Thucydides Book 1, Ch. 124

[hlawson38]

This is taken from a speech, in which for the Lakedaemonians the speaker has been laying a foundation for a recommendation of war.

‘ὥστε πανταχόθεν καλῶς ὑπάρχον ὑμῖν πολεμεῖν καὶ ἡμῶν κοινῇ τάδε παραινούντων, εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, μὴ μέλλετε Ποτειδεάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι τιμωρίαν. . .

‘ὥστε πανταχόθεν καλῶς ὑπάρχον ὑμῖν πολεμεῖν: accusative absolute: In every quarter it is fine for you to go to war.

καὶ ἡμῶν κοινῇ τάδε παραινούντων: genitive absolute: and in the common interest we recommend this.

My query: isn't τάδε accusative plural neuter? Is the speaker, because he is addressing a confederation of states, thinking of going to war as plural?

I'm in a muddle here.

[mwh]

Your suggestion seems quite plausible to me, Hugh, since the various cities will get to vote individually; and aside from that, the neuter plural is quite often used (ταῦτα especially) where English would use the singular. Reading through the speech (it’a a tough one!) I see there was τάδε again at 122.4 (οὐκ ἴσμεν ὅπως τάδε τριῶν τῶν μεγίστων ξυμφορῶν ἀπήλλακται …), but that’s rather different and perhaps easier.

[hlawson38]

Your suggestion seems quite plausible to me, Hugh, since the various cities will get to vote individually; and aside from that, the neuter plural is quite often used (ταῦτα especially) where English would use the singular. Reading through the speech (it’a a tough one!) I see there was τάδε again at 122.4 (οὐκ ἴσμεν ὅπως τάδε τριῶν τῶν μεγίστων ξυμφορῶν ἀπήλλακται …), but that’s rather different and perhaps easier.

Thank you, Michael, for these helpful remarks. I see that Charles D. Morris, whose comments appear chapter-by-chapter alongside the Perseus text, includes this: "(πολεμεῖν=τάδε=ταῦτα)". After reading your reply, this became a little clearer.

[Constantinus Philo]

εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, μὴ μέλλετε Ποτειδεάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι τιμωρίαν. . .
since it is absolutely certain that the same things are equally profitable to both states and individuals, do not delay your assistance to the Peteideates.
I think this part of the sentence in clear and my translation is correct. Why, then, do the translations in Pers translate it so differently?

[hlawson38]

εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, μὴ μέλλετε Ποτειδεάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι τιμωρίαν. . .
since it is absolutely certain that the same things are equally profitable to both states and individuals, do not delay your assistance to the Peteideates.
I think this part of the sentence in clear and my translation is correct. Why, then, do the translations in Pers translate it so differently?

I cannot answer C. Philo's question, but I can present H. D. Cameron's comment, from his Thucydides Book I: A Student's Grammatical Commentary, p. 117. Cameron gives his translation in quotes.

εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι. Real condition with present indicative (the missing copula ἐστί) indicating an admitted fact. "Given the fact that it is most secure for there to be the same interests for both cities and individuals [i.e., for cities and individuals to have the same interests]."

[hlawson38]

The reference is Thucydides Book 1, ch. 124.

Quoted below is H. D. Cameron's comment, from his Thucydides Book I: A Student's Grammatical Commentary, p. 117. Cameron gives his translation in quotes.

εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι. Real condition with present indicative (the missing copula ἐστί) indicating an admitted fact. "Given the fact that it is most secure for there to be the same interests for both cities and individuals [i.e., for cities and individuals to have the same interests]."

Given Cameron's comment, I'll be grateful for a discussion of two questions that occurred to me, but that I cannot properly answer.

1. *where* might "the missing copula ἐστί" be placed?

2. Is the attributive/predicative distinction relevant to the placement of "the missing copula ἐστί"? (My understanding of the attributive/predicative distinction in relation to word order is pretty shaky.)

In case there is need for more context I quote 1.124.1 in full, with a link to the Perseus presentation:

‘ὥστε πανταχόθεν καλῶς ὑπάρχον ὑμῖν πολεμεῖν καὶ ἡμῶν κοινῇ τάδε παραινούντων, εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, μὴ μέλλετε Ποτειδεάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι τιμωρίαν οὖσι Δωριεῦσι καὶ ὑπὸ Ἰώνων πολιορκουμένοις, οὗ πρότερον ἦν τοὐναντίον, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μετελθεῖν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, ὡς οὐκέτι ἐνδέχεται περιμένοντας τοὺς μὲν ἤδη βλάπτεσθαι, τοὺς δ᾽, εἰ γνωσθησόμεθα ξυνελθόντες μέν, ἀμύνεσθαι δὲ οὐ τολμῶντες, μὴ πολὺ ὕστερον τὸ αὐτὸ πάσχειν

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... pter%3D124

[Constantinus Philo]

i dont think its relevant or important

[mwh]

Constantinus, On Perseus I find this translated “bearing in mind that identity of interests is the surest of bonds whether between states or individuals.” I don’t see much wrong with that.

Hugh, Here’s what I’d say about "the missing copula ἐστί” here. βεβαιότατον is the predicate. τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, an articular infinitive, is the subject. ἐστί cannot come within the articular infinitive, which is a self-contained indivisible unit, so there are only three available places for it: at clause end (after εἶναι), or immediately before or immediately after βεβαιότατον.
It would be most unnatural for it to be deferred all the way to the end of the clause, following the articular infinitive.
And since it’s enclitic, the most natural place for it would be directly after βεβαιότατον: thus εἴπερ βεβαιότατόν ἐστι etc.
But in fact of course there's no need for it at all.

Incidentally, a parallel for τάδε in ἡμῶν κοινῇ τάδε παραινούντων comes in the very next sentence, as the Corinthians continue their wrap-up: ἀλλὰ νομίσαντες ἐς ἀνάγκην ἀφῖχθαι, ὦ ἄνδρες ξύμμαχοι, καὶ ἅμα τάδε ἄριστα λέγεσθαι, ψηφίσασθε τὸν πόλεμον ….

[hlawson38]

Many thanks Michael. As usual, I have to take some time studying your comments.

[hlawson38]

--snip--
Hugh, Here’s what I’d say about "the missing copula ἐστί” here. βεβαιότατον is the predicate. τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, an articular infinitive, is the subject. ἐστί cannot come within the articular infinitive, which is a self-contained indivisible unit, so there are only three available places for it: at clause end (after εἶναι), or immediately before or immediately after βεβαιότατον.
It would be most unnatural for it to be deferred all the way to the end of the clause, following the articular infinitive.
And since it’s enclitic, the most natural place for it would be directly after βεβαιότατον: thus εἴπερ βεβαιότατόν ἐστι etc.
But in fact of course there's no need for it at all.

Oh, many thanks Michael. As usual, I got myself into a muddle due to failure to see a possibility, that articular infinitive construction you identify. I cannot now properly recall the hypotheses I was trying to match with this passage.

Also, on "the missing copula", I was unsure whether Cameron meant "anomalously missing" or simply "unneeded". Your comment made that clear: the copula was not needed.