Strabo 17.1.27 genetive

Greek Learning Greek
1

νυνὶ μὲν οὖν ἐστι πανέρημος ἡ πόλις, τὸ ἱερὸν ἔχουσα τῷ Αἰγυπτίῳ τρόπῳ κατεσκευασμένον ἀρχαῖον, ἔχον πολλὰ τεκμήρια τῆς Καμβύσου μανίας καὶ ἱεροσυλίας, ὃς τὰ μὲν πυρὶ τὰ δὲ σιδήρῳ διελωβᾶτο τῶν ἱερῶν, ἀκρωτηριάζων καὶ περικαίων, καθάπερ καὶ τοὺς ὀβελίσκους, ὧν δύο καὶ εἰς Ῥώμην ἐκομίσθησαν οἱ μὴ κεκακωμένοι τελέως, ἄλλοι δ᾽ εἰσὶ κἀκεῖ καὶ ἐν Θήβαις, τῇ νῦν Διοσπόλει, οἱ μὲν ἑστῶτες ἀκμὴν πυρίβρωτοι οἱ δὲ καὶ κείμενοι.

The bit that is giving me problems is:
ὃς τὰ μὲν πυρὶ τὰ δὲ σιδήρῳ διελωβᾶτο τῶν ἱερῶν, ἀκρωτηριάζων καὶ περικαίων,
"who both by fire and by sledge hammers defaced the temples, mutilating and scorching (them)

I don’t understand why τῶν ἱερῶν is genitive - I would have expected accusitive.
I really don’t understand why ἀκρωτηριάζων καὶ περικαίων is genitive - it is Cambyses that is doing the mutilating so shouldn’t it be nominative?
I translated σιδήρῳ as sledge hammers as the context suggests some kind of iron tool but the translation at Perseus translates it as violence. Is that more correct?
Finally I don’t understand why Strabo added ἀκρωτηριάζων. It seems to me that here it means much the same as διελωβᾶτο. Isn’t it redundant?

Any pointers would be much appreciated

2

It seems that τῶν ἱερῶν refers to τὰ μὲν … τὰ δὲ …, while ἀκρωτηριάζων καὶ περικαίων explain how the destruction was carried out, forming a chiasmus with πυρὶ τὰ δὲ σιδήρῳ.

3

I really don’t understand why ἀκρωτηριάζων καὶ περικαίων is genitive

These are nominative present participles, not genitive.

4

And also:

“τὰ μὲν πυρὶ τὰ δὲ σιδήρῳ διελωβᾶτο τῶν ἱερῶν”

notice the τὰ μὲν … τὰ δὲ construction. It is not “both by fire and by iron”, but some (of the temples) by fire and some (of the temples) by iron. This explains the partitive genitive of ἱερῶν as bedwere points out.

5

Thanks to all three of you for clearing up my confusion. I shall try and be on the look out for partitive genetives when I encounter μὲν … δὲ constructions.
As for thinking ἀκρωτηριάζων and περικαίων were genitive :blush:

Thanks again.

(I would be interested if anyone wants to comment on σιδήρῳ but as it is I am quite happy that it should be some kind of iron tools rather than violent force).

6

σίδηρος just means iron, yet iron has never been without its violent connotations.

Since it so frequently appears in that metaphorical sense, it might actually be less plausible to think that they were using iron tools (who would waste iron breaking down buildings?) rather than generic violence. When I read it (before coming upon your question) I thought the opposition might be between setting things on fire and personally toppling them down etc.

7

I think that ἀκρωτηριάζων is a very concrete verb for the metaphorical usage that you are describing. Stone statues are softer than you’d think, and I don’t see anything unlikely about statues and detail work in these temples being mutilated by metal weapons or tools.

Also compare the use of περικοπή in the context of the mutilation of the Herms:

μηνύεται οὖν ἀπὸ μετοίκων τέ τινων καὶ ἀκολούθων περὶ μὲν τῶν Ἑρμῶν οὐδέν, ἄλλων δὲ ἀγαλμάτων περικοπαί τινες πρότερον ὑπὸ νεωτέρων μετὰ παιδιᾶς καὶ οἴνου γεγενημέναι, καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἅμα ὡς ποιεῖται ἐν οἰκίαις ἐφ’ ὕβρει· ὧν καὶ τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην ἐπῃτιῶντο.

8

It is also used for iron tools when they are being used for breaking rock - Diodotos. Hence I would still bet on the non metaphorical sense. However, the case you put makes it clear why at least one translater thought the way you do.

My thanks to both you and jeidsath for throwing light on the iron issue.