My translation: Of the three doors that existed, which I had to go through, all happened to be open.
My understanding is that, in genitive absolute, the subject of the participle is not found in the main clause. And, since the subject of the main clause (ἅπασαι) refers to the doors already, this sentence doesnʻt warrant the use of genitive absolute. Instead, perhaps, we could expect an ordinary circumstantial participle like τρεῖς οὖσαι… ἅπασαι θύραι ἀνεῳγμέναι ἔτυχον?
Am I understanding this sentence and the use of genitive absolute correctly?
To me it looks good ol’ genitive absolute. Yes, ἅπασαι refers to the doors but it’s somewhat distinct. I think there was a discussion here about the genitive absolute when it is not as absolute. Also, “Of the three doors that existed” would require a τῶν, which is missing. But I defer to the expert.
I had an inkling but wasnʻt sure how strict that rule for genitive absolute is. I wonder how often the exception is made and which classical authors tend to make them. Iʻll try to look for that discussion you mentioned.
Yes it’s a genitive absolute, and the participle may best be understood as being implicitly concessive: “Though there were three doors that I had to go through, …” While the reference of ἅπασαι is indeed the doors, the fact that there were three doors has to be mentioned first, and it would make no sense in the nominative. And as bedwere points out, "Of the three doors that existed” would require a τῶν (or two: των τριων θυρων των ουσων?!). In this smooth fast-moving narrative the initial genitive absolute (not a partitive genitive) is the most natural way of subordinating the fact at the outset that there were three doors he had to pass through; I don’t think it even counts as an anacoluthon.
I would certainly hope not.
For the scene-setting genitive absolute cf. e.g. para.18 τριῶν ἡμῖν οἰκιῶν οὐσῶν … and καὶ πολλῶν ὄντων ἱματίων αἰτοῦσιν οὐδὲν ἔδοσαν εἰς τὴν ταφήν.
Scene setting genitive absolutes are frequent (frequent enough to explain an added οὐσῶν even if there had not been one originally) but the slide into nominative less so. Partitional gen. followed by nom.:
Anabasis: εἰ μὲν τῶν μυρίων ἐλπίδων μία τις ὑμῖν ἐστι σωθῆναι…
Apology: …ὀλίγου αὐτῶν ἅπαντες οἱ παρόντες ἂν βέλτιον ἔλεγον…
To me, the difference in the Lysias statement with and without οὐσῶν is that without οὐσῶν, there’s a feather’s weight more emphasis on the unlikelihood with “all three were open”. The statement with it is closer to “all were open” and doesn’t lay weight on the fact that this might be unlikely with three doors. Context is a bit more keyed up, imo, but on the other hand, a relative intervening might be unusual. That’s beyond me to tell.
In my view τριῶν δὲ θυρῶν οὐσῶν is unquestionably right, and deletion of the participle would be unquestionably wrong. I will not argue with Joel about it.
Questioning the unquestionable, that’s me, I guess. Since the above was maximally argumentative but minimally informative, I’ll sketch out what a useful reply putting my question to rest could look like:
Examples of the genitive absolute followed by transform to nominative case. We could bring up Smyth 2073.
A look at the context and particularly discussion of what the θύραι of a Greek house are. Note Julius Pollux: “μέρη δ’ οἰκίας· αὔλειος θύρα, κηπαία θύρα, ἀμφίθυρος, ἣν Ὅμηρος ὀρσοθύρην καλεῖ, οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ πλαγίαν θύραν.”. Commentaries on this passage that I have seen only mention the first two types, while I’d guess that a hall with the third type seems to be at least possible.
Examples of genitive absolutes followed by relative phrases.
Examples of the common construction of a leading partitive genitive followed by μέν/δέ, and how this differs.
Four ideas. That’s off the top of my head, and not meant to be an exhaustive list.
Sure, you can question anything, and if I say something is unquestionable, I know I can expect you to question it. However, some things are more worth questioning than others, and you are—what can I say?—somewhat indiscriminate in that regard.