Through reasonings and contemplations of half-bodily and incorporeal entities, and in small steps [κατὰ βραχὺ], he exercised himself [προεγύμναζεν] in the things that really exist, turning away from the bodies that never remain in the same measure and way [κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως] or that do not remain the same in the same quantity, [and he did this by] turning the eyes of the soul through artificial methods towards the desire of [really nourishing] foods.
I think you’ve been thrown off in particular by μηδ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον οὖν, which is idiomatic.
The ουν works as in e.g. ὅτι ουν “whatever at all,” more usually written as a single word. So ἐφ’ ὅσον-οῦν properly means “to however great an extent.” But in practice it’s used to minimize, “however little," so μηδ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον οὖν means “ not even to the smallest extent,” effectively tantamount to “not at all.”
So the entire phrase will be ἀπὸ τῶν μηδέποτε κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐν ταὐτῷ μηδ’ ἐφ’ ὅσονοὖν διαμενόντων σωματικῶν.
That’s to say, μηδεποτε διαμενοντων encloses two adverbial phrases in tandem, κατὰ ταὐτὰ and ὡσαύτως ἐν ταὐτῷ, with μηδ’ἐφ’ὅσονοuν repeating the negative and intensifying. (“not even a little bit)”)
Or that’s how I understand it.
I’m not sure you quite get the sense of τοῖς ἐν μεταιχμίῳ σωματικῶν τε καὶ ἀσωμάτων θεωρήμασι at the outset either—the θεωρηματα occupying the interstitial space between corporeal and incorporeal entities, by which he was gradually (κατα βραxu) preparing the way to τα οντως οντα (which are wholly incorporeal).
That explains it perfectly. I don’t think I had ever seen that sort of οὖν apart from the ὅτιουν which you mentioned (or, if I did, I didn’t realize what I was up against and misunderstood it…). This Life of Pythagoras is a rather straightforward text, but this part really threw me off. The earlier bit of the sentence, I should have been more careful.
You’re welcome Miguel.
Yes ουν can be used in this way with any indefinite relative, often with ὅστις or ὅτι. Here’s Plato’s Euthyphro for example, self-righteously explaining why he’s prosecuting his own father: … τῷ ἀδικοῦντι … ἐπεξιέναι, ἐάντε πατὴρ ὢν τυγχάνῃ ἐάντε μήτηρ ἐάντε ἄλλος ὁστισοῦν (“… to prosecute the wrongdoer, whether he’s one’s father or mother or anyone else at all”).
More often it’s negatived, though, following ουδ’ or μηδ’. As a bit further along in Euthryphro’s self-justification: … μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν τῷ ἀσεβοῦντι μηδ᾽ ἂν ὁστισοῦν τυγχάνῃ ὤν (“… not to allow it to someone who’s impious no matter who he is,” more literally “not even whoever at all he happens to be”).
It’s quite as a coincidence, since I read the Eutyphro a few weeks ago. Those passages ring clear to me in the sense you describe, but only intuitively, I don’t think I had ever become aware that the thing bringing them their particular force is, of course, the οὖν. I wonder if this will be the thing that will ultimately push me to read Denniston’s Greek Particles. I did read his Greek Prose Style earlier in January, and was very happy for having done so.