5., 4., 22

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

5., 4., 22

Post by Constantinus Philo »

οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι, ἔφη, ἀριστᾶτε ἰόντες
This ἰόντες is always problematic because according to the rules, it has present signification, but on many occasions, as here, it indicates a prior action. Especially common is προσιών, as I have noticed, meaning having come or arrived. The examples I am talking about are not from Xen., (Sm, mentions just one instance from Xen., and that looks like an exception to the rule) but from various sources such as Stob., etc.
Semper Fidelis

phalakros
Textkit Fan
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Re: 5., 4., 22

Post by phalakros »

Constantinus Philo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:33 pm according to the rules, it has present signification
Present indicative εἶμι regularly refers to the future, but the participle can act like a present or future ptcp, not just present. Eg παρεσκευάσαντο ὡς ἀπιόντες, expressing purpose.

Here's the passage you mention:

οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι, ἔφη, ἀριστᾶτε ἰόντες: ὑμεῖς δέ, ὦ Καδούσιοι, πρῶτον μὲν ἀπελθόντες ἄρχοντα ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἕλεσθε ᾗπερ ὑμῖν νόμος, ὅστις ὑμῶν ἐπιμελήσεται σὺν τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ σὺν ἡμῖν, ἄν τι προσδέησθε: ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἕλησθε, πέμψατε πρὸς ἐμὲ τὸν αἱρεθέντα καὶ ἀριστήσατε [καὶ ἀριστήσατε bracketed by Miller and others].

The tenses are interesting, especially ἀριστᾶτε vs. ἀριστήσατε, if the latter is to be retained.

As for ἰόντες indicating prior action (like ἀπελθόντες a few words later), I’ve noted three similar uses of ἰών in Xen.: Cyr. 4.5.17, 5.4.22, 6.2.40 (please let me know if you encounter others). It is more common in Post-Classical Greek, as you say.

In these three Xenophonic passages, the participle is joined with a present imperative: ἰὼν ταῦτα λέγε; ἀριστᾶτε ἰόντες; ἀπιόντες συσκευάζεσθε. In this construction, the participle modifying a present imperative is very close in meaning to two coordinated present imperatives, eg ἴθι καὶ ταῦτα λέγε. It’s a construction not uncommon in poetry (esp epic), often with verbs of going. Eg κἀξάγγελλ’ ἰών, Soph OC 1393 (cf LSJ sv εἶμι VII). But this usage is rare and striking in Attic prose, mostly (or totally?) confined to Xen.

Relatedly, one can view Xenophon’s distance from conservative Attic like Isocrates in his use of εἶμι vs. ἔρχομαι. He can say things like παρερχομένους τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐθεώρει, where παριόντας would be regular in Attic prose but παρερχομένους common in post-Classical Greek. In this he anticipates post-Classical usage and most likely reflects changes in Attic of the time excluded from stricter prose authors. It’s in this context that W.G. Rutherford bombastically denounced Xenophon’s “extraordinary disregard of the most familiar rules of Attic writing, making sober criticism almost impossible” (a verdict I mentioned in another thread).

User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: 5., 4., 22

Post by Constantinus Philo »

That's great, thanx,
According to Cherny (Черный, Греческий синтаксис, Москва 1888) εἶμι is an aspectless verb (безвидовой глагол) therefore it can mean either simultaneous, prior, or posterior actions either in indicative or participle forms, p. 126.
Semper Fidelis

Post Reply