ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

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

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 23rd, 2014, 11:56 pm

Wes Wood wrote:That definitely makes it clear that the sense of "αὐτὸ" has been brought out. I think "for this reason" is an intensified "because" and that is why I used this phrase here. I am unsure how emphatic the original phrase is.

I understand δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο: "δι" as because/on account of and "αὐτὸ" as intensifying "τοῦτο." Sorry for the formatting. I am stuck with only a phone.
Another way to look at this is to say that διὰ τοῦτο was not such a standardised phrase at that period of the language, as it is when we're looking at it. Let's take an example... If see "because", we don't think of it anything other than "because", but when we read Chaucher
General Prologue wrote:The reule of seint Maure or of seint Beneit,
By-cause that it was old and som-del streit,—
This ilke Monk leet olde thynges pace,
And heeld after the newe world the space.
When we see them separated like, our imagination runs a little wilder than it does on a rainy day when children a cooped up and keeping dry. Abbreviation also works in a similar way; e.g. is fixed and stays so, but if we write out "for example", then we can more freely create things like, "for our next example".
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » November 25th, 2014, 12:08 am

Chapter 1, section 21 - Text and Hints
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote: [21] ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοι, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐργάζεσθαι μὲν οὐ κωλύονται ὑπὸ τούτων, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ σφοδρῶς πρὸς τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι ἔχουσι καὶ μηχανᾶσθαι προσόδους: ὅμως δὲ καὶ τοὺς οἴκους κατατρίβουσι καὶ ἀμηχανίαις συνέχονται.





Hints: Look at these if you need to
I don't think the grammar of this section should present too much of a challenge. (That is, if I understand it myself. :| )
σφοδρῶς: I translated this as “motivated” but am not sure that this word can take this meaning.
μηχανᾶσθαι: to procure for oneself
προσόδους: an income
ὅμως: nevertheless
κατατρίβουσι: they squander
ἀμηχανίαις: hardships
συνέχονται: they are burdened
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » November 25th, 2014, 12:09 am

Wes Wood wrote: Kritoboulus was saying, “But there [are] also others, O Socrates, who indeed are not being hindered from working* by these [vices], and who are very motivated to work [because] they have to procure for themselves an income: but who, nevertheless, squander their households and are burdened with hardships.”
*Again going back to the last section, I feel this is probably a more specific rendering than the meaning of the word in the actual text.
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » November 25th, 2014, 12:25 am

Wes Wood/Stephen Hughes Exchange wrote:οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες- “the unseen beings”no. look at the accent ἀφανεῖς ὄντες is a circumstantial participle. "while being unseen", "which nobody ever saw" οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν = "who rule them, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that they actually even exist".
I am going to start blowing my font size up on my computer. I am thinking about a 42. :lol:

Earnest question: Is the situation with the accenting the same for this period the same as for the koine period? More specifically, are the accents original or were they added at a later time? (This is not a subtle attempt to question the reading. 1) This version makes better sense contextually. 2) I trust would trust the opinion of any scholar and enthusiasts more than my own.)
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 25th, 2014, 11:27 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Wes Wood/Stephen Hughes Exchange wrote:οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες- “the unseen beings”no. look at the accent ἀφανεῖς ὄντες is a circumstantial participle. "while being unseen", "which nobody ever saw" οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν = "who rule them, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that they actually even exist".
I am going to start blowing my font size up on my computer. I am thinking about a 42. :lol:

Earnest question: Is the situation with the accenting the same for this period the same as for the koine period? More specifically, are the accents original or were they added at a later time? (This is not a subtle attempt to question the reading. 1) This version makes better sense contextually. 2) I trust would trust the opinion of any scholar and enthusiasts more than my own.)
The obvious point is that the relative goes with a finite verb, and the article can go with a participle.

This is not such an easy to recognise one because the participle is in a relative clause. Broadly speaking, a relative clause asks / prompts you to imagine something which is not preceptible, while a participle brings attention to a particular feature of something that is perceptible.
Matthew 10:26 wrote:Μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς· οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται· καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται.
Don't fear them, just think about how all the covered things will be uncovered, and how the secret things will be known."
Matthew 14:72 wrote:Καὶ ἀνεμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς
Peter remembered the words and thought about the situation in which Jesus had said them to him.
Ponder those things for a moment.

In distinction to that look at
προκηρύξαντος Ἰωάννου πρὸ προσώπου τῆς εἰσόδου αὐτοῦ βάπτισμα μετανοίας τῷ Ἰσραήλ.
Imagine the immediacy of the action as if you are there experiencing it first-hand.

οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν is something that I guess would be read with pauses before and after the ἀφανεῖς ὄντες, and no gap between the ἄρχουσιν and αὐτῶν. "Think for a moment about how these "rulers" rule them, when we here and now (waves his hand around pointing in the air) can see for ourselves that they do not exist."
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 25th, 2014, 12:05 pm

Section 17 wrote:οὓς ἐγὼ ὁρῶ τοὺς μὲν πολεμικάς, τοὺς δὲ καὶ εἰρηνικὰς ἐπιστήμας ἔχοντας, ταύτας δὲ οὐκ ἐθέλοντας ἐργάζεσθαι, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ οἶμαι, δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὅτι δεσπότας οὐκ ἔχουσιν.
Wes Wood wrote:I am unsure how emphatic the original phrase is.
Considering how strong is a start... Perhaps we should also ask that more intelligently - not only considering intensity - but also which part of it or in which way it is affected by the αὐτὸ.

τοῦτο sums up a previously mentioned thing, "from this, which I just mentioned", but what is αὐτὸ? Does it mean "this and nothing else", or does it mean, "this and pay attention to it", or something else?
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 26th, 2014, 11:58 pm

section 17 wrote:περὶ δούλων μοι, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, ἐπιχειρεῖς, ὦ Κριτόβουλε, διαλέγεσθαι;
Wes Wood wrote:διαλέγεσθαι: This word likely means “to have a conversation” or “ to argue” here. It may take a dative of person.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Are you unsure yourself?
I am unsure if it always takes a dative.
I'm still not sure what was being asked here exactly. διαλέγεσθαι is usually used with the dative of the person whom the speaker wants to make their point to. You are asking about one particular part of the syntactic structure of one particular verb. We could do that till the cows came home, and still perhaps not get a feel for the syntax. A more apposite question is does διαλέγεσθαι always take such and such a syntactic structure? Case is one part of that.

The verbs διαλέγεσθαι (and ὁμιλεῖν) takes the basic syntactic structure [+dative / of the person to whom the point is trying to be made +περί +gen of the thing being discussed], while συζητεῖν takes a similar structure, except that the thing they reason about is in the accusative. When you are processing language, you have a set of structures and which you recognise and then associate verbs with those structures. So, first see the structure then decode the components. To take that a little further, the first element heard or seen is often a noun or pronoun, the case of which is the first hint as to which structure is coming up.

You could look at the NT verses if you want to see the pattern of usage of διαλέγεσθαι from context Mark 9:34, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:17, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:19, Acts 19:8, Acts 19:9, Acts 20:7, Acts 20:9, Acts 24:12, Acts 24:25, Hebrews 12:5, Jude 1:9 or you could look in a dictionary to find them listed.
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 28th, 2014, 11:51 am

Wes Wood wrote:Chapter 1, section 18 - Text
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, Section 18 wrote:καὶ πῶς ἄν, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, δεσπότας οὐκ ἔχοιεν, εἰ εὐχόμενοι εὐδαιμονεῖν καὶ ποιεῖν βουλόμενοι ἀφ᾽ ὧν <ἂν> ἔχοιεν ἀγαθὰ ἔπειτα κωλύονται ποιεῖν ταῦτα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων; καὶ τίνες δὴ οὗτοί εἰσιν, ἔφη ὁ Κριτόβουλος, οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν;
[quote="Wes "Wood"en Translation"]
“And how is it that they do not have rulers,” was saying Socrates, “if they pray to be well off and to do what they want to do from the good things they have and then are hindered from doing those [lit. these] things by their rulers?”
“So then, who are these,” was saying Kritoboulus, “who are hidden while ruling them?”
I feel like I understand this text except for the underlined part. I intend to review some grammar points from this section and the last section and post hints for them both tomorrow if all goes well.[/quote]
You are very close to understanding that underlined section, here is my take on it... Your underlining and emboldening catches the sense of the text, but your rendering does not. That is to say that ἔχοιεν is with ἀγαθὰ not with ἀφ᾽ ὧν. ποιεῖν βουλόμενοι [ταῦτα] ἀφ᾽ ὧν <ἂν> ἔχοιεν ἀγαθὰ means "They desire to do (= (telic) accomplish) those things, from (doing) which they will have good things".

"was saying" - what's with the durative sense here? "was saying Socrates" invert this - translation has to be right-brain as well.
.ποιεῖν ταῦτα - explicates the ταῦτα
those [lit. these] - explain this please, what's the difference, what would "those" ordinarily be?
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 28th, 2014, 12:01 pm

Wes Wood wrote:Chapter 1, section 18 - Text and Hints
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote: καὶ πῶς ἄν, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, δεσπότας οὐκ ἔχοιεν, εἰ εὐχόμενοι εὐδαιμονεῖν καὶ ποιεῖν βουλόμενοι ἀφ᾽ ὧν <ἂν> ἔχοιεν ἀγαθὰ ἔπειτα κωλύονται ποιεῖν ταῦτα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων; καὶ τίνες δὴ οὗτοί εἰσιν, ἔφη ὁ Κριτόβουλος, οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν;
Hints: Look at these if you need to
δεσπότας- masters or lords (For the time being. I am digesting, but have indigestion...)
ἔχοιεν- This is a third person plural optative. “They have” Optative because it is a new though introduced by the speaker
εὐχόμενοι- I understand this as having an important temporal component based partly on the use of “ἔπειτα” (which I understand to mean “then”) later in the reading. What sort of temporal component are you thinking of? Contemporaneity? "All they while they are praying for goof things, they are being hindered.."?
εὐδαιμονεῖν- “to be well off” I took this as the first object of “εὐχόμενοι.” (I am not sure that this is the correct way to state this.)
ποιεῖν- I took this as the second object of “εὐχόμενοι” No, of βουλόμενοι.
βουλόμενοι- I believe this modifies ποιεῖν. I'm not sure of the jargon, but they do belong together.
ἀφ᾽ ὧν- I am having trouble with how this phrase relates to what precedes it. I take “ποιεῖν βουλόμενοι” to mean “to do [the things] they want [to do]” and “ἀφ᾽ ὧν” to mean in this context the equivalent of “which.” The things which. Remember the implied demonstrative.
ἔχοιεν- I was initially wrong here. I believe “they bring” is necessary for the context here. Why?
ἀγαθὰ- I took this as a noun. It has no noun to modify, so it is one itself, more or less.
καὶ τίνες δὴ- one way to take this might be “and who exactly”
οἳ ἀφανεῖς ὄντες- “the unseen beings” See the notes from last time I looked at this
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: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 28th, 2014, 12:28 pm

Wes Wood wrote:Chapter 1, section 19 - Text and Hints
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote: [19] ἀλλὰ μὰ Δί᾽, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, οὐκ ἀφανεῖς εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ φανεροί. καὶ ὅτι πονηρότατοί γέ εἰσιν οὐδὲ σὲ λανθάνουσιν, εἴπερ πονηρίαν γε νομίζεις ἀργίαν τ᾽ εἶναι καὶ μαλακίαν ψυχῆς καὶ ἀμέλειαν.
Hints: Look at these if you need to
μὰ Δί᾽,: This is an oath. “By Jupiter.” I understand it here as more of an interjection.
καὶ πάνυ: These should be taken together and serve to strengthen a verb. What verb should be supplied for this construction to make sense? I disagree, but might be wrong. ἀλλὰ καὶ iis common enough in the New Testament.
πονηρότατοί: This is a superlative. “Grievous”
λανθάνουσιν: mid/passive: they let escape/forget active: they escape [just to see the different meaning in the different voices. This is for me. :) ] This verb will take an accusative of person here. Why are you talking about voices here? Do you take this as some kind of anti-deponent active form - mesopathetic form?
εἴπερ: if indeed, if really
πονηρίαν: wickedness, vice

Note: I am struggling to explain the part below. I would benefit from your assistance here, because I don’t think what I have written matches what I understand. Honestly speaking and not to daunt your endeavours, the feeling that you have described is the honest one in cross linguistic exchanges. The only effective way to translate is to be bilingual. I will try to make explicit exactly what I am thinking in my very free translation, and we can go from there if you are amenable.

νομίζεις: I took “ἀργίαν” as the object of this verb. This is all piece-meal. The structure is νομίζειν +2 accusatives (+εἶναι) "I think πονηρία is ἀργία, μαλακίαν ψυχῆς and ἀμέλειαν."
ἀργίαν: want of employment, laziness, idleness
εἶναι: I took “πονηρίαν” as the object of this verb.
τ᾽... καὶ... καὶ: I took the elements introduced by these as clarifying/explaining “ἀργίαν”
μαλακίαν ψυχῆς: “softness of life” I am unsure if this is referring to complacency or cowardice. I favor the former at the moment. Whatever is not ἀρετή, so both complacency or cowardice, depending on the situation.
ἀμέλειαν: indifference, negligence
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”