Page images
PDF
EPUB

But the verb eivai lacked a perfect, and to fill the vacancy, as Greece came more and more under Roman sway, and the need of an equivalent of fuisse was more sorely felt, yeyovéval assumed the meaning of the Latin perfect infinitive of the copulative verb. Hence the disproportionate number of yeyoνέναι's in post-classical Greek. Lysias says πρὶν ἡμέρας πέντε γενέσθαι (7. 9), whereas Plato writes πρὶν ἕξ μῆνας γεγονέναι (Protag. 320 A). Thucydides has not a single example of yéyova in any form, whereas 87 yevéolai's in the infinitive alone appear, and 49 yiyveolai's. In the Lysianic corpus there are 59 yevéolai's and only 8 yeyovéval's. Lysias has 33 yéyova's against 120 yeyévnμai's. Aristophanes has a solitary yeyovéval (natum esse, Eq. 446). The total absence of the form in Euripides may be due to metrical exigencies. Nevertheless, the prose writers Isocrates, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus also avoid the form.2 Eusebius says (Praep. Ev. 14. 15. 11) Αρχελάου δὲ ἀκουστὴς γεγονέναι λέγεται Σωκράτης, where Herodotus would probably have written λέγεται εἶναι. Cp. Diod. Sic. I. 24. 8 φασὶ δὲ καὶ τὸν Περσέα γεγονέναι κατ' Αἴγυπτον, Dio Chrys. 22. 276 πότερον δοκεῖ σοι εἶναι ἄνθρωπος εὐδαίμων, εἰ δὲ μὴ, γεγονέναι, ἢ ἔσεσθαι. In the Septuagint yíуveolaι is used as an auxiliary, instead of elva, with the present and perfect participles. So in Aeschylus yiyveo@ai = γίγνεσθαι eivai, as Dindorf at the end of his list remarks: "Plura inter haec sunt exempla ubi verbum substantivum poni poterat."

1 This must be said, however, with one qualification: Plato seems to be inordinately fond of the infinitive yeyovévaɩ, which he uses not only in the sense of natum esse, but also as a past infinitive of elul in passages where another writer might have used simply elva (or yevéolai). For variety of expression he also employs yeyovus and yeyevnμévos as equivalents. Cp. Leg. 951 C and D yeyovus ἔστω . . . ἔστω γεγενημένος.

2 In Homer γενέσθαι occurs 35 times, γίγνεσθαι and γεγονέναι not at all. There are over 300 examples of some form of the verb in the Iliad and Odyssey, but not a single occurrence of yeyévnμai, whereas yéyova occurs 30 times.

3 Nevertheless, there are abundant examples of this use of yéyova in Plato: Leg. 641 C γέγονασί τε καὶ ἔσονται, 638 Α, 884 Α γέγονε καὶ ἔστι καὶ ἔσται, Ion 532 Ε, Rep. 402 Ε, 604 C περὶ τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ . . . πρὸς τὰ πεπτωκότα, 392 D γεγονότων ἢ ὄντων ἢ μελλόντων, Tim. 22 C φθοραὶ γεγόνασιν . καὶ ἔσονται, Protag. 320 Β γεγονέναι. μεμαθηκέναι . . . ἐξευρηκέναι, Laches 198 Β τὰ γεγο νότα . τὰ παρόντα . . . τὰ προσδοκώμενα, 198 D γιγνόμενα καὶ γεγονότα καὶ γενησόμενα. Cp. Aristides 1. 19 ἔστι τε καὶ γεγένηται καὶ γενήσεται.

...

CONCLUSION.

In the whole range of Greek literature I have found only 55 forms (34 verbs) of the perfect subjunctive active. Of these the following 38 are unquestionably present in meaning: ἀνεῴγῃ, ἀρήρῃ, βεβρύχῃ, γεγόνῃ, δεδίῃ, δεδίωσιν, ἑστήκῃ, παρεστήκῃ, καθεστήκῃ, ἐπανεστήκῃ, συνεστήκῃ, ξυνεστήκῃ, ἐφεστήκῃ, ἑστήκωμεν, ἑστήκωσιν, ἑστῶ, ἑστῶμεν, ἑστῶσι, ἐφεστῶ σιν, ἐοίκῃς, ἐγρηγόρῃ, κατεάγωσιν, κεχήνῃ, κεκλάγγω, κεκεύθῃ, μεμήλῃ, μεμύκῃ, ὀλώλῃ, ὀρώρῃ, ὀδώδῃ, πεποίθω, πεποίθῃς, πεποίθομεν, πεφύκῃ, ἐμπεφύῃ, ἐρρίγῃσι, τεθήλῃ, τεθνήκωσιν. The example πεπλήγῃ, cited by many, as we have seen, is not a perfect. The subjunctives συμβεβήκῃ (omitted by La Roche), προβεβήκῃ, βεβήκης, and βεβήκη are really presents in feeling, and the present force seems to manifest itself more and more in the later literature, particularly in the participle; βεβρίθωσι becomes a present from its meaning alone; the same may be said of ἠχθοφορήκῃ, while both λελήθῃ and πεπόνθῃ are also desperately present. There remain only seven verbs: ἀπειλήφῃ, εἰλήφωσιν, ὑπειλήφωσι, εὑρήκῃ, κεκλόφωσι, κεκοινωνήκωσιν, ὠφλήκῃ, πεποιήκῃ, πεπονήκῃ. Since εἴληφα (like εὕρηκα) is an exceedingly common form, ελήφῃ is brought within the range of possibility. Moreover, the past act of εἴληφα vanishes into the present ownership (= ἔχω, κέκτημαι). The hither end of the performance (if we look toward the past) is viewed to the exclusion of the inception. Compare the good old English "I have got" (in contradistinction to the modern "I have") with Libanius 29. 17 ó πληγὰς εἰληφώς, and the Homeric ἐπὶ νῆας ἀφήσω πεπληγώς : "ich werde dich wegtreiben, indem du meine Schläge auf dir hast" (Brugmann, p. 565). Furthermore, when Plato uses ἀπειλήφῃ (Rep. 614 A), he not only indicates by the tense that the act has reached its end, but to make the perfect

I do not include eld, of which alone there appear four times as many examples as all the rest together; and this single fact speaks volumes for the character of the Greek perfect subjunctive. Some of the examples in later Greek I may have missed, since I went over the ground but once; and some of the texts are so wretched that it is, as Libanius says, ἀηδὲς συγγράμμασι δοῦναι τὰ ὄμματα. 2 A discussion of the forms πεπληγώς, πεπλήγοντες will be published elsewhere.

doubly perfect, he adds the adverb of perfectness (τελέως), and to ειλήφωσιν (Polit. 269 C) is appended the temporal ἤδη. Stress is also laid on the present ownership in κεκλόφωσι (Ar. Eq. 1149). True, the Greeks might have used the perfect forms even of the verbs we find in the paradigms of our grammars, had they so desired; but they preferred the aorist, and the aorist they used to the exclusion of the perfect. Sometimes a temporal expression is added to bring out the relation with greater clearness, e.g. παλινῳδοῦσιν, ἀνευχόμενοι ἅττ ̓ ἂν τὸ πρῶτον εὔξωνται (Plato, 2 Alcib. 142 D. Cp. 148 D.)

Of the perfect optatives in the active voice (several of which La Roche fails to register) only 67 forms (45 verbs) appear. Twenty of these are indubitably present: ἀπολώ λοι, ἀπολώλοιεν, ἀφεσταίη, συνεστήκοι, ἀφεστήκοι, ἀφεστήκοιεν, προεστήκοι, γεγόνοι, ἐοίκοι, καθεστήκοι, κέοιτο, μεμήνοι, πεποίθοι, πεφύκοι, τεθνήκοι, τεθναίην, τεθναίης, τεθναίη, τεθναῖεν, τετλαίη. The Herodotean ἡλώκοι is passive in meaning, while βεβήκοι, ἀποβεβήκοι, λελήθοι, πεπόνθοι, πεπόνθοιμεν, πεπόνθοιεν, πεπονθοίη, πεποιήκοι, and πεποιήκοιεν are counterparts of the subjunctive forms already discussed.2 The remaining examples, most of which are in oblique construction, are: δεδράκοι, ἡρήκοι, ᾑρήκοιεν, καθῃρήκοι, ἐξαπατήκοι, ἐσβεβλήκοιεν (for the present signification of the perfect βέβληκα, see Plato, Tim. 24 D), βεβρώκοι, ἐπιδεδώκοι, παραδεδώκοιεν, εἰρήκοι, περιεληλύθοι, ἐπανεληλύθοι, εὑρήκοι, ἀνευρήκοι, ἐσχήκοι, ἐκκεκηρύχοι, ἱστορήκοι, κεκρατήκοι, ἀπεκτόνοι, ἀπεκτονήκοι, καταλελοίποιεν, καταμεμαθήκοι, νενικήκοι, συμπεπνεύκοι, πεπτώκοι, ἐμπεπτώ κοι, πεφεύγοι, ἐκπεφευγοίην, ἐσπουδάκοιεν, τεθύκοι, τετελευτηκοι, ὑπηρετήκοι, ἀποκεχωρήκοι, ὡρμήκοι, ἐξωρμήκοι, ὠφλήκοι, and probably εδηδοκοίη.

Of the perfect imperative active 26 of the 28 examples are present: ἄνωχθι, ἄνωχθε, δέδιθι, δείδιθι, δέδιχθι, δείδιτε, ἐγρήγορθε, ἕσταθι, ἕστατον, ἕστατε, παρέστατε, ἑστάτω, κέκραχθι, κέχραχθε, κεχήνετε, κεκράγετε, τέτλαθι, τετλάτω, τέθναθι,

1 Forms like βεβρώθοις, λήροις, ἱλήκοι, μεμάποιεν, and εἰδείην, εἰδείης, etc., are not included.

2 See Class. Rev. XIX, 349 f.

τεθνάτω, τεθηπέτω, κεχηνέτω, μεμάτω, ἀκηκοέτω, δεδορκέτω (intensive), βεβηκέτω. The remaining two, εἰληφέτω and μεμαθηκέτω, have a strong tendency to become presents.

Of the 31 middle forms of the second person the vast majority are real presents: ἀλάλησο, δέδεξο, δέδεχθε, ἔρρωσο, ἔρρωσθε, ἧσο, κάθησο, κάθησθον, κάθησθε, κεῖσο, κατάκεισο, κέκτησο, κέκλησο, κέκλισο, μέμνησο, μέμνεο, μέμνησθε, καταπέπληχθε, πεπάλασθε, πεπάλαχθε, πέπαυσο, πέπεισο, πέπνυσο, πεποίησο, πεπόνησο, πέπρησε, πεφόβησθε, πεφύλαξο, πεφύλαχθε, πεποίθετε, πέπεισθι. On the last example, which is found in Aesch. Eum. 599, Veitch remarks, "a rare form; πέπισθι οι πέποιθι would perhaps be more analogical”; and Dindorf says, "in M. adscriptum est ζτ (i.e. ζήτει), quia librarium offenderat haec forma cuius alia exempla nulla reperiuntur."

Of the perfect imperative passive there are about five hundred examples in the extant literature.

V.-Ei-Readings in the Mss of Plautus.

BY PROF. ANDREW R. ANDERSON,

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.

By the term "ei-readings" are meant those that give ei for the classical i, as deico for dico, veivo for vivo; or for the classical, as curabeis for curabis. There are a few instances also where the ei is given for sounds other than those mentioned, but they are less typical, and hardly need to be illustrated by examples at present.

These readings have been treated differently by different editors. Ussing consistently rejects the ei throughout and gives the classical orthography. Almost as consistently

Ritschl in the triumvirate edition and Goetz-Schoell in the editio minor read the ei in practically every place where there is any Ms authority for it. Leo reads the ei in only a very few isolated instances, but does not read it in scores of other instances where there seems to be equally good reason for doing so. I had expected that Lindsay in his Oxford edition would exercise greater discrimination and would definitely settle the matter, as his note prefixed to the Argumentum in his larger edition of the Captivi shows that he understood perfectly the principles involved. (I am pleased to acknowledge that it was chiefly this illuminating note which prompted my own investigation.) Unfortunately he did not uniformly apply the principles that he himself had previously stated with such clearness. E.g. in the first eight plays he has often not admitted a genuine (i.e. diphthongal) ei-reading into his text, as Ci. 623, where P reads ei for the imperative of īre, whereas in Ep. 600 on the testimony of A he has accepted preimum. In the last twelve plays he generally follows the ei where the Mss give it for an original diphthong, but not elsewhere. Yet in Mer. 282 ei et P has been rejected, so also in Mer. 294 deiceres A. Nevertheless in Mer. 471 veivo A has been admitted. Evidently, adhuc sub iudice lis est.

« PreviousContinue »