Demosthenes De Corona 1

[vir litterarum]

πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις, ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ τῇ τε πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ' ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα, ἔπειθ' ὅπερ ἐστὶ μάλισθ' ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας εὐσεβείας τε καὶ δόξης, τοῦτο παραστῆσαι τοὺς θεοὺς ὑμῖν, μὴ τὸν ἀντίδικον σύμβουλον ποιήσασθαι περὶ τοῦ πῶς ἀκούειν ὑμᾶς ἐμοῦ δεῖ (̔σχέτλιον γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦτό γἐ,) ἀλλὰ τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὸν ὅρκον
18.1

How is ποιήσασθαι to be translated here: There is no direct object expressed and it doesn't seem to me that one is easily inferrable?

[modus.irrealis]

I read it as ὑμᾶς being the implied subject of ποιήσασθαι with τὸν ἀντίδικον (and then τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὸν ὄρκον) being the direct object, and σύμβουλον being the complement -- literally it's something like "that you not consider my opponent as adviser about how.."

[vir litterarum]

That's how I originally took it, but one of my professors was convinced that τὸν ἀντίδικον σύμβουλον was the subject of ποιήσασθαι, with ἀντίδικον being adjectival. He asserted that "ποιήσασθαι + περὶ" could be used in the sense "to make a big deal about...," but I could not find any such usage in LSJ. My only question about your translation is why "emon" would not be used with ἀντίδικον here. I know the article can be used for the possessive, but it seems that in this context "emon" should be present.

[modus.irrealis]

That's how I originally took it, but one of my professors was convinced that τὸν ἀντίδικον σύμβουλον was the subject of ποιήσασθαι, with ἀντίδικον being adjectival. He asserted that "ποιήσασθαι + περὶ" could be used in the sense "to make a big deal about...," but I could not find any such usage in LSJ.

The main thing for me is that with παραστῆσαι, it seems to me that the construction there demands that the subject of the infinitive it governs be the same as the dative there. It seems odd to have them be different, although I guess that depends on what παρίστημι can mean. In the end, it just seems more natural to read it as "I pray that the gods 'set this before you', that you take not my opponent but the laws and your oath as adviser with respect to how..." rather than something like "I pray that the gods 'set this before you', that not my opponent but the laws and your oath make a big deal about how...".

My only question about your translation is why "emon" would not be used with ἀντίδικον here. I know the article can be used for the possessive, but it seems that in this context "emon" should be present.

I believe something like "the plaintiff" would also be a good translation -- but I think that shows why I think you can omit any possessive here. My understanding is that a possessive was normally used only when there was at least an implicit contrast between "my" and some other one, but here there is only one ἀντίδικος.

[Swth\r]

In my opinion it is just like "modus.irrealis" has already said... Τὸν ἀντίδικον = obj. of the infinitive, and σύμβουλον = predicate to this object through the speciali here meaning of ποιήσασθαι. This infinitive lies as apposition to the pronoun "τοῦτο", and its subject is "ὑμᾶς" as the dative "ὑμῖν", mentioned by orator just before, demands in meaning.

The possessive "ἐμὸν" is not needed either because of your own explanation (of the use of article), or because "ὁ ἀντίδικος" is not exactly someone in Demosthenes' possession, as I think.

What your professor said concerns the phrase "περὶ πολλοῦ ποιοῦμαι, περὶ πλείονος ποιοῦμαι, περὶ πλείστου ποιοῦμαι" (or with "ἡγοῦμαι" perhaps instead)... I cannot understand how "ποιοῦμαι περὶ τοῦ πῶς ..." could be used in the sense that he/she has told you...

[IreneY]

I "third" modus on this one
Question: With your professor's analysis, how is the rest of the sentence (after "περί") explained syntactically? It may be the lack of sufficient coffee in my system but I can't make it work ,

[vir litterarum]

I'm not disagreeing with modus; I just stated what one of my professors thought, but, as I said and Swith\r pointed out,

What your professor said concerns the phrase "περὶ πολλοῦ ποιοῦμαι, περὶ πλείονος ποιοῦμαι, περὶ πλείστου ποιοῦμαι" (or with "ἡγοῦμαι" perhaps instead)...

. I think he was just mistakenly thinking of this idiom.