ἀμφὶ δὲ τὰ πέντε ἢ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενομένου αὐτοῦ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Ἀσσυρίων βασιλέως γαμεῖν μέλλων ἐπεθύμησε καὶ αὐτὸς θηρᾶσαι ἐς τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον.
So, when Cyrus was about fifteen or sixteen years of age, the son of the Assyrian king, intending to marry, desired to hunt in person before that time.
But when Cyrus was about fifteen or sixteen years old, the son of the Assyrian king, on the eve of his marriage, desired in person to get the game for that occasion.
‘To get the game for that occasion’ is not in the text but inferred by the English translator. The old commentary translates ἐς τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον as sub tempus (scil. nuptiarum), which I guess in English would be before the time of marriage.
I think the English translation is somewhat old-fashioned but it’s not inaccurate. ἐς here indicates purpose. See LSJ εἰς A.V.2. If it meant “until that time,” I think present/durative θηρᾶν would be more likely — if it meant he wanted to spend a period of time hunting until his marriage. And the emphasis is that he’s personally going hunting for his own wedding. καὶ αὐτὸς wouldn’t seem to make much sense here if it were simply saying he wanted to go hunting until his marriage.
Baiily and Montanari have something similar to what you say under χρόνος but not LS
LSJ εἰς A.V.2:
of Purpose or Object, εἰπεῖν εἰς ἀγαθόν, πείσεται εἰς ἀγαθόν, for good, for his good, Il. 9.102, 11.789; εἰς ἀγαθὰ μυθεῖσθαι 23.305; ἐς πόλεμον θωρήξομαι 8.376, cf. Hdt. 7.29, etc.; ἐς φόβον to cause fear, Il. 15.310; ἐς ὑποδήματα δεδόσθαι Hdt. 2.98; κόσμος ὁ εἰς ἑορτάς X. Oec. 9.6; ἐπιτηδεότατος, εὐπρεπής, ἔς τι Hdt. 1.115, 2.116; εἰς κάλλος ζῆν to live for show, X. Cyr. 8.1.33, cf. Ages. 9.1; ἐς δαίτην ἐκάλεσσε Call. Aet. 1.1.5; εἰς κέρδος τι δρᾶν S. Ph. 111; πάσας φωνὰς ἱέντων εἰς ἀπόφυξιν Ar. V. 562; εἰς γράμματα παιδὶ δεκετεῖ ἐνιαυτοὶ τρεῖς Pl. Lg. 809e; εἰς τὸ πρᾶγμα εἶναι to be pertinent, to the purpose, D. 36.54; freq. of expenditure on an object, IG 22.102.11, 116.41, al.; ἐς τὸ δέον Ar. Nu. 859, etc.; ἐς δᾷδα ib. 612.
This quote from Xenophon’s Oeconomicus 9.6 has the same usage of εἰς:
μετὰ ταῦτα κόσμον γυναικὸς τὸν εἰς ἑορτὰς διῃροῦμεν, ἐσθῆτα ἀνδρὸς τὴν εἰς ἑορτὰς καὶ πόλεμον, καὶ στρώματα ἐν γυναικωνίτιδι, στρώματα ἐν ἀνδρωνίτιδι, ὑποδήματα γυναικεῖα, ὑποδήματα ἀνδρεῖα.
If you’re uncertain about χρόνον, a prince’s wedding doesn’t last just a single day.
Like Hylander, I think that εἰς indicates purpose here. The point is that the prince wants to personally (καὶ αὐτός) win the game for his own feast so as to demonstrate his prowess. Earlier in the hunting scenes in Book 1 Xenophon emphasized the game that Cyrus brought back, impressive but not worth the risk in the eyes of his grandfather. Now he’s talking about the game that the Assyrian prince wants to catch for himself.
I’ve always enjoyed Walter Miller’s Loeb translation of the Κύρου παιδεία. I assume that’s the translation Constantinus quoted—it sounds just like him in “on the eve of his marriage" for γαμεῖν μέλλων. Miller’s was not meant to be strictly literal, but it can be charming like the original. For a wild read, I recommend his ridiculous “How I Became a Captain in the Greek Army,” a kind of rewritten Xenophon.
The little episode about how a soldier steals a kiss from Cyrus, later in Book 1, is one of my favorite bits of Xenophon. Cloying, memorable, and hilarious. Like θάλαττα θάλαττα. The Κύρου παιδεία was very influential in antiquity and beyond. I recall some striking adaptations of the hunting scenes in Digenes Akritas, the fascinating Byzantine epic.
I happened to be reading Book I of Herodotus, so in responding to another post, I knew who Astyages was. I pulled out my copy of the Cyropaedia OCT (which I haven’t read). The Greek seems quite straightforward – maybe I should give at least some of it a try. Herodotus has a very different story of Cyrus’ birth – a combination of Moses in the bullrushes and Romulus and Remus, along with The Winter’s Tale.
Is “that time” a purpose like εἰς ἑορτάς? I think a Greek would be more direct. The other reasonable possibility is simply=εἰς τότε, at that time.
Looking up the Marchant OCT in the other thread I had found my bookmark the next page over from the one time I dived into the story last year. It seems quite a bit easier going now than then.
So interpreting, you can ditch the και. He’s sixteen, soon to be married, and thinks he’s old enough to run a big hunt.
Compare BOC, Astronomy:
…
I know you’ll soon be married
And you’ll want to know where winds come from
…
Incidentally (very), the latest New York Review of Books has a piece entitled The Sea, the Sea—nothing to do with Xenophon (nor with blue öysters), but a token of the faded yet ineradicable afterlife of the classics.
It’s Cyrus who is fifteen or sixteen, not the son of the king of Assyria, whose age is not stated.
If καὶ, which is a conjecture, isn’t inserted, it’s clearer that the point is that the son of the king of Assyria wants to hunt game personally for his own wedding. Otherwise, καὶ αὐτὸς could be read as merely linking the story of the Assyrian incursion to the preceding story of Cyrus’ hunt.
You’re right, I was just coming to comment that the genitive absolute must mean a different person there. Yes, it’s clear who wants to hunt game personally, which I didn’t disagree with. But that’s separate from “for the time [of the wedding]” vs. “at that time”.
εἰς τότε, meaning “at that time,” looks to a time in the future, according to LSJ. It would amount to the same thing as εἰς τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον – “he wanted to get the game himself for that occasion.” Constantinus’ translator uses the phrase “get the game,” rather than “go hunting” to reflect aorist θηρῆσαι, as opposed to durative θηρᾶν. It’s clear, I think, that εἰς τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον is the purpose of “getting the game,” looking to the wedding, not merely a specification of the time of the hunt.
to determine a period, εἰς ἐνιαυτόν for a year, i.e. a whole year, Il. 19.32, Od. 4.526; within the year, ib. 86 (cf. ἐς ἐνίαυτον Alc. Supp. 8.12); εἰς ὥρας Od. 9.135; ἐς θέρος ἢ ἐς ὀπώρην for the summer, i.e. throughout it, 14.384; ἡ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν κειμένη δαπάνη εἰς τὸν μῆνα δαπανᾶται the expenditure for a year is expended in the month, X. Oec. 7.36; μισθοδοτεῖν τινὰς εἰς ἓξ μῆνας D.S. 19.15; χοίνικα κριθῶν εἰς τέσσαρας ἡμέρας διεμέτρει Posidon. 36J.; εἰς ἑσπέραν ἥκειν to come at even, Ar. Pl. 998; εἰς τρίτην ἡμέραν or εἰς τρίτην alone, on the third day, in two days, Pl. Hp.Ma. 286b, X. Cyr. 5.3.27; ἥκειν ἐς τὴν ὑστεραίαν Id. An. 2.3.25; ἥκειν εἰς τὸ ἔαρ Hell.Oxy. 17.4; ἐς τέλος at last, Hdt. 3.40; ἐς καιρόν in season, Id. 4.139; οὐκ ἐς ἀναβολάς, ἀμβολάς, with no delay, Id. 8.21, E. Heracl. 270, etc.; ἐς τότε at this time, v.l. in Od. 7.317 (but > εἰς τότε at that time (in the fut.)> , D. 14.24, Pl. Lg. 830b); ἐς ὕστερον or τὸ ὕστερον, Od. 12.126, Th. 2.20: with Advbs., ἐς αὔριον Il. 8.538, Pl. Lg. 858b; ἔς περ ὀπίσσω Od. 20.199; ἐς αὖθις Th. 4.63 (v. εἰσαῦθις (; ἐς αὐτίκα μάλʼ Ar. Pax 367; εἰς ἔπειτα (v. εἰσέπειτα (; ἐς τὸ ἔ., Th. 2.64; ἐς ὀψέ Id. 8.23; εἰς ἅπαξ, v. εἰσάπαξ; εἰς ἔτι, v. εἰσέτι.
Xenophon’s prose is very straightforward. I find him tiresome after a while, but there are some good episodes in Book 1 and also later with the story of Panthea and Abradatas. I’d be interested to hear what you think.
The Kyropaideia had an impact on the later Greek “novel,” especially Chariton, and Xenophon is linguistically interesting as he stands apart from the stricter forms of Attic in the 4th c. and anticipates many of the developments of Post-Classical Greek.
It’s a good point about Moses. When the cowherd’s wife in Herodotus 1 pities the exposed Cyrus after seeing how he’s μέγα τε καὶ εὐειδής, it’s similar to Pharaoh’s daughter, who in later Greek-speaking Judaism (like Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian, who both drew on Herodotus) pitied the infant Moses after she saw his εὐμορφία and εὐεξία. And both women are drawn to save the exposed infant because of their difficulty bearing children. Herodotus may well have been an influence. Oedipus also comes to mind when reading Herodotus’s Cyrus.
I think that it’s right to concentrate on θηρᾶν versus θηρῆσαι. But that missing direct object is painful. If the εἰς phrase is read explicitly as purpose, you’d expect an object in mental view (even just τι) “catch for that time”. (Though Greek would still expect a more concrete purpose, I think.) But if we take it to be directly what it says: “do a hunt/make a catch at that time”, we can take any purpose (meat for the feast) that we may see in the context as implied.
The choice is between “until that time” or “for that time.” ἐς τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον cannot mean “at that time” here. And I think aorist θηρᾶσαι (not θηρῆσαι; sorry, my mistake) rules out “until that time.” “. . . make a catch at that time” really doesn’t make sense: if he is going hunting, of course he intends to catch game; “at that time” would be superfluous.
The wedding is irrelevant to the remainder of this fantasy about young Cyrus’ first taste of battle. The wedding is just a detail added for color. ἐς τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ties the hunt into the wedding: the purpose of the hunt is to catch game for the wedding.
That’s all i have.
You mean the future-time statement in the LSJ? Well, this is “future” from the point of view of the ἐπεθύμησε and γαμεῖν μέλλων. It’s hard to imagine any rule where something like the χρόνον of the following statement by Herodotus is specially “future”, while the current passage is not: ἐπαγγείλας δὲ καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοισι παρεῖναι ἐς χρόνον ῥητόν.
Back in X.Cyr, notice that he’s still in the hunting-trip planning stage, with ἐπεθύμησε repeated again, up until προσέλαβε.
“until that time” is of course impossible.
Here’s something about transitive/intransitive verbs from Smyth, 1708-9, applicable not just here but also to φρουρῆσαι in the pervious thread. This was in my previous post before Joel’s last post in this thread, but I thought I’d break it out and post it in a separate post, since it may have escaped notice, having been added as an edit after Joel’s post.
- Many verbs are used in the active voice both transitively and intransitively. So, in English, turn, move, change. Cp. 1557 ff.
a. The distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is a grammatical convenience, and is not founded on an essential difference of nature.
- Active verbs ordinarily transitive are often used intransitively:
a. By the ellipsis of a definite external object, which in some cases may be employed, as ἄγειν (τὸ στράτευμα) march, αἴρειν (τὴν ἄγκυραν) hoist the anchor, (τὰς ναῦς) get under sail, start, ἀπαίρειν (τὰς ναῦς, τὸν στρατόν) sail away, march away, διάγειν (τὸν βίον) live, ἐλαύνειν (τὸν ἵππον) ride, (τὸ ἅρμα) drive, (τὸν στρατόν) march, καταλύειν (τοὺς ἵππους, τὰ ὑποζύγια) halt, κατέχειν (τῆν ναῦν) put in shore, προσέχειν (τὸν νοῦν) pay attention, τελευτᾶν (τὸν βίον) die. The original sense has often been so completely forgotten that it becomes possible to say ““αἴρειν τῷ στρατῷ” set out with the army” T. 2.12, ““ἐλαύνων ἱδροῦντι τῷ ἵππῳ” riding with his horse in a sweat” X. A. 1.8.1.
b. πρά_ττειν, ἔχειν with adverbs often mean to keep, to be: εὖ πράττειν fare well, καλῶς ἔχειν be well (bene se habere), ἔχειν οὕτως be so. So when a reflexive pronoun is apparently omitted: ““ἔχ᾽ αὐτοῦ” stop there!” D. 45.26.
c. Many other transitive verbs may be used absolutely, i.e. with no definite object omitted, as νικᾶν be a victor, ἀδικεῖν be guilty. Cp. ‘amare’ be in love, ‘drink’ be a drunkard. This is especially the case in compounds, e.g. of ἀλλάττειν, ἀνύειν, διδόναι, κλίνειν, λαμβάνειν, λείπειν, μειγνύναι.
d. In poetry many uncompounded transitive verbs are used intransitively. Many intransitive verbs become transitive when compounded with a prep., especially when the compound has a transferred sense, 1559. In some verbs 1st aorist and 1st perfect are transitive, 2d aorist and 2d perfect are intransitive.
I had not seen it for that reason, so thank you for raising it to a post. Yet it seems rather undigested here. Surely you don’t mean to make the point that verbs can go between transitive and intransitive at whim? That’s not the case.
Here, of course, my point earlier is that the external object would not be expected to be elided in a point of mental significance: “go hunt something for the feast” would not normally elide the “something” in a way that “go hunt something at that time” could do.
The other thread is an entirely different situation. There the intransitive use appears frequently with the present, and never with the aorist (with the two exceptions noted, both with a cognate accusative of extent). If you think something here is applicable the other thread, you’ll want to make your point concretely.
In both cases, θηρᾶσαι and τηρῆσαι, the aorist infinitive expresses the act of guarding/hunting without regard to duration. This is an essential function of the aorist aspect in the infinitive. In both cases, you had a problem with the lack of a direct object – in the case of τηρῆσαι, you insisted that τι had to be the object of τηρῆσαι despite its placement. But there’s no need for a direct object with either of these aorist infinitives because X. wanted to specify the simple acts and did not care to specify an object. As Smyth confirms, this is perfectly good Greek. Yes, some verbs can be used with or without an object “at whim,” if by “at whim” you mean “depending on what the author wants to say.” It’s also true of English, though not necessarily with complete verb-for-verb alignment with Greek.
The fact that in your small sample you couldn’t find another instance of the aorist of τερέω without an object is really not relevant. X. wrote what he intended to say, and he wasn’t somehow straightjacketed into the exact same usage pattern as other authors saying something different. “. . . if there’s some need for guarding . . .” I translated it loosely as “guard duty,” but if you don’t like that, you can translate it as just “guarding.”
Again, both these cases are essentially the same: the use of an aorist infinitive to specify an act without specifying an object. In the case of θῆρασαι, the Miller translation “personally get the game for that occasion” captures the meaning and intent of the Greek better than a literalistic word-for-word translation would.
I did not say it was impossible that an object would be dropped, I said it was unlikely here, for reasons you have not engaged with.
You’ve dropped your line about εἰς τότε, perhaps forgetting that it was central to your argument, and that my point about the unexpressed direct object is very much secondary to this.
Your points about φρουρέω (no worries, I understood what you meant), belong in the other thread, but very much understate the case.
First, how common is the intransitive use with the present? Very common. The intransitive present is frequent and normal. More that 50% of the uses in the first 10 hits on TLG.
How common is it with the aorist? 0 for 20-something (before Chrysostom, because I gave up there).
What’s the probability of this result by simple coincidence? If the instransitive use is about 50% of cases, that would be 1 in 2^20, or about 1 in a million. I’m a math guy, so I don’t generally consider people needing stuff like this worked out for them, but seeing your comment I see now that you didn’t see it, and it’s fair that other people have different backgrounds.
The real explanation, of course, is not coincidence, but that “guarding” is a durative concept, as it is in English, and cannot easily be expressed as a simple act. I already knew what I’d find before I looked for the aorist elsewhere.
With his wedding coming up he too (και αυτος—if και is a conjecture it’s surely a necessary one) wished to have a hunt for this time, i.e. for the occasion of his wedding. It’s completely unproblematic. (Forget “at that time.” Forget “future-time statement.”)
Infinitely more interesting is the climactic episode where Cyrus goes berserk, and then gazes at the fallen (1.4.24, earlier commented on by phalakros). But the way things are going here, I’m reluctant to start a discussion of that.