Plato's Symposium: Translation Problem

Greek Learning Greek
1

Hello,

I am now reading first several lines of Plato’s Symposium, and I have some translation problems to ask.

  1. πρὸ τοῦ δὲ περιτρέχων ὅπῃ τύχοιμι καὶ οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν ἀθλιώτερος ἦ ὁτουοῦν,…(Line 173a1)
    My translation is:
    Before that time I happened to be running around (with no fixed principle of conduct) and to be thinking that I was more miserable than any person to make something (important)…
    I have three questions concerning this sentence:
    (1) As for the participle “περιτρέχων”, is it a supplementary participle of the verb “οἰόμενος” (as I have translated) or not (circumstantial use of the participle, translated as: before that time, running around, I happened to be thinking that…)?
    (2) As for the enclitic “τὶ”, why does it have a grave accent instead of no accent (τι)?
    (3) What is the function of “ὅπῃ” in this sentence and how can I translate it?

  2. παίδων ὄντων ἡμῶν ἔτι, ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ ἐνίκησεν Ἀγάθων, τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἢ ᾗ τὰ ἐπινίκια ἔθυεν αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ χορευταί. (173a5-7)
    My translation is:
    When we were still children, when Agathon won with his first tragedy, on the day later than on which Agathon and the dancers did the victory sacrifice.
    (1) As for “τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἢ ᾗ”, is the clause after “ᾗ” an adverbial clause of time, and is “τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ” in apposition with the time indicated by “ὅτε”?
    (2) Does this sentence mean that ἡ συνουσία happened on the same day when Agathon won, and it was a day later than the sacrifice?
    (3)The reason I ask those questions is that I think “ᾗ” could also indicate the adverbial clause of time before (ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ ἐνίκησεν Ἀγάθων), and “τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ” could also indicate the time of the third clause. If so, the translation would be:
    When we were still children, when Agathon won with his first tragedy, on the day later than that (when Agathon won), Agathon and the dancers did the victory sacrifice.
    In this understanding and translation, ἡ συνουσία still happened on the day when Agathon won, but it was a day earlier than the sacrifice.
    So would this understanding be possible? If not, why is it?

Thank you very much and best wishes to you all!

2

I have three questions concerning this sentence:
(1) As for the participle “περιτρέχων”, is it a supplementary participle of the verb “οἰόμενος” (as I have translated) or not (circumstantial use of the participle, translated as: before that time, running around, I happened to be thinking that…)?
(2) As for the enclitic “τὶ”, why does it have a grave accent instead of no accent (τι)?
(3) What is the function of “ὅπῃ” in this sentence and how can I translate it?

  1. οἰόμενος goes with ποιεῖν but see 3
  2. Dover’s edition prints τὶ with no accent but gives no explanation why he departs from the OCT. I dont know what Bude says.
  3. ὅπῃ :take with τύχοιμι in whatever way I chanced.

So you will need to revise your translation which has got a bit jumbled.

3
  1. As for “τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἢ ᾗ”, is the clause after “ᾗ” an adverbial clause of time, and is “τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ” in apposition with the time indicated by “ὅτε”?
    (2) Does this sentence mean that ἡ συνουσία happened on the same day when Agathon won, and it was a day later than the sacrifice?
    (3)The reason I ask those questions is that I think “ᾗ” could also indicate the adverbial clause of time before (ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ ἐνίκησεν Ἀγάθων), and “τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ” could also indicate the time of the third clause.

This seems to me more tricky.

How do you understand “ἢ” in τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἢ ᾗ? I take it as “than” on which (ᾗ). So the party happened the day after the sacrifice. The winning of the prize clearly has to come first.

I think you are trying to overcomplicate things.

Dover says “ἢ ᾗ or ἢ without ᾗ or ᾗ without ἢ are all acceptable Greek here.” The construction is the same as at 189c3.

4

I’m quite sure that οἰόμενος τὶ is wrongly accented in the OCT. It should be οἰόμενός τι. The normal rule is that when an enclitic follows a proparoxytone word (acute accent on antepenult), the proparoxytone word acquires an acute accent on the ultima, but the enclitic takes no accent. I checked three treatises (Chandler, Vendryes and Probert) to see if there might be an alternative rule followed by some editors, but found nothing. Dover, as seneca notes, gets it right.

5

I dont have the OCT to hand and so I relied on perseus which I assumed had correctly transcribed the text. I too could not see a reason for the accent and as I have only read the symposium in the Dover edition its not something I have ever thought about before. None does not say which text he is using. It would be interesting to see what the printed text says. I also looked at Probert couldnt see a reason for the accent.

6

The Perseus text does indeed reflect the OCT, which I checked. (So Perseus is demonstrably descriptus and can be eliminated.) In a volume of several hundred pages, a few mistakes are bound to creep in–especially errors involving diacriticals.

7

It’s not an oversight, and the Loeb uses the same accentuation. The editor is trying to indicate that τί is connected to the next phrase “τὶ ποιεῖν,” “doing something,” not οἰόμενός τις – “someone thinking.”

8

None, Do you now see how the first sentence goes? Your main mistake was in thinking that τύχοιμι is the main verb, “I happened” (+ participle), whereas it’s optative in the subordinate clause ὅπῃ τύχοιμι, which is governed by περιτρεχων—“running around wherever I happened (to be running around),” i.e. running around just anywhere, at random. It’s a common sort of idiomatic use of τυγχάνω. (In primary sequence, i.e. if the main verb were not ἦ impf. but εἰμί pres., we’d have ὅπῃ ἂν τύχω (subj.) instead of plain optative.)

So we have the two participles, coordinated by και, “running around at random and thinking I was doing something” (i.e. that I was doing something worthwhile), and then ἀθλιώτερος ἦ ὁτουοῦν is the main clause, “I was more wretched than anyone” (ὅτου-οῦν = οὗτινος-οῦν again idiomatic, than whoever, than anyone at all).

οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν: To elaborate on jeidsath, the editor printed it this way because semantically the τι doesn’t cohere with οιόμενος (οιόμενός τι “thinking something” or “sort of thinking”) but with ποιειν (to do something). “To do something" would ordinarily be ποιεῖν-τι, τι postpositive. In fact, though, it’s the very position of τι, attached to οιομενος rather than to ποιειν (οιομενος-τι ποιειν not οιομενος ποιειν-τι), that shows that prosodically οιομενος τι ποιειν is a single phrase or “colon” (κῶλον), to be accented accordingly, οιόμενός τι ποιεῖν.

9

οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν:

Well I have read and re read what you have written about the accentuation. I have also looked again at Probert and have not found there something which supports what you say. I have looked at Chandler and like wise can find nothing. I have no expertise in accentuation so I would be grateful if you could point me to a source.

I have looked at τις , τι in LSJ and I can see that there are examples where τι has a grave accent. This is what it says about accentuation:

  1. [select] accentuation: τις is normally enclitic, but in certain uses is orthotone, i.e. theoretically oxytone (τίς, τινά, τινές, τινῶν, etc., cf. Choerob. in Theod.1.373 H.) and barytone when followed by another word (τὶς or τις, τινὰ, τινὲς, τινῶν, etc.). According to Sch. D.T.p.240 H. its orthotone accent is τίς (not τὶς）, τίνα, τίνες, etc. The orthotone form is used in codd.:
    a. [select] at the beginning of a sentence, τίς ἔνδον . . ; is any one within? A.Ch.654 (τὶς cj. Hermann); τί φημι; = λέγω τι; am I saying anything? S.Tr.865, OT1471; <τίς ἦλθε;> ἦλθέ τις has anybody come? Somebody has come, Sch.D.T. l.c.; τὶς κάθηται, τὶς περιπατεῖ, so and so is sitting (walking), S.E.M.8.97; τὶς αἰπόλος καλούμενος Κομάτας Sch.Theoc.7.78; “τίς ποτε οἰκοδεσπότης . . ἐκοπία” Aesop. in Gloss. iii p.41; or after a pause, “πῶς γὰρ ἄν, ἔφην ἐγώ, ὦ βέλτιστε, τὶς ἀποκρίναιτο” Pl.R.337e; τι οὖν （τὶς ἂν εἴποι） ταῦτα λέγεις; D.1.14 (v.l.); “ἔντοσθεν δὲ γυνά, τι θεῶν δαίδαλμα” Theoc.1.32; “οὐ γυμνὸν τὸ φίλαμα, τι δ᾽ ὦ ξένε καὶ πλέον ἑξεῖς” Mosch.1.5 (v.l. for τὺ).
    b. [select] when τις is opp. to another τις or to some other word, “τισὶ μὲν συμφέρει, τισὶ δ᾽ οὐ συμφέρει” Arist.Pol.1284b40, cf. Th.2.92, Pl.Cri.49a, D. 9.2; “τινὲς μὲν οὖν . . , ἡμεῖς δὲ . . ” Sor.1.1; “τὸ τὶ μὲν ψεῦδος ἔχον, τὶ δὲ ἀληθές” S.E.M.8.127; “ἀλλὰ τινὰ μὲν . . , τινὰ δὲ . . ” Gem.14.6; “ποτὲ μὲν πρὸς πάντα, ποτὲ δὲ πρὸς τινά” Sor.1.48: without such opposition, τοῦτ᾽ εἰς ἀνίαν τοὔπος ἔρχεται τινί for a certain person, S.Aj.1138. Codd. are not consistent; in signf.11.5a, 10c, 13 they make it enclitic; in signf. 11.5b sts. enclitic, sts. orthotone (v. supr.); sts. enclitic and orthotone in the same sentence, “πάντα δὲ τὰ γιγνόμενα ὑπό τέ τινος γίγνεται καὶ ἔκ τινος καὶ τί” Arist.Metaph.1032a14, cf. Pl.Chrm.165c.

There do not seem to be any examples where the accentuation is used to clarify meaning in the way you suggest.

10

Jeidsath’s and mwh’s explanation makes sense, although Dover prints the more usual accentuation.

Chandler (sec. 942, p. 268) states: “Contrary to the statements of the old grammarians, the indefinite τι is orthotone in modern editions, 1. when it begins a clause . . .”

The OCT perhaps exemplifies this practice, which Chandler thinks is not sanctioned by “the old grammarians.” Here, however, while τι is linked to ποιειν, I wouldn’t think splitting the unit οιομενοσ τι ποιειν would be warranted. But I’m sure Burnet knew Greek a lot better than I do.

11

Thanks for pointing me to the right passage in Chandler. I dont see that the exceptions he gives as covering this case.

I note that he concludes that "It will be found, however that editors are capricious and inconsistent. "

12

I think that Michael is write about this being a single phrase, and the existing accentuation being problematic. Does it have any manuscript authority? I would guess not.

Are we looking at the accentuation as a primarily phonetic representation (how did Socrates pronounce his words) or a primarily punctuational element (how do we communicate what Socrates was saying)?

This editor is apparently in camp number two. Thinking about accentuation as punctuation marks him as a modern. The idea of trying to make the phrase boundaries explicit is a 20th century way of thinking about texts. The printing press has made us consumers of information, and we have lots of modern punctuation inventions that make us more efficient at it. Before the printing press and mass literacy, reading efficiency was not the primary concern.

13

When Chandler writes “modern,” he means the mid-19th century, and the OCT Plato dates from the early years of the 20th century. The editor of the OCT Plato, John Burnet, may have been following a practice that has since been abandoned–and the Loeb text may simply reproduce that of the OCT.

Wasn’t there a thread about this sort of thing a while back?

Medieval manuscripts aren’t necessarily reliable when it comes to fine points of accentuation, since the diacriticals weren’t added consistently until well into the Byzantine era.

14

No doubt Burnet, a reader of Plato second to none, was trying to be helpful, and following the custom (or a custom) of the time. And it is helpful, isn’t it? His punctuation respects both the meaning and the syntax, indicating that τι is not to be taken with οιομενος, as in this position it normally would, but with ποιειν. But I believe the word order carries prosodic significance, as I suggested, indicating that it’s properly accentuated οιόμενός τι ποιεῖν, with τι gravitating to 2nd position in conformity with Wackernagel’s law. That’s critical to establishing colon boundaries.

He’ll have been exercising a wider interpretation of what LSJ gives as A.III.1a, instances of τὶς, τὶ etc. at sentence beginning or after pause, even though there’s no real pause here (but wouldn’t it be “denken, dass …” in German?). LSJ’s instances seem very dodgy. Most, perhaps all, of the sentence-initial ones have been discredited. E.g. the Sophoclean and Aeschylean examples (A.Cho., S.Tr., OT) are now taken not as indefinite but as interrogative, in accordance with normal usage. The ”after a pause” ones are more interesting, and I would provisionally argue that despite editors’ commas they do not really follow a pause and should be viewed as enclitic, again with prosodic implication. E.g. LSJ’s first example, Pl.Rep.337c, πῶς γαρ αν, εφην εγω, ω βελτιστε, τὶς αποκρίναιτο (Burnet’s punctuation and accent; the new OCT, which tends to punctuate still more fussily than Burnet, will add quote marks, which I strongly disapprove of). I think all this punctuation is false to the prosody, and that τις is enclitic as usual, just as in πῶς γὰρ άν τις. Vocatives (and εφη’s) are routinely commaed off by editors, as in English, but I think without justification. This would take too long to argue here, but the conclusion would be that the only exception to enclitic τις etc. is LSJ III.1b, τινὲς μεν … τινὲς δε and the like (always disyllabic?). Cf. e.g. ποτε. But I haven’t investigated very thoroughly, and I could be wrong.

Still, I fancy we’ve answered the OP’s question! This is pretty esoteric stuff.

PS I wrote this before the previous two posts and and then left to have dinner, and post it as is.
—The medieval MSS are worthless on such points.

15

Thank you very much for your help!

I think that “ἢ” means “than” on which(ᾗ) too. But I am not sure what time “ᾗ” actually indicates. I thought that the relative pronoun “ᾗ” could also indicate the time of the last sentence (“ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ ἐνίκησεν Ἀγάθων”), just as in Lain, “qui” could also indicate the person in the previous sentences.

I have read very few of Greek texts. Maybe I am so unfamiliar with it that I have made up an understanding by myself which does not exist actually…

16

Thank you very much!

Now I see what my mistake is. I thought that τύχοιμι was the main verb of this sentence, and the two participles connected by και were governed by this verb. What’s more, I did not know the function of ὅπῃ.

In fact, when I was reading “οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν ἀθλιώτερος ἦ ὁτουοῦν”, I even thought why there was no conjunctions after “οἰόμενος”. I thought that there should be a conjunction like “ὅτι” or “ὡς”… But now I know that “τὶ ποιεῖν” alone is the indirect statement introduced by the verb οἰόμενος, while “ἀθλιώτερος ἦ ὁτουοῦν” is the main clause. Thanks to your elaborate explanation, I finally understand the structure of this sentence…

The textbook I am using now is Plato’s Symposium - Greek Text with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary (by Geoffrey Steadman). But the explanations of grammar in this book are too brief for me… Could you please recommend some books which have detailed notes and explanations of grammar in it? Thank you very much again for your help!

17

Thank you very much to you all!

The book I am using now is Plato’s Symposium - Greek Text with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary (by Geoffrey Steadman). I also refer to Perseus at the same time. It is “οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν” in both texts. Thanks to you all, now I know why it writes so and what it should be.

I see that you are talking about the treatises by Chandler, Vendryes and Probert. Sorry for being ignorant, but how could I get them?

Thank you very much indeed and best wishes!

18

I see that you are talking about the treatises by Chandler, Vendryes and Probert. Sorry for being ignorant, but how could I get them?

Probert is up-to-date and readily available:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1853995991?keywords=probert%20greek&qid=1453864129&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

She’s a distinguished authority on Greek accentuation.

Chandler dates from the 1860s. He provides a lot of detailed information about the ancient Greek grammarians writing about accentuation. He’s available in reprint editions from AbeBooks, and also onpline if you google him. But I think Probert is probably all you might want. You can always consult Chandler online.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=chandler&sts=t&tn=greek+accentuation

Vendryes is in French and long out of print (around the time of WWII, I believe). Used copies can be found at AbeBooks, but, again, Probert is probably sufficient for your purposes.

In addition to Steadman (which probably reproduces the OCT text), you might want to acquire Dover’s edition of the Symposium, which provides excellent notes aimed at a more advanced level–not so much help with the grammar (which you can get from Steadman), but a full elucidation of the text in a historical and intellectual perspective. Even if you’re not at an advanced stage of Greek, you will get a lot out of it. Dover was an important classical scholar in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, Dover doesn’t think much of Plato as a thinker–he approaches the Symposium (and the rest of Plato) as a work of literature (personally, I’m sympathetic to this approach).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521295238?keywords=dover%20symposium&qid=1453865456&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2

Here’s another commentary (including text with English translation) that would be helpful as a counterweight to Dover:

http://www.amazon.com/Plato-Symposium-Classical-Texts-Ancient/dp/0856686158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453865607&sr=8-1&keywords=symposium+aris+%26+phillips

I haven’t used this (or Steadman either), but Rowe is an important Plato scholar, and this series of texts is on the whole excellent. Notes are keyed to the English translation, which is intended to guide you through the difficulties.

Plato’s Symposium is a key ancient Greek text. To my mind, you should study it and engage with it–you shouldn’t blow through it in a superficial way. And if you work through it seriously, you’ll absorb not just a lot of grammar and Attic usage, but a lot of background that will enhance your reading of other ancient Greek texts.

Good luck, and don’t hesitate to post questions here!

19

I wonder whether you might be trying to be a bit too ambitious in reading the symposium at such an early stage in your Greek reading? The first complete text I read after a year’s study of Greek (admittedly I was attending classes) was Lysias 1. On the killing of Eratosthenes. The first paragraph is hard for someone inexperienced with its seemingly endless optatives but the narrative is much more straightforward. As Hylander observes the Symposium is a text with which one has to engage and struggle. I suppose it depends on why you are reading. If it is to improve your Greek then maybe Lysias would be better at this stage.

Edwards provides more basic help:

http://www.amazon.com/Lysias-Five-Speeches-Greek-Texts/dp/1853994472/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453898242&sr=1-7&keywords=lysias

Carey is more advanced:

http://www.amazon.com/Lysias-Selected-Speeches-Cambridge-Classics/dp/0521269881/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453898242&sr=1-6&keywords=lysias

20

Another text that is often used as an introduction to Attic prose after some of the Anabasis is Plato’s Apology of Socrates.

If you decide to read Lysias, you should by all means get Carey’s edition (instead of or in addition to Edwards), even though Carey may be aimed at a little more advanced readership than your current level. Carey offers a rich source of information about the background of the speeches, the legal procedures, Athenian life, etc. Some of this is in Edwards, but Carey is fuller. This sort of background information will enhance your experience of reading the speeches themselves, but in addition you will begin to accumulate information that will be useful in reading other texts.

Engaging with ancient Greek texts involves more than just deciphering the forms, syntax and vocabulary–you have to bring to bear an enormous amount of background information, too. Good commentaries will help you along with the process of absorbing this boundless body of information (a process that will never be complete, of course).