BRACKETT. — TEMPORAL CLAUSES IN HERODOTUS. 181 



passage as analogous to certain passages in Homer, and thinks further 

 that Herodotus may have used here the exact words of the original oath. 

 It is true that Homer frequently has nplv as an adverb in the main clause, 

 but he does not use 717/(1/ rj with the infinitive referring to future time. 

 Furthermore, Sturm does not give any evidence to show that the Pho- 

 caeans about 545 B. C. would have been any more likely to use the in- 

 finitive in this sentence than the subjunctive. If then we accept the 

 reading di>iKpai>r)vai we must admit that the infinitive is wholly exceptional 

 for Herodotus. 



But should we not read here the subjunctive ? Heilmann's suggestion 

 ■jrpiv Tis . . . dva(pr)i>n has little to recommend it. It has occurred to me 

 that perhaps Herodotus wrote here pvbpov o-ibqpeov KaTenovTaxrav <a\ u>poo-av 

 p.r) Trpiv e'y <t>co<ataf rj^eiv np\v *j avatpavj). tov pvdpov tovtov would then be a 

 marginal or interlinear note which was inserted in the text. The change 

 from ava<I>ANHI to dfa<t>HNAI of the MSS. is hardly more difficult than 

 that from dixxpavrjvai to ava<pr)vai ; and, as Sturm has already remarked, 

 the repetition after pvdpov o-i§r)peov of tov pvdpov tovtov is rather strange. 



As regards the principles, which govern the use of the infinitive in 

 oratio obliqua in the temporal clause, no general law can be laid down. 

 It should, however, be noted that in every case but two (1, 1G5; 5, 84) 

 the infinitive so used occurs in a passage of considerable length in ora- 

 tio obliqun. ; and further that in every case but two (3, 2G ; 6, 137), one 

 or more infinitives in oratio obliqua has preceded. But, on the other 

 hand, under exactly the same conditions as those just described, a finite 

 mood is frequently not changed to the infinitive. 



The Use of Sv. 



As stated above, av is, as a rule, used with the subjunctive in all 

 temporal clauses. Certain exceptions however seem to occur, which 

 demand separate treatment. For convenience I will first consider the 

 use of av in clauses of antecedence and contemporaneity. Herodotus's 

 use of av in these clauses is surprisingly uniform. In clauses of generic 

 action with the subjunctive, av is omitted but twice ; in clauses which 

 refer to the future, av is omitted according to the MSS. but once, i. e., 8 



22 : Qepio-TOKktrji; be TavTa eypacpe, . . ., tea iy \a66vTti to. ypdpptiTa /3acrtAe'a 

 Icuvcis noir]o~Tj peTaftaXflv . . ., rj iireire dvevei^dj) Ka\ 8uil3Xrj0Tj Trpbs 3ep£>jv, 

 k.t.\. The omission in this case is the more striking since Herodotus 

 everywhere else in such a clause uses av ; and secondly, in the other two 

 cases in Herodotus of «r«'re with the subjunctive (1, 200, and 202), av is 



