σφαλεῖεν is 3rd pl. aor. pas. opt. if that’s what’s troubling you. This would be the protasis of a future condition in “secondary sequence” if that’s what Thucydides had written. But he didn’t write it that way.
Aor. participles with forms of εἶναι are rare, see Smyth 1962. And that would obliterate the future conditional, which is the key to Thucydides’ sentence. In any event, you would need a future infinitive for your rewrite. And joining the two infinitives with καὶ would be very crude Greek: the more important verb would go into a finite tense or, in indirect discourse, as here, an infinitive, and the subordinate verb would be a participle. That’s what Greek participles are for.
But ask yourself why you’re so determined to force σφαλεῖσι into grammatical agreement with σωφροσι.
I’m hoping that you now understand the structure of Thucydides’ sentence. That’s all from me, and I mean it this time.
σφαλεῖεν is 3rd pl. aor. pas. opt. if that’s what’s troubling you. This would be the protasis of a future condition in “secondary sequence” if that’s what Thucydides had written. But he didn’t write it that way.
Oh yes, that was crystal clear, and was restated from your earlier posts, and did not trouble me. My (crude, as you point out) rewrite was a modification to illustrate the attraction from an oblique participle governing an indirect discourse infinitive. Your critiques of its crudity are no doubt valid, but all seem to miss my point.
But ask yourself why you’re so determined to force σφαλεῖσι into grammatical agreement with σωφροσι.
I believe that our only disagreement is whether there is a general attractive force from an oblique participle governing an indirect discourse infinitive expression or not. I think that there is attraction here (in the simple “predicate + εἶναι” case, Kühner presents attraction as the rule and gives a smaller list of exceptions). You don’t see such attraction active here. We disagree and can leave it at that.
Hylander has instructively wrapped up this passage (several times over ) and understandably has left the room, but I do have a small quibble, with regard to ἢ σφαλεῖσι γνώμης Λακεδαιμονίους σφίσι χειρώσεσθαι, the phrase that the OP fastened on. I think σφαλεῖσι is altogether independent of σφίσι. They both happen to be dative, but for different reasons, and σφαλεῖσι would be quite in order even in the absence of σφίσι. The case of λογιζομένοις is determined by the opening ἀσμένοις … ἐγίγνετο τοῖς σώφροσι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and so in turn is the subordinate σφαλεῖσι. (I don’t care whether you call it attraction or agreement; I’d call it agreement.) σφίσι on the other hand depends wholly on χειρώσεσθαι. The point of σφίσι is that Kleon would do the job for them. So for them it’s a win-win situation. (Thuc. detested Kleon.)
There is one slight grammatical irregularity here. We have to understand that Kleon is the subject of χειρώσεσθαι (despite Κλέωνος genitive in the prior phrase). Grammarians would tut-tut at that, and a more pedantic writer might have added αὐτὸν, but Thuc is not one to fuss about something like that.
Thucydides teems with difficulties, but this is really not one of them.
I guess I need to eat crow and concede that Joel was right all along. So maybe I should just keep my big mouth shut, after misleading everyone.
And perhaps, on reconsideration, ελπιζον followed by σφαλεῖσι γνώμης means just “expected” with no implication that they were hoping for Kleon’s demise – although they saw it as one of two possible “good things”.
I guess I need to eat crow and concede that Joel was right all along. So maybe I should just keep my big mouth shut, after misleading everyone.
I hardly think you need to go quite that far! And after all, σφαλεῖσι and σφίσι are in mutual agreement, and your reading may be a tenable one, even if the word order is against it. Anyway, it’s a small and rather esoteric point.
As to ἤλπιζον, I think it’s clear that this was the potential outcome favored by the sound-minded. Or at least that Thuc is presenting it as such. We should of course bear in mind his great and justifiable antipathy towards Kleon.
This little question became an epic thread. I blame Thucydides Thank you all for your answers. I’ve got a lot to process. This is why I’m part of this site!
) and understandably has left the room, but I do have a small quibble, with regard to ἢ σφαλεῖσι γνώμης Λακεδαιμονίους σφίσι χειρώσεσθαι, the phrase that the OP fastened on. I think σφαλεῖσι is altogether independent of σφίσι. They both happen to be dative, but for different reasons, and σφαλεῖσι would be quite in order even in the absence of σφίσι. The case of λογιζομένοις is determined by the opening ἀσμένοις … ἐγίγνετο τοῖς σώφροσι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and so in turn is the subordinate σφαλεῖσι. (I don’t care whether you call it attraction or agreement; I’d call it agreement.) σφίσι on the other hand depends wholly on χειρώσεσθαι. The point of σφίσι is that Kleon would do the job for them. So for them it’s a win-win situation. (Thuc. detested Kleon.)
Thank you all for your answers. I’ve got a lot to process. This is why I’m part of this site!