C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Δία τοι ξένιον μέγαν αἰδοῦμαι 361
Δία τοι ξένιον μέγαν αἰδοῦμαι
τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ
τείνοντα πάλαι τόξον, ὅπως ἂν
μήτε πρὸ καιροῦ μήθ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἄστρων 365
βέλος ἠλίθιον σκήψειεν.
τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ caused me to pause. The referent of τὸν is Δία. Joining τάδε with πράξαντ᾽ as part pl aor act neut acc/nom didn’t seem right. In other words there is a conflict between joining τὸν or τάδε with the participle. Probably something perfectly obvious that I am overlooking, having one of those days when the obvious isn’t at all obvious.
Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus
verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmented
the had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.
UDATE:
This morning I looked at the various translations, David Grene's "He has done all this" renders my understanding of the 364a syntax τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ where τὸν is the subject of πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε the object. Some translations eliminate this clause altogether, e.g., Ann Carson, R. Fagles.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus
verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmented
the had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.
NateD26 wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus
verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmented
the had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.
I wish I could help with this particular sentence, but regarding the Perseus voting system,
it seems to be linked to the given text.
μείζω in Pl. Ap. 20e1 has 79.9% parsing it as adj pl neut acc comp contr,
whereas Euripeds' Medea l.44 has 70.5% parsing it as adj pl neut nom comp contr.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Δία τοι ξένιον μέγαν αἰδοῦμαι 362
τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ
τείνοντα πάλαι τόξον, ὅπως ἂν
μήτε πρὸ καιροῦ μήθ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἄστρων 365
βέλος ἠλίθιον σκήψειεν.
τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ caused me to pause. The referent of τὸν is Δία. Joining τάδε with πράξαντ᾽ as part pl aor act neut acc/nom didn’t seem right. In other words there is a conflict between joining τὸν or τάδε with the participle. Probably something perfectly obvious that I am overlooking, having one of those days when the obvious isn’t at all obvious.
Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus
verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmented
the had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.
UDATE:
This morning I looked at the various translations, David Grene's "He has done all this" renders my understanding of the 364a syntax τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ where τὸν is the subject of πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε the object. Some translations eliminate this clause altogether, e.g., Ann Carson, R. Fagles.
NateD26 wrote:There's a long treatment on Peile about the final clause here. He referenced Matthiae's Grammar
vol. 2 §520 Obs.2 for similar examples.
Sidwick rightly notes that ὅπως ἂν ... σκήψειεν (opt.) is not allowed
in Attic final clauses, but is a common Homeric usage.
NateD26 wrote:Δία τοι ξένιον μέγαν αἰδοῦμαι 362
τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ
τείνοντα πάλαι τόξον, ὅπως ἂν
μήτε πρὸ καιροῦ μήθ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἄστρων 365
βέλος ἠλίθιον σκήψειεν.
Sidwick rightly notes that ὅπως ἂν ... σκήψειεν (opt.) is not allowed
in Attic final clauses, but is a common Homeric usage.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.
NateD26 wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.
Thanks, Stirling. Can you please explain what is ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive then if not final?
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:NateD26 wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.
Thanks, Stirling. Can you please explain what is ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive then if not final?
Nate,
I don’t claim to understand what Copper is driving at. For what it’s worth Cooper (1:54.8.4 v1. p716) says the subjunctive w/ ἂν "presents a less specifically final conception so that ὅπως ἂν becomes the equivalent of ἤν πως..." and again, the subjunctive w/ ἂν introduces a “slightly evasive doubt” into final clauses. The “slightly evasive doubt” does not apply to Epic (Cooper 2:54.8.4.A v3. p2430).
b. ἄν (κέ) does not appreciably affect the meaning. Originally these particles seem to have had a limiting
and conditional force (1762): ὡς ἄν in whatever way, that so (cp. so = in order that so) as in “Teach
me to die that so I may Rise glorious at the awful day” (Bishop Ken), and cp. ὡς with ὅτῳ τρόπῳ in
ἱκόμην τὸ Πυθικὸν μαντεῖον, ὡς μάθοιμ' ὅτῳ τρόπῳ πατρὶ δίκας ἀροίμην I came to the Pythian shrine
that I might learn in what way I might avenge my father S. El. 33. With ὅπως ἄν cp. ἐάν πως. Both ὅπως
and ὡς were originally relative adverbs denoting manner (how, cp. 2578), but when they became
conjunctions (in order that), their limitation by ἄν ceased to be felt.
ἄν (κέ) does not appreciably affect the meaning.
Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία
Section 55, subsection 4, line 8
νῦν δ᾽ ἀνάγκη πάντας ἐστὶ διαψηφίζεσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἄν τις πονηρὸς ὢν ἀπαλλάξῃ τοὺς κατηγόρους, ἐπὶ τοῖς δικασταῖς γένηται τοῦτον ἀποδοκιμάσαι.
but now all are compelled to vote one way or the other about them, in order that if anyone being a rascal has got rid of his accusers,1 it may rest with the jurymen to disqualify him.
Trans. H. Rackham.
Hippocrates et Corpus Hippocraticum Med., De articulis (0627: 010)
“Oeuvres complètes d'Hippocrate, vol. 4”, Ed. Littré, É.
Paris: Baillière, 1844, Repr. 1962.
Section 11, line 50
Ἔκτοσθεν δὲ τῆς μασχάλης, δισσὰ μόνα ἐστὶ χωρία, ἵνα ἄν τις
ἐσχάρας θείη, τιμωρεούσας τῷ παθήματι· μίαν μὲν ἐν τῷ ἔμπρο-
σθεν μεσηγὺ τῆς τε κεφαλῆς τοῦ βραχίονος καὶ τοῦ τένοντος τοῦ
κατὰ τὴν μασχάλην·
Hippocrates et Corpus Hippocraticum Med., De semine, de natura pueri, de morbis iv
Section 51, line 20
Τούτων δ' ἐόντων, ὅ τι ἂν ἐν νούσῳ
51.20
πλεῖστον ᾖ, ἐν ἀρχῇσι γινομένης τῆς ταραχῆς, ἔρχεται ἐς χωρίον
51.21
ἵνα ἂν πλεῖστον ἔῃ· ἐν δὲ τῇ ταραχῇ εὐρυχωρίης γινομένης, εἰ-
λέεται ἀποκεκριμένον καὶ θερμαίνει τὸ σῶμα
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
Smyth and Cooper appear to disagree.
Smyth 2001bἄν (κέ) does not appreciably affect the meaning.
Cooper 1:54.8.4 p. 717, observes that we never see ἄν with ἵνα because ἵνα is unambiguously final: in order that at, whereas ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive means something like: to see if.
NateD26 wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
Smyth and Cooper appear to disagree.
Smyth 2001bἄν (κέ) does not appreciably affect the meaning.
Cooper 1:54.8.4 p. 717, observes that we never see ἄν with ἵνα because ἵνα is unambiguously final: in order that at, whereas ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive means something like: to see if.
I do remember from my first- (and only) year of Greek that rule about ἵνα never having ἄν in final
clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense.
From the translation of Aristotle's quote (though I guess from previous threads
I should be weary of drawing conclusions from translations alone), it seems it comes
with a conditional sense.
What does ἐάν/ἤν πως mean? Smyth and (your quoted) Cooper mentioned it but I can't find
any reference in Smyth's index so I don't know where to look. LSJ didn't have this other than
εἴ πως but without a gloss.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1).
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate, for what its worth, Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1). I didn't have much success in deciphering the citations I posted from Hippo. other than getting the impression they were probably not final uses of ἵνα ἄν and the citation Section 11, line 50 does NOT have a subjunctive.
NateD26 wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate, for what its worth, Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1). I didn't have much success in deciphering the citations I posted from Hippo. other than getting the impression they were probably not final uses of ἵνα ἄν and the citation Section 11, line 50 does NOT have a subjunctive.
Just a minor problem I'm having: what phrase do you search for in the TLG and how do you
enter it? (I have access to a TLG database I've once found online and I'm using Diogenes to browse it)
I've tried everything but I can't find the requested phrase ἵνα ἂν. If it is there, I'll probably
need to wade through a thicket of results to find it.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
My Diogenes TLG set up doesn't parse unicode phrases, only single words. Try entering [space] ina [space] an [space], and see what you get. I limited the search to 8bc-1ad, probably better to limit it to 8bc to 3bc but I didn't bother with it. Looked through 10 hits and eliminated most of them.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:396-398
λιτᾶν δ' ἀκούει μὲν οὔτις θεῶν·
τὸν δ' ἐπίστροφον τῶν
φῶτ' ἄδικον καθαιρεῖ.
The middle line here is annoyingly vague. The subject of καθαιρεῖ is τις θεῶν,
the object τὸν ... φῶτ' ἄδικον. τῶν is demonstrative but what is the referent?
Those who are blameworthy? The whole scenario of Paris being a guest who steals
the wife of his host and brings calamity on his people and his city.
ἐπίστροφον takes a genitive τῶν, it is translated all over the place.
"the δὲ-clause ... 'while the unjust man who respects them he [= the sinner] destroys', i.e. brings down with him. This gives a good contrast to the μὲν- and δὲ-clauses;'
And no god listens
to his pleas; instead
there is one to destroy the unjust man
who engages in these things.
No god hears his prayers
and if you befriend him, justice will
take you down.
The sonorous obscurity of this sentence almost defies analysis.
NateD26 wrote:I don't understand R-T's reading of this sentence. Doesn't φῶτ' ἄδικον refer to Paris as object
of καθαιρεῖ? They seem to have turned it around that Paris does the destroying, but I can't
figure out why an unjust man would have any respect for the gods.![]()
C. Collard's reading is along the lines of Sidgwick's and Smyth's.
What justification does Ann Carson give to her reading?
Verrall echoes your thoughts on this sentence:The sonorous obscurity of this sentence almost defies analysis.
His reading is slightly different in that he takes καθαιρεῖ in the sense of to condemn with
φῶτ' ἄδικον as predicate.
The pathology of love described here suggestively parallels the one found in another famous passage of the Agamemnon, and this, I think, is ultimately the paragon of pothos to which the image of the love–sick sailors in Thucydides refers. The chorus describes Menelaus, wretched in his palace, abandoned by Helen (414–19; translation Wohl 1998:93–94, modified):
πάρεστι †σιγᾶς ἄτιμος ἀλοίδορος
ἅδιστος ἀφεμένων† ἰδεῖν·
πόθωι δ’ ὑπερποντίας
φάσμα δόξει δόμων ἀνάσσειν·
εὐμόρφων δὲ κολοσσῶν
ἔχθεται χάρις ἀνδρί,
ὀμμάτων δ’ ἐν ἀχηνίαις
ἔρρει πᾶσ’ Ἀφροδίτα.
We can see him there,
sitting apart, in silence, dishon–
ored, not reviling, not beseech–
ing (?). And in longing for her
who is beyond the sea, a ghost
shall seem to rule the house.
And the charm of beautiful stat–
ues is hateful to the man; and
in the emptiness of eyes, all Aphrodite
is gone.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
396-398
λιτᾶν δ' ἀκούει μὲν οὔτις θεῶν·
τὸν δ' ἐπίστροφον τῶν
φῶτ' ἄδικον καθαιρεῖ.
Raeburn-Thomas (R-T) suggests "paying attention to" which is part of an alternative parsing of the lines 397-398 where λιτᾶν is "common to both clauses" and is "picked up by the slightly vaguer neuter τῶν" (???).
R-T translates"the δὲ-clause ... 'while the unjust man who respects them he [= the sinner] destroys', i.e. brings down with him. This gives a good contrast to the μὲν- and δὲ-clauses;'
Not sure what to make of this.
This translation seems adapt an emendation (also adopted by Loeb):C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Ann Carson takes a different approach:No god hears his prayers
and if you befriend him, justice will
take you down.
Paul Derouda wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
396-398
λιτᾶν δ' ἀκούει μὲν οὔτις θεῶν·
τὸν δ' ἐπίστροφον τῶν
φῶτ' ἄδικον καθαιρεῖ.
Raeburn-Thomas (R-T) suggests "paying attention to" which is part of an alternative parsing of the lines 397-398 where λιτᾶν is "common to both clauses" and is "picked up by the slightly vaguer neuter τῶν" (???).
R-T translates"the δὲ-clause ... 'while the unjust man who respects them he [= the sinner] destroys', i.e. brings down with him. This gives a good contrast to the μὲν- and δὲ-clauses;'
Not sure what to make of this.
'picked up by the lightly vaguer neuter τῶν' - difficult for me to accept. I'm increasingly convinced (like I've discussed in the other thread on lines 4-7) that demonstrative ὁ marks a contrast in Agamemnon, which is not happening if we tranlate τῶν 'them' like this.
But I can't be sure of course...
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The R-T reading is interesting but not compelling. Offering alternatives to what has already been said 100 times is the justification for new commentaries on classics. So R-T is worth consulting. Anything that shakes you out of the well worn paths and makes you really confront the non-deterministic nature of the text as we have it, anything that makes you rethink the problem is worth reading.
πάρεστι †σιγᾶς ἄτιμος ἀλοίδορος
ἅδιστος ἀφεμένων† ἰδεῖν·
πόθωι δ’ ὑπερποντίας
φάσμα δόξει δόμων ἀνάσσειν·
εὐμόρφων δὲ κολοσσῶν
ἔχθεται χάρις ἀνδρί,
ὀμμάτων δ’ ἐν ἀχηνίαις
ἔρρει πᾶσ’ Ἀφροδίτα.
We can see him there,
sitting apart, in silence, dishon–
ored, not reviling, not beseech–
ing (?). And in longing for her
who is beyond the sea, a ghost
shall seem to rule the house.
And the charm of beautiful stat–
ues is hateful to the man; and
in the emptiness of eyes, all Aphrodite
is gone.
Paul Derouda wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The R-T reading is interesting but not compelling. Offering alternatives to what has already been said 100 times is the justification for new commentaries on classics. So R-T is worth consulting. Anything that shakes you out of the well worn paths and makes you really confront the non-deterministic nature of the text as we have it, anything that makes you rethink the problem is worth reading.
I agree. Although sadly I suspect this is the kind of issue where the 19th century scholars have an upper hand, because they simply knew Greek better, as their educational system was so focused on learning Greek and Latin. Now, we have a much better big picture, thanks to a better understanding of linguistics, archeology, history, whatever. But getting a gut feeling of a language usually requires starting intensive study at early age, which is increasingly scarce.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:prophetic speech and participant reference
The prophetic speech avoids direct reference to participants. Again, the citation from Gloria Ferrari who cites Wohl 1998:93–94 with modifications.πάρεστι †σιγᾶς ἄτιμος ἀλοίδορος
ἅδιστος ἀφεμένων† ἰδεῖν·
πόθωι δ’ ὑπερποντίας
φάσμα δόξει δόμων ἀνάσσειν·
εὐμόρφων δὲ κολοσσῶν
ἔχθεται χάρις ἀνδρί,
ὀμμάτων δ’ ἐν ἀχηνίαις
ἔρρει πᾶσ’ Ἀφροδίτα.
We can see him there,
sitting apart, in silence, dishon–
ored, not reviling, not beseech–
ing (?). And in longing for her
who is beyond the sea, a ghost
shall seem to rule the house.
And the charm of beautiful stat–
ues is hateful to the man; and
in the emptiness of eyes, all Aphrodite
is gone.
Who is the subject of the participle ἀφεμένων on line 413? The translations either use a masculine pronoun indicating Menelaus or leave it alone. σιγᾶς is the subject of πάρεστι. My initial inclination was to read ἀφεμένων as a reference to Helen’s absence like the adjective ὑπερποντίας in the next line. But now it seems unlikely that ἀφεμένων has a personal referent, the morphology is all wrong for a reference to an individual. Lack of explicit reference to participants is a major contributor to difficulties encountered in these speeches.
Paul Derouda wrote:This another very difficult passage. What is ἅδιστος supposed to mean? The superlative of ἡδύς? And what would that mean? No wonder they're printing daggers. West and Loeb/Sommerstein accept the emendation ἀλίστους, as the translation you quote seems to be doing too with 'not beseeching (?)'.
With ἀφεμένων too scholars resort to emendation, either to ἀφημένων or (e.g. Sommerstein and West) ἀφειμένων.
This is what Sommerstein, West and R-T all seem to accept ('heavily emended, according to R-T):
πάρεστι σιγὰς ἀτίμους ἀλοιδόρους ἀλίστους ἀφειμένων ἰδεῖν
'One can observe the rejected party's silences, which are without honour, without revilement, without entreaty.' (Translation R-T)
Another demonstration of how difficult this text is. Because what else can I do except accept whatever emendation I am given? I don't feel even close to know Aeschylus well enough to do any thinking myself.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Paul,
I tried to find a translation that retained ἅδιστος without success (so far). The scribe that copied this wouldn't have cooked up this reading on his own. It is too strange. The editors and commentaries we are using seem to rush into conjectural emendations with reckless disregard for the MS tradition. It takes work and some imagination to make the text meaningful as it came down to us. It ism't safe to assume that the scribes were idiots who copied complete nonsense.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The clause initial adverb μάταν γάρ “for in vain ...” picks up the idea from the previous line χάριν ματαίαν.
Paul Derouda wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Paul,
I tried to find a translation that retained ἅδιστος without success (so far). The scribe that copied this wouldn't have cooked up this reading on his own. It is too strange. The editors and commentaries we are using seem to rush into conjectural emendations with reckless disregard for the MS tradition. It takes work and some imagination to make the text meaningful as it came down to us. It ism't safe to assume that the scribes were idiots who copied complete nonsense.
The problem with Agamemnon is that the text really is in a bad state. I read a good discussion of the transmission of the text (though, since I'm working with a whole pile of different commentaries, I don't remember which book it was from and I've already forgotten most of it (); the main impression I got was that all the manuscripts are more or less corrupt. I suspect that what the editors can do is try to make text that is meaningful Greek, but it's impossible for them to give us the original text of Aeschylus with any certitude. R-T says the Agamemnon survives in just five related manuscripts and their copies. The situation is very different from say Homer or the New Testament, where the scribes always had a wealth of manuscripts to compare and to correct mistakes.
I don't disagree entirely on this with you. I'll quote Fraenkel in his preface:
"We have only to pause for a moment and consider, first, the enormous gulf between our ways of life and thought and those of ancient Greece, then the sadly fragmentary nature of our whole tradition, and, finally, the solitary boldness of Aeschylus, to realize that it would be a sign of megalomania if we fancied it to be possible for us fully to understand the words of this poet wherever we have them in their original form. More than once, therefore, I have had to state that I regard the text of a certain line as probably sound but am nevertheless unable to grasp its meaning. This conviction must not, of course, serve as a pretext for slackening in our exertions."
West remarks ἅδιστος and ἄλιστος are paleographically very similar.
Paul Derouda wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The clause initial adverb μάταν γάρ “for in vain ...” picks up the idea from the previous line χάριν ματαίαν.
There's nothing wrong with your translation, I'm just thinking about the exact nuances of μάταν γάρ. I think an literal rendition of μάταν γάρ would be "vain, because...", "they bring an empty joy - empty, because..." Denniston's Greek Particles points out (pp. 65-66) that γάρ here refers not to the main idea of preceding sentence, but to an individual word.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Paul,
Thanks for the citations from Faenkel, West et al. Don't have these fellows on hand. Are you translating Fraenkel? Probably I have misjudged Denniston-Page. Denniston seems to me to jump at the chance to complain about the incomprehensible state of the text currently under consideration. Lexical semantic problems in Aeschylus abound. So when we run into difficulties with a particular word like ἅδιστος the first project is to explore possible "new meanings" that would fit the co-text. This kind of difficult at times. When this fails then conjectural emendation is the last resort. I didn't find anyone suggesting new meanings for ἅδιστος in this co-text so I would assume that this was attempted and it proved more or less impossible. I can live with that, but the complete silence regarding possible other meanings for ἅδιστος struck me as strange. I have not read all the old commentaries or translations.
In NT and LXX textual criticism conjectural emendation is almost never employed to solve an isolated (one word) lexical semantic problem. So it takes some adjustment in ones thinking to work in Attic Tragedy where the MSS evidence is scanty, corrupt and late.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Paul Derouda wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The clause initial adverb μάταν γάρ “for in vain ...” picks up the idea from the previous line χάριν ματαίαν.
There's nothing wrong with your translation, I'm just thinking about the exact nuances of μάταν γάρ. I think an literal rendition of μάταν γάρ would be "vain, because...", "they bring an empty joy - empty, because..." Denniston's Greek Particles points out (pp. 65-66) that γάρ here refers not to the main idea of preceding sentence, but to an individual word.
Paul,
γάρ is used to introduce background material that provides explanations or expositions of a previous assertion, S. Levinsohn [1]. That of course is from a discussion of Koine. It seems to fit our text, where εὖτ’ ἂν ἐσθλά ... ὕπνου κελεύθοις might be understood as an exposition of ... φέρουσαι χάριν ματαίαν. The logical sequence is so obvious that μάταν γάρ seems somewhat redundant. One could argue that this redundancy indicates μάταν γάρ is marked with increased salience. However, that doesn't take into account that γάρ is very common, often rather bland and μάταν γάρ may be used for all kinds of reasons (e.g., metrical). The notion of increased salience does not show up in translation. Looking at six English translations, only two gave any notice of γάρ (Edith Hamilton, H. W. Smyth) both rendered it for which is the minimalist choice in English. Lattimore just repeats the word vain to make connection and ignores γάρ and so also David Grene: "theirs is a grace without substance. Unsubstantiated it is."; since Grene and Lattimore were representatives of the formal equivelence school, you gotta conclude they didn't think γάρ contributes much in this passage.
A.Ag 420-426 end of Prophetic speech.
ὀνειρόφαντοι δὲ πενθήμονες
πάρεισι δόξαι φέρου-
σαι χάριν ματαίαν.
μάταν γάρ, εὖτ’ ἂν ἐσθλά τις δοκῶν ὁρᾷ,
παραλλάξασα διὰ
χερῶν βέβακεν ὄψις οὐ μεθύστερον
πτεροῖς ὀπαδοῦσ’ ὕπνου κελεύθοις.
Hom. Od. 10.437 σὺν δ᾽ ὁ θρασὺς εἵπετ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς: τούτου γὰρ καὶ κεῖνοι ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὄλοντο ('I call him θρασὺς, because...')