Hdt. 1.4.1 missing conjunction?? -accusative of "respect."

[daivid]

Every time I re-read this bit of Herodotus I feel I almost understand it but something always seems to slip away.

μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι: προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην.

And here is my intentionally over-literal translation
up until this point therefore kidnapping alone there had been between-each-other, the (event) after this (?????) the Greeks then-indeed were guilty it happened: earlier thus they initiated campaigning into Asia than they [ie the Asians] had into Europe.

There doesn't seem to me to be a connection between the τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου and the Greeks guilt. I'm looking for something like a "for" or "because of" which I can't see in the Greek.

[Qimmik]

This is indirect discourse: the Persians are telling their side of the story, using the accusative + infinitive construction. The most recent finite verb of speech launching the string of acc. + Inf. seems to be φασὶ in 1.2.1.

τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου is accusative of "respect." The article τὸ makes a noun out of the adverbial expression ἀπὸ τούτου: "the time period from that point on." See Smyth 1153c:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

"until that point [the Trojan War], there were just raids [ἁρπαγάς μούνας] against one another; with respect to the period from that point on [τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου], the Greeks became [Ἕλληνας . . . γενέσθαι] guilty in a big way, for they [the Greeks] began invading Asia with an army before they [σφέας, the Asians] [began invading] Europe.

Ἕλληνας is the accusative subject of infinitive γενέσθαι.

Hope this helps.

[daivid]

That it is accusative of "respect." supplies for me the missing link, thanks.

I did get that it was indirect discourse. However indirect discourse does throw in an extra level of uncertainty which made it harder for me to spot that there was an accusative of respect there.

Thanks very much again.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι: προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην.

There doesn't seem to me to be a connection between the τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου and the Greeks guilt. I'm looking for something like a "for" or "because of" which I can't see in the Greek.

Not sure what your problem is, see δὲ … γὰρ. You were expecting another conjunction?

4. Thus far it was a matter of mere robbery on both sides. But after this (the Persians say) the Greeks were greatly to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe.

LCL 1920

μέχρι ... ἀπὸ τούτου is a very elaborate contextualizer or "point of departure" not uncommon in historical narrative.

[daivid]

μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι: προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην.

There doesn't seem to me to be a connection between the τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου and the Greeks guilt. I'm looking for something like a "for" or "because of" which I can't see in the Greek.

Not sure what your problem is, see δὲ … γὰρ. You were expecting another conjunction?

4. Thus far it was a matter of mere robbery on both sides. But after this (the Persians say) the Greeks were greatly to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe.

LCL 1920

μέχρι ... ἀπὸ τούτου is a very elaborate contextualizer or "point of departure" not uncommon in historical narrative.

I would have thought that μὲν is the link for δὲ rather than γὰρ like this:
μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι: προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην.

However, it seemed to me that the Greek was saying something like "for the thing that happened next the Greeks were guilty because ..."

Looking at translations, several treat τὸ ... ἀπὸ τούτου as simply stating the time but George Rawlinson's translation suggests that that Herodotus intended something more is not entirely my imagination:

Hitherto the injuries on either side had been mere acts of common violence; but in what followed the Persians consider that the Greeks were greatly to blame, since before any attack had been made on Europe, they led an army into Asia.

In any case, the τὸ makes the phrase a sort of noun and as a noun I was expecting something to link it to the rest of the sentence. But of course, if τὸ makes it an accusative of respect then the τὸ itself is providing that link.

And thanks for making me think more deeply about the sentence.

[Qimmik]

The Rawlinson translation is anything but literal, but it does capture the μὲν . . . δὲ contrast: μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου . . . τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου . . . "Up to that point . . . but from then on . . . ", "but in respect to the [period] from then on."

Then the Persians go on to provide an explanation for the preceding statement with γὰρ as a connective particle.

"Accusative of respect" is the traditional term for a free-standing accusative without a preposition that specifies or pinpoints the context of a clause. That's maybe a better way to think about this use of the accusative. Although I can't point you to any statistics, it seems to me that this type temporal construction--an adverbial time expression turned into a noun by a neuter article in the accusative--is quite common in Greek prose.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι: προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην.

Not sure what your problem is, see δὲ … γὰρ. You were expecting another conjunction?

4. Thus far it was a matter of mere robbery on both sides. But after this (the Persians say) the Greeks were greatly to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe.

LCL 1920

.

I would have thought that μὲν is the link for δὲ rather than γὰρ like this:
μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι: προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην.

David,

I was highlighting conjunctions not linking[1] them. You original question was about a missing conjunction. I didn't see any need for an additional conjunction.

[1]I understand how δὲ … γὰρ might be misconstrued as linking.

[daivid]

The Rawlinson translation is anything but literal, but it does capture the μὲν . . . δὲ contrast: μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου . . . τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου . . . "Up to that point . . . but from then on . . . ", "but in respect to the [period] from then on."

So it was just my imagination

Then the Persians go on to provide an explanation for the preceding statement with γὰρ as a connective particle.

"Accusative of respect" is the traditional term for a free-standing accusative without a preposition that specifies or pinpoints the context of a clause. That's maybe a better way to think about this use of the accusative. Although I can't point you to any statistics, it seems to me that this type temporal construction--an adverbial time expression turned into a noun by a neuter article in the accusative--is quite common in Greek prose.

I have been going over the Herodotus that I've read looking out for accusative of respects and it occurs to me that it may be just a label that we attach to accusatives that seem to English native speakers to be unattached. When you say traditional, does that tradition go back the Greeks? In the meantime, until I gain a more Greek feel for these accusatives I shall continue to be on the watch for them.

I was highlighting conjunctions not linking[1] them. You original question was about a missing conjunction. I didn't see any need for an additional conjunction.

Point taken.