In the passage below from Aristotle’s Metaphysics (981a7), I don’t see how to parse the highlighted phrase.
I presume συνήνεγκε is being used impersonally. Something was a benefit to sick Callias (Καλλίᾳ κάμνοντι, dative).
But I don’t see what to make of τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον τοδὶ.
Guidance appreciated!
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔχειν ὑπόληψιν ὅτι
For to have a hupolepsis that
Καλλίᾳ κάμνοντι τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον τοδὶ συνήνεγκε
ἐμπειρίας ἐστίν
is [to have a hupolepsis] of empeiria.
[981α] [1] καὶ δοκεῖ σχεδὸν ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ τέχνῃ ὅμοιον εἶναι καὶ ἐμπειρία, ἀποβαίνει δ᾽ ἐπιστήμη καὶ τέχνη διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐμπειρία τέχνην ἐποίησεν, ὡς φησὶ Πῶλος, ἡ [5] δ᾽ ἀπειρία τύχην. γίγνεται δὲ τέχνη ὅταν ἐκ πολλῶν τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἐννοημάτων μία καθόλου γένηται περὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ὑπόληψις. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔχειν ὑπόληψιν ὅτι Καλλίᾳ κάμνοντι τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον τοδὶ συνήνεγκε καὶ Σωκράτει καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον οὕτω πολλοῖς, ἐμπειρίας ἐστίν: [10] τὸ δ᾽ ὅτι πᾶσι τοῖς τοιοῖσδε κατ᾽ εἶδος ἓν ἀφορισθεῖσι, κάμνουσι τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον, συνήνεγκεν, οἷον τοῖς φλεγματώδεσιν ἢ χολώδεσι ἢ πυρέττουσι καύσῳ, τέχνης.
I received a couple of Aristotle OCTs as a gift last week, and am beginning to get the hang of him.
τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον would seem to be the object of κάμνοντι
τοδὶ the subject of συνήνεγκε
For the having of a theory that this benefits Kallias when he is sick with this disease, and also Socrates, and in the same way many others case by case, is of experience. But the [having of a theory] that [it] benefits every such one suffering this disease who are delineated (?) by a single model, such as the phlegmatic or the choleric or the feverish with heat, is a matter of craft.
As usual, I’m just looking at the text cold, and my translation could be nonsense, of course. No doubt the dictionary/commentary people can jump in to correct me.
Thanks!
Your reading makes good sense. Aristotle wants to distinguish empirical generalizations from generalizations where we classify based on some cause.
What is τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον? I now see LSJ has κάμνειν νόσον = to suffer sickness, with sickness in the accusative. OK. Got that.
What is τηνδὶ τὴν? If both modify νόσον, that sounds needlessly repetitive. Is it a way to stress indefiniteness? — “this, some disease.”
(I’m sure this is an elementary question about articles and pronouns!)
By the way, early on I got tripped up when Perseus told me τοδὶ is a genitive and I didn’t question that. Oops. But the lookup in TLG gets it right. Is there a morphological analyzer in TLG that works like Perseus, where you enter a word and get an analysis?
I’ll let someone else answer those, but from your explanation (and another look at the preceding part) I see that my extra “also” before Socrates misses the point, which is that there are separate hypolepses for each individual. One to Kallias, one to Socrates, and so on for each. But techne is born when they are pulled together into a single theory.
The dictionary entry (LSJ) for ὅδε gives :
"6. in Arist., τοδί designates a particular thing, ‘such and such’, τοδὶ διὰ τοδὶ αἱρεῖται EN 1151a35; τόδε μετὰ τόδε GA 734a28, cf. b9; Καλλίᾳ κάμνοντι τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον τοδὶ συνήνεγκε Metaph. 981a8; τόδε τὸ ἐν τῷ ἡμικυκλίῳ APo. 71a20; ἥδε ἡ ἰατρική, opp. αὐτὴ ἡ ἰ., Metaph. 997b30; τόδε τι a this, i.e. a fully specified particular, Cat. 3b10, al., cf. Gal. 6.113,171; τόδε τι καὶ οὐσία Arist. Metaph. 1060b1; πορευσόμεθα εἰς τήνδε τὴν πόλιν Ep. Jac. 4.13. "
so “when K suffered from such and such illness (τηνδὶ τὴν νόσον) he benefited from such and such (remedy).”
I hope this helps.
That explains it! Thanks!