Hipparchus

Note on this Edition

How the volume was made

The Greek was taken from the Perseus Digital Library’s digital transcription of Burnet and cut into Burnet’s lines by reading every line-end from the photographs of his page, in the impression described in the Editorial Note. Accents, breathings and iota subscripts were read on the sharpest image of each page that the scan provides, and a doubtful mark was settled by setting it beside sure examples of each form on the same page. The section letters and line numbers in the margin were computed from the Stephanus divisions rather than copied, and were then compared with Burnet’s: across the 349 lines of the dialogue they fall where he prints them. Burnet’s apparatus was transcribed from the same images, with its asterisks for erased letters. Where the digital text differs from Burnet’s page (small letters at the openings of speeches, and the Delphic sayings at 228e without their capitals and quotation marks), this edition follows Burnet.

The work was done in two blocks of six pages, each finished and checked before the next was begun. Each block was checked by four independent reviewers: two, dividing its pages between them, compared the Greek and the apparatus with the page images letter by letter, one compared the English with the Greek clause by clause, and one checked every fact and reference in the notes. Each finding was examined again against the evidence before it was adopted, and not all were adopted. What each block’s check caught is recorded at the end of this Note.

When the second block was done the volume was read through as one text, since a check made page by page cannot see some kinds of error: a word rendered one way in one block and another way in the next, a sentence broken badly at a page turn, a recapitulation that states a step in other words than the step itself. The translator read the whole volume, and four further reviewers read it independently: one for the consistency of terms across the whole book, two for sense, omissions and continuity in its two halves, and one for the Editorial Note against the scan of Burnet’s volume. The Introduction, the Key Words of the Dialogue, the Outline and the Glossary were then written from the finished text, and their claims and references were checked against it by three more reviewers.

What the final reading caught

It found some forty faults that the two block checks had passed, most of them small and a few substantive. They fall into a few classes.

The most serious was in the Greek pages. In the margin of the first line (225a1) and of 229e1 the edition printed a small black square where Burnet’s section letters a and e should stand, and the Editorial Note and the record of the second block said that this copy prints a square there. It does not: the squares came from the scan. Its sharpest image of those pages, on which the accents were read, shows the two margin letters as solid blocks, while the full page image shows the letters. The edition now prints a and e, and every mark in the margins has been checked on the full page image.

In the English, a few renderings changed the sense or could be heard the wrong way. At 232b the companion’s last concession had read “more than it has persuaded me”, as though he had been partly persuaded; the Greek says “rather than”, and Socrates’ reply (“it might also persuade you”) treats him as not yet persuaded. At 231b the answer “It appears so” could be taken to agree that a man will not acquire gain even by acquiring something good, the opposite of what the companion means; it now reads “It appears he will, if it is good, at least”, and the question before it keeps the Greek order. At 230b–c two questions with “not … at all” were answered “Yes”, which in English can mean either thing; they now read “does the one differ from the other not at all”. At 229b the Athenians lived “nearly” as in the reign of Cronus, not “very nearly”, and not “more or less”, which renders another phrase in the argument a page later (230c–d); at 231d10 “Now, at any rate” replaces “As things are”, which could be heard as “in reality”; and the “indeed” of 229b, the “some” of 225b, the “rightly … right” of 227c–d, the “and” that joins “fellow citizen” to “son of Pisistratus” at 228b, and the order of “me and you” at 227c were restored.

Next came renderings that had drifted from the series or from one another. Hēgeisthai was “consider” at 227d and 229d against “think” elsewhere; homoiōs was “alike” of food but “equally” of gain in the analogy the argument rests on (230b–e); oiesthai was once “suppose” (229c), mega phronein “was proud” for the series’ “prided himself” (229c), exhamartanein “go wrong” for “make a mistake” (227c), and kalōs poiein “doing right” at 228b, where “right” belongs to orthōs; it is now “acting well”. Set answers were brought into line with the series: “Impossible.” (230d), “To me, yes.” after “seems to you” (230a), and “How do you mean the question?” (230a); and “Not for me, at least” is now “Not for me, no.” (229e, twice), since “at least” had suggested “though perhaps for others”. A step and a recapitulation now share their words: “you call gain the opposite of loss” (226e), which 227a and 228a take up, and “the opposite of the bad thing” (230a), which recalls 228a. At 227c “all men appear to be lovers of gain”, so that the dialogue’s last step (232c) can be heard to answer it.

Eleven passages matched a published English translation word for word beyond what literal translation forces, and were rewritten: at 225b, 226e, 227b, 227c (twice), 228b, 229b, 230a, 231c, 232b and 232c. At 228b the rewriting also made Homer’s poems “epics”, since “poems” is kept for Hipparchus’ own verses.

In the notes, the doubt about the dialogue’s authorship at 228b is now given to Aelian, whose words it is; at 229c the sister turned away from the procession is Harmodius’, not Hipparchus’; the note at 228b names Anacreon and Simonides as poets; the note at 225d gives the manuscripts’ ton axion as “the one deserving” (to gain), since “worthy” would cross the ruling for axios; and a note at 232a gives the places where gain was agreed to be good, “for the third or fourth time”.

The Editorial Note was provisional, and was completed. It now gives the dates of Burnet’s preface and addendum; explains the margins (the Stephanus volume and page at the head, the page numbers in place of the letter a, the numbering of every fifth line, and what is not reproduced); names the list of persons and the capitals of the Delphic sayings; no longer calls B’s ἠ at 229d9 a fault of printing, since the same entry reproduces a fault of T’s; states Burnet’s judgement of the Coislinianus in his own terms; distinguishes the two uses of et mox; and says how often W is cited. The edition itself was identified later, when the Lovers was made from the same copy: a list of the Oxford Classical Texts dated January 1935, bound in after the last page of the text, offers this volume as “Ed. 2”, so that the copy is an impression of the second edition of 1910, issued no earlier than January 1935; the title page and the Editorial Note now say so.

Three proposals were not adopted: a note at 228e placing the Delphic sayings in the forecourt of Apollo’s temple, for which the page has no room; the series’ “be in a condition” for paschein at 230b, which would obscure “do or undergo” at 230d; and “in turn” for au at 231a, where “on the other hand” is kept. A cross-reference from the note at 229e to “persuaded” at 232b is left to the Key Words, which follow the thread.

What remains undone

A few marks lie at the limit of what the scan can show, and are printed as read: in the apparatus, B’s ἠ at 229d9 without a grave, and the broken ο of οὖν in the entry at 232a6; in the text, the damaged second ο of πεντηκόντορον at 228c1, the ι of βέλτιστε at 226e3, the circumflex of Δοκεῖ at 230a5, and the raised point at 230a4, which sits low and close in this copy. They should be checked against another copy of the volume.

The apparatus is Burnet’s alone. It has not been collated against the manuscripts, and readings proposed since 1910 are not reported. The translation follows Burnet’s text even where later scholars would print something else.

The notes are a reader’s aid, not a commentary. They were chosen to explain what the English cannot carry and to set the story of Hipparchus beside the historians’, and they label the more doubtful interpretations as such. The question of who wrote the dialogue, and when, is set out in the Introduction but not argued; a reader who wants the scholarly debate will need a commentary.

The checks described above were made by independent reviewers working from the same page images. The volume has not been read by a specialist outside the project, and a reader who finds an error is asked to report it.

The record of the blocks

The notes that follow were written as each block was finished, and are kept as a record of what each check found. Where the final reading changed something they report, the text above says so.

Block I: 225a–228e (Burnet pages 1–6)

The first block runs from the opening question to the middle of Socrates’ story of Hipparchus. It was drafted on 7 October 2026 and read by four reviewers: two for the Greek and the apparatus against the photographs of Burnet’s pages, letter by letter; one for the English against the Greek, clause by clause; one for the notes and the Editorial Note against their sources.

The Greek. The reviewers found the text and the apparatus of all six pages as Burnet prints them. They settled the doubtful places on the photographs: the breathings of αὑτόν and αὑτοῦ at 228c–d, Hirschig’s ἅνθρωποι at 227a6, the capital Ἦ at 227e9, and a mark under T’s ἀξιώσουσιν at 225a3, which is a fleck, not part of the word. Two points of typesetting were corrected: the elision mark after an accented letter (Μὰ Δί’ at 226a5 and 227b7) had touched the accent, and Burnet’s spaced points in the apparatus (225d2, 226a2, 227d5) had stretched with the line.

The English. A question had lost its negative at 227b: “Ask me too, then, whether I do not as well”. Hipparchus’ purpose at 228c is to rule over men “as good as could be”, not to rule over them once they were. The emphatic “you” of the companion’s retort at 228a was restored, and the future infinitives at 227e (“going to be harmed”, “going to suffer loss”) were kept. “Philaidae” is a deme, so it takes no article. Several sentences were made unambiguous: the question at 227c, the conclusion at 226d, the clause at 226d3. The set answers were brought into line with the series (“It appears so”, “It seems so”), and “again” for αὖ was made “in turn”, as at 228d. Smaller corrections: “doing right” (228b), “then” and “at any rate” for οὖν and γε (225a, 227e), “what not even you yourself think” (225d), and “these things … as his own poems” (228d).

The notes and the Editorial Note. The note on Hipparchus now reports the Constitution of the Athenians exactly: Hippias, the elder, at the head of the government, and Hipparchus the one who sent for the poets (18.1). The manuscripts’ reading at 225d is “the one worthy (to gain)”. The elegiac couplet is a hexameter and a pentameter. The opening gar is described as an impression (“as though a conversation were already under way”), not as a fact. In the Editorial Note, Schanz’s “et mox” at 228d3 points to the next ἄστεος, at 229a2, not to the next line; Burnet’s judgement of the Coislinianus concerns its correctors; and Ficino’s words are given as Burnet cites them. The opening question’s second half, which matched a published English version word for word, was rewritten.

Block II: 228e–232c (Burnet pages 7–12)

The second block runs from the end of Socrates’ story of Hipparchus to the end of the dialogue. It was drafted on 7 October 2026 and read by four reviewers, in the same way as the first.

The Greek. The text of all six pages was found as Burnet prints it. In the apparatus, T’s reading at 229a1 is the relative ὃ ἐπιγέγραπται, not the article, and B’s ἠ at 229d9 is printed, as in Burnet, without the grave of the ἢ beside it. Burnet’s asterisks for letters erased in B (ἐ**μὲ at 229e1) are kept. In the margin of 229e1 this copy prints a black square where the letter e would stand, as at 225a1.

The English. The condition at 230e is past and unreal (“if you had asked me just now … I would have told you”); the question at 230d10 is two questions, as in the Greek; and the question at 231e5, which in the Greek expects agreement, is put so that “Yes” answers it. The story’s word for the lovers’ grievance, “dishonour”, is kept for the sister’s slight too (229c), so that its return at 229d can be heard. Renderings of the earlier volumes were restored: “dispute” for ἀμφισβητεῖν, “despise”, “wellborn”, “playing draughts”. Particles restored: “at any rate” in the steps of the argument (230b–c, 232c), “and yet” for καὶ μήν where it objects (231d), “even” in the last sentence. Hipparchus is “such a man as he was”, not “so great a man”. Five phrases that matched a published English version word for word were rewritten.

The notes. New notes report the readings that change the sense at 231c7 and 231d10. The age of Cronus is cited from Hesiod; Steiria from Strabo; the honours of the tyrant-slayers from the Constitution of the Athenians. The note at 232c gives the manuscripts’ autous its sense, “the base themselves”. The Editorial Note now lists the later hands and the bracketed entries of the whole dialogue, and the deleted word at 230e1.