Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Paul Derouda »

αἰνέω μέν νυν τόνδε τὸν νόμον, αἰνέω δὲ καὶ τόνδε, τὸ μὴ μιῆς αἰτίης εἵνεκα μήτε αὐτὸν τὸν βασιλέα μηδένα φονεύειν, μήτε τῶν ἄλλων Περσέων μηδένα τῶν ἑωυτοῦ οἰκετέων ἐπὶ μιῇ αἰτίῃ ἀνήκεστον πάθος ἔρδειν: ἀλλὰ λογισάμενος ἢν εὑρίσκῃ πλέω τε καὶ μέζω τὰ ἀδικήματα ἐόντα τῶν ὑπουργημάτων, οὕτω τῷ θυμῷ χρᾶται.

"I praise this custom, and likewise I praise this one, that even the king himself may not for a single fault kill anyone, nor may any other Persian inflict permanent harm to any of his servants for a single fault. Only after consideration, if he finds that the offences are more numerous and more important than the services, only then may he give vent to his anger."

The sense is quite clear. My problem is the underlined word μηδένα, which according to e.g. Stein is an ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction, and serves simultaneously as a subject to Περσέων and object to οἰκετέων. No matter how much I try, I don't seem to get it. Help!

What a lenient custom! Next time I order pizza, I'll poke the delivery guy's eye out only after repeated offences (like, he's both late AND forgot about the extra garlic) AND only after giving it some serious thought.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by mwh »

What don’t you get? What Stein means is clear enough, isn’t it? We want “… nor any of the other Persians do any of his own servants incurable harm” but we only get one “any” (or rather “none”). — The formulation is odd though: surely he means it's simultaneously subject and object of ερδειν. (which is hard to credit, but the only possibility unless something has fallen out e.g. τινα—or μηδενα?!)

Will you reckon this an υπουργημα or an αδικημα?

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

mwh wrote:What don’t you get? What Stein means is clear enough, isn’t it? We want “… nor any of the other Persians do any of his own servants incurable harm” but we only get one “any” (or rather “none”). — The formulation is odd though: surely he means it's simultaneously subject and object of ερδειν. (which is hard to credit, but the only possibility unless something has fallen out e.g. τινα—or μηδενα?!)

Will you reckon this an υπουργημα or an αδικημα?
I think I like your suggestion at the end. Greek is after all a bit on the elliptical side, and understanding τινι or μηδένι from the context is quite likely.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Paul Derouda »

mwh wrote:What don’t you get? What Stein means is clear enough, isn’t it? We want “… nor any of the other Persians do any of his own servants incurable harm” but we only get one “any” (or rather “none”). — The formulation is odd though: surely he means it's simultaneously subject and object of ερδειν. (which is hard to credit, but the only possibility unless something has fallen out e.g. τινα—or μηδενα?!)
Thanks. My problem was not really with the meaning, which is quite clear, but rather with the explanation. So not a very important problem really, I'm just not too good at grammatical analysis. How & Wells claims that this sort of thing is common in Hdt and cites as a parallel 8.142.3:

ἄλλως τε τούτων ἁπάντων αἰτίους γενέσθαι δουλοσύνης τοῖσι Ἕλλησι Ἀθηναίους οὐδαμῶς ἀνασχετόν, οἵτινες αἰεὶ καὶ τὸ πάλαι φαίνεσθε πολλοὺς ἐλευθερώσαντες ἀνθρώπων.

But I'll just accept this for now. What's interesting about this passage is what it apparently tells about Hdt's Greek audience. I don't know much about Greek legislature, but this seems mean that Greek slave owners, with whom Persians are implicitly compared, were entitled to mutilate or even kill their slaves at their whim in impunity. I knew slavery was hard, but this surprises me. Can it be true?
Barry Hofstetter wrote:I think I like your suggestion at the end. Greek is after all a bit on the elliptical side, and understanding τινι or μηδένι from the context is quite likely.
Why dative?

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by mwh »

What makes me uncomfortable is that μηδενα has to serve different grammatical functions, as subject and object of the infinitive. That’s not the case with αιτιους at 8.142 (not that I find that very compelling either). But if Wilson accepts it, I suppose I should too.

Barry, Has to be acc. (external, as regularly, cf. e.g. αδικειν τι τινα). That’s essential (otherwise could not be apo koinou).

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by jeidsath »

μηδένα is certainly the object of the infinitive, but does the subject have to be expressed more than μήτε τῶν ἄλλων Περσέων. A τινα would make it precise, but is it really necessary here?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by mwh »

I would have thought so (or rather μηδενα). των αλλων Περσεων doesn’t pair well with αυτον τον βασιλεα, even if there were parallels for bare partitive genitives as subjects.

And Paul on your Can it be true? question: Slaves are property, and their owners can do whatever they like to them. Torture was the only way to get reliable testimony from them, in Athenian law. But as for killing them, well, what’s the use of a dead slave? (Answer: pour encourager les autres.)

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Paul Derouda »

Yes, I knew about the testimony through torture law. But still, wasn't there any legislation about the treatment of slaves? I think there are quiet a few in the Old Testament, for comparison. Is there anything this in Lysias, for instance?

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Paul Derouda »

mwh wrote:What makes me uncomfortable is that μηδενα has to serve different grammatical functions, as subject and object of the infinitive. That’s not the case with αιτιους at 8.142 (not that I find that very compelling either). But if Wilson accepts it, I suppose I should too.
Oops, I hadn't actually checked Wilson, who doesn't accept it (I was reading this with Stein and other commentaries, can't have every book open all the time...). Wilson has:

μήτε τῶν ἄλλων Περσέων μηδένα τῶν <τινα> ἑωυτοῦ οἰκετέων ἐπὶ μιῇ αἰτίῃ ἀνήκεστον πάθος ἔρδειν

According to the apparatus, this was conjectured by someone called Richards.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Hylander »

H. Richards, Notes on Xenophon and Others (London 1907).

This is listed in Wilson's Herodotea, the volume of discussions of specific textual issues accompanying the new OCT. Wilson doesn't specifically discuss the passage at issue.

Of Richards, Wilson writes (Herodotea, xxv): "Richards also made many highly accute suggestions, and though they were published in accessible places, they have tended to be overlooked."

Wilson's introduction to Herodotea is worth reading for his discussion of the manuscripts and textual history of Herodotus. It's not excessively long (16 pp.).
Bill Walderman

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by jeidsath »

Richards (pg. 210 here):
It is impossible to accept Stein's view that μηδένα does double duty, both with Περσέων and with οἰκετέων. Herwerden seems on the right track when in his appendix he proposes to insert a τινά. But I hardly think τινά could stand after μήτε, as he suggests. μήτε τινά...μηδένα...πάθος ἕρδειν is to my mind doubtful Greek. Rather μήτε τ. ἀ. Π. μηδένα τῶν <τινὰ> ἑαυτοῦ οἰκετέων. Or we might insert another μηδένα before τῶν ἑωυτοῦ.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Herodotus 1.137.1: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction

Post by Paul Derouda »

Thanks. I've actually read the introduction. Indeed it's not excessively long; somehow I feel it left me hungry for more.

Looking up the references in the apparatus is cumbersome. Richards is listed all right, but on the same page we have Korais and Steger who are not. I remember now that I actually looked up Richards earlier on for some other issue and found the same archive.org document that Joel links to, but since many of the references in the apparatus are opaque dead ends, I've mostly become too lazy to look them up. I'm sure they're listed in Hude or somewhere – or maybe they're considered common knowledge?

Post Reply