I am looking at Thrasymachus I and already have a question about the title. It begins with Εἰς Ἁιδου. I read that Ἀΐδης is an alternative of Ἁδης.. It looks to me that Ἁιδου is in the genitive of Ἁδης.. The trouble is that, as far as I know, Εἰς takes an accusative. Doing a web search, I saw a couple websites that says it is elliptical. Does that mean the phrase has some information left out, like an ellipsis?
Check ᾍδης in LSJ:
δόμους or οἶκον is implied.
If you look at line 10 you will see what Bedwere means. Its often worth trying to read through a text and put on one side things that that you dont quite understand. Then go back and see what you can deduce.
I translate line 10 as, “Alas! They are fetching the corpses to the house of Hades.” Is it common for Greeks to leave out some words like they did in the title?
In the parentheses under the title, we have, “ὁ θρασύμαχος παιδίον ἐστὶ καὶ καθεύδει. ἀστραηὴ καὶ βροντἤ.”
I translate it as, "Thrasymachus is a child sleeping (or going to sleep?). Lightning and thunder.
Is this Thrasymachus the sophist philosopher when he was young, or is it just another person with the same name?
I think you have translated line 11 but no matter the point is the same.
ὁ θρασύμαχος παιδίον ἐστὶ καὶ καθεύδει. “Thrasymachus is a child and he is sleeping.”
Sometimes it is right to translate a finite verb using a participle in English, when for example (in Greek) you have a participle and finite verb pairing, as it often makes better sense to turn the participle into a finite verb and the finite verb into a participle. Here however its best to stick to the finite form. Dont forget the “καὶ”.
As to “going to sleep” that’s the same as “falling asleep” which would be “εἰς ὕπνον πίπτειν” (also ἐν ὕπνῳ or ὕπνῳ πεσεῖν is known). But clearly he is asleep and I think we are to assume that Hermes appears in a dream. In Homer Gods often appear in dreams.
Is it common for Greeks to leave out some words like they did in the title?
There are two very common usages which omit a word which can be assumed, these are “house of” and “son\ daughter of”.
Think of this first usage in the English phrase “we are going to Phil’s”. If you saw that you would know that the intended destination was “Phil’s house”. It is the same when you see it Greek. Often (especially in Homer) a person will be referred to as “the son of” as in the first line of the Iliad “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος " Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilleus”. “Πηληϊάδεω” is a genitive (dont worry about the form) and it stands for “son of Peleus”. Later on Agamemnon is referred to as " Ἀτρεΐδης" the son of Atreus. (οὕνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν ἀρητῆρα /Ἀτρεΐδης: since Atreus’ son had dishonoured Chryses, priest [of Apollo])
I think that Thrasymachus is simply a name here, You can imagine its the the philosopher if you like. I think the way the story works is that Thrasymachus embarks on a trip to the underworld (“katabasis” a descent or “going down”) where he encounters famous mythical figures.
You two may wish to look at line 11, in context, again.
I finished Thrasymachus IA with one last question: Can τὰ ἱμάτια be translated as “clothes” as well as “tunics”?
Εὐχαριστῶ πολύ for the note about the omissions, such as “house of” and “son of” and the sleeping. I am going to place the information in my notes.
Yes it can and here it means clothes as he is unlikely to put on more than one tunic. The Glossary on p 286 gives ἱμάτιον tunic (pl. clothes).
"ἱμάτιον [ῑμᾰ-], τό, in form a Dim. of ἷμα (i.e. εἷμα),
A a piece of dress; in usage always of an outer garment, formed by an oblong piece of cloth worn above the χιτών…
2 ἱμάτια, τά, generally, clothes, Hdt. 1.9, Pl. Plt. 279e, D. 27.10; by crasis, θαἰμάτια Hippon. 83.1, Ar. V. 408 (lyr.), Lys. 1093; of grave-clothes, ἐν εἱμ. τρισὶ [θάπτειν] IG 12(5).593.2 (Iulis, v/iv BC), cf. Plu. Sol. 21."
LSJ
This seems to need a follow up: “Alas! They are fetching the corpses to the house of Hades.”
Unlike how it has been translated, this is supposed to be the present tense signifying repeated action. The article before corpses is incorrect. You can look at the next sentence and see that it’s clear that the above makes no sense in the context.
Would this better, “Alas! For they take corpses to the House of Hades.”
I am reading Thrasymachus IB and have at least two questions:
- When Thrasymachus comments that he sees a terrible river, Charon is introduced with this, “ὧ ὄποπ ὧ ὄποπ.” I cannot find a meaning to ὄποπ," so I am wondering if Charon is speaking or if the authors are writing some words that makes the sound of the river or rowing or something? Maybe the sound of a boat on the waves? Maybe the word is combining the definite article with ποῖ? But I do not believe it has a rough breathing mark, but the book does not have the best font around. If it is, I do not know how a π gets places at the end of the word.
\ - In lines 7 and 8, Thrasymachus asks, “τίς οὗν λέγει; τίς ἐστιν; διδασκέ με..” I translate the first and third phrase as, “Therefore, who is speaking” . . . “Teach me!” The middle phrase throws a bit of a curve at me, “τίς ἐστιν” because there is no object. Can I assume a he/she/it or you? Maybe something like, 'Who is he/she/it" or “Who are you?”
“ὧ ὄποπ ὧ ὄποπ.”
You were right to suspect an onomatopoeic sense here. In Aristophanes’ Frogs Charon chants " ὠόπ, παραβαλοῦ" and later “ὠοπόπ, ὠοπόπ”. It is “a cry to give the rhythm to the rowers”. The text seems to adapt this with the interjection “ὧ”.
“τίς οὗν λέγει; τίς ἐστιν; διδασκέ με..”
You are on the right track. If you look at the answer Charon gives in line 10 he answers τίς ἐστιν; with “ὁ Χάρων ἐστιν.” What person is “ἐστιν”?
Also to clarify your confusion about the lack of an object look at p 69 of Mastronarde.
" Predicate Nouns and Adjectives. Verbs that express a state of being (especially be, become, seem, sometimes look, smell, sound) often serve to link the subject noun either to another noun in the predicate (which is identified with the subject or otherwise asserted to apply to it) or to an adjective in the predicate. In the traditional terminology used in many Greek grammars and commentaries, such a verb is called a copula (Latin for link)…"
As I have said before I wouldn’t rush to translate just try to to work out the syntax and the meaning of the words. I appreciate that when asking a question here asking for a comment on a translation might be the easiest way forward.
Try to read the text aloud. Line 12 seems quite amusing with Thrasymachus’ and Hermes’ threefold greeting to Charon.
On a minor point note the two accents on “δίδασκέ”. Idiomatic English might call for a different word than “teach” but its a trivial point.
I hope you are enjoying reading this book, it must come as a relief after the austerity of Mastronarde.
ἐστιν is third person. I have read some literature with a person referring to himself/herself in the third person, which is interesting. I would not have known about paying Charon for the trip, but I have on occasion seen I, Claudius, starring Derek Jacobi, Siân Phillips, Brian Blessed, and others. I remember at the end that one of the goddesses mentioned that he needs to pay the ferryman. 
Page 176 of Dr. Mastronarde’s book states that a personal pronoun is emphatic in the nominative. but I was wondering if the last word of line 26, a dative personal pronoun, can be considered emphatic: ὀ δὲ νεκρὸς ἀεὶ παρέχει έμοί.
I think Charon is saying, "But the dead always provide for me.
Yes έμοί is emphatic, unlike μοι (enclitic).
Similarly εμέ vs. με and εμοῦ vs. μου.
The 2nd-person equivalent of ἐμοί is σοί (with accent), while σοι enclitic is unemphatic.
Similarly σέ (accented) vs. σε enclitic, and σοῦ (accented) vs. σου enclitic.
The accented forms are emphatic, the enclitic forms not.
ἐγώ is emphatic. Its unemphatic equivalent is simply the first person singular of the verb.
παρέχω normally has a direct object. Does it not here? And παρέχει is singular, as is ὁ νεκρός.
Ἑρμῆς: διότι οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀεὶ ὀβολὸν παρέχουσι τῷ νεκρῷ.
Χάρων: ὁ δὲ νεκρὸς ἀεὶ παρέχει ἐμοί.
Θρασύμαχος: ἐγὼ δὲ ὀβολὸν οὐ παρέχω.
Χάρων: ἀλλὰ διὰ τί οὐ παρέχεις;
The direct object seems to be implied to be the obol mentioned by the preceding speaker in each of the two Charon sentences (especially the last). It’s awkward because he’s avoiding αὐτός/ἐκεῖνος/οὗτος until chapter 5. This is also the explanation, I believe, for the bare “τίς ἐστιν;” that came up before (instead of τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; or τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων;).
Εὐχαριστῶ!