I struggled through the first two lines but need to ask a couple questions about the third, line 491. Is τἀναντία (τὰ ἐναντία) the subject? If there is not a verb in a line, should I look for an implied verb or a verb from the previous lines?
Perhaps you’re reading it too slowly and laboriously. ἐστὶ δίκαιον is naturally understood from the previous line. τούτων τἀναντία i.e. the opposite of εὖ πράττειν.
I cannot find a nominative for a subject. Are the accusatives πονηροὺς and ἀθέους subjects of πράττειν? I am wondering if πράττειν is implied that I use the accusative as a subject?
Greek has a number of implied nouns. If I cannot find a verb in a line, do I assume it is a continuation of a verb already stated in a former line?
OK, if you can’t take it all in at once we can break it down, starting with 490 ἐστὶ δίκαιον: “it’s right/just/fair” (neuter nominative) τοὺς χρηστοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὖ πράττειν “that good people do well” (acc. & inf. dep. on ἐστὶ δίκαιον) …"
But that’s introduced by the opening φανερὸν … ὅτι …, “(it’s) clear that …”, which itself is an acc.& inf. dep. on the embedded ἔγωγ’ οἶμαι (there’s your nominative subject): lit. “I think this is clear known to everyone alike, that it’s fair that good people do well”
Then the continuation in the next line, τοὺς δὲ πονηροὺς etc., “and bad and ungodly people the opposite” (I.e. the opposite of εὖ πράττειν, i.e. κακως πραττειν).
Yes, τοὺς πονηροὺς καὶ τοὺς ἀθέους is in parallel with τοὺς χρηστοὺς in the previous verse, where it’s the subject of εὖ πράττειν.
And just to be quite clear, the opening verse (489) is literally “I think that this is clear (φανερὸν μὲν τοῦτ’ εἶναι) for all alike to know (γνῶναι),” etc. But of course we should read it in the order in which it comes (φανερὸν up front).
So far I have, “And yet who might discover of (than?) this (man?) to (for? by?) the people at any time better?” It seems awkward, so how do I know what order to put the words in? I am especially uncertain as to where to place the phrase ποτ’ ἄμεινον.
I’d treat the translation word order as καίτοι τίς ἂν ποτ᾽ ἐξεύροι ἄμεινον τούτου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ~ and yet who would ever discover something better than this for men…
Alternatively the ποτ᾽ could be taken as at some time, perhaps with phrasing like who could be expected to discover something at some time…
Lukas, Your procedure is good insofar as you are taking the Greek in the order in which it comes. But it’s laboriously atomistic, translating each word separately and independently of all of the others, and this will not help you develop reading proficiency. With a sentence such as this you should have no difficulty seeing that it’s probably a rhetorical question meaning something like “Yet who (or what) would ever … better than this (or he)?” And ἐξεύροι allows you to refine this and fill in the remainder: “Yet who would (or could?) ever devise (anything?) better than this?” You almost arrived at this, and could have been a bit more confident.
But now that David Salter (like me, a West Yorkshireman) has taken to answering your posts I’ll leave it all to him unless he says something I seriously disagree with. (I wasn’t very happy with what he had to say on 491, but never mind.)
It’s good to have you participating here, for the site had become practically dead despite my efforts to keep it alive.
As to 491, it’s just that I wouldn’t understand πράττειν with τούτων τἀναντία, for in this passage πράττειν is used intransitively with an attendant adverb such as εὖ or κακῶς, not a direct object.
ποτε is usually described as an indefinite particle though it often acts like an adverb. The order of words will be subject to our idiom so a translation should sound natural.
Although the Greek in the example literally states τίς ἂν ἐξεύροι ποτ’ .. ~ who would discover ever, it needs adjustment to who would ever discover.. as that is appropriate for English.
I translated line 501, “τίς ἂν οὐχ ἡγοῖτ’ εἶναι μανίαν κακοδαιμονίαν τ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον;”
like this: “Who would not think that it is accursed misfortune, madness and still more?”
Two questions about that:
Is it legal to place a comma between two nouns even though the Greek does not have a conjunction between them?
I know I can end an English sentence with “more.” Example: "The king had riches, strength, and more. " Since the Greek is ending a sentence with “μᾶλλον”, can I also do so when translating into English?
The phrase ἔτι μᾶλλον often corresponds to "even more" but this will not always suit the phrasing of the translation. I have seen κακοδαιμονίαν translated as divine malevolence and the line in question as (i)who wouldn’t think it madness or even divine malevolence. We could also say (ii)who wouldn’t think it madness, divine malevolence even. (iii)who wouldn’t think it madness, or even more than that, divine malevolence.
Punctuation is a relatively modern part of writing. The ancient texts would not have had commas at all. How we punctuate our translations and where we choose to place certain words is based on current idiom, usage and sense. If it can be understood and it conveys the meaning, there is no need to worry that there is no exact match with the Greek idiom.
A supplementary point on Aristophanes’ language. In this passage it’s close to ordinary prose—quite remarkably so—but it is not ordinary prose, in fact not prose at all, but verse: it’s all in meter. Though the linguistic register is low, nonetheless it’s thoroughly stylized. So if we’re to translate it, we should perhaps consider how far we want it to “sound natural.”
Here are two examples. Note that the Greek equivalent for more is different in each case.
καὶ ἐκεῖνοί τε ἄξιοι ἐπαίνου καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν. ~ And these deserve praise and our fathers deserve yet more. [Thucydides 2:36:2] εἰ δέ τινα ὁρῴη…προσόδους ποιοῦντα, οὐδένα ἂν πώποτε ἀφείλετο, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ πλείω προσεδίδου. ~ But if he saw anyone… making profits, he would never take anything away but always gave them more. [Xenophon, Anabasis 1:9:19]
Cf. Dylan’s “I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more” (ουκέτι μέλλω ενθάδε γεωργήσειν).
But back for a moment to the Aristophanes passage. The requirements of the meter can interfere with the word order, if not with the words themselves. At 501, for example, τίς ἂν οὐχ ἡγοῖτ’ would be more likely to be τίς οὐχ ἡγοῖτ’ ἂν in prose.
The passage is in anapestic tetrameter, a relatively straightforward meter with clearly articulated lines, fluid and readily recognizable. It’s a flexible meter but only within certain strict limits: it does not allow single short syllables, for example—quite unlike iambic trimeter, the standard meter of Greek drama.
So we should get into the habit of reading Greek verse metrically. It’s not hard to do. Here again are the first two verses of the passage:
φανερὸν μὲν ἔγωγ’ | οἶμαι γνῶναι || τοῦτ’ εἶναι πᾶσιν ὁμοίως,||
ὅτι τοὺς χρηστοὺς | τῶν ἀνθρώπων || εὖ πράττειν ἐστὶ δίκαιον ||
You can see (hear, rather) how the verses rhythmically echo one another.
The operettas of Gilbert & Sullivan are perhaps the closest English equivalent in English.