Basil L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek

Moods

---

Indicative Mood

[*] 361. The indicative mood represents the predicate as a reality. It is sometimes called the declarative mood or mood of direct assertion. “φημί”, I say.

[*] 362. Use of the indicative.

The use of the Greek indicative is in the main the same as that of the English indicative. It must, however, be noticed that the English indicative and the English subjunctive (optative) coincide to a considerable extent in form. Hence the apparent coincidence in syntax, where there is real diversity. In “I had fainted, unless I had believed,” PS. 27.13, both “I had fainted” and “I had believed” are subjunctives, or rather optatives.

[*] 363. Expression of possibility, power, obligation, and necessity.

The differences to be specially noted are these:

The Greek language expresses possibility and power, obligation and necessity, and abstract relations generally, as facts; whereas our translation often implies the failure to realize.

“συνέπλει . . . τὰ . . . ἀνδράποδα ἃ ἔδει αὐτὸν ἀπολῦσαι,” ANTIPHON, 5.20 ; The slaves whom he was to release were on board with him. “οἱ . . . ἐν ταῖς τεσσαράκοντα ναυσὶ Πελοποννήσιοι, οὓς ἔδει ἐν τάχει παραγενέσθαι, . . . ἐνδιέτριψαν,” THUC.3.29.1 ; The Peloponnesians in the forty ships whose business it was to get (who ought to have got) there quickly, loitered on the way. “τότε ξυναλγεῖν χρῆν σ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ὠλλύμην ἐγώ,” EUR. Alc. 633 ; tum aequius dolere FUERAT fata cum me tollerent (Buchanan).

DIN.1.81: “ὅτε μὲν ἔδει μάχεσθαι . . . ᾤχετ᾽ ἀπιὼν οἴκαδε, ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσῆκεν οἴκοι κινδυνεύειν . . . ᾤχετ᾽ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀποδράς” .

DEM.18.191: “ἐχρῆν . . . ἔδει”. 29. 41: “πολὺ κάλλιον ἦν . . . διώκειν”. [46]DEM., 5: “ἔδει”. [47]DEM., 76: “γεωργῶ δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱπποδρόμῳ, ὥστε οὐ πόρρω ἔδει αὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν”.

LYS.12.32: “χρῆν δέ σε . . . εἴπερ ἦσθα χρηστός . . . τοῖς μέλλουσιν ἀδίκως ἀποθανεῖσθαι μηνυτὴν γενέσθαι” .

ANDOC.1.20: “ἢ ἐμὲ ἢ ἐκεῖνον ἔδει ἀποθανεῖν”, aut mihi aut illi moriendum erat.

PLATO, Apol. 34A: “καὶ ἄλλους πολλοὺς ἐγὼ ἔχω ὑμῖν εἰπεῖν, ὧν τινα ὲχρῆν . . . παρασχέσθαι Μέλητον μάρτυρα”.

HDT.3.66: “οὐ γὰρ ἦν οἱ ἀσφαλὲς . . . φάναι τὸν Κύρου υἱὸν ἀπολωλεκέναι”. 8.6. 8.68, “α”): “ἀπήλλαξαν οὕτω ὡς κείνους ἔπρεπε”.

AR. Nub. 963: “πρῶτον μὲν ἔδει παιδὸς φωνὴν γρύξαντος μηδέν᾽ ἀκοῦσαι” . Ibid. 973: “ἔδει” .

EUR. Alc. 633 (see above).

HOM. Il. 1.353: “τιμήν πέρ μοι ὄφελλεν Ὀλύμπιος ἐγγυαλίξαι”.

[*] 364. e)/dei, e)xrh=n, etc., of the present.

When “ἔδει, ἐχρῆν”, and the like refer to the present and not to the past, a modal sense is set up, and the dependent infinitive becomes unreal.¹

“ἐχρῆν . . . ὅσιον εἶναι τοῦτο πράττειν”, LYCURG.141; It ought to be consonant with piety to do this (but it is not).

LYCURG.141(see above).

DEM.15.32: “ἐχρῆν . . . τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν ὑμᾶς” (= “ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔχετε”) “περὶ τῆς ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τάξεως, ἥνπερ περὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς στρατείαις ἔχετε”.

THUC.6.78.4: “καὶ μάλιστα εἰκὸς ἦν ὑμᾶς . . . μὴ μαλακῶς ὥσπερ νῦν ξυμμαχεῖν”.

HDT.3.80: “καίτοι ἄνδρα γε τύραννον ἄφθονον ἔδεε εἶναι, ἔχοντά γε πάντα τὰ ἀγαθά. τὸ δὲ ὑπεναντίον τούτου ἐς τοὺς πολιήτας πέφυκε: φθονέει γὰρ κτἑ”.

COM. Hermipp.2.399: “τοὺς μὲν ἄρ᾽ ἄλλους οἰκουρεῖν χρῆν”.

EUR. Or. 1030: “ζῆν ἐχρῆν σ᾽, ὅτ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ εἶ” .

[*] 365. Indicative in generic sentences.

In generic sentences the Greek has a tendency to other modal constructions. In practical questions, personal argument, as in poetry and proverbs, the indicative may be used as in English and Latin.

“εἴ τις εἰδὼς . . . προὔδωκεν ἢ ἐξαπατᾷ, οὗτός ἐστ᾽ ἔνοχος τῇ ἀρᾷ”, DEM.23.97; If any one has wittingly betrayed or wittingly deceives, he is obnoxious to the curse. “ἃ μὴ κατέθου, μὴ ἀνέλῃ”, PROV.; What you didn't deposit, you mustn't draw. “τῷ . . . ἀσθενοῦντι πικρὰ φαίνεται ἃ ἐσθίει καὶ ἔστι”, PLATO, Theaet. 166E; To the sick man what he eats seems bitter, and is bitter.

PROV. “ἥν τις ἔμαξε μᾶζαν ταύτην καὶ ἐσθιέτω”. (See also above.)

DEM.23.97(see above).

AESCHIN.3.196: “εἰ γάρ τις ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ τετιμημένος . . . τολμα? βοηθεῖν τοῖς παράνομα γράφουσι, καταλύει τὴν πολιτείαν”. Ibid. 198: “ὅστις . . . αἰτεῖ” (twice).

PLATO, Theaet. 166E (see above). 170 A: “τὸ δοκοῦν ἑκάστῳ τοῦτο καὶ εἶναί φησί που ᾧ δοκεῖ”;

HDT.3.127: “ἔνθα . . . σοφίης δέει, βίης ἔργον οὐδέν”.

EUR. Tro. 400: “φεύγειν μὲν οὖν χρὴ πόλεμον ὅστις εὖ φρονεῖ”.

AESCHYL. Sept. 596: “δεινὸς ὃς θεοὺς σέβει”.

PIND. N. 3.41-2: “ὃς δὲ διδάκτ᾽ ἔχει, . . . μυριᾶν . . . ἀρετᾶν ἀτελεῖ νόῳ γεύεται”.

HOM. Od. 14.156-7: “ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀίδαο πύλῃσιν” | “γίγνεται, ὃς πενίῃ εἴκων ἀπατἠλια βάζει”.

[*] 366. Non-use of certain tenses of the indicative with temporal particles.

As a rule, temporal particles are not used with the indicative in future relations. Here the subjunctive with “ἄν” is regularly employed, which becomes optative in oratio obliqua.

Temporal particles with the present and perfect tenses of the indicative are regularly causal or conditional. See Temporal Sentences.

[*] 367. Indicative in wishes.

The indicative of the past tenses is used in hopeless wishes. Here some introductory particle, such as “εἴθε, εἰ γάρ”, is used to show the baselessness of the wish. Or the form “ὤφελον” (“ὤφελλον”), I ought, with the infinitive, is employed. Here there is also, as a rule, an introductory particle: “εἴθε” (“αἴθε”), “εἰ γάρ, ὡς”. The negative is “μή”.

The imperfect indicative after “εἴθε, εἰ γάρ”, denotes a wish for continuance, regularly in opposition to the present, the aorist a wish for attainment, regularly in opposition to the past.

When “ὤφελον” is used, the tenses of the infinitive are employed in the same way, the present infinitive like the imperfect indicative, the aorist infinitive like the aorist indicative.

“ἐβουλόμην ἄν” (“κεν”) and “ἤθελον ἄν” (“κεν”) are not infrequent forms of indicating a hopeless wish.²

“ἀλλ᾽ ὤφελε . . . Κῦρος ζῆν”, XEN. An. 2.1.4; Ah! Cyrus ought to be alive = would that Cyrus were alive.

LYS.3.21: “ἐβουλόμην δ᾽ ἂν . . . Σίμωνα τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην ἐμοὶ ἔχειν” .

PLATO , Crito 44 D: “εἰ γὰρ ὤφελον . . . οἷοί τε εἶναι οἱ πολλοὶ τὰ μέγιστα κακὰ ἐξεργάζεσθαι”. Rpb. 432 C: “εἰ γὰρ ὤφελον” (sc. “ἰδεῖν”), “ἔφη”.

XEN. An. 2.1.4 (see above). Cyr. 4.6.3: “ἥμαρτεν, ὡς μήποτε ὤφελεν”.

HDT.1.111: “ὄφελον”. 3.65: “εἶδον ὄψιν ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ, τὴν μηδαμὰ ὄφελον ἰδεῖν”.

AR. Nub. 24: “εἴθ᾽ ἐξεκόπην πρότερον τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν λἰθῳ” .

“ εἴθε σου εἶναι
ὤφελεν, ὦλαζών, οὑτωσὶ θερμὸς ὁ πλεύμων
”

Pax, 1068-9:

(mock heroics).

EUR. Alc. 536: “εἴθ᾽ εὕρομέν ς᾿, Ἄδμητε, μὴ λυπούμενον”. Cycl.186-7: “μηδαμοῦ γένος ποτὲ” | “φῦναι γυναικῶν ὤφελ̓, εἰ μὴ ᾿μοὶ μόνῳ”. El. 282: “εἴθ᾽ ἦν Ὀρέστης πλησίον κλύων τάδε”. Ibid. 1061: “εἴθ᾽ εἶχες, ὦ τεκοῦσα, βελτίους φρένας”. I. A. 70: “μήποτ᾽ ὤφελεν λαβεῖν”.

SOPH. El. 1021-2: “εἴθ᾽ ὤφελες τοιάδε τὴν γνώμην πατρὸς” | “θνῄσκοντος εἶνοι: πᾶν γὰρ ἂν κατειργάσω” (“εἰ ἦσθα”, hadst thou been).

PIND. P. 3.1-3: “ἤθελον Χείρωνά κε Φιλυρίδαν”, | . . . | “ζώειν τὸν ἀποιχόμενον”.

HOM. Od. 5.308-9: “ὡς δὴ ἐγώ γ᾽ ὄφελον θανέειν καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν” | “ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε κτἑ”. 11.548: “ὡς δὴ μὴ ὄφελον νικᾶν τοιῷδ᾽ ἐπ̓ ἀέθλῳ”.

Il. 3.173-4: “ὡς ὄφελεν θάνατός μοι ἁδεῖν κακός, ὁππότε δεῦρο” | “υἱέι σῷ ἑπόμην”. 4.315-6: “ἀλλά σε γῆρας τείρει ὁμοίιον: ὡς ὄφελέν τις” | “ἀνδρῶν ἄλλος ἔχειν, σὺ δὲ κουροτέροισι μετεῖναι”. 6.345-6: “ὡς . . . ὄφελε” c. inf. 7.390: “ὡς πρὶν ὤφελλ᾽ ἀπολέσθαι”. 11.380-1: “ὡς ὄφελον” c. inf.

[*] 368. Indicative in other than simple sentences.

The following summary embraces the chief uses of the indicative as shown in other than simple sentences.

I. Incomplete Sentences: Questions.

Indicative questions expect or anticipate³ indicative answers.

II. Semi-dependent Sentences:

1. Object Sentences.—Sentences introduced by “ὅτι”, that, and “ὡς”, how that, often retain the indicative after past tenses, as always after principal tenses.

2. Sentences of Result.—Sentences of result with “ὥστε” (seldom “ὡς”) take the indicative as a statement.

III. Dependent Sentences:

1. Causal Sentences.—The indicative is the only mood used in causal sentences, except as in oratio obliqua.

2. Temporal Sentences.—The indicative in temporal clauses is used chiefly of specific actions.

3. Conditional Sentences.—The indicative in conditional clauses is used either as in indicative questions or as in hopeless wishes.

4. Relative Sentences of Design.—In relative sentences of design the future indicative is used, whereas other languages lean towards optative or subjunctive expressions.

On the Indicative with “ἄν”, see 428-33.

---

Subjunctive Mood

[*] 369. The subjunctive mood is the mood of anticipation. It anticipates the realization of the predicate, which anticipation1 appears chiefly as an act of the will.

[*] 370. Name of subjunctive.

The subjunctive derives its name from the notion of the old grammarians that it is always subjoined (subordinate). Such phrases as “ἴωμεν”, Let us go, were explained by “βούλει ἴωμεν”;

[*] 371. Theory of the subjunctive.

In certain spheres of early Greek, the subjunctive appears as a future with the negative of denial, “οὐ”. Hence the theory that the subjunctive was originally a simple future. But it is easier to make the futural subjunctive a deadened imperative than it is to get the imperative notion out of a simple future of prediction. The fact that “μή” is the native negative of the subjunctive (injunctive) seems decisive. Compare the larger use of shall in Early English. See Mätzner, II, p. 87.

[*] 372. Imperative subjunctive.

In the standard language, the subjunctive is used only in an imperative sense. The tenses follow the general rule (301).

[*] 373. Imperative of the first person.

The subjunctive is used as the imperative of the first person, positive and negative. The negative particle is “μή”.

Plural number:

“σκοπώμεθα”, PLATO, Protag. 314B (304). “σκεψώμεθα”, Ibid. 330 B (304). “μὴ διώκωμεν”, HDT.8.109; Let us not keep up the chase, let us give up the pursuit (304).

DEM.9.71: “τοὺς ἄλλους ἤδη παρακαλῶμεν, καὶ τοὺς ταῦτα διδάξοντας ἐκπέμπωμεν πρέσβες πανταχοῖ”. 14.36: “μηδ᾽ ἀδικῶμεν”.

PLATO, Legg. 683C: “γενώμεθα . . . ταῖς διανοίαις ἐν τῷ τότε χρόνῳ”. 861 A: “ἐρωτῶμεν ἡμᾶς αὐτούς” (151). Protag. 314 B (quater). 330 B (see above).

HDT.8.109(see above).

AR. Vesp. 1516: “φέρε νυν ἡμεῖς αὐτοῖς ὀλίγον ξυγχωρήσωμεν ἅπαντες”. Lys. 1096: “φέρε τὸ ἔσθος ἀμβαλώμεθα” .

SOPH. Ph. 1060-1: “τί δῆτα σοῦ δεῖ; χαῖρε τὴν Λῆμνον πατῶν”. | “ἡμεῖς δ̔ ἴωμεν”.

ION (El.), 2.7 (Bgk.4): “πίνωμεν, παίζωμεν, ἴτω διὰ νυκτὸς ἀοιδή”.

THEOGN. 1133-4: “ Κύρνε, παροῦσι φίλοισι κακοῦ καταπαύσομεν ἀρχήν,
ζητῶμες δ᾽ ἕλκει φάρμακα φυομένῳ
”. 1047: “νῦν μὲν πίνοντες τερπώμεθα, καλὰ λέγοντες”.

TERP. fr. 3: “σπένδωμεν ταῖς Μνάμας παισὶν Μώσαις”.

HOM. Od. 1.76-7: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγεθ̓ ἡμεῖς οἵδε περιφραζώμεθα πάντες” | “νόστον”.

Il. 1.141-4: “νῦν δ᾽ ἄγε . . . ἐρύσσομεν . . . ἀγείρομεν . . . θείομεν . . . βήσομεν”.

[*] 374. Singular number:

The first person singular is less common than the plural, and is usually preceded by “φέρε”, instead of which Homer uses “ἄγε”.

“φέρ᾽ ἴδω, τί ὀφείλω;” AR. Nub. 21 ; Let me see, what do I owe?

DEM.18.267: “φέρε δὴ καὶ τὰς τῶν λῃτουργιῶν μαρτυρίας . . . ὑμῖν ἀναγνῶ”. 19.169: “φέρε δὴ . . . εἴπω”. alib.

PLATO , Phaedo 63 B: “φέρε δὴ . . . πειραθῶ πιθανώτερον . . . ἀπολογήσασθαι”.

HDT.2.14: “φέρε δὲ νῦν καὶ αὐτοῖσι Αἰγυπτίοισι ὡς ἔχει φράσω”.

AR. Ach. 4: “φέρ᾽ ἴδω” (very common). Vesp. 1497: “φέρε νυν ἀνείπω κα”（“ὶ”) . . . “καλῶ”. alib. (Aorist much more common than present.)

EUR. H. F. 529-30: “φέρ᾽ ἐκπύθωμαι” . . . | “τί καινὸν ἦλθε . . . δώμασιν χρέος”;

SOPH. O. C. 174: “ὦ ξεῖνοι, μὴ δῆτ᾽ ἀδικηθῶ” . Ph. 1452: “φέρε νυν στείχων χώραν καλέσω” . Tr. 802.

HOM. Od. 13.215: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δὴ τὰ χρήματ᾽ ἀριθμήσω καὶ ἴδωμαι”.

Il. 1.26: “μή σε, γέρον, κοίλῃσιν ἐγὼ παρὰ νηυσὶ κιχείω”. 21.475: “μή σευ . . . ἀκούσω”.

[*] 375. Imperative subjunctive of second person positive.

The second person positive as an imperative occurs just once in the literary language, and that in a disputed passage.

“φέρ᾽ ὦ τέκνον νῦν καὶ τὸ τῆς νήσου μάθῃς”, SOPH. Ph. 300.⁴

[*] 376. Aorist subjunctive in prohibitions.

The subjunctive is used as the negative imperative or prohibitive of the second and third persons in the aorist.

“μὴ θαυμάσῃς”, PLATO, Rpb. 517C; Do not wonder. “μηδεὶς . . . θαυμάσῃ”, DEM.18.199; Let no one wonder.

ORATORES ATTICI.—There are about 133 instances of the second person and 29 of the third. See A. J. P. xiii (1892), 425.

PLATO, Gorg. 470C: “ἀλλὰ μὴ κάμῃς φίλον ἄνδρα εὐεργετῶν”. Legg. 868 A: “φυγὼν μηκέτι κατέλθῃ”. Rpb. 517 C (see above).

THUC.1.140.4: “ὑμῶν δὲ μηδεὶς νομίσῃ περὶ βραχέος ἂν πολεμεῖν, εἰ κτἑ”. 3.40.7: “μὴ οὖν προδόται γένησθε ὑμῶν αὐτῶν” .

HDT.3. 53: “μὴ δῷς τὰ σεωυτοῦ ἀγαθὰ ἄλλοισι”.

AR. Ach. 496: “μή μοι φθονήσητ᾽, ἄνδρες οἱ θεώμενοι”. Eccl. 588: “μή νυν πρότερον μηδεὶς ὑμῶν ἀντείπῃ μηδ᾽ ὑποκρούσῃ”.

EUR. Heracl. 271: “μὴ πρὸς θεῶν κήρυκα τολμήσῃς θενεῖν”. 273: “καὶ σὺ τοῦδε μὴ θίγῃς, ἄναξ”. Frequent in the tragedians.

THEOGN. 101: “μηδείς σ᾽ ἀνθρώπων πείσῃ κακὸν ἄνδρα φιλῆσαι”.

HIPPON.49: “μηκέτι γράψῃς”.

ALCAE. 44: “μηδὲν ἄλλο φυτεύσῃς πρότερον δένδριον ἀμπέλω”.

HOM. Od. 3.55. 11.251. 15.263: “εἰπέ μοι εἰρομένῳ νημερτέα μηδ᾽ ἐπικεύσῃς”. 22.213-4: “Μέντορ, μή σ᾽ ἐπέεσσι παραιπεπίθῃσιν Ὀδυσσεὺς” | “μνηστήρεσσι μάχεσθαι”.

Il. 5.684-5: “Πριαμίδη, μὴ δή με ἕλωρ Δαναοῖσιν ἐάσῃς” | “κεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπάμυνον”. 9.33. 522. 15.115. 23.407. 24.568. 778-9.

[*] 377. Theory of mh/ with the aorist subjunctive in prohibitions.

The shifting from imperative to subjunctive in the prohibitive is found in other languages, and some scholars have seen a certain urbanity in the change from the second person imperative to the second person subjunctive in the pungent aorist form; but it is noteworthy that a like limitation is found in Sanskrit, in which the corresponding negative particle mA is prevalently used with a form that answers to the Greek aorist subjunctive.⁵

[*] 378. Present subjunctive third person as negative imperative.

In a few passages the present subjunctive is found as the negative imperative of the third person, when the third person represents the first.

“μὴ . . . τις . . . οἴηται” (= “μὴ οἰώμεθα”), PLATO, Legg. 861E; Let no one think, let us not think.

PLATO, Epin. 989B: “μεῖζον μὲν γὰρ ἀρετῆς μηδεὶς ἡμᾶς ποτε πείθῃ τῆς εὐσεβείας εἶναι τῷ θνητῷ γένει”. Legg. 816 E (see above).

[*] 379. Subjunctive questions (deliberative subjunctive).

The subjunctive question expects an imperative answer. The question is chiefly in the first person; in the second, only when the speaker puts himself in the place of the person addressed; in the third, chiefly when it represents the first.

[*] 380. First Person:

Here “βούλει” often precedes. “θέλεις”, thus used, is poetical.

“ΣΩ. ὦ Χαιρεφῶν, ἐροῦ αὐτόν. ΧΑΙ. τί ἔρωμαι”; PLATO, Gorg. 447C; Chaerephon, ask him. What shall I ask? “βούλει τολμήσω εἰπεῖν οἷόν ἐστι τὸ ἐπίστασθαι”; PLATO, Theaet. 197A; Do you wish me to undertake to say what manner of thing knowing is?

DEM.3.22: ““τί βούλεσθε; τί γράψω; τί ὑμῖν χαρίσωμαι”;” 14.27: “ἀλλὰ θῶ βούλεσθε δωδεκάτην ἡμᾶς εἰσοίσειν”; [33]DEM., 37.

PLATO, Conv. 213A: “ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς εἰσίω ἢ μή; συμπίεσθε ἢ οὔ”; Ibid. 214 B: “ΕΡ. τί ποιῶμεν; ΑΛΚ. ὅ τι ἂν σὺ κελεύῃς . . . ἐπίταττε οὖν ὅ τι βούλει”. Gorg. 447 C (see above). Phaedo 115 C: “θάπτωμεν δέ σε τίνα τρόπον”; Theaet. 149B, 161 E. 197 A (see above).

AR. Eq. 36: “βούλει τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῖς θεαταῖσιν φράσω”; Vesp. 760-1: “ΒΔΕ. ἐμοὶ πιθοῦ”. | “ΦΙΛ. τί σοι πίθωμαι”; Lys. 529-30: “ΛΥΣ. σιώπα. ΠΡΟ. σοί γ̓, ὦ κατάρατε, σιωπῶ 'γώ;”

EUR. Cycl. 149. Ion, 758 (268). I. T. 1321. Or. 218: “βούλει θίγω σου;” fr. 1036: “πότερα θέλεις σοι μαλθακὰ ψευδῆ λέγω” | “ἢ σκλήρ᾽ ἀληθῆ”;

SOPH. Ant. 554. O. C. 178. 195. 213. 828 (twice). Ph. 761 (twice). 816.

HOM. Od. 15.509: “πῇ τ᾽ ἄῤ ἐγώ, φίλε τέκνον, ἴω; τέο δώμαθ̓ ἵκωμαι”;

Il. 18.188: “πῶς τ᾽ ἄῤ ἴω μετὰ μῶλον; ἔχουσι δὲ τεύχἐ ἐκεῖνοι”.

[*] 381. Second Person:

The second person of the deliberative subjunctive occurs only in echo-questions, and is virtually indirect.

“ΕΠ. τί σοι πιθώμεθ᾽; ΠΕΙ. ὅ τι πίθησθε;” AR. Av. 164 ; Wherein shall we follow your advice? Wherein you shall follow my advice?

EUR. H. F. 1417: “πῶς οὖν ἔτ᾽ εἴπῃς ὅτι συνέσταλμαι κακοῖς”; (Variously corrected: “πῶς οὖν ἂν εἴποις; πῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴποις; πῶς οὖν ἔμ᾽ εἶπας”;)

SOPH. Ph. 974: “ΝΕ. τί δρῶμεν, ἄνδρες; ΟΔ. ὦ κάκιστ᾽ ἀνδρῶν, τί δρᾷς”; (Dost ask) what thou art to do?⁶

[*] 382. Third Person:

The third person of the deliberative subjunctive is used more commonly when the third person represents the first, or when an action of the first person is involved.

“ὁ τοιοῦτος . . . μὴ δῷ . . . δίκην”; (= “μὴ λάβωμεν παρὰ τοῦ τοιούτου δίκην”;) DEM.21.35; Shall not such an one get his due? (= Shall we not punish him?)

DIN.1.8: “ποῖ νῦν ἐλθὼν ὁ δῆμος . . . εὕρῃ τὴν ἀλήθειαν”;

DEM.18.124: “πότερόν σέ τις Αἰσχίνη τῆς πόλεως ἐχθρὸν ἢ ἐμὸν εἶναι θῇ”; (= “πότερον . . . θῶ”;) 20.117. 21.35 (see above). 22.64. 29.37: “τί σοι ποιήσωσιν οἱ μάρτυρες”;

PLATO, Phileb. 15D: “πόθεν οὖν τις ταύτης ἄρξηται πολλῆς οὔσης καὶ παντοίας περὶ τὰ ἀμφισβητούμενα μάχης”; (= “πόθεν ἀρξώμεθα”;)

AR. Pl. 438: “ἄναξ Ἄπολλον καὶ θεοί, ποῖ τις φύγῃ”;

SOPH. Ai. 403-4: “ποῖ τις οὖν φύγῃ ποῖ μολὼν μενῶ;”

“ ΟΙ. θύγατερ, ποῖ τις φροντίδος ἔλθῃ
ΑΝ. ὦ πάτερ, ἀστοῖς ἴσα χρὴ μελετᾶν
”

O. C. 170-1:

.

THEOGN. 772: “τί σφιν χρήσηται” (sc. “Μουσῶν θεράπων” = “Θέογνις” = “ἐγώ”) “μοῦνος ἐπιστάμενος;”

HOM. Od. 5.465: “ὤ μοι ἐγώ, τί πάθω; τί νύ μοι μήκιστα γένηται”; (= “τί γένωμαι”;)

Il. 1.150: “πῶς τίς τοι πρόφρων ἔπεσιν πείθηται Ἀχαιῶν”; (= “πῶς πειθώμεθα”;)

[*] 383. Substitutes for the deliberative subjunctive.

Instead of the subjunctive, we find the future also (268), or “δεῖ, χρή” with the infinitive, or the verbal in -“τέον”.

“τί δῆτα δεῖ σκοπεῖν”; SOPH. Ph. 428 (cf. O. R. 364). “ἄγε δή, τί χρὴ δρᾶν;” AR. Av. 809 (cf. vv. 812. 814. 817). “ἄγε δή, τί νῷν ἐντευθενὶ ποιητέον”; AR. Pax 922 (cf. Av. 1640).

[*] 384. ti/ pa/qw;

Notice the frequent use of “τί πάθω”; What am I to submit to in order to a certain end? What is to become of me? is one side, What am I to do? is another.

“τὸ μέλλον, εἰ χρή, πείσομαι. τί γὰρ πάθω”; EUR. Phoen. 895; What is to come. I'll bear, if need be. What's the odds? (Let fate do her worst.)

HDT.4.118: “τί γὰρ πάθωμεν μὴ βουλομένων ὑμέων τιμωρέειν”;

AR. Av. 1432: “τί γὰρ πάθω; σκάπτειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι” . Lys. 884: “οἷον τὸ τεκεῖν: καταβατέον. τί γὰρ πάθω;” 954. Eccl. 860. Pl. 603. (Cf. Nub. 461: “τί πείσομαι;” Ibid. 791. Vesp. 1000. Eccl. 911.)

EUR. Phoen. 895 (see above).

SOPH. Tr. 973: “τί πάθω; τί δὲ μήσομαι; οἴμοι”.

HOM. Od. 5.465: “ὤ μοι ἐγώ, τί πάθω; τί νύ μοι μήκιστα γένηται”;

Il. 11.404-5: “ὤ μοι ἐγώ, τί πάθω; μέγα μὲν κακόν, αἴ κε φέβωμαι” | “πληθὺν ταρβήσας”.

[*] 385. Subjunctive in half-questions.

In Plato , but rarely elsewhere in Attic, we find a number of hesitating half-questions with “μή” or “μὴ οὐ” and the present subjunctive. These seem to depend on the state of apprehension engendered by the situation. The effect is that of a doubtful affirmation, or negation, as the case may be. See “μή” and “μὴ οὐ”.⁷

“μὴ ἀγροικότερον ᾖ τὸ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν”, PLATO, Gorg. 462E; It's rather bad form, I fear, to speak the truth. “ἀλλὰ μὴ οὐ τοῦτ᾽ ᾖ χαλεπὸν . . . θάνατον ἐκφυγεῖν”, PLATO, Apol. 39A; But that's not the trouble, I apprehend, the escaping death.

DEM.1.26: “μὴ λίαν πικρὸν εἰπεῖν ᾖ” (but Blass: “μὴ λίαν πικρὸν εἰπεῖν”;).

PLATO, Apol. 39A (see above). Gorg. 462 E (see above).⁸

XEN. Mem. 4.2.12: “μὴ οὖν, ἔφη ὁ Εὐθύδημος, οὐ δύνωμαι” (Kühner: “δύναμαι”) “ἐγὼ τὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἔργα ἐξηγήσασθαι”;

HDT.5.79: “ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον μὴ οὐ τοῦτο ᾖ τὸ χρηστήριον” .

For the suppression of a verb of fear or apprehension, see Verbs of Fear.

[*] 386. Homeric subjunctive.

The Homeric subjunctive is not so clearly defined in its use as the Attic subjunctive, and is often indistinguishable from a future. In fact, it serves as a missing aorist future where prose would employ the optative with “ἄν”.

“οὐ γάρ πω τοίους ἴδον ἀνέρας οὐδὲ ἴδωμαι”, HOM. Il. 1.262; Never as yet have I seen such men, and never shall see them.

HYMN. HOM. 1.1: “μνήσομαι οὐδὲ λάθωμαι Ἀπόλλωνος ἑκάτοιο”.

HOM. Od. 6.201: “οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ διερὸς βροτός, οὐδὲ γένηται”. 16.437: “οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ οὐδ᾽ ἔσσεται οὐδὲ γένηται”.

Il. 1.262 (see above). 6.459: “καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃσιν ἰδὼν κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσαν” . 7.87: “καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃσι καὶ ὀψιγόνων ἀνθρώπων”. 197: “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται”.

On “ἄν” (“κεν”） with the subjunctive in simple sentences, see 451-6.

[*] 387. Subjunctive in dependent clauses.

All the uses of the subjunctive in dependent clauses may be referred ultimately to the imperative sense so conspicuous in the leading clause, but in prose the pure subjunctive is confined to the final sentence, which is necessarily imperative in its nature. In other classes of sentences “ἄν” (“κεν”) with the subjunctive is the rule, though there are many exceptions in the older language and in poetry. See 456.

---

Optative Mood

[*] 388. Optative in wishes.

In principal clauses, the use of the optative, or wishing, mood in standard Greek is confined to the expression of wishes the fulfilment of which is still in suspense. The negative is “μή”.

“διαρραγείης,” AR. Av. 2 ; May you burst in two! “μὴ παύσαιο μηδέποτ᾽ ἐσθίων,” AR. Pax 31 ; May you never stop eating!

[*] 389. Potential optative.

The optative is the ideal mood of the Greek language, the mood of the fancy. The wish is father to the thought, and “fancy” has a double signification, moral as well as intellectual. But the intellectual use, the use in qualified assertions or the so-called potential use, is confined to the optative with “ἄν”, except in poetry. The prose examples are comparatively few, and are either doubtful or occur in fixed formulae. The negative of the potential optative is “οὐ”.

For examples, see Optative with “ἄν”.

[*] 390. Optative in questions.

As the mood of the question is the mood of the expected or anticipated answer, no direct question can be put in the pure optative of wish, inasmuch as no question expects a wish for an answer, though it may get one. Whenever, then, the optative is found in a direct question, it is a potential optative, and, like other potential optative questions, implies a wish of the speaker. Corruption of the text is often indicated.

“ἦ ῥά νύ μοί τι πίθοιο”; HOM. Il. 4.93 = 7.48; Ah, wouldst thou not yield to me somewhat? (= “εἴθε πίθοιο”).

See under Optative with “ἄν”.

[*] 391. Tenses of the pure optative.

The pure optative is used in two tenses, present and aorist. Certain perfects and periphrastic perfects count as presents. See also 305.

Present Tense:

DEM.1.28. 4.51: “νικῴη δ᾽ ὅ τι πᾶσιν μέλλει συνοίσειν” (305).

PLATO, Legg. 923B: “πορεύοισθε ᾗπερ κατὰ φύσιν νῦν πορεύεσθε τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην”. 941 C: “εὐτυχοῖ”.

HDT.3.65: “γῆ τε καρπὸν ἐκφέροι καὶ γυναῖκές τε καὶ ποῖμναι τίκτοιεν”. 6.69: “τίκτοιεν”.

AR. Eq. 770: “ἑψοίμην”. 772: “ἑλκοίμην”. Nub. 520: “οὕτω νικήσαιμί τ᾽ ἐγὼ καὶ νομιζοίμην σοφός” .

EUR. El. 231: “εὐδαιμονοίης”. Hipp. 1191: “Ζεῦ, μηκέτ̔ εἴην, εἰ κακὸς πέφυκ᾽ ἀνήρ”. fr. 369 (three times).

SOPH. O. C. 642: “ὦ Ζεῦ, διδοίης τοῖσι τοιούτοισιν εὗ” .

AESCHYL. Pers. 228: “ἐκτελοῖτο δὴ τὰ χρηστά”. Sept. 188: “εἴην”.

PIND. O. 4.11-2: “θεὸς εὔφρων” | “εἴη”. P. 1.29: “εἴη, Ζεῦ, τὶν εἴη Φανδάνειν”.

SOLON, 19: “ναίοις . . . πέμποι . . . ὀπάζοι”.

HOM. Od. 13.44-6: “ὑμεῖς δ᾽ αὖθι μένοντες ἐυφραίνοιτε γυναῖκας . . . καὶ μή τι κακὸν μεταδήμιον εἴη”.

Il. 2.259: “μηκέτ᾽ . . . ἐπείη”. 6.480: “φέροι δ᾽ ἔναρα βροτόεντα” .

[*] 392. Aorist Tense:

DEM.3.36(see 305). 18.324: “μὴ δῆτ᾽, ὦ πάντες θεοί, μηδεὶς ταῦθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐπινεύσειεν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μὲν καὶ τούτοις βελτίω τινὰ νοῦν καὶ φρένας ἑνθείητε”.

LYS.21.21: “οὗτοι μὲν οὖν . . . κατείποιεν ὑμῖν τὰ σφέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπιτηδεύματα” .

ANTIPHON, 1.13: “δίκη δὲ κυβερνήσειεν”.

PLATO, Legg. 712B: “ὁ δὲ” (sc. “θεός”) “ἀκούσειέ τε καὶ ἀκούσας ἵλεως εὐμενής τε ἡμῖν ἔλθοι”. 913 A: “μηδ᾽ αὖ κινήσειε”.

AR. Eq. 768: “ἀπολοίμην καὶ διαπρισθείην κατατμηθείην τε λέπαδνα”. 771: “κατακνησθείην”. Nub. 520: “νικήσαιμι” (see 391). Vesp. 630: “ἀπολοίμην εἴ σε δέδοικα”.

EUR. Or. 130: “θεοί σε μισήσειαν ῾βλαστ ψου ωιτη τηειρ ηατἐ, ὥς μ᾽ ἀπώλεσας” .

SOPH. Ai. 550: “ὦ παῖ, γένοιο πατρὸς εὐτυχέστερος” .

AESCHYL. P.V. 864: “τοιάδ᾽ ἐπ̓ ἐχθροὺς τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἔλθοι Κύπρις”.

PIND. P. 9.89-90: “Χαρίτων κελαδεννᾶν” | “μή με λίποι καθαρὸν φέγγος”.

SOLON, 21: “μηδέ μοι ἄκλαυστος θάνατος μόλοι”.

HOM. Od. 6.180: “σοὶ δὲ θεοὶ τόσα δοῖεν ὅσα φρεσὶ σῇσι μενοινᾷς”. 13.45: “ὀπάσειαν”.

Il. 1.42: “τίσειαν Δαναοὶ ἐμὰ δάκρυα σοῖσι βέλεσσιν”. 6.481: “χαρείη” .

[*] 393. Perfect Tense:

THEOGN. 343-4: “τεθναίην δ᾽, εἰ μή τι κακῶν ἄμπαυμα μεριμνέων” | “εὑροίμην”.

MIMNERM. 1.2: “τεθναίην, ὅτε μοι μηκέτι ταῦτα μέλοι”.

HYMN. HOM. 1.165: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγεθ̓ ἱλήκοι μὲν Ἀπόλλων Ἀρτέμιδι ξύν”.

HOM. Il. 2.260: “μηδ᾽ ἔτι Τηλεμάχοιο πατὴρ κεκλημένος εἴην”, Nor may I longer be called father of Telemachus.

[*] 394. Imperative optative.

The optative at times comes very near the imperative.⁹

“ἔρδοι τις ἣν ἕκαστος εἰδείη τέχνην” (old saw), AR. Vesp. 1431; quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat, CIC. Tusc. 1.18.41.

PLATO, Legg. 759D: “ἔτη δὲ μὴ ἔλαττον ἑξήκοντα ἡμῖν εἴη γεγονὼς ὁ μέλλων . . . ἁγιστεύσειν”. 913 A: “μήτε . . . ἅπτοιτο . . . μηδ᾽ αὖ κινήσειε”. 916 E: “μηδεὶς . . . πράξειεν”.

XEN. An. 3.2.37: “εἰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλο τις βέλτιον ὁρᾷ, ἄλλως ἐχέτω: εἰ δὲ μή, Χειρίσοφος μὲν ἡγοῖτο, . . . στρατηγὼ ἐπιμελοίσθην: ὀπισθοφυλακοῖμεν δ᾽ ἡμεῖς” (imperative and optative parallel). 6.6.18: “σώζοισθε”.

AR. Vesp. 1431 (see above). Lys. 839: “σὸν ἔργον εἴη τοῦτον ὀπτᾶν καὶ στρέφειν” .

AESCHYL. Ag. 944-5: “ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δοκεῖ σοι ταῦθ̓, ὑπαί τις ἀρβύλας” | “λύοι τάχος”. Cho. 889: “δοίη”.

BACCHYL. fr. 71 (Keny.): “πρόφρων . . . χορὸν” | “αἰὲν ἐποπτεύοις, πολέας δ᾽” . . . | “Κηΐῳ ἀμφιτίθει Βακχυλίδῃ στεφάνους” (optative and imperative parallel).

PIND. O. 9.40-1: “ἔα πόλεμον . . . φέροις δέ κτἑ”. (imperative and optative parallel). N. 5.19-20: “μακρά μοι” | “αὐτόθεν ἅλμαθ᾽ ὑποσκάπτοι τις”.

HES. O. et D. 470-1: “δμῶος ἔχων μακέλην πόνον ὀρνίθεσσι τιθείη” | “σπέρμα κατακρύπτων”. 491: “μηδέ σε λήθοι”. 589: “εἴη”. 698: “ἡβώοι . . . γαμοῖτο”.

HOM. Od. 1.402: “κτήματα δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχοις καὶ δώμασι σοῖσιν ἀνάσσοις”. 4.193: “πίθοιο”. 735: “καλέσειε”.

Il. 3.74: “ναίοιτε”. 159-60: “ἐν νηυσὶ νεέσθω” | “μηδ”（“ὲ”) . . . “λίποιτο”. 407: “μηδ᾽ ἔτι . . . ὑποστρέψειας”. 17.340-1: “ἴομεν, μηδ᾽ οἵ γε . . . πελασαίατο”. 24.139: “τῇδ᾽ εἴη”. 149: “κῆρύξ τίς οἱ ἕποιτο γεραίτερος”.

[*] 395. Optative with ei)/qe, ei) ga/r.

The optative may have, but does not require, “εἴθε” (“αἴθε”), “εἰ γάρ” (“αἲ γάρ”), and the like.¹⁰

“εἴθ”（“ε”) . . . “ἐκβάλοις τὴν ἔνθεσιν”, AR. Eq. 404; May you give up the sop. “εἰ γὰρ γενοίμην, τέκνον, ἀντὶ σοῦ νεκρός”, EUR. Hipp. 1410; If I could fall a corpse, my child, instead of thee.

AR. Eq. 404 (see above).

EUR. Hipp. 1410 (see above). fr. 360.53-4: “ὦ πατρίς, εἴθε πάντες οἳ ναίουσί σε” | “οὕτω φιλοῖεν ὡς ἐγώ”.

SOPH. Ph. 791-2: “ὦ ξένε Κεφαλλήν, εἴθε σου διαμπερὲς” | “στέρνων ἔχοιτ᾽ ἄλγησις ἥδε”.

ALCMAN, 29: “Ζεῦ πάτερ, αἲ γὰρ ἐμὸς πόσις εἴη”.

HOM. Od. 4.697: “εἰ γὰρ δή, βασίλεια, τόδε πλεῖστον κακὸν εἴη”. 6.244: “αἲ γὰρ ἐμοὶ τοιόσδε πόσις κεκλημένος εἵη”. 7. 331-2: “Ζεῦ πάτερ, αἵθ᾽ ὅσα εἶπε τελευτήσειεν ἅπαντα” | “Ἁλκίνοος”.

Il. 13.825-7: “αἲ γὰρ . . . εἴην . . . τέκοι . . . τιοίμην”.

[*] 396. Optative with ei) and w(s.

In poetry we find a simple “εἰ”, the exclamatory “ὡς”. and in one passage an unriddled “βάλε”.

ALCMAN, 26.2: “βάλε δὴ βάλε κηρύλος εἴην”.

HOM. Il. 10.111: “ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις καὶ τούσδε μετοιχόμενος καλέσειεν”. 15.571: “εἴ τινά που Τρὡων ἐξάλμενος ἄνδρα βάλοισθα”. 16.559-62: “ἀλλ᾽ εἴ μιν ἀεικισσαίμεθ̓ ἑλόντες” | “τεύχεά τ᾽ ὤμοιιν ἀφελοίμεθα καί τιν̓ ἑταίρων” | “αὐτοῦ ἀμυνομένων δαμασαίμεθα νηλέι χαλκῷ”. 18.107: “ὡς ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλοιτο”. 22.286: “ὡς δή μιν σῷ ἐνὶ χροῒ πᾶν κομίσαιο”.

[*] 397. Pure optative in relative sentences.

The pure optative seems to us strangest in relative sentences. Here the English idiom requires the expression of the notion of wish, if the relative form is to be retained.

“οἰ̔̂ αὐτοῖς τύχοι”, SOPH. Ph. 275: Which manner of things I wish Fortune may send to them, Fortune send them the like! “ὃ μὴ γένοιτο”, AESCHYL. Sept. 5; May it not come to pass, Heaven forbid! (a common formula).

DIN.1.66: “ὃ μὴ γένοιτο”.

DEM.8.51: “ἃ μήτε γένοιτ᾽ οὔτε λέγειν ἄξιον”. 21.209: “εἰ γένοινθ̓, ὃ μὴ γένοιτ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἔσται, οὗτοι κύριοι τῆς πολιτείας”. 25.31. 27.67. 28.21: “εἰ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἄλλο τι γνώσεσθε, ὃ μὴ γένοιτο”. [40]DEM., 56.

LYS.31.14: “ἐάν ποτε, ὃ μὴ γένοιτο, λάβωσι τὴν πόλιν” .

PLATO, Legg. 918D: “ἐπεὶ εἴ τις, ὃ μήποτε γένοιτο, οὐδ᾽ ἔσται, προσαναγκάσειε κτἑ”.

HDT.5.111: “τὸ μὴ γένοιτο”.

AR. Vesp. 535: “ὃ μὴ γένοιτο”. Lys. 147.

EUR. Heracl. 512: “ἃ μὴ τύχοι ποτέ”. 714: “ὃ μὴ γένοιτο”. Phoen. 571: “ὃ μὴ τύχοι ποτέ”.

SOPH. Ph. 275 (see above). 315-6: “ὦ παῖ, δεδράκας᾿, οἰ̔̂ Ὀλύμπιοι θεοὶ” | “δοῖέν ποτ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀντίποιν̓ ἐμοῦ παθεῖν”.

AESCHYL. Sept. 5 (see above). 426: “ἃ μὴ κραίνοι τύχη”.

HOM. Od. 4.699: “ὃ μὴ τελέσειε Κρονίων”.

[*] 398. bouloi/mhn a)/n.

The optative is more or less passionate, and is little used in the conventional language of the orators. A favorite substitute is “βουλοίμην ἄν” (Lat. velim) with the infinitive. Cf. “ἐβουλόμην ἄν” (Lat. vellem) 367.

DEM.24.8: “βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἂν ἐμέ τε τυχεῖν ὧν βούλομαι, τοῦτόν τε παθεῖν ὧν ἄξιός ἐστι”.

LYS.7.12: “νῦν δὲ πάντας ἂν ὑμᾶς βουλοίμην περὶ ἐμοῦ ταύτην τὴν γνώμην ἔχειν” . 8.2.

ANDOC.2.28: “βουλοίμην μέντ᾽ ἂν” . . . (sc. “ὑμᾶς”) “ἀτελῆ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι”.

PLATO, Apol. 19A: “βουλοίμην μὲν οὖν ἂν τοῦτο οὕτω γενέσθαι . . . οἶμαι δὲ αὐτὸ χαλεπὸν εἶναι”.

AESCHYL. Suppl. 787: “θέλοιμι δ᾽ ἂν μορσίμου βρόχου τυχεῖν”.

BACCHYL.17.41-3: “οὐ γὰρ ἂν θέλοιμ᾽ ἀμβρότοἰ ἐραννὸν ἀοῦς ἰδεῖν φάος” (= “μὴ ἴδοιμι”).

For “πῶς ἄν” with the Optative in Wishes, see Optative with “ἄν”.

[*] 399. Optative in semi-dependent and in dependent clauses.

Outside of the Ideal (Optative) Condition the main uses of the optative in semi-dependent (368) and dependent sentences are these:

I. Optative after Historical Tenses:

The optative is used to represent both the indicative and the subjunctive in oratio obliqua after historical tenses.

1. Optative for Indicative.—When the optative represents the indicative, it takes all the corresponding tenses of the indicative. For examples, see 307-310 and 312.

2. Optative as Representative of the Subjunctive.—When the optative represents the subjunctive, it is of course limited to the subjunctive tenses—present, aorist, and perfect. For examples, see Oratio Obliqua.

The optative is also said to represent the subjunctive with “ἄν” in oratio obliqua, but in the class of sentences in which this is said to take place, “ἄν” was not required in the early language, so that there is no violation of the rule.¹¹

II. Optative in Complementary Clauses:

The optative is used in complementary clauses, often when we should expect a form of the subjunctive. For examples, see Relative Sentences.

[*] 400. Parallelism of the optative and the infinitive.

The optative may be called the finite form of the infinitive, and it is noteworthy that the two run closely parallel in wishes, in commands, in oratio obliqua, and in complementary clauses.

---

Imperative Mood

[*] 401. The imperative demands realization. The tone of the demand varies, and may appear as an order, an exhortation, a permission, an entreaty, an assumption.¹² The negative is “μή”.

[*] 402. Tenses of the imperative.

The imperative, like the infinitive, is used chiefly in two tenses, the present and the aorist.¹³

[*] 403. PRESENT IMPERATIVE:

ISOC.2.There are 55 present imperatives of the second person out of a total of 58 imperatives of the second person, exclusive of the bracketed ones.

LYS.1.18: “ψεύσῃ δὲ μηδέν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τἀληθῆ λέγε” .

PLATO , Crito 44 B: “ἀλλ̓, ὦ δαιμόνιε Σώκρατες, ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐμοὶ πείθου καὶ σώθητι”. Legg. 930 D-E: “τὸ” (“γιγνόμενον”, offspring) . . . “τῆς γυναικὸς αἱ γυναῖκες εἰς ἄλλην χώραν ἐκπεμπόντων σὺν τῷ πατρί” (father and all). 946 E: “ἁπλῶς θνῃσκέτω”. Theaet. 146 B: “μὴ ἀφίεσο τοῦ Θεαιτήτου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐρώτα”.

THUC.1.34.3: “ἔστω”. 42.1: “ἀξιούτω”. 86.5: “ψηφίζεσθε”. 2.44.4: “ἡγεῖσθε . . . κουφίζεσθε” . 46.2: “ἀποχωρεῖτε”.

HDT.3.78: “ὤθεε τὸ ξίφος καὶ δἰ ἀμφοτέρων”. 4.98: “λύετε ἅμμα ἓν ἑκάστης ἡμέρης”.

AR. Ach. 400-479: Only two presents, “φθείρου” (460) and “κλεῖε” (479), against 19 aorists. Ibid. 1005-7: “ἀν αβράττετ᾽, ἐξοπτᾶτε, τρέπετ᾽, ἀφέλκετε” | “τὰ λαγῷα ταχέως, τοὺς στεφάνους ἀνείρετε”. | “φέρε τοὺς ὀβελίσκους κτἑ”. 1040-1: “κατάχει σὺ τῆς χορδῆς τὸ μέλι:” | “τὰς σηπίας στάθευε”. 1043: “ὀπτᾶτε”. 1047: “ὀπτᾶτε ταυτὶ καὶ καλῶς ξανθίζετε”. 1054: “ἀπόφερ᾽ ἀπόφερε τὰ κρέα καὶ μή μοι δίδου”.

COM. Cratin.2.189: “ἄκουε, σίγα, πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν, δεῦρ᾽ ὅρα”.

EUR. Tro. 948: “τὴν θεὸν κόλαζε καὶ Διὸς κρείσσων γενοῦ”.

SOPH. Ai. 497: “νόμιζε” . 510: “οἴκτιρε” . 520: “ἴσχε” . 581: “πύκαζε θᾶσσον” .

AESCHYL. P.V. 309: “γίγνωσκε σαυτόν” (303). 327: “σὺ δ᾽ ἡσύχαζε μηδ᾽ ἄγαν λαβροστόμει”. 334: “πάπταινε δ᾽ αὐτός”.

PIND. O. 1.19: “λάμβαν”（“ε”). P. 1.86: “νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ στρατόν: ἀψευδεῖ δὲ πρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν”.

THEOGN. 31: “μὴ προσομίλει”. 32: “ἔχεο”. 33: “πῖνε καὶ ἔσθιε”. 34: “ἵζε . . . ἅνδανε”. 37: “ὁμίλει”.

TYRTAE. 11.2: “θαρσεῖτ”（“ε”). 3: “μηδ”（“ὲ”) . . . “δειμαίνετε, μηδὲ φοβεῖσθε”. 4: “ἐχέτω”. 21: “μενέτω”. 25: “τινασσέτω”. 26: “κινείτω”. 27: “διδασκέσθω”. 33: “μαχέσθω”. 36: “βάλλετε”.

HOM. Od. 1.271: “εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ξυνίει καὶ ἐμῶν ἐμπάζεο μύθων”. 273: “ἔστων”. 281: “ἔρχεο πευρσόμενος”. 305: “μελέτω . . . ἐμπάζεο”.

Il. 3.82: “ἴσχεσθ̓, Ἀργέιοι, μὴ βάλλετε, κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν”. 130: “δεῦρ᾽ ἴθι”. 159: “ἐν νηυσὶ νεέσθω”. 162: “ἵζευ”. 282: “ἐχέτω”. 4.412: “τέττα, σιωπῇ ῆσο, ἐμῷ δ᾽ ἐπιπείθεο μύθῳ”.

[*] 404. AORIST IMPERATIVE:

DEM.1.12: “φρασάτω”. 20: “ἕλεσθ”（“ε”). 18.76: “δεῖξον”. 112: “δειξάτω”. 144: “ἀκούσατ”（“ε”). 265: “ἐξέτασον”. [58]DEM., 70: “βοήθησον ἡμῖν ὁ δεῖνα, εἴ τι ἔχεις, καὶ σύνειπε. ἀνάβηθι”.

PLATO , Phaedo 117 A: “πιθοῦ καὶ μὴ ἄλλως ποίει”. Protag. 343 B: “γνῶθι σαυτόν” (303).

XEN. Cyr. 4.5.42: “κηρυξάτω”. 45: “διανείματε καὶ ἡμεῖς πιστεύσομεν ὑμῖν καλῶς διανενεμηκέναι”. 47: “εἰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλους ἔχετε οἷστισιν ἂν δοίητε αὐτους, . . . ἐκείνοις δίδοτε: εἰ μέντοι ἡμᾶς ἂν βούλοισθε παραστάτας μάλιστα ἔχειν, ημίν αὐτοὺς δότε” (notice contrast of present and aorist).

THUC.1.33.2: “σκέψασθε”. 34.1: “μαθόντων”. 36.1: “γνώτω”. 43.2: “ἀνταπόδοτε”.

HDT.1.89: “νῦν ὦν ποίησον ὧδε . . . κάτισον . . . φυλάκους”. 3.69: “ἐπεὰν . . . μάθῃς αὐτὸν κατυπνωμένον, ἄφασον αὐτοῦ τὰ ὦτα”.

AR. Ach. 34: “ἄνθρακας πρίω”. 188: “γεῦσαι λαβών”. 402: “ἐκκάλεσον”. 405: “ὑπάκουσον”. 408: “ἐκκυκλήθητ”（“ι”). 415 et saepe: “δός”. 449: “ἄπελθε”. 451: “γενοῦ”. 456: “ἀποχώρησον”. 467: “ἄκουσον”. 1033-4: “σταλαγμὸν εἰρήνης ἕνα” | . . . “ἐνστάλαξον”.

EUR. Tro. 948: “τὴν θεὸν κόλαζε καὶ Διὸς κρείσσων γενοῦ”. Ibid. 966: “βασίλεἰ, ἄμυνον σοῖς τέκνοισι”.

SOPH. Ai. 501: “ἴδετε” . 506: “αἴδεσαι” . Ph. 473: “θοῦ”. 475: “τλῆθι”. 481: “τόλμησον, ἐμβαλοῦ μ”（“ε”). 484: “νεῦσον”. 485: “πείσθητι”. 488: “ἔκσωσον”. 501: “σὺ σῶσον, σύ μ᾽ ἐλέησον”.

AESCHYL. Ag. 1196: “ἐκμαρτύρησον”. Sept. 262: “σίγησον, ὦ τάλαινα, μὴ φίλους φόβει”.

PIND. O. 1.78-80: “πέδασον ἔγχος Οἰνομάου χάλκεον”, | “ἐμὲ δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταχυτάτων πόρευσον ἁρμάτων” | “εἰς Ἆλιν, κράτει δὲ πέλασον”.

SAPPHO, 1.25-7: “ἔλθε μοι καὶ νῦν, χαλεπᾶν δὲ λῦσον” | “ἐκ μεριμνᾶν, ὄσσα δέ μοι τέλεσσαι” | “θῦμος ἰμέρρει, τέλεσον”.

HYMN. HOM. 2.366: “εἴρηταί τοι πάντα: σὺ δὲ φρεσὶ σῇσι φύλαζαι”.

HOM. Od. 4.765-6: “τῶν νῦν μοι μνῆσαι καί μοι φίλον υἷα σάωσον”, | “μνηστῆρας δ᾽ ἀπάλαλκε κακῶς ὑπερηνορέοντας”.

Il. 1.274: “πίθεσθε”. 302: “πείρησαι”. 338: “δός”. 394: “λίσαι”. 407: “λαβέ”. 455-6: “ἠδ ἔτι καὶ νῦν μοι τόδ᾽ ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ”, | “ἤδη νῦν Δαναοῖσιν ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἄμυνον”.

[*] 405. Additional remarks on the use of the present and aorist tenses.

As a descriptive adverb is. often associated with the imperfect indicative, so a descriptive adverb is often associated with a present imperative. So also adverbs denoting speed. AR. Eq. 495: “σπεῦδε ταχέως”. Ibid. Vesp. 180: “βάδιζε θᾶττον”. 187: “ὕφελκε θᾶττον”.

The present imperative often produces the effect of an action that is watched. See the cooking scene in the Acharnians cited 403, and Pax, 842: “ἀλλ᾽ εἴσαγ̓ ὡς τάχιστα” followed by “κατάκλυζε . . . θέρμαιν”（“ε”) . . . “στόρνυ”. So also 960 sqq.: “σείου . . . πρότεινε . . . χερνίπτου . . . ῥῖπτε”, whereas in a prayer, Ibid. 987-98: “ἀπόφηνον . . . λῦσον . . . παῦσον . . . μῖξον . . . κέρασον”.¹⁴

[*] 406. Perfect active imperative.

The perfect active imperative is little used, even when the perfect is employed as a present, except “ἴσθι, ἴστω, ἴστε”, from “οἶδα”. Nor is the periphrastic common.

““καὶ ἄτιμος,” φησίν, “τεθνάτω,”” DEM.9.44. “ὁ θεωρὸς . . . γεγονὼς” (fully adjective) “ἔστω πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἢ πεντήκοντα”, PLATO, Legg. 951C (but in the same breath of the same subject, “ἔστω γεγενημένος”, Ibid. D).

DEM.9.44(see above).

PLATO, Legg. 874C: “νηποινεὶ τεθνάτω” (= passive) “ὑπὸ . . . τοῦ ὑβρισθέντος βίᾳ”. 938 C: “ἐάν τις φιλονικίᾳ κριθῇ δὶς τὸ τοιοῦτον δρᾶν, τεθνάτω”. 951 C (see above).

AR. Ach. 133: “κεχήνατε”. Vesp. 198: “ἔνδον κέκραχθι τῆς θύρας κεκλεισμένης”. Thesm. 692: “κέκραχθι”.

EUR. Alc. 1042-4: “γυναῖκα δ᾽” . . . | “ἄλλον τιν̓” . . . | “σῴζειν ἄνωχθι Θεσσαλῶν”. [Rhes.] 987: “ἄνωχθε”.

SOPH. Ant. 1063: “ἴσθι” . 1064: “ἀλλ᾽ εὖ γέ τοι κάτισθι” .

AESCHYL. Cho. 772: “ἄνωχθ”（“ι”). Eum. 598-9: “ οπ.πέποιθ”（“α”) . . . | XO. “νεκροῖσί νυν πέπεισθι μητέρα κτανών”.

HOM. Od. 20.18: “τέτλαθι δή, κραδίη: καὶ κύντερον ἄλλο ποτ᾽ ἔτλης”.

Il. 23.158-9: “καὶ δεῖπνον ἄνωχθι” | “ὅπλεσθαι”.

[*] 407. Perfect middle imperative.

A similar observation applies to the perfect middle.

“μέμνησό μου”, AR. Pax, 719; Remember me.

DEM.19.171: “μέμνησθε”, and so in 14 other passages of the orators. 24.64: “πέπαυσο”.

AESCHIN.1.162: “ἔστω . . . ὁ μὲν μισθωθεὶς μέτριος καὶ ποιῶν τὰ ὡμολογημένα, ὁ δὲ τὴν ἡλικίαν προλαβὼν καὶ μισθωσάμενος ἐψεύσθω”.

ISOC.2.37: “μέμνησο”.

XEN. Cyr. 4.2.7: “καὶ σὺ ἡμῖν πιστὰ θεῶν πεποίησο καὶ δεξιὰν δός”.

HDT.5.105: “δέσποτα, μέμνεο τῶν Ἀθηναίων”. 7.29: “ἔκτησο . . . αὐτὸς τά περ αὐτὸς ἐκτήσαο” (249). 7.148 ( Orac.): “πεφυλαγμένος ἧσο” | “καὶ κεφαλὴν πεφύλαξο”.

AR. Pax. 719 (see above).

HES. O. et D. 797: “πεφύλαξο δὲ θυμῷ”.

HOM. Il. 5.226-8: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε νῦν μάστιγα καὶ ἡνία” . . . | “δέξαι, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἵππων ἐπιβήσομαι ὄφρα μάχωμαι:” | “ἠὲ σὺ τόνδε δέδεξο, μελήσουσιν δ᾽ ἐμοὶ ἵπποι”. 20.377. 22.340.

[*] 408. Perfect imperative passive.

The perfect imperative passive is not unfrequently used in judicial sentences, in harsh orders, in philosophical definitions, of something that is to be settled and to stay settled, but in the third person only. The second person is so rare that it is not safe to generalize.

Third Person:

“ἀνερρίφθω κύβος”, COM. Men. 4.88 (303). “ταῦτα . . . πεπαίσθω . . . ὑμῖν”, PLATO, Euthyd. 278C: Let this be the end of your fun. “εἰρήσθω”, Let it be said and settled, is especially common.

Pr.18: “μὴ πάνθ̓, ὡς ἕκαστος ἔχει γνώμης ὑμῶν περὶ τῶν παρόντων, ὀρθῶς ἐγνωκέναι πεπείσθω”.

AESCHIN.3.24: “μέχρι δεῦρο εἰρήσθω μοι”.

ISAE. 5.12: “τοσαῦτά μοι εἰρήσθω”.

ISOC.4.14: “ταῦτά μοι προειρήσθω”. 51: “ταῦτα . . . εἰρήσθω μοι”.

LYS.24.4: “τοσαῦτά μοι εἰρήσθω” .

PLATO, Cratyl. 401D: “εἰρήσθω”, which occurs frequently. Euthyd. 278 C (see above). Legg. 662 D: “καί μοι τὰ ἔμπροσθεν ἠρωτημένα . . . ἠρωτήσθω”. Phaedr. 250 C: “ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μνήμῃ κεχαρίσθω”. Rpb. 485 A: “τοῦτο . . . τῶν φιλοσόφων φύσεων πέρι ὡμολογήσθω ἡμῖν”. Theaet. 187 B: “ἀποκεκρίσθω”. 197 D-E: “ποιήσωμεν . . . πεποιήσθω δή”. Tim. 89 D: “λελέχθω”.¹⁵

THUC.1.71.4: “μέχρι μὲν οὖν τοῦδε ὡρίσθω ὑμῶν ἡ βραδυτής”.

HDT.3.81: “λελέχθω κἀμοὶ ταῦτα”. 6.55: “ταῦτα μέν νυν περὶ τούτων εἰρήσθω”.

COM. Men. 4.88 (see above).

HOM. Od. 12.51: “πείρατ᾽ ἀνήφθω”.

Il. 8.524: “μῦθος δ᾽, ὃς μὲν νῦν ὑγιής, εἰρημένος ἔστω”.

[*] 409. Second Person:

“κἆτα σφακέλιζε καὶ πέπρησο καὶ βόα”, COM. Pherecr. 2.287; And then indulge in fits, high fevers, yells (of pain).

ISOC. Ep. 7.13: “ἔρρωσο”.

XEN. Cyr. 4.5.33: “ἔρρωσο”.

COM. Pherecr. 2.287 (see above).

[*] 410. a)/ge, i)/qi, fe/re with the imperative.

In exhortations “ἄγε, ἴθι, φέρε”, and the like (usually with “δή” or “νυν”) often precede the imperative.

“ἄγε δή, κάτειπέ μοι σὺ τὸν σαυτοῦ τρόπον”, AR. Nub. 478. “ἴθι δή, κάτειπε” , Pax, 405. “φέρε δὴ πρὸς θεῶν κἀκεῖνο σκέψασθε”, DEM.21.58.

[*] 411. “ἄγε, ἄγετε”:

PLATO , Phaedo 86 E: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, ὦ Κέβης, λέγε”. Phaedr. 237 A: “ἄγετε δή, ὦ Μοῦσαι, . . . ξύμ μοι λάβεσθε τοῦ μύθου”. Phileb. 39 E: “ἄγε δή, . . . καὶ τόδε ἀπόκριναι”.

XEN. An. 2.2.10: “ἄγε δή, . . . εἰπὲ τίνα γνώμην ἔχεις”. 7.6.33: “ἄγετε δὴ πρὸς θεῶν καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ σκέψασθε ὡς ἔχει”. Apol. 14: “ἄγε δὴ ἀκούσατε καὶ ἄλλα” . Conv. 2.21: “ἄγε δή, ἔφη ὁ Φίλιππος, καὶ ἐμοὶ αὐλησάτω”. Cyr. 7.5.24: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγετε λαμβάνετε τὰ ὅπλα”.

AR. Ach. 111: “ἄγε δὴ σὺ φράσον ἐμοὶ σαφῶς πρὸς τουτονί”. Nub. 478 (410), and frequently.

SOPH. Ai. 1097: “ἄγ̓, εἴπ᾽ ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς αὖθις” . Tr. 1255: “ἄγ᾽ ἐγκονεῖτ᾽, αἴρεσθε”.

AESCHYL. Cho. 803-4: “ἄγετε, τῶν πάλαι πεπραγμένων” | “λύσασθ᾽ αἷμα προσφάτοις δίκαις”.

PIND. O. 1.77-80: “ἄγ”（“ε”) . . . “πέδασον . . . πόρευσον . . . πέλασον”.

ARCHIL.4: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε, σὺν κώθωνι θοῆς διὰ σέλματα νηὸς” | “φοίτα καὶ κοίλων πώματ᾽ ἄφελκε κάδων”.

TYRTAE. 15: “ἄγετ᾽, ὦ Σπάρτας εὐάνδρου” | “κοῦροι πατέρων πολιατᾶν”, | “λαιᾷ μὲν ἴτυν προβάλεσθε”.

HOM. Od. 3.17: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ἰθὺς κίε Νέστορος ἱπποδάμοιο”.

Il. 1.337: “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε, διογενὲς Πατρόκλεες, ἔξαγε κούρην”.

[*] 412. “ἴθι, ἴτε”:

DEM.36.56: “ἴθι δὴ λαβὲ τὰς πρὸς Ἀπολλόδωρον τῆς πονηρίας”. [40]DEM., 19: “ἴθι δὴ λαβὲ . . . τὸν . . . νόμον”.

PLATO, Gorg. 489E: “ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι εἰπέ”. Phaedr. 228 E: “ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι δείκνυε”. 262 D: “ἴθι δή μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὴν τοῦ Λυσίου λόγου ἀρχήν”. PLAT. Soph. 239B: “ἴθι . . . πειράθητι”. Theaet. 195 E: “ἴθι οὖν δή, σὺ ἀποκρίνου”.

AR. Nub. 497: “ἴθι νυν, κατάθου θοἰμάτιον” . Pax, 405 (410). Pl. 255: “ἴτ᾽ ἐγκονεῖτε, σπεύδεθ̓”. saepe.

SOPH. Ai. 988: “ἴθ᾽, ἐγκόνει” . 1003: “ἴθ᾽, ἐκκάλυψον” .

“ ἴθ᾽, ὦ βροτῶν ἄριστ᾽, ἀνόρθωσον πόλιν:
ἴθ᾽, εὐλαβήθηθ᾽
”

O. R. 46-7:

, and elsewhere.

HOM. Od. 22.157: “ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι, δἶ Εὔμαιε, θύρην ἐπίθες θαλάμοιο”.

Il. 1.32: “ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι, μή μ᾽ ἐρέθιζε”. 10.53: “ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι νῦν, Αἴαντα καὶ Ἰδομενῆα κάλεσσον”.

[*] 413. “φέρε”:

DEM.15.26: “φέρε γὰρ πρὸς θεῶν σκοπεῖτε”. 19.174: “φέρε δὴ . . . θεάσασθε”. 251: “φέρε δὴ . . . σκέψασθε”. 21.58: “φέρε δὴ πρὸς θεῶν κἀκεῖνο σκέψασθε”. 25. 73 (id.). Pr. 53.3: “φέρε δὴ σκέψασθε” .

PLATO, Cratyl. 385B: “φέρε δή μοι τόδε εἰπέ”.

AR. Nub. 1088: “φέρε δή μοι φράσον” . Ran. 1417: “φέρε πύθεσθέ μου ταδί”. Eccl. 710: “φέρε νυν φράσον μοι, ταῦτ᾽ ἀρέσκει σφῷν”;

SOPH. Ant. 534: “φέρ᾽ εἰπὲ δή μοι” . El. 310. 376: “φέρ᾽ εἰπὲ δὴ τὸ δεινόν”. O. R. 390. 536. 1142. Ph. 433. Tr. 890.

“ φέρε γὰρ
σήμαιν᾽ ὅτι χρή σοι συμπράσσειν
”

AESCHYL. P. V. 294-5:

.

[*] 414. Negative imperative (prohibitive).

The imperative in prohibitions takes the negative “μή”. The tenses employed are the present, the aorist, and the perfect, the perfect chiefly as a present perfect (303). The first person is represented by the subjunctive (373). In the second person aorist, the subjunctive is used practically to the exclusion of the imperative. In the third person aorist, the subjunctive is preferred in standard prose.

[*] 415. Difference between present and aorist in prohibitions.

“μή” with the present imperative has to do with a course of action and means sometimes “keep from” (RESIST!), sometimes “cease to” (DESIST!). In the one case a negative course of actióon is prescribed, in the other the negative of a course of action. Compare with this construction the negative with the imperfect (resistance to pressure).

“μή” with the aorist imperative or subjunctive gives a total prohibition.

“μὴ λάλει”, AR. Vesp. 1135, may mean, according to circumstances, “stop talking” (compare “παῦσαι καὶ μὴ πατέριζε”, AR. Vesp. 652; Stop and cease “fathering” me) or “keep mum.” “ἀντιβολήσει καὶ ἱκετεύσει ὑμᾶς: μὴ ἐλεεῖτε,” LYS. [6] 55 ; He will beg and beseech you. Don't pity him. Steel your hearts against him. “μὴ θαυμάσῃς”, ISOC. [1] 44: Don't be astonished (one of three aorists in a host of presents). “θαυμάζω, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, καὶ αὐτός. ἀλλὰ μὴ θαύμαζ̓, ἔφη”, PLATO, Conv. 205B; I am astonished . . . Well, suppress your astonishment. . . .

[*] 416. PRESENT IMPERATIVE IN PROHIBITIONS:

DIN.1.109: “μὴ . . . ἄχθεσθ”（“ε”). 113: “μὴ ἀποδέχεσθ”（“ε”). 3.11: “μὴ . . . ἡγεῖσθε”.

ISAE. 3.79: “μὴ ἀμνημονεῖτε”. 8.20: “μὴ οἴεσθ”（“ε”).

LYS. 6.55(see 415). 12.91: “μηδ᾽ οἴεσθε” . 13.83: “μήτε . . . ἀποδέχεσθε” . 19.10: “μὴ . . . προκαταγιγνώσκετε” .

PLATO, Conv. 205B (see 415). Legg. 871 D: “μὴ . . . θαπτέσθω”. 936 C: “μηδεὶς . . . γιγνέσθω”. Phaedo 117 A: “μὴ . . . ποίει”. Theaet. 146 B: “ἀλλ̓, ὥσπερ ἤρξω, μὴ ἀφίεσο τοῦ Θεαιτήτου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐρώτα”. 167 E: “ποίει μέντοι οὑτωσί: μὴ ἀδίκει ἐν τῷ ἐρωτᾶν”.

XEN. Cyr. 3.1.35: “πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, ἔφη, ὦ Κῦρε, μὴ οὕτω λέγε”.

THUC.1.86.4: “ὡς ἡμᾶς πρέπει βουλεύεσθαι ἀδικουμένους μη δεὶς διδασκέτω”. Ibid. 5: “μήτε τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐᾶτε μείζους γίγνεσθαι μήτε τοὺς ξυμμάχους καταπροδιδῶμεν”.

HDT.1.9: “θάρσεε, Γύγη, καὶ μὴ φοβεῦ”. 85: “ὤνθρωπε, μὴ κτεῖνε Κροῖσον”. 5.40: “μὴ ἀντίβαινε”. 8.140, “α”): “μὴ . . . βούλεσθε”. 9.111: “γυναικὶ δὴ ταύτῃ τῇ νῦν συνοικέεις μὴ συνοίκεε . . . τὴν δὲ νῦν ἔχεις . . . μὴ ἔχε γυναῖκα”.

AR. Ach. 1054: “μή . . . δίδου”. Vesp. 652: “παῦσαι καὶ μὴ πατέριζε” (415). 1135: “μὴ λάλει” (415).

COM. 4.341.39: “ἃ μὴ προσήκει μήτ᾽ ἄκουε μήθ̓ ὅρα”. 4.356.578: “μηδέποτε δοῦλον ἡδονῆς σαυτὸν ποίει”. Crat. 2.231: “τὴν χεῖρα μὴ ᾿πίβαλλε, μὴ κλάων καθῇ”.

EUR. Ion, 257: “μὴ φρόντιζ”（“ε”). 367: “μὴ ᾿ξέλεγχε”. Med. 807: “μηδείς με φαύλην κἀσθενῆ νομιζέτω” . Phoen. 18: “μὴ σπεῖρε”.

SOPH. Ai. 115: “φείδου μηδέν” . El. 395-6: H. “μή μ᾽ ἐκδίδασκε” . . . | “χ. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διδάσκω”.

AESCHYL. Eum. 133: “μή σε νικάτω πόνος”. P. V. 44: “μὴ πόνει” . Sept. 262: “σίγησον ὦ τάλαινα, μὴ φίλους φόβει”.

PIND. O. 1.5: “μηκέτ”（“ι”) . . . “σκόπει”. 117: “μηκέτι πάπταινε”. 4.14: “μὴ μάτευε”.

XENOPHANES, 6.4 (Bgk.): “παῦσαι μηδὲ ῥάπιζ”（“ε”).

THEOGN. 31-2: “κακοῖσι δὲ μὴ προσομίλει” | “ἀνδράσιν ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔχεο” (31). 578: “μή με δίδασκ̓: οὔ τοι τηλίκος εἰμὶ μαθεῖν”.

HOM. Od. 1.315: “μὴ . . . κατέρυκε”. 4.543-4: “μηκέτι . . . κλαῖ”（“ε”). 594: “μὴ . . . ἔρυκε”. 7.303: “μὴ . . . νείκεε”. 10.266: “μή μ᾽ ἄγε κεῖς᾿ ἀέκοντα, διοτρεφές, ἀλλὰ λίπ̓ αὐτοῦ”. 14.387: “μήτε . . . χαρίζεο μήτε . . . θέλγε”. 19.42: “σίγα . . . μηδ᾽ ἐρέεινε”.

Il. 1. 210: “μηδὲ . . . ἕλκεο”. 3.82: “ἴσχεσθ̓, Ἀργέιοι, μὴ βάλλετε, κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν”. 6.264: “μή μοι οἶνον ἄειρε ῾ας σηε ηαδ οφφερεδ το δὀ μελίφρονα πότνια μῆτερ” . 23.735: “μηκέτ᾽ ἐρείδεσθον” (149).

AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE IN PROHIBITIONS.—For the aorist subjunctive in prohibitions, see 376.

[*] 417. AORIST IMPERATIVE IN PROHIBITIONS:

Third Person:

DEM.19.77: “μὴ . . . μὴ δότω δίκην”. [42]DEM., 31: “ὃ μηδαμῶς νυνὶ γενέσθω”. [49]DEM., 1: “μηδενὶ ὑμῶν ἄπιστον γενέσθω”. Pr. 35.2: “καὶ μηδεμιᾶς λοιδορίας ὃ μέλλω λέγειν ἀρχὴ γενέσθω” .

AESCHIN.1.19-20: “μηδὲ συνδικησάτω . . . μηδὲ ἀρξάτω . . . μηδὲ κηρυκευσάτω, μηδὲ πρεσβευσάτω . . . μηδὲ . . . εἰπάτω μηδέποτε” (5 instances in the provisions of a law quoted by Aeschines). 3.60: “ὅστις οὕτω διάκειται μήτ᾽ ἀπογνώτω μηδὲν μήτε καταγνώτω πρὶν <ἂν> ἀκούσῃ”.

ISAE. 9.35: “καὶ εἰ λέγειν ἐμοῦ δύναται Κλέων κάλλιον, τοῦτο αὐτῷ . . . μηδὲν ἰσχυσάτω”. (The above are about the only occurrences in the Orators. See A. J. P. xiii (1892), 425 f.)

PLATO, Apol. 17C: “πιστεύω γὰρ δίκαια εἶναι ἃ λέγω, καὶ μηδεὶς ὑμῶν προσδοκησάτω ἄλλως”. Legg. 924 C: “καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλιπέτω μηδέποτε κατὰ δύναμιν”.

XEN. Ages. 10.3. Cyneg. 2.2: “καὶ μηδεὶς αὐτὰ φαῦλα νομισάτω εἶναι”. Cyr. 7.5.73: “καὶ μηδείς γε ὑμῶν ἔχων ταῦτα νομισάτω ἀλλότρια ἔχειν”. 8.7.26: “εἴ τις οὖν ὑμῶν . . . ὄμμα τοὐμὸν ζῶντος ἔτι προσιδεῖν ἐθέλει, προσίτω: ὅταν δ᾽” “ἐγὼ ἐγκαλύψωμαι, αἰτοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, ὦ παῖδες, μηδεὶς ἔτ᾽ ἀνθρώπων τοὐμὸν σῶμα ἰδέτω, μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς”.

SOPH. Ai. 1180-1: “μηδέ σε κινησάτω τις” . 1334: “μηδ᾽ ἡ βία σε μηδαμῶς νικησάτω” . O. R. 1449-50: “ἐμοῦ δὲ μήποτ᾽ ἀξιωθήτω τόδε” | “πατρῷον ἄστυ ζῶντος οἰκητοῦ τυχεῖν”.

AESCHYL. P.V. 332: “καὶ νῦν ἔασον μηδέ σοι μελησάτω”. 1002-3: “εἰσελθέτω σε μήποθ᾽ ὡς ἐγὼ . . . θηλύνους γενήσομαι”. Sept. 1036: “μὴ δοκησάτω τινί”, but v. 1040: “μηδέ τῳ δόξῃ πάλιν”.

PIND. O. 8.56: “μὴ βαλέτω με λίθῳ τραχεῖ φθόνος”. P. 5.23: “τῷ σε μὴ λαθέτω”.

HOM. Od. 16.301: “μή τις ἔπειτ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος ἀκουσάτω ἔνδον ἐόντος”.

Il. 16.200: “Μυρμιδόνες, μή τίς μοι ἀπειλάων λελαθέσθω”.

[*] 418. Second Person:

ORATORES ATTICI: Apparently no examples. See A. J. P. xiii (1892), 426.

AR. Thesm. 870: “μὴ ψεῦσον, ὦ Ζεῦ, τῆς ἐπιούσης ἐλπίδος” (parody of SOPH. fr. 453, cited below).

COM. Thugenides, 4.593: “μὴ νόμισον”, according to Porson's emendation of Photius and Suidas. Eupol. 2.464, is doubtful, and would be disposed of by the adoption of Elmsley's conjecture.

SOPH. fr. 453: “μὴ ψεῦσον, ὦ Ζεῦ, μή μ᾽ ἕλῃς ἄνευ δορός”. apud Bekk. Antiatt. 107.30: “μὴ νόμισον ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ νομίσῃς. Σοφοκλῆς Πηλεῖ”. (This is probably a mistake on the part of the author of the Antiatt.)

HOM. Od. 24.248: “ἄλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δὲ μὴ χόλον ἔνθεο θυμῷ”.

Il. 4.410: “τῷ μή μοι πατέρας ποθ᾽ ὁμοίῃ ἔνθεο τιμῇ”. 18.134: “ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν μή πω καταδύσεο μῶλον Ἄρηος”.

[*] 419. PERFECT IMPERATIVE:

THUC.7.77.4: “μὴ καταπέπληχθε ἄγαν”.

AR. Vesp. 373: “μηδέν, ὦ τάν, δέδιθι, μηδέν”. 415: “μὴ κεκράγατε”. Av. 206: “μή νυν ἕσταθι” .

“ ὑμεῖς τε μὴ γυναῖκες ἀντ᾽ ἀνδρῶν πέλας
παρέστατ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρήγετε
”

SOPH. Ai. 1182-3:

.

HOM. Od. 3.313: “μὴ δηθὰ δόμων ἄπο τῆλ᾽ ἀλάλησο”. 4.825: “μηδὲ . . . δείδιθι”. 16.302: “μήτ”（“ε”) . . . “ἴστω”. 18.62-3: “μὴ . . . δείδιθ”（“ι”). 22.488-9: “μηδ᾽ . . . ἕσταθ”（“ι”).

Il. 4.303-4: “μηδέ τις . . . μεμάτω”. 5.827: “μήτε . . . δείδιθι”. 12.2723: “μή τις ὀπίσσω” | “τετράφθω ποτὶ νῆας”. 14.342: “μήτε . . . δείδιθι”. 20.354: “μηκέτι . . . ἕστατε”. 366: “μὴ δεἰδιτε”.

[*] 420. Equivalents of the imperative.

Equivalents of the imperative are:

1. The Subjunctive. So necessarily in the first person, and regularly in the negatived second and third persons aorist. See 373 and 376.

2. The Future (familiar) and the Future Perfect Indicative. See 269 and 282.

3. “ὅπως” with the future indicative, for which see under “ὅπως”.

4. Optative with “ἄν”. See 443.

5. Infinitive (chiefly in poetry and legal language). See under Infinitive.

6. The Optative. See 394.

7. Impatient or Passionate Questions. See 198.261, and 269.

8. “δεῖ, χρή, ἄξιον, δέομαι ὑμῶν”, with the infinitive, and similar expressions, are often found as a more temperate or a more convenient imperative. See A. J. P. xiii (1892), 402 f., on avoidance of imper. in proems.

[*] 421. Representatives of the imperative in oratio obliqua.

In continuous oratio obliqua, the imperative may be represented by the infinitive, but ordinarily the imperative notion is more explicitly conveyed through the medium of some periphrastic expression. See Object Sentences. For rare examples of the retention of the imperative, see 422.

[*] 422. Imperative in dependent and in interrogative sentences.

As the imperative is equivalent to “δεῖ” or “χρή” with the infinitive, it is occasionally used in dependent and interrogative sentences. Familiar is the phrase “οἶσθ᾽ ὃ δρᾶσον”;

“ᾧ . . . ἐξέστω καὶ μή, τοῦτο νομοθετησώμεθα”, PLATO, Legg. 935E; Let us regulate by law to whom this is to be allowed and to whom not. “οἶσθ᾽ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον”; AR. Eq. 1158; Knowest thou what thou must do? (Cf. v. 1160: “δρᾶν ταῦτα χρή”.) “μὴ ἐξέστω δὴ παρὰ ταῦτα ἕτερα προστάττειν”; PLATO, Politic. 296A; He is not to be permitted, then, to make other additional regulations?

DEM.1.20: “λέγουσιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς ἄλλοι πόρους, ὧν ἕλεσθ᾽ ὅστις ὑμῖν συμφέρειν δοκεῖ”. 20.14: “οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰ πάνυ χρηστός ἐσθ̓, ὡς ἐμοῦ γ᾽ ἕνεκ̓ ἔστω, βελτίων ἐστὶ τῆς πόλεως τὸ ἦθος”. [42], 31: “ὃ μηδαμῶς νυνὶ γενέσθω” (417).

LYS. fr. 75.3: “ἐδεήθη ἥκειν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ κῶμον, λέγων ὅτι μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ καὶ τῶν οἰκετῶν πιέτω”.

PLATO, Legg. 800E: “τὸ δὲ τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπανερωτῶ πάλιν . . . εἰ πρῶτον ἓν τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀρέσκον κείσθω”. Politic. 296 A (see above).

THUC.4.92.7: “ὧν χρὴ μνησθέντας ἡμᾶς . . . ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι τοῖσδε καὶ δεῖξαι ὅτι ὧν μὲν ἐφίενται πρὸς τοὺς μὴ ἀμυνομένους ἐπιόντες κτάσθων, οἷς δὲ γενναῖον τὴν . . . αὑτῶν ἀεὶ ἐλευθεροῦν μάχῃ . . . ἀνανταγώνιστοι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀπίασιν”.

HDT.1.89: “κάτισον τῶν δορυφόρων ἐπὶ πάσῃσι τῇσι μύλῃσι φυλάκους, οἳ λεγόντων κτἑ”.

AR. Eq. 1158 (see above). Pax, 1061: “ἀλλ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὃ δρᾶσον;” Av. 54. 80.

EUR. Hec. 225: “οἶσθ᾽ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον”; Heracl. 451: “ἀλλ᾽ οἶσθ̓ ὅ μοι σύμπραξον”.

SOPH. O. C. 731: “ὃν μήτ᾽ ὀκνεῖτε μήτ᾽ ἀφῆτ᾽ ἔπος κακόν” . O. R. 543: “οἶσθ᾽ ὡς ποίησον;”