Plato, Apology 26 a4

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
Tugodum
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Plato, Apology 26 a4

Post by Tugodum »

δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν μάθω, παύσομαι ὅ γε ἄκων ποιῶ.
Some editors & scholars (e.g., de Strycker/Slings) believe that ὅ here is a problem and consider two possible solutions to it:
a. to read οὗ instead. I understand that this would provide παύσομαι with the genitive it needs. Yet this also would, as it seems to me, deprive ποιῶ of the accusative it needs. Am I getting it right that, on this reading, this would be a case of attraction?
b. to "assume an ellipse of ποιῶν". I'm not sure I understand this. Does it mean construing it as "παύσομαι ὅ γε ἄκων <ποιῶν> ποιῶ"? But, if so, how would this solve the problem of the genitive needed by παύσομαι?
Thanks in advance for any help.
UPD Ok, I think I got the second one: with supplementary participle παύσομαι will not need any object, right?
But, on top of this, scholars do not like the solution (b), and Burnet, who shares this dislike, argues that the emendation (a) is not needed either, and the text is fine as is. Am not sure what to think of this.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Plato, Apology 26 a4

Post by Hylander »

Yes, Solution (a), παύσομαι οὗ γε ἄκων ποιῶ, would be an instance of "attraction": the relative pronoun is "attracted" into the case of its (understood) antecedent, τουτου, which is omitted because it's obvious and unemphatic.

In Solution (b), the word order would probably be παύσομαι <ποιῶν> ὅ γε ἄκων ποιῶ. I don't think the supplementary participle would be embedded in the relative clause. The supplementary participle would complement παύσομαι, so that a genitive complement wouldn't be needed. Accusative τουτο would be understood as the object of <ποιῶν>, and the relative pronoun ὅ would naturally be the accusative object of ποιῶ.

On attraction, see Smyth 2522:
2522. Attraction.—A relative pronoun is often attracted from its proper case into the case of its antecedent, especially from the accusative into the genitive or dative. A demonstrative pronoun to whose case the relative is attracted, is usually omitted if unemphatic. * * *
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

See also Dickey, p. 84.

What to make of this? Both (a) and (b) would be textbook Greek, and it's easy to see how each of them could have given rise to the reading of the manuscripts through scribal error. There's probably no absolutely right answer, but if Burnet says no emendation is needed, I would accept his word without having seen his reasoning.

The point is a small one, and the meaning is clear even without emendation. But focusing on it is not a bad idea because: (1) it highlights several grammatical points (attraction, supplementary participle), and (2) it illustrates how scholars with impeccable credentials can come to different conclusions with regard to textual issues in ancient Greek authors.
Bill Walderman

Tugodum
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: Plato, Apology 26 a4

Post by Tugodum »

This perfectly clarifies it for me! Thanks a lot. And yes, going into Burnet's arguments (and deStrycker & Slings objections to it) would likely to be far beyond my level.

Post Reply