6.2.6

[pster]

...μόνον νομίζοντες εἶναι ταύτην ἀνδρὸς τελείου βάσανον τὸ τὰς ὁλοσχερεῖς μεταβολὰς τῆς τύχης μεγαλοψύχως δύνασθαι καὶ γενναίως ὑποφέρειν...

Are the bolded verbs in parallel? I'm leaning towards saying no. But then that makes for some wild word order, at least by my provincial standards.

[John W.]

...μόνον νομίζοντες εἶναι ταύτην ἀνδρὸς τελείου βάσανον τὸ τὰς ὁλοσχερεῖς μεταβολὰς τῆς τύχης μεγαλοψύχως δύνασθαι καὶ γενναίως ὑποφέρειν...

Are the bolded verbs in parallel? I'm leaning towards saying no. But then that makes for some wild word order, at least by my provincial standards.

pster - I'd say that the verbs aren't parallel, and that it's δύνασθαι ὑποφέρειν, 'to be able to bear'. You're right about the word order, but one sometimes finds the same sort of thing in Thucydides.

Best wishes,

John

[NateD26]

Are the Greek and English translations aligned in the numbering of chapters and sections?
It's quite difficult finding in the translations the section in question. At least for me.

[pster]

Are the Greek and English translations aligned in the numbering of chapters and sections?
It's quite difficult finding in the translations of the section in question. At least for me.

The 6.1 translation does not exist on Perseus. The 6.2 translation is in 6.1. From 6.3 onwards, they correlate. Different scholars make different choices about which fragments to include. The Perseus translation is quite casual and rarely sheds much light on difficult passages. I have a far superior French translation but that obviously does you little good. The French translation does not treat them as parallel: "sache supporter", ie "knows how to bear".

[John W.]

Actually I'm now wondering if I was a bit premature, as I see LSJ gives a sense for δύνασθαι of 'bear', so that perhaps it's being used as an alternative to ὑποφέρειν - 'to endure ... and to bear ...', perhaps.

Apologies if I've created confusion .

Best wishes,

John

[pster]

Actually I'm now wondering if I was a bit premature, as I see LSJ gives a sense for δύνασθαι of 'bear', so that perhaps it's being used as an alternative to ὑποφέρειν - 'to endure ... and to bear ...', perhaps.

Apologies if I've created confusion .

Best wishes,

John

That sense what is exactly what gave me pause.

[John W.]

That sense what is exactly what gave me pause.

And it's the interpretation to which I'm, on balance, now inclining.

Sorry I can't be of more help; whereas I have a collection of Thucydidean editions and commentaries on which I can draw, I've nothing for Polybius. Perhaps more importantly, not having read any Polybius (beyond your extracts), I don't have a feel for his style or idiomatic range. Both these factors, I'm afraid, severely limit my ability to assist. I can't remember whether you have access to Walbank's commentary, and I don't know whether he comments on this point.

Best wishes,

John

[Qimmik]

. . . thinking that the test of a perfect gentleman is to be able to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune magnanimously and nobly . . .

[Qimmik]

In other words, they're not parallel. ὑποφέρειν is subordinate to δύνασθαι.

[Qimmik]

The slight separation of μεγαλοψύχως and καὶ γενναίως (hyperbaton) isn't particularly astonishing in Greek. Greek word order is more flexible than English word order because Greek is more highly inflected (and Latin is even more flexible). This book has a good discussion of Greek word order: http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Briston-Classical-Advanced-Language/dp/1853995266

The same goes for the "fronting" of ἐμοὶ in your post titled "Dative of possession." This is a little more radical, but by no means unparalleled (see Denniston, p. 49 for postponed ὅτι).

Also, you'll notice that the examples cited in LSJ for δύνασθαι meaning "bear" take an infinitive complement, not a direct object, so τὰς ὁλοσχερεῖς μεταβολὰς τῆς τύχης δύνασθαι -- as you would have to analyze the sentence if δύνασθαι and ὑποφέρειν were parallel -- wouldn't be consistent with those examples.

[pster]

Thanks. I guess John and I both missed the c. inf. requirement because we were only looking at the subsection. So yes, it seems they aren't in parallel.

That Denniston looks very good. And cheap! I'll have to pick up a copy!