I probably will be working for quite a while with Professor Mastronarde Unit 33 Part V, a paragraph from Xenophon’s IAnabasis 6.1.26-29. I will start with writing down the passage and the notes and bolding what I am asking about:
ἐγώ, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἥδομαι μὲν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν τιμώμενος, εἴπερ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι, καὶ χάριν
ἔχω καὶ εὔχομαι δοῦναί μοι τοὺς θεοὺς αἴτιόν τινος ὑμῖν ἀγαθοῦ γενέσθαι· τὸ
μέντοι ἐμὲ προκριθῆναι ὑφ’ ὑμῶν ἄρχοντα Λακεδαιμονίου ἀνδρὸς παρόντος οὔτε
ὑμῖν μοι δοκεῖ συμφέρον εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἧττον ἂν διὰ τοῦτο τυγχάνειν, εἴ τι δέοισθε
παρ’ αὐτῶν· ἐμοί τε αὖ οὐ πάνυ τι νομίζω ἀσφαλὲς εἶναι τοῦτο. ὁρῶ γὰρ ὅτι
καὶ τῇ πατρίδι μου οὐ πρόσθεν ἐπαύσαντο πολεμοῦντες πρὶν ἐποίησαν πᾶσαν
τὴν πόλιν ὁμολογεῖν Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ αὐτῶν ἡγεμόνας εἶναι. . . . ὃ δὲ ὑμεῖς
ἐννοεῖτε, ὅτι ἧττον ἂν στάσις εἴη ἑνὸς ἄρχοντος ἢ πολλῶν, εὖ ἴστε ὅτι ἄλλον
μὲν ἑλόμενοι οὐχ εὑρήσετε ἐμὲ στασιάζοντα· νομίζω γὰρ ὅστις ἐν πολέμῳ ὢν
στασιάζει πρὸς ἄρχοντα, τοῦτον πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σωτηρίαν στασιάζειν· ἐμὲ δὲ
ἑλόμενοι, ἴσως ἄν τινα εὕροιτε καὶ ὑμῖν καὶ ἐμοὶ ὀργιζόμενον.
Underlined words
ἄν: particle adding modal (potential) force to the infinitive τυγχάνειν (which depends
on an understood δοκεῖτε, it seems to me that you would receive . . . )
δοῦναι: here in the sense grant, with τοὺς θεοὺς as its subject and the acc. + inf. phrase
expressing what is to be granted (understand με as subject of γενέσθαι, with αἴτιον
as pred. adj.)
εἴπερ, if in fact
εἴ τι δέοισθε (optative in a condition), if you should ask for anything
Formation of the Optative 293
μέντοι (postpositive particle), however
ὃ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐννοεῖτε, and as for the notion that you have in mind
ὅστις (relative pronoun, nom. sing. masc.), whoever
πάνυ τι, very much at all, really
ποιέω, (here) cause, compel
πρίν, before
προκριθῆναι: from προκρίνω, to select (+ acc.) in preference to (+ gen. of person)
στασιάζω, engage in strife (or in dissension)
For the part that I bolded, I have a question about the structure and questions about the second note.
I am wondering why there are two infinitive phrases here. I do not think that it is because of an indirect statement and see no impersonal verb or a sign that it is the natural result in a result clause. Is it just because that author wanted to? Is the verb “ἔχω” from the previous phrase controlling these infinitives?
The note states, “δοῦναι: here in the sense grant, with τοὺς θεοὺς as its subject and the acc. + inf. phrase expressing what is to be granted (understand με as subject of γενέσθαι, with αἴτιον as pred. adj.)” I understand the first part that Xenophon is saying, “I pray that the gods grant to me . . .” I take it from the note that the second phrase is the object to be granted. Professor Mastronarde mentions that με is the subject of the second phrase but there is no με. Is it an implied με?
I have not read Anabasis but have an idea what is going on. The Spartans were hired to help Cyrus II overthrow his brother. Unfortunately, Cyrus II was killed and the leaders were betrayed by one of the satraps. Now the army has to get some new leadership and try to survive. So far, I see Xenophon displaying humility in his speech.
To briefly answer both your queries together:
“I pray that the gods grant me(μοι) to be (γενέσθαι) the cause of some good for you.” μοι is the indirect object of δοῦναι, and yes the subject of γενέσθαι is an implied με. “… grant to me that (I) become …”.
So far I have, “however, having selected me the leader instead while a man of Sparta is present, it seems good to me not (neither?) to be advantageous to you.”
Will that work?
The next couple phrases are even more difficult: ἀλλ’ ἧττον ἂν διὰ τοῦτο τυγχάνειν, εἴ τι δέοισθε παρ’ αὐτῶν· ἐμοί τε αὖ οὐ πάνυ τι νομίζω ἀσφαλὲς εἶναι τοῦτο.
,but [you] could obtain less because of this, if you should ask for anything from them; and for me in turn I think this not to be really safe.
I think the first phrase has an implied [you, the listening audience]. The phrases have a lot of possibilities as to how the words are put together, so I am very uncertain about them. I tried to follow the punctuation from the Greek but could be wrong about that also.
τὸ μέντοι ἐμὲ προκριθῆναι ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἄρχοντα Λακεδαιμονίου ἀνδρὸς παρόντος οὔτε ὑμῖν μοι δοκεῖ συμφέρον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἧττον ἂν διὰ τοῦτο τυγχάνειν, εἴ τι δέοισθε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἐμοί τε αὖ οὐ πάνυ τι νομίζω ἀσφαλὲς εἶναι τοῦτο.
The punctuation is merely an editor’s, but it does bring out how the text effectively articulates itself, without any real need for punctuation.
It starts with an articular infinitive τὸ μέντοι ἐμὲ προκριθῆναι ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἄρχοντα — the initial τό makes the phrase a substantive: “The fact however that I was selected as leader by you ….” (προκριθῆναι passsive)
Then a genitive absolute, Λακεδαιμονίου ἀνδρὸς παρόντος, “when a Lacedaemonian man is here”
Then a main clause introduced by οὔτε· οὔτε ὑμῖν μοι δοκεῖ συμφέρον εἶναι, “neither seems to me beneficial to you” (ὑμῖν up front to emphasis)
At this point he pauses to explain that: ἀλλ᾽ ἧττον ἂν διὰ τοῦτο τυγχάνειν, εἴ τι δέοισθε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν: “but instead (αλλά) because of this (δια τουτο) it would be less successful (ἧττον αν τιγχανειν), if you were to need anything from them”; the infinitive again depends on the preceding μοι δοκεῖ.
Then the main sentence resumes: ἐμοί τε αὖ οὐ πάνυ τι νομίζω ἀσφαλὲς εἶναι τοῦτο, lit. “and I reckon this is not very safe again to me”—εμοι τε balancing and contrasting with the earlier ουτε ὑμιν μεν.
So we could translate: “The fact that I was chosen by you as leader despite the presence of a Lacedaemonian doesn’t strike me as being in your own interests (no, it would compromise your chances of success should you need anything from them), and I don’t think it gives me much security either.”
By “them” Xenophon will primarily have had Spartans (Lacedaemonians) in mind. Relations between Athens and Sparta had historically been poor, to say the least. The Greek mercenaries who have chosen him to lead them back to Greece could have chosen a Lacedaemonian but chose the Athenian Xenophon instead. (We may wonder why.) Λακεδαιμονίου ἀνδρὸς παρόντος could be translated “when a Lacedaemonian was available.”
And I’ve just spotted a bad typo in my last post, where at the end of my penultimate paragraph I unwittingly added μὲν after ὑμῖν. (I guess I was subconsciously thinking of ὑμῖν μὲν … ἐμοὶ δὲ …, a very familiar contrast but not what we have here.) To be clear, the pair of coordinated sentences are:
(1) οὔτε ὑμῖν μοι δοκεῖ συμφέρον εἶναι (…)
(2) ἐμοί τε αὖ οὐ πάνυ τι νομίζω ἀσφαλὲς εἶναι τοῦτο.