Now I have come to the Ἱππόγυποι–men riding on huge vultures.
How big are those birds?
μάθοι δ᾽ ἄν τις τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῶν ἐντεῦθεν: νεὼς γὰρ μεγάλης φορτίδος ἱστοῦ ἕκαστον τῶν πτερῶν μακρότερον καὶ παχύτερον φέρουσι.
My understanding of this is: “Each of the feathers they bear is longer and thicker than the mast of a large merchant ship.” But it seems odd to say that birds “bear” feathers, and don’t find examples that support this in LSJ. Am I missing something?
πτερά =πτέρυξ by synecdoche
From the LSJ:
2= πτέρυξ, birdʼs wing, freq. in pl., wings, Il. 11.454, Od. 2.151, etc. (sg., A. Fr. 304.4); οἶμον αἰθέρος ψαίρει πτεροῖς Id. Pr. 396; Παλλάδος ὑπὸ πτεροῖς ὄντας, metaph. from chickens under the henʼs wings,
Verae Historiae=“True Stories”=Tall Tales!
Interesting that it’s not ἑκάτερον. And that he’s comparing against ἱστός instead of ἱστία, which is the first thing that comes to mind in comparing a wing, rather than a quill. Also παχύτερον.
I did think about its being a wing that’s meant here, Joel, but the shape of a wing doesn’t compare well with a ship’s mast. And I am mainly troubled by φέρουσι.
It’s great fun reading Lucian, but I wish I had something like Mather and Hewitt to help me along. They picked out every grammar point, including a lot of things I would have just passed without noticing. Thanks again to you for putting up those parallel references to G&G, which I used to the fullest.
Regarding φέρειν, Aristotle uses it in reference to leaves, branches, and fur. And Jesus in reference to fruit. I see teeth mentioned a couple of times in the LSJ entry. This might argue for feathers. But perhaps the verb choice is simply to emphasize the massive size and weight of the wings.
I think that it is “quills” that is meant here. It is not so much a shape that is being compared as the length. As in " ὅσσον θ’ ἱστὸν νηὸς ἐεικοσόροιο μελαίνης, " referring to the Cyclops’ club. (Odyss. 9, 322 f.)
I would read φέρουσι as simply have: see LSJ “in Trag. stronger than ἔχω, ἁγνὰς αἵματος χεῖρας φ. to have hands clean from blood, E. Hipp. 316 (v.l. φορεῖς).”
Barrett in his text and commentary of Hippolytos prints φορεῖς “the normal word for anything one has constantly about one (clothes, bodily and mental features and qualities; L.S. i. 2,3)”. Perhaps there is a similar confusion in the text here? B. says that the corruption to φέρειν is not uncommon.
Can I take Seneca’s post as confirmation that the Loeb agrees with me on quill?
I don’t see any difficulty here. The πτερα are the wing feathers, the quills. They have more than two of then, so ἕκαστον not Joel’s ἑκάτερον. There’s nothing at all odd about φερουσι, it’s just the right term, a bit more specific than εχουσιν.
Edit, after seeing seneca’s good post. φοροῦσι would perhaps be the mot juste, but I think Lucian is more likely to have used the plain φέρουσιν.
Look more carefully at my post and you should see that was exactly the point that I was making: it’s not the ἑκάτερον that we’d expect with wings.
Seneca’s post was fine, but he is cribbing without mentioning it.
One of the translations of VH that’s available online says “quill feathers,” and of course that makes the best sense. When I read in a new language, though, it’s not so much the “what does it say” that interests me as the “how does it say that.” Knowing that φέρουσι can be used this way, I feel at ease. Other languages (German, Russian) also use ‘carry’ to mean ‘wear habitually’, so there’s nothing out of place.
Thanks all!
Another answer to my question.
There’s an online commentary on_VH_ here. The site’s been down for a couple days, but checking now I find:
ἕκαστον τῶν πτερῶν φέρουσι: “they report that each of the feathers…”
Recall that the text has:
νεὼς γὰρ μεγάλης φορτίδος ἱστοῦ ἕκαστον τῶν πτερῶν μακρότερον καὶ παχύτερον φέρουσι.
With φέρουσι at the very end, I have a feeling this is the best way of understanding the sentence.
Your thoughts?
The Dickinson commentator seems to be confused by the gloss “report” in LSJ IV.4 for φέρω, without looking at the examples.
Nearing the end of Verae Historiae (tons of fun and I hope learned a lot), I come across something that confirms Seneca’s word, seconded by mwh, that φέρουσι can be taken as simply “have.”
Here’s the passage, with the meaning standing out plainly:
VH 2.45
αὐτοὶ γὰρ καὶ ναῦται καὶ νῆες ἦσαν. λέξω δὲ τοῦ πλοῦ τὸν τρόπον· ὕπτιοι κείμενοι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕδατος ὀρθώσαντες τὰ αἰδοῖα - μεγάλα δὲ φέρουσιν - ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀθόνην πετάσαντες καὶ ταῖς χερσὶν τοὺς ποδεῶνας κατέχοντες ἐμπίπτοντος τοῦ ἀνέμου ἔπλεον.
From here it’s on to more serious stuff: Lysias and the rest of the Malcom Campbell readers. Thanks for the guidance and smooth sailing to all!