BRACKETT. — TEMPORAL CLAUSES IN HERODOTUS. 209 



virtually a co-ordinating conjunction ; and here, again, Macaulay trans- 

 lates with admirable accuracy : " they did not at all persuade hirn, and at 

 last they had come to downright strife." 



The historical present is found in a clause with npiv once, — 9, 22: 

 Ti/TTTOvres . • . fnoUuv ouhtv, Trplv ye 8r] padmv tis to irouvpevov naUt piv cs rov 

 <j<pda\p6v. 



III. Tense. 



I shall here treat the subject of tense principally in regard to its func- 

 tion in expressing the sphere of time, including also a few other matters 

 which naturally range themselves under this head. 



The historical present is found in the main clause very frequently with 

 clauses of antecedence,' very rarely with clauses of contemporaneity and 

 subsequence. The conditions of its appearance do not differ from those 

 under which it occurs in other sentences. It occurs as follows : «re/ 

 «r«8ij, eVctVe — 1, 34, 45, 62, 105 ; 2, 30, 119, 181 ; 3, 11, 72. 78 ; 4, 76, 

 118, 146, 148, 151, 154; 5, 12, 62, 100; 6, 18; 7,61, 163, 172; 8, 27, 

 27 2 . 37, 37 2 , 129; 9,4, 12, 107. is— 1, 47, 62, 65, 112, 117, 160, 

 160,. 213; 2, 2, 113, 152, 160; 3, 1, 29, 41. 128, 140; 5, 12, 17, 20, 

 41, 63, 92y, 112; 6, 5, 16, 29, 29,, 31, 35, 135; 7, 7, 18, 136, 140, 142,' 

 210; 8, 4, 106; 9, 20, 39, 60, 88, 99, 108, 109. iv $ — 3,136. tt P Lv — 



4, 93. trpoTcpa rj — 2, 44. es o — 8, 58. 



The historical present is found in the subordinate clause only rarely. 

 It occurs with inei twice (5, 55; 9, 2) ; with as once (6, 5) ; with 7rpiV 

 once (9, 22) ; and with is o twice (6, 75 ; 1, 98). 



In connection with clauses of antecedence, a temporal clause which 

 refers to the past cannot be used with a main clause which refers solely 

 to the present or future, for the reason that there is not a sufficient point 

 of contact between the two clauses. When such a combination seems 

 to exist, the subordinate clause is not temporal but causal, as in 3, 71 : 



ineiTe 8( crwrjUfiKe axrre ko\ vpeas fiftevai kcii pt) povvov ipe, ttouhv livtikci pui 



doKeei, K.r.X. Cf. 4, 98, and 7, 39. When, however, the present is used 

 of action which began in the past, but continues in the present (present 

 of " unity of time "), it is possible for a past tense in the subordinate 



here speaking of), this is true without doubt after a positive main clause, but it is 

 not true, it seems to me, after a negative main clause. E. g., in the sentence, " He 

 did not see the man until he reached the village," it certainly is positively implied 

 in the language that he did see the man. Indeed, if this be not true, then there is 

 no basis for a distinction between " before " and " until " in such a sentence. If we 

 say, however, " He did not see the man before lie reached the village," it is not 

 implied whether he saw him at all or not. 

 vol. xli. — 11 



