Can the genitive absolute phrase at the end of this sentence that begins with ὡς be construed as indirect speech (an indirect declarative statement)? i.e. παρήγγειλε…ὡς ἐπιβουλεύοντος Τισσαφέρνους ταῖς πόλεσ = “Cyrus sent word…that Tissaphernes was plotting against the Ionian cities” where the use of ὡς rather than ὁτι in this “that-clause” suggests that Xenophon is implying that what Cyrus is saying is open to doubt. What I’m wondering however is whether an indirect statement can have no finite verb, because here there’s only the participle ἐπιβουλεύοντος .
Or is this an example of a circumstantial participle expressing the cause/motivation for Cyrus’s action? CGCG sec. 52.39 gives examples of this where ὡς with a participle provides the subjective reason or motivation for the action of the main verb, which here is παρήγγειλε. The only problem I see with this however is that it would lead to a translation more like “Cyrus sent word…thinking that Tissaphernes was plotting” which is not how Loeb translates it.
Or could ἐπιβουλεύοντος perhaps be understood here as a supplemental participle for the verb παραγγέλλω? Sec. 52.10 identifies αγγέλλω as a verb that conveys knowledge and takes a supplementary participle, so I would guess that παραγγέλλω also fits into this category. But if this is the case, I’m not sure what this would mean in terms of translating the sentence.
This is an idiomatic use of ὡς with a participle – here, in a genitive absolute construction – to indicate a subjective motivation or, as here, a pretext. I don’t think it requires deeper analysis. It’s not formally indirect speech: this usage of ὡς could with be used with any main verb, not necessarily a verb of speaking, e.g., φύλακας κατέστησεν ὡς ἐπιβουλεύοντος Τισσαφέρνους ταῖς πόλεσιν, “He stationed guards on the pretext that T. was plotting against the cities.” And the participle in this usage need not be in a genitive absolute construction: it could modify any noun in the sentence. CGCG 57.2 discusses this usage with a few examples, though none with a genitive absolute.
The discussions in CGCG seem to have misled you, in that they don’t mention that this usage of ὡς with a participle can indicate a pretext (“responsibility lies with the subject of the matrix verb” is a little too vague perhaps) and don’t give a genitive absolute example.
You can think of it as meaning “on the ground that T was plotting …”. It’s not indirect statement as such (this ὡς with participle is completely different from ὅτι) but it is the reason he gave for the order. It’s not necessarily implied that Tiss actually was plotting, but that’s how it would most naturally be understood.
PS This written independently of Hylander. There’s no need for me here now that he’s back with us!
The discussions in CGCG seem to have misled you, in that they don’t mention that this usage of ὡς with a participle can indicate a pretext (“responsibility lies with the subject of the matrix verb” is a little too vague perhaps) and don’t give a genitive absolute example.
OK good to know, thanks. But (and I’m probably over my head here):
If this usage of ὡς with a participle indicates the reason the subject (Cyrus) acted in this fashion was a pretext, doesn’t this mean that Cyrus must have made some form of false communication of his motives to the king?
a) If so, then isn’t the ὡς clause at least a form of indirect speech since it conveys the essence of what Cyrus must have communicated to the king? Because an indirect statement (in English at least) like “He said that he didn’t want to come” doesn’t necessarily mean that the subject actually said “I don’t want to come” but simply communicated in some fashion words that indicated he didn’t want to come. And Loeb does translate this as “..on the plea that T. had designs upon their cities.”
b) Andif not then it seems to me that the reporter (Xenophon) is making an assumption concerning Cyrus’s motives (which may be unwarranted) but in that case CGCG 52.39 seems to suggest that ἁτε would have been used here instead of ὡς (unless I’m misunderstanding CGCG here).
And then there’s my other question: Is it possible in Classical Greek for an indirect statement to have no finite verb (i.e. just a participle or infinitive)? CGCG 41.2 seems to say this can be the case (they state “Depending on the matrix verb, indirect declarative constructions may also take the form of a declarative infinitive or participle”) but then they refer to sections in chapters 51 and 52 and I can’t quite grasp how these sections justify their statement in 41.2.
ὡς ἐπιβουλεύοντος Τισσαφέρνους: genitive absolute of cause. ὡς indicates the cause as assigned by Cyrus, not Xenophon; see ὡς φίλον [1.1.2] and ὡς ἁποκτενῶν [1.1.3]. Translate because, as he said, Tissaphernes was plotting.
1a. The reader might infer that some form of communication occurred – though not necessarily verbal – from ὡς Τισσαφέρνους ἐπιβουλευοντος, but the genitive absolute doesn’t follow the syntactic patterns of indirect speech in Greek, so it doesn’t seem helpful to characterize this construction as a form of indirect speech. In any event, the possibility can’t be ruled out that Cyrus gave the impression that his actions were aimed at Tissaphernes without any form of verbal communication at all, for example, by the configuration in which he disposed the φυλακαί.
1b. ἅτε would mean that X. is asserting that Cyrus’ actions were in fact directed against Tissaphernes.
CGCG 41.2 simply reflects that there are several different constructions for indirect statements in Greek, generally depending on the matrix verb of speaking, knowing, learning, perceiving, etc. These are covered in §§ 51 and 52, which you cited. But there is nearly always a matrix verb on which these constructions depend. For example, without going into the details, some matrix verbs take an infinitive with the subject in the infinitive (§ 51.19); other matrix verbs take a supplementary participle construction (§ 52.8); some matrix verbs may take a clause with a finite verb introduced by ὅτι as an alternative to the acc. + inf. construction. Again, in almost all cases, there is a matrix verb.
In what you’ve already read, there have been several instances of similar uses of ὡς in various constructions:
1.1.2: λαβών Τισσαφέρνην ὡς φίλον – Cyrus treated Tissaphernes as a friend, with the implication that the friendship was not what it seemed.
1.1.3 Τισσαφέρνης διαβάλλει τὸν Κῦρον πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν ὡς ἐπιβουλεύοι αὐτῷ – Tissaphernes slanders Cyrus to the King, claiming that Cyrus was plotting against him. Here, an indirect statement is introduced by ὡς (the matrx verb is διαβάλλει), rather than ὅτι, to cast doubt on Tissaphernes’ assertion. See CGCG § 41.6.
1.1.3 [ὁ βασιλεύς] συλλαμβάνει Κῦρον ὡς ἀποκτενῶν – here, ὡς is used with a future participle indicating purpose: “he arrested him with the intention of killing him.” That was his intention, but in fact the King didn’t kill him this time.
