What usage of the genitive is χ?ημάτων, and καὶ δόξης καὶ τιμῆς? I took them as being genitives of contents with “pleista”, i.e. " …you have as much as possible of money and fame and honor…"
What usage of the genitive is φ?ονήσεως δὲ καὶ ἀληθείας καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς? I took them as being genitives of connection as Smyth would call it,i.e. “as regards wisdom and truth and the soul,…,” because “beltiste,” I do not think can govern the genitive in either a partitive or ablatival manner.
I doubt there’s anything as specific as a genitive of thing cared for, but I think here they’re just genitive because ?πιμελοῦμαι and φ?οντίζω govern the genitive here – this is the normal construction with verbs meaning “to care for” or something similar.
That would be the case if the “opos” clause were not functioning as the direct object of these verbs, but, since it is, the genitives cannot function as the direct object. And the “opos” clause cannot be final because it has the future indicative, which, in prose, is only used in final clauses with “opos” by Andocides and Xenophon (Smyth 2203). My problem has been identifying just what type of adnominal genitive “chrematon,”"doxes,"and “times” are, and whether the latter three genitives are a genitive of connection or somehow dependent on “beltiste.” Another problem is identifying just what Plato means by “pleista,” and Jowett’s and Rouse’s translations differ considerably on this subject.
I agree it’s not final, but it’s not rare for the subject of the dependent clause to be raised into an object of the main verb – Smyth calls it “anticipation” (2182) and even has an example with ?πιμελοῦμαι (?πεμέλετο α?τῶν ὅπως ἀεὶ ἀνδ?άποδα διατελοῖεν ‘he took care that they should always continue to be slaves’). That’s what I’d say is going on here.
So e.g. χ?ημάτων ?πιμελούμενος ὅπως σοι ἔσται ὡς πλεῖστα is the same as ?πιμελούμενος ὅπως χ?ήματα σοι ἔσται ὡς πλεῖστα “taking care that you have as much money as possible”. Maybe I’m missing something because this seems pretty straight forward.
You are correct definitely in the second instance. The only question I have about “chrematon” being anticipated is why are the other subjects of “estai” (doxes and times) in the genitive when they have not been anticipated but placed later in the sentence?
For me, it seems natural to take δόξης and τιμῆς as add-ons which are just functioning as new objects for ?πιμελο?μενος, i.e. “caring that you have as much money as possible, and for reputation and honour” (although the English is awkward because of the lack of parallelism), so I’m basically saying I don’t think they are anticipated. The other possibility is that they are anticipated but with the following ὅπως σοι ὡς πλείστη ἔσται having to be understood from the context, although that pretty much amounts to saying that they’re anticipating something that precedes them. But either way I think the sense is clear because “caring for honour” would normally be seen as implying “caring that you have as much of it as possible.”
So the placement of “chrematon” is emphatic in relation to the other objects. Plato is primarily criticizing his townsmen for their greed for money, while “doxes” and “times” are, as it were, secondary criticisms? Like you said, the construction to me would be more logical if, as in the second clause, all three objects were anticipated.
I wouldn’t say emphasized, although I do agree that δόξης and τιμῆς are secondary or afterthought criticisms. My feeling was that Plato wanted to make it sound like Socrates was giving off-the-cuff remarks since he was (allegedly) not delivering a precomposed speech, and I think this an example of something someone would say rather than write (actually doubly so, since here he’s saying what he would say).
Ah – probably clicked on ‘quote’ rather than ‘reply’. Sorry!
In the thread there seemed to be some confusion on whether this was an anacolouthon or what. So all I’m saying is that I’m going with ‘perfectly fine Greek’, as shown by the other citations.