Good morning everyone
I am reading Aristotle’s Politics and I observed that frequently (if not in each case) Aristotle (or whoever wrote the book) puts the subject of the articular infinitive in oblique case in accusative as in:
πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἄγαν δεσποτικὰς εἶναι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τινῶν δυσχερανάντων κατελύθησαν
According to Smyth 1973a:
The nominative is used when the infinitive, expressing some action or state of the subject of the main verb, has the article in an oblique case. Thus, τούτων ἀξιωθεὶς διὰ τὸ πατρικὸς αὐτῷ φίλος εί̂ναι justifying these requests on the ground that he was his hereditary friend Aes. 3.52, ““τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐποίει ἐκ τοῦ χαλεπὸς εἶναι” this he effected by reason of his being severe” X. A. 2.6.9, ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοῖοι τοῖς λειπομένοις εἶναι ἐκπέμπονται (colonists) are sent out to be the equals of those who stay at home T. 1.34.
Is there any grammatical explanation to that?
Smyth simply means that when the subject of the articular infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb, then anything modifying it goes into the nominative. So in his examples, the adjectives are nominative even though technically modifying the main subject as the subject of the infinitive. In your example from Aristotle, πολλαί has to refer back to something like ἀρχαί or πολιτεῖαι, so the subject of the infinitive is not the same, and goes as regularly into the accusative.
γίνονται δὲ στάσεις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιωθεῖσθαι ἑτέρους ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ καταστασιάζεσθαι κατὰ γάμους ἢ δίκας, οἷον ἐκ γαμικῆς μὲν αἰτίας αἱ εἰρημέναι πρότερον (καὶ τὴν ἐν Ἐρετρίᾳ δ᾽ ὀλιγαρχίαν τὴν τῶν ἱππέων Διαγόρας κατέλυσεν ἀδικηθεὶς περὶ γάμον), ἐκ δὲ δικαστηρίου κρίσεως ἡ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ στάσις ἐγένετο καὶ ἡ ἐν Θήβαις, ἐπ᾽ αἰτίᾳ μοιχείας δικαίως μὲν στασιαστικῶς δὲ ποιησαμένων τὴν κόλασιν τῶν μὲν ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ κατ᾽ Εὐρυτίωνος, τῶν δ᾽ ἐν Θήβαις κατ᾽ Ἀρχίου (ἐφιλονείκησαν γὰρ αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ ὥστε δεθῆναι ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐν τῷ κύφωνι). πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἄγαν δεσποτικὰς εἶναι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τινῶν δυσχερανάντων κατελύθησαν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Κνίδῳ καὶ ἡ ἐν Χίῳ ὀλιγαρχία.
I assumed the same as Barry at first, but looking at the context it seems to support Chairophilos’ reading. To me, anyway, it looks like it’s not πολλαὶ στάσεις that are κατελύθησαν, but it is πολλαὶ ὀλιγαρχίαι that he has in mind. The followup ὥσπερ is suggestive too.
It looks like the τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας in the τὸ εἶναι statement are slightly more general than the specific examples that are actually κατελύθησαν, and that is enough to distinguish them slightly from the subject in the author’s mind? I’m not really sure.
Kühner 476 Anmerk 4 has a (very very short) list of exceptions, where an oblique case is used with the infinitive instead of the nominative you would expect.
Yeah, I think the Occam’s razor explanation at least in this context is that Aristotle felt that the subject of the infinitive and the subject of the main verb were different. But hey, native speakers can do all sorts of strange things, so I’m good either way.
Thank you very much for your answers!