¹ In Russian, however, and other Slavonic languages greater emphasis is put on the kind of action than on the time of the verb. See G. Herbig, IF 6.186 ff.; F. Hartmann, Neue Jahrb. 43.320 ff.

² Burs. Jahresb. 159.323. Compare also Herbig, IF 6.267.

³ Ap. Meltzer, IF 17.196.

⁴ E. Vayhinger, Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi bei Herodot (Programm des Königlich-Württembergischen evangelisch-theologischen Seminars in Schönthal) 4 (Heilbronn, 1880); H. Jacobsthal, IF (Beiheft) 21.9–12. The French school, comprising Thurot, Riemann, and Bréal, belittle the Aktionentheorie. For a refutation of their view, see F. Blass, RhM (NF) 44.406 ff.; Meltzer, IF 17.187 ff. See also Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 548; Meltzer, Burs. Jahresb. 159.350; B. Gildersleeve, SCG §212; J. Stahl, Syntax 123.

⁵ Durative and aoristic are not the best possible terms, but it is a hopeless task to attempt to find a more exact terminology. After all, the main thing is to explain tense-usage, and if this is done, terms are of little moment. For diverse names applied to the aorist and imperfect, see F. Hultsch, Die erzählenden Zeitformen bei Polybios (Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, vols. 13–14) 1.6–11 (Leipzig, 1891–4); E. Rodenbusch, IF 21.116 ff.; Hartmann, Neue Jahrb. 43.338; Gildersleeve, AJP 4.160; 23.106,250; C. W. E. Miller, AJP 16.143; B. Delbrück, Grundriss 4.230 ff.; Meltzer, IF 17.186 ff.; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 538 ff.; Stahl, Syntax 74 ff.

⁶ AJP 23.241. Compare also Blass, Gram. of New Test. Gk. 190; Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular §§186 ff. (Edinburgh, 1912); Herbig, IF 6.232 ff.; Rodenbusch, IF 21.116 ff.; E. Hermann, Glotta 10.131 ff.; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 547.

⁷ 2.891.

⁸ G. Uhlig, Grammatici Graeci 2.97, 358 (Lipsiae, 1910). A. Poutsma makes these passages the basis of his excellent discussion of the imperative, Over de Tempora van de Imperativus on de Conjunctivus Hortativus-Prohibitivus in het Grieks (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 27, No. 2) 3–4 (Amsterdam, 1928).

⁹ Blass, RhM (NF) 44.406.

¹⁰ Gildersleeve, SCG §§192, 213; H. Smyth, Gk. Gram. §§1878, 1895.

¹¹ For the original meaning of the aorist, see Delbrück, Grundriss 4.230 ff.; Rodenbusch, IF 21.123; Blass, RhM (NF) 44.422, 425 ff.; G. Mahlow, KZ 26.570 ff.; Hultsch 1.6 ff.; Herbig, IF 6.242; C. Mutzbauer, Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der homerische Tempusgebrauch 1.15 ff. (Strassburg, 1893–1909).

¹² See Gildersleeve, AJP 4.160; 23.251; SCG §243; Meltzer, IF 17.196 ff.; Rodenbusch, IF 21.124; Hermann, IF 45.207 ff.; L. Hillesum, De Imperfecti et Aoristi Usu Thucydideo, Diss. 28 (Lugduni-Batavorum, 1908); H. Engelskirchen, De Temporum Usu Lysiaco, Diss. 17 (Bonnae, 1913).

¹³ Hartmann (Neue Jahrb. 43.338) says: ‘es war ein wesentlicher Fortschritt, dass man als Bedeutung des Aorists die Handlung in ihrer Totalität erkannte.‘

¹ See Gildersleeve, AJP 4.160.

² Gildersleeve (AJP 23.127–8) says: ‘There is an expression of will in the conative present, a sign of failure in the conative imperfect. The imperfect is a suspended future. It can be interpreted into terms of ἔμ∊λλον with the infinitive. It needs no ἄν to mark its unreality.‘ Compare SCG §213. See also Blass, RhM (NF) 44.407 ff.; Engelskirchen 14; Hillesum 65.

³ See Classen-Steup³; C. Smith (Boston, 1913); E. Marchant (London, 1914). The vision of the narrator plays its part also in the Latin imperfect. Extollebat (Sall. Jug. 65) means ‘The people were ready to laud the parvenu.’ See Gildersleeve-Lodge, Lat. Gram. §233. Moreover, the Russian tenses are very close to the Greek. Vivoračivaju (imperfective aspect which corresponds to the Greek durative tenses) means ‘I try to disengage.’ See S. Harper, Russian Reader 189 (Chicago, 1932), where he has this comment: 'impf. indicating an action attempted, but not yet successfully carried out.'

⁴ See Gildersleeve, SCG §213.

⁵ See T. Tucker (London, 1892), who renders the imperfect ‘were for entrusting.‘

⁶ See Blass, RhM (NF) 44.425.

⁷ Cf. χαλ∊πῶς (14.2) and oὐ ῥᾳδíως (16.1).

⁸ This is the reading of Ms. B and most editors.

⁹ See his notes on Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes 158, 176 (New York, 1885), where ατ∊ι and λ∊īπ∊ are rendered ‘had to ask’ and ‘had to leave’; see also AJP 23.250, note 2.

¹⁰ The reading of Mss. C and Corr. G with Classen-Steup⁵ is adopted.

¹¹ These conjunctions, in accordance with their nature, generally introduce actions that are prior to the action of the main verb, and consequently have an affinity for the aorist. This holds true for Thucydides, in whom the aorist far outnumbers the durative tenses, the proportion being approximately nine to two. ἐπ∊í, ἐπ∊ιδή, and ώς with aorists may be compared with the aorist participle, with which they sometimes interchange. See 1.30.2, where ἐπ∊ιδὴ ἀν∊χώρησαν is set over against πλ∊ύσαντ∊ς. In such passages the ἐπ∊ιδή clauses are used in conjunction with aorist participles to give the attained action. Where, however, it is desired to emphasize the course of the action rather than its attainment, there is nothing in the nature of these conjunctions to exclude durative forms.

¹² Nearly all the editors follow Ms. C in reading the imperfect here in preference to ἐξέκαμον.

¹³ For this sort of imperfect, see Gildersleeve, SCG §213; W. Goodwin, MT §36; Stahl, Syntax 100; Hillesum 85.

¹⁴ The same expression occurs in 5.74.2.

¹⁵ See Gildersleeve, SCG §205.

¹⁶ See Hillesum 81–5.

¹⁷ De Imperfecti atque Aoristi apud Herodotum Usu, Diss. 5–6 (Hallis Saxonum, 1882).

¹⁸ 1.47 ff.

¹⁹ 1.49. See also Miller, AJP 16.157.

²⁰ Meltzer (IF 17.242) seems to agree with these statements.

²¹ 82.

²² Gildersleeve, SCG §206; AJP 23.251.

²³ Gildersleeve, SCG §216.

²⁴ See also Gildersleeve, AJP 22.228; 29.394; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §1895a.

²⁵ Consider ᾔκαζον (6.92.5), ἐκυκλοῡντο (7.81.2), and ἐπ∊τίθ∊ντο (4.1.3). See also U. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Euripides Herakles 220, 337 (Berlin, 1909), where ἐξ∊λ∊ίπ∊τ∊ is rendered ‘wie konntet ihr verlassen?‘

²⁶ Compare Mutzbauer, 1.353 (on the translation of π∊ίθω with a negative); Meltzer, IF 17.193 (on the meaning of μὴ ποί∊ι); Rodenbusch, IF 21.120 ff.; Hillesum 31; A. Svensson, Zum Gebrauch der erzahlenden Tempora im Griechischen 105 (Lund, 1930).

²⁷ For the aorist of simple negation, see Gildersleeve, SCG §216; AJP 23.249; Hartmann, KZ 49.31; Svensson 106.

²⁸ Gnomon 2.387; compare also Rodenbusch, IF 21.143.

²⁹ This is certainly true for Russian. See Harper 67.

³⁰ Conversely, Gildersleeve, SCG §250, claims that ‘The aorist is used from affinity to the negative.‘

³¹ Neue Jahrb. 43.387. See also Hermann, Glotta 10.136, where he says: ‘Alles in allem lässt sich wohl sagen, dass bei Homer die Negation allein noch nicht imstande ist, die Wahl des Tempus zu beeinflussen’; Poutsma 41, note 1, where it is denied that the negative influences the choice of the aorist.

³² See Gildersleeve's dictum in SCG §245: ‘As the aorist is used of one, so it is used of none’; also AJP 23.251.

³³ R. Shilleto (Cambridge, 1880) renders the negative imperfect here ‘were not disposed to yield.‘ This brings out the sense very well.

³⁴ This is the reading of the Mss. and of most editors. Classen-Steup² changed the imperfect to the aorist ἀντανηγάγοντο without sufficient reason. For the imperfect ἀνταρήγοντο, see also Hillesum 115–6; Svensson 104.

³⁵ An instance of the imperfect of resistance to pressure in Latin is nec pulchros illos ministratores aspiciebat (Cic. Tusc. 5.62) ‘he could not look upon those beautiful slaves.’ See Gildersleeve-Lodge, Lat. Gram. §233. An example in Russian is Miša . . . ne slizal (Harper 25) ‘Michael refused to get down from the stove,’ slizal being the past imperfective, which corresponds to the Greek imperfect.

³⁶ KZ 26.574.

³⁷ Smith (The Loeb Classical Library, Thuc. 2.23.2) translates this imperfect ‘they had been equipping.‘

³⁸ 112.

³⁹ The reference in parentheses alludes to the section where the fact was previously mentioned.

⁴⁰ K. Krüger, Griechische Sprachlehre für Schulen⁴ §53.2.8 (Berlin, 1861).

⁴¹ See Goodwin, MT §58.

⁴² Gildersleeve (AJP 23.243) had in mind such a passage, when he wrote: ‘But in spite of all cavil there are passages in which the Greek author himself makes a point that turns on the shift of the tenses.‘

⁴³ Xen. Anab. 3.3.5 and Cyr. 5.5.22 offer two very good examples of this distinction between the aorist and the imperfect. In the first passage we have διέφθ∊ιρον ... τοῦς στρατιώτας, καὶ ἔνα γ∊ λοχαγòν διέφθ∊ιραν ‘They tried to corrupt the soldiers, and they succeeded in corrupting one captain.’ The second is ἔπ∊ιθον αὐτούς καὶ o ς ἔπ∊ισα τούτους ἔχων ἐπορ∊νόμην 'I tried to persuade them, and with those whom I succeeded in persuading I marched on.'

⁴⁴ Gildersleeve-Lodge (Lat. Gram. §231) claims that this distinction holds for Latin: ‘The Imperfect dwells on the process; the Historical Perfect states the result.‘

⁴⁵ See W. Lamberton (New York, 1905).

⁴⁶ Harper (1) offers a good example of the perfective denoting the result of the imperfective: ‘A squirrel was springing (prigala) from branch to branch and fell (upala).‘

⁴⁷ Hultsch 1.25. See also Gildersleeve, SCG §211; Blass, RhM (NF) 44.414; Engelskirchen 15; Smyth, Gk. Gram §1899.

⁴⁸ Compare Meltzer, Bur. Jahresb. 159–322; Hartmann, Neue Jahrb. 43.317.

⁴⁹ See Classen-Steup³.

⁵⁰ See Gildersleeve, SCG §243.

⁵¹ See Gildersleeve, SCG §§208, 243; also AJP 23.251: ‘Definite numbers take the aorist with fateful regularity.‘

⁵² Brugmann-Thumb (Griech. Gram. 559) says it is the 'Gewohnkeit der Historiker, von einer zu berichtenden Rede zu sagen ἔλ∊γ∊ τοιάδ∊, nach ihrer Vorführung aber τοιοῦτα ∊ῖπ∊'; see also Stahl, Syntax 97–9. But this dictum does not hold for Thucydides. Compare likewise Classen-Steup⁵ on Thuc. 2.71.1; Svensson 52; Engelskirchen 36. For others on verbs of saying, see K-G³ 1.143–4; Blass, RhM (NF) 44.410–1; A. Debrunner, Friedrich Blass' Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch⁶ §329 (Göttingen, 1931); Rodenbusch, IF 21.129; Zander 18 ff.; S. Komassa, Quaestiones de Verbi Actionibus apud Anti-phontem Oratorem, Diss. 48–50 (Berolini, 1912); Poppo-Stahl³ on Thuc. 1.119.

⁵³ See Gildersleeve, SCG §§243, 245; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 559.

⁵⁴ ∊ῖπον is the regular aorist of λέγω, occurring in Thucydides about seven times as often as ἔλ∊ξα. See also AJP 11.390; 16.162, note 3; Hultsch 1.100; W. Rutherford, The New Phrynichus 362 (London, 1881).

⁵⁵ 53 ff. Svensson compares Blass, RhM (NF) 44.410, where it is said that these are verbs ‘die ihre Vollendung in dem Thun eines Andern haben.‘

⁵⁶ Gildersleeve, AJP 23.351.

⁵⁷ Mss. CEG read the aorist παρ∊κ∊λ∊ύσατο.

⁵⁸ Gildersleeve, AJP 4.160.

⁵⁹ Compare Gildersleeve, Pindar 292, verse 114; SCG §212; K–G³ 1.143–4; Hillesum 118; Svensson 82; Hultsch 1.64 ff.

⁶⁰ In J. Wackernagel, Vorlesung über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch 173 (Basel, 1926) is mentioned the ‘Aoristbedeutung’ of such a form as ν∊óμην; see also Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 558. But the imperfect just cited (4.9.4) casts considerable doubt on Wackernagel's view. Often, to be sure, the attainment of such imperfects is not stated in so many words; but this occasions no difficulty, because their attainment can easily be gathered from the context. Instances are ἀπέπλ∊ι (6.50.1); παρέπλ∊ον (50.3); ἐχώρ∊ι (59.4); ἐχώρουν (62.3); παρέπλ∊ον (7.25.4); ἔπλ∊ον (69.4). Compare Svensson 80 ff.

⁶¹ An inchoative signification is frequently in place. This is particularly true when the action is, as here, interrupted for the narration of other events. See Hultsch 1.47 ff.; K-G³ 1.142; Gildersleeve, SCG §205; Hartmann, KZ 49.7; Neuc Jahrb. 43.332; Classen-Steup³ on Thuc. 6.62.1 and passim.

⁶² See K-G³ 1.143; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §1891.

⁶³ Gildersleeve, SCG §212.

⁶⁴ This same usage is found in the imperfective of Russian verbs of motion. See the examples cited by Harper 244.

⁶⁵ Compare Stahl, Syntax 87; Goodwin, MT §23 ff.; K–G³ 1.132 ff.; Jacobsthal, IF 21 (Beiheft) 3 ff.; L. Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik 121 ff. (Tübingen, 1911); E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit 2.130 ff. (Berlin und Leipzig, 1926); S. Sobolewski, Syntaxis Aristophaneae Capita Selecta 1 ff. (Mosquae, 1891); Rodenbusch, IF 21.127. Gildersleeve, on the other hand, maintains that the present indicative is both durative and aoristic. See AJP 4.161; 23.243; SCG §188. He (AJP 29.392) says: ‘The universal present is aoristic, true at any point.’ But it is more likely that the present of a general truth is the result of the repeated or customary action of the present as a durative tense. Compare K–G³ 1.132; Blass, Gram. of New Test. Gk. 187; Stahl, Syntax 88. In Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 555 and E. Kieckers, Historische griechische Grammatik 4.6 (Berlin und Leipzig, 1926) the universal present is described as ‘zeitlos.’ However, Gildersleeve is correct in maintaining that the present indicative can, when the need arises, denote aoristic action. Two undeniable examples of this aoristic present occur in Acts 9.34 and Mark 2.5, quoted respectively by Blass, Gram. of New Test. Gk. 188 and J. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek³ 1.19 (Edinburgh, 1930). Others who argue for an aoristic present are Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §320; Meltzer, IF 17.219 ff.; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §1853; Thumb, Handb. §§180, 186. Yet the Greeks themselves seemed to feel that the present as an aoristic tense was inadequate, for it is significant that when an aoristic form is needed to stand in contrast with an universal present, it is the gnomic aorist that is used. Compare C. Peppler, AJP 54.48 ff.; Gildersleeve, SCG §260.

⁶⁶ See Gildersleeve, AJP 4.161; 23.244. It is interesting to note in this connection that the Russian verb, which also stresses the kind rather than the time of the action, has no perfective (aoristic) present.

⁶⁷ See Goodwin, MT §25; Blass, Gram. of New Test. Gk. 187; Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §319; Gildersleeve, SCG §192. The comparative infrequency of the conative present is, no doubt, partly due to the fact that the imperfect greatly outnumbers the present indicative in Thucydides. See L. Schlachter, IF 24.189 ff., where the statistics for the tenses in Thucydides are given. Brugmann-Thumb (Griech. Gram. 557) apparently regards the conative present as ‘punktuell’ (aoristic).

⁶⁸ Grammars have separate categories for the conative present and the present used in a future sense. Compare Goodwin, MT §§25, 32; Gildersleeve, SCG §§192, 194; Stahl, Syntax 88; Blass, Gram. of New Test. Gk. 187, 189; Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §§319, 323. Some also have a separate category for verbs of going. Compare K-G³ 1.138–40; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 557; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §§1878–9, 1881. See also Goodwin, MT §29 and Gildersleeve, SCG §195, who speak of the future sense of ∊ῖμι in standard prose. The conative present, present anticipating the future (praesens propheticum), and the future present of verbs of going are all the result of inferences drawn from the durative action (vision) of the present indicative, and should therefore be placed in a single category, ∊ῖμι being merely a special instance of a conative present becoming a true future by usage. Many, however, believe that the future sense of the present, especially of verbs of going, is aoristic. See Wackernagel, Vorl. 1.161; Herbig, IF 6.199 ff.; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 544 ff.; Rodenbusch, IF 22.402 ff.; Meltzer, Burs. Jahresb. 154.321; Delbrück, Grundriss 4.120 ff.; Thumb, IF 27.199; Moulton, Gram. of New Test. Gk.³ 1.120. But this theory is untenable, because if the future meaning of the present is aoristic, it follows that the conative imperfect, which is a future transferred into the past, is also aoristic. Compare Svensson 78 ff.; C. Sarauw, KZ 38.159 ff.

⁶⁹ Compare Classen-Steup³, where it is said that ὑποδέχ∊ται is a vivid present for the future.

⁷⁰ For the tendency of verbs of going to be used in a future sense, compare Sarauw, KZ 38.160; Hartmann, KZ 48.30 ff. See also Mahlow, KZ 26.601 ff.; Jacobsthal, IF (Beiheft) 21.5 ff.; K-G³ 1.137 ff.; Stahl, Syntax 88; Mayser, Gram. der griech. Papyri 2.133 ff.; Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §323.

⁷¹ See also his Quaestiones Grammaticae ad Thucydidem Pertinentes 6 ff. (Lipsiae, 1886).

⁷² For the imperfect of reluctance, see above.

⁷³ Marchant translates: ‘we have to guard against many dangers.‘

⁷⁴ Reference to the past must be unmistakable, before the historical present can be used. Compare Svensson 101–2. A present like γíγνονται, which begins the Anabasis, appears to be an exception, but see Gildersleeve's annalistic or note-book present, in SCG §201. Compare also Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 555; Wackernagel, Vorl. 1.164.

⁷⁵ The historical present is avoided in higher literature. See Gildersleeve, SCG §200; AJP 14.106; 23.245; 29.392; Pindar cii; Svensson 101; Stahl, Syntax 90; Meltzer IF 17.216; Wackernagel, Vorl. 1.163 ff.; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 556; Kieckers, Hist. griech. Gram. 4.20; Hartmann, KZ 48.245. But having been made a respectable form by its use in Attic drama, the historical present was accepted by Thucydides.

⁷⁶ To say that the historical present is a substitute for the imperfect or the aorist is to accuse the Greeks of turning to an inadequate durative present, in order to express simple and continued acts in the past, when the aorist and the imperfect themselves were ready at hand to be used for this purpose. Compare Meltzer, IF 12.348, where it is said there is no similarity as to ‘Aktionsart’ between the historical present and the aorist. For those who insist that the historical present is both aoristic and durative, see Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 556; Hultsch 3.43; Goodwin, MT §33; Delbrück, Grundriss 4.264; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §1883a; Svensson 94, 100; C. Tosatto, De Praesentis Historici Usu Herodoteo et Thucydideo et Xenophonteo 20 (Patavii, 1921). For those who think it is aoristic alone, see Gildersleeve, AJP 12.78–9; 23.245; Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §321; Blass, Gram. of New Test. Gk. 188; Hartmann, KZ 48.16; Rodenbusch, IF 28.260. Moulton (Gram. of New Test. Gk.³ 1.120) says it is not primarily a tense.

⁷⁷ For the lively and animated effect of the historical present, see Hultsch 3.42; Delbrück, Grundriss 4.261; K-G³ 1.132; Goodwin, MT §33; Gildersleeve, SCG §199; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 555; Tosatto 7; Svensson 118; Hartmann, KZ 49.69; Meltzer, IF 17.216. It is the dramatic and rhetorical nature of the historical present that makes it an appropriate form for giving the turning points of a narrative. Compare Gildersleeve, AJP 29.393; Stahl, Syntax 91–2; Svensson 97. Examples of this usage are cited by Tosatto 13 ff.

⁷⁸ In Russian, however, the historical present is very similar to this tense in Greek and Latin as regards the ease with which it can be interchanged with past forms. See Tolstoy's story of Emilian Ivanovitch Pugachov, given by Harper 44 ff.

⁷⁹ For the rapidity of the aorist in narration, see Gildersleeve, SCG §243; Goodwin, MT §56; Hillesum 106; Svensson 116.

⁸⁰ For verbs often used in the historical present, see Engelskirchen 8 ff.; Tosatto 28 ff.; Svensson 92 ff.

⁸¹ For interchange of aorist and historical present, see Tosatto 20 ff.

⁸² For interchange of imperfect and historical present, see Tosatto 24 ff.

⁸³ 3.60. Svensson (102) says that it is still unexplained why the Greek avoided an unduly long series of historical presents. It might be said in reply to this assertion that the avoidance of extended sequences of historical presents was in keeping with that fine sense of proportion and moderation which distinguishes everything Greek.

⁸⁴ See Thumb, Handb., §§191, 225.

⁸⁵ See Goodwin, MT §65; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §1910b; Sobolewski 1; Moulton, Gram. of New Test. Gk.³ 1.148.

⁸⁶ Syntax 140.

⁸⁷ Gram. of New Test. Gk. 201. See also Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §348; Komassa 64.

⁸⁸ Compare Delbrück, Grundriss, 4.252; Gildersleeve, AJP 12.76; 23.247; 29.391; Mutzbauer 1.40. It is also worth noting that in languages like modern Greek, Russian, and English, which have two futures, ordinary usage favors the simple future.

⁸⁹ See Gildersleeve, AJP 22.228; 26.239.

⁹⁰ RhM (NF) 47.283; K-B³ 2.111 ff., 585 ff.

⁹¹ Gildersleeve, SCG §168; AJP 23.247; 29.391–2; K-G³ 1.113 ff., 170 ff.; W. Streitberg, IF 21.195–6; Brugmann-Thumb, Griech. Gram. 553; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §§809, 1738; A. Prévot, L'Aoriste grec en -θην (Collection linguistique publiée par la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 39) 85 (Paris, 1935).

⁹² Burs. Jahresb. 159.336; Vorl. 1.201 ff. Others who disagree with Blass are A. Meillet, Rev. de Philol. 48.47–8; V. Magnien, Le Futur grec 2.279 ff. (Paris, 1912); Herbig, IF 6.241; Delbrück, Grundriss 4.255; Meltzer, IF 17.195; Burs. Jahresb. 159.350; Stahl, Syntax 66 ff., 84 ff.

⁹³ SCG §168, note 1.

⁹⁴ Future passives in -ησομαι and -θησομαι are very infrequent before the time of Plato and Demosthenes, but become common in the Koiné. Compare Magnien, Le Futur grec 1.344, 375.

⁹⁵ W. Roberts, Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Literary Composition 110 (London, 1910).

⁹⁶ Compare Gildersleeve, SCG §§266, 386; AJP 23.247. See also J. Madvig, Adversaria Critica ad Scriptores Graecos et Latinos 1.161 ff. (Hauniae, 1871) and Stahl, Quaes. Gram. 3 ff., who generally alter a present or an aorist infinitive to a future infinitive or add an ἄν, when a future infinitive is expected after verbs of saying and thinking.

⁹⁷ For the future indicative in ‘minatory and monitory conditions,‘ see Gildersleeve, TAPA 7.5 ff.; Goodwin, MT §447.

⁹⁸ For the interchange of aorist and future participles with ἄν, see Goodwin, MT §216.

⁹⁹ In Thucydides the present or the aorist infinitive with ἄν is very common after verbs of thinking, hoping, etc., vying with the future infinitive in frequency of occurrence. There are, for example, thirty-nine instances of the present or aorist infinitive with ἄν, as compared with forty-one instances of the future infinitive, after the verb νομίζω. See T. Forssmann, De Infinitivi Temporum Usu Thucydideo 58 (Lipsiae, 1873). This is suggestive of the potential optative as a substitute for the future infinitive. The future tense and the optative mood have a similar modal character in that ἄν can stand with either. Note the four occurrences of the future infinitive with ἄν after νομίζω in Thucydides, which are unanimously supported by the Mss.: 2.80.8 ἂν ... προσχωρήσαν; 5.82.5 ἂν . . . ώφ∊λήσ∊ιν; 8.25.5 ἂν . . . προσχωρήσ∊ιν; 71.1 ἂν ... ἡσυχάσ∊ιν. For the modal nature of the future, see Gildersleeve, SCG §267; AJP 23.127, 247; 28.352–3; 29.391.

¹ AJP 4.165. See also M. Humphreys, Demosthenes on the Crown §86 (New York, 1913).

² RhM (NF) 44.432 ff.; Gram. of New Test. Gk. 194 ff. See also Debrunner, Gram. des neutest. Griech.⁶ §§335 ff. Thumb, Handb. §190; Meltzer, IF 17.196.

³ Compare G. Boiling, The Participle in Hesiod 435 (Catholic University Bulletin 3.421–71, 1897); Gildersleeve ap. E. Spieker, AJP 6.312, note 1; Delbrück, Grundriss 4.482; Herbig, IF 6.263; Rodenbusch, IF 24.56–62; T. Seymour, TAPA 12.88–96; Meltzer, Burs. Jahresb. 159.322.

⁴ This participle has caused much comment. See L. Campbell, Class. Rev. 4.425–6; F. Carter, Class. Rev. 5.3 ff., 249 ff.; Humphreys, Class. Rev. 5.7; R. Whitelaw, Class. Rev. 5.248.

⁵ See Goodwin, MT §150; Gildersleeve, SCG §345; Vayhinger 7; A. Merriam PAPA 8.4.

⁶ The aorist participle after verbs of actual perception is rare. Compare Goodwin, MT §884. On the other hand, the present participle is common, because, as Bolling (452) says, ‘The direct observation of an action forces it to be considered as progressive, and thus makes for the exclusion of the aorist.‘

⁷ For the aorist participle after π∊ριορῶ, ἐφορῶ, and ∊ἰσορῶ, see Goodwin, MT §§148, 885; Gildersleeve, AJP 10.123; 14.103; 36.102.

⁸ For the aorist participle after τυγχάνω, φθάνω, and λανθάνω, see J. Wheeler, Harv. Stud., 2.143 ff.; Goodwin, MT §144; Gildersleeve, The Apologies of Justin Martyr 1.12.12 (New York, 1877); AJP 12.76 ff.; Bolling 456 ff.

⁹ For the ab urbe condita type of construction, compare Classen-Steup³ on Thuc. 4.63.2, and Anhang; Gildersleeve, AJP 13.258 ff.; Stahl, Quaes. Gram. 27 ff.; Goodwin, MT §§149, 329b; Marchant (London, 1927) on Thuc. 2.21; F. Jones, The Ab Urbe Condita Construction in Greek 5 ff. (Lang. Diss. No. 28, 1939).

¹⁰ Mss. CG have the present particle ἐκλ∊ίποντ∊ς.

¹¹ For other examples, see Gildersleeve, SCG §337; Goodwin, MT §140; Smyth, Gk. Gram. §1872.

¹² Compare Gildersleeve, Pindar cxii; SCG §338; Bolling 439. In P. Eismann, De Participii Temporum Usu Thucydideo, Diss. 6, note 3 (Junivladislaviae, 1892) it is asserted that the present participle of purpose is not due to its conative action.

¹³ Smith (Boston, 1888) says the present participle of purpose is ‘rather unusual,’ but examples are numerous. See 2.5.5 λέγοντ∊ς; 3.18.1 προδιδομένην, 27.2 ἐπ∊ξιών; 52.2 λέγοντα; 4.25.9 βοηθοῦντ∊ς; 5.39.2 πρ∊σβ∊υόμ∊νοι; 6.61.2 πράσσοντ∊ς; 63.1 ἰóντ∊ς; 88.10 κωλύοντας; 7.3.1 λέγοντα; 8.3 φέροντ∊ς. The present participle seems to differ from the future in that it alludes to the more immediate future. Contrast in 8.65.2 the conative present participle κατιóντι with the future participle ποιήσοντι. A similar construction is the future infinitive after verbs signifying ‘to be able,' 'to wish,’ and the like. Compare Goodwin, MT §113; Classen-Steup³, on Thuc. 6.6.1.

¹⁴ Gildersleeve, SCG §§202, 222.

¹⁵ The aorist subjunctive or optative after ἐπ∊ιδάν, ἐπάν, ἐάν, ∊ἰ, ἐπ∊ί, ἐπ∊ιδή, or after the relative pronoun, is of frequent occurrence to show the attainment of the action. Compare Goodwin PAPA 8.22–3, where he speaks of ‘Greek Expressions of Future-perfect Time’; see also his MT §§90, 91, 95.

¹⁶ It is difficult to bring out in translation the conative idea of the present subjunctive or optative in final clauses, because such clauses look towards the future. The same holds true for the present imperative. For the relation of the final sentence to the imperative, see Gildersleeve, AJP 4.426 and note 2; 22.227 ff.

¹⁷ This is the reading of Ms. B, which is adopted by Classen-Steup³ and Poppo-Stahl². Most editors since Bekker adopt the aorist participle ἐπ∊ξαγαγóντα, which is read by a few manuscripts, but the present participle ἐπ∊ξάγοντα fits the context so well that there is no question of its correctness.

¹⁸ The reading of Mss. ABEFM and most editors.

¹⁹ See Gildersleeve, AJP 2.446; 4.429; SCG §245. In negative final sentences the aorist subjunctive and optative greatly preponderate in Thucydides and other authors. See statistics compiled by P. Weber, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtssatze 1.27 ff., 2.5 ff. (Würzburg, 1884–5).

²⁰ For the force of an aorist infinitive, see Herbig, IF 6.263; Rodenbusch, IF 21.132. For the importance of the distinction between the present and the aorist infinitive, see Blass, RhM (NF) 44.407 ff., 419; Forssmann 15 ff.; C. Hentze, IF 22.267 ff.

²¹ Compare the translation of Smith (The Loeb Classical Library).

²² See Classen-Steup³ and H. Fowler (Boston, 1888).

²³ For a similar usage, see Peppler, AJP 54.57 ff.

²⁴ Compare Gildersleeve, SCG §415; Meltzer, IF 17.195; Poutsma 6, 33.

²⁵ For the soft tone of the present imperative and the urgent tone of the aorist imperative, see H. Naylor, Class. Rev. 19.26 ff.; J. A. Scott, Class. Philol. 2.324 ff.; Humphreys, TAPA 7.46 ff.; Gildersleeve, Justin Martyr 1.16.6; SCG §405; AJP 23.241, note 1; 34.234 ff.; Miller, AJP 13.424; Kieckers, IF 24.10; Poutsma 32 ff., 45 and note 2. In Russian too the durative imperative is the polite form, as Harper (101) observes. In regard to the significant difference between the present and the aorist imperatives, see Poutsma's excellent treatment 3 ff.; Blass, RhM (NF) 44.417 ff.; K-G³ 1.189 ff.; L. Forman, Selections from Plato (Appendix) 424 ff. (London, 1927); Meltzer, IF 17.193 ff.

²⁶ For this meaning of the present imperative and other instances thereof, see Gildersleeve, SCG §§403, 416; Blass, RhM (NF) 44.420 ff.; Meltzer, IF 17.193 ff.; W. Headlam, Class. Rev. 17.295 ff.; 19.30 ff.; H. Jackson, Class. Rev. 18.262 ff.; H. Roby, Class. Rev. 19.299; Poutsma 5 ff.

²⁷ See also his Quaes. Gram. 3–17; compare also Madvig, Adver. 1.161–82. See Classen-Steup⁵ on Thuc. 2.3.2, and Anhang; Forssmann 62.72; Gildersleeve, AJP 29.406 ff.

²⁸ κολάζ∊ιν is the reading of the Mss.

²⁹ Compare also Xen. Hell. 5.1.5 ο∊σθαι . . . καρτ∊ρ∊ν; Anab. 4.2.4 ᾤοντο άφαν∊ῖς ∊ῖναι; Cyr. 3.2.20 οἰóμην . .. νέμ∊ιν (Mss.); De Re Equestr. 9.7 ο∊ται . . . πραύν∊ιν (Mss.). For other such present infinitives, see Peppler, AJP 60.75, note 18.

³⁰ The durative ἀσπάζωνται expresses repetition. ἅμα does not go with πάντ∊ς, as the editors think, but with ἥκονθ'. Compare Thuc. 2.91.2; Herod. 1.179; 9.57; Xen. Anab. 3.1.47; 6.3.5; Plat. Phaed. 60b, 61c.

³¹ Translate λ∊γομένων ‘when they heard them saying.‘

³² This is the reading of most Mss., but editors adopt the aorist subjunctive πταίσωσιν, the reading of Ms. C.

³³ See Gildersleeve, AJP 4.420 ff.; Goodwin, MT §307. The writer has limited himself to the subjunctive, because the optative is seldom found in Thucydides, who prefers the vivid construction.

³⁴ For the extreme rarity of the present subjunctive in Thucydides, see the statistics of Weber 2.6.

³⁵ μὴ oὐ occurs more rarely than μή alone in Thucydides. See Weber 2.7.

³⁶ See Gildersleeve, AJP 4.160.

³⁷ See Gildersleeve, AJP 2.466 ff.; Goodwin, MT §§613.3 (last example), 621. Compare the Russian poka ne ‘until,' 'before,’ which has a negative notion and usually takes the perfective aspect. See Harper 57, 109, 171.

³⁸ See Gildersleeve ap. C. Morris 327 (Boston, 1888); AJP 4.427; 24.402; Shilleto.

¹ MT §88.

² Compare Peppler, AJP 54.47.

³ Compare oῖον ‘for example’ and J. Adams, The Republic of Plato 2.437 (Cambridge, 1929).