I’m struggling with the following passage, but in this post I want to bring up the first difficulty.
Very generally, I see the Corinthians here urging the Lacedaemonians to act more like John Wayne, and less like JImmy Stewart. In a Hollywood western, the John Wayne character treats others justly, but quickly punishes aggressors. Jimmy Stewart OTOH wants to be a peaceable fellow, but is pushed into a desperate situation before he starts hitting back.
The Corinthians are warning Sparta about the Athenian threat.
This must mean something like “you delay, and you don’t see that peace lasts only for those”. But I missed this, because I didn’t understand the placement of the negative οὐ.
What do I need to learn about negatives?
I have some other difficulties with this passage, but I’ll leave them for later.
I think the difficulty here is that the construction changes after ἐπιτρέψοντες – an anacoluthon. The disruption of normal syntax effectively captures the Corinthians’ exasperation with the Spartans’ high-minded timidity, shifting from a generality to a pointed, direct focus on what the Corinthians don’t like about the Spartans’ own conduct.
With ἀλλὰ, we expect something balancing and parallel to οὐ τούτοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων . . . οἲ ἀν . . . That would be something like ἀλλὰ τούτοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἳ ἂν μὴ λυπῶσι etc., "not for those who . . . but for those who . . . "
Loosely translating/paraphrasing, the sentence would read something like: “You think peace is lasting not for those who . . . make it clear they won’t fail to defend themselves aggressively if attacked, but rather for those who avoid harming others and violating justice [τὸ ἴσον] when defending themselves.”
Instead, Thucydides abruptly follows up with a new main clause that leaves what preceded dangling, pointedly framing what follows in terms of the Spartans’ own behavior, rather than a generality: " . . . but your rule is [νέμετε] to avoid harming others and violating justice when you defend yourselves."
Does that help clarify the placement of οὐ in the first clause? Its scope doesn’t cover οἴεσθε – technically, it covers only τούτοις οἳ ἂν . . . ἐπιτρέψοντες.
In translating, however, you might say “you don’t think that peace is lasting . . . but rather your rule is to . . . “” But maybe it would be better to try to capture the effect of the anacoluthon, by setting off the second part of the sentence with a dash or ellipsis (again paraphrasing to show how the sentence works): " . . . you think that peace is lasting not for those who defend themselves aggressively but . . . no, you follow the practice of avoiding injury to others when defending yourselves.”
Cameron described the scope of the negative, but I did not understand his comment. Your longer treatment helped me think through the matter. I’m studying the excerpt again, in the light of this exchange, before asking more questions about it.
One further thought. On looking closely at this again, τὸ ἴσον is the object νέμετε, something like “you distribute/administer/practice justice/fairness”.
ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ λυπεῖν τε τοὺς ἄλλους καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀμυνόμενοι μὴ βλάπτεσθα “on the basis of not [actively] harming others and of doing no damage when you defend yourselves.” A balanced contrast between offense and defense.
‘ταύτης μέντοι τοιαύτης ἀντικαθεστηκυίας πόλεως is this Gen abs?
ταύτης μέντοι τοιαύτης ἀντικαθεστηκυίας πόλεως, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, διαμέλλετε καὶ οἴεσθε τὴν ἡσυχίαν οὐ τούτοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀρκεῖν οἳ ἂν τῇ μὲν παρασκευῇ δίκαια πράσσωσι, τῇ δὲ γνώμῃ, ἢν ἀδικῶνται, δῆλοι ὦσι μὴ ἐπιτρέψοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ λυπεῖν τε τοὺς ἄλλους καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀμυνόμενοι μὴ βλάπτεσθαι τὸ ἴσον νέμετε.
This opposing city being such, you, Lacedaemonians procrastinate and think that not those have full share in peace who do justice using power, and who if they are wronged, have no intention to submit, but you consider equality as consisting in not harming others and defending yourselves to avoid any harm.
If my translation is correct, I do not see any irregularities in the text.
I meant at first to ask about that later, but your previous answer somehow opened the way to a satisfactory reading of that concluding passage. It was not as good as yours (printed above) but it was close enough for beginner-work.