Tricky passage-help appreciated

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
scirocco21
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:22 pm

Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by scirocco21 »

Hi everyone,

I've been puzzling over a tricky (?) passage in Greek, from a fairly late author (Elias-6th century CE). It's the following text, broken down into two chunks:

1. [mainly for context]
ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ ἕνα πείθων καὶ ὀλίγους καὶ πολλοὺς πείθει, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς’.
"In the Alcibiades he {sc. Plato} says: ‘someone who persuades one man also persuades few or many, to persuade one and many men of the same thing’"

Here I wonder about the use of the infinitive πείθειν. In Plato (Alcibiades 114C-D) it is governed by hoion t'estin, which makes sense, but here it is omitted. Should we just supply it tacitly, or is Elias using the infinitive in a different way?

2.
ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀνάγκη, φησί τις, τὸν πείθοντα πολλοὺς καὶ ἕνα πείθειν, ἐὰν ᾖ ἰδιώτης ὁ εἷς. καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί, τότε πείθεται.
"But someone says that it is not necessary that a person who persuades should persuade many men or one man, if he is a single private citizen [or: individual?]. We reply that when he is just like the many, then he is persuaded."

This is the tricky part-I'm not sure I understand the sentence, especially the phrase ἐὰν ᾖ ἰδιώτης ὁ εἷς (who is it referring too? The person doing the persuading?). Any help would be appreciated-feel free to criticise/amend the draft translation I've provided.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by mwh »

Hi, and welcome to Textkit!

καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς.
του αυτου is masculine, and εστιν is understood: lit. “and (it’s) of the same person to persuade just one and many.” If you can persuade many you can persuade one, and vice versa.

ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀνάγκη, φησί τις, τὸν πείθοντα πολλοὺς καὶ ἕνα πείθειν, ἐὰν ᾖ ἰδιώτης ὁ εἷς. καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί, τότε πείθεται.
Only πολλους is the object of τον πειθοντα, the ενα is the object of πειθειν. “But there’s no need, someone says, for the man who persuades many also to persuade a single person if the single person is a private citizen.” Note the article with ὁ εἷς, which picks up the ἕνα of the main clause.
It looks as if the argument is that someone who can sway people en masse (i.e. a public speaker, Alcibiades?) must be capable of swaying a single individual (Socrates?).

Hope this helps.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by jeidsath »

ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ ἕνα πείθων καὶ ὀλίγους καὶ πολλοὺς πείθει, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς’.
In the Alcibiades he says that the one is persuading an individual when he persuades both few and many, and from the same argument persuades both the individual and the many.
ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀνάγκη, φησί τις, τὸν πείθοντα πολλοὺς καὶ ἕνα πείθειν, ἐὰν ᾖ ἰδιώτης ὁ εἷς. καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί, τότε πείθεται.
But doesn't it follow, someone says, for the persuader to persuade both the crowd and the individual, if the individual is an average man? And we say that if the individual is the same sort as the many, then he is persuaded.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

scirocco21
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:22 pm

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by scirocco21 »

Thanks very much jeidsath and mwh, the passage makes a lot more sense now!

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by mwh »

But jeidsath’s interpretation is quite different from mwh’s! And wrong.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by jeidsath »

Some larger context to the passage (scirocco21, please post your sources!):

https://archive.org/stream/commentariai ... 1/mode/2up
Ἀλλὰ καὶ Πλάτωνος ἡ εἰς δύο διαίρεσις· διὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ νομοθετικὸν γεγραμμένοι εἰσὶν αὐτῷ Νόμοι ἐν δεκαδύο διαλόγοις, διὰ δὲ τὸ δικαστικὸν γεγραμμέναι εἰσὶν αὐτῷ τρεῖς νεκυΐαι, ἡ ἐν Γοργίᾳ (ἐκεῖ γὰρ διαλέγεται περὶ τῶν δικαστῶν, Μίνωος καὶ Ῥαδαμάνθυος καὶ Αἰακοῦ), καὶ ἡ ἐν Φαίδωνι (ἐκεὶ γὰρ λέγει περὶ τῶν δικαστικῶν τόπων, Κωκυτοῦ, Ταρτάρου, Πυριφλεγέθοντος καὶ Ἀχέροντος), καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ τῆς Πολιτείας· ἐχεῖ γὰρ διαλέγεται περὶ τῶν δικαζομένων ψυχῶν· εἰσάγει γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἥρωά τινα πολλὰ πλημμελήσαντα καὶ δίκας διδόντα τῶν πραχθέντων αὐτῷ. ἀλλὰ πόθεν ὅτι οὐ προσίεται ὁ Πλάτων τὴν εἰς τρία τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους διαίρεσιν; τοῦτο οὖν δείκνυμεν ἐκ διαφόρων· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ Φοργίᾳ λέγει ὅτι ‘ἥπερ πόλει, καὶ ἰδιώτῃ, αὐτῷ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους’ ἀντὶ τοῦ ‘μία ἕξις ἠθική. οἰκονομική, πολιτική’· διὰ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ‘ἥπερ πόλει’ τὸ πολιτικὸν ἐσήμανεν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ‘αὐτῷ πρὸς ἑαυτόν’ τὸ ἠθικόν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ῾καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους’ τὸ οἰκονομικόν. βούλεται οὖν δεῖξαι ὅτι ἐὰν ἡ πόλις πᾶσα κακῶς βιοῖ, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τὸ πολιτικόν, καὶ ὁ ἰδιώτης κακῶς βιώσει, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τὸ ἠθικόν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηκε τὸ ‘ἥπερ πόλει, καὶ ἰδιώτῃ’. τὸ δὲ ‘αὐτῷ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους’ δηλοῖ τοὺς ὀλίγους, ταὐτὸν δὲ λέγειν τὸ οἰκονομικόν. ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ ἕνα πείθων καὶ ὀλίγους καὶ πολλοὺς πείθει, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς’. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀνάγκη, φησί τις, τὸν πείθοντα πολλοὺς καὶ ἕνα πείθειν, ἐὰν ᾖ ἰδιώτης ὁ εἷς. καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί, τότε πείθεται. καὶ πάλιν ἐν ἄλλῳ διαλόγῳ φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων ὅτι ‘οὐδὲν διαφέρει ἡ ἐν μιᾷ πόλει δικαιοσύνη τῆς ἐν μιᾷ ψυχῇ, εἰ μὴ ὃ διαφέρει τὰ μικρὰ γράμματα τῶν μεγάλων’. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τούτων.
What confused me was the καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι... sentence, which seemed like a truism. But in context it makes perfect sense. Elias is concerned here with showing that the many is a larger version of the individual.

So I'd change it slightly:

"But it does not follow, someone says, that the persuader of the many persuades the one, if the one is a private citizen. And we reply that if the many is this sort [that Elias has been describing, ie., a macrocosm of the individual], then the one is persuaded."

Better, mwh?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by mwh »

Since you ask, I have to say no, sorry. You now translate as:
"But it does not follow, someone says, that the persuader of the many persuades the one, if the one is a private citizen. And we reply that if the many is this sort [that Elias has been describing, ie., a macrocosm of the individual], then the one is persuaded."
ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀνάγκη, φησί τις, τὸν πείθοντα πολλοὺς καὶ ἕνα πείθειν. You now accept that πολλους is object of the participle, as I had said it was, but I don’t think you should add “the” to “many” and to “one”; and I don’t think you should ignore the και (contrast my “also persuade a single person”).

καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί, τότε πείθεται. The OP got this right (so I didn’t bother translating it). You've gotten it the wrong way round. I think you'd do better if you respected the grammar of the Greek (both here and elsewhere).
ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ ἕνα πείθων καὶ ὀλίγους καὶ πολλοὺς πείθει, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς’.
In the Alcibiades he says that the one is persuading an individual when he persuades both few and many, and from the same argument persuades both the individual and the many.
Here you went badly wrong.
The OP got the first part more or less right, so again I didn’t bother translating it: “In the Alc. he says that someone who persuades an individual (ὁ ἕνα πείθων) also persuades both few and many.” You misconstrue and misunderstand this; your translation simply defies the Greek. [—Actually, I'm not entirely sure whether to take και ολιγους together with πολλους as object of πειθει or rather with ενα as object of πειθων, "one person and/or only a few people"—perhaps that's better. It could go either way, and seems redundant and muddying either way.]

You also misconstrue the 2nd part, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς, contradicting my explanation of it (see my first post), I don’t know why. I welcome correction, but unjustified contradiction is another matter. OP asked about the infinitive: you just treat it as if it were indicative, which it's not. You're wrong to reject my elucidation of the construction. (Or did you simply ignore it?) Cf. e.g. πενιαν φερειν ου παντος, αλλ’ ανδρος σοφου, “To bear poverty (is) not (in the power) of everyone, but (it is in the power) of a wise man.” Smyth 1304.

I'm sorry to sound so harsh, Joel, but you did rather let yourself in for it. We need to follow the Greek carefully if we’re to properly understand the intricacies of neoplatonic discourse. The same goes for Sophoclean, needless to say.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by jeidsath »

I welcome the correction, mwh! Getting corrected is the entire reason I bother posting about passages like this. I would like to be able to read Greek easily one day, and there's no way I can get there while being afraid to make mistakes that others can correct.

So, respecting articles and καί: "But it is not necessary, someone says, that the persuader of many also persuades an individual, if the one is a private citizen."

And by getting things backwards, you mean τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί? I wasn't sure if I could take τοιοῦτος a bit more abstractly than the plain meaning, which doesn't make much sense to me: "And we say that if the sort he is is the sort of the many, at that time he is persuaded."

I see instantly what you're saying now with πενιαν φερειν ου παντος, αλλ’ ανδρος σοφου. It does elucidate the other construction, which did not pop out for me in the same way.

However, I'm stuck with trying to extract any clear thought from these literal renderings. Elias isn't concerned with persuasion in this section (which is perfectly clear prose up until these two sentences), he concerned about Plato's view of relationship of the individual to the few (the household) and to the many (the city), and how that parallels Aristotle. These two sentences/thoughts are here to elucidate something about that, and as we've got them right now, they don't seem to do that.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by jeidsath »

Reading it through again this morning, here’s what I think he’s saying — and I am trying my best to pay attention to the points raised above:
ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ ἕνα πείθων καὶ ὀλίγους καὶ πολλοὺς πείθει, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕνα πείθειν καὶ πολλούς’. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀνάγκη, φησί τις, τὸν πείθοντα πολλοὺς καὶ ἕνα πείθειν, ἐὰν ᾖ ἰδιώτης ὁ εἷς. καὶ λέγομεν ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ τοιοῦτος οἷοι οἱ πολλοί, τότε πείθεται.
But in the Alcibiades he says: “The persuader of individuals* persuades few and many, and it is of the same man to persuade an individual and many.” But it is not necessary, says someone, for the persuader to persuade many and an individual, if the individual is a private citizen. And we say if such a man is the sort of the many, he is then persuaded.

* “individual-persuader” is open to misinterpretation so I changed it to “persuader of individuals”
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by mwh »

there's no way I can get there while being afraid to make mistakes that others can correct.
Understood, but here your mistakes had effectively been corrected in advance by the OP and me. If you wanted to query what I’d said you could have done so, instead of substituting something quite contrary and very misleading to the OP and anyone else.
However, I'm stuck with trying to extract any clear thought from these literal renderings.
Literalness is not the same as accuracy. But you can’t go playing fast and loose with neoplatonic Greek (still less with Sophoclean), and you can’t expect to extract clear thought from renderings the Greek is incompatible with.

The passage has to be read in the context of the larger discussion to fully make sense. Here we’re in the midst of discussion of competing “divisions” (διαιρέσεις) and subdivisions (υποδιαρεσεις), as so often in technical treatises of all sorts. Go back to chapter 10 and it’s stated that philosophy is divided into 2 (not 3), the theoretical and the practical. The theoretical is discussed in c.11, and here in c.12 he’s concerned with the practical, το πρακτικον. Aristotle divides το πρακτικον into 3: ηθικον, οικονομικον, πολιτικον. Platonists reject this and divide it into 2: νομοθετικον and δικαστικον. All these distinct terms are explicated.
This is where we come in. The question under consideration is why Plato—by which he means Platonists—doesn’t accept the Aristotelian division into 3. To show the differences between them he adduces a passage from the Gorgias (ἥπερ πόλει, καὶ ἰδιώτῃ, αὐτῷ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους) and interprets it, distortively, as being tantamount to saying that the ηθικον, οικονομικον, and πολιτικον constitute a single state (ἕξις), inasmuch as it encompasses all three. You can read the details. The discussion hereabouts incidentally serves to clarify the sets of terms we find in the following mention of the Alcibiades passage, which is brought in merely as back-up for this deconstruction of the Aristotelian tripartitioning. For example a preceding section on the Platonists’ various objections to the Aristotelian threefold scheme concluded by saying that every τεχνη and επιστημη (this being an allusion to Aristotle’s definition of philosophy) has as its aim “benefiting either one or few or many” ἢ ἕνα ὠφελεῖν ἢ ὀλίγους ἢ πολλούς. That helps explain the intrusive addition of ολιγους to what’s said of the Alcibiades passage that had me a bit puzzled.
“And in the Alcib. he says that someone who persuades one person also persuades few and many; for the same man can persuade one and many.” (This latter is drawn from the pseudo-Platonic Alcibiades, decontextualized.) He then confronts the possible objection that “It’s not necessarily the case that the man who persuades many people also persuades just one, if that one is a private individual.” (There might be an individual in the otherwise persuaded crowd who is not persuaded, for instance, or an individual not in a group setting might resist persuasion that is effective with a crowd. I think of another Elias, Canetti and his Masse und Macht.) (In your latest you are again misconstruing this bit: πολλους is object of τον πειθοντα. What I say three times is true?) He counters this by retorting “He’s persuaded if he’s the same sort of person as the many.” (τοιουτος οιοι are correlative. “He’s just like us” εκεινος τοιουτος οιοι ημεις.) Then we move on to another passage.
You’re right to say Elias is not concerned with persuasion as such. He’s just using the passage as a confirmatory supplement to his analysis of the Gorgias quote, to show that what applies to one person also applies to many (and to few), thereby effectively collapsing the Aristotelian partitioning into “ethical” “economic” and “political.” The entire treatise situates itself within the battle between (neo-)Platonists (such as Elias) and Aristotelians.

So pulling out the translations from above: “And in the Alcib. he says that someone who persuades one person also persuades few and many; for the same man can persuade one and many. ‘But no,’ says someone [i.e. comes the objection], ‘it’s not necessarily the case that the man who persuades many people also persuades one, if that one is a private individual’; and we say [i.e. and our reply to that is] that he is persuaded if he’s the same sort of person as the many.”
I’ve tried in what I’ve said above to show how this is intelligible in context. It's little more than a parenthesis really.

(Interesting, incidentally, how the exegetical techniques are identical to those often applied to the New Testament. You have a variegated but now bounded and diachronically leveled corpus of writings presupposed to be internally consistent and inerrant, every single part of which has to be harmonized willy-nilly with every other part. All it takes is uninterrogated dogma, the very thing Socrates was opposed to.)

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by jeidsath »

But you can’t go playing fast and loose with neoplatonic Greek (still less with Sophoclean), and you can’t expect to extract clear thought from renderings the Greek is incompatible with.
Agreed, and I apologize for sowing confusion. The past couple of years I haven't understood the accidence well enough to be able to care about niceties of grammar, but I've gotten to the point now where I really don't have that excuse, and it's often worth slowing down to concentrate instead of trying to grok it by reading it a few times.

And again, it was my error on πολλους, I misread something you had said earlier about the other occurrence of πολλους and didn't go back to check it before typing up my post.
(Interesting, incidentally, how the exegetical techniques are identical to those often applied to the New Testament. You have a variegated but now bounded and diachronically leveled corpus of writings presupposed to be internally consistent and inerrant, every single part of which has to be harmonized willy-nilly with every other part. All it takes is uninterrogated dogma, the very thing Socrates was opposed to.)
It's a common phenomenon. The assumption of harmony allows the exegete to prove anything that he wants. It's just like starting a mathematical proof by assuming two contradictory axioms. You can get anywhere you'd like with that. The best route towards reading your own opinions into a text is to assume that is no humanity or error in it. And if you are only confronting your own opinions, the text winds up seeming feeble. The only way to be truly humbled -- by Paul or Plato -- is to approach the text combatively. Οὐ μή σε ἀποστείλω, ἐὰν μή με εὐλογήσῃς.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

scirocco21
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:22 pm

Re: Tricky passage-help appreciated

Post by scirocco21 »

You're both quite right that the context of the passage so well-the larger context is the question whether Aristotle's division of the practical part of philosophy into ethics, economics and politics can be brought into agreement with Plato's (who supposedly distinguishes between legislation and jurisdiction only).

Perhaps part of the difficulty I was having with the little passage is that Elias' answer to the objection does not seem very convincing: the objector worries that persuading a crowd and persuading an individual might not go hand in hand. Elias in effect replies: 'well, suppose that the individual is just like the members of the crowd...'; but why should the objector concede this in the first place? Unless Elias is simply pointing out that the objection goes beyond the limits of the discussion, which might be restricted to individuals qua members of a (politically engaged) crowd, not to individuals qua private citizens.

In any case many thanks again for your thoughts on this!

Post Reply