Bowen's Advanced Greek Unseens

Greek Learning Greek
41

By Plutarch’s time μη is often used where earlier Greek would use ου, particularly in indirect speech. It’s just a shift in usage over time, nothing to do with emphasis. K-G II 511.3c, Mayser Gr.Gr. II ii 551, 562.

πλοίου προσφερομένου etc. is gen.abs. The set-up comes first. “No surprise that the Caunians [not Caunusians], when a boat … pursued by pirates, reportedly don’t …”
διαπυνθανομένους present not aorist, as throughout this first part.
παρεῖναι καὶ συγκαταγαγεῖν τὸ πλοῖον something like “let them in and helped them dock the boat.”
καταγω (ναυν) is to put in to land (from the sea), aναγω (ναυν) to put out to sea (from land).

42

Euripides: Iphigenia at Aulis 640-661

Ιφ. ὦ πάτερ, ἐσεῖδόν σ’ ἀσμένη πολλῷ χρόνῳ. (640)
Αγ. καὶ γὰρ πατὴρ σέ· τόδ’ ἴσον ὑπὲρ ἀμφοῖν λέγεις.
Ιφ. χαῖρ’· εὖ δέ μ’ ἀγαγὼν πρὸς σ’ ἐποίησας, πάτερ.
Αγ. οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως φῶ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ φῶ, τέκνον.
Ιφ. ἔα·
ὡς οὐ βλέπεις ἕκηλον ἄσμενός μ’ ἰδών.
Αγ. πόλλ’ ἀνδρὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ στρατηλάτῃ μέλει. (645)
Ιφ. παρ’ ἐμοὶ γενοῦ νῦν, μὴ ’πὶ φροντίδας τρέπου.
Αγ. ἀλλ’ εἰμὶ παρὰ σοὶ νῦν ἅπας κοὐκ ἄλλοθι.
Ιφ. μέθες νυν ὀφρὺν ὄμμα τ’ ἔκτεινον φίλον.
Αγ. ἰδού, γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν, τέκνον.
Ιφ. κἄπειτα λείβεις δάκρυ’ ἀπ’ ὀμμάτων σέθεν; (650)
Αγ. μακρὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἡ ’πιοῦσ’ ἀπουσία.
Ιφ. †οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅ τι φῇς, οὐκ οἶδα, φίλτατ’ ἐμοὶ πάτερ.†
Αγ. συνετὰ λέγουσα μᾶλλον εἰς οἶκτόν μ’ ἄγεις.
Ιφ. ἀσύνετά νυν ἐροῦμεν, εἰ σέ γ’ εὐφρανῶ.
Αγ. παπαῖ· τὸ σιγᾶν οὐ σθένω, σὲ δ’ ᾔνεσα. (655)
Ιφ. μέν’, ὦ πάτερ, κατ’ οἶκον ἐπὶ τέκνοις σέθεν.
Αγ. θέλω γε, τὸ θέλειν δ’ οὐκ ἔχων ἀλγύνομαι.
Ιφ. ὄλοιντο λόγχαι καὶ τὰ Μενέλεω κακά.
Αγ. ἄλλους ὀλεῖ πρόσθ’ ἃ ἐμὲ διολέσαντ’ ἔχει.
Ιφ. ὡς πολὺν ἀπῆσθα χρόνον ἐν Αὐλίδος μυχοῖς. (660)
Αγ. καὶ νῦν γέ μ’ ἴσχει δή τι μὴ στέλλειν στρατόν.

Unseen draft:

Iph. Father, happily I saw you a long time ago.
Ag. And your father saw you. This thing you speak applies equally to both of us.
Iph. Greetings, you did well to have brought me to you, father.
Ag. I do not know how I could say this and not say it, child.
Iph. Let it be. For you do not look <well (?)> happy to see me.
Ag. There are many matters of concern for a king and general.
Iph. Be by my side now, do not turn to your concerns.
Ag. But I am now by your side entirely and nowhere else.
Iph. Now relax your brow and your <…>.
Ag. Look, I am gladdened at you as I see you gladdened, child.
Iph. And after you wipe/drip tears from your eyes?
Ag. For the present parting is long for us.
Iph. I do not know what you say, I do not know, my beloved father.
Ag. You rather speak sense leading me into the room.
Iph. We now speak nonsense, if you I am <serious ?> to you.
Ag. Oh no – I cannot stand the silence, and I have praised you.
Iph. Wait, father, at home with your children.
Ag. How I wish it, the wanting but not having pains me.
Iph. Perish the captains and Menelaus’ evil
Ag. It will destroy others before he has this that has destroyed me.
Iph. How great a time you were away in Aulis .
Ag. And now it me somewhat not to for the army.

With a dictionary:

Iph. Father, happily I beheld you a long time ago.
Ag. And your father you. This thing you speak applies equally to both of us.
Iph. Greetings, you did well to have brought me to you, father.
Ag. I do not know how I could say this and not say it, child.
Iph. Ah! As you do not look at ease or to be gladly seeing me.
Ag. There are many matters of concern for a king and general.
Iph. Be by my side now, do not turn to your concerns.
Ag. But I am now by your side entirely and nowhere else.
Iph. Then relax your brow and look forward with your eyes.
Ag. Look, I rejoice in you as you I see you rejoicing, child.
Iph. I do not know what you say, I don’t know, beloved father to me.
Ag. Rather saying something sensible, you lead me to compassion.
Iph. Then we will speak senseless things, if it will only gladden you.
Ag. Alas, I am not strong enough for the silence, and I praised you.
Iph. Wait, father, at home with your children.
Ag. How I wish it, the wanting but not having pains me.
Iph. May the spears perish and the evil of Meneleus!
Ag. He will destroy others before he has what has destroyed me.
Iph. He long you were away in the recesses of Aulis!
Ag. And now something restrains me so I cannot get the army ready.

43

πολλῷ χρόνῳ – “with much time.” This means “after a long time”

τόδ’ ἴσον ὑπὲρ ἀμφοῖν λέγεις.-- not sure from your translation whether you see how this fits together: "You say this equal(ly) on behalf of both (of us).

ὅπως φῶ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ φῶ - “I don’t know how I am to say yes to/agree with this and say no/disagree” See LSJ φημι III

ὡς οὐ βλέπεις ἕκηλον ἄσμενός μ’ ἰδών – "how you do not look comfortable [though] seeing me gladly

ἔκτεινον – “stretch out”, “relax”

γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν – “I rejoice seeing you [just as much] as I rejoice”, “I rejoice to the extent that I rejoice” It’s intentionally ambiguous on A’s part. To her it’s meant to sound as if he’s saying “I really do rejoice very much seeing you”, but in fact he knows that he’s going to have to slaughter her as a human sacrifice, so he’s really saying “i really don’t rejoice at all to see you..”

συνετὰ λέγουσα μᾶλλον εἰς οἶκτόν μ’ ἄγεις. – “By speaking sense you lead me even more into compassion.”

κἄπειτα – LSJ ἔπειτα: “in Att. freq. to introduce emphatic questions, why then . . ?”

μακρὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἡ ’πιοῦσ’ ἀπουσία. “Our coming separation will be long.”

τὸ σιγᾶν οὐ σθένω – “I’m not strong enough to keep silent/I can’t bear keeping silent.”

σὲ δ’ ᾔνεσα – I think this means “I thank you”; see LSJ.

μέν’, – here “stay”, not “wait.”

θέλω γε, τὸ θέλειν δ’ οὐκ ἔχων ἀλγύνομαι. – “I want to [θέλω γε], but/and I’m pained by not having/being able to have the wanting/what I want.” θέλω usually means “to be willing” but here I think “want” is wanted.

τὰ Μενέλεω κακά – “Spears and Menelaus’ troubles be damned.” That’s the sense, but the play on ὄλοιντο - ὀλεῖ - διολέσαντ’ doesn’t work in English.

ἄλλους ὀλεῖ πρόσθ’ ἃ ἐμὲ διολέσαντ’ ἔχει – The subject of ὀλεῖ is ἃ ἐμὲ διολέσαντ’ ἔχει. διολέσαντ’ ἔχει – see Smyth 599b, 1963: equivalent to a periphrastic perfect. “The things that have destroyed me will destroy others before then.”

καὶ νῦν γέ μ’ ἴσχει δή τι μὴ στέλλειν στρατόν – 'and now something is holding me back from sending/launching the army."

44

Is τὸ θέλειν for its object, “what I want,” normal? τὸ θέλειν has to be the object of ἔχων I suppose.

45

τὸ θέλειν has to be the object of ἔχων I suppose.

Yes. This is poetry, not prose. It pushes syntax to the limits; it’s compressed and epigrammatic; and precisely because it’s not “normal” (whatever that is), it’s poignant and striking and effective.

46

On the first line, ἐσεῖδον is best translated as present. This is the so-called “dramatic” or “tragic” aorist, restricted to the 1st person. “I’m so glad to see you after such a long time!” Cf. line 655.

παρ’ ἐμοὶ γενοῦ νῦν: παρ’ ἐμοὶ refers more to mental or emotional closeness than “by my side.” “Be with me”

γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν. Like Hylander said, something like “I’m really happy to see you.” It’s foreboding stuff, like Agam.’s lines at the end of this passage. Agam.'s words in this exchange are perfectly ambiguous—ἀμφίβολος in Greek scholarly parlance.

47

γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν. It took me a while to see what was going on here. “I’'m as happy to see you as I am happy.” The ambiguity: “I’m so happy to see you.” vs. “I’m really not happy at all to see you, because I’m going to have to slaughter you.”

Is it just me, or is there a larger than usual number of resolutions of long syllables into two shorts in this passage , which, if my perception is accurate, gives expression to the underlying tension and edginess?


incidentally, some lines have been omitted and are not reflected in the line numeration above.

48

The TLG version of this passage has some lines from other sections. I assume that some surgery has been done on one or the other of them.

ἰδού, γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν, τέκνον.

Is that second comma misplaced?

49

Surgery has been done on the passage set for sight translation.

Is that second comma misplaced?

No, τέκνον is vocative. “I’m as happy as I am happy seeing you, my child.” “I’m happy to the extent I’m happy seeing you, my child.” Deliberately obscure and evasive and ambiguous.

50

I’m saying that it would work better taken as an accusative object of ορων and provide a more intelligible sense to the ως phrase.

51

If that were possible, it would eliminate the dramatic ambiguity and turn the line into mere padding at a moment of high tension.. These one-line exchanges, stichomythy, occur at highly charged moments like this.

But LSJ doesn’t cite any instance of γηθέω with a person as an accusative object.

52

I’m confused then. Isn’t the first σ’ accusative? Or what is elided there?

Here is the OCT text that the the unseen version is taken from. There is a lot of apparatus there, and I don’t understand all of it: https://archive.org/details/euripidisfabul03euri/page/317

Apparently the manuscript version of this line is ιδου γεγηθ εως γεγηθα σ ορων τεκνον, if I’m reading it correctly, and our version is from “Musgrave”, presumably to get rid of that weird εως.

53

Yes, the correction is attributable to Musgrave (1778). The first accusative σ’ is the object of ὁρῶν..

54

Musgrave’s emendation is palmary (ϲωϲ misread at εωϲ, σε then added to provide the requisite object for ορων), and we should regard it as certain. Joel, it’s shocking that you wanted to take τεκνον as accusative, which is almost as bad as your previous ungrammatical interpretation (perhaps your worst error). You should listen to Hylander. γεγηθα σ’ ορων “I am glad seeing you.” γεγηθα ως γεγηθα lit. “I am glad as (i.e. in the way that) I am glad.” Hylander explained the ambiguity in his first post. Ag formulates his “gladness” in such as way that his poor deluded daughter will misunderstand. The audience knows what he means, Iphigeneia doesn’t (a special form of dramatic irony). He wants to spare her (and himself) as long as possible. It’s all very Euripidean.

Resolutions. I haven’t looked up the figures, but Euripides’ plays have a progressively higher incidence of resolution over the course of his career, and the IA is one of his very latest, produced along with the Bacchae only after his death. There do seem rather an exceptional number of resolutions over this passage (including the split resolution after the caesura in 641), and that may possibly raise the emotive level a bit. But anyone reading this passage without knowing its date would be able to tell on metrical grounds alone (let alone the nature of the dialogue) that it’s late Euripides.

55

Joel, I’m not surprised that you found this line puzzling, because I did too. I even looked at a couple of translations before I realized what is going on.

56

Joel, I’m not surprised either, and I’m sorry if I sounded too harsh. Think of it as a good cop bad cop routine, with me as the bad cop. But how could you have thought that γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν meant “I rejoice in you as you I see you rejoicing" (my italics)?—but if that was your worst avoidable error, as I think it was, you’re not doing badly, especially in view of your evident unfamiliarity with the norms of tragic dialogue (and ως can be an exceptionally tricky word). But then your subsequently insisting on τεκνον as accusative, in defiance of Hylander’s explanation and all common sense, seemed almost willfully bad reading. Not many have his patience. Let’s not abuse it.

57

No worries. I would just like to improve my Greek, and I think it is more than kind for all of you to correct my errors here gratis. It wouldn’t be hard to pay a large amount in tuition for teachers not nearly as competent.

Now that I see that σε goes with ορων, and that γηθειν doesn’t take an accusative person, everything is obvious. Before I had read ως γεγηθ’ ορων τεκνον as “as I/one rejoices seeing a child”. That is, the ως of similies with the aor. The γεγηθειν ιδων τινα was something that I saw a lot in Homer, and I expected it here (but should also have been more alert to the pre-placement of σε). But again, it’s not worthwhile trying to explain error.

58

Before I had read ως γεγηθ’ ορων τεκνον as “as I/one rejoices seeing a child”.

You should ask yourself how that would make sense and how it would fit in this dialogue. These aren’t one-off, atomistic sentences from an elementary textbook. I think that if you try to make sense of these passages set for translation as continuous and coherent texts, as you would reading any text in English, your hit rate will improve. I’m not sure you do that as much as you should, because your final efforts at translation don’t always yield coherent English texts.

Ask yourself: does this make sense in English? Does this seem logical? If not, if it sounds strange in English, you should go back and rethink the Greek.

The ultimate objective, of course, is to get to a point where the Greek makes coherent sense to you without the need for translation.

One more point, and this related to what I wrote above. I’m not sure that your approach to these texts – first making a written translation without looking up words you don’t know and then making another written translation looking up the unknown words – is serving you well, because I think you tend to lock yourself into interpretations of the Greek in the first go-through and then fill in the blanks. I think that if you were to first read through the text to get a sense of what it’s about and see what you can make of it without translating, and then go through it looking up words you don’t know as you go through it a second time to make a written translation, you would not be so tightly locked into pre-conceived translations and you would do better at reaching an accurate understanding of the Greek. As I’ve mentioned before, these texts are probably aimed at students who have had more experience with Greek than you, and have been reading Greek longer.. Attempting them as sight translations is not necessarily helpful to you. But they seem to be a good way to expose yourself to continuous passages in a variety of styles and registers.

59

My process with these Unseens has been to read through the text a half dozen times or more, until it makes sense, mentally noting the words that I don’t understand, and what they seem to be doing in the sentence. Then I write down my understanding at that point. And then I go through look up words that I had guessed at or did not understand.

Once you and mwh correct any faults, I read through the Greek a few more times, making sure that I’ve got it. I revisit them a couple times over the next few days. This has already been helpful to me, and has made me more attentive to places where I’m sloppy.

This particular passage was very hard for me. I couldn’t quite tell where it fit dramatically — though I knew the broad outline of the story — if in this scene Agamemnon already planned to sacrifice his daughter or not, or if she knew about it or not. I still don’t quite understand the mechanics of the meeting. Was it a reunion after a long parting, or was she along with the campaign in Aulis? (Aulis was where they had the vision with the snake eating the birds and getting turned to stone by Zeus while they sacrificied hecatombs, I believe, from my Iliad reading.). Was the rest of his household along too?

In December it will have been five years since I started learning Greek, and at some point I need to stop relying on my beginer status to avoid hard things.

60

Thucydides 5.8.1-4

ὁ δὲ Βρασίδας εὐθὺς ὡς εἶδε κινουμένους τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, καταβὰς καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Κερδυλίου ἐσέρχεται ἐς τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν. καὶ ἐπέξοδον μὲν καὶ ἀντίταξιν οὐκ ἐποιήσατο πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, δεδιὼς τὴν αὑτοῦ παρασκευὴν καὶ νομίζων ὑποδεεστέρους εἶναι, οὐ τῷ πλήθει (ἀντίπαλα γάρ πως ἦν), ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀξιώματι (τῶν γὰρ Ἀθηναίων ὅπερ ἐστράτευε καθαρὸν ἐξῆλθε καὶ Λημνίων καὶ Ἰμβρίων τὸ κράτιστον), τέχνῃ δὲ παρεσκευάζετο ἐπιθησόμενος. εἰ γὰρ δείξειε τοῖς ἐναντίοις τό τε πλῆθος καὶ τὴν ὅπλισιν ἀναγκαίαν οὖσαν τῶν μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκ ἂν ἡγεῖτο μᾶλλον περιγενέσθαι ἢ ἄνευ προόψεώς τε αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσεως. ἀπολεξάμενος οὖν αὐτὸς πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ὁπλίτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Κλεαρίδᾳ προστάξας ἐβουλεύετο ἐπιχειρεῖν αἰφνιδίως πρὶν ἀπελθεῖν τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, οὐκ ἂν νομίζων αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως ἀπολαβεῖν αὖθις μεμονωμένους, εἰ τύχοι ἐλθοῦσα αὐτοῖς ἡ βοήθεια.

Unseen version.

But Brasidus as soon as he saw the Athenians in motion, even himself went down from Kerdylios and went into Amphipolis. And he did not make a sortie (?) or counter-formation against the Athenians, fearing his own preparation and thinking his men were lacking. Not in number (for there seemed to be as many (?)), but in worthiness/equipment. For what part of the Athenians that was campaigning close in (?) went out, and the best of the Lemnions and the Imbrions. But he was preparing tο be attacked with a trick. For if he were to show the facing army the size of his force with the armament being lacking, he would not be thought to be more in strength than if without any sight of them and without any consideration of what was really there. Therefore having picked out 150 hoplites and having assigned the others to Klearidus, he planned to attack suddenly before the Athenians moved out, thinking that they would not in the same manner leave behind and be attacked (?) again, if help happened to have come.

Revision:

But Brasidus as soon as he saw the Athenians in motion, went himself down from Kerdylios and went into Amphipolis. And he did not make a sortie or counter-formation against the Athenians, fearing his own preparation and thinking his men were lacking. Not in number (for there seemed to be as many), but in quality. For, what part of the Athenians which campaigned, that was of pure blood, went out, and the best of the Lemnions and the Imbrions. But he was preparing to attack with a trick. For if he were to show the facing army the size of his force with the armament being lacking, he would not be thought to be more in strength than without any sight of them and without any consideration of what was really there. Therefore having picked out 150 hoplites and having assigned the others to Klearidus, he planned to attack suddenly before the Athenians departed, thinking that they would not in the same manner split their forces and be isolated again, in case help happened to have come to them [Klearidus’ forces].