3.17.1 . . . is square-bracketed by the OCT, but not by Alberti, and contains some other textual difficulties.
Qimmik wrote:I tried, but it's really impossible to use Perseus to investigate this idiom in other authors, or even in Thucydides, because ἐν τοῖς usually is just ἐν + article + a dative plural masculine noun.
I'm trying not to get too bogged down in detail, though. At my age, this may be my only opportunity to read Th. in his entirety, and I want to get through it.
pster wrote:I've been pondering these this morning:
Plat. Phaedrus 261e
Σωκράτης
τῇδε δοκῶ ζητοῦσιν φανεῖσθαι. ἀπάτη πότερον ἐν πολὺ διαφέρουσι γίγνεται μᾶλλον ἢ ὀλίγον;
Φαῖδρος
ἐν τοῖς ὀλίγον.
Plat. Sym. 178a
πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ὥσπερ λέγω, ἔφη Φαῖδρον ἀρξάμενον ἐνθένδε ποθὲν λέγειν, ὅτι μέγας θεὸς εἴη ὁ Ἔρως καὶ θαυμαστὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις τε καὶ θεοῖς, πολλαχῇ μὲν καὶ ἄλλῃ, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν. τὸ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατον εἶναι τὸν θεὸν τίμιον, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, τεκμήριον δὲ τούτου: γονῆς γὰρ Ἔρωτος οὔτ᾽ εἰσὶν οὔτε λέγονται ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς οὔτε ἰδιώτου οὔτε ποιητοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ Ἡσίοδος πρῶτον μὲν Χάος φησὶ γενέσθαι—“ ... αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα
Γαῖ᾽ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεί,
ἠδ᾽ Ἔρος ...
pster wrote:It's above my pay grade, but I'm not sure that Chaos and Gaia actually count as gods here. I can see how not having parents would make one the oldest. The idea that it would make one one of the oldest but not necessarily the oldest seems odd and problematic. Jowett opts for: "For he is the eldest of the gods, which is an honour to him".
Anyway, and thinking out loud, are there really only two options on the table?
And, in these passages, is it in any way possible to read the whole expression "en tois X" as adverbial? Or are we of the view that according to both the restrictive and the intensive interpretations "en tois X" is a substantive?
Qimmik wrote:I think the absence of gender agreement shows that ἐν τοῖς is or has become adverbial, but the superlative does agree with the noun, so I would be inclined to characterize it as an adjective modified by adverbial ἐν τοῖς.
Qimmik wrote:ἐς τὰ κοινὰ . . . προτιμᾶται again:
LSJ translates this as "to be preferred to public honours"; Rusten: "receive preference for public office"; Hornblower: "wins promotion in the state"; Rhodes: "in public life men gain preferment"
It seems a little odd to say that men gain preferment by merit, not by rotation, when rotation was the method of choosing magistrates. That's why I translated it as "is respected in public affairs", rather than as a specific reference to preferment for public office. One suggestion (Roberts, according to Hornblower) is that the reference is to the strategoi, the real leaders of public policy, who were elected, not chosen by lot. Maybe "each wields influence in public affairs" would be a way to capture this expression.
John, I wonder whether the distinction and contrast between πρὸς τὰ ἴδια διάφορα τὸ ἴσον and κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀξίωσιν ἐς τὰ κοινὰ could be brought into sharper focus: equality before the law in private disputes, and (maybe not "while . . . nonetheless") merit holds sway in public affairs.
Qimmik wrote:I wonder whether οὐκ ἀπὸ μέρους really refers to rotations. An alternative explanation, apparently endorsed in LSJ s.v. μέρος I.A.2 and IV, is that it refers to social classes rank or castes, or to political factions or parties (though "parties" would seem to reflect a discredited 19th century understanding of Athenian politics along the lines of modern political parties). Although most of the modern commentators seem to endorse "rotations," perhaps some thought should be given to the possibility that he is distinguishing oligarchy, where family and wealth are the source of political power, from democracy, where political influence is open to all by merit, even to poor people who have something to contribute. That strikes me as more consonant with the thrust of the passage.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dme%2Fros
Qimmik wrote:Isn't it ironic that this is one of the most famous and often-quoted passages in Thucydides, yet there is no agreement on what it means?
Scribo wrote:So are we on book 2 then? picking up a copy of Thucydides in a few days (no longer have my old one) as soon as I finish with Dover's Prose Style and reviewing my Donovan notes. Will try to catch up asap.
You know John that's terrifying. EU Constitution. The only constitution I ever want to see drafted is "dear God this idea is terrible, we're basically Hitler, let's dissolve the political union and kill ourselves".
Paul Derouda wrote:I suppose the my best bet is Budé / Marchant / Green and yellow if I read book II, which is apparently what you are doing now. How about if I start from book I?
Paul Derouda wrote: From what you say, it looks like the most useful for me for book 1 would be Budé, Cameron and for occasional consultation Gomme & al. Maybe I'll occasionnally have a look at Marchant too.
If I'm able to finish book 1 with the student's commentary, I'll then be able to attack book 2 with the slightly more advanced Green & Yellow...
Qimmik wrote:John, you've made some strong points in favor of "rotation," and I don't have anything more to add in defense of "rank", except to note, as Mynott does, that many offices in Athens were in fact filled by "rotation" or by lot. I guess the explanation for this would be that Pericles is talking about the influence wielded by speakers in the public assembly, not about office-holding.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests