The illegible letters at the end of the line probably indicated the month and the day. 7. March, A. D. 136. cm. 6x6.5. Ψανμούς πράκ (τωρ). Διέγραψ(εν) Πετορζμήτ(ις) Πετεύρεως Πλουψε υπέρ) μερισμού) διπλ(ων) κ (ἔτους) ῥυπαρὰς) (δραχμὰς) β (όβολοὺς δύο) χαλκοῦν). (Ετους) κ 5 Αδριανοῦ Καίσαρος τοῦ Κυρίου Φαμ(ενώθ) κθ 3 On διπλών cf. Wilcken, Gr. Ostr., I, p. 179. No. 8 and Wilcken's nos. 163, 164 are the only other ostraca known to me of the form ὑπὲρ μερισμοῦ διπλῶν. All four are from Syene and from the same πράκτωρ, Psanmous, no. 163 being made out of the day before this one. 8. April A. D. 136. cm. 8X7.5. Ψανμοὺς πράκτωρ). Ζμενπῶς Πετορζμήθεω[ε Διέγραψ(εν) μητρός) Τισᾶτις υπέρ) μερισμοῦ διπλ (ῶν) κ (ἔτους) ῥυπαρὰς) (δραχμὰς) β . (Ετους) κ 5 Αδριανοῦ Καίσαρος τοῦ Κυρίου Φαρμ(ούθι) κα 2 Cf. Wilcken, Gr. Ostr., II, no. 162, this man's receipt for river-police tax of the same year. 9. A. D. 138. cm. 8x8. Ουαλέριος Μαρίων καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ) ἐπιτηρητ(αὶ) ἱερᾶς πύλης) Σου Διέγραψεν) Καλασεῖρις Πετορ 5 ζμήθου μητ (ρὸς) Θινπετορ ζμῆθις ὑ(πέρ) λαογραφίας) κβ (ἔτους) Αδριανοῦ Καίσαρος τοῦ Κυρίου (δραχμὰς) ιζ (ὀβολὸν) δραχμὰς) δέκα ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(όν). Πετεσοῦχος πράκτωρ). Διέγραψεν Ζμεντπῶς Πετορςμήθ(εως) μητ(ρὸς) Τισᾶτις ὑ(πέρ) μερισμού) ποταμ(οφυλακίδος) β (ἔτους) 'Αντωνείνου 5 Καίσαρος τοῦ Κυρίου ῥυπαροὺς) (ὀβολοὺς δύο) (χαλκοῦς τέσσαρας) διπλ(ῶν) (δραχμὰς) γ (ὀβολὸν) στατ(ίωνος) (χαλκοῦς δύο) Μεχ(εὶρ) ιθ. 6 The usual charge for statio in ostraca of a few years earlier, A. D. 127-129, was six chalci; cf. Wilcken, Gr. Ostr., II, nos. 145-147; but no trace of the sign for χαλκοῦς τέσσαρας is discernible before (χαλκους δύο). II. A. D. 145. cm. 6.5 X 10.5. Σωτὴρ καὶ Παπρεμίθης πράκτορες) ἀργυρικ(ῆς) Ελεφαντίνης). Διέγραψεν Φαν ὤφις 'Ερισεχνούθεως θιμὴν δημοσίου φύνικ(ος) γενήματος 5 θ (έτους) Αντωνίνου τοῦ Κυρίου (δραχμὰς) 8 (τριώβολον) 12. A. D. 147-148. cm. 6. 5 Χ 8. Γερμανὸς καὶ Δομίττιος Φαν Φανιανὸς πράκτορες) ἀργυρικῆς) Ε(λε)φ(αντίνης) ὑ(περ).. Διέγρα(ψεν) Π... μηθ( ) μητ (ρός) ..... ὑ(πέρ) μερισμ(ου) ια (ἔτους) ̓Αντωνίνου 5 Καίσαρος τοῦ Κυρίου ῥυπαρὰς) δραχμὰς) τέσαρας (δραχμὰς) 8 Τύβι γ Δομίτιος Φαννια νὸς σ(εσ)ημείωμαι) δραχμὰς) τέσαρ[α]ς (δραχμὰς) 8 I Φαν- is written, and then disregarded. 5, 7 L. τέσσαρας. 5 13. A. D. 148. cm. 9.5 Χ 13.5. Παβοῦς Πρεκμήχ(εως) τελ (ώνης) γερ(διακού) (ἔτους) παρὰ σοῦ τελ(ος) [[ο]] λίνου γ (ἔτους) ιβ ̓Αντωνίνου Καίσαρος τοῦ Κυρίου Φαῶφι ιε δι(α) Ψενθατρῆ Σαράμεως La 1 γερ(διακού) is somewhat doubtful. The έτος sign looks very much like the sign άρουρα. 3 οἴνου seems to have been corrected to λίνου. 5 Perhaps Ψενθατρῆς ̓Αράμεως should be read. πύλ(ης) Σοή(νης) διὰ] ̓Αμμωνίου βοηθού). Διέγραψεν) .]μεγ( ) τοῦ καὶ Πιλκοῦνις μητ(ρὸς) ..... ] . γρα) περ) λαογραφίας) δραχμὰς) δέκα ἑπτὰ 5 βολ (όν) (δραχμὰς) ιζ] (ὀβολὸν) τοῦ ιγ (ἔτους) ̓Αντωνίνου Καίσαρ]ος τοῦ Κυρίου Φαρμ(ούθι) κθ : Although the earliest other notice of Stlaccius as μισθωτής is dated Feb., A. D. 155, the form of this receipt and especially the mention of Ammonius as βοηθός (cf. Wilcken, Gr. Ostr., II, no. 226) seem to justify the restoration of his name. 15. Second Century A. D.? cm. 7.5Χ14.5. Απόδος) εἰς Ελεφαντίνην τῷ υἱῷ Βουκόλῳ π(αρὰ) Πανῶτος (δραχμάς) χ 2 βουκόλῳ should perhaps be read, or Βουκόλω = Βουκόλου. 5 τω 16. Second Century A. D.? cm. 10. Χ 9.5. Πατορί(μῆθις) τῷ φιλτά πλεῖστα χαίρειν. ]εδησις πέμψω μου ζητωριτιων μου ἐπὶ ]εχι αὐτὸ σήμερον ουτι εική ους ]τινα κατὰ τῆς ἀρχῆ(s) This seems to be part of a letter of instructions (L. μὴ ἀμελήσης), but the fragment yields no connected sense and few intelligible words. THE UNIVERsity of CHICAGO. EDGAR J. GOODSPEED. NOTE. In printing these texts parentheses () indicate expansions of abbreviations and symbols, square brackets [] restorations of parts broken or faked off, double square brackets [[ ]] letters deleted or written over, and single angle brackets <> letters erased or obliterated. IV. THE APODOSIS OF THE UNREAL CONDITION IN ORATIO OBLIQUA IN LATIN'. In view of the uncertainty and error existing in almost all our Latin grammars concerning the form of the Apodosis of the Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua in Latin, I have undertaken to investigate and to ascertain definitely the usage of classical Latin in this construction; my investigation is complete for the following authors: Cato, Varro, Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Cornelius Nepos, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Pliny Minor and Suetonius. The rule is variously given in the different grammars, some of them unqualifiedly-and unqualifiedly wrong, as I shall endeavor to show-that for present time the form -rum esse should be used; some qualify by noting that this construction is very rare, others even go so far as to say that it is doubtful, while some state quite correctly that in Indirect Discourse Present Unreal Conditions are not distinguished in the Apodosis from Past. The most striking fact, however, revealed by an examination of the treatment of this subject in the various grammars is the uniformity with which the rule for the use of -rum esse in Present Condition is supported by the one example from Caesar Bell. 1 This paper had its origin in a letter written toward the close of 1898 by Prof. Peters of the University of Va. to Prof. Morgan of Harvard. In his letter Prof. Peters criticised the traditional rule for this form of Apodosis, stating that he believed the example in Caes. B. G. 5, 29 to be unique, and that the Romans ordinarily used the form -rum fuisse in both present and past of the Unreal Condition in O. O. Prof. Morgan kindly proposed the subject to me for investigation, the results of which have been to confirm Prof. Peters in every particular. My work was practically completed within a year from the above date, but stress of professional duties and unavoidable interruptions have prevented my printing earlier. In regard to the method of conducting the investigation, with the exception of Cicero and Caesar, the examples were collected by me from the authors themselves. For Cicero and Caesar I used the article of Joseph Priem, Phil. 1883, Suppl. Vol. 5, p. 263. Priem had collected and classified all the conditional sentences in these two authors. For this valuable and labor-saving reference my thanks are due to Prof. Bennett of Cornell University. Gall. 5, 29. This fact has led certain scholars to call the rule in question and to consider the solitary example in Caesar as insufficient for the foundation of a grammatical rule, and even, not without reason, to suspect the correctness of the passage from Caesar. So far as I have been able to discover, doubt in regard to the correctness of the form -rum esse in the Apodosis of the Unreal Condition referring to present time was first raised by Sp. Vassis in the Journal Πλάτων 1883, p. 414 f., under the title ̓Ανασκευὴ ἡμαρτημένου γραμματικοῦ κανόνος. Little or no attention has been given to this article, doubtless owing to the very limited circulation of the journal. Again in the Rev. de Phil., 1887, p. 42 ff., Vassis attacked the traditional rule as given in the recently published grammar of O. Riemann, and restated at some length the arguments which I take to be the same as those used by him several years before in the Пárov. To this Riemann replied in the Rev. de Phil., 1891, p. 34 ff., where he with some reluctance agrees in the main with the views set forth by Vassis and offers some very strong additional arguments against the possibility of the employment of the form scripturum esse in O. O. as an equivalent for the form scriberem in the Unreal of O. R. Cf. A. J. P. XII (1891) 112; XIII (1892) 379. These articles seem to have been practically ignored by the writers of our grammatical treatises, and no sufficient examination of the usage of Latin authors on the point, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was made by either Vassis or Riemann. I have undertaken to settle by a thorough examination; first, whether the example in Caes. B. G. 5, 29 was really the only source of authority for the rule that the form -rum esse is used for the Present Unreal in O. O.; and secondly, whether a sufficient number of undoubted examples of -rum fuisse for the Present Unreal in O. O. could be found to warrant the rule that the Romans did not distinguish in O. O. between Present and Past Unreal Conditions, but used the form -rum fuisse indifferently for both forms of Unreal Apodosis in O. O. Before entering at length into the evidence, it may be well to state here that my investigation seems to establish both these propositions: namely, that the example from Caesar of -rum esse is unique and that there are abundant examples of -rum fuisse which we seem forced to take as representing the imperfect subjunctive of O. R. Considering the quantity of Latin read for the purpose of this |