208 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



an act, and the limit falls within the continuance of this state. Observe, 

 too, the aorist participle i\8mv. The other example is 4, 196: ol be 



7rpoo~e\66vTes aWov 717:16s cov edqK iv ^pvauv, is o av Treidaxri. I lie use of the 



present ttcWuhji. is very strange. In all other clauses with es o which 

 express generic action the aorist is used. The present is here all the 

 more surprising because of the well-recognized difference in meaning 

 between the present and aorist stems of netOu. The aorist stem means 

 "to persuade;" the imperfect, and by inference the present, in cases where 

 a distinction of tense stems is possible, express the attempt to persuade. * 

 In this case it is absolutely essential that the form of the verb express 

 the successful completion of the action ; for this we unquestionably ex- 

 pect the aorist. Cf. 5. 97 : ovbev o n ovk i»7ri'cr;^ero . . . is 6 dveTreiae afpeas. 

 In capitals the lunar sigma C and e could easily be confused. I would 

 read here neiaaiai. 



The reason for the two present infinitives in 1, 202, has been explained 

 above (p. 178), The present indicative is used of generic action after 

 es o twice, — 3, 104 (quoted above, p. 176), and 4, 181. No distinction 

 of stems was here possible. 



The perfect stem is found in all clauses of subsequence but three times. 

 In 3, 25 (quoted above, p. 203), the perfect infinitive Bte^XvBevai, seems 

 to emphasize the idea of completion. 5, 51 : npoefiaivf roio-i xPW a<Tl 



vnep!3dWa>i> 6 ' Aptarayoprjs, is 6 nevrr]K0VTd re Takavra vnebebeKTO Ka\ to iraibiov 



rjvbdgaTo, k.t.X. Here the pluperfect seems to emphasize the idea of the 

 completion of the action at a point in past time : " until he had received 

 them and had them.'" The third case is in 9, 55 : ws yap hi) napriyopfov rov 



' ' ApopfpaptTov . . . pt) Kivdvveveiv pevovras povvovs AaKe8aipovi(6i>, ov kcos eTTdduv, 

 is 6 es veiKed re <rvpireo-6i>Tes dniKaTO kci\ 6 Kr)pv£ . . . napLCTTaTO (T<pi d-rriyptvos. 

 This case is interesting as an example where indisputably es 6' does not 

 have its strict subordinating temporal force. The meaning is not, " they 

 could not persuade him until losing their temper they had begun to 

 quarrel," for the context plainly shows that A. was not persuaded even 

 then. If is o meant here strictly "until," then the sentence should 

 mean that as soon as the quarrel began A. was persuaded. f es 6 is here 



* Cf. Brugmann, Gr. Gram. 3 , 514, 1, Anm. ; and Miller, Am. Jour. Phil., 16 

 (1895), p. 177. 



t Goodwin (M. and T., 611) says: "The idea of a clause with 'until' is that 

 the action (or negation) of the leading clause continues to a time at which that of 

 the dependent clause takes place. That the former action then ceases is an infer- 

 ence generally made, but not positively implied in the language, and not neces- 

 sary." As regards the English word " until " (and this I understand the writer is 



