Ancient Witnesses on Deponency in Greek 19 time and named it deponency. After all, I have already documented the similarities between the description of voice between Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius. Macrobius recognized this use of the verb as describing what his predecessors had also described, but he was able to apply a label to this category. The application of a label did not create the category; it simply provided terminology, a tool, for dis- cussing the phenomenon. Therefore, Macrobius, like Greek grammarians who preceded him, recognized the relationship between the subject and the action or state of the verb as a phenomenon in which there is occa- sionally variation or irregularity, and he was able to apply a label to this situation — deponentia. 5. Summary and Conclusion Within the ancient period of Greek grammatical studies, we surveyed three grammarians: Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Ma- crobius. Dionysius Thrax, whose work was defended as authentic, laid a foundation for grammar study that has supported the next eighteen hundred years. He articulated the existence of three voices: active, middle, and passive. Furthermore, he described an incongruity between the form and function of the verb’s voice. By doing so, it seems that the way for deponency was paved. Next, Apollonius Dyscolus, although not using the term ‘deponent’, seemed to describe it. He observed the situation in which there was a mismatch between the verb’s form and function. In particular, the verb’s form was middle/passive with an active function, while the active form was seized by the middle form. Thirdly, Macro- bius was a grammarian important to the investigation of deponency not only because of his work on Greek grammar but also because of his knowledge of Latin. His treatment of voice was broad and informed. It was Macrobius who first put a term to the verbal phenomenon observed by Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus: deponentia. In conclusion, the origins of deponency were demonstrated to be ar- chaic by our investigation into the ancient witness. The survey of the his- tory of deponency has seen a progression in the formulation of thought. The common thread that has been observed throughout this article is the wrestling with the situation in which there is a disjunction between the form and function of the verb’s voice. Robins captures the nature of the development nicely. In the pioneering stage of any subject one cannot expect systematic de- velopments or consistent tidiness of method; systemization comes later, at