Mather & Hewitt use quotation marks in their text (which neither Goodwin & White nor the Loeb text do); in their book everything after “ὁ δὲ Κλέαρχος εἶπεν” is in quotes but it seems to me that they’re missing a pair that would go around the bolded part, even if there’s no verb of saying. (a) As I understand it the second-person is at least less-usual in indirect discourse (*); (b) the third-person verbs (κελεύει, φησίν) are indicative present and (c) the passage reads more smoothly as direct address. “φησίν” introduces indirect discourse separately from the rest of the quote (“ἀπιέναι”). (Does the present, not future, infinitive here come from “eimi” having future sense?).
(*) by this I meant unusual in a third-person historical narrative where there is no obvious “you” – I didn’t make that clear originally but there’s such thing as “he says you’re brave”, of course
The more I look at it the less sure I am. There is indeed no verb of saying and it follows a semicolon, which would seem to connect it with the rest of the “ὅτι” clause; furthermore, in that type of clause tense is retained; the two reference works (the Oxford grammar and Mastronarde) are noncommittal on the person (and indicative is okay to use, though the mood is optative earlier). But I’m thinking myself in circles: clarification would be greatly appreciated!
You’re right. X. has shifted here to direct speech without an additional verb of saying–the words of the messengers in direct speech reporting in indirect speech the message of Ariaeus.
“But if you want to leave together [with him], he says [you] should get there already during the night. If not, he says [present tense] he’s going to leave early tomorrow morning.”
No additional verb of saying is necessary; ἔλεγον is sufficient. The 2d person plural present indicative βούλεσθε signals the shift to direct speech right at the beginning of the sentence (after two particles). An additional verb of saying to mark the shift would weigh the sentence down and detract from the vividness, and it would be placed parenthetically after βούλεσθε, anyway–after the shift has already been signaled.
This shifting between indirect and direct speech happens all the time in English, but in English we can signal the shift with quotation marks, which Xenophon couldn’t.
Yes, ἀπιέναι is from εἶμι and is present in form but future in meaning.
As an exercise, can you put this sentence into indirect speech (a) using ὅτι, and (b) using the accusative + infinitive construction? Don’t bother with accents; just the verbs need to be changed, and not all of them.
In the οτι version, if the indicative is retained in the protasis, it would be present tense βουλονται, but βουλοιντο would also be possible, as would κελευοι. It would probably be better to keep both verbs in the same mood, though maybe that’s not necessary.
In the acc. + inf. version, indicative βουλονται would be possible, but the infinitive should be present κελεύειν, since in direct speech the verb κελεύει is in present tense. κελευσαι (properispomenon) would reflect κελευσαι (paroxytone) in direct speech, i.e., a past tense verb.
I think having one construction in the subordinate clause/protasis and another in the main clause/apodosis is confusing, but examples of that can probably be found, too.
2.5.34. The Greek generals have been captured and the news is brought back to their camp; they run to arms.
εκ τουτου δη οι Ελληνες εθεον επι τα οπλα παντες εκπεπληγμενοι και νομιζοντες αυτικα ηξειν αυτους επι το στρατοπεδον.
Is the passive perfect (in the Greek/English sense) participle equivalent to the Latin passive perfect participle rather than the aorist passive? That is, would this be equivalent to “perterriti”?
εκπεπληγμενοι - scared out of their wits, with reference to a present situation;
εκπλαγεντες (if I have the word right) – having been scared; i.e. in the past with reference to the past.
Yes that’s it, more or less. Since Latin doesn’t have an aorist form distinct from the perfect, the perfect form has to do double duty as both perfect and aorist, according to context. It’s the same with the indicative, in the active as well as in the passive. As you know, Latin doesn’t even have active past participles, except with deponent verbs, so has to make much use of passive ablative absolutes. Greek is both more flexible and more precise.
I’ve noticed your last point: the absolute seems fairly rare in Xenophon while Caesar opens just about every chapter with one. I’ll keep everything you’ve said in mind.