Plato, Apology 2.25-30

[KDKamp]

Hi everyone, help in translating Apology 25-30 would be much appreciated!

The passage reads:

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀναβιβάσασθαι ὅιόν τ’ ἐστὶν ἀυτῶν ἐνταυθοῖ οὐδ’ ἐλέγξαι οὐδένα, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη ἀτεχνῶς ὥσπερ σκιαμαχεῖν ἀπολογούμενόν τε καὶ ἐλέγχειν μηδενὸς ἀποκρινομένου. ἀξιώσατε οὖν καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ λέγω , διττούς μου τοὺς κατηγόρους γεγονέναι, - ἑτέρους μὲν τοὺς ἄρτι κατηγορήσαντας, ἑτέρους δὲ τοὺς πάλαι οὓς ἐγὼ λέγω, καὶ οἰήθητε δεῖν πρὸς ἐκείνους πρῶτόν με ἀπολογήσασθαι.

My translation is:

For it is not even possible to call one of my accusers to the stand here nor to cross examine one of them, but rather it is necessary in defending myself to simply fight with shadows and to raise questions without anyone answering them. So understand, as I say, that my accusers fall into two groups - the one group consists of the men who have just recently brought charges against me, while the other group consists of the men I mention from much earlier, and you know how necessary it is for me to defend myself against the earlier accusers first. For you heard those men accusing me first, and much more so than from the men who came after this group.

The parts where I have questions concern 1) the “οὐδὲ … οὐδ’ … οὐδένα” construction; 2) the grammar around the ἀπολογούμενόν participle usage; and finally 3) the “καὶ οἰήθητε δεῖν πρὸς ἐκείνους πρῶτόν με ἀπολογήσασθαι” clause.

For 1), is my translation of “οὐδένα ἀυτῶν” as “one of my accusers” rather than “none of my accusers” accurate just based on the fact that “οὐδὲ” is often repeated with other negatives?

For 2), I translated “ὥσπερ ἀπολογούμενόν” as an accusative absolute explaining the circumstances for an impersonal verb construction. Is that the right way to look at it? Or how else could it be explained?

Finally, for 3), I would typically look at “ἐκείνους” as referring to “ἑτέρους μὲν τοὺς ἄρτι κατηγορήσαντας,” because in most sequences I thought “ἐκείνους” referred to the “former” entity in a list, but I translated it as referring to “ἑτέρους δὲ τοὺς πάλαι οὓς ἐγὼ λέγω” instead, because the latter entity in this case was “former” in time. Context also makes it clear that “ἐκείνους” must refer to “ἑτέρους δὲ τοὺς πάλαι οὓς ἐγὼ λέγω”.

I know this is a lot! I hope someone can help. Any and all feedback on my translation is welcome. Thanks.

[mwh]

1. Yes that’s right. The first ουδε is “not even," just as you have it, and the ουδενα after the negatives is not “none” but “any”—better translated “any” or “any one” than “one.”

2. ἀπολογούμενόν not acc.absolute but in agreement with the unexpressed subject of σκιαμαχεῖν (so to speak). After αναγκη he could have used the dative, but he uses the same acc.&inf. construction that you’d have after δεῖ, for instance. με is “understood” as the subject of the infinitives. Your translation is fine.

3. Yes, the context makes it clear that εκεινους refers to the latter group, earlier in time (τους πάλαι sc. κατηγορήσαντας). The organization is chiastic.

As for the rest, your only serious mistake is οἰήθητε, not “you know” (were you thinking of οἴδατε?) but aor.imperative of οἴομαι, in parallel with ἀξιώσατε at the beginning of the sentence. So “and consider that I must defend myself against the latter first.”

[jeidsath]

Finally, for 3), I would typically look at “ἐκείνους” as referring to “ἑτέρους μὲν τοὺς ἄρτι κατηγορήσαντας,” because in most sequences I thought “ἐκείνους” referred to the “former” entity in a list, but I translated it as referring to “ἑτέρους δὲ τοὺς πάλαι οὓς ἐγὼ λέγω” instead, because the latter entity in this case was “former” in time. Context also makes it clear that “ἐκείνους” must refer to “ἑτέρους δὲ τοὺς πάλαι οὓς ἐγὼ λέγω”.

3. Yes, the context makes it clear that εκεινους refers to the latter group, earlier in time (τους πάλαι sc. κατηγορήσαντας). The organization is chiastic.

I’ve been trying to understand why I sometimes see ἐκεῖνος when I don’t expect it (as here), and I’ve found that things generally make a lot more sense if I think in terms of ἐκεῖ vs. ἐνθάδε (there-stuff vs. here-stuff) instead of confusing myself with English “this” vs. “that” (object-of-focus vs. not in focus).

In the Apology passage, the ἐνθάδε accusers are the ones there on on-scene, while the ἐκεῖ accusers would be the off-stage ones. Narrative focus isn’t enough to budge that.

Similarly, here’s another one that was bugging me recently, and made me think of this post, because I think the resolution is the same. (Xen.An.7.4.9-10)

ὁ δ’ ὑπερανατείνας τὸν τράχηλον, “παῖε,” ἔφη, “εἰ κελεύει ὁ παῖς καὶ μέλλει χάριν εἰδέναι.” ἐπήρετο ὁ Σεύθης τὸν παῖδα εἰ παίσειεν αὐτὸν ἀντ’ ἐκείνου.

The boy is ἐκεῖνος from Xenophon’s perspective, because he’s the one at remove, but in English, our object-of-focus thinking makes the ἐκείνου seem strange, as he’s now in focus in the narrative, compared to Ἐπισθένης ὁ παιδεραστής.

If I were to really go out on a limb, I would wonder whether this difference is more than just the ἐκεῖ/ἐνθάδε adverbial roots to the words, and instead also because Greek communicates focus more by word order, while English communicates it with focus-identifiers in the sentence.

[mwh]

The Apology passage is unproblematic, it seems to me, εκεινους referring to the group more distant in time and space—that lot back there as opposed to this lot right here.

What makes the Xenophon a little more interesting is the indirect speech, together with the fact that there are several parties involved. (You should have given more of the Greek.)

ἐπήρετο ὁ Σεύθης τὸν παῖδα εἰ παίσειεν αὐτὸν ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου.
“Seuthes asked the boy if he should strike him instead of him.”—English too has the problem of resolving ambiguity in indirect speech.

In the Greek it’s contextually (but not grammatically) obvious that the subject of παίσειεν is Seuthes, not the boy or a third party.
αυτον could in different context refer to the boy. but it obviously doesn’t here: it must refer to Episthenes, the pederast who wants the beautiful boy’s life spared and would be prepared to make a self-sacrificial swap. (A romantic gesture if ever there was one!)
And it’s the context again that makes it clear that εκεινου refers to the boy himself (not “him” but “him”). The perspective has shifted, as you said. With use of the reflexive precluded (εαυτου would have to refer to Seuthes), it’s the only available way of referring to him in the indirect question. In Seuthes’ direct question it would be “you” (σοῦ, emphatic)—“Am I to strike him instead of you?”
The asyndeton, btw, is … striking.

The word order is incidental I think, and no different from what it would be in English. So I would chop off that limb you were tempted to go out on, Joel.

[KDKamp]

Helpful answers, both. Thank you! Mwh, I’m glad you detected the issue with the οἰήθητε, as well. I spent some time on that, since I didn’t recognise the imperative form right away. And jeidsaith, I agree. Thinking of ἐκεῖ vs. ἐνθάδε in terms of there-stuff vs. here-stuff in the context of the trial definitely feels like another good solution!

[mwh]

αξιωσατε … και οἰήθητε. You should have seen that the two are in parallel, whether or not you recognized the latter.

[KDKamp]

Yes, I recognised the parallel 2nd person arrangement, which is why translating οἰήθητε as an indicative gave me pause. It didn’t quite feel right. Thanks!