ἄρτι
(Phryn. Ecl. 11, Phryn. PS 17.3–9, Thom.Mag. 29.11)

D. General commentary

The lexicographical passages collected here concern the question of whether the adverb ἄρτι may be used with future constructions or is applicable solely to past events. Phrynichus (A.1, A.2) asserts twice that the construction of ἄρτι with the future is not permitted (A.2 also has a more general interest in the use of ἄρτι and ἀρτίως for the recent past and for the present, for which see also Prisc. 18.167.2–168.1 Rosellini [3.283.11–6 Hertz]Prisc. 18.167.2–168.1 Rosellini (3.283.11–6 Hertz)). Thomas Magister’s entry (A.3) depends on the Eclogue with minor adjustments (see F.1). In the PS (A.2), Phrynichus explicitly contests the rule (for which, see B.1 and B.3) specifying that ἄρτι is standard with past forms, while ἀρτίως should be used with present forms. However, these usages are already well-documented in classical sources (see LSJ s.v. ἄρτι 2 and s.v. ἄρτιος III.2). The same objection may be implicit in the Eclogue (A.1), given that the examples Phrynichus constructs with ἄρτι contain both a present (ἥκω) and an aorist (ἀφικόμην). However, the general rule that ἄρτι should not be used with the future is unanimously accepted. All available evidence consistently shows that this construction is a feature of markedly informal language attested continuously in works by authors from the 4th century to the late Byzantine period.

The first documented occurrence of ἄρτι with the future occurs in a fragment of Antiphanes (C.1), providing robust support for Wilamowitz’s supplement ἄρτι in Menander’s Citharista (C.2). (These cases create the same effect as one translated these passages with ‘just now’ in place of ‘right now’.) The fact that the only known occurrence of ἄρτι with the future is in Antiphanes, who was a poet of Middle Comedy, may account for Phrynichus’ claim that he had never encountered such a construction (A.2). We may readily accept this statement as an indication that Phrynichus had never encountered such a construction within his chosen corpus of canonical authors. In later sources, the construction of ἄρτι with the future is an indication of low language, as attested amply by its occurrences in the New Testament (C.3, see also NT Ev.Mat. 26.64), in Lucian’s Soloecista (C.4), and in the passage of Amphilochius (C.5). The instances in AppianApp. Mith. 291 (Mith. 291: πᾶσαν ἐπενόει παρασκευήν, ὡς ἄρτι δὴ κριθησόμενος περὶ ἁπάντων ‘He (i.e., Mithridates) took care of all the preparation [knowing that] he will at once be put to test about everything’) and Achilles TatiusAch.Tat. 5.26.11 (5.26.11: λυθήσῃ μὲν γὰρ ἄρτι τῶν δεσμῶν, κἂν Θερσάνδρῳ μὴ δοκῇ ‘For you will be freed at once from the bonds, even if Thersander does not want it’) thus count as occasional switches into the lower koine.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The use of ἄρτι with the future is well-documented in Byzantine sources. In prose, it remains confined to texts written in a low or unpretentious language; by way of example, we may cite its occurrences in hagiographical writings (C.7, Acta Xanthippae et Polyxenae 41.15, Passiones sanctorum Onesiphori et Porphyrii 5.28), in Ps.-Callisth. Historia Alexandri Magni in both the prosaic and the poetic versions (C.8, see also Ps.-Callisth. Historia Alexandri Magni [recensio β = recensio γ] 1.12, Ps.-Callisth. Historia Alexandri Magni (recensio β = recensio γ) 1.18, Ps.-Callisth. Historia Alexandri Magni (recensio Byzantina poetica, cod. Marc. gr. 408) 5284), and in the letters of Theodorus Studites (C.9, to which we may add five further instances in his epistolary). ἄρτι with the future is prohibited in high-register prose. Eustathius is a partial exception, as such constructions are attested several times in his Homeric commentaries (see, e.g., Eust. in Il. 2.417.14–5, 3.226.4–5, in Od. 1.424.29–31, 2.278.24–5, 2.298.38) and in the Sermones (see, e.g., 1.29.29–31, 9.153.14–5, and 13.205.30). Another exception is the occurrence of ἄρτι with the future in a letter of Maximus Planudes (Epistulae 90.117–8: οὐ γὰρ σαυτὸν ἄρτι πειράσῃ τοῦ πάθους ἀναλαβεῖν ‘For you will not try at once to recover yourself from the suffering’). However, none of these texts is written in markedly Atticised Greek, and so ἄρτι with the future is less exceptional than it may appear. The evidence for the use of ἄρτι with the future in poetry is also robust and ranges from early Byzantine writers such as Nonnus (C.6, and see also Par.Ev.Io. 8.176) and Sophronius (Anacreontica 10.67–8) to Symeon Neotheologus (Hymni 24.181; to this we can add three more instances in the hymns) and Tzetzes (Alleg.Od. 12.36), to mention but a few.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Thom. Mag. 29.11 (A.3)

Thomas Magister’s gloss, in which ἥκω is replaced by ἔρχομαι, depends on the entry in Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1). The substitution of ἥκω with ἔρχομαι may be justified by the fact that ἥκω commonly carries a future meaning, and Thomas Magister must thus have favored ἔρχομαι as a means of avoiding any ambiguities.