Δαιμόνων τύχας ὅστις ϕέρει κάλλιστ’ ἀνὴρ οὗτος σοϕός

μοχθεῖν ἀνάγκη: τὰς δὲ δαιμόνων τύχας ὅστις ϕέρει κάλλιστ’ ἀνὴρ οὗτος σοϕός.

I’m not sure which (if either) interpretation is right:
Working is a necessity:
a) but the wise man bears the fortunes [imposed by] the gods most nobly.
b) but the man who bears the fortunes [imposed by] the gods most nobly – he is wise.
|
Also, the context implies that “the gods’ fortunes” can’t be right so I opted for an alternative construction with a sort of subjective genitive (with the gods as the subject + verb). Is that kind of elliptical construction common? It seems like they could express the idea more clearly with other prepositions.
Betts, Gavin; Henry, Alan. Complete Ancient Greek: A Comprehensive Guide to Reading and Understanding Ancient Greek, with Original Texts (Complete Language Courses) (p. 343). John Murray Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s the latter. The ὅστις introduces the relative clause. Your first ignores the ὅστις. Lit. “Whoever bears the gods’ fortunes best, this man is wise.”
They’re “the gods’ fortunes” in the sense that that gods give them (or impose them, as you say). They’re what “happen” to people, and (of course) the gods are responsible.

It’s two iambic trimeters, Euripidean.

Thanks again, Michael!

One small additional point. μοχθεῖν can mean “toil,” but here, I think, it means something closer to"undergo distress."