Plat., Protag.

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Prot., 327d attraction into opt

Post by mwh » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:40 am

No that’s not it at all! That wouldn’t make sense. It’s a continuation of the relative clause, with a slight anacoluthon (since οἷς has been left behind). If it helps, you can understand οἲ before εἶεν; that would make it grammatical, but would be unidiomatic. The sense, as you'd have realized if you read for sense as well as grammar, is “who have no culture … (lit. to whom there is no culture …) but rather are savages.”

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot., 327d attraction into opt

Post by Constantinus Philo » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:37 am

ok ive got it thanx
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot., 327d attraction into opt

Post by Constantinus Philo » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:44 pm

but i think he changes the mood for stylistic reasons aiming at variety, for he could have used the opt in both parts, or could have switched the moods saying ἐισί for εἶεν in the second part, or εἴη for ἐστι in the first part, however, i think that using the indicative in both parts throughout would have been wrong.
Semper Fidelis

polemistes
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Prot 330a τὸ δὲ ἄλλο

Post by polemistes » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:13 am

Look at LSJ for ἄλλος ΙΙ.3: ἄ. καὶ ἄ., one and then another...

ἕκαστον δέ ... τὸ δέ, makes a contrast, almost like τὸ μέν ... τὸ δέ ...

So it becomes something like "each of them is one thing, I said, and the other is something else?", which perhaps is more clearly written in English: "Is each of them, I said, something different from the other?"

I hope this helps.

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 330a τὸ δὲ ἄλλο

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:20 pm

still I am inclined to think that τὸ δε ἄλλο must be taken adverbially: with respect to the rest, in all other respects, this δε is copulative, not adverstative. So the best translation would be: so I said: and is each of them different also in all other respects?
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 340ab

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:32 pm

καὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ δεῖται τὸ ὑπὲρ Σιμωνίδου ἐπανόρθωμα τῆς σῆς μουσικῆς, ᾗ τό τε βούλεσθαι καὶ ἐπιθυμεῖν διαιρεῖς ὡς οὐ ταὐτὸν ὄν, καὶ ἃ νυνδὴ εἶπες πολλά τε καὶ καλά. It appears that καὶ ἃ means here διό. Or, it may be the case of an antecedent τούτων omitted. the correction of Simonides needs your music to distinguish between wishing and desiring, and (it needs) that which you have just said in many excellent ways. Or it may be just what it is, acc n pl, meaning that: for indeed, the correction of Simonides needs your musical skill by which you distinguish to wish and to desire, that which you have just said in many excellent ways. I think the last is the most probable.
Semper Fidelis

polemistes
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Prot 330a τὸ δὲ ἄλλο

Post by polemistes » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:07 pm

Why do you think it must be copulative?

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 330a τὸ δὲ ἄλλο

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:12 pm

because the other does not make much sense here
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 344b

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:03 pm

ἀλλὰ τὸν τύπον αὐτοῦ τὸν ὅλον διεξέλθωμεν καὶ τὴν βούλησιν, ὅτι παντὸς μᾶλλον ἔλεγχός ἐστιν τοῦ Πιττακείου ῥήματος διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ᾁσματος. On which does the ὅτι clause depend, on διεξέλθωμεν or βούλησιν?
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Funny Prot 345a

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:20 am

Its funny that according to Plato you cannot be a bad doctor first and then develop into a good doctor, but you needs to be a good doctor from the start in order to inevitably become a bad doctor later. It resembles somehow Aristotle's entelechy: you needs to be a full grown man before you can be a child.
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 345c

Post by Constantinus Philo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:59 pm

τοὔνεκεν οὔ ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι
δυνατὸν διζήμενος κενεὰν ἐς ἄ-
πρακτον ἐλπίδα μοῖραν αἰῶνος βαλέω,
πανάμωμον ἄνθρωπον, εὐρυεδοῦς ὅσοι
καρπὸν αἰνύμεθα χθονός:
ἐπί θ᾽ ὑμῖν εὑρὼν ἀπαγγελέω, It appears that this ὅσοι clause has a concessive meaning: as many as there might be....
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 347c

Post by Constantinus Philo » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:50 pm

πολλοῦ μισθούμενοι ἀλλοτρίαν φωνὴν τὴν τῶν αὐλῶν, : hiring at a high price an extraneous voice, namely, that of the flutes.
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 330a τὸ δὲ ἄλλο

Post by Constantinus Philo » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:36 pm

οὐκ ὂν οἷον τὸ ἕτερον αὐτῶν τὸ ἕτερον; Prot 349b, the same construction?
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 350d

Post by Constantinus Philo » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:03 pm

τοὺς δὲ ἀνδρείους ὡς οὐ θαρραλέοι εἰσίν, τὸ ἐμὸν ὁμολόγημα οὐδαμοῦ ἐπέδειξας ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ὡμολόγησα. This is the sentence which all the commentators got wrong trying to explain the οὐ . In my opinion, it is simple if you take τὸ ἐμὸν ὁμολόγημα as acc of respect: you have never proved that I have admitted wrongly, that the courageous are not bold with respect to what I have agreed upon.
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 344b

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:11 am

i think on βούλησιν
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 351c

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:40 am

ἐγὼ γὰρ λέγω, καθ᾽ ὃ ἡδέα ἐστίν, ἆρα κατὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀγαθά, μὴ εἴ τι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀποβήσεται ἄλλο; How to explain the usage of this μὴ?
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 345c

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:40 pm

cf Prot 352d: καὶ ὅσους δὴ ἐγὼ ἠρόμην ὅτι ποτε αἴτιόν ἐστι τούτου, ὑπὸ ἡδονῆς φασιν, as many as I might have asked,
Semper Fidelis

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Prot 345c

Post by mwh » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:06 am

ὅσους δὴ ἐγὼ ἠρόμην simply means “everyone I asked” (lit. “as many as I asked”). There's no concessive force.

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 345c

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:45 am

that's the problem because first in all the Russian translations of osoi there is a shade of concessive meaning, second, the french autant qu'il y a ( the translation of osoi), might also have it and finally it is difficult to connect the πανάμωμον ἄνθρωπον, εὐρυεδοῦς ὅσοι
καρπὸν αἰνύμεθα χθονός: with the preceding clause if there is no any concessive meaning
Semper Fidelis

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Prot 345c

Post by mwh » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:12 am

No, ὅσοι καρπὸν αἰνύμεθα χθονός has no concessive force either (and I suspect you don't actually mean concessive). It’s a perfectly ordinary use of ὅσοι with indicative, “all of us who” (not "as many as there might be"). There’s no expressed antecedent (e.g. en pasin), but remember this is high lyric poetry.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Prot 350d

Post by Hylander » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:03 am

No. This is the "I know thee who thou art" idiom. "You have not shown my agreement that I erroneously agreed." " You have not shown that my agreement was in error."

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Prot 345c

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:43 pm

ok now that's clear thank you
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 352e 353a

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:44 pm

ὅ φασιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡττᾶσθαι καὶ οὐ πράττειν διὰ ταῦτα τὰ βέλτιστα, ἐπεὶ γιγνώσκειν γε αὐτά. I think there is no need to suppose the subject τινα with those infinitives.
Semper Fidelis

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Prot 353b

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:42 pm

ᾗ οἶμαι ἂν ἔγωγε κάλλιστα φανερὸν γενέσθαι, would it be possible to use a fut inf instead of γενέσθαι?
Semper Fidelis

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Prot 353b

Post by mwh » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:16 pm

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:42 pm
ᾗ οἶμαι ἂν ἔγωγε κάλλιστα φανερὸν γενέσθαι, would it be possible to use a fut inf instead of γενέσθαι?
If you mean Would it have been possible for Plato to have used the future?, I guess the answer is Yes. The significant thing is that he didn’t. γενήσεσθαι would put undue stress on the futurity, plus it's a bit of a mouthful.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Prot 352e 353a

Post by mwh » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:20 pm

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:44 pm
ὅ φασιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡττᾶσθαι καὶ οὐ πράττειν διὰ ταῦτα τὰ βέλτιστα, ἐπεὶ γιγνώσκειν γε αὐτά. I think there is no need to suppose the subject τινα with those infinitives.
This has to be read in the light of οἶσθα οὖν ὅτι οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐμοί τε καὶ σοὶ οὐ πείθονται, ἀλλὰ πολλούς φασι γιγνώσκοντας τὰ βέλτιστα οὐκ ἐθέλειν πράττειν, ἐξὸν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἄλλα πράττειν (352d), which it’s recapitulating. Without that it would read rather oddly.

Euripides’ Phaedra had expressed the same thought in the Hippolytus (380ff.):
τὰ χρήστ᾽ ἐπιστάμεσθα καὶ γιγνώσκομεν,

οὐκ ἐκπονοῦμεν δ᾽, οἱ μὲν ἀργίας ὕπο,

οἱ δ᾽ ἡδονὴν προθέντες ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ

ἄλλην τιν᾽. εἰσὶ δ᾽ ἡδοναὶ πολλαὶ βίου,

μακραί τε λέσχαι καὶ σχολή, τερπνὸν κακόν, ...

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Plat., Protag. 354b

Post by Constantinus Philo » Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:21 pm

ταῦτα δὲ ἀγαθά ἐστι δι᾽.... in an old addition, δὲ is changed into δὴ, on the ground that ταῦτα must refer to the preceding γυμνάσια etc, Why? i do not get the reason.
Semper Fidelis

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Plat., Protag. 354b

Post by mwh » Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:41 am

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:21 pm
ταῦτα δὲ ἀγαθά ἐστι δι᾽.... in an old addition, δὲ is changed into δὴ, on the ground that ταῦτα must refer to the preceding γυμνάσια etc, Why? i do not get the reason.
I doubt that’s why the change was proposed. δὴ is very attractive, but since it’s not transmitted, and not strictly "necessary," it's understandable if editors hesitate to accept it.

cb
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Plat., Protag.

Post by cb » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:33 am

Hi, I’m coming into this discussion late, but I see a post above on 350d that hasn’t been addressed:

‘τοὺς δὲ ἀνδρείους ὡς οὐ θαρραλέοι εἰσίν, τὸ ἐμὸν ὁμολόγημα οὐδαμοῦ ἐπέδειξας ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ὡμολόγησα. This is the sentence which all the commentators got wrong trying to explain the οὐ . In my opinion, it is simple if you take τὸ ἐμὸν ὁμολόγημα as acc of respect: you have never proved that I have admitted wrongly, that the courageous are not bold with respect to what I have agreed upon.’

I disagree with this reading, because it does not fit with the surrounding argument: this construction might suggest that Protagoras denies that all courageous people are bold; Protagoras makes clear several times, however, that all courageous people are bold: (using numbering from Denyer’s latest text) 349e1–3, 350c6–7 (I leave out the disputed passage at 350b7–9: if it were included, it would further support this reading). If you are suggesting something else however (such as that the courageous are bold, on the basis of some other agreed ground), can you please explain what you have in mind?

I agree with the commentators, such as Adam and Adam (1893 p. 175), Denyer (2008 p. 176) etc., on the treatment of the negative here, which makes the statement fit with the surrounding argument.

Also I don’t take τὸ ἐμὸν ὁμολόγημα as an acc. of respect, but as a fronted cognate acc. with ὡμολόγησα, similar to Crito 52a6–8: ἴσως ἄν μου δικαίως καθάπτοιντο λέγοντες ὅτι ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα Ἀθηναίων ἐγὼ αὐτοῖς ὡμολογηκὼς τυγχάνω ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν. No matter how the accusative is construed however, I don’t think it has any bearing on the reading of the negative.

It’s good to question commentators—they do sometimes make mistakes—not here though, I think.

Cheers, Chad

Post Reply