εἶμι, ἐλεύσομαι
(Phryn. Ecl. 24, Phryn. Ecl. 161, Poll. 5.155, Moer. α 29)

D. General commentary

The topic of these Atticist lemmas is the correct way to say ‘I will go’ in proper Attic. The use of present-tense εἶμι and its compounds to indicate futurity is standard Attic. However, Post-classical Greek exhibits two strong tendencies: not only does εἶμι progressively lose ground in favour of ἔρχομαι, which becomes the preferred verb to express motion (as also in Modern Greek έρχομαι), but it also becomes increasingly rare for εἶμι to have a future meaning. Atticist lexicographers therefore recommend the use of εἶμι and its compounds to signal a future meaning, rather than the common Greek use of ἐλεύσομαι and its compounds (Lobeck 1820, 37 takes Phrynichus’ criticism as a tout-court condemnation of ἐπεξέρχομαι, but this is not the case; on εἶμι and ἔρχομαι as part of a larger discussion of verbal suppletion in Greek, see Kölligan 2007, 134–71). Since the compound forms of εἶμι are far more frequent than simple εἶμι in Post-classical Greek, most examples discussed by Atticist sources are, unsurprisingly, concerned with the compounds of this verb. In general, the examples given by the lexicographers do not refer to specific loci classici, though the situation may be more subtle in one of Phrynichus’ glosses (A.2), where Phrynichus’ criticism of Favorinus may hide an implicit attack against Favorinus’ inability to imitate properly Thucydidean language (see F.1 for this interpretation). The criticism of ἐλεύσομαι as a Homeric and Ionic form (A.3, A.4) is matched in Homeric and Hesiodic exegesis, where the use of εἶμι with a future meaning is explained through comparison with ἐλεύσομαι (B.1, B.5; see further [Plu.] De Hom. 2.54 and schol. Hom. Od. 89 c1, d1, and d3, with the parallels collected by Pontani ad locc.). Other erudite materials are likely to be of Atticist derivation (B.2, B.3, B.4; see F.2 and F.3).

The fact that ἐλεύσομαι and its compounds were regarded as poetic forms of Ionic origin explains why their frequent occurrences in tragedy does not provide sufficient proof for Atticist lexicographers that they are good Attic forms. In addition, the first occurrence of ἐλεύσομαι and its compounds, which are unattested in Attic historiography, comedy, and oratory, is in Lysias (C.1), who was not regarded as an approved Attic model. The tendency to use ἐλεύσομαι instead of εἶμι is already clear in Hellenistic prose. In Polybius, there is no example of εἶμι with a future meaning, and the future is regularly expressed through compounds of ἐλεύσομαι (4.9.5 ἐξελεύσεσθαι, 21.14.7 προσελεύσεσθαι, 24.9.15 κατελεύσεσθαι). Crönert (1903, 253–4) only identifies one example of a compound of εἶμι with a future meaning in one of the Herculaneaum papyri. Diodorus too uses only ἐλεύσομαι and its compound forms (20.91.8 ἐλεύσεσθαι, 13.31.5 μετελεύσεσθε, 18.10.3 τοὺς ἐπελευσομένους), and there is no documented case of εἶμι and its compounds with the future meaning.

The situation becomes more nuanced in imperial literary prose, where clearly Atticising tendencies come into play. One can identify roughly three main groups of authors. The first comprises stricter Atticising writers, such as Aristides and Aelian, who never use future ἐλεύσομαι or its compounds; εἶμι and compounds are used with a future meaning by Aristides (e.g., ἐπέξειμι, as prescribed by Phrynichus, in C.2), while I have been unable to find examples of either usage in Aelian. The second group of authors consists of less strict Atticising writers, such as Lucian, Dio Chrysostom, and Philostratus, who use both ἐλεύσομαι and εἶμι (and their compounds) to express the future. Lucian uses -ελεύσομαι compounds several times (Dom. 15 διεξελεύσεσθαι, JTr. 17 ἐπεξελεύσεσθαι, Gall. 3 ἀνελευσόμενον, Anach. 38 ἐπελεύσεσθαι, Hist.Constr. 27 μετελεύσομαι, Nav. 38 μετελεύσομαι, DMort. 5.2 μετελεύσομαι, 15.2 μετελεύσομαι, 16.5 προελεύσονται, 20.13 μετελευσόμεθα; see also Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 231), but we also have examples of compounds of εἶμι with a future meaning (C.2, C.4, C.5, C.6). Dio Chrysostom employs ἐλεύσομαι and its compounds relatively often (Or. 4.66 περιελεύσῃ, 32.25 διελεύσομαι, 33.56 ἀπελεύσεσθε, 38.33 ἐλευσομένην, 47.19 διελεύσομαι, 66.24 περιελεύσῃ; see also Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 84), but compounds of εἶμι may also be used with a future meaning (C.7, C.8). Similarly, Philostratus uses both compounds of ‑ελεύσομαι (VA 4.4 παρελεύσῃ, 5.36 ξυνελευσόμεθα; see also Schmid, Atticismus vol. 4, 35) and εἶμι and its compounds to indicate a future meaning (C.9, C.10). It is important to add that Favorinus, the object of Phrynichus’ criticism for his use of ἐπεξελευσόμενος (A.2), also falls into this second category, in that he uses compounds of ἐλεύσομαι (besides ἐπεξελευσόμενος, see also Ex. 10.34 ἐπανελεύσεσθαι) and a compound of εἶμι with a future meaning (Ex. 18.46–7 πρόσεισι). Finally, a group of least Atticising writers is made up of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Herodian, Appian, and Josephus, who, despite isolated examples of εἶμι and its compounds with a future meaning by some of these authors, use ἐλεύσομαι as the standard form for the future; the only evidence I have been able to find for ἄπειμι with a future meaning is in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (C.11, C.12) and occasionally in passages of Appian and Josephus, where ὡς + the participle of compound forms of εἶμι indicates purpose or a future action (C.13, C.14).

This diverse picture is mirrored in the Greek novel, where the distribution of εἶμι, ἔρχομαι, and ἐλεύσομαι varies across individual authors (I have selected only Longus, Achilles Tatius, and Heliodorus for the purposes of the present enquiry). Longus alone uses εἶμι and its compounds with a future meaning (C.15, where the tone is pathetic, C.16), while he avoids future ἐλεύσομαι and its compound forms. Conversely, in Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus, we have no example of εἶμι or its compounds with a future meaning, and only -ελεύσομαι forms are attested (Ach.Tat. 4.7.3 ἐξελεύσομαι, Hld. 2.19.1 ἐλευσόμεθα, 4.2.1 ἐπελευσόμενον, 5.22.4 μετελεύσομαι, 9.13.1 ἐπελευσόμενος). Despite these general tendencies, and even though εἶμι is a recessive form in Greek (especially the simple verb), later (educated) writers such as Eusebius may occasionally use εἶμι with a future meaning (C.17).

In middle and lower koine texts, not only does the use of ἔρχομαι outstrip that of the simple verb εἶμι, which survives only in compound forms, but the compounds of εἶμι rarely have a future meaning. This is matched by the evidence in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the apocryphal writings of the New Testament. Helbing (1907, 108) counts no examples of εἶμι with a future meaning in Septuagint GreekSeptuagint. Blass, Debrunner (1976, § 99.3) also stress that ἔρχομαι is the favourite choice for expressing motion in the New TestamentNew Testament, and that εἶμι occurs exclusively in Luke’s gospel, Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, and the Acts of the apostles, and here only in its compound forms and never with a future meaning. In the apocryphal writings of the New Testament, similarly, simple εἶμι is never employed: these texts only make use of the compounds, and never with the future meaning (see Reinhold 1898, 87–8). Evidence of εἶμι from papyri and inscriptions is collected by Mayser (Gramm. vol. 1,2, 126–7), Gignac (1981, 288–9), Schweizer (1898, 177), and Nachmanson (1903, 157). It appears that in Ptolemaic papyri, the inscriptions of Pergamum, and the inscriptions of Magnesia, no example of εἶμι with a future meaning is attested. The situation is more nuanced in imperial papyri. Besides the fact that ἔρχομαι may occur with a clearly futural meaning, Gignac (1981, 288–9) points out that although ἐλεύσομαι is the rule, ‘εἶμι occurs very frequently’ with a future sense, usually in the participle but occasionally also in the indicative; beside the vagueness of this remark, it is uncertain whether the examples with the participle, in cases such as τοῦ εἰσιόντος ἔτους (‘in the coming year’) or τῆς ἐπιούσης ἰνδικτίωνος (‘in the following indiction’), actually provide straightforward evidence of εἶμι with a future meaning. As evidence for the indicative with a future meaning Gignac refers to P.Oxy. 529.16–7, though we may add a few more examples with the simple verb (C.18, C.19). Yet, it is not always clear whether εἶμι has a future or a present continuous meaning. For instance, in a case such as that of P.Phil. 35.24–5 (= TM 27218)P.Phil. 35.24–5 (= TM 27218) [provenance unknown, last quarter 3rd century CE] ἵνα γεινώσκητε ποῦ | εἰμι καὶ ἰς [lege εἰς] ποιν [lege ποῖον] τόπον εἶμι, it is not immediately clear whether the sense is ‘In order for you to know where I am and where I will go’ or ‘In order for you to know where I am and where I am going’ (although given that the linguistic competence of this text is very poor, one would incline towards the present continuous meaning).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Since εἶμι and its compounds are recessive forms in Post-classical Greek, their very use by Byzantine writers counts as a marked, classicising choice. Overall, the compound forms of εἶμι are far more frequently attested than the simple verb, in accordance with a tendency that can already be noticed in ancient Greek. Thus, the use of the simple verb may be an element of solemn language. Consider, for instance, the passage of Anna Comnene’s Alexiad (C.20): this is the only occurrence of the present indicative of simple εἶμι as part of a periphrasis with the future participle, and this lexical choice is arguably tailored to the solemn tone of this metaliterary reflection on the practice of the historian. Conversely, the use of ἐλεύσομαι and its compounds becomes standard even in learned writers, such as Photius, Arethas, Michael Psellus, and Eustathius, in whose corpora I have been unable to find evidence for the use of εἶμι and compounds with a future meaning (equally, no occurrence is recorded in the available indexes to the editions of these texts). If one takes the Alexiad as a sample case, it is also clear that the compound forms of εἶμι and ἐλεύσομαι may be used in the same context to indicate a clear opposition between present and future motion (C.21).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. Ecl. 161 (A.2)

The proverbial expression ἄλλος οὗτος Ἡρακλῆς (‘Here is another Heracles’) is used for someone who shares the same physical qualities as Heracles, but it may well be used also by antiphrasis to make fun of someone who is weak. In Phrynichus, the sense is clearly antiphrastic, and it means something like ‘Here is another mistake’. Amato (2010, 413), who also provides further bibliography on the proverb, convincingly refutes earlier attempts at taking ἄλλος οὗτος {ἦν} Ἡρακλῆς as a quotation from Favorinus rather than as Phrynichus’ own words. Phrynichus may have devoted special attention to Favorinus’ ἐπεξελεύσομαι because the proper Attic equivalent ἐπέξειμι with a future meaning is attested twice in Thucydides, in passages which attracted the interest of (Atticising) lexicography (B.2, B.3, B.4, on which see F.2 and F.3). Thucydides is a model which Favorinus clearly has in mind and to which he openly alludes more than once (a most useful examination is provided by Barigazzi 1966, 40–7, 51–2, and 65, who points out that the degree of Thucydidean inspiration in Favorinus is particularly remarkable). To mention just one exemplary case, in a passage of On exile (1.44–2.7), Favorinus rather magniloquently first alludes to Thuc. 342.2 then reproduces Thucydides’ claim that his work is a κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί, before finally reproducing Thucydidean syntax (see Barigazzi 1966, 413 and Wilhelm Schmid’s notes on this passage, recently published by Amato 2015, 67; other passages where Favorinus quotes Thucydides or alludes to him are collected by Barigazzi 1966, 52). Given that Thucydides was a model which Favorinus sought to imitate with special zeal, Phrynichus may have found it particularly tempting to point out Favorinus’ shortcomings at imitating his model.

(2)    Schol. Thuc. 2.20.3 Hude (= P.Oxy. 853.col. xii.27–39 [late 2nd century CE]) (B.2)

An Atticist origin for this remark is a strong possibility. Other linguistic comments found in the same papyrus commentary are of Atticist derivation (see schol. Thuc. 20.4 [= P.Oxy. 853.col. xiii.1–2] and further Kleinlogel 2019, 55). However, even though Ἀττικοί would seem like a most reasonably restoration at col. xii.29... [ ̣]ικοι, it apparently ‘does not suit the vestiges’ (Grenfell, Hunt 1908, 145).

(3)    Phot. ε 1424 (B.3), schol. Thuc. 3.27.2 Hude (B.4)

These discussions of ἐπεξιών are also likely to derive ultimately from Atticist sources. In the case of Photius’ gloss (B.3), Theodoridis does not go as far as suggesting what its possible source might be. The scholium to Thucydides probably derives from late manuscripts (see Hude 1927, IV), and the available critical editions do not provide further documentation regarding the sources of these materials.