I’m struggling to figure out how the bit in bold works, and am not quite sure what το goes with. There are two scenarios I’m not sure which to choose between:
This is some sort of indirect statement, where το just goes with ἐργον, meaning: ‘for I have no need of words, but (I wish) that the act is/becomes manifest…’
The το goes with γενεσθαι forming an articular infinitive, meaning, literally: ‘for I have no need of words, but (I need) the-act-becoming-manifest (better: ‘the manifestation of the act’)’. The only problem with this is that, if this is an articular infinitive, why is it not genitive (του…γενεσθαι), since it appears to be governed by δεομαι? Unless it is an internal accusative with δεομαι like οὐδεν?
b. stand in need of, want, c. gen., Hdt.1.36, etc.; “τὰ σὰ δεῖται κολαστοῦ . . ἔπη” S.OT1148; ῥώμης τινὸς δ. ib.1293; οὐδὲν δεῖσθαι τροφῆς have no need of . ., Th.8.43; ἤν τι δέωνται βασιλέως if they have any need of him, ib.37: > c. inf., “τοῦτο ἔτι δέομαι μαθεῖν” Pl.R. 392d, cf. Euthd.275d, etc.; τὰ πράττεσθαι δεόμενα things needing to be done, X.Cyr.2.3.3; > “τὰ δεόμενα” necessaries, IG2.573.4; ἐπισκευάσαι τὰ δεόμενα parts needing repair, ib.22.1176.15; “τὸ δεόμενον” the point threatened, Plb.15.15.7; δεῖται impers., v. δεῖ.
Hello,
I don’t know whether you need it still, but if so, here’s my explanation.
αλλα [δεομαι] το γενεσθαι το φανερον εργον = I don’t need words, but that the deed be clear/known etc
Édit: Nοw I have read yout post in full →
but it doesn’t have to be δεομαι, it mamy be impersonal δει (look it up in LSJ under δει, it takes acc of persona agens + inf of The action).
It might be then :
I don’t need …, but [it must be/δει] that the deed be clear ) .
Hello Bartek, and welcome to Textkit. I’m sorry, but your post needs correction. You were right in your pre-edit that the meaning is “I don’t need words, but that the deed be clear/known etc”, but that is simply …ἀλλὰ [δέομαι] τὸ ἔργον φανερὸν γενέσθαι. Only ἔργον has the article. φανερόν (the predicate) and γενέσθαι don’t.
As to your edit, no, it has to be δέομαι middle (I need), carried over from the previous clause, not δεῖ. You were right the first time.
@Phoebus Apollo @MWH@Hylander@MeMyself
We are wrong, as I think, assure me if you please, because (two things here) :
Ουδέν is simply a negation here (meaning ‘not at all/nought etc’ as it is in LSJ under ουδεν) and
It [=δέομαι] can’t take infinitive here, because it would left out the το εργον φανερον. To assume,
That deomai here takes infinitive would be to imply that its’ direct object is το εργον φανερον and we know that it is not (unlike in μαθειν τουτο = learn this, while it is impossible to take εργον as direct object
of γενεσθαι).
Reassuming, we may imply, that δέομαι takes aci here (which is unheard of,unless οπως + another sentence, as in Thuc. as LSJ shows) or we can take it simply as accusative of the infinitive, which it takes rarely (look it up in LSJ under δέομαι, right below that what Hylander has mentioned). So, Phoebus Apollo, you were right in the beginning, after all . (As my reasoning shows, can somebody assure me if I am right or wrong??).
The whole problem is, that to accept such an understanding as you have shown, namely that το εργον is subject, is to say that δέομαι takes aci. It doesn’t (neither Smyth, nor LSJ shows it).
Edit :
It’s quite complicated, but it appears to me to be true. The whole thing here is that γενεσθαι, like είναι, needs subject. So we can’t suppose that we link γενεσθαι as an infintive alone with δέομαι, because than we leave out the το εργον. Why ? Because we can’t assume the subject of γενεσθαι would be not in the same sentence as γενεσθαι, but in a clause dependent on γενεσθαι, while being its’ subject. Therefore,
What it seems to me we must assume, is that Lysias used here το once, but strictly gramatically he should have twice. δεομαι το (το) εργον φανερον γενεσθαι. And in fact, using one word in two functions without writing it twice is a commonplace in every language (e.g. I told him (that) that was nice)
I want and pray to become worthy to be set beneath his feet.
This last one is different, because of the one exception to the subject becoming accusative in infinitive phrases. If the subject of the infinitive agrees with the (nominative) subject of the main verb, it stays nominative. As with ἄξιος above, which agrees with ἐγώ.
. (As my reasoning shows, can somebody assure me if I am right or wrong??).