Rouse, Syntax & Idioms

[phalakros]

Φαλακρὸς τοῖς Γραμματικωτάτοις πλεῖστα χαίρειν καὶ διὰ παντὸς ὑγιαίνειν.

Taking self-quarantine as a chance to catch up on Greek composition, I’ve been working through Rouse & Sing’s Exercises in the Syntax and Idioms of Attic Greek (with the answer key helpfully scanned by jeidsath). Now at the halfway point, I have a handful of questions about the key. I would be grateful for any thoughts.

Instead of posting all at once, I’ll start with four:

43.9. Make all possible haste to get home. οὐκ ἂν φθάσειας οἴκαδε κομιζόμενος.

-φθάνοις for φθάσειας? I think I’ve always seen this idiom with pres opt, but I haven’t looked too hard.

21.13. One should not use a horse till he is paid for. οὐ δεῖ χρῆσθαι ἵππῳ πρὶν ἀποδοῦναι [better πρὶν ἂν ἀποδῷ?] τὸν μισθόν.

26.11. Even if I knew it, I should not tell you what I knew. οὐκ ἂν ἤθελον λέγειν σοι ὃ εἰδείην [ὅτι ἂν εἰδῶ? unless I’m not grasping the English] οὐδ᾽ εἰ ᾔδη αὐτό.

37.6 They said they would not remain, unless some one would give them their daily bread. οὐκ ἂν ἔφασαν μεῖναι [μενεῖν?], εἰ μή τις δοίη αὐτοῖς τὰ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν σιτία.

ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς βούλομαι

[PS—I noticed that there is a separate thread for Rouse’s Syntax & Idioms, but didn’t know if it would be seen there. Feel free to move this if appropriate.]

[mwh]

43.9. My instinct strongly agrees with yours, but I haven’t checked. Did Rouse really use the aorist? The man was far from infallible.

21.13. I suppose so, but would πρὶν ἂν ἀποδῷ be awkward when there’s no subject indicated? Better turned passive? But I think I could accept the infin. The Greek doesn’t reveal whether it’s δεῖ or just χρῆσθαι that’s really being negatived.

26.11. Isn’t εἰδείην just a matter of sequence? Primary ou qelw legein soi o oida.

37.6. Depends on the situation. Aor. correct if they’re not already remaining. And sometimes aor. is used where I’d have expected pres.

I’m sick, so don’t pay any of this too much heed.

[phalakros]

Thank you!

43.9. So far, the Greek in the answer key (I imagine some written by Sing) is generally good—better at teaching points of idiom than most other books I’ve encountered, except Donovan—but, yes, far from infallible or “fluent” as is sometimes claimed by modern-day proponents of the “natural method.” Sidgwick and the other greats also make their fair share of slips.

21.13. I think you’re right that πρὶν ἂν ἀποδῷ would be awkward after δεῖ without an expressed subject. It could be worthwhile to look at examples of similar constructions in Attic lit. But I don’t think I can readily accept the infinitive. πρὶν + inf in a limitative sense (“until”) is rare. Yes, perhaps passive is best here (πρὶν ἂν ἀποδοθῇ ὁ μισθός).

26.11. Sequence is indeed the issue. I was taking οὐκ ἂν ἤθελον λέγειν σοι (“I should not tell you”) as primary w/ the impf referring to present unreality (i.e. I would not now be telling you). If it’s secondary, the English doesn’t seem right to me. Am I missing something?

37.6. Sorry, I meant to write, more fully, “[οὐκ ἔφασαν μενεῖν?].” The issue being aor vs fut (not pres) inf. Wouldn’t the direct version more likely be οὐ μενοῦμεν, ἐὰν μή τις δῷ ἡμῖν… than (as the key understands it) οὐκ ἂν μείναιμεν, εἰ μή τις δοίη… ? The second version isn’t impossible, especially with the second “would” (“unless some one would give them”). Maybe the English is a little odd/old.

I hope you feel better soon!

[phalakros]

A few more:

10.1-2. He thinks that he will be able to conquer. He thought that he would be able to conquer. οἴεται νικᾶν δυνηθήσεσθαι. ᾤετο νικᾶν δυνηθήσεσθαι. [post-classical; better δυνήσεσθαι]

…on diction:

47.3. Have you hidden my hat and stick? No, here they are. ἦ κέκρυφας τόν τε πέτασον [better πῖλον, πιλίδιον, κυνῆν?] καὶ τὸ ῥόπαλον [better τὴν ῥάβδον, βακτηρίαν?]; οὔ φημι· ὧδε γὰρ ἔχεις.

48.9. He was roughly handled by the mob, and killed. κακῶς ὑπὸ του πλήθους παθὼν (or τραχεῶς [should be τραχέως] περιεφθείς) ἀπέθανεν.

[εὖ/τραχέως/κτλ + περιέπω Herodotean; not good Attic, I think]

50.3. The men in the city were aroused before day-break. οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐξηγέρθησαν κνεφαῖοι [poetic; better περὶ ὄρθρον, e.g.?]

31.13. This, with what we know already, makes everything clear. ταῦτα πρὸς οἷς ἤδη ἴσμεν φανεροῖ [post-classical; διασαφεῖ prob. better, or else (Xen.) σαφηνίζει?] τὸ πᾶν.

[phalakros]

Four more I would appreciate comments on. I have a fairly long list of corrections to this answer key and a few others, but I always hesitate before disagreeing with Victorian juggernauts (except for typsos, which are plentiful).

54.13. We repented of not having accepted the terms. μετεμέλησεν ἡμῖν τοὺς λόγους μὴ [—> οὐ] δεξαμένοις.

55.9. They said they would do it, as far as in them lay. ποιήσειν ἔφασαν τὸ κατὰ σφᾶς [—> αὑτοὺς/σφᾶς αὐτοὺς] εἶναι.

55.4. That is how things are, so far as I am aware. οὕτως ἔχει τὰ πράγματα, ὅσον ἐμὲ [sic] γ᾽ εἰδέναι [—>ὅσον γέ μ’ εἰδέναι—I think γε directly after ὅσον in classical; later in the clause seems post-classical].

51.11. He found his friends in the middle of dinner. μεσοῦμεν ἤδη δειπνοῦντες, ὥστε καθίζου. [Perhaps keyed to the wrong English sentence —> τοὺς φίλους κατέλαβεν μεταξὺ δειπνοῦντας/ὡς δειπνοῦντες ἐμέσουν οἱ φίλοι, ἀφίκετο]

[mwh]

Rouse (&/or Sing?) had a pretty good feel for the language but doesn’t seem to have been too concerned to stick strictly to classical Attic.

On your latest quartet:
54.13. Yes should be οὐ.
55.9. Yes properly σφᾶς αὐτοὺς, but might seem unduly emphatic?
55.4. Isn’t it the difference between “so far as I’m aware” (eme g’) and “so far as I’m aware” (ὅσον γέ μ’ εἰδέναι)?
51.11 Yes English and Greek obviously don’t match. I think your first version is better than your second, but is μεταξὺ quite right?

and too all otherwise

[jeidsath]

and too all otherwise

No doubt I should have tried "both otherhow and".

viewtopic.php?t=64963#p181430

I seem to recall a Rouse obituary that meandered a bit between praise and detraction. It mentioned Rouse's carelessness when mixing dialects, and also implied fascist leanings due to his "Machines or Mind" essay. There was not anything remotely fascist in the essay, in my opinion, but Rouse did carry on a long correspondence with Ezra Pound. Now that is a hoot. Pound drops crazy hints about his universal economic theory, and but Rouse manfully keeps the discussion entirely on the theory of translating poetry.

[phalakros]

Thank you!

55.9. If we should want it less emphatic, wouldn’t just αὐτούς be better than σφᾶς? I think the use of σφᾶς for the reflexives ἑαυτούς/σφᾶς αὐτούς is unusual in prose (a use more common in the dative).

55.4. Yes, I see the same distinction theoretically, but I had reservations about the position of γε in this sort of clause. Γε doesn’t always follow the word it emphasizes, especially in the case of an article or preposition, where it often gravitates to the beginning of the clause. It’s tendency to come early sometimes overrides the usual positioning after, e.g., a personal pronoun. My instinct is that γε is almost always added directly to ὅσον in classical prose, while in post-classical it is more frequently postponed. So ὅσον ἐμέ γ᾽ εἰδέναι still looks a little off to me, though the meaning is clear. I could very well be wrong. I haven’t seriously looked into it.

51.11. I had in mind a passage from de Corona—

ἑσπέρα μὲν γὰρ ἦν, ἧκε δ᾽ ἀγγέλλων τις ὡς τοὺς πρυτάνεις ὡς Ἐλάτεια κατείληπται. καὶ μετὰ ταῦθ᾽ οἱ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐξαναστάντες μεταξὺ δειπνοῦντες…

—but perhaps there’s a better way? The second is further from the English, but I hope idiomatic nevertheless.

The authors too often use poetic and non-Attic words (and more Xenophonic language than most would desire nowadays), an unfortunate tendency of that age. It’s unacceptable in a book about the idiom of Attic prose.

Thanks again for your help.

[mwh]

55.9. I’m afraid I like autous even less than sfas. Why not just oson ge dunainto, say?

55.4. It’s not a theoretical distinction. If we want γε to apply to “me” it has to follow ἐμέ directly, since ἐμέ is not preceded by anything that might pull the γε forward (such as an article or preposition, making a larger unit). I see nothing amiss with ὅσον ἐμέ γ᾽ εἰδέναι. The sense is different from your (perfectly acceptable) ὅσον γέ μ’ εἰδέναι, and also from ὅσον γ᾽ έμ’ εἰδέναι. If you liked, we could write ὅσον γ᾽ ἐμέ γ᾽ εἰδέναι (I jest).

51.11. μεταξὺ δειπνοῦντας is fine but I’d have thought ἤδη was enough in such a simple sentence. In your alternative (ὡς δειπνοῦντες ἐμέσουν οἱ φίλοι, ἀφίκετο) I don’t much care for ἀφίκετο stark at the end, and again it’s awfully precise. But perhaps these are mere cavils.

I haven’t read much of Rouse’s Greek, but to go by what you’ve posted and one or two other things I’d have to agree with your point about his (let’s say) expansive sense of “Attic prose.” Still, I’d have thought Xenophon ought to be Attic enough for anyone.

Perhaps you should change your moniker from phalakros to Phrynichus? But it really is good to have someone on these boards with your command of the language.

[phalakros]

Thank you again for your insight.

55.9 ὅσον γε δύναιντο works too (το κατα/επι σφας αὐτους εἶναι still seems fine; bare σφας less so I think).

55.4. My thought was that ὅσον in such phrases can pull γε forward as it often does with τό. ἀλλ’ ἄρα μὴ ὀρθῶς εἴρηκας.

Xenophon is something of a contested figure in the history of philology. While he was a standard text for schoolboys, you often encounter things closer to later Greek (συν for μετα; broadening use of μη for ου, esp. with participles; not so Attic diction; οπως/ως αν with optative in final clause, etc). Such traces of linguistic change destabilized his position in the Attic canon (for modern scholars that is; ancient prose stylists had no problem with him). Here are two illustrative quotes I found in my notes about the reception of Xenophon in the late 19th c.

Rutherford’s vicious take in the New Phrynichus:

“The more Xenophon is studied the more difficult will it appear to find any standpoint for the criticism of his text. His verbosity, and his extraordinary disregard of the most familiar rules of Attic writing, make sober criticism almost impossible. Cobet may alter word after word, and cut down sentence after sentence, but the faults of Xenophon’s style are due, not to the glosses of Scholiasts or the blunders of transcribers, but to the want of astringents in his early mental training, and the unsettled and migratory habits which he indulged in his manhood.”

Contrast the approbation of the monstrous Basil Gildersleeve:

Lucian, man of the world as he was, avoided all affectation and followed the drift of the spoken language so far as it was not rude or solecistic. And for this he is greatly to be praised. Our schooldays' friend, Xenophon, has had to stand many fierce attacks of late on account of the peculiarities of his diction, and before long Tycho Mommsen and others will hawk him down from his pride of place as an elementary text-book. But, for my part, I like Xenophon rather the better now that he is in trouble. I am disposed to forgive him the crime of using σύν, and I am glad to find that the military prig did get a little of the dust of his campaigns on him. And so, if Lucian's negatives are no better than those of my poor old Christian friend, Justin Martyr, and no worse than those of the vaunted Dio Chrysostomus, I am content.

(btw, Gildersleeve’s scathing review of Rutherford is well worth reading if you’re into that sort of thing)

I admit that I did consider Phrynichus, Ulpian, and other βιβλιακοι χαρακιται

[mwh]

I'm glad you take the point about γε.

What unites Rutherford and Gildersleeve over Xenophon is their recognition that his Greek was to some extent influenced (contaminated, you may prefer) by his journeying outside of Attica. Which is hardly surprising, and I can’t think it reprehensible. My sympathies are more with Gildersleeve. The fact that his writing was still considered Attic throughout antiquity is enough for me, though of course you’re right that some features are closer to later Greek—a sign that Attica was comparatively hidebound?

“want of astringents in his early mental training.” You have to love Rutherford.
Interesting that Gildersleeve was wrong to predict Xenophon’s displacement from the elementary curriculum. But perhaps he was just scaremongering.
—Both are delectable quotes. Thank you.

As to the βιβλιακοι χαρακιται, much as I’m a devotee of Alexandrian poetry and scholarship I have to admit to finding some merit in Timon’s adroit putdown of its insularity.
.

[phalakros]

Glad you enjoyed those quotes.

I also agree more with Gildersleeve re Xenophon (I meant “monstrous” in reference to his racism, not his philology). Personally, I spend time with Attic stylistics both for its own sake and because I find it’s a great help in analyzing later Greek from a diachronic perspective. Without internalizing Attic niceties, it’s much harder to appreciate significant changes in the language, registerial markers, puristic elements, etc. Of course, this is not a normal use of composition exercises. But thankfully the days of torturing schoolboys with Greek and Latin composition are over, and we can reimagine its purpose in more mature ways. So, I like Xenophon precisely for the traces of linguistic change, among other things.

Gildersleeve wasn’t completely wrong in predicting the demotion of Xenophon: I once had a Greek comp professor strongly prohibit any use of the military prig.

[phalakros]

A few more after a break. Please let me know if I’m missing something.

(α) Scarcely a soul was to be seen on the top of the hill.# ἐπὶ ἀκρῷ [—> ἄκρῳ] τῷ λόφῳ ἤ τις ἢ οὐδεὶς [—> ἤ τινα ἢ οὐδένα] παρῆν ἰδεῖν. #

(β) The probable duration of the war is known to hardly any one.# ὅποι τελευτήσει ὁ πόλεμος οὐδεὶς ὡς εἰπεῖν οἶδεν. [-->ὁπότε τέλος ἕξει ὁ πόλεμος…] # -ὅποι τελευτήσει would likely mean “how it will turn out, to what end it will come, etc”

(γ) We do not question the sincerity of your motives.# οὐκ ἀπαρνούμεθα μὴ [—> μὴ οὐκ/τὸ μ. ο.] εὖ σε βουλόμενον ταῦτα ποιεῖν. #

(δ) Sidgwick’s Intro to Greek Verse Composition:

VI.5 Nothing is dearer than glory to the good

οὐδὲν δὲ τοῖς ἐσθλοῖσι φίλτερον κλέους

—> πάντων δὲ τοῖς ἐσθλοῖσι φίλτερον(/–τατον) κλέος [κλέους is late]

[mwh]

All these suggestions look good to me.

In (α), the nom. strikes me as more idiomatic in itself, but the grammar does look a bit dodgy.

in (β), “probable duration” is not quite “when it will end.” μελλει τελος εξειν would be closer (to cover “probable”), or e.g. οποσον χρονον μελλει διαμενειν.

(δ), I’d prefer the superlative, but with κλεους excluded the thing can’t comfortably be squeezed into a single line. But e.g. … τιμιωτερον | χρηστοισιν εστιν ουδεν η κλεος falls short—unless ουδεν is repeated.

[cb]

Hi phalakros, how about this for the Sidgwick verse comp. exercise?

But nothing [is] dearer than glory to the good.
ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι δόξης τἀγαθῶι γε φίλτερον.

Sidgwick gives δόξα as another option for 'glory' (and the gen. is used in the tragedians):
https://archive.org/details/introductio ... 2/mode/1up

You could replace γε φίλτερον with μᾶλλον φίλον I guess, but I personally think the third anceps sounds better short, which is the case in 57% of trimeters in Sophocles (Schein 1979 table 21), whereas the first two are usually long (tables 5 and 13). For 'the good' in the singular, cf. Antigone 520: ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ χρηστὸς τῷ κακῷ λαχεῖν ἴσος.

Cheers, Chad

[cb]

Hi phalakros, just an additional passing thought (definitely second-order) on the verse comp. exercise: query whether your superlative alternative captures the same idea, rather than an adjacent one.

Take someone whose motto is 'glory and wisdom', as (equal) summa bona—cf. 'Queen and country', 'Dieu et mon droit'—such a person could say ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι δόξης τἀγαθῶι γε φίλτερον, but not necessarily πάντων δὲ τοῖς ἐσθλοῖσι φίλτατον κλέος.

Cheers, Chad

[cb]

Hi Michael, I have a question on your version above, on which I’d be grateful for your thoughts: you used anarthrous χρηστοῖσιν in a generic sense without a modifier. Is this use available in tragedy? I was trying to work whether or not this was available, so that one could begin ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐσθλοῖς ….

Looking in Moorhouse’s Syntax of Sophocles 1982, I found:

• The substantival use of article with adjective can refer to persons generically, or to particular persons (p. 148), e.g. ὁ χρηστός ‘the good man’ (Antigone 520) in a generic sense, τῶι παιδοκτόνωι ‘the killer of your children’ (Antigone 1305) in a particular one.

• Examples of the substantival use of adjective without article (p. 163), but the examples Moorhouse gives referring to persons appear to be particular references, e.g. δύσμορος (Ajax 905), or with a modifying genitive, e.g. φωτῶν ἀθλίων ἱκτήρια (Oedipus at Colonus 923).

But I couldn’t find any example (in Moorhouse at least) of a substantival use of an anarthrous adjective in a generic sense without a modifier.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read tragedy (shameful to say) and so I don’t have an intuition as to whether this is an available use or not; I’d appreciate your views. Many thanks in advance.

Cheers, Chad

[mwh]

Hi Chad,
I’d have written τοις χρηστοις/σι/γε if it fitted! I figured it could be intelligible without article. I didn’t spend more than a minute on the sentence, just what came into my head, and I was more concerned with the prose idioms (phalakros—or you—may push back there). It doesn’t have to be Sophoclean or even classical—Sidgwick’s rendering wasn’t, hinc illae lacrimae. But this is a cop-out. Your version, if I may say so, strikes me as a bit contrived, but perfectly successful. I agree γε φιλτερον better than μαλλον φιλον.

Yes Moorhouse is still a good resource for Soph isn’t he.

τἀγαθῶι is right, is it? It certainly looks right, and that’s what I go by these days, lazy sob that I’ve become. I had a papyrus (Sophoclean!) with ωργειοι i.e.ὦ Ἀργεῖοι, but of course this is different. I can never remember the rules.

[cb]

Hi Michael, many thanks for your reply. Now that I read it back, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι δόξης τἀγαθῶι γε φίλτερον does sound contrived: I think it's the separation of δόξης from the comparative. It might read easier as e.g. ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι δόξης φίλτερον τοῖς σώφροσιν (Sophocles opposed τοὺς σώφρονας and τοὺς κακούς in Ajax 132–3, and so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to use τοῖς σώφροσιν here).

I agree that the style need not be Sophoclean. I keep going on about Sophocles this and Sophocles that, because I use(d) verse comp. to learn more about Sophocles; it forced me to read more carefully things in reference books that I glazed over on an initial read.

On τἀγαθῶι, cf. e.g. Hippolytus 637: λαβὼν πιέζει τἀγαθῶι τὸ δυστυχές.

I agree with you on the prose comp. exercises. They could also be put in different ways, depending on the prose style being employed, e.g. for 'Scarcely a soul was to be seen on the top of the hill': ἐπ᾽ ἄκρωι τῶι λόφωι οὐδεὶς ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἐφαίνετο.

Cheers, Chad

[phalakros]

Thank you for the good discussion, mwh and cb.

(α) I think the acc ἤ τινα… is idiomatic here. I recall, που, a similar example from Xenophon, our favorite Attic storehouse.

(β) μέλλει + fut inf is better than the more direct ὁπότε τέλος ἕξει ὁ πόλεμος. Rouse’s is wrong.

(δ) There are of course many acceptable versions for any composition exercise (and equally many wrong versions). My point was only that κλέους in the gen should be avoided in Classical. My instinct was to avoid anarthrous εσθλοις/χρηστοις/κτλ in a generic sense, at least for these little monostichoi.

If anyone with sufficient background is interested in going through a composition book like Sidgwick’s Verse book or an advanced prose book (e.g. Nairn) together, we could perhaps give it a try over Textkit.

[cb]

Hi phalakros, I'd be keen to go through Sidgwick's verse comp. with you. I started this many years ago, but there are words in there I wouldn't use now (e.g. my 2006 version of the example discussed in this thread contains at least two issues—the comparative is a rare form which I wouldn't use now, and although I expressed my concerns around anarthrous adjectives in substantival use, I used one then, but you can see in the thread above that I would avoid this now):

https://docplayer.gr/3042620-Writing-gr ... -2006.html

On prose comp., definitely agreed—I was making a slightly different point above: after reading the ancient critics like Demetrius, Dion. Hal., etc., I've realised that prose comp. books don't really go into the different prose styles (grand, simple, forceful etc.). Even in Dickey's relatively recent An introduction to the composition and analysis of Greek prose 2016, the appendix on prose composition as an art form simply says "Greek writers liked long sentences" (p. 253), which is stereotypical of some styles but not others, and definitely doesn't gel with large chunks of Plato (on whom I focus).

Cheers, Chad

[phalakros]

Chad: That sounds good—let’s give it a shot. We can create a new thread. Shall we start on Ex. VII?

A few thoughts on your last paragraph. Dickey, North & Hillard, and others are elementary composition textbooks, focused on mastering morphology, core vocabulary, and basic syntax. They are not concerned with the finer points of Greek prose, and rightfully so. The imitation of different prose styles and genres comes later (if at all, anymore) and is a topic for more advanced books. (Nairn’s prose comp that I mentioned above sets passages from English lit according to the Greek author to be imitated, often Plato or an orator; see also, e.g., Sidgwick’s very useful Lectures on Gk Prose Comp, Nash-Williams, Andrew (which I have not yet used), the inimitable Donovan. All of that, of course, is secondary to one’s own close reading). Such works assume significant experience in Greek literature and composition. Personally, I find it best to combine work on longer, continuous passages with shorter exercises in idiom and syntax.

[mwh]

Hi guys, I might join you intermittently, popping in just now and again, if that’s ok with you.
If I remember (it was a long time ago) Sidgwick doesn’t aim at any particular dramatist’s style, does he?, distinct though they are and changing over time. And I have to admit I tire rapidly of single lines, having spent too much time on the moralistic pabulum of the so-called sententiae Menandri and the like with Jaekel and Liapis and the papyri.

Incidentally, Aesop’s rebuke of his ingrate adoptive son in the Ahiqar section of the Life of Aesop is larded with monostichs which have never properly been pulled back out.

As to prose, I think Hutchinson is very good and stimulating, as I’ve said before here or elsewhere. (Dickey must surely say more than "Greek writers liked long sentences”! and some of the versions are instructive. I wonder what Chad thinks of Martin West’s Plato, which I thought was spot on.)

[cb]

Hi both, sounds great: I'll look at this on weekends if that's OK timing-wise, starting from ex. VII.

Michael, agreed that West's Plato excerpt in the Dickey book (from memory) is spot-on (for one type of Platonic style).

Cheers, Chad

[cb]

Hi phalakros, I've decided to practice with Kynaston's iambic exercises rather than Sidgwick's. Kynaston starts straight away with continuous text rather than single verses; continuous text comes later in Sidgwick.

Continuous text exercises will give me a better chance of testing what Dik says about word order (2007), which I'm keen to try out.

https://archive.org/details/exercisesin ... 9/mode/1up

Cheers, Chad