Unit 28 Part II

[Lukas]

Χαίρετε!

I have a very difficult, at least for me, passage to translate. It is two paragraphs, but I am taking it one paragraph at a time. I will produce the whole passage and then the first paragraph with my notes, and then I will ask questions. Here is the whole passage:

II. Reading: Lysias, in praise of Athenians who died in war, cites examples of just
and brave behavior from legendary history (adapted passage, based on Oration 2.7 – 15).

Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους ταῖς Θήβαις ἐπιθεμένων καὶ οὐ καλῶς πραξάντων
ἐν τῇ μάχῃ, τῶν Θηβαίων κωλυόντων θάπτειν τοὺς νεκρούς, οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι,
ἡγησάμενοι ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποθανόντας δίκην ἱκανὴν δοῦναι, τούτους δ’
ἐξαμαρτάνειν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, πρῶτον μὲν πέμψαντες ἀγγέλους ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν
δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν· οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ’
αὐτούς, οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς πρότερον πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης, ἡγούμενοι δεῖν τοὺς
ἀποθανόντας τῶν νομιζομένων τυχεῖν. τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον ἐνίκων
μαχόμενοι καὶ πᾶσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπεδείξαντο.

ὑστέρῳ δὲ χρόνῳ, ἐπεὶ Ἡρακλῆς ἀπέθανεν, οἱ τούτου παῖδες φεύγοντες
Εὐρυσθέα ἐξηλαύνοντο ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων, αἰσχυνομένων μὲν τοῖς
ἔργοις, φοβουμένων δὲ τὴν Εὐρυσθέως δύναμιν. ἀφικομένων δὲ τῶν παίδων εἰς
τήνδε τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἐξαιτουμένου αὐτοὺς Εὐρυσθέως, οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι οὐκ ἠθέλησαν
παραδοῦναι. ἐπιστρατευόντων δὲ τῶν Ἀργείων, οὐκ ἐγγὺς τῶν δεινῶν γενόμενοι
μετέγνωσαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην εἶχον καὶ δεύτερον ἐνίκων μαχόμενοι.

Now for the first paragraph with notes, and thereafter I will ask questions. I tried to mark the participles in red and main verbs in green:

1. Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους ταῖς Θήβαις [goes with next word] ἐπιθεμένων [takes dative] καὶ οὐ καλῶς πραξάντων ἐν τῇ μάχῃ, [and not faring well in the battle]

2. τῶν Θηβαίων [why genitive? Goes with ἐδέοντο?] κωλυόντων [preventing, takes accusative] θάπτειν [infinitive – to bury] τοὺς νεκρούς [goes with κωλυόντων] ,

3. οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ἡγησάμενοι [aorist participle – leading], takes dative?] ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποθανόντας [cannot figure out word. Deceased? Why feminine?] δίκην ἱκανὴν [sufficient penalty] δοῦναι [aorist infinitive – to give], τούτους δ’ ἐξαμαρτάνειν missing the mark?] εἰς τοὺς θεούς [to the gods], πρῶτον μὲν πέμψαντες [aorist participle dispatching] ἀγγέλους ἐδέοντο [ask for, goes with next word. Also goes with τῶν Θηβαίων?] αὐτῶν δοῦναι [aorist infinitive – to give] τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν [feminine noun]· [picking up the dead] οὐ δυνάμενοι [not able] δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν [takes genitive – hit the mark] ἐστράτευσαν [campaigning? Goes with next two words] ἐπ’αὐτούς, οὐδεμιᾶς [no one, feminine] διαφορᾶς [feminine, disagreement] πρότερον [masculine accusative, before] πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης [genitive singular], ἡγούμενοι [masculine plural] δεῖν τοὺς ἀποθανόντας τῶν νομιζομένων [Customary funeral rites] τυχεῖν [takes genitive --hit the mark].

4. τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες [neuter – have] σύμμαχον [adjective – allied] ἐνίκων [victorious] μαχόμενοι [battles] καὶ πᾶσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπεδείξαντο [aorist – displayed].
   
   \

5. Why is τῶν Θηβαίων in the genitive? ἐδέοντο goes with the pronoun that refers to τῶν Θηβαίων. Is that why?

6. ἡγησάμενοι usually takes the dative, but the next few words are accusative. Do the next few words go with ἡγησάμενοι? I think it is Indirect discourse.

7. I cannot figure out ἀποθανόντας . Does it come from αποθανών? Why is it in the feminine?

8. Does ἐξαμαρτάνειν have a similar meaning as αμαρτάνειν?

9. How does a person write a passage with so many participles and only a couple main verbs. It seems like it is going to look awkward.

I may have more questions after conversing about these questions.

[seneca2008]

I think it’s great to start to work on a continuous piece in this way.

I am commenting here on your actual questions not the notes you have made.

1. Why is τῶν Θηβαίων in the genitive?

τῶν Θηβαίων κωλυόντων is taken together and governs θάπτειν. Do you recognise what sort of participle phrase is used here?

The passage begins with “Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους…ἐπιθεμένων καὶ οὐ καλῶς πραξάντων…” what is the construction here? What case is used in “Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους”? Is there a grammatical link between this clause and the next which you are asking about?

2. ἡγησάμενοι usually takes the dative…

ἡγέομαι…lead, guide (usually + dat. of person); command, rule (usually + gen. of person); consider, think p. 135

What is meant here is that when “ἡγέομαι” means “lead” etc. it usually takes dative. But here the meaning is “consider, think”. I have said before that you should not simply look at the first meaning given.

3. I cannot figure out ἀποθανόντας…

ἀποθανόντας is aorist active participle masculine accusative plural from ἀποθνῄσκω.

4. Does ἐξαμαρτάνειν have a similar meaning as αμαρτάνειν?

M. glosses ἐξαμαρτάνω as “commit a sin”. I think it’s not quite right to use sin here as it implies something Christian in western culture, but yes it has a similar meaning to ἁμαρτάνω. I prefer something a bit more (culturally) neutral like “do wrong” but use “sin” if you like.

5. How does a person write a passage with so many participles and only a couple main verbs. It seems like it is going to look awkward

Welcome to Greek!

[Lukas]

Either later today or tomorrow I will be looking at the passage again and working with your answers. One more question in general I have is about what controls what. Sometimes a verb takes an accusative, dative, or genitive, so I take that a verb controls a participle? If a phrase just has a participle and object in it, does the participle control the object? For instance, a verb that takes a genitive gets turned into a participle. I take it that the participle controls the object and the object takes a genitive?

Of course, there are other rules also. I may also be dealing with genitive absolutes or accusative absolutes or indirect discourse.

[seneca2008]

If I understand your question I think the example given on p. 230 should (partly) answer it.

“πείθονται τῷ Δημοσθένει ὡς στρατηγῷ ὄντι. They obey Demosthenes because he is general.”

πείθομαι takes the dative hence the object “τῷ Δημοσθένει”. “ὡς στρατηγῷ ὄντι” is a circumstantial participle phrase and says something additional about Demosthenes, ie it gives the reason why “they obey Demosthenes”. The participle phrase “στρατηγῷ ὄντι” is in the dative because it agrees with “τῷ Δημοσθένει”.

As M. says on P. 227 “The circumstantial participle may agree with the subject, the direct or indirect object, the object of a preposition, or any other noun or pronoun expressed or implied in the sentence.”

It is difficult to give a succinct answer to a question which raises so many issues. At this stage in your studies if you see a participle phrase in the genitive I think it would be safest to ask yourself first whether it it is an “absolute genitive construction”.

[mwh]

For what it’s worth, here’s how I would set about reading this first long sentence, taking it a chunk at a time and not looking further ahead than I need to.
Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους ταῖς Θήβαις ἐπιθεμένων: presumably a genitive absolute;
καὶ οὐ καλῶς πραξάντων ἐν τῇ μάχῃ,: presumably a continuation of the genitive absolute;
τῶν Θηβαίων κωλυόντων θάπτειν τοὺς νεκρούς,: a new genitive absolute;
οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι,: nominative, the subject!
ἡγησάμενοι: participle in agreement;
ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποθανόντας δίκην ἱκανὴν δοῦναι,: acc.&infin. after ἡγησάμενοι; (given the μεν, expect another acc.&inf. with δε);
τούτους δ’ ἐξαμαρτάνειν εἰς τοὺς θεούς,: yep, the expected 2nd acc.&inf.;
πρῶτον μὲν πέμψαντες ἀγγέλους ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν·: another participle agreeing with οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι (given the μεν, expect a corresponding δε), followed by a main verb! w/ an infin.;
οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ’ αὐτούς: the expected δε, followed by another main verb;
[breaking this down a little more:
(a) πρῶτον μὲν πέμψαντες ἀγγέλους
ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν·
(b) οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν
ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ’ αὐτούς,]
As far as the syntax goes, the sentence could end there (but no earlier), but it continues:
οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς πρότερον πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης,: gen.abs. (the sentence could end here too, but it further continues:)
ἡγούμενοι δεῖν τοὺς ἀποθανόντας τῶν νομιζομένων τυχεῖν.: another participle agreeing with οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, w/ an infin. (δειν) taking an acc.&inf.
At last, a full stop! End of sentence.

So this is how it breaks down, progressively piece by piece:
Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους ταῖς Θήβαις ἐπιθεμένων
καὶ οὐ καλῶς πραξάντων ἐν τῇ μάχῃ, |
τῶν Θηβαίων κωλυόντων θάπτειν τοὺς νεκρούς |
οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι,
ἡγησάμενοι
ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποθανόντας δίκην ἱκανὴν δοῦναι
τούτους δ’ ἐξαμαρτάνειν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, |
πρῶτον μὲν πέμψαντες ἀγγέλους
ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν,
οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν
ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ’ αὐτούς,
(οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς πρότερον πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης,) |
ἡγούμενοι δεῖν τοὺς ἀποθανόντας τῶν νομιζομένων τυχεῖν. ||
So, if we have to translate: “When A. and P. attacked Thebes
and did not fare well in the battle,
when the Thebans prevented the burial of the corpses (lit. to bury the corpses)
the Athenians,
thinking that
they (A.&P.) had paid sufficient penalty by dying
while these (the Thebans) were sinning against the gods,
first sending messengers
asked them to grant recovery of the corpses,
but unable to succeed in this
they marched to war against them,
(there being no disagreement between them previously),
since they considered that those who had died should get the customary rites.

[seneca2008]

Lukas

I suggest you try it for yourself before reading MWH’s post.

[Lukas]

I will, starting tomorrow.

[Lukas]

Lysias makes reference to Adrastus and Polynices. Was this the Polynices the son of Oedupus and the one who obtained help from King Adrastus to fight his brother, or are these contemporaries of Lysias?

[seneca2008]

As M. says "Lysias, in praise of Athenians who died in war, cites examples of just and brave behavior from legendary history.

Polynices was indeed a son of Oedipus (see wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynices). It’s a fairly complicated story. There is a very famous play by Aeschylus “Seven Against Thebes” which deals with the battle between Polynices and Eteocles (another son of Oedpius) for Thebes. The aftermath is recounted in Antigone ( a daughter of Oedipus) by Sophocles.

The children of Hercules is a play by Euripides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Heracles. Lysias cites an episode from this myth in the second part of the extract.

Citing examples of good (or bad) behaviour from the mythic past was an important part of rhetorical practice in the Ancient world.

[Lukas]

Wellllll, I have my first fairly literal translation. I kept it fairly literal, so I will not get lost when posters asked me why I translated a phrase or word a certain way. Two things I am still uncertain about:

1. Lysias makes reference to a first group. I am not certain if he is talking abut former Athenians, maybe the ones who died in battle, or the Thebans.

2. I am also uncertain about who offended the gods, former Athenians, maybe they were the ones who died in battle because the gods were disgusted with them? Or maybe the Thebans?

Having said that, here we go . . .

When Adrastus and Polyneices desired Thebes and did not fare well in the battle, and the Thebans were preventing burying the dead, the Athenians believed that those dying paid the penalty, but those who wronged the gods first sending messengers, asked them [Thebans] to grant of the picking up of the bodies; but unable to obtain (the bodies) they [Athenians] were campaigning against them [Thebans], although no one has been formerly disagreeing with Thebes. They [Athenians] believed that those who died ought to obtain the customary rites. And the righteous having allies were victorious in battles, and all of them displayed virtue.

[seneca2008]

When Adrastus and Polyneices > desired > Thebes and did not fare well in the battle

Ἀδράστου καὶ Πολυνείκους ταῖς Θήβαις ἐπιθεμένων καὶ οὐ καλῶς πραξάντων ἐν τῇ μάχῃ

The verb here is ἐπιτίθημι …place upon; add to; (mid.) make an attempt upon, attack (+ dat.) [epithet] p.195. The case of “ταῖς Θήβαις” shows what meaning this verb has. It looks like you thought it was “ἐπιθυμέω” (which would take a genitive).

the Athenians believed that those dying paid > the penalty > but those who wronged the gods

You have missed out “ἱκανὴν”.

“οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ἡγησάμενοι ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποθανόντας δίκην ἱκανὴν δοῦναι τούτους δ’ ἐξαμαρτάνειν εἰς τοὺς θεούς,”

ἐκείνους and τούτους here mean “the former” and “the latter”. It is a way of referring to groups or things which have already been mentioned. So “the former” (ἐκείνους) are those who had died and “the latter” (ἐκείνους) are those who were preventing the burial of the dead. This doesnt mean former Athenians or anything like that as both groups are Thebans who fought each other. Forbidding the burying of the dead is an important part of the plot of Antigone, see above.

Check out p. 109:
b. οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο, this, the nearer. This word usually indicates something relatively close to the speaker, but not so close as something referred to by ὅδε. In some idiomatic uses οὗτος may have a second person reference: that is, to someone being addressed. When used by itself, οὗτος most commonly refers backward, but occasionally it may refer forward. When contrasted with ἐκεῖνος, οὗτος means the latter versus the former.

c. ἐκεῖνος, ἐκείνη, ἐκεῖνο, that one there, the more distant. This word usually points to something relatively distant from the speaker. When contrasted with οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος means the former versus the latter. πρῶτον μὲν πέμψαντες ἀγγέλους ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν

πρῶτον here marks a new thought. We have been told what the Athenians thought now we hear what they did. It wasn’t those who had wronged the gods (Thebans) who sent messengers but the Athenians. First, having sent messengers, they (the Athenians) asked them (the Thebans)…

but unable to obtain (the bodies) they [Athenians] were campaigning against them [Thebans],

“οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν”, τούτων here is the thing they were not able to obtain. It is the request that “someone should be able to pick up the dead” not the dead bodies themselves.

You need to translate δυνάμενοι as a temporal participle. When they were unable… " ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ’ αὐτούς" tells us what they did. When they were unable to get this (favour) they (the Athenians) went on campaign against them ( the Thebans).

You need to think about tenses when you translate. For example ἐστράτευσαν is an aorist so dont translate it as an imperfect (were campaigning ).

although no one has been formerly disagreeing with Thebes.

“οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς πρότερον πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης”

If you stick closer to the Greek you will be more accurate. We have a genitive absolute here which has concessive force. “Even though there was previously no disagreement with the Thebans.” Again think more carefully about tense.

with all the “formers and latters” "formerly " might be best avoided.

“ἡγούμενοι δεῖν τοὺς ἀποθανόντας τῶν νομιζομένων τυχεῖν”

This is the reason why the Athenians went to war. So you need to introduce it with “Because”.

And the righteous having allies were victorious in battles, and all of them displayed virtue.

This is all bit mixed up.

τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον ἐνίκων μαχόμενοι καὶ πᾶσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπεδείξαντο

The subject of ἔχοντες is the Athenians. τὸ …δίκαιον is a substantive “Justice” σύμμαχον agrees with “τὸ …δίκαιον”. So they (the Athenians) had justice as their ally. πᾶσι is a dative masculine plural and is the indirect object of ἐπεδείξαντο. τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὴν is the direct object of ἐπεδείξαντο. The subject of the verb is the Athenians. They displayed their virtue/excellence to all men.

I have to teach now and dont have time to double check what I have written. If anything is not clear let me know. You should also look at the first part of MWH’s very helpful post.

[Lukas]

You wrote that I missed out on "ἱκανὴν. “ἱκανός, -ή, -όν, sufficient (here with δίκην, penalty).” – page 242.
I wrote, “paid the penalty,” so I do not know what I missed out on.

You wrote, “You need to think about tenses when you translate. For example ἐστράτευσαν is an aorist so don’t translate it as an imperfect (were campaigning ).” The textbook gives rules for the present, future, and aorist on page 225, but there are quite a few exceptions. I threw in “were” because I thought it made the sentence sound better. I get a lot of complaints, usually of being too literal. Now I am getting a complaint that I was not literal enough.

So “τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον” should be translated, “So they (the Athenians) had justice as their ally”. Going by your earlier complaint that I used an imperfect for an aorist, why are you translating as “had?” Also, how do you get the extra words “as their”?

I am going to have to print out the rest and will see where it takes me.

I have been keeping my eye away from MWH answers, so I can struggle through this. I did look at some now and came across something interesting: “ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποθανόντας δίκην ἱκανὴν δοῦναι,: acc.&infin. after ἡγησάμενοι; (given the μεν, expect another acc.&inf. with δε)” I knew that μὲν and δε contrasted things, and I have them highlighted in my textbook in this passage; however, I did not know that that if μὲν had an accusative and infinitive that δε would have the same grammatical structure. This is new.

[seneca2008]

You wrote that I missed out on "ἱκανὴν. “ἱκανός, -ή, -όν, sufficient (here with δίκην, penalty).” – page 242.
I wrote, “paid the penalty,” so I do not know what I missed out on.

“δίκην δοῦναι” is “paid the penalty”. “δίκην ἱκανὴν δοῦναι” is “paid sufficient penalty”

You wrote, "You need to think about tenses when you translate. For example ἐστράτευσαν is an aorist so don’t translate it as an imperfect..I threw in “were” because I thought it made the sentence sound better. I get a lot of complaints, usually of being too literal. Now I am getting a complaint that I was not literal enough.

The "rules " you refer to on p. 252 are about the tenses of the participle. My observation about not translating an aorist as an imperfect has nothing to do with being literal but with being accurate.

I was referring to the difference between the imperfect and aorist of finite forms. (there is of course no imperfect participle).

“The Greek imperfect indicative refers to action in the past that was incomplete (hence the name, from the Latin for unfinished), in progress, or repeated or customary. It corresponds to the English past progressive (I was sending), verb phrases with used to (I used to send), and in some contexts the English simple past (I sent).” p. 131

“The aorist stem conveys an action that is instantaneous and includes conceptually its completion. In the indicative, since the aorist carries no suggestion of duration or of permanent results of the action, it is used to refer to a simple, unique occurrence in the past (for instance, for the statement of historical fact)” p. 165

So the imperfect and aorist have different meanings. Care is needed in not mixing these up.

You wrote “they [Athenians] were campaigning against them [Thebans]”. That would be right if the verb was an imperfect ie a continuous action in the past. But the verb is an aorist and so refers to a single action in the past, so it’s more like “they went on campaign against them” or “they campaigned”. the aorist/imperfect distinction is very important in Greek.

“τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον”

ἔχοντες is a present participle. The interpretation of present participles is on p. 225 “The present participle conveys the aspect of the present stem: that is, continuous or repeated action. In practice, it most often refers to an action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence and is usually translated in English by a present participle (X’ing, being X’ed). But in the proper context, the present participle may refer to an action antecedent or subsequent to that of the main verb…”

The finite verb here is ἐνίκων, an imperfect, but “having virtue as an ally”, was something that the Athenians had before the victory. So in English it makes sense to translate “ἔχοντες” as a past tense anterior to the imperfect “ἐνίκων”.

I know all of this is frustrating for you. I am only offering comments where I think you haven’t understood the Greek. Greek is a very expressive language and it is often hard to think of how to convey the nuances when you translate. One of the benefits of learning Greek is that makes one think more carefully about how one expresses oneself in one’s native language.

[Lukas]

τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον ἐνίκων μαχόμενοι καὶ πᾶσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπεδείξαντο.

Two things about the last sentence I still do not get:

1. How do you know that δὲ will be translated “because”? I know you wrote an explanation about that, but I am not comprehending it yet.
   
   \

2. τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον" I still do not know how you get “as their allies.” σύμμαχον is either an adjective or a noun in the plural. How do you get “as their” into the picture?

3. οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς πρότερον πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης" πρὸς means “with”?

ἐκείνους and τούτους here mean “the former” and “the latter”. It is a way of referring to groups or things which have already been mentioned. So “the former” (ἐκείνους) are those who had died and “the latter” (ἐκείνους) are those who were preventing the burial of the dead. This doesn’t mean former Athenians or anything like that as both groups are Thebans who fought each other. Forbidding the burying of the dead is an important part of the plot of Antigone, see above.

So the Thebans are the ones who died in battle? Didn’t the Athenians want to pick up those who died? Why would the Athenians want to pick up Thebans?

I forgot about ἐκείνους and τούτους with their “former” and “latter” meanings.

[seneca2008]

1. How do you know that δὲ will be translated “because”? I know you wrote an explanation about that, but I am not comprehending it yet.

τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον ἐνίκων μαχόμενοι καὶ πᾶσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπεδείξαντο.

I am not translating δὲ as “because”. δὲ just connects this sentence to the previous sentence.

“τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον” is a Circumstantial Participle clause which is dependent on “ἐνίκων”. It provides the reason why the Greeks were victorious so it is a causal participle clause. (remind yourself of all this on p. 227). How do I know its causal? Because of the possible meanings of the circumstantial participle its the one that makes the best sense. Work through the possibilities on p. 227 and satisfy yourself that this is so.

Translating participle phrases takes a bit of practice and experience. You might tackle the sentence first by noting that ἔχοντες and μαχόμενοι are masc nom pl. and that ἐνίκων is a third person pl imperfect. From this you deduce that the participles and the verb have a common subject (the Athenians). Then the sense of the first clause is “having Justice (as) an ally” and the rest is “fighting they were victorious”. So what is the sense of these two clauses taken together? Temporal ( when they had Justice etc) concessive (although ..) conditional (if…) don’t make any sense. But clearly causal does. The reason they won is that they had Justice on their side. A frequent claim!

2. τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἔχοντες σύμμαχον" I still do not know how you get “as their allies.” σύμμαχον is either an adjective or a noun in the plural. How do you get “as their” into the picture?

Ally not allies. σύμμαχον is singular neuter accusative adjective that agrees with “τὸ δίκαιον”. You could translate σύμμαχον as “fighting along with, allied with” p. 82. so then you would have “having Justice fighting along with (them)” where them=Athenians.
From the reasoning in the previous paragraph we have decided that it is a causal clause so one just rearranges the English to read more smoothly. “And because they had Justice as their ally”.

This is all very long winded perhaps, but I have tried to make it as clear as I can. If you see an ally in a sentence it is natural to ask whose ally? The answer is the Athenian’s ally - justice in this case.

3. οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς πρότερον πρὸς Θηβαίους οὔσης" πρὸς means “with”?

οὐδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς…πρὸς Θηβαίους. πρὸς has a variety of uses. With the genitive it means " from, proceeding from" So literally “there being no difference from the Thebans” which in more elegant English "there was no difference/disagreement with the Thebans. "

I think you get too hooked on the idea that there is a one to one correspondence between a Greek and English word. So you see the translation “with” and you assume that must be the meaning of πρὸς . English and Greek use different ways of expressing the same idea. It’s very important that you get the idea of what the Greek means. The actual words you use to convey that meaning dont much matter as long as dont lose the meaning of the Greek.

So the Thebans are the ones who died in battle? Didn’t the Athenians want to pick up those who died? Why would the Athenians want to pick up Thebans?

Did you read the story in the Wikipedia links?

Polynices and his brother Eteocles were Thebans. Eteocles had become king of Thebes and Polynices wanted to wrest control of the city from him. He enlisted help from the King of Argos Adrastus. In the battle that followed for the city seven champions on Polynices’ side fought seven on his brother’s side at the 7 gates of Thebes. The final combat was between Polynices and Eteocles. They killed each other. The Thebans decided that Eteocles should be brought into the city and given a funeral but that Polynices should be left outside the city (presumably with all his dead supporters) and the flesh pecked from his body by birds and dogs.

The Athenians being excellent and civilised and pious people thought it was wrong not to give the dead a decent funeral so they asked the Thebans for permission to bury them. When the Thebans refused, the Athenians felt so strongly about it they went to war with Thebes. They won the war because Justice was on their side.

The whole point of the story is to show how virtuous The Athenians were and how impious the Thebans were who denied burial to Polynices. The rights and wrongs of denying burial and disobeying the instruction to deny burial is played out in Sophocles’ Antigone.

It is now quite late so I don’t have time to check what I have written but I need to go to bed!

[Lukas]

Get some sleep. A question for later: How do you know that τούτων refers not to the dead bodies but to the request for the dead bodies?

[seneca2008]

“…ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν· οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν…”

ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν
they asked (of) them (δέω takes a genitive here)

δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν

to grant a taking up of the dead bodies

οὐ δυνάμενοι δὲ τούτων τυχεῖν

not being able (when they were not able) to obtain this (τούτων)…

τούτων is genitive because τυγχάνω takes a genitive when it means “attain, obtain a thing”. It is not in the genitive because it agrees with νεκρῶν.

The request was not “give us the dead bodies” but " grant a taking up of the dead bodies". So what was refused was not the dead bodies but (permission) for someone (unspecified but probably the Thebans as they were on the spot)to take up the bodies.

In all this there is no clue as to who is going to pick up the bodies but geography means that those who are on the spot would “take up” the bodies. The Athenians are not asking that they are given permission to take up the bodies but merely that “someone” should be allowed to do so.

[Lukas]

Revision:

When Adrastus and Polyneices attacked Thebes and did not fare well in the battle, and the Thebans prevented burying the dead, the Athenians believed that the former, dying, paid sufficient penalty, but the latter who wronged the gods first sending messengers, asked them [Thebans] to grant of the picking up of the bodies; but when they were unable to obtain (the request of the bodies) they [Athenians] campaigned against them [Thebans], although formerly there was no disagreement with the Thebans, because the [Athenians] believed that the dying ought to obtain the customary rites. But the Athenians having justice fighting along with them were victorious in battles and displayed virtue to all men.

[Lukas]

Paragraph 2:

ὑστέρῳ δὲ χρόνῳ, ἐπεὶ Ἡρακλῆς ἀπέθανεν, οἱ τούτου παῖδες φεύγοντες
Εὐρυσθέα ἐξηλαύνοντο ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων, αἰσχυνομένων μὲν τοῖς
ἔργοις, φοβουμένων δὲ τὴν Εὐρυσθέως δύναμιν. ἀφικομένων δὲ τῶν παίδων εἰς
τήνδε τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἐξαιτουμένου αὐτοὺς Εὐρυσθέως, οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι οὐκ ἠθέλησαν
παραδοῦναι. ἐπιστρατευόντων δὲ τῶν Ἀργείων, οὐκ ἐγγὺς τῶν δεινῶν γενόμενοι
μετέγνωσαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην εἶχον καὶ δεύτερον ἐνίκων μαχόμενοι.

Generally the paragraph is easier than the first. Most of my trouble were with: “καὶ ἐξαιτουμένου αὐτοὺς Εὐρυσθέως,”
I kept it literal for now. I know the Greek is trying to say that Eurystheus demanded the children of Hercules. He has had tension with Hercules for years, thanks to Hera and Zeus.

My attempt:

At a later time, after Hercules died, as his children were fleeing Eurystheus and were being driven out by all the Greeks, they were ashamed of their works being afraid of Eurystheus’s power. After the children fled to this polis and were demanded themselves of Eurystheus, the Athenians were not willing to surrender. But when the Argives were campaigning against them, they did not change their minds when they became close to the terrible events. But they had the same opinion and were victorious in battles a second [time?].

[seneca2008]

When Adrastus and Polyneices attacked Thebes and did not fare well in the battle, and the Thebans prevented burying the dead, the Athenians believed that the former, dying, paid sufficient penalty, but the latter who wronged the gods first sending messengers, asked them [Thebans] to grant of the picking up of the bodies; but when they were unable to obtain (the request of the bodies) they [Athenians] campaigned against them [Thebans], although formerly there was no disagreement with the Thebans, because the [Athenians] believed that the dying ought to obtain the customary rites. But the Athenians having justice fighting along with them were victorious in battles and displayed virtue to all men.

A much improved version. I hope you feel you now understand the Greek. In general you just need to take more care with tenses. If someone “has died” they are not “dying”. it is not a matter of being literal or not but of showing you understand the sequence of events and the tenses used.

A few points :

“, had paid a sufficient penalty while the latter having wronged the gods**, first, having sent** messengers, they asked them…” again be careful of tenses and punctuation around first.

obtain (the request of the bodies)…better “obtain this ( favour)” They didn’t request the bodies!

"that those who had died ought to obtain " tense!

I will look at you other post tomorrow as it is late here.