Skip to main content

Full text of "On the Articular Infinitive in Polybius: I"

See other formats

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


VoL. XI, 3. WHOLE No. 43. 


In the following paper I have taken Hultsch’s text of Poly- 
bius (books I-III in the second edition) as the basis of my 
work, and all the references are to the book, chapter and section 
in his edition. I have referred frequently to Schweighiuser’s 
edition and notes, and his lexicon has been of great value to me. 
Of the studies on Polybius’ text and language those to which I 
am most indebted are: Hultsch’s Preface to his second edition, 
1888 ; Ε΄ Krebs, Die Préapositionen bei Polybius, 1882, and Die 
Pripositionsadverbien in der spiteren historischen Gracitit, 
Part I, 1884, Part I], 1885. 

Kaelker, Quaestiones de elocutione Polybiana, 1880 (Leipziger 
Studien, Vol. 111); J. Stich, De Polybii dicendi genere (Acta 
Sem. Philol. Erlang. 11); L. Goetzeler, De Polybi elocutione, 1887, 
are occasionally referred to. 

For the theory and development of the articular infinitive I am 
indebted to Prof. Gildersleeve’s articles in the Transactions of the 
American Philological Association for 1878, and in the American 
Journal of Philology, Vols. III and VIII; to Weiske’s two papers 
in Fleckeisen’s Jahrbuch for 1882, pp. 494 and 528, in which he 
enumerates every occurrence of the construction in Attic prose ; 
and to Birklein’s Entwicklungsgeschichie des substantivierten 
Infinitivs, 1888, which gives in a handy form an account of the 
development of the construction from Pindar to Xenophon. It 

1The above paper embodies the results of studies pursued during the 
author’s tenure of a Bishop Berkeley Fellowship at Owens College, Man- 
chester, England. 


is to be regretted that Aristotle’s use of this construction has 
not yet been examined. 

1. It has already been shown that while a historical develop- 
ment in the use of the article with an infinitive in ‘classical’ 
Greek can distinctly be traced, from the simple infinitive with τὸ 
in Pindar to the substantivizing of a complex sentence in all sorts 
of case-relations in Attic prose (see Birklein, p. 91), at the same 
time both individual bent and the class of writing played their 
parts in the variations and the rise and fall of its use. As Prof. 
Gildersleeve says (A. J. P. 11 197), ‘the use of the articular infini- 
tive is not simply a matter of period, but a matter of individual 
character and artistic school.’ 

In this essay I propose to apply the same methods of statistic 
which have been employed on the classical use of the articular 
infinitive, to an examination of the same element in the language 
of Polybius; an examination which will be of interest, and of 
some importance both from a comparative point of view and in 
regard to Polybius’ own style. Thus I shall endeavor to connect 
Polybius’ usage with that of the classical prosaists in a compari- 
son by which the development of the construction may be esti- 
mated, and to provide material in which Polybius’ method of 
thought and the turns of his language may be studied; for ‘the 
articular infinitive is a gnomon of the reflective element and can- 
not be left out in a consideration of style’ (Gildersleeve, Am. 
Philol. Assoc. 1878, p. 18). 

The position of Polybius is one of prominence in the history of 
later Greek prose. He is in date and importance the first of a 
succession of writers in the κοινὴ διάλεκτος, and the traces of Poly- 
bius’ influence are to be clearly seen in the writers who follow 
him. If the term κοινὴ διάλεκτος in reference to Polybius is cal- 
culated to lead to confusion, we may say that he writes in the 
Attic dialect but not in the Attic style; that in all essentials but 
that of pureness of vocabulary Polybius’ dialect is Attic, though in 
detail he shows in syntax also many divergencies from Attic use. 

It will thus be seen that in studying Polybius’ language it is of 
importance to keep before us his relation with the Attic prosaists, 
because we are at a point where the threads of historical connec- 
tion are most significant. 

2. In the following statistical account of Polybius’ usage of the 
articular infinitive I have calculated by the number of articles. It 
occurs altogether 1628 times, and in the following constructions: 


nominative 151, subject accusative 75, object, etc., accus. 53, geni- 
tive 199, dative 80. With prepositions and quasi-prepositions 
governing the genitive: περί 26, ὑπέρ 26, ἐκ 22, mpd 12, χάριν 78, 
ἕνεκα 8, πλήν 5, χωρίς 4, ἕως 4, ἔξω 2, ἄνευ 2, μέχρι 2. With preposi- 
tions, etc., governing the dative: ἐπί 47, πρός 10, ἐν 21, ἅμα 102, 
With prepositions and the accusative: διά 441, πρός 134, μετά 29, 
ἐπί 31, εἰς 55, περί 8, παρά once. 

In this list 1 have not separated the first five books in Polybius 
from the rest of his works which have come down to us. The 
first five books alone are preserved entire, of the rest we have only 
excerpts, mostly of considerable length. In Hultsch’s edition 
books I-V occupy about a volume and a half, the excerpts about 
two volumes and a half. The average frequency (per page) of 
the articular infinitive is higher in the excerpts than in the first 
five books, being 1.180 : 1.109. 

3. In the frequency of its occurrence the articular infinitive has 
a higher place in Polybius than in any classical author except 
Demosthenes. This relation will be best seen by the following 
comparison, in which I have adopted Birklein’s counting of the 
classical occurrences. It occurs in Plato 1680 times, average per 
Teubner page .87; in Xenophon 1306 times, average 1.01; in 
Polybius 1628 times, average 1.15; in Demosthenes 788, aver- 
age 1.20. 

In estimating the force of these figures we must make allow- 
ance for the difference in character of the subject-matter. Oratory 
and philosophy, having more need of abstract phrases, of compen- 
dious and comprehensive locutions, are found to make more liberal 
use of the articular infinitive than history does. Thus in Thucydides 
(Gildersleeve, A.J. P. VIII, p. 330; Birklein, pp. 51, 52) the aver- 
age of the art. inf. in the narrative is .30, while in the speeches 
it amounts to nearly 1; and thus we account for the higher fre- 
quency of the art. infin the excerpts of Polybius as compared 
with books I-V; books VI~end contain proportionally more of 
reflection and theorizing and less of narrative than the books 
preserved entire. But on the whole the zarratival element with 
Polybius, as was natural with a writer of history, outweighs the 
reflective and historical. This being so, what we have to lay 
stress upon is the high frequency of the art. inf. in Polybius as 
compared with classical prose writers. It points to a real charac- 
teristic of his style, and of late Greek generally ; to the ‘conscious 
ratiocination, the increasing tendency towards the employment of 


abstract nouns in various relations,’ of which Prof. Gildersleeve 
(Trans. Am. Ph. Assoc. 1878, p. 18) describes the articular infini- 
tive as the outcome, and which is further indicated in the large 
number of abstract nouns-substantive used by Polybius, many of 
which he coined himself. See Kaelker,1.c. pp. 296, 297, and 
Goetzeler, pp. 40, 41. 

4. In the use of the articular infinitive as the equivalent of a 
noun, Polybius does not go beyond the limits fixed in Attic prose, 
for which see Birklein, p. 92. We find no approach in him to the 
later and vulgar use of an adjective instead of an adverb with the 
art. inf., or of a dependent genitive instead of a subject in the 
accus., such as those quoted by Gildersleeve, |. c. p.7, from Igna- 
tius, 6. g. τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῆν, τὸ ζῆν αὐτοῦ And in the usages within the 
classical limits his innovations are few in number. In Polybius 
for the first time we find the genitive of the art. inf. used of price 
(only twice), ἅμα τῷ c. inf. used almost synonymously with μετὰ τὸ 
c. inf., γίνομαι and εἰμί with πρὸς τὸ and πρὸς τῷ Cc. inf., πρὸς τὸ c. inf. 
of purpose in strictly final clauses. Of these usages occurring 
for the first time, all except the first occur frequently and are 
characteristics of Polybius’ style; especially common is dya with 
the art. inf. Other features of his use of the art. inf. as compared 
with that in Attic prose generally are the following: increase in 
frequency of χάριν τοῦ c. inf., to which ἕνεκα gives way ; of διὰ τὸ c. 
inf., of ἐπὶ τῷ c. inf. expressing the cause of emotion; of πρὸς τὸ and 
pera τὸ C.inf.; frequency of ὁρμᾶν ἐπὶ réc. inf, and of ἐλπὶς τοῦ c. 
inf., decrease of the ré-infinitive. Noticeable are τοῦ c. inf. of purpose, 
and the variety of the expressions of purpose with the art. inf.: 
χάριν, ἕνεκα τοῦ C. inf., ἐπὶ τῷ c. inf., πρὸς τὸ c. inf., besides the final 
τοῦ c. inf. 

5. The articular infinitive presents in a handy substantival form 
either the abstract idea expressed by the simple infinitive, or an 
oratio obliqua in which the infinitive stands for the main verb, and 
the subject is in the accusative (or nominative) ; cf. Gildersleeve, 
l.c. p.11. There are thus two distinct forms of the articular 
infinitive, the former of which is strictly the equivalent of an 
abstract noun, while the latter is a substantivized sentence, and in 
general a variation in phrase for what might otherwise have been 
expressed by a subordinate clause, relatival or temporal, or by a 
participle. Ofthe former class Polybius very frequently employs 
τὸ Gv as an equivalent of ὁ βίος; the two occurring side by side in 
12, 16, 12 τῷ μὲν (‘to the one’) ἔτη δύο ἢ τρία KaradeimecOa τοῦ ζῆν, 


αὑτῷ δὲ τοῦ βίου τὸ πλεῖον ἔτι μένειν. 950 too he is fond of τὸ νικᾶν, 
κινδυνεύειν, βοηθεῖν, etc. It is interesting to note that there are cer- 
tain constructions in Polybius with which the simple form of the 
art. inf. goes naturally. Thus (of course with exceptions) it is the 
simple abstract that is found when the art. inf. is the direct object 
of verbs, or in the genitive after verbs, or after πρός, εἰς, ἐπὶ τὸ 
(always), περὶ τὸ, ἐν, ἐκ, ἕνεκα and χάριν. On the other hand, it is 
the substantivized oratio obliqua that is usually found after μετά 
and πρό; while some constructions, e. g. the ‘dynamic’ dative, 
ἐπὶ τῷ, ἅμα τῷ, lend themselves equally to both forms. With the 
other usages, although both forms of the art. inf. are equally 
natural, the simpler is the more usual. 

In a few passages we find the startling irregularity of an accu- 
sative with the art. inf. where the subject of the main clause and of 
the oratio obliqua is the same. 2, 18, 6 οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν ἀντεξαγαγεῖν 
“Ρωμαῖοι τὰ στρατόπεδα διὰ τὸ παραδόξου γενομένης τῆς ἐφόδου προκαταληφ- 
θῆναι καὶ μὴ καταταχῆσαι τὰς τῶν συμμάχων ἀθροίσαντας δυνάμεις. See 
Hultsch’, Praefat. p.1. Hultsch reverts here to the MSS reading 
ἀθροίσαντας, after having, in the first edition, preferred Bekker’s 
conjecture ἀθροίσαντες. In doing so he follows Kaelker, p. 280, 
who compares the following passages where a similar accusative 
is found: 2, 7, 10 οὐδὲν ἐποιήσαντο προυργιαίτερον τοῦ παροπλίσαντας 
αὐτοὺς ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς πλοῖα. 3, 111, 2. 8, 31, 6 ἐλπίζων καὶ πρὸς αὑτόν τι 
διατείνειν τὴν εὐαγρίαν διὰ τὸ μερίτην ἀεὶ γίνεσθαι, where, as Hultsch 
points out, the accusative is due to the influence of αὑτόν, but 
where Bekker conjectured pepirns. Analogous to these is 9, 39, 6 
πρέπον ὑμῖν ἐστι τὸ----μνησθέντας ---μισοπονηρῆσαι, Where one expects the 
dative as in 18, 14, 13. 

The irregularity of the passages quoted is, as Hultsch, I. c. p. li, 
remarks, quite in keeping with the construction of the accusative 
referring to the subject which is found in oratio obliqua after 
νομίζω, etc., 6. Ρ΄. I, 53, 10 νομίσαντες οὐκ ἀξιόχρεως σφᾶς αὐτοὺς εἶναι. 
See Hultsch, ]. c. p. xliv, on 1, 38, 1; and Kaelker, p. 280. The 
above-quoted passages excepted, however, we find the nominative 
always with the art. inf. in Polybius when the subject of the main 
sentence is referred to. 

6. (a). The articular infinitive in its capacity as a substantive 
often stands in Polybius parallel in construction with a noun, the 
two being connected by καί. In Demosthenes (Weiske, l. c. p. 
495), with whom this is common, when they both refer to the 
same thing, the noun gives the general aspect of it, and the art. 


inf. the particular. Thus too in Polybius 1, 88, 3 μεγάλην ἔχει 
διαφορὰν ἡ μετριότης καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἀνήκεστον ἐπιτηδεύειν ἑκουσίως, and 5, I, 
5. 20, 5, 4. 27,13, 4. Noticeable is 7, 13, 7 ἐγγευσάμενος αἵματος 
ἀνθρωπείου καὶ τοῦ φονεύειν. Other instances of the conjunction of 
noun and art. inf., where they do not refer to the same thing, are 
15, 34, 6 ἅμα τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὸ ζὴν ἀπέβαλε. 8, 32, 11. 18, 54, 2. 

(6). With αὐτό as attribute (Birklein, p. 93) we find the art. inf. 
12, 28a, 2 αὐτὸ τὸ συναθροῖσαί φησι μεῖζον ἔργον εἶναι, and 22, 13, 3 δῆλος 
ὧν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ σιωπᾶν. 15, 31, 13 περιποιήσασθαι τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸ μόνον. 

(6). In apposition (Birklein, p. 94) the art. inf. is found several 
times after τοῦτο, especially αὐτὸ τοῦτο. 3, 4, 9 οὐ yap τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τέλος 
ὑποληπτέον, τὸ νικῆσαι. SO 4,57, 11. 21, 22,7. Frag. 46. 3, 84,7 
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἐθισμῶν αὐτὸ περὶ πλείστου ποιούμενοι, τὸ μὴ φεύγειν μηδὲ 
λείπειν τὰς τάξεις. 3, 20, 4. 12, 5,11. After ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τούτῳ 1, 45, 11. 
327, 1,9. ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ τούτου I, 45, II. τούτῳ διαλλάττειν, διαφέρειν 2, 
37, II. 30, 2,4. For 12, 6a, 4 see under the dative. 

Occasionally we find the art. inf. appositional to a noun, e. g. 
after ἐλπίδος 2, 35, 8. See below under the accusative. 

7. Tenses of the infinitive.—As in Attic prose so in Polybius 
we find the present the commonest tense of the infinitive with 
the article. After the present the aorist is next in frequency, with 
about half as many occurrences as the present, while the perfect is 
much rarer (one-seventh of the present) and the future only occurs 
12 times. We may notice the exclusive use of the aorist inf. after 
pera τὸ and its prevalence after ἅμα τῷ and χάριν τοῦ; aorist and 
present are found in equal degree after es τὸ, but in all other con- 
structions the present, as is natural,is preponderant. The perfect 
is found in the largest proportion after ἐπὶ τῷ and διὰ τὸ. 

The future of the articular infin. is such a rarity that it is worth 
while enumerating the instances. It occurs for the first time in 
Thucydides (see Birklein, pp. 52 and 94), and it is either used 
pleonastically in connection with phrases which contain an idea 
of purpose or futurity, as ἐλπίς, πρόληψις ; Or in oratio obliqua to 
express an action in the future. Of the former class in Polybius 
are 3, 48, 2 ἐλπὶς τοῦ κατορθώσειν, and 7, 15, 4. 5, 94, 9 ἐλπὶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
ς. fut. infin., 16, 32, 4 πρόληψις τοῦ πεσεῖσθαι. 4, 3, 3 πρόληψιν ἔχειν 
περὶ rou Cc. fut. Frag. 150 φροντίζειν τοῦ c. fut. infin. After es τὸ of 
purpose 9,9, II. χάριν τοῦ 4,9, 5. On the other hand, the future 
has its full force in 3, 5, 8 διὰ τὸ κἄλλους πολλοὺς κατεγγυηθήσεσθαι καὶ 
σπουδάσειν, and 32, 16, 2. 24, 11, 14 ποιεῖσθαι ὅρκους ὑπὲρ τοῦ μηδέ- 
ποτε κατελεύσεσθαι τοὺς φυγάδας, and 5, 18, 6 ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὸ δεινὸν ἥξειν ἐπὶ 
σφᾶς οὐδὲ διενοεῖτο οὐδείς. 


Somewhat similar is the use of ἄν with the aorist inf. which we 
find after διὰ τὸ 1, 61, 5. 3, 31, 3, and in 7, 13, 4 τὸν βίον ἐφήσαμεν ἀπολο- 
γεῖσθαι τὸ μηδὲν ἂν ποιῆσαι μοχθηρόν. 

Madvig, Syntax, §172b, laid it down of the meaning of the 
articular aorist infinitive with accusative subject, that except when 
denoting purpose of any kind it always has a preferite force. 
Upon this Birklein, p. 95, remarks, that although it usually holds 
good, there are many such examples in which the aorist is not 
preterite. Thus he quotes Thuc. 7, 68 τὸ δὲ τούσδε κολασθῆναι καλὸς 
ὁ ἀγών. Thus too we may add from Polybius, 4, 84, 8 κατ᾽ οὐδένα 
τρόπον συμφέρει τοῖς Πελοποννησίοις τὸ γενέσθαι Φίλιππον ᾿Ηλείων κύριον. 
6, 24, 7 ἀδήλου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῦ παθεῖν τι τὸν ἡγεμόνα, οὐδέ- 
ποτε βούλονται x... And II, 17, 2 ἐπὶ τὸ καταλειπόμενον ὥρμησε τῆς 

ὅλης ἐπιβολῆς τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν τὸ μὴ διαφυγεῖν τὸν Μαχανίδαν. 

The Infinitive with τὸ as Subject and Object, etc. 

The infinitive with τὸ as subject in nominative and accusative, 
and as object, etc., occurs altogether 279 times in Polybius (89 in 
books I-V, 190 in the rest) ; a frequency which shows a great fall 
from that of Dem., Plat., and Xenophon. Taking the proportion 
by the page in the Teubner text, we find the average frequency 
per page of the infinitive with τὸ in the writers just mentioned is 
.4, but .19 or less than half of this in Polybius. This falling off 
is due to a large extent to the fact that the 7é-infin. especially, 
and the art. infin. in general, is more consonant with a didactical 
and theoretical subject-matter than with narration. This is very 
clearly shown by the case of Xenophon himself; see Birklein, 
Entwickl., p. 84: in the Memorabilia the frequency of the art. inf. 
in all constructions is 2.2, but in the Anabasis it is only .47; while, 
to take the rs-inf. by itself, we find its frequency in the Memora- 
bilia is 1.07, but only .15 in the Anabasis. And in Polybius also 
the use of the subject infinitive with τὸ is chiefly characteristic of 
the non-narratival portions, being especially common in the 
digressions where Polybius explains the plan or purpose of the 
narrative ; while the preponderance in Polybius of the narrative 
element accounts for the fall in the frequency of the zs-infinitive as 
compared with Demosthenes, Plato, and Xenophon. 

1. As subject the ré-infinitive appears 151 times as nominative 
and 77 times as accusative. In the latter case it is the subject in an 
oblique sentence after νομίζω, φημί, ἡγοῦμαι, or in ‘ oblique narration’ 


with no governing verb expressed ; less frequently the governing 
verb is ὑπολαμβάνω, κρίνω, εἴποι τις ἄν, πέπεισμαι, οἶμαι. 

The tense of the infinitive is generally the present, but the 
aorist is almost as frequent ; the perfect occurs only 6 times. Often 
an infinitival sentence with a subject in the accusative is substan- 
tivized by the τό. The predicate to the infinitive-subject is often 
an adjective with or without εἶναι, but in this case the article is not 
so necessary with the infinitive as when the predicate is a verb. 

The frequent recurrence of the same or a similar predicate 
shows the mannerism and stereotype character of Polybius’ style. 

Thus with σημεῖον, 11, 7, 3 τὸ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὀργιζόμενον εἰς τὸ θεῖον 
ἀσεβεῖν τῆς πάσης ἀλογιστίας ἐστὶ σημεῖον. SO 10,22, 12 τὸ λέγειν ὡς οὐκ 
ἂν φόμην, τίς γὰρ ἂν ἤλπισε τοῦτο γενέσθαι ; μέγιστον εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ σημεῖον 
ἀπειρίας στρατηγικῆς. 2, 63, 5. 12, 6b, 3. 29, 5, I. 30, 7, 8. Frag. 85. 
With ῥάδιον: 6, 3, 2 τό τε γὰρ ἐξαγγεῖλαι τὰ γινωσκόμενα ῥάδιον, τό τε 
προειπεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μέλλοντος εὐμαρές. And 5, 33, 6. 12, 20, 7. 12, 256, 
5. 25], 9. 28, 10, 2. With ἀναγκαῖον: I, 1, 1 tows ἀναγκαῖον ἦν τὸ 
προτρέπεσθαι πάντας πρὸς THY αἵρεσιν τῶν τοιούτων ὑπομνημάτων. And I, 13, 
6. 3, 21, 9. 12, 251, 5. 3,97, I νομίσαντες χρήσιμον εἶναι, μᾶλλον δ᾽ 
ἀναγκαῖον τὸ μὴ προΐεσθαι τὰ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ιβηρίαν ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίστασθαι τοῖς Καρχη- 
δονίοις, and similarly after νομίζω with ἀναγκαῖον I, 10, 9. 16, 25, 2. 
32, 4, 2. After ἡγεῖσθαι 9, 36, II. 10, 2, 1. 9, 8. 18, 32, 13. 

With the perfect infinitive: 1, 4, 2 τὸ προκαλεσάμενον ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὴν 
ἐπιβολὴν τῆς ἱστορίας μάλιστα τοῦτο γέγονεν, σὺν δὲ τούτῳ καὶ τὸ μηδένα τῶν 

καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐπιβεβλῆσθαι τῇ τῶν καθόλου πραγμάτων συντάξει." 

1The choice in such cases between the articular and the simple infinitive 
was no doubt often arbitrary, as, e. g. 29, 23, 3 οὐκ ἤρεσκε διδόνα: followed by 
ἤρεσκε τὸ διδόναι. But the article was often omitted to avoid the hiatus ; this is 
clear from such a case as 6, 56, 15 σπάνιόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν--- σπάνιόν ἐστι τὸ λαβεῖν. 
Cf. 8, 2, 6 σπάνιον εὑρεῖν ἐστί. 

31, 35,2 καὶ γὰρ τὸ διαπιστεῖν τῇ τύ χῃ---ἐναργέστατον ἐφάνη πᾶσιν τότε διὰ τῶν 
Μάρκου συμπτωμάτων. “ Fortunae non esse confidendum manifestum” Schw. 
Casaubon, feeling the want of δεῖν, read from late MSS τὸ δεῖν ἀπιστεῖν, 
which Schweighduser rejects, remarking that the phrase is ‘ proverbialiter et 
sententiose dictum, quo in genere amant Graeci omittere verbum δεῖ It 
appears to me much more probable that the original was τὸ δεῖν διαπιστεῖν, from 
which both the later variant τὸ δεῖν ἀπιστεῖν and ‘the vulgate τὸ διαπιστεῖν would 
naturally arise. For the omission by copyists of δεῖ before διά and. δια- there 
are several parallels; compare g, 42, 6 and Hultsch, Praef.? xxxii. 

23,7, 4 ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος καὶ ἹΤερσεὺς οὐχ ἡδέως ἑώρων TO γινόμενον οὐδ᾽ ἤρεσεν 
αὐτοῖς, τῷ δοκεῖν τοὺς Ῥωμαίους αὐτῶν μηθένα λόγον ποιεῖσθαι. Here Ursinus 
read τῷ, but τὸ is read in O, and the latter, is surely preferable. 76 has the 
support of the following passages: 29, 23, 3 τοῖς δὲ περὶ τὸν “Apywva ἤρεσκε τὸ 
διδόναι. 4, 49, 3 ἠρέθιζε δ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ δοκεῖν Βυζαντίους ἐξαπεσταλκέναι, 


As accusative-subject, besides the above-quoted instances the 
ré-infinitive occurs as follows: 2, 22, II νομίζοντες συμφέρειν σφίσι τὸ 
διακριθῆναι πρὸς τούτους. SO 7, 4,8. νομίζων καθήκειν αὑτῷ 21, 29, 12. 
31, 8,7. 37, 3, 2. And 6, 1, 6. 50, 3. 21, 13, 8 18,6. In10, 7,6 
Schweigh. added ἐπισφαλὲς εἶναι, a conjecture which is supported 
by 28, 6,4. Frag. 163. 11, 20,6 and 28, 13, 10. ἡγεῖσθαι σφίσι 
συμφέρειν 5, 35, 12. 10, 39,9. Similarly after ἡγεῖσθ. 2, 50, 6. 3, 1, 
5. 5, 67, 13. 6, 42, 2. 

5) 11, 4 τὸ δὲ ναοὺς ἅμα δὲ τούτοις ἀνδριάντας λυμαίνεσθαι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν 
εἴποι τις εἶναι τρόπου καὶ θυμοῦ λυττῶντος ἔργον ; SO 9, 10, 6. 17, 9. 32, 
27,7. After φημί 1, 80, 1. 5, 58, 4. 6,1, 3. 12, 288, 2. 13, 3, 6. 
18, 26,7. 22, 8, 6. 28, 21, 3. 29, 8, 7. Frag. 13. φάσκω 16, 26, I. 
4, 57, 11 ὑπολαμβάνοντες τοῦτο τέλος εἶναι, τὸ γενέσθαι τῶν πυλώνων ἐντός. 
And 1, 4, 4. 2, 47, I. 12, 288, 4 and 5. 29, 7, 6. Frag. 46. 2, 26, 8. 
τὸ μὲν διακινδυνεύειν ἐκ παρατάξεως οὐδαμῶς ἔκρινε συμφέρειν. 3, 107, 2. 5, 
22, 8. 16, 20, 6. 

As subject in oratio obliqua with no principal verb expressed 
we find the rd-infinitive 3, 15. 7 πάτριον yap εἶναι Καρχηδονίοις τὸ μηδένα 
τῶν ἀδικουμένων περιυρᾶν. And 3, 63,4 and 11. 4, 24, 6. 9, 42, 7. 18, 
3, 8. 11, 8. 21, 22, 7. 22, 11, 4. 24, 14, 3. 31, 20,6. 34,4, 4. 37,1, 
4 and 15, 

29, 19, 8 (in oratio obliqua) * * τὸ δὲ παρέντας ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν νῦν 
παρεῖναι σπουδάζοντας διαλύειν τὸν πόλεμον, προφανὲς εἶναι τοῖς ὀρθῶς σκο- 
πουμένοις διότι τὰς πρεσβείας ἐξέπεμψαν οὐ διαλύειν ἐθέλοντες τὸν πόλεμον, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐξελέσθαι τὸν Περσέα. Here we have either an anacoluthon or 
some defect in the text. τῷ δὲ παρέντας would restore a construc- 
tion, but the commencement τὸ δὲ παρέντ. seems to read soundly 
although preceded byalacuna. Probably the sentence was begun 
with an infinitive with τὸ, and in the course of a long period the 
construction was forgotten. 

9, 4. 6 ἐξ ὃν συλλογιζόμενος ᾿Αννίβας ἀδύνατον ὑπάρχον τὸ λῦσαι τὴν 
πολιορκίαν. After πεπεισμένος 1, 83, 3. οἶμαι 12, 25k, 9. 

Lastly, in two passages which may well be regarded as speci- 
mens of involved structure, we find the accus. of the art. inf. as 
subject of an infinitival sentence also substantivized by an article. 
9, 2 4, πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τὸ καινῆς ἐξηγήσεως δεῖσθαι, τῷ μὴ συμβατὸὴν εἶναι τὸ 
τὰς ἐπιγινομένας πράξεις ἡμῖν ἐξαγγεῖλαι. 22, 13, 8 διατιθεμένων λόγους 
ὑπὲρ τοῦ---ἀδύνατόν εἶναι τὸ κινῆσαί τι τῶν ὑποκειμένων. 

2. As object, or in apposition to an object. 

(a). The 7é-infinitive as object is oftenest found with certain 
verbs indicating vefection of any project or plan. It thus occurs 


10 times with ἀπογινώσκω and 8 times with ἀποδοκιμάζω, and with 
παρίημι, ἀπολέγω, ἐγκακέω. 1, 44, 4 τὸ μὲν διακωλύειν τὴν ἐπίπλουν τῆς 
βοηθείας ἀπέγνωσαν. So 1, 48, 10. 2, 65, 13. 3, 21, 6. 74, 5. 5,1, 5. 
70, 2. 8, 36, 2. 14, 10, 10. 31, 23, 8. 

3, 95, 5 τὸ κατὰ γῆν ἀπαντᾶν ἀπεδοκίμασε, and 1, 54, 5. 3, 86, 8. 6, 
38, I, 9, 20, 6. 10, 39, 7. 18, 48, 9. 31, 17, 3- 

3, 106, 10 τὸ πλείω γράφειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν παρήσομεν. 2, 63, I ἀπολέγω 
τὸ χορηγεῖν. ἐγκακέω ‘refuse’ 4, 19, IO. 

The phrase ἐκλείπειν τὸ ζὴν occurs three times, 2, 41, 2. 2, 60, 7 
and 23, 10, 3. περὶ πλείονος ποιοῦμαι, περὶ πλείστου ποιοῦμαι with τὸ c. 
inf. occurs four times, 3, 84, 7 τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἐθισμῶν περὶ πλείστου 
ποιούμενοι, τὸ μὴ φεύγειν μηδὲ λείπειν τὰς τάξεις. So 4, 61, 6. 18, 53, 3» 
and 24, 15, 3. 

3, 81, 6 τὸ Civ αὑτῶν ἀφήρηνται. 15, 34,6 ἅμα τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὸ 
Civ ἀπέβαλε. 16, 34, 11 οὐδαμῶς ὑπέμενον τὸ ζῆν. 11, 28, 8 ἀπο- 
κτενῶν τοῦτον παρ᾽ οὗ τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸς ἔλαβε. 15, 31, 13 περιποιήσασθαι τὸ ζῆν 
αὐτὸ μόνον. 3, 63, 6 τοῖς ἑλομένοις τὸ ζῆν ‘choosing.’ 10, 37, 4 κἂν ἡ 
τύχη δῷ τὸ νικᾶν. 31, 23, 8 προορώμενοι (‘fearing’) τὸ βουληθέντες 
κωλύειν ἀδυνατῆσα. After ζηλόω ‘strive after’ 23, 11,3. λέγω 12, 
28a, 7. 239, 10, 8 τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν πραγμάτων παθεῖν ὅ τι δέοι, οὐδ᾽ ἐν νῷ 
ἐλάμβανον. 27, 9, 7 μαρτύριον ἐποιοῦντο τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀποφάσεως τὸ παρα- 
γεγονέναι ἀλείπτην τινά. 7, 13, 4 τότε περὶ μὲν ᾿Αράτου τὸν βίον ἐφήσαμεν 
ἀπολογεῖσθαι τὸ μηδὲν ἂν ποιῆσαι μοχθηρόν. Here τὸ is Schw.’s emenda- 
tion of MSS τοῦ: “His life would show in his defence that he 
would not have committed anything base”; but the construction 
is very unusual. 

16, 10, 1 ἐξ οὗ δὴ καὶ μάλιστ᾽ ἄν τις καταμάθοιτο μανιώδη γενόμενον 
Φίλιππον τοῦτο πρᾶξαι. So Mai edited, but Heyse corrected to κατα- 
μάθοι τὸ, which is adopted by Hultsch, It must be admitted, how- 
ever, that the article has a very clumsy effect. Compare 5, 11, 7 
Μάλιστα δ᾽ ἄν τις καταμάθοι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τὴν τότε Φιλίππου, λαβὼν πρὸ 
ὀφθαλμῶν x. td. Perhaps the middle voice in καταμάθοιτο is simply 
due to a copyist’s mistake for καταμάθοι." 

120, 24, 3 ἐξ ὧν ἀπεδείκνυσαν σκῆψιν οὖσαν τὴν ‘Popyaiov χρείαν πρὸς τὸ διαλῦσαι 
*r 0 βοηθεῖν. Here the article before βοηθεῖν was added by Ursinus, but does 
not improve the sense. In the sense required here, διαλύειν is not found else- 
where in Polybius, although it is frequently used of disbanding troops, and, 
in the middle voice, of raising a siege, or finishing a war. For references see 
Schw.’s lex. The gulf which separates these regular significations of διαλύειν 
from that which is required in this passage is thus bridged by Schweigh4user: 
“ dissolvere vel dirimere negotium aut consilium, i. 6. impedire ; sic 29, 24, 3 


(δ). Accus. of the art. inf. in apposition toa direct object: 7, 8,9 
σκοπὸν προέθηκε κάλλιστον ἐν τῷ ζῆν, τὸ πειθαρχεῖν. 3, 20, 4 εἰ μὴ ἡ τύχη καὶ 
τοῦτο προσένειμε τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις, τὸ φρονεῖν εὐθὺς ἐκ γενετῆς. 12, 5, II αὐτὸ 
δὲ τοῦτο διορθώσαιντο, τὸ μὴ παῖδα ποιεῖν φιαληφόρον ἀλλὰ παρθένον. Here 
may be added 12, 25k, 7 κατ᾽ ἀὐτὸ τοῦτο χάριν ἔχει τοῖς Τελῴοις, τὸ μὴ 
γίνεσθαι τοὺς λόγους ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς. Here the MSS have a lacuna, which 
Heyse supplied, reading κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο χάριν for xara... χάριν. Intwo 
passages the accus. of the art. inf. is found in apposition to πρᾶγμα 
ποιῶν : 6, 1, 12 πρᾶγμα ποιῶν φρονίμου καὶ vouvexous ἀνδρός, τὸ γνῶναι κατὰ 
τὸν Ἡσίοδον ὅσῳ πλέον ἥμισυ παντός. 18, 33, 2 ποιῶν πρᾶγμα βασιλικὸν, τὸ 
μηδὲ ἐν τοῖς δεινοῖς λήθην ποιεῖσθαι τοῦ καθήκοντος. Compare 4, 80, 4 
with the nominative of the art. inf.: καλὸν τοῦτο Λεπρεάταις ἔργον 
mémpaxrat τὸ---ἀντιποιήσασθαι τῆς ἑαυτῶν πατρίδος καὶ μὴ προέσθαι τὰς 
ἐλπίδας. Similar, but looser in structure, is 5, 11 3 τὸ μὲν yap παραι- 
ρεῖσθαι τῶν πολεμίων καὶ καταφθείρειν φρούρια κ. τ. λ.---ταῦτα μὲν ἀναγκά- 
ζουσιν οἱ τοῦ πολέμου νόμοι δρᾶν" τὸ δὲ x. τ. λ., Where ταῦτα μὲν takes up 
the preceding τὸ μὲν. 

3. Accusative absolute. 

This is a rare use of the accus. of the art. inf., which occurs also in 
Plato and Xenophon ; see Birklein, pp. 77, 100, and compare the 
genitive absolute, In Polybius it occurs only 2, 61, 3 τῆς γενναιότητος 
οὐδὲ κατὰ ποσὸν ἐποιήσατο μνήμην, ὥσπερ τὸ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι 
οἰκειότερον ὑπάρχον τῆς ἱστορίας τοῦ τὰ καλὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐπισημαίνεσθαι. 

4. Accusative of relation. 

See Birklein, pp. 85, 97. This use of the ré-infinitive, in free 
relation with the whole sentence (‘‘as regards ”), is very common 
in classical prose, especially in Xenophon. Thus Cyr. 1, 6, 16, 
quoted by Birklein, τὸ yap ἀρχὴν μὴ κάμνειν τὸ στράτευμα, τούτου σοι δεῖ 

διαλῦσαι τὸ βοηθεῖν est impedire ne mittatur auxilium.” I think the original 
reading here was διακωλῦσαι βοηθεῖν, which gives exactly the required sense, 
and involves nothing more than Ursinus’ addition of τὸ does. 

For parallels compare : 4, 33, 8 ἐκώλυον Λακεδαιμόνιοι μετέχειν τῶν σπονδῶν Μεσ- 
σηνίους. 20, το, 6 τοῦ 0 ἀδυνάτου κωλύσαντος βουλεύσασθαι περὶ τῶν ἐπιταττομένων. 18, 
418,1 κωλύειν τὸν ’Αντίοχον παραπλεῖν. and 30, 9, 8. These passages show that 
in Polybius, as in Attic, the construction of κωλύω without μή is permissible. 
μή is, however, found in 15, 13, 9 ἐκώλυσε μὴ παραδέξασθαι τοὺς ἐγγίζοντας, and 
22, ΤΙ, 3 τῶν γὰρ νόμων κωλυόντων μηθένα δῶρα λαμβάνειν, where, however, 
κελευόντων would be an improvement. 

It is true that in the above-quoted passages κωλύω, and not its compound, is 
the word ; but διακωλύω is found in Attic with the infinitive without and with 
μή, and Polyb. 1, 44, 4 is in phrase and meaning closely parallel to our pas- 
sage: τὸ μὲν διακωλύειν τὸν ἐπίπλουν τῆς βοηθείας ἀπέγνωσαν. 


μέλειν, Of this character in Polybius is 9, 9, 2 τὸ προσβαλόντα τοῖς 
πολεμίοις πειραθῆναι λύειν τὴν πολιορκίαν καὶ TO—en’ αὐτὴν ὁρμῆσαι τὴν 
“Ῥώμην, --τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐπισημαίναιτο καὶ θαυμάσαι τὸν προειρήμενον ἐπὶ τούτοις 

5, 31, 3 τοῦ μὲν γὰρ μὴ τῆς ἀκριβείας διαμαρτάνειν τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἱκανὴν 
τοῖς φιλομαθοῦσι πεπείσμεθα παρασκευάζειν ἐμπειρίαν " τὸ δ᾽ εὐπαρακολούθητον 
καὶ σαφῆ γίνεσθαι τὴν διήγησιν, οὐδὲν ἀναγκαιότερον ἡγούμεθ᾽ εἶναι τοῦ μὴ συμπλέ- 
κειν ἀλλήλαις τὰς πράξεις. Attempts have here been made to emend 
the 7é-infinitive, but Reiske’s τῷ δ᾽ gives a wrong sense, and 
Casaubon’s πρὸς δὲ τὸ introduces a hiatus. Close parallels might 
be quoted to show that a final clause would be natural here ; thus 
ἀναγκαῖον is frequently joined by P. with a final clause, e. g. with iva 
I, 3,9 3, 21, 9. 2, 56, 2., with χάριν rod c. inf. 2, 14, 2. 9, 20, 2. 
18, 28,12. Very analogous too in point of phraseology are 3, 36, 
I iva δὲ μὴ παντάπασιν ἀσαφῆ γίνεσθαι συμβαίνῃ τὴν διήγησιν, ῥητέον 'κ. τ. δ. 
1,47, I ἵνα μὴ τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι τοὺς τόπους ἀσαφῆ τὰ λεγόμενα γίνηται, πειρα- 
σόμεθα x. τ. Χ. ANd 32, 25, 7 συγκεφαλαιωσόμεθα τὴν ὅλην πρᾶξιν, ἵνα μὴ-- 
εὐτελῆ καὶ--- ἀσαφῆ ποιῶμεν τὴν διήγησιν. In the light of these passages 
the obvious correction of 5, 31, 3 would be τοῦ δ᾽ εὐπαρακολούθητον, 
were it not for the clumsy and obscure construction which would 
result from having in the same sentence ¢wo τοῦ c. inf. clauses ; 
and it seems probable that the use of τὸ c. inf. here is to be referred 
mainly to the wish to avoid the clumsy construction which would 
be involved in a final genitive of the infinitive—otherwise the 
natural phrase here. Hultsch rightly defends the accusative, and 
is supported by Krebs, P.-A. I 53, and 58 note. Krebs quotes 
from Dion. H. 8, 44 οὔτ᾽ αἰδοῦς προνοούμεναι, τὸ μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι. 

The 1d-infinitive of relation was wrongly introduced by Din- 
dorf in several passages where τοῦ μὴ is the correct reading. See 
under the genitive. 


Polybius uses the articular infinitive altogether 199 times in the 
genitive case, 75 in books I-V, and 124 in the remaining books. 
This is about the same degree of frequency as in Plato and 
Xenophon, but is lower than in Thucydides, and still more so 
than in Demosthenes. 

I, With verbs it occurs 79 times, a frequency lower than those 
of Demosthenes and Xenophon, who especially affect this con- 

The verbs which in Polybius enter into construction with the 


genitive of the articular infin. are nearly all of a character which 
do not admit of a construction with the simple infinitive without 
the article. They are joined elsewhere with a noun in the geni- 
tive, and an infinitive in construction with them has to bear the 
sign of its case. Consequently after verbs, except in the case of 
ἄρχεσθαι, ἀπελπίζειν, and wap’ οὐδὲν ἐλθεῖν, we do not find the simple 
infinitive varying with τοῦ c. inf. as we do to some extent in the 
construction of nouns with the genitive of the art. inf. 

As in classical writers (see Birklein, pp. 98, 99), so in Polybius 
we find an illogical μή with the genitive of the art. inf. after verbs 
of hindering and separation, etc. Thus: 2, 37, 11 τούτῳ μόνῳ 
διαλλάττειν τοῦ μὴ μιᾶς πόλεως διάθεσιν ἔχειν τὴν Πελοπόννησον, τῷ μὴ Ke τ. A. 
5, 4, 10 τοὺς νεανίσκους διέτρεψαν τοῦ μὴ τελεσιουργῆσαι τὴν κατάληψιν τῆς 
πόλεως. 2, 14, 6 ὃ λείπει τοῦ μὴ συνάπτειν αὐτῷ, 18, 22, 4 ἐμπόδιον ἣν 
τοῦ μὴ τρέψασθαι τοὺς πολεμίους (where the note in Hultsch is mis- 
printed—+s and τοῦ should exchange places). In the three last of 
these cases Dindorf, consistently with his treatment of similar 
passages in Xenophon (see Dindorf’s preface to his edition of 
Polybius I 52), substitutes τὸ μὴ for τοῦ μὴ of the original; a totally 
arbitrary proceeding which would introduce a construction un- 
known to Polybius. 

Polybius’ use of τοῦ c. inf. is characterized by the recurrence in 
the narrative of certain favorite phrases in which he indulges to 
an immoderate degree. Thus ἀπέχειν, ἀφέμενος, and ἀφιστάναι are, 
between them, responsible for five-eighths of the genitives of the 
art. inf. in Polybius. 

τοσοῦτον ἀπέχειν τοῦ C. inf. in classical prose is confined to Isocrates 
and Demosthenes (Birklein, p. 62), with both of whom it is a 
favorite expression ; but neither of them is so fond of it as Poly- 
bius, who has 19 examples of the phrase. In Demosthenes and 
Isocrates τοσοῦτον ἀπέχειν is the most usual phrase, but other con- 
juncts, such as πολὺ ἀπέχειν (Dem. 20, 49), ἴσον ἀπέχειν (Dem. 15, 1), 
are found. In Polybius, however, it is a/ways in the phrase 
τοσοῦτον ἀπέχειν ὥστε OF ὡς that ἀπέχειν occurs with the genitive of 
the articular infinitive, except in one passage, 22, 4, 10, which is 
probably corrupt. 

Examples: 2, 6, 9 τοσοῦτον ἀπεῖχον τοῦ πειράζειν ἀμύνεσθαι τοὺς 
ἠδικηκότας ὥστε τοὐναντίον συμμαχίαν ἔθεντο. SO 1, 321, 5. 5, 9, 9. 74, 7. 
12, 4d, 2. 22, 6, 2. 23, 17, 4. 24, 10, 9. 11, 14. 32, 23, I. 

Repetitions of the same phrase are noticeable, and throw light 
on the fixed character of Polybius’ style: 2, 57, 3 and 9, 36, 4 τοῦ 


παθεῖν re δεινόν. 3, 8, 11 and 6, 58, τὸ τοῦ πρᾶξαί τι τῶν προειρημένων. 
15, 5, 5 and 39, 18, 6 τοῦ κολάζειν. 21, 20, 9 and 39,15, 2 τοῦ προσ- 
δέξασθαί τι τούτων. 

32, 14, 7 τοσοῦτον ἀπέσχετο κομίσασθαί τι ὧν πρότερον ἐδωρήσατο. This 
Bekker corrected to ἀπέσχε τοῦ κομίσασθαι x. τ. ., comparing the 
identical words in Diod. 31, 27, 7 τοσοῦτον ἀπέσχε τοῦ Kopicucbai τι 
τῶν πρότερον δωρηθέντων. 

22,4, 10 οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Αχαιοὶ τοῦ μὲν διὰ στρατοπέδων ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἔφοδον ἀπέσχον, 
πρεσβεύτας δὲ προεχειρίσαντο πέμπειν. Here the MSS reading τῶν μὲν 
was corrected by Ursinus to τοῦ μὲν διὰ, but some further correction 
is still necessary. Apart from the fact that ἀπέχω everywhere else 
has τοσοῦτον with it—which is enough to suggest suspicion—the 
use of the active of ἀπέχω in the sense of ‘refrain from’ is unex- 
ampled. For parallels to ἀπέχεσθαι rod c. infin. Weiske, p. 500, 
may be referred to. But the likeliest emendation of ἀπέσχον seems 
to me to be ἀπέστησαν, which is one of Polybius’ favorite expres- 
sions. The following passages offer a close analogy to the above- 
quoted 22, 4, 10, in point of structure as well as sense: 1, 39, 7 
τοῦ μὲν ἔτι στόλον ἀθροίζειν ἀπέστησαν, ἐν δὲ ταῖς κι T.A. IO, 15, 8 τοῦ μὲν 
φονεύειν ἀπέστησαν, ὥρμησαν δὲ πρὸς τὰς ἁρπαγάς. 16, 31, 8 τοῦ μὲν ἀντι- 
μεταλλεύειν ἀπέστησαν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοιαύτην “γνώμην κι τι λ. 3, 19, 4 τοῦ μὲν 
διακωλυέιν τοὺς ἀποβαίνοντας ἀπέστησαν, συναθροίσαντες δὲ, ὥρμησαν, and 
similarly 14, 5, 5. 

ἀφιστάναι τοῦ ς. inf, like ἀπέχειν, is a favorite with Demosth., and 
occurs 9 times in Polybius. Besides the above-quoted passages 
it is found 1, 87, 2 οὐ μὴν ἀφίσταντο τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰ πρὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν. 
3, 2, 5. 4,71, 1. In 2, 35, 8 the gen. of the inf. is in apposition to 
the genitive governed by the verb: οὐκ ἄν τις ἀποσταίη τῆς τελευταίας 
ἐλπίδος, τοῦ διαγωνίζεσθαι. 

Like Xenophon (see Birklein, p. 88), Polybius joins ἀπογινώσκειν 
both with the genitive and the accusative infin. The latter is the 
commoner construction and Dindorf wishes to alter the three cases 
where ἀπογινώσκειν has τοῦ c. inf. These are 1, 29, 5 τοῦ μὲν παραφυ- 
Adrrew τὸν ἐπίπλουν ἀπέγνωσαν. I, 48, I τοῦ δὲ λυμαίνεσθαι καὶ διαφθείρειν 
τὰς παρασκευὰς ἀπεγνωκότων. 9, 7, 9 τοῦ μὲν ἔτι προσκαρτερεῖν τούτοις 
ἀπέγνω. It need hardly be said, however, that Dindorf’s proposals 
are rejected by Hultsch and Biittner-Wobst ; see Hultsch’ on 1, 
29, 5. 

ἀφέμενος has τοῦ c. infin. eight times ; the active participle of ἀφίημι 
occurs, however, once, 18, 3,3. Examples: 2, 68, 3 ἀφέμενοι τοῦ 
χρῆσθαι ταῖς τῶν τόπων εὐκαιρίαις, τούτων μὲν οὐδὲν ἐποίησαν. 5, 104, 5. 6, 


I, I. II, 14, 6 ἀφέμενος τοῦ μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑποκειμένων---τούτων μὲν οὐδὲν 
ἔπραξεν. and 15, 29, 7. 16, 6, 7. 20, 9, 9. 31,7; 2- 

18, 3, 3 ἀφέντα γὰρ τοῦ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀπαντᾶν τοῖς πολεμίοις, φεύγοντα 
τὰς πόλεις ἐμπιμπράναι καὶ διαρπάζειν. Here we find ἀφιέναι used 
intransitively with a genitive, a usage for which I can find no 
parallel. Possibly Aristot. Probl. 8, 9 ἀφέντες τοῦ κινδύνου is analo- 
gous (Bonitz).’ 

Similarly the following verbs are found with the genitive of the 
art. inf: ἀντέχομαι 5, 100, 11 ἀντείχετο τοῦ πράττειν τι τῶν ἑξῆς. ἐφίεμαι 
28, 9, 4 ἐφίενται τοῦ μεγάλα τολμᾶν. ὀρέγομαι .21, 23, 3. ὀλιγωρέω 5, 
66, 6 τοῦ γυμνάζειν τοὺς ὄχλους ὠλιγώρει. and 20, 10, 16 ἔτι μᾶλλον 
ὠλιγώρησαν τοῦ μηδὲν ἔχειν πέρας ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης. φροντίζω Frag. 150 
φροντιεῖν τοῦ μηδὲν ἀδίκημα ποίησειν τὸν Προυσίαν. προνοέομαι 12, 25k, 6 
ὅτι προνοηθεῖεν τοῦ μὴ βουλεύεσθαι τὰ πλήθη. But πρόνοιαν ποιοῦμαι is 
commoner than προνοέομαι with the articular infin., and occurs so 
in classical prose, e. g. Demosth. 47, 80, which προνοέομαι does not. 

μετέχω 23, 16, 13 ὅσοι μετέσχον τοῦ---ἐπανελέσθαι τὸν Φιλοποιμένα. 
ἐγγεύομαι “taste of” 7, 13, 7 ἐγγευσάμενος αἵματος καὶ τοῦ φονεύειν. 
κρατεῖν 10, 23, 9 εἰ κρατοῦσιν οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ σαφῶς καὶ δεόντως διδόναι τὰ 
παραγγέλματα: ‘if they know how to.’ See Schweigh.’s note com- 
paring 39, 12, 4 κατεκράτησε τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς διαλέκτου. 4, 82, 8 κατεκρά- 
τησε τοῦ γενέσθαι στρατηγὸν ᾿Ἐπήρατον : “obtinuit ut.” So 28, 13, 13. 
στοχάζομαι 4, 19, 10 στοχαζόμενοι τοῦ δοκεῖν μόνον, and 21, 28, 9. Com- 
pare Aristot. Eth. N. 4, 8, 3 στοχάζομαι τοῦ ἡδὺς εἶναι, and Dion. H. 
de Isoc. §2, p. 538, 13 καὶ rod γλαφυρῶς λέγειν στοχάζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ 

16, 3, 12 αὐτὸς ἥμαρτε τοῦ τρῶσαι. 3, 63, 12 οὐδέποτε διεψεῦσθαι τοῦ 
κρατεῖν τῶν ἀντιταξαμένων. 5, 4, 10 διατρέπω. 13, 3, 2 τοσοῦτον ἀπηλλο- 
τριοῦντο τοῦ κακομηχανεῖν. 2, 37, II διαλλάττει ‘differt.’ 3, 32, 10 
ὅσον τὸ μαθεῖν διαφέρει τοῦ μόνον ἀκοῦσαι. And so 16, 16, 4. 

στερέομαι 23, 10, 10 τοῦ ζῆν ἐστερήθησαν. 11, 30, 3 ἀπηλλαγμένοι τοῦ 
ὧν. Compare Isocr. 3, 6 οὐ μόνον τοῦ θηριωδῶς ζῆν ἀπηλλάγημεν. ἀποδει- 
day “shrink from” 4, 11, 4 τοῦ μὲν ἐγχειρεῖν τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις ἀπεδειλίασεν. 
The only instance in classical Greek of this construction appears 
to be Xen. Lac. R. 10, 7, quoted by Weiske, p. 500; a parallel 
which renders unnecessary Schweighauser’s suggestion τὸ μὲν 
ἐγχειρεῖν, Upon which, however, he does not insist. ἀπελπίζω has 

1If ἀφέντα τοῦ, in 18, 3, 3, is to be corrected, either παρέντα yap τὸ κατὰ 
κι τ. A, or ἀφέμενον yap τοῦ κατὰ κ. τ. Δ. would avoid the objections to ἀφέντα τοῦ, 
and of the two ἀφέμενον is perhaps the more probable, and might have been 
corrupted by confusion with the φεύγοντα in the following line. 


τοῦ ζὴν 15, 10, 7, but the simple infinitive 9, 6, 8 (ἀπελπίζοντες αἱρήσειν) 
and 16, 30,5. For the genitive compare Diod. 11, 38, 3 τοῦ ζῆν 
ἀπελπίσας, but ἀπελπίσαι τὸ ζῆν Diod. 17, 106, 7. See Goetzeler, de 
Pol. εἷος. p. 23. 

ἄρχομαι ‘begin’ 9, 32, 2 ἤρξατο τοῦ λέγειν, but with the simple 
infinitive in 16, 11, 2, where, however, Schweighduser defends 

9, 12, 8 προσδεῖσθαι τοῦ λαθεῖν. λείπειν 2, 14, 6. 10, 17, 12 λείπει 
βραχύ τι τοῦ διπλασίους εἶναι. 12, 18, 5 λείπει βραχὺ τοῦ ἐπάλληλον 

παρ᾽ οὐδὲν (ὀλίγον, μικρὸν) ἐλθεῖν τοῦ c. inf. For this construction see 
Kalker, pp. 254 and 302; Krebs, ΡῬγᾶρ. b. P. p. 56; Goetzeler, p. 
25. The cases are these: 1, 45, 14 παρ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐλθόντες τοῦ πάσας 
ἀποβαλεῖν τὰς παρασκευάς, ἐκράτησαν. 2, 55, 4 παρ᾽ ὀλίγον ἐλθεῖν τοῦ μὴ 
μόνον ἐκπεσεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ κινδυνεῦσαι. 11, 7,1 παρὰ μικρὸν ἐλθεῖν τοῦ λαβεῖν 
τὸν “Arradov ὑποχείριον. and 10, 12, 11. 18, 19, 6. 30, I, 5. 33, 2, I. 
In the first two of these examples Cobet proposes to omit rov, but 
the construction with τοῦ is too frequent to be so treated. The 
simple infinitive occurs in 1, 43, 7. 33, 1, 4,in both of which τοῦ 
is omitted to avoid a hiatus (Kalker, p. 254), and in 12, 20, 7; 
but the construction with rod is paralleled by Diodor. 17, 42, 4 
(Krebs, p. 57), and by Ὁ. I. G. 4896 C. 11, 12 (Kalker, p. 302). 

In 6, 41, I ὅταν ἐγγίζωσι ἔτοῦ στρατοπεδεύειν, τοῦ was added by 
Schweigh., but Krebs, P-A. II 52, has a very plausible emenda- 
tion ὅταν ἔλθωσιν ἔγγυς τοῦ στρατοπεδεύειν. 

Many of the above constructions with verbs are classical, and 
the rest follow mostly classical analogies. map’ οὐδὲν ἐλθεῖν τοῦ α. inf. 
is the only noticeable novelty. For the classical parallels see 
Weiske, pp. 499-501. 

2. With nouns. 

Polybius follows classical precedent in his use of the genitive of 
the articular infinitive with nouns and adjectives. The construc- 
tion of the art. inf had already become established as a handy 
syntactical implement, and it is purely due to chance if a substan- 
tive takes the genitive of the infinitive in Polybius which is not 
found in a similar construction in classical authors. The only 
phrase which recurs with a frequency that stamps it as a charac- 
teristic is ἐλπὶς ov c. inf, which is found 16 times with τοῦ νικᾶν 
and similar expressions. αἴτιος τοῦ c. inf., which occurs 13 times 
in Polybius, was already a favorite of all the classical prose-writers 
except Thucydides. 


After many nouns in classical prose the genitive of the articular 
infin. varies with the simple infinitive without the article, a varia- 
tion dependent on the taste of the author (Birklein, p. ror). 
Thucydides, for example, consistently joins αἴτιος with the simple 
infinitive (Birklein, p. 53), while other writers show a preference 
for τοῦ c. inf. after αἴτιος. 

A similar variety is found in Polybius. In the case of αἴτιος and 
ἐλπίς he prefers the genitive of the articular inf., but in other cases 
we often find both constructions side by side. Thus the genitive 
of the art. inf. is found with ἐξουσία in 9, 36, 10 δι᾽ obs ἔχετε τοῦ νῦν 
βουλεύεσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν: 3, 29,7 and 23, 14, 3, but the simple infini- 
tive is found 15, 26a, I ἐξουσίαν ἔσχε μηνῦσαι τὴν πρᾶξιν. 5, 56, 8 and 
32, 8, 7. 

ἔννοιαν λαμβάνειν 15, 1, 12 μὴ μόνον τοῦ νικᾶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ σφαλῆναι 
πάλιν, but with the simple infin. Frag. 153 εἰς ἔννοιαν ἦλθε τὴν φρουρὰν 

ἐπιβολή 5, 62, 7 τοῦ μὲν ἐκ χειρὸς βοηθεῖν οὐδ᾽ ἐπιβολὴν εἶχον. Com- 
pare Thuc. 5, 9, 6 τοῦ ἀπιέναι----τὴν διάνοιαν ἔχειν. But in Pol. 2, 11, 
2 τὴν πρώτην ἐπιβολὴν ἔσχε πλεῖν ὁ Tvaios ἐπὶ τῆς Κερκύρας, where πλεῖν is 
Reiske’s correction of πλεῖον. 

ὁρμή 15, 5, 8 εἰς ὁρμὴν ἔπεσε τοῦ βούλεσθαι συνελθεῖν, but in 6, 44, 4 
ὁρμὴ παραστῇ τοῖς ἐπιβάταις συμφρονεῖν. 

σημεῖον 28, 17, 12 σημεῖον τοῦ δεδιέναι τὴν περίστασιν τοὺς Ῥωμαίους. 
But 12, 6b, 3 οὐδέν ἐστι σημεῖον ψευδῆ λέγειν τὸν ᾿Αριστοτέλην. Hence 
Hultsch’s correction is not called for in 23, 13, 1 μέγιστον σημεῖον 
γεγονέναι τῇ φύσει ἡγεμονικόν, where he supplies τοῦ before γεγονέναι. 

Except ἔννοια and ἐπιβολή these nouns had all occurred in the 
construction with τοῦ c, inf. before Polybius, and the following also 
are classical phrases. See Weiske, pp. 497-8. 

ἐλπίς occurs 16 times in Polybius with τοῦ c. inf., six times in the 
phrase ἡ ἐλπὶς or ai ἐλπίδες τοῦ νικᾶν. The tense following it is 
noticeable; the future occurs twice, the aorist only once. 

(a) With present tense: 1, 49, 10 τῆς rod νικᾶν ἐλπίδα, 3, 64, 3. 
15, 11, 7. τὰς τοῦ νικᾶν ἐλπίδας 1, 62, 4. 16, 19, 10. 32, 2. τὴν τοῦ 
(ῆν ἐλπίδα 3, 63, το. 6, 9, 8. τοῦ δύνασθαι 2, 51, 2. 63, 2. and 4, 32, 
Ιο. And in 15, 25, 29. 37, I, 10. 

(4) Future tense: 3, 48, 2 τὰς μεγίστας ἐλπίδας ἔχων τοῦ κατορθώ- 
σειν τοῖς ὅλοις. 7, 15, 4 μίαν ταύτην ἔχοντας ἐλπίδα τοῦ κρατήσειν τῆς 

(¢) Aorist: 3, 17, 5 παρελέσθαι Ῥωμαίων τὴν ἐλπίδα τοῦ συστήσασθαι 
τὸν πόλεμον. 


αἰτία 4, 39, 7 and 11. 41, 3. II, 25, 2 18, 31, I. 23, 2, 6. 

33, 1, 5 τὴν αἰτίαν ἔσχε τοῦ μὴ συντελεσθῆναι τὴν axddvow. And in 
2, 38, 9 Hultsch? adopts the correction αἰτίαν for αἴτιον : ταύτην 
ἀρχηγὸν καὶ αἰτίαν ἡγητέον τοῦ---καταστήσασθαι. This correction rests 
on the parallel of 2, 21, 8. 

15, 34, 5 ἀδυναμία τοῦ βασιλεύειν ‘incapacity for.’ 22, 8, 8 ἀρχαὶ 
πρόδηλοι Tod συστάντος Ῥωμαίοις καὶ Περσεῖ πολέμου καὶ τοῦ καταλυθῆναι τὴν 
Μακεδόνων ἀρχήν. 3, 69, ὃ ἀφορμὴ τοῦ πράττειν τι. 1, 1, 2 διδάσκαλος 
τοῦ δύνασθαι---ὑποφέρειν. 6, 35, 12 and 56, 5 τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖται τοῦ 
κατὰ φιλακὴν βουκανᾶν. καιρός 1, 62, 6 τόν τε τοῦ νικᾶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ 
τὸν τοῦ λείπεσθαι καιρόν. 5, 98, 5 τοῦ πράττειν, ΤΟ, 19, 5 and 36, 5, 2. 

λόγον ἔχειν 18, 15, 15 τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, δοκοῦν πανουργότατον 
εἶναι τῶν ζῴων, πολὺν ἔχει λόγον τοῦ φαυλότατον ὑπάρχειν. “Μυϊΐα tamen 
dici posse cur stolidissimum habeatur”: Schweigh. 5, 111, 7 
καλὸν παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις ἀπέλιπε τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳδίαν ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐκ 
τῆς Εὐρώπης βαρβάρους τὴν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν διάβασιν. 1, 22, ὃ παρασκευὴ τοῦ 
ναυμαχεῖν. Frag. 76 τοῦ λέγειν ἀληθινῶς ταῦτα πίστις. 

πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι τοῦ c. inf.; cf. Demosth. 47, 806. Pol. 23, 17, 3 
πρόνοιαν πεποίηνται τοῦ μηθένα εἰσάγειν. 36, 8,4. Frag. 157. 

The genit. of the art. inf. after πρόνοιαν εἶχε is also restored with 
probability by Schweigh. in 11, 2. 10 οὐχ ἧττον πρόνοιαν εἶχε καὶ τοῦ 
σφαλεὶς τοῖς ὅλοις ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ μηδὲν ὑπομεῖναι τῶν προ- 
βεβαιωμένων ἀνάξιον. For καίτοι of the MSS Casaubon proposed τοῦ 
and Schweigh. καὶ rod. ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι is also a correction for ὅμως 

πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι is also joined by Polybius with περὶ τοῦ c. inf. 
(11, 31, 7) and ὑπὲρ τοῦ c. inf. (3, 87, 5. 5, 10, 7); cf Krebs, pp. 
42, 100. πρόφασις 3, 108, 5 πρόφασις τοῦ μὴ νικᾶν τοὺς ἐχθρούς, and 
4, 17,10. τέλος 4, 57, 11. χρόνος 3, 112, 5 ὁ τοῦ μέλλειν χρόνος. 

The following nouns occur in Polybius for the first time in this 

2, 40, 2 βεβαιώτην τοῦ μόνιμον αὐτὴν γενέσθαι Λυκόρταν ἡγητέον. Frag. 
112 τοῦ μνησικακεῖν οὐδ᾽ ἡντινοῦν ἔμφασιν ἐποίουν. καταρχή 15, 33, 1. 
τῆν κυρίαν ἔχειν 6, 15, 6. πεῖρα 8, 9, 6 τοῦ πολιορκεῖν πεῖραν λαβεῖν. 
συνηθέια 2, 20, 8 συνήθεια τοῦ κατακόπτεσθαι. 4, 76, 6 συνήθεια τοῦ 
μηδὲν ἡγεῖσθαι δεινόν. σύνθημα 8, 27, 3 ἐποιήσαντο σύνθημα τοῦ παραδέ- 
χεσθαι σφᾶς τοὺς φύλακας: “ὙΠΕΡ made an agreement that the 
guards should admit them.” Cf Dem. 56,1. τὴν ὁμολογίαν τοῦ 
ποιήσειν τὰ dixata. πρόληψις 16, 32,4 (The men of Abydos pre- 
ferred death) μᾶλλον ἢ ζῶντες ἔτι πρόληψιν ἔχειν τοῦ πεσεῖσθαι τὰ σφέτερα 
τέκνα ὑπὸ τὴν τῶν πολεμίων ἐξουσίαν. παράπτωσις 12, 25K, 10 χωρὶς τῆς 


ὅλης παραπτώσεως τοῦ διατεθεῖσθαι: an instance of the epexegetical 
genitive ‘the mistake consisting in.’ Compare the same con- 
struction with ἀμαθία, Plato Apol. 29B (Weiske). 

3. After Adjectives : 

αἴτιος : τοῦ ς. inf. is very common in classical prose after αἴτιος ; see 
Weiske, p. 501. It is frequent in Polybius, 6. g. 1, 40, 16 αἴτιος 
ἐδόκει γεγονέναι τοῦ πάλιν ἀναθαρρῆσαι. 9, 3, 9 τὸ wap’ ᾿Αννίβου σύνταγμα 
αἴτιον ἦν καὶ τοῦ νικᾶν τοὺς Καρχηδονίους καὶ τοῦ λείπεσθαι τοὺς 'Ρωμαίους. 
And 1, 43, 8. 57, 7. 12, 25k, 6. 13, 4, 8. 15, 33, 6. 21, 13, 10. 23, 
14, 6. 24, II, I. 27,15, 2. In frag. 184 αἴτιοι τοῦ is restored with 
great probability by Hultsch’s emendation of 7¢. See under the 
dative. ἀλλότριος 21, 11, 2. ἐμπόδιος 18, 22, 4. ἄπειρος τοῦ νεῖν 39, 
9; 12. κύριος 29, 9, 9. 

4. Genitive of Price. See Lammert, Fleck. Jahrb. 1888, p. 
621; Madvig, Syntax, §65b. 

In Polybius occurs the first instance of the genitive of the art. 
inf. used as a genitive of price. 3, 96, 12 λαβὼν map’ αὐτῶν χρήματα 
Tov μὴ πορθῆσαι τὴν χώραν, ἀπηλλάγη. 29, 8, 5 ὁ μὲν yap Εὐμένης gree 
τοῦ (MSS ra) μὲν ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν καὶ μὴ συστρατεῦσαι Ῥωμαίους μήτε κατὰ 
γῆν μήτε κατὰ θάλατταν πεντακόσια τάλαντα, τοῦ δὲ διαλῦσαι τὸν πόλεμον 
χίλια πεντακόσια x. τι 4. Compare $7 αἰσχρὸν εἶναι τὸ δοκεῖν μισθοῦ τὴν 
ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν. 

5. Final Genitive. 

The use of the articular infinitive in the genitive to express 
purpose (and sometimes result) is remarkable as being the only 
case-construction which is peculiar to the articular infinitive and 
not shared with it by substantives. Birklein, p. 55, enumerates 
the different theories of its origin and gives his support to 
that propounded by Kviczala (Wiener Studien, I, p. 239), by 
whom this genitive is connected with the Latin absolute genitive 
of the gerundive, According to this view, from denoting the 
sphere to which anything belongs, the genitive of the articular 
infin. or the gerundive comes to be used attributively with sub- 
stantives and then in free relation to verbs and a whole sentence. 

In classical authors the usage is never acommon one. Thucy- 
dides, with whom the final genitive first occurs, employs it oftener 
(proportionally) than the other classical prosaists, and usually 
with the negative ; τοῦ μὴ c. inf. occurring 10 times, rod without μὴ 
only twice. In all, there are 33 instances in Thuc., Demosth., 
Lysias, Plato and Xenophon, of which 8 only are affirmative. See 
Birklein, p. 102; Weiske, p. 502, As expressions of purpose 


with the articular infin. other constructions were preferred to the 
genitive by classical authors, Thucydides excepted, évexa rod and 
ἐπὶ τῷ being favored by Demosthenes, ἕνεκα rod by Plato and 
Xenophon, while Isocrates used ὑπὲρ τοῦ exclusively. With Poly- 
bius, the final genitive occurs 11 times, but is only one among 
several expressions of purpose with the articular infinitive; the 
others being πρὸς τὸ, εἰς τὸ, ἐπὶ τῷ, ἕνεκα τοῦ, and χάριν τοῦ c. infin., of 
which the last, with 78 occurrences, is the favorite. The negative 
is found with the final genitive in every case but one; τοῦ μὴ c. inf. 
occurs I, 12, 6. 2, 34, I. 4, 18, 11. 5, 31, 3. 102, 6. 7, 16, 7. 9, 36, 
1. 18, 35, 3. 21, 25, 7. 28, 8, 6, and the only affirmative instance is 
12, 28a, 2. 

Before discussing these cases mention should be made of the 
ingenious but unsuccessful attempt of E. Lammert, Fleck. Jhb. 
1888, p. 617, to remove every instance of the final genitive of the 
art. inf. from Polybius. In all the above-quoted cases except 9, 
36, 1 and 21, 25, 7, which he omits to notice, L. gets rid of final 
rod c. inf. by alteration of the text, generally by inserting χάριν. He 
suspects the final use in Polybius a priord from the preponder- 
ance of χάριν in final clauses, the preference of Polybius for prepo- 
sitional constructions, and the rare use of final τοῦ c. inf. in classical 
Greek. In doing so, however, he fails to take into account the 
other final uses of the art. inf. in Polybius besides χάριν τοῦ c. inf, 
and understates the frequency of the final genitive in classical 
prose. In reality the final τοῦ c. inf. passages in Polybius are too 
many to admit of the shadow of a doubt of their genuineness. 

In 5, 102, 6 καὶ συνυποκριθεὶς ὡς ἐμβαλῶν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ηλείαν τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν 
λίαν ἕτοιμος εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πολέμου κατάλυσιν, μετὰ ταῦτα κ. τ. λ., rely- 
ing on the analogy of 8, 26, 6 κατηγορίας ποιούμενοι χάριν τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν, 
and 14, 2, 12 τὴν ἀποστολὴν ἐποιήσατο χάριν τοῦ μὴ δόξαι παρασπονδεῖν, 
Lammert thinks that χάριν should be inserted before τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν. 
And against each of the several instances of final rod c. inf. in 
Polybius he employs similar arguments drawn from Polybius’ 
phraseology in other passages. ‘At vero,’ as Hultsch asks in his 
Praef.? xxx, ‘ex ullo dicendi usu vel frequentissimo quem nos 
recentiores in aliquo scriptore antiquo observavimus, effici 
posse, ut ille omnibus eius generis locis eundem usum unice 
amplexus nihil. praeterea, quod et apte diceretur et ornate, 
admiserit, quis est qui contendat?’ In this particular case, as it 
happens, we can point to another passage, which L. has over- 
looked, where the same phrase τοῦ μὴ δόξαι is found in the final 


sense: 9, 36, I περὶ δὲ τῶν κατ᾽ ’Avriyovoy ἕως τούτου βούλομαι ποιή- 
σασθαι τὴν μνήμην [gas] τοῦ μὴ δόξαι καταφρονεῖν τῶν γεγονότων. In spite 
of Kalker (p. 274) and Stich (p. 210), who defend the text, there 
can here be no doubt that Hultsch is right in bracketing the second 
ἕως as spurious. The sense requires a final clause to follow ποιή- 
σασθαι τὴν μνήμην, and ἕως τοῦ cannot stand; and for final clauses 
following τὴν μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι Compare I, 20, 8. 2, 71, 4. 3, 7, 4 with 
χάριν, and 2, 35,6 with ἵνα. Assuming, on the other hand, the 
original reading to have been: ἕως τούτου βούλομαι ποιήσασθαι τὴν 
μνήμην, τοῦ μὴ δόξαι x. τ. A., we See how easily a scribe to whom the 
final genitive was unfamiliar would regard rod μὴ δόξαι as in appo- 
sition to ἕως τούτου and would be led to supply ἕως before τοῦ. In 
this way the passage provides us with a powerful argument against 
Lammert, for the presence of the spurious ἕως before the final 
genitive shows that χάριν can never have stood there. Hultsch 
is followed by Krebs P-A., I, p. 52,and Gétzeler, p. 26. See 
Hultsch, Fleck. Jahrb. 1884, p. 477. 

18, 35, 3 μαρτυρίας δὲ χάριν ὁμολογούμενα δύ᾽ ὀνόματα . . . τοῦ μὴ 
δοκεῖν ἀδόνατα λέγειν" Λεύκιος μὲν γὰρ κι τι A. Here τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν also 
occurs, after a lacuna which is by Reiske filled up with πὰραθήσομαι 
OF mapéEopa.’ 1, 12, 6 ἐποιησάμεθα τὴν ἐπίστασιν, ἀναδραμόντες ἔτι τοῖς ᾿ 
χρόνοις, τοῦ μηδὲν ἀπόρημα καταλιπεῖν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀποδείξεων. Here L. 
inserts χάριν on the analogy of 37, 9, 7 χάριν τοῦ καταλιπεῖν. 

28,8, 6 ὁ Τένθιος οὐκ ἐδόκει μὲν ἀλλότριος εἶναι τῆς φιλίας, ἐσκήπτετο δὲ 
τοῦ μὴ παραχρῆμα συγκατατίθεσθαι τοῖς ἀξιουμένοις τὴν ἀχορηγησίαν καὶ μὴ 
δύνασθαι χωρὶς χρημάτων ἀναδέξασθαι τὸν πόλεμον. Lammert in inserting 
χάριν before τοῦ μὴ in this passage, quotes, it is true, the following, 
where χάριν τοῦ c. inf. follows σκήπτομαι or a phrase of similar import: 
39, 12, 11. 8, 28, I. 5, 74, 9.18, 11, 8. On the other hand, we find 
after συνυποκριθεὶς final rod c. inf. in 5, 102, 6; after οὐκ ἠπόρουν 

1 Lammert’s proposal here is very ingenious but hardly probable ; com- 
paring 6, 54, 6 he inserts a line and reads: 

μαρτυρίας δὲ χάριν [καὶ] 
τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν ἀδύνατα 
λέγειν͵ ὁμολογούμενα δύ᾽ 
««ἀρκοῦντ᾽ ἔσται ῥηθέντ᾽» 
ὀνόματα κ. τ. A, 

To support this emendation parallels from Polybius are wanted of ἀρκοῦν 
ἐστί used absolutely ; in the passage L. quotes 6, 54, 6, and in 2, 56, 5 it is 
followed by πρός. 


σκήψεων have πρὸς τὸ c. inf. in 3, 68, 9, and 29, 24, 3 σκῆψιν οὖσαν πρὸς 
τὸ Stax@ddoat.* 

7, 16. 7 τοῦ δὲ μὴ γενέσθαι μηδεμίαν ὑποψίαν τῆς ἀληθείας διέδωκε 
λόγον κι τι A. Ly. here quotes χάριν τοῦ γενέσθαι in 5, 88, 6. 38, 9, 2. 
He has a much more complicated proposal in 5, 31, 3 and 4 
αἱρουμένοι δὲ τοιαύτην ἐπίστασιν καὶ διαίρεσιν τῆς ἐνεστώσης διηγήσεως " τοῦ 
μὲν γὰρ μὴ τῆς τῶν κατὰ μέρος καιρῶν ἀκριβείας διαμαρτάνειν τοὺς ἀκούοντας 
ἱκανὴν τοῖς φιλομαθοῦσι πεπείσμεθα παρασκευάζειν ἐμπειρίαν ἐκ τοῦ---παρυ- 
πομιμνήσκειν. τὸ δ᾽ εὐπαρακολούθητον γίνεσθαι x. τ. λα For the first 
of these two clauses, τοῦ μὲν γὰρ μὴ διαμαρτάνειν, Compare 3, 21, 9 
ἡμῖν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ μὴ παραλιπεῖν ἄσκεπτον τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, ἵνα μήτε, 
οἷς καθήκει καὶ διαφέρει τὸ σαφῶς εἰδέναι τὴν ἀκρίβειαν, παραπαίωσι τῆς 
ἀληθείας ---- μήθ᾽ οἱ φιλομαθοῦντες ἀστοχῶσι. And for the second clause, 
τὸ δ᾽ εὐπαρακ. κι τ᾿ Δ., See under the accusative. For Lammert’s 
proposal see his paper, p. 621. 

21, 25, 7 ἀπήγαγε τὴν στρατιὰν εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν, δοκῶν ἠσφαλίσθαι τὰ 
κατὰ τὴν Αἰτωλίαν τοῖς προειρημένοις ἔθνεσι καὶ τόποις τοῦ μηδένα δύνασθαι 
κακοποιεῖν τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν. This is an instance of final τοῦ c. inf. 
which has escaped Lammert’s clutches, and there are no parallel 
cases of χάριν to favor the supposition of its having dropped out 

4, 18, 11 οἱ δὲ Δουσιᾶται νουνεχῶς δόντες τινὰ τῶν κατασκευασμάτων τῆς 
θεοῦ, παρῃτήσαντο τὴν τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ἀσέβειαν [ καὶ] τοῦ μηδὲν παθεῖν ἀνήκεστον. 
καὶ is read in the MSS, but is marked as suspicious by the ‘ prima 
manus’ of the Vatican; and Hultsch brackets καὶ, and is followed 
by Krebs P-A, I 53 note. See Hultsch, Fleck. Jahr. 1884, p. 
744. Lammert suggests that καὶ is a corruption of ἕνεκα, or that 
a whole line has been lost. 

2, 34, τ ἔσπευσαν of κατασταθέντες ὕπατοι Μάρκος Κλαύδιος καὶ Tvaios 
Κορνήλιος τοῦ μὴ συγχωρηθῆναι τὴν εἰρήνην αὐτοῖς. 

Lammert makes out what is prima facie a strong case against 
the genuineness of final τοῦ c. inf. in this passage. He attacks it 
on the ground that σπεύδω and σπουδάζω are never used absolutely 
in Polybius, but are found either with an infinitive, or with a prepo- 
sitional phrase like ὑπὲρ or περὶ τούτου τοῦ μέρους followed by a final 
sentence with ἵνα or ὡς (cf. 4, 51, 2. 5, 104, 9, etc.), or with ὑπὲρ τοῦ, 
περὶ τοῦ C. inf., as in 16, 17, 10. 22, 4, 4. This statement of usage 
is not quite correct. σπεύδω is, it is true, regularly joined with the 
simple infinitive in Polybius, but I have found no passage except 

1 Gotzeler, p. 25, mistakes the final genitive in 28, 8,6 for a genitive 
governed by σκήπτομαι, which would be unique. 


the one L. quotes (4, 51, 2) where σπεύδω is used with ὑπὲρ or περὶ 
rovrou—iva. In the other passages quoted by L. σπουδάζω is the 
verb, and where the question is purely one of usage, cases of σπου- 
δάζω cannot be quoted to support a rule as to σπεύδω. Further, 
σπεύδω is never in Polybius joined like σπουδάζω with ὑπὲρ or περὶ 
τοῦ c. inf., so that there is no support from Polybius’ usage for one 
of L.’s suggestions here, namely, to read ὑπὲρ τοῦ py. Lastly, it is 
incorrect to say that σπεύδω is never used absolutely in Polybius ; 
cf. 3, 78, 5 σπεύδοντας δὲ καὶ μετεώρους ὄντας εἰς τὴν πολεμίαν. 3, 92, 5 
Φάβιος δὲ μεχρὶ μὲν τοῦ συνάψαι τοῖς τόποις ἔσπευδε. 3, 92, 4 σπεύδειν 
ᾧοντο δεῖν καὶ συνάπτειν εἰς τὰ πέδια. Thus there is no reason why 
σπεύδω Should not be absolute here, with a final τοῦ c. inf., for in 
classical Greek σπεύδω may be so used with iva and the subjunctive. 
Plato Polit. 264a; Isocr. 75a.’ 

In 12, 28a, 3 Lammert’s case against final τοῦ c. inf. is much com- 
pleter than in the other instances. It appears that ὑπομένειν τι is 
always joined by Polybius with χάριν τοῦ c. inf., and so L. inserts 
χάριν here: αὐτὸς γοῦν τηλικαύτην ὑπομεμενηκέναι δαπάνην καὶ κακοπάθειαν 
τοῦ συνάγειν τὰ ὑπομνήματα. He compares 18, 46, 14 πᾶσαν ὑπομεῖναι 
δαπάνην καὶ πάντα κίνδυνον χάριν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. And πᾶν ὑπομένειν χάριν 
τοῦ c. inf. he quotes from 1, 48, 9. 4, 31, 3. 6, 54, 3. 52, II. 29, 9, 12 
(to which add 21, 33, 7 πᾶν ὑπομένειν χάριν τῆς ἐλευθερίας). τἄλλα 
ὑπομένειν χάριν τοῦ Cc. inf. 6, 42,5. And 29, 7, 4 πᾶν τι ἐπιδεχομένων χάριν 
τοῦ τὸν πόλεμον διαλύσασθαι. In 1, 31, 8. 4, 76, 7 where ἐφ᾽ 6c. inf. 
follows ὑπομένειν, it is in reality dependent upon πεῖραν λαμβάνειν, 
which, as 27, 15, 15 shows, Polybius is fond of joining with ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
c. inf. In this case there is some probability in Lammert’s con- 
jecture χάριν τοῦ, particularly as τοῦ συνάγειν is the only instance of 
the affirmative final genitive in Polybius, all the others being 
instances of τοῦ μὴ c. inf.”. 

1Stich (de P. dicendi genere, p. 154) and K4lker, p. 283, are not justified 
in assuming that σπεύδω here governs a genitive of the art. inf., as ἐφίεμαι, 
ὀρέγομαι, etc., for in that case we should expect to find the same construction 
with substantives, which we do not. 

2In two corrupt passages final τοῦ c. inf. has been proposed: 10, 46, 3 
τὸ δὲ βάθος (παραπεφράχθαι dei) ὡς ἀνδρόμηκες, Td τοὺς πυρσοὺς αἰρομένους μὲν Tapa 
ταῦτα τὴν φάσιν ἀκριβῇ ποιεῖν, καθαιρουμένους δὲ τὴν κρύψιν. Here for τὸ Hultsch 
reads τοῦ and Krebs (P-A, I 53, note 1) supports him. Casaubon proposed 
ἐς τὸ, Dindorf εἰς τὸ, and this is the more likely. See under εἰς τὸ c, inf. 

4, 74, 8 οὐδέποτε πρότερον εὐφυεστέραν διάθεσιν ἔσχηκε τῆς VOY... παρὰ πάντων 
ὁμολογουμένην κτήσασθαι τὴν ἀσυλίαν. Were Casaubon added πρὸς τὸ after τῆς 
νῦν; but Scaliger proposed τοῦ, which Krebs 1. c. prefers. Hultsch is, 


For the later history of final τοῦ c. inf. see Krebs, P-A, I 54; it 
occurs with great frequency in the Septuagint and the New Testa- 

6. Comparative Genitive. 

The genitive of the infinitive after a comparative is frequent in 
classical authors, especially in Xen., Plato and Demosth. See 
Weiske, p. 501; Birklein, pp. 78, 88. In Polybius it occurs 15 
times, in 7 of which the comparative is negatived. 2, 7, 10 οὐδὲν 
προυργιαίτερον ἐποιήσατο τοῦὔ---ἐμβαλεῖν. Thus, too, after οὐδὲν mpoup- 
γιαίτερον ποιεῖσθαι in 4, 66, 2. 8, 27, 6. προυργιαίτερον 29, 9, 7. οὐδὲν 
ἀναγκαιότερον 5, 31, 4. 8, 34, 4. οὐδὲν αἴσχιον 6, 56, 2. περὶ πλείονος 
ποιεῖσθαι 18, 53, 2. And 2, 61, 3. 3,8, 10. 81, 1. 111,2. 9, 14, IO. 
30, 7, 8. 

In 2, 64, 6 οὐδὲν περὶ πλείονος ποιούμενος τοῦ κατὰ λόγον Ἐχρήσασθαι 
*rois πράγμασιν, the MSS give τὸν κατὰ λόγον πράγμασιν A’, τοῖς κι Δ. 
mp. ATR. The alteration τοῦ, and the addition of χρήσασθαι τοῖς is 
due to Schweigh. and adopted by Hultsch (q. v.) It is supported 
by the numerous cases quoted above of a negatived comparative 
with τοῦ c. inf.; but Krebs’ proposal τοῦ κατὰ λόγον χειρισμοῦ τῶν 
πραγμάτων is attractive (Prap. bei P., p. 140). 

7. Genitive Absolute. 

τοῦ c. inf. as subject in the genitive absolute is never common, 
and though it occurs but 7 times in Polybius it is more frequent 
with him than with any of the Attics; see Weiske, p. 502. 1, 60, 
I παρὰ τὴν ὑπόνοιαν προσπεσόντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ πεπλευκέναι στόλῳ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους. 
6, 24, 7 ἀδήλου γὰρ ὄντος καὶ τοῦ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῦ παθεῖν τι τὸν ἡγεμόνα. 18, 
34,7 ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τῆς δωροδοκίας ἐπιπολαζούσης καὶ τοῦ μηδένα 
μηδὲν δωρεὰν πράττειν. And 10, 36, 1. 12, 6, 4. 15, 30, %'/ 


however, right in following Casaubon, not because the negative is absent 
here also, but because πρὸς is the correct expression after εὐφυής. See below 
under πρός. 

1Kalker, p. 253, notes that, fond as Polybius was of the articular infini- 
tive, ‘ne huic quidem usui ita indulsit, ut hiatum admitteret’; and com- 
pares 1, 60, 1 (quoted above) with 3, 40, 2 προσπεσόντος ’AvviBay διαβεβηκέναι. 
But with προσπεσόντος the simple infinitive is the usual construction ; see 
Gétzeler’s list, p. 26, from which it appears that the simple infinitive occurs, 
6. g. 5, 62, 4 προσπεσόντος αὐτῷ τὸν μὲν Πτολεμαῖον ἐξεληλυθέναι, and 2, 54, το. 
5, 46, 5. 7, 3.7. 10, 42, I, in all of which τοῦ might have stood without caus- 
ing a hiatus. On this point of avoidance of hiatus see below under πρός, 
and Bittner-Wobst, Fleck. Jahrb. 1884, p. 115.