Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Discussion of Greek texts that do not fall into the other categories, including texts in other dialects or texts from other periods.
Forum rules
This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Lysias 24 - §21 - Text and hints

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 4th, 2014, 10:29 am

Lysias now has the speaker explain why he needn't exhaustively answer the points raised by the plaintiff.

The Greek is not to hard. Pay attention however to the cases, and how they arrange meaning in conjunction with other parts of speech.
Lysias 24.21 wrote:ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι δεῖ λίαν με ἀκριβῶς ἀπολογούμενον πρὸς ἓν ἕκαστον ὑμῖν τῶν εἰρημένων ἐνοχλεῖν πλείω χρόνον. εἰ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν μεγίστων εἴρηκα, τί δεῖ περὶ τῶν φαύλων ὁμοίως τούτῳ1 σπουδάζειν; ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὦ βουλή, δέομαι πάντων τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν περὶ ἐμοῦ διάνοιαν, ἥνπερ καὶ πρότερον.

1 φαύλων ὁμοίως τούτῳ Dobree: ὁμοίως τούτῳ φαώλων.
.


Hints for §21: (I'm sure you are getting clearer now about what you know and what you don't.)
  • ἀλλὰ γὰρ - compound conjunction
  • ὅ τι - opposite οὐδέν
  • δεῖ ... ἐνοχλεῖν - There is quite a separation between the impersonal and the infinitive.
  • τούτῳ - referring to the plaintiff
  • τὴν αὐτὴν ... διάνοιαν - this hang a little, because from context it seems to mean "the same" as each other.
  • ἥνπερ - relative.
  • καὶ - adverbial.
  • πρότερον - I'm not sure why this is neuter, but seeing as it is, it should be taken as adverbial, not adjectival with διάνοιαν.
[/size]
0 x


Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Post by Wes Wood » August 4th, 2014, 11:59 pm

I don't have a great interest in perfume use, but I saw from an in-flight documentary that perfumes are based on alcohol, not oils. I know of people who use fragrant oils in their homes with various ideas about the effects. I'm not saying that taking μυροπώλιον as "perfumer’s shop" is wrong, but I neither can I confirm with you that it is right either.
I was not aware of this distinction, but it is interesting and makes sense. Alcohol would be nearly ideal for the role of a dispersant.
I'm not sure whether you understood the structure of the first section (ἕκαστος ... ἂν τύχῃ) with its "ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ ... ὁ δὲ ... ὁ δ᾽" structure, and then made it into "idiomatic" English by omitting the structure, or whether you just missed it.
This is the definition that I had in mind, though I did not reference it when I was translating.

to connect a series of clauses containing different matter, though with no opposition, Il.1.18sq., 306 sq. (five δέ-clauses), 433 sq. (eight δέ-clauses), cf. X.An. 1.3.14,7.10sq.: freq. when the members of a group or class are distinctly specified, παῖδες δύο, πρεσβύτερος μὲν Ἀρταξέρξης, νεώτερος δὲ Κῦρος ib.1.1.1; τάφρος . . , τὸ μὲν εὖρος ὀργυιαὶ πέντε, τὸ δὲ βάθος ὀργυιαὶ τρεῖς ib.1.7.14; πρῶτος μέν . . , δεύτερος δέ . . , τρίτος δέ . . ib.5.6.9; τότε μέν . . , τότε δέ . . , at one time . . , at another . . , ib.6.1.9, etc.: esp. with the Art. used as a Pron., ὁ μέν . . , ὁ δέ . . ; τὸ μέν . . , τὸ δέ . . , etc.

I may well be wrong, but I will attempt to explain my thinking. I remember trying to decide which conjunction would be better to use (either “and” and “or”) in this section. I chose “or” because it seemed like it worked best in the widest variety of situations. I didn’t “waste” :lol: much time thinking about it. Since it was a rhetorical device, it was not meant to be analyzed too closely, but I can’t help what I think.
ὅποι ἂν + subjunctive "to whatsoever place one might ...". I don't think it is happen to be near, rather at.
I don’t know what I did here. I don’t see anything that I would have translated as “near” in this stretch. I guess I either attempted to smooth it out, or my eye skipped to the line below it after I looked up τύχῃ. (I had to use a lexicon to figure out exactly what to do with τύχῃ here.)
ὡς - "on the premises", "at the home of" doesn't seem to have been translated.
I felt that this one would be somewhat redundant if I was correct in carrying some form of the infinitive “to frequent” throughout. I omitted it for this reason in both of these places.
ἐγγυτάτω - these are superlative adverbs, but the superlative sense doesn't seem to have been brought out. [near - nearer - nearest, far - further - furthest, few - fewer - fewest]
I recognized the forms as superlatives. I took liberties and put it into English how I would say it. However, I am curious about ἐλάχιστοι. If I translated this “no one,” would you consider it to be too strong for even the superlative?
διατριβόντων "waste"? time, or the more neutral "spend" time. None of the New Testament examples - with or without χρόνον seem to have the sense of "waste" eg. Acts 15:35 Παῦλος δὲ καὶ Βαρνάβας διέτριβον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι, μετὰ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν, τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου.
I see your point. I assumed a negative connotation based on the glosses.
εἴθισθε - how did this become "them"
Easily. I am a careless idiot.
προσφοιτᾶν καὶ διατρίβειν - spend time both often and long
and
ἁμοῦ γέ που
I will review these two as well. I would benefit from taking the time to do so.

Since this has taken much longer than I anticipated, I will do the other translation tomorrow. It has actually been quite helpful to reflect on my work here. I hope I don’t appear to be justifying my translations. I am trying to retrace my steps so that I can reap the greatest benefit possible. Thank you!
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 5th, 2014, 1:44 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: I'm not sure whether you understood the structure of the first section (ἕκαστος ... ἂν τύχῃ) with its "ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ ... ὁ δὲ ... ὁ δ᾽" structure, and then made it into "idiomatic" English by omitting the structure, or whether you just missed it.
This is the definition that I had in mind, though I did not reference it when I was translating.

to connect a series of clauses containing different matter, though with no opposition, Il.1.18sq., 306 sq. (five δέ-clauses), 433 sq. (eight δέ-clauses), cf. X.An. 1.3.14,7.10sq.: freq. when the members of a group or class are distinctly specified, παῖδες δύο, πρεσβύτερος μὲν Ἀρταξέρξης, νεώτερος δὲ Κῦρος ib.1.1.1; τάφρος . . , τὸ μὲν εὖρος ὀργυιαὶ πέντε, τὸ δὲ βάθος ὀργυιαὶ τρεῖς ib.1.7.14; πρῶτος μέν . . , δεύτερος δέ . . , τρίτος δέ . . ib.5.6.9; τότε μέν . . , τότε δέ . . , at one time . . , at another . . , ib.6.1.9, etc.: esp. with the Art. used as a Pron., ὁ μέν . . , ὁ δέ . . ; τὸ μέν . . , τὸ δέ . . , etc.

I may well be wrong, but I will attempt to explain my thinking. I remember trying to decide which conjunction would be better to use (either “and” and “or”) in this section. I chose “or” because it seemed like it worked best in the widest variety of situations. I didn’t “waste” :lol: much time thinking about it. Since it was a rhetorical device, it was not meant to be analyzed too closely, but I can’t help what I think.
The scene that I imagined when I read it was of the cripple gesturing first to a sweet-smelling dandy, next to one whose hair was well-preened, and next to someone in the front row with shiny new shoes. If I wanted to script that scene with the most idiomatic English, I'd translate ὁ δέ as "or perhaps".
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: ὡς - "on the premises", "at the home of" doesn't seem to have been translated.
I felt that this one would be somewhat redundant if I was correct in carrying some form of the infinitive “to frequent” throughout. I omitted it for this reason in both of these places.
An intelligent justifiable omission or rephrasing is fine.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: ἐγγυτάτω - these are superlative adverbs, but the superlative sense doesn't seem to have been brought out. [near - nearer - nearest, far - further - furthest, few - fewer - fewest]
I recognized the forms as superlatives. I took liberties and put it into English how I would say it.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of how to say, "The further a shop is from the meat and vegetable day market, the less customers they are likely to have."... Just in my opinion, generally speaking if there is a common distinction in the original language between two things that are expressed, then a distinction could be kept, if that is usual in the target language too. Translator (or even reader) is a passively creative role.
Wes Wood wrote:However, I am curious about ἐλάχιστοι. If I translated this “no one,” would you consider it to be too strong for even the superlative?
Grammatically speaking, I think that change would change word classes, but that is probably how the shop-keeper felt.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: διατριβόντων "waste"? time, or the more neutral "spend" time. None of the New Testament examples - with or without χρόνον seem to have the sense of "waste" eg. Acts 15:35 Παῦλος δὲ καὶ Βαρνάβας διέτριβον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι, μετὰ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν, τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου.
I see your point. I assumed a negative connotation based on the glosses.
In my experience, Lysias (and Plato sometimes) often don't make the distinctions as clearly as the lexicons suggest distinctions could be made. It is half a life time away now, but I found needed to keep an open mind (to look for simplicity) when reading those authours. In other words, Lysias is not so pedantic about subtle differences in meaning; other authours are.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: εἴθισθε - how did this become "them"
Easily. I am a careless idiot.
My guess was that you had "heard" the epsilon as an alpha-iota, and then used the flexibility of reference that the infinitive affords to get the sense that you thought was appropriate.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Lysias 24 - Feedback §20 - Wes Wood

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 5th, 2014, 6:38 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:ἁμοῦ γέ που - I'm no longer sure of my understanding here. I'll get back to you.
I'm afraid all I can do here is to refer you to LSJ.

Privately, I prefer the original reading ἄλλου γέ που, but let's just read this text without too much discussion of scholarly reconstructions.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Post by Wes Wood » August 5th, 2014, 7:46 am

Off the top of my head, I can't think of how to say, "The further a shop is from the meat and vegetable day market, the less customers they are likely to have."... Just in my opinion, generally speaking if there is a common distinction in the original language between two things that are expressed, then a distinction could be kept, if that is usual in the target language too. Translator (or even reader) is a passively creative role.
I prefer the closer...the more likely... :lol:

In all seriousness, l agree with you. I should've kept it as it was.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Post by Wes Wood » August 5th, 2014, 8:15 pm

Wes Wood
I prefer the closer...the more likely...
Just for clarification, I believe I would be most likely to use this phrase to convey the equivalent idea in English without prompting. I was not at all meaning to convey that I think this is what the Greek says. Not that it matters to anyone. 8-)
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Post by Wes Wood » August 5th, 2014, 8:32 pm

"But [since?] I don’t know precisely what to say in my defense it is necessary for me to trouble each one of you a while longer about the things I have already mentioned. For if I have already spoken about the most important things, why is it necessary for me to be concerned about the insignificant things like man is? But I ask all of you, O Council, to have the same opinion about me, that you had about me before."

A few thoughts:
1) I don't actually think "since" should be there. It simply makes it make more "sense." :roll:
2) I believe this is the part that is tripping me up "ὅ τι δεῖ λίαν με ἀκριβῶς ἀπολογούμενον," the part in bold especially. The rest of the grouping mistakes, I think, hinge on this phrase. I am reasonably confident I have the correct sense in my head somewhere even if I am wrong here. In fact, I am almost certain I am wrong here, because it almost blatantly disagrees with the second part of this section. Specifically, I confess to feeling like I am rolling a die when dealing with "τίς/τις." Any general advice with this would be appreciated.
3) The word "ἥνπερ" is unfamiliar to me. Any errors I made here may be connected with this word.

Whew! :)
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 6th, 2014, 10:11 am

Wes Wood wrote:A few thoughts:
Doubts actually. ;) :mrgreen:

I have a few unscheduled hours tomorrow, I'll give you the doubt-of-my-benefit on your work then.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Lysias 24 - §21 - Feedback for Wes Wood

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 7th, 2014, 6:59 am

Lysias 24.21 wrote:ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι δεῖ λίαν με ἀκριβῶς ἀπολογούμενον πρὸς ἓν ἕκαστον ὑμῖν τῶν εἰρημένων ἐνοχλεῖν πλείω χρόνον. εἰ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν μεγίστων εἴρηκα, τί δεῖ περὶ τῶν φαύλων ὁμοίως τούτῳ σπουδάζειν; ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὦ βουλή, δέομαι πάντων τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν περὶ ἐμοῦ διάνοιαν, ἥνπερ καὶ πρότερον.
Wes Wood wrote:"But [since?] I don’t know precisely what to say in my defense it is necessary for me to trouble each one of you a while longer about the things I have already mentioned. For if I have already spoken about the most important things, why is it necessary for me to be concerned about the insignificant things like man is? But I ask all of you, O Council, to have the same opinion about me, that you had about me before."
Just one thing: πρὸς ἓν ἕκαστον - you seem to be taking this as masculine, (sc. εἰρημένον ὑπὸ τοῦτου)
Wes Wood wrote:1) I don't actually think "since" should be there. It simply makes it make more "sense." :roll:
I think it is the opposite. "Since" means that the following material caused, lead to the aforementioned, γὰρ means something similar, that the following things will sort of explain what was just said. ἀλλὰ γὰρ - "on the flip-side, to give you some idea of the problem that I'm facing ..."
Wes Wood wrote:2) I believe this is the part that is tripping me up "ὅ τι δεῖ λίαν με ἀκριβῶς ἀπολογούμενον," the part in bold especially. The rest of the grouping mistakes, I think, hinge on this phrase. I am reasonably confident I have the correct sense in my head somewhere even if I am wrong here. In fact, I am almost certain I am wrong here, because it almost blatantly disagrees with the second part of this section. Specifically, I confess to feeling like I am rolling a die when dealing with "τίς/τις." Any general advice with this would be appreciated.
This is one aspect of the language that reminds me that my learning still has a long way to go. I would express my frustration as, that I have to try the square peg in all the holes, till it gets to the one that fits, ans so too the round one, while others seem to look at the holes, look at the pegs, then put them in directly.
Wes Wood wrote:3) The word "ἥνπερ" is unfamiliar to me. Any errors I made here may be connected with this word.
Consider the difference between these two
Mark 15:6 RP Byz 2005 wrote:Κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν ἀπέλυεν αὐτοῖς ἕνα δέσμιον, ὅνπερ ᾐτοῦντο.
"whomever they asked for"
Mark 15:6 NA-UBS wrote:Κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν ἀπέλυεν αὐτοῖς ἕνα δέσμιον, ὃν παρῃτοῦντο.
"whom they requested"
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Lysias 24 - §22 - Text and hints

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 7th, 2014, 1:31 pm

Lysias 24.22 wrote:μηδ᾽ οὗ μόνου1 μεταλαβεῖν ἔδωκεν ἡ τύχη μοι τῶν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι, τούτου διὰ τουτονὶ ἀποστερήσητέ με: μηδ᾽ ἃ πάλαι κοινῇ πάντες ἔδοτέ μοι, νῦν οὗτος εἷς ὢν πείσῃ πάλιν ὑμᾶς ἀφελέσθαι. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ, ὦ βουλή, τῶν μεγίστων [ἀρχῶν]2 ὁ δαίμων ἀπεστέρησεν ἡμᾶς, ἡ πόλις ἡμῖν ἐψηφίσατο τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον, ἡγουμένη κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς τύχας τοῖς ἅπασι καὶ τῶν κακῶν καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν.

1 μόνου Markland: μόνον MSS.

2 ἀρχῶν del. Frohberger.
.


Hints for §22: (Have a look at these if you get stuck.)
  • μηδ᾽ ... ἀποστερήσητέ - negative form of the verb.
  • τούτου - μεταλαβεῖν + gen. of the thing that is shared. cf. Acts 22:34 (NA-UBS) Διὸ παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς μεταλαβεῖν τροφῆς·
  • τούτου - ἐπίδομα "dole", "welfare payment". Parallels with οὗ μόνου.
  • τουτονὶ - demonstrative strengthened with a iota..
  • ἀποστερήσητέ - gen. thing, acc. person
  • ἔδωκεν - just my feeling, but I think that this had have been in the New Testament context with God giving, it would have said ἐχἀρισεν.
  • μηδ᾽ ... πείσῃ - verb with its negative.
  • πάλιν - back; return to a previous state.
  • ἡ πόλις ... ἐψηφίσατο ... ἡγουμένη - subject ... main verb ... participle
  • τύχας - "fortunes" what this was understood to mean, and its relationship to μοῖρα (fate), and how much they were thought to be controllable varied to some extent.
[/size]
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply