Phileb., 12c

[Constantinus Philo]

ἔστι γάρ, ἀκούειν μὲν οὕτως ἁπλῶς, ἕν τι,
is this an abs, inf? I think it is usually in ao not in present.

[jeidsath]

It strikes me as governed by impersonal ἔστι, with "ἕν τι" in accusative, to match the unstated accusative object of ἀκούειν, not nominative.

ἔστι γάρ, ἀκούειν μὲν οὕτως ἁπλῶς, ἕν τι, μορφὰς δὲ δήπου παντοίας εἴληφε καί τινα τρόπον ἀνομοίους ἀλλήλαις.

For it is on the one hand possible to hear [the name Aphrodite] simply this way, one thing, but it has undoubtedly taken varied shapes unlike each other in some nature as well.

[Constantinus Philo]

First: it is not referring to the name of Aphrodite but to pleasure, second, the commentary says that this akouein is like akousai in Dem. adv. Lept, 15 which is definitely an absolute infinitive. Another example adduced by the commentary here is Lysis 216 which I have not checked. Your explanation could be grammatically correct but out of context.

[jeidsath]

I shouldn't have put "the name Aphrodite" there in the brackets. But he has said a moment before: τὸ δʼ ἀληθέστατον αὐτῆς ὄνομα ἡδονὴν εἶναι. He's talking about ἡδονή as the appellation of Aphrodite. It's simple to hear the name, but it takes many forms.

[jeidsath]

I guess the Demosthenes line (I found it in 18, not 15) does illustrate pretty well how it would work absolutely, if it's parallel:

ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο οὑτωσὶ μὲν ἀκοῦσαι λόγον τιν’ ἔχον· εἰ δέ τις αὐτὸ ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάσειε, ψεῦδος ἂν φανείη.

Here "οὑτωσὶ μὲν ἀκοῦσαι" is its own little thing. Like ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν. It does fit to take "ἀκούειν μὲν οὕτως ἁπλῶς" the same way.

"Hearing it simply, it's one thing, but..."

[autotokalon]

I haven't paid attention to the absolute inf. usage of ἀκούειν, though as far as I remember ὡς ἀκοῦσαι appears more frequently. And indeed, both Smyth and the Syntax ... of Goodwin give only the aor. examples of abs. inf. of ἀκούειν (CGCG doesn't include the case of ἀκούειν).

But still, it seems to me that the absolute inf. should probably not be restricted to the aor. form, but as is usually the case, used depending on different situations. As ὡς εἰπεῖν could sometimes be ὡς λέγειν or even ὡς εἰρῆσθαι, I conjecture that ὡς ἀκοῦσαι is flexible too. The reason why it is used in pre. here is probably due to the fact that ἡδονή is always heard as some "one" (and as a one she has "already" taken many forms inside herself, note εἴληφε), and this is "some deathless and ageless pathos of logoi themselves in us" (15d7-8). While in the Lys. 216a or in some other cases the aor. form may underscore that there is some saying that has just been heard.

[jeidsath]

Several unusual things about this if "ἀκούειν μὲν οὕτως ἁπλῶς" is going to be understood as an ὡς ἀκοῦσαι interjection. 1) The interleaving μέν ... δέ, 2) ὡς dropped and replaced by a late οὕτως, 3) the bare infinitive coming after an ἔστι, which can govern an infinitive, with the ἔστι separated from its actual pair word, 4) the tense.

None of these make it impossible, though it does seem odd. The tense seems justified by the meaning. It's usually aorist because it usually refers to a communication of a particular piece of information. A leading ὡς having dropped out (due to the οὕτως) would solve 2 & 3. We have the Demosthenes line as a parallel to 1.

For completeness, I'll quote the Lysis 216a that has been mentioned a couple of times: ὥς γε οὑτωσὶ ἀκοῦσαι. Notice that we've got the leading ὡς there.