Sophocles Ajax line 118-
ΑΘ. Ὁρᾶς, Ὀδυσσεῦ, τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν ὅση ;
“Do you see, Odysseus, how great the god’s power is?”
ὅση here is in the nominative. Is the reason for this because it is used as an element of the exclamation, Ὀδυσσεῦ? It refers to strength, ἰσχὺν, but not directly as it would then be in accusative. Am I interpreting this correctly?
This is the “I know thee who thou art” construction. εστι is understood. In Greek, the accusative of the direct object is followed by an indirect question of which the subject is understood to be the object of the main verb. Literally, “Do you see the power of the gods, how great it is?”
Very interesting.
Thank you for your reply.
In full, it would read: Ὁρᾶς, Ὀδυσσεῦ, τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν ὅση ἐστί;
And, this is a quibble, but in English it should read “Do you see, Odysseus, how great the gods’ power is?” Or “the power of the gods”.
Yes.
Gods’. Plural.
I misplaced the apostrophe.
Appreciate your precision, which with understanding is needed for learning
Or “its precise magnitude?” English “how great” has changed over the years from “exact extent” to “how very very big”, and I think that the Greek here is closer to the first than the second.
The sense of overwhelmingness or greatness comes from the context, not the language, in my opinion. The same question could have been asked about a child: Ὁρᾶς τὴν παιδὸς ἰσχὺν ὅση; Do you see the strength of a child, what it is? (Not a lot.)
The modern Christian version is:
“When I…consider…Thy power throughout the universe displayed…Then sings my soul…How great Thou art”. The focus being on the person of the divinity, in contrast to Sophocles’ unreflective power-worship.
And actually it’s “Do you see the power of gods . . .”. She’s drawing attention to the power of individual gods — specifically, hers — not to the collective power of the gods as a whole.
In this context, sure. But as far as language goes, either would be expressed exactly the same way “τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν”. Either gods as a class or as a whole. And in prose, I would think you’d be more likely to get the article either way: τὴν τῶν θεῶν ἰσχύν
“….in contrast to Sophocles’ unreflective power-worship. “
Does Sophocles present unreflective power worship here?
Does not Sophocles view a balanced and proportional life as just? Disproportion as evil? This view is presented here and throughout his plays. Here Athena warns Odysseus not to be arrogant nor abusive in physical strength or wealth. Athena-127-133 “Look well at this and speak no towering word – yourself against the gods, nor walk to grandly – because your hand is weightier than another’s, - or your great wealth deeper founded. One short day – inclines the balance of all human beings – to sink or rise again. Know that the gods – love men of steady sense and hate the wicked.”
The power of the gods’ is not unreflective here. It is an extension of a moral element grounded in existence. Or so it seems to me.
On second reflection: This warning could be interpreted as the hubris of any mortal arrogance rising in presumptuousness of being god-like. But the argument of proportion remains. The gods dispense punishment ( justice ) because of the nature of the universe, not for power’s sake. Dispensing agents.
Athena is portrayed in Ajax as cruel and vindictive, as well as arrogant. She exults in laying Ajax low by driving him mad, expecting Odysseus to rejoice in his rival’s destruction. But after Ajax’ suicide, Odysseus comes round to regretting Ajax’ demise, and feeling sympathy for him, recognizing his greatness as a warrior, disgusted by Athena’s cruelty.
To be sure, Ajax wants to kill Agamemnon and Menelaus, and in his madness thinks he is doing so when he slaughters the animals. But if Athena is so powerful, she could have restrained him in some other way, instead of destroying him. Her punishment seems cruelly disproportionate to Ajax’ angry reaction to his defeat in the Contest of Arms — and his anger, and maybe even his homicidal intent, given his contribution to the Atreides’ victory — are not wholly unjustified. Odysseus won the prize, after all, by smooth talking, and there’s perhaps a twinge of guilt in Odysseus’ ultimate conversion.
I think Athena’s speech about the gods’ pursuit of justice, along with her warning against presumption by mortal humans, can only be read as ironic in the context of the drama as a whole.
The gods are not always portrayed as benevolent or just in tragedy. The last line of the Trachiniae seems to place responsibility for Heracles’ suffering and death on Zeus.
Yes, the gods can be cruel, petty and vindictive. It is fascinating to explore their roles in the lives of mortals in these plays. In particular the fact that they are potential adversaries or benefactors within the framework people are operating within. What does their unjust manipulation amount to? What does it represent?
Some form of judgment, the hand of god?
Some representation of the capriciousness of life itself? We can be suddenly be struck down due to no fault of our own. Think drunk driver or rare cancer.
Personally, I easily fall into the idea that if I cross a line I will pay the price. I know Tragedies largely attract me because of this. I believe it is largely true. But other factors can lead to demise or suffering.
Perhaps we are to consider the context in each tragedy to best understand what is going on. Yet there still remains some uncertainty.
Then there is the pleasure of we spectators watching how the players respond. We learn about character.
I wish I could express this better: The plays distill universal truths and lessons. Of course. This, I believe, is tied in with our limitations as choice making beings. On our having responsibility. Yet “payment for our acts” is not always just. As life is not just, often.
So, the gods are the forces of existence that we are subject to? Ultimately acting on their own natures and not for ours? If we don’t attract their attention we are better off? Thus we attract their attention by getting out of proportion and increase the chance of ruin?
I don’t really know. Not in an absolute sense.
Bill, I appreciate your thoughts.
The plays distill universal truths and lessons.
For me, the plays are plays, constructed to retain the interest of audience through drama and suspense and irony. I think they reflect Athenian values and attitudes in complex ways that continue to stimulate readers and even audiences to think about those values and attitudes, and that’s one reason why people still read them and respond to them today. But I don’t see them as teaching moral lessons or universal truths. A play such as Ajax is too complex to reduce to a lesson.
Perhaps we are to consider the context in each tragedy to best understand what is going on. Yet there still remains some uncertainty.
This is closer to how I read Attic tragedies.
We should also remember that in generalizing, we have only a minuscule fraction of the corpus of Attic tragedy – in Sophocles’ case, only seven out of supposedly more than 120.
For me, the plays are plays, constructed to retain the interest of audience through drama and suspense and irony. I think they reflect Athenian values and attitudes in complex ways that continue to stimulate readers and even audiences to think about those values and attitudes, and that’s one reason why people still read them and respond to them today. But I don’t see them as teaching moral lessons or universal truths. A play such as Ajax is too complex to reduce to a lesson.
Yes. As you point out the complexity, I agree it would be hard for a viewer to walk away and say “the play represents X as a universal truth.” Maybe Shakespeare could do it.
I need to better consider and articulate my words.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that the plays tap into a universal condition of being human, this being that life is tragic. After all, they are tragedies. That is about as narrow as I can make it without leaving the realm of universal application. I think the stimulating aspect of these plays comes from here…hereabouts. Something about all of us having pain, fear, loss, death, betrayal, etc. Very personal and universal. And of course the fascination with evil.