emendation in Crito 43 d2

[Tugodum]

Virtually all mss. have δοκεῖ μέν μοι ἥξειν (which makes perfect sense to me); but modern editions follow Buttmann in correction it to δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει. Why is this emendation needed? And what is exactly the grammatical function of the infinitive (δοκεῖν) in the corrected version? Thanks for any suggestions.

[Hylander]

This is a standard idiom. Grammatically, it's parenthetical. (I've stumbled on this myself.)

See LSJ δοκέω A.II.4:

4. freq. impers., δοκεῖ μοι it seems to me, methinks, “ὥς μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι ἄριστα” Il.12.215; ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ as I think, A.Th.369, etc.; τὸ σοὶ δοκοῦν your opinion, Pl.R.487d: freq. in inf. in parenth. clause, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν to my thinking, Hdt.9.113; “δοκέειν ἐμοί” Id.1.172; “ἀλλ᾽, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, τάχ᾽ εἴσει” A.Pers.246, etc.; without μοι, X.An.4.5.1.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Ddoke%2Fw

See also Smyth sec. 2012:

2012. Certain idiomatic infinitives are used absolutely in parenthetical phrases to limit the application of a single expression or of the entire sentence.

* * *

d. Other expressions: ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, ὡς ἐμοὶ κρῖναι as it seems to me, in my opinion, (ὡς) εἰκάσαι to make a guess, (ὡς) συμβάλλειν to compare, (ὡς) ἀκοῦσαι to the ear, ὡς ὑμομνῆσαι to recall the matter, ὅσον γέ μ᾽ εἰδέναι as far as I know, etc.; ὀλίγου δεῖν, μι_κροῦ δεῖν almost, all but (δεῖν may be omitted, 1399). Examples: ὁ γὰρ Κτήσιππος ἔτυχε πόρρω καθεζόμενος τοῦ Κλεινίου, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν for Ctesippus, it seems to me, happened to be sitting at a distance from Clinias P. Eu. 274b, ““μι_κροῦ δεῖν τρία τάλαντα” almost three talents” D. 27.29.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

We have the same sort of parenthetical idioms with infinitives in English: "so to speak", "to make a long story short", "not to put too fine a point on it", etc.

Buttmann's emendation: Actually, one family of mss., the family designated as β in the Oxford Text, has δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν, which is clearly wrong but somehow crept into the textual tradition of that family. The other mss. have δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν. (One of these is apparently corrected to δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν.)

I don't know what manuscripts Buttmann (late 18th or early 19th cc.) had at his disposal, but he undoubtedly inferred that the original reading would have been δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει, in conformity with the idiom cited above. The reading δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν can be explained as a misguided attempt to correct δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν or δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει at some point in the tradition (or perhaps as simple confusion), resulting from unfamiliarity with the idiom, just like you and me. I think this is the sort of error that might have occurred in a scriptorium, with someone dictating the text from a manuscript to a number of scribes.

Later editors have followed Buttmann, although if he hadn't made the conjecture, someone else probably would have sooner or later. In fact, what is surprising is that no one seems to have made this conjecture, which would be obvious to anyone who knows Greek well, before Buttmann.

Hope this helps.

[jeidsath]

From what you are saying, in the OCT. apparatus, γρ. is supposed to mean that it was corrected to what came before? Is that meant to be Latin characters? My edition is Duke, Hicken, Nicoll, Robinson and Strachan, 1995.

δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει Buttmann: δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν β, γρ. W: δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν TWSB^2

[Hylander]

I was using the same edition.

Yes, it should be δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν. I corrected this in my original post after reading yours.

γρ stands for γραφεται, i.e., something written in the margin or space between the lines. I was using "corrected" loosely. It's really a variant reading written in by someone comparing the text with a different manuscript, probably from the β family.

But the manuscript readings really don't matter very much here. The idiom is well established, and the conjecture even in the absence of any ms. reading δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει is almost certainly correct.

[mwh]

As the app.crit. shows, the manuscript tradition here (as elsewhere) is basically split between β and T etc., and Tugodum’s “virtually all mss.” is misleading. Manuscripts are to be weighed, not counted, goes the motto.

The fact that B has δοκεῖν is a tip-off to the true reading, but as Hylander says, even if all the manuscripts had δοκεῖ … ἥξειν the emendation would still be justified. It reads much better (with δοκεῖ μέν μοι ἥξειν the Greek is very awkward) and is more in keeping with Plato’s style, and its corruption was practically inevitable.

A review of the OCT at http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1997/97.01.07.html offers a brief overview of the manuscript tradition (unfortunately without Greek font in the online version).

[Tugodum]

Thanks, Hylander, this does help a lot! Yet a question remains:

the manuscript readings really don't matter very much here. The idiom is well established, and the conjecture even in the absence of any ms. reading δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει is almost certainly correct.

But the idiom δοκεῖ μοι (+ infinitive) is also "well established" (as indicated by your own citation from the LSJ). Why would be a well established idiom (especially, the one not found in any mss.) be preferable to a no less established one (especially, the one found in some mss.)?

[Tugodum]

mwh--Thanks for pointing out that β is, actually, a family. However, even if we count not manuscripts but families, two families (T and most mss. of δ) read δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν, against only one (β) that reads δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν

It reads much better (with δοκεῖ μέν μοι ἥξειν the Greek is very awkward) and is more in keeping with Plato’s style.

--I would be grateful if you could help me to see this. Are there any articles showing that this is so? Thanks in advance.

[jeidsath]

Let's give the full utterance.

Buttmann: οὔτοι δὴ ἀφῖκται, ἀλλὰ δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει τήμερον

(Some) manuscripts: οὔτοι δὴ ἀφῖκται, ἀλλὰ δοκεῖ μέν μοι ἥξειν τήμερον

I don't really know Plato's style well, but in the second version, the οὔτοι has set us up for a balanced contrast introduced by the ἀλλά, and instead we get something more abrupt, since δοκεῖ doesn't really contrast ἀφῖκται. In the first, it flows nicely, with the parenthetical "δοκεῖν μέν μοι" adding some flavor.

Here's the first parallel that comes to mind for me, but others can probably think of more (or Google):

οὔτοι δὴ Ἀθηναῖοί γε, ὦ Εὐθύφρων, δίκην αὐτὴν καλοῦσιν ἀλλὰ γραφήν.

[Tugodum]

the οὔτοι has set us up for a balanced contrast introduced by the ἀλλά

--Sure.

instead we get something more abrupt, since δοκεῖ doesn't really contrast ἀφῖκται

--But it is "ἥξειν τήμερον" that does the job of contrasting anyway, doesn't it?

[Hylander]

the idiom δοκεῖ μοι (+ infinitive) is also "well established" (as indicated by your own citation from the LSJ).

No, the idiom cited in the LSJ article is impersonal. It's not δοκεῖ + infinitive, it's parenthetical δοκεῖ. This would imply a reading δοκεῖ . . . ἥξει, which is not found in any of the manuscripts, either. δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν would not be impersonal -- the subject would be (understood) τὸ πλοῖον. Not absolutely impossible, but strained. δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει is more idiomatic, and, in the judgment of all the modern editors, more likely to be what Plato wrote.

two families (T and most mss. of δ) read δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν, against only one (β) that reads δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν

This is counting families (rather than manuscripts) and not weighing them (i.e., examining readings on a case by case basis on their individual merits). Two against one isn't a valid argument. And you should read the discussion in the article mwh linked to on the dangers of trying to fit manuscripts into families in traditions like Plato's that have been subject to a lot of cross-pollenization ("contamination"), i.e., where copyists have used multiple manuscripts as sources.

The clearly wrong reading, δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν, suggests that something funny is going on in the manuscript tradition, and that there is confusion about one or the other of the words. The confusion is likely to have arisen as a result of the less straightforward but more idiomatic δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει, rather than reflecting a corruption of the awkward δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν, which seems like the typical sort of banalization that creeps into texts in addition to being awkward.

For the idiom ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν (vel sim.) in Plato, see Euthydemus 274b, Gorgias 482d, Meno 81a. And the idiom appears in other authors, too.

It's certainly significant that all recent editors -- people (like mwh) who have much more experience with Greek than I do, and especially with Plato's Greek -- have accepted Buttmann's conjecture. I don't mean this as shutting off debate by citing authorities instead of hard data, but in textual criticism a feeling for idiomatic usage is necessary, and to a certain extent people like myself whose knowledge of Greek is limited have to rely on the judgment of scholars with breadth and depth of experience.

[Tugodum]

the idiom δοκεῖ μοι (+ infinitive) is also "well established" (as indicated by your own citation from the LSJ).

No, the idiom cited in the LSJ article is impersonal. It's not δοκεῖ + infinitive

Ok, I overlooked that the particular article you cited was about the impersonal idiom only. My point, however, was that the idiom "δοκεῖ μοι (+ infinitive)" is also well established, which you seem to confirm below.

δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν would not be impersonal -- the subject would be (understood) τὸ πλοῖον. Not absolutely impossible, but strained.

Are you saying that Plato does not use such construction? Or uses it considerably less frequently than the the other one?

Two against one isn't a valid argument.

I agree, and actually only mentioned this because I thought that the fact that β is a whole family, rather than a single ms., had been brought in as an appeal to quantity.

the less straightforward but more idiomatic δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει

Again, by calling it "more idiomatic," do you mean that it is more frequent in Plato than the personal δοκεῖ μοι + infinitive? Or, on the contrary, by calling it "less straightforward," you mean that δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει would be the lectio difficilior? It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways, hence my question which of these two lines of reasoning you have in mind.

[Tugodum]

BTW, here is an edition which I have just come across and which accepts "δοκεῖ μέν μοι ἥξειν" of the mss.; Buttmann's emendation is mentioned in the Critical Notes, p. 202, and explicitly rejected.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ICsBA ... e&q&f=true

[Hylander]

The notes in Dyer's edition don't even mention the existence of the δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν reading, which is the tipoff, as mwh wrote, to the correction δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει. Dyer is simply following an earlier edition, and it's not clear whether he or the earlier editor thought about the issue or not. The fact that the Oxford editors chose B's conjecture and not the reading of the manuscripts other than β does suggest that they thought about the issue (though there's no discussion in the brief critical notes, of course).

Neither I nor mwh ever suggested that the fact that β is a family and not a single manuscript gives its reading more weight--the point was simply that it was not just one manuscript with the δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν reading, and that the fact that only one ms. (as you thought) had that reading doesn't mean that the possible implications of that reading should be disregarded, as you seemed to imply (though I'm not sure that's what you meant).

I think that δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει is both the more difficult reading--for the very reason that you were troubled by it--and that, once it's seen as a relatively common idiom, it reads more smoothly. So yes, I can have it both ways.

There's also another factor that enters into editors' decisions, which as an amateur in this area I'm not really competent to speak to (though mwh definitely is) -- namely, a familiarity with the kinds of mistakes that show up in manuscripts and with the specifics of a particular author's manuscript tradition and the kinds of errors that crop up in that tradition.

That's one more reason why in this particular spot I personally would accept the judgment of the OCT editors, who are presumably steeped in the texts and traditions of the works and authors they edit. But there's nothing that says you have to. There's nothing wrong with being conservative, and I think to a large degree scholars have drawn back from the uncontrolled propensity to "improve" texts by conjecture of Buttmann's era (though I don't know enough about Buttmann's own work personally).

Your original question as to the syntax of the conjecture has been answered, as well as the reasons for the editors' choices. If you prefer to go with the reading of the non-β mss. over a conjecture, by all means do so. That's exactly why texts are printed with critical notes -- to allow readers to make up their own minds.

[Tugodum]

Dyer is simply following an earlier edition, and it's not clear whether he or the earlier editor thought about the issue or not.

Dyer follows Cron, who, no doubt, thought of the issue, as he explicitly rejects Buttmann's emendation accepted by Schanz.
This having been said, I am not making any point but was only willing to see (by playing "devil's advocate) what arguments are (or could possibly be) there in favor of the emendation. I am grateful for your answers and am quite satisfied with them, as I now have a much clearer picture.

[jeidsath]

Here is an interesting discussion from the Austrian philologist Adolf Lichtenheld about what μὲν is doing there, and what Cron has to say about it. His starting point seems to be the Buttmann conjecture, but I don't understand why he is discussing δοκεῖν –-- ἥξειν vs. δοκεῖ ––– ἥξειν at the end.

Does he actually mean "Ob δοκεῖν -- ἥξει oder δοκεῖ -- ἥξειν zu lesen sei"?

EDIT:

And here is Cron. He doesn't discuss Buttmann. Did he have a separate critical edition? I can only find this. It is what Lichtenheld is replying too, I suppose.

[mwh]

I’ve looked up Buttmann’s edition on line to see what he said to justify his emendation. He drew attention to the B family's δοκεῖν, and proposed ἥξει on the strength of it.

(He took the parenthesis to be δοκεῖν μὲν ἐμοί, with the μέν applying to ἐμοί. I don’t know if anyone followed him in this; I’d expect not. Leichtenheld accepted δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει, and no doubt others before as well as after him did too.)

((jeidsath’s proposed emendation of the text of Lichtenheld’s note is obviously right too. Or do we now have to discuss the pros and cons of that?))

[Hylander]

Deleted.

[Tugodum]

Yes, Lichtenheld, beyond doubt, says that he does not venture to decide whether δοκεῖν -- ἥξει or δοκεῖ -- ἥξειν is correct. He only adds that the first reading would add more hesitation to the phrase. He does not say it is the more idiomatic, or difficult, or smoother reading of the two (which he probably would have said had he thought so).

[jeidsath]

My German certainly isn't great, but I read it as:

Ob δοκεῖν -- ἥξει oder δοκεῖ -- ἥξειν zu lesen sei, wage ich nicht zu entscheiden; es müsste denn sein, dass die absolute formel δοκεῖν μέν μοι parenthetisch zu sprechen ist; dann würde sie allerdings angemessener sein als das verb. fin. δοκεῖ, weil der ganze satz so ein zögerndes gepräge erhielte.

Whether δοκεῖν -- ἥξει or δοκεῖ -- ἥξειν is to be read, I don't dare to decide. It would have to be that the absolute formula δοκεῖν μέν μοι is parenthetical in speech. Then certainly this formula would be more reasonable than finite verb δοκεῖ, because the whole sentence would obtain such a hesitant character.

---

I believe that the error δοκεῖν ... ἥξειν for δοκεῖν ... ἥξει has happened twice now in the course of this thread, including Lichtenheld. Three times if we accept it as the original scribal error!

[Tugodum]

jeidsath--But what do you make of him saying "I don't dare to decide" (which he unequivocally does say)? On your reading of the rest of his phrase, he does decide in favor of δοκεῖν ... ἥξει, doesn't he?

[jeidsath]

Maybe I should have translated "es müsste denn sein" as "unless." I'm afraid that an actual German speaker will have to answer your question. Mine is at its limits here.

[Hylander]

Dyer's note (as well as his text) simply reproduces Cron's note (p. 145).

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... up;seq=175

Cron's school edition is not really a critical edition. He says in his introduction (p. x) that he's just going to follow "manuscript readings of the best authority, which in my opinion have been replaced without adequate grounds by conjectures or readings of limited diplomatic value" (Herstellungen handschriftlicher Lesearten der besten Authorität, die nach meiner Meinung ohne genügenden Grund durch Conjecturen oder Lesearten von geringerem diplomatischen Werthe verdrängt worden sind).

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 1up;seq=16

In other words, it's a mumpsimus edition. Cron simply takes manuscript readings of "the best authority" (whatever he means by that) at face value whenever possible, without considering alternatives.

That's quite contrary to the way modern editors operate, in recognition of the fact that in "open" traditions good ancient readings may have crept into manuscripts that used to be considered less "authoritative", and that manuscripts that used to be considered "authoritative" aren't always right, and each reading, including conjectures, needs to be considered on its own merits, based on the author's style as well as paleographic probabilities.

But Cron's is a text aimed at students, and not intended to be a genuinely critical edition based on critically weighing alterrnatives. Cron doesn't even let us know he's aware of the δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν reading of the β manuscripts, which is the key to Buttmann's conjecture, or that he gave consideration to the reasoning underlying the conjecture. And Dyer simply follows him.

[Hylander]

With regard to Lichtenheld, the text he prefers reads δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει, which he quotes at the beginning. Later he says he isn't going to venture to decide whether δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν or δοκεῖ . . . ἥξειν, i.e., the readings of the manuscripts (not a mistake on Lichtenheld's part), is correct. In other words, he doesn't see any point in trying to decide between the alternatives offered by the manuscripts, both of which he implicitly considers wrong, "for" (denn), as he continues, δοκεῖν -- which, although he doesn't say so, implies ἥξει -- would be uttered parenthetically and thus expresses a slight hesitation, and in his view that reading would be more appropriate, consistent with what he sees as Crito's reluctance to alarm Socrates with bad news.

Incidentally, Denniston (p. 382) sees μεν here as expressing uncertainty. That's Lichtenheld's point: the slight uncertainty expressed by μεν, leaving open the possibility of a subsequent δε countering the news of the ship's imminent arrival, is intended by Crito to mitigate what he thinks will bad news for Socrates (though of course S. doesn't consider it bad news at all).

In sum, in the course of explaining μεν, Lichtenfeld suggests another reason for reading δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει.

[Tugodum]

Cron doesn't even let us know he's aware of the δοκεῖν . . . ἥξειν reading of the β manuscripts, which is the key to Buttmann's conjecture

Are you saying that, in your view, Cron probably thought that δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει is Buttmann's own invention, not grounded in any mss. reading?

In other words, he doesn't see any point in trying to decide between these alternatives, both of which he implicitly considers wrong,

In my view, had L. meant this, he would have, indeed, put it "in other words," more close to the words of your paraphrase (which adds a lot to what he actually said).

[mwh]

Tugodum, I don’t know much experience you have of Greek. Evidently not very much, if you had to ask what the grammatical function of δοκεῖν is. If you can’t see its superiority, which clearly you can’t, I suggest it would be more profitable for you to read beyond the first page of the Crito and read the rest of the dialogue, and quit hammering on about this particular reading. There’s only so much juice to be sucked out of a single textual point like this. You should have rested content with Hylander’s full and well-judged answer to your original question and moved on, duly enlightened. No-one else would have been so patient with you or shown such forbearance.

[Tugodum]

mhw--If you don't like my questions and comments (which apparently you don't) you do not have to respond to them. I stated emphatically that I'm not making any point here but only trying to clarify for myself those of other people (both present and deceased). Whether or not I "should" (!) "rest content" (and with what) is not up to you to decide. A better knowledge of Greek is not a license to arrogance. I expressed my gratitude to Hylander more than once. If anyone believes that I'm violating the rules of this forum I would be grateful should that person cite for me a relevant rule, and I will then promise to follow it in the future.

[Tugodum]

p.s. I understand that sometimes one just has to go with the opinion of the experts; if this were the only line of reasoning offered here I would need nothing to clarify for myself on top of that.

[Hylander]

Are you saying that, in your view, Cron probably thought that δοκεῖν . . . ἥξει is Buttmann's own invention, not grounded in any mss. reading?

No, I'm saying that he doesn't report the ms. reading that is the basis for Buttmann's conjecture, even if it is clearly wrong as it stands (wrong, but necessary for readers to make up their own minds about the conjecture vs. the reading of the other mss.). I have no idea whether or not he was aware of the basis for Buttmann's conjecture or whether he understood that it was grounded in a ms. reading because he summarily rejects it without discussion.

In my view, had L. meant this, he would have, indeed, put it "in other words," more close to the words of your paraphrase (which adds a lot to what he actually said).

I wasn't translating or paraphrasing--I was trying to elucidate L.'s point. Do you see it differently?

And by the way, you've done yourself a big disservice by inviting mwh to ignore your questions. He knows Greek and Greek literature (Latin, too) far better than any of us, and he has an enormous amount of experience working with texts and manuscripts. What's more, he's been generously sharing his knowledge and expertise with other individuals at all levels on this site.

Maybe you don't realize it, but playing "devil's advocate", as you put it -- persistently trying to poke holes in what other people write in good faith -- is quite irritating, especially when you are aiming your poking at very basic questions, such as, why should we accept a conjecture over a manuscript reading that isn't wholly impossible.

[Tugodum]

Hylander--I sincerely apologize for all irritation caused. This was not at all my intention. I was assuming (wrongly, as I know see) that people respond only when they are themselves interested in clarifying their grounds. (Yes, I do see L.'s point differently, namely, along the lines suggested by jeidsath in his last comment.)

[Hylander]

One more point should be made in response to the original question as to why an editor would print a conjecture in the text when there is a plausible manuscript reading, and maybe this is the most important point.

The point is that the readings in the medieval manuscripts are the result of an almost completely haphazard process of transmission over the course of centuries, and they aren't necessarily the only readings that were circulating in antiquity. Papyri sometimes show alternative readings that were not preserved in the medieval manuscripts. In fact, sometimes the papyri anticipate conjectures that have been made by modern scholars.

That doesn't mean that papyri readings not found in the medieval manuscripts are right, of course, or that conjectures even if anticipated by papyri are right. What it does mean, however, is that conjectures, especially if anticipated by papyri, may well be right and conscientious editors need to take them into account, using their judgment, based on the factors already discussed.

I think this was less apparent to editors in the 19th and early 20th centuries, before large numbers of papyri found at Oxyrhynchus and elsewhere came into general circulation.