τούτων οὖν ἐμοὶ τῶν λόγων ἢ τῶν ἔργων τί προσήκει;
I’m not sure how to tell whether τί is nominative or accusative. I don’t think it makes any difference.
His grammatical incoherence, signaled by the editor’s two dashes, is expressive of his vehemence.
Here is MacDowell’s note on that:
οἱ λόγοι τῶν κατηγόρων–> : After these words And. inserts a parenthesis to remind his audience of what his accusers said, and at the end of the parenthesis resumes his original sentence with τῶν λόγων in the genitive instead of the nominative and with a ‘resumptive’ οὖν (cf. Denniston 428-9). The dislocation of the grammar of a sentence by a parenthesis (not accompanied by any obscurity of meaning) is quite in And.'s normal manner; but some editors, not realizing this, have emended (e.g. κατηγόρων, <οἳ> ταῦτα Blass).
Now that I reread it in light of your comment, I see that his discussion of genitive τῶν λόγων, implies τί accusative.
I’d disagree with MacDowell here. Rather than a parenthesis we have a succession of changes of construction. First (unless we should read των κατηγορων <οἱ>) there’s the switch from οι λογοι to the accusers as subject of ανωρθιαζον and ειπον (the latter appropriately aor. not impf., btw). Then, more significantly, the λογους ειπον ὡς construction is abandoned in midstream, when the gen.abs. is followed by the οἷα clause. By then the sentence has gotten so far off course that he has to reboot. Pace MacD, τουτων ουν applies not to what was on the far side of the “parenthesis” but to what we’ve had since then, the λογοι and εργα just referred to. Such “dislocation of the grammar” is hardly “normal.” It reflects the vehemence of his “all that’s nothing to do with me” protestation.
Or that’s how I see it.
ἥκειν ἔφη τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ, καὶ δὴ κόπτειν τὴν θύραν· τὸν δὲ πατέρα τὸν ἐμὸν τυχεῖν ἐξιόντα, καὶ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν· “Ἆρά γε σὲ οἵδε περιμένουσι; χρὴ μέντοι μὴ ἀπωθεῖσθαι τοιούτους φίλους.” εἰπόντα δὲ αὐτὸν ταῦτα οἴχεσθαι. (καὶ τούτῳ μὲν τῷ τρόπῳ τὸν πατέρα μου ἀπώλλυε, συνειδότα ἀποφαίνων.) εἰπεῖν δὲ ἡμᾶς ὅτι δεδογμένον ἡμῖν εἴη δύο μὲν τάλαντα ἀργυρίου διδόναι οἱ ἀντὶ τῶν ἑκατὸν μνῶν τῶν ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου, ἐὰν δὲ κατάσχωμεν ἡμεῖς ἃ βουλόμεθα, ἕνα αὐτὸν ἡμῶν εἶναι, πίστιν δὲ τούτων δοῦναί τε καὶ δέξασθαι.
Some of MacDowell’s notes:
τοιούτους > : ‘such’ as whom? Two interpretations of this Delphic utterance are possible:
‘You must not discourage such friends as them.’ The conspirators were likely to offer Diokleides a large sum of money; he ought not to try their patience by keeping them waiting.
‘They must no discourage such friends as you.’ Diokleides had the power to reveal the conspiracy. So the conspirators had to avoid offending him, even if he did keep them waiting.
ἐὰν δὲ κατάσχωμεν. . . > : ‘and secondly that, if we got what we wanted, he should be one of us’. Here also two interpretations are possible:
‘If Diokleides kept our secret, he should become a member of our group.’
‘If we established an oligarchy, Diokleides should be a member of the oligarchic government.’ So Marchant; and Prof. Dover points out to me that κατέχειν and βούλεσθαι sometimes have a strongly political flavour, comparing Th. 6. 50. 3, 95. 2. But would And. want to refer, even in this indirect manner, to refer, even in this indirect manner, to the group’s plans for establishing an oligarchy?
πίστιν δὲ τούτων . . . > : ‘and thirdly that pledges to do all this should be exchanged’. Whether the subject to be understood with these infinitives is ‘we’ or ‘he’ cannot be decided; it makes no difference to the sense. The only thing which Diokleides promised to do was to keep the secret; keep the secret is therefore included in τούτων; τούτων should refer to items mentioned in the previous parts of the sentence; so we have here an argument for giving ἐὰν δὲ κατάσχωμεν . . . the first interpretation I suggested for it rather than the second.
I went through all of the appendices after reading through this part and a little beyond. I found it a little strange that MacDowell assumes that there must have been a conspiracy to mutilate the Herms, and that the real question was whether Andocides was guilty or not. With all of the informers, etc., it would strike me that mass hysteria is a perfectly good explanation for all of the events. One or two herms are mutilated somehow, this is noticed at some point, and suddenly every mark on any herm is evidence. Informers come forward to say that this is a dark conspiracy of hundreds of oligarchs to overthrow the government, etc., etc.
On the other hand, Alcibiades getting drunk and comically acting out the mysteries together with some comic playwrights is perfectly believable to me after reading the Symposium, which must have been commentary at some level or another on these events, including the ringleader himself and two other participants as it does.
With that off my chest (and I don’t really expect commentary on it), Marchant’s/Dover’s interpretation above was what I assumed reading through this the first time, and seeing κατάσχωμεν.
…ἐκέλευσαν…τοὺς δ᾽ ἱππέας ἔτι νυκτὸς σημῆναι τῇ σάλπιγγι ἥκειν εἰς τὸ Ἀνάκειον
MacDowell has a long note on who exactly is being ordered to come here.
τοὺς δὲ ἱππέας . . . > : Two alternatives seem possible:
‘And they ordered the knights to give a trumpet-signal to come…’.
‘And they ordered the generals to give a trumpet-signal (or, taking σημῆναι as having an unexpressed subject, as in Hdt. 8. 1.. 1, ‘ordered a trumpet-signal to be given’) that the knights should come. . .’.
The second of these gives better sense; yet for this we should expect τοῖς ἱππεῦσι. Possibly And. has written the accusative by analogy with the contruction of κελεύειν; if this is not tolerable, we must accept alternative 1.
Doesn’t option 1 make perfect sense if the knights are currently dispersed, and some nominal group of the knights are told to give the trumpet signal to gather themselves at the Anakeion? Or would ἑαυτοῖς be necessary?
53
οὓς εἰκὸς ἦν ἁπάντων μάλιστα δοκεῖν εἶναι τούτων τῶν ἀνδρῶν οὓς ἐμήνυσε Διοκλείδης, φίλους ὄντας τῶν ἀπολωλότων ἤδη.
Who it was likely above all others that they would seem to be of these men who Diokleides informed against, being friends of the ones already destroyed.
I’m not sure that I understand why δοκεῖν is infinitive here, governed by ἦν, I assume. MacDowell glosses it as “natural to think that…,” which makes sense. But I don’t really understand why.
δοκεῖν here not to seem but to think (w/ acc.&inf.).
Who (i.e. They) above all it was reasonable to think were …
Thank you. I think that I understood it this morning after reading your post, but I wanted to double-check these two similar usages in 56:
“ἐμοὶ γάρ…τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι μέγιστον, σωθέντι μὴ δοκεῖν κακῷ εἶναι”
this is the most important thing to me, not to be thought bad, being acquitted (subject of δοκεῖν unexpressed?)
“σῴζεσθαί τε ἀξιῶ καὶ δοκεῖν ὑμῖν εἶναι μὴ κακός”
I request that you both acquit me (why not aorist?) and think me not bad.
EDIT: My translation for the last seems wrong because that is ὑμῖν rather than ὑμᾶς. Should it be “I expect to be acquitted and to appear to you not to be bad”? However μὴ doesn’t feel right in that case.
In these two δοκειν doesn’t mean to think, to have an opinion (a δοξα), but to seem, to have a reputation (a δοξα). Basically dokein can refer to what you think of others (or of yourself) or to what others think of you; or just what seems (to someone, to everyone) to be the case.
ἐμοὶ γάρ…τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι μέγιστον, σωθέντι μὴ δοκεῖν κακῷ εἶναι. Here σωθεντι, and then the predicative κακῳ, agree with εμοι. The most important thing for me is having been saved (i.e. once I’ve been cleared) not to seem to be kakos, not to have the reputation of being kakos (instead of καλος καγαθος).
Similarly in σῴζεσθαί τε ἀξιῶ καὶ δοκεῖν ὑμῖν εἶναι μὴ κακός, with both infins dep on αξιω. Here not just “not to seem to be kakos” again but “to seem to you to be not kakos,” stronger and more positive. So your edit is right, except that only κακος is negatived. Nom. since he’s the subject of αξιω (and of δοκειν). And αξιῶ is stronger than “request." He’s claiming it’s what he deserves, he’s worthy (αξιος) of it.
σωζεσθαι (passive, like σωθεντι) present not aor because with acquittal he will be safe (at least for the time being) from further prosecution. Same with δοκειν, not a one-time impression but lasting good repute.
Neg. μή is what you’d expect in such sentences, given the infin (and αξιω too in the 2nd).
68
οὗτοι μὲν ἔφυγον δι᾽ ἐμέ, ὁμολογῶ· ἐσώθη δέ γε ὁ πατήρ, ὁ κηδεστής, ἀνεψιοὶ τρεῖς, τῶν ἄλλων συγγενῶν ἑπτά, μέλλοντες ἀποθανεῖσθαι ἀδίκως, οἳ νῦν ὁρῶσι τοῦ ἡλίου τὸ φῶς δι᾽ ἐμέ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογοῦσιν· ὁ δὲ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην συνταράξας καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἐσχάτους κινδύνους καταστήσας ἐξηλέγχθη· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀπηλλάγητε μεγάλων φόβων καὶ τῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ὑποψιῶν.
Now these fled due to me, I agree, but my father was saved, my brother-in-law, three cousins, seven from the rest of my family, all who were going to die unjustly, who now see the light of the son due to me, and they themselves agree. And one having disturbed the entirety of the city and having set them into the utmost dangers was refuted, and you were delivered from great fears and from suspicious against each other.
I was a little confused/surprised by ὁ δὲ…ἐξηλέγχθη. I would have expected the subject to have been more explicit (Diokleides). Maybe I shouldn’t have expected that. Would a ὁ μὲν have worked there as well?
And the last line of 70 also gives me some trouble:
περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν τότε γενομένων ἀκηκόατε πάντα καὶ ἀπολελόγηταί μοι ἱκανῶς (ὥς γ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν πείθω· εἰ δέ τίς τι ὑμῶν ποθεῖ ἢ νομίζει τι μὴ ἱκανῶς εἰρῆσθαι ἢ παραλέλοιπά τι, ἀναστὰς ὑπομνησάτω, καὶ ἀπολογήσομαι καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο)· περὶ δὲ τῶν νόμων ἤδη ὑμᾶς διδάξω.
Therefore about the occurrences of that time you have heard all, and I am defended enough (so, at least, I persuade myself, but if any of you have missed anything or think that something is not spoken enough about or I have left anything out, let him stand up and remind me, and I will defend also in reference to this), but about the laws that have been up to now, I shall now teach you.
παραλέλοιπά is perfectly intelligible, but the subject switch is a little painful to me.
πρὸς τοῦτο – I suppose it must be “in reference to this”. Maybe with the physical idea of “go into this area” (towards this)?
περὶ δὲ τῶν νόμων ἤδη ὑμᾶς διδάξω, does ἤδη go with τῶν νόμων as I have it?
Would a ὁ μὲν have worked there as well?
No, because he’s not drawing a contrast between Diocleides and the audience. In ὑμεῖς δὲ, δὲ functions simply as a continuation of the narrative, as it does in ὁ δὲ in the previous period.
ὁ δὲ . . . συνταράξας – “and the man who disturbed/shook up . . .”. “. . . one having disturbed . . .” doesn’t accurately render the Greek, in addition to not really being English.
“. . . the light of the son”? This is pre-Christian.
ἔφυγον – probably “went into exile” would be better.
ἀπολελόγηταί μοι ἱκανῶς – “I have sufficiently responded to the accusations”. μοι is dative of agent with an (impersonal) perfect passive.
the subject switch is a little painful to me.
Not a big deal. It intrudes slightly but I wouldn’t say painfully. "But if any of you wants something [else], or thinks that something hasn’t been sufficiently discussed, or if I’ve left anything out, let him stand up and . . . "
καὶ ἀπολογήσομαι καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο – "and I will respond to that, too [i.e., the point raised by the member of the jury who stands up]
ἤδη – “right away”, “immediately”, “right now”: “and now I will explain the laws to you”.
Oh dear I can’t keep up. But anyway:
ὁ δὲ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην συνταράξας. ὁ w/ pple, not “one having …” but “the one who …,” “the one who’d roiled the whole city” (the city in its entirety, ολην predicative). It wd be superfluous to name him again.
μεν wdn’t work. We could have had a μεν … δε pairing such as εσωθη μεν … ὁ δε … but we had εσωθη δε, paired wth ουτοι μεν εφυγον, so we’re finished with μεν … δε, and now we have a further contrasting item introduced by ο δε. They went into exile [Sorry about that, guys], but at least my father was spared, …—and the one who’d caused the citywide turmoil got what was coming to him.
εξελεγχθη here not “was refuted” but “was convicted” (after interrogation and examination of evidence). I don’t know what he could have been accused of that carried the death penalty, but legal niceties tend to go by the board in a perceived state of emergency.
[So far independent of Hylander.]
Hylander’s spotting “the light of the son” has lightened my day. It’s a rather extravagant locution, often in tragedy.
περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν τότε γενομένων ἀκηκόατε πάντα … περὶ δὲ τῶν νόμων ἤδη ὑμᾶς διδάξω. marks a major transition. (περι μεν ουν, τοτε, perfect: περι δε, ηδη, future.) Cf. e.g. end of Ar.Poetics or Hdt. passim and between books.
I typo one letter…
εἰ δὲ ὁ ἥλιος λούεται ἐν ὠκεανῷ, διὰ τί καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν Ἰορδάνῃ οὐ λούεται; ἥλιος ἀνατολῆς καὶ μόνος ἥλιος οὗτος ἀνέτειλεν ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ.
ἐξηλέγχθη – should the participles συνταράξας and καταστήσας be interpreted as supplementary participles with this verb, “convicted of having disturbed and set”, or should they be read as temporal, “convicted after having disturbed and set”?
The participles don’t seem to be specific crimes that would be subject to prosecution and conviction; but taking them as temporal leaves the question “convicted of what?” Maybe “refuted” or “proven to have lied” would in fact be better here.
Compare 60 and 65:
καὶ ἐλέγξαι Διοκλείδην ψευσάμενον, καὶ τιμωρήσασθαι ἐκεῖνον, ὃς ἡμᾶς μὲν ἀπώλλυεν ἀδίκως, τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἐξηπάτα, ταῦτα δὲ ποιῶν μέγιστος εὐεργέτης ἐδόκει εἶναι καὶ χρήματα ἐλάμβανε
τότε δὴ καλοῦσι τὸν Διοκλείδην· καὶ οὐ πολλῶν λόγων ἐδέησεν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς ὡμολόγει ψεύδεσθαι καὶ ἐδεῖτο σῷζεσθαι φράσας τοὺς πείσαντας αὐτὸν λέγειν ταῦτα…
Here Andocides seems specific that he was convicted of perjury, and the second story doesn’t seem to leave room for any other sort of trial.
ἀπεκτείνατε> : On what ground was Diokleides condemned to death? A guilty man who gave information to earn immunity was executed if his information was shown to be false (20); but Diokleides was not guilty of mutilation of the Hermai, and the normal penalty for perjury (see note on 7 ψευδομαρτυριῶν) was less severe. Perhaps he was accused of ‘deceiving the people’, for which the penalty was death (D. 20. 135, 23. 97).
Hmm. Doesn’t this hinge on the opening ὁ δὲ? Is ὁ pronoun or article? I’m finding it next to impossible to read it as “But he …” (meaning Diokleides, who hasn’t been mentioned since prepositional ὑπο Δ.ου a while back), which both of Hylander’s alternatives seem to entail. With the participles following I can only read it as “And/but the one who …”, from which it’s clear that Diokleides is meant. This is how Hylander first took it too. The characterization of him in these terms is a restatement of D’s actions as characterized above in 60 (quoted by jeidsath), designed to maximize the extent of the danger from which the city was rescued (by Andocides?—he can’t actually claim that, but he comes as close as he can). This is rhetoric, after all, not an objective presentation of facts, let alone of formal charges.
Taking ὁ … καταστήσας as subject (as I think we must) leaves εξηλεγχθη standing on its own as the verb. I take that as referring back to the inquisition of 65 (εξελεγχοντες δε …) and the resultant execution. This closing section, 67-68 (εν οἷς εγώ …), is a kind of peroration, recapping events and justifying his behavior.
Or am I reading it all wrong?
Would that make the rhetorical argument of 68 the following?
Let’s go through the list of people affected by my actions:
The Bad
Counterbalanced by
And I would think that makes ὁ δὲ … ἐξηλέγχθη a very nice formulation. Andocides is trying to emphasis the positive external results of his actions. Calling Diokleides by name might have evoked pity or made it seem like a personal grudge. Mentioning his death would have made Andocides appear bloodthirsty, or again, evoked pity. Instead, Diokleides is described entirely by his dangerous conduct.
Yes that’s about it. 67 is part of this too, and sets it up. All pity is rightfully to be directed toward himself, ανηρ αριστος that he is. Even the one Bad wasn’t really bad.
Interesting times.