I am slowly working my way through the Phaedon of Plato. I was reading section 84c and it seems like Socrates says one thing and then in the very next sentence he says the opposite. I suspect that this is merely me misunderstanding a grammatical feature. Here is the passage.
So in this sentence as far as I can tell Socrates states “Surely the previous things that were said do not seem to be lacking”…then he says “For the conversation previously contains many suspicions and many angles of attack if someone intended sufficiently to reveal them.”
Perhaps the “μῶν μὴ δοκεῖ” is a double negative here that sets things straight but in Greek I thought that double negatives strengthen a negative rather than convert it to a positive
disclaimer: I don’t read Plato very often so I am not very familiar with his idioms. When Plato people get back from their lunch break you will get an authoritative answer.
So in this sentence as far as I can tell Socrates states “Surely the previous things that were said do not seem to be lacking”…then he says “For the conversation previously contains many suspicions and many angles of attack if someone intended sufficiently to reveal them.”
I think you might be misreading the first part which is a question.
“Do you think there is any incompleteness in what has been said? There are still many subjects for doubt and many points open to attack, if anyone cares to discuss the matter thoroughly." — LCL Harold North Fowler
LSJ and Smyth state that μῶν [μὴ] expects a negative answer. So I can see how you might see a contradiction here. But see also Smyth §1772 indicative + μὴ doubtful and LS intermediate:
The indicative may be used to express a doubtful assertion about a present or past action (negative μή or μὴ οὐ): ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα . . . μὴ ὁ Κτήσιππος ἦν ὁ ταῦτ᾽ εἰπών but I suspect (i.e. perhaps) after all it was Ctesippus who said this P. Eu. 290e, ““ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦτο οὐ καλῶς ὡμολογήσαμεν” but perhaps we did not do well in agreeing to this” P. Men. 89c. Such sentences are often regarded as questions with the effect of doubtful affirmation.
μῶν, Adv., contr. for μὴ οὖν, used like μή, in questions to which a negative answer is expected, but surely not? is it so? Lat. num ? μῶν ἐστι. . ; Answ. οὐ δῆτα, Eur.: > sometimes it asks doubtingly > like Lat. num forte ? and answered in the affirm., Id.:—μῶν οὐ. . ; requires an affirm. answer, Lat. nonne q Trag.
In yet another addition Guy Cooper says that μῶν “… looks … to a no answer … however … often … suggests with some irony, that a yes answer … is appropriate.” Attic Greek Syntax v2 p1391 69.49.0.b
This explanation is a great help. I will go and brush up on the use of negative particles in questions.
However, I have one further question that I encountered a little further down the line as I was reading. In 85c I encountered a passage with another “μὴ” that seems out of place. This example does not involve a question though and I have seen in some commentaries that the word is even bracketed and of doubtful use. Here is the passage:
The “τὸ μέντοι αὖ τὰ λεγόμενα περὶ αὐτῶν μὴ οὐχὶ παντὶ τρόπῳ ἐλέγχειν” (the act of NOT examining what has been said in every way) is attributed to a πάνυ μαλθακοῦ … ἀνδρός (weak man). But the “μὴ προαφίστασθαι πρὶν ἂν πανταχῇ σκοπῶν ἀπείπῃ τις” (NOT giving up before one would tire of considering in every way) seems to be the exact opposite of a “weak man”. Now this passage would make perfect sense if there was no negation in the second part…indeed giving up before one has even tired is a quality of both a lazy and a weak man. Any insights would be greatly appreciated and perhaps go a long way into clarifying this word which I have apparently overlooked for too long.
Perhaps the “μῶν μὴ δοκεῖ” is a double negative here that sets things straight but in Greek I thought that double negatives strengthen a negative rather than convert it to a positive
So οὐχ ὁρᾷ οὐδείς οὐδεπώποτε ‘no one ever sees at all’
But οὐδεὶς οὐχ ὁρᾷ ‘no one fails to see’
If you’ve got negative + simple negative + verb, and both negatives refer to the same thing, they become an affirmative. See Smyth 2760.
Leaving aside οὐχὶ for the moment, I think the way this needs to be read is to take the scope of the first μὴ as encompassing all of παντὶ τρόπῳ ἐλέγχειν καὶ μὴ προαφίστασθαι πρὶν ἂν πανταχῇ σκοπῶν ἀπείπῃ τις. These are the characteristics of the serious man, which are the opposite of the characteristics of the shallow man: “to test what is being said in every way and not leave prematurely [προ-] before someone responds after looking at it from all sides”.
The characteristics of the shallow man are specified by negating the characteristics of the serious man with the first μὴ.
Then οὐχὶ after the first μὴ reinforces παντὶ τρόπῳ: “to not just test, but test in every way”.
So it could be translated: “But it’s characteristic of an utterly shallow man to fail to not just test what was said, but test it in every way, and not get up and leave prematurely until someone responds after examining it from all sides.”
I think it’s more confusing if you try to parse the negatives strictly. When you read it, I think, the sentence flows naturally and it’s clear what’s being said.
The new Oxford text of the Phaedo leaves the first μὴ in the text without comment.
I noticed in the Loeb edition that the translator uses the word “to persevere” for the Greek “προαφίστασθαι”.
LSJ doesn’t give that meaning–rather, the meanings it gives are “desist from” and similar expressions. But I suspect the Loeb translator is merely trying to unscramble the Greek negatives in the English translation.