I suppose this is some sort of Doric. What I’m wondering about is the end. Is δάμω a Doric dative form of δῆμος? Doesn’t dative singular take a iota in Doric? And what is ἤμην? Present infinitive of εἰμί?
The Loeb doesn’t have an apparatus, but this passage seems to have some difficulties, since Perseus gives the end as οὕτως εἰσφέρειν τε καὶ ἀφίστασθαι δάμῳ δὲ τὰν κυρίαν ἦμεν καὶ κράτος.
This is the famous Spartan Rhetra. It’s in “strong Doric,” more specifically Laconian. δάμω is genitive, but δάμῳ dative also looks possible. West gives the text at IEG II ed.2 Tyrt. 4. He prints δάμω δὲ ἀν<τα>γορίαν, reporting “δάμῳ nescioquis, -ω Diehl: ἀνταγορίαν Treu: γαμωδᾶνγοριαν fere codd.” (the Plutarch MSS, that is). ἀνταγορία (not in LSJ or Suppl.) is presumably the power to reject the gerousia’s proposals. Cf. line 9 of the Tyrtaeus, δήμου τε (better δὲ?) πλήθει νίκην καὶ κάρτος ἕπεσθαι. — ἤμην yes, infin. εἰμί. West also prints <τ>ούτως (= τούτους, i.e. the elders).
Thanks! This Loeb edition is nice otherwise, but the critical apparatus is really minimal – the apparatus is limited to very occasional variants given in parentheses in the text itself. It’s a bit disturbing, since it distracts someone who doesn’t look at the apparatus a lot, but at the same time it’s much too rudimentary for someone who does.
Is “strong” Doric the same as “severe” Doric? (What nice epithets!)
Referred to Gorgo as the author by Aristotle in his Aphorisms, as quoted by Stobaeus, Florilegium, vii. 31, but it is often spoken of as a regular Spartan custom. Cf., for example, the scholium on Thucydides, ii. 39. Ancient writers were not agreed whether the second half meant to fall upon the shield (dead or wounded) or to be brought home dead upon it. In support of the second (traditional) interpretation cf. Moralia, 235 a, and Valerius Maximus, ii. 7, ext. 2.
If the second interpretation is correct I interpret this to mean “bring it (the shield) back or come back lying on it”. τάν being the Doric from for τήν. Not sure how to understand τάν according to the first interpretation.
I can’t figure out if there’s some Greek verb that could be understood for both τάν and ἐπὶ τᾶς.
It’s been said that you φέρω things and you ἄγω people, but 1. the distinction does not always hold up, and 2 φέρω is used for corpses.
There is some controversy about the extent to which the Greeks had in mind specific verbs in these (imperative) ellipses. I think this came up in a recent thread. I am reminded of the Greek text book that dealt with the subject of ellipsis by leaving it out.
I imagine whoever invented the phrase would have expected people to “understand” words to the effect of (οικαδε παλιν ενθε) η ταν (ασπιδα φερων) η επι τας (ασπιδος φερομενος).
The Germans call it “streng dorisch,” and “strong Doric” seems to be the usual English equivalent. It’s not a very precise term, just used to designate Doric vernaculars as distinct from the wimpier “literary Doric” used by Stesichorus and adopted by the choral lyric poets and in still further watered-down form by tragic lyric.
Alcman’s poetic language, while perhaps not strictly vernacular, is also Laconian aka Spartan, like this roughly contemporary Rhetra (and unlike Tyrtaeus!).
Fans of Stesichorus rejoice! I’ve just received the long-awaited commentary, “Stesichorus: The Poems” (the Fragments of the Poems would be more accurate). It looks very good.
You’re probably right. Still, my idea was that ἀνάστρεψον (active) might do, since it also has an intransitive meaning “turn back” according to LSJ and Woodhouse.
There is some controversy about the extent to which the Greeks had in mind specific verbs in these (imperative) ellipses. I think this came up in a recent thread. I am reminded of the Greek text book that dealt with the subject of ellipsis by leaving it out. >
Severe and mild Doric have nothing to do with literary or not. They just describe what happend with contracted and lengthened vowels. In severe Doric the contraction of οο and the compensatory lengthened ο give ω but ου in mild Doric. And the same with ε to η (severe) or ει (mild).
So you could say that severe Doric is like e.g. Lesbian in this regard while mild Doric is like Attic/Ionian.
I say this because the text does not like real authentic Doric but rather atticized to me.
This is true as far as the linguistic strong:weak (severe:mild) differentiation goes. But literary can’t be left out of the picture. “Literary doric” is more or less standard for non-epichoric lyric, regardless of the poets’ own dialects, thanks largely (I believe) to Stesichorus. These poets don’t use “real” dialects, any more than Homer does, but artificial ones.
The Rhetra text doesn’t come to us direct from a local inscription but from Plutarch, probably via Aristotle and certainly via many centuries of copyists. So it’s no surprise if it didn’t come through unscathed and pristine. But clearly every effort was made to preserve its pure Laconian form, and atticization seems minimal.
Totally. It’s worth mentioning that perception of dialect != philological accuracy amongst Greeks (see Morpurgo-Davies wonderful article) and that such perceptions definitely had an effect on copyists. I’m sure everybody is bored to death of the example of σ for θ in the Alkman tradition, but it is a salient one.
Oh, I see what I did wrong. I needed to wrap it in tags. I did so. It’s a great, and interesting, article. She’ll be missed. The past few years have been rough on the discipline of philology. I should probably re-read that myself.
I can’t express the same admiration for the Morpurgo-Davies article. Especially her suggestion that Greek congealed as a language? Really? I’d recommend a read of Horrocks instead.
Of course, the pre-print for the new paper that everyone has been waiting for these past few months was literally released yesterday. Perhaps classicists will notice it. I won’t hold my breath. I will say, however, that some 19th century philologists were more on the money than was thought.
Back to the thread – of course all sorts of terrible things went on with the dialect tradition in the manuscripts. At the time of composition there was of course some level of copying of actual spoken dialects mixed with some level of artificiality. There is various evidence as to what that mix was. Worse, over the course of the manuscript tradition you had a lot of changes, some being Atticization, which mwh mentions as a danger, but also changes moving the documents closer towards the stereotypical forms of a dialect.
I didn’t notice her suggesting that. The article is about how the ancients Greeks perceived the abstract idea of a common Greek language and of its dialects, and how that perception evolved.
