Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
					Forum rules
This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
	This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Archilochus (mid 7th c. BCE) is the earliest and one of the most versatile of the archaic Greek lyric poets. He wrote in many meters and in a great variety of genres and moods, including bitter invective, fable, and lyric reflections such as this sketch of something that he saw and liked.
Two full lines and two partial lines that seem to belong together even if they don’t quite fit together metrically. The vocabulary may be mostly new to you, but the syntax is simple
Meter: This rhythm is called Iambic Trimeter, meaning that the line consists of three metra (metrical units), each of which is configured in the pattern ˘ ¯ ˘ ¯ — except that the first syllable of each metron may be anceps (a word meaning “two-headed” but used of a syllable that may be either short or long). In the iambic metron the second foot must always be an iamb ( ˘ ¯ ). The final syllable of the line is considered a long syllable even if it has a short vowel; this is sometimes explained in terms of the line-end functioning like a rest in a musical sequence. As I have done previously with Sappho, so here too I shall mark the syllables bearing the metrical stress with bold letters.
1 ἔχουσα θαλλὸν μυρσίνης ἐτέρπετο
2 ῥοδῆς τε καλὸν ἄνθος.
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ἡ δέ οἱ κόμη
4 ὤμους κατεσκίαζε καὶ μετάφρενα.
line 1: ἔχουσα: gender? This is the only clue regarding the subject of the verb ἐτέρπετο
line 1: θαλλός, -ου, m.: young branch, green shoot -- perhaps a "sprig"
line 1: μυρσίνη, -ης, f. (later Attic: μυρρίνη): myrtle
line 1: τέρπεσθαι: take one's pleasure, enjoy ("doing something" -- here with a participle as complement)
line 2: ῥοδῆ, -ῆς, f.: rose, rose bush (the noun is a contraction of ῥοδέα)
line 2: ἄνθος, -ους, n.: bloom, blossom
line 3: ἡ: the article construed with κόμη -- or, to be more accurate, this is perhaps more a weak pronoun than an article: "and that -- over her -- (her) hair ..."
line 3: οἱ = the dative sg. of the original 3rd-person pronoun; cf. Smyth, §§325, 325D.
line 3: κόμη, -ης, f., hair
line 4: ὦμος, -ου, m.: shoulder
line 4: κατασκιάζειν (κατὰ + σκία, “shadow”): overshadow, cast a shadow down over
line 4: μετάφρενον, -ου, n.: broad of the back; μετὰ τὰς φρένας (“beyond the midriff”)
			
			
									
									Two full lines and two partial lines that seem to belong together even if they don’t quite fit together metrically. The vocabulary may be mostly new to you, but the syntax is simple
Meter: This rhythm is called Iambic Trimeter, meaning that the line consists of three metra (metrical units), each of which is configured in the pattern ˘ ¯ ˘ ¯ — except that the first syllable of each metron may be anceps (a word meaning “two-headed” but used of a syllable that may be either short or long). In the iambic metron the second foot must always be an iamb ( ˘ ¯ ). The final syllable of the line is considered a long syllable even if it has a short vowel; this is sometimes explained in terms of the line-end functioning like a rest in a musical sequence. As I have done previously with Sappho, so here too I shall mark the syllables bearing the metrical stress with bold letters.
1 ἔχουσα θαλλὸν μυρσίνης ἐτέρπετο
2 ῥοδῆς τε καλὸν ἄνθος.
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ἡ δέ οἱ κόμη
4 ὤμους κατεσκίαζε καὶ μετάφρενα.
line 1: ἔχουσα: gender? This is the only clue regarding the subject of the verb ἐτέρπετο
line 1: θαλλός, -ου, m.: young branch, green shoot -- perhaps a "sprig"
line 1: μυρσίνη, -ης, f. (later Attic: μυρρίνη): myrtle
line 1: τέρπεσθαι: take one's pleasure, enjoy ("doing something" -- here with a participle as complement)
line 2: ῥοδῆ, -ῆς, f.: rose, rose bush (the noun is a contraction of ῥοδέα)
line 2: ἄνθος, -ους, n.: bloom, blossom
line 3: ἡ: the article construed with κόμη -- or, to be more accurate, this is perhaps more a weak pronoun than an article: "and that -- over her -- (her) hair ..."
line 3: οἱ = the dative sg. of the original 3rd-person pronoun; cf. Smyth, §§325, 325D.
line 3: κόμη, -ης, f., hair
line 4: ὦμος, -ου, m.: shoulder
line 4: κατασκιάζειν (κατὰ + σκία, “shadow”): overshadow, cast a shadow down over
line 4: μετάφρενον, -ου, n.: broad of the back; μετὰ τὰς φρένας (“beyond the midriff”)
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
						ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
- 
				Stephen Hughes
 - Posts: 3323
 - Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
 
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Beautiful descriptive imagery. Very easy to use helps.
			
			
									
									Is referant of this pronoun the nymph (?) or the hair?cwconrad wrote:line 3: οἱ = ἑαυτῇ; οἱ is the dative sg. of the original reflexive pronoun, orignally σϝοι (cf. Latin sibi)
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
						(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Text:Stephen Hughes wrote:Beautiful descriptive imagery. Very easy to use helps.Is referent of this pronoun the nymph (?) or the hair?cwconrad wrote:line 3: οἱ = ἑαυτῇ; οἱ is the dative sg. of the original reflexive pronoun, orignally σϝοι (cf. Latin sibi)
It's the girl, surely; ordinarily one would English this as "her hair ... " It's curious how the dative does duty for the genitive in some dialects. I remember an inscription in an old book in my family, "John, his book" -- and common usage in Bavarian German is a combination of the dative article and possessive pronominal: "dem Georg sein Buch".ἡ δέ οἱ κόμη
4 ὤμους κατεσκίαζε καὶ μετάφρενα
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
						ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
- 
				Stephen Hughes
 - Posts: 3323
 - Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
 
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Is that original reflexive pronoun specific to a person or number?cwconrad wrote:Text:Stephen Hughes wrote:Beautiful descriptive imagery. Very easy to use helps.Is referent of this pronoun the nymph (?) or the hair?cwconrad wrote:line 3: οἱ = ἑαυτῇ; οἱ is the dative sg. of the original reflexive pronoun, orignally σϝοι (cf. Latin sibi)It's the girl, surely; ordinarily one would English this as "her hair ... " It's curious how the dative does duty for the genitive in some dialects. I remember an inscription in an old book in my family, "John, his book" -- and common usage in Bavarian German is a combination of the dative article and possessive pronominal: "dem Georg sein Buch".ἡ δέ οἱ κόμη
4 ὤμους κατεσκίαζε καὶ μετάφρενα
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
						(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Text: 
			
			
									
									ἡ δέ οἱ κόμη
4 ὤμους κατεσκίαζε καὶ μετάφρενα
cwconrad wrote:line 3: οἱ = ἑαυτῇ; οἱ is the dative sg. of the original reflexive pronoun, orignally σϝοι (cf. Latin sibi)
It is singular; actually this is the ancient 3rd person singular pronoun, not reflexive, as I previously indicated. Cf. Smyth, §§325, 325D. These 3rd person pronominal forms are common in Homer. I believe that I mis-remembered when I wrote that οἱ was derivative from σϝοι; rather the very early Greek σϝε- that is cognate to the Latin reflexive pronoun sui, sib, se, se is reflected in the ἑ- of the regular ancient Greek reflexive ἑαυτοῦ/ἑαυτῆς/ἑαυτοῦ κτλ. I'll go back and edit the original post.Stephen Hughes wrote:Is that original reflexive pronoun specific to a person or number?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
						ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
- 
				Stephen Hughes
 - Posts: 3323
 - Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
 
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
What is the difference between a direct and an indirect reflexive?
			
			
									
									Smyth 325d wrote:d. Of the forms of the third personal pronoun only the datives οἷ and σφίσι(ν) are commonly used in Attic prose, and then only as indirect reflexives (1228). ...
For the forms of this pronoun in Homer, cf. Henry Clark Johnson. The First Three Books of Homer's Iliad with Lexicon. Second Edition. New York. 1890. Page 215. An edition of the Illiad written by an authour determined to keep it simple.Smyth 1228 N3 wrote:ἑαυτοῦ, etc., are either direct or indirect reflexives, οἷ and σφίσι are only indirect reflexives.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
						(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
- 
				Stephen Hughes
 - Posts: 3323
 - Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
 
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Clearly, my thinking is one step behind what is happening in this thread. 
Here is how things unfolded:
Did Greek of this early period have similar aspect distinction to Hellenistic times? Why are the full verbs imperfect here?
			
			
									
									Here is how things unfolded:
- You read it as refexive.
 - I questioned that by suggesting that reflexive would refer to the hair.
 - You compared the Greek to a different Latin word and took it as an early form of the 3rd person singular pronoun.
 - I tried to work out what type of reflexive it was.  
 
ἐκ τούτου, I should wear the dunce's cap for the rest of the afternoon, and go and read some more early epic. 
are all present / imperfect.ἔχουσα ... ἐτέρπετο ... κατεσκίαζε
Did Greek of this early period have similar aspect distinction to Hellenistic times? Why are the full verbs imperfect here?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
						(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
I think that I must have been a six-year-old when I last understood the difference between a direct reflexive and an indirect reflexive! When the question arises regarding the difference between direct and indirect elements, what comes to my mind is the distinction between πῶς and ὅπως, between ποῦ and ὅπου, between τίς and ὅστις. The first of each of these pairs respectively is a direct interrogative conjunction, the second is an indirect interrogative conjunction. The direct form is used in a direct question: πῶς ταῦτα ποιήσετε;, the indirect form is used in an indirect question: ἐπιδεῖξατε ἡμἱν ὅπως ταῦτα ποιήσετε. The indirect form is used in a subordinate clause. The same distinction holds for direct and indirect reflexives: the one is used in primary clauses, the other in subordinate clauses. Okay?Stephen Hughes wrote:What is the difference between a direct and an indirect reflexive?
Smyth 325d wrote:d. Of the forms of the third personal pronoun only the datives οἷ and σφίσι(ν) are commonly used in Attic prose, and then only as indirect reflexives (1228). ...For the forms of this pronoun in Homer, cf. Henry Clark Johnson. The First Three Books of Homer's Iliad with Lexicon. Second Edition. New York. 1890. Page 215. An edition of the Illiad written by an authour determined to keep it simple.Smyth 1228 N3 wrote:ἑαυτοῦ, etc., are either direct or indirect reflexives, οἷ and σφίσι are only indirect reflexives.
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attrib. to Albert Einstein)
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
						ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
My understanding of the sequence is a bit different: I laid out my accounting for that Archilochian text; you found and exposed my error. I might not have made the error if I hadn't left well enough alone, but I went on and tried to account for the origin of the dative pronominal form οἱ -- it turns out that my account was off-base: it wasn't a reflexive at all but an ordinary pronoun, albeit not one that remained in use in later Greek prose. I tried to correct my error, but you, οἶστρος that you are, kept lighting on the drowsy horse ...Stephen Hughes wrote:Clearly, my thinking is one step behind what is happening in this thread.
Here is how things unfolded:
- You read it as refexive.
 - I questioned that by suggesting that reflexive would refer to the hair.
 - You compared the Greek to a different Latin word and took it as an early form of the 3rd person singular pronoun.
 - I tried to work out what type of reflexive it was.
 ![]()
ἐκ τούτου, I should wear the dunce's cap for the rest of the afternoon, and go and read some more early epic.
Is there something more involved here than depiction of an event unfolding in the course of a (relatively) brief span of time? My reading is this: it is the unfolding of a scene; the poet caught a glimpse of the girl in a quiet moment of observation and described what was happening during that brief interval of his contemplation of the girl. Poets and six-year-olds -- and readers of lyric poetry -- tend to be quiet observers and eavesdroppers.Stephen Hughes wrote:Another question, the verbsare all present / imperfect.ἔχουσα ... ἐτέρπετο ... κατεσκίαζε
Did Greek of this early period have similar aspect distinction to Hellenistic times? Why are the full verbs imperfect here?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
						ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
- 
				Stephen Hughes
 - Posts: 3323
 - Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
 
Re: Archilochus 30-31W: Afternoon of a nymph?
Well, what interested me was not the error - I have just recently stated in the Shield of Hercules thread that various persons were standing to the left and right of the picture (ie beside the picture) that they are quite evidently in, and I will have to correct that when I actually work out what it should be corrected to... The only people who don't make errors are those who don't do anything, and that in itself is an error of sorts.cwconrad wrote:My understanding of the sequence is a bit different: I laid out my accounting for that Archilochian text; you found and exposed my error. I might not have made the error if I hadn't left well enough alone, but I went on and tried to account for the origin of the dative pronominal form οἱ -- it turns out that my account was off-base: it wasn't a reflexive at all but an ordinary pronoun, albeit not one that remained in use in later Greek prose. I tried to correct my error, but you, οἶστρος that you are, kept lighting on the drowsy horse ...Stephen Hughes wrote:Clearly, my thinking is one step behind what is happening in this thread.
Here is how things unfolded:
- You read it as refexive.
 - I questioned that by suggesting that reflexive would refer to the hair.
 - You compared the Greek to a different Latin word and took it as an early form of the 3rd person singular pronoun.
 - I tried to work out what type of reflexive it was.
 ![]()
ἐκ τούτου, I should wear the dunce's cap for the rest of the afternoon, and go and read some more early epic.
What I was interested in is the relationship between reflexives and subject affected verb forms, which is what your analysis proposed it as. I had wondered whether direct and indirect referred to them being used together with subject affected or object affected verbs. BUT of course the pondering persisted longer than the valid opportunity for it did. Not that there ever actually was an opportunity, but it is something that I have been meaning to get around to seeing if it exists to be looked at.
It seems, according to the Homer grammar I put the hyperlink to, that the reflexive in Homer is constructed of the third person pronoun (that we are discussing) plus a form of αὐτός. In itself, no problem, taking that at face value is as good a strategy as any, but the what then... It turns up later as a reflexive, and only in a narrow pattern of usage. That raises so many questions that fade into silence like shouting in the desert - where nothing reflects the sound back to us - without reply or answer. Why become reflexive within a quiet sort time, why only the dative ... ? The easiest question that there might be an answer for was the limitation of the range of usage one. So hence the question you answered so sanely in the previous post.
I could be that the image lasted in his mind for a long time or recurrently. The "brief interval" that you mention become long in his memory.cwconrad wrote:Is there something more involved here than depiction of an event unfolding in the course of a (relatively) brief span of time? My reading is this: it is the unfolding of a scene; the poet caught a glimpse of the girl in a quiet moment of observation and described what was happening during that brief interval of his contemplation of the girl. Poets and six-year-olds -- and readers of lyric poetry -- tend to be quiet observers and eavesdroppers.Stephen Hughes wrote:Another question, the verbsare all present / imperfect.ἔχουσα ... ἐτέρπετο ... κατεσκίαζε
Did Greek of this early period have similar aspect distinction to Hellenistic times? Why are the full verbs imperfect here?
					Last edited by Stephen Hughes on March 15th, 2015, 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
									
			
									Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
						(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)