# και γαρ κομήτης αστήρ εφαντάσθη και ή σελήνη παρά το καθεστηκός



## PowerOfChoice

I'll be much pleased if someone can help me make more sense out of the following Greek words of Dio than what's available in the English translation provided below. It seems to me that these Greek words could potentially contain a very valuable description of some astronomical observations touching on a comet and some solar and/or lunar eclipses beyond that which may be perceived in the previously provided English translation?


" _και _γαρ _κομήτης αστήρ εφαντάσθη και ή σελήνη παρά το καθεστηκος _δ_ίς εκλελοιπεναι _έδοξε' _και γαρ τεταρταία και εβ_δ_ομαία εσκιάσθη. και ηλίους _δύο _άμα, εκ τε των ανατολών και εκ των δυσμών, τούτον μεν ασθενή και ωχρον εκείνον _δε _λαμπρον και ισχυρόν, εϊ_δ_ον._" ​(Dio, Roman History, Volume VIII:64:8:1 - Cf. ww.brainfly.net/html/dio_cass.htm) ​ 

 

 


Here's the classical translation into English that doesn't make much sense to me in terms of real identifiable events and which translation I believe may need some significant work before it can be applied to and sensibly identified with a real observed and verifyable celestial event:

"A comet was seen, and the moon, contrary to precedent, appeared to suffer two eclipses, being obscured on the fourth and on the seventh day. Also people saw two suns at once, one in the west weak and pale, and one in the east brilliant and powerful."  ​

PS. Sorry about the imperfections in the pointing of the Greek text! It's transcribed by means of OCR and partial correction.


----------



## Tetina

The English translation is correct and the only I can give you is another more simplified (written by me) but what exactly means I cannot tell you. This is job of an astronomer I guess...

"and for a comet star was appeared and the moon, contrary to normal, appeared to suffer two eclipses, for the fourth and the seventh say shadow was layed upon it. and two suns at the same time, from the east and the west, the latter being weak and pale, the first being brilliant and powerful, I saw."


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Tetina said:


> The English translation is correct and the only I can give you is another more simplified (written by me) but what exactly means I cannot tell you. This is job of an astronomer I guess...
> 
> "and for a comet star was appeared and the moon, contrary to normal, appeared to suffer two eclipses, for the fourth and the seventh say shadow was layed upon it. and two suns at the same time, from the east and the west, the latter being weak and pale, the first being brilliant and powerful, I saw."


 

Thank you Tetina!

Your own "more simplified" version is very valuable to me! It helps me see different dimensions in those Greek words, and different possibilities.

One of several things I am very interested in understanding is what the 4th and 7th is really referencing. You don't seem to associate those numericals with the word "day" as does the classical translation above. That is important I believe.

Also I notice that in the last part you are using "I saw" rather than "People saw." Also your translation seem to allow for these words describing one event, whereas the classical translation above seem to describe two or more events. Obviously this text is a bit unclear, and like you say, I wish I could find a Greek astronomer or whomever who could fully elucidate these words... Kind of wish I could ask Dio himself, but that option obviously isn't available.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Would perhaps the following translation of mine be anywhere near what the original Greek text allows?:


“*A comet was seen, and the moon, in an uncommon and impressive display* [of power,] *appeared to suffer a dual eclipse while being obscured on the fourth* [watch] _*of the Seventh*_ [day of the month; that is, obscured both] _*by the*_ [eclipsing earth] _*shadow laid upon it*_ [and by the approaching horizon. It was as if] _*I saw two suns at once, one*_ [the moon, setting] _*in the west, weak and pale, and one in the east*_ [the rising sun] _*brilliant and powerful.*_”​ 


 Footnote: The "fourth watch" is the last quarter of the night, from about 3 AM until sun rise.​


----------



## Kevman

Two little notes, even though my mastery of Ancient Greek is many years off yet :

1) I believe Tetina's "say" is a little typo for "day," and that *τεταρταία* and *εβδομαία* do mean "on the fourth day" and "on the seventh day" respectively.
(Possibly "...day of the month"?)

2) *εἶδον* is sort of a tricky case since the first person singular and the third person plural forms are identical, so it could mean either "I saw" or "they saw" depending on the context.


----------



## Tetina

Thanks Kev. Exactly what I wanted to say (not day, xaxaxa...). Typing mistake about the "say" where I really meant "day" and the "saw" in ancient greek is the same on the first singular and the third plural. 
Now about your translation:

[of power]= It's your interpretation not based anywhere in the text.
dual = the word used in ancient greek means "two times". There is another word for dual.
fourth - seventh = between words there is the conjuction "and" that usually unites two words with the same use. So it is difficult (but not impossible) to mean "fourth watch" and unite it with the "seventh day". Furthermore, it makes sence when you combine it with the aforementioned "two times". The word "day" is not mentioned in the ancient text, so maybe the "fourth" and the "seventh" are not days but another time period (the most usual though is to translate it in days).
Concerning the "two suns" which you say it's a "moon" and a "sun" this is acceptable by means of interpretation of the text but not by means of translation.
As I said I can help you only with the translation and not the interpretation of the text, which is totally up to you. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the phenomenon of eclipse. 
Also, I would like to apologise about my previous typing mistake and for my english which are poor maybe to explain the complicated issue of translation.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Wow! Thanks both of you Kevman and Tetina!

Yes, the words of mine within brackets are certainly my interpretation...  

But... not entirely without a basis in fact as they are consistent with celestial events that happened in the summer of 54 CE as recorded by Chinese astronomers (re the comet) and as verifiable by modern astronomy software (re the sun and moon.) But, of course, placing the event here described or quoted by Dio together with the total lunar eclipse that was visible from most of the Roman Empire beginning at 02:38 UT on Wednesday morning August 7, 54 CE vs somewhere else in time is also a matter of interpretation... IF anything better suited can be found to match it - without relying _solely_ upon conventional wisdom and traditional _interpretation_ of historical records... 

Nevertheless, your last pointers are also most helpful for improving upon my above suggested translation. So if I may venture once again to suggest a translation which I believe may match both the intended event and Dio's record, which of course he must have quoted from someone else who lived a century and a half earlier. (Wikipedia provides Dio's life span as ca 164-235 AD: )

“*A comet was seen, and the moon, in an uncommon and impressive display* [of power,] *appeared to suffer a two-fold eclipse while being obscured on the fourth* [watch] *of the Fourth Day* [of the week] *and **of the Seventh* [day of the month; that is, obscured both] _*by the*_ [eclipsing earth] _*shadow laid upon it*_ [and by the approaching horizon. It was as if] _*I/they saw two suns at once, one*_ [the moon, setting] _*in the west, weak and pale, and one in the east*_ [the rising sun] _*brilliant and powerful.*_”​Praise "Him/Them/the Powers/Elohim that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" and that on the Fourth Day made the sun, the moon and the stars "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years!" (Cf. Genesis 1:14-19 & Revelation 14:7!) 

  

*Footnote re the comet that became visible in June or July :* Cf. Gary Kronk, Cometography, p. 28-30.
*Footnote re the lunar eclipse:* Cf. sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEcat/LE0001-0100.html
*Footnote re Wednesday, August 7, 54 CE; the Fourth Day of the week:* Cf. ww.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=54&country=34
*Footnote re the 15 listed uses of the word τεταρταία and related inflections:* Cf. ww.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=tetartai%3Dos&lang=greek&group=bilevel, and ww.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%2332468


----------



## PowerOfChoice

*One Question:*

Is it possible to translate the above Greek text in terms such that the moon is eclipsing the comet, while also, perhaps even at the very same time, the moon is itself being eclipsed by the shadow of the earth? 

In other words, is it possible that the words "_κομήτης αστήρ... και ή σελήνη... _δ_ίς εκλελοιπεναι_" in the above Greek text is referencing such a two-fold eclipse situation?


*A second Question:*

May the words "_παρά το καθεστηκος_" be translated in terms of "resting in the vicinity" "resting nearby," "resting next to it," or perhaps even "resting right underneath?" 

In other words, could said Greek words be translated in terms of the moon being located very close to, even right underneath, the comet as perceived on the western sky by an observer on Earth?


*A third Question:*

May the word "_εφαντάσθη_" be translated in terms of "showy" or "spectacular?"

In other words, could said Greek word somehow be translated in terms describing the characteristics of the comet?


*A fourth Question:*

Strong's Greek Dictionary #2246 provides for the word "ήλιος" the following definition: "From έλη helē (a _ray_; perhaps akin to the alternate of G138); the _sun_; by implication _light._" That considered, is it reasonable to translate "ήλιος" sometimes, as in an ancient text like Dio's text, as whatever source of "rays" regardless whether or not such source happens to be "the sun" itself? For instance, as apparently in this passage, in reference both to the moon and to the sun? And in this particular setting I wish to emphasize that I really mean 'translate,' not 'interpret.'


----------



## anthodocheio

I thought that a word to word translation might convince you… 

" _και _γαρ 
_κομήτης __αστήρ _"A comet
_εφαντάσθη _was seen,
_και __ή __σελήνη _and the moon,
_παρά __το __καθεστηκος _contrary to precedent,
δ_ίς_ twice
_εκλελοιπεναι _έδοξε' appeared to suffer eclipse,
_και γαρ _
_τεταρταία __και __εβ_δ_ομαία _on the fourth and on the seventh day
_εσκιάσθη__._ cast a shadow
_και __ηλίους _And suns
δύο _άμα__, _two at a time
_εκ τε των ανατολών _from the west
_και __εκ __των __δυσμών__, _and from the east
_τούτον __μεν __ασθενή __και __ωχρον _this one weak and pale,
_εκείνον _δε _λαμπρον __και __ισχυρόν__, _that one brilliant and powerful
_εϊ_δ_ον._" saw


(I don’t know how to translate “_και _γαρ”… And, also, I ask for confirmation...)


----------



## anthodocheio

PowerOfChoice said:


> _*shadow laid upon it*_


 
Yes, that's better than mine..


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Thank you very much Anthodocheio!

That is very helpful indeed! I have no trouble understanding that your suggested translations, as well as those of Tetina, Kevman and the one in Dio's Roman History above, are all linguistically correct. In fact you all add to my comprehension of this to me very important text passage. 

And yet, having translated many things between other languages, I am well aware of the fact that every translator frequently has to choose between several permissible and linguistically correct options - and that some of these options may sometimes not correctly represent the intent of the author or the facts of the subject matter. Above all, it is almost never possible to completely convey all possible linguistic nuances and meanings when translating anything from one language to another, or don't you agree?

Not being very conversant in Greek myself, while nevertheless having good reasons for believing that I can correctly identify the event being described in Dio's Greek text, I wish to learn all I can about what nuances in the potential translations that - with your help - I am suggesting that are linguistically permissible and which ones are not.

I am sure you appreciate my position, don't you?

Thanks again for any and all feedback you are willing to share with me!


----------



## PowerOfChoice

*The bigger picture re my above Four Questions (post #8: )*

The three first of my four questions above (post #8 above,) are triggered by Dio's Greek text, which is apparently suggesting some kind of two-fold eclipse event. As you may see from post #7 above I at first suggested merely that the second part of said two-fold event was subjective from the point of view of the observer and relating merely to the eclipsing moon approaching and then gradually hiding behind the horizon. 

Upon further reflection upon what I am currently learning about this text it came to me that perhaps Dio could indeed be referencing two truly simultaneous eclipses(?,) a very precise and unusual astronomical observation and record indeed, and a most important one too. 

However, in contradistinction to the data I have referenced in support of post #7 above I have no way of verifying or confirming, from sources outside of Dio's Greek text, whether or not this comet was in fact eclipsed by the moon - or even if it was still visible at the time of this August 7 lunar eclipse.

Accordingly, the translations suggested in post #8 hinges completely upon whether or not such translations are linguistically permissible. (In my footnotes below you'll find some related words I found in the only Greek Dictionary I have handy for these studies of mine at this time. Please excuse me for not having access to a more complete dictionary!)

With your permission I'll combine all these last considerations into yet another possible(?) translation, which, if correct, is crammed with scientific detail:

“*A spectacular star like comet **and the moon,* [which was initially] *resting just beneath* [the comet,] *suffered a beautiful/glorious two-fold eclipse while being obscured on the fourth* [watch] *of the Fourth Day* [of the week] *and **of the Seventh* [day of the month; that is, the moon was obscured] _*by the*_ [eclipsing earth] _*shadow laid upon it*_ [while at the same time the comet was eclipsed by the moon. It was as if] _*I/they saw two suns at once, one*_ [the moon, setting] _*in the west, weak and pale, and one in the east*_ [the rising sun] _*brilliant and powerful.*_”​Any comments and feedback is highly appreciated! Thanks again!


  


*Footnote re "star like:"* If at all visible from the Earth at this point in time the comet would, I believe, be shaped like a star because at this point in time its tail would be pointing straight away from both the sun and the Earth.

*Footnote re "spectacular"* *and "εφαντάσθη:"* Strong's Greek dictionary #5326, 5324, 5316, & 5457 provides "φάντασμα," etc.: 'show,' 'spectre,' 'make apparent,' 'appear,' 'a spectacle,' 'to lighten,' 'shine,' 'show,' 'make manifest,' and 'luminousness.'

*Footnote re "resting... beneath" and **"καθεστηκος:"* Strong's Greek dictionary #2518, 2596 & 4739 provides "καθεύδω; to lie _down_ to _rest,_" "κατά; under," and "στήκω; to _be_ _stationary;_" and
*Footnote re "just beneath" and "παρά:"* Strong's Greek dictionary #3844 provides "παρά; near... beside... vicinity... proximity..."

*Footnote re "beautiful/glorious"* *and "έδοξε':"* Strong's Greek dictionary #1391 provides "δόξα; _glory_ (as very _apparent_)."


----------



## ireney

a) κομήτης αστήρ = star that has well, hair flowing behind it. In other words it can't be a star without a tail really. Even if it was it is described as one. A star with a tail, a comet.


b) #8 post's questions 1-3 the answer is a definite no. If you need the linguistic reasons behind it I will be glad to provide them  As a note: 
spectacular: same root different meaning
resting beneat: wrong verb I'm afraid  (therefore "para" here has a different meaning)
glorious: again, same root different meaning.
As for question 4 of post no8: as you can see from the text itself a bright celestial object that is not the sun can be called so. However if one of them wasn't the sun and was i.e. the moon, I cannot see why he wouldn't have mentioned that.

c) It may be that there was indeed a true event that had happened and was later obscured through "legend". If you take a look at the overall context you can easily see that if something really happened it became part of an overall mythos of ominous portents and whatnot. This passage pf Dios is one of the somewhat rare cases where there is no possibility of different interpretations and translations really.


----------



## anthodocheio

I was already writing this when Irene answered, and although absolutely she knows (a lot) more than I do, considering that our friend needs to be sure about everything, one more opinion might count. Is not that I’m saying something different... 


> *Footnote re "**star like**:"* If at all visible from the Earth at this point in time the comet would, I believe, be shaped like a star because at this point in time its tail would be pointing straight away from both the sun and the Earth.


_κομήτης__αστήρ_ > actually and initially meant “a star with hair” because of the shape. So this is the shape that you should have in mind. Then the noun disappeared and the word κομήτης became a noun by itself à comet.



> *Footnote re "spectacular" and "εφαντάσθη:" Strong's Greek dictionary #5326, 5324, 5316, & 5457 provides "φάντασμα," etc.: 'show,' 'spectre,' 'make apparent,' 'appear,' 'a spectacle,' 'to lighten,' 'shine,' 'show,' 'make manifest,' and 'luminousness.'*


First of all _εφαντάσθη _is a verb in third person. Go for “make apparent”.


----------



## wonderment

Here's another translation to confirm anthodocheio and Tetina's translations. I'll try to render the text as literally as possible so as to help with your questions. 

(Please excuse the missing diacritic marks--I know they're not optional. Somehow my post didn't get posted and I'm having to type everything all over again from memory.)

και γαρ (for both) κομητης αστηρ (a comet star) εφαντασθη (was made visible) και (and) η σεληνη (the moon) παρα το καθεστηκον (contrary to custom) δις (twice) εκλελοιπεναι εδοξε (seemed to experience an eclipse). και γαρ (for both) τεταρταια (on the fourth day) και (and) εβδομαια (on the seventh day) εσκιασθη (it [i.e. the moon] was overshadowed). και ηλιους δυο (and two suns) αμα (at once), εκ τε των ανατολων (from the east) και εκ των δυσμων (and from the west), τουτον μεν (the latter) ασθενη και ωχρον (weak and pale) εκεινον δε (the former) λαμπρον και ισχυρον (bright and strong), ειδον (they saw).

Notes:
και...και = both...and

ειδον has to mean 'they saw' because Dio couldn't have witnessed the event.

εφαντασθη is the aorist passive of φανταζω, the verb 'to make visible'. It simply means 'it [the comet] was made visible', and doesn't have the connotations you suggested. You may be thinking of 'fantastic' but that's a much later derivation. 

εσκιασθη is the aorist passive of σκιαζω ('to overshadow, darken') so it literally means 'it [the moon] was overshadowed'.

παρα το καθεστηκον literally means 'contrary to what has been set down/established' i.e. customary. This is its only meaning. 

Other things to consider: If you look at the larger context of the passage, Dio is writing about the infamous Year of the Four Emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian). The year was 69 CE (not 54 CE, the cosmic event you'd like to correlate it with).

Also at this point in the narrative, Vitellius (Roman commander of the legions in the West) and Vespasian (Roman commander in the East) are duking it out for the power and the glory. Vespasian wins. One can read the two suns (the waning star of Vitellius and the rising star of Vespasian) figuratively as alluding to this struggle. The use of ominous portents to foreshadow coming events is a common device in ancient historiography.

Hope this helps clarify things...


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Thanks Wonderment!

Thanks Anthodocheio!

Thanks Ireney!

Thanks ever so much all of you for your most valuable contributions to my understanding of this passage of Dio and my understanding of the real time event that it represents!


*Re "και...και = both...and:"*

I perceive in the insights you are sharing with me that the text does indeed make it quite clear that both the moon and the comet shared in the described eclipse event. This is a most valuable point as it is I believe quite a rare celestial phenomenon. 

Thanks Wonderment!


  



*Re "doesn't have the connotations you suggested. You may be thinking of 'fantastic' but that's a much later derivation," "παρα το καθεστηκον literally means 'contrary to what has been set down/established' i.e. customary. This is its only meaning," etc.:*

Yes, I understand that etymological meanings conveyed by a word are not always intended by the user of the word, yet I find that at times such etymological roots do indeed convey lessons of importance to the reader. As they say: "Its all in the eyes of the beholder." 

Considering 1) the fact that such meanings are in fact built into the language, whether or not intended by the author or commonly used, and 2) the fact that it is always impossible for any reader to know for a fact what the true intentions are of any one besides him or herself, I do not find it unreasonable or illogical to compare a written record, such as Dio's quote, with a real event while noticing any and all harmonies between the two, do you? 

Yet, I certainly agree that it is most important always to make a distinction between the information actually inherent in the words written into a record on the one hand, and on the other hand any correlations which are purely my own projections. 

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between translation and interpretation, is it not? Especially when one has a pet idea, and even more so if one has been for a long time investing much time, effort and feelings into an idea, a habit, a tradition... Or isn't that true for all of us in ever so many ways, for instance in our long term commitments to each our communities and to each our States?




*Re "ειδον has to mean 'they saw' because Dio couldn't have witnessed the event.:"*

As indicated in my prior posts I am well aware that Dio is not a firsthand witness. Yet, it is not impossible that Dio's words are an exact quote from an unspecified original observer, correct? 

Given the very few words used within Dio's passage for conveying correctly a most unusual celestial event would indeed make it very likely to me that it is a quote, yet how can anyone prove it? The only proof is in the pudding, isn't it?! If Dio had provided his reference it would sure have been helpful for us, yet the truth content of the passage speaks for itself regardless, does it not?

I find it curious and interesting to note that if Dio is in fact providing for us a direct quote there is no need for him to change anything from "I saw..." to "they saw..." in the text of the firsthand observer. The same exact words may be conveyed by the originator of the text and by a third party, such as Dio, as if the words are his or her own and not a mere quote. Unfortunately such third party takeover detracts from the trust one can put in the truthfulness of the text, does it not? Dio would have been doing us a much greater service had he clearly shared with us his reference and had he told us that the words are indeed a direct quote, wouldn't he?




*Re "Other things to consider: If you look at the larger context of the passage, Dio is writing about the infamous Year of the Four Emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian). The year was 69 CE (not 54 CE, the cosmic event you'd like to correlate it with)."*

I do not wish to get into an historical line of argument in this forum knowing that this forum is dedicated to linguistics and not history. Nonetheless, even when considering linguistics and the correctness of optional translations one is wise to take the facts of history and real events into account, lest one may fall into the trap of making meaningless translations. 

I perceive that this is the precise reason for the reference you, Wonderment, made to a conventionally accepted date, which unfortunately I am convinced is lacking solid support from the available facts. 

You may be aware that many, even most, conventionally accepted dates from the 1st century, e.g. "69 CE" are known to be mere approximations accepted by scholars who have found no better over all solution to an era not characterized by chronological reckonings familiar, or even available, to our day and our schools of thought. 

To me it is a striking fact that there are few if any certain correlations between historical records of celestial observations and precisely known astronomical events from about 500 BC to about 500 CE. Cf. NASA's tables of solar and lunar eclipses of historical interest!

You may wish to consider an alternate and considerably more fruitful solution to 1st century chronology, one that finds numerous exact matches between known astronomical events and the extant historical records from the era of the Twelve Caesars and the 1st Century.






*Re "the two suns (the waning star of Vitellius and the rising star of Vespasian):"*

Thanks, I hadn't thought about that one!


----------



## PowerOfChoice

*A question re "εσκιασθη (it [i.e. the moon] was overshadowed):"*

Does the grammar allow for plural? I.e. does it allow for "both" the comet "and" the moon being referenced, e.g. as follows:

“*For both *(και γαρ)* a comet star *(κομητης αστηρ) *visible *(εφαντασθη) [at that time]* and *(και) *the moon *(η σεληνη,) *in an uncommon and impressive display *(παρα το καθεστηκον,) *were observed to be involved in *(εδοξε) *a two-fold *(δις) *eclipse *(εκλελοιπεναι.)* For both *(και γαρ) *were obscured on *[the *fourth *watch of] *the Fourth Day* [of the week] (τεταρταια) *and *(και) *the Seventh *[day of the month (εβδομαια;) that is, the moon was obscured] *by a **shadow *[from the eclipsing earth hiding the moon and the moon eclipsing the comet] *laid upon them *(εσκιασθη,)* and *(και) [this happened]* while *(αμα) *I/they saw *(ειδον) *simultaneously *(αμα) *two *(δυο) *great luminaries *(ηλιους,)* one in the east *(εκ τε των ανατολων) *and one **in the west *(και εκ των δυσμων,) *the latter *(τουτον μεν) *weak and pale *(ασθενη και ωχρον) [the moon setting over the western horizon,]* the former *(εκεινον δε)* brilliant and powerful *(λαμπρον και ισχυρον) [the sun rising in the east.]” 







​ 







*Re "κομήτης αστήρ = star that has well, hair flowing behind it," and “a star with hair:”* 



Naturally! It's like a girl with long flowing hair in a dance. Her hair is swinging way out behind her as she is turning in tight circles. When you are standing on the side watching her you'll see her hair sometimes shooting out to the left side, sometimes to the right, and sometimes, when she is straight across from you, you'll just barely see her hair as a halo around her head. 


Likewise it is when the "hairy star" makes its tight turn around the sun: Depending on the relative position of the Earth, the sun and the comet star, from day to day the comet's hair will change its direction. If the observer is located between the sun and the comet the hair should look like a halo or like a star, but the knowlegable observer will know that he is still looking at the same girl, won't he? Why would he name her differently for those very brief moments in time when her hair is barely visible behind her?


----------



## wonderment

PowerOfChoice said:


> *A question re "???????? (it [i.e. the moon] was overshadowed):"*
> 
> Does the grammar allow for plural? I.e. does it allow for "both" the comet "and" the moon being referenced...



No, because the verb is third person singular, and has the moon (and the moon alone) as its subject. The only plural verb in the whole passage is ειδον, and in context has to be third person plural. Dio is not quoting anyone and definitely *not* a first person eye-witness account.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

wonderment said:


> No, because the verb is third person singular, and has the moon (and the moon alone) as its subject. The only plural verb in the whole passage is ειδον, and in context has to be third person plural. Dio is not quoting anyone and definitely *not* a first person eye-witness account.


 


Thanks Wonderment!

Then perhaps the following rendition is linguistically acceptable?:

“*For both *(και γαρ)* a comet star *(κομητης αστηρ) *visible *(εφαντασθη) [at that time]* and *(και) *the moon *(η σεληνη,) *in an uncommon and impressive display *(παρα το καθεστηκον,) *were observed to be involved in *(εδοξε) *a two-fold *(δις) *eclipse *(εκλελοιπεναι.)* For both *(και γαρ) *were obscured on *[the *fourth *watch of] *the Fourth Day* [of the week] (τεταρταια) *and *(και) *the Seventh day *[of the month (εβδομαια) while the moon was obscured] *by a **shadow laid upon it *(εσκιασθη) [by the eclipsing earth hiding the moon while the moon was at the same time eclipsing the comet.] *And *(και) [this happened]* while *(αμα) *they saw *(ειδον) *simultaneously *(αμα) *two *(δυο) *great luminaries *(ηλιους,)* one in the east *(εκ τε των ανατολων) *and one in the west *(και εκ των δυσμων,) *the latter *(τουτον μεν) *weak and pale *(ασθενη και ωχρον) [the moon setting over the western horizon,]* the former *(εκεινον δε)* brilliant and powerful *(λαμπρον και ισχυρον) [the sun rising in the east.]” 






I understand and agree that within this particular passage Dio is doing nothing to indicate that the above words are a quote. Indeed, upon reviewing the Greek text of Dio and seeing several instances of very clear quotes in the context where Dio is using both colon and quotation marks I can easily agree with you that for the above passage to represent a direct and exact quote would not be in accord with Dio's style of writing that very document.

Nevertheless I am not sure why it would be possible to positively state that "Dio is not quoting anyone and definitely *not* a first person eye-witness account." Has it not been a common practice in times past to use the words of others without necessarily giving credit to the originator and without putting the quoted words within quotation marks - especially if the exact words are not readily available?


----------



## wonderment

PowerOfChoice said:


> Then perhaps the following rendition is linguistically acceptable?:
> 
> “*For both *(??? ???)* a comet star *(??????? ?????) *visible *(?????????) [at that time]* and *(???) *the moon *(? ??????,) *in an uncommon and impressive display *(???? ?? ??????????,) *were observed to be involved in *(?????) *a two-fold *(???) *eclipse *(????????????.)* For both *(??? ???) *were obscured on *[the *fourth *watch of] *the Fourth Day* [of the week] (?????????) *and *(???) *the Seventh day *[of the month (????????) while the moon was obscured] *by a **shadow laid upon it *(????????) [by the eclipsing earth hiding the moon while the moon was at the same time eclipsing the comet.] *And *(???) [this happened]* while *(???) *they saw *(?????) *simultaneously *(???) *two *(???) *great luminaries *(??????,)* one in the east *(?? ?? ??? ????????) *and one in the west *(??? ?? ??? ??????,) *the latter *(?????? ???) *weak and pale *(?????? ??? ?????) [the moon setting over the western horizon,]* the former *(??????? ??)* brilliant and powerful *(??????? ??? ???????) [the sun rising in the east.]”



For me, no, because that’s not what Dio’s text actually says. All I can offer by way of help is my literal translation and comments in post #15.


----------



## Tetina

> I understand and agree that within this particular passage Dio is doing nothing to indicate that the above words are a quote. Indeed, upon reviewing the Greek text of Dio and seeing several instances of very clear quotes in the context where Dio is using both colon and quotation marks I can easily agree with you that for the above passage to represent a direct and exact quote would not be in accord with Dio's style of writing that very document.
> 
> Nevertheless I am not sure why it would be possible to positively state that "Dio is not quoting anyone and definitely *not* a first person eye-witness account." Has it not been a common practice in times past to use the words of others without necessarily giving credit to the originator and without putting the quoted words within quotation marks - especially if the exact words are not readily available?


 
Hello, POC.
I would agree with you that it depends on each writer and its historic accuracy if he is going to mention that the words he uses are his own or quotes. 
After the great Greek historian Thukydides who lived in 455 B.C. and with his historic accuracy set the basis of history as a sience all over the world it would be practical impossible to find a _credible historian_ who doesn't follows Thukydides example. 
If Dio is considered a reliable historian it is dfficult that he quoted a witness and didn't mention it or indicated it using quotation marks or indirect speech.
With all do respect in your efforts, I think that stretching and far-fetching a translation it wll not get you the answers you are seeking (any true ones for that matter). It shows that you have studied translation a lot and have a lot of experience for not only you understand that you must seek to pull the truth out of the words but because you know to set it up in way it could really trick you!
In the text that you give us - and I see everybody agrees- what is said is what you get. But if you doubt and want to find the historic means that Dio used better you go through his work and see how he handles the description of facts.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

wonderment said:


> For me, no, because that’s not what Dio’s text actually says. All I can offer by way of help is my literal translation and comments in post #15.


 



Tetina said:


> Hello, POC.
> I would agree with you that it depends on each writer and its historic accuracy if he is going to mention that the words he uses are his own or quotes.
> After the great Greek historian Thukydides who lived in 455 B.C. and with his historic accuracy set the basis of history as a sience all over the world it would be practical impossible to find a _credible historian_ who doesn't follows Thukydides example.
> If Dio is considered a reliable historian it is dfficult that he quoted a witness and didn't mention it or indicated it using quotation marks or indirect speech.
> With all do respect in your efforts, I think that stretching and far-fetching a translation it wll not get you the answers you are seeking (any true ones for that matter). It shows that you have studied translation a lot and have a lot of experience for not only you understand that you must seek to pull the truth out of the words but because you know to set it up in way it could really trick you!
> In the text that you give us - and I see everybody agrees- what is said is what you get. But if you doubt and want to find the historic means that Dio used better you go through his work and see how he handles the description of facts.


 




Thanks again Wonderment, Tetina, & all!

Your assistance and the insights you are sharing have been and are for me a tremendous help! 

What is is! We are all limited to each our own experiences and insights. Whatever we are looking at we try to make sense of. No one can make sense of anything other than in terms of each our very own unique prior experiences and acquired skills of understanding. We all project each our own prior experiences upon what we see and hear.

We are all unique. Each one of us is. We can never expect anyone else to see anything exactly the same as we ourselves do. When we think we have a perfect understanding between one another we are most likely fooling ourselves based upon too superficial communication between one another. 

And that's ok! The way it is and the way it should be! We need to learn to accept one another's differences.

I do not know and can not ever fully know your experiences and neither can you fully perceive mine.

When I am attempting my best to paint for you the picture I am seeing when projecting Dio's words upon a certain event, this may well seem to some of you as stretching the meaning of the Greek words, yet the same is most certainly true to some degree when any two translators compare their translations of a given passage with one another, is it not? 

I have no desire to force an erroneous interpretation upon any text, but I do wish to assist my helpers, you, as best I can in perceiving a certain reality which I believe I have excellent reasons for thinking that it is indeed the event originally described by the soldiers, or other observers, who somehow conveyed their experience to Dio... 

And neither to I have any need for making anyone of you accept what I perceive as a most likely reality behind this passage. That is certainly up to each of you to determine for your self. All I care about is to do my part in helping you assist me to the very best of your ability. It is perfectly ok for you to perceive my point of view as mere fantasy - just as long as you extend similar honor and respect to me. For isn't that what life is all about? Mutual respect and honor?!

And remember, whatever you share of yours is something I can and do find value in as I continue my path of learning!

Thanks again!





  





*Question:*


I do have a follow-up question for anyone willing to take me up on it. The sentences following the one discussed above suggest to me that they are most likely closely related to the same event as above referenced. After all it is all in one passage. 

If anyone is willing to share with me any alternate translations, especially of the *first Greek sentence*, this may prove to shed further light upon details touching upon the original event in real time. 

In fact it may even seem possible to me, considering my very limited insight into the Greek language, that "*The soldiers who had slept there on the night in question said*..." constitute nothing less than Dio's reference and source for this entire passage, and which he, Dio, is using as a base for this whole passage and his indirect statements, or am I mistaken there?

You will find the original Greek text in the attachment file below, and here is the extant translation - which to me seems to reflect a lot of superstition in the first sentence, not unlikely, at least to some degree, caused by a limited understanding of the underlying event on the part of 1) the soldiers referenced in the text itself, 2) Dio, or 3) the translator - or so I believe. Here goes:

"*On the Capitol many huge footprints were seen, presumably of some spirits that had descended from it.* *The soldiers who had slept there on the night in question said* that the temple of Jupiter had opened of itself with great clangour and that some of the guards had been so terrified that they fainted."​ I imagine that the "*huge footprints*" and the "*spirits*" could have something to do with artful shadows from structures located between the bright eclipsing full moon and the "Capitol" building, or perhaps merely the increasing darkness coming on as the eclipse progressed, but that is only my guess??? - Albeit based upon my own experiences during nights with a bright full moon. Fear and superstition are certainly not uncommonly associated with darkness and the full moon. They are, are they not? 

So if anyone can suggest any alternate translation, but preferably one that reflects as well as possible the reality those soldiers way back then were looking at... 

Thanks... Any one!!!






*The Greek text is in this file here:*


----------



## Tetina

Well, this change the facts.
It's very important to know the context or else we make arbitrary conclusions...

It's then probable that the "soldiers" and "guards" are the witnesses of this event, if you combine it with "they saw" of the first text. Then Dio refers his source of information. 
Poor, misundesrtanded Dio...

Ancient were very superstitious and phenomena like eclipses were taken as sign of gods. I guess - since soldiers are mentioned- that this happenned before a battle. This would be an ominous sign that could even be a reason to cancel the battle.
How superstitious were they? They passed out of fear...

As for "footprints" I'm not quite sure....
The greek word "ίχνη" means trace, sign that could be anything, even shadow. So maybe you are right. It could be either shadows or even nothing but fragments of their imagination and were considered as traces of spirits coming down (or up) on earth.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Tetina said:


> Well, this change the facts.





Tetina said:


> It's very important to know the context or else we make arbitrary conclusions...
> 
> It's then probable that the "soldiers" and "guards" are the witnesses of this event, if you combine it with "they saw" of the first text. Then Dio refers his source of information.
> Poor, misundesrtanded Dio...
> 
> Ancient were very superstitious and phenomena like eclipses were taken as sign of gods. I guess - since soldiers are mentioned- that this happenned before a battle. This would be an ominous sign that could even be a reason to cancel the battle.
> How superstitious were they? They passed out of fear...
> 
> As for "footprints" I'm not quite sure....
> The greek word "ίχνη" means trace, sign that could be anything, even shadow. So maybe you are right. It could be either shadows or even nothing but fragments of their imagination and were considered as traces of spirits coming down (or up) on earth.


 

  


Thanks Tetina!

Yes, I too have been guilty of discrediting "poor misunderstood Dio..." 

And yes, "It's very important to know the context;" "soldiers are mentioned... this happenned before a battle:"


Considering that this is to be a linguistic forum and not a historic one I guess we need to be restrictive here with such things as belongs primarily to history, but that should not stop us from referencing whatever is pertinent for a more accurate linguistic translation, should it? In particular re such events as would almost certainly have affected the mindset of the soldiers at the point of time being described by Dio in the above passage...



Accordingly, I'll venture to provide the following sequence of events re "the context" of the situation being described in the passage of Dio, which is presently under our consideration, such that we may be better able to understand the mindset of the "soldiers" in Dio's passage:


*Since March 19 of the year before Dio's comet/lunar eclipse: *There was *a state of civil war* in the Roman empire beginning with the uprising in Gaul (Spain) by Galba and which uprising Nero first heard of on March 19, 53 CE "on the anniversary of the day on which he killed his mother."​*January: *Galba died after sunset on January 15, 54 CE.​*April: *Otho, the last prior regent in Rome, was deposed by Vitellian forces and died on April 19, 54 CE following a brief reign that began on the evening January 15, 54 CE, when he overthrew Galba. Vitellius takes over as Emperor after Otho.​*July 11: While Vitellius was still acting as Emperor at the Capitol in Rome, Vespasian was acclaimed Emperor* first by Otho’s soldiers following the death of Otho, second _*by Tiberius Alexander, governor of Egypt, on July 1, 54 CE, thirdly by his own soldiers in Judea on July 11, 54 CE*_ (and finally by the senate and the populace in Rome following the death of Vitellius, though Vespasian’s youngest son Domitian was the one initially "greeted with the title Caesar" prior to the arrival of Vespasian.)​*August 7: The two-fold lunar/cometary eclipse here described by Dio*, which was a total lunar eclipse lasting 1 hour 46 minutes on Wednesday August 7, 54 CE at 04:36 UT, the first visible part of the eclipse beginning at 02:38 UT (i.e. beginning at 03:26 Rome solar time.)​*December: *Vitellius died December (24 or) 25, 54 CE.​


Seems likely that the soldiers might have had reason to worry, not only about their lives, but also about their allegiance, whether to stay with Vitellius or to transfer to Vespasian's forces, doesn't it? How might they have projected these their concerns upon the two-fold comet/lunar eclipse they saw and that Dio describes? (Cf. also Wonderment's last comment in his post #15 above!)


----------



## wonderment

Tetina said:


> It's very important to know the context or else we make arbitrary conclusions...



Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War, an event in his own time and in which he was a direct participant. In his investigation he was able to interview his contemporaries, and thus present eye-witness accounts of the events in question. By contrast, Dio wrote a Roman history in 80 books, covering a period of almost a thousand years. He composed them during a period roughly between 200-222 CE. The event we’ve been discussing allegedly took place in 69CE, roughly 150 years before Dio’s time. I don’t see how it would've been possible for the historian to find a first person eyewitness to the event, someone who could give a first hand description of it. And to insist that we have such credible person(s) in this narrative seems dishonest to me. 

Again, nothing in the text indicates that the description of the appearance of the comet and the lunar eclipse is a direct quotation. Let’s have another look at the passage (my translation--please correct me if I’m wrong):

"While he [Vitellius] was behaving in this way, evil omens occurred. For both a comet star was made visible, and the moon, contrary to custom, twice appeared to experience an eclipse. For both on the fourth day and on the seventh day, the moon was overshadowed. And they saw two suns at once, from the east and from the west, the former bright and strong, the latter weak and pale. On the Capitol many large footprints of some spirits were seen, as though they [the spirits] had descended from there [the Capitol]. And the soldiers who had slept there that night said that the temple of the god [Jupiter] opened spontaneously with a great clang, with the result that some of the panic-stricken guards fainted."

Our narrator is Dio. If you go look at the larger context of this passage, really look at the paragraphs that lead up to this point in the narrative (Dio, Roman History 64.1-8), it will be clear that it is Dio, not some soldiers, who’s the narrator of the passage. He’s the speaker up until the point where he writes: “And the soldiers...said that.” It is only then, and not before, that the narrative briefly goes into indirect speech. Only then does Dio quote the soldiers for one sentence, and this does not constitute citation of source for the entire passage. The soldiers bear witness only to the event on that night (εκεινην νυκτα); the demonstrative εκεινην points to the specific night when spirits appeared on the Capitol, not any other night (not the fourth or seventh or whenever). 

It is also significant that this whole paragraph (Dio 64.8) is introduced with the sentence “While he was behaving in this way, evil omens occurred...” And what follows is a list of the separate omens: a comet appeared, the moon was twice eclipsed on two different days, two suns were seen, footprints of spirits were seen on the Capitol, and the door to the temple of Jupiter opened on its own. There’s nothing in the text to indicate that all these events took place on the same night. On the contrary, the lunar eclipse alone took place on two different days. 

ιχνη: the primary meaning (in the Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon) is footprint or track. Its secondary meaning (metaphorical) is trace or remnant. In this passage the word refers to the tracks leading down the Capitoline Hill, not shadows on the temple wall. The word for shadow is σκια.

But even if we grant that some cosmic event actually did take place (and I really have no problem with that), I still cannot sign off on your version of the Dio passage (Roman History 64.8) as you've written it, PofC, because for me it is a misrepresentation of the actual text. This, more than anything, is a problem for me. I cannot in good conscience make the text say what you would like for it to say. But others may disagree and feel that you are justified in your interpretation of Dio; in which case they need to let you know unequivocally.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

wonderment said:


> Thucydides… [Please see Wonderment’s post #25 immediately above!]


 



 



Thanks Wonderment!

Isn't that the beauty of it, that we may each read a passage and yet feel free to apply it to each our perception of reality as it best fits each our own life experience and understanding of reality?!  

Isn't it great with freedom of thought and freedom of expression and being free to stand up for one's own convictions even while no one else is as yet in a position such that he or she is ready to agree?! Isn't it great that it is still possible for someone to truly be the leader, the forerunner, the one that lights the candle in the darkness - without being threatened with excommunication, without necessarily being persecuted for standing up for one’s convictions, and without being burned at the stake or crucified for failing to submit to conventional "wisdom" and the creeds decreed by the "authorities." - Whom we each may have agreed to vote into a position of trusteeship over ourselves, our minds and our actions?!!  

Why would I need anyone at all to "sign off on [my] version of the Dio passage?" Why, of course, I do enjoy any gift of mine being appreciated and valued by another. Who doesn't? But do I need such appreciation before I can myself fully accept the reality of the light upon any issue that I am at any point perceiving? Certainly not! And even then I may be in error and in need of help of perceiving yet more light upon the same... And that goes for all of us. And thus the dialog goes on and on while the picture of reality becomes ever clearer to each and all.   



*A challenge to anyone to show a better fit:*

Now, I'd be extremely happy if someone can show me a specific and precise real time application of the above passage of Dio, as conventionally translated, that fits anyone's chronology in a sensible way. If there is such a real time application of Dio's passage fitting a coherent chronology available anywhere, please show it to me! But what sense would it make for Dio to list in one passage six unrelated events as if each one by it self would be an "evil omen?" And why would Dio begin such a listing of six events with the words “και γαρ (for both)?” (Cf. post #15 above!)


*I fully agree... Yet what is Dio's source?:*

It has certainly been made clear to me that Dio is not quoting any firsthand witness within this passage. Likewise it is obvious that Dio is not himself a firsthand witness of any event during the reign of Vitellius. It follows that Dio must necessarily have received that which is in this passage of his from some other source. But what source? 

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that Dio had a love for celestial events such as could be deducted from then available sciences and that based upon such somewhat imprecise data Dio would then fabricate some of his history while honestly believing he was correct in his assumptions. But are we ourselves justified in judging Dio thusly while yet we ourselves have not yet arrived at any fully satisfactory chronology re the time period of which Dio is writing? Indeed, are we even able to distinguish between the first century reality itself and the best available historical records re it on the one hand, and on the other hand our own conventional interpretations of the same - albeit "signed off" by the highest titles or offices within the hierarchies of our time?



*What and who is credible? Are we justified in discrediting Dio's sources?*

I have no trouble whatsoever accepting that everyone's translations above, excepting only my own, can be relied upon as most likely linguistically correct. Neither do I have any trouble accepting that in the absence of an exact written statement by a firsthand witness re the celestial events during Vitellius' reign, Dio's passage, whether an indirect statement of another or a pseudo-scientific deduction of Dio's, is subject to error and may not necessarily correspond exactly to any reality whatsoever. However, by writing his passage the way he did, Dio is making it clear to us that this passage of his is not intended to be a firsthand report by anyone and that it is not to be read as such. *Yet, if we are to give Dio any credit at all as an honest historian, perhaps we'd be more honest to admit that most likely Dio would not have included this passage at all had he not been reasonably convinced 1) that what he wrote did in fact happen and 2) that his passage was intended to make sense to the reader. To me, none of the generally accepted translations, albeit linguistically correct, completely satisfy the last two criteria. That is my reason for starting and pursuing this thread.*

If I were to perceive Dio's passage above as a listing of multiple (six separate) events I would fully agree with Wonderment's contention that "that night (εκεινην νυκτα)" points to nothing but that which follows those words. However, such a multi-event listing does not make much sense to me in comparison with an available single event description of a reality such as I have attempted to briefly present above. And if indeed this is a single event passage, then by necessity "that night (εκεινην νυκτα)" must point to that one event, i.e. the entire passage of Dio, or isn’t that logical?


*Where exactly is my blindness and where do I need to focus to get it exactly right?*

Accordingly, if my translation does not agree with anyone else's _interpretation_ of Dio's passage, that is fine with me. If, on the other hand, my last translation attempt above is linguistically in error on some specific point I remain most thankful for any help in identifying and correcting such an error. So long as the error is on me I can and wish to correct it ASAP. If the error is on Dio and/or his sources, then I'd like to identify and describe it as precisely as possible. If the error is nothing better than anyone else's translation/interpretation of Dio's text then I feel free to ignore it and to withdraw my support from it entirely. – But I’m not free to forcibly remove it from its owner, nor am I free to force my understanding or belief upon any other, am I?



*There is power and authority in that which makes sense, isn't there?*

Lastly, re your last words "in which case they need to let you know unequivocally:" Isn't it true that there is a lot of power in "tacit consent?"


----------

