This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
[*] 693. When no ambiguity can arise from the change of an aorist indicative to the optative in a dependent clause of the indirect discourse, this tense may follow the general principle. This occurs chiefly in causal sentences after ὅτι, ἐπεί, etc., because (713), in which the subjunctive can never be used. E.g. Εἶχε γὰρ λέγειν ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιοι διὰ τοῦτο πολεμήσειαν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι οὐκ ἐθελήσαιεν μετ᾽ Ἀγησιλάου ἐλθεῖν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν οὐδὲ θῦσαι ἐάσειαν αὐτὸν ἐν Αὐλιδι. XEN. Hell. vii. 1, 34. (The direct discourse was ἐπολέμησαν ἡμῖν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν οὐδὲ θῦσαι εἰάσαμεν αὐτόν.) Ἀπηγήσασθαί (φασι) ὡς ἀνοσιώτατον μὲν εἴη εἰργασμένος ὅτε τοῦ ἀδελφεοῦ ἀποτάμοι τὴν κεφαλὴν, σοφώτατον δὲ ὅτι τοὺς φυλάκους καταμεθύσας καταλύσειε τοῦ ἀδελφεοῦ κρεμάμενον τὸν νέκυν. HDT. ii. 121.Here ὅτι καταλύσειε represents ὅτι κατέλυσα, because I took down; ὅτε ἀποτάμοι (so the Mss.) might also be understood in a causal sense, since he had cut off, although in the sense of when he cut off it could not be ambiguous here. Madvig, however, reads ὅτι in both clauses. See XEN. Mem. i. 4, 19 (quoted in 714). (See also 700, and the examples.)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.