Crito wants Socrates to avoid execution by escaping jail and moving to another Greek city. The following is near the beginning of Socrates’s reply.
I have a rough meaning for the following passage, but I can’t make out the grammar on a couple of points.
ὡς ἐγὼ οὐ νῦν πρῶτον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀεὶ τοιοῦτος οἷος τῶν ἐμῶν μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ πείθεσθαι ἢ τῷ λόγῳ ὃς ἄν μοι λογιζομένῳ βέλτιστος φαίνηται.
? τῶν ἐμῶν: what does this genitive expression relate to?
? πείθεσθαι: what is the subject of this infinitive?
I read τῶν ἐμῶν to be something like “concerning my own actions/matters”, more or less referring to the the ταῦτα πρακτέον above. οἷος governs the πείθεσθαι, meaning something close to δύναμαι, and so the subject is the same. Like this, I guess:
τοιοῦτος οἷός εἰμι ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς τῶν ἐμῶν πράγμασι μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ πείθεσθαι ἢ τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ.
Edit: δύναμαι is the wrong word…I don’t have a good paraphrase for it exactly in Greek.
I Englished πείθεσθαι as “to-be-persuaded”.
Hence, as I read it, μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ . . . ἢ τῷ λόγῳ were datives of the agent/cause for the m/p infinitive. How does that look?
Edit: I add that your comment was most helpful. I couldn’t find any help from Burnet or Geoffrey Steadman.
τῶν ἐμῶν μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ πείθεσθαι ἢ
When I read this phrase in the order in which it’s written, my reaction is that it would mean “to be persuaded by/obey none of my friends other than”. In context, in urging Socrates to escape into exile, Crito claims to be acting not just on his own, but also on behalf of an unspecified group of Socrates’ friends. This reading seems consistent with the situation.
But this is followed not by the name or specification of a person, but by an abstract concept: τῷ λόγῳ κτλ. This is a little odd, but I would read τῷ λόγῳ as a kind of personification, or else I would simply read past the apparent oddity, which is really not very jarring because the sense is abundantly clear: Socrates isn’t going to listen to Crito and other friends, but rather to reason.
Granted the sentence is a little puzzling, however, and Hugh was right to raise the question. μηδενὶ could be either “no one” or “nothing”, and τῶν ἐμῶν could be either “my friends” or " my things". But again, reading τῶν ἐμῶν μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ πείθεσθαι as a unit, in the order in which it unfolds in the sentence, and in the context of the dialogue, I think τῶν ἐμῶν refers to Socrates’ friends. For me, this is the natural reading of the sentence.
Joel’s suggestion is not implausible, but I prefer my reading.
When I checked the translation on the Perseus site, I was amused to find that the translator simply ducked the issue, which shows he didn’t know what to make of it.
μηδενί strikes me the same way, coming to it in the sentence. But I don’t think that τῷ λόγῳ ὃς ἄν μοι λογιζομένῳ βέλτιστος φαίνηται can be interpreted as “…by Reason, which will seem best to me on consideration.” You can’t λογίζεσθαι about it if Reason itself tells you. So I think it has to be “…by the argument [of several] which will seem best to me on consideration.”
Were τῷ λόγῳ to refer (semi-poetically) to both a friend and his argument at once, I think you could have a good case. But does Plato use that sort of metonymy elsewhere? It seems a bit of a stretch.
Here is the translation by Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, in the LCL volume, p. 227.
Not now for the first time, but always I have been the sort of person who follows none other of my own thoughts than the line of argument that from my deliberation appears to be best.
I believe “of my own thoughts” is their translation of τῶν ἄλλων. [should read τῶν ἐμῶν. Thanks to Joel ]
And here is the Greek context, thanks to Perseus.
ὦ φίλε Κρίτων, ἡ προθυμία σου πολλοῦ ἀξία εἰ μετά τινος ὀρθότητος εἴη: εἰ δὲ μή, ὅσῳ μείζων τοσούτῳ χαλεπωτέρα. σκοπεῖσθαι οὖν χρὴ ἡμᾶς εἴτε ταῦτα πρακτέον εἴτε μή: ὡς ἐγὼ οὐ νῦν πρῶτον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀεὶ τοιοῦτος οἷος τῶν ἐμῶν μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ πείθεσθαι ἢ τῷ λόγῳ ὃς ἄν μοι λογιζομένῳ βέλτιστος φαίνηται.
Now that I think about it, this is the one I like, even though I can’t put up any good arguments. 
τῶν ἐμῶν, you mean. I was just revisiting this thread to mention this as a third (unlikely) possibility. “Of my own arguments.” It’s grammatically possible, but a bit of a schizophrenic thing to say (I thought). Emlyn-Jones/Preddy makes it sound nice in English though.
I used “reason” as shorthand for the phrase with the relative clause that follows. Shoulg have made that clear.
I get you now. I misunderstood. You know, if there were something or other there to indicate that was comparative ἤ, it might solve all the problems here:
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀεὶ τοιοῦτος οἷος τῶν ἐμῶν μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ πείθεσθαι <μᾶλλον> ἢ τῷ λόγῳ ὃς ἄν μοι λογιζομένῳ βέλτιστος φαίνηται
“…but also I am always the sort not to be persuaded by any other of my friends than by the argument which appears best to my consideration.”
or similar. I do notice the following in the LSJ entry for comparative ἤ:
less freq. after a word not implying comparison, δίκαιον ἡμέας ἔχειν . . (sc. μᾶλλον) ἤ περ Ἀθηναίους Hdt.9.26; ἐμοὶ πικρὸς . . ἢ κείνοις γλυκύς S.Aj.966 (s.v.l.); δεδικαιωμένος ἢ ἐκεῖνος Ev.Luc.18.14.
So maybe the <μᾶλλον> or something like it isn’t necessary. But given the different translations we have going, it might make life easier.
EDIT: Compare the Apology, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν
Also, I’m not sure I like the word order, but “μηδενὶ μᾶλλον πείθεσθαι ἢ τῷ λόγῳ” has some logic to it.
My reaction is that “none other of my own thoughts” is stranger – as Joel says, schizophrenic – than the (to me at least) slight shift from “none other of my friends” to “my reasoning” after πείθεσθαι. Again, I think that reading τῶν ἐμῶν οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ would immediately bring to mind “none other of my friends”, and the need for a reader to go back and reinterpret that as something like “my thoughts” would be very jarring.
Let’s not forget Socrates’ daimonion, which may be being hinted at here. I prefer the ‘none other of my own thoughts’ interpretation, implying he was sifting through various thoughts/accounts within his own mind, using his reasoning and logic to select the most worthy and best.