I am pretty sure the meaning of the sentence is something along the lines of:
Of the other δυνάμεις, you fill find not one that is able to contemplate itself.
Despite this vague understanding, however, I cannot figure out the grammar of the last part of the sentence. I have been inclining towards interpreting the accusative phrase οὐδεμίαν αὐτὴν θεωρητικήν as the direct object of the verb εὑρήσετε, but what then happens to αὑτῆς? I can’t seem to incorporate this reflexive pronoun (I guess this is a contracted form of ἑαυτῆς) into my understanding of the sentence.
αὐτὴν, “itself” (intensifying), standing right next to αὑτῆς, is grammatically redundant but is in accordance with regular idiom. Lit. “itself contemplative of itself.” It belongs to the predicate, not with οὐδεμίαν, which alone is the direct object.
As I think you now realize, it’s not αὐτὴν θεωρητικήν but αὑτῆς θεωρητικήν that means “contemplative of itself." The important point is that αὐτὴν (Lat. ipsam) in juxtaposition with the reflexive is standard idiom. Your own “… not one that is able to contemplate itself” sensibly made a relative clause of (αὐτὴν) αὑτῆς θεωρητικήν, and its omission of αὐτὴν was actually perfectly in order in an English translation, but the Greek (or any “restatement” of it) would be unidiomatic without it.
Similarly Latin: … nullam reperietis quae ipsa sese contemplari possit.
οὐδεμία ῾στι αὐτὴ αὑτῆς θεωρητική being the only idiomatic way to say this sort of thing in Greek is quite a sweeping statement. “οὔκ ἐστι τις οὖσα ” seems like a perfectly normal equivalent of “οὐδεμία ῾στι αὐτὴ <some predicate to αὐτὴ>”.
Joel, I’m not sure you completely understood Michael’s point. The idiom consists of some form of αὐτός agreeing with the subject of a verb or noun to which an adjective refers + an oblique case of the reflexive pronoun αὑτ-, depending on the complement of the adjective or verb in question, to indicate that the adjective or verb is self-acting. The applicable form of αὐτός is redundant, but it idiomatically reinforces the reflexive, self-acting property of the adjective or verb.
I’m not sure that’s an intelligible explanation, but your rewrite would have to be οὐκ ἔστι δύναμίς τις αὐτὴ αὑτῆς θεωρητικὴ οὖσα. αὐτὴ would be redundant, but idiomatic.
Maybe that will help you understand Michael’s point.
ἡ καὶ αὑτὴν θεωροῦσα καὶ τἆλλα πάντα is the ἡ δύναμις ἡ λογική, according to the next little bit. And book κ´ is “Περὶ τοῦ λόγου πῶς αὑτοῦ θεωρητικός ἐστιν”. Its first sentence is “ὅταν μὲν οὖν ὁμοειδὴς τοῖς θεωρουμένοις καὶ αὐτή, ἀναγκαίως καὶ αὑτῆς γίνεται θεωρητική.” We clearly don’t need the redundant αὐτός in every expression of this idea of the the self-perceiving force. Nor, clearly, do we need the redundant αὐτός for every self-acting adjective or verb in general Greek.
While, I certainly agree that “αὐτὴν αὑτῆς θεωρητικήν” was a nice and idiomatic turn of phrase, I’m not convinced of Michael’s “any restatement”, if that is what he meant.
EDIT: Thinking about this last night, is it just that οὐδεμία generally takes a predicate rather than having a verb or adjective applied directly, hence it usually gets a pronoun of some sort? So not the reflexive driving this, but οὐδεμία. However, I haven’t made a serious investigation of this, so that’s only a gut feeling.
The OP was puzzled by the last part of Epictetus’ sentence, αὐτὴν αὑτῆς θεωρητικήν. That has been fully elucidated.
(Joel’s attempted restatement both changed the meaning and failed to address the point at issue.)
The OP said that he had not understand the function of the αὑτῆς, and so I presented it in isolation. I carefully avoided telling him (the obvious) “itself of itself perceptive” because I thought it would not be didactic. You took a different tact, which is fine. In fact, he even said that he didn’t find mine helpful.
The “meaning change” that you object to, however, does not seem material. The author himself refers to to αὐτη αὑτῆς θεωρητική and αὑτῆς θεωρητική interchangeably. In fact, I would think that the αὐτή is primarily there in the first sentence for its pronomial function after οὐδημία, and not primarily for the intensifying function. But I won’t insist on it. Your statement about the “αὐτὴν (Lat. ipsam) in juxtaposition with the reflexive” being the only possible idiom has no basis that I can discover, though I am willing to be corrected. Bill thought that there was enough in it to try to elucidate it.
I appreciated your deleting the comment from the first post, and was going to leave the thread be, until it came back in a later post. If the sniping of the last couple of months – ie., your recent post in a new user thread – is some sort of version of scorched earth Academic-style politicking applied to Textkit, I’m really not up for it. The stakes here are not Academic careers, but only the chance to have friendly discussions with each other.
None of us are fluent in this language, and the people who were are all dead. Mortals aren’t up for what you’re trying to be: arbitrar of right and wrong on the internet. I read today that Fraenkel always referred to himself as poorly informed compared to “the great Leo”. I promise you that you’ll have that from me one day. But not while you’re still here with us. (And Roberto may hold out for a certified miracle.)
Hi Joel, just to pick up one point you’ve raised: I don’t think this idiom is being triggered because of the presence of οὐδεμίαν. It occurs often without οὐδεμίαν.
Incidentally, I actually think that Epictetus in this section is echoing here something in Plato’s Charmides, where we also see this same idiom coming up several times, e.g. 166c: αἱ μὲν ἄλλαι πᾶσαι ἄλλου εἰσὶν ἐπιστῆμαι, ἑαυτῶν δ᾽ οὔ, ἡ δὲ μόνη τῶν τε ἄλλων ἐπιστημῶν ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὴ ἑαυτῆς. I hear echoes of this, and the broader passage at Charmides 165–6, in 1.1 of Epictetus’ Discourses, e.g. when Epictetus says at 1.1.4 (although reversing the order): ἡ δύναμις ἡ λογική: μόνη γὰρ αὕτη καὶ αὑτὴν κατανοήσουσα παρείληπται … καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἁπάσας.
Both talk about an X which, uniquely among Xs, has a certain relation to itself and all other Xs. The parallel/echo I’m hearing is just a gut feeling though.
Looking through Charmides, αὐτὴ ἑαυτῆς seems to alternate with bare ἑαυτῆς in the various self-apprehending examples that come up. I don’t know what triggers it or not, though in the one you’ve quoted, it definitely adds balance:
I wouldn’t presume to say when the one or the other gets favored, but I think that you are right and that it’s not specifically the need for a pronoun predicate.
Joel accused me of “sniping” and of “scorched earth Academic-style politicking” (when all I’m doing is trying to help), and worse. After that I hesitate to participate further, but we all get cross at times (myself not least), and to show my continuing good will, now that that Thucydides passage is finally out of the way (cross fingers), I’ll briefly address his implied question: what motivates or “triggers” αὐτὴν in the phrase αὐτὴν αὑτῆς θεωρητικήν.
I think the answer is essentially simple. It’s a perfectly normal use of αὐτός. At bottom it’s the difference between αὐτὸς εἶπεν and plain εἶπεν. These are not “interchangeable” expressions, even if αὐτός is syntactically redundant, and nor are αὐτὴ ἑαυτὴν θεωρεῖ and plain ἑαυτὴν θεωρεῖ.
Here in the opening of Epictetus’ treatise αὐτὴν is independently functional as well as idiomatic, and it would be very strange if it were not there. In this idiom the force of the αὐτὸς may not always be strongly felt but it’s always operative to some degree, and here it’s fully functional. In iterations, when there’s no stress laid on the agency, it may not be necessary. I haven’t looked over the continuation, nor the Charmides passage that Chad does well to point to, but I expect you’ll be able to discern the distinction if you do.