Aorist Subjunctive in -σω and -σωμαι -- Dawes's Canon.
[*] 363.
When an aorist subjunctive active or middle was to be used
with
ὅπως or
ὅπως μή in any construction,
the second aorist was preferred to a first aorist in
-σω or
-σωμαι, if both forms were in use. This preference arose
from the great similarity in form between these sigmatic aorists and the
future indicative (as between
βουλεύσῃ and
βουλεύσει, βουλεύσηται and
βουλεύσεται). This made it natural also for
a writer to avoid those forms of the subjunctive which were nearly
identical with the future indicative where the latter could be used as
well. This of course does not apply to the first aorist subjunctive
passive, which has no resemblance to the future; and there is no reason
for applying it to liquid aorists like
μείνω and
σφήλω.
[*] 364.
The general rule laid down by Dawes more than a century ago
(
Misc. Crit. pp. 222 and 228), the
so-called
Canon Davesianus, which declared
the first aorist subjunctive active and middle a solecism after
ὅπως μή and
οὐ μή, was extended by others
so as to include
ὅπως
(without
μή), and the Greek
authors were thoroughly emended to conform to it. As this rule has no
other foundation than the accidental circumstance just mentioned
(363), it naturally
fails in many cases, in some of which even emendation is impossible. In
the first place, there is no reason for applying the rule to pure final
clauses, in which the future indicative is exceptional
(324); and here it
is now generally abandoned in theory, though not always in practice.
There is, therefore, no objection whatever to such sentences as these:
ὧν ἕνεκα ἐπιταθῆναι,
ὅπως ἀπολαύσωμεν καὶ ὅπως γενώμεθα,
XEN. Cyr. vii. 5,
82 ;
ἐκκλησίαν
ξυνήγαγον, ὅπως ὑπομνήσω καὶ μέμψωμαι,
THUC. ii. 60; and
τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐπὶ τὴν
θάλασσαν κομίσαι, ὅπως παρὰ τὰς ναῦς ἀριστοποιήσωνται, καὶ
δἰ ὀλίγου τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ἐπιχειρῶσιν,
THUC. vii. 39, in
which the best Mss. have the subjunctive. Indeed, where the reading is
doubtful, the subjunctive should be preferred in these cases. Secondly,
in independent prohibitions with
ὅπως μή, although the future is the regular form, there
is less objection to the subjunctive (even the first aorist) than in
positive commands with simple
ὅπως, since the analogy of the common
μὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο,
do not do this, supports
ὅπως μὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο in the same
sense
(283). There
is no such analogy, however, to justify such a positive command as
ὅπως ποιήσῃς τοῦτο,
do this, and this form has much less
manuscript authority to rest on. Thirdly, in the case of
οὐ μή, if both constructions
(denials and prohibitions) are explained on the same principle, no
reason exists for excluding the subjunctive from either; and it cannot
be denied that both the first and the second aorist subjunctive are
amply supported by the manuscripts. (
See 301.) Fourthly, in object clauses with
ὅπως there is so great
a preponderance of futures over subjunctives, that the presumption in
all doubtful cases is here in favour of the future, as it is in favour
of the subjunctive in pure final clauses. A much stronger case,
therefore, is made out by those who (like Weber and most modern editors)
change all sigmatic aorist subjunctives in
this construction to futures. Some cases, however, resist
emendation; as
XEN. An. v. 6, 21 ,
κελεύουσι προστατεῦσαι ὅπως ἐκπλεύσῃ ἡ στρατιά,
where we cannot read
ἐκπλεύσει, as the future is
ἐκπλεύσομαι or
ἐκπλευσοῦμαι. In
DEM. i. 2, all Mss. except one
read
παρασκευάσασθαι τὴν ταχίστην
ὅπως ἐνθένδε βοηθήσητε καὶ μὴ πάθητε ταὐτόν, and
it seems very arbitrary to change
βοηθήσητε to
βοηθήσετε and leave
πάθητε. But a few cases like these weigh little against
the established usage of the language, and we must perhaps leave the
venerable
Canon Davesianus undisturbed in
the single department of object clauses with
ὅπως, although we may admit an occasional
exception even there.
See
Transactions of the American
Philological Association for 186970, pp. 46-55, where this
question is discussed more fully.