Grammatical structure of a passage from Menander's Dyskolos

Specific Text Questions
1

Hello,

I solicit some help in understanding the grammatical structure of the sentence in this passage from Menander (The Dyskolos: The Peevish Fellow, or The Bad-Tempered Man):

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ ὅλως ἀπογνῶναί ποτε.

The translation by Francis G. Allinson (1921, Loeb Classical Library) is:

The man who labours well need never despair of anything at all.

I have just endeavored to learn Ancient Greek by myself and am just at the beginning of my training so I ask for some leniency for the simplistic nature of my assumptions.


I found that:

Οὐδενὸς is the genitive of οὐδείς, no one or nothing.

χρὴ means “necessary is” (χρή ἐστι) and should be followed by an accusative and a verb in the infinitive.

πράγματος is the genitive of πρᾶγμα (thing, fact, event).

τὸν is in the accusative.

εὖ is well.

I couldn’t find the exact nature of πονοῦνθʼ though I can see it may be related to πονέω and πόνος.

ἀπογνῶναί should be a form of ἀπογιγνώσκω (to give up as hopeless, renounce, despair of).

ποτε at some time.


With these elements I’m unable to understand the structure of the sentence and how to find back the translation given by Mr Allinson:

  1. May I suppose that Οὐδενὸς relates to πράγματος (not a thing) or not and then what rule of syntax needs them be in the genitive?

  2. The meaning “not a thing should be despaired of” would be conveyed by χρὴ and ἀπογνῶναί but χρή should be followed by an accusative and a verb in the infinitive.

  3. And why would ἀπογνῶναί be pushed towards the end of the sentence?

  4. What are the exact meaning and grammatical nature of πονοῦνθʼ?

I’m well aware that these difficulties far surpass my novice level but now that I came across this passage and ask myself these questions, they are as many stones in my shoe so I would be very thankful if you would take the time to answer me!

2

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ ὅλως ἀπογνῶναί ποτε.

I am not a big fan of dissection, since it doesn’t help so much at inculcating the habits I use for reading. Here’s how the grammar of the above hits me, though I’m simply feeling it as I go along, not explicitly thinking any of it.

Οὐδενὸς…

This is genitive for some reason. Either it will be absolute, that is, not grammatically connected the verbs of the sentence, or it will be attached to something somehow (as an object, for example).

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ…

χρὴ does not explain the Οὐδενός, but it appears to be the anchor point of our sentence. It stands alone and only needs resolution (ie., by an accusative + infinitive, for example). Maybe there will be a verb of existence for it, but there is no special need for that.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος…

This new element agrees with and therefore attaches to the the Οὐδενὸς, explaining what kind of “not any” it is: “not any matter”, though it doesn’t yet explain the genitive.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν…

Now we get an article. Given that we are looking for an accusative + inf. with χρή, we should keep our eyes open for an accusative subject. In Greek though, we need to watch for descriptors showing up after the article, but before the thing being indicated by the article.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ …

And εὖ is just such a descriptor. Here an adverb. Let’s be alert for what it modifies.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ …

Elided πονοῦντα. This is the thing indicated by τόν, a masculine person working, modified by εὖ. Now we’ve got an accusative object complete. τὸν εὖ πονοῦντα. Let’s be alert for an explanation for why it’s accusative, especially for an infinitive that will fit χρή + acc. + inf. into place.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ ὅλως…

Another adverb. We’re really being primed for an infinitive now, let me tell you.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ ὅλως ἀπογνῶναί…

And there it is! Not only that, but our infinitive even takes a genitive object (note the απο-). So we have the χρή + acc. + inf., and also an explanation for genitive οὐδενὸς πράγματος. Anything else that comes in this sentence is gravy.

Οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ ὅλως ἀπογνῶναί ποτε.

And there is the gravy. ποτε gives us some temporal information about something in the sentence, here the χρή ἀπογνῶναι.

3

Hello again Curius,
Joel has dissected the sentence for you, in the order in which it comes—always a good way to read, even when you’re just starting out. Bear in mind, however: (1) Greek word order is not the same as English word order (Greek takes advantage of its being a highly inflected language), and (2) this passage is verse (iambic trimeter), which results in the word order being even more different (though not very much—this is Menander, not Pindar!).

4

Wow Joel! Wonderful explanation!

I had to take the time to carefully read and study this and now it’s clear:

  1. The words Οὐδενὸς and πράγματος (no matter) come with χρὴ ἀπογνῶναί (is to be despaired of*) and are in the genitive because the various meanings of the prepositional prefix ἀπο being “from, away from, out of”, the compound verbs created with it call for a genitive.
  • Edit: is to be given up, is to be renounced.

  1. πονοῦντα is the present participle of πονέω in the accusative plural, and so meaning working, and is nominalized by the article τὸν into the substantive “the working ones”.

  2. γνῶναι is an aorist infinitive of γιγνώσκω (this is the only point I don’t get: why an aorist and not a present…).

  3. πονοῦντα and ἀπογνῶναι (points 2 and 3) provide the accusative and the infinitive called for by χρὴ.

  4. ὅλως reinforces “you mustn’t despair” and is conveyed by the English “at all”.

It’s unbelievable how logical, rational and wonderful this language is…

Joel, following the progressive approach of your demonstration was fascinating and captivating, thank you very much for the time you took!

5

Hello mvh!

Yes I’m well aware of your first point, that the inflected nature of ancient Greek comes with a great freedom in the word order, but I always completely miss your second point (as was already the case in our previous discussion) : is the text in prose or in verse?

Of course I’m not able to detect the verse nature of a text just by reading it but I should make some research about it.

Thank’s a lot mvh!

6

Searching why an aorist instead of a present, I may have found the answer:

  1. either this is a punctual, a one-off exhortation for the man who works well and not a general rule

  2. or the fear, the despair of something is punctual and not extended in time.

Just an assumption though!

7

πονοῦντα is accusative singular, not plural, and τὸν πονοῦντα describes a subject for an infinitive (the man working), while πονοῦντα on its own is just a description of something (working).

In reading the English glosses, you don’t want to mistake “despair of X” for “despair at X”. The one means to give up on, the other to fear. This is not “fear of something”. The verb ἀπογνῶναι is to “give up on” or “judge impossible”. Forming that judgement is a unitary mental action, and so aorist.

[I’m pretty dubious about the absolute meaning of simple “despair” for ἀπογνῶναι given in LSJ, having looked at the Demosthenes and Babrius cites. And absent that anchor in the dictionary entry, I feel like it would be possible to make the case that the English internally-focused “to despair of” makes a much more expressive statement about a subject’s mental state than simple ἀπογνῶναι + gen. does, which is externally focused.]

8

I’ll risk a personal interpretation, and if it is fanciful, I hope for correction.

As I read it, the aorist here implies the immediate doing of a particular thing. So I see the line as profound.

For example, when I work hard to understand a Greek sentence, in that moment, I forget that I am 84 years old, and have not much time to advance in classics. This reflection comes after I stop working, and ask myself , “What the hell have I been doing for the last hour?!”

But it is “a general rule”, because I can always take up my studies, and banish those pesky reflections.

Does the aorist allow such an interpretation?

I add that I know nothing about the play, or about the character speaking. Knowledge of this could undermine the interpretation.

9

γῆρας γέρων ἐξέδυσ᾿ ὅταν τι εὖ πονῇ

10

For απογνῶναι I expect either “despair of” or “give up on” would suit as a translation. But we really need the context.

The aorist tense is as expected. The present would be surprising, and scarcely intelligible with ὅλως and ποτε.

I expect “should” would be the best translation for χρή. “it’s necessary” is hardly ever right.

τον ευ πονοῦντα, the subject of the infinitive: “the man who toils well (should never …)"—but such participial phrases rarely translate well.

As to the meter, οὐδενὸς χρὴ πράγματος is the second half of an iambic trimeter, while τὸν εὖ πονοῦνθʼ ὅλως ἀπογνῶναί ποτε is a complete one. The meter is basically an alternation of short and long syllables: short-long-short-long-short etc. It’s not difficult to learn to read iambic trimeters, and well worth doing so.

Joel’s γῆρας ὁ γέρων line, for instance, could readily be turned into an iambic trimeter:
τὸ γῆρας ἐξέδυσ᾿ ὅταν τις εὖ πονῇ.
A good motto for Hugh.

11

I was going for a trimeter. Thank you for the fix.

12

Joel

πονοῦντα is singular not plural: yes, my mistake!

You’re perfectly right, my last post was hastily written and imprecise about the word fear: I had in mind the fear of failure, the fear of giving up before completion) but I actually understood despair as to renounce, to give up on a task, a work, an endeavour.

And the sentence clearly means that with hard work you can carry on an endeavour that would otherwise have discouraged you.

The heading for άπο-γιγνώσκω in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon gives as the first three meanings:

  1. abandon one’s plan or intention
  2. give up on a person, a task
    and only as the third meaning:
  3. (of people, esp. in wartime) regard with despair themselves, their city, situation, prospects

I made a little homework (that I should of course have done before writing a post…) and found in the Mastronarde:

"Outside the indicative the aorist stem normally has aspectual meaning only and does not refer to past time. The aorist infinitive, for example, in most of its uses refers to a self-complete, instantaneous, or unique occurrence.

This is what you stated very clearly with your expression:
“Forming that judgement is a unitary mental action, and so aorist.”

English not being my native language I’m not able to appreciate the psychological nuances of the word despair you discuss.

13

Hello Hugh,

You’re so an encouraging example!

I regularly reproach myself for being presumptuous and naïve in having endeavoured to try to learn Ancient Greek even though I’m 63.

From now onwards, you’ll be my role model sir!

14

Joel, if Hugh agrees to share, I’ll adopt the motto too!

15

I think we both have “world enough and time” for what we are doing. I don’t worry about timetables; instead, I look for satisfaction in the moment, and that matches pretty well Joel’s motto, which I understood only after some work.

The motto is a good idea, and I’m happy to see others adopting it for their own.
.

16

One couldn’t say better Hugh.

instead, I look for satisfaction in the moment

And this wonderful language has in store enough intellectual appeal and gratifications to provide for that satisfaction.

that matches pretty well Joel’s motto, which I understood only after some work.

So did I, only after some hard work…

I haven’t been able to unravel the exact and precise meaning of each word but I ended up understanding globally the sentence as something like:

A good work (or a work well done?) removes, strips old age off the old man.

γῆρας is the nominative, accusative and vocative of old age; here it would be the accusative.

γέρων is the nominative of old man.

ἐξέδυσ᾿ is an elided form of ἐκδύω to take off, to remove, to strip off.

And there comes a riddle: an elision of what word?

I could find these candidates:

ἐξέδῡσε(ν) aorist active indicative 3st singular
ἐξέδῡσᾰ aorist active indicative 1st singular
ἐξέδῡσᾰν aorist active indicative 3rd plural

The 3rd person would be right.

ὅταν is whenever, when

τι, something, could be the nominative or the accusative.

εὖ is well.

πονῇ could be (finding a conjugated form is such a pain, I don’t know how they do it!):

present middle-passive subjunctive 2nd singular
present middle-passive indicative 2nd singular
present active subjunctive 3rd singular.

Here too I incline towards the 3rd person.

Now, how all this mess adds up is the mystery:

The old man nominative, take off 3rd person, the old age accusative, when, and here things go to rack and ruin: I would say “something is well worked” but this is a 3rd person passive not a 2nd person! So I’m drowned…

17

Use Michael’s version, which gets the meter right: τὸ γῆρας ἐξέδυσ᾿ ὅταν τις εὖ πονῇ.

18

Okay Joel, with Michael’s version (though metrical purity may not really be the problem of an amateur like me who has already enough to do with just understanding the syntax…):

τὸ γῆρας ἐξέδυσ᾿ ὅταν τις εὖ πονῇ.

τις is now someone and not something.

It now works for πονῇ which is present active subjunctive 3rd singular: whenever someone work well (in English may I use “work” without the final s for the subjunctive?).

The global meaning may now be: Old age is being removed when one works well, but we lack a passive form for ἐξέδυσ᾿.

The problem active/passive I had with πονῇ, I now have with ἐκδύω!
The only candidates, with ἐξέδῡσ inside, I found for an elided form of ἐκδύω are:

ἐξέδῡσε(ν) aorist active indicative 3st singular
ἐξέδῡσᾰ aorist active indicative 1st singular
ἐξέδῡσᾰν aorist active indicative 3rd plural

but they’re all active.

The aorist passive indicative 3rd singular is ἐξεδῠ́θη; can it be elided in ἐξέδυσ᾿? I doubt this…

When you get rid of a riddle you get a brand new one…

19

I understand it as: He has sloughed off old age, whenever a man works good and hard.

The active gets used for the middle. LSJ quotes the Odyssey: “μαλακὸν δ’ ἔκδυνε χιτῶνα”. And he took off his soft shirt. Also “τὸ γῆρας ἐκδύς”. However, I now notice that both of those are from the non-causal δύνειν form, not causal δύειν. There’s some crossover between the two, but the line should probably be:

τὸ γῆρας ἐξέδυν᾿ ὅταν τις εὖ πονῇ.

Still my error. Good job by Curius to notice that something was curious here.

“…and hard,” to bring out πονεῖν better.

20

Well, you’d better spare the compliments: it’s rather that, trying to just begin to understand how everything adds up, I have to question and turn each and every word upside down…

Actually, by translating “Old age is being removed” instead of “He has sloughed off” as you do, I got myself bogged down with the need of a passive form. About translation, preconceived ideas are real traps but, unfortunately, the absolute beginner can’t do without them as a first step in trying to decipher the text.

Now ἐξέδυν᾿ (ἐξέδῡ with a ν before a vowel), an active aorist indicative 3rd person singular is not a problem anymore.


How much one may learn here, beginning with a small fragment from Menander, is unbelievable.

Thank you Joel, and Michael, and Hugh!

Really, this forum is great.

Philippe