Reading Thucydides 2014

Greek Learning Greek
121

Regarding I. 33. 2, Bigg’s edition of Books I and II (Longmans, 1896) comments (translating Krueger):

‘One might have expected λυπηροτέρα ἢ εἰ. But, as it would be quite correct to say, εἰ αὕτη (ἥ δύναμις) πάρεστιν αὐτεπάγγελτος, τίς εὐπραξία σπανιωτέρα; so ἢ is absent sometimes even when the comparative comes first’. A parallel from Euripides, Alcestis 879, is then quoted.

My own translation of I. 33. 2 runs:

‘And consider: what good fortune could be rarer, or more grievous to your enemies, than if that very power, which you would have valued more than a great deal of money and gratitude to gain, is available of its own free will, offering itself without danger or expense, …’


John

PS - on Saturday morning I submitted a lengthy post offering some suggestions for Thucydidean study aids, but due to the vagaries of the posting system it has only just appeared; if anyone is interested, it is to be found on page 3 of this thread. Fortunately (and with thanks to those concerned) I can now post in real time!

122

Thanks John. Very instructive. I will request an increase in my budget for Thucydides!

123

1.36.1

…γνώτω τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον, τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου ἀσθενὲς ὂν πρὸς ἰσχύοντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀδεέστερον ἐσόμενον…

Morris writes:

τὸ δεδιός and τὸ θαρσοῦν: this use of neut. partics. and adjs. for abstract nouns (GMT. 108, 2, N. 4; H. 966 b; Kühn. 403 γ) is a favourite one with Thuc. It presents to the mind the abstract quality in operation, standing between e.g. τὸ δεδιέναι and ὅτι δέδιε. τὸ δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ: i.e. the fear which sees in himself no adequate strength. Opp. to this is τὸ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου, i.e. the confidence that he has nothing to fear, which has led him to reject allies. The gen. δεξαμένου, like αὐτοῦ, properly depends on the partic., but has the effect of an abs. gen.—ἰσχὺν ἔχον: if it is backed by strength, i.e. if it leads him to secure the means of effective action.

-I don’t understand what the ὂν is for; we have ἐσόμενον. How many copulas do we need?

-I don’t understand Morris’ comment, the bolded part. I thought αὐτοῦ was a genitive of possession. δεξαμένου doesn’t seem to be a genitive of possession. So how exactly are they alike? And which partic. do they depend upon?

124

Many thanks, pster. The Macmillan and Ginn series, plus some of the older complete editions, can be found online, which should help to keep the cost down. Some of them certainly aren’t cheap in the original editions!

Best wishes,

John

125

If my understanding is correct, ὂν gives the reason why his confidence will be less fearful, i.e. ‘being [= because it is] based on weakness’. (ὂν parallels ἔχον in the previous clause, just as ἐσόμενον parallels φοβῆσον.) My translation runs:

‘…let him understand that his fear, being based on a position of strength, will be more terrifying to his enemies, while the confidence he will gain if he does not accept us as allies, being founded on weakness, will be less fearful to his foes…’ (emphasis added).

Regarding your second point, at first sight μὴ δεξαμένου looks like a genitive absolute, and in other circumstances it could well be one. In fact, however, it agrees with αὐτοῦ in the preceding clause, which is also understood here; thus the construction is τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν [αὐτοῦ] μὴ δεξαμένου: ‘his confidence, if he does not accept us …’.

I hope this helps, but please let me know if any of this is unclear, or you think I’ve got it wrong!

Best wishes,

John

126

Thanks. δεξαμένου agreeing with αὐτοῦ certainly seems to be the party line. But, but, it somehow seems strange to me. I wouldn’t say it is wrong. But I wouldn’t say it is right either. What is the reason for it? We get the genitive αὐτοῦ because of possession. But why does δεξαμένου have to follow it? After all, the first time the man referred to by αὐτοῦ is referred to, it is at the very outset where we use the dative ὅτῳ. So me wants to ask why isn’t it just as reasonable to expect or even require δεξαμένῳ? We can sharpen it a bit and ask: what would happen if the clause τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον were absent? Is there a Smyth number? Somehow I would rather just think of it as a genitive absolute. How do we know it is not a genitive absolute? Cameron in his commentary says that it is a lollapalooza of a sentence that merits close study, so that’s what I’m trying to give it. :slight_smile:

127

It’s certainly a challenging sentence - I well remember grappling with it myself the first time I read Thucydides!

My view is influenced by the parallelisms between the two clauses, some of which I mentioned in my previous message. In the first clause you have τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ (his fear’); it seems to me likely that, in the second clause, this is answered by τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν [αὐτοῦ] (‘his confidence’), in which case δεξαμένου would most naturally agree with αὐτοῦ. One might well take a different view if, as you, say, we didn’t have the preceding clause τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ ἰσχὺν ἔχον τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον - but the fact is that we do, and that influences my assessment of the second clause, which is part of the same μὲν…δὲ construction.

That’s just my (current) view, based on what seems to me to be the balance of probability - there are few certainties with Thucydides, and I’ve changed my mind quite a few times over the years regarding the construction of various passages. I may yet do so with this one!

Best wishes,

John

128

At 1.38.2 we have:

ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες τε εἶναι καὶ τὰ εἰκότα θαυμάζεσθαι

Can you explain why οὐδέ is in this position? I think this is some special use of of φημί but I can’t recall it, can you help me?

129

I think you refer to οὔ φημι, to deny, refuse. See LSJ III & Smyth §§787, 2691, and 2692a.

130

Hi, Paul. I agree with Nate that you probably have οὔ φημι in mind, but I don’t think that is what we have here.

The Corinthians have just quoted the Corcyraeans as saying that they were not sent out as colonists to suffer wrong (λέγοντες ὡς οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακῶς πάσχειν ἐκπεμφθεῖεν). The Corinthians’ response is: ‘We, however, say that neither did we ourselves send them out as colonists so that we would be insulted by them…’ (ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί φαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβρίζεσθαι κατοικίσαι…). Thus οὐδ᾽(‘neither’) responds to οὐκ in the previous sentence, and does not here negate φαμεν, but in fact οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί goes with κατοικίσαι, and is positioned early in the sentence for emphasis.

At least, that’s my take on it - what do you and others think?

Best wishes,

John

131

I don’t understand why αὐτοί is in the nominative. This is a indirect speech with an infinitive, so shouldn’t it be in the accusative?

132

A nominative + infinitive construction is used instead of an accusative + infinitive when the subject is the same as the main verb, as here.
See Smyth 1973

133

Haha. I knew that! I just thought αὐτοί referred to the colonists rather than the mother country, but I guess I was wrong.

134

So that the deconvoluted structure is:

ἡμεῖς δἐ φαμεν = but in response we say
επὶ τῷ = about this subject
οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί κατοικίσαι = they did not go out as colonists
ὑβρίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τούτων = (for us) to be insulted by these guys

I think it means that. Perfectly straightforward Greek (yeah, right!). It seems there’s an awful lot of inference here for even a native speaker to pick up on during the first reading of this text. Not that that’s any different from a typical sentence in this work.

However, I thought that an infinitive of purpose had to be active, not middle or passive. But this text is certainly using ὑπὸ as an agent and there ain’t no way I can make out an active form for the infinitive here.

I would infer from this text that the colonization did not take place under amiable circumstances. Or that there was some subsequent disagreement between the two parties that our author is not revealing. Or did I miss something?

135

I would parse this a bit differently, actually.
οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί κατοικίσαι: nominative, meaning that the subject is the same as the introductory verb. “we did not colonize”. The position of οὐδε with φαμεν rather than κατοικίσαι sounds odd to our ears, but it seems vaguely familiar to me; I’ll see if I can find anything more concrete on where negation likes to be placed in Greek.

The rest of the sentence (I think) consists of two parallel clauses introduced by επι + an articular infinitive. One meaning of επι plus the dative is to express purpose. So:
επὶ τῷ ὑβρίζεσθαι = to be insulted
ἐπὶ τῷ ἡγεμόνες εἶναι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι = to be those leading and to be admired

136

spiphany - I agree with your analysis of ἐπὶ τῷ ὑβρίζεσθαι.

I think οὐδ᾽ αὐτοί is placed at the start of the sentence simply for emphasis - a phenomenon common in Thucydides.

κατοικίσαι seems to be causing difficulties. Some (though not you) are taking it to mean ‘go out as a colonist’, whereas in the active (as here) it actually means ‘send someone out as a colonist’. Its subject here must therefore be the Corinthians, and its (implied) object the Corcyraeans.

Best wishes,

John

137

Since there have been no posts on this thread for a month and a half, I thought I’d ask how people are getting on with their reading of Thucydides. I hope that the lack of posts means that things are going well!

With all good wishes,

John

138

Hey John! I’m glad you are around. I hadn’t looked at the forum seriously in months and I came here today to ask the same question. For me, some really big things popped up that I had to do this year and so I had to put down the Thucydides. For example, I had no idea that I would be moving to another country when I started the thread! And I had no idea that I would be taking a three week vacation in March. I still managed to work on some other languages, often because I need them to order my dinner! Too bad we don’t need Attic to be understood at restaurants! Anyway, it is somehow easier for me to put aside Attic because I know that it is my main longterm commitment! Hehe. So anyway, I’m still somewhere in the early speeches. But I’m going to get back into it this week. I can only budget about 90 minutes a day, but that should be enough to fill the thread with questions! Where are you in the book John? I’m afraid to ask! And how about other folks?

139

Hi, pster - good to hear from you! Sounds like you’ve had a pretty hectic time - I hope the move has gone well for you.

I’m afraid to say that I’ve pressed on into Book II; having gone through the funeral oration and seen off the plague, I’ve just finished Pericles’ final speech, and Thucydides’ important assessment of him as a leader (II.65). But please bear in mind that this is my fourth reading of the Greek text, so naturally it’s rather easier for me (though I’m still occasionally changing my mind about points of interpretation). In fact, I somewhat envy those who have all these delights/challenges to look forward to for the first time!

I’m re-reading the Greek now because I’ve managed to get hold of a copy of Alberti’s edition (Rome, 1972-2000), which seems to be regarded as the best critical edition of the Greek text; my three previous read-throughs used the OCT. I’ve marked up a copy of the latter with the differences between the two, in case you or anyone else would find it helpful to know at any point.

Anyway, good luck with everything, and if I can help at all with Thucydides (and this of course goes for others too) please let me know!

With best wishes,

John

140

At Th. 1.1.1, we get:

Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων, ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων, τεκμαιρόμενος ὅτι ἀκμάζοντές τε ᾖσαν ἐς αὐτὸν ἀμφότεροι παρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ὁρῶν ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους, τὸ μὲν εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον.

Here is one of Morris’ comments:

παρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ: cf. ii.20.4, ἀκμάζοντας νεότητι πολλῇ. The arrangement of subst., art., adj., in this order, by which stress is thrown on the attribute, is freq. in Thuc. Cf. c. 15. 8; 25. 14; 33. 19; 67. 11; ii.2.14, etc. So Lys. XII 82, δίκην τὴν ἀξίαν.

But at 2.20.4, we get:

[4] ἅμα μὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ ὁ χῶρος ἐπιτήδειος ἐφαίνετο ἐνστρατοπεδεῦσαι, ἅμα δὲ καὶ οἱ Ἀχαρνῆς μέγα μέρος ὄντες τῆς πόλεως （τρισχίλιοι γὰρ ὁπλῖται ἐγένοντο） οὐ περιόψεσθαι ἐδόκουν τὰ σφέτερα διαφθαρέντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁρμήσειν καὶ τοὺς πάντας ἐς μάχην. εἴ τε καὶ μὴ ἐπεξέλθοιεν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἐσβολῇ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀδεέστερον ἤδη ἐς τὸ ὕστερον τό τε πεδίον τεμεῖν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν χωρήσεσθαι: τοὺς γὰρ Ἀχαρνέας ἐστερημένους τῶν σφετέρων οὐχ ὁμοίως προθύμους ἔσεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων κινδυνεύειν, στάσιν δ᾽ ἐνέσεσθαι τῇ γνώμῃ.

So I have no idea what Morris is doing referencing ἀκμάζοντας νεότητι πολλῇ to this passage. Can anybody shed some light?

Next, there is no Th. 2.2.14, so I guess Morris means 2.2.4. There we get:

θέμενοι δὲ ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ ὅπλα τοῖς μὲν ἐπαγαγομένοις οὐκ ἐπείθοντο ὥστε εὐθὺς ἔργου ἔχεσθαι καὶ ἰέναι ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκίας τῶν ἐχθρῶν, γνώμην δ᾽ ἐποιοῦντο κηρύγμασί τε χρήσασθαι ἐπιτηδείοις καὶ ἐς ξύμβασιν μᾶλλον καὶ φιλίαν τὴν πόλιν ἀγαγεῖν （καὶ ἀνεῖπεν ὁ κῆρυξ, εἴ τις βούλεται κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν ξυμμαχεῖν, τίθεσθαι παρ᾽ αὑτοὺς τὰ ὅπλα）, νομίζοντες σφίσι ῥᾳδίως τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ προσχωρήσειν τὴν πόλιν.

But in the underlined phrase, the order is backwards, adj., art., subs., so why is he referencing this passage?

There are two questions to restart the thread. :slight_smile: