Use of αὐτός in Arrian's preface to Epictetus, Discourses

[Stephen Carlson]

I'm going through Arrian's preface to Epictetus, Discourses, and I've noticed that he tends to use αὐτός more frequently and more idiomatically than NT authors. Here's an example:

2 ὅσα δὲ ἤκουον αὐτοῦ λέγοντος, ταῦτα αὐτὰ ἐπειράθην αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν γραψάμενος ὑπομνήματα εἰς ὕστερον ἐμαυτῷ διαφυλάξαι τῆς ἐκείνον διανοίας καὶ παρρησίας.

ταῦτα αὐτὰ = LSJ αὐτός A.I.7 "freq. coupled with οὗτος"; no gloss, but CGCG § 29.12(29) suggests just these. This usage is limited to the neuter singular in the NT, see BDAG αύτός 1g: "... αὐτὸ τοῦτο just this, the very same thing".

αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν = LSJ αὐτός A.I.5 "in dat. with Subst., in one, together, ... and all. (I don't see this usage mentioned in BDAG.) Hard 2014 (OUP) translates this expression as "in his own words," but I think Arrian is saying "with terms and all."

Thoughts? Comments?

[Barry Hofstetter]

αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν = "in the words themselves," i.e., "in his very own words." ταῦτα αὐτὰ = "these very things" not quite the same as τὰ αὐτά but more specific. The usage of αὐτός here is simply the emphatic, and you appear to be overthinking it a bit looking for precise parallels in LSJ.

I also liked the use of the supplementary participle γραψάμενος instead of the infinitive, and the very Attic οἷόν τε ἦν.

[Stephen Carlson]

αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν = "in the words themselves," i.e., "in his very own words."

These glosses are perfectly fine if the text had instead read αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, but ὀνόμασιν here is indefinite. That has to be taken into account.

[Barry Hofstetter]

αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν = "in the words themselves," i.e., "in his very own words."

These glosses are perfectly fine if the text had instead read αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, but ὀνόμασιν here is indefinite. That has to be taken into account.

Perhaps, but I read it as the first mention of the noun, so that the article would be optional even if understood as definite.

[Stephen Carlson]

αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν = "in the words themselves," i.e., "in his very own words."

These glosses are perfectly fine if the text had instead read αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, but ὀνόμασιν here is indefinite. That has to be taken into account.

Perhaps, but I read it as the first mention of the noun, so that the article would be optional even if understood as definite.

There is no rule that the article is “optional” with first mentions. There are patterns of usages, of course, but the anarthrous uses don’t seem to apply here.

[Stephen Carlson]

A lurker has very helpfully pointed me to Smyth 1525 and says that he associates the construction with the classical historians, esp. Xenophon, and often with the element of destruction.

1525. With αὐτός.—The idea of accompaniment is often expressed by αὐτός joined to the dative. This use is common when the destruction of a person or thing is referred to. Thus, ““τῶν ϝεῶν μία αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν” one of the ships with its crew” T. 4.14, ““εἶπεν ἥκειν εἰς τὰ_ς τάξεις αὐτοῖς στεφάνοις” he bade them come to their posts, crowns and all” X. C. 3.3.40. The article after αὐτός is rare; and σύν is rarely added (X. C. 2.2.9). Hom. has this dative only with lifeless objects.

If so, this construction would be of fairly limited distribution and the lack of destruction in the context is a vote against it. As Arrian himself is an Atticizing historian, I suppose the door is not completely shut, but I’d have to get a better feel for his language to confirm whether this is a construction he uses or eschews.

[Jean Putmans]

Schwyzer has this in his Vol II (1950) as "Komitativ" (comitative case, in idg. Languages without morphological own form, according to Wikipedia there are languages with specific forms for this case: Russian, Finnish, Ungarian etc.)) on page 159: it's not especially limited to destruction but in general an event, happening to/undertaken by more than one person: "The mastercarpenter builds the furniture with his personal" would also be a comitative. (also: Kühner-Gerth, Vol. I, page 430 § 425 A).

[Daniel Semler]

A lurker has very helpfully pointed me to Smyth 1525 and says that he associates the construction with the classical historians, esp. Xenophon, and often with the element of destruction.

1525. With αὐτός.—The idea of accompaniment is often expressed by αὐτός joined to the dative. This use is common when the destruction of a person or thing is referred to. Thus, ““τῶν ϝεῶν μία αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν” one of the ships with its crew” T. 4.14, ““εἶπεν ἥκειν εἰς τὰ_ς τάξεις αὐτοῖς στεφάνοις” he bade them come to their posts, crowns and all” X. C. 3.3.40. The article after αὐτός is rare; and σύν is rarely added (X. C. 2.2.9). Hom. has this dative only with lifeless objects.

If so, this construction would be of fairly limited distribution and the lack of destruction in the context is a vote against it. As Arrian himself is an Atticizing historian, I suppose the door is not completely shut, but I’d have to get a better feel for his language to confirm whether this is a construction he uses or eschews.

CGCG has this which says much the same but doesn't mention destruction

29.12 Some further idiomatic uses of αὐτός:

...
...
...

– with... and all (with the dative of accompaniment, →30.51): (32) εἶπεν... ἥκειν εἰς τὰς τάξεις αὐτοῖς στεφάνοις. (Xen. Cyr. 3.3.40) He told them to come to their posts with crowns and all.

( bold is original )

And 30.51:

30.51 The dative of accompaniment, without preposition, is used almost exclusively with military terminology to denote accompaniment (in other cases, a preposition is normally used): (94) πέντε δὲ ἔλαβον, καὶ μίαν τούτων αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν. (Thuc. 4.14.1) They captured five (ships), one of them with crew and all. For this use of αὐτός, →29.12.

(95) οἱ... Ἀθηναῖοι ἀπίκοντο εἴκοσι νηυσί. (Hdt. 5.99.1) The Athenians arrived with twenty ships.

I'm not sure this matches the Arrian case much better though. And it doesn't really get at the function of αὐτός. If the translation of “τῶν ϝεῶν μία αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν” is correct this feels like a form of attraction, but that's possible just how the translation reads as possessive.

The Thucydides appears to be quoting different texts in Smyth and CGCG:

CGCG:
πέντε δὲ ἔλαβον, καὶ μίαν τούτων αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν. (Thuc. 4.14.1)
They captured five (ships), one of them with crew and all.

Smyth
“τῶν ϝεῶν μία αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν” one of the ships with its crew” T. 4.14
"one of the ships with its crew”

And they appear to handle αὐτός differently.

When I read the Epictetus I basically read the αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν as a single unit. CGCG would appear to treat them, above in Th 4.14, as an asyndeton - "with the things and men".

Thx
D