αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, ἥκειν, λαμβάνειν
(Phryn. PS 3.11–6, Moer. λ 1)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) informs the aspiring sophist about the Attic construction that uses the infinitive in place of the imperative to express a command (on the verbal forms he uses to exemplify this usage, see F.1). This is also Moeris’ view (A.2), who ascribes the use of the imperative to the Ἕλληνες (see F.2). Ancient sources clearly equate the jussive infinitive with the imperative, without delimiting the syntactical or pragmatic uses of either construction. Note that Apollonius Dyscolus (B.3) also considers the jussive infinitive a pure and simple case of substituting the imperative with the infinitive, whereas the infinitive used in greeting formulas presupposes the ellipsis of the governing verb (on this passage, see further Lallot 1997, 194 n. 151).

Occurrences of the jussive infinitive are regularly pointed out in the erudite literature on Homer (material going back to Aristarchus has been collected and discussed in Matthaios 1999, 106 and 360–3), though with some oscillation. For instance, Zenodotus was accused by Aristarchus of failing to understand the jussive imperative as a Homeric usage, suggesting instead that jussive infinitives should be emended into other forms (see schol. [Ariston.] Hom. Il. 3.459 [A] [= Aristarch. fr. 72 Matthaios] and schol. [Ariston.] Hom. Il. 5.263a [A], schol. [Ariston.] Hom. Od. 7.222 [HP]; see also Schironi 2018, 197). A number of erudite sources share Phrynichus’ view that the jussive infinitive is an Attic construction. Note that Eustathius also considers the infinitive of wish an Atticism in Homer (see Eust. in Il. 1.378.13–6 re. Il. 2.412–3, in Il. 1.380.18–20 re. Il. 2.412–13, in Il. 2.438.1–4 re. Il. 7.179–80, in Od. 1.277.30–2 re. Od. 7.311–4, in Od. 2.150.7–9 re. Od. 17.354; a discussion is found in Hedberg 1935, 144–5).

It is possible that Atticist lexicography might have influenced non-Atticist sources sharing the view that the jussive infinitive was an Attic construction. For a start, after quoting an example of a jussive infinitive in Homer, and while attesting that the Attic dialect too admits of the jussive infinitive, pseudo-Herodian (Fig. 6) calls Attic ‘the most elegant Greek dialect’ (ἡ ἀστειοτάτη τῶν διαλέκτων Ἀτθίς). Secondly, bearing in mind the many occurrences of jussive infinitives in tragic poetry and in Aristophanes, this construction may have gradually been identified as typically Attic (tragic and comic occurrences are often explicitly signalled by the scholia, see schol. vet. Aesch. Sept. 75d Smith, schol. Eur. Ph. 845 Dindorf, schol. vet. Soph. Ant. 1142 Papageorgius, schol. rec. [Plan.] Soph. OT 462 Longo, schol. vet. Ar. Plut. 322 [VEΘBarbAld], schol. rec. Ar. Ra. 133b [Mt]). Direct evidence is schol. (ex.) Hom. Il. 2.10c (T), where the jussive infinitive is labelled as Ἀττικῶς and compared to a passage of Sophocles. Further, one may also notice a tendency in ancient erudition towards considering all independent infinitives Attic constructions, like for instance Moer. τ 5Moer. τ 5 τήμερον εἶναι Ἀττικοί, ὡς Νεφέλαις […]· τὸ σήμερον ἔχον Ἕλληνες (‘Users of Attic [employ] τήμερον εἶναι, like in Clouds […]. Users of Greek [employ] σήμερον ἔχον’). Finally, the connection between occurrences of the jussive infinitive in Homer and Attic authors should probably also be seen in light of the ancient view that Ionic was a form of Old AtticAttic, old and that Homer wrote in a form of Old Attic (see Str. 8.1.2Str. 8.1.2 and Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,2.86.16–24;Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,2.86.16–24 further sources and discussion in Hedberg 1935, 7–9 and Schironi 2018, 605–11). Ancient scholarship may then have found it quite easy to posit a linguistic continuum from Homer to Attic.

Other sources approach the jussive infinitive from a different angle. Lesbonax (B.1, B.2) deemed the jussive infinitive to be Ionic (and Doric). The notion that it is an Ionic feature is not entirely unanticipated and can likely be explained by way of its pervasive presence in Homer (later Byzantine sources that consider the jussive infinitive an Ionic feature are collected by Hedberg 1935, 146). However, Lesbonax does not provide evidence regarding the Doric hypothesis, nor is it clear where he derived this doctrine from (see Blank 1988, 140–3 on Lesbonax’s sources and the often unexpected pieces of information he supplies for less-than-well documented Greek dialects). The fact that Lesbonax does not mention the jussive infinitive in connection with the Attic dialect is not surprising, given his general lack of interest in Atticism (see Blank 1988, 144–5). The view expressed in the anonymous treatise Περὶ βαρβαρισμοῦ καὶ σολοικισμοῦ (B.4) – that the jussive infinitive is a solecism – should not be taken as a criticism against it, but rather as an indication that this construction is an exception from the point of view of analogy. Additionally, to regard the jussive infinitive as a solecism is in no way incompatible with its qualification as an Atticism, all the more so since the Attic dialect was regarded in antiquity as typically full of syntactic oddities (see Lesb.Gramm. De figuris 13B σημείωσαι δὲ ὅτι τὸ σολοικίζειν ἀττικίζειν ἐστίν ‘Take note that using solecisms is Atticising’; further parallels in Hedberg 1935, 21–2 and Blank 1988, 197 ad loc.).

The jussive infinitive is variously attested throughout the history of Classical Greek. It is fairly frequent in Homer, Herodotus, and Attic drama, but is comparatively less common in classical and Hellenistic Attic and in the koine (see K–G vol. 2, § 474 and Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950 vol. 2, 380–3; on the prose occurrences see especially Bers 1984, 176–9). The inscriptional evidence shows that the jussive infinitive is common in epigraphic legislative texts (see de la Villa 2018 on Thessalian inscriptions). In imperial times, this construction is attested in literary, and not just Atticist, prose. Schmid (1893, 421–2 and Atticismus vol. 2, 57, Atticismus vol. 4, 618 and n. 41) collects examples from Aelius Aristides and Josephus, but there are many more (for a sample see C.12, C.13, C.14, C.15, C.16, C.17, C.18, C.19, C.20); the jussive infinitive functions either as an element of emphasis in conveying the order (C.12, C.13, C.14, C.15, C.16, C.17), or more specifically in giving instructions for performing a given task (C.18, C.19, C.20; for parallels in classical technical literature see Bers 1984, 171–2). The distribution of the jussive infinitive in post-classical texts using less formal Greek is very uneven. In Septuagint and New Testament Greek it is rarely, if ever, attested. The only possible occurrence in the SeptuagintSeptuagint is LXX Ge. 19.9 (C.11), but the syntax is uncertain (see F.4). Only three examples of the jussive infinitive are known in the New TestamentNew Testament (see Blass, Debrunner 1976, § 389), and not all of them have equal weight. Two (Ep.Rom. 12.15 and Ep.Phil. 3.16) are impersonal statements in which one can easily supply a governing verb (a verbum dicendi or an impersonal verb, like χρή or δεῖ). The third passage is more interesting. The jussive infinitive alternates with the imperative in a way that is also familiar from both classical texts and papyri written in less formal Greek (NT Ev.Luc. 9.3). A category of post-classical texts in which the jussive infinitive is not unknown are documentary papyri, such as official orders or petitions, which tend to have a more formal register. The jussive infinitive may also occur in private texts, such as letters written in a lower form of koine (examples are collected, categorised, and discussed by Mayser, Gramm. vol. 2,1, 150–1 and 303–5 and Mandilaras 1973, §§ 756–69). Some scholars have concluded that the jussive infinitive must have been an element of popular usage (notably Radermacher 1902, 147), but considering its wide distribution in literary and non-literary texts, a more balanced view is advisable.

The functional use of the jussive infinitive has attracted considerable attention, but scholarship has largely failed to reach a consensus on this topic. Observe that although most scholars agree on the need to separate (at least as far as the origin of these constructions is concerned) the nominative/vocative + jussive infinitive from the accusative + jussive infinitive (see Wackernagel 1926, 266–8 = Wackernagel 2009, 334–6), the two constructions are regularly examined together in scholarship. By far the most up-to-date and wide-ranging discussion available on this topic is the one provided by Denizot (2011, 299–394). Some of the main conclusions she reaches are the following. The jussive infinitive, much like the imperative, is a moderately marked verbal form, to which the notion of modality is largely foreign. As the infinitive indicates a certain idea of verbal action, its imperatival use is hence largely defined by the communicative environment. In this regard, the main difference with the imperative lies with the fact that the jussive infinitive is indifferent to the person; thus, the nominative + jussive infinitive and the accusative + jussive infinitive are different constructions inasmuch as the addressee of the former is the interlocutor, while in the latter case they are not. On a pragmatic level, the consequence is that the jussive infinitive, unlike the imperative, emphasises the circumstances of the process rather than the circumstances in which the communication takes place. However, one should also note that the markedness of either use results from the relative standard of each text: in a text where the jussive infinitive abounds, the imperative lays emphasis on the communication with the interlocutor, while in texts where the imperative is more common, the jussive infinitive is used to highlight the nature of a process of action. Despite Denizot’s seminal study, several fruitful areas of research remain in which the use and function of the jussive infinitive must be examined. I present a selection of the main issues and some general bibliography here, but a detailed treatment clearly falls beyond the scope of the present discussion. (1) Defining the mutual relationship between the jussive infinitive and the imperative, and considering that the two may alternate in the same text or passage (see Allan 2010; de la Villa 2018). (2) Delimiting the syntactical contexts in which the jussive infinitive may be used (Moreschini Quattordio 1970–1971; Bers 1984, 169–75). (3) Identifying the stylistic markedness of this construction (see Bers 1984, 179–81; Willi 2017, 262–4).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

A sample investigation of Byzantine texts shows that the use of the jussive infinitive is very scarce among texts written in higher Greek. Only two examples with σκοπεῖν occur in Arethas’ minor writings (C.23, Scripta minora 2.52.20–1; these examples are pointed out by Westerink 1972, 282). Regarding these passages, one can see that in both cases the jussive infinitive σκοπεῖν occurs at the very beginning of a sentence that opens with ἀλλὰ σκοπεῖν γάρ or with just σκοπεῖν γάρ, and is immediately followed by a conjunction, ὡς and εἰ respectively, to introduce the subordinate clause. Such a recurring formula may suggest the jussive infinitive was a construction that Arethas employed with caution and in contexts where it would be unambiguous for the infinitive to have imperatival force. This can be compared with Arethas’ own difficulty at recognising a jussive infinitive in a passage of Lucian (C.14) where the infinitive occurs after a subordinate (see below). In addition to Arethas, I have devoted special attention to the writings of Photius and Michael Psellus, but I have been unable to find other occurrences of the jussive infinitive. This construction is also unrecorded in the available indices to Photius’ epistles and Amphilochia and to Psellus’ Chronographia (see Westerink 1988 and Reinsch 2014). Moreover, note that the jussive infinitive has never been an option in Medieval and early Modern Greek (see CGMEMG vol. 4, 1875–8).

Possibly as a consequence of the jussive infinitive dying out, this construction attracted the interest of Byzantine readers of classical texts. In continuity with earlier scholarship, they regarded the jussive infinitive as an Atticism (see A.6, A.7, A.8, A.9, A.10; on Α.1, see Luzzatto 1999, 46–58); Arethas on Lucian: schol. Luc. Rh.Pr. 10 [= 178.8–16 Rabe] and Russo 2012, 53; Maximus Planudes on Sophocles: schol. rec. [Plan.] Soph. OT 462 Longo; Tzetzes on Homer and Hesiod: Tz. Ex. A. 97–609, no. 80 [re. Il. 1.323], schol. [Tzetzes] Hes. Op. 381sex.52–5 re. Op. 383–4, schol. [Tzetzes] Hes. Op. 502quin re. Op. 504–5). Despite this clear level of interest, the jussive infinitive was not always easy to identify correctly; for instance, the syntactic interpretation put forward by Arethas in schol. Luc. Anach. 17 (168.25–169.11 Rabe) evidently overlooks the presence of a jussive infinitive (see Russo 2012, 161), while Tzetzes’ interpretation (A.8) of στυφελίξαι in Hom. Il. 1.581 (C.1) as a jussive infinitive is most likely incorrect (see F.3).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. PS 3.11–6 (A.1)

Phrynichus’ use of αὐτοσχεδιάζειν to exemplify the jussive infinitive attracts some consideration. Not only is the other form used by Phrynichus a common verb such as ἥκω, but the same is also true of λαμβάνειν in Moeris (A.2), δίδωμι in Lesbonax (B.1, B.2), and γράφω in pseudo-Herodian (B.4). Why, then, did Phrynichus choose such a specific and comparatively uncommon verb like αὐτοσχεδιάζω? To begin with, this form might provide a tacit Atticist instruction, that is, a reminder that one should use αὐτοσχεδιάζω rather than σχεδιάζω (see Moer. α 95Moer. α 95 αὐτοσχεδιάζειν Ἀττικοί· σχεδιάζειν Ἕλληνες). Secondly, it is also possible that since improvisation was an important aspect of ancient rhetorical training, the use of αὐτοσχεδιάζω is less of a surprise in a scholarly work such as the PS, which is explicitly connected with sophistic and rhetorical education. Although αὐτοσχεδιάζω is a less common choice of word compared to ἥκω, λαμβάνω, γράφω, and δίδωμι, this may not have been the case in the context of a rhetorically focused work such as the PS. Finally, one might also ask whether Phrynichus had the passage of a classical author in mind where αὐτοσχεδιάζειν was used as a jussive infinitive. None of the known occurrences of αὐτοσχεδιάζειν in authors whose language is approved of by Phrynichus would prove a suitable candidate (Thuc. 1.138.4, Isoc. 15.41, X. HG 5.2.32, Pl. Cra. 413d 4, Men. 235c 9 and 235d 2, [D.] 61.43), unless one assumes that Phrynichus misunderstood the syntax. The only vaguely possible case would be [D.] 61.43 σοὶ δὲ προσήκει τούτων μὲν καταφρονεῖν, σαυτοῦ δ’ ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχειν· οὐ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, ἀλλ’ ἐπίστασθαί σε δεῖ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων (‘The proper thing for you is to disregard these people and take good care of yourself. For it is necessary for you not to improvise, but rather to be knowledgeable about the most important things’; αὐτοσχεδιάζειν obviously depends on δεῖ), but one would naturally have expected the negation to be μή rather than οὐ in order for the inattentive reader to misunderstand αὐτοσχεδιάζειν as a jussive infinitive (one may compare [Aesch.] PV 712 οἷς μὴ πελάζειν ‘Do not get close to them’).

(2)    Moer. λ 1 (A.2)

This gloss offers a striking example of the fact that, in Moeris’ lexicon, the opposition between Ἀττικοί and Ἕλληνες cannot always represent an opposition between Attic and koine (or more generally Post-classical) Greek. In this specific case, it seems more fruitful that we take the attribution of the jussive infinitive to the Ἀττικοί as an indication that it is a marked construction, and thus an Atticising feature, in contrast to the unmarked use of the imperative, which is generic Greek and thus attributed to the Ἕλληνες. To quote just one parallel example of the opposition between marked (Ἀττικοί) and unmarked (Ἕλληνες) usages, one may compare Moer. α 99Moer. α 99 αὐτοβοεί Ἀττικοί, ὡς Θουκυδίδης ἐν αʹ (2.81.4)· παραχρῆμα Ἕλληνες (see also Ael.Dion. α 196).

(3)    Tz. Exeg. in Il. A. 97–609, no. 92 (A.8, re. C.1)

Tzetzes is probably wrong in taking στυφελίξαι in Hom. Il. 1.581 (C.1) as a jussive infinitive (see Leaf 1900–1902 vol. 1, 43–4: ‘It is not necessary to supply any apodosis after εἴ περ γάρ κ ἐθέληισιν: it is a supposition made interjectionally, “only suppose he should will to drive us away!”. Bentley’s στυφελίξει, to supply the apodosis, is far weaker’). Tzetzes is likely to have been misled in this interpretation by the jussive infinitive in the next line (C.2).

(4)    LXX Gen. 19.9 (C.11)

The text above was established by Weavers (1974, 193) in his edition of Genesis for the Göttinger Septuaginta series. According to his punctuation, κρίνειν in the pericope μὴ καὶ κρίσιν κρίνειν; would be an infinitive of purpose depending on ἦλθες in the previous sentence, exactly like παροικεῖν (‘You have come alone to live here, not to pass judgement too?’). An alternative interpretation, cautiously put forward by Muraoka (2016, 358), would be that if one does not print μὴ καὶ κρίσιν κρίνειν; as a question with a final semi-colon, one could then take μὴ καὶ κρίσιν κρίνειν as an example of a jussive infinitive (‘You have come alone to live here. Do not pass judgement too’).