In this volume D. displays the open-mindedness that characterised his edition of Plato's First Alcibiades (2001), this time juxtaposing a corresponding work by Xenophon and thereby bringing the latter to some readers’ attention (cf. L.R. Shero, ‘Plato's Apology and Xenophon's Apology’, CW 20.14 [1927], 107–11; close translations in M. Kremer, Plato and Xenophon. Apologies [2006]). Points of comparison are noted, but a chiefly historical introduction steers refreshingly clear of ‘the Socratic question’ (of the relative accuracy of their portrayals). Rather than summarise the book or enumerate its evident merits, what follows will indicate some possible improvements.
The provenance of variant readings is abbreviated in code. Some will mistakenly infer that these are better when found in more MSS, or worse if only attested in other authors. Philologists miss necessary information, while philosophers gain a specious self-assurance. The edition premises that Xenophon's work survives in four independent manuscripts (p. 25). In fact, Vat. 1335 seems the source for the others; see E.A. Schmoll, ‘The Manuscript Tradition of Xenophon's Apologia Socratis’, GRBS 31.3 (1990), 313–21. (Modern editors have overlooked a fifth witness: Ottobonianus gr. 90 [fol. 66r–69r]: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Ott.gr.90. But this fifteenth- or sixteenth-century MS is evidently a close relative of Harleianus 5724 [as reported by Marchant] and as such of decidedly limited value.) The apparatus fails to report the full title found in all manuscripts (Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους πρὸς τοὺς δικαστάς) – a point of departure for one interpretation (L. Strauss, Xenophon's Socrates [1972], p. 129). Nor will a reader learn that any attribution to Xenophon as the work's author is found in a single late MS of questionable authority (cf. L. Dindorf's edition of 1862, p. xv with F. Ollier p. 98 & app. crit. ad loc.). Unlike that of the First Alcibiades, this edition ignores an extensive controversy concerning the work's authorship, which has influenced much else said about the work; a reference to Chapter 2 of A.-H. Chroust, Socrates. Man and Myth (1957) would have helped. Better too might have been to omit an apparatus, listing departures from standard critical editions (still J. Burnet, and Ollier), as in C. Pelling's Plutarch Life of Anthony. (C. Rowe splits the difference in his Phaedo, but with indifferent success.). It is to be noted that line-numbers for Plato too (pace p. viii) are peculiar to this edition: Estienne's first line-break comes in the middle of Ἀθηναῖοι, Hermann's with πεπόν/θατε and Burnet's after τῶν. CUP's computers await κατηγόρων, producing a less readable text.
The commentary addresses ‘literary, linguistic and philosophical questions in a way that is suitable for readers of all levels, helping students and teachers engage more closely with the Greek texts’ (back cover), an aim complicated by the way academic philosophers can abstract from rhetorical or dialectical considerations. Socrates’ inference at 27d4f. may not stand up to second-order scrutiny, but the democratic juror is likely unschooled in intensional logic. One may compare formulaic theses extracted from literary contexts, but defendants have concerns beyond consistency with premises employed years previous (Pl. 30c8–d1 n.). Xenophon's argumentation generally escapes corresponding analysis, with his studied rhetorical approach going largely unnoticed – as seen from the bibliography: a particularly relevant omission is V. Gray, ‘Xenophon's Defence of Socrates: the Rhetorical Background to the Socratic Problem’, CQ 39 (1989), 136–40.
Grammatical comments helpfully explain, rather than categorise; but subtle constructions are sometimes assimilated to simpler phenomena. Is χαίρουσιν ἀκούοντες ἐξεταζομένων (23c4f.) a verb of hearing governing a genitive? These commonly feature a supplementary participle (so 17c7 & 38a4), but the passive is unusual (Smyth 1361a & 2112a; K.-G. §482.1). J. Adam cautiously notes that χαίρειν is found with a genitive absolute at Gorgias 513b (ad 33c; cf. Cooper, Att. Synt. 56.6.4; for verbs of cognition generally, see Riddell's Digest §26C). On its variation ἀκούοντες χαίρουσιν ἐξεταζομένοις (33c3), Slings observes that the use of χαίρειν with a dative (rather than nominative) participle seems unique within Attic prose, finding only Homeric precedents (again all active in voice). Plato's stylistic liberty with such phrases is insufficiently appreciated by ranging them under elementary rules.
Xen. 6.29 n. refers to Pl. 17d4–18d1 n., where a Greek would have needed no proleptic ἄν to realise the unity of the apodosis (A.M. Adam ad loc.: ‘The ἄν … is doubled, so that the conditional force may be felt through the whole sentence’; cf. Smyth 1765a). In Xenophon, moreover, the standard text seems problematic. As it reads in newer editions, the clause is separated only by a narrator's ‘he said’, and the doubling is for emphasis (as Cyrop. 8.1.16 or Pl. 31a3–6 and 35d2–5; cf. Smyth 1765b or K.-G. §398.8). In 1561 Estienne noted that either the εἰπεῖν should be assigned to the narrator or the text should be corrected to πῶς ἄν ἐγὼ εἴποιμι ὅτι κτλ., neglecting to mention that Mut. 145 had anticipated him (see Tretter's app. crit. or Scholl, 319). Some editors adopted the change, which Schneider inferred the double ἄν had prompted. More likely, in confronting πῶς ἄν εἰπεῖν, Mut. 145's source and Estienne expected something like ἔχοιμι (Oec. 1.2 & Hier. 1.7.4), but, given the sequel, sought to bring the text more in line with idiom by eliminating the infinitive (cf. Cyrop. 5.5.24) – a reasonable solution to a now forgotten textual problem. On either reading, the hypothesis specific to this rhetorical question is that Socrates’ cognitive powers are failing, but not so much that he is unaware of the fact (cf. Mem. 4.8.6 ad fin. with 8 ad fin.); with the standard reading, Xenophon brings out the emotion. Such exceptions notwithstanding, readers interested in understanding Plato's and Xenophon's Greek will find numerous helpful – and sometimes analytically insightful – explanations.
The writing occasionally assumes an offhand manner, perhaps to encourage students approaching Socrates in a critical spirit: Plato's ‘Godsend’ (p. 97) employs ‘clichés’ (22b2 n., 33a6 n., 41b1), and Xenophon's character ‘cracks a joke’ (p. 141, 28.25 n.). Best of all, citing a youthful inclination to insolence is a ‘dig’ invoking ‘prejudices against the young’ (17c4 n., 24d1, 27a1f.; for the phenomenon, see Arist. Ars Rhet. 1378b26–29 and 1389a9–13). This reviewer found only rare typographical errors (e.g. app. crit. to Xen. 9.13, on which see below), but was disappointed that CUP's copy-editor allowed (or introduced?) certain solecisms (Pl. 21c2–3 n. [bis] or Xen. 5.22f–23 n., and in Xen. 17.26 n. [bis]).
Miscellaneous observations: περι- in περιεργάζεται (Pl. 19b5) has the sense ‘over and above’, suggesting out-of-bounds speculation (cf. Xen. Mem. 1.3.1, Act. Ap. 19.19, Aug. Civ. Dei 10.16); ᾐσθόμην (Pl. 20a3 n.) with an accusative emphasises the personal source (‘whom I gathered was in town’), but a genitive participial complement at 22c5 the perceptive content (‘I gathered that they supposed’; cf. K.-G. I §417.4 Anm. 1 and 9c with Bonitz, Ind. Arist. 19a55–b5); μὴ ἄλλα καὶ ἄλλα θορυβείτω (Pl. 27b4f.) probably seeks relief from Meletus’ diversionary ‘talking points’ (parallels cited in Pl. 17d1–2 n. indicate propositional content); Socrates’ concern with justice (Pl. 28d3 n.) is explicit already in Homer (Il. 18.90–5 & 128f. with 28c5f. & d1); χαλεπά (Xen. 8.10) is in antithesis with ῥᾷστα (7.32); emending to ταῦτ᾽ ἤν and omitting εἰ (Xen. 9.13 n.) requires reading βαρύνω with the MSS, as Pucci makes clear; the MSS’ τότε at 22.18 (relied on in Pangle's interpretation) should be reported; interpreting ἐπιγελάσαι (Xen. 28.26) – the aorist means ‘with a smile’ or ‘chuckle’ (cf. Ar. Thesm. 979 and Shorey ad Rep. 398c) – is a matter of taste, but παίζειν at Phaedo 89b4 helps point the way.
Minor qualms aside, D.’s newest contribution to Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics is in multiple regards a welcome addition to its growing stock of resources, not the least for introducing readers of this series to Xenophon's Socratica.
