πρὶν ἂν διὰ τῶν στοιχείων μετὰ τῆς ἀληθοῦς δόξης ἕκαστον περαίνῃ τις, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθε που ἐρρήθη.
Loeb: until he gives a complete enumeration of the elements, combined with true opinion. That, I believe, is what was said before.
It should be thus: until he defines each thing through the elements combined with true opinion.
cf. 207c : διὰ στοιχείων τὸ ὅλον περάναντα. defining the whole through elements.
Hi CP, just catching up, but just to check, do you take περαίνῃ as ‘define’? Can you run through your thinking please?
Also it would be useful if you could please give the dialogue name in your posts. There is a sec. 207b in each of Lysis, Theaetetus and Symposium: the 1578 Stephanus edition was in 3 volumes; see e.g.:
https://biblio.com.au/book/platonis-opera-extant-omnia-complete-works/d/1367778559
and so a reference to 207b doesn’t make clear what section you are referring to, thanks.
Cheers, Chad
it is Theaetetus and I take peraine to mean 'define.
Hi CP, if you believe the commentaries, dictionary entries for περαίνω in e.g. LSJ and CGL, translations etc. are wrong on this or other points, it would be useful to present some reasons, otherwise, it would be hard for anyone to engage I’m guessing. Cheers, Chad
I think my understanding of the passage is based on LS entry for peraino as ‘to limit’. I disagree with the Loeb translation because is does not conform with LS.
Hi, apologies I don’t understand your post or how it relates to “define”. The Loeb translation (and other translations which give a similar sense) seem consistent with the focal sense of the verb to me. I suggest we close this here (although happy for others to jump in).
Cheers, Chad
I see that the Loeb translation under discussion glosses it as 1) “gives” and as 2) “describing” here. Neither gloss appears in the dictionaries being recommended, and “describing” has a different aspect from the aorist participle.
But the real question that I assumed was being asked when the thread was first posted a while back is whether we should distinguish διὰ τῶν στοιχείων … ἕκαστον περαίνῃ and διὰ στοιχείων τὸ ὅλον περάναντα in translation, as the Loeb does. The real difference is not really the particular glosses, but that the Loeb translation takes the first διά … as an enumeration of parts and the second διά … as instrumental. This seems odd.
And the sense even appears to be rephrased a third time in this short little bit, with a slightly different verb: διὰ τῶν ἑκατὸν ἐκείνων δυνάμενον διελθεῖν αὐτῆς τὴν οὐσίαν. The τῶν ἑκατὸν ἐκείνων are the hundred parts of the wagon used as an example.
This last I’d identify as LSJ διέρχομαι.A.I.5 with the διὰ τῶν ἑκατὸν ἐκείνων most comfortably fitting with the verb as enumeration, not instrument. And so I’d think that the διὰ [τῶν] στοιχείων are similarly enumeration.
You could understand all of these the other way too, although I think it’s a bit less cozy. But what seems bad is bouncing back and forth.