Some questions for Demosthenes, Against Aristogiton 1.

Greek Learning Greek
1

Here are some issues that have arisen for me, while reading the opening remarks and discusssion about the value of the laws. (sections 1 - 27) of this speech. Some of the questions are requests for help where I’m stuck, and others are requests for a deeper understaning of what is happening in the working of the phrase.

● Is this an accusative absolute?

● Is there something that is understood here, or is it an absolute construction. If the latter, what is the meaning of it in this case.

● Is the form προῆχε perfect or imperfect?

● Why is this ὅσῳ …, τοσούτῳ … sentence following the structure of conditional?

● Why is the articular participle phrase here accusative not dative?

● How is the ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ here to be construed?

● Why are the adjectives here in the accusative, while the nouns are in the nominative?

2

I have no time to deal with these, but I’ll note that your last question, as is all too often the way with your questions, has a false premise. The adjectives are not accusative but nominative.

And on the οσῳ … question, see the pinned Conditionals thread, esp. “this system applies not only to if-clauses but also to when-clauses (e.g. ὅτε), relative clauses (e.g. ὅ), and in fact to all subordinate clauses.”
οσῳ αν + subj. is a standard indefinite clause, syntactically identical to εαν.

You’re welcome.

3

Well, just to take the first one, I had to look up the sentence to find that ἔρχονται was the finite verb, though it seemed obvious anyway what was going on: δεικνυμι here is transative, and will take an accusative object.

4

I haven’t looked up the sentence yet, but δεικνυμι typically takes an accusative + participle when it introduces indirect discourse, and that appears to be what ὄντα τὰ τῶν νόμων δίκαια is doing here.

5



Let me first insert a “Thanks.” there at the point of conflation.

Now, to the reply…
I, wrongly it now turns out, dismissed that syntactic possibility early on during the initial engagement with that sentence because there was no χρῆμα or τι explicitly written here. Within the context of that reasoning (unstated in my initial post) and your indication that they are nominative, I assume that your reply informs me that the χρῆμα or τι doesn’t need to be written. That seems, still now (as when I dismissed their being nominative yesterday), to break the most basic rules of agreement.

Nevertheless, supplying the sense of χρῆμα or τι, I get the sense of, “Wickedness is something impulsive, brash, which strives only for personal gain, while on the contrary, exemplary conduct is something settled, timid and delayed, which is skillful at handling a little personal loss (for the common good)”.

6





Here, then Demosthenes’s main clause is, “μείζων ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν αἰσχύνη γενήσεται.” The subordinate clause is, “ὅσῳ … ἂν … μηδὲν ὑμεῖς φροντίσητε”, with the genitive absolute “μᾶλλον ἡμῶν δειξάντων τὴν τούτου πονηρίαν” inserted there too.

Is the future formal in this construction, or referring forward to what he is about to say?

7

What prompted you to look for the main verb? Was it that δείξων is future?

I realise that this is a type of summary of the whole argument, but if the summary were to be written in direct discourse, would it be something like τὰ ἐμὰ δικαῖά ἐστιν τῶν νόμων?

In this syntactic pattern, is δείκνυμι being used as a verb of speaking?

8

I completely overlooked the μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ in this phrase. In what detail is it shaping our understanding of the proceedings here?

9

This question, and the “type of summary of the whole argument” statement, makes me think that you don’t quite understand what he’s saying. Maybe it would be more effective for you to go line by line and post your translation for critique?

Here’s my own understanding of the part that you’ve quoted. I’ve spoilered it so that you can look at it after making your own translation, if you’d like.
But the contestants each one to be showing that right of law is on his side.

10

Mine (without the μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ):
The plaintiff and defendent, each of them having a view to demonstrate that the things (which he says in demonstrating) is just (correct) according to (when taken into consideration with) the law.

11

Yes and Oh!

Breaking up the third element τὰ τῶν νόμων δίκαια was definitely a sign that something was amiss with my understanding… :unamused:

12

Okay, but part of translation is analysis and some of my tools of analysis tend to get people’s mouths frizzling. Anyway, slowing it down and showing my translation line by line for the record - the way I should have approached, but couldn’t be arsed, chilling with Demosthenes on a lazy Sunday afternoon:

Step 1 (of translation) - Observations:

  1. The sentence is disjointed in changing from plural to singular here; οἱ δ᾽ ἀντίδικοι | μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δείξων ἑκάτερος ὄντα τὰ τῶν νόμων δίκαια.
  2. The ἑκάτερος is light containing only grammatical information.
  3. The copula ὄντα would be marked as enclitic in the present indicative in this position (if not impeded by the preceding word’s accent).
  4. The τὰ τῶν νόμων δίκαια encloses the genitive τῶν νόμων so it can not be a separate unit of the three.

Step 2 - Division into parts:
Based on the observations the text is divided into sections.
ᵍ{οἱ δ᾽ ἀντίδικοι} ˢ{¹[μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ] ²[δείξων ἑκάτερος ὄντα] ³[τὰ τῶν νόμων δίκαια]}.

Step 3 - Literal renderings:
If I had the computer skills, I would interline the English with the sections of the Greek, like I can do on paper. I would prefer the squiggly brackets to be horizontal too.
{Speech style 1 - general}The plaintiff and defendent, {Speech style 2 - specific}¹[with himself]²[each one of the two having a view to demonstrate that (they - something plural) are]³[the terms (obligations or rights etc.) of the law].

Step 4 - Idiomaticised to English:
Put the word order into English.
The plaintif and the defendent (have both come) with a view to each demonstrating that the terms of the law are with himself.

13

25.3 You’ve figured this out.

25.7 ᾧ δ᾽ ἂν ὑμεῖς πρόσθησθε, οὗτος ἰσχυρὸς γίγνεται. The antecedent of ᾧ is οὗτος. προστι;ημαι - “side with”. “Whoever you side with becomes strong.” Again, an indefinite conditional relative clause that functions like the protasis of a condition. ἂν + subjunctive.

25.8 προῆχε is perfect. βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἄν . . . σπουδάσαντας ὑμᾶς ἐξετάσαι διὰ βραχέων εἰς ὅσην αἰσχύνην καὶ ἀδοξίαν προῆχε τὴν πόλιν δημοσίᾳ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα θηρία “I would like you . . . to briefly examine with care into how much shame and disrepute these beasts have brought the city as a whole . . . .” The perfect (as opposed to the aorist) implies that the city is still affected by shame and disrepute as a result of actions that occurred earlier.

25.12 - ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν μᾶλλον ἡμῶν δειξάντων τὴν τούτου πονηρίαν μηδὲν ὑμεῖς φροντίσητε, τοσούτῳ μείζων ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν αἰσχύνη γενήσεται – I think you understand this: 'by however much more you heed nothing when we have shown his wickedness to you, by so much the shame on you will become greater"; “the more you completely fail to take heed, the greater the shame on you will become.” ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν μᾶλλον . . . μηδὲν ὑμεῖς φροντίσητε is a general or indefinite conditional relative clause. with αν + subjunctive (aorist here). γενήσεται is future because the increase in shamefulness will occur in the future. ἡμῶν δειξάντων is genitive absolute. μᾶλλον goes with ὅσῳ – “by however much more”. τὴν τούτου πονηρίαν is the object of δειξάντωνv.

26.14 ἃ δὲ καὶ λογίζεσθαι τοὺς ὑπὲρ πόλεως καὶ νόμων βουλευομένους προσήκει, ταῦτα προῃρούμην εἰπεῖν-- ἃ is the direct object of λογίζεσθαι–“what it is appropriate for those who are deliberating on behalf of the city and the laws to consider”. Its antecedent is ταῦτα.

25.21 – ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί, "as if you were seated [at a table] as contributors to an eranos, a feast where each participant has an obligation to contribute something; or else, as if you were sitting as contributors to a joint loan. No t sure which, but ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ is “as if you were sitting/seated”

25.24 – You generally have the right idea. Smyth 1048:

  1. A predicate adjective referring to a masculine or feminine singular subject is often neuter singular and equivalent to a substantive. This occurs chiefly in statements of a general truth, where the subject refers to a whole class, not to an individual thing. Thus, ““καλὸν εἰρήνη” peace is a fine thing” D. 19.336, ἄπιστον ταῖς πολι_- τείαις ἡ τυραννίς despotism is an object of mistrust to free states 1. 5, ““μεῖζον πόλις ἑνὸς ἀνδρός” the state is larger than the individual” P. R. 368e. So also in the plural (1056).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1048&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

14

Okay about the other points not mentioned below.

Including βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἄν … it makes sense in the larger picture there now.

The imperfect is in gamma ἦγεν. At some point in the history of the language the equation γ + ʰα = χα (or a suitable variant of it)for the perfect must have held true.

And then with a negation μηδὲν, “by how much more not” = “less” for translational purposes or is he talking about overlooking individual acts?

I get that point.

I was wondering why προσήκει was with an accusative. I suspect it is because it also serves as the subject of λογίζεσθαι.

The clever school boy in me wants to ask without much thought why the ἂν εἰ are not simply combined to ἐάν. But after some thought, I suppose it is because this is a comparison of what might be, rather than a conditional.

15

προῆχε – See Smyth 569-571:

  1. Aspirated Second Perfects.—In many stems a final π or β changes to φ: a final κ or γ changes to χ. (φ and χ here imitate verb-stems in φ and χ, as τρέφω, ὀρύττω.)
    κόπτω (κοπ-) cut κέκοφα, πέμπ-ω send πέπομφα, βλάπτω (βλαβ-) injure βέβλαφα, τρί_βω (τρι_β-) rub τέτρι^φα, φυλάττω (φυλακ-) guard -πεφύλαχα; τρέφ-ω (τρεφ-) nourish τέτροφα [nb: this seems to be an error in Smyth because the present stem already ends in an aspirate]; ὀρύττω (ὀρυχ-) dig ὀρώρυχα.

569 D. Hom. never aspirates π, β, κ, γ. Thus κεκοπώς = Att. κεκοφώς (κόπ-τ-ω cut). The aspirated perfect occurs once in Hdt. (ἐπεπόμφει 1. 85); but is unknown in Attic until the fifth century B.C. Soph. Tr. 1009 (ἀνατέτροφας) is the only example in tragedy.

  1. Most such stems have a short vowel immediately before the final consonant; a long vowel precedes e.g.. in δείκ-νυ_-μι δέδειχα, κηρύ_ττω (κηρυ_κ-) -κεκηρυ_χα, πτήσσω (πτηκ-) ἔπτηχα. τέτριφα and τέθλιφα show ι^ in contrast to ι_ in the present (τρί_βω, θλί_βω). στέργω, λάμπω do not aspirate (ἔστοργα, poet. λέλαμπα).

  2. The following verbs have aspirated second perfects: ἄγω, ἀλλάττω, ἀνοίγω, βλάπτω, δείκνυ_μι, διώκω (rare), θλί_βω, κηρύ_ττω, κλέπτω, κόπτω, λαγχάνω, λαμβάνω, λάπτω, λέγω collect, μάττω, μείγνυ_μι, πέμπω, πλέκω, πρά_ττω, πτήσσω, τάττω, τρέπω, τρί_βω, φέρω (ἐνήνοχα), φυλάττω. ἀνοίγω or ἀνοίγνυ_μι has two perfects: ἀνέῳχα and ἀνέῳγα. πρά_ττω do has πέπρα_γα have done and fare (well or ill), and (generally later) πέπρα_χα have done.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D571

why προσήκει was with an accusative. I suspect it is because it also serves as the subject of λογίζεσθαι.

No, προσήκει is impersonal. The subject of λογίζεσθαι.is τοὺς ὑπὲρ πόλεως καὶ νόμων βουλευομένους. λογίζεσθαι is a middle deponent (not passive) and takes a direct object, which is ἃ. The Greek doesn’t map precisely onto English. The syntax is somewhat different.

ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽

why the ἂν εἰ are not simply combined to ἐάν.

This is not ἐάν - it’s not a present indefinite/general condition (ἐάν + subjunctive in the protasis, present or future indicative in the apodosis), It’s a contrary to fact condition. Here is the whole unit:

.. . . δεῖ πάντας ὑμᾶς τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί, τὸν μὲν πειθόμενον τούτοις ὡς φέροντα τὴν τῆς σωτηρίας φορὰν πλήρη τῇ πατρίδι τιμᾶν καὶ ἐπαινεῖν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπειθοῦντα κολάζειν.

Breaking it down, the complement of impersonal δεῖ is πάντας ὑμᾶς . . . τὸν μὲν πειθόμενον τούτοις ὡς φέροντα τὴν τῆς σωτηρίας φορὰν πλήρη τῇ πατρίδι τιμᾶν καὶ ἐπαινεῖν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπειθοῦντα κολάζειν.

This sub-unit is adverbial: τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί: “you must . . . in the same manner as if you were sitting”

This is a present contrary to fact condition, the normal form of which is protasis ει + imperfect, apodosis, αν + imperfect. Here we have ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί with a skeletal apodosis consisting of ὥσπερ ἂν, and the protasis εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί (εἰ + imperfect).

ἂν, the skeletal apodosis, stands for something like ὥσπερ εποιειτε αν, or, more abundantly, ὥσπερ τὸν μὲν πειθόμενον καὶ φέροντα τὴν φορὰν ετιματε αν καὶ ἐπηινειτε αν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπειθοῦντα εκολαζετε αν. In other words, ἂν + imperfects.

It’s just like English: “as [you would do] if you were sitting”. “as if you were sitting”.

16

This activity is consuming a lot of time – to figure out what the answer is for questions that I’m not totally incompetent to answer, sometimes to dig out texts and read them for broader context, to make sure I’m not mistaken so as not to disseminate too much misinformation on the internet, to provide citations to back up my answers, to try to write the answer in a way that I hope is clear and not too confusing, as well as good English, and to follow up when necessary. And I’m not getting paid for this (not that I would want to be paid).

So I need to take a break for a few days.

17

The cook’s (or a mother’s) lament is that they spend so much time to prepare meals - both content and presentation, and the food is gone in a matter of minutes. Their consolation is that the appreciation of those who enjoyed the meal - and especially a good quality one - goes on for longer than the eating. Digestion takes longer than the eating, and there is benefit to health well-being and strength, and there is the potential for growth.

18

Reading further, it seems that the way to express individual acts comes in section 29:

I withdraw the question now, after understanding by contrast that in this statement:

is the μηδὲν “in no wise”. As pointed out above:

19

In section 30, is this phrase, dealing with the relationship between the tenses here is beyond my ability. Two renderings seem possible, but I prefer the first:

  • “some people who obtained a commision for office by lot, but were later rejected as unfit when their life or circumstances were investigated”, or
  • “some people who have been deemed unsuitable after investigation to be in the draw to receive by lot an office”?


Here is my translation set out in full to make it easier to critique my renderings:

Observations:

  • εἴ is a discourse level word, being structural and not serving as a place-holder. The larger structure is εἰ + optative, followed by a present
  • (βούλεσθε).
  • τις is the separated subject of εἴποι.
  • οὗτός ἐστι is enclosed by ἐξ ὧν and μερῶν.
  • λέγειν is after ἐξεῖναι.
  • ἢ is structural, but serves as a place-holder in the tripartite phrases.
  • ἄρχειν is before ἐξεῖναι.

Division into parts:
εἴ {¹[τις] ²[ἐξ ὧν οὗτός ἐστι μερῶν] ³[εἴποι]} {¹[…] ²[ἐξεῖναι] ³[λέγειν]} … { … ²[τοῖς ἀποδεδοκιμασμένοις] ³[ἄρχειν λαχοῦσιν]},

Section by section renderings:
If {¹[anybody] ²[of those groups to which this fellow is a part] ³[were to say]} {¹[…] ²[that it is quite okay] ³[to speak]} … { … ²[for those who have been disqualified after investigation] ³[just after having (pl.) obtained an office by lot]},

(Idiomaticised renderings have already been set out.)

20

Surely that phrase can be translated without all of the pen and paper work? Regardless, you seem to be mainly interested in τοῖς ἀποδεδοκιμασμένοις ἄρχειν λαχοῦσιν, since your renderings only consider that part. I think that λαχοῦσιν being an aorist participle rules out your second interpretation. ὁ ἀποδεδοκιμασμένος ἄρχειν λαχών would be someone who had once failed the δοκιμασία after having been selected, but before entering office.