I am having trouble especially with the middle. This is what I have so far,
“Theramenes jumped up onto the altar and said, “Men, I believe it is not necessary for Critias to go out to kill me, but is according to this law that they wrote concerning the register of citizens and the legal judgement for us and for me. And this is clear, that not at all that the altar will help me, but I want to show even this, that these [men] are not only unjust concerning humans, but even unholy concerning gods.”
M. p 79
“What is expressed in Greek idiom by an impersonal verb and infinitive is often idi-omatically conveyed in English by a personal construction with a modal verb using must, should, or ought. For example, δεῖ πέμπειν δῶρα may also be translated One must (should, ought to) send gifts.”
Don’t fall into the trap of always thinking “it is necessary” when “must” makes more sense in English.
“ἐξεῖναι”
ἔξεστι (9), it is permitted, it is possible (+ inf.)
ὅτι [“that”] οὐδέν [adv., “not at all”] με ὠφελήσει ὅδε ὁ
βωμός,
What about ὅδε? Presumably T. means the altar won’t offer him protection.
Is this any help? Do you want to have another go?
The context is that Theramenes, a former ally of Critias in the Oligarchy imposed on Athens in 404, has been accused of being traitor by C. C. has tried to remove T.'s name from the register of those entitled to a trial and so T. jumps on the altar for sanctuary and pleads for his right to be tried. It was all to no avail!
Grateful for correction of any errors I have made!
And don’t confuse ἐξεῖναι (inf. of ἐξεστι, impersonal) with ἐξιεναι to go out.
“… ἀλλὰ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον ὃν οὗτοι ἔγραψαν περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ καὶ ὑμῖν καὶ ἐμοὶ τὴν κρίσιν εἶναι.”
Lukas you are right about this. Acc.&inf. dep. on ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν. 'that both for you and for me the judgment should be in accordance with this law that these men …"
It is very standard in the case of Aristotelian texts for δεῖ (just as χρή and ἀνάγκη) to be rendered as “it is necessary,” so I’m curious why you would say that this is always a misguided practice.
Thanks MWH for correcting my careless slips! its no excuse I was in a hurry (I had to go to rehearsal) to reply to Lukas as his post seemed to have been overlooked.
Lukas of course its me not I. Sorry for my stupidity. This is useful from Mastronarde on “ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς”:
“To avoid confusion between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς or ἡμέτερος and ὑμέτερος, associate we with the long e (η), and associate you with the Greek u (υ).” p 185
I questioned ὃν here because I though it better as “which” (a relative pronoun) rather than “that”.
ὅδε ὁ βωμός is more like “this altar here” (a. ὅδε, ἥδε, τόδε, this, referring to something very near, usually present or in sight. p.108)
An overcorrection perhaps? I would say it is often or even usually better translated using English modals such as “should” or “must” (especially in narrative). Certainly there are contexts in which “it is necessary” might render the sense of the Greek just fine. I found this amusing:
δεῖ impers. it is necessary, see δέω.
Montanari, F. (2015). M. Goh & C. Schroeder (Eds.), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
I will just repeat what I quoted from Mastronade above
"M. p 79
“What is expressed in Greek idiom by an impersonal verb and infinitive is often idiomatically conveyed in English by a personal construction with a modal verb using must, should, or ought. For example, δεῖ πέμπειν δῶρα may also be translated One must (should, ought to) send gifts.”
I think in context Michael is quite right. Slavishly writing the unidiomatic “it is necessary” when “must” is better counts as one of the most egregious student errors second only to “on the one hand… and on the other”.
But χρή and ἀνάγκη are not synonyms for δεῖ.
I see in LSJ for ἀνάγκη
necessity in the philosophical sense, Arist.APo.94b37, Metaph.1026b28, Ph.199b34; logical necessity, Metaph.1064b33: in pl., laws of nature, “τίσιν ἀνάγκαις ἕκαστα γίγνεται τῶν οὐρανίων” X. Mem.1.1.11, cf. Hp.Aër.21.
For δεῖ
c.acc.pers.et inf., it is needful for one to do, one must,
There is some semantic overlap obviously. If you have some examples perhaps we could look at them further. I tend not to read Aristotle because even if I can figure out the Greek what it actually means is often contested and difficult to understand for a non philosopher like me.
I’m a little shaky on the exact different between χρή and δεῖ especially, but I think that the usage splits up about like this:
I have to go to school <because it’s time for school>. χρή
I am being forced to go to school . ἀνάγκη
I need to go to school . δεῖ
EDIT: Notice that the actual English glosses “have to” and “need to” are pretty much irrelevant, and could be used for all three situations. It’s the situation that needs to get translated, not the words.
Notes on Idiom and Vocabulary. The impersonals χρή and δεῖ are sometimes
used synonymously, but in classical Attic there is sometimes a tendency for χρή to
denote an obligation related to internal constraints of an ethical nature and δεῖ to
imply external constraints. Compare τί χρὴ δρᾶν; What should I do? (in an ethically
ambiguous situation) with τί δεῖ λέγειν; Why should I mention? (the matter being so
obvious) or δεῖ φέρειν τὰ τῶν θεῶν. One must endure what the gods give."
Dictionary definition of dei is “it is necessary” only because it’s an impersonal verb, with no good English equivalent in lexical isolation. In any given context (with acc.&inf. or plain iinf.) that’s rarely if ever the best translation.
[Never say never. “What, never?” “No, never.” “What, never?” “Hardly ever.” HMS Pinafore]
The Brill dictionary is to be used with caution if at all. There was a previous Textkit thread on this. It was a vanity project by Montanari, aided and abetted by Nagy. It’s heavily dependent on LSJ, the englished version especially so.
dei gradually takes over from xrh, and the older distinction between them (xrh more moral) is effaced. There was an earlier textkit thread on this too, where I think I quoted W.S.Barrett. Mastronarde’s note quoted by Lukas is good.
anagkh is different.
In the future I will pay more attention to whether the author is using χρή, ἀνάγκη, or δεῖ.
In the case of ἀνάγκη, it seems to me to have a connotation of something like being compelled by fate. The discussion above has convinced me to think of δεῖ as “must.” I am not sure about χρή (I just saw Lukas’ post; it clarified things even more).
The Brill dictionary is to be used with caution if at all. There was a previous Textkit thread on this. It was a vanity project by Montanari, aided and abetted by Nagy. It’s heavily dependent on LSJ, the englished version especially so.
You’re out of touch Barry. It’s “No fair,” not “Not fair.” And better see the Textkit thread than that review, or just accept what I said. (PLEASE don’t reply. Can I never write a post without having you make some comment on it?)
ἀνάγκη, compelled yes, but not necessarily by fate, could be by law of nature (if I drop something it necessarily falls, thanks to gravity) or by human agency (if we lock him up he’ll necessarily be constrained in his movements). Something that happens by ἀνάγκη could not not happen and could not happen in any other way, and someone who acts or suffers by ἀνάγκη has no choice ln the matter, is compelled to act or suffer as they do. That’s the essence of ἀνάγκη—unlike χρή and δεῖ, on which see above.
“I think, you men, Kritias should not be permitted to kill me, but according to the law on the register of citizens, which these men have written, both for you and me there (should be) a legal judgement.”
This is best turned round " I think, you men, Kritias should not be permitted to kill me, but both for you and me there (should be) a legal judgement according to the law on the register of citizens, which these man have written."
So as I understand it the final bit of the indirect speech reports T. as saying “there is for you and me a legal judgement according to the law on the register of citizens”. So “εἶναι” represents “there is” in the direct speech. In the Greek the idea of δεῖν at the beginning of the sentence carries forward so that you have “you must not permit K. to kill me… judgement must be given according to the law…”
In an open discussion forum, we can respond as we wish. Since I arrived here, I have commented on less than 10% of your posts. I posted the review for reference. Seeing more than one perspective is often helpful. As it is, I would suggest to no one to abandon their LSJ in favor of BrillDAG. As a supplement or for quick reference, not too bad (and better than “middle Liddel”). What we need of course is a wholesale revision of the LSJ, but that’s another discussion.
Thanks Randy, that’s it. mahasacham spotted both δεῖ and χρή in a sentence in Plato’s Symposium, εἰ οὖν δεῖ καὶ ὑμῖν διηγήσασθαι, ταῦτα χρὴ ποιεῖν, an excellent illustration of the difference between them (δεῖ meaning “have to, must,” χρή meaning “ought to, should”), still operative in the 4th century but by this time definitely on the way out
