Let's Read: AJAX

[mwh]

εγνων “I know,” yes, not “I knew.” I’m trying to tell myself it was a typo, not very convincingly. (επι)γνώς very common in prose, “recognizing,” “knowing.”

ὅτου (= οὗτινος, gen. of ὅστις, ὅτι) doesn’t reveal its gender, and here it’s ambiguous: of whom or of what. There’ll be cattle and sheep tracks along with Ajax’s own.
(I wouldn’t comma after εκπεπληγμαι.)

[Paul Derouda]

εγνων “I know,” yes, not “I knew.” I’m trying to tell myself it was a typo, not very convincingly. (επι)γνώς very common in prose, “recognizing,” “knowing.”

This seems analogous to οἶδα "I have seen -> I know". And compare English "I got it!"

[mwh]

(επι)γνώς very common in prose, “recognizing,” “knowing.”

Aaargh. Not γνως, γνους. I quit.

[jeidsath]

If I get an hour free at lunch, I'll translate the next section, but otherwise no updates from me for the next week -- I'll be in Canada without internet or LSJ, so my reading will likely be limited to the NT and the Anabasis, and whatever other books I throw into my suitcase at the last minute.

Please continue the thread in my absence!

[C. S. Bartholomew]

If I get an hour free at lunch, I'll translate the next section, but otherwise no updates from me for the next week -- I'll be in Canada without internet or LSJ, so my reading will likely be limited to the NT and the Anabasis, and whatever other books I throw into my suitcase at the last minute.

Please continue the thread in my absence!

Not sure where we are in this, but I have a question about lines 59-60. Lloyd-Jones seems to read different than one 19th century guys. Actually, Lewis Campbell - 1881 gives two options.

ἐγὼ δὲ φοιτῶντ᾿ ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις
ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον εἰς ἕρκη κακά.


And as the man wandered in the madness that afflicted him, I urged him on and drove him into a cruel trap.

Lloyd-Jones 1994

#1 "And as the man ranged to and fro, I urged him with maddening frenzy, and drave him into the evil net."
construing μανιάσιν νόσοις with φοιτῶντα
or
#2 "As he bounded to and fro in frenzy, I urged him and drave him ... "

In the latter case the expression is proleptic.

‎Lewis Campbell - 1881 (who works from the same text as Lloyd-Jones)

Ἐγὼ δὲ φοιτῶντ' ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις
ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον εἰς ἕρκη κακά.

The way I read this, at lest the first time, Ἐγὼ leaves one searching for a finite verb which doesn't appear until ὤτρυνον and is immediately followed by another finite verb, both of them 1st person singular which sort of vaguely suggests chiasmus. φοιτῶντα ἄνδρα functions as a setting constituent for the first or perhaps both finite verbs. At first glance it seemed that μανιάσιν νόσοις might construe with the participle. But perhaps not.

[Hylander]

I don't see this as chiasmus, even vaguely--just two coordinate verbs in asyndeton, i.e., not connected by a conjunction. μανιάσιν νόσοις, even if taken as modifying ὤτρυνον, isn't parallel to εἰς ἕρκη κακά, except that both are adverbial. Chiasmus is a rhetorical, not a syntactic, figure that requires two balanced and contrasting elements in reverse order. There's no contrast or balance here between μανιάσιν νόσοις and εἰς ἕρκη κακά, although φοιτῶντ᾿ ἄνδρα is the object of both verbs--

This is chiasmus (actually, there's a double chiasmus between the first and second stanzas):

With rue my heart is laden
For all the friends I had,
For many a rose-lipped maiden,
For many a fleet-foot lad.

By brooks too broad for leaping
The fleet-foot lads are laid;
The rose-lipped girls are sleeping
In fields where roses fade.

Either translation choice seems plausible to me; Campbell's #2 is equivalent to L-J's. But the Greek doesn't require attaching μανιάσιν νόσοις to either φοιτῶντ᾿ or ὤτρυνον -- μανιάσιν νόσοις can apply to both. It's only if you translate that you have to commit yourself to one or the other.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I don't see this as chiasmus, even vaguely--just two coordinate verbs in asyndeton, i.e., not connected by a conjunction. μανιάσιν νόσοις, even if taken as modifying ὤτρυνον, isn't parallel to εἰς ἕρκη κακά, except that both are adverbial. Chiasmus is a rhetorical, not a syntactic, figure that requires two balanced and contrasting elements in reverse order. There's no contrast or balance here between μανιάσιν νόσοις and εἰς ἕρκη κακά, although φοιτῶντ᾿ ἄνδρα is the object of both verbs--

This is chiasmus (actually, there's a double chiasmus between the first and second stanzas):

With rue my heart is laden
For all the friends I had,
For many a rose-lipped maiden,
For many a fleet-foot lad.

By brooks too broad for leaping
The fleet-foot lads are laid;
The rose-lipped girls are sleeping
In fields where roses fade.

This is to use one of Michael's favorite expression "a distraction" — having gone around on this one time was enough. I understand crystal clear that some classical philologists use the term in a very narrow sense. This is why I hedged my comment "vaguely suggests chaismus." Outside of classical philology the term is used for inverted syntactic order SOV-VOS. So when you see two verbs with the same person and number and same subject back to back it does "vaguely suggest chaismus." I realize that classical philologists consider themselves the gate keepers of language. But having edited articles on Hebrew parallelism by a Russian philologist for a French journal to be published in English, I am quite familiar with how the words are used.

Chiasmus Example:

Polished in courts and hardened in the field, Renowned for conquest, and in council skilled. --Joseph Addison
from
A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms, R. H. Lanham, UCLA 1968 p. 23.

Perhaps the best example of a sequential triple chiasmus comes from the Bible, in this passage from Isaiah 5:20:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

http://www.drmardy.com/chiasmus/types.shtml

Chiasmus is a figure of speech in which words, grammatical constructions, or concepts are repeated in reverse order, in the same or a modified form. In other words, the clauses display inverted parallelism. Chiasmus was particularly popular both in Greek and in Latin literature, where it was used to articulate the balance of order within the text. As a popular example, many long and complex chiasmi have been found in Shakespeare and the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible.

In classic rhetoric, this figure of speech can be differentiated from an antimetabole, which is repetition of words in successive clauses in grammatical order. In a chiasmus, there is no recurrence of the same two terms. When chiasmus is applied to entire passages or writings, it is called a chiastic structure. Some examples of chiasmus are, "Never let a fool kiss You or a kiss fool you" by Mardy Grothe, "Do I love you because you're beautiful? Or are you beautiful because I love you?" by Oscar Hammerstein, and "They don't care about how much you know until they know how much you care" by Jim Calhoun. - See more at: http://www.chiasmusexamples.com/#sthash.UAWoq2U1.dpuf

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

- See more at: http://www.chiasmusexamples.com/#sthash.UAWoq2U1.dpuf


Elizabeth Wenzel

CHIASMUS:
reversal of grammatical structure and meaning

ANTIMETABOLE: a specific form of chiasmus
reversal of words

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

https://prezi.com/uv1wyolyhz5g/chiasmus/

Reversals--Chiasmus

antimetabole   antimetabole
 an'-ti-me-ta'-bo-lee Gk. anti “in opposite direction”
and metabole “turning about”
Also sp. antimetavole
commutatio
the counterchange
Repetition of words, in successive clauses, in reverse grammatical order.
  This figure is sometimes known as chiasmus.
Examples
  When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. —John F. Kennedy
You can take the gorilla out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the gorilla.
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. —Samuel Johnson, Rasselas
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! —Isaiah 5:20
Related Figures
  
=======================
antimetathesis   antimetathesis
 an-ti-me-ta'-the-sis from Gk. anti, "against" and metatithenai,
"to transpose" ("counterchange")
Inversion of the members of an antithesis.
    * chiasmus
    * parallelism
    * Figures of Repetition
    * Figures of Order
 
  Sources: Ad Herennium 4.28.39 ("commutatio"); Peacham (1577) K2r; Putt. (1589) 217 ("antimetavole," "the counterchange"); Day 1599 95 ("antimetano" [sic], "commutatio"); Hoskins (1599)14 ("antimetabole," "commutatio")
============================
Is adult entertainment killing our children, or is killing our children adult entertainment?
Marilyn Manson
============================
chiasmus  
 ki-az'-mus Gk. "a diagonal arrangement"
 
   1. Repetition of ideas in inverted order
   2. Repetition of grammatical structures in inverted order (not to be mistaken with antimetabole, in which identical words are repeated and inverted).
  
Examples
  
But O, what damned minutes tells he o'er
Who dotes, yet doubts; suspects, yet strong loves.
—Shakespeare, Othello 3.3
The idea of affection occurs in "dotes" and "strongly loves"; the idea of doubting in "doubts" and "suspects". These two ideas occur in the quotation in an A B B A order, thus repeated and inverted
It is boring to eat; to sleep is fulfilling
The pattern is present participle-infinitive; infinitive-present participle
Related Figures
  
    * Figures of Repetition
    * Figures of Order
    * antimetabole

http://staff.missouriwestern.edu/users/ ... iasmus.htm
 
“In English … ANTIMETABOLE … CHIASMUS are virtual synonyms.” A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms, R. H. Lanham, UCLA 1968 p. 10.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

#1 "And as the man ranged to and fro, I urged him with maddening frenzy, and drave him into the evil net."
construing μανιάσιν νόσοις with φοιτῶντα
or
#2 "As he bounded to and fro in frenzy, I urged him and drave him ... "

In the latter case the expression is proleptic.

‎Lewis Campbell - 1881 (who works from the same text as Lloyd-Jones)

Either translation choice seems plausible to me; Campbell's #2 is equivalent to L-J's.

Agree.

But the Greek doesn't require attaching μανιάσιν νόσοις to either φοιτῶντ᾿ or ὤτρυνον -- μανιάσιν νόσοις can apply to both. It's only if you translate that you have to commit yourself to one or the other.

I agree that the impulse to translate is often counterproductive, why not just read the greek. I am wondering if this might fall in to the same arena with Carl Conrad's comments on the objective and subjective genitive. Carl has been saying for quite a while that the analysis of genitives into subjective and objective categories misrepresents what is happening in Greek. Perhaps I am misquoting Carl.

Ἐγὼ δὲ φοιτῶντ' ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις
ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον εἰς ἕρκη κακά.

Someone following some latter day variant of very-early-Chomsky, in other words a syntax analysis scheme that has roots in generative grammar, might have trouble accepting that parsing tree for this cannot be resolved. It raises an issue about parsing trees and Greek syntax which decades ago led me to more or less abandon that framework.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Ἐγὼ δὲ φοιτῶντ' ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις
ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον εἰς ἕρκη κακά.

φοιτῶντα ἄνδρα functions as a setting constituent for the first or perhaps both finite verbs.

On another forum someone would have objected to this. The statement violates Helma Dik's rules for setting constituents, since the topic constituent Ἐγὼ precedes φοιτῶντ' ἄνδρα. However, Levinsohn (2000, p14) allows for the topic to precede a point of departure which isn't exactly the same thing as Helma Dik's setting.

[mwh]

The lack of connective (… ωτρυνον, εισεβαλλον …) is definitely out of the ordinary. Jebb reports it led Hermann—a sensitive reader—to propose Ἐρυνύων ωτρυνον. Jebb upholds the given text by reference to Aesch.Cho.288 και λυσσα και ματαιος εκ νυκτων φοβος | κινει, ταρασσει (“and madness and empty terror out of the night trouble, harass [Orestes])”). That doesn’t seem a particularly good parallel to me, since (1) the subject is the madness and fear itself, not the agents of it (Erinyes there, Athena here), and (2) there the verbs are virtual equivalents standing at the end of the sentence, not each in its own clause as here. But clearly the asyndeton conveys the “vehemence” (Jebb) of Athena’s actions. We could put a colon after ωτρυνον if we wished.
[PS I admit to not having read Stirling’s chiasmus post in any detail—as he says, we’ve been round this before [at http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 23&t=62325, if anyone's interested]—but I’d agree that the order of the verbs relative to the clauses in which they stand could be said to vaguely suggest chiasmus. But only vaguely; the figure does not stand out.]

Stirling, I wouldn’t say that Ἐγὼ leaves one searching for a finite verb. It lets us know a first-person verb is to come—and we don’t have to wait long for it, and we certainly shouldn’t go “searching” for it. (It’s just SOV order.) εγω δε signals the switch of subject from Ajax. While he was slicing up the animals thinking he was slicing up the Greek leaders, I was driving him on. Her speech started with εγω (51, “I prevented him (from slaughtering the Greek leaders)” and diverted him onto the livestock, and now comes phase 2, I kept urging the madman on. She insistently claims the credit for Ajax’s crazed behavior. εγω’s are all over the place (but not at random)—she has quite an Ego.
We should register the switch from the presents (historic presents, quasi-aorists) of απειργω and εκτρεπω to the imperfects throughout 55-60.

Something I’ve only just noticed, though it’s pretty noticeable: her speech is bookended by twin acts of prevention, 51 εγω σφ’ απειργω, 70 εγω … απειρξω (same metrical position, too, and both acting upon Ajax's vision, oμμασι, ομματων).

—PS. Stirling, It was quite enough to have Isaac N. endlessly quoting Carl Conrad at us, without you quoting (or possibly misquoting) him to us too. If you have reason to think the subjective/objective classifications invalid, you should say so. The distinction has nothing to do with translation, it’s conceptually and grammatically inherent. As I’m sure Conrad is aware, and I’d hope you too, Greek syntax doesn’t change just because terminology and “frameworks” change.

“Someone following some latter day variant of very-early-Chomsky … might have trouble accepting that parsing tree for this cannot be resolved.” So much the worse for them, as you appear to agree. We’re dealing with poetry here, where not all ambiguities are to be disambiguated. A prohibition against having two equally viable parsing trees would be quite arbitrary.

[Hylander]

Finglass: "Verbal asyndeton at the start of the trimeter, with the second verb longer (and more violent) than the first, mimetically expresses Athena's vigor . . . "

He translates: "But as the man raved with maddening sickness I urged, I cast him into the nets of disaster."

[Hylander]

For what it's worth, Finglass cites to his note on Electra 719, where the verbal asyndeton does occur at the beginning of the trimeter (unlike Ajax 60--his remark puzzled me until I read the note on E. 719). In that note, Finglass asserts that verbal asyndeton is common in both tragic lyric and tragic dialogue, citing to an article by Diggle and a note by Mastronarde on Phoenissae 1193.

I think F. has a good point in seeing εἰσέβαλλον as an intensification of ὤτρυνον, rather than as the verb of a distinct clause, so that both of the adverbial modifier εἰς ἕρκη κακά goes with both verbs. Alternatively, you could also take μανιάσιν νόσοις with ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον in addition to taking it with φοιτῶντ᾿.

But it seems to me that if you read μανιάσιν νόσοις as referring exclusively to ὤτρυνον (Campbell's #1) or to ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον, and not applicable to φοιτῶντ᾿, then φοιτῶντ᾿ loses its force and becomes almost pointless filler.

[Hylander]

F.'s commentary is very thorough, but he often makes his points too elliptically, simply referring the reader to work published elsewhere, so that unless you are reading in a large reference library, it's often difficult to see what he's driving at. Of course, his elliptical style saves space in an already hypertophied commentary, but still. I should add that I think his minute focus on virtually every word of the text, with his complete command of the secondary literature, does yield many valuable insights that would otherwise be lost.

[mwh]

I too would read this as a single sentence, with the two verbs juxtaposed at line beginning. It’s a recognizable pattern. We could go so far as to remove the comma between them. However, my impression is (I have not checked) that the verbs are usually closer in meaning than is the case here, more obviously form a single idea. Here the two clauses (if separated) could well stand independently, the second metaphorically encapsulating the significance of the action of the first (and εις ερκη κακα does go better with εισεβαλλον than with ωτρυνον), as if to say “I egged him on in his frenzy—I dropped him in the sh*t.” But my lack of assurance may be due to the fact that I don’t really feel at home with Sophoclean style; it’s more difficult than it seems. The positioning certainly suggests we take the verbs together.

I agree μανιασιν νοσοις attaches to φοιτωντα—which seems to me a perfectly chosen (and perfectly untranslatable) word, conveying both his movements and his mental state.

Thanks for reporting Finglass. I’ve read him on Pindar and Stesichorus more than on Soph, but really should get hold of his Ajax, if only to stop pestering others for info about it.

Not quite the same phenomenon, but far and away the most memorable instance of this sort of thing (asyndeton between verbs in first half of trimeter) is in the second messenger speech of the Bacchae where Dionysus is pulling down the top of the fir tree on which Pentheus is perched:
κατῆγεν—ἦγεν—ἦγεν εἰς πέδον μέλαν. It sends shivers down my spine.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

one last note on chaismus a topic that doesn't belong in this thread.

Helma Dik (Word Order Attic Tragedy, 2007, p97-98) finds "a chiastic arrangement, with contrasting nouns juxtaposed ..."

H.Dik's pattern is simple chaisums ABBA, adjective noun noun adjective.

Soph. El 67
ὦ πατρῴα γῆ θεοί τ' ἐγχώριοι

(see also Soph. Ph. 1040 Ἀλλ', ὦ πατρῴα γῆ θεοί τ' ἐπόψιοι)

She compares that ABBA pattern to ABAB noun adjective noun adjective in:

Soph. Ant. 199

ὃς γῆν πατρῴαν καὶ θεοὺς τοὺς ἐγγενεῖς

This illustrates a grammatical constituent (adjective, noun) order forming a "a chiastic arrangement."

[Paul Derouda]

F.'s commentary is very thorough, but he often makes his points too elliptically, simply referring the reader to work published elsewhere, so that unless you are reading in a large reference library, it's often difficult to see what he's driving at. Of course, his elliptical style saves space in an already hypertophied commentary, but still.

I think this is a real problem, and not limited to Finglass. The Orange series is supposed to be more scholarly so it's a bit more acceptable, but this seems to be increasingly pervasive in the Green and Yellow series too. It's a sort academic name-dropping game, "cite as much secondary literature as you can". It's no longer helpful if there's simply too much, and it's no use if you have to find another book to understand the point the author is making. Also, when the bibliography section runs for over a dozen pages, it's no longer plausible that the author has actually read it all. On occasions I've spotted citations in Odyssey literature where I was pretty sure the author hadn't actually looked up what was being cited (because I knew, by having myself read the work in question, that it was making the opposite point).

I suppose it was pretty much on purpose that at least in his later work West refused to play this game, and mostly cited works that had been written in the 19th century (which I suppose was just to annoy people...). He was thrashed on occasion for this by some critiques, but I think there's something to be said for that approach (I mean avoiding overciting, not limiting oneself to antiquated literature). I suppose this has something to do with how modern academia works. You can't make any point without referring to some previous work, however circular reasonings that sort of work ethic might tend to produce.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

It's a sort academic name-dropping game, "cite as much secondary literature as you can". It's no longer helpful if there's simply too much, and it's no use if you have to find another book to understand the point the author is making. Also, when the bibliography section runs for over a dozen pages, it's no longer plausible that the author has actually read it all. On occasions I've spotted citations in Odyssey literature where I was pretty sure the author hadn't actually looked up what was being cited (because I knew, by having myself read the work in question, that it was making the opposite point).

I suppose it was pretty much on purpose that at least in his later work West refused to play this game, and mostly cited works that had been written in the 19th century (which I suppose was just to annoy people...). He was thrashed on occasion for this by some critiques, but I think there's something to be said for that approach (I mean avoiding overciting, not limiting oneself to antiquated literature). I suppose this has something to do with how modern academia works. You can't make any point without referring to some previous work, however circular reasonings that sort of work ethic might tend to produce.

I find this discussion of the commentaries very entertaining. Biblical studies has traveled the same path with very similar results. Reading the commentaries requires several years of graduate work so you can understand not the text but the conversation within the post enlightenment biblical studies establishment mostly in Europe and the UK.

And now I off the to the library to pick up Standford's work on Ajax.

[mwh]

There’s 2016 book on Classical Commentaries (ed. Kraus and Stray), the latest of many such. As it happens, the first chapter is on Jebb’s Sophocles, and is written by Finglass. Google Books gives the first half of it, as well as the editors’ intro.

I want commentaries to elucidate the text, and to be discriminating in what they cite. Doesn't everyone? Going by Finglass’ work on Pindar and Stesichorus, I’d say he excels in this. So did Jebb in his way. Of course a hypertext environment would be ideal, so that we could view the cited works without a physical library. We're getting closer.

I suspect West cited 19th-century work not to annoy but because he found it had more value than more recent work. He cited plenty of recent work when it was pertinent, but never for the sake of citing it.

—It would be a fine irony if this thread turned into a discussion of commentaries and scholarly practice rather than of Sophocles’ play, and I do so hope it won’t.
—So I probably shouldn't have written this post.

[Paul Derouda]

I'm sorry — I didn't have time for Ajax this weekend, so I decided to divert the discussion. I'm not saying Finglass isn't excellent, but I agree with Hylander in that it's often a bit elliptic. Anyway, I don't think it's even supposed to be an "intermediate" commentary, so my quibbles would more relevant with some Green & Yellow text.

I'll proceed with Sophocles once I find the time. I shall do my best not to sin anymore!

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I'm sorry — I didn't have time for Ajax this weekend, so I decided to divert the discussion. I'm not saying Finglass isn't excellent, but I agree with Hylander in that it's often a bit elliptic. Anyway, I don't think it's even supposed to be an "intermediate" commentary, so my quibbles would more relevant with some Green & Yellow text.

I'll proceed with Sophocles once I find the time. I shall do my best not to sin anymore!

Not to worry. Nobody is complaining. This forum doesn't need any thought control and over-moderation. The other place has that in spades.

Many moons ago, when I first discover R. C. Jebb I thought this was a wonderful resource (there was no internet) and the Seattle Public Library had whole set in hard back. After a few months of trying to understand Jebb I became discouraged. So it is useful for people to share their experiences with the secondary literature. New students need to know that some of these books are not an easy read.

I can see how it might become the only thing we talk about and that would be ironic.

[jeidsath]

Ἀθηνᾶ
ἐγώ σφ’ ἀπείργω, δυσφόρους ἐπ’ ὄμμασι
γνώμας βαλοῦσα τῆς ἀνηκέστου χαρᾶς,
I (emphatic) am warding him off, I placed before his eyes unbearable fancies of ruinous joy,
καὶ πρός τε ποίμνας ἐκτρέπω σύμμικτά τε
λείας ἄδαστα βουκόλων φρουρήματα·
and I turned him towards the flocks and to the comminglation of the undistributed booty, things herdsmen-watched.
The scholia mention that this is Περιφραστικῶς. I didn't really understand the two occurrences of τε.
ἔνθ’ εἰσπεσὼν ἔκειρε πολύκερων φόνον
κύκλῳ ῥαχίζων·
Falling on them there he hacked a murder of great-horned beasts, slicing through them all about,
κἀδόκει μὲν ἔσθ’ ὅτε
δισσοὺς Ἀτρείδας αὐτόχειρ κτείνειν ἔχων,
and now it seemed he had killed the two Atreides by his hand,
Jebb says that this is to be read: κἀδόκει ἔστι μὲν ὅτε δισσοὺς...ἔστι δ’ ὅτ’ ἄλλοτ’...
ὅτ’ ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλον ἐμπίτνων στρατηλατῶν.
and now at times he was falling on another of the leaders.
ἐγὼ δὲ φοιτῶντ’ ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις
ὤτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον εἰς ἕρκη κακά.
I though, spurred on the stalking man with psychiatric illnesses, placing them into evil walls.
κἄπειτ’ ἐπειδὴ τοῦδ’ ἐλώφησεν πόνου,
τοὺς ζῶντας αὖ δεσμοῖσι συνδήσας βοῶν
ποίμνας τε πάσας εἰς δόμους κομίζεται,
ὡς ἄνδρας, οὐχ ὡς εὔκερων ἄγραν ἔχων,
καὶ νῦν κατ’ οἴκους συνδέτους αἰκίζεται.
And next, after resting from from this toil, he in turn conducted the living of the cattle home, binding them with bonds and all the flocks, like it was men he had, not like a well-horned quarry.
δείξω δὲ καὶ σοὶ τήνδε περιφανῆ νόσον,
ὡς πᾶσιν Ἀργείοισιν εἰσιδὼν θροῇς.
And I shall show you this manifest disease, so that seeing you can cry it out to all the Argives.
θαρσῶν δὲ μίμνε μηδὲ συμφορὰν δέχου
τὸν ἄνδρ’· ἐγὼ γὰρ ὀμμάτων ἀποστρόφους
αὐγὰς ἀπείρξω σὴν πρόσοψιν εἰσιδεῖν.
But taking courage, stand fast, nor receive the man as misfortune, for turning the sun's rays from his eyes, I shall ward your face from being seen.
...nor fear to receive..., according to Jebb, which seems obvious. However Jebb points out that that we're reading δέχου as προσδέχου for this.
οὗτος, σὲ τὸν τὰς αἰχμαλωτίδας χέρας
δεσμοῖς ἀπευθύνοντα προσμολεῖν καλῶ·
Αἴαντα φωνῶ· στεῖχε δωμάτων πάρος.
You there! you binding arms straight (ie., in back) with bonds, I'm calling you! I say, Ajax: Assemble before your dwelling!
Her call to Ajax sounds like a military order. Jebb mentions that he's tying sheep's forelegs to hind legs thinking that they are men's arms being tied in back. I wonder if they had a sheep on stage? This scene would be very comedic, if so.

[mwh]

I think the best thing would be for you to consult Lloyd-Jones’ excellent Loeb translation, to see the various places where you go wrong. Residual queries and comments we can take up here.

No sheep on stage at any point. Ajax emerges shortly from the stage building that represents his hut, his δώματα. Described action is off-stage action. The play uses three actors (one of them a singer); it can be fun trying to work out the distribution of parts. 5th-century tragedy is a rather stark and minimalist genre. The only significant prop we see in the course of the play (if in fact we do see it) is the sword, the slaughterer, on which Ajax falls. But that comes later.

[Hylander]

The Greek text of the new Loeb is essentially the new Sophocles OCT of Lloyd-Jones and Nigel Wilson. Although every page of Sophocles is riddled with textual problems, the OCT/Loeb is better than Jebb's text. Jebb gave priority to a single manuscript, which at the time was believed to be superior to others. In the intervening years, there has been a better understanding of the complexity of the textual history of Sophocles, and in particular, the working methods of the Byzantine scholars who produced the older manuscripts. Nigel Wilson, who collaborated with L-J, who was one of the pre-eminent Hellenists of the 20th century (and who is responsible for the new OCT Herodotus), has played a leading role in the study of Byzantine scholarship.

The upshot is that no single manuscript good readings can be found in a number of manuscripts, the manuscripts were produced by scholars who took readings from more than one earlier manuscript and frequently added conjectures of their own, and in one case an important relatively early manuscript had been erroneously dated to a later period and hence its good readings had been neglected. So editors have to select readings eclectically and can't place excessive reliance on a single manuscript or attempt to construct a family tree that would simplify the selection among variants.

Of course, no one is going to be entirely happy with every one of the hundreds or even thousands of choices made by L-J and Wilson (or anyone else setting out to produce a text of any single play of Sophocles)--and they deliberately set out to produce a readable text at the expense of leaving many passages as cruxes (cruces?)--but It's certainly an improvement over earlier editions, even good ones like Jebb's.

That said, L-J and Wilson didn't bracket the first line of Electra. Not everyone will be happy with this.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

The translators of Ajax line 30 and 95 have the option to leave αἵματι blood implicit or to make it explicit. In a similar fashion ἔγχος line 95 is rendered sword rather than weapon since we have ξίφει sword in line 30. The decision to make implicit elements of the Greek text explicit in the translation has been discussed at very great length among bible translation professionals and other linguists; search for implicature and explicature.

Soph Ajax 95
ἔβαψας ἔγχος εὖ πρὸς Ἀργείων στρατῷ;
have you well stained your sword in the blood of the Argive army?
— Lloyd-Jones LCL 1994 Harvard UP

Have you dipped your sword thoroughly in the Argive army?
— Finglass 2011 Cambridge UP

Soph Ajax 30
πηδῶντα πεδία σὺν νεορράντῳ ξίφει

His sword freshly flowing with blood.
— Finglass 2011 Cambridge UP

The Apocalypse of John is more explicit:
19:13 καὶ περιβεβλημένος ἱμάτιον βεβαμμένον αἵματι,

He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood
— NRSV

βεβαμμένον —βάπτω: perf part pas neut acc sg

[mwh]

The decision to make implicit elements of the Greek text explicit in the translation has been discussed at very great length among bible translation professionals and other linguists.

I’m sure it has. I’m also sure that Lloyd-Jones never read a word of translation theory, and would have scoffed. But he knew Greek—his highest term of commendation, delivered with emphasis and an accolade rarely accorded—and consequently translated it better than anyone except perhaps Martin West, but only as a παρεργον to his serious work.

But your post makes a good point.

Ll-J interpolates “blood” in 95 for the sake of readability. Finglass is more literal and less like English. If Sophocles were a less bold writer and more like the writer of the Apocalypse, which thank God he isn’t, he too would have specified blood.

Contrariwise, Finglass’s addition of “with blood” in translating νεορραντω (“fresh-spattered” not “freshly flowing” as Finglass) is less literal. Ll-J more accurately has simply “dripping”—which itself implicitly acknowledges implicature, of course.

But no translation can avoid making the implicit explicit. In some ways that’s a good thing, as it makes for clarity. But of course it’s more exegesis than translation—as the “translation” of most words necessarily is. The only way to avoid it is to read the original and forget about translation. That’s why we’re here, isn't it?, to learn how to do that and to spare ourselves the need to bother with such people as bible translation professionals.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Πικροὺς ἔοιγμεν τῶν Ἀχιλλείων ὅπλων
1240
ἀγῶνας Ἀργείοισι κηρῦξαι τότε,
εἰ πανταχοῦ φανούμεθ' ἐκ Τεύκρου κακοί,
κοὐκ ἀρκέσει ποθ' ὑμὶν οὐδ' ἡσσημένοις
εἴκειν ἃ τοῖς πολλοῖσιν ἤρεσκεν κριταῖς,
ἀλλ' αἰὲν ἡμᾶς ἢ κακοῖς βαλεῖτέ που
1245
ἢ σὺν δόλῳ κεντήσεθ' οἱ λελειμμένοι.

I had some difficulty mapping the transformations (i.e., parsing the syntax) for the clause that begins with Πικροὺς. I understand the impersonal/personal use of ἔοικα. What I don't clearly understand is the syntactical function of Πικροὺς within the clause.

LSJ, Cooper and others construe ἔοιγμεν with the infinitive κηρῦξαι. This appears to result in a sentence that has no need nor place for Πικροὺς expect perhaps as an adverb.

[Hylander]

Πικροὺς is predicative, modifying ἀγῶνας.

We are likely to have announced the contest for Achilles' arms bitter [for us] = It is likely that we announced a contest that turned out to be bitter = it looks like/appears that the contest we announced for Achilles' arms has turned out to be bitter

Πικροὺς is proleptic -- it specifies the character of the contest resulting from the announcement. Far from being superfluous, it's fronted to make it the most important word in the entire sentence.

"Τurned out to be" is an attempt (not entirely successful) to capture the proleptic force of πικροὺς. And "bitter" isn't quite the right word for πικροὺς. "Unpleasant" isn't strong enough. Maybe "a bitter pill" or "a bitter potion" would be better.

Smyth 1579:

Verbs signifying to effect anything (αἴρειν raise, αὔξειν exalt, διδάσκειν teach, τρέφειν rear, παιδεύειν train) show the result of their action upon a substantive or adjective predicate to the direct object: ““σὲ Θῆβαί γ᾽ οὐκ ἐπαίδευσαν κακόν” Thebes did not train thee to be base” S. O. C. 919, ““τοῦτον τρέφειν τε καὶ αὔξειν μέγαν” to nurse and exalt him into greatness” P. R. 565c, ““ἐποικοδομήσαντες αὐτὸ ὑψηλότερον” raising it higher” T. 7.4. Such predicate nouns are called proleptic. Passive: ““μέγας ἐκ μι_κροῦ Φίλιππος ηὔξηται” Philip has grown from a mean to be a mighty person” D. 9.21. Cp. 1613.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... thp%3D1579

[Hylander]

Finglass: "Bitter indeed, it seems, was the contest for the arms of Achilles which we proclaimed to the Argives at that time . . . ."

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Finglass: "Bitter indeed, it seems, was the contest for the arms of Achilles which we proclaimed to the Argives at that time . . . ."

Hylander,

Thank you that clears things up. I understand that semantically Πικροὺς is central word in the predication but I was having some trouble with syntax.

PS: Funny that I had bookmarked Smyth §1579 just a couple days ago, looking for the proleptic in the index. Cooper used the term and I had a mistaken notion of what it was about. Not a term used in linguistics.

[mwh]

I don’t have much use for prolepsis in this sense. Do we really need a special term for e.g. “I painted the house red”? The important thing is that “red” here, like πικρους in the Sophocles, is predicative—not in the sense that “the house” and αγωνας belong to the sentence predicate, but in the sense that their adjectives are predicative rather than attributive, a crucial distinction.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

AJAX 1370-73

{ΑΓ.} Ἀλλ' εὖ γε μέντοι τοῦτ' ἐπίστασ', ὡς ἐγὼ
σοὶ μὲν νέμοιμ' ἂν τῆσδε καὶ μείζω χάριν,
οὗτος δὲ κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδ' ὢν ἔμοιγ' ὁμῶς
ἔχθιστος ἔσται. Σοὶ δὲ δρᾶν ἔξεσθ' ἃ χρή.

In any case, be quite certain that to you I would grant a larger favor than this. To that man, however, as on earth, so below I give my hatred. But you can do what you will.
R. C. Jebb

Indeed you can be sure of this, that to you I would accord a favour still greater than this one. But he both here and there alike shall be a deadly enemy to me. But you may do as you wish.
Lloyd-Jones LCL Harvard UP 1994

Rendering this in English inevitably leaves something to be desired. The frequent particles and adverbs get reduced to English idiom, which is a nice way of saying you throw most of them away. I checked the lexicons[1] and Guy Cooper (vol 2, pp. 1373-76).

μέντοι appears to combine elements of confirmation and contrast, Jebb "In any case." I am not certain what Jebb's phrase represents in the original, γε and/or μέντοι.

εὖ belongs to the verb phrase τοῦτ' ἐπίστασ' "know this well."

Louw & Nida 89.130 μέντοι; πλήν: markers of contrast, implying the validity of something irrespective of other considerations — ‘but, nevertheless, except.’

This is the grammar translation method with all its faults. It is useful as long as you keep in mind that your translation isn't actually representing what is happening in the original. For example, from an English point of view Ἀλλ' ... γε μέντοι is difficult to represent word by word. In English it would seem to be redundant.

[1] I don't have the Brill lexicon.

[mwh]

Rendering this in English inevitably leaves something to be desired.

That could be said of all Greek, of course, but it’s especially true in the case of Sophocles, whose use of language is more challenging than appears at first sight.

Particles are far and away the most difficult things in Greek (which is what makes Denniston so invaluable). They have such delicacy and nuance, particularly when used in combination. And of course they don’t translate well, if at all; often they’re best rendered by vocal inflexion.

Since Louw & Nida’s lexicon restricts itself to the New Testament, where particle use is infinitely simpler, it’s not going to be of much use when it comes to Sophocles. πλην is a million miles away.

γε μεντοι can form a conglomerate, but here they seem to be functioning separately, γε with ευ and μεντοι with the clause as a whole. But I haven’t consulted Denniston or anything else. The whole context needs to be taken into account, and tragic usage in general. The more you read, the more likely you are to get close to understanding such collocations. I’d recommend consulting Finglass’s commentary here (I don’t know what he says.) If he takes it differently, follow him.

[seneca2008]

Finglass has

"
"Well, be sure that I would do for you an even greater favour than this."

ἀλλά has the nuance "well, if you persist in your foolish behaviour; for this particle with μέντοι with assentient force see Denniston 411."

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Particles are far and away the most difficult things in Greek (which is what makes Denniston so invaluable). They have such delicacy and nuance, particularly when used in combination. And of course they don’t translate well, if at all; often they’re best rendered by vocal inflexion.

Since Louw & Nida’s lexicon restricts itself to the New Testament, where particle use is infinitely simpler, it’s not going to be of much use when it comes to Sophocles. πλην is a million miles away.

I understand that for some folks Denniston is the guy to read. Having read works on semantic theory by Louw and Nida over 25 years ago I find them more palatable but obviously they don't address the language of attic tragedy. I had an old copy of Denniston in my library for over a decade. I didn't attain to Denniston's level of discussion during that time. Later I picked up Cooper who cites Denniston all the time. Cooper and Denniston are traditional.

I just found a site where they list bibliography for greek particles after Denniston. The introduction is short and I found it interesting.

Bibliography about Greek Particles (1935-2010)1Martín Páez http://syntaktika.revues.org/120

Here is a recent paper not listed in that bibliography:

PARTICLES AND DISCOURSE COHESION IN ANCIENT GREEK
Antonio R. Revuelta Puigdollers
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

The framework used in this article is late 20th century, nothing from the last 15 years in the bibliography.