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

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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.

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 » 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: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

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

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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.

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

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

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 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?

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

Re: A.Ag Κασάνδρα scene 1072-1330

Post by 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

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 » 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.

Post Reply