Here is the Loeb translation. It doesn't help me with my questions.Dareios to Herakleitos.
καταβέβλησαι λόγον περὶ φύσεως δυσνόητόν τε καὶ δυσεξήγητον. ἔν τισι μὲν οὖν ἑρμηνευόμενος κατὰ λέξιν σὴν δοκεῖ δύναμίν τινα περιέχειν θεωρίας κόσμου τε τοῦ σύμπαντος καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτῳ γινομένων, ἅπερ ἐστὶν ἐν θειοτάτῃ κείμενα κινήσει, τὠν δὲ πλείστων ἐποχὴν ἔχοντα, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον μετεσχηκότας συγγραμμάτων διαπορεῖσθαι, τῆς ὀρθῆς δοκούσης γεγράφθαι παρὰ σοι διηγήσεως. (Therefore the king Dareios invites you to Persia ...)
My questions:You are the author of a treatise On Nature which is hard to understand and hard to interpret. In certain parts, if it be interpreted word for word, it seems to contain a power of speculation on the whole universe and all that goes on within it, which depends upon motion most divine; but for the most part judgement is suspended, so that even those who are the most conversant with literature are at a loss to know what is the right interpretation of your work.
(1) τὠν δὲ πλείστων ἐποχὴν ἔχοντα - What is the subject, case and number of ἔχοντα? The surrounding construction seems to be ἔν τισι μὲν οὖν ἑρμηνευόμενος (sc. λόγος) δοκεῖ ... τὠν δὲ πλείστων ἐποχὴν ἔχοντα. If λόγον is understood with ἐποχὴν ἔχοντα, as I first thought, why in the accusative? Or is ἔχοντα neuter plural nominative, meaning "(most) passages," δοκεῖ understood, matching τισι in the μέν clause? Or ??
(2) ὥστε ... διαπορεῖσθαι, τῆς ὀρθῆς δοκούσης γεγράφθαι παρὰ σοι διηγήσεως. - Notice the comma after διαπορεῖσθαι. I am using the 2013 Cambridge critical edition, edited by Tiziano Dorandi. Dorandi's apparatus states: "comma (,) post διαπορεῖσθαι pos. Lapini* servato διηγήσεως". "Lapini*" refers to a personal letter to the editor from another scholar. The apparatus has one other thing to add. It notes the proposed emendation in a 1904 journal article of ὀρθῶς for ὀρθῆς. The author of that article states of the clause ὥστε ... διαπορεῖσθαι τῆς ὀρθῆς δοκούσης γεγράφθαι παρὰ σοι διηγήσεως, which, like the Loeb and probably all previous editions, he takes to be a single clause, with no comma after διαπορεῖσθαι, "It may be questioned whether the gentivie without περί is right after διαπορεῖσθαι, but there can hardly be a doubt that we should read ὀρθῶς." Though the gist of the Greek is clear, in neither of the two interpretations, with or without the comma, am I seeing the construction.
Thoughts? Or do I just have to move on with the consoling thought that maybe Darius' Greek wasn't so hot! (Or conversely, that it was much better than mine.)