About the underlined sentence: what to make of λέγειν here? Am I right in thinking it means something like ‘propose’ here? I can’t find this use in the LSJ though.
‘Even if all those stepping forward had wanted to λέγειν/bring forward proposals and you had (wanted) to vote (for them), (proposals) by which things would have been utterly ruinous, (even then) I do not think it could have been worse than how things are now.’ or something like that.
It seems to be a pretty normal λέγειν. To speak or give a speech. Something like: If everyone coming forward had been willing to speak, and you [had been willing] to vote for everything out of that which would have the worst result, I don’t think that you could have managed something worse that what you have now arranged.
Hi Bart,
Yes “propose” is what it amounts to. λέγειν is less technical than “propose,” but takes on that color from χειροτονεῖν. Dem has already coupled λέγειν and πράττειν—both being needed—and χειροτονεῖν here corresponds to πράττειν (voting being the initial action that the Athenians need to take), while λέγειν remains λέγειν, now contextually invested with a bit more particularity. It’s not a separate sense that would earn it a separate entry in LSJ. Dem presents himself as a blunt no-nonsense speaker (despite his rhetorical sophistication) who tells it like it is. His language is absolutely basic, using the starkest terms. (λέγειν and χειροτονεῖν may “need:” a direct object but they don’t get one. ἐξ ὧν of course goes with both.) It has the vigour and forcefulness that is Dem’s hallmark.
Similarly in the continuation we have τὰ βέλτιστα λέγειν, likewise (in context) of proposals.
Minor finicky points you’re no doubt aware of: εἰ ἐβούλονθ’ is not if they had wanted but if they wanted/were wanting, and ὡς φαυλότατ᾽ stronger than a simple superlative.
A couple of small points to note: διατεθῆναι is aor. passive, so the subject of δύνασθαι must be τὰ πράγματα, not ὑμεῖς.
Also, ἐξ ὧν ὡς φαυλότατ᾽ ἔμελλε τὰ πράγμαθ᾽ ἕξειν goes with both λεγειν and χειροτονειν, so that it’s not “if those who came forward were willing to speak,” but rather "if those coming forward wanted to make/offer, and you wanted to vote for, a proposal out of which . . . "
Yes, I think you were clear enough in taking me to task for supplying superfluous words that aren’t in the text, but the sentence is syntactically coherent, with ὧν functioning as the object of λεγειν and χειροτονειν, I was simply trying to clarify the syntax in case anyone needed clarification, but you’re right that there’s no need to supply anything to Demosthenes’ terse and direct utterance.
I wonder about the colon after αληθες δ’ ᾖ. Alternatively, the fear clause could be parenthetical, ωστε governing ουκ ηγουμαι. I’m not sure if that’s better.
Note also the two concessive εἰ και’s: the first “although”/“granted that”/etc, the second “even if” as Bart has it (but not jeidsath). [You often find κἂν ει “even if” in Dem, though also ει και and και ει. The last in contrast to the fussiness of Isocrates, for whom και ει would be harsher than the clashing of arms].
There’s a well-known passage in Dionysius’s Demosthenes analyzing this prooemium, part of his demonstration of the “Thucydidean” style in Demosthenes—it’s περιεργος, unnatural, far removed from common speech. Much of his analysis is given to rewriting snippets of the original in a plainer (i.e. duller) style. Whatever you think of Dionysius’s criticism, it’s instructive to compare his rewritten version with the original. But not, of course, as instructive as just reading more Demosthenes.
ὥστε δέδοικα μὴ βλάσφημον μὲν εἰπεῖν, ἀληθὲς δ᾽ ᾖ – this unit builds up to his shocking statement beginning with εἰ καὶ λέγειν (definitely “even if”), which is more effective rhetorically if it’s a separate sentence, and especially if it’s not part of a result clause – just a stark statement, separated from what precedes by a break.
Against what though? Definitely not the preceding phrase. The following phrase is an unreal present condition. It would seem strange if the εἰ καὶ was meant to intensify the unreality of ἐβούλονθ᾽ specifically, implying that some of the οἱ παριόντες were unwilling to speak. In fact on its own, “λέγειν ἅπαντες ἐβούλονθ᾽ οἱ παριόντες” isn’t even logically unreal. I imagine that everyone οἱ παριόντες was willing to speak. It has to apply to the whole “λέγειν ἅπαντες ἐβούλονθ᾽ οἱ παριόντες καὶ χειροτονεῖν ὑμεῖς”, and then you’ve got that second καὶ in there.
Another thing signifying the full stop is that ᾖ εἰ couldn’t happen in speech unless there was a pause of some sort, or deliberate enunciation.
No, certainly possible in Dem. There’s some stop here (whether modern editors choose to add a colon, μεση στιγμη, parentheses, dashes, commas), but not a full one.
Joel, I’m not sure you see that ἐξ ὧν ὡς φαυλότατ᾽ ἔμελλε τὰ πράγμαθ᾽ ἕξειν is the object of both λεγειν and χειροτονειν. Not “even if everyone coming forward had been willing to speak”, but rather "even if all the speakers (οἱ παριόντες) wanted to propose (λέγειν), and you [wanted] to vote for, [a course of action] from which/as a result of which things would be in the most utterly disastrous state, . . . "
As Barry noted, οἱ παριόντες, those coming forward, are the speakers. See LSJ πάρειμι:
They’re not unwilling to speak – speaking is what they do when they come forward. The protasis of the contrafactual condition consists in their deliberately advocating a course that would lead to the worst possible state of affairs.
And note that διατεθῆναι is passive, not active, so that the subject of δύνασθαι is τὰ πράγματα, not ὑμᾶς.
I hope mwh won’t take me to task again for inserting “understood” words in Demoshenes’ terse and direct language, which is effective and powerful precisely because those words are unnecessary and not spoken.
Hy: “I’m not sure you see that ἐξ ὧν ὡς φαυλότατ᾽ ἔμελλε τὰ πράγμαθ᾽ ἕξειν is the object of both λεγειν and χειροτονειν”
ὧν refers to the object of the λέγειν and they are χειροτονειν ἐξ ὧν ὡς
Hy: “As Barry noted, οἱ παριόντες, those coming forward, are the speakers.”
That was what my whole point rested on, so I’m not sure whose position you’re arguing against.
Hy: “consists in their deliberately advocating a course that would lead to the worst possible state of affairs”
But I think you are ignoring the ἐξ ὧν. All that the protasis talks about is worst results from out of what the οἱ παριόντες say being voted forward. The idea that they would be speaking especially maliciously is something that you are adding. (Though D. is nicely implying that their advice contains a lot of φλυαρία.)
Hy: “The first και is “even”. The second is “and”.”
If it doesn’t feel at all strange to you to have a long phrase governed by an εἰ καί, including it’s own καί, then I won’t make any further argument. But I would think that it’s clearly an εἰ καὶ … καὶ. The two καί are doing the same thing, however you want to characterize it.
Ph: “but not a full one.”
I’m sorry, I was talking about the speech as delivered, not about punctuation. I should have said something like “full arrest of the speech mechanism.” A full pause in speaking.
And note that διατεθῆναι is passive, not active, so that the subject of δύνασθαι is τὰ πράγματα, not ὑμᾶς.
The thrust of this (not a translation): even if all the speakers deliberately advocated something designed to result in the worst possible state of affairs and you willingly voted for it, I don’t think the situation could be worse than it is.
If it doesn’t feel at all strange to you to have a long phrase governed by an εἰ καί, including it’s own καί, then I won’t make any further argument.
It’s not that long, especially with unnecessary verbiage left out, and the structure is as clear as can be.
There’s no question of the speakers coming up to the βημα and being unwilling to speak – that just doesn’t make sense.
Again, he can’t be saying “if all those who come up to the podium to speak were willing to speak”. Of course, they’re willing to speak. That’s why they come up to the podium.
Got it. And ὧν refers to the actions rather than the things being said. I hadn’t understood earlier why you didn’t think the infinitives had objects. But I see what you are saying now. Like I said, though, I thought that the object of λέγειν was being referred to in the ὧν, and they were χειροτονεῖν ἐξ ὧν, out of that.
even if all the speakers deliberately advocated – and you willingly voted for – a proposal that would result in the worst possible state of affairs, I don’t think the situation could be worse than it is.