IN a paper on The Extent of the
Deliberative Construction in Relative Clauses in Greek
the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. vii. (1896), pp. 1-12, I have reviewed the recent
discussion on this subject, and have maintained the following points, on
which I agree substantially with Professor Hale's paper in the
Transactions of the American Philological Association, xxiv. pp.
1. Οὐκ ἔχω, οὐκ
with the dative, and similar expressions, in the
sense of ἀπορῶ
, may be
followed by a deliberative subjunctive in an indirect question; as
οὐκ ἔχω ὅ τι εἴπω
or οὐκ ἔχω τί φῶ
I know not what to say
, non habeo quod (or quid）
, ὅ τι
being purely interrogative like τί
. This subjunctive can become an optative after a past tense
or another optative; as
“οὐκ εἴχομεν ὅτου
Besides the examples in 677
we have the following.
“τίν᾽ ἔχων φήμην ἀγαθὴν
ἥκεις, ἐφ᾽ ὅτῳ κνισῶμεν ἀγυιάς;
we probably have an indirect question representing ἐπὶ τίνι
(in whose honor
depending on the idea what
have you to report to us?
or can you
In all these we find no case parallel to the Homeric
“ἡγεμόν᾽ ὄπασσον, ὅ κέ με
2. Expressions like οὐκ
ἔχει ὅ τι εἴπῃ
, he has nothing
, give rise by analogy to ἔχει ὅ τι εἴπῃ
, he has something to say
, though in the
latter there is really no indirect question. See examples in § 572, 1.
3. A further extension of the deliberative usage leads to the
subjunctive and optative in clauses introduced by true relatives with
distinct antecedents, when these depend on expressions implying doubt,
perplexity, or ignorance. See examples in § 572, 2
. Thus, in οὐ γὰρ ἄλλον οἶδ᾽ ὅτῳ
, we cannot distinguish the modal force of the subjunctive
from that in οὐ γὰρ οἶδ᾽ ὅτῳ
, the subjunctive being deliberative in both.
The former is the result of a simple evolution, by which a relative
clause derives its modal force from an interrogative form. Whatever
final force is felt in the expression comes from the intimate relation
between the deliberative and the hortatory subjunctive (see § 291
). See A.
Sidgwick in the Classical Review for 1891, p. 148. We have the evolution
actually going on in XEN. An. i. 7, 7
, where μὴ οὐκ ἔχω ὅ τι δῶ
and μὴ οὐκ ἔχω ἱκανοὺς οἷς
is purely relative, while the modal force of δῶ
must be the same in both.
See also XEN.
Hellen. i. 3, 21
, SOPH. Phil. 692
, THEOC. xxv. 218.
In AESCH. Prom.
, LYS. xxiv.
, we may call the dependent clause an indirect
question, depending directly on the idea I cannot
(could not) see.
See Tarbell in Classical Review for 1891,
4. While most of the optatives quoted in this discussion are
simply explained as correlatives of the deliberative subjunctive, a very
different problem is presented by the examples in § 573
“κρύψασ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἔνθα μή τις
, we cannot suppose an Attic construction like κρύψω ἐμαυτὴν ἔνθα μή τις εἰσίδῃ
for we should certainly find εἰσόψεται
, as in
SOPH. Aj. 658,
“κρύψω τόδ᾽ ἔγχος ἔνθα μή
. (For an occasional future optative, see § 574
clearly expresses purpose, and we cannot think of substituting
and ὅστις φθέγξεται
true Attic expression, is found in the next verse: the latter decides
the force of ὅστις λάκοι
It would seem that the optative, which is further removed than the
subjunctive from the original deliberative construction, took another
step in the process of “extension,” and gave us a few such
expressions as have been quoted. Another case of final optative is
“ὃς . . . μιμοῖτο καὶ . . .
“εἴ τις θεῶν ἄνδρα θείη
εἰς ἐρημίαν, ὅπου αὐτῷ μηδεὶς μέλλοι
, if some God should put a man in a desert,
where there should be nobody likely to help him
, we might
take the second clause as either final or conditional; it probably
combines a final with a conditional force, expressing the purpose of
putting the man into a desert and also continuing the condition of the
“ὁρῶντα ῾παστ̓ ναῦς βεβώσας, ἄνδρα δ᾽ οὐδέν᾽ ἔντοπον
῾σξ. ὄντα）, οὐχ ὅστις ἀρκέσειεν
οὐδ᾽ ὅστις συλλάβοιτο
, I formerly classed the optatives with those in § 573
; but it
now seems to me that οὐδεὶς
ἔντοπός ἐστιν ὅστις ἀρκέσῃ
would be as natural as
ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐκέτ᾽ ἐστὶν
εἰς ὅ τι βλέπω
in SOPH. Aj. 514
, and I have therefore included
this passage with the examples under § 573.2