εἰ οἴει τῇ ἐμῇ παρουσίᾳ Μήδους κατεσκευάσθαι ὥστε ἱκανοὺς εἶναι σὲ κακῶς ποιεῖν:
I understand this as’ if you think that the Medes have been corrupted by my presence so as to be capable of doing you harm.’
The English translation renders it as ‘have been put in a position to do you harm.’ I don’t think κατεσκευάσθαι here is translated correctly.
Translation seems ok. What’s wrong with it? I don’t see anything about “corruption” in the Greek.
I cannot find the exact meaning in the dictionaries that matches ‘to put in a position.’ Maybe, the translator paraphrased ‘to be so equipped’ or something. As for 'to make, ‘to render’, the dictionary says it requires double Acc which is not the case here.
κατεσκεύασθαι ὡστε ἰκανοὺς εἶναι – “to have been put in a position to” seems like an idiomatic translation.
IMO: furnished with [the tool that is] my presence, so as to be capable … (natural result)
The translation means about this, I guess, though the clear mental image in the Greek mostly drops away.
but why not use another meaning, that of ‘suborn’ or ‘corrupt?’ It would fit the context as well I suppose, unless ‘suborn’ is strictly limited to ‘giving bribes, etc.’
I see meaning number 4 in the CGL:
passive.
(of persons) be fully prepared - w. ὥστε + inf. to do somethng, Xenophon
So maybe the translation could be something like:
if you think that with my assistance the Medes have been fully prepared to be able to harm you
LSJ A.5: make/render/dispose. Here “have been put in such a state as to be capable of”. “Suborn,” “corrupt” make no sense here. Miller’s translation is fine.
The question to me is whether that dative is dative of agent (normal with a perfect), or instead the normal dative with this verb, as ἵπποις τε καὶ ὅπλοις κατεσκευάσμενοι in Xenophon’s econ paper. Equipped with X. This dative is normally plural, but can be singular.
Kuaxares has been impressed by the horse show just a moment ago, and feels that his Medes are now a much more effective military presence than they were. He wants to know why οἱ ἐμοὶ δοῦλοι are ἰσχυροότεροι ἐμοῦ. “The slaves have become the masters,” as Darth Vader might say. How are they κατεσκευασμένοι so that they have the ability to ποῆσαι μᾶλλον ἐμὲ κακῶς ἢ παθεῖν ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. Cyrus, answering here takes up that question and restates the last only slightly differently as ὥστε ἱκανοὺς εἶναι σὲ κακῶς ποιεῖν.
But the context seems to suggest another question. What has turned the Medes against Kuaxares?
Answering the first question leans towards a dative agent interpretation to Cyrus’s answer and the second towards the equipage dative. 1) Equipped with my presence (generalship, etc.) so that they can… Or 2) prepared/readied/(corrupted is fine giving what follows, imo, but Hylander is the gloss-debater, and you can have that out with him) by my presence so that they…
I think that a case could be made for 2, especially given what follows, but 1 just seems more likely with the phrasing ὥστε ἱκανοὺς εἶναι σὲ κακῶς ποιεῖν. It’s not a actual result clause saying “ὥστε σὲ κακῶς ποιοῦσι” or “ὥστε σὲ κακῶς ποιεῖν ἐθέλουσι”, or even natural result “ὥστε σὲ κακῶς ποιεῖν ἐθέλειν” any of which I would have expected with 2.
Cyrus I think is (or pretends to be) slightly taken aback (and slightly indignant) as to why Kuaxares should be so openly paranoid as to make this point at all, even though they are better equipped and more magnificent than when he last saw them i.e. ‘do you (really) think that by (just) being alongside me they could have been so rendered as to be capable of doing you harm?’ Kuaxares is more concerned about the possible change in mindset and loyalty of his douloi towards him not the fact they’ve acquired more weapons and trinkets, the acquisition of which being slightly immaterial as to their actual ability to harm him.
I should have also said that in the relationship between the two (one in which Cyrus is trying to stay on good terms) it would have come across too strong/brazen/accusatory for Cyrus to directly say ‘corrupted’.