σκέψασθε δὴ ὃ λέγω. λέγω γὰρ ὅτι ἔνια μέν, οἷον ἂν ᾖ τὸ παρόν, τοιαῦτά ἐστι καὶ αὐτά, ἔνια δὲ οὔ. ὥσπερ εἰ ἐθέλοι τις χρώματί τῳ ὁτιοῦν τι ἀλεῖψαι, πάρεστίν που τῷ ἀλειφθέντι τὸ ἐπαλειφθέν.
πάνυ γε.
ἆρ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἔστιν τότε τοιοῦτον τὴν χρόαν τὸ ἀλειφθέν, οἷον τὸ ἐπόν;
οὐ μανθάνω, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς.
So look at what I’m saying. For I say that some of whatever may be present, is itself that kind, some not. Just as if one wishes to smear something with some particular paint, what is being smeared over is in contact with the thing that has been painted.
Very much so.
Therefore the thing painted is now the color of the paint, as we might say?
I don’t understand, he said.
Well, οὐ μανθάνω me either. Is τὴν χρόαν an accusative of respect? I understood τῷ ἀλειφθέντι as the thing being painted in once sentence, and then τὸ ἀλειφθέν as the paint in the next. That can’t be right, I don’t think. All of these passive participles of ἀλείφειν can refer to the near or far object (the paint and the thing painted) can’t they? If so, it’s a wonder to me how native speakers kept all that straight. I could take τὸ ἐπαλειφθέν as referring to the thing painted and τῷ ἀλειφθέντι as the paint, I suppose, but I would think it’s the paint present to the painted, not vice versa.