κτη̃μα ές άεὶ -> a possession for all time (Thucydides 1.22)

[m1rr0rshade]

• Tweet

thanks for your help with the earlier thread.

here is the context for the above fragment from an essay by lacan.

"It is the world of words that creates the world of things - things which at first run together in the hinc et nunc of the all in the process of becoming - by giving its concrete being to their essence, and its ubiquity to what has alway been: κτη̃μα ές άεὶ."

i'm not sure that helps much, lacan is pretty opaque.... but that's what i have to work on.
any help would be appreciated.

thanks
paul

[spiros]

κτη̃μα ές άεὶ = Eternal possession
hinc et nunc = here and now

[m1rr0rshade]

thanks for the quick response, i really appreciate the help

i know this isn't a philosophy forum, but maybe you can give me some idea, i don't know.

what is the siginificance (if any) of the concept "eternal possesion" in ancient greek thought? i'm assuming that it is a well known concept for lacan to have used the original greek.

[m1rr0rshade]

i know that's a broad question, i'm not asking for a dissertation, maybe just a brief explanation...

thank you in advance for any help you can give.
paul

[spiros]

It is used for a work of eternal value. Original reference is Thucydides, Ι.22
"κτήμα τε ες αεί μάλλον ή αγώνισμα ες το παραχρήμα ακούειν ξύγκειται" (talking about his historical writings and saying that it is intended more like an eternal work rather than a temporary reading that will be enjoyable for some people).

Here is more context translated into English:

But those who want to look into the truth of what was done in the past--which, given the human condition, will recur in the future, either in the same fashion or nearly so--those readers will find this History valuable enough, as this was composed to be a lasting possession and not to be heard for a prize at the moment of a contest.

And commentary:

From Homer, the tragedians, and Herodotus, Thucydides could learn about the importance of divine interference in human affairs and about the important moral lessons to be derived from past stories. But Thucydides, very much in the rational spirit of the new age of the mid-century, will have nothing to do with such irrational theories of causation. For him, if we are to understand history, we begin and end with a study of what motivates human beings in action. History, in other words, is to be understood in terms of the eternal well springs of human conduct, unattractive as they may be.
More interesting stuff here http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/thucy.htm

Χαρακτηριστικό για τη χρησιμότητά της είναι το ακόλουθο παράδειγμα από την αρχαία ελληνική γραμματεία: ο Θουκυδίδης (1992: 55) σε χωρίο από το πρώτο του βιβλίο (εδάφιο 22) διευκρινίζει σχετικά με το ιστορικό του έργο ότι «έχει γραφτεί πιο πολύ σαν μελέτημα παντοτινό παρά σαν πρόσκαιρο ανάγνωσμα για να τ’ ακούν κάποιοι ευχάριστα» [« κτήμα τε ες αεί μάλλον ή αγώνισμα ες το παραχρήμα ακούειν ξύγκειται »].

[m1rr0rshade]

thanks a lot for your help

a quick google search of the phrase "eternal possession" brought up a lot of religious references; heaven, the afterlife, etc is the eternal possession of the faithful; the holy land is the eternal possession of the chosen people... so i tried to search the new testament at perseus.tufts.edu, but i'm not getting any results from any greek texts at all, let alone the new testament.

[m1rr0rshade]

i think i'm not using the right transliteration... using the "enter text in greek" pop-up gives "kthma ez aei"
is that correct?

thanks
paul

[spiros]

Your web search should be possession + Thucydides or "lasting possession" + Thucydides. Your new testament search is highly irrelevant as this is an Ancient Greek text and predates the new testament.

[m1rr0rshade]

yes... i realize now that i posted in the wrong forum. the only other greek in the essay i'm reading was the previous thread: Τήν άρχήν ό τι χάι λαλω̃ ύμι̃ν,
which is from John 8:25. i incorrectly assumed that questions on new testament greek were better posted in the ancient greek forum. my mistake, and i apologize for not knowing the difference. given the previous new testament reference, you can see my conclusion that κτη̃μα ές άεὶ is also biblical.

[m1rr0rshade]

but i still can't figure out why it's not coming up in perseus?

thanks for your help, and again i apologize for my ignorance.
paul

[m1rr0rshade]

btw, sorry about the multiple partial posts.... my browser for some reason severely limits the length of my posts

[m1rr0rshade]

i'm sorry if i sounded like i expected you to run tech support for perseus...
i guess i'm just asking if i was using the correct transliteration

thanks again for your time and help,
paul

[m1rr0rshade]

....ok, you were right....
the phrase does not occur at all in the new testament.

i found a searchable new testament at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/
and i read some of what you wrote about "greeklish" i.e. different transliterations... and finally got right - only to find out that the phrase doesn't occur in the text.

anyway... thanks for your help.
paul

next time i'll know not to second guess the experts.

[m1rr0rshade]

.....ah, what a fine monologue i've had here....