Query on Theognis

[cclaudian]

Hi all - I was just wondering if someone here might be able to explain a bit of grammar for me at Th. 295-6:

κωτίλῳ ἀνθρώπῳ σιγᾶν χαλεπώτατον ἄχθος,
φθεγγόμενος δ᾿ ἀδὴς οἷσι παρῇ πέλεται,
ἐχθαίρουσι δὲ πάντες· ἀναγκαίη δ᾿ ἐπίμειξις
ἀνδρὸς τοιούτου συμποσίῳ τελέθει.
"For a chatterbox the hardest burden to bear is silence, but when he talks he is a bore to those present and everyone dislikes him; not from choice does one join such a man at a symposium." (Loeb)

Is it usual for Greek poets to use a singular verb with a plural noun/pronoun in this way? I can't seem to find any rules for this sort of thing in my school grammar - possibly someone here might have an answer? The reason I ask (besides my own curiosity) is that I want to model a part of my own couplet on this license, and don't want to get it wrong!

ἄρτι u — μέτ᾽ ἐμοῖσιν ἔβην ἐπὶ κῶμον ἑταίροις
οὗ λόγου ἤλλασσον μύθον ἐν οἶσι παρῆν.
lit. "Recently I went to a -- banquet with my mates, where I exchanged story for story among those that were present." (a bit wonky in the second line admittedly, and I haven't thought of an appropriate epithet for κῶμον just yet).

Anyway, is my indicative παρῆν acceptable here? And what's up with the expression in Theognis?

[Barry Hofstetter]

I'll let someone else comment on your composition, but concerning the relative clause in Theognis, I see how you are trying to read it, as though it should be something like <τούτοις> οἳ πάρησαν "a boor to those who are present" with the pronoun attracted into the case of the presumed antecedent. Well, I think the presumed antecedent would be dative, but the relative pronoun is also dative because πάρειμι takes the dative, and the subject is the κωτίλος ἄνθρωπος, "to those with whom he is present."

[cclaudian]

I'll let someone else comment on your composition, but concerning the relative clause in Theognis, I see how you are trying to read it, as though it should be something like <τούτοις> οἳ πάρησαν "a boor to those who are present" with the pronoun attracted into the case of the presumed antecedent. Well, I think the presumed antecedent would be dative, but the relative pronoun is also dative because πάρειμι takes the dative, and the subject is the κωτίλος ἄνθρωπος, "to those with whom he is present."

I see, thanks for the explanation - I see where I went wrong!

[mwh]

Yes you miscontrued οἷσι παρῇ (and your own ἐν οἶσι παρῆν), which doesn’t mean “to those present”—that would be toisi parousi (pelei)—but “to those he’s with”, a portmanteau expression, very easy with the dative, lit. “(to those) to whom he’s present.”
Prose would add an αν to παρῇ.

As to your own verses, μετ᾽ ἐμοῖσιν lays undue stress on the fact that they’re yours, when all you mean is μεθ᾽ἑταίροις.
λόγου ἤλλασσον μύθον is not happy, as you realize, and οὗ λόγου at the outset invites puzzlement..
Your indicative παρῆν (1st person) is correct, there’s no alternative.

[jeidsath]

ἀναγκαίη δ᾿ ἐπίμειξις ἀνδρὸς τοιούτου συμποσίῳ τελέθει

"not from choice does one join such a man at a symposium" -- Loeb

I would have thought, "An interaction (not sexual, as it's referring to conversation?) with such a man at a symposium is a torture."

[mwh]

No Joel the Loeb has it right. (ἀναγκαίη is adjective. "Only under compulsion is there [social] intercourse with such a man at a symposium.")

[jeidsath]

Fine, "...is torturous" and not "is a torture" then. But the ἐπίμειξις at the symposium is/becomes ἀναγκαίη. The sense is -- I think -- that he can't get away (and would like to), not that someone made him talk to the guy, as the Loeb implies.

[mwh]

Not fine. ἀναγκη is a force that gives you no choice. At a symposium you’re stuck with whoever your neighbor happens to be. You’re forced (by symposium etiquette) to “mix” with him. You may find it torturous, but the point is you have no say in the matter. If you fall off a cliff you will necessarily (ἀναγκαίως) fall towards the ground, whether or not you dislike the experience.
As usual Joel your reading of Greek is too impressionistic. That may be self-correcting over time, as you get familiar with the idea of ἀνάγκη, for example, but there’s a significant risk it won’t be. You habitually overestimate your ability to infer meaning from context. Your guesses may be good, or they may not. In this case the Loeb translation is good, and you were wrong to offer a different one in its place. (I know that's how you like to learn, but is it fair to others? I can't always be correcting you.)

We should apologize to cclaudian for going off topic. Incidentally, cclaudian, remember a kwmos is not a symposium.

[jeidsath]

I appreciate your correcting me a great deal, and certainly hope that you continue doing so.

Still, I think that I haven't presented my main point well, which wasn't at all about torture. That was meant to be a picturesque word to describe enduring bores at parties, and I'm sorry that I used it, because it was distracting. The point that I tried to make is that the Loeb talks about the compulsion being on forced to join with, and that Theognis means can't get away from, and that the entire experience is of duress. Whether or not one happened to know that this was a κωτίλος ἄνθρωπος beforehand, one is constrained from escape while engaged.

I think that this is important. Theognis is not simply stringing together adages about boring party guests. He is vividly painting what might as well be a single man at a single party, though in general terms. The reader is presented with the image of a κωτίλος first constrained to silence, then breaking out he speaks and is something unpleasant to the ones around him, in response they all hate him, and the interaction becomes one of duress. I think that it's unfortunate that this unity seems not to have been noticed by the translator, because it's what makes this work.

Taking some examples from the LSJ:

"μῦθος ἀ. a word of force, Od.17.399" - not a word once is forced to say
"ἦμαρ ἀ. day of constraint , i.e. life of slavery, 16.836" - not a day one is forced to live through
"δεσμὸς ἀ. Theoc.24.33" - restraining bonds, not bonds one is forced to put on

And my apologies to cclaudian for going off topic.

[mwh]

You’ve misconstrued the thrust of these lines, which work almost like an epigram. Most of it has nothing at all to do with a party situation. That comes in only in the final sentence.
Of course everyone would like to get away from someone who chatters (or twitters) incessantly, but at a symposium they can’t—and the reason they can’t (this is the Theognidean point) is that at a symposium ἐπίμειξις is de rigueur, ἀναγκαίη, necessitated. What you say Theognis means, “can’t get away from”, is subsumed in the “forced to join with” point of the Greek (and of the Loeb translation). It’s not much of a distinction, but such as it is, it’s the difference between what you want the lines to say and what they actually do; and the Loeb even gets the tone right.