Turning it finite to make the subject and main verb obvious: βεβαίαν τὴν ἔχθραν οἱ Ὀλύνθιοι ὑπερ ὧν φοβοῦνται καὶ πεπόνθασιν ἔχουσιν.
Right.
Demosthenes misrepresents Philip’s supposed weaknesses and Athens’ strengths. He also tells shameless lies, or at least distortions, when it suits his purposes.
I forgot to mention this note from McQueen earlier on.
δῆλον γάρ ἐστι τοῖς Ὀλυνθίοις ὅτι: an iambic trimeter, followed immediately by a ‘limping iambic’ or scazon. Since Aristotle maintains that the iambic metre is close to ordinary speech, Demosthenes’ use of verse is certainly unintentional, and not without parallel.
He goes on to list some other examples. But on with the show, picking up in 1.8.
οὐ δεῖ δὴ τοιοῦτον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, παραπεπτωκότα καιρὸν ἀφεῖναι, οὐδὲ παθεῖν ταὐτὸν ὅπερ ἤδη πολλάκις πρότερον πεπόνθατε. εἰ γάρ, ὅθ’ ἥκομεν Εὐβοεῦσιν βεβοηθηκότες καὶ παρῆσαν Ἀμφιπολιτῶν Ἱέραξ καὶ Στρατοκλῆς ἐπὶ τουτὶ τὸ βῆμα, κελεύοντες ἡμᾶς πλεῖν καὶ παραλαμβάνειν τὴν πόλιν, τὴν αὐτὴν παρειχόμεθ’ ἡμεῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν προθυμίαν ἥνπερ ὑπὲρ τῆς Εὐβοέων σωτηρίας, εἴχετ’ ἂν Ἀμφίπολιν τότε καὶ πάντων τῶν μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἂν ἦτ’ ἀπηλλαγμένοι πραγμάτων. καὶ πάλιν ἡνίκα Πύδνα, Ποτείδαια, Μεθώνη, Παγασαί, τἄλλα, ἵνα μὴ καθ’ ἕκαστα λέγων διατρίβω, πολιορκούμεν’ ἀπηγγέλλετο, εἰ τότε τούτων ἑνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ προθύμως καὶ ὡς προσῆκεν ἐβοηθήσαμεν αὐτοί, ῥᾴονι καὶ πολὺ ταπεινοτέρῳ νῦν ἂν ἐχρώμεθα τῷ Φιλίππῳ. νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν παρὸν ἀεὶ προϊέμενοι, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντ’ αὐτόματ’ οἰόμενοι σχήσειν καλῶς, ηὐξήσαμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Φίλιππον ἡμεῖς καὶ κατεστήσαμεν τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος οὐδείς πω βασιλεὺς γέγονεν Μακεδονίας.
It is necessary, men of Athens, for you not to let a chance like this pass by, nor for you to experience the same thing which you have already experienced many times before. If, when we came to the rescue of Euboea — when Hierax and Stratocles were present from Amphipolis, urging us to sail and take over the city from this very speaker’s stand — we had been showing the same enthusiasm for our own safety as for that of Euboea, we would have had Amphipolis at that time and been free of all of the problems that came after. Again, when Pydna, Poteidaea, Methone, Pagasae — and so many others that I wouldn’t have time to list each one — when the news of their sieges was brought, if at that time we ourselves had eagerly helped one of these first, as was proper, we would have found Phillip weaker and easier to deal with than now. But now, always letting the present pass by while thinking that the future will take care of itself, we have amplified Phillip ourselves, men of Athens, and set him in a position so powerful as no king of Macedonia has been before.
Good. A few suggestions:
οὐ δεῖ – here, better “you must not”
παραπεπτωκότα – παρα- conveys the idea of a “windfall”, an opportunity that has fallen into your hands beyond expectation
ἥκομεν Εὐβοεῦσιν βεβοηθηκότες – “when we had come [here], [back from] having aided the Euboeans”, i.e., when we had come to the boule, where the speaker’s stand stood, "and Hierax and Stratocles were right here on this very speaker’s stand, urging . . . "
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν – just “on our own behalf” rather than “on behalf of our own security”. If "τῆς . . . σωτηρίας were to be supplied, you would at least have the article τῆς, but it would be strange to supply a subsequent noun (as opposed to a previous one).
ἦτ’ ἀπηλλαγμένοι – “you would have gotten rid of [and been free from]”
ἡνίκα Πύδνα, Ποτείδαια, Μεθώνη, Παγασαί, τἄλλα . . . πολιορκούμεν’ ἀπηγγέλλετο, – ἀπηγγέλλετο is passive, “when Pydna . . . the others were reported to be under siege”. Note that the listed entities are all nominative, including τἄλλα (we can infer that from the proper nouns), and ἀπηγγέλλετο is imperfect passive singular, in concord with neuter plural τἄλλα. So the syntax is quite normal; this isn’t an instance of anacoluthon, as your translation (which is ok but not literal) made it out to be.
τἄλλα, ἵνα μὴ καθ’ ἕκαστα λέγων διατρίβω, "and the others – literally, “so that I don’t waste time mentioning them one by one”
προθύμως καὶ ὡς προσῆκεν – literally, “willingly and as was/would have been appropriate/the right thing to do”
ῥᾴονι καὶ πολὺ ταπεινοτέρῳ νῦν ἂν ἐχρώμεθα τῷ Φιλίππῳ – your translation is ok though not entirely literal. To render this more literally, or at least to reflect the syntax more closely, maybe: “we would now be dealing with Philip more easily and [with him] in a much weaker position”.
νῦν δὲ – particularly after a contrary-to-fact condition, this typically means “but as it is”, contrasting the “would have been” with the “is.” Not “but now.”
τὸ μὲν παρὸν ἀεὶ προϊέμενοι, – maybe “always letting go of the present circumstances”.
ηὐξήσαμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Φίλιππον ἡμεῖς – ἡμεῖς is very emphatic, placed at the end (and not necessary in a language with optional subject pronouns): "it is none other than we ourselves who have strengthened Philip and set him up in a position . . . "
εἰ γάρ, . . . τὴν αὐτὴν παρειχόμεθ’ ἡμεῖς . . . , εἴχετ’ ἂν Ἀμφίπολιν τότε καὶ πάντων τῶν μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἂν ἦτ’ ἀπηλλαγμένοι πραγμάτων.
Can you explain the tenses here?
I will do my best. This is a privative conditional. εἰ , ἄν . If it had been so, it would have been (but is not).
Protasis: παρειχόμεθα is imperfect because the display of enthusiasm continues. Aorist would be a single act of enthusiasm.
Apodosis part 1: εἴχετε is imperfect and not aorist because they would have continued to hold the city until the present. Aorist would work, but it would mean that they took the city (and say nothing about what happened afterward).
Apodosis part 2: ἦτε is imperfect (not subjunctive) and means that that perfect state of ἀπηλλαγμένοι would have continued until the present. The perfect is a not a past state and ἀπηλλάχατε could not have been used directly in a privative conditional.
Privative? Where did you come up with that? Oh, I see–Sidgwick. Contrary to fact or contrafactual or unreal are the terms I’ve seen, which to me are more descriptive and hence more useful.
ἦτ’ ἀπηλλαγμένοι is the periphrastic pluperfect medio-passive, not really imperfect, but it functions like an imperfect.
What struck me about this is that usually the imperfect is used for present contrary to fact conditionals: if X were, Y would be; while aorist is used for past contrary to fact conditionals: if X had been, Y would have been.
Here we seem to have imperfects (including the pluperfect) used for past contrary to fact conditions. Demosthenes is speaking about events that occurred in the past (τότε). You translated them correctly, I think. But perhaps the imperfects convey continuing situations in the past, as opposed to simple facts, like the imperfect indicative in non-conditional main clauses. Maybe mwh would have something to say about this.
we would have had Amphipolis – better, we would have held Amphipolis.
You’re both right, I’d say. Impf.+ἄν normally refers simply to the present (non-)situation, as in the continuation here, which incidentally illustrates the difference between aorist and imperfect: εἰ τότε τούτων ἑνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ προθύμως καὶ ὡς προσῆκεν ἐβοηθήσαμεν αὐτοί, ῥᾴονι καὶ πολὺ ταπεινοτέρῳ νῦν ἂν ἐχρώμεθα τῷ Φιλίππῳ.“If we had ridden to the rescue then (when reports of the sieges were coming in), we’d be finding Philip easier to deal with now.” [But we did not, and so we are not.]
But it can also refer to ongoing past situations, as here with εἴχετ᾿ ἂν Ἀμφίπολιν τότε. In full this will mean “you’d have been having/holding/possessing Amphipolis right then and would still be holding it.” Similarly with the if-clause.
καὶ πάντων τῶν μετὰ ταῦτ᾿ ἂν ἦτ᾿ ἀπηλλαγμένοι πραγμάτων “and you’d (now) be rid of all your subsequent troubles.”
I had some trouble with “ἑνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ.” I put “one of these first,” but that was really just a guess.
εἰ τότε τούτων ἑνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ … ἐβοηθήσαμεν αὐτοί
If at that time we had ourselves gone to the aid of just one of these places, the very first (that was besieged? that made an appeal to us?). If we’d nipped it in the bud, domino theory.
νυνὶ δὴ καιρὸς ἥκει τις, οὗτος ὁ τῶν Ὀλυνθίων, αὐτόματος τῇ πόλει, ὃς οὐδενός ἐστιν ἐλάττων τῶν προτέρων ἐκείνων. καὶ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ τις ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δίκαιος λογιστὴς τῶν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἡμῖν ὑπηργμένων καταστάς, καίπερ οὐκ ἐχόντων ὡς δεῖ πολλῶν, ὅμως μεγάλην ἂν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς χάριν, εἰκότως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ πόλλ’ ἀπολωλεκέναι κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀμελείας ἄν τις θείη δικαίως, τὸ δὲ μήτε πάλαι τοῦτο πεπονθέναι πεφηνέναι τέ τιν’ ἡμῖν συμμαχίαν τούτων ἀντίρροπον, ἂν βουλώμεθα χρῆσθαι, τῆς παρ’ ἐκείνων εὐνοίας εὐεργέτημ’ ἂν ἔγωγε θείην.
Now indeed has an opportunity come to our city, this one regarding the Olynthians, which is not at all less than the previous ones. And for myself at least, men of Athens, I think that someone set up as a just judge of what we have received from the gods, would say that although many have not what they need, all the same we have a great blessing from them, it seems. Our great losses at the hands of the enemy he might rightly ascribe to our carelessness, but our not suffering this long before and an alliance which has appeared to us, should we wish to take advantage of it, at least for me, I might judge as kindnesses done of the goodwill from the gods.
Why is καταστάς active and not passive or middle? Set himself as judge?
I like how he finishes up with ἔγωγε θείην rather than θείη.
Some suggestions:
νυνὶ δὴ – “but now”, contrasting previous incidents listed immediately before where Athens failed to act. νυν**-ὶ** is emphatic and δὴ reinforces it, “at last.” Maybe "But this time, at last . . . "
αὐτόματος – predicative, “on its own,” “of its own accord”. The opportunity has presented itself on its own.
τῶν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἡμῖν ὑπηργμένων – beneficial acts which have been initiated/performed on our behalf from/by the gods
καταστάς – intransitive
καίπερ οὐκ ἐχόντων ὡς δεῖ πολλῶν – “even though they are not as many as they ought to have been” or “as we need”. Agreeing with τῶν . . . ὑπηργμένων.
εἰκότως – “with reason,” “reasonably so”, modifying μεγάλην ἂν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς χάριν.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ πόλλ’ ἀπολωλεκέναι κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον – “the fact that many things have been lost in the course of the war” (not “at the hands of the enemy”). See LSJ κατά + acc. B.VII. “the fact that many losses have occurred over the course of the war”
See LSJ κατά + acc. B.VII:
VII. of Time, during or in the course of a period, “κ. τὸν πόλεμον” Hdt.7.137; καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, κατ᾽ ἦμαρ, by day, A. Ch.818, Ag.668; “κατ᾽ εὐφρόνην” Id.Pers.221; κ. Χειμῶνα, κ. θερείαν, PLille1r14 (iii B.C.), PTeb.27.60 (ii B.C.).
τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀμελείας ἄν τις θείη δικαίως – "someone would rightly ascribe . . . "
τὸ δὲ μήτε πάλαι τοῦτο πεπονθέναι
πεφηνέναι τέ τιν’ ἡμῖν συμμαχίαν τούτων ἀντίρροπον, –
“the fact that we did not experience this previously
and that an alliance has appeared for us as a counterbalance to these [losses] [τούτων ἀντίρροπον]”
ἔγωγε θείην “I, for my part, would consider”. ἔγωγε is emphatic. “At least for me” doesn’t quite capture this.
εὐεργέτημ’ – singular
Glad to see you’re continuing this exercise.
οὐδενός ἐστιν ἐλάττων τῶν προτέρων ἐκείνων
Not “is not at all less than the previous ones”: that would be ουδεν. Rather “is less than none of the previous ones."
καίπερ οὐκ ἐχόντων ὡς δεῖ πολλῶν
Not “although many have not what they need,” rather “although many (things) are not in the state that they should be”. εχω + adverb, cf. ουτως εχει this is how it is, it’s like this, καλῶς εχω I’m fine, so ταυτα ουκ εχει ως δει this is not as it should be. I think Hylander is wrong here.
(“though they are not as many as they ought to have been” wd be καιπερ ου τοσουτων οντων οσ’ εδει)
ἐμοίγε δοκεῖ τις ἄν … μεγάλην ἂν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς χάριν
Well translated by “I think” etc., but your “would say” and “it seems” are wrong. Lit. “to me someone seems … that (although …, nonethless) he would be very grateful …”, i.e. “I for my part think that someone/anyone … would …”. Notice the first αν anticipating the later one.
εικοτως at end is tantamount to “and quite right too.” “—and reasonably so.” Cf. δικαίως below, “and rightly so.”
καταστάς is intransitive (as Hylander says), with a predicate. For transitive the other aorist is used, καταστήσας. Cf. e.g. ανέστην I stood up, I rose, versus ανέστησα Ι stood (someone or something) up, I raised. This is how ἵστημι and all its compounds work. Your interpretation and translation are right.
τὸ δὲ μήτε πάλαι τοῦτο πεπονθέναι πεφηνέναι τέ τιν’ ἡμῖν συμμαχίαν τούτων ἀντίρροπον
“but (the twofold fact) that we haven’t experienced this long since [not “did not” as Hylander] and (the chance of) an alliance has presented itself to us to counterbalance these losses.”
Phonic correspondence and syntactical chiasmus of τοῦτο πεπονθέναι πεφηνέναι τέ τιν’ is striking.
τῆς παρ’ ἐκείνων εὐνοίας εὐεργέτημ’ ἂν ἔγωγε θείην
“I for my part would count as a benefaction of their good will.”
ἀλλ’, οἶμαι, παρόμοιόν ἐστιν ὅπερ καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν χρημάτων κτήσεως· ἂν μὲν γάρ, ὅσ’ ἄν τις λάβῃ, καὶ σῴσῃ, μεγάλην ἔχει τῇ τύχῃ τὴν χάριν, ἂν δ’ ἀναλώσας λάθῃ, συνανήλωσε καὶ τὸ μεμνῆσθαι [τὴν χάριν].
I think, however, there is a proverb which concerns the getting of wealth. For should a man also keep whatever he takes, he is grateful to Luck, but should he spend it away it unawares, he also spends away the remembering [of the gratitude].
παρόμοιόν ἐστιν ὅπερ – crudely: “it’s the same thing as also concerning . . .” (not “a proverb”, παροιμιον)
σῴσῃ – maybe “saves” in the financial sense would be better
ἀναλώσας λάθῃ – the sense is “spend/waste heedlessly” “fritter away”
You forgot μεγάλην, which is fronted for emphasis.
I’m away from my commentary just now, but I’ll just wing it with the next section:
καὶ περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων οὕτως οἱ μὴ χρησάμενοι τοῖς καιροῖς ὀρθῶς, οὐδ’ εἰ συνέβη τι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν χρηστὸν μνημονεύουσι· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τελευταῖον ἐκβὰν ἕκαστον τῶν πρὶν ὑπαρξάντων κρίνεται. διὸ καὶ σφόδρα δεῖ τῶν λοιπῶν ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, φροντίσαι, ἵνα ταῦτ’ ἐπανορθωσάμενοι τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἀδοξίαν ἀποτριψώμεθα.
And in regards to public affairs, the ones who are in this way not correctly seizing their opportunities, do not, if something good comes from the gods, recall it to mind, for each time only the latest event is evaluated. So also it is necessary for you to consider the rest, men of Athens, in order that re-evaluating these you shall correct your ignobility towards these affairs.
I notice that we’ve passed from ὑπηργμένων (mid perf) to ὑπαρξάντων (act aor). I feel like this makes sense. The second context is more impersonal, and more concerned with a chain of events than results. But I wouldn’t mind if this were explained in detail by someone who really does understand it.
οἱ μὴ χρησάμενοι τοῖς καιροῖς ὀρθῶς – “those who don’t take advantage of opportunities properly”
οὐδ’ εἰ συνέβη τι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν χρηστὸν – “[not] even if something good/advantageous has happened/succeeded from the gods” Note χρησάμενοι/χρηστὸν.
οὕτως . . . μνημονεύουσι – “remember in the same way [as those who fritter away wealth they’ve acquired]”, i.e., they lose their sense of gratitude, their memory dissipates.
οὐδ’ εἰ – “even if”, negative, because of the negative implication of οὕτως μνημονεύουσι.
ἕκαστον τῶν πρὶν ὑπαρξάντων – “each of the previous situations”: ὑπάρχω has a wide range of meanings. Here, it means something like “exist”, “be the case”; τὰ ὑπάρχοντα – the situation(s); perhaps it recalls τῶν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἡμῖν ὑπηργμένων – “the favorable initiatives that came from the gods”
τὸ τελευταῖον ἐκβὰν – almost like English, “the final outcome”
πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τελευταῖον ἐκβὰν ἕκαστον τῶν πρὶν ὑπαρξάντων κρίνεται – “each of the previous situations/opportunities is judged by the final outcome.”
There is a variant τῶν προϋπαρξάντωντῶν, which the new OCT adopts, but it doesn’t make any difference.
τῶν λοιπῶν – “the future”. Cf. LSJ λοιπός A.3:
- freq. of Time, ὁ λ. χρόνος the future, Pi.N.7.67; “πρὸς τὸν λοιπὸν τοῦ χρόνου” D.15.16; τὸν λ. χρόνον for the future, S.Ph.84; “τοῦ λ. χρόνου” Id.El.817; “εἰς τὸν λ. χρόνον” Pl.Ep.358b; “ἐκ τοῦ λ. χρόνου” D.59.46: so without Subst. in neut., τὸ λ. henceforward, hereafter, Pi.P.5.118, A.Eu.1031, S.OT795, etc.; “τὸ λ. εἰς ἅπαντα . . χρόνον” A.Eu.763; “τὰ λ.” Id.Th.66, S.El.1226, Th.8.21; “ἐς τὸ λ.” A.Pers.526, Eu.708, cf. Inscr.Prien.64 (ii B. C.); also “τοῦ λ.” Hdt.1.189, Ar.Pax1084; “ἐκ τοῦ λ.” X. HG3.4.9; “ἐκ τῶν λ.” Pl.Lg.709e, Ep.316d; καθεύδετε τὸ λ. sleep now . . , Ev.Matt.26.45, Ev.Marc.14.41; ἑσπέρα δὲ ἦν λ. καὶ . . it was now evening, Jul.Or.1.24c.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dloipo%2Fs
ἐπανορθωσάμενοι – “corrrecting”
τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἀδοξίαν – “the disgrace that continues to shame us from our past actions” [to reflect the force of the perfect πεπραγμένοις: our past actions continue to disgrace us]
ἀποτριψώμεθα – “we [not ‘you’!] may rub off/erase from ourselves”
Hope this helps.
D 1.12
εἰ δὲ προησόμεθ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ τούτους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εἶτ᾽ Ὄλυνθον ἐκεῖνος καταστρέψεται, φρασάτω τις ἐμοὶ τί τὸ κωλῦον ἔτ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔσται βαδίζειν ὅποι βούλεται. ἆρα λογίζεταί τις ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ θεωρεῖ τὸν τρόπον δι᾽ ὃν μέγας γέγονεν ἀσθενὴς ὢν τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς Φίλιππος; τὸ πρῶτον Ἀμφίπολιν λαβών, μετὰ ταῦτα Πύδναν, πάλιν Ποτείδαιαν, Μεθώνην αὖθις, εἶτα Θετταλίας ἐπέβη:
If we ignore even these people, O men of Athens, next he shall conquer Olynthus. --Someone will have to tell me what shall remain preventing him from going wherever he wills. Does anyone among you take thought, O men of Athens, and contemplate the way which Phillip, being weak at first, has become strong? First taking Amphipolis, after that Pydna, and then Poteidaea, Methone also, next going against Thessaly
There is no connective between “εἶτ᾽ Ὄλυνθον ἐκεῖνος καταστρέψεται” and “φρασάτω τις ἐμοὶ”. Hence the break. But let me know if I’m missing something.
τὸ κατ’ ἀρχάς is literally “weak during the beginnings.” It’s a standard idiom, according to the LSJ article on ἀρχή, but is there a reason for the plural in that idiom?
εἶτ᾽ is the connective, “and consequently”:
"If we dismiss these people, too, and consequently he subdues Olynthus, [let] someone tell me . . . " See LSJ.
φρασάτω is 3rd pers. aor. imperative.
“is there a reason for the plural in that idiom?” It’s an idiom, a fixed expression. But in English we use plural “beginnings” – “his beginnings”, meaning not a single event, but all of the events in the initial phase of his career.
Thank you. I saw that φρασάτω was aorist imperative, but was reading “εἶτ᾽ Ὄλυνθον ἐκεῖνος καταστρέψεται” as an apodosis. Instead, the apodosis begins with φρασάτω…
D 1.13
μετὰ ταῦτα Φεράς, Παγασάς, Μαγνησίαν, πάνθ᾽ ὃν ἐβούλετ᾽ εὐτρεπίσας τρόπον ᾤχετ᾽ εἰς Θρᾴκην: εἶτ᾽ ἐκεῖ τοὺς μὲν ἐκβαλὼν τοὺς δὲ καταστήσας τῶν βασιλέων ἠσθένησε: πάλιν ῥᾴσας οὐκ ἐπὶ τὸ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ἀπέκλινεν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς Ὀλυνθίοις ἐπεχείρησεν. τὰς δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Ἰλλυριοὺς καὶ Παίονας αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸς Ἀρύββαν καὶ ὅποι τις ἂν εἴποι παραλείπω στρατείας.
After these Pherae, Pagasae, Magnesia, all of which having subdued as he liked, he struck into Thrace, and next, expelling some and raising others there, he fell ill. Again, having recovered, he did not relax into indolence, but immediately made attempts against Olynthus. His campaigns among the Illyrians and Paeonians, and against Arybbas and wherever else someone might say, I leave to the side.