Ὁ αὐτός που τρόπος τέχνης ἰατρικῆς ὅσπερ καὶ ῥητορικῆς.
I take the meaning to be: “The way of medical skill, I suppose, [is] the same as that of oratorical [one].” If this is correct, then “τρόπος” must be construed as the subject and “ὁ αὐτός” as a predicate; however, the position of the article seems to stand in the way of such construal.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
I’d think that ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος is one unit, despite the που.
Joel, I agree and was assuming this. Hence my question.
Maybe I wasn’t being super clear. I understand ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος as “the same nature”, working as an attributive adjective.
What, then, is the syntactic subject of the sentence?
Tugodum uve been reading Phaedros for three years at least, That;s impressive
Constantinus, κρεῖττον γάρ που σμικρὸν εὖ ἢ πολὺ μὴ ἱκανῶς περᾶναι (Tht., 187 e2-3).
The verb must be existential rather than copular: “Nearly the same method exists for medical art as rhetorical art.” The placement of που here makes me wonder if it’s modifying αὐτός as approximately, which is something that happens with numbers, but a similar phrase occurs at Laws 840a ὁ αὐτός που λόγος, which might be “nearly the same story.”
To me it doesn’t seem to be an independent statement. Instead τρόπος seems to answer the preceding πῶς (the τοῦτο referring to τὸ πρόσφορον). On the other hand, I am an ἄνθρωπος πολὺ μὴ ἱκανῶς περῶν, and have only read this little bit of the dialogue.
swiftnicholas, OIC: you construe “τέχνης ἰατρικῆς” as an indirect object of the (implied) existential verb, rather than as qualifying “τρόπος”? I like this. Thanks.
Joel, do you mean something like [λέγω τοῦτο τὸ πρόσφορον ὡς] ὁ αὐτός που τρόπος τέχνης ἰατρικῆς ὅσπερ καὶ ῥητορικῆς?
No, sorry for the confusion, I think the genitives definitely qualify τρόπος, I just thought it sounded better that way in English and I was focused on construing an existential verb. You could find a more literal way to say “the method of medical art” etc., maybe “there exists nearly the same method of medical art as of rhetorical art.” I think it’d even be fine to translate αὐτός as a predicate to construe a good English sentence, but I think you and Joel are right that αὐτός must be attributive in Greek.
Joel’s right that syntax often carries over between speakers in Plato’s dialogues, but I’m not sure how that would work here without looking at the context more.
swiftnicholas, “there exists nearly the same method of medical art …” makes the subject impersonal (like in German “es gibt…”), right? I have no formal objections to this construal but am wondering why Plato might want to put it this way instead of, say: Ὁ τρόπος τέχνης ἰατρικῆς ὁ αὐτός που ὅσπερ καὶ ῥητορικῆς?
Not quite. From my look of what is going on in the dialogue here, Socrates appears to be dribbling out the secret of rhetoric for Phaedrus, who is questioning him like a kid pestering the magician after a magic show.
ΦΑΙ. …ἀλλὰ δὴ τὴν τοῦ τῷ ὄντι ῥητορικοῦ τε καὶ πιθανοῦ τέχνην πῶς καὶ πόθεν ἄν τις δύναιτο πορίσασθαι;
ΣΩ. …ὅσον δὲ αὐτοῦ τέχνη, οὐχ ᾗ Λυσίας τε καὶ Θρασύμαχος πορεύεται δοκεῖ μοι φαίνεσθαι ἡ μέθοδος.
ΦΑΙ. Ἀλλὰ πῇ δή;
…
ΦΑΙ. Τί δή;
ΣΩ. …ἐντεῦθεν εἵλκυσεν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν λόγων τέχνην τὸ πρόσφορον αὐτῇ.
ΦΑΙ. Πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις;
ΣΩ. Ὁ αὐτός που τρόπος τέχνης ἰατρικῆς ὅσπερ καὶ ῥητορικῆς.
ΦΑΙ. Πῶς δή;
Is that “πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις;” a strong objection as elsewhere in Greek, “how can you say that!?!”, or does it make more sense as a continued pestering for the secret? Strong #2, I think. Is Socrates’ answer to it a plain statement, or a continuance of the slow reveal? #2 again, I think.
So we should read Πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις as something like πῶς (καὶ τίνα τρόπον) προσφέρειν τοῦτο τὸ πρόσφορον λέγεις;
That this is what was asked is very clear in the next section, after Socrates has give his half-answer, ὁ αὐτός που τρόπος τέχνης ἰατρικῆς, and Phaedrus pesters, “But how??” What Socrates reveals, we can note, is ὁ τρόπος ὅπως προσοίσεις τὸ πρόσφορον τῇ τέχνῃ ἑκάστῃ.
In medicine: τῷ [σώματι] φάρμακα καὶ τροφὴν προσφέρων ὑγίειαν καὶ ῥώμην ἐμποιήσειν. In rhetoric: τῇ δὲ [ψυχῇ] λόγους τε καὶ ἐπιτηδεύσεις νομίμους [προσφέρων]…
Joel, I totally agree, and was reading it the same way, but am not sure what you infer from this as regards syntactic structure of the sentence in question.
It’s mostly just a long-winded explanation of why πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις; would take τρόπος as an answer here.
I made it impersonal in English just to try to make the genitives sound better, and I was loose with the genitives in my first translation because I wanted to explain how αὐτός could function as an attributive. There might be a good way to be very literal here, but very often you have to make sacrifices because languages don’t map one-to-one. The important thing is to think about how the Greek is working and I think the basics are that ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος is the nominative subject, τέχνης ἰατρικῆς and ῥητορικῆς modify it, and ὅσπερ καί is often used after ὁ αὐτός in comparisons. I’m less sure about που, but I’m interested in the idea that it modifies αὐτός here.
I see what you mean now, but I think if τρόπος depends on πῶς or τίνα τρόπον it would have to be adverbial itself rather than nominative, right? πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις is a common phrase in Plato.
swiftnicholas, in English one can say either (1) “there exists nearly the same method of medical art as of rhetorical art” or (2) “the method of medical art is nearly the same as that of rhetorical art.” In my view, (1) and (2) differ as regards the respective points they make. Based on the context of the sentence in question, I fail to see how (1) (rather than (2)) can possibly be its meaning.
Well, here in Republic (596d), the nominative is used in response to a question where τρόπος is adverbial dative.
…ἢ οὐκ αἰσθάνῃ ὅτι κἂν αὐτὸς οἷός τ’ εἴης πάντα ταῦτα ποιῆσαι τρόπῳ γέ τινι;
Καὶ τίς, ἔφη, ὁ τρόπος οὗτος;
Thank you, I am looking at the list now. I would say that it’s mostly used as an expression of astonishment, but at Meno 96, I see it answered by “Ὧδε”, and assume that it’s taken as it is here.
Persae 793 is interesting, because
αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ γῆ ξύμμαχος κείνοις πέλει.
is answered by
πῶς τοῦτ’ ἔλεξας; τίνι τρόπωι δὲ συμμαχεῖ;
Is that astonishment followed by the question, or a restatement?
This is somewhat different because it’s reported dialogue and τινι is indefinite and not interrogative, but in both cases ὁ τρόπος is a nominative in a completely distinct sentence. I thought you were saying that τρόπος somehow depended on the syntax of πῶς or τίνα τρόπον, which often happens in dialogue. I’m sorry if I misunderstood. I’m confused about whether we even disagree about anything!