OF ARTS AND SCIENCES. 99 



pressing a purpose or object after tva, &c. we find the Subjunctive and 

 Optative used like primary and secondary tenses of the same mood : 

 thus, where in Latin we have manet ut hoc facial, and manehat ut hoc 

 faceretf we have jneVet Iva tovto Troijj , and e^evev tva TOVTO TTOiOLT}. But 



even in this case of strongest resemblance there is no place for the 

 Future Optative, which corresponds to the Future Indicative. Again, 

 in clauses expressing general suppositions after eav or d, or after rela- 

 tives or temporal particles, depending on verbs which denote general 

 truths or repeated actions, a correlation of the Subjunctive and Opta- 

 tive is found, analogous to that of the two divisions of the Latin Sub- 

 junctive ; for example, in eav tovto noiTJ davfidCovaiv, si hoc facial 

 mirantur, and el tovto noiolr] idavna^ov, si hoc facer et mirabantur. 

 Here, however, the analogy ceases, if we except certain cases of indirect 

 question hereafter to be noticed, and a Homeric construction in relative 

 sentences expressing a purpose, which almost disappears from the more 

 cultivated language. 



Let us turn now to the Optative in wishes ; for here, if anywhere, 

 we may look for the primary meaning of this mood. From this use 

 it derives its name ; and especially this is its only regular use in inde- 

 pendent sentences, except in Apodosis with av. Here some have been 

 so far misled by the supposed analogy of the Latin, as to translate the 

 Present Optative by the Latin Imperfect Subjunctive (see, e. g., Damm's 

 Lexicon Homer, et Find,, s. v. rj^da) ; but a slight examination will 

 show that the Present and Aorist Optative are here so far from being 

 secondary tenses of the Subjunctive, that they are equivalent to the 

 Present Subjunctive in Latin, and refer to the future, while the Greek 

 Subjunctive cannot even regularly stand in such expressions. Thus 

 eWe e'irjv is utinam sim, that I may be ; eWe yivoiTo, utinam fiat, that 

 it may happen ; whereas utinam esset and utinam factum esset cor- 

 respond to elBe rjv and eWe eyeveTO. 



In ordinary Protasis and Apodosis the same relation is seen. The 



four Greek forms, iav ttoi^, iau ttoujo-?;, et ttoloIt], and el Tvocrja-eie, 



have only one Latin equivalent, si facial ; the four shades of mean- 

 ing for which the Greek required four forms being thought worthy 

 by the Latin of but one. Here therefore the absurdity of classifying 

 the last two as secondary forms of the first two, in conformity to a 

 Latin analogy, is especially clear. What the Latin analogy would lead 

 us to expect as secondary forms, the equivalents of si facerel and si fe- 

 cisset, can be expressed in Greek only by the Indicative. In Apodosis 



