I can see that ‘The gods have granted this gift to very few indeed, (namely) to release her soul back from Hades’
What I’m struggling with is the subsequent use of ἀλλὰ in this context especially given the re-use of the verb ἀνίημι but this time finitely in the 3rd person plural. There doesn’t seem to be much scope in this context for an adversative/ eliminative/substitutive use but i’m wondering whether it might be along the lines of ‘nay (in fact), the soul of that girl they (actually) released having been astonished by her deed’. This might then contrast with with the gods merely ‘granting her the gift of release’. Tenuous, i know. I think there are some accounts that Herakles rescued her, rather than the gods ‘actually’ releasing her so i’m wondering if it might be referring to that? Anyway, would appreciate people’s thoughts as always.
My thought: Even though many people accomplished great deeds, the gods only gave the gift of returning from the dead to a very few select people, but they gave it to her because they admired her deed.
The gods rarely gave the gift . . . but they gave it to her . . . .
Here’s how this might be put in English without breaking it down into more than one sentence:
When she had done this, it seemed not only to mortals but also the gods that she had done such a splendid deed that, [while] even though many people had done many splendid deeds, the gods had given the gift of sending the soul back up from Hades only to a few select individuals, they nevertheless [αλλα] sent hers back up, out of admiration for her deed.
In English, the idea that the gods gave the gift of returning from the dead to just a select few would have to be subordinate to the idea that they gave the gift to her. But in Greek the two ideas of the ωστε result clause are coordinate, joined by αλλα.
You might want to make the subject of ἀνεῖναι more clear somehow. The “gift of sending” is reading like “gave them the ability to send” in this English, but in Greek of course, the sending itself is the gift.
I thought the genitive absolute wasn’t quite so absolute as usual. Something like “out of the many who…the gods gave to an easily countable number…”
And there’s a parallelism of the first αλλα and the second that’s probably impossible to capture, a repetition of the balanced phrase that’s just gone before the ωστε, but this time as a particular.
“out of the many who…the gods gave to an easily countable number…”
It comes down to the same thing, but one would expect εκ πολλων . . .
The genitive absolute is adversative. although many people did many splendid things, the gods only awarded the honor of releasing their souls to a select few . . . but they awarded this honor to her because they were especially impressed by what she did.
Neil rightly identified αλλα as the crux. Here it has its usual contrastive meaning (not A but B instead), but the sense is somewhat elliptical, reflecting a slight shift of thought: “but instead (of following their normal practice of consigning souls to Hades,) hers they sent back up.” She’s an exception to the rule, one of the ευαρίθμητοι.
Part of the difficulty here, I think, is that the first limb of the ωστε clause, i.e., πολλῶν πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἐργασαμένων εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας οἱ θεοί, ἐξ Ἅιδου ἀνεῖναι πάλιν τὴν ψυχήν, doesn’t follow in strict logic – despite ωστε – as a result or consequence of the main clause, i.e., οὕτω καλὸν ἔδοξεν ἐργάσασθαι οὐ μόνον ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοῖς. The statement that the gods allowed souls to return from the dead very sparingly doesn’t logically follow from the fact that humans and gods were impressed by her deed.
But the first limb is included in the ωστε clause – to set up the contrast marked by ἀλλὰ – as coordinate with (not subordinate to) the second limb, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκείνης ἀνεῖσαν ἀγασθέντες τῷ ἔργῳ, as if the first limb were a consequence of the main clause.
The contrast in the ωστε clause, I think, is clear: the gods only allow souls to return from the dead very rarely, but they allowed hers to return. But the reader may be thrown off by the first limb because, as I mentioned, that limb doesn’t follow logically as a consequence of the main clause.
Thanks everyone. Is it possible that the adversative nature of the gentive absolute is also ‘bleeding into’ the following εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας οἱ θεοί. So something like,
She seemed to act so gracefully not only to the people but also to the gods that despite there being very many who have accomplished many a wonderful thing (AND) the gods granted this gift to very few indeed …… nevertheless….
Not sure if this is a grammatical (strictly speaking probably not) or a stylistic possibility though?
I don’t think “and” is the right conjunction to join the gen. abs. to the εδοσαν clause. The point, I think, is that many people did many admirable things, BUT the gods only granted the award to a select few. However (despite their extreme selectiveness), they granted it to her, which shows how highly they esteemed her deed.
Yes. After καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐργασαμένη τὸ ἔργον οὕτω καλὸν ἔδοξεν ἐργάσασθαι οὐ μόνον ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοῖς, the ωστε clause should lead directly to the conclusion (so καλον that they didn’t let her die but restored her to life), but first her exceptionality is highlighted by being contextualized (πολλῶν πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἐργασαμένων, εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν …, the familiar many/few contrast), and this limited widening of the sentence’s scope becomes the main substance of the ωστε clause until the αλλα clause puts the sentence firmly back on the rails by confining it to Alcestis—where we started.
“But” or “despite” is too heavy a touch, I think. The δη shows where the emphasis is, and the following αλλα rightly trips you up if you get stuck over highlighting a contrast that the Greek doesn’t highlight.
“…with many having done many good works, verily to an easily counted few the gods gave this gift…but to her they gave it, pleased by her deed.”
And I still think it wouldn’t hurt much to replace my “with” by “of”, as I said before, but I won’t insist on it.
The main contrast is (of course) between those whose souls are consigned to Hades, the vast majority, and the handful of others, Alcestis in particular. Joel is of course right that δη shows where the emphasis is in that part of the sentence, following the genitive absolute, but he too translates αλλα by “but,” which he criticizes as too heavy. I have tried to explain the αλλα and to elucidate the course of the sentence.
I just can’t seem to make good sense of it as a whole unless εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας οἱ θεοί is at least slightly adversative/contrasted with τὴν ἐκείνης ἀνεῖσαν ἀγασθέντες τῷ ἔργῳ
For me it seems logically to need to be
so x … that though y …. still z
The ‘though’ is needed particularly since y doesn’t actually logically follow from x, as Hylander explained.
and i can’t see where that ‘though’ is being generated for εὐαριθμήτοις…..θεοί - as it’s not part of the genitive absolute.
No no. I was responding to Hylander and criticizing his “despite” in the translation of the genitive absolute as too heavy, forcing him to reach for “nevertheless” when he came to that second αλλα. The “but” for αλλα where I put it is good.
Neil, I don’t know if I can explain this any better than I have. Do you have a problem with that? It seems to me that you’re misreading the passage. Why do you want εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας οἱ θεοί to be contrasted with τὴν ἐκείνης ἀνεῖσαν? The gods’ releasing Alcestis from death (or having Heracles do so!) exemplifies the γέρας that they gave no more than a handful of mortals. As for the “though”, that would apply to the genitive absolute, as Hylander explained (he was simply pointing out that it’s to be understood as concessive); it does not bleed out beyond that.
Well, I’ve slept on it and re-read all your posts and yes it’s making more sense now, thankyou. Sorry, and yes, i meant to say concessive wherever i said adversative/contrasted.
