Thucydides, 2.45.2

Greek Learning Greek
1

Thucydides strikes again

Good day,
For the longest time, I’ve been ruminating about a particularly tricky phrase from Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War, 2.45.2 (as per Perseus), struggling not so much with the meaning, as I get the gist of what means, but with the syntax, names of the parts thereof, and their correlation/function to other parts of the phrase. The phrase in question is:

τῆς τε γὰρ ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι ὑμῖν μεγάλη ἡ δόξα καὶ ἧς ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐλάχιστον ἀρετῆς πέρι ἢ ψόγου ἐν τοῖς ἄρσεσι κλέος ᾖ.

So, from this, I can see a couple of things. Let me know if any of these are wrong.

  1. I can see two sentences coordinated by τε… καί; with the main sentence of the first one being ὑμῖν μεγάλη ἡ δόξα, and some subordinate ones, being firstly a comparative genitive χείροσι τῆς ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως, and what I believe is an apposition, μὴ γενέσθαι; likewise, χείροσι seems to be agreeing with ὑμῖν.
  2. The verbal forms present are ὑπαρχούσης (participle), γενέσθαι (inf. aor.), and ᾖ (pre. subj., part of the rel. phrase), none of which can be the main verb, so I can deduce that the lack of a verb indicates that it’s a form of εἰμί (ἐστιν and εἰσιν); as in μεγάλη (ἐστιν) ἡ δόξα ὑμῖν: “great is the glory to you all…”
  3. I see a relative phrase as introduced by ἧς; as it lacks an antecedent, I can assume the phrase is either substantivized (adj. > noun) and/or the antecedent is implicit, being similar to μεγάλη ἐστιν ἡ δόξα ταύτῃ/σοι, with the difference that it’s in the singular, hence ταύτῃ/σοι. As far as I’ve investigated, καὶ ἧς is something Thucydides likes to do.
    Furthermore, ἧς depends on κλέος (to her/to you whose fame…), and ἀρετῆς πέρι ἢ ψόγου are in the singular due to the new singular antecedent.
    I can also see a “present relative conditional sentence” introduced by ἧς ἂν + subj. (ᾖ).

But this is as far as my dull mind can go without help. As such, I’ve come here to ask for a hand (or a few hands, for that matter). The doubts that arise from this are:

  1. Assuming that ἐστιν is indeed the main verb of the first phrase μεγάλη (ἐστιν) ἡ δόξα ὑμῖν, what is the function of μὴ γενέσθαι (χείροσι) with relation to the main verb? Is it just an appositive to ἡ δόξα? Or does it have any other name/function, a Pred. Nom.?
    Is it working as an infinitive phrase whose acc. subject is not present as it is the same as the main sentence’s? And supposing μεγάλη is the Pred. Nom. of ἡ δόξα ἐστιν…, how does μὴ γενέσθαι fit in? I know it somewhat translates to “great is the glory to you all (who) do not become inferior…”; or am I seeing things wrong? It came to mind that maybe μεγάλη is just an apposition to ἡ δόξα, and the Pred. Nom. is μὴ γενέσθαι, as “great the glory to you all is (that you) do not become inferior…”, though it sounds odd and unnatural to me. It’d work more if the adj. was attributive, not predicative.
  2. Why is χείροσι, a comparative adj., in the dative case and not any other case? Assuming it is agreeing with ὑμῖν, as Rusten’s commentary says it does, why does it have to agree with it necessarily?

This has been a lengthy post, but those are the main doubts that I can think of at the present moment, and likewise, should more arise, I’ll promptly add them. I really hope that someone can help me with this. Thanks beforehand, too.


ἔρρωσθε εὐτυχῶς!
— Aveparthe

2

it is an ordinary acc cum inf phrase in which acc is attracted into D

3

You’re right on target, it seems to me, and there’s really not much to add. It’s understandable that you might have found it easier if we had ἡ μεγάλη δόξα rather than μεγάλη ἡ δόξα, which leaves the syntax of μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι more problematic. But it does seem important for μεγάλη to be predicative, so that the bare statement is μεγάλη ἡ δόξα (sc. εστιν).

I don’t know that there’s an established label to pin on the infinitive—and I don’t know that there should be, given the idiosyncrasies and boldness of Thucydides’ Greek. I don’t have Rusten’s commentary to hand and don’t remember what he says. But clearly it somehow complements or even defines ὑμῖν μεγάλη ἡ δόξα. I suppos it’s a kind of epexegetic infinitive (”your glory is great, to be no worse …”)

χείροσι dative is an easier nut to crack. Its being brought into agreement with ὑμῖν (albeit anticipatory agreement) is reasonably in line with ordinary Greek behavior (as I see Const.Phil. indicates).

As for the second half (καὶ ἧς ἂν … κλέος ᾖ), it too is syntactically subordinate to the main statement (μεγάλη ἡ δόξα): “and whose κλεος is …”. Here he switches from the plural υμιν to a generalized singular, and I read the clause as almost conditional, as if to say “your glory is great if a woman’s reputation is least on men’s lips.” That may be over-reading. But it seems to accord with the initial qualification (women to be no worse than their existing nature), and I take the τε … και as coordinating them. Their syntactical imbalance is characteristically Thucydidean.

Don’t know if this helps at all. I’ve read the speech before (too long ago), but have been working it out afresh as I wrote. I may change my mind tomorrow.

And welcome to textkit!

4

So I’ve seen by the other replies that μὴ γενέσθαι is appositive to ἡ δόξα, or as mwh pointed out, epexegetical. In such a light, could I assume that the Pred. Nom. (as γίγνομαι is a copular verb) is the genitive comparative phrase (τῆς ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως) whose subject is, as you pointed out, χείρων → dat. pl.? Would that assumption be correct? Or would it be different in this context?

Thanks for the reply, though!

5

Thanks for the reply and insight! Any reply always sheds some light on the matter!
I hope in the future I’ll be able to help other users on Textkit.

ἔρρωσω εὐτυχῶς!