Ajax 1-200

[seneca2008]

I think that the Let's Read: AJAX thread has become like an "overgrown path" and so I propose starting again. I dont want to repeat many of the good things which have already been said there but a little overlap will be inevitable. I think texts should be (re)read slowly and carefully so I wont be rushing through this text.

Anyone is welcome to post anything they like. I am not so interested in literary translation and will concentrate on grammatical stumbling blocks and some interpretative ideas.

[seneca2008]

1-13

ἀεὶ μέν, ὦ παῖ Λαρτίου, δέδορκά σε
πεῖράν τιν᾽ ἐχθρῶν ἁρπάσαι θηρώμενον:
καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ σκηναῖς σε ναυτικαῖς ὁρῶ
Αἴαντος, ἔνθα τάξιν ἐσχάτην ἔχει,
πάλαι κυνηγετοῦντα καὶ μετρούμενον 5
ἴχνη τὰ κείνου νεοχάραχθ᾽, ὅπως ἴδῃς
εἴτ᾽ ἔνδον εἴτ᾽ οὐκ ἔνδον. εὖ δέ σ᾽ ἐκφέρει
κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις.
ἔνδον γὰρ ἁνὴρ ἄρτι τυγχάνει, κάρα
στάζων ἱδρῶτι καὶ χέρας ξιφοκτόνους. 10
καί σ᾽ οὐδὲν εἴσω τῆσδε παπταίνειν πύλης
ἔτ᾽ ἔργον ἐστίν, ἐννέπειν δ᾽ ὅτου χάριν
σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδ᾽, ὡς παρ᾽ εἰδυίας μάθῃς.

I am heartened that Finglass thinks the function of the opening μέν is unclear. I did stumble a bit on taking "ἁρπάσαι" as depending on "θηρώμενον" but Finglass says taking "ἁρπάσαι" as an “epexegetic infinitive…appears needlessly complicated”. “ἐχθρῶν” “against your enemies “is not much different from “on your enemies” but seems clearer to me.

βάσις as the subject of ἐκφέρει has been dealt with. Finglass takes εὔρινος as a genitive. He argues that while enallage is found in tragedy “we do not expect it everywhere” and that it is not in keeping with Athena’s straightforward style here.

“ κάρα στάζων” was problematic for a moment until I thought of accusative of respect. I also failed to notice the rough breathing on “ἁνὴρ”. I forgot the idiom “ ἔργον ἐστίν” “there is need of” plus infinitive. “σπουδὴν” as “effort” was not the first word I thought of and perhaps we are meant to think of haste as well. I see that LSJ has … ς. ἔχειν, c. inf., to be eager, which at least clarifies the periphrastic construction.

The concentration of references to hunting are worth noting. θηρώμενον, κυνηγετοῦντα, ἴχνη ….νεοχάραχθ᾽ and the dog simile 7-8. As Finglass notes “such terminology remains important through the prologue.”

There is much scene painting here which is effected in the most economical manner. It also goes beyond simple description but gives a clue to a possible meaning of the play. Ajax’s liminal position with regard to the rest of the Greeks is indicated in “ἔνθα τάξιν ἐσχάτην ἔχει”. The fact that he is also on the sea shore (itself a liminal space) is revealed in “ἐπὶ σκηναῖς σε ναυτικαῖς”. The sea shore is also evoked in “ ἴχνη …νεοχάραχθ᾽” presumably newly imprinted tracks in the sand.

The description of Ajax as “ κάρα / στάζων ἱδρῶτι καὶ χέρας ξιφοκτόνους” is extraordinary. Immediately pricking our desire to know more. But ξιφοκτόνους clearly indicates something violent has happened as does the sweating of course.

Finglass has interesting things to say about this speech and Athena's relationship with Homer's Odysseus. The ἀεὶ of the first line seems to me particularly resonant and rich.

I am interested in a political interpretation of the play. How heroic values and extraordinary men can be accommodated or incorporated within the democratic polis. Do those that cannot change have to perish?

[jeidsath]

Liminal: https://goo.gl/JWdwAK -- The 1920-1980 numbers are nearly all false positives.

x _ . _ x _ . εὖ δέ σ᾽ ἐκφέρει
κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις.

Taking εὔρινος as nominative, ὥς τις also applies to the hound? "And a track well-bears you like some female-Laconian dog." As a genitive, it would be hard for me to understand the word order. (My reading ability has gotten much better since the last thread, I hope, so please don't hold anything I said there against me.)

καί σ᾽ οὐδὲν εἴσω τῆσδε παπταίνειν πύλης ἔτ᾽ ἔργον ἐστίν

In prose would this be: οὐδὲν ἔργον ἔτ’ ἐστι τοῦ σε παπταίνειν εἴσω τῆσδε πύλης ?

x _ . _ x, ἐννέπειν δ᾽ ὅτου χάριν
σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδ᾽

This was hard for me. I had to look up ἔθου (middle aorist of τιθημι) re-read it a few times until it made sense. ὅτου χάριν (for the sake of what) σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδ’ (did you make this busy-ness)

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[seneca2008]

Taking εὔρινος as nominative, ὥς τις also applies to the hound? "And a track well-bears you like some female-Laconian dog." As a genitive, it would be hard for me to understand the word order. (My reading ability has gotten much better since the last thread, I hope, so please don't hold anything I said there against me.)

Nothing is held against anyone. We are all learning. I hope my mistakes are picked up too!

"Well does your course bring you to your goal, like that of a keen scented Laconian dog" is how Finglass translates it. LSJ have "IV. bring to one's end, bring on to the trail" for " ἐκφέρω".

If you take εὔρινος as a nominative, applying the adjective to another noun by enallage, with "keen-scented course of the dog" stands for "course of a keen-scented dog". So εὔρινος would grammatically agree with βάσις but be transferred to κυνὸς by enallage. Finglass doesnt like that. He says that the audience hearing κυνὸς swiftly followed by εὔρινος would probably take them together. Other reasons for not taking εὔρινος as nominative is that it is not attested until Barbarius (EDIT Babrius. thanks Hylander!) (2nd c. or earlier). Its all a matter of judgement.

As to the word order this doesnt seem to me to be anything out of the way in Tragedy where hyperbaton is the norm. I am not sure it really helps to reimagine what the order would be in prose. It is what it is and we have to do our best to understand it. Here κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος seems like quite a neat syntactic unit.

I have read much more Tragedy and Comedy than prose so what strikes you as odd probably doesnt strike me in the same way.

x _ . _ x, ἐννέπειν δ᾽ ὅτου χάριν
σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδ᾽

This was hard for me. I had to look up ἔθου (middle aorist of τιθημι) re-read it a few times until it made sense. ὅτου χάριν (for the sake of what) σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδ’ (did you make this busy-ness)

Yes this is tricky. Finglass simply says "but say why you have made this effort" but as I said in my post I think we are meant to think about zeal, haste and as you say busyness. Having to choose one word is always problematic when the semantic range is so wide.

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[Hylander]

ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις. τις can't be genitive and therefore has to modify βάσις. κυνὸς Λακαίνης is definitely genitive.

"[Your gait] carries you well like a gait of a well-nosed Laconian bitch" or "a well-nosed gait of a Laconian bitch."

τις functions here (as it sometimes does in Greek) almost like an indefinite article. βάσις doesn't need to be repeated.

I'm inclined to keep τις εὔρινος βάσις as a unit. I think it's more likely that the audience would hear it as a unit, even with a striking enallage, rather than perceive a somewhat radical hyperbaton. EDIT: On second thought, I think Finglass is probably right.

Barbarius -- you mean Babrius.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Ἀεὶ μέν, ὦ παῖ Λαρτίου, δέδορκά σε
πεῖράν τιν' ἐχθρῶν ἁρπάσαι θηρώμενον·
καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ σκηναῖς σε ναυτικαῖς ὁρῶ
Αἴαντος, ἔνθα τάξιν ἐσχάτην ἔχει,
πάλαι κυνηγετοῦντα καὶ μετρούμενον
ἴχνη τὰ κείνου νεοχάραχθ', ὅπως ἴδῃς
εἴτ' ἔνδον εἴτ' οὐκ ἔνδον.

I am heartened that Finglass thinks the function of the opening μέν is unclear.

Cooper[1] observes that μέν ... δέδορκά σε corresponding to καὶ νῦν ... ὁρῶ is surprising but not impossible. Using his metalanguage, we would expect an adversative corresponding to μέν, whereas KAI, TE, HDE, AUTE, found occasionally corresponding with μέν, are progressives.

Switching gears, the discourse[2] function of Ἀεὶ μέν is plain as day. It sets off the first two lines as background, contextualizing information. καὶ νῦν ... ὁρῶ launches from the platform provided by Ἀεὶ μέν ... δέδορκά σε.



[1] vol4 69.44.3.k pages 3032-3036

[2] S. H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features 2nd Ed. SIL 2000, p. 170, §10.1 Prospective μέν.

[Paul Derouda]

It's strange that Finglass finds the opening μέν's function unclear. I think these "speech opening" μέν's have discussed here before, but it seem to me that it also anticipates καὶ νῦν, as others have already noted. How much more function do we need?

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[Paul Derouda]

A question: Do the two accusatives in the construction "περάνας ἡμᾶς πρᾶγος ἄσκοπον" function like the construction, "I made him captain?" I presume that we are not to understand it as, "He has done a terrible deed to us."

No, we are to understand it "He has done a terrible deed to us." ἡμᾶς is called external object, πρᾶγος ἄσκοπον internal object.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... Monographs

2) In the case of "τρανές" we have, I assume, an adjective acting on οὐδὲν, not an adverb.

Either is possible, I think: In Greek, you may easily turn neuter adjective into adverbs. I'd perhaps rather take this one as an adverb.

What exactly is the grammatical means by which "ἐθελοντής" functions? Is it as I have supposed, i.e. appositively to the subject—"I, a willing-person"?

Yes.

The grammatical function of the idiom "αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις" I found very difficult to discern. I made a number of theories in my mind before I decided that the "αὐτοῖς" is probably but an adjective modifying "ἐπιστάταις," and "ἐπιστάταις" an adverb acting on "ἐφθαρμένας"; although how "αὐτοῖς" gives rise to the notion of "along with" I do not quite understand.

The notion of "along with" comes from the dative case. αὐτοῖς gives an idea like "with the overseers themselves", "not only the animals, but even the overseers" Compare Odyssey 8.186 ἦ ῥα καὶ αὐτῷ φάρει ἀναΐξας λάβε δίσκον "[Odysseus] spoke, and jumping up with cloak and all ("without removing his cloak", "even with his cloak on") took a discus". The overseers of the animals are more important than the animals, that's why they are αὐτοί. (The cloak isn't more important than Odysseus, though... )

[seneca2008]

Thanks to everyone that replied to my post.

Hylander thanks for correcting by barbaric "Babrius.". I have edited the post. I didnt mean to imply that τις was a genitive merely that it fitted inside a string of genitives quite neatly.

Thanks for all the suggestions on μέν opening a speech. All I meant by it was that if a brilliant scholar like Finglass thinks its unclear then I wasnt going to expend too much energy trying to think of something. For anyone with more energy than me he refers to Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1 and Denniston 382-3.

Jeidsath I dont understand what you mean by your link to a word frequency graph for liminal. I hope your other questions were all answered by Hylander if not by me.

MarkAnthony. I hope we can have a proper balance between translation, grammatical commentary and interpretation in this thread. As some of these opening lines had already been covered in the original thread I hope you will take advantage of some of the solutions already offered there. The value or otherwise of interlinear translations has been extensively discussed on this forum. I dont want to get involved in rehashing old arguments but I would observe that several very experienced and highly competent Greek readers on this forum have said they are not at all helpful. Its up to you what you do with that advice.

Finding the right register for translating Sophocles into English is very hard. I would advise simple direct translation rather than trying a sort of nineteenth century "archaising" style which runs the risk of bathos and appearing comic or just "quaint". That is certainly the advice given to undergraduates in the UK. Greek tragedy is almost untranslatable which is why I decided to learn Greek in the first place.

I will try to look at your questions tomorrow if any remain unanswered.

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[seneca2008]

Markanthony you are free to post what you like as long as its on topic, as I said at the beginning of the thread. I would urge conscion if this thread is not going to suffer from the defects of the original. I had thought that given these lines had already been worked over we should simply talk about problems we had encountered rather than post all of our own preparatory work. Of course its necessary to attempt a translation, which sticks as closely as possible to the original, of those parts of the text that you are trying to understand. But the interlinear approach which entails writing non-sensical English in a misguided attempt to mirror a Greek construction or word order which has no parallel in English seems to be positively unhelpful.

This post is already too long and I suggest you start a new thread if you want to rehearse all the arguments about translation and interlinears which have been well ventilated before. I should have know better than to say anyhting about it at all.

[Hylander]

I didnt mean to imply that τις was a genitive merely that it fitted inside a string of genitives quite neatly.

I may have been wrong, but I thought Joel might have taken it as genitive, and my response was directed to him. The word order, assuming εὔρινος is genitive, isn't unusual. A language with inflected nouns and adjectives can do this. The term for this is "hyperbaton." This happens a lot in spoken Russian, a language with even more complicated noun and adjective inflections than Latin or Greek. And Latin "allows" this too, especially Latin poetry, though of course we shouldn't think of this as some sort of license, but rather as a normal feature of Greek/Latin/Russian word order.

In prose would this be: οὐδὲν ἔργον ἔτ’ ἐστι τοῦ σε παπταίνειν εἴσω τῆσδε πύλης ?

The idiom ἔργον ἐστι takes a non-articular infinitive complement or a genitive noun complement:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... De)%2Frgon

[Paul Derouda]

What Seneca means, I think, is that while you ask good and relevant questions about the Greek, translating everything tends to make these threads unnecessarily long. It might be more profitable for everyone to concentrate on the bits that we find difficult and translate only those, as otherwise any thread will be unmanageably long in no time. And although everybody on these boards tends to go out of subject from time to time (especially on learning methods!), it is a temptation we should try to resist!

1) Having read the examples on the page, I am still not sure that I quite understand exactly how the construction functions. For instance: "ὁ πόλεμος," says Aeschylus, "ἀείμνηστον παιδείαν αὐτοὺς ἐπαίδευσε," which is translated as, "The war taught them a lesson they will hold in everlasting remembrance." Here them is an ethical dative. The example "τοσοῦτον ἔχθος ἐχθαίρω σε," "I hate thee with such an hate" I can understand, because "with such an hate" is an adverbial prepositional phrase, and so we have, in that instance, a construction which I am used to understanding, viz. an accusative acting as a simple adverb. But if, in the former case, which is analogous with what we have in the Ajax, "αὐτοὺς" amounts to a dative, then why is it not simply written "αὐτοῖς"?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The way English works here is not going to help us here – in Greek αὐτοὺς ἐπαίδευσε, accusative αὐτοὺς does not amount to a dative αὐτοῖς, although it might seem odd from an English point of view. You'll simply have to accept that Greek verbs can take two arguments in the accusative, one called "internal object" and the other "external object".

I am curious, what would it have meant if Sophocles had written here merely, "ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις," instead of "αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις"? Would it have been, slain by the guardians of the flocks, instead of along with?

I think it would be nonsensical without αὐτοῖς; but if you were pointing a native ancient Greek with a gun and asking him to translate this, he might reluctant admit that it just might mean "slain by the guardians".

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[seneca2008]

ᾖς. Owing to the fact that this verb is in the subjunctive mood, are we to assume that there are times when Athena has appeared in the flesh to Odysseus?

Edit see mwh's post. " ἤν, ἄν (B) [α_], which by crasis with καί become κἄν:—if haply, if, regularly folld. by subj.: for its use and for examples, v. εἰ B. 11, and ἄν (A) B.1.1. LSJ

As you know Athena and Odysseus have a long shared history.

Finglass says that ὅμως inserted into a concessive clause seems to have caused problems to earlier commentators and prior to Elmsley (1814) the comma was placed before ὅμως not after. The current punctuation is in line with normal tragic diction. Both punctuations are found in mss.

εὐμαθές must be a neuter acc in agreement φώνημ᾽ as an object of ἀκούω and σου the genitive of source. I suppose σου could be a possessive?

"χαλκοστόμου κώδωνος ὡς Τυρσηνικῆς" seems to caused problems for a number of people. "Like that of a bronze-mouthed Etruscan trumpet" seems straightforward enough. κώδωνος is a "bell". Finglass gives many references to Athena's connection with a trumpet and (interestingly) the six types of trumpet referred to by the scholia on Il.18.219!

An observation: might not πάλαι be a reference back to Athena's initial words "ὁρῶ πάλαι"?

I think so. Just as in a metaphorical way the circling round (βάσιν κυκλοῦντ᾽ etc) suggests events have continued for some time.

"Αἴαντι τῷ σακεσφόρῳ". Ajax's huge tower-shield is worth noting here as a characteristic of Ajax in the Iliad, a symbol of his power. Its interesting to see how this play works as an intertext with Homer and no doubt some at least of the first audiences must have felt these resonances quite powerfully.

νυκτὸς....τῆσδε genitive of time so "during this time".

τρανές I take as an adverb as this is the normal usage.

ὑπεζύγην is passive from ὑποζεύγνυμι yoke under. So here means submit to (as a volunteer).

"λείας ἁπάσας καὶ κατηναρισμένας
ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις"

Is worth pausing on as the "ἐκ χειρὸς" . Fraenkel says "the emphasis is on the strange fact that the herds have been killed by a human hand (not by wild beasts)." This rules out Jebb's idea of close at hand. Finglass translates λείας ἁπάσας as "the entire spoil". Of course the animals have been plundered from surrounding villages. Finglass also says that the dead animals are "repeatedly referred to in the play but the murder of their guardians receives only one mention. ....But S. avoids giving it prominence, as Ajax's killing of the animals is a greater mark of humiliation, and a more pathetic contrast with his intended victims (the Greek army). The dead guardians are thus relegated to an associative dative, which often expresses an extra remarkable detail rather than the main burden of the sentence."

I am not sure I can add much to the explanations of "αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις". The idea "along with" is expressed by the dative. Its a common Greek idiom.

If you want more on the double accusative Finglass suggests Moorhouse The Syntax of Sophocles 37-8. You can search the text at google books here.

[mwh]

Some misapprehension about 15 κἂν ἄποπτος ᾖς? κἂν is καὶ ἐάν, "even if," "even though," necessarily with subjunctive. The modal particle ἄν would not follow καί.
—Edit. Sorry, you may have all recognized this.

[mwh]

Paul has segregated posts on the meter, but of course it’s an integral constituent of the play, and if you’re reading metrically (as you absolutely should!—to read verse without the meter is as bad as reading it without the words) you might care to look at that thread. I’ve just written something about the lyrics of 172-200—in a reprehensibly lengthy post.

[seneca2008]

mwh thanks for picking up my error on κἂν. I have amended my post so that others are not misled.

I do read with the metre and am grateful for your commentary. I think it is also important to think about entrances and exits and the stage picture (and costumes and music...). Ajax is to be performed rather than to be simply silently read. It does take an effort to attend to all these things and the syntax too.

[mwh]

A couple of quick notes. Forgive the dogmatism.

23 ισμεν γαρ ουδεν τρανες. Not only is τρανες an adjective, it’s an adjective used as an adjective, as adjectives always are. We might want to render it adverbially in English (but I don’t see why, in this instance) but that doesn’t make it adverbial.
And though we might think of ουδεν τρανες as a direct object, it's actually an internal accusative ("We have no clear knowledge").
Similarly with e.g. τοσοῦτον ἔχθος ἐχθαίρω σε. εχθος is an internal accusative (a “cognate” one in this instance), σε is the external accusative (aka direct object), as Paul said. It’s an extremely common construction, and there’s nothing adverbial about any of it.

27 αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις. On the idiom see Smyth 1525. 'Nuff said.


“Ajax is to be performed rather than to be simply silently read.” I’m not sure I go along with this. Given that we can’t watch the original performance, we can only re-imagine it, however imperfectly, on the basis of the text and what we know of performance circumstances. We can and should do that. I enjoyed the two performances of the Ajax that I’ve seen (especially a very powerful updated one by the American Repertory Theater), but I was very conscious of their being nothing like Sophocles. Agreed it should be read aloud rather than silently. (I confess I usually read silently myself, but I vocalize internally.) I feel I get closest to the play by reading it and reconstructing it in performance to the best of my ability in my head (even though that risks slowing it down unduly and losing a sense of the pacing, which is so very important).

In my “meter” posts I mention entrances and stage action and music. I haven’t mentioned that all the parts were played by male actors wearing masks and swapping roles, but such things are all part of the integrated imagined experience.

I do hope this thread is going to be able to get beyond the first few lines!

[seneca2008]

Forgive the dogmatism.

Seems appropriate given the hunting metaphors of the opening.

Yes τρανες is clearly an adjective I got it into my head that it was a neuter acc and therefore an adverb and stopped thinking. Thanks for clarification on αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων ἐπιστάταις.

“Ajax is to be performed rather than to be simply silently read.” I’m not sure I go along with this. Given that we can’t watch the original performance, we can only re-imagine it, however imperfectly, on the basis of the text and what we know of performance circumstances.

Of course we cannot watch "the original performance" but that is true of all theatrical performance. Even if it is filmed we can only watch someone else's (the video director's) view. All I intended to say was that must not lose sight of the performative aspects. I had in mind two things. First the sterile debate about whether Senecan drama is "closet drama" which seems to me to founder on unexamined ideas of what "performance" means. More directly on the "performance" of Greek Tragedy whilst it is interesting to hypothesise about the circumstances of first productions we shouldn't allow that "to control" (to borrow your terminology) our understanding. It is a long standing source of quite violent disagreement in the operatic world about how bound a director ( a comparatively new invention) should be by the contingent circumstances of first productions. Recently at Covent Garden the audience has been very vociferous in shouting their disapproval at what is seen as a betrayal of the "composer's intentions". That at least one composer, Michael Tippet, is on record saying that he hoped others would discover in his operas ideas and stagings which he hadnt been aware of should be a sufficient counterweight to this kind of determinism.

I have never seen Ajax but the plays I have seen in London tend to be adaptations (almost rewritings using basic elements of the plot) more than translations. This quotation from a review of Medea approvingly provides a rationale: "But the play's tragic force emerges strongly and the production's climax seems better suited to modern tastes than Euripides' original." I do feel that audiences are short changed because the original unadapted texts do still have something to say directly to us. For all their shortcomings the annual student productions in Ancient Greek give signal service.

I have seen the bacchae at Epidauros but I think that must have been in Modern greek. However "authentic" the much changed theatre might have been the audience, in large part foreign tourists (and a huge number of dragooned school children getting their compulsory dose of "culture") was probably as far away the earliest audience as can be imagined. Staging the performance at night introduced an unwarranted note of romanticism, refiguring the actual landscape. Conversations overheard on the bus back to Nafplion provided evidence of how this production had been received in entirely contrary ways.

So.... Yes I will try to press on (and hope others continue to contribute) but Finglass provides such a rich resource that chasing up his references is time consuming. I have also been looking at Vernant and Vidal-Naquet amongst others. This week I am at Glyndebourne twice and at the opera tonight. I will post what I can. (No doubt it would have been better to have posted about the text instead of this post but its done now.)

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[seneca2008]

Here are some brief notes on the remainder of O.'s speech. The grammar seems straightforward but there are textual problems.

28-35

Finglass prints τρέπει direct turn instead of νέμει deal out (he says it more properly means allot which is inappropriate here)

μόνον is predicated on Ajax at 47,294, 467,796, 1283 the repeated use suggest a fundamental characteristic.

ἐκπέπληγμαι it is not that O. is astonished but he is as it were thrown off course, off the trail.


Finglass prints ὅπου not ὅτου.  Jouanna (1977) advocates ..ὅτου ( "I cannot work out who the tracks belong to") on the grounds that it marks O.’s reluctance to blame A. in the absence of proof. But O. is tracking A. alone even though he is not certain of his guilt. So he prefers ὅπου "I cannot work out where he is."

[seneca2008]

Lets have an end to discussion on interlinears. its all been said ad nauseam. Specifically I, mwh and Hylander said what we thought here. There really isnt anything to be gained from prolonging the agony and I wont be saying anymore about it.

[seneca2008]

In regard to ὑπεζύγην, I know that its form is passive; but what I wonder is, does it function deponently, or is it a true passive?

Maybe its more important to think about the paradox of O. submitting himself willingly to the yoke (F. says yoking metaphors imply external compulsion.) "O.'s submission shows "that there could be no clearer contrast with the wildness , self-suffiency, arrogance and unruliness of Ajax".

2) Do the words, "πηδῶντα πεδία," function as I have supposed, "πεδία" being the neuter accusative plural of "πεδίον," and functioning as an adverb?

Accusative of extent of space travelled?

"reported to me and declared what he saw. Then immediately I rush upon his track, and sometimes I follow his signs, but sometimes I am bewildered, and cannot read whose they are."

See my post on textual problem. I think its more "some features i can make out, some not" rather than a temporal antithesis.

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[mwh]

@MarkAntony,
As Mr Derouda said, you ask some good questions, but I’m afraid no-one has the time or the energy or the patience to read through them all, let alone answer them. So such responses as you get may not be altogether satisfactory. I think you might get better responses if you limited yourself to a few things that you find especially problematic, and took fewer pains to explain yourself.

To deal with two of your queries at random.
μονον in 29 is an adjective, acc. of μονος, not the adverb (“only”). Ajax was alone (as he will continue to be!), unaccompanied (except by his sword!). You shouldn’t have had any hesitation on this point, especially since you reproduce Jebb’s translation.

οὐκ ἔχω μαθεῖν ὅτου: The ὅτου is governed by μαθειν, “I can’t learn whose (they are).” (ὅτου gen. of ὅστις, indirect question).
ουκ εχω with infin. means “I’m unable to,” “I don’t have the ability to.” You arrived at a correct understanding of it, but it’s wrong to think of εχω as having “a sort of implied direct object.” It’s simply a matter of how εχω can be used, which doesn’t correspond to English use of “have.”
Here as elsewhere your difficulty seems to stem from “literal” translation of individual words into English, when you’d do better to observe Greek usage.

You may wish to explain how you went wrong, but I'd urge you to resist that impulse.

One thing you’ve clearly been having difficulty with is internal accusatives, as in ἡμᾶς τῆσδε πρᾶγος ἄσκοπον ἔχει περάνας and other phrases you’ve mentioned, such as ὁ πόλεμος ἀείμνηστον παιδείαν αὐτοὺς ἐπαίδευσεν (I infer you’ve consulted Smyth). In these two cases you have an external accusative too (ἡμᾶς and αὐτούς).

Again, what’s thrown you off is the English translation. English doesn't have the Greek construction. You have to learn to think of πρᾶγος and παιδειαν as internal to their verbs. E.g. παιδείαν ἐπαίδευσεν means "it gave an education" (lit. "it education-educated"—this kind of internal acc. is a "cognate" acc.) while αὐτοὺς ἐπαίδευσεν means "it educated them." In Greek you can have both at once.

I hope this helps you come to terms with internal accusatives. You'll meet plenty more.


@seneca

I am interested in a political interpretation of the play. How heroic values and extraordinary men can be accommodated or incorporated within the democratic polis. Do those that cannot change have to perish?

Naturally people like Ajax can’t be accommodated within the democratic polis, when they couldn’t even be accommodated within the archaic distinctly non-democratic society portrayed by Homer and Sophocles.

This is perhaps a cheap answer to an important (Knox-influenced?) question, which I would reconfigure simply as How to interpret the Ajax?, and I hope we can all engage with it. But maybe we should read the play first?

I envy you at Glyndebourne.

I’m taking time out for a while.

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[Paul Derouda]

I admire you energy, Mark Anthony! Here's my attempt to answer your questions.

Line 39, "ὡς ἔστιν ἀνδρὸς τοῦδε τἄργα ταῦτά σοι." "ATHENA: Know that that man is the doer of these deeds." I render this: "ὡς That ταῦτά τἄργα these deeds ἔστιν is τοῦδε ἀνδρὸς of-this man σοι [is] to thee."

Have I apprehended here the idiom which is intended to convey the notion of, "Know this," correctly? viz. "That these deeds is of this man (i.e. belong to this man) is to thee (a thing which it belongs to thee to believe, and therefore is thy duty to believe.)

σοι "for you" here means something like "for your information" – like you might say "Now that's some pretty awesome music for you!" in English, where "for you" really means something like "You should know that..."

Does this construction function as I have supposed, "ποίμναις" acting upon "βάσιν" as an adjective, and "βάσιν" being a direct object of "ἐπεμπίπτει"?

ποίμναις isn't an adjective, it's the dative plural of the noun ποίμνη.

Line 44, "ἦ καὶ τὸ βούλευμ᾽ ὡς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείοις τόδ᾽ ἦν;" "Then was this a plot aimed against the Greeks?" I render this: "ἦ καὶ Why, then, ἦν (imperf.) was τὸ τόδ βούλευμ᾽ this design, ὡς [such as it was], ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείοις against the-Greeks?"

Does the ὡς function as I have supposed? I understand that it is intended to convey the notion of Ajax's intention being frustrated, in accordance with Jebb's note; but I am trying to ascertain the exact grammatical function.

This is a quite common use of ὡς – it means something like "as if", or perhaps "with the purpose of". "Was this plan as if against the Greeks". "When he attacked the flocks, did he do it as if he were attacking the Greeks/thinking that he was attacking the Greeks?"

Line 46, "ποίαισι τόλμαις ταῖσδε καὶ φρενῶν θράσει;" "And what reckless boldness was in his mind that he dared this?" I render this: "φρενῶν Thinking θράσει in-[his]-courage καὶ indeed ποίαισι (adj. dat. pl.) with-what-manners-[of] ταῖσδε (emphatic, adj. dat. pl) τόλμαις (noun. dat. pl) boldnesses?"

This construction was very difficult to understand, and, indeed, I do not believe that I have understood it. But this is the best I can do.

φρενῶν isn't a verb but the genitive plural of φρήν "mind" (but perhaps originally "lung", although mwh will have none of it...!). "With what boldness and recklessness of the mind?"

Line 49, "καὶ δὴ 'πὶ δισσαῖς ἦν στρατηγίσιν πύλαις." "He was already at the double doors of the two generals." Is "στρατηγίσιν" acting as an adjective upon "πύλαις"?

Yes. This sort of thing should be quite easy to check in a dictionary – which one are you using?

Line 50, "καὶ πῶς ἐπέσχε χεῖρα μαιμῶσαν φόνου;" "How, then, did he restrain his hand when it was eager for murder?" I have rendered this: "πῶς καὶ How indeed ἐπέσχε (aor.) did-he-shut-up χεῖρα (fem.) [his]-hand φόνου from-murder, μαιμῶσαν (part. pres. fem. acc., accusative absolute) it-[the hand]-being-eager-for-[it]?"

ἐπέσχε "stopped, halted, checked".

I should naturally have thought the construction to function with "μαιμῶσαν" directly acting upon "χεῖρα" as an adjective, and "φόνου" upon "μαιμῶσαν." But Jebb says, "Join ἐπέσχε with φόνου," so I have supposed "μαιμῶσαν" to be an accusative absolute. Is this correct, or have I misinterpreted what he was driving at?

Both are grammatically correct, but scholars like Jebb who were extremely fluent in Greek often had a hunch as to which construction sounded better, and was, in his/her opinion, the one that was probably the one intended by the author, given that it was written in a certain period, in a certain genre etc. If you read a text with several commentaries, you'll often notice that the commentators often disagree with each other and vacillate between two or several interpretations. Sometimes you can follow a scholarly debate going on for 200 years, with each commentator disagreeing with the previous scholar, thinking that it was the earlier fellow who was right!

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[Paul Derouda]

Yes. This sort of thing should be quite easy to check in a dictionary – which one are you using?

I wonder if there has not been some miscommunication here? In the first place, I should have thought that you might have said the very same thing you said about ποίμναις here, which was also a noun in the dative case concerning which I asked whether it functions as an adjective; and in the second, there would be no way (as far as I know) of checking whether "στρατηγίσιν" is modifying "πύλαις" as an adjective here by consulting a dictionary, because it is a matter of syntax.—In any event, I use the LSJ, and that of Liddell and Scott.

True, that wasn't a very helpful reply. What I meant is that it's not a very common word, and for that reason the dictionary entry is short – LSJ's (Liddell-Scott-Johnson's large dictionary, not the "Intermediate" one known as Middle Liddell – which one do you use? In book format, online version or smartphone app?) entry on στρατηγίς actually cites this passage: "πύλαι the door or entrance of the general's tent, S.Aj.49". Interpreting an entry like this one is quite straightforward, and especially when we're dealing with an much-read text like Sophocles, when the dictionary will often actually cite the passage at hand. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to use a dictionary on very common words like ὡς, because they are so long. So the point of my remark was that it's easy to find help with uncommon words in a dictionary, less so with common ones.

Btw, after posting I checked Finglass on ἐπέσχε χεῖρα μαιμῶσαν φόνου – he seems to prefer your interpretation, but thinks the other one is also possible. Exactly as I said – these debates go on for centuries!

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[Paul Derouda]

The Perseus word study tool is notoriously very unreliable – I use it myself, but very, very cautiously. The tool in TLG (https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/) is probably better, but I haven't used it much, as I'm so used to Perseus.

For dictionaries, I usually use an iPhone app called Logeion, which has LSJ, Middle Liddell plus other dictionaries all in the same package. They also have an online version you can use. You can also use LSJ on TLG.

But you should know that LSJ is exhaustive to the point of being impractical. It's often difficult to find what you're looking for. Most of the time you're probably better off with Middle Liddell, which is more concise. If you feel like you need more help with all these reading aids, maybe you might start a new thread. Other people might find it useful as well.

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[Paul Derouda]

I don't know about the dative noun business – in the traditional lingo of classical studies, as far as I know, I don't think you would usually say that a dative noun functions as an adjective. But whether linguists might say something like that I cannot tell. Perhaps it would be better to avoid saying that anyway, since someone (like me!) can get confused.

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται

[MarkAntony198337]

ἀπόλλυται