# hippolytus 48-51

**URL:** <https://www.textkit.com/t/hippolytus-48-51/13927>\
**Category:** Learning Greek\
**Created:** [December 12, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/hippolytus-48-51/13927 "2015-12-12T22:27:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![richard\_ross](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/82dd89/32.png) [@richard\_ross](https://www.textkit.com/u/richard_ross)\
**Post date:** [December 12, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/hippolytus-48-51/13927/1 "2015-12-12T22:27:44Z")

</div>

τὸ γὰρ τῆσδ᾽ οὐ προτιμήσω κακὸν 48  
τὸ μὴ οὐ παρασχεῖν τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἐμοὶ  
δίκην τοσαύτην ὥστ᾽ ἐμοὶ καλῶς ἔχειν.  
My translation:  
Yet I will not give preference to the misfortune of this woman that I not allow such a penalty to my enemies as is pleasing to me.  
But, the following questions:  
line 48: Does το goes with κακον?  
line 49: does the double negative emphatically affirm or cancel?  
is this an indirect statement?  
where does το fit in?  
does εμοι add anything, or does it merely emphasize the the three previous words or is it an ethical dative (e.g; as far as I am concerned)?  
is ωστε adverbial or a conjunction?

Thanks  
Richard Ross

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/hippolytus-48-51/13927/2 "2015-12-13T03:02:32Z")

</div>

To answer your very instructive questions in order:

το w/ κακον?: Yes, but would not without τῆσδε modifying it.

Double neg. μη ου: The ου merely repeats the ου of ου προτιμησω, i.e. it’s pleonastic. If the main verb were not negatived, we’d have only μη, not μη ου.

Ind.statement?: No, quasi-consecutive, see next.

το?: It’s actually an adverbial accusative, but functions more or less like ὥστε, taking the same construction.

εμοι: indirect obj. of παρασχειν.

ωστε adv. or conj.?: conj., + inf.; correlative w/ τοσαυτην.

In your translation:  
Not “Yet “ but “For”, explaining why the innocent Phaedra has to die.

49-50: τους εμους εχθρους is the subject of παρασχειν, δικην τοσαυτην the object. "… such that (το) _my_ enemies fail to provide _me_ with as great a punishment/justice as satisfies me.”  
She has nothing against Phaedra, but her first and only priority is the punishment of her enemies, i.e. Hippolytus; she must exact “justice” from them, no matter what. (Anything here sound familiar?) Phaedra’s death is just collateral damage.