¹ The effected object is for the most part restricted to the accusative case. Exceptions can be found, however; and of course the accusative case is not restricted to the effected object.

² Smyth, Greek Grammar, §1554; E. Kieckers, Historische griechische Grammatik III Syntax 1, 23–4, Berlin 1926.

³ Smyth classes such verbs (§1595) and (§1597) among verbs taking an accusative of the object affected. Neither, of course, implies that any change is made in the object.

⁴ Here might conceivably have been used instead of μή . Some interesting relations between complementary participles in different categories of meaning may be observed by putting the governing verb into the negative and then finding its equivalent in positive terms, for example, is the equivalent of a verb of sense impression in the passive.

⁵ Kühner-Gerth treat verbs of sense impression and verbs of intellectual perception in the same paragraph. Goodwin treats the verbs of sense impression separately. He is quite justified in doing so since there is not only a difference in meaning between the two classes of verbs but certain differences in the use of the participle. After verbs of intellectual perception the tense of the participle indicates relative time. Also, participle and noun are usually in the accusative case. This second distinction, however, is not always observed, and Goodwin is wrong (GMT §884) in trying to prove a difference in meaning between Thuc. 4.6.1 and Thuc. 7.31.3 There is no difference between the two passages in the meaning of the word (it indicates intellectual perception in both cases), nor is there any real difference between Goodwin's two translations: ‘when they heard of the capture of Pylus’ and ‘that he had heard that P. was captured’. On the same grounds, Horn. Il. 17.377 was wrongly included in §884. See Steup's note on Thuc. 4.6.

⁶ For similar examples of the complementary participle in Homer, see D. B. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect 212, Oxford, 1891. Monro refers to the complementary relationship as ‘implied predication’. Valuable statistics showing the difference in usage among participle, infinitive, and clause are given in Schanz, Beiträge 8.7–10 (Dr. Peter Schmitt, Über den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartikeln im Griechischen, Würzburg, 1889). There is a vast amount of interesting material on the participle in Homer in Classen, Beobachtungen über den Homerischen Sprachgebrauch, Frankfurt am Main, 1867.

⁷ This is strictly a borderline instance. It is possible to express the cause of a sorrow by means of an abstract noun as in Hdt. 6.21.2 . It is also possible to express it much more concretely with the noun standing alone and the cause added in a separate clause or paratactically as in Bion 1.1 The complementary participle stands between the two. The same variety can be found in Latin; cf. St. Aug. Conf. 1.21, where flere is used twice, once with the abstract noun and once with the participle (flente Didonis mortem and flebam Didonem exstinctam).

⁸ Cf. Stahl Syntax 737.§1, ‘das Objekt des Fühlens ist zugleich die Ursache desselben’.

⁹ By abstract, I mean one containing a verbal noun as Hdt. 6.21.2 Thuc. 7.47.1 In contrast with a concrete noun, any one of the functional units discussed in Chapter II might be called ‘abstract’ as indicating not an object but a state or action.

¹⁰ Lerch (Präd. Part. für Verbal-Substantiva 69 ff.) treats all examples of the accusative case in French ('rêve accompli als Objekt') as internal objects. He has no examples to correspond to my A 1 and A 2. The examples of the participle after verbs of sense impression and verbs of emotion he classes under 'Verba des Inhalts' along with verbs of intellectual perception and verbs of saying. I believe that the division I have made is a more natural one.

¹¹ There are interesting examples with verbs of finding, where the addition of the participle, as in ‘I found the horse stolen’, makes a statement which is in contradiction to that of verb and noun alone. Cf. Thuc. 2.56.6: For English and French examples, see Jespersen, Phil. Gram. 122; Lerch, Präd. Part. 72.

It seems to me that the complementary relation could have been established only after verbs of sense impression and that from them it was extended by analogy to verbs of intellectual perception such as olδa I find this an easier explanation than that of Smyth (§2109): he says, ‘in (X. An. 1.10.16) agrees with the object of and from they did not know him as dead the thought passes into they did not know (the fact) that he was dead’. This does not seem to me a natural course for a semantic change to follow. In the initial step both and ‘know’ have the sense of kennen; in the second (final) step they have the sense of wissen. After oiδa with the first meaning a participle can only be non-restrictive (circumstantial), with the second meaning olδa does not take a concrete noun for object; consequently borderline instances for the complementary participle could not arise with either meaning. Where a borderline instance cannot be found it would seem better to account for the complementary use by the principle of analogy than to assume a simultaneous change in the meaning of the verb and the function of the participle.

One of the verbs of indirect discourse for which borderline instances could undoubtedly be found is . This verb is different from olδa, standing somewhere between verbs of sense impression and verbs of intellectual perception. It means 'to bring up a mental image of and can take an object that is either concrete or 'abstract'.

¹² Stahl, Syntax 684, says the participle in this passage is the equivalent of a temporal clause with έωs. This is partially true. The equivalence, however, is to be found not in the participle alone but in noun and participle together. Stahl, in his first section on the participle (Das konstruierte Partizipium in Bestimmungsätzen, 681–714), ignores all of the distinctions commonly made between ‘attributive’, ‘circumstantial’, and ‘supplementary’.

According to the ordinary classification, should be treated as ‘supplementary’, as it is in GMT §880. A participle after μένω seems to occur only here. Participles are found, however, with ‘to watch for’ in Il. 8.340; 13.545; 16.313; with φνλάσσω, Hdt. 1.150.1; 5.104.2; and with Thuc. 1.134.2; 6.100.1; 8.108.4.

¹³ In Chapter I it was said that in the examples of the a. u. c. construction the tense of the participle indicated aspect rather than relative time. As long as the examples were considered together as a group, exceptions to the rule such as this and Thuc. 3.80.2 (see under II A below) would not be apparent. Such exceptions offer a further proof that the category is artificial.

¹⁴ The lines are repeated from 97–8 where they make part of a question.

¹⁵ Examples of this type are as common or more common in the grammars than those of the oblique cases. In Smyth (§2100), all but one of the examples used to illustrate the participle with verbs of emotion are in the nominative case.

¹⁶ See GMT §895, K-G §482.10. Not all the participles given in these sections are complementary, however. When verb and participle both express motion, the participle is non-restrictive. In (Il. 2.71), for example, the participle merely indicates manner—‘it went flying away’.

¹⁷ This seems to have been the origin of the modal use of with the participle. See K-G §482.11.

¹⁸ ‘Active’, of course, is used not of the form but of the meaning of the verb. It is opposed to passive and reflexive on the one hand, and to modal and copulative on the other.

¹⁹ Still a third kind of subject illustrates the legal principle of ‘qui facit per alium facit per se’. (See Gildersleeve, Syntax §144.) In Lysias 12.23 ‘Eratosthenes caused the death of my brother’, Eratosthenes, though not the agent, is morally responsible for the act. In the a. y. c. construction, the noun gives the remote rather than the immediate agent but represents it as not necessarily aware of the effect produced.

²⁰ To use the terminology of Leonard Bloomfield (Language 194 ff.), noun and participle in this sentence are ‘endocentric’ whereas is ‘exocentric’. Jespersen (Phil. Gram. Chapters 8 and 9) calls the two phenomena respectively ‘junction’ and ‘nexus’. Another endocentric example which may be used for the purpose of contrast with the exocentric examples in this chapter is Thuc. 6.88.10: ‘coming forward, Alcibiades roused and stimulated the Lacedemonians, speaking as follows’. Jespersen would say that combine with to form a junction rather than a nexus.

^20a The first part of this translation was suggested by G. M. Boiling.

²¹ In Nem. 4.34, it is not possible to say definitely whether is attributive or predicative. Sandys has taken it one way, Gildersleeve the other. The same is true of 01. 3.6 . Gildersleeve in his note on the passage calls ‘this warmer participial conception’ the equivalent of ‘the colder infinitive’, . If the two are really functional equivalents, the participle is complementary. Sandys, however, who considers it attributive, gives a perfectly satisfactory translation—‘the crowns that are set about my hair prompt me to pay this sacred debt’.

²² The a. u. c. construction lends itself to the kind of play on words found in this and the following passage. Cf. Plaut. Cist. 686 (ea) perdita perdidit me; and Livy 37.54.18 nec terra mutata mutavit genus aut mores; Dickens, OCS Ch. 13, Kit laughing so heartily .., made little Jacob laugh.

²³ In much the same way Helen, in Hec. 265–6, is charged with the destruction of Achilles. The means by which this was effected is expressed not by a participle, however, but by a coördinate clause:

²⁴ If the reading is correct, this would be different from other examples of the so-called schema Pindaricum. It is the only one of its type cited by Haydon in his article on the Schema Pindaricum in AJP 11.188. See also Gildersleeve on Pindar, 01. 11(10).6, and Syntax §118.

An interesting parallel is furnished by Xen. Hell. 7.1.35, where is similarly used with a clause for its subject. It furnishes a certain support for the -βaλετo reading in the Thucydides passage.

²⁵ This passage and the preceding are cited as ‘implied predication’ by Monro, Gramm. Horn. Dial. §245. He makes no distinction between these nominatives and such examples in an oblique case as Il. 14.504

²⁶ Other examples can be found in Soph. Ai. 635; O. T. 1368; Dem. 3.34. Two of these I have discussed more fully since they are sometimes cited as a. u. c. It is difficult to decide whether Thuc. 3.37.3 belongs in this class or not: . Since there is no article with one might take the participle as defining and translate, ‘a city whose laws are undisturbed, even though they are inferior, is better than one whose laws are violated, even though they are better’. This interpretation is supported by the parallel of 3.48.2: forts It would be equally possible to take the participle as equivalent to a conditional clause, sc. 'a city is better off if, etc.' In that case it would be non-restrictive and not complementary, whether κρεíσσων is given Classen's meaning of 'kräftiger, mächtiger' or whether it means, as Marchant insists, ‘it is better for a state’. In either case its reference is to πóλis not to something outside.

²⁷ Other examples are Eur. I. A. 1394; Xen. Cyr. 2.4.11 Cyr. 8.4.11 Pl. Rep. 458b Hdt. 1.37.3 . There is an interesting borderline instance in Hipp. de fractis (§47 Teubner edition), 'if an arm should become ankylosed in the extended position, it would be more useful if it were not there at all since it would hinder much and help but little'. The use of μη and the form of κρεσσων seem to show that the participle was intended to be conditional. The sense, however, makes it easier to take it as complementary and translate, as Littré does, ‘il vaudrait mieux n'avoir pas le bras’, i.e. its absence would be more useful than its presence.

Further examples of the participle with βετiων etc. are given by Lobeck on Soph. Aj. 635. Many of them are from late Greek.

²⁸ These examples may be compared with one in which indicates moral responsibility and the participle remains non-restrictive: Thuc. 8.83.3 . Dale translates, ‘for all this A. was to blame, through his humoring T. for his own profit’.

²⁹ In the last two examples, the neuter singular predicate has struck some as peculiar, and it has been explained as due to the fact that the noun and participle are really singular in meaning and equivalent to an articular infinitive. (See under II D on Thuc. 3.36.2.) Such an explanation is not necessary, however, since a neuter adjective in the predicate does not need to agree with its subject. Cf. Plato Laws 732 e See Gildersleeve, Synt. §124, 126.

³⁰ Parallels with the abstract noun can be easily found. The following are illustrative: Thuc. 1.93.3 (cf. Thuc. 5.25.1); Thuc. 3.78.4 (cf. Od. 19.424); Thuc. 8.45.1 (cf. Hdt. 7.171.1); Thuc. 6.91.7 (cf. Thuc. 7.42.2); Thuc. 4.126.2 (cf. Thuc. 6.80.2). Parallels with the articular infinitive are not so common as is generally supposed. With , the articular infinitive is very rare in classical Greek; it is most common with δiά+acc., but even here I have found no exact parallels to the a. u. c. type. For statistics on the articular infinitive in classical Greek, see Schanz, Beiträge III, 1 (Franz Birklein, Entwicklungsgeschichte des substantivierten Infinitivs, Würzburg, 1888). Franz Krapp, Der substantivierte Infinitiv, Heidelberg, 1892, gives statistics on the construction after prepositions in historical prose from Herodotus to Zosimus.

One might infer from Goodwin, (GMT §149, 829) that whereas the a. u. c. construction is rare after μ∈τά, the articular infinitive is common. He gives as the equivalent of Thuc. 6.3.3, of Hdt. 1.34, and of Plato, Symp. 198 B, . The comparison is very misleading. Thucydides never used the accusative of the articular infinitive after μετá (see Birklein 56). There is only one example cited from Plato, Gorg. 527 c (?) and there μ∈τά indicates rank. Of the two examples in Herodotus, 1.136 and 6.67, the first indicates rank alone while in the second, though the idea of time is present, is used primarily to point a comparison. In addition to these three, the only other examples in classical Greek are two from Demosthenes. (See Birklein, 47, 48, 70, 80, 108.) In late Greek, however, the construction became fairly common. (See Krapp 28, 84.)

³¹ Beiträge zu der Lehre von den griechischen Präpositionen 69, Berlin, 1895.

³² The genitive absolute is used with the same meaning in Il. 8.538. This type of expression, already a formula in Homer, also appeared very early in Latin, French, English, and Italian. Cf. XX tabb. post solem occasum; lex Julia municipalis 14, post solem ortum (cited by Stolz-Schmalz⁴, 457); Genesis, 28.11, Wyclif's translation, after the sunne goyng downe (cited by Kellner, Hist. Eng. Synt. 262); dopo il sol partito, Dante, Purg. 7.54. For numerous examples in Old French see Lerch 45 ff. Schmalz's Latin examples presumably, since they are taken from laws, represent an early stage of the language. The first appearance of the idiom in literature is in Plautus (Epid. 144; Men. 437, 1022; Bacch. 424).

³³ Except here and in Hdt. 3.86.2, where an instantaneous act is referred to, áμα regularly takes a present participle. Classen (Beob. Horn. Spr. 59, 179 n.) explains the use of the aorist here in contrast with the present in on the ground that a sunrise is incomplete and gradual, a sunset complete and instantaneous. This view is accepted by Ameis-Hentze (Od. 1.24, Anhang). An easier explanation would be that was used because it is the metrical equivalent of The strongest support for Classen's theory is the occurrence, in Od. 1.24, of an aorist participle where a present would fit the meter just as well: Wackernagel (Verm. Beiträge zur Griech. Sprachkunde 47), however, has presented a convincing argument to show that these forms represent old presents in -σσμai or -σσoμai

It is interesting to note that where the idiom first appears in Latin, the same difference is to be found in the tense of the participle. Cf. Plaut. Men. 1022 ad solem occasum with Bacch. 424 ante solem exorientem. (See Heick 13; Bennett, Synt. of Early Lat. 2.441.) However, in the examples from laws given in Stolz-Schmalz (4th ed. p. 457) there is no distinction in the tense of the participle but all are perfect, while in Livy's ab orto sole ad occidentem (27.50.4) the use of the tenses is reversed.

³⁴ Stahl 684, classes this with participles that are equivalent to a temporal clause. He does not say in what respect it differs from Plato, Symp. 183 e which he calls A. U. C. (697).

³⁵ Cf. Xen. Hell. 1.2.4 Other parallels between the genitive absolute and prepositional phrases have been given in Chap. II, n. 4.

³⁶ kaτá is, of course, distributive. A large number of examples in which it is combined with έkaστos are given in Gildersleeve, Synt. §661. In none except this has a predicative participle been added,

³⁷ I believe that other examples could be found in which an ordinary adjective or participle in the predicative position is used in a partitive sense with nouns of place, e.g. Thuc. 5.10.2 The adjective is usually taken as qualifying the noun like an ordinary non-restrictive clause. Dale translates, ‘when he was in the city — of which a view is commanded from the outside’. It is plain from the context, however, that because of the walls a view of the city is not commanded from the outside. This difficulty would be avoided if the words could be taken in a partitive sense, e.g. ‘in that part of the city which can be seen from the outside’. I think that the parallel of ákpos and μέσos makes such a translation perfectly possible. In the partitive sense lies not in the meaning but in the position of μέση

³⁸ Examples to illustrate the difference in temporal expressions between the attributive and predicative positions are most common with the genitive of time. In the attributive position a participle gives the position its noun holds in a series: Hdt. 3.86.1 ‘the night before’; Thuc. 8.102.1 ‘this same night’; Xen. Hell. 1.2.4 ννκτós ‘the following night’. (Numerous examples from Horn. Hdt. Thuc. Xen. are given by Brown, A Study of the Case Construction of Words of Time 15–8, New Haven, 1904. It should be noted that Brown's citation in this connection of Od. 14.162 is misleading, since the use of article and participle is not comparable to the other examples given.) In the predicative position, the participle gives the part of the division of time that is in question: Thuc. 4.89.1 ‘at the beginning of winter’; Thuc. 5.57.1 in the middle of summer'; Thuc. 4.49.1 ‘at the end of the summer’. (Other examples with words for the seasons in 5.20.1 ; 5.76.1 ; 6.30.1 ; 3.25.1 ; 3.115.6; 3:86.1.)

In Thuc. 4.129.5 and 4.130.1, the two uses are juxtaposed: The first means ‘at nightfall’, the second ‘the following night’. (N. Stahl 714 sees no difference between the two, ‘hinsichtlich der Zeitbedeutung’.)

Sometimes participles of both types are used to qualify the same time-word: Thuc. 5.57.1 .

It should be noted that in expressions of time the participle is regular and the adjective, as in (Xen. Hell. 6.5.20) very rare. The participle may have been preferred because of the idea of motion implied in an expression of time.

³⁹ In this passage έπi introduces a more elaborate complex of words than is usual. It may be translated ‘at that point of time when Chrysis had been priestess in Argos for 48 years, when A. was ephor at Sparta, and when the archonship of P. at Athens lacked two months of completion’. The three nouns dependent on έπi select three periods of time. Two of them are further limited by participles, the third by a noun. Each segment of time marked off by a participle is again divided into two parts by an accusative of extent. The point in question is at the end of the division made by έrη in the first segment, but at the beginning of the division marked by τrη in the third. The segment marked off by is left undivided.

⁴⁰ There is an interesting parallel to Il. 24.574–5 and Od. 24.76–9 The parallelism is only apparent if μετά is taken of rank in a series and the participle, θανóντα, treated as a characterizing epithet. This is the way the words are regularly taken by the editors, who translate, ‘next to the dead Patroclus’, or ‘second to Patroclus, who was dead’. The context, however, would permit the meaning 'after the death of P.', and it is my belief that in the second of the two passages this was the meaning intended by the author, μ∈τά with the accusative, it is true, is used in similar passages to indicate rank in a series. The use of θανóντα as an epithet, however, is strange, since it makes no difference in the ranking whether Patroclus is alive or dead. One would expect instead some conventional epithet, as in Od. 24.18 Il. 16.146 Neither nor does anything to alter or limit the concept of its noun as does θανóντα that of Now in all the other passages in which a form of θανών or is used with (cf. Od. 24.77, cited above, and also II. 8.476; 17.120, 182, 229, 341, 369, 379, 402, 538; 18.195; 23.192; 24.16) the participle is specially applicable in the context, being used only in statements that would not be true of the living Patroclus. As I have said, this is not true in the two passages under consideration. Now in the first of them, Il. 24.575, I feel that instead of a more conventional epithet, was chosen for its pathetic effect. The dead Patroclus is contrasted with Achilles and his other companions, who are still alive. In the second, however, the epithet has no such rhetorical value, since not only Patroclus but also Achilles and Antilochus are dead, and 'second only to the dead Patroclus' is flat and pointless. The true explanation, it seems to me, is that the lines, 77–9, were added to the text by someone who was so familiar with μ∈τά and the participle in its later, prose use as to mistake the meaning of Il.24.574–5, on which the lines are modelled. In both places the words can be given the meaning ‘after the death of P.‘; in the second of them this is the only meaning possible.

(The first 204 lines of Od. 24 have on various grounds been suspected of being the work of a late hand. For a presentation of the argument for this view, see Hennings, Homers Odyssee 586–9, Berlin, 1903.)

⁴¹ The passage is full of difficulties, due chiefly to an elaborate use of antithesis and parallelism. Gernet's translation makes it seem easier than it is. The reference is to the murder of a slave whose false testimony against the defendant has been recorded, though his subsequent recantation has not. The sentence from which the quotation has been made is very involved and contains two shifts in the point of view. This part apparently gives the thoughts which passed through the minds of the murderers just before the murder took place. The imperfect represents a hypothetical future. Now if this interpretation is correct, it makes very little sense to say, ‘dead, he would take away the proof by destroying his body’. It is absurd to speak of a murdered man as destroying his own body. Furthermore, if the words are to mean ‘destruction of the body’ no explanation can be given for the use of the present participle, which represents the action as still continuing. Many difficulties would be avoided and a better meaning obtained if δι' could be construed directly with in the sense of δiá βασάνον (cf. [Dem.] 47.47, I do not know whether a parallel could be found for in this meaning; it seems to me a perfectly possible one, however, and one that suits the present tense of the participle. It is also a meaning highly suitable to the rhetorical character of the passage, since it provides a sort of 'elegant variation' upon in the preceding clause and an artificial parallelism when contrasted with άπóλλνμαι, in the following.

This interpretation would be made easier if one were privileged to alter the reading, e.g. by adding An adverbial phrase is occasionally used, however, even without the article, to qualify such 9. noun as (see Krüger, Spr. §50.9.9).

⁴² The manuscript reading was kept and defended by many of the older editors and commentators, among them Poppo, Balkenholl, Jowett, Goeller, Arnold, and Haack. They explained the construction on the ground that it was a peculiarly Thucydidean use of the article, developed perhaps by analogy with the articular infinitive of which it is the exact functional parallel. In support of it were cited 1.2.5; 5.7.2; 6.1.2; and 8.105.2, where an article and participle are, apparently, similarly used. These passages, however, can all be explained on a different principle or be easily emended.

⁴³ The same difficulty of seeing how the corruption arose is to be found in Reiske's alteration of τó to τούs. If such an emendation is called for, I would rather go a little farther and alter παρóνταs to πaρ∈vaı, or supply as Stein did.

⁴⁴ Classen proposed the term ‘dative absolute’ in Horn. Spr. 155–60. He was censured for this by Spieker, AJP 6.315 and Milden, Lim. Pred. Pos. 22, who says, ‘the dative point of view forbids such a comparison’. The term has, however, appealed to others as well as Classen; Monro, Horn. Gr. §246, speaks of ‘an approach to a dative absolute’; Heikel 34, ‘res participio adiuncto eo deducitur ut magis per se stare videatur neque ab genetivo absoluto prorsus dissimilis sit’; Kieckers, Hist, griech. Gramm. 4.105, ‘ein Ansatz zum Dativus absolutus’. Steup says the dative in Thuc. 1.6.3 ‘nähert sich der Bedeutung des absol. Genet.‘ Cf. also Krüger, Spr. §48.5 Anm. 1.

⁴⁵ 3.20.1 is called a. u. c. by K-G §485 Anm. 1, and Smyth §2053. 1.6.3 is classed as a. u. c. by Steup alone; Gildersleeve, Syntax §629, classes it with examples of the ‘Predicative Position in Phrases that have to do with the Person’; Milden 23 calls it a ‘Dative of Attendant Circumstances’. 3.29.2 is classed by Smyth §1498, under ‘Dative of the Participle Expressing Time’; Kühner-Gerth §423 p. 425 call it a dative of time but treat it as a. u. c. in §485 Anm. 1.

⁴⁶ The construction is especially common in Herodotus; cf. also 1.113.2; 2.3.3; 3.56.1; 9.39.1; 9.41.1, and see Heikel 36, 77; Helbing, Über den Gebrauch des echten und sociativen Dativs bei Herodot 48, Karlsruhe, 1898. Examples from Homer, Xenophon, Thucydides, Sophocles, and Euripides can be found in Kühner-Gerth §423.18 f. (424–5).

⁴⁷ For a similar idea expressed by the genitive absolute compare Xen. Oec. 4.2:

⁴⁸ A whole series of these datives are used in Th. 6.43 to describe the start of the Sicilian expedition. Other examples are given in K-G §425.5.

⁴⁹ Xen. An. 1.8.1 is classed by Kühner-Gerth §425.7 as a dative of ‘Mittel und Werkzeug’. White and Goodwin, in their note on the passage, are more nearly correct in calling it a ‘dative of accompaniment with a participle of attendant circumstances’. It is plain, however, that this, too, is inaccurate, since if one attempted a translation to accord with the definition one would get something like this: ‘riding swiftly, accompanied by his horse, which was sweating’. The fallacy lies in attempting to classify these combinations of noun and participle with ordinary datives. Accompanied by the complementary participle, a noun in the dative may be used sociatively whiph could never be so used alone. Failure to recognize this has led in a few instances to serious errors of classification. For example, Hdt. 7.20.1 can most easily be explained as a sociative dative; however, because the noun is a time-word, it is regularly classed as an ordinary dative of time. The same thing is true of Xenophon, Hell. 3.2.25 and Thucydides 1.30.2. (See Appendix G.)

⁵⁰ For other exx. see Classen, Horn. Sprach. 155 ff.; Monro, Homeric Gramm. §246; Heikel, de part. ap. Hdt. usu 35, 77, 104; Balkenholl, de part. usu Thuc. 36–7; Helbing, Über den Gebrauch des echten und sociativen Dativs bei Herodot 49–54. Of these, the best and most thorough treatment is that of Helbing, who, in addition to numerous examples from Herodotus, gives references to earlier and later literature. Kühner-Gerth treat the construction in the same paragraph with datives of the measure of time like Thuc. 3.29.2 (§423. 18 f.)

⁵¹ I have not included here the so-called ‘chorographic datives’, which are often treated in this connection (K-G §423 e, Helbing, op. cit. 45–7, 49). In this construction, a participle in the dative is used without the article to give the person in reference to whose position a chorographic description holds good, e.g. Hdt. 1.51.1 ‘the gold crater lay on your right as you entered the temple’. This kind of participle performs the function of an indefinite noun and so has no place in a discussion of the complementary participle.

⁵² On the view of Thumb, Smyth, and others that this passage shows a possible starting point for the genitive absolute, see Appendix D.

⁵³ Gemoll and Cobet bracket the whole phrase. Pökel in his revision of Krüger (1889) follows D and the deteriores, reading a second This makes a defining participle out of it and offers no difficulty to the translator, sc. ‘the danger that is approaching’, for which cf. Eur. Alc. 173 and Aesch. P. V. 274 Lys. 2.35, which gives a more exact parallel, occurs itself in a difficult passage and has been questioned.) In these passages, however, the participle performs a needed service, whereas in Anabasis 1.7.5 the danger is well known and the addition of a defining participle merely weakens the effect.