DEPENDENT SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES (2574-2635）
[*] 2574. A subordinate clause may play the part of a substantive in relation to the main clause. Such clauses are generally the object, sometimes the subject, of the verb of the main clause.
““
εἶπεν ὅτι οὐ πόλεμον ποιησόμενοι ἥκοιεν”
he said that they had not come to wage war”
X. A. 5.5.24, ““
ἔπρα_σσον ὅπως τις βοήθεια ἥξει”
they were managing how some reinforcements should come”
T. 3.4, ““
δέδοικα μὴ . . . ἐπιλαθώμεθα τῆς οἴκαδε ὁδοῦ”
I am afraid lest we may forget the way home”
X. A. 3.2.25;
ἐλέγετο ὅτι . . . Πῶλος ὅσον οὐ παρείη it was said that Polus had all but arrived 7. 2. 5.
[*] 2575. There are four main divisions of substantive clauses.
1.
Dependent Statements: subordinate clauses stating that something
is; as ““
λέγει ὡς οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀδικώτερον φήμης”
he says that nothing is more unjust than talk about a man's character”
Aes. 1.125.
2.
Dependent Clauses of will or desire: subordinate clauses denoting that something
should be or
should be done. These clauses have been treated under the following divisions:
a. Dependent clauses after verbs of effort (
2209).
b. Dependent clauses after verbs of fearing (
2221).
N.—On dependent voluntative clauses with the accusative and infinitive (indirect petition), see
1991 ff.
3.
Dependent Questions: subordinate clauses asking a question; both parts of the sentence together forming a
statement; as ““
ἠρώτων ὅ τι ἐστὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα”
I asked what the matter was”
X. A. 5.7.23.
4.
Dependent Exclamations: subordinate clauses setting forth an exclamation; both parts of the sentence together forming a
statement; as ““
διαθεώμενος αὐτῶν ὅσην μὲν χώρα_ν καὶ οἵα_ν ἔχοιεν”
observing how great the extent of their territory was and how excellent its quality”
X. A. 3.1.19.
DEPENDENT STATEMENTS
[*] 2576. Dependent statements, or subordinate clauses stating
that something
is, are expressed in various ways:
1. By an infinitive, with or without an accusative (explained in 1972 ff., 2016 ff.). Thus, ““
νομίζω γὰρ ὑ_μᾶς ἐμοὶ εἶναι καὶ πατρίδα καὶ φίλους”
for I think that you are both fatherland and friends to me”
X. C. 1.3.6, ““
οἶμαι εἰδέναι”
I think that I know”
P. Pr. 312c.
2. By a participle, with or without an accusative (explained in 2106 ff.). Thus, ““
οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεσαν αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα”
for they did not know that he was dead”
X. A. 1.10.16, ““
μέμνημαι ἀκούσα_ς”
I remember that I heard”
X. C. 1.6.6.
3. By
ὅτι or
ὡς (and some other conjunctions) with the indicative or optative. On this form of dependent statement see
2577 ff., and under Indirect Discourse.
a. In any form of substantive clause the subject of the subordinate verb may be made the object of the principal verb (
2182).
b. A clause with
ὅτι (
ὡς) may precede the principal clause. Cp.
2586.
DEPENDENT STATEMENTS INTRODUCED BY ὅτι OR ὡς
[*] 2577. The conjunctions
ὅτι or
ὡς that introduce dependent statements in the indicative and optative
After verbs of saying, knowing, perceiving, showing, etc.
After verbs of emotion (
rejoicing, grieving, wondering), etc.
Or such dependent statements contain an explanation of the main clause or of a word in that clause, no special verb introducing the conjunction.
τοῦτο ἄξιον ἐπαινεῖν τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν τότε ναυμαχησάντων, ὅτι τὸν . . . φόβον διέλυ_σαν τῶν Ἑλλήνων it is right to praise this in the men who engaged in the sea-fight of those days, (namely)
that they dispelled the fear felt by the Greeks P. Menex. 241b.
[*] 2578. The conjunctions introducing dependent statements are
ὅτ<*> (Homeric also
ὅττι, ὅ and
ὅτε),
ὡς, διότι, ὅπως (rarely),
οὕνεκα and
ὁθούνεκα (both poetic).
a. ὅτι meaning
that was originally, like Hom.
ὅ, perhaps an accusative of the inner object (cognate):
ὁρῶ ς` νοσεῖς lit.
I see what sickness
you are sick (=
ἣν νόσον νοσεῖς). But by the time of Homer both
ὅ and
ὅτι had become mere formal conjunctions. Hom.
ὅτε that seems to be a weakened
ὅτε when; but this is disputed.
b. διότι originally =
διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι on account of this, that =
because (as
T. 1.52); then =
ὅτι that in Hdt. and in Attic after Isocrates, who uses
διότι for
ὅτι to avoid hiatus.
c. ὡς strictly an old ablative of
ὅς (
2989) meaning
how,
in what way, as in exclamatory clauses and indirect questions. The meaning
how (cp.
how that) may be seen in
οἶδα γὰρ ὥς μοι ὀδώδυσται κλυτὸς ἐννοσίγαιος for I know how (
that)
the famed earth-shaker has been wroth against me ε 423, and also in Attic (
And. 2.14;
I. 2.3, 3. 10, 16. 11, 16. 15;
Aes. 2.35;
D. 24.139). The development of
ὡς how to
ὡς that followed from the use of
ὡς after verbs signifying
to see, perceive,
know, and the like. Cp. “he sayed how there was a knight.”
d. ὅπως (
2929)
that is common in Herodotus (
ὅκως), rare in Attic, most used in poetry and Xenophon. From its original use in indirect questions
ὅπως how gradually acquired the meaning
that. Thus, ““
ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως μὲν . . . ἐγὼ ἄχθομαι ὑ_μᾶς τρέφων, μηδ᾽ ὑπονοεῖτε”
do not even entertain the thought that I am annoyed at maintaining you”
X. C. 3.3.20.
e. οὕνεκα =
οὖ ἕνεκα, for
τούτου ἕνεκα, ὅ, properly causal:
on account of (
as regards)
this,
that, and then =
that, even in Homer (
Odyssey and
Λ 21) and later in poetry. Thus, ““
ἐξάγγελλε . . . οὕνεκ᾽ Οἰδίπους τοιαῦτ᾽ ἔνειμε παισὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ γέρα_”
announce that Oedipus has distributed such honours to his sons”
S. O. C. 1393.
f. ὁθούνεκα =
ὅτου ἕνεκα, for
τούτου ἕνεκα, ὅτι; and then =
that. It is found only in tragedy, as ““
ἄγγελλε . . . ὁθούνεκα τέθνηκ᾽ Ὀρέστης”
report that Orestes is dead”
S. El. 47.
[*] 2579. Some verbs of saying are followed either by
ὅτι or
ὡς or by an infinitive (
2017). In most cases the choice is optional with the writer. Affirmative clauses usually take the infinitive or
ὅτι; but
ὡς is apparently preferred to
ὅτι when a writer wishes to mark a statement as an opinion, a pretext, as untrue, and so when the main clause is negative, or when the subordinate clause is negative (or both are negative). Thus, ““
νομίζουσιν οἱ ἐκείνῃ ἄνθρωποι . . . ὡς ὁ Ἥφαιστος χαλκεύει”
the local belief is that Hephaestus is working at his forge”
T. 3.88,
διαβαλὼν αὐτοὺς ὡς οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς ἐν νῷ ἔχουσιν slanderously attacking them on the score that their intentions were not sincere 5. 45, ““
πολλάκις ἐθαύμασα τίσι ποτὲ λόγοις Ἀθηναίους ἔπεισαν οἱ γραψάμενοι Σωκράτην ὡς ἄξιος εἴη θανάτου”
I have often wondered with what possible arguments the accusers of Socrates succeeded in convincing the Athenians that he deserved death”
X. M. 1.1.1,
οὐ τοῦτο λέγω ὡς οὐ δεῖ ποτε καὶ ἐλά_ττονι ἔτι μορίῳ ἰέναι I do not say (
this)
that it is not ever necessary to attack the enemy
with a still smaller detachment X. C. 5.4.20.
ὅτι may be used of an untrue statement designed to create belief (
S. El. 43).
a. Dependent statements in the optative in indirect discourse after verbs of saying are chiefly post-Homeric.
[*] 2580.
Verbs of thinking almost always take the infinitive (
2018) but
ὡς occurs; as with
νομίζω T. 3.88 (
2579),
ἐλπίζω 5. 9,
οἴομαι X. H. 6.3.12,
ὑπολαμβάνω X. C. 8.3.40.
ὅτι is very rare (with
οἴομαι in
P. Ph. 87c).
λογίζομαι (
ὅτι) is a verb of saying.
a. μαρτυρῶ with
ὅτι (
ὡς) expresses reality; with the infinitive it denotes uncertainty.
[*] 2581. Verbs of intellectual perception usually take
ὅτι (
ὡς); less often the participle, which is normal after verbs of physical perception. A verb of physical perception, if followed by
ὅτι (
ὡς), virtually becomes a verb of intellectual perception.
[*] 2582. Many verbs take
ὅτι (
ὡς) or the participle either in indirect discourse or not in indirect discourse (
2106-
2115). Here the construction with the finite verb is less dependent than that with the participle; but the meaning is essentially the same in Attic. Many verbs take
ὅτι (
ὡς), the infinitive, or the participle, often without great difference in meaning in Attic (
2123-
2145).
[*] 2583.
ὅτι (
ὡς), when separated from its clause by another clause, may be repeated. Thus, ““
ἔλεγεν ὅτι, εἰ μὴ καταβήσονται . . . , ὅτι κατακαύσει . . . τὰ_ς κώμα_ς”
he said that, if they did not descend, he would burn their villages to the ground”
X. A. 7.4.5.
[*] 2584. The personal
δῆλός εἰμι ὅτι, λανθάνω ὅτι, etc. are often used instead of the impersonal
δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι, λανθάνει ὅτι, etc. Thus, ““
ὅτι πονηρότατοί εἰσιν οὐδὲ σὲ λανθάνουσιν”
not even you fail to perceive that they are the very worst”
X. O. 1.19.
[*] 2585.
δῆλον ὅτι (
δηλονότι)
evidently,
οἶδ᾽ ὅτι (
εὖ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι)
surely,
εὖ ἴσθι ὅτι be assured are so often used parenthetically and elliptically as to become mere formal expressions requiring no verb.
ὅτι here loses all conjunctive force. Thus, ““
ἔχει δὴ οὑτωσὶ_ δῆλον ὅτι τούτων πέρι”
the case then stands clearly thus about these matters”
P. G. 487d, ““
οὔτ᾽ ἂν ὑ_μεῖς οἶδ᾽ ὅτι ἐπαύσασθε”
nor assuredly would you have ceased”
D. 6.29,
καὶ πάντων οἶδ᾽ ὅτι φησάντων γ᾽ ἄν (for
καὶ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι πάντες φήσαιέν γ᾽ ἄν)
and all assuredly would say 9. 1.
a. Plato (
Sophistes and
Leges) uses
δῆλον (
ἐστίν)
ὡς for
δῆλον ὅτι.
[*] 2586.
ὅτι (and by analogy
ὡς) are often attached loosely to the main clause with the meaning
as a proof (
in support)
of the fact that. Thus,
ὅτι δ᾽ οὕτω ταῦτ᾽ ἔχει, λέγε μοι τὸ τοῦ Καλλισθένους ψήφισμα as a proof of the fact that this is so,
read me the bill of Callisthenes D. 18.37.
[*] 2587.
Verbs of emotion (
to rejoice, grieve,
be angry, wonder, etc.) take
ὅτι (
ὡς) with a finite verb (negative
οὐ), but more commonly the participle (
2100) when the subject is not changed.
a. Hom. prefers
ὅτι, ὡς to the participle or infinitive.
b. The accusative and infinitive with verbs of emotion are rare; as with
θαυμάζω E. Alc. 1130. (
θαυμάζω may be followed by a dependent question:
D. 37.44).
c. On verbs of emotion with
εἰ instead of
ὅτι, ὡς (negative, generally
μή), see
2247. On the use in dependent exclamations, see
2687.
[*] 2588.
μέμνημαι, οἶδα, ἀκούω and like verbs, may take
ὅτε instead of
ὅτι (
2395 A. N.). Cp., in Homer,
Φ 396,
π 424.
INDIRECT DISCOURSE
[*] 2589. The words or thoughts of a person may be quoted in direct or indirect form after verbs, or other expressions, of
saying or
thinking.
a. In reporting a speech, in making a quotation, or in dialogue, a verb of saying is often repeated (
P. Pr. 310b, 345 c,
X. A. 7.6.5-6). So also in such cases as
Πάνθεια εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ θάρρει, ἔφη, ὦ Κῦρε X. C. 7.3.13.
[*] 2590. (I)
Direct Discourse (
Oratio Recta).—In a
direct quotation the words or thoughts quoted are given at first hand in the exact form used by the original speaker or thinker.
Μεγαρέες ἔπεμπον ἐπὶ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων κήρυ_κα, ἀπικόμενος δὲ ὁ κῆρυξ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔλεγε τάδε: “Μεγαρέες λέγουσι: ‘ἡμεῖς, ἄνδρες σύμμαχοι, οὐ δυνατοί εἰμεν τὴν Περσέων ἵππον δέκεσθαι μοῦνοι’”
the Megarians sent a herald to the generals of the Greeks,
and on his arrival the herald spoke as follows: “
The Megarians say: ‘
we,
oh allies, are not able to sustain the attack of the Persian cavalry by ourselves’”
Hdt. 9.21; and often in Hdt. (cp.
3. 40, 3. 122, 5. 24, 7. 150, 8.
140).
a. Direct quotation may, in prose, be introduced by
ὅτι, which has the value of quotation marks. Thus,
οἱ δὲ εἶπον ὅτι ἱκανοί ἐσμεν but they said (
that) “
we are ready”
X. A. 5.4.10. So usually when the finite verb is omitted; as
ἀπεκρί_νατο ὅτι οὔ he answered (
that) “
no” 1. 6. 7. The use of direct speech introduced by
ὅτι is, in general, that of familiar style. The first example is
Hdt. 2.115.
ὡς for
ὅτι is very rare (Dinarchus 1. 12, 1.
102). Cp. “the emperor sends thee this word
that, if thou love thy sons, let Marcus . . ., or any one of you, chop off your hand” Shakesp.
Tit. Andr. 3. 1. 151.
[*] 2591. (II)
Indirect Discourse (
Oratio Obliqua). In an
indirect quotation the words or thoughts are given at second hand with certain modifications to indicate that the words or thoughts are reported.
a. The original form may be preserved except that there is a change from the first or second person to the third person: so
πάντ᾽ ἐθέλει δόμεναι H 391 reporting
πάντ᾽ ἐθέλω δόμεναι H 364. In such cases there is no grammatical dependence.
b. The narrator may report in dependent form the words or thoughts of a person from the point of view of that person. This is the common form of indirect discourse.
c. The narrator may report in dependent form the words or thoughts of a person from his own point of view. See
2624.
[*] 2592. The constructions of indirect discourse are regulated by the character of the leading verb or expression.
a. Verbs of saying take either
ὅτι or
ὡς and a finite verb or the infinitive (
2017,
2579).
b. Most verbs of thinking and believing take the infinitive (
2018, cp.
2580).
c. Most verbs of knowing, perceiving, hearing, showing take the participle (
2106,
2110), but admit the construction with
ὅτι or
ὡς. Some are followed by the infinitive (2123 ff.).
d. On the construction of verbs of hoping, promising , and swearing, see
1868,
1999, 2024.
[*] 2593. Indirect discourse is said to be
implied in subordinate clauses dependent on verbs which involve an idea of
saying or
thinking (
2622).
[*] 2594. A speaker may state his own words or thoughts in the form of indirect discourse. Cp.
2614,
2615, etc.
[*] 2595. Clauses standing in indirect discourse are substantive clauses, and usually
object of the leading verb; its
subject, when that verb is passive or intransitive. The infinitive in substantive clauses after verbs of saying and thinking retains the time of the corresponding finite verb of direct discourse.
[*] 2596. Indirect questions (
2677) have the constructions of indirect discourse.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INDIRECT DISCOURSE
[*] 2597. Simple and compound sentences, and
principal clauses
of complex sentences, introduced by
ὅτι or
ὡς are treated as follows:
[*] 2598. (I) After
primary tenses, the original mood and tense are retained, except that the person of the verb may be changed.
[*] 2599. (II) After
secondary tenses, primary tenses of the indicative and all subjunctives
may be changed to the same tense of the optative; but an indicative denoting unreality (with or without
ἄν) is retained. Imperfects and pluperfects are generally retained (2623 b).
[*] 2600. The verb of simple and compound sentences, and of principal clauses of complex sentences, when introduced by a verb taking the infinitive or participle, passes into the infinitive or participle in the corresponding tense.
ἄν is kept, if it was used in the direct form.
[*] 2601.
Subordinate clauses of complex sentences introduced by
ὅτι or
ὡς are treated as follows:
[*] 2602. (I) Subordinate clauses of a sentence introduced by a leading verb in a
primary tense,
must remain unchanged in mood and tense.
[*] 2603. (II) If subordinate clauses are introduced by a leading verb in a
secondary tense, all primary tenses of the indicative and all subjunctives (with or without
ἄν)
may be changed to the corresponding tenses of the optative without
ἄν. All secondary tenses of the indicative (with or without
ἄν) remain unchanged.
[*] 2604. Verbs standing in subordinate clauses of sentences introduced by a leading verb requiring the participle or the infinitive, follow the rules of 2602, 2603.
[*] 2605. The principal and subordinate clauses of the direct form retain the names
principal and
subordinate in indirect discourse though the whole clause in which they stand itself depends on the verb introducing the indirect discourse (the
leading verb).
[*] 2606. The change from direct to indirect discourse is almost always a change of
mood, not of
tense. The time of a participle introducing indirect discourse is determined by that of the leading verb. The
person of the verb is often changed.
[*] 2607.
ἄν of the direct form is retained in indirect discourse except when a dependent subjunctive with
ἄν becomes optative after a secondary tense. Here
ἐά_ν, ὅταν, ἐπειδάν, ἕως ἄν, etc., become
εἰ, ὅτε, ἐπειδή, ἕως, etc.
[*] 2608. The same negative (
οὐ or
μή) used in the direct discourse is commonly kept in the indirect form. But in some cases with the infinitive and participle
μή takes the place of
οὐ (2723 ff., 2730,
2737).
[*] 2609. No verb ever
becomes subjunctive by reason of indirect discourse. The subjunctive (with or without
ἄν) may, after a secondary tense, become optative without
ἄν.
[*] 2610. No verb can be changed to the optative in indirect discourse except after a secondary tense, and since, even after a secondary tense, indicatives or subjunctives may be retained for vividness, no verb
must become optative by reason of indirect discourse.
[*] 2611. All optatives with or without
ἄν in the direct form are retained (with or without
ἄν) in indirect discourse introduced by
ὅτι or
ὡς. After verbs requiring the participle or infinitive, such optatives in principal clauses become participles or infinitives (with or without
ἄν), but remain unchanged in subordinate clauses.
a. The optative in indirect discourse may represent either the indicative or the subjunctive after a secondary tense.
b. A present optative in indirect discourse may represent (1) the present indicative; (2) the imperfect (2623 b) indicative; (3) the present subjunctive with or without
ἄν; (4) the present optative.
[*] 2612. The imperative is commonly replaced in indirect discourse by a periphrasis with
χρῆναι. Cp. 2633 b.
[*] 2613. The retention of the mood of direct discourse, where either the direct or indirect form is possible, lies solely in the option of the writer or speaker. The vivid form reproduces the time and situation in which the quoted words were used. The vivid form is preferred by some writers, as Thucydides; the indirect form by others, as the orators, Plato, and Xenophon.
SIMPLE SENTENCES IN INDIRECT DISCOURSE
1. Indicative and Optative after ὅτι or ὡς
[*] 2614. After primary tenses, the verb of the direct form remains unchanged in mood and tense.
““
λέγει δ᾽ ὡς ὑβριστής εἰμι”
he says that I am an insolent person”
L. 24.15 ( =
ὑβριστὴς εἶ), ““
ἀλλ᾽ ἐννοεῖν χρὴ τοῦτο μέν, γυναῖχ᾽ ὅτι ἔφυ_μεν”
but we must remember on the one hand that we were born women”
S. Ant. 61, ““
οἶδ᾽ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ἂν τοῦτό μοι ἐμέμφου”
I know that you would not blame me even for this”
X. O. 2.15, ““
ἀπεκρί_νατο ὅτι οὐδὲν ἂν τούτων εἴποι”
he replied that he would say nothing of this”
X. A. 5.6.37 ( =
ἂν εἴποιμι).
[*] 2615. After secondary tenses, an indicative without
ἄν usually becomes optative, but may be retained unchanged. An indicative with
ἄν and an optative with
ἄν are retained.
a. Optative for Indicative.—““
ἔγνωσαν ὅτι κενὸς ὁ φόβος εἴη”
they recognized that their fear was groundless”
X. A. 2.2.21 ( =
ἐστί), ““
ἔλεξαν ὅτι πέμψειε σφᾶς ὁ Ἰνδῶν βασιλεύς”
they said that the king of the Indians had sent them”
X. C. 2.4.7 ( =
ἔπεμψεν ἡμᾶς), ““
ἠγγέλθη ὅτι ἡττημένοι εἶεν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι . . . καὶ Πείσανδρος τεθναίη”
it was reported that the Lacedaemonians had been defeated and that Peisander was dead”
X. H. 4.3.10 ( =
ἡττημένοι εἰσι and
τέθνηκε).
N.—The first example of the optative in indirect discourse is later than Homer (
Hymn to Aphrodite 214). Aeschylus has four cases. See 2624 c.
b. Direct Form Retained.—““
διῆλθε λόγος ὅτι διώκει αὐτοὺς Κῦρος”
a report spread that Cyrus was pursuing them”
X. A. 1.4.7, ““
ἀποκρι_νάμενοι ὅτι πέμψουσι πρέσβεις, εὐθὺς ἀπήλλαξαν”
they withdrew immediately on answering that they would send envoys”
T. 1.90 ( =
πέμψομεν). See also
2623,
2625.
2. Infinitive and Participle
[*] 2616. The infinitive and participle are used in indirect discourse to represent the finite verb of direct discourse.
““
ὑπώπτευον ἐπὶ βασιλέα_ ἰέναι”
they suspected that they were to go against the king”
X. A. 5.1.8 ( =
ἴμεν), ““
ἔφη ἢ ἄξειν Λακεδαιμονίους ἢ αὐτοῦ ἀποκτενεῖν”
he said that he would either bring the Lacedaemonians or kill them on the spot”
T. 4.28 ( =
ἄξω, ἀποκτενῶ), ““
οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεσαν αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα”
for they did not know that he was dead”
X. A. 1.10.16 ( =
ὅτι τέθνηκε).
For examples of the infinitive, see
1846,
1848,
1849,
1867, 2022; for examples of the participle, see
1846,
1848,
1874,
2106, 2112 b.
COMPLEX SENTENCES IN INDIRECT DISCOURSE
[*] 2617. When a complex sentence passes into indirect discourse, its principal verb is treated like the verb of a simple sentence and stands either in a finite mood (after
ὅτι or
ὡς) or in the infinitive or in the participle.
[*] 2618. After primary tenses, all subordinate verbs retain the original mood and tense.
““
λέγουσιν ὡς, ἐπειδάν τις ἀγαθὸς ὤν τελευτήσῃ, μεγάλην μοῖραν καὶ τι_μὴν ἔχει”
they say that, when a good man dies, he enjoys great esteem and honour”
P. Crat. 398b,
προλέγω ὅτι, ὁπότερ᾽ ἂν ἀποκρί_νηται, ἐξελεγχθήσεται I tell you in advance that,
whichever answer he makes, he will be confuted P. Eu. 275e, ““
παράδειγμα σαφὲς καταστήσατε, δ̀ς ἂν ἀφιστῆται θανάτῳ ζημιωσόμενον”
give plain warning that whoever revolts shall be punished with death”
T. 3.40 ( =
ὅτι ζημιώσεται).
[*] 2619. After secondary tenses, all subordinate verbs in the present, future, or perfect indicative, and all subjunctives, are usually changed to the corresponding tenses of the optative, or they are retained. Subjunctives with
ἄν lose
ἄν on passing into the optative.
a. Optative for Indicative and Indicative Retained.—““
εἶπε . . . ὅτι ἄνδρα ἄγοι . . . δ̀ν εἶρξαι δέοι”
he said that he was bringing a man whom it was necessary to lock up”
X. H. 5.4.8 ( =
ἄγω, δεῖ), ““
Κῦρος . . . τῷ Κλεάρχῳ ἐβόα_ ἄγειν τὸ στράτευμα κατὰ μέσον τὸ τῶν πολεμίων, ὅτι ἐκεῖ βασιλεὺς εἴη”
Cyrus shouted to Clearchus to lead his troops against the enemy's centre because the king was there”
X. A. 1.8.12 ( =
ἐστί), ““
εὖ δὲ εἰδέναι ἔφασαν ὅτι παρέσοιντο”
for they said that they knew well that they would come”
X. H. 6.5.19 ( =
ἴσμεν ὅτι παρέσονται),
ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἕτοιμος εἴη ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς . . . εἰς τὸ Δέλτα . . ., ἔνθα πολλὰ κἀ_γαθὰ λήψοιντο he said that he was ready to be their leader to the Delta,
where they would obtain an abundance of good things X. A. 7.1.33 ( =
ἕτοιμός εἰμι, λήψεσθε),
ἔλεγον ὅτι . . . ἥκοιεν ἡγεμόνας ἔχοντες, οἳ αὐτούς, ἐὰ_ν σπονδαὶ γένωνται, ἄξουσιν ἔνθεν ἕξουσι τὰ ἐπιτήδεια they said that they had come with guides who would lead them, should a truce be made, to a place
where they would get their supplies 2. 3. 6 ( =
ἥκομεν, ὑ_μᾶς, ἕξετε), ““
ἀγαπήσειν με ἔφασκεν, εἰ τὸ σῶμα σώσω”
he said I might think myself well off if I saved my life”
L. 12.11 ( =
ἀγαπήσεις, εἰ σώσεις).
N.—Except in the future the change to the optative of the indicative after
εἰ is rare: as
προσῆλθον λέγων ὅτι . . . ἕτοιμός εἰμι, εἴ τινα βούλοιτο ( =
βούλει),
παραδοῦναι βασανίζειν I went and said that I was ready to give up the slaves
to be tortured,
if he wished any one of them L. 7.34,
εἶπεν ὅτι Δέξιππον μὲν οὐκ ἐπαινοίη, εἰ ταῦτα πεποιηκὼς εἴη he said that he did not commend Dexippus,
if he had done this X. A. 6.6.25 ( =
ἐπαινῶ, εἰ πεποίηκε).
b. Optative for Subjunctive and Subjunctive Retained.—““
εἶπεν ὅτι οἰμώξοιτο, εἰ μὴ σιωπήσειεν”
he said that he would smart for it unless he kept quiet”
X. H. 2.3.56 ( =
οἰμώξει, ἐὰ_ν μὴ σιωπήσῃς), ““
οὐκ ἔφασαν ἰέναι, ἐὰ_ν μή τις αὐτοῖς χρήματα διδῷ”
they refused to go unless a largess were given them”
X. A. 1.4.12 ( =
οὐκ ἴμεν), ““
εἶπεν ὅτι ἐπιτίθεσθαι μέλλοιεν αὐτῷ, ὁπότε ἀπάγοι τὸ στράτευμα”
he said that they intended to attack him when he led his forces away”
X. C. 7.5.2 ( =
μέλλουσι, σοί, ὁπόταν ἀπάγῃς),
τοὺς ἵππους ἐκέλευε φυλάττειν μένοντας τοὺς ἀγαγόντας ἕως ἄν τις σημαίνῃ he ordered that those who brought the horses should guard them and wait until orders were given 4. 5. 36,
ὤμοσεν Ἀ_γησιλά_ῳ, εἰ σπείσαιτο ἕως ἔλθοιεν οὓς πέμψειε πρὸς βασιλέα_ ἀγγέλους, διαπρά_ξεσθαι κτλ.
he swore to Agesilaus that, if he would make a truce until the messengers whom he would send to the king should arrive,
he would bring it about that, etc.
X. Ages. 1.10 ( =
ἐὰ_ν σπείσῃς ἕως ἂν ἔλθωσιν οὓς ἂν πέμψω, διαπρά_ξομαι).
[*] 2620. Subordinate verbs in the imperfect, aorist (but see 2623 c, N. 3), or pluperfect indicative, and all optatives, remain unchanged.
ἐπιστεῖλαι δὲ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τοὺς ἐφόρους . . . εἰπεῖν ὡς ὧν μὲν πρόσθεν ἐποίουν μέμφοιντο αὐτοῖς κτλ. they reported
that the ephors enjoined them to say that they blamed them for what they had done before X. H. 3.2.6 ( =
ἐποιεῖτε, μεμφόμεθα ὑ_μῖν), ““
ἤλπιζον τοὺς Σικελοὺς ταύτῃ, οὓς μετέπεμψαν, ἀπαντήσεσθαι”
they expected that the Sicels whom they had sent for would meet them here”
T. 7.80, ““
εἶπεν ὅτι ἔλθοι ἂν εἰς λόγους, εἰ ὁμήρους λάβοι”
he said that he would enter into negotiations if he should receive hostages”
X. H. 3.1.20 (
ἔλθοιμ᾽ ἄν, εἰ λάβοιμι). See 2623 a,
2625.
[*] 2621. The following table shows where, after
εἶπεν ὅτι or
ἔφη, the optative (and infinitive after
ἔφη) may be substituted for the indicative or subjunctive in conditional sentences in indirect discourse.
| DIRECT | INDIRECT |
| εἶπεν ὅτι | ἔφη |
| εἴ τι ἔχω, δίδωμι | εἴ τι ἔχοι, διδοίη | （διδόναι） |
| εἴ τι εἶχεν, ἐδίδουν | εἴ τι εἶχεν, ἐδίδου | （διδόναι） |
| εἴ τι ἔσχον, ἔδωκα | εἴ τι ἔσχεν, δοίη1 | （δοῦναι） |
| ἐά_ν τι ἔχω, δώσω | εἴ τι ἔχοι, δώσοι | （δώσειν） |
| εἴ τι ἕξω, δώσω | εἴ τι ἕξοι, δώσοι | （δώσειν） |
| ἐά_ν τι ἔχω, δίδωμι | εἴ τι ἔχοι, διδοίη | （διδόναι） |
In the following sentences there is no change of mood after
ὅτι:
Temporal and relative sentences (cp.
2561) are converted in the same way. For an infinitive representing an imperative in the apodosis, see 2633 c.
IMPLIED INDIRECT DISCOURSE
[*] 2622. Indirect discourse is
implied in the case of any subordinate clause, which, though not depending formally on a verb of saying or thinking, contains the
past thought of another person and not a statement of the writer or speaker. Implied indirect discourse appears only after secondary tenses, and in various kinds of dependent clauses.
a. Conditional clauses, the conclusion being implied in the leading verb. Thus, after a verb of emotion, ““
οἱ δ᾽ ᾤκτι_ρον εἰ ἁλώσοιντο”
others pitied them if they should be captured”
X. A. 1.4.7. The original form was ‘we pity them thinking what they will suffer
εἰ ἁλώσονται if they shall be captured.’ In other
εἰ clauses, as ““
τὰ χρήματα τῷ δήμῳ ἔδωκεν, εἴ πως τελευτήσειεν ἄπαις”
he gave his property to the people in case he died childless”
And. 4.15 (i.e. that the people might have it, in case he should die: direct
ἐὰ_ν τελευτήσω, and here
ἐὰ_ν τελευτήσῃ might have been used).
b. Temporal clauses implying purpose, expectation, or the like (cp.
2420). Thus,
σπονδὰ_ς ἐποιήσαντο, ἕως ἀπαγγελθείη τὰ λεχθέντα they made a truce (which they agreed should continue)
until what had been said should have been reported X. H. 3.2.20 (
ἕως ἂν ἀπαγγελθῇ would be the direct form). Cp.
ἕως δ᾽ ἂν ταῦτα διαπρά_ξωνται, φυλακὴν . . . κατέλιπε he left behind a guard (which he intended should remain)
until they should settle these matters 5. 3. 25.
c. Causal clauses. See
2242.
d. Ordinary relative clauses. Thus,
εἴρετο παῖδα, τὸν Εὐάδνα_ τέκοι he asked for the child which Evadna had borne Pindar, Ol. 6. 49. Here relative and interrogative are not sharply distinguished.
e. Clauses depending on an infinitive especially when introduced by a verb of will or desire, e.g.
command,
advise,
plan,
ask,
wish (
1991,
1992). Here the infinitive expressing command, warning, wish, is not itself in indirect discourse. The negative is
μή. Thus,
ἀφικνοῦνται (historical present)
ὡς Σιτάλκην . . . βουλόμενοι πεῖσαι αὐτόν, εἰ δύναιντο, . . . στρατεῦσαι ἐπὶ τὴν Ποτείδαιαν they came to Sitalces with the desire of persuading him (
if they could)
to make an expedition against Potidaea T. 2.67 ( =
ἐὰ_ν δυνώμεθα), cp. 2633 a.
f. Clauses of purpose and object clauses after verbs of effort admit the alternative constructions of indirect discourse.
REMARKS ON THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF INDIRECT DISCOURSE
[*] 2623.
Past Tenses in Indirect Discourse.—The following rules govern
past tenses in indirect discourse.
a. The potential indicative with
ἄν, the indicative in a condition denoting unreality with
ἄν or without
ἄν (as
ἐχρῆν, ἔδει, etc.), always remain unchanged in order to prevent confusion with the optative of the direct form.
““
ἀπελογοῦντο ὡς οὐκ ἄν ποτε οὕτω μῶροι ἦσαν . . . εἰ ᾔδεσαν”
they pleaded that they never would have been so foolish, if they had known”
X. H. 5.4.22 ( =
οὐκ ἂν ἦμεν, εἰ ᾖσμεν), (
ἔλεγεν) ““
ὅτι κρεῖττον ἦν αὐτῷ τότε ἀποθανεῖν”
he said that it would have been better for him to die then”
L. 10.25 ( =
κρεῖττον ἦν μοι).
b. The imperfect and pluperfect in simple sentences usually remain unchanged after secondary tenses to prevent ambiguity; but when there is no doubt that a past tense stood in the direct form, the imperfect passes into the present optative, the pluperfect into the perfect optative. In subordinate clauses both tenses are retained unaltered.
““
ἤκουσεν ὅτι πολλάκις πρὸς τὸν Ἰνδὸν οἱ Χαλδαῖοι ἐπορεύοντο”
he heard that the Chaldaeans often went to the Indian king”
X. C. 3.2.27,
εἶχε γὰρ λέγειν καὶ ὅτι μόνοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων βασιλεῖ συνεμάχοντο ἐν Πλαταιαῖς, καὶ ὅτι ὕστερον οὐδεπώποτε στρατεύσαιντο (cp. c) ““
ἐπὶ βασιλέα_”
for he was able to say both that alone of the Greeks they had fought on the side of the king at Plataea and that later they had never at any time taken the field against the king”
X. H. 7.1.34 ( =
συνεμαχόμεθα, ἐστρατευσάμεθα),
τὰ πεπρα_γμένα διηγοῦντο, ὅτι αὐτοὶ μὲν . . . πλέοιεν, τὴν δὲ ἀναίρεσιν τῶν ναυα_γῶν προστάξαιεν they related what had occurred to the effect that they were themselves sailing against the enemy
and that they had given orāers for the rescue of the men on the wrecks X. H. 1.7.5 ( =
ἐπλέομεν, προσετάξαμεν).
N.—The change to the optative is not made when the time of the action of imperfect (and pluperfect) is earlier than that of a coőrdinated verb in the same quoted sentence; as
ἔλεγέν τ᾽ ὡς φιλαθήναιος ἦν καὶ τἀ_ν Σάμῳ πρῶτος κατείποι he said that he both had been a lover of Athens and that (afterwards)
he was the first to tell what had happened at Samos Ar. Vesp. 282.
c. The aorist indicative without
ἄν in a simple sentence or in a principal clause may be changed to the aorist optative after a secondary tense; but in subordinate clauses (except those denoting cause, N. 3) it remains unchanged to avoid ambiguity with the aorist optative, which usually represents the aorist subjunctive.
““
ἀπεκρι_νάμην αὐτῷ ὅτι . . . οὐ λάβοιμι”
I answered him that I did not take”
D. 50.36 ( =
οὐκ ἔλαβον), ““
τοῖς ἰδίοις χρήσεσθαι ἔφη, ἃ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ ἔδωκεν”
he said that he would use his own money that his father had given him”
X. H. 1.5.3 ( =
χρήσομαι, ἔδωκεν).
N. 1.—The retention of the aorist indicative is here the essential point of difference between subordinate clauses and principal clauses or simple sentences.
N. 2.—In a subordinate clause the time of the aorist usually expresses an action prior to that of the leading verb.
N. 3.—In causal clauses with
ὅτι or
ὡς a dependent aorist indicative may become aorist optative; as
εἶχε γὰρ λέγειν . . . ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιοι διὰ τοῦτο πολεμήσειαν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι οὐκ ἐθελήσαιεν μετ᾽ Ἀ_γησιλά_ου ἐλθεῖν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν for he was able to say that the Lacedaemonians had gone to war with them (the Thebans)
for the reason that they (the Thebans)
had not been willing to attack him (the Persian king)
in company with Agesilaus X. H. 7.1.34 (direct
ἐπολέμησαν ἡμῖν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠθελήσαμεν). Rarely in temporal clauses with
ἐπεί (
X. C. 5.3.26).
[*] 2624.
Inserted Statement of Fact.—When the present or perfect indicative would have stood in the direct discourse, a past tense of historical narration is often used as a
statement of fact by the writer from his own point of view, though the rest of the sentence may be given in indirect discourse after a secondary tense from the point of view of the subject of the leading verb.
““
ᾔδει ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν αὐτῇ σωθῆναι”
she knew that it was not possible for her to be saved”
Ant. 1.8 ( =
οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἐστὶ ἐμοὶ σωθῆναι. With
ἦν the sentence virtually has the force of
οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἧν σωθῆναι καὶ ᾔδει she could not be saved and she knew it). So ““
ἔλεγον οὐ καλῶς τὴν Ἑλλάσα ἐλευθεροῦν αὐτόν, εἰ ἄνδρας διέφθειρεν”
they said that he was not freeing Greece in the right way if he put men to death”
T. 3.32 ( =
ἐλευθεροῖς, διαφθείρεις),
τοὺς φυγάδας ἐκέλευσε σὺν αὐτῷ στρατεύεσθαι, ὑποσχόμενος αὐτοῖς, εἰ καλῶς καταπρά_ξειεν ἐφ᾽ ἃ ἐστρατεύετο, μὴ πρόσθεν παύσεσθαι πρὶν αὐτοὺς καταγάγοι οἴκαδε he urged the exiles to make the expedition with him,
promising them that, if he should succeed in accomplishing the purposes of his campaign,
he would not cease until he had brought them back to their homes X. A. 1.2.2 ( =
ἢν καταπρά_ξω ἐφ᾽ ἃ στρατεύομαι, οὐ παύσομαι πρὶν ἂν καταγάγω), ““
ἀποθανὼν ἐδήλωσεν ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθῆ ταῦτα ἦν”
he showed by his death that this was not true”
L. 19.52 ( =
ἐστί), ““
ἔφη εἶναι παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ὅσον μὴ ἦν ἀνηλωμένον”
he said that he had in his possession all that had not been expended”
D. 48.16 ( =
παρ᾽ ἐμοί ἐστιν ὅσον μὴ ἔστιν ἀνηλωμένον),
ἐν πολλῇ δὴ ἀπορίᾳ ἦσαν οἱ Ἕλληνες, ““
ἐννοούμενοι μὲν ὅτι ἐπὶ ταῖς βασιλέως θύραις ἦσαν”
the Greeks were accordingly in great perplexity on reflecting that they were at the king's gates”
X. A. 3.1.2 (i.e. they were there in fact and they knew it).
a. The use of past tenses of historical narration instead of present tenses of direct discourse occurs, in simple sentences, especially after verbs of knowing, perceiving, showing, and verbs of emotion (rarely after verbs of saying w.
ὅτι).
b. Such inserted statements of fact are often difficult to distinguish from indicatives in indirect discourse; and the two forms of expression may occur in the same sentence (
X. C. 4.2.35-
36). The common explanation of the use of the imperfect and pluperfect for the present and perfect is that Greek had the same assimilation of tense as English.
c. Except in indirect questions, the optative of indirect discourse is unknown to Homer. (
εἰπεῖν ὡς ἔλθοι ω 237 may be considered as interrogative.) After primary or secondary tenses Homer employs, in the dependent clause, the same past tense that would have been used in an independent clause, from the point of view of the speaker, and not the tense which would have been used in direct discourse from the point of view of the subject of the main clause. Thus,
γίγνωσκον δ̀ ( =
ὅτι) ““
δὴ κακὰ μήδετο”
I knew that he was planning evil”
γ 166 (
i.e κακὰ ἐμήδετο καὶ ἐγίγνωσκον he was planning evil and I knew it). In Attic we should commonly have
μήδεται or
μήδοιτο. After secondary tenses the future is usually expressed in Homer by
ἔμελλον and the infinitive, as ““
οὐδὲ τὸ ᾔδη, ὃ οὐ πείσεσθαι ἔμελλεν”
nor did he know this, that she had no thought to comply”
γ 146.
d. That this use of statements of fact standing outside indirect discourse is optional only, is seen from a comparison of the first example in 2624 with ““
καλῶς γὰρ ᾔδειν ὡς ἐγὼ ταύτῃ κράτιστός εἰμι”
for he knew full well that I am first-rate in this line”
Ar. Vesp. 635 and with ““
ᾔδει αὐτὸν ὅτι μέσον ἔχοι τοῦ Περσικοῦ στρατεύματος”
he knew that he held the centre of the Persian army”
X. A. 1.8.21.
[*] 2625. An optative with or without
ἄν is regularly retained after
ὅτι (
ὡς).
““
ἐδίδασκον ὡς . . . συνεστρατεύοντο ὅποι ἡγοῖντο”
they showed that they always followed them in their campaigns wherever they led”
X. H. 5.2.8 ( =
συνεστρατευόμεθα, ὅποι ἡγοῖσθε, cp.
2568), ““
ἀπεκρί_νατο . . . ὅτι πρόσθεν ἂν ἀποθάνοιεν ἢ τὰ ὅπλα παραδοίησαν”
he replied that they would sooner die than surrender their arms”
X. A. 2.1.10 ( =
ἂν ἀποθάνοιμεν, παραδοῖμεν).
[*] 2626. In some cases the optative
with ἄν in temporal and relative sentences is used to represent the subjunctive with
ἄν; but many scholars expel
ἄν.
““
παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς μὴ πρότερον ἐπιτίθεσθαι πρὶν ἂν τῶν σφετέρων ἢ πέσοι τις ἢ τρωθείη”
they gave orders to them that they should not attack before some one of their number had either fallen or been wounded”
X. H. 2.4.18. Cp.
2421.
[*] 2627. An optative occasioned by indirect discourse may stand after a
primary tense when it is implied that the thought quoted has been expressed in the past.
““
λέγει ὁ λόγος ὅτι Νεοπτόλεμος Νέστορα ἔροιτο”
the story goes that Neoptolemus asked Nestor”
P. Hipp. M. 286b. This may be expressed by
λέγεται εἰπεῖν ὅτι. Cp. ““
λέγεται εἰπεῖν ὅτι βούλοιτο”
it is reported that he said that he wished”
X. C. 1.4.25.
a. The historical present is a secondary tense: ““
οἱ δὲ πεμφθέντες λέγουσι Κύ_ρῳ ὅτι μι_σοῖεν τοὺς Ἀσσυρίους”
and those who had been sent told Cyrus that they hated the Assyrians”
X. C. 4.2.4.
[*] 2628. Indirect discourse may be introduced by
ὅτι (
ὡς) and then pass into the infinitive as if the introductory verb had required the infinitive.
ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρί_νατο ὅτι βούλοιτο μὲν ἅπαντα τῷ πατρὶ χαρίζεσθαι, ἄ_κοντα μέντοι τὸν παῖδα χαλεπὸν εἶναι νομίζειν ( =
νομίζοι) ““
καταλιπεῖν”
she answered that she wished to do everything to oblige her father, but that she considered it unkind to leave the child behind against his inclination”
X. C. 1.3.13.
a. It is unusual to have the infinitive first, and then
ὅτι (
T. 5.65).
b. One and the same clause may even begin with
ὅτι (
ὡς) and then (sometimes after a parenthesis) be continued by an infinitive, less often by a participle. Thus,
ἀκούω ὅτι (omitted in one Ms.) ““
καὶ συνθηρευτά_ς τινας τῶν παίδων σοι γενέσθαι αὐτοῦ”
I hear too that some of his sons became your companions in the chase”
X. C. 2.4.15. Continuation with a participle in
T. 4.37.
[*] 2629. An optative dependent on
ὅτι (
ὡς) may be followed, in a parenthetical or appended clause (often introduced by
γάρ or
οὖν), by an
independent optative, which is used as if it itself directly depended on
ὅτι (
ὡς).
ἔλεγον πολλοὶ . . . ὅτι παντὸς ἄξια λέγοι Σεύθης: χειμὼν γὰρ εἴη καὶ οὔτε οἴκαδε ἀποπλεῖν τῷ ταῦτα βουλομένῳ δυνατὸν εἴη κτλ.
many said that what Seuthes said was of much value; for it was winter and neither was it possible for any one who so desired to sail home, etc.
X. A. 7.3.13 (here we might have had
χειμῶνα γὰρ εἶναι by
2628).
a. Such an independent optative may also follow an infinitive in indirect discourse (
L. 13.78), an indicative after
ὅτι (
Is. 8.22), or a participle (
Is. 9.5). After an optative in indirect discourse the appended clause may contain an indicative (
X. A. 6.2.10,
I. 17.21).
[*] 2630. An infinitive in indirect discourse may follow a sentence which merely
involves the idea of indirect statement.
ὁ δὲ αὐτοὺς εἰς Λακεδαίμονα ἐκέλευεν ἰέναι: οὐ γὰρ εἶναι κύ_ριος αὐτός he recommended them to go to Lacedaemon; for (he said that)
he was not himself empowered to act X. H. 2.2.12.
[*] 2631. In subordinate temporal and relative clauses the infinitive is often used for the indicative or optative by attraction to an infinitive standing in the principal clause after a verb of saying. In some cases
ἔφη may be mentally inserted.
ἔφη . . . ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ Ἀγάθωνος, ἀνεῳγμένην καταλαμβάνειν τὴν θύραν he said that, when he arrived at the house of Agathon,
he found the door open P. S. 174d ( =
ἐπειδὴ ἐγενόμην, καταλαμβάνω). See also the sentence quoted in 1228 b, end. So
οὗτοι δὲ ἔλεγον ὅτι πολλοὺς φαίη Ἀριαῖος εἶναι Πέρσα_ς ἑαυτοῦ βελτί_ους, οὓς οὐκ ἂν ἀνασχέσθαι αὐτοῦ βασιλεύοντος and they said that Ariaeus said that there were many Persians better than himself, who would not endure his being king X. A. 2.2.1 ( =
πολλοί εἰσι ἐμαυτοῦ βελτί_ους, οἳ οὐκ. ἂν ἀνάσχοιντο ἐμοῦ β.). Here the relative is equivalent, in sense, to
καὶ τούτους. The infinitive occurs even in clauses with
εἰ (
T. 4.98, and often in Hdt.), and with
διότι (
Hdt. 3.55).
a. The infinitive is rare in such relative clauses as ““
διορίζουσι σαφῶς ἐν οἷς ἐξεῖναι ἀποκτιννύναι”
they make a clear distinction in cases where it is permitted to kill”
D. 23.74.
[*] 2632. For the sake of variation, a mood of the direct form may be used in the same sentence with a mood of the indirect. The main verb may be kept in the direct form, while the subordinate verb becomes optative, or, less often, the subordinate verb may be retained in the direct form though the main verb becomes optative.
““
οὗτοι ἔλεγον ὅτι Κῦρος μὲν τέθνηκεν, Ἀριαῖος δὲ πεφευγὼς . . . εἴη”
these said that Cyrus was dead but that Ariaeus had fled”
X. A. 2.1.3 (here we might have had
τεθνήκοι or
πέφευγε),
αἱ δὲ ἀπεκρί_ναντο ὅτι οὐκ ἐνταῦθα εἴη, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπέχει ὅσον παρασάγγην and they replied that he was not there but was a parasang distant 4. 5. 10 (here we might have
ἐστί or
ἀπέχοι), ““
ἐδόκει δῆλον εἶναι ὅτι αἱρήσονται αὐτὸν εἴ τις ἐπιψηφίζοι”
it seemed to be clear that they would elect him if any one should put it to vote”
X. A. 6.1.25 (here we might have
αἱρήσοιντο or
ἐὰ_ν ε<*>πιψηφίζᾐ, ἔλεξας . . . ὅτι μέγιστον εἴη μαθεῖν ὅπως δεῖ ἐξεργάζεσθαι ἕκαστα you said that it was essential to learn how it is necessary to conduct each process X. O. 15.2 (here
ἐστί or
δέοι might have been used), ““
παρήγγειλαν, ἐπειδὴ δειπνήσαιεν, . . . ἀναπαύεσθαι καὶ ἕπεσθαι, ἡνίκ᾽ ἄν τις παραγγέλλῃ”
they gave orders that, when they had supped, they should rest and follow when any one gave the command”
X. A. 3.5.18 (here we might have had
ἐπειδὰν δειπνήσωσι or
ἡνίκα παραγγέλλοι). Other examples 2619. Subjunctive (in some Mss.), then optative:
X. A. 7.7.57.
[*] 2633. The idea conveyed by an imperative or a hortatory (or even deliberative) subjunctive of direct discourse may be set forth in the infinitive by a
statement as to what
ought to be.
a. In an infinitive dependent on a verb of will or desire (such as ask, command, advise, forbid, etc.
1992) which does not properly take the construction of indirect discourse.
εἷς δὲ δὴ εἶπε (
1997) . . . ““
στρατηγοὺς μὲν ἑλέσθαι ἄλλους”
and some one urged that they choose other generals”
X. A. 1.3.14 (cp.
ἕλεσθε or
ἕλωμεν), ““
ἀπηγόρευε μηδένα βάλλειν”
he forbade any one to shoot”
X. C. 1.4.14 (cp.
μηδεὶς βαλλέτω).
N.—Here may be placed the infinitive after
ἡγοῦμαι, νομίζω, οἴομαι in the sense of
δοκῶ I think it proper (or
necessary); as ““
ᾤοντο ἀπιέναι”
they thought that they should retire”
X. H. 4.7.4 (cp.
ἀπίωμεν).
b. In an infinitive dependent on
ἔφη χρῆναι (
δεῖν), as ““
ἔφη . . . χρῆναι πλεῖν ἐπὶ Συρα_κούσα_ς”
he said that they ought to sail to Syracuse”
T. 4.69.
c. In the simple infinitive, as
τὰ_ς μὲν ἐπιστολὰ_ς . . . ἀνέγνωσαν, ἐν αἷς πολλῶν ἄλλων γεγραμμένων κεφάλαιον ἦν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους οὐ γιγνώσκειν ὅ τι βούλονται . . . εἰ οὖν τι βούλονται σαφὲς λέγειν, πέμψαι μετὰ τοῦ Πέρσου ἄνδρας ὡς αὐτόν they read the dispatches, in which of much besides therein written to the Lacedaemonians the substance was that the king
did not understand what they wanted; if therefore they wished to make explicit statements, let them send men to him in company with the Persian T. 4.50. Cp.
T. 1.27. 1
μένειν ῀ μενέτω.
[*] 2634. Long sentences (and even some short complex sentences), or a series of sentences, in indirect discourse depending on a single verb of saying or thinking, are uncongenial to the animated character of Greek, which resists the formal regularity of Latin. Some long speeches in indirect discourse do, however, appear, e.g. Andoc. 1. 3842, Thuc. 6. 49, Xen. C. 8. 1. 10-11, Plato R. 614 b (the entire
Symposium is given in reported form). To effect variety and to ensure clearness by relieving the strain on the leading verb, Greek has various devices.
a. ἔφη (
ἔλεξε, εἶπεν, ἤρετο) is repeated, e.g.
T. 7.48.
b. The indirect form is abandoned for the direct form, e.g.
X. A. 1.3.14, 1. 9. 25, 4. 8. 10; often with a change, or repetition, of the verb of saying (
X. A. 5.6.37,
X. H. 2.1.25).
c. ἔφη χρῆναι (
δεῖν) or
ἐκέλευσε is inserted or repeated (
T. 6.49. 4).
N. 1.—Transition from direct to indirect discourse is rare (
X. A. 7.1.39, cp.
X. C. 3.2.25).
N. 2.—An interrogative clause always depends immediately on the introductory verb, hence such clauses do not occur in the course of a long sentence in indirect discourse.
[*] 2635. EXAMPLES OF INDIRECT DISCOURSE
| ἔφη γὰρ εἶναι μὲν ἀνδράποδόν οἱ ἐπὶ Λαυρίῳ, δεῖν δὲ κομίσασθαι ἀποφορά_ν. ἀναστὰ_ς δὲ πρῲ ψευσθεὶς τῆς ὥρα_ς βαδίζειν: εἶναι δὲ πανσέληνον. ἐπεὶ δὲ παρὰ τὸ προπύλαιον τοῦ Διονύ_σου ἦν, ὁρᾶν ἀνθρώπους πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὠιδείου καταβαίνοντας εἰς τὴν ὀρχήστρα_ν: δείσα_ς δὲ αὐτούς, εἰσελθὼν ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰ_ν καθέζεσθαι μεταξὺ τοῦ κίονος καὶ τῆς στήλης ἐφ᾽ ᾗ ὁ στρατηγός ἐστιν ὁ χαλκοῦς. ὁρᾶν δὲ ἀνθρώπους τὸν μὲν ἀριθμὸν μάλιστα τρια_κοσίους, ἑστάναι δὲ κύκλῳ ἀνὰ πέντε καὶ δέκα ἄνδρας, τοὺς δὲ ἀνὰ εἴκοσιν: ὁρῶν δὲ αὐτ ῶν πρὸς τὴν σελήνην τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν πλείστων γιγνώσκειν. καὶ πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τοῦθ᾽ ὑπέθετο δεινότατον πρᾶγμα, οἶμαι, ὅπως ἐν ἐκείνῳ εἴη ὅντινα βούλοιτο Ἀθηναίων φάναι τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων εἶναι, ὅντινα δὲ μὴ βούλοιτο, λέγειν ὅτι οὐκ ἦν. ἰδὼν δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἔφη ἐπὶ Λαύριον ἰέναι, καὶ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἀκούειν ὅτι οἱ Ἑρμαῖ εἶεν περικεκομμένοι: γνῶναι οὖν εὐθὺς ὅτι τούτων εἴη τῶν ἀνδρῶν τὸ ἔργον. ἥκων δὲ εἰς ἄστυ ζητητά_ς τε ἤδη ᾑρημένους καταλαμβάνειν καὶ μήνυ_τρα κεκηρυ_γμένα ἑκατὸν μνᾶς.—Andocides 1. 38. | For Dioclides said that he had a slave at Laurium, and that he had to fetch a payment due him. Rising early he mistook the time and set out, and there was a full moon. When he was by the gateway of the sanctuary of Dionysus, he saw a body of men coming down from the Odeum into the orchestra, and through fear of them he betook himself into the shade and sat down between the column and the block on which the Bronze General stands. He saw about three hundred men, some standing round about in groups of fifteen, others in groups of twenty. On seeing them in the moonlight he recognized the faces of most. In the first place, gentlemen, he has concocted this most extraordinary tale, in order, as I believe, that it might be in his power to include among these men any Athenian he wished, or to exclude any he did not wish. On seeing this he said he went to Laurium, and on the day after heard that the statues of Hermes had been mutilated. So he knew forthwith that it was the work of these men. On his return to the city he found that commissioners of inquiry had already been appointed and that a hundred minae had been offered as a reward. |
