tions was to be made. In arguing against me Professor Hale says that the Greek shows that such expressions cannot be volitive suppositions, since Greek does not use the volitive in positive expressions in the second or third persons except in three or four instances. But even if there were no instances at all in Greek, that fact would not be of the slightest importance in our discussion. It is universally agreed that the volitive subjunctive is used in making suppositions in Latin, and used too in expressions very similar to those we are discussing. Again, approaching the matter from the opposite direction, Professor Hale finds in Greek certain instances of the optative in which he says no other interpretation is possible except some one may possibly say.' From this he concludes that, in Latin, reget quis, aliquis dicat, etc., must also be interpreted as may-potentials. But here again he ignores the fact that the volitive subjunctive is admitted by everybody to be used in Latin in similar instances, like roges, and the further fact that ancient commentators clearly interpret the other instances (roget quis, aliquis dicat, etc.) as having the same force as that universally recognized in roges. Be it remembered, too, that these ancient commentators were familiar with Greek, and therefore with the use of the Greek potential optative in the expressions in that language that are supposed to correspond to aliquis dicat. Here, then, is a condition of things which nothing found in Greek can possibly affect in the least. Our field of discussion is therefore narrowed down to the Latin. The fact that I referred to the corresponding phenomena in Greek shows that, far from ignoring the importance of comparative methods of study, I had carefully weighed the adverse evidence that might possibly come from that language, and decided that it could not alter my conclusions "under the condition of things that I had shown to exist in Latin." If, however, I had felt that this question was one which could be settled only by the methods of comparative syntax, then I should have felt it incumbent upon me to go even further than Professor Hale has gone in his attempt to settle the question. I should not feel so sure as he does that a question that cannot be settled by a study of the Latin alone, can be definitely settled by a study of Latin and Greek alone. If I had found that there were only rare instances in Greek in which a volitive subjunctive was used as a protasis corresponding to the Latin volitive in expressions like roges, I should still want to know whether it was rare or common in other allied languages. And if I had chanced to find that in some other of these languages it was really very common in expressions similar to roges, aliquis roget, aliquis dicat, etc., I should have felt that those languages should be allowed to have considerable weight in deciding our question. In any case, I should not have felt justified in pronounce ing my verdict, as Professor Hale has pronounced his, before all the important witnesses had been heard.

Remarks were made by Professor Hale, and by the author.

29. Leading Mood-Forces in the Indo-European Parent Speech, by Professor Wm. Gardner Hale, of the University of Chicago.

The uses of the finite moods in our family of languages seem best explained upon the theory that, as Delbrück has held and taught, the Subjunctive originally expressed Will, and the Optative, Wish. But Delbrück has himself felt that his

account of the genesis of the derivative forces, as given in Synt. Forsch. I, was unsatisfactory. After more than fifteen years of a feeling approaching conviction, I wish to present a scheme that starts at his starting-points, but differs with regard to certain matters of subdivision and genesis.

Will, except in some of its figurative expressions, has to do with the future. The two ideas, Will and Futurity, necessarily vary in relative intensity in actual instances. At the extreme in one direction, the idea of Futurity becomes so much stronger than the idea of Will that, by one more step, it emerges as the sole force of the mood (thus far Delbrück). To this I should add that the process may actually be seen going on in English, in which "I will" is unhappily becoming the form of expression for simple futurity (as in "I believe I will be nominated"). Further, to the hearer, the idea of that which is to be is often of more consequence than the will of the speaker. Hence "I will" (Volitive) may easily, when quoted, mean nothing more than "he is going to." Compare English “you will," "he will," which, though using the mechanism of the expression of will, really in ordinary use convey the idea of Futurity.

The Optative, used to express something as desirable in every instance of a class, became the expression of a General Command or Prohibition, or, as I like better to name it, of Obligation or Propriety (thus far Delbrück, Synt. Forsch. I, and Whitney, Sanscrit Grammar, p. 573), as in σ 141. By a natural extension (not recognized, it would seem, by Delbrück) the mood was next applied to individual cases of Obligation or Propriety. Examples are frequent in Greek, as in v 135, B 250 (both with ovк av), Soph. Antig. 1194, and Oed. Tyr. 977 (both with τί ἄν). The use of où and av was due to the feeling that, in this construction, the mood was really the expression of a statement, or of a question corresponding to a statement. The mood was next used to express the allied idea of Natural Likelihood or Probability, just as "ought," "should," and "sollte" may be used in English and German (as in "soon there should be white violets everywhere," The Etchingham Letters, I. Cf. Catull. 89, 4, and expressions like quidni noverim, "why shouldn't I know," "naturally I should know "). The weakening of this force led to the Potential use of the Optative (Optative of Possibility or Capacity), and the strengthening of it to the use in which it expresses Ideal Certainty (as in the ordinary Optative Conclusion in Greek).

The Volitive Subjunctive was also capable of developing the force of Obligation or Propriety, as in A 365. To the Roman consciousness, owing to the loss of mooddistinctions, the two constructions (Volitive and Optative) were fused into one. Latin shows ne and non, corresponding to μn and où.

The forms from which what we call the Present Indicative is descended were the oldest verb-forms. They originally expressed merely action (or state) and person, without differentiation of mood or tense. Compare the verb in Biblical

1 My explanation seems to me to remove Brugmann's objection (Gr. Gram.3, p. 506, footnote) to the acceptance of Delbrück's interpretation of ' ea in S.G.D. 1149, as an Optative of a general command, descended from the Optative of General Command or Prohibition in the parent speech.

2 Compare also the somewhat similar use of debeo and oportet in Latin to express something that must surely be, or have been, as in Lucr. I., 778.

3 This view was quoted by a pupil of mine, Mr. J. P. Deane of Cornell University, in a thesis for the bachelor's degree ("Deliberative Questions, Indicative and Subjunctive, in Terence"), published in P.A.P.A. XXI., p. xxxv (1890), and was stated later by myself in "The Antici

Hebrew and Arabic, which distinguished completed acts and acts in progress, but left the present, past, and future undistinguished; the Anglo-Saxon Present Indicative, which served also as a Future; and the Sanskrit Injunctive, which, whatever its origin, served both as a preterite Indicative and as an Imperative dealing with the future.

As the Imperative, Subjunctive, and Optative came into existence, and then developed new powers, the sphere of the old verb-forms (Indicative) was narrowed, in the main, to what we now regard as Indicative functions. Certain of the primitive non-Indicative and non-Present uses, however, have survived in various languages, as in clauses with dum, antequam, and si in Latin (eg, antequam respondeo = respondeam), and corresponding clauses in English and German. This paper will be printed in full in the Indogermanische Forschungen.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Association assembled at 2 P.M., and listened to the reading of papers.

30. The Dating of the Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides, by Professor William N. Bates, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The object of this paper was to determine as far as possible the date of the Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides. The writer tried to show that there is more evidence for settling the question than is generally supposed. Having noticed independently, as Christ, Bruhn, and Haigh had done, the general resemblance between the Iphigenia in Tauris and the Helena, he proceeded to show that this resemblance extended to the language used in many passages in the two plays.

The general points of resemblance between the Iphigenia and the Helena are these: I. In each play an unusual version of the story is chosen. 2. In the Iph. Taur. Iphigenia explains who she is and how she came to be in the land of the Taurians. In the prologue to the Helena, Helen explains in a similar way how she came to be in Egypt. 3. In the Iph. Taur., Iphigenia has a long dialogue with Orestes, in which she inquires about various members of her family. In the Helena, there is a similar dialogue between Helen and Teucer. 4. Iphigenia thinks Orestes dead, but learns from Orestes himself, whom she does not recognize, that he is alive. Helen thinks Menelaus dead, but learns from the prophetess that he is still living. 5. The scenes of recognition in the two plays are similar. 6. In each play the central figure in the plot to escape is the principal male character, and in each case the plans adopted are similar. Orestes is taken from the temple by Iphigenia, on the pretext that he is to be purified, while Menelaus accompanies Helen to make the last offerings to the pretended dead Menelaus. 7. In each play the suggestion is made that they kill the king, or that they try to escape by land or by sea. 8. In each case they patory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin," University of Chicago Press, 1894 freprinted 1895); but in both places it lacked its context in my scheme, and perhaps for that reason has not provoked discussion.

attempt escape by sea, and when pursuit is about to be started the deus ex machina appears. In the Iph. Taur, it is Athena, and in the Helena the Dioscuri. 9. Iphigenia is directed to spend the rest of her life at Brauron, Menelaus on the island of Helen, off the coast of Attica. 10. The chorus in each play consists of Greek captive maidens.

Besides these general resemblances, the plays are much alike in situation, thought, or language in many places. Compare, for example, the following passages: 1. ph. Taur. 95-97 with Hel. 69-70. 2. Iph. Taur. 144-146 with Hel. 184-185. 3. Iph. Taur. 179-184 with el. 174-178. 4. Iph. Taur. 218-220 with Hel. 688-690. 5. Iph. Taur. 399-400 with Hel. 348-350; also Hel. 208-209 and 493. 6. Iph. Taur. 425-426 with Hel. 1117-1118. 7. Iph. Taur. 515-516 with Hel. 1250-1251. 8. Iph. Taur. 528 with Hel. 765. 9. Iph. Taur. 570-575 with Hel. 744-748. 10. Iph. Taur. 828-831 with Hel. 657-659. 11. Iph. Taur. 832-833 with Iel. 654-655. 12. Iph. Taur. 841 with Hel. 698-699. 13. Iph. Taur. 884-889 with Ilel. 1041-1048. 14. Iph. Taur. 1020 with Hel. 809; also Hel. 1043-1044. 15. Iph. Taur. 1034 with Hel. 1051–1052. 16. Iph. Taur. 1061 with Hel. 830. 17. Iph. Taur. 1067-1068 with Hel. 1388-1389. 18. Iph. Taur. 1118-1122 with Hel. 417-419; also Hel. 510 ff. 19. Iph. Taur. 1134-1136 with el. 1459-1464. 20. Iph. Taur. 11401142 with Hel. 1478-1480. 21. Iph. Taur. 1161 with Hel. 664. 22. Iph. Taur. 1221 with el. 1405. 23. Iph. Taur. 1156–1233 with Hel. 1193-1300 and 1390– 1450. 24. Iph. Taur. 1321 with Hel. 601. 25. Iph. Taur. 1334-1335 with Hel. 1549-1550. 25. Iph. Taur. 1345-1346 with Hel. 1534-1535. 27. Iph. Taur. 1386-1387 with Hel. 1593-1594. 23. Iph. Taur. 1427 with Hel. 1212. 23. Iph. Taur. 1446-1447 with Hel. 1662.

These numerous points of resemblance point to only one conclusion, namely, that the poet is intentionally imitating one play in the other. There is no diffi culty in telling which is the imitation. The Iphigenia in Tauris is a much stronger play than the Helena, and on general principles the imitation is inferior to the play imitated. The Helena then is a reminiscence of the Iphigenia in Tauris. This conclusion is further borne out by an examination of the passages mentioned above, and by the connection between the Iphigenia in Tauris and the Orestes. In the latter play the influence of the former is noticeable in several places. Compare, for example, Ores. 1075 ff. with Iph. Taur. 687 ff. This play then is also an echo of the Iphigenia in Tauris. Why should the poet desire to imitate the Iphigenia in Tauris? Because it was probably a successful play. Its reputation in later times is attested by Aristotle in the Poetics, and by an inscription recording its revival in the middle of the third century B.C., and perhaps also by the reference to it by Aristophanes in the Frogs.3 The Iphigenia in Tauris then was brought out before the Helena which appeared in 412.

2

Further than this, attention was called to the fact that the plot of the Ion is not essentially different from that of the Iphigenia in Tauris, but is not fully worked out. In a word, in each play the scene is laid at a temple in a foreign land where two people most closely related to each other-one a man and the other a woman - are brought together and recognize each other when one is about to be slain by the other. The writer argued that Euripides, after bringing

1 Chaps. 11, 14, 16, and 17.

Ath. Mitth. III. (1878), p. 112.

3 1232 f.

out the Ion, saw that with a suitable subject the plot was capable of development into a very strong play, and that he found that subject in the version of the Iphigenia story which he adopted in the Iphigenia in Tauris.

The Iphigenia in Tauris then is later than the Ion and earlier than the Helena. As the lon cannot be dated, this does not help a great deal. It is not likely that the play appeared very long before the Helena. The most probable date seems to be abɔut 414 or 413 B.C.

Remarks were made by Professor Huddilston and by the author.

31. Some Explanations and Emendations to Livy, by Dr. H. A. Sanders, of the University of Michigan.

1) Livy 10, 30, 5, "sed superiecere quidam augendo fidem, qui in hostium exercitu peditum milia trecenta triginta, equitum sex et quadraginta milia, mille carpentorum scripsere fuisse." I have given the number of foot-soldiers after the emendation of Hertz, but, of the best manuscripts, the Parisiensis and Upsaliensis, give XICCCXXX, and the Mediceus XCCCXXX. Alschefski corrected to XLCCCXXX, Niebuhr to deciens centena milia. The context demands a large round number, so Alschefski's attempt cannot stand, though paleographically the best. Hertz comes nearer to the manuscript reading than Niebuhr, but even his emendation left unexplained the first letters of the number in the best manuscripts (XI or X). Klinger (De decimi Livii libri fontibus, p. 42 f.) thinks these two letters crept into the text from the following XLVI milia of the cavalry. Yet the explanation is not sufficient, as we can see from Orosius, where Livy is expressly cited for this number. Compare 3, 21, 6, “Gallorum et Samnitium peditum CXL milia CCCXXX, equitum vero XLVII milia Livius refert et carpentarios mille in armis... stetisse." There is an error indeed in the same letters as in Livy, but here it could not have been suggested by the following number of the cavalry. Also we cannot doubt that we have what Orosius actually wrote, so the mistake is earlier than his time. Köhler (sua ratione T. Livii Annalibus usi sint historici Latini atque Graeci describitur . . . Göttingen, 1869, p. 97) would restore the reading of Orosius to Livy's text, but his attempt has found no more acceptance than that of Alschefski, and for the same reason; a round number is required. This inclines me to accept the emendation of Hertz, CCCXXX, as established by the agreement of Orosius and Livy; but it leaves unexplained the CXL of Orosius and the XI of Livy, which must also have had a common origin (the XI is plainly for XL). The difficulty is increased by the fact that Orosius did not draw directly from Livy, but through the Epitome Livii, a work composed about 30 A.D. (cf. my Quellencontamination im 21. und 22. Buche des Livius, Berlin, 1898, p. 49). As we cannot consider the letters CXL as a part of the original numeral, we must suppose them to have arisen out of some modifying word, as ad, plus, amplius, etiam, or vel; of these the last is the only possible one paleographically, and its comparative rarity in Livy would make the mistake of considering it a part of the numeral all the easier. In early Latin it is used to mean even so many as, and also even so few as; compare Plaut. Trin. 964, vel trecentis: Pseud. 302, vel ducentae; Pseud. 345, vel quater quinis minis. Livy has it in the sense of even as few as (cf. 9, 24, 7, vel tres armati), and so may well have used it in the other sense.

...