A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

NateD26
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
Contact:

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

Post Reply