Bowen's Advanced Greek Unseens

Greek Learning Greek
61

Brasidas, not Brasidus. He’s a Spartan, consistently with the Doric ending of his name, -ίδας not –ίδης.

I’ll comment on the trickiest part of this, οὐκ ἂν ἡγεῖτο μᾶλλον περιγενέσθαι ἢ ἄνευ προόψεώς τε αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσεως.
ἡγεῖτο is “he thought”—it’s not passive.
The αν (as well as the negative) applies not to ηγειτο but to περιγενεσθαι, so it’s not “he’d not be thinking that he came out on top,” as it looks to be, but “he thought that he wouldn’t come out on top.” (περιγενεσθαι represents aor.optative.) This is regular Greek idiom. Cf. the last line of the piece, οὐκ ἂν νομίζων αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως ἀπολαβεῖν …, where you rightly attached the ουκ αν to απολαβειν (again representing aor.opt.).

μᾶλλον περιγενέσθαι ἢ ἄνευ προόψεώς τε αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσεως is where it gets tricky. Brasidas thinks he has a better chance of surviving/succeeding if the Athenians&allies don’t get an advance look (προοψις) at his forces. He wants to fool them into thinking that his forces are stronger than they really are. If they realized how inferior his forces are they’d be contemptuous of them and wouldn’t hesitate to take them on. Thuc. expresses himself very harshly here. Usually his narrative is reasonably straightforward, unlike his speeches, but this is an exceptionally knotty sentence, Thucydides at his most rebarbative. You have to really wrestle with it.

Lit. “He thought he wouldn’t rather [i.e. be more likely to] succeed than without prior sight of them and not from contempt for the actuality [του οντος; i.e. the inferiority of his forces].” That’s to say (I think!), he thought he’d be more likely to succeed if [the enemy] didn’t see them ahead of time and [thus] feel contempt for their actual strength [which is weaker than B wants the enemy to believe].

Other details:
(ἀντίπαλα γάρ πως ἦν) “for they were (just about) evenly matched” (numerically).

οὐκ ἂν νομίζων αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως ἀπολαβεῖν αὖθις μεμονωμένους
The subject of απολαβειν is the same as the subject of νομιζων, i.e. Brasidas; αυτους is object. “thinking that he wouldn’t catch them (cut them off) similarly isolated a second time”
εἰ τύχοι ἐλθοῦσα αὐτοῖς ἡ βοήθεια. ει is just “if”: “if reinforcements came”; he wouldn’t get another chance “if they happened to get (succeeded in getting) help.” αυτοις is the Athenians&allies, like αυτους above.

The rest is pretty good. I think you are improving.

62

Thanks. I am rarely tripped up by οὐκ ἔφη and the like, but οὐκ ἂν ἡγεῖτο got me, as you saw. I should have recognized ἀπολαβεῖν “cut off” from Xenophon. Also I simply assumed αὐτοὺς as subject without thinking, and figured that there was another unnamed general being discussed.

Aristophanes Clouds 1278 - 1297

ΣΤΡΕΨΙΑΔΗΣ ΑΜΥΝΙΑΣ

Στ. κάτειπέ νυν, (1278,bis)
πότερα νομίζεις καινὸν αἰεὶ τὸν Δία (1279)
ὕειν ὕδωρ ἑκάστοτ’, ἢ τὸν ἥλιον (1280)
ἕλκειν κάτωθεν ταὐτὸ τοῦθ’ ὕδωρ πάλιν;
Αμ. οὐκ οἶδ’ ἔγωγ’ ὁπότερον, οὐδέ μοι μέλει.
Στ. πῶς οὖν ἀπολαβεῖν τἀργύριον δίκαιος εἶ,
εἰ μηδὲν οἶσθα τῶν μετεώρων πραγμάτων;
Αμ. ἀλλ’ εἰ σπανίζεις ἀργυρίου, τὸν γοῦν τόκον (1285)
ἀπόδοτε.
Στ. τοῦτο δ’ ἔσθ’, ὁ τόκος, τί θηρίον; (1286,bis)
Αμ. τί δ’ ἄλλο γ’ ἢ κατὰ μῆνα καὶ καθ’ ἡμέραν (1287)
πλέον πλέον τἀργύριον αἰεὶ γίγνεται
ὑπορρέοντος τοῦ χρόνου;
Στ. καλῶς λέγεις. (1289,bis)
τί δῆτα; τὴν θάλαττάν ἐσθ’ ὅτι πλείονα (1290)
νυνὶ νομίζεις ἢ πρὸ τοῦ;
Αμ. μὰ Δί’, ἀλλ’ ἴσην. @1 (1291,bis)
οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον πλείον’ εἶναι. (1292)
Στ. κᾆτα πῶς (1292,bis)
αὕτη μέν, ὦ κακόδαιμον, οὐδὲν γίγνεται (1293)
ἐπιρρεόντων τῶν ποταμῶν πλείων, σὺ δὲ
ζητεῖς ποιῆσαι τἀργύριον πλέον τὸ σόν; (1295)
οὐκ ἀποδιώξει σαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας;
φέρε μοι τὸ κέντρον.
Αμ. ταῦτ’ ἐγὼ μαρτύρομαι. (1297,bis)

Draft:

Strepsiadus Amynias

ST: And tell me then whether you think that Zeus always rains new water each time, or that he drags the sun below to rain this same water again?
AM: I certainly don’t know which, and don’t care.
ST: Then how do you justly receive payment, if you know nothing of matters meteorological?
AM: But if you lack money at least pay the interest.
ST: This “interest” is what sort of animal?
AM: What else indeed but from month and from day the money that is being birthed more and more as time flows by?
ST: Beautifully said. Does it signify? Do you think the sea is fuller right now that it was before?
AM: By Zeus, rather it is equal. For it would not be well-ordered to be more.
ST: And how then, is it that this, you scoundrel, is becoming not at all fuller, with the rivers flowing in, but you seek to make the money that is yours to be more? Won’t you chase yourself out of my house? Bring me the poker.
AM: I am witness to that!

Very fun! I don’t think this needs a revision as I didn’t have any vocabulary troubles. I perhaps wrongly assume that 1287 is supposed to be a pun about τόκος offspring/interest being born from month and day, but literally “monthly and daily becoming more and more.” The TLG version that I pasted above confused me with σπανίζετ᾽ in line 1285, until I checked the Bowen version again, which has σπανίζεις. TLG also had Χρ for Αμ.

I came across another interest quote from Aristophanes last night while reading Plato:

ὦ πότνι’ Εἰλήθυα, ἐπίσχες τοῦ τόκου,
ἕως ἂν εἰς ὅσιον ἀπέλθω χωρίον.

Mistress Eilethya, stop the interest until I can depart to the communal farm.

I’m much less sure about ὅσιον χωρίον meaning “communal farm.” The scholia was making the point that it meant public and not sacred money.

63

Eileithuia is the goddess of childbirth, and that’s all that τοκος means here, there’s no play on words. A οσιον χωριον is (despite appearances) a non-sacred place, one where it’s OK to give birth, as distinct from a ιερον place such as a sanctuary, where it’s not. It’s a quote from the Lysistrata.

64

StrepsiadES!

65

ἀλλ’ εἰ σπανίζεις ἀργυρίου, τὸν γοῦν τόκον (1285)
ἀπόδοτε.

The confusion (also in the mss) stems from the switch in number between σπανίζεις and απόδοτε.

What does “does it signify?” signify? τί δῆτα=what then?, what do you think about this, then?

On the IA passage:

As I mentioned before, I think you’d be doing yourself a favor by learning these nuts and bolts of Greek literature as you go. The passage from IA could be a good incentive to go read the play in English (if not Greek) or at least a short plot summary. (It’s a good read, I promise!)

66

First Brasidus (where I actually mentioned –ιδης), now Strepsiadus. Joel, you can’t realize how cringemaking these are.

I enjoyed dikaiopolis’ What does it signify? note, once I’d seen Joel’s translation. Yes, τί δῆτα moves straight on to Streps’s next Socratic-type question. First he posed the rain problem (ποτερα νομιζεις …; 1279), now he poses the ocean one (νομιζεις; again)—which allows him to exploit the contradictory phenomenon of interest.

At 1287-89, I really think “is being birthed” is overdoing it for simple γιγνεται! Amunias is offering a perfectly straight definition of interest (“What other than the money steadily increases?”, note the bad grammar). There’s no play on words in it, just as there isn’t in the Eileithuia snippet. Businessmen don’t deal in puns, and nor do fake-pregnant women.

67

you can’t realize how cringemaking these are.

To get a sense of the cringeworthiness, try saying Thucydidus, Euripidus.

Α propos of nothing: When our Greek driver/guide, who generally spoke very English well, referred to Thoo-kee-THEE-thees, I had to translate for the four other members of our party. They thought the modern Greek pronunciation was funny. I thought their need for translation was funny. The modern Greek pronunciation is of course much closer to the original ancient Greek, and really not too distant from the way his name has been pronounced in Greek since Roman times.

More pointless anecdotes about my trip to Greece (and in particular, Aegina) in the Civilization of the Greeks and Romans forum.

68

I looked for some summary of the Greek → Latin → English rules for names, but couldn’t find anything in Smyth. It’s a bit difficult for me, not knowing the middle language.

69

You don’t need Latin for Brasidas and Strepsiades. And actually, you can always just transliterate the Greek. Kleon not Cleon, etc. etc. That’s become rather fashionable in fact. So it’s even ok to write Thoukudides, though with familiar names it’s still customary to use the familiar latinized forms. (In English, that is; not in other modern languages.)
Latin substitutes C for Κ, a letter scarcely used in Latin. Other differences: declensional latinization, e.g. –us for–ος (but not for –ης!), sometimes -o for –ων (e.g. Plato, Crito, but Cleon); y for υ and u for ου (Thucydides), ae for αι (Aeschylus), a few others, all minor.


Like Hylander, in fact.

70

Here are the appropriate sections on transliteration from Pharr:

https://imgur.com/a/CAjzEhp

It’s certainly not complete, but it’s (slightly) better than nothing. I took a look through Smyth and couldn’t find anything either. Surprising.

71

I’ve been busy since going back to work. Sorry that it has been so long!

Dio Chrysostom: Euboean Discourse (7) 53 - 56

ταῦτα δὲ ἐμοῦ λέγοντος ἀνίσταταί τις ἐκ μέσων· κἀγὼ πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἐνεθυμήθην ὅτι ἄλλος τοιοῦτος τυχὸν ἐμοῦ καταψευσόμενος. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἄνδρες, ἐγὼ πάλαι τοῦτον ἀμφιγνοῶν ἠπίστουν ὅμως. ἐπεὶ δὲ σαφῶς αὐτὸν ἔγνωκα, δεινόν μοι δοκεῖ, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀσεβές, μὴ εἰπεῖν ἃ συνεπίσταμαι μηδ’ ἀποδοῦναι λόγῳ χάριν, ἔργῳ τὰ μέγιστα εὖ παθών. εἰμὶ δέ, ἔφη, πολίτης, ὡς ἴστε, καὶ ὅδε, δείξας τὸν παρακαθήμενον, καὶ ὃς ἐπανέστη· ἐτύχομεν δὲ πλέοντες ἐν τῇ Σωκλέους νηὶ τρίτον ἔτος. καὶ διαφθαρείσης τῆς νεὼς περὶ τὸν Καφηρέα παντελῶς ὀλίγοι τινὲς ἐσώθημεν ἀπὸ πολλῶν. τοὺς μὲν οὖν πορφυρεῖς ἀνέλαβον· εἶχον γὰρ αὐτῶν τινες ἀργύριον ἐν φασκωλίοις. ἡμεῖς δὲ γυμνοὶ παντελῶς ἐκπεσόντες δι’ ἀτραποῦ τινος ἐβαδίζομεν, ἐλπίζοντες εὑρήσειν σκέπην τινὰ ποιμένων ἢ βουκόλων, κινδυνεύοντες ὑπὸ λιμοῦ τε καὶ δίψους διαφθαρῆναι. καὶ μόλις ποτὲ ἤλθομεν ἐπὶ σκηνάς τινας, καὶ στάντες ἐβοῶμεν. προελθὼν δὲ οὗτος εἰσάγει τε ἡμᾶς ἔνδον καὶ ἀνέκαε πῦρ οὐκ ἀθρόον, ἀλλὰ κατ’ ὀλίγον· καὶ τὸν μὲν ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνέτριβε, τὸν δὲ ἡ γυνὴ στέατι· οὐ γὰρ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἔλαιον· τέλος δὲ ὕδωρ κατέχεον θερμόν, ἕως ἀνέλαβον ἀπεψυγμένους.

Unseen

While I was saying this, someone stood up from the middle. And I thought to myself that another that happened to be of the same sort was going to accuse me. But he said, "Men, for a while now, having recognized this man, I knew him generally. And after I knew exactly who he was, it seemed wrong to me and especially impious, not to say what I know and not to return my thanks in a speech, having experienced the greatest good in deed. I am, he said, a citizen, as you know, and this one – gesturing to the one sitting next to him, and he having stood – we happened to be sailing in the ship of Sokleos three years ago. And the ship having sunk near Kaphereos, a very few were saved from the many. Some the fishermen took away, for some of them had silver in their bags. But we who had come out completely bare were walking through some untracked (?) territory, hoping to find some shelter of shepherds or cowherds, being completely devastated by hunger and thirst. And we came to some tents a distance away, and standing there shouted. This man coming up let us inside and kindled a fire not all together (?), but a little for each (?). And one of us he rubbed down with fat, and the other his wife. For they didn’t have any oil. Finally they were pouring hot water until it took away the shivering (?).

With dictionary, grammar

While I was saying this, someone stood up in the middle. And I thought to myself that it happened that another of the same sort was going to accuse me. But he said, "Men, for a while now, though being unsure of this man, I nevertheless recognized him. And after I knew him clearly, it seems wrong to me and what’s more, impious, not to say what I am conscious of and not to return my thanks in a speech, having experienced the greatest good in deed. I am, he said, a citizen, as you know, and this one – gesturing to the one sitting next to him, and he having stood – we happened to be sailing in the ship of Sokles three years ago. And the ship having sunk near Kaphereos, a very few were saved from the many. Some the purplefish fishermen took away, for some of them had silver in their wallets. But we who had come out completely bare were walking along a trail, hoping to find some shelter of shepherds or cowherds, risking being completely devastated by hunger and thirst. And once we came to some tents a distance away, and standing there we shouted. This man coming up let us inside and kindled a fire not all at once, but by little bits. And one of us he rubbed down with fat, and the other his wife. For they didn’t have any oil. Finally they were pouring hot water until it took away the chills.

I wasn’t entirely sure of ἀνέκαε πῦρ οὐκ ἀθρόον, ἀλλὰ κατ’ ὀλίγον. Maybe how I had it first was right.

Σωκλέους from Σωκλῆς, so Sokles?

Καφηρέα from Καφηρέος, so Kaphereos?

72

πάλαι τοῦτον ἀμφιγνοῶν ἠπίστουν ὅμως Not “for a while now, though being unsure of this man, I nevertheless recognized him.”
“I’d long been thinking maybe I knew this man but I mistrusted the identification all the same.”
ἐπεὶ δὲ σαφῶς αὐτὸν ἔγνωκα “But now that I recognize him clearly, …”

I haven’t worked through the rest of your translation but it looks more or less ok.

ἀνέκαε πῦρ οὐκ ἀθρόον, ἀλλὰ κατ’ ὀλίγον. The way one lights a campfire. The fire grows bit by bit.

Sokles yes, like Sophokles etc.

Kaphereos no! -eus (diphthongal), like Kepheus, Achilleus, Peleus, basileus, …

73

Thank you! I didn’t realize that ἠπίστουν was ἀπίστεω, and thought it was some variant of ἐπίσταμαι.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus: letter to Pompey 3.13-14

Μετὰ τοῦτο ἔργον ἐστὶν ἱστορικοῦ διελέσθαι τε καὶ τάξαι τῶν δηλουμένων ἕκαστον ἐν ᾧ δεῖ τόπῳ. πῶς οὖν ἑκάτερος διαιρεῖται καὶ τάττει τὰ λεγόμενα; Θουκυδίδης μὲν τοῖς χρόνοις ἀκολουθῶν, Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ταῖς περιοχαῖς τῶν πραγμάτων. καὶ γίγνεται Θουκυδίδης μὲν ἀσαφὴς καὶ δυσπαρακολούθητος· πολλῶν γὰρ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ θέρος ἢ τὸν αὐτὸν χειμῶνα γιγνομένων ἐν διαφόροις ὡς εἰκὸς τόποις, ἡμιτελεῖς τὰς πρώτας πράξεις καταλιπὼν ἑτέρων ἅπτεται· πλανώμεθα δὴ καθάπερ εἰκός, καὶ δυσκόλως τοῖς δηλουμένοις παρακολουθοῦμεν ταραττομένης τῆς διανοίας. Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Λυδῶν βασιλείας ἀρξάμενος καὶ μέχρι τῆς Κροίσου καταβὰς ἐπὶ Κῦρον εὐθέως τὸν καταλύσαντα τὴν Κροίσου ἀρχὴν μεταβαίνει, Αἰγυπτίων τε ἄρχεται διηγημάτων καὶ Σκυθικῶν καὶ Λιβυκῶν, τὰ μὲν ὡς ἀκόλουθα δηλῶν, τὰ δὲ ὡς ἐπιζητούμενα προσαναλαμβάνων, τὰ δ’ ὡς χαριεστέραν ποιήσοντα τὴν διήγησιν ἐπεισάγων· διεξελθών τε πράξεις Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων ἔτεσιν ὁμοῦ διακοσίοις καὶ εἴκοσι γενομένας ἐν ταῖς τρισὶν ἠπείροις … * οὐ διέσπασε τὴν διήγησιν· ἀλλὰ συμβέβηκε τῷ μὲν μίαν ὑπόθεσιν λαβόντι πολλὰ ποιῆσαι μέρη τὸ ἓν σῶμα, τῷ δὲ τὰς πολλὰς καὶ οὐδὲν ἐοικυίας ὑποθέσεις προελομένῳ σύμφωνον ἓν σῶμα πεποιηκέναι.

  • five words of the original text, probably including a lacuna, have been omitted

Unseen

After this it is the work of an historian to go through and arrange each bit of information in the place where it goes. So how do each of them take up and arrange what is said? Thucydides following the chronological order, but Herodotus the circumstances (περιοχαῖς ?) of the matters. And Thucydides winds up being confusing and hard to follow, for with much happening in the same Fall or the same Winter in far separate places, as it appears (?), he touches on other things leaving the first matters half-finished. So it’s like we wander (indicative?) almost at random, and in difficulty we follow the information with a confused mental state. But Herodotus, beginning from the kingdom of Lydia and from Croesus proceeding straight to Cyrus goes through (?) the destruction of Croesus’ reign. He begins with Egyptian matters and Scythian and Libyan, describing what is easy to follow (?), saving for later (?) what needs to be searched out, and going into detail on what makes the most satisfying tale. Having gone through matters both Greek and barbarian, about two hundred and twenty years in the three mainlands … he did not scatter the story. Rather he has assembled using what took a single theme to make many parts into one body, and using what had many things and nothing that was a theme removed to have made multiple voices one body.

Revision:

After this it is the work of an historian to go through and arrange each bit of information in the place where it goes. So how do each of them take up and arrange what is said? Thucydides following the chronological order, but Herodotus the compass of the issues. And Thucydides winds up being confusing and hard to follow, for with much happening in the same Fall or the same Winter in probably separate places, he touches on other things, leaving the first matters half-finished. So it’s like we wander almost at random, and in difficulty we follow the information with a confused mental state. But Herodotus, beginning from the kingdom of Lydia and from Croesus proceeding straight to Cyrus changes subject to the destruction of Croesus’ reign. He begins with Egyptian matters and Scythian and Libyan, describing what is consequent, also taking in what is missed, and adding besides what makes the tale more satisfying. Having gone through matters both Greek and barbarian, about two hundred and twenty years in the three mainlands together … he did not scatter the story. Rather it has happened that the one that took one theme made the single body into many parts, but the one that chose many things and nothing that was a theme had made a harmonious single body.

The last sentence was very hard for me, as you can see from my very different revised version. In the revision I took it as LSJ συμβαίνω III. b. “mostly impers., sts. c. dat. et inf.” However I feel like I’m still messing it up and don’t really see why it is both ποιῆσαι and πεποιηκέναι.

74

As I said, I haven’t been through either of your versions of the Dio, but in.the first sentence I see ἄλλος τοιοῦτος τυχὸν ἐμοῦ καταψευσόμενος, where τυχὸν is quasi-adverbial, “perhaps.” I expect there’s more to be put right yet.

I haven’t looked at the new one.
It would make life easier for your correctors if you gave only your revised translation, flagging all the parts you’re unsure of.

75

Dion.Hal.

διελέσθαι not “go through” (it’s not διελθεῖν). Aor. of διαιροῦμαι, divide (into constituent parts); cf. διαίρεσις. A historian’s job is to divide up and organize (διελέσθαι τε καὶ τάξαι) his disparate material.

ἐν ᾧ δεῖ τόπῳ in the place it should go, in the appropriate place.

ταῖς περιοχαῖς τῶν πραγμάτων perhaps “the units of events,” i.e. he deals with one topic before moving to another—he presents a succession of discrete περιοχαι, each section being a self-contained whole. As explained in what follows.

ὡς εἰκὸς parenthetical, “naturally,” “as you’d expect.”

πλανώμεθα δὴ Strong asyndeton. Not “So.”

καθάπερ εἰκός like ὡς εἰκὸς, as is only natural. Not “at random”: εικός not εικῇ.

ταραττομένης τῆς διανοίας Not “with a confused mental state.” The διανοια is the “thought” of a passage, its import—thrown into disorder by Thuc’s discontinuous organization of events.

Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Λυδῶν βασιλείας ἀρξάμενος | καὶ μέχρι τῆς Κροίσου καταβὰς | ἐπὶ Κῦρον εὐθέως τὸν καταλύσαντα τὴν Κροίσου ἀρχὴν μεταβαίνει,
You misarticulate this. See my inserted barlines. Classic word order of the three constituents.
ἀπὸ τῆς Λυδῶν βασιλείας ἀρξάμενος “beginning with the reign of the Lydians”
καὶ μέχρι τῆς Κροίσου καταβὰς “and going down to that (i.e. the reign) of Croesus.” You missed the τῆς.
ἐπὶ Κῦρον εὐθέως τὸν καταλύσαντα τὴν Κροίσου ἀρχὴν μεταβαίνει “switches directly to Cyrus, the one who brought Croesus’ rule to an end.”
You misconstrued the sentence and τὸν καταλύσαντα, referring to Κῦρον.
(Note in passing καταβας … μεταβαινει: he “goes down” through the generations to Croesus and then “goes over” to Cyrus, marking the switch from the Lydian dynasty to the Persian.)

Αἰγυπτίων τε ἄρχεται διηγημάτων Not “He begins with Egyptian matters.” A διηγημα (cf. διηγοῦμαι) is something described, a descriptive narrative. —Cf. διηγησιν below: –μα nouns are concrete, -σις more abstract, cf. e.g. ποιημα a poem, a composition, a made thing, vs. ποιησις poetry, composition, making.

τὰ μὲν ὡς ἀκόλουθα δηλῶν, τὰ δὲ ὡς ἐπιζητούμενα προσαναλαμβάνων, τὰ δ’ ὡς χαριεστέραν ποιήσοντα τὴν διήγησιν ἐπεισάγων
I’m not sure you’ve quite understood this trio. And ποιήσοντα is future.

ὁμοῦ “altogether,” not “about.”

οὐ διέσπασε τὴν διήγησιν—he didn’t tear it to pieces, unlike Thucydides. διασπασμος is dismemberment, think Pentheus (but not Khashoggi, sawn not torn).

ἀλλὰ συμβέβηκε τῷ μὲν μίαν ὑπόθεσιν λαβόντι πολλὰ ποιῆσαι μέρη τὸ ἓν σῶμα, τῷ δὲ τὰς πολλὰς καὶ οὐδὲν ἐοικυίας ὑποθέσεις προελομένῳ σύμφωνον ἓν σῶμα πεποιηκέναι.
τῳ μεν is Thuc., τῳ δε Hdt. That’s crucial.
συμβέβηκε gives the final result. You got the construction, impers. w/ dat. and infin., but went off the rails. Lit. “it has happened to the one (τω μεν) to make (ποιησαι, i.e. that he made) … , and to the other (τω δε) to have made (πεποιηκεναι, i.e. that he has made) …
Lit. “the one, taking a single theme (the Pelop.war), made his single corpus many parts (i.e. he split it up, cf. διεσπασε above), while the other, preferring his many very dissimilar themes, has made a single coherent corpus.”
Note the difference between τὸ ἓν σῶμα subject of ποιησαι and ἓν σῶμα predicative.
And did you really translate οὐδὲν ἐοικυίας ὑποθέσεις as “nothing that was a theme”?! εοικυια fem.pple εοικα, “seeming like (one another), seeming alike”, ουδεν adverbial with it.

76

The force of the middle isn’t obvious to me. “To make his own division”?

This is “δή II. without temporal significance, as a Particle of emphasis, in fact, of course, certainly”?

Thank you, I was wondering about the significance of μεταβαίνει. This clears it up.

Oh, is he referring to the Egyptian, Scythian, and Lydian narratives separately? So: The [Egyptian narratives] as he is revealing what follows, the [Scythian narratives] as he is anticipating what is missed, the [Lydian narratives] as he is bringing something in to make the narration more enjoyable.

(῾Narration῾ for -ις, and ‘narrative’ for -μα, following your explanation)

But I’m not very sure of ὡς ἐπιζητούμενα προσαναλαμβάνων as “anticipating what is missed”.

I understand after your explanation. This seems straightforward now, though I’d think that “seeming alike” or “alike” should be its own gloss in the LSJ for ἔοικα, but I don’t see it. Since you ask, I misread it thinking that τὰς πολλὰς was subject (and οὐδὲν another subject linked by καὶ) of ἐοικυίας with ὑποθέσεις the object. However, now it’s clear what is going on, with οὐδὲν ἐοικυίας basically functioning like an adjective alongside πολλάς.

77

"To make his own division” wd be too strong for διελέσθαι. A knife diairei, a person diaireitai.

δή is never really temporal. It adds punch. You could check other instances where it accompanies asyndeton. (Asyndeton works something like a colon in English.) Particles, those lovely featherweight appendages (te, ge, men, …), are the glory of Greek, and more subtle than anything else in the language. They don’t translate, or not without exaggeration, but they contribute so much!

τὰ δὲ ὡς ἐπιζητούμενα προσαναλαμβάνων, taking them up, additionally (pros-), as matters enquired into, subjects of investigation. You’ll have registered the three ὡς.

78
  1. Euripides: Andromache 445 - 463

Αν. ὦ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισιν ἔχθιστοι βροτῶν (445)
Σπάρτης ἔνοικοι, δόλια βουλευτήρια,
ψευδῶν ἄνακτες, μηχανορράφοι κακῶν,
ἑλικτὰ κοὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ἀλλὰ πᾶν πέριξ
φρονοῦντες, ἀδίκως εὐτυχεῖτ’ ἀν’ Ἑλλάδα.
τί δ’ οὐκ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν; οὐ πλεῖστοι φόνοι; (450)
οὐκ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, οὐ λέγοντες ἄλλα μὲν
γλώσσηι, φρονοῦντες δ’ ἄλλ’ ἐφευρίσκεσθ’ ἀεί;
ὄλοισθ’. ἐμοὶ μὲν θάνατος οὐχ οὕτω βαρὺς
ὅς σοι δέδοκται· κεῖνα γάρ μ’ ἀπώλεσεν,
ὅθ’ ἡ τάλαινα πόλις ἀνηλώθη Φρυγῶν (455)
πόσις θ’ ὁ κλεινός, ὅς σε πολλάκις δορὶ @1
ναύτην ἔθηκεν ἀντὶ χερσαίου κακόν.
νῦν δ’ ἐς γυναῖκα γοργὸς ὁπλίτης φανεὶς
κτείνεις μ’· ἀπόκτειν’· ὡς ἀθώπευτόν γέ σε
γλώσσης ἀφήσω τῆς ἐμῆς καὶ παῖδα σήν. (460)
ἐπεὶ σὺ μὲν πέφυκας ἐν Σπάρτηι μέγας,
ἡμεῖς δὲ Τροίαι γ’. εἰ δ’ ἐγὼ πράσσω κακῶς,
μηδὲν τόδ’ αὔχει· καὶ σὺ γὰρ πράξειας ἄν.

My unseen version:
I address you, considered by all mankind the most hated among mortals, residents of Sparta, deceitful Senate, ruling by lies, μηχανορράφοι (tricksters ?) of evil, thoughts dwelling on ἑλικτὰ and nothing healthy, but everything πέριξ, you unjustly εὐτυχεῖτε throughout Greece. What does not dwell in you? Aren’t most of you murderers? Are you not shameful profiteers, saying one thing with the tongue, but always found out to be thinking something else? Go to hell. Death has not seemed so heavy to me as to you (sing.). For these things have slain me, that my poor city was ἀνηλώθη by the Phrygians, and my κλεινός husband, who often with his spear made you a sailor instead of χερσαίου κακόν. But now, to a woman you appear to be a γοργός (monstrous ?) soldier – You slay me. I die. As a ἀθώπευτόν I have spit you from my tongue, and your child. Since you are a great one in Sparta, but we in Troy. If I do evil, let it not prosper, καὶ σὺ γὰρ πράξειας ἄν (for were even you to do it?)Looking up words:

I address you, considered by all mankind the most hated among mortals, residents of Sparta, deceitful Senate, ruling by lies, crafty schemers of evil, thinking in a twisted manner, nowise healthy, but all circuitously, you unjustly prosper throughout Greece. What does not dwell in you? Aren’t most of you murderers? Are you not shameful profiteers, saying one thing with the tongue, but always found out to be thinking something else? Go to hell. Death has not seemed so heavy to me as to you (sing.). For these things have slain me, that my poor city perished and my husband renowned of Phrygia, who often with his spear made you a coward sailor instead of a landsman. But now, to a woman you appear to be a monstrous soldier – You slay me. Slay. As I will not flatter from my tongue you and your child. Since you are a great one in Sparta, but we in Troy. If I fare ill, never boast this, if only you were to do likewise.

πλεῖστοι φόνοι – mostly murderers, or great number of murderers, or ?
ὅς σε πολλάκις δορὶ ναύτην ἔθηκεν ἀντὶ χερσαίου κακόν – I think I understood this?
Φρυγῶν – I would have thought it went with the phrase preceding it, but doesn’t seem to make sense there, so I took it with the following
κτείνεις μ’· ἀπόκτειν’· – what’s going on here?
μηδὲν τόδ’ αὔχει – imperative, right?
καὶ σὺ γὰρ πράξειας ἄν – I’m very uncertain of this

79

A few things offhand.

πλεῖστοι φόνοι – the most murders

ὅς σε πολλάκις δορὶ ναύτην ἔθηκεν ἀντὶ χερσαίου κακόν – the idea is that Hector drove the Greeks back to the sea, or at least to their boats.

νῦν δ’ ἐς γυναῖκα γοργὸς ὁπλίτης φανεὶς κτείνεις μ’· ἀπόκτειν’· – “Now that you’ve shown what a terrifying soldier you are – against a woman! – you’re killing me. Go ahead, kill me.”

ἡ τάλαινα πόλις ἀνηλώθη Φρυγῶν – the wretched city of the Phygians (i.e., Trojans) has been destroyed

εἰ δ’ ἐγὼ πράσσω κακῶς, μηδὲν τόδ’ αὔχει· καὶ σὺ γὰρ πράξειας ἄν. – If I’m faring ill, don’t boast about it: you might too.

ἐμοὶ μὲν θάνατος οὐχ οὕτω βαρὺς ὅς σοι δέδοκται --A death decreed by you is not so terrible to me.

παῖδα σήν – your daughter (Hermione)

80

Adding a few things to Hhylander:

“I address you” far too mild for ὦ. She launches straight into her blistering earth-scorching attack, breathing fire.

δόλια βουλευτήρια, Not “Senate”!

ψευδῶν ἄνακτες “lords of lies”

οὐ λέγοντες ἄλλα μὲν
γλώσσηι, φρονοῦντες δ’ ἄλλ’ ἐφευρίσκεσθ’ ἀεί;
Both participles governed by ἐφευρίσκεσθε.

πόλις ἀνηλώθη Φρυγῶν The Phrygians are Trojan allies in the Iliad, and Troy can be called a Phrygian city.

κτείνεις μ’· ἀπόκτειν’· i.e. You’re proposing to kill me. Kill on (proceed with killing me, present tense). Androm is not cowed, and will not plead for mercy. She’s addressing Menelaus king of Sparta.

αὔχει imperative yes, as the accent shows.