Do not ὅπως, ὡς, ὅς, οἷος ἄν, all follow the same analogy, and resemble the Latin Qui causam significans, as it used to be called? Causam significans is to be sure somewhat obscure, but the construction seems to include all cases where the relative is used to denote the condition under which, or the result in reference to which, any thing is predicated. For instance, "Stultus es qui huic credas," "You are a fool for that you believe this." "Missus est qui diceret,' "He was sent so that he might tell;" the relative in both cases denoting the necessary consequence of the preceding verb. Similar, we contend, is the usage of the words of which we treat. Let us, however, examine whether the principle will solve certain difficulties which appear to have marvellously perplexed editors and commentators. First, then, to notice the passage quoted in a foot note by the editor of the Agamemnon. The text of Esch. Supplices, v. 606, stands thus: ἔδοξεν 'Αργείοισιν οὐ διχοῤῥόπως ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν ἡβήσαιμι γηραιᾷ φρενί. Here Tyrwhitt, not knowing exactly what to make of our friends ὡς ἄν, conjectures ὡς ἀνηβῆσαί με, and Scholefeld adopts his "levis correctio." "Levis" certainly, for surely the explanation given in the note we have quoted is the correct one. "So as for me to feel young in my old heart." "In a way that bids fair to make a young man of me." 'Qs ǎv, therefore, in this place, agreeably to our theory, is only to be translated in its proper and natural acceptation, "so as for me to”—“ So that I could," and denotes the virtual consequence of the Argive decree. Tyrwhitt and the Greek professor only seem to have travelled out of the direct path in order to arrive at the same terminus, for the sense of their emendation is nearly identical with that which we have assigned to the unmutilated text. But to proceed to Sophocles. The old reading of Trachineæ, v. 672, is, τοιοῦτον ἐκβέβηκεν, οἷον ἂν φράσω, γυναῖκες, ὑμῖν θαῦμ ̓ ἀνέλπιστον μαθεῖν. Here, again, the offending words appear to have caused much confusion. Hermann reads "v, which we conceive involves a tautology of ideas. One of the latest editors (Wunder) prints av ppáσai, from his own conjecture. Even Dindorf adopts Hermann's emendation. Why, however, may not the words αν be taken in a sense exactly analogous to that already assigned to ὃς ἄν ? « so as for me to announce”—“ so that I can, or have to announce." The virtual consequence of what had occurred was, that Deianeira had a very surprising piece of intelligence to communicate. To test our theory by all three tragedians, let us quote a passage from Euripides, which seems also to have perplexed the editors, and Elmsley among the rest. εἰθ ̓ ὦ βραχίων, σύμμαχος γένοιο μοι τοιοῦτος, οἷος ἂν τροπὴν Ευρυσθέως θείην. Eurip. Heraclid. 743. The meaning here seems obviously to be, "Would that my arm might become such, as that I might put Eurystheus to the rout." The virtual consequence of such a metamorphosis as that for which he prayed, would be the defeat of Eurystheus by his hand. In all these cases the meaning assigned to the words &c, ös, olos av, offers a ready and, we think, satisfactory solution of the difficulties of the passage. This is the more remarkable, as it appears that distinguished scholars have been compelled to resort to the "ultima ratio" of conjectural emendation in order to effect the same result. It must remain for abler hands to test the principle by a larger and more accurate induction; so far as we have ourselves been enabled to examine, it holds good in each particular where it has been applied. For instance, the oblique cases of the relative with av are included under the rule. Accordingly we find in Plato, Βούλει οὖν σοι κατὰ Γοργίαν ἀποκρίνωμαι, ᾗ ἂν συ μáλioтa áкоλov@noais (Menon. p. 46, Ed. Slalbaum); where ý av will, if our view be correct, mean "in such a way, or, so as that you could follow," and denotes the necessary consequence τοῦ ἀποκρίνεσθαι κατὰ Γοργίαν. There is a passage of some difficulty in the Seventh Book of Thucydides to which, before discussing the subject, we wish to refer, because we fancy some light is thrown upon it by the method of interpreting öπwç av maintained in the preceding remarks. The case is not exactly identical with those which we have cited, still it comes under the general principle. Nicias, when on the point of quitting Syracuse, is alarmed by an eclipse of the moon; καὶ οὐδ ̓ ἂν διαβουλεύσασθαι ἔφη, πρίν, ὡς οἱ μάντεις ἐξηγοῦντο, τρὶς ἐννέα ἡμέρας μεῖναι, ὅπως ἂν πρότερον κινηθείη (VII. 50). Does not this mean that Nicias refuses even to take the matter into consideration; to do that which was the very first step, and the necessary preliminary to their starting from Sicily? "Onwç av will, therefore, be employed (as we stated when citing the analogous usage in Latin) to denote that the former verb (in this case diaßovλtúσaσbai) is a necessary antecedent condition of the second (here кivnoɛin). Compare Plautus: Adjuta me quò id fiat facilius.” It only remains to notice the difference in meaning arising from the variation between the subjunctive and the optative in the consequent clause. This is certainly in accordance with the essential notion proper to those moods severally. No one has determined and explained their relative power with greater clearness and philosophical precision than Kühner. His account of them is this (p. 68, the Oxford translation): "The conjunctive expresses a present or future supposition founded on present existing circumstances; the optative a past supposition founded on past circumstances." Consequently, as the former is more immediately present to the mind, it denotes a nearer approximation to reality than the latter; it indicates the probable, while the optative has to do with the possible. El Touto λεyois, τοῦτο λεγοίς, "if you were to say this," considering it only as possible; čav τοῦτο λέγῃς, considering it as probable that you will say it. When therefore they occur in the consequent clause, constructed with the common wç, &c., or otherwise, the subjunctive naturally looks to the realization of the end proposed, regarding it as probable; while, on the other hand, the optative does not contain any such notion, but represents the result as a mere possibility. Sometimes even it only expresses some ulterior consequence of the subjunctive. (Vide Kühner, § 809.) This is illustrated by the well-known passage of the Hecuba: ἔδεισα μὴ σοι πολέμιος λειφθεὶς ὁ παῖς κάπειτα Θρήκης πεδία τρίβοιεν τάδε. Hec. v. 1138. "Alterum, Troja ne restitueretur, verebatur ne eveniret; de altero conjecturam faciebat, haud esse dissimile veri, Achivos redituros." Pflugk ad loc. Such being the force of each mood in the common construc ὅπως tion with owe, &c., we naturally look for something analogous in that with owç av. And so it is. The addition of av suggests, according to our theory, the necessity of the consequence but then the subjunctive contemplates some actual definite case, the optative is indefinite, and speculates upon the general result. Or, as it is expressed by the learned editor from whom we have derived the theory-" When followed by av they denote a virtual consequence either of tendency or ability-1. With the subjunctive in a definite actual case. 2. With the optative in a case merely contemplated as probable or possible." This he illustrates by a passage already quoted. Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. 2. 60. έmiμedettai ötwç âv Onpiev-provides not for their hunting upon any particular occasion, that would be öшç av Onpoi; but in the formation of character, for their being hunters, or fond of hunting. See also Ibid. § 5. There is one phenomenon in connection with this idiom which is somewhat peculiar. We mean the fact that iva, in the sense of that, does not occur thus united with av-"Iva quoties ut significat nusquam apud Græcos cum av jungitur. Dod. ad. Edip. Col. 189."-"Solus horum verum vidit Doderlinus." Elmsley. And this decision Ellendt confirms. ""Iva cum voce av sic non construitur." We are aware that this is controverted, and remember the passage quoted from Demosthenes : ἵνα μηδ' ἂν ἄκων αὐτῇ πότε προσπέση, p. 780. 7. “ Sed Demosthenem non moramur," as Wellauer says of the Greek professor at Cambridge; not because we desire to imitate the modesty of that courteous commentator, but in part because we are not sure whether something might not be said in explanation, and in part because we do not believe an isolated passage in a late writer to be sufficient grounds for questioning the universal Attic usage. However, we only mention the fact, because long ago, before the peculiarities of owç av had affected our peace of mind, the idea occurred to us that somehow or other iva must contain av. If the conjecture be correct, the reason for the peculiarity noticed above will be obvious enough. That ɛi and v are the oblique cases of the relative pronoun, and differ in signification according to the analogy of the dative and accusative, we long ago believed, and our opinion is confirmed by a letter from Mr. Kenrick published in the third volume of Arnold's Thucydides. Whether va may have any connection with the Sanscrit i-m, the old Greek pronominal form or (vide New Cratylus, p. 173; and Thiersch. Gr. Gr.), * and the Latin is, must be determined by those who are more skilled than ourselves in the comparative anatomy of the great Indo-Germanic family of languages. J. G. S. XXIII. WAS DANCING AN ELEMENT OF THE GREEK THIS question has the air of a paradox. Dancing is so universally affirmed to have been one of the elements of the Greek drama, that to venture on such a question is to be answered with uplifted eyebrows, or a dogmatic "psha." Nevertheless, I venture. I venture also to answer the question with a negative; and in the following pages will undertake to substantiate my opinion, and will endeavour to prove that there was no dancing whatever in the Greek tragic chorus. No one hitherto having thrown a doubt on the existence of the dancing, we cannot say that the question has been examined. One writer has copied from another; one man has believed what another believed. We cannot say that many intellects have been sedulously employed in sifting the fact; only that many pens have sedulously registered it. The fact has not been investigated, because it has not been questioned. I believe I am the first who ever questioned it, consequently who ever investigated it. This will shield me from the charge of presumption. There is, however, another charge almost as offensive against which I must guard myself; the charge, namely, that I have conjured up a spirit in order to exorcise it—that I am about to destroy a chimera of my own. Does any sane man believe in the dancing? The question is not idle. Very many persons to whom I communicated my view at once declared they had never believed in the existence of the dancing; one declared that no one had ever believed in it. The truth being that the notion of the dancing is so con |