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

[Cimon]

I salute each and everyone,


for quite some time now, I am trying to do a language 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

[Alexias]

I'm sorry no one has been able to reply on this - we're getting a bit thin on the ground here, and my Greek is non-existent.

[Cimon]

No problem. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I am interested to know if ὁμόνοιάν τε κai κοινωνίαν is serving the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις. I am interested only on a text analysis and not in an opinion provided by a historical method.

[system1988]

Ι think an answer will arrive soon

[system1988]

Ι think an answer will arrive soon

Unfortunately the person that was supposed to deliver the answer is currently facing technical difficulties and cannot access the site at this point.

[Cimon]

I'm checking the site every day, there is no problem. I'll wait. There are other interesting topics to read here in the meantime.

[hiphys]

I'll try to answer to your last question:"Yes, the two words homonoia and koinonia are related IMHO to " Makedosi kai Persais". Don't mind if the standard given by LSJ or other dictionaries shows only the construction of homonoia with "pros + accusative". Dictionaries show very often only classical examples, and Arrian is not an author of classical age. Besides, the construction of homonoia with "pros" has not the same meaning as homonoia with a dative (Makedosi kai Persais). The first connection is used to mean "harmony TOWARDS someone", whereas the second means "harmony FOR THE BENEFIT OF someone". I think the difference is really obvious.

[Cimon]

Thank you for your answer. I understand the point you're making and I think you are correct to the extent that ὁμόνοιά with a dative could have the meaning that you say. However, on the same basis, ὁμόνοιά could also be connected with ἄλλα ἀγαθὰ, since Arrian does not construct ὁμόνοιά with a certain dative in the first place. I am not sure though if other ancient authors use ὁμόνοιά with a given dative.

My idea is to apply a historical context (method) to the text and to put the initial interpretation of the language on a second plan, although I am not sure that this is the right way to do it.

[hiphys]

Yes, you are right, homonoia is connected also with "alla agathà", because it is impossible to do otherwise. The sentence indeed is made to stress that "Alexander, besides the normal good things he was accustomed to pray for", prayed also for two new and special things, i.e. "homonoia kai koinonia". It seems it was the first (and last) time he prayed for such things. Besides the three items "alla agathà", "homonoia" , and "koinonia" are all linked up together through the recurrent series of conjunctions "te...kai...te kai": therefore all these items belong to the same syntactical genre, the accusative lsubordinated to the verb "eucheto". As for the method you would apply, namely to put first the historical context, and the interpretation of the language on a second plan, I think it doesn't work at all. If we don't know well the language and its grammar ( phonology and morphology), its syntax, and its word- formation, we simply cannot understand what a text means. You cannot speak a language if you haven't learnt this language previously. The interpretation of language comes first and the historical context only second!