Translation Il.1.124

Are you reading Homeric Greek? Whether you are a total beginner or an advanced Homerist, here you can meet kindred spirits. Besides Homer, use this board for all things early Greek poetry.
Post Reply
Niedzielski
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:22 am

Translation Il.1.124

Post by Niedzielski »

This line has been irritating me for a very long while:

οὐδέ τί που ἴδμεν ξυνήια κείμενα πολλά

Pharr suggest Achilles is being ironic speaking πολλά and while english translations I've checked all have their own fancy, they all follow this meaning: "we don't know at all of many common stores lying around".

On the other hand, according to my lexicon "οὐδέ τί που" can mean "it's impossible!", and also keimai can be used to mean "to be laid up, be in store, of goods, property, etc". So what I'm thinking is that ἴδμεν is infinitive and that there is a negative implied so the sentance should read: "It is impossible (not) to know that much the common stores are laid up [in the ships]".

Because I'm afraid I am just poorly imposing my own aesthetic jugment here, I would like to know what you guys think.

Thanks!

huilen
Textkit Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by huilen »

So what I'm thinking is that ἴδμεν is infinitive and that there is a negative implied so the sentance should read: "It is impossible (not) to know that much the common stores are laid up [in the ships]".
ἴδμεν is also first person plural, doesn't it?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... a-contents

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

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Paul Derouda »

Huilen is right.
οὐδέ "nor"
τί here an adverb, "at all, by any means"
που could either mean "anywhere", or it could be a modal particle "in any way", in which case it brings much the same idea as τί
ἴδμεν "we know", "we are aware of"
ξυνήια "common stores"
κείμενα "lying about"
πολλά "many", or perhaps better translated here "large"

So according to how you translate που, the whole means either
"Nor are we at all aware of large common stores lying about anywhere"
or
"Nor are we by any means at all aware of large common stores lying about"

Niedzielski
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:22 am

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Niedzielski »

I'm sorry I wasn't being very clear in the first post, but I do understand the accepted translation; what I want to know is, is the way I've interpreted it justifiable? Namely, is there anywhere else Homer implies negatives? The concern I have for this line is rhetorical. I could elaborate, but if there's a solid reason why it can't be translated the way I'd like to read it, I'll try instead to conform to the accepted view.

Again:
"οὔ τί που denies with indignation or wonder, surely it cannot be . . " (Liddell and Scott)
ἴδμεν: this is the form of both the first person plural and the infinitive. If this wasn't the case I wouldn't have a concern! I understand its use as the first person plural. I am exploring an alternate translation treating it as the infinitive.

Furthermore, the examples the lexicon gives of the verb "keinai" when meaning "to lie (about)" all have to do with people, not things.


Hence:
οὐδέ τί που ἴδμεν ξυνήια κείμενα πολλά
"and surely it cannot be (not) to know much the common stores are stored"

Are there comparable epic occurances of implied negatives?

Niedzielski
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:22 am

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Niedzielski »

If I choose not to worry about implied negatives, would the line make sense if I pretend to have "οὐδέ τί πou οὐ ἴδμεν ξυνήια κείμενα πολλά" and say synizesis?

Lucretius2327
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:50 am
Location: Detroit, MI
Contact:

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Lucretius2327 »

Pharr is correct. It is as if one where to say, after one's daughter asked for a new car: "It's not like I'm sitting on a gold mine." Pharr actually says "with a touch of the sarcastic"; he does not speak of IRONY.

But I don't there is irony, but there may be sarcasm. Achilles is simply stating that there is no COMMON STORE from which Agamemnon can be reimbursed; but, rather, that all the booty has been divided as it has come in. He will have to wait until Troy is taken . . . etc.

ἴδμεν is definitely present indicative; not infinitive. Here it is "to discern with the eye, to SEE"; not "to know."

οὐδε τί που = "And not any anywhere" — it is a collocation of two indefinite enclitics [Smyth:346].

Later, in Plato, που advances from "somewhere.anywhere" to mean "perhaps, I suppose" and becomes a might conveyer of IRONY. It is not yet that in Homer.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by mwh »

The answer is No, no implied negative. Better believe it.

And I don't like to contradict Lucretius, but idmen is "know" not "see."

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

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Paul Derouda »

The often seems to be some disagreement as to whether που means, at a given passage, "anywhere" or whether it's a modal particle "perhaps", "I suppose", in a negative "in any way". We actually debated this quite recently in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=62083. At least Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos and Cunliffe's dictionary accept that που has both meanings in Homer.

Niedzielski
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:22 am

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Niedzielski »

Lucretius2327 wrote:Pharr is correct. It is as if one where to say, after one's daughter asked for a new car: "It's not like I'm sitting on a gold mine." Pharr actually says "with a touch of the sarcastic"; he does not speak of IRONY.

But I don't there is irony, but there may be sarcasm. Achilles is simply stating that there is no COMMON STORE from which Agamemnon can be reimbursed; but, rather, that all the booty has been divided as it has come in. He will have to wait until Troy is taken . . . etc.
"It's not like I'm sitting on a gold mine. But there is one just over that wall, and it's your fault we're not over it." You may be correct that Pharr wrote of sarcasm. Am I correct that you meant to write "I don't THINK etc."?
mwh wrote:The answer is No, no implied negative. Better believe it.
I believe it. But I really would appreciate it if you would do me the pleasure of satisfiying me telling me whether or not the sentance "οὐδέ τί πou οὐ ἴδμεν ξυνήια κείμενα πολλά" makes sense meaning "surely it cannot be not to know all the goods are stored", ignoring hiatus. As for the definition of ξυνήια: even Monro had to go out of his way to define it; at my level of understanding it could just as well mean "stuff that was thrown togther" = "common stores no longer common", so insisting it means COMMON STORES won't convince me that it cannot refer to things stored away in the ships.

I'm also still left wondering about the use of the verb keimai as applied to things, not just living dead or dying people, when meaning "lying (on the ground)".

The reason I am pressing the matter is because I really want to know whether Achilles is being a jerk or not. If his aim is to pursaude Agamemnon to give back the girl, I can't accept that being sarcastic is conductive to this aim.

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Qimmik »

satisfiying me telling me whether or not the sentance "οὐδέ τί πou οὐ ἴδμεν ξυνήια κείμενα πολλά" makes sense meaning "surely it cannot be not to know all the goods are stored", ignoring hiatus.
This doesn't seem right to me.

οὐδέ τί που meaning "surely it cannot be that" doesn't seem to be a Homeric usage, but even so, it doesn't necessarily seem out of place here. LSJ:
οὔ τί που denies with indignation or wonder, surely it cannot be . . , “οὔ τί π. οὗτος Ἀπόλλων” Pi.P.4.87, cf. S.Ph.1233, Ar.Nu.1260, Pax 1211, Ra.522, Pl.R. 362d, etc.;
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try%3Dpou2

But it doesn't take an infinitive--the verb is 1st plur. pres./perf. indicative.

As often in Greek, "we don't know that" = "we know that . . . not."

However, it's very difficult to see how there could be an implied negative here--you just can't go around implying negatives wherever you'd like to see one--and the sentence in context makes perfect sense without one. Agamemnon has just demanded compensation for giving up Chryseis. Achilles is irritated at Agamemnon's demand for compensation, when the Greek army is dying of plague. He points out to Agamemnon that there are not extensive stores of undistributed booty from which he can be compensated. The preceding lines make this clear:

Ἀτρεΐδη κύδιστε φιλοκτεανώτατε πάντων,
πῶς γάρ τοι δώσουσι γέρας μεγάθυμοι Ἀχαιοί;
οὐδέ τί που ἴδμεν ξυνήϊα κείμενα πολλά

πῶς γάρ τοι δώσουσι γέρας μεγάθυμοι Ἀχαιοί; How can the Acheans possibly award you a compensating booty? There is no common store of booty out of which to compensate you.

ξυνήϊα means "common goods," i.e., here, booty that has not been assigned to specific individuals and hence is the common property of the Greek army.

The LSJ definition of ξυνήϊα:
neut. pl. ξυνήϊα, τά, common stock, Il.1.124, 23.809.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 2Fi%252Bos

As the level of antagonism ratchets up, there may be a slight touch of sarcasm, or indignation, or just insistence, in the way Achilles frames his response. φιλοκτεανώτατε πάντων marks his angry tone. This occurs before Agamemnon asserts his demand for Achilles' prize, Briseis, in compensation; it's Achilles' statement that there's nothing available for compensation that prompts Agamemnon to demand that Achilles give up his prize. Here's a summary of the exchange:

Ag: If I have to give up Chryseis, I want compensation.

Ach: There are no common stores of booty left to compensate you with. Everything has been distributed.

Ag: Well then, you have to give me your prize, Briseis, because I'm more important than you and I can't go without a prize of my own when everyone else has something.
Last edited by Qimmik on Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by mwh »

Complementing Qimmik:

No, οὐδέ τί πou οὐ ἴδμεν ξυνήια κείμενα πολλά could not mean "surely it cannot be not to know all the goods are stored" — whatever that’s supposed to mean.

ξυνηια is related to ξυνος, referring to property (e.g. captive women) held in common. κειμενα just means lying (e.g. on the ground), whether of things or of people. It could mean lying stored in the ships, but here it’s more general, little more than "available."

It’s true that if Ach’s aim was to persuade Agam to return Chryseis, this may not be the best way to go about it. But everyone already knows that Agam will have to give her up, and now we’re looking forward--what will be the way out of this impasse? Since it is indeed the case that there’s not a lot of things held in common lying around (or stored up), Agam threatens to take someone else’s girl/geras (not necessarily Ach’s)—as of course he does.

Whether Achilles is a jerk or not depends on your definition of jerkhood. It’s not a very Greek concept.
Modern readers typically respond negatively to what they see as Achilles' pettiness in what follows, but the girl is γερας, which is the measure of τιμή, which is the measure of worth. No-one accepts loss of τιμη willingly. That’s the premise of the entire poem. It applies equally to Agamemnon in his present predicament and prospectively to Achilles when Agamemnon robs him of τιμη by robbing him of Briseis. But if anyone’s being a jerk here it’s Agamemnon, who as the expedition's leader should be thinking of his responsibility for its well-being. Achilles has no such obligation. Agam certainly doesn’t help himself by spitefully helping himself to Ach's girl.

Niedzielski
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:22 am

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Niedzielski »

Thank you for your informative responses. This line now bothers me much less. At least to me it does seem very cutting to point out something so obvious and under the those circumstances, but I can appreciate that Achilles is just responding to Ag. in a way that’s hard to restrain one’s self as completely.
Qimmik wrote:
As the level of antagonism ratchets up, there may be a slight touch of sarcasm, or indignation, or just insistence, in the way Achilles frames his response. φιλοκτεανώτατε πάντων marks his angry tone.
I considered this but, like mwh pointing out jerkness is not really a Greek concept, I was thinking being greediest of all men for gain is likewise just a Greek concept and not necessarily an insult to address one so. The last two lines of Ach’s exchange do tie up nicely the first one: “You are greediest all men... so give the girl back now, and you will be repaid threefold, fourfold later!”


Thanks again! I look forward to gaining again from responses like these.

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Translation Il.1.124

Post by Qimmik »

being greediest of all men for gain is likewise just a Greek concept and not necessarily an insult to address one so.
φιλοκτεανώτατε πάντων is definitely not a term of endearment. If it isn't an outright insult here, it's certainly offensive. Agamemnon is ultimately at fault in this quarrel, but Achilles' lack of tact and diplomacy contributes to the escalating tensions between the two men. The way the quarrel develops is a great example of Homeric psychological realism.

Post Reply