Qimmik wrote:ἔχθρα δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἦν αὐτῷ --
I think it's clear that in καὶ χρήματά ποτε αἰτήσας αὑτὸν οὐ τυχὼν τὴν ἔχθραν οἱ προθοῖτο,
the understood subject is H., and αὑτὸν and οἱ refer to T., since T. wouldn't have asked H. for money. The referent of αἰτήσας must be the subject of προθοῖτο, and that must be H. Therefore ἔχθραν is H.'s hostility towards T. I think that in ἔχθρα δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἦν αὐτῷ, it's the same ἔχθρα as at the end of the sentence, and it must also be that of H. towards T. Thus, αὐτῷ refers to H. and πρὸς αὐτὸν to T.
H. harbors a grievance towards T. because H. asked T. for money and T. wouldn't give it. You don't hold a grudge against someone you refuse to give money to when asked--you hold a grudge against someone who refuses to give you money when you ask for it.
pster wrote:John, sorry that I am late to your party. I'm still brooding over kai. But Hornblower reads it: "now Tissaphernes had a grudge against Hermokrates ever since they quarrelled about the payment of the sailors and when afterwards he had been bainshed from Syracuse" ie after the events of ch. 45.
I have to do a few things but will try and read through what you and Qimmik have come up with when I get back.
Qimmik wrote:In what immediately precedes the quoted passage from 8.85, we're told that Hermocrates was going to expose Tissaphernes for acting against Lacedaemonian interests and playing both sides. So it looks to me like ἔχθρα δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἦν αὐτῷ αἰεί ποτε περὶ τοῦ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀποδόσεως is an explanation for Hermocrates' actions--his grudge against Tissaphernes, not the other way around.
πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον seems to me to refer back to Tissaphernes sending his representative to Mindarus to bad-mouth the Milesians and tell his side of the story, with the implication that Tissaphernes was impugning Hermocrates' behavior along with that of the Milesians, or does φυγάδι ὄντι ἤδη suggest that the fact that Hermocrates was now an exile gave Tissaphernes the opportunity to slander Hermocrates much more vehemently? (But is Hermocrates coming to Mindarus along with the contingent of Milesians?)
Again, I think that it makes more sense for Hermocrates to bear a grudge against Tissaphernes for paying Hermocrates' men less than what they and Hermocrates wanted, than for Tissaphernes to bear a grudge against Hermocrates for demanding more money.
Qimmik wrote:"Tissaphernes' allegation about Hermocrates' demanding money from him is a pure fabrication"
I think it may be a deliberately misleading distortion of Hermocrates' dissatisfaction with the pay cuts, framed in a way to suggest that Hermocrates was seeking money for personal reasons.
I see your point about πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον -- it might refer to a pre-exsisting ἔχθρα of Tissaphernes. But it might be a reference back to the self-justification Tissaphernes' agent is supposed to convey to Mindarus, which would include Tissaphernes' complaints about Hermocrates' hostility. And I think it also might mean that now that Hermocrates was an exile, he was more vulnerable, and Tissaphernes could slander him all the more.
Qimmik wrote:Having only read part of the passage in question, I thought that the Milesians, along with Hermocrates, as well as Gaulites, went to Mindarus, Astyochus' successor as commander of the Spartan fleet, to plead their case, not to Astyochus (despite αὐτῷ being closer to Astyochus than to Mindarus in the passage that precedes the quoted passage)--why would they go to Astyochus, who had been relieved of command? But reading further, I see that Astyochus, the Milesians and Hermocrates all went to Lacedaemon together, and presumably Gaulites went there, too.
At 8.43, Tissaphernes' anger seems to be directed at Lichias, not Hermocrates, doesn't it?
Qimmik wrote:Anger was perhaps a posture assumed by someone negotiating from a position of strength, though Thucydides doesn't seem to say or imply that.
pster wrote:It is a tricky sentence. I think that the Hornblower interpretation is preferrable because: 1) Tissaphernes' mental state has already been described in more vivid terms than Hermocrates' (the rage at 8.43); 2) Tissaphernes was probably also still mad about Hermacrates not going along with the bribery plan; 3) most importantly, in 8.85, we have already had a description of Hermocrates' motives (he was upset with Tissaphernes' double dealing) and so at this moment, it seems more likely that it is Tissaphernes' motives that are being described.
But I'll look more in depth tomorrow.
pster wrote:I'm unmoved by the τὴν ἔχθραν repetition.
-T is trying to turn the tables. Best defense is a good offense: I don't hold a grudge against him, he holds one against me kind of thing.
-The οἱ is I guess called for by the grammar alone, but seems to make explicit this kind of turning of the tables.
-However that may be, neither man likes the other and ἔχθραν is an extremely general term that seems to apply to both. If it were a more specific passion, then this line would be much more persuasive.
-Until he is exiled (a pretty common thing in Sicilian politics--Syracuse had banishment like Athens did), H is basking in the glow of his victories in Sicily, standing up for better pay for his men. T, on the other hand, has already been described as irrascible and rage prone. That inclines me to think that the main ἔχθραν in play is in himself and his accusations.
I'm glad you brought this up again, as I forgot to mention it earlier just before. Not just playing devil's advocate.
John W. wrote:I'm still inclined (though my view may change!) to take τὴν ἔχθραν οἱ προθοῖτο as Tissaphernes' (disingenuous) explanation
Qimmik wrote:John, my edition has the same two errors in volume 3. In the second instance, I too have the same small vertical stroke below the line but the rest of the rho, as well as part of the following alpha, is missing.
pster wrote:John, believe it or not--and I don't blame you if you don't!--I have finally, twenty plus months after beginning this thread, started reading Thucydides in earnest. Vocabulary cards have been made, Polybius project has been completed, and I have blocked out 1hr per day for however many years it takes to get to the end of Book VIII. I am happy for you that you are finishing up your translation, but I do hope you will be around to answer some of my random questions.
I noticed a remark of Hornblower's to the effect that Hobbes very rarely makes mistakes. Did you find that to be true? And is that new Cambridge translation something I must have?
Qimmik wrote:This is a very frequent idiomatic use of φαίνομαι. With a present participle, it can sometimes be translated as "clearly" or "obviously".
Qimmik wrote:I think that φαίνομαι + infinitive suggests things aren't necessarily as they seem.
φαίνομαι + participle suggests that things are as they seem, but I'm not completely sure as to the choice between "clearly," "manifestly," versus "evidently," "apparently". As to current circumstances, I think that it is more likely to mean "clearly," but with events in the remote past, as in Th. 1.3, where Th. didn't have direct knowledge, "evidently" or "it appears that" seems more appropriate than "it is clear that". So it seems to me that your translations of both passages are correct.
Qimmik wrote:We probably shouldn't get too caught up in fine distinctions between English words--again, the core meaning of the Greek is "the Greeks are not shown to have achieved . . . " And the most important point is that he's not suggesting that there is a possibility that the Greeks did in fact, contrary to appearances, achieve something in common before the Trojan War. Here absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
In my translation of 1.3.1, I think 'evidently' - referring to Thucydides' conclusion based on the available evidence of the past - is appropriate, whereas the stronger 'manifestly' sits better at 8.97.2, where he is talking (in positive terms) of events in his own lifetime.
Users browsing this forum: Paul Derouda and 47 guests