I have happily ‘troubleshot’ a number of my problems with the Cambridge JACT Reading Greek text but the following sentence baffles me (second last sentence in Section 6-B, first edition; could appear as section 7-B in a newer edition):
και αμα εδοκουν οι ποιηται δια την ποιησιν ειδεναι τι, ουκ ειδοτες , και σοφωτατοι ειναι ανθροπον, ουκ οντες. (apologies for not putting in the breathings or accents).
I can’t figure out the double use of ουκ(I get lost in the negatives in trying to figure out the sense). I have cheated and gone to a translation of the Apology and I know what sentence of the Apology reflects the sentence in the JACT text (it is of course adapted from the original Greek text, but I get the sense of the sentence in the JACT text from that translation). And I still can’t put the parts together!
My translation: At the same time that the poets consider themselves to know something because of their poetry, not knowing, they consider themselves to be the wisest of men, but they are not.
I don’t know what gives me the right to put in that second ‘consider.’ I thought I might see the parts come together nicely but I am missing something. I am incorrect with that ‘not knowing’ and with that ‘but they are not.’
I will stop here, but won’t quit working on this. My problem is with those two negatives. Just to finish, I have so enjoyed these limited visits to The Apology. I don’t intend to quit. I am always reviewing the verbs etc. and will keep doing it. Have read ahead in Section 6-D, so am not giving up! It is enjoyable.
ἐδόκουν is to be understood in both parts of the sentence, so that’s where you’d get your second ‘consider’ from… though reading it without context I take it to just mean ‘seem’. You need both ουκs because in both cases the speaker is making the point that they are not really what they appear to be. We can do the same in English if we want:
And at the same time the poets seemed, because of their poetry, to know something without really knowing it, and to be the wisest of men, when they weren’t.
εδοκουν, imperfect, is the main verb: “they seemed” or “they thought”
εδοκουν ειδεναι τι “they seemed to know something” or “they thought that they knew something” or “that they had some knowledge,”
ουκ ειδοτες lit. “not knowing” i.e. when in fact they didn’t—nom.pl., agreeing with οι ποιηται.
So far so good. Then:
και σοφωτατοι ειναι ανθροπον: και is just “and”!
ανθρωπων not ανθροπον (typo)!
“and [they seemed] to be the wisest of people” or “and [they thought] they were the wisest of people”
ουκ οντες lit. “not being” i.e. when in fact they weren’t.
So here we have the familiar opposition between seeming (δοκεῖν) and being (ειναι).
Now do you see how it all fits together? The two infinitival phrases ειδεναι τι and σοφωτατοι ειναι ανθρωπων are linked by the και, and they’re both governed by εδοκουν at the outset, the one and only main verb.
And just as the first participial phrase (ουκ ειδοτες) corrects the misapprehension that they had some knowledge, the second (ουκ οντες) corrects the misapprehension that they were the wisest of men.
So: “Because of their poetry the poets thought that they had some knowledge (when they didn’t) and that they were the wisest of men (when they weren’t)”
Both such spot on replies from Matt and mwh. Thank you very much. It helps and I think I see it!
Sorry about the typo. Went too fast there.
This is all very good material and support.
P.S. I’d like to learn at some point in the future why exactly Socrates has fallen into so much disfavour with certain philosophers and even poets today (quite ironic when you consider what he says about the poets in The Apology). Me, I am not at all turning against Socrates. I think some poetry folk feel he plays too much with his interlocutors and always has the answer, when truth cannot be arrived at in his manner, in the view of these poetry folk. But I am biting off a lot more than I can chew. Just putting that out there. Maybe some members will want to post about the way Socrates is seen today. I don’t know what thread or category that might come under. I am just grateful for the insights from Matt and mwh. I must try to build on that for future problems.
EDIT: I did have the notion, concerning my problem sentence, that the poets were not knowing, both in the poetry sphere and in the general sense, but putting it together is the trick.
…And putting this out just in general. It is probably a good idea to be honest and say, yes, this learning is tough at times. But I don’t want to say that too often. The enjoyment comes first. And thanks again to you both for the lovely and fluent translations.
I don’t know to which philosophers you refer. Among English-speaking specialists in Ancient Greek philosophy, and indeed among ‘analytic’ philosophers today, Socrates is still held in very high regard.
Hi Petrarch, I mustn’t really post too much here, being scant of knowledge. (‘Not knowing’ per the translation in The Apology!).
But here is what I know from a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on modern poetry. The facilitator doesn’t like what he sees as the Socratic method. One argument against it could be that it is a top-down approach or that it does lead, a little too much, the person being questioned. In other words, the problem an English prof. might have with the Socratic method is that it reduces student input. This MOOC supposedly remedies the situation but it is still helter-skelter. I just saw something the prof from this MOOC said about ‘the wisdom of the crowd’ (per Wikipedia of course!). He says with so many learners you may get some unique readings of an Emily Dickinson poem. I can’t go with that completely. First, a good reading should likely be recognizable as such. And a reading of a poem is something in the arts and it might be perhaps difficult to find interesting counterparts in other areas. Anyway, I took an English course years ago (pre-Internet) and the prof. was every bit as collaborative as any prof. today. I am not sure there is anything wholly new in this MOOC, after all. I think it is good, but a bit overwhelming.
That said, no more from me other than.. Sincerely, I would founder fast! I know this is a good topic (the reputation of Socrates today). I hope you or others who see this and are interested might put the topic over in a more appropriate thread. I can’t go too far in this topic!
The O.P. wondered why teachers might not want to use Socrates’s method of cross-examination.
I’m retired from teaching myself (history) and I would not have used Socrates’s method of cross-examination with average college students in a class setting. I think it would be too intimidating, almost paralyzing for them. Besides it would be inauthentic for me to say that I knew nothing, when I actually didn’t feel that way.
I did use probing questions in conference with individual students on the first drafts of their papers. For example, “Tell me why this document quotation supports the conclusion in the paper”.
But here is what I know from a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on modern poetry. The facilitator doesn’t like what he sees as the Socratic method. One argument against it could be that it is a top-down approach or that it does lead, a little too much, the person being questioned. In other words, the problem an English prof. might have with the Socratic method is that it reduces student input. T
This is a bit off topic but it seems to me such observations are superficial. Plato presents Socrates in the dialogues asking questions and this seems like an excellent way of making readers engage with the philosophical issues raised. The dialogues are a starting point for philosophical thought not an end point. Using the techniques taught by Plato students are encouraged to formulate other arguments and ideas not included in the text. It is to misread these texts if they are taken at face value.