ἀκούσας ἥκειν and ἀκούσας ἥκοντα. Participial vs. infinitival constructions after ἀκούω and other verbs of perception
(Σ^b α 814 [= Phot. α 819] = Phryn. PS fr. *139)

D. General commentary

An entry in the expanded Synagoge (A.1) discusses two possible complementation patterns of ἀκούω, ‘to hear’, ‘to learn’: the participial and the infinitival constructions. This entry possibly derives from Atticist material and thus offers a glimpse of the Atticists’ perspective on an ongoing syntactic change.

ἀκούω belongs to the class of verbs of perception, alongside αἰσθάνομαι (‘to perceive’), ὁράω (‘to see’), οἶδα (‘to know’), πυνθάνομαι (‘to learn from’), γιγνώσκω (‘to know’), and ἐπίσταμαι (‘to know’). Verbs of perception can function as ‘knowledge predicates’ (Cristofaro 2003, 105–6), and ἀκούω is no exception: it denotes both acoustic perception (‘to hear’) and knowledge by hearsay (‘to learn’, ‘to know’). In Classical Greek, verbs of perception admit multiple complementation patterns, which may depend on the verb’s function (Cristofaro 2003, 106) and its evidential value (which is intrinsic to such verbs, as they contribute to indicating the source of a statement; for the category of evidentiality, see Aikhenvald 2006, 1–17).

In Classical Greek, when verbs of perception are followed by a verbal complement, they typically govern the participle. The case of the participle depends on the verb’s evidential value: direct perception is expressed by the genitiveGenitive; thus, for instance, in X. Mem. 2.4.1: ἤκουσα δέ ποτε αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ φίλων διαλεγομένου (‘Once, I also heard him talking about friendship’), the genitive participle (διαλεγομένου) is used because ἀκούω here means ‘I hear personally’, ‘I hear firsthand’. By contrast, the accusativeAccusative construction denotes knowledge by hearsay; see further with examples, Rijksbaron (2002, 118); Van Rooy (2016, 17–9); Orlandini, Poccetti (2017, 365–6); and Napoli (2022, 147). Menander’s Samia provides a useful contrastive example, as the two constructions are used to convey different evidential nuances in relation to myth. In C.6, Niceratus uses ἀκούω + the participle in the accusative to refer to mythical cases of incest which are common knowledge; conversely, in C.7 Demeas, while prompting Niceratus to reflect on his own first-hand experience at the theatre, construes ἀκούω with the participle in the genitive. Nonetheless, exceptions to this distinction are occasionally found in classical texts. An example is Soph. Ph. 614–5: καὶ ταῦθ᾿ ὅπως ἤκουσ᾿ ὁ Λαέρτου τόκος | τὸν μάντιν εἰπόντ(α) (‘And when the son of Laertes heard the prophet saying this’), where the construction with the accusative and the participle, which would be expected for hearsay, is used to express direct perception.

Infinitival complementation after verbs of perception is already possible in Classical Greek. The infinitive conveys a different semanticSemantics nuance: it is more ‘abstract’ than the participle (Cooper 1998 vol. 1, 827–8) and makes the governing verb ‘non-factive in nature’ (Bentein 2017, 12; see Colonna Dahlman, van de Weijer 2021 on the cross-linguistic notion of factivity in relation to verbs of perception and their subordinate clauses). In some cases, it may also carry a ‘final-consecutive sense’ (Cooper 1998 vol. 1, 827–8, but note that this applies to γιγνώσκω, ἐπίσταμαι, and οἶδα in the sense of ‘to decide’, ‘to believe’, rather than to ἀκούω). With specific regard to ἀκούω, the infinitival construction is attested from Homer onwards (C.1, cf. also Il. 24.543), and occurs, for instance, in Sophocles (Ant. 823–4: ἤκουσα δὴ λυγροτάταν ὀλέσθαι | τὰν Φρυγίαν ξέναν, ‘I have heard that the Phrygian stranger [i.e. Niobe] has died in the utmost misery’). In Attic prose, the infinitival construction of ἀκούω appears to be less frequent than the participial one (for instance, it is not used by Thucydides, who prefers the participial complementation: see Perdicoyianni-Paléologou 2019). Xenophon, by contrast, uses it relatively often and thus constitutes something of an exception (cf. e.g. C.3, An. 2.5.13, see Cooper 1998 vol. 1, 829 for more examples).

A further complementation pattern available to verbs of perception is represented by completive clauses with the indicativeIndicative, typically introduced by ὡς and ὅτι. These finite clauses denote the verb’s knowledge function (see Cristofaro 2003, 106, according to whom the participle instead conveys the perceptive function) and express ‘the objectivity of a factual statement’ (Cooper 1998 vol. 1, 829). This pattern, already attested in the Homeric poems (see Chantraine 1958–1963 vol. 1, 290–2), occurs in both Attic prose and poetry (see Cooper 1998 vol. 1, 829–30). With particular regard to ἀκούω, the verb is constructed with ὅτι/ὡς, among other complementisers, in Isocrates (e.g. 14.15: οὓς τίνα χρὴ προσδοκᾶν γνώμην ἕξειν, ἢν ἀκούσωσιν ὅτι Θηβαῖοι τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων πεπείκασιν ὡς οὐδενός ἐστιν φειστέον τῶν ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίοις γενομένων;, ‘What conclusion must we suppose that these others will reach, if they hear that the Thebans have persuaded the Athenian people that none ought to be spared who have been subject to the Lacedaemonians?’; transl. Van Hook 1945, 145), Aristophanes (cf. e.g. Th. 882–4: οὐκ ἔσθ᾿ ὅπως οὐ ναυτιᾷς ἔτ᾿, ὦ ξένε, | ὅστις <γ᾿> ἀκούσας ὅτι τέθνηκε Πρωτέας | ἔπειτ᾿ ἐρωτᾷς· ‘ἔνδον ἔστ᾿ ἢ ᾿ξώπιος;’, ‘You must still be seasick, stranger, if you ask if Proteas is within or out of doors, when you’ve just heard that he’s dead’, transl. Henderson 2000, 567), Herodotus (4x, see Perdicoyianni-Paléologou 2019, 55–6), Plato (e.g. Prm. 160c), and Xenophon (e.g. Mem. 1.2.55).

In Post-classical Greek, complementation with finite verbs becomes increasingly common and tends to supersede the more typically classical constructions. As Horrocks (2010, 92–3) observes with regard to Polybius’ syntax, the use of the infinitival construction at the expense of the waning participial complementation is a post-classical trait (e.g. Plb. 1.22.2: ἀκούοντες οὐ μακρὰν εἶναι τὸν τῶν πολεμίων στόλον, ‘hearing that the enemy’s army was not far away’; see also Plb. 2.11.8; 2.23.5.; Plu. Alc. 27.2). Nonetheless, infinitival complementation itself comes under increasing pressure from finite complementation patterns (ὅτι + indicative and ἵνα/ὅπως + subjunctive), which spread in Post-classical Greek. The language of the New Testament is a good example of this tendency: as noted by Sampanis (2011, 121–3), the rise of finite complementation at the expense of the infinitival construction (after all verbs) is prominent in the texts that are less compliant with classical norms (notably the Gospels by Marc and Matthew), whereas it is far less frequent in the more classicising texts (such as Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews). Several factors contributed to the decline of infinitival complementation, including the finite clauses’ greater ease of use, which made them syntactically clearer and easier to process. By contrast, infinitival complementation had become highly ambiguous with respect to both temporal and modal orientation: according to Bentein (2018), this ambiguity was caused by the loss of the future and perfect infinitives, as well as of the middle endings, and played a major role in the demise of the construction.

In spite of this general tendency, participial complementation after verbs of perception proved relatively resistant to replacement and was retained in Post-classical Greek more often than in other syntactic contexts, in both literary and documentary texts. As James (2001–2005, 166) convincingly argues, the survival of the participial construction was facilitated by the fact that the participle could easily be mistaken for an adjective, and thus for an adjunct to the direct object. In any case, studies by James (2008) and Bentein (2015) on corpora of documentary papyri have shown that participial complementation remained in use longer than might be expected, albeit as a minor complementation pattern occurring in formal documents (whereas in private letters the participial construction is preserved only in introductory formulas; see Bentein 2015, 104). On the persistence of participial and infinitival constructions in the Byzantine period, see further E.

A.1 has been recognised as deriving from Atticist materials and has been tentatively identified as a fragment of Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Indeed, de Borries (1911) included among the fragments of the Praeparatio sophistica a block of entries from Σ´´´ (from Σ^b 805 to Σ^b 818), most of which concern, in one way or another, ἀκούω; however, their derivation from the Praeparatio sophistica cannot be established with certainty. Although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the scope of the entry, a few observations may be offered. First, its derivation from Atticist material is likely, since it mentions two authors, Xenophon and Menander, whose linguistic usage was often discussed in Atticist scholarship (see below). As regards the entry’s aim, if the negation οὐ is to be understood as prescriptive, it would entail a proscription of the participial construction, which would be surprising for an Atticist source, since this construction is the most classical among the available complementation patterns. Scepticism towards the participial construction after verbs of perception is attested in a later piece of scholarship concerning γιγνώσκω (B.2, commenting on C.2). This appears, however, to be an isolated voice within Byzantine erudition, since Georgius Lacapenus (B.3) admits both infinitival and participial complementation after ἀκούω, and Thomas Magister (B.1) recommends the participial construction with the dative after σύνοιδα (note, moreover, that, although he discourages the accusative construction, he acknowledges its widespread use, including by an Atticising author such as Aristides). Moreover, if B.2 – as seems likely – reflects the concerns of a late Byzantine scholar, the suspicion it expresses towards the participial construction may tentatively be explained by the confusion of participles with adjectives (a factor that likely contributed to the participle’s survival; see above), as well as by the ‘unclassical’ use of the participle in Medieval Greek (i.e. the spread of absolute participles and the equation of the participle with finite verbs; see Manolessou 2005, 250). Needless to say, however, the factors that may account for the scepticism of some Byzantine sources towards participial complementation cannot be invoked to explain the same position in the Atticist source from which A.1 is thought to derive. Alternatively, one may suppose that the source of A.1 aimed to correct another authority – perhaps a stricter Atticist who recommended participial complementation as the preferred pattern – by adducing classical occurrences of the infinitival construction. The negation would thus be understood in a non-prescriptive sense, as ‘not only’, in a usage comparable to that found in the Antiatticist, where negation sometimes introduces forms deemed admissible (see Valente 2015, 48–9). That Xenophon and Menander – both regarded with suspicion by stricter Atticists, above all Phrynichus (on Menander’s status see Tribulato 2014; on Xenophon see Rubulotta 2024) – are here cited as authorities suggests that the doctrine may go back to a scholar with a milder Atticistic stance, one who admitted a broader literary canon. One might be reminded of Orus, who deemed both authors reputable (Alpers 1981, 100), although this remains only one of several possible explanations.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Throughout the Byzantine period, learned authors generally adhere to the classicising use of participial and infinitival constructions, but also resort to finite complementation patterns. Anna Comnene can be rightly regarded as representative of the learned Byzantine usage: she regularly employs participial complementation after verbs of perception and even observes the classical distinction between first-hand hearing (with the genitive, see e.g. 1.10.4: ὡς πολλῶν λεγόντων πολλάκις ἀκήκοα, ‘as I have often heard many people saying’) and hearsay (with the accusative, e.g. 1.4.5: ὀξέως ἐπερχόμενον τὸν ἐχθρὸν ἀκούων, ‘hearing that the enemy was rapidly approaching’). Nevertheless, she also uses infinitival complementation (e.g. 7.11.1: ἐπειδὴ προκαταλαβεῖν τὸν αὐτοκράτορα ταύτην ἠκηκόεισαν, ‘since they had heard that the emperor had occupied it [i.e. the town of Tzouroulos] before [them]’) as well as finite constructions: see e.g. the finite clause introduced by ὅπως at 2.1.2: ἀκηκοὼς δὲ καὶ ὅπως […] ἐν διαφόροις ἀγῶσιν ἐμπέπτωκεν ἀριστεὺς ἀναφανείς (‘having heard that he [i.e. Alexios] had fallen into several battles, giving proof of his value’); on Anna Comnene’s language, see Hunger (1978) and Horrocks (2010, 238–40, where her use of complemental participles is described as a purist trait).

Finite clauses are the regular complements of verbs of perception in Medieval Greek. Multiple finite complementation patterns are attested: the finite clause may be introduced by (ὁ)πού (which conveys factivity) or ὅτι – see e.g. the 14th-century Chronicle of the Tocco (5.11, l. 1487–8: τίποτα ἂν ἀκούσῃ | τὸν Σπάταν ὅτι ἐσπάραξεν εἰς τὸ μέρος Ἰωαννίνων, ‘if he had heard that Spata attacked the region of Ioannina’) and the Chronicon of the Morea (5192: τοὺς Φράγκους γὰρ ἀκούσαμεν ὅτι κρατοῦν ἀλήθεια, ‘we have heard that the Franks do indeed rule’). Alternatively, verbs of perception may take the same type of complementation as control verbs, namely a νά-clause (νά + subjunctive) or, less frequently, καί + indicative (see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1886–91).

Nevertheless, infinitival and participial complementation, although rare, remain in use: they occur in texts and documents in an ‘intermediate’ register (see D. and below). The syntax of verbs of perception in early Byzantine Greek has been the subject of a study by Jerneja Kavčič (2005, 87–117), which focuses on three works composed in the 6th or early 7th century and ‘under relatively low influence of the written tradition’ (Kavčič 2005, 19): John Moschus’ Pratum Spirituale, John Malalas’ Chronicle, and the Vita Theodori Syceotae. Kavčič concludes that participial and infinitival complementation coexist alongside finite complementation patterns, with some variation from author to author. As regards the specific case of ἀκόυω, Kavčič observes that, compared to verbs of visual perception, the distinction between direct and indirect perception – expressed by participial complementation on the one hand and infinitival (or finite) complementation on the other – ‘is better preserved’ and that ‘fewer participial complements are admitted […] the present participle being the most common form’ (Kavčič 2005, 101). As for the spoken languageColloquial language of the period, Kavčič (2005, 100) argues that finite complementation was the norm, although the participle had not disappeared.

In Early Medieval Greek, a new neuter participial form in -οντα was created by analogy with the masculine singular ending. The use of this form was later generalised to all genders and cases and spread increasingly over the centuries. This indeclinable form in -οντα eventually developed into the indeclinable gerund still in use in Modern Greek in the form -οντας (with the adverbial suffix -ς, whose addition dates to the 14th century); on the development of the participial system into the active gerund, see Manolessou (2005). The indeclinable form in -οντα occasionally occurs as a verbal complement in Medieval Greek (see below).

The War of Troy (13th century) can serve as an example illustrating the distribution of complementation patterns in Late Medieval Greek. This works belongs to the genre of πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry, whose language incorporates many features of the contemporary spoken language while also preserving archaising traits; according to Soltic (2014), the syntax of this poetry reliably reflects that of the spoken language. In the War of Troy, verbs of perception are most often complemented by finite clauses introduced by (ὁ)πού and ὅτι (e.g. 296: ἀφὸν ἡ κόρη ἤκουσεν ὅτι ὁ Ἰασοῦς ἔνι, ‘when the girl heard that Jason was there’). However, there are rare instances of non-finite complementation, with the infinitive (e.g. 156–7: ὡς ἤκουσε τὸν Ἰασοῦν […] ὑπάρχειν, ‘when [he] heard that Jason was there’; note that the infinitival clause here expresses the same meaning as the finite one in the previous example) and the participle (e.g. 1101–2: τότε νὰ εἶδες ἀρχόντισσες […] κρατοῦντα τὰ παιδία τους, φεύγοντα ἀπὸ τὰς ῥύμνας, ‘then you could see noblewomen seizing their children, fleeing through the lanes’; note that the participle occurs in the indeclinable form in -οντα. The participial construction does not occur after ἀκούω).

ακούω is still in use in Modern Greek with the meanings ‘to hear’ and ‘to learn’. As far as Modern Greek syntax and complementation patterns are concerned, however, the situation is very different: only finite complementation is possible; the infinitive has not survived, and the use of the participle is restricted; the active gerund has an exclusively adverbial function and cannot serve as a verb’s complement (on the participle and the gerund in Modern Greek, see Manolessou 2005, 255–6, with bibliography). Verbs of perception are thus complemented by finite clauses introduced by που or να. For instance, to express ‘I hear Mary crying’, one may either say άκουσα τη Μαρία να κλαίει or άκουσα τη Μαρία που έκλαιγε; see Holton, Mackridge, Philippakis-Warburton, Spyropoulos (2012, 548–9), from which these examples are taken. The construction with ότι, although being typically restricted to verbs of thinking, is also possible; it reduces the certainty of the action expressed, presenting it as a possibility (see the example (8) in Holton, Mackridge, Philippakis-Warburton, Spyropoulos 2012, 545).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Men. fr. 518 (C.4), Men. DE 102–3 (C.5)

As critics have duly noted (see PCG vol. 6,2, 289), in A.1 the wording ἀκούσας ἥκειν quotes Xenophon (C.3) and provides no insight into Menander’s passage beyond indicating that he employed the infinitival construction after ἀκούω. As a matter of fact, an extant occurrence of this construction occurs in Menander’s Twice a Swindler (C.5); it is thus possible that A.1 refers to C.5, although it is not unlikely that Menander employed this construction elsewhere.