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.
Dyer’s note (as well as his text) simply reproduces Cron’s note (p. 145).
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw1ykp;view=1up;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=hvd.hw1ykp;view=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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.