Page 1 of 1

The sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9

Posted: January 6th, 2019, 2:27 pm
by Cimon
I salute each and everyone,


for quite some time now, I am trying to do an analysis on a sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9, in order to demonstrate how ὁμόνοια is expressed by a dative and that the construction of ὁμόνοια with πρὸς plus accusative which LSJ give as standard, is not applicable in Arrian - meaning that this is not what Arrian uses (standard Greek). http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=7 ... rom-search

When I translate the sentence, ὁμόνοια is not constructed with a dative per se, or the idea is that it still needs a dative to be defined. But ὁμόνοια with dative is not what dative usually means; nevertheless, must be shown that what Arrian writes is equivalent with the Greek standard as shown by LSJ.


This is my take on this particular sentence:

(..) εὔχετο δὲ τά τε ἄλλα [καὶ τὰ] ἀγαθὰ καὶ ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις (...) as: Alexander 'prayed for the other good things, and for Homonoia, and for partnership in the realm between Macedonians and Persians'. We do not have, in this particular scenario, a link between the substantive (ὁμόνοια) and a dative (whatever might that be); we have ὁμόνοια as a stand-alone substantive, yet there is a need for a dative because ὁμόνοια must be defined. We have: the dative of purpose and the dative of benefit, as purpose being ὁμόνοιάν τε κai κοινωνίαν itself and the beneficiaries being the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις. At the end, in order to define it, it can be only ὁμόνοια for the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις, since ὁμόνοιάν and κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς are linked by τε καὶ, as well as Μακεδόσι being linked with Πέρσαις by καὶ.

However, this does not answer to the first part of my post. I am respectfully asking for another opinion on the matter, someone who can understand ancient Greek better than I do (I am not an expert in this language) and who could indicate some other understanding.


TB

Re: The sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9

Posted: January 7th, 2019, 9:01 am
by Jonathan Robie
Cimon wrote:
January 6th, 2019, 2:27 pm
(..) εὔχετο δὲ τά τε ἄλλα [καὶ τὰ] ἀγαθὰ καὶ ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις
He is praying for certain things. The things he is praying for are identified by objects in the accusative.
Let's take a look at the LSJ entry for εὔχομαι. This seems to match:
c. acc. obj., pray for, long or wish for, χρυσόν Pi. N. 8.37, etc.; εὐχόμενος ἄν τις ταῦτα εὔξαιτο Antipho 6.1; εὔ. τινί τι pray for something for a person, S. Ph. 1019; κακόν τινι Lys. 21.21; also, pray for a thing from . ., τοῖς θεοῖς πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑπέρ τινος X. Mem. 2.2.10; τοῖς θεοῖς πολυκαρπίαν ib.3.14.3; δεινὸν κατά τινος Luc. Abd. 32.

Re: The sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9

Posted: January 7th, 2019, 10:43 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Cimon, I'm not completely sure I know what you are asking, but it seems to be whether or not Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις are somehow complementary to ὁμόνοιαν, and the short answer is no. You've already seen Jonathan's point that ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν are predicate to τά τε ἄλλα [καὶ τὰ] ἀγαθὰ. additionally, I read τῆς ἀρχῆς an objective genitive with ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν, "unity and cooperation in ruling." As for the datives, they are most likely datives of reference, "unity and cooperation in ruling between the Macedonians and Persians." The next sentence indicates that his prayer was realized at least to the extent that there was a treaty and a big feast.

Re: The sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9

Posted: January 7th, 2019, 6:05 pm
by Cimon
Thank you for both the answers.

I can see that I jumped to a final conclusion without considering other factors. Yes, I was indeed asking if Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις are complementary to ὁμόνοιαν and I was entertaining this probability because - and perhaps this has led me to think so - at Arrian, Anab., VII: 8, 2-3 there were severe conflicts between Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις and Alexander was "furious" about this. Therefore, I dismissed the εὔχετο δὲ τά τε ἄλλα [καὶ τὰ] ἀγαθὰ and went only for a complementary relation between ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν and Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις because I believed it to be a political solution to a crisis.