At first I thought that this might be an example of the optative of wish due to the εἰ γὰρ At the beginning, but I had trouble reconciling this with the phrase after the comma αιτία θεοῦ. And so, I assume that it must be an example of a future less vivid conditional sentence with some ellipsis of words in the apodosis namely the particle δέ which would join with the μέν in the protasis, the particle ἄν, and the optative of the verb to be? This would seem odd though, since the book told me that the apodosis of a future less vivid conditional sentence should contain the particle ἄν.
The best I got for this then, was: ’For if we should fare well, it would be the doing (my rendering of responsibility into English idiom) of God’. I’m not satisfied with this at all, and so I would be very grateful if someone more learned than myself could kindly reveal to me the correct translation; and where I went wrong if I did (which seems highly likely!).
Hi Tom,
I snipped the following from mwh’s sticky on conditionals at the top of this board:
So here’s how if-clauses work:-
εἰ + opt.
εἰ εἴποιμι / λέγοιμι = If I were to say (= If I said, followed by main clause with “would”)
(Aor. or pres. according to aspect.)
Now here’s how main clauses work (any and all main clauses, whether or not they have an if-clause attached to them):-
Indic. (without ἄν):
λέγω / ἐρῶ / ἔλεγον / εἶπον / εἴρηκα = I say, will say, was saying, said, have spoken
Main clauses and if-clauses can be combined in any way that makes sense.
If you check Smyth 2359 & 2360, you’ll see that you can use the indicative in the apodosis (main clause) in general statements and maxims.
In the CGCG, I believe this is covered in 49.17 “Mixed Conditionals”
Thus, I’d go with “If we should indeed fare well, the credit (belongs to) the god.”
As to μεν, used alone it could mean “of a truth”, “indeed” which would fit well with the notion of this sentence being a general statement.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly.
Let me have a go at this.
.
εἰ μέν γὰρ πράξαιμεν means “For if we were to act.” Has ευ been omitted? If so it will mean “For if we were to succeed” (or “For if we should fare well,” as the OP has it, but that’s rather antiquated English, and “should” is ambiguous).
If αιτία θεοῦ is the main clause (aka apodosis), as appears to be the intention, εστιν “is” is to be “understood,” resulting in a so-called “mixed” condition (terminology I dislike). αν ειη, “would be,” would make it what traditional grammars call a “future less vivid” condition (an unnecessary and unhelpful label, in my view), but when no verb is expressed, as here, simple εστιν is implied.
The μεν implies an upcoming sentence with δε, whether expressed or not, meaning e.g. “Otherwise, it’s our own fault” (ει δε μη, αιτια ημων αυτων). The μεν itself is enough to imply all that.
But the isolated sentence in the book seems a rather artificial one.
When I was checking αἰτία in the LSJ, I saw the citation as well. With the εὖ it’s line 4 from Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes : εἰ μὲν γὰρ εὖ πράξαιμεν, αἰτία θεοῦ.
As for μεν, thanks for the explanation. Is its use as an equivalent of μἠν relatively rare in Attic?
Ahah! If you look at the next line, there is a corresponding δε!
εἰ δ᾽ αὖθ᾽, ὃ μὴ γένοιτο, συμφορὰ τύχοι
Aeschylus yes, of course! How could I have failed to recognize a line from the Septem prologue, even when misquoted and in decontextualized isolation? At least I guessed right about ευ being missing. This explains the oddity of αιτία θεοῦ too, which led to my calling it “rather artificial” when I should have called it “Aeschylean” (I don’t think you’d find that in Sophocles or Euripides, let alone in prose).
And it’s no surprise that there is indeed an answering δε (εἰ δ’ … συμφορὰ τύχοι), this time with opt.+ἄν (“would”) in the main clause, ἂν … ὑπνοῖτο. (ὃ μὴ γένοιτο, a frequent apotropaic formula, is a parenthesis within the εἰ clause.)
If you hadn’t questioned the absence of εὖ, I never would have found it! I had checked αἰτία for any idiomatic usage and then when you mentioned εὖ, I remembered seeing it in the citation from Aeschylus, and so went back and lo, A. Th. 4!
Well done Don. The thing about αιτία, apart from its having no article, is that it’s used in a positive sense rather than the usual negative one.
In light of Tom’s initial post we should probably make it clear that ο μη γενοιτο is an “optative of wish” (there’s no ἄν) but is a relative clause (ὂ nom.neut.) embedded within the protasis.
Michael
At least I guessed right about ευ being missing. This explains the oddity of αιτία θεοῦ too, which led to my calling it “rather artificial” when I should have called it “Aeschylean” (I don’t think you’d find that in Sophocles or Euripides, let alone in prose).