Textual transmission and editorial signs

Use in the book

The supplied volume identifies its Greek as Burnet’s Oxford text, volume II, first published in 1901 and in a second edition of 1910, reproduced from a later impression. It follows Burnet’s printed reading rather than silently adopting a modern critical text. The translation includes what he supplies in angle brackets and excludes what he brackets as spurious. Consequently the Greek displayed on a page, the accepted dialogue text, the apparatus alternatives and the translated English do not always contain the same strings.

The principal manuscript sigla are B, T and W. The edition identifies B as the Bodleian Plato, T as the Venice manuscript and W as the Vienna manuscript; smaller letters and numbered forms can denote correcting hands. Ancient quotations and commentaries also supply evidence. Proclus and Olympiodorus are commentators; Stobaeus preserves excerpts; Eusebius supplies the large mirror extension; Athenaeus and a scholiast help support the quail-tapper reading. A reading ascribed to a witness is not the same thing as an editor’s conjecture, and a commentary’s variant does not automatically have priority over direct manuscripts.

Specific decisions materially affect interpretation. At 112c the repeated name Cleinias is bracketed although the father’s identity is independently clear. At 120a the quail-tapper epithet is printed from indirect witnesses against the manuscripts’ quail-breeder. At 121b the apparatus confirms the unusual Artoxerxes spelling rather than correcting it to the conventional English form. At 133c the choice “more divine” already varies against “more intellectual,” before the large supplied passage begins. The extended god-as-mirror exchange is absent from B and T and printed from Eusebius; Burnet’s note that Julian and Stobaeus read something similar is a report of his apparatus, not proof that every witness has the same wording.

The smaller supply signs also deserve attention. An answer at 115d is conjecturally supplied, while speeches at 115e and 128a–b are supplied from Stobaeus. Conjecture and quotation are different grounds for printing missing words. Likewise, a proposal to delete a phrase, merely recorded in the apparatus, is not an adopted deletion. The edition’s note at 133a distinguishes Schleiermacher’s proposal about the pupil phrase from Burnet’s actual retained wording.

The supplied editorial record acknowledges limits: it has not collated the manuscripts anew, does not report all readings proposed since 1910, and leaves several ancient witness references unlocated. A lexicon can check its Greek and references against the supplied text without claiming that this verifies the manuscripts or the whole history of scholarship. Editorial precision means preserving those levels rather than removing uncertainty for a smoother narrative.

Places to read

1. 105d1 (apparatus)Burnet’s bracketed explanation is excluded from the English.
2. 112c4 (apparatus)The repeated father’s name is rejected in the printed text.
3. 115d2 (apparatus)An affirmative answer is supplied by conjecture.
4. 115e5–7 (apparatus)Two speeches are supplied from Stobaeus.
5. 120a9 (apparatus)Quail-tapper is adopted against the direct manuscripts’ quail-breeder.
6. 121b3 (apparatus)Artoxerxes is explicitly confirmed as the manuscript spelling.
7. 128a13–128b1 (apparatus)The cloaks and bedclothes exchange is supplied from Stobaeus.
8. 133a2 (apparatus)2A proposed deletion of the pupil phrase is reported but not adopted.
9. 133c1–17 (apparatus)23456Variants in the divine language precede a major supplied extension.

Translation in this edition

The names Burnet, Stephanus, Bekker, Schleiermacher, Cobet and others belong to editorial history, not the dramatic cast. Latin apparatus forms such as Iulianus, Priscianus and Ficinus designate Julian, Priscian and Ficino. Their appearance does not create attested Greek vocabulary or a new interlocutor. This entry reports the supplied Editorial Note’s identifications without claiming independent verification of every witness.

Use in the book

The supplied Greek reproduces Burnet’s page divisions, lineation and apparatus. Its principal witnesses in this dialogue are B and T. The separate letter W, familiar from the preceding dialogue’s apparatus, does not appear here. Lowercase b and t identify later hands; rec. t is interpreted cautiously by the edition rather than treated as fully explained by Burnet’s list of sigla.

Angle brackets do not all have one origin. At 141b they mark conjectural additions; at 148c a supplied negative comes from a corrector in a later manuscript; at 151b the missing possessive is supplied from the quoted Euripidean text. Words in square brackets at 148d, 148e and 150b are not translated. The reading text and the note must be considered together before a dictionary entry treats an expression as unqualified manuscript evidence.

Several decisions affect the argument directly. The “when” of 145b changes the object of deliberation; the “whom” of 145e changes the group referred to; the fair wind of fortune at 147a rests on a transposition and corrections; the final “opinion” at 151b is the printed reading against proposed gifts. These are not cosmetic variants. Yet no article is licensed to rewrite the dialogue silently to a reading it finds more attractive.

The source’s count at the start of the fifteenth Burnet page follows Burnet’s own mismatch in numbering 146e. Stephanus section references are therefore safer general locators than an independently recomputed line number. Readers needing a textual history should consult an apparatus and later scholarship as well as this reading companion.

Places to read

1. 141bThe god’s extended promise includes bracketed supplements.
2. 145b–e2Adopted readings affect timing, predication and the experts referred to.
3. 146e–147b2Line numbering and conjectural wording affect the navigational argument.
4. 148b–ePalinode, negative, reported informants and a conjunction require distinct textual treatment.
5. 150bA bracketed conjunction is omitted from the translation.
6. 151bThe possessive in the verse is supplied; opinion remains the printed prose reading.

Translation in this edition

The “Editorial Note” is unusually detailed and should govern claims about this edition’s signs and sigla. Its “What remains undone” expressly distinguishes Burnet’s apparatus from manuscript collation and later editorial work. The lexicon follows that boundary.

Use in the book

The supplied edition reproduces Burnet’s second-edition text and apparatus from a later impression. It follows his line endings and retains Stephanus references, which identify passages independently of modern page numbers. Apparatus keys use section letter and line; when a page crosses into a new Stephanus page, the letter sequence begins again. A reader must therefore locate the page as well as the short key.

Angle brackets and square brackets do opposite jobs in the running text. At 226d ⟨ἀλλ’⟩ supplies a word absent from the manuscripts on Apelt’s conjecture, and the English translates it. At 230e [ἃ] marks a word Burnet rejects following Schleiermacher, and the English omits it. An angle-bracketed proposal inside the apparatus need not have been adopted: Stephanus’ ⟨ὁ⟩ at 230c12 is reported there but is not printed in the running text. This last distinction matters when reading the comparison between the two gain-possessors.

Three final-argument entries deserve particular attention. At 231c7 Burnet prints πλέον κτήσηται from a later hand in T; the apparatus reports κτήσηται for B and πλεονεκτήσηται for T. The edition’s “acquires more” follows the printed reading. At 231d10 the negative οὐ comes from W in the apparatus; T omits it, while B has οὗ σὺ. The statement that the greater amount of silver is “not of worth” therefore rests on an explicit editorial choice among reported readings. At 232c1 Bekker’s αὐτός gives “you yourself said”; B and T are reported with αὐτούς, “the base themselves,” and the early printed text omits the word.

The witness labels are not self-explanatory abbreviations for editions. B denotes the Bodleian Plato, T the Venice manuscript, W the Vienna manuscript, as identified in the source’s Editorial Note. Lower-case b and t mark later hands; a sequence such as BT assigns a shared reading to both witnesses, while Tb can combine T with a later hand in B. The edition warns that W’s silence in an entry is not a report of its reading. Asterisks in B’s ἐ**μὲ at 229e represent erased letters, not missing editorial prose.

Ordinary apparatus shorthand must also be read with care: om. marks omission, add. addition, del. deletion, pr. a first hand, and ut videtur a reading given with uncertainty. A scholar’s name can identify a conjecture rather than a manuscript witness. The source preserves reported spellings and apparent faults instead of silently normalizing every item. At 232a, for example, the text and the reported witness forms of the dispute verb differ in spelling.

The numerical example at 231d is a separate interpretive issue. Its printed half/double language and the edition’s explanatory ratio should both be retained; the apparatus variant διστάσιον / διστάσιμον does not itself settle the implicit units. Difficulty in interpretation is not permission to invent a manuscript correction.

Places to read

1. 226d⟨ἀλλ’⟩ — An adopted conjectural supplement is translated.
2. 230eἃ — The running text brackets this relative pronoun for deletion.
3. 230cἢ τὸ πονηρόν — The text does not adopt the additional article proposed in the apparatus.
4. 231cπλέον κτήσηται — A later-hand reading supports the quantitative wording.
5. 231dοὐ φῂς ἄξιον εἶναι — The negative follows the reading attributed to W.
6. 232cαὐτὸς εἶπες — Bekker’s correction underlies the emphatic attribution to the companion.

Translation in this edition

This lexicon reports the supplied edition, not an independent collation. Its Note on this Edition expressly says the apparatus is Burnet’s alone, later proposals are not surveyed, and the manuscripts have not been rechecked.

Use in the book

At 132d Schleiermacher’s reading makes Socrates leave aside the man he had questioned, the athlete. The reported manuscript alternatives concern a beloved or a questioner. The adopted reading supports the scene’s movement from the dismissive lover toward his supposedly wiser rival. At 134a Hermann’s correction yields the proverbial pig, allowing the athlete to ridicule the rival’s bodily ignorance before the youths. A reader who treats every memorable detail as secure in all witnesses misses the dependence of this joke on an editorial choice.

At 136e the printed “always” is especially consequential: the inference to the generalist’s uselessness uses the asserted continuous availability of craftsmen. The apparatus reports Hermann’s aei against the manuscripts’ dē, “of course”. The strength of the premise should therefore be distinguished both from the logical adequacy of the inference and from what all witnesses independently attest. At 137a the recapitulation’s claim that “we ourselves are philosophers” stands in Burnet’s text despite a reported deletion proposal. A report that someone deleted words does not mean the edition silently omits them.

Two visible bracket conventions require special care. At 136c Burnet places “the philosopher” in square brackets after “that runner-up”, adopting Cobet’s rejection of the explanatory phrase; the English does not translate it. At 137e he supplies “oxen” in angle brackets, adopting Bekker’s addition; the English translates the supplied noun. The added noun makes explicit the animals already understood in the comparison. It does not repair the larger inferential transition from expert knowledge of animals to an animal’s supposed self-knowledge.

Places to read

1. 132dτὸν ἐρωτώμενον — The adopted participle identifies the previously questioned athlete; the edition’s note records the alternative readings.
2. 134aκἂν ὗν γνῶναι — Hermann’s adopted correction supplies “even a pig would know”.
3. 136cτὸν ὕπακρον ἐκεῖνον [τὸν φιλόσοφον] — The square brackets mark words Burnet regards as spurious and the translation omits.
4. 136eεἰσὶ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἀεί που δημιουργοί — The printed “always” strengthens the availability premise and is reported as Hermann’s reading.
5. 137eτοὺς πονηροὺς καὶ χρηστοὺς ⟨βοῦς⟩ — The angle-bracketed noun is an adopted supplement, not unmarked manuscript text.

Translation in this edition

The edition identifies B as the Bodleian Clarke 39, T as the Marcianus and W as the Vindobonensis, and distinguishes later hands from their first hands. Absence of a witness from an entry is not evidence of its agreement. The Editorial Note also identifies three places where Burnet’s printed wording is not given in exactly that form by a listed witness: 135a7, 137e2 and 137e11. Consequently, selecting the first item of every apparatus entry does not reliably reconstruct the printed text.

The source records two apparatus readings that may be printing faults, at 133e1 and 138a2, and a damaged letter in the reproduced copy at 138c1. These remain reports about that copy; they are not grounds for inventing corrected manuscript evidence. Exact Greek citations in this lexicon follow the supplied text. Comparison with the official Perseus Greek transcription confirms the lexical sequence across the dialogue when capitalization and punctuation conventions are set aside.

Use in the book

Lexical interpretation depends on the exact source. Burnet brackets didaskalou before tyrannodidaskalou at 125a, following a deletion reported in the apparatus. The resulting English speaks of a tyrant-teacher without separately translating the bracketed duplication. At 128b the bracketed ti is likewise not translated. Brackets are not invitations to count both retained and excluded words as equally secure components of the argument.

At 127a the Greek page retains an accent error in the question whether Socrates is one of the fine and good men. The English follows the required sense “you are”. At 129a the words between obeli occur in the Timarchus report. Their corruption prevents confident theological deductions from their surface wording. The story's subsequent account of warnings, departure and the fatal result is more intelligible than that local phrase, but does not retroactively repair it.

Other apparatus choices affect ordinary examples: the name Callicrite, “to whose house” at 125a and “who have horses” at 126b. The companion explains these when relevant rather than treating every manuscript alternative as an independent occurrence of a new philosophical concept. A proposed reading is evidence of editorial judgment, not by itself evidence that the author wrote it.

The supplied source is a reproduction and translation of an edited text. This lexicon checks against that source, not against manuscripts or fresh photographs of the Burnet volume. Its agreement with the source must therefore not be advertised as an independent critical edition.

Places to read

1. 125a[διδασκάλου] τυραννοδιδασκάλου — A bracketed word precedes the compound
2. 127aεἰ ἀνδρῶν — The printed accent requires correction in sense to “you are”
3. 128b[τι] — Burnet's brackets mark a word omitted in the translation
4. 129a†εὐθὺ τοῦ δαιμονίου† — Obeli signal unresolved corruption, not an established phrase for divine causation

Translation in this edition

Burnet's apparatus is reproduced separately from the dialogue, and explanatory notes identify consequential choices. This lexicon quotes the retained wording, marks uncertain items and locates variants in their editorial context. A normalized lemma in a heading is a dictionary aid; the exact attestation belongs under “The places” and in the defined register.

To whose house and through whose company (contextual phrase)

125a: ἐς τίνος ἂν αὐτὸν πέμποιμεν. The supplied translation understands “to whose house we should send him”, with the genitive after es implying the person's establishment or home. The following question asks through whose association he could become a wise tyrant. Burnet prints Bekker's es tinos against the reported manuscript wording. This is an adopted editorial reading, not a reason to invent a named tyrant-school. See Text and apparatus.

Use in the book

The supplied edition identifies its Greek as Burnet's fifth Oxford volume, first published in 1907, reproduced from a later impression issued no earlier than October 1936. The latter date is inferred in its Editorial Note from the bound publisher's list, not printed as a date of a new critical edition. The same note reports an undated title page, John Johnson as printer, and the dated prefatory materials. The companion preserves that description without pretending to have established a different printing history.

The title “Minos, or On Law,” speaker list, marginal Stephanus references, and lineation orient reading. They also show why a local reference must be assigned from the actual margin, rather than from the nearest paragraph heading in a digital transcription. Burnet's pages and Stephanus sections often cut across speeches and sentences. A phrase can begin on one physical page or in one section and finish in the next. The page titles in the supplied edition express ranges; the Greek margin determines the precise reference.

Angle brackets record supplementation. At 316a the companion's answer “Among the Persians too” is added from earlier printed editions and is absent from A and F as reported. Hermann's alternative treatment removes Socrates' question and changes the preceding expression. The reading adopted by Burnet maintains the short question-and-answer form; it must not be called the unanimous manuscript wording. At 321d the relative ἃ is supplied, making explicit the relative construction in the question about improving the soul. The English keeps the supplement visible.

Other changes require a more local explanation. At 317d διαθεώμεθα is Hermann's conjecture, printed by Burnet; A and F are reported with different forms. The lexicon can explain “let us view” as the reading of this edition while separately reporting its editorial status. Likewise, the apparatus's form of a name or accent is not automatically a correction that should be inserted into the printed Greek. The source explains several places where Burnet prints a normalized form while reporting the witnesses' spelling.

The principal sigla are A and F. The supplied Editorial Note identifies A as Parisinus graecus 1807 and F as the Vienna manuscript traditionally cited as Vindobonensis 55, suppl. phil. Gr. 39. A² marks correction in A. Statements about these witnesses here are inherited from that editorial account. Stobaeus is cited for an excerpt of 317c–318a2; an excerpt witness is not an additional complete manuscript of the dialogue. The ancient Alexander cited at 313a remains unidentified in the supplied edition. Supplying a familiar Alexander's surname would make the explanation appear more complete while exceeding its evidence.

A few typographical details can otherwise mislead a reader. A colon can separate variant readings, but it can also occur inside a reported manuscript reading; the source distinguishes these uses. The sign ÷ at 319d5 reports a mark associated with an erased space in A, not an instruction to divide a sentence or a modern mathematical operation. The apparatus also preserves small printed irregularities rather than silently regularizing them. None of these features should become an independent philosophical inference about the dialogue.

The source's English is another layer of evidence. It deliberately repeats “law,” “accept,” “opinion,” “distributor,” and related terms to preserve the argument's recurrence. Its outline and notes are interpretive aids, and an outline can compress a sentence more broadly than the Greek permits. Thus the specific drinking law at 320a must be read from the Greek and its facing translation, not enlarged from a shorthand summary. A lexical companion needs fidelity to the reading text even when an ancillary summary is easier to quote.

Places to read

1. 315cἐγχυτιστρίας — the funeral attendants' designation is printed with this spelling; its meaning remains qualified in the note
2. 316a⟨ΕΤ. Καὶ ἐν Πέρσαις⟩ — the companion's reply concerning the Persians is supplied and visibly bracketed
3. 317dδιαθεώμεθα — the adopted conjecture introduces the further consideration of distribution
4. 317dτὰ ἄξια νεῖμαι — the printed infinitive is retained rather than silently replaced by the finite verb reported in the apparatus
5. 319dἁπάντων — the apparatus notices the erased-space mark before A's form; the mark does not belong to Socrates' utterance
6. 321d⟨ἃ⟩ — the relative in the last question is an editorial supplement
7. 321dτὸ φλαῦρον — the final contrast is with what is poor, not a silently substituted φαῦλον

Translation in this edition

The Greek text and translation are the primary local evidence; the Introduction, Key Words, Outline, Glossary, Editorial Note, and Note on this Edition are distinguished from them. This lexicon does not claim an independent manuscript or photographic collation. For the edition's stated limits, see the source guide and its discussion of unresolved identifications and later textual scholarship.

View further — διαθεᾶσθαι (diatheasthai)

διαθεᾶσθαι (diatheasthai)

View further. To examine or view a further aspect of law; this is Hermann’s conjecture adopted in the supplied reading text, introducing the distribution sequence rather than a unanimously transmitted form. Attested: διαθεώμεθα (317d). Reading the text and apparatus.

Among the Persians too (contextual phrase)

316a: ⟨ΕΤ. Καὶ ἐν Πέρσαις⟩. This is an editorially supplied answer, printed within angle brackets. It repeats the location in Socrates' preceding question and completes the agreement about just and unjust things. The addition helps the question-and-answer sequence, but the supplied apparatus says that A and F do not have it. The brackets are evidence about transmission, not a sign that the Persians are hypothetical people. See Reading the text and apparatus.