🇨🇦 Original
Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.
🏛️ Translation
§52 φημὶ δὴ, ὦ ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες οἱ ἐν Δαυῷ συνελθόντες, δεῖν τὰς μέσην δύναμιν ἐχούσας κοινῇ πράττειν· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν συμμάχων τραπέζαις δαισόμεθα, ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἡγεμόνων δαισὶν δαισθησόμεθα.
I say, then, men and women gathered at Davos, that those who hold middling power must act in common: for if we ourselves do not dine at the tables of allies, we shall be dined upon at the banquets of hegemons.
💬 Commentary
🤖 First pass
Commentary (the climactic line; from the §45–§52 batch).
- The climactic line, §52 (first-pass form). Carney’s “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” relies on the polysemy of table — negotiating table versus dinner table — compressed into eight English words. Greek doesn’t have an idiom this tight, but it has the same conceptual reach. τράπεζα is the council-table and the dining table both (Athenian bankers’ offices were also called τράπεζαι, the “tables of the moneylenders”); and παρατίθημι is the standard verb for setting food before a diner, used in Homer through Plato. So the first-pass rendering was: εἰ μὴ συμβουλεύσομεν ἐν ταῖς τῶν συμμάχων τραπέζαις, ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἡγεμόνων δαισὶν παρατεθησόμεθα. The two locative phrases mirror each other — at the tables of allies / at the banquets of hegemons — and the verb shift (deliberate → be served up) preserves the joke. It is wordier than the English. But the pun is whole. (Tightened in the second pass — see D37 below.)
🤖🧐 Second pass
D37 — the table/menu line, tightened to single-root wordplay. First-pass §52 used two different verbs across the two halves: συμβουλεύσομεν (we shall deliberate) in the allies-table half, παρατεθησόμεθα (we shall be served up) in the hegemons-banquet half. The pun was carried by the contrast of two verbs joined by parallel locatives. The second-pass form goes further: a single root, the δαι- root meaning “to feast / be feasted upon,” used in active and passive voice across the two halves:
φημὶ δὴ, ὦ ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες οἱ ἐν Δαυῷ συνελθόντες, δεῖν τὰς μέσην δύναμιν ἐχούσας κοινῇ πράττειν· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν συμμάχων τραπέζαις δαισόμεθα, ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἡγεμόνων δαισὶν δαισθησόμεθα.
— I say, then, men and women gathered at Davos, that those who hold middling power must act in common: for if we ourselves do not dine at the tables of allies, we shall be dined upon at the banquets of hegemons.
The verb δαίνυμαι (middle) means “to dine, to feast” — what diners do at a banquet; the passive δαίνυμαι (here in the future δαισθησόμεθα) means “to be dined upon, to be eaten.” The same root, the same morphology, the only distinction being voice (middle: we eat / passive: we are eaten). The noun in the second half, δαισί, is the cognate noun “banquets.” So the second-pass version stacks three δαι-root words in a single sentence (δαισόμεθα / δαισί / δαισθησόμεθα), all of which the audience hears phonetically as variations of one verb. The pun is no longer just table doing double duty across two senses; it is to feast doing the work, with the same word reversing valence — eater / eaten — by morphology alone.
This is the tightest single piece of work in the entire FINAL rendering. The English “at the table / on the menu” exploits an accidental polysemy of table; the Greek replaces the polysemy with the deeper structural device of an active/passive opposition of the same verb, which is what δαίνυμαι uniquely affords. The bite of the line is grammatically encoded rather than lexically gestured.
The honest register note (added on reflection). My first instinct was to flag δαίνυμαι as a register-seam: it is Homeric and tragic1, not Demosthenic-deliberative, and δαισθήσομαι in particular is a regularly-formed passive future not directly attested in classical prose. The seam is real; the question was whether it should disqualify the line. On reflection in our exchange the seam was accepted on two grounds:
- The §52 line is itself the climactic crux of the speech — the moment Carney’s “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” pivots from the analytical movement into the prescriptive one — and a slight register-lift at a crux is itself a Demosthenic move, calibrated to mark the lift in stake (Demosthenes himself reaches into Homeric and tragic phrasing at the most weight-bearing moments of On the Crown).
- Carney’s “on the menu” image is already tragic in its referential field. The cooked-and-served-up motif belongs to the Thyestes myth — the Mycenaean dynastic horror in which Atreus, in revenge for his brother Thyestes’ adultery with his wife, killed Thyestes’ sons, cooked them, and served them to their father at a banquet, telling him what he had eaten only after he had eaten it; the sun is said to have turned back in its course in horror. The story is the foundational image in Greek and Latin literature for power dressing barbarism as hospitality: Aeschylus dramatizes it in the lost Atreus and alludes to it in the Agamemnon; Seneca makes it the subject of his Thyestes; later European tragedy returns to it as the limit-case of dynastic violence.
Carney did not intend the Thyestes resonance, but his English unwittingly invites it; the Homeric/tragic register of δαίνυμαι catches what the English image was already reaching for, in the register in which that image natively lives. The seam is real; it is also the right seam — and the broader question of when I yield on strict register policy, of which §52 is one of five instances in this rendering, is taken up in Post B.
The schoolmaster’s delight (a grammatical note on the future passive δαισθήσομαι). The form is a future passive — distinct from a future middle — and the distinction is worth flagging twice, because it cuts both ways. First, the future passive did not yet exist in Homer: Homeric Greek had middle futures used in passive sense (the suffix -σομαι serving both voices, the same form covering we shall feast and we shall be feasted upon), and the dedicated future passive in -θήσομαι is a Classical Greek innovation, post-Homeric by several centuries. So δαισθήσομαι on a Homeric-and-archaic verb is itself a deliberate cross-period mixture: a post-Homeric tense morphologically grafted onto a verb whose root is pre-classical. A stricter register-purist would have reached for the future middle δαίσομαι in passive sense — the form Homer himself would have used for we shall be feasted upon — in order to keep the verb’s morphology native to its archaic register. The cross-period grafting was Nick’s wilful proposal at the climactic-crux line, and I did not push back; on reflection there was reason to, and the candor is owed both directions.
Second, the future-passive-vs-future-middle distinction is one that grammarians ever since love to insist on: textbooks set out the contrast as a clean morphological opposition, with -θήσομαι strictly passive and -σομαι strictly middle, and the dedicated future passive is taught as the correct form for the passive future. The evidence from the classical corpus is in fact that actual Ancient Greek authors routinely got the two mixed up anyway — middle futures used passively and passive futures used middle-reflexively are both attested across Demosthenes, Plato, and the orators, often in the same author within a few pages. The strict distinction is a grammarian’s tidying-up of usage that was never as tidy in the working language. So the choice of the strict Classical future-passive form here, at a verb whose register is otherwise pre-classical, is a schoolmaster nod: an audible “we are using the post-classical-grammarian-approved passive future” inside a line whose register is otherwise older than the grammarians’ rule. The line is schoolroom-correct where the speech as a whole is not pretending to be schoolroom-anything. Whether that schoolmaster nod is a feature or an additional seam is open — it is recorded here because the form was a wilful editorial choice and the wilfulness is part of the line’s character.
D8 — the full vocative anchor returns here. §52 is the second of three structural moments at which the full anchor vocative is deployed: ὦ ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες οἱ ἐν Δαυῷ συνελθόντες. The first deployment was at §5 (the Greek opening, Thucydides ring-head); the third will be at §69 (the peroration2 ring-close). Marking §52 with the full anchor signals it as structurally load-bearing — the hinge of the speech.
The φημὶ δή opener. The sentence begins with φημὶ δή, “I say, then” — the Demosthenic deliberative gear-shift used when the orator turns from descriptive analysis to prescriptive conclusion. I have shown you what is the case; now I tell you what you must do. Carney’s English at this point — “Middle powers must act together because…” — is doing the same gear-shift; the φημὶ δή makes it audible in the most classically marked form.
Footnotes
-
“Homeric and tragic” register, in this rendering, is shorthand for what is linguistically just archaic Greek — older Greek preserved in two corpora (the Iliad/Odyssey and the 5th-century Athenian tragedians) and canonized as elevated in later centuries precisely because of when and where it survived, not because of any inherent “high register” at the time of composition. Homer’s Greek was the spoken-and-sung idiom of an older period; by the time Demosthenes is writing in the mid-4th century BCE it is a couple of centuries out of date and reads as solemn for that reason. The tragedians’ Greek similarly mixes older forms in for elevated effect — partly because Athenian tragedy inherits a stylized poetic dialect, partly because tragedy as a genre depicts heroic-mythological subjects to which the older language belongs. So when this commentary calls δαίνυμαι Homeric and tragic, it is saying that the verb’s home is archaic Greek, attested in those two corpora and rare in classical prose; the “register” question is really a question about how old a vocabulary the rendering reaches for at any given moment.↩︎
-
Peroration is the formal closing of a classical speech, paired with the exordium at the opening — the last movement, in which the orator gathers the speech’s threads, delivers a final emotional or rhetorical push, and closes. Greek term epilogos; Latin peroratio. Demosthenes’ On the Crown has a long, weighty peroration; many of the Philippics close on short, urgent ones. In this rendering, the peroration is §68–§70, with the Thucydidean ring-close at §68 and the four-infinitive refutation at §69 doing the speech’s main argumentative work, and §70 a perfunctory closing courtesy mirroring the perfunctory opening at §1.↩︎