18 Stratton L. Ladewig Middle voice is said to comprise some specific forms or tenses like the active perfect with passive meaning or the middle aorist with active meaning, and excludes these same active perfects when they have active meaning (for they are then active) and these same ‘middle’ aorists (with passive endings!), when they have passive ... meaning (for they are then passive)54. It seems that uses B.1 and B.2 are simply a variation of uses A.1 and A.2, respectively55. As a result, the nuances of voice from Macrobius are not mutually exclusive. Use B seems to reflect the exception to the normal use of voice56. Use B.2 is particularly pertinent to our discussion of deponency. Here we observe verbs whose function does not match their form. A passive form is used to indicate an active meaning, and the passive meaning is subverted. Macrobius even calls these deponentia. In this discussion, the influence of Macrobius’ Latin is felt, inasmuch as Macrobius (1) is writing in Latin and (2) compares Greek’s communia to Latin’s deponen- tia57. As with the previous use, notice that the variation occurs either (1) in the entire paradigm of a particular verb or (2) only in some stem(s) of a particular verb. Third, with regard to use C (ambiguous category), we observe (1) some verbs that are perfect active in form but which function (a) sometimes as actives and (b) at other times as passives and (2) some verbs that are aorist middle but which function (a) sometimes as actives and (b) at other times as passives. This is a broad category that encompasses the other uses of the middle voice58. These uses recognized by Macrobius span the entire gamut of uses of the middle voice in ancient grammatical discussions. Thus, his treatment is broad and informed. He articulates in a clear fashion what previous grammarians described but were not yet able to vocalize. In particular, use B — middle implies discrepancy between form and meaning — cor- responds with the traditional understanding of deponency. This is not to say that Macrobius articulated a grammatical category for the first 54 Signes-Codoñer, “Definitions of Middle Voice”, 16. Andersen also understands Dionysius Thrax in this way (Andersen, “Dionysios Thrax’s Concept of ‘Diáthesis’”, 1-37). See the discussion above in n 22 on p. 12 regarding Andersen’s understanding of Technē Grammatikē. 55 Signes-Codoñer, “Definitions of Middle Voice”, 16, 18. 56 Signes-Codoñer calls this “a grammatical oddity” (Signes-Codoñer, “Definitions of Middle Voice”, 16). 57 “Accordingly, through Def. B.2 the middle verbs are somehow equated with the deponents, for which Greek grammarians never developed a specific category until the Renaissance” (Signes-Codoñer, “Definitions of Middle Voice”, 18). 58 Signes-Codoñer, “Definitions of Middle Voice”, 19, 21.