Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Dear Patrons,

For my students this semester at ALI I have begun making the Thrasymachus book by Peckett & Munday into a much more comprehensible novella. I call it Thrasymachus' Catabasis, meaning a journey into the Underworld.

It's only is a work in progress as I write each chapter week by week for my students, but if you would like to start to learn Ancient Greek right away, this will definitely get you off to a good start.

This novelization of the Thrasymachus graded reader by Peckett & Munday is the genesis of an idea proposed by my colleague Jonathan Roberts, co-founder of the Ancient Language Institute.  Since the original Thrasymachus provides a combination of entertaining retellings of various classical myths in good Attic Greek, and, among the various grader readers available today, has perhaps the most charm, it seems a good basis for a curriculum.

Despite these strengths, the weaknesses of the Thrasymachus book include the lack of pictures, glosses, or other ways of immediately understanding new vocabulary, and, more critically, the lack of a coherent narrative thread.  Indeed, numerous scenes, events, and actions are incomprehensible or highly illogical, since either too much is left unexplained (due to lack of vocabulary or grammar available to the authors for a given chapter), or a deep knowledge of the original mythology on the part of the reader is taken for granted.  Thus, to render the original Thrasymachus comprehensible to a much wider audience, executing fully the idea proposed by Jonathan Roberts, I have supplied the narrative tissue that turns the Aristophanic play of the early chapters into a simple novella.  I use this very text with my beginner Ancient Greek students.

Moreover, I have added images and graphics (mostly found via Google Images) along with captions in the style first pioneered by Logan Kilpelä, another colleague from Ancient Language Institute, with considerable collaboration from Raphael Turrigiano.  In this paedagogical style, the images with captions and grammatical notes are placed before the item appears in the narrative, thus pre-teaching the new information right when it will be most useful, thus making the text entirely comprehensible.  It cannot be stressed how important it is to center the paedagogical experience around the narrative, making it comprehensible above all else.

The novelty and utility of this approach inspired me to adopt it here.  In Logan Kilpelä’s honor, the style is named Kilpelätion.  This stands in contrast to the Ørbergization of texts, that is, to supply marginal notes with informative images and captions in the style of Ørberg’s LLPSI.  The reason that Kilpelätion is vastly superior to Ørbergization, is that an Ørbergized text necessitates an unnatural dislocation of the reader from the main body of text to the margin, and readers must compel themselves to constantly look there for the new or unknown term, something that, as experience has shown us teachers, students rarely do, and so they find themselves confused or at a loss for an unwarranted amount of time; a Kilpeläted text, meanwhile, has no interest in wasting your time, and moreover understands what new terms or items you need to comprehend, and, through supplying them in the body of the main text, ensures that you will see and learn the new information, gluing it at once to the narrative: that narrative is the sine quā nōn, since the context of the scene permits you to remember the vocabulary for the long term.

Where certain words are introduced in the original Thrasymachus and I could not think of any clever way to introduce the term without a direct calque to English, I have inserted footnotes.

Since I use this document with my students in the classroom, I have inserted questions at regular intervals in the reading.  As you come to these questions, do you best to ask yourself aloud each of them, and respond in Ancient Greek.  This will lead to increased reading proficiency, as demonstrated in the YouTube series Reading Greek with Luke.

How to use Thrasymachus’ Catabasis

Thrasymachus’ Catabasis is meant to be used to conjunction with the original Thrasymachus by Peckett & Munday, which may be purchased at this link on Amazon.  After reading any given chapter of this Thrasymachus’ Catabasis, read the corresponding chapter in the Thrasymachus reader.  There are two important reasons to do this: 1) whereas the Thrasymachus reader is almost entirely incomprehensible to a beginner, after having read the corresponding chapter in Thrasymachus’ Catabasis, the original Thrasymachus chapter will not just be comprehensible, but will serve to create extensive reading for the student, which is an essential tool in comprehensible input theory for one to gain reading fluency; and 2) the Thrasymachus reader appears to the beginner as an unfriendly wall of text, without any pictures or glosses at all; yet, after having read any given chapter of Thrasymachus’ Catabasis, the student will be able to follow everything in the corresponding Thrasymachus chapter with ease, and readily form a positive relationship with what would otherwise be an intimidating block of pure Greek text, lowering the affective filter and greatly increasing confidence.

Files

Θρασυμάχου Κατάβασις, by Luke Amadeus Ranieri

ΘΡΑΣΥΜΑΧΟΥ ΚΑΤΑΒΑΣΙΣ Thrasymachus' Catabasis Written by Luke Amadeus Ranieri (2024) based upon Thrasymachus by C.W.E. Peckett & A.R. Munday (1965) INTRODUCTION This novelization of the Thrasymachus graded reader by Peckett & Munday is the genesis of an idea proposed by my colleague Jonathan R...

Comments

Jeff Rensch

this is an extraordinary document. thank you. I have done the entire original book. By far hardest for me was transitioning to the Homer passages at the back. Maybe part 2 for the amazing Mr Ranieri?

Jeff Rensch

One thing I don't understand about this beautiful doc -- you use the iota for dative instead of iota subscript. Zuntz sometimes does this too. I don't understand when we would use one or the other. Forgive me if this is in the intro, I didn't see it.

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

Thanks, Jeff! Oh yes, the Homer stuff at the end is just plain silly; that will need some clever modification, and I look forward to tackling it.

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

That's a great question, Jeff. I mention this in the introduction in the Google Doc there. The vowels with iota-subscripts ᾳ ῃ ῳ are long diphthongs, pronounced with a longer initial vowel. In ancient orthography, these are written ΑΙ ΗΙ ΩΙ, and a faithful representation of them would be ᾱι ηι ωι, with the iota-adscripts. In antiquity, they were written consistently through the 1cBC. Then we start to see irregular usage, with the iota not being written where it belongs, and in places where it doesn't belong. This indicates that in Roman times the pronunciation of the long diphthongs merged with long monophthongs ᾱ η ω. But in the 1cAD-2cAD the orthography of Greek was largely restored to the standard of Classical Attic in a literary period called the Second Sophistic. From then on the iota-adscript was written faithfully in literary texts, though its pronunciation by those authors is dubious or unlikely. Nevertheless, it became a fixed part of the orthography, useful because it indicates a different grammatical case or conjugation. In the Middle Ages, a number of innovations came to the orthography of Greek (which, though spoken Greek evolved into a transitional mediaeval variety that is seldom fully attested in writing, largely retains the written standards of Ancient Greek), including punctuation, lowercase letters, consistent diacritical marks, and a number of space-saving measures like ligatures, combined letters, and the writing of the silent iota-adscript underneath the vowel, thus called an iota-subscript. While many of the superfluous or overly sophisticated orthographical practices of the Byzantines have been dropped over time, the iota-subscript has been harder to revert to a plainer iota-adscript, since Erasmian pronunciation conventions as well as Modern Greek Pronunciation merge them with ᾱ η ω. But for those of us who use a pronunciation convention consistent with Classical Attic or Hellenistic Koine (the former being my preferred pronunciation convention in teaching), we do indeed pronounce the iotas subscripted in ᾳ ῃ ῳ. Since the iota-subscript both important grammatically, and also vital to see easily when using an Attic or Hellenistic pronunciation convention, it makes more sense to write the adscripted instead. I hope that helps! Please let me know if you have any questions.

wisco

Outstanding! Personally, this is right in the sweet spot for me with where i am in my Greek journey. Big thanks! One question, are the end notes available? I don't see them in the Google doc.

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

Thanks! They’re not end notes, they’re footnotes; be sure open the doc on a computer, not mobile, as it throws the footnotes at the end on mobile, which isn’t useful.

Enrico Muzunna

Just one question: how do you deal with syllables' scansion in classical Attic/Koiné Greek (I don't know if something changes in these 2 ages and, in Koiné Greek, if the rules changes based on the geographical area in Koiné or in classical Attic based on the dialect). I can't find information anywhere about this important topic: you often says that maintaining rhythm in Latin (and in other languages, of course) is really important for prose. I asked this to my university's ancient Greek professor and he said that we simply don't know. He told me that even if you want to make a statistic based on metric evidences, it would be pretty difficult because there are still text that uses the Boeckh's norms (papyrology has no longer followed them for about 15 years: a very short time): for a long time we thought that a new verse started because of a hiatus that according to previous philologists was inconceivable for some authors (this explains lot of crūcēs desperātiōnis in Sappho). 15 years is a very short time for research of course, maybe we still don't know. My question is: do we know? And if we don't, what is your convention? And last question: in Latin we can't say certainly if a phaenomenon is due to a synaloephas or an elision: is that the same for ancient Greek? In grammatic manuals I can only find rules about elision and in modern prints of ancient Greek the elision is printed using the apostrophe, but is the synaloepha a different phaenomenon or is it a similar situation to Latin (we don't know certainly if both the vowels stood or if one is completely elided but we know the basic identity of the syllable: with a short/long vowel)? Of course I know that caesuras and grammatical punctuation doesn't necessarily correspond.

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

Hi Enrico. Your professor happens to be incorrect, if I understand the question right; we know with an extraordinarily fine level of precision. There is a book called The Prosody of Greek Speech by Devine & Stephens that demonstrates every aspect of the ancient rhythm, scansion, prosody, melody, intonation in startling detail. It's highly technical, and I don't recommend it widely since it's not an easy read. But we *do* know, and quite well. You ask what my convention is: I'm not sure I follow the question. Could you elaborate? The principle is to follow the short and long syllables. Whether synaloephe's versus pure elision occurs is more frequently written in Greek; in any case the result is rhythmically the same. Elision is a type of synaloephe.

Enrico Muzunna

Sorry if I answer so late. Thank you for this suggestion, you solved a very big problem for me. Yes, this book is incredibly complex especially for not native speakers of English. However, I have to really understand only a part of it, the part where this question is explained. Thank you again!

Mary Lea

I can't see the document when I click on the link. I'm using a tablet.