Hey there Qimmik,
I have reached paragraph 92 yesterday, and will get to a 100 tomorrow (I have some other stuff to do this weekend, including work).
I will post a more elaborate comment tomorrow morning. I noticed the aposiopesis!
Be well,
GJC
- οὐ γὰρ ἀφαιρεῖσθαι δεῖ τὸ προσελθεῖν τῷ δήμῳ καὶ λόγου τυχεῖν, οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἐπηρείας τάξει καὶ φθόνου τοῦτο ποιεῖν
The meaning is supposed to be: “It is not right to debar a man from access to the Assembly and a fair hearing, still less to do so by way of spite and jealousy.”
I don’t understand how they got “still less” from οὐδέ here. I would expect a καί or something somewhere.
“still less” is not actually what he says, but makes it more logical than just plain “nor.” Dem is all about rhetoric, not logic.
ουδε not και because of the initial ου, quite normal as you well know. (“A isn’t right, and neither is B.”) και instead of ουδε would make sense however, but a somewhat different sense (“and [what’s more] to do so …”).
“Dem is all about rhetoric, not logic.” That’s what I like about him. I’m not so good at logic. But the rhetoric really speaks to me! Maybe because I’m a lawyer, not a philosopher.
After Hitler, Lenin, etc., we’re suspicious of rhetoric (and there are few politicians today who command the rhetorical skills that Demosthenes did). But I think Demosthenes generally (though not always) appeals to people’s better nature.
Admittedly, it’s possible in the hindsight of history to question his policy–whether the Greek polities wouldn’t have been better off in a loose commonwealth, even under Philip’s hegemony, than to be continually embroiled in warfare against one another. Reading Thucydides makes me wonder about this. But one of the themes of the Crown speech is that Demosthenes’ career and policies shouldn’t be judged in hindsight. (He has to make this point repeatedly because his policies ultimately resulted in the disaster of Chaeronea for Athens, although by 330, when the speech was delivered, Athens seems to have recovered its prosperity, if not its empire.)
And what Greek! No Greek prose I’ve read (that leaves out Homer, of course) compares with his command of the language–not even Thucydides, whose speeches are sometimes, indeed, often, infuriatingly obscure (as they were for Dionysius).
It was ἡ δεινότης, forcefulness, that the ancient critics identified as the hallmark of Demosthenes’ style. He’s anything but smooth.
Yes, that’s what I mean–he’s forceful, powerful, not necessarily smooth but he isn’t as obscure as Thucydides’s speeches can be.
I’m glad to see that there are others interested in this speech as well! I had a weekend break from the Greek, and will continue reading in half an hour.
His style is absurd – perfect Greek, and I already know my little research on word order will be a succesful one. It’s almost like the epitetha ornantia in Homer: little bricks of information which are repeated all the time in the same position of the sentence (in Homer mostly at the end ofc). Demosthenes’ sentences are build up the same way over and over again, with some exceptions in certain cases.
Since I have particularly focused on the Greek and not very much on the way he structures his story, I will elaborate on those cases in a few days. I’m meeting with my tutor on Thursday to talk about the first 150 paragraphs or so, and the content of those paragraphs as well. At the end of this week, I hope to be able to join the discussion properly.
Be well
GJC
Par. 103
καίτοι πόσα χρήματα τοὺς ἡγεμόνας τῶν συμμοριῶν ἢ τοὺς δευτέρους καὶ τρίτους οἴεσθέ μοι διδόναι, ὥστε μάλιστα μὲν μὴ θεῖναι τὸν νόμον τοῦτον, εἰ δὲ μή, καταβάλλοντ᾽ ἐᾶν ἐν ὑπωμοσίᾳ;
‘‘Now how much money do you think the first, second, and third classes of contributors on the Naval Boards offered me not to propose the measure, or, failing that, to put it on the list and then drop it on demurrer?’’
I understand that --from the context-- με should be added in the second sentence, but why exactly does this not happen? The main clause has μοι, which is grammatically not the same as the subjectaccusative in the A.c.I construction in the ὥστε clause, which should be με. Why didn’t D. just use a passive infinitive in the ὥστε-clause, and a passive aorist/perfect participle in the final part, which would congruate with τὸν νόμον τοῦτον? Or isn’t there a passive infinitive of ἐᾶν?
I hope my question is clear 
It would have been too fussy to add με when the meaning is so clear, and much less graphic to use passives. Passives and pedantry are for wimps.
Note διδοναι present, by the way.
Note διδοναι present, by the way.
This explains something that was troubling me.
Present διδόναι here must mean “try to give,” i.e, “offer.”
Aorist δοῦναι would mean “succeed in giving,” i.e., that D. had accepted the offers.
The sentence has excellent rhythm, too, just swinging along with double-short sequences and single-short sequences until it reaches first (τριτους) οιεσθε, then the hiatus-intensified break at διδόναι|ὤστε, then hitting the self-contained heavy triple long of (μὲν) μὴ θεῖναι, the big point of the sentence. No triple-shorts, no sirree, that too was for wimps. So be sure to read Demosthenes aloud, as if it was verse. You’ll have already picked up on the general (but not anal) avoidance of hiatus.
Phrase by phrase:
καιτοι ποσα χρηματα - - υυ - υυ
τους ηγεμονας - - υυ -
των συμμοριων - - υυ -
η τους δευτερους - - - υ -
και τριτους - υ -
οιεσθε μοι διδοναι, - - υ - υυ - |
ωστε μαλιστα μεν - υυ - υ -
μη θειναι - - -
τον νομον τουτον, - υ - - - | (together giving - - - - u - - -!)
ει δε μη - υ -
καταβαλλοντ’ εαν υυ - - υ –
εν υπωμoσιαι. υυ - υυ - ||
PS I had beautifully formatted the rhythmical sequences, only to see it come out like this, all destroyed! But you can see what I mean.
You’re right, and I overlooked the present tense. I found another instance where ‘me’ (on iPad , so no Greek font atm) is simply omitted, and probably because of the explanation you gave!
What do you think about the textstructualizing particles like toinun, kaitoi, eite .. Interesting enough to look into?
He really likes toinun and eita, doesn’t he?
My thoughts exactly. Not to mention men and de.. 
Connective particles very definitely worth examining, I’d say, or at least paying close attention to as you read — as you clearly are doing. You’ll know Denniston Greek Particles.
I’ve just run a quick TLG search for stats. In this speech:
toinun 64x, vs. oun 47x
eita 25x, vs. epeita 2x ! (eita:epeita 12.5:1)
In Lysias, the entire corpus:
toinun 152, vs. oun 271
eita 13, vs. epeita 33 (eita:epeita less than 0.4:1)
An illuminating contrast! which I’m sure could be extended.
That’s amazing actually.. You know what? I can still change my topic for research! I have this book right in front of me: Sicking & Ophuijsen “Two studies in Attic particle usage: Lysias and Plato”. For some reason, Demosthenes was left out..
I ran a quick search on TLG as well:
Demosthenes, entire corpus:
toinun = 945
oun = 810
eita = 133
epeita = 107
Ratio toinun-oun: 1,166:1
Ratio eita-epeita: 1,24:1
Lysias, entire corpus:
toinun = 152
oun = 271
eita = 16
epeita = 36
Ratio toinun-oun: 0,56:1
Ratio eita-epeita: 0,44:1
I’m especially surprised at the ratio in Demosthenes’ corpus of eita-epeita. Average ratio 1,24:1, De Corona: 12,5:1. This asks for a more detailed analysis. Maybe the main functions of the particles, stated by Denniston et al. , don’t apply to Demosthenes. Or, a second outcome could be that Lysias and Demosthenes both have a very different style! It is a well known fact that a lot of scholars don’t approve of Denniston’s approach, since he mainly focuses on the interfrasial function of particles, instead of their possible function as discourse cohesions and textstructuralizing particles in the text as a whole.
You have to be careful about this. Not everything in the Demosthenic corpus was written by Demosthenes (and almost nothing in the Lysianic corpus can be securely attributed to Lysias, if you believe Dover). So unless you separate out the Demosthenic speeches that are recognized as genuine, it’s not clear what conclusions you can draw about Demosthenes. You don’t have to do this for Lysias, as long as you recognize that comparisons of genuine Demosthenes agains “Lysias” are just comparisons against a collection of randomly assembled speeches, some of which might even be–who knows?–post-4th century rhetorical exercises in composing “pure” Attic by koine-speakers.
Very interesting figures. What obviously calls for explanation here is why the eita:epeita ratio is so very much higher in De Corona. How does it compare with the other anti-Aeschines speech (and e.g. with the Philippics/Olynthiacs), and how does it compare with Aeschines? I’ve run no searches, but no doubt I should. I’m not at all surprised to find the ratios inverted in Lysias (or “Lysias”). Demosthenes predictably likes the stronger particles. I expect the oh-look-at-me-I’m-so-smooth-and-balanced Isocrates would make a good contrast too. We have to remember that there are different genres of oratory in play too.
“could be that Lysias and Demosthenes both have a very different style!” Well, yes!
I’d have to agree with the caveat about Denniston. He’d never heard of textstructuralizing, of course (and if he had he would never have deigned to use such a monstrous word), and he did not care for the non-traditional. He probably knew nothing of linguistics (I’m only guessing there, but in those days classicists didn’t.) Dodds had horrendous rudeness to contend with when he came to Oxford (largely on account of his war neutrality and support for the Irish cause, true). But still, that’s a wonderful book, and what he says about the various particles will certainly apply to Demosthenes too.