εὐθύς, εὐθύ, εὐθέως
(Phryn. Ecl. 113, Antiatt. ε 96, Moer. ε 11)

D. General commentary

Unlike most adjectives ending in -ύς, -εῖα, -ύ (which produce regular adverbs ending in -έως), the adjective εὐθύς, εὐθεῖα, εὐθύ (‘straight’) has three different adverbial forms: the regular εὐθέως, the adverbial neuter εὐθύ, and a form homographic to the nominative masculine singular, i.e. εὐθύς. Drawing on the observation of Hellenistic scholars, Phrynichus (A.1, see below) established a clear distinction between the usage of εὐθύς (only as a temporal adverb) and that of εὐθύ (only as an adverb of place), a distinction evidently opposed by the Antiatticist (A.2, see below).

On a quantitative level, during the 5th–4th centuries BCE the most widely attested form (in both literary and documentary texts) is εὐθύς, while εὐθέως and εὐθύ are much less common, the first being more frequent in literary texts, the second showing a slightly higher number of occurrences in inscriptions. Because of the base meaning of εὐθύς (‘straight’), the related adverbs have two main semantic nuances: the temporal (‘right away’, ‘immediately’) and the spatial (‘directly’, hence ‘straight to’). In 5th–4th-century Attic poetry, εὐθέως seems to have been used only as an adverb of time, while – in a few instances – εὐθύς (for which the temporal meaning is standard) and εὐθύ might have been used in either way; see the doubtful cases C.1 (ἵετ’ εὐθὺ πρὸς τὰ νυμφικὰ, ‘she went immediately to the nuptial bed’ or ‘she went straight to the nuptial bed’), C.3 (εὐθὺς πρὸς σὲ δεῦρ’ ἀπεστάλην, ‘I was immediately sent here to you’ or ‘I was sent straight here to you’), C.7 (εὐθὺ γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς πρῶτον ἀπολογήσομαι, ‘I will immediately defend myself in front of you’ or ‘I will defend myself right in front of you’), and C.15 (εὐθὺ προσδραμὼν | ἐφίλει, ‘he ran straight up and kissed her’, ‘he immediately ran forward and kissed her’). In addition, in two comic passages – from Aristophanes and Antiphanes, respectively – εὐθέως is used a few words after εὐθύς, to create an effect of iteration (see C.10 and C.13). With regard to the spatial meaning, both εὐθύς and εὐθύ can be followed by a genitive and have the meaning of ‘straight to’, ‘straight towards’, as in C.2 (εὐθὺς Ἄργους κἀπιδαυρίας), C.4 (εὐθὺς Ἰλ[ίο]υ), C.5 (εὐθὺ τοῦ ξένου), and C.11 (εὐθὺ Σικελίας). It has to be noted, however, that C.2 and C.4 are the only extant attestations of spatial εὐθύς and that they both come from Euripides.

To sum up, in 5th–4th-century Attic poetry there seems to be no clear semantic distinction between the adverbial forms: εὐθύς and εὐθύ can both be used in either the temporal or the spatial sense (although there are only two attestations of spatial εὐθύς, both coming from Euripides), and εὐθέως can replace both as a temporal adverb. Therefore, Olson’s definition (2014, 151) of the three forms as ‘metri gratia variants’ can be accepted, bearing in mind though that there are no occurrences of εὐθέως as an adverb of place.

In literary texts dating from the 3rd–1st centuries BCE, εὐθύς is still the most attested form, followed by εὐθέως, while the adverbial neuter εὐθύ has the lowest number of attestations. This last form can either occur in expressions with a spatial meaning, such as κατ’ εὐθύ (‘straight forward’, also κατευθύ), or it can replace εὐθύς and εὐθέως in the sense of ‘immediately’. In fact, temporal εὐθύ is found both in prose (chiefly in Theophrastus, more than twenty times, and Diodorus Siculus, more than thirty times) and in poetry (in Theocritus, C.16, and Callimachus, C.17). As far as documentary texts are concerned, however, papyriPapyri show a clear prevalence of εὐθέως, with εὐθύς still well attested but less common, and εὐθύ almost absent. Indeed, the latter occurs with certainty only in three private letters from Philadelphia dating from the 3rd century (namely P.Cair. Zen. 4.59611 (= TM 1244)P.Cair. Zen. 4.59611 (= TM 1244), P.Lond. 7.2053 (= TM 1615)P.Lond. 7.2053 (= TM 1615), and PSI 5.502 (= TM 2443)PSI 5.502 (= TM 2443)), in an official letter (P.Stras. 2.111 (= TM 3938)P.Stras. 2.111 (= TM 3938), 215–214 BCE, area of Heracleopolis), and in two private documents (a list of dreams and a letter) from Memphis, i.e. UPZ 1.77 (= TM 3468)UPZ 1.77 (= TM 3468) [158 BCE] and UPZ 1.78 (= TM 3469)UPZ 1.78 (= TM 3469) [159 BCE]. In other words, in the Hellenistic period, literary texts show a quantitative ratio between εὐθύς, εὐθύ, and εὐθέως similar to the one observed for the 5th–4th centuries (but with a much higher number of attestations for εὐθύ in the temporal sense and no attestations for εὐθύς in the spatial sense), while documentary texts demonstrate that the analogical form εὐθέως became more and more widespread in non-literary written language.

It is in this period that εὐθύς and εὐθύ initially became the focus of philological investigation. The first to deal with the (allegedly) different uses of εὐθύς and εὐθύ was Eratosthenes of CyreneEratosthenes of Cyrene, in his refutation of the attribution of the Miners to PherecratesPherecrates, a discussion that most likely belonged to his treatise On ancient comedy (see e.g. Montana 2020, 186–7). That Eratosthenes did not consider the play to be by Pherecrates – and rather ascribed it to a 3rd-century author named Nicomachus (there are actually two playwrights by this name from this period, see Kassel, Austin, PCG vol. 7, 56, 62) – is clearly stated by Harp. μ 25. The only extant details about this refutation are preserved in a badly epitomised entry by Photius (B.5, see Nesselrath 1990, 179 n. 88 for the proposed identification of Nicomachus with a 5th-century playwright, about whom almost nothing is known). The lemma of the gloss is the phrase εὐθὺ Λυκείου (‘straight to the Lyceum’), from the beginning of Plato’s Lysis (C.12, see also Franchini 2020, 123–4 for an overview). The interpretamentum begins with a rephrasing of the expression (τὸ εἰς Λύκειον) and goes on to state that Eratosthenes doubted the authenticity of the Miners ‘for this reason too’ (καὶ διὰ τοῦτο). There is a clear logical gap between these two sections, as an expression in a Platonic dialogue cannot be the immediate reason for rejecting the attribution of a comedy to Pherecrates. As already observed by Tosi (1998, 329; 2022, 40), in its original form the gloss likely included an observation on the different usages of εὐθύς and εὐθύ, and this section then disappeared due to the gradual epitomisation that characterises the transmission of lexicographical works. In other words, Eratosthenes found a use of εὐθύ(ς) in the text of the Miners that he did not deem suitable for a play by Pherecrates (but which could be tolerable to him if the play was ascribed to the much later Nicomachus). Photius’ entry then ends with a quote from Euripides’ Hippolytus (C.2), which is presented as an example of an incorrect usage of εὐθύς (καὶ Εὐριπίδης οὐκ ὀρθῶς κτλ.). This makes the idea that the interpretamentum originally included the enunciation of a norm on the different uses of εὐθύς and εὐθύ even more plausible, and has led modern scholars to suppose that Eratosthenes found this very usage (i.e. εὐθύς with genitive in the sense of ‘straight towards’) in the Miners (see Slater 1986, 136 and Tosi 1998, 329). In fact, if Eratosthenes found εὐθύς + genitive only in that passage of the Miners (whereas – one could speculate – in all his other plays Pherecrates used εὐθύ + genitive), this might have made the scholar even more suspicious about a play that he already considered spurious on other grounds. If this were the case, the fact that the same phrasing occurred twice in Euripides (C.2, C.4) apparently did not constitute proof of acceptability for him with regard to Pherecrates. A different proposal is advanced by Tosi (2022, 43), who supposes – on the basis of the entry in Herennius/Ammonius (B.1, see below), where the use of εὐθύς as temporal adverb is condemned – that the usage Eratosthenes found in the Miners and criticised was instead the regular and pervasively attested temporal εὐθύς. It is hard to understand how Eratosthenes could have rejected such a use in the Miners, given that it is found in several other plays by Pherecrates (frr. 40, 71, 75, 153, 162), as well as in all of Aristophanes’ preserved plays, and in Cratinus, Eupolis, Plato, and other 5th-century comic playwrights (moreover, the author does not highlight the fact that Athenaeus preserves a quotation from the Miners where temporal εὐθύς is indeed attested [i.e. Pherecr. fr. 113], which – in the proposed reconstruction – should be identified with the passage attacked by Eratosthenes). An alternative interpretation could be that what Eratosthenes read in the Miners was a temporal εὐθύ. This would explain why the scholar not only rejected the attribution of the play to Pherecrates, but also proposed that its author was a 3rd-century playwright (the Nicomachus mentioned at Harp. μ 25, see above), given that temporal εὐθύ is indeed especially well attested in prose (e.g. in Theophrastus) and – more rarely – also in poetry from that period (once in Theocritus and once Callimachus, see above). If this were Eratosthenes’ stance on the problem, it must be assumed that he either considered the εὐθύ in Eupolis (C.7) to have a spatial meaning, or that he did not deem the presence of a temporal εὐθύ in Eupolis decisive enough to accept a similar phrasing in a play ascribed to Pherecrates. Regardless of the preferred interpretation, one must not forget that the linguistic argument on εὐθύ(ς) was just one part of a probably broader and more complex refutation of the attribution of the Miners to Pherecrates (see B.5, ὅθεν Ἐρατοσθένης καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑποπτεύει τοὺς Μεταλλεῖς, see also Tosi 2022, 43). The hypothesis that Eratosthenes was concerned with the temporal use of εὐθύ finds no obstacles in Photius’ text, as some degree of epitomisation must be supposed regardless of the chosen interpretation of the scholar’s fragment. Indeed, Tosi (1998, 329–30) has already suggested that both the enunciation of the norm, most likely at the beginning of the entry, and the last section condemning Euripides’ use of εὐθύς are probably the result of the later appropriation of Eratosthenes’ argument by Atticist sources (see also Tosi 2022, 42). Alternatively, if one were to follow Slater (1986, 136), it should be supposed that Eratosthenes himself established a rule proscribing the use of εὐθύς + genitive in the sense of ‘straight towards’ and consequently labelled Euripides’ usage as wrong. Still, the fact that Eratosthenes (also) resorted to a linguistic argument in order to reject the ascription of a play to Pherecrates needs to be considered in light of two more pieces of evidence (Ath. 6.268eAth. 6.268e and Phryn. PS fr. *8 ~ Phot. α 466Phryn. PS fr. *8 (~ Phot. α 466)) that state that the playwright – at least in the imperial age – was renowned as ‘most Attic’ (Ἀττικώτατος). However, whether this label was at the root of Eratosthenes’ approach to the debated authenticity of the Miners or, rather, a consequence of his studies on the poet cannot be determined with certainty.

Eratosthenes was not the only Hellenistic scholar to deal with εὐθύς and εὐθύ. The synonymic lexicon ascribed to Herennius Philo or Ammonius (B.1) preserves a rather long excerpt from a supplement to Callimachus’ Catalogues (Πρὸς τοὺς Πίνακας Καλλιμάχου) written by Aristophanes of ByzantiumAristophanes of Byzantium (fr. 369, for the interpretation of the title, see Nickau 1967, 346 n. 3). In the excerpt (from the section of the work devoted to the 4th-century BCE playwright Antiphanes), Aristophanes illustrates what to him are the correct uses of the adjective εὐθύς and the three related adverbs. Firstly, he gives examples of the adjective paired with feminine, masculine, and neuter nouns. Secondly, he presents the use of εὐθύ + genitive of direction as something that ‘the ancients sometimes’ did (οἱ δὲ ἀρχαῖοι ἐνίοτε τὸ εὐθύ κτλ), and offers examples taken from Eupolis (C.6) and from a lost comic text (C.18). Thirdly, he states that εὐθύ is not used as an adverb of time, because the temporal sense is conveyed by εὐθύς (for which he offers two more examples from lost plays, C.19 and C.20). A different reconstruction is offered by Tosi (2022, 42), who believes that Aristophanes recognised as a temporal adverb only εὐθέως, and that the text of the entry as preserved results from a misunderstanding by later Atticist sources.

How exactly this digression on εὐθύς and εὐθύ fits within a section on Antiphanes in a work commenting on Callimachus’ Catalogues is not clear. The easiest option is to assume that Aristophanes of Byzantium – like his predecessor Eratosthenes – was dealing with a problem of authorship regarding Antiphanes, a problem for which the use of εὐθύς and εὐθύ was considered decisive. The sentence with which the synonymic lexicon introduces the citation (τινὰς μέντοι τῶν ἀρχαίων φησὶ [i.e. ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης] καὶ τὸ εὐθὺς ἀντὶ χρονικοῦ κεχρῆσθαι. φησὶ γοῦν κατὰ λέξιν κτλ) deserves further consideration. This is apparently meant to anticipate and paraphrase the content of the following quotation, but the text as preserved is somewhat inconsistent with the content of Aristophanes’ doctrine. Indeed, according to the lexicographer’s words, the Hellenistic scholar ‘says that some of the ancients also used εὐθύς as an adverb of time’ (see Tosi [2022, 41]: ‘Aristofane di Bisanzio […] avvertiva che i casi di εὐθύς con valore temporale erano già attestati nei classici’): actually, Aristophanes simply alludes to the temporal use of εὐθύς as an undisputed fact (not as the peculiarity of ‘some’), and does so understandably given the situation of literary sources from the 5th century BCE onwards, where – as discussed above – εὐθύς is the most common form and is overwhelmingly used in the temporal meaning ‘immediately’. Therefore, the suspicion arises that what Aristophanes actually meant was that ‘some of the ancients also used εὐθύ as an adverb of time’: this would be consistent not only with the general content of the excerpt but also with the fact that at least one exception to the norm proposed by Aristophanes might be attested in C.7 (if one takes that εὐθύ to mean ‘immediately’, a possible but not certain interpretation). Such an observation could very well have come at the end of the digression: after saying that the ancients sometimes used εὐθύ + genitive to mean ‘straight to’ and that εὐθύ was not used as an adverb of time, while εὐθύς was, Aristophanes might have actually conceded that ‘some of the ancients also used εὐθύ as an adverb of time’. If this were the case, Aristophanes’ discussion of εὐθύς and εὐθύ could easily be understood as a response to Eratosthenes. While the latter might have post-dated the Miners to the 3rd century (also) because of the presence of a temporal εὐθύ, the former might have highlighted that in fact some of the ancients did use εὐθύ in that sense (how exactly this related to Antiphanes, however, cannot be ascertained).

From this perspective, the preserved text of Herennius/Ammonius could only be explained as resulting from a misunderstanding of the source by the lexicographer, who was quoting Aristophanes but held a very different view on εὐθύς, εὐθύ, and εὐθέως compared to the Hellenistic scholar. Indeed, the norm enunciated in the entry of Herennius/Ammonius is not only unparalleled, but also patently disregards the evidence, since it maintains that εὐθύς can only be used as an adjective and that the temporal meaning is exclusively conveyed by εὐθέως. The point is made even clearer by the fact that a quotation from Menander (C.14) featuring a standard occurrence of εὐθύς in the sense of ‘immediately’ is declared wrong. It must be acknowledged that in the imperial age, εὐθέως was in fact the most widespread form in non-literary written language (as had already been the case in the Hellenistic period, see above), while εὐθύς was less common, though still well attested. However, εὐθύς nonetheless remained the most frequent form in literary texts throughout this period. Therefore, the rule formulated by Herennius/Ammonius is very hard to understand (see below F.1)

Phrynichus’ approach, on the other hand, is more linear. With his entry (A.1), the lexicographer aims to address the tendency of ‘many’ (πολλοίοἱ πολλοί, a label he often uses in opposition to ἀρχαῖοιοἱ ἀρχαῖοι, see e.g. Ecl. 171, 194, 240) to use εὐθύ (instead of εὐθύς) in the sense of ‘immediately’ (like, one can assume, the already mentioned Theophrastus and Diodorus, see above). He therefore rephrases Aristophanes of Byzantium’s description of the different uses of εὐθύς and εὐθύ in a prescriptive tone, stating that εὐθύ is the adverb of place, while εὐθύς is the adverb of time. This same prescriptive content (i.e. a clear statement of the temporal value of εὐθύς and of the spatial value of εὐθύ) is found twice more in Photius’ lexicon (B.4 and B.6). The second entry (which ultimately derives from the Synagoge and occurs also in a scholium to Lucian and – with the addition of other exegetic material – in the Suda) is ascribed by Alpers (1981, 221–2) to Orus, whose Atticistic lexicon relied heavily on Phrynichus as a source, despite being opposed to his rigid approach (see Alpers 1981, 98). A separate group of texts (A.3, B.3, B.6, B.8) deals exclusively with εὐθύ, affirming its meaning of ‘straight towards’, but neither mentioning εὐθύς, nor explicitly condemning a parallel use of εὐθύ as a temporal adverb. On the other hand, B.9, B.10, and B.14 only state that εὐθύς means ‘immediately’, but do not mention either εὐθύ or any other possible meaning of εὐθύς.

All in all, the occurrences discussed so far (with the exception of Herennius/Ammonius) are consistent with Aristophanes’ stance on the use of εὐθύς and εὐθύ. However, there are two more texts that clearly diverge from it. One is the Antiatticist (A.2), which simply states that εὐθύ means ‘immediately’. As is often the case for this lexicon, the entry has to be understood as a polemical response to those (like Phrynichus) who maintained that εὐθύ could only mean ‘straight towards’. In other words, the Antiatticist surely acknowledged the use of εὐθύ as an adverb of place, but wanted to underline that it could also be an adverb of time. If this is actually the case, the entry might presuppose a temporal interpretation of εὐθύ in passages where the semantic nuance of εὐθύ is ambiguous (like C.1 and C.7). The other text that does not align with the rest of the evidence is a scholium to Thucydides (B.12), the phrasing of which is likely corrupt (see F.3).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In the Byzantine period, εὐθύ occurs mostly in the spatial sense either with prepositions (e.g. κατ’ εὐθύ, παρ’ εὐθύ, ἐπ’ εὐθύ) or, less frequently, with toponyms in the genitive to indicate direction towards a place, while it replaces εὐθύς and εὐθέως in the temporal sense only rarely. However, the phrase εὐθὺ καὶ παραχρῆμα seems to have become idiomatic between late antiquity and the early Byzantine period. It occurs in Cyril of Alexandria (MPG 70.768.17) and Theodorus of Mopsuestia (Commentarius in xii prophetas minores. In Jonam 1.14.9, in Haggeum pr. 1.26 Sprenger), as well as in some documentary papyri: ChLA 41.1195 (= TM 18994 [Aphrodites Kome, area of Antaeopolis, mid 6th century]), P.Flor. 3.292 (= TM 19350 [Aphrodites Kome, area of Antaeopolis, mid 6th century]), P.Lond. 1.77 (= TM 39851 [Ta Memnoneia, area of Thebes, beginning of the 7th century]). The forms εὐθύς and εὐθέως remain by far the most widely attested throughout the Byzantine period (see Kriaras, LME s.vv.) and are both found in Modern Greek.    As an adverb meaning 'directly, immediately', ευθύς is a stylistically marked word, with over-demotic overtones (not a learned term: I thank Ioanna Manolessou for pointing this out). ευθέως on the contrary is a high-register form, whose temporal ('immediately') and spatial meanings ('directly') would be perceived as very learned, its standard meaning being a metaphorical development of 'directly' (i.e.,'explicitly, clearly, without hedges').

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Herenn.Phil. 81 ([Ammon.] 202 = Et.Gud. d¹ 556.1–3, d² 556.24–8, 557.14–20) (B.1)

There are three different readings of the beginning of the entry: Herennius has εὐθύς, εὐθὺ καὶ εὐθέως διαφέρει, and Ammonius has εὐθὺς καὶ εὐθὺ καὶ εὐθέως διαφέρουσιν, while the two entries in Et.Gud. (by two different hands) both read εὐθὺς καὶ εὐθὺ καὶ εὐθέως διαφέρει. Tosi (2022, 41) prefers the reading of Herennius, but interprets it as εὐθύς· εὐθὺ καὶ εὐθέως διαφέρει, with εὐθύ as the lemmatised form in the neuter of the adjective εὐθύς. This implies the consideration of the entry as differentiating only between the adjective εὐθύς (‘straight’, of which εὐθύ + genitive would be a particular usage) and the temporal adverb εὐθέως. This interpretation is possible, although it does not make the rule established by the entry (i.e. εὐθύς can be used only as an adjective, while only εὐθέως is the adverb of time) any more understandable.

(2)    Et.Gen. AᴵᴵB s.v. εὐθύς καὶ εὐθύ (= Et.Sym. ε 923, [Zonar.] 905.11–4, ~ Et.Gud. d² 556.19–23) (B.11)

This entry from the Etymologicum Genuinum is also found, with slight variations, in the Etymologicum Symeonis and in [Zonaras], as well as in the Etymologicum Gudianum, but with some additions. Despite the lemma εὐθύς καὶ εὐθύ, in its transmitted form the entry does not clearly differentiate between the two words. Two minor textual interventions in the final section of the entry might make the wording easier to understand. Indeed, by preferring the reading τὸ μὲν εὐθύ (τὸ δὲ εὐθύ in the Gudianum and τὸ εὐθύ in [Zonaras]) and integrating <τὸ δὲ εὐθύς>, the last sentence can be understood as a statement on the different meanings of εὐθύ and εὐθύς (‘εὐθύ means ‘I move forward well’, that is ‘I move forward in a straight line’, while <εὐθύς means> ‘immediately’ and ‘rapidly’’). This proposal is consistent with the emendation suggested for the scholium to Thucydides (see F.3).

(3)    Schol. Thuc. 2.5.6 (B.12)

This is a scholium from the Θ family, a group of manuscripts that preserve a considerable amount of Atticist material, partially going back to Aelius Dionysius (see Kleinlogel 2019, 96–7). The scholium claims τὸ εὐθὺς οὐκ ἔστι παραχρῆμα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ εὐθείας καὶ ἀσκόπως (‘εὐθύς does not mean ‘immediately’, but ‘directly’ and ‘inconsiderately’’). This phrasing poses two problems. Firstly, it contravenes the standard meaning of εὐθύς. Secondly, it is not justified by the specific passage in Thucydides, where εὐθύς clearly means ‘immediately’ (Thuc. 2.5.6Thuc. 2.5.6, Πλαταιῆς δ’ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσι τοὺς ἄνδρας εὐθὺς ὑποσχέσθαι ἀποδώσειν, ‘the Plataeans do not acknowledge that they promised they would give back the prisoners immediately’). The scholium needs to be read along with B.7, B.11, and B.13, a group of erudite sources that all share very similar phrasing. In the case of B.7 (the abovementioned Synagoge gloss, found in Photius, in a scholium to Lucian, and in the Suda), the relevant passage is the Suda entry. The Suda entry and B.13 (a gloss from [Zonaras], which relies on the Suda) plainly show their dependence on a scholium to Thucydides with the phrase παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ (see Kleinlogel, Alpers 2019, 181–3) and state that εὐθύ means ἕως and εἰς (‘up to’ and ‘towards’). The Suda also clarifies that εὐθύ does not mean ‘immediately’ (τὸ δ’ εὐθὺ διαφέρει τούτων. οὐ γὰρ τὸ παραχρῆμα σημαίνει). Both entries then end with καὶ παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ τὸ παραχρῆμα (καὶ ταχέως, only in [Zonaras]) καὶ τὸ ἐξ εὐθείας καὶ ἀσκόπως. Since the Suda clearly says that εὐθύ does not mean παραχρῆμα, the only logical subject for the last sentence is εὐθύς (‘in Thucydides [εὐθύς means] ‘immediately’, ‘quickly’, ‘directly’, ‘inconsiderately’’). Clearly this is not a particularly illuminating piece of information (εὐθύς often has these meanings in most ancient authors) but it is consistent with the mechanical compilation of different sources typical of Byzantine lexica. However, B.12, the only extant scholium to Thucydides that deals with εὐθύς, states that the word does not mean ‘immediately’, but only ‘directly’ and ‘inconsiderately’ (τὸ εὐθὺς οὐκ ἔστι παραχρῆμα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ εὐθείας καὶ ἀσκόπως). Given the inconsistency, it is tempting to advance an emendation proposal to the scholium, which could easily have suffered from a saut du même au même at some point in its transmission. Indeed, the text of the scholium might have originally read εὐθύς· τὸ <μὲν> εὐθὺ[ς] οὐκ ἔστι παραχρῆμα, ἀλλ<ὰ τὸ ἕως καὶ εἰς. τὸ δὲ εὐθύς ἐστι τὸ παραχρῆμα καὶ τὸ> ἐξ εὐθείας καὶ ἀσκόπως. This could have been an Atticist gloss differentiating between εὐθύ and εὐθύς, fully consistent with the entries in the Suda and [Zonaras] that explicitly claim to depend on it.