I’ve read up to the chorus now (will hopefully post language questions once I have some free time) and was very struck by that section. It reminded me of some of the old Norse question/answer poems. In performance it must have been striking. I know that there are sections of Shakespeare that go like this, but I can’t think of any off hand.
My other thought, on re-reading, was that Athena is carefully testing Odysseus to see if he will get above himself (hubris!) and deride Ajax. Ajax fails this same test when Athena proposes it to him over Odysseus.
And I was so hoping we could get through without dragging in hubris! Gloating over Ajax’s deluded state would not be hubris. It wouldn’t be very nice, but since when are enemies supposed to be nice to each other?
And is she in fact testing him, or is she simply inviting her protégé to take advantage of the situation she’s created for him? She’s uncomprehending of his reluctance or why it’s repugnant to him.
What I get out of the scene is Athena’s inhumanity, as contrasted with Odysseus’ decency. If she expects him to take pleasure in the madness she has so cruelly inflicted on Ajax, she’ll be disappointed. Odysseus, even though he is Ajax’s imagined victim, has no wish to see him out of his mind like this; he recoils from it. Athena, on the other hand, is a god, and gods lack human sensibilities—as how could they not, being immortal? No There-but-for-the-grace-of-God feelings for them. They are incapable of empathy. Athena is in no position to set moral tests for anyone.
You are certainly moving fast. Too fast for anyone to keep up with you? I didn’t know we’d gone beyond v.50.
“One cannot read a book: one can only reread it,” according to Nabokov. Not that Sophocles’ audience had the opportunity, and we should make sure we keep a sense of the play as it moves forward, without knowing how it will proceed. (We should know that Ajax will kill himself, but that’s about it.) In that sense to reread is to forgo the experience of reading. But certainly I find when I reread a passage that I get more out of it than first time through. And with Sophocles rereading and close reading always pay off.
So back for a moment to that first passage of stichomythia, reproduced above. What’s the most characteristically Sophoclean line there? My vote would go to
(40) καὶ πρὸς τί δυσλόγιστον ὧδ’ ᾖξεν χέρα;
“And towards what did he thus dart his hard-to-make-sense-of/miscalculating hand.”
Why? (i) The vivid image and bold syntax of ᾖξεν χέρα (ᾖξεν is surely intransitive and χέρα internal accusative, pace Jebb and LSJ, cf. τήνδ’ ἐπεμπίπτει βάσιν two lines later), and (ii) the compound δυσλογιστον along with its application to χερα, its predicativeness, and (again pace Jebb and LSJ) its ambiguousness.
EDIT. Joel, Is this thread on the right course? Don’t you want to elicit questions and contributions from others on language difficulties etc., and take it more slowly, passage by passage as you started, so that everyone can follow and participate? We’re skating over all sorts of things that might cause problems, and I fear the risk of misunderstanding or simply of not understanding the Greek at the verbal level is high. It’s your thread, but let’s not have it become nothing but responses to your particular queries and comments.
This is completely unrelated, but you may enjoy this response to a critical review of Nabakov’s translation of Pushkin into English in the New York Review of books (it’s a favorite of mine, especially the words “glossological disarray”):
When I read through this section of Ajax at first, I thought that Odysseus seemed cowardly, Athena capricious, and Ajax mistreated. But then 127-133 changed my whole opinion. Athena, the center of the cult to 5th century audiences, wouldn’t be held up to normal standards. The same sort of thing occurs at church – a pastor can mention God is Love and the Great Deluge in the same sermon and most people won’t feel a disconnect. For the 5th century audience, the question isn’t so much “why would the Gods do this to Ajax?” Instead it’s “what did Ajax do wrong for the Gods to do this to him?”
I think these moralizing lines explain the whole situation. Athena’s questions to Ajax concerning Odysseus are very similar to the questions that she asked to Odysseus concerning Ajax. And the answers by each Odysseus and Ajax were completely opposite. Athena presents her concluding moral about how it’s proper for mortals to behave, and she seems to be distinguishing between Odysseus and Ajax.
The scholia have lots of explanations for δυσλόγιστον:
To be honest, I mentally read it as an adverb until you made me look more carefully.
I thought that I had been reading too slow, to be honest! I will worry less about pushing through. I’ve been terribly busy at work and mostly been reading Plato and Xenophon the last few days.
The rereading is a function of my lack of Greek. It takes some work to conquer each new section of Sophocles, and then I try to reread it a few times (and listen to it on a recording) until I know I won’t forget it.
[All I remember of the Nabokov-Wilson exchange—N’s nasty cavilling and lofty putdown is NYRB letters page all over—is something I don’t see here: “I have wasted a full half day exposing Wilson’s blunders, when I could have been much better employed …” or something of the sort. Or perhaps that was aimed against someone else. He was touchy in his arrogance. But what a novelist!]
I think your take on the first episode of the Ajax is too simplistic. I would agree with your first impression that Athena seems capricious—indeed, vicious—and Ajax mistreated (but not that Odysseus seems cowardly: that is only Athena’s uncomprehending smear). But I don’t think her concluding “moral” does anything to change that, or that it explains anything at all. Her questions to Odysseus and Ajax may be much the same, but their responses differ because their respective situations differ. Odysseus is sane and Ajax—thanks to Athena—is not.
“Gods,” she says in her closing words, as if summing up, “love τους σώφρονας and detest τους κακούς.” But how does this apply? It’s true that Ajax is no longer σωφρων (with his phrenes safe and sound)—but that’s because she’s robbed him of his phrenes and driven him mad! The play has made it difficult to take Athena’s words as more than empty platitude.
Odysseus (even Odysseus!) pities poor Ajax, deluded and mocked by a goddess to whom pity is unknown. So would the audience, and so should we.
This too is too simplistic, but I think it’s more right than wrong.
Well, I’ve been even more in a hurry than Joel and reached line 200 during the weekend. I’ve read the text with Finglass’s commentary, which I find very good but a bit too thorough for my use. I mostly skip the parts where he addresses textual questions, who conjectured what and that sort of thing. Someone here has said that Finglass is difficult to read, but I don’t find it so, he translates every word of the Greek and covers a lot of ground even for relative beginners.
I suppose mwh is right that you could spend a lifetime (ok, that’s not exactly what he said…) with a single Greek tragedy, but my approach now is “move on!” There’s a lot of weird Greek and weird ideas going on, but that doesn’t surprise me in a tragedy. One that caught my particular attention is ποτέ with a present tense, here:
I don’t remember ever seeing this before. According to Finglass, “ποτέ emphasizes the long duration of Ajax’s inaction, just as it often intensifies ἀεί: cf. Αnt. 456-7 ἀεί ποτε | ζῇ ταῦτα (‘ποτε helps the phrase to stretch indefinitely into the past’: Griffith), Eur. Αlc. 569, Ion 1329, Ar. Av. 1545, and prose examples.” I suppose you’d translate it “ever” or “always” here. Does this use actually exist in prose without ἀεί as here?
As to the meaning of this beginning, I don’t even attempt an explanation of my own. I’d note, though, that sometimes better than the monotheistic one we’re so accustomed to, a polytheistic view of the world where different gods have conflicting interests seems to explain the erratic changes of fortune that we humans experience in this world of suffering.
@Paul
ποτε: Here μακραιωνι does much the same job as αει, so ποτε by itself is not too strange. I wouldn’t expect it to be used like this without αει in prose. (Thucydides if anywhere?) ποτε common enough with present tense with interrogatives, of course.
Seems to me that any theistic belief system has trouble accounting for how people fare in life. It helps if you have either gods disengaged from human affairs (as in Epicureanism) or some kind of compensatory afterlife. I’d agree polytheism can make it a bit easier than mono-, but not much. The Greek gods act individually and often in conflict (think of poor Hippolytus caught between Aphrodite and Artemis), and any god will zap anyone who offends her/him, wittingly or not. The tricky job of aligning this with a divinely operated system of justice—the gods collectively liking people who behave well and disliking people who don’t, and treating them accordingly—is often thematized in tragedy, and we can trace a shift from Aeschylus (accepting via generational continuity and limited to Zeus?) to Euripides (openly querying). Where does Sophocles stand? Joel buys into what Athena claims on this score, I’m not so sure.
@jeidsath
Well it’s your thread as I said, and now Paul has joined in and wants to go faster! (which has much to be said for it if people are capable of it). So whatever you think best.
I have been following this to see what other people find difficult about Sophocles. Paul read 200 lines in less than week! The speed at which one reads is linked to several factors: familiarity with the conventions of the genre, vocabulary and the story line. It is also linked to the goals set out for the project. The combination of rare vocabulary, rebarbative syntax, obscure idioms, metaphors, euphemisms, textual corruption … if you pause to ponder these issues, your reading will slow down since you will be making trips to reference works.
Lines 1-13 Translation with some questions and no doubt mistakes.
ἀεὶ μέν, ὦ παῖ Λαρτίου, δέδορκά σε
πεῖράν τιν’ ἐχθρῶν ἁρπάσαι θηρώμενον·
O son of Laertes, I have always watched you trying to snatch some hunted foe καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ σκηναῖς σε ναυτικαῖς ὁρῶ
Αἴαντος,
and now, at the tents of the sailors I see you [at the tent of] Ajax, ἔνθα τάξιν ἐσχάτην ἔχει,
where he holds the farthest position, πάλαι κυνηγετοῦντα καὶ μετρούμενον
ἴχνη τὰ κείνου νεοχάραχθ’, hunting and long considering his fresh-made tracks,ὅπως ἴδῃς
εἴτ’ ἔνδον εἴτ’ οὐκ ἔνδον.
to see if he is inside or not inside. εὖ δέ σ’ ἐκφέρει
κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις.
feet quickly carrying you like a keen-scented Laconian hound, ἔνδον γὰρ ἁνὴρ ἄρτι τυγχάνει,
Your man chances [to be] inside right now κάρα
στάζων ἱδρῶτι καὶ χέρας ξιφοκτόνους.
head dripping sweat and his sword-slaying hands.
Jebb tells me to treat hands as part of the subject. I would appreciate some examples of this happening elsewhere! καί σ’ οὐδὲν εἴσω τῆσδε παπταίνειν πύλης
and there no longer of your sneaking glances through the door ἔτ’ ἔργον ἐστίν, ἐννέπειν δ’ ὅτου χάριν
remains a need, but tell if you like
ἔργον ἐστίν–“is a need” in the LSJ, but I should have looked up the examples. Post them if you’d like. σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδ’, ὡς παρ’ εἰδυίας μάθῃς.
why you’ve rushed yourself, so that you may take your lessons from this knowing goddess.
ἔθου is aorist-middle τίθημι, I assume? And yes, εἰδυίας is just “her-who-knows.”
ἀεὶ μέν, ὦ παῖ Λαρτίου, δέδορκά σε
πεῖράν τιν’ ἐχθρῶν ἁρπάσαι θηρώμενον·
O son of Laertes, I have always watched you trying to snatch some hunted foe
Νο, θηρωμενον is middle, agreeing with σε, and αρπασαι is governed by it. “hunting/searching/seeking to snatch some attempt on your enemies.” (tινα with pειραν.) LSJ probably gives examples.
πάλαι κυνηγετοῦντα καὶ μετρούμενον
ἴχνη τὰ κείνου νεοχάραχθ’, hunting and long considering his fresh-made tracks, >
Not , the participles continue σε … ὁρῶ in the text.
pαλαι with kυνηγετουντα.
κάρα στάζων ἱδρῶτι καὶ χέρας ξιφοκτόνους.
head dripping sweat and his sword-slaying hands.
Jebb tells me to treat hands as part of the subject. I would appreciate some examples of this happening elsewhere!
I think you must have misunderstood Jebb. The construction is a perfectly ordinary one: lit. “dripping with sweat as to his head and sword-slaying hands” i.e. “his head and s-s hands dripping with sweat.” kara and xeras acc. of “respect” or “part concerned.” Cf. Aesch. αἵματι σταζοντα χεῖρας (LSJ) for the construction with sταζω, but it’s found with alll sorts of verbs. Perhaps Ajax’s hands are dripping with blood as well as sweat (but no tears yet), but Athena doesn’t say so. It’s the exertion she focusses on. — His sword was/will be fresh-spattered (with blood) in 30 πηδῶντα πεδία σὺν νεορράντῳ ξίφει, a magnificent line (lit. leaping the plains together with new-sprinkled sword, but who can bear to translate or paraphrase language like this?!). —Does Finglass comment on the alliteration and resolution? Jebb doesn’t.
καί σ’ οὐδὲν εἴσω τῆσδε παπταίνειν πύλης
and there no longer of your sneaking glances through the door
ἔτ’ ἔργον ἐστίν, ἐννέπειν δ’ ὅτου χάριν
remains a need, but tell if you like
ἔργον ἐστίν–“is a need” in the LSJ, but I should have looked up the examples. Post them if you’d like.
οὐδὲν … ἔτ’ ἔργον ἐστίν “there’s no need any longer,” “there’s not still any need”
σ(ε) εἴσω τῆσδε παπταίνειν πύλης acc.&infin. “that you…” i.e. “for you to go on peering inside this gate here,” Cf. later on in the play (852) aλλ’ ουδεν εργον ταυτα θρηνεισθαι ματην.
ἐννέπειν δ’ ὅτου χάριν “but (there is need for you) to say why …” ὅτου χάριν “for the sake of what,” “why”, χαριν used much like ενεκα. Exx. in LSJ no doubt. (Not “tell if you like”!)
It’s obvious now that you break it down. I read πεῖραν as an aorist participle, thinking that it agreed with σε. But that would have to be πείραντα.
So I saw the σε and ὁρῶ, but I assumed that the πάλαι makes the English present tense impossible. In Greek (my reasoning went) you can be πάλαι νοσῶ, but not in English. So I changed it to past tense in English. “I have been until now and continue to be.” Also, I would have thought that the πάλαι applies to both κυνηγετοῦντα καὶ μετρούμενον, and is therefore naturally placed with the second in English.
κάρα is accusative! I thought it was feminine, but now that I look it up in the LSJ, I see that it is neuter. I thought that the τυγχάνει στάζων must be one expression and refer to ὁ ἀνὴρ, but I confused myself thinking that it was ἡ κάρα, not τὸ κάρα. Everything you say makes sense now.
And that’s what I wrote, but you have to look at the line before.
ὦ φθέγμ’ Ἀθάνας, φιλτάτης ἐμοὶ θεῶν,
O voice of Athena, most loved to me of the Gods, ὡς εὐμαθές σου, κἂν ἄποπτος ᾖς ὅμως,
thus I easily understand you, and even if you are unseen, φώνημ’ ἀκούω καὶ ξυναρπάζω φρενὶ
χαλκοστόμου κώδωνος ὡς Τυρσηνικῆς.
I hear your voice and grasp it with my phrenes like it’s a bronze Tyrrhenian trumpet.
I don’t really understand the construction of ὡς and the genitive κώδωνος here. Is it genitive because of ὡς or ἀκούω? Also exactly what is this ὡς (and the one before it doing)? καὶ νῦν ἐπέγνως εὖ μ’ ἐπ’ ἀνδρὶ δυσμενεῖ
βάσιν κυκλοῦντ’, Αἴαντι τῷ σακεσφόρῳ·
And now you have well observed me circling about a man of chaotic violence, Ajax the shieldbearer. κεῖνον γάρ, οὐδέν’ ἄλλον, ἰχνεύω πάλαι.
For this one, and no one else, I have long tracked until now. νυκτὸς γὰρ ἡμᾶς τῆσδε πρᾶγος ἄσκοπον
ἔχει περάνας, εἴπερ εἴργασται τάδε·
For this night to us a senseless deed was perpetrated, if he really did this,
Is πρᾶγος ἄσκοπον the subject? Why isn’t περάνας neuter then? Does τῆσδε refer to νυκτὸς? Does ἡμᾶς accusative mean the deed was done to them? ἴσμεν γὰρ οὐδὲν τρανές, ἀλλ’ ἀλώμεθα·
κἀγὼ ’θελοντὴς τῷδ’ ὑπεζύγην πόνῳ.
For we know nothing certain, but are perplexed. And I, a volunteer, yoked myself to this task. ἐφθαρμένας γὰρ ἀρτίως εὑρίσκομεν
λείας ἁπάσας καὶ κατηναρισμένας
ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις.
Just now we found all our rustled cattle destroyed, by a hand slain, despoiled along with those set over the flocks. τήνδ’ οὖν ἐκείνῳ πᾶς τις αἰτίαν νέμει.
Of this to him indeed every one assigns the guilt. καί μοί τις ὀπτὴρ αὐτὸν εἰσιδὼν μόνον
πηδῶντα πεδία σὺν νεορράντῳ ξίφει
φράζει τε κἀδήλωσεν·
And a witness said and explained to me that he saw him alone bounding across the plain with a dripping sword εὐθέως δ’ ἐγὼ
κατ’ ἴχνος ᾄσσω, καὶ τὰ μὲν σημαίνομαι,
τὰ δ’ ἐκπέπληγμαι κοὐκ ἔχω μαθεῖν ὅτου.
And I quickly dart along the track, comprehending some, having been perplexed by the rest and not having learned the cause. καιρὸν δ’ ἐφήκεις· πάντα γὰρ τά τ’ οὖν πάρος
τά τ’ εἰσέπειτα σῇ κυβερνῶμαι χερί.
So you appear at a timely moment. For in everything, past and future, I am guided by your hand.
“I hear your voice and grasp it with my phrenes like [the voice] of a bronze Tyrrhenian trumpet.”
ἀνδρὶ δυσμενεῖ is just a (poetic?) word for enemy.
νυκτὸς genitive (of νύξ) works here as if it were an adverb, “during the night”. The subject of ἔχει περάνας is Ajax. Why would ἔχει περάνας and εἴργασται have different subjects? (Though I suppose εἴπερ εἴργασται τάδε could also be passive, “if this has really been done”, medium “if he really did it” seems more likely.).
He doesn’t comment on either, but he gives a number of parallels, which may or may not be interesting, since I haven’t looked them up. “Ajax is now guiding slow-moving animals back to his encampment, but thanks to S.'s partial revelation of the action, the audience does not yet know that. When they do, S. uses less colourful verbs of motion (63 κομίζεται, 296 ἐσῆλθε).”
ὡς introduces a comparison that takes the form of a genitive chain (like a construct chain in bibiclal Hebrew) χαλκοστόμου κώδωνος … τυρσηνικῆς. If you want a category, genitive of source (the source of the sound). It is normal for this construction (ὡς introduces a comparison) to drop one or more elements as Paul demonstrates in his translation. Helma Dik might see some significance in the order of the constituents in the genitive chain. This word order (genitive chain interrupted by ὡς) isn’t unusual in Attic Tragedy but it would be an eye catcher in NT Greek.
Ἀθηνᾶ
ἔγνων, Ὀδυσσεῦ, καὶ πάλαι φύλαξ ἔβην
τῇ σῇ πρόθυμος εἰς ὁδὸν κυναγίᾳ.
Knowing this, Odysseus, a long while ago as an eager guard I came to the road where you your hunt lies. Ὀδυσσεύς
ἦ καί, φίλη δέσποινα, πρὸς καιρὸν πονῶ;
And truly, loving mistress, do I work towards good effect? Ἀθηνᾶ
ὡς ἔστιν ἀνδρὸς τοῦδε τἄργα ταῦτά σοι.
[Yes,] as from this man the deeds themselves proceed, know you. Ὀδυσσεύς
καὶ πρὸς τί δυσλόγιστον ὧδ’ ᾖξεν χέρα;
And for what reason did his disordered hand dart thus forth? Ἀθηνᾶ
χόλῳ βαρυνθεὶς τῶν Ἀχιλλείων ὅπλων.
Burdened by a rage over Achilles’ arms. Ὀδυσσεύς
τί δῆτα ποίμναις τήνδ’ ἐπεμπίπτει βάσιν;
So why upon this track wildly attacking the herders? Ἀθηνᾶ
δοκῶν ἐν ὑμῖν χεῖρα χραίνεσθαι φόνῳ.
He thought himself among you, anointing his hands in your murders. Ὀδυσσεύς
ἦ καὶ τὸ βούλευμ’ ὡς ἐπ’ Ἀργείοις τόδ’ ἦν;
And this plan of his was really against the Argives? Ἀθηνᾶ
κἂν ἐξεπράξατ’, εἰ κατημέλησ’ ἐγώ.
And it would have been accomplished if I had not taken care myself. Ὀδυσσεύς
ποίαισι τόλμαις ταῖσδε καὶ φρενῶν θράσει;
What sorts are these boldnesses with which he is instructing his courage? Ἀθηνᾶ
νύκτωρ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς δόλιος ὁρμᾶται μόνος.
Being crafty by night setting out alone against you. Ὀδυσσεύς
ἦ καὶ παρέστη κἀπὶ τέρμ’ ἀφίκετο;
And did he come upon his goal? Ἀθηνᾶ
καὶ δὴ ’πὶ δισσαῖς ἦν στρατηγίσιν πύλαις.
Indeed, and was at the double gates of the generals. Ὀδυσσεύς
καὶ πῶς ἐπέσχε χεῖρα μαιμῶσαν φόνου;
And how were his hands stopped from eager murder?
ὡς is exclamatory: ὡς εὐμαθές σου … φώνημ’ ακουω, lit. How well-learnt your voice I hear! There’s no “and,” ευμαθες is adjectival (predicative) with φωνημα (as δυσλογιστον with χερα in 40), and κἂν ἄποπτος ᾖς ὅμως (even though you’re invisible) is interposed. The word order is telling, and makes translation more impossible than usual.
The ὅμως after κἂν ἄποπτος ᾖς is an idiomatic ellipse: “even though you’re invisible, nevertheless …” (as we say “still and all …”).
ἰχνεύω πάλαι
I have long tracked until now.
Just “I’ve been tracking a long time.” This is how παλαι works with the present, as I think you understand. 5 παλαι κυνηγετουντα. Cf. e.g. Je le connais depuis longtemps, Lo conosco da lungo tempo versus Eng. I’ve known him a long time.
Paul, Thanks for reporting Finglass. I think he missed a trick there, but it’s a good comment. I wish Greek commentators paid more attention to sound, notoriously problematic though it is.
ακουω κωδωνος would be a genitive of source (like ακουω σου), but φωνημα κωδωνος is a subjective genitive (like τους λογους σου). κώδων φωνεῖ.
You do realise it’s “I knew it”, aor.indic.? Why not so translate? Are you translating just so you can show how you’re construing the Greek—I’d recommend that—or trying to put it into decent English? If the latter, you have to make sure you properly understand the Greek first, and that’s not always clear. You could make better use of Jebb.
ὡς ἔστιν ἀνδρὸς τοῦδε τἄργα ταῦτά σοι.
[Yes,] as from this man the deeds themselves proceed, know you.
Rather [Yes,] since these deeds are this man’s. This use of ως is very common in tragic dialogue.
“these deeds”, not “the deeds themselves” (that would be αυτα).
τί δῆτα ποίμναις τήνδ’ ἐπεμπίπτει βάσιν;
So why upon this track wildly attacking the herders?
Why then did he launch this attack on the sheep-flocks?
τηνδε βασιν cognate accusative, internal to the verb, like to step a step or fall a fall; Soph merges these.
(ᾖξεν χέρα in 40 just above is a bold use of the same construction, I think, pace Jebb and LSJ. ᾖξεν intransitive as usual [cf. κατ’ ἴχνος ᾄσσω 32 above], χερα internal accusative; he made a hand-darting movement. What Finglass?)
For use with a transitive verb (rather than intransitive as here), cf. 21 ἡμᾶς … πρᾶγος ἄσκοπον ἔχει περάνας, double acccusative: ημας is external accusative, πρᾶγος internal, cognate (accomplish a deed ~ do a deed).
κἂν ἐξεπράξατ’, εἰ κατημέλησ’ ἐγώ.
And it would have been accomplished if I had not taken care myself.
ἐξεπράξατ’ middle not passive, “And he’d have carried it out too,”
ἐγώ not “myself” (αὐτή) but emphatic “I”
ποίαισι τόλμαις ταῖσδε καὶ φρενῶν θράσει;
What sorts are these boldnesses with which he is instructing his courage?
It’s not at all clear why you translate like this. ποίῳ (and τῷδε) is understood with θράσει.
EDIT. Oh, I get it. You’ve taken φρενῶν as a participle (but where would that leave και and dative θρασει?). It’s gen. of φρένες (as it almost always will be). φρενῶν θράσει gives some specificity to τόλμαις.
In the following lines you render ορμαται with a participle, ignore παρεστη και, and change επεσχε χειρα to passive, among various lesser sins. Similarly throughout. Deliberately or not? Either way it’s distortive. Show some respect!
… and at once I darted off on the trail. Some things I can make out, but by others I am thrown off course, and I cannot discover where he is.
— Lloyd-Jones 1994
… I came right away
and picked up the trail along
with other tracks I don’t recognize.
— Tipton 2008
ἐκπέπληγμαι see LSJ renderings for this in other contexts from Sophocles:
drive out of one’s senses by a sudden shock, amaze, astound, Od.18.231 (tm.) ; κάλλει καὶ ὥρᾳ διενεγκόντες ἐ. τινάς Aeschin.1.134 ; ὁ φόβος ἐκπλήσσων.. Antipho 2.1.7 ; κακοὶ εὐτυχοῦντες ἐκπλήσσουσί με Trag.Adesp. 465 ; ὅ μ’ ἐκπλήσσει λόγου frightens me in speaking, E.Or.549 :— in this sense most freq. in aor. 2 Pass., Ep. ἐξεπλήγην (v. infr.), Att. ἐξεπλάγην [ᾰ] (also aor. I ἐξεπλήχθην Id.Tr.183 : pf. part. ἐκπεπληγμένος A.Pers.290, > S.Tr.386> , etc.); to be panic-struck, amazed, esp. by fear, ἐκ γὰρ πλήγη φρένας Il.16.403, cf. 13.394 ; ἡνίοχοι ἔκπληγεν 18.225 : c. part., ἐκπεπληγμένον κεῖνον βλέποντες > S.OT 922, cf. Ant.433> , etc.; ἐκπλαγῆναί τινι to be astonished at a thing, Hdt.1.116, etc. ; ὑπό τινος Id.3.64 ; διά τι Th.7.21 ; ἐπί τινι X.Cyr. 1.4.27 ; πρός τι Plu.Thes.19, etc.: also c.acc., ἐκπλαγῆναί τινα to be struck with panic fear of.., > S.Ph.226> ,El.1045 ; ἡμᾶς δ’ ἂν..μάλιστα ἐκπεπληγμένοι εἶεν Th.6.11, cf.3.82.
generally, of any sudden, overpowering passion, to be struck with desire, Ar.Pl.673 ; with love, E.Hipp.38, Med.8 ; χαρᾷ, ἡδονῇ, A.Ch.233, > S.Tr.629 > ; with admiration, Hdt.3.148, etc.: c.acc.rei, ἐκπλαγέντα τὰ προκείμενα ἀγαθά Id.9.82.
The LSJ citations from Sophocles seem to suggest a psychological state someone more intense than being puzzled by contrary evidence. Tipton and Lloyd-Jones seem to follow the first definitions from LSJ:
I wondering if Tipton’s treatment masks to some extent a visceral reaction to the carnage that ΟΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ was experiencing. In other words, his response to the situation doesn’t seem to be as bland and matter of fact as Tipton presents it. On the other hand, perhaps ΟΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ isn’t impressed by the carnage, being a professional killer himself. He just got back from the front, right? I don’t know. This is a question.
Lloyd-Jones must be reading not ὅτου but ὅπου. With ὅτου it will mean “and I cannot discover whose they are.”
For understanding the Greek use Ll-J not Tipton, who gives only the most general sense (but does so very vigorously and quite effectively, though sacrificing a lot). Ll-J’s translations are extremely accurate—an excellent guide to the meaning of the Greek. Of course they don’t read anything like Sophocles, but what could?
εκπεπληγμαι here used not in its frequent sense of being driven (lit. struck) out of one’s mind—often with φρενῶν—but in a more basic sense, “struck out from" (the σημαινόμενα, the interpretable signs), thrown off course as Ll-J has it. In context it’s straightforward enough, and και ουκ εχω μαθειν amplifies it.
Of course it’s Ajax who has been driven out of his mind, but we don’t yet know that. Perhaps this somehow prepares the way? Both of them have some mental confusion, but Od’s more temporary and far less drastic than Ajax’s.
Odysseus and the rest are still at Troy (it will be some little while before he gets back home), in the Greek encampment by the shore. He has indeed seen plenty of human carnage, but he is shocked by the inexplicable discovery of the violently butchered livestock (and no doubt he’d been counting on his share). Being Odysseus, he’s quickly on the trail of the perpetrator, who the evidence suggests is Ajax. Now read on.
In the States today is Veterans Day. This might be a suitable moment to remember veterans who have committed suicide and to think of those who will.
Thank you for all of the comments. On γιγνώσκω aorist, I looked it up in the LSJ because the past tense seemed strange, and I followed the definition there: “come to know, perceive, and in past tenses, know.”
But the general point is dead on about getting tenses, voice, etc., right, and I mistook a good deal of the ones that were pointed out. I’ll try to be more literal about translating going forward, since we’re trying to communicate about language details here.
And for ὅτου, I assumed that it meant something like ἐξ ὅτου – for what reason. I suppose “of who” makes more sense in context.
