Plato, Symp. 174 a8-b1

[Tugodum]

"ἦ δ’ ὅς, πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;"
What is ἂν doing here?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

"ἦ δ’ ὅς, πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;"
What is ἂν doing here?

FWIW,
b-greek discussson
https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... =63&t=3484

Does not actually address this passage, quotes LSJ where it is cited.

IV. WITH INF. and PART. (sts. ADJ. equivalent to part., “τῶν δυνατῶν ἂν κρῖναι” Pl.R.577b) representing ind. or opt.:
1. pres. inf. or part.:
a. representing impf. ind., οἴεσθε τὸν πατέρα . . οὐκ ἂν φυλάττειν; do you think he would not have kept them safe? (οὐκ ἂν ἐφύλαττεν), D.49.35; ἀδυνάτων ἂν ὄντων [ὑμῶν] ἐπιβοηθεῖν when you would have been unable, Th.1.73, cf. 4.40.
b. representing pres. opt., πόλλ᾽ ἂν ἔχων (representing ἔχοιμ᾽ ἄν）“ ἕτερ᾽ εἰπεῖν παραλείπω” D. 18.258, cf. X.An.2.3.18: with Art., “τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον” Pl.Smp.174b.
2. aor. inf. or part.:
a. representing aor. ind., οὐκ ἂν ἡγεῖσθ᾽ αὐτὸν κἂν ἐπιδραμεῖν; do you not think he would even have run thither? (καὶ ἐπέδραμεν ἄν), D.27.56; ἴσμεν ὑμᾶς ἀναγκασθέντας ἄν we know you would have been compelled, Th.1.76, cf. 3.89; ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἀφεθείς when he might easily have been acquitted, X.Mem.4.4.4.

Smyth cites it under ACCUSATIVE OF THE ARTICULAR INFINITIVE:

[*] 2034. ACCUSATIVE OF THE ARTICULAR INFINITIVE

a. Object (cp. 1989): ““δείσα_ς τὸ ζῆν” fearing to live” P. A. 28d, ““μεῖζον μέν φαμεν κακὸν τὸ ἀδικεῖν, ἔλα_ττον δὲ τὸ ἀδικεῖσθαι” we call doing wrong a greater evil, being wronged a lesser” P. G. 509c.

b. After prepositions: e.g. ““μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν τὸ πειθαρχεῖν φαίνεται εἰς τὸ καταπρά_ττειν τἀ_γαθά” obedience appears to be an advantage of the greatest importance with regard to the successful accomplishment of excellent objects” X. C. 8.1.3, ““τῶν ἁπάντων ἀπερίοπτοί εἰσι παρὰ τὸ νι_κᾶν” they are indifferent to everything in comparison with victory” T. 1.41, ““πρὸς τὸ μετρίων δεῖσθαι πεπαιδευμένος” schooled to moderate needs” X. M. 1.2.1, πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; how do you feel about being willing to go uninvited to supper? P. S. 174a (cp. ἐθέλοις ἂν ἰέναι). Furthermore, after διά, ἐπί, κατά, μετά, περί.

[Tugodum]

Thanks. My problem precisely is that I fail to see how any of these can possibly apply here.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Thanks. My problem precisely is that I fail to see how any of these can possibly apply here.

This is what you need to focus on:

πρὸς τὸ μετρίων δεῖσθαι πεπαιδευμένος” schooled to moderate needs” X. M. 1.2.1, πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; how do you feel about being willing to go uninvited to supper? P. S. 174a (cp. ἐθέλοις ἂν ἰέναι).

The ἄν essentially clues the reader what the construction of the verb would be if if it were finite instead of an articular infinitive, "would you be willing to go..."

[Tugodum]

OIC. I missed the second part in the previous response. Thanks. Still am not sure, though, how the meaning would differ without ἂν. Or if it were just "ἦ δ’ ὅς, ἐθέλοις ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;"

[C. S. Bartholomew]

The ἄν essentially clues the reader what the construction of the verb would be if if it were finite instead of an articular infinitive, "would you be willing to go..."

"With infinitives or participles the addition of ἂν shows that the infinitive or participle may be resolved into an indicative with ἂν (usually past tense) or an optative with ἂν ..."

G. Cooper, Attic Greek Syntax v2 p1271-72

"ἦ δ’ ὅς, πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;"

Are we assuming τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν is the "virtual indicative"[1] or should ἂν be given a broader scope?

[1]Not metalanguage, just a paraphrase of Cooper.

[jeidsath]

I could be wrong, but:

πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;

How are you disposed towards you being willing to go to dinner, being uninvited?

πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;

How are you disposed towards you perhaps being willing to go to dinner, being uninvited?

Without ἄν, the willingness to go to dinner is a fact.

[Tugodum]

Thanks. I see your point. Yet the question "How are you disposed..." seems to imply that the willing is not a fact (from the questioner's point of view ), since willing is already a certain disposition.

[jeidsath]

How would you translate 176b?

[Tugodum]

Potential optative.

[Tugodum]

I.e. something like: "consider, then, in what way we might be drinking most easy-goingly."

[jeidsath]

I meant this part:

πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἐρρῶσθαι πίνειν Ἀγάθων

[Tugodum]

"How are you disposed to [the idea of us] applying [ourselves] with vigor to drinking, Agathon"? Of course, ἔρρωμαι also means "am enthusiastic [about]," and this is what it means in the next line, yet here the question is, as follows from the context, about a disposition towards a manner of drinking, not about a disposition towards a feeling about drinking. They are not discussing whether they or not they should drink at all.

[jeidsath]

ἔχει, not ἔχεις. And this is Eryximachus, the physician, speaking. His question is motivated, and fits in with his wish to speak about the health effects of drinking (and thus to show off his medical knowledge). Something like this:

How is Agathon in regards to being strong enough to drink?

Here, I would think that πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἐρρῶσθαι ἂν πίνειν Ἀγάθων might snidely imply that he's likely too weak to drink.

[mwh]

Tugodum, your original question was adequately answered by the LSJ and Smyth references quoted in Stirling’s first reply, as you unaccountably failed to see until Barry pointed it out.

The point to grasp is that a finite verb with ἄν retains the ἄν when the verb becomes infinitive (or a participle). Here εθελειν αν represents finite εθελοις αν, a potential optative. (εθελειν without αν would represent εθελεις indic.)

The question could have been ἀλλὰ σὺ ἐθέλοις ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; (“How about you? Would you be willing …?”), but this is urbane conversation, and ἀλλὰ σὺ πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;" puts the question in more urbane form. (“How do you feel about being [potentially] willing …?”)

Tugodum may continue to pose questions or objections, as is his way, but I hope they will be more sensible than

Yet the question "How are you disposed..." seems to imply that the willing is not a fact (from the questioner's point of view ), since willing is already a certain disposition.

, which comes uncomfortably close to trolling. Tugodum, your questions have been answered.

Now Joel has brought the subsequent (indirect) question into play, πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἐρρῶσθαι πίνειν Ἀγάθων; Tugodum, you badly misconstrue this. εχει is 3rd person and Αγαθων is nominative, the subject. You need to read more attentively, and to follow the conversation.
Joel, αν with ερρωσθαι is simply not called for. He’s not asking if he would be strong enough to drink but if he is.

[jeidsath]

Joel, αν with ερρωσθαι is simply not called for. He’s not asking if he would be strong enough to drink but if he is.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

[Tugodum]

The question could have been ἀλλὰ σὺ ἐθέλοις ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; (“How about you? Would you be willing …?”), but this is urbane conversation, and ἀλλὰ σὺ πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον;" puts the question in more urbane form. (“How do you feel about being [potentially] willing …?”)

This answers my question. Thank you. Also thanks to Joel for the correction about ἔχει.

The point to grasp is that a finite verb with ἄν retains the ἄν when the verb becomes infinitive (or a participle).

I had known this before I asked my initial question. What I had not known is why a potential might be needed here.