BRACKETT. — TEMPORAL CLAUSES IN HERODOTUS. 207 



it is not easy to see how in this case overlapping was possible. What- 

 ever the words are in the Greek, the bare fact described is simply this: 

 certain men sat down beside the blinded Euenius and talked with him, 

 first about matters in general, and secondly (<ari^aive) about his misfor- 

 tune. These facts certainly preclude the possibility of overlapping action. 

 As a matter of fact the temporal relation here is loose and secondary. 

 Of what importance is it how long they talked about other matters ? 

 Just as in another case mentioned above, is 5 is loosely used and means 

 little more than " and finally."* Furthermore, it is worthy of note 

 that the use of the imperfect seems to be almost idiomatic when Karakul™ 

 is used in a past tense with a present participle in the sense which it has 

 in this passage. The imperfect is thus used 1, 90 (7r<ipan-£o'/xei/os), 1, 116 



(KfAeua)!/), 1, 118 (Xe'ycoi/). 



In 4, 1G0 : 6 he 'ApKeouXea)? etrrero (pevyovo-L is o iv XevKbtvi . . . iylvero 

 eViSitoKcoi/ Kol e'8o£e ro'iai Xifivai inidio-dai ol, Fuchs | would change iylvero 

 which is found in all MSS., to iyevero. Gildersleeve says t ■ " No 

 change is necessary. Note the shift of subject." It seems to me that the 

 question here is not what is necessary, but what is, in the light of all the 

 evidence, probable. The fact that there is a shift of subject here has no 

 direct bearing upon the questiou whether we ought to have here the 

 imperfect or the aorist ; the question is whether the meaning and gen- 

 eral grammatical usage makes probable the one or the other tense. 

 Now, if Herodotus meant to say here, " he followed them until he w as 

 arriving at Leucon," then iyivero is right ; but if he wishes to say, " he 

 followed them until he arrived at Leucon," iyivero is the only natural 

 form to use. I see no good reason why Herodotus should here make 

 such a fine distinction as is implied in the former expression. Also the 

 facts which we have observed above regarding ylvofiai in clauses of 

 antecedence, both with prepositions (— to arrive) and without, justify 

 us in demanding the credentials of any iyivero in a temporal clause 

 which violates normal usage. I think that on the score of intrinsic 

 probability, Fuchs's change is right. 



As to is o with the subjunctive, the present is found but twice. In 2, 

 llo: aXX aura iy£> ra "EXArjfi ^eivoy 0uXa£a>, is o av avrbs e\6u>v eKelvos 

 dnayayeaddi idiXjj, the action of e'&'A// is conceived as a state rather than 



* Macaulav translates, I think, with entire accuracy when he says : " they came 

 and sat by him and conversed about other matters and at last they came to sym- 

 pathizing with him in his misfortune." 



i Op. cit., p. 69. 



t Am. Jour. Phil., 24 (1903), p. 4C0. 



