What kind of genitive: τὸ ὀργιζόμενον τῆς γνώμης?

[pster]

From Th. 2.59:

τὸ ὀργιζόμενον τῆς γνώμης

Both Smyth (1025) and LSJ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... 0&prior=to\&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199:book=2:chapter=59&i=1#lexicon) translate it as "their angry feelings".

But what kind of genitive is τῆς γνώμης? It can't be a possessive genitive because it is not in attributive position. Nor can it be a subjective genitive, again because it is not in attributive position. Perhaps one could argue that it is a material genitive, but that seems a bit bogus.

The other example that Smyth cites, τῆς πόλεως τῷ τιμωμένῳ , from the beginning of Th. 2.63, I find puzzling in the same way.

I'm probably making an embarassing blunder, but can anybody clear this up?

Thanks in advance.

[John W.]

From Th. 2.59:

τὸ ὀργιζόμενον τῆς γνώμης

Both Smyth (1025) and LSJ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... 0&prior=to\&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199:book=2:chapter=59&i=1#lexicon) translate it as "their angry feelings".

But what kind of genitive is τῆς γνώμης? It can't be a possessive genitive because it is not in attributive position. Nor can it be a subjective genitive, again because it is not in attributive position. Perhaps one could argue that it is a material genitive, but that seems a bit bogus.

The other example that Smyth cites, τῆς πόλεως τῷ τιμωμένῳ , from the beginning of Th. 2.63, I find puzzling in the same way.

I'm probably making an embarassing blunder, but can anybody clear this up?

Thanks in advance.

pster - have you got Rusten's Cambridge edition of Book II (which is, in my view, perhaps the most helpful 'student commentary' on any of the eight books)? This gives (pp. 22-3) a number of other examples of such genitives in Book II. Rusten says that they occur in Thucydides 'when an adjective or participle is converted into a neuter substantive followed by a noun as dependent genitive'; for the 'dependent genitive' he too cites Smyth 1025.

Poppo-Stahl gives as another example τῆς γνώμης τὸ θυμούμενον at VII.68.1, which I have translated as 'the fury in one’s heart'.

Forbes' 1895 edition of Book I includes an appendix on Thucydidean grammar, which cites further examples at I.90.2 (τὸ μὲν βουλόμενον καὶ ὕποπτον τῆς γνώμης) and III.10.1 (ἐν γὰρ τῷ διαλλάσσοντι τῆς γνώμης καὶ αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν ἔργων καθίστανται).

In a number of cases the natural way to translate the genitive seems to be 'of' or 'in'. I'm not sure quite how to classify the genitive, but perhaps it could be regarded as either possessive or as indicating origin. I'm not sure the word order precludes this - see the 'letter of Philip' example in Smyth 1298.

Sorry I can't be more categorical - the commentaries offer limited discussion of this point!

Best wishes,

john

[pster]

Great. Thanks for the references. I will put them to at the top of my list of books to buy. I think what is now clear is that this kind of genitive is largely a Thucydidean phenomenon to be found in the so-called "schema Thucydideum". So I guess I should have put it in the other thread. Sorry to bother you non-Thucydideans on the forum.

[pster]

From Th. 2.59:

τὸ ὀργιζόμενον τῆς γνώμης

Both Smyth (1025) and LSJ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... 0&prior=to\&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199:book=2:chapter=59&i=1#lexicon) translate it as "their angry feelings".

But what kind of genitive is τῆς γνώμης? It can't be a possessive genitive because it is not in attributive position. Nor can it be a subjective genitive, again because it is not in attributive position. Perhaps one could argue that it is a material genitive, but that seems a bit bogus.

The other example that Smyth cites, τῆς πόλεως τῷ τιμωμένῳ , from the beginning of Th. 2.63, I find puzzling in the same way.

I'm probably making an embarassing blunder, but can anybody clear this up?

Thanks in advance.

pster - have you got Rusten's Cambridge edition of Book II (which is, in my view, perhaps the most helpful 'student commentary' on any of the eight books)? This gives (pp. 22-3) a number of other examples of such genitives in Book II. Rusten says that they occur in Thucydides 'when an adjective or participle is converted into a neuter substantive followed by a noun as dependent genitive'; for the 'dependent genitive' he too cites Smyth 1025.

Poppo-Stahl gives as another example τῆς γνώμης τὸ θυμούμενον at VII.68.1, which I have translated as 'the fury in one’s heart'.

Forbes' 1895 edition of Book I includes an appendix on Thucydidean grammar, which cites further examples at I.90.2 (τὸ μὲν βουλόμενον καὶ ὕποπτον τῆς γνώμης) and III.10.1 (ἐν γὰρ τῷ διαλλάσσοντι τῆς γνώμης καὶ αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν ἔργων καθίστανται).

In a number of cases the natural way to translate the genitive seems to be 'of' or 'in'. I'm not sure quite how to classify the genitive, but perhaps it could be regarded as either possessive or as indicating origin. I'm not sure the word order precludes this - see the 'letter of Philip' example in Smyth 1298.

Sorry I can't be more categorical - the commentaries offer limited discussion of this point!

Best wishes,

john

Smyth, as he too often does, reduces the original. Demsthenes actual words are τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν τοῦ Φιλίππου where the second article holds the possessive in attributive position.

An interesting section of Smyth is 2051. The "verbal nature has ceased to be felt" almost contradicts the "are not dead abstractions, but abstract qualities in action" of 1025. The differing pedagogic purposes of the two sections explains the tension. But 1025 is closer to what Thucydides is up to, as Forbes makes quite clear at pp. 144-5.

So I am still pondering all of this. In particular, I am working on the adjective examples.

Stay tuned.

[pster]

What I find interesting are the examples where we have a neuter adjective. A good example, which Forbes mentions in his excellent discussion, is 2.61, ἐν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἀσθενεῖ τῆς γνώμης. Here we see the genitive is not in attributive position, unlike ὑμετέρῳ. It is interesting that nobody notes this irregular placement of what I now tend to think of as a subjective genitive. The closest I can find is Mastronarde's saying that the subjective genitive is "often in attributive position". Now the question to be answered is this: Can we find such examples--substantialized neuter adjectives with attendant genitives in predicate position--in other authors? I can understand that what Forbes calls this "experiment" in language leads through Sophocles and reaches its culmination in Thucydides with neuter participles and attendant genitives in predicate position. But adjectives seem to be part of the story too pace Forbes and Cameron. Yet lots of other authors have substantilized neuter adjectives. Where are their genitives? What exactly is Thucydidean about any of this in the case of adjectives?