σκέψαι μ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν οἵων ἀποκλῄεις καὶ κατερύκεις,
ἣν δουλείαν οὖσαν ἔφασκες καὶ ὑπηρεσίαν ἀποδείξειν.
I’m struggling a bit to understand how this translation works grammatically. Does σκεψαι introduce an indirect statement? ie does it literally mean: ‘see that you are shutting me off and holding me back from what sort of goods/blessings…’
A more idiomatic translation would be: ‘see what sort (or: ‘the sort’) of goods/blessings you are shutting me off and holding me back from…’
οἵων here simply functions as a relative. Prose word order might be the following:
σκέψαι ἀπὸ οἵων τῶν ἀγαθῶν με ἀποκλῄεις καὶ κατερύκεις…
Not at all uncommon to see the direct object moved outside the relative clause in poetry, metri causa, or fronted for emphasis (serving both purposes here, I think). In fact, I think the entire reversal here emphasizes Philocleon’s point in quite a vivid way.
I found this to be a difficult sentence.
If the text is right, I think that μ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν οἵων ἀποκλῄεις καὶ κατερύκεις is an indirect question. But the syntax/word order is certainly strange. And τῶν doesn’t seem to fit well.
Wilson in Aristophanea, the textual companion to his Oxford text, suggests that “the syntax is perhaps to be explained as reflecting the excitement of the speaker . . . .”
If you are using the Oxford text, you will see in the critical notes an emendation proposed by Blaydes that Wilson writes is “plausible and not drastic:” σκέψαι μ᾽αφ’ οσων αγαθων οιων τ’ἀποκλῄεις καὶ κατερύκεις
But no one, including Wilson, actually prints Blaydes’ emendation in the text. I’ve looked at MacDowell and Biles & Olson (who reject Blaydes’ emendation and argue that the text is ok as is, though they acknowledge the difficulty), as well as Henderson. I think we have to live with the recognition that either the syntax is strange or the text is not sound and probably beyond repair, which I think is Wilson’s position. Wilson, who knows more about manuscript traditions than just about anyone, tends to be more tentative in his approach to textual issues like this.
Your idiomatic translation is closer to the Greek of the standard text.
I think it’s always a good rule of thumb to seek other explanations for the text before resulting to any sort of emendation. Phoebus, the good news is that you are asking questions about lines that even scholars have had questions about. You are in good company!
Barry’s rewrite, σκέψαι ἀπὸ οἵων τῶν ἀγαθῶν με ἀποκλῄεις καὶ κατερύκεις…, doesn’t seem satisfying to me. It’s τῶν that makes me uncomfortable – οἵων τῶν ἀγαθῶν? Is that possible?
And I can’t agree that it’s always better to try to seek other explanations before resorting to emendation. I think you have to understand the textual tradition of each text before you can make a judgment like that, and the traditions of Greek drama are generally very unreliable.
In his introduction to his Oxford text (in English, by the way), Wilson writes: “The apparatus records a fair number of conjectures because I believe that there are many places where the text is not quite as certain as is generally assumed.” He goes on to say that he was brought up to despise Blaydes, “but in recent years I have been obliged to recant; there is no doubt in my mind that a modest percentage of his suggestions are correct and many others deserve consideration.”
“I have tried to strike a balance between the conservatism that attributes inexcusably careless writing to great authors and the opposite extreme of believing that texts need surgery every few lines. Critics who adopt a conservative approach do not allow for the deterioration of texts that was inevitable in the period of almost two thousand years when all copies had to be made by hand. Such critics underestimate the difficulty of producing truly accurate copies and consequently run the risk of imputing to the leading writers of antiquity a mediocrity of intellectual and stylistic standards which cannot be reconciled with their status as classics.”
Again, Wilson is more familiar with the medieval transmission of Greek texts than just about anyone.
Very good observations, particularly in terms of taking into account the textual history. My first instinct is still, within that parameter, to look for a literary or discourse solution. The τῶν I would say is odd, but not impossible, communicating to me that the writer is representing P. as having in mind a particular set of goods. Can the definite article follow οἷος? Occasionally. Lucian, Charon 22:
ὦ μάταιοι, τῆς ἀνοίας, οὐκ εἰδότες ἡλίκοις ὅροις διακέκριται τὰ νεκρῶν καὶ τὰ ζώντων πράγματα καὶ οἷα τὰ παρʼ ἡμῖν ἐστι…
Lucian. (1915). Works. (A. M. Harmon, Ed.) (Vol. 2, p. 440). Medford, MA: Harvard University Press.
οἷα τὰ παρʼ ἡμῖν ἐστι…
This is different. οἷα is predicative.
Thank you both for you help!