Textkit Logo

Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

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!

Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby NateD26 » Sat May 22, 2010 11:33 pm

καὶ ἐγὼ τὸν Εὔηνον ἐμακάρισα εἰ ὡς ἀληθῶς ἔχοι ταύτην τὴν τέχνην καὶ οὕτως ἐμμελῶς διδάσκει.
My Hebrew commentary suggests to read it this way:
And I deemed Euenus blessed that he truly has this skill and that he teaches at such a reasonable price.
a) That the leading verb is a shortened implied indirect discourse:
ἡγουσάμην μάκαρα εἶναι τὸν Εὔηνον εἰ ἔχει/ἔχοι...
or
εἶπον ὅτι μάκαρ ἐστὶν/εἴη ὁ Εὔηνος εἰ ἔχει/ἔχοι...
[ἡγουσάμνην/εἶπον· "μάκαρ ἐστὶν ὁ Εὔηνος..."]

b) That εἰ stands for ὅτι after verbs denoting an emotional response [LSJ B. V. in oratio obliqua (expressed or implied) c. opt.]

I do not understand though why ἔχοι was changed to opt. but not διδάσκει.
Also, is this the only way to explain the use of opt. here?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby modus.irrealis » Sun May 23, 2010 2:21 am

I found this in google books: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-Xcw63p ... &q&f=false. In case you can't see it, it says
"The optative implies that Socrates does not commit himself to the first statement" (Burnet). But see also *GMT696, which reads indicative in both places, and Adam, who claims both should be optative; note the divergent manuscript evidence.

So it's possible that Plato himself used the same mood for both verbs, and they only differ by one letter so I guess it would have been easy for a mistake to have been made. But about the Burnet comment, that's my understanding, in that causal clauses in Greek normally use the indicative and the optative is for alleged reasons, etc. Smyth says this in 2241 - 2242. Although Smyth doesn't really mention this in the sections specifically about these verbs of emotions (2247 - 2248) and I get the impression that the optative would be normal here.

I don't see any other possibility for the optative -- did you have anything in mind?
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby NateD26 » Sun May 23, 2010 3:48 am

I couldn't see the whole quote. Thanks for posting it in full. :)

Initially, I forgot completely about the concept of implied indirect discourse, which
we've gone through briefly in class last year [I'm a university dropout so I'm not in classes anymore :( ].
And also the use of εἰ instead of ὅτι after verbs of emotions was new to me. Thanks for directing me
to the relevant sections in Smyth.

My thoughts were to translate the sentence as conditional in which the protasis (or at least its first part)
is perceived as doubtful [and not assign the use of opt. to be merely in place of the indicative after
secondary tenses in indirect discourse]. I first translated the apodosis as if it was a possibility in the general past,
"I could have blessed Euenus," but that would require ἄν.

I understand that the sentiment in this sentence suppose to be ironic/sarcastic,
and the way you explained it seems to be the best and only way to deliver this meaning. :)
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby modus.irrealis » Sun May 23, 2010 1:29 pm

To be honest I get tripped up by this use of εἰ all the time because I do find it natural to read it at first as a conditional -- it really makes no sense to me to use εἰ. But now I wonder if I've got it wrong in this case. The a) and b) in your original post seem to be at odds.

a) seems to suggest that the sentence should be translated: And I thought, "Euenus is blessed if he truly has this skill and (still) teaches at such a reasonable price"

b) on the other hand seems to suggest: And I deemed Euenes blessed in that he truly had this skill and (yet) taught at such a reasonable price.

They both have that ironic overtone that's the point and I think b) leads more naturally into what follow, but maybe a) is "safer" since I'm not sure μακαρίζω belongs in the same class of verbs as θαυμάζω.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby NateD26 » Sun May 23, 2010 2:03 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:To be honest I get tripped up by this use of εἰ all the time because I do find it natural to read it at first as a conditional -- it really makes no sense to me to use εἰ. But now I wonder if I've got it wrong in this case. The a) and b) in your original post seem to be at odds.

a) seems to suggest that the sentence should be translated: And I thought, "Euenus is blessed if he truly has this skill and (still) teaches at such a reasonable price"

b) on the other hand seems to suggest: And I deemed Euenes blessed in that he truly had this skill and (yet) taught at such a reasonable price.

I really appreciate this, modus. You've made the distinction much clearer. :)
modus.irrealis wrote:They both have that ironic overtone that's the point and I think b) leads more naturally into what follow, but maybe a) is "safer" since I'm not sure μακαρίζω belongs in the same class of verbs as θαυμάζω.

I wasn't sure as well if this verb is truly an emotional response, but LSJ does say that it was used ironically sometimes, giving examples
from Thucydides 5.105 and from Aristophanes' Wasps 588.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby NateD26 » Mon May 24, 2010 12:29 am

Interesting. I initially thought mistakenly that the irony/sarcasm suggests that this price Euenus had been paid for
his lessons was not reasonable, but actually a hefty sum. However, all the other three had charged much more
for their lessons [Prodicus received fifty minae (Charles S. Stanford), Gorgias & Protagoras 100 minae each (Stallbaum)]
so the irony is that despite having this skill/craft, he charges a meager sum for his services.

Both these commentaries, Plato's Apology, Crito & Part of Phaedo w/ Notes f. Stallbaum & same title w/ Notes f. Charles Stuart Stanford,
reads ἔχει as if Socrates had suddenly decided to repeat his comments to Callias vividly to the jurists.

The latter also suggests that ὡς not untranslatable as part of the idiom ὡς ἀληθῶς but is to
introduce a more vivid indirect discourse (rather than actual ὅτι).

Both also read ἐμμελῶς with double meaning: his lessons were reasonably priced compared
to the others and suitably taught.

Do you know what is the name of the book by Matth. (§529. 5.), which Stallbaum mentions,
and whether or not it is online?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby modus.irrealis » Mon May 24, 2010 1:26 am

NateD26 wrote:Interesting. I initially thought mistakenly that the irony/sarcasm suggests that this price Euenus had been paid for
his lessons was not reasonable, but actually a hefty sum. However, all the other three had charged much more
for their lessons [Prodicus received fifty minae (Charles S. Stanford), Gorgias & Protagoras 100 minae each (Stallbaum)]
so the irony is that despite having this skill/craft, he charges a meager sum for his services.

I wouldn't have picked that up about the price being too low without commentaries either. It's still bad though that with the older commentaries, you get very small numbers in pounds and shillings and whatnot and I still have no idea how much money that really is.

The latter also suggests that ὡς not untranslatable as part of the idiom ὡς ἀληθῶς but is to
introduce a more vivid indirect discourse (rather than actual ὅτι).

It seems like a strange suggestion though because then I don't know what the εἰ would be doing. Wouldn't the ὠς then come before the εἰ? Maybe this is just one of the sentences that doesn't quite fit into standard grammar -- I mean it seems like this is an example of implied direct speech? -- there's a few of those in the Apology, like in your other thread where the sentence changes its construction after the parenthetical remark, which I think is to make it seem like Socrates is talking off-the-cuff instead of giving a polished prepared speech

Do you know what is the name of the book by Matth. (§529. 5.), which Stallbaum mentions,
and whether or not it is online?

It should be the grammar by Matthiae -- there's a translation available at archive.org.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby NateD26 » Mon May 24, 2010 6:54 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:It seems like a strange suggestion though because then I don't know what the εἰ would be doing. Wouldn't the ὠς then come before the εἰ? Maybe this is just one of the sentences that doesn't quite fit into standard grammar -- I mean it seems like this is an example of implied direct speech? -- there's a few of those in the Apology, like in your other thread where the sentence changes its construction after the parenthetical remark, which I think is to make it seem like Socrates is talking off-the-cuff instead of giving a polished prepared speech.

I think you're right about ὡς before εἰ if that were indeed the case. Perhaps, as you said, this sentence is too varied to fit into
one grammatical construct.* I'm not sure what implied direct speech is, but if I read 2632 in Smyth on the occasional variation of moods
in indirect discourse, and combine it with the concept of implied indirect discourse in 2622, then we might be able to read it with opt. ἔχοι
still, and translate the main verb as implied indirect discourse. The irony embedded in the verb μακαρίζω would be retained.

* In Sidgwick's Easy Selections f. Plato he mentions in one of his notes that "the colloquial style of the Apology, which is of course
an important part of its design, quite justifies such natural irregularities."

modus.irrealis wrote:It should be the grammar by Matthiae -- there's a translation available at archive.org.

Thank you, modus. The adj. copious is a blatant understatement. :shock:
In the same section he'd also stated the same as Smyth did in 2632: that the opt. and ind. are often intermixed.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby modus.irrealis » Mon May 24, 2010 10:22 pm

NateD26 wrote:I think you're right about ὡς before εἰ if that were indeed the case. Perhaps, as you said, this sentence is too varied to fit into
one grammatical construct.* I'm not sure what implied direct speech is, but if I read 2632 in Smyth on the occasional variation of moods
in indirect discourse, and combine it with the concept of implied indirect discourse in 2622, then we might be able to read it with opt. ἔχοι
still, and translate the main verb as implied indirect discourse. The irony embedded in the verb μακαρίζω would be retained.

I agree -- that's the analysis that makes the most sense. I was just trying to make a joke, that you have implied indirect discourse + direct discourse for indirect discourse to give you something that probably never existed.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Pl. Ap. 20b9-20c1

Postby ximo » Tue May 25, 2010 8:11 am

The use of optative in this text is quite simple to explain. In ancient Greek, optative usually expresses desire, but the most common use of optative is in a subordinate clause when depending on a verb expressing past. This kind of optative is called oblique optative, but I prefer to call it optative of subordination. It has to depend on a verb in the past, as here on an aorist. But this is only a mere possibility. I mean that it is not necessary that every subordinate verb depending on a past verb appears in optative. It can be so or not. That's the reason why the second verb is in simple present. There's no problem on it and it's very hard to me suppose that Plato made a mistake. I really think that this is not the case.
phpbb
ximo
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: Spain


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 56 guests