Check the introductory thread for a description of how the group works.
We’re working from Geoffrey Steadman’s Odyssey Books 6-8, a freely-available pdf with vocabulary and notes
Isn't it what it's looks like? She is flirting with Odysseus, telling him indirectly that she hasn't found a husband to her liking among the locals, and even implies that she just might consider him eligible.
Aetos wrote:Not to throw a wrench in the works, but Hainesworth says that μίσγεσθαι as an euphemism for having sex, is a later usage and speculates that it must have "sounded odd to the Classical Age".
I think we have to be careful here. Hainsworth actually says "μίσγεσθαι: "associate with". In later usage the simple verb in such a context is used as a euphemism for the sexual act".Paul Derouda wrote:In "later usage" a euphemism? I disagree. The word (with or without ἐν φιλότητι) is very common in this sense in Homer, Hesiod, the Hymns, Herodotus, so I really don't know where Hainsworth got the idea that it's a "later usage
I was saying nothing of the kind. What I was saying is that "Homer" here is playing with ambiguity of the word μίσγεσθαι. I gave two possible interprations for this:seneca2008 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:04 pmAre you expecting us to understand that a woman against her parent's wishes would have sex (willingly) with men before her wedding? I think it was probably shameful enough to simply be in the company of men.
I like Wilson's "got too intimate" which rather deliciously fudges the issue.
I said this because I although I don’t find a double entendre I have no objection to others reading one in and her translation covers both positions rather subtly.Paul Derouda wrote:I find Wilson's "got too intimate" better than many other renditions. But why are you saying that she "deliciously fudges the issue", if you don't think there's any issue at all ("I don't find it plausible that anyone reading 288 could take it in a sexual way")? It seems to me that she has found that there's some ambiguity here, not completely different from what I have found, that needs to brought out.
Seneca, I confess I'm at a bit of a loss here. There is no doubt that the word has several different shades of meaning and context will determine which one is appropriate; Apparently what I'm not seeing is why Hainesworth makes the comment at all. Certainly, 'associate with' is a perfectly acceptable meaning for this word and Hainesworth and Ameis both take this meaning. Perhaps I'm not interpreting the notion of "simple verb" correctly. As I understand it, a simple verb would be one that is not part of a formula, used as part of an idiomatic expression or compounded with a preposition or adverb, thus to me the verb as it appears both in 6.288 and 7.247 is in the simple form that Hainesworth applies this statement to.
I wouldn't take it that way either and I don't think Paul does for that matter (I see he already posted a reply). I believe that if there is a double entendre, it is intended strictly for the poet's 'live audience' and not as a reflexion of Nausicaa's character. I find it hard to believe that in the course of a few hours, she could relax enough with a complete stranger that she could "flirt" with him or engage in similar banter. However, illogicality on the part of the performer is not out of the question. Remember, this is a spontaneously generated line in front of an audience which is part of a scene that the poet is describing, which if I were to give it a title, would be "Our Hero is given a ride to her Father by a Princess". Trying to think like Nagler, I'd pick "solemnity" or perhaps "propriety" not "burlesque", as the Gestalt.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:04 pmI don't find it plausible that anyone reading 288 could take it in a sexual way. Are you expecting us to understand that a woman against her parent's wishes would have sex (willingly) with men before her wedding? I think it was probably shameful enough to simply be in the company of men.
But she was ruined, just the same!
I don't think it's irrelevant. But there's the added complication that there's an important proportion of male fantasy in the female characters Odysseus meets during his Wanderings – look at the (in my opinion) humorous description of Odysseus as Calypso's reluctant toy boy, or how Circe immediately invites Odysseus to bed in straightforward terms. This is should be borne in mind when we look at a more "innocent" character like Nausicaa. Not necessarily that she's ready to get ruined, but at least that the story is bound to be tainted with the same sort of humor.
That was a u-turn of a post.
I'm very glad to hear this! I'll be posting a new thread today - sorry for the big gap.Montcombroux wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:18 amI have been assiduously working through the Steadman commentary and comparing my interpretation with the Meunier French translation. I have learned a great deal from the various posts along the way and thoroughly enjoyed the journey thus far. I have been continuing and am presently into Book 7.
I am sure there are many in the same situation, and hope this is just a hiatus and not the end of the road.
Please don't let your supposed level prevent you from posting here. Questions are more than welcome and often give more experienced readers pause for thought. There is a lot of truth in the maxim "there is no such thing as a stupid question". How can any of us make progress if we don't ask?Montcombroux wrote:My elementary level of Greek prevents me from posting anything of significance