οὐκοῦν, εἰ μὲν βούλει, κατὰ τὸ ἄρρεν τε καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον ‘Ἄρης’ ἂν εἴη: εἰ δ᾽ αὖ κατὰ τὸ σκληρόν τε καὶ ἀμετάστροφον, ὃ δὴ ‘ἄρρατον’ καλεῖται, καὶ ταύτῃ ἂν πανταχῇ πολεμικῷ θεῷ πρέποι ‘Ἄρη’ καλεῖσθαι.
Ares, then, if you like, would be named for his virility and courage, or for his hard and unbending nature, which is called ἄρρατον; so Ares would be in every way a fitting name for the god of war. (from Perseus, translated in 1921. I was unable to identify the translator).
My translation, which I suppose is more accurate: Then, if you like, Ares would be named for his virility and courage; and even if, on the other hand, he is called so for his hard and unbending nature, - for indeed, he is called ‘unbreakable’,- even in this way, the name ‘Ares’ would behoove a warlike god in all respects.
If you select English as the focus, and then check at the bottom of the text, you’ll find the source:
Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 12 translated by Harold N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1921.
Hi, grateful if you could please let us know what part of the original translation you think is misleading? I’m not sure I agree at first glance.
To take one example, if we look at εἰ δ᾽ αὖ κατὰ τὸ σκληρόν τε καὶ ἀμετάστροφον, ὃ δὴ ‘ἄρρατον’ καλεῖται, here the relative clause is ‘naming’ τὸ σκληρόν τε καὶ ἀμετάστροφον. This use of δή with ‘naming’ verbs (καλεῖν, ὀνομάζειν, etc.) is a common construction in Plato, e.g. Ophuijsen in Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage (Sicking and Ophuijsen, 1993) notes at p. 142:
‘δή is also used when the proper word for, or name of, a thing is appended to a description of it’,
and then gives examples, e.g.:
Phaedo 80c: ἔφη, ἐπειδὰν ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τὸ μὲν ὁρατὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν ὁρατῷ κείμενον, ὃ δὴ νεκρὸν καλοῦμεν …
You, on the other hand, seem to have:
- given δή a different force (which seems to me less likely in this context), and
- made the neuter relative ὅ agree in construction with Ares (although masculine) rather than τὸ σκληρόν τε καὶ ἀμετάστροφον (neuter), which is the natural reading.
Could you please let us know why you think your translation is better than the one given on Perseus (which seems to me to give the natural construction of the relative clause)? Many thanks.
Cheers, Chad
I dont think any modern translation should include the word “behoove” unless you are trying deliberately introduce an archaism which doesn’t seem to be appropriate here. (A minor point compared to Chad’s objections).
Hi all, PS I think there are aspects in CP’s translation that are worth calling out, e.g. εἰ δ᾽ αὖ … καὶ ταύτῃ … is signalled a little more nicely in CP’s version compared with the translation on Perseus (but I wouldn’t call the Perseus version misleading here).
Grateful to hear from CP where the Perseus translation could be seen as misleading, thanks again! Cheers, Chad
Then, if you like, Ares would be named for his virility and courage; and even if, on the other hand, he is named so for ‘hardness’ and ‘steadfastness’, features that are called ‘indestructibility’',- even in this way, the name ‘Ares’ would fit a warlike god in all respects.
I don’t know how to render this δή, probably, it would be better to leave it out.
I think good translations should avoid leaving hard words or technical terms untranslated because the reader might have no clue how to understand them at all.
Well, if we’re criticizing translations:
- I don’t like either of CP’s "even"s. The first misrepresents the Greek (“while if again” would be a more “accurate” rendering, and “on the other hand” is intolerably stilted), and the second would be better just “too” or “as well.”
- “features that are called ‘indestructibility’” will not do for ὃ δὴ ‘ἄρρατον’ καλεῖται. We must respect ὁ singular (bundling τὸ σκληρόν τε καὶ ἀμετάστροφον). "features that” is quite wrong.
- Most important of all. the handling of the etymologies. Two alternative etymologies of ‘Ἄρης are proffered (αρρην and αρρατος), but CP’s translation buries both of them quite out of sight. Of course, etymologies do not lend themselves to translation. but this turns the passage into incomprehensible nonsense.
The Perseus translation admittedly takes a short cut with “or” for εἰ δ᾽ αὖ etc., but is more faithful to the overall sense.