Chad, Bill, any other good reader of Plato, Could I consult you about a passage in the Sophist? In 264b the tradition is split between πρότερον (BW) and πραότερον (T and Stobaeus). πρότερον is editorially preferred but it seems to me that πραότερον is more likely to be right.
The background: At the outset of his name-dialogue the young Theaetetus is lauded for his facility in problem-solving: ὁ δὲ οὕτω λείως τε καὶ ἀπταίστως καὶ ἀνυσίμως ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τὰς μαθήσεις τε καὶ ζητήσεις μετὰ πολλῆς πραότητος, οἷον ἐλαίου ῥεῦμα ἀψοφητὶ ῥέοντος, ὥστε θαυμάσαι τὸ τηλικοῦτον ὄντα οὕτως ταῦτα διαπράττεσθαι.
The context in the Sophist (which Plato sets the very next day): The difficulty of arriving at a definition of a sophist appears insurmountable, as one obstacle after another presents itself, seemingly without end (261a-b κομιδῇ δέ γε, ὦ ξένε, ἔοικεν ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ περὶ τὸν σοφιστὴν κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς λεχθέν, ὅτι δυσθήρευτον εἴη τὸ γένος· φαίνεται γὰρ οὖν προβλημάτων γέμειν, ὧν ἐπειδάν τι προβάλῃ, τοῦτο πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον διαμάχεσθαι πρὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἀφικέσθαι. νῦν γὰρ μόγις μὲν τὸ μὴ ὂν ὡς οὐκ ἔστι προβληθὲν διεπεράσαμεν, ἕτερον δὲ προβέβληται, καὶ δεῖ δὴ ψεῦδος ὡς ἔστι καὶ περὶ λόγον καὶ περὶ δόξαν ἀποδεῖξαι, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο ἴσως ἕτερον, καὶ ἔτ᾽ ἄλλο μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο· καὶ πέρας, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐδὲν φανήσεταί ποτε).
But against all expectation the path is quickly cleared, as the xenos points out with some satisfaction (264b5): κατανοεῖς οὖν ὅτι πραότερον (v.l. πρότερον!) ηὑρέθη ψευδὴς δόξα καὶ λόγος ἢ κατὰ τὴν προσδοκίαν ἣν ἐφοβήθημεν ἄρτι, μὴ παντάπασιν ἀνήνυτον ἔργον ἐπιβαλλοίμεθα ζητοῦντες αὐτό;
I advocated this reading some years ago in a footnote to my review of vol.1 of the new Plato OCT (https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1997/1997.01.07), but I don’t know if anyone picked up on it. I’d value your opinion.
TIA,
Michael
πραότερον would mean something like “more easily”, similar to μετὰ πολλῆς πραότητος, in Theaetetus.
πρότερον would be “sooner than we anticipated”.
The utrum in alterum argument in favor of πραότερον seems compelling here, but I want to think more about this. Not having read the Sophist, I don’t have a good sense of whether ease or swiftness would be more appropriate here. From your summary, though, it seems that it actually took a long time to arrive at a solution, but once in sight, the solution was easy.
By the way, what happened to the new Plato project? The first volume and the Republic (perhpas to be included in a subsequent volume) came out, but it seems to have gone dormant after that.
Thanks for the immediate response Bill. I didn’t want to rely on the utrum in alterum argument, though it does seem compelling as you say, and I find it rather surprising that no-one has championed the reading (unless they have, unknown to me). I guess it’s the old prejudice in favor of B as the “codex optimus” that’s responsible.
As to your query about the rest of the project, I really don’t know, and I haven’t liked to ask. It seems to have come to a dead end, like so many projects that never make it past alpha. Vol.1 itself was a frustratingly long time coming. I dare say people in the UK know, but I’ve been out of the loop for a good while now—was never really in it, despite some early rather sterile correspondence with Nicoll. I corresponded extensively with Simon Slings; he died in 2003. I had big projects under way myself (nothing to do with Plato), now aborted.
The online version of the BMCR review is badly messed up. That must have happened in the course of inept digitization. I can assure you that neither the incoherence of the sigla nor the πραοτής accentuation was mine!
Hi both, I agree—both readings appear open at a minimum. I don’t have enough ability in textual criticism to judge: will leave that to the experts like Michael to judge, but your argument looks strong to me (Plato does like his word echoes).
On a side note, I was curious as to how this had been read in previous centuries (not relevant to textual criticism, just out of curiosity). Haven’t tracked these through fully, just passing them on in case of interest:
Ficino (perhaps) had Michael’s reading in front of him:
I’ll try to take a look at the Sophist, which I’ve never read. I think the choice of readings may depend on how long it took to reach a conclusion. But I doubt I can read it overnight.
Chad, thanks for tracking down those early editions! I’m delighted my query sparked your interest. So it turns out that πραότερον was known to early modern editors! prius atque expeditius in the Stephanus translation seems to point to collation of different exemplars, representing πρότερον and πρᾳότερον respectively. And facilius surely renders πρᾳότερον rather than πρότερον. So now it’s even more of a mystery to me why that was subsequently dispreferred.
Bill, don’t take on the Sophist on my account. I’m not going to look at it again myself.