A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

[C. S. Bartholomew]

ΚΑΣΣΑΝΔΡΑ
ἰοὺ ἰού, ὢ ὢ κακά·
1215
ὑπ᾿ αὖ με δεινὸς ὀρθομαντείας πόνος
στροβεῖ ταράσσων φροιμίοις †ἐφημένους†.
ὁρᾶτε τούσδε τοὺς δόμοις ἐφημένους
νέους, ὀνείρων προσφερεῖς μορφώμασιν;
παῖδες θανόντες, ὡσπερεὶ πρὸς οὐ φίλων,
1220
χεῖρας κρεῶν πλήθοντες, οἰκείας βορᾶς,
σὺν ἐντέροις τε σπλάγχν᾿, ἐποίκτιστον γέμος,
πρέπουσ᾿ ἔχοντες, ὦν πατὴρ ἐγεύσατο.

Cassandra
Iou, iou! Oh! Oh! The pain! The terrible agony of
true prophecy is coming over me again, whirling me
around and deranging me in the <fierce storm> of its
onset. [Pointing wildly] Do you see these young ones,
sitting near the house, looking like dream-shapes?
Children dead, as if at the hands of enemies, their
hands conspicuously filled with the flesh on which their
close kin fed, holding the offals and entrails—a most
pitiable burden—which their father tasted.

— Alan H. Sommerstein

There is a lack of concord between χεῖρας and πλήθοντες. D-P call χεῖρας an accusative of respect for what that is worth. D-P also suggest that τε joins πλήθοντες and ἔχοντες which helps sort out the syntax. The hands are full of and holding the carnage.

οἰκείας βορᾶς "the meal domestic" — Browning "their own flesh" H.W. Smyth. This turn of phrase is semantically oblique. D-P remarks here that Aeschylus is capable of torturing language. What the other commentators have to say about this?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

νεῶν τ’ ἄπαρχος Ἰλίου τ’ ἀναστάτης
οὐκ οἶδεν οἷα γλῶσσα μισητῆς κυνὸς
λείξασα κἀκτείνασα φαιδρὸν οὖς, δίκην
1230
Ἄτης λαθραίου, τεύξεται κακῇ τύχῃ.
τοιάδε τόλμα· θῆλυς ἄρσενος φονεὺς
ἔστιν. τί νιν καλοῦσα δυσφιλὲς δάκος
τύχοιμ’ ἄν; ἀμφίσβαιναν, ἢ Σκύλλαν τινὰ
οἰκοῦσαν ἐν πέτραισι, ναυτίλων βλάβην,
— Perseus U.Chicago

The commander of the fleet and the overthrower of Ilium little knows what deeds shall be brought to evil accomplishment by the hateful hound, whose tongue licked his hand, who stretched forth her ears in gladness, [1230] like treacherous Ate. Such boldness has she, a woman to slay a man. What odious monster shall I fitly call her? An Amphisbaena1? Or a Scylla, tenanting the rocks, a pest to mariners,
— H.W. Smyth


νεῶν δ᾿ ἄπαρχος Ἰλίου τ᾿ ἀναστάτης
ἄτης λαθραίου τεὺξεται κακῇ τύχῃ·
οὐκ οἶδεν οἷα γλῶσσα μισητῆς κυνός,
1229
λείξασα καὶ κλίνασα φαιδρὸν οὖς, δάκνει.
1231
τοιάδε τόλμαν θῆλυς ἄρσενος φονεύς·
ἔστιν—τί νιν καλοῦσα δυσφιλὲς δάκος
τύχοιμ᾿ ἄν; ἀμφίσβαιναν, ἢ Σκύλλαν τινὰ
οἰκοῦσαν ἐν πέτραισι, ναυτίλων βλάβην,
— Sommerstein LCL

... The commander of the fleet, the
destroyer of Ilium, is about to suffer an evil fate and
meet a destruction that will spring from concealment: he
does not know what kind of bite comes after the
fawning tongue of that hateful bitch and the cheerful
inclination of her ear.
— Sommerstein LCL

The text of 1228-30 is a source of much conjecture. Ignoring all that[1], Elizabeth Vandiver in her feminist reading of Agamemnon points out that the portrait painted of Clytemnestra is much more outrageous and shocking in a fifth century Athenian context than it would be to a 21st century western reader. θῆλυς ἄρσενος φονεὺς female murderer of a male is equally unflattering as μισητῆς κυνός hateful female-dog. Compare this with Sophocles Clytemnestra in Electra, who chastises her daughter for running around outside the house, a violation of the norms for Athenian women. E. Vandiver discusses at some length this aspect of Clytemnestra, her manlikeness which is pointed out in the opening speech of the watchmen in Agamemnon; a major theme in Agamemnon which western audiences conditioned by over a century of feminism are likely to overlook.

[1] I didn't actually ignore it. Spent most of the morning trying to wade through D-P and R-T discussions of the numerous conjectures and reconstructions by Page, Frankel, West ... I finally just reconstructed the text according to Page worked with several variants to see what difference they made.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A.Ag 1235-1238 Cassandra
θύουσαν Ἅιδου μητέρ’ ἄσπονδόν τ’ Ἄρη
φίλοις πνέουσαν; ὡς δ’ ἐπωλολύξατο
ἡ παντότολμος, ὥσπερ ἐν μάχης τροπῇ,
δοκεῖ δὲ χαίρειν νοστίμῳ σωτηρίᾳ.

... a raging, devil's mother, breathing relentless war against her husband? And how the all-daring woman raised a shout of triumph, as when the battle turns, the while she feigned to joy at his safe return!
— H. W. Smyth

RE:ὥσπερ ἐν μάχης τροπῇ as when the battle turns The genitive μάχης between ἐν + dative, this happens in Attic but what about NT?

ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ with human voice 2Pet. 2:16

2Pet. 2:16 ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας· ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν.

2Pet. 2:16 I but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey[1] spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. ESV

[1] RSV (1948,1952) reads "dumb a—" which apparently wasn't considered an expletive at that time.

[Paul Derouda]

ΚΑΣΣΑΝΔΡΑ
ἰοὺ ἰού, ὢ ὢ κακά·
1215
ὑπ᾿ αὖ με δεινὸς ὀρθομαντείας πόνος
στροβεῖ ταράσσων φροιμίοις †ἐφημένους†.
ὁρᾶτε τούσδε τοὺς δόμοις ἐφημένους
νέους, ὀνείρων προσφερεῖς μορφώμασιν;
παῖδες θανόντες, ὡσπερεὶ πρὸς οὐ φίλων,
1220
χεῖρας κρεῶν πλήθοντες, οἰκείας βορᾶς,
σὺν ἐντέροις τε σπλάγχν᾿, ἐποίκτιστον γέμος,
πρέπουσ᾿ ἔχοντες, ὦν πατὴρ ἐγεύσατο.

Cassandra
Iou, iou! Oh! Oh! The pain! The terrible agony of
true prophecy is coming over me again, whirling me
around and deranging me in the <fierce storm> of its
onset. [Pointing wildly] Do you see these young ones,
sitting near the house, looking like dream-shapes?
Children dead, as if at the hands of enemies, their
hands conspicuously filled with the flesh on which their
close kin fed, holding the offals and entrails—a most
pitiable burden—which their father tasted.

— Alan H. Sommerstein

There is a lack of concord between χεῖρας and πλήθοντες. D-P call χεῖρας an accusative of respect for what that is worth. D-P also suggest that τε joins πλήθοντες and ἔχοντες which helps sort out the syntax. The hands are full of and holding the carnage.

LSJ says πλήθω is transitive only in later poets, so if we believe that, I guess accusative of respect is the only possibility here.

οἰκείας βορᾶς "the meal domestic" — Browning "their own flesh" H.W. Smyth. This turn of phrase is semantically oblique. D-P remarks here that Aeschylus is capable of torturing language. What the other commentators have to say about this?

This is oblique indeed. Fraenkel and West don't discuss it. R-T says οἰκείας means either "their own" or more probably "a meal from within the household".

I think ὦν on line 122 in Sommerstein is a typo for ὧν.

[Paul Derouda]

The text of 1228-30 is a source of much conjecture. Ignoring all that[1], Elizabeth Vandiver in her feminist reading of Agamemnon points out that the portrait painted of Clytemnestra is much more outrageous and shocking in a fifth century Athenian context than it would be to a 21st century western reader. θῆλυς ἄρσενος φονεὺς female murderer of a male is equally unflattering as μισητῆς κυνός hateful female-dog. Compare this with Sophocles Clytemnestra in Electra, who chastises her daughter for running around outside the house, a violation of the norms for Athenian women. E. Vandiver discusses at some length this aspect of Clytemnestra, her manlikeness which is pointed out in the opening speech of the watchmen in Agamemnon; a major theme in Agamemnon which western audiences conditioned by over a century of feminism are likely to overlook.

This theme, Klytemestra the man-like man-murdering woman seems to be very central. I really don't know what it means, but it really seems to be important. Them original public of the play must have been mostly male, but this seems to me a more profound issue than whether the play is misogynist or not. I think if we can understand why this was so important, we have really understood something about Aeschylus' society. Here again, we must remember that if Klytemestra's portrait isn't very flattering, Agamemnon's isn't either.

As a side note, I saw the new Anna Karenina film yesterday. I liked it, and as far as I remember, it kept quite close to the original story, which I found even a bit surprising (long time since I read the book though). I mean that the central theme of the story is essentially the situation of an adulterous woman, and it's exactly the sort of thing that tends to attract all kinds of "modernisation", i.e. replacing the original ideas and attitudes of Tolstoy with modern ones. I had read a short interview of one the actors (the one who played Kitty), it struck me as pretty naive and made me expect a less good film. She was saying something to the effect that women in the 19th century lived in the midst of prejudices. As if the different condition of women today is just to due to Mankind Being So Much Wiser Today, and not at all things like effective contraception. But of course the actress was really quite young.

[Paul Derouda]

RE:ὥσπερ ἐν μάχης τροπῇ as when the battle turns The genitive μάχης between ἐν + dative, this happens in Attic but what about NT?

ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ with human voice 2Pet. 2:16

2Pet. 2:16 ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας· ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν.

2Pet. 2:16 I but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey[1] spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. ESV

I don't know if it really matters, but dative in these examples have slightly different meanings, ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ seems to be an "instrumental" dative and ἐν μάχης τροπῇ "locative".

[1] RSV (1948,1952) reads "dumb a—" which apparently wasn't considered an expletive at that time.

[Paul Derouda]

A.Ag 1235-1238 Cassandra
θύουσαν Ἅιδου μητέρ’ ἄσπονδόν τ’ Ἄρη
φίλοις πνέουσαν; ὡς δ’ ἐπωλολύξατο
ἡ παντότολμος, ὥσπερ ἐν μάχης τροπῇ,
δοκεῖ δὲ χαίρειν νοστίμῳ σωτηρίᾳ.

... a raging, devil's mother, breathing relentless war against her husband? And how the all-daring woman raised a shout of triumph, as when the battle turns, the while she feigned to joy at his safe return!
— H. W. Smyth

I would venture that θύουσαν at line 1235 is supposed to remind us of Iliad 1.342, where the same verb is used with Agamemnon ἦ γὰρ ὅ γ’ ὀλοιῇσι φρεσὶ θύει. (Achilles is telling what he thinks about Agamemnon). It's a family business!

[C. S. Bartholomew]

RE:ὥσπερ ἐν μάχης τροπῇ as when the battle turns The genitive μάχης between ἐν + dative, this happens in Attic but what about NT?

ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ with human voice 2Pet. 2:16

2Pet. 2:16 ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας· ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν.

2Pet. 2:16 I but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey[1] spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. ESV

I don't know if it really matters, but dative in these examples have slightly different meanings, ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ seems to be an "instrumental" dative and ἐν μάχης τροπῇ "locative".
)

Paul,

A good point about the semantics of the dative.

On the question of word order, dumping a genitive between ἐν and the dative case where the genitive qualifies the dative substantive is kind of rare in the NT. Not so rare in Attic. Having my mind conditioned by decades of reading NT and LXX, things like this jump out. All kinds of perfectly normal Attic syntax look weird to someone who primarily reads Biblical Koine. One good reason to get out of Koine and read Attic, Herodotus, Homer and what ever. Even Polybius, but that's going the extra mile.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

On the question of word order, dumping a genitive between ἐν and the dative case where the genitive qualifies the dative substantive is kind of rare in the NT. Not so rare in Attic.

Here are three more examples from the NT, εἰς -> gen -> acc, ἐπὶ -> gen -> acc --> gen

Matt. 13:33 Ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς· ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.

Luke 13:21 ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ [ἐν]έκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.

Rev. 7:17 ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων , καὶ ἐξαλείψει ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

The last example is tricky, wonder if πηγὰς was miss-construed as a fem.gen. sg. by the author, it looks like John intended a Hebrew construct chain like ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν Rev. 21:6.


Rev. 21:6 καὶ εἶπέν μοι· γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν.

Rev. 22:1 Καὶ ἔδειξέν μοι ποταμὸν ὕδατος ζωῆς λαμπρὸν ὡς κρύσταλλον, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου.

Rev. 22:17 Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν· ἔρχου. καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω· ἔρχου. καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

One of numerous parallels in the LXX where we have the pattern acc -> gen -> gen, following the Hebrew pattern where genitives always follow the head noun:

Jer. 2:13 ὅτι δύο πονηρὰ ἐποίησεν ὁ λαός μου· ἐμὲ ἐγκατέλιπον, πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς, καὶ ὤρυξαν ἑαυτοῖς λάκκους συντετριμμένους, οἳ οὐ δυνήσονται ὕδωρ συνέχειν.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Rev. 7:17 ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων , καὶ ἐξαλείψει ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

The last example is tricky, wonder if πηγὰς was miss-construed as a fem.gen. sg. by the author, it looks like John intended a Hebrew construct chain like ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν Rev. 21:6.

Rev. 21:6 καὶ εἶπέν μοι· γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν.

Moving in a different direction, in a number of minuscules ζωάς replaces ζωῆς at ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων Rev. 7:17 . Apparently some scribe had problem with a split genitive construction. This doesn't mean that scribe would of had a problem with ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς without ὑδάτων. Apparently, given the silence of grammars on this point, the introduction of a genitive between a prep + dat, or prep + acc construction doesn't raise any problem.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Rev. 7:17 ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων , καὶ ἐξαλείψει ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

The last example is tricky, wonder if πηγὰς was miss-construed as a fem.gen. sg. by the author, it looks like John intended a Hebrew construct chain like ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν Rev. 21:6.

Rev. 21:6 καὶ εἶπέν μοι· γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν.

Moving in a different direction, in a number of minuscules ζωάς replaces ζωῆς at ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων Rev. 7:17 . Apparently some scribe had problem with a split genitive construction. This doesn't mean that scribe would of had a problem with ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς without ὑδάτων. Apparently, given the silence of grammars on this point, the introduction of a genitive between a prep + dat, or prep + acc construction doesn't raise any problem.

If you spend enough time you will eventually find a discussion of this. Cooper (vol. 1, p198, 47.9.19) addresses the placement of a genitive construed with a substantive between a preposition and it's case. Cooper describes this phenomenon as sporadic, but He gives a whole page of examples from Thucydides and Xenophon.

Thucydides
Book 1, chapter 1, section 3, line 3

καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ὁρῶν ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους,
τὸ μὲν εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον. κίνησις γὰρ αὕτη
μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐγένετο καὶ μέρει τινὶ τῶν βαρ-
βάρων, ὡς δὲ εἰπεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. τὰ γὰρ
πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ
χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα ἦν, ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων ὧν ἐπὶ μακρό-
τατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω
γενέσθαι οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. φαί-

Thucydides
Book 1, chapter 12, section 3, line 1

κατεσχηκότος· ἐπεὶ καὶ μετὰ τὰ Τρωικὰ ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἔτι μετ-
ανίστατό τε καὶ κατῳκίζετο, ὥστε μὴ ἡσυχάσασαν αὐξηθῆναι.
ἥ τε γὰρ ἀναχώρησις τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐξ Ἰλίου χρονία γενο-
μένη πολλὰ ἐνεόχμωσε, καὶ στάσεις ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὡς
ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐγίγνοντο, ἀφ' ὧν ἐκπίπτοντες τὰς πόλεις ἔκτιζον.
Βοιωτοί τε γὰρ οἱ νῦν ἑξηκοστῷ ἔτει μετὰ Ἰλίου ἅλωσιν ἐξ
Ἄρνης ἀναστάντες ὑπὸ Θεσσαλῶν τὴν νῦν μὲν Βοιωτίαν,
πρότερον δὲ Καδμηίδα γῆν καλουμένην ᾤκισαν (ἦν δὲ αὐτῶν
καὶ ἀποδασμὸς πρότερον ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ, ἀφ' ὧν καὶ ἐς
Ἴλιον ἐστράτευσαν), Δωριῆς τε ὀγδοηκοστῷ ἔτει ξὺν Ἡρα-
κλείδαις Πελοπόννησον ἔσχον. μόλις τε ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ

Xenophon Hist., Hellenica
Book 2, chapter 1, section 21, line 2

πάντα ἀφῆκε Λύσανδρος. οἱ δ' Ἀθηναῖοι κατὰ πόδας
πλέοντες ὡρμίσαντο τῆς Χερρονήσου ἐν Ἐλαιοῦντι ναυσὶν
ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν. ἐνταῦθα δὴ ἀριστοποιουμένοις
αὐτοῖς ἀγγέλλεται τὰ περὶ Λάμψακον, καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνήχθησαν
εἰς Σηστόν. ἐκεῖθεν δ' εὐθὺς ἐπισιτισάμενοι ἔπλευσαν
εἰς Αἰγὸς ποταμοὺς ἀντίον τῆς Λαμψάκου· διεῖχε δ' ὁ
Ἑλλήσποντος ταύτῃ σταδίους ὡς πεντεκαίδεκα. ἐνταῦθα
δὴ ἐδειπνοποιοῦντο. Λύσανδρος δὲ τῇ ἐπιούσῃ νυκτί, ἐπεὶ
ὄρθρος ἦν, ἐσήμηνεν εἰς τὰς ναῦς ἀριστοποιησαμένους
εἰσβαίνειν, πάντα δὲ παρασκευασάμενος ὡς εἰς ναυμαχίαν
καὶ τὰ παραβλήματα παραβάλλων, προεῖπεν ὡς μηδεὶς

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A.Ag 1291-1294

Ἅιδου πύλας δὲ τάσδ’ ἐγὼ προσεννέπω·
ἐπεύχομαι δὲ καιρίας πληγῆς τυχεῖν,
ὡς ἀσφάδαστος, αἱμάτων εὐθνησίμων
ἀπορρυέντων, ὄμμα συμβάλω τόδε.

I address these gates as the gates of Hades. LCL

This door I greet as the gates of Death. H. W. Smyth

Smyth's gates of Death sounds like Job LXX

Job 38:17 ἀνοίγονται δέ σοι φόβῳ πύλαι θανάτου,
πυλωροὶ δὲ ᾅδου ἰδόντες σε ἔπτηξαν;

Gates of Hades/Hell first(??) found in Homer

Homerus Epic., Ilias
Book 5, line 646

ἓξ οἴῃς σὺν νηυσὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι παυροτέροισιν
Ἰλίου ἐξαλάπαξε πόλιν, χήρωσε δ' ἀγυιάς·
σοὶ δὲ κακὸς μὲν θυμός, ἀποφθινύθουσι δὲ λαοί.
οὐδέ τί σε Τρώεσσιν ὀΐομαι ἄλκαρ ἔσεσθαι
ἐλθόντ' ἐκ Λυκίης, οὐδ' εἰ μάλα καρτερός ἐσσι,
ἀλλ' ὑπ' ἐμοὶ δμηθέντα πύλας Ἀΐδαο περήσειν.

found also in Euripides:

Euripides Trag., Hippolytus
Line 57

κῶμος λέλακεν, Ἄρτεμιν τιμῶν θεὰν
ὕμνοισιν· οὐ γὰρ οἶδ' ἀνεωιγμένας πύλας
Ἅιδου, φάος δὲ λοίσθιον βλέπων τόδε.

Found in Gospel of Matthew:

Matt. 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Matthew probably picked it up from the LXX where it is found several times:

3Mac. 5:51 ἀνεβόησαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ σφόδρα τὸν τῆς ἁπάσης δυνάμεως δυνάστην ἱκετεύοντες οἰκτῖραι μετὰ ἐπιφανείας αὐτοὺς ἤδη πρὸς πύλαις ᾅδου καθεστῶτας.

Ode. 11:10 Ἐγὼ εἶπα Ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν ἡμερῶν μου
πορεύσομαι ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου,
καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα.

Job 38:17 ἀνοίγονται δέ σοι φόβῳ πύλαι θανάτου,
πυλωροὶ δὲ ᾅδου ἰδόντες σε ἔπτηξαν;

Wis. 16:13 σὺ γὰρ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις
καὶ κατάγεις εἰς πύλας ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγεις·

Sol. 16:2 παρ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐξεχύθη ἡ ψυχή μου εἰς θάνατον
σύνεγγυς πυλῶν ᾅδου μετὰ ἁμαρτωλοῦ

Is. 38:10 Ἐγὼ εἶπα Ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν ἡμερῶν μου ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Χορός
1295
ὦ πολλὰ μὲν τάλαινα, πολλὰ δ’ αὖ σοφὴ
γύναι, μακρὰν ἔτεινας. εἰ δ’ ἐτητύμως
μόρον τὸν αὑτῆς οἶσθα, πῶς θεηλάτου
βοὸς δίκην πρὸς βωμὸν εὐτόλμως πατεῖς;

Chorus
[1295] O woman, pitiful exceedingly and exceeding wise, long has been your speech. But if, in truth, you have knowledge of your own death, how can you step with calm courage to the altar like an ox, driven by the god?

— H. W Smyth

The referent of μακρὰν ἔτεινας isn't perfectly obvious, the 2nd pers. sg. ἔτεινας suggests Cassandra prolongs something and her speech is the only thing handy to fill the void. Comparing her to an Ox being driven to the alter for slaughter is not very flattering. The only point of comparison is her willingness to go without an attempt to escape. But to OX doesn't know and she knows, and she isn't going quietly, so in several respects the the comparison falls apart.

Once again we see δίκην used adverbially, after the manner of an OX ...

The sacrifice motif in Aeschylus and Good Friday:

Κασάνδρα prediction of her own death and the sacrificial imagery comes at a time when I should be reading the gospels. I had a good solid hour of gospel reading while waiting in the examination room to see my primary MD on Wednesday afternoon. She was running an hour late and I knew this would happen so I took along my NA26 and had a very vivid encounter with the Gospel of John, the wording was plain and direct, shockingly so, after months of wading through the seemingly endless ambiguities of Aeschylus.

[Paul Derouda]

I looked through the instances of "gates" of Hades in Homer. Many times reading Homer it has struck me strange why talk about the gates of Hades, when you could talk about Hades itself. Why say "I hate him like the gates of Hades/death", when you could say "I hate him like death"? Is "gates of death" just a periphrasis for death, or does it include some other idea, like the "transition to death" or even "moment of death"?

In Il. 23.71 the idea is simply, I think, that Patroclus is in some kind of limbo and wants to get buried quickly to get on to Hades proper. But could this support an idea that the limbo before the gates of Hades in Homer are even worse Hades itself, and that's the reason they're referring to the gates of Hades?

An interesting comparison is the gates of Dream - with those, you can either just be "at" the gates of Dream (I wonder if Penelope is sleeping only lightly at Od. 4.808) or go through them.

In the passage of Agamemnon the gates of Hades don't seem to me to mean anything very elaborate, though.

Il. 9.312-
ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύλῃσιν
ὅς χ' ἕτερον μὲν κεύθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπῃ.

(Il. 9.312=OD.14.156)

Il 23.71
θάπτέ με ὅττι τάχιστα πύλας Ἀΐδαο περήσω.

OD.4.808
τὴν δ' ἠμείβετ' ἔπειτα περίφρων Πηνελόπεια,
ἡδὺ μάλα κνώσσουσ' ἐν ὀνειρείῃσι πύλῃσιν

OD.19.562
δοιαὶ γάρ τε πύλαι ἀμενηνῶν εἰσὶν ὀνείρων:
αἱ μὲν γὰρ κεράεσσι τετεύχαται, αἱ δ' ἐλέφαντι:
τῶν οἳ μέν κ' ἔλθωσι διὰ πριστοῦ ἐλέφαντος,
οἵ ῥ' ἐλεφαίρονται, ἔπε' ἀκράαντα φέροντες:
οἱ δὲ διὰ ξεστῶν κεράων ἔλθωσι θύραζε,
οἵ ῥ' ἔτυμα κραίνουσι, βροτῶν ὅτε κέν τις ἴδηται.

Another thing I've thought to be a bit analogous in Homer is the idea of "the threshold of old age", γήραος οὐδός, which actually means old age itself.

Btw, I didn't remember that the NT actually uses the word "Hades". The meaning of the word has of course shifted. In Homer, it actually usually doesn't mean the place but the person. The beginning of the Iliad really means "hurled to [the god] Hades' [house] many ghosts of heroes". I would give a reference for this if I remembered one...

[Paul Derouda]

I don't know a word of Hebrew. For those passages of the LXX where a Hebrew equivalent exists, is there a difference with the expression "gates of hades" compared to the Greek version?

[NateD26]

Job 38:17

יז הֲנִגְלוּ לְךָ, שַׁעֲרֵי-מָוֶת; וְשַׁעֲרֵי צַלְמָוֶת תִּרְאֶה.

The distinction was a bit unclear to me, until I've read the Aramaic translation which
reads the second part as the gates of hell itself:

יז אפשר דאתגליאו לך מעלני מותא ומעלני טולא מותא דגהנם תחמי.

All the commentators I've read though seem to take them as phrases signifying the same
thing. Rashi read both of them as referring to Hell, and another read both as referring to the grave.
I've never liked this explanation of identical semantic parallelism, because it's too easy. There must have
been a reason for this repetition and there must have been in the scribes minds two distinct
terms for death and hell.

Our Hebrew צ is the Aramaic ט, and it seems Hell is always the shadow of death in the Bible.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Job 38:17

יז הֲנִגְלוּ לְךָ, שַׁעֲרֵי-מָוֶת; וְשַׁעֲרֵי צַלְמָוֶת תִּרְאֶה.

The distinction was a bit unclear to me, until I've read the Aramaic translation which
reads the second part as the gates of hell itself:

יז אפשר דאתגליאו לך מעלני מותא ומעלני טולא מותא דגהנם תחמי.

All the commentators I've read though seem to take them as phrases signifying the same
thing. Rashi read both of them as referring to Hell, and another read both as referring to the grave.
I've never liked this explanation of identical semantic parallelism, because it's too easy. There must have
been a reason for this repetition and there must have been in the scribes minds two distinct
terms for death and hell.

Our Hebrew צ is the Aramaic ט, and it seems Hell is always the shadow of death in the Bible.

Nate,
RE: identical semantic parallelism

I agree, it is too easy.I checked the commentaries of E. Dhorme (1926) and F. I. Andersen, like the commentaries you mention they make no distinction. The blending two ideas, a place and a personal presence seems to be no problem for the ancient Greeks. Dhorme suggests someting similar for Job 38:17. One problem I have with this, the argument for synonymous parallelism in Job 38:17 assumes that MOT can refer to the place of the dead. The texts that are cited to support this show MOT in a parallel construction with Sheol. This seems to be circular reasoning. Are there any independent (not parallel) cases where MOT is unambiguously referring to the place of the dead? MOT is rendered with θάνᾰτος in Job 38:17. θάνᾰτος is not a place. Sheol is rendered ᾅδης which is a place.

[NateD26]

Nate,
RE: identical semantic parallelism

I agree, it is too easy.I checked the commentaries of E. Dhorme (1926) and F. I. Andersen, like the commentaries you mention they make no distinction. The blending two ideas, a place and a personal presence seems to be no problem for the ancient Greeks. Dhorme suggests someting similar for Job 38:17. One problem I have with this, the argument for synonymous parallelism in Job 38:17 assumes that MOT can refer to the place of the dead. The texts that are cited to support this show MOT in a parallel construction with Sheol. This seems to be circular reasoning. Are there any independent (not parallel) cases where MOT is unambiguously referring to the place of the dead? MOT is rendered with θάνᾰτος in Job 38:17. θάνᾰτος is not a place. Sheol is rendered ᾅδης which is a place.

I'm not sure whether there are isolated references of MOT referring to Sheol, but this Wikipedia
article has a couple of references where MOT and Sheol are paralleled and seem at least to
refer to the actual place where the dead go after death. The article mentions this Job verse as
well, and also takes the view that both MOT and TSALMOT[1] are synonyms for Sheol.

Proverbs 5, 5
רַגְלֶיהָ יֹרְדוֹת מָוֶת, שְׁאוֹל צְעָדֶיהָ יִתְמֹכוּ

NSRV doesn't have any English equivalent for Sheol:
5 Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol.

Hosea 13, 14
מִיַּד שְׁאוֹל אֶפְדֵּם – מִמָּוֶת אֶגְאָלֵם

The same here in NSRV. The upper-cap Death suggests they take the view of a personification --
perhaps Samael, the angel of death in Judaism?

14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death?

[1] Apparrently, Tsalmavet/Tsalmot is not a combination of TSEL (shadow) and MOT (death)
but was initially from the root צ-ל-מ and referred to a place of darkness. (Wiki Hebrew dictionary)

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Btw, I didn't remember that the NT actually uses the word "Hades". The meaning of the word has of course shifted. In Homer, it actually usually doesn't mean the place but the person. The beginning of the Iliad really means "hurled to [the god] Hades' [house] many ghosts of heroes". I would give a reference for this if I remembered one...

Paul,

R. Lattimore's famous opening of the Iliad

Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilleus
and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians,
hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls
of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting
of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished
since that time when first there stood in division of conflict
Atreus’ son the lord of men and brilliant Achilleus. . .

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I'm not sure whether there are isolated references of MOT referring to Sheol, but this Wikipedia
article has a couple of references where MOT and Sheol are paralleled and seem at least to
refer to the actual place where the dead go after death. The article mentions this Job verse as
well, and also takes the view that both MOT and TSALMOT[1] are synonyms for Sheol.

Proverbs 5, 5
רַגְלֶיהָ יֹרְדוֹת מָוֶת, שְׁאוֹל צְעָדֶיהָ יִתְמֹכוּ

NSRV doesn't have any English equivalent for Sheol:
5 Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol.

Hosea 13, 14
מִיַּד שְׁאוֹל אֶפְדֵּם – מִמָּוֶת אֶגְאָלֵם

The same here in NSRV. The upper-cap Death suggests they take the view of a personification --
perhaps Samael, the angel of death in Judaism?

14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death?

[1] Apparrently, Tsalmavet/Tsalmot is not a combination of TSEL (shadow) and MOT (death)
but was initially from the root צ-ל-מ and referred to a place of darkness. (Wiki Hebrew dictionary)

Nate,

I looked at these in the LXX. Proverbs is quite different in Greek version.

Prov. 5:5 τῆς γὰρ ἀφροσύνης οἱ πόδες κατάγουσιν
τοὺς χρωμένους αὐτῇ μετὰ θανάτου εἰς τὸν ᾅδην,
τὰ δὲ ἴχνη αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐρείδεται·

Here is E. Tov's parallel version, -+15 is an addition not found in Hebrew text.

Proverbs 5:5
רגל/יה τῆς γὰρ ἀφροσύνης ~11 οἱ πόδες
ירדות κατάγουσιν
--+15 τοὺς χρωμένους
--+15 αὐτῇ
--+15 μετὰ
מות θανάτου
{...}10 εἰς
שׁאול {..pεἰς}22 τὸν ᾅδην
צעד/יה τὰ δὲ ἴχνη αὐτῆς
--+15 οὐκ
יתמכו ἐρείδεται

I am not totally convinced that MOT where it is rendered θανάτου means a place according to the translator (not the original author). With all the metaphors and other figurative language it is somewhat difficult to nail down a referent but I think that the translator would have chosen a different word from θανάτου to indicate travel to the land of the dead. Could be wrong of course.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A.Ag 1301
Κασάνδρα
ἥκει τόδ’ ἦμαρ· σμικρὰ κερδανῶ φυγῇ.

The day has arrived, I have little to gain by trying to escape.

Not sure why σμικρὰ is an accusative neut plural. Really not a big deal, but looking at LSJ for μικρός and σμῑκρός a singular seems to be the normal way of saying this.

[Paul Derouda]

A.Ag 1301
Κασάνδρα
ἥκει τόδ’ ἦμαρ· σμικρὰ κερδανῶ φυγῇ.

The day has arrived, I have little to gain by trying to escape.

Not sure why σμικρὰ is an accusative neut plural.
not a big deal, but a singular would be a better fit.

Metre? σμικρὰ scans long-short, σμικρὸν would scan long-long. I haven't really understood the meter business in tragedy but my guess is that's here that's the reason.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A.Ag 1301
Κασάνδρα
ἥκει τόδ’ ἦμαρ· σμικρὰ κερδανῶ φυγῇ.

The day has arrived, I have little to gain by trying to escape.

Not sure why σμικρὰ is an accusative neut plural.
not a big deal, but a singular would be a better fit.

Metre? σμικρὰ scans long-short, σμικρὸν would scan long-long. I haven't really understood the meter business in tragedy but my guess is that's here that's the reason.

Thanks Paul, on meter I am clueless. A big handicap when reading Tragedy but my attempts to read discussions of meter in the printed literature convinced me that you need an oral presentation of the subject. Almost impossible to make any sense out of it without someone saying it out loud.

[Paul Derouda]

Frankly, I'm not sure because metre in tragedy is a lot more complicated than hexameter. This line's metre "might" be iambic trimeter, i.e. that is x - u - x - u - x - u -, where - is long, u is short and x "anceps", that is either long or short. A iambus would be just x - u -. R-T has a long discussion of metres in the end, but I haven't properly read it either.

Metre, meter... I notice I'm manifestly not commited as to whether I stick to the British or the American spelling... At school they told us to pick either one and be consistent. But well...

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Paul,

I found a site where some lines of Agamemnon are read out-loud.

http://prosoidia.com/agamemnon-of-aeschylus/

Not certain about what the reader's background is, perhaps modern greek.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Κασάνδρα
οὐκ ἔστ’ ἄλυξις, οὔ, ξένοι, χρόνον πλέω.
Χορός
1300
ὁ δ’ ὕστατός γε τοῦ χρόνου πρεσβεύεται,
Κασάνδρα
ἥκει τόδ’ ἦμαρ· σμικρὰ κερδανῶ φυγῇ.
Χορός
ἀλλ’ ἴσθι τλήμων οὖσ’ ἀπ’ εὐτόλμου φρενός.
Κασάνδρα
οὐδεὶς ἀκούει ταῦτα τῶν εὐδαιμόνων.
Χορός
ἀλλ’ εὐκλεῶς τοι κατθανεῖν χάρις βροτῷ.

Cassandra
There is no escape; no, my friends, there is none any more.
Chorus
[1300] Yet he that is last has the advantage in respect of time.
Cassandra
The day has come; flight would profit me but little.
Chorus
Well, be assured, you brave suffering with a courageous spirit.
Cassandra
None who is happy is commended thus.
Chorus
Yet surely to die nobly is a blessing for mortals.
— H. W. Smyth

It is less than perfectly clear what Aeschylus' perspective is on this exchange. The Χορός are trying to find a way of putting Κασάνδρα's predicament in a positive light and Κασάνδρα is refusing to accept this. I would compare the Χορός at this point to Job's friends with all their lightweight platitudes, offered to a destitute man, while they remain healthy and wealthy. Here we have a king's daughter, beautiful, young, gifted, in good health, facing imminent death. The Χορός offers banal platitudes about matters that don't confront them personally. So the irony of their remarks is perfectly obvious to a modernist but what about Aeschylus. Would he have endorsed the words and perspective of the Χορός in this exchange or is he using the Χορός to represent something on the same order with Job's friends?

[Paul Derouda]

Paul,

I found a site where some lines of Agamemnon are read out-loud.

http://prosoidia.com/agamemnon-of-aeschylus/

Not certain about what the reader's background is, perhaps modern greek.

Nice find. To me this sounded very good. I'm not certain either about the reader's background, but modern Greek sounds a good guess to me. Anyway, I found this in many respect superior to R-T's companion CD. The only "problem" I remarked was that the reader seemed to treat φ θ χ as fricatives (English f, th, h), not aspirates (just like a Modern Greek would do) but at least he made a clear distinction between φ θ χ and π τ κ unlike R-T. There seemed to be a good attempt to reproduce the pitch accent - something I can't really judge, since I have a bad musical ear, but it seemed good to me. Also the rhythm sounded good, though for this too I'm not that good a judge. Anyway, to me this seems to just the kind of thing that can help us understand the metre.

[Paul Derouda]

Κασάνδρα
οὐκ ἔστ’ ἄλυξις, οὔ, ξένοι, χρόνον πλέω.
Χορός
1300
ὁ δ’ ὕστατός γε τοῦ χρόνου πρεσβεύεται,
Κασάνδρα
ἥκει τόδ’ ἦμαρ· σμικρὰ κερδανῶ φυγῇ.
Χορός
ἀλλ’ ἴσθι τλήμων οὖσ’ ἀπ’ εὐτόλμου φρενός.
Κασάνδρα
οὐδεὶς ἀκούει ταῦτα τῶν εὐδαιμόνων.
Χορός
ἀλλ’ εὐκλεῶς τοι κατθανεῖν χάρις βροτῷ.

Cassandra
There is no escape; no, my friends, there is none any more.
Chorus
[1300] Yet he that is last has the advantage in respect of time.
Cassandra
The day has come; flight would profit me but little.
Chorus
Well, be assured, you brave suffering with a courageous spirit.
Cassandra
None who is happy is commended thus.
Chorus
Yet surely to die nobly is a blessing for mortals.
— H. W. Smyth

It is less than perfectly clear what Aeschylus' perspective is on this exchange. The Χορός are trying to find a way of putting Κασάνδρα's predicament in a positive light and Κασάνδρα is refusing to accept this. I would compare the Χορός at this point to Job's friends with all their lightweight platitudes, offered to a destitute man, while they remain healthy and wealthy. Here we have a king's daughter, beautiful, young, gifted, in good health, facing imminent death. The Χορός offers banal platitudes about matters that don't confront them personally. So the irony of their remarks is perfectly obvious to a modernist but what about Aeschylus. Would he have endorsed the words and perspective of the Χορός in this exchange or is he using the Χορός to represent something on the same order with Job's friends?

I'm not really sure. This sort of thing, the "meaning" or "message" of the play just eludes me, it's just so different from what we're used to. I don't feel I can say anything with much confidence yet in this kind of subject. The tradition is that Cassandra's predictions are not believed by anyone, so maybe the point is the chorus is incredulous and that's why they're belittling her with their "nevermind" sort of comments?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A.Ag. 1322

Κασάνδρα
ἅπαξ ἔτ’ εἰπεῖν ῥῆσιν οὐ θρῆνον θέλω
ἐμὸν τὸν αὐτῆς. ἡλίῳ δ’ ἐπεύχομαι
πρὸς ὕστατον φῶς †τοῖς ἐμοῖς τιμαόροις

One last time, I wish to speak
my own dirge ...

There is a double (pleonastic) possessive ἐμὸν + τὸν αὐτῆς (possessive genitive). G. Cooper[1] suggests that this parallel construction underlines the possessive use of the genitive. On the other hand, the use of τὸν in τὸν αὐτῆς caught my eye where τὸν ties αὐτῆς to θρῆνον.



We saw τὸν αὐτῆς used as a possessive on line 1297

Χορός
1295
ὦ πολλὰ μὲν τάλαινα, πολλὰ δ’ αὖ σοφὴ
γύναι, μακρὰν ἔτεινας. εἰ δ’ ἐτητύμως
μόρον τὸν αὑτῆς οἶσθα, πῶς θεηλάτου
βοὸς δίκην πρὸς βωμὸν εὐτόλμως πατεῖς;

Chorus
[1295] O woman, pitiful exceedingly and exceeding wise, long has been your speech. But if, in truth, you have knowledge of your own death, how can you step with calm courage to the altar like an ox, driven by the god?
— H. W. Smyth

[1] Guy Cooper, Greek Syntax, v. 3, p. 2020, 2:47.5.3.A)

[Qimmik]

In line 1322, it should be ἤ instead of οὐ. Murray, Fraenkel, Denniston & Page, Page (OCT), West and Sommerstein (Loeb) all have ἤ with no indication of a variant reading.

I now see that Fraenkel in his commentary mentions that οὐ is a conjecture by Hermann, "adopted by Mazon among many others." (Murray in his apparatus notes this conjecture too.) Fraenkel rejects the conjecture as unnecessary, and so, apparently, do the other editors cited above.

He also mentions that by adding ἐμὸν τὸν αὐτῆς "Cassandra points to the peculiarity of her situation, for it is in itself contrary to the nature of things that anyone should sing or speak his own dirge." That's the reason for the emphatic τὸν αὐτῆς after ἐμὸν, and that reinforces ἤ as the correct reading: she's going to make a last speech, or rather sing a dirge--her very own, for herself. It doesn't make much sense for her to say she's going to make a final speech but not her very own dirge. The pathos lies precisely in the fact that she knows beforehand exactly what's coming--her speech will be her very own dirge.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

In line 1322, it should be ἤ instead of οὐ. Murray, Fraenkel, Denniston & Page, Page (OCT), West and Sommerstein (Loeb) all have ἤ with no indication of a variant reading.

I now see that Fraenkel in his commentary mentions that ἤ is a conjecture by Hermann, "adopted by Mazon among many others." (Murray in his apparatus notes this conjecture too.) Fraenkel rejects the conjecture as unnecessary, and so, apparently, do the other editors cited above.

I am having a hard time following this. If they all reject ἤ ... a conjecture by Hermann why do they all read ἤ in their text. Perhaps οὐ is the conjecture not ἤ. That would resolve the problem and makes sense out of the following paragraph.

He also mentions that by adding ἐμὸν τὸν αὐτῆς "Cassandra points to the peculiarity of her situation, for it is in itself contrary to the nature of things that anyone should sing or speak his own dirge." That's the reason for the emphatic τὸν αὐτῆς after ἐμὸν, and that reinforces ἤ as the correct reading: she's going to make a last speech, or rather sing a dirge--her very own, for herself. It doesn't make much sense for her to say she's going to make a final speech but not her very own dirge. The pathos lies precisely in the fact that she knows beforehand exactly what's coming--her speech will be her very own dirge.

I have noticed in translations for reading pleasure and easy comprehension, textual problems like this are sometimes solved by just ignoring the particle altogether:

One thing left.
I want to sing my own dirge.
— Ann Carson

I'd like a few more words, a kind of dirge,
it is my own.
— R. Fagles

[Paul Derouda]

In line 1322, it should be ἤ instead of οὐ. Murray, Fraenkel, Denniston & Page, Page (OCT), West and Sommerstein (Loeb) all have ἤ with no indication of a variant reading.

I now see that Fraenkel in his commentary mentions that ἤ is a conjecture by Hermann, "adopted by Mazon among many others." (Murray in his apparatus notes this conjecture too.) Fraenkel rejects the conjecture as unnecessary, and so, apparently, do the other editors cited above.

I am having a hard time following this. If they all reject ἤ ... a conjecture by Hermann why do they all read ἤ in their text. Perhaps οὐ is the conjecture not ἤ. That would resolve the problem and makes sense out of the following paragraph.

οὐ is the conjecture - Qimmik probably made a little typo.

[Qimmik]

Paul is right. You're having a hard time following my comment because I erroneously wrote that ἤ is a conjecture by Hermann. I meant to write that οὐ is a conjecture by Hermann. Sorry for the confusion.

As I noted in a different post, I'm font-challenged. I only know how to put Greek into the text of my comments by copying a word from somewhere else. In this case I copied and pasted the wrong word. I went back and corrected my previous post to avoid confusing anyone else.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

οὐ is the conjecture ...

Thanks Paul,
Wish I had Frankel, West, et al. James Hogan actually mentions it but his notes are all English so I don't often look there.

At 1324 Just as the text is falling apart
ἡλίῳ δ’ ἐπεύχομαι
πρὸς ὕστατον φῶς

I was looking to find someone who translated ὕστατον φῶς "last light" and T. Hughes, R. Fagles, D. Grene-W. O'Flaherty did, more or less, where C. Collard reads: "I pray to the last daylight from the sun ..."

Translations are commentaries of the most direct sort. Does anyone know if Ted Hughes actually worked with the Greek text? What I could find about him indicated he was a famous poet. {update} I just found someone who is a Ted Hughes aficionado claiming he worked from the original languages. His renderings are very free, the ones I have looked at.

[mwh]

This discussion may be dead, so I'll just offer a few quick comments on various places.

1075 toioutos wste inf. is unexceptional (such a person as to, the sort of person to, toiout- frequently followed by consec. wste+inf., perfectly regular). LSJ just quote the earliest ex.

1078 proterois epomena tad' efhmisw.
proterois epomena is predicative, lit. this you uttered concordant with the previous (utterances). sofon eme poieis, you're making me smart; sofon touto fhs, you say this smart (i.e. that's a smart thing to say, what you're saying is smart); epomena tade fhs, you say this consistent, i.e. what you're saying is consistent. Predicative adjectives in oblique cases can be tricky to translate, but the greek construction is perfectly regular.

1098 h mhn. Textual question, I'd side with West.

1131 proseikazw. I liken this to something bad. When anything is like something (arch. like to something), similar to something, the something is dative. Goes for adjj, advv, verbs, whatever. Why is a legitimate (but not difficult) question, but the fact that this is a compound verb is irrelevant.

Secret History I would not recommend, literally sophomoric. (With apologies if you're sophomores.)

1159 talain'. Yes its reference goes beyond this particular sentence to her present condition, or conveying her state of mind. An interjected woe is me exclamation. Natural enough after those iw's.

1173 ἑπόμενα προτέροισι τάδ’ ἐφημίσω.
epomena proteroisi is predicative, lit. this you uttered consonant with the previous (utterances). sofon eme poieis you're making me smart; sofon touto fhs you say this smart i.e. that's a smart thing to say, what you're saying is smart; epomena tad' efhmisw you said this consistent, what you're saying is consistent. Predicative adjj. in oblique cases can be difficult to translate but the greek is perfectly regular. The need for a relative comes only when you're trying to translate to english. Important thing is to get comfortable with the greek syntax.