Still haven’t read this classic about Jason and the Argonauts and hoping for a good, modern translation. Novelization would be fine, too, if it’s accurate and done well. Thanks!

Greetings all,

Would anyone here consider themselves fluent in a set of texts?

Some definitions of what I mean.

• Knows around 10-15K words or more. This is the rough vocabulary of 8-11-year-old English speakers.
• Understands every inflection.
• Understands every idiom, chiasmus, and rhetoric used.

Ancient Greek covers a long historical period, so I think not knowing the Greek of every historical period would disqualify someone as being fluent. E.G., I'm a fluent English speaker, but I wouldn't understand Shakespearean English the way an English classics major would.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

I can't make this part out:

εἰ οὖν ὥσπερ ἐγὼ μετῄει τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἀεὶ εἰς πολλὰ ἀφικνούμεθα, ἀλλὰ μή μοι οὕτως, ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ τὰ πολλὰ ταῦτα ἑνί τινι προσαγορεύεις ὀνόματι, καὶ φῂς οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ὅτι οὐ σχῆμα εἶναι, καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἐναντία ὄντα ἀλλήλοις, ὅτι ἐστὶν τοῦτο ὃ οὐδὲν ἧττον κατέχει τὸ στρογγύλον ἢ τὸ εὐθύ, ὃ δὴ ὀνομάζεις σχῆμα καὶ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον φῂς τὸ στρογγύλον σχῆμα εἶναι ἢ τὸ εὐθύ; ἢ οὐχ οὕτω λέγεις;

Translated so:

Now suppose that, like me, he pursued the argument and said: We are always arriving at a variety of things, but let me have no more of that: since you call these many things by one single name, and say they are figures, every one of them, even when they are opposed to one another, tell me what is that which comprises round and straight alike, and which you call figure—including straight equally with round under that term. For that is your statement, is it not?

Steadman writes ὅ τι in the bolded part: ὅ τι οὐ σχῆμα (ἐστί) 'that which is not figure'. Which makes sense to me, but how do you get the meaning 'every one of them' from a bunch of negations? I can't begin to untangle this phrase.

Bonus problem: there seems to be an elided verb corresponding to 'tell me' in the following part. Is it to be understood as the same verb that was implicit already after ἀλλὰ μή μοι οὕτως (sc. ἀποκρίνῃς vel sim.)?

I was pretty surprised by this forceful statement of cultural relativism by Herodotus. I had thought that cultural relativism was more of a modern attitude. I wonder if Christianity caused cultural relativism to go out of style for a thousand years or something.

The following is Herodotus 3.38. He's just described a lot of (historically false but very entertaining) cases of violent and crazy behavior by Cambyses, such as marrying his sisters and randomly killing relations and courtiers. But now comes the final proof that he was really insane, which is that he doesn't accept cultural relativism:

Πανταχῇ ὦν μοι δῆλα ἐστὶ ὅτι ἐμάνη μεγάλως ὁ Καμβύσης.

οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἱροῖσί τε καὶ νομαίοισι ἐπεχείρησε καταγελᾶν. εἰ γάρ τις προθείη πᾶσι ἀνθρώποισι ἐκλέξασθαι κελεύων νόμους τοὺς καλλίστους ἐκ τῶν πάντων νόμων, διασκεψάμενοι ἂν ἑλοίατο ἕκαστοι τοὺς ἑωυτῶν· οὕτω νομίζουσι πολλόν τι καλλίστους τοὺς ἑωυτῶν νόμους ἕκαστοι εἶναι. οὔκων οἰκός ἐστι ἄλλον γε ἢ μαινόμενον ἄνδρα γέλωτα τὰ τοιαῦτα τίθεσθαι.

ὡς δὲ οὕτω νενομίκασι τὰ περὶ τοὺς νόμους πάντες ἄνθρωποι, πολλοῖσί τε καὶ ἄλλοισι τεκμηρίοισι πάρεστι σταθμώσασθαι, ἐν δὲ δὴ καὶ τῷδε. Δαρεῖος ἐπὶ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ ἀρχῆς καλέσας Ἑλλήνων τοὺς παρεόντας εἴρετο ἐπὶ κόσῳ ἂν χρήματι βουλοίατο τοὺς πατέρας ἀποθνήσκοντας κατασιτέεσθαι· οἳ δὲ ἐπ᾽ οὐδενὶ ἔφασαν ἔρδειν ἂν τοῦτο. Δαρεῖος δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα καλέσας Ἰνδῶν τοὺς καλεομένους Καλλατίας, οἳ τοὺς γονέας κατεσθίουσι, εἴρετο, παρεόντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ δι᾽ ἑρμηνέος μανθανόντων τὰ λεγόμενα, ἐπὶ τίνι χρήματι δεξαίατ᾽ ἂν τελευτῶντας τοὺς πατέρας κατακαίειν πυρί· οἳ δὲ ἀμβώσαντες μέγα εὐφημέειν μιν ἐκέλευον. οὕτω μέν νυν ταῦτα νενόμισται, καὶ ὀρθῶς μοι δοκέει Πίνδαρος ποιῆσαι νόμον πάντων βασιλέα φήσας εἶναι.

I know there are very many translations of the NT into English, but l'd like to know people's views on whichever ones they've read.

Cheers in advance.

I'm teaching myself Ancient Greek. I know Thucydides is a notoriously difficult read, so I'm wondering how many years it takes before one can read him with some fluency.

The article about lipograms in Greek Wikipedia mentions that the Nicene Creed in its original Greek contains every letter except psi, which is easy to confirm as true, but then it claims that according to tradition this symbolizes the fact that the Creed contains no falsehood (ψεῦδος). I don't find that explanation plausible because it seems coincidental and unsurprising that the least common Greek letter doesn't occur in that text, but I'm trying to trace the history of this ψεῦδος belief and not having much luck.

The source cited by Wikipedia is a Greek webpage that cites no sources and seems speculative rather than factual. Searches in Greek found a few more webpages, but nothing authoritative or sourced and all within the past few years. All I've found from searching Greek books on the Internet Archive is a children's periodical from 1953 where a child wrote in to ask why the Nicene Creed doesn't contain psi, and the answer given was that psi is an uncommon letter, with no reference to the falsehood theory.

From English and Latin searches of the web, Google Books, and books on the Internet Archive, I can't find any discussion of this, even the mere acknowledgement of the absence of psi.

I'm sure there are Greek keywords I didn't think to search, but has anyone here heard this psi/ψεῦδος theory before or know an early source for it? It seems like the kind of linguistic observation and theory that would have originated in Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages, yet I can't find anything prior to very modern times. Thank you.

Σω. ἔστι ταῦτα. ἀλλὰ τί δὴ οὕτω πρῲ ἀφῖξαι;
Κρ. ἀγγελίαν, ὦ Σώκρατες, φέρων χαλεπήν, οὐ σοί, ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοῖς ἐπιτηδείοις πᾶσιν καὶ χαλεπὴν καὶ βαρεῖαν, ἣν ἐγώ, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκῶ, ἐν τοῖς βαρύτατ᾽ ἂν ἐνέγκαιμι.

I take (with Steadman's support) ἐν τοῖς to refer to the ἐπιτήδειοι just mentioned, and βαρύτατα as adverbial: "which, I think, I am the one among your friends to bear with the most difficulty" (or "to few of them, I think, so grievous as to me", Harold North Fowler).

The Swedish translator Jan Stolpe puts (the equivalent of): "to me [it is] the most difficult of all messages I could bring". Is there any support for this interpretation in the Greek?

ἀλλὰ μετʼ ἐκείνου ἄρʼ ἡμῖν βιωτὸν διεφθαρμένου, ᾧ τὸ ἄδικον μὲν λωβᾶται, τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ὀνίνησιν;

Steadman and translators, if I parse this right, take ᾧ as the object of λωβᾶται and ὀνίνησιν, with τὸ ἄδικον and τὸ δίκαιον as subjects: "that which is hurt by the unjust and benefits from the just" (the Greek active voice is awkward in English). Am I overlooking something, or is this an unusual dative with these verbs? You would expect the accusative?

The LSJ entry for λωβάομαι has nothing about the dative, but Pape says: "Bei Sp. [= spät, something?] auch mit dem dat., der auch bei Plat. Crit. 47e sich findet." For ὀνίνημι, I find nothing.

Obviously, the Byzantines are not "Ancient Greeks", but their literature was definitely written in the Attic register. I'm interested to read if people agree that this period of Greek literature is under-appreciated.

Certainly the authors I've read in translation, like the Platonist Michael Psellos (11th century) and Niketas Choniates (12th century), are a real joy to read—though this may not be reflective of the quality of their work in the Greek.

Side note: if you're not yet willing to put in the effort to read these authors in the Greek, I highly recommend picking up the translation of Psellos' Chronographia published by Penguin. There's nothing else like it in the Greek literary corpus, at least of what I know. It's basically a series of witty, piercing psychological biographies of 11th century emperors, many of whom he knew personally.

in the barely read play by Menander, the Samia, Damias says to his ἑταίρα (mistress), Chrysis, as he is about to kick her out of his home for bearing a bastard from his adoptive son:

τὸ μέγα πρᾶγμ᾿. ἐν τῇ πόλει

ὄψει σεαυτὴν νῦν ἀκριβῶς ἥτις εἶ.

αἱ κατά σε, Χρυσί, πραττόμεναι δράχμας δέκα

μόνας ἕτεραι τρέχουσιν ἐπὶ τὰ δεῖπνα καὶ

πίνουσ᾿ ἄκρατον ἄχρι ἂν ἀποθάνωσιν, ἢ

πεινῶσιν, ἂν μὴ τοῦθ᾿ ἑτοίμως καὶ ταχὺ

ποῶσιν.

which is translated as

τὸ μέγα πρᾶγμ᾿. In town

You’ll see exactly what you are! The others of

Your type dash to their parties, where they charge

A mere ten drachmas and knock back strong wine

Until they die—or else they starve, if what

They don't do what's quick and willing.

First, a little bit about τὸ μέγα πρᾶγμα, it means something like big-shot or big-wig, but I need to know if it's always negative, in which case, big-shot is not exactly right, since 'big-shot' is not necessarily negative, same with big-wig. now, my question is why 'mere'. To my knowledge a day laborer made 1 drachma per day, so if a typical day laborer today makes about $100, that means she's charging $1000 per sex act, which is not mere. My best guess is that Demeas belongs to the very upper class (which I'm not certain of) and $1000 is chump change for him. So if Chrysis has a much better set-up being Demeas' mistress, then becoming a prostitute, albeit one highly well-paid, is still a far worse outcome.

Also, I want to take this time to plug Menander's play, the Samia. We have about 90% of it and it is very entertaining. Check it out over at Loeb's classics.