Against Stepmother 1.18
A narrative approach to translating Antiphon’s oration
Φαρμακείας κατὰ τῆς μητρυιᾶς 1.18
[18] καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα μακρότερος ἂν εἴη λόγος περὶ τοῦ δείπνου ἐμοί τε διηγήσασθαι ὑμῖν τ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι: ἀλλὰ πειράσομαι τὰ λοιπὰ ὡς ἐν βραχυτάτοις ὑμῖν διηγήσασθαι, ὡς γεγένηται ἡ δόσις τοῦ φαρμάκου.
ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐδεδειπνήκεσαν, οἷον εἰκός, ὁ μὲν θύων Διὶ Κτησίῳ κἀκεῖνον ὑποδεχόμενος, ὁ δ᾽ ἐκπλεῖν τε μέλλων καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ ἑταίρῳ αὑτοῦ δειπνῶν, σπονδάς τ᾽ ἐποιοῦντο καὶ λιβανωτὸν ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἐπετίθεσαν.
Section 18 of “Against Stepmother” begins with a relatively complex sentence. Setting out on the hunt for a “main verb” we come across an optative, εἴη, accompanied by ἂν. Because this follows from μακρότερος, a nominative comparative adjective modifying λόγος, and there is no obvious subordinating conjunction, we must suspect that we have found our main verb, and that it likely functions as a “copula,” linking a predicate nominative to its subject (and vice versa). If εἴη is indeed the main verb of the sentence, then it is an independent optative and, coupled with ἂν, more than likely a “potential optative.” Choosing from among our translation options for the potential optative we will translate, “it would be a rather long speech”—noting the impersonal construction because of μακρότερος.
Thus, having identified our main verb, and with a theory about its copulative role, we have the beginning structure of the sentence. But because it appears to be impersonal, the subject of the first main clause is not immediately clear. There are two false doors to avoid. Behind door number one is μακρότερος λόγος, which makes a strong case for being understood as the subject, and for good reason: it is nominative! This is a forgivable interpretation, both in form and meaning, for the sentence translates equivalently whether μακρότερος λόγος is understood as the predicate or the subject (which is really the point of a predicate-nominative construction). The second temptation is to take the two datives of reference, ἐμοί and ὑμῖν as the subjects. While this interpretation is satisfying because it gives greater agency or “subjectivity” to the subject, it would be wrong to do so on formal grounds (these are datives of reference, as we will see). And even though it approximates the sense of the sentence, “For me to describe and for you to hear” to understand the datives of reference as the subject, this confuses the important syntactical role played by the “lurking” subject.
So where is our subject? It cannot be ἄλλα, which, though it shares a nominative form, would require a plural verb; we are claiming that μακρότερος λόγος is the predicate; ἐμοί and ὑμῖν are datives; and περὶ τοῦ δείπνου is a prepositional phrase. What’s left? The infinitives! To make the infinitive’s role as subject clear, we can translate literally: “To describe (all) the other things concerning the dinner would be a rather long speech for me and to hear [(all) the other things concerning the dinner would be a rather long speech] for you.” This is, to be sure, an unwieldy translation, which would require reorganization for the sake of good English, but makes clear that the pair of infinitives function as the subjects of the first clause.
The clause following the colon presents slightly less of a challenge. For one, our main verb and subject are made immediately clear by πειράσομαι. “I will try” does not take a natural object, so instead, we are looking for something to “complement” the action of the verb. In this case the complement takes the form of διηγήσασθαι, which, in two clauses, has taken on the job of subject-infinitive and, here, complementary infinitive. With the sense of the verb now completed, we can move on to our object, and we find a likely fit: τὰ λοιπὰ. What’s tricky, however, is what remains: ὡς ἐν βραχυτάτοις…ὡς γεγένηται ἡ δόσις τοῦ φαρμάκου. ὡς can play seemingly myriad roles in a sentence and disambiguating them can be difficult. In this case, ὡς plays two distinct grammatical functions. Our clue here to unlocking the first ὡς comes from the superlative βραχυτάτοις. Like quam in Latin, when paired with a superlative ὡς elevates it to a “super superlative,” which is to say “as _____ as possible”—here “in as few (words) as possible.” Thus far our translation stands: “But I will try to describe the rest for you all in as few words as possible…”
What’s left is to identify and translate the second ὡς construction. Once again the Greek ὡς shares grammatical function with the Latin quam, in this case as a relative, explaining the “how” of the main clause. In this case, ὡς serves to describe how “the rest,” which in this case is to say the giving of the poison (ὡς γεγένηται ἡ δόσις τοῦ φαρμάκου), happened (γεγένηται). The first sentence therefore translates: “It would be a rather long speech for me to describe all the things concerning the dinner and for you to hear them. But I will try to describe the rest for you all, in as few words as possible, how the giving of the poison happened.”
The final sentence is the most straightforward grammatically, but its balance and development are worthy of our attention. The first clause and aside—ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐδεδειπνήκεσαν, οἷον εἰκός—are simple: “After they had eaten, as is fitting...” But what follows is quite delicately arranged. Antiphon transitions from describing the men together to considering them individually. The first/one man (ὁ μὲν) is both sacrificing to Zeus Ktesios (θύων Διὶ Κτησίῳ) and entertaining the other (κἀκεῖνον ὑποδεχόμενος). Meanwhile, the other man, (ὁ δ᾽) is both about to sail off (ἐκπλεῖν τε μέλλων) while also dining with his companion (καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ ἑταίρῳ αὑτοῦ δειπνῶν). The actions of each man are represented by a pair of present participles, with one paired with a dative. Having described the unique actions and concerns of the two men individually, Antiphon brings them together again in the main action of the sentence: σπονδάς τ᾽ ἐποιοῦντο καὶ λιβανωτὸν ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἐπετίθεσαν. The men’s particular concerns, therefore, are represented as participles modifying the main verbs—they made drink offerings and poured out frankincense— which they partake in common.
Thus, we are left with our completed translation of this section:
It would be a rather long speech for me to describe all the things concerning the dinner and for you to hear them. But I will try to describe the rest for you all in as few words as possible how the giving of the poison happened.
After they had dined, as is fitting, the one sacrificing to Zeus Ktesios and entertaining the other man, the other being about to sail away and dining with a companion of his, they made drink offerings and poured out frankincense on behalf of themselves.
