one

There was some question last week about the use of δια + the genitive in the clause that begins εαν δια των αυτων λογων ακουητε. We basically construed the meaning of the clause to be, if you hear me using those arguments (logoi) as I make my defense, i.e. the ones Socrates was accustomed to use in the agora and near the trapeze.

Here’s Smythe on δια + the genitive. He basically explains that it indicates through and out of and apart (separation by cleavage), cognate with Latin dis- and German zwi-schen. So in Homer, “the spear went clear through his shoulder.”

But 1685 d. is important for our instance:

4. “Other relations: Means, Mediation (per): dia toutou grammata pempsas…sending a letter by this man.

Sorry to be lazy about transcribing the Greek here, but I think we can now construe the sentence in Plato, if by means of those same arguments you hear me make my defense, such as those I am accustomed to use in the agora and by the trapeze…

It also struck me thinking of this sentence, what exactly is the source of the marvel or the ruckus that the jury might make? I suggested, I think, Thursday, that these types of logoi that Socrates was accustomed to make were by their very nature wondrous and ruckus-rousing. However, given what follows (in the passage we’ll be reading Thusday), perhaps it’s more appropriate to think of it in terms of what Burnet calls “forensic speech,” and that the truly marvelous and/or ruckus-rousing thing about Socrates’ defense is that he is going to eschew that forensic speech (at least he will claim to do so) in favor of something like his “natural” speech (which itself he wants the jury to conceptualize as “foreign”) which will end up sounding quite inappropriate in the courtroom setting.