Reading Thucydides 2013

[pster]

I think it's a past potential, H. W. Smyth's Grammar §1784 ff. And if I'm wrong about that, that's where you'll find a discussion of ἂν with indicative more generally.

2353b of Smyth seems key. Notice how he picks up on ei almost meaning "since" just as Morris does in his commentary. But I have to say, that is the only section I have come across where I think Smyth totally drops the ball. The repeated rephrasing and all the parentheticals are symptoms of an explanation that is failing. Furthermore, the use of "it is true that" and "it is the case that" are really hopeless. First of all, they are not in the Greek. Second of all, there is a whole theory of truth in semantics according to which saying "it is true that P" just is saying "P" --the disquotational theory of truth--and it is quite well motivated, so I have no idea how Smyth thinks that bringing in these phrases clears up anything. Can anybody unravel it for me?

[John W.]

Regarding I. 33. 2, Bigg's edition of Books I and II (Longmans, 1896) comments (translating Krueger):

'One might have expected λυπηροτέρα ἢ εἰ. But, as it would be quite correct to say, εἰ αὕτη (ἥ δύναμις) πάρεστιν αὐτεπάγγελτος, τίς εὐπραξία σπανιωτέρα; so ἢ is absent sometimes even when the comparative comes first'. A parallel from Euripides, Alcestis 879, is then quoted.

My own translation of I. 33. 2 runs:

'And consider: what good fortune could be rarer, or more grievous to your enemies, than if that very power, which you would have valued more than a great deal of money and gratitude to gain, is available of its own free will, offering itself without danger or expense, ...'


John

PS - on Saturday morning I submitted a lengthy post offering some suggestions for Thucydidean study aids, but due to the vagaries of the posting system it has only just appeared; if anyone is interested, it is to be found on page 3 of this thread. Fortunately (and with thanks to those concerned) I can now post in real time!

[pster]

PS - on Saturday morning I submitted a lengthy post offering some suggestions for Thucydidean study aids, but due to the vagaries of the posting system it has only just appeared; if anyone is interested, it is to be found on page 3 of this thread. Fortunately (and with thanks to those concerned) I can now post in real time!

Thanks John. Very instructive. I will request an increase in my budget for Thucydides!

[pster]

1.36.1

...γνώτω τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον, τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου ἀσθενὲς ὂν πρὸς ἰσχύοντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀδεέστερον ἐσόμενον...

Morris writes:

τὸ δεδιός and τὸ θαρσοῦν: this use of neut. partics. and adjs. for abstract nouns (GMT. 108, 2, N. 4; H. 966 b; Kühn. 403 γ) is a favourite one with Thuc. It presents to the mind the abstract quality in operation, standing between e.g. τὸ δεδιέναι and ὅτι δέδιε. τὸ δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ: i.e. the fear which sees in himself no adequate strength. Opp. to this is τὸ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου, i.e. the confidence that he has nothing to fear, which has led him to reject allies. The gen. δεξαμένου, like αὐτοῦ, properly depends on the partic., but has the effect of an abs. gen.—ἰσχὺν ἔχον: if it is backed by strength, i.e. if it leads him to secure the means of effective action.

-I don't understand what the ὂν is for; we have ἐσόμενον. How many copulas do we need?

-I don't understand Morris' comment, the bolded part. I thought αὐτοῦ was a genitive of possession. δεξαμένου doesn't seem to be a genitive of possession. So how exactly are they alike? And which partic. do they depend upon?

[John W.]

PS - on Saturday morning I submitted a lengthy post offering some suggestions for Thucydidean study aids, but due to the vagaries of the posting system it has only just appeared; if anyone is interested, it is to be found on page 3 of this thread. Fortunately (and with thanks to those concerned) I can now post in real time!

Thanks John. Very instructive. I will request an increase in my budget for Thucydides!

Many thanks, pster. The Macmillan and Ginn series, plus some of the older complete editions, can be found online, which should help to keep the cost down. Some of them certainly aren't cheap in the original editions!

Best wishes,

John

[John W.]

1.36.1

...γνώτω τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον, τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου ἀσθενὲς ὂν πρὸς ἰσχύοντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀδεέστερον ἐσόμενον...

Morris writes:

τὸ δεδιός and τὸ θαρσοῦν: this use of neut. partics. and adjs. for abstract nouns (GMT. 108, 2, N. 4; H. 966 b; Kühn. 403 γ) is a favourite one with Thuc. It presents to the mind the abstract quality in operation, standing between e.g. τὸ δεδιέναι and ὅτι δέδιε. τὸ δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ: i.e. the fear which sees in himself no adequate strength. Opp. to this is τὸ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου, i.e. the confidence that he has nothing to fear, which has led him to reject allies. The gen. δεξαμένου, like αὐτοῦ, properly depends on the partic., but has the effect of an abs. gen.—ἰσχὺν ἔχον: if it is backed by strength, i.e. if it leads him to secure the means of effective action.

-I don't understand what the ὂν is for; we have ἐσόμενον. How many copulas do we need?

-I don't understand Morris' comment, the bolded part. I thought αὐτοῦ was a genitive of possession. δεξαμένου doesn't seem to be a genitive of possession. So how exactly are they alike? And which partic. do they depend upon?

If my understanding is correct, ὂν gives the reason why his confidence will be less fearful, i.e. 'being [= because it is] based on weakness'. (ὂν parallels ἔχον in the previous clause, just as ἐσόμενον parallels φοβῆσον.) My translation runs:

'...let him understand that his fear, being based on a position of strength, will be more terrifying to his enemies, while the confidence he will gain if he does not accept us as allies, being founded on weakness, will be less fearful to his foes...' (emphasis added).

Regarding your second point, at first sight μὴ δεξαμένου looks like a genitive absolute, and in other circumstances it could well be one. In fact, however, it agrees with αὐτοῦ in the preceding clause, which is also understood here; thus the construction is τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν [αὐτοῦ] μὴ δεξαμένου: 'his confidence, if he does not accept us ...'.

I hope this helps, but please let me know if any of this is unclear, or you think I've got it wrong!

Best wishes,

John

[pster]

Thanks. δεξαμένου agreeing with αὐτοῦ certainly seems to be the party line. But, but, it somehow seems strange to me. I wouldn't say it is wrong. But I wouldn't say it is right either. What is the reason for it? We get the genitive αὐτοῦ because of possession. But why does δεξαμένου have to follow it? After all, the first time the man referred to by αὐτοῦ is referred to, it is at the very outset where we use the dative ὅτῳ. So me wants to ask why isn't it just as reasonable to expect or even require δεξαμένῳ? We can sharpen it a bit and ask: what would happen if the clause τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον were absent? Is there a Smyth number? Somehow I would rather just think of it as a genitive absolute. How do we know it is not a genitive absolute? Cameron in his commentary says that it is a lollapalooza of a sentence that merits close study, so that's what I'm trying to give it.

[John W.]

Thanks. δεξαμένου agreeing with αὐτοῦ certainly seems to be the party line. But, but, it somehow seems strange to me. I wouldn't say it is wrong. But I wouldn't say it is right either. What is the reason for it? We get the genitive αὐτοῦ because of possession. But why does δεξαμένου have to follow it? After all, the first time the man referred to by αὐτοῦ is referred to, it is at the very outset where we use the dative ὅτῳ. So me wants to ask why isn't it just as reasonable to expect or even require δεξαμένῳ? We can sharpen it a bit and ask: what would happen if the clause τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον were absent? Is there a Smyth number? Somehow I would rather just think of it as a genitive absolute. How do we know it is not a genitive absolute? Cameron in his commentary says that it is sentence that merits close study, so that's what I'm trying to give it.

It's certainly a challenging sentence - I well remember grappling with it myself the first time I read Thucydides!

My view is influenced by the parallelisms between the two clauses, some of which I mentioned in my previous message. In the first clause you have τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ (his fear'); it seems to me likely that, in the second clause, this is answered by τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν [αὐτοῦ] ('his confidence'), in which case δεξαμένου would most naturally agree with αὐτοῦ. One might well take a different view if, as you, say, we didn't have the preceding clause τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον - but the fact is that we do, and that influences my assessment of the second clause, which is part of the same μὲν...δὲ construction.

That's just my (current) view, based on what seems to me to be the balance of probability - there are few certainties with Thucydides, and I've changed my mind quite a few times over the years regarding the construction of various passages. I may yet do so with this one!

Best wishes,

John

[Paul Derouda]

At 1.38.2 we have:

ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες τε εἶναι καὶ τὰ εἰκότα θαυμάζεσθαι

Can you explain why οὐδέ is in this position? I think this is some special use of of φημί but I can't recall it, can you help me?

[NateD26]

Can you explain why οὐδέ is in this position? I think this is some special use of of φημί but I can't recall it, can you help me?

I think you refer to οὔ φημι, to deny, refuse. See LSJ III & Smyth §§787, 2691, and 2692a.

[John W.]

At 1.38.2 we have:

ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες τε εἶναι καὶ τὰ εἰκότα θαυμάζεσθαι

Can you explain why οὐδέ is in this position? I think this is some special use of of φημί but I can't recall it, can you help me?

Hi, Paul. I agree with Nate that you probably have οὔ φημι in mind, but I don't think that is what we have here.

The Corinthians have just quoted the Corcyraeans as saying that they were not sent out as colonists to suffer wrong (λέγοντες ὡς οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακῶς πάσχειν ἐκπεμφθεῖεν). The Corinthians' response is: 'We, however, say that neither did we ourselves send them out as colonists so that we would be insulted by them...' (ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι...). Thus οὐδ᾽('neither') responds to οὐκ in the previous sentence, and does not here negate φαμεν, but in fact οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί goes with κατοικίσαι, and is positioned early in the sentence for emphasis.

At least, that's my take on it - what do you and others think?

Best wishes,

John

[pster]

At 1.38.2 we have:

ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες τε εἶναι καὶ τὰ εἰκότα θαυμάζεσθαι

Can you explain why οὐδέ is in this position? I think this is some special use of of φημί but I can't recall it, can you help me?

Hi, Paul. I agree with Nate that you probably have οὔ φημι in mind, but I don't think that is what we have here.

The Corinthians have just quoted the Corcyraeans as saying that they were not sent out as colonists to suffer wrong (λέγοντες ὡς οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακῶς πάσχειν ἐκπεμφθεῖεν). The Corinthians' response is: 'We, however, say that neither did we ourselves send them out as colonists so that we would be insulted by them...' (ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι...). Thus οὐδ᾽('neither') responds to οὐκ in the previous sentence, and does not here negate φαμεν, but in fact οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί goes with κατοικίσαι, and is positioned early in the sentence for emphasis.

At least, that's my take on it - what do you and others think?

Best wishes,

John

I don't understand why αὐτοί is in the nominative. This is a indirect speech with an infinitive, so shouldn't it be in the accusative?

[spiphany]

I don't understand why αὐτοί is in the nominative. This is a indirect speech with an infinitive, so shouldn't it be in the accusative?

A nominative + infinitive construction is used instead of an accusative + infinitive when the subject is the same as the main verb, as here.
See Smyth 1973

[pster]

I don't understand why αὐτοί is in the nominative. This is a indirect speech with an infinitive, so shouldn't it be in the accusative?

A nominative + infinitive construction is used instead of an accusative + infinitive when the subject is the same as the main verb, as here.
See Smyth 1973

Haha. I knew that! I just thought αὐτοί referred to the colonists rather than the mother country, but I guess I was wrong.

[Bob Manske]

So that the deconvoluted structure is:

ἡμεῖς δἐ φαμεν = but in response we say
επὶ τῷ = about this subject
οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί κατοικίσαι = they did not go out as colonists
ὑβρίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τούτων = (for us) to be insulted by these guys

I think it means that. Perfectly straightforward Greek (yeah, right!). It seems there's an awful lot of inference here for even a native speaker to pick up on during the first reading of this text. Not that that's any different from a typical sentence in this work.

However, I thought that an infinitive of purpose had to be active, not middle or passive. But this text is certainly using ὑπὸ as an agent and there ain't no way I can make out an active form for the infinitive here.

I would infer from this text that the colonization did not take place under amiable circumstances. Or that there was some subsequent disagreement between the two parties that our author is not revealing. Or did I miss something?

[spiphany]

So that the deconvoluted structure is:

ἡμεῖς δἐ φαμεν = but in response we say
επὶ τῷ = about this subject
οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί κατοικίσαι = they did not go out as colonists
ὑβρίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τούτων = (for us) to be insulted by these guys

I would parse this a bit differently, actually.
οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί κατοικίσαι: nominative, meaning that the subject is the same as the introductory verb. "we did not colonize". The position of οὐδε with φαμεν rather than κατοικίσαι sounds odd to our ears, but it seems vaguely familiar to me; I'll see if I can find anything more concrete on where negation likes to be placed in Greek.

The rest of the sentence (I think) consists of two parallel clauses introduced by επι + an articular infinitive. One meaning of επι plus the dative is to express purpose. So:
επὶ τῷ ὑβρίζεσθαι = to be insulted
ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες εἶναι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι = to be those leading and to be admired

[John W.]

I would parse this a bit differently, actually.
οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί κατοικίσαι: nominative, meaning that the subject is the same as the introductory verb. "we did not colonize". The position of οὐδε with φαμεν rather than κατοικίσαι sounds odd to our ears, but it seems vaguely familiar to me; I'll see if I can find anything more concrete on where negation likes to be placed in Greek.

The rest of the sentence (I think) consists of two parallel clauses introduced by επι + an articular infinitive. One meaning of επι plus the dative is to express purpose. So:
επὶ τῷ ὑβρίζεσθαι = to be insulted
ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες εἶναι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι = to be those leading and to be admired

spiphany - I agree with your analysis of ἐπὶ τῷ ὑβρίζεσθαι.

I think οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί is placed at the start of the sentence simply for emphasis - a phenomenon common in Thucydides.

κατοικίσαι seems to be causing difficulties. Some (though not you) are taking it to mean 'go out as a colonist', whereas in the active (as here) it actually means 'send someone out as a colonist'. Its subject here must therefore be the Corinthians, and its (implied) object the Corcyraeans.

Best wishes,

John

[John W.]

Since there have been no posts on this thread for a month and a half, I thought I'd ask how people are getting on with their reading of Thucydides. I hope that the lack of posts means that things are going well!

With all good wishes,

John

[pster]

Since there have been no posts on this thread for a month and a half, I thought I'd ask how people are getting on with their reading of Thucydides. I hope that the lack of posts means that things are going well!

With all good wishes,

John

Hey John! I'm glad you are around. I hadn't looked at the forum seriously in months and I came here today to ask the same question. For me, some really big things popped up that I had to do this year and so I had to put down the Thucydides. For example, I had no idea that I would be moving to another country when I started the thread! And I had no idea that I would be taking a three week vacation in March. I still managed to work on some other languages, often because I need them to order my dinner! Too bad we don't need Attic to be understood at restaurants! Anyway, it is somehow easier for me to put aside Attic because I know that it is my main longterm commitment! Hehe. So anyway, I'm still somewhere in the early speeches. But I'm going to get back into it this week. I can only budget about 90 minutes a day, but that should be enough to fill the thread with questions! Where are you in the book John? I'm afraid to ask! And how about other folks?

[John W.]

Hey John! I'm glad you are around. I hadn't looked at the forum seriously in months and I came here today to ask the same question. For me, some really big things popped up that I had to do this year and so I had to put down the Thucydides. For example, I had no idea that I would be moving to another country when I started the thread! And I had no idea that I would be taking a three week vacation in March. I still anaged to work on some other languages, often because I need them to order my dinner! Too bad we don't need Attic to be understood at restaurants! Anyway, it is somehow easier for me to put aside Attic because I know that it is my main longterm commitment! Hehe. So anyway, I'm still somewhere in the early speeches. But I'm going to get back into it this week. I can only budget about 90 minutes a day, but that should be enough to fill the thread with questions! Where are you in the book John? I'm afraid to ask! And how about other folks?

Hi, pster - good to hear from you! Sounds like you've had a pretty hectic time - I hope the move has gone well for you.

I'm afraid to say that I've pressed on into Book II; having gone through the funeral oration and seen off the plague, I've just finished Pericles' final speech, and Thucydides' important assessment of him as a leader (II.65). But please bear in mind that this is my fourth reading of the Greek text, so naturally it's rather easier for me (though I'm still occasionally changing my mind about points of interpretation). In fact, I somewhat envy those who have all these delights/challenges to look forward to for the first time!

I'm re-reading the Greek now because I've managed to get hold of a copy of Alberti's edition (Rome, 1972-2000), which seems to be regarded as the best critical edition of the Greek text; my three previous read-throughs used the OCT. I've marked up a copy of the latter with the differences between the two, in case you or anyone else would find it helpful to know at any point.

Anyway, good luck with everything, and if I can help at all with Thucydides (and this of course goes for others too) please let me know!

With best wishes,

John

[pster]

At Th. 1.1.1, we get:

Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων, ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων, τεκμαιρόμενος ὅτι ἀκμάζοντές τε ᾖσαν ἐς αὐτὸν ἀμφότεροι παρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ὁρῶν ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους, τὸ μὲν εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον.

Here is one of Morris' comments:

παρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ: cf. ii.20.4, ἀκμάζοντας νεότητι πολλῇ. The arrangement of subst., art., adj., in this order, by which stress is thrown on the attribute, is freq. in Thuc. Cf. c. 15. 8; 25. 14; 33. 19; 67. 11; ii.2.14, etc. So Lys. XII 82, δίκην τὴν ἀξίαν.

But at 2.20.4, we get:

[4] ἅμα μὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ ὁ χῶρος ἐπιτήδειος ἐφαίνετο ἐνστρατοπεδεῦσαι, ἅμα δὲ καὶ οἱ Ἀχαρνῆς μέγα μέρος ὄντες τῆς πόλεως （τρισχίλιοι γὰρ ὁπλῖται ἐγένοντο） οὐ περιόψεσθαι ἐδόκουν τὰ σφέτερα διαφθαρέντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁρμήσειν καὶ τοὺς πάντας ἐς μάχην. εἴ τε καὶ μὴ ἐπεξέλθοιεν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἐσβολῇ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀδεέστερον ἤδη ἐς τὸ ὕστερον τό τε πεδίον τεμεῖν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν χωρήσεσθαι: τοὺς γὰρ Ἀχαρνέας ἐστερημένους τῶν σφετέρων οὐχ ὁμοίως προθύμους ἔσεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων κινδυνεύειν, στάσιν δ᾽ ἐνέσεσθαι τῇ γνώμῃ.

So I have no idea what Morris is doing referencing ἀκμάζοντας νεότητι πολλῇ to this passage. Can anybody shed some light?

Next, there is no Th. 2.2.14, so I guess Morris means 2.2.4. There we get:

θέμενοι δὲ ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ ὅπλα τοῖς μὲν ἐπαγαγομένοις οὐκ ἐπείθοντο ὥστε εὐθὺς ἔργου ἔχεσθαι καὶ ἰέναι ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκίας τῶν ἐχθρῶν, γνώμην δ᾽ ἐποιοῦντο κηρύγμασί τε χρήσασθαι ἐπιτηδείοις καὶ ἐς ξύμβασιν μᾶλλον καὶ φιλίαν τὴν πόλιν ἀγαγεῖν （καὶ ἀνεῖπεν ὁ κῆρυξ, εἴ τις βούλεται κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν ξυμμαχεῖν, τίθεσθαι παρ᾽ αὑτοὺς τὰ ὅπλα）, νομίζοντες σφίσι ῥᾳδίως τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ προσχωρήσειν τὴν πόλιν.

But in the underlined phrase, the order is backwards, adj., art., subs., so why is he referencing this passage?

There are two questions to restart the thread.

[John W.]

There are two questions to restart the thread.

Hi again, pster!

With the aid of my trusty copy of Betant's Lexicon Thucydideum, I've tracked the ἀκμάζοντας νεότητι πολλῇ passage down to ii.20.2 (not ii.20.4). The complete edition by Classen-Steup, on an earlier version of which Morris' edition of Book I is based, gives the citation correctly.

Your other query is trickier. I wonder if Morris means ii.2.2, which is cited in Classen-Steup:

ἐπηγάγοντο δὲ καὶ ἀνέῳξαν τὰς πύλας Πλαταιῶν ἄνδρες, Ναυκλείδης τε καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, βουλόμενοι ἰδίας ἕνεκα δυνάμεως ἄνδρας τε τῶν πολιτῶν τοὺς σφίσιν ὑπεναντίους διαφθεῖραι καὶ τὴν πόλιν Θηβαίοις προσποιῆσαι.

Here, I presume reference is made to ἄνδρας ... τοὺς ... ὑπεναντίους.

I hope this helps. If it's any consolation, I've encountered similar problems in the past with cross-references in the Ginn (and some other) editions!

Best wishes,

John

[John W.]

My turn to ask for a little Thucydidean assistance!

I'm becoming unsure how to interpret a particular idiom, two instances of which occur near the end of Book ii. The first is at ii.92.4:

... καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ τὰ ναυάγια ὅσα πρὸς τῇ ἑαυτῶν ἦν ἀνείλοντο, καὶ τοῖς ἐναντίοις τὰ ἐκείνων ὑπόσπονδα ἀπέδοσαν.

I have translated this as:

' ... they recovered as many of the dead and of the damaged ships as were close to their shore, and gave the enemy's back to them under truce.'

In other words, I have taken ὅσα here as encompassing not only τὰ ναυάγια, but τοὺς νεκροὺς as well.

The second passage is at ii.95.3:

... ἔδει γὰρ καὶ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ναυσί τε καὶ στρατιᾷ ὡς πλείστῃ ἐπὶ τοὺς Χαλκιδέας παραγενέσθαι.

I have translated this as:

' ... for the Athenians were to support him against the Chalcidians with as many ships, and as large an army, as possible.'

In other words, I have taken ὡς πλείστῃ as applying to ναυσί as well as to στρατιᾷ.

While most other translators agree with me regarding ὅσα in ii.92.4, nearly all seem to take ὡς πλείστῃ in ii.95.3 as applying just to στρατιᾷ, and not to ναυσί, and so they translate along the lines " ... with ships, and with as large an army as possible". Of recent translators, only Walter Blanco shares my interpretation.

Have any of you encountered this idiom in other contexts where expressions like ὅσα and ὡς πλείστῃ follow two words, and, while grammatically agreeing with the nearer of the two, seem to apply to both? Are there any helpful references to this idiom in grammatical texts with which you may be familiar? And do you have a view as to whether my proposal to take ὡς πλείστῃ with ναυσί as well as with στρατιᾷ is reasonable?

Apologies for troubling you, and many thanks for your help.

Best wishes,

John

[NateD26]

Have any of you encountered this idiom in other contexts where expressions like ὅσα and ὡς πλείστῃ follow two words, and, while grammatically agreeing with the nearer of the two, seem to apply to both? Are there any helpful references to this idiom in grammatical texts with which you may be familiar? And do you have a view as to whether my proposal to take ὡς πλείστῃ with ναυσί as well as with στρατιᾷ is reasonable?

It seems they share a similar construction, conjoining a couple of nouns
and being followed a relative which in the first sentence is attracted to the case of the latter noun,
but still referring to both, and in the second sentence the adjective is attracted in much
the same way. I don't see why your translation of the 2nd sentence is not the predominant one.

[addendum]Then again, the second sentence conjoins a plural noun with a singular, so this might be the
reason it was translated as referring only to the latter, but the grammatically singular noun is collective
in meaning, so your translation is still more suited here.[/addendum]

[John W.]

It seems they share a similar construction, conjoining a couple of nouns
and being followed a relative which in the first sentence is attracted to the case of the latter noun,
but still referring to both, and in the second sentence the adjective is attracted in much
the same way. I don't see why your translation of the 2nd sentence is not the predominant one.

Nate - many thanks for your very helpful comments.

As you say, the two examples at ii.92.4 and ii.95.3 share a similar construction, and I therefore found it odd that most translators were apparently not spotting the parallel, and were treating them differently. Perhaps the fact that ὡς πλείστῃ is singular has deterred translators from taking it with ναυσί as well as with στρατιᾷ, but I don't think that is an overwhelming objection.

In the light of your remarks I'm inclined to leave my translation as it is; any other views would, of course, be welcome!

Best wishes,

John

[NateD26]

Perhaps the fact that ὡς πλείστῃ is singular has deterred translators from taking it with ναυσί as well as with στρατιᾷ, but I don't think that is an overwhelming objection.

I've added a similar addendum to my above post.

[John W.]

I've added a similar addendum to my above post.

Great minds ... !

John

[pster]

Thanks guys. Sorry I haven't responded to your generous help. I have just been buried under a mountain of things. On a brighter note, I have created 3000 virtual notecards for the vocabulary from Book I. I am going to try and master Book I inside and out, up and down. After that I will see how I want to handle the other seven books.

[John W.]

Thanks guys. Sorry I haven't responded to your generous help. I have just been buried under a mountain of things. On a brighter note, I have created 3000 virtual notecards for the vocabulary from Book I. I am going to try and master Book I inside and out, up and down. After that I will see how I want to handle the other seven books.

No problem, pster. The notecards sound impressive!

Last Friday I attended a performance of Sophocles' Antigone at the National Theatre in London. (It was a double treat for me, since the actor who played Creon, Christopher Eccleston, formerly played the lead role in my favourite TV series, Doctor Who.) The relevance of this here is that the following day I started re-reading the Mytilenian Debate in Book iii of Thucydides, and was immediately struck by parallels between some of the remarks in the speech by Cleon and those made by Creon in Sophocles' play. At first glance, there wouldn't seem to be much in common between the Athenian demagogue amd the Theban King, but, as depicted by Thucydides and Sophocles, they both argue in favour of the primacy of the state, and the need to obey even unjust laws. I suppose the closeness of the two names makes the comparison even more intriguing; anyway, I'll definitely be giving this further thought and study when time permits.

Best wishes,

John

[pster]

1.10 καὶ ὅτι μὲν Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν, ἢ εἴ τι τῶν τότε πόλισμα νῦν μὴ ἀξιόχρεων δοκεῖ εἶναι,...

Why the singular ἦν?

Why the non-feminine, non-plural μικρὸν?

Is fem. pl. Μυκῆναι being assimilated to neut. nom.(acc.?) πόλισμα?

Thanks.

[NateD26]

1.10 καὶ ὅτι μὲν Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν, ἢ εἴ τι τῶν τότε πόλισμα νῦν μὴ ἀξιόχρεων δοκεῖ εἶναι,...

Why the singular ἦν?

Why the non-feminine, non-plural μικρὸν?

Is fem. pl. Μυκῆναι being assimilated to neut. nom.(acc.?) πόλισμα?

Thanks.

Charles D. Morris referenced Thuc. 76.15 in which he'd also used a neut. predicate for Chaeronea,
and C.E. Graves adds 1.63 for Olynthus, and 1.138 for Lampsacus. Both of them don't really give
a reason for it.

As to the number of the predicate and verb, I'm not sure.
It seems that in most other places, a pl. verb and predicate are used when the city name is
used with the article, but without it, the city name is treated as singular.

In Herodotus 8.61.1 for instance, we have pl. verb when referring to Athens:
ταῦτα δέ οἱ προέφερε ὅτι ἡλώκεσάν τε καὶ κατείχοντο αἱ Ἀθῆναι.

And ibid. 8.111.2:
ὑπεκρίναντο πρὸς ταῦτα λέγοντες ὡς κατὰ λόγον ἦσαν ἄρα αἱ Ἀθῆναι μεγάλαι τε καὶ εὐδαίμονες,
αἳ καὶ θεῶν χρηστῶν ἥκοιεν εὖ·

But in Lucian's Pseudologista 15:
δοκεῖ μοι καὶ ὅτι Ἀθῆναι πόλις ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀττικῇ...

Then Again, in Xenophon's Ways & Means 5.2 we find:
πασῶν δὲ πόλεων Ἀθῆναι μάλιστα πεφύκασιν ἐν εἰρήνῃ αὔξεσθαι.

[cb]

hi, re Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν, for the gender and number of μικρὸν this seems to me to be an extension of the pattern referred to in smyth ss1048-1049:
http://archive.org/stream/agreekgrammar ... 6/mode/2up

then for the number of ἦν, this agrees with μικρὸν, see smyth s949a, in particular the last e.g. in that section:
http://archive.org/stream/agreekgrammar ... 2/mode/2up

cheers, chad

[pster]

Thanks guys. Those Smyth pages help. But, as so often happens to me, answers lead to new questions. I don't understand the very last Smyth example at 949a. There, it seems that we have a predicate adjective rather than a predicate noun. There is no article, so why construe/translate agathon as a substantive? And more importantly, this is an example where there is attraction to the gender of the predicate noun rather than attraction to the number! Or have I missed something?

And another thing that bothers me is that I have the Cameron commentary on Book I and he is Smyth happy. More than half of it consists of referring one to the relevant Smyth number. But he just ignores this whole potential double Smyth item. Not sure about you Chad, but Nate and I obviously had trouble with it, so why would Cameron's student commentary not think it noteworthy?

[cb]

hi pster, on the cameron commentary, as i mentioned in an earlier post (see (B) here: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... hp?t=11778) commentaries to me are like autobiographies of the weaknesses of the people who write them, or their students in the case of teachers. as to why cameron left out any commentary on this point, i.e. as to why cameron or cameron's students didn't notice any difficulty here, i can't say because i don't know this commentary, but this omission does remind me a lot of other commentaries that are oriented towards helping people translate out of grk into their native language - in these types of commentaries, lots of help is given for constructions that the reader might find too difficult to disentangle for translation purposes, but not for other difficulties that don't impede translation.

a clause like καὶ ὅτι μὲν Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν might be very easy to translate - as to why the adjective and verb don't agree with the subject, a translator might simply be able to ignore.

for people who don't study grk just to produce translations however, but who follow the river to its source, you should take a look at the level of commentary in fraenkel's famous commentary on aeschylus' agamemnon. this is definitely not just aimed at the translator, each difficulty is pursued to its end.

cheers, chad

[John W.]

1.10 καὶ ὅτι μὲν Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν, ἢ εἴ τι τῶν τότε πόλισμα νῦν μὴ ἀξιόχρεων δοκεῖ εἶναι,...

Why the singular ἦν?

Why the non-feminine, non-plural μικρὸν?

Is fem. pl. Μυκῆναι being assimilated to neut. nom.(acc.?) πόλισμα?

Thanks.

Hi, pster - sorry for the late reply. I've been on holiday - in the course of which I attended a most excellent lecture on Thucydides!

I think you're right about μικρὸν - Poppo's full commentary records a suggestion by Haack that some such word as πόλισμα should be understood with it from what follows.

The singular verb seems to be an example of agreement with the predicate - as Smyth (949a) notes, there's another one at Thucydides IV.102.3:

καὶ αὖθις ἑνὸς δέοντι τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐλθόντες οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, Ἅγνωνος τοῦ Νικίου οἰκιστοῦ ἐκπεμφθέντος, Ἠδῶνας ἐξελάσαντες ἔκτισαν τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο, ὅπερ πρότερον Ἐννέα ὁδοὶ ἐκαλοῦντο.

As Smyth implies, I suppose this construction may stem from the proximity of the verb to the predicate.

Best wishes,

John

[NateD26]

then for the number of ἦν, this agrees with μικρὸν, see smyth s949a, in particular the last e.g. in that section:
http://archive.org/stream/agreekgrammar ... 2/mode/2up

The singular verb seems to be an example of agreement with the predicate - as Smyth (949a) notes, there's another one at Thucydides IV.102.3:

καὶ αὖθις ἑνὸς δέοντι τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐλθόντες οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, Ἅγνωνος τοῦ Νικίου οἰκιστοῦ ἐκπεμφθέντος, Ἠδῶνας ἐξελάσαντες ἔκτισαν τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο, ὅπερ πρότερον Ἐννέα ὁδοὶ ἐκαλοῦντο.

As Smyth implies, I suppose this construction may stem from the proximity of the verb to the predicate.

Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν seems to be different than the examples in Smyth, in that the predicate and
copulative verb stand immediately after it, with no intervening words that might lead to such a
change in gender and number.

I would be more inclined to explain it as an example of Chad's earlier reference from Smyth §§1048-49.

I would also like someone to check the tentative pattern of the city/state name without the article
being treated as singular (change in gender here attributed to the above reference).

[Gaius]

@jaihare et al.

What do you mean by reading but not translating? Are you passively translating Thucydides' Greek into your native language while you read silently or aloud? Or are you simply reading left to right with the Greek, perhaps not understanding everything?

I usually do the former (I never set out to write literal or perfect translations whenever I read), but I was curious by your statement that you were going to read and not translate. If your process is more geared toward the latter, could you elaborate?

Thanks,
Zach

[John W.]

Hello, everyone. Looks like we're well overdue another post on the great Thucydides thread, so here goes!

I'm struggling with a point in Thucydides III.77.1; the passage in question is as follows:

οἱ δὲ πολλῷ θορύβῳ καὶ πεφοβημένοι τά τ᾽ ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ τὸν ἐπίπλουν παρεσκευάζοντό τε ἅμα ἑξήκοντα ναῦς καὶ τὰς αἰεὶ πληρουμένας ἐξέπεμπον πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους, ...

My query relates to the use of ἅμα here. The possibilities seem to be:

(i) meaning 'immediately', i.e. as soon as the Corcyraeans saw the Peloponnesian fleet approaching, they immediately started to make ready sixty ships. This is the interpretation in Dale's translation; however, on the basis of parallel instances Thucydides would in my view have used εὐθὺς if he had meant to say that, so I am sceptical of this option;

(ii) meaning 'all at the same time', i.e. the Corcyraeans were trying to get all sixty ships ready at the same time. This is the interpretation in Lattimore's translation;

(iii) meaning 'at the same time', i.e. while the Corcyraeans were still getting the ships ready, at the same time they were sending them out individually as soon as they were crewed. At present I'm inclining to this view.

Since none of the commentaries I've consulted offers any help on this point, I'd welcome your thoughts on it, and which of the options above (or any others you can think of) you favour.

Incidentally, there is another instance of ἅμα in the continuation of the passage quoted above:

... παραινούντων Ἀθηναίων σφᾶς τε ἐᾶσαι πρῶτον ἐκπλεῦσαι καὶ ὕστερον πάσαις ἅμα ἐκείνους ἐπιγενέσθαι.

Here the meaning seems clear: πάσαις ἅμα means that the Athenians advised the Corcyraeans to sail out after them with all their ships at the same time (rather than sending them out individually).

Many thanks, and best wishes,

John

[NateD26]

Hi, John. What exactly is the difference between the three options?

Do you read (ii) as meaning they started making all sixty ships ready at the same time,
and they also sent them all at the same time?
How does τὰς αἰεὶ πληρουμένας, each as they were manned, fit into this reading?

I don't quite understand the nuance between (i) & (iii). Perhaps you could clarify a bit.

EDIT: I don't know whether or not this is relevant to this particular quote, but
perhaps this is an instance of parataxis mentioned in Smyth 2876.

[John W.]

Hi, John. What exactly is the difference between the three options?

Do you read (ii) as meaning they started making all sixty ships ready at the same time,
and they also sent them all at the same time?
How does τὰς αἰεὶ πληρουμένας, each as they were manned, fit into this reading?

I don't quite understand the nuance between (i) & (iii). Perhaps you could clarify a bit.

EDIT: I don't know whether or not this is relevant to this particular quote, but
perhaps this is an instance of parataxis mentioned in Smyth 2876.

Hi, Nate - many thanks for the reply.

Perhaps the best way to explain the three options would be to translate each of them, and then comment:

(i) 'The people, in a state of great confusion, and alarmed both by the events in the city and by the approach of the ships, immediately began making ready sixty ships and kept sending each of them out against the enemy as soon as it was manned, ...' Here ἅμα just refers to the fact that the Corcyraean people started getting their own ships ready as soon as they saw the hostile fleet approaching;

(ii) 'The people, in a state of great confusion, and alarmed both by the events in the city and by the approach of the ships, began making ready sixty ships all at the same time, and kept sending each of them out against the enemy as soon as it was manned, ...' Here ἅμα just indicates that they were trying to get all of the ships ready at once - its influence doesn't extend to the next clause, about their sending the ships out one at a time as soon as each was manned;

(iii) 'The people, in a state of great confusion, and alarmed both by the events in the city and by the approach of the ships, began making ready sixty ships and at the same time kept sending each of them out against the enemy as soon as it was manned, ...' - Here ἅμα serves to indicate that, while still getting some of the ships ready, they were at the same time sending out individually the ones that were manned.

As I said before, I don't think (i) is terribly likely, since, as I recall, Thucydides elsewhere uses εὐθὺς, not ἅμα, when he wishes to denote action being taken as an immediate response to something. My problem with (ii) is that I don't see why he would draw attention to the fact that the ships were being prepared all at the same time - I don't think he does so elsewhere. That leaves (iii), which seems to me to make more sense, in that it would be highlighting the fact that they were sending some ships out while still (at the same time) getting others ready. At least, that's my best shot so far ...

Thanks for the reference to Smyth - I'm not quite sure whether it applies here, since I'd assumed that the καὶ three words after ἅμα responds to the τε immediately before it, rather than here being equivalent to 'as' - but I may be wrong!

Anyway, please let me know what you think. I hope this makes things a bit clearer, but feel free to say if it doesn't!

Best wishes,

John