This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
[*] 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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.