… ὅθεν ὁ Ἀχελῷος ἐκρέων δι’ Αἰτωλίας εἰς τὸν Ἀμβρακικὸν ἐξῄει κόλπον…
…whence Acheloios flowed out of Aetolia into the bay of Ambrakia…
I feel like this should be “into the bay of Ambrakia” but why Ἀμβρακικὸν (accusative singular) and not genitive singular?
Source: Scholia in Iliadem 21.194a.2-3 (ed. Erbse)= cod. Townl. (Brit. Mus. Burney 88) a1
I believe that Ἀμβρακικὸν may be parsed as a proper-name adjective, just as in English we do with the “Persian gulf”.
That would certainly make sense–thank you, Hugh.
“flowing out [participle] through [not out of] Aetolia issued (ἐξῄει) into the Ambracian gulf.”
Thank you, Michael. I recognized the participle but in the next clause Herakles is said to have diverted the river (turning it away from the described course), so I took that to mean I could change the wording in this clause to aorist. I’m on my phone now so I can’t reproduce the full excerpt but is that sort of thing allowed? I thought it was.
I think the point is that there are two verbs here - flowing out (participle) and went out, i.e. issued (finite verb - imperfect), but only one was included in the original translation.
Regarding changing participles into finite verbs in translation, if you wrote “flowed out through Aetolia and issued into the Ambracian gulf” I don’t think you could be accused of being inaccurate, because the meaning is the same. But you’d have sacrificed fidelity to the Greek grammar for a potentially more natural-sounding English sentence. Whether or not you should do that really depends on what you are trying to achieve with your translation.
Oh, I understand now. And now the normal participle translation makes sense: “whence Acheloios, flowing
through Aetolia, issued into the bay of Ambrakia, until Herakles himself…”
I think I just translated ἐξῄει as “out” and added it to the participle!
Full context and my provisional translation:
οὐδὲ κρείων Ἀχελώϊος <ἰσοφαρίζει>: ἡ ἀρχαία
Ἑλλὰς περὶ Δωδώνην καὶ Σελλοὺς ἔκειτο, ὅθεν ὁ Ἀχελῷος ἐκρέων δι’
Αἰτωλίας εἰς τὸν Ἀμβρακικὸν ἐξῄει κόλπον, ἄχρις οὗ Ἡρακλῆς αὐτὸν
ἀπέτρεψεν. μέγιστος οὖν τῶν ταύτῃ ποταμῶν ὁ Ἀχελῷος· διὸ
Ἀχελῷος πᾶν πηγαῖον ὕδωρ. καὶ τὸ ἐν Δωδώνῃ δὲ μαντεῖον <ἐν>
ἅπασι τοῖς χρησμοῖς κελεύει θύειν Ἀχελῴῳ.
“not even King Acheloios is equal.” The original
Hellas was situated around Dodona and the Selli, whence Acheloios, flowing
through Aetolia, issued into the bay of Ambrakia, until Herakles
turned it away. And so Acheloios [is] in this way the greatest of rivers: because
Acheloios is the source of all water. And the oracle in Dodona
commands everyone [receiving] prophecy to sacrifice to Acheloios.
I didn’t include the full excerpt based on your advice to pose more direct questions about specific parts. In this next bit I’m having trouble with the οὗ before Ἡρακλῆς; πᾶν πηγαῖον ὕδωρ (does πᾶν correspond to πηγαῖον?) and also τοῖς χρησμοῖς.
Have you looked up the words in a lexicon? If you read the entry for ἄχρι you’ll understand the οὗ. I’d also recommend checking out πηγαῖον and χρησμοῖς
Yes, I always look up every word. I translated this as a conjunction, “until”. Should it be an adverb?
If that is the case, then: “Herakles turned it away to the very bottom.” or “Herakles himself turned it away to the very bottom”.
For πηγαῖον I had “spring” or “well” but I remembered in an earlier thread someone suggested “source”… though perhaps it was a closely related but different word. If spring: “Acheloios [is] all spring water.”
χρησμοῖς is dative plural so should have been “prophecies.” I added “receiving” because that seemed to be the essence of its use in the dative.
ἄχρι οὗ is an expression meaning “until”, as listed in the lexicon, so you were right - I just didn’t understand why you found it difficult
What case is ἅπασι? Which words does it go with?
I see the issue: I translated ἄχρι and οὗ as separate words: so “until” and οὗ as “of him/her/it”! It was the οὗ as a possesive pronoun that I could not figure out.
Now I believe it should go with χρησμοῖς, but I was attributing it to an unspecified group of patrons to the oracle!
So this would presumably be better:
“And the oracle in Dodona commands for all prophecies to sacrifice to Acheloios.”
Full revision:
Scholia in Iliadem 21.194a.1-6 (ed. Erbse)= cod. Townl. (Brit. Mus. Burney 88) a1
οὐδὲ κρείων Ἀχελώϊος <ἰσοφαρίζει>: ἡ ἀρχαία
Ἑλλὰς περὶ Δωδώνην καὶ Σελλοὺς ἔκειτο, ὅθεν ὁ Ἀχελῷος ἐκρέων δι’
Αἰτωλίας εἰς τὸν Ἀμβρακικὸν ἐξῄει κόλπον, ἄχρις οὗ Ἡρακλῆς αὐτὸν
ἀπέτρεψεν. μέγιστος οὖν τῶν ταύτῃ ποταμῶν ὁ Ἀχελῷος· διὸ
Ἀχελῷος πᾶν πηγαῖον ὕδωρ. καὶ τὸ ἐν Δωδώνῃ δὲ μαντεῖον <ἐν>
ἅπασι τοῖς χρησμοῖς κελεύει θύειν Ἀχελῴῳ.
Molinari:
not even King Acheloios is equal. The original
Hellas was situated around Dodona and the Selli, whence Acheloios, flowing
through Aetolia, issued into the bay of Ambrakia, until Herakles
turned it away. And so Acheloios is in this way the greatest of rivers: because
Acheloios is all spring water. And the oracle in Dodona commands
for all prophecies to sacrifice to Acheloios.
Themata: Cosmology; Cult; Dodona; Herakles; Identified with water; Location: Aetolia/Akarnania
OK, more questions - why have you translated “for all prophecies”? What about the preposition that comes before the phrase in the text? And the definite article before χρησμοῖς - how should that best be translated here?
It seemed appropriate because it is dative (plural) and the author is prescribing a specific action to take place (by the patron) that goes with the prophecies. But “in all prophecies” is better–I assumed the ἐν, which may not actually be there, allowed a bit of freedom. My translation was influenced by Ephorus, the earliest writer to mention this particular aspect of the cult at Dodona, but I did not check his specific wording or Kaster the translation.
Thank you for the help!