I am having a bit of trouble with some passages from Herodotus quoted in Reading Greek 2nd ed. Sometimes I think I only understand as well as I do because the texts are so heavily glossed. If I were left to my own devices with just LSJ I don’t think I would do so well.
The repetition of the 2nd sing pronoun in σέ τοι χρεόν preplexes me. Why is the τοι necessary? Is the construction accusative and dative? “It is necessary to you (τοι) that you (σέ) go where…” I don’t get what the second χρεόν is doing here. It is necessary that you be of your fathers, that is, worthy of your ancestry? Also, I don’t get how ὑπάρχω means “be sufficient” as it is glossed. I can’t find that in the lexicon. I would be grateful for any help.
τοι is not a 2nd person pronoun. Its a particle (“τοι , prop. ethical dative of σύ (q. v.), but used as an enclit. Particle,”) see entry in LSJ “let me tell you, mark you, look you”. Its added for emphasis.
That second χρεον is nonsense. No wonder you don’t get what it’s doing, Charlie. It should be εργοισι, “by your deeds,” and πατρωον τε γαρ starts a new sentence, as γαρ indicates.
I can’t believe my own stupidity. I must apologize for testing your patience. Instead of typing out the text from Reading Greek, I went to Perseus and copied and pasted. Naturally, there is an error in that. The word is indeed ἔργοισι.
You can see how the error arose. I believe that the Perseus Herodotus would have been from the pre-scan days, when the work was done by human typists. They were working from the old Loeb, which has
τοι χρεόν
τοῖσι ἔργοισι·
προσέτι ῥώμη
And so the similar line-endings caused a human being to copy the χρεόν twice. An old-fashioned scribal error!
Literally “and you are strong besides” which is " besides you have the strength" for the task of “becoming famous for one’s deeds” “ἀπολαμπρυνέαι τοῖσι ἔργοισι”. It’s a small step to having “enough strength” or “sufficient strength” for that goal.
That’s how I see it anyway.
Apologies for not picking up the mis-transcription of the text, I only scanned the text to answer your first specific question.
Strength is the subject of the verb. “…in addition strength exists” [to you].
I don’t really like the glosses in the LSJ article on ὑπάρχω. They don’t really bring out the fact that ὑπάρχω has a basic mental image of “underlying” or “foundational to” or “supporting”. This is one word where the CGL’s approach really shines, in my opinion.
(of material and non-material things) be in existence, > exist, be available> , or > at hand > (sts. W.DAT. for someone)
LSJ of the same:
belong to, fall to one, accrue, ὑπάρξει τοι . . τὰ ἐναντία you will have, Hdt.6.109, etc.; τὸ μισεῖσθαι πᾶσιν ὑ. Th.2.64; τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων ἀμφοτέροις [σωτηρίαν] Id.6.86; ἡ ὑπάρχουσα φύσις your proper nature, its normal condition, Id.2.45; τῇ τέχνῃ ὑπάρχειν διδούς assigning as a property of art, Pl.Phlb.58c, cf. Tht.150b, 150c.
Thinking again about this ῥώμη is strength not strong. So maybe delete the word literally in my post but I don’t think it alters the substance of what I wrote. Your translation has to match the idea in the Greek not necessarily the exact form of words.
I think the notion of sufficiency is often to be understood in ὑπάρχω when used in the meaning of “be available”, “be in store”, though neither LSJ nor CGL says so.
