Plb. 6.2

[pster]

οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μὲν οὖν διότι τινὲς διαπορήσουσι πῶς ἀφέμενοι τοῦ συνάπτειν καὶ προστιθέναι τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς διηγήσεως, εἰς τοῦτον ἀπεθέμεθα τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς προειρημένης πολιτείας ἀπολογισμόν:

What is the subject of ἀφέμενοι? What is the subject of ἀπεθέμεθα? Why the gen. τοῦ? I am flatfootedly inclined to take both subjects as "we", but none of my three translations is so inclined. And if anybody wants to attempt a literal translation, I would be much obliged.

Thanks in advance.

[John W.]

pster - sorry I've only time for a very quick reply, but isn't the subject of both verbs Polybius himself? In the first sentence of Book I he refers to himself in the plural, an affectation also adopted by some other authors, both ancient and (relatively) modern. In current English one would have to translate as 'I'.

The articular infinitives τοῦ συνάπτειν and [τοῦ] προστιθέναι are, I think, governed by ἀφέμενοι, 'putting aside' or 'neglecting'. ἀφίεμαι can take a genitive, as at Thucydides II.60.4: ταῖς κατ᾽ οἶκον κακοπραγίαις ἐκπεπληγμένοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς σωτηρίας ἀφίεσθε, which I translate: 'through consternation at your individual domestic misfortunes you neglect the salvation of the community'.

I hope this helps a bit, but I'm no Polybian, and perhaps others can amplify/correct as necessary.

Best wishes,

John

[pster]

Thanks John. Yes, that clears it up.

[John W.]

Thanks, pster.

You also asked about translating this passage. Does the following help?

'I am by no means unaware that some will be at a loss as to why, departing from maintaining and extending the continuity of my narrative, I have reserved for this moment the account of the aforementioned constitution.'

This is only a rough stab, so please feel free to improve/correct.

Best wishes,

John

[pster]

I like that translation quite a bit. Doesn't seem rough at all. Part of my problem is that I just haven't done any reading in quite a while. And every possible little thing throws me off, such as, for example, that articular infinitive. Are we supposed to assume that there is an implied/suppressed second article? Or is there one article for a collective infinitive?

I have some Thucydides questions, but I want to struggle with them a bit more. Any thoughts on whether I should put Thucydides questions, that are more grammar questions than Thucydides questions, in the Thucydides thread or in their own threads? For example, I think I have one about word order.

[John W.]

I like that translation quite a bit. Doesn't seem rough at all. Part of my problem is that I just haven't done any reading in quite a while. And every possible little thing throws me off, such as, for example, that articular infinitive. Are we supposed to assume that there is an implied/suppressed second article? Or is there one article for a collective infinitive?

I have some Thucydides questions, but I want to struggle with them a bit more. Any thoughts on whether I should put Thucydides questions, that are more grammar questions than Thucydides questions, in the Thucydides thread or in their own threads? For example, I think I have one about word order.

Thanks. I wouldn't worry about things sometimes throwing you off - it happens to all of us. I'm about to post on a couple of Thucydides points which are, I'm sure, far more elementary than the issues you've raised.

Re the articular infinitive, I've just assumed that, as in English, an article sometimes does service in respect of two words - but I haven't checked what (if anything) Smyth says on this point.

On the placement of Thucydides questions, I tend to put those - whether grammatical or not - that arise from the text of Thucydides, and which I need answered in order to understand/translate the latter, in the Thucydides thread itself. If the discussion widens much beyond their application to Thucydides, then I suppose they could be shunted into separate threads. But of course it's up to you!

By the way, I like the new picture!

Best wishes,

John