvrj, 
 ft)9 'OBvaev'i eypoiTO iSoi t evanriBa Kovprjv, 
 fj 01 (^ait]K(ov dvBpcbv TToXiv rjy>]aaiTO. 
 cr(j)aipav sTreiT eppitfre /xer dfi^i'TroXov ISacriKeca • 
 d/j,(f>nr6Xov p,ev df^apre, ^adeljj S' efi^aXe Bivrj • 
 
 al B' eVl fiaKpov dvcrav • 6 S' eypero Bioi 'OBv<7crev<;. — f 1 12. 
 
 50. oi/Be Tl oiSe voijaat dfia irpocrcrco kuI oiritya-m, 
 
 '6Tnrco<; ol irapd vrjval adoi /ia^eotW 'A'^aioL — A 343-^ 
 
 The examples of the clause introduced by m'i or ^ttoj? after 
 opfiaivca, /iiepfiTjpi^Q}, ^pd^ojj,ai, /3ovXeveo, ^ovXijv elirelv, /ji,ijTiv 
 iKpalvco, and /xv^a-op-ai, are unimpeachable. The scrutiny of the 
 individual cases, though not conclusive for either theory, is 
 instructive. 
 
 In some the meaning is clearly interrogative, as in the case 
 of the two examples with opp^aivw, and the five with p,epftT]pi^a). 
 Lang, Leaf, and Myers translate in each case by "how" ("sought 
 how," " pondered how," " was devising how," " took thought how"). 
 And in two of the cases with /j,epfj,7jpi^(i}, viz. B 3 (No. 3) and 
 S 159 (No. 4), the following line yjBe Be ol Kard 0v/j.ov dpiaT'q 
 <l>aiv€To ^ovXri fits no interpretation but the interrogative one. 
 In a 269 (No. 14, with (ppd^o/xai), the clear emphasis is upon the 
 method, so that the construction is interrogative. The same is the 
 case with a 294 (No. 15); and this interpretation is strengthened 
 by the sentence v n6, cjypd^ev, '6itq3^ ixvija-T-ripaiv dvaiBiat %6£/3a9 
 i^ija-€L<;, which cannot mean "plan to lay hands upon the suitors," 
 
 1 Not cited by Weber, but given here as parallel to T 109 (just above), which he 
 does cite. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 47 
 
 but must mean "plan how" this may be done.^ In 7 126 
 (No. 18), V 363 (No. 20), i/r 117 (No. 22), and l 420 (No. 26, 
 with ^ovXevov), the force "plan that all shall be for the 
 very best " is less probable than the force given by Butcher 
 and Lang, "advise us how all may be for the very best," "but 
 I advised me how all might be for the very best " ; and this 
 meaning is borne out by the line ijSe Be fioi, etc., in i 425 (No. 26). 
 In general, all the examples with w? and Sttco? after <f)pd^oixoi, seem 
 to me best taken as interrogative. In X 228 (No. 27, with ^oiXevov), 
 the meaning "planned to ask each one" would be impossible, 
 even if the sentence jjSe Se fioi, etc., did not immediately follow. 
 Similarly /SovXrjv . . . ^ttoj; in X 478 (No. 29) must mean "a plan 
 kow I should come," not "a plan t/iat I should come." On the 
 other hand, though it is possible to take the examples with ■n-eipdco 
 in the interrogative sense (Lang, Leaf, and Meyers translate $458 
 (No. 34) "essalyest how"), yet the more natural interpretation 
 seems to me to be "try to bring it about that" (the same trans- 
 lators render A 64 (No. 32) "essay that," and /3 316 (No. 35) 
 "seek to"). In e 23 (No. 23) &>? diroTLaerai looks like an object- 
 clause, and, in e 30 (No. 24), &<; ks verjTai. These facts simply 
 show that each theory has something to urge for itself on the 
 score of the actual usage in Homer, but prove nothing else except 
 that, as already stated, the construction, wherever it started, had 
 by Homeric times come to cover both stages. 
 
 The examples introduced by fj,)] after (ppd^ofiai, and jxefi^XeTo, 
 and those which are introduced by &>? or ^ttw? after Xiaaofiai, 
 void), and \evcr(T(i3, require discussion. 
 
 The first /i»7-clause after <^pd^eo (No. 39, under B) is a sound 
 case of the substantive clause, probably developed, as we shall see 
 later, from the clause of "apprehension" or "fear." The force is 
 clearly "see to it that you suffer no harm." 
 
 The examples after XtVcro/Aat are undoubtedly substantive 
 clauses' developed out of a true clause of purpose. But if such 
 examples are to be reckoned as belonging to the construction 
 under discussion, then other examples with other verbs should be 
 
 1 Cf. val S^ TaSrd ye wdvTa, 8ei, Karh fioTpav eenres ■ 
 dXXii tI ixoi rSSe ev/iis M ^petrl iixpHTipl^ei, 
 
 iwvvoi liiv, — V 37. 
 
48 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 added; e.g., A 133, e^e\ei? o^p avTo<i eyr^'i 'yipa';, A 558, Karavev- 
 aai . . . w? 'A%tX,?ja Ti^jJLrjcrrjt;} Z 36 1, dvfib'i i7rec7C7VTai, o(j)p' eira- 
 fivvco, n 652, SodcraaTO KepSiov elvai, 6<^p . . . axraiTo ; p 362, 
 ojTpvv, tB9 av iripva Kara fivrja-Trjpa'; ayeipoi,^ X S"; aXXa ^povimv, 
 ocf)pa . . . ^aaiXevoi, and perhaps A 465, XeXtTjfj-ivo'; ocppa TaxK^ra 
 rev^ea <Tv\,j]aeie, and E 690, \eXLr]fj,ivo<; ocfypa rdxi-crTa wcraiT- 
 Such ideas as those of "asking," "urging," and "granting" are 
 certainly too close together to be separated. 
 
 In the five examples of the yitjj-clause after ^pd^eo, etc., in D, it 
 is evident that the conception is not that of striving, but that of 
 anxiety, or of anxious consideration, with the factor of considera- 
 tion subordinated to that of anxiety. In O 162 (No. 44) such a 
 rendering as " let him plan not to venture to encounter me " 
 evidently jars with the necessities of the passage, as also would, 
 in n 445 (No. 47), the rendering "plan that some other god shall 
 not desire," and, in X 358 (No. 46), the rendering "plan that I 
 shall not be a curse to thee " (from the mouth of a speaker who 
 has already received his death-stroke). The aim in each of these 
 sentences, as probably also in E 410 (No. 45), is to awaken appre- 
 hension in the person to whom, or for whom, the command is 
 given ; and similarly the meaning is evidently that of apprehen- 
 sion in the construction with fiefi^Xero, <!' 5 14 (No. 43). A very 
 easy test may be applied. To the question " could ^ttw? jirj have 
 been used in these clauses if they belonged to a later writer who 
 had the construction ^Trto? fjufj in his repertory > " the clear answer 
 is "no." These clauses are, then, simply what are commonly 
 called "clauses of fear," and English translators are right in^ 
 regularly rendering /jltj in these five examples by "lest." This 
 explanation finds corroboration in two facts. First, the construc- 
 tion of the bare connective /mij, though relatively so frequent with 
 the two verbs that are capable of the force "take heed to yourself" 
 and "be concerned," not once appears in Homer with verbs which, 
 while they cannot convey this meaning, can convey the meaning 
 of planning or striving; e.g., ^ovXevco, Tretpao), nvrjaonai, iMrJTiv 
 
 1 So the codd., except D. The subjunctive is defended by Pindar, Pyth; i, 72 
 I'eCo-oi' . . . 6^pa . . . exv- See Goodwin, M. and T., § 359. 
 
 2 The construction of the optative with iv in clauses of purpose is comparatively 
 rare, but the clause given may none the less be substantive. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 49 
 
 v(j)aiva). Secondly, the particle dv, though used in 15 out of the 
 27 subjunctive examples in the clause with to? and Sttox: (or 15 out 
 of 29 of Weber's examples) does not appear in these clauses. 
 Such an absence is in harmony with the theory that' they are 
 clauses of apprehension. 
 
 As to the remaining examples, it seems to me that they should 
 follow the last five with /*?;' in being omitted from the list. The 
 fact that Xevaa-et in F 109 (No. 48) is modified by irpdaaco and 
 oTrtWtu shows that it has its original sense, and consequently that 
 '6'ira)<; . . . jevjjTai, is a plain clause of plan, and not a substantive 
 clause ("looks both before and after, to the end that"). The 
 exact parallelism of this example with A 343 (No. 50) makes it 
 strange that the latter (to which the reasoning just given also 
 applies) should be omitted by Weber. 
 
 We have now reduced our inquiry within narrow limits. The 
 examples under D have been set aside as neither substantive- 
 interrogative nor substantive-final. The example with fiij under 
 B has been classed as substantive, though probably more closely 
 connected with the clause of apprehension than with the true 
 final clause. The examples under C, with iva and Hrrrioi;, 
 have been classed, together with a number of others not given 
 by Weber, as clearly substantive and of final origin. Our 
 inquiry, then, is solely with regard to the origin of the clauses 
 under A with &>? and ^ttcds after verbs like ^pd^ofiai, ireipdco, 
 ^ovKevco, etc. 
 
 The evidence which appears to decide the question turns upon 
 the following points : — 
 
 (a) The rarity of the substantive final clause in Greek outside 
 of the disputed construction. 
 
 {6) The rarity of the use of '6-n-ax; in true final clauses. 
 
 (c) The rarity of the negative in the Homeric examples. 
 
 (<^) The character of the connectives employed in the disputed 
 construction. 
 
 (e) The character of the introductory words in Homer. 
 
 (/) The character of the introductory words in later Greek. 
 
 (a) In general, the substantive final clause in Greek (outside 
 of the clause of fear, which has a recognized special history) is 
 
50 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 rare.^ The Greek, unlike the Latin, avoided a final clause, and 
 preferred the infinitive. This fact establishes a presumption in 
 favor of the origin of our construction in any commoner idiom that 
 might offer an equally good starting-point. 
 
 {b) But not only is the substantive final clause rare in Greek 
 in general, — the final clause itself, though it appears frequently 
 enough with ms in the same texts which yield our examples under 
 A, is with OTTO)? a comparative rarity. 'II9 occurs 73 times in the 
 true final clause in Homer, and 26 times in the undoubted inter- 
 rogative clause after verbs of knowing and telling. In the dis- 
 puted idiom it occurs 16 times. There is nothing in these figures 
 to forbid our associating the disputed idiom with either kind of 
 clause as its starting-point. But 6ira}<i, while it occurs with great 
 frequency in the interrogative clause, occurs only 9 times in the 
 true final clause. In the disputed idiom (under A) it occurs 
 21 times. There is much here to forbid our associating the dis- 
 puted idiom with the final clause, and to lead us to associate it 
 with the other claimant. 
 
 {c) The interrogative subjunctive, for obvious reasons, rarely 
 takes a negative. The clause of purpose takes a negative in 
 Homer in 147 cases out of 606.^ In the 37 cases of the disputed 
 idiom with ta? and ottw? in A, the negative occurs only once (in 
 7) 191, No. 38), and even here is found only in the turn to the 
 second member, which is to be contrasted with the first. This 
 fact seems to favor the theory of an interrogative rather than a 
 final origin. Not too much reliance is to be placed upon it as 
 an argument ; for, of the 1 1 cases which we have seen of the ' 
 undoubted substantive clause developed from a clause of plan 
 (3 cases in C and 8 in the discussion on pp. 47-8), none takes the 
 
 ^ I may mention, — though it is probable that my collection for this point is incom- 
 plete, — that I have noted from Homer only the examples which I have cited on pp. 47-8, 
 together with the possible example BiXyu, dfirois 'ISiKris ^TriXijcrerai, u. 57. It is sure, at 
 any rate, that the total number of Homeric examples must be small as compared with 
 the number (37) of examples of the disputed idiom under A. 
 
 2 "Ira without a negative occurs 145 times in the final clause, iVa /«} 26 times. 
 "O0/)o without a negative occurs 237 times, 6<l>pa /iij 3 times. 'Sis (apart from the cases 
 which we are now trying to place) occurs 63 times, as /ii) 10 times, Sirm 9 times 
 (Sirm /i'^ not occurring), fus final 5 times (^m /hi) not occurring). Mi) occurs alone 
 108 times. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 51 
 
 negative. In a large survey, however, the phenomena of the use 
 and non-use of the negative do possess weight. It will at once 
 be recalled that the combinations co? ii,r) and ottiu? /xjf are common 
 enough in Attic Greek. Now the growth of the interrogative 
 idea cannot possibly have brought about the use of these com- 
 binations, while this is precisely what the growth of the final idea 
 would naturally have done. 
 
 {d) \ have quoted Weber above as saying that w? and otto)? 
 are used with <f)pd^ofiaL and the like because the idea of those 
 verbs is an indefinite one, and these are indefinite particles. I do 
 not find such a differentiation between the two sets of particles. 
 In Sophocles, while we have I'ta/iev to? fiddyt;, Ph. 533, KpeovTo. 7' 
 terdi . . . ri^ovra . . . ottox; tI Spdarj, O. C. 396, we have also 
 irpoa-fwXoi fiovov, "v iicBiSaxOih Tr. 1 109 ; and while we have \ey 
 ati6(,<;, cu? . . . fidOco, O. R. 359, ^pda-m . . . a>7 . . . 87jXd>(7a> O. C. 
 783, yeymve fjiOL -rrdv tov9\ 07ra)<; elBco t(9 et, Ph. 238, we have also el'Trta 
 . . . iW opyi^T], O. R. 364. Surely, too, the main act is definite 
 enough in such examples as avrap 6elo<; doiBb<; e'^w!/ ^opiMiyya 
 \iyeiav I rjfuv rjyeicrdco (fjiXoTraiyfiovog op'^rjOiMolo, \ cS? Kev tk (jiaLTj 
 ydfiov 'ififievai. iKTo<; aKoveov (}jr 133), and Se^tdv ope^ov, to? yjravao), 
 O. C. 1 1 30. 
 
 To my mind, the natural statement, at the point which we 
 have now reached, would rather be that the use of the set of 
 particles which can be interrogative, and the avoidance of the 
 set that cannot, points to an inquiry whether the introductory 
 verbs themselves, as we find them in the oldest literature, are not 
 in their nature interrogative, and, in case they are, to an accept- 
 ance of the theory of the origin of the disputed construction in an 
 interrogative clause. 
 
 (e) And this certainly is, in itself, a necessary inquiry. In 
 endeavoring to decide as between two possible origins of a con- 
 struction, one of the most important hints that can be had will lie 
 in the character of the introductory words. Are the words that 
 introduce our idiom such that they naturally require a question 
 to complete their meaning, or are they such as to require rather 
 a clause of purpose.? Or, possibly, are some of the one kind, 
 others of the other, and others of both .' 
 
 Light may be had upon this point by a look at the construe- 
 
52 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 tions which these same verbs take in clauses other than those 
 which we are studying.^ 
 
 ^pd^ofjLai, is followed by 23 (or 24) questions in Homer, as fol- 
 lows : By a question of past fact in o 167, by a question of present 
 fact in S 482, <J> 410, X ^S^> and (in company with 6vicnre<;) S 470, 
 by a question of future fact in tt 260 (combined here with a delib- 
 erative subjunctive), in tt 238 (combined here with a clear 
 deliberative of neutral form), and in t 557, by a question of 
 present intention about the future in A 83 (future indicative), 
 by a question of future fact involving possibility in k 192 
 (future indicative), by a question (in the future indicative) exactly 
 corresponding in force to the deliberative subjunctive questions, 
 but emphasizing the point of the method to be employed, in 
 A 14 (where it is coupled with a disjunctive deliberative question), 
 H 3 and 61, I 251, P 144, T \i6, v 376, p T.'jAf, by the disjunctive 
 deliberative subjunctive with /ce in I 618, N 741, and without av 
 or Ke in X 174, by the deliberative subjunctive without av or Ke, 
 balancing an indicative question of future fact, in tt 260. Im/r 139 
 the ^TTi-clause may be relative, but seems to be best taken as 
 interrogative.^ (B. and L. translate by " What gainful counsel 
 the Olympian may vouchsafe us " = " what good counsel, with the 
 help of the Olympian, we may frame.") 
 
 'Opfiaivo) is followed by questions 7 times, as follows : By a 
 question of present fact in ^ 118, by a question of future fact 
 (expressed by an optative in connection with a past tense) in 
 S 789, by a potential future question in o 300, and by deliberative 
 subjunctives or optatives after secondary tenses in 7 169, S 20, 
 n 435, and i|r 86. I give one of these examples, which is interest- 
 ing because the sentence that follows, viz. oiSe hi ol (jjpoveovn 
 SodacraTo KepBiov elvat, is the same as after the 2'7rw?-clause with 
 a-v/jL(f>pdcr(TaTo dvfia> in o 202 (No. 21), and shows how we are 
 naturally to interpret the cast of thought in that passage and 
 similar ones : — 
 
 w? o jepcov &pp,aive Sal^o/xevo? Kara Ovfiov 
 of)(6dBi, r) jjied' SfuXov loi Aava&v TayinrciiXtov 
 
 1 The figures here given are made up from Gehring's " Index Homericus." 
 
 2 In jr 257, 8 . . . Tis is probably the relative. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 53 
 
 ^6 ytier' 'ArpeiSriv 'Aya/iefivova voifieva Xaobv. 
 Moe Be 01 <j>poveovTt hodaaaTo KepSiov elvat, 
 ^fjvai eV 'ArpeiSrjv. — 3 20. 
 
 Mep/iirjpL^co is followed by 17 questions, as follows : By a paratactic 
 potential question after a primary tense in v 43, by an optative 
 question with on after a secondary tense in K 503, by a delibera- 
 tive question in the future indicative in v 38, by a disjunctive 
 question with the deliberative subjunctive or the corresponding 
 optative after a past tense in A 188, E 671, K 503, N 455, IT 646, 
 B 117, K 49, f 141, TT 73, p 235, o- 90, V 10, ;;^ 333, and a 235 (the 
 optative in the last example being coupled with an infinitive). 
 The sentence wSe Be ol ^poveovri, etc., follows in N 455, H 652, 
 f 141, and <r 90. 
 
 It hardly needs examples, however, to prove that opfiaivm and 
 fiepfirjpL^Q} can take questions after them, since their force is so 
 plainly interrogative that one cannot imagine their taking anything 
 else. 
 
 Heipdeo, on the other hand, might be thought to be purely a 
 verb of effort, of trying to bring about something. Yet this also 
 is shown by the other uses in Homer to have the power of intro- 
 ducing a question, its sense being that of "try whether." It is 
 followed 12 times by questions, as follows: by a question of past 
 fact in K /\^/\ ("make trial whether I have spoken truth or no"), 
 by a question of present fact in 282 (" make trial whether I still 
 have strength"), t 174, and" tt 305, by a question of future fact 
 in the anticipatory subjunctive with Ke in % 599, T 70, O 224, 
 m 216, and 2 601 (the last being a question taking the form of 
 a condition), by an optative of the same force after a secondary 
 tense in N 806 (in T 384 the force may be future or may be pres- 
 ent), and by the anticipatory subjunctive with «6 {^' shall" = 
 "can") in E 279 (translated by Lang, Leaf, and Myers "so now 
 will I make trial with my spear if I can hit thee "). The allied 
 word TrecprjTi^o) is also followed by an optative representing an 
 anticipatory subjunctive of future fact in ^ 459 and 304. 
 
 As for ^ovXevco and ^ovXij, though no evidence appears from 
 the outside, yet t 420 (No. 26) and f 327 (No. 28) prove clearly 
 that they also are capable of the interrogative idea. 
 
54 
 
 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 For the two remaining phrases, /j,r}Ti,v iK^aivw and /j,vtjaofiai, 
 each of which takes the deliberative construction once in Homer, 
 no evidence appears from the outside ; though it is clear that the 
 latter, at any rate, could be followed by a question. 
 
 It appears, then, that the verbs and phrases which are 
 employed in 35 out of the 37 Homeric cases in A, making, even 
 upon Weber's somewhat different classification and count, a very 
 large majority, are verbs or phrases which, on the evidence of 
 actual examples in Homer, are shown to possess the interrogative 
 power ; and two of these, indeed, possess no other power. 
 
 Now these figures are, upon Weber's theory, unnatural. Unless 
 it can be shown that the tendency in Homer's time was away 
 from the interrogative-minded introductory verbs, the heavy 
 preponderance of these over final-minded verbs must be accepted 
 as pointing to an origin of the construction in the interrogative 
 subjunctive. 
 
 (/) But what can actually be shown with regard to the ten- 
 dency is precisely the opposite. I give in two columns the 
 introductory verbs in Homer's time and the introductory verbs in 
 common use in Attic times, classifying them according to their 
 ability or inability to suggest the interrogative idea. 
 
 
 
 Homeric. 
 
 Attic. 
 
 Capable only of the 
 interrogative idea. 
 
 op/JMivta 
 
 
 Suggesting natu- 
 rally either idea. 
 
 ^pdifipjax 
 
 liovXvio) and PovXr/v ciTreiv 
 
 irapa.il> 
 
 Ixvqo-oiMii 
 
 4>pdC<ii (rare) 
 
 /SovXevofjuu 
 
 Trapdo) 
 
 a-KOTreo) 
 
 cro<f>l^oiJuu 
 
 4>povTi^(a 
 
 Capable of either 
 idea, but more nat- 
 urally suggesting that 
 of the object-clause. 
 
 Possibly, but not probably, 
 voio), with two examples. 
 
 Possibly, but not probably, 
 Xev(Tcr<i>, with one ex- 
 ample. 
 
 irpovoiu) and Trpdvotav ex™ 
 
 and Troiiopai 
 irpoo-cx*) Tov vdvv 
 opdui, irpoopdut 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 
 
 55 
 
 
 Homeric. 
 
 Attic. 
 
 Capable only of the 
 idea of the object- 
 clause. 
 
 OTpWO) 
 
 StatTTTOuSa^ft) and (tttouS^i/ 
 
 irot€o/*at 
 hcLfxxkiopai. 
 (■vka.^iop.a.1. 
 niXu 
 
 fu/jxavdofjuu. 
 TTtivTa TTOliu) 
 Trapaa-Kevd^Ofiai 
 
 TTOICO) 
 
 Trpaxrcrio 
 TTpodv/jiiopai 
 7rp0KaTaXap.pd.vu) 
 vpoTifiddi 
 
 cnrovSa^o), SuunrovSd^oi, 
 and cnrcnjSrjV Touo/jjat 
 
 TTjpeO) 
 
 cfiparvpim 
 
 (l>v\d(Ta-(i) 
 
 iov(op,ai 
 
 It seems to me that no more conclusive proof could be desired 
 that the construction originates in the interrogative idea, and 
 takes on the coloring of the final clause later. 
 
 My general interpretation of the phenomena which we have 
 had, under this section, to consider, is accordingly as follows : — 
 
 Subjunctive substantive-clauses in Greek are, on historical 
 grounds, to be divided into three classes. 
 
 One originated in a dependent deliberative subjunctive (" debate 
 kow," " take counsel Aow," " plan kow "), sometimes volitive, some- 
 times anticipatory. The rise of the substantive-final idea was due 
 to the fact that some of these verbs, e.^:, ireipdw and ^ovXeva, sug- 
 gested also the idea of "aiming at" something ("plan that"\ — 
 
 1 1 give this word here only because Weber gives it. It is not properly a verb of 
 planning or striving, but, as I have indicated above, belongs in the same category with 
 the later verbs of asking, commanding, urging, etc. (like ahioiMi, d^i6a,dionai, irapay- 
 7A\w, irapam\eiu. See below, p. 57). 
 
56 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 a force to which no resistance would be offered by the connecting 
 particles, which were final as well as interrogative. This extension 
 had already taken place by Homeric times. In consequence of it, 
 the construction came into use with verbs which had never had 
 an interrogative power, such as irpdaGW, <f)vKdcra-a>, SiaaTrovSci^iu, 
 and 'jrapaa-Kevd^ofj.at, and, in natural connection with the same cause, 
 the negative of the final clause came to be freely employed. So 
 strong, however, did the underlying consciousness of an interrogative 
 power in the dependent clause remain, — a consciousness maintained 
 by the large use of verbs like a-Koireco, which is very frequently em- 
 ployed with undoubted dependent questions of other kinds, — that 
 ft)? and oTTw? are often replaced by an interrogative phrase after 
 (TKoirka and its equivalents {e.g., oh r^ap tovto ctkottovo'iv, e^ ov 
 TpoTTOv Tot? Beofievoii; ^lov eKTropiovaiv, aXX' otto)? roii? eyeiv ri 
 BoKovvTa<; toi<; diropoK e^icrcocrovcnv, Isocr. 8, 131), and even occa- 
 sionally after so uninterrogative a verb as Trpda-aa) {e.g., eTrpaaa-ev 
 oTOfi rpoTrp Td)(i(TTa rot? fx.ev ^vfi^ijcrerai,, twv Se airaXXd^eTCbi, Thuc. 
 4, 128, 5). 
 
 This underlying consciousness, too, was the reason why the 
 variation of particle seen in a-vfu^pdaaaTo ^ovXa<: o^pa, S 462 (No. 
 19), always remained rare. 
 
 The second kind of subjunctive substantive clause is repre- 
 sented in Homer by only a single sure example, viz. p 595, ^pdl^eo 
 6ufiS fiTj TL 'n-dOrj'i (No. 39). 
 
 This is probably, as it happens, an outgrowth of the clause of 
 apprehension (a construction which appears in four other passages 
 with the same verb in Homer), though it might, of course, havq. 
 been directly begotten from a paratactic expression, "take thought 
 . . . : let not . . ." The construction maintains itself alongside of 
 the £09- and gTreuy-coristructions, occurring frequently after the same 
 verb 4,pd^eo, etc. (so in Ar. Pax 1099), after many of the new verbs 
 which came into use to introduce tu?- and gTrtuy-clauses in post- 
 Homeric times, such as eu\a^io/j,ai, /xeXei,^ 6pda, a-Koirio), rTjpea, 
 (jipovpew, 4)vXd<7a-(o, and also after d9pea), dvnd^m, and iKveofiai. 
 
 The third kind of subjunctive substantive clauses originated in 
 a true final clause. The connectives are "va, o<^pa, and 8770)?. 
 
 1 M^/i^Xero yip ol reixos, followed by a /nij-clause of apprehension, occurs, as we 
 have seen above, in Homer. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 57 
 
 The introductory verbs and phrases have such meanings as "beg," 
 "urge" (possibly "will"), "promise," "seem better." This con- 
 struction maintains its existence, and is found with a greater 
 variety of verbs, e.g., aheoixai,, avTi/3oXeco, airayopeva, Seo/xai, Ik€- 
 reveo, ■rrapayyiXkco, Trapa/ceXevofiai ; yet it never gains a large use, 
 successful resistance being made by the older construction with 
 the infinitive. The connective after Homer is generally gTrm?/ 
 though sometimes iva, as in Dem. 16, 28 (ouk iva Bea-Tnai, kutoiki- 
 a-6o3CTL fiovov TToiov/j.evot TTjv airovB/jv), Antiphon, Tetr. A S 3, rn-epi- 
 6pyaa-T€op 'iva . . . eiriSei^o}, and Polyb. 108 (ecjjij Treipdadao <f)povTi^eiv 
 'iva p,r]Sep dBiKrifia yevrjrai, 'Pa)fj.aioi<; e^ 'iXXvpicov). Goodwin, M. 
 and T., § 357, points out that this latter type becomes commoner 
 in the later language, and gives examples from the New Testament 
 (John 13, 34; Luke 9, 40). 
 
 I therefore classify the /xf clause after (j)pd^o/iai and the clauses 
 with 'iva, 0(j)pa, to?, and 27ra)? after Xiaaofiai, KaTaveiico, etc., with 
 the volitive declarative sentences,^ and the (u?- and 27rcu?-clauses 
 without av or ice with the volitive interrogative sentences, while I 
 place in the present chapter and section the 
 
 (Originally Interrogative) Clause with w? and 'ottco'; after Verbs 
 of Pondering, Contriving, and Endeavoring. 
 
 (fipdacreTat, &>? Ke verjTat, eVel TroXv/Mrj'^avoi; eariv. — a 205. 
 
 " He will take counsel how he shall {^= may, can) return. For 
 he is full of shifts." 
 
 {c) A peculiar usage, by which a sentence that was once delib- 
 erative becomes a dependent relative clause, appears in the volitive 
 
 1 Pindar has (!0pa in Pyth. I, 72 {yevaov . . . 8(ppa . . . ^xVi — t^s only case in 
 Pindar, and interesting for its resemblance to the solitary Homeric example A 558). 
 
 ^ The separating of this third type from the second is not without good reason. It 
 is a common error of the manuals of Latin syntax, e.g:, not to make the similar separation, 
 but to treat all substantive clauses as developed either from a clause of purpose or a 
 clause of result. In point of fact, there are two distinct classes of volitive substantive 
 clauses, the first (much commoner than the other) directly descended from a paratactic 
 substantive sentence, and entirely free from any earlier history as a final clause, except 
 in so far as it may have come in time to borrow a connective «/, which owed its own 
 origin to the final clause (so, e^., in impero ne eas, itnpero eas, and a later impero ut 
 eas), the second descended from a true clause of purpose (so, e.^., in conalur quo minus, 
 nihil impedit quin, nulla causast quin, etc.; Xiiriro/iai Iva,, cf. etc., etc.). 
 
58 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 form in a good many examples of the type seen in Soph. Ai. 5 14 : 
 e\ioi '■^ap ovKBT eariv eh '6 ri ^Xi-n-o), trXrjv aov. I know of only one 
 instance with the anticipatory mode, but this one seems to me 
 sure, and is especially interesting as being still outwardly in the 
 paratactic stage. I place it here, however, for the reason that, 
 though the outward look remains, the nature of the passage shows 
 clearly that the true paratactic feeling is gone. The construction, 
 since it has been extended from the interrogative to the relative 
 form, may be called 
 
 The Extended Deliberative. 
 dWov S' ov T6V olSa, rev av kXvtcl rev^ea Sva. — 2 192.^ 
 
 " Other man know I none, whose noble armor I shall { = might) 
 put on." 
 
 7. Thus far, our verbs have been declarative (as in the case of 
 the Characterizing Clause, the Clause of Character and Plan, and 
 the Clause of Plan) or interrogative (as in the case of the Indirect' 
 Question of Fact, and the Indirect Question of Deliberation). 
 
 But the anticipatory subjunctive, like its neighbor and succes- 
 sor, the future indicative, may be used not only in statements and 
 questions, but in assumptions. To this category we now come. 
 .It falls naturally into two divisions, — the clause of generalizing 
 assumption, in which the application is to any person, thing, etc., 
 and the clause of individual assumption, in which the application 
 is to a single person, thing, etc. Both of these clauses of course 
 have their parallels in clauses of the volitive type. 
 
 The connectives in Greek are the relatives &'?, cxyTii., Hre, ovore, 
 eSre, and the non-relative el (probably originally a demonstrative 
 locative, meaning "in that case," and then transferred from 
 
 1 The question whether the construction without iv is of deliberative or of relative 
 origin has been much debated in recent years, especially by Jebb (in his Philocte- 
 tes, ad V. 281), Sidgwick (in a review of the same in the Classical Review for April, 1891, 
 and incidentally in articles in the CI. R. for March, 1S93, and October, 1893), Tarbell 
 (CI. R., July, 1891), Earle (CI. R., March, 1S92), " J.D." (CI. R., December, 1892, and 
 October, 1893), Sonnenschein (CI. R. for February, 1894), and myself (CI. R. for Feb- 
 ruary, 1894, and, more fully, in the Transactions of the American Philological Associa- 
 tion for 1893, Vol. XXIV, pp. 156-205). 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 59 
 
 the main to the subordinate sentence, with the meaning " in 
 case that," "in case "). 
 
 The assumption introduced by el may be either generalizing 
 or individual. The assumption introduced by a relative has not 
 this range, for the following reason : — 
 
 The relative clause must necessarily be of one of four kinds. 
 If the antecedent does not refer to a particular individual, but to 
 any individual, the relative clause that completes its meaning must 
 be generalizing. If, on the other hand, the antecedent does 
 refer to a particular individual, then this antecedent must either 
 be self-explained {^e.g., a proper name), in which case the relative 
 clause is really an independent sentence (generally a statement of 
 fact), or not self-explained, in which case the relative clause is 
 either characterizing (as under i, p. 18) or determinative (see under 
 8, p. 61). In other words, if the relative clause is an assumption 
 at all, it is a generalizing assumption.^ 
 
 (a) Clause of Generalizing Assumption.^ 
 
 ov Se K iymv airdvevOe fid'xr)^ iOeXovra vorjam 
 fiifjivd^eiv irapa vqvcrl Kopcoviaiv, ov ol eirena 
 dpKiov eaaelTai <f>vyeeiv Kvvai; ^S' olcovovi;. — B 391. 
 
 " But whomsoever I skall see wishing to stay from the battle 
 beside the beaked ships, there will be no hope for him thereafter 
 to escape the dogs and birds of prey." 
 
 '6v Ttva flip Kev ea? vskvcov KaTaredvrjcoTav 
 
 a'ifiaro'i daaov ifj,ev, 6 Si roi, v7)fiepTe<! evlyjrei ' 
 
 (o Se k' i-7ri(j)9overj^, o Se toi ttoXiv eiaiv oincraco. — \ 147- 
 
 1 Vid. " C«OT-Constructions," p. 87 of the English edition, 96 of the German. 
 
 2 A careful distinction must be made between the generahzing clause and the deter- 
 minative clause referring to a particular, though not fully defined, individual. In the 
 following, e.g., ov Kev Xkoiiuu refers to a single, though as yet undefined, person (" the one 
 — I will not say which — to whom I shall come"'), not "to any one whatever," nor even 
 " to all of the three persons " mentioned. This example, accordingly, belongs under the 
 
 head of 8, 1, belovi'. 
 
 ei a KC liij Sduaiv, iyi) S4 Kev airbs ?\w/iai 
 
 ^ rebv fi MavTOi liiv yipas, 5 'OSvarjoi 
 
 d|<D ^"Kiliv • 6 Si Kev KcxoKiifferai, Sv Kev Vkw/uoi. — A 1 37. 
 
 " . . . . that one, whosoever it shall be . . ." 
 
60 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 OTTTTolov K eiTTrjcrOa eVo?, toiov k eiraKovaai'i. — T 250. 
 Similarly O 348, A 306, t 271 and 467, * 103, and often. 
 
 (6) Clause of Individual Assumption. 
 
 el fj.ev Kev M.6ve\aov 'AXe^ai'S^o? Karaire^vy, 
 
 avTO'i eireid^ 'EXevriv e^erco Kol KTrifiara Travra, 
 
 rjijuei^ S' iv vrjeo'cTi vewfieOa ■jrovTowopoiUiv • 
 
 el Be K 'AXe^avSpov Kreivrj ^av9o<; Meye'Xao?, 
 
 Tpoias eTreid' 'EXevijv kuI KTijfjLara irdvT aTroBovvai. — T281. 
 
 " If Alexandres sAaU slay Menelaus, then let him have Helen 
 to himself, and all her possession ; and we will depart in our sea- 
 faring ships. But if fair-haired Menelaus s/ia// kill Alexandres, 
 then let the Trojans give up Helen and all her possessions." 
 
 el Be K en irpoTepui ■jrapavij^o/u.ai, rjv irov i<pevpco 
 
 rjiova^ re Tra/scnrX^^a? \ifieva<; re OaXdcrcrj]^, 
 
 BelB(o, firj pi" e^avTif dvapird^acra dveXXa 
 
 iTOVTov e-TT l-)(6v6evra (peprj ^apea arevd')(pvra. — e 417. 
 
 "But if I swim still further along the coast, if perchance I 
 shall {= may) find a sloping shore and harbors of the sea, I fear a 
 sweeping storm may bear me yet once more along the swarming 
 deep, loudly lamenting." 
 
 The negative for assumptio'ns, which is p,ri, is probably unorig- 
 inal, and due, as will be said in a later chapter, to a unifying of 
 type in several mechanisms. 
 
 In many cases the clause, though an assumption in form, 
 suggests at the same time a question and a purpose, as in the 
 last example, in which "if perchance" is almost the equivalent of 
 "to see if," or "in order that." In the following example such a 
 clause is in fact actually coupled with a clause introduced by 
 
 r/ 
 
 iva . — 
 
 iTep.y^a) B' e? SirdpTTjV re kol e? TS.vXov i^/xadoevra 
 vocTTOv Trev(T6p,evov •jraTpo<s <piXov, rjv ttow aKovcrr], 
 rjK Iva fiiv KXeo^ etrdXav ev avOpmiroiaiv e-^Qjcriv. — a 93. 
 
 "And I will send him to Sparta and to sandy Pylos to seek 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 6 1 
 
 tidings of his father's return, if haply he skail {= may) hear, and 
 that he may have a noble name among mankind." 
 
 It is through such uses that the particle of assumption comes 
 to gain also a simple interrogative power, as in the examples 
 under S, above. 
 
 In Latin, the subjunctive construction of the future assumption 
 is probably of mixed origin, the anticipatory subjunctive being but 
 a single factor in it ; and consequently no sure instance of this 
 subjunctive in the ordinary assumption can be given. But it may 
 be confidently believed, on account of the general attitude of mind 
 naturally involved, to be present in examples with the locative si 
 in the derived interrogative sense. 
 
 Aspectabat virtutem legionis suai, 
 
 exspectans si mussarent. — Enn. Ann. 369 (Miill.). 
 
 " He watched the valor of his legion, waiting if perchance 
 (= whether) they skptild mVirmnx'' (" = waiting to see whether 
 they would "). 
 
 8. One of the commonest of the constructions of the anticipatory 
 mode, so far as Greek is concerned, is the determinative clause, 
 the primary ofHce of which is to make clear, to determine, what 
 person, what thing, what time, etc., is intended by the incompletely 
 explanatory pronoun of the main sentence. Such a clause answers 
 the question, which man, which thing, etc., do you vtean, in contra- 
 distinction to the characterizing clause, which gives the answer to 
 the question, what kind of a man, what kind of a thing, etc., 
 do you mean f ^ 
 
 The general name for this construction would be the 
 
 Determinative Clause. 
 
 It will be convenient, however, to divide our examples accord- 
 ing to the nature of the antecedents, — with which of course the 
 
 1 This construction of the determinative clause, which in the indicative is extremely 
 common (see my" Caw-Constructions," pp. 85, 125, and 171 of the English edition, and 
 94, 152, 206 of the German), I find also, as I shall shove in other chapters, in the 
 volitive, the potential, and the optative of ideal certainty. Its importance is not recog- 
 nized in our text-bouks. 
 
62 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 introductory words and phrases will correspond. They will fall 
 into two general classes, according as the determination is exact 
 or inexact. 
 
 I. Clauses of Exact Determination. 
 
 (a) Clause Determining a Person or Thing (introduced by a Relative 
 
 Pronoun). 
 
 The construction is frequent in English, as in the following: — 
 
 " Which of the Misses Trevellyn it is that Yernovi shall marry, 
 Is not a thing to be known." 
 
 — Clough, Amours de Voyage, V. vi. 
 
 " The man who shall invent such a system has a fortune await- 
 ing him." — Chicago Herald, March 12, 1894. 
 
 " Because of limit of time and space it was thought best to 
 have no more than twelve men on the team. These will be : 
 (i) The four men who were in the semi-finals of the Fall tourna- 
 ment. (2) The four men who shall be in the semi-finals of the 
 tournament which shall commence January 25," etc., etc. — The 
 University News, Jan. 18, 1893. 
 
 " The Dreibund may not last. The peace of Europe may be 
 broken at any time. But meanwhile it certainly looks as if the 
 peace league of the three monarchies were a precursor of the 
 universal peace league that shall relegate war, with slavery, to 
 the limbo of dead barbarism." — H. P. Judson, from Chapef 
 Address before the University of Chicago, The University News, 
 Dec. 8, 1892. 
 
 Kelvo<i K av irepl Krjpi fiaKapraro^ e^o)(pv dWcov, 
 2? kS a eiSvoiac ^piaa^ oIkovK a'yd^r}Tat,. — f 158. 
 
 " And happy he, again, exceedingly, above all others, who shall 
 prevail with gifts and lead you to his home." 
 
 a-ol Se ydfio^ crxeBov ea-nv, "va XPV naka fiev aiiTrjv 
 evvvcrOai, ra Se Toia-i •7rapa(T)(^elv, o'i m a dr^wvTai. — t, 27. 
 
 "But the wedding time is near, when you must wear fine 
 clothes yourself, and furnish them to those that shall attend you." 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 63 
 
 yafi^po? e'/iios Ovyarep re, TiOead' ovofi, Urn itev eiirco. — t 406. 
 
 " My son-in-law and daughter, give him the name that I shall 
 tell you." 
 
 In Greek, this determinative construction with the relative 
 pronoun gives way, in a considerable degree, before the general 
 advance of the other mechanism for expressing something looked 
 forward to from the present point of view, namely, the future 
 indicative. In Latin, it gives way to such a degree as to be very 
 rare in the primary tenses (I find it, as a sure construction, only 
 in a few examples under the substantially similar class {d) 
 below ^), but maintains itself in connection with the past, for 
 the reason that the Latin possessed no other means of expressing 
 an act looked forward to from a past point of view. 
 
 Cum ad unum omnes ferrum pugnamque poscerent, et deiecta 
 in id sors esset, se quisque eum optabat, quern fortuna in id certa- 
 men legeret. — Liv. 21, 42, 2. 
 
 "To a man they asked for the sword and battle, and, when the 
 lot was cast to this end, each wished himself ike one whom for- 
 tune should choose for this contest." 
 
 The example may not be a sure one as illustrating the Roman 
 consciousness at the time when it was written, for it may well be 
 that a Roman would have referred the subjunctive to the Oratio 
 Obliqua ; but it at any rate illustrates an original force which 
 must have contributed largely to the building up of the construc- 
 tion afterwards recognized as the Oratio Obliqua, and the con- 
 struction afterwards recognized as Assimilation.^ 
 
 1 It is my belief, however, that in such a case as di tibi dent quaequoinque optes 
 ("the gods grant you whatever your heart shall wish"), Plaut. As. 44, we have the 
 descendant of an original determinative anticipatory clause. See footnote on next page. 
 
 2 In my "Sequence of Tenses," American Journal of Philology, VIII, i, p. 54, and 
 American Journal of Philology, IX, 2, pp. 175-6, I have spoken substantially as follows 
 of one of the factors that combine to bring about the phenomenon known as assimilation 
 of mode: — 
 
 " In complex sentences made up of a main sentence with subjunctive verb and one 
 or more subordinate sentences, the modal feeling in the speaker's mind which expresses 
 itself in the main sentence is, in the nature of things, very likely to continue in the 
 speaker's mind in the subordinated sentence or sentences, either quite unchanged or but 
 slightly shaded. If, for example, I say in Latin, Let him send whom he will, mittat 
 
64 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 There are certain examples which, though closely approaching 
 the force of the characterizing clause, as we have seen it under i, 
 are yet for the sake of rhetorical effect put as determinative. 
 This may be seen from the English form (though the Greek does 
 not exactly correspond) given by Jebb to his translation of Soph. 
 O. T. 1493 : " But when ye are now come to years ripe for mar- 
 riage, who shall he be, who shall be the man, my daughters, that 
 zwz'// hazard taking unto him such reproaches, etc. .-' " The answer 
 would be "that man — the man, namely, that will hazard — does 
 not exist." In the same way, the form is determinative {the man 
 that shall come does not exist), though it might, less rhetorically, 
 have been characterizing (no man exists that shall come), in 
 f 201 : — 
 
 ovK, eaff 0VT0<; avrjp Siepo'; y8/30T09 ovSe ryivrjTai, 
 09 Kev (^aiijKcov dvSpwv e? yalav XicT^rai 
 BrjioTrJTa cftepcov. 
 
 " That mortal breathes not, and never will be born, who shall 
 come with war to the land of the Phasacians, for they are very 
 dear to the gods." — (Translation of Butcher and Lang.) 
 
 The corresponding future indicative is seen in ir 438. 
 
 quern vslit, the mode in velit is not a case of ' attraction ' or ' assimilation ' at all. 
 Velit is as much a jussive as mittat is. The meaning is, Let him choose his man, and 
 send that man; or, in older English, Choose he his man and send him. In sei ques esent 
 quel sibei deicerent necesus ese Bacanal habere (C. I. 196), the deieerent is as much a 
 future condition (= sei ques deicerenf) as esent is." 
 
 I have long believed that the anticipatory subjunctive supplies a large factor to the 
 development of this construction. Especially in Plautus and Terence, a considerable 
 proportion of the subjunctives " by assimilation " after primary tenses seem easily to be 
 accounted for as simply anticipatory, if we assume that the anticipatory power still 
 remained to the mode at that time. This has been shown to be the case for Terence, 
 in a paper written for the degree of Bachelor of Arts by Mr. F. O. Bates, a student of 
 mine at Cornell, in the year 1891-2. 
 
 As for the syntax after secondary tenses, it will appear in the course of the treat- 
 ment, that, in every category in which the determinative expression can occur, there is 
 only one possible way of putting it; namely, by the anticipatory subjunctive (imperfect or, 
 rarely, pluperfect, i.e., future perfect). 
 
 Now the frequent recurrence of such examples in dependence upon a subjunctive 
 would give rise to the feeling that the dependent clause ought ordinarily to be put in 
 that mode, and so would bring about the habit of " assimilating." 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 65 
 
 (^) Clause Determining: the Kind mentioned in the main sentence ; 
 introduced by olo<i and oTroto?. 
 
 aXK OTt Kev Sr] or' avrb<; aveip-qrai, eveeacTiv, 
 TOio<i ecov, olov Ke KarevvridevTa iSrjcrde, 
 Koi Tore Sfj axea-dai re ^irj^ Xvaai re yepovra. — S 420. 
 " But when he shall question thee in his own shape, being such 
 
 as thou skali have seen him when he laid him down, then hold thy 
 
 strength and let the old man go." 
 
 TTjoo? ravTa Trpd^et^ otov av 6e\rj<;. — Soph. O. C. 956. 
 
 "Thou wilt therefore do such a deed as thou skalt please 
 to do." 
 
 {c) Clause Determining the Manner, etc., in which the main act is 
 to take place ; introduced by w? and otto)?. 
 
 aA,\' aye^', to? av eym ei-rrco, 7r€i,6co/j,eda Trai'TC?. — S 74- 
 " But come, let us all obey as I s/iall speak." 
 
 (d) Clause Determining an Antecedent, expressed or implied, Denoting 
 Time (generally the time at which the main act is to take 
 place) ; introduced by ore, oTrore, eireL 
 
 ij)pd^€0 vvv, firj Toi Ti OeSjv fujvifia jevcofiai 
 7]fj.aTi T<p ore Kev ae Tlapi<; koi ^ol^o^ 'ATToXXeov 
 eadXov eovT oKeawaiv ev\ %Kairjai irvKrjcnv. — X 358. 
 
 "Take heed now to thyself, lest I draw upon thee the wrath 
 of the gods, on that day when Paris and Phoebus Apollo shall 
 slay thee, for all thy valor, at the Scaean gate." 
 
 eK yap 'Opearaa Tt'ffi? 'iaaerav 'Arpei'Sao, 
 OTTTTOT av fj^rjo-ri re Kal ^? IfieLperai airif. — a 40. 
 "For on account of the son of Atreus vengeance will come 
 from Orestes, when he skallhe grown and shall desire his land." 
 
 avrap iTrrjv aydyrjcriv eao) KXia-irjv 'A;i^tX75o?, 
 ovT avTO'i KTeveei airo r aXXov; iraVTai; ipv^ei. — O 155. 
 " But when Hermes s/iall lead him within the tent of Achilles, 
 Achilles will not slay him, and will hold all others back." 
 
66 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 aXX' oiioa-ov firj firjTpl (plXr) rdBe fivOija-acrdai, 
 
 irpiv y St av ivheKarr) re BvcoSeKaTrj re yevrirai. — /S 373. 
 
 "But swear that you will not tell my dear mother, (before 
 when =) till the eleventh and twelfth day skall come." 
 
 Hie est ille dies quom gloria maxuma sese 
 
 nobis ostendat, seu vivimus sive morimur. — Enn. Ann. 414. 
 
 " This is the day when the supreme glory sAal/ manifest itself 
 to us, whether we live or whether we die." 
 
 Expectandus erit qui lites incohet annus 
 
 totius populi. — luv. 16, 42. 
 " I shall have to wait for the year (namely, the coming one) 
 that skaU (=is to) start afresh upon the suits of the whole 
 people." 
 
 Visne igitur, dum dies ista venit, qua magno conatu exercitus 
 moveatis, interea tu ipse congredi mecum ? — Liv. 8, 7, 7. 
 
 "Will you, while waiting for the coming of the day when, with 
 great effort, you skall set armies in motion,^ meanwhile meet me 
 in single combat ? " 
 
 With these examples, compare the following, from a letter of 
 Cowper to John Newton, dated Nov. 11, 1792 : — 
 
 "Oh for the day when your expectations of my complete deliv- 
 erance skall be verified ! " 
 
 En erit umquam 
 ille dies, mihi cum liceat tua dicere facta.' — Verg. Eel. 8, 7.^ 
 
 " Will the day ever come, when I skall be allowed to sing thy 
 deeds ? " 
 
 In the following, again, the subjunctive may, to the Roman 
 consciousness, be due to the Oratio Obliqua, but the sentence at 
 
 ^ It is of course possible that the construction here is volitive, — " on which you 
 mean to move. ..." 
 
 ^ It is of course possible that the construction here is the ordinary Latin charac- 
 terizing construction, developed from the mode of ideal certainty (" C«ff«-Constructions," 
 p. 140 of the English edition, 170 of the German). 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 6/ 
 
 any rate illustrates what must once have been one of the factors 
 in the building up of the construction of the Oratio Obliqua ; and 
 this explanation likewise accounts for the use of the so-called 
 present tense in place of a periphrastic future form : — 
 
 Diditur hie subito Troiana per agmina rumor, 
 advenisse diem cum debita moenia condant. — Aen. 7, 144. 
 "Suddenly the rumor runs through the Trojan ranks, that the 
 
 day has come when they shall {= are to) build the walls that Fate 
 
 has granted." 
 
 In general, however, the anticipatory subjunctive has given 
 way in these constructions, after primary tenses, before the future 
 indicative. 
 
 Videre videor iam diem ilium, quom hinc egens 
 profugiet aliquo militatum. — Ter. Ad. 384. 
 "Methin)cs I already see the day, when, in his need, he will 
 run away somewhere to a soldier's life." Cf. Virgil's ille dies 
 cum, above. 
 
 Quam,felix tempus illud quo mihi liberos illius, nepotes tuos, 
 lit meos vel liberos vel nepotes ex vestro sinu sumere et quasi pari 
 iure tenere continget. — Plin. Ep. 6, 26, 3. 
 
 When, on the other hand, the point of view lies in the past, the 
 subjunctives of anticipation from the past point of view, namely, 
 the imperfect -and pluperfect, maintain themselves completely, 
 there being, as has already been said, no other form that could 
 possibly supplant them, or even occasionally replace them.^ 
 
 Aderat iam annus, quo proconsulatum Africae et Asiae sortire- 
 tur. — Tac Agric. 42. 
 
 " The year was now at hand in which he was to draw the pro- 
 consulate of Africa and Asia as his lot." 
 
 Cf. the following, from the Morte d' Arthur, I. 3 : — 
 
 " Then the time came that the Queen Igraine should bear 
 a child." 
 
 1 The periphrastic past future {-iurus erat or -turns fuif) of course asserts intention 
 or imminence, and therefore is incapable of replacing the very different dependent 
 anticipatory subjunctive. 
 
68 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Ibi, quamquam nondum periculo adpropinquante, conspicuo 
 tamen et cum cresceret proximo, sarcinas contulerat in naves. 
 
 — Plin. Ep. 6, 1 6, 12. 
 
 "There, since the danger, though not yet approaching, was 
 palpable, and, the moment it should, increase, very great, he had 
 got his baggage on board." 
 
 {e) Clause Determining the Time up to which the main act is to 
 go on (Clause of Anticipated Limit). 
 
 The connectives in Homer are et's o (kc), ew? (we), o^pa (kb), 
 and, rarely, ore. 
 
 The origin and force of the first phrase, = uj> to what time, are 
 obvious. 
 
 "Efo? (the correlative of reo)?) is, like Skt. yavat (the correlative 
 of tdvat), a formation from the relative stem, with a termination 
 {-vant, -/re?) indicating quantity. Its primary meaning must then 
 have been "how long," "so long as " ; and this meaning is actu- 
 ally found frequently in Homer. A secondary meaning derived 
 from the primary is "so long as until," or briefly, "until." 
 
 The original force of o(f>pa, as we have seen, was probably 
 "during the time during which," "so long as," "while." The 
 meaning "until," then, would seem to be secondary, as in the case 
 of ew?. 
 
 "OTe originally meant "when." An example that follows (the 
 last of the Greek examples) will show how easily, under the forge 
 of the context, it may come to suggest the idea "till when," "till." 
 Such a context, however, did not occur frequently enough to 
 establish this as one of the fixed powers of the word. 
 
 The connectives in Latin are dum, donee, and quoad. 
 
 Dum is a case-form (probably accusative, possibly, according 
 to a recent theory, instrumental) of the demonstrative stem d" / „ 
 which appears in numerous particles in Latin and elsewhere, 
 e.g., quam-de, quan-do, de-ni-que, o-Se, hrj, fj-ht], Skt. ya-da, ka-da, 
 ta-dd, i-dd. Its original meaning was therefore "at" or " during 
 that time," = "the while." 
 
 This original meaning is still occasionally to be seen, as in 
 Catull. 62, 45 : sic virgO' dum intacta manet, dum cara suis est (cf. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 69 
 
 Plaut. True. 232). A rendering for such a passage at the time 
 when dum was still in the demonstrative stage would be " So the 
 maiden, the while she remains unwedded, the while she is dear to 
 her people." It is easy to see how, from such a combination, the 
 force " so long as " arose ; and out of this force, as already 
 observed in the cases of eo)? and o^pa., arose the secondary meaning 
 "until."! 
 
 Donee is of very uncertain origin. Zimmermann, in Archiv, V. 
 567-571, explains the form donicum as having arisen from done-cum, 
 of which the first part is, in his opinion, a preposition, otherwise 
 lost in Latin, meaning "until" (cf. Keltic do and du, "until," 
 English "to"), while the second is the familiar cum. The word 
 would then originally have meant " till when " (cf. ei? '6 ke). 
 This doneciim may have given rise, through a misapprehension, to 
 donee cum, after which the cum fell away, leaving donee alone 
 (just as if from the phrase "till when," the word "when" had 
 been lost). From donee the form *ddneque would easily be 
 derived, under the analogy of the familiar pair nee and neque, and 
 this *ddneque would then become donique. 
 
 Schmalz (Lat. Gramm., § 277) adopts the theory that dotteeum is 
 made up of a demonstrative, a negative, and a relative, and meant 
 originally, therefore, "da nicht wo," or up to the time of ceasing, 
 and so came to be used in clauses fixing an end. 
 
 Upon either of these theories, the early meaning must have 
 been "until," and the meaning "all the time until," or "so long 
 as," must -have arisen later. The evolution of meaning would 
 accordingly cover the same ground as in the case of etu?, but in 
 the reverse order. 
 
 Per Persson (Indg. Forsch. II, 218 ff.) regards the do- as a 
 demonstrative of the stem d'lo seen above, ne as the asservative 
 particle, and -que as an indefinite, weakened in force as in ita-que, 
 To-re, o-re. The forms in historical order would then be *ddneque, 
 *ddnique, and with apocope, donee. The form donicum he thinks 
 may be from *dd-ne-quom (the quom being indefinite, like -que in 
 *d5-ne-que), or, after Thurneysen's suggestion, K.Z. XXVII, 175, 
 
 1 The same transition from the meaning of " so long as " to the meaning of " until " 
 which has taken place in the case of ?us, 6(t>pa., and dum shows itself in late Latin in 
 the case oi guamdiu (Stolz and Schmalz, Lat. Gram., § 264). 
 
70 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 the result of the addition of the particle -om (cf. Oscan pid-um 
 "quidquam") to dd7iec. The meaning, according to Persson's 
 view, was originally that of a strong demonstrative (" dann eben "). 
 On this supposition (and I may add that Persson's view seems 
 to me the most probable of the three ^) the subsequent shifts must 
 have been, as in the case of dum, eo)?, and 6<^pa, to the meaning 
 "during that time" = "so long," and then to the meaning "so long 
 as until" = "until." 
 
 Quoad is made up apparently of the adverb quo, in its locative 
 sense, and the preposition ad (Stolz and Schmalz, Lat. Gramm., 
 § 293), and must therefore originally have meant, "till what time." 
 
 1 I am less inclined, however, to think it possible (Persson says no more than this) 
 that we have relics of the oldest force ("dann eben") of donee in XII Tab., VI, 8 
 ("quandoque sarpta, donee dempta erunt"),and in Petronius 55 ("ab hoc epigrammate 
 coepit poetarum esse mentio, diuque summa carminis penes Mopsum Thracem memorata 
 est, donee Trimalchio ' rogo ' inquit ' magister, quid putas inter Ciceronem et Publilium 
 interesse ') and 40 (' sophos ' universi clamamus et sublalis manibus ad cameram iuramus 
 Hipparchum Aratumque comparandos illi homines non fuisse, donee advenerunt ministri 
 ac toralia praeposuerunt toris"). Whatever might be thought to make the best sense 
 for the passage from the Twelve Tables (which, as Ulp. Dig. XLVII, 3, i indicates, 
 must be understood in connection with " tignum iunctum aedibus vineaeve e concapi ne 
 solvito"), the syntactical usage of the other fragments does not permit us to take the 
 meaning as "wenn (die Schosslinge) einmal abgeschnitten sind, zu der Zeit (dann) 
 soUen sie auch entfernt sein,'' as Zimmermann would translate. The commands of the 
 law are laid down in the XII Tab. by the imperative, and (once each) with oportet and 
 oporteat (?), not by the future indicative. As for the other passages, it can hardly be 
 claimed that the demonstrative force of " darauf " which Englaender finds in them 
 (Archiv, VI, p. 467) is a survival of an original force; and, in fact, Englaender, seeking 
 to discover the ancestor of Italian dunque and Old French dune, himself offers thfse 
 sentences only as illustrating a combination in which the hypotactic force (contrary to 
 the ordinary order of development) has given rise to a different paratactic force. They 
 are therefore not to the point, further than as showing — what every one knows — that 
 demonstrative and relative ideas may in actual continued speech be closely connected. 
 I must add, however, that I should myself substitute the phrase " may in time have given 
 rise" in place of the phrase "has given rise" which I have used above; for in these 
 sentences the force of " till" is still a reasonable one (" for a long time the talk ran on, 
 till," and " we all shouted ' bravo,' and swore that Hipparchus and Aratus couldn't hold 
 a candle to these men, till in came the servants, etc."). These clauses may be compared 
 to the well-known clauses with eum-inversum. The corresponding main sentences differ, 
 in that the one preceding cum expresses a state of affairs into which the act of the cum- 
 clause breaks, while the one preceding donee summarizes a continued act into which 
 the act of the donee-c\a.\a& breaks; but the relation of the dependent clause to its main 
 clause is the same in both cases, and, though undoubtedly loose, has hardly yet reached 
 the point of a demonstrative force. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 71 
 
 €s Tt eVt KTBiveaOai edcrere \aov 'Ajjjatot? ; 
 
 ^ €49 8 K€V d/Mff}! TTvX,?;? ivTTOiiJTrja-L fid'x^covTai, ; — E 465. 
 " Up to what time will ye yet suffer your host to be slain of 
 the Achaeans ? Will it be up to what time (= till) they shall be 
 fighting about our well-built gates." 
 
 ev9a Ka0e^6fMevo<; fielvai ^povov, eh '6 Kev rjfiel^ 
 d<7Tvhe eXOeofiev kuI iKcofieBa Bd)/j,aTa Trar/ao?. — f 295. 
 " Thus sit and wait awhile till when ( = till) we (s/zall) come 
 to the town." 
 
 fiacrrie vvv, eteo? /ce 0oa<; eVt vrja^ 'iKTjai. — P 622. 
 "Now lay on the whip, till you shall come to the swift ships." 
 
 S)Ka fidXa fieydpoio Bie\6efiev, 0(^p av iicrjai, 
 fiTjTep' i/j.i]v. — ^304. 
 
 "Quickly pass through the hall until you shall find my 
 mother." 
 
 ■^&ij yap HrjXrjd 7' olo/jtai y Kara Trdfiirav 
 redvdfiev, ij ttov rvrOov en ^coovt dKd')(7)(T6ai, 
 yrjpat re aTvyepa koX ip/qv •jronheyp^evov alel 
 Xvyprjv dyye\,ij]v, '6t cnro^difj-evoio -nvdrjTai. — T 334. 
 " For Peleus, I believe, already must be dead and gone, or else 
 in feeble life he sorrows of hateful age and of waiting ever for 
 bitter news of me, what time he shall hear" (= "till he shall 
 hear"). Cf. the English idiom in the following: — 
 
 Under which bush's shade 
 A lioness, with udders all drawn dry. 
 Lay crouching, head on ground, with cat-like watch, 
 When that the sleeping man should stir. 
 
 — Shakespeare, As You Like It, 4, 3. 
 At tu aput nos hie mane, 
 dum redeat ipsa. — Ter. Eun. 534. 
 " But you are to stay here with us, till she shall herself return." 
 
 Si plausoris eges aulaea manentis et usque 
 sessuri, donee cantor 'vos plaudite' dicat, 
 aetatis cuiusque notandi sunt tibi mores. 
 
 — Hor. Ars Poet. 154. 
 
72 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 " If you want an applauder who shall wait for the curtain and 
 keep his seat till the player shall say 'Give us your applause,' 
 you must observe the character that belongs to each period of 
 life." 1 
 
 Itaque exercebatur plurimum currendo et luctando ad eum 
 finem, quoad stans complecti posset atque contendere. 
 
 — Nep. IS, 2, 5. 
 
 "And so he gave himself abundant exercise in running and 
 wrestling, up to the point at which he shotdd be (=till he 
 should be) able to stand and grapple with his adversary and hold 
 his own." 
 
 The idiom maintains itself completely in Latin when the point 
 of view is in the past, there being, as has been said before, no 
 other available anticipatory form. 
 
 Lupus observavit, dum dormitaret canes. — Plant. Trin. 170. 
 " The wolf waited until the dog should go to sleep." 
 The English idiom for the past corresponds exactly. 
 
 "Till other passengers should come, the conductor lounged 
 against the guard of the platform in a conversational posture." 
 
 — Howells, Lemuel Barker, cap. 13. 
 
 With primary tenses, too, the Latin subjunctive in the main 
 maintains itself successfully against the futures, but less com- 
 pletely, being occasionally replaced by the future perfect, and 
 (rarely) by the future. 
 
 . . . quandoque sarpta donee dempta erunt. — XII Tab. VL 8. 
 
 Ibi manens sedeto, donicum videbis 
 
 me carpento vehentem en domum venisse. 
 
 — Liv. Andron., translation of f 295. 
 
 Coquito usque donee conmadebit bene. — Cat. Agr. 156, 5. 
 Item linito usque adeo, donee omne caseum cum melle abusus 
 eris. — Ibid. 76, 4. Similarly usque adeo donee cremor crassus 
 erit factus. — Ibid- 86. 
 
 1 The present indicative, which also occurs in the same general sense as the sub- 
 junctive {e.g., dum dies isia venit, p. 66), is probably a relic of a very early use, in which 
 it expressed almost any modal or temporal idea. See p. 91, below. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 73 
 
 Hie iam ter centum totos regnabitur annos 
 gente sub Hectorea, donee regina sacerdos 
 Marte gravis geminam partu dabit Ilia prolem. 
 
 — Verg. Aen. i, 272. 
 
 English is even more conservative of the anticipatory modal 
 form than Latin is. We say always "let us wait till he shall 
 come," or "till he comes," never "let us wait till he will come." 
 The future of confident prediction (future indicative) seems out of 
 place in this relation. 
 
 In a number of examples with eto? and dicm a secondary mean- 
 ing appears.^ The main act is to go on until the subordinate act, 
 which is both anticipated and desired, shall take place. The sub- 
 ordinate clause, consequently, approaches closely to a clause of 
 plan. This transitional stage may be seen in Q 317 and Trin. 170, 
 given on the page preceding, and in F 291. Greek goes still farther, 
 and shows in Homer a number of examples (of the optative standing 
 for a subjunctive after a secondary tense) in which the temporal 
 force has wholly disappeared, leaving a true final force in complete 
 possession. Latin also seems to possess the same extreme con- 
 struction, though it is very rare. 
 
 irifiire Se fMV tt/jo? Scofiar 'OSucro-^o? Oeioio, 
 eio)? IlTjveXoTreiav ohvpofievrjv r^ooaxrav 
 TraiKreie KXavdfiolo yooio re BaKpvoevToq. — S 799- 
 "And she sent it to the house of god-like Odysseus, that it 
 
 might make Penelope, the mourner and sigher, cease from her 
 
 grief and tearful lamentations." 
 
 Similarly in e 386, f 80, i 376, t 367. 
 
 Videto ut bene et otiose percoquas. Aperito, dum inspicias, 
 bis aut ter. Ubi cocta erit, eximito et melle unguito. — Cato. Agr. 
 76, 4. Be sure to give it a good slow cooking. Open it two or 
 three times to look at it. When it is done, take it off and dress 
 it with honey. 
 
 1 The common doctrine is the opposite of this; viz. that the temporal dum-cX&usQ 
 began as a clause of purpose. So forced a doctrine would never have been reached if 
 •Latin had not been studied as an isolated language, in which, owing to the late point at 
 which we get the earliest remains of it, no trace of the subjunctive in a simple future 
 sense is to be found in independent sentences. (Cf. footnote on p. 27.) 
 
74 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 (/) Clause Determining^ the Time during wMch the main act is to 
 go on (Clause of Anticipated Duration). 
 
 The connectives in Homer are et? o (/te), eas (/te), o^pa {ice), as 
 before. 
 
 The last two originally, as we have seen, meant " during what 
 time," " so long as " ; and the first came to the meaning " so long 
 as " through the conception "all the time till when." 
 
 The connectives in Latin are, again, dum, donee, and quoad, 
 together with quamdiji. For dum, as we have seen, " so long as " 
 is the original meaning as soon as the relative stage has been 
 reached. Quoad and donee, if either of the first two explan- 
 ations cited above for the latter is correct, meant originally " till 
 when," and got the secondary meaning of " so long as " in the 
 same way in which ew o ks got it ; while, if Per Persson's theory 
 is correct, donee, like quamdiii, meant " so long as " from the 
 outset. 
 
 (fipoveoi Se reri/ifjaOai Ato? atari, 
 rj fi e^et Trapa vrjvcrl Kopaviaiv, eh o k dvTfir] 
 iv <nrj6e(7iTi, fievTj Kai jjuol (f>b\a yovvar opcoprj. — I 6o8. 
 
 " For I deem that I have been honored by the judgment of 
 Zeus, which shall abide with me amid ray beaked ships, so long as 
 my breath s/iall dwell in my body and my knees move." 
 
 ro^pa yap ovv ^iotov re reov koI KTrjfiaT eSovrai, 
 6(j>pa Ke KeiVT] rovTOV e'^y voov, ov rivd ol vvv 
 ev CTTrjdecTa-i riQeiai deoL — ^ 123. 
 
 " For they will devour your life and substance so long as she 
 skaH retain the mind which now the gods put in her breast." 
 
 ^prjfiara S' avre KaKO)'; /3e^pd>(reTai,, ovBi ttot Icra 
 eaaerai, 6cj>pa ksv rj je SiarpL/Sr/a-LV 'Ap^^atotJ? 
 ov ydfMov. — /3 203. 
 
 " So now again his substance shall be miserably devoured, and 
 no return be made, so long as she sAa// delay the Achaeans in her 
 marriage." 
 
 In Plaut. Men. 90, I find a relic of an old Latin construction 
 of the same kind, rather than a proviso. The proviso is less 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 75 
 
 natural in the context ; and the line following {facile adservabis, 
 dunt eo uinclo uincies), even if it is the work of a later hand, seems 
 also to indicate what to a Roman the feeling of dum praebeas was. 
 
 Dum tu illi, quod edit et quod potet, praebeas 
 suo arbitratu usque ad fatim cottidie, 
 numquam hercle effugiet. — Plaut. Men. 90. 
 "As long as you shall give him to eat and to drink every day 
 to his heart's content, he'll never run away." 
 
 In classical Latin, the anticipatory subjunctive has entirely 
 given way, after primary tenses, before the general onward move- 
 ment of the future indicative. 
 
 Dum capitolium 
 scandet cum tacita virgine pontifex 
 dicar ***** 
 
 princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos 
 deduxisse modos. — Hor. Carm. III. 30, 8. 
 " So long as the priest shall climb the Capitol in the company 
 of the silent virgin, it will be said of me "... 
 
 It is easily seen how perfectly adapted the future indicative, 
 which in the previous construction seemed out of place, is to the 
 construction before us. The verb conveys a statement of future 
 fact ("the priest shall climb . . . "), and the main statement is to 
 be true for all the time during which this future fact continues. 
 It is not strange that so natural a construction should wholly 
 have displaced the anticipatory subjunctive after primary tenses. 
 
 After a secondary tense, however, as we have already seen for 
 the other constructions under this head, no way existed for the 
 expression of a future idea except the anticipatory subjunctive 
 (here the imperfect) ; and this mode accordingly remained in full 
 possession here, and contributed to the building up of the idioms 
 of the Oratio Obliqua and of Assimilation. 
 
 Dum is ibi bellum gereret, Cornelio prorogatum imperium. 
 
 — Liv. 41, 21, 2. 
 "So long as he should be carrying on the war in this region, 
 the command of Cornelius is continued." 
 
76 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Edixit . . . neu quis militis, donee in eastris esset, bona pos- 
 sideret aut venderet. — Liv. 2, 24, 6. 
 
 " He gave orders that none of the soldiers, so long as he should 
 be in camp, should have property or sell it." 
 
 II. Clauses of Less Exact Determination. 
 
 The determinative clauses thus far dealt with express an exact 
 determination of the antecedent ; so, e.g., the o?-clause {the person 
 who), the clause with et? o ks, dum, etc., meaning until ("during all 
 the time until when "), the clause with et? ks, dum, etc., meaning 
 so long as ("during all the time during which "). There remain 
 the clauses with TrptV, irpiv y or av, antequam, priusquam, etc., 
 which express the vaguer idea of a limit at any or some time before 
 which the main act is not to take place, or is to take place, etc. 
 
 Of these constructions, the Tr/aiVclause presents the greatest 
 difficulty. 
 
 The history of opinion with regard to the nature of irpiv itself, 
 and the character of the constructions which it introduces, has 
 been fully given by Sturm, in his study upon the " Geschichtliche 
 Entwickelung der Konstruktionen mit irplv" in Schanz's Beitrage, 
 and need not here be sketched. 
 
 Sturm's article is a notable one, not simply for its historical 
 survey, but also for its orderly presentation of examples. Yet I 
 do not find myself able to accept its conclusions. 
 
 In brief, we may summarize Sturm's view as follows, aftqr 
 premising that the subjunctive construction is used only after a 
 negative main verb, and that the dv which always accompanies 
 the irpLv in Attic prose is not found in any of the seven ^ sub- 
 junctive examples in Homer. 
 
 (i) The construction expresses the will (pp. 242 and 251 
 of the continuously paged Volume I. of the Beitrage, or ' 26 
 and 35 of the separately paged study). The examples selected 
 to illustrate this force are S 134: aWa au /j,ev /mij -tto) KaraBva-eo 
 p,5}\ov "Apr]o<;, I irplv 7' ifie Bevp' eXOovaav iv OipdaXfiolcriv iBrjai,, 
 "go not down into the battle: first see me coming," and O 551 : 
 
 1 The number is commonly given as six. So by Sturm and Vogrinz. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE, "]•] 
 
 oiiBi fiiv avarrjaeif; • wpXv koI kukov aXKo irdOriaBa, " nicht wirst 
 du ihn zum Leben erwecken ; eher sollst du noch ein anderes 
 Leid erdulden " (Sturm's translation). 
 
 That Sturm really has in mind the full volitive idea is shown 
 by the illustration which he chooses, viz., A 522 : aXXa av fiev vvv 
 avTK airoa-Tixe, M ''■' votja-rj \ "Hprj, " go now, Hera must not see 
 you" ("gehe jetzt. Here soil dich nicht sehen "). 
 
 (2) In Homer, the particle dv is necessarily lacking, the reason 
 being the originally paratactic character of the relation of the two 
 sentences concerned. ("Bei Homer fehlte notwendigerweise die 
 Partikel dv, was sich aus der urspriinglich paratactischen Fiigung 
 der Periode erklarte," p. 287 or 71.) 
 
 (3) The construction is closely related to a condition, being 
 replaceable by edv fj-r; irporepov. Hence the dv of the condition 
 came over into the Tr/JtV-clause (p. 286 or yd). 
 
 In criticising these points I shall take them up in the inverse 
 order. 
 
 (3) To many minds the idea that the Tr/atV-clause and the con- 
 ditional clause with edv are near relations will, I concede, have 
 weight. To mine it does not. A relationship that requires the 
 insertion of a negative into the one construction to make it like 
 the other {irpiv = edv fj-r) -rrporepov) is a very remote relationship. 
 The reasoning, too, if carried as far as this, would have to be 
 carried a good deal farther. E.g., " I shall stay until he comes " 
 (ew? dv, dum, etc.) might be regarded as the equivalent of "I shall 
 stay if he does not meanwhile come." " I shall stay so long as he 
 shall be absent " (ew? dv, diiin) might be taken as .an equivalent of 
 "I shall stay //"he shall meanwhile be absent." These clauses 
 should then, with equal reason, be treated as conditions. But 
 such an explanation substitutes a forcing process in place of the 
 simple and easy recognition in these constructions of a perfectly 
 natural and suitable meaning of the subjunctive, independently 
 known to exist. If, further, the idea of futurity is sufficient for 
 the future condition ("if . . . shall"), it is also, directly and 
 independently, sufficient for the eiB? dv clause in the sense of until 
 ("until . . . shall"), and in the sense of so lohg as ("so long as 
 . . . shall "), and it is also, directly and independently, sufficient 
 for the irplv dv clause. No reason can be assigned for limiting 
 
78 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 the strict applicability of the idea of futurity to that one kind of 
 clause referring to the future, which we call the condition. 
 
 (2) The statement that the particle av was necessarily lacking 
 in Homer on account of the originally paratactic character of the 
 relation of the two sentences concerned is overdrawn. The origin 
 of the construction, i.e., the earliest history, would remain for ever 
 the same ; and there would be no more necessity on this ground 
 for the omission of the particle in Homer than for its omission in 
 Attic, unless evidence can be shown that the construction in 
 Homer is, to a considerable extent, still paratactic. But this is 
 not the case. On the contrary, every one of the examples, if, as 
 Sturm thinks, they are volitive, is demonstrably hypotactic. Monro 
 (Homeric Syntax 2, p. 269), has noticed that this is the case with 
 irddriiTda (No. 8, below), since Greek does not express a command 
 in the second person singular by the subjunctive;^ and the same 
 holds for 'I8r)ai (No. i). Further, the will expressed in parataxis 
 must necessarily be the will of the person speaking ; whereas in all 
 the examples except these two the will is that of some one else. If, 
 then, the construction is already completely hypotactic, there was 
 no necessity for the omission of dv in Homer. Sturm's doctrine, 
 to be consistent with itself, should be that, though the construction 
 is in Homer already completely hypotactic, and though in Homer 
 dv is used in the majority of cases with the future condition, still 
 the use was not yet sufficiently carried through in the latter con- 
 struction to make the fact seem remarkable that the 7r/3iVclause 
 does not yet begin to feel its influence. 
 
 (i) Sturm's method deals with things too much in the large.- 
 In quoting (p. 251 or 35) Delbruck's principle that ksv never 
 appears with the subjunctive of the will, and generally does appear 
 with the subjunctive of expectation, and in forthwith concluding 
 that in accounting for the subjunctive after -n-plv we must go 
 back to an original parataxis of two sentences, the second of which, 
 introduced by -n-piv, contained a subjunctive of the will, Sturm 
 is simply employing what might be called the supposed general 
 laws of the game of syntax, and handling his examples in the 
 
 1 Monro is wrong, however, in saying also that the construction could not be para- 
 tactic if the meaning is that of a future. The existence of the independent anticipatory 
 subjunctive without S.v or Ke in Homer is beyond question. 
 
THE ANTICIPAl'ORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 79 
 
 mass, without bestowing any scrutiny upon the individual case, 
 further than the preliminary notice that none of the seven con- 
 tains av. 
 
 If this scrutiny had been given, Sturm would have found two 
 classes, not one. Of the two examples which he uses as a model 
 for the original paratactic state, the first, viz. 2 134, suggests voli- 
 tive feeling ("do not go down into the moil of battle : first see me 
 coming," = "do not go down until you see me coming"). But the 
 other, Xi 551, cannot possibly be voHtive. The attitude of Achilles 
 toward Priam from 507 on (the passage is a long one) has been 
 sympathetic. Near its end Achilles says, " Keep courage, and 
 lament not unabatingly in thy heart. For nothing wilt thou avail 
 by grieving for thy son, neither shalt thou bring him back to life." 
 I cannot believe that the poet meant his hero, in his closing words 
 (immediately following), to threaten Priam with death, — which, in 
 this connection, would be the only possible force of an expression 
 of the will. Our example must be a case of the anticipatory sub- 
 junctive without av or /ce, seen on p. 12. And the same must be 
 the case with the subjunctive in k 174 (see No. 7, on p. 80 below). 
 The meaning cannot be "we shall not yet go down to the house 
 of Hades : it is our will that ere that time the day of fate shall 
 come." Whatever the case may be with the remaining examples, 
 these two must be classed at once as anticipatory. 
 
 Let us, then, endeavor to construct a theory based upon a 
 scrutiny of the individual examples, as well as upon general con- 
 siderations independently reached. 
 
 The complete Jist down to Aeschylus is as follows : — 
 
 1. aXKa (TV fiev fiij irco KaraSvaeo iJi,SiXov " Aprjoi, 
 
 Trpiv 7' 6/46 hevp ekQovaav ev 6cfidaX/x.oiai,v iSrjai. — % 134. 
 
 2. firjTTjp S' ov /J,e (f)i\T] irpiv y eia dccprja-o'ea'dai, 
 
 irplv y' avTrjv iXOovaav ev o^daK/iolcnv 'IBcofiai. — 2, 189. 
 
 3. ou yap fiiv irpoaOev iravaeaOai, oim 
 icKavd/iov re a-Tvyepoto yooio re SaKpvoevro'i, 
 irplv y avTov /le iBrjTai. — p y. 
 
 4. crol S' ov iray (piXov ecrrl Sai]fievat ovSk irvdia-dai, 
 irplv y en (rfj<s aXoxov Treipijaeai. — v 335. 
 
8o STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 5. ^s 'AvTifi'opo? utos a^avov, Slo<{ 'Ayrjvasp, 
 
 oi/K edekey ^euyeti', irplv •jreip^a-aiT 'A;j(;t\^09. — "I' 579. 
 
 6. ^ 7a/3 'A%tX\6i;9 
 
 ire/JfTTcov fJ-' (SS' eVereXXe fieKaivdcov airo vrj&v, 
 
 fi7] irplv irrj/jbaveeiv, rrplv BcoSeKciTT) fioXrj ^ta?. — li 779' 
 
 7. w (piXoi, oil lydp tto) KaraSvaofieO' u'^yv/ievoi irep 
 
 et? 'AiBao So'/iou?, vrptv fiopai/jiov rjfjLap eireXdr}. — « 1 74' 
 
 8. dvcr^eo, /i7?S' oKiaaTov ohvpeo aov Kara dv/jiov • 
 oil yap Ti irprj^ei^ aKa^i]/J,evo<! via erjo<;, 
 
 oiiBe fiiv avarrjo-ei'i • irplv /cat KaKov aXXo TrdOrjcrda. — D, 549- 
 
 9. ovBi irore Xrjyovcn deal Seivolo j(oXoio 
 
 irpiv <y cnro rw Bcocoai kukt^v ottiv, octti'; afiaprrj. 
 
 — Hes. Theog. 221. 
 
 10. firjBe TTOT devdcov Trorafiaiv KaXXlppoov vBcop 
 •Troaal Trepav, irpiv y ev^y lBa>v e? KaXa peeOpa. 
 
 — Hes. Op. 737. 
 
 11. fir]Be BiKTjv BtKacrr]!;, irplv afi(f>eo fivdov aKOvarj';. 
 
 — Pseudophocylidea 87. 
 
 12. jxr) iroT iiraLvrjarj's, irplv av elBfjv avBpa cra^Tjveajf;, 
 opyrjv Kal pvdfiov Kal rpoirov ocrTi<; av •§. — Theogn. 963. 
 
 13. Kevrpov B' aWo? tus eya> Xa^cov 
 Ka/co<j)paBi]'i re Kal (piXoKTrj/jLcov dvqp 
 out' av KaTe.a')(e Brjfiov ovt iiravaaTO, 
 
 Trplv av Tapd^a<; irlap i^eXrj ydXa. — Solon 36, 18.-'^ 
 
 In two examples, viz. 7 and 8, the mode is clearly anticipatory. 
 In view of the smallness of the number, the omission of av is not 
 striking. 
 
 In all the other cases, if judged in the light of later usage, the 
 subjunctive might, so far as the meaning is concerned, be antici- 
 patory. But it would be overbold to assume that dv has been 
 omitted in every one of so large a number of examples. The pre- 
 sumption is, therefore, in favor of a volitive origin. We accord- 
 
 1 The subjunctive in Simonides of Amorgos i, 12, is rightly held to be corrupt, 
 since, unlike all other instances in Greek, it does not follow a negative. * See Sturm, Inc. 
 dt., p. 273. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 8 1 
 
 ingly need to examine each case, to see whether, in the nature of 
 the contents, the volitive interpretation can, without forcing, be 
 accepted. 
 
 In I, lo, and 1 1, we have cases in which the hypothesis that 
 the mode expresses the will of the speaker is perfectly reasonable. 
 The construction is already hypotactic, but illustrates what the 
 paratactic stage must have been {e.g., " do not yet go down into 
 the moil of battle : first see me coming " = " until you see me 
 coming "). 
 
 In 2 we have the same sentence as in i, but thrown into the 
 indirect form. It expresses not the will of the speaker, but that 
 of the subject of the main sentence. The power to express the 
 will of another than the speaker had been gained long before 
 Homer's time in all the dependent constructions of the volitive ; 
 so that no objection to the theory of a volitive origin can be raised 
 upon this score. 
 
 In 3, 4, 6, and 9, as well as in the indirect optative (after a 
 secondary tense) in 5, the same interpretation is a reasonable one. 
 In four of these cases an indication of the attitude of mind of the 
 subject of the principal sentence is found in the words ov ^l\ov (4), 
 oiiK eOeXev (s), iirereWe fj^rj (6), and ov^e iroTe . . . Xijyova-i ^(oKoio (9). 
 
 From the examples themselves, then, it seems clear that there 
 are in Homer two types of TrpiVclauses, one with a volitive feeling, 
 the other with an anticipatory. 
 
 Can any further proof of the existence of either feeling be had 
 from examples of related force, but differing phraseology .' I cite 
 from Homer such as are apposite.^ 
 
 14. a\V ofiocrov fir] firjTpi <f)L\r) rdBe /ivBijaaaOai, 
 
 irpiv <y OT civ evBeKcirr) re SvcoBe/caTr} re jevTjTai. — /3 373- 
 
 15. ov rydp roi irpiv p-oipa ^iXovi t IBeeiv ical iKecrdai 
 oIkov evKTi/jLevov koI crrjv e? TrarpiSa yalav, 
 
 irpiv y OT hv Alyvirroio SuTrereo? iroTafiolo 
 aSrif vSeop e'X%? pe^V^ & lepii<i eKaT6iJL^a<i 
 adavaTOKTi Oeolai,, roX ovpavov eiipiiv 'i'xpvaiv. — S 475. 
 
 1 In A 29 (t^v S' iyii oi \{i<r<j> • vph luv Kal y^pas liretinv) the force of the present 
 indicative ^ireuriv is probably volitive rather than anticipatory. (Cf. footnote on p. 92.) 
 
82 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 l6. aXXa ra y ovk 6m • TrpXv Kai riva yata KaOe^ei 
 avSpcov iMvqarripwv, o'i roi ^bOTOv Karihovariv. 
 
 — 1/42; (=031). 
 
 IJ. ft) iri'irov, ov toi Tpwev oj/etSetot? iireeaa-iv 
 
 veicpov ■)^0}pT](T0vat • •7rdpo<; riva yala Kade^ei. — II 628. 
 
 18. etaco B' ov fuv OvfjiO'^ i^opfirjOrjvai eacret,, 
 
 ovBi TTOT ixTrepcreo • irpiv fuv Kvve<; dpyol eSovrai. — S 282. 
 
 It will be noticed, first, that all these clauses or sentences 
 follow a negative in the main sentence. 
 
 Further, the sentence in 15 containing the clause with Trplv 
 y or dv is very similar in its general character to the sentence 
 containing a bare TrptV-clause in the Homeric example 7. The 
 presence of dv clearly marks the former as anticipatory, not voli- 
 tive, and thus reinforces, — if reinforcement were necessary, — what 
 was said about 7. It absolutely proves the existence in Homer of 
 the anticipatory conception in this general class of sentences. 
 
 On the other hand, the presence of the unmistakable anticipa- 
 tory form and the unmistakable anticipatory sense in 14, which 
 otherwise corresponds closely to 6, and so indirectly to i, 2, 3, 4, 
 5, 9, 10, II ("swear not to tell, before the twelfth day shall come," 
 and "commanded not to harm, before the twelfth day should 
 come ") shows that even after an expression of the will in the main 
 clause the anticipatory idea is a natural one, and that a single for- 
 mula would, therefore, be sufficient after both classes of main sen- 
 tence, volitive as well as non-volitive. 
 
 Under such circumstances, the fate which one would expect 
 for the construction would be that the form of expression which 
 was not universally applicable should gradually give way, and 
 ultimately disappear, in favor of the form which was universally 
 applicable. The first clear instances, in extant literature, of this 
 giving way are found in 12 and 13. 
 
 In the six examples, or, counting each verb, seven, in Aeschy- 
 lus (all from his first play), dv is always used : — 
 
 19- 08' eirvKOTWi del 
 
 66fi,evo<i dyvajxinov voov 
 Bd/ivarai, ovpaviav 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 83 
 
 r^evvav, ovSe Xij^et, irplv av rj Kopearj xeap, ij iraXafjia Tivi 
 Tav SvadXcoTOp eXj? Ti? ap-)(av. — Aesch. P. V. 162. 
 
 20. Kai jM ovre fieXtyXaxraoit; 7rei6ov<; 
 eTraoiSacaiV 
 
 deX^ei, a-repedi; t oiittot a7reiKa<; 
 
 TTTtj^af ToB' iyo} /caTa/J,r]vvcrQ), 
 
 irpiv av e^ aypicov BeafiMV j^aXdarj 
 
 TTOLvd'; re rlvetv 
 
 TrjaB' alKia's eOekrjar]. — Aesch. P. V. 1 72. 
 
 21. rj^ei'; S" 'T/Spia-Tr/v "TTOTafiov ov -^frevBmvvfiov, 
 ov fir) Trepdcrr/^, ov yap ev^aTO<; Trepdv, 
 
 irplv av Trpo? avTOV KavKacrov /xdXj;?. — Aesch. P. V. 717- 
 
 22. vvp S' ovSev ecTTi repfia fioi TrpoKeifievov 
 
 /MO'^Ocov, irplv av Zeu? iKirearj TvpavviSo<;. — Aesch. P. V. 7SS- 
 
 23. OVK ecTTLV a'lKKTfx ovBe firj'^dvrjfi brco 
 irpoTpi^y^erai, /j,e Zei;? yeycovfjaai rdBe, 
 
 irplv av j(akacr6fi Bea-fia Xvfiavrijpia. — Aesch. P. V. 989. 
 
 24. TOiovBe jjioyOov repfia fiij ri irpoaBoKa 
 irplv av Betov Ti<i BidBo')(o<s tSsv craiv ttovcov 
 ^avfj, deXijarj r et? dvavyr/rov /loXelv, 
 
 "AiBrjv Kve(f>ald t dfKpl Taprdpov ^ddr). ■ — Aesch. P. V. IO26. 
 
 With the exception of number 24 and the second verb in 
 number 19, where the volitive idea would be out of place, these 
 examples might have been put either with the volitive feeling or 
 with the anticipatory. In number 21, indeed, the general sense 
 of the sentence is very similar to that of the Homeric examples 
 number i and (indirectly put) numbers 2 and 3 (see also 10 and 
 11), in which the absence of dv led us to the theory of a volitive 
 origin. The usage of Aeschylus, accordingly, seems to support 
 the conclusion reached above, that, whereas the earlier construc- 
 tions had been of two kinds, the one volitive and the other anticipa- 
 tory, the Greek mind, discovering that a single conception, namely 
 the anticipatory, would answer in every case, settled down upon 
 that. 
 
 Aristophanes, like the Attic prose writers, always uses dv. 
 The frequent omission of dv in Sophocles and Euripides is prob- 
 
84 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 ably to be assigned to the same love of archaisms that brought 
 about the omission of this particle in generalizing conditions 
 and in individualizing future conditions, and that brought about 
 the use of e'?, viv., etc. 
 
 Our examination of the general question, then, has brought us 
 to the result that, in our chapter upon the volitive subjunctive, the 
 existence in Homer of a volitive type of the Tr/jtV-clause ought to 
 be recognized, and that similarly the existence of an anticipatory 
 type, in Homeric as well as in later Greek, is to be recognized in 
 the present chapter. 
 
 This anticipatory clause, inasmuch as it specifies a time before 
 which something is not to be done, may be called the 
 
 Clause of the Earliest Possible Date. 
 
 o) (f)iXoi, ov jdp Treo KdraSvaofieO' a'x^vv/j.evoi irep 
 
 6t? 'AiSao Sd/ioi"?, TTplv fiopcrifiov ^fiap iiriXdrj. — k 1 74- 
 
 "O friends, for all our sorrow, we shall not yet awhile go 
 down to the house of Hades, before the day of destiny shall 
 come." 
 
 Similarly O 549. 
 
 fiTf] TTOT iiraLvrjayi irplv av elBi)<s dvBpa aa(f)'rjveco';. 
 
 — Theogn. 963. 
 
 (The first extant example with dv.) "Never praise a man 
 before knowing him thoroughly." 
 
 The Latin clauses obviously corresponding to the 7r/otVclausSs 
 (though possessing a much wider range) are introduced by anie- 
 quam, priusquam, etc. These connectives are clearly relatives, and 
 leave us without knowledge of the state of the sentences in the 
 paratactic stage. We may conceive them to have been probably 
 of two types, as in the case of Greek, — namely, the volitive and 
 the anticipatory. These types may be illustrated by the sentences 
 that follow : — 
 
 My will is to see Pistoclerus ; do not suffer me before that to 
 meet Nicobulus (modelled on Plant. Bacch. 1 74). 
 
 Day will dawn ; I want to get out of the city first (modelled 
 on Plant. Amph. 533). 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 8$ 
 
 The construction follows either a negative, as in Greek, or a 
 positive. In the former case, the clause expresses the time before 
 which something is not to be done, will not be done, etc. ; in the 
 latter, the time before which something is to be done, will be 
 done, etc. The construction may then bear the name of the 
 
 (a) Clause of the Earliest Possible Date, or Latest Possible Boundary. 
 
 Manus vetat priusquam penes sese habeat quicquam credere. — 
 Plaut. True. 901. 
 
 " My hand forbids my crediting anything before (until) it closes 
 over something." 
 
 Exire ex urbe prius quam lucescat volo. — Plaut. Amph. 533. 
 "I want to be out of the city before dawn shall come." 
 
 {b) The sharp determinative idea seen in the citations above 
 pales or disappears in many examples, and the act of the clause 
 simply indicates something in prevision of which the main act 
 takes place, — something counted upon and provided for. 
 
 In this vaguer stage of its development, the construction may 
 be named the 
 
 Clause of an Anticipated Act in preparation for which the main 
 act takes place. 
 
 The introductory phrases are aniequam, priusquam, and pridie 
 quam. 
 
 After primary tenses the construction may be replaced by the 
 present indicative (see foot-note on p. 91). After secondary tenses 
 it of course remains firmly fixed. 
 
 Ego enim ut agitator callidus, prius quam ad finem veniam, 
 equos sustinebo. — Cic. Ac. Pr. 2, 29, 94. " For, like a shrewd 
 driver, I shall hold up my horses before (in anticipation of) coming 
 to the end." 
 
 Priusquam ab Roma proficisceretur, litteras Praeneste misit, 
 ut . . . — Liv. 42, I, 7. " Prior to (in anticipation of) leaving 
 Rome, he sent on instructions to Praeneste, that "... 
 
 Cottidie, antequam pronuntient, vocem cubantes sensim ex- 
 citant. —Cic. De Or. I, 59, 251. 
 
86 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 . . . sicut medico diligenti, priusquam conetur aegro adhibere 
 medicinam, non solum morbus eius, cui mederi volet, sed etiam 
 consuetudo valentis et natura corporis cognoscenda est. — Cic. De 
 Or. 2, 44, 186.1 
 
 The construction, becoming familiar in the case of a regular 
 anticipation of one act by another, is then employed even where 
 the circumstances make prevision impossible.^ 
 
 Discunt haec miseri, antequam sciant vitia esse. — Quintil. i, 2, 8. 
 
 "Unhappily, children learn these things before knowing that 
 they are vices." 
 
 Transferred from man to nature, the same formula is used in 
 the case of any regularly recurring precedence of one act by 
 another. 
 
 Cornua nata prius vitulo quam frontibus extent 
 
 illis iratus petit atque infestus inurget. — Lucr. 5, 1034. 
 
 "Ere the horns of a calf are formed and project from his fore- 
 head, he butts with it when angry and pushes out in his rage." 
 (Monro's translation.) 
 
 Huius folia sicuti labruscae, priusquam decidant, sanguineo 
 colore mutantur. — Plin. N. H. 14, 37. 
 
 It follows from what has been said, that in narration, in the 
 strict earlier use, the subjunctive is employed of an act represented 
 as looked forward to by some person mentioned in the main clause, 
 and seen by him as the expected limit, etc., for that act ; while the 
 indicative is used of an act looked back upon by the speaker or 
 writer, and seen by him as the actual limit, etc., of the main act. 
 
 1 In such sentences the construction is practically an equivalent for the future parti- 
 ciple. Cf. with priusquam froficisceretur above the participle acturus in the following : 
 cum vocem praepararet acturus in consulatu principi gratias ... — Plin. Ep. 2, I, J. 
 
 2 The indicative, however, is also used in Ciceronian and later, as well as in earlier 
 Latin, contrary to the opinion of Riemann (Gramm. Lat.^ § 213 (2)), "I'emploi de 
 I'indicatif paratt Stre ici archaHque." 
 
 Membris utimur prius quam didicimus cuius ea utilitatis causa habeamus. 
 
 — Cic. Fin. 3, 20, 66. 
 Ideo non est ante edendum quam ilia (fames) imperat. — Sen. Ep. Mor. 123, 2. 
 For the indicative in similar sentences in early Latin, cf. Varro, L. L. 7, § 58, and 
 Plant. Mil. 709 (cited by Riemann), Enn. Ann. 224. 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 87 
 
 This original difference, however, breaks down, and the sub- 
 junctive comes to be used with freedom where an earlier syntax 
 would have demanded the indicative, as in the following : -^ 
 
 Ducentisquippeannis antequam Clusium oppugnarent urbemque 
 Romam caperent, in Italiam Galli transcenderunt. — Liv. S, 33, 5. 
 
 "Two hundred years, in fact, before the time when they were 
 to besiege Clusium and take the city of Rome, the Gauls came 
 into Italy." 
 
 Ante triennium quam Carthago deleretur, M. Cato, perpetuus 
 diruendae eius auctor, L. Censorino M' Manilio consulibus mortem 
 obiit. — Veil. Pat. i, 13, i. 
 
 "Three years before Carthage was to fall, Marcus Cato, the 
 constant advocate of its destruction, departed this life, in the 
 consulship of Lucius Censorinus and Manius Manilius." 
 
 The grounds of this change are obscure, but I surmise (and 
 by my choice of examples and my translations have endeavored to 
 suggest) a confusion between the prevision of the narrator and the 
 prevision of the actor, — what may be called a kind of historical 
 prevision. 
 
 This attitude of mind frequently appears in English, as in the 
 following : — 
 
 Six or seven years after that, she had, as it were, given him 
 his crown, which only a year later than this she was to take from 
 him. — N. Y. Post, Jan. 22, 1887. 
 
 The year after his death, was born the future leader of the 
 party which . . . — N. Y. Nation, Oct. 14, 1886. 
 
 She had brought him a son who was to be one day famous. — 
 Capes, Early Empire. 
 
 Not a long time was to pass away before the most lawless out- 
 rage on the order and life of a peaceful city was to be perpetrated 
 by the special command of the man who, etc. — Justin McCarthy, 
 History of Our Own Times, cap. 18. 
 
 The last example, it will be observed, closely approaches the 
 type of the Latin examples in question. 
 
 {c) Among acts foreseen as imminent may, of course, be acts 
 which are in their nature undesirable, and which, if suitable prior 
 
88 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 action be taken, may not themselves take place, or may take place 
 too late to do injury. A clause expressing such an act may be 
 called a 
 
 Clause of an Act Anticipated and Forestalled (after a positive 
 main clause) or Insisted Upon (after a negative). 
 
 Inspice hoc facinus ! prius quam iiat, prohibesseis scelus ! — 
 Enn. Fab. 293. " Look upon this deed ! Ere it (shall) be done, 
 forbid the crime ! " 
 
 Haerens in tergo Romanus prius quam fores portarum obice- 
 rentur, velut agmine uno irrumpit. — Liv. i. 14, 11. 
 
 This secondary association of the idea of complete prevention 
 brings about the occasional use of a form of possum as a fuller 
 exposition of the thought. 
 
 Prius in hostium castris constiterunt quam plane ab his videri 
 aut quid rei gereretur cognosci posset. — Caes. B. G. 3, 26, 3. 
 Similarly B. C. 2, 34, 6, and often. 
 
 In an occasional variation, the clause expresses something 
 forestalled in the sense of not being waited for. 
 
 Priusquam castra videat aut hostem, insariit. — Liv. 22, 39, 6. 
 " In advance of seeing the camp or the enemy, he is already 
 in a state of madness." 
 
 A negative in the main clause gives to the dependent clause 
 the character of something insisted upon, secured, or accomplished. 
 
 Inde non prius egressus est, quam rex eum data dextra in fidem- 
 reciperet. — Nep. 2. 8. 4. 
 
 " He did not (would not) come out of the sanctuary until the 
 king should give him (gave him) his right hand and the promise 
 of protection." Similarly Verg. Aen. i, 192. 
 
 (<^) Closely allied to the conception conveyed by this last 
 clause when it follows an affirmative main clause (act forestalled) 
 is the conception of an act not as in any strict temporal relation 
 to the main act, but only as imagined and deprecated. At the 
 extreme, the time relation is entirely lost, as in Andr. 797, below. 
 
 The passage to this idea may be seen in the following : — 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 89 
 
 Senex sum ; utinam mortem obpetam, priu' quam evenat, 
 quod in pauperie mea senex graviter gemam. — Enn. Fab. 195. 
 
 " I am old ; may death come upon me, before it . . . shall 
 befall me . . ." ("rather than that it should befall me . . ."). 
 
 Clauses expressing this conception have for introductory- 
 phrases antequam, priusquam, citius quam, potius quam, and liben- 
 tius quam, and, after malo (as in luv. 8, 269), simply quam. Citius 
 must originally have expressed priority in time, like the Latin 
 prius and ante and the English "rather than " (= "earlier than ") 
 and "sooner than," and have come to its ordinary force by a 
 process parallel to that through which the English phrases passed. 
 The phrases potius quam and libentius quam probably came into 
 use through being felt to be equivalents for ante quam and prius 
 quam, after those phrases had come to their secondary meaning. 
 
 To this construction we may give the name of the 
 
 Clause of an Act Anticipated and Deprecated.^ 
 
 Animam omittunt prius quam loco demigrent. — Plant. Amph. 
 240. "They die sooner than (= rather than) leave their post." 
 
 Potius quam id non fiat, ego dabo. — Plaut. Pseud. 554. 
 "Rather than see it not come off, I'll give the money myself." 
 
 Eripiet quivis oculos citius mihi quam te 
 contemptum cassa nuce pauperet. — Hor. S. 2, 5, 35. 
 
 Quae sese inhoneste optavit parere hie ditias 
 potius quam in patria honeste pauper viveret. 
 
 — Ter. Andr. 797. 
 
 Similarly Ter. Ad. 108 and 240, Eun. 174, Phorm. 407; Cic. 
 Brut. 3, II ; Fin. 2, 20, 66; Tusc. 2, 22, 52 ; Nep. 18, 11, 4. 
 
 By the use of a statement of an extremely improbable future 
 event in the main sentence, the act of the dependent clause may 
 itself be represented as extremely improbable, as in Verg. Eel. 
 I, 61 : — 
 
 1 The distinction between this sub-category and the preceding is not an imaginary 
 one. While /^-iwj quam and ante quam may be substituted iot potius or citius quam in 
 the examples under (rf), the reverse cannot be done in the examples under {/). 
 
go STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Ante pererratis amborum finibus exul 
 
 aut Ararim- Parthus bibet aut Germania Tigrim, 
 
 quam nostro illius labatur pectore voltus. 
 
 "The Parthian shall drink the Saone and the German the 
 Tigris, each roaming in exile over the other's boundaries, before 
 the image of his countenance j^a//pass from my heart." 
 
 Cf. Hor. Carm. i, 33, 7. 
 
 A still further building up of the introductory phrases takes 
 place through the addition of ut. 
 
 Multi ex plebe spe amissa, potius quam ut cruciarentur tra- 
 hendo animam, capitibus obvolutis se in Tiberim praecipitaverunt. 
 
 — Liv. 4, 12, II. 
 
 It is quite possible that, under the mental attitude of aversion 
 which is expressed in the dependent clause in the present cate- 
 gory, a volitive feeling should come to associate itself with the 
 mode, such as is seen in the following English examples : — 
 
 But let 
 The frame of things disjoint, both the worlds suffer. 
 Ere we will eat our meal in fear, and sleep 
 In the affliction of these terrible dreams. 
 
 — Shakespeare, Macbeth, III. II. 
 
 I will do anything, Nerissa, ere I will be married to a sponge. 
 — Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, I. II. 
 
 Pay him six thousand, and deface the bond ; 
 Double six thousand, and then treble that. 
 Before a friend of this description 
 Shall loose a hair through my Bassanio's fault. 
 
 — Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, III. II. 
 
 The force is of course not that the subordinate act is really 
 willed, but that the main act is willed in preference to it. The 
 feeling might be paraphrased by the sentence " my will is that A 
 should happen rather than (it is) that B should happen." This 
 practically amounts to a denial of the will in the subordinate mem- 
 ber, which is thus left in the same position as the second of two 
 
THE ANTICIPATORY SUBJUNCTIVE. 9I 
 
 infinitives connected by magis quam after a verb like ntalo. The 
 same explanation holds for a future indicative like carebo, given 
 below (p. 92). 
 
 In general, the anticipatory subjunctive maintains itself firmly 
 against the corresponding future or future perfect indicative ^ in 
 these constructions. Yet breaks occasionally occur : — 
 
 1 The so-called present indicative may replace the anticipatory subjunctive in any 
 of these constructions after a primary tense, except with the phrases potius quam, ciiius 
 quam, etc., but not of course after a secondary tense, — where, as before, the anticipatory 
 subjunctive was a necessity, and contributed to the building up of the idioms of the 
 Oratio Obliqua and Assimilation. 
 
 Examples follow : — 
 
 Earliest date or latest boundary : necumquam hercle hodie hie prius edes, ne frustra 
 sis, quam te hoc facturum quod rogo adfirmas mihi. — Plant. Pars. 140. si quemquam 
 nactus eris qui perferat, litteras des antequam discedimus. — Cic. Att. lo, 15, 4. 
 
 Act in preparation for which : nunc, antequam ad sententiam redeo, de me pauca 
 dicam. — Cic. Cat. 4, 10, 20. In this clause, the present indicative is much commoner 
 than the subjunctive. 
 
 Act forestalled: heus, Nausistrata, priusquam huic respondes temere, audi. — 
 Ter. Phorm. 1037. Act forestalled in the sense of not waited for : pergin istuc prius 
 diiudicare quam scis quid veri siet ? — Ter. Heaut. 237. 
 
 Act deprecated: omnia experiri certumst priusquam pereo. — Ter. And. 311. sed 
 mihi vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat, | vel Pater omnipotens adigat me fulmine ad 
 umbras | ... ante, Pudor, quam te violo, aut tua iura resolvo. — Verg. Aen. 4, 24. 
 
 This indicative, however, must be regarded, not, like the future indicative, as the 
 final point reached in a natural drift, but as a separate construction of an entirely 
 different history from the future. My view of this history has been expressed by 
 Mr. C. P. Deane, in a paper entitled " Deliberative Questions, Indicative and Subjunc- 
 tive, in Terence," written for the degree of Bachelor of Arts at Cornell University, and 
 published in the Transactions of the American Philological Association for 1890 (Vol. 
 XXI.) . I quote a short passage : — 
 
 " The explanation of the use of the present Professor Hale offers with less confidence, 
 but in the belief that it is reasonable enough to be proposed for discussion. 
 
 "We are accustomed to think of the verb in Greek and Latin as having always 
 possessed the complete development of apparatus which we find in the literature. Yet 
 it can be shown that various forms, e.g., the future indicative and the imperfect subjunc- 
 tive, are of comparatively late origin. There must, in all probability, have been a time 
 when that which finally came to be called the present indicative was the sole modal form 
 existing, serving in a rude way to express all forces of mode and tense, just as in Anglo- 
 Saxon, e.g., it is actually found to be fulfilling the function of a future indicative. It is 
 a reasonable proposition that some of the early uses of this primitive omni-modal and 
 omni-temporal indicative may have survived into classical times alongside of more devel- 
 oped forms of expression. Certainly Latin offers a striking number of constructions of 
 the present indicative in which such an explanation would dispose of difficult anomalies, 
 
92 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Clause of earliest date : si minus, [non veniam] antequam 
 necesse erit. — Cic. Att. 13, 48, i ; de qua vereri non ante desinam 
 quam illam excisam esse cogtiovero. — Cic. Sen. 6, 18. 
 
 Clause of act in preparation for which : priusquam pugnabo, 
 Plaut. — Pseud. 524; priusquam messim facies, porcam prae- 
 cidaneam hoc modo fieri oportet. — Cat. Agr. 134, i. Similarly, 
 priusquam immolabis (ibid.), with an exactly corresponding subjunc- 
 tive condas intervening ; priusquam ages, ibid. 72. 
 
 Clause of act not waited for (variation of clause of act fore- 
 stalled) : criminum invidia pro reo est, priusquam probabitur. — 
 Quintil. 4, 3, 6. To express something insisted upon, the future 
 perfect comes into good and frequent use : neque prius quam 
 debellavero absistam. — Liv. 44, 39, 9 ; respondeam .... 
 neque desiturum ante invictum vestrum inperatorem incusare, 
 quam finitum aliqua tolerabili condicione bellum videro. — Liv. 23, 
 12, 10. 
 
 Clause of act deprecated : perdam operam potius quam carebo 
 filia. — Plaut. Cist. 358. With force of extreme improbability: 
 maria ante exurere Turno, | quam sacras dabitur pinus. — Verg. 
 Aen. 9, 115. 
 
 — viz. conditions in a future sense (a very common construction; cf. the habitual use 
 of the tense in modern English, as in Anglo-Saxon) ; clauses with dum alongside of 
 subjunctive clauses; clauses with antequam and priusquam alongside of subjunctive 
 clauses; declarations exactly corresponding to indicative deliberative questions, seen in 
 abundance in Plautus and Terence, and occasionally later; e.g., nihil do = I won't give a 
 iking, Phorm. 669; non sto = I won't stay, Trin. 1059; non audio, Phorm. 486, non eo, 
 893; non emo, Heaut. 611; and, finally, the constructions of the present indicative 
 .vhich are the subject of our paper." 
 
 I may add that the same use of the present indicative occurs in Sanskrit, according 
 to Monier Williams, Sanskrit Grammar, §§ 873-876, and Speijer, Sanskrit Syntax, 
 § 324, I, in expressions of expectation or intention, in deliberative questions and exhorta- 
 tions (probably strictly resolves), in narration, and ^'\^ yavai, "so long as (shall)." 
 It also occurs (Speijer, § 476) with yavat, "until (shall) " and "in order that," with 
 yad and yatha, "in order that" (Speijer, §§ 468, 471, and 478), with pura, "before" 
 (Speijer, 324, Rem. l).