Loeb translates this as an impersonal construction: “It was manifest also that whenever a man conferred any benefit upon Cyrus or did him any harm, he [Cyrus] always strove to outdo him.”
But how can this be an impersonal construction if the neuter φανερὸν isn’t found here as per CGCG 36.8? And more confusingly, Tauber in his commentary says concerning this that “Greek strongly prefers personal constructions.” So would it be more accurate (though perhaps not better) to translate this as “He [Cyrus] was clearly trying to outdo anyone who [i.e. if they] did him any good or evil”?
The personal construction with φανερός, rather than an impersonal construction, is idiomatic Greek. See Smyth § 1982 and particularly the note at the end. But English doesn’t work like this, so an impersonal construction has to be used in English translation, or you could, as you suggested, use “clearly.” But this generalizing sentence calls for the simple preterite in English, “he clearly tried to outdo….”
Neither better nor more accurate. It’s just that ordinary Greek usage and ordinary English usage don’t precisely coincide. You wouldn’t say “he was clear trying” in English.
(Crossed with Hylander)
Excellent, thanks. Smyth § 1982 makes it clear. Funny CGCG doesn’t mention this so I made a note at the end of chapter 36.
But I should really buy a copy of Smyth so I can have it handy on my bookshelf to look up stuff and make annotations. Will the original 1915 edition suffice or should I shell out a hundred Canuck bucks for the Harvard 1956 hardcover revision done by Messing?
I’d have thought CGCG would give you all you need. It wins hands-down over Smyth, although its chronological coverage is less. But it’s true that Smyth is still the grammar that’s most cited. Messing’s revision was not substantial.
CGCG has been terrific but sometimes has gaps (as this thread illustrates) that Smyth seems to fill though it’s grammatical terminology feels dated sometimes.
You can certainly find used copies of Smyth for much less money. I saw a bunch on BookFinder.com for under $30 US. Having that grammar can be a time-saver because you can go right to the paragraph that is referenced in a commentary. Practically every commentary in English references Smyth.
I’m reading Herodotus Book 1 in a 2022 edition which references both Smyth and the Cambridge grammar. Here’s a quote from the notes:
μ’ ἐς φρένας ἦλθε ‘came to me, came to my mind’; με is either an acc. without preposition after a verb of motion (poetic; S 1588), or an elision of μοι (equally poetic, CG 1.38)
No, it doesn’t have an English translation. I use Strassler’s “Landmark Herodotus” in parallel. He provides lots of maps – the book doubles as a weight-lifting exercise. Note that Herodotus writes in Ionic Greek so it would be quite a change from Xenophon. Not only grammar, spelling, but also vocabulary. I’m often checking the lexicon to see if a word I encounter is spelled that same as a word I already know, or differs in some small way, such as accent. This morning I looked up σταθμός which in Xenophon is a lodging place along a route, but in Herodotus means weight which is an extension of another σταθμός meaning of balance, pair of scales.
Thanks Mark. I actually bought the Landmark Herodotus recently and have been reading it to see what Herodotus writes about and to get a bit of the flavor of how he writes. I’m currently halfway through Book 2 and learning about Egyptian customs (according to Herodotus, anyways). My idea is that once I’ve finished Book 1 of Xenophon’s Anabasis, I’ll take a short break before “pushing on” upcountry and just for fun try tackling a small chunk of Herodotus using the brief coverage of Ionic in chapter 25 of CGCG. The chunk I’m thinking of reading is Croesus’ speech in I. 207-210 as from my experience speeches (a form of argument) are usually the toughest Greek to translate because you need to understand how the frequent use of particles directs the flow of what the speaker is saying. Right now I’m slowly working through Xenophon’s tribute speech to Cyrus in X. An. 1.10 and constantly referring to ch 59 of CGCG and it’s very helpful and thorough treatment of Greek particles.
Sounds like an ambitious plan, Mitch. Particles do add another dimension to Greek. In Herodotus 1, the editors sometimes remark on characteristic ways Herodotus uses certain particles. One thing that throws me off is the use of relative pronouns which are the same as the definite articles. (τά is equivalent to Attic ἅ) Since τά, the article, can substantivize a whole phrase I have to puzzle it out.
Something I’ve taken to doing lately is reading two different things at the same time. Right now the Histories is my primary reading, but I also am reading the epigrams and elegies of Simonides as a stretch.
When you get to the end of Hdt.1.209, Mitch, and reach Cyrus’s order to Hystaspes, ποίεε ὅκως, ἐπεὰν ἐγὼ τάδε καταστρεψάμενος ἔλθω ἐκεῖ, ὥς μοι καταστήσεις τὸν παῖδα ἐς ἔλεγχον, you might care to ask what ὥς is doing. I think it’s worth discussing.
Thanks guys. I won’t attempt to tackle Herodotus until I finish chapters 9 and 10 of Book 1 of Anabasis, and that’s temporarily on hold because of work-related stuff that’s due this week.
