Simacus was active in the early part of the century. Now Stratonicus was put to death by Nicocles, the Cyprian king (Ath. 6, 352 d), who died in the reign of the first Ptolemy. The proposed identification is consequently possible chronologically. The form púkas in Athenaeus is objectionable in itself. It does not occur again and is not in accordance with the rules of Greek name-formation. Zíμakos is found a number of times on inscriptions and is a correct Kosename from some compound of Eiuos. See Fick-Bechtel, p. 251. The agonistic inscription from Samos, which Mr. Percy Gardner published from a squeeze (Jour. Hel. Stud. VII. (1886), 147 ff.; Michel, No. 901), should be inspected again. Gardner's avλov [σa]τ[ú]pav in 1. 7, which Michel adopts, seems quite impossible. In 1. 6 Gardner restores : [avλn]τýs · Νειλεὺς ̓Αμμωνίου, α[ὐλωιδ]ὸς Κιθαριστίων. But the name Kilapioτív is unheard of, and in an agonistic inscription it would be better to restore: Νειλεὺς ̓Αμμωνίου 'Α[θηναϊ]ος κιθαριστής) · Ἴων, κτέ. An Athenian appears as a comic poet below. Since this correction satisfactorily disposes of the avλwidos in 1. 6, we may suggest in 1. 7, for Gardner's avλov [σα]τ[ύ]ραν, αὐλωι [δός· ] Τ[ύ]ραν[νος - -] Χησιεύς, the N which Gardner saw on the squeeze being probably the somewhat obscure remains of IA. Gardner interprets τοὺς ἀπὸ πρώτων in 1. 4 [τῇ λα]μπάδι τοῦ Ἡφαίστου τοὺς ἀπὸ πρώτων· Aewvions, as meaning "the victor in the first day's torch-race," supplying some word like λαμπαδιστών after πρώτων. But a much easier interpretation suggests itself when we compare e.g. C.I.A. II. 444, 71 maîdas ek Táνтwv, in connection with such phrases as τῆς πρώτης ηλικίας, τῆς δευτέρας, τρίτης, τοὺς ἐφήβους, etc. Δημήτριος Νικάρχ[ου], the ὑποκριτὴς παλαιᾶς Tpay días in 1. 3, is presumably the same person as the actor in new tragedy, Δημήτριος Νικαίου Μιλήσιος, in l. 9. If this is so, the latter reading is the correct one. It would be easy to mistake the upper portions of IOY for PX. One would like to know at least the name of the tragic actor who won so many victories at various important festivals in Greece with plays of Euripides, Chaeremon, and Archestratus, and set up a stone recording his achievements at Tegea, doubtless his native city. But unfortunately his name is no longer preserved on the stone, which has been published by Bérard in B.C.H. XVII. (1893), 15 ff., and Dittenberger, Sylloge, ed. 2, No. 700 (see also Vysoky in Philologus, LVIII. (1899), 498 ff.). Among the festivals mentioned is the Soteria at Delphi. This actor therefore lived after 276, the date of the first celebration of the Soteria, and the lettering of the inscription will not permit a date beyond the limits of the third century (Dittenberger) Arcadia produced very few actors. Only two tragic actors from there are known, and one of these is of the next century. The other, 'Απολ λογένης Ορθαγόρα Αρκάς, who performed at Delphi in 271 B.c., may therefore possibly be the Tegeatan actor who set up this dedication. CORRECTIONS AND RESTORATIONS PROPOSED. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 107, l. 16: Διό[φαντος], p. 124. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 107, l. 20: [A](p)ά[xwv], p. 117. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 107, 1. 22: (3)ρ[χηστής], p. 120. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 107, l. 23: [κωμωιδοποιοί], p. 123. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 108, l. 23: (---) before 'Anvaîos, p. 120, note. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 110, l. 32: Ιερώνυμος, p. 119. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 114, 1. 21: Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 120, l. 9: θα [ρ]σύν[ων], p. 122. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 120, l. 10: [K19]ap(w)idol, p. 122. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 120, l. 11: [κιθ]αρισ [ταί], p. 122. Delian insc., B.C.H. VII. p. 120, l. 13: [ρωμα]ιστής, p. 122. Delian insc., B.C.H. IX. p. 149, 1. 20: αὐ[λωι]δός, p. 121. Delphic insc., Baunack, no. 2563, 1. 31: [Ον]ήσιππος, Ρ. 125. Delphic insc., Baunack, no. 2563, 1. 32: [Οι]κιάδης, Ρ. 125. Delphic insc., Baunack, no. 2564, 1. 80: Νίκων (Μενεκλέους Σολεύς), p. 127. Delphic insc., Baunack, no. 2564, 1. 82: [εί· Β]οΐσκος Μενάλκ[ου]. ρί· πρὸς αὐλη(τ)αΐ[s], p. 131. Attic insc., C.I.A. II. 977 uv, 'Ερμ[όφαντος], p. 135. Attic insc., C.I.A. II. 975 e: [IIoλúξενος, Ρ. 123. col. ii, l. 17: Samian insc., C.I.G. 3091, before 1. 1: Samian insc., J.H.S. VII. p. 148, 1. 6: Samian insc., J.H.S. VII. p. 148, 1. 7: avλw(id)[ós] T[ú]pav[vos], p. 136. Athenaeus 6, 348 a: read Elμakov for Σιμύκαν, p. 135. 1 Vysoky, l.c. p. 500, says: Bedeutend jünger (i.e. than the middle of the third century) wird sie allenfalls nicht sein. X.- Is there Still a Latin Potential? BY PROF. WILLIAM GARDNER HALE, In the third paper in Vol. VI of the Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 1898, Professor Elmer discusses "The Supposed Potential Use of the Subjunctive Mood." His aim, as he says on the opening page, is "to show that there is no use of the subjunctive mood in Latin which offers any justification for the use of the term 'Potential' and that this term ought to be dropped altogether from Latin grammars." Now I myself, both in my teaching at Cornell and in certain writings,1 have urged, or implied, that the application of the term should be narrowed to the natural limits suggested by its meaning, and that a different name should be given to the clearly different subjunctive in assertions that something would in a certain event (certainly) happen, etc. Mr. Elmer, in the American Fournal of Philology, XV. 3 (October, 1894), has since said the same thing in 1 So in the nomenclature and classification in my "Cum-Constructions," Cornell University Studies in Classical Philology, Vol I, 1888, p. 88 (German edition, p. 98) and pp. 106 and 107 (German edition, p. 120), followed by Mr. Elmer in his edition of the Phormio, 1895, in notes to 488, 597, 770, and 1030; similarly in the divisions in my (unpublished) Syllabus of the Constructions of the Latin Subjunctive, used by my students at Cornell, and later in Chicago. So again, quite explicitly, in my "Extended' and 'Remote' Deliberatives in Greek," Transactions of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIV, 1893, p. 200, as follows: "To some of my readers, this division of the non-wishing optative into two classes will have no weight, and the argument founded upon it will have no justification. . . . The distinction, nevertheless, has long seemed to me not only a real, but an important one. There is a vital difference between 'I can' and 'in a certain event I surely should,' between 'he may perhaps' and 'he surely would.' If we should not tolerate a translation in which might' was used where the idea was 'would,' or vice versa, no more should we be indifferent to the same difference in the exposition of Greek or Latin syntax." print independently, as follows: "The term 'potential' ought, it seems to me, to be limited to expressions of ability and possibility-to the 'can' and the 'may' ideas. I see nothing in the term 'potential' that makes it appropriate for designating any other construction." For the use of the Subjunctive which had previously been inexactly classed in all books with the Potential, I proposed the name "Subjunctive of Ideal Certainty "1; for the Subjunctive, in this use, asserts as fully, and with as strong a feeling of certainty, as the Indicative,—and yet does not assert a fact. Professor Bennett has devised a phrase which is meant to be an improvement upon this; namely, the "Subjunctive of Contingent Futurity." I will not stop to urge that the phrase Contingent Futurity applies as well to the Future or Future Perfect Indicative in a conclusion (and in many other cases) as to the Present or Perfect Subjunctive, and that a name that will apply equally well to two moods cannot have hit the essential nature of either. It is sufficient for my immediate purpose to have explained the meaning of one of the phrases to which I shall have presently to refer. 1 "Cum-Constructions" and "Anticipatory Subjunctive," mentioned below. For my Cornell Syllabus in its early form, I devised the phrase Predicative Subjunctive, and thought it good, inasmuch as the Subjunctive in this use asserts as completely as the Indicative does. This term, under the form "Predicating Subjunctive," was adopted by Mr. Elmer in the notes referred to above, and was attributed to me. It has the fault, however, of not excluding the true Potential, which likewise asserts. The two modal uses are very close to each other; but there is, at their extremes ("may" and "would"), an essential difference between them. The phrase Subjunctive of Ideal Certainty, as against the phrase Potential Subjunctive or Subjunctive of Possibility, is intended to bring out this difference on the one hand, and the difference from the side of the Indicative (the Mood of Actuality) on the other. Schmalz, in the last edition of his Latin Syntax (Stolz und Schmalz, Lat. Gramm. 1900) cites the term, together with my general scheme of the classification of the uses of the Latin Subjunctive (published in my "Anticipatory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin," preprinted in 1894 from the University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. I), along with Lattmann's scheme. Delbrück also cites it, in his treatment of the Potential Optative, Vergleich. Syntax d. Indogerm. Sprachen, IV, 371 (1897), to distinguish the use meant from the true Potential use of the Optative. This is a gain, though neither of the two writers as yet adopts the term as the regular designation of a category. Brugmann, Griech. Gramm.3 1900, still uses the term Potential only. Thus far Mr. Elmer and I were in substantial harmony, and I was glad to have company, even though my presence was not recognized. But when, on taking up the volume. referred to, I found that Mr. Elmer was now setting out to rout the Potential utterly and drive it out of the Grammars, I was no longer with him. It was therefore with relief that I saw Professor Bennett come to the rescue in Vol. IX of the Cornell Studies. Mr. Bennett has, it seems to me, successfully shown the untenableness of Mr. Elmer's position.1 But he has left several things unsaid; and these I propose to touch upon briefly in the present paper. 2 Mr. Elmer holds that examples of the aliquis dixerit type are all to be taken as Future Perfect Indicatives, since the equivalent expressions with fortasse in the unambiguous (Future) forms are in the Indicative, unless the meaning of the mood itself is that of Contingent Futurity ("perhaps would"). The conclusion, he thinks (p. 188), is strengthened by the case of examples of the roget quis or aliquis dicat type. These are, with one exception, to be taken as Volitive Conditions, the meaning being (let some one, i.e.) suppose some one says to me so and so: my reply will be so and so. The Latin habit, he thinks, suppresses the "my reply will be," and simply gives the reply itself. The one exception, dicat fortassis aliquis, from Pliny N. H., 36, 2, 2, he takes as an expression of Contingent Futurity, and translates by " to this remark some one would perhaps rejoin," warning his readers from supposing "that the presence here of fortassis can lend the slightest support to the theory that dicat means 'may say.'" The examples like videas and videres, commonly taken to mean one may see and one might see, really mean, he thinks, would see if one should be present," one would have seen 66 one 66 1 Mr. Elmer thinks not. See his "Should the May-Potential use of the Subunctive be recognized in Latin?", Classical Review, XIV, 4. Cf. also Professor Clement's "Two Notes on the Latin Subjunctive," ibid. 2" And as soon as one admits that we have the future-perfect indicative in these seven instances of the type aliquis fortasse dixerit, one must admit that we have that mood in all those of aliquis dixerit, without fortasse; for the expressions without fortasse clearly represent exactly the same modal use as those with fortasse" (Elmer, p. 187). |