A quick chime in from Deniston on our passage from last week. Unfortunately, he does not address the ωσπερ ουν construction—so we can follow up on that. Deniston has something to say about the και δη και in 17d.

Generally και δη και conveys the idea of climax: “And in fact…” after a sequence of aggregating terms in a list. “This transitional use is particularly common in Plato’s later work.”

But the use in 17d belongs to the class that D. terms non-normative. He says of this passage:

“Apodotic. This usage is perhaps more apparent than real. Some instances are textually uncertain, others can be explained as anacoluthon, or by the consideration that the second και goes clearly with the word that follows it.” (257)

The apodotic nature of this use then strengthens the conditionality of the sentence. As if what preceded was indeed the protasis to what follows, signaled by the και δη και. But how mysterious is Deniston here: “This usage is perhaps more apparent than real.” Why “apparent?”

Is it an anacoluthon? I’d want to really think twice and thrice and in a sedimented fashion towards any anacolutha in Plato.

All in all, this sentence seems to be more complicated than it seems, rhetorically and grammatically.

Post script: this is hilarious.