Textkit Logo

A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Here's where you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:52 pm

Χορός 1074-75
τί ταῦτ’ ἀνωτότυξας ἀμφὶ Λοξίου;
οὐ γὰρ τοιοῦτος ὥστε θρηνητοῦ τυχεῖν.

Why this crying to Apollo?
for [He is] not the sort [of god] who hangs out with mourners.

LSJ ὥστε
in Trag. and Att. after demonstratives, οὔπω τοσοῦτον ἠπατημένος κυρῶ ὥστʼ ἄλλα χρῄζειν S.OT595, etc.; this constr. is found in cases where ... ὥστε seems superfluous;


Trying to make sense out of τοιοῦτος ὥστε in 1075. The demonstratives τοῖος τοιοῦτος are used with an infinitive in the pattern “the sort of X ... that does Y ...” and I suppose that ὥστε contributes by introducing the infinitive. The cryptic reference in LSJ "less freq. to a Conj., as ὥστε, A.Ag.1075" leaves me unenlightened. LSJ can be more difficult to read than Aeschylus.

LSJ τοιοῦτος
a stronger form of τοῖος, bearing the same relation to τοιόσδε as οὗτος to ὅδε, such as this, in Hom. not so common as τοῖος, but in Att. the most common of the three forms; anteced. to οἷος, Od.4.269, Pl.Smp.199d, etc.; to ὡς, Il.21.428; to ὅς, ὅς, ὅσπερ, S.Ant.691, Th.1.21, Lys.13.1, 30.14, X. Lac.7.5, Pl.R.349d, etc.; to οἷόσπερ, v. l. in X.Cyr.6.2.2; less freq. to a Conj., as ὥστε, A.Ag.1075, Pl.Smp.175d: freq. also abs., Pi. O.6.16, Hdt.2.2, etc.; freq. with implications, so good, so noble, so bad, etc., Il.7.242, etc.;


I checked Smyth and Cooper but they didn't help me either since the have ὥστε discussion spread all over the place, a little here a little there. It looks like ὥστε here is just about equivalent to ὥς and isn't really contributing anything to the syntax. I could be wrong about the latter. Which is why I decided to post it here for discussion. This just a one liner, nothing to look up, so non-Agamemnon readers can join in if they feel so inclined.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby NateD26 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:31 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I checked Smyth and Cooper but they didn't help me either since the have ὥστε discussion spread all over the place, a little here a little there. It looks like ὥστε here is just about equivalent to ὥς and isn't really contributing anything to the syntax.

Do you read it as equivalent to ὥς with the sense of ὅτι, that?

I don't know if it bears just the same meaning as a comparative clause but according to Smyth 2463a.
in poetic & Ionic, ὥστε is used instead of comp. conj. adverb ὥς with the meaning as.

Perhaps something along these lines:
for [He is] not the sort [of god] as [one] who hangs out with mourners.

It appears to be an extension of ὥστε + inf., a potential consequence of this sort of
man/god that may occur from his tendency without any implication of factual basis. (ibid. 2258)

for [He is] not the sort [of god] who would hang out with mourners.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:18 pm

Perhaps this actually ὥς + τε, τε being the "epic τε" that has a generalising meaning, frequent for example in similes, gnomic utterances etc. in Homer. The way you translate this above look correct to me.

E.g. Iliad 1.63. καὶ γάρ τ’ ὅναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν

I don't know, just my guess...

As to why Cassandra is crying to Apollo... Apollo gave her the gift of prophesy and wanted to have sex with her. She refused, and Apollo punished her by making it so that nobody would ever believe her prophesies. Or that's one version of the story, I'm not sure if it's exactly the one Aeschylus is following. Anyway, Cassandra seems to be seeing something unpleasant in the future, and I guess Apollo is the natural target to cry to.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:48 am

NateD26 wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I checked Smyth and Cooper but they didn't help me either since the have ὥστε discussion spread all over the place, a little here a little there. It looks like ὥστε here is just about equivalent to ὥς and isn't really contributing anything to the syntax.

Do you read it as equivalent to ὥς with the sense of ὅτι, that?

I don't know if it bears just the same meaning as a comparative clause but according to Smyth 2463a.
in poetic & Ionic, ὥστε is used instead of comp. conj. adverb ὥς with the meaning as.

Perhaps something along these lines:
for [He is] not the sort [of god] as [one] who hangs out with mourners.

It appears to be an extension of ὥστε + inf., a potential consequence of this sort of
man/god that may occur from his tendency without any implication of factual basis. (ibid. 2258)

for [He is] not the sort [of god] who would hang out with mourners.


Nate,

You have raised most of the main points I was conflicted about. My thinking on it is befogged by staring too long at lexicons and grammars that speak a language that seems foreign to me and English is my native language. I have no problem with what the text says. The text at this point isn't difficult. But the discussion of ὥστε and ὥς in LSJ and Smyth seems to be always comparing ὥστε and ὥς to some other pair of particles/conj/adverbs and saying this is like that and I don't understand in what manner this is like that. Perhaps if I just get away from it for a while and take second look it will all make sense.

It is irritating to have the reference books standing between you and understanding the text. Particularly when the text itself seems easier to read than the reference books that are intended to aid your reading. This happens a lot.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:21 pm

NateD26 wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I checked Smyth and Cooper but they didn't help me either since the have ὥστε discussion spread all over the place, a little here a little there. It looks like ὥστε here is just about equivalent to ὥς and isn't really contributing anything to the syntax.

Do you read it as equivalent to ὥς with the sense of ὅτι, that?

I don't know if it bears just the same meaning as a comparative clause but according to Smyth 2463a.
in poetic & Ionic, ὥστε is used instead of comp. conj. adverb ὥς with the meaning as.

Perhaps something along these lines:
for [He is] not the sort [of god] as [one] who hangs out with mourners.

It appears to be an extension of ὥστε + inf., a potential consequence of this sort of
man/god that may occur from his tendency without any implication of factual basis. (ibid. 2258)

for [He is] not the sort [of god] who would hang out with mourners.


Nate and Paul,

Χορός 1074-75
τί ταῦτ’ ἀνωτότυξας ἀμφὶ Λοξίου;
οὐ γὰρ τοιοῦτος ὥστε θρηνητοῦ τυχεῖν.


I dived into the NT Grammars this morning. It appears that a regular use of ὥστε is to introduce consecutive clauses, A.T. Robertson p.980 and Smyth #2250. I think that is what we see here, not a purpose clause but something that follows from something else. The syntactically abbreviated οὐ γὰρ τοιοῦτος suggests the implied predication: for [He is] not the sort [of god] that comes to the aid of mourners.. In other words Apollo is a certain sort of god, we are assumed to know what sort of god Apollo is, it is not spelled out. In other words, Apollos theology proper is accessed from the shared cognitive universe of speaker and audience. Since we know what sort of god Apollo is we should also know as a consequence that Apollo doesn't reply to wailing, lament, mourning and so forth. This connection is made by ὥστε + the infinitive.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:16 pm

A.Ag 1098-1099

{Χο.} † ἦ μὴν κλέος σοῦ μαντικὸν πεπυσμένοι
ἦμεν· προφήτας δ' οὔτινας ματεύομεν.

D-P and R-T and I assume many others comment on the text at † ἦ μὴν. As I understand it the MSS. have ἦ μὴν and τὸ μὲν is conjecture which solves the problem of too much similarity between the beginnings of 1098-1099.

Cooper (v.2 1:69:28:0-1) Says that “ἦ introduces a statement made in perfect confidence but from the speaker’s point of view.” A change of tone makes it an interrogative. He claims the addition of μὴν to ἦ makes it "righteous and solemn as well as confident" he doesn't talk about ἦ μὴν in vol 4 2:69.29(28).0-1 which is focused on Poetry, Tragedy, Epic, Herodotus. This made me curious about why it wasn't mentioned. I searched Attic Tragedy and found about 15 samples from all three tragedians.

While "righteous and solemn as well as confident" might serve as a straight reading of a sentence introduced by ἦ μὴν, I'm not certain it applies in this context. A modern[ist] reading might find irony and even humor here. The speaker is laying it on thick in the first half "We have certainly heard of your fame as a seer ... " which is the set up, and the audience waits with bated breath for hammer to fall in the next clause ... "but we are not out searching for prophets."

The subtext is: We know all about the curse on the house of Atreus. You don't need to be going on about that here. A foreign woman, seer or not, should keep her talk guarded in the presence of her captors.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:39 am

My Loeb has καὶ μὴν. So we have three possibilies at least.

Denniston, Greek particles:
"ἦ μὴν introduces a strong and confident asseveration, being used both in direct and in indirect speech. It is most frequently employed in oaths and pledges: the wider use is very rare in prose and entirely absent from orators." A lot of examples follow.

There's a much longer discussion on καὶ μὴν, consisting mostly of a great number of examples; this seems to be much more frequent than ἦ μὴν. I would hazard that ἦ μὴν is the stronger and more marked (being rarer) of the two, but otherwise there isn't so much difference in meaning at least in the present passage.

τὸ μὲν is different, as it emphasizes the contrast between mantis and prophet.

R-T says a couple of words on the difference of having mantic skills and being a prophet (a mantis foretells the future, a prophet interpretes present signs), but I would have liked a more profound discussion of this.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:05 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:τὸ μὲν is different, as it emphasizes the contrast between mantis and prophet.

R-T says a couple of words on the difference of having mantic skills and being a prophet (a mantis foretells the future, a prophet interpretes present signs), but I would have liked a more profound discussion of this.


Χορός
{Χο.} † ἦ μὴν κλέος σοῦ μαντικὸν πεπυσμένοι
ἦμεν· προφήτας δ' οὔτινας ματεύομεν.

Paul,

I read that note in R-T and what D-P says about μαντικὸν and προφήτας. I don't think that is the only or even the best way to read τὸ μὲν ... δ’ ...

τὸ μὲν κλέος σοῦ μαντικὸν πεπυσμένοι
ἦμεν· προφήτας δ’ οὔτινας ματεύομεν.

The pattern μὲν ... δ is sometimes used to indicate some sort of contrast between clauses but the point of contrast in this passage doesn't appear to be the semantic difference between μαντικός and προφήτης which have a large degree of semantic overlap[1]. I would see the contrast between the clauses as focused on the knowledge of Cassandra's fame as a prophetess and the statement that prophets are not in high demand or even welcome in this situation. IMO that is the obvious point of contrast.

With one exception, C. Collard, the translations I have access to do not draw any attention to a semantic distinction between μαντικός and προφήτης. Richmond Lattimore, Edith Hamilton and Louis McNiece use the word prophet for both μαντικός and προφήτης. Ann Carson and H. W. Smith omit the word in the first clause. These translators indicate no contrast between the nature of Cassandra's gift and activity which is not desired. Rather, she has this gift and she is going to make trouble if she uses it. Her famous gift is not welcome here.

LSJ on μαντικός and προφήτης

[1]μαντικός, ή, όν,

prophetic, oracular, κλέος A.Ag.1098; μ. μυχοί, θρόνοι, Id.Eu.180,616; τέχνη Id.Fr.350.6; μ. φῆμαι oracular sayings, S.OT723; τὸ μ. γένος, = μάντεις, Id.Ant.1055; τὸ μ. σπέρμα E.IA520; μ. ἐπίπνοια prophetic inspiration, Pl.Phdr.265b; λόγοι μ. ib.275b; μ. ζῷα Porph.Abst.2.48.

τέχνη μ. faculty of divination, prophecy, S.OT709, Arist.Pol.1274a28, etc.; more freq. ἡ μαντική alone, Hdt.2.49, 4.68; ἡ . . μ. ἡ τοῦ δαιμονίου, of Socrates, Pl.Ap.40a: in Poets without Art., A.Pr.484, S.OT311; also in Pl., μαντικὴν Ἀπόλλων ἀνηῦρεν Smp.197a; μ. ἔνθεος Phdr.244b, cf. Th.5.103.


of persons, like a prophet, oracular, μ. γὰρ εἶ Pl.Alc.1.115a, cf. Phd. 85b; Comp., Luc.Hes.7. Adv. -κῶς Ar.Pax1026, Pl.Smp.198a, etc.


προφήτης

προφήτ-ης, ου, Dor. and Boeot. προφάτας [ᾱ], α, Pi. (v. infr.), Corinn.Supp.2.68: ὁ· (πρό, φημί):— prop.
one who speaks for a god and interprets his will to man, Διὸς π. interpreter, expounder of the will of Zeus, of Tiresias, Pi.N.1.60; Βάκχου π., perh. of Orpheus, E.Rh.972; [Διονύσου] π., of the Bacchae, Id.Ba.551 (lyr.); Νηρέως π., of Glaucus, Id.Or.364; esp. of the Delphic Apollo, Διὸς π. ἐστὶ Λοξίας πατρός A.Eu.19; of the minister and interpreter at Delphi, Hdt.8.36,37; at the Ptoön, ib. 135, IG7.4135.13 (ii B.C.); cf. προφῆτις.
title of official keepers of the oracle at Branchidae, CIG2884, al., Supp.Epigr.1.426 (Milet., i A.D.); elsewhere, IG14.961, 1032, 1084, 2433 (Massilia), 9(2).1109.22 (Coropa, ii/i B.C.), etc.
in Egyptian temples, member of the highest order of the clergy, priest, π. θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν PTeb.6.3 (ii B.C.), cf. OGI56.59 (Canopus, iii B.C.), etc.

interpreter, expounder of the utterances of the μάντις (q.v.), Pl.Ti.72a: hence, of Poets, Πιερίδων π. Pi.Pae.6.6; Μουσᾶν π. B.8.3, cf. Pl.Phdr.262d.
possessor of oracular powers, of Amphiaraus, A.Th.611, cf. Ag.409 (lyr.); of Pseudo-Bacis, Ar.Av.972; of Epimenides, Ep.Tit.1.12.
generally, interpreter, declarer, ἐγὼ π. σοι λόγων γενήσομαι E.Ba.211; π. ἀτόμων, of the Epicureans, Ath.5.187b; τῶν Πύρρωνος λόγων, of Timon, S.E.M.1.53; spokesman, LXX Ex.7.1.
metaph., proclaimer, harbinger, κώμου προφάτας, of the wine-bowl, Pi.N.9.50; δείπνου π. λιμός Antiph.217.23; φθόης π. Pl.Com.184.4; τέττιξ . . θέρεος γλυκὺς π. Anacreont.32.11
.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:19 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I read that note in R-T and what D-P says about μαντικὸν and προφήτας. I don't think that is the only or even the best way to read τὸ μὲν ... δ’ ...

τὸ μὲν κλέος σοῦ μαντικὸν πεπυσμένοι
ἦμεν· προφήτας δ’ οὔτινας ματεύομεν.

The pattern μὲν ... δ is sometimes used to indicate some sort of contrast between clauses but the point of contrast in this passage doesn't appear to be the semantic difference between μαντικός and προφήτης which have a large degree of semantic overlap[1]. I would see the contrast between the clauses as focused on the knowledge of Cassandra's fame as a prophetess and the statement that prophets are not in high demand or even welcome in this situation. IMO that is the obvious point of contrast.

I thought about this and I absolutely agree with you now. To my defense, I must say I actually accepted R-T's note without giving it any thought, as I was more concerned about καὶ μὴν and ἦ μὴν... :)

Though it's not the main point, there might still be some kind of subtle contrast between seer and prophet intended. Maybe a prophet is even more meddlesome than a seer? Anyway, I suppose the chorus (leader) is thinking about Kalkhas here, Iphigeneia and Aulis, i.e. other bad experiences with seers before.

Another in R-T I don't agree about:
1107-1109
ἰὼ τάλαινα, τόδε γὰρ τελεῖς;
τὸν ὁμοδέμνιον πόσιν
λουτροῖσι φαιδρύνασα, πῶς φράσω τέλος;

R-T notes "φαιδρύνασα has no main verb, as the syntax effectively breaks off in the exclamation πῶς φράσω τέλος". I think problem is mainly created by modern punctuation - isn't the main verb τελεῖς? I mean that we are so accustomed to a very rigid syntax when we read and write that we'd be surprised if we could see in writing the loose syntax we're using when we're speaking.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:44 pm

Χορός
1130
οὐ κομπάσαιμ’ ἂν θεσφάτων γνώμων ἄκρος
εἶναι, κακῷ δέ τῳ προσεικάζω τάδε.
ἀπὸ δὲ θεσφάτων τίς ἀγαθὰ φάτις
βροτοῖς στέλλεται [τέλλεται]; κακῶν γὰρ διαὶ
πολυεπεῖς τέχναι θεσπιῳδὸν
φόβον φέρουσιν μαθεῖν.

concerning Ag. 1131
κακῷ δέ τῳ προσεικάζω τάδε

τῳ is an indefinite dat sg pronoun,

RE: προσεικάζω with dative; IMO Cooper[1] goes to extremes with elaborate and overly subtle attempts to rationalize the use of various compound verbs with the dative. The confusion arises it seems from the assumption that we need to explain the verb from its etymology (i.e., simplex verb plus prep.) finding the significance (often not there) of the prepositional prefix and its relationship to the cases used as arguments with the verb. This approach can be avoided by assuming that compound words should be treated like any other lexeme, analyzed by usage in primary texts and their place in the network of semantic domains. When the compound is relatively rare the temptation arises to revert to the etymology. I am not claiming that compounds are never semantically transparent, they are frequently. But when the evidence is scanty it is risky to count on them being transparent.

LSJ προσεικάζω
liken, compare, τινί τι A.Th.431, Ch.12, E.El.559, Pl.R.473c, J.BJ 7.8.3; κακῷ δέ τῳ προσεικάζω τάδε I think this looks like mischief***, A. Ag.1131


***the gloss mischief here is archaic English, which sounds ridiculous now. προσεικάζω takes an accusative and a dative argument. Paraprhase: These things sound ominous/evil to me. Literal: I consider these things ominous.

Cooper's discussion that cites this passage points out that the prefixed preposition does not always appreciably alter the sense of the simplex verb but sometimes serves more like a detached adverb. I am not sure if I understand how this would differ from a compound where the preposition does alter the sense adverbially. In other words, I don't understand the distinction he is making.

[1] Guy Cooper vol. 3, p2155, 48.11.1.E cites this line in A.Ag.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:44 pm

Χορός
1140
φρενομανής τις εἶ θεοφόρητος, ἀμ-
φὶ δ’ αὑτᾶς θροεῖς
νόμον ἄνομον, οἷά τις ξουθὰ
ἀκόρετος βοᾶς, φεῦ, ταλαίναις φρεσίν
Ἴτυν Ἴτυν στένουσ’ ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς
ἀηδὼν βίον.
1146
Κασάνδρα
ἰὼ ἰὼ λιγείας μόρον ἀηδόνος·
περέβαλον γάρ οἱ πτεροφόρον δέμας
θεοὶ γλυκύν τ’ αἰῶνα κλαυμάτων ἄτερ·
ἐμοὶ δὲ μίμνει σχισμὸς ἀμφήκει δορί.

Page's argument for fiddling with the text seems to me very unconvincing. A circular argument where he explains βίον on line 1145 with reference to a conjectural βίος on 1146. A little too clever. Page finds the accusative case of βίον on 1146 impossible because it is part of an exclamation. In trying to evaluate this I made an attempt to parse:

1143b ... οἷά τις ξουθὰ
ἀκόρετος βοᾶς, φεῦ, ταλαίναις φρεσίν
Ἴτυν Ἴτυν στένουσ’ ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς
ἀηδὼν βίον.

A: ... οἷά τις ξουθὰ ... ἀηδὼν such as some trilling song-bird (nightingale)

B: ἀκόρετος ... στένουσ’ unending lament

C: ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς ... βίον life abounding with evil

C is the difficult part. I am still thinking about it.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:16 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:1143b ... οἷά τις ξουθὰ
ἀκόρετος βοᾶς, φεῦ, ταλαίναις φρεσίν
Ἴτυν Ἴτυν στένουσ’ ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς
ἀηδὼν βίον.

A: ... οἷά τις ξουθὰ ... ἀηδὼν such as some trilling song-bird (nightingale)

B: ἀκόρετος ... στένουσ’ unending lament

C: ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς ... βίον life abounding with evil


I now prefer B:
ξουθὰ ἀκόρετος ceaseless trilling

I have managed to slog through to line 1155. Not an easy project.

An aside, I've been reading for the second time The Secret History pub. 1992 a novel by a woman who goes by Donna Tartt (pen name?) and has two published novels (a third pending) to her name after 30 years of writing. I read this a long time ago and forgot the plot. It's about some liberal arts college in Vermont where there is tiny classical greek cult led by a prof who earns no salary and has only 5 or 6 students who study with this professor only, take no classes from anyone else. A classic cult scenario. (pun accidental) This was written in the 1980s so it probably sounds a little dated culturally. No cellphones, the students don't carry laptops. They all have well worn copies of L&S intermediate. Several of them are rich white upper class prep-school valedictorians. The main character is the son of a gas station owner from Calif. so there is some social class tension. Ancient Greek is very central to the plot. If you haven't read it you should.

It would be interesting to know more about "Donna Tartt" she seems to have gone underground to avoid her admirers. Not a bad plan if you want to write more novels.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:55 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:1143b ... οἷά τις ξουθὰ
ἀκόρετος βοᾶς, φεῦ, ταλαίναις φρεσίν
Ἴτυν Ἴτυν στένουσ’ ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς
ἀηδὼν βίον.

A: ... οἷά τις ξουθὰ ... ἀηδὼν such as some trilling song-bird (nightingale)

B: ἀκόρετος ... στένουσ’ unending lament

C: ἀμφιθαλῆ κακοῖς ... βίον life abounding with evil


I now prefer B:
ξουθὰ ἀκόρετος ceaseless trilling

I would absolutely take ἀκόρετος βοᾶς together, "unsatisfied with crying", i.e. "who never stops crying". This together with ξουθὰ (whatever it means) is in apposition to ἀηδὼν (here apparently nightingale). ταλαίναις φρεσίν means something like "with a suffering soul".

"Like a ξουθὰ nightingale who never stops crying, with a suffering soul lamenting "Itys, Itys" for a life abounding with evil."

As for the emendation here... I think here again the difficulty Page has found here is real, but as often, the probability that he has found the right solution can't be very high. I do think his solution makes better sense than the MSS, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:03 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:My Loeb has καὶ μὴν. So we have three possibilies at least.

Denniston, Greek particles:
"ἦ μὴν introduces a strong and confident asseveration, being used both in direct and in indirect speech. It is most frequently employed in oaths and pledges: the wider use is very rare in prose and entirely absent from orators." A lot of examples follow.

There's a much longer discussion on καὶ μὴν, consisting mostly of a great number of examples; this seems to be much more frequent than ἦ μὴν. I would hazard that ἦ μὴν is the stronger and more marked (being rarer) of the two, but otherwise there isn't so much difference in meaning at least in the present passage.

Just found out that West much prefers καὶ μὴν here; ἦ μὴν is much too strong according to him, "as if on oath".
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:20 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:An aside, I've been reading for the second time The Secret History pub. 1992 a novel by a woman who goes by Donna Tartt (pen name?) and has two published novels (a third pending) to her name after 30 years of writing. I read this a long time ago and forgot the plot. It's about some liberal arts college in Vermont where there is tiny classical greek cult led by a prof who earns no salary and has only 5 or 6 students who study with this professor only, take no classes from anyone else. A classic cult scenario. (pun accidental) This was written in the 1980s so it probably sounds a little dated culturally. No cellphones, the students don't carry laptops. They all have well worn copies of L&S intermediate. Several of them are rich white upper class prep-school valedictorians. The main character is the son of a gas station owner from Calif. so there is some social class tension. Ancient Greek is very central to the plot. If you haven't read it you should.

It would be interesting to know more about "Donna Tartt" she seems to have gone underground to avoid her admirers. Not a bad plan if you want to write more novels.

OK, I'll check that out!
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:22 pm

1156
Κασάνδρα
ἰὼ γάμοι γάμοι Πάριδος ὀλέθριοι φίλων.
ἰὼ Σκαμάνδρου πάτριον ποτόν.
τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ σὰς ἀϊόνας τάλαιν’
ἠνυτόμαν τροφαῖς·
1160
νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ Κωκυτόν τε κἀχερουσίους
ὄχθας ἔοικα θεσπιῳδήσειν τάχα.

τάλαιν’ seems out of place, perhaps it is in apposition to the subject of ἠνυτόμαν. But that involves a conflict with the contrast between Cassandra's previous fate along the banks Σκαμάνδρου where she made here way being nourished by the river metaphorically which sounds like a positive experience and her future fate near the rivers of Hades. This contrast doesn't work if τάλαιν’ wretched is a description of her condition in her former world along the banks Σκαμάνδρου.

An aside:

If this were Hebrew verse one might expect some formal parallelism between:

τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ ...

νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ ...

But this isn't Hebrew verse.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby NateD26 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:24 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:An aside:

If this were Hebrew verse one might expect some formal parallelism between:

τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ ...

νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ ...

But this isn't Hebrew verse.

I'm intrigued. Could you please elaborate? :)
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:31 pm

NateD26 wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:An aside:

If this were Hebrew verse one might expect some formal parallelism between:

τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ ...

νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ ...

But this isn't Hebrew verse.

I'm intrigued. Could you please elaborate? :)


Nate,

There are suggestions of parallelism here, one river representing Cassandra's homeland and a blessed state of being daughter of King Priam contrasted with two rivers from Hades where Cassandra being a seer knows she is about to die. In favor of parallelism, in both places the land adjacent to the rivers is mentioned ἀϊόνας ὄχθας. The syntax at beginning of each part
τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ ... νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ ... hints at parallelism but the rest of protasis is significantly different from the apodosis. In the protasis one river is reference by a possessive pronoun σὰς ἀϊόνας. In the apodosis two rivers are reference by name. The contrast between the two elements does not seem to be one of a blessed state as a daughter of King Priam at Troy vs. a cursed state in Hades, since the odd inclusion of τάλαιν’ in the first state is a problem for that reading.

The poetic books of the Hebrew Bible have many different kinds of parallel structures both formal and semantic. This passage in Agamemnon looks like semantic contrastive parallelism but τάλαιν’ raises a question about the point of semantic contrast.

1156
Κασάνδρα
ἰὼ γάμοι γάμοι Πάριδος ὀλέθριοι φίλων.
ἰὼ Σκαμάνδρου πάτριον ποτόν.
τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ σὰς ἀϊόνας τάλαιν’
ἠνυτόμαν τροφαῖς·
1160
νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ Κωκυτόν τε κἀχερουσίους
ὄχθας ἔοικα θεσπιῳδήσειν τάχα.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:17 pm

Nate,

A sample of something closer to formal parallelism in Sophocles OC 610-611:
(example from Helma Dik, Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue OUP, 2007).

Οἰδίπους

ὦ φίλτατ᾽ Αἰγέως παῖ, μόνοις οὐ γίγνεται
θεοῖσι γῆρας οὐδὲ κατθανεῖν ποτε.
τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα συγχεῖ πάνθ᾽ ὁ παγκρατὴς χρόνος.
610
φθίνει μὲν ἰσχὺς γῆς, φθίνει δὲ σώματος,
θνῄσκει δὲ πίστις, βλαστάνει δ᾽ ἀπιστία,
καὶ πνεῦμα ταὐτὸν οὔποτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐν ἀνδράσιν
φίλοις βέβηκεν οὔτε πρὸς πόλιν πόλει.

Sophocles OC 610-611

φθίνει μὲν ἰσχὺς γῆς, φθίνει δὲ σώματος,
θνῄσκει δὲ πίστις, βλαστάνει δ᾽ ἀπιστία,

strength of the earth decays, [strength] of the body fails
loyalty dies and disloyalty is born

a rich and complex parallelism in Isaiah 40:6-9

6 φωνὴ λέγοντος Βόησον·
καὶ εἶπα Τί βοήσω;
Πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος,
καὶ πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώπου ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου·
7 ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν,
8 τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
9 ἐπ᾿ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι,
ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σιων·
ὕψωσον τῇ ἰσχύι τὴν φωνήν σου,
ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Ιερουσαλημ·
ὑψώσατε, μὴ φοβεῖσθε·
εἰπὸν ταῖς πόλεσιν Ιουδα
Ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν.

NRSV (from Hebrew text)
Is. 40:6    A voice says, “Cry out!”
And I said, “What shall I cry?”
All people are grass,
their constancy is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades,
when the breath of the LORD blows upon it;
surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades;
but the word of our God will stand forever.
9 Get you up to a high mountain,
O Zion, herald of good tidings;
lift up your voice with strength,
O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings,
lift it up, do not fear;
say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your God!”

S.El. 1070-71 Jan C. Kamerbeek finds formal parallelism between τὰ ... πρὸς τέκνων and τὰ ... ἐκ δόμων but that is IMO grabbing at straws. I don't see much evidence for formal parallelism here beyond these two similar constituents. The rest of it isn't parallel.

Χορός
1070
ὅτι σφὶν ἤδη τὰ μὲν ἐκ δόμων νοσεῖ δή, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τέκνων διπλῆ
φύλοπις οὐκέτ’ ἐξισοῦται φιλοτασίῳ διαί-
τᾳ· πρόδοτος δὲ μόνα σαλεύει

R.C. Jebb trans.
Chorus
[1070] Tell them the affairs of their house, how it is now diseased; how among his children, double-sided strife has overwhelmed their loving manner. [1075]


a curios parallel translation

Chorus:
Tell them below, voices, tell them that their house, the house of Agamemnon, is ill!
Chorus:
Tell them below, voices, tell them that a battle splits asunder their children!
Chorus:
Tell them below, voices, that their hearts do not lie in harmony!
Chorus:
Tell them Elektra cries on alone and betrayed in a sea of wails!

Translated by
George Theodoridis
©2006


You really need some more context to sort this out. Anyone who thinks Agamemenon is difficult to read should take some time to try and figure this out. :(


S.El. 1066
Χορός

ὦ χθονία βροτοῖσι φάμα, κατά μοι βόασον οἰκτρὰν
ὄπα τοῖς ἔνερθ’ Ἀτρείδαις, ἀχόρευτα φέρουσ’
ὀνείδη·
1070
ὅτι σφὶν ἤδη τὰ μὲν ἐκ δόμων νοσεῖ δή, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τέκνων διπλῆ
φύλοπις οὐκέτ’ ἐξισοῦται φιλοτασίῳ διαί-
τᾳ· πρόδοτος δὲ μόνα σαλεύει
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:38 pm

Χορός
τί τόδε τορὸν ἄγαν ἔπος ἐφημίσω;
νεόγονος ἂν ἀΐων μάθοι.
πέπληγμαι δ’ ὑπαὶ δάκει φοινίῳ
1165
δυσαλγεῖ τύχᾳ μινυρὰ κακὰ θρεομένας,
θραύματ’ ἐμοὶ κλύειν.

πέπληγμαι δ’ὑπαὶ δάκει φοινίῳ δυσαλγεῖ τύχᾳ

ὑπό with a dative denoting agency, G. Cooper (vol 4, 2:68.44.2.A, p.2835) where as R-T (p161 n. for line 892-3) call it an instrumental dative. The distinction isn't very significant. Fate can be personified and thus function as a personal agent.

θρεομένας a genitive absolute according to R-T.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby NateD26 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:23 pm

Thanks, Stirling, for all those references. I shall read them in detail during the weekend.

I remember that the book of Proverbs entirely consists of parallelism, both formal
and semantic. I've never read it in Greek or any other language. I wonder how well
the subtle nuances between the seemingly interchangeable constituents were
conveyed.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:21 pm

Nate,
RE:parallelism in Attic Tragedy

Here is another sample culled from Helma Dik 2007:78[1]:

Eur. Med. 1065
καὶ δὴ 'πὶ κρατὶ στέφανος, ἐν πέπλοισι δὲ

νύμφη τύραννος ὄλλυται, σάφ᾽ οἶδ᾽ ἐγώ.

Already the crown is on her head and
the royal bride is perishing in the robe, I know it well.
— David Kovacs

Here we have an approximation of formal parallelism (not very well balanced however):

'πὶ κρατὶ ... ἐν πέπλοισι
on head ... in robes

στέφανος ... νύμφη
crown ... bride

Semantically the parallelism breaks down, since the first clause is a statement about the location of the crown where as the second clause has a verb attached ὄλλυται. The locative ἐν πέπλοισι in robes is adverbial to νύμφη τύραννος ὄλλυται royal bride is perishing.

[1]Helma Dik, Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue, OUP, 2007, p.78
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:50 pm

RE:parallelism in Attic Tragedy

What is supposed to be an example of chiasmus noted by Raeburn-Thomas (R-T)[1]. It is quite possible that R-T is not suggesting parallelism here at all but simply noting the inverted relationship between similar constituents. In other words, chiasmus may not be used by R-T as a term for inverted parallelism.

A.Ag 1583-86
Ἀτρεὺς γὰρ ἄρχων τῆσδε γῆς, τούτου πατήρ,
πατέρα Θυέστην τὸν ἐμόν, ὡς τορῶς φράσαι,
1585αὑτοῦ δ᾽ ἀδελφόν, ἀμφίλεκτος ὢν κράτει,
ἠνδρηλάτησεν ἐκ πόλεώς τε καὶ δόμων.

For Atreus, this land's lord, of this man father,
Thuestes, my own father -- to speak clearly --
His brother too, -- being i' the rule contested, --
Drove forth to exile from both town and household:
— Robert Browning, 1889


the chiasmus is not particularly obvious:

Ἀτρεὺς ... πατήρ

πατέρα Θυέστην τὸν ἐμόν

There is no apparent attempt here to balance the Ἀτρεὺς portion:

Ἀτρεὺς γὰρ ἄρχων τῆσδε γῆς, τούτου πατήρ


with the Θυέστην portion:

πατέρα Θυέστην τὸν ἐμόν


The placement of Θυέστην between πατέρα ... τὸν ἐμόν is not at all helpful in terms of parallelism.

chiasmus again A.Ag 1590-94

ξένια δὲ τοῦδε δύσθεος πατὴρ
Ἀτρεύς, προθύμως μᾶλλον ἢ φίλως, πατρὶ
τὠμῷ, κρεουργὸν ἦμαρ εὐθύμως ἄγειν
δοκῶν, παρέσχε δαῖτα παιδείων κρεῶν.

but host-wise this man's impious father
Atreus, soul-keenly more than kindly, -- seeming
To joyous hold a flesh-day, -- to my father
Served up a meal, the flesh of his own children.
— Robert Browning, 1889


an inversion of the pronoun + πατὴρ word order:

τοῦδε ... πατὴρ Ἀτρεύς

πατρὶ τὠμῷ

While the inversion of certain constituents with πατὴρ is demonstrated, I don’t find these examples particularly convincing as examples of parallelism. You could read this text for years on end and never see the chiasmus. When you compare this to parallelism in Ancient Hebrew where the balance is quite often clean so that the structure jumps out at you, the Attic Tragedy examples don’t really look like parallelism at all. Again, this is not a criticism of RT who do not claim this is parallelism.

[1] The Agamemnon of Aeschylus: A Commentary for Students, David Raeburn, Oliver Thomas, OUP 2011, p. 233 n, 1583-4.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby NateD26 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:38 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:While the inversion of certain constituents with πατὴρ is demonstrated, I don’t find these examples particularly convincing as examples of parallelism. You could read this text for years on end and never see the chiasmus. When you compare this to parallelism in Ancient Hebrew where the balance is quite often clean so that the structure jumps out at you, the Attic Tragedy examples don’t really look like parallelism at all. Again, this is not a criticism of RT who do not claim this is parallelism.

Your tenacity in researching this issue (or indeed any other you've pursued on this forum)
is quite inspiring. I wish I had but an ounce of it. :)

Just opening my old bible at random, checking the book of Proverbs, I've found an example
for a parallel structure, which like you said, is really not as clear or as balanced (nor yet quite as developed) in Attic Tragedy.

I do not know whether people on the forum would be able to see my written
Hebrew since I don't write in Unicode so let me know if it comes out as Gibberish on your end:

Proverbs 9, 7
יוסר לץ לוקח לו קלון ומוכיח לרשע מומו

Septuagint:
Ὁ παιδεύων κακοὺς* λήμψεται ἑαυτῷ ἀτιμίαν,
ἐλέγχων δὲ τὸν ἀσεβῆ μωμήσεται ἑαυτόν.

NRSV:
7 Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;
whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt.

I'm amazed how in so few words, so much wisdom could be contained.
I've also found out where our word for deficiency, מום, physical or moral, came from. :)

* I don't agree with the translation for לץ as κακοὺς, since he is not necessarily bad
so much as a he is a mocker at heart.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:00 pm

Headlam [1] finds an antithetical sentence featuring chiasmus in A.Ag. 1445-48. I found Hedlam's text and added it below the texts of H.W. Smyth (Persues Tufts) followed by G.Murray.

A.Ag. 1444-47 H.W. Smyth
ὁ μὲν γὰρ οὕτως, ἡ δέ τοι κύκνου δίκην
τὸν ὕστατον μέλψασα θανάσιμον γόον
κεῖται, φιλήτωρ τοῦδ᾽: ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἐπήγαγεν
εὐνῆς παροψώνημα τῆς ἐμῆς χλιδῆς.

G.Murray 1955 OUP
ὁ μὲν γὰρ οὕτως, ἡ δέ τοι κύκνου δίκην
τὸν ὕστατον μέλψασα θανάσιμον γόον
κεῖται † φιλήτως τοῦδ', ἐμοὶ δ' ἐπήγαγεν
εὐνῆς παροψώνημα τῆς ἐμῆς χλιδῇ.

Here an attempt to reconstruct Hedlam's text

ὃ μὲν γὰρ οὕτως· ἡ δέ τοι, κύκνου δίκην
τὸν ὕστατον μέλψασα θανάσιμον γόον,
κεῖται, φιλήτωρ τοῦδ᾽, ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἐπήγαγεν,
εὐνῆς παροψώνημα τῆς ἐμῆς, χλιδήν.



For he lies thus; while she, who, like a swan,
has sung her last lament in death,
lies here, his beloved;
but to me she has brought
for my bed an added relish of delight.
— H.W. Smyth

Since he is -- thus! While, as for her, -- swan-fashion,
Her latest having chanted, -- dying wailing
She lies, -- to him, a sweetheart: me she brought to --
My bed's by-nicety -- the whet of dalliance.
— Robert Browning, 1889

The challenge here is to find the antithesis and the chiasmus.


[1] The Oresteia of Aeschylus Walter George Headlam p.142
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:37 pm

NateD26 wrote:Just opening my old bible at random, checking the book of Proverbs, I've found an example
for a parallel structure, which like you said, is really not as clear or as balanced (nor yet quite as developed) in Attic Tragedy.

I do not know whether people on the forum would be able to see my written
Hebrew since I don't write in Unicode so let me know if it comes out as Gibberish on your end:

Proverbs 9, 7
יוסר לץ לוקח לו קלון ומוכיח לרשע מומו

Septuagint:
Ὁ παιδεύων κακοὺς* λήμψεται ἑαυτῷ ἀτιμίαν,
ἐλέγχων δὲ τὸν ἀσεβῆ μωμήσεται ἑαυτόν.

NRSV:
7 Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;
whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt.

I'm amazed how in so few words, so much wisdom could be contained.
I've also found out where our word for deficiency, מום, physical or moral, came from. :)

* I don't agree with the translation for לץ as κακοὺς, since he is not necessarily bad
so much as a he is a mocker at heart.


Nate,

I agree. Two other places where we find לץ rendered as κακός in LXX.

Prov. 9:12 υἱέ, ἐὰν σοφὸς γένῃ σεαυτῷ, σοφὸς ἔσῃ καὶ τοῖς πλησίον·
ἐὰν δὲ κακὸς ἀποβῇς, μόνος ἀναντλήσεις κακά.
Prov. 14:6 ζητήσεις σοφίαν παρὰ κακοῖς καὶ οὐχ εὑρήσεις,
αἴσθησις δὲ παρὰ φρονίμοις εὐχερής.

Not very common actually. The most common LXX pattern is κακός used to render רע.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:28 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:1156
Κασάνδρα
ἰὼ γάμοι γάμοι Πάριδος ὀλέθριοι φίλων.
ἰὼ Σκαμάνδρου πάτριον ποτόν.
τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ σὰς ἀϊόνας τάλαιν’
ἠνυτόμαν τροφαῖς·
1160
νῦν δ’ ἀμφὶ Κωκυτόν τε κἀχερουσίους
ὄχθας ἔοικα θεσπιῳδήσειν τάχα.

τάλαιν’ seems out of place, perhaps it is in apposition to the subject of ἠνυτόμαν. But that involves a conflict with the contrast between Cassandra's previous fate along the banks Σκαμάνδρου where she made here way being nourished by the river metaphorically which sounds like a positive experience and her future fate near the rivers of Hades. This contrast doesn't work if τάλαιν’ wretched is a description of her condition in her former world along the banks Σκαμάνδρου.

Your last days' discussions with Nate on parallelism is impressive. I'm still digesting that. Besides, I don't know Hebrew (maybe one day!) and my knowledge of the Old Testament is minimal...

Anyway, a couple of thoughts on this passage. I'm not completely sure what you find strange about τάλαιν’. I seems to be the subject of ἠνυτόμαν or the in apposition to the (unexpressed 1st person) subject of ἠνυτόμαν, whichever is the right way to call it in the "metalanguage" (I like the word!). At least in Epic (I'm not sure about other Greek), a verb in the 1st person can take a subject that doesn't in anyway express the idea of I/ἐγώ. Od. 2.40-41 comes to mind:

(Telemachos:)
ὦ γέρον, οὐχ ἑκὰς οὗτος ἀνήρ, τάχα δ' εἴσεαι αὐτός,
ὃς λαὸν ἤγειρα [...]
Old man, that man isn't far and you'll soon know yourself that it was I who summoned the men.

Only ἤγειρα tells it was Telemachos himself who did the summoning. As a side note, this Greek is strange to the Finnish ear as well; although in Finnish 1st and 2nd person pronouns are usually dropped out, especially in a more refined style, "I" would absolutely be expressed here.

Another thing: Cassandra seems to talking in Doric here (ϊόνας, ἠνυτόμαν, also ὀλομένας at line 1167). She isn't the chorus. Maybe the point is to give a more solemn air to her prophetic words?
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:14 pm

A.Ag. 1173 ἑπόμενα προτέροισι τάδ’ ἐφημίσω.

Chorus responding to Cassandra:

these [words] follow (i.e. make sense in terms of)
[what] you said before.

Here the central proposition is a participle clause ἑπόμενα τάδ’ "these follow ..." ἕπομαι takes a dative argument and in this passage seems to combine the notions of temporal succession and be in accordance with. The dative προτέροισι seems to belong both with the participle and ἐφημίσω.

In terms of information structure, having the participle do the "heavy lifting" and a finite verb in a virtual subordinate clause is a reversal of what would be expected.


[1] Cooper 2.48.7.2.J p2127.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:19 am

Aeschylus Agamemnon 1186-1190 LCL (online edition)

τὴν γὰρ στέγην τήνδ᾿ οὔποτ᾿ ἐκλείπει χορὸς
ξύμφθογγος, οὐκ εὔφωνος· οὐ γὰρ εὖ λέγει.
καὶ μὴν πεπωκώς γ᾿, ὡς θρασύνεσθαι πλέον,
βρότειον αἷμα κῶμος ἐν δόμοις μένει,
δύσπεμπτος ἔξω, συγγόνων Ἐρινύων·

There is a group of singers that never leaves this house.
They sing in unison, but not pleasantly, for their words
speak of evil. Moreover, this revel-band
drinks human blood, thus emboldening itself,
and then remains in the house, hard to send away
— the band of the house’s kindred Furies.


The constituent order in the first line places the subject χορὸς
at the very end. I have commented on this several times how
Aeschylus and Sophocles often stack modifiers and what-not
in front of the head noun, but here the whole clause comes
before the subject. Furthermore the τὴν στέγην τήνδ᾿ this house
is fronted for some reason.

The most striking thing here is the position of Ἐρινύων Furies
which is held back creating a sort of suspense that builds up during
the description of χορὸς group of singers. Who are these horrible
choir members? I don't know of any theory that deals with what we
see in the placement of Ἐρινύων. It would need to be theory that
handled constituents larger than clauses or sentences.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:36 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:A.Ag. 1173 ἑπόμενα προτέροισι τάδ’ ἐφημίσω.

Chorus responding to Cassandra:

these [words] follow (i.e. make sense in terms of)
[what] you said before.

Here the central proposition is a participle clause ἑπόμενα τάδ’ "these follow ..." ἕπομαι takes a dative argument and in this passage seems to combine the notions of temporal succession and be in accordance with. The dative προτέροισι seems to belong both with the participle and ἐφημίσω.

How do you mean that προτέροισι belongs also with ἐφημίσω?
In terms of information structure, having the participle do the "heavy lifting" and a finite verb in a virtual subordinate clause is a reversal of what would be expected.

This is a feature of Greek that has often surprised me too. Compare μολὼν λαβέ "come and get them! (my weapons)" -- what Leonidas supposedly said to the Persians at Thermopylae. In Finnish you would say "tule hakemaan!", where "tule" means "come" in the imperative and "hakemaan" is a participle form of "get". The logic of the Greek is different here.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:22 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The most striking thing here is the position of Ἐρινύων Furies
which is held back creating a sort of suspense that builds up during
the description of χορὸς group of singers. Who are these horrible
choir members? I don't know of any theory that deals with what we
see in the placement of Ἐρινύων. It would need to be theory that
handled constituents larger than clauses or sentences.

I don't about any theory either. This doesn't seem to be ungrammatical, so I suppose it's just poetic licence, a way of building suspense.

I wonder whether it's important in this context that in Eumenides, the erinyes actually will constitute the chorus. Many Greek plays are known to us by a name that refers to their chorus - e.g. Euripides' Trojan Women, Aristophanes' Frogs, Wasps, Ekklesiazousae and Clouds etc.

(Incidentally I remember reading somewhere that Aeschylus never calls the Erinyes by the name Eumenides. Don't remember where it was.)
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:56 pm

1191-93
ὑμνοῦσι δ᾽ ὕμνον δώμασιν προσήμεναι
πρώταρχον ἄτην, ἐν μέρει δ᾽ ἀπέπτυσαν
εὐνὰς ἀδελφοῦ τῷ πατοῦντι δυσμενεῖς.

"Besitting the chambers of the house, they sing a song of the ruinous folly that first began it all, and one after another they show their abhorrence of the brother's bed that worked harm to him who defiled it." (Sommerstein)

I interprete πρώταρχον ἄτην to be an apposition to ὕμνον (I wonder why don't they use commas in these cases like in all modern languages I know).

I'm puzzled by the aorist ἀπέπτυσαν that follows a present ὑμνοῦσι - R-T calls it a "dramatic" aorist. Whatever that means. I wonder if this usage here is somehow related to the "gnomic" aorist, maybe the idea is to point out that this is the sort of thing the Erinyes always disapprove of.

D-P says δυσμενεῖς is nominative, i.e. not with εὐνὰς, while R-T and Sommerstein seem to consider it an accusative. Accusative seems more natural to me.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:58 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:I interprete πρώταρχον ἄτην to be an apposition to ὕμνον (I wonder why don't they use commas in these cases like in all modern languages I know).

Or maybe ὕμνον could be an accusative of of respect - "by way of hymn".
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:25 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:A.Ag. 1173 ἑπόμενα προτέροισι τάδ’ ἐφημίσω.

Chorus responding to Cassandra:

these [words] follow (i.e. make sense in terms of)
[what] you said before.

Here the central proposition is a participle clause ἑπόμενα τάδ’ "these follow ..." ἕπομαι takes a dative argument and in this passage seems to combine the notions of temporal succession and be in accordance with. The dative προτέροισι seems to belong both with the participle and ἐφημίσω.

How do you mean that προτέροισι belongs also with ἐφημίσω?


First, if we agree that ἕπομαι takes a dative argument, in that role προτέροισι appears to be a substantive which refers to the content of a previous speech act. Doesn't προτέροισι also play a role in the subordinate clause ἐφημίσω? Perhaps not. Supplying a relative pronoun coreferential with προτέροισι might resolve the problem.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:38 pm

Aeschylus Agamemnon 1186-1190 LCL (online edition)

τὴν γὰρ στέγην τήνδ᾿ οὔποτ᾿ ἐκλείπει χορὸς
ξύμφθογγος, οὐκ εὔφωνος· οὐ γὰρ εὖ λέγει.
καὶ μὴν πεπωκώς γ᾿, ὡς θρασύνεσθαι πλέον,
βρότειον αἷμα κῶμος ἐν δόμοις μένει,
δύσπεμπτος ἔξω, συγγόνων Ἐρινύων·

There is a group of singers that never leaves this house.
They sing in unison, but not pleasantly, for their words
speak of evil. Moreover, this revel-band
drinks human blood, thus emboldening itself,
and then remains in the house, hard to send away
— the band of the house’s kindred Furies.



Paul Derouda wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The most striking thing here is the position of Ἐρινύων Furies
which is held back creating a sort of suspense that builds up during
the description of χορὸς group of singers. Who are these horrible
choir members? I don't know of any theory that deals with what we
see in the placement of Ἐρινύων. It would need to be theory that
handled constituents larger than clauses or sentences.

I don't about any theory either. This doesn't seem to be ungrammatical, so I suppose it's just poetic licence, a way of building suspense.

I wonder whether it's important in this context that in Eumenides, the erinyes actually will constitute the chorus.


I have been listening daily to lectures by Elizabeth Vandiver on Attic Tragedy and Greek Mythology. Vandiver explicitly addresses the question breaking down the barrier between the fictional scenario in the tragic drama and the scenario in the Athenian theater. She more or less dogmatically asserts that Attic tragedians never crossed that barrier. For this reason I don't think χορὸς in this context refers to the χορὸς in the theater, but rather to a group of singers described in very unflattering terms that represent the Furies. I'm a perennial-first-year-student when it comes to classics so I could have misunderstood what Vandiver was saying.

On the placement of Ἐρινύων at the end of a though unit larger than a sentence, it seems like postponing a key element in the semantic structure of a complex constituent is a pattern which reappears at different levels of the discourse structure. In other words, the head noun in a noun phrase can be postponed to the end of the phrase, a noun subject can be postponed to the end of sentence, a discourse critical noun can be postponed to the end of a paragraph. By discourse critical noun I mean a noun which is needed to disambiguate the whole paragraph. Ἐρινύων in this context is just such a noun. The phenomenon of postponement isn't limited to nouns and substantives, however verb placement is a whole different ball game.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:11 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:First, if we agree that ἕπομαι takes a dative argument, in that role προτέροισι appears to be a substantive which refers to the content of a previous speech act. Doesn't προτέροισι also play a role in the subordinate clause ἐφημίσω? Perhaps not. Supplying a relative pronoun coreferential with προτέροισι might resolve the problem.

I would deconstruct/translate it like follows:
ἑπόμενα προτέροισι τάδ’ ἐφημίσω.
According [to what] preceded, that['s what] you uttered. -> You uttered that in accordance with what preceded.
Did you have another rendition in mind?
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:26 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:First, if we agree that ἕπομαι takes a dative argument, in that role προτέροισι appears to be a substantive which refers to the content of a previous speech act. Doesn't προτέροισι also play a role in the subordinate clause ἐφημίσω? Perhaps not. Supplying a relative pronoun coreferential with προτέροισι might resolve the problem.

I would deconstruct/translate it like follows:
ἑπόμενα προτέροισι τάδ’ ἐφημίσω.
According [to what] preceded, that['s what] you uttered. -> You uttered that in accordance with what preceded.
Did you have another rendition in mind?


Paul,

I think that line would make a good question for the final exam in class on Tragic syntax. I wasn't actually visualizing any particular solution other than identifying a relative pronoun as a quick fix to the enigma. Sort of "what this really needs is a relative pronoun" and stop there. Carl Conrad's often repeated caution about getting embroiled in translation strategies when trying to explain Greek syntax comes to mind here. There is nothing wrong with representing an analysis of Greek syntax in a modern language but in every single case the syntax of the modern language will contribute a very significant spin to the equation.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:27 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I have been listening daily to lectures by Elizabeth Vandiver on Attic Tragedy and Greek Mythology. Vandiver explicitly addresses the question breaking down the barrier between the fictional scenario in the tragic drama and the scenario in the Athenian theater and contemporary culture. She more or less dogmatically asserts that Attic tragedians never crossed that barrier. For this reason I don't think χορὸς in this context refers to the χορὸς in the theater, but rather to a group of singers described in very unflattering terms that represent the Furies. I'm a perennial-first-year-student when it comes to classics so I could have misunderstood what Vandiver was saying.

Yes, probably the calling the Erinyes a chorus here is just metaphorical. But it is a bit funny, when you think that they will actually form the chorus in the last play of the trilogy. I don't think a crossing of the barrier you describe is intended here.

Incidentally, I've seen that barrier crossed several times in Aristophanes' comedies. (Can't give any examples right now). But that's another genre entirely.
On the placement of Ἐρινύων at the end of a though unit larger than a sentence, it seems like postponing a key element in the semantic structure of a complex constituent is a pattern which reappears at different levels of the discourse structure. In other words, the head noun in a noun phrase can be postponed to the end of the phrase, a noun subject can be postponed to the end of sentence, a discourse critical noun can be postponed to the end of a paragraph. By discourse critical noun I mean a noun which is needed to disambiguate the whole paragraph. Ἐρινύων in this context is just such a noun. The phenomenon isn't limited to a noun/substantive but talking about verb placement is a whole different ball game.

I was thinking something along those lines, but couldn't have said it so well...
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:35 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Paul,

I think that line would make a good question for the final exam in class on Tragic syntax. I wasn't actually visualizing any particular solution other than identifying a relative pronoun as a quick fix to the enigma. Sort of "what this really needs is a relative pronoun" and stop there.

Ok ;) Well, it is a difficult and interesting line, and I thought you had another solution in mind!
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:38 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Paul,

I think that line would make a good question for the final exam in class on Tragic syntax. I wasn't actually visualizing any particular solution other than identifying a relative pronoun as a quick fix to the enigma. Sort of "what this really needs is a relative pronoun" and stop there.

Ok ;) Well, it is a difficult and interesting line, and I thought you had another solution in mind!


Paul,

I probably did have another solution in mind but after a week long illness which has my thinking is anything be clear and I find my attempt to recapture what I was thinking several days ago very difficult.

thank you for the discussion.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Next

Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew and 38 guests