Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
εἰ δέοι αὐτὸν κρίνεσθαι πρὸς ἀνθρώπους οἷς μήτε παιδεία ἐστὶν μήτε δικαστήρια μήτε νόμοι μηδὲ ἀνάγκη μηδεμία διὰ παντὸς ἀναγκάζουσα ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ εἶεν ἄγριοί τινες οἷοίπερ οὓς πέρυσιν Φερεκράτης ὁ ποιητὴς ἐδίδαξεν ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ. As I understand, εἶεν is attracted into the opt because of εἰ δέοι.
Doubtless δέοι played a part in determining optative εἶεν, but we can’t simply say that εἶεν is attracted to the optative. Attracted from what? and how to account for it? From the indicative, presumably: ἐστὶν was used in the first part of the relative clause. But it’s important to note that the construction has changed: οἷς does not carry over to this latter clause. This factors into the switch to the more remote optative.
No that’s not it at all! That wouldn’t make sense. It’s a continuation of the relative clause, with a slight anacoluthon (since οἷς has been left behind). If it helps, you can understand οἲ before εἶεν; that would make it grammatical, but would be unidiomatic. The sense, as you'd have realized if you read for sense as well as grammar, is “who have no culture … (lit. to whom there is no culture …) but rather are savages.”
but i think he changes the mood for stylistic reasons aiming at variety, for he could have used the opt in both parts, or could have switched the moods saying ἐισί for εἶεν in the second part, or εἴη for ἐστι in the first part, however, i think that using the indicative in both parts throughout would have been wrong.