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 » October 7th, 2014, 1:08 am

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 3 - Feedback for Wes Wood
Xenophon, Economics 1.3 wrote:ἦ καὶ τὸν ἄλλου δὲ οἶκον, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, εἰ ἐπιτρέποι τις αὐτῷ, οὐκ ἂν δύναιτο, εἰ βούλοιτο, εὖ οἰκεῖν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ; ὁ μὲν γὰρ τεκτονικὴν ἐπιστάμενος ὁμοίως ἂν καὶ ἄλλῳ δύναιτο ἐργάζεσθαι ὅ τι περ καὶ ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ὁ οἰκονομικός γ᾽ ἂν ὡσαύτως. ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, ὦ Σώκρατες.
Wes Wood wrote:“Is it not true that a steward, if he had a mind to, would be able to manage another person’s house well, if such a house were entrusted to him, just as he manages his own?”[1]
“A skilled carpenter would indeed be able to build for another whatever he envisions[2] for himself, and a steward certainly would be able to manage the affairs of others in the same way. This is how it seems to me, O Socrates.”
Wes Wood wrote:I have taken some liberties with the text, but only after I have given it much thought. I can say with confidence that I am not attempting to artificially smooth anything out,
I whole-heartedly appreciate the attempt to make good English. If you do that sort of smoothing (into an English word order) for more than 4 elements in a sentence, you should manually check that you have included all elements of what you have worked with. Here you seemed to have missed ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης in that process.
Wes Wood wrote:[1] How do you know that a speaker change is being signaled here?
It says ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης (nominative) in the first section, then says ὦ Σώκρατες (vocative) in the next. Nominative means Socrates is speaking, vocative means he is being spoken to. That "signals" a change of speaker between these two sections here.
Wes Wood wrote:[2] I picture the project itself as being in view here and have loosely translated “ἐπιστάμενος” as “envisions” to bring this idea out. I felt that “after deciding what to build” was far too strong. Perhaps I am still incorrect...
Have you used ἐπιστάμενος twice in different senses? Or twice from different verbs (first ἐπίσταμαι then later ἐφίστημι)? If you wanted to be loose about translation, you could take the phrase ὁ ... τεκτονικὴν ἐπιστάμενος refers to someone who has finished his "apprenticeship", that sort of loosely equates with "has mastered the skills of carpentry", doesn't it?

The form ἐπιστάμενος, while derived from ἐπίσταμαι is related to the word ἐπιστήμη a field of knowledge, or ἐπιστήμων well-versed or acquainted with a thing. The LSJ entry for ἐπίσταμαι is a little difficult to follow, because you need to synthesise section IV where it mentions the present participle with section II where it talks about being well verse in a matter (in the accusative). In section II it mentions τὴν τέχνην, which as we read in section 1 of this first chapter of Xenophon is what ἡ οἰκονομία is also considered to be. τὴν ναυτικήν seamanship is also specifically mentioned there as coming by experience ἐμπειρίᾳ which is probably the case for all the manual trades.

The syntactic pattern in which to recognise ἐπίσταμαι is with the accusative, as we see here in this section we are reading, while ἐφίστημι is composed with the dative (in the VI sense that you may have been thinking of it) or an accusative with ἐπί plus either a genitive or dative.

It is not clear to me how you arrived at “after deciding what to build” that you wanted to make less strong.
Wes Wood wrote:I am still struggling with “ὅ τι περ καὶ ἑαυτῷ.” I didn’t want to spend more time on it, though, than I already have.
To beef out the ὅ τι περ καὶ ἑαυτῷ without the changes for indirect speech, it would become ὅ καὶ δύναιται ἐργάζεσθαι ἑαυτῷ "what he can make for himself".

Because Classical Greek and English work in different ways to render indirect speech, it might be useful while you are getting used to it, to follow a two-step process until you get used to the Greek way. Let me explain. Classical Greek changes the mood (to the optative) from direct to indirect speech, while English changes the tense (one step further to the past). The first step then is to imagine what the Greek would have been in the direct speech then change it to English, then second step, apply the English rules of shifting the tense back one step. Another way is to see an optative in a situation like this and mentally note that it is indicating indirect speech, rather than one of the other functions of the optative.

The whole sentence as it would have been said might have been, ὁ ... τεκτονικὴν ἐπιστάμενος ὁμοίως καὶ ἄλλῳ δύναιται ἐργάζεσθαι ὅπερ καὶ ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ὁ οἰκονομικός γ᾽ ὡσαύτως. "The skilled woodworker is able to make for another exactly the same things as for himself." If you want to render that into good English that would require a change of tense not mood, "Socrates said that a skilled woodworker could make for another exactly the same as for himself."

The vagueness of the Greek mood and the distance in time of the English tense are of course quite similar, suggesting a common human reaction to indirect speech expressed in the best possible way within the confines of the language system. In the same way as the various cultures are different expressions of our shared humanity. If we consider "indirect speech" as a phenomenon and the mood / tense change as convenient or conventional way of expressing that then Greek and English don't seem so different and the optative in this usage is not so "foreign" to us.
____________

You are right to take ἐπιτρέπω in the sense of entrust to another, rather than in the New Testament sense of allow or permit. It would have been prudent of me to mention that rather than simple pointing out it wasn't nominal (nominative plural). From the point of view of the one manager to the next, the new manager would receive (παραλαβεῖν) the estate from the previous one, but the appointment would be from the owner.
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 » October 7th, 2014, 1:27 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: your command of terminology far surpasses mine in this area.
If this is the case, it is only because I am working on that right now. I currently know far less than the basics.
The system of accent makes more sense for an earlier (tonal) period of the language. It seems like just a conventional system when reading in various pronunciation systems other than perhaps the Restored Classical.
Wes Wood wrote:I chose to go through Hebrews at that time because it was and is my favorite book of the New Testament
It would probably be worth reading some Greek tragedy, not only these prose works to improve your fluency in that work. The fluidity of word order that we see in Tragedy and Hebrews requires the honing of different skills for reading.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1895
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 7th, 2014, 1:46 am

You guys are doing quite well, actually, Stephen, I like the various parallels you are finding with NT materials, quite helpful. I'm taking a break from Lucian to read the Oeconomicus. I've read other Xenophon, but never that. So far good fun.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

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

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 7th, 2014, 7:43 am

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 7 - Text and hints

More preamble and definition of terms before the conversation proper gets underway:
Xenophon, Economics 1.7 wrote:ὅτι τοι ἡμῖν ἐδόκει οἶκος ἀνδρὸς εἶναι ὅπερ κτῆσις. νὴ Δί᾽, ἔφη ὁ Κριτόβουλος, ὅ τι γε τις ἀγαθὸν κέκτηται: οὐ μὰ Δί᾽ οὐκ εἴ τι κακόν, τοῦτο κτῆμα ἐγὼ καλῶ. σὺ δ᾽ ἔοικας τὰ ἑκάστῳ ὠφέλιμα κτήματα καλεῖν. πάνυ μὲν οὖν, ἔφη: τὰ δέ γε βλάπτοντα ζημίαν ἔγωγε νομίζω μᾶλλον ἢ χρήματα.
Hints (Look at these if you need to)
  • τοι - this is some sort of particle of emphasis. In the New Testament, we only find it preserved in the forms
    • τοίνυν "therefore" in for example Hebrews 13:13 Τοίνυν ἐξερχώμεθα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν αὐτοῦ φέροντες,
    • τοιγαροῦν "therefore" 1 Thessalonians 4:8 Τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ, ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸν καὶ δόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς.,
    • ἤτοι "whether" Romans 6:16 ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον, ἢ ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην;,
    • καίτοι "yet" Hebrews 4:3 καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων.,
    • Καίτοιγε "yet" Acts 14:17 Καίτοιγε οὐκ ἀμάρτυρον ἑαυτὸν ἀφῆκεν and
    • μέντοι "yet" . John 7:13 Οὐδεὶς μέντοι παρρησίᾳ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων.
  • ὅπερ - exactly equivalent to, being the same as
  • κτῆσις - possession (the act of possessing).
  • ἀγαθὸν - in philosophical dialogue is more than just what is good at the moment of discussion, but in the singular like this, it can also mean what will lead to the best possible outcome, or be the best possible outcome itself which we should work towards. Let me mention again the Mark 4:3 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν ἀγαθοποιῆσαι ( SLB NA-UBS ἀγαθὸν ποιῆσαι), ἢ κακοποιῆσαι; Ψυχὴν σῶσαι, ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι; Οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων. to indicate this. I take it to be that in Romans 5:7 Μόλις γὰρ ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται· ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν. rather than referring to a good man, but not everyone does. Romans 7:13 Τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ γέγονεν θάνατος; Μὴ γένοιτο. Ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία, διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μοι κατεργαζομένη θάνατον — ἵνα γένηται καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλὸς ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς. seems to also be a discussion along similar lines. It holds a position in thinking such as "the right thing to do", or "the common sense thing to do" do in our society.
  • κακόν - This is of course taken as the opposite of κακόν, as at Romans 7:19 Οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω, ποιῶ ἀγαθόν· ἀλλ’ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακόν, τοῦτο πράσσω. It ends up being in the wrong direction. It is a bit had to grasp these ideas at first, because we need to take (on) a different world view, in order to understand the terms in which Paul is expressing himself. Reading a discourse in a Hellenistic environment involves understanding that environment. That is part of learning any language though, isn't it.
  • ἔοικας - as δοκεῖ μοι is to the person thinking the thing, so ἔοικας is to person listening to the person thinking something (but not saying what they think). "It seems to me..." vs. "You seem to think..." In English we wouldn't say, "It seems to you..." , but we use a different construction. In Greek we use a different verb. Same language need, different solution (different idiomatic way of expressing). Here it is ἔοικα used in a syntactical pattern with the infinitive. The New Testament usages of this verb in James 1:6 Αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος· ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ. (and again in verse 23) are a different usage (syntactical pattern) of this verb (with a dative of the person or thing which is resembled).
  • καλεῖν - with two accusatives, it means one thing is called another thing. Mark 10:18 Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ θεός. has that same structure of using λέγω to make an equivalence between an adjective and a noun. In John 15:15 Οὐκέτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδεν τί ποιεῖ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. equates two nouns (okay pronoun and noun)
  • ὠφέλιμα - profitable (adj). We see a similar expression at Titus 3:8 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ. Ταῦτά ἐστιν τὰ καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις·
  • πάνυ - a particle of emphasis, common enough in Classical Greek, not used in the New Testament.
  • τὰ ... βλάπτοντα (κτήματα) - those things (possessions) which are harmful. If we look at Mark 16:18 ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν· κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψῃ· (if you are interested, the word for venom is ἰός as in Romans 13:3 ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·) and Luke 4:35 Καὶ ῥίψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν. might suggest that τὰ ... βλάπτοντα could be expanded out with an object, (in the accusative, i.e. τὰ τίνα βλάπτοντα "those things which harm someone"), following the pattern in Romans 2:14 Ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, but I think that it is likely that it would be left absolute (without a specific referent).
  • ζημία - loss Acts 27:10 Ἄνδρες, θεωρῶ ὅτι μετὰ ὕβρεως καὶ πολλῆς ζημίας, ... , μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν (voyage). Acts 27:1 Ἔδει μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πειθαρχήσαντάς μοι μὴ ἀνάγεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς Κρήτης, κερδῆσαί τε τὴν ὕβριν ταύτην καὶ τὴν ζημίαν. Philippians 3:7 Ἀλλ’ ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν χριστὸν ζημίαν. Philippians 3:8 Ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου·
  • νομίζειν - consider (mostly based on what you know, with a little presumption) 1 Corinthians 7:26 Νομίζω οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν and (if we consider infinitives as nominals) Acts 14:19 καὶ λιθάσαντες τὸν Παῦλον, ἔσυρον ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, νομίσαντες αὐτὸν τεθνάναι. and it is spelt out with a verb to be at 1 Timothy 6:5 νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν.
  • θεωρεῖν vs. νομίζειν vs. ἡγεῖσθαι - All are based on previously held information or vqlues, the θεωρῶ is a conjectured possibility based on reasonable deduction, while νομίζω (similar to καλεῖν in its sense here) involves adding ones reasonable understanding to a present situation (without knowing ALL the details) and coming to a conclusion of some equivalence Luke 2:4 νομίσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ εἶναι, ἡγεῖσθαι involves adding a value judgement to a situation, reflecting a set of personal or social values Acts 26:2 ἥγημαι ἐμαυτὸν μακάριον. Philippians 2:3 ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν· 2 Thessalonians 3:15 καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν. Hebrews 11:11 Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα δύναμιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν, καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας ἔτεκεν, ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλάμενον.
  • μᾶλλον ἢ - rather than. It might appear that there are two possibilities here for interpreting this. Either it is a choice that he has made between two things and he is considering the harmful things to be loss rather considering them to be useful, OR he considers them to be loss because they cause cause harm, while other would consider them possessions (albiet harmful ones) because they are objectively speaking wealth.
  • χρήματα - wealth, property. If we think in terms of movement on a chart, χρήματα is the steady line on the chart, κέρδος is how much you can make and it goes up by, περιουσία is how much extra there is above what there was before, and ζημία is how much it goes down.
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 » October 7th, 2014, 11:40 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I like the various parallels you are finding with NT materials, quite helpful.
The more the merrier.

I'm afraid that adding more than glosses and simple explanations will make the so-called "hints".

It was actually your suggestion that I could add parallels for the to New Testament passages and publish them.

I've taken that and turned it around a bit to try to find textual parallels at a phrase level for obscure and lesser used syntactical constructions.

Three years ago I wanted meanings in Greek, but rhat is easy now. Two years ago obscure words interested me, but now I seems they are best dealt with in terms of the full word-set in and outside the New Testament - an ongoing endeavour. After that word-sets including antonyms and synonyms seem like they will work themselves out over time with practice. So now I think obscure grammar is perhaps the least boring aspect of Greek for me these days.

I'm afraid that my own interest will burden some readers who would otherwise benefit from this reading, but really don't need more than glosses to let them read.

The present approach is different from what I took with Lysias. The adage that you can't please everyone, so you may as well please yourself seemed appropriate. Eventually, I will reverse index this to become a list of obscure syntactic patterns, I'm sure this help my overall present personal aims, but I'm not sure if that serves the present purpose to encourage others to read widely.

Musing, musing ...

Wes is very good to expose his ignorance to public scrutiny this second time, and I'm grateful for that. If your scholarship would like to join me in adding to his knowledge or in correcting my misunderstandings, then that would be of benefit to the many. This, of course, is a task that that should have fallen to someone with education and experience in Greek such as you, Ed, Carl, Stephen, Clay, or one of the other big names, but it was only through my impudence and lack if patience that I undertook this task which is very clearly beyond my ability.

My general plan is to ready this first chapter then to wait for the reader(s) to catch up, then (if there is interest) to go on till the VI. The VII - XIII are available in the Bristol Classics Press edition. So we either do that together or don't. Then perhaps, to go on the end from chapter XIV.

Let us see what people can stand of my saturation of the channel. :lol: :lol:
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 » October 7th, 2014, 6:33 pm

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 4

Xenophon, Economics 1.4 wrote:
ἔστιν ἄρα, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἐπισταμένῳ, καὶ εἰ μὴ αὐτὸς τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων, τὸν ἄλλου οἶκον οἰκονομοῦντα ὥσπερ καὶ οἰκοδομοῦντα μισθοφορεῖν; νὴ Δία καὶ πολύν γε μισθόν, ἔφη ὁ Κριτόβουλος, φέροιτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ δύναιτο οἶκον παραλαβὼν τελεῖν τε ὅσα δεῖ καὶ περιουσίαν ποιῶν αὔξειν τὸν οἶκον.

Socrates said, “Is the profession in which the steward [one who is managing another’s household] has been trained worthy to be given a salary like the one which is given to the person who is building a house, even if the steward himself doesn’t happen to have property?”

Kritoboulos replied, “By Jupiter, he should be paid and also* be given a reward if, after taking on the stewardship of a house, he was able to both pay the necessary bills for the household and to make its affluence increase.”

Again, I am striving for the sense of it.

*I think this is what is being said, but I admit uncertainty.
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 » October 7th, 2014, 7:43 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote: It says ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης (nominative) in the first section, then says ὦ Σώκρατες (vocative) in the next. Nominative means Socrates is speaking, vocative means he is being spoken to. That "signals" a change of speaker between these two sections here.
Sorry that I wasn't very clear here. I was meaning more specifically how do you know that the change in speaker occurred where it did. I originally understood the majority of the dialogue to be from the lips of Socrates with Kritoboulus simply giving the verbal equivalent of a nod of agreement. I wondered if I was missing some other more subtle clue.
Stephen Hughes wrote: Have you used ἐπιστάμενος twice in different senses? Or twice from different verbs (first ἐπίσταμαι then later ἐφίστημι)?
I believe I arrived there from two separate verbs. You may find this hard to believe given my usual it-seems-to-be-to-well-remembered-not-to-be-artificially-manufactured-but-unbelievably-is-the-truth-nonetheless answers, but I can't exactly remember. The other possibility that I am considering is that I qualified the skill of the builder to account for the skill needed for different types of jobs. This is somewhat unrelated, but I remember thinking about the different skills that would be necessary to build a house in the country versus building a skyscraper. I remember wondering if that type of skill specialization would have existed.
Stephen Hughes wrote: It is not clear to me how you arrived at “after deciding what to build” that you wanted to make less strong.
I did the paraphrase from memory without looking at the text or my translation, wrote it down (this is when I left out the speakers, one of them permanently), and compared it to what it was supposed to be a paraphrase of. It was clear then that it couldn't be supported by the text even if that was the idea in my head.
Stephen Hughes wrote:The system of accent makes more sense for an earlier (tonal) period of the language. It seems like just a conventional system when reading in various pronunciation systems other than perhaps the Restored Classical.
I would tend to agree, but, if I am going to try to compose, it makes sense to try to learn it as I go. Some of the restored classical that I have heard almost seems...pretentious. (I am not saying that it is, only that it makes me think of Pygmalion.)
Stephen Hughes wrote: It would probably be worth reading some Greek tragedy, not only these prose works to improve your fluency in that work. The fluidity of word order that we see in Tragedy and Hebrews requires the honing of different skills for reading.
I would love to, but I am feeling a bit stretched thin already. I would like to believe that some of the fruit of my efforts during our respite have been noticeable, but I know I don't have much time left to try to add something else. Besides, I KNOW my wife has already been very patient with me. She is amazing! It would be wrong of me to neglect her any more than I already am, even for something as much fun as Greek. Sorry for the sickening sweetness. (And the alliteration.)
Stephen Hughes wrote:Wes is very good to expose his ignorance to public scrutiny this second time, and I'm grateful for that.
I am grateful that you are willing to do this and that your back hasn't gotten tired yet from carrying me around. I frequently tell my own students (You may rest peacefully; they are chemistry students.) that there is no harm in admitting that you don't know something and that asking questions and making mistakes is part of the learning process. At the very least, they can't accuse me of being hypocritical :lol: .
Barry Hofstetter wrote: You guys are doing quite well, actually, Stephen, I like the various parallels you are finding with NT materials, quite helpful. I'm taking a break from Lucian to read the Oeconomicus. I've read other Xenophon, but never that. So far good fun.
Thanks for the encouraging words. I am glad that others are enjoying the readings also.
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 » October 7th, 2014, 8:24 pm

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 5

“But what exactly [1] do we think an estate is? Are all these things, the house and the things that have been acquired outside of the house, part of stewardship also?” [2]

“It certainly seems so to me.” Kritoboulus replied, “And if all of the things that have been acquired are not in this city, they are still a part of the household to be managed. [3]


[1] Equal parts “informed” decision and stylistic smoothing. I am not 100% on δὴ τί, even if I did happen to come close to the correct sense.
[2] I am not sure if I have treated ὅπερ appropriately. Would it be “for stewardship...is [involves] all of these things? I will apologize now in case this question makes absolutely no sense.
[3] I am not very sure about this at all. I am going to be a little bit more literal here to try to make sure I am understanding this correctly. At the very least, maybe it will help you see where I was coming from “and if not in this city exists what has been acquired, all these things are a part of the household to be managed, as many things as the owner has.”
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 » October 7th, 2014, 10:24 pm

Wes Wood wrote:Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 4 - Some of the feedback for Wes Wood
Xenophon, Economics 1.4 wrote:ἔστιν ἄρα, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἐπισταμένῳ, καὶ εἰ μὴ αὐτὸς τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων, τὸν ἄλλου οἶκον οἰκονομοῦντα ὥσπερ καὶ οἰκοδομοῦντα μισθοφορεῖν; ...
Socrates said, “Is the profession in which the steward [one who is managing another’s household] has been trained worthy to be given a salary like the one which is given to the person who is building a house, even if the steward himself doesn’t happen to have property?”
...
Again, I am striving for the sense of it.
Let me just square off on the first part first...

As you skill at manipulating the Greek at a sentence level (a good thing) increases, it is more difficult for me to follow the rendering. Here are a few things that might be relevant...
  • ἔστιν - reconsider this (look at the accent) - nemesis #3 - Look at the syntax ἔστιν ... ἐπισταμένῳ ... μισθοφορεῖν; The case of the subject changes part of the way through too. "It is proper ... for X .. to Y
  • τύχοι (+ participle) - nemesis #1 - χρήματα ἔχων "(if/when) he has money"τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων "He happens to be having money" -> μὴ τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων "He happens to not be having money -> μὴ αὐτὸς τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων "He himself happens to not be having money At a basic level, you could understand this as a circumstantial participle μὴ ἔχων χρήματα "When he doesn't have money (to buy his own estate)."
    worthy ? - is that a valid understanding of ἔστιν or are you thinking of the NT passage 1 Timothy 5:18 Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
  • μισθοφορεῖν - take home a wage. Your paraphrase has turned this in the wrong direction (it is only similar not equivalent to μισθαποδότης, cf. Matthew 20:8 Κάλεσον τοὺς ἐργάτας, καὶ ἀπόδος αὐτοῖς τὸν μισθόν,)
  • τὸν ἄλλου οἶκον οἰκονομοῦντα = (ἔστιν) τῷ ἄλλου οἶκον οἰκονομοῦντι μισθοφορεῖν AND ὥσπερ καὶ οἰκοδομοῦντα μισθοφορεῖν = ὥσπερ καὶ (ἔστιν) τῷ ἄλλου οἶκον οἰκοδομοῦντι μισθοφορεῖν. The case changes to the accusative because the sentence is long, and in that part of the sentence the central element is the infinitive, and (except in extenuating circumstances) the subject of the infinitive is in the accusative.
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 » October 8th, 2014, 5:42 pm

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 4 -Feedback Reply
Stephen Hughes wrote:ἔστιν - reconsider this (look at the accent) - nemesis #3 - Look at the syntax ἔστιν ... ἐπισταμένῳ ... μισθοφορεῖν; The case of the subject changes part of the way through too. "It is proper ... for X .. to Y
I missed this. This only indirectly explains my “exactly,” more on that below.
Stephen Hughes wrote:τύχοι (+ participle) - nemesis #1 - χρήματα ἔχων "(if/when) he has money"τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων "He happens to be having money" -> μὴ τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων "He happens to not be having money -> μὴ αὐτὸς τύχοι χρήματα ἔχων "He himself happens to not be having money At a basic level, you could understand this as a circumstantial participle μὴ ἔχων χρήματα "When he doesn't have money (to buy his own estate)."
For the first time ever, I am pleased with my handling of “τύχοι” here. What I believe caused some of my difficulty was χρήματα and my uncertainty as to what was being implied (to buy his own estate). My initial reaction was that the steward was destitute and they were discussing whether or not someone like that was capable of doing the job, but that didn’t make sense. Eventually, I decided that the phrase was referring to whether or not he would be fit to manage someone else’s property if he didn’t have any himself and arrived at “even if the steward himself doesn’t happen to have property.”

What I think messed the whole thing up for me was the combination of misreading ἔστιν and misunderstanding μισθοφορεῖν. Let me try to render literally what I was thinking.
Wesley Wood Rigid Translation wrote:“Socrates said, “Is it-this trade in which the steward has been trained, even if he does not happen to have property himself-the one managing the estate of another just as also the one building the house μισθοφορεῖν.”
I believed the passage was dealing with whether the steward should be paid for his work like a builder. The only way that I could bring that out that idea was to add “worthy.” At the back of my mind I was thinking “is this something a slave could do for free?”
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”