OF ARTS AND SCIENCES : DECEMBER 6, 1864. 369 



more vivid form of expressing the same idea ; ei tovto iroiria-ei meaning 

 if he shall do this, as well as the subjunctive used above, both being 

 expressed in modern English by the less accurate but common form if 

 he does this. When Isocrates (Archid. p. 138, A.) says, tjv edeXcofiev 

 dnodi'Tja'Keiv virep rav 8iicaia>v, eiSoKt/^jfcro/iei' • ei 8e (f>o^r](r6 fifda tovs Kivdv- 

 vovs, fls noXhas rapn^ai Karaa-njiroijifv Tjfias avrovs, what scholar can pre- 

 tend to see any difference between the subjunctive and the future indic- 

 ative in the protasis, except that the latter is the more vivid form ? 

 The former is if we shall he willing to die, the latter ifive shall fear the 

 dangers. Certainly no one would think that the orator intended to 

 imply that the latter supposition was more in accordance -^liXxfact than 

 the former. Again, Demosthenes (Aph. I. p. 834, 24) says, av yap 

 aTTocpuyr) /if ovTot, b /X17 yevoiTo, ttjv Inui^fXiav ocpXfjcrco, if this defendant 

 shall escape me, and may it not happen, &c. But in the second part of 

 his argument (Aph. II. p. 842, 15), referring to precisely the same 

 thing, which was quite as contingent, quite as possible, and quite as 

 little matter of fact as it had been before, he says, et S* vfiels aXAo n 

 yvwcretrde, o p.rj yivoiro, Tiva o'U<t6( avTTjv ■^vxfjv e^eiv ; In Greek both 

 forms are in equally good use, the subjunctive being the more common. 

 In Latin, as the present subjunctive was required to perform the func- 

 tions of the Greek optative in protasis, we find the future or future 

 perfect indicative the more common form ; as, naturam si sequemur 

 ducem, nunquam aberrabimus, if we shall folloiv, &c. Cic. Offic. I. 28, 

 100 ; si feceris id quod ostendis, magnam habebo gratiam ; si non fece- 



ris, ignoscam : quare tu, si simul placehit, statim ad me venies, 



Cic. Ep. Fam. V. 19. (The future perfect defines more exactly the 

 action of the protasis as preceding that of the apodosis.) Still the 

 Latin subjunctive is sometimes found in precisely the sense of the 

 Greek; as, nee si cupias licebit, Cic. Verr. 11. 69, 167, in Greek ovb^ 



Let us now return to the general suppositions which we excluded 

 from consideration at the beginning of the last paragraph. The failure 

 to distinguish these from the particular su{)positions which have just 

 been considered seems to have cau?ed the chief confusion that prevails 

 about the distinction between the indicative and subjunctive. As the 

 Greek commonly uses the subjunctive in these, it was thought neces- 

 sary to bring them into one class with the particular suppositions, and 

 the essential character of the latter (their reference to the future) was 

 thus overlooked ; and as we always translate tBe subjunctive in general 



