Context: Thucydides has explained the rise of merchant seafaring, and with it the growth of rich individual men. Here, to illustrate with an example, he gives his explanation why Agamemnon took the leadership in the expedition against Troy, which Thucydides considers a historical event.
Translation:
Agamemnon, it seems to me, because he was a powerful man of his times, and not so much because the oath of Tyndareus bound Helen’s suitors, of whom he was leader, assembled the expedition against Troy.
Grammar notes:
The main verb is μοι δοκεῖ. It controls an infinitive phrase in indirect discourse, τὸν στόλον ἀγεῖραι.
Two participles in the nominative singular, προύχων and ἄγων, agree with Ἀγαμέμνων.
One participle in the accusative plural, κατειλημμένους, agrees with τοὺς . . . μνηστῆρας [the suitors of Helen].
τῶν τότε illustrates the power of the definite article to transform almost anything, in this case an adverb, into a substantive. Genitive of time within which.
I took the sentence like this: And Agamemnon seems to me to have ‘raised his host, being advanced in might among men of his time,’ and not so much to have ‘raised his host, leading the suitors bound together by the oaths of Tyndareus.’
(I could rephrase that with more standard English “by/through” translation of participles and without the cutesy single quoted phrases, but I think this comes a tiny bit closer to capturing the flow of Greek thought, which doesn’t hammer the connection as much as English.)
I stuck at τοσοῦτον a bit, wondering if could be a parallel object of ἀγεῖραι with τὸν στόλον, “not so many by X as the host he raised by Y”, but think it has to be adverbial, like you have it.
EDIT: But now I’m not so sure about τοσοῦτον…maybe it could be parallel to τὸν στόλον, and work as “so many as”…but I’m just probably overthinking.
Your grammar notes are quite correct, Hugh, except that των τοτε is a partitive genitive not gen. of time within which. But your translation departs slightly. The paired participial phrases (τῶν τότε δυνάμει προύχων and οὐ τοσοῦτον … ἄγων) give the circumstances under which Ag assembled the expedition: “as being preeminent in power of the men of that time and not so much as leading Helen’s suitors bound by the oaths to Tyndareus.”
The first participial phrase gives what in Thuc’s view was the real reason for Ag’s leadership of the expedition, while the second (“not so much”) debunks the conventional (more mythical) explanation.
Thanks to mwh and Joel for the comments. This was a good sentence to work on. Although it was short, it presented grammatical puzzles that were difficult enough for me, but not overwhelming. That’s a good spot for learning.
My usual practice is to read intuitively, getting the word definitions and endings one word after the other, and when possible for me, letting the sentence’s meaning seem to “just happen”. As often as not, I run into the ditch this way, and must fall back and regroup my forces, then use commentaries, English translations, and grammar to form a satisfactory meaning for the sentence. The style of analysis I used in this post I learned from some of H. D. Cameron’s work in his students’ commentary on book 1 of Thucydides.
Although Cameron seems to aim his work at students somewhat more advanced than I, nevertheless he is still very helpful to me.
Hi Hugh,
Yes getting the word endings and reading “one word after the other” is the right way to set about it. (As you get more advanced you’ll find you then almost automatically follow the syntax and will form expectations about what comes next, expectations which will be firmed up—or not—as you proceed.)
The sentence again: Ἀγαμέμνων τέ μοι δοκεῖ τῶν τότε δυνάμει προύχων καὶ οὐ τοσοῦτον τοῖς Τυνδάρεω ὅρκοις κατειλημμένους τοὺς Ἑλένης μνηστῆρας ἄγων τὸν στόλον ἀγεῖραι.
Here a slightly more expert reader would have realized that the τε after Αγαμεμνων is likely a sentence-initial “And” (though more context would be needed), and more importantly would have expected an eventual infinitive after Ἀγαμέμνων τέ μοι δοκεῖ, to complete the construction (since Αγαμεμνων is the subject of δοκεῖ—your translation here is not quite accurate). In the Greek this infinitive does not come until we reach the sentence end, τὸν στόλον ἀγεῖραι, deferred by the intervening predicative participial phrases with προύχων and αγων (you seriously misconstrued the latter). In English it would be unnatural to separate “Agamemnon seems to me” from “to have assembled the expedition” like this, but in Greek it’s entirely natural and makes for a neat and tidy package.
Let me work on this a little more. This reply strikes two things that puzzled me. On them I guessed in the dark, and hoped for light in the replies.
1st the nominative Ἀγαμέμνων: because it never occurred to me that Ἀγαμέμνων is the subject of the verb δοκεῖ. I was baffled by its nominative case, and guessed at the translation. Hence your “Agamemnon seems to me” is most helpful. Somehow I didn’t expect this meaning.
2nd the participle ἄγων: I knew I was not getting it right. If you have time, please provide a commentary on this participle. I see that it agrees with Ἀγαμέμνων. Is its direct object the preceding phrase, “τοὺς Ἑλένης μνηστῆρας ἄγων”? Or what?
Yes Ἀγαμέμνων is the subject of δοκεῖ. You took it to mean “Agamemnon, it seems to me,” but that makes a separate parenthetical clause with “it” rather than Agamemnon as subject. That would be quite possible in Greek, e.g. Ἀγαμέμνων, ὡς δοκεῖ μοι, (with commas either side), but Greek likes to have a personal subject with δοκεῖ; and in your reading the all-important τὸν στόλον ἀγεῖραι at sentence end is left grammatically stranded, without a construction. That could have tipped you off to the fact that you’d gone astray. The main clause is simply Ἀγαμέμνων μοι δοκεῖ τὸν στόλον ἀγεῖραι.
As to ἄγων, yes its direct object is τοὺς Ἑλένης μνηστῆρας. Going along with that, as you recognized in your notes, is τοῖς Τυνδάρεω ὅρκοις κατειλημμένους, “bound by Tyndareus’ oaths” (i.e. by the oaths that Helen’s suitors had sworn to Tyndareus, her father-in-law), κατειλημμένους being the perfect passive participle of καταλαμβάνω in agreement with τοὺς μνηστῆρας.
So we have two participial phrases in attendance on Ἀγαμέμνων μοι δοκεῖ τὸν στόλον ἀγεῖραι, each of them agreeing with Ἀγαμέμνων. “Ag. seems to me … to have assembled the expedition” (1) τῶν τότε δυνάμει προύχων, lit. “being foremost in power of the (men) in that time,” and (2) οὐ τοσοῦτον τοῖς Τυνδάρεω ὅρκοις κατειλημμένους τοὺς Ἑλένης μνηστῆρας ἄγων, lit. “not so much leading Helen’s suitors bound by Tyndareus’ oaths.” This second participial phrase is rather dense, but with “not so much” Thucydides is rejecting the traditional explanation of Ag’s leadership of the expedition against Troy.
I hope this helps you sort it all out satisfactorily. Thucydides’ Greek is often knotty, in deliberate contrast to Herodotus’ free-flowing style. Ancient Greeks themselves struggled with it. This particular passage, however, while not without its challenges, has nothing really exceptional about it as far as the Greek goes. But it does require patience and a clear understanding of its structure.