Thucydides 1.42

Greek Learning Greek
1

Hello from Poland to the whole textkit community !

I have a question regarding the chapter 42 of the 1st book of Peloponesian War. I paste it here to make reference to several parts of the chapter.

‘Ὧν ἐνθυμηθέντες καὶ νεώτερός τις παρὰ πρεσβυτέρου αὐτὰ μαθὼν ἀξιούτω τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἡμᾶς ἀμύνεσθαι, καὶ μὴ νομίσῃ δίκαια μὲν τάδε λέγεσθαι, ξύμφορα δέ, εἰ πολεμήσει, ἄλλα εἶναι. τό τε γὰρ ξυμφέρον ἐν ᾧ ἄν τις ἐλάχιστα ἁμαρτάνῃ μάλιστα ἕπεται, καὶ τὸ μέλλον τοῦ πολέμου ᾧ φοβοῦντες ὑμᾶς Κερκυραῖοι κελεύουσιν ἀδικεῖν ἐν ἀφανεῖ ἔτι κεῖται, καὶ οὐκ ἄξιον ἐπαρθέντας αὐτῷ φανερὰν ἔχθραν ἤδη καὶ οὐ μέλλουσαν πρὸς Κορινθίους κτήσασθαι, τῆς δὲ ὑπαρχούσης πρότερον διὰ Μεγαρέας ὑποψίας σῶφρον ὑφελεῖν μᾶλλον (ἡ γὰρ τελευταία χάρις καιρὸν ἔχουσα, κἂν ἐλάσσων ᾖ, δύναται μεῖζον ἔγκλημα λῦσαι), μηδ’ ὅτι ναυτικοῦ ξυμμαχίαν μεγάλην διδόασι, τούτῳ ἐφέλκεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις ἢ τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας διὰ κινδύνων τὸ πλέον ἔχειν.

The main difficulty lies in the last part. I put it in bold. The first part ( τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις ) is clear. However, the problem starts after ἢ. In my opinion the construcion here is symmetrical and τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις corresponds to τὸ πλέον ἔχειν and I translate it:
To not to act unjustly towards friends is greater power than to have more.
Here the τὸ is connected with ἔχειν not πλέον. The main problem for me is posed by τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας. I do not know exactly how to fit it into the whole construction. I came up with the following propositions.

  1. ACI
    1.1 ( τὸ reffering to πλέον )The participle ἐπαρθέντας is a subject in acc.pluralis of ACI construction with ἔχειν as a verb of that ACI. This seems to me the most intuitve solution, however I find it difficult to identify any grammatical construction which could justify the introduction of the ACI. I wen through Smyth’s grammar and couldn’t find any example of ACI introduced by comparative ἢ. Maybe it could be introduced by the preceeding phrase ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις which is substituted by ἢ.
    1.2 ( τὸ reffering to ἔχειν) in this case, ἐπαρθέντας is a subject of ACI but with a eliptic εἶναι. The problem the same as in 1.1, it is difficult for to find any introducing construction.
  2. Accusativus absolutus
    Participle ἐπαρθέντας would be much more understandable, I think, if it was in genetivus pluralis so it could be a genetivus absolutus. According to Smyth’s Grammar point 2078 the participle of personal verb may be used absolutely. Hence maybe here ἐπαρθέντας can be understood as accusativus absolutus in its peculiar form.
  3. Parenthesis. Maybe ἐπαρθέντας is used as parenthesis and would depend on construction like οὐκ ἄξιον (which governs the ACI in which ἐπαρθέντας is the subject earlier in the same chapter)

I hope I have made at least my doubts clear. I am sorry if any of these sentences is improper in English.

2

1.2 is how I would analyze this.

I don’t see a need for an elliptic εἶναι, and I don’t see how it would fit in this sentence, though forms of the copula verb εἶναι are often omitted (or rather unnecessary), as in this sentence: τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις [εστιν].

I read τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας as the subject of the infinitive with article τὸ πλέον ἔχειν, which is modified by διὰ κινδύνων. "to gain an advantage [τὸ πλέον ἔχειν] by incurring risks [διὰ κινδύνων] having been excited/stirred up by the immediate clear expectation [τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας].

The referent/antecedent of ἐπαρθέντας is not stated. It’s simply understood as a generalized term like “men” or “people” or, in English, “you” or “one”. This may be what is confusing you.

The sentence can’t be literally translated into English, but it goes something like this: “Not treating one’s equals unjustly is a more secure source of strength than, in excitement over an expectation that seems clear in the immediate situation, gaining an advantage by incurring risk.”


In my opinion the construction here is symmetrical and τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις corresponds to τὸ πλέον ἔχειν

I don’t think this is quite right. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους corresponds to τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας διὰ κινδύνων τὸ πλέον ἔχειν. Both articular infinitives are nominative. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους is the nominative subject of the predicate ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις [εστι], and τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας διὰ κινδύνων τὸ πλέον ἔχειν, the other term of the comparison, is also nominative after ἢ.

πλέον ἔχειν is an idiom here meaning something like “gain an advantage”.

I’m usually wrong, so take it with a grain of salt.

3

Hylander thank you very much for your answer!

I let myself divide these sentences in smaller parts to make myself clearer.

Here is how I think it is:
τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις ἢ τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας διὰ κινδύνων τὸ πλέον ἔχειν

Sentence 1
τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις
1.1 Subject - τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν
1.2 Complement of τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν - τοὺς ὁμοίους
1.3 Predicate - ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις

Sentence 2 version 1 following point 1.1 of my first post
2.1 subject - ἐπαρθέντας
2.2 verb in infinitive - ἔχειν (without τὸ)
2.3 Complement of ἔχειν - τὸ πλέον
2.4 attribute of the subject - τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ/ διὰ κινδύνων

Sentence 3
3.1 subject - τὸ πλέον ἔχειν (τὸ reffering to ἔχειν)
3.2 attribute of subject - διὰ κινδύνων
3.3 ἐπαρθέντας – subject of clause dependent somehow on the subject of sentence 3 or sentence 1 (how? I do not understand)
3.4 attribute of the 3.3 - τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ

an elliptic εἶναι I am talking about refers to a scenario presented in the sentence 3 above. Of course there is no need for it being there explicitly articulated. However I added it to underscore the fact that ἐπαρθέντας is a subject of a clause dependent somehow on the main clause with the subject τὸ πλέον ἔχειν. Hence ἐπαρθέντας forms together with an elliptic εἶναι a whole clause dependent on τὸ πλέον ἔχειν (probably). Of course I understand that there is no need for εἶναι to be there.

You wrote that:

I read τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας as the subject of the infinitive with article τὸ πλέον ἔχειν

However I do no think that an infinitive with an article can have its own subject since it is a noun and subject itself in this construction. Morever you write further that

Both articular infinitives are nominative

. If the second infinitive is nominative how can it have its own subject ?At least this is how I understand it and of course may be I am missing something.

The referent/antecedent of ἐπαρθέντας is not stated. It’s simply understood as a generalized term like “men” or “people” or, in English, “you” or “one”. This may be what is confusing you.

I also take it for a generalized term. But since I treat it as a dependent clause (ACI) I am looking for a construction that would introduce it, a main clause.

In general, as presented above, Sentence 1 is clear. It is the choice between how ἐπαρθέντας works in sentence 2 and sentence 3 which confuses me. Maybe both approaches are wrong and there is another explanation?

I hope I made it a bit clearer. Thank you for your opinion.

4

i think it’s simple: this is articular inf in the nominative, the subject of the inf of course in acc.

5

Constantinus Philo thanks for your comment. As I wrote above I don’t understand how an articular inf(in nominative and a subject itself ) can have a subject in acc.

6

I do not think that an infinitive with an article can have its own subject since it is a noun and subject itself in this construction.



If the second infinitive is nominative how can it have its own subject ?

This is where I think you are going wrong. An “articular” infinitive (an infinitive with article) can have its own subject, and the subject is accusative. Neither Smyth nor Goodwin state this explicitly, but Kühner-Gerth (sec. 478) does:

Wenn zu dem Infinitive [i.e., the articular infinitive], mag er als Subjekt oder als Objekt stehen, ein Subjekt und Prädikatsbestimmungen treten, so tritt, wie beim Infinitive ohne Artikel, sowohl jenes als diese in den Akkusativ (§ 475, 3).

“If an articular infinitive, whether it serves as subject or object, has a subject and predicative complements, both the subject and the predicative complements are in the accusative, just as in the case of the infinitive without article.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0021%3Asmythp%3D478

And there’s no reason why the nominative articular infinitive τὸ πλέον ἔχειν can’t have its own subject in the accusative.

One point that’s somewhat tricky about this sentence is that the noun phrase that functions as the subject of τὸ πλέον ἔχειν, namely, τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας and the adverbial complement τὸ πλέον ἔχειν, namely, διὰ κινδύνων are not sandwiched between the article and the infinitive, which would be the more usual word order, I think.

The referent of ἐπαρθέντας could be taken as the Athenians, who are being addressed, or possibly, as I suggested previously, a generalized referent, “one”, “you”, “men”, “people”. There’s no explicit antecedent. The sentence could be taken as specific advice addressed to the Athenians in the immediate context, or as a general principle applicable in all circumstances – or both: a general statement of a principle pointedly applicable to the Athenians in the circumstances. It really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that ἐπαρθέντας is the accusative subject of the articular infinitive τὸ πλέον ἔχειν.

7

as a afterthought, it may be still more probable that the article το goes with πλεον, and ἔχειν is a bare inf used as a subject. im inclined to think this is more likely since if it were an articular inf, its subject would be placed after the article. I have not found a single example of an articular inf with its subject expressed outside the article.

8

it were an articular inf, its subject would be placed after the article.

Not necessarily. Kühner-Gerth sec. 478

Die zu dem Infinitive gehörigen näheren Bestimmungen nehmen gewöhnlich zwischen dem Artikel und dem Infinitiv ihre Stelle ein, werden so gewissermassen von einem Bande zusammengehalten und stellen den Infinitiv mit allen zwischen ihm und dem Artikel liegenden Worten als Einheit eines erweiterten Substantivbegriffes dar. Oft werden sogar ganze Sätze dazwischen geschoben. X. O. 13.6 f. τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ζῷα ἐκ δυοῖν τούτοιν τὸ πείθεσθαι μανθάνουσιν, ἔκ τε τοῦ, ὅταν ἀπειθεῖν ἐπιχειρῶσι, κολάζεσθαι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ, ὅταν προθύμως ὑπηρετῶσιν, εὖ πάσχειν. Οἵ τε γοῦν πῶλοι καταμανθάνουσιν ὑπακούειν τοῖς πωλοδάμναις τῷ, ὅταν μὲν πείθωνται, τῶν ἡδέων τι αὐτοῖς γίγνεσθαι, ὅταν δὲ ἀπειθῶσι, πράγματα ἔχειν, ubi v. Breitenb. Vgl. Comm. 2. 1, 8. 4. 4, 5. Ag. 4, 3. > Doch zuweilen ist die Wortstellung freier und in der Dichtersprache nicht selten sehr frei. S. Tr. 66 σὲ πατρὸς οὕτω δαρὸν ἐξενωμένου | τὸ μὴ πυθέσθαι ποῦ ᾿στιν αἰσχύνην φέρει, d. i. τὸ σὲ μὴ πυθέσθαι πατρὸς ποῦ ἐστιν, s. Schneidew. Ant. 710 ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρα, κεἴ τις ᾖ σοφός, τὸ μανθάνειν | πόλλ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὐδέν, d. i. αἰσχρὸν οὐδὲν τὸ ἄνδρα πολλὰ μανθάνειν. 723 καὶ τῶν λεγόντων εὖ καλὸν τὸ μανθάνειν, d. i. καλὸν καὶ τὸ τῶν εὖ λεγόντων μανθάνειν (= ἀκούειν)> .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0021%3Asmythp%3D478

9

the example is not from prose, however.

10

the example is not from prose, however

.
So what?

πλέον ἔχειν is an idiom, like a single word. See LSJ πλείων:

πλέον ἔχειν to have the advantage, have the best of it, like πλεονεκτέω, c. gen., Hdt.9.70, Pl.R.343d, 349b, etc.;

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dplei%2Fwn1

11

Chairophilos, if you’re still unclear about any of this: the τὸ substantivizes the infinitive and is nominative, while the subject of the infinitive, if there were one, would be accusative, as in a regular acc.&inf. construction.

Rather than calling τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας the subject of the infinitive, as Hylander has been doing, it would be more accurate (and might clear up some confusion) to say that if the infinitive had an expressed subject, which it doesn’t, the participle would be in agreement with it.

Speaking of agreement, I agree with Hylander’s analysis of this very Thucydidean sentence. As he says, the τὸ of the articular infinitive properly belongs ahead of διὰ κινδύνων, in fact it properly belongs directly after the opening ἢ. But that would be prissy and cumbersome.

12

Thank you for you answers! Now it is much clearer. I have two additional questions regarding composition of the sentence. Would it make sense if ἐπαρθέντας participle stood in gen. pluralis as gen. absolutus? And another regarding the articular infinitive - in result clauses with inf. can it happen that this infinitve also has an article?

13

Would it make sense if ἐπαρθέντας participle stood in gen. pluralis as gen. absolutus?

I don’t think that would work in this sentence, because ἐπαρθέντας is to be understood as modifying and agreeing with the unexpressed subject of πλέον ἔχειν.

14

But does τὸ πλέον ἔχειν need a subject? τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν wouldn’t have one neither and genetivus absolutus could be circumstancial.

15

πλέον ἔχειν does not need an expressed subject any more than μὴ ἀδικεῖν does, but the participle would make no sense at all in the genitive, without anything to refer it to; and what’s worse, it would sever all connexion between the participle and πλέον ἔχειν. So it’s quite out of the question. The accusative is the appropriate case, and the only possible one; naturally masc.pl.

16

Thank you. I understand that for this sentence to retain its primary meaning the acc. Pl is the only case. However on the one hand gen. abs would change its original structure but on the other the meaning would stay similar.

On the basis of Hylander’s translation as an example, I would write:
“Not treating one’s equals unjustly is a more secure source of strength than gaining an advantage by incurring risk, when one is excited over an expectation that seems clear in the immediate situation"
Would such a phrase be incorrect ?

17

Yes it would, and unintelligible into the bargain. You cannot pull “one” out of thin air to provide a referent for the genitive participle. See my last post.

18

I thought about a more general statement. The referent can be supplied like in D.24.12:
τοὺς νόμους ἀνέγνω καθ᾽ οὓς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον τρόπον πραχθέντων τῆς πόλεως γίγνεται τὰ χρήματα
But sometimes even in Thucydides the gen abs can refer to the subject of the main verb (Smyth 2073) like in T.3.13
βοηθησάντων δὲ ὑμῶν προθύμως πόλιν τε προσλήψεσθε ναυτικὸν ἔχουσαν μέγα

19

Hylander and I have been trying to explain the grammar of Thucydides’ sentence for you, since you found it difficult to understand. What you are trying to do is less clear. You seem intent on arguing that if Thucydides had made the participle genitive instead of accusative, the meaning “would stay similar.” Well, it wouldn’t, and (more to the point) he didn’t.

Welcome to Textkit!

20

Thank you very much for all your efforts and time ! I do appreciate it a lot :slight_smile: