Hi all
I’m struggling slightly with the below passage
(Context: Socrates is pointing out the inconsistency and absurdity of Meletus’ accusation against him because Meletus is saying all at the same time that
(a) Socrates does not believe in gods
(b) Socrates does believe in ‘divinities’ δαίμονας (via his belief in ‘divine matters’ δαιμόνια).
(b) Divinities are kinds of gods.
ἀλλ᾽, ὦ Μέλητε, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως σὺ ταῦτα οὐχὶ ἀποπειρώμενος ἡμῶν ἐγράψω τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ἢ ἀπορῶν ὅτι ἐγκαλοῖς ἐμοὶ ἀληθὲς ἀδίκημα: ὅπως δὲ σύ τινα πείθοις ἂν καὶ σμικρὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα ἀνθρώπων, ὡς οὐ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔστιν καὶ δαιμόνια καὶ θεῖα ἡγεῖσθαι, καὶ αὖ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μήτε δαίμονας μήτε θεοὺς μήτε ἥρωας, οὐδεμία μηχανή ἐστιν.
I’m struggling with the logic of the statement beginning ὅπως. I want it to go something like:
There’s no means how you might persuade even a simple-minded person that it’s possible to believe that divine and godlike matters (stem) from the very same thing/nature and at the same time neither (to believe) divinities, gods or heroes/demi-gods (stem) from the very same thing/nature.
Firstly, am I interpreting τοῦ αὐτοῦ correctly? Secondly, my reading ignores completely the οὐ (underlined), which doesn’t feel right, but it’s the only way I can maintain the contrast (and Socrates’ explanation of inconsistency) between the two clauses starting ὡς οὐ and καὶ αὖ.
Apparently, you’re not the first person to have struggled with οὐ here.
The editors of the new Oxford Classical Text edition (1995) (unlike the 1899/1905 edition of Burnet) omit οὐ. Based on the critical notes of the new edition, all of the older mss.on which the text is based include οὐ, but one more recent ms. omits it (which may be a conjecture of the copyist rather than an independent source of the tradition).
But this passage has been discussed here previously, and there’s substantial support for Burnet.
http://discourse.textkit.com/t/need-help-on-negatives-plato-apology-27e-28a-revised/18723/8
τοῦ αὐτοῦ – “the same man”
See also this review of the new OCT, which sides with Burnet:
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1997/1997.01.08/
Apol. 27e6. The new editors wrongly agree with various precedessors in excluding OU) along with Ven. Marc. 184. Burnet’s reasoning in following the primary MSS. is sound: Socrates is arguing that the same man must believe in both divine and “daimonic” activities, and the same man again (αὖ) who believes in the activities cannot deny the existence of gods or daimons (cf. Burnet’s comment ad loc.).
Thanks Hylander, however it still isn’t making total sense to me. It obviously should mirror the earlier arguments that Socrates was making i.e. 27b, ἔσθ᾽ ὅστις ἵππους μὲν οὐ νομίζει, ἱππικὰ δὲ πράγματα; ἢ αὐλητὰς μὲν οὐ νομίζει εἶναι, αὐλητικὰ δὲ πράγματα; οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ ἄριστε ἀνδρῶν
Where you have ‘and that the same man cannot fail to believe in daemons and gods and heroes’, why couldn’t/shouldn’t it be (putting aside the thrust of Socrates’ argument) ‘and for the same man to believe in neither (μήτε) daemons nor gods nor heroes’ … which would in fact reverse your meaning.
I revised my posts a few times, which you may not have noticed. Try taking a look at the previous thread discussing this passage, to which I added a link.
Ah, wonderful, yes it makes sense now. And nice to know greater minds than mine have had to wrestle with it.
Here’s how Burnet makes sense of this: there’s no way to convince even a man of limited intelligence that it’s possible for the same man to not believe in both daemonia and theia, i.e. that the same man who believes in daemonia will not necessarily also believe in theia, and that this same man – who believes in both daemonia and theia – will not also believe in daemons and gods and heroes. He does say it’s a puzzle at first glance and no doubt was meant to be so. And he admits that he changed his mind.
ὅτι ἐγκαλοῖς ἐμοὶ ἀληθὲς ἀδίκημα: is ὅστις here used as adj?
I think ἀληθὲς ἀδίκημα is rather the apposition to ὅτι