Xen. Mem. 2.3.10

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.
Post Reply
ducky123
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 2:41 pm
Location: Preston, UK

Xen. Mem. 2.3.10

Post by ducky123 »

Socrates is trying to reconcile Chaerecrates with his estranged brother Chaerophon. I’m struggling to make things after οἷς grammatically make sense.

καὶ ὁ Χαιρεκράτης, δέδοικα, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, μὴ οὐκ ἔχω ἐγὼ τοσαύτην σοφίαν ὥστε Χαιρεφῶντα ποιῆσαι πρὸς ἐμὲ οἷον δεῖ. καὶ μὴν οὐδέν γε ποικίλον, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, οὐδὲ καινὸν δεῖ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, μηχανᾶσθαι, οἷς δὲ καὶ σὺ ἐπίστασαι αὐτὸς οἴομαι ἂν αὐτὸν ἁλόντα περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαί σε.

The commentary in Perseus say that οἷς is equivalent to τούτοις ἅ, of which ἅ is obj. of ἐπίστασαι and τούτοις modifies ἁλόντα. Fair enough, but I also can’t help but think that αὐτὸν ἁλόντα is a complementary participle to ἐπίστασαι and so wouldn’t that mean ἐπίστασαι would have two objects ? (ἅ and αὐτὸν ἁλόντα) I’m assuming οἴομαι is parenthetical and isn’t modifying and περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαί σε is an epexygetical infinitive.
The gist is something like… You yourself know the things, I suppose, which would win him over, making him value you greatly.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Xen. Mem. 2.3.10

Post by mwh »

I take περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαί σε as the infinitive in an acc.&inf. construction. As I read it, the skeletal structure within the relative clause is ἐπίστασαι … ἂν αὐτὸν … περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαί σε, “You know that he would value you.” Admittedly acc.&inf. is unusual with επίσταμαι.
ἁλόντα I take as subordinate to the infinitive (so lit. “that he, having been caught, would value you”).

As for the relative itself, the way I read the Greek, οἷς incorporates another object of μηχανᾶσθαι, so that the sense is “but (the things) by which you yourself know that he …”. In other words, I take οἷς as “equivalent” not to τούτοις ἅ but rather to ταῦτα οἶς (though I deplore this kind of formulation). Apparently this is different from the commentary you cite.
So syntactically I'd say we can reduce the whole thing to οὐδέν γε ποικίλον … δεῖ … μηχανᾶσθαι, οἷς δὲ … ἐπίστασαι … ἂν αὐτὸν … περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαί σε. (“… must contrive nothing fancy but just the means by which …”).

Does this help, or hinder?

Post Reply