linguas suas uertere sunt conati, de horum uasorum forma inter se differunt, neque quicquam ex iis certum intellegi potest, ut uasa his similia efficiantur.

Primum enim IVSTVS LIPSIVS in libro de Vesta et Virginibus Vestalibus Syntagma inscripto sententiam suam tabula quoque addita exposuit. Nam uas quoddam in coni figuram conformatum construxit, id quod re uera ex aequicrurio triangulo rectiangulo effici potest (cf. EVCLID. El. 11, def. 18). Deinde quoniam in integro cono ignem repercussu fieri non posse putabat,' eius apicem abscidit, cum putaret solis radios in focum extra conum positum repercuti posse. Sed deceptus est uir doctus; id uero accidet si conus ex triangulo rectiangulo nec tamen aequicrurio erit factus; tum enim radios bis repercuti oportebit, id quod in Lipsi cono fieri non potest. Plutarchus autem triangulum fuisse aequicrurium diserte dicit. Sententiam tamen Lipsi multi uiri docti errore decepti secuntur. Ceterorum autem sententias peruersas uel obscuras hoc loco commemorare operae non pretium est; eorum etiam qui ante septem annos Plutarchi libros in sermonem Anglicum uertebant (STEWART. et LONG. 1, p. 109) uerba non intellegimus.

RESTAT denique ut exponamus quid nos de hac re sentiamus; uerba autem Plutarchi iterum subicimus ut plane uideas quae interpretari

ἐξάπτουσι δὲ μάλιστα τοῖς σκαφείοις, ἃ κατασκευάζεται μὲν ἀπὸ πλευρᾶς ισοσκελοῦς ὀρθογωνίου τριγώνου κοιλαινόμενα, συννεύει δ ̓ εἰς ἓν ἐκ τῆς περιφερείας κέντρον.

Primum dicimus hoc loco praepositionem årò eodem modo quo fere k usurpari; cf. HDт. 7, 65, ảnò ¿úλov teñоinμéva; AESCH. Ag. 970; SOPH. Tr. 704.

Nunc utile erit VITRVVI locum conferre (9, 9, 1) quo de solariorum genere quodam disserit :

Hemicyclium excauatum ex quadrato ad enclimaque succisum Berosus Chaldaeus dicitur inuenisse.

Huius quidem generis exemplum proximo saeculo Tusculi repertum

1 Sed frustra; uir enim doctissimus huius conlegi Physicorum professor conum huius figurae integrum ex plumbo albo faciendum benigne curauit, quo usi ignem ex solis radiis elicere potuimus. Non tamen putamus Plutarchum his uerbis coni figuram designare uoluisse.

in tabula quarta (p. 14) depictum exhibemus (cf. RICH. Dict. Ant. s. u. hemicyclium). Eius autem in parte excauata talis erat inclinatio ut caeli declinationi — enclimati― quae Tusculi esse uideretur accurate conueniret. Haec quidem solaria a MARTIANO Capella (6, 597) scaphia uocantur. Scaphia (σkapela) etiam Plutarchus illa uasa in igni eliciendo adhibita appellat; haec autem dicit ex aequicruri trianguli rectianguli latere fuisse excauata.

Verum tamen Vitruuius, cum quadratum dicit, solidum tamen quoddam, ut in tabula nostra uidere licet, perspicue intellegit; huius autem superficiem animo solam sibi fingebat. Eodem modo Plutarchus, dum superficiem commemorat, de solido quodam nostra sententia disserebat. Id uero erat prisma, cuius superficies atque basis aequicruriis triangulis rectiangulis sunt comprehensae (cf. tab. V, p. 14). Scaphium igitur ex latere quod AB linea in tabula designatur ita excauatum est ut eius inclinatio ad caeli declinationem quae Romae esset accurate conueniret; curuatura etiam scaphii — συννεύει . . . κέντρον — sine dubio ea fuit quam nunc parabolam appellare solemus, optimam igni eliciendo. Ex triangulo autem excauari scaphium ritus morisque sollemnis fuit cum triangula inter res arcanas haberentur; ex his quidem elementa rerum illa quattuor principio excreuisse PLATO docuit (Tim. p. 53 C. sqq.). A Graecis igitur, ut supra dictum est, Romani hunc ignis sempiterni eliciendi modum accepisse potuerunt. De metallo autem ex quo scaphia excauentur scriptores nihil nobis tradiderunt.

Haec habuimus quae de ignis eliciendi modis dicenda putaremus.

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF οὐ μή WITH THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND THE FUTURE

THE

INDICATIVE.

BY W. W. GOODWIN.

HE origin of the construction of où un has never been satisfactorily explained. While there is a general agreement as to the meaning of the two forms of expression in which this double negative occurs, that (1) οὐ μὴ γένηται or οὐ μὴ γενήσεται is it will not happen, and (2) ov μǹ kaтaßýσa is do not come down, there is great diversity of opinion as to the manner in which these meanings are obtained from the Greek expressions, and still greater as to the origin of the constructions themselves. Most scholars have explained expressions of denial with où μý and those of prohibition on entirely different theories, which involve different views of the functions of the negatives in the two forms. The explanation of the expressions of denial (like où μǹ yévηrai) which has gained most favor is that of an ellipsis after ou of a verb or other form denoting fear on which μὴ γένηται depends; so that the full form would be οὐ δέος ẻorì un yévηTaι, there is no fear that it will happen. Since a strong argument for this ellipsis is the existence of such examples as où φόβος μή σε ἀγάγω, ΧEN. Mem. ii. 1, 25, and οὐχὶ δέος μή σε φιλήσῃ, AR. Eccl. 650, which, by omitting póßos and déos, would become ov μή σε ἀγάγω and οὐχὶ μή σε φιλήσῃ, it can hardly be said that this is supposed to be one of the unconscious ellipses which are no longer felt in actual use. This explanation, however, does not help to account for the prohibitions in the second person, like où μù καταβήσει, for there is no freak of language by which οὐ δέος ἐστὶ μὴ καταβῇς or even οὐ δέος ἐστὶ μὴ καταβήσει (if we can suppose such an expression) could be transformed into où un kaтaßnσe, in the sense do not come down. The prohibitions have, therefore, generally been explained, on Elmsley's theory, as interrogative; and où μǹ kataBoa; is supposed to mean will you not not come down? i.e. do not come down. All subjunctives that are found in these prohibitions, as

in où un σks unde monons, ARIST. Nub. 296, have generally been condemned since Brunck and Elmsley, and such subjunctives are seldom seen in recent editions of the dramatists.

But all attempts to explain these constructions of où μý on different theories lead to fatal difficulties. We cannot make all the prohibitions interrogative, nor can we change all the prohibitory subjunctives to futures without violence to the text; nor are all cases of the second person of the subjunctive or of the future with où un prohibitory. The following examples show a complete transition from one of the uses of où μý to the other, and yet no line of distinction, on which different theories of construction can reasonably be based, can be drawn between any two of them : Οὔτοι σ ̓ ̓Αχαιῶν, οἶδα, μή τις ὑβρίσῃ, no am sure, will insult you. SOPH. Aj. 560. ποτε, I never will follow you. Id. El. 1052. κοὐχὶ μὴ παύσησθε, and you will not cease. ARIST. Lys. 704.

...

one of the Achaeans, I

οὔ σοι μὴ μεθέψομαί

ἀλλ ̓ οὗ ποτ ̓ ἐξ ἐμοῦ γε μὴ

πάons τóde, but you shall never suffer this from me. SOPH. El. 1029. οὐ μή ποτ' ἐς τὴν Σκῦρον ἐκπλεύσης, you shall never sail of to Scyros. Id. Phil. 381. οὐ μὴ σκώψῃς . . . ἀλλ ̓ εὐφήμει, do not jeer (i.e. you shall not jeer), but hold your tongue. ARIST. Nub. 296 (this cannot be interrogative). οὐ μὴ προσοίσεις χεῖρα μηδ ̓ ἅψει TÉπλшν, do not bring your hand near me, nor touch my garments. EUR. Hippol. 606 (generally made interrogative).

It should be made a first requisite of any theory that it shall explain all these cases on the same general principle.

A preliminary question to be settled, if possible, is whether où and un merely combine to make a single strong negative, or whether où as an independent adverb negatives μý and the verb taken together. The difficulty either of conceiving ou and un as forming a single strong negative, as où and ovdév or μn and undev often do, or of understanding how un yévηraι, which by itself cannot mean it will not happen, can be strengthened by où into an expression with this very meaning, has made it impossible to defend the former view on any recognized principle, even when it has been adopted for want of something better. I formerly held this opinion, but I have never attempted to defend it by any analogy of the language. The supposed analogy of un où forming a single negative with the infinitive will hardly hold as a support of this; for, while we cannot have a

sentence like οὐχ ὅσιόν ἐστι μὴ οὐ βοηθεῖν continued by an infinitive with οὐδέ (e.g. by οὐδὲ ἀμύνεσθαι), we frequently have sentences like οὐ μὴ καλεῖς με μηδὲ κατερείς τούνομα, where μηδέ continues the prohibition without repeating ou, showing the distinct force of each part of this double negative. But this only brings out more emphatically the perplexing question that lies at the basis of the whole discussion. If où is an independent negative, as by every principle of Greek negatives it should be, what does it negative? It is clear that there is only one active negative in où un yévηrai, it will not happen; and où μǹ σкwчŋs, do not jeer, surely does not have one more active negative than μὴ σκώψης.

It seems obvious, therefore, that if où is an independent negative in où μǹ yévηtaι, the negative force of the μý must in some way be in abeyance, as otherwise the two simple negatives would make the sentence as a whole positive. We may naturally turn for a suggestion here to the principal form of expression in which the negative force of μn seems to be in abeyance, — to Plato's favorite subjunctive with μή as a form of cautious assertion, as μὴ φαυλὸν ᾖ, I think it will prove to be bad, Crat. 425 B. Such expressions are, practically, cautious affirmative statements, the fear that something may prove true having by usage softened into a suspicion, and this again into an idea of probability or possibility, so that un pavλovy, which originally meant may it not prove bad (as I fear it may), has come to mean I suspect it may prove bad, and finally, I think it will prove bad or it will probably prove bad. The expression, however, always retains at least the implication that the fact thus stated is an object of apprehension to some one, though it has lost all of its original reference to such apprehension on the part of the speaker.2 If now a

1 The idea suggested rather than advocated by Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. Philol. III. pp. 203, 205), that où is an independent negative, nay, while un introduces a question which expects a negative answer, was evidently held by the copyists of some of the best Mss. of Aristophanes or by their predecessors: thus, Rav. and several Paris Mss. have ou· μǹ okŵyns (or σkwчns), in Nub. 296; Ven. 474 has ou un Anphons in Nub. 367, and ov· μǹ λaλhoes in 505. See the Ms. readings given in Trans. of Amer. Philol. Assoc. for 1869–70, p. 52. 2 I give the following passages of Plato, with Jowett's translation, to illustrate this idiom:

̓́Αλλως δὲ συνείρειν μὴ φαῦλον ᾖ καὶ οὐ καθ ̓ ὁδὸν, ὦ φίλε Ερμόγενες, if they are not, the composition of them, my dear Hermogenes, will be a sorry piece of work,