Thucydides Book 3.2

Greek Specific Text Questions
1

Sorry for the interruption. I am puzzled why we have the infinitive ‘στερήσεσθαι’ in the following sentence, although I have heavily truncated the passage but without breaking the structure of the clause itself (I think):

Τενέδιοι γὰρ … καὶ Μηθυμναῖοι καὶ αὐτῶν Μυτιληναίων ἰδίᾳ ἄνδρες κατὰ στάσιν, πρόξενοι Ἀθηναίων, μηνυταὶ γίγνονται τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ὅτι ξυνοικίζουσί τε τὴν Λέσβον ἐς τὴν Μυτιλήνην βίᾳ …καὶ εἰ μή τις προκαταλήψεται ἤδη, στερήσεσθαι αὐτοὺς Λέσβου.

The Tenedians … and the Methymnians and [some] men from Mytilene privately against the situation there, proxeni of the Athenians, inform the Athenians that the Mytilenians are aiming to force Lesbos into a synoecism under Mytilene … and unless someone heads this off straightaway, Athens will be lost of Lesbos.

My read is that “μηνυταὶ γίγνονται τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ὅτι” governs both " ξυνοικίζουσί" and then later an accusative and infinitive construction “στερήσεσθαι αὐτοὺς Λέσβου”. Seems odd to me however, yet not sure why it seems odd to me.

For reference here is the whole clause:

Τενέδιοι γὰρ ὄντες αὐτοῖς διάφοροι καὶ Μηθυμναῖοι καὶ αὐτῶν Μυτιληναίων ἰδίᾳ ἄνδρες κατὰ στάσιν, πρόξενοι Ἀθηναίων, μηνυταὶ γίγνονται τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ὅτι ξυνοικίζουσί τε τὴν Λέσβον ἐς τὴν Μυτιλήνην βίᾳ καὶ τὴν παρασκευὴν ἅπασαν μετὰ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ Βοιωτῶν ξυγγενῶν ὄντων ἐπὶ ἀποστάσει ἐπείγονται: καὶ εἰ μή τις προκαταλήψεται ἤδη, στερήσεσθαι αὐτοὺς Λέσβου.


Thanks

2

Your read looks right to me - accusative + infinitive, ‘they would be robbed of Lesbos’. Any particular reason why it seems odd to you?

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

3

Smyth 2628 describes cases of indirect discourse with ὅτι passing into the infinitive.

2628> . Indirect discourse may be introduced by ὅτι (ὡς) and then pass into the infinitive as if the introductory verb had required the infinitive. ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι βούλοιτο μὲν ἅπαντα τῷ πατρὶ χαρίζεσθαι, ἄκοντα μέντοι τὸν παῖδα χαλεπὸν εἶναι νομίζειν ( = νομίζοι) καταλιπεῖν > she answered that she wished to do everything to oblige her father, but that she considered it unkind to leave the child behind against his inclination > X. C. 1.3.13.

a. It is unusual to have the infinitive first, and then ὅτι (T. 5.65).

b. One and the same clause may even begin with ὅτι (ὡς) and then (sometimes after a parenthesis) be continued by an infinitive, less often by a participle. Thus, ἀκούω ὅτι (omitted in one Ms.) καὶ συνθηρευτάς τινας τῶν παίδων σοι γενέσθαι αὐτοῦ > I hear too that some of his sons became your companions in the chase > X. C. 2.4.15. Continuation with a participle in T. 4.37.

4

Thank you for the welcome and thank you for the response. I not sure why it seems odd to me. I guess it is because the “μηνυταὶ γίγνονται τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις” seems to govern both “ὅτι ξυνοικίζουσί” and then later “στερήσεσθαι αὐτοὺς Λέσβου”. This is two different constructions for reporting something said, unless I am misunderstanding the force of “ὅτι ξυνοικίζουσί”. I actually think I am missing something obvious here that is perhaps much more obvious to you.

OK just saw the message above. Thank you again

5

Boom! Thank you for the pointer and that is exactly what tricked me:

“Indirect discourse may be introduced by ὅτι (ὡς) and then pass into the infinitive as if the introductory verb had required the infinitive.”