τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς οὐκ ἐννοεῖς ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐθέλει ἄρχειν ἑκών, ἀλλὰ μισθὸν αἰτοῦσιν, ὡς οὐχὶ αὐτοῖσιν ὠφελίαν ἐσομένην ἐκ τοῦ ἄρχειν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις;
The clause introduced by ὡς appears as absolute to me, so I would expect it to be genitive. What am I missing here?
There’s an unexpressed “ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐθέλει ἄρχειν [τὴν ἀρχὴν] ἑκών…”, but the ἐσομένην wouldn’t refer back to that, as it’s the εἶναι of existence with ὠφελία.
The μισθόν is logically an ὠφελίαν. However, if it’s referring back to that, I (perhaps wrongly?) would have expected τὴν ὠφελίαν ἐσομένην.
I suppose nobody would spot me a τ for an “αὐτοῖς τὴν ὠφελίαν ἐσομένην”?
I’m not sure I’ve gotten you right. Do you suggest to take ὠφελίαν ἐσομένην in apposition to μισθὸν? This would seem difficult to me in view of ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις.
Yes, I suppose you’re right. It’s an ὡς οὐχὶ τῷ Λουκας ὠφελίαν ἐσομένην ἐκ τοῦ ἄρχειν ἀλλὰ τῷ Παυλῳ
My only guess so far is that it is a genitive absolute which turned accusative by attraction.
tugodum: another good question on this passage. You’re right that it’s absolute, but acc not gen. You may be familiar with the “accusative” absolute with impersonal verbs (eg ἐξόν). Less frequently, it can also be used with personal verbs. It’s usually introduced by ὡς and is a type of implied indirect statement. e.g. οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἀπεῖπον τοῖς ἐκγόνοις μὴ τῷ Παύλῳ συγγίγνεσθαι ὡς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους διαφθείροντας τοὺς νέους [the Athenians forbade their children from associating with Paul, (believing that) Judaeans corrupt the youth]. The ὡς clause stands in apposition to the whole preceding thought. I’ll let others find references in the grammars if they want; I’m short on time right now.
Thank you so much! Yes, I knew about the impersonal ones (actually, first learned it on this forum few years ago) but did not suspect there might be personal ones.
That discussion in that thread actually quotes at length from Schwyzer—Debrunner, which cites this as an accusative absolute with an abstract subject:
mit abstraktem Subjekt: διὸ καὶ τοὺς υἱεῖς οἱ πατέρες ἀπὸ τῶν πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων εἴργουσιν, ὡς τὴν μὲν τῶν χρηστῶν ὁμιλίαν ἄσκησιν οὖσαν τῆς ἀρετῆς, τὴν δὲ τῶν πονηρῶν κατάλυσιν Xen. comm. I 2, 20, ὅτι … μισθὸν αἰτοῦσιν, ὡς οὐχὶ αὐτοῖσιν ὠφέλειαν ἐσομένην ἐκ τοῦ ἄρχειν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις Plat. civ. 345
In the main clause of the first passage here, the fathers are operating on the associations of their sons, which (definite in the ὡς clause) feels pretty comfortable in the object slot to me.