[121] πλὴν γὰρ τούτου τί τῶν ἄλλων ὑπόλοιπόν ἐστιν; οὐ καὶ τοῦ πολέμου κύριος ἐγένετο. . . .
This is the problem phrase: οὐ καὶ τοῦ πολέμου κύριος ἐγένετο. . . .
Norlin translates it thus: “Was it not he who decided the issue of the war. . . .”
I don’t understand how Norlin got that. The best I could do was “Was he not the master of the war. . . .” What am I missing?
I think Norlin just chooses a more idiomatic English translation. What would you say is the difference in actual sense between the translations?
Thanks for the reply, polemistes.
I consulted Norlin’s translation as part of my usual activity of checking my own work. My translation was “master of the war”. Because I didn’t like my translation, I hoped Norlin would help with a better meaning–very often reading Norlin does this, as I work my way through this very long oration of Isocrates.
But I balked on the English word “issue”. In the English context the “issue of the war” suggested to me “the outcome of the war”, or “the situation prevailing because of the way the war had gone.” I didn’t have an objection to that meaning as a fair statement of the historical facts, on the one hand; but on the other, I couldn’t reach that more specific statement by my own reading of the Greek sentence.
In any scholarly work, one finds questions without persuasive answers. This may be one of those situations, but because of my limited Greek, I don’t know that. For this reason I posted my query.
Well, Hugh, I’d say what you are missing is the rhetorical context. This is the first in a trio of rhetorical questions (with more to come) that help determine just what τοῦ πολέμου κύριος ἐγένετο means here. κυριος itself of course can apply to a variety of “master” relationships (just as “issue” can mean a variety of things), and it would be a mistake to take the word in isolation, especially when it initiates a continuing series of institutional metaphors, επρυτανευσε and επιστατης in particular. And (of course) we’re meant to register and admire the elaborate structural organization of the whole passage.
You may not find this a persuasive answer, or an answer at all.
In a different vein, I’m reminded of Dylan’s Masters of War, as topical as ever.
It’s exactly the kind of answer I need. Because I have to work hard to understand the literal meaning, sentence-by-sentence, meanings related to context often escape my notice. Maybe when I get my 10K hours in these puzzlements will occur less often.
Many thanks to Michael for the tip.