pster wrote:Sorry Nate, I could have given you some context. Up until now, Polybius had just been narrating events. But in Book VI, he digresses to discuss the Roman constitution. ἐπίστασιν is a noun here and has nothing to do with vetoing.
pster wrote:How are we to understand the active substantialized participle τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος? Shouldn't it refer to a person? Or at least some kind of agent? And how would this work in a comparison with καιρὸν, an opportunity? Or maybe there is an implicit καιρὸu in the genitive here? But I still don't see how that would work.
John W. wrote:
pster - doesn't καιρὸν ... ἐπιτηδειότερον ... τοῦ νῦν ἐνεστῶτος just mean ' an opportunity ... more suitable ... than the one which now presents itself [i.e. than the present opportunity]'? In other words, I think ἐνεστῶτος qualifies καιροῦ understood. LSJ cites Polybius 2.26.3 for τὰ ἐνεστῶτα in the sense of 'present circumstances'.
pster wrote:Yes John. Excellent. I forgot about the intransitive forms. I was trying to understand the participle as transitive, and hence as something with either Polybius or the consitution being the subject/agent. And I thought the νῦν had to be carrying all the temporal load. I think that an even better translation would be something like: "the (opportunity) now pending". I haven't read any Greek in a year, except for some Aeschylus--a kind of rule proving exception --so I feel very insecure trying to unpack these things. But I suspected you guys could unpack it for me.
What about the other issue?
John W. wrote:You've translated ἐπίστασιν as 'stopping', but I wonder whether, like δοκιμασίαν, it doesn't in fact go with τῶν λέγεσθαι μελλόντων, in the sense of 'turning one's attention to' (see LSJ for some similar uses). I see from one of your posts that Walbank takes it in the same way.
John W. wrote:τῶν λέγεσθαι μελλόντων ὑπὲρ τῆς πολιτείας is, as you say, somewhat perplexing. Could ὑπὲρ here = 'concerning',
John W. wrote:and could the overall sense be:
'As this decision had been taken, I saw no opportunity more suitable than the present for turning my attention to the examination of those matters which are to be discussed regarding the constitution'
John W. wrote:This is all very tentative; does P. go on to defend the Roman constitution, in which case ὑπὲρ could still mean 'in defence of'?
pster wrote:I'm not so crazy about this because I think ἐπίστασιν καὶ δοκιμασίαν have to work in parallel. Am I missing something?
Users browsing this forum: polemistes and 93 guests