THE PHILEBUS OF PLATO EDITED BY CHAELES BADHAM. THE PHILEBUS OF PLATO, WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND APPENDIX; TOGETHER WITH A CEITICAL LETTEE ON THE LAWS OF PLATO, AND A CHAPTER OF PALAEOGRAPHICAL REMARKS; BY CHARLES BADHAM, D.D, PROFESSOR m THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES. SECOND EDITION REVISED ABD EBLAROED. Ki^>-'OV THE [^sivBHsr WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, HENEEETTA SqftREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 1878. /3 35/ ■y-^/i-^ €? THE ^ BUSITY] TO THE REV. W. H. THOMPSON, D.D. MASTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. My dear Master, A vivid remembrance of you arises in my thoughts whenever I am called upon to occupy myself with Plato ; and now that I am once more editing the Philebus, I cannot but revert to the time when I derived so much help and encouragement from you in the execution of my earlier task. What then is more natural than that I should wish to see your name appearing in the pre- sent work, which is not merely a new edition, but an attempt to redeem a hasty and crude performance by something which I shall be content to leave behind me? There are many reasons why I desire to make this record of our friendship; one is the intrinsic worth of the friendship itself as it affects me. During the two and twenty years which have passed since the First Edition, your good will has never flagged. First you spared no pains to enable me to remain in England; and afterwards when some Sevxe^og nXovg became expedient, it was through your good opin- ion and the weight of your authority, at least as much as through any other cause, that I found my way to a haven not altogether undesirable. You also were one of the few who understood that among the trials of banishment not the least is the fear of being utterly forgotten; so while many good friends, and some very eminent scholars, have scarcely ever found sufficient leisure to prove that fear to be groundless, your letters have sustained my hopes. One other English Scholar, of whose friendship we are both proud, was not less considerate; and now I must record my great affection for him in a Book which he will not read. Never did any one so generously* interpret the obligations of his high place to the prejudice of his own ease and comfort, and in favour of all who claimed his help, as the late Lord Lytteltou. He was, Platonis Philebus. /> n LETTER TO THOMPSON. as you well know, a man of infinite modesty; and of the ge- nuineness of that modesty none could doubt, who saw how per- fectly free he was from any sickly fear of publicity. He took his place in the world with frank boldness, and did his work in it according to his sense of right. As an excellent scholar, and as a champion of scholarship, he did good service to a cause not overburdened with defenders; but while he was glad to seek re- fuge from sadder thoughts in Classical studies, he never hid himself in them to escape from any troubles or labours which could make him useful to mankind. There is yet another common friend of ours, who needs my praise as little as the other, and who is equally removed from all human comments; but this is pro- bably the last time I shall ever publish anything, and I will not lose my only chance of glorying in his friendship. Frederick Denison Maurice was, as he informed me many years ago, an enthusiastic admirer of Plato's Philebus. He saw more deeply into it, and indeed into all Philosophy, by reason of that devout humility which made him so accurate an observer of many things which a man who is thinking half of his author and half of himself is sure to overlook. "Where other men perplexed them- selves with their own ingenuity and love of systems, his teach- able sympathy with all that he studied led him into truths which they had neglected as unmeaning. But it is not for me to ce- lebrate that great Heart and Mind. I merely claim him as one of those friends for whom my affection revived with peculiar vi- vidness while I was busied with the preparations for this Book. As for the Book itself, you will perhaps have leisure to decide, whether on the whole it contains many improvements on its pre- decessor: but having once addressed myself to you, I am loth to let you go, without taking some note of certain Platonic lucu- brations, the fruit of the past year. They are verbal criticisms ; but verbal criticisms which make an author more legible, seem to me no barren exercise. Nor will you think so, who have never had any lot or part with the supercilious and ignorant dogmatisers who have brought scholarship to so low an ebb in England. You will be glad to find any text made a little more worthy of its author, than the Graeculi have made it; and will rejoice for the sake of those who are to come after us, if they are not scared away from important works by the almost hopeless state in which LETTER TO THOMPSON. Ill they have been left. This is why I have again taken up the same inquiry into the later books of the Laws, which I com- menced in a certain Epistola. My belief is now stronger than ever, that three fourths of the bad grammar, obscurity and non- sence which we find in good authors is due to nothing more than interpolations, whether purposely inserted or accidentally derived from the Margin. Not that the other part of criticism which detects the right word lurking under the wrong has done all its work; very far from it. Take the following example from the Sophist, p. 218, A. ^Aqci xoivvVy w |«vf, ovxco y,ci\ xad^drcsQ eiTts ZcozQatrjg naai 'a^iaQiaiihog easi; if you will read Heindorf's note, you will see that second thoughts are not always wiser. One easily confounded letter has caused all this trouble. Theaetetus says: Jqu toivvv, co |., ovrcog — Or take this in the Politicus, 286, d; where for Ecpa^Bv delv ^efjcvijad'cei, it is self-evident that you want icp. S. (iBfiEQia^cti. — In the Laws, 904, d where we now read Siacpigovta aal fisri^aXs zotcov ayiov okov fistaKOfiiGd^elact^ common sense bids us read, S. x. (xstika^s totpov, ccyiav odov (Asra- KOiiia^eiaa, leaving out what follows. I do not know whether you have seen a striking proof of the audacity of interpolators, which I adduced from the Phaedo. It is in the passage ^) beginning 6v Ss SsSLCog ccVy to ksyoiisvov, rrjv (Javrov (Jxtav, where the veri/ opposite precept is put into Socrates' mouth in place of that which Plato had assigned to him; and all for what? Because the two forms Img av and iarjg civ were disputing for admission, some one inserted both, but one with a change of accent and breathing, and then another came and changed x^Iqeiv imrjg av za. ait iasi- VTig OQ^ri^svTa, into xaiquv iarjg av v.ai ovk aTzoxQivaio, sag av TcJ aTi i>i£LV7}g oQiirj-^ivra aaitlfaio. And on this rubbish Wytten- bach comments as on a sound logical precept. Another such forgery occurs in Euthydemus 305, c, d. Here iv Sh roig ISioig X6- yoig and so forth down to KokoviGd^ai, ought to be removed back so as to precede (o6xi Ttaga tcuGiv. But because it was inserted out of its place, in order to give it some air of continuity, the scribe built for it this beautiful bridge: slvai (aev yaQ rrj alrj^Eia ccpag Gocpmxaxovg: which Cobet, little dreaming whose work he was correcting, altered ^to C(pElg Gocpmxaxoi,. In the same dialogue 287, B, c, we have these glaring interpolations: [a to Ttgatov 1) P. 101, D. ly LETTER TO THOMPSON. £ino(iEV vvv ava(Ai,(jLV^aKEi aal] — [qj Xsyiig] — [insl sins ..... ToTg Xoyoig.] But I must now enter upon the Laws. Shall 1 follow Pindar's precept of tcqogodtcov tfiXavysg} or that given in Troilus and Cres- sida, which I will quote, ut obiter einendem? 1) Let us like merchants shew our fouler wares And think perchance they'll sell: if not, the lustre O'th' better yet to shew will shew the better By shewing the worse first. I will not presume to say that the following correction is better or worse than the general run, but the passage is at all events a strikingly corrupt one, and so an emendation of it, if tenable, deserves a special place. " In the twelfth Book p. 960, c, n, of Stephens we find the follow- ing passage, which looks at first impenetrable; but by and by we discern a kind of bush-track, and at last, if I am not altogether mistaken, with a very little thought and very sober dealing with difficulties, we are able to restore an old highway in all its com- pleteness. A@. 'ii Kkuvia, noXXa twv e^niQoad^ev KaX ^Eovxcog xijg i};vxijg Eiti- xEd^v^ri'Kwg X. x. f., for t] SQmVf xrj tpvxrj 61 ovxa)g x. if;, i. 836, c, ay.oXovd-dov for axoAor^oV, and 7ii,9^av(S for arcid'avcp. 898, e, tceqi- TtEcpvKEvcti (an absurd repetition of n) for TtEtpvKEvm. 899, a, av- xov Srj a(iELvov fov ccq ovv 6rj ccfiELvov, omitting x^ewv. 903, e, (jiETaaxrjfJiaxi^mv xd navxa, olov ek nvQog vScoq Efiifjvxovl, Kccl (ly ^viiTcoXka i^ Evog — for vScoq, s^i'ipvxa xal fi?), ^v(nioXka i^ hog. and lastly, in 904, b, oaov ayad^ov ipvxijg, SiEvorj^ri — for oaov av ayccd^ov ipvxrj 6iavori&rj. But I wiU pass to other places, where the correction is not so self-evident. In 829, d, for xovxo iuto- diSovioDV, the sense requires ovxoi 5' ciTiodidovxaVj and in e, for Tfo Ao'yro, TO) Xoyco. In 832, c, we find: to 6s xi]g vvv noXixsiagf 7/v vo(jio9ezov[jl£vol XEyofjiEv, EHKECpEvyEv ct^cpoxEqu. There will be no more harshness or obscurity, if we read tJv vo^o^Exov^iEVy a Xi- yo(jisv iii7t£g)EvyEv afi(p6x£Qcc. In 833, a, for GvGxaCig which is quite foreign to the purpose, for even if you interpret it accord- ing to 7tQoaiaxca(i£d'ci in the Philebus, it would amount to <>t;ft- TrAojciJ, so that we should have, iv avfinXoxaig cv^TtXoKrjf read 6vv- TttCtg, contenlio. 834, a, xo^oig aal TCEXxaig xal axovxiotg. This would do very well if the peltasts threw their targets at the enemy. Till this is shewn to be the case, I should vastly prefer xal TiaXxoig. There is a strange order of words a few lines further : TO 61 (lExa xavxa 'ltctxcov dtj tceqI ccycSvog ylyvoixo i^rjg av vofiod^E- xovfiEva. The first JH is nothing but AN in its right place, and av vofiod-ExovfiEva is a corruption from a voiAod^ExovfiEV. 836, c, I have no doubt that the nearest approach to the true reading now possible, is TtQog 61 xovxo , 6 6ia rtavxog tovtw iv Tovxoig xig oi'x ofioXoysl; xovxo is the aim, xovxa the advocate of purer manners, xovxoig are the measures he recommends. 839, A, For XTjipExai yovi^^iov x. x. s., a new light breaks in upon us, if me read yovi(ji.ov 5' a7t£xo(i£VOvg aQOVQctg d: Ttaarjg. Thus LETTER TO THOMPSON. VII we have the opposition between the absolutely sterile, and that which though fertile in itself, we do not mean to use as such. 841, c, For nsQiXapov read naQaXapov, and for ta vvv Xiyoiiev iauv tv%(XL, read xavvv Isyo^iEv • s i 5' laxlv evy^al k. t. I. The inter- polations which spoil the next sentence were probably only meant for the margin. You will see that I mean naXKaK^v and «^^£- v(ov. Who can suppose that Plato would speak of their aTtsQ- /tiOfra? 844, d, I am altogether for the other reading, TtcciSiav Jiovvaiada, and in place of h'lsi xaQizog avrt^, I have no scruple in writing >J d'sog hji^ctqiGazo avTrj. The copyist wrote sx^X^ *^^ forgot to put his dots under the first %a. Then came another, and made this absurd correction. TtaiSid JiovvOiag is a very suitable expression for all the fruit obtained by grafting. 846, d, Eor dsoiiEvov irttTridsveiVy read df;(Oftfvo5 sraT'^devGiv. 864, a, h'aea&cci tovxcov should be STtead'at tovtoj. 898, b. The displace- ment of two words has caused a woeful confusion in an other- wise simple passage. I will merely indicate it. [ft^d' iv ivl] cpe- QOiiivrj (17^6^ iv [ivl) tlvi Aoyw Tiivriaig — . But I must break off from this desultory work, which is fatiguing to any reader who shall be good enough to verify my references, ^nd keep on steadily through one Book; and as the Seventh is that on which I have been very recently engaged, I will ask of you to accompany me through it. 798, A, xal av noz ctQU avayxctGd'rj (iszccpdXXeLV avd-ig — The sentence, having up to this point turned upon acoiiara as the subject, is now varied, and we look for an individual to whom to refer avayyictad'rj, avvzuQccx^slg and ccTtoXa^av. But he is not far off. For avd-ig let us read av zig, and there he is. In c we have TtttlSaiv where it is certain that the author meant us to understand avSQcov. "When these children who have made in- novations in their games and amusements grow up to be men, they are different from former — children ! "Who can be expected to treat copyists with any respect, after such a taste of their quality? In d the same mala sedulitas has bestowed on us the word fiEzaPaXX6(isva which is out of its place, and the sense of which is expressed by daa naaxsi to toiovzov which is in its place. In e, the faulty redundancy in ovd a ft cop aXXcag noag may be accounted for, if we suppose that ovS* A A ASIC was copied twice and subsequently changed by a would-be corrector. VIII LETTER TO THOMPSON. 799, E. In speaking of vofiot he says, ot naXaiol tors tzeqI hi- &aQG}5ittv ovTCD Tccog, cog I'otxsv, ravofiaffofv. By reading TOTC in place of TOTE we make the sentence clear and get rid of a then which points nowhere. "The ancients were not ignorant of the connexion between vo^oi and coSai" says he; jca^* vnvov b\ olov nov Tig ri x«l vnu^ [sy^^yo^rap] wi's/^to^E ftavrsvofisvog avxo. If he only dreamed it, he would have no right to \xcivTZVEG^ai', but I presume he dreamed it xa^ vnvov d'slov. 800, b. I see here as elsewhere the utmost confusion between Ss and 5r), but it would be rather dull sport to fly the falcons of criticism upon such exiguous game. c. For cpal[iEVj I should much prefer tpa^hv in a parenthesis, though I am aware that he has already used it. D. A slight transposition will give the Qfi^ccrcc and the qv9^- fiol their fair share in a necessary epithet. I read ccQfioviccig yoro- SsGTaraig, e. I hope you will consent to the removal of x^Q^vg. The gibe is all the more bitter when he substitutes these funeral singing men for the Tragic Chorus. I note si . . *£v toiJto . . xEiG&co as a confirmation of Elmsley's olad'^ (og (iszsv^ai. 801, A. Instead of ^itjSev inaveqcorco, which would mean, "am I to ask no •question" ? I propose fit^5i. "An rie rogare qtiidem oportet'*? We may surely venture to restore 8bi to the margin where it must have stood as a help to beginners, c. He says that TO Tcav TcoifirdSv yivog is ov navv Txavov in judging what men should or should not pray for: and that they might put into our mouths prayers for wealth, though we have already decreed that we shall have no gold or silver statue of Plutus in our City. What will be the result? They will make us contradict ourselves in our prayers. This is logical; but not so, that they will make us pray Evicig ovx oQ&ccg, for they may be right, and we wrong. There- fore away with the insertion, which while it is not to the pur- pose of the argument, is a sore let and hindrance to the syntax. D. He has never appointed any vo (AO^stccg for the purpose men- tioned, but certain ad-Xo^irag, of whom he treats in 764, n &c. 802, B. For ircavEQOiisvov I venture to suggest inavoQid'coaEmg Sb)6^evov. c. The direction, vofio^izov |3ovAi^ft«, cannot begin with nccaa 8 s. No wonder then that A and SI omit the con- junction. The ys is also to no purpose. Ought we not to read, Ticiaa ranrrj rj T«|tv XaPovaa n. M. diatQiPrj} This would refer to the originally proper compositions, and those that had been made LETTER TO THOMPSON. IX so by adaptation, d. Sense and Grammar call for the change of eKaTSQug into eKctx^Qct. e. The passage about suiting the com- positions to the sexes looks very hopeless at first; but the ob- servation of a frequent source of mistake in these books, the con- fusion between the participial endings and ftsO-a will at once set us on the right track. s<5xi 61 ccficpoteQoig (lev a(jL(p6tEQa avccynri yaTiy^ofievcc anoSiSovaiy is nothing more than iml 6e ccfjLCpotsQoig (lev a^cpoTSQa avdynri Katsioiisd-a ciTtodiSovai. When this is replaced, and Ast's supplement introduced, we need only write tovtco for Tovto), and the passage is as simple as any in Plato. 803, A. Having settled the general characters of both kinds of songs, he goes into the details of education. But here we are left suddenly in such darkness as this: tlvu tqotvov xq^J ^(x) olanai xa] Ttdrs ttqccttelv Enaara avtav. "What are eKaSia, and of what aviav are they the particulars? As to ohiiai and TtQaxTSiv they help out each other; for the dative gives us a palpable hint to change tcqccttsiv into TtQOGccTtTeiVj and the succeeding sentence about TQonoi and TQoniSslcCf and indeed the whole scope of what follows down to the end of this page of Stephanus, shew that our business is to ascertain r/va tQOJtov iqij x«l oiartat kuI onors TTQOacCTCtSLV SKCCGTOOV CfVTCOl/, i.e. TC5V aQQEVaV TE 7ta\ d'TllSKOV. A, B. otov Sri "^^5 vavTcrjyog r^v Trjg vavmqyiag ccqx^^ xara^aXXoiiEvog tec TQOTfiSElcc v7toyQ(X(pETai Tcov TckoLODV Cx^iiata, tccvTov 8ri [loi Kayco (pal- vo(iai EfiavTip Sqccv tk tc5v /3/cop nEigcofjiEvog a;(i}ftara SLccGz^aaGd^cii y.uTct tQonovg rovg tav tltv^cSv, ovrtog avrcov ra TQOTtidEta KCiTa^cck- Xec^kl, Tcota lirjx^vy >tofl t/(?i nozE xQOTtoig ^vvovTEg xov §iov ctQiGrcc SlU TOV TtXoV XOVXOV Xijg ^COijg SlCCKO(Jiiad-7lG6(JLEd^(X^ XOVXO GKOTtELV OQ- &(Sg. In this passage it is a matter of controversy whether xqo- mdEla is governed by KaxaPaXXoiiEvog or by vrtoyQctcpExca, and the rest of the construction will depend on this. But as Ast*s appo- sifiOy that is, that xrjv xijg vavKriylag aqiriv is a sort of anticipat- ing description of xQonidEla, is in itself unlikely, for then the words might just as well be away; and seeing that, if xara/5aA- X6(iEvog governs xQOTtiSElay and v7ioyQaq)Exai governs rc3v TtXoicav Girj^axa, we have this result; that a man is sketching the ship's hull at the same time that he is laying down its timbers, which is at least a day too lat^, and lastly since the play on words re- quires that the stress of the antithesis should fall on XQOTtiSElci X LETTER TO THOMPSON. vTCOYQ(ig)Btai = picov aj^ijftara xara TQOTCovg rovf vav i|jv;(c3y dt«- (>r»J(Jaa^ai, I leave axrjfjLccta to find a regimen where it can, only not in this text, to which it is a stranger, and I conclude that, just as the interpolator borrowed the word c;(»J,M«Ta from the following clause, so when he inserted ovrcog avzav xa XQOTtidsta xaxa^aXkead'ai,, he helped himself from what preceded. Who needs such an explanation of a play upon words? and is not ravtov K. (p. i. 8qc(v enough? Then again what have we to do with any firjxavi^} I think it certain that noia fii]iav^] was added, because some one did not see the purport of Kal in aal riai tcote vQOTioig. Of course fioi ought to be expelled, and as for zov ^tov it looks very like a wish to bring back the tcov ^icov which we had be- fore. — The next sentence but one ijtsidrj 8s ivTccv&d iafieVf ei Titag Sia TCQoOrj'Kovrog xivog avxo nQaxxoifieVf i'acog av i^iilv avfi^EXQOv av li'rj is not very clear, nor will the Grwcilus of 6ia nQoariaovTog xivog commend itself to you. But JIA is the palaBographical twin of APAj and bX Ttcog ccQa nQOGfjuovxag avxo TtQazxoi^ev seems all that is required, n. "We are the playthings of the Gods, and our best earnest, such as it is, consists in acting as such, and rejoicing before them. People now-a-days say that War is the serious part of life, and Peace the playful part; thus they make the serious to be for the sake of the playful." to d' rjv iv no- Xifio) (i£v ccQcc ovx ovv TtaiSid TtecpvKvla ovx av Ttaidsla tcoxe tjiaIv ahokoyog, ovxs ovaa ovze iao^svrj. x6 6^ (pa(iev rj^lv ye eivai ajiovdaiozazoVf del 6rj xov v.ax eiQrjvrjv §iov skugxov nXuGxov xs nal aQiGxov diehld'slv. xlg ovv 6Q&6x7]g nai^ovxa iaxl diapiiaxiov, xlvag bi] naidiag d^vovxa xal adovxa Kal OQXOVfievov. x6 d* rjv aga means more than Cornarius understood by it. I should render it : "Whereas we have found that in war &c." The stop should be removed from saoiiivfj, and we must read, o Si] (pa(iev iljixlv y slvai CTtov- daiozazov, "War has no sport nor education worth mentioning, and to have that was just what we affirm to be most serious." But if you insist upon preferring «... Gitovhaiozazui, non re- piignabo. The rest I read thus: xig OTN "if oQd^oxrjg; xlvag dij naiSiag Ttai^ovxa iazl dia§icoziov; d"vovza x. r. L It is incredible that any one should have attempted to correct this passage, and that others should have adopted his correction, and yet all have consented to leave such an absurdity as naidiag d^vovxa in the text. LETTER TO THOMPSON. XI 804, B, TCQog ToV ^sov a7tid(ov xai nci&tov — Was it once eI- notcc TTw^wv? D. Perhaps you will approve of ovx ov (aIv av o nati^Q §ovkriTC(i [(poivcavrci] ov d' av ft)) icivtag [rag naideiag]. D & E. T« avzd 8e drj xal tcsqI d'riXsimv 6 filv ifiog pofiog av el- noi TtavTct, 06CC tieq xal tveqI tcSv ccQQivtaVy Xaa xal tag -{^rjXElag aOKEiv dslv. x«l ovSev (poPri&E)g ELnoi(i av tovtov tov Xoyov ovte iTcmKYJg ovxE yv(ivaCTL>iijg, cog av$Qccai iiev TtQEJtov av Eir}, yvvai^l dh ovK av TiQEJtov. Never was a passage more miserably inter- polated than this. First his law speaks, and then he speaks; his law would say the same about women as about men, t/iat women ought to be trained and drilled as much. Any one who knows what r, ovdh a6m8a aal Soqv ka§ov6ai fit[i7]6aa&ai rrjv &e6v^ cog noQ&ov(JiEvrig avTalg Ttjg naTQidog yEvvaliag avTiatciGag cpo- pov yEf EL ^ridsv fiEl^ov, nokEfiioiCi dvva6&ai TcaQaaxEiv iv xa^Ei tivX Kazocp&Eiaag ; ZavQOfAccTidag dh ov8^ av to naqccTtav Tokin^6Eiav fii- fjLriOaad^ai tovtov tov tqotiov Sia^iovaaif nuQa yvvaixag dh avTag avdQEg av at ixEivcav yvvaiKEg cpavEiEv. I need not point out the impossibilities of this passage, nor refute their champions. One specimen of their logic will suffice. We have }ioivcavov6ag ^ dv- vafAEvai, ka^ovsaij avTiOTaaagj xaTocp^ELO a g. "It is nothing: the nominative may precede the infinitive". Yes! and so may the accusative; but can both do so indifferently — and in one and the same sentence ? This, and the barbarism of ioote ov8e suffice to shew the condition of the text; but where is the remedy to 1) Omitting rag 9r}Xeias dcTieiv dsTv. XII LETTER TO THOMPSON. come from? From the nature of the argument. Which is the worse case? that described by rtoQd'oviAivrig rijg TtctTQiSog, or that which is here called diaiidx^a^ca tibqI rav cpdrccTav^ The latter. "Which demands most courage, to appear sv tcc^si, or to use the weapons of close fighting? The latter. Then why does he weaken his sentence by putting the worse case, and the greatest instance of courage, first? Moreover what a clumsy arrangement is this, that he should interrupt his examples of warlike females, the Amazons, Minerva, the Sarmatian women, by a long sentence which might have as well appeared elsewhere ?^It did appear elsewhere, till some blunderer left it out, and the same or some equal blunderer brought it back, not postltminio, but through a breach in the text. By re-transposing what has been displaced we surmount nearly all these difficulties, grammatical and rhetori- cal; for the rest we must trust to probable conjecture, twv d' £ig noXenov firj xon'wi'ovda?, roars (TcoQd^ov(jiivrjg avzalg zrjg natqi- dog^ ysvvaicog avrLaiccaag cpo^ov ye si firidsv fiel^ov TtoXsiiioig Svva- a&cci TtdQctapLV iv rd'^ei tivl actrocp^siafxg) ; — all this depends upon cpm(i£v Sfiv ^rjv; Then follows the direct. ov6' eirig tiots diaiiccxse^ai ubqI TtoXsag (jcooecig}) ts jtcd Ttaidcov ccvccyxaia zviri yiyvoixOj ovte TO^MV, (og Tivtg ^A^d^ovsg^ ovz^ aXXrjg xoLVcoviJGai nors PoXijg iistcc Tf'pr^g dvvaiievai {cpavBisv av) ov8^ aGnlda xwl 8oqv Xa^ovGai fit- H^aaGd^ai Ttjv d-BOv, ZccvQOnaTidag 8s ov8' av to TcaQccTtccv ToX(n^asiav (jLifiYiaaGd-ai K. r. s. c. No one need despair of making a brilliant correction : Stallbaum's ovxl ijfjLiaw founded on the reading of the best MSS, ov Jf rjfiLavv is deserving of much praise, e. For ccTioTsXovGiv it is absolutely necessary that we read uTtoTsXoLBv, The explanation offered by Ast of avraig in TtaiSoDV tb aiia ^>;- Xbkov KCil rdov iirjTSQcov avraig J that it is put for avrcov, is only too like many of his notes on the Laws; avxalg, as I need not tell you, is ipsis seorsim. But this leads me to offer a conjecture on the words immediately preceding, ^vaairia 8s KarsGKSvafiiva {I'rj X™?'? M"^^' ^<^ ^'^^^ av8Qmv, iyyvg 8* ixofiBva ra tc5v vticoVj av- rolgy instead of xa rmv avzolg oIkbIodv which is a most vague designation. For what can olkbIol mean? Not a man's house- hold, for his wife and daughters are provided with a mess-table apart; certainly not his domestics ^ who are not members of a Cvaalnov; and certainly not his friends who, being citizens, would sit with him. Of course tcov avxolg oIkbiodv is not so bad as t(ov LETTER TO THOMPSON. XIII avralg fti^Tf^cav, but what writer would ever dream of putting more thau twv oiKsicav in such a case? Why the youths are apart from their fathers, but the girls are with their mothers, is obvious to that great umpire in all truisms, the meanest capacity. 807, A. Having provided the members of his city with their public meals and festive occupations, he asks whether each member has no needful and suitable work left him to do, akX* iv xqotko Poaxij^axog SKaCTOv niaivo^svov ccvtcSv del ^ijv; I shall offer you no excuse for altering this into, aXX' rj r. p. i. a. n. Sia^ijv. Im- mediately after, we have ovxovv to' ys dixaiov (jpofftfv ovSh xaAov, ovS' olov T£ X. T. £. whcre again the explainers rokficoGiv ciSvvara. I read, ovxovi', (to' ys SUaiov OANAI) ovre KaXov, ovd-^ olov re — . B. TexQVxco(iEvcov. Pray do not alarm yourself: I am not going to discuss the merits of the word; I simply copy it from the Zurich Edition and set it up as a mark to unwary readers; who, while sliding over the smooth surface, will, unless warned, find themselves suddenly in a very comfortless chasm. One whole paragraph is missing, either because a page in the source of our MSS was lost, or because the page was too rsTQVfiivov to be de- ciphered. How is this to be proved? By unfulfilled promises. He asks rig drj TQOTcog tou ^lov and the rest, and after a de- scription of their messes, he again asks aqa ovdhv kei7i6(iev6v iazi X. T. I. This question he does not answer, nor has he told us how he proposes to escape from his own prophecy, that these well-conditioned citizens of his will necessarily became the prey of some wiry hungry daredevils. And yet that he has pointed out some escape is evident from the sequel, which whether cor- rected or left as it is, can yield but this sense. "We cannot hope that ail this will be done with great minuteness, as long as citizens have separate houses." Ail what ? "But if the other second-best measures were tried", — ^rhut other? "But men living so have yet another duty and that not a small one" — Living how? Hardily ; as is plain from the context, and from the sequel ; but these pre- cepts of hardihood, voluntary penances or whatever they were, and their effects on the character, are all gone, and as a proof of the diligence with wh^ch Plato is read, not an asterisk marks where they were. There is some broken ground, as you would expect, on the brink of this chasm; but if I am not mistaken, XIV LETTER TO THOMPSON. I have pointed it out before i). si ^ritotfiBv civ stands its ground in all editions just now before me. The right reading seems to be; tavT ovv drj ^i ccKQi^dag (isv iKavrjgj cog x«l vvvl ^rjzovfiev avj i6(og ovK uv noxe yevoiro. c. If the Zurich Editors had thought for a moment, they would have adopted Ast's emendation dg ciqe- XYiv. Of course the scribes wrote ciQBTr]g^ because it was next door to iTtifiiXeiaVj and they looked no further. 808, c. Are you very tired of proofs of the lacuna ? Just one more, and I have done. vi)| fiev dij Siayoiiivri roiavrr} Tig ngog TtaGt xoig slgriiiivoig ccvSqeluv av rtva TtQOGKaQSxoiro k. t. I. D. For the miserable tto) ^lODiiov, I have exhausted every verb beginning with n that I could think of, and found no plausible substitute, except perhaps nQoXsintiov^ which the scribes would very readily change to TiQoXiTtriov. But a certain form of the |3, now out of use, is very like the semiuncial A and one form of jt is an CO with a lid to it. But this is dwelling in the **Meadow of Conjectare". d. o Sh nnlg nccvrcov &r}Qicov iaxl 8vGfiSTaxeiQi.ar6- tarov ooco yaQ (idXiCTa h'xei Ttrjy^v xov cpQovslv ^ir]TC(o KctxrjQxviJLevrjVf int^ovXov Kal Sqluv xai v^QiGxoxaxov d"rjQi(ov ylyvsxai. To speak frankly, this is downright nonsense. *'A boy is of all animals the hardest to manage : because having a germ of reason, he becomes the most rebellions of all creatures." This any one can see to be far from neat: but how much worse it becomes if we write; — "having his germ of reason not yet daunted and tamed"? Nor is the grammar a whit better: ogo) (icchaxa with two positives and one superlative; the latter probably contrived "to meet the demand". Again why use (i^tico for ovnco in a direct declaration such as this? There can surely be no doubt that Plato wrote: 8s Ttalg Ttdvxmv &riQiGiv hxl Sv6}isxaxsiQiOx6xaxoVf o6co y £ fidhaxa 'sxsi xivcc Tcrjyjjv xov cpQovslv. fjLrjTtco naxrjQxvfiSvov dsy impovXov xnl 8qi(iv Koi v^Qiaxov d^rjQiov yiyvszcci. e. One is rather taken aback by the statement that the lad is to be sent xolg SiddaaovGi ttal oxiovv. {Ti yaQ ; i} xttl xolg kXstcxsiv Kal iniOQKslv StSdcKOvai;) And why is xai ^ctO-rjfiaGiv added ? Grant that they are /jofids ; they are surely not so in the sense in which ot diSdaxovxsg are so. Consider, pray, whether we have not here a corruption of x«i oxioiv KAA (xaAov) MAQHMA. 1) Book 10. 905, D. si 8* intSsrjg hi loyov xivog uv si'rjg. Read X, t. kXXov si. LETTER TO THOMPSON. XV 809, B. T« fiev ovv ^tj xoQsiag tcsqi (XEkav t£ xal 6()X^(>B(og sq- Qi'ld'vi. Not even a Dithyrarabic poet, unless very drunk, would sing of the x^Q^''" f^^^^oy ts kcu oQiyjascog. Plato had discussed the question concerning their employment : XQsiag nigi. c. xat toi Ttt fJlSV TZSqI top TTo'AfflOV, « 6tl flCivd^dvBlV XB €tVTOVg XCft jUfAfTttl', Hx^ig xco \6y(o, ra 6s tcbqI t« yQcmiinra nQfoxov xai Ssvxeqov IvQccg TzsQi Kal Xoyi6fi€ov, (ov scpaiiBV Selv, oGa xs rtQog TroUffiov accl oixo- vo(iiav x«t Tiji/ xara noXiv SioixtjGiv XQV^^'' fxaarovg Xa^nv, xat TtQog xoL avxct xctvxa sxt xd ;((>^}(?t^uor xcav iv xalg mgioSoig xav d^sicov^ aaxQcov x£ TCSQi xttl ijUov X(vl GsXT^vrjg, o6a 6toiyi£iv avaynaiov icxi tcsqI xccvxa Tcdarj tcoXu xavra ovtico 6oi ndvza tuavag, w g)/Af, TcaQa xov vofiod^ixov SisiQriTai. In this sentence, 06a xs points to things unknown and beyond discovery, XQW^*^ '^ out of struc- ture, dioiKELV occupies a place where ^avd-dvsiv alone is apposite, and this mention of arrangement seems to have dropped from the clouds. The chief author in all this mischief is the man who introduced o6a xs: Xoyi6(iciv cov scpa(i£v Sslv TtQog noXsfiov xai olaovofAiav xat xy]v x«ra TtoXiv SioUrjGLV is in perfect order. Then follows, somewhat loosely, but in a highly Platonic manner — XQr{Vai 6' eytdaxovg Xa^slv x«i TCQog T«vra xavxa sxi xa XQ^f^tfxct Tc5v Iv xalg nSQtodoig xav d^sicov, datQODv xs [7Z£qi] nal rjXiov x«i 6£Xi]V7jg, 06a [^toixfti'] (oh! these interpreters!) dvayxalov ioxt. [Ttf^i xavra] ndar^ xrj noXst. (Subaudi Xa^sh'.) — I take this op- portunity of observing that in Thuc. II, 102, where we now read, Aiytxai 61 xal 'AXxfialtovi tw ^A^cpiaQZoa, or? dtj dXaG^ai avxov (Asxd xov (povoVy xov ^AtioXXo) xavxrjv xi]v yijv x^^ffai ohelv^ the right reading is ox' 86s i dXaa&ai. — Soon after the sense is ob- scured through faulty punctuation; it ought to be pointed: ini- KaXovvxsg xi xrj Xi^si; x66£' 9'dv TtaQa Trjg TCoXsoDg, xat tovtcov ^ad^rjTag rovg iv Trj noXEi nal- 8ag TE xal avS^qag ' xal [ocoQag x«l yvvaiKag navtoav tovtcov iitiGTri- jLiovofg,] Koqag (jlev ovaag %ti nadav tiJv iv onXoig oqiTiCiv [xat ^a- XYlv~] (lE^iEXETriiiviag, yvvalxag ds Sle^oSodv xal rd^Emv xal ^EGEoag xal dvaigiaEcog onXcov i^fifiivagj el (irjSEvog Fvfxa, aAA' ev tvote d£7j6Eis Platonis Philebus. A XVin LETTER TO THOMPSON. 7iavSt](Asl [nocGr} rjj 6vvcc(ji£l] KKTaXiTCovrag rrjv noXiv I'^co axqaxivi- a^ai Tovg cpvXd^avTag TtalSag te xal tt^v aXXrjv ttoAiv, taavag bIvcci TO y£ TOGovTov — I offer you the passage unaltered, but for the brackets, except that I change TicxTaXELTCovrag into 'KaraXntovrag ; that I follow A and SI in cpvXct^avTctg, (those who had kept guard, youths and others, are gone out, and the women must supply their place); and that I read iaavag, for which there is no authority except the sense. These then are to be sufficient al least for this purpose: and again, ov ovdsv aTtcaftOTOv, it being an inevitable chance, that an enemy should some day break into the town, and force them to fight pro aris et focis, noXXri tcov xa>cta x. t. e. 814, D. Read, if you approve, Nvv 8yi Trig i"'^'^ TtaXaiaxQag ne^l SvvcifjiEcag — . Soon after follows a long passage, which I am tempted to place before you, not in its present state, but as it must have been before it met with any misfortunes either from wounds or surgery. He is speaking of xlvrjaig of the body and observes: Svo (isv avrag XQV vojwt^ftv eIvui, t»)v fiEv tcqv tiuXXlovcov OwfiWTwv TO 6EiJiv6v (jii(jLOV(iEvriv, trjv Se tcov alsxiovcov TO (pavXov Kttl TtdXiv Tov (pavXov x£ 6vo, xal tov 67tov8aiov dvo STEQccgy tiJv jLtlv Kara tov TtoXEfiov xal iv ^latoig i(i7iXEKEVT(ov Tcovoig GcofiaTav fiEV K«A(av, ipvxrjg ds ccvd^Lxijg, Ttjv d' iv Exntqayiaig xe ovGrig aco- (pQOvog, iv T^dovttlg te ifi^ixQOv. ft^-iyvtxtjv d' av xig Xiycov zaxa tpvGiv xiqv xoiavxriv oqyriGiv Xiyoi. Ttjv 8e xovxtav aXXriv ovGav tijg EiQtiviTiijg TtvQQixrjv av xig OQ^mg nQOGayoQEvoi, xalg xe EvXa^Eiaig naGav nXrjyoQVf xa\ jSoAcov ixvEvGEGiy xal vtiel^ei JtaGrj x«t iKTcrjdi^GEi, xal iyKVTpEi, xai xalg Tavxaig ivavxiaig xalg im xa SQaGXLxa (pEQO- ^lEvaig av GxrifAaxa, to'^coi' ^oXalg xal aKOVxicov, Y,a\ naGcSv nXriyav ^ifiTf^axi, iTiixEiQOvGav (xifiElGd'ai x6 x oq^ov iv xovxoig Y.a\ xo evxo- vov. TcSv ovv ayad-mv GmfAccxoov xai tpv^^v onoxav yiyvrjxai, iilfArj^a, Evd-vcpEQEg (og x6 TtoXv TCOV TOV aco'jw-aTOg: (lEXmv yiyvofiEvov^ oq&ov jMfv TO TOiouTov, TO ds xovxoLg xovvavxiov anodiSov ovk OQd-ov «7ro- dExofiEd^a. Though I do not suppose that you ever joined in the charge against me, that I did not sufficiently explain the reason of my corrections, others who read this will perhaps be nursing the accusation, and if I should now leave the above passage without other comment but a recommendation to compare it with the received text, many will say, There, there! and a few will even go further and say. So would we have it. And yet what a misery it is that a man cannot change xe into yf, or UAQOS LETTER TO THOMPSON. XIX into TJAHSOE^ without turning showman, and pointing out what every body can see for himself. To explain an emendation is as ungraceful a performance as to comment on a joke, and as this is seldom done except when the joke is ipviqozsQov rdjy niaxta- vog vo^xcov, as that ribald Lucian has it, so that had better be reserved for sorry specimens of criticism. But, assuming that any chance reader will take the same trouble as yourself, to compare the received text with that here given, I will observe that avztiq xa £l8yj is an explanation of ctviag, that iril to aefivov is a Pla- tonic elegance adapted to a wrong place, that ifinXEKivicov is an Attic form preserved in our oldest copies, as likewise in the best MS of Thucydides, that rjdoval are (.istqiui^ but men are k'^fiEVQoi, that TctTiELvcoaEi is probably the gloss of synvipsi, or else the sub- stitute for it when it had disappeared into ENr^EI, that the pyrrhic dance a//d that alone can undertake to imitate skill and vigour, and can only do so by a twofold representation, namely of defence and of attack, that, if I am wrong in inserting ouv, I have no objection to any better mode of conjunction, that, if ano^LSov is rash, you can leave a mark of hiatus, or else read ivccvTiovy (in which I should not follow you) and that (XTtodeio- lAB&a was first discovered by Ast, and is the fourth instance in this Book of similar confusion of terminations. In turning over some loose papers, I find the following ob- servations bearing on the next few pages of our author. They are written in Commentator's Latin or an imitation thereof, but with the help of the text, it is to be hoped that they will be intel- ligible. I present them as they are. 815, c. 067} ^EV ^aKX^LCc X iati, aal tgji^ xccvTaig S7io(xivcov, ag Nvfjiq)ag xs Kal Uavag xai SsiXrjvovg Koi JSaxvQOvg iitovofia^ovrsg^ cag (paGi^ ^i^ovvxaL naxm'cojjLivovgf TtEQiKad'aQfiovg xs Jial xEkszdg xi~ vag ciTiorEXovvx(ov, ^v^itctv xovxo xrjg ogxriGEoag x6 yivog x. t. e. Diu mihi suspectum fuit verbum ETCovoiia^ovxEg. Saltationes quasdam Nytnpharum et Faunorum aliorumque numbium nominibus appellant. Fac Platonem illud voluisse. Sed quid porro imitantur? Eadem haec numina ebria. Quae est haec negligentia, ut eadem vocabula utpote ab ETtovo^Koc'C^ovxEg pendentia saltationum nomina significent, ad yii\kovvxai autem relata de numinibus ipsis capiantur? Adde quod InovoixatfivxEg^ cog (jpacyt, ita conjuncta sunt, ut hoc ad illud necessario referatur. Quasi his saltatoribus proprium esset, ut his h * XX LETTER TO THOMPSON. nominibus uterentur; vel potius non uterentur, sed uti se dictita- rent. Quod vero ad Nymphas attinet, quis unquam illas ebrias fiiixit, nedum saltatione imitatus sit? Quid vero sibi volunt rwv Tavraig s7to(isvcov^ Si sic interpretaberis: "qui Bacchas sequun- tur^\ praesto erit Astius, qui te commonefaciat, ciq referendum esse ad xavtaig. Quod quoniam rectissime et ex linguae norma dictum est, sequitur ut cig etiam de Bacchabus ipsis intelligi opor- teat, non de saltatoribus. Atqui si hoc concesseris, quid de reli- qua sententia fiet? Quid multa? Corruptam orationem agnoscas necesse est; vel si forte etiamnum dubitas, vide num vera lectio te ab ista religione liberet. oct/ ^ev |3ax%f/a x IgtI, jcal rcov xav- xaig iTtOfiEvaVj cig Nvfjicpag STCovo(JL(x^ovxsgf Uavag xal UsLXrjvovg xal SaxvQovg mg cpaGi (jiiiAovvxai Kazcovcofjiivovg. Mulieres Nympharum partes agunt: viri Faunos temulentos Nympharum fugientium ama- tores imitantur. In verbis tovto [xrjg OQX'^ascog'] x6 yivog, quae et infra repetuntur, non difficile est Platonem ab interpolatore di- gnoscere. Ibid. D. TO 8s xrjg cctcoXe^ov Movarjgj iv 6Q%7](jsai 8e xovg xs ^sovg xal xovg tcov '&E(av nctlSccg xi^wv — Si scriptum esset a7toXi(Aov ^sv iv OQXi^Gsai ds xLfKoGrjg, vel anoXifiov fihv iv oqxt^gscl dl anovSalaig TiftoQV, quidquid de reliqua oratione statueremus, Se saltern suo loco positum videretur. Kunc autem plane sapervacaneum est. Yide, num aliquando a margine in orationem invectum fuerit. Nam in Cod. !S scriptum est to 6 rj xrjg a. M. : unde suspiceris, dubitasse libraries utrum ds an drj scribendum esset. Equidem neutrum probo. Ad propositum redeuntes (ihv ovv usurpant. Sed de Tiftcav longe gravior est controversia ; quae lectio nullus du- bito quin alteri, xifjicovrcov , praeferenda sit. Sed unde factum est ut illam nullus bonae notae Codex praeter ^ praebuerit? Sci- licet qui ilium librum exaravit, ipse finxit. Minime; nam si ita esset, verba ilia quae Bekkerus ex illo codice enotavit, "to xi^imv ovdsxiQcog\ in margine, non in orationis serie, scripta fuissent. Itaque hoc statuendum; vel lectionem riy^div etiam in A vel SI exstare, sed a Bekkero praetervisam fuisse, vel S* non totum ab illis pendere, sed habere propriam auctoritatem, utpote ab anti- quiore libro, qui nonnunquam meliores lectiones praeberet, de- scriptum. Mox pro to (aev ix tvovcov xivmv avrov >cat kivSvvcov $ia7i£q)£vy6xcov, lege: to jusi/ avxov, xav Ijc novmv xivmv k. x. I. 816, c. iv xa^si. Haec non intelligo. Aliud est kcc&uqovv, LETTER TO THOMPSON. XXI aliud Tarrftv, neque illud fieri potest nisi hoc praecesserit. Quae vero ad rd^iv pertinent omnia supra memorata sunt; ut jam nihil supersit quam KaO^LSQOvv TtdvTcc, ccv rd^rj. Ibid. D. Lege: Tec (ih ovv . . tpviaVy ola slg Tag lOQEiag^ siQrizai, Cetera quam primum abjicienda. Mox dele Kco(xo)8t]iiciTa, et Kara ante oq^riGiVy et lege: xal tc? toiovtcov nccvtcov oim^cod^fiarcc. 818, A. cog ccxQi^stag ixo^sva. "Ctim perfectione conjuncta, h. e. perfecte s. exacte, uKQi^mg s. 8i dKQL§siag'\ Sic Astius, falsa yeris permiscens. Lege: ravtcc Se ^vfinavtcc ov% cog ccKQipsiag exofxivovg del SiciTtovHv xovg noXXovg ciXld. xivag oXiyovg' — Mox sequuntur haec: ovrco yccQ tcqstcov av Eiri. za rcXi^d'Si dh o6a avrcov dvctyKaXa Kal Tccog OQd-orciTa XiySTat firj iiticiTaGd-at (jlsv ToTg noXXolg alaiQOV, dt, ccKQipsiag ds ^rjTslv Ttdvtct ovts Qoidiov ovts to nccQanav dwccxov. Quae sit horum verborum grammatica ratio, ovts Qadiov ovts to TCDCQaTtav dvvDcTov i^r]ysL6d'ai. Locus sic mihi constituendus videtur: Tw TtXfj'&SL ds oGcc avrcov dvayKala noog OQd^OTaTcc XiysTai; cc ft?) imaraad^cii (isv rolg noXXoig aia^QoVj k. t. L Ibid. c. olog dvvarog. "Alterutrum fortasse delendum est", ^st. Imo dvvarog quantocius expellendum. De Dis loquens consulto maluit olog h. e. idoneus dicere, quam de potentia eorum videri dubitare. 819, A. ovSaiJLOv yccQ dsLVov ov8s acpoSgov dnsiQia zcav ndvTcov ov8s (isyiOTOv kclkov. Hie ov dsivov ovbs acpodgov ovSs (jLsyiGTOv haud minus absurde collocantur quam fisyiaTog xat 6q)o8Q6g sQcog, quae Cobetus, spreta certissima nostra correctione, in Convivio legenda proposuit. Et quemadmodum illic, ubi de universe amore sermo est, TO 6q}o8Q6v, quod in partem tantum cadit, prorsus alienum est, sic in nostro loco omnium rerum ignorantiam GcpodQOV kukov vocare nee GraScitas nee rei natura patitur. Lege: ov8a(iov yaQ 8si,v6v ov8' rj Gq)o8Qd dTcsiqla tcov ndvTcov, ov8s ^syiarov kukov. Neque vero hinc exemplum petere possis adjectivi positivi cum superlative conjuncti; nam 8eiv6v nequaquam ad kukov pertinet. "Nulla in civitate periculosa est — neque est summum malum." Mox dele tovtcov. Ibid. B. c. Lege: ngmrov fjisv ydg TtSQt XoyiCfiovg drs^vrng ndq- S6TIV s'^r}VQri(jLivcc fxad'i^fjLarct (letd TCai8iag ts xat iq8ovijg (lavd^dvsiv. Vulgo Ttaiatv. Tum enuiierantur xd fiad-rjfiaTa, sc. jLtrjAcov xal 6te- cpdvcov 8icxvo^aly actl jcvKzav . . . ig)s8Qsiai ts zccl avXXrj^sig iv fisQsi KCil stps^ijg, [xai] cog Ttscpvaaai yiyvsGd'cii. Vulgo sg)s8QEiag Xxir LETTER TO THOMPSON. — avXk'^^scog; unde effectum est ut mg)vKaai sine nominativo es- set, et genitivi a diavofial pendere crederentur; quasi quis pugiles spectautibus eodem modo quo poma vel coronas distribueret. Al- terum x«l omisi; quod qui inseruit, parum intellexit quid esset iv f.ii()SL Tial itps^rjg^ et tanquam inter se opposita essent, (quod fuisset, h ft. T£ Kccl I.) tertium aliquid in cog Tttcpvy^ciGi yiyvsGd^cci contineri putavit. Sed unumquodque par et singuli tertiarii prio- res iv (asqel excipiebant, atque hoc in omnibus deinceps fiebat. (og TiEcpvTiaai ytyvead-aL adjectum est ut significaretur certam esse harum permutationum conjunctionumque rationem, si quidem nu- meri natura immutabiles essent. xat dt] xat Ttai^ovTeg, cpidXag a^a 2QV60V Tiui i(x\y.ov xal cc^yvQOv Kal roiovToav tlvcov aXkmv ksqccv- vvvTBg, ot dh aal okag Ticog SiadLdovzsg, otcsq £txcov, sig naidictv ivaQ- ^ozTOvTeg tag twv dvayxalcov ccQiO^ficov XQV^^'^S — Tria hie prsecipue quaerenda sunt. 1. Quid sit cpidXag usQavvvvTsgy 2. quo modo ab oAag dicidiSovTeg differat, 3. ubi dixerit, quod hie se iterum dicere ait. Duplex, nisi fallor, discrimen in poculis fingitur; nam et e diversa materia facta sunt, et diversum liquorem continent. Si hoc verum est, recte opponuntur of KSQavvvvTsg tag (pidXagy h.e. qui pocula vino cum aqua permixto implent, et ot (p. olag SiaSi- Sovreg, quod idem est ac (p. cckqcctov tlovov 7tXi]QSt.g Sia8i,d6vT£g. Sed vocem cixQcctog consulto vitavit, quoniam non minus de aqua pura quam de vino mere cogitabat. Quo autem spectant ilia, otcbq eiitov ? Pianissimo ad verba ccqijiott6vt(ov dqid'fjKav tcov avtmv. At- qui non prorsus idem est, sive numeros convem're dicas, sive nu- meros accomrnodari ; et quoniam hoc verius, malim uQ^oxxo^ihiav, Nam qui hoc dixit, idem dixit quod infra, dg naidiav k. t. I. Praeterea cum prorsus otiosum sit aXkcov, et ot 6s alterum quod- dam sui simile flagitet, lego : ccXK o i (jlsv KSQavvvvTsg. At unde il- lud jii£v arripui? Nempe a Cod. S, qui pro KSQavvvvvsg (iSQav- vvvvag habere dicitur. Ceterum si quis inutilem esse particulam TKog contendet, simulque okug q)L(iXag segre feret, quidni okag no- 6stg reponat? Ibid. D. (xercc $s ravra iv talg [isvQriaEGLv, co g , daa exH firjari xal nXaTY} yial pd^r], tcsql ccTtavia Tavrcc ivovodv xiva cpvGBi yeXoiav T£ xal ala-jiQccv ayvoiav iv zoig ccv&QCOTioig naoi, xavrrjg aTiaXXccxxov- 6LV. Supplevi cog. Idem valet cog ivovaav atque xQivovxsg ivslvai. Mox pro vTjvwv lege vivcov. 820, A. Ei 8' eari (AtjxE ocpodga /tiijrs t^qs^au [Svvaxd svia^ dXXd'] LETTER TO THOMPSON. XXIII Tcc (itfv, [tcJ 8s fi^,] 6v de navza riyii^ ncog oXii nqog xavxa Siukel- ad-ai; Non defuturos scio, qui hos uncinos meos tanquam sum- mae audaciae exempla citaturi sint. Ego contra librariorum auda- ciam me compescere arbitror, qui talem compositionem ovk evia akXa xa [xev tcc d' ov, pro Platonica nobis obtulerunt. Sed cur dvvarci inclusi? Yideamus prsecedentia. Aq' ovv ov SoksI . . ravrcc zivai (jLSTQTjTci KQog QkXrjXa; Nai. MiJKog t£, olfiai, ngog (irjaog x. t. s. Vides orationem continuari, et haec omnia a (AsrgrjTa slvai pendere. "Imo", inquit, "a Swaxov slvcci (ietqelv cpvasi". Atqui, ut hoc con- cesserim, qua ratione haec inter se conciliabis: Sweet 6 v iaxi tavxa. (isxQslv et xavxa Svvaxa hxi? Scilicet intelligendo ^EXQUOd'ai. Et ubi erit Platonicus ille nitor sermonis, quern omnes laudant, paucissimi tuentur? Sed paucissimi illi Svvaxov eivat ^ex^eiv cpv- 6£i sine ulla dubitatione damnabunt. Ibid. A. Tl 8' av; iirjuog xe kccI TtXdxog TtQog Pa&og, rj nkuxog XE Kccl ^iJKog TtQog ccXXriXa ojgxe Tccog ccq* ov diavooviAEd-a tzeqI xavxa ovxcog 3c. X. £. Sic a et SI. Pro roars ncog Winkelmannus infeli- citer a^ag ys noog conjecit. Scribendum videtur: rtQog aXXriXa coaavxoog; KA. IldSg; A@. ^Aq ov 8iavoovfiEd-a — . Returning from the Latin notes the first thing we meet with in the text, that seems to require notice is in 820, c. xavxa yaq 87] CKOTtovvxa SiayiyvcaGKELV dvaynalov ij navxanaGiv slvai q)avXoVy TtQOpaXXovxd XE aXXriXoig cieI, 8iaxQiPrjv xrjg nExxElag noXv xctQiEGxi- Qav 7CQE xov |ii^ §Xa6(pri(JLElv tieqI avxd, ev- cprifiEvv 81 ueI 'd'vovxdg xe xa\ Iv Ev^alg Evxo^iivovg Ev0E§(ag. How can the following bear each other's company: xoivvv — vvv, nEq\ &Emv XXIV LETTER TO THOMPSON. Tcov yLCLx ovgavov — tvsqI ccTtccvrcov tovtwv, tovg noXirag xs — xal xovg vhvg} Nvv and the celestial clause must go, and the cross division must be changed into a *wZ»division by removing tovg. "Those who are at once our fellow-citizens and our youth." e. The words eyco Tovrcov ovTS vsog ovxe itaXai ajct^jcow? acpav av vvv ovu iv rcoXXm XQOVO) SrjXaGcii Svvaifirjv. aalTOi xccXsTtd ys ovxa ovk clv tcoxs olog t rjv drjXovv xrjXiKovxotg ovai xrjXmovxog wv. I have added the last word, but there are other difficulties which you will require to see solved before you will look on me as the corrector of the passage. I presume you do not approve of either viov or vsca- 6Ti: for a man who has heard a thing ovxe vsaaxl ovxs TtdXai can scarcely have heard it at all. Tovxmv seems to have given no offence, though it is wrong both in number and case. Now as one of the possible hindrances to teaching is the age of the teacher, to which the speaker again alludes, we may restore this feature while we correct tovvoov, by supposing that the old reading was xovxovTcov (i.e. xovx* ovx mv) vsog — but what second hindrance does he allude to? "That he had not heard it for some time:" but the Greek for "it is long since I heard it", would be TiccXai ovk ccxrj'KOcc, not ov naXui aH^Jxoor, and with ovxs the same difference would hold good. I therefore incline to read: xovx* ovx* vSv vsog TtdXai X ovx aKTjKocog — . Perhaps the belief that there was something wrong in ovxs — xe induced the scribe to make the alteration. 822, A. Read: tjJv [avttjv] yaQ avxmv odov, xat saaitxov . . ft/av X. T. I., and soon after xov rjxxriiiivov. c. I should print the text as follows: uq' ovx oto'fiE&a to ysXolov xe xal ovk oQd-ov ixn yiyvo^Bvov av, ivxavd'l xal iv xovxoiGi ylyvsG&ai; KA. FeXolov jwfv, oq^ov $* ovSa(io5g. After this I return to another scrap of Adversaria, which will lead us to the end of the Book. Ibid. D. im (isl^ov nullo modo ferri potest; sed non mutan- dum in exi fiBi^ov, quod nescio quis proposuit; nam quis dixerit Aoc etiam mapis, nisi qui prius alterum quiddam magnum esse contendit? Nee quae sequuntur sine offensione legi possunt. Quorsum enim xi iteratur, exeqov xi — ^jLBxah^v xi? Deinde si quis doceat Ttt(pvKEvai XI ^txci^v vovd'SXTiGmg xe xat vo'ficav, qui vis hoc intelligat; sin ad- jiciat vovd^EXTjascog xe cifia xal v6(xcov, diversa confudisse videatur, 8C. TO ^ExijEiv a(ia xovxov xal ixe/vov, et to (jiExa^v xovxov xal ekeI- vov uEcpvKEvcti. Satis patere arbitror verborum ordinem a scribis LETTER TO THOMPSON. XXV turbatum parum feliciter a correctore aliquo constitutum esse. Quid si sic legamus? KLvSwevei y^Q ^V vo^o^hrj to TtQOGtaTro- (levov 6T8q6v ti fjLSi^ov iivai tov rovg vo^ovg &ivTa aTci^XXax^ai, a^ct 8* SLvctL fieza^v xi vov^exriGmg xe 7C8(pvK6g kul vo^icov. Ibid. E. olov nSQ\ x^v tcov 6g)6SQCc vicov Jtaidcov XQoq)^v' ov yaQ ^rjxcc cpa^zv slvai, Xiyovxeg xe ctvxd cog v6(iovg oiead'aL xi&Efiivovg tlvai TtoXlijg avoiag ye^ziv. Non Qtixa sed aQ^rixa. desiderari vidit C. F. Hermannus, sed non vidit id ipsum leviter corruptum in omnibus libris haberi. Post Xoyoig plenius interpungendum est, legendumque olov {xa) neQi xrjv xmv acpoSga vicov naiScov XQoq)7iv om aQQrjxa cpctfisv (ddv) bIvch, Xiyovxeg x avxa vo^ovg oi86&av xi- ^•ivKi noXXijg (av) avoiag yiiisiv. Ibid. E. Dele avxov xig. Structura est ov xiXsog 6 enaivog, oxav gjji xov vTtfjQExr^aavxa a. x. e. Mox quod ^ prsebet ad sensum loci necessarium est. cog ccQa og av xolg xov (vofio&ixov) vo(iod-sxovvT6g xe Kal STcaivovvxog Jcai ijjiyovxog 7t£L&6[iSvog yQctii^aai. die^iXd'Ti xov pLOv anQaxov. ovxog o xs Xoyog OQ^oxaxog — Locum hucusque de- scripsi ut mancam esse sententiam ostenderem. "Quicunque non modo legibus verum etiam praeceptis consiliisque legum latoris vi- tam regit" — quid tum ? Inepte autem dicitur §iog HnQaxog^ et con- junctio sic posita ovxog o xs Xoyog neminem non offendat. Scripsit Plato: aKQOxaxog ovxog. o xs Xoyog x. x. i. Horum partem video jam a Winckelmanno occupatam. Mox post (aovov dele yQcicpSLV. 823, B. Jampridem monui legendum: otov (iccQxvQa ijrayoftf- voL dfiXoliJiSv av o §ovX6fjb£d-a ^aXXov. Ibid. B. Locum sic interpungi et corrigi velim: 7cd(i7toXv Ss Kccl TO tisqI xci Tts^cc ^TjQSv^axa [, ov (lovov d'TiQicov']. aXXa xai rrjv Tcov ccv&QCOTtcov cc^iov ivvoslv d^i^Qav, xriv xs Kaxa 7c6Xs(aov xal tcXco- nsiav xal AijOrwv xat Gxqaxo7ti8cov. noXXri 8s xai ij jtara qotXtav— Vulgo haec per amicitiam venatio, in qua procul dubio rem amatoriam, atque omnem suadendi artem et omnia blanditia- rum genera includi volebat, inter tiJv xara noXs^ov d-riQav atque hujus exempla media interposita est; ipsa autem verba sic cor- rupta sunt: xal ■kXcotisIcli kul Xrjcxcov xal 6xQaxo7ti8cov axQaxoTtidoig •d-iiQai. Quem nostra reponit correctio chiasmum librarius parum intellexit. • Ibid. c. Transpone sic: xat (isxa ^ruiiag vo(Aod'Sxrjd^ivxcov. Ibid. E. Lege 8i,a7iovov(iivrig . . alioquin nee erit quo x^g referri XXVI LETTER TO THOMPSON. possit, et dativi illi iyg't^y^Q^^^^ evSovaif prorsus aavvraKToi erunt. Ordo est, Ttjg diuTtovovfievrig KVQxoig aQyov O'l^gav tqjv evvSqcov ^co'cai', jurjrf iyQrjYOQOOi /itjrf svdovoi. Mox incredibile est quem- quam in verbis (irjd^ slg rov EGiarov inskd^oi vovv hsesisse. Qui tot ineptias invito Platoni obtrusas defendant, simul atque Plato ipse in notissimo proverbio jocari coepit, statim nauseant, et cum pro- cellis jactu decidere parant. 824, A. Lege: rj rov dt* avarcavfjicira novov Exovaa. Mox pro 6iEiQ7}fiivog lege od' o EiQrj(iEvog. Pro iv igyaeifxaig 8s xal tsgolg ayioig suspicor olim lectum esse Iv iQy. xal ccyioig, quod ultimum nescio quis per IsQoig interpretatus est. Melius fecisset, si in AFIOIC veram lectionem AFPOIC latere admonuisset. In A et ^ dittographia ex proba et mala lectione conflata servatur Ar(P)IOia I had hoped to wander through two or three more Books with you, picking up specimens of palaeography and discoursing on them as we went. But from this egotistical design you and all others are delivered for the present by the peculiar character of this avTixd'cav; which, though we are not quite so remote as Phi- lolaus would place us, holds too scanty a communication with you to satisfy a garrulous correspondent, and forces me, if I would see this in print before the end of this year, to address it forth- with to the European Publisher. With heartiest respect and affection, Believe me, Yours ever, CHARLES BADHAM. University of Sydney, Eebeuaey, 1877. CORRIGENDA. P. VI last line. If'or me: read we. „ IX 9th ,^ After toutw add (i.e. tw ay^Tfifxare). „ XIII 26th ^^ jTor became: read become. ,, XVI 6th ,, from bottom. I^or xeXeuot? : read xeXeuci;. PLATONIS PHILEBUS WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES. liNTRODUCTION. THE aim of this noble Dialogue is to ascertain the relation of Pleasure and of Intellect to the absolute Good. The form of the inquiry is a controversy between Socrates and two young Athenians named Philebus and Protarchus. The latter, espousing the cause which his friend had first taken up, and then through laziness abandoned, affirms that pleasure, using the word in its largest sense, is entitled to the name of good; to which Socrates advances an opposite claim on behalf of intellect, knowledge, and all kindred species ; observing that, if it should prove that some third competitor showed a better title than either of the original claimants, then, whichever of the two should be found most akin to the successful candidate would be entitled to the second prize. Protarchus is then reminded of the great variety and discrepancy in the kinds of pleasure, and is invited to show what common nature there is in all these, over and above their being pleasant, which nobody disputes, in virtue of which he calls them all plea- sures. In reply, he denies that there is any variety or discre- pancy between them, in so far as they are pleasures. Socrates shows the fallacy of his argument, and points out that this reliance upon the identity implied by a common name, as if it excluded all diversity, would put an end to all reasoning. This leads to the mention of the great problem about Identity and Diversity, the delight of young arguers and the terror of quiet, respectable people, the argument of 'ev xal TiokXd. ^ The contradiction be- tween the individual as one in nature, and yet many in his many changes of circumstance, and that between the Whole as one and * The bearing of this discussion on the main subject is twofold. The im- portance of the ire'pac in dialectics is a suitable introduction to the part which it is to play in physics; and the necessity of the careful division of pleasure under its several heads is shown beforehand. 4 INTRODUCTION. the Parts as manij, are touched upon; but Socrates affirms that, though men now look upon these paradoxes as childish and so- phistical, there exist other forms of the contradiction which are really important. For, if we consider any genus as one in itself, and then again observe that the representatives of it are many and unlimited, it is difficult to conceive how this One, at the same time that it remains one in itself, is yet one in all the individuals and in each of them. This contradiction is the inhe- rent and unchangeable property of all objects of reasoning; but though as such we cannot remove it, there is a remedy provided against its practical difficulty* For, while all things are consti- tuted out of the One and the Many, they have, associated in their constitution, the Limit and the Indefinite. We must therefore, in all objects of inquiry, accepting this natural constitution, begin by taking a unit, which we are ?ure to find if we look for it; from this we must proceed to the next definite number supplied by the object itself in its own natural divisions, and so, continually advancing through all subordinate divisions, proceed till we ar- rive at the point where the limit (or given numbers) ceases, and the unlimited begins. This process from the one to the indefinite by means of number, or the contrary process from the indefinite to the one, is the gift of the Gods, the true dialectical method, the origin of all discovery, and the opposite of that sophistical manner which passes per saltmn from either extreme to the other. Socrates beautifully exemplifies this position by language, music, metre, and the art of writing; and proposes that the rival claimants, pleasure and intellect, should be subjected to the same method of scrutiny. But finding that Protarchus is scared by the difficulty of the undertaking, he professes to remember a shorter solution of the problem before them, by which it can be shown that neither competitor can hope for the Jirst prize. It lies in the very conception of the Good that it should be perfect and self-suffi- cient. But, if we take either pleasure or intellect in absolute isolation from each other, they are alike imperfect and insuffi- cient; for no one would accept pleasure alone as all in all, if he had no memory, no consciousness, no faculty by which he could be cognisant of the pleasure enjoyed: nor would any one accept a life of mere intellect without at least some admixture of INTRODUCTION. 5 pleasurable feeling. To either of these states of being, all men would certainly prefer a combination of the two; therefore each has failed in its pretensions to be the absolute Good. But which comes the nearest to the mark? That which has most right to be considered either itself the Cause of the Combination, or at least as having most affinity with that Cause. Thus we are led to in- quire into the nature of combination itself, and the laws which govern it. Now it has already been said, that the Limit and the Inde- finite* are the elements out of which all things are compounded; these, therefore, will be the first two ykvri or kinds which we must consider; the Combination of these two will be the third kind, and the Cause which effects fheir union, the fourth. Every quality of matter considered in its abstraction, extends indefinitely in the direction of two oppbsites, as in the instances of moister and drier f, hotter and colder, &c. The attempt to limit it at once dissolves the abstraction, because it fixes to a point that which is only conceivable as continually capable of more and less. All things which thus admit of more and less are comprehended in one idia^ and receive the name of the In- definite, TO oLKBLQov. The opposites of these are the things which effect equality and proportion, and these are classed under the name of the Limit, to TciQaq^ or nsQuxoziSig. The examples of this kind are all definite numbers whatever and their relations to each other, but they can be more easily seen at the same time with the third kind, that is to say, in Combinations of to arcsiQav and TO TtsQag. In music, bodily health and strength and beauty, the temperature of the seasons, and above all, in the instance of pleasure, which would be absorbed in its own indefinite cravings, but for the imposition of law and order to limit and preserve it, — * This doctrine Plato is said to have borrowed from the Pythagorean Phi- lolaus, who, through extreme poverty, consented to sell him the book in which he had embodied the tenets of his sect. —See Diog. Laert. in Plulolmis, and the Extract from Bockh's Philolaus in the Appendix. t The comparatives of all such words are used by Plato because the positive might be misunderstood as implying a rcoao'v, or definite quantity, or propor- tion; but afterwards, he uses the positive, 'Ev 6' o'^sf xal ^apef xal xax^et xal ppaSsf, ttTtetpot? oTjaiv. (26, a.) ^ 7i£pa? is properly the ?8fc, or that according to which they are one, and T:£paTO£c8£s5 the yho^ : td TC£paT0£i6iQ again would be the Y£vva, which we must not confound with yfi'vo?, as Ast and others have done, but which is the multitude contained in the Y£vo?, its numerous specimens. 6 INTRODUCTION. in all such instances, where qualities are blended with definite proportion, we see at once the second element of the combina- tion, and the result of that Combination as manifested in some yhsGig. In the fourth place there must be a Cause of such com- binations; for that which is made cannot be the same as that which makes, but must always be subsequent to it. Therefore we may consider the first three kinds to be (1) (2) the elements* of na- tural things, and (3) the natural things themselves ; but the fourth kind is that which operates with these and upon them. The question then arises: To which of these four kinds does the Mixed Life of pleasure and intellect bear most resemblance? It is decided that it resembles most the third kind or the Com- bination. Pleasure again seems most akin to the Indefinite. The kind which answers to Intellect is not so evident, and Socrates warns his friend against any rashness in the decision, as touching upon impiety. The gay Philebus laughs at his scruples, but Protarchus has more reverence, and is so awe- struck by Socrates' manner, that he is afraid to make any con- jecture. Then Socrates declares that his own solemnity was all in sport, and that it is no wonder if philosophers are so ready to pay themselves a compliment, in declaring Intellect to be the King of the Universe; but that it is worth while to see what right it has to the designation. Protarchus is then asked to choose between two opinions; one that the universe is subject to chance and blind caprice, and the other, that it is governed by intellect and mind. He unhesitatingly chooses the latter. But, argues Socrates, in this universe there are the same elements which we find also in the constitution of our own bodies, only that here they occur small in quantity and poor in quality, while in the universe they are abundant and wondrous. Now, the terrestrial ele- ments must have been derived from the universal ones, the earthly body from the body of the universe: but our body has a mind which * Socrates speaks also presently (29, a) of the Four Elements, as they are called, which are as old as Empedocles, and probably much older. But the elements with which we are here concerned are elements in a different sense. They are not matter, nor even properties of matter, but the aiietpov is the con- dition of all the properties of matter, and of number itself, till controlled by Tt^pa;. Though the Pythagoreans held api^fj.o? to be the condition of existence and the ground of knowledge ; this its virtue was derived from the decad, that is from proportion, for the decad contained every kind of proportion. Indefinite number, r^ adptaros Sua?, was reckoned among the ocTcetpa. INTRODUCTION. 7 it must have also derived from the same source; for if we men have a mind, much more must the universe, possessing as it does ail that we possess, only in greater perfection, have one also : and if it is in virtue of the fourth of our kinds, viz. Cause, working through the human mind, that that mind gains credit for skill and wisdom (as when, for instance, it trains the body to health and repairs its disorders), much more must the heavens and the order of nature be recognised as ejffects of the same Cause, operating therein on a grander scale and through a nobler and purer mind. It follows from this, that the Cause which is the chief of the four kinds, will be supreme in heaven and in earth, being the essence of the mind and of the soul of Zeus himself. * The result of this inquiry is to establish that Intellect rules over all things, and that our intellect is therefore also akin to the fourth or highest of the kinds. The next step is to consider Pleasure and Intellect not ab- stractedly, but as they are, and to enquire how they arise in living creatures. The first kind of Pleasure noted is that which arises when the constituent elements of the creature tend towards Harmony; but, when that harmony is more or less dissolved, pain is the con- sequence. This is illustrated by hunger, thirst, heat, and cold, in all which there is a tendency to some loss or dissolution, which is pain, and in the relief of which there is a return to natural completeness, which return is pleasure. A second kind of plea- sure (and pain) is in Expectation : this kind belongs to the mind alone, without the body participating in it. These two classes are considered sufficient for the present purpose, and another observation is added, of which Protarchus is told that he will see the importance further on. It is, that there must be an intermediate state of the body, when it is tend- ing neither towards completeness nor dissolution of any part; when this state prevails, there can be neither pleasure nor pain. Such a state is quite compatible with a life of mere intellect; it is also such a life as we may conceive the gods to possess. -j* * That is, of the highest mundane divinity. The argument is, that cdxloL i^i T(3 cX(o is the highest of ftU the four kinds; but olIxIix is vou?, and voO? is inseparable from ^\>^'f\ ; consequently, cdila. is the ground of the highest vou? and vpuy^iQ, i. e., that of Zeu?. t Page 33, b. The sense I have given here is not very clearly expressed Platonis Philebus. ^ 8 INTRODUCTION. This, therefore, is another point to be scored in favour of vovg in its competition for the second prize. It is in the second kind of Pleasure, that which springs from Expectation and belongs to the mind, that the nature of plea- sure and its relation to vovg become most apparent. Expectation of pleasure must depend upon Memory (that is, not recollection, but the state which is the necessary condition of recollection), and this memory presupposes Sensation. If the body alone is affected, and the movement does not reach to the mind, there is no sensation and no memory. In addition to sensation, which is the common movement of body and mind, and memory, which is the preservation of sensation, we must also notice Kecollec- tion, which is the rehearsal by the mind alone of the sensations which it formerly experienced in common with the body; and lastly, Desire. Eor desire also is a property of the mind and not of the body, as may be shown thus: We desire the opposite of that which we feel; but desire implies memory of the thing desired; for all our relations to things desirable must be either through sensation or through memory: but sensation is occupied with the present state, whereas desire yearns for the opposite of the pre- sent state ; * therefore, it must be through memory that desire is brought into relation with the thing desired ; and hence it follows that desire belongs not to the body but to the mind. A third state of pleasure (and pain) is, when, whilst the body suffers through a present void, the mind is conscious of a former satisfaction; in such a case, if there is hope of attaining the de- sired satisfaction, the memory of it affords a pleasure simultaneous with the bodily pain; but if there be no hope, then there is a double pain : a present void in the body, and a consciousness in the mind that the satisfaction is unattainable. The great importance of this observation is, that it will enable us to answer a question, without settling which we cannot hope to bring the controversy to an issue: Are there False Pleasures? Protarchus denies this, and affirms that beliefs] may be true in the original as it stands in the Editions : it would come out much more for- cibly by the very slight change of ys into xs. OuxoOv oG'twc ocv £x£tvw t e u;:apxo^ ^*^ 'taw? ouSev octotcov e? Ttavrwv twv ^cwv IotX ^EtcTaxoc. * The same argument is used by Socrates in the Convivium. f I have rendered So^ai in this manner ; it is on the whole a handier word than impressions^ but is to be taken in the sense of that word as popular- ly used. INTRODUCTION. 9 or false, but that pleasures are all true. And yet, says Socrates, we speak of the pleasures of dreams or of madness as false. And if it be objected that pleasure is still pleasure though the ground of it may be false, surely the same may be said of beliefs also. If again it should be said that, in such a case, the belief is false though real, but the pleasure is true as well as real, this must be shown to arise from some peculiarity in the nature of pleasure which differentiates it from belief. But we do not find any such; for both alike admit of all other qualities, such as great and small, and good and bad. There are also correct and mistaken pleasures following on correct and mistaken beliefs. And here it is worth while to consider the nature of these 66'S,ccl in general. What we believe, results from a comparison of that which we see or feel with that which we remember. This result we record either to ourselves or to others. Now, suppose the former case : then a man carries the record about with him; and it may be said to be written on his mind. Besides this power which writes impres- sions upon us, there is another which paints them; that is the power by which we recall to the fancy the very images which we formerly beheld with our eyes; and when the beliefs are false, these images will be false also. Among these written and painted records there will be some which have reference to future time, and these are called Hopes. The good man will have true hopes and true images of the fature, and the bad will have false ones. But these images are pleasures, for it was before admitted that some pleasures arose from expectation; consequently, there are false pleasures, which bad men have, and which are the carica- tures of the true pleasures of good men. Having established this analogy between 86'ia and pleasure, Socrates argues that, as only those ^otai, which do not answer to things past or present or future, but are false, are admitted to be bad, so those pleasures only, which are false, are bad also. Protarchus objects to this, that the badness of pleasures has very little to do with their falsehood; but Socrates defers his answer to a later stage in the controversy, and proceeds to another and stronger proof of the possibility of the falsehood of pleasure. When the body is in pleasure, and the mind at* the same time is apprehensive of pain, or the body is in pain and the mind anticipating pleasure, the simultaneous presence of pleasure and pain will produce a similar c2 10 INTRODUCTION. effect to the illusion of the eyes when they attribute greater size to near objects and less to those more distant. Por the im- mediate pleasures or pains will seem greater than they are, in proportion to those expected; but that degree of pleasure or pain by which they exceed their real dimensions will be false, and cause 2f false belief: so that not only false beliefs cause false pleasures and pains, but false pleasures and pains cause false be- liefs also. The strongest example of falsehood in pleasure is that which is next adduced. If we suppose a state in which there is no change either towards satisfaction or dissolution, such a state will be one devoid both of pleasure and pain. Now it is true that they who maintain the doctrine of a perpetual flux* deny the possibility of such a motionless state ; but it will be enough to suppose that the motion or change is not great enough to reach the sense and the mind ; and that there is such a condition nobody will deny. If a man in this state should say that he has pleasure, he would say what is false, and the pleasure which he speaks of would be false. But this is the very thing which happens when a man is relieved from pain without the acquisi- tion of pleasure, and calls this negative state by the name of pleasure; for this supposed pleasure is false, since that which is neither pleasure nor pain cannot come to he truly either. But there is another set of teachers, f who tell us that these things which we have been considering as three, are in fact only two; that pleasure is a mere illusion, and is nothing more than the removal of pain. Though we shall find reasons for disagreeing with them, they have something to teach us. Por if we would judge rightly of pleasure, we must take in view the highest degree of it. Now the highest degree of pleasure is that which follows the gratification of the strongest desires ; but it is in morbid condi- tions of the body that the strongest desires arise. Upon this, So- crates enters into a painfully vivid description of the mingled sen- sations which are produced by the application of relief to an itching surface or an inward irritation, and of the intense pleasure alter- nating with pain which men in these cases experience. In all such instances the pain is the condition of the pleasure; and these may be * The schools of Heraclitus and Protagoras. TheKtet. Ih2, 1%Q. Sophist, 146. t Antisthenes and the Cynics. A saying is attributed to Antisthenes, txa- V£(iQV (xaXXov ri Tf]a^e(iQV. Diog. Laert. 6, 3. INTRODUCTION. H classed with the former examples where the body and the miud were differently affected, either mingling its pleasure with the pain of the other. Then again, the mind by itself has pleasures inseparable from pains; for of this nature are all the passions. Such is the sweetness of anger, and the indulgence of violent grief, and the mimic sympathies with tragic heroes. Nay, in co- medy also, the same principle is at work; for ridicule deals with that which is evil; e.g. the ignorant conceit of men about their wealth or their bodily perfections or their wisdom, is evil, and it is in such foibles that ridicule finds its objects. When, there- fore, we laugh at our friend's ignorance, we have, it is true, pleasure, for laughter is a sign of pleasure; but we have also pain, for taking pleasure in a friend's evil is cp&ovog; and cpd-6- vog is unquestionably a pain of the mind. Thus we see that those stern despisers of pleasure are so far right, that there are many and intense kinds of enjoyment, which owe their very intensity to the pain with which they are connected. But then there are other species of pleasure which this School has overlooked: pure pleasures not resulting from any previous perceptible want, such as those of Sight, when it has for its ob- jects beautiful outline or beautiful colour, unassociated with de- sire; those of Hearing, when they are of the same kind, and those of Smelling. (It is remarkable that Touch and Taste are excluded from this list.) And lastly, there are the Intellectual pleasures, which are not preceded by any painful want, and the loss of which is not followed by any sense of void. Such being the Impure and the Pure pleasures respectively, which are most truly pleasures? As a little White, if perfectly unmixed, is more truly white than ever so great a quantity having the admixture of some other colour, so pure and unmixed pleasure, however small, is more truly pleasure than a mixed kind, however great. Consequently, when we come to the comparison of plea- sure and intellect (in order to determine which of the two is the predominant element in that Mixed Life, which was found to be better than either of them alone), we shall have to remember that the pure pleasure is the true kind, and, therefore, that by which we must make oftr judgment. But before the judgment commences, Socrates proposes two more reflexions concerning pleasure. All things may be divided into 12 INTRODUCTION. two classes; that which exists for the sake of something else, and that for the sake of which something else exists. The former will include ysveaig, temporal existence, that which is ever becoming; the latter, ovola, eternal being, that which is; indeed, the entire former class exists for the sake of the latter. But whereas the Good must be that for the sake of which other things exist, pleasure, we are told by certain ingenious men,* is a yiveaig; and if so, it will be in the opposite class to that of the Good. And again, if pleasure be a yivEOig, they who make it their good, and pursue it, are most irrational; for they pursue also the state opposite to pleasure, that of want or desire, on the relief of which the generation of pleasure depends; but if pleasure be a genesis or production, its opposite is a corruption; so that those who choose pleasure as the Good, choose generation and corruption rather than pure being. There are also many other absurdities following on the suppo- sition that pleasure is the Good, but the greatest, and indeed the sum of them all, is that, if it were so, a man would be good in proportion to the pleasure of which he partook, and bad in the opposite proportion. The next step is, to subject vovg and knL(5ri]^r] to the same process, and to ascertain if here too we shall find purer and im- purer sorts. Science is divided into the Productive and the In- structive. In the former class, some branches are more immediately associated with mathematical science, and others are content, to a great degree, with mere guesswork and practical skill. Such a difference marks some as more, and others as less, pure. But the mathematical sciences themselves may be viewed either as they are conversant with absolute properties of figure and number, or as dealing with figures and numbers in the concrete; so that we may say there is a twofold arithmetic and a twofold geometry ; and so in like manner of other mathematical sciences, of which the one branch is pure, the other impure. But the pure science above all others, is Dialectic ; for it is that which has for its object the absolute, invariable, and eternal, and which therefore seeks after the truest of all knowledge. Other sciences may be more immedi- ately useful or imposing, but this is more truly science than all * Trendelenburg gives it as his opinion that Aristippus is here meant. INTRODUCTION. 13 others ; for whereas they depend on opinions, and are busied about mere phenomenal existence, Dialectic deals with immutable realities. Having now determined the Pure and Impure both of Plea- sures and of Sciences, we are ready to blend them so as to effect that combination of which the Mixed Life consisted. But which shall we use? To begin with intellect and knowledge, shall only the purer sorts enter into the combination? If it were so, there would be an end to all practical life, which is obliged to content itself with the imperfect and impure sciences. Therefore we are compelled to admit into the combination both sorts of intellect and knowledge. Shall we do the same with pleasure? Certainly not; for while the pleasures themselves would desire an union with intellect, as that which should give to them a meaning which they have not in themselves, intellect would reject all impure and tumultuous delights, as hindering its efforts and stifling its pro- ductions; but with the temperate and healthful pleasures, and such as walk in the train of virtue, as priestesses in the pro- cession of some deity, with these it is willing to have fellowship. Having, then, the elements of the mixture, it remains for us to enquire according to what law they must be combined. Now, first, no combination can be worth anything which is not a true blending: Truths therefore, is a necessary condition; and if it is a condition of combination, and the Good is a result of combina- tion, we must look for the Good in Truth. Again, no mixture can be successful which is without Measure; on measure and pro- portion all combination depends, and in these, therefore, likewise the Good must abide. Lastly, the effect of measure and propor- tion is Beauty and symmetry; and thus we conclude that herein also the Good is to be found. And now, having not indeed a perfect comprehension of the Good,* but a knowledge of tho three shapes in which it mani- fests itself, we may endeavour to decide the question, which of the two, Pleasure or Intellect, is most akin to it. This is easily determined, for pleasure is false and fickle, but intellect is either the same as Truth or the nearest akin to it; pleasure is in its own nature immoderate, but intellect and knowledge depend upon Measure: pleasure has "so little claim to Beauty, that it often * Which Plato thought unattainable. See Bept^lic, vi. 508, 509. 14 INTRODUCTION. shuns the light, and its expression is always unseemly, but in- tellect is a stranger to all that is not comely and decent. Upon arriving at this conclusion of the whole argument, So- crates delivers the joint decision of the disputants in these words: riavTri 81^ (pipEig^ co IlQcoTaQis, vno t ayyiXmv Tti^Tiiov xrel nctQOVGi cpQcc^cov y oog Tjdovi^ xttj^i ovk s0ri Tr^corov ov8* av Sevteqov, akka TtQCOTOV (ISV TCri TtEQL (ISTQOV Xai TO (JLStQLOV Tiai KdLQlOV Xttl TCttvO"' OTtoGa TOLavra iQV vo(ii^siv ttJv atSiov rJQTJad^ctL cpvGiv. (66, A.) We shall presently have to consider the exact reading and in- terpretation of these words; it is sufficient for the summary of the Dialogue which I have attempted to give, if we gather from them that Measure and things partaking of the nature of measure are declared to be the nearest approach to the Good. Next to this, and in the second place, Socrates places the Beautiful, the Symmetrical, the Self-sufficient and Perfect; the third place is given to Intellect and Thought; the fourth to the Sciences, the Arts, and Eight Beliefs; and the fifth to the Purer Pleasures. The Dialogue concludes with a short recapitulation, and a noble warning, in forming our judgment of pleasure, not to rely, as the meaner soothsayers do, on the teaching of irrational natures, but on the oracles of the philosophic Muse. Of the difficulties presented by this Dialogue none is so im- portant, and at the same time so perplexing, as the assignment of places to the five different Classes. The classification proposed by Ast needs only to be stated for any attentive reader to see that it is perfectly irreconcilable with the words of Plato, and with the whole tenor of the argument. He arranges them thus: — 1. The Definite, which is the vovg /3a- GiUvg, the controlling and arranging principle of the world; 2. The Indefinite, which is the material substratum on which the supreme intelligence is exercised; 3. The Eeal Synthesis of the two former, the Pythagorean xo'ffjttoc; 4. The Ideal Synthesis, the human intelligence as the reflex of the divine; 5. Pleasure. No- thing, as Trendelenburg observes, can be more remote from the terms GvaiiEXQov and xaAo'v, than the formless and discordant ele- ments of matter; nor are vovg and (p()6v]]Gig capable of being understood as the world of beauty and harmony, the living work of the supreme mind. Such manifest violence to the plain words INTKODUCTION. 15 of the author can only be accounted for by the desire of making a system for Plato, and the vain notion of helping out his sup- posed imperfect strivings after a regular gradation from the most absolute intellectual to the most sensual. Schleiermacher proceeded on a much more reverent and a sounder principle. It seemed to him very remarkable that the two competitors whose relative claims the whole Dialogue is oc- cupied in discussing, should appear at the final award not as second and third, but as fourth and fifth. How could the in- troduction of these new claimants be accounted for? His answer is, that we must look for the explanation to those treatises to which the Philebus is intended to be subordinate and introductory, the Timaeus and the Republic. As in the former Plato proposed to give an account of the constitution of the world, and in the latter, that of human society, he prepares us for both by in- timating that in the gradation of Good that which is universal must be placed before that which concerns men in particular. He accounts for the third place only being assigned to vovg and cpQovrjaig by observing that it is not the divifie mind which is here intended, but that mind, which is itself an element in the Mixture. This mind, according to him, is the trttt/i spoken of above as one of the three conditions of combination. 'For the mind is the sole home of Truth, which first gives a reality to things, and it occupies therefore, as a kind of mediator, a middle place between the universal generated good, and the particular good of man.* Few readers will be satisfied with an explanation which accounts for the introduction of new and important matter into the very conclusion of an argument, by supposing an anti- cipation of what is to be said elsewhere. There is an end to the unity of the Dialogue, and, indeed, to all the laws of dis- putation, if we are suddenly to be informed of some most im- portant doctrines, as to the proof of which we are left to guess (for no promise of the kind is held out) that it may be forth- coming on a future occasion. But the distribution of Schleier- macher is likewise so far unsatisfactory, that he does not explain in what respect the second class differs from the first. I cannot however assent to Trendefenburg's objection to his view of the third class, that the mind which gives reality to things is the Supreme Mind, and consequently can have nothing to do with the vovg 16 INTRODUCTION. and cpQovTjaig, which are ingredients in the Mixture. For it is evident that the meaning of Schleiermacher is, that the mind here spoken of gives to us a sense of the reality of things, and is there- fore convertible with wATJO-fm, and is thus a fit intermediate be- tween the Universe and Man. But this question will be better discussed when we have examined Trendelenburg's own classification. Trendelenburg himself understands the ^lergov xai ^stqiov k. t. L to include all the three conditions of combination; for, according to his view, the first class contains the absolute Idea of Good and all those Ideas which are connected with it; and the second differs from the first, as being the realisation of these same Ideas in the Universe. But it is unaccountable why Plato, if he had intended the nakov and aki^d'Sia to occur twice in his enumeration, should have suppressed the latter altogether, and mentioned the former only in its secondary phasis ; and altogether it is a strange way of indicating t/ie same things, to designate them, first as ab- solute, and then as manifested in forms, by a perfectly distinct set of names. But the whole hypothesis rests on a translation which the words above quoted will not bear: ^^et quidquid ejiismodi wter- nam naturam sitscepisse credendum est.'''' In the first place, onoGn y^QYi Toiavra vofxi^etv x. t. I. cannot be taken so: for this would be expressed by OTtoaa, roiavx ovra, xqt^ vofii^siv, — and though the order might be changed, the participle would still be indispensable.* But even if we conceded such an interpretation, what would be- come of TtQcoTov fisv TCYi u E q\ fxsTQov ? It is obvious that, in such a case, tcsqI has neither meaning nor construction. But, above all, such an expression as "to have adopted (or received) the eternal nature," is at variance with the whole method of Plato. For if the Good is to be sought for in these things, it must be because they are emanations or productions of it; whereas, according to this view, the Good is superadded to them, and that through their seeking it. But no one conversant with the language will understand rjQtja&at, in the sense of TtaQedfjcpivaij or still less of * The order has been changed, and most injuriously to the sense, on the authority of the Bodleian MS., from TOLaOra ^P^ *^o ypri TOiauxa. XpiQ vofxt- ^siv is plain enough when used of some conclusion, which, but for the argu- ment, disputants would not have admitted. But what force or even sense is there in saying , 'all such things as we are bound to believe to have taken upon themselves the eternal nature?' It is therefore evident that we must read cTudaa xoiaura, and understand iaxi INTRODUCTION. 17 dkr\ikvcii. And then, again, why have we the perfect? In speak- ing of a fact which has no reference to any particular time, the only proper tense would have been ikso^ai. Those who feel these objections will not need to have them confirmed by a consideration of the unsuitableness of the sense thus extorted from them; and yet the sense is in itself very objectionable, because it would amount to this, — that Plato having sought, by a laborious ar- gument, for that which had most affinity with the Good, at last found it — in the Idea of the Good! The continual allusions to this search, finding its neighbourhood, coming to its threshold, its taking refuge with the Beautiful and the like, all point to the true reading of the passage, which, by the slight change of 'HIP into 'HYP, removes all the objections alleged above. * It will not be necessary to do more than point out the other "miscon- ceptions on which Trendelenburg's explanations are built, viz. the supposed opposition between rJQija^ai and yBvecig , which is an- nihilated by the particle , 234 d, Eu- serted to fill up a lacuna caused by thyd. BOO A, the reason is not so«vident: the obliteration of the syllable TO. though in the first three instances there There is no way of avoiding an absurd is a suspension of the argument, and repetition, but to make fxeTaO)(^£fv a an appeal to the person addressed. new subject, and this cannot be done a-yaOdv] Not raya^cv: for Philebus' without the article. Platonis Philebus. V 2 nAATQNOS tpIAHBO-S. ecu ^uyyevrj, do^av v oqd^rjv /.al aXriSeTg loyiOfiovg, [rrjg y f]do- C vrjg'] a{.ieivco xat Xqko ytyveoS^at ^vf^iTTaOLV, oGcmeQ auriov divard (.lETaXapelv ro [dvvaToig^ Si fiexaoxeiv tocpehfucorcaov uttccv- Tcov eivai TtaGi rdlg ovoi xe /mi lGO(.itv()ig. f.uov ovyi avvio 71 cog Xlyof^tev, 10 (Dihii^Ej eyidvegoL; 01. UdvTwv [.lev ovv (.idXiGza, 10 ^coAQareg. ^jQ. Jty^u dtj tovTov Tov 7'vv didofievov , 10 IlQtoTaQxe, Xoyov ; IIPQ. ^^vdyy.r] dtx^Gdar (l>iX7][iog ydg rjituv o /.aXog dicei- Q7]xev. ^il. Jet dfj Tieql avrtov tqotco) ^tavxl rdXrjS^eg Tir^ ireqav- Srjvai ; I> nPn. Jet ydg olv, ^Q. ^'Id^i dri, TTQog TOVToig dio^ioXoyrjGojfieDa yxd rode. JIPQ. To Ttolov; 2 £2. "^Qg vvv r^f.uov e/,dTeQog e^iv ^vyjig xal diddeGiv diio- (faiveiv xiv htiyjeigrpei ttjv 6vva/.tevrjv dvO^QcoTCOig nccGi tov §iov ecdai[.iova jtaqexeiv. dq ov% ovTcog; nPQ. OvTO) (xev ovv. 2ii. OvvMvv vfielg [lev ttjv tov yaiqetv, 7][ie7g (5' av vrjv tov cpqovelv ; nP£2. ^'Egtl TovTa. 2Q, Tl d av aXXrj Tig ^qeiTTiov tovtiov cpavfj; jtiiov ovy,, E av f.iev r^Sovfj [idXXov (paiviqTai ^vyyev^g, rjTTc6f.ieS^a {.lev d(.icp6- Tsqoi TOV TavTTiv eyovTog j^e^a/wg (iiov, xqaTel d^ o TTjg i)dov7jg 12 rot' TTjg cpqovTjGecog ; A^X€i] It is a fond fancy of one of tc Xzyop.t'^q'i Stq toOto Kal vvv Yvwvai. the Editors that Siito^aii to 81861XZ- Read xav Jv yvwvofi. See Laches 196, vov is a proverb; and that the answer d, and tJie Scholium thereon. 'AvayxTQ is in allusion to this. In the 8id06 d^eov. HPil. Kal rjf^ielg ooi toviiov y^ avviov (JuuticcQZvQeg av elfieVj [cog xavr^ I'keyeg a }.ey£ig\. dXkd Srj td (.lerd lavd^^ s^r^gy io ^wy.QaT€gy o/iiwg yial fierd (Hilrpov sMwog /) ojiiog av Ed^sXji TieiQioued^a neqaiveiv. Nor again is it conceivable that Plato XuojJtev ; Ka. Autoc yvwact. Eurip. would indicate these by a neuter plural, Ion 1356 IIu^. : Xa^oiv vuv aura tt^v or by any plural at all, since they are Ttxouaav £'xTt6v£i. "Iwv: 'AcridS* ktriX- not really two things, but the same 0« Tcaaav, EupWTCY]^ ^' opouc; llu^. : thing differently viewed. The confusion -yvwora rdS* avrds. — for this is the true between the apostrophus and the com- reading of that passage. See also Tlm- pendium for iqv is one of the com- cyd. A, 99, init. and Xen. Hell, v, 1. monest which occur in manuscripts. I 34, where the men implicated in the have changed tov t. 9. into tou t. 9. bloodshed otuTol y^'O^^ss a:ct^Xtov iy, xf,? It is ridiculous to appeal to Greek KopwSov*. Tragedy as a standard of prose syntax. d<|>ot«r' avd-QW/rov, alloc Tciqa tov iiEylozov (po~ [iov. 'A,al vvv TijV f.iEV ^^cpQoSLvrjv, 07fi] ^/.elvrj cpilov, TavTf^ TTQoaayoQevco' Trjv d^ rjdovijv oid^ log Iotl ttoiyJIov, yial oireq elTtov, GLTt e/.eivr]g rjf^iag aqyof^ilvovg ev&v/ieloSai del /.at 0/.0- /relv ijvTLva cpvaiv exei. taa yaQ, aKoveiv (^lev (ymtog aiclcog, ev Ti, fiOQffag de driTtov jcavtoiag el'lrjfpe /ml civa tqojlov avo- D f.ioiovg allrjlaig. Ids ydg, rjdead^aL f^iev (paf^iev tov axolaavai- vovT^ dvS^Qtojiov, ijSeod^ai ds yial tov Gwcpqovovvt^ avTq) rijt OiocpQoveiv ifjdeadai de y,al tov dvoriTalvovva y.al avorjiwv do- §cov /lal tlnidiov (.leovov^ iqdeod^ai d^ av tov cpQovovvT^ avToi Tip (pQOvslv ' Aal tovtijov twv Tjdovwv t/MTSQag Ttiog av Tig ofAoiag allrjlaig eivai leyiov ovv. dvorfcog (paivotc^ evdUajg; HPil. Elol f.iev ydq dvi^ evavTiov, to ^co/gaTeg, avTai jCQay/.idTiov, ov firjv amai y^ dlljilaig ivavrlai. 7Uug ydq rfiovij E y^ rjdov^ [^fjj] ovx o^ioimaTOv av eivi, tovt^ avco savTO), ndv- Twv XQri(.idTtov ^ dir avTTjs Be] Some MSS. have Sir], pear not as the present subject, but as It is impossible to decide between them that of a former proposition. M'hile the rest of the sentence remains ovrtos dirXdis] There has been a faulty. Every one will perceive that strange scruple, whether these words, ap|a{Ji^voi<;, or apxr^ov, or some word which are so commonly joined together, to that effect, must have dropped out. can be so here ; and recourse has been Tb 8* i^hv 8€os] That this was the had to the expedient of a comma in real feeling of Socrates as well as of order to separate them. In the double the men of his time is plain from many contrast which follows it is to be ob- passages. Compare Cratylus 400, E served, that on one side the healthy where nevertheless he regards the cur- desires and the healthy intellect are rent names of the Gods as of human themselves the source of the satis- invention. The fear is that there is faction, auTw TW a(i)9pov£rv, auTW Twi more risk of offending 'AcppoSiTTQ, by lAHBOi:. 5 ^Q. Kat yag y^qtof.ta, to daifiovie, [xQ^^h^^^*^ y^azct /' avTo tovT^ oudiv dioioei, to XQ(x)(^i* elvai nav to ye firjv /tieXav zo) XevMo TidvTEg yiyvcoaKOfiev wg jtQog tm didrpogov eivai mi IvavTuoTaTov ov Tvyxdvet' yiai dij /ml oyjj^ia [oxri(.iaTi\ %cad TavTov yh'Ei ^ilv mxi rcav ev, zd ds /nigr] zdlg jusQeoiv avvov td jLiiv ivavTLWTaT dXXrjlotg, id di draqyoQOTrjr^ v/ovxa itivQiavlS 7!0v tvyxdvet. ymI 7r6lV treq* ovxiog exovd^ evQrjao/.iev, Sore TOVKi) ye rot Xoyi^ fii] irlareve, toj Ttdvva rdvavTuovad-^ fV jtoiovvTi. cpo^ov^iai de jtirj rivag i]dovdg fjdovaig evQijaoiiev evavTiag. nPQ. ^'lacog' dkld tL Tovd^ 7jf.iwv ^Xdxpei top "koyov; 2Q. 'Oti jrQoaayoQeveig am dvoiioi ovS-^ ^^^qco, q)rjOO- fievj <)v6(.iaTi. Xeyeig ydq dyaS-d rcavT^ eivai xd fjdea. to f^iev ovv ^ir] ovx r]^^cc eivai rd fjSia Xoyog ovdelg dfiqjio^rjTei * xayid d B > 7)VT^ aviCov xd noXXd vmi dyad-d Se, cog rifxelg g)aiii€v, bfiolcog ov oi/iuA fCQOOayoQeveig \^dydd^ amd,^ hf.ioXoyiov av av6f.ioi eivai rto Xoyo), [Xptip-ciTi]] This addition is due to of likeness. Socrates therefore cannot some blunderer, who made two sen- be introduced as asking him for a proof tences out of one. Had xaxa y' been that they are aya^a, but as wanting the beginning of a new sentence we to know, forasmuch as they do not agree should have had some conjunction. The in this respect, in what else they do same reason applies to ayjuxaxt. Any agree. But the received text makes one may see how much elegance is him say: "You know they are not all gained by their omission. "good, and you are ready to admit that (xwpfav] This is to be understood not "they are so far unlike ; and yet you of the number of differences, but of the "call them all good": which is so ab- extent of some particular differences, surd that I have changed cfJLW? into Comp. Apolog. 23, c h Tcsvta fAupfoc ofj.o((i)?, and put aya^' aura and aya^ov zl\d. elvai in brackets. The worse MSS. have <})oPov}xai h\ |xir|] Compare, among -aavra before au. Had Plato written it, other passages, Eep. 4.51, a; Phfvdo he would certainly have placed it imme- 84, E, 9op£ia!3£ jjiiq diaxstfJiat, and Arist. diately next to auTOt ; but it is due to Nub. 4:9 ii, (^e'Sotxa a', w Ttpeai^Ora, [xr^ a misconception of the meaning, caused TiXfiywv §££t. by o'jjlw?. I have supplied av after "On irpoo-a-yopcvtis] Because, my side ojxoXoywv, t£ before taf?, and rafg be- 7rill say, you call all these, though un- fore ayalJaf? for obvious reasons. The like each other, by a neiv common name, restoration of av is necessary for the This would be assuming a second ground sense; it was probably absorbed by the of agreement between them ; for that following word. they agree in being pleasures is proved tw Xdyw] This belongs to a'vofxoia: by their common name of pleasure ; but for Tcpoaayop&UEtv implies ovofia, and it does not follow that they agree in the ground of the ovojjia is in the Xd- anything else, as, for instance,«in being yo^ or description. It is worth while good. But if Protarchus asserts that to quote a passage from the Laws they are all alike, and yet must con- which bears on this point, and which fess that they are not alike good, he has been suflFered to remain hitherto in is bound to mention some other ground a very corrupt state. Legg. 895, 896, 6 riAATONOS ^lAHBOS. eY tig GE TTQOOavayvMtoL. ti ovv drj tavtov I'v ze talg ytaycalg of.ioitog ymI iv Tolg ayad^aJg evov fcdaag rjdovdg [dyadov Elvai] TiQOOayoQevEig; nP£2. Jlwg Xeyeig, to ^lo/^qatEg; oUi ydq %iva \ovyyif}^\]- QEO^ai^ d^SfiEvov fjdovrjv elvch idyad^ov^ eit dva^Eod^al oov Xe- C yovTog Tag fiiv Eivai zivag dyaS^dg fjdovdgy rag de rivag [hi- Qag] avTwv -/.ayidg; ^£2, ^^IV ovv dvojiiolovg ye qjrjOEig avtdg dXXtjlaig eivai '/Ml tivag svavTiag. IlPi}. OvTi xa^' oGov y^ rjdovaL w^. ndXlV Ctg TOV CiVTOV (pEQ6(.lEd^a loyOVj to IJQOJTaQXE. ovd^ do" TjSovTjv tjdovrjg didcpoqov, aXXd ndoag o^ioiag eivccl iprjGoiiiEv, Kal rd 7iaQad£ly(iiaTa rjf.idg rd vvv drj ley^d^Evr^ ovdev TiTQOjGyiEiVj jcEiGOf-ieda de /.al eqovj^iev (xjceq o\ Tcdvnov cpavla- J> tazoi T€ neql Xoyovg df.ia /.al veol, nP£}. Td 7Cola dij Xeyeig; ^Q. '^'Oti G6 (.iL/^iovf^iEvog iyco xai d^iiv6f.iEvog edv tokinvj Xeyeiv cog to dvof.ioi6TaT6v egti tu) dvofioioTdTio jtdvTtov bfwio- "F'art (ti) tiou 8(va StaipoufJievov £v only that they refuse to see it. Nor aXXot; T£ xa\ ^v apctJfjiw. toutw Stq could a new independent clause be Ttp xot' apt^iJfJLov ovojJLa [xev "Apriov, added by means of xot\ . . ouSlv in ' Xdyo; 64, 'Api^fjio; Statpoufxevo; e?? I'aa place of o\J5£. 8uo i^.e'piQ M(OV O'Jv ou xaurov Trewrdjicda] The common reading is exar^odx; TCpoaaYop£uojjt.£v , av t£ tov itEipaaojJ.E^of, but some of the better Xdyov £p(«)ra)fji£vot Touvojxa aTtod'.8wi{j.£v, MSS. have KZipwixz'ia, and the best of av T£ Touvofxa tov Xdyov, "apTtov" 6^6- all, the Bodleian or Codex Clarkianus, [XOLTI, xa\ Xdyw , "8ix°^ Sia'po'jjJL£vov u£tpd|j.£Sa. The common reading is aptiJp.dv" T:poaaYop£uovT£c toiutov ov ; probably the conjecture of a copyist, .... . Kt S' i'aTi ToOij' outw? ^'x°^' ^^^^ ^^^^ *^^^* * future was wanted. It ap' i'Tt (ti) 7toboO}X£v, tj 'xofvw? §£- will not be expected that I should 8€iKTai ^yj^r\'^ x. t. £. (A little lower adduce any proof in support of so ob- down after Y£V0|JL£'vTQ supply cpavtfaa Y^) vious a correction as that introduced [1AHB0:S. nP£}, ^u4XV ov fLiijv del xovto yevia^aij ftlrjv tov ocod^rj- vai. TO ye firjv {.loi laov tov oov te vmI ifiov Xoyov aQeoy.eL' Ttolkal (.lev rjSoval %al avo/noiov yiyveoO^toVj TtolXal d^ i^tiOTrj- fim Aal did(poQOL. B ^i>. T'^v TOLVvv diaq)0Q6Tr]Tc<, w IlQcoTaQx^, '^ov ayad^ov TOV t" i/iiov yial tov oov furj afroKQvitToiiievot, KaTaTid^tvTeg d^ elg TO (.iloov, -fToXjucofiev av 7trj eleyxof-ievoi fiirjvvocoOL, tcotbqov fjSov7)v Tccyad^ov del leyeiv ^ (pgovrjoiv rj tl tqitov aXXo eJvai. vvv yccQ ov drjTTOv TiQog y^ avTO tovto (piXoveinovjiiev, OTtcog ayo) Ti&ef.iai, TavT^ eOTCcL to. viMovTa, Vj Tavd-^ a Gv, Tot 6^ aXrjd^e- avcxTf^ del 7T0v Gvf.i{.ia%elv r^^iag af^LCpo). TIFQ, Jel yaq ovv. C ^^. TovTOv TOivvv TOV Xoyov eTi fmXXov di^ of^ioXoyiag ['je^auoGc6f.ied^a. nPn. Tov jtolov dri; ^Q. Tov naGi TiaqiyovT avd^Qcoitovg Trqay/iiccTa e%ovGi re A,cil ayiovGiv evloig yial evioTe. nPQ. Aiye Gcc(peGTeQov. 2Q. Tov vvv drj naQaireGovTa Xiyo), cpvGei Ttiog TtecpvycoTa S^avfictGTOV. fcV ydq drj to, itoXX^ eivai nal to 8v noXXd d^av- this place, with less probability, ex- jjiev. Either some other verb has been plains \x. aitwXzTO, as used by those corrupted into this, and we might read who find they are speaking to inat- xaraxtiJ. 5' zlq to jjl. tw Xo'yw, 6p(S- tentive hearers ; and he quotes the comic jJiEV — or a whole line has dropped out. poets, Crates and Cratinus, as employ- The words iXiyioiiZ'toi jJLTjVuawat would ing it, but without adducing the pas- seem to favour the latter supposition, sages. I suspect from the otherwise for there seems to be an allusion to unnecessary redundancy in Hep. 621, b the practice of giving up one's servant fxOSoi; ^awSif) Kal ovk dTrwXtTO, that to the judicial "question". toXjjiw}ji£v the latter is the original form, and that (exatepoi tov sauTOu Xo'yov izapiyi^iv^ tic, the former is Plato's own coining. The ttqv x.pioi'i) av tiy) x. t. I. may serve allusion in this passage is to men to represent the sense of the missing suffering shipwreck and escaping on a clause. raft. (Compare Phcedo 85, d.) And so V\ ti rpOrov &Wo] The best MSS. the argtiment would, like a tale, come omit xi ; but the sense is incomplete to nothing, and we should make our without it. I believe the right reading escape upon an unreason. to be tq aXXo Tt, TptTOV elvai. See below To\|ji,w|ji€v] This word appears to be 20, b, aXX' aXXo Tt Tp{Tov. the main difficulty of a sentence which Tovrov Toivvv] We should have ex- has perplexed so many critics and pected TovSe, for this Xoyo? has not editors ; but for it I should have ad- yet been mentioned , but is now to opted Winckelmann's conjecture, and follow. I am inclined to read toutou. inserted ol Xcyoi after iKf^j6\i.Z'^0i, but "Let us by question and ansAver make nothing can be determined with cer- good the Xoyoc, not of you or me, but tainty till we know what ails toXjjlw- toO otXtjSeaTaTOU." HAATONOS $IAHBOS. 9 /Liaarov XE^dlv^ /ial qadiov af.i(fio^r]Trjaai tq) tovtcov ojwtsqov- OVV TLd^efltVO). nPQ, ^^Q* 01 V Xlyeig, oTav tlq eui (pfj ITQokaQXov, eva D yeyovora cpvoei, Ttoklovg eivac TtdXiv roug ifiii yiai evavxiovg aXltjloigj jiieyav /mI G^uyiQor' TiS-if^tsvog /.at ftagvv ymI y^ovcpov tov (xmov, yial alia f,iVQia; JS'fi. 2v fieVj CO TlQMvaQxe, el'orf/^ag to. dedrj^ievf^ieva tcov d^avf^iaotiov tteqI to tv %al jcolld, ovyKexcoQi]f,i£va 6^ tog STrog EiTteiv VTTO itavtiov rjdrj firj delv tcov tolovtcov ccTtTead^ai, Ttai- daQicodi] ytal qadia yial Gcpodqa To7g loyoig ^iTtodia v7CoXctf.i- pavovTCov yiyveG&aL' heel jiirjde Ta toicxSe, oTav Tig hmOTOv Ta (iisXrj T€ y.al dXXa (.leqr} dieXcov t(^ Xoyb), Ttavxa Tama to ^VE EAEivo sivai dioi^ioXoyr]ad^ievog, sXeyxj] VMTayeXcov otl TeqaTa dir]V(xyy.aOTaL cpdvai, to t€ ev chg TtoXX^ IotI yial ccTieiQa, yial to. TCoXXd cog ev f^iovov. pa8tov afj,.] Affording a ready oh- other passive answering to arcTeo^at. Section against any one who advances Otherwise we must look on Ta T0ia5£ either. ^ as interpolated. 'Ap* ow Xe'YCts K. T. €.] Unless xa\ p.A.Ti] Legg. 795, e, fjisXwv xal fxe- joins ^vavTtou? with toXXou'?, it is of pwv. The MSS, and edd. all exhibit no use in the sentence ; I have there- ;jL£ATf) tc y.otX aixoi jJL£'pTQ , which, if it fore removed the comma from uaXiv. means anything, means that the jji^Xt} The sense is as clear and well- expressed and [xipri are the same, whereas it is as could be desired. Do you mean, plain that [xipr] is added because the vhen a man says of me Protarchus, toho body cannot be properly divided into am one by nature, that I am again ixiXri only. If it were [izXt] ij' a'tjia xal many and opposite ^me's', bringing for- ixspT], there would be no objection to ward the same person as at once great the word but its inutility. I have and small, heavy and light, and so written aXXot, which is continually con- forth f founded with afxa by the copyists. In T«v 0av(ji.aP''iM-^''^ i" XwpoOaf., 5£Cv auT(j3v aTCTtaSai). But the next speech of Protarchus banished as the very form iviti {ji.Tf]5^ is col- from the text ; the wonder is, who could loquial, a certain looseness of syntax is have taken it into his head to put it perhaps allowed, and the reader is left there, ou' yap SyJtcou ta auyx£YwpY]|ji,^va to supply }x£7ax.eipiCeo^at. ^X^yxeaSat, Stqjjleuoijiev , ta 8k ^z8r\\i.z\)\i.z^ai, orav TCpoa9£p£a^at, (8£rv auy^wpouat,) or any So^if], auyxwpoO|j.£v. 10 IJAATONO^ IAHnOS. nPQ. ^v di drj ^rola, d ^wAQcaeg, ^iveqa Xiyeig, a. f.irJ7iM [ovy/,€XCOQrjj^ih>a] Sedij^ievvai Tzeql tov cdxov tovtov Xoyov; 15 2i'/2. Ojioiav, lb nai, to tv (.lij twv yiyvofiiviov re vmI aTroXXvfiivtov rig TtOrjrai, %(xd^(X7veq aqtitog ijfiielg ujto^iEv. ir- Tav^l fiisv yaQ nal to iolovvov I'v, otveq U7tof.iev vtv drj, Qvy- y.excoQr]rai to ftrj de7v Eliyxuv orav de Tig %v av^Qioitov Ifti- Xuqfj Tid^eo^ai vmI [^ovv 8va ytal to xccXov tv ymI to aya&ov evy tteqI tovtcov tcov tvadtov yml twv toiovtcov tj TioXXf) [gtvov- ^ij,] (lera diaigioecog aficfiG^rjTrjaig yiyvETai. B npQ. nrog; 2i2. UqCoTov fiiv el' Tivag del Toiavrag elvai jtiovddag V7io- Xai^i^avBiv alr]S^cdg ovoag' eha /ctog av Tavrag, (.ilav b/AoTriV ovaav ael ttjv avTrjv yial jtii^Te ylveoiv i^ir^r' oXeS^gov nqoodeyo- jii^vrjV, Ofuog urj eivai [iel^aioTcaa ^liav TavTijV fuera Se tovt^ kvTdvOl] So with Elmsley for ivtaujor. Toijro ought to liavc opened my eyes T| TroXX-f) [o-7rov8if|]] 1 once thought to the absolute necessity of finding three otcouStq to be genuine, and therefore points of enquiry, or, if they were not added 8k after fjisia; 1 am now con- to be found, of treating the text as vinced that the word is neither ap- corrupt. I now feel confident that I propriate nor genuine, but supplied \>y have discovered the source of all the a copyist M'ho had in his head the well perplexity in the omission of jitq after known passage in the Phcedrus 248, k o'tJiwi;. The first question is ; have these ou 5' £V£X.' TQ uoXXtq aTiou^TQ X. T. £. monads a real being? The second is; Then arises the great controversy as if each of them is one and not subject soon as toe attempt to decide. — What to the changes of yevsai? and oXeSpoc, else is needed? or Avhat have we to how can we imagine it ever to vary do with the earnestness of the dis- in the least from this oneness? The putants, except indeed as a measure of third is ; when it does so vary by their difficulty? But the difficulty being entering into individuals, does the unity expressed, any other word is super- cease when the plurality begins, or are fluous. they concurrent? — in other words are the IIpwTOV ftj'v) When I endeavoured to monads to be regarded as distributed into explain this passage in a former edition, as many parts as there are individuals 1 mantained that there were only two to partake of them, or as remaining questions proposed, although upwrov, as wholes in each individual, so that clra, fxeta S& touto made it appear each monad is at once one in each, that there were three. As the text and again one in many? This last then stood, it was impossible to see supposition is TiotvTWv aSuvaTwraxov, more than two questions, that beginn- because in this case the one both agrees ing with TcpwTOV, and a second ; for if with itself and contradicts itself. Farm. dxa jJLiav rotuTTQV were considered 131, a ouxoOv tqtoi oXou toO el'Sou; -t) as an independent question, and not p.£pou(; exaatov to [xeraXafxpavov |i.£Ta- rather as the beginning of that pro- Xotfjipavst; iiiOTEpov ouv Soxsf aoi pounded afterwards, the question would 6\ov rh dhos ^v Exaarw zhat. twv have been, how it tvas conceivable that TCoXXoJiv, £V ov ; tJ TiWc; T( yap x.to- that which is one and imperishable should Xu£t £v£ivai ; "Ev apa ov y.n\ Tau- be nevertheless unchangeably one: — than t6v h iroXXois x«pls oWiv oXov ajjia which nothing could be more absurd. i^iioxoLK, xa\ OUTto? a.vrh avrou ^wpls But the words TtpwTOv, dxa, |jL£Td 8£ av e'o]. IIAATQNOS «>1AHB02:. H ev Tolg yiyvojiievoig av '/,al aiteiqoig bite dieojraajnevr^v Kcd TioXXa yeyorvlav ^sreov, el'd^ oXrjv avxrjv avTrjg ytoqlg, o dr] TtdvTiov adwarcuTavov cpaivoiT^ av, xamov %at 'h a/ii^ ev evl re %al nolXoig yiyveodat. tavx^ eotl rd jceql %d. tolcw^^ ev C mt TCoXXd, d}X ova exeTva, co TTQcoraQxe, d7tdGrjg diiOQiag al'- tia jiirj xaXiog ofioXoyr^d-evva vmI EVTtOQiag [aV] av /.aXcog. IIPQ. OvKovv XQ^ Tovd^^ ^ftdg, co ^omQareg, ev to) vvv fiQcoTOv diaTtovrioaod^ai ; 2Q. '^Qg yovv eycu q)at7]v av. nPQ, Kal TtdvTag roivvv rjjiidg V7t6'ka[ie Giyyo)qelv ant Tovade rd Toiavra' (DiXifj^ov d^ Xocog y.Qdxiorov ev to) vvv [tVe- QioTiovta] fiYj ALvelv ev 'Ael/.tevov. ^Q. Eiev, jio&ev ovv ug [tavTrjg] dg^rjiai, jiolltjg ovarjg D yial jtavtolag jceql rd ajA(piG^i]TOV{.ieva ^idxrjg; aQ ev&evde; npn. nodev; 2Q. 0ai^iev 7tov xavTov ev ymI 7tolXd vjto Xoyiov yiyvo- f^iEvov jreQiZQeyeLV Tcavvri yiaS^ evMOtov zwv Xeyo/iievcov del ymI TtdXai y,al vvv, Kal tovt^ ovts /iirj TcavGrfval ttot^ om rJQ^aro ixmopCas K. T. €.] Not ovta but iaxi difficult to find, because almost every- being understood, the construction with thing is a matter of controversy. Be- av is a barbarism. The sense is not sides xauTTf)? fJ^ot^^? is bad Greek, conditional; for we have the statement 4>ajx^v irov] The construction is not of a fact founded on experience no less 9. 71:. £v x. u. u. X. tauTov yiy^oixE'^a than its opposite. The appearance of (Stallb.), for if Socrates had spoken av in the text is due to a repetition here of the reconcilement effected be- of au, and a subsequent attempt to tween the one and the many by dia- correct what should have been ex- lectics, it is inconceivable that Pro- punged. tarchus should answer, el' tii; rpoTCOC TO. Toittvra] One would rather have zoti xa\ fXTj^aviQ ttqv TOiauTY^v rapax-fiv expected raura raura, for this does r^ixh I'Hw xou Xoyoi* £Tj,a£V(oc tco)? orneX- not refer to the £v x. TC, but to the ^£fv. Nor are the young men described proposed investigation. as delighting in the discovery and ex- •^iXupov] The proverbial saying was ercise 'of the synthetical and analytical JJLT^ xiM£fv xaxov £ij x£t!J.£vov : for xaxcv processes', but on the contrary, in the he puts $iXt)[3ov. We had better let sophistical employment of this contra- vell alone, and not ask Philebus for his diction which is the inherent property consent. But ^THEpwTCovTa thus placed (aSdvarov xal ayiripw Tca^o;) in all before (xtq x!,v£iv would make it appear objects of conception, by which they that the participle is a means not Tou throw into perplexity both themselves xiv£iv, but TOU \XT\ xiVctv; and as it is and others. Elither therefore we must (piite superfluous, there can be little read tauTov .... yty^oixivov, or sup- doubt of its origin. • pose that TioXXa has by attraction af- [raiiTifis]] I have cancelled this word fected the number of the participle, without hesitation. He is not going to which, considering the presence of £v, begin a fight ; but to begin a subject, is most unlikely, of which the very beginning point is iravorT^Tat] I formerly wrote Tiaua£' 12 llAATONO^ *inAHB02: vvVj aXX^ eOTL to tolovtov, cog sf^iol cfalvetai, rcov Xoycov av- Tvjv a&dvccTov xi %al ayijqiov rradoQ, sv fjf^uv. o di tiqcotov avTou y£vGdf.ievog lyiaGTore tcov vhov, r^o&elg cog riva aocpiag E evQrjMog S^rjOavgov, v(f fjdovrjg [ivdovGia ze y,at 7icxvTa yuvel Xoyov do/^ievog, xoii fiiiv hil i^dceQa /.d/JKCov mi GviupvQcov eig ev, TOTE di TTCcXiv aveiXiTTCov ymI diafneQi'Ccov, elg ccTtoQiav av- Tov jiiiv TtqcoTov vmI fidXiGca 'Acaa^dXXcov^ devregov d^ del tov exofievov, av re vecoTeqag dv re TtqeG^vTegog dv &^ fjh^ cov IQTvyxdvTj, cpEidoiiEvog ovte jtaxgog ovte ^irjTQog ovt dXKov tcov dyiovovTcov oudsvog, oXlyov d^ ovds tcov dXlcov ^cocov, [ov fiovov TCOV avdgconcov,^ ettel [iaQl^dgcov yE ovSevog dv (pEiGaiTO, eXtteq (lovov EQf^irjVEa ttoS^ev exol. nPn. ^g •) CO ^coKgaTsgy ovx og^g rj^icov to TtlrjS^og, ymI OTi VEOi TtdvTEg £G(.iEV ; -/.at ov cpo^El /ii/] GOL f^iExd (DtXr^ifiov §vvE7iiOc6(.iEO^a, edv tji^idg XoidogTJg; oficog diy (.lavO^dvofiEv ydg xat in obedience to Dawes' Canon. But the perplexity, or to find some other it is only in the older Attic that the method of investigation". 1 believe that first aorist subjunctive with ou [JLTq need, the second alternative is Socrates' sug- excite our suspicion ; whereas ou [xtj gestion. El' n? i'oTi rpcTio? xa\ {XiQ- with the future in this sense I take to y^avr] xaXXtO) ofiov otveupefv is in itself be a poetical usage. a clumsy circumlocution for i'( Tt? ^GTi irdvTa Kiv€i Xdyov] This is an al- xaXXtwv dSoc, and what is the subject lusion to the proverbial saying Ttavta of avcupefv? 2k or riiion; cannot be XCtJov xivefv. But the expressions ^Tt:\ understood; jjlev and 8l would imply ^ottepa y.vxXfov, and Tta'Xtv aveiXiTTUV, that the two requests put into the mouth rolling them up one n;ay^ and again un- of Protarchus are not alternative ; but rolling them another allude to the manner if so, the latter must be the means to of handling a volume. '^'ij\K^r,\i^(^^^ Hq the former, and in that case what be- £v, and 8io!}j.£p{^(i)v are added to shew comes of coaxing the difficulty out of the application of the figurative words, the vay f 2u T£ Ttpo^v»|J.oO toOto is oXC-yov 8* ov8^] This 1 have written quite proper as answering to xiqv ra- in lieu of oXiyou 8k xai, which would payiqv ocTreXtiefv, but as the clause now mean nearly sparing. The repetition stands in immediate dependence on oi»de-ou6£ was probably treated by some aveupsrv, TrpoSujxou is not only enough, copyist as a blunder, and one half was but rejects anything between itself and left out. Then came the corrector who the infinitive. The New Way is said felt the want of a conjunction and in- to be iiCi xh^i Xo'yov, instead of out of it. serted xa\. I agree with Stallbaum as For these reasons, and because it is to the spuriousness of ou fi. T. ot. ; but more in keeping that Socrates should ItzzX p. 7€ shews that some bolder as- be the first to suggest some other me- sertion has just been made, and justifies thod, I condemn oSov avsupsfv as T. a. t. In the next sentence I have spurious, and (j.£v as invented to give added xa(, because Protarchus gives it currency. As in most cases of this two grounds for Socrates' fear, their kind, the interpolator has borrowed Ins number and their youth. words from the neighbourhood, xaXXiwv 6p,tos 8i] In this sentence Protarchus o6o? from Socrates' next speech, avsu- is made to offer two suppositions ; "if p^^t^ from his next but one. it is possible either to conjure away nAATONOS cMAHBOS. 13 o Myeig, el rig TQoirog tazL %ai f^ir]xavrj Tt]v [jitev] TOiavrr^v Tagayjjv fjiuv l^io tov loyov evfuvtog ircog ccTtel^elv, [oSov dt B TLva yMXXUo xamrig hil %ov Xoyov avevQelv,] ov re 7i:qod^v(.iov TOiTo ymI rif^ieig Gvva/.olovST]aofiEv elg dvvaf.uv' ov yaQ Ofii- yiQog h 7r ccQOJv Xoyog, to ^(.oAQareg. ^Q. Ov yccQ ovv, to rraldeg, cog cptiGiv vf.iag jrqooayoqevcov (Di'kril^og. ov furjv Hotc vmIIuov oSog ovd^ av yevoiTO, r^g iyw sqaGrrjg (.lev elfii aei, /lolXa'ug de fi^ ]]6i] diaepvyoloa sQrjiiiov vmI anoQOv yiailoTii]Gev. nP£2. Tig al'iij; XeylaSxo (.lovov. 2^. ^Hv drjlojaai f^isv ov icdvv yale^tov, ygrjodai Si Tray- C xdle/iov. jtdvca ydq ooa reyvr^g iyoi^iEv avevgeS^r] Tromore, did TavTrjg cpavEgd ylyove. g/.ojcu 6e rjv leyw. TIPQ. Aiye (.lovov. ^12. -fQewv fiiv elg dv&QcoTCOvg dooig, wg ye y.aracpaiveTai efioi, TToS^ev ez d^evjv sQQupr] did rivog IIqof.iridlojg df^ia cpavo- Tdxfi) Tivi icvgi' /.at oi f.iev naXaioi, /.qeiiTOveg ovveg fjf^icov y,al eyyvrlqco decov or/.ovvreg, Trp> (prj/iirjv Tcagedooav, (bg i^ evog f.iev zal £'/. jrollwv ovccov ccor del XeyoiLievcov eivca, jteqag de vmI d^reiQiav iv avTo7g '^v(.i(fVTOv syovTCov. SeTv ovv rif.iag tov- D Tcov ovTW diayxy.oGf.iri(,ievcov del fiiav Ideav Treql rtavTog e/M- 0€a)V |X€v] In tliis remarkable passage kyy. Otcov oIkovvt€9] Dn-clling nearer everything seems out of its place. For to the gods, — i.e., in more familiar inter- e'!? a'v^pwTCOUc; belongs not to 8oat? but course with them. to ^ppi^p-r). 10? -^l X. ^uoi ought to be tt^v xovxoig oIg7T€q vmI /reTiaidevaai. B IWn. Ilwg; ^Q. 0cov^ fiiiv fjiiuv eazl 7rov f^iia did tou Gzofiarog iovGa, vxd dicei^og av TtXrjd-eiy jrdvcMv re ymI kyiaGTOv. 11 Pn. Tl firjv; ^ii. Kal ovdeT^QO) ye tovtcov tG^itv 710) Gocpoi, ovd^ on TO aiteiQOv avTijg I'Gf^iev oYd- on to tv dXX^ on noGa Tt eGTi vmI 07rola, tovt" I'gtl fo yQamtciTi'/Mv exaGTOv jioiovv f](.iiov. nPn. "^Irj^eGTara. ^Q. Kal ^irjv /mI to (.lovgl/mv o Tvyydvei jrocovv, tovt^ ton TavTov, nPQ. nCog; JS'fi. 0covtj fiev icov y,ai to z«r i/,eivr]v Ttjv rlyvriv egtI C f-Lia [ev avT7J\. npn, nwg d' ov; ^£i. zJvo da d^iojiievj (-iaov ymI o§u^ vxd tqitov o^iotovov. i} jnog; npn. OvTcog. 2£2. ui^lX ovino Gocpog av el'r^g TtjV fiovGi/.rjv etdcog TavTa fiovaj jiirj di eidtog wg y tnog eiTrelv eig Tavva ovdevog a^iog eGei. JlPi}, Ov yaQ ovv. ^Q. ^Xl , CO (plXe, fneiddv Xd^jjg rd diccGTr^jticxTa oiroGa iv TOVTOis oto-irep] Either ^v clarcep, to have made de suo. I formerly thought or £v TOUTOt? £v olaTtsp. that xat' £)C£{vy)v must refer to the first ovBeripu] The books have ouSlv kxi- mentioned art, that of grammar, but po), which is inadmissible. ouS' ov kxi- outo^ and ^xsfvo;, though never used pw for £v ouSiXepw would be accord- capriciously, as some learned men tell ing to Attic usage. But if he were us, sometimes apply not to the greater speaking of that wherein a man is or less proximity of mention, but to skilled, he would say ouSe'repov, not £v that of interest, as in the beginning of ouSer^ptO ; the dative expresses that the Euthydemus, or to the different whereby he becomes skilful. degrees of familiarity, as here. Of i^ ^a)W| \i{v irov] The text follows the aux^ I can make nothing, unless we inferior MSS. in reading xal to . transpose it to a place where it would xotl is so useful an addition, that one be welcome if not necessary. Auo So is justified in adopting it ; nor is to xott' bcSfJisv £v a^jxrj. ^xetvTQV a likely variation for a scribe 8ia(rTif||iaTa] These intervals are 16 nAATONOS ^lAHBOS. f^^ad Tov aQL^f^iov rr^g cptovrjg o^vvrfcog ts ttI^l yial j^ccQVTtjTog, D '/mI OTKua, '/Mi Tovg OQovg tojv dtaGTiqfiaTtoVj y^al to. 6X tov- Tiov ooa avGTrifiara yeyovev, a ytaTidovieg oi tcqooOsv Ttaqt- doaav ijinlv Toig hco/iievoig iyiEivoig yialelv avvd aQf.wvlag, tv TE Toig y,ivtjoeGiv av tov otof^iarog ercQa Toiavx evovxa ndd^iq yiyvojiiEvay a Srj di^ ccQid^f^aov fuETQtjd^evTa delv av (paal Qvd^- fiovg yiai futrga €7T0V0fidtetv, xal df^i* ivvoeiv wg ovtco del Tteql jtavxog tvog ■/,al noXXCov a/Mjceiv orav ydg Tama ts ^d^r^g E OVTCO y TOT syevov Gocpog, oTav t^ alio tcov tv otlovv TavTrj oyi07COv/iievog I'lr^g [, ovTCog k'jucfQcov /ceql tovco yeyovag]. to d^ aTceiqov a tYMOTcov ymI iv k/cdoToig /clr^Oog d/reiQOv eYMOTOTE jioleI tov (fQovElv '/.al ovK elloyijiiov ovd^ Ivdqid^^iov, dx^ ovv. Eig aqid^f^iov ovdlv" ev ovdEvl jicojvot ajridovxa. IIPQ. KdlliOTa, CO 0i?aj[:iE, t(.ioLyE Ta vvv lEyofiEva Eiqi]- yJvai (palvETai 2co/.qdTr.g. 18 01. Ka(xoi y* amd TavTa' alia tl drj ttote Tcqog rjindg o loyog ovTog vvv Etqi^Tac Kal tI ttote ^ovl6f.iEvog ; nothing more than musical notes ; opoi general precept, and then applies it are musical proportions. See Plat. Ti- to the particular instance of music, and nifeus 36, b, and Cicero's translation. so returns to the general rule. A very 6rav -yap ravra k. t. «.] The par- little reflexion will shew that in such tide yap marks the resumption of an a case if he commenced with "and in- incomplete sentence. The antithesis deed whatever you take up", he would between tot iyi'ioxt ao9c<;, and £'|j.cpp(»)v have the air of opening out some new Y^yovot*;, is a poor verbal contrivance, application in place of resuming a pre- and the tenses are strangely chosen, o'Tav vious statement. I prefer ev to ovTWV, XaPfl?? ^ye'vou . . oVav eayji;, y^yovav because it is more likely that a scribe Stallbaum translates the last word by should stumble at twv ev than invent '^evades" which would answer to yeyo- it. The Bodleian has also Tcepl to\jt«v vw? iati. 'Eyevou may be defended which I prefer, because it is a ivorse by tlie well known usage of the aorist ; reading, and so throws more discredit compare TiapeaxovTO in 46, e. If the on a suspected passage, words ouTw; — ye'yova; were omitted, rh 8* fiircipov] The reader will not nobody would miss them. I have fol- fail to admire the skilful play upon the lowed the Bodleian in oTav T£ for words aTCStpov, £XXoyt^ov, and ^vapttJ- CTOtv 8i, and in twv ev otioOv for twv fxov. Stallbaum compares Tim. 55, c, to ovTwv oTioOv. That a writer can if ctTiEtpou; xcCT,uo\>? elvai X^yetv inyiQaatT' he likes, break his sentence so as to av Ttc ovT(i)<; aKilpov Tivo? So'yfxa wv give more emphasis to the second half, iy.Ktipo'i XP^^^ elvat : and the oracle by introducing such terms as aXXa au given to the Megarians, 'Yfjier? S', w T£ xocTa vouv aywvter ttqv aiQV 6{xy)v, Mtyapef?, outs TpiTot cute T^TapToi Ou- otjiai hk Kttl i\i.i TTQV ^jJiYJv, in place of t£ SuwS^xaTOi , out' £v Xoyw out' ^v ou TS, iytd T£, no One will deny, apt^jjiw. *** But here the speaker begins with a KajJioC -y' avra ravra] Commonly Kal *** A sheet oJ the Editor's MS. lias been lost in transmission from Sydney. The missing notes will appear in the Addenda. [Publisher's Note.] IIAATONOS $IAHB02. 17 2Q, ^Ogd^wg f.ilvTOi Tovd^ ^f^icigy co IlQcotaQXSy rjQiOTrj/^E 0tlr]^og. nPQ. ndvv f.iiv ovv, /lal ajtoycQivov ye avri^. 2Q. ^QccGco tavra, dieXS^tov ai.iiy.Qdv exl ttsql avriov tov- Tiov, wOTteg yag ev btiovv sY Tig Ttoze Xd^oij tovtov, wg scpa- fiev, OVA, Itv aiceiqov cpvoiv I'det ^XiTtetv evO^vg dXX* hci riv* ctQidfioVj ovTco xat TOvvavTiov, orav Tig ro aTtsiQov dvayy,aadfj B TtQCOTOv Xa/x^dv£iVj [jiirj stvI to ev evd-vg aA^ ejt] dqid^[.i6v av tlvcc TiXijd-og ey,aaTOv Exovvd tv KaTavoslv delj teXevtuv r' £x jtdv- T(x)v elg ev. TtdXiv d^ ev Tolg ygd^ii-iaOL to vvv Xeyofievov Xd^cofiev. npn. nwg; 2Q. ^ETtSLdrj [q)covriv a7reiQ0v KaTSvorjoev^ eltb Tig O^eog el've '/Ml -d^elog avd^QCOTtog, Sg Xoyog ev AlyvjtTO) Oevd- uva tovtov yeviO^ai Xeycov, TtgwTog tu (pwvrjevTa ev tm dnelgoj yiaTevorj- asv ovx ev ovtcc dXXd TtXeio), '/.at ndXiv eTega cpwvrjg (.tev ov, G (pd^oyyov 6s (.leTexovTd Tivog, dgi&fiov de Tiva %al tovtwv el- var TQiTov de eldog ygaft/ndTcov dieaTiqaaTO ra vvv Xeyofieva acpiova 7](.iiv' to (.lETa tovto dif^gei Ta t dq)d^oyya '/,ai acpcova fxexgi evbg e^doTOv, xat Ta q)(ji)vrjevTa, 7,al to. i^ieaa xara tov avTov TQOTtoVj ecog dgid^i^iov avTcuv Xa^cov evi ^ eY.daT(p y.al ^Vf.t7ta0i GTOixeiov e7iiov6i.iaae. yad^ogwv J' tog ovdeig fj/ncov oid^ av ev avTo za^' avTO avev TtdvTCov avTwv fidS^oi, tovtov TOV deofiov av Xoyiodfxsvog wg oV^' eva y,at ndvTa tovS-^ evD Ttcog TtoiovvTa, /.ilav eic^ avrdig wg ovoav ygaf.if.iaTrA,rjv Texvrjv e7ceq)d^ey^aT0 Ttgoasiicwv. i\i.o\ xai\jxd ys aura. The first change (cf. Elmsl. ad Heracl. 622), and in this I have adopted from Bodl., which has place the hiatus is avoided by the xa( }AOt, the second from Coislin., which change. The \xiaa, whicli he describes has TauTa yz ovxa aura. Stallbaum above as partaking not of voice but yet has a strange way of explaining the of sound, are the liquids which stand misplaced aura — per se seorsum spectata. midway between vowels and mute cou- rovTOv, (OS ?a|i€v] *** sonants. JfSei] *** Kadopwv Se] Because we can have no [|xf| €irl K. T. €.]] *** true conception of (ptovin except as dis- *Eir€i8f| [v, irpcoTos] *** without also knowing both povi] I cannot explain why (p. 16, a. b). The present reference is to 2* 20 HAATONOS $IAHH02. t/ tCov avd^QiOTiiviov XTr]f.idTcov (XQiorov. (DlXtj^ov yaq shrovTog ijdovrjv YMt TSQipiv xal xaqdv ymI Ttavd-^ ojtooa Toiavz^ fozi, D Gv nqog avT dvTetTieg wg ov xam^ dX)J e/.elv' eorlvj a TtoX- laYAQ r]fiag avrovg dvaf^ajLivrjaKOfxev h^ovregj OQd-iog dQMvreg, %v Iv fivrjiiirj 7raQay.eif,ieva eKareQa (^aoavl^rjTai. (ffjg d tog I'or/ie GV x6 TtQOGQrj&r^Go/iievov ogd^cog [af.iei,vov r^dovrjg y^] dyaSov ei- vai vovVj E7TLGTiqf.LrjVj GiVEGiv, Ttxvrjv y,al ndvr^ av rd tovtcov ^vyysvrj, a yiTaG^ai deXv, d'kX^ ovxl sKelva. tovtcov drj (.leu^ d(.i(pLG^7iTrjGecog sy^azeQCov Xex&evTcov, rjf^ieTg gol fierd TtaiSidg E rj7i£iXrjGa/.iev cog ovx dq)r]GOf.iev olxads G€, rcqlv av tovtcov tcov loycov Tteqag v/.avdv yevrjTal tl dioQiGdivTcov. gv drj gwejco- Qr^Gag %al I'dwzcfg elg z^ai?^' ri(.LLv GavTov. rjinellg di St) liyo- /,i€v, xad^aTiEQ 01 naldeg, otl tcov oqO^cog doOevTcov dcpaiqEGig ov% eGTi. TcavGai dr^ tov tqotvov j]f.uv drcavTCov tovtov ejtl t« vvv Xeyofieva. ^i2. Tlva leyeig; 20 nPQ. Elg aTToglav ei^i^dXXcov Yoi dveqcoTcJov cLv (.itj dvvai- f,ied^ av lyiavTjv dn6/.QtGLV ev Tcj) naqovTi Sidovai gol. fu) ydq olc6f,i€^a TsXog fjfuv slvav tcov vvv ttjv ndvTcov rjfiuov aTCOQiav. dXX" el dgdv Tovd^ rji^isig ddwaTOVfieVj gol dqaGzeov mceGxov ydg. ^ovXevov Srj nqog TavT avTog, tcotbqov ijdovrjg eidt] Got y,al €mGTi]jnrjg diaiQeTeov rj ymI eaT€Ov, eY ttjj [z«i9^' eTeqov^ Tiva TQonov otog t el /.al ^ovXec drjXcoGai ncog aXXcog Ta vvv dj.icpLGpriTOVf,ieva naq 7](.uv. B 2Q, JeLVov fiiv tolvvv etl jtQOGSoYav ovdiv del tov efie, eneLdrj Tovd-^ ovTcog etTteg' to ydq el ^ovXet Qr]0^ev Xvei ndvTa his first consenting to hold the con- — j^oor me. Plat. Ep. 7. xa\ ^x\ xal versation, so that aauTov ^TteSwxa? xdv i)xz TcapEfJiuiJsfTo,— ».«., Plato, who would be a ludicrous hyperbole. had apprehended mischief from Diony- To irpoo-piiSTiopdiievov opdws [&. if|. sius. Thecct. 166, A, yiXttiiia Stq tov i[j.h, y ]] See Addenda. ^v Toi; Xo'yotg (XKidzi^z, — i.e., Protago- TcXos T|[J.£v elvat] i.e. the end and ras, who complains of hard usage. aim. rh "ydp cl PovXei p't\Qiv] It has not Ka9* JcT€pov] There cannot be a more been observed that this is said gene- feeble tautology than xai' eT£pdv Ttva rally, and Ixaaxwv Tzipi has been mis- rpdniov TCto? aXXfa)?. The first two words translated in consequence. The sense were added by a scribe who did not is, When men say ^if you please', it does see that nvd xpoKOV belongs to old? away with all fear in every case. I x' si. confess that I have no great faith in. tJ>v €(!.€] i.e., me, the threatened one, the genuineness of ^txeiStq ToOb' ou. etn:. HAATONOS IAIIB02. 21 cpo^ov EYMOrtov TteQL. TCQog d av romoig f^m]f.ir]v riva SoytEl Tig fioi SedwyJvac -d^ewv rjialv, UPQ. JJcog drj nccl rivo)v; ^^, yLoywv Txoxi rivcov TtdXai WMvoag ^ovaq ?} za2 £/^»;- yoQcog vvv evvoio jteql ^ r]dovrjg xal cpgovrjaetog , cog ovdlreqav avTolv eotl Tccyad^ov, cclX^ aXlo ri tqItov, ereqov (uiv toitcoVj af.iuvov 6^ af^icpolv, -aalroL tovto y" ^av ivaQywg rj^Xv (pccvij C vvvy ajtrjXXaKTaL /.isv rjSovrj tov vrmv to yaq ayad-ov ovv. av 8Ti Tavtov avTfj ylyvoiTO. rj Ttwg; nPQ, OvTcog, 2Q. Ttov de y^ [elg v^v dLaiQeotv] eldiov rjdovrjg ovSiv ^tl TtQOoderjOoi.ied'a y^ar^ i(.irjv do^av. -fjCQaldv 6^ etc oacpeGxeqav delist, nPQ, Kalliaz^ elTCioVj ovto) xat diaTteqaLve. irpos 8* av TovTOis] The Bodleian to zl<; tt^v Stafpeaiv is a waste of time has au Tof?, which form is inadmissible on words which do not belong to the here. The origin of the error, which author. Those who understand, "el'fi-r) has been corrected from Coisl., is ob- for the purpose of Scafpeai?", will say vious. that transposition would be a milder Ktt^Toi TOVTO y &v] The Bodleian remedy; but Socrates intends to give has xaiTOi outw ye ^av, which Orelli up the Stafpcat? itself, and not merely changed into xal TOtouTO y' ^"*' ^^^ some particular means towards that this will not mean what we want. For end. as he has not yet named this something irpoibv 8' t. o-. 8€C|ei] The proverbial better, he cannot say "if it should ap- expression is, aijTo Sef^st, the event pear such", but either "if any such wUl make things clear. But we are thing should appear" which would re- told that both Ssi^st and SY)X(oa£i are quire ti, or, "if this thing should ap- used in the same manner without oturo. pear". As yz is in the best MSS., it The first occurs in Arist. Frogs, 1261, is admitted by Orelli into his cor- where, however, jjl^Xiq may be the sub- rection: but xa\ — yc means "aw'] twv dnoTeXovi.dvci)v ccfia dyai^oig, nP£2. Ovyt eoTL zovroig avruTielv^ E 2'i2. ^yiOTitdfiev Stj yial yiglvwfiev tov ^' fjdovrjg ymI tov q)QOvrpeiog ^iov Idovreg xoiqig. UPQ. JJcog eiTieg; 2Q, Mtjz^ iv TO) trig f]dovrjg eveato) qjQoviqOLgj fiir/v^ ev t(7j Trjg (fgovr^Gecog rjdovrj. Set ydg, e^iTteq Ttoreqov avrcov earl rdya- ^ovj fir^div (^irjdevog etc nqoodeiod^ai' de6f.iEV0v d^ av (pavfj 7x6- 2 1 tegov, ovt, eOTi ttov tovt^ £ti to ovTtog rji.dv dyad-ov, npn, mdg ydg av; 2 £2, OvKovv ev aol TteigcSfied^a ^aaavi^ovreg Tama. TIP^. ndvv (.liv ovv. ['^ (J."?! T^cov]] No one in his senses ttXi^iv twv diroT«\ov|xcvto)v ftfia aYtt- would ask "whether the Idea of Good 0ois is the reading of all MSS. and necessarily implied incompleteness". Editions, as far as I know; and one And yet this nonsense has been left editor undertakes to explain it, and his unchallenged since the revival of letters, explanation is commended by another, nay was so perhaps even under the But we may be quite certain that So- Ptolemies. Another evident addition is crates is intended to say, that men care Taya^ov. For with taya^ov we must for no other results than such as are understand io-zl. But that the true in themselves good. Why then repre- construction is dvd'yK'q . . elvai appears sent him introducing, as the sole ob- from the answer, in which all the MSS. jects of men's care, other results pro- give (5ta9i'p€iv. A third interpolation duced along with good things? I had disfigures the clause w^ uav xc ycyvto- once proposed to cancel TtXiQV and to read a>40v auto iiqpsuet xal ia^Uxai pouXo- aXX' tJ aya^wv. But this violent change |j.£vov £A£fv. 'E9U[JLat is sometimes fol- is unnecessary. Antiquum obtinet. The lowed by the infinitive as in Eur. Ion intrusion of tcXtqv has made nonsense 521, £? ^tXefv ^9i£jjL7i; but some one of a simple and easy sentence, who did not know this, supposed aurou iroTcpov] used here and elsewhere as to be understood, and introduced poi>- = OTtOT£povoOv. Xo[jL£vov to govern eXeiv. IIAATONOS <^1AHB0S. 23 2'i3. ^7toyiQivov d/j. npn. Aiye. JS'i3. Ji^ai av, TlQWTaQxe, ov Ktjv rov piov ajtavra f]d6- fiievog ijdovag rag fieylorag; npQ. rl 6' ov; 2i3. ^Q ovv €Ti tivog av ool TtQoodelv fjyo'loj el tovt' t%oig Ttaviehog; nPn. OvSai^udg. JS£2. ''Oqa 6/], xov cpqoveTv xat tov voelv nal Xoyiteod^ai [ra dlovza']^ xal ooa tovtcov adeXcpcCj /ncov furj daoi av tl; 13 nP£}. Kal Ti; Ttavxa yaq eyoLf^L av Ttov to xaiqeiv exwv, ^Q. Ov/Mvv ovTco ^(x)v del fiev dia ^iov [talg (.leylaraig 7]dova'ig'\ x^iiQOig av; npn. Ti d' av; 2Q, Novv de ye \y,al iitv^f.irjv ymI sfnGrr^fir^v nal do^av] nptirapxt] (0 seems to be omitted has that Edition will see in Herrmann's here on account of the pronoun being Preface the name of the scholar to placed after the name of the person whom he attributes the emendation. I addressed, which is usual either when am unable to recall it, but I confess the speaker first turns to him, or makes that I have been beaten by at least an especial appeal to him. one year. [to, St'ovra]] Five lines lower down [rats ncyicrrais TjSovats]] Even sup- the list of mental powers or qualities is posing that Plato could use ^a{p£iv again given as moO?, [j,viQfJL"r], drttaTYJfiY), irfSovar? in the sense of enjoying plea- Sd^a aXiQ^TQ?. Of that list it will be sures, the words t. fjt,. if), are nothing time to speak when we come to it: to the purpose, for the amount has but a third series follows immediately been already mentioned, and the drift upon the second one, which tallies of this passage is, that he would be pretty exactly both in substance and in a continual state of pleasure — and order with that before us: 1. to 9po- never once know it. v£rv=9pcvY)atc- 2. TO vo£fv=a. fJiVTQfJLTf) voOv 8€ ye] It has been shewn above of past things, b. Sd^a of future. 3. to that there is an exact correspondence XoYi^£a^at.=XcYE,a|ji.C(;. 1. Consciousness between the series given in the sentence or immediate Perception. 2. The Re- beginning "Opa 8tq, and that which oc- prescvtative facultxj. 3. Inference^ not curs in the argument commencing with logical, but in its lowest type. If any rcpwTOV. But the list now before us, one will compare this passage with the though so much nearer to this last, otlier, he will see why toc 8^0>>Ta ought has no such congruity. And indeed it to be rejected without hesitation. is worse than unnecessary; for what (xoiv ji^ St'oi* &v Ti] The MSS. have sort of reasoning is this? "As you do fJLTQSe dpav Tt. Several scholars have not possess Memory, Knowledge, and proposed to change dpav into o^^ap, but Belief, you cannot know whether you they all appear to leave ti, which in are in pleasure or not, because you this case would be contrary ^ Greek have no Consciousness." All that Plato usage. I made this correction in the wrote was Nouv 8^ y^ M-">1 xexTT^jJi^vov year '65 ; but, unless my memory fails TipcoTOV jJilv x. T. £. As he has no me, the Leipzig Edition by C. F. Herr- voO^, he cannot have (ppdviqat?, which mann appeared in '54. Any one who is a part of voOq. 24 nAATONOS *IAHB02. /^i'^ yye'/,T7]f.ievov [aA?;^^], Ttqcorov f.iiv tovt^ avTOj el r) yaiqeiq Tj jiirj xaiQEigj avayytrj drj 7tov oe ayvoelv, Y,ev6v y^ ovTa Ttaorjg (pQOvirGewg. nP£2, ^^vdynr], C 2^. Kal (.ir^v looavTCog fivrjf^irjv firj 7,€yirr]i^isvov avdy'Ar] drj 7J0V oe (.nfjd^ oTi tvote excciqeg /^lei^ivrjod^ai, rrjg t' iv ru) Ttaqa- XQri(,i(x rjdovTig Trqoa7TL7tTOVGi]g f-irfi^ rjvuvovv i.ivri(.irjv VTtOfieveiv So^av 6^ av (nij yiexTi^fiivov [dlrjd^rj] (,irj do^aCeiv yaiqeiv yal- Qovra, XoyiGf-iov ds Gregoi^ievov (.ir^d^ elg tov tTxeita xqovov log ycagrjoeig dvvaxov etvai XoylKed&aij Kijv 6^ ovy, dvd^Qwitov ^lov dXld TLvog 7tlevf.iovog ?} riov ooa [d^aldutia] f.ieT^ ooTgetvcov e'l^ixpuxd ioTL owjucctcov, Ian xamaj 1) Tcaqd zavz^ Ixof-iev aX- J) Xcog TTiog diavorjd^rjvai ; nPn, Kal Ttwg; 2£2. ^q ovv aiqexhg r^^uv ^log b roiovrog; nP£2. Elg dcpaalav TtavTaTtaGi (.le, to ^wKqategj ovTog o loyog i/,i^£^lrjyie vd vvv, 2Q. MrjTTco Toivvv inaXd^ayn^wfted-a, tov de rov vov fiera- la^ovTeg av ^iov I'dco/nev. nPn. noiov dri Xiyeig; 2 £2, Ei rig Se^air^ av av l^rjv ri(.uov (pqovrjOtv jitiv -aal vovv yial eTTiarrfiriv ymI fivrjinriv ndoav 7tdvTcov Y.eAXYii.ievog , rjdovrjg E di jiierixf^v f,irjre fieya (.ir^Te OfUKqoVj f.ir]d^ av Xvjtrjgj alXd to Ttaqdfcav dnad^rg TtdvTCOv iov tujv tolovtcov. TTOv jd ion this last instance, the "not even" or SaXatna. "also not" refers not to Suvatcv dvat |A.€TaXaPovT€s] iq. £v \iipii Xa(5ov- X., but to £?? TOV iTzziTOL )^p6vov). T£?. Compare below 51, a. [dXTjOf]]] The reason for putting aXt)- irdvTCDV «v] I have supplied wv, which ^i] in brackets is that any 86^a, whether is required by the rules of the language, false or true, would suffice Tcpo? to So- Not even an inferior writer would say, ^ocCet-v ynipzvi, and, where there is no fjiiQ fj.£T£'xwv aXX' aKa^tj?. The syl- voO?, there can be no 5o'|a. lable was absorbed by that which pre- [0aXdTTitt]] If Plato had cared to tell c^ded it. nAATi2N02 (PIAHB02. 25 nP£2. OvdeTcgog b ^log, w ^oMQaTegj efnoiye roviwv al- QSTogj ovd aXXo) firj Ttore, cog ¥//(J)f.Lai, ^^^ij' 2£2, Ti d^ o ^vvafiicpoTeQog, to JlQcoraQxe, i^ ai.iq)olv av^i- 22 (iuxd^etg yiOLvog yevof^ievog; nPQ, '^Hdovrjg Xeyecg nal vov [x«t q^Qovrjaeiogl ; 2Q. OvTto yial tov toiovtov Isyco lycoye, IIPQ. Uag drjTiov tovtov /' algrjoeTat jTqoteqov r^ l^eivcov OTTOTEQOVOVV, }tcd fjTQOg TOVTOig y* OVX O jiliVj b 6^ ov, !SQ, JMavd^dvo^iEv ovv o n vvv r^fuv eail to ^vf^i^alvov ev toig 7caQ0VGt Xoyoig; nPQ. ndvv f.iev ovv J otl rqelg fiev (iioi Ttgovtidr^oav, rolv dvdlv d otdsTCQog lyiccvog ovd^ a^QHog ovt^ avd-Qtorccov ovze B Kcotov ovdevL !Sn. Mcov ovv ovK rjdr] rovzwv ye TteQi drjkov wg ovdereqog avTcov eixe xayad^ov; r]v yccQ av lYMvog ytai rilsog ymI tcccol [q)vTo7g xat] ^cooig aigsrog, OiGTceq dvvarov rjv ovrcog del Sid plov ^rjv, el de ng dXXa fiqeld-^ r^f^icoVj ^tagd cpvoiv av ttjv rov dlrj^cog algerov eldf^^avev cckwv s^ dyvolag r] rivog dvdyyirjg ovY, evdaifxovog, JIPQ, ^'EoLY.e yovv ravd-^ ovrcog e%eiv. 2 £2. '^Qg f.iiv roivvv rrjv ye Wil^^ov &e6v ov del Siavoet- C oO^ai TavTov yial zayad-ov, i'/,avwg elQrjo&al [xol doKel, 01. OvSe ydg b aog vovg, t3 ^cozqateg, eon rdya&ovy dXX^ e^ei Ttov xavzd eysXri^axa, 1% d}j,<{)otv }J.[ji.ix^Tnvai. This use of the participle the mixed together? I cannot uphold is very frequent in Plato. Compare Hep. my own former solution of this dif- 606, B, 7tpoSu}JLOU}i.£vcc aaxif]|j.ov(i)V ye- ficulty, for "in addition to my friends Xwt' 09XTffaw, — i.e., 8id to icpoliuijLEr- here" would be izphq toio-8€. As some a^ai. In the next sentence xa\ 9po- addition is intended, the only con- VTQacW? is a manifest interpolation. ceivable addition to "every body will Kal irpbs TOVTOis ^e] This is com- choose this life", is "and one and all monly understood to mean and besides; will bear me out in saying so". This but it is evident that nothing additional might be, xa\ TipoabTfjaeTat toutoi? y' is stated. Stallbaum's defence of it, ou)^ o (jl^v, o K ovJ. 'notio atque vis prcecedentis tcS? confir- [<|>vtois Kal] ^wois] He afterwards adds, matur et augetur^' is only true as to e? hi n? f|p.a)v, and is evidently think- confirmatur^ whereas augetur isihe point ing of L(oa capable of choice, and pos- in question. Schleiermacher under- sessed of intellect. It is therefore high stands, in addition to those lives (the time these (puTCX were weeded out of unmixed) ; but this would have been the text. 'Avayj^TQ oux £u6aL}X0)v is one ^xeivoi;, and, besides, how can a man of the many euphemisms for Madness. 26 HA \TON02 IAHBOS. JiiJ. Torx «v, oi (Dilr]p€j o y e/iiog' ov fievTOi tov y alr]S^Lvdv ccfta ymI delov olfiai vovv, al?J* aXliog jicog e'x^iv. rwv fiev ovv vrA.r]TrjQicov JTQog tov xoivov plov ova. afiffiolirjTco [ttw] V7T€Q voVj tcov Ss Stj devT€Qeicov oQccvxal ay^oireiv xqyj Ttiqi D tL dQccGOjuev. rdxci ydg av rov yioivov tovtov ^lov aituofied^^ av eytccTegog b ^liv tov vovv [oltlov], b d^ 7]dovriV [elvm], y,al ovro) TO fiiv ayaO^ov tovtcov a/nrpoTsgcov ovdsTSQOv av ur], Taxcc d av aiTiov Tig vnoXa{^oi rcoTeqov avTcov elvai. tovtov drj 7tlqi yial f.iaXlov £Ti Ttgdg OlXtj^ov diaf.iaxoiiiir]v av, log ev tu) fir/aq) TovTO) ^10), o Ti TTOT^ koTi TOvO-^ la^tov 6 ^log ovTog yiyo- vEv aiQCTog ccjua vmI ayaO^og, ovx r^dovrj aXXa vovg tovtoj ^vy- ysviaTSQOv y,al bfioioTsgov Igtl. ymI /.aTa tovtov tov Xoyov E oiT^ av TCOV TtQcoTEuov ovS^ av TCOV devTSQELCov r^Sovfj fteTOV aXr]^cog av ttote liyoiTO. jioggcoTtQco de sotc tcov TQiTslcov, ei Ti TcT) ijia^ vm del TtiOTeveiv r]fiag Ta vvv. nPQ, ^^Xla (.i7]v, CO 2c6xQaT€g, ^toiye do/iel vvv fiiv r]dovt] Got neTtTcoyiivai yMd^a^iegel nXTfytiGa vixo tojv vvv drj Xoycov TCOV yccQ viyir]TrjQLCOv rcegi {.laxof-uvrj yieiTai. tov 6s vovv, cog 23€or/t€, Xe/.T£Ov cx)g sf-icpgovcog ovt, avTejtoieiTo tcov vr/.rjTr]Qicov' Ta yag avTct srcadEv av, tcov ds drj devTsgelcov GTegrjd^eiGa o^K a)X({>i(rp'r]Ta> [tto)]] It is difficult jierdv] As you cannot say \i-^ZTii to account for :tO) in this place, for he wv, but Xi-^ixai slvai, you would here evidently renounces for ever the claims expect jjcsrervat, not |jl£t6v. But (jl£Tov of vou? to the first prize, and contends came to be looked upon as almost a only for the second. Perhaps the re- noun, so that in X^yoir' av .ustov we servation may be accounted for by his understand the infinitive slvai. Thus mention of the *2v.oz, vou?. the relation in Laics 900, E, we read: SeoT? 8k of which to that of man is afterwards oute {Jteya ours afxtxpcv Ttov toioutwv treated of. But then again if this had [lerbv cpovjitv. been intended, he would scarcely have vvv y-iv] The Bodleian has no fjiev, used the words Ttpo? xcv xo'.vov [itov : but I think it is an accidental omission, and altogether why confuse the ar- for the opposition is between this first gument with an afterthought about some bout and another, twv dk Stq 8£UT£- other voO?? I now believe tcw to be peiwv — . a mere reproduction of the preceding vox. ireirrcDK^vai] aoi cannot belong Tw in a,u9'.apTf)Tw. to Tt£TCT(ox£va'., for Cttio aou is the proper avTiw}jie0* &v] See Addenda. construction after tiitcteiv. Nor can it oi{T€ — ov8' av] Of this construction belong to TtXrjYefaa, for then Socrates Stallbaum gives the following instances : the agent, and Xdyoi the instruments, PAiZcJ. 42, c; Zajrs 840, A ; ^ep. 608, B ; would be made to change places. It Ibid. 426, b; from which it appears is difficult to say what should be done that although oute — o\)h\ is inadmis- with the word, for it does not look sible, ovJt£ — ouS' au or ov^i yz is like an interpolation. Did Plato write correct. vTro7i£Ttxa)X£vaiV nAATONOS IAHB02. 27 TjSovrj TtavrcxTtaaiv ccv ziva vml aTi(.uav oxolrj TtQog toyv avvrjg egaOTcov ovde yaQ eKelvoig eV av bfiolcog cpalvoizo Kali^, 2^, Tl ovv; OVA af.i€ivov avrrjv sav rjdr] yial liitj zrjv ayiQL- peozdrrjv auTrj TvqoocfeqovTa (iaoavov /ml e^eXeyxovza XvTtetv; IIPQ, Ovdev Uyeig, w IwKQareg, 2Q, ^uiq oxi TO advvaTOV elfcov, Ivrceiv rjdovrjv; B JIP^. Ov (.lovov ye, alV on -aal ayvoelg cog ovdelg mo oe f]f.icov fied^rjoei, jtqlv av elg relog STTS^eld^r^g tovtiov tm Xoycfj, 2Q, Ba^al aqaj to UQcoragxe, &vxvov f^iev Xoyov rov Xoi- Ttov, ox^dov Ss oids ttccvv tl qa^lov. vvv yaq drj (palvsrac delv [aXXr]g f.irjxavrjg'], htl ua SevTSQsla vtvsq vov itOQevofievov, oiov ^eXri ^x^iv eTSga zcuv sj^iitgood^ev [Xoycov]' eon d lacog tvia "/.(XL ravrd. nPS2, Omovv XQT, 2 £2, Ilcog yccQ ov; rrjv de y^ ccQxrjv avrov dievXa^eTad^ac C 7teiQc6(ie&a rid^ef-ievoi, nPn, Jloiav drj Xeyeig; 2Q, IldvTa zd vvv ovza ev xiT) tkxvtI dixf] diaXd^cofiep, (.laXXov d , el ^ovXei, zQixfj. nP£2, Kad-^ XI (fgdX^oig dv, pijSCov] The best MSS. have pa5tov ; if you will. But is this tolerable even but the |j.£V after aupoO appears to in common conversation, or is it the me conclusive in favour of the other slipshod talk of uneducated men ? Again reading. In the common text, we have we have another such pleasing negligence pqtSiou Ttocvu Tl vCv. in PeXr] EVepa xwv i'fJL^poa^ev Xoy^v. vvv 7cLp 8f| K. T. €.] But the enquiry IIws YoLp oi; ;] This is given in the is no more difficult now than at any Books as the answer to Socrates. But other time; whereas we want vOv with Ou>coOv -^pri is the answer, and 11 (Os cp. 8. "we must now begin a new ar- yap ou ; is Socrates' assent. Xpt^ is gument". Because the misplaced Tiavu the answer to Sstv . . TtopiUo'fjtiVOv . . Tt seemed an awkward desinence, some ^^stv, another proof of the spuriousness scribe brought the vOv into the first of aXXiQ; fXTiy^avi^?. sentence, and contrived xa\ as the be- 8icvXap€ie6v ellyofilv tvov to fiiv ocTreigov det^ai xiov ovTCov, TO di TTsgag; nPQ. ndvv fiev ovv. ^Q. TovTto drj rwv eldiov tcc dvo tL^wfied^a, id Si tglrov D i^ dfirpolv rovToiv ev tl ^Vf.if,aoy6(xevov. elfd d\ cog toiKev, syco yelolog rig [Jx]«yog, rd t eXdi] duordg %al ovvagid^fiov- fievog. npn. Tl cpiig, c5 "ya^e; ^Q. TexaQTOv fiioi yivovg av nqoadEiv, npn. Alye Tivog. ^n. Trig ^v(.i[.u^ecog rovtcov nqog ccXlr]la ttjv ahlav oQa, yial Ti&Bi (.101 TTQog rolg tqlgIv iKSivoig rivaqTOv tovto. npn. Mcov ovv ool ymI Tcef.i7iTov TtQOGderjaei didytQialv tiva, dvva^ievov; diretpov . . Tripas] It is evident that the Ucpac and otTceipov of 16, c, are dif- ferent from those now brought forward. In the former case they express the indefinite multitude of the individuals and the definite number of species ; in the latter, the unlimited nature of all quality and quantity in the abstract, and the definite proportions of the same in existing things. But in both cases we find that the effect of the rctpac is analogous ; that knowledge in dialectics and life in physics are the result of a certain limitation. ire'pas] Heindorf and Schleierraacher are by no means to be followed in reading -xipaq e'y^ov. As Bockh rightly observes in his Philolaus, the opposite power to the arttipov is not that which is limited, but that which limits. Un- less we keep ite'pac here clear from the proposed addition, and cancel £Yov in two subsequent places, we make non- sense of the whole disputation. TovTw 8-?! T»v elSoiv] I have adopted Stallbaum's emendation, which tlie con- text makes necessary. "Let us lay down these two, as two of the Classes required." But in the manifestly cor- rupt sentence which follows, something less weak and flat than yikoio^ Tt?, ov\ Ixavw? xar' d^t] S. is wanted. The Bodleian has Ixavbs to, t d'^Y). It is probable that in the archetypal MS. the text ran thus: rEAOTOC TICANOC, i.e. ytkoZoz xiq avipwTcO*;, and that some scribe thought that in ICANOC he saw Ixavo?. The other various reading ta x' appears decidedly preferable to xara, for he is endeavouring not to separate things according to their hinds, but to point out distinct kinds, and then to repeat the catalogue of them. On the whole there is little violence done to the oldest text, and nothing left unsaid or said improperly, in the reading : iloX S', w? e'otxsv, ^Y^ ytloioc: rts &v9pw- Tros, TO, T 6\!8t| S'.laTot? xal auvapi^. irpbs Tots rpio-Cv] See Addenda. M«v ovv] This question and the answer given to it are of importance, being introduced by Plato not only as an example of the care which is re- quisite in every dialectic process to leave no distinction unnoticed which may help towards a complete classifica- tion, but still more because it serves to bring out in its full significance the ahia. ttq? ^uji-jjii^eo);. Had this latter been a mere agent, one would expect the counter-agent to be also mentioned ; but Socrates observing in his ironical riAATONOS a>IAHB02. 29 ^i2. Tax" OLV ov firjV oi(,iai y" iv tio vvv. lav da tl Serj, ovyyvtoGei nov fioc ov fieTadii6/.ovTL {jc^itttov [ilov]. E nPn. Ti ^ir(v; ^Q. IIqcotov fiiv drj tvjv revTaQcov ra rqia SieXo^ievoi, tcc dvo Tomcov TieiQojf^ied^a, jtoXXa tyMxegov eoxiofihov /,al di€- OTtaGjiiavov Idovzeg, elg tv icdXiv exdreqov ovvayayovieg, voij- oac nfi jiozi ijV cwtcov tv /ml noXXd exdzegov. nPQ. Ei fiOL aa(pe'oT€QOv eTi negi avTwv eijtoig, xdyj cJy €7toijnrjv. ^Q. Aiyo) TOLvvv tcc Svo^ a TcgoTid^ei^iai, tout elvai mteq 24 vvv drjj TO f.dv ditSLQOV, to ds ^regag [I/oj^]. otl di tqotcov TLvd TO ccTceiQOV 7CoXXcc ioTij 7f€iQdG0f.iaL (fqd'QeLV* to de Tiiqcxg [Ix^v] rjficcg 7V€Qif.ieveTco, nPQ. Mevei. 2Q. ^/,6XpaL drj. yjaXBTCOV fiiv ydq yml diiKpiG^rjTr^aii^iov o y,eXevco Ge Gvioitelvj oficog Si g/mttsi, d^€Qf.iOT€Qov y,al ipvxQO- Tt'qov 7tlqi 7rqtoxov oqa 7veqag el' ttov tGTL vorJGaL, r) to fiaX- manner, 'that he does not think he shall xocvov are found in sensible objects, want any such,' prepares us to attach out of which we obtain by analysis the a higher importance to the a.lxlce. than qualities which in their own nature are to anything yet spoken of. Kor indeed More or Less, and the proportion which is there any eISd^ 8idy,p'.oL-i Ttva Suva- limits and confines them, ra Suo xo\>- }jL£vov. For these aTCS'.pa are represen- twv, if the reading is correct, must be ted as forced into this conjunction with taken to mean the first and second of the TzipoLi;, and kept so against their these Y''^''Q- ^^ shall find lower down will. So that dissolution is not an another striking instance of the cardinal act of the ixlxioi but a consequence and ordinal numbers being confused of its not acting. I have changed ti- through their being expressed by the vo? into TViCt, and further on, I have same compendia. itoXXa iaxtcixho-^ is followed all later editors in bracketing like jAspY) Siaipsfv Polit. 283, d, and [5tov, which is clearly out of place ; elsewhere. It is a variety of the ac- but it is probable that TieaTtTOv was cusative of eflFect, like uvj>Y]Xov otlpEiv, added at the same time; at all events ^pctjy ai»aT£XX£iv, a|j.ixpa xaraxoKTiiv it is needless and worthless. &c. TO, rpCa] More probably to TptTOV i.e. Trepas [^X°^]] '^^^^ expression both Y£vo? : for the process is not to take here, and two lines lower, is certainly three out of the four, and then two faulty. To Tzipaq l,')(^ov is that aTi:£ipov from those three ; nor would 8c£Xc'|i.£^oi which has ceased to be such by being be the right word in such a sense as submitted to the TTitpa; ; so that this separating, but a:toXa^cvT£g. Such a description belongs praperly to the third roundabout way of getting at the first yv^o^. two is evidently unmeaning; but we d ttov] fX irori ti voifjorais &v is are bidden to take the xo'.vc^ which the reading of all the MSS. , and is the third, and resolve it into its followed by, I believe, all editors, constituents, Tzipa^ and a7t£tpov. And Nothing can be more unsuitable than this is the simplest way of arriving at the use of the optative, or rather the those two : for the instances of the conditional, where all that the speaker 30 nAATQNOS tPIAHBOS. B Xov T£ y,al rjTzov ev avTo7g or/MvvTE , To7g yeveoiv, eioaneq av £voi/,rjroVj zeXog ovv. eTtiTQeiperov yiyvead^ar yevofitvrig yaQ te- XevTTJg yial avTco reTsXevTrj/MTOv. nPQ, ^^Xr^d^totaxa Isyeig. ^Q. ^el dt ye J q)a(.dv, tv te tio d^EQf.iO[tQoj -/.at tw ipv- XQOT£QCi) TO jLialloV TE YmI r]rTOV EVi, npn. Kal ^tdla. 2Q. ^u4eI tolvvv o Xoyog Gifif.iaivEi tovtco firj lelog Ix^iv avElrj d ovzE drjTtov TravTmcaaiv ajcEiqco yiyvEG&ov. nPQ, Kal afpodqa ye, w ^cmQaxEg, 2'i2. ^XX Ev y , 10 cpllE HqwraQXE, vneXaj^Egy y.al avEfivt]- C oag (.1 ovL xctl to ocpodqa Tov-d-^, o av vvv Eq)d^Ey^cOj xal to y* r^QEfia TTjv avTTjv duvafxiv e%etov tcJ) fiaXXov te yial Jjttov. otzov yaq av evijuov, ovx eazov eJvai nooov e/motov, aXX^ , cceI Gcpo- dgovEQOv fjOvxaiTEQOv xal TovvavTiov EKccOTaig Ttqa^EGiv ijii- TiOLOvvTEj TO jzXeov xal TO eXaTTOv ajiEQyaCEGd^ov, TO Se ttooov aipavitETOv. o yaq iXex^r] vvv drjy (.li] dq)aviaavTE to noaovy aXX EaoavTE avTO te %al to (.ietqiov ev tTj tov f.iaXXov vmI DfjTTOv [/yal] 0(p6dqa y.al r]Qii.ia eSqcc lyyEVEod^ai, amd eqqel TavTa EA, Trjg avTCov y^^qag ev fj Evrjv. ov ydq etl S^eq^wteqov ovde ipvxQOTEQOv eItt^v aVj Xa^ovvE to tvogov tcqoxcoqeI ydq intends is, "tell me if you can discern." are not to be taken with £v auTOt?, in The common copy from which our MSS. the kinds themselves, which would be are derived was probably made by a needlessly emphatical, but with xiXos scribe who had before him, EIIIOY oux ^TCitpe'l'STOv yiyno'liai, will not ECTl NOHCAI, and as the Y looked allow any bound to be Jixed to the Tcinds very like T (with which it is con- (hotter and colder), as long as they re- tinually confounded) he thought he saw side in them. IIOTE ; and out of HOTECTI he avT«] i.e., the More and the Less. made JIOTE TI. After this, voiQaai dv^|JLViia{TTf]v with av. A due considera- optative eI'ttqv which rests on I'ttqv in tion of etoaTtep av ^voutqiov would have Bodl. and ^anqv in Ven. is better than stopped the course of tliis corruption, tqottqv (Bekk. and Stallb.), which was olKovvTt] This is Stallbaum's correc- conjectured by the scribe of the Vat. tion for olxouv. The words Tor<; -^Vizavi MS., who could make nothing of foTtjv. nAAT42N02 tI»IAHB02. 31 xat ov f^iivBL TO T€ ^eQfiOTSQOv ael vmI to xpvxQOTSQOv waav- T(og, TO ds TToaov I'ottj vmI tiqo'lov tjiavoaro. y,aTd drj tov- rov Tov Xoyov aneigov ylyvoir av to ^eq(.i6t;eqov x«t rovvav- Tiov ajita. nPQ, OalvETai yovv, lo ^coyiQareg' I'gtl d\ OTreg elTteg, ov qadia xavra ^vveTteaOai. to di elg avd^lg ts ymI avd^ig Yaiog [XexdivTo] tov t^ eqcot(xjvtc( zal tov eqwtco/lievov rAavdig E av §vfi(fwvovvTag a7toq)i^v£LEv. ^Q. ]AXX^ ev {.lev XiyEig, y,al TVEiqaxEOv ovtoj tcoleIv vvv jiievToi ad^QEi Tr^g tov (xtteiqov (pvOEtog eI tovto dE^ofisd^a Gr^- fiiEloVyLva /va-iv] xal I'XaTTOv. Intensity of degi-ee is To set upon them the seal of some one meant in both instances, but the dis- nature, — i.e., by giving them a generic tinction is marked by the speaker him- name. We should have expected tou- self, when he adds to one tol? yi^tavi, TOi?, but where two regimens occur and to the other TctT? TtpaSeatv. In the together, as here auvayaYo'vTa? and im- first case the quality is looked upon as aTQii,a(v£a!3at, the ca^e of one or the a state; in the second, as an immediate other is suppressed. See Porsou on effect. Tc TCoaov is the limit of the Medea v. 734. 32 nAATON02 *PIAHB02. _ loov TO diTiXdoLOv xal tzccv o tI ttbq av Ttgog ocQid^indv agid- B fiog Tj (.itXQOv ji TtQog fnizQOv, ravra ^vfHTiavra elg ro Ttiqctg ajcoXoyLCof-ievoi "/.aliog av do/,o7f.iev dqav touto; rj niog av (pfjg; nP£2. KdlXiGTa y', co ^coyiQaveg. ^i2. Eiev. TO Si tqIzov to (.av.Tov e% tovtolv df-icpolv Tiva Idmv cpTjOOfisv eyuv; nP£2. J^v y,al i/iiol cpqaoeig, log oljiiai. JS'Ii. 0€og fiiv ovVj (XV ntq /' ifialg evyaXg ejirfA^oog ylyviq- Tai Tig d^Eiov. nPQ. Evyov drj y,al gaotiei. 2£2. ^xoTTio, /.ai f.ioi doy.el Tig, w JlQcoTaQxe, avTcov epilog fjl.uv vvv drj yeyovhai. C nPQ. Tlwg leysig tovto; Kal tivl TSiii^irjQLq) yqfj; 2 £2. Oqdoo) drjlov on, ov di {.loi ovva%o'kov&r]Oov t(^ Uyip. UPQ, AtyE fiovov, 2Q. QEQf-ioTEQOv ECpd^Eyy6(.iEd^a vvv di] jiov ti xa^ tpvxQO- TEQOV, rj ydq; npn. Nai. 2Q. TlQoo^Eg drj ^tjqoteqov xal vyqoTEQOV avTolg, ytat rcXeov Y.(xi I'laTTOVj y,c(l S^uttov Kal ^qadvTEQOv, %at fislKov y,al 0{.u~ 'AQOTEQOVj Y,al O^TOOa EV T(0 TTQOOd^EV TTjg TO {.laXXoV TS "Aul TjT- Tov dEyofiavrjg Evid^E(.iEv [Elg ev'] (puaEcog, D nPQ, Tijg TOV djtEiQOv leyEtg; 2Q. NaL ovjuf-ilyvv Si yE Elg avTtjv to fiETcc Tama tjjv av TOV TvegaTog yavvav, npn. nolav; 2Q. ^Hv v.al vvv drj, deov rj(.iag, Kad^aTtEQ ttjv tov dnEiQOv Gvvrjydyoi.iEv Elg ev, ovtco %ai ttjv tov TCEqaTOEidovg Gvvaya- KoX irav (J rL ircp k. t. I.] That is atw? is unexampled and inconceivable, the triple, the quadruple, the third, the Here again we have a specimen of fourth, and so on with all multiples that officious interference which has and all measures, whether in numbers ruined so many texts. or magnitudes. yiwo.v] Not ^Jiniti genus' (Stallb.), [tls iv]] TtSs'vat £?; ev "to place in a a misconception which has led to a genus" is correct, and so likewise is wrong view of the whole passage, but TtS^vat Tt Ttvo? 9\ja£a)?, "to declare the whole race or family^ ra Se^oVeva anything as belonging to a certain na- to TCe'pa^. See the following notes, ture." But xCii^ai Tt d<; ev Ttvo? ^u- nAATQNOS rAHBo:2. IIPQ. Ilolav /.at niog Xeyeig; ^D. Tr^v Tov Yoov %al SiTrXaau E alXr.Xa ravavTia SiacfOQCog l^ovTa, Gv(.if.ieTQa de xal ouucpcova, evd^eloa ccQi^ftov, ajteQyccKsTai. {tovtcov d^ ccf^icpoTeqcov ovva- yofi^vcov y.aTacpavr^g xaxelvr] yev/jGeTai.) nPQ. Mavd^dvw (paivei yaq fioi Xeyeiv, (.iiyvvoi ravva, yevioeig rivag acp^ k/MOrcov avfi^aivsiv. ^n. ^OgO^iog yag qjalvofiai, nPQ. Aiye roLvvv. 2Q, ^Q ovx €v (.LEV voaoig *** rj tovtcov oq&tj ytoivtovla Ttjv vyieiag (pvaiv eyivvrjoev; 26 nPQ. JJavTanaGL (niv ovv. ^Q. ^Ev d^ o^el YML paqei Kal Taxsl '/al ^qadei, aitEigoig Ti\v rov icrov] Socrates describes the the Ttepa? and ocTitipov, as Stallbaura Tiipcuc family as, tchatever puts an end supposes, for how can they be said to to the contradiction m Opposites. For be ^v toi? a:t£tpotc ,or izipoic aTtipya- every Indefinite has two opposite ex- aaatrat? On the other hand, we can tremes, [jLaXXov xa\ ifxtov, whicli being say with perfect propriety that each unlimited, and having no proportion in limitative agent produces a Limit." When themselves, would be in continual con- I wrote the above, if any one had tradiction, if they were not tempered asked me why these Limits were not and harmonized by the agencies belong- mentioned by name, I could not have ing to the class of Tzipaq, which effects answered him. But I now see by other this end by introducing in each case a certain signs that this defect is charge- suitable number or basis of proportion, able upon our present text, which is He does not say rhv apiSijLov, for he is very different from that of Plato. When speaking of particulars. This doctrine Schleiermacher met with xauxa iyyiy'io- of the power of Number as the ground fxsva xauxa in the very next sentence, both of things in themselves, and of he was surprised that it was not rather our perception of them, is the chief auxif) iyyl^^'^olxv^rl, (sc. xo'.vwvia) and characteristic of the Pythagorean School, proposed a transposition, which would from whom it was adopted by the not have mended matters; for the pre- semi-Pythagorean Epicharmus. Bockh vious xouxwv was still to be accounted has an ingenious remark that this basis for. But no one seems to have stumbled of the Doric Philosophy stands half at the worst difficulty; namely that in way between the material groundwork ^Ap' oux h [Jilv vdaoic? followed by of the Ionic School, and the intellectual 'Ev 8' oHeC xa\ (iapei, x. x. e. , we principle of the Attic. See Extracts have a most ludicrous attempt at anti- from the "Philolaus" in the Appendix, thesis. The same remedy will allay |iiYvOo-i ravra] The MSS. and Edd. both this perplexity, and that caused have ixiy'i^z, an anacolouthon, where by touxwv. There is a lacuna in the such a figure is a capricious violation text, where I have indicated one. This of grammar, serving no purpose of the reader can fill up for himself; but clearness or emphasis. I have there- the substance of his supplement must fore adopted the correction proposed be as follows : £v [Jilv vo'ao^? (xo ^£p- by Klitsch. jjiov xa\ xo v];ux.pcv, xa\ to uypcv xal vdcrois] "The indefinite extremes of xo HiQpov £v aXXir^Xotc axaaia^exov, xo hot and cold, moist and dry, &c. 8k Tiaoov xa\ xo |JL£xp'-OV oxav iyyi^ri- xouxwv and xauxa xauxa are the y^vva xai,) -q xou'xwv o'pSiQ xotvwvfa x. x. i. xou TC^paxo?, instances of the Limits not nAATONOS tpIAHBO^. 35 ovoiv, ag* ov ramd syyiyvofievcc ravS^ af^ia fcagag r' ajreigyd- Gato, %al fiovar/irjv ^v{.L7Taoav f reXeiitTaTa. ^vveaTr^aaTo; JIPQ. Mdhovd ye. 2Q. Kal fiirjv IV ye %eLf,i(jjGL xal TtvlyeGiv ayyevofieva to f^iev Tcokv Xlav "/.al drteiqov dg)elleTO , to d^ Ef^iiieTqov y,al at.ia GvfijiieTQOv ccTteigyccGaTO. nPn. Ti firjv; 2Q. Ov'AOvv Ia tovt(x)v coqal Te ytal oGa ''/,aXd navd^ r^f^ilv B yiyove^ tcov t^ aTveiQiov 7,al tcov Trsqag e%6vtcov Gv(.ii.axd^evviov ; nPn. nwg d' ov; 2Q. Kal dXXa drj fivgl^ STtiXeiTtco Xiycov, oiov f.ied^ vyieiag '/.dXXog 'Aal iGyvv^ xal ev ipvxa7g av TcdfiTToXXa eceqa yml 7T(xyy,aXa. v^qlv ydq nov zcf2 ^vfiTtaGav jtavTCov Tcovr^qiav aiTt] xaTidovGa tj Grj S^eog, w %aXs 0[Xr]^e, Ttegag e%6vT(ov ovd^^ |v(i.Trao-av TcXtwraTa] I do not pro- fess to understand the force of either of these words. The first seems false in fact; for altliough all music arises from this source, each several com- bination does not produce all music. And again why |vjj.n:aaav, not aTtaaav? There is one use of ^ufXTiac which we often meet with in Plato ; where, after speaking of a subordinate genus, he passes to a more comprehensive one: as for instance he would say ttqv tax- TtxTQv xa\ Tirv atpaTifjY'.xiqv ^u'tjiTcaffctv. (Compare below, O'jBptv xal £. tcovtq- p(av.) As for XtXewTata, that will sure- ly depend on the purity of the medium and the variety of the Tcoaa. But this attempering of flat and sharp, and swift and slow, produces effects on recitation also, and on movement. The one good quality of all these is XeioTTf);; and I venture to suggest, xal [jLouatxiQV Hufj.- uaaav xe Xs'.oTTfjTa. MdXtcTTtt -yt] The best authenticated reading is KaXXicJTa; but the continual confusion of the two words is known to all who are familiar with palaeo- graphy, and there cannot be a doubt which of the two is most appropriate here. In Phccdr. 263 c, for xaXov yoOv av, we must read fxaXXov yo^* a^*- A few pages further on, the Vatican MS. has xaXXtara for (xaXiata, where the latter is obviously right. TCOV ircpas Ixovtwv is correct : the par- ticular proportions belong to the Tte'pa?. Elsewhere they are called uepotTOSiSiQ. vPpiv ^dp irov] There seems no oc- casion for Tiou : it is not improbable that Plato wrote: yap Trorc. T) cri^ Beds] The notion that -q j£o? is a personification of the third ye'vo; as op^TQ xotvwvta is sufficiently refuted by the appeal to Philebus, which could only be made because his goddess was in question. It is so probable that ai^ was lost in consequence of its nearness to t], and it seems so necessary for the sense, that I have restored it con- jecturally. ircpas i\6vTrjg avTTjV, eyto di rov- vavTiov ccjioocooai leyo). ool cJ', to IlQCOTaQxe, 7twg cpaivexai; IIPQ. Kal f^idXa, to ^co/qateg, ^loiye yiara vovv. 2Q. Ovyiovv Tcc (.lev drj zqia ravT^ el'grjKa , el ^vvvoelg. IIPQ. i^lV olfiai xaTavoelv ev f.iev yaq (.lol doxelg to aireiQov Xeyeiv, gV de y,al SevTeqav to neqag ev Tolg ovoi ' tql- Tov d^ ov ocpodqa yiaTexco tl ^ovXeu cpgdCeiv. 2Q. To yccQ nXrp^og oe, w d-avf.idoLE, e^eTrlr^^e Trjg tov D TQiTov yevvrjg. ytal toi jcoVkd ye y.al to aiveiQOv naqlaxeTO [yevrj], Of.uog d^ eitiacpQayLGd^evTa tm tov (lalXov Kal evavTiov yevei tV etpdvr]. riPn. '^lr]^rj, 2Q. Kal (irjv to ye neqag f ome noXkd ei%ev^ ovt" Mvoym- laivo^iev wg ovVy rjv ev cpvoei. nPQ, Ilwg yccQ av; 2£2. Ovdafiaig. dlXd tqItov q)d&L /.le leyeiv, ev tovto tl- ^evTa, TO TovTwv e^yovov dnav, yeveoiv [elg^ ovo[i\av £z tcjv jHETa TOV TtegaTog aTteLqyao^ievoJv (leTQCov. not belong, after the second Tzipon; in- always in the very same acceptation, stead of the first. [Y^vt]]] This supplement, which 1 have diroKvaiT£, and oUTOt 18- for out' i^. cidisse.' The sense is, and you say yiviIAHB02. 30 ^Q. 0£Qe dt], TO (.lETa zov&^ rjf^uv rig b loyog; yml tI 7C0XE ^ovhjdevzeg elg xam^ dcpr/Mf^ied-cc ; ag^ ov zod^ rjv; dev- reqeia eLriTOV[.iev tcoteqov Tidoviqg ylyvoiT \av\ 5) cpgovrjoecog. OVX OUTlOg TjV; IIPQ, OvTto fiev olv, 2£2. ^^^ ovv vvv, STieidrj zavd-^ ovtco dieilofieO^aj xdlhov av xal TTjv xQiOLV S7rireleaaif.ieda tiqcovov TceQi /ml devraQOv, 7ieqI cov drj TO jrquizov rj(^icpio^rjTrjaaf.i€v ; nPQ. "loiog. D 3i2. ^'I^i drj, vr/icovTa f.iev f-&e(.dv itov zov (.llatov ^lov f]6ovrjg T€ VMi (pQOvrjGEMg. rjv ovxwg; npn. ^Hv. ^£2. Ouytovv zomov f.iev rov ^lov bgw/niv jtov Tig ri Igti Kal OTioiov yevovg. nPQ. Ilcog yccQ ou; ^Q. Kal liieQog y amov cfrjaof-iev eivat tov tqltov, oifiai^ ytvovg. ov ydq dvoXv tlvoIv egtI fuytTov e^elvo, dXld ^viuidv- Tcov Tiov dneiqwv vjro tov TtegaTog dedefiivcov, wot ogdcog o vcArjcpoQog ovrog ^iog {.leqog eyislvov ylyvoiT dv. IIP£2. ^Og&oTaTa /nev ovv. 2Q. Elev, TL d^ aog, w Oilrj^Sj rjdvg y.al ccfiiyiTog aiv; E iv Tivi yevEt tcov ElgrjiitEvcov XEyofiEvog ogS^iog dv jzote XeyoLTO; ojds d^ dTtov.QLvai f.ioL ttqIv dfiocprjvaGd^ai. yCyvoir'] As the direct question is proved.' The answer to this objection not, "to whom icould the second prize is, that the fourfold division professes belong" but, "to whom does it," (tc6- to be exhaustive ; there are no other Tipov '/^^oviQi; Yi"yv€Tai tq 9povTf)a£(«);;) elements in any mixed thing, than tliese the dependent question should take the two: consequently, if any thing is found optative without av. I have accordingly mixed, we may at once conclude that expelled av, invitis codicihus. it is compounded of a:t£ipov and TTcpa?. (xiKTOV eK€LVo] As the whole y^vo; is But later on, though we learn that meant, of which the ^co? is a part, it tJSovt] is of the aTtstpa, voO^ is declared is plain that the common reading, [X'.x- to be of close kin to atxta, the fourth Tcc fKiivoc, is a blunder of the copyist. Class. To this apparent contradiction The correction was long ago proposed I make answer that voij? has more than by Schutz. It may be objected: 'If all one relation to rd -{V^'^6\Ll'^iX' In that mixtures belong to the xotvov yi'JO^, it blends with the qualities of matter, of course the fxtxTo? ^(o; does so: but, and appears as consciousness, it is kI- as Socrates has only shewn that the xot,- pa? ; in that it controls and adapts vov Y^vo; contains all mixtures^of a par- matter to its ends, it appears as aocpioi, ticular kind, namely Twv ocTCSipwv u:^o and as such resembles the ffocpia of the voO TtepaTo; SeSsfi-Svcov, unless he can Universal vou? , which is ahia. This first shew that this [iio? is compounded remark will prepare the reader for the of aTC£tpov and iiepa?, his case is not next turn in the dialogue. 40 nAATi2N02 i\t]P€] The accidental omission of the twofold conclusion that pleasure these words in the Bodleian, has sup- and pain are in their own nature plied Stallbaum with another confirma- without limit, and that this want of a tion of his strange theory that the limit, since it admits pain as well as better MSS. have undergone the re- plcasure, the supposed evil as well as vision of fastidious critics. Fastidious the supposed good, cannot be that in critics in the eleventh century must which the good of pleasure consists, have been i-arce aves. IJAATQNOS tPlAHBOS. 41 nPQ. Tlavv ye ' vvv /.avtoi o%Edbv aTtogw, xcft dlo^iai y , c3 -S'cJ/.^arcg, avzov as fjjiuv yevio&m 7tQ0(prjTr]v , \jva] (.irj di] 7j(.i€7g ooi Tteql tov ccywvLaTTjv e^af^iaQTccvovteg Ttaqd fislog (pd^ey^wfxed^a. tl, 2Q, Ileioreovj lo IlQioTaQxe' ovde yag %aXe7tbv ovdev erci- C TccTTeig, all^ ovrcog oe iycoj Actd^aTceq eJjte (Di'lri^og^ aefxvv- vo)v [ev r^ naiQetv] sd-OQv^rjocc y vovv ytal STtiaTi^i^irjv eQa/^ievog OTioiov yevovg elev, nP^. navTajvaai /', lo JSwx^azr«g. <2'i2. ^uilla i^iTjv qadiov, jtavveg yccQ av[.i(pcovovaiv ol ao- q)oij eavrovg ovuog oeiiivvvovreg j cog vovg eovl ^aailevg fj/^uv ovgavov ze Kal yrjg. Kal ]!acog ev "key ova i, did f^ia'AQoregcov 6 , el ^ovXei, TTjv oytiijJiv avrov tov yevovg 7toirjat6(.ie&a. nPQ. yLey oitcog ^ovleij firjdiv (iirJKog rii.uv virokoyito- D l^tevogy 10 ^coKQctTeg, cog ovt, a7texS^r]o6fievog. 2Q, KalcJog eliteg. dQ^c6f.ied^a Si ncog coS^ STtaveQCOzcovTeg. UPn. ncog; 2Q. Iloregovy c5 UQcoraQx^j "^d ^vf.i7tavTa %al rode to Y.ciXov(.ievov olov eTtirgoTteveiv (pcofiev ttjv tov dloyov yial elnfj dvvajiuv yial to ottj^ eTv%ev' ?) TdvavTta, nad^aTteg ol Ttgood^ev r](^(x)v eleyov, vovv yicxl cpgovrjoiv tlvcx d^av(.iaGTrjv awTaTTOvaccv diaKv^egvav ; nP^, Ovdev Twv avrcovy c3 d-avf-idaie 2co'A,gciveg y o f.iev E [I'va] )jLf| 8f| . . . v avrwv] When Socrates TiiKKTriov K. T. €.] The connection of offers to Protarchus the alternative be- the clauses is this. "You thought it lief either in capricious and hap-hazard difficult, because I frightened you." — power, and mere accident, as that which "You certainly did." — "Nay but it is has the universe in its keeping, or in easy." I have therefore removed the sign mind and marvellous intelligence, as 42 IIAATUNOS <1>1AHB02. ev ccQxfj Gv vvv dtj eleyegy ovd^ ooiov eival (.lot (faivErai' to de vovv TcdvTa dLay.oG(.ieiv ama cpavai ymI rr^g oipecog zov 7.6- Ofxov YMi rjkiov Aal oeXi^vrjg ymI aoctgcov Kal Ttaor^g ryg tveql- (fOQCcg a^iovj z«t ova allcog sywy^ av tcotb neql avziov ei7toLf.a ovS^ av 6o^aGaLf.u. 2£2, Bovlu diji^ tci yial rif.ieig tolg t(.ucQOod^Ev [ofiolo- 29 yovfievov] ^vi.icpo)f.ieVj cog xavO^ ovTcog Ijet, yml f.ir] f.wvov oho- f.ieda deiv tuXkoxqia avev Ydvdvvov XeyetVy alia Yal ovyuv- dvveviof.i£v Yal fieztxcofiev rov ipoyovj oxav avrjQ deivog cpfj ravta l^irj ovxiog all^ axaATcog Ixelv; IIP^, JJcog yaQ ovy, av (Jovial i.ir]v ; that which arranges and reguhites it, we expect Protarchus to reject the former, and approve the latter supposition. Now OuSsv Twv auT(j)V is a most complete rejection, and so is oud' oat,ov £lva( jjiot, 9aLV£T7i; but there is in the received text a fatal want of distinctness as to vhat he rejects; for OJ^kv tcov auTCOV is left by itself, and otj8' o'aiov is pre- dicated of . . OTJ . . Xsysc?. This shews that the copyists cannot have done their duty. The difference of the read- ings is remarkable. Bodl. c (J.£v yap ou vOv Stq X^yzt?: Coisl. o ,u.b yap o\> vuv Xiy£'.;: Eusebius, o fXiV yap 8tq ou Xsyet?. It will be seen that they all three concur in |i.£v yap, which is the source of all the difficulty. But Euse- bius' MEN FA PAH I take to have been the first deflection from the true read- ing MENENAPXHt, and the vGv 6t, of the best MS. will justify the change of Xe'yei? into I'Xsyii;. Ou6kv tuv au- Tcov is properly. Nothing like, and is so used by Isocrates. 270 init. (Steph.) 277 med. 279 med. 241 extr..(Tt twv tt'jTwv) and v:zp\ 'Avt. p. 302. Lips. 1825. We may here render it by Nothing of the kind, or Nothing like the fact. BovXei 8t]t 2ti Kal t|}ius] Do you loish, then, tliat ice also should agree in affirmiug that v;hich is professed by the ancients before mentioned t I have changed Siqra ti into 6iqt' ?Tt; u, which the inferior MSS. omit, is quite foreign to the sentence, while izi xa\ in this sense is of continual occurrence in Plato and other writers. [6|xoXoyov|X€Vov]] The MSS. generally agree in this reading. Schleiermacher reads cfJt.oXoyoujJ.Eva, some worthless copies o,aoXoyou,u.i'vo'.;. But if we ad- opt -ijLiva or -tjLivov, we must have the article, and the perfect is more correct, as Theodoret quotes it, wjjLoXoyY^jXiVOi;: and lastly, whether Anaxagoras be meant, or, as 1 suspect, some older seer or poet, it is not proper to speak of the first expounders of a dogma as oixdXo- yoOvia;. Some one may propose o.ao- Aoyo\jii.£voi, agreeing with, but this is said of things that agree, not of per- sons. It is wonderful that no one has seen that ^ujji^TQ.at. is followed by a dative in its own right, and that o|j.o- Xoyitv, in whatever form you use it, introduces either a tautology or a red- undancy. ^vfjL<{)w]jL€v] MSS. give ^ujJLCpr^atoatv. It is true we have ^\)ui(!p-t\az [Ao'yi;, Rep. 242, K, and in Sophist. 236, d, Ttpc? TO Tax_u ^u}j.9-iQaai — but as to the first ex- ample, we have ^uve'cpY) both preceding and following it, and as to the second, the whole clause is an interpolation. In Timceus 72, D, ^ufACpTQaavTO? may be de- fended on the ground that tlie God does not simply assent to their doctrine, but reasserts it with higher authority. Where assertion is intended, we find the form i'cpYjaa, so that practically it is an aorist of cpaaxto, but for this very reason S'J|j.q>Tf),at. would seldom want any such inflexion. ^ufJicpwiJiiV in this place is to be looked upon as a present tense, like o?cojJ.£^a, |uyxtv5u- VSUWJXSV, JJLiTcXW.USV. rdWoTpia Avtv kivSvvov Xcytiv] This is evidently a proverbial phrase, slight- ly changed, probably from l'/£tv. nAATi2N02 4iIAHB02. 43 2Q, ^'idc dfjj tov €7ti6vTa Tieql roviiov vvv r]f.iiv Xoyov UPQ. AiyB (.lovov. ^n, Td TIEqI Tt)v TtOV GCOf.l(XTa)V (pvOLV CCTtaVTlOV twv tcowVj TtvQ xal vdcoQ '/Ml Ttvev/iia, yLad^oQto(.dv Ttov, y,al ytjv, yiad^djCEQ B 01 x€IAHB02. nPQ. TovTO (.lev ovd^ ccTToy^QiGecog a'^iov sgiot^g. D — i2. Ogdcog' xama ya^ ^QS^S, olf-iai, jreql te [rr^g ev rolg tvjoigl yrig rrjg ivO^dde ymI Trjg ev ruj navvi' /mI raiv allcov -fdrj Tidvxiov oocov iiQcoTr^aa oUyov ejUJtQOO^ev, ovrcog ajroyiQivel. IJPQ. Tig yag a7ro/tQLv6f.i6vog cclliog vyiaiviov av note (paveli] ; 2Q. ^xedov ovd' ooriadvv. aXla roj (.leta rovd-^ e^rjg ejiov. TTCLvra yaq i]jiielg ravTa za vvv drj lexd-evz^ ag^ om elg ev Gvyyieif.ieva Idovteg eTC(jDVO(.i(xGa(.iev Gcojiia; nPn. Tl firjv; E 2Q. TaiTov dr] Xa(ie ymI jteql rovd^ ov %6o(iov keyo/iiev. Id id] Tov avTov ydq tqotvov av etr] jtov aco(.ia, ovvd^etov ov ev. Tvjv avvtov, nPQ. ^Oq^oxara leyeig. JSQ. HoTEQOv ovv e/i zovTOv TOV ocojLiarog oliog to itag^ rif.iiv awfia, 7] eK tov rcaq^ rjjiuv tovto, TQecpeval tb %al, oGa vvv Srj Ijieql avTcov^ eXno^iev, eYliqcpa tb ytal Igxbl; nPQ, Kal Tovd-^ eTEQOVy co JS'cJ/^areg, om a^cov egcj- TrjGsiog. ^0 2Q. Tl de; toS^ ag* a^iov; rj rcC^g egelg; nPQ. yteye to jtoiov, 2Q. To nag rjf.iiv Gcdf.ia ag^ ov ipvxrjv cpr^Go^iev ex^tv; nP£2, JrjXov OTL (prjGOfiev. 2n, n6^Ev, CO (piXe IlgcoTagxs, Xa^oVy eineg firj to ye To'h *0p9ws] Compare inf. 53, A. In in- well as unsuited to rpoTTOv. We should stances of this kind, we must not take rather have expected xata tov auTov this word as merely expressive of as- X670V, but tov auTov Tpo'rcov expresses sent, but rather of satisfaction that the nearly the same thing. The copyist argument is advancing as was intended, was perhaps thinking of 6ta TiQv auTr.v This will justify the use of yap in the a?Tiav. next clause. — The designations ri)^ £v 8IAHB02. 45 Tvavrog awfia l'(.i\pvxov ov 8Tcy%ave^ vavTa 'f tyov tovtoj '/.al en Tcdvurj v.a'kXiova; nPQ. Jrjkov tog ovdafiodev alXod^ev, lo 2io'/,QaTeg. 2Q. Ov yccQ rcov dovMvf.ttv y^, c5 IlQcoTaQxe, %a TtTxaq £/,eiva, jTVtQag yml aneiQOv %ai %olvov ^^ yml to rrjg aaiag ytvog, £v anaOL tItcxqtov evov, tovt ev fiev lolg 7raQ fjfuv [ipvxrjV B T€ Tiaqexov] /mI ocofiaOMav ef-iTCOiovv -/.at TtralaavTog oiofiaTog what else could have given us oui- souls?" and "The Universe has a soul, because it has all that we have in greater perfection". But the latter alone is intended. "If ice have a soul, the Universe which has all that we have &c. must likewise have one". TcavxY) refers to quantity, purity, intensity &c. mentioned above. Ov -ydp iron] The subject of irzixa- Xtia^Oii is evidently Cause. But if so, there is no predicate to T£TTapa cxsfvot. To remedy this, some propose to read ovTtt before T£TTapa; but neither Gram- mar nor Logic alloM's such a contrivance. Not Grammar, because if Plato had intended the clause to be taken ab- solutely, he would certainly have written ovTWV T(ov TETTapwv. Nor Logic, for if we were to take it thus; "Seeing that these four are" — we should im- mediately ask "are where" ? If iKxp' TJjjLiv, that could not be omitted. If every where, that is as yet unproved, nay the very thing to be proved, for in the next sentence of Socrates the conclusion is stated w? ^artv a:tetpov TE €v Tiu iravrl x. x. £. There can be no doubt that the four yi'^^(] ought to be mentioned, else how can he make any conclusion about them? So that the words xa x. tX£tva are not an in- terpolation. On the other hand we know that there is an hiatus in the best MS., for it omits Ttipa;, and though the others have it, it is just as likely that in these it was supplied by con- jecture. But the hiatus may have been far greater than that of one word. My impression is that the text in this place was in a very bad condition even in remote times, and that all which inter- vened between ^xeiva and xal xd xfj? a?x(a; yho^ was unreadable. The place was then filled up pretty nearly as we find it. But not correctly : for the enumeration of these y^'^^ without an article is in itself most unlikely, and if xotvov had been mentioned here, it is scarcely credible that Protarchus should so very soon afterwards beg to be reminded what xo'.vdv meant. I be- lieve that a more probable mode of filling up the gap would be in this fashion : xa xexxapa ^xetva £v xot? icap' iQ.uCv ixo'ioiq elvat, xa\ x6 xt]5 a?xta? yevo?, £v aTtaat xexapxov £vov, xoux' £v [xlv xof; Ttap' Tq|a.rv x. x. k. [\fvyjr\v T6 irape'xov]] He argues that ahioL here below enjoys many and va- rious appellations of aou- )(^Tfjv xe Tcape'x^ov he killed all the sense of the passage. The application of these facts concerning human skill to a higher skill must be carefully noted. He does not say "there must be some other higher effects elsewhere" ; but "we know of certain effects; we know that there is a 9uot<; x(ov xaXXtaxwv xal xt- (jLtwxaxwv (i.e. the planets and the whole Heavens) and this must be an 4G HAATONOS tPTAHBOS. lazQix/jV, /.at h aXloig alia ovvxidh ymI a/Mv/iievov, naaav ymI TTCiVTotav aocplav tTrr/^aXEiGdai' rCov d^ avrcov tovtcov ovnov fv ohi) T£ oiqavu) yial '/.avd f^ieydXa fiegrj, /.at nQOGtTL vmIlov ymI elXiYQivioVj ev tovvoiq d^ ovy, aqa i.ie(.iri%avr^oi>ai ttjv tcov ymX- XlOTCOV Yal TLjtnCOTCCTCOV CpVGLV. C JIF^. ^^XV ovdaf^iwg lomo y" av Xoyov t'xoL. ^Q. Ov'Aovv [si (.17] Tovto,'] (.iST^ EY^ehov Tov Xoyov av eno- (.levoi ^tXxLOv XsyoLf-ieVj cog I'gtiv, a TvoXXccYug elgi^Kaftev, ccttel- Qov T iv TO) jtavvl noXv, Yal jteqag r/iav6v, Yai tig ett av~ To7g aiTia ov cpavXrj, ymg^iovgcx te yml GwrdtTOvGa eviavTovg T€ YMI WQag YML firjvag, Gocpia ymi vovg Xeyofiivr] SiKaioTaT^ av. IIPQ, JiYMiozaTa drjta. 2n. Gocpia f.ir^v Y.al vovg avev 'ijJvxrjg ovy, av tcote ye- VOlGd^l]V. nPQ. Ov ydq ovv. J) 3i2. OVYMVV 8V (LEV TTJ %0V AiOg EQS7g (fVG£L ^aGiXiY.rjv (.lEV ij-'ixrjv, l^aGiXcAov Si vovv EyylyvsGd-ai Sid vrjv rtjg aizlag Svvafiiv, Ev S" aXXoig aXXa YMXdj xa^^ o q^lXov ExaGtoig Xe- ysGOai. nPn. MdXa ye. ^£2. Tovrov Srj tov Xoyov rj^iag (.irj xi fudzriv So^rjg^ w JjQWTaQXSj elQ7]/Jvai, dXl" egtl rolg f.iEV TrdXai d7T0Cft]vafXEV0ig cog del tov TtavTog vovg aQ%ei, ^vf.i(iaxog sYslvoig. efcct of this same alxiOL operating in in the Timaeus we are told of a §tq- a higher i|>uyr}." Ast's Lexicon will {jLioupyo? xa\ ^taxiQp by whorh Jove and give the student sevei'al examples of all other Deities were made. He too apa in this kind of reasoning, where is not independent of alxla., for the we would show the absurdity of deny- a?T(a is given which caused him to ing in one case, what has been ad- make the world, namely that he was mitted in another less evident case, good, and since in that which is good I should prefer ^v oXw T2 tw oupavw. there is no grudge, he begrudged not [tl [i'?! TovTo]] These words are out the world its being, but would have of construction, and redundant. Let all things like himself. Thus the First them be restored to the margin, or, Cause is The Good, but the ST)(j.ioupYo? better still, be forgotten. In this sen- does not owe his being to TocyaiJcv = tence the reader will perceive the play- olItIol ; but through its presence in him ful way in which ocTiEipov is called he becomes the author of all things, TZOAU, and Tie'pa<; Ixavo'v, and alxlix ou including the Gods. Jove himself ap- cpauXif] , and will be able to judge of pears among these divine beings whom the worth of Winckelmann's conjecture, he addresses thus : 0£o{, oawv iyOi ^r\- when he proposes to foist xoivov without fxioupyc? TtaxTfjp T£ I'pYwv, are 6t' i\xo\i an epithet into the text. "^tHQikf^oi , aXura i\xoyJ y' ^^e'Xovto; — Albs] Then Jove is subordinate to for so the passage ought to be read. aJna. This looks like Pantheism, but Tim. 41, a. nAATQN02 ^lAHBOS. 47 nPn. ^'Egtl yaq ovv. ^Q. Tfj df: /' if^ifj Lr^T/^aei jreTTOQty.cog ccTioytQiGiv, on vovg fOrl •fyevovGTi^g tov ttccvtcov cutiov lexdevTog. [rcov TeTTCcQCOv E ijv 7j(.uv tv TOVTO.'] txeig yaq Srjirov vvv 7]t.iu)v rfiiq t^Jv ano- /.QLGIV. nPQ. ^'Eyto vmI jiiaV r/,avcog' /ml toi fiie a-rroyiQivd/iievog lladeg. ^£2. *^vd7TavXa yccQ, co TlQiovciQye, irjg GTVOvdrjg ylyverca evtod^ rj Ttaidid. IIPQ. KaXcog elneg. 2Q. Novg drj Ttovj w frmge, oh jiiav yevovg sgtI xal riva^l TTOTS dvvaf.iiv yJ/.Trjrai, Gxedov ijneiAcog fifuv xd vvv SeSrjXcoTaL. nPQ. Jidvv fisv ovv. ^£2. Kal fiirjv rjdovrjg y^ coGavTCog TtdXai to yivog ecpdvi]. nPn. Kal fidla. ^Q. M€fivcoi.iEda drj /ml Tcdxa jtegl df^icpolv^ on vovg f.iev an: lag tjv ^vyyevr^g y,al tovtov Gyedov tov yevovg, i^dovij d^ ajrei- qdg r' amri yml tov i^it^t ' dgyj^v f^irjTe f,ieGa f.ir(iE Telog sv mvTO) d(p^ kavTov exovTog f^ivjd^ a^ovTog ttote yevovg, nPQ. Mej^ivrjGOfisda' niog yaQ ov; B 2Q. Jel drj to jusTa tovto, iv to t^ sgtiv eyiaTBQOv avTolv, y,al did tL jidd^og yiyveGdov, onoTav yiyvr]Gd-ov j Idelv rj(.idg' 7iQO)Tov TT^v rjSov^v cogticq TO ytvog avTrjg tcqotsqov e^aoavi- Gafiev, ovTCO %al TavTa jcqoTeqa. 'kv7tv^g d^ av x^^Q^S ^^]v rjSo- vrjv otz dv note dvvaif.ied^ r/Mvwg ^aGavLGai. UPQ. ^IV el TavTif] XQ^j noqeveGd^ai , TavTTj noqevio- f.ie&a. ■yevovo-Tiis] This word is quoted from l'x.£ic Yap ought to follow immediately this passage by the lexicographers. It upon the statement of the aTtoxpia-.c, in is not formed according to analogy, place of being separated from it by and oflfers no meaning but what ys''- this reference, which is itself quite su- VTJTif)c would have supplied. It may perfluous. have arisen from a dittographia, yi- ravra irpdrtpa] Namely, ichere it is vouc , Y^'^'^^'^'^n?' — I ^"^6 thought that to be found existing^ and hoio it arises. Stallbaum's conjecture, when he put a Henceforth, pleasure is no longer con- stop after Xzf)3Vi~oz and supnlied 6s sidered as an abstraction, and belonging after T£TTapwv, was undoubtedly right, to the class of arcs'.pcr, but as having I now see in the words tc5v TSTTapwv come into being, Jind consequently as Tf]v T/}i.rv £v TOUTO a marginal note, on belonging to the xoiva. which all correction is thrown away. 48 1JAATON02 tplAHB02. T > > T ^Q, u4q ovv aol Aad^mreq i/iiol g)alveTai tit^q yevioecog avTtov Jtlqi; C nPn, To 7tolov; ^Q. Ev rCi) y,oiv(Tj fWL yevei a^a qxxiveodov Ivniq re /.at rjdovrj yiyvEGd^cxi zair« cpvoiv. nPQ, KoLVov de /, w cpiXe ^coAQaTsg, V7rofiifivr]G/.6 rjjiiag Ti Ttore Ttuv TTQoeiQrjiiisvtiJv ^ovXel drjXovv. 2Q. ^'EoTcti TavT elg dvvaf.avj w -d-avjudaie. UPQ. Kahug eiTtsg. ^£2. Koivov Tolvvv V7cayiovco/.iev o drj twv TBTzaQcov tqItov ileyofiev, nPQ. O fierce to ccfceLQOv y.al Tceqctg I'Xsyeg; sv w yml vyUiav, otfiai de 7,al ccQfiovlaVy irlS^SGo; J) 2Q, Kal^iOT eiTteg. tov vovv d^ o tl fiaXioz^ rjdr] TTQooexs. nPQ. Akye /iiovov. 2Q. yteyo) TolvvVy rrjg ccQjuovlag f.iev Xvofievrjg rj/tuv sv To7g Liooig, ccfia Ivglv Trjg q)voeu)g xal ylveoiv dXyrjdoviov sv tiTj tots ylyveod^ai XQ^^V- IIP£2. ndvv Xsyeig slY,6g. 2Q. Ilahv 6 (xqnoTTOf.ievrig ze xal elg rr/v avrrjg cpvOLv ■\djtLOvar.g, fjdovrjv ylyvea^at XexveoVj el del di^ oXlycov neql (.leyiGTWV TL TO-XiGTa Qr]d^rjvai. E nP£2. Olf-iai (.Uv oe oQ^^cog Xsyeiv^ lo ^loxQaTeg, SfKpctvs- OTSQOv 6^ STL ravvd raura 7teiQojf.ieSa Xsyeiv. 2Q, OvKovv Ta drjfWGid tcov yial neQicpavrj qccGtov gvv- voelv ; npn, not a; ^£2. JlelvT] f.isv 7T0V XvGig Tcal XvTtr]; nPn, Nal. 2Q. ESiodrj Ssy TtXjjQWGig ytyvofiivt] TtdXiv, r^dov^; nPn. JSai, ttirtovoTis] The same word is again dScv, and tiqv avot^wpTfiaiv, I should be used below of the same thing, and there inclined to write TCotXtv ?ouaY)C, or ^Tta- also with TidXtv. The expression seems viouaif]?, which last is perhaps more like strange for a return to a natural state, the text. On the faith of e?g ttqv auTcoiv oua(av nAATQNOS ^lAHBOS. 49 2Q. Jlipog d^ av (p&OQa xai XvTtr] [ytal Xvaig]^ i] de tov vyQOv TTCiXiv TO ^rjQavd^iv TtXr^qovoa dvva/mg, rjdovrj. dic(/,QiGigi^2 Si [y^] av yial [SicclvGig^ rj naqa cpvatv tov rcvlyovg ndO^r], XvTCTq' zara cfvaiv (V i] qlyovg tvcxXlv ajiodooig ts ytat ipv^ig, 7]dovrj. nPQ. ndvv liiiv ovv. 2Q. Kal [qiyovg'] Tj fiiv Ttagd cpvaiv tov Uov Trjg vygo- TTjTog nri^ig, kvTtr]. TcdXtv d \ug TavTOv aTttovTiov y,al diay^Qi- vof.ieviov rj ymtcc cpvGLv oSog, rjSovrj, 'nal evl Xoyaj gkotiei sl aoi {.itTQiog o Xoyog, og av (ffj to €X tov dneiqov yial TttqaTog zara (fvGtv efixpvxov yeyovog eldogj ottsq elsyov ev tu) ttqo- B (T^fiv, OTav fisv TOVTO (pd^etQTjTaL, TTjv (.18V (p&oqdv XvTcriv slvaiy TTiv d* elg TTjv avTiov ovolav odov, Tamr^v d^ av nakiv ttjv dva- XiOQrjGiv TzdvTiov, r]dovi^v, IIPQ, ^'EoTCD' do'/M ydg (.lOi tvtcov ye tlv^ exetv. [8idXvIAHBOS. ^Q. TovTo (.dv Toivvv tv eidoq Tid^at/iied^a Xvnrjg re xat jjdovtjg iv TovTOig Tolg Trdd-eaiv r/MTSQoig. nPQ. Keiadio. ^Q. Tlx)et Tolvvv avTrjg r^g '(I'vx^g y^ara to tovtcov ttov C 7jad^7]uaTCov TrQoadoxrjf^ia to (iiev ttqo nov rjdkov [}lTCLt6{.iEvov] jjdi) Kal daQQalioVj to de ttqo tiov IvfrrjQcov cpo^egov ytal aX- yeivov. nPQ. ^'Egtl ydq ovv Tovd^ r]dovrjg /.at XvTtrjg eregov el- dog ^ TO x^^Q^Q '^^^ ocofiaTog [avrrjg rrjg ipvx^g] did TtgoodoMag yuyvoftevov. 2Q. ^Ogd^wg virilcc^eg. sv ydg Tovroig ol/nai, YMrd ye ttjv ef.irjv do^av, elliKQiveGi ^^ fxaTegoig yiyvof-ievoig, fcog Soxeiy xat [eXiri^djjitvov]] It is not the expected thing, but the state of expectation which is either painful or pleasant. Nor can we put TO T-f^<; vl>uxTi<; ATCt,Co}J.evov for TO T^n? ^I'^^X'^'^ iXjziZohaf]^ Tca!^©? with any shadow of propriety. [avTi]s T-i^s ^vx'»]5]] Protarchus' answer is an admission that there is another species of pain and pleasure independent of the body, for so he varies the ex- pression of that which Socrates had called aiiTtjs T"f]s 4^kx^y^s- I^ut this va- riety does not satisfy the sciolist ; so he gives us a tautology in its place, by again repeating auT-fj? T-r^? ^^^X'H?' 'OpdTza'.<; t£ xal Y)6ovaf?, they will be the instrumental datives to iixcpoL'iks i'aeajai. Perhaps (0? 8ox£f is merely a gloss to xara ye TTQv £fXTQV, before 66^av was added by way of explanation. orp,ai, Kara yi ri\v l|ii^v 8d^av] The second of these phrases modifies the confident air of the first; there is there- fore no redundancy, such as some have imagined to be purposely introduced to imitate ordinary conversation ! nAATQNOS tPTAHBO:S. 51 ccjuUroig Ivnrig re ymI rjSovrig, e^icpaveg taead^ai to ttsqI tt^v i^dovrjVy jToreqnv olov sotl to yevog aarraGTOV, ?J tovto fiivj) fTtgct) Tidv TTQoeiQTji^iivcov doteov ri{.nv yeviov, rjdovfj Si Kal Ivni], y-adaTtSQ -d^eQfio) ytccl ipvy^Qc^ yiat TtaGi zoig TowvTOLg, log tots (.liv aOTTCtaxeov avTa, tote d^ ovyi aorraOTtoVy log aya&a fiiv ovyi ovTa, ivloTS di vml evia Sexojiisva ttjv tcov aya^cov eoTiv OTtrj (pvotv, JJPQ. ^Oqd^oTaTa Xtyeig otl TavTjj nrj del diaTtOQEvd^rjvai TO vvv fj.STa3uoy,6fi€vov, ^Q. Hqmtov i-iEv TOivvv Tode ^vvlSwuev. [cog] SLTteg ov- TO)g EGTi TCOV ysvof^ievwv diacfd^eiqonevwv fisv [avTcov] alyrjdcoVy E avaoio^ojiiEvcov d^ rjdovrj^ tiov (^irjTe diaq)d^£iQoiievcov (.li^t^ ava- ocoto/Ltevcov svvorjGiojiiev tzeqCj Ttva TtoS^ s^tv del tot sv e/m- GTOig elvai To7g Kwoig, OTav ovtco Gxfj- Gcpodqa da nQOGtxcov Tov vovv eItte' oq ov naGa avayyir] ttccv ev tio tote XQovio Lwov jLirjTE [tl] XvTTEiGd^at fXTjd-^ 7]dEG&aL, jiirjTE (.ilya /utite GfiLY^QOV ; nPQ. ^udvdy/jrj (,iEv ovv. 2Q. OvY-Ovv eGtl Tig TQiTrj ri(.dv fj TOiavTrj diaS^EGtg naqa TE Trjv TOV yaiqovTog zat jiaqa Trjv tov Xvjtov(.ibvov. 33 nPn, Tl fAiqv; Tois TotovTois, «s TOT£ p.€v] After £x£(v(i)v (motive unknown) and tliat Soreov governing these several datives, i-Aiviti are uyP°"^> Trvfyoc, pryo? and so the sentence requires cTt or to? ; I have forth. The reader need scarcely be inserted the latter. reminded that uypov and the rest never ia-r\.v ^irr)] For the MS. reading ^axtM perish, but the ysveaeic from them do, 0T£, which is a mere repetition of £v(oT£, and it is these •^Z'^iaziz, , if ^jjuj^uy oi, the nearest palaeographical change would which feel the pain or the pleasure of be llanv ou, the Y and T being often their jarring or blending. It is also confounded; but the most appropriate usual to say aXt)^c3<; XiyzTdi of state- and, in itself, a very probable change, ments and ovTW? I'aTt, of facts, whereas is I'aTiv oxTf], "o« certain conditions", here we have a confusion of the two. This I have admitted into the text. I have restored what in my opinion SiairopevOi^vai] The argument is must have been the original text, compared, as in many other parts of Srav ovrw fr\v^ I have put a)^"p for Plato, to a beast of the chase being I'axf) ; we wai^t the aorist, and 'iofr\ tracked. here is as misj)laced as if we should Twv yfvo^ivbiv] TO XeyoiJ-Svov is the ask a man, Dwc I'axEic; reading of all MSS. and Edd. in place yAyTi [ti] Xinrcto-Gai.] [XTQT£ XuTiEraSai of my Twv Y£VO[Ji£'v(ov. But without some has no more right to xi than [jltq^ qualifying adverb t. X. cannot be used in TQ§£a!5ai, and neither needs it. any other sense but "what is commonly f|jjiiv ■i\ ro\.o.vrr\\ '^\kVi is the reading said". And again auTwv refers to no of the Coislinian and is much to be plural expressed or implied. Stallbaum preferred to that of the Bodleian, iQijitiSv. tells us, first that auTwv is put for 4* 52 IIAATON0:S «PIAHB02. 2Q. ^ye di] tolvvv , Tavrrjg 7rQod^vfi()v ftefivr^G^ai' 7rQdg yccQ TTjv zi]g rjdovrjg /.qIoiv ov ot^uxQfh [jnejuvrjoOac TavDp'] eoiy rjfuv \ij (.iYJ\. ^Qaxv Se ti 7T£qI avrrjg, el ^ovXsi, diaiiE- Qccvco/nev. nPQ. Atyf, jcolov. 2Q, [Ttp] Tov Tov cpQoveiv [kXafieviijI ^lov oIgO^ tog tov- Tov TOV TQ67tov ovSev a7to'/,wXv€i trjv. B HPn. Tov TOV fiij xaiQEiv (.irfie lv7Te7od^ai Xeyeig; ^Q. EQQ)]^r] yaQ jtov tot iv T-rj 7caqa^^oXfi tlov ^Uov (^irp div delv f^irjTe fiieya fiTjre GfiiKQOv xalqetv tu) tov tov voelv xat cpQOveiv ^lov flofievo). nPi2. Kal f.iaX* ovTiog £QQif]Or]. ^^2. Ov/^ovv ovTcog av e/Mvco ^' V7raQXoi, '/,al Yacog oudtv axorrov el jiavTcov tcov [3icov sotI deiOTctTog. nPQ. OvAOvv eiKog y" ovte yaiqEiv Tovg deovg ouve tov- VaVTLOV, ^Q. ndvv f.(iv ovv ovv. u/.og' aGyrjj^iov yovv amcov r/,d- TEQOv yiyvofievov sgtlv. dXld dij tovto liev I'tl xal ElGavSig C £7iiGy,eil'6iiiEda, edv jrgog loyov ti ^, v^al tm v(x) Ttqog Ta Sev- TEQEla, Mv jin) /TQog Ta TiQCOTela dvvw(.iEx)a 7rQ0Gd£ivai, ttqog- -d^r^GOflEV. [jjL6nvT)1AHB0:2. avTYj ylyviqiai tujv G€iOf.uov Ttov tov GWf.iatog^ [ryy vvv Xrjd^r^v 34 YMXeig^'] avaia^rjolav hiov6(.iaoov. nPn, "'Ef.iaOov. 2£2. To 6^ ev evl nad^ei ttjv ipvxTjv vmI to Gw^ia yioivfj yiyvof-ieva xoivfj ymI KtvElod^aL, zavTrjv d^ ctv rrjv KivrjOiv ovo- f.i(xttov alo&rjGiv otz aito tqojtov (p&eyyoi av. nP£2. ^udXrid^lorara Xeyeig. 2Q. Ovyiovv TjSr] f.iavddvo(.iev o ^ovX6f.ie&a y^aXelv zrjv ai- O^iqGiv. nPn. Ti (.iriv; 2Q. 2wir]Qiav Toivvv aloS^rjaeiog rrv iLivrjiiir]v Itywv ogO^wg B av Tig key 01, Yard ye ttjv 1(.lijv do^av. nPQ. ^OgO^cog ydg ovv. JSQ. IMvrji^irjg d^ dvctfivriGLV aq' ov diacpeqovoav leyouev; nPn. "'lo(x)g. JS"^. !^(>* ovv ov zode; nPQ. To Tcolov; 2Q. ^'Ozav, a ^.texd tov ow(.iarog STiaaxe nod-^ fj 'tpv^rj, tavr' dvEv tov owj^iaTog avTrj ev kavTrj o tl /.iccXigt^ dvaXajii- ^dvrj, TOT dvai.ui.ivr^o%EGd^ai tcov Xeyof^iev. rj ydq; IIPQ, ndvv f.iEv ovv. 2£2. Kal fi^v VMi OTav, aTtoXsoaGa i^ivi^(.irjv eit alG^i^Gsiog elV av f-tad^TqiiaTog, avd-ig Tavzrjv dvaTtoXrjGr] jidXiv avTij ev C mvTij, xat Tama ^v/nTvavT^ avafivrjGEtg Kal fiivrjjiiag nov Xe- yof.iEv. [1\v vvv X^Otjv KaXeis]] Protarchus does evidence and to oppose common sense no such thing. He is bidden to use to the craving after curiosities. In such avataSTf)a(a in place of to XtXYjSe'vat, a passage as this a departure from and to keep Xtq!3tq in the same sense the common rule is above all things as hitherto. improbable, for here the notion upper- •yi-yvdjicva] "JR»'0 yiyvo|icvov Syden- most in the mind of the writer is the hamus -yiYvdixtva tentat. Non video cau- joint participation in a certain state, sam^ Stallb. And then, of course, we the common effect of two things, which are referred to Matthiaj. That the com- a singular participle would render less pilcr of a Grammar should treasure up apparent. all the anomalies and exceptional in- •noO' f|] The Zurich editors have not stances, which either the self-will of improved this passage by the coiijec- authors or the stupidity of scribes supplies tural reading of TtatfY) ; the word itoxe him with, is no more than we should adds to the clearness of the sentence, expect. But the province of an editor and is fully supported by analogous is, as far as possible, to resist such passages in this part of the dialogue. 1IAATUN02 t&lAHBOS. 55 npn. 'Og^cog Uyeig. JSQ. Ob dtj xdqiv airavx^ eYQtjvac Tavzay Iotl Tode. nPn. To nolov; ^Q. "Iv^ afiia TTjv zrjg ifJvxrjg r^dovrjv xcoQig Gcofiatog o ti fiiaXiGTa 7,al evaQyeOTaia Xdpoif.i6v, xal af.i £7n^vf.iiav' did ydq TovTtov jccog ravv^ df.icpocsQ' £0L7,£ drjlovoO^ai. nP£2. ^eya)(.L£v zolvBVy lo ^wyiQaTeg, rjdrj to fiszd xavxa. ^Q. IlolXd ye ttsqI yeveaiv f]dovi]g xal Tcaoav [t7]v'] i^loq- D cprjv amrjg dvay/MloVj cog l'oL%e, leyovzag a^AOTielv. y.al ydg vuv jrQOUEQOV I'tl (paivexai XrjTVTtov eTct&vf.iiav eivaL, ri jtox eozt %al Ttov ylyvexai. nPQ. ^/M7vcdf.iev Tolvvv ovSiv ydg a7Colovf.iev. ^Q. i^TtoXovjiiev f.iev ovv, ravzd ye, Co TlqcoTaQxe, evgovzeg a vvv Kr]TOVf,iev, ld7toXov(:iev] rrjv Tieql amd xaui aicoqiav. JJP^. ^Ogd^cog ri(.ivvco' to d^ i(p^^tjg zovroig 7teLQ(6(.ied^a Xtyeiv. 2Q. OvYMvv vvv dij jteivrjv xe ymI dlipog xal TtoXK exeQa TOiavx eq)af.iev eivai rivag S7rid^vf.uag ; E nP£2. 2(p6dQa ye. 2 £2. Ilgog XL nox' dqa xavxov ^Xsipavxeg, ovxio tioXv Sia- (piqovxa xavO-^ evl TtQOGayoQevoiiev 6v6(.iaxL; nPQ. Md Ji ov Qadiov Yocog emeiv, co ^coKQCcxeg' dXX^ 0(.L0}g XeYJXtov. -3^2. 'Exeld^ev drj iyi xwv avxwv jtdXtv dvaXd^cof^iev. npn. nd^ev drj; "Iv &|JLa] The reading of all the MSS., appearance, the article has no business 7va p.Tfi, has sorely puzzled the editors ; here. some have left it in despair, others have cl vvv tT^TOujAtv] The common reading betaken themselves to itY) ; but this is, 'A7toXoO(j,£v fj.£v ouv, Kal lauTa yt, particle is in contradiction to the su- w H., eupovre? 8 vO^j ^TQTOuiJLev cxtco- perlatives which follow, and would be Xou|jl£v x.. t. £. It is impossible to make more appropriate to an attempt then any sense of x.ol\ xauTa yt, nor is the commencing, than to a review of the first ctTtoXoOfJiEV, without a case, supported ground already won. I once adopted 6tq, by usage. The corruption of the pas- but with misgivings. I now see that sage appears to have originated with INAMA was divided amiss, and so MA the insertion of the second aitoXoufJifiv, was changed into [jlt^. "A{j.a touto xal which probably stood at first as a gloss S-ixa cxetvo is a very common formula, in the margin. Under any circum- See below 41, D, a|i.a TtapaxEt^Sat. xal stances o would be untenable, for aura a'fxa y'^yitdoii. TaCra proves that a plural must have •n-do-av [t^v] )j.op(t>-^v] As he means preceded. every phase of it, and not its tvhole 56 riAATONOS tDIAHBOS. ^fi. ^^Jixpif^ liyovTsg, Xtyo(xev eyidotori ri. npn, mdg 6' ov; ^Q. TovTo de y sort yisvovtai. nPn. ri ^n^v; ^£2, ^q ovv TO Slipog sotIv haS^vfxia; nPQ, Nalj TroJi-iaTog ye. 35 ^£1. IIcj(.iaxogy rj TcXrjQWGeiog Ttajjiiarog; nPQ. Ol/iiaL f.Ltv nXrjQcooetog. 2Q. *^0 xevoviiievog ri(.uov aga, (hg eoLyiev, STtiO^vinel nov evavTLiov »} ndoxei. Kevovfievog yaQ eg^ 7tlr]Q0vod^aL. nPQ. ^acflGTaxd ye. ^£2. Ti ovv; b TO TTQioTov y^evovfievog laviv onoD^ev elV ala^rjoei l7rlr]QWG€a)g] IcpdjtTOLX^ av etzE (.ivri(.irj tovtov, o ^r[c €v Til) vvv XQOvqj ndoxBL ^rix* ev rqt jtqood^e TiiOTtoz enad^ev ; IlPn. Kal Tiwg; B ^£2. *^)dd f,irjv o y^ i7iLd^vf.iwv Tivog eTrL&v{.ielj (pa[.iev, nP£2, JJcog yccQ ov ; J^£>. OvK dg' ye jtdoxei^ xovzov eTtid^vfiEl, Stxp^ ydg, tovTO de yievwaig' b d^ ejiLd^vfxei 7iXv^gwGswg. nP£2. Nal. JS£2, nir]gc6o€i6g [y'] dga nfi ti tCov tov ditpoivtog dv ecpdjiTOLTO, nP£l. ^u4vayy.a1ov. 2£2, To fxtv drj owfia ddtvaiov 'Ksvovrai ydg jtov, "Ai\|/xi"] There are two readings Anj^Y) »" the Books have xEvoOtai. This is yi TCOU and ^l^^xyi uou. As to the va- one of those examples that in criticism riety in the Bodleian exaarou ^Ti, we nothing should be looked on as in- have but to turn it back into the uncial significant. Just as in one of the old character and we see that it was simply Epigrams, I have shewn that £v 6l another instance of Y being mistaken y^Sciv is i^ §£ ^ 0wv i.e. £v hz fppolai for T, EKACTOYETI. Now if we Oeolv, so here Anj^-n AEF M-as read try to make sense of ^i^r\ x. t. e. it as if it were Ai4>in rEII. The rest was can only mean, that something sometimes either invisible or neglected, and ys^ thirsts, which is an incredible manner was so supplemented as to become yi of expression, to say nothing of the :tou. perfect uselessness of ys- If we try nXr^pc&o-ews [y'J&pa] The construction Ai4>fjv, we may by some effort obtain is apa Tt T(0v toO 8tt|i(i5ivTO? ^ aqa Trjg TtXrjQOJOeiog ecpameod^ai Iolttov, rfj {.ivrjf.irj diqXov on' zcjj ydg av er' alXo) Icpdif-^ccixo ; C ITPQ. ^xeSov ovdevi. 2£}. Mav&dvof.iEv ovv o ovf.i^e^rix* rjf.uv s/, tovtcov tiov Xoyiov. nP£2. To Tiolov; ^Q. ^(joi^iarog eTtid^vfLiiav ov cprjaiv r^f.uv ovTog o Xoyog yiyvEGd^ai. npn, ncog; 2Q, Otl Tolg eAelvov jta^rjuaGiv svavvlav del jtavxog tioov jiirjVveL ttjv snLxeiQrjaiv. npn. Kal fidla, 2Q. H d OQi^iTj y STil TOvvavTLOv dyovoa rj Ta 7cad^rjf,iaTa dijXol nov jnv}]i^ir]v ovoav tojv Tolg na^rjfxaaiv svaviiwv. npn. ndvv ye. ^n, Trjv dq^ STtdyovGav ejil rd eTtid^vjiiovfiev^ ditodei^ag D l.ivrjf.irjv Xoyog ipvyj^g ^v(.i7iaoav ttjv d^ OQiLtrjv vmI ejrLd-vfiiav ymI TTjV aqx^v tov tcoov Tcavxog dTTS^rjVev. npn. "OQd^orara. 212. ^Lyjfjv ag rjf.tcov to ato/iia r] Tteivrjv rj n twv tolov- Tcov Tcdaxeiv ovdaf^ifj b loyog aiQsl. npn. ^^Irid^eOTaxa. 2n. ^'Etl dij ytai ToSe neql ramd ravra yiaTavo/jacofiev. (iiov ydq etdog tl (.lol q)alveTaL ^ovleod-at diqXovv b loyog f]fiiv ev rovToig avvo7g. npn. 'Ev tlol ymI TtOLOv Ttegt jilov (pgdKeig; E ^n. Ev Tqj 7tX7]Q0VG&ai Yal KEvovGd-ai YMc TtciGiv oGa Ttegt GcoTt]giav T sgtI tojv tcocov ymI ttjv cpd-ogdv, ycxl eX Tig xov- %oiv ev eYaxegM yLyv6/.ievog ri(.iu)v dXyel, xoxe de %(xigei Yard xdg f,iexa^oXdg. npn. ^'Egxl xavxa. Ti\v &p' eirciYOvo-av] ITie argument, 6 \6yos aipct] Evinces, makes good, then, in shoioing that Memorijj^ is that Compare Bep. 604 c; Farm. 141 d; which introduces one to objects of desire, Crito 48, C. The figure of speech seems has proved that to the soul belong the to be borrowed from the draught- whole activity and desire, and the di- board. rection of the entire creature. 58 lJy\ATi2i\'02 tpIAHBOS. ^Q. Tl d , hzav iv (.lioio zovziov yiyvritai; 11 PQ. Ilcog ev fuGO); ^Q. z/ia f-iev TO Tiddog cckyfj, f.ieiiivrjTai di ziov ijdkov tov yei'ofuvcov jtavoiT av rrjg dXytjdovog, TclrjQWTaL di /.trjitu)' tl 36 TOTS; fftofiev rj ftrj cpwusv avTov iv fieaci) Ttov 7rad^r]fndTcov elvai; UPQ. 0cd(.iev jtisv olv. 2Q. TIoTBQOV aXyovvd-^ olcog rj xaiQOVza; nPQ. Ma J I , alXa SlttX^ tlvI Xvnjj "kvTtov^ievov^ %Qiza (.liv TO owjiia sv TO) TvaS^rji^iaTi, Kara de Trjv ipvxTjV 7tqoGdo'Mag TLvl Tiod^ci). ^£2. Iltbg, CO IlQiOTaQxe^ to duilovv Trjg Xvnr^g shieg; ag ovY, ^OTL i^dv ore Tig i](,iCjv y^evov/^ievog iv iXjildi cpaveq^ TOV irlrjQiodt'joeo&aL za^6(7r?^ze, Tozi di Tovvavzlov dvelTtloTtog '^exei; nPQ. Kal (iidXa ye. 2Q. Mcbv ovv ovxl ilTtitcov fiiv TrXrjQOjd^riasad^ai to) /iie- /LivrjG&aL doKsl Got /of/^siv, a(.La di %Evovf.ievog iv Tovzoig Tolg XQOvoig dlyelv; nPQ. l^vdyxr]. ^n. ToT^ ccQ^ avd-QCOTtog yml TaXXa tcoa Xvirelzai ^' cciia xal x^'Q^t.. UPQ. Kivdvvevei. 2£I. Tl 6^, ozav dveXTiloTwg exj] xevovfievog TSv^eoS^ai itXr]- QCOGetog; ag^ ov tots to SlttXovv yiyvoLT av tteqI Tag Xvnag C Ttdd^og^ o Gv vvv drj ymtiScov qii^drjg aTtXwg eivat diTtXovv; nP£2. ^^Xrjd^iGTaTa , to 2i6y.qaTEg. ^Q. TavTTj Si] TTj GxixpEi tovtcov twv na0^r]jndTCOv toSe XQrjGcofiEd^a, — nPQ. To TTolov; ^Q. IIozEQOv dXij^elg TavTag Tag Xvnag te mi fjdovdg t] xpEvdElg Eivai Xi^o/^iEV rj Tag (.liv Tivag dXr^O-Elg, Tag d ov. IIPQ. Ilcog, CO ^coxgaTEg, av elev xpEvdElg rjdoval rj Xvjvai ; 2SQ. Ilcog diy co IlgcoTagxs, cpo^oi av dXr^Elg ^ij xpEvdElg, rj TtgoGdovJai aXrjdeig rj firj, ]] do^at dXrjS-Elg r} xpEvdElg; D nPQ, Jo^ag (.liv k'ycoy^ av Ttov Gvyx(ogoir^v, tcx d^ eTEga Tavc^ OVA av. UA ATONOS *1>1AHB02. 59 ^Q, JJwg cpfiq; loyov ^ivtoi %iva 'Mvdvvevof.iev ov ndvv 0(.uy,q6v hieyeiqeiv. nPQ. '^Irjd^rj Xeyeig. 2Q. ^^IV el Ttqog xa 7r(XQeXr]Xvd^6Ta, lu 7cal Keivov tav- Sqag, ngooi^AovTa, tovxo OKeTcriov, nPi2. ^'lacog tovxo ye. ^Q. XaiqeLv xolvvv del leyeiv xoig aXkoig jLi/jKeaiv rj nal oxojovv xiov TcaQO. x6 TtQOOijyiov Xeyoi^ievwv. nPn, 'Og&wg. ^i2. ^tye dr'j (xor ^avfia yccQ Sf.i€ y^ ex^L dia xelovg ael E TieQL xavxa, a vvv S^ jigovd^efxed^a, aicogrji^iaxa, Tttog drj cprjg; xpevSelgj ai 6^ aXr]d^elg ova elolv r^Soval; nPQ. Ilcog yccQ av; 2Q, Ovxe drj ovag ovd-^ vjiag, wc; cprjg, Itaxiv] ovx^ iv (.laviatg ovx^ iv naqacpqoGvvaig ovdelg eod' og XLg tcoxe 6o/,el (.dv xaiqeiv, xaiqeu 6^ ovdaf.i(dgj ovd av do^el {.lev Xvitelod^ai, XvTcelxm 6^ ov, nPQ. TloLvd^ ovxoj xavx\ c3 ^ajytQaxeg, e%eiv Ttdvxeg virei- Itjcpajitev, 3i2. ^^Q^ ovv ogd^wg, rj OKejrxeov elx ogO^cog eixe f^irj xavxa Xiyexai ; nPQ, 2Ke7tX£0Vy log eyw q)alr]v av. 37 ^Q. ^LOQLGWf^ied^a dr) aacpeaxegov bxl xo vvv dr] Xeyo/iievov 7]dov7jg xe Tclgi xa^ d6^r]g. toxi ydg jtov do^aC^etv f]iidv; nPQ. Nal. 2£2. Kal rjdeGd^ai; 0) irai *K€Cvou ravSpos] The word edition. £xetvo? is often substituted for the tois AXXots |xi\K€criv] All other long proper name in speaking of an absent discourses, except those which are to or deceased person with respect. Soph, the purpose : t] xa\ otwoOv x. t. £., is Fragm. ou TtaT? 'A^^iXXe'w^, aXX' ^xefvo? equivalent to, or even short ones, ichen auTOS eI. In the Republic, Socrates ad- they are not to the point. dresses Glaucon and Adimantus as w dtl irepl ravTa] I have substituted TcafSt? £x£ivou TavSpo?. It is not known rauTa for the unmeaning xa aTj'xa of who was Protarchus' father , except the Editions. A little further on, I that Socrates above calls him Callias, have restored tcwc 6iq cpt)?; from Pro- but he no doubt belonged to % principal tarchus to Socrates, family in Athens. Stallbaum's notion [?o-tiv]] I have followed Stallbaum that Protarchus is addressed as the dis- in bracketing this word, which arose ciple of that man, meaning Philebus, from the scribe not understanding the is, I regret to see, repeated in his last adverbial use of ovap and UTtap. 60 nAATQNOS a>[AHn02. npn, Nai ^^, Kctl fttjv y.al to do'^aKoiiievov eotl tl; npn. ncog d' ov; 2Q. Kal TO ye, oj to f]S6iiievov rjdsTaL; IIPQ. Kal Ttavu ys, 2*12. Ovvjwv TO So^dKoVj av r' oQ&cog av te (^irj ogS^cog 13 do^dorj, TO ye [do^dteiv] ovTcog ovdejtOT aTTollvoiv, nP£2, Uiog yaq av; ^Q. Ovyiovv z«t TO ^^So/nevov, av t^ ogd^wg av Te firj oq- ^cog rjdrjTaij to y^ ovTiog i^deadai drjXov cog ovdenoz^ ajtoXei. IIPQ, Nal, Kat tovO-^ ovTiog eyei, 2Q. Ot(i) TiOT^ ovv drj tqotto) do^a xpevdrjg Te y.al aXrjd-rjg r]jLuv cpilei yiyveoSai , to de Tfjg rjdov'^g (.lovov aXrj^eg, \_do§a- ^eiv 6' ovTcog yxd xaiqeiv afiq^oveQa ofiolcog e^ilrjq)ev,'] GxejtTeov. UPQ, ^Qa, OTtrj do'^jj f.iev eTCiyiyveod^ov xpeuSog Te ymI C aXrjdeg, yial lyheT ov (.lovov do^a dia Tavr^ alia -nal tcolo. Tig erjiaTSQa, OAercTeov cpi^g tovt^ elvai; 2Q. Nat. TTQog de ye TovTOig, el y,al to TcaqaTtav fj/^uv ra fiiev eOTi not aTTa, r^dovrj de ymI IvTtt] (.lOvov aneq eOTi, Ttouo TLve 6 ov ylyvea^ov, 7,al Tavd-^ 7]iiuv SLO(.ioloyrjTeov. npn. ji]iov. ^n. u4.ll ovdiv TovTO ye y^aleitov lde7v otl yial Ttouo Ttve. Ttalai yaq eL7rof,iev otl (.leydlai Te xal Of.iL7,Qal yial GcpoSqa D EzaTegaL ylyvovTai [, IvTtai Te xal fjSovai], OvKovv T^ 8o|dtov] That which fancies, "Oraf] This is the reading of the best whether it fancies correctly, or incorrect- MS. for Tco. I have adopted it, and ly, never loses its property of really added axETTTEOV as Baiter first suggested, fancying. It is an actual notion, though but my ax£TXT£Ov is that already given it may not correspond to an object, to Protarchus. It would exceed the The same may be said of pleasure ; compass of a note to discuss the other the feeling is actually present, though changes which I have made, and the the object is unreal. Thus there is no reasons for them are sufficiently ob- difi'erence as to truth and falsehood vious. Let it suffice to note that the between to So^a^ov and to in§o'fJ.£vov. disputants do not consider, nor have Unless indeed we say that pleasure is they any reason for considering, why of such nature that it does not admit both So^a'^etv and y^afpetv have the ov- of any quality ; but this is not so, for tco?, so that, had the sentence in brackets we speak of great and little pleasures, been as well expressed as it is clumsy, of good and bad pleasures, and so forth : it could not have belonged to Plato, then why not of false and true? I a)pd)|xcv] The Books have £lAHb05:. ' iXex^rjGav ev xoig nqood^ev (Lg jiqb tcov did tov Gi6f.iaTog rjdo- viov xal Xvnojv TiQoylyvoivTo, log ^' rjfilv ^vf-if^alvoi to Ttqo- XaiQEiv TE 7.al TO TiqoXvTcelod^ai icegl tov (xeXXovTa XQovov el- vai yiyvofievov. nPQ. '^Irjd^lGTaTa. 2i2. Ocxovv Ta yqafAfxaTa. ts xal l^Myqacpiqf.iaTa, a GfirAQiT) TTQOTEQOV stI^ejuev h rjf.uv ylyvEGd^ai, tteqI fisv TOV ysyovoTa E yial TOV naQovra xqovov egti, tieqI Si tov (.leXXovTa ova sgtiv. UPQ. ^cpodqa yE. ^Q, L^ga Gcpodqa XeyEig, otl jtccvt^ egtI TavT^ slTcldEg Eig TOV ETiELTa XQOVOV ovGaLj Tj^Elg 6* av Sid icavTog tov ^iov cleI yifiOfiEv elTtldcov; JIPQ. UavTccTtaGL (xev ovv. 2Q. ^'^yE dii, TtQog Tolg vvv ElQr]f,i€voig za^ t66^ a/ro- yiQivac. nPn. To Ttotov; JS'i2. /JiKaLog dvrjQ yiai EvGE^rjg yml dyad-og TtdvTCog agi* ov ^EOCpL^T^g EGTLV; npn. Ti ^LTiv; 2Q. Ti di; aSrAog te ytal TtavTaTtaGc xaxog aq^ ov tov- 40 vavTiov eAElvii); npn. nwg d' ov; 2Q. IIoXlwv (irjv ekTclScoVj log iXeyof-iEv aqTiy Tiag avd^qw- Tiog yef-iEi. npn. Ti 6' ov; aaxiQ[i.ov yc^v aurwv Ixotrepov Y^Y^ofJiE- it gave the opposite sense to that in- vov ioxi: "Either of these is unsightly, tended, bethought of uotepov as the v^hen it occurs." (Above 33, B.) nearest suitable word , in point of _ OijKovv] The Books have IIoTEpov meaning, to that which he supposed to ouv. I make a very bold change, but require his correction, not, as I think, a rash one. First, the iravrdTratrt KaKos] I am disposed to argument requires it : "You admit that believe that the word TCavranaa'. has mental pleasures and pains have to do been added to xaxcc by way of bringing with the future ; then surely you cannot it into correspondence with the TtavTWC say that, whereas our records and images of the preceding speech of Socrates, concern the past and the present, they which the interpolator supposed to be- have no relation with the future." Se- long to aya^o?? whereas it is in fact condly, Protarchus' answer ScpoSpa yz intended to colour the whole question, is a reply not to a question Iloxepov, and to give it the air of an appeal to but to an assertion. Some Grammarian the conscience or good sense of the per- who read Ouxouv = igitur, and saw that son questioned. nAATQNOS a>IAHB02. 67 3i2. yioyoi (.iriv eioiv ev e/MOTOLg fjiiwr, ag eXnidag ovo- npn. Nai. 2Q. Kal drj ymI ra cpavraOfxaT^ e^wyQaq)r]f.ieva' vml rig oQcc noXkd^ig mvr^i xqvGov yiyvofievov acpd^ovov /,al en avviT) jcoXXdg rjdovdg' yial d^ Kal 8vet,ioyQCL(prj(.ievov avTOv icp^ avroj XaiqovTa Gfpodqa KaS^OQcc. npn, ri s" ov; b JSQ. Tovrwv ovv Tcoreqa cpaifiev Tolg f^iiv dyaS^olg tog to noXv ra yeyqaf^i/iieva TiaqaTid^eod^cxL dXrjdrj Sid to &eoq)ile7g elvaij Toig Ss yMKOig wg av to noXv TOvvavTiov, rj jiirj cpatfiev; JIPQ. Kal ftdXa cpaTtov. 2 £2. OiTAOvv %al Tolg KavMlg rjSoval y^ ovSiv tjttov nag- EiGiv sKcoyQaq)rjf.ievaL J xpevSelg 6^ avTal tcov. npn, rl ^rjv; 2Q, ^evSeatv dq* 7]dova7g ra noXXd ol novrjqol xalgoi- C aiv, 01 6^ dyad^ol tcov dvd^gioTrwv dXiqd^EGiv. JJPQ. ^^vayxaioTaTa Xeyeig. 2 £2. EIgI St], Kara Tovg vvv Xoyovg^ xpevSelg ev Talg twv dvd^QiOTTWv xpvxalg rjSovaiy jnefui^r^fievai j^evTOi Tag alrjxHJg snl Ta yelotOTega' ytal XvTcai S^ coGavTCog, npn, EiGiv. 2Q. OvKovv rjv So^d'Qeiv fiev ovTwg ael tc^ to jtaqdrtav So^d^ovTL, i^irj ejt* ovgl Se {.ir^S^ enl yeyovoGi (.iriS^ en eGOfie- voig evLOTe. npn. ndvv ye, 2Q. Kal TavTd y" ryv, oif-iai, xd dnegya^o^ieva So^avT) if'evSrj TOTe yial to ipevSwg So^dCeiv. rj ydq; npn. NaL 6V€t<«>7paT](i^vov] 'lie sees the gold, have thought it more prudeut to make and the pleasures which depend upon auxcv mean himself, than to change a it, and moreover he sees himself, as breathing. part of the picture, rejoicing in himself lirl rd "yEXoidrcpa] Conviv. 215, A. exceedingly.' It is strange that any Polit. 293, e, i-zi xa aJa^tova. Horace, difficulty could have been occasioned Epist. ii. i, 265. by so simple and well-chosen an ex- ficto pression. The change of auTOV into In pejus vultu proponi cereus. auTOV is indispensable; but the Editors 5* 68 HAATONOS tWAHBOS. 2'i2. Tl ovv; ovx avTanodoxiov zalg Xvicaig re /.al rjdo- valg TTjV fTOVTwv avTiOTQOcpov e^iv Iv exelvoig; npn. nwg; ^£2. ^Qg 7]v (.lev %aiqaLV oviwg aei tCo to TraQccnav bncoo- ovv 7.al ehij yaiqovxi, /Lirj (.levTOL sttI xolg ovoi (.nqd^ ettI Tolg yeyovooiv evioxe, noVkwug di 'Aal I'aojg icXeiOTccxig etcI roTg firjSi ftelXovGL ttots yevrjOEGd^ai. E UPQ. Kal xavd^ omtog avayxawv, w ^toxQaxegj txeiv. 2^1. OvKOvv o avTog loyog av eiv^ tteqI cpo^tov te ytal d^viiwv ytal TtdvTMv rwv toiovtcov, wg eOTi %al ipevdrj ndvia td xoiavt' svlore; II PQ. ndvv i-iev ovv. ^Q. Tl de; icoviqqdg do^ag [yial xqr^oidg'] alXiog [}} \l>ev- deig^ ytyvouevag axofiev eIttsIv; IlPn. oh dlliog. 2£2, Ovd^ rjdovdg /', oi^im^ y,aTavoovf.i6v cog dXXov xivd 4:1tq6tcov elol 7tovr]Qal TtXrjv roj ipevdelg elvai. nPQ, ndv f.dv ovv TovvavTLOv, w 2c6y,QaTeg, eLQr]'/,ag. Ti\v TOVTwv avT£ov i:|iv] If all TC Zi; irovTipds] Nothing is plainer that precedes is genuine, I fear that it than this sentence when we leave out is a waste of ingenuity to endeavour the interpolations. xa\ ^ptjaTCXC is evi- to explain toutwv. The eHt? (namely dently out of place; and a little at- that a thing may be real, and yet rest tention to y^Y^OM-^''^? shews that -i] on false grounds,) has been shewn to vl^tuSer? is no better. The complete be ^v iv(.ivi0ii;, that is in So^a and to sentence would be £')(^o}Ji£v £?Tcefv ttovt]- 8o^d^za : and we are invited to attri- pa<; So'^a? aXXto? yiy^oy.i^^a.^ (TtoviQpd; bute an analogous e^i? to pleasures and tJ tw ^'sy^^eic; eivai) ; pains ; but if so, until this is granted Ilav [ilv ovv TovvavT^ov] The MSS. and done, it is surely premature to and Edd. have all Ilavu fxev ouv Touvav- talk of TTQV TOVTWV e'^tv. The i%iq tiov, which is not Greek. As ^ev ouv, also which we grant to these must be like immo, is used when one improves avrCaxpo^o? to another, which is in upon another's assertion, and this may those. This would lead us to read avT. be done either by adding to it, or by E'^iv TT| ^v ^xe{voi? ; but as to toutwv, completely changing it, it denotes either it is difficult to see what can be done assent or contradiction, according to the with it, except to leave it out altogether, words which accompany it. Thus Tcavu But what if we could reverse the di- (xkv ouv implies that the answerer does rection of the pronouns, and by tou- not think the first speaker positive T(ov understand the notions and beliefs, enough ; it amounts, therefore, to a and by ix.s,boi<; pleasures and pains? strong assent. But an assent is out of To do this we must remove xaiq Xu- the question in this passage ; so that uat? re xa\ TQSovatT?, and frame the nothmg would remain but to join itavu sentence thus : oux avxaTtoSoT^ov tiqv with Touvavtfov, which would be as ab- TOUTWV £1(.v avT(aTpo90v ^xsfvot?; For surd in Greek as to say that one thing those who think this remedy too bold is very opposite to another would be in I can offer no other. English. nAATONOS $IAHBOS. 69 oxeSov yccQ xiT) xpevdel (.lev ov jtccvv Ttovrjqaq av rig Ivjtag re vmI fjdovdg d^eirj, f.i€ydl7] d^ allrj zat TtoXXfj avf^iTtimovoag 7V0vr]Qia, JSn. Tag fiev tolvvv TtovrjQag fjdovdg y.al did TtovrjQiav ovaag loiavTag oXiyov voregov egovi^ievj av stl Soxfj vcov zdg ds xpevdeig z«r' aXXov tqojiov ev fjiuv jtoXXdg Kal jtoXXdxig svoiaag re Kal lyytyvof^ievag Xe/.Teov. tovtci) ydg IVwg XQy]o6~ B (.led^a nqog rdg yiqiasLg, IIPQ, Ilcog yaQ oi'x; eYicsQ y" elolv. 2Q. L^/ir, CO IlQcovaQxs, slol yiatci ye ttjv Sfirjv. tovto Se TO Soy/iia, ecog av yierjTai. jtag rjfuv, advvaxov aveXey/,xov Srj- 7T0V yiyveGdai, nPn. KaXiog. 2Q. ngooiorajf-ied^a drj /.ad^ccTteg dd^Xrjtat Ttqog tovtov av Tov Xoyov, npn. "'ico^ev. 2 £2. ^^XXd iiijv eiTCo/ueVy elneq iiief.ivrjf,ie^ay [oXlyov] ev rolg TVQoad^ev, wg, oxav ai Xeyof^ievai 8Tiid^v(.dai ev Yj(.dv cool, C dlxa dga tore to Gco/iia yial x^Q^^S ^^S '^i^X^iS '^^^S 7tadri(.iaoi dieiXrjTirai. nPQ. Mefuvrjiiie^a f yial TtQoeQQrjd-rj ravia, 2Q. OvYMvv TO fiiev STtiS^vfiovv Tjv fj xpvx^ Twv zov acojiia- Tog evavTicov e^ewv ?J TOte, ttjv 6^ dXyrjdova ?J tcva did ndd-og 7]dovrjv TO 010 fia rjv to Ttaqexo^evov. Tw »j/cv8€i] I have altered t(5 v|>£uS£c for icap' tqV^"^ ^^^^ apply to both So- into TW v|>£V»8£i. He is speaking of the crates and Protarchus , and xEiaSai, abstract quality, not of some particu- which is the passive of S£rvat, is a lar lie. word of unequivocal force, whether ap- TOVTO 8^ rh 8d7}j.tt] It is necessary plied to a law or a proposition. The to caution the reader against Stallbaum's sense of the passage thus becomes plain ; translation of this passage. He explains But until this judgment (of mine) is TO SoYM-a as the belief that no pleasures approved and established in us both, it are false ; E'w? av KityccLi is consequently is impossible for it to escape (or become made to mean so long as it continues, exempt from) examination. I have en- To such a remark as is thus attributed deavoured to give the force of the word to Socrates, Protarchus, who was main- -^If^^fft^r., which, as will be seen, sig- taining the opposite side, would scarcely nifies a great deal more than fitvai. have answered KaXw?. But touto to ^|€«v \ totc] £|£(.)v, to 8k ttqv aXy. 8o'Y(xa (not ^xEtvo) obviously refers to is the reading of the received text. The the preceding tioi xajd Y£*Tiqv ^fJUQv, Bodl. has however tou; for to 8i, that and means the belief that pleasures may is, the copyist had before him TOTE be false or true. This is made certain and read it as TOYC. On this is founded by Tiap' Tiii.vi, and no less by xirixai; the emendation ESE41NHT0TE. The 70 nAATQNOS IAHB02. nPn. ^Hv yccQ ovv, ^Q. ^vXXoyl^ov 6rj to yiyvofievov ev zovzoig. nPn, AiyE, D '^il, frlyveTaL toIvvv, ojioxav rj ravra, ctfua TtagaytelGd^ai XvTiag T€ '/.at l^dovaQj xal tovtcov aiGd^t]Oeig ccfia rcaq* aXXri- Xag ivavTiwv ovowv ylyveoS^at., o yial vvv drj ecpctviq, JIPQ. (DaivETai yovv, ^Q. OvYMvv y,al toS^ eiQrjtac -aat owwjuoXoyrjiiuvov fjjiuv k'jUTTQOod^E yieltai, — II Pn, rd nolov; JS'JQ. ^£2g TO f^iallov ts yiccl tjttov ajurpo) tovzco dtyeGd^ov^ kvTtr] T6 y,al ridovr], [>^cf^] on tvjv aTteiqwv elvrjv ; nPQ. EYQrjTai' Ti f.irjv; 2£2. fTlg ovv firjxavrj ravz^ oQ&wg -/.qheod^aL; necessary conjunction A' was probably cJi; 8£)(^£aSov, OTt el'xiQV, — where to? in- lost from its resemblance to the sue- troduces the fact, and ott the reason ceeding A, as H was from its likeness of it. This gets rid of the causeless to IN. The continual confusion of AH departure from the ordinary rules of and AN in MSS., illustrates both these construction, in defence of which I phenomena. formerly quoted Phcedo 95, d. But Tiva 8id TrdOos t|8ovi^v] The best there also the text is not trustworthy. MSS. have rcXfiiJo; for ■Kaio?, an error xal TaXaiTcupoufxeviQ ts Stq x. t. £. which arose from a confusion of A and has already excited the suspicion of A. But though the sentence is thus rid Heindorf, though I do not assent to of a second difficulty, another still lies his mode of correcting it. By striking in tlie sense. Plato is speaking of that out arrocpatveiv and by changing xal condition in which the mind desires the into Hi we clear away the two only opposite to what the body feels ; so that difficulties. Then tq would take ^wtq the addition of tq5ovt^v makes the mind and aixoXXuotTO for the same reason to desire pain. Many ways might be that oTt takes eI'ttqv. proposed to remove this difficulty, but TCs oW |AT]\avirj] The Zurich editors the question is not what Plato might have adopted Stallbaum's reading, Tic have written, but what he wrote, and the ouv : but if Plato had wanted to use ways are too numerous to allow us to the enclitic, he would have written i'axi fix upon the very one. The sense would n?, or have placed the enclitic any- be secured by tt^v 5' aXYTQ^o'va ttqv 8ta where rather than at the beginning of TI Habo? r\^t\ £v6v x. t. I. The mean- the sentence. A better correction would ing of Sta kcji^o? appears to be, through have been, T{ ouv ; \kr\jcnr\ raur' cp- actual impression^ as opposed to the ^toc xp(v£a5ai; There is a want of pleasure of expectation. adjustment in the different parts of the rC-yvcrai] is not this an error occa- dialogue. For the question here asked sioned by the reminiscence of the fore- is not more fully explained afterwards, going Y^Y'^OM'-'^O'' ** If we read ^v/Li^aivei yiyvoi^ieva. nP£2. Nal, TavT eYgrjTai TVoXXamg. ^Q. Elg Si ye TrjV avTtov g)VGiv oTav Ka&iGTrJTai, TavTrjv av TTjv 'zaTaGTaGiv f^dovrjv d7t£de§df.ie^a Ttaq' rjjiicdv avTwv. nPQ. "Og^iog. 2Q, Ti dej OTav neql to GWf^ia (.nqdev tovtwv ytyvof-ievov rif.i(ov ri; nPQ, IloTe de TOVT av yevoLTO, c5 2c6y,QaTeg; E ^Q. Ovdiv TTQog Xoyov sgtiv, to nqcoTaqxe, o gv vvv rjQOv, TO iQOJTtJfJ^a. npn. Ti di]; ^Q. JiOTi T^v efii^v sQiorrjGiv ov /toXvet ifis dLeqlGd^ai GE ttAXlv. OvKOvv, 8rjg; 2Q. Ovzwg. nPQ. JrjXov dij Tovro y\ to ^wyiQazeg, wg ovS-^ fjdovrj yiyvoiT av ev rtp zoiovro) nox^ ovt' av rig 'kvmq. 2Q. KdkXiOT eijceg. aXXa. yccQ, ol^iaL, Tode Xeyeig, cogiS aei Tt TovTtov ccvayyia7ov rif.uv ^vfij^alveiv, wg ol Gocpoi q)aGLV' ael yag ajravv^ avco ts xal yidrco qel. nPQ, ytlyovGi ydq ovv, yial do/Mvol /' ov q)avXcog XiysLv. 2Q. JJojg yccQ av, i^irj q)avXol y^ ovveg; dXXd ydg vttek- GTrjvai TOV Xoyov ETtiq)eQ6f.ievov tovtov ^ovXof.i(xi, TJjd* ovv dia- voovfiai q)€vyeLv, %al gv jhol ^vjng)evye. nPQ, Aiy^ Ofvr]. 2Q. Tavva f.dv tolvvv ovTcog bgtco, g)d)fiiev Jtqog TOVTovg, OV d aftoKQtvaL * jtOTSQOv ael jtdvTa, oitooa ndoxsL ti tCjv B sjuxf-ivxiov J TavT alG&dvETai to ndoxov , xal ovt av^avojiievoi Xavd^dvo(.iev rjjiidg avTovg ovze ti twv tolovtcov ovdiv jidoxov- Teg, rj Ttdv TovvavTiov; oXiyov ydq ra ye Toiama XeXtjd^e 7tdv3^ 7]inag. nPQ. 'lATcav di^Ttov tovvuvtIov, JSi2. Ov Tolvvv YMXcog r]iiuv eigrjvaL to vvv drj gTqd^ev , tog a\ {.leTa^oXal ymtco Te xal dvco yiyvof^ievai XvTtag Te /.al rjdo- vdg diregydKovTaL, nPn. Ti inr^v; 2Q. ^Qd^ eGTai ytdXXiov ymI dveTtiXrjjtTOTeQOv to Xeyo- C l^ievov. npn. nwg; del ^dp H.-rravra] The passages in where relief from pain (which is indif- Plato, from which we may learn a full ference) is thought and spoken of as account of this doctrine of Heraclitus, positive pleasure. &.Te l^ecetet. i79 — 80, Sophist. 2 id — 50, vircKo-Tfivai] Soph. Ajax, 82. (ppo- and Cratijl. 402. It is here alluded to, vovvra yap ^'^'^ oux. av i^zoTfi^ oxvw. because at first sight it wouljj appear T£ |itjv] This generally amounts to to exclude the possibility of that state nothing more than an assent ; but as of indifference to pleasure and pain from its original meaning is What else ? it is which Socrates is about to show another perfectly suitable here, instance of a false pleasure, namely, 74 nAATONO:^ <1)1AHB02. 2'f2. 'i2g ca (.lev jneyaXaL /.leza^olal Xvicag re ymI fjSovag 7t0L0V0Lv rjf.uvy al d^ av jnezQial re y,al G/LUKgal to Ttaqdjiav ovdlreqa rovriov. nPil. ^OgO^oregov omcog rj ^nelvcog, lo ^wAqareg, 2^1, OvAOvv el ravd^^ olVw, Tialiv b vvv dij Qrj^etg ^iog 5\ f/ av rfAOi. npn, noiog; 2Q, ^Ov aXvTiov re ymI avev yaQ(.iovoJv ecpa/Liev elvaL, nPQ. ^^Xrjd^iorara leyeig. 2£2. ^£x dij rovrcov rid^C}f.iev rqirrovg r^jiuv ^lovg, eva /tiev D TjdvVj rov d^ av "kv^vr^qov, rbv d^ eva fir^direQa. /} Ttcog av q)alrjg av Tteql rovrcov; IIP£2. Ov/, aXXcog eycoy^ ?J ravrrj, T^£2g elvai rovg filovg. 2i2, Ovzovv ovY. av eXrj ro liu) IviteiGd^al nore ravrov ro) Xalqeiv. TLPQ. Iltdg yoQ av; 2Q. Onorav ovv a^ovarjg cog rjdiGTOv navrcov ecjriv aXv- Ttcog diareXelv rov ^lov ajtavra, ri rod^ V7rola(.i^(xveig Isyeiv rov roiourov; nPQ. "Hdv Xiyeiv (paiverai tf.iOiy ovrog ro f.irj XvTtelad^ai. 2 £2. Tqicov ovv ovrcov r^f.iiv ^ covrivcov (Soviet, rl^et, yial- E Xioaiv %v ovo/iiaGL XQcofied^a^ ro f.iev xqvoov, ro 6^ aQyvQOV, rqirov de jurjderega rovrcov. npn. Keirai. 2 £2, To Si (.iridireqa rovrcov toO^ rji.uv OTtiog d^dreqa ye- voir aVy XQ^^^Q ? aqyvqog; UPil. Kal TtcJog av; 2 £2. OvS aq o (.leoog ^log fjSvg rj Xvjtrjqog yevofievog wVTivwv povXei] He is not speaking possible to doubt that this is one of of the three lives in particular, but sup- the many instances where XeyofXEVoi; poses any three things, to two of which has usurped the place of y£v6[JL£vo?. It names have been given, but the third would be childish to say o \j.ioo<; p{o? is merely known as not either. The is not, and cannot be rightly thought question then is, can it become either? to be, that from which it has been See the next note. formally distinguished ; but it is ne- 7tvop.€vos] Commonly XeyofJ-evoc:. But cessary for the argument to show that when we consider how awkw'ardly this the circumstance of its coming imme- word is placed, and then look to the diately after pain cannot alter its na- preceding y^voiT* av, it seems scarcely ture, and make it become pleasure. nAATQNOS ', UTteq /w- qlg [tov (.171 XvTcelod^aL ytal tov x^^Q^^^^] V ^^■^'^9 tAaTtqov, nPQ. Kai (.LYjiv X^Q^S y ^^' 2Q. IIoTeqov ovv aiQWjiieda naq tjiluv Tavr etvai, zcf^a- Tceq aqTL, Tqla, ^ Svo /iiova, Xv7T1]v (.lev Y,a%6v Tolg avdqwjioig, B Tt)v d^ dnaXkayrjv twv XvtiwVj avTO tovt^ dyad^ov ov, rjSv nqoo- ayoqeveod^ai ; nP£2, Ilwg dr vvv tovto, u) ^coxqaTeg^ sqioTCo^ieda vcp Tj^iaiv avTcov; ov ydq /.lavS^dvo). 2Q. ^'OvTCog ydq Tovg TtoXe^iiovg 0ilrj^ov Tovde, to Ilqio- Taqxe, ov (.lavd^dveig. nPQ. yieyeig d* avTovg Tivag; 2Q, Kai (idXa deivovg Xeyo^dvovg ra neql cpvotv, ol to jtaqdrcav rfiordg ov (paGiv elvai, nPQ. Ti f.iriv; 2Q. ^vnwv TavTag elvat jtdoag aTtocpvydg, ag vvv ol Tteql C OiXrj^ov 7]dovdg STtovofidl^ovGiv. - diTip \bipCs] See Appendix. tov»s 7ro\€|i,Covs] This is generally un- no'T€pov ovv atpcofieOa] One alter- derstood of Antisthenes. The descrip- native having been disposed of, the other tion applies very well to what we learn is taken up : "If freedom from pain is of him from Diogenes Laertius. ou not pleasure, is there such a thing as xi)[yr] reminds one of the many sneers absolute pleasure ?" And thus is intro- against the Platonic Ideas which are duced another question: "Is pleasure attributed to him and his friends. A possible without pain?" I have added, disposition tcithout meanness but harsh., in the Appendix, a translation of a pas- is also in keeping with his character, sage from Kant's Anthropologic, which though not with Plato's general appre- may perhaps interest some readers. elation of the Cynics. 76 HAATliNOS $IAHB02. IlPn. TovToig ovv rjiiiag frorega TteiSeGd^aL ^vft^ovleveig, rj Ttwg, CO ^wytQazeg; ^n. OvKj all WOTTSQ fidvreOL TtQOOXQrjO&al tioi, j^iav- T€vo(,ievoig ov riyvrj alia tivl SvoxeQela q)voecog ova ayevvovg liav iuef.uor]'/.6TC0v ttjv Trjg fjdovT]g dvva/iicv y,al vevofiiKozcov ov- div vyieg, wots xoft avTo zom amrjg to ETiaycoyov, yor^Tev/iiay D ovx fjdovrjv, eivai. romoig jiiev ovv xam^ av Ttgoaygrjoaio, G/.e- tfJa/Ltevog Itl 'nal Tall avTcov dvoyeQaafiaTa' (.iSTa de TavTa, ai ye (.loi Sot^ovgiv r]doval alrjOeig eivai, 7tevGeL, %v s§ aii- cpolv TOiv loyoiv GK€tpdjH€V0L Trjv dvvaf^uv avT^g jtaQad-cof^ied^a TtQOg TYjV KQLGLV. nPQ. 'Oqd^Cog leyeig. 2Q. l\IeTadic6y,a}f,iev drj TovTovg ojgtceq ^vi,i^d%ovg, z«ra TO TYjg SvGyEQelag avzcdv lyvog. ol(.iai ydq Towvde tl leyetv avTOvg, aQXOjiiivovg Ttod^ev aviod^ev, cog, el (]ovlr]d^elf,iev otovovv E eidovg Trjv cfvGiv ISelv, oJov ttjv tov Gv.liqqov , ttotbqov E\g Ta GY^lrjQOTaT^ aTTO^lenovTeg ovTcog av fiallov Gvvvo^Gai(.i€v rj TtQog TO. TTolloGTct GKlriQOTi^Ti; del drj Ge, co IlQCOTaQxe, ymOcx- TTEQ ijiLOi, y.al TOVTOig Tolg dvGxeQaivovGiv ccTroKQiveGd^ai. nP£2, JIccvv jiiev ovv J /.al ley cm y^ avTolg otl JtQog Ta TtQWTa fxeyed^ei. 2Q. Ovyiovv ei %al to Trjg fjdovJjg yevog lde7v rjvTivd ttot^ EXEL cpvGiv ^ovlrjd^Elf.iEVj ov% Eig Tag jvolloGTag jjdovdg dno- 4ib plenTeov all elg Tag aKQOTccTag yial GcpodqoTcxTag lEyofievag. IIPQ. Udg av Got TavTTj Gvyxcogol?] Ta vvv. 2i2. ^^IV ovv al TtQoxEiQol yE, [acTiEQ y.al ineyiGTac tcov TjdovcoVy] leyofxev nolldug^ al tceqI to GcJo^d eIgiv avTai. Ixeiiio-qKOTwv] This is not a capricious noun from which the verb comes is change from the dative to the genitive, already a compound), have no substan- nor is to be taken absolutely, for then tives derived from them. But axoXa- auT(ov would have been necessary; but axaafxaTa in Aristoph. Lysist. 398 is a it is in construction with guay^Eptfa sound reading, and the scarcity of such 9ua£(0? — WUh the severity of men tvho formations would arise partly from the have too much hated, &c. scarcity of the verbs, and partly from a wo-TC Kal avrh rovr airi]^] 8o that fear of their length. this very attractiveness of it is a trick ras iroWoo-Tas T|8ovds] The smallest and imposture, and not pleasure. pleasures. TaTCoXXoaxa axXiQpoTTQTi, iAm<7S 8vIAHB02. 77 IIPQ. ITcog yccQ ov; 2Q, HoTegov ovv fiel^ovg eloi xe /ml ylyvovzai jieql rovg [y,c(f.ivovTag] iv Toig voooig ?} jieql vyialvovTag; evka^rjd^wfiev di f^tij TtQoneTcdg a7ToyiQiv6f.i€voL jiTaiGcofiev tctj. tccxcc ydq tWg cpa7/iiev av Tteql vyiahovTag. B nPn. Ehog ye. 2Q, Tl dl; ovx avzac ziov fjdovcov VTreq^dXXovOiv, wv av 7,al 87tid^vf.uca fueyiGvai nqoyiyvcovTat; nPn. TovTO ^liv dlrj^eg. 2Q. ^u4lV ovx ^^ TtvQeTTOVTsg xal ev loiomoig voG7i(.iaGLV exof-ievoi fiaXlov dixpcoGi ^al QiyoiGi, yial TtdvTcov, ouoGa did which is incompatible with ye, and as ye is not found in the Bodleian and its fellows, it has been omitted in the recent Editions. But as it is impossible to account for the intrusion of the word in the other MSS., its omission in the first-mentioned must be ascribed to negligence. With yz once restored, the change of 'Ap' into 'A XX' becomes in- evitable; and the latter appears to me to be infinitely more in keeping with the nature of the observation; as it is more reasonable in speaking of a matter of every-day talk, to say that we con- clude it is admitted, than to ask whether it is so. But the rest of the sentence requires careful consideration. The sub- ject for inquiry is simply this: "Which are the greatest pleasures *?" "Whether they are easily procured", does not con- cern the inquiry, though it may serve to designate them when found. If we remember that auxat represents alaxpd- raxat xott acpoSpoTarat , we see that so far there is nothing unsound in the sentence. 'AXX' ouv al upc'xotpot yt, Xeyoji-cv icoXXaxt?, zlah aurai: but we may go further and introduce al TZtpi TO awfxa. If then we look at the remainder, we see not only that it was unsuited to our purpose, but that it begins with AIIIEP, the same beginning as that of one of the un- suspicious parts already admitted. That is to say ; a copyist had got as far as AIIIEP and stopped. Aften^^rds he saw that he had skipped c XeyofjiEV TioXXa'xt? ; so he returns to this, but forgets to cancel AlllEP. "Here is some gap", says a grammarian, "which we must fill up" ; and he fills it up so as to make Plato say that the com- mon bodily pleasures which are also the greatest are the most intense. En cor Zenodoti ! En jecur Cratetis ! [Kd|jtvovTas]] I have put xa(j,vovTa? in brackets. Plato could not use the article with one participle and not with the other, but he must use it with ^v rai? voaoi?, whether the participle had it or not. irpo-yCYVWVTai] This is Stephens* emendation for TCpoaytY'^wvTai ; any one who will take the trouble to attend to the Varise Lectiones of even the best collations, and see the blunders com- 6 mitted in upo and up {i.e., 7CpOs)» "^ill at once see that it is perfectly absurd to decide such diflFerences as these by the authority of the MSS. irdvTwv, oirdora] The received text is Ttavra drcoaa. I have written Ttavrtov, both because it is necessary, and because the neglect of terminations and the habit of giving the same termination to two consecutive words is confessedly of com- mon occurrence. ^vSsicz alone might leave us in doubt whether it ought not to be Tcep\ Ttavta; but the addition of ocTtOTcXTQpoujJie'vwv decides the question in favour of the genitive. Stallbaum's explanatory paraphrase iza^xa e^w^otai 7ta3X.--'^ oTCoaa h'.OL xou aoiijLaTO? eJw- Saai Tiaaxciv shews an utter miscon- ception of what brevity authorises or not, is untrue in fact, and while it gives y.a\ the office of joining two co- ordinate clauses, leaves t£ to join two sentences. 78 nAATONOS tprAHBOS. Tov otoftaTog sJioOaoi jtdoxeiv, fiallov r' h'deia ^vvrslvovxav 'Aal ujcon'kriQOVf.itviov fiei^ovg rjdovag I'oxovGiv ; rj tovt^ ov (fr^- GOfiev dX7]&£g eivai; C nPQ. Udvv jiifv \ovv QTj&iv cpaivexaL. ^Q. Ti ovv; ogdiog av cpaLvoi(.iEd^a Xeyovxeg wg, eY rig rag jneylorag r^Sovag Idelv ^ovloiTOy ovx elg vyieiav alX^ elg voaov iovvag Set gkotteIv; oga de' inrj ^s [jiyfj] dL(xv6ov[(.ievov] SQioTav OS el TtXeia) yalqavatv o\ Gcpodqa vooovvreg tcov vyiai- vovriov , aXX" oYov (.liyed^og (.le trjTeHv rjdovi^gy xal to o^podqa [tteqI TOi;] TOiovTOv TCOV 7C0T8 ylyvt%ai 8/mgtoi€. vorJGaL yccQ deiv q)af.iev rjvriva cpvGLv exei, y-ccl Tiva leyovGiv ol q)dG/,ovi;eg D f.irjd^ eivai to Tiaqdrcav avTrjv. IIPQ. ^uilXd G%edov £7toiiiaL [T(Ji loyc^ gov]. 2 £2. Tdxciy w IlQOJTaQXS, ovx rjUTOV dei^sigj d7io/,QLvel ydo' EV v^QEi f-iEiCovg rjdovdgy ov nXsiovg XeyiOj tiT) Gcpodqa di Y.al TcTj fidXlov vjvEQEXOVGag oqag tj ev Vio GwcpqovL ^u>); ley 8 di 7TQ0GEXC0V TOV VOVV. nPQ. ^^IV E(.iad^ov ley El g, yial jiolv to Siacpegov oqw. Tovg i^iEv ydq Gwcpqovdg tiov vmI o 7TaQOif.uaC^6(.iEvog etvigxel IvvTtfvovrai] The Books have ^uyyt- ^po- 8t] If any one still retains his yvovTOti. T£ivo|j.ai and •^zbiO\x.a.i (for so belief that all the writers of our copies it is often written in MS.) are continually were scrupulous about the text, so as confounded. This I first learned from a even to prefer nonsense to falsification note of Cobet in his Edition of a Frag- (for doubtless there were some such) ment of Philostratus. I have since let him look at the words which follow found another instan(^e in Strabo xvi, 3, opoc 6£- Stavo'ou is thought to be mu- where we must read ware iizirdvta'^a.i tilated, so it is turned into StavooufJie- t6 TtapaSo^ov "so that the marvel is vov ; then the sense demands the very iiitensijfied" . Compare below 46, D, |uv- thing which has been thus sacrificed, raatv dypia^, and 47, a, ^uvt£(v21 T£ xa\ and so -^yji is invented. Again xotou- dvioTE TTfjSav Tiot£f. I am acquainted tov by some blunder is read or written with the fragments of Eupolis and Te- as TOtouTOU; immediately some one is leclides where (j\jyyLy'^s.a':ioii is coupled at hand with a healing supplement, and with (jiaCat? and with cpdygoioi; but 7i£p\ toC is plaistered upon the text; they are merely comic expressions for in the meanwhile to aecomes quite sions. This is in keeping with the meaningless. other traits of him in the dialogue ; Trore] This word occurs twice in the but then he must say; "For Philebus' Bodleian, both before and after j3tY(ov. sake 1 would not have introduced this It is properly cancelled in the second topic, but I cannot do without it." And place, for being used in opposition to so the AH which helped Stallbaum to dv(oT£, it would be placed in such a chastise Fischer disappears into AN, part of the sentence as would mark and as [jliqv is the equivalent of fjievTOt that it is not used as a mere enclitic, and Y£ ^^ found in all the Books, I Bekker's correction of TCtxpoyXuxu for have adopted the latter particle also. irixpcj) yXuxu is fully borne out by to OvKovv It€Ov] In the Books Protar- Sy) Xeyofxevov: but in recommending it chus' speech in continued down to ^uy- he should also have advised the ex- y£v£t?: which arrangement makes the pulsion of fji£fjL[.y}x^vov. For SuaaTtaX- young man show the way and the phi- XaxTta? Hirschig reads SuaarcaXXa^tac;. losopher follow it. But the departure from analogy is in ElQxa.Qic, after ayavaxtiQai? then one of each pair, either xata to would be an anticlimax ; for it is pro- ac5|Aa or ^v. a. t. awji-aat, either au- perly used to denote the effect of sadness riAATONOS qilAHBOS. 81 nPQ. Kai (.idV dXr]^cg to vvv Xeyoiievov. 2Q. OvvMvv ctl TOiavTaL jiu^etg ai fiev s^ Yacov eiol Iv- TTiov TS y,al TjdovioVy ai d^ ey, twv ereqcov nXeiovcov. nPQ. JJcug ydq ov ; 2Q, Aiyi. dij Tag (.liv ^ OTav TiXeiovg XvTiat tcov rjdoviov yiyvcovrai, Tag Trjg xpojqag Xeyoj^iivag vvv dij Tamag eivai y,al Tag Tiov yaQyaXiGi.icov. onoTav d^ svTog to (^iov j] xal to q)Xeyf.ia7vov, tjj Tqixpei de. yial Tjj xvijoet firj £q)v/.vrjTal Tig, tcc d^ STTiTtoXijg fxovov diaxerj, tots (peQOVTeg elg nvq avTcc nal elglSi TolvavTiov (.iBTa^dXXovTeg, ajToqiag sviot^ df,ir]xdvovg [rjdovdg], TOTe di TOvvavTLOv Tolg svTog nqog Tag tcov s^w Xvitag ijdo- vdg ^vyyiegaod^eioag, sig OTtoTSQ av Qiipj]f TtageaxovTOj Tip t« ovyy^y^Qi^ieva [Ua diaxslv ^ tcc diaKeKQifiisva avyxeXv fzat o(.iov IvTvag fjdovalg TtaqaTid^evai. 47 nPQ. l^lrjd^eaTaTa. 2Q, Ovyiovv ojtoTav [at] Tc'keiwv rjdovij yiaTa tcc TotavTa Ttdvia ^vf,iiiux^^j 1^0 (.lev v7tO(.ieniy(.ievov Ti]g Xv7tr]g yaQyallKet T€ y,al rjQS/^ia dyavaxTelv Ttoiel, to d^ av Tr^g fjdovrjg jtoXv nleiov 8yY.exvf.dvov ovvTelvet te yial evloTS 7rr]dav itoLel, z«t in turning the mind back upon itself. aKoplon;, states where pleasure and pain 2uvT£(v£tv is used a little further on as are confounded, and the patient does the effect of pleasure ; it is obvious that not know what to do with himself. This the figure of speech being derived from sense is brought out by transposing the strain upon a cord, is applicable ocTtopiai;, and cancelling TQ^ova?. The alike to the rackings of pain (renes only difficulty that remains is in the morbo teutantur acuto) or the thrill of last clause ; they procure, as the case pleasure (pertentant gaudia pectus). may turn out, sometimes great embar- Ae-ye 8"?| toLs [ji^v] The first part of rassments, and sometimes mingled plea- this passage is easy enough, when once sure for the inner parts contrasted with we learn to separate the process re- the pain of the outer, by forcibly dis- ferred to in the sentence ending with solving tvJiat is compacted and compact- YapyaXiafAWV from that described after- ing tohat is separate, and by procuring wards. I have put 5' after OTto'tav. The to themselves pain mingled with pleasure. first case is that where xvifjat; and rpT- This is saying that they do a thing by vj>i; are said ^lOi'^ii'i, because they dis- doing it; what we need to be told is, cuss the heat in the part affected. When how that which they do involves a this is insufficient, the affection being mixture of pain and pleasure. I there- too deep-seated, then recourse is had fore propose to read tw xa a. p. 8. ^ to irritation of the surface in order to xa 8- aMy^tl^i, 0(Jiou XuTia? tjSovar? Ka- relieve the interior. This is effected paTtJ^evTe? : procuring pain along loith by bringing the parts to the /ire, and pleasure, by forcibly dispersing (xvTJaet shifting the affection to the opposite place : xa\ xp^vj^St) what is congested (the accu- that is to say, by producing external mulated heat), and determining what is heat in place of internal. When men dispersed (by inflaming the surface arti- do this, they sometimes produce terrible ficially). Platonis Philebus. k 82 nAATONOS a>IAHBO^. 7ravT0La /hfv yQcouara, navroia df- oyrjucaa^ Travvola ds irvev- ftara faTteqyal^ofieva naaav ey,jT?.rj^Lv y,al (iodg jtieT^ acpQoavvrjg aTTEQydl^eTai. B IJPn. Mala ye. ^Q. Kal liyeiv /', w evaJge, aviov te 7reQl lavTov noiel '/.al dllov 7ceql d'kXov, log xavxaig Talg fjdovalg T€Qrc6jiievog oiov a7iod^viqo%Ei. nai ravrag ye drj \7ravvd7raaiv del fiieTaduozec TOGOVT(i) (.laXXov, 0G(i> dv d'AoXaaxoveQog le ymI dcpQOveGTeqog cov TvyydvT]' Kal ytaXel drj iieylaTag ravrag , /mI rov tv %av- raig o ri iidXiax del Kiovr^ evdaiuoveatarov yiaTaQLO^f.ieiTac. nPQ. ndvTaj CO 2(6y,Qareg, rd ovfifialvovTa Jiqag tojv C TToXXcov dvd^QOJTtcov elg do^av diejieqavag. iravTota jJtiv xptoftara] It causes all manner of changes in complexion, and changes in posture, and changes in breathing, tvhich produce the utmost ex- citement and shouting with delii-ium. Though I have retained aTr£pYa^Ofji£va, and endeavoured to render it as above, it is rather as against Buttmann's aiiep- ya^oiJievov than as believing in the ge- nuineness of the word. The singular would mean that the excess of the pleasure by producing the changes in complexion, posture &c., produced the mental de- fects ; which is no truer than that these changes cause them. But the very com- bination aTcepYaCo{Ji.£va d-xipyoL^ZTOLi is unworthy of even a third-rate writer. I say ocTCepyaC^tai, for this is the Bod- leian reading, and i^iZpyd^zroLi is merely a contrivance , and not a successful one, made by the corrector of some inferior copy, to avoid the inelegant repetition. As to Tiv£U{Jt,aTa, no doubt the respiration would be troubled ; as in the description of Hercules' madness, we read (H. F. 869) a'fJLTCvoa^ 5' ou ow9pov{C£tj xaupo? to? c? ^[jl^oXtqv. But TiveupLOtxa do not admit of sufficient variety to be called TravTOta. It is not unlikely that this addition is due to some corrupt dittographia, and that the old text ran thus; uavTofa |ji.lv XP^' {jiaxa, TiavToia 8k a^r^^oLxa, naaa^i 6' IfxTtXY^^tv xa\ poots {JLST'aqjpoauvr)? aitep- Ya^exat. &XXov irepl dXXov] One class of MSS. has aXXov, the other rcepl aXXou. I have combined the two readings. iravraTracriv del neraSiwKei] The word TtOtvxaitota'.v is not applicable to dzL, nor does it seem compatible with xoaouxw |j,aXXov, for while the first de- notes thoroughness of pursuit, the other graduates the pursuit according to the moral condition of the man. As this whole speech is about what men say and think, what if Plato wrote thus : xal xauxa; yz 8y] Tiavxa? oaa\ Ssfv |X£- xadwiSxtiv X. fjL., oao) av axoXaoxoxepd? Tis X. a. wv XKYXa'^Tl '* TO. ij-Wxij ^f^,««^^ Tavavvia ^vf4^all€Tai, Xv7T7]v ^' a(,ia jtqog Tjdovrjv y,al rjdov^ nqog Iv- TirjVj wW eig ^iiav aftq^ozeQa yiQaoiv Uvai, raur^ Ef.i7rQOod^e fifv dirjlO^oiiiev, (hg ■\o7T6rav av xevcovaL 7cXr]Qi6G€cog sjridvfiielj xal iXTTiCcov f.iiv xaiqei , y.evovi.ievog d^ aXyei^ xavta de Tore f.itv ovv. ijnagrvQaiiieO^aj vuv Se Xeyo/nev, cug ipvxrjg 7cq6g aioiia T) diacpBQO(.dvrig ev TcaOi Tovtoig tiXtj^el ccfirixavoig ovGi lu^ig fnia At'TTJ^g Te vmI rjSovfjg ^vfiTtlirTeL yiyvofAevrj. IIPQ. Kivdvveveig OQ&oTaTa Xeyuv» 2iL ^'Etl tolvvv Tj/idv twv ^l^ecov Xvjrrjg re /.at i^dovrjg XoLTtTj f.ila. evTOS [KcpacrO^VTtdv]] As it is not the outward and inward parts which are mingled, but the pain of one with the pleasure of the other, the word xepa- a^evTWV, which is borrowed from above, must be looked upon as a false gloss. In the rest of this sentence I have left everything as the MSS. present it, not because it is all sound, but because the remedy will perhaps not appear so certain to some as to myself. He says : "I have indeed told you all about these cases where pleasure and pain are mingled in the body ; as to those where the mind contributes the opposites to the body **** those we have formerly described ; one fact however we did not then bear witness to, but we declare it now, that, in the innumerable ex- amples of mind and body being thus opposed, there is always one and the same mixture of pleasure and pain." This is true ; for, when he mentioned this subject before, it was not to point out this xpaat?, but to show the nature of Desii-e. But in that part of his statement, where 1 have marked a gap, there occurs this phrase : Xutctqv t£ ocfJia ■npo? inSovTQv, xa\ tqSovt^v upo? Xuktqv. The tqSovt) of the mind is £m^\>jxia; and this he has fully described ; but the XuKY) , which is 9cPo<; , ne has never brought forward as co-existing with present bodily satisfaction. And yet TttOxa jj.lv dnQXvOjxEv looks as if he claimed to have done this. Again in the same gap, we have war' e?; fjiCav otfj.^o'xEpa xpaaiv ?£va'., but this (Jif^t? }x(a is the very thing which he declares that he now points out for the first time. There remains cTCo'tav an X. T. e. Stallbaum proposed at one time to change aZ into x'.c , while I thought that it proved a lacuna, where the opposite oTrdxav TcXTjptoTat had once played its part ; but it seems to follow from what I have said above that So- crates cannot have entered into any such detail. I will not conceal the suspicion which I have conceived about this very corrupt part of the Dialogue. I believe that of the words, tlEcI 8s rcav ^v 4'^X'fi!' y^^YXH alone has any claims to le- gitimacy : that the damaged text was restored by a conjecture founded on the antithetical Ilspi ye t(ov tqSovwv x. t. £. : but that we may easily find such a beginning as will leave undisturbed and free from all taint of suspicion both ^\i\r\ .... HufJL^aXXsTat and toaxe . . . li^ait viz. Iirel h\ Kal ^^^x^ ^' "^^ ^- "Since this is the fact, part of this fact has been stated, but part we now declare". Instead of oTio'xav au xevuxai, I con- jecture 8vyr]g Tid^eoat lamag hoTxag Tivdg; npn. "Eycoye. 2£2. Omovv amdg rjdovcov iieaxag £VQrjO0f.iev dfiirjxdvtov; ij deofiSxh^ VTTOjLiif.ivtjGy.ea'S^aL to og t' €(perjA£ jToXtq^QOvd neg x(^Xe7Trjvai, og re jtohv yXv/lcov f^iilirog yiaraXeL^Of^iivoiOy 48xca ir«g ev Tolg d^QrjVOig /ccl TtoS^oig rdovdg av Xvitaig ovoag dvaixBf.uy(.Levag; npn. Ov'/j alX* ovTO) Tavjcc ye /at ov/ aXkwg av ^vjn- ^aivoi yLyv6(.ieva. 2Q. Kal jLirjv /al zdg ye zQayr/dg ^ecoQijOeig, orav d/na yaiqovTeg /XdaJGi, fX€/.ivr]Gai ; npn. rl d' ov; 2n. Tijv d^ ev zalg /tof^apdlaig didd^eaiv i^f.adv vr^g if-'vyr^g ccQ^ o\Gd^ cog eazi \y,dv Tovroig'] f^u§ig lvfc-r]g Te /al ijdovrjg; Uoia] The Books have Ilota, 91f)<;; ^a.u^v? No; for until Protarchus as- to which the answer given is "Hv au- sents to it, it is no Jom< assertion. Again TTQV T. ^. a. TZ. X. auyxpaaiv e'cpajxev. No- "Hv is jxiliv ; and liow can we have body believes in Hola, cpi^'?; and some {xf^tv and lu'yxpaatv governed both by have the courage to replace it by II otav Xafx^avetv? A single correction (for I q)"rji; ; which is at least grammatical, attribute the interpolation to the false But there is no reason for qji^; at all, reading) removes all these difficulties, and if any one will compare the in- It is probable that the MS. had tqjj.' stances where we have FIw? 97)?; HlfJ oturiQV, the ruhricator having neglected 97]?; and the rest, with the innumerable to put an initial 4>. examples of the mere interrogative pro- rb — 6s t I\>x°'^'? follow to elSo? without construction of So^aCetv may be with a repetition of the article. etvat, in which case the subject of a avTi\6]i.ivov] One Editor says : Intel- reflexive sentence follows in the nomi- ligendum relinquitur auTT)';. I myself native, or it may govern a direct accu- was driven to a conjecture : avxtreyvov sative, as in the next sentences. ov, but fortunately I admitted it to be too Kal irdvTa] And loho, as to all things audacious. These are the shifts to which pcrtai7iing to the body, conceive themselves we are driven by the dunce who in- fo be far above what they really are. serted zzipi. I have no faith in ^zxj- Literally, 'to be all things which per- 8ouc, for who ever heard of So^oao^ta tain to the body in a degree beyond the cza^q'^tq?? reality which belongs to them.' The IIAATUJNOS «X>IAHB02. 87 f.itXXofxev Tov Tiatdixov Idovieg if)i}6vov arojiov ijdovj^g /.at ?.v- JIPQ. Tlcog ovv xif.ivtof.iev di^a leyeig; -5'ii. JlavTsg 071:6001 xavxriv tvjv ipevdrj So^av 7C€qI muiiov B ca'OTjTCog do'^aCovGi, y,aM7i€Q ajtavzcov avd-QOJiccjv, Kal tovtojv avayyiaiozazov ejceod^ca Tolg fiiv Qc6fit]v amwv nal dvvcxfitv, To7g S^y OLfiai, Tovvavzlov. nPQ. ^^vdyxrj. ^Q, Tavxrj Toltvv dieXe, A,at oaoi fiiv avccov elal fiEi^ aaOeveiag tolovzol xal advvatOL '/.axayeXiofiEvoi Tifuoqelo^ai, yelolovg zovrovg q)day.cov eivai zdXr^di] q)dey^ec' roig de dvva- Tovg TLfiajqeioSm q)oliEqovg ymI lo%vQ0vg [xat] ex^QOvg 7tQOoayo- QEvojv oQ^oTavov Tovccov Gavioj Xoyov d7codt6a€ig. ayvoca yccQ C rj fiiv Ttov i(7xvQ(JL)v ex^QCi ze vmI aloxQcc' jiXa^eqa. ydq /ial zolg jilXag avziq ze 7,al oom eiyioveg avzrjg eioLV rj d^ dod^evi)g i]fuv zrjv zcjv yeLoicov eiXrjXE zd^iv ze Aal cpvaiv. IIPi2. Ogd^ozaza Xeyeig. dXXd ydq -rj zojv tjdovwv yial P^t- 7rwv fu^ig ev zovzoig ov7ico fioi nazacpavvig, 2fl. Tt]v zoivvv zov q)&6vov Xa^e dvrafuv ttqwzov. nP£l, Aeye fiovov, ^12. Av7ii] zig ddi'Aog eazL 7iov Kai r]dovi]; D llPil. Tovzo ftev dvdyyjj. ^12. OvYMvv hit fiiv zolg zcav hxdq&v Y,a%olg ovz^ ddiv^ov ovze (pdoveqov eozi zo 7«/^€/^y; nPil. Ti fii'iv; ^il. Td di ye zCov (fiXcov oQcovzag aaziv oze zaxa fu) Xu- 7re'iGl>ai, x.alqeiv de, dg^ ova dbcmv eovzv; IlPn. Ilwg 6" ov; 2^ii. OvAOvv zrjV dyvoiav euvofiev ozi ycazov 7idaiv; nPn. "OgOtog, ^n. Tijv ovv ztuv cplXwv do^oaorplav xai do^oAaXlav ytal lap,^v. think there was a gap, and, as we have The reference is to 46, e. lIAATQiNOS t&lAHBOS. 89 ^Q. Mavd^cxvof,iev ovv ore d^QrjVOv Tttqi /mI cp^ovov vmI OQyrjq jtccvv^ iavl xa vvv di] SiajceQavS^evia; TIFQ. Hcog ydq ov (xavd^dvof.iev ; 2Q, Ovyiovv TtoXkd «Vt xd loLTcd; UPQ. Kal Ttdvv ye. 2£2. /lid drj rl (.idliod^ viroXaf^i^dvetg (.le Sel^al oot irjv iv rfi 'AO)(.Lti)dia (^il^iv; dq' ov TtiGrewg xdgiv on ttjv y" ev rolg (po^otg xal eQCOOL y,ai Tolg aXloig qddiov yiQccGtv e7iLde7^ai;'D la^ovva de rovvo jtagd oavxiT) [dfpelvai ^le] i^irjKezL £7t ey.€h'Ci iovra delv f.ir]yivv£Lv zovg loyovgj dXV ccTrXcog Xa^eiv tovto, OTL y,al owfAa dvev ipvxTjg i^clI ipv/ij dvev Gi6(.iaTog /ml 'Aoivfj l^iez^ dllrjltov ev tolg 7vad'rjf.iaGL f^ieGzd eGZL GvyY.eY.Qa(.Uviqg Tjdovrig Xvitaig; vvv ovv leye, noreqa dq)irjg /iie tj (.itGag 7iotrj- Geig vvA,Tag; eiTicov de G(.uAQd oi^iai gov Tev^eoO-ccL fied^elvm fie' TOVTiov ydq ccTtdwcov cwQLOv ed^eXrjGCJ gol Xoyov dovvai, mE vvv d^ ejil xd Xoind ^ovXof.iai GTelleGO^ai icQog ttjv yiQiGiv rjv (DlXr](^og eTtiraTTei, IIPQ. Kalcog eljteg, w ^wyiQareg' olV ooa XoLTtd rj(.uv die^eXd^e ottji gol cpiXov, 2Q. Kazd cpvGiv zolvvv (.lerd xdg fuxdetGag f^dovdg vtvo diq Tivog dvdyy.i]g e/cl zdg dfnUzovg 7roQevoi(.ied'^ av ev rco ^eqei. IIPQ. KdlliGx" eljieg. 51 J5'i2. ^Eyw drj jceiqaGOixat (.leTcclalScov Grjfualveiv vf.uv avrdg. XapdvTtt 8^] When I affirmed that press aqj&fvai .ae tou [JiTixuvstv ; for while Xa^o'vTa oicpzviOLi could not depend on it is longer than the other, it is really TCtarew? X*P^"^' ^ ^^^ ^^ ^^''■^® aware of more elliptical. the extent to which the text had been |x^o-as iroii^; Arist. Nub. i. (xe'aa; vux- out of its place, but pleading that there ra? yz^ia'^cnt., Rep. 621, b. was no other possible way of account- jxeraXaPwv] Only a few inferior co- ing for these infinitives. But when we pies have this reading in place of [A£- remove d.(i;>ZK>iai fxs, everything is right: Ta^aXt.)^<. But they have blundered on what Socrates has said is a pledge, that the truth. Socrates does not change it would be easy to say more, and a proof but takes in exchange. Stallbaum has that having given this earnest he need confounded these two senses in his not prolong the conversation by pro- note on 21, d. quoting passages from ceeding to the consideration of the other the Parmenides and the Symposium passions, a'cpsivai fxe fxif)x^Ti Ssfv {jlyj- Avhere fXETOt^aAWv is correctly given. xuveiv is a strange combination to ex- There is a passage in the Laws which 90 " nAATi}NO:S <1>UHB02:. to7g yccQ fpaoy,ovai XvTtiov eivat itavXav jidoag Tag f]d()vag ov 7iavi' /nog 7cu0o(.iat^ aXV , ottsq ehiov , jnccQivOi /MTaxQCoi^iat 7tQog TO Tivag rfiovag elvai do-aovaag, oioag 6^ ovdaf.aog, Kcd fieydlag sTegag Tivdg ana xal 7tolldg (pavvaadEioag, \eivai d^ avcdg^ 0VLi7ce(pvQ(.ilvag ojliov Xmiaig %e %ai dvajcavGeoiv odv- vwv Tiov iieyioTiov nSQi ts Gc6(.iazog xal xpvyjjg d/roqlag. B nP£2. '^h]^elg d^ av Tivag^ c5 ^w/^qaT^gy vjcoXa/i^dvtov OQxhog Tig dLavoolr^ av; 2'i2. Tag tcbqI te id %ald leyofieva xQcof^iara, -aal jteql xd GXij/naza, VMi rwv oOfiayv xdg 7ckeiavagy /.at vdg tcov qjiJoyywVy '/mI oGa rdg svdelag dvaiG^rjrovg exovva vmI dlvTtovg zdg 7cXrj- QOJGeig aiG^t/Tdg /ml rjdetag -/.aO^agdg Xv7Ctdv naQadidtoGiv. IIFi}. llcbg dfj Tavz^, to Iwyigareg, av kayoj.iev ovTcog; ^!^2. ndvv f^iiv [ovv] ov/. evOvg drjXd tGiiv a XtytOy 7i€l- C gattov f^iijv drjloiv. Gyrjf^iaTcov re ydg '/dXXog ovx 07i£q av V7ioXdiioL€v 01 7ioXlol 7ceiQiOj[iai vvv leyeiVy r} ^okov ?y zivcov 'CcoyQa(pt]iiidT(jov y dXV evOv tl Xeyio, q)rjGlv o Xoyog^ /.al 7tEQi- fpsQeg '/at d7v6 rovrcov dij rd ze zolg zoqvoig yiyvof.i€v t7ii- contains both words, and will sliew Ildvv yXv [ovvjj Nothing can be more the distinction between the two. It out of place here than this frequent is liere given as, in my opinion, it formula. Socrates is not correcting, ought to be read. Laws, 904, d. ixeicw ^^^ conceding; and in this sense fjikv 8* ^%t\ ^M\-i\ xaxia; t) apetfis OTavBjouv cannot, be employed. But it may fxSTtti'iaXif] 6ta Tr.v outy]? pouXifjaiv Tc"be said that ijlcv belongs to the sentence, xal dp,t.Aiav •^Z'^o\Li^'r\^ ?a)(^upav, oTtoxav and is in apodosis to a suppressed 8^ [jL£v apSTTJ !j£ia TtpocfJiL^aaa ■^l-^^r^^'xi contained in jjltqv, while ouv characterises S'.acpepovTcos totauTiQ, 8ta9£'povTa xa\ the answer, so that the combination of fiCTcXape TOTCov, ctY^av bZhv jisxaxoixi- the two words here is purely accidental. Q^zloa [lie, a[X£''vto tivd Toitov exspov]. I have no doubt that this is the true Compare what has preceded: \KZ\).t]i6L- explanation of ;x£v, but the particle \T{zai 6Vj Tipoc kOcv touto tg Tcoto'v Tt after it in this case would most certain- Y^YVOfievov ael Tioiav eSpav 6£t ncra- ly be yo^''- We must either restore >vap.pdvov o?xi^£a!:ai, xa\ xiva; kot£ this — but yoOv dux generally becomes TOTtou;. O'jxouv — YS? or suppose ouv itself to be [etvaw 8* avrds]] These words inter- owing to the frequent combination of rupt the continuity of the description ; jjlev and ouv. Ilavu belongs more cs- TioXXa? 9avTaa^£{aa? appearing in many pecially to 8t^Xa. t>hapes, why? — oii{jL:t£Cpupjji.£'vac — becauae rd tc tois ropvois] As Hesychius they are adulterated with pains and defines the Topvoc as a carpenter's in- reliefs &c. struraent by which circular figures are TjScCas KaQapds Xviroiv] The two last described, ^ixircESa cannot be trianguli words neither require a conjunction to or quadrata (Stallb.). The order fol- precede them, nor is there the least lowed is an inverted one ; the products ground of suspicion against them ; they of rules and compasses correspond to are added as descriptive of the manner the eu^u a)(^T^jj,a, and those of the Top- iu which the TtXiQpwaEK; are TQgeCai. vo? to the TCept9£p^s. llAATiliNO:^ cpiAHBo:^;. 91 TceSd ze mi OTsqed viai id zolg KavoOL ymI yioviatg, ti fiov f.iav^dveig. ravia ydq out. eivai Jigog tl y.akd Xtyio^ /.ad^djieq dXXa, dlX^ del KaXd za^^ avzd necpimevai vml tivag r]dovdg'D oiyceiag exeiv, ovdev ralg twv y^vrjoewv TrgoocpSQeig' y,al y,Qc6- /Liaza di] romov xbv tvtcov k'xovua [xald '/ml rjdovdg]. dXV aqa fiiavMvofiev, rj 7t6)g; nPQ. IleiQiojuaL fueVy w ^toAQaxeg' Tteigd^rfci di ycal Gv oacpeOT€QOv en Xsyeiv. 2Q. Aiyto d^ rdg rwv cpd^oyywv ^^"^ zdg keicxg vml lafi- nqdg^ fdg ev tl xad^agov ieloag jtiilog, ov jTQog ezegov xaldg akX aurdg y.a^* avzdg eivcci, yial tovtojv '^v{.L(pvrovg ridovdg e7to/,i£vag. JIPQ, ^'EoTi yaQ ovv ytal tovto. 2Q, To Se Tteql zdg oofidg r^vcov (.dv toutwv -^elov yevog K rjdovwv TO di (.ltj ovf.i(.ie{.il%d^aL £v cwralg dvay%aiovg Xvnag, ytal OTzrj tovto y.al ev oto) Tvyxdvet yeyovog rjiiuvy tovt^ €zet- voig Tid^rjjia dvTiaTQOCfov djiav, dXX\ el /Mvavoeig, Tavza el'drj 6vo Xiyouev rjdovcov. nPQ, KaTavow. 2Q, ^'Etl Si) Tolvvv TovTOig jtQOG^ojfxev Tag Tteql Ta (.la- 52 •Srf.iaza ridovdg, el dqa Soxovaiv rjfuv avvai 7Teivag fiiv /^lij e'xeiv Tov [.larMvecv liiTjdi did ^ad^rji^idTcov TieivvjV dlyrjdovag e^ ^QX^S yevo(.dvag. IIPQ. ^uiX)^ ovTco ^vvdoyel, 2 £2. Tl Se; (.icc^rj/ndTcov TilrjQcoS^eloiv idv vOTeqov dno- §oXal did TTjg XrjSrjg yiynovTai, vxi&oqqg Tivdg ev avToig dX- yrjSovag; nPQ. Ov Tfc (pvoei yey dXX^ ev tlgi XoyiG^iolg tov ixad^r^- fiazogy oTav zig GTegrjd^elg XvTrr]d^fj Sid ttjv yqeiav. B KVTJo-cwv] This is Vau Heusde's cor- vg5v in place of 9iJo'YYWv, but leave the rection for xivi^atwv; the same scholar second ra? to shift for itself. It is also changed xiviQaet to xvirjae'. in the more likely that Plato would use c^'^iy- passage above. It is strange that the yw^', as he had done so before, and as Zurich editors should not have adoi)ted it is more comprehensive than (ptovwv. these corrections. X^yoficv] For this all MSS. and Edi- <|>6c'-Yy«v] The feminine noun which tions have XsyofJie'vwv ; but Plato would denotes the description of soiinds, and not speak of the real pleasures as things which has dropped out here, as is evi- called pleasures. dent from the repetition of the article, Xoyicrjiots t. it.] The genitive does is perhaps ?6^a?. Some propose 9W- not express concerning, but XoyC^ovxai 92 IIAATillNO:^ »i>IAHBOS. 2£1. Kal (.i}]v, (X) fiaKccQiEy vuv y" rjf,iElg avrcc ra Tr]g cpv- oecog iLiovov ^tad^rjinara ywqlg xov loyiG/iov diajteQalvof^iev, UPQ, ^hj^Tj Tolvvv Xiyeig, oti xcDQtg Ivnrjg rjjiuv krjd-rj yiyvExai E/iaaxoT^ iv lolg fiadrjuccaiv. ^jfi. Tavzag tolvvv Tccg tojv iLad^rjf.iaciov r^dovag ajLilyiTOvg TE Eivca Xvnaig Qrjxeov y,al ovda/iiiog tcov tioIIojv dvO^gwjrcov a lid TCOV Gcpodqa oliywv. IIPQ. Ilcog yccQ oh QrjTsov; C -5"^. Ovjiovv ovE liiETQUog i^dt] dia/.EKQijiiEO^a ytoqlg xdg te '/.adaqdg rjdovdg ymI rag oyEdov dyiad^aQzovg OQd^iog ccv lEyd^Ei- aag, 7CqooS^wi^iev tu) loyo) Tag (.liv /.ard to jusya ymI to acpo- Sqov avTwv y.al noVkd/.ig xctl ohydytig yiyvo/nevag TOiavTag, Ti]g TOV a7TELQ0V T EKEIVOU YMI fjTTOV YmI jildlloV did TE GCO- B jiiaTog y,al il'vyijg cpEQOf,ievov Eivai yevovg, Tdg Si jtu] twv efi- ^ItTQOiV. nPQ. ^Oqd^OTaTa liyEig, oj 2c6/iQaTEg. 2Q. ^'Etl tolvvv TtQog TovTOig fiExd Tama Tod^ amcov Sia- d^EUTEOV. nPn. To jwlov; 2i2. Tl tzote XQTj (pdvaL 7tQog dXrj&Eiav ELval to Kad^aQOV TO Tta^YjiJia is what they do ; so that but says that all such as vary in their the phrase should be rendered "in the greatness and intensity belong to the account they take of the accident". aitstpov which itself pervades mind and OvKovv] I should have bracketed but matter, now less and now more. I will left in the text the interpolations, by "o^ mention the other changes I have which this passage has been so long made, tafc jxb— to? y.h, xa\_T6— rendered unintelligible, but that there y.ata TO, acpoSpov au — a9o5pov au i.e. •were other corrections needed, so that auTwv, arc£tpou 7c — diziipoM tc, (the it would only have created confusion Bodleian has t€ yi), [TCpoalicofJiev aJ- to put the new and the old together. TOLic] after 9£pofj,^vou, TaT; — Ta'?, the TipoaSto(i.£v TW Xoyw is surely not dif- last with MS. authority, ficult to understand. Socrates wishes to ZiaQiariov] This is Van Heusde's add one more remark to this part of emendation for §taS£TcOV ; it had been his subject. But some one who took no anticipated by the Venice MS. 2, a notice of t(5 Xdytf) must needs have it copy full of conjectural variations, that some quality is to be added to some Trpbs dXT)0€iav] ''i.e. in relation to hind; so he inserts after tw Xo'yw the truth. As this is the constant and only sentence Tar? jxev acpoSpar? Tf)§ovar? ajji.2- admissible meaning of these words, r] Tpfav, -arc 5£ \rri TOvJvavTtov ^,ajJi£Tp{av. before £?Xtxpiv£(; can only be retained on But the Xo'yo; is intent not merely on condition of our changing Tt TtoT£ into giving the names but on dividing into T{ TipoTSpov. Otherwise, we must change the several classes of Ta anfiipa and Ta t) itself into xa(. The remainder of the iffJLfJieTpa, and does not even use the sentence is faulty as to the ai-raiigement greatness and the intensity as proofs, of the conjunctions and articles. I would IIAATON02 $1AHB02. 93 T£ '/.(XL eili/.Qivfg vmI to ocpodqa tg {^/mI to] jtoXv %ai \to~\ (.dya, ymI TTQog to 'AaXov; IIPQ. Ti noT^ (XQa, to ^ojv.qaTeg, FQiOTag ^ovX6f.ievog; ^n. Mridav, to TTgcoTaQxe, hnlehxeLv lliy%tov r]dovrjg ts vmI fjriOTJjjLir^g, el to //fV ag'' avTiov f/MTeqov YMOagov eOTi, E TO 6^ ov YMxIaQov, iva Yadaqov cvmteqov lov elg ttjv YQaoiv puol /.at ool %al ^vvmvaoi Tolade qcuo TTaQi-xrj ttjv kqioiv. nPn. 'Oqd^OTaTa. 2Q. ^'Wi di], ijEQi TrdvTCov, ooa xad^aga yiviq Myo(.iev, outcogI diavorjOto/Liev TtgoeXofievoi ttqmtov cwtcov €v tl dLaGKOncofiev. 53 nPii. Tl ovv 7tQoelojf.ieda; 2Q, To Xevytov ev Tolg jiqwtov, el (Soviet, ^eaocofxed^a yevog, nP£l. ndvv jiiiv ovv. 2i2. Ilcog ovv av XevKov y^al Tig VMd^aQOTrjg fjiuv cir;; yro- TeQa TO f-ieyiGTOv Te ymI jrXelGTOv ?] to axgaTeGTaTov , ev to XQCuf-iaTog f.irjdef.da (.lolqa dXXov (.iiqdevdg eveliq; read to acpo'Spa uoXu re xa\ fJieya, xa\ €l rb fi€v &p' avrwv] Not whether but TO Ixavc'v. Which must tee consider as if, as is plain from the addition of apa. the Jirst in relation to Truth ? The pure If it should prove that one part of either and the unmixed f or the exceedingly is pure, and another impure, numerous or great, and the sufficient f I'va KaOapdv] This depends upon }j.r,- According to this arrangement, each dkv iiziXii-KiL'i. Socrates wants to find member of the comparison will consist all the pure kinds so far as he is able, of two parts, for ttoXtj y] fjieya or ttcXu because in these alone can the compa- xal [liya. are merely explanatory ad- rative merits of YJ6ovr^ and voii? be de- juncts of aqjc'Spa ; compare below }j.£- termined. I believe the MS. sf? tt^v xpf- YtaTOV T£ xai TtXeraTOV." I leave this at-v to be a corruption, for it is unneces- note as I wrote it many years ago. sary, and occasions an inelegant repe- There is very little in it that I would tition. As the y.pL(j>.q was to be, 'Which wish to modify, except as to lx7vo'v. ingredient was of most importance in On reference to the Introduction it will the mixture,' and this must be deter- be seen that (ji.£Tpov which is just dis- mined by mixing the purest specimens posed of, and aXiQ^eia and KdXXos are of each, 1 have so little doubt that tlq those Ideas which play a most im- Tiqv xpaaiv is the true reading that I portant part in the concluding pages have now admitted it into the Text, of the Dialogue. It will also be seen aKpaTeo-Tarov] The ancient gram- in the very next page that a'X'rjtJeaTa- marians inform us that this is the su- Tov and KaXXio-Tov, kcLXXiov xa\ dXf]- perlative of axpaTOC, an usage which ^£aT£pov, aX-ri^eaT^pa xa\ KaXX£|/ol Yo-P ^^ Tiv€s] Trendelenburg to Protarchus but to Socrates, who stops under^tands this of Aristippus, who, himself and says— ti 8i; 8ia7t£pav«fjiai according to Diogenes Laertius, ii. 87, x. T. e. To which Protarchus answers taught that all pleasure was in xivTQai?. not by an ungracious Aeye, but by ii But the school of Heraclitus and of cp(X£, \{ye, x. t. e. This will rid us of Protagoras must have held the same the absurd collocation, w T\ptdxap)i^z doctrine. These could not, indeed, have (pl\t. nAATON02 tr>[AHB02. <]5 JTPQ. Tltdg TOVTO) vxd rive Xtyeig; ^£2, To fiiv aetivoTarnv ael TtecpvKogy to d^ ^lliTtt^g iY,etvov. JJPQ. ^fy^ I'ci Gacpaoreoov. ^i}. JlafdiAa 710V VMXa /ml dyad-d Tedecoorpiaf^ey ccf^a y.al sgaGTag dvdQeiovg am tor, HPQ, ^cpodga ye. JS'Ii. TovToig Toivvv eoLAoia dvoTv ovat dv^ aXla Ur^vet- '/.cad 7idvia oaa Xeyofiev elvai. E JJPQ. To [qItov '^t fQio, Itye aacphTeqov, at ^io'/Qazeg, TL leyeig. 2Q. Ovdiv Ti 7tor/,llov, to llgojuaQxe' dlX^ o loyog 8Q£- Gyjfkei vc7)v^ Ityet d' on to f^iiv evexd tov tcov ovrcov tac^ ael, TO S oh ydqiv k/doTOTe to Ttvog evev^a yiyvo/^ievov del yiyvsTcxi. nPQ. Bloyig l\uaOov did to jrolld/ug XexOijvai. JS'fi. Tdya d Yocog, co 7Ta7 , fiallov iiad^rjOo^ieO^a icqoeX- x)(')VTog TOV Xoyov. 54 nPQ, Ti ydq ov; ^Q. Jvo dt] Tdd^ eTega Idfitoiiev. nPQ. no7a; ^£2, Ev fiev Ti yeveoiv jcdvTCoVy tyjv d^ ovGiav ecegov ev. nPQ. Jv aTTodexo/iial gov TavTa, ovGlav yial yevEGiv. J^^}. ^Ogd^oTaTa. ttote^ov ovv tovtcov eveyia TiOTegov, ttjv ylvEGiv ovGiag eve^/,a (fcof.iev '/J t7]v ovGiav elvai yeveGecog eve/M; nPQ. TovTo, o TTQOGayoQeveTai ovGia, el yevsGeiog I've/a TOVT^ bGTLv 071 eQ eGTt , vZ'V 7rvv!}dvei ; Th rpirov ir cpoi] The Books have time telling Socrates to speak more oaa X£'yo[J.£v thou to tpdov stcOW, out plainly. It is true that he has only of which some have endeavoured to used Xiyz aaipiaxipo^ once before, extract a miserable metaphysical joke. Ipctrx^-qXet] The quotation from Par- Protarchus had already asked twice thenius in the Etym. Mag. referred to for Socrates' meaning, — Ilw^ touto) xa\ by Pierson on Mieris in v. ipiu^zXzi, Tivs Xeyet?; and again Aiy I'lc cx'^i- is apparently decisive as to the ortho- atepov. For oaa Xe'yo.usv sivat, com- graphy of this word. If Pierson had pare above 16, c, tuv \zyoii.V)Wi il- known that the oldest MSS. of Plato vai. The correction proposed by Hir- have the X], he would have pronounced schig in the Paris edition was made with greater certainty in its favour, after I had communicated mine to him. 'Kptoy^tXii seems to have been a later 1 suppose that by this time he is con- form, vinced that Protarclins is for the third on nAATONo:s o^tahbo-s. ^D. 0aivofiai. B JTPQ. nQog ^eo)v, ccq^ [av] STtaveQCOzag /ne ToiovSe ti ; If.y^, CO TlQcoTaQ'/J, fioi, /cocega ttXoUov vavTTtjylav fvevM cf^g yiyvEGd-ai f^iaXXov ?y TcXoia %vEy.a vavTrrjyiag; ymI Tiavd-^ onooa TOiauT^ SGTi; 2Q. yttyio TovT^ avro, co IlQOJTaQxe. nPi2. Ti ovv owA avTog dTvexQivco Gavxi^, c5 -2wx^cfi€g; ^Q. Ovdev o Ti ov' Gv (.ihroi vov loyov Gvf.LfieTE%e, HPQ. ndvv fiiiv ovv. ^£2. (Drjfil drj yeveGscog fiiv eveyta cpccQiiayid re ymI Ttdvt^ C oQyava xal jiaGav vXrjv TtaQarid^eGd^cii TVccGiv, eyiaGTrjv Se yt- vBGiv dllr]v alXijg ovGiag nvog exaGti^g €ve/,a ylyveG&ai, ^vf-i- TtaGciv Si yivsGiv ovGiag sveKa ylyveGd-ai ^vf^iTcaGrig, IIPQ. ^aq^eGvara fiiv ovv. ^Q. Ovnovv fjdovrj ye^ U7teQ ytvsGig sgtiv, IVexa Tivog ovGiag s^ dvdynig yiyvoix^ dv. nPn. Ti (.iriv; 2Q. To ye f^irjv oh eve^a to IWxa tov yiyv6j.ievov del yl- yvBTai, ev t7j tov dyaOov {.loiqa eytelvo SGTi ' to di Tivog evevM yiyvof^ievov elg dXlrjV, co dqiGTe, (.lolqav deziov. 1) nP£2. ^^vayxai()TaTov. 2Q. L^XA^ ovv fjdovTj y^ eY^ceg yeveGig sGTiv, elg dXXrjv r^ TTjv TOV dyadov f^iolqav avTViV Tidevveg ogd^wg d-rjGO{.iev. ITPQ. ^Oqd^OTaTa (.liv ovv. 2Q, OvYyOvv, OTteq dqxof^ievog eiTtov tovtov tov loyov, Tio Ilpbs Oecov] The MSS. and Edd. have which is barbarous. Had iy^zvio av dr\ il^ia. llpo; ;3£cov, ap' av iTiocvepwra? followed, yiY'JOiTO without av would (JL£; "Sw. ToLo'vSs n Xeyw? w ripwTapx.^' have been correct; but with iaxX we ijLOi, TO'.aOx' taiL, a£YW tout' auTO, must have either asl yiYvsTat. or a'el av w llpwTapxs- It is strange that Bek- Y'-T^'^'^^^i ^^^ Q'ven the latter would be ker's note, 'TOto'v8£ hsec eidem dant in much better accordance with some- H E H,' has never led any one to the thing more remote than ioxi, such as right distribution of this passage, av ^'aTao or avaYXT) tlvac. before ^TuavepwTa; has led to all manner *AXX* oW — -ye] Here again the MSS. of conjectural emendations, but I be- have the absurd reading Ap' ouv. The lieve it to have arisen from a negligent conclusion follows so necessarily from repetition of dp'. The absurdity of So- that which has been said, that it would crates calling the same thing TotcvSe ti be quite out of place to make it the and toOt' auTO, seems not to have subject of a question ; the presence of struck the Editors. ye shows not only the corruption, but Yfyverat] Commonly y(yvo'.T' av, the sure method of correcting it. ^ EAAT^NOS $IAHB02. 97 ^iTjvvGavu T^g rjSovrjg tteqi to yeveoiv fxiv, ovGiav di ixrjd^ rjv- Tivovv avTrg elvaL, xccqlv t^eiv del. dfjXov ydg otl ovrog xwv cpaOAOVTWv r]dovrjv aya&ov elvai yiaTayeXa, nP£2, ^cpodqa ys. 2Q, Kal liirjv b avTog ovrog hidaTOiB /.ccl twv sv ralgE yevloeaiv anoTekovfisvcuv %arayeX(xaBTai. TIPQ. Ilwg drj ^al tcoIwv Xeyeig; 2Q. Tcov OGOL s^icjjiisvoi rj fcelvrjv rj dixpav rj ti twv tol- ovrtov, ooa ytveoig l^iccTai, xaiQovGL dia zrjv yiveacv are fjSo- vfjg oiG7]g avrrjg, yial q)aGi ^rjv ovy, av dl^dG&ai (n^ dLtpcovteg T€ '/Ml jtsivwvTsg, '/,al TalXaj a Tig av iinoi^ navTa tcc eiro- fxeva Toig zoiovzoig Tcad^rjjiiaGij ^irj TtaGxovTsg. nPQ. ^EoUccGi yovv. 55 JS'fi. OvKovv Tt^ yiyvEGd-ai ye vovvavTiov (XTtavteg to cpd^ei- QSGd^ai q)ai(.iev av, nPQ. ^u4vay/,alov, 2Q. TtjV dtj (pd-OQccv %ai yhsGiv algolT^ av Tig tovS^ aiQOVfievog, all ov tov tqltov ekeIvov ^iov, tov Iv it) (.nqTe XaiQSiv f.iiqTe XvTteiGd^ai, cpqovelv d^ rjv dvvaTOV wg olov te jca- d^aQMTaTa. IIPQ. noXXri Tig, wg eovaev, oj 2wy,QaTEg, dXoyia ^vfi- paivEi yiyvEGd^ai, idv Tig ttjv r^dovrjv c5g dyaS-ov fn-iiv Ti&rjrai, 2Q. IloXXrj, etteI %al Trjd^ etc XiywfxEv, — npn. nfj; 2Q. Ilcog 0V7C aXoyov egti furjdsv dyad-ov Eivai jiirjdE xa- B Xov f.iif[€^ iv GtofxaGi ixriT iv noXXoig dXXoig TcXrjv iv tpvxfj, >tat ivTavd-^ ^^dovrjV fiovov , avdgiav 6^ r] GcocpQOGvvrjv rj vovv rj ti Tojv aXXcov og" \ayad^a] eYXtjxe ^Jvx^j fir]dEV toiovtov Elvai; ?X,€iv 8€i] The best MSS. have Seiv. certain mode of life. By understanding This error is of continual occurrence in this difference we are enabled to do infinitives having the circumflex, which without ray change of oooi into ocr' ol, is so easily confounded with the sigla but I still doubt whether we do not of V. require euSaifAo'vwv or jxaxapiwv after 6 ttvTos oXtos] This is a bitter sneer otTiOTEXoufx^vtov. at Aristippus, defining pleasure as a [a-yaOd]] "It is unreasonable to sup- Y£V£CTi?, and yet preaching pTeasure. pose that of all the things which be- The difference between ol (paaxovTE? long to the mind such as courage, and ol artOTeXoufxevoi is that between temperance, intelligence, &c. pleasure is philosophers, and men who follow a the only one entitled to be called good." Platonis Philebus. 'j 98 ' nAATQNOS a^IAHBO^. TTong TOVTOtg d f-hi top (.itj xaiQOvza, akyovvxa dt, avay'A,(xCe- o&aL cpdvccL y,ay,6v elvai tote, ovav alyrj, -/.av I aQiGvog ttccv- Tcov, '/ML Tov yaiQovT^ aVf OGO) (.laXXov xaiQEL, totEj (kav yaiQi], C TOGOVTio diafpeqsLv Trgog ccQeTrjv; nP£2. ndvT^ sGTt zavra^ co ^w^QaTeg^ wg dvvarov dlo- yioxaia, 1Q.. Mrj Tolvvv r)dovrjg (.lev Ttdvrcog e^ezaGiv TtaGav etzi- XeiQCOfLiev TVOLi^GaGd^ai, vov de: ymI S7nGTrjfir]g oiov cpSLd6f.ievot Gcpodqa (pavco/iiev' yevvaUog de, bl itfi xl GaO^gov eyei, nav 7t€Qi'/,Qovtojiiev, [tcog] o Ti da Kad^aQcoTazov sgt^ amojv qivGEL, Tovzo YMTLdovTeg elg zrjv -/.qolglv xqcoixed^a tjjv xoLvrjv zoig xe TOVTiov Aal Tolg xi-jg fjdovrjg (.Uqeglv dXTj&eGTcxzoig. npn, 'OQaidg. D ^i2. OvAovv rji^dv to (.lev, ol^ai, dr]f.uovQyr/,ov egtl Ttjg This is a fair appeal to common sense; each kind in its purest state. ■^pi]a'i3ai but if you add ayaSoc , you beg the [lipzoi^ £?c xpaatv is as elegant as x?"^' question. Philebus could not say that aiJat fJL. £?? icpioi'i (xtov fxepwiv) is the of all dya^a. this is the only one reverse, without a manifest contradiction. Oi&kovv T||itv] If we would under- d iriQ Ti ^iy- opposite; and the former is mentioned, yia'iai. The conjecture on this place, because it enables him to introduce aaipov "rlx^^? is not admissible, for if music and several other arts under one this had been the meaning, the future head as '^zipoTS.jyia.u This explanation must have been used. disposes of the suspicion about some 8 Tt Zl KaOapcorarov] The common portion of the text having been lost, reading is £'w? o Tt xaSapwrarov — . and fully accounts for the fact that So- But £0)? ip(ii[j.z^a. is barbarous ; and if crates never returns to the head of arts we desired to retain £&)?, no change short Tcepl :iai§£Lav. But why does he choose of the following would be really suffi- the arts which he calls )(^ctpoT£xvtQtt as cient: £'w<; av xarfdwjjiEv, xaTt§6vT£? bl the subject of particular enquiry? Be- — )(^pTQao)(JL£^a. cause in these again there is a twofold €ls Tt^v Kpao-iv] Stallbaum has un- element; the element of certainty de- successfully defended xp(atv against rived from the mathematical sciences Schleiermacher, who proposed xpaatv. under which they work, and the em- There is no question of the comparison pirical element. Now as one of these at present, but of the admixture, in is scientific (£7rtaTiQ(jnf]<; ixoixZ'iQ'i) and order to which, as Socrates had already the other not, it is necessary to show observed (52, e), it is necessary to have this, as determining the greater or less nAATONOS tPIAHB02. 99 [fcSQL ra inad^rjiaaTa] e7tiGTTjf,irjgf to Ss neql naideiav Kal tqo- (p^v. 1} nwg; nPn. OvTcog. ^Q. ^Ev drj Tolg yeiQOTeyvtaiq diavorjd^iufiev TTQCorcag el to f.dv e7TiGT/j{.irjg av {.laXXov F^OfievoVy to 6^ Jjttov IW, y.al del Tcc (.lev tog Y,adaQOJTeqa vofilueiVy to. 6^ (hg azadaQvoTCQa. nPQ. OvYMVV xqrj, 2.^1. Tag tolvvv rjyef.iovLY.ag 6ialr]7iTiov fyidoTiov ccvtiov yioQig. nPQ. Tlolag y,al ncog; 2iQ. Olov TtaaCov nov Teyviov av Tig aQid^/nrjTixrjV xc^qIlj] 'E, vmI fieTQrjTiKTjV Kal GTaTiAjjv, cog tTcog ehreiv, cpavXov to za- Ta'keijTOf.ievov e/MOTijg [av yiyvOiTo\ IJPQ. 0avXov /iiev Stj. 2Q. To yovv fieTa TavT^ el'AateLv XeinoiT^ av vmI Tag alodijoeig '/,aTafieleTav f-fineiQia xal tlvl TQil^fj, Talg Trig ^^^" yaGTL/Jiig 7rQOGyQ(t)i.itvovg SvvdfieGiv, ag noXXol Ttyyag enovo- fid^ovGi, fiekeTjj y,al jrovci) Trjv Qiofirjv djreigyaGfitvag. 56 pureness of these parts of Intellect, as xaiaptoraxa has been already changed they had already sought out the greater into xaiJaptorepa before me. Not only or less pureness of the several kinds ought the comparative to match the of Pleasure. As for the text, TztpX Tot comparative, but any art which is y.a- fjtaiJTQfxaxa is to be understood either SapwrariQ would on the withdrawal in its widest sense, and then it is su- of the scientific element cease altogether ; perfluous; for what cTCiaTTQ.uiQ is there for if the pureness is according to the Mhich is not tc. t. jj.aSiQfi.o'"^*'' ^r i^ presence of the mathematical science, is to be taken in a restricted sense and the most pure must have this not only then it is on its wrong side ; for a as predominating but as excluding all knowledge :i£pt xa. fxaiiT^fxata is a know- empirical admixture, and when this is ledge Tiepl tt^v TtaiSetav. Sydenham withdrawn, there remains — nothing, saw that, )(^£t.poT£pixar<; being an ad- &v ns a. x,"pttTI — i^'^ 'yCyvoito]] This jective, you must understand either tsx.- combination is not Greek; and the se- nate, which would be ridiculous, or irzi- cond half can be omitted without any OTTf;ja.a!,c; but no iztiaziiixoii have been detriment to the sense, mentioned, (only iKiaxr^iiri in general) ^avXov |x^v hi\] This is the form of so that there is nothing to justify the simple assent; if, in place of repeating omission of ^TTriarrjjJLati; here. These 9aOXov, he had said 9auXoTaTOv, {jlev reasons seem to have been quite beyond ouv would have been added ; if his as- the discernment of Stallbaum, who dis- sent had been restricted, yoCiv. There is misses Sydenham with an authoritative also a shade of diflference between |jt.£v- ^^male", and one of his usual non-appo- rot the old reading, and [aIv 8r, the site quotations. Thirdly I have written reading of the Bodleian. The former Ttpwxat? for reasons very obvi(fhs and is the more suitable when the answerer very little regarded. In place of au- adds the weight of his own authority Twv, which is unmeaning, I have put to the mere assent, ay which marks the second distinction. t-Jjv p(6[j.i)v dircip'Ya(r|ji4vas] The pro- 100 ilAATONOS ^>IAHB02. nPQ. ^Avayv^aiOTaxa. leyeig. 2Q. Ovyiovv jLiEGTrj fxh tvov i^iovGLyirj ttqiotov, to ^vf.iq>w- vov aQf,i6TT0vGa ov lA-hqifj ccXXa /LieleTTj OTOxaG(.iov, nal ^t\ii- TtaGa avTYj yial avXrjTiKi], to (.lergov e%aGtriQ %oqdiqg no gto- xdteG&ai fcpeQoi.iEvr]g S^jQevovGa, wgte tcoIv f.ief.uyf.ievoj' I'xeiv TO firj Gacpig, Gfirnqov 6e to ^e^atov. nPn, "Alrjd^iGTaTa. B 2Q. Kal firjv IcLTQr^rjv te %al yeioqylav %al y,v^€Qvr]Ti%rjv y,al GTqaTYiyrKrjV wGavTwg evQifjGo/xev l%ovGag. JIPQ, Kal Ttavv ye. 2Q. TeyiT0VLy,rjv ds ye, oijuat, nXEiGTOig f^ieTQoig ts "Kal oqyavoig xqo)j,ievr]v, to. tcoVKtiv wAqi^Eiav avT^ TioqitovTa texvl- "/.(OTeqav tCjv itoXkiXiv ejtiGTri^mv naqiyjETai, npn, nf]; 2^. KaTo. ye vavTtrjylav y,al i^aT oh.odo(xiav y,al ev tcoX- priety of the word ^tofjit) depends on xopS'Hs] It is unnecessary to enter into jjLeXe'rf) xal itovw, which are used of the question whether XOP^T) is appli- training in the palaestra. The subject cable to wind instruments, although the of Ttpoax^pwfi^voTJ? is the possessors of passage quoted with such confidence by the senses, that of aTistpYaafxeva? is Mr. Chappell (Hist, of Music p. 146) SuvdcfJiot?. from Plato Bep. 399, d. is quite incon- [jL€(rT'f| K. T. I.] This passage has suf- elusive, being itself confessedly corrupt ; fered from the well-known practice of and I can find no other. The very transcribers, who, when they could not context in that passage would seem to or would not decipher terminations, in- show that Socrates objects to the flute, vented those which the immediate neigh- because the admitted defects of stringed bourhood suggested. From ou fXETpw instruments were due to an imitation the copyist inferred that he must write of the flute. I am inclined to read tJ OT0xac7|Ji« and then altered [xeXeTT) into ov rb TCoXuxopSo'^ avro, xa\ aura ta jxeXety]?. The reasoning proves clearly uavapfj-ovia auXou xiiYxa'^sii ovTa \Li\y.r\- what Plato must have written. In pro- [jLata; But here auXi^TtxiQ is repre- portion as an art trusts less to measure sented as hunting after the measure of and more to practice, it must be full the chord in a stringed instrument : that of guesswork. is, having no measure of its own to avr?| Kttl avXriTiKTi] The MSS. have trust to, it derives its certainty from xa\ lufJLTcaaa auxi^? auXiQTtxTf]. But that which possesses such a measure. ^ufJLTiaaa belongs to the summum ge- <})€po}ji4vT]s] For this word which, though nus, and flute-playing has no sub- a term in music (see Chappell H. of M. divisions worth notice. It was an old p. 98) is quite inapplicable here, I con- subject of dispute between two schools jecture OTipwii^vi], of which the more of early musicians whether questions common form SiQpeuouaa was a gloss, about the intervals in music should be to, TroX\if)v] In place of this reading, determined by proportions of strings the Zurich Editors have adopted the only or also by ear ; but in the case conjectural one of a. This only spoils of auXTf)TixiQ the task of settling such what is perfectly plain. "The things questions by length of pipe was too which give this art its accuracy, make intricate, so that there especially the it TSXvtxWT^pav, and therefore more empirical method was pursued. akin to pure ^TiianqfX'n" nAATi2N02 Spw] ou afXtxpo<; opo? is much less x£XO{jl4>£UM.£vov than the rest, the common reading. But this is out which are scientific helps, while this is of structure, and if any one wishes to a mere engine of force. Perhaps it was understand ioxl^ he must at least insert an instrument for taking the angles of the article. But the words are evidently curves. It is scarcely necessary to say an answer to Ilfi uot£ SiopiaafXEVo?. — that x£XO[j,v}>£U|i.£'vov has nothing to do The word auTof? three lines below was with the workmanship, though Stall- supplied to give a case to auvaxoXou- baum translates ^^ s cite factum"- ^ SiQa£iav, and the consequence is that dXX'qv, T^v 8' dXXtjv] This is a com- the condition of B assenting to A is mon ellipsis for ttqv {xkv a. ttqv Se a', not, A changing his mind, but some Compare Laws 862, b. which I quote third C propounding the same doctrine for the sake of correcting it: xal To as B. 102 llAATONOS ^lAHBOS. Tcov fiiyioza' oi 6^ ov% civ ttotb [avzolg] avva/MXovO^^aeiaVj ei jtirj /itovdda /novddog eyidoTrjg riov (.ivqlcov i.iride(.iiav alXrjv aX~ Xrjg diacpeQavodv rig d^rjoei. nPS2. Kal f.idXa y^ ev Xeyeig ov Of.uy.Qccv diacpogdv twv neql aQi^f-wv levTa^ovTCJv , wots Xoyov ty^uv du^ avtdg etvcci. ^-Q. Ti da XoyiaTLxij yiccl f.ieTQrjrixri rj zaira Te/,TovLKrjv /mi y,aT^ ffinoQiKrjv r^ VMrd (pLXooocpiav yecofieTQia re y,al XoyiafKif 57 \y,atcc/LieXeTa)/.i€vcov] ; tcotbqov tog f.ua tyaxtqcc Xe/jctovy ]J dvo iLdtofiev; IIP^I. Tolg nQood^ev €7t6iJ.evog lyioy^ civ dvo Kara ttjv efifjv \prjq)ov ZL^eii]v szaveQav tovtcov, 2i2. ^Ogd^iog, ov 6* eve/.a tavta 7tQor]veyy,dfxe&^ elg to f.iaaoVy dq^ ivvoelg; nPQ, ^'locog, dkXd oi ^ovlol/iirjv civ d7io(pr]vaG&aL to vvv SQtOTW/neVOV, JS'.Q. Jo^ei Tolvvv ejLiOLy^ ovxog b Xoyog ov% rjtvov rj ore Xeyeiv avzov riq%6f.ied^a y Tolg r]dovatg l^v^rwv ravTLGTQOcpov iv- B ravOa 7tqo§e^rfAtvcti O'/,07twv el dg^ earl tig eregccg dlXr] xa- i^aQWTega i7rioti]fir]g htLGTrjfii], yaddjieg 7]dovrjg rjdov/]. nPn. Kal f.idla aacfeg rotzo ye, otl ravd^ mza zov- TCOV eTtLKexsLQTj/iev. 2 £2, Ti ovv; dg^ ov/, ev jiiev Tolg Efutgoad^ev eTt" dXloig €1 \i.i\ |j,ovdSa] Except a man shall two is "How do these stand to each consider no monad to differ from any other" ? The word xaTa}XiX£T(j){i.£'vc«)v other single monad out of all innumerable is nothing but a wretched attempt to monads. There is an intentional redun- bolster up the construction by making dancy in this triple opposition ((jiovaSa a genitive absolute of it; and for this — jjLOvaSo?, (JL'r]5£jJ.iav — £. t. [jl-, ocXXtqv purpose some one has borrowed the — aXATQ<;) in order to mark the perfect remarkably elegant word from its con- indiflference of every monad from every text above and used it where it means other. about as much as would tutctojjlcVWv. Tevra^ovTwv] Rep. 521 e, Tim. 90 b, TdvT£IAHB0S. 103 aXlr]v TtxvTfjv ovaav ccvevQio/ie [aaq)eOTeQav] /,al aaacpeoxlqav nPQ. ndvv /.lev ovv. JS'JQ. ^Ev TOVTOig d^ aQ^ ov Tiva xlyvrjv (hg bfxwvv(.iov cp^ay- ^djiievogj elg do^av y.azaGZ7]Gag cog (.liav, ndXiv cog dvolv ovtolv tTtavEQcora tovtolv avtolv [to aacpeg xat to yiad^agov 7teql C TOVTCi] TIOTEQOV fj TWV (piXoOOCfOVVTtOV ?} f-irj (plXoOOCpOVVTCOV d'/,QL^£GTeQOv tysi ; IlPil. Kal f.idla doytel /loi rovro diegtoTccv. 2 £2. Tiv^ ovv, co UQcoraQX^y ccvt^flf didcjofxev aTtoAQioiv ; nP£i. ^^ 2c6yiQaT€gj elg d^avfticxoTov diotcpoqag fxiye^og elg oacprjveiav TrQaelrjlvd-ajiiev S7tLOTr]jLi6jv. JS£2. OvMwv d7roKQLvovij,e^a qaov. JIPQ. Tl fii]v; 7,at elgrjoOco y^ oil tioXv f.iev avvat xcov aXXcov Teyvcov diacpsgovoij romcov d^ avTwv al 7ceql ttjv tcov D ovTCog cpiXooocpovvxcov OQ/iriv d/.Lri%avov d^Qi^eia Te "Kal dlrjOela 7teQl (.leTQa re z«t dqi^/iovg diacpeqovOLV, J5'i2. "EoTio ravza xard gs, yml gov 6rj TtiGxetovceg ^ccq- Qovvzeg dnoKQivtoineS^a roig deivolg Tieql "koytov oXyJjV — JTPi2. To Ttolov; ^Q. "^^g eIgl dvo dQi^f.irjTiyial xat dvo /leTQrjTiyial /.al tav- zaig dXlat roLavzai ^vveTtof^ievai Gvxvai, ttjv didv/iozriz^ eyov- ociL zavTrjv, ovo/iaiog d^ evog 7,eyMLva)fj,€vaL. nPQ. Jidcojuev zvyj] dyaS^fj TovTOig, ovg cpfjg Seivovg el- E vaCj TavTTjv ttjv dicoAQLGiv, CO ^cjoyiQazeg. ^£2. Tcivzag ovv Xeyof^ev ejtiGirifxag dicQi(ielg (.idliGT^ elvai. npn. ndvv /i£v ovv. question asked twice. I have removed supplement id aacpl? .... TC£p\ taOra aa^sarepav and for avi\>p{ax£iv written into brackets. axptpecJTepov i'/^etv is av£upt.ax£. precisely the same as to aacpk^ xat to tls Sd^av KaTao-TTJIAHB02. 2Q. lAlX* ^f^ccg, to IlQOjTaQxey avalvoiT^ av fj tov dia- XiyEod^cci Svvafug, ii iiva tcqo avTrjg aXXrjv /.QLvaif^iev. 58 nPQ. Tiva Si tamrjv av del keysiv; 2Q. Jrjkov oxi Ttccg av trjv ye vvv Xeyo(.itvriv yvoirj. rr^v yaq tteqI to ov [zat %o\ ovrcog %al to zara Tawov ael Ttecpv- yiog 7rdvTwg I'ycoy^ olf-iai riyeiad^ai ^vj^utavTag , oGoig vov %al ouiKQOv 7iQoarjQTr]rai, (.laytQcTj aXrjd^eaTccTrjV eivai yvwOLv. ov Si rl; [Ttcog rovzo, c3 IlQOJTaQxs, Sia/,QLVOig avf} IIPQ, ^'H/,ovov f.dv eyojye, to ^coytQazeg, emoxoTB Fogylov •fTtoXldy^tg y log 7] tov neid^eLv noXv diacptqoL Ttaomv Te%v6)v* B Ttdvxa ydq vcp^ avrfj Sovla fdc^ e/,6vT0)v dXX^ ov did ^lag tiol- oIto, zoffc f.iayiQ(^ dqioTYj naowv eirj rcov rexvcov. vvv d^ ovre Got ovre Sij sz-elvci) ^ovXoli.ir]v av evavzla Ti^eod^ai. 2£2. Td OTtXa (.loi [do/.etg ^ovXiqd^elg el/telv ala%vvd^elg dnoXiTtuv, nP£2. ^'Egzo) vvv ravta favrrjj ottt] gol do'/.eu 2Q. L^^' ovv altiog eyia tov i.irj za^wg VTtoXa^eiv Gs; nPn, To Ttolov: AiiXcv Sti irds &v] For this emen- following the only question to the pur- dation we are indebted to W. H. Thomp- pose is so unworthy of our author, that son. The old reading was At^Xov oxt I cannot but look on it as a later ad- tj Tiaaav. There can be no doubt that dition. the phrase UEpl to ov xat to ovtw? is iroXXaKis] I cannot say what should incorrect, to cvtg)? would be rightly be done with this word which is quite placed where the question was about incompatible with exaaTOTS. Nor can the meaning of the 2vord, but here we I propose anything certain in place of are considering the objects of a given 8i exovTWV, of which the sense seem science. But the object of Dialectic is as necessary as the mode of expression Truth, and Truth is found either in that is objectionable. But it is not unlikely which is absolute (to ov ovto)?), or in that the right reading is 8i* Ixo'vTWV that which is invariable, because it is auTWV. the effect of the absolute; and this Ta SirXa] This is a play upon the latter Plato expressed by xa\ to xaTa word Ti^ea^at, which Protarchus had TaxjTov ae\ ttie^kxo? (yiy^£,a'^a.i). To used merely in the sense of advancing make to ovtw?, and even to xaTa Tau- an opinion; but Socrates, taking up the TOV ael ■ii£9i»x6?, mere explanations of words ^vavTta Ti^ea^at, replies, ^I think TO ov, as one Editor has done, betrays you tvere going to say oTtXa, but you great looseness of thought. were ashamed, and dropped the word. (TV h\ tI; [ttws tovto, a> IIpwTttpx^, Toc OTrXa ^vavTia T^iieaiUai is in acie SiaKp^vois &v;]] I have made separate stare, as in Herod. 1. 62, xa\ avTia sentences: ouSeTi; answering to ^'yuye i'^evTO Ta CTiXa. There is a further ot|j.ai and tcw); t. 8. av; to the general play upon aiioXiTcefv ; for ocTCoXtTierv Ta question. But Ttto? 8taxpivoi<; av is so o:t:Xa would properly mean to desert, contrary to the usual order, and a se- but here it is merely to forego or give cond quotation of a more vague sort up the word. riAATONOS <]JIAHB02. 105 2£2. OvY., 10 g)iXe IlQokaQxey t^ovx^ eycoy^ sl^rjtovv ttco, Tig texvrj rj rig e7TL0xri(.ir] Ttaowv [diacpeQet tw] jneylGTr] vml C ccqIott] 7,al jiXelaT^ wcpelovoa r]f.iag, aXXd zlg tvote to oacpeg yial rd^QL^ig y,al to dXyj&eOTarov ETtLG^OTtel, yJxv j] o^iia^qo, /.at Oj^uKQa ovLvaaa. xovi;^ eariv o vvv drj I'^rjTOVfiev. dlV o^of* ovdi ydg d7tE%d^r^Gu FoQyla, rrj f.iev enelvov vicegexeLv riyvrj didovg TCQog xqelav Tolg avd^Qwitoig , y.garelv d jj eiTZOv lyw vvv TTQayi^icxTela, yiad^dneQ xov Xevv.ov neqi tot Eleyov, z«v el G(.u%q6vj y.adaqov d^ uri, tov nollov %al f-irj toiovtov diacpt- QEiVj TOVTCt) y^ avTiT) Tip dXrjd-EGTccTq). y,al vvv di •\Gq)6dQa dia- D voiqO^eviEg zat r/Mviog dLaloyiGcc/^iEvoi, f^i/jT^ Eig Tivag (hcpElEiag EjiLGTiqiiiov ^leipavTEg (.iriTE TLvdg EvdoMjiilagj dXV ii Tig tve- (pvyiE Trjg il^vxrjg rj/naiv dyvaftig eqav te tov dXrjd^ovg vmI TtavS- EVEYM TOVTOV TtQCCTTELV j TaVTr^V eYtTCOjUEV dL£QEVVrjGdf.tEVOL [tO yadaqov vov te xal q)Q0vrjGE(x)gj^ eI TavTr]v (.idXiGT ek tcov eI- yiOTwv EzrrjGd^at (falfiiEv av ij tlv eteqccv TavTrjg yvQLWTeqav 7J(.UV 1^7]Tr]T€0V. E [8ia/l(rTr\] I once at- these subtleties is, that not only the tempted to defend this construction by construction is different, but the sense such examples as that of Aristophanes is altogether unlike. For in the first (Wasps 666) toO? "ouxc TtpoScoaw x. t. part, if completed, we should expect if £." There never was an interpolation you assign, or you ought to assign, or which more clearly betrayed itself. If something which implies a claivi for vou? : Plato had used any such word as biacpi- but in the second part there is a call pu, he would have made both grounds on Protarchus to declare what he really of comparison, certainty as well as ge- thinks about voO? (TauTTQv £1'tc(0|j,£v x. neral merit, depend upon it. T. £.). Another objection to the pas- €^T]Toi)|jL€v] MSS. and Edd. give ^y]- sage as it stands is the awkwardness of Toufjitv. 8i8ous UTtap)(^£t.v xpatETv, which means irpbs }(^piCav] These words are to be StSoO; xpatEtv, and nothing more. All taken as governing toi^ otv^pwTioi?, to these difficulties are removed by so surpass as to their use to men. simple a process that I have not hesi- KpaT€iv 8* T| dtrov e-yw vvv irpa.y[i.a- tated to introduce it into the text, and T€ia] The reading of the MSS. and to change the punctuation accordingly. Edd. is ^■xa.pizi't (for yjKZpi'izi'i) and ravrr\v eltTrtojitv] This xauTi^v refers xpaT£fv, iQ 5' eItcov. This has been ad- to SuvajJiiv, the second to ^TttannV^^- duced as an instance of the avaxoXou- to xa^apov voC T£ xa\ cppovTrjaEU,; is iJOv, and it will be well to look closely not the proposed object of investigation, into it. The case of Tcpayixati'la, ac- as the interpolator thought ; they are cording to this supposition, will be to search out the dialectic art itself, owing to a construction intended to be koi vvv 8e (r(|>d8pa 8iavo'q0£VT€s] For analogous to that of rf] tJilv i. u- tsxvy) xa\ vOv 8r] I have written xal vOv 8s', — fitSous, which construction is lost or as opposed to ou'x iuYjTOuv TCW. There changed by reason of the long paren- is some corruption in a9o'Spa Stavor^- thesis, so that, when this ends, a new ^£VT£?, for StavoEtaSat cannot be used construction, rauTTQV eI't^wjjlev, is sub- in the sense of SiacrxoTTEiv. stituted. A conclusive answer to all 106 iiAATOiVo::! a>[A]ni02. nPQ. uiXXa G'/,07H0j ymI ya?.e7r6v, oi/iiaiy ovyxcogrjaal riv" aXlr]v 87riaT7jurjv /} Te%vr]v rrjg alrj^^^elag avTlxEai)^at fiallov rj ^Q. u4q ovv evvorjoag to Totovde eigrj/Mg o Ityeig viv^ log (XI TTollal ztyyai vmi oool neql TavTag 7te7t6vrjVTai , tiqCo- 59 Tov fiiv do^aig XQwrrat y,al rd 7ieQi do'^av trjToiot ^vvreTa- f-ievcog; eixe ytal 7ieQl cpvoecog fif/elral ng Cr]Teiv, oJa^^ ovl td rceql tov 'aogjiov Tovde, oivi] ts yeyove ymI mcrj 7i6.oyjEi ii zat onr^ 7roiel, Taura trjtel did (^lov; (pal(.iEv av ravra, '/) 7cwg; npn. OiTiog. 2£2. Ovitiovv ov Tiegl zd ovv" del, 7ieQl ds zd yiyv6f.ieva '/Ml yevrjOOfiieva xal yeyovnta tjincov b roiomog dvtjqriTai rov TCOVOV. nPQ. l^Xrjd-^GTara. ^Q. TovTcov ovv Ti aafpeg av cpalf.LEv zfj d/iQif^eGrdTt] dhj- B ^€Lcc ylyveod-aiy lov /htjt^ eoye jiajdiv 7iaj7C0Te xatd tavrd /nrj^^ h^ei fiirjT elg to vvv Ttaqov I'xet; npn, Kal Tttog; JSQ. neql ovv rd ///} y.eKTrjiniva (h^aiotrjTa fLt]S^ rjvrivovv 7ioJg av 7C0Te (U^aLOv ylyvoi^^ rjjuiv ymI oitovv; npn. Olf^iat fiisv ovSaiiiwg. ireirovTiVTai] This word and HuvT£Ta- qjvai? was, and while supposing that jiEvw; (Schiitz's correction for ^uvte- he investigated it was searching out TaYfAEMw;) explain each other. He is something else, T^ycfTott would be ap- evidentiy speaking of pursuits which propriate. But nothing more is meant require great assiduity ; but what these than the usual enquiries of the Ionic are it would be difficult to say, if we Philosophy, and no intimation is given retained the old reading oaat ixzpi taGra that there is any higher sense of cpu- •n:eTiovY]vTat. This has been explained aic or of the investigation of it. I by a reference to the passages in the therefore propose T^'piQTat. For while Fhcedo, where xauta is used of visible in the handicrafts above mentioned he things; but this would at least include speaks of those who labour at them, TO T^epl 9uc7£w; t,r]xiv), which is here he speaks of physical investigations as spoken of as a distinct branch. By things in which men choose to engage. means of this change we have the arts The tense of "iri'pTQTai is borne out by mentioned first, because they are the avfjpr}Tat tov uo'vov. In explanation subject; but as the following remark of this latter phrase I observe that in turns on the means employed, it is con- those well-known combinations ticXejjlov venient to mention the persons who — tco'vov — xivSuvov — Vttxo? otl'pEaSai, follow the arts, to avoid the awkward- a'vatpefaSat may be used in place of ness of saying that the arts them- the other verb. Some who did not no- selves y^pcovrai 6c'Ha'.^, or ^Y]Touai xa tice this have proposed unnecessary rztpX 66^av. conjectures. Compare Phcedrus 233 c, Tj^ytiTai] If the physicist mistook what 243 c, Laws 921 A and b. lIAATi2N02: tWAHBOS. 107 2Q. Ovd^ aqa \yovg\ ovde zig hiLOtrj^ri tieqI avia eozi TO dlrj&eGvaTov e'xovaa. nP£i, OvvMvv €r/og yB, 2Q. Tdv fiisv di] ae zat ef.ii liai Fogy lav ymI Ollrjiiov xgrj avxvd xaiqeiv idv, rode di dcaf^iaQTVQaG^at ro) loyot, — ■ C IlPn, To JtOtOV; 2 £2, '^£2g rj jceqi i'Kelva ead-^ rjiidv to t€ (ie^aiov [yial to yiaOaqdv] %al to alrjO^eg yial o dtj keyofiev eihy^Qivtg, jvcqI to, ael xara toc avTce coaavTCog d/^ir^TOTaTa exovza, rj [devTCQog] STiELviov o Ti {.idhoT^ eGtl '^vyyevtg' Ta 6^ dlXa 7tdvTa devTSQcc T£ mi vGTBQa XeyLTtov, nPQ. *^lrj^6GTaTa leyeig, JSQ. Td Sij Tcov ovofxaTwv negl Td TOiavTa VMlhoTce ag^ ov Tolg KalXlaTOLg dtyiaiOTaTov dnove^uv; npn, Ehog ye. 2£2, Ov'Aovv vovg sotl ymI g)Q6vrjOig oltt av Tig TiiirjaeLel) fxdXiOT^ ovof^iaTCL; npn, NaL Ov8* &pa [vovs] ov8^ T. €.] We should parated from aXTfjS^? , since the want have expected outs . . oCte. But if there of truth in physical knowledge has been is any ^TCiaTTfj [AY), however weak or vague, declared to arise from the instability there is some vou;, for all ^TuaTTQfxat of the objects. Again xa!3ap6v is so are parts of vou? and are discussed as nearly the same as £?Xty.piv£? that it such. The voO; of the text is plain- could not occur unless in close proxi- ly the opposite of that of Anaxagoras, mity to it, and the only place for dli- and throws all things into confusion, xpivk; is that which it occupies as a The scribes were not familiar with the quality deduced from the other two; idiom which we meet both in Homer and as Ta dt\ — (oaauTCO? answer to and^ in the Attic writers, ouSe yo^p ou'de, pe^aiov and ocXTj^e? , so does dix<.y.x6- ou8' ap' ou'St. In the 5th Epistle of rata answer to £?Atxp(.v£?. Synesius our modern texts have ou yap [SevTcpos]] The Zurich Editors have ou8* o}j.oto; TQV s^ovTi; but in my col- changed this into d£UT£'pw;, which is lations I find that the best MSS. have at least more rational than Stallbaum's ovSe yap ou'S' oijioto; tqv If^ovTi. defence of it as a parenthetical proverb Thv [klv 8t^ a-k Kttl €^4] See note on with tcXoO? understood. It is incredible 20, B. The article here has a depre- that Plato should make two SsuTEpa to ciating effect. It has, in fact, the force one and the same first. It is therefore of .turning the first and second persons a waste of time to enquire how 6£UT£- into a third, or more properly still, of po; should be corrected, abstracting the individual from his per- &tt* &v] The common reading is a. sonality, and making a mere somebody y' av. It is evident that this is no of him. • place for ye. The confusion between [Kttl TO Ka6apo'v]] These words are the two readings is of very frequent spurious. For ^^^aiov cannot be se- occurrence. 108 nAATONOS tio-ci pa]] These words which the same compendium, a was taken for separate nv\ from toutw and leave bA TCpwxov, which is in all the Books, but without a noun expressed or implied it was meant for ev as is plain from to lean upon, and say nothing more the antithesis £v fxev ou, 8uo di. than what is said in hi TVii TOUTO), are liretpdOTjiJiev — 9e'vT€s[ We made the an evident contribution of some im- experiment of placing, &c. Stallbaum prover. • compares the expression used above, Iv |j.^v oH IAHB02. si urji^ alrjd^cog So^aKoi xcdqeiv^ urfue to ^tagccTtav yiyvtoGAOi 'Etii Time TTSTCOvOe 7rdd^og, firjv av /nvrjinrjv tov Ttdd-ovg jin]d* ovTLvovv XQOvov exoL. ravTct de leyio y,al tveqI cfQovrjascog y et Tig dvev TraGrig r^dovr^g yial Trjg (^Qcr/vTccTTjg di'^mT av cpgovr]- aiv syav (.lalXov [?) (.ieto. tivcov 7]dovwv'] ?} Ttdoctg i]dovdg [yw- Qlg cpqov}\oE(.og fiaXlov ^] jueTcc fpQov)]Gecog av rivog. JJPQ. Oi'/J tOTLv, to 2w/,QaTeg' dXl" ovdiv fdel ravTa ye TtoXXdxig STveQiovav. 61 ^i2. Ov/Mvv TO ye Ttleov ymI Ticcatv aigeTov /ml to nav- Tditaaiv dyadov ovdheqov av tovtwv el'}]. IIPQ. Jlwg yccQ dv; 2Q. To TOivvv ayad-ov tJtol Gaq)(jjg rj za/ Tiva Tvnov av- Tov IrjTiTtov, iva, o/reg iliyof-iev, devxeqela otix) di6oof.iev tyM(.iev. nP£2. ^Oqd^oTaTa Xeyeig, ^JTi. Ouxovv odov (.ilv tlv^ ¥/n:l Tayad-ov elXrj(pa(.iev. nPn. Tiva; 2Q. KaddrcEQ ei Tig tlv^ avS^QcoTVOv trjTCyv ttjv 6t/.r]aiv B 7[QidT0v ogdwg, iv^ o aXltov jtdvTtjv tcuv ovtcov waavTwg diavoov- fisvog. nP£2. ^'Egtco yccQ ovv. ^£2. ^^q ovv ovTog iviaviog iTTiari^firig "^ei, zr/Ao/; fniv xal Gcpalqag avzrjg Trjg d^elag tov Xoyov l/wv, Tiyv d' avd^Qiojrivrjv ravTrjv Gcpaiqav yial Tovg y.vy.kovg rovTovg ayvowv, vmI x^cJ- B f^ievog iv ol^odof-da ■\%m zoig alloig oftolcog yiavoGL Kal Tolg yjc'/Xoig ; nPQ. FeXolav diaS^eOLV rjficov, to ^coAgaTsg, sv ralg d^eiaig ovaav f.i6vov iTtiGTrji^iaig leyof^iev. 2Q. Iliog g)^g; tj tov xpevdovg ytavovog af.ia y,al tov yiv- %Xov TrjV ov l^s^atov avds '/la&aqav zexvrjv 8in^lr]T€0v 'AOivfj /.al GvyKQaTeov; nPQ. ^^vayAOLOV yccQj ei (.leXlei Tig rjfxiov vmI ttjv oddv fzaGTOT^ s^evQTjGeiv or/,ade. 2^. ^H y,al (.lOvGiynqv, flv oXiyov e^TVQOGd'EV e(pa(.i£v, gto- C x«0"€wg TS '/Ml /LUfiriGecog (.leGT^v ovGccv, yiad^aQorrjTog svdelv ; IlPn. lAvayyialov cpaivsTai sfioiye, SLireQ y" 7]f.adv b ^iog tGTai '/ML OTtcoGovv TtoTS ^log, 2*^2. BovlsL drJTa, wGTreQ 'd^vgwQog V7t^ ox^ov rig loS-ov- jiievog 'Aal ^latof^ievogj rjTzrj&sig avaTtETCcGag zdg d^vqag dcpto ncLGag zdg tJiLGTrj^iag eiGQelv, /.at (.liyvvGd^aL b{.iov xad^aqa ttjv evdeeGTeqav; D nP£2, Omovv lycoy^ olda, w 2c6/,QaT€gj o tl rig civ ^Id- 7croLTO TtaGag lajScov Tag dXlag eTCiGTrj^iag^ sx^^v rdg Ttqcovag. 2f2. MeOtw Si] Tag ^vf.i7tdGag qelv elg tyjv Ttjg '^OfirjQOv '/ML fidla 7roir]TLy,rjg fLUGyay/^eiag vrco8oxr]v; JJP^. ndvv Liev ovv, 2Q. MedelvTai. yml ndXiv enl zr^v twv ijdovcov itrfyr^v Iteov. Dig ydg dievorjd^rjfxev avzdg (.iiyvvvaL jcqwtov, zd T(jjv Kttl TOis dXX.013 6(ioipov'f|(rc(i>s ^ irdon]?] The Rooks Flatnnis Philebus. « 114 nAATON0:S IAHROS. vrjaecoQj rj naariQ xcoQig [rov (pQ0V£7v]; oiftai uiv TTQog rcwra T()d^ avrag avayxaioraTov elvai Ityeiv, — npn. To 7ioiov; ^Q, '^'Oti, VMS^ansQ tfinQOO^ev eggrj^r], to f.i6vov yml to)]- f.iov [elhy.Qiveg'l elval xi yi.vog ovre 7idvv tl dwavov oou' cocpi- Q Xif.iov' navTiOV ye firjv rjyovjLieO-a ysvcbv aqioiov 'tv av^y evog Gwor/LELV ri(.uv TO Tov yiyvMG'AUv TuXka T£ navTa /ml avrrjv au TTjV i]f.iwv Telicog [eig] dvvauiv fYMOTrjg. TIPQ. Kal zaXwg y^ elgrf/MTE tcc vvv, cprjaouev. J^Q. ^Ogd^wg. ndliv tolvvv f^iexd tovto, [TrjV cpqovr^aiv %al TOV vovv dvegcoTriTeov.^ ^^q rjSovcov tl nQOodeloS h' Trj ^vy- yiQccGsi ; q)alii(ev av av tov vovv t£ /,al ttjv cpgovr^oiv aveQcorcov- Tsg. UoicoVy (palev dv Yacog, rjdovcov; IIPQ. Ehog. D ^£2. '^O S^ y TjiiitTeQog Xoyog f.i€Td tovt^ iaxlv ode. Ugog Taig dlrjd^iaLv hxivaig i]dova7g, cpY]O0f.iEV^ dq" tTi frgoodeloO^^ vfiuv Tag i^EyiaTag 7]dovdg ^vvoixovg eivai ytal Tag ocpodgoxd- Tag; Kal ncbgy lo ^loxQaTeg; (palev dv, at y hinodlai^iaTd TS f.ivqi' TK-Uv sxovacy Tag tpvxdg iv atg or/.ovuev TaQaTTOvoat [did uavLxdg fyhvdg], yial yiyveGd^ai te »;,«ag Tt]v dqxtjv or/. E ewGi r« Te yiyvoiiev rjf^icov Teytva (hg to irfolv, Sl af^ieXeiav )Jjd^riv ef.i7r0L0vGai , navTdjiaGi diacpO^elgovGLV ; dlXag d^ f]do- vdg dXr]d^eTg yial YaO^aqag dg ei7ieg, Gyedov oh.eiag rjulv v6- have \i. 9. TiaoT); t) l^pXc xou cppovetv. riov]] The verbal is plainly out of keeping There seems no ground for the omis- with cpaifxev av, and both the repetition siou of ijiaXXov in an ordinary prose of voOv xa\ cppovT^aiv, and still more passage, and the attempt at variety in the tvould-be variety in "?re must ai^Jc", cppovTQa£(oc, TOU (ppovefv, is very poor, ^^we shall say, asking^', is most ckimsy. Nor is there any fairness in the alter- Another conclusive reason against the native "either with all or without any", genuineness^ of these words is the po- For these reasons I have preferred (xaxa sition of au ; for the opposition com- 9povif]a£a)(;, r\ Tzaarn Ywpi?. In the mences at :i;aXtv, and there was nothing next paragraph e?Atxpiv£s is obviously to prevent the author writing ttqv cppo- an interpolation. vTQOtv au xa\ rov voOv. But the simplest avT-?|V av Ti^v] The MSS. have some argument is, that if Plato had written TT^v auTr]v, others au ttqv auTtjv. The ttqv cppo'viqacv xa\ tov vouv avepcoTTQTSov, reason for this answer of the Pleasures he would have had no motive for ad- is that they like that which appreciates ding anything Avhatever to 9arjj.£v av. the nature of each of themselves. I have [8id p,aviKtts T|8ovds]] This is no doubt therefore written Ixaarr)? and cancelled a true explanation ; but who would ever e?(;. dream of saying at Tf]8oval TapatTouaiv [rfiv v vovv avcpwrr]- Tf]|j,5c Sia [jLav^xac "rfSovai;? ITAATONOi: ^lAHBOS. 115 lidXe, y-al nqog ravzaig, T(}g (.lexh' vyielag vmi tov OiDfpQovelr, YML di] YMi ^t'lLiTTdGrjg agcTr^g, mcooai TcaOccTreQ ^eov onadnl yiyvojtievai amfj ^vva/MkovOovot navTrj, xavrag (.tiyvv tag ()* ael ^lET a(pQoovvt]g Y,al rrjg aU.rjg zaz/ag CTTOjiitvag jtoXXrj irov aXoyia Til) vo) (^tiyvvvciL tov (iovXofievov o tl /.aXXiGnqv Idovua "Acd aOTaoiaaTOTaTrjV ftl'^iv ymI zgaotv ev xavvrj fia^eiv tiel- 64 qaOxfai, tI 7rOT ev t^ av^gojiiq) vmI to) navel 7Tt(pvY,ev aya- x)6v '/.al Tiv' Id lav aiTr]v eivai irore fiavuevTWV. do^ oix fficpgovcog Tavra %al exorzcog lavTOV tov vovv (pi]GO(.iev h/rtg d^ al'TOv '/Ml jiivrji^irig ymI do^rjg ogd^rjg ccTToy.QivaGxha zd vvv grjO^evra; nPil. UavrdnaGi f.iev ovv. ^12. Ld^AA« jtirjv Yttl Tode y^ dvay'Aalov^ Y,al ovy, dXXtog dv 7i0Te ylvoLTo ovd' dr ev. TTPn. To 7iolov; B J^£2. 'Ql fit] /!ii^of.i€v dlr^d^eiav, ovyi dv 7T0Te tovt dhj^tog yiyvoLTO ovd^ dv yevof^ievov eirj. IlFiL JTwg ydq dv; ^ii. Ovdafitog. dXV sY zivog txi 7iQ0odel tij Gvyy^Qdoec TavTT^, liysTS ov xe '/,al 0ihj[Jog. hiol (aev ydq yM^a7veQel VMO^iog Tig dotofAaxog dg^cov VMXiog 8(.i\pvyov awfiaTog o vvv Xoyog dneigydod^ai (paivexai. nP£L Kal euol toIvvv, to ^wyigaTeg, ovtco Xtye dedox^ai. ravras \>.iyvv rds] All subsequent the invisible power which orders the Editors have adopted this brilliant con- world, because it is capable of regulating jecture of Van Heusde for tauxac {jli- man's life. Nothing can be simpler or yviivrac. clearer than this passage, and yet it Kal riv' iSe'av avTfjv] Of the various has been twisted into the most absurd changes which might be proposed for fancies, such as the following : Descripta the removal of the difficulty which this est adhuc mixtionis ratio, atque osten- sentence presents, I think the most pro- sum, quonam ejus elementa esse debeant, bable would be xott Kara rtv' ?6£'av au- ita ut rh irepas, to dirtipov, et rh xr\'i thai Tcore ijiavT£UT£ov. Compare So- ^■ofJLjiwrydjJttvov in mixtione ista jam nunc pliist, 252, A. oaoi xax' d8r] ta ovxa conspiciantur. (to £itii.fJi.iaY6|Jt.evov in xaxa tauTa waautw? iyovxa ihcai (paai. mixtione, would imply that to ^u.u.- IxdvTws lavTOv] This is a playful {jiiaYo'(j.£vov is something different from allusion to the phrase vouv ^/ovtwi;. mixtio ; if so, it is to arcscpov and to Koo-fics Tis d(rwjj.aTOS ^p|«v] Socrates TCcpa?-) And again : Quippe voluptatis speaks of his present argument*(o vOv constituunt veluti corpus, sapicntia vera Xc'yo;), that is the speculation concern- ^\fv\i]v. Of all this metaphysical cob- ing combinations and what admits of web not a single thread belongs to them, as concluded; he compares it to Plato. 8 * 116 nAATi2N0"S TOiavTTjv didd^eOLv; tovto ydq Idovrsg /leTa tovt^ eniG/xxpo- (.led^a, eid^ r^dovfj elte [tw] vo) nqoGCfvEGTeQov '/,al oI/£i6tsqov £v TV) TtavTi ^vviGtri%ev. D IIPQ. ^Og^wg' tovto yaQ elg ttjv yigiGLv rjf^uv sgtl ^vjii- CpOQCOTaTOV. ^Q. Kal fiir/v xat ^vf,i7tdGr]g ye (.il^ewg ov yaXenov Idelv Triv ah lav, di ijv rj jtavtog d^ia yiyvsTai rp:iGovv rj to naqd- Ttav ovdevog. nPn. nidg Uyeig; 2Q. Ovdelg ttov tovt^ avd^qwTtiov dyvoet. npn. To Ttotov; J^Q. '^'Otl fieTQov yial Tjjg ^v{.if.iiTqov (pvGecog f.irj Tv^ovGa fjTiGovv %al OTtcoGovv ^vyycgaGig jtaGa i^ dvdyy,r]g aTtolXvGi to. T€ y.eQavvvf.ieva yiat 7tQajTr]v avTrjv. ovde ydq y^QccGig, dXkd Tig E dycqaTog ^vf.L7Te(poQrif,ievri dXri^cog rj ToiavTY] ylyvETai l^dGTOT ovTtog Tolg y.e/,Tr]fiivoig ^vfUfogd. IIPi2. ^^Irjd^eGTaTa. 2£2. Nvv drj xaTajrecpevyev rjfuv rj Tayad^ov dvva^iig elg TTjv TOV yalov (fvGiv. jiieTQWTi^g ydq yal ^vf^ifisTQia ytdlXog drjTiov %al dqeTrj TcavTa%ov ^vf.i^alvei ylyveGd^ai. nPQ. ndvv i^iev ovv. 2Q. Kal jurjV dXTqd^etdv y ecpafnev avTolg ev Ttj y^qaGet l.ie(.u%d^ai. ^ IIPQ. ndvv ye, 65 ^Q, Omovv el /^irj (,a^ dvvd(.ied^ ide(^, to dyad^ov [drjqev- aaij^ GvvTqiGi la^ovTeg, /AXkei Kal ef.if.ieTqicc /,al dlrjOela, le- [KaC]] By cancelling this word we ar- owner, rive at the right construction, IkX T:oiq |unopd] Observe the play on the Tipo^upoK; Tiq? Taya^ou o^xYJaew?. f^s word ^ufj.TC£cpopTQfj.£VTf]. Tou TotouTOU seems to have been in- (itTpiOTtis] This answers to aperrj, serted after this intrusive xal had made and lufjifxerpia to xtxXXo?. TTQS o?XTf]a£(o; seem to be without an Xa^ovns] This has nothing to do EAATiiNOS i tc^ijlttwv q)pa^£tv. IIAATOJNOS ^iAHBOS. Ill) rov ovd' at' deuiegov, aXlct tiqcouov jnev nt] tcsqI (,Utqov /lal TO fiergtov yml yiaiQiov xal jidvd^ 07160a Toialta XQrj vo(.iiteLv TTjv dtdiov 7,vQrjaS^aL rpvoiv. TIPQ. Oaivezai yovv sa, rcov vvv leyo/iievcov. 3/2. Jer/ueQOv f^irjv iregl to Gv/if^ievQOv y,at xaXov '/.at to B Tbltov Aal i/iavdv xcd navd-^ bnooa zrjg yeveag ah xamiqg sGilv. UPQ. "EoiAE yovv. ^Q. To TOIVVV TQLTOVj COQ 7] Bf-lTj f^iaVTSia, VOVV /Mi CpQO- vrjGiv zL^elg oiz av f.iiya xi ri;g aXrideiag 7iaQ£^el0oig. HPn. "Loiog. ^^1. !^^' olv \ov TtraQza,] a rJjg ipcxrjg amrjg ed-efnev, STriOTrj/iiag re -/.at xLyyag Kal do^ag OQd^dg lexdsiaag, xavx ELvai %d 7iQdg roig tqloI ctTaqza, eureq rov ayad-ov pari ^tal- C Xov zrjg rjdovrjg ^vyyevfj; npn. Tax ctv- ^Q. ntjiuizag zoi'vuv, ag rjdovdg t^Ef,iEV aXmiovg oqiaa- iievoi, yiaDaQccg hiovofidaavxeg Trjg ipvyjjg avzrjg^ e7riOT7]iiaig, zug d^ alad^ijGEOiv, E7cOf.iivag; IlPn. "lowg. 2/2. '^'ExTTj d^ sv yEVEa, (prjolv ^OgcpEvg, ^azanavGaxE //>- Gf^iov doidrjg. dzaQ vdvdvvEVEt /.al o rjjuezEQog loyog ev t/.zt] Comp. Eur. Alcest. 737, 738. But vu' visible or undiscoverahle. That for the dyyzMU'i Tcc'ijitcwm is nothing at all. sake of which all things are is the end, Totavra XP'l] The MSS. are divided and being the end it cannot be ex- between TotaijTa /piQ and ipri TciauTOt, plained, as other things are, by that to tlie former, which alone makes sense, which it belongs, or of which it is the being supported by the inferior MSS. effect; but its name is also its defini- r^v atStov iivpfja-Oai <|>v(riv] 1 have tion. It is, and there is nothing beyond, discussed the proper reading and inter- tt^s dXtiOefas] These words arc in- pretation of this passage in my Intro- troduced with a certain bye-purpose of duction. With regard to the expression shewing that this voO? owes its place TTQV octSiov (pijatv in place of aya^cv, to the Truth of which it is the reali- which he has all along been employing, sation. it is not difficult to see that Plato here, [ov T^rapra]] If T^rapta is in its right knowing that the mere argument is place here, it is of no use lower down ; virtually at an end, breaks loose from but it seems better placed there than dialectic trammels and allows his en- here. thusiasm full play. It is to be noticed tirKTTTJiJtais] The MSS. have imax-f]- that he uses the word a'tfi'.oc: which to fjia?, Tai? §£. The scribe was put out a common hearer meant only Jterpetual by the want of xai [xe'v, but it is under- or eternal, in a further sense with which stood in rd? 8i, according to a common his scholars were familiar, of the in- idiom. J20 I1AATON02 ot, av xovd'^ oqcc. I. ccQ* ccv TL fiot (pQaGEitxg cov syco d'ikco ; O. ag y iv TcaQEQyo) rijg i(Jiijg 8v67tQa^iag. — we find each verse naturally arising out of that which precedes and introducing to that which follows it. For the some reason, to such a line as this {Ion 1295) s^EXksg oIksIv Tafi , ifiov pia Xa§c6v, the retort KccTisnci Tov (liXXsLV fi aTtSKTEivEg q)Q§(p; ought to answer without anything intervening; but that passage would lead me into another topic, that of wilful interpolation, for the four lines TcaxQog yE — %d^ov6g contain nothing but what is said with equal clearness further on. The same reason does not apply to the passage in the Euthy- demus (305, c. d) which I have mentioned elsewhere in this Book (p. Ill), where the following most necessary connexion has been broken by the negligence of some copyist: oiovrat d' Eivai tzccvtcov GOCpCJTaTOl aV&QCQTtCOVj TtQOg Se TO) ElVai X«l doKElv av TtOCVV TtCiQCC TtoXXolg , I iv 8e tolg idloig Xoyoig orav ccnoXricpd' a iv^ VTCO Tcov cificpl Ev^vdrjfjLOv KoXovead^ai. | coars (tov) tcuqcc Ttaaiv ev8oxi(aeIv ifXTtodav ccpiaiv Eivai ovSivag aXXovg, tj rovg tveqI cpiXoaocpiciv ccvd-QcoTtovg. It is true that the words which I have here introduced into their proper place, have, where they now occur, been the innocent cause of the silly interpolation, eIvul (lev yag rrj aXrid-eicc acpag 60(pcoTaTovg^ but they were not displaced on purpose to make room for an interpolation, like the verse in the Ion quoted above. This whole matter of transposition may be summed up thus. If the misplacing of words is an accident of frequent occurrence in writing, and the correction of such errors is liable to be mis- understood and so to lead to further confusion; if the examples of such confusion are to be found in several places where the nature of metrical dialogue would generally be a safeguard against their occurrence; and tf these examples often concern not only single words but even whole verses, it is unreasonable to refuse assent to those conjectural emendations which consist of trans- 126 PAL^OGRAPHICAL REMARKS. position, when by such transposition we obtain sentences of which the grammatical construction and the sense are such as satisfy the reader, because it is most unlikely that good grammar and good sense should be produced by accident, and not be the sense and the grammar intended by the author. The question of the a priori probability of interpolations may be disposed of in a few words; probably no one will deny the likelihood that words appearing in the margin, where they were intended as mere observations, should be mistaken by a copyist for restorations of matter omitted in the text; but some persons may feel reluctant to believe that the scribes would wilfully in- terpolate words of their own, and endeavour to pass them off as the words of the author, or perhaps they would concede such a possibility only where the text which the copyist had before him was corrupt or unintelligible; but this belief that the writers of our manuscripts were scrupulous and were generally guided by common sense, is altogether contrary to experience. Hundreds of passages may be adduced from all the masters of Attic prose, to shew that the scribes were in the habit of inserting unneces- sary words, words which were intended to eke out the construction, and which only serve to confound it, and words which shew that the whole drift of the passage was misunderstood. Too much stress cannot be laid on the last class, for if we find a clause added which either contradicts the rest of the sentence or is utterly irrelevant to it, the scribe is at once convicted of deli- berate forgery. I have already pointed out that in Laws 710, a, the words xoiQ 6s iyjiQccTcog are an antithesis invented to answer to rolg (xsv aHoaicog, and that rotg fxh' ccKQatcog itself is a corrupt reading, for the speaker is describing that vulgar kind of temperance whick is developed even in children and in beasts, to prevent their being unrestrained as to pleasure, otieq Evdvg tculoI xal &rjQloig, rev (.17] ccKQccTiZg £i£iv 7t()6g tag irjdovag, ^vf-icpwov STcavd-el. I have also mentioned a passage in the Phcedo, where the difference between Plato's meaning and that of the' interpolator amounts to a contradiction. For while the one bids us, if we are sure of our principle, disregard any seeming contradictions that may arise out of it, {xcc'iQiiv imrjg civ t« an iKBivrjg oQfirjd^ivTa) the other PAL^OGRAPHICAL RP:MARKS. 127 tells us to hold our principle only provisionally, until such a con- tradiction arises. See Phaulo 101, d. In Laws 841, b, we read, to 6yi Xccv&avsiv xovzmv dqiovxct ri x«Adv ncni avTolg savco \i'6fAL[iov] edsL aal ayQarpcp vofiiG&sv vofio), to ds ju»/ Xav&dveiv cciGiQov, aXk ov zo |ui/ Ttdvrcog Sqav. If this is cor- rect, the writer asserts that /iot to do the forbidden things is not disgraceful. But so flat a truism never dropped from Plato's pen. Kemove to ds ,uj} Xav&dvsLv alaiQov, and then we see that it is not TO ft)) dqciv that is to be the aaXov of these men of weak virtue, but that they are to be allowed a lower kind of KaXov, namely TO Xav&dvEiv 6qcovtcc. And so Plato comments on his own words, ovTco TOTS (vulgo To^TO) aiGiQOv av acil 'KaXov dsvziqmg di> i/fiiv iv Tc5 I'o' jwo) yivofisvov xfotro. It is difficult to account for such interpolations as those which I have pointed out in my edition of the Syinposium (Ep. ad Th. pp. xiv-xvi) and yet they are of continual occurrence in Plato. On the one hand we can hardly conceive how any one who knew the construction well enough to supply £niTQi'i\)Hv vixlv {Laws 817, c) should fail to see that idonv had already been pro- vided for the same purpose, or why any one should have thought it necessary for the sense in T/iewtetns 171, c, to add To'rf x«t o IIocozayoQag uvtoc ^vyxcoQi'ioezai, in order to give construction to what follows, when he had before him i^ cctkxvtcov a^ja dwo twv UgcoTayoQOv ccQ^a^ivcov d^cpiO^rizt^aszaL, (.laXXov ds y vti sksIvov 6(AoXoyr}asTai. But the interpolators are not merely intent on helping out the construction by their supplements; sometimes they endea- vour to give an additional beauty to the text, as in the follow- ing passage of Demosthenes /// Midiamy which I quote instar omnium as a specimen of the manner in which our scribes thought they could add finishing touches to Attic oratory, 546, a. sld^ v(xsig Tov ovTcog cofiov^ Tov ovzcog ayv(0(.iovc(, tov zTjXr/Mvtag di- Kag Xa(x^ai'0vza, (ov avzog ijdiKijG&al q)ri6i (xovov, {ov yaQ tjdiKrjzo ys,) Tovzov v^fji^ovza Xa^ovzEc SLg xiva T(av noXiziav dcpt'joszs^ kc<1 jut/O- ioQzijg , jLitjO- lsqojv, fn'izs i-oftoV, jwjjr' aXXov fitj^siog Tifjovoiav 7toiov(isvov ov zaza^rjipisiod'S ; ov naQaSeiyun Tcoirjaezs; If ever there was a passage wh«re the rules of Art required that nothing should interrupt the swelling indignation of the speaker till it burst out in one single call to vengeance^ it is this one which 128 PALJEOGRAPHICAL REMARKS. our copyists have garnished with acpriOBre and ov xaTa-iprjcpuiG^s. But luckily for us, this second ornament is fastened on to an ac- cusative TcoLovfisvov, which refuses to hold it. Perhaps those who believe that all interpolations in Demosthenes are posterior to the MS. £, will allow this to be an exception ; while they are making up their minds, let me inform the reader of my suspicion that Tov ovTcog ayvcofiova is nothing but a foolish dittographia of rdv ovicog w^o'v, and that ^lovov is an addition but no improvement to (prjGL. A very common source of interpolation is the attempt to fill up gaps left in the copy, or to complete passages which seem to be defective. In at least two passages of the Philebus it is pretty certain that we have supplements of this kind, but we have no- thing to guide us to the detection of these, except the hopeless- ness of the present reading; and as long as there are ingenious men who undertake to explain everything, (Have they not even explained ever}' Chorus in Sophocles, and that too according to various readings?) it will be difficult to hold one's ground against such adversaries, who offer positive results against a mere ov fiav&dvco. But the tables are turned when we come to pas- sages, where we can shew the source of the corruption or prove that there is none, as when a marginal note has slipped into the text, and then, being treated as a part of it, has been so supple- mented as to bring it into harmony with its surroundings. Cobet supplies me with an instance from the celebrated fragment of the Cretans. Euripides had written q)oiviy.oyBvovg tekvov EvQcojtrjgy and a Scholiast had in the Margin explained the first word by TTjg TvQiag, This was by accident incorporated with the text and considered as a part of it; but then the Anapaestic metre required another syllable. This was soon found; and so from that day to the Epistola ad Millium, and from it to our own they write or print, (poivi-Koyivoiig nal rijg TvQiccg tskvov EvQcorcrjg. I will give an example of the same kind from the Iphigenia Taurica. In v. 464, Iphigenia prays, bk^ai ^valag, ag 6 ncifj rjfiiv r6(.wg ovx oaiag avatpalvsi. Some commentator thinks it worth his while to warn the reader that Ttaf/ rj(iLv does not mean the Tau- rians but the Greeks, and this he does by writing one word, '^'Ek- ktjGi. When this word comes to be mixed up with the rest, it is found very troublesome to the metre, but an ingenious person l>ALiEOGRAt>HICAL REMARKS. 129 discovers that if it is placed very near the end with a convenient dissyllable of no particular meaning after it, it will give no further trouble at least to the metrical critic. And so we have di^ai {^v- 6lag, ag 6 nctQ rjfilv v6(iog ovx oaiag^ElXrjai didovg avacpaivsi. A more striking example is that which I have elsewhere given from the Medea vv. 734, foil. TtSTtoid'a, IlsXiov 5' sxd'Qog iati (loi dofiog KqEcov T£' TOi;rot? d' oqKioiGi ^sv ^vyelg ayovGiv ov fiEd^el ccv ek yalag ifii. Xoyoig 6s aviipdg, kuI ^eav avmfiorog epilog yivoi av, Kcc7iiKr}Qvxsv(jLaaLV ovK av md'OLOf Tcc(ia (lev yag icad'evfj, rolg 5' ok§og s6zl, kol Soiiog TVQavviaog. Elmsley's note on K(x7tixrjQVK£vficiai is as follows. "}ianLKt]QVKSv- fiarcc legit Scholiasta. snioirjQVKSVfiaTa yccQ sIcl tec 8icc tc5v xt/- Qvyfiarcov yiyv6(ieva TtQog cpiXiav. ry ds svd'Eia dvrl doriKrjg '>ii%Qri- rai. ySsL yccQ eItveIv, tcccI tolg i7tLKr}QVKEVfiaaiv ovx, ccv nid-oio. Ji- Svfiog Si (prjaiv iXXELTtsiv rrjv did. dice tec ETCiKriQVKEv^ciTa. PauUo ante legitur; ^ri o^oGctg 8e cpiXog yhoio ccvroig Sicc tov iTtiKrjQVKSv- ficctog. d^EXsi eItceIv, avrl rov ETtiKrjQVKEVfAaGLV. XeItcei 81 rj did^ Latet hie aliquid quod exiricare nequeo.''^ Let us take account of the difficulties in the whole passage. First there is fiE&El^ av, which ought to govern the genitive, and although Person's note is an excellent one, the question still recurs, "why not ifiov after the nearer verb?" For avmfiorog in the best MSS. there is ivco^oTog, but this old Scholium by its (irj ofioaag ds supports the former. Then we have KaTtLxriQVKEv^aaL in the text, but the scholiasts most certainly read either KaTtiarjQVKEv^aTa, or tciiti- KTjQvxEvfjLaTa, or both. Last of all we find in all MSS. and in the Scholia ova av m&oio, which, as Dindorf observes, is the contrary of what was to be said. For this reason modern edi- tions have adopted "Wyttenbach's tocx av niO-oio. But if we look at the second Scholium quoted by Elmsley cpiXog yivoio avvoig 6ia TOV ETCixriQViiEVfiaTog f we observe a new combination, which proves that TaniTiriQVKEv^iaTa must have been so placed that it could be taken, ^whether rightly or not, as standing aico koivov to the two optatives ysv(fl' av and ovk av ni&oio; but this would be impossible if the verses ran thus: * Platonis Philebus. 9 130 PAL^OGRAPHICAL REMARKS. q)ikog yivoi ccv TCCTtiKTjQVKSVfjLccTa^ ovK ccv nld-oio. Therefore the verses must have been so arranged that while ouK civ Tti.d'oio xani^riQViiSVfiaTa made one line, cplkog yhoi av followed in. such a way as to ad- mit of being construed also with the same word. And this is in fact the key of the enigma, ovk av nid'oio rciTtiK7}Qvxsvi,iaTcc should have followed immediately on t,vyeLg. But it was left out, and afterwards restored at the side or at the foot of the page. From hence the last part was fetched and fitted in immediately after cpikog yhoi av: after which ovy, av Ttid^oio, which still re- mained on hand, was admitted into the vacant place. But in the meantime the sense contained in ova av nid'oio could not wait for all these adjustments; so the corrector made a line de sun, and that is the very line which Person defended. The passage therefore should be restored thus: TiBTioid'a ' IIeUov 6* s%d-Q6g bgtl ^oi dofiog, Kqiaiv re rovroig 8* OQKLOiai ^sv ^vyslg ovn av nld'OLO raniyirjQVKEVfjiaTa' loyoig Ss 6V(ji§ag, x«l d^emv avcoiiOTog epilog yivoi av, rafxa fjihv yuQ aa^svij, Toig 8^ oXpog laxi, xal dofiog TVQavviKog. The construction of the third line is just the same as the Homeric rj Qce vv jLtoi xi nld-oio. In conclusion I will point out some of the most striking inter- polations in another Dialogue of Plato which has fared pretty nearly as ill as the Philebus, viz. the Politieus. 286, a. ^allov t] tisqI xd (isi^co. 286, B. 8vai8Q(ag (read yrcsQ). 286, d. dslv (read (xs(jLSQL6d-ai and compare 284, e). 287, a. tcov xoiovxmv Xoycav. 287, e. xcti ifiTcvQoig nal ditvQoig. (The dialogue is ill distributed, and should be arranged thus. TiQoacp&iyyofied'a. — N. E. ^aX (idka ys avxvov sldog. H. acil xrj ^. ye — STCiax^iiri. N. Z. rcwg ydq -^ 288, c. nqoGayoQEvd'h. 293, a. oq^ri (read oi) av ylyvrjTai). 293, b. rjyovijisd'a (comma after aQxovxag). 295, a. TtaxvxsQcog. (The struc- ture is : d'^GSL x6 xoig TtoXXolg 7TQ06rJK0v, nal x6 mg iu) x6 tcoXv, xal TO Tcmg ovtodgL Read iv Eadaxoig xav vofxcov.) 295, u. TtaQu x}]v ikitida. 295, d. tcoxe vofjiod'Exrjd'Evxa. 297, b. oloi xe chai. 298, a. dvaXco^axc^ 299, e. ^rjxEiv, 303, e. XEiTCExai. PALiEOGRAPHICAL REMARKS. 131 PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE. I have pointed out several passages in the Philebus where the dialogue has found its way into the wrong person's mouth. Si- milar blunders have been noticed in the Epistle prefixed to my Euthijdemus. I will now bring forward two or three more. Pol. 287, E. mentioned above under the head of interpolations- Pol. 304, c. N. Z. TavTYjv sksIvcov. H- Trjv 6' ei del {xavd'dveiv .... 6v y rj^lv ccTtocpaivEL delv aQxsiv; Pol. 306, a. TtavTcog ys iirjv Qf^ieuv is a part of the Stranger's speech. Laivs 811, b. noXv^cc^iav. nwg ovv .... vo^iocpvlani', KA. Tov tceqi Xiysig; A@. Tov TCQog Ti n. . . aTtoxaXvoi. KA. AiyB Kctl ^irjdev o.tio'kvh Xiyeiv. In Euri- pides' Io?i 1356 foil, every one is now agreed that the dialogue should run thus : Flv. Xa^cov vvv avra ttiv TSKOVOav sktzovh. /cov. Ttciaav 6' ETtsX&oav '^6iad\ EvQcoTtrjg d^ OQOvg ; TLv. yv(06zi ra^' civxog. — But I quote the passage in order to complete its cor- rection. When the second line stood as part of a continuous speech, it first acquired that bl which the MSS. offer us. But in order to bring 61 in, a transposition was necessary; so the critic changed 'Aaiad' irciXd'co naaav, Evqcoitrig d"' oQOvg; into TtaOav 6^ BnsXd-cov ^Aaiccd\ Yet the old reading which he altered is obviously correct. 'ETtsXd'mv would mean that he was to look for his mother nfter he had wandered even the world, and not while he was doing so, which would require ijticov. FALSE COALITION OF SYLLABLES. To XQixov STEQa) and to tqLxov sz igm would be undistinguishable in MSS. where neither accents nor breathings were used. In Dion. Halic. De Lysia, 7. the words o^ev EUog Tovg ^Iv av Sqcc- (yai, tovg ds na^Eiv^ were until Markland's time read, ovd'Ev Ei^og Tovg fisv avdgag aixovGa eI rad'Eirj. A fresh instance of this has just presented itself to me in the Politicus 290, d. ribri xolvvv (loi doKOVfXEv OLOV y Eixovo g vy^vovg .... scpaTtxEGd'aL. Such is the reading of the oldest MS.; some others change yslxovog into yi xivog, but no one has yet pointed out that OWN FEITONOC is a mere blunder toi^OIONEI TINOC. Even the youngest scholar will remember Person's correction of iyvwafteO-' 1^ laov nav vaxccxoig KccKolgj and Bentley's of /mj xiva (pavai xa ^EQiKETtEco. 9* 132 PAL^OGRAPHICAL REMARKS. OMISSION OP or. One example among many of the confusion caused by the omission of ov is to be found in the Vatican Scholia on Euri- pides printed at the end of Geel's Pkwm'sscB. Jndrom. y. 103 'JA/a> aiTteiva: fjiovmSia iau ^ to ^i) hog TCQoamnov d-QrjvovvTog' mats TO "AGiaxlbog y^g cal o cpd'ovog iari. Wsvdog Ss ovSa- (.lag ig ccQi&fxov stiitcvsi, noXs^iov ycLQ xai ^x^qov tcc cpvasi to i/^fv- 8og f cc d aXa&sia olublov kccI GvficpvTOv tcc tco ceQiO-fica ysvsa. (DiloMov TLvd^ayoQEiov en tov neql ^vx^jg. Stob. Eel FJiys. i. 20, 2. UaQ Kul aq)&aQTog xai aKaxaTtovaxog SLa(iivei, tov cctcelqov alcQva. OvTS yag evroad'ev akXcc rig ahia dvva(XLK(arEQCC avTccg svqe- 'd'Tjaeraif ovt k'KX06d'£Vj q)d-ElQai avrov dvvaiiivcc. 'AXk' r^v ode 6 xo'- 6 (log i^ aldovog Kal Big uimva diafisvELy slg vTto evog frco GvyysvioD KCcl XQaTLGTCO Xttt aVVTtEQd-ETa) KV^EQVCOflEVOg. "ElEl Ss Kdl TUV CCQXCCV Tag HLvaaiog te Kal (XETa^oXag o aoGiiog Eig Iwv, y,a\ GvvExrig Kal cpv- 6Ei dianvEOfiEvog Kal nEQiaysoiiEvog i^ fccQXidiov. Kal to (jlev afiEvd- ^kaTov avTOVy to 6e ^sza^akkov iarr Kal to (isv d(i£Td^okov aTto Tag TO okov nEQUXOvGag ipvxccg (iSXQL Gskdvag TiEgaiovTai, to ds fie- Ta§dkkov aTto Tag Gskdvag fiixQi' T^ccg yag. ^Ensl 8s ys Kal to kiveov i^ aimvog stg almva nsQiTiokEl, to 8e kive6(xevov tag to kiveov 'dyEi, ovtco * SiaTL^Ead'ai, dvdyKa to (.isv deimvaTov to 8£ aELTtad'Eg EifisVf Kal TO fiEV vc5 Kal ipvxag dvdxmiia nav, to 8e yEVEGiog Kal (jletu^o- kdg ' Kal to iaev TtQaTOV tk dwdfiEi Kal vtceqexov, to 8' vGteqov Kal Ka&VTCSQExofXEvov. To d' i^ dficpOTEQCov TOVTcov, TOV ^Ev aEt d'iovTog '&Eiov, TOV Se ueI (XETa^dkkovTog yEvvaTOv, KOOfjLog. Aio Kal KakcSg EXEi ksysv KOGfiov rj(i£v EVEQysiav ai8iov '&ec5 ts Kal yEVEGiog Kazd avvaaokovd-iav Tag (lETapkaTiKag cpvGiog' Kal 6 (jlev ig dsl SiafiivEi KaTa TO avTo Kal coGavTcog excov, Ta 8e yiyvofisva Kal cp^EiQOfisva Tcokkd. Kal Ta ^sv cpd^OQcc ovTa Kal (pvGsi KaTa fiOQCpag Gco^ETai, tcc yova Ttdkiv Tav avTav (A.OQ(pdv dTtOKa&iGTavTa tc5 yEVVi^GavTi TtaxEqi Kal SrjfiiovQy^. ^Ea tcov OiXoldov JIeqI K6g(.iov. Stob. Ed. PJiys. i. 21, 7. ^AvdyKa tu iovTa EifiEv TtdvTa rjf TtEQalvovra, -ij ccJCEiQa, rj nsQal- vovtd TE Kal ansiQa' anEiqa 81 (lovov ov Ka Eirj. ^EtceI toIvvv cpai- VETai OVT EK TlEQaLVOVTCOV TtdvTCOV lo'vTCf, OvV f| dnElQCOV TcdvTiOVf 8fjk6v ivT aQa oti Ik nEQaivovzcov te Kal ccTtEiQcov o te KOGiiog Kal * i.e. oVoXoyerv. APPENDIX. 145 TcJ iv ctvxm 6vvaQ(i6%d"r}. /dfjXol 8e xa\ rcc iv tolg h'Qyoig' ra iasv yuQ avtcov etc TCSQaivovTcav, nzQalvovra, ra S' iy, TCEQaivovzcov re x«l ansiQcov TtsqaivovTct ts Kctl ov nsQaivovTa, tec 8* i| cctzslqcov ansiQU g)ccv£Ovtai. Kal Ttavtct ya fiav ra yiyvooGKOfisva uQid'^ov exovri. ov yccQ otoV T£ ovSev ovze vorjd^ijfisv ovrs yvcoa&rjfiev ccvsv rovrco. "0 ya (xav aQi&iAog s%£L dvo fihv idia E^idrj, nsQiGOov kuI (xqtiov, tqlxov 81 an a\i(poxiQCOv (ii'i'&svTmv, ccqtlotcsqiGGov. EnaTSQa) 8e tw si8sog noXkal fxoQq)aL, ag EKaarov avxavto ^Srjfiaivsi. UeqI 8s cpvGiog xal aQfxoviag w8s ex^i ' a (isv icrta tcov TtQayiidtcov at8iog eaaa xal avra fiova, q>v6ig d-eia ivxl aal ov% avd^gcoTtivav svSixsxai, yva6iv, nXav ya ort ovx olov X rjg ov&svl xcov iovxtav xat yLyvcoCKO(iEva}v v(p afxtZv yE- ysvijad^ai, (i'^ VTtaQxoiaag xag iaxovg xmv TCQayfidxcov ih. cov avvhxa 6 zoa^iog, jcal xav TCSQaivovxcov aal xcov dnEi^oav. 'EtveI 8e t«t aQ- Xal vitdqxov ov^ o^oiai ov8' ofAOCpvXoi S06ai, r}8r} a8vvavov rjg %a avxolg y.oafirjd-rjfjLEV, at (irj aQfiovia ETtEysvExo, w xivi aqa XQOTto) iyi- vExo. Td ^£V tov ofioia xal 6fi6(pvka aQiioviag ov8ev E71e8eovxOj xd 81 dvofJLOia ^riSh 6ii6q)vXa fjLrj8£ iGoxsXrj dvdyna xd xoiavxcc aQ^ovia GvyKEnXsled-aij at fiiXXovxi, iv xo0fta) aaxexsGd'ai. 'AQfioviag 8e (liyS'&og evxv 6vXXa§d xal 8l o^Eidv. To 8£ 8l o^sidv (Asi^ov xdg cvXXa^dg £7ioy86a). Evxl ydg ano VTtdxag ig fiicov 6vX- Xa^d, dito Se (liaag nox\ vsdxav 8l o^Eidv, drco 8s vsdxag ig xgixav 6vXXa§d , dito 81 xqixag ig vndxav 8i o^Eidv. To 81 iv fiiao) (xiaag xal xQixag irtoySoov. '^A 81 6vXXa§d inlxqixov, x6 81 8i o^Eidv rjfJLLO- Xiov, xo 8Ld Ttaodv 8e 8lnXoov. Ovxag dq^ovia nsvxs in6y8oa nai 8vo 8ii6LEg, 8l o^elccv 8e xqi i'ji6y8oa %a\ 8iEGigy GvXXa^d 8s 8v i7c6y8oa Kal SUaig. — . Platonis Timceus, 35 a. Trjg dfJLEQL6xov xai dsl xaxd xavxd ixov6rjg ovGiag, xat t% av nsq\ xd Gc6(iaxa yiyvo^svrig (iSQLGxrjg, xqlxov i^ d(i(polv iv fiida) cvvs- KEQaGaxo ovGiag siSog, xrjg 8£ xavxov g)vCEcog av nsqi xai xrig d'axs- Qov* aaxd xavxd. Kal ^vviaxriaEV iv ^iao) rov x£ d(iEQ0vg avxav xal xov Kaxd xd Gmiiaxa iiSQiOxov. Kal xqia AajScov ovxa avxd 6vve- * Commonly ^axipoM. Kal Tata tau- Philebus. The soul of the world is the ra. I have altered the text according Tiepa? of the whole and of all its parts ; to the evident requirement of thi sense, and we here see that this soul partakes The passage itself has been appended of the opposite apx.a^ to ev xal tautcv as serving to illustrate the uepa? in the and to aicetpov xal i3aT£pov. Platonis Philebus. in 146 APPENDIX. KSQaaaro elg iiiav Tcdvta ISiaVj rjjv d'ari^ov cpvGiv SvOfiiKTOv ovactv slg ravTov ^vvaQ^OTtmv §la. !Ex tov ^Aq%vTov tveqI I^qxcov. Stob. Eel. i. 35, 2. ^Avayxa x«l Svo ccQ%ag rjiisv xmv ovrcov, iilav ^Iv lav GvGxoiiiav exoiGav Tc5v ret ay (lavmv xal o^kjtcov, szsQav ds rav OvaTOixiav s%oi' Gav ttav ataKTcov aal cioqiGxmv. KaX rav (lev ^rjTccv xal Xoyov s'loi- 6CCV xal Tcc iovTcc 6(iOLCog Gvvsx^iv, Kctl ta ft?) sovra oql^siv xal avv- taGGsiv Tclccncc^ovGav yaQ ccsl rolg yivofiivoig svkoycog xal EV(}v&(ji(ag dvdysiv Tcivta xai t« xa^' oAco ovGlag te kccI ideccg (xsTadlSo^sv * ray d' dXoyov xal aQQrjrov xal ra GwrSTay^iiva XvficcLVSGd'ai xal ra fj yivSGiv Ss xal mGlav TCctqayivo^Eva 8iaXvEiv, TtXatid^ovGav yccQ del Tolg TtQdyficiGiv s^Ofioiovv avtavxa. 'AXX^ iTteinsQ aQX^^^ ^^o xara yivog dvri,Sic(iQOV(ASvciL rd TCQdy(iaTCi xvy%dvovxij tc5 xdv ftfv dya^o- noiov xdv S* r}(iev kukotcoioVj dvdyKa xal dvo Xoyovg 't]{isv, xov (xsv sva xdg dyad-OTtoia cpvGiog , xov 5' sva xdg xaxoTTOiw. Aid xovxo x«l xd xiyya xal xd cpvGsi yiyvofisvci Sel xovxcov ttqccxov fjL£xeLX7jq)iv, xag xs (lOQcpovg Kdl xdg ovGiag, Kal d (ilv fiOQCpco sGxlv d aixia xov xods XL rjfiev ' d Ss coGla x6 vrcoTiSifxivov^ TtaQaSexoiisvov xdv fiOQq)co. OvxE dh xa aGia olov xe eGxI (juoQcpdg fjiEXEl(,iEv ccvxa i^ avxag, ovts lidv xdv ^OQq)co yEvsGd-ai nEqi xdv coGiaVj dXX^ dvayncclov exeqccv xivd rjfiEv aixiav xdv KivdGOLGav xdv iGxco xmv 7VQay[idxcov inl xdv {lOQCpco, xctvxav 81 xdv nqdxav xa dyvcifiEL Kal aad'VTiEQxdxav rjiiEV xdv dXXdv ' ovofid^EGd'ai 5' avxdv Ttod'dKEt '&e6v' Sgxe xQEig aQX^S ^l^^v ^dtj, xov XE d'Eov, xal xdv eGxco xav TtQay^dxcov Kal xdv (iOQ(pc6. Kal xov (xhv d-EOV xEyyixav Kal xov Kivkovxa^ xdv 5' iGxm xdv vXav Kal x6 kiveo- [lEvoVy xdv ds fioQq)(o xdv xsxvav Kal no&^ dv Kivhxai vno xa kiveov- xog d iGxco. ^AXX^ ircEl xo kive6{ievov ivavxiag iavxa Svvd^iag Xg^ei xdg xmv djiXtav Gcofidxcov^ xd d' ivavxia GvvaQfioydg xivog delxai Kal EVcoGLog, dvdyna dQi&iKav dvvd^iag Kal dvaXoylag Kal xd iv d^id-- fiolg Kal yEm(iEXQiKoig SsiKvvfjLEva naqaXa^^dvEiv, d Kal Gvvaq^oGai Kal ivcoGai xdv ivavxioxaxa SvvaGElxai iv xa eGtoI tc5v nqayndrmv noxxdv fiOQcpco. KaO^ avxdv {ilv ydq ^GGa a egxco d(X0Qq)6g iGxi, ki- vad^EiGa 8e noxxdv fiOQCpm sfjifioQcpog ylvExai Kal Xoyov E^oiGa xov xdg Gvvxdi^iog. '^Oiioicog Sh Kal xo $i o Kivisxai x6 kiveo^ievov eGxi x6 TtQdxmg Kiviov • wW dvdyKa XQslg r}(i£v xdg d^^dg , xdv xe iGxco xcov TCQayfidxcov, Kal xdv (lOQcpw, Kal xo i^ avxm KivaxiKOV Kal nqdxov xa dvvdfiEi. To dh xoiovxov ov voov (lovov ^ft£v 8eI dXXd Kal voco APPENDIX. 147 Ti KQiaaov. Noco 8e nQSCaov eazlv otceq 6vo}ia^o(jLSv &e6v. "Od-ev cpa- vEQov cog 6 i-LBV Tto lOco Xoyog m^l rav QrjTav Jtal koyov B%oi6av cpvGiv SGTLV' 6 8s tea CCVL6C0 tveqI xav akoyov xat aqqriTOv* avza. 6^ egz\v a 66z(6, xal Sid rovTO yevEGig xal q)d'OQd yivsiai tvsqI zccvxav, Ka\ ovk av£v lavtag. Kant's Anthropology, Book II. § 59. We may also explain these feelings by the effect which the sensation of our state produces upon the mind. That which di- rectly (through sense) urges me to quit my state (to come out of it), is unpleasant to me, it pains me. That which in like manner urges me to maintain it (to remain in it), is agreeable to me, it gives me pleasure. But we are irresistibly carried along in the stream of Time, and through all the changes of sensations involved in the fact. Now, though the quitting of one moment of time and the entrance into another is one and the same act (that of change), yet in our thought and in the consciousness of this change there is a succession, such as belongs to the con- nection of cause and effect. The question then is, whether it is the consciousness of quitting the present state, or the prospect of the entrance into a future one, that excites in us the sensation of pleasure? In the former case, the delight is nothing else than the removal of pain, something negative; in the latter it would be an anticipation of something agreeable; consequently, an ex- pansion of a condition of pleasure, and hence something positive. But we may already infer, a priori, that the former alone can take place. For time carries us from the present to the future, and not contrariwise; and the fact that we are compelled first of all to quit the present, uncertain into what other we are about to enter, only that it is another, can alone be the cause of plea- surable feeling. Pleasure is the sense of that which promotes life, pain of that which hinders it. But life (animal life) is, as the physicians themselves have remarked, a continual play of the antagonism of the two. Consequently, every pleasure must be preceded by pain ; pain is always the first. For what else would ensue upon a continual advancement of vital po-vfer (which, however, cannot mount beyond a certain degree), but a speedy death for joy? 10* 148 APPENDIX. Moreover, no pleasure can follow immediately upon another; but between the one and the other pain must have place. It is the slight intermissions of vitality, with intervening expansions of it, that together make up the healthy condition, which we er- roneously take for a continuously-felt state of well-being; whereas in fact this condition consists only of a succession of pleasurable feelings, following each other with alternations, — that is, after con- tinually intervening pain. Pain is the stimulus of activity, and in activity we first be- come conscious of life : without it an inanimate state would ensue. 149 ADDENDA. My friend Mr E. K. Horton, who has most kindly undertaken the laborious task of superintending the edition of this work, has sent me some important suggestions as to the text of the first sheet. In the passage (12, a) he is inclined to read* rovvavriov. I have more than once had the, same suspicion, but suppressed it through fear of being taxed with the love of unnecessary changes. But I am now convinced that the construction of the sentence imperatively requires the alteration proposed. The contrary in- tended is not a contrary to the main part of the sentence, av- QLog av £h]g, but only to the subordinate phrase Trjg n. S. o^o- loyiag. The alternative is not between being %vqiog^ and not being xv^to?, but between being Kvqiog of the agreement and TiVQiog of the disagreement. p. 13, B. Mr HoETON reminds me of Dr W. H. Thompson's conjecture svoqwv in place of Ivov, But my note will shew why I cannot assent to this conjecture. Protarchus is not, and cannot * [My later view of the expression tJ xa\ xouvavxiov is that it is a trouble- some interpolation. In order that the argument may proceed, there must be an dfjioXoyta between Socrates and Protarchus. Cf. SiOfxoXoYTQ^WfJieSa xa\ To'6e. taij^' oO'tw? ofjLoXoyoufxeva (pare, ^ Ttw?; (11, d, e and also 20, c). toutov Totvuv Tov Xoyov ixi fxaXXov hi OfAoXoyfa? peiSociwawfJie^a. (14, c). The question is how far Protarchus may go to meet Socrates, since the conduct of the discussion belongs to the latter. But this question is one for himself, not Philebus, to decide. Yet Philebus by his profession of unalterable faith in his goddess, not for the present only but for the future also, Soxcf Kal Sdgei (for so the MSS. read), is endeavouring to prejudice him, even whilst in the same breath he ackowledges his freedom of judgment, auTo? Yvwaei. With this implied inter- ference Protarchus accordingly twits him. "Now that you have resigned your brief to me, your rights of dictation are over." — St. Paul's expression in 2 Cor. i, 24 ; o\Jx OTt XKpL£uou.£v ufjitov XT]? TCLax£(i)? is closely analogous. The word oiJLoXoYta itself may be illustrated from the same Epistle (ix, 13). So^aCovxe? xov Oeov iv^ vfi uTCOxaYif] x-q? ofxoXoY^ot); ufJLWv eS^ xo euaYY^^tov xoO Xpiaxou. E. R. H.I 150 ADDENDA. be, asked to shew why he calls all pleasures good, for Socrates assumes already that he looks upon some as bad; but he is challenged to point out an}^ further ground of likeness between them beyond that indicated by their common name of i^doval. As this is the only question which can be asked him without clashing with the rest of the argument, aya^ov slvai is a manifest inter- polation. But if we omit aycc^ov sivai , nQOGccyoQSvsLg is neces- sarily to be construed with t/ Tavxov ivov: else it would be without any government at all. For I do not suppose that any person will have recourse to such an intolerable ellipsis as the following: ri Tavxov ivogcjv, n. rj. (tovzo) nQOGayoQSveig; Apart from this I very much doubt whether a good Greek prose writer would say, ivoQca IV 6ol tovto, without adding some participle. p. 14, D. Eead: eTcsl (xride [ra toidds,^ oxav xig jc. r. i. p. 17, D. Ivovxa Ttci&ri yiyvofisva. "Is not one of these de trop r' E. E. H. Most assuredly, and I thank my friend for this fresh instance of what I have before pointed out as a peculiar feature in these supplements. The word ivslvai under various forms has occurred several times in this sense, and it is therefore no wonder that some sciolist should insert ivovxa without troubling himself to look further on, where he would have found yiyvofieva. Or per- haps he merely meant it as a note and had no intention of dis- turbing the text; but if so, and if this is to be the explanation of the many similar passages, this would shew the extent to which the copyists must have gone in blindly copying what they found in the Margin, as if it had been accidentally omitted in the body of the text, and afterwards supplied in the blank space. M' HoETON also mentions two conjectures made by English scho- lars on this passage. I will briefly state my objections to each of them. It is proposed to read (idd^rjg for Tcdd-ri. Now we do not want a verb, for Xd^rig may be easily conceived to run through the whole passage; and if we wanted one, it could not be [id- 'd'rjg , for (lavd-dva) xavxa yiyvo^sva is not such a construction as one will find in any good prose author. But we do want 7tdd"r]y because otherwise roiavxa would imply Siaax^iiaxa, a word not applicable to rhythm and metre. Indeed there is no word so ap- plicable, and for that very reason Plato employs the more general term nccd-rj. ADDENDA. 151 It is also proposed to read ivvoyg, but to this there are two very strong objections. In the first place ozav la^rig . . . xal ccfia — would certainly need ivvorjarjg^ and in the next place the altera- tion runs counter to the whole arrangement of the sentence, and cannot be reconciled with yaQ, which can stand where it now is only on the condition that' it belongs to the clause immediately following the parenthesis; whereas this change would make the parenthesis end at inovo (xa^eiv. Indeed the true balance of the sentence is lost by any such change; for whereas Plato might have arranged his clauses thus: The men of old have taught us (A) the power of number in Music and Rhythm, and have directed us (B) to look for the same power in all ccnsiQa, and so whenever you learn A, (Xa§rig), or detect B, (elrig), cocpog iyivov — , he thought fit to introduce the first part of this sentence in a kind of running parenthesis alongside of the second. By reading ivvorjg you de- stroy the antithesis between what the ancients taught (kciI a(ia svvoELV X. T. £.) and what we are counselled to do in order to get 6oq)Lce, (orav t' aXko s^yg,) and you put a tautology in its place. The reader will observe that the contrast between ^^a^rjg and skrjg is a real one, but that between aocpog iyivov and e^cpQoav yiyovag is a very paltry verbal variation, where no real contrast can take place, for while there is a difference between the man who is taught and the man who discovers, there is none in the method or in its result. As here we have a foolish variation between iyivov and yiyo' vag, so in Euthyd. 287, b, we have a verbal antithesis between the present, which is correct, and the future, which is quite in- appropriate. Ovxoa KQovog si, mars a to nqaTOV sltco^sv vvv ava- fiifivrjGiiSLy Ka\ f r XL TtiqvGiv tlnov [ * vvv av«fivi^(j^ij<>£t]. I referred to this passage in my Letter (page m), but inadvertently put the branch of spuriousness upon the wrong part of it. But before I leave the Euthydemus, I would fain point out some other false supplements which have occurred to me quite recently in lecturing upon that Dialogue. 274, D. [tijv 8vvci^iv rijg cocptag], 276, B. Bead id-OQv^riactv for avs&OQvPriaav. 277, D. [iiccTapaXmif], 281, A. [tcqv aya&mv'] and [to OQd-cag na6i xoig zoiovroig xq-^- o&ai] The genitives nXovrov etc. are governed by rjyovfiivti. 152 ADDENDA. 281, c. [jwaAAov]. 282, A and b. This is one of the places where from not per- ceiving the interpolation I was led into a wrong mode of re- storing the syntax. Eead : Kcc\ naQo. nargog ys drjTcov tovt' o16}ie- vov delv fxszaXaixf^avsLV nolv fiaXkov t/ ^Qrifxata^ jcal 7t«^' stcltqotzcov xal (plkcoVj Tcov T cckkcov >cal tcov cpaOKOvrcov igaGtav slvai^ jcal ^i- vcov Jtal TtokiTcov^ dsofxsvov >£«}. LKSTSvovTa aocpiag ixsTaSidovai ovSlv aiGXQov ovSs vEfisGrjTOv oiiovv VTtrjQETslv Tcui/ nakmv VTtTjQerri^ocTCOVy TtQod-vfiovfjLSvov aoq)6v yEviod^cd. This is as elegant a sentence as any in Plato, and a model of symmetry without formality. The foolish writer who supplied h^skovxa has not only destroyed the construction, but has caused another to bolster it up with the clumsy contrivance of evSKa rovxov VTcrjQETSiv xal dovksvEtv Kal 282, D. Read; otov ETcid^vfia rdv TtQOTQETtnx. 6 v koyov Eivai. But the most impudent attempt at improving the text occurs in 284, B. The Sophist wishes to prove otl ov6E\g kiysi xa (xrj ovxa, and this he does by bringing Ctesippus to adnxit the following propositions. 1. xoc ^t] ovxa ovk egxiv. 2. xa (iij ovra oi;(5fig av noti^OEiEv. 3. OL kiyovTEg tcqcczxovgI xl. 4. ot TtQaxxovxsg tcoiovGi. 5. ot kiyovxEg tvolovGi. 6. ot kiyovxEg xa (irj ovxa^ tcololev civ xa jUi) ovxa, xovxo 8e coiiokoyrixaL ddvvaxov ilvai. From this it follows that the words "Akko xi ovv ovSafiov xa ys fiiq ovxa ovxa iaxlv; Ovdaixov. are quite foreign to the argument, and were probably invented to give some force to iv to5 8rj(iG) : and likewise that Euthydemus' question is simply this : "Eoxlv ovv OTtoog xa jm-t} ovxa noiriGEiEv av xat oOxiGovv; This quite throws into the shade such minor invasions as 297, c, aq)iyfiivG), 298, d, poidicov or Jcra|3/cov, 302, b, EcpEvyov t£, 290, b, Toi;TO av d^rjQEv (ovxai, and xovxoig a id-rjQEvoav^ (for Ttokiv &!]- QEvaoDvxai read either %£iQ(6aa)VTai or d-TjQaacovxai.) 278, d, olov avxo vTcokafiPavia, and a score of others, in which I cannot with certainty include 302, d, ao\ [^£oi], as this may arise from a two- fold reading COI and &0L but in 303, b, the words roW o^io- XoyELv — aocpovg, are so manifestly a false interpretation of ovtco SiExi^Tjv, and so completely spoil what immediately follows, that they can be nothing but a deliberate forgery. There are others which are yet upon their trial, such as the following, 307, a, Sox' ovk exco oncog nQOXQETto) x6 fiEiQamov inl ADDENDA. 153 (pikoaoq)iav. Crito's faith in philosophy is already shaken by Isocrates' sneer, and by his own impressions about these iQiariKoL Otherwise Socrates' exhortation not to care about the men, but to look into the thing itself, is altogether idle. His embarassment is UTCOl TCQOTQETCr} TO (ASlQUKlOVj TtOXEQOV TtQOQ CpikoGOCpiCiV 7] TtQOg aXko ri ijTirtjdsv(jia. I will end this digression vine fa mea ccedendo. To make the question tally with the answer in 304, e, I formerly edited utib- cpciLvovro, but this is applicable only to yvci)/tt«g, and by no means the right word to use of the displays of the Sophists. But the question is rightly given in the received text: xi ovv icpaLvovro (Tot, "well, what did you think of them"? The answer however is corrupt, and interpolated after its corruption. I believe the true reading to be: Tl d' aXko, rj 6' og, 7} oti nzQ cce\ drj rig xcov rotov- xcov, XrjQOvvxav seal tieqI ovdivog a^lcov ccva^tav 67C0v8riv tcoiov^s- v(ov; "What else should they look like but what every one of the men of their class at all times looks like, a class of triflers etc." p. 16, E. T0T6 S'fj 8civ] For t6t£ 6' tq8iq, the reading of most MSS., the Bodl. gives tot£ Sk] 8£f« For the Bodl. S&i, Seiv has been substituted in the text. p. 17, E. eXXd-yijiov] The meaning of ^XXoyifAOV and that of ^vaptSfjiov are so nearly the same, that one is tempted to suspect either that the former word is a later addition, or that Plato must have justified the twofold expression by a twofold reason; namely, by wi-iting, aV ovk els Xo-yov, ouS' £?? aptS{JLOV ou6£va . . . ctTitdovTa. But, as the importance of Tte'pa? is uppermost in the writer's mind, any addition to apiSfjio? weakens the effect which he wishes to produce. For this reason I look upon the words xal oux ^XXcyifxov with some suspicion. It may be said, in answer to this, that Xoyo? ^"d apiSfJio? are by no means equivalent, and that Shakspeare illustrates the difference when he says that certain offences '''■stand more for number than accounV\ and that the Tragic api^fxo? aXXto? and the Horatian '■Nos numerus sumus^ shew that apt.S- fjLos is rather the antithesis of Xoyo? than its equivalent. But in this passage who can doubt that the idea which ^vaptSfJio? presents is identical with that presented by ^XXoytM-OS? Then why was it introduced? p. 18, A. TovTov, ws ^<|)a|jL€v] The Books read cpafjiev. But Socrates is comparing a past observation with a present one, and for this reason uses Xdc^ot with the former, and S)ayxa.a^i\ with the latter, according to the com- mon rule as to the optative and subjunctive moods. p. 18, A. ^Sei] I have substituted this for the Sci of the MSS., to accord with Xcfpot and lf9a[Ji£v. 154 ADDENDA. p. 18, B. jji-fi eirl K. T. (.] I have placed the absurd supplement {xtq £tc\ TO £V X. T. I. in brackets, but there is still something amiss, and any body trying to correct it must be guided by the illustration presently offered in the discovery of the Alphabet. We want 8zi or some equivalent to accompany xatavosfv, and we require that tcXyJ^o? should have number, i.e. be definite, and not that number should have tcXtq^^o?, which every number above one has in any case. It is not improbable that Plato wrote apt^[XOV au xiva tcXtJSo? exaaxov Ipv xaxavostv AEI. p. 18, B. *Eir€i8^ [a)V"?|v &. k.]] Unless we reject the words 9. of. x. as a supplement of some expounder, we have a mass of words without any construction, and furthermore a statement which Plato could not have made. The word xaravosrv implies that the discovery has already begun, but there is no act tou xaTavoetv in acknowledging the existence of (pwvTQ , nor indeed of any object while still in its indefinite state ; so that (pwvTQV ocTCStpov xara- vosfv is a contradiction in terms. The first stage of discovery is xaxavoerv tA 9WVTQ£VXa. p. 18, B. Xc'ywv, irpcoTOs] I retract my former conjecture of liyta w?, and hold c?, the reading of most MSS., and o)?, that of the Bodl., to be mere gram- matical attempts to give coherence to that which the above named supplement had thrown out of gear. Xoyo? Xiyzi is perfectly good Greek, but the pas- sage from the Republic 360, D, affords no example of it. We ought there to read d urcep xou xoiouxou Xdyou X^y^^» "*^^ advocate of this view." For ixpo)- xo? xa 9(ovt]£vxa, read irp&TO. x. 9. i.e. ^^/irst the Vowels, then the Mutes, after that the Liquids." [p. 19, D. rh 7rpo fd? viSovdc 8£, diaituvSavoiJisvous to TOtovSe. Further on I can propose something better than what I offered in my note, namely, this: fjiwv oux av Se'^ataSe o^xecv fjietd 9poviQa£a)? udaYj? [■?) x^P^"^ "^o^ 99°' VEfv] ; "Would you refuse to dwell with any intellect whatever f" In the answer to this question, it now appears to me that teXe'wi; £?<; §uva}j.!.v ^^as thoroughly as possible" is added, to imply that the clearer the consciousness, the fuller justice is done to pleasure. But raXXd t£ Tcavra (or rather rd t' aXXa TCavra) requires ain&v tqjxwv in the opposite clause. Perhaps we should read, xa\ auTWV Tiv' TQixcav T£X^o)? dq du'vafJLtv £xdaTTf)v. "Any one of us, each to the utmost possible degree of completeness." This use of xiq followed by ixaaro; can be supported by examples. p. 63, E. Expel Seou. xaSdiiEp oT^aSol should be taken together. The structure is: oTidaai y^Y^oVsvai xaS'aTOp oTCaSol ttq? SujjLTCdaTQ? dp£TY)?, ^uva- xoXouSoOaiv auTY) TtdvTf). But in the text I think that auTYj is either mis- placed or altogether foreign. As to tlv' ?8^av auTiQV zh{Ji£v without a case. Repeat exaarov, and all difficulty ceases. Read: "H^y) to(vuv, w 11., Ixavo? Tiixi'i ys'^o^"^' «^ dattaouv xpttiQi; xa\ S£.of«;. ofAW? 8' ouv T(d Xdyw ^TCE^eX^sfv ^eXttov xa^' £v exaarov. sxaarov toCvuv twv Tpiwv — . p. 66, D. Read SiaiJiaptupofJievoi. I must ask the reader to take no notice of my proposed change of the passage beginning llorov Siq — and ending at Setv Xdyov. The received text is correct in everything except T^avTsXif] for which I read TiavTY]. It should therefore have been printed thus : IIPO. noiov 5ifi; 20. $iXif](5o(; .... icaaav xa\ TcavxY). IIPO. To TpCrov, . . w? ^otxa? X. T. e. The apparent abruptness of Socrates' answer is explained by what follows: Nai, to 8i ye fASta tout' axou(i)}Ji,£V. Everything in this part of the dialogue is intended to shew that Socrates is in Jiaste to sum up and con- clude. The meaning of Protarchus' answer is; "Then, when you spoke of re- peating a third time, it was the old argument that you meant us to repeat." But although this passage is nearly correct as the MSS. present it, the same cannot be said of what follows : iyd yap 8iQ KttTiSwv Airep vvv S^ ZiiKi\KvOa, Kal 8v