¹ From late Greek, Krüger on Thuc. 1.30 cites Plut. Ages. 13 and Cato 6

² If Kühner-Gerth (§426.2) were correct in citing Thuc. 7.9.1 as there would be four. According to the editio maior of Hude, however, there is no such variant from the manuscript reading, I have seen no other parallel cited by the editors on the three passages themselves and none but these three is given by Brown in his Case Constructions of Words of Time, which contains a list of all nouns of a temporal signification in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, and the Hellenica and Anabasis of Xenophon.

³ So Stein, Abicht, Merriam, and Macan on Herodotus; Krüger and Steup on Thucydides; Marchant and Büchsenschütz on Xenophon.

⁴ I have not considered the passages from either an historical or a paleographic point of view. I have followed in the Xenophon and Thucydides passages the reading accepted by the best modern editors. All three have caused controversy on historical grounds, but this controversy does not affect the syntactical problem. If my explanation should be accepted, the historical problem would remain, though it would no longer be possible to dogmatize about which part of the year or the season was intended.

⁵ There are also a few genitive absolutes of similar meaning and function; e.g. Xen. Hell. 4.8.18 and 4.8.35 Plutarch, Ages. 14 Hdt. 2.121.a2 and 4.155.1 4.72.1 The use of the aorist alters the meaning somewhat, as in Pl. Laws 760 d ‘when the year is over’.

The use of πεπi and -προ- does not reflect any fundamental difference in meaning. The choice depends upon whether time is thought of as moving in a circular (or elliptical) course or in a straight line towards infinity.