καὶ γάρ ἐστιν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, καλὸν μάχεσθαι, ὅπως μήποτέ τις δοῦλος μέλλοι γενήσεσθαι
Why is this opt here in the primary sequence?
Smyth:
- The optative is very rare after a primary tense except when that tense implies a reference to the past as well as to the present.
““οἴχονται ἵνα μὴ δοῖεν δίκην” they have gone away that they might not suffer punishment” L. 20.21. Here οἴχονται is practically equivalent to ἔφυγον, and the optative δοῖεν shows that the purpose was conceived in the past. On the optative (without ἄν) by assimilation after an optative, see 2186 c.
Goodwin:
- The use of the optative for the subjunctive in final clauses after primary tenses is, on the other hand, very rare, and is to be viewed as a mere irregularity of construction. See “ἄξω τῆλ᾽ Ἰθάκης, ἵνα μοι βίοτον πολὺν ἄλφοι” Od. xvii. 250 ; ὅππως μαχέοιντο, Il. i. 344; and vii. 340, Il. xviii. 88.So SOPH. El. 56, O. C. 11; HDT. ii. 93 (ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτοιεν). Most of these are emended by various editors; and no good reason for the anomaly appears in any of them.
Marchant reads μέλλοι but reports thar Herwerden (Henricus van Herwerden, 1831-1910) – the same critic who proposed βουλοίμην ἂν in 2.4.17 – conjectured μελλῃ here. Two mss read μέλλοιτο, which isn’t helpful at all. Perhaps this is just another one of Xenophon’s deviations from normal Attic usage. Maybe he didn’t read his Smyth or Goodwin. and failed huis Greek Composition course.
Another thought: could secondary sequence here be explained by a slip (possibly inadvertent or unintentional) from direct to indirect speech?
“καὶ γάρ ἐστιν,” ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, “καλὸν μάχεσθαι” ὅπως μήποτέ τις δοῦλος μέλλοι γενήσεσθαι.
That seems less likely in 4.1.17, where βουλοίμην is 1st sing., reinforced by ἐγὼ.
do you know any other examples with a slip from Xen or Plato or Thuc or anyone?
Weber (from whom Goodwin gets all his data) discusses 3.1.11, and says that although some people may explain it from the infinitive, it’s actually unparalleled and should probably just be fixed to the subjunctive.
Entwickelungsgeschichte der absichtssätze, von dr. Philipp Weber 1884-85. pg 81
The optative here is certainly an oddity, on a par with the passages cited by Goodwin as referenced by Hylander—most of which, as Goodwin remarked, have been emended. In the Sophoclean instances Lloyd-Jones rejects the optative and prints the subjunctive. At Hom. Il.1.344 the medieval tradition has μαχέοιντο but no fewer than three papyri along with the D-scholia have μαχονται.
Here in Xenophon the optative could conceivably be explained by reference to the preceding dialogue, which was cast entirely in terms of the past, and culminated in the Armenian’s saying καλὸν γάρ μοι ἐδόκει εἶναι …. So we could understand the shift to the optative in Cyrus’s reply (καὶ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν μάχεσθαι ὅπως μήποτέ τις δοῦλος μέλλοι γενήσεσθαι) as implicitly shifting from the level of universal generality (ἐστὶν καλόν) to adoption of the Armenian’s standpoint (καλὸν ἐδόκει), as if to say Yes it is and it was a fine thing to fight for freedom.
I’m fairly certain I’ve encountered other instances of this in Xenophon (but not other Attic prose authors). Frustratingly I can’t seem to find them in my notes at the moment. Check Kühner-Gerth. I would hesitate to emend.
(In post-Class. Greek, it’s not uncommon to find hyper-Atticizing optatives in primary sequence where Attic would use subjunctive, including in purpose clauses. There was really no clear idea of the sequence of moods. To some small degree Xenophon anticipates this later development, though he does largely observe the sequence of moods and the oblique use of the optative).
thankx, that’s valuable, I’ll see whether I can find other examples in Cyr. By the way, I am not sure how to classify this clase, is it a clause of purpose or of effort?
If you’re looking for other examples, go back two pages from the section of Weber’s Entwickelungsgeschichte that I posted the image of above. He mentions that he’s going through every case in Xenophon of the optative “nach Hauptzeiten”, of which he considers this case exceptional in not having some explanation (as I read him, anyway).
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015074792535&view=1up&seq=239
is ἵνα τῇ μὲν τὸ σῶμα θεραπεύοιντο, τῇ δὲ τὴν ψυχήν; the same? (Rep. 410c)
It is relevant, but not quite the same thing. Here are some of the examples (from Attic prose) I think pertinent. The Xenophon passage in question is (5). I will give my take in a subsequent post. See also the examples in KG II.382-383.
The optative in a subordinate clause after a matrix clause in a primary tense (excluding historical presents and clear cases of assimilation of mood):
Purpose clauses
Plato
(1) Ἆρ’ οὖν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὦ Γλαύκων, καὶ οἱ καθιστάντες μουσικῇ καὶ γυμναστικῇ παιδεύειν οὐχ οὗ ἕνεκά τινες οἴονται καθιστᾶσιν, ἵνα τῇ μὲν τὸ σῶμα θεραπεύοιντο, τῇ δὲ τὴν ψυχήν; ἀλλὰ τί μήν; ἔφη. κινδυνεύουσιν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ἀμφότερα τῆς ψυχῆς ἕνεκα τὸ μέγιστον καθιστάναι.
Demosthenes
(2) οὗτος [sc ὁ νόμος] γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς κεκριμένοις καὶ ἠγωνισμένοις κεῖται, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀκρίτοις, ἵνα μὴ διὰ τὸ δεδέσθαι χεῖρον ἀναγκάζοιντο ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἢ καὶ παντάπασιν ἀπαράσκευοι εἶεν. οὑτοσὶ δέ, ἃ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀκρίτοις κεῖται, ὡς περὶ ἁπάντων εἰρημένα μέλλει πρὸς ὑμᾶς λέγειν.
Xenophon
(3) ἴσως οὖν ἀσφαλέστερον ἡμῖν πορεύεσθαι πλαίσιον ποιησαμένους τῶν ὅπλων, ἵνα τὰ σκευοφόρα καὶ ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος ἐν ἀσφαλεστέρῳ εἴη.
(4) ἴσως δέ που ἢ ἀποσκάπτει τι ἢ ἀποτειχίζει, ὡς ἄπορος εἴη ἡ ὁδός.
(5) καὶ γάρ ἐστιν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, καλὸν μάχεσθαι, ὅπως μήποτέ τις δοῦλος μέλλοι γενήσεσθαι
Relatedly, with a relative clause:
Xenophon [Also in Plato a few times. More examples esp in Stahl (Kritisch-historische Syntax), 308-309; Goodwin sections 502 and 555).]
(6) οὓς δὲ δὴ τῶν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον ἔργων ποιήσασθαί τις βούλοιτο συνεργοὺς προθύμους, τούτους παντάπασιν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ ἀγαθοῖς θηρατέον εἶναι καὶ λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις
(7) ἀλλὰ τοῦ μὲν αὐτὸν λέγειν ἃ μὴ σαφῶς εἰδείη εἴργεσθαι δεῖ, ὦ παῖ, ἄλλοι δ’ ἐνετοὶ λέγοντες ταὔτ’ ἂν διαπράττοιεν·
Addenda: Passages in Xenophon emended to avoid this construction:
(8) Καὶ τὴν μέν γε ὕλην, ἔφην ἐγώ, καταβάλλειν, ὡς αὐαίνηται, ἐπιπολῆς, τὴν δὲ γῆν στρέφειν, ὡς ἡ ὠμὴ αὐτῆς ὀπτῷτο. [vl. ὀπτοῖτο; correctly emended to ὀπτᾶται by Dindorf]
(9) ὥσπερ γε καὶ περὶ ἀφροδισίων οὐ διαλεγόμεθα πρὸς τοὺς ἄγαν νέους, ἵνα μὴ πρὸς τὴν ἰσχυρὰν ἐπιθυμίαν αὐτοῖς ῥᾳδιουργίας προσγενομένης ἀμέτρως αὐτῇ χρῷντο οἱ νέοι. [emended to διελεγόμεθα, probably rightly, contra Weber]
I would group the above examples into two basic categories: those where the optative involves (A) past intention or (B) possibility/necessity. The passage in question belongs under (B).
A. Past intention
(1) and (2) have application to the past intention of the legislators. For (1), Weber thinks καθιστᾶσιν should be emended to καθίστασαν (Madvig). That seems wrong (as James and Slings saw). See καθιστάναι in the reply.
B. Possibility or necessity
(3) and (4) involve possibility (ἴσως). The optatives in the purpose clauses act as if they are assimilated to the mood of a potential optative in the matrix clause. I would also bring in (6) and (7) here, where the optative is in a relative clause dependent on a main clause that involves necessity or propriety. Eg in (7) εἴργεσθαι δεῖ acts similar to εἴργοιτο ἄν, setting off εἰδείη in the relative clause (instead of οἶδεν or ἄν…εἰδῇ).
I would also add (5) here, unlike Weber, who emends to μέλλῃ. The context is important, as mwh points out, though I think I read it slightly differently.
The Armenian king stopped paying tribute and started making a fortification, wanting freedom (καλὸν γάρ μοι ἐδόκει εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν ἐλεύθερον εἶναι). Cyrus refutes this justification. In beginning his refutation as he does (καὶ γάρ ἐστιν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, καλὸν μάχεσθαι, ὅπως μήποτέ τις δοῦλος μέλλοι γενήσεσθαι), the optative gives the nuance of possibility or irreality. Almost like, “it is indeed a noble thing to fight…well, it would be a noble thing for you to fight so that you would never be in danger of becoming a slave. However…” It nicely prepares for the strong disjunction that follows (δὲ δή). Still, this case is not as straightforward as (3) or (4).
As I mentioned in a previous post, Xenophon seems to be the only Attic prose author to use this construction in purpose clauses. Later, some post-classical authors used the optative in this context more freely as a high-register variant for the subjunctive. For example, from Philo’s commentaries:
ἀλλ’ ὅπως μηδεὶς ὑπολάβοι τὸν ποιητὴν χρεῖον εἶναί τινος τῶν γεγονότων, τὸ ἀναγκαιότατον ἐπιφωνήσει [sc Moses]· “βασιλεύων τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπ’ αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι”