οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἀργεῖται
is this D of agent or of interest?
LSJ says ἀργεῖται in this passage is passive, οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ἀργεῖται means “nothing is left undone”. But is this verb really passive and not just middle? And can the subjects be agents of verb signifying inactivity? In any case, the dative of agent usually complements a perfect passive verb. If I were forced to choose, I’d say dative of interest or ethical dative.
οὕτω δή, ἔφη, δεῖ ὑμᾶς γιγνώσκειν ὡς ὅταν μὲν ἄνθρωποι κοινωνοὶ πολέμου γενόμενοι ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἕκαστοι ἔχωσιν, ὡς, εἰ μὴ αὐτός τις προθυμήσεται, οὐδὲν ἐσόμενον τῶν δεόντων, ταχὺ πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ διαπράττονται: οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἀργεῖται τῶν πράττεσθαι δεομένων: ὅταν δ᾽ ἕκαστος διανοηθῇ ὡς ἄλλος ἔσται ὁ πράττων καὶ μαχόμενος, κἂν αὐτὸς μαλακίζηται, τούτοις, ἔφη, εὖ ἴστε ὅτι πᾶσιν ἅμα πάντα ἥκει τὰ χαλεπὰ φερόμενα.
If that were middle, then οὐδὲν τῶν πράττεσθαι δεομένων would be an object, and the subject the same as the preceding αὐτός τις προθυμήσεται. Then the αὐτοῖς can only be themselves. But we’ve just run across them all together as διαπράττονται. I don’t think that can work. The flow of subjects and objects reads much more naturally with ἀργεῖται passive, οὐδὲν its subject, and αὐτοῖς the agent.
Like Hylander, I find this rather puzzling. All LSJ gives for the alleged passive use is one other Xen. ref., Hiero 9.9, which runs εἰ δὲ φανερὸν γένοιτο ὅτι καὶ ὁ πρόσοδόν τινα ἄλυπον ἐξευρίσκων τῇ πόλει τιμήσεται, οὐδ᾽ αὕτη ἂν ἡ σκέψις ἀργοῖτο.
I’d have expected the active in both cases.
(If the given text is to stand, and Hylander is right to suggest middle rather than passive, the syntax will otherwise be just the same, with ουδεν the subject. There is no contact with the deeply subordinated αὐτός τις προθυμήσεται in the preceding sentence.)
But if οὐδέν (of what needs to be done) is the subject of middle ἀργεῖται, that’s “nothing doesn’t work itself.” There’s no sense to that. The subject of ἀργεῖν has to be something capable of doing (or not doing) work, and a special middle significance seems unlikely. Passive is simple in conception: nothing is not worked by them.
Another Xenophon use in Cynegeticus 12.11, somewhat similar in conception to the above.
εἰ οὖν οἱ φιλοκυνηγέται παρασκευάζουσιν αὑτοὺς τῇ πατρίδι χρησίμους εἶναι εἰς τὰ μέγιστα, οὐδ’ ἂν τὰ ἴδια ἀργοῖτο· σὺν γὰρ τῇ πόλει καὶ σῴζεται καὶ ἀπόλλυται τὰ οἰκεῖα ἑκάστου.
(Seems clear to me as “private things be not done”, passive.)
No more middle/passive until Josephus 1.60:
τριβομένης δὲ διὰ ταῦτα τῆς πολιορκίας ἐπέστη τὸ ἀργὸν ἔτος, ὃ κατὰ ἑπταετίαν ἀργεῖται παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ὁμοίως ταῖς ἑβδομάσιν ἡμέραις.
And then nothing until after Justinian.
οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἀργεῖται τῶν πράττεσθαι δεομένων
Just to clarify my problem (and I think mwh’s, too), there’s no question that οὐδὲν . . . τῶν πράττεσσθαι δεομένων is the subject, and the referent of αὐτοῖς is ἄνθρωποι κοινωνοὶ πολέμου γενόμενοι. The meaning of the sentence is clear; the only questions are (1) what is the voice of ἀργεῖται, and (2) what kind of dative is αὐτοῖς.
The basic meanings of ἀργέω in the active voice are “be unemployed,” “do nothing,” “lie fallow,” “be at rest,” from αργός<ἀεργός. I find it semantically odd that this essentially stative verb should have a passive form: that’s why I suggested, LSJ notwithstanding, ἀργεῖται might be middle. It also seems semantically odd to construe αὐτοῖς as agent with ἀργεῖται; as a matter of grammar, the dative of agent is normally characteristic of the perfect passive.
The meaning of the Greek is clear enough. But translating the sentence with a passive verb, “nothing needing to be done is left undone by them,” although it accurately reflects the underlying meaning of the Greek, obscures the questions surrounding the grammar of the Greek.
ἴστε ὅτι πᾶσιν ἅμα πάντα ἥκει τὰ χαλεπὰ φερόμενα. Here, it is definitely Dat commodi. May be the D in question is also the same as they both are parallel?
οὐδ’ ἂν τὰ ἴδια ἀργοῖτο – their own affairs/property wouldn’t go to waste
τὸ ἀργὸν ἔτος, ὃ κατὰ ἑπταετίαν αργεῖται – the “fallow” year, which is free from work among the Jews, just like the seventh day of the week
πᾶσιν ἅμα πάντα ἥκει τὰ χαλεπὰ φερόμενα – not parallel and not quite the same: πᾶσιν here complements either ἥκει or possibly φερόμενα.
Is “γῆ ἀργοῦσα” “lie fallow” as it’s glossed, or more accurately “be unproductive”? I think the English glosses in the dictionary are confusing the mental image.
In Cyropaedia 1.6.11 τὴν ἀργοῦσαν is clearly land allowed to lie fallow, despite the availability of laborers. But both meanings are possible depending on context.
Here’s a loose translation/interpretation of Cyropaedia 2.3.3, to show how it fits together:
. . . whenever men who are comrades in warfare are each convinced that, if someone is not proactive on his own, nothing will happen that needs to happen, they will soon achieve many outstanding accomplishments, for nothing that needs to be done will remain inchoate for them.
The problem is that active ἀργέω doesnt mean “fail to do,” it means “not get done.” What’s the passive of that?
πᾶσιν ἅμα πάντα ἥκει τὰ χαλεπὰ φερόμενα is not parallel and not quite the same. Dative πᾶσιν complements ἥκει or more likely φερόμενα – "everything comes bringing difficulties to/for everyone all together.
“Lie fallow” is one passive way we talk about unworked land in English. Another, active way that we talk about it in English, obviously closer to this Greek expression, is “idle fields”.
Land is something active, that does stuff: brings forth shoots, etc. If there was a really a sense of “is unworked” to ἀργεῖν, you’d expect to see the verb used that way with other things other than land that could be worked on or at (textiles, etc.).
The problem is that active ἀργέω doesnt mean “fail to do,” it means “not get done.” What’s the passive of that?
ἀργεῖ τι. He’s not working on it. ἀργεῖται. It’s not being worked on.
ἀργεῖ τι. He’s not working on it.
ἀργεῖ doesn’t mean “he’s not working on it.” It means “he/she/it is not working/idle.” It’s intransitive. That’s why a passive would be strange. See LSJ for various usages.
I thought that “not work the Sabbath” and “not work the workplace” were examples there. Maybe I’m wrong. Say that those are adverbial. The LSJ also gives the verb with c. gen. rei, which is good enough for a passive form in ὀλιγωρῶ τινος or ἄρχω τινός or καταγελῶ τινος. Or look at a verb like δακρύω, which is mostly absolute…except in the rare cases where the person/thing wept for is specified, and has a passive form.
One more observation – and this will have to be my last post on this thread. We’ve seen three passages in Xenophon where ἀργέω is used with medio-passive endings, namely (1) this passage, Cyropaedia 2.3.3; (2) Hiero 9.9, cited as passive in LSJ; and (3) Cynegeticus 12.11, tracked down by Joel. In all three instances, these forms seem, to me at least, better understood as semantically middle, or even as active, than as passive. Perhaps for Xenophon this verb was a deponent, ἀ̓ργοῦμαι.
I doubt any clearly passive forms can be found – *ἀργήθην, *ἀγηθήσομαι, etc.
Yes, Bill, it seems that the non-active use of ἀργέω is a genuine Xenophontic peculiarity. (The usages that Joel adduces for other verbs don’t come anywhere close to being analogous.) Whether it’s to be classified as middle or passive, I’m not sure it’s functionally any different from the active (which. Xen. also uses), but it doesn’t look as if it can be convincingly emended away. I suppose we should regard it as belonging with the various other non-Attic features of Xenophon’s language, which are well recognized. Rutherford castigated what he called “his extraordinary disregard of the most familiar rules of Attic writing.”
You have to look at the subjects, not the glosses. Going through the LSJ article:
Hp.Mochl.23 ἕκαστον τοῦ σώματος, E.Ph.625 ξίφος, X.Cyr.1.2.15 (pers.), Pl.R.426a (pers.), LXX 2 Ma.5.25 (pers.), J.BJ7.3.3 [7.53 in TLG] (pers.), Trag.Adesp.527 (pers.), X.Cyr.1.6.11 [γῆ] ἀνωφέλητον, though with referent ἀγρούς. PFlor.262.9 ? κῆπος. See image below. S.Fr.864 στέγος. D.27.19 (pers.) Arist.Pr.903a21 τῆς ὄψεως, Somn.Vig.455a30 τὰς αἰσθήσεις, Pl.R.371c. (pers.)
Middle/passive: X.Cyr.2.3.3 οὐδὲν τῶν πράττεσθαι δεομένων, X.Cyn.12.11 τὰ ἴδια (contrasted χρησίμους εἶναι εἰς τὰ μέγιστα), X.Hier.9.9 ἡ σκέψις. [Notice the negative in each case.]
There are two ways to summarize these subjects.
Mine: active subjects are always things capable of work or use: people, tools, a house, fields, senses, parts of the body. The sense is never “neglect” but idleness or not being used. The passive subjects are things capable of being neglected or not done.
Hylander’s and mwh’s: they’re all mixed up.
Notes
S.Fr.864:
λάμπει γὰρ ἐν χρείαισιν ὥσπερ εὐγενὴς
χαλκός· χρόνῳ δ’ ἀργῆσαν ἤμυσε στέγος
Not a “neglected roof”. Contrast is to “ἐν χρείαισιν”. An “unused home”, lit. an idle home.
Do the work for me quickly and fetch it to me since [??] the plantation is idle. [idle due to the lack of equipment, not being allowed to lie fallow.]
The Pl.R.371c use shows that ἀργέω with an object of something to be done is more than simply Xenophontic, but rather Attic. (δακρύω with its rare Attic direct object use, active and passive, was already mentioned.)
can you please make it simple for me and decide which D is this? Im inclined to think that this is dative of interest.