21st Century Classical Greek -- me fussing at Jowett again

Book I section 46. 

αἱ μὲν δὴ νῆες ἀφικνοῦνται ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν, οἱ δὲ Κορίνθιοι, ἐπειδὴ αὐτοῖς παρεσκεύαστο, ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τὴν Κέρκυραν ναυσὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν. ἦσαν δὲ Ἠλείων μὲν δέκα, Μεγαρέων δὲ δώδεκα καὶ Λευκαδίων δέκα, Ἀμπρακιωτῶν δὲ ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι καὶ Ἀνακτορίων μία, αὐτῶν δὲ Κορινθίων ἐνενήκοντα:

[2] στρατηγοὶ δὲ τούτων ἦσαν μὲν καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἑκάστων, Κορινθίων δὲ Ξενοκλείδης ὁ Εὐθυκλέους πέμπτος αὐτός.

[3] ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσέμειξαν τῇ κατὰ Κέρκυραν ἠπείρῳ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος πλέοντες, ὁρμίζονται ἐς Χειμέριον τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος γῆς.

[4] ἔστι δὲ λιμήν, καὶ πόλις ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ κεῖται ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἐν τῇ Ἐλαιάτιδι τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος Ἐφύρη. ἐξίησι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὴν Ἀχερουσία λίμνη ἐς θάλασσαν: διὰ δὲ τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος Ἀχέρων ποταμὸς ῥέων ἐσβάλλει ἐς αὐτήν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔχει. ῥεῖ δὲ καὶ Θύαμις ποταμός, ὁρίζων τὴν Θεσπρωτίδα καὶ Κεστρίνην, ὧν ἐντὸς ἡ ἄκρα ἀνέχει τὸ Χειμέριον.

[5] οἱ μὲν οὖν Κορίνθιοι τῆς ἠπείρου ἐνταῦθα ὁρμίζονταί τε καὶ στρατόπεδον ἐποιήσαντο..

Jowett ignores the first phrase in subsection 1, ending in kerkyran, which is about the Athinaians sending to Kerkyra the ships referred to in section 45. This is Thucydides either being fussy, or reading his work to an audience who remind him that he never said the ships were actually sent, just that they were prepared, staffed, and put under orders to not violate the treaty.

Thucydides starts subsection three with “after reaching the Kerkyraean mainland, having sailed from Leukados”. Jowett reverses this. The important issue to Thucydides is reaching Kerkyraea; he follows that up by orientation as to how long that might have taken, by identifying the port from which the fleet sailed. Leukados is about 170 km southeast of Kerkyraea, and about 270 km northwest of Korinth. Thesprotia is on the main peninsula right across a narrow channel from Kerkyraea.

The Kerkyraeans were right: Korinth contemplated more attacks. And the stupid Korinthians did exactly what the Athinaians had promised to defend the Kerkyraeans from.

21st Century Classical Greek -- section 45, a little vocabulary

Book I section 45.

τοιαύτῃ μὲν γνώμῃ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοὺς Κερκυραίους προσεδέξαντο, καὶ τῶν Κορινθίων ἀπελθόντων οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον δέκα ναῦς αὐτοῖς ἀπέστειλαν βοηθούς:

[2] ἐστρατήγει δὲ αὐτῶν Λακεδαιμόνιός τε ὁ Κίμωνος καὶ Διότιμος ὁ Στρομβίχου καὶ Πρωτέας ὁ Ἐπικλέους.

[3] προεῖπον δὲ αὐτοῖς μὴ ναυμαχεῖν Κορινθίοις, ἢν μὴ ἐπὶ Κέρκυραν πλέωσι καὶ μέλλωσιν ἀποβαίνειν ἢ ἐς τῶν ἐκείνων τι χωρίων: οὕτω δὲ κωλύειν κατὰ δύναμιν. προεῖπον δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ μὴ λύειν ἕνεκα τὰς σπονδάς.

Jowett turns the bolded phrase in subsection 1 into “now”, instead of “not much later”. He moves it into subsection 2 from where it is in subsection 1, breaking the sentence after apelthonton. This is a bad break. Thucydides records the action in subsection 1; in 2 he tells who commanded this force. Then in subsection 3 he moves back to the action.

Look up στρατηγέω and ναυμαχέω in Wiktionary. You’ll see them often from here on out. Notice that in subsection 2 we have estratigei in progressive eventive: like a treaty, this is a situation being set in place.

Auton in subsection 2 is “of them”, of the Korinthians.

In subsection 3 we have koluein kata dunamin, resist as much as they could. It’s a version of dunamei plus the impersonal gerundive.

21st Century Classical Greek -- conditional 8

I have this as conditional 9 in my file but it's only the 8th time conditionals are listed on the index. Anyway.

Book I section 44.

 

τοιαῦτα δὲ καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι εἶπον. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἀμφοτέρων, γενομένης καὶ δὶς ἐκκλησίας, τῇ μὲν προτέρᾳ οὐχ ἧσσον τῶν Κορινθίων ἀπεδέξαντο τοὺς λόγους, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ μετέγνωσαν Κερκυραίοις ξυμμαχίαν μὲν μὴ ποιήσασθαι ὥστε τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους νομίζειν (εἰ γὰρ ἐπὶ Κόρινθον ἐκέλευον σφίσιν οἱ Κερκυραῖοι ξυμπλεῖν, ἐλύοντ᾽ ἂν αὐτοῖς αἱ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους σπονδαί), ἐπιμαχίαν δ᾽ ἐποιήσαντο τῇ ἀλλήλων βοηθεῖν, ἐάν τις ἐπὶ Κέρκυραν ἴῃ ἢ Ἀθήνας ἢ τοὺς τούτων ξυμμάχους.

[2] ἐδόκει γὰρ ὁ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους πόλεμος καὶ ὣς ἔσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὴν Κέρκυραν ἐβούλοντο μὴ προέσθαι τοῖς Κορινθίοις ναυτικὸν ἔχουσαν τοσοῦτον, ξυγκρούειν δὲ ὅτι μάλιστα αὐτοὺς ἀλλήλοις, ἵνα ἀσθενεστέροις οὖσιν, ἤν τι δέῃ, Κορινθίοις τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ναυτικὸν ἔχουσιν ἐς πόλεμον καθιστῶνται.

[3] ἅμα δὲ τῆς τε Ἰταλίας καὶ Σικελίας καλῶς ἐφαίνετο αὐτοῖς ἡ νῆσος ἐν παράπλῳ κεῖσθαι..

In subsection 1, notice how Thucydides hedges his statement: the first assembly of the Athinaians considered the Korinthian speech “no worse” than the Kerkyraean. Jowett misstates this.

The parenthetical expression is a full-up conditional. The protasis uses a conjugated indicative verb in executive voice but we have a problem. This protasis can only happen if there’s a full-up treaty. But Thucydides just said that’s not what the Athinaians agreed to. So this should be a supposition contrary to fact. Goodwin wants the protasis to use a past tense, for no reason that anybody can see. The verb we have is “imperfect”, which should mean something that has been interrupted, except that Goodwin explains that this past tense is being used for a present circumstance….

Now that we are aspectual, that explanation goes away. We are talking about a situation – the treaty – that didn’t exist. And as a situation, progressive is correct instead of imperfective.

When the grammars define a term and then have to undermine it with a lot of exceptions such as the “conditional contrary to fact” using past tense for something that didn’t happen, they are repeating centuries of tradition: “That’s the way it has always been taught” was fine in pre-Galileo times. This is the 21^st century.

Now. Goodwin tells you that the apodosis needs an, which we do have. But the an in this case is our change-of-focus: the Korinthians would have given the orders, but eluont’ is the Athinaians violating the treaty – that didn’t exist. So this is not an for something that happened – because the protasis didn’t happen. It couldn’t, since there was no treaty.

Notice that this is how you use the certainty indicative in a situation that definitely doesn’t exist.

Since accepting the orders of the Kerkyraeans would have been an open breach of the treaty, Athins concludes a defensive pact only. So the Korinthians didn’t get their way, but the Kerkyraeans didn’t get everything they wanted. They just got assurances if the Korinthians repeat their attack.

In subsection 2 Jowett negates the wrong thing. He essentially negates the progressive eventive eboulonto but Thucydides negates the impersonal gerundive proesthai; the Athinaians planned for Kerkyraea not to be conquered by the Korinthians. What they did plan (in Thucydides’ original parallelism) is to set the Korinthians against the others so as to weaken both prospective opponents as much as possible before the war broke out. Jowett hides this purpose by putting it at the end of the sentence, another example of a transposition that interferes with what Thucydides says.

21st Century Classical Greek -- the last imperative

We have now seen imperatives in two aspects, one imperfective eventive and the other progressive conceptual, dekhesthe from last week.

Oddly enough, in perfective White’s grammar lists no imperative for the executive voice, but only for the base voice. How could you issue an imperative to bring about a result, without having it produced deliberately?

Well, are there any examples? I used my search engine and did find an example, and the result is sort of weird. This is Demosthenes’ 25^th oration, section  21:

τί γὰρ ἂν τοῦτον αὐτὸν οἴεσθε ποιεῖν λυθέντων τῶν νόμων, ὃς ὄντων κυρίων τοιοῦτός ἐστιν; ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν οἱ νόμοι μετὰ τοὺς θεοὺς ὁμολογοῦνται σῴζειν τὴν πόλιν, δεῖ πάντας ὑμᾶς τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί, τὸν μὲν πειθόμενον τούτοις ὡς φέροντα τὴν τῆς σωτηρίας φορὰν πλήρη τῇ πατρίδι τιμᾶν καὶ ἐπαινεῖν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπειθοῦντα κολάζειν.

The problem I had to work out is, how can you have a passive voice imperative?

Well, Demosthenes is saying that Aristogiton is an enemy of the state, which operates by certain laws. His behavior being such in the current conditions, says Demosthenes, get the laws repealed! That result being achieved, you will see him behave worse.

This is the only example on Perseus of luo in perfective imperative. I would appreciate it if you could send me citations to actual examples of perfective imperatives in executive voice for any verb; remember, send me the citation, not just a copy of the text. I intend to keep looking for them.

But with this wildly limited dataset, it looks as if imperatives work according to aspect, like personal gerundives, which is not much of a surprise since their functions complement each other, imperative being for immediate action just because I say so, and i.g.s being for action  that is due and owing based on prior developments.

Mendel Beilis -- the scene of the crime

Again, my mind works slowly or I would have posted this in 2013, when I translated the transcript, or even in 2019 when I posted about the missing dvornik. But I woke up this morning wondering why there's no report on the scene of the crime in the transcript. It turns out that the government suggested multiple scenes for the crime, but only examined the scene that they then had to cover up because it identified the one person they were trying to protect from suspicion.

Part of the problem is the Whiffle Ball Theory. It became obvious during closing arguments that the government made up its claims to suit its theory, instead of letting evidence drive the case. That's why Beilis was tried at all. 

Because the government was trying to cover up for Vera Cheberyak, they created confusion about the scene of the crime. Oh, sure, at first when the police thought that Andrey's family had killed him, they searched the room that the Prikhodkos lived in. But they identified four places on the Zaitsev factory grounds as possible scenes of the crime:

-- Beilis' home, the two rooms where he, his wife, and his four surviving children lived.

-- the "upper" kiln, the one at the highest point of the factory grounds.

-- the stables.

-- the pomeshchenie, some rooms where Beilis' wife moved in after the arrest, that is, July 1911.

The transcript has no police information about any of these locations. They had from July to October to examine the stables. In October the stables burned down and were no longer available for tours (like the one on day 6). Nobody forged a police report saying anything was found there before October. The government brought them up to confuse the case.

The upper kiln was empty from March, when the murder happened, to April 10 or so when brick making started up again. During this period the police still thought the family killed Andrey so no report was done.

Beilis' house was full of the family and nobody suggested that Beilis let his wife and kids stay in the house while Andrey was murdered.

That leaves the pomeshchenie, where there is another problem which I outline in Accounting for the Grebenki Workers. In the interests of cutting their coat to fit the cloth, the government had to assume a morning murder. If it was in the afternoon of March 11, the Grebenki brick haulers were already living in these rooms. It had to be in the morning for the pomeshchenie to qualify. At that time the rooms would have been empty. Mrs. Beilis and the children lived there -- but not until after the arrest in July. After that she got Zaitsev to white-wash the walls. Notice that the police still had from March to July to examine this place -- if the government theory fingered Beilis as the murderer before July. 

But the signs are that the "Beilis and his two sons" story was invented by the government after Beilis' July arrest, and the lack of police reports about any of the locations on the Zaitsev grounds agrees with this.

What place did the police examine in detail? Vera's apartment and its contents -- the carpet, and the walls. This produced the report of using chemical tests that found semen on the walls. 

Why make the tests? When Zinaida Malitskaya went to Fenenko in the summer, her tale was vague and Fenenko didn't believe her. Nobody took her seriously until November when her husband made her go back. The police made her report identify a morning murder, although in the summer she said the incident she reported happened at night. 

But the tests failed to turn up blood spots. Examination of Vera's carpet also failed to turn up blood spots. Examination of the shred of bloody pillowcase suggested one that belonged to Vera, but Ksenya Dyakonova, who sewed the pillowcase for Vera, never saw this shred, see Day 15, statements 2515-2520. And again, the police examined this shred, found in the pocket of Andrey's jacket, as Vera's property, not Beilis'.

Here's the scenario. Beilis is in jail. From September to October, Vygranov and Vera entertain Brazul Brushkovsky with Vera's fairy tales. Then things quiet down. At the end of November, however, Malitsky brings his wife Zinaida to Fenenko where they get information out of her that points at Vera. They convince her to agree that the incident she heard happened in the morning, although Zinaida was suspicious of nighttime goings-on. They bring Vera in and she tells them the story she told Brazul: it was the family. Brazul is the only one who believes this.

I think Vera's old apartment, still empty, was examined at this time -- just to show there was no evidence of the murder there. In November the Kozachenko letter was forged. And the "Beilis and his two sons" story was invented. The government tried to teach it to Vasily Cheberyak; they failed as his deposition shows.

The only place the government had a detailed police report on, that might be the scene of the crime, is the last place the crime could have happened, if Beilis was the murderer. The direct evidence points at Vera; the evidence against Beilis was faked. QED.