Acharnians 377 - what is ἐμαυτον doing here?

[Phoebus Apollo]

αὐτός τ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν ὑπὸ Κλέωνος ἅπαθον
ἐπίσταμαι διὰ τὴν πέρυσι κωμῳδίαν.

my translation is: 'And I myself know what I have suffering at the hands of Cleon because of...'
I don't see how ἐμαυτον fits in, nor why it is accusative?
Any help would be appreciated!

[anphph]

[Insufficient answer.]

[mwh]

It’s the object of επίσταμαι, expanded by the relative clause. “And I have personal knowledge of myself, how I was treated by Cleon.” Cf. the “I know thee who thou art” construction.

[Phoebus Apollo]

It’s the object of επίσταμαι, expanded by the relative clause. “And I have personal knowledge of myself, how I was treated by Cleon.” Cf. the “I know thee who thou art” construction.

Thank you!

[ἑκηβόλος]

ἅπαθον

What is this form? A contraction of ἃ ἔπαθον?

[mwh]

Yes. Technically, crasis (κρᾶσις), since it involves two separate words, which merge at the vowel juncture between them. In prose, words in crasis are normally written separately, but in ordinary speech they will have coalesced, just as they do here. A single long vowel results.

So when we meet things like καὶ ἐκεῖνος and τὰ ἄλλα and ὁ ἀνήρ we should pronounce them κἀκεῖνος and τἄλλα and ἁνήρ (with long alpha).

—But this belongs in a different thread!

[ἑκηβόλος]

Okay then, but that raises a couple of questions:

ὑπὸ Κλέωνος ἅπαθον

So... does the word order mean that the agent of his suffering not actually in the parenthetical relative clause?

Re-stressing the OP question as, "What is the ἐμαυτον doing HERE?" - word order, rather than syntactic function - I am also asking, What is the ὑπὸ Κλέωνος doing here?

[Hylander]

What is the ὑπὸ Κλέωνος doing here?

ὑπὸ Κλέωνος is a complement of ἅπαθον (επαθον). The word order fronts an important element of the relative clause and places it before the relative pronoun, even though syntactically it's a complement of the verb of the relative clause.

This is very common in ancient Greek, both in prose and poetry.

In English, of course, where there is minimal noun inflection, syntactic relationships are conveyed by word order, and an element of a relative clause generally must be placed in a specific position in relation to the verb of a relative clause -- and "inside" the relative clause -- to convey the syntax. That's not how Greek works, however. Ancient Greek is not constrained by the same syntactic rules, especially those relating to word order, as English.

It's misleading to think of ὑπὸ Κλέωνος as "outside" the relative clause.

In this case, the word order juxtaposes αὐτός τ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν with ὑπὸ Κλέωνος, a stylistic/rhetorical effect, possible in ancient Greek but not in English.

[mwh]

Yes, υπο Κλεωνος—unlike εμαυτον—syntactically belongs inside the relative clause. In prose it would most probably be put there; but the displacement is very minor. I wouldn’t say such word order is “very common in ancient Greek, both in prose and poetry,” for relative pronouns do regularly stand at the head of their clauses, but it’s not all that exceptional in Aristophanic verse, which is very close to ordinary speech but of course is metrically conditioned. (There’s a strong inhibition against ἃ ὑπὸ.) The phrase’s position here does have the effect of giving it slightly greater salience.

The relative clause should not be regarded as “parenthetical.” It’s an integral part of the sentence.

[ἑκηβόλος]

The word order fronts an important element of the relative clause and places it before the relative pronoun, even though syntactically it's a complement of the verb of the relative clause.

The relative clause should not be regarded as “parenthetical.” It’s an integral part of the sentence.

If not parenthetical, are ἐμαυτὸν and the relative clause with a (metrically conditioned) fronted element ὑπὸ Κλέωνος ἅπαθον διὰ τὴν πέρυσι κωμῳδίαν syntactically a double accusative with αὐτὸς ἐπίσταμαι - "I know better than anyone else the things that I went through at the hands of this Cleon because of last year's drama and how they affected me."?

[mwh]

Inasmuch as they’re both accusative, yes. But the relative clause is an expansion of εμαυτον, as I said, and carries the main weight. The construction could be compared with the Homeric “He hit him (acc.) arm (acc.).” The first acc. gives the essential fact, the second the detail.

[ἑκηβόλος]

... are ἐμαυτὸν and the relative clause ... a double accusative with ... ἐπίσταμαι

Inasmuch as they’re both accusative, yes.

Thanks. Just from a quick look at LSJ on Perseus, I see the naïvety of my question. I was thinking to vaguely about what it means to know something about somebody. The examples in LSJ do not include a "double accusative" construction where some attribute of the noun is explicated, nor any other example with two accusatives.

But the relative clause is an expansion of εμαυτον, as I said, and carries the main weight. The construction could be compared with the Homeric “He hit him (acc.) arm (acc.).” The first acc. gives the essential fact, the second the detail.

That order of introducing ideas from essential fact to the detail, or from general statements to specific actions is one of the basic considerations of word order in both Classical / Koine Greek, but not in Modern.

The later (post-Homeric) (thematically ordered) constructions with the genitive of the person whose body part it is being put in front also reflect that general to specific ordering of elements too.

ὅσα δὴ δέδηγμαι τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ καρδίαν,

ταῖς τοῦ Ὀνομάρχου χερσίν

It seems that in the construction here in the opening line of the work under consideration and in this D.S. quote, putting the genitive between the noun and its article is preferred because of the word order guideline of putting the general before the specific.

Having the ἐμαυτον to the left of the relative in the (Greek stylised order of introduction of ideas) word order (not the English syntactic word order that to the left usually signifies) of Ar.Ach.377 conforms to the natural pattern of the order of introduction of ideas in the language.