You left out τῶν βασιλέων, but the translation is otherwise ok.
ὅποι τις ἂν εἴποι – this could be reduced to just “and everywhere else”
Why the Victorian English?
I hadn’t really noticed, I was just trying to find expressions that followed the Greek. But I have been listening to Gibbon on audio book all last week.
D 1.14
τί οὖν, ἄν τις εἴποι, ταῦτα λέγεις ἡμῖν νῦν; ἵνα γνῶτ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ αἴσθησθ᾽ ἀμφότερα, καὶ τὸ προΐεσθαι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἀεί τι τῶν πραγμάτων ὡς ἀλυσιτελές, καὶ τὴν φιλοπραγμοσύνην ᾗ χρῆται καὶ συζῇ Φίλιππος, ὑφ᾽ ἧς οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἀγαπήσας τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἡσυχίαν σχήσει. εἰ δ᾽ ὁ μὲν ὡς ἀεί τι μεῖζον τῶν ὑπαρχόντων δεῖ πράττειν ἐγνωκὼς ἔσται, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ὡς οὐδενὸς ἀντιληπτέον ἐρρωμένως τῶν πραγμάτων, σκοπεῖσθ᾽ εἰς τί ποτ᾽ ἐλπὶς ταῦτα τελευτῆσαι.
For what reason, someone might say, do you tell us these things now? So that you my know, O men of Athens, and perceive two things, first how fruitless it is to always let slip some part of every affair, and second the passion for affairs which Phillip is subject to and which suffuses his life, under which there is no chance that his finding content with what he has already accomplished will grant peace. And if he will be conscious of always having something more to carry out than what he has already accomplished, and we [regard] nothing of our affairs to be taken up resolutely, then look carefully for what possible hope this could bring about.
Sorry for the delayed response. This morning (12/12) I’ve made a few edits to my post from yesterday.
Generally, you have correctly analyzed the syntax, but here are a few points about the translation:
ἀμφότερα – better “both of these things”
γνῶτ᾽ . . . καὶ αἴσθησθ᾽ have two objects, which are not quite parallel: a clause (τὸ προΐεσθαι . . . ὡς ἀλυσιτελές, “introduced” by the subordinating conjunction ὡς, “that”) and a noun (φιλοπραγμοσύνην). Perhaps “recognize” would be a better way to translate γνῶτ᾽–an English verb that can take both constructions.
τὸ προΐεσθαι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἀεί τι τῶν πραγμάτων ὡς ἀλυσιτελές – that [ὡς] it’s unprofitable to always be letting go of/letting slip each situation [literally, “some particular one of the situations”] one by one". Not “a part of each situation.”
Note how delaying the conjunction ὡς adds emphasis to ἀλυσιτελές – you can almost hear his voice rising in a crescendo to fortissimo.
φιλοπραγμοσύνη – maybe “restlessness” or “restless ambition”
οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἀγαπήσας τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἡσυχίαν σχήσει – it’s impossible that he will be content [literally, “having become content”] with his accomplishments and be at rest", not “grant peace”. ἡσυχίαν is “the absence of activity.”
εἰ δ᾽ ὁ μὲν ὡς ἀεί τι μεῖζον τῶν ὑπαρχόντων δεῖ πράττειν ἐγνωκὼς ἔσται, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ὡς οὐδενὸς ἀντιληπτέον ἐρρωμένως τῶν πραγμάτων, – supply εγνωκοτες εσομεθα (by analogy with ἐγνωκὼς ἔσται; not εσμεν, as I previously wrote in error) with the second ως – "but if he will judge that he must always accomplish something greater than the present circumstances, and we, that we don’t have to get a firm grip on any particular situation , , , " Note ὁ μὲν ὡς . . . ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ὡς, which makes the repetition of the future perfect (with the change of person) unnecessary. γιγνωσκω can mean to “think” or “judge”. Future perfect because he’s looking further ahead to the ultimate outcome.
Also note τι τῶν πραγμάτων in the previous sentence corresponds to οὐδενὸς . . . τῶν πραγμάτων here.
σκοπεῖσθ᾽ εἰς τί ποτ᾽ ἐλπὶς ταῦτα τελευτῆσαι – supply εστι with ἐλπὶς (this is an idiom); ἐλπὶς is not necessarily positive “hope” – it can be negative or neutral; here maybe “expectation”: “consider what the expectation is that these things end up at”; less literally, “consider how this can be expected to end up”. Read the dictionary entry for ἐλπὶς on this.
I haven’t had much time for Greek in the last week myself. ὅτι θυγάτηρ ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν. It makes much more sense now that you’ve pointed out the correct range of meaning for ἐλπίς. For γιγνώσκω, I feel like “judge” could be the explanation, but couldn’t it still work as a verb of perception if the object were τι μεῖζον in the first phrase, and οὐδενὸς ἀντιληπτέον in the second?
D. 1.15
πρὸς θεῶν, τίς οὕτως εὐήθης ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ὅστις ἀγνοεῖ τὸν ἐκεῖθεν πόλεμον δεῦρ᾽ ἥξοντα, ἂν ἀμελήσωμεν; ἀλλὰ μήν, εἰ τοῦτο γενήσεται, δέδοικ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ οἱ δανειζόμενοι ῥᾳδίως ἐπὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις τόκοις μικρὸν εὐπορήσαντες χρόνον ὕστερον καὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀπέστησαν, οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς ἂν ἐπὶ πολλῷ φανῶμεν ἐρρᾳθυμηκότες, καὶ ἅπαντα πρὸς ἡδονὴν ζητοῦντες πολλὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ ὧν οὐκ ἐβουλόμεθ᾽ ὕστερον εἰς ἀνάγκην ἔλθωμεν ποιεῖν, καὶ κινδυνεύσωμεν περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ.
the gods, who among you is so simple that he is ignorant that the war will come from there to here, if we do not manage things? But indeed, if this comes about, I am afraid, O men of Athens, lest the same way that borrowers at high interest having become rich for a little while later lose even what they had at the beginning, lest also we in the same way be shown to leave off work at many things and be seekers after pleasure in everything, that many difficult things which we do not want to do, we should later come to do under duress, and that we should be at risk because of them in our very own land.
For γιγνώσκω, I feel like “judge” could be the explanation, but couldn’t it still work as a verb of perception if the object were τι μεῖζον in the first phrase, and οὐδενὸς ἀντιληπτέον in the second?
Not sure I understand this. The objects of ἐγνωκὼς ἔσται and understood εγνωκοτες εσομεθα are the subordinate clauses ὡς ἀεί τι μεῖζον τῶν ὑπαρχόντων δεῖ πράττειν and ὡς οὐδενὸς ἀντιληπτέον ἐρρωμένως τῶν πραγμάτων, respectively.
A few minor points on the next passage:
τὸν ἐκεῖθεν πόλεμον δεῦρ᾽ ἥξοντα – “the war from there will come here”; your translation captures the sense well enough, but ἐκεῖθεν really modifies πόλεμον, which it can do despite being an adverb because of the article. Maybe “the war from those parts”, “the war from that direction”.
ἀμελήσωμεν – “be careless, negligent”
πρὸς ἡδονὴν – “comfort” might be better than “pleasure”.
ἐβουλόμεθ᾽ – imperfect
κινδυνεύσωμεν περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ – something like “we should be at risk over the situation in our own land”. τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ is a unit with the article “substantivizing” the phrase ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ, “the [things] in [our own] land”. κινδυνεύω περὶ – “to be at risk over/for”
I had been thinking that ὡς could govern the participle, as if ὁ μὲν ἔσται ὡς … if he will always be as one conscious of something more that he needs, and if we will be as ones conscious of nothing that we need to take up resolutely…
D 1.16
τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπιτιμᾶν ἴσως φήσαι τις ἂν ῥᾴδιον καὶ παντὸς εἶναι, τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν παρόντων ὅ τι δεῖ πράττειν ἀποφαίνεσθαι, τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι συμβούλου. ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦθ᾽ ὅτι πολλάκις ὑμεῖς οὐ τοὺς αἰτίους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ὑστάτους περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων εἰπόντας ἐν ὀργῇ ποιεῖσθε, ἄν τι μὴ κατὰ γνώμην ἐκβῇ: οὐ μὴν οἶμαι δεῖν τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσφάλειαν σκοποῦνθ᾽ ὑποστείλασθαι περὶ ὧν ὑμῖν συμφέρειν ἡγοῦμαι.
The act of blaming, someone might say, is easy for anyone, but the act of making clear what must be done from our present circumstances, is what belongs to an advisor. Myself, I am not unaware of this, that often you men of Athens do not become angry at the reasons, but at the last speakers about a matter, should something not turn out how you want it. However, I do not think that it’s necessary for one looking to his own safety to hold back about what I am thinking is advantageous to you.
I adjusted “O men of Athens” to highlight what I thought was emphasis on ὑμεῖς. ἡγοῦμαι seems to refer to what he is thinking now, not in general?, so I have “I am thinking” for “I think.”
I had been thinking that ὡς could govern the participle, as if ὁ μὲν ἔσται ὡς … if he will always be as one conscious of something more that he needs, and if we will be as ones conscious of nothing that we need to take up resolutely…
ἐγνωκὼς ἔσται is the periphrastic future perfect; also how would you fit δεῖ πράττειν in that analysis? That has to be a subordinate clause introduced by ὡς; there’s no relative pronoun to make it a relative clause.
ῥᾴδιον καὶ παντὸς εἶναι – " . . . is easy and belongs to everyone/anyone". παντὸς εἶναι is parallel to εἶναι συμβούλου.
" . . . someone might say . . ." is not parenthetical in Greek: “Someone might say that the act of blaming is easy . . .” Better translate in a way to make it clear that μὲν . . . δ᾽ is not logically subordinate to “someone might say.” “Someone might say that criticism is easy and anyone can do it, but revealing what must be done about the present circumstances is the counselor’s job.” (This doesn’t capture the parallelism of παντὸς εἶναι and εἶναι συμβούλου, though).
οὐ τοὺς αἰτίους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ὑστάτους περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων εἰπόντας – “angry not at those who are responsible, but at those who are last to speak about the situation/matter” (not “angry at the reasons”).
μὴ κατὰ γνώμην – “not in accordance with your ideas”
οὐ μὴν οἶμαι δεῖν τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσφάλειαν σκοποῦνθ᾽ ὑποστείλασθαι περὶ ὧν ὑμῖν συμφέρειν ἡγοῦμαι. – I think this is a more general statement of principle, not limited to the present circumstances: “but I don’t think one/I ought to [not ‘it’s necessary’; this is a statement of moral obligation] consider one’s/my own safety and hold back about what I think is in your interests.” This veers between a general statement of principle and a statement of D.'s own principles.
Emphatic ἐγὼ really belongs with the second clause, to which the ἀγνοῶ μέν clause is logically (though not grammatically) subordinate; “even though I’m aware I’m taking a risk in speaking the truth to you, I most emphatically don’t think I ought to subordinate your best interests to my own personal safety.”
I would leave ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι as a vocative, and translate it simply “gentlemen”. "I’m not, gentlmen, unware that . . . " ὑμεῖς adds a note of censure, almost scorn, but the contrast is between ἀγνοῶ μέν and very emphatic οὐ μὴν οἶμαι (μὴν is much stronger than δε would be to balance μέν).
D. 1.17
φημὶ δὴ διχῇ βοηθητέον εἶναι τοῖς πράγμασιν ὑμῖν, τῷ τε τὰς πόλεις τοῖς Ὀλυνθίοις σῴζειν καὶ τοὺς τοῦτο ποιήσοντας στρατιώτας ἐκπέμπειν, καὶ τῷ τὴν ἐκείνου χώραν κακῶς ποιεῖν καὶ τριήρεσι καὶ στρατιώταις ἑτέροις:
I say that what must be done to help these circumstances of yours is in two parts, first the saving of the cities for the Olynthians and the sending out of the soldiers that will do this, and second the despoiling of that man’s country, with separate ships and soldiers.
D 1.18
εἰ δὲ θατέρου τούτων ὀλιγωρήσετε, ὀκνῶ μὴ μάταιος ἡμῖν ἡ στρατεία γένηται. εἴτε γὰρ ὑμῶν τὴν ἐκείνου κακῶς ποιούντων, ὑπομείνας τοῦτ᾽ Ὄλυνθον παραστήσεται, ῥᾳδίως ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκείαν ἐλθὼν ἀμυνεῖται: εἴτε βοηθησάντων μόνον ὑμῶν εἰς Ὄλυνθον, ἀκινδύνως ὁρῶν ἔχοντα τὰ οἴκοι, προσκαθεδεῖται καὶ προσεδρεύσει τοῖς πράγμασι, περιέσται τῷ χρόνῳ τῶν πολιορκουμένων. δεῖ δὴ πολλὴν καὶ διχῇ τὴν βοήθειαν εἶναι.
And if either of these is neglected, I fear lest the campaign become vain for us. On the one hand, while you despoil that man’s country, he having waited for this would bring Olynthus to terms, and easily coming to his home defend himself. Otherwise, while you only aid Olynthus, he seeing that things at home are in no danger, shall sit down and squat to attend to these matters, and shall be at advantage in time, over the besieged. It is therefore very necessary for the help to be in two parts.
διχῇ βοηθητέον εἶναι τοῖς πράγμασιν ὑμῖν – ὑμῖν is the indirect object/agent of βοηθητέον: the situation must be helped by you in two ways/parts", “you must help/address the situation in two ways”.
τῷ . . . σῴζειν καὶ . . . ἐκπέμπειν, καὶ τῷ . . . κακῶς ποιεῖν . . . : “both by rescuing and sending out and by harming”
ποιήσοντας – future participle equivalent to purpose clause: “soldiers to do this”
τριήρεσι καὶ στρατιώταις ἑτέροις – “triremes and other soldiers”
εἰ δὲ θατέρου τούτων ὀλιγωρήσετε – “but if you neglect . . .”
εἴτε . . . εἴτε – “either . . . or”
ὑμῶν τὴν ἐκείνου κακῶς ποιούντων . . . βοηθησάντων μόνον ὑμῶν εἰς Ὄλυνθον, – these genitive absolutes are equivalent to the protases of conditionals. “if you harm his territory”, “if you only send reinforcements to Olynthus”.
παραστήσεται – “will bring to terms”
οἰκείαν – “homeland?”
ὑπομείνας – “endure”, “submit to”, “allow it to happen”.
προσκαθεδεῖται καὶ προσεδρεύσει τοῖς πράγμασι – “he will lay siege and watch/attend to the situation”
περιέσται – “he will overcome”, not just “be at advantage over”
δεῖ δὴ πολλὴν καὶ διχῇ τὴν βοήθειαν εἶναι. – πολλὴν modifies βοήθειαν: “So the assistance/help must be ample and in two prongs.”
I haven’t commented on your corrections, mostly because they all seem self-evident to me once I read them. I have been looking through each carefully.
D. 1. 19.
καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς βοηθείας ταῦτα γιγνώσκω: περὶ δὲ χρημάτων πόρου, ἔστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, χρήμαθ᾽ ὑμῖν, ἔστιν ὅσ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων στρατιωτικά: ταῦτα δ᾽ ὑμεῖς οὕτως ὡς βούλεσθε λαμβάνετε. εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῦτα τοῖς στρατευομένοις ἀποδώσετε, οὐδενὸς ὑμῖν προσδεῖ πόρου, εἰ δὲ μή, προσδεῖ, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἅπαντος ἐνδεῖ τοῦ πόρου. ‘τί οὖν;’ ἄν τις εἴποι, ‘σὺ γράφεις ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι στρατιωτικά;’ μὰ Δί᾽ οὐκ ἔγωγε.
Now, about the assistance I know these things, but about the source of funds, there is, O men of Athens, wealth belonging to you, in amount as to no other men for strategic purposes: and you men take from it as you like. If you shall distribute this to the armies, there is not any additional need of a funding source, but if not, there is such a need, or rather funds are completely lacking. What is this? someone may ask, are you motioning that these are strategic funds? By god, not me!
οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων στρατιωτικά – Dilts’ new OCT brackets στρατιωτικά. Demosthenes seems to be talking about diverting the Theoric Fund (the fund for the festivals), a highly controversial issue, and one that could get D. in trouble just by formally proposing legislation (γράφειν) for such an action. D. denies he’s making such a proposal, but he has simple put the idea in play.
McQueen discusses the bracketing of στρατιωτικά (though it’s included in his text) and has an appendix on the details of the Theoric fund. He mentions the rhetor who was fined ten talents (in the very year that Demosthenes gives this speech, reduced to one talent) for suggesting that the Theoric fund be used for military purposes. In the end, Athens finally did raid the Theoric fund to pay for war expenses. I can see the argument for leaving out στρατιωτικά here. Demosthenes’ point seems to be that they have vast wealth belonging to them, but it’s precisely wealth that is not available for military purposes. On the other hand, I think that it still makes sense with στρατιωτικά. In the manuscript version, Demosthenes is implying his proposal with the first sentence (“you’ve got this vast Theoric fund that is available for military purposes if you just say that it is”).
D 1.20
ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι στρατιώτας δεῖν κατασκευασθῆναι καὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι στρατιωτικὰ καὶ μίαν σύνταξιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ τε λαμβάνειν καὶ τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα, ὑμεῖς δ᾽ οὕτω πως ἄνευ πραγμάτων λαμβάνειν εἰς τὰς ἑορτάς. ἔστι δὴ λοιπόν, οἶμαι, πάντας εἰσφέρειν, ἂν πολλῶν δέῃ, πολλά, ἂν ὀλίγων, ὀλίγα. δεῖ δὲ χρημάτων, καὶ ἄνευ τούτων οὐδὲν ἔστι γενέσθαι τῶν δεόντων. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς ἄλλοι πόρους, ὧν ἕλεσθ᾽ ὅστις ὑμῖν συμφέρειν δοκεῖ: καὶ ἕως ἐστὶ καιρός, ἀντιλάβεσθε τῶν πραγμάτων.
For I think that an army needs to be fully equipped and that military funds be [used], and that there be a single arrangement for the collection and the use of what is necessary, but you think to collect for the festival in the same way you do now without trouble. Indeed there is another option, I think, to tax everyone, much, should the need be great, little, if it is small. But there is a need of funds, and without these nothing can come about of what is necessary. Different people speak of different fund sources, of which I tell you to chose whatever appears most advantageous to you, and while the time is ripe, to take up these matters.
McQueen mentions that “καὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι στρατιωτικὰ” is deleted in some texts as well. However the rhetorical purpose seems clear to me. Demosthenes is being euphemistic about raiding the Theoric fund, and is speaking carefully to avoid prosecution. He supports using a military fund, but leaves it only (strongly) implied that he wants his audience to declare the Theoric fund a military fund. McQueen doesn’t mention it, but I wonder if μίαν σύνταξιν is a reference to the system of distribution of Theoric funds, which might make it specially suited for raising an army. (It would have required large number of individual payments to individuals, so Demosthenes may have felt that the administrative requirements and record keeping were similar.)
Dilts brackets ταῦτ᾽ but notes that Dobree (I believe he was one of those critics who attacked texts aggressively) bracketed καὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι στρατιωτικὰ. I think something is amiss in the text here, because I don’t fully understand this passage. I think καὶ μίαν σύνταξιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ τε λαμβάνειν καὶ τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα, means that there should be a single arrangement for collecting funds through taxation and then allocating the funds collected to what needs to be done – in other words, that funds collected through taxation should not be earmarked for specific purposes (i.e., festivals), but instead should be used for whatever purpose is necessary.
κατασκευασθῆναι – maybe “raised and equpped.”
ἕλεσθ᾽ and ἀντιλάβεσθε are imperatives, of course. In English, you could end a sentence after τινὰς ἄλλοι πόρους and translate ὧν as a demonstrative: “Choose whichever of these you think is advantageous to you and get a grip on the situation while the time is ripe.”
I wonder if the explanation is that Demosthenes is speaking about revenues rather than existing monies. He could be saying that ‘you have all this revenue available for military purposes,’ and is proposing that instead of collecting for the Theoric fund, it be collected for a military fund. But it is his audience that wants to collect the Theoric fund in addition to this – ὑμεῖς δ᾽ οὕτω πως ἄνευ πραγμάτων λαμβάνειν εἰς τὰς ἑορτάς.
Of course, all this would be equivalent to raiding the Theoric fund, but he can’t make that proposal.
ἄξιον δ᾽ ἐνθυμηθῆναι καὶ λογίσασθαι τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἐν ᾧ καθέστηκε νυνὶ τὰ Φιλίππου. οὔτε γάρ, ὡς δοκεῖ καὶ φήσειέ τις ἂν μὴ σκοπῶν ἀκριβῶς, εὐτρεπῶς οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἂν κάλλιστ᾽ αὐτῷ τὰ παρόντ᾽ ἔχει, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐξήνεγκε τὸν πόλεμόν ποτε τοῦτον ἐκεῖνος, εἰ πολεμεῖν ᾠήθη δεήσειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐπιὼν ἅπαντα τότ᾽ ἤλπιζε τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἀναιρήσεσθαι, κᾆτα διέψευσται. τοῦτο δὴ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ταράττει παρὰ γνώμην γεγονὸς καὶ πολλὴν ἀθυμίαν αὐτῷ παρέχει, εἶτα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν.
But it is right to consider and reason about how matters have turned out for Phillip.*** For neither are the present matters well-arranged in the best way for him – as they appear to be and as someone might say without examining carefully – nor would he have carried out this war at the time, if he thought that he would need to wage war himself, but when attacking then he expected all of the matters to be hands off, and subsequently was completely cheated. Indeed this first thing disturbed him, turning out against expectations, and greatly discouraged him, and after that the matters of the Thessalians [discouraged him as well].
*** I had trouble capturing the hyperbaton in English, so this is a paraphrase.
τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἐν ᾧ καθέστηκε νυνὶ τὰ Φιλίππου – “to consider where the situation now stands – Philip’s situation”.
ἀκριβῶς – maybe better “accurately”.
εὐτρεπῶς – “turned out well” or something like that.
ποτε – “ever”, “he would never have carried out this war”.
ὡς here indicates that this is what he expected: "he expected [maybe “hoped” would be right here] that he would attack [ἐπιὼν is future] and seize/grab/grasp/lay hold of matters for himself [ἀναιρήσεσθαι – middle; subject is Philip, not τὰ πράγματ᾽, and ἀν- is the preverb ἀνα, not alpha privative; but maybe you could translate loosely “matters would fall into his hands”].
κᾆτα διέψευσται – better translate the perfect with English present: “he has been completely deceived”, definitely not “cheated.”
τοῦτο δὴ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ταράττει παρὰ γνώμην γεγονὸς καὶ πολλὴν ἀθυμίαν αὐτῷ παρέχει, εἶτα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν. – maybe “this is the first thing that is shaking/has shaken him, having turned out against expectations, and greatly discourages him, and then events among the Thessalians [has shaken him too].”
"
ταῦτα γὰρ ἄπιστα μὲν ἦν δήπου φύσει καὶ ἀεὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, κομιδῇ δ᾽, ὥσπερ ἦν, καὶ ἔστι νῦν τούτῳ. καὶ γὰρ Παγασὰς ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτόν εἰσιν ἐψηφισμένοι, καὶ Μαγνησίαν κεκωλύκασι τειχίζειν. ἤκουον δ᾽ ἔγωγέ τινων, ὡς οὐδὲ τοὺς λιμένας καὶ τὰς ἀγορὰς ἔτι δώσοιεν αὐτῷ καρποῦσθαι: τὰ γὰρ κοινὰ τὰ Θετταλῶν ἀπὸ τούτων δέοι διοικεῖν, οὐ Φίλιππον λαμβάνειν. εἰ δὲ τούτων ἀποστερήσεται τῶν χρημάτων, εἰς στενὸν κομιδῇ τὰ τῆς τροφῆς τοῖς ξένοις αὐτῷ καταστήσεται.
For these were no doubt untrustworthy by nature always to all men, and as in the past, even now are so to him. For now they have even voted to ask back Pagasae from him, and they have prevented Magnesia from building walls. I have heard with my own ears from some, that neither will the ports and markets still pay him [any profits] they produce, for the public affairs of the Thessalians need to be managed out of these, not for Phillip to take them. And if he shall be deprived of these monies, the cost to him of maintenance for his mercenaries will be very tight.
The neuter plural of ταῦτα ἄπιστα surprises me. He seems to be talking about the people, not their affairs. Is this attraction?
Also, is this a parallel use of καθίστημι:
οὐκ ἠθέλησα πράξασθαι πλέον ἢ ὅσου ἐμοὶ κατέστησαν
Apparently accusative ὄσον is also a variant in that passage.
ἄπιστα here I think means “of doubtful/unreliable/uncertain outcome”, maybe with a suggestion that the Thessalians themselves are not to be trusted.
For these things [i.e., Thessalian affairs] of course always were unreliable by nature for all men, and, just as they were, they are for him, too, now.
ἀπαιτεῖν – better, “demand back.”
Μαγνησίαν κεκωλύκασι τειχίζειν – probably “they have prevented him from fortifying Magnesia.”
ἤκουον δ᾽ ἔγωγέ τινων, ὡς οὐδὲ τοὺς λιμένας καὶ τὰς ἀγορὰς ἔτι δώσοιεν αὐτῷ καρποῦσθαι: τὰ γὰρ κοινὰ τὰ Θετταλῶν ἀπὸ τούτων δέοι διοικεῖν, οὐ Φίλιππον λαμβάνειν. – I myself heard some [said/were saying] that they would no longer give him [the revenues of] the ports and markets to enjoy, [that] it was necessary to manage the common affairs of Thessaly out of these [funds], [that] Philip should not take them.
καταστήσεται here means something like “become”: "providing maintenance for his mercenaries will become very tight/get into a very tight spot for him.
In the passage from Andocides, without knowing anything about the context, I think κατέστησαν means just cost: " I didn’t want to make more off them than they cost me."
ἀλλὰ μὴν τόν γε Παίονα καὶ τὸν Ἰλλυριὸν καὶ ἁπλῶς τούτους ἅπαντας ἡγεῖσθαι χρὴ αὐτονόμους ἥδιον ἂν καὶ ἐλευθέρους ἢ δούλους εἶναι: καὶ γὰρ ἀήθεις τοῦ κατακούειν τινός εἰσι, καὶ ἅνθρωπος ὑβριστής, ὥς φασιν. καὶ μὰ Δί᾽ οὐδὲν ἄπιστον ἴσως: τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν τοῖς ἀνοήτοις γίγνεται: διόπερ πολλάκις δοκεῖ τὸ φυλάξαι τἀγαθὰ τοῦ κτήσασθαι χαλεπώτερον εἶναι.
But indeed, the Paeonian chief definitely and the Illyrian chief and all of these must simply reason that to be independent and free should be better than to be slaves. For they are unaccustomed to obedience of anyone, and the man is insolent, so they say. And by God, it’s not anything unbelievable, likely, for the doing well beyond what is justified births the start of ill thinking for the foolish, because of which the guarding of good possessions often seems to be harder than acquiring them.