Thucydides ?

[Swth\r]

Perhaps you can help me get out of this... I am trying to understand the meaning of the following (The phrase is from Thucydides, A,136):

καὶ ?λθόντος ο? πολὺ ὕστε?ον τοῦ Ἀδμήτου δηλοῖ τε ὅς ?στι καὶ ο?κ ἀξιοῖ, εἴ τι ἄ?α α?τὸς ἀντεῖπεν α?τῷ Ἀθηναίων δεομένῳ, φε?γοντα τιμω?εῖσθαι. καὶ γὰ? ἄν ὑπ' ?κείνου πολλῷ ἀσθενεστέ?ου ?ν τῷ πα?όντι κακῶς πάσχειν, γενναῖον δὲ εἶναι τοὺς ?μοίους ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου τιμω?εῖσθαι.

I would like to hear your opinion about the participle "φε?γοντα". Specifically, I have some thoughts...:
1. Is it possible to be an attributive one or not? I mean since there is no article...
2. If yes, what should be the subject?
3. Can it be equal to a noun (with no definite article), e.g "φυγάδα"
4. If it is circumstantial, what kind can it be?

[Swth\r]

[annis]

[Swth\r]

Thanks! Your translation is certainly much accurate than mine.
The truth is that I came to this after a lot of consideration...

But could you (or someone else) explain to me why the syntax does not go like "και ουκ αξιοί φε?γων τιμω?είσθαι"?
Ι supposed that the infinitive lies here in passive mood... Or not? So you suggest, if I have understood your point, that the infinitive is here active (in middle voice) and it's subject is "Admeton" or an implied pronoun in accusative, and it's object, which is again implied in accusative, is also the subject of the participle. Am I right?
Thus, my question is: is the difference between "ουκ αξιώ (εγώ) φε?γων τιμω?είσθαι" and "ουκ αξιώ (σε) τιμω?είσθαι (με) φε?γοντα" only a syntax variation (active-passive syntax of the infinitive) or something else?

Thanks in advance!

[annis]

[Swth\r]

[IreneY]

I also took it for "Ἀδμητον τιμω?εῖσθαι Θεμιστοκλήν φε?γοντα" with the participle translated something like "being in exile", "now that he's in exile".

[Swth\r]