ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, καὶ πρόφασιν κατασκευάσαι καὶ ἐνθάδε οὐκ ἄπιστον, καὶ ἤν τις ἐκεῖσε ἐξαγγείλῃ, ὡς ἐγὼ βουλοίμην μεγάλην θήραν ποιῆσαι:
What kind of optative is βουλοίμην any why? it may be a potential optative with ἄν that follows further.
Optative in indirect speech, marking the ὡς clause as a statement which the speaker implies is not true (even though in this case it concerns himself), equivalent in English to “supposedly.” It’s his πρόφασις.
The following potential optative with ἂν is different.
since this is a primary sequence, the opt would be also in the oration recta. What kind of opt is this?
No, the direct statement would be indicative, not optative. Κῦρος βούλεται μεγάλην θήραν ποιῆσαι. The optative indicates that the speaker, Cyrus, isn’t taking responsibility for the truth of the statement that he wants to go on a hunt. Again, it’s a pretext.
is there any reference to Smyth?
I have found in Sm 2827: opt may express a past thought in primary sequence. Sm also says that no indicative of OR can become opt due to OO unless in secondary sequence.
So probably, here, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, καὶ πρόφασιν κατασκευάσαι καὶ ἐνθάδε οὐκ ἄπιστον, καὶ ἤν τις ἐκεῖσε ἐξαγγείλῃ, ὡς ἐγὼ βουλοίμην μεγάλην θήραν ποιῆσαι: can be understood as follows: however, Cyrus said, it is possible to furnish a pretext both credible here, and there if someone announces that I wanted to arrange a big hunt.
There might be another interpretation based on KG, Kruger and other German grammars that are more detailed than Smyth.
No, you’re translation is wrong and doesn’t make sense. βουλοίμην is not in secondary sequence. Regardless what Smyth says, βουλοίμην here is optative following ὡς because it’s Cyrus’ false pretext.
The messenger would announce ὁ Κῦρος βούλεται θήραν μεγάλην ποιῆσαι.
Does your commentary have anything to say about this?
can you refer me to any grammar book, please, for this usage?
I haven’t found anything. Do you have a better explanation? What does your commentary say about this?
By the way, Marchant’s OCT notes that someone conjectured βουλοἱμην ἂν, but Marchant didn’t accept that in his text.
my commentary is silent. But maybe Rep. 490A is a similar case? Though I doubt it.
LSJ ὡς B.I.1, at the very end, notes – contrary to Smyth – that ὡς + opt. (without ἄν) sometimes occurs after a primary tense, with citations to Herodotus, Thucydides and Plato. In all but the example from Plato, the speaker is disparaging a claim stated in the optative clause, suggesting it’s false. This is the same construction that we see here – Cyrus isn’t exactly disparaging the statement he wants to put in the mouth of the messenger, but he uses the optative because the statement is a false pretext, and he knows it.
The fact that someone conjectured βουλοίμην ἂν suggests that someone felt discomfort with the optative. But it must certainly represent βούλομαι, and it seems natural enough to me, following πρόφασιν οὐκ ἄπιστον—a plausible pretext, one that would be believed. So it behaves like a potential optative, introducing secondary sequence.
IMO, it’s not a truly present report of speech. He might as well have said:
…ἐξαγγείλῃ ταύτην τὴν πρόφασιν ἣν κατεσκευάσθη, ὡς ἐγὼ βουλοίμην…
Ie. it’s the πρόφασις being reported, and this is equivalent to being governed by a past verb, hence the indicative → optative.
Without that πρόφασις preamble, you’d have something like this:
ἔξεστί τινι λέγειν, ὡς ἐγὼ βουλοίμην…
…which looks wrong to me, even if he’s distancing himself from the statement.
This example is mentioned in KG (the link is in Perseus to this paragraph)I wonder what he is saying there.
Ok I got it, basically KG says the same as Smyth in 2627
I’m not sure i follow you, Joel. Cyrus isn’t reporting a pretext that has previously been asserted by someone – he’s making it up himself and proposing to send someone to Assyria to spread it so that he can assemble a cavalry invasion without alarming the Assyrians. I don’t see an implicit past-tense verb there.
For Cyrus, the πρόφασις is conceptually complete, if only in his head. ἔστιν πρόφασιν κατασκευάσαι… And then he describes someone communicating it. That’s all.
Goodwin, Greek Moods and Tenses sec. 351:
（Xenophon.) Although Xenophon generally follows the Attic usage in these object clauses (339), he yet violates this signally by having ὡς and ὡς ἄν with both subjunctive and optative, and ὅπως ἄν with the optative; and further by having the optative with ὡς ἄν and ὅπως ἄν after both primary and secondary tenses. He also has ὡς twice with the future indicative (like ὅπως) and once with the future optative.
Ὡς or ὡς ἄν with the subjunctive, ὡς with the future indicative, and ὡς with the optative, are used by Xenophon like ὅπως in the construction of 339. E.g. Ἐπιμελοῦνται ὡς ἔχῃ οὕτως. Oec. xx. 8. (Here the regular Attic usage requires ὅπως ἕξει.) Ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ὡς ἂν πραχθῇ, “to take care that they shall be done.” Hipp. ix. 2. Ἐπεμέλοντο ὡς μὴ κωλύοιντο. Cyr. vi. 3, Cyr. 2. Ὡς δὲ καλῶς ἕξει τὰ ὑμέτερα, ἐμοὶ μελήσει. Ib. iii. 2, Ib. 13. Προεῖπεν ὡς μηδεὶς κινήσοιτο μηδὲ ἀνάξοιτο. Hell. ii. 1, Hell. 22 (see 355).
For Xenophon’s regular use of ὅπως in all these constructions, see examples under 339. For his regular use of ὅπως ἄν with the subjunctive, see 348.
- When the optative follows ὡς ἄν or ὅπως ἄν, it is always potential, and the original relative and interrogative force of ὡς and ὅπως plainly appears. E.g. Ἐπιμέλονται ὡς ἂν βέλτιστοι εἶεν οἱ πολῖται, they take care that the citizens may be best (to see how they might be best). Cyr. i. 2, Cyr. 5. Ὡς ἂν ἀσφαλέστατά γ᾽ εἰδείην ἐποίουν, I took steps that (by which) I might know most accurately. Ib. vi. 3, Ib. 18. Σκοπῶ ὅπως ἂν ὡς ῥᾷστα διάγοιεν, “I am considering how they might live the easiest lives.” Symp. vii. 2. (Cf. PLAT. Lys. 207E, quoted in 349.)
For a full enumeration of all the irregular passages of this class in Xenophon, see Appendix IV.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0065%3Asmythp%3D351
ἔστιν . . . πρόφασιν κατασκευάσαι . . . ὡς ἐγὼ βουλοίμην . . . doesn’t quite fit into the categories of deviations from Attic usage described by Goodwin, but it’s conceivably another such deviation – and the parallels cited in LSJ from Herodotus and Thucydides suggest that this isn’t really a deviation from standard usage.
I still think the optative here makes it plain that the statement is a deceptive πρόφασις – similar to the parallels in Herodotus and Thucydides, where the optative is used to cast doubt on statements in “primary sequence.” “It’s also possible to construct the pretext, which will not be incredible both here and if someone spreads it there, that I supposedly want to go on a big hunt.” (Although reading further, it seems that Cyrus really does enjoy the prospect of going on a large-scale hunt, combining business with pleasure.)
Here is Goodwin 676, which I would point to for ὡς + opt. with an “implied reference to some former expression of the thought quoted”. (I should have looked up the Plato reference when Philo mentioned it above.)
[*] 676. We may even have ὅτι or ὡς with the optative when the leading verb is not past, if there is an implied reference to some former expression of the thought quoted. E.g. Ἆρ᾽ οὖν δὴ οὐ μετρίως ἀπολογησόμεθα, ὅτι πρὸς τὸ ὂν πεφυκὼς εἴη ἁμιλλᾶσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιμένοι, . . . ἀλλ᾽ ἴοι καὶ οὐκ ἀμβλύνοιτο οὐδ᾽ ἀπολήγοι τοῦ ἔρωτος, κ.τ.λ., i.e. shall we not defend him very properly by stating (what we once said) that it is (was) his nature to press on towards pure Being, etc. (the optatives representing indicatives). PLAT. Rep. 490A.
Here is Kühnast in “Die Repräsentation im Gebrauch des sogenannten apotelestischen Conjunctivs” agreeing with me on Cyr 2.4.17 specifically.
However, here in “L’optatif grec”, Hilaire explains as a somewhat hypothetical expression.
