ΓΜ Hn

f

i i if ' i Tanai

Aa!

A Hye

t

ft

ΠΟΙ

PTE reat

aU Senin

GAYLORD

Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924073426151

THE SYMPOSIUM

OF

PLATO

EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTION, CRITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTARY

BY

R. G. BURY, M.A.

' FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE LATE LECTURER IN CLASSICS, BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, U.S.A. EDITOR OF ‘'THE PHILEBUS” OF PLATO

CAMBRIDGE:

W. HEFFER AND SONS LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL AND CO. Lr,

1909 Dp

ΓᾺ 4274 Ov 7797

πὰ 159 Cambridge: ane PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.Agi

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

3 ot: ὩΣ

PREFACE

per Symposium is undeniably one of the masterpieces

of classical literature. The subtlest and most brilliant of Greek artists in prose has left us no finer, no more fascinating specimen of his skill than this dialogue in which, with the throbbing pulse of life for his theme, he matches that theme by the dramatic verve and vigour of his style. The interest of the book is not merely literary or philosophical: it appeals also to the wider circle of the students of culture and of life and of the “criticism of life” by its richness of suggestion and by its vividness of portraiture. To mention one point alone,—nowhere else, not even in the Phaedo, does the personality of Socrates shine before us so full and clear, “in form and gesture so express and ad- mirable,” as in the pages of the Symposium. To miss reading it is to miss the enjoyment of a veritable ἑστίαμα λόγων, blended and seasoned with curious art.

In the preparation of this edition I have been indebted mainly to the labours of continental scholars, for the sufficient, if sur- prising, reason that no English commentary has existed hereto- fore. It was, indeed, this singular fact, together with the recent publication of an interesting Papyrus fragment of the text, which chiefly moved me to attempt a commentary myself. On many of the interesting questions connected with the literary form and philosophical substance of the dialogue much more might have been said, but I have thought it best to keep both the Introduction

and the Notes within a moderate compass. In the framing of the a2

iv PREFACE

text, although I have ventured on several innovations of my own, I have been more conservative than the majority of the foreign critics, a considerable selection of whose “restorations” will be found in the Critical Notes in addition to the evidence of the leading Mss. and of the Papyrus: in all doubtful cases I have cited also the opinion of Schanz and of the Oxford editor, Prof. Burnet, whose admirable recension has been before me constantly and has aided me much, For expository material I must acknowledge in special my indebtedness to the useful and scholarly edition of A. Hug.

To gild with comment the refined gold of Plato’s work is at the best a temerarious task; but if my book helps a single reader more justly to appraise the gold it will not have been wrought wholly in vain.

R. G. B.

October 4, 1909.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION : ὃ i. Summary of the Argument ii. The Framework of the Dialogue iii, The first five Speeches iv. Socrates and Diotima . v. Alcibiades and his Speech . vi. The Order and Connexion of the Speeches vii. The Dialogue as a whole: its Scope and Design viii. The Date ix. The Text x. Bibliography

Text, CriricaL Norss, Aanp ComMentary

Inpex I, Greek . » IL, English

PAGE vii xv xxiv xxxvi li

li lxiv lxvi lxviii

xxi

INTRODUCTION

§ i. SumMARY oF THE ARGUMENT.

1. The Preface: 172 a—174 Δ.

Apollodorus, in reply to the enquiry of some friends, explains the occasion on which the supper-party at Agathon’s was held, when Socrates and others delivered Discourses on Eros. The matter is fresh in his memory and, as a φιλόλογος himself, he is quite ready to repeat the whole story as he had it from Aristodemus,—an eye-witness and an intimate disciple of Socrates,—just as he had repeated it a few days before to his friend Glaucon.

‘II. Aristodemus’s Prologue: 174 s—178 a.

Aristodemus meeting Socrates smartly attired expresses his surprise at so unusual a circumstance. Socrates explains that being invited to dine with Agathon he feels bound to go “in finery to the fine”; and he presses Aristodemus, although uninvited, to accompany him. On the road Socrates, immersed in thought, lags behind, and Aristodemus arrives at Agathon’s alone. Not till they are half-way through the meal does Socrates appear ; and Agathon rallies him on his devotion to σοφία. The proposal of Pausanias to restrict the potations, in view of yesterday’s banquet, and that of Eryximachus to dismiss the flute-girl and amuse themselves by λόγοι, are unanimously agreed to. Then Eryximachus propounds an idea of Phaedrus, that Eros is the best possible theme for encomia, and suggests that each of the party in turn, commencing with Phaedrus, should now deliver an encomium on Eros. This suggestion is applauded by Socrates. Of the encomia the most noteworthy were the following :—

viii INTRODUCTION

ITI. The Discourse of Phaedrus: 178 a—180 Β.

Prologue: Eros is ἃ great and wondrous god.

(a) He is wondrous in origin, being eldest of gods and unbegotten —witness what Homer and others say of him.

(ὃ) He is the supreme benefactor of mankind, (1) as inspiring a high sense of honour in private, civic and military life; (2) as in- spiring self-sacrifice, which wins divine favour (eg. Alcestis and Achilles, contrasted with the cowardly Orpheus).

Epilogue: Thus Eros is most ancient, venerable, and beneficent.

IV. The Discourse of Pausanias: 180 c—185 c.

Prologue: Eros being not single but dual, we must begin by de- fining which Eros is to be our theme.

(a) The dual nature of Eros follows from the final nature of Aphrodite: as there is an Aphrodite Urania and an Aphrodite Pandemos, so there is Eros Uranios and Eros Pandemos.

(6) From the principle that no action is in the abstract good or bad but derives its moral quality solely from the manner of its execution it follows that Eros is bad or good according to the kind of love-making to which it prompts.

(c) The general characteristics (1) of Kros Pandemos are that it is directed to women as well as boys, to the body rather than the soul, to unscrupulous satisfaction of lust; (2) whereas Eros Uranios shuns females and seeks only such males as are noble and nearly mature both in mind and body. It is the followers of Eros Pandemos who have brought paederastia into disrepute.

(d) The varying νόμοι concerning Hros may be classified thus:—

(1) In all Greek states except Athens the νόμος is simple, either (a) approving paederastia, as in Elis and Boeotia; or (8) condemning it, as in Ionia and states subject to barbarian rule, where it is held to foster a dangerous spirit of independence (e.g. Harmodius and Aris- togiton).

(2) At Athens the νόμος is complex, (a) Eros is approved, and its excesses condoned, when directed towards superior youths approaching manhood. (8) It appears to be condemned, in so far as parents forbid their boys to hold converse with “erastae.” The explanation of this ambiguous attitude must be sought in the principle laid down above,

INTRODUCTION ix

that the moral quality of an act depends upon the conditions of its per- formance. The Athenian νόμος provides a test for distinguishing between good and bad forms of Eros: the test of time shows whether or not the right motive (desire for ἀρετή) actuates both the lover and his object. This motive alone justifies all erotic pursuits and sur- renders, even mutual deception: hence we conclude that καλὸν ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα χαρίζεσθαι.

Epilogue: This Eros Uranios, which inspires zeal for ἀρετή, possesses the highest value alike for the individual and for the State.

V. The first Interlude: 185 c—z.

It was the turn of Aristophanes next; but being seized with a hiccough he called upon Eryximachus either to cure him or to speak in his stead. So Eryximachus, having first prescribed a number of remedies, spoke next.

VI. Zhe Discourse of Eryximachus: 185 e—188 z.

Prologue: Pausanias was right in asserting the dual nature of Eros; but he failed to observe that the god’s sway extends over the entire universe.

(a) The body, with its healthy and diseased appetites, exhibits the duality of Eros; and medicine is “ the science of bodily erotics in regard to replenishment and depletion.” It is the object of “the Art” of Asclepios to produce the Eros which is harmony between the opposite elements—the hot and the cold, the wet and the dry, etc. Eros is, likewise, the patron-god of gymnastics and husbandry.

(6) Similarly with music. The “discordant concord” of Heraclitus hints at the power of music to harmonize sounds previously in discord, and divergent times. Thus music is “ the science of Erotics in regard to harmony and rhythm.” Τὺ is less in the pure theory than in applied music (metrical compositions and their educational use) that the dual nature of Eros comes to light; when it does, the Eros Pandemos must be carefully guarded against.

(c) Again, in the spheres of meteorology and astronomy we see the effects of the orderly Eros in a wholesome temperate climate, of the dis- orderly Eros in blights and pestilences ; for astronomy is “ the science of Erotics in regard to stellar motions and the seasons of the year.”

(d) Lastly, in religion, it is the disorderly Eros which produces the

B. P. 6

Χ INTRODUCTION

impiety which it is the function of divination to cure ; and religion may be defined as “the science of human Erotics in regard to piety.”

Epilogue: To Eros, as a whole, belongs great power ; to the virtuous Eros great influence in effecting human concord and happiness.—If my eulogy is incomplete, it is for you, Aristophanes, to supplement it, if you choose.

VII. The second Interlude: 189 a—c.

Aristophanes explains that he is now cured of his hiccough, as a result of sneezing according to Eryximachus’ prescription. He makes a jocular allusion to Eryximachus’ discourse, to which the latter retorts, and after some further banter Aristophanes proceeds to deliver his encomium.

VIII. The Discourse of Aristophanes: 189 c—193 p.

Prologue: Men have failed to pay due honour to Eros, the most “philanthropic” of gods, who blesses us by his healing power, as 1 shall show.

(a) Man’s original nature was different from what it now is. It had three sexes—male, female, androgynous; all globular in shape and with double limbs and organs; derived respectively from sun, earth and moon.

(Ὁ) Man’s woes were due to the pride of these primal men which stirred them to attempt to carry Heaven by assault. In punishment Zeus sliced them each in two, and then handed them to Apollo to stitch up their wounds. But, because they then kept dying of hunger, owing to the yearning of each for his other-half, Zeus devised for them the present mode of reproduction, altering the position of the sex- organs accordingly. Thus Eros aims at restoring the primal unity and healing the cleft in man’s nature.

(c) Each of us is a split-half of an original male, female, or an- drogynon ; and the other-halves we seek in love are determined ac- cordingly. Courage is the mark of boy-loving men and of man-loving boys, as both derived from the primal male. In the intense passion of Eros it is not merely sexual intercourse that is sought but a permanent fusing into one (as by the brazing of an Hephaestus); for Love is “the pursuit of wholeness.”

(d) Asit was impiety that caused our “dioikismos” and bisection, so in piety towards the god Eros lies the hope of meeting with our proper halves and regaining our pristine wholeness.

Epilogue: Let us, then, laud Eros as the giver both of present blessings and of bright hopes of healing and restoration in the future.

INTRODUCTION xi

IX, The third Interlude: 193 p—194 Ε.

Some conversation ensues between Aristophanes, Eryximachus, Socrates, and Agathon. Upon Socrates attempting to entangle Agathon in an argument, Phaedrus intervenes and bids Agathon proceed without further delay to offer his meed of praise to the god.

X. The Discourse of Agathon: 194 n—197 Β,

Prologue: The method of previous speakers needs amendment. The correct method, which I shall adopt, is to laud first the character of Eros, and secondly his gifts to men.

(A) The atéributes of Evos are (1) supreme felicity, (due to) (2) supreme beauty and (3) goodness.

(2) Eros is most beautiful, since he is (a) the youngest of gods (all tales to the contrary being false), witness his aversion to old-age ; (Ὁ) most tender, witness his choosing soft souls for his abode; (c) supple, witness his power to steal unnoticed in and out of souls; (d) symmetrical, because comely as all allow; (e) fair-of-skin, for he feeds on flowers amid sweet scents.

(3) Eros is supremely good, since he is (a) most just, having no lot in violence or injustice; (b) most temperate, for he is the master of pleasure since no pleasure is greater than love; (6) most courageous, as holding sway over Ares, the most courageous of the gods; (d) most wise, being expert (a) in both musical and creative poesy, and (8) in the practical arts, as instructor of Zeus, Apollo and Athene in their respective crafts (he, too, inspired the gods with love of beauty and de- throned Necessity).

(B) The blessings conferred by Eros are, like his attributes, beauty and goodness. He produces peace and pleasantness in all spheres of life: he is the object of universal admiration, the author of all delights, best guide and captain for gods and men alike, whose praises it behoves all to chant in unison.

Epilogue: Such is my tribute of eulogy, not wholly serious nor wholly playful.

XI. The fourth Interlude: 198 a—199 o.

Agathon “brought down the house” with his peroration; and Socrates remarked to Eryximachus that its eloquence left him in despair —petrified by the Gorgon of Agathon’s brilliant Gorgianisms. ‘ Now,”

62

xii INTRODUCTION

he said, “1 must retract my rash tongue-pledge to join in a eulogy of Eros, since I perceive that I was quite astray in my ideas about the encomiastic art: for I supposed that truth came first, ornamental com- pliment second, whereas the contrary is evidently the fact. Such an encomium is quite beyond my poor powers; but if you care for an un- varnished speech about Eros, that I am ready to make.” Phaedrus and the rest bidding him proceed in his own fashion, Socrates began by the following conversation with Agathon.

XII. Socrates’ preliminary Discussion with Agathon: 199 c—201 p.

(1) ‘Your exordium on Method was admirable, Agathon. But tell me further, is Eros a relative notion, like ‘father’ or ‘brother’ ?” “Certainly it is.”

(2) “Next, you agree that if Eros desires its object it must lack it ; and if a man wishes for some good he already possesses, what he really desires is what he lacks, viz. the future possession of that good.” “True.”

(3) ‘Again, if Eros is (as you said) love for beauty, Eros must lack beauty, and therefore goodness too, and be neither beautiful nor good.” “I cannot gainsay you.”

XIII. he Discourse of Socrates (Diotima): 201 p—212 ¢.

Prologue: I will now repeat the discourse on Eros which I once heard from my instructress in Erotics, Diotima the prophetess—as- suming the conclusions formulated just now, and treating first of the character and secondly of the effects of Eros, according to Agathon’s own method.

A. [The nature of Eros, 201 z—204 ο.]

(1) Diotima showed me that Eros, although (as we have seen) neither beautiful nor good, is not therefore ugly and bad but rather a mean between these contraries.

(2) She argued also that Eros is not a god, since godhead involves the possession of just those goods which Eros desires and lacks. But neither is he a mortal, but stands midway between the two, being a great daemon; and the function of the daemonian is to mediate between gods and men.

INTRODUCTION xiii

(3) As to origin, Eros is son of Poros and Penia, and partakes of the nature of both parents—the fertile vigour of the one, the wastrel neediness of the other. As he is a mean between the mortal and the immortal, so he is a mean between the wise and the unwise, ὁ.6. a wisdom-lover (philosopher). The notion that Eros is a beautiful god is due to a confusion between subjective Eros and the object loved.

B. [The effects, or utility, of Bros, 204 p—212 a.]

(1) [The object or end of Eros. }

‘What does Eros as “love of the beautiful” precisely imply? In the case of the good, its acquisition is a means to happiness as end. But Eros is not used in this generic sense of “desire for happiness,” so much as in a narrower specific sense. And if we say that Eros is “the desire for the good,” we must expand this definition into “the desire for the everlasting possession of the good.”

(2) [The method or mode of action of Eros. |

Eros works by means of generation, both physical and psychical, in the beautiful.

(a) Generation, being an immortal thing, requires harmony with the divine, i.e. beauty ; without which the process is hindered. And generation is sought because it is, for mortals, the nearest approach to immortality. It is in the desire for immortality that we must find the explanation of all the sexual passion and love of offspring which we see in the animal world, since it is only by the way of leaving a suc- cessor to take its place that the mortal creature, in this world of flux, can secure a kind of perpetuity.

(6) But the soul has its offspring as well as the body. Laws, inventions and noble deeds, which spring from love of fame, have for their motive the same passion for immortality. The lover seeks a beautiful soul in order to generate therein offspring which shall live for ever; and the bonds of such soul-marriages are stronger than any carnal ties.

(c) After this elementary prelude, we reach the highest stage of the Mysteries of Love. The right method in Erotic procedure is to pass in upward course from love of bodily beauty to love of soul beauty, thence to the beauty of the sciences, until finally one science is reached which corresponds to the Absolute, Ideal Beauty, in which all finite things of beauty partake. To gain the vision of this is the goal of Love’s endeavour, and to live in its presence were life indeed. There, if anywhere, with truth for the issue of his soul, might the lover hope

to attain to immortality. ae

xiv INTRODUCTION

Epilogue: Believing that for the gaining of this boon Eros is man’s best helper, I myself praise Eros and practise Erotics above all things and I urge others to do likewise. Such is my ‘“encomium,” Phaedrus, if you choose to call it so.

-------.

XIV. The fifth Interlude: 212 c—215 a.

Applause followed. Then suddenly, when Aristophanes was on the point of making an observation, a loud knocking was heard at the door, Presently Alcibiades, leaning on a flute-girl, appeared. “1 am come to crown Agathon,” he cried, “if you will admit a drunken reveller.” Being heartily welcomed, he took the seat next Agathon, where Socrates had made room for him. And as soon as he perceived Socrates, he began playfully to abuse him. Then, taking some of the ribbands with which he had bedecked Agathon, he crowned ‘the marvellous head of Socrates, the invincible in words.”

Next Alcibiades insisted on all the company drinking along with him. And, when Eryximachus protested against bare drinking without song or speech and explained to him what the previous order of procedure had been, Alcibiades replied, “‘In the presence of Socrates I dare not eulogize anyone else, so that if I am to deliver an encomium like the rest, Socrates must be my theme.”

XV. Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates: 215 a—222 c.

Prologue: My eulogy will take the form of parables—aiming not at mockery but at truth. Socrates resembles (a) Silenus-statuettes which serve as caskets for sacred images ; (6) the Satyr Marsyas.

I. In form he resembles both (a) the Sileni, and (6) the Satyr.

11. (in character) he resembles (Ὁ) the Satyr, being (1) a mocker, (2) a flute-player. As to (2) he excels Marsyas, since his words alone, without an instrument, fascinate all, old and young. Me he charms far more than even Pericles could, filling me with shame and self- contempt, and driving me to my wit’s end.

III. He resembles (a) the Silent in the contrast between his ex- terior and interior. (a) Eternally he adopts an erotic attitude towards beautiful youths: (8) but internally he despises beauty and wealth, as I know from experience. For I tried to bribe him with my beauty, but all my many attempts came to nothing. Private conversations, gymnastics together, a supper-party ἃ deux, even a night on the same couch—all was of no use. Against my battery of charms he was

' INTRODUCTION xv

armed (by his éemperance) in “complete steel”; and I charge him now before you with the crime of ὕβρις. His hardihood was shown in the Potidaea campaign, where none could stand the cold like him. His valour was displayed in the battle where he saved my life, and in the retreat from Delium. Especially amazing is his unique originality, which makes it impossible to find anyone else like him—except Satyrs and Sileni.

IV. His speeches too, I forgot to say, are like the Silenus-statuettes, in outward seeming ridiculous, but in inner content supremely rational and full of images of virtue and wisdom.

Epilogue: Such is my eulogy, half praise, half blame. Let my experience, and that of many another, be a warning to you, Agathon: court Socrates less as an “erastes” than as an ‘“anterastes” !

XVI. Concluding Scene : 222 c—end.

The company laughed at the erotic candour of Alcibiades. Then ensued some banter between Socrates and Alcibiades as rival “erastae” of Agathon, which was interrupted by the entrance of a band of re- vellers who filled the room with uproar. Some of the guests left, and Aristodemus himself fell asleep. On awaking, about dawn, he found only three of the party still present and awake—Agathon, Aristophanes, and Socrates: Socrates was trying to convince the others that the scientific tragedy-writer must be capable also of writing comedy. Presently Aristophanes, and then Agathon, dozed off; whereupon Socrates, still “shadowed” by Aristodemus, departed.

§ ii. Tue Framework oF THE DIALOGUE.

(A) The Method of Narration and the Preface.

The Platonic dialogues, viewed from the point of view of literary form, may be divided into two chief classes. To the first class belong those in which the story of the discussion is told directly by one of the protagonists; to the second class belong those in which the story is told indirectly or at second-hand,—a mode of narration which involves the further characteristic that dialogues of this class are necessarily prefaced (and concluded) by some explanatory paragraphs. This second class, moreover, falls into two subdivisions, according as the narrator is or is not represented as being himself present at the

xvi INTRODUCTION

discussion. It is to the latter of these subdivisions, in which the narrator is noé an eye-witness but reports the matter only at second- hand, that the Symposium (together with the Theaetetus and Par- menides) belongs.

It is noteworthy also that, with the exception of the Phaedo and Parmenides, ours is the only dialogue in which the narrating witness is not Socrates himself. The reason for this is obvious: eulogy of Socrates being one of the main purposes of the dialogue, it would be unfitting to put the story into his mouth, and make him the trumpeter of his own praises. Instead of doing so, Plato selects as the sources of the narrative persons of such a character as to produce the effect of verisimilitude. The way in which Aristodemus, the primary source, and Apollodorus, the secondary source, are described is evidently intended to produce the impression that in them we have reliable witnesses. Apollodorus!, “the fanatic,” is put before us not only as a worshipper of Socrates, imbued with a passionate interest in philo- sophical discourses such as are here to be related, but also as an intimate disciple who had “companied with” Socrates for the space of nearly three years past and during that time had made it his peculiar task to study the every act and word of the Master (172 8). Moreover, the story of the special occasion in question he had diligently conned (οὐκ ἀμελέτητος, 172 a, 173 6).

Aristodemus’, the primary source and actual narrator, is spoken of by Apollodorus as “an old disciple” and one of the most intimate with the Master in earlier years, and in his own narrative he represents himself as following Socrates with dog-like fidelity, and showing the closest familiarity with his ways and habits—a man so single-hearted, so engrossed in matters of fact, as to be constitutionally incapable of tampering with the truth. As the “minute biographer,” Aristodemus is the prototype of all later Boswells.

Further, the impression of veracity made by the character of the

1 Apollodorus appears also in Phaedo 59, 8 as one of those present with Socrates “on the day when he drank the poison in the prison”; as characteristically ex- hibiting most marked symptoms of grief [this statement would support the epithet μαλακός as well as μανικός in Symp. 173 Ὁ]; and as a native of Athens (τῶν ἐπιχωρίων). In Apol. 344 he is one of those present at the trial of Socrates; and (in 38 B) one of those who offered to go bail to the extent of 80 minae, Pfleiderer takes Apollodorus to represent Plato himself, by a piece of ironical “ Selbstobjek- tivierung,” a notion which had already occurred to me.

2 For Aristodemus, see also Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 2 where Socrates converses περὶ τοῦ δαιμονίου πρὸς ᾿Λριστόδημον τὸν μικρὸν ἐπικαλούμενον, καταμαθὼν αὐτὸν οὔτε θύοντα τοῖς θεοῖς οὔτε μαντικῇ χρώμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ποιούντων ταῦτα καταγελῶντα.

INTRODUCTION xvii

narrators is enhanced by the express statement that in regard to some points at least (ἔνια 173 B) the account of Aristodemus was confirmed by Socrates. The points in question are probably (as Hug observes) those which specially concern the picture drawn of Socrates himself. At any rate, it is in regard to these that we have the detailed testimony of Alcibiades, emphasized by repeated asseverations (214 ΒΕ, 215 a, etc.), and endorsed by the silence of Socrates.

In addition to the evidence it contains for the dates of the narration and of the banquet’, and the vivid picture in miniature which it presents of a certain group of Socratics in whom an ardent admiration for the Master was blended with a limited capacity for understanding the deeper side of his practice and doctrine—as if to go barefoot and to rail at filthy lucre were the sum and substance of Socraticism,—there are two further points in the Preface which deserve attention.

Apollodorus, although asked only for the λόγοι spoken at the banquet (172 B, 178 ΕΒ), proceeds to give a full account of the ac- companying incidents as well (ἐξ ἀρχῆς...διηγήσασθαι 174 a). This may be taken to indicate that for estimating the effect of the dialogue as a whole we are meant to pay regard not only to the series of encomia but also to the framework of incident and conversation in which they are set.

Glaucon, in asking Apollodorus for the desired information con- cerning the “erotic discourses,” states (172 B) that he has already heard an account of them from “another man” (ἄλλος τις), which account was unsatisfactory (οὐδὲν σαφές), and that the authority quoted by this unnamed informant was “ Phoenix, son of Philippos.” To this Apollodorus adds the fact (173 8) that this Phoenix was indebted to the same source as himself, namely Aristodemus. What precisely these statements signify it is not easy to determine, since the identity of Phoenix, as well as that of the anonymous informant (ἄλλος τις), is unknown to us. But it seems reasonable to infer that there was already in existence, when Plato wrote, at least one other account of a banquet at which Socrates, Alcibiades and Agathon figured, and that it is Plato’s intention to discredit it. That such is the intention is shown not only by the phrase οὐδὲν εἶχε σαφὲς λέγειν, but also by the statement that the evidence of ἄλλος τις was one degree further off from the primary source (Aristodemus) than is that of Apollodorus. Further, the assumption of some such controversial

1 With regard to this evidence, see Introd. § viii.

xviii INTRODUCTION

intention throws light on the emphasis laid on the veracity of the narrative—to which attention has been drawn above—and gives it a more definite motive. It is as if the author means us to read into his preface something to this effect: “Socrates has been misrepresented : it is my task to clear his reputation by putting the facts in their true light.”

If this, then, be a right reading of the hints thus given, what is the distorted account which Plato thus discredits, and who its author? Unfortunately this must remain a matter of conjecture. The most obvious suggestion to make is that the author in question is Xenophon, and the account alluded to his Symposium. But Xenophon’s Sym- posium is most probably a later work than Plato’s; and it is a further objection that the persons represented by Xenophon as present at the banquet are not—with the exception of Socrates—the persons mentioned by Glaucon.

We are obliged, therefore, to look further afield for the author whose identity is thus shrouded. The best suggestion I can offer is that Polycrates the rhetor is the writer intended. In favour of this we may adduce the fact that Polycrates is ὁ κατήγορος whose calumnies Xenophon aims at refuting in his Memorabilia’. It is by no means improbable ἃ priori that Polycrates in his attacks on Socrates de- scribed, amongst other incidents, a banqueting-scene in which Socrates and Alcibiades were pictured in an odious light. And if we take the Banguet of Xenophon to be a genuine work, the very fact that Xenophon thought it necessary to supplement his Memorabilia by such a work might be construed as showing that the author of the slanders he is at such pains to refute had already libelled Socrates in connexion with a similar scene. But unless, by some happy chance, further light

1 See Cobet, Nov. Lect. pp. 662 ff.; Gomperz, G. T. 11. pp. 63, 118. Gomperz (11. 343) supposes the Goryias to be a counterblast to Polycrates’ indictment of Socrates, and Alcibiades’ eulogy in Sympos. to have the same motive: ‘Plato had a definite motive for placing such praise in the mouth of Alcibiades—we refer to the pamphlet of Polycrates....This writer had spoken of Socrates as the teacher of Alcibiades—in what tone and with what intention can easily be guessed....Plato himself had touched on the subject (of the liaison between the two men), harm- lessly enough, in his youthful works, as, for example, in the introduction to the ‘ Protagoras.’...But after the appearance of Polycrates’ libel, he may well have thought it advisable to speak a word of enlightenment on the subject; which is exactly what he does, with a plainness that could not be surpassed, in the present encomium ” (op. cit. 894-5). Gomperz, however, does not bring this hypothesis into connexion with the passage in the Preface of Symp. discussed above. There may be an allusion to the same matter in Protay. 347 c (cp. Xen. Symp. vu. 1).

INTRODUCTION xix

should be shed upon the history of Polycrates’ literary activity, it is hardly possible to get beyond the region of conjectural speculation, or to hope for a definitive solution of this obscure literary problem.

(B) The Prologue of Aristodemus.

In the Prologue, with which Aristodemus’s narrative opens, special attention may be drawn to the following points :—

(a) Itis significant that the first person to appear on the scene is Socrates. We are led at once to admire his good humour and ready wit as shown in the playful tone of his conversation (1) with Aristo- demus (174 a, B), in which he makes jesting quotations from Homer and indulges in a pun on the name of Agathon (cp. the pun he makes on Gorgias, 198 c); and (2) with Agathon (175 c—xz). These amiable traits in the character of Socrates are further illustrated in other parts of the dialogue.

(6) Socrates on the way becomes lost in thought and fails to put in an appearance till the banquet is already far advanced (174 D, 175 c). Aristédemus explains to Agathon (175 Β) that this is no exceptional occurrence (ἔθος τι τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει). That this incident is intended to be specially emphasized as typical of Socrates’ habits becomes clear when we notice how Alcibiades in his speech (220 c) describes a similar incident as taking place in one of the campaigns in which he served. The corroboration thus effected is one of many examples of the literary care and ingenuity with which Plato in this dialogue interweaves incident with speech. Another example occurs a little further on (176 c) where Eryximachus, discussing the question “to drink or not to drink,” describes Socrates as ἱκανὸς ἀμφότερα : this statement, too, we find amplified and confirmed by Alcibiades (220 a). Both these matters illustrate that entire subordination of flesh to spirit: in which Socrates was unique.

(c) Agathon (175 ὁ ff.) expresses a desire to share in the “ witty invention” which Socrates had discovered on his way: Socrates with his usual mock-modesty disclaims for himself the possession of σοφία, except of a poor kind, but congratulates Agathon on the fine and abundant σοφία he has just been displaying so conspicuously : and the conversational banter concludes with Agathon’s remark-—< Presently, with the Wine-god as umpire, you and I will fight out our wisdom- match.” Here, at this early stage, we have struck for us one of the key-notes of the dialogue. For one main motive of the dialogue as a whole is to exhibit the σοφία of Socrates, his intellectual as well as

xx INTRODUCTION

moral supremacy. And we find, in the sequel, that this is done largely by pitting him against Agathon, over the wine-bowl. In this we have the reason for the juxtaposition of the two speeches, matched, as it were, one against the other. His speech is, in itself, one sufficient proof of the superiority of Socrates over his rival, But there are also other proofs: there is the masterly criticism and confutation to which Socrates subjects the belauded poet; there is the express statement, confirmed by expressive action, of Alcibiades, in which is asserted the superiority of Socrates not merely to Agathon but to all others who make claim to σοφία (213 Ε, 215 cff.); and finally the Wine-god himself bestows on Socrates the palm when, in the concluding scene, we see him alone pursuing discussion with unflagging zeal and with a clear- ness of head undimmed by long and deep potations while his rival drowses and succumbs to sleep. Thus the διαδικασία περὶ τῆς σοφίας runs through the book, and always, from beginning to end, νικᾷ 6 Σωκράτης.

To this we may add one minor point. Agathon, in this preliminary play of wit, applies to Socrates the epithet ὑβριστής, “a mocker.” And this, too, is a trait upon which Alcibiades, in the sequel, lays much stress. ὕβρις is one of the most striking characteristics of the Satyr- Socrates (216 £, 219 c).

(d) Another example of the literary interweaving—or the method of ‘‘responsions,” as we might term it,—which is so marked a feature of the dialogue, is to be found in the statement of Socrates concerning the character of his own knowledge. His speciality in the way of science is, he announces, “erotics,” and this is his only speciality (177 p), Accordingly, when we find Socrates in the sequel delivering a discourse on this subject we are evidently intended by Plato to feel that his views are to be taken seriously as those of one who professed to be an expert in this subject if in nothing else. And this intention is emphasized when we come to the later passage (the “ responsion ἢ) in 198 p where Socrates again refers to his conviction that concerning “erotics” he knew the truth (εἰδὼς τὴν ἀλήθειαν). It is hardly necessary to add that “erotics,” construed in the Socratic sense, constitutes by no means an insignificant department of knowledge (φαύλη τις σοφία 175 £), as Socrates modestly implies, inasmuch as it is practically coextensive with a theory of education and involves an insight into the origin, nature and destiny of the human soul.

(ec) In 1778 we have an interesting parallel between Plato’s language and that of Isocrates. In J/el, 210 B (τῶν μὲν γὰρ τοὺς

INTRODUCTION xxi

βομβυλίους καὶ τοὺς ἅλας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα βουληθέντων ἐπαινεῖν κιτ.λ.) Isocrates scoffs at the eulogists of “bees and salt and such-like trumpery,” and his language is echoed in the allusion (put in the mouth of Eryximachus quoting Phaedrus) to a βιβλίον ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐνῆσαν ἅλες ἔπαινον θαυμάσιον ἔχοντες πρὸς ὠφέλειαν (177 Β). This eulogist of salt is commonly supposed to be Polycrates, since encomia on similar paltry subjects—mice, χύτραι, ψῆφοι -- τα ascribed to him). Diimmler, however*, takes the reference to be to Antisthenes (Pro- treptikos), on the strength of the statement in Pollux vi. 16. 98: βομβύλιος δὲ τὸ στενὸν ἔκπωμα καὶ βομβοῦν ἐν τῇ πόσει, ὡς ᾿Αντισθένης ἐν προτρεπτικῷ: And for ἅλες as eulogized in the same work he quotes also Rep. 372 B ff. (ὄψον ἔξουσιν ἅλας). It may be added that a further allusion to the βομβύλιος, as στενὸν ἔκπωμα, may be discovered in the mention of ἔκπωμα μέγα in Sympos. 2135. Since Antisthenes seems to have devoted a good deal of attention to the subject of μέθη, one is inclined to suppose that his viows are alluded to in Sympos. (176, 213-14); and another allusion to him may be found in the mention of the χρηστοὶ σοφισταί who eulogized Heracles (177 8), since Heracles was, notoriously, the patron-saint of the Oynics‘. However much they might differ on other points, Plato and Isocrates were agreed in so far as both found the Cynic leader an objectionable person,

(f) A significant indication is given us at the conclusion of the Prologue that the account of the speeches which follows is not an exhaustive account, but only a selection, And it is a selection that has been sifted twice. For Apollodorus states (178 a) that neither did Aristodemus remember ail the views put forward by every speaker, nor did he (Apollodorus) remember all that Aristodemus had related. This statement is further confirmed by the later statement (180 c) that Aristodemus passed over the discourses of several speakers who followed next after Phaedrus. We are to infer, therefore, that there was a good deal of speechifying at the banquet which was not ἀξιο- μνημόνευτον. But why Plato is at pains to emphasize this point is

1 So Hug (Sympos. ad loc.) following Sauppe and Blass: also Jebb, Att. Or. τι. 99. I may note here an inconsistency as to the date of Polycrates’ ‘‘ Accusation” in Jebb, Att. Or. 1. 150-51 compared with ib. xuv: in the latter place it is set in 898 B.c.

: 2 In this Diimmler (Akad. p. 66) follows Winckelmann (Antisth. fr. p. 21). Polycrates, however, may be alluded to ns well as Antisthenes, as the terms of the reference are wide (ἄλλα τοιαῦτα συχνά) ; moreover, a close relation may have existed between these two writers,

3 See Diimmler, Antisthenica, pp. 17 ff. + See Gomperz, G. I’. τι. p. 151; Diimmler, Akad. p. 66.

xxii INTRODUCTION

not wholly clear. It may, of course, be merely a literary device meant to enhance the verisimilitude of the account, since the speeches actually related might be thought insufficient to occupy the length of time supposed to elapse between the end of the δεῖπνον and the hour of Alcibiades’ arrival—which would probably not be early. It is possible, however, that we should look for a deeper reason. If so, may not the intention be to brush aside and discredit other speeches stated by another author? (ἄλλος τις, 172 B) to have been delivered on this occasion ?

(C) The Interludes.

The first Interlude, worthy of the name, occurs between the second and third encomia (185 ο---Ε), and it is noticeable, first, for the reference to the “‘isology” of the rhetorical sophists; secondly, for the device by which the natural order of speakers is changed (Eryxi- machus taking the place of Aristophanes) ; and thirdly, for the alleged cause which renders such a change necessary, namely the hiccough (Avyé) of Aristophanes. As regards the significance of this last matter considerable diversity of opinion exists among the commentators. Of the ancients, Olympiodorus (vit. Plat. 3) supposed that Plato here ἐκωμῴδησε ᾿Αριστοφάνη when he εἰσάγει αὐτὸν μεταξὺ Avyyi περιπεσόντα καὶ μὴ δυνάμενον πληρῶσαι τὸν ὕμνον : and similarly Athenaeus (187 c) writes τὸν μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς λυγγὸς ὀχλούμενον... κωμῳδεῖν ἤθελε καὶ διασύρειν : and Aristides (or. 46, 11. p. 287), ἀλλ᾽ οἶμαι λύζειν αὐτὸν ἔδει, ἵνα εἰς ἀπληστίαν σκωφθῇ. Of the moderns, some have followed the ancients in supposing that the incident is meant to satirize Aristophanes and his intemperate habits (so Stallbaum, Riickert, Steinhart); while some (Stephens, Sydenham, Wolf, Schwegler) take the object of the ridicule to be not so much the habits of the poet as his speech with its ‘“‘indelicate ingredients.” On the other hand, Schleiermacher held the view that Eryximachus with his “ physiological and medical notion of love” is here being satirized ; while Ast—whose view is shared in the main by Hommel, van Prinsterer and Rettig—argued that the real object of the ridicule is Pausanias, by whose speech Aristophanes implies that he has been “fed up” to the point of loathing. This view Rettig thinks is supported by the phrase Παυσανίου παυσαμένου, which he takes to indicate Apollodorus’ ridicule,—by the allusion made by Aristophanes to Pausanias’ speech in 189 c,—and by his mention of Pausanias again in 193 B; and he construes the hint of another

1 See above, § ii. A, ad jin.

INTRODUCTION xxiii

possible cause (ἢ ὑπό twos ἄλλου, 185 0) as “affording the key to the hidden meaning of the word πλησμονή." This view, however, is open to the objections (urged by Riickert against Ast) that, first, it makes Aristophanes guilty of excessive rudeness in feigning a hiccough to show his disgust (‘‘aliud est in convivio iocari, aliud in scena,” e.g. Nub. 906 ff., Ach. 585 ff., the places cited by Rettig); and that, further, there is no plain sign that the hiccough was feigned, but on the contrary the whole incident is stated by Aristodemus as matter-of-fact. It seems safe, therefore, to conclude that the most obvious view-— that of the ancients—is nearest to the truth. The incident shows up Aristophanes in a ludicrous light, and at the same time it gives further occasion to Eryximachus to air his medical lore; so that we can read in it the intention of satirizing gently both these personages. But to construe it as aimed at Pausanias is far-fetched and improbable: he is already disposed of in the satirical reference to sophistical “ isology ” ; and to discover a fresh allusion to him in the “other cause” of the hiccough is to discover a mare’s nest, for—as the Scholiast ad loc. informs us—other physical causes of this symptom were as a matter of fact recognized by the medical profession, and it is only polite on the part of Aristodemus to leave the matter open.

The second Interlude (189 a—c) and the third (193 p—194 £) call for no special remark.

The fourth Interlude (198 a—199 0), which follows on the speech of Agathon, is linked to the third both by a remark which Socrates addresses to Eryximachus, and also, at the close, by his appeal to Phaedrus (cp. 199 B with 194 p). Here, in even a greater degree than in the previous Interludes, Socrates is the central figure of interest, and this position he continues to hold throughout the rest of the dialogue. This Interlude, indeed, may be regarded as one of the cardinal points of the structure, in which the First Act, as we may term it, passes on into the Second; and in the Second Act we reach at length the theoretical climax, in the doctrine of Socrates-Diotima. To this climax the present Interlude, wherein is laid before us Socrates’ confession of rhetorical faith, serves as prologue.

The fifth Interlude (212 c—215 a) is by far the longest and, as regards the action of the piece, the most important. For it introduces a new actor, and he a protagonist, in the person of Alcibiades. The contrast is striking between the prophetess in her soaring flights to the heavenly places of the spirit and the tipsy reveller with his lewd train who takes her place in claiming the attention of the audience. The

XXiV INTRODUCTION

comic relief which, in the earlier scenes, had been supplied by Aristo- phanes, as γελωτοποιός, is now supplied by Alcibiades. We should notice also how a link with the Second Act is furnished here, at the commencement of the Third Act, by the mention of an attempt by Aristophanes to reply to an observation made by Socrates in the course of his speech. But apart from this, the rest of the speakers and banqueters are left out of account except only Agathon, Socrates and Eryximachus. The action of the last of these here is parallel to his action at the commencement of the First Act where he had taken the lead in fixing the rules for the conduct of the symposium. As regards Agathon and Socrates, the most important incident in this Interlude is the decision concerning their contest in σοφία which is pronounced by Alcibiades, when, acting the not inappropriate part of Dionysus, he awards the crown to Socrates,—an incident to the significance of which we have already (§ii. B, C) drawn attention.

Of the Epilogue or concluding scene (222 c—end) it is unnecessary to say much. The persons that figure most largely in it are the three central characters, Alcibiades, Agathon and Socrates; while towards -

, the close the rest of the characters receive, as it were, a farewell notice, ' When the curtain finally falls, it falls significantly on the solitary figure _ of Socrates, the incarnation of the Eros-daemon, behind whom in his

‘shadow stands the form of his erastes, the “shadow”-biographer Aristo- , demus.

§ iii, ΤῊΝ First Five Sprecues.

1. Phaedrus, son of Pythocles, belonged to the Attic deme Myrrhinus. Lysias describes him as “impoverished” in circumstances, but respectable. In the Protagoras he is represented as a disciple of Hippias; while in the Phaedrus—named after him—his chief charac- teristic is his ardent interest in erotic oratory (λόγοι ἐρωτικοί), a specimen of which, by Lysias, he has learnt almost completely by heart. It is, then, in accordance with this character that we find Phaedrus, in the Sympositwm, made responsible for the theme of the series of speeches (viz. ἔπαινος "Epwros, 177 Ὁ), and entitled πατὴρ τοῦ λόγον. We may gather also from certain indications contained both in the Phaedrus and in the Symposiwm that Phaedrus was neither physically strong nor mentally vigorous}. The ostensibly prominent

1 See Phaedr. 2274, Symp. 176 c, 223 Β, and, generally, his cultivation of

medical friends. Also the probable word-play in the deme-name Μυρρινούσιος, Symp. 176 p, Phaedr, 244 a,

INTRODUCTION ΧΧΥ͂

position assigned to such a man in the Symposiam is more natural if we assume that it is due to the desire to make him a link between this dialogue and the Phaedrws'.

Phaedrus’s speech, although not without merit in point of simplicity of style and arrangement, is poor in substance. The moral standpoint is in no respect raised above the level of the average citizen; the speaker pays little regard to consistency, and the method of argument, with its want of logical coherence, savours much of the sophists. As examples of this self-contradiction we may point to the statement that Acbilles, as younger than Patroclus, must be παιδικά not ἐραστής, whereas Alcestis, though younger than Admetus, is treated as the épdca, not the ἐρωμένη; we may point also to the other inconsequence, that the self-sacrifice of Achilles, the παιδικά, is cited in support of the con- tention that of ἐρῶντες μόνοι are capable of such self-sacrifice. The arbitrary handling of the Orpheus myth is another striking illustration of the sophistic manner.

What is, however, most characteristic of the speech of Phaedrus is its richness of mythological allusion. Lacking, it would seem, in native force of intellect, Phaedrus relies upon authority and tradition. He quotes Hesiod and Homer, Acusilaos and Parmenides: he builds his argument, such as it is, on the sayings of “them of old time,” and on the legendary histories of the son of Oeagrus and the daughter of Pelias ; and when he can confute Aeschylus on a point of mythology his joy is great. As a lover of religious tradition, we may credit Phaedrus with a capacity for genuine religious feeling; certainly, in his réle as high-priest of Eros, on the present occasion, he shows a strict regard for ritual propriety when he rebukes Socrates for inter- rupting the service of speech-offerings to the god (194 p)”.

In point of literary style we may notice the following features :—

(a) Rhetorical ornamentation: chiasmus (178 D), paronomasia (179 0), special compound verbs (ἀγασθέντες 179 C, ὑπεραγασθέντες 180 A; ἀποθανεῖν 179 ΒΕ, ὑπεραποθανεῖν, ἐπαποθανεῖν 180 A);

1 Of. P. Crain, p. 7: Vera causa, cur Plato sermonis in Symposio Phaedrum parentem praedicaverit, haec mihi videtur esse: rediens ad eas cogitationes quas in Phaedro dialogo instituerat, eundem quoque auctorem colloquii reduxit.

2 Hug sums up the position of Phaedrus thus (p. xlvi): ‘‘ Phidros stellt den gewohnlichen athenischen Biirger dar, den eine rastlose Neugierde zu den rhetori- schen und philosophischen Kreisen hindréngt, der da und dort etwas aufschnappt und sich aneignet, jedoch ohne tieferes Verstindnis, aber mit desto grésserem Selbstbewusstsein.” Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 528): ‘‘The discourse of Phaedrus is half-mythical, half-ethical; and he himself...is half-sophist, half-enthusiast.”

B. P. c

xxvi INTRODUCTION (Ὁ) Monotony of expression (ovre...otre 178 σ΄ (4), 178 » (2);

ovrws...ds 178 v (2), ovtw...dore 179 a, C, τοσοῦτον.. «ὥστε 179 c; καὶ μὴν...γε 179 a, Β; οὕτω καὶ 179 D, τοιγάρτοι διὰ ταῦτα 179 D, ὅθεν δὴ καὶ 180 a);

(c) Anacolutha: 177 a (οὐ δεινὸν κτλ.), 179 A (καὶ μὴν...οὕτω κακός).

2. Of Pausanias, of the deme Κεραμῆς, little is known beyond what we are told in this dialogue? and in Xenophon’s Symposium, where also he appears as notorious for his love for the tragedian Agathon, Xenophon represents Pausanias as a vigorous champion of παιδεραστία", and Plato here assigns to him a similar réle, although he paints the fashion of the man in less crude colours.

The speech of Pausanias is a composition of considerable ability. Although, like Phaedrus, he starts by grounding his conception of the dual Eros on mythological tradition, yet when this conception is once stated the distinction is maintained and its consequences followed out with no little power of exposition. The manner in which the laws regarding παιδεραστία in the various states are distinguished, and in special the treatment of the complex Athenian νόμος, display the cleverness of a first-rate pleader. The general impression, in fact, given us by the speech is that it forms an exceedingly smart piece of special pleading in favour of the proposition καλὸν ἐρασταῖς yapi- ζεσθαι. The nakedness of this proposition is cloked by the device of distinguishing between a noble and a base Eros, and by the addition of the saving clause ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα, None the less, it would seem that the speaker's main interest is in the χαρίζεσθαι, rather than in the accruing ἀρετή, and that he is fundamentally a sensualist, however refined and specious may be the form in which he gives expression to his sensualism.

Pausanias is a lawyer-like person in his style of argumentation ; and, appropriately enough, much of his speech is concerned with νόμοι.

1 He is also mentioned in Protag. 3815p.

° Xen. Symp. vii. 32 ἀπολογούμενος ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀκρασίᾳ συγκυλινδουμένων.

3 We must, of course, bear in mind that, as Jowett puts it (Plato, vol. 1. p. 529), ‘‘the value which he attributes to such loves as motives to virtue and philosophy, (though) at variance with modern and Christian notions, is in accord- ance with Hellenic sentiment.” Nor does the Platonic Socrates, in the sequel, fail to take account of them, For some judicious observations on the general question of the Gk. attitude to paederastia, see Jowett, op. cit. pp. 534 ἢ, Gomperz, Gk. Thinkers (ἘΠ. Tr.) τι. pp. 380 ff.; for Eros in Gk. religion, see Miss J. E. Harrison,

Prolegom. pp. 630 ff.; for Plato’s and Xenophon’s theories of Love, see I. Bruns, Vortriige etc., pp. 118 ff.; P. Crain, pp. 28 ff.

INTRODUCTION xxvii

The term is noteworthy, since it inevitably suggests that antithesis νόμος )( φύσις which was so widely debated among the sophists and thinkers of the close of the fifth century. Is the moral standard fixed by nature (φύσει) or merely by convention (νόμῳ)! This was one form of the question ; and closely connected with this was the other form : Is knowledge absolute or relative? Pausanias poses as a conven- tionalist, and a relativist, a champion of law as against nature (πᾶσα πρᾶξις αὐτὴ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς οὔτε καλὴ οὔτε αἰσχρά); and this is of itself sufficient to show that, in Plato’s eyes, he is a specimen of the results of sophistic teaching.

Nor is it only in his adoption of this principle of moral indifference, as we might call it, and in his capacity τὸν ἥττω λόγον κρείττω ποιεῖν, that Pausanias stands before us as a downright sophist; his argumenta- tion also is chargeable with the sophistical vices of inconsistency and self-contradiction.. For example, with what right, we may ask, does Pausanias condemn the νόμοι of other states than Athens regarding παιδεραστία, while laying down τὸ νόμιμον as the standard of morality ? For such a distinction necessarily involves reference to another, superior, standard ; whereas, by his own hypothesis, no such standard exists. Again, the section on the καλὴ ἀπάτη (181 Bf.) stands out in curious contradiction with the section immediately preceding, in which fidelity and sincerity (τὸ βέβαιον) are put forward as the necessary conditions of a love that is fair (καλός) and irreproachable (οὐκ ἐπονείδιστος).

In literary style the speech of Pausanias displays, in a much higher degree than that of Phaedrus, the tricks and ornaments proper to the sophistical schools of rhetoric. Thus we find :—

Paronomasia: ἔργα ἐργαζομένῳ 182 π; δουλείας δουλεύειν 183 a; πράττειν τὴν πρᾶξιν 181 a, cp. 183 8.

Alliteration: ἐθέλοντες δουλείας δουλεύειν οἵας οὐδ᾽ ἂν δοῦλος οὐδείς (A, 8, ο, ov).

Rhythmic correspondence of clauses and periods (εὐρυθμία, ἰσόκωλα) : This is an important feature of Greek rhetoric’, the invention of which is ascribed to Thrasymachus ; and it is especially characteristic of the style of Isocrates*. The following examples (as formulated by Hug)

1 So Jowett (Plato 1. p. 529) writes: ‘(The speech of Pausanias) is at once hyperlogical in form and also extremely confused and pedantic.” 2 Op. Ar. het. 11. 9, 14095 25 λέξις κατεστραμμένη καὶ ὁμοία ταῖς τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν ἀντιστρόφοις. 3 A good example occurs in Helena 17: τοῦ μὲν ἐπίπονον καὶ φιλοκίνδυνον τὸν βίον κατέστησε τῆς δὲ περίβλεπτον καὶ περιμάχητον τὴν φύσιν ἐποίησε.

62

XXviil INTRODUCTION

will serve to indicate the extent to which Pausanias makes use of these artifices :---

a Ν cal τον ν πᾶσα γὰρ πρᾶξις ὧδ᾽ ἔχει"

1. αὐτὴ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς,

M A vy? 2 ,

οὔτε καλὴ ovT αἰσχρά.

ἐν a a ε a fal Οἰον O νυν QELS ποιουμεν,

II.

[ ( IIL. |

- ἢ πίνειν ἢ dew ἢ διαλέγεσθαι,

3 ᾿ ΄ ἢ, ἧς. Ἂς Ἔ ἣν οὐκ ἔστι τούτων αὐτὸ καλὸν οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ πράξει,

€ A ΩΣ ὡς ἂν πραχθῇ,

SO" ORL Ὁ oe Be:

a > la τοιοῦτον ἀπέβη"

10. καλῶς μὲν γὰρ πραττόμενον καὶ ὀρθῶς καλὸν γίγνεται, 11. μὴ ὀρθῶς δὲ αἰσχρόν, IV. 12, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἐρᾶν καὶ ὁ Ἔρως οὐ πᾶς ἐστὶ καλὸς οὐδὲ ἀξιος ἐγκωμιάξεσθαι,

18, ἀλλὰ 6 καλῶς προτρέπων ἐρᾶν. [180 E ad fin.—181 a.]

Here we have four περίοδοι of which the first three are τρίκωλοι, the fourth τετράκωλος : in the three τρίκωλοι, the κῶλα of each are approxi- mately equal; while in the terpdxwAos, long and short κῶλα alternate.

Other instances of strophic correspondence are 184 p—z, 185 a ff. (see Hug ad loc.).

3. HLryximachus, son of Akumenus, is like his father a physician and a member of the Asclepiad guild (186 £); he is also a special friend of Phaedrus (177 a). Alcibiades alludes to Akumenus as “the most temperate sire” of Eryximachus, and he is mentioned also by Xenophon as an authority on diet. The same “temperance” (σωφροσύνη) is a marked characteristic of Eryximachus in our dialogue: he is the champion of moderation in drinking (176 Biff, 214.8), and when, near the close, the revellers enter and the fun waxes fast and furious, Eryximachus, together with his comrade Phaedrus, is the first to make his escape (223 8). Another characteristic of the man is his pedantic manner. He is incapable of laying aside his professional solemnity even for a moment, and he seizes every possible occasion to air his medicinal lore, now with a lecture on μέθη (176 Ὁ), presently with another on Avyé (185 p, π).

Scientific pedantry is, similarly, the characteristic of Eryximachus’s speech, He starts with a conception of Eros as a cosmic principle, from

INTRODUCTION xxix

the standpoint of natural philosophy. This conception he applies and developes with equal rigour in the spheres of medicine, music, astronomy and religion, so that definitions of a precisely parallel kind for each of these departments are evolved. The dogmatic manner appears also in his treatment of the dictum of Heraclitus (187 4), which corresponds to the treatment of Aeschylus by his friend Phaedrus. He resembles Phaedrus also in his fondness for displaying erudition; he knows his Empedocles and his Hippocrates’, as well as the experts in musical theory.

The theory of the duality of Eros Eryximachus takes over from Pausanias, but he naturally finds a difficulty in applying this concept to other spheres, such as that of music, and in attempting to elude the difficulty he falls into the sophistical vices of ambiguity and incon- sistency. .g. in 187 p the reference of δεῖ χαρίζεσθαι is obscure ; and, in the same context, the substitutions of 7 Οὐρανία Μοῦσα for ᾿Αφροδίτη Οὐρανία and of ΠΠολυμνία for ᾿Αφροδίτη 1Πάνδημος are arbitrary’.

As regards literary style there is little to notice in the speech, beyond its plainness and lack of ornament. The monotony of ex- pression (seen, 6.9.» in the recurrence of such formulae as ἔστι δὴ 187 8, ἔστι γὰρ 187 ο, ἔστι δὲ 187 Ὁ) marks it as the product of a pedantic, would-be scientific mind, in which literary taste is but slightly de- veloped and the ruling interest is the schematization of physical doctrines,

4. Aristophanes. The greatest of Greek comic poets, the author of the Clouds, was a pronounced anti-Socratic. None the less, Plato

1 Cf. Eurip. fr. 839 τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην οὐχ Spas ὅση θεός; | ἣν οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἴποις, οὐδὲ μετρήσειας ἂν | ὅση πέφυκε κἀφ᾽ ὅσον διέρχεται. [...ἐρᾷ μὲν ὄμβρου γαῖ",.. «ἐρᾷ δ᾽ ὁ σεμνὸς οὐρανὸς κτλ.

2 Pfleiderer (Sokr. τι. Plato, pp. 551 ff.) broaches the theory that Eryx.’s speech is intended as a parody of (Pseudo-) Hippocr. περὶ διαίτης, and that the real author of that work was Eryx. himself. There are, certainly, a number of similarities, but hardly sufficient to prove the case. Obviously, it is a parody of the style of some one or more medical writers, but more than that cannot safely be said: some Hippocratean parallels in matters of detail will be found in the notes. See also my remarks on the next speech (Aristophanes’). Teuffel drew attention to the etymo- logical significance of the name (épvtl-paxos); this, however, cannot be an invention of Plato’s, although it may partly account for the introduction of the λύγξ incident.

3 The doctrine of Love as a harmony of opposites, which plays so large a part in Eryx.’s discourse, may be illustrated from Spenser (‘‘ Hymn to Love”’):

“Ayre hated earth and water hated fyre, Till Love relented their rebellious yre. He then them tooke, and, tempering goodly well Their contrary dislikes with loved meanes, Did place them all in order,” etc.

ΧΧΧ INTRODUCTION

paints him here in no dark colours, but does justice to his mastery of language, his fertility of imagination, his surprising wit, his hearty joviality. In contrast to the puritanism of the pragmatical doctor, Aristophanes appears as a man of strength to mingle strong drink, who jokes about his “baptism” by liquor (176 B), and turns the scientific axioms of the “man of art” to ridicule (189.4). His rdéle is, in fact, throughout that of a γελωτοποιός (189 4), and he supplies the comic business of the piece with admirable gusto. Yet the part he plays is by no means that of a vulgar buffoon: he is poet as well as jester,—a poet of the first magnitude, as is clearly indicated by the speech which Plato here puts in his mouth,

That speech is a masterpiece of grotesque fantasy worthy of Rabelais himself. The picture drawn of the globular four-legged men is intensely comic, and the serious manner in which the king of gods and men ponders the problem of their punishment shows a very pretty wit. Their sexual troubles, too, are expounded with characteristic frankness. And it is with the development of the sex- problem that we arrive at the heart of this comedy in miniature,— the definition of Eros as “the craving for wholeness” (τοῦ ὅλον ἐπιθυμία 192 8).

This thought, which is the final outcome of the speech, is not without depth and beauty*. It suggests that in Love there is some- thing deeper and more ultimate than merely a passion for sensual gratification ; it implies that sexual intercourse is something less than an end in itself. But Aristophanes, while suggesting these more profound reflexions, can provide no solid ground for their support ; he bases them on the most portentous of comic absurdities. Here, as so often elsewhere in the genuine creations of the poet, we find it difficult to determine where παιδιά ends and σπουδή begins’, How far, we ask ourselves, are the suggestions of an idealistic attitude towards the problems of life seriously meant? Does the cloke of cynicism and buffoonery hide a sincere moralist? Or is it not rather the case that the mockery is the man, and the rest but a momentary

1 Cp. Plut. Q. Conv. vir. 7. 710 ο Πλάτων δὲ τὸν τ᾽ ᾿Αριστοφάνους λόγον περὶ τοῦ ἔρωτος ὡς κωμῳδίαν ἐμβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον.

2 Cp. Zeller (nm. on 192 ὁ ff. ἀλλ’ ἄλλο τι, κτλ.) ‘Diese Stelle, in welcher der ernsthafte Grundgedanke unserer Stelle am Deutlichsten zu Tage kommt, gehért wohl zu dem Tiefsten, was von alten Schriftstellern iiber die Liebe gesagt ist.”

3 See Jevons, Hist. of Gk, Lit. pp. 258 ff. for some judicious criticisms of the view that ‘‘behind the grinning mask of comedy is the serious face of a great political teacher.”

INTRODUCTION xxxi

disguise? Certainly, the view maintained by Rettig that the chief purpose of Aristophanes is to impugn παιδεραστία, and to preach up legitimate matrimony as the only true form of love and the sole road to happiness, is a view that is wholly untenable. And while we may acknowledge with Horn (Platonstud. p. 261) that the speech of Aristo- phanes marks a great advance upon the previous λόγοι, in so far as it recognizes the difficulty of the problem presented by the phenomena of Eros and looks below the surface for a solution,—yet how far we are intended to ascribe this sagacity on the part of the speaker to superior reasoning power rather than to a lucky inspiration (θείᾳ μοίρᾳ) is by no means clear.

In connexion with this question as to the design of the speech there is one point which seems to have been generally overlooked by the expositors,—the topical character, as we might term it, of its main substance. This appears, obviously enough, in the jesting reference (193 B) to the love-affairs of Pausanias and Agathon; and obvious enough too are the allusions to Eryximachus and his much-vaunted “art” in the mention made, both at the beginning (189 5) and at the end (193 p), of the healing power of Love, the good “ physician.” But in addition to these topical allusions which sautent aux yeux, we are justified, I think, in regarding the great bulk of the discourse as being neither more nor less than a caricature of the physiological opinions held and taught by the medical profession of the day. The Hippocratean tract περὶ φύσιος ἀνθρώπου is sufficient evidence that there raged in medical circles a controversy concerning the unity or multiplicity of man’s nature: the author of the tract was himself an anti-unity man and assailed with equal vigour the views of all opponents, whether the unity they stood for was αἷμα or χολή or préypa—ev γάρ τι εἶναί φασιν, ὅτι ἕκαστος αὐτέων βούλεται dvopacas, καὶ τοῦτο ἕν ἐὸν μεταλλάσσειν τὴν ἰδέην καὶ τὴν δύναμιν. ΤῸ this con- troversy Aristophanes, we may suppose, alludes when he speaks of man’s ἀρχαία φύσις, which was a unity until by the machinations of Zeus it became a duality. But with this theory of primeval unity of nature the poet combines a theory of sex-characteristics. And, here again, even more definitely, we can discover traces of allusion to current physiological doctrines. Aristophanes derives the different varieties of sex-characters from the bisection of the three primitive ὅλα, viz. φίλανδροι women and φιλογύναικες men from the ἀνδρόγυνον, φιλογύναικες women (ἑταιρίστριαι) from the original θῆλυ, and φίλανδροι men from the original ἄρρεν. Thus we see that Aristophanes analyses

ΧΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION

existing sex-characters, classifies them under two heads for each sex, and explains them by reference to a three-fold original. If we turn now to Hippocrates περὶ διαίτης (ce. 28 f.) we find there also a theory of “the evolution of sex.” Premising that the female principle is akin to water and the male to fire, the writer proceeds thus: “If the bodies secreted by both parents are male (dpceva)...they become men (dvépes) brilliant in soul and strong in body, unless damaged by after regiment (i.e. by lack of ξηρῶν καὶ θερμῶν σίτων, etc.). If, however, the body secreted by the male parent is male and that by the female female, and the male element proves the stronger...then men are produced, Jess brilliant (λαμπροῦ), indeed, than the preceding class, yet justly deserving of the name of ‘manly’ (ἀνδρεῖοι). And again, if the male parent secretes a female body and the female a male body, and the latter proves the stronger, the male element deteriorates and the men so produced are ‘effeminates’ (ἀνδρόγυνοι). Similarly with the generation of women. When both parents alike secrete female elements, the most feminine and comely women (θηλυκώτατα καὶ εὐφυέστατα) are produced. If the woman secretes a female, the man a male body, and the former proves the stronger, the women so produced are bolder (θρασύτεραι) but modest (κόσμιαι). While if, lastly, the female element prevails, when the female element comes from the male parent and the male element from the female, then the women so produced are more audacious (roA- μηρότεραι) than the last class and are termed ‘masculine’ (avépetat).”

Here we find the sex-characters arranged under three heads for each sex, and explained by reference to four originals, two from each parent. Obviously, this theory is more complicated than the one which Aristophanes puts forward, but in its main lines it is very similar. According to both the best class of men is derived from a dual male element, and the best class of women from a dual female element (although the poet is less complimentary than the physician in his description of this class). The similarity between the two is less close in regard to the intermediate classes ; for while Aristophanes derives from his ἀνδρόγυνον but one inferior class of men and one of women, Hippocrates derives from various combinations of his mixed (θῆλυν + ἄρσεν) secretions two inferior classes of both sexes. Yet here, too, under the difference lies a consentience in principle, since both theorists derive all their inferior sex-characters from a mixed type.

We may immagine, then, that Aristophanes, having before his mind some such physiological theory as this, proceeded to adapt it to his purpose somehow as follows. Suppose we take the male element latent,

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

as the Hippocrateans tell us, in each sex, combine them, and magnify them into a concrete personality, the result will be a Double-man. A similar imaginative treatment of the female elements will yield us a Double-wife. While, if—discarding the perplexing minutiae of the physiological combinations assumed by the doctors—we take a female element from one parent and blend it with a male element from the other, and magnify it according to our receipt, we shall thereby arrive at the Man-wife as our third primeval personality. Such a treatment of a serious scientific theory would have all the effect of a caricature ; and it is natural to suppose that in choosing to treat the matter in this way Aristophanes intended to satirize the theories of generation and of sex-evolution which were argued so solemnly and so elaborately by the confréres of Eryximachus.

Jf in this regard the topical character of the speech be granted, one can discern an added point in the short preliminary conversation between Aristophanes and Eryximachus by which it is prefaced. The latter gives a warning (189 a—s) that he will be on the watch for any ludicrous statement that may be made; to which the former replies: “T am not afraid lest I should say what is ludicrous (γελοῖα) but rather what is absurd (καταγέλαστα). In view of what follows, we may con- strue this to mean that Aristophanes regards as καταγέλαστα theories such as those of Eryximachus and his fellow-Asclepiads. Moreover, this view of the relation in which Aristophanes’ speech stands to the treatises of the medical doctrinaires—of whom Eryximachus is a type—helps to throw light on the relative position of the speeches, and on the incident by which that position is secured and emphasized. For unless we can discover some leading line of connexion between the two which necessitates the priority of the medico’s exposition, the motive for the alteration in the order of the speeches must remain obscure.

It may be added that the allusions in 189 πὶ (see notes ad loc.) to the evolutionary theories of Empedocles confirm the supposition that Aristophanes is directly aiming the shafts of his wit at current medical doctrines; the more so as Empedocles shares with Hippocrates the view that the male element is hot, the female cold, and that the offspring is produced by a combination of elements derived from both parents. Other references to Empedocles may be discerned in the mention of Hephaestus (192 Ὁ) who, as personified Fire, is one of Empedocles’ “four roots,” and in the mention of Zeus (190 0), another of the “roots”; and the fact that these two deities play opposite

XXxiv INTRODUCTION

parts, the one as bisector, the other as unifier, is in accordance with Empedoclean doctrine, Also the statement that the moon “ partakes of both sun and earth” (1908) is, in part at least, Empedoclean. In point of style and diction, the speech of Aristophanes stands out as an admirable piece of simple Attic prose, free at once from the awkwardness and monotony which render the speeches of Phaedrus and Eryximachus tedious and from the over-elaboration and artificial ornamentation which mar the discourses of Pausanias and Agathon. In spite of occasional poetic colouring—as, 6.9., in the finely-painted scene between Hephaestus and the lovers (192 cff.)—the speech as a whole remains on the level of pure, easy-flowing, rhythmical prose, in which lucidity is combined with variety and vivacity of expression.

5. Agathon, the tragic poet, if born in 448 B.c., would be a little over thirty at the date of the Symposium (416). He was the παιδικά of Pausanias (193 8), and a man of remarkable beauty as well as of reputed effeminacy’. He appears in the dialogue as not only a person of wealth, position and popularity, but a man of refinement, education and social tact. The banquet itself is given by him to a select company of his friends in honour of his recent victory in the tragic contest, and throughout the dialogue he is, formally at least, the central figure— both as host and as victor, and, what is more, as the embodiment of external κάλλος alike in his person (εἶδος) and in his speech (λόγοι). His graceful politeness to his guests never varies, even when Socrates sharply criticises his oration, or when Alcibiades transfers the wreath from his head to that of Socrates (213 £); he himself shares in the admiration for Socrates, welcomes him most warmly and displays the

1 Ar. Thesm. 191-2 σὺ δ᾽ εὐπρόσωπος, λευκὸς, ἐξυρημένος,

γυναικόφωνος, ἁπαλὸς, εὐπρεπὴς ἰδεῖν.

ib. 200 ff. καὶ μὴν σύ Ὑ, ὦ κατάπυγον, εὐρύπρωκτος εἶ

οὐ τοῖς λόγοισιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς παθήμασιν, κτὰ

And Mnesilochus’ comments on Agathon’s speech and womanish appearance in 130 ff. ws ἡδὺ τὸ μέλος, ὦ πότνιαι T'evervddldes,

καὶ θηλυδριῶδες καὶ κατεγλωττισμένον, κτλ.

In estimating the value of Aristophanes’ abuse of his contemporary—in the case of Agathon as in the case of Huripides—we must make due allowance for Ar.’s comic style. As Jevons well observes (Hist. of Gk. Lit. Ὁ. 274): “ΤῺ polemics, as in other things, the standard of decency is a shifting one. Terms which one age would hesitate to apply to the most abandoned villain are in another century of such frequent use as practically to be meaningless.,..The charges of immorality which Ar, brings against Eur, and his plays are simply Ar.’s way of saying that on various points he totally disagrees with Eur.” Probably the same holds good of his treatment of Agathon,

INTRODUCTION XXXV

utmost jubilation when Socrates promises to eulogize him (223 a). Finally, his consideration is shown in the social καρτερία with which he sticks to his post, drinking and talking, till all his guests, except Socrates, have either left or succumbed to drowsiness (228 pb).

In his speech Agathon claims that he will improve on the method of his predecessors. In his attention to method he is probably taking a leaf out of the book of Gorgias, his rhetorical master and model. Besides the initial distinction between the nature and effects of Eros, another mark of formal method is his practice of recapitulation : at the close of each section of his discourse he summarises the results’. In his portrait of the nature of Eros—his youth, beauty, suppleness of form and delicacy of complexion—Agathon does little more than formulate the conventional traits of the god as depicted in poetry and art. His attempts to deduce these attributes are mere παιδιά (197 8), pieces of sophistical word-play. Somewhat deeper goes his explanation of the working of Eros upon the soul, as well as the body; but the thought that Eros aims at the beautiful (197 8) is his most fruitful deliverance and the only one which Socrates, later on, takes up and developes’.

We may observe, further, how Agathon, like Phaedrus, indulges in mythological references, and how—like most of his predecessors (ep. 180 p, 185 =)—he makes a point of criticising and correcting the views of others (194 5, 195 B). Cp. Isocr. Bustr. 222 B, 230 a.

In style and diction the speech of Agathon gives abundant evidence of the influence of the school of Gorgias, especially in the preface (194 E—195 a) and in the 2nd part (197 c—z). Thus we find repeated instances of :—

1 See 195 5, 1θὺ σ, vp, 197 σ; and ep. Gorg. Hel. (¢.9.) 15 καὶ ὅτι μὲν.. οὐκ ἠδίκησεν ἀλλ’ ἠτύχησεν, εἴρηται" τὴν δὲ τετάρτην αἰτίαν τῷ τετάρτῳ λόγῳ διέξειμι. Cp. Blass, att. Bered. p. 77.

2 Jowett is somewhat flattering when he writes (Plato 1. p. 581): ‘* The speech of Agathon is conceived in a higher strain (sc. than Aristophanes’), and receives the real if half-ironical approval of Socrates. It is the speech of the tragic poet and a sort of poem, like tragedy, moving among the gods of Olympus, and not among the elder or Orphic deities,...The speech may be compared with that specch of Socrates in the Phaedrus (239 a, 5) in which he describes himself as talking dithyrambs.... The rhetoric of Agathon elevates the soul to ‘sunlit heights’.” One suspects that “the approval of Socrates”’ is more ironical than real. Agathon’s speech belongs to the class condemned by Alcidamas, de Soph. 12 ol rots ὀνόμασιν ἀκριβῶς ἐξειργασ- μένοι καὶ μᾶλλον ποιήμασιν ἢ λόγοις ἐοικότες : cp. 1b. 14 dvd-yen...rad μὲν ὑποκρίσει καὶ ῥαψωδίᾳ παραπλήσια δοκεῖν εἶναι.

ΧΧΧΥΪ INTRODUCTION

Short parallel Kola’ with homoeoteleuton : e.g. 1948 ἐγὼ δὲ δὴ] βούλομαι | πρῶτον μὲν εἰπεῖν | ὡς χρή με εἰπεῖν | ἔπειτα εἰπεῖν : 197 ν ἀλλοτριότητος μὲν κενοῖ, οἰκειότητος δὲ πληροῖ.

Homoeoteleuton and assonance: e.g. τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὧν ὃ θεὸς αὐτοῖς αἴτιος (194 Ε); τρόπος ὀρθὸς παντός...περὶ παντός... οἷος <dv> οἵων αἴτιος ὦν (19 Α); πάντων θεῶν εὐδαιμόνων ὄντων (195 a).

These rhetorical artifices are especially pronounced in the concluding section, as is indicated by the sarcastic comment of Socrates (198 Β τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς, κτλ.) in fact, the whole of this section is, as Hug puts it, a ‘‘férmliche Monodie.” Another feature of A.’s style is his fondness for quotation, especially from the poets (196 c, Ε, 196 a, 197 8), and his tendency to break into verse himself—érépyerar δέ μοί τι καὶ ἔμμετρον εἰπεῖν (197 c). He has no clear idea of the limits of a prose style, as distinguished from verse; and the verses he produces are marked by the same Gorgianic features of assonance and alliteration. In fine, we can hardly describe the general impression made on us by the style of Agathon better than by adapting the Pauline phrase—‘‘ Though he speak with the tongues of men and of angels, he is become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal*.”

a

§ iv. Socrates anp Diotima.

To Socrates it falls to deliver the last of the encomia on Eros. This is no mere accident, but artistically contrived in order to indicate the relative importance of his encomium as the climax of the series. In form and content, as well as in extent, it holds the highest place, although to its speaker is assigned the ἐσχάτη κλίνη.

(A) The substance and form of Socrates’ λόγοι.

(a) The encomium proper is preceded by a preliminary dialectical discussion with Agathon, the object of which is to clear the ground of some popular misconceptions of the nature of Eros, The notion of Eros, it ig shown, is equivalent to that of Desire (ἔρως = τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν)

1 Distinguish this from the more Isocratean style of the speech of Pausanias with its more developed ica and εὐρυθμία of periods. Cp. Aristoph. frag. 300 καὶ κατ᾽ ᾿Αγάθων᾽ ἀντίθετον ἐξυρημένον, ‘shaved Agathon’s shorn antithesis.”

5 Horn summarises thus (Platonstud. p. 264): ‘Die ganze Rede mit ihrem anspruchsvollen Eingang, ihrem nichtigen Inhalt, ihren wolklingenden Phrasen und Sophismen und insbesondere mit dem grossen Schlussfeuerwerke von Antithesen und Assonanzen ist demnach nichts anderes als ein mit grosser Geschicklichkeit entworfenes Musterstiick der...gorgianisch-sophistischen Rhetorik.” See also the rhythmic analysis (of 195 p ff.) worked out by Blass, Rhythmen, pp. 76 ff.

INTRODUCTION XXXVii

—a quality, not a person. And the object of this Desire is the beautiful (τὸ καλόν), as had been asserted by Agathon (201 a—s). That Socrates refuses to embark on an eulogistic description of Eros without this preliminary analysis of the meaning of the name serves, at the start, to differentiate his treatment of the theme from that of all the preceding speakers: it is, in fact, an object-lesson in method, an assertion of the Platonic principle that dialectic must form the basis of rhetoric, and that argument founded on untested assumptions is valueless.

(b) The speech proper begins with a mythological derivation of Eros, in which his conflicting attributes as a δαίμων---ἃ being midway between gods and men—are accounted for by his parentage. Eros is at once poor, with the poverty of Desire which lacks its object, and rich, with the vigour with which Desire strives after its object. And in all its features the Eros of Socrates and Diotima stands in marked contrast to the Eros of conventional poetry and art, the divine Eros of Agathon.

Eros is defined as Desire and as Daemon ; and, in the next place, its potency’ is shown to lie in the striving after the everlasting possession of happiness. But Eros implies also propagation in the sphere of beauty. It is the impulse towards immortality—the impulse displayed alike by animals and by men, the ground of parental love towards both physical and mental (φιλοτιμία) offspring.

But when we arrive at this point, the question suggests itself as to how, more precisely, these different determinations of Eros are related to one another. What is the link between Eros defined as “ the desire for the abiding possession of the good” and Eros defined as “the desire for procreation in the beautiful”? The former conception involves a desire for abiding existence, in other words for inmortality, inasmuch as the existence of the possessor is a necessary condition of possession ; while the latter also involves a similar desire, inasmuch as procreation is the one means by which racial immortality can be secured. Thus the link between the two conceptions of Eros is to be found in the implicit notion common to both that Eros is the striving after immortality or self-perpetuation. But there is another point to be borne in mind in order to grasp clearly the connexion of the argument. The beautiful includes the good (τἀγαθὰ καλά 201 c); so that the desire for the good is already, implicitly, a desire for the beautiful (and vice versa).

1.1.6. its generic notion (εῖναι, τὸ κεφάλαιον 205 Ὁ) as distinguished from the specific limitation (καλεῖσθαι 205 c, 206 Β) to sex-love. See W. Gilbert in Philologus uxvu. 1, pp. 52 ff.

XXxVill INTRODUCTION

Thus the main results of the argument so far are these: Eros is the striving after the lasting possession of the Good, and thereby after immortality ; but immortality can be secured only through procreation (τόκος), and the act of procreation requires as its condition the presence of Beauty. We are, therefore, led on to an examination of the nature of Beauty, and it is shown that beauty is manifested in a variety of forms, physical, moral and mental—beauty of body, of soul, of arts and sciences, culminating in the arch-science and the Idea of absolute Beauty. Accordingly the Erastes must proceed in upward course’ from grade to grade of these various forms of beauty till he finally reaches the summit, the Idea. On the level of each grade, moreover, he is moved by the erotic impulse not merely to apprehend the καλόν presented and to appreciate it, but also to reproduce it in another: there are two moments in each such experience, that of ‘conception ” (κύησις) or inward apprehension, and that of “delivery” (τόκος) or outward reproduction.

The emphasis here laid on the notion of reproduction and delivery (τίκτειν, γεννᾶν), as applied to the intellectual sphere, deserves special notice. The work of the intelligence, according to the Socratic method, is not carried on in solitary silence but requires the presence of a second mind, an interlocutor, an answerer of questions, For the correct method of testing hypotheses and searching out truth is the conversational method, “dialectic,” in which mind cooperates with mind. The practical illustration of this is to be seen in Socrates himself, the pursuer of beautiful youths who delights in converse with them and, warmed by the stimulus of their beauty, λόγους τοιούτους τίκτει οἵτινες ποιήσουσι βελτίους τοὺς νέους (210 Cc).

(0) As the conception of Eros as a striving after the Ideal pursued not in isolation but in spiritual fellowship (κοινωνία) constitutes the core of the Socratic exposition, so the form of that exposition is so contrived as to give appropriate expression to this central conception. It com- mences with a piece of dialectic—the conversation between Socrates and Agathon. Agathon is the embodiment of that κάλλος which here stimulates the ἐραστής in his search for truth: it is in Agathon’s soul (ἐν καλῷ) that Socrates deposits the fruits of his pregnant mind. In much, too, of the exposition of Diotima the semblance, at least, of intellectual κοινωνία is retained, illustrating the speaker's principle of philosophic co-operation. Thus the speech as a whole may be regarded

1 It is interesting to observe how Emerson makes use of this Platonic ‘‘anabasis”’ when he writes:—‘‘There is a climbing scnle of culture...up to the ineffable mysteries of the intellect.”

INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙΧ

simply as a Platonic dialogue in miniature, which differs from the average dialogue mainly in the fact that the chief speaker and guiding spirit is not Socrates but another, and that other a woman. If asked for a reason why Socrates here is not the questioner but the answerer, a sufficient motive may be found in the desire to represent him as a man of social tact. Socrates begins by exposing the ignorance of Agathon: next he makes the amend honourable by explaining that he had formerly shared that ignorance, until instructed by Diotima’.

(B) Diotima and her philosophy.

(1) Diotima. Diotima is a fictitious personage. Plato, no doubt purposely, avoids putting his exposition of Eros into the mouth of any historical person : to do so would be to imply that the theory conveyed is not original but derived. It is only for purposes of literary art that Diotima here supplants the Platonic Socrates: she is presented, by a fiction, as his instructor, whereas in facts he merely gives utterance to his own thoughts. These thoughts, however, and this theory are, by means of this fiction, represented as partaking of the nature of divine revelation ; since in Diotima of Mantinea we find a combination of two significant names. The description γυνὴ Μαντινική inevitably implies 1 the “mantic” art, which deals with the converse between men and : gods of which τὸ δαιμόνιον, and therefore the Eros-daemon, is the mediating agent (202 ΒΕ); while the name Διοτίμα, “She that has honour from Zeus,” suggests the possession of highest wisdom and authority. This is made clear by the réle assigned to Zeus and his servants in the Phaedrus: ὃ μὲν δὴ μέγας ἡγεμὼν ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεὺς... πρῶτος πορεύεται, κτλ. (246 EB); οἱ μὲν δὴ οὖν Διὸς δῖόν τινα εἶναι ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχὴν τὸν ὑφ᾽ αὑτῶν ἐρώμενον. σκοποῦσιν οὖν εἰ φιλόσοφός τε καὶ ἡγεμονικὸς τὴν φύσιν καὶ.. «πᾶν ποιοῦσιν ὅπως τοιοῦτος ἔσται, κτλ. (252 αὶ 1. The characteristics of Zeus, namely guiding power (ἡγεμονία) and wisdom (σοφία), attach also to his ὀπαδοί: consistently with this Diotima is σοφή (201 Ὁ), and ‘‘hegemonic”’ as pointing out the ὀρθὴ 68és to her pupil, and guiding him along it in a masterful manner

(210 a ff, 211 Β ff.)%

1 Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 527): “As at a banquet good manners would not allow him (Socr.) to win a victory either over his host or any of the guests, the superiority which he gains over Agathon is ingeniously represented as having been already gained over himself by her. The artifice has the further advantage of maintaining his accustomed profession of ignorance (cp. Menex, 236 fol.).”

2 Gomperz’s suggestion (G.T. τι. p. 396) that “the chief object of this etherea- lized affection” which Plato had in mind when “in the teaching (of Diotima) he

xl INTRODUCTION

In the person of Diotima, “the wise woman,” Plato offers us—in Mr Stewart’s phrase—“ a study in the prophetic temperament'” ; she represents, that is to say, the mystical element in Platonism, and her discourse is a blend of allegory, philosophy, and myth. Ag a whole it is philosophical : the allegory we find in the imaginative account of the parentage and nature of Eros, as son of Poros and Penia; the mythical element appears in the concluding portion, in so far as it “sets forth in impassioned imaginative language the Transcendental Idea of the Soul’.” And as in the allegory the setting is derived from current religious tradition, so in the myth the language is suggested by the enthusiastic cult of the Orphics. It may be well to examine somewhat more closely the doctrine of the prophetess on these various sides.

(2) Diotima’s allegory. The first point to notice is the artistic motive for introducing an allegory. It is intended to balance at once the traditional derivations of the God Eros in the earlier speeches, and the grotesque myth of Aristophanes. Socrates can match his rivals in imagination and inventive fancy. It also serves the purpose of putting into a concrete picture those characteristic features of the love-impulse which are subsequently developed in an abstract form. And, thirdly, the concrete picture of Eros thus presented allows us to study more clearly the features in which Socrates, as described by Alcibiades, resembles Eros and embodies the ideal of the philosophic character.

In the allegory the qualities which characterise Eros are fancifully deduced from an origin which is related in the authoritative manner of an ancient theogony. The parents of Eros are Poros and Penia. Poros is clearly intended to be regarded as a God (203 B οἱ θεοί, ot τε ἄλλοι καὶ ὃ...Πόρος) : he attends the celestial banquet and drinks nectar like the rest. The nature of Penia is less clearly stated: she cannot be a divine being according to the description of the divine nature as εὐδαίμων and possessing τἀγαθὰ καὶ καλά given in the context preceding (202 ¢ ff.) ; and the list of the qualities which she hands down to her son Eros shows that she is in all respects the very antithesis of Poros. We must conclude, therefore, that as Poros is the source of the divine side of the nature of Eros, so Penia is the source of the anti-divine side ; and from the description of Eros as δαίμων, combined with the definition of τὸ δαιμόνιον as μεταξὺ θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ (202 ΒΕ), we are justified

gave utterance to his own deepest feeling and most intimate experience” was Dion of Syracuse would supply, if admitted, a further significance to the name Diotima. 1 J. A. Stewart, The Myths of Plato, p. 428. 2 J. A. Stewart, loc. cit.

INTRODUCTION xli

in identifying this anti-divine side with mortality, and in regarding ἢ Πενία as a personification of 7 θνητὴ φύσις". It is interesting here to notice that Penia had already been personified by Aristophanes in his Plutus, and personified as one member of an antithesis’.

In the description of Poros, the father of Eros, it is significant that he is stated to be the son of Mfrs. The idea of Plenty (Πόρος) had already been personified by Alcman, whether or not the Scholiast ad loc. is correct in identifying that Poros with the Hesiodic Chaos. And the idea of Wisdom (Myris) also had played a part, as a personified being, in the speculations of the theogonists. or it seems, at least, probable that the Orphic theologians had already in Plato’s time evolved the equation Phanes = Ericapaeus = Metis*®, and that here as elsewhere in the language of Diotima there lie allusions to the doctrines of that school of mystics.

Of the incidental details of the allegory, such as “the garden of Zeus” where the intercourse between Penia and Poros took place and the intoxication of Poros which led up to that intercourse, the Neoplatonic commentators, as is their Wont, have much to say. But we may more discreetly follow Zeller and Stallbaum in regarding such details as merely put in for purposes of literary effect, to fill up and round off the story. Poros could never have fallen a victim to the charms of Penia, since she had none; nor could Penia ever have hoped to win over Poros by persuasion or force, he being endowed with the strength and wisdom of a god. Obviously, therefore, the god must be tricked and his senses blinded—as in the case of the sleeping Samson or of the intoxicated Noah—that the woman might work her will upon him. Nor need we look for any mystical significance in.6 τοῦ Διὸς κῆπος. The celestial banquet would naturally be held in the halls of the King of the gods; that a king’s palace should have a park or garden attached is not extraordinary ; nor is it more strange that one

1 So Plotinus is not far astray when he equates πενία with ὕλη, matter, potency (Enn. 111. p. 299 F).

2 Cp. Plato’s Πόρος )( Πενία with Ar.’s Πλοῦτος )( Πενία: also the description of πτωχεία as intermediate between πλοῦτος and πενία in Plut. 552 with the description of Eros as intermediate between πόρος and πενία in Symp. 203 Ε (οὔτε ἀπορεῖ "Epws οὔτε πλουτεῖ. Cp. also Plut. 80 ff. (Πλοῦτος.. αὐχμῶν βαδίζει") with Symp. 203 ὁ (Ἔρως αὐχμηρόΞς). The date of the Plutus is probably 388 8.6.

Such pairs of opposites were common in earlier speculation. Cp. Spenser, “ Hymn in Honour of Love” :—

‘“ When thy great mother Venus first thee bare, Begot of Plentie and of Penurie.”

3 Plato’s mention of a single parent of Poros is in accordance with the Orphic notion of Phanes-Metis as bisexed.

B. P. d

xlii INTRODUCTION

of the banqueters, when overcome with the potent wine of the gods, should seek retirement in a secluded corner of the garden to sleep off the effects of his revels.

More important than these details is the statement that the celestial banquet was held in celebration of the birth of Aphrodite, so that the begetting of Eros synchronized with the birthday of that goddess. The narrative itself explains the reason of this synchronism: it is intended to account for the fact that Eros is the “attendant and minister” of Aphrodite. Plotinus identifies Aphrodite with “the soul,” or more definitely with “the soul of Zeus” (Zeus himself being 6 νοῦς), but it seems clear from Plato’s language that she is rather the personifica- tion of beauty (Ἀφροδίτης καλῆς οὔσης 203 c).

As regards the list of opposite qualities which Eros derives from his parents, given in 203 c—n, there are two points which should be especially observed. In the first place, all these qualities, as so derived, are to be regarded not as merely accidental but inborn (φύσει) and forming part of the essential nature of Eros. And secondly, each of these characteristics of Eros, both on the side of his wealth and on the side of his poverty, has its counterpart—as will be shown presently '—in the characteristics of Socrates, the historical embodiment of Eros.

Lastly, we should notice the emphasis laid on the fluctuating character of Eros, whose existence is a continual ebb and flow, from plenitude to vacuity, from birth to death. By this is symbolised the experience of the φιλόκαλος and the φιλόσοφος, who by a law of their nature are incapable of remaining satisfied for long with the temporal objects of their desire and are moved by a divine discontent to seek continually for new sources of gratification. This law of love, by which τὸ ποριζόμενον ἀεὶ ὑπεκρεῖ, is parallel to the law of mortal existence by which τὰ μὲν (ἀεὶ) γίγνεται, τὰ δὲ ἀπόλλυται (207 D ff.)—a law which controls not merely the physical life but also the mental life (ἐπιθυμίαι, ἐπιστῆμαι, etc.)*. Accordingly, the Eros-daemon is neither mortal nor immortal in nature (πέφυκεν 203 2), neither wise nor foolish, but a combination of these opposites—codds-apabys and θνητὸς-ἀθάνατος---- and it is in virtue of this combination that the most characteristic title of Eros is φιλόσοφος (which implies also φιλ-αθανασία).

(3) Diotima’s Philosophy. The philosophic interest of the

1 See § vi. 3. » For an expansion in English of this thought see Spenser’s ‘‘ Two Cantos of Mutabilitie ” (I. Q. v1).

INTRODUCTION xliii

remainder of Diotima’s discourse (from 204 a to its end) lies mainly in the relations it affirms to exist between Eros and certain leading concepts, viz. the Good, Beauty and Immortality.

(a) The Problem of Immortality. TEnough has been said already as to determination of these various concepts as expounded in the earlier part of the discourse (up to 209 ΒΕ). But the concluding section, in which “the final mystertes” (τὰ τέλεα καὶ ἐποπτικα) are set forth, calls for further investigation. We have already learnt that Eros is “the desire for procreation in the sphere of the beautiful with a view to achieving immortality”; and we have found also that, so far, all the efforts of Eros to achieve this end have been crowned with very imperfect success. Neither by way of the body, nor by way of the mind, can ‘‘the mortal nature” succeed, through procreation, in attaining anything better than a posthumous permanence and an im- mortality by proxy. We have to enquire, therefore, whether any better result can be reached when Eros pursues the ὀρθὴ 650s under the guidance of the inspired παιδαγωγός. The process that goes on during this educational progress is similar in the main to what has been already described. Beauty is discovered under various forms, and the vision of beauty leads to procreation ; and procreation is followed by a search for fresh beauty. But there are two new points to observe in the description of the process. First, the systematic method and regularity of procedure, by which it advances from the more material to the less material objects in graduated ascent. And secondly, the part played throughout this progress by the activity of the intellect (νοῦς), which discerns the one in the many and performs acts of identification (210 B) and generalisation (210 c). Thus, the whole process is, in a word, a system of intellectual training in the art of dialectic, in so far as it concerns τὸ καλόν. And the end to which it leads is the vision of and converse with Ideal Beauty, followed by the pro- creation of veritable virtue. It is to be observed that this is expressly stated to be not only the final stage in the progress of Eros but the most perfect state attainable on earth by man (τὸ τέλος 211 B, ἐνταῦθα τοῦ βίου βιωτὸν ἀνθρώπῳ 211 D, rexdvre...brapxet θεοφιλεῖ γενέσθαι 212 a), But the question remains, does the attainment of this state convey also personal immortality? It must be granted that this question is answered by Plato, as Horn points out, somewhat ambiguously, “To the man who beholds the Beautiful and thereby is delivered of true ἀρετή it is given to become θεοφιλής and to become ἀθάνατος---ἰο him εἴπερ τῳ ἄλλῳ ἀνθρώπων": but in this last ifclause there still lies

a2

xliv INTRODUCTION

a possible ground for doubt’. We cannot gain full assurance on the point from this sentence taken by itself ; we must supplement it either by other indications derived from other parts of Diotima’s argument, or by statements made by Plato outside the Symposium. Now it may be taken as certain—from passages in the Phaedrus, Phaedo and Republic —that personal immortality was a doctrine held and taught by Plato. It is natural, therefore, to expect that this doctrine will be also taught in the Symposium ; or, at least, that the teaching of the Symposiwm will not contravene this doctrine. And this is, I believe, the case, in spite of a certain oracular obscurity which veils the clearness of the teaching. When we recal the statement that the generic Eros, as inherent in the individual, aims at the “everlasting possession ” of the good as its τέλος, and when we are told that the ἐρωτικὸς-φιλόσοφος at the end of his progress arrives at the “possession” (κτῆμα) of that specific form of Good which is Beauty, and finds in it his τέλος, and when emphasis is laid on the everlastingness (det ὄν) of that possession, then it is reason- able to suppose that the ἀθανασία of the ἐρωτικός who has reached this goal and achieved this possession is implied. It is to be noticed, further, that the phrase here used is no longer μετέχει τοῦ ἀθανάτου nor ἀθανατώτερός ἐστι but ἀθάνατος ἐγένετο. Nor does the language of the clause εἴπερ τῳ ἄλλῳ necessarily convey any real doubt: “he, if any man” may be simply an equivalent for “he above all,” “he most certainly*®.” The point of this saving clause may rather be this. The complete philosopher achieves his vision of eternal Beauty by means of γοῦς (or αὐτὴ ἡ ψυχή), as the proper organ ᾧ δρατὸν τὸ καλόν (212 a): it is in virtue of the possession of that immortal object that he himself is immortalised: and accordingly immortality accrues to him not gua ἄνθρωπος so much as gua νοητικὸς Or λογικός. Tn other words, while in so far as he is an ἄνθρωπος, a ζῷον, a ὅλον compounded of two diverse

1 See F, Horn, Platonstud. pp. 276 ff. Horn also criticises the phrase ἀθάνατος γενέσθαι: “die Unsterblichkeit im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes...kann nicht erworben werden. Der Mensch kann nur unsterblich sein oder es nicht sein, er kann aber nicht unsterblich werden.” But what Plato means by ἀθάν. γενέσθαι is to regain the life of the soul in its divine purity—the result of right education, as a κάθαρσις or μελέτη θανάτου. See J. Adam, R. T. G. pp. 383 ff.

It seems quite certain that Plato—whether or not in earnest with his various attempts to prove it—did believe in personal immortality, and would assent to the dictum of Sir Thos. Browne, ‘‘ There is surely a piece of divinity in us, something that was before the elements, and owes no homage unto the sun.”

2 See my note ad loc. It is to be noticed that similar expressions are used in a similar context in Phaedr. 2534 (ἐφαπτόμενοι (θεοῦ)...καθ᾽ ὅσον δυνατὸν θεοῦ

ἀνθρώπῳ μετασχεῖν): Lim. 90 B, c. Cp. θεῖος ὧν 209 5, θεῖον καλόν 211 Ε, θεοφιλεῖ 2124, That the Idea (τἀγαθόν) is οἰκεῖον to the Soul seems implied by 205 Β.

INTRODUCTION xlv

elements body and soul, the philosopher is not entirely ἀθάνατος but still subject to the sway of sad mortality, yet in so far as he is a philosopher, a purely rational soul, grasping eternal objects, he is immortal. If we choose to press the meaning of the clauses in question, such would seem to be their most probable significance’.

Another criticism of this passage suggested by Horn is this. If it be true that the philosopher, or ἐρωτικός, does at this final stage attain to immortality, this does not involve the truth of the doctrine of immortality in general, but rather implies that men as such are not immortal and that immortality is the exceptional endowment of a few. Here again we must recal the distinction between ἄνθρωπος and pure ψυχή and νοῦς. The soul as immortal is concerned with the objects of immortal life? In so far as it has drunk of the waters of Lethe and forgotten those objects, in so far as it is engrossed in the world of sense, it has practically lost its hold on immortality, and no longer possesses any guarantee of its own permanence. Al]though it may remain, in a latent way, in age-long identity, it cannot be self-consciously immortal when divorced from a perception of the eternally self-identical objects, If we may assume that Plato looked at the question from this point of view it becomes intelligible that he might refuse to predicate im- mortality of a soul that seems so entirely “of the earth, earthy” that the noétic element in it remains wholly in abeyance.

All that has been said, however, does not alter the fact that individual and personal immortality, in our ordinary sense, is nowhere directly proved nor even expressly stated in a clear and definite way in the Symposium. All that is clearly shown is the fact of posthumous survival and influence. That Plato regarded this athanasia of personal δύναμις as an athanasia of personal οὐσία, and identified “ Fortwirken ἢ with “Fortleben,” has been suggested by Horn, as an explanation of the ‘ganz neve Begriff der Unsterblichkeit” which, as he contends, is propounded in this dialogue. But it is certainly a rash proceeding to

1 For this notion of immortality by “communion” or “participation” in the divine life as Platonic, see the passages cited in the last note, also Theaet. 176 a. Cp. also the Orphic idea of the mystic as ἔνθεος, ‘‘God-possessed.” This idea of supersession of personality by divinity (‘‘not I but Christ that dwelleth in me ἢ) is a regular feature of all mystic religion.

2 In other words, ἀθανασία may be used not simply of quantity but of quality of existence. This is probably the case in 2124: “immortality” is rather ‘eternal life” than ‘“everlastingness,” as connoting ‘“ heavenliness ” or the kind of life that is proper to divinities. So, as the ‘‘spark divine” in man is the νοῦς, ἀθανασία is practically equivalent to pure νόησις. On the other hand, in the earlier parts of the discourse the word denotes only duration (ἀθάνατον elvat=del εἶναι).

xlvi INTRODUCTION

go thus to the Sophist—an evidently late dialogue—for an elucidation of the problem. A sufficient elucidation, as has been suggested, lies much nearer to hand, in the doctrine of the Phaedo and Phaedrus, It is merely perverse to attempt to isolate the doctrine of the Symposiwm from that of its natural fellows, or to assume that the teaching of Diotima is intended to be a complete exposition of the subject of immortality. ‘ Plato,” we do well to remember, ‘‘is not bound to say all he knows in every dialogue” ; and if, in the Symposium, he treats the subject from the point of view of the facts and possibilities of our earthly life, this must not be taken to imply that he has forgotten or surrendered the other point of view in which the soul is naturally immortal and possesses pre-existence as well as after-existence.

(6) The Problem of Beauty. A further point of interest in the latter section of this discourse is the different value attached to τὸ καλόν in the highest grade of love’s progress as compared with the lower grades. In the latter it appeared as merely a means to τόκος and thereby to ἀθανασία ; whereas in the former it seems to constitute in itself the final end. Horn, who notices this apparent reversal of the relations between these two concepts, explains it as due to the fact that in the highest grade Eros is supplanted by Dialectic, or “the philosophic impulse,” which alone gives cognition of the Idea. But if this be so, how are we to account for the use of the term τεκόντι in the concluding sentence, where the attainment of ἀθανασία is described as having for its pre-condition not merely τὸ ὁρᾶν but τὸ τεκεῖν] This is precisely parallel to the language elsewhere used of the action of Eros in the lower grades, and precludes the supposition that Eros ceases to be operant on the highest grade. The truth is rather that, in this final stage, the Eros that is operant is the Eros of pure vots— enthusiastic and prolific intellection, “the passion of the reason.” And the fact that τὸ καλόν in this stage is no longer subordinated to ἀθανασία as means to end of desire is to be explained by the fact that this ultimate κάλλος being Ideal is ἀθάνατον in itself, so that he who gains it thereby gains ἀθανασία.

That there are difficulties and obscurities of detail in this exposition of the concepts we have been considering may be freely admitted. But the line of doctrine, in its general trend, is clear enough, and quite in harmony with the main features of Platonic doctrine as expounded in other dialogues of the same (middle) period. Nor must the interpreter of the dialogue lose sight of the fact that he is dealing here not with the precise phrases of a professor of formal logic but with the

INTRODUCTION xlvii

inspired utterances of a prophetess, not with the dialectic of a Parmenides but with the hierophantic dogmata of the Symposium.

(c) Erosas Philosophy. The fact that Socrates himself is evidently presented in the dialogue as at once the exemplar of Philosophy and the living embodiment of Eros might be sufficient to indicate that the most essential result of the Socratic discussion of Eros is to show its ultimate identity with “the philosophic impulse.” Since, however, this identification has been sometimes denied, it may be well to indicate more particularly how far this leading idea as to the nature of Eros influences the whole trend of the discussion. We notice, to begin with, the stress laid on the midway condition of Eros, as son of Poros and Penia, between wisdom and ignorance, in virtue of which he is essentially a philosopher (φρονήσεως ἐπιθυμητὴς... φιλοσοφεῖ 203 Dff.). We notice next how the children of the soul (λόγοι περὶ ἀρετῆς) are pro- nounced superior in beauty to the children of the body (209c), and σοφία, we know, is one form of ἀρετή. Then, in the concluding section (210 a ff.) we find it expressly stated that κάλλος attaches to ἐπιστῆμαι (210 c), and that φιλοσοφία itself is the sphere in which the production of καλοὶ λόγοι is occasioned by the sight of τὸ πολὺ πέλαγος τοῦ καλοῦ. Thus it is clearly implied throughout the discussion that σοφία, as the highest division of ἀρετή (being the specific ἀρετή of νοῦς), is the highest and most essential form of τὸ ἀγαθόν for man; whence it follows that, if Eros be defined as “the craving for the good,” this implies in the first place the “craving for σοφία," which is but another way of stating ‘‘the philosophic impulse,” or in a word φιλοσοφία.

It must not be supposed, however, that in virtue of this identifica- tion the love-impulse (Eros) is narrowed and devitalised. For φιλοσοφία is not merely a matter of book-study, it is also a method of life and a system of education. In reaching the ultimate goal, which is the union of the finite with the infinite in the comprehension of the Idea, the man who is driven by the spirit of Eros passes through all the possible grades of experience in which Beauty plays a part; and from social and intellectual intercourse and study of every kind he enriches his soul. He does not begin and end with what is abstract and spiritual—with pure intellection ; nor does he begin and end with the lust after sensual beauty : like the Eros-daemon who is his genius, the true Erastes is οὔτε θηρίον οὔτε θεός, and his life is an anabasis from the concrete and the particular beauties of sense to the larger and more spiritual beauties of the mind.

Thus in its actual manifestation in life the Eros-impulse is far-

‘

xl viii INTRODUCTION

reaching. And, as already noticed, it is essentially propagative. The philosopher is not only a student, he is also, by the necessity of his nature, a teacher. This is a point of much importance in the eyes of Plato, the Head of the Academy: philosophy must be cultivated in a school of philosophy.

The significance of Eros, as thus conceived, has been finely expressed

( by Jowett (Plato τ. p. 532): ‘‘(Diotima) has taught him (Socr.) that

‘love is another aspect of philosophy. The same want in the human soul which is satisfied in the vulgar by the procreation of children, may ‘become the highest aspiration of intellectual desire. As the Christian might speak of hungering and thirsting after righteousness; or of divine loves under the figure of human (cp. Eph. v. 32); as the mediaeval saint might speak of the ‘fruitio Dei’; as Dante saw all things contained in his love of Beatrice, so Plato would have us absorb all other loves and desires in the love of knowledge. Here is the beginning of Neoplatonism, or rather, perhaps, a proof (of which there are many) that the so-called mysticism of the East was not strange to the Greek of the fifth century before Christ. The first tumult of the affections was not wholly subdued ; there were longings of a creature ‘moving about in worlds not realised,’ which no art could satisfy. To most men reason and passion appear to be antagonistic both in idea and fact. The union of the greatest comprehension of knowledge and the burning intensity of love is a contradiction in nature, which may have existed in a far-off primeval age in the mind of some Hebrew prophet or other Eastern sage, but has now become an imagination only. Yet this ‘passion of the reason’ is the theme of the Symposium of Plato.”

(d) Hrosas Religion. We thus see how to “ the prophetic tempera- ment” passion becomes blended with reason, and cognition with emotion. We have seen also how this passion of the intellect is regarded as essentially expansive and propagative. We have next to notice more particularly the point already suggested in the words quoted from Jowett—how, namely, this blend of passion and reason is accompanied by the further quality of religious emotion and awe. We are already prepared for finding our theme pass definitely into the atmosphere of religion not only by the fact that the instructress is herself a religious person bearing a significant name, but also by the semi-divine origin and by the mediatorial réle ascribed to Eros. When we come, then, to “the greater mysteries” we find the passion of the

1 See also J. Adam, Religious Teachers of Greece, pp. 396 f.

INTRODUCTION xlix

intellect passing into ἃ still higher feeling of the kind described by the Psalmist as “ thirst for God.” This change of atmosphere results from the new vision of the goal of Eros, no longer identified with any earthly object but with the celestial and divine Idea (αὐτοκαλόν). Thus the pursuit of beauty becomes in the truest sense a religious exercise, the efforts spent on beauty become genuine devotions, and the honours paid to beauty veritable oblations. By thus carrying up with her to the highest region of spiritual emotion both erotic passion and intellectual aspiration, Diotima justifies her character as a prophetess of the most high Zeus; while at the same time we find, in this theological passage of the Socratic Adyo the doctrine necessary at once to balance and to correct the passages in the previous λόγοι which had magnified Eros as an object of religious worship, a great and beneficent deity.

This side of Diotima’s philosophising, which brings into full light what we may call as we please either the erotic aspect of religion or the religious aspect of Eros, might be illustrated abundantly both from the writers of romantic love-poetry and from the religious mystics.” To a few such illustrations from obvious English sources I here confine myself. Sir Thos. Browne is platonizing when he writes (Rel. Med.) “ All that is truly amiable is of God, or as it were a divided piece of him that retains a reflex or shadow of himself.” Very similar is the thought expressed by Emerson in the words, “Into every beautiful object there enters something immeasurable and divine” ; and again, “all high beauty has a moral element in it.” “Emerson, too, supplies us with a description that might fitly be applied to the Socratic λόγοι of the Symposium, and indeed to Plato generally in his prophetic moods, when he defines “what is best in literature” to be “the affirming, prophesying, spermatic words of man-making poets.” To Sir Thos. Browne we may turn again, if we desire an illustration of that mental phase, so vividly portrayed by Diotima, in which enjoyment of the things eternal is mingled with contempt of things temporal. “If any have been so happy ’—so runs the twice-repeated sentence—“ as truly to understand Christian annihilation, ecstasies, exolution, lique- faction, transformation, the kiss of the spouse, gustation of God, and ingression into the divine shadow, they have already had an handsome anticipation of heaven ; the glory of the world is surely over, and the earth in ashes with them” (Hydriotaphia, ad fin.). A similar phase of feeling is eloquently voiced by Spenser more than once in his “Hymns.” Read, for instance, the concluding stanzas of the “ Hymne

] INTRODUCTION

of Heavenly Love” which tell of the fruits of devotion to the “loving Lord ” :—

“Then shalt thou feele thy spirit so possest, And ravisht with devouring great desire Of his deare self... That in no earthly thing thou shalt delight, But in his sweet and amiable sight. “Thenceforth all worlds desire will in thee dye, And all earthes glorie, on which men do gaze, Seeme durt and drosse in thy pure-sighted eye, Compar’d to that celestiall beauties blaze,... “Then shall thy ravisht soule inspired bee With heavenly thoughts farre above humane skil, And thy bright radiant eyes shall plainely see Th’ Idee of his pure glorie present still Before thy face, that all thy spirits shall fill With sweete enragement of celestiall love, Kindled through sight of those faire things above.”

From Plato, too, Spenser borrows the idea of the soul’s “ anabasis ” through lower grades of beauty to “the most faire, whereto they all do strive,” which he celebrates in his “‘ Hymne of Heavenly Beautie.” <A few lines of quotation must here suffice :

‘Beginning then below, with th’ easie vew Of this base world, subject to fleshly eye, From thence to mount aloft, by order dew, To contemplation of th’ immortal! sky....

“Thence gathering plumes of perfect speculation,

To impe the wings of thy high flying mynd,

Mount up aloft through heavenly contemplation,

From this darke world, whose damps the soule do blynd,

And, like the native brood of Eagles kynd,

On that bright Sunne of Glorie fixe thine eyes,

Clear’d from grosse mists of fraile infirmities.” These few “modern instances” may be sufficient to indicate in brief how the doctrines of Plato, and of the Symposium in special, have permeated the mind of Europe.

The doctrine of love in its highest grades is delivered, as we have seen, by the prophetess in language savouring of “the mysteries,” language appropriate to express a mystical revelation.

On the mind of a sympathetic reader, sensitive to literary nuances, Plato produces something of the effect of the mystic φέγγος by his τὸ πολὺ πέλαγος τοῦ καλοῦ and his ἐξαίφνης κατόψεταί τι θαυμαστὸν κτλ. Such phrases stir and transport one as “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” to heavenly places “which eye hath not seen nor ear heard” ;

INTRODUCTION li

they awake in us emotions similar to those which the first reading of Homer evoked in Keats :

“Then felt I like some watcher of the skies When a new planet swims into his ken; Or like stout Cortes when with eagle eyes He stared at the Pacific,,.Silent, upon a peak in Darien.”

—_

ὃν. ALCIBIADES AND HIS SPEECH.

Alcibiades was about 34 years old at this time (416 B.c.), and at the height of his reputation’. The most brilliant party-leader in Athens, he was a man of great intellectual ability and of remarkable personal beauty, of which he was not a little vain. It was, ostensibly at least, because of his beauty that Socrates posed as his “erastes”; while Alcibiades, on his side, attempted to inflame the supposed passion of Socrates and displayed jealousy whenever his “erastes” showed a tendency to woo the favour of rival beauties such as Agathon. Other indications of Alcibiades’ character and position which are given in the dialogue show him to us as a man of wealth, an important and popular figure in the smart society of his day, full of ambition for social and political distinction, and not a little influenced, even against his better judgment, by the force of public opinion and the on dit of his set. With extraordinary naiveté and frankness he exposes his own moral infirmity, and proves how applicable to his case is the confession of the Latin poet, “video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.” He is guilt- less, as he says, of pudency, nor would ever have known the meaning of the word “shame” (αἰσχύνη) had it not been for Socrates.

Yet, totally lacking in virtue though he be, the Alcibiades of the Symposium is a delightful, even an attractive and lovable person. Although actually a very son of Belial, we feel that potentially he is little short of a hero and a saint. And that because he possesses the capacity for both understanding and loving Socrates; and to love Socrates is to love the Ideal. Nominally it is Socrates who is the lover of Alcibiades, but as the story developes we see that the converse is more near the truth: Alcibiades is possessed with a consuming passion, an intense and persistent infatuation for Socrates. And in

1 “The character of Alcibiades, who is the same strange contrast of great powers and great vices which meets us in history, is drawn to the life” (Jowett, Plato 1. p. 526).

lii INTRODUCTION

the virtue of this “eros” we find something that more than outweighs his many vices: it acts as the charity that “covers a multitude of sins,”

The speech of Alcibiades, in spite of its resemblance in tone to a satyric drama composed under the influence of the Wine-god, fulfils a serious purpose—the purpose of vindicating the memory of Socrates from slanderous aspersions and setting in the right light his relations with Alcibiades. And as a means to this end, the general theme of the dialogue, Eros, is cleverly taken up and employed, as will be shown in a later section®.

In regard to style and diction the following points may be noticed. In the disposition and arrangement there is a certain amount of confusion and incoherence. Alcibiades starts with a double parable, but fails—as he confesses—to work out his comparisons with full precision and with logical exactitude. This failure is only in keeping with his rdle as a devotee of Dionysus.

Frequency of similes: 2164 ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τῶν Σειρήνων: 2174 τὸ τοῦ δηχθέντος... πάθος: 318 Β κεκοινωνήκατε... βακχείας.

Elliptical expressions: 215 a,c; 2168, »,Ε; 2200, Ὁ; 2210, 2228,

Anacolutha: 211π| 218.

§ vi. Tue Order anp ConNEXxION OF THE SPEECHES.

Disregarding the introductory and concluding scenes and looking at the rest of the dialogue as a whole, we see that it falls most naturally into three main divisions, t/ree Acts as we might call them. In the First Act are comprised all the first five discourses; the Second, and central, Act contains the whole of the deliverances of Socrates; the Third Act consists of Alcibiades’ encomium of Socrates’. We have to consider, accordingly, how each of these Acts is related to the others; and further, in regard to the first, we have to investigate the relative significance of each of its five sub-divisions or scenes.

1. The first five speeches and their relative significance. Plato’s own opinion of the earlier speeches appears clearly enough in the criticism which he puts in the mouth of Socrates (198 p ff.).

1 See Introd. § ii. (A) ad fin.; and Gomperz, G. T. τι. pp. 394 ff.

2 See Introd. § vi. 3, where some details of the way in which Alcib. echoes the language of the earlier speakers will be found.

3 Rettig and von Sybel make the First Act conclude with Arist.’s speech, and the Second Act begin with Agathon’s: but that this is a perverse arrangement is well shown by I’. Horn, Platonst. p. 254 (ep. Zeller, Symp.).

INTRODUCTION lili

Although that criticism is aimed primarily at the discourse of Agathon, it obviously applies, in the main, to the whole series of which his discourse formed the climax. Instead of endeavouring to ascertain and state the truth about the object of their encomia—such is the gist of Socrates’ criticism—the previous speakers had heaped up their praises regardless of their applicability to that object (198 & ad init.). ‘What they considered was not facts but appearances (ὅπως ἐγκωμιάζειν δόξει); consequently they described both the nature of Eros and the effects of his activity in such terms as to make him appear—in the eyes of the unsophisticated—supremely good and beautiful, drawing upon every possible source (198 E-—199 a). It thus seems clear that Plato intends us to regard all the first five am speeches as on the same level, in so far as all alike possess the common defect of aiming at appearance only (δόξα), not at reality (ἀλήθεια), in ‘virtue of which no one of them can claim to rank as a scientific contribution (ἐπιστήμη) to the discussion. The relative order of the first five speeches. The question as to the principle upon which the order and arrangement: of these speeches depends is an interesting one and has given rise to some controversy.

(2) It has been suggested (e.g. by Rétscher) that the speeches are arranged in the order of ascending importance, beginning with that of Phaedrus, which is generally admitted to be the slightest and most superficial, and proceeding gradually upwards till the culminating point is reached in the speech of Agathon’. This view, however, is untenable in the face of the obvious fact that Agathon’s speech is in no real sense the best or most important of the series; rather, from the point of view of Socrates, it is the worst. The fact that each speaker commences his oration by a critique of his predecessor might seem, at first sight, to lend some colour to the view that each was actually making some improvement, some advance; but this preliminary critique is plainly nothing more than a rhetorical trick of method’®.

(Ὁ) Steinhart? would arrange the speeches in pairs, distinguishing each pair from the others according to the special spheres of the activity of Eros with which they deal. Phaedrus and Pausanias deal with the

1 Cp. Susemihl, Genet. Entwick. ἃ. plat. Phil. p. 407: ‘So bildet denn der Vortrag des Sokrates den eigentlichen theoretischen Mittelpunkt des Werkes, die iibrigen aber mit dem Alkibiades eine aufsteigende Stufenreihe.”’

2 Observe also how, in 193 5, Eryx. characterizes the first four speeches as πολλὰ Kal παντοδαπά, ‘motley and heterogeneous.”

3 Similarly Deinhardt, Uber Inhalt von Pl. Symp.

liv INTRODUCTION

ethical sphere; Eryximachus and Aristophanes with the physical ; Agathon and Socrates with the higher spiritual sphere.

This scheme, however, is no less artificial, although it contains some elements of truth; and a sufficient ground for rejecting it lies in the fact that the speech of Socrates cannot be classed along with the other five’.

(c) Hug’s view is that the speeches are arranged from the aesthetic, rather than the logical, point of view, in groups of two each. The second speech in each of the groups is, he holds, richer in content than the first; and the groups themselves are arranged with a view to contrast and variety. But here again, little seems gained by the device of pair-grouping; and the development within the groups is obscure. Hug, however, is no doubt correct in recognizing that the arrangement of the speeches is governed mainly, if not entirely, by artistic considerations, and with a view to literary effect; and that an artistic effect depends largely upon the presence of variety and of contrast is beyond dispute.

(ὦ Any satisfactory explanation of the order in which the speeches are arranged must be based upon the internal indications supplied by the dialogue itself.

The first inference to be drawn from such indications is this: the speech of Socrates must be left to stand by itself, and cannot be grouped with any one of the first five speeches?. This is made quite evident by the tone of the whole interlude (198 a—199c) which divides Agathon’s discourse from that of Socrates, and in special by the definite expression οὐ yap ἔτι ἐγκωμιάζω τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.. ἀλλὰ τά

1 Cp. Jowett (Plato τ. p. 527): ‘‘The speeches have been said to follow each other in pairs....But these and similar distinctions are not found in Plato; they are the points of view of his critics, and seem to impede rather than to assist us in understanding him.” This is sensibly observed; still, Jowett is inclined to dismiss the matter too lightly. I may add that, while from the artistic point of view it is absurd to class together the speeches of Arist. and Eryx., there is a certain con- nexion of thought between the two, in their common relation to physiological theories, and so far we may allow that Steinhart points in the right direction (see § iii, 4, above).

2 Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 256): ‘‘ The successive speeches...contribute in various degrees to the final result; they are all designed to prepare the way for Socrates, who gathers up the threads anew, and skims the highest points of each of them. But they are not to be regarded as the stages of an idea, rising above one another to a climax. They are fanciful, partly facetious, performances..,.All of them are rhetorical and poetical rather than dialectical, but glimpses of truth appear in them.” This is well said.

INTRODUCTION lv

ye ἀληθῆ... ἐθέλω εἰπεῖν κατ᾽ ἐμαυτόν, οὐ πρὸς τοὺς ὑμετέρους λόγους (199 a—s): these last words should finally settle the matter.

We are thus left with five speeches, not six; and this of itself might be enough to show that a division into pair-groups is not feasible. And when we ‘further examine the internal indications, the arbitrary character of any such grouping becomes yet more obvious. For although the first two speeches possess a good deal in common, and were, apparently, confounded together by Xenophon, the method of grouping them in one pair tends to obscure the great difference between them in point of substance, style, and general ability of statement, and to obscure also the fact that a number of other discourses intervened between these two (μετὰ δὲ Φαῖδρον ἄλλους twas εἶναι 180c). The express mention of this last fact is a land-mark not to be ignored.

Moreover, while this distinction is marked between the first speech and the second, there are internal indications which point to a special connexion between the third and the second. Eryximachus starts from the same assumption (the duality of Eros) as Pausanias; and, moreover, he expressly states that his speech is intended to supplement that of Pausanias (186 a ad init.). Furthermore, we find Aristophanes classing together these two (189 0c).

As regards the fourth discourse (Aristophanes’), we are forbidden by similar internal indications to class it along with any of the pre- ceding discourses. Although much of its point lies in its allusiveness to Eryximachus’ theories, Aristophanes himself expressly emphasizes the difference between his speech and the others (189 c, 193 Ὁ); and indeed it is evident to the most cursory inspection. Nor is it possible, without reducing the group-system to the level of an unmeaning artifice, to pair the speech of Aristophanes with that of Agathon, which follows next inorder. The only ground for such a grouping would be the purely fortuitous and external fact that both the speakers are professional poets: in style and substance the two speeches lie leagues apart, while not even an incidental connexion of any kind is hinted at in the text.

The reason for the position of the fifth discourse (Agathon’s) is not hard to discover. Once the general plan of the dialogue, as consisting of three Acts, with the discourse of Socrates for the central Act, was fixed in the author’s mind, it was inevitable, on artistic grounds, that Agathon’s oration should be set in the closest juxtaposition with that of Socrates,—in other words, at the close of the first Act. This dis- position is already pointed to in the introductory incident, where Agathon promises to engage in a match “concerning wisdom” with

lvi INTRODUCTION

Socrates (175 £); and we have another indication of it at the very opening of the dialogue, where Glaucon in speaking of the banqueters mentions these three names only—Agathon, Socrates, Alcibiades (172.4). If then, for the purpose of the dialogue as a whole, Agathon is the most important of the first five speakers, it is essential that his discourse should form the climax of the series, and stand side by side with that of Socrates his rival, to point the contrast.

This gives us one fixed point. Another fixed point is the first speech: once Phaedrus has been designated πατὴρ τοῦ λόγου, the primary inventor of the theme’, the task of initiating the series can scarcely fall to other hands than his. Why the three intermediate discourses are placed in their present order is not so clear. Considera- tions of variety and contrast count for something, and it may be noticed that the principle of alternating longer and shorter speeches is observed®, Similarity in method of treatment counts for something too ; and from this point of view we can see that the order Phaedrus— Pausanias—Eryximachus is more natural than the order Phaedrus— Eryximachus—Pausanias ; since the middle speech of Pausanias has some points in common with both the others, whereas the speech of Eryximachus has practically nothing in common with that of Phaedrus. Granting, then, that on grounds at once of continuity and of variety of extent these three speeches may most artistically be set in their present order, and granting, further, that the proper place for Agathon’s speech is the last of the series, the only vacant place left for the speech of Aristophanes is the fourth. Although it is a speech sui generis, possessing nothing in common with that of Agathon, yet the mere fact of the juxtaposition of the two famous poets is aesthetically pleasing; while a delightful variation is secured by the interposition of a splendid grotesque which, alike in style and in substance, affords so signal a contrast both to the following and to the preceding speeches*. More-

1 That he is so designated may be due, as Crain thinks, to the desire to connect this dialogue with the Phaedrus.

2 The comparative lengths of the speeches, counted by pages of the Oxford text, are roughly these: Phaedrus 3 pp.; Paus. 64; Eryx. 32; Arist. 6; Agathon 4; Socr. (a) 3, (b) 144; Ale. 94. Thus, in round numbers, the total of the first five speeches comes to 23 pp., which very nearly balances the 24 pp. occupied by Soer. (6) and Alcib.

3 Jowett explains (Plato 1. p. 530) that the transposition of the speeches of Arist. and Eryx. is made “ partly to avoid monotony, partly for the sake of making Aristophanes ‘the cause of wit in others,’ and also in order to bring the comic and tragic poet into juxtaposition, as if by accident.” No doubt these considerations count for something, but, as I have already tried to show, there is another and a deeper reason for the transposition (see § iii. 4).

INTRODUCTION lvii

over, as is elsewhere shown, Aristophanes handles his theme with special reference to the medical theorists of whom Eryximachus is a type.

The first five speakers are all actual historical personages, not mere lay figures. None the less, we must recognize the probability that Plato is not literally true, in all details, to historical facts but, choosing his characters with a view to scenic effect, adapts their personalities to suit the requirements of his literary purpose. That is to say, we probably ought to regard these persons less as individuals than as types, and their speeches less as characteristic utterances of the individual speakers than as the expressions of well-marked tendencies in current opinion. The view proposed by Sydenham, approved by Schleiermacher, and developed by Riickert’, that under the disguise of the personages named other and more important persons were aimed at by Plato probably goes too far. It is true that some of the traits of Gorgias are reproduced in Agathon, and some of those of Isocrates in Pausanias ; but where is the alter ego of Aristophanes to be found? Nor, in fact, was Plato at any time much concerned to attack individuals as such: the objects of his satire were rather the false tendencies and the tricks ef style which belonged to certain sets and schools of rhetors and writers. And here in the Symposium his purpose seems to be to exhibit the general results of sophistic teaching in various contemporary circles at Athens; which purpose would be obscured were we to identify any of the characters of the dialogue with non-Attic personages.

The five intellectual types of which Plato here presents us with studied portraits are distinct, yet all the five are merely species of one and the same genus, inasmuch as all represent various phases of un- grounded opinion (δόξα), and inasmuch as all alike, in contrast to the philosopher Socrates, are men of wnphilosophic mind’.

2. The relation of the speech of Socrates to the first five speeches. The speech of Socrates, as we have seen, stands in contrast not only to the speech of Agathon but also to the whole series of which

1 Riickert makes the following identifications; Phaedrus=Tisias; Pausanias = Protagoras or Xenophon; Eryximachus = Hippias; Aristophanes = Prodicus ; Agathon=Gorgias. Jowett (Plato τ. p. 529) says of Pausanias: ‘‘ his speech might have been composed by a pupil of Lysias or of Prodicus, although there is no hint given that Plato is specially referring to them.” Sydenham supposed that Phaedrus stands for Lysias.

2 So Resl, Verhéilinis, etc., p. 31: “4116 diese fiinf Reden eine breite Basis, fast auf demselben Niveau stehend, bilden sollen fiir die spiter folgenden Reden des Sokrates und Alkibiades.”

B. P. 6

1ν 1 INTRODUCTION

Agathon’s speech forms the climax and conclusion; since all of them alike are tainted with the same vice of sophistry. We have now to examine this contrast in detail.

(a) Socrates v. Phaedrus. Phaedrus had declared Eros to be μέγας θεὸς καὶ θαυμαστός (1784): Socrates, on the contrary, argues that Eros is no θεός but a δαίμων (202c ff.). Phaedrus had relied for his proofs on ancient tradition (τεκμήριον δὲ τούτου κτλ,, 178 B; ὁμολογεῖται, 178 c): Socrates bases his argument on dialectic, and on the conclusions of pure reason (Diotima being Reason personified). Phaedrus had ascribed the noble acts of Alcestis and Achilles to the working of sensual Eros (1798 ff.): Socrates ascribes the same acts to a more deeply seated desire—that for everlasting fame (ὑπὲρ ἀρετῆς ἀθανάτου κτλ., 208 D)':

(b) Socrates v. Pausanias. Pausanias had distinguished two kinds of Eros—Uranios and Pandemos (180 p—z): Socrates, on the other hand, treats Eros as a unity which comprises in its single nature opposite qualities (202 Β, 208 ὁ ff.); further, he shows that an apparent duality in the nature of Eros is to be explained as due to a confusion between Eros as genus (= Desire) and Eros in the specific sense of sex-passion (205 B ff.).

Pausanias had argued that sensual Eros, of the higher kind, is a thing of value in social and political life as a source of ἀρετή and ἀνδρεία (182 B—c, 184 D—r, 185 Β)": Socrates shows that the produc- tion of ἀρετή in the sphere of politics and law is due to an Eros which aims at begetting offspring of the soul for the purpose of securing an immortality of fame (209 4 ff, 209p)*%. And Socrates shows further that for the true Eros τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι καὶ τοῖς νόμοις καλόν (210 σ) is ποῦ the τέλος. Lastly, the connexion between Eros (in the form of παιδεραστία) with φιλοσοφία which had been merely hinted at by Pausanias in 182c, and superficially treated in 182 p—z, is ex- plained at length by Socrates.

' This is the point noticed by Jowett (Plato 1. p, 531): ‘From Phaedrus he (Socr.) takes the thought that love is stronger than death.”

2 Cp. Jowett (Plato τ. p. 531): ‘‘ From Pausanias (Socr. takes the thought) that the true love is akin to intellect and political activity.”

3 Gomperz (G. T, 11. Ὁ. 396), ἃ propos of his view that Plato is thinking of his παιδικά Dion in Symp., writes: ‘ they were busy with projects of political and social regeneration, which the philosopher hoped he might one day realise by the aid of the prince. On this view there is point and pertinence in that otherwise irrelevant mention of legislative achievement among the fruits of the love-bond.” The sugges- tion is interesting, but the relevance does not depend upon its being true: Plato, in any cause, taught politics.

INTRODUCTION lix

(c) Socrates v. Eryximachus. Eryximachus, following Pausanias, had adopted the assumption of the duality of Eros: this Socrates denies (202 8).

Eryximachus had extended the sphere of influence of Eros so as to include the whole of nature (the objects of medicine, music, astronomy, religion) : Socrates shows that the Eros-instinct affects animals as well as men (207 A)—as equally included under the head of θνητά (207 D),— and he ascribes to the Fros-daemon the mediation between gods and men and the control of the whole sphere of religion; but he confines his treatment in the main to the narrower subject of Eros proper as concerned with humanity’.

(d) Socrates v. Aristophanes. Aristophanes had defined Eros as “the desire and pursuit of wholeness” (rod ὅλου τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ διώξει ἔρως ὄνομα 192 B: cp. 192 Β ὅταν... ἐντύχῃ τῷ αὑτοῦ ἡμίσει) : Socrates corrects this by showing that wholeness, or one’s other half, is only sought when it is good (οὔτε ἡμίσεος εἶναι τὸν ἔρωτα οὔτε ὅλον ἐὰν py... ἀγαθὸν ὃν 205 5"). Both, however, agree in maintaining the negative position that Eros is not simply the desire for 9 τῶν ἀφροδισίων συνουσία (192 c).

(e) Socrates v. Agathon. The strictly dialectical part of Socrates’ speech (199 c—201 c), which takes the form of a cross-questioning of Agathon, consists, in the main, of a hostile critique and refutation of his speech. But in some few particulars Socrates indicates his agree- ment with statements made by Agathon. We may, therefore, sum- marize thus :—

(1) Points of Agreement: Socrates approves (199 0) of the rule of method laid down by Agathon (195 a) and of the distinction it implies (201 p ad fin.). Agathon stated the object of Eros to be the beautiful (197 B): Socrates adopts and developes this statement (201 a). Agathon ascribed ἀνδρεία to Eros (196 c—p): so does Socrates (203 p’).

1 Jt is hardly correct to say with Jowett (Plato τ. p. 531) that “ from Eryximachus Socrates takes the thought that love is a universal phenomenon and the great power of nature’’: this statement requires limitation.

2 It may be observed, however, that while the Platonic Socrates is here simply in contradiction to Arist., the idea of a “fall” from a primeval state of perfection which underlies the myth of Arist. is very similar to the view put forth by Plato in the Phaedrus and elsewhere that the earthly life of the soul involves a “ fall” from its pristine state of purity in a super-terrestrial sphere. And in both Eros is the impulse towards restoration: to achieve communion with the Idea is to regain τὸ οἰκεῖον, τὸ ὅλον, ἡ ἀρχαία φύσις (193 D).

3 Another “glimpse of truth” which appears in A.’s speech is thus indicated by

e2

«

Ix INTRODUCTION

(2) Points of Difference: Agathon’s Eros is κάλλιστος καὶ ἄριστος (197 c): Socrates makes out Eros to be οὔτε καλὸς οὔτε ἀγαθός (201 5). In particular Socrates denies that Eros is σοφός (203 & f.), or ἁπαλός (203 c), as Agathon (196 Ef. 195 c, Ὁ) had affirmed. Agathon had assumed Eros to be θεός (194 ΕΒ, e¢ passim): this Socrates corrects (202 3 ff, τ).

Agathon, like the rest, in his lavish laudations had confused Eros with the object of love (τὸ ἐρώμενον, τὸ ἐραστόν) ; whereas Socrates points out that Eros is to be identified rather with the subject (τὸ ἐρῶν, τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν, 204 ο).

3. The relation of Alcibiades’ speech to the rest.

(a) The speech of Alcibiades is related to that of Socrates “as Praxis to Theory.” Its main purpose is to present to us a vivid portrait of Socrates as the perfect exemplar of Eros (ὃ τελέως ἐρωτικός) ; and thus to compel us to acknowledge that in the living Socrates we have before us both a complete giAdcodos—even as Eros is φιλοσο- φῶν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου (203 D),—and a δαιμόνιος dvijp—even as Eros is a δαίμων. In addition to this main purpose, the speech serves the secondary purpose of vindicating the master against the charge of indulging in impure relations with his disciples (see § ii. a ad jin.).

But the language of Alcibiades echoes not only that of Socrates, in part, but also, in part, that of the earlier encomiasts of Eros. And this is due to the fact that Socrates—the Eros of Alcibiades—plays a double réle; he is both ὁ ἐρώμενος and 6 ἐρῶν. This ambiguity of the Socratic nature is already implied in the comparisons with satyrs and Sileni made by Alcibiades, which point to a character that is ἐραστός, however ἐνδεής in outward appearance. We may therefore tabulate the more detailed points of inter-relation as follows :—

(a) The Evos of the ἐραστής (as exhibit- Socrates as ἐραστής (his outward ap- ing ἔνδεια), Socrates’ encomiun, pearance of ἔνδεια) in Alcibiades’ en- comium.

203 p ἐπίβουλός ἐστι τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ τος 2130 διεμηχανήσω ὅπως παρὰ τῷ Kad-

ἀγαθοῖς.. ἀεί τινας πλέκων μηχανάς. λίστῳ.. κατακείσῃ. 208 ο φύσει ἐραστὴς ὧν περὶ τὸ καλόν. 216 Ὁ Σωκράτης ἐρωτικῶς διάκειται τῶν καλῶν.

Jowett (Plato τ. p. 526): ‘‘ When Agathon says that no man ‘can be wronged of his own free will,’ he is alluding playfully to a serious problem of Greek philosophy (ep. Arist. Nic, Ethics, v. 9)”: see Symp. 1000 ad init, But, so far as I see, no reference is made to this point by Socrates,

1 Hug, p. lxvii. .

INTRODUCTION ‘xi

220 B ἀνυπόδητος... ἐπορεύετο. 220 d εἱστήκει μέχρι ἕως ἐγένετο (with the

203 » ἀνυπόδητος καὶ dotkos, χαμαιπετὴς ἀεὶ ὧν καὶ ἄστρωτος.. ὑπαίθριος κοιμώ-

μενος. context), 203 D φρονήσεως ἐπιθυμητής. 220.¢ ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ φροντίζων τι ἕστηκε (cp. 1140 ff.).

203 » δεινὸς γόης καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σο- φιστής.. -πόριμος.. ὅταν εὐπορήσῃ. 209 Β εὐθὺς εὐπορεῖ λόγων περὶ ἀρετῆς.

215 ο ff. κηλεῖ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (κατέχει, ἐκπλήττει), κτλ, 223 4 εὐπόρως καὶ πιθανὸν λόγον ηὗρεν.

It will be noticed that in this list the passages which find responsions in the language of Alcibiades are all drawn from the discourse of Socrates. This is due to the fact that it is his discourse alone, of the earlier encomia, which treats "Epws on the side of its ἔνδεια. The previous speakers had, as we have seen, regarded Ἔρως as altogether lovely, ze. as τὸ ἐρώμενον. Accordingly, it is to the next list of parallels that we must look for the passages where Alcibiades echoes

their sentiments.

(8) "Epws-épduevos as κάλλιστος καὶ ἄριστος in the earlier encomia. (1) Courage. 178 5 (Phaedrus) στρατόπεδον ἐραστῶν οὐ μαχόμενοί γ᾽ ἂν νικῷεν, κτλ. 197» (Agathon) ἐν πόνῳ ἐν φόβῳ... παραστάτης τε καὶ σωτὴρ ἄριστος. 208 p (Socrates) ἀνδρεῖος ὧν καὶ trys καὶ σύντονος.

(2) Temperance. 196 σ (Agathon) ὁ "Epws διαφερόντως ἃν

σωφρονοῖ.

(3) Complete virtue. 196 D περὶ μὲν οὖν δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφρο- σύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας τοῦ θεοῦ εἴρηται, περὶ δὲ σοφίας λείπεται.

(4) Admirableness.

1808 (Phaedrus) οἱ θεοὶ...μᾶλλον θαυμά- fovow καὶ ἄγανται. «ὅταν ὁ ἐρώμενος (e.g. Achilles) τὸν ἐραστὴν ἀγαπᾷ, κτλ.

197 p (Agathon) θεατὸς σοφοῖς, ἀγαστὸς θεοῖς.

210 5 (Socrates) κατόψεταί τι θαυμαστὸν τὴν φύσιν καλόν.

(5) Inspiration of a sense of honour. 178 p (Phaedrus) (ὁ ἔρως ἐμποιεῖ) τὴν ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς αἰσχροῖς αἰσχύνην.

Socrates as the embodiment of "Epws- ἐρώμενος in Alcibiades’ encomium.

2208 Srt...puyy ἀνεχώρει τὸ στρατόπεδον, κτλ.

2208 συνδιέσωσε.. «αὐτὸν ἐμέ.

221 8 μάλα ἐρρωμένως ἀμυνεῖται.

219 Ε τοῖς πόνοις...ἐμοῦ περιῆν, κτλ.

220 Ε ἐκέλευον σοι διδόναι τἀριστεῖα.

210» πόσης οἴεσθε γέμει...σωφροσύνης;

219 D ἀγάμενον..«σωφροσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν els φρόνησιν καὶ εἰς καρτερίαν.

219 D ἀγάμενον τὴν τούτου φύσιν, κτλ. 2210 Soer., as οὐδενὶ ὅμοιος, is superior to Achilles.

220 Ε ἄξιον ἣν θεάσασθαι Σωκράτη.

2108 τὰ ἐντὸς ἀγάλματα... .εἶδον...πάγκαλα καὶ θαυμαστά.

2168 ἐγὼ δὲ τοῦτον μόνον αἰσχύνομαι.

ἸΧῚΙ

(6) Indifference to personal beauty. 210 8 (Socrates) ἑνὸς δὲ (τὸ κἀλλοΞ)

καταφρονήσαντα, κτλ. (cp. 210 pv, 211 8).

(7) Fruitfulness, 210 ὁ (Socrates) τίκτειν Adyous.,.ofrwes

ποιήσονσι βελτίους τοὺς νέους (cp. 210 p).

212 4 τίκτειν οὐκ εἴδωλα ἀρετῆς... ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῆ.

209 B εὐπορεῖ λόγων περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ οἷον χρὴ εἶναι τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἀγαθόν (cp. 185 B πολλὴν ἐπεμέλειαν.. -πρὸς ἀρε- τήν).

210 D καλοὺς λόγους...τίκτῃ...ἐν φιλοσο- φίᾳ ἀφθόνῳ.

(8) Range of Influence. 1865 (Eryximachus) ἐπὶ πᾶν ὁ θεὸς τείνει. 210} (Socrates) ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ πέλαγος

INTRODUCTION

219 0 ἐμοῦ... κατεφρόνησεν καὶ κατεγέλασεν τῆς ἐμῆς ὥρας.

222 a (τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει) θειοτάτους καὶ πλεῖστα ἀγάλματα ἀρετῆς ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχοντας καὶ.. τείνοντας... ἐπὶ πᾶν ὅσον προσήκει σκοπεῖν τῷ μέλλοντι καλῷ κἀ- γαθῷ ἔσεσθαι (cp. 218D ὡς ὅτι βέλτιστον γενέσθαι).

218. δηχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων.

222 (τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει) ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τείνοντας, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπὶ πᾶν, κτλ.

«τοῦ καλοῦ.

The foregoing lists contain, I believe, most if not all of the passages in which Alcibiades, describing Socrates, uses phrases which definitely echo the language or repeat the thought of the earlier encomiasts. When one considers the number of these “responsions” and the natural way in which they ave introduced, one is struck at once both with the elaborate technique of Plato and, still more, with the higher art which so skilfully conceals that technique. For all its appearance of spontaneity, a careful analysis and comparison prove that the encomium by Alcibiades is a very carefully wrought piece of work in which every phrase has its significance, every turn of expression its bearing on the literary effect of the dialogue as a whole. Moreover, ag we are now to see, the list of parallels already given by no means exhausts the ‘“responsions” offered by Alcibiades.

(b) The speech of Alcibiades, although primarily concerned with Socrates, is also, in a secondary degree, concerned with Alcibiades himself. And Alcibiades, like Socrates, plays a double part: he is at once the παιδικά of Socrates the ἐραστής, and the ἐραστής of Socrates the ἐρώμενος. In his role of ἐραστής Alcibiades exhibits a spirit very similar to that described in the earlier speeches, in which every display of erotic passion is regarded as excusable if not actually commendable, We may call attention to the following echoes :—

INTRODUCTION

218 a πᾶν ἐτόλμα δρᾶν τε καὶ λέγειν.

219 Ε ἠπόρουν δὴ καταδεδουλωμένος.

218 D ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστι πρεσβύτερον τοῦ ὡς ὅτι βέλτιστον ἐμὲ γενέσθαι. τούτου δὲ οἶμαί μοι συλλήπτορα οὐδένα κυριώ- τερον εἶναι σοῦ. ἐγὼ δὴ τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ... ἂν μὴ χαριζόμενος αἰσχυνοίμην τοὺς φρονίμους.

218 ν εἵπερ...τις ἔστ᾽ ἐν ἐμοὶ δύναμις δι᾽ ἧς ἂν σὺ γένοιο ἀμείνων.

222 B ods οὗτος ἐξαπατῶν ὡς ἐραστὴς παι- δικὰ.. «μὴ ἐξαπατᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τούτου.

217 c ὥσπερ ἐραστὴς παιδικοῖς ἐπιβουλεύων Ὁ. αὖθις δ᾽ ἐπιβουλεύσας.

219 B ταῦτα,. ἀφεὶς ὥσπερ βέλη. 2198 ὑπὸ τὸν τρίβωνα κατακλινεὶς τὸν

τουτουί, περιβαλὼν τὼ χεῖρε... κατεκεί- μὴν τὴν νύκτα ὅλην.

215 pv ἐκπεπληγμένοι ἐσμὲν καὶ κατεχό- μεθα.

219 v οὔθ᾽... εἶχον (ὅπως) ἀποστερηθείην τῆς τούτου συνουσίας.

221 a παρακελεύομαί τε αὐτοῖν θαρρεῖν, καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι οὐκ ἀπολείψω αὐτώ,

lxiii

1825 (Pausanias) θαυμαστὰ ἔργα ἐργα- ζομένῳ.. «ποιεῖν οἷάπερ οἱ ἐρασταὶ πρὸς τὰ παιδικὰ, κτλ.

184 ο (Paus.) ἐάν τις ἐθέλῃ τινὰ θεραπεύειν ἡγούμενος δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἀμείνων ἔσεσθαι... αὕτη αὖ ἡ ἐθελοδουλεία οὐκ αἰσχρά.

1848 τότε δὴ.. συμπίπτει τὸ καλὸν εἶναι παιδικὰ ἐραστῇ χαρίσασθαι.

1868 πᾶν πάντως γε καλὸν ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα χαρίζεσθαι.

184» ὁ μὲν δυνάμενος εἰς... ἀρετὴν συμ- βάλλεσθαι.

184 ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ ἐξαπατηθῆναι οὐδὲν αἰσχρόν. ‘ 185 B καλὴ ἡ ἀπάτη.

203 ν (Socrates) ἐπίβουλός ἐστι (ὁ “Epws) τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ ἀγαθοῖς.

203 ν (Soer.) θηρευτὴς δεινός.

191 & ff. (Aristoph.) χαίρουσι συγκατακεί- μενοι καὶ συμπεπλεγμένοι τοῖς ἀνδράσι... οὐ γὰρ ὑπ’ ἀναισχυντίας τοῦτο δρῶσιν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ θάρρους... ἀποβαίνουσιν els τὰ πολιτικὰ ἄνδρες οἱ τοιοῦτοι.

192 5 (Aristoph.) θαυμαστὰ ἐκπλήττονται φιλίᾳ... καὶ ἔρωτι, οὐκ ἐθέλοντες... «χωρίς ζεσθαι ἀλλήλων οὐδὲ σμικρὸν "χρόνον.

179.4 (Phaedrus) ἐγκαταλιπεῖν γε τὰ παιδικὰ ἢ μὴ βοηθῆσαι κινδυνεύοντι, οὐδεὶς οὕτω κακὸς, κτλ.

Since in this list echoes are found of the only two earlier

encomiasts who were not represented in the former lists (viz. Pausanias and Aristophanes), it will be seen that the speech of Alcibiades con- tains references, more or less frequent, to sentiments and sayings expressed by every one of the previous speakers. It is chiefly in his description of himself that Alcibiades echoes the language of the first five speakers, and in his description of Socrates that he echoes the language of Socrates. The general impression made on the mind of the reader who attends to the significance of the facts might be summed up briefly in the form of a proportion: as Alcibiades is to Socrates in point of practical excellence and truth, so are the first five speeches to the discourse of Socrates-Diotima in point of theoretical truth and excellence. But while this is, broadly speaking, true of the

Ixiv INTRODUCTION

inner nature (φύσις, τὰ ἔνδον) of Socrates as contrasted with that of Alcibiades, we must bear in mind that in his outward appearance (σχήμα) Socrates is “conformed to this world” and, posing as an erastes of a similar type to Alcibiades himself, serves to illustrate the theories and sentiments of the earlier speeches.

Lastly, attention may be drawn to one other parallel in Alcibiades’ discourse which appears to have passed unnoticed hitherto, It can scarcely be a mere coincidence that Alcibiades’ progress in erotics—in other words, “the temptation of saint” Socrates—is marked by a series of stages (συνουσία, συγγυμνασία, συνδειπνεῖν, 217 a ff.) until it reaches its climax in συγκεῖσθαι, and that a similar ἄνοδος by gradual stages (210 a ff, 211 c ff.) up to the final communion with Ideal Beauty had been described as the characteristic method of the true erastes. It seems reasonable to suppose that the method of false love is designedly represented as thus in detail contrasting with, and as it were caricaturing, the method of true love: for thereby an added emphasis is laid upon the latter.

§ viii Tur DraLoaue As A WHOLE: ITs Scope ΑΝῸ Desten.

No small degree of attention has been paid by the expositors of our dialogue to the question regarding its main purport—“ de universi operis consilio.” It is plausibly argued that there must be some one leading thought, some fundamental idea, which serves ta knit together its various parts and to furnish it with that “unity” which should belong to it as an artistic whole. But wherein this leading idea consists has been matter of controversy. Some, like Stallbaum, are content to adopt the simplest and most obvious view that Eros is the central idea, and that the design of the whole is to establish a doctrine of Eros. Others, again, have supposed that Plato was mainly concerned to furnish his readers with another specimen of the right method of handling philosophical problems. But although either of these views, or both combined, might be thought to supply an adequate account of the design and scope of the dialogue if it had ended with the speech of Socrates, they are evidently inadequate when applied to the dialogue as it stands, with the addition of the Alcibiades scenes. In fact, this last part of the dialogue—the Third Act, as we have called it—might be construed as suggesting an entirely different motif,—namely, lauda- tion of Socrates in general, or perhaps rather (as Wolf argued) a defence of Socrates against the more specific charge of unchastity.

INTRODUCTION Ixv

That this is one purpose of the dialogue is beyond dispute: many indications testify, as has been shown, that Plato intended here to offer an apologiam pro vita Socratis, Yet it would be a mistake to argue from this that the main design of the dialogue as a whole lies in this apologetic. Rather it is necessary to combine the leading idea of this last Act with those of the earlier Acts in such a way as to reduce them, as it were, to a common denominator. And when we do this, we find—as I agree with Riickert in believing—that the dominant factor common to all three Acts is nothing else than the personality of Socrates,—Socrates as tho ideal both of philosophy and of love, Socrates as at once the type of temperance and the master of magic. Our study of the framework as well as of the speeches has shown us how both the figure of Socrates and his theory dominate the dialogue, and that to throw these into bolder relief constitutes the main value of all the other theories and figures. This point has been rightly emphasized by Riickert (p. 252): “utique ad Socratem animus ad- vertitur ; quasi sol in medio positus, quem omnes circummeant, cuius luce omnia collustrantur, vimque accipiunt vitalem, Socrates pro- ponitur, et Socrates quidem philosophus, sapiens, temperans. Quem iuxta multi plane evanescunt, ceteri vix obscure comparent, ipse Agatho, splendidissimum licet sidus ex omnibus, ut coram sole luna pallescit.”

Tt seems clear, therefore, that the explanation of the ‘‘ Hauptzweck ” of our dialogue which was given long ago by Schleiermacher is the right one—‘ propositum est Platoni in Convivio ut philosophum qualem in vita se exhiberet, viva imagine depingeret”: it is in the portrait of the ideal Socrates that the main object of the dialogue is to be sought.

The theory of Teichmiiller and Wilamowitz as to the occasion on which the dialogue was produced has no direct bearing on the question of design. They suppose that it was written specially for recital at a banquet in Plato’s Academy ; and, further, that it was intended to provide the friends and pupils of Plato with a model of what such a banquet ought to be. But it would be absurd to estimate the design of a work of literary art by the temporary purpose which it subserved ; nor can we easily suppose that Plato’s main interest lay in either imagining or recording gastronomic successes as such. Equally un- proven, though more suggestive, is the idea of Gomperz that this dialogue περὶ ἔρωτος was inspired by an affection for Dion.

lxvi INTRODUCTION

§ viii, THe Date.

We must begin by drawing a distinction between (a) the date of the actual Banquet, (6) that’ of Apollodorus’ narrative, and (6) that of the composition of the dialogue by Plato.

(2) That the date of the Banquet is 8.0, 416 (OJ 90. 4) is asserted by Athenaeus (v. 217 a): ὁ μὲν γὰρ (86. ᾿Αγάθων) ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Εῤφήμου στεφανοῦται Ληναίοις. It is true, as Sauppe and others have pointed out, that the description in 175 ΕΒ (ἐν μάρτυσι... «τρισμυρίοις, ep. 223 B n.), would suit the Great Dionysia better than the Lenaea; but this discrepancy need not shake our confidence in the date assigned by Athenaeus. The year 416 agrees with the mention of Agathon as νέος (175 8), and of Alcibiades as at the height of his influence (216 B) before the ill-fated Sicilian expedition.

(6) The date of the prefatory scene may be approximately fixed from the following indications: (1) It was a considerable number of years after the actual Banquet (οὐ νεωστί 172 Ὁ, παίδων ὄντων ἡμῶν ἔτι 178 a); (2) several years (πολλὰ ἔτη 172 0) after Agathon’s departure from Athens ; (3) within three years of the commencement of Apollo- dorus’ close association with Socrates (172 ὁ); (4) before the death of Socrates (as shown by the pres. tense συνδιατρίβω 172 ¢); (5) before the death of Agathon (as shown by the perf. ἐπιδεδήμηκεν 172 ο). It seems probable that Agathon left Athens about 408, at the latest, and resided till 399 at the court of Archelaus of Macedon‘, Hence any date before 399 will satisfy the two last data. And since the two first data demand a date as far removed as possible from the years 416 and 408, we can hardly go far wrong if we date the dramatic setting circ. 400 B.c.

(c) We come now to the more important question of the date of composition, The external evidence available is but slight. A posterior limit is afforded by two references in Aristotle (Pol. τι. 4. 1262>12: de An. τι. 415° 26), a possible allusion by Aeschines (in Timarch. 345 3.c.), and a probable comic allusion by Alexis in his Phaedrus (ap. Athen, x11. 562 4)—a work which probably cannot be dated before 370 at the earliest.

The internal evidence is more extensive but somewhat indefinite. It is commonly assumed? that in 193 a (διῳκίσθημεν... Λακεδαιμονίων)

1 Fritzsche’s view that Ar. Ran. 72 implies the previous death (i.e. ante 405) of A. is refuted by Rettig, Symp. pp. 59 ff.

2 See 6.9. Zeller, Plato (E.T.) p. 139 2.; Teichmiiller, Litt. Fehd. 11. 262.

INTRODUCTION Ixvii

we have a definite reference to the διοικισμός of Mantinea in 385 5.0, But even if this be granted—as I think it must, in spite of the contra- diction of Wilamowitz—it by no means follows that the dialogue must be dated 385-4. We find Isocrates (Panegyr. 126) mentioning the same event five years later. All that it affords us is a prior limit. Little weight can be given to Diimmler’s view that the previous death of Gorgias (circ. 380) is implied by the allusion to him in 198 ¢ (Γοργίου κεφαλὴν xrd.)}. Nor can we lay much stress on the conclusions ‘drawn (by Riickert and others) from the absence of reference to the re-establishment of Mantinea in 370; or to the exploits of the Theban “Sacred Band” at Leuctra (371), which (as Hug thinks) might naturally have been alluded to in 178 5.

The evidence of date afforded by ‘“‘stylometric” observations is not of a convincing character. Μ, Lutoslawski, it is true, dogmatically asserts that the Symposium stands between the Cratylus and Phaedo in the “First Platonic Group”; but his arguments, when examined, prove to be of the most flimsy character. Beyond affording a con- firmation of the general impression that our dialogue stands somewhere in the “middle” period, the labours of the stylometrists give us little assistance. If we choose to date it in 390 they cannot refute us, nor yet if we date it 10 or 15 years later. The question as to whether the Symposium preceded the Phaedrus or followed it is one of special interest in view of the number of points at which the two writings touch each other. The evidence on the whole seems in favour of the priority of the Phaedrus*; but, even if this be granted, little light is shed on the date of composition of the Symp., since that of the Phaedrus eludes precise determination.

Equally difficult is it to draw any certain conclusions from the relation in which our dialogue stands to the Symposium of Xenophon. That there are many points of connexion, many close parallels, between

1 See Diimmler, Akademica, p. 40; and the refutation by Vahlen, op. Acad. 1. 482 ff.

2 So I hold with Schleierm., Zeller, I. Bruns, Hahn and others; against Lutosl., Gomperz and Raeder. It is monstrous to assert, as Lutosl. does, “ that the date of the Phaedrus as written about 379 8.c. is now quite as well confirmed as the date of the Symp. about 385 z.c.” I agree rather with the view which makes Phaedr. P.’s first publication after he opened his Academy, i.e. circ. 388-6 (a view recently supported in England by Εἰ. 8. Thompson, Meno xliii ff., and Gifford, Euthyd. 20 ff.). The foll. are some of the parallels: Ph. 232 2=Symp, 181, 1838; 2344-1838; 234 3B=183c; 250c=209n; 261» (240 c)=215 π, 2184; 2514=215 B, 2224; 252a=— 189 p; 266a=180 8; 267A (273 a) = 200A; 272a=198D; 2764-2224; 2762=209B; 278 p=203 8; 279B=216p, 2158.

lxviii INTRODUCTION

the two works is obvious, but which of the two is prior in date is a problem which has called forth prolonged controversy’. This is not the place to investigate the problem: I can only state my firm opinion that the Xenophontic Sympos. (whether genuine or not) is the later work, But attempts to fix its date are little better than guess-work : Roquette puts it circ. 3830—76 ; Schanz, after 371; K. Lincke (Neue Jahrb, 1897), after 350.

It will be seen that the available evidence is not sufficient to justify us in dogmatizing about the precise date of composition of our dialogue. The most we can say is that circ. 383—5 seems on the whole the most probable period.

δ ix. Tue Text.

(1) Ancient authorities, The chief manuscripts which contain the text of the Symposium are :—

B = codex Bodleianus (or Clarkianus or Oxoniensis); Bekker’s 4. T = codex Venetus append. class. 4, cod. 1: Bekker’s t (““omnium librorum secundae familiae fons ” Schanz).

1 Among those who claim priority for Xenophon are Béckh, Ast, Delbriick, Rettig, Teichmiiller, Hug, Diimmler, Pfleiderer ; on the other side are C. F. Hermann, I. Bruns, Schenkl, Gomperz. Beside the broader resemblances set forth by Hug, the foll. refs. to echoes may be of interest :—

Xen. Plat. Xen. Plat.

1.1 =178a, 1978 iv. 53 =219B

ii. 23 =213 5, 2144 v. 1,7 =218 & (175 Ε) ii, 26 (iv. 24) -- 186 σ, 1986 viii. 1 =218 B (187 D) iv. 14=183 4, 1848, 1794 5, 8 =219D

» 15=178 8, 179 B, 1820 », 13=184B

» 16=1785 3, 21=2140

» 171-181 π|, 1835 ,., 23=183 a (203 8), 1720 » 19 (v. 7)=215 4 (216 p, 221 pv) 1, 24=2178, 2220

» 23=181D », 31=1795

yy 26=193D », 38=2098

» 28=2178 5, 82 (iv. 16)=178E » 47—8=188D 1, 34 = 182 ἢ » 48=188D » 85 =179 4

» 50=189a, 1975

The last three parallels are specially interesting, since Xen. ascribes to Pausan. some of the sentiments which Pl. gives to Phaedrus. Possibly (as Hug, Teichm. and others suppose) both writers are indebted to an actual apologia of the real Pausan., which Pl. is handling more freely, Xen. more exactly (cp. I. Bruns, Vortriige, p. 152).

INTRODUCTION lxix

ὟΝ =codex Vindobonensis 54, Suppl. phil. Gr. 7: Stallbaum’s Vind. I.

To these we have now to add, as a new authority,

O.-P. = Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (no. 843 in Grenfell and Hunt's collection).

Since this last authority for the text was not forthcoming until after the publication of the latest critical text of the Symposium, I add the description of it given by the editors :—

“The part covered is from 200 B [beginning with the word βου- λοι[το] after which 40 lines are lost, the next words being αν ενδεια at the end of 200 Ε] to the end, comprised in 31 columns, of which four (xix—xxii) are missing entirely, while two others (i and xviii) are represented by small fragments ; but the remainder is in a very fair state of preservation....The small and well-formed but somewhat heavy writing exemplifies a common type of book hand, and probably dates from about the year 200 a.p....The corrector’s ink does not differ markedly in colour from that of the text, and in the case of minor insertions the two hands are at times difficult to distinguish, But as they are certainly not separated by any wide interval of time the question has no great practical importance....The text, as so often with papyri, is of an eclectic character, showing a decided affinity with no single ms. Compared with the three principal witnesses for the Symposium it agrees now with B against TW, now with the two latter as against the former, rarely with T against BW' or with W against BT? Similarly in a passage cited by Stobaeus some agreements with his readings against the consensus of BTW are counterbalanced by a number of variations from Stobaeus’ text® A few coincidences occur with variants peculiar to the inferior mss., the more noticeable being those with Vindob. 21 alone or in combination with Venet. 1844 and Parisin. 1642 alone or with Vat. 229°. Of the readings for which there is no other authority, including several variations in the order of the words, the majority, if unobjectionable, are unconvincing. The more valuable contributions, some of which are plainly superior to anything found in other mss., are: 1. 92 [201 Ὁ] ez, 1. 112 [202 a] the omission of καί (so Stallbaum), 1. 239 (204 Β] av ey, where BIW have a meaningless av, 1. 368 [206 c] καλω as conjectured by Badham

1 See crit. notes on 202, 2034, 2058, 2068, 207», 211 c.

2 See crit. notes on 203 B, 211 νυν, 2133, 219, 220c (bis). 3 See crit. notes on 202 c—203 a. 4 5

See crit. notes on 2014 (ad fin.), 218 p, 220, 2208, 223c. See crit. notes on 206 B (ad init.), 208 a, 223 c.

Ιχχ INTRODUCTION

for τῷ κ', 1,:471 [208 B] μετέχει as restored by Stephanus (μετέχειν mss.), 1. 517 [209 a] rexew confirming a conjecture of Hug (κυεῖν mss.), 1. 529 [209 B] επιθυμη as conjectured by Stephanus (ἐπιθυμεῖ mss), 1. 577 [210 a] και ov omitted by mss., 1, 699 [212 a] θεοφιλει (- BTW), 1. 770 [213 B] κατιδε[ν (1) (καθίζειν mss), 1. 898 [218 Ρ] μοι (probably) with Vind. 21 (μου BTW), 1. 1142 [222 p] διαβαλει as conjectured by Hirschig (διαβάλῃ BTW). On the other hand in many cases the papyrus once more proves the antiquity of readings which modern criticism rejects or suspects.”

It may be added that the editors of the papyrus in citing W have made use of a new collation of that ms. by Prof. H. Schéne of Basel “which often supplements and sometimes corrects the report of Burnet.” And in this edition I have followed the report of W in their apparatus, where available, while relying elsewhere upon that given by Burnet.

(2) Modern criticism. Much attention has been paid by Conti- nental critics during the last century to the text of the Symposium, and for the most part they have proceeded on the assumption that the text is largely vitiated by interpolations’, Even Schanz and Hug, who may be regarded as moderate and cautious critics in comparison with such extremists as Jahn and Badham, have gone to unnecessary lengths in their use of the obelus. Hug, while admitting that we must take into account the freedom and variety of Plato’s style and that it is folly to rob a writer of his individuality by pruning away any and every expression which is in strict logic superfluous, and while ad- mitting also that regard must be paid to the characteristic differences of the various speeches in our dialogue, which forbid our taking any one speech as the norm with which others should be squared,—yet maintains that in the speeches, and especially in those of Pausanias and Socrates, he can detect a number of unquestionable glosses. No doubt there are some cases in these speeches in which it is not un- reasonable to suspect interpolation, but even Hug and Schanz have, I believe, greatly exaggerated the number of such cases; and I agree with the editor of the Oxford text in regarding the certain instances of corruption or interpolation as extremely few. Consequently, in the text here printed I have diverged but seldom from the ancient tradi- tion, and such changes as I have made have been more often in the

1 E.g. O. Jahn, Hirschig, Badham, Cobet, Naber, Hartmann. On the other hand, sensible protests have been made by Teuffel and Vahlen; and Rettig’s text is, if anything, ultra-conservative.

INTRODUCTION lxxi

direction of verbal alteration than of omission. I have, however, recorded in the textual notes a selection of the proposed alterations, futile though I consider most of them to be.

ὃ x. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The main authorities which I have cited or consulted are!:—

i. Texts: Bekker (1826), the Zurich ed. (Baiter, Orelli and Winckelmann, 1839), C. F. Hermann (1851), O. Jahn (1864), Jabn- Usener (1875), C. Badham (1866), M. Schanz (1881), J. Burnet (1901).

Critical essays or notes by Bast (1794), Voegelin, Naber, Teuffel, M. Vermehren (1870), J. J. Hartmann (1898).

ii. Annotated Editions: J. F. Fischer (1776), F. A. Wolf (1782), P. A. Reynders (1825), L. I. Riickert (1829), A. Hommel (1834), G. Stallbaum (2nd ed. 1836), G. F. Rettig (2 vols. 1875—6), A. Hug (2nd ed. 1884).

iii, Treatises on the subject-matter: M. H. L. Hartmann (Chronol. Symp. Pl. 1798), G. Schwanitz (Odserv. in Pl. Conv. 1842), M. Lindemann (De Phaedri orat. 1853, De Agath. or. 1871), J. H. Deinhardt (Ueber den Inhalt u. s. w. von Pl. Symp. 1865), M. Koch (Die Rede d. Sokr, u. das Problem der Erotik, 1886), W. Resl (Ver- haltnis der 5 erster in Pl. Symp. Reden u.s.w. 1886), C. Boetticher (Eros u. Erkenntnis bei Pl. 1894), C. Schirlitz (Bectrdge z. Erklarung d. Rede d. Sokr. u.s.w. 1890), P. Crain (De ratione quae inter Pl. Phaedr. et Symp. intercedat, 1906).

Other more general works consulted are: Teichmiiller (Litt. Fehden, 1881), F. Horn (Platonstudien, 1893), W. Lutoslawski (Plato’s Logic, 1897), T. Gomperz (Greek Thinkers, E.T. τα. 1905), H. Raeder (Platons Philos. Entwickelung, 1905), J. Adam (feligious Teachers of Greece, 1908).

iv. Translations: E. Zeller (1857), A. Jung (2nd ed. 1900), B. Jowett, J. A. Stewart (selections, in The Myths of Plato, 1905).

1 Abbreviations used are—Bdhm.=Badham; Bt.=Burnet; Jn.=Jahn; J.-U.= Jahn-Usener; Sz.=Schanz; Verm.=Vermehren; Voeg.= Voegelin.

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ZYMMTTIOSION

[H ΠΕΡῚ ΑΓΑΘΟΥ: ΗΘΙΚΟΣ]

1. Δοκῶ μοι περὶ ὧν πυνθάνεσθε οὐκ ἐμελέτητος εἶναι. καὶ γὰρ ἐτύγχανον πρῴην εἰς ἄστυ οἴκοθεν ἀνιὼν Φαληρόθεν: τῶν οὖν γνωρίμων τις ὄπισθεν κατιδών με πὖ ΙΕ ἊΝ ἐκάλεσε, καὶ παίζων ἅμα τῇ κλήσει, Ὦ Φαληρεύς, ἔφη, οὗτος [᾿Απολλόδωρος], οὐ περι-

a ? μενεῖς ; κἀγὼ ἐπιστὰς περιέμεινα. καὶ ὅς, ᾿Απολλόδωρε, ἔφη, καὶ

172 A (viv) οὐκ Methodius vulg. Padnpdbev del. Naber 3: ὁ vulg. ᾿Απολλόδωρος secl. Bdhm. J.-U. οὐ (ov) Sauppe περιμενεῖς vulg. Sz.: meptpevets B: περιμένεις TW, Bt. (ὦ) ᾿Απολλόδωρε Sz. ᾿Απολλόδωρε... ἐζήτουν om. Coisl.

172 Α Δοκῶ μοι κτλ. The speaker, Apollodorus (see Introd. § τι. a), is replying to certain unnamed ἑταῖροι who had been questioning him concerning the incidents and speeches which took place at Agathon’s banquet. The plural πυνθάνεσθε (and ὑμῖν, ὑμεῖς 178 c, D infra) indicates that there were several ἑταῖροι present: the traditional heading of the dialogue, ETAIPOS, is due to the fact that all but one are κωφὰ πρόσωπα.

οὐκ ἀμελέτητος. μελέτη and μελετᾶν are regular terms for the “conning over” of a speech or “part”: cp. Phaedr. 228 B.

καὶ γὰρ ἐτύγχανον. These words explain the preceding statement δοκῶ... οὐκ ἀμελέτητος εἶναι, and serve to introduce not only the sentence immediately following but the whole of the succeeding passage down to 173 B where the initial statement is resumed by the words ὥστε... οὐκ ἀμελετήτως ἔχω.

Φαληρόθεν. Phalerum, the old port of Athens, was about 20 stadia (24 miles) distant from the city on the S.E.

καὶ παίζων... «περιμενεῖς; Where does the joke come in?

(1) Ast, Hommel, Stallbaum and Jowett look for it in the word Φαληρεύς, which they take to be a play on φαλαρὸς (“bald-headed,” so Jowett) or φαλαρίς (“bald-coot”) in allusion to the bald crown or the peculiar gait of Apollodorus. But what evidence is there to show that A. either was bald or walked like a coot ?

(2) Another suggestion of Hommel’s is to write (with the vulgate) ὁ ᾿Απολλόδωρος and assume an etymological allusion to the opportuneness of the mecting (as “ Apollo-given”). This also is far-fetched.

(3) Schiitz, followed by Wolf and Hug, finds the παιδιά in the playfully

B. P. 1

St. ITT.

p- 172

2 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [1724

μὴν καὶ ἔναγχός σε ἐζήτουν βουλόμενος διαπυθέσθαι τὴν ᾿Αγά- B θωνος ξυνουσίαν καὶ Σωκράτους καὶ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τότε ἐν τῷ συνδείπνῳ παραγενομένων, περὶ τῶν ἐρωτικῶν λόγων τίνες ἦσαν. ἄλλος γάρ τίς μοι διηγεῖτο ἀκηκοὼς Φοίνικος τοῦ Pehummeu, ἔφη δὲ καὶ σὲ εἰδέναι. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐδὲν εἶχε σαφὲς λέγειν. σὺ οὖν μοι διήγησαι. δικαιότατος yap εἶ τοὺς τοῦ ἀτάιρου déyous, ἀπαγγέλλειν. πρύτερον δέ μοι, ᾿ δ᾽ ὅς, εἰπέ, σὺ αὐτὸς C παρεγένου τῇ συνουσίᾳ ταύτῃ ἢ οὔ; κἀγὼ εἶπον ὅτι Παντάπασιν

ειν 1712 Β ἐν τῷ συνδείπνῳ 860]. Baiter J.-U. συνδειπνεῖν Τ'; συνδείπνῳ W

official style of the address, in which the person is designated by the name of his deme, this being the regular practice in legal and formal proceedings (cp. Gorg. 495 Ὁ Καλλικλῆς ἔφη ᾿Αχαρνεύς...Σωκράτης...ὁ ᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν: Ar. Nub. 134); but (as Stallb. objected) the order of the words in that case should be rather ὦ οὗτος ᾿Α. ὁ Φαληρεύς. Hug also finds παιδιά in the hendecasyllabic rhythm (ὦ Φαλ. οὗτος ᾿Απ.), and the poetic combination ὦ οὗτος (Soph. O. C. 1627, Aj. 89).

(4) Rettig, reading 6 Φαληρεύς, omits (with Badham) the proper name ᾿Απολλόδωρος as an adscript. This seems, on the whole, the best and simplest solution. Glaucon, at a distance behind, feigns ignorance of the identity of “the Phalerian,” and shouts after Apollodorus “‘Ho there! you Phalerian, halt,” in a “stop thief!” tone. It is plausible to suppose also that a certain contempt is conveyed in the description Φαληρεύς (“ Wapping-ite”): port- towns are often places of unsavoury repute: cp. Phaedr. 348 év ναύταις που τεθραμμένον : Juv. Sat, vit. 174 “permixtum nautis et furibus ac fugitivis.”

For the summons to halt cp. Ar. Plu. 440 οὗτος, ri δρᾷς; ὦ δειλότατον σὺ θηρίον, | ob περιμενεῖς; Thesm. 689 ποῖ ποῖ ob φεύγεις; οὗτος, οὗτος, οὐ μενεῖς; also Lg, 240, 1354. These passages support the future περιμενεῖς rather than the present: “futurum est fortius imperantis; praesens modeste cohortantis aut lenius postulantis” (Stallb.). For the future as a lively imperative cp. 175 a, 219 Ὁ.

112 Β ἐν τῷ συνδείπνῳ. Similarly in Aristoph. Gerytades (frag. 204 ἐν τοῖσι συνδείπνοις ἐπαινῶν Αἰσχύλον) σύνδειπνον is used for the more precise συμπόσιον : and a lost play of Sophocles bore the title ᾿Αχαιῶν σύλλογος ἢ σύνδειπνον ἢ σύνδειπνοι (see fragg. 146 ff, Dindf.).

τίνες ἦσαν. For phrases of this kind, “ ΤῊΣ libere subjecta orationi,” see Vahlen, Op. Acad. τι. 393.

Φοίνικος τοῦ Φιλίππου. Nothing is known of this man. See Introd. § τι. a.

δικαιότατος γὰρ κτλ. τοῦ ἑταίρου is almost equivalent to ἑταίρου ye ὄντος, giving the reason why Apollodorus is δικαιότατος.

παρεγένου τῇ συνουσίᾳ. Cp. Hom. Od. xvit. 173 καί σῴφιν παρεγίγνετο dari: and the exordium of the Phaedo (57 a) αὐτὸς, ὦ ᾧ., παρεγένου Σωκράτει

«ἢ ἄλλου του ἠκούσας; ἸΠαντάπασιν ἔοικέ σοι κτλ. “It is quite evident that his narration was of

178 Α] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 8

ἐδ σοι οὐδὲν διηγεῖσθαι σαφὲς ὁ διηγούμενος, εἰ νεωστὶ ἡγεῖ τὴν συνουσίαν γεγονέναι ταύτην ἣν ἐρωτᾷς, ὥστε καὶ ἐμὲ παραγε- ,.΄ νέσθαι. “Eyaye δή, «ἔφη». Πόθεν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ὦ Πλαύκων; οὐκ. οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι πολλῶν ἐτῶν ᾿Αγάθων ἐνθάδε οὐκ ἐπιδεδήμηκεν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ δ᾽ ἐγὼ Σωκράτει συνδιατρίβω καὶ ἐπιμελὲς πεποίημαι ἑκάστης ἡμέρας εἰδέναι ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ 4 πράττῃ, οὐδέπω τρία ἔτη ἐστίν ; πρὸ τοῦ δὲ περιτρέχων ὅπῃ ἘΠ ΥΡΙΗ͂Ε καὶ οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν ἀθλιώ- 173 τερος ἦ ὁτουοῦν, οὐχ ἧττον ἢ σὺ νυνί, οἰόμενος δεῖν πάντα μᾶλλον πράττειν' ἢ φιλοσοφεῖν. καὶ ὅς, Μὴ σκῶπτ', ἔφη, ἀλλ᾽ εἰπέ μοι πότε γένετο ἡ συνουσία αὕτη. κἀγὼ εἶπον ὅτι ἸΠαίδων ὄντων ἡμῶν ἔτι, ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ ἐνίκησεν ᾿Αγάθων, τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἣ τὰ ἐπινίκια ἔθυεν αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ χορευταί. Πάνυ, ἔφη, ἄρα 112 Ο κἀμὲ Athenaeus, Sz. - ἐγώ γε δή, ἔφη Bt.: ἐγώ γε δή BTW: ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔφη(ν) Athen.: ἔγωγε γὰρ, ἔφη Voeg.: ἔγωγ᾽, ἔφη Bdhm. ὦ Λύκων Athen. ἐνθάδε om. Athen. 173 A ΤΡ: ἦν pr. B: ἢ Wt νῦν TW

ἔτι ὄντων ἡμῶν Athen. πρώτῃ om. Athen.: τὸ πρῶτον Usener ἧ om.

Priscian: ἢ ἡ Τ: ἢ Sz. τἀπινίκια Cobet

the vaguest kind.” διηγεῖσθαι is here the infin. of διηγεῖτο. The emphatic repetition of οὐδὲν σαφές is a ground for suspecting that the reference is to a published account in which the facts were distorted.

172 C0 Πόθεν...ὦ Γλαύκων; “What makes you think so, Glaucon?” There is an implicit negation in the question put thus: cp. Gorg. 471p, Menex. 335 6. This Glaucon is perhaps the same as the father of Charmides (Charm. 154 a, etc.), but probably not the same as the Glaucon of the Republic, though Boéckh and Munk would identify the two.

πολλῶν érdv κτλ. For the bearing of this passage on the dramatic date of this prologue, see Introd. § vil.

ἐπιμελὲς πεποίημαι... εἰδέναι. The nearest Platonic parallel for this con- struction is Ep. vii. 334 A wodAois...dpveiy ταῦτα ἐπιμελές.

173 A περιτρέχων ὅπῃ τύχοιμι, ἐ.6. with no fixed principle of conduct,— “like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed.” Cp. Zim. 48 Β ἀτάκτως ὅπῃ τύχοι προιέναι: Seneca de vita beata τ. 2 “quamdiu quidem passim vagamur non ducem secuti...conteretur vita inter errores brevis,” etc.

οἰόμενος τὶ ποιεῖν. For τι, magnum quid, cp. 219 0, Phaedr. 242 &, etc.

Παίδων ὄντων ἡμῶν ἔτι. Sc. Apollodorus and Glaucon. Plato, too, born about 427 B.c., was a mais at the date of Agathon’s victory (416 B.c.).

τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ. “ Respicit Plato ad tetralogias” (Reynders).

τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ fj. For this (compendious) construction cp. Thuc. 1. 60 τεσσαρακοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ vortepov...7 Ποτίδαια ἀπέστη (with Shilleto’s note); Lys. ΣΙΧ. 22.

τὰ ἐπινίκια ἔθυεν. “ Made a sacrificial feast in honour of his victory.”. On this occasion it was the author himself who provided the feast and offered the sacrifice. Sometimes however it was the Choregus (e.g. Ar. Ach. 886), and

.1--2

¢ a πάλαι, ὡς ἔοικεν.

4 / ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [173 4

ἀλλὰ Tis σοι διηγεῖτο; ἢ αὐτὸς Σωκράτης; Ov

B μὰ τὸν Δία, ἦν & ἐγώ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσπερ Φοίνικι" ᾿Αριστόδημος ἦν τις, Ἰξυδαθηναιεύς, σμιερύςι ἀμυτύξητον ἀεί' παρεγεγόνεν δ᾽ ἐν τῇ συνουσίᾳ, Biokpiiraes ἐραστὴς ὧν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα τῶν τότε, ὡς ena δοκεῖ. οὐ βέντοι ἀλλὰ καὶ Σωκράτη ye ἔνια ἤδη ἀνηρόμήν ὧν ἐκείνου ἡκουσᾶ, Kai μοι ὡμδχλόγει καθάπερ ἐ ἐκεῖνος διηγεῖτο. Τί οὗν, ἔφη, οὐ διηγήσω μοι; πάντως δὲ ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ εἰς ἄστυ detirnbala mopevopevors καὶ λέγειν καὶ ἀκούειν.

Οὕτω δὴ ἰόντες ἅμα τοὺς λόγους περὶ αὐτῶν ἐποιούμεθα, ὥστε, ὅπερ ἀρχόμενος εἶπον, οὐκ ἀμελετήτωρ exe. εἰ οὖν δεῖ καὶ ὑμῖν διηγήσασθαι, ταῦτα χρὴ ποιεῖν. καὶ γὰρ Byanye καὶ ἄλλως, ὅταν μέν τινας περὶ φιλοσοφίας λόγους “ἢ αὐτὸς. ποιῶμαι ἢ ἄλλων

173 A τί TW B ἄλλοσπερ BT ἀνυπόδητός τ᾽ Ast παραγεγόνει ΒΤ' καὶ om. Τ' διηγήσῃ W: διηγῇ σὺ vulg. δὲ om. al.: γε J.-U.: γὰρ Susemihl] C δεῖ: δοκεῖ Hirschig

sometimes the friends of the successful competitor (eg. Xen. Symp. 1. 4). Similarly at Rome it was customary for the duz gregis to entertain his troupe after a victory (see Plaut. Rud. 1417 ff).

173 B ᾿Αριστόδημος. See Introd. ὃ τι. a.

Κυδαθηναιεύς. Schol. Κυδαθήναιον- δῆμος ἐν ἄστει τῆς Πανδιονίδος φυλῆς. καλεῖται δὲ καὶ Κύδαθον. The poet Aristophanes also belonged to this deme.

ἀνυπόδητος. In this peculiarity A. imitated Socrates, see 174 a, 220 B, Ar. Nub. 103 τοὺς ἀνυποδήτους λέγεις" | dv ὁ κακοδαίμων Σωκράτης καὶ Χαιρεφῶν, ἰδία, 362, It is a peculiarity which would appeal to disciples with a penchant for the simple life, such as those of the Cynic persuasion.

ἐραστὴς. “An admirer.” Cp. the application of ἑταῖρος in 172 B supra.

éxel(vov...éxetvos. Both pronouns refer to the same person, Aristodemus. The statement here made is not without significance, see Introd. § 11. a.

TC ovv...ov διηγήσω. ‘“ Haec interrogatio alacritatem quandam animi et aviditatem sciendi indicat” (Stallb.). Cp. dfeno 92 Ὁ (with E. 5. Thompson’s note, where a full list of the Platonic exx. is given).

πάντως δὲ κτλ. “For to be sure,” confirming the preceding clause with a new argument. A good parallel is Laws 1. 625.4 πάντως δ᾽ ἥ ye ἐκ Κνωσοῦ ὁδὸς εἰς τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἄντρον καὶ ἱερόν,. ὡς ἀκούομεν, ἱκανή.

113 Ο ὅπερ ἀρχόμενος εἶπον. See 172 ἃ ad init.

εἰ οὖν ϑεῖ...χρὴ. The comma iy better placed before ταῦτα, with Usener and Burnet, than after it, with Hug and earlier editors. A similar turn of expression is Soph. Trach. 749 εἰ χρὴ μαθεῖν oe, πάντα δὴ φωνεῖν χρεών.

αὐτὸς ποιῶμαι. Here Apollodorus seems to claim to be no mere disciple, but himself an exponent of philosophy. So far as it goes this might indicate that Apollodorus represents the real author, Plato. For A.’s delight in philosophic λόγοι, cp. what is said of Phaedrus in Phaedr, 228 Β, where Socr. too is called ὁ νοσῶν περὶ λόγων.

118 Ὁ] ZYMITOZION y 5

ἀκούω, Χωρὶς τοῦ οἴεσθαι ὀφολεῖσθαι ὑπεῤφυῶς ὡς χαίρω" ὅταν δὲ ἄλλους τινάς, ἄλλως τε καὶ τοὺς ὑμετέρους τοὺς τῶν πλουσίων καὶ χῤηματιστικῶν, αὐτός τε ἄχθομαι ὑμᾶς τε τοὺς shod a ἐλεῶ, ν΄ ὅτι οἴεσθε τὶ ποιεῖν" οὐδὲν ποιοῦντες. καὶ ἴσως αὖ ὑμεῖς ἐμὲ Ὁ

ἡγεῖσθε κακοδαίμονα εἶναι, καὶ οἴομαι ὑμᾶς ἀληθῆ οἴεσθαι" ἐγὼ μέντοι ὑμᾶς οὐκ οἴομαι. “ἀλλ᾽ εὖ οἶδα.

ETAI. ᾿Αεὶ ὅμοιος εἶ, ὦ ᾿Απρλλοδωμει "ἀεὶ γὰρ σαυτόν τε κακηγορεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, καὶ δοκεῖς μοι ἀτεχνῶς πάντας ἀθλίους ἡγεῖσθαι πλὴν Σωκράτους, ἀπὸ σαυτοῦ ἀρξάμενος. καὶ

173 Ο χρηματιστῶν vulg. D_ ἡγεῖσθε Coisl.: ἡγεῖσθαι BT

ὑπερφυῶς ds χαίρω. This may be explained as a mixture of two con- structions, viz. (1) ὑπερφυές ἐστιν ὡς χαίρω, (2) ὑπερφνῶς χαίρω: it is found also in Gorg. 490 σ, Phaedo 66 a, Theaet. 155 c (but in all these places some,” codd. and edd. omit as).

χρηματιστικῶν. For this word in the mase., ““ money-makers,” Ὁ. με 581] Ο ὅ γε χρηματιστικὸς πρὸς τὸ κερδαίνειν τὴν τοῦ τιμᾶσθαι ἡδονὴν ἢ τὴν τοῦ μανθάνειν οὐδενὸς ἀξίαν φήσει εἶναι, εἰ μὴ εἴ τι αὐτῶν ἀργύριον ποιεῖ : also Phaedr. 348 p. In Meno 8 c (ἀγαθὰ...χρυσίον λέγω καὶ ἀργύριον κτᾶσθαι) we have an expression of the sentiments of ἃ χρηματιστικός. For Apollodorus’ sentiment, cp. Isocr. ὁ. Soph. 291 D λέγουσι μὲν ὡς οὐδὲν δέονται χρημάτων, ἀργυρίδιον καὶ χρυσίδιον τὸν πλοῦτον ἀποκαλοῦντες (where the ref. is probably to Antisthenes): cp. also what Alcib. says of Socr., 216 8, 219. The gloss- hunting critics, strangely enough (as Vahlen remarks), have left the words ὑμᾶς τοὺς ἑταίρους unscathed.

113 Ὁ ἀληθῆ οἴεσθαι. οἴεσθαι here is substituted for ἡγεῖσθαι, and the following οὐκ οἴομαι is in antithesis, not to the οἴομαι preceding, but to ἡγεῖσθε. Apollodorus, conscious of his inferiority to Socrates, his ideal, is willing to admit that he is not as yet wholly εὐδαίμων.

ἀλλ᾽ εὖ οἶδα. Sc. dre κακοδαίμονές ἐστε. For this exposure of the true condition of “the children of this world” who are εὐδαίμονες in their own conceit, and despise others, one may cite Apoc. iii. 17 “Thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.”

*Acl ὅμοιος el. “Semper tibi hac in re constas” (Stallb.): “you are quite incorrigible.” So below we have det τοιοῦτος ef. Cp, Charm. 170 ἃ ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ κινδυνεύω ἀεὶ ὅμοιος εἶναι.

ἀτεχνῶς πάντας. This seems to be the sole instance in Plato of this combination “all without exception”; but cp. Rep. 432 4 &’ ὅλης ἀτεχνῶς τέταται.

ἀθλίους. Here a synonym for κακοδαίμονας, the word used above. Cp. Meno 78 A τοὺς δὲ ἀθλίους οὐ κακοδαίμονας; Οἶμαι ἔγωγε...τί yap ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἄθλιον εἶναι ἢ ἐπιθυμεῖν τε τῶν κακῶν καὶ κτᾶσθαι;

πλὴν Σωκράτους. “Save Socrates only”: notice the emphasis on these words, repeated twice. We may discern, perhaps, in this an allusion, by way

6 TIAATQNOZ [173 Ὁ

oe α - ὁπόθεν ποτὲ ταύτην τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔλαβες τὸ μανικὸς καλεῖσθαι, οὐκ οἷδα ἔγωγε" ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς λόγοις ἀεὶ τοιοῦτος εἶ" σαυτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀγριαίνεις πλὴν Σωκράτους. ea BE ATIOA. Ὦ φίλτατε, καὶ δῆλόν ye δὴ ὅτι οὕτω διανοούμενος καὶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν μαίνομαι καὶ παράπαίι; |, ETAI. Οὐκ ἄξιον περὶ τούτων, ᾿Απολλόδωρε, νῦν ἐρίζειν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ ἐδεόμεθά σου, μὴ ἄλλως ποιήσῃς, ἀλλὰ διήγησαι τίνες ἦσαν οἱ λόγοι. ΑΠΟΛ. Ἦσαν τοίνυν ἐκεῖνοι τοιοίδε τινές---μᾶλλον δ᾽

173 D βαλακοῖ TW: μαλακὸς B, Naber. οὐκ: εὖ Bast μὲν γὰρ: μέν γε Bdhm. Sz.: μέντ᾽ ἄρα Mdvg. E (ὦ) ᾿Απολλόδωρε Method. Sz.

of antithesis, to the κατηγορία Σωκράτους of the sophist Polycrates (see Introd. § τι. 4).

τὸ μανικὸς καλεῖσθαι. There can be little doubt (pace Naber) that pavixds, not padaxds, is the true reading: it is supported by the words μαίνομαι καὶ παραπαίω in Apollodorus’s reply. Stallbaum supposes an ellipse of some such phrase as δοκεῖς δὲ λαβεῖν αὐτόθεν before ἐν μὲν yap xrd., and (with Wolf) explains pavixds as referring to the vehemence and excess of Apol- lodorus both in praise and blame: cp. Polit. 307 B, and Apol. 21 4 where Chaerephon (termed μανικός in Charm. 153 B) is described as σφοδρὸς ἐφ᾽ 6 τι ὁρμήσειεν. But the connexion of the sentence ἐν μὲν γὰρ κτὰ. with the preceding clause is better brought out by Hug; he supplies (after οὐκ οἶδα) “so ganz ohne Grund wirds wohl nicht sein,” so that the line of thought is— “Though I do not know exactly why you got the nickname ‘ fanatic’—yet in your speeches at any rate you do something to justify the title” For a similar use of μὲν yap cp. Polit. 264.0 ἐν μὲν yap ταῖς κρήναις τάχ᾽ ἂν ἴσως eins ἠσθημένος. For μανικός cp. also Meno 9] Ο where Anytus regards mapa σοφιστὰς ἐλθεῖν aga sign of μανία: and Acts xxvi. 24 Maivy Παῦλε: τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει.

ἀγριαίνεις. ‘Rage like a wild beast,” “snarl and snap.” Cp. Rep. 498 Β (θρέμμα μέγα) ἡμεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀγριαίνει.

173 E Ὦ φίλτατε κτλ. Tronical—“ Why, my very dear Sir, it is surely quite obvious that in holding this view about mysclf and others I display madness and eccentricity!”

παραπαίω. Α ἅπαξ εἰρημένον in Plato. For the musical metaphor cp. Ophelia’s “I see that sovereign and most noble reason, Like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and harsh.”

Οὐκ ἄξιον... ἐρίζειν. “We mustn’t quarrel.” ἐρίζειν, though here used jocularly, is properly a strong term, cp. Prot. 337 Β ἀμφισβητεῖν μέν, ἐρίζειν δὲ μή: Rep. 454 a οὐκ ἐρίζειν, ἀλλὰ διαλέγεσθαι (see Adam ad loc.),

μᾶλλον δ᾽. Instead of beginning at once with the speech of Phaedrus, Apollodorus proceeds to give an account of the preliminary incidents which led up to the λόγοι. For the significance of this, sce Introd. § τι. a.

174 8] ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΝ 7

εἰ 2 a Coa € ? a a \ fy Ἂς ΄ ΄ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑμῖν ὡς ἐκεῖνος διηγεῖτο καὶ ἐγὼ πειράσομαι διηγή- 174 σασθαι.

II. "Edn γάρ οἱ Σωκράτη ἐντυχεῖν λελουμένον τε καὶ τὰς βλαύτας ὑποδεδεμένον, ἃ ἐκεῖνος ὀλιγάκις ἐποίει" καὶ ἐρέσθαι αὐτὸν ὅποι ἴοι οὕτω καλὸς γεγενημένος. καὶ τὸν εἰπεῖν ὅτι Et δεῖπνον εἰς ᾿Αγάθωνος. χθὲς γὰρ αὐτὸν διέφυγον τοῖς ἐπινικίοις, φοβηθεὶς τὸν ὄχλον: ὡμολόγησα δ᾽ εἰς τήμερον παρέσεσθαι. ταῦτα δὴ ἐκαλλωπισάμην, ἵνα καλὸς παρὰ καλὸν ἴω. ἀλλὰ σύ, 7 δ᾽ ὅς, πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ; κἀγώ, Β

174A ἃ: & Hertlein (δ) ἐρέσθαι Voeg. Sz. τήμερον : τὴν σήμερον vulg. Β ἐθέλειν ἂν 560]. Cobet Jn. ἂν ἰέναι Steph.: ἀνιέναι BT

ἐξ ἀρχῆς...πειράσομαι διηγήσασθαι. The same formula occurs in Phaedo 59 σα, Euthyd. 272 Ὁ, Epist. vii. 324 8.

174 A "Edy γάρ. Se. ὁ ᾿Αριστόδημος. The whole narrative of the dialogue from this point on is dependent upon this initial ἔφη and therefore written in ν΄ or. obliqua. οἱ (δἰ) τε Ἀριστοδήμῳ.

λελουμένον. For the practice of bathing and anointing before meals see Hom. Od. νι. 96—7, Xen. Symp. τ. 7: Ar. Plut. 614 εὐωχεῖσθαι.. «λουσάμενος, λιπαρὸς χωρῶν ἐκ βαλανείου. The comic poets were fond of gibing at Socrates and philosophers in general as “unwashed,” eg. Ar. Av. 1554 ἄλουτος οὗ Ψυχαγωγεῖ Σωκράτης : id. Nub. 835 ff.: Aristophon ap. Mein. 111. 360 ff. Aristotle, however, was a champion of the bath, Athen. 178 Β ἀπρεπὲς yap ἦν, φησὶν ᾿Αριστοτέλης (fr. 165), ἥκειν eis τὸ συμπύσιον σὺν ἱδρῶτι πολλῷ καὶ κονιορτῷ.

τὰς βλαύταΞς. Schol. βλαύτας- ὑποδήματα. οἱ δὲ βλαυτία, σανδάλια ἰσχνά. For Socrates’ habit of going barefoot, see 220 Β infra, Phaedr. 229 a, Xen. Mem. τ. 6. 2, and the note on ἀνυπόδητος, 173 B supra.

ταῦτα δὴ ἐκαλλωπισάμην. ταῦτα is better taken (with Hug and Hommel) as accus. of “internal object” than (with Stallb.) as accus. of “remoter object,” equiv. to διὰ ταῦτα (cp. L’rot. 3101). Elsowhero in Plato καλλωπί- ζεσθαι means to “plume oneself,” “swagger,” e.g. Rep. 605D. Observe the σ word-play: “I have put on my finery, because he is such a fine man” (Jowett): cp. the proverb ὅμοιος ὁμοίῳ (195 B).

παρὰ καλὸν. Sc. “Aydbova—‘to Agathon’s (house)”; equiv. to eis ᾿Αγά- θωνος above. For “the handsome Agathon,” see Prot. 315 D—z (τὴν ἰδέαν πάνυ καλός), Ar. Thesm. 191 ff.

πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς κτλ. Cp. 176 B πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἐρρῶσθαι πίνειν; Prot. 352 B, Parm. 1381 5. Cobet’s excision of ἐθέλειν ἄν is wanton: cp. (with Ast) Phaedo 62 ὁ τὸ τοὺς φιλοσόφους ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἐθέλειν ἀποθνήσκειν.

1714 Β ἄκλητος. The jester (γελωτοποιός) who frequents feasts as an uninvited guest seems to have been a stock character in Epicharmus; and in Xen. Symp. Philippus is a person of this type. Araros the comic poet was, apparently, the first to dub them παράσιτοι. Cp. also Archil. 78. 3 οὐδὲ

8 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [174 B

ἔφη, εἶπον ὅτε Οὕτως ὅπως ἂν σὺ κελεύῃς. “ἕπου τοίνυν, ἔφη, ἵνα καὶ τὴν παροιμίαν διαφθείρωμεν μεταβάλλοντες, ὡς ἄρα καὶ

114 Β μεταβάλλοντες Β, Athen., Sz.: μεταβαλόντες T, Bt.

μὴν κληθεὶς (ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν) ἦλθες, οἷα δὴ φίλος ; and Plut. Q. Conv. vi. 6.1, p. 707 Β τὸ δὲ τῶν ἐπικλήτων ἔθος, obs viv “ σκιὰς" καλοῦσιν, οὐ κεκλημένους αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν κεκλημένων ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἀγομένους, ἐζητεῖτο πόθεν ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχήν. ἐδόκει δ᾽ ἀπὸ Σωκράτους ᾿Αριστόδημον ἀναπείσαντος οὐ κεκλημένον εἰς ᾿Αγάθωνος ἰέναι σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ παθόντα “τι γελοῖον " (see 174 ο, with note). In Lat. vocare is similarly used of “inviting” (aliguem ad cenam Ter. And. 2. 6. 22), and invocatus=dxAnros in Plaut. Capt. 1. 1. 2 (“invocatus soleo esse in convivio”).

διαφθείρωμεν μεταβάλλοντες. διαφθείρω is sometimes used of “spoiling” or “stultifying” a statement or argument, eg. Gorg. 495, Prot. 338p. And μεταβάλλειν of linguistic alteration (transposition, etc.), as in Cratyl. 404 c (Φερσεφόνη for Φερρέφαττα).

ὡς ἄρα κτλ. The force of ἄρα is to indicate that the proverb, when amended, “still, after all” holds good. ‘Two forms of the proverb are extant, viz. (1) αὐτόματοι δ᾽ ἀγαθοὶ δειλῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασι (see Schol. ad ἢ. U., Athen, Iv. 27); and (2) αὐτόματοι δ᾽ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας tact. The latter form is vouched for by the poeta anon. quoted by Athen. 1. 84 (Bergk P. L. G. p. 104), ἀγαθὸς πρὸς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας εἱστιασάμενος ἧκον : Bacchyl. fr. 33 (22 Blass) αὐτόματοι δ᾽ ἀγαθῶν δαῖτας εὐόχθους ἐπέρχονται δίκαιοι φῶτες [cp. Zenob, 1. 19 αὐτόματοι δ᾽ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν κτέ.- οὕτως ὁ Βακχυλίδης ἐχρήσατο τῇ παροιμίᾳ, ὡς Ἡρακλέους ἐπιφοιτήσαντος ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν Κήυκος τοῦ Τραχινίου καὶ οὕτως εἰπόντος]: Oratinus fr. 111 (Mein.) οἵδ᾽ αὖθ᾽ ἡμεῖς, ὡς ὁ παλαιὸς | λόγος, αὐτο- μάτους ἀγαθοὺς ἰέναι | κομψῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτα θεατῶν : also a number of post-Platonic passages cited by Hug, such as Plut. Q. Conv. vit. 6 ad fin. According to the Scholiast (1) is the original form; which was altered (μεταλλάξας) to (2) by Cratinus and Eupolis; and this is the view adopted by Stallbaum, Rettig and others. But Hug’s elaborate investigation of the matter proves convincingly, I think, that the Scholiast is wrong and that the form with ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν was the original, of which the form with ἀγαθοὶ δειλῶν is a parody by Eupolis (or Cratinus). This view, first suggested by Schleiermacher, is also supported by Bergk (ad Bacchyl. fr. 33): “Schol. Plat. Symp. 174 π a vero aberrat cum dicit a principio δειλῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας fuisse, quamquam fidem habuerunt cum alii tum Miiller Dor. τι. 481: neque enim par fuit Herculem tam gravi opprobrio hospitem laedere. Eupolis primus, ut videtur, ludibundus δειλῶν substituit. Locum difficilem Platonis, qui falso criminatur Homerum cor- rupisse proverbium quod ille omnino non respexit, nemodum probabiliter expedivit. Alia varietas, quam nostri homines commenti sunt, δειλοὶ δειλῶν, omni auctoritate destituta est.” The main difficulty in the way of accepting this view lies in the words διαφθείρωμεν μεταβάλλοντες. For even if (with most modern editors) we accept Lachmann’s brilliant conjecture ’AyaOwv’(.), the change thus involved is so slight that it could hardly be called a διαφθορά, nor could the alteration involved in the Homeric account be spoken of as a

174.0] ZYMTIOZION 9

“᾿Αγάϑων᾽ ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν αὐτόματοι ἀγαθοί." “Opnpos μὲν γὰρ κινδυνεύει οὐ μόνον διαφθεῖραι ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑβρίσαι εἰς ταύτην τὴν παροιμίαν" πιιήσας γὰρ τὸν ᾿Αγαμέμνονα διαφερόντως ἀγαθὸν C ἄνδρα τὰ πολεμικά, τὸν δὲ Μενέλεων “μαλθακὸν αἰχμητήν," θυσίαν ποιουμένου καὶ ἑστιῶντος τοῦ ᾿Αγαμέμνονος ἄκλητον ἐποίη-

Ν Ν A Fe / \ σεν ἐλθόντα τὸν Μενέλεων ἐπὶ τὴν θοίνην, χείρω ὄντα ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ

114 Β ᾿Αγάθων᾽ Lachmann: ἀγαθῶν BT διαφερόντως + ἄνδρα-Ἑ καὶ ἑστιῶντος om. Athen.

double one (διαφθεῖραι καὶ ὑβρίσαι). The former objection, if it stood alone, might be obviated by the device of inserting μή before διαφθείρωμεν : but in view of the passage as a whole this device is inadmissible. We seem forced to conclude that, whatever the original form of the proverb may have been (and as to this Hug’s view is probably right), the form which Plato had here in mind was the form (1) given by Eupolis: and if Plato knew this form to be only a parody of the original (2), we must suppose further that the serious way in which he deals with it, as if it really were a ‘wise saw,” is only a piece of his fun—a playful display of Socratic irony. (Cp. Teuffel, Rhein. Mus. xxix. pp. 141—2.)

᾿Αγάθων᾽... ἀγαθοί. For the dative cp. Prot. 321 ἀποροῦντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἔρχεται Προμηθεύς. Similar exx. of paronomasia occur in 18 σ, 198 Ὁ, Gorg. st (δῆμος and Demus, son of Pyrilampes), Rep. 614 B (ἄλκιμος, Alcinoua): Riddell Digest ὃ 323. Teuffel (loc. cit.) prefers to retain ἀγαθῶν, ak because of the plur. δαῖτας, partly to avoid the elision of the dota; but neither of these objections is serious, and as to δαῖτας, the feast in question lasted at least two days, which might in itself suffice to justify the plural. Jowett’s transl. implies that he retains ἀγαθῶν and supposes (1) to have been the original form of the proverb “demolished” by Socr. and Homer.

“Ὅμηρος μὲν yap. The antithesis—jpeis δὲ μόνον διαφθείρομεν, or the like— is easily supplied from the context: for μὲν yap, elliptical, cp. 176 σ, and 173 ἢ supra. The suggestion that Homer wilfully distorted a proverb which in his day was non-existent is, as Hug observes, obviously jocose.

ὑβρίσαι. The word may retain a flavour of its juridical sense—“ liable to a criminal prosecution for assault and battery”: and if so, διαφθεῖρα too may hint at the crime of “seduction.” Homer is chargeable not only with seducing but with committing a criminal assault upon the virgin soundness of the proverb.

114 Ο μαλθακὸν αἰχμητήν. ‘A craven spearman.” 77. xvil. 687 οἷον δὴ Μενέλαον ὑπετρέσας, ὃς τὸ πάρος περ] μαλθακὸς αἰχμητής. μαλθακός, as a variant for μαλακός, is used by P. also in 195 pD, Phaedr. 239c. Both forms, Μενέλεως and Μενέλαος, are found in Attic prose; the latter, eg., in Luthyd. 288 c. In Athenaeus v. 3, 1888 we have a criticism of this treatment of Menelaus.

ἄκλητον ἐποίησεν ἐλθόντα. See 77. 11. 408 αὐτόματος δέ οἱ ἦλθε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος : cp. Athen. ν. 1784. Thus the ὕβρεις with which Homer is charged

10 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ΠῚ4

ὡς , a> 9 r ? a v ww A ἢ XN

ἀμείνονος. ταῦτ᾽ ἀκούσας εἰπεῖν ἔφη Ἴσως μέντοι κινδυνεύσω καὶ

nr a

ἐγὼ οὐχ ὡς σὺ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀλλὰ καθ᾿ “Ὅμηρον φαῦλος ὧν » δ a 2 ΕἾ be , ” μὲ a ov os

ἐπὶ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἰέναι θοίνην ἄκλητος. ὅρα οὖν ἄγων με τί ἀπο-

tA ’ X a

D λογήσῃ, ὡς ἐγὼ μὲν οὐχ ὁμολογήσω ἄκλητος ἥκειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ σοῦ

κεκλημένος. “Suv te δύ᾽,᾽ ἔφη, “ ἐρχομένω πρὸ ὁ Tod.” βουλευ-

, a = a 2 Ν, ὦ σόμεθα ὅ τι ἐροῦμεν. ἀλλὰ ἴωμεν.

Τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄττα σφᾶς ἔφη διαλεχθέντας ἰέναι. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη ἑαυτῷ πως προσέχοντα τὸν νοῦν κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πορεύεσθαι ὑπο- λειπόμενον, καὶ περιμένοντος οὗ κελεύειν προϊέναι εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ᾿Αγάθωνος, ἀνεῳγμένην κατα-

ἢ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ᾿Αγάθωνος, ἀνεῳγμένη Ε λαμβάνειν τὴν θύραν, καί τι ἔφη αὐτόθι γελοῖον παθεῖν. οἷ μὲν γὰρ εὐθὺς παῖδά τινα ἔνδοθεν ἀπαντήσαντα ἄγειν οὗ κατέκειντο οἱ ἄλλοι, καὶ καταλαμβάνειν ἤδη μέλλοντας δειπνεῖν": εὐθὺς δ᾽ οὖν

114 Ο ὅρα...τί Bdhm.: ἄρα...τι B: ἄρα...τι Τ' (τί W) ἀγαγὼν Creuzer

Ὦ ὁ τοῦ Gottleber (Hom. K 224): 6800 BTW: om. Hermog. ἀλλὰ ἴωμεν T: ἀλλ᾽ ἐῶμεν B πορευόμενον ὑπολείπεσθαι Rohde Sz. δὲ (é) Cobet Sz.: ” é@ Baiter J.-U. E οἷ Photius, Ὁ: of BT: τὸν W (τῶν) ἔνδοθεν

Porson Sz. J..U. Bt.: τῶν ἔνδον Photius, Jn.

consists in making not an ἀγαθός but a μαλθακός (-Ξεδειλός) come ἄκλητος ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας.

ἐπὶ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς. σοφός, “accomplished,” was ‘a fashionable epithet of praise in Plato’s time, especially applied to poets” (see Hep. 331 Ε, 489 8, with Adam’s notes).

Spa οὖν κτλ. This correction of the traditional ἄρα...τι is certain. Cp. 189 Δ ὅρα ri ποιεῖς: Phaedo 86D ὅρα οὖν...τί φήσομεν. For the dangers of violating etiquette on such occasions, see Ar. Av. 983 ff. αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν ἄκλητος ἰὼν ἄνθρωπος ἀλαζὼν | λυπῇ θύοντας καὶ σπλαγχνεύειν ἐπιθυμῇ, | δὴ τότε χρὴ τύπτειν αὐτὸν πλευρῶν τὸ μεταξύ.

114 Ὁ Σύν τε δύ᾽ κτλ. See 71. x. 294 (Diomedes log.) σύν τε δύ᾽ ἐρχομένω καί τε πρὸ ὁ τοῦ ἐνόησεν | ὅππως κέρδος ἔῃ. The same verses are quoted more exactly in Prot. 848 Ο: ep. also Arist. Pol. 111. 1287} 18; Cic. ad fam. 1x. 7. For exx. of how Plato “variis modis multis affert aliena,” see Vahlen Op. Acad. 1. pp. 476 ff.

ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι. The infin. in place of the indic. is due to assimilation : cp. Rep. 614 B ἔφη δέ, ἐπειδὴ οὗ ἐκβῆναι τὴν ψυχήν, πορεύεσθαι: see Goodwin GM. T. § 755.

174 E καί τι...γελοῖον παθεῖν. It was an awkward situation in smart society. Cp. Plut. Conv. 6 p. 628 ἔλαθε yap κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπολειφθεὶς ὁ Σωκράτης, ὁ δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἀτεχνῶς σκιὰ προβαδίζουσα σώματος ἐξόπισθε τὸ φῶς ἔχοντος.

ol (sib?) goes with ἀπαντήσαντα. Porgon’s insertion (from Photius) of τῶν before ἔνδοθεν is no improvement: ἔνδοθεν is to be taken with ἀπαντήσαντα, and there is no indication that there were any ἔξωθεν παῖδες. ὩἩ

175 a] ZYMIMOZION 11

ὡς ἰδεῖν τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα, Ὦ,, φάναι, ᾿Αριστόδημε, εἰς καλὸν ἥκεις ὅπως συνδειπνήσῃς" εἰ δ᾽ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκα ἦλθες, εἰς αὖθις ἀνα- βαλοῦ, ὡς καὶ χθὲς ξητῶν σε ἵνα καλέσαιμι͵ οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἡ ἰδεῖν. ἀλλὰ Σωκράτη ἡμῖν πῶς οὐκ ἄγεις; καὶ ἐγώ, ἔφη, μεταστρεφό- μενος οὐδαμοῦ ὁρῶ Σωκράτη ἑπόμενον" εἶπον οὖν ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς μετὰ Σωκράτους ἤκοιμι, κληθεὶς ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου δεῦρ᾽ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον. Καλῶς γ᾽, ἔφη, ποιῶν ov: ἀλλὰ ποῦ ἔστιν οὗτος ; "Ὄπισθεν ἐμοῦ 175 ἄρτι εἰσήει" ἀλλὰ θαυμάξω καὶ αὐτὸς ποῦ ἂν εἴη. Οὐ σκέψῃ, ἔφη, παῖ, φάναι τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα, καὶ εἰσάξεις Σωκράτη ; σὺ δ᾽, ἦ δ᾽

ὅς, ᾿Αριστόδημε, παρ᾽ ᾿βρυξίμαχον κατακλίνου.

TIL Καὶ ὃ μὲν ἔφη ἀπονίζειν τὸν παῖδα, ἵνα κατακέοιτο" ἄλλον δέ τινα τῶν παίδων ἥκειν ἀγγέλλοντα ὅτι Σωκράτης οὗτος ἀναχωρήσας ἐν τῷ τῶν γειτόνων προθύρῳ ἕστηκε καὶ οὗ καλοῦν- τος οὐκ ἐθέλει εἰσιέναι. "Ατοπόν γ᾽, ἔφη, λέγεις: οὔκουν καλεῖς αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ ἀφήσεις ; καὶ ὃς ἔφη εἰπεῖν Μηδαμῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐᾶτε

144E 4T: ὧὁΒ συνδειπνήσεις Laur. xiv. 85, Bekk. Sz. rT: re B ἔφην T οὐδαμῇ TW ἥκοιμι Th: ἥκοι pn B γ᾽ T: om. B

175 A εἰσήειν Cobet ὅπου Hirschig é μὲν Bast: é Steph.: ἐμὲ BT ἔφην T iva (mov) vulg.: ὅπου Tmg. ἔν τῳ Steph. J.-U.: ἔν τον Mdvg. καὶ οὗ BT: κἀμοῦ W, Bt.: καὶ σοῦ t καλοῖς Tmg. W: κάλει rec. b αὐτὸν : αὖθις Herwerden ἀφήσῃς T

εἰς καλὸν ἥκεις. “Soyez le bienvenu!” For the construction see Goodwin, § 317.

χθὲς ζητῶν σεκτλ. Hug regards this as a piece of polite mendacity on the part of Agathon. Are we, then, to construe Alcibiades’ statement, χθὲς μὲν οὐχ οἷός τε κτλ. (212 B) as a similar exhibition of “Salonweltlichkeit”?

175 A παρ᾽ ’E. κατακλίνους Usually each κλίνη held two, but in 175 Ὁ it is said that Agathon had a couch to himself, while in 213 a we find three on the same couch.

ἀπονίζειν τὸν παῖδα. The article indicates that a special slave was set apart for this duty. For the custom of foot-washing wee Plut. Phoc. 20; Petron. Sat. 31; Evang. Luc. vii. 44; Joann. xiii. 5. For the hand-washing see Ar. frag. 427 φέρε, παῖ, ταχέως κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ, | παράπεμπε τὸ χειρό- μακτρον.

Σωκράτης οὗτος κτλ. The tpsissima verba of the παῖς are here repeated, hence the use of οὗτος and of the def. article with προθύρῳ : in the corrections proposed by Madvig and Herwerden this point is overlooked. For πρόθυρον, “porch,” 1.6. the space between the house-door (αὐλεία) and the street, see Smith D. A. τ. 661%.

οὔκουν καλεῖς κτλ. καλεῖς is of course future, not pres. as Riickert wrongly supposed. For the constr. see Goodwin G@. 47. T. § 299.

12 ΠΛΑΤΩ͂ΝΟΣ [175 4

fol hd * Ψ vA , Β αὐτόν. ἔθος γάρ τι τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει" ἐνίοτε ἀποστὰς ὅποι ἂν τύχῃ

7

σ

ἕστηκεν. ἥξει δὲ αὐτίκα, ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι. μὴ οὖν κινεῖτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐᾶτε. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὕτω χρὴ ποιεῖν, εἰ σοὶ δοκεῖ, ἔφη φάναι τὸν ’Aya- θωνα. ἀλλ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ὦ παῖδες, τοὺς ἄλλους ἑστιᾶτε. πάντως παρα- τίθετε ὅ τι ἂν βούλησθε, ἐπειδάν τις ὑμῖν μὴ ἐφεστήκῃ---ὃ ἐγὼ οὐδεπώποτε ἐποίησα" νῦν οὖν, νομίζοντες καὶ ἐμὲ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν κεκλῆ- σθαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον καὶ τούσδε τοὺς ἄλλους, θεραπεύετε, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἐπαινῶμεν. ἡ

rn a a , 7 Mera ταῦτα ἔφη σφᾶς μὲν δειπνεῖν, τὸν δὲ Σωκράτη οὐκ

1715 Β τοῦτο Τ' Priscian: τοιοῦτον W ἐνίοτε... ἕστηκεν Gel. Voeg. ἔφη T: om. B ἐπειδάν tes...p BT: ἐπεί τις...οὐ μὴ L. Schmidt: ἐπεὶ οὐ δή Ts...) Hug: ἐπεὶ δή τις..«οὐ μὴ Sz: ἐπεὶ καὶ τίσις...μὴ (ἐφεστήκοι) Verm.: εἴ γ᾽ ὁ ταμίας...μὴ Usener: ἐπειδὰν αὐτὸς...μὴ cj. Bt.: εἴγε ἀνάγκη τι... μὴ coniciebam ἐφεστήκῃ T: ἐφεστήκη W: ἐφεστήκει B: “latet ἐφέστηκεν᾽ Usener

175 B πάντως wapariéere. For the use of πάντως with imper., ep. Xen. Cyrop. VIII. 3. 27 πάντως τοίνυν...δεῖξόν μοι: td. Oecon. xl. 11, m1. 12. For παρατίθημι of “putting on the table,” cp. Rep, 372 ¢ τραγήματά που παρα- θήσομεν αὐτοῖς κτλ. Reynders adopts the reading πάντας, καὶ maparibere.

ἐπειδὰν...«μὴ ἐφεστήκῃ. These words are difficult. They should naturally mean (as Stallb. puts it) “si quando nemo vobis est propositus”; and so Stallb. proposes to construe them, taking the clause as dependent on and limiting ὅ τε ἂν βούλησθε. This, however, is, as Hug argues, almost certainly wrong. If we retain the text of the mss. we can only explain the phrase by assuming an ellipse—“serve up what dishes you like (as you usually do) whenever no one is in command.” So Zeller renders “tragt uns getrost auf, was ihr wollt, wie ihr es gewohnt seid, wenn man euch nicht unter Aufsicht nimmt,” etc.; and Rieckher (Rhein. Mus. xxxtt. p. 307) “Machet es wie ihr es immer macht, wenn man euch nicht beaufsichtigt (und das habe ich ja noch nie gethan), und setzt uns vor was ihr méget.” Most of the emendations offered (see crit. n.) are based on the assumption that the clause in question qualifies the leading clause (πάντως παρατίθετε) : none of them are convincing, and the construction οὐ μὴ...ἐφεστήκῃ (the pres.-perf.) assumed by Schanz and Ilug lacks support. If compelled to resort to conjecture, the best device might be to read εἴ ye μή for ἐπειδάν, cut out the μή after ὑμῖν, and change the mood of the verb to épéornxery—following in part the suggestions of Usener. The ordinary text does not admit of Jowett’s rendering, “serve up whatever you please, for there is no one to give you orders; hitherto I have never left you to yourselves.” As regards the force of ὁ... ἐποίησα, L. Schmidt explains the clause to mean “nunquam autem rem ita ut nunc institui,” implying that the concession to the slaves was unusual: Teuffel, on the contrary, sees in it a piece of ostentation on the part of Agathon, boasting of his humanity. The former is clearly wrong.

175 Ὁ] ΣΎΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 13

* a ᾿ εἰσιέναι. τὸν οὖν ᾿Αγάθωνα πολλάκις κελεύειν μεταπέμψασθαι \ > , ὃ δὲ ᾽ an “ 2 oN ? \ , τὸν Σωκράτη, € οὐκ ἐᾷν. ἥκειν οὖν αὐτὸν οὐ πολὺν χρόνον, ε aed τ nr ws εἰώθει, διατρίψαντα, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα σφᾶς μεσοῦν δειπνοῦντας. Ἂ Ν. ? , τὸν οὖν ᾿Αγάθωνα---τυγχάνειν γὰρ ἔσχατον κατακείμενον μόνον--- ,, ’ na

Δεῦρ᾽, ἔφη φάναι, Σώκρατες, παρ᾽ ἐμὲ κατάκεισο, iva καὶ τοῦ D σοφοῦ ἁπτόμενός σου ἀπολαύσω, ὅ σοι προσέστη ἐν τοῖς προθύ-

1150 é δὲ BW: κχακ δὲ T (τὸν δὲ fuisse videtur): αὐτὸν δὲ vulg.: ἃ δὲ cj. Bekk. οὐκ ἐᾶν B: οὐκαν T D ἁπτόμενός σου TW: om. B, J.-U. Sz.

προσέστη T: πρόσεστιν B

175 Ο᾽ πολλάκις κελεύειν. This is an ex. of the pres. infin. representing an impf. indic.: “He said, ἐδειπνοῦμεν, ὁ δὲ 5. οὐκ elojer- ὁ οὖν ᾽Α. ἐκέλευεν" ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ εἴων" (Goodwin G. 27. 7. § 119, where see parallels), The accus. é, of the speaker, is here used in preference to the more regular nomin. (αὐτός) in order to balance the accus. τὸν "AydOeva: ep. Gorg. 4748 ἐγὼ οἶμαι καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ... ἡγεῖσθαι, and below 175 E.

ὡς εἰώθει. To be taken closely with ov π. yp.: we should rather say “contrary to his usual custom,” the sense being ‘‘he arrived unusually soon for him.” For a striking instance of Socrates’ ἔθος see 220c, where πολὺν χρόνον διέτριψεν.

μάλιστα... .δειπνοῦντας. For μάλιστα of approximate measurement, cp. Parm. 1278 περὶ ἔτη μάλιστα πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα: Tim. 213, Crito 43 Δ. Nowhere else in Plato is μεσοῦν joined with a participle, nor does L. and 8. supply any parallel.

ἔσχατον..-μόνον. Agathon occupied the last κλίνη on the right: this was the “lowest seat” at the table, and commonly taken, in politeness, by the host. The seat of honour (προνομή) was the left-hand place on the κλίνη furthest to the left. Thus if four κλῖναι are placed in a row, numbered A—D, and each seating two persons, the person who occupies A! is termed πρῶτος, and the occupant of D? ἔσχατος: as thus

Al A? BiB? Cl ΟΣ Ὁ! D2 [ J LI. J LT) ἘΞΞΙ

At this “Banquet” Phaedrus as occupying A! is described as πρῶτος in 177 Ὁ: see also the discussion between Socrates and Alcibiades in 222 ΕΒ. Cp. Theophr. Char. 21 6 δὲ μικροφιλότιμος τοιοῦτός τις οἷος σπουδάσαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον κληθεὶς παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν καλέσαντα δειπνῆσαι : Stob. Flor. XL. 36 Διονύσιος... ἀτιμάζων αὐτὸν... κατέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ χώρᾳ.

115 Ὁ τοῦ σοφοῦ... ἀπολαύσω. τοῦ σοφοῦ is neut., being the antecedent of ὅ, not in agreement with σου: “that I may enjoy the piece of wisdom which occurred to you.” The omission of ἁπτόμενός σου by B is probably accidental : without the words (as Teuffel observes) Socr.’s remark (ἐὰν dr.) would be less natural.

14 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [175 D

a \ Ψ a APN ᾽ ? AY Ἀ ΄ pots. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι εὗρες αὐτὸ καὶ ἔχεις" οὐ γὰρ ἂν προαπέστης. καὶ τὸν Σωκράτη καθίζεσθαι καὶ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Ed ἂν ἔχοι, φάναι, ὦ ᾽ ἕ ? n wy € ,ὔ τ a δὲ lel x 3 ‘\ ᾿Αγάθων, εἰ τοιοῦτον εἴη ἡ σοφία ὥστ᾽ ἐκ Tod πληρεστέρου εἰς TO

τ Ὲ A e fal av * , >. fe id ΡΞ > Ἂν κενώτερον ῥεῖν ἡμῶν, ἐὰν ἁπτώμεθα ἀλλήλων, ὥσπερ τὸ ἐν ταῖς , LA ‘ A an a es ᾽ an dl ? aA κύλιξιν ὕδωρ τὸ διὰ Tod ἐρίου ῥέον ἐκ τῆς πληρεστέρας εἰς τὴν κενωτέραν. εἰ γὰρ οὕτως ἔχει καὶ ἡ σοφία, πολλοῦ τιμῶμαι τὴν παρὰ σοὶ κατάκλισιν" οἶμαι γάρ με παρὰ σοῦ πολλῆς καὶ καλῆς

, / ι ν ‘ > \ x A » Ν σοφίας πληρωθήσεσθαι. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐμὴ φαύλη τις ἂν εἴη καὶ ἀμφισβητήσιμος, ὥσπερ ὄναρ οὖσα, ἡ δὲ σὴ λαμπράϊτε καὶ πολλὴν

and 4 a ΕἸ a L BY « , Es ἐπίδοσιν ἔχουσα, ἥ ye παρὰ σοῦ νέου ὄντος οὕτω σφόδρα ἐξέλαμψε .Ἅ 2 bt >? ΓΑ , ? ‘ a € ᾿ i na καὶ ἐκφανὴς ἐγένετο πρῴην ἐν μάρτυσι τῶν “EXAjvev πλέον ἢ τρισμυρίοις. Ὕβριστὴς εἶ, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὁ ᾿Αγάθων. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν καὶ ὀλίγον ὕστερον διαδικασόμεθα ἐγώ τε καὶ σὺ 115 D τὸ BT: τὸν corr. Coisl., J.-U. Sz. ἐρίου : ὀργάνου Cornarius :

᾽ ρ py

ὑλιστηρίου vel ἠθηνίου Fischer ἐκ τῆς..«κενωτέραν del. Voeg. Naber

ἙἘ! τιμῶμαι T: τιμῶμεν B: τιμῶ μὲν Stallb. με del. Usener καὶ Β: ἢ καὶ TW Hye T: εἴγε B καὶ : ἀλλὰ vulg.

οὐ γὰρ ἂν προαπέστης. The protasis is suppressed: Stallbaum supplies εἰ μὴ εὗρες αὐτό: while Hug explains the phrase as a conflate of two thoughts, viz. (1) οὐκ ἂν ἀπέστης εἰ μὴ εὗρες, and (2) οὐ προαπέστης πρὶν εὑρεῖν.

εἰς τὸ κενώτερον. Ficinus renders “ut in vacuum hominem ex pleniore ipso contactu proflueret,” and many edd. adopt τόν in preference to τό (so too Jowett’s transl.).

ὥσπερ τὸ.. ὕδωρ κτλ. Editors from Riickert down generally accept the explanation of this passage offered by Geel. Two cups, one empty the other full, are placed in contact: a woollen thread, with one end inserted in the full cup, the other hanging into the empty cup, serves by the law of capillarity to convey the fluid from the one to the other.

115 E φαύλη... καὶ ἀμφισβητέσιμος. “Meagre” in quantity and “question- able” in quality, in antithesis to πολλή in quantity and καλή in quality.

πολλὴν ἐπίδοσιν ἔχουσα. Hug supposes an astral allusion—“like a quickly- rising star.” This, however, is not necessarily conveyed by the term ἐπίδοσις, for which cp. Theact. 146 B ἡ νεύτης eis πᾶν ἐπίδοσιν ἔχει, and the intrans. use of ἐπιδιδόναι, Prot. 318 a, T'heaet. 150 p, ete.

οὕτω σφόδρα κτλ. Notice the ironical tone—exaggeration coupled with a purple patch of poetic diction: “shone out with such dazzling splendour before the eyes of three myriads of Greek spectators.”

Ὑβριστὴς εἴ. “ What a scoffer you are!” Observe that ὕβρις is one of the re charges laid against Socr. by Alcibiades also (219 ο, etc.); cp. Introd.

11. B.

ταῦτα....διαδικασόμεθα. “We will formally plead our claims in regard to these heads.” “Technically diadicasia denotes the proceedings in a contest for preference between two or more rival parties either as to the possession

176 aj ZYMITMTOZION 15

\ ipl , a é fal , a A ‘ A περὶ τῆς σοφίας, δικαστῇ χρώμενοι τῷ Διονύσῳ" viv δὲ πρὸς τὸ δεῖπνον πρῶτα τρέπου. ."

Ἢ \

IV. Μετὰ ταῦτα, ἔφη, κατακλινέντος τοῦ Σωκράτους καὶ 176 8 la XN an yw δι 3 a z 0 ΝῊ

εὐπνήσαντος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, σπονδάς τε σφᾶς ποιήσασθαι καὶ ΕΣ ἌΧ. \ 3 \ 4 L Ἂν ‘ ἄσαντας Tov θεὸν καὶ τἄλλα τὰ νομιζόμενα τρέπεσθαι πρὸς τὸν

4 πότον" τὸν οὖν Παυσανίαν ἔφη λόγου τοιούτου τινὸς κατάρχειν. | Elev, ἄνδρες, φάναι, τίνα τρόπον ῥᾷστα πιόμεθα; ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ral a fal a! t λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι τῷ ὄντι πάνυ χαλεπῶς ἔχω ὑπὸ Tod χθὲς πότου Kai

175 Ἑ περὶ τῆς σοφίας del. Hirschig 116.Α (és) καὶ τῶν Rohde καὶ τἄλλα: κατὰ Ast: καὶ..«νομιζόμενα post ποιήσασθαι transp. Steinhart ἄνδρες: ὦνδρες Sauppe Sz. ῥᾷστα BT: ἥδιστα yp. t

of property or as to exemption from personal or pecuniary liabilities....The essential difference between diadicasia and the ordinary δίκαι is, that all claimants are similarly situated with respect to the subject of dispute, and no longer classified as plaintiffs and defendants” (Smith, D. A. τ. 620°). περὶ τῆς σοφίας, added loosely as an afterthought, serves to define ταῦτα: Teuffel, as against Jahn, rightly defends the words; and they serve to strike one of the keynotes of the dialogue.

Saory...1@ Διονύσῳ. Dionysus is an appropriate choice since it was under his auspices that Agathon (πρῴην) had engaged in an ἀγών and won a prize for poetic copia. There may also lie in the words (as Wolf and Rettig suppose) a jocular allusion to the σοφία which is ars bibendi, wherein also Agathon was δυνατώτατος (176 6). Compare also the pastoral pipe-contests of Theocritus, and Theognis 993 ff. e?...dOAov... | σοί τ᾽ εἴη καὶ ἐμοὶ σοφίης πέρι θηρισάντοιν, | γνοίης x’ ὅσσον ὄνων κρέσσονες ἡμίονοι. Cp. Introd. § τι. B.

176 A σπονδάς.. νομιζόμενα. Plato spares us the details of the ritual proper to such occasions. From other sources we may gather that it included (1) a libation of unmixed wine to ἀγαθὸς δαίμων (Ar. Eg. 105, etc.) ; (2) the clearing, or removal, of the tables (Xen. Symp. τι. 1); (8) the fetching, by the παῖδες, of a second supply of water for the hands (Ar. Vesp. 1217 etc.); (4) the distribution of wreaths among the guests (Theogn. 1001, Ar. Acharn. 1145); (5) the pouring out of three libations, viz. (a) to Zeus Olympios and the Olympian gods, (δ) to the Heroes, and (c) to Zeus Soter (Schol. ad Phileb. 66 D; Aesch. Suppl. 27, etc.); (6) the singing of a Te Deum (ᾷδειν τὸν θεόν, maavitev Xen. Symp. τι. 1, Aleman fr, 24 8, etc.): see Hug’s exhaustive note. Riickert wrongly makes τἄλλα τὰ νομιζόμενα depend on doavras: supply (as Reynders) ποιησαμένους. For καὶ τἄλλα, cp. (with Vahlen) Huthyd. 294 c, Rep. 400 pv: for τὰ νομιζόμενα, quae moris sunt, cp. 11. Alc. 151 B.

τίνα τρόπον ῥᾷστα. Schol. ῥᾷστα- τὸ ἥδιστα ἐνταῦθα σημαίνει. Cp. Od. Iv. 565 τῇ περ (sc. in Elysium) ῥηίστη βιοτή: and the combination ῥᾷστα καὶ ἥδιστα, Xen. Mem. τι. 1. 9. (See also Vahlen Op. Acad. τι. 212 ff. ad Phaedo 81 c).

πάνυ χαλεπῶς ἔχω. The notion is “I was roughly handled in my bout with the wine-god yesterday”: cep. Theaet. 142 B χαλεπῶς ἔχει ὑπὸ τραυμάτων τινῶν.

16 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [176 4

a n ‘ A a δέομαι ἀναψυχῆς τινός, οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ὑμῶν τοὺς πολλούς---παρῆστε tal 3 BY cn f Ν Β γὰρ χθές" σκοπεῖσθε οὗν, τίνι τρόπῳ ἂν ὡς ῥᾷστα πίνοιμεν. τὸν n an » f Ν οὖν ᾿Αριστοφάνη εἰπεῖν, Τοῦτο μέντοι εὖ λέγεις, ὦ Παυσανία, τὸ = , \ a Ἑ ‘ " παντὶ τρῥόπῳ παρασκευάσασθαι ῥᾳστώνην τινὰ τῆς πόσεως" καὶ rn 4 5 2 an yap αὐτός εἰμι τῶν χθὲς βεβαπτισμένων. ἀκούσαντα οὖν αὐτῶν fol an 4 ΄ Ν ἔφη ᾿ρυξίμαχον τὸν ᾿Ακουμενοῦ Ἦ καλῶς, φάναι, λέγετε. καὶ lal a n na ,ὔ ἔτι ἑνὸς δέομαι ὑμῶν ἀκοῦσαι, πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἐρρῶσθαι πίνειν ἰὰ cal a xn ᾿ ᾿Αγάθων. ᾿Οὐδαμῶς, φάναι, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔρρωμαι. “Eppacov ἂν εἴη na ? \ / Ἂν C ἡμῖν, ἢ δ᾽ ὅς, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐμοί τε καὶ ᾿Αριστοδήμῳ καὶ Φαίδρῳ καὶ a cal fel € tal \ τοῖσδε, εἰ ὑμεῖς of δυνατώτατοι πίνειν νῦν ἀπειρήκατε' ἡμεῖς μὲν \ > > La a , > ’ fal / € Ἂ, * ᾿ γὰρ ἀεὶ ἀδύνατοι. Σωκράτη δ᾽ ἐξαιρῶ λόγου ἱκανὸς γὰρ καὶ 2 la a > 9 ΄ > a ¢ ͵ > N a > δὴ os ἀμφότερα, ὥστ᾽ ἐξαρκέσει αὐτῷ ὁπότερ᾽ ἂν ποιῶμεν. ἐπειδὴ οὖν tal n Ν Ν ο μοι δοκεῖ οὐδεὶς τῶν παρόντων προθύμως ἔχειν πρὸς τὸ πολὺν , ss » nx 2 N \ n θύ θ 1ό ? ay 67 πίνειν οἶνον, ἴσως ἂν ἐγὼ περὶ τοῦ μεθύσκεσθαι οἷόν ἐστι τἀληθῆ fal ‘ 3 ΄ὔ λέγων ἧττον ἂν εἴην ἀηδής. ἐμοὶ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτό γε οἶμαι κατά- D δηλον γεγονέναι ἐκ τῆς ἰατρικῆς, ὅτι χαλεπὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ / > , Ν LA > Ἂ, ς Ν 4 Ld 20 ca ΓΝ a μέθη ἐστί: καὶ οὔτε αὐτὸς ἑκὼν εἶναι πόρρω ἐθελήσαιμι ἂν πιεῖν

176 Α παρῆστε BTW: παρῆτε in mg. rec.b B παρασκευάσασθαι TW: παρασκευάζεσθαι B αὐτῶν T: αὐτὸν B *EpvEipaxov Τ' : τὸν ᾿Ερυξίμαχον B ἀκουμενοῦ W: ἀκουμένου BT kal: καίτοι Rohde ἐρρῶσθαι 860]. Cobet πίνειν, ᾿Αγάθωνος Vahlen Οὗ ἐξαιρῶ Ἠεϊηάοτγῇ: ἐξαίρω BT ἀηδής T: ἀηλης Β

110 Β βεβαπτισμένων : “soaked,” “drenched.” Cp. Lucian Bacch. 7 καρη- καὶ βεβαπτισμένῳ : and the use of βεβρεγμένος, Kubul. Incert. 5; μέθῃ βαροῦντι βρεχθείς Eur. El. 326: Sen. Hp. 83 mersus vino et madens; Hor. Οἱ rv. 5. 39 dicimus...sicci...dicimus uvidi. A similar “baptism” is described in Evenos 2. 5—6, εἰ δὲ πολὺς πνεύσειεν (sc. ὁ Βάκχος) ἀπέστραπται μὲν ἔρωτας, | βαπτίζει δ᾽ ὕπνῳ γείτονι τοῦ θανάτου: of which we find an echo in Clem. Alex, Paed. 1. 11. 27? (Stahlin) ὑπὸ μέθης βαπτιζόμενος εἰς ὕπνον. There may be an underlying allusion to Eupolis’ play Βαπταί (cp. Bergk P. L. G. τι. p. 268).

176 C ἐξαιρῶ λόγον: “1 leave out of account”: cp. Phaedr. 242 B, Rep. 3948, 4925. For Socrates as inconvincible “with wine and wassail,” see Alcibiades’ description, 220 a.

περὶ τοῦ μεθύσκεσθαι. A favourite subject of discussion with moralists, e.g. Theognis 473 ff. 600 ff.; Laws τ. 677 Dff., Xen. Symp. 11.; and the treatise περὶ μέθης of Antisthenes.

frrov...dnSys. “Less likely to bore you,” sc. than if you were in the mood for wine-bibbing. Compare (with Wolf) Hor. Sat. τι. ii. 1 ff quae virtus et quanta, boni, sit vivere parvo...discite non inter lances mensasque nitentes.

116 Ὁ χαλεπὸν..«ἡ μέθη. Similarly in 180 B we have neut. adj. with masc. subst. (θειότερον...«ἐραστής). For the sentiment cp. Ar. Vesp. 1253 κακὸν τὸ πίνειν" κτλ: Theogn. 211 οἶνόν τοι πίνειν πουλὺν κακόν; Xen.

176 Ε] ZYMITOZION 17

“ an οὔτε ἄλλῳ συμβουλεύσαιμι, ἄλλως τε Kal κραιπαλῶντα ἔτι ἐκ τῆς προτεραίας. ᾿Αλλὰ μήν, ἔφη φάναι ὑπολαβόντα Φαῖδρον τὸν Μυρρινούσιον, ἔγωγέ σοι εἴωθα πείθεσθαι ἄλλως τε καὶ ἅττ᾽ ἂν περὶ ἰατρικῆς λέγῃς" νῦν δ᾽, ἂν εὖ βουλεύωνται, καὶ οἱ λοιποί.

n δ} > , a ¥ % , La ταῦτα δὴ ἀκούσαντας συγχωρεῖν πάντας μὴ διὰ μέθης ποιήσασθαι B τὴν ἐν τῷ παρόντι συνουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω πίνοντας πρὸς ἡδονήν.

Υ. Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν, φάναι τὸν ᾿Ερυξίμαχον, τοῦτο μὲν δέδοκ-

‘4 ae xn iia , "ἢ ΄ Ἂν Ν 5

ται, πίνειν ὅσον ἂν ἕκαστος βούληται, ἐπάναγκες δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο εἰσηγοῦμαι τὴν μὲν ἄρτι εἰσελθοῦσαν αὐλητρίδα χαίρειν ἐᾶν, αὐλοῦσαν ἑαυτῇ ἢ ἂν βούληται ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταῖς ἔνδον, ἡμᾶς δὲ διὰ λόγων ἀλλήλοις συνεῖναι τὸ τήμερον: καὶ

116 Ὁ κραιπαλῶντα T: κραιπαλοῦντα B: κραιπαλῶντι Hirschig φαῖδρον T: φαιδρων B μυρινούσιον T λέγεις T ἂν TW: αὖ B βουλεύ- ὠνται corr, Coisl. Bast: βούλωνται BTW: βούλονται vulg.: (αὖ) βούλοιντ᾽ ἂν

Thiersch: (αὖ) βούλονται Ast: (αὖ) ἂν βούλωνται Kreyenbiihl ἘΞ αὐλη- τρίδα T: αὐλιτρίδα B ἢ ἂν: nav B: ἐὰν T

Symp. τι. 26 ἣν μὲν ἀθρόον τὸ ποτὸν ἐγχεώμεθα, ταχὺ ἡμῖν καὶ τὰ σώματα καὶ αἱ γνῶμαι σφαλοῦνται κτλ. For the pedantic reference to ἡ ἰατρική, cp. 186 4.

κραιπαλῶντα. Tim. Lex. Plat. explains by ἔτι ἀπὸ τῆς μέθης βαρυνόμενον.

ΚΟΥ the accus., in place of dat. (in appos. to ἄλλῳ), cp. 188 Ὁ ἡμῖν..«δυνα-

μένους: Rep. 414 a, etc.

νῦν δ᾽... «οἱ λοιποί. With of λοιποί we must supply σοὶ πείσονται, as Stallb. and Winckelmann observed. Rettig alone, of later editors, retains the reading νῦν δ᾽ αὖ εὖ βούλονται, with Wolf’s rendering, “nunc bene est, quod item reliquos id velle video”; but, as Hug remarks, that εὖ βούλονται can mean “bene est quod volunt” lacks proof.

176 E οὕτω...πρὸς ἡδονήν. οὕτως is frequently used thus in combination with adverbs (esp. ῥαδίως, εἰκῇ, ἁπλῶς, and the like; see Blaydes on Ar. Vesp. 461) where it has “a diminishing power” (L. and §.), eg. 180 ¢ infra, Gorg. 503 Ὁ; cp. the forco of sic in such phrases as “iacentes sic temere” (Hor. C. τι. xi. 14).

τοῦτο μὲν κτλ. The antithesis to the pév-clause lies, not in the clause ἐπάναγκες δὲ μ. εἶναι, but in τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο κτλ. Cp. Arist. Pol. 1278 6 ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῦτα διώρισται, τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον πότερον κτλ.

ἐπάναγκες. Cp. Theogn. 472 πᾶν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον χρῆμ᾽ ἀνιηρὸν ἔφυ" | τῷ πίνειν δ᾽ ἐθέλοντι παρασταδὸν oivoxoeirw—where a similar relaxation of com- pulsory rules is advocated.

εἰσηγοῦμαι. “1 propose,” swadeo: cp. Crito 48.4; Xen. Mem. τι. 7. 10.

τὴν.. αὐλητρίδα. It was the fashion at convivia to provide pipers, dancers, jesters, jugglers et hoc genus omne to amuse the guests. Cp. Xen. Symp. 11. 1, Rep. 373 A κλῖναί τε... καὶ ἑταῖραι καὶ πέμματα (with Adam’s note); Ar. Ach. 1090 ff.; also Protag. 347 c, D (see next page).

ταῖς ἔνδον. Se. ἐν τῷ γυναικείῳ.

Β. Ρ. 2

18 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [176 ΞΕ

a ‘ 177 δι’ οἵων λόγων, εἰ βούλεσθε, ἐθέλω ὑμῖν εἰσηγήσασθαι. Φάναι δὴ / \ , x ΓΑ 2 Α γ᾿ a 2 an a πάντας καὶ βούλεσθαι καὶ κελεύειν αὐτὸν εἰσηγεῖσθαι. εἰπεῖν οὖν

Ἂς ? , a Ἐ 2 AY n , 2 \ \ 3 τὸν ᾿Ερυξίμαχον ὅτι ‘H μέν μοι ἀρχὴ τοῦ λόγου ἐστὶ κατὰ THY Εὐριπίδον Μελανίππην" οὐ γὰρ ἐμὸς ὁ μῦθος, ἀλλὰ Φαίδρου τοῦδε, ὃν μέλλω λέγειν. { Φαῖδρος γὰρ ἑκάστοτε πρός με ἀγανακ- τῶν λέγει Οὐ δεινόν, φησίν, ὦ ᾿Ερυξίμαχε, ἄλλοις μέν τισι θεῶν ὕμνους καὶ παιῶνας εἶναι ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν πεποιημένους, τῷ δὲ

177 A καὶ ante Bova. 560]. Hermann 8z.: καὶ βούλεσθαι del. Voeg.

iw παιανας W: παίονας BT: παιᾶνας bt

δι οἵων λόγων. For an appreciation of the συνουσία διὰ λόγων, cp. Theogn. 493 ff ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εὖ μυθεῖσθε παρὰ κρητῆρι μένοντες... | és τὸ μέσον φωνεῦντες ὁμῶς ἑνὶ καὶ συνάπασιν" χοὔτως συμπόσιον γίνεται οὐκ ἄχαρι. Simplic. in Epict, 33. 6, p. 266 καλῶς εἴρηται ὅτι ἡ χωρὶς λόγων τράπεζα φάτνης οὐδὲν διαφέρει which is probably a reminiscence of Protag. 847 Ο, Ὁ καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι (sc. οἱ φαῦλοι καὶ ἀγοραῖοι), διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἀλλήλοις δι’ ἑαυτῶν συνεῖναι ἐν τῷ πότῳ μηδὲ διὰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν φωνῆς καὶ τῶν λόγων τῶν ἑαυτῶν ὑπὸ ἀπαιδευσίας, τιμίας ποιοῦσι τὰς αὐλητρίδας κτλ. Cp. Phaedr. 216 Ὁ.

177 Α Φάναι δὴ κτλ. It is tempting to excise (with Hermann, Teuffel and Hug) the first καί and to construe φάναι closely with βούλεσθαι, as balancing κελεύειν εἰσηγεῖσθαι, wavras being the subject of both the leading infinn., φάναι and κελεύειν : cp. 177 Ε ξυνέφασάν τε καὶ ἐκέλευον : Huthyd. 2140 ὅ τε οὖν Κτήσιππος συνέφη... «καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι, καὶ ἐκέλευον... ἐπιδείξασθαι κτλ. If the first καὶ be retained, it seems most natural to take κελεύειν as dependent on φάναι: Stallb., however, puts a comma after βούλεσθαι, as if making κελεύειν parallel to φάναι: and so too, apparently, Zeller.

κατὰ τὴν ΜΙελανίππην. Euripides wrote two plays of this name, M. ἡ σοφή and M. δεσμῶτις. The reference here is to the former (Frag. 488 Nauck), οὐκ ἐμὸς ὁ μῦθος ἀλλ᾽ ἐμῆς μητρὸς πάρα, κτλ. Melanippe, a daughter of Aeolus, bore two sons to Poseidon; they were suckled by a cow, and brought to their grandfather Aeolus as βουγενῆ τέρατα : when he proposed to burn them, Melanippe appeared and tried to dissuade him, arguing ὅτι οὐδὲν τέρας ἐστίν. According to another account, M. was a daughter of Cheiron, seduced by Aeolus, and finally metamorphosed into a mare. Cp. Apol. 20 Ε οὐ γὰρ ἐμὸν ἐρῶ τὸν λόγον, κτλ.: Hor. Sat. 11. ii, 2 nec meus hic sermo est sed quae - praecepit Ofellus.

Οὐ δεινόν κτλ. With this passage, cp. Isocr. 1x. 5—8, and x. 12 with its scornful reference to encomiasts of “humble-bees, salt-diets, and the like” (see Introd, § 11. B (e)).

ὕμνους καὶ matdvas. Properly speaking ὕμνοι are odes set for the lyre, παιῶνες odes set for the flute and sung esp. in honour of Apollo. “The paean is a hymn (1) of supplication or propitiation during the pain or danger; (2) a thanksgiving after it is past” (see Smith, D. A. 11. 307 s.v.).

177 0] ZYMTIOZION 19

Ἔρωτι, τηλικούτῳ ὄντι Kal τοσούτῳ θεῷ, μηδὲ Eva πώποτε τοσού- B τῶν γεγονότων ποιητῶν πεποιηκέναι μηδὲν ἐγκώμιον; εἰ δὲ βούλει ad σκέψασθαι τοὺς χρηστοὺς σοφιστάς, Ἡρακλέους μὲν καὶ ἄλλων ἐπαίνους καταλογάδην ξυγγράφειν, ὥσπερ ὁ βέλτιστος Πρόδικος" καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἧττον καὶ θαυμαστόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔγωγε ἤδη τινὶ ἐνέτυχον βιβλίῳ ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐνῆσαν ἅλες ἔπαινον θαυμάσιον ἔχοντες πρὸς ὠφέλειαν, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα συχνὰ ἴδοις ἂν ἐγκεκωμιασμένα" τὸ οὖν τοιούτων μὲν πέρι πολλὴν σπουδὴν C ποιήσασθαι, "Epwta δὲ μηδένα πω ἀνθρώπων τετολμηκέναι εἰς ταυτηνὶ τὴν ἡμέραν ἀξίως ὑμνῆσαι" ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἠμέληται τοσοῦτος θεός. ταῦτα δή μοι δοκεῖ εὖ λέγειν Φαῖδρος. ἐγὼ οὖν ἐπιθυμῶ

177 Β μηδὲν : μηδὲ Valckenaer καὶ ante τοῦτο del. Thiersch καὶ ἧττον θαυμαστόν Wolf Thiersch καὶ ante θαυμαστόν om. Steph. Bast. ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ T: om. B, Sz. ὠφελίαν T: ὠφέλειαν B C (πολλοὺς) πολλὴν Hirschig ἀξίως T: ἀξιῶ B (ὅτι) οὕτως Wyttenbach ἠμελῆσθαι τοσοῦτον θεόν Steph. λέγειν: ψέγειν cj. Bdhm.

τηλικούτῳ. ‘A god so venerable”: Phaedrus holds Eros to be the most ancient of deities, see 178 B. The complaint was not entirely well-grounded, since before this date (416 B.c.) hymns to Eros of a eulogistic character had already been published by Sophocles (Antig. 781 ff.), and Euripides (ippol. 525 ff.), and possibly others.

171 Β εἰ δὲ βούλει. This phrase serves to introduce a fresh point, marking the transition from poets to “ sophists”; cp. 209 Ὁ, 220D (εἰ δὲ βούλεσθε), Lach. 188 c, etc.: but to add an infin., as here (σκέψασθαι), is unusual.

τοὺς χρηστοὺς σοφιστάς. “The worthy sophists”; considering that Phaedrus is the speaker, we must suppose that the adj. is seriously meant, not ironical. ὃ

καταλογάδην ξυγγράφειν. “ Writing in prose,” oratione soluta. Cp. Isocr. IL 7 καὶ τῶν μετὰ μέτρου ποιημάτων καὶ τῶν καταλογάδην συγγραμμάτων : Lysis 204 p, Laws 811 8, 975 Ὁ.

ὥσπερ.. Πρόδικος. This alludes to Prodicus’s celebrated parable “The Choice of Heracles,” for which see Xen. Mem. τι. i. 21 ff. For Prodicus of Geos, see Zeller Presocr. Phil. vol. τι. pp. 416 ff, 473 (E. T.); Gomperz Gr. Thinkers (ΕἸ. T.) 1. pp. 425 ff

ἧττον καὶ. For the unusual position of καὶ after the comparative, cp. Xen. Cyr. τ. vi. 88 ταῦτα γὰρ μᾶλλον καὶ ἐξαπατᾶν δύναται.

ἐνῆσαν ἅλες. Logically, of course, the subject ought to be ἔπαινος, not ἅλες. The same βιβλίον is alluded to in Isocr. xX. 12 rav...rods βομβυλιοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἅλας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα βουληθέντων ἐπαινεῖν : its authorship is now generally ascribed (as by Sauppe, Blass, Hug) to the rhetor Polycrates: see further Introd. § 11. B (e).

111 Ο τὸ οὖν.. ὑμνῆσαι. The infin. may be explained (with Ast) as an ex. of the infin. “indignantis,” cp. Ar. Wub. 819 τὸ Δία νομίζειν ὄντα τηλικουτονί.

2—2

20 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ (177 ¢

“ A 4 μ᾿ 7 an N a θ fed δ᾽ >? a ἅμα μὲν τούτῳ ἔρανον εἰσενεγκεῖν καὶ χαρίσασθαι, ἅμα δ᾽ ἐν τῷ

an »" Lt fol Ν παρόντι πρέπον μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι ἡμῖν τοῖς παροῦσι κοσμῆσαι τὸν

a - € Ν - Ὦ θεόν. ἃ εἰ οὖν ξυνδοκεῖ καὶ ὑμῖν, γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἡμῖν ἐν λόγοις ἱκανὴ διατριβή" δοκεῖ γάρ μοι χρῆναι ἕκαστον ἡμῶν λόγον εἰπεῖν ἔπαινον

Ν

“Epwtos ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ὡς ἂν δύνηται κάλλιστον, ἄρχειν δὲ Φαῖδρον + n πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ Kal πρῶτος κατάκειται καὶ ἔστιν ἅμα πατὴρ τοῦ

, λόγου. Οὐδείς σοι, ὦ ᾿Ερυξίμαχε, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, ἐναντία ψηφιεῖται. οὔτε γὰρ ἄν που ἐγὼ ἀποφήσαιμι, ὃς οὐδέν φημι ἄλλο E ἐπίστασθαι ἢ τὰ ἐρωτικά, οὔτε που ᾿Αγάθων καὶ Παυσανίας, οὐδὲ μὴν ᾿Αριστοφάνης, ᾧ περὶ Διόνυσον καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτην πᾶσα ἡ δια- 171 Ο τουτωὶ Bdhm. καὶ χαρίσασθαι del. Hartmann D (epi)

"Epowros Hirschig κάλλιστα W ἄρχειν : λέγειν Hirschig δὲ πρῶτον Φαῖδρον vulg. ἘΞ ἀφροδίτη T ἡ om, T

ἔρανον εἰσενεγκεῖν. Symbolum dare: cp. Laws 9158, 927 Ο ὡς ἔρανον εἰσ- φέροντα ἑαυτῷ-- [ἢ only other instances of ἔρανος in Plato. For a defence of the text against Hartmann, who excises καὶ χαρίσασθαι, see Vahlen Op. Acad. 11. 296. This passage is echoed in Aristid. Or. t. 1. p. 18.

177 Ὦ δοκεῖ γάρ μοι. “ My sentence is,” an official formula: cf. Dem. 1. 2, Iv. 17. Hence the point of Socrates’ phrase ἐναντία ψηφιεῖται, four lines below.

λόγον... ἔπαινον. ΟΡ. 214 8, Phaedr. 260 Β συντιθεὶς λόγον ἔπαινον κατὰ τοῦ ὄνου.

ἐπὶ δεξιὰ. “From left to right”: cp. Rep. 4208 (with Adam’s note); Theaet. 1758. Critias 2. 7 καὶ προπόσεις ὀρέγειν ἐπιδέξια.

κάλλιστον. Notice that, in Eryximachus’ view, the first requisite is κάλλος, and contrast the view of Socrates in 198p ff.

πατὴρ τοῦ λόγου. 1.6. εἰσηγητὴς τοῦ X., as Plutarch explains (Plat. Q. 1000 5): the same phrase recurs in Phaedr. 257 B, ep. Theact. 164 8 ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ μύθου : Lys. 214.4 πατέρες τῆς σοφίας καὶ ἡγεμόνες.

τὰ ἐρωτικά. The objects or principles with which ἡ ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη (Phaedr. 257 A) is concerned; cp. 186 c, 212 B, Lysis 20438, This passage is alluded to by Themist. Or, x11. p. 161, Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. p. 288: for its significance here, see Introd. § 11. B.

οὔτε πον...καὶ. καὶ is used rather than οὔτε because Pausanias and Agathon formed “ein Liebespaar” (Hug).

LTTE περὶ Διόνυσον καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτην. There are many points of mutual connexion between Eros, Dionysus and Aphrodite. Thus, Dionysus is the patron-god of the theatre, as shown by the phrases of περὶ τὸν Δ. τεχνῖται, “actors” (Arist. Probl. xxx. 10), and Διονυσοκόλακες, “ stage-lackeys” (Arist. het. 111. 1205" 23); and on the comic stage erotic scenes were frequent. Moreover, Dionysus was sometimes represented (as by Praxilla of Sicyon, ὁ. 450 B.c.) to be a son of Aphrodite; and in Aristoph. fr. incert. 490 (Ὁ) οἶνος is termed ᾿Αφροδίτης γάλα. For the traditional inter-connexion of “Wein, Weib und Gesang,” we may also compare Solon 26 ἔργα δὲ Kumpo-

178 a] ZYMTMOZION 21

τριβή, οὐδὲ ἄλλος οὐδεὶς τουτωνὶ ὧν ἐγὼ ὁρῶ. καίτοι οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου γίγνεται ἡμῖν τοῖς ὑστάτοις κατακειμένοις" ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν οἱ πρόσθεν ἱκανῶς καὶ καλῶς εἴπωσιν, ἐξαρκέσει ἡμῖν. ἀλλὰ τύχῃ ἀγαθῇ καταρχέτω Φαῖδρος καὶ ἐγκωμιαζέτω τὸν "Ἔρωτα. ταῦτα δὴ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες ἄρα ξυνέφασάν τε καὶ ἐκέλευον ἅπερ ὁ Σωκράτης. πάντων μὲν οὖν ἃ ἕκαστος εἶπεν, οὔτε πάνυ ὁ ᾿Αριστόδημος ἐμέ- μνητο οὔτ᾽ αὖ ἐγὼ ἃ ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγε πάντα" ἃ δὲ μάλιστα καὶ ὧν ἔδοξέ μοι ἀξιομνημόνευτον, τούτων ὑμῖν ἐρῶ ἑκάστου τὸν λόγον. VI. Πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ὥσπερ λέγω, ἔφη Φαῖδρον ἀρξάμενον ἐνθένδε ποθὲν λέγειν, ὅτι μέγας θεὸς εἴη ὁ "Epws καὶ θαυμαστὸς ἐν

177 ἘΞ καὶ καλῶς del. Naber ἡμῖν : ὑμῖν J.-U. ταῦτα: ταὐτὰ Usener

ἄρα: ἅμα Wyttenbach 178 A a BT: ὅσα mg. t ἀξιομνημόνευτον (εἶναι) TW: ἀξιομνημονεύτων b: ἀξιομνημόνευτα εἶναι vulg.: ἄξια μνημονεύειν cj. Liebhold ἕκαστα Bdhm. τὸν λόγον secl. Bdhm.

γενοῦς viv por φίλα καὶ Διονύσου | καὶ Μουσέων, ἃ τίθησ᾽ ἀνδράσιν εὐφροσύνας. Echoes of this phrase are to be found in Aristaen. 1. ep. 3, p. 11; Plut. αηιαΐ. 7504; Lucian Symp. p. 444.

ἡμῖν τοῖς ὑστάτοις. ὕστατος here is equivalent to ἔσχατος as used in 175¢ (where see note), i.e. placed on the extreme right.

ἐξαρκέσει ἡμῖν. “We shall be content,” ze. we shall not be called upon to speak: for the impers. ἐξαρκεῖ c. dat. cp. 176 c, 192 B, 210 σ.

τύχῃ ἀγαθῇ. “In Gottes Namen” (Wolf); cp. Phileb, 57 π|, Tim. 26 8.

πάντες &pa. For the position of dpa cp. Prot. 3194 ἢ καλόν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, τέχνημα ἄρα κέκτησαι: Rep. 3580 πολὺ γὰρ ἀμείνων ἄρα κτλ, ᾿

178 A ἀξιομνημόνεντον. We should expect rather the plural. We must suppose that the sentence is slightly confused, the original idea being to put ἃ δὲ μάλιστα ἔδοξέ μοι ἀξιομνημόνευτα (ταῦτα ἐρῶ), which was altered owing to the insertion, as an afterthought, of καὶ dv: then, instead of proceeding ὧν ἔδοξέ μοι ἄξιον τὸ μεμνῆσθαι (or μεμνῆσθαι τοῦ λόγου), the word originally in mind was put down, but in the sing.: but it is tempting to restore either ἀξιομνημόνευτ᾽ εἶναι (supposing εἶναι to be corrupted from a compendium), or ἄξιον μνημονεύειν. Prot. 343.4 (ῥήματα βραχέα ἀξιομνημόνευτα) is the only other instance of the word in Plato: there may be an echo of the present passage in Xen. Symp. τ. 1 ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ τῶν καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν ἔργα... «ἀξιο- μνημόνευτα εἶναι. For the significance of the statement here made by Apollod., see Introd. ὃ τι. B (g).

Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ κτλ. For. the discourse of Phaedrus (178 a—1808) see Introd. § τ. (analysis), § m1. (1).

ὥσπερ λέγω. “As has been stated”: the present tense (186 E, 193 A, etc.) ig commoner than the past tense (εἶπον 1730, 182D, etc.) in this formula. The reference is to 177 D.

ἐνθένδε ποθὲν. “Roughly at this point,” Aine fere: the combination recurs 1996, Phaedr, 2298, Huthyd. 2758; so ἐντεῦθέν ποθεν Phaedr. 270A, Rep. 6340.

178

Β

22 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [178 a

a > ad * ἀνθρώποις τε καὶ θεοῖς, πολλαχῇ μὲν καὶ ἄλλῃ, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ ay “ ᾿, A κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν. τὸ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατον εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ig 3 > ὦ ra δὲ ΄ - a Ν "ER " 5 Ἄν τίμιον, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς" τεκμήριον δὲ τούτου" γονῆς γὰρ ᾿ἔρωτος οὔτ᾽ εἰσιν cal ,¢€ , οὔτε λέγονται ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς οὔτε ἰδιώτου οὔτε ποιητοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Ησίοδος a Ν Ld ἣν ΄ πρῶτον μὲν Χάος φησὶ γενέσθαι, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα Tait’ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεί, ΣΟΥ ν ἠδ᾽ “Epos. 178 Α ἄλλοι Stobaeus πρεσβύτατον BW, Stob.: πρεσβυτάτοις T τὸν θεὸν W: τῶν θεῶν BT B ἢ δ᾽ ὅς del. Bast: ὄνειδος Creuzer τεκμή-

ριον δέ: τούτου (Ἔρωτος deleto) Naber γοναὶ Stob., vulg. "Ἔρωτος: Χάους cj. Bdhm. Ἡσίοδος (és) Heindorf γαῖ᾽. Ἔρος secl. Herm.

κατὰ τήν γένεσιν. “In respect of his origin.”

ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατον. For the doctrine of the antiquity of Eros, cp. Xen. Symp, Vit. 1 τῷ μὲν χρόνῳ ἰσήλικος τοῖς ἀειγενέσι θεοῖς.. “Ἔρωτος : Ar. Av. 700 πρότερον δ᾽ οὐκ ἣν γένος ἀθανάτων, πρὶν "Ἔρως συνέμιξεν ἅπαντα. Agathon, in 195 a, expressly contradicts Phaedrus on this point. Bast excised 7 δ᾽ ὅς on the ground that “in fine periodi Platonicae non magis usurpatur quam inquit Latinorum.”

178 Β τεκμήριον 88...yap. ΟΡ. Critias 1108, Apol. 40c: Xen. Symp. Iv. 17 τεκμήριον δέ" θαλλοφόρους γὰρ...ἐκλέγονται.

γονῆς..«οὔτε λέγονται. This is a rash statement on the part of Phaedrus ; for Alcaeus (fr. 13 Bgk.) makes Eros son of Zephyros and Iris; Simonides (fr. 48), son of Ares and Aphrodite; Euripides (Hippol. 534), son of Zeus; Sappho (fr. 132), of G6 and Uranos; Ibycus (fr. 31), of Chaos ; see also the statements in 199 Ὁ, 203 ff. infra. On the other hand ignorance or doubt as to the parentage of Eros is expressed in Theocr. Jd, x11. 1, 2 οὐχ ἁμῖν τὸν Ἔρωτα μόνοις ἔτεχ᾽... ᾧτινι τοῦτο θεῶν ποκα τέκνον ἔγεντο; Anth, Pal. v. 176.. 7—8 πατρὸς δ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔχω φράζειν τίνος- οὔτε γὰρ Αἰθήρ, | οὐ Χθὼν φησι τεκεῖν τὸν θρασύν, οὐ Πέλαγος. For the usual Greek assumption that the poets are religious teachers, cp. Ar. Ran. 1054 τοῖς μὲν yap madapioow | ἔστι διδά- σκαλος ὅστις φράζει, τοῖς ἡβῶσιν δὲ ποιηταί: and see Adam, Δ. T. α΄ pp. 9 ff.

ἰδιώτου. For this distinction between the prose-writer and the poet, cp. Phaedr, 258D ; Laws 8904; Rep, 3668. The term ἰδιώτης may be taken as a survival of the time when the poet alone had his work “published ”—at religious festivals, theatrical shows, κῶμοι, etc.

᾿Ἢσίοδος κτλ. The reference is to Theog. 116 ff. frou μὲν πρώτιστα Χάος yéver’, αὐτὰρ κτλ. Cp. Ar. Av. 693 ff. Χάος ἢν καὶ NUE κτλ. The order of the text I have adopted, in the passage following, is that proposed by Schanz, except that he reads ὁμολογεῖ (ὅς) φησι, while Burnet, accepting the trans- position, prints σύμφησι instead of ὁμολογεῖ φησι. Hug and others eject the clause φησι... [Ἔρωτα as a marginal prose paraphrase of the words of Hesiod ; since, as it stands in the traditional order, the clause is obviously tautologous : but tautology is in itself no objection, but rather characteristic of Ph.’s style

178 c] ZYMTTIOZION 23

b , a Ἡσιόδῳ δὲ καὶ ᾿Ακουσίλεως ὁμολογεῖ [φησὶ μετὰ τὸ Χάος δύο ΄ L τούτω γενέσθαι, Τῆν τε καὶ "Ερωτα] Παρμενίδης δὲ τὴν Γένεσιν λέγει RG ine τὰ , Vo ae , , πρώτιστον μὲν "ἔρωτα θεῶν μητίσατο πάντων.

οὕτω πολλαχόθεν ὁμολογεῖται ὁ "Ἑρως ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατος εἶναι.

118 Β Ἡσιόδῳ... ὁμολογεῖ (quae in BT post πάντων extant) transposui, auctorr. Wolf Sz. Bt. ὁμολογεῖ BT: ξύμφησιν Stob.: σύμφησιν Bt. φησὶ.. "Ἔρωτα 560]. Hommel Jn. Hug: φησὶ... πάντων 560]. Ast Turr. J.-U. φησὶ om. Stob.: (és) φησὶ Schanz Παρμενίδης...«πάντων om. Stob., Heyne Wunder τὴν Téveow λέγει secl. Jnu.: τὴν γένεσιν 560]. Rettig C πρεσβυτάτοις Stob.

(see Teuffel in Rhein. Mus. xx1x. p. 133); and there is force in Hermann’s remark “aegre intelligo quomodo aliquis clarissimis poetae verbis (para- phrasin) addendam existimaverit, multoque verisimilius videtur Hesiodi locum...postmodo adscriptum...irrepsisse.” I bracket the clause as a gloss on ὁμολογεῖ. The clause Παρμενίδης... πάντων is rightly defended by Hug, against Voegelin and others, on the grounds that (1) οὕτω πολλαχόθεν in the following sentence is more appropriate after three than after two instances, and (2) Agathon in 195c, when alluding to Phaedrus’s speech, expressly mentions ‘Hoiodos καὶ Παρμενίδης. The authority of Hesiod is similarly cited by Plut. ama. 756 B.

᾿Ακουσίλεως. Acusilaus of Argos, the “logographer,” about B.c. 475 (7), wrote in the Ionic dialect several books of Genealogies, largely based on Hesiod (see the fragg. in A. Kordt, De Acusilao, 1903). But the re- puted work of A., extant in the time of Hadrian, was probably a forgery: a collector of myths is not, properly speaking, a “logographer” at all (see Jevons, Gk. Lit. p. 299). Cp. Clem. Alex. vi. 11. 26. 7 ra δὲ “Ἡσιόδου μετήλ- λαξαν εἰς πεζὸν λόγον καὶ ὡς ἴδια ἐξένεγκαν Ἐὔμηλός τε καὶ ᾿Ακουσίλαος of ἱστοριογράφοι. Hug, retaining the order of the Mss., would explain the fact that A. is put last as due to his being an ἰδιώτης, the others ποιηταί.

Παρμενίδης. See Parmen. frag. 132 (Karsten), R. and P. 1014 ; Arist. Met. τ. 4. 984> 25; Plut. amat. 756¥. It is to be presumed that the famous Eleate relegated this theogony to his “Way of Opinion.” Cp. Spenser's lines (H. to Love), “Or who alive can perfectly declare The wondrous cradle of thine infancie... For ere this worlds still moving mightie masse Out of great Chaos ugly prison crept... Love... Gan reare his head, by Clotho being waked.”

τὴν Γένεσιν...μητίσατος Hermann and Hug follow Stallbaum in supplying Γένεσις as the subject of pyricaro: cp. Phaedo 94D οὗ λέγει τὸν ᾽Οδυσσέα στῆθος δὲ πλήξας κραδίην ἠνίπαπε μύθῳ. For the personification of γένεσις, cp. Hom. Jl. xiv. 201 ’Qxeavdv τε θεῶν γένεσιν καὶ μητέρα Τηθύν (cited by Plato in Theaet. 180D, Crat. 4028). Plutarch (loc, cit.) differs by making ᾿Αφροδίτη the subject of μητίσατο. It is, of course, possible that another (suppressed) subject is intended ; since we do not know what the context was in the original.

σ

94 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [178 c

, ν ἃ 7 2 a Las ” , 2 > \ πρεσβύτατος δὲ ὧν μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν ἡμῖν αἴτιός ἐστιν. ov yap yy + wv > a a aryl 2 > * ? Ay , Μ A ἔγωγ᾽ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ὁ τι μεῖζόν ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν εὐθὺς νέῳ ὄντι ἢ

a Ν ΝΥ ἐραστὴς χρηστὸς καὶ ἐραστῇ παιδικάκ ὃ γὰρ χρὴ ἀνθρώποις ἡγεῖσθαι παντὸς τοῦ βίου τοῖς μέλλουσι καλῶς βιώσεσθαι, τοῦτο HA a οὔτε συγγένεια οἵα τε ἐμποιεῖν οὕτω καλῶς οὔτε τιμαὶ οὔτε πλοῦτος οὔτ᾽ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ὡς ἔρως. λέγω δὲ δὴ τί τοῦτο; τὴν ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς αἰσχροῖς αἰσχύνην, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς καλοῖς φιλοτιμίαν" οὐ Ν Μ᾿ Μ ͵ A 4 A 2 ΄ / ‘ ‘\ yap ἔστιν ἄνευ τούτων οὔτε πόλιν οὔτε ἰδιώτην μεγάλα Kal καλὰ ἔργα. ἐξεροι ξεσὸ ) rein df ἄνδρα Bare ὁρῶ; εἰ py ργάξεσθαι. φημὶ τοίνυν ἐγὼ ἄνδρα ὅστις ἐρᾷ, εἴ τι > Ν “ , ΕῚ αἰσχρὸν ποιῶν κατάδηλος γίγνοιτο ἢ πάσχων ὑπό του δι’ ἀναν-

178 Ο πρεσβύτατος δὲ ὧν : πρὸς δὲ τούτῳ τῶν Bast (μέγιστός τε καὶ) μεγίστων Bdhm. αἴτιος ἡμῖν Stob. (ἢ) παιδικά Hommel Jn. εὐγένεια Wyttenbach καλῶς (οὔτε κάλλος) Vulg.: οὕτως οὔτε κάλλος Reynd. Jacobs

118 Ο πρεσβύτατος δὲ ὧν κτλ. The partic. gives the impression of ἃ causal connexion—as if beneficence must be in direct proportion to antiquity !

μεγίστων... αἴτιος. Cp. 197 ὁ infra; Ar. Plut. 469 ἀγαθῶν ἁπάντων αἰτίαν.

εὐθὺς νέῳ ὄντι. ‘From his earliest youth”: this properly applies only to the παιδικά. With παιδικά supply χρηστά. For a similar estimate of the value of φίλοι, see Lys. 2118, Xen. Mem. τι. 4. 1 ff.

ἀνθρώποις... βίου. For ἡγεῖσθαι c. dat. of person and gen. of thing, cp. Hom. Od. xxiii. 134 ἡμῖν ἡγείσθω ὀρχηθμοῖο: Xen. Cyr. vil. 7. 1 τοῦ χόρου ἡγήσατο Πέρσαις. It would be easy, however, by inserting διά after the termin, ταὶ, to restore a favourite Platonic phrase διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίον (cp. 203 pv, Phil. 39 B).

συγγένεια. “ Kindred,” implying nobility of kin: for the concrete use cp. Gorg. 4723, Laws 180 Β, 874 Δ, etc., and esp. Rep. 49] Ο κάλλος καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ ἰσχὺς σώματος καὶ ξυγγένεια ἐρρωμένη ἐν πόλει. Taking συγγένεια here in ἃ similar sense, we can dispense with Wyttenbach’s plausible conj., εὐγένεια (for which cp. Huthyd. 2798, Ar. Rhet. τι. 15, Soph. Antig. 38), which Reynders adopts.

178 Ὁ αἰσχύνην..«φιλοτιμίαν. Cp. Lys. xiv. 2, and 42 (in Aleib.) ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς καλοῖς αἰσχύνεσθαι, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς κακοῖς φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, “taking glory for shamo and shame for glory.” Remembering that Phacdrus was a professed admirer of Lysias, we may, perhaps, recognize here a verbal echo. Vor a discussion of αἰσχύνη (not distinguished from αἰδώς) see Arist. Eth. Nic. 1v. ix. 1128" 10, and het. τι. vi. 1383 12.

οὔτε πόλιν οὔτε ἰδιώτην. Notice that in the subsequent treatment of these two heads the order is reversed (to secure rhetorical “Chiasmus”).

εἴ τι αἰσχρὸν κτλ. Cp, Xen. Cyneg. XII. 20 ὅταν μὲν γάρ τις ὁρᾶται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐρωμένον ἅπας ἑαυτοῦ ἐστι βελτίων καὶ οὔτε λέγει οὔτε ποιεῖ αἰσχρὰ οὐδὲ κακά, ἵνα μὴ ὀφθῇ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων. Also 194 ὁ infra.

ἢ πάσχων κτλ. Cp. “It hath been said by them of old time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Ordinary Greek ethics approved of retaliation :

179 a] ZYMTIOZION 25

ὃ # XN ᾽ worn e %. ‘ ¥ , A ’ fol ρίαν μὴ ἀμυνόμενος, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ὑπὸ πατρὸς ὀφθέντα οὕτως ἀλγῆσαι ” e Ν. Ef ᾿ " Ὁ ? Μ' ᾽ \ ε e x a οὔτε ὑπὸ ἑταίρων οὔτε ὑπ’ ἄλλου οὐδενὸς ὡς ὑπὸ παιδικών.

3 \ x es. ἢ Ν ἊΝ. , t a ef ¥ ‘ ταὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτο Kal τὸν ἐρώμενον ὁρῶμεν, ὅτι διαφερόντως τοὺς EB ? δ᾿ > , ta > "γ᾽ 2 a ‘\ ν > 5 ΄ ἐραστὰς αἰσχύνεται, ὅταν ὀφθῇ ἐν αἰσχρῷ τινὶ ὦν. εἰ οὖν μηχανή τις γένοιτο ὥστε πόλιν γενέσθαι ἢ στρατόπεδον ἐραστῶν τε καὶ παιδικῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἂν ἄμεινον οἰκήσειαν τὴν ἑαυτῶν [ἢ] ¥ , a ἀπεχόμενοι πάντων τῶν αἰσχρῶν Kal φιλοτιμούμενοι πρὸς ἀλλή-

\ a λους: καὶ μαχόμενοί γ᾽ ἂν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων οἱ τοιοῦτοι νικῴεν ay 179 Ἵ ΄, vw a ee ὀλίγοι ὄντες ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν͵ πάντας ἀνθρώπους. ἐρῶν γὰρ ἀνὴρ

118 Ἐ τὸν ἐραστὴν Hirschig ἢ στρατόπεδον 560]. J.-U. (ἐξ) ἐραστῶν Hirschig ἑαυτῶν (πόλιν) Hirschig ἢ seclusi, auctorr. Riickert Jn. Bdhm. 8z. Naber: καὶ J.-U. καὶ (ἐπὶ τοῖς καλοῖς) φ. Ast 179A γ᾽ ἂν BT: γ᾽ αὖ Verm. J.-U.: δ᾽ γ᾽ ἂν W

cp. Xen. Cyrop. vit. 7.7; see Dobbs, Philos. and Popular Morals, etc. p. 39. For another incentive to courage, see Rep. 467 B.

178 ἘΞ ταὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτος “In exactly similar fashion,” adverbial accus.: 80 ταὐτὰ ταῦτα Meno 90 π΄.

τοὺς ἐραστὰς. The plural is due to the fact that it was usual for a number of ἐρασταί to pay court to the same παιδικά (cp. Charm. 154 A).

el οὖν μηχανή τις κτλ, Here Ph. passes on to his second head,—the benefits derived from Eros in civic and national life (πόλιν, 178 Ὁ supra). For the phrase cp. Laws 640 B εἰ δ᾽ ἦν τις μηχανή xth.: Parm. 183 Ὁ, Phileb. 16 a.

στρατόπεδον éparrdv. It is noteworthy that Xen. (Symp. VII. 32) puts a similar statement in the mouth of Pausanias—Mavoavias γε...εἴρηκεν ὡς καὶ στράτευμα ἀλκιμώτατον ἂν γένοιτο ἐκ παιδικῶν τε καὶ ἐραστῶν (cp. Introd. § vit. ad fin.). Cp. also Xen. Cyrop. vil. 1. 30 οὐκ ἔστιν ἰσχυροτέρα φάλαγξ ἢ ὅταν ἐκ φίλων συμμάχων ἠθροισμένη ἧ. This principle was exemplified in the famous ἱερὸς λόχος of the Thebans, organized by Gorgidas (or Epaminondas), which fought first at Leuctra, 371 B.c., see Athen. xr. 561 Fr, 602 Δ. A Roman analogy is afforded by Scipio’s φίλων ἴλης The parallel in Xenophon is of itself sufficient to refute Jahn’s athetesis of ἢ στρατόπεδον.

οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἂν κτλ. Hug, retaining ἢ before ἀπεχόμενοι, would supply, with the participles, from the context “ welche Gefiihle allein durch den Eros in wirksamer Weise erregt werden.” This, however, is exceedingly awkward; and his further remark that οὐκ ἄμεινον οἰκήσειαν ἂν ἢ ἀπεχόμενοι is equivalent to ἄριστ᾽ dv oix. dey. does nothing to lessen the difficulty. By ejecting ἢ, as a very natural interpolation after the comparative by a copyist careless of the sense, we obtain the meaning required—“it would be impossible for them to secure a better constitution of their city, since thus they would abstain” ete.

179 A μαχόμενοι κτλ. Cp. Rep. 471 Ὁ ἄριστ᾽ ἂν μάχοιντο τῷ ἥκιστα ἀπολείπειν ἀλλήλους... «ἄμαχοι ἂν εἶεν : Xen. Symp. VIL 32 ff

28 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [119

ἧς a a > ὑπὸ παιδικῶν ὀφθῆναι ἢ λιπὼν τάξιν ἢ ὕπλα ἀποβαλὼν ἧττον ἂν ΄ὔ , A” ς \ , a ΕΣ XN BY , ᾿ δή που δέξαιτο ἢ ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ πρὸ τούτου τεθνάναν nx v μὴ Ν ‘ > - AY δ \ oN \ ἂν πολλάκις ἕλοιτο" Kal μὴν ἐγκαταλιπεῖν ye τὰ παιδικὰ ἢ μὴ a > \ € βοηθῆσαι κινδυνεύοντι, οὐδεὶς οὕτω κακὸς ὅντινα οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸς ὁ "ER wv , ἣν 2 a iA θ᾽ ia 3 lal + 4 pos ἔνθεον ποιήσειε πρὸς ἀρετήν, ὥσθ᾽ ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ ἀρίστῳ , . na Δ “ to ἢ 2 a »» 5." a φύσει" καὶ ἀτεχνῶς, ὃ ἔφη “Ὅμηρος, “ μένος ἐμπνεῦσαι" ἐνίοις TOV ἡρώων τὸν θεόν, τοῦτο ὁ "ἔρως τοῖς ἐρῶσι παρέχει γιγνόμενον παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ. VIL Καὶ μὴν ὑπεραποθνήσκειν γε μόνοι ἐθέλουσιν οἱ ἐρῶν- 2 ’ a A 7 X Ν € a ,ὔ ἢ ‘ ς τες, οὐ μόνον ὅτι ἄνδρες, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες. τούτου δὲ καὶ ἡ

1194 μὴν Β: μὴ T hiatum ante οὐδεὶς notav. J.-U. B (acu) παρέχει Orelli οὐ μόνον ὅτι: οὐ μόνον of Steph. Sz.: οὐχ ὅτι Fischer J.-U. αἱ B: om. T τούτου : δοκεῖ Verm.

λιπὼν τάξιν ἢ ὅπλα ἀποβαλών. “The principal military offences at Athens were dealt with by one law. A citizen was liable to indictment, and, if con- victed, to disfranchisement for (1) Failure to join the army—dorpareias: (2) Cowardice in battle—SeAlas: (3) Desertion of his post—drorakiou: (4) Desertion from the army—Nroorpariov. Of these terms, λιποταξίου was that used in the widest sense, and might include any of the others” (Smith, D. A. 1. 212), Cp. Rep. 468 a, Laws 943 Ὁ ff, and the compounds ῥίψασπις (Laws 9448, c; Ar. Vesp. 19), ἀσπιδαποβλής (Vesp. 592). The conduct of the ideal ἐραστής on such an occasion is shown in 220 E infra.

κινδυνεύοντι. For the sing. dat. referring to παιδικοῖς, cp. Phaedr. 239 a, and 184pinfra. After κινδυνεύοντι we should expect the sentence to conclude with οὐδεὶς τολμῴη ἂν or the like: the fact that a new ending is substituted may be regarded (with Ast) as due to the agitation (real or pretended) of the speaker “ vom furor eroticus ergriffen.”

ἔνθεον πρὸς ἀρετήν. For ἔνθεος, “ god-inhabited,” “inspired,” cp. Jon 533 B ἔνθεοι ὄντες καὶ κατεχόμενοι: ibid. 534 Β and below, 1808. φύσει, denoting “natural” temper, is here opposed to this supervenient grace. For the thought cp. Spenser (ZZ. to Love), “(The lover) dreads no danger, nor mis- fortune feares,..Thou cariest him to that which he hath eyde Through seas, through flames, through thousand swords and speares,”

179 Β “Ὅμηρος. See Jl. x. 482 τῷ δ᾽ ἔμπνευσε μένος γλαυκῶπις ᾿Αθήνη: ἰδ. xv. 262, Od. τχ. 381. Cp. the (Lacedaemonian) term εἰσπνήλας for ἐραστής: also Xen. Symp. tv. 15.

ὑπεραποθνήσκειν. Cp. Isocr. Hel. 2170 ἧς ἕνεκα πολλοὶ τῶν ἡμιθέων ἀποθνή- σκειν ἠθέλησαν.

οὐ μόνον ὅτι. This expression may be defended by Thue. rv. 85. 3 καὶ γὰρ οὐ μόνον ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἀνθίστασθε, ἀλλὰ καὶ ois ἂν ἐπίω, ἧσσόν τις ἐμοὶ πρόσεισιν: Arist, Pol, vit. 11. 1381} 11 οὐχ ὅτι τείχη μόνον περιβλητέον (with Newman’s note): Xen. Mem, τι. 9. 8, Jahu’s οὐχ ὅτι would give, as Teuffel argues, the

179 Ὁ] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 27

; ; Πελίου θυγάτηρ "Αλκηστις ἱκανὴν μαρτυρίαν παρέχεται ὑπὲρ τοῦδε τοῦ λόγου εἰς τοὺς “Ἕλληνας, ἐθελήσασα μόνη ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿ lod nn αὑτῆς ἀνδρὸς ἀποθανεῖν, ὄντων αὐτῷ Ἢ: τε καὶ μητρός" ods C Ε ει an € ΄ a ie ἐκείνη τοσοῦτον ὑπερεβάλετο TH φιλίᾳ δι δ a > \ 2 , wy * ta Vo ἡ , , εἶξαι αὐτοὺς ἀλλοτρίους ὄντας τῷ υἱεῖ Kal ὀνόματι μόνον προσή- κοντας" καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐργασαμένη τὸ ἔργον οὕτω καλὸν ἔδοξεν ἐργά- σασθαι οὐ μόνον ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοῖς, ὥστε πολλῶν πολλὰ \ a

καὶ καλὰ ἐργασαμένων εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας

€ ~

ot θεοί, ἐξ “Αἰδου ἀνεῖναι πάλιν τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκείνης

3 - .

ἀνεῖσαν ἀγασθέντες τῷ ἔργῳ" οὕτω καὶ θεοὶ τὴν περὶ τὸν ἔρωτα Ὁ

a 8. “ » TOV EPWTA, ὥστε ATO-

179 Β παρέχεσθαι Verm. tmép..."EAAnvas secl. Bdhm.: ὑπὲρ... λόγου 560]. Wolf Sz., post “Ἕλληνας posuit Bast: ὑπὲρ τοῦδε del. et rod λόγου post τούτου δὲ posuit Steph.: ὑπὲρ τοῦδε del. Wyttenbach Winckelmann

Ο᾽ κατεργασαμένων Methodius δὴ τοῦτο ΤῊΝ τὸ γέρας vulg. ἀνιέναι Hommel ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐκείνην Earle τῷ ἔργῳ 560]. Baiter: τῷ...θεοὶ 860]. Bdhm.

wrong sense “TI do not say men do so, cela va sans dire.” We may explain οὐ μόνον ὅτι as elliptical for οὐ μόνον (λέγω) ὅτι.

ἄνδρες.. αἱ γυναῖκες. The addition of the article serves to signalize the second case as the more striking: cp. 1. Alcib. 105 B ἐν "EAAnow...év τοῖς βαρβάροις: Phileb. 45 8, ἐδ. 640; Vahlen on Arist. Poet. tv. 1449: 1.

Αλκηστις. Besides Euripides, Phrynichus (438 8.0.) and later Antiphanes (354 B.c.) made Alcestis the theme of a tragedy: see also the Skolion by Praxilla in Bergk P. ZL. G. m1. § 1293.

ὑπὲρ τοῦδε τοῦ λόγον. “In support of my argument.”

εἰς τοὺς “EdAnvas. Cp. Protag. 312 eis τοὺς Ἕλληνας σαυτὸν σοφιστὴν παρέχων: Gorg. ὅ26 Β: Thue. 1. 33. 2.

ἐθελήσασα μόνη κτλ. Cp. Eur. Ale. 15 ff. πάντας δ᾽ ἐλέγξας...οΟὐχ εὗρε πλὴν γυναικὸς ἥτις ἤθελε | θανεῖν πρὸ κείνου.

119 Ο οὖς ἐκείνη κτλ. See Eur. Alc. 683 ff. where the appeal of Admetus is thus answered by his father Pheres: οὐ yap πατρῷον τόνδ᾽ ἐδεξάμην νόμον | παίδων προθνήσκειν πατέρας οὐδ᾽ “Ἑλληνικόν.

ἀλλοτρίους. Admetus might have described his ἀλλότριοι προσήκοντες as ‘a little more than kin and less than kind.”

εὐαριθμήτοις. A grandiose synonym for ὀλίγοις.

ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας... ἀγασθέντες. Cp. Phaedr. 2598 ὃ γέρας παρὰ θεῶν ἔχουσιν ἀνθρώποις διδόναι, τάχ᾽ ἂν δοῖεν ἀγασθέντες. ἄγαμαι can take either the genitive (Zep. 426 D, etc.) or the accus. (Symp. 219 D, etc.). This passage is alluded to by Plut. amat. 762 a λέγοντες ἐξ ddov τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς ἄνοδον εἰς φῶς ὑπάρχειν.

οὕτω...τιμῶσιν. Op. Xen. Symp. VIII. 28 ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοὶ καὶ ἥρωες τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς φιλίαν περὶ πλείονος. .«ποιοῦνται.

28 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [179 D

σπουδήν Te καὶ ἀρετὴν μάλιστα τιμῶσιν. ᾿Ορφέα δὲ τὸν Οἰάγρου Lal a μι ἀτελῆ ἀπέπεμψαν ἐξ “Αἰδου, φάσμα δείξαντες τῆς γυναικὸς ἐφ ia ἡ ἣν ἧκεν, αὐτὴν δὲ οὐ δόντες, ὅτι μαλθακίζεσθαι ἐδόκει, ἅτε ὧν κιθαρῳδός, καὶ οὐ τολμᾶν ἕνεκα τοῦ ἔρωτος ἀποθνήσκειν ὥσπερ ἤΑλκηστις, ἀλλὰ διαμηχανᾶσθαι ζῶν εἰσιέναι εἰς “Αἰδον. τοι- ‘4 8 \ a δὲ Yat oF 4θ Ν 2 / \ θά γάρτοι διὰ ταῦτα δίκην αὐτῷ ἐπέθεσαν, καὶ ἐποίησαν τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ γυναικῶν γενέσθαι, οὐχ ὥσπερ ᾿Αχιλλέα τὸν τῆς Θέτι- δος υἱὸν ἐτίμησαν καὶ εἰς μακάρων νήσους ἀπέπεμψαν, ὅτι πεπυ- n a 4, σμένος παρὰ τῆς μητρὸς ὡς ἀποθανοῖτο ἀποκτείνας “Exropa, μὴ > ΄ὔ Ν a y > 9 \ Ν 7 > f ἀποκτείνας δὲ τοῦτον οἴκαδ᾽ ἐλθὼν γηραιὸς τελευτήσοι, ἐτόλμησεν

119 Ὁ μάλιστα τιμῶσιν 560]. Bdhm. φάντασμα TW τολμῶν Naber

διαμηχανήσασθαι W, vulg. ζῆν ἰέναι T ἐποίησαν ἔργον γενέσθαι γυναικῶν Naber E καὶ... ἀπέπεμψαν damnat Naber ἀποθάνοιτο T: ἀποθάνοι B ἀποκτείνας δὲ τοῦτον B: ποιήσας δὲ τοῦτο T οἴκαδ᾽ T: οἴκαδε δ᾽ B

119 Ὁ ᾿Ορφέα. For the legend of Orpheus and his wife Eurydice, see Paus, 1x. 30, Virg. Georg. Iv. 454 ff., Ovid Met. x. 1 ff. Phaedrus modifies the usual story (1) by making Eurydice a φάσμα, and Orpheus consequently ἀτελής (cp. Stesichorus’ treatment of the Helen-legend, followed also by Euripides in his Helena, and Phaedr. 243 B): (2) by making O.’s descent an act of μαλακία rather than of τόλμα (as Hermesianax 2. 7, Ov. dfet. x. 13 ad Styga Taenaria est ausus descendere porta): (3) by representing O.’s death to be a penalty for this cowardice rather than for his irreverence to Dionysus (as Aeschylus Bassaraz, etc.). For Orpheus and Orphism in general, see Miss J. Harrison Proleg. pp. 455 tf

ἅτε dv κιθαρῳδός. ΑΒ if the “soft Lydian airs” of the cithara conduced to effeminacy. For the cithara, as distinguished from the λύρα, see Rep. 399 p—E (with Adam’s note). It is worth noticing that Spenser (4. to Love) cites Orpheus as an instance of ἔνθεος roApa—“Orpheus daring to provoke the yre Of damned fiends, to get his love retyre.”

τοιγάρτοι διὰ ταῦτα. Cp. Isocr. vit. 52, Andoc. τ. 108, Dem. xx1tI. 203; an example of the rhetorical trick of amplitude. Phaedrus, as Hug observes, is blind to the obvious corollary that Eros sometimes fails to implant τύλμα.

179 ἘῚ οὐχ ὥσπερ. “Whereas, on the contrary”: cp. Gorg. 522 a, 189 ¢ infra.

els μακάρων νήσους. Cp. Pind. Ol. 11. 78ff., Skolion ap. Bek. P. L. G. 11. 1290. Achilles, after death, is variously located, by Homer (Od. x1. 467 ff.) in Hades, by Ibycus (fr. 37) in Elysium, by Arctinus and others in Leuke (“white- island”), for which see Pind. Vem. tv. 49, and Rohde Psyche 11. 369 ff. For the situation of the μ. νῆσοι, see Strabo 1. 3: cp. Adam 1. 7. G. 135 f.

ὡς ἀποθανοῖτο. See Hom. 71, xvii. 96 αὐτίκα γάρ τοι ἔπειτα μεθ᾽ Ἕκτορα πότμος ἑτοῖμος : ibid. 1x. 410 ff.; Apol. 28 ο, D.

οἴκαδ᾽...τελευτήσοι. This clause is echoed, as Wolf observed, by Aeschines 1. 145 ἐπανελθὼν οἴκαδε γηραιὸς... «ἀποθανεῖται.

180 8] ZYMTIOZION 29

e , A ἑλέσθαι βοηθήσας τῷ ἐραστῇ Πατρόκλῳ καὶ τιμωρήσας od μόνον * a ὑπεραποθανεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπαποθανεῖν τετελευτηκότι" ὅθεν δὴ καὶ 180 ὑπεραγασθέντες οἱ θεοὶ διαφερόντως αὐτὸν ἐτίμησαν, ὅτι τὸν ἐραστὴν οὕτω περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο. Αἰσχύλος δὲ φλυαρεῖ φάσ- κων ᾿Αχιλλέα Πατρόκλου ἐρᾶν, ὃς ἦν καλλίων οὐ μόνον Πατρόκλου ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα καὶ τῶν ἡρώων ἁπάντων, καὶ ἔτι ἀγένειος, ἔπειτα νεώ- τερος πολύ, ὥς φησιν “Ὅμηρος. ἀλλὰ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι μάλιστα μὲν to \ 3 ΕἾ e n Ν \ ἮΝ, Ψ -“

ταύτην τὴν ἀρετὴν οἱ θεοὶ τιμῶσι τὴν περὶ τὸν ἔρωτω, μᾶλλον Β μέντοι θαυμάζουσι καὶ ἄγανται καὶ εὖ ποιοῦσιν, ὅταν ὁ ἐρώμενος

‘\ b Ν ες a Δ cy LY ὰ ὃ td 6 [ὦ \ Tov ἐραστὴν ἀγαπᾷ, ἢ ὅταν ὁ ἐραστὴς Ta παιδικά. θειότερον yap

: \ n ‘ A , τ ‘ n Ν * > ¥ ἐραστὴς παιδικῶν" ἔνθεος γάρ ἐστι. διὰ ταῦτα Kai τὸν ᾿Αχιλλέα

119 Ἡ βοηθῆσαι W Πατρόκλῳ del. Naber 180 Α Αἰσχύλος... “Ὅμηρος del. Valckenaer ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα W: ἀλλὰ dpa T: ἀλλὰ B: ἀλλ᾽ ἅμα Bt. καὶ.. «ἀγένειος post πολύ transp. Petersen Β ἐραστὴς... ἐστι 560]. Bdhm.

βοηθήσας. Op. Arist. Rhet. 1. 8. 18695 8 οἷον ᾿Αχιλλέα ἐπαινοῦσιν ὅτι ἐβοή- θησε τῷ ἑταίρῳ Πατρόκλῳ εἰδὼς ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν ἐξὸν ζῆν. Isocrates (in Panegyr. 53) lauds the Athenians for a similar nobility of conduct.

180 A ἐπαποθανεῖν. This and 208 "ἢ are the only classical instances cited of this compound ; nor does there seem to be another class. instance of ὑπερα- γασθῆναι.

Αἰσχύλος δὲ φλναρεῖ. The reference is to Aesch. Myrmidons (fr. 135, 136 N.). Sophocles, too, wrote an ᾿Αχιλλέως Ἐρασταί: cp. also Xen. Symp. vit. 31. Achilles, like Asclepius and others, was worshipped in some places (e.g. Epirus) as a god, in others (¢.g. Elis) as a hero.

GAN ἄρα καὶ. “Apa h. 1. stare potest, valet: nimirum” (Wyttenbach): for dpa affirmative in a universal statement, cp. 1778, Rep. 5954. To alter to ἅμα, as Burnet, is unnecessary.

καλλίων. For the beauty of Achilles, see 17. τι. 678. Ov. Trist. τι. 411 refers to Sophocles’ play—“ nec nocet auctori mollem qui fecit Achillem”: cp. Lucian dial. mort. 18. 1.

ἀγένειος. The hero is so represented in art; and the Schol. ad 77. 1. 131 applies to him the epithet γυναικοπρόσωπος. Similarly Apollo, in Callim. H. τι. 36 ἢ. οὔποτε Φοίβου | θηλείησ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὅσσον ἐπὶ xvdos ἦλθε παρειαῖς.

vedrepos. See Jl, x1. 786 γενέῃ μὲν ὑπέρτερός ἐστιν ᾿Αχιλλεύς | πρεσβύτερος δὲ σύ (se. Πάτροκλος) ἐσσι: and Schol. ad Ji. xxi. 94. For the relative ages of παιδικά and ἐραστής, see 1818 ff. infra; Xen. Anab. τι. 6. 28 αὐτὸς δὲ (se. Meno) παιδικὰ εἶχε Θαρύπαν ἀγένειος dv γενειῶντα (mentioned as an enormity) ; Ov. Met. x. 83 ff.

μάλιστα μὲν..«μᾶλλον μέντοι. This savours of a Hibernicism: cp. Gorg. 509 Β μέγιστον τῶν κακῶν. .«καὶ ἔτι τούτου μεῖζον.

180 Β θαυμάζουσι. Cp. Rep. 551 a ἐπαινοῦσί τε καὶ θαυμάζουσι καὶ εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς ἄγουσι: Xen. Symp. τν. 44.

θειότερον...ἔνθεος. Cp. 179 a, 209 Β ad init.; Schol. ad Eur. Hippol. 144

80 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [180 5

τῆς ᾿Αλκήστιδος μᾶλλον ἐτίμησαν, εἰς “μακάρων νήσους ἀποπέμ- ψαντες.

Οὕτω δὴ ἔγωγέ φημι "Ἔρωτα θεῶν καὶ πρεσβύτατον καὶ τιμιώτατον καὶ κυριώτατον εἶναι εἰς ἀρετῆς καὶ εὐδαιμονίας κτῆσιν ἀνθρώποις καὶ ζῶσι καὶ τέλευτήσασιν,

VIIL. Φαῖδρον μὲμ τοιοῦτόν τινα Aovyav ἔφη εἰπεῖν, μετὰ δὲ “Φαῖδρον ἄλλους τινὰς ‘elvat, ὧν οὐ πάνυ διεμνημόνευεν" οὺς παρεὶς τὸν Παυσανίου λόγον διηγεῖτο. εἰπεῖν δ᾽ αὐτὸν ὅτι Οὐ καλῶς μοι δοκεῖ, ὦ Φαῖδρε, προβεβλῆσθαι ἡ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, τὸ ἁπλῶς οὕτως παρηγγέχθαι ἐγκωμιάζξειν "Ἐρώωτᾷ: εἰ μὲν yap εἷς ἦν ὁ "Epos, καλῶς ἂν εἶχε, νῦν δὲ οὐ γάρ ἐστιν els: μὴ ὄντος δὲ ἑνὸς͵ ὀρθότερόν᾽ ἐστι πρότερον͵ προῤρηϑῆναι ὁποῖον δεῖ ἐπαινεῖν. ἐγὼ οὖν πειριφσο μῶν τοῦτο ἐπανορθώσασθαι, πρῶτον μὲν Ἔρωτα φρά- σαι ὃν δεῖ ἐπαινεῖν, ἔπειτα ἐπαινέσαι ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ. πάντες γὰρ

180 Β τῆς ᾿Αλκήστιδος del. Schiitz Bdhm. καὶ post θεῶν om. T καὶ τιμιώτατον om. T (add. in mg. t) κυριώτερον T Ο εἶναι del. Hirschig: εἰπεῖν postea idem cj. D ὁποῖον: ὁπότερον Herm.

ἔνθεοι λέγονται of ὑπὸ φάσματός τινος ἀφαιρεθέντες τὸν νοῦν, καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ φασματοποιοῦ κατεχόμενοι καὶ τὰ δοκοῦντα ἐκείνῳ ποιοῦντες. See Rohde Psyche τι. 19 ff.

Οὕτω δὴ κτλ. In this epilogue καὶ πρεσβ. καὶ τιμ. summarize the first part of the speech; καὶ κυριώτατον κτὰλ., the second part. Cp. Isocr. Hel. 218 Ὁ κάλλους..«μετέσχεν ὃ σεμνότατον καὶ τιμιώτατον καὶ θειότατον τῶν ὄντων ἐστίν.

180 Ο ἄλλους τινὰς εἶναι. The construction here has been misunderstood : Hirschig proposed to write εἰπεῖν for εἶναι, while Hug bids us supply λέγοντας. Lvidehtly both suppose that ἄλλοι τινὲς mean persons, but it yeems better to take them to be λόγοι and to construe μετὰ Φαῖδρον as a compendium for μετὰ τὸν Φαίδρου λόγον. By this means we secure the word required, λόγους, as the antecedent to dv: for διαμνημονεύειν would be less naturally used of a person than of a speech (cp. 178 A πάντων...ἐμέμνητο). For the brachylogy, cp. Thue. 1. 71.2 ἀρχαιότροπα ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα πρὸς αὐτούς ἐστιν (with Shilleto’s x.).

τὸ...«ἐγκωμιάζειν "Epwra, This clause is best taken, with Stallb. and Hug, as nomin. in epexegetic apposition to προβεβλῆσθαι ὁ λόγος. Equally improbable are Riickert’s view that the clause is accus. (“quatenus sic simpliciter” etc.), and Hommel’s that it is exclamatory.

ἁπλῶς οὕτως. Cp. 176.

νῦν δὲ od γάρ. We may assume the ellipse of οὐ καλῶς ἔχει after viv δέ: cp. Theaet, 143 8, Apol. 38 B, etc.

προρρηθῆναι. Hommel renders by “prius praefari,” Hug by “edicere.” In favour of Hommel’s view cp. προυρρήθη 198 8, τούτων προρρηθέντων Laws 823 Ὁ; Rep. 504 ΔΛ.

181 a] ; Sree 31

slate ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ΓΝ "Ἔρωτος ᾿Αφροδίτη., μιᾶς μὲν οὖν οὔσης εἷς ἂν ἦν "Ἔρως" ἐπεὶ δὲ δὴ δύο ἐστόν, δύο ἀνάγκη καὶ paige εἶναι. πῶς δ᾽ οὐ δύο τὼ δε ἡ μέν γέ που mpeeButépa καὶ ἀμήτωρ Οὐρανοῦ ΠυγμΗρι ἣν 8% καὶ Οὐρανίαν ἐπόνομάξομεν" ἡ

δὲ νεωτέρα Διὸς καὶ Avouns, ἣν δὴ τῶ το καλοῦμεν. ἀναγ- Β

καῖον δὴ καὶ "ἔρωτα τὸν μὲν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ φυνεβγον Τπόνδημαον ὀρθῶς maehatie, τὸν δὲ Οὐράνιον.͵ ,ἐπαμνεῖν. μὲν οὖν δεῖ πάντας θεούς, ἃ δ᾽ οὖν ἑκάτερος εἴληχε πειρατέον εἰπεῖν. πᾶσα γὰρ πρᾶξις ὧδ᾽

ἔχει" αὐτὴ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς [πραττομένη] οὔτε καλὴ οὔτε αἰσχρά. οἷον 181

180 Ὁ ἄνευ Ἔρως ᾿Αφροδίτης. ᾿Αφροδίτης δὲ μιᾶς Graser (is) μιᾶς Riickert οὖν om. Stob. Bekk. δὲ δὴ BW: δὲ T, Stob. ἔρωτας Stob. τὰ θεά Stob.: τὼ θεώ Cobet διώνης T: διόνης Β Ἐ, ἐπαινεῖν... θεούς del. Orelli J.-U. δεῖ πάντας θεούς : οὐ δεῖ πάντα" Bast: ov δεῖ πάντα γ᾽ ὁμοίως - Vermehren: hiatum ante ἃ notavit Sz. δ᾽ οὖν : οὖν Orelli: δ᾽ Ast (πράττειν) πειρατέον Kreyenbiihl ὡδὶ Stob. πραττομένη BT,

Stob. Gell.: om. Proclus Steph. Sz. : ταττομένη Bernays: ἐξεταζομένη Licbhold.

180 Ὁ οὐκ tor...’ AdpoSity. Cp. Hes. Theog. 201 τῇ δ᾽ "Epos ὡμάρτησε καὶ Ἵμερος ἔσπετο καλὸς | γεινομένῃ τὰ πρῶτα θεῶν τ᾽ eis φῦλον lovan: Orph. HT. 55. 1 Οὐρανίη πολύυμνε, φιλομμειδὴς ᾿Αφροδίτη... (8) μῆτερ ἐρώτων.

μιᾶς οὔσης. Cp. Xen. Symp. VII. 9 εἰ μὲν οὖν μία ἐστὶν ᾽Αφρ. ἢ διτταί κτλ.

τὼ θεά. Plato uses both θεός (181 σ, Lep. 327 A, etc.) and θεά (Rep. 388 a, 391 c, etc.) for “goddess,” and θεά here serves to preclude confusion with "Epes. For the notion of a dual Aphrodite cp. Xen. J. ¢., Apuleius apol. 12, Plotin. Hnn. 1. 5. 2938. For Aphrodite Urania, with a temple in Athens, see Hdt. 1. 105, 181, etc.; Paus. 1.14.6. See also Cic. V. D. m1. 23; Pind. fr. 87.

Πάνδημον. For the temple in honour of A. Pandemos, see Paus. 1. 22. 3. It is doubtful whether the title originally attached to her as the common deity of the deme, or as the patroness of the ἑταῖραι. But whatever its origin, the recognized use of the title at the close of the 5th century was to indicate Venus meretrix.

180 HE xal”Epwra κτλ. Tho notion of a duality, or plurality, in Eros is also hinted at in Eurip. fr. 550 ἑνὸς δ᾽ "Epwros ὄντος ov pi’ ἡδονή" | of μὲν κακῶν ἐρῶσιν, of δὲ τῶν καλῶν: fr. adesp. 151 δισσὰ πνεύματα πνεῖς "Ἔρως. Cp. Phaedr. 266 a.

ἐπαινεῖν...θεούς. This is merely a formal saving clause, to avert possible Nemesis, and although it involves the speaker in something like self- contradiction, there is no good reason to suspect corruption in the text (if correction be required, the easiest would be εὐφημεῖν, cp. Hpin. 992 D εὐφημεῖν πάντας θεοὺς κτλ.). The laudation of base gods would sound less strange in ancient than in modern ears; and Eryximachus uses very similar language in 188 D (cp. 195 A).

181 Α αὐτὴ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς κτλ. Gellius xviI. 20 ignores mparropévy in his rendering (“‘Omne,” inquit, “omnino factum sic sese habet: neque turpe est,

c

89 TAATQNOS [181 4

ὃ νῦν ἡμεῖς. ποιοῦμεν, ἢ πίνειν ἢ ἄδειν ἢ ἢ Sekula, οὐκ ἔστι “τούτων αὐτὸ καλὸν οὐδέν, GAN ἐν τῇ πράξει, ὡς ἂν “πραχθῇ, τοιοῦτον ἀπέβη; καλῶς μὲν yap. a panne μανὸν καὶ ὀρθῶς καλὸν γίγνεται, μὴ ὀρθῶς δὲ αἰσχρόν. οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸ ἐρᾶν! καὶ ὁ Ἔρως οὐ mas ἐστὶ καλὸς οὐδὲ ἄξιος ἐγκωμιάζεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ καλῶς Tpo- ἐρέπων ἐρᾶν. Ix. Ὁ μὲν οὖν THs. ᾿Ιανδήμου.. ᾿Αφροδίτης ὦ ὡς Σ ἀληθῶς νὰν Β μός ἐστι καὶ ἐξεργάξεται͵ ὅ τι ἂν τύχῃ" καὶ ὀὗτός ἐστιν ὃν οἱ φαῦλοι. "τῶν ἐνθρώκσων ἐρῶσιν. ἐρῶσι δὲ! Bb τοιοῦτοι ἀῆρι Τόν μὲν οὐχ arp φοθαικών. ἢ παίδων, ἔπειτα oy. καὶ epdat τῶν gedaan Harrow ἢ τῶν yuxan,, ἔπειτα ὡς ἂν δύνωνται, ᾿ἀνοητοτάτων, ἜΡΟΝ τὸ διαπράξασθαι μόνον βλέποντες, ἀμελοῦντες 88 τοῦ καλῶς ἢ al ὅθεν δὴ ξυμβαίνει αὐτοῖς, ὅ τι ἂν réyaeat, τοῦτο πράττειν, ὁμοίως

jot

μὲν ἀγαθόν, ὁμοῖος δὲ τοὐναντίον. ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς θεοῦ

“τι μνῶν COM?

14 | Cc νεωτέρας ΤῈ οὔσης πολὺ ἢ τῆς ἑτέρας," καὶ βετεχούσης ἐν τῇ

γενέσει καὶ θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος. ὁ δὲ τῆς Ovpavias πρώτον μὲν οὐ μετεχούσης θήλεος ἀλλ᾽ ἄρρενος μόνον, [καὶ ἔσξιν οὗτος ὁ τῶν

181 Α αὐτὸ (καθ᾽ αὑτὸ t τῇ om. Stob, καλὸς B: καλῶς T Β ἀνοητοτάτως W ἀπὸ τῆς: ἀπὸ 860]. Sz. Hug: τοιαύτης J.-U. C xai...épas 560]. Schiitz Teuffel Hug Sz. Bdhm. J.-U.

quantum in eo est, neque honestum, uelut est quas nunc facimus ipsi res, bibere cantare disserere. nihil namque horum ipsum ex se honestum est; quali cum fieret modo factum est, tale extitit,” etc.): Proclus also (in Alcib. . p. 215) omits it. It must certainly, I think, be ejected, since it only serves to copfuse the argument; none of the alternatives proposed are at all probable; while Rettig’s attempt to justify its retention by the device of setting a comma before it is merely absurd. For the language cp. Meno 880 πάντα τὰ κατὰ THY ψυχὴν αὐτὰ μὲν καθ᾽ αὑτὰ οὔτε ὠφέλιμα οὔτε βλαβερά ἐστιν : Phaedr. 258 c, D. See also Eryx. 3978; Arist. Pol. 13385 9, for the moral indifference of πράξεις καθ᾽ αὑτάς.

ὁ τι ἂν τύχῃ. “At random”; so ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι 18] Β infra: Prot. 858 Α οἱ ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι τοῦτο λέγουσι.

181 Β ὧν καὶ ἐρῶσι. “In the actual objects of their passion”: the full statement would be ἐρῶσι τῶν σωμάτων ἐκείνων (sc. παίδων ἢ γυναικῶν) ὧν ἐρῶσι μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ψ.

τὸ διαπράξασθαι. A polite euphemism for the sexual act: cp. 182 Ὁ, Phaedr, 256 c; Lysias 1. 33.

ἔστι yap...dppevos. Observe that the reasons are put in chiastic order.

181 C καὶ ἔστιν.."Ἑρως. This clause is obviously open to suspicion as (1) anticipating the sense of ὅθεν δὴ κτλ., and (2) standing in partial con- tradiction to the later statement (181 D ad init.) od yap ἐρῶσι παίδων.

181 8] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 33

tat νῷ hr ᾿ th ΜΖ Ν ΨΜ παίδων ἔρως" ἔπειτα πρεσβυτέρας, ὕβρεως ἀμοίρου' ὅθεν δὴ Ah ys Ἵ ᾿ bs

PEE pees in

νιν ἡ ͵ bea ΕἼ TO appev τρέπονται Ol εκ τουτου τοῦ. “ἔρῳτος ἔπιυπνοι,-" τὸ

φύσ . ἐΡΡΌΝΙΕΙ πέραν καὶ νοῦν μᾶλλον ἔχον ἀγαπῶντες. καί τις ἂν" γνοί Καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ παιδεραστίᾳ, "Τοὺς εἱλίκρινῶς ὑπὸ τούτου Ted, ἔρωτος ὡρμημένους. οὐ γὰρ ἐρῶσι παίδων, add’ ἐπειδὰν ἤδη ἄρχωνται νοῦν ἴσχειν, τοῦτο δὲ πλησιάζει τῷ ἡ ρεεάσκειν, οἰ παρεσκευασμένοι γάρ, οἶμαι, εἰσὶν οἱ ἐντεῦθεν ἀρχό Evol "ἐρᾶν ὡς τὸν βίον ἅπαντα ξυνεσόμενοι καὶ κοινῇ συμ- βιῳσόβενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐξαπατήσαντες, ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λαβόντες ὡς νέον, καταγέλάσαντες οἰχήσεσθαι ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον ἀποτρέχοντες. χρῆν thet νόμον͵ εἶναι "μὴ ἐρᾶν. παίδων, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ἄδηλον πολλὴ σπουδὴ ἀνηλίσκετο' τὸ γὰρ τῶν παίδων τέλος ἄδηλον οἷ τελευτᾷ

181 Ο παίδων in παιδεραστῶν mutato post ἀγαπῶντες trs. Verm. πρεσ- βυτέρας (οὔσης καὶ) Christ ἀμοίρου libri: ἄμοιρος Ficinus Bast Bdhm. : ὕβρεως ἀμοίρου addub. Sz. D ἀλλ᾽ (ἢ) Steph. Hug οἴχεσθαι Herwerden παῖδας Markland E_rédos secl. Bdhm. ὃ

ὕβρεως ἀμοίρον. For ὕβρις as especially associated with juvenile “lustihead,” cp. Luthyd. 273 B ὑβριστὴς διὰ τὸ νέος εἶναι: Lysias XXIV. 16 ὑβρίζειν εἰκὸς... τοὺς ἔτι νέους καὶ νέαις ταῖς διανοίαις χρωμένους : Soph. fr. 705 ὕβρις δέ rot...€v νέοις ἀνθεῖ τε καὶ φθίνει πάλιν.

ἔπιπνοι. “ Driven by the spirit”: the only other exx. of the word in Plato are Cratyl. 428 ὁ and Meno 99D φαῖμεν ἂν θείους τε εἶναι καὶ ἐν θουσιάζειν, ἐπίπνους ὄντας καὶ κατεχομένους ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (cp. 179 Α 7n., 180 Β 2.).

181 Ὁ τοῦτο 8% Se. τὸ νοῦν ἴσχειν. This is in contradiction to the statements of Phaedrus, 178 © (εὐθὺς νέῳ ὄντι), 180 A (ἔτε ἀγένειος ἦν). For γενειάσκειν (pubescere), cp. Solon 27. 5—6 τῇ τριτάτῃ δὲ γένειον ἀεξομένων ἔτι γυίων | λαχνοῦται, χροιῆς ἄνθος ἀμειβομένης. Cp. Spenser /. Q. τι. xii. 79 “And on his tender lips the downy heare Did now but freshly spring, and silken blossoms beare”: Hor. Οἱ rv. 10. 2 (pluma).

παρεσκευασμένοι κτλ. For the change of construction from os with fut. partic. to (fut.) infin., cp. Charm. 164 Ὁ, Rep. 888 Α ποιεῖν ὡς μήτε.. ὄντας... pyre...wapdyev. The clause ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ. ..νέον is best taken closely with the preceding participle, and καταγελάσαντες.. .ἀποτρέχοντες Closely together. For ἐξαπατήσαντες cp. 184 B, 185.4: Theogn. 254 ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ μικρὸν maida λόγοις μ᾽ ἀπατᾷς. This ἀπάτη and καταγελᾶν are forms of the ὕβρις mentioned above, 181 σα: cp. 219 σα, 222 a.

μὴ ἐρᾶν παίδων. παῖς, as here used, is Theognis’ μικρὸς παῖς, the παιδάριον of 210 Β infra.

181 Ἡ ἄδηλον of τελευτᾷ. Cp. Phaedr. 232 B τῶν μὲν ἐρώντων πολλοὶ πρότερον τοῦ σώματος ἐπεθύμησαν ἢ τὸν τρόπον ἔγνωσαν κτλ. : Theogn. 1075 ff. πρήγματος ἀπρήκτου χαλεπώτατόν ἐστι τελευτὴν | γνῶναι...ὄρφνη γὰρ τέταται: Alcid. Odyss. 5 πᾶσά τε ἀπορία ἦν ποῖ ποτε προβήσοιτο ἡ...τελευτή. A similar

Β. Ρ. 9

re

182

84 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ {181 E

κακίας καὶ dperijs ψυχῆς τε πέρι καὶ σώματος οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀγαθοὶ τὸν VERON, τοῦτον αὐτοὶ αὑτοῖς ἑκόντες αἼθένται, χρῆν͵ δὲ καὶ Του ΤΟΣ τοὺς πανδήμους ἐραστὰς προσαναγκάξειν : τὸ τόϊοῦτον, ὥσπερ᾽ καὶ τῶν- ἐλευθέρων - Ὑυναικῶν προσάνάγκάξομ ὍΜΕΨ αὐτοὺς͵ καθ᾽ ὅσον BuvdyeBa’ μὴ “ἐρᾶν. οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν, οἱ καὶ τὸ ὄξειδος πεποιηκότες, ὥστε τινὰς τολμᾶν λέγειν os αἰσχρὸν χαρίζεσθαι, ἐρασταῖς" λέγουσι δὲ εἰς τούτους ἀπὸ Ἰλέπόντες, ὀῤθηπεῦ αὐτῶν

ἐν ΘΗ

‘ch ray ᾿ἀκαιρίαν καὶ ἀδικίαν, ἐπεὶ οὐ δή πόὐ κὐσμίως γέ καὶ νομίμως aft ‘ one MC )υῈ Ἵ ὁτιοῦν πραττόμενον per yor ἂν δικαίως. Φερῶν,

ἐλ Καὶ δὴ καὶ ὁ “περὶ τὸν ἔρωτα νόμος ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι

181 Ἑ κακίας ἢ edd. Stobaei, Hommel χρῆν W: xpnv Β: χρὴ T τῶν τοιοῦτον W 182 A τινὰ vulg. ἀκαιρίαν : ἀκοσμίαν Liebhold ye: τε vulg. ὁτιοῦν (πρᾶγμαν mg. t, Bt.

sentiment occurs in the Clown’s song in Twelfth-Night: “ What’s to come is still unsure... Youth’s a stuff will not endure.”

κακίας καὶ ἀρετῆς. Possibly these genitives are to be construed (with Riickert) as dependent on the preceding adverb of: cp. Soph. O. 7. 413 οὐ βλέπεις ἵν᾽ ef κακοῦ (Madv. Gir. Synt. § 80 Β).. Hug, however, takes them to be governed by πέρι, comparing for the separation of prepos. from case A pol. 19 c, Soph. 47. 793.

τούτους... ἐραστὰς. For οὗτος contemptuous cp. Apol. 17 B, Rep. 492 D οὗτοι οἱ παιδευταί τε καὶ σοφισταί (“ οὗτοι is the contemptuous zst/” Adam).

τὸ τοιοῦτον. Se. μὴ ἐρᾶν παίδων (Ὁ ad fin.). For the db. accus. with -αναγκάζω, cp. Rep. 473 A τοῦτο μὴ ἀνάγκαζέ με: Phaedr. 242 B. Hommel, perversely, construes τὸ τοιοῦτον as an adverbial accus., “ganz in der Weise wie” etc.

τῶν ἐλευθέρων γυναικῶν. For the legal penalties (by a γραφὴ μοιχείας or ὕβρεως Or a δίκη βιαίων) for rape and adultery, see Lysias I. 26, 30,49. One of the lesser penalties was that alluded to by Catullus xv. 18 f., Quem...Per- current raphanique mugilesque.

182 Α χαρίζεσθαι ἐρασταῖς. χαρίζεσθαι, obsegut, “to grant favours”—the converse of diarpdéacOar—is ἃ vox propria in this connexion: cp. Schol. ad Phaedr, 227 Ο τὸ χαριστέον ἐστὶν...τὸ πρὸς ἀφροδίσιον ἑαυτὸν συνουσίαν ἐπιδι- δόναι τινί. For the sentiment here disputed, see Xen. Symp. viii. 19 ff; Mem. τ. 2. 29; and the paradox in Phaedr. 233 Ὁ ἴσως προσήκει οὐ τοῖς σφόδρα δεομένοις χαρίζεσθαι. Aeschines 1. 136 agrees with Pausanias.

τὴν ἀκαιρίαν. ‘ Impropriety” or “tactlessness”: for exx. of such ἀκαιρία, see 181 p, Phaedy. 3310 ff.

ὁ. «νόμος. νόμος here includes both “law” proper and “ public sentiment” or “custom” (“die Anschauungen des Volkes,” Hug) which are distinguished in Dein. de Cor, 114: cp. Thue. vi. 18.7: but in Thue. γι. 16. 2 νόμος is “custom.”

182 B] ZYMTOZION, 35

pe hae

--vojjoan ῥάδιος, dirs yap ὥρισται" ὁ δ᾽ ἐνθάδε [καὶ ἐν λακεδανν (

μονι] ποικίλος. ἐν Ἤλιδι μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐν Βοιωτοῖς, καὶ οὗ μὴ Β ἀοφοὶ λέγει; ἁπλῶς νενομοθέτηται καλὸν τὸ χαρίξεσθαι ¢ Ἐρδρταῖη καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι οὔτε νέος οὔτε παλαιὸς ὡς αἰσχρόν, ἵνα, οἶμαι, μὴ πράγματ᾽ -ἔχωσι Χόγῳ πειρώμενοι. ‘ πείθειν τοὺς νέους, ἅτε ἀδύνατοι" λέγειν", ΤῊΣ δὲ ᾿Ιωνίας καὶ ἄλλοθι υπόλλαχοῦ αἰσχρὸν νενόμιστάι,, Boi ὑπὸ βαρβάροις οἰκοῦσι. τοῖς γὰρ βαρβάροις διὰ τὰς τυραννίδας! αἰσχρὸν τοῦτο Ὑ γε καὶ ἥ Lo φιλοσοφία καὶ ἡ

182 Α (6) ἐν Hirschig καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι δ Winckelmann Hug Sz. J.-U.: fort. post yap transpon. (cf. Teuffel) ὁ supra ἐν Λακεδαίμονι add. T B οὗ T: οὐ B τὸ BT: del. t τοῖς δὲ Ἰωνίας Ast: τῇ δὲ ᾿Ιωνίᾳ Thiersch πολλαχοῦ καὶ ἄλλοθι cj. Steph. (καὶ) ὅσοι Riickert ye (post τοῦτό): re Herm. Sz.

182A καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι. I follow Winckelmann and others (sco crit. 7.) in bracketing these words: possibly they should be transposed to a place in the next clause, either after yap or after Βοιωτοῖς (in suggesting this I find myself anticipated by an anonymous critic, ap. Teuffel, Rhein. Mus. xxIx. p. 145). That Laconia was a hot-bed of paederasty might be inferred ὦ priort from its military-oligarchical constitution, and is betokened by the verb λακω- νίζειν used as a synonym for παιδικοῖς χρῆσθαι (Ar. frag. 322), and the adj. κυσολάκων for παιδεραστής. It is certainly unlikely that a ποικίλος νόμος would be ascribed to the Laconians, and unlikely too that they would be classed apart from the μὴ σοφοὶ λέγειν. Moreover, in 1820 ff. it is ὁ ἐνθάδε (ἡμέτερος) νόμος which is treated as ποικίλος, and no mention is made there of a similar Laconian νόμος. For Laconian mores, Stallb. cites Xen. Rep. Lace. τι. 13; Plut. Lac, Inst. p. 2378; Aelian V. H.111.10. 12. In Xen, Symp. vu. 35 the Lacedaemonians are landed—Oeav γὰρ οὐ τὴν ᾿Αναίδειαν ἀλλὰ τὴν Αἰδῶ νομίζουσι (which ought, perhaps, to be construed as implying that they are slighted here).

182 Β ἐν Ἤλιδι κτλ. Cp. Xen. Symp. vu. 34, Rep. Lac. lc, Athen. xut. 2. The Cretan ἁρπαγμὸς παιδῶν (Laws vii. 836) points to a similar state of things.

τῆς δὲ "Iwvlas. The genitive is taken by Hug as dependent on πολλαχοῦ, by Stallb. as dependent on ὅσοι, “vel potius ex demonstrativo ante ὅσοι intelligendo.” Hug quotes Xen. Hell. tv. 4. 16 πολλαχόσε καὶ τῆς ᾿Αρκαδίας ἐμβαλόντες.

ὅσοι... οἰκοῦσι. The grammar is loose—“ per synesin additur ὅσοι perinde ac si praecessisset ‘upud Jonas autem et multos alios’” (Stallb.). The language is most appropriate to a time after the Peace of Antalcidas (387 B.c.), when the Greeks of Asia Minor were again reduced to subjection to the Great King (see Bury, Hist. Gr. p. 552); ep. Cratyl. 4098 οἱ ὑπὸ τοῖς Bap- Bapots οἰκοῦντες : Laws 693 a.

τοῦτό ye καὶ κτλ. Strictly we should supply, with τοῦτο, τὸ χαρίζεσθαι ἐρασταῖς, but the notion latent is probably the more general one τὸ ἐρᾶν (raidwv). The palaestrae (gymnasia) were recognized as the chief seats of

3—2

86 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ae B

AA ese σ φιλογυμναστία" οὐ γάρ, οἶμαι, ὀυμφέρει τοῖς ἄρχουσι φρ ὀνήμάτα μεγάλα ἐγγίγνεσθαι τῶν ἀρχομένων, οὐδὲ φιλίας ἰσχυῤὰς καὶ

ar 4}

Kowavias, 6 «δὴ μάλιστα. φιλεῖ τά τε ἄλλα πάντα καὶ ὁ ἔρως

4+, ἐμποιεῖν. ἔργῳ δὲ τοῦτο ἔμαθον καὶ οἱ ἐνθάδε τύραννοι" ὃ γὰρ ᾿Αριστογείτονος ἔρως καὶ a Pe ppentey, φιλία βέβαιος γενομένη

ἀπ ΓΈ νὰ

κατέλυσέν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀρχήν. οὕτως οὗ μὲν αἰσχρὸν. ᾿ὀτέθη χαρί-

182 Ο γίγνεσθαι In. τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ex emend. Vindob. 21: τῷ ἀρχομένῳ Rohde: τῶν ἀρχομένων (ταῖς ψυχαῖς) Bdhm. μάλιστα post καὶ trs. Ast ἄλλα: καλά J.-U. πάντα: ταῦτα Schleierm. καὶ 6: καὶ 560]. Bdhm. Sz. οὗ Tb: ov B

φιλοσοφία and παιδεραστία as well as of φιλογυμναστία. Cp. (for παιδεραστία) Ar. Nub. 973 ff, 980 αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν προαγωγεύων τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς: Laws 6368: Xen. Cyrop. τι. 3. 21: Cic. Tuse. tv. 338. 70 in Graecorum gymnasiis,..isti liberi et concessi sunt amores. Bene ergo Ennius: flagiti principium est nudare inter cives corpora: Plut. amat. 751 F ff. The gymnasia also served, at Athens, as headquarters of political clubs, cp. Athen. x11. 602.

182 C φρονήματα... ἐγγίγνεσθαι. For pov. μεγάλα cp. 1908. For ἐγγίγ- veoOa cp. Xen. Ltep, Lac. ν. 6 ὥστ᾽ ἐκεῖ ἥκιστα μὲν ὕβριν...ἐγγίγνεσθαι : and 184.4 infra. The genitive τῶν ἀρχομένων, in place of the more natural dative, may be explained, with Stallb., as due to “‘a confusion of two constructions,” the gen. being dependent on ῴρον. pey. and the dat. after the verb omitted. For the thought, cp. (with Jowett) Arist. Pol. ν. 11. 15.

ὃ δὴ... ἐμποιεῖν. The neut. sing., which is acc. after ἐμποιεῖν, serves to grasp under one general head the preceding plurals, For this common use of φιλεῖ, solet, cp. 1888 infra, Phileb. 378. Hug, excising the καὶ after πάντα, con- strues τὰ ἄλλα πάντα as a second object, parallel to 6. But no change is needed: the phrase means “ prae ceteris omnibus maxime amor,” as Stallb. renders, cp. the usage of ἄλλος re καί, τά τε ἄλλα καί in 220 a, Apol. 36 A, οἷο.

ὁ γὰρ ᾿Αριστογείτονος κτλ. For the exploits of these tyrannicides, who slew the Pisistratids in 514 Β.0., see Bury H. G. p. 205. Aristogeiton was the ἐραστής of Harmodius, and popular sentiment invested the pair, in later days, with a halo of glory as the patron-saints and martyrs of Love and Liberty. Cp. Skolia 9 (Bgk. P. L. G. τι. p. 646) ἐν μύρτου κλαδὶ τὸ ξίφος φορήσω, | ὥσπερ ᾿Δρμόδιος καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτων, | dre τὸν τύραννον κτανέτην | ἰσονόμους τ᾽ ᾿Αθήνας ἐποιησάτην: Ar. Ach, 980, Lys. 632. The exploit was also com- memorated by Antenor’s bronzes and a group by Critias and Nesiotes (repro- duced in Bury H. G. p. 209).

ἐτέθη. As aor. pass. of τίθεσθαι, this is equiv. to ἐνομίσθη (cp. two 11. below). It is plain that θεμένων must here be taken to include both rulers and subjects. For πλεονεξία, “ arrogant greed, ” as opposed to ἡ τοῦ ἴσου τιμή, see Rep, 3690. For the theory implied in the following passage, that ἔρως and ἄνδρεια go together (as Phaedrus also had contended, 178pff.), cp. Bacon, Essay x. (of Love): “I know not how, but Martiall men are given to Love: I think it is but as they are given to Wine; for perils commonly aske to be paid in pleasures.”

188 ΑἹ isos 37

lat i; γεν» icy ἕεσθαι ἐρασταῖς, κακίᾳ τῶν ϑεμένων κεῖται, τῶν μὲν ἀρχόντων

πλεονεξίᾳ, τῶν δὲ ἀρχομένων ἀνανδρίᾳ οὗ δὲ καλὸν ἁπλῶς ἐνο- D “pan, διὰ “τὴν τῶν θεμένων τῆς ψυχῆς ἀῤγίαν. ἐνθάδε δὲ πολὺ τούτων κάλλιον νενομοθέτηται, καὶ ὅπερ εἶπον, οὐ ῥᾷδιον κατα- νοῆσαι. Χ, ᾿Ἐνθυμηθέντι γὰρ ὅτι λέγεται κάλλιον τὸ φομερῶς ἐρᾶν ᾿ σοῦ AGO pe, καὶ μάλιστα 'τῶν γεν στο Τῶν καὶ ἀρίστων, Kav - aia lous ἄλλων ὦσι, καὶ ὅτι αὖ ἡ παρακέλευσις τῷ ἐρῶμηι παρὰ πάντων ἀένο ἐδ οὐχ ὥς τι αἰσχρὸν ποιοῦντι, καὶ ἑλόντι τε καλὸν δοκεῖ εἶναι καὶ μὴ ἑλόντι αἰσχρόν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἐπιχειρεῖν Ε΄ ἑλεῖν ἐξουσίαν ὁ νόμος δέδωκε τῷ ἐραστῇ θαυμαστὰ ἔργα ἐργα- ζομένῳ ἐπαινεῖσθαι, ἃ εἴ τις τολμῴη ποιεῖν ἄλλ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διώκων καὶ βουλόμενος διαπράξασθαι πλὴν τοῦτο [φιλοσοφίας], τὰ μέ- 183 γίστα καρποῖτ᾽ ἂν ὀνείδη" εἰ γὰρ ἢ χρήματα βουλόμενος παρά

182 Ὁ οὗ δὲ Τ: οὐ δὲ Β δὲ Β: om. TW κατανοῆσαι ἐνθ. γ᾽ ὅτι Bdhm. ἐνεθυμήθην in mg. W te T: om. B Ἑ πρὸς τῷ Ast ἃ εἰ TW: αἰεὶ B: yp. καὶ αἰεὶ W 183 Α φιλοσοφίας 560]. Schleierm. Bekk. Hug 52. Bdhm, Bt.: φιλίας, τοῦτο deleto, Herm.: φίλοις ὀφθείς cj. Bdhm.: alii alia εἰ BT: ἡ W

182D ᾿Ενθυμηθέντι γὰρ κτλ. The construction is grammatically incom- plete: one would expect δόξειεν ἄν, or the like, to govern the dative. It is not till we get to 188 Ο (ταύτῃ μὲν οὖν κτλ.) that we find the sense resumed.

παρὰ πάντων. Jowett’s “all the world” is misleading: the treatment is here confined to Athenian νόμος.

182 ΕἾ πρὸς τὸ ἐπιχειρεῖν κτλ. “Quod attinet ad amasii capiendi conatum” (Stallb.).

ἐξουσίαν... ἐπαινεῖσθαι. Here, as often, the main idea is put in the participle. Again Jowett misleads, in rendering 6 νόμος “the custom of mankind.”

θαυμαστὰ ἔργα. “θαυμαστὰ vel θαυμάσια ποιεῖν vel ἐργάζεσθαι est sich wunderlich geberden...quod dicitur de iis qui vel propter dolorem et indigna- tionem vel ob ingentem laetitiam vel etiam prae vehementi aliqua cupiditate insolito more se gerunt” (Stallb.). Cp. 213 ν, Apol. 35 a, Theaet. 151 Δ.

183 A πλὴν τοῦτο [φιλοσοφίας]. φιλοσοφίας is most probably corrupt: if retained, it would be better to construe it as genit. of object (“the reproaches levelled against philosophy”) than as genit. of subject or origin (as Ast, Stallb., Kreyenbiihl), for which we should expect rather φιλοσόφων. The simplest and best remedy is, with Schleiermacher, to eject φιλοσοφίας as a gloss on the misreading τούτου. For ὄνειδος, cp. Rep. 347 B τὸ φιλότιμόν τε καὶ φιλάργυρον εἶναι ὄνειδος λέγεται. For καρποῦσθαι, in malam partem, cp. Rep. 6196; Eur. Hipp. 1427 x. πένθη. In their translations, Jowett follows Ast, but Zeller adopts Schl.’s excision.

88 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [183 a

του λαβεῖν ἢ ἀρχὴν ἄρξαι ἤ Tw’ ἄλλην δύναμιν ἐθέλοι ποιεῖν οἷάπερ οἱ ἐρασταὶ πρὸς τὰ παιδικά, ἱκετείας τε καὶ ἀντιβολήσεις ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσι ποιούμενοι, καὶ ὅρκους ὀμνύντες, καὶ κοιμήσεις ἐπὶ “ a

θύραις, καὶ ἐθέλοντες δουλείας δουλεύειν οἵας οὐδ᾽ ἂν δοῦλος οὐδείς, 2 t nv A ‘A of A lal 5 ἃ "ἢ , \ ἐμποδίζοιτο ἂν μὴ πράττειν οὕτω THY πρᾶξιν Kal ὑπὸ φίλων καὶ ς \ > na a Ἃς be , a \ > f

ὑπὸ ἐχθρῶν, τῶν μὲν ὀνειδιζόντων κολακείας καὶ ἀνελευθερίας, τῶν δὲ νουθετούντων καὶ αἰσχυνομένων ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν" τῷ δ᾽ ἐρῶντι πάντα ταῦτα ποιοῦντι χάρις ἔπεστι, καὶ δέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἄνευ ὀνείδους πράττειν, ὡς πάγκαλόν τι πρᾶγμα διαπραττομένου" a 5 Md Ψ a δὴ ¥ “ ‘ 3 Ψ ᾿

ὃ δὲ δεινότατον, ὥς γε λέγουσιν οἱ πολλοί, ὅτι καὶ ὀμνύντι μόνῳ συγγνώμη παρὰ θεῶν ἐκβάντι τῶν ὅρκων---ἀφροδίσιον γὰρ ὅρκον

183 Α ἄρξαι 560]. Verm. Hug Sz. ἤ τιν᾽ : δή τιν᾽ Bdhm. ἄλλην δύναμιν secl. Bdhm. ἐθέλει T καὶ.. «ὀμνύντες del. Voeg. J.-U.: ὀμνύντες secl. Hertz Hug Sz. καὶ κοιμ...«θύραις secl. Wolf Jn.: post ποιούμενοι transp. Riickert ἐθελοντὰς vulg.: ἐθελονταὶ (δ. δουλεύοντες) Ast B αὐτῶν: αὐτοῦ Orelli Sz. ταῦτα πάντα T ἔπεστι T: ἐπεται B: ἕπεται J.-U. Sz, diarparropéve vulg. μόνον Stob. τῶν ὅρκων T: τῶν ὅρκον B: τὸν ὅρκον

al., J.-U. ὅρκον (κύριον) scripsi : ὅρκον (ὅρκον) Hertz Hug

κοιμήσεις ἐπὶ θύραις. Cp. 203D; Ov. A. d. 11. 238 frigidus et nuda saepe iacebis humo: Hor. C. 111. 10. 2 asperas | porrectum ante fores, etc. For the other love-symptoms cp. also Xen. Cyrop. v. 1. 12.

183 Β αἰσχυνρμένων ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. For this construction cp. Zuthyd. 305 a, Charm. 115 Ὁ. With the whole of this passage cp. Xen. Symp. iv. 15, VIII. 12 ff.: Isocr. Hel. 919 μόνους αὐτοὺς (sc. τοὺς καλοὺς) ὥσπερ τοὺς θεοὺς οὐκ ἀπαγορεύομεν θεραπεύοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἥδιον δουλεύομεν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἢ τῶν ἄλλων dipyopev...cal τοὺς μὲν ὑπ᾽ ἄλλῃ τινὶ δυνάμει γιγνομένους λοιδοροῦμεν καὶ κόλακας ἀποκαλοῦμεν, τοὺς δὲ τῷ κάλλει λατρεύοντες φιλοκάλους καὶ φιλοπόνους εἶναι νομίζομεν (with which ep. also 184 c infra).

τῷ δ᾽ ἐρώντι...διαπραττομένου. For the gen. absolute after a dative, ep. Laws 8898 ἡμῖν τις παραστὰς ἀνὴρ...λοιδορήσειεν ἂν ὡς ἀνόητα...τιθέντων : Phileb. 44 Ο is ἃ less certain case. For the sense of the passage, cp. Bacon, Essay x. (Of Love): “It is a strange thing to note the excesse of this passion; and how it braves the nature and value of things; by this, that the speaking in a perpetual hyperbole ἐξ comely in nothing but in Love.”

ὥς ye λέγουσιν κτλ. These words qualify the following, not the preceding, clause: Pausanias himself censures perjury in 1838. For ds ye, cp. Rep. 352 ἢ, 432 B.

ἀφροδίσιον γὰρ ὅρκον κτλ. This proverbial expression is found in two forms,—ddpodiows ὅρκος οὐ δάκνει (Hesych.) and dp. ὅρκος οὐκ ἐμποίνιμος (Suid.). The Scholiast quotes Hesiod (fr. 5G.) ἐκ τοῦδ᾽ ὅρκον ἔθηκεν ἀμείνονα (ἀπήμονα G. Hermann) ἀνθρώποισι | νοσφιδίων ἔῤγων πέρι Κύπριδος. Cp. Soph. fr. 694 ὅρκους δὲ μοιχῶν εἰς τέφραν ἐγὼ γράφω : Callim. Hpigr. 27 (Anth. Pal. v. 5. 8) ἀλλὰ λέγουσιν ἀληθέα, τοὺς ἐν ἔρωτι | ὅρκους μὴ δύνειν οὔατ᾽ ἐς

183 ἢ] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 89

«κύριον» οὔ ahead εἶναι----οὕτω καὶ οἱ θεοὶ καὶ of ἄνθρωποι πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν Tena Ὁ 1 ὡ τῷ ἐρῶντι, ὡς ὁ νόμος φησὶν ὁ ἐνθάδε" ταύτῃ μὲν οὖν οἰηθείη ἄν τις πάγκαλον νομέξεαθαι ἐν τῇδε τῇ πόλει καὶ τὸ ἐρᾶν καὶ τὸ φίλους γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἐρασταῖς. ἐπειδὰν δὲ παιδαγωγοὺς ἐπιστήσαντες οἱ πατέρες τοῖς ἐρωμένοις μὴ ἐῶσι διαλέγεσθαι τοῖς ἐρασταῖς, καὶ τῷ παιδαγωγῷ ταῦτα προστεταγ- μένα ἢ, ἡλικιῶται δὲ καὶ ἑταῖροι ὀνειδίζωσιν, ἐάν τι ὁρῶσι τοιοῦτο γιγνόμενον, καὶ τοὺς ὀνειδίζοντας αὖ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μὴ διακω- λύωσι μηδὲ λοιδορῶσιν ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγοντας, εἰς δὲ ταῦτά τις αὖ βλέψας ἡγήσαιτ᾽ ἂν πάλιν αἴσχίέστον τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐνθάδε νομί- ξεσθαι. τὸ δέ, οἶμαι, ὧδ᾽ ἔχει" οὐχ ἁπλοῦν ἐστίν, ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς

183 Β εἶναι BT Stob. Cyril.. δάκνειν Teuffel: εἶναι ἐμποίνιμον Osann Jn.

Sz. καὶ θεοὶ καὶ ἄνθρωποι W. Cyril. vulg. Ο᾽ πεποιήκασι πᾶσαν Cyril. διαλ. τοὺς ἐραστὰς Orelli καὶ... 560]. Jn.: καὶ... προστεταγμένα secl. Hug Sz. ἦ TW: οἱ Β: ἢ οἱ ἃ]. ἑταῖροι Heindorf: ἕτεροι BT Ὁ οὐχ ἁπλοῦν:

ἁπλοῦν Bast: οὐχ ἁπλῶς Ast

ἀθανάτων : Aristaen. 11. 20: Ov. A. A. I. 633 Iuppiter ex alto periuria ridet amantum: Tibull. 1. 4. 21 ff. nec iurare time: Veneris periuria venti | irrita... ferunt, etc. As to the text, the parallels quoted lead us to expect a fuller expression. Hertz’s ὅρκον (épxov), adopted by Hug, is ingenious but rather weak in sense. I prefer to insert κύριον (abbreviated κῶν) after ὅρκον. For κύριος, “valid,” cp. Laws 926p: Ep. vi. 823 σ, and see L. and S. s.v. τι. 2: οὐ κύριος is equiv. to ἄκυρος, iritus. To Jahn’s insertion (ἐμποίνιμον) Teuffel rightly objects that it smacks but little of the proverbial manner. ΄

καὶ οἱ θεοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι. This seems to balance the statement made by Phaedrus, 179 c—p.

183C τοῖς ἐρωμένοις. From this dative (governed by ἐπιστήσαντες), we must supply an acc. (τοὺς ἐρωμένους) to act as subject to διαλέγεσθαι. For the general sense of the passage, cp. Phaedr. 255.4 ἐὰν.. ὑπὸ ξυμφοιτητῶν ἤ τινων ἄλλων διαβεβλημένος ἢ, λεγόντων ὡς αἰσχρὸν ἐρῶντι πλησιάζειν : ibid. 234 B.

καὶ. «προστεταγμένα ἧς Hug, after Jahn and others, condemns this clause on the grounds that (1) ἢ is wanting in B; (2) the change of number, from παιδαγωγούς to παιδαγωγῷ, is awkward; (3) the clause contains nothing new. But there is point in the change from plur. to sing. as serving to individualize the parents’ action ; and the clause does add to the statement in the context the further idea that the paedagogi are appointed not only as a general safe- guard, but with apc instructions to ward off this particular danger. ταῦτα, the subject of poor. ἢ, represents (as Stallb. notes) μὴ ἐῶσι διαλέγεσθαι τοῖς ἐρασταῖς.

1883 Ὁ τὸ δέ... ἔχει. For this formula, introducing the solution of a

problem, cp. 1985; Theaet. 166 a. οὐχ ἁπλοῦν ἐστίν. Stallbaum, ejecting οὐχ with Bast, renders ἁπλοῦν by

σ

D

40 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [188 Ὁ

ἐλέχθη οὔτε καλὸν εἶναι αὐτὸ Ka” αὑτὸ οὔτε αἰσχρόν, AANA καλῶς μὲν πραττόμενον καλόν, αἰσχρῶς δὲ αἰσχρόν. αἰσχρῶς μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ πονηρῷ τε καὶ πονηρῶς χαρίζεσθαι, καλῶς δὲ χρηστῷ τε καὶ E καλῶς. πονηρὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἐραστὴς ὁ πάνδημος, ὁ τοῦ , n x a an » A Ν \ Or t , ? σώματος μᾶλλον ἢ Ths ψυχῆς ἐρῶν" καὶ yap οὐδὲ μόνιμός ἐστιν, ἅτε οὐ μονίμου ἐρῶν πράγματος. ἅμα γὰρ τῷ τοῦ σώματος ” , 2 ” Pree > , 3) \ t ἄνθει λήγοντι, οὗπερ ἤρα, “ οἴχεται ἀποπτάμενος, πολλοὺς λόγους καὶ ὑποσχέσεις καταισχύνας'" ὁ δὲ τοῦ ἤθους χρηστοῦ ὄντος ἐραστὴς διὰ βίου μένει, ἅτε μονίμῳ συντακείς. τούτους δὴ βού- 183 Ὁ εἶναι ἀ6]. Steph, Ast (οὐδὲν) οὔτε Bdhm. αἰσχρῶς μὲν : αἰσχρὸν

μὲν Steph. καλῶς δὲ Par. 1810: καλὸν δὲ BT καὶ καλῶς : καὶ χρηστῶς Sauppe Sz. ἘΞ ἐρῶν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς T ἅτε οὐ B: ἅτε οὐδὲ T

“verum simpliciter,” citing Phaedo 62, Phaedr. 2444, Protag. 8818. Re- taining οὐχ, we cannot take the foll. accus. and infin. as the subject (with Wolf), but must supply τὸ χαρίζεσθαι (with Hug) from the context.

αἰσχρῶς piv...cadds δὲ. With each adverb, sc. χαρίζεσθαι: cp. Rep. 889 Ο τὸ δὲ dpOds...7d δὲ μὴ ὀρθῶς (80. τιθέναι).

183 E τῷ τοῦ σώματος ἄνθει X. Youth “is like the flower of the field, so soon passeth it away, and it is gone.” Cp. Mimn. 2.7 μίνυνθα δὲ γίγνεται ἥβης καρπός: Theogn. 1305 παιδείας πολυηράτου ἄνθος | ὠκύτερον σταδίου: Ségur’s refrain “Ah! le Temps fait passer /Amour”: Spenser (H. to Beautie) “For that same goodly hew of white and red, With which the cheeks are sprinckled, shal decay, And those sweete rosy leaves, so fairely spred Upon the lips, shall fade and fall away” etc.: Rep. 601 B οὐκοῦν ἔοικεν τοῖς τῶν ὡραίων προσώποις... ὅταν αὐτὰ τὸ ἄνθος προλίπῃ: Xen. Symp. vil. 14 τὸ μὲν τῆς Spas ἄνθος ταχὺ δήπου παρακμάζει, κτὰ.: Tyrt. 10. 28 ὄφρ᾽ ἐρατῆς ἥβης ἀγλαὸν ἄνθος ἔχῃ: Mimnerm. 1. 4. So Emerson (On Beauty) “The radiance of the human form...is only a burst of beauty for a few years or a few months, at the perfection of youth, and in most rapidly declines. But we remain lovers of it, only transferring our interest to interior excellence.”

οἴχεται ἀποπτάμενος. A reminiscence of 77. 11. 71. For the thought, ep. 181 Ὁ supra: Xen. Symp. lc. ἀπολείποντος δὲ τούτου (sc. τοῦ τῆς Spas ἄνθους), ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν φιλίαν συναπομαραίνεσθαι. Cp. also Phaedr, 232 B, 234 a.

συντακείς. ‘Fused into one” by the flame of love. Cp. 192 ν, Eur. fr. 964 πᾶσα yap ἀγαθὴ γυνὴ | ἥτις ἀνδρὶ συντέτηκε σωφρονεῖν ἐπίσταται: td. Supp. 1029.

τούτους δὴ. With the text as it stands in the Mss., τούτους refers to the ἐρασταί only, who are divided into two classes, the good (τοῖς μὲν) and the bad (τοὺς δὲ). But in the next clause τοῖς μὲν refers to the ἐρασταί en bloc, and τοῖς δὲ to the ἐρώμενοι. This is extremely awkward; and it is a further objection to the clause that the statement it contains is premature, and would fit in better below (184p—k). I therefore follow Voegelin and Hug in obelizing. [for the language, cp. Theogn. 1299 ff. ὦ mat, μέχρι τίνος pe προφεύξεαι; ὥς σε διώκων | δίζημ᾽.. «ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίμεινον, ἐμοὶ δὲ Sidov χάριν.

184 c] ZYMTIOZION 41

z= “ f a ‘ »" λεται ὁ ἡμέτερος νόμος εὖ καὶ καλῶς βασανίζειν [, καὶ τοῖς μὲν 4 \ n χαρίσασθαι, τοὺς δὲ διαφεύγειν]. διὰ ταῦτα οὖν τοῖς μὲν διώκειν i a παρακελεύεται, τοῖς δὲ φεύγειν, ἀγωνοθετῶν καὶ βασανίζων ποτέ- pov ποτέ ἐστιν ὁ ἐρῶν καὶ ποτέρων ὁ ἐρώμενος. οὕτω δὴ ὑπὸ ἢ an rn ταύτης τῆς αἰτίας πρῶτον μὲν τὸ ἁλίσκεσθαι ταχὺ αἰσχρὸν νενό- “ A a a μισται, ἵνα χρόνος ἐγγένηται, ὃς δὴ δοκεῖ TA πολλὰ καλῶς Baca- id view, ἔπειτα τὸ ὑπὸ χρημάτων καὶ ὑπὸ πολιτικῶν δυνάμεων ἁλῶναι αἰσχρόν, ἐάν τε κακῶς πάσχων πτήξῃ καὶ μὴ καρτερήσῃ, Ya ἄν τ᾽ evepyetovpevos εἰς χρήματα ἢ εἰς διαπράξεις πολιτικὰς μὴ καταφρονήσῃ" οὐδὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ τούτων οὔτε βέβαιον οὔτε μόνιμον 5 n py 5 εἶναι, χωρὶς τοῦ μηδὲ πεφυκέναι ἀπ’ αὐτῶν γενναίαν φιλίαν. μία ‘ n a δὴ λείπεται τῷ ἡμετέρω νόμῳ ὁδός, εἰ μέλλει καλῶς χαριεῖσθαι 2 , »“ na -" ἐραστῇ παιδικά. ἔστι γὰρ ἡμῖν νόμος, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐρασταῖς ἦν δουλεύειν ἐθέλοντα ἡντινοῦν δουλείαν παιδικοῖς μὴ κολακείαν εἶναι 184 Α καὶ...διαφεύγειν 860], Bdhm. Sz. διαφυγεῖν Hirschig διὰ... ἐρώμενος del. Schiitz Ast καὶ ποτέρων del. Bast: καὶ...ἐρώμενος 560]. J.-U. δὴ BT: δὴ καὶ W ὑπὸ... αἰτίας del. Baiter τὸ (4) Hirschig καὶ ὑπὸ: ἢ ὑπὸ Hirschig Β αἰσχρόν del. Hirschig ἀντευεργετούμενος T εἰς Χρ..«--πολιτικὰς 560]. Hirschig J.-U. Hug Sz. μόνιμον : νόμιμον Wolf ἔστι: ὡς J.-U.: ὥσπερ Bdhm.: ἔστι..-νόμος om. Verm. Sz. Hug ὥσπερ T: ὅσπερ

Β Stob. Jn.: ὥσπερ yap Verm. 8z.: ὡς yap Hug: del. Bdhm. ἐθέλοντα BT: ἐθέλοντας vel ἐθελοντὰς Stob. Sz.: ἐθελοντὴν Bast: ἐθέλοντι Bdhm.

184 Α ἵνα χρόνος κτλ. For the touchstone of time, cp. Simon. fr. 175 οὐκ ἔστιν μείζων βάσανος χρόνου οὐδενὸς ἔργου | ὃς καὶ ὑπὸ στέρνοις ἀνδρὸς ἔδειξε νόον: Soph. Ο. 17. 614 χρόνος δίκαιον ἄνδρα δείκνυσιν μόνος: Eur. φῳροῖ. 1051 μηνυτὴν χρόνον. On the signif. of βάσανος, see Vahlen Op. Acad. τι. 7 ff.: cp. Gorg. 486 pD, Rep. 413 8; Clem. Al. Strom. τ. 291 Ὁ.

τὸ ὑπὸ xpyparov...dddva. Op. 185A πλούτου ἕνεκα χαρισάμενος: 216 Ὁ μέλει αὐτῷ οὐδὲν... εἴ τις πλούσιος: Ar. Plut. 153 ff. καὶ τούς γε παῖδας. ..δρᾶν... τἀργυρίου χάριν. As against the deletion of the second αἰσχρόν by Hirschig, see the parallels collected by Vahlen Op. Acad. τι. 359. For πολιτ. δυνάμεων, cp. Xen. Mem. 1v. 2. 35; this may be a hit at Alcibiades, cp. 216 B.

184 Β εἰς χρήματα.. πολιτικὰς. The reasons for which Hug, after Hirschig and others, rejects these words—as (1) superfluous for the sense, and (2) spoiling the responsion of the clauses ἐάν τε καρτερήσῃ and ἄν τε...καταφρο- vnon—are not convincing. This is the only ex. of διάπραξις, actio, cited by L. and 8.

ἔστι γὰρ κτλ. Hug, objecting to the “ganz unertrigliche Anakoluthie,” follows Vermehren in excising the clause éott...vduos, as a gloss on the following νενόμισται, and writing ὡς yap for ὥσπερ. This is too rash. For the sense, cp. 183 B and the passage from Isocr. Hel. 219 B there quoted.

ἦν..«εἶναι. For simple ἦν (ἔστι) with accus. and infin. cp. Phacdo 72 Ὁ ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι τῷ ὄντι...τὰς τῶν τεθνεώτων ψυχὰς εἶναι. For ἐθέλων as adj. (“volun-

184

Β

42 TAATQNOZ [184 ¢

μηδὲ ἐπονείδιστον, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἄλλη μία μόνον δουλεία ἑκούσιος λείπεται οὐκ ἐπονείδιστος" αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὴν ἀρετήν.

ΧΙ. Νενόμισται γὰρ δὴ ἡμῖν, ἐάν τις ἐθέλῃ τινὰ θεραπεύειν ἡγούμενος δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἀμείνων ἔσεσθαι ἢ κατὰ σοφίαν τινὰ ἢ κατὰ ἄλλο ὁτιοῦν μέρος ἀρετῆς, αὕτη av ἡ ἐθελοδουλεία οὐκ αἰσχρὰ εἶναι οὐδὲ κολακεία. δεῖ δὴ τὼ νόμω τούτω ξυμβαλεῖν εἰς ταὐτό, τόν τε περὶ τὴν παιδεραστίαν καὶ τὸν περὶ τὴν φιλοσοφίαν τε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ἀρετήν, εἰ μέλλει ξυμβῆναι καλὸν γενέσθαι- τὸ ἐραστῇ παιδικὰ χαρίσασθαι. ὅταν γὰρ εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ ἔλθωσιν ἐραστής τε καὶ παιδικά, νόμον ἔχων ἑκάτερος, ὁ μὲν χαρισαμένοις παιδικοῖς ὑπηρετῶν ὁτιοῦν δικαίως ἂν ὑπηρετεῖν, ὁ δὲ τῷ ποιοῦντι αὐτὸν

/ \ ? + , 9 © fal Ἂ Ls lol € a σοφόν τε καὶ ἀγαθὸν δικαίως ad ὁτιοῦν ἂν ὑπουργῶν «ὑπουργεῖν»,

184 Ο μία μόνον T: μία μῶν B: μόνη μία Stob.: μία μόνη vulg., Bt.: μία νόμῳ Ficinus: μία παιδικῶν Verm.: μία ἐρωμένῳ Usener: μία νέων Hug: ἡμῖν νόμῳ Kreyenbiihl: μία (τῶν ἐρωμένων τῷ ἡμετέρῳ νόμῳ Sz: μία τῷ ἐρωμένῳ Steinhart: μῶν δουλεία 560]. Bdhm.: μῶν. ..«ἑκούσιος fort. delenda τίς τινα θέλῃ Stob. ἐκεῖνον T, Stob.: ἐκεῖνο B τινὰ del. Hirschig εἶναι: ἐστιν Stob. τὼ vopw τούτω apographa: τῷ νόμῳ τούτῳ BT D τὴν σοφίαν Hirschig τὸ T: τῷ BW χαρισαμένοις 560]. J.-U.: (rots) yap. Hirschig : xap. (rois) Baiter ἂν T: οὖν B ὑπηρετῶν Bast αὑτὸν Sauppe (ὑπουργῶν) δικαίως Rettig: δικαίως (ὑπουργῶν) Sz. ἂν T: αὖ Β ὑπουργῶν (ὑπουργεῖν) Baiter Vahlen: ὑπουργῶν BTW: ὑπουργεῖν vulg., J.-U.: (ὑπουργεῖν, ὑπουργῶν Bt.

tarily ”) in prose, ep. Xen. Anabd. vi. 2.6; Lys. x1x. 6: in poetry the use ig common, e.g. Soph. Ὁ. 7’. 649.

184 C οὕτω δὴ κτλ. In this clause the method of action permissible to παιδικά is presented as parallel to that permissible to ἐρασταί. That there is some corruption in the text is indicated by the divergence of the Mss. in regard to the words after ἄλλη: but of the many emendations suggested (see crit. n.) none is convincing. Perhaps the safest plan is to bracket μῶν...ἑκούσιος, as an adscript meant to suggest a subject for λείπεται, and to supply ὁδός as subject from the preceding context.

coplav...pépos ἀρετῆς. Cp. Protag. 329, Rep. 4275 (with Adam’s n.): “the nearest approach to the doctrine before Plato is in Xen. d/em. 111. 9.1—5.” How many μέρη ἀρετῆς are assuined here by Pausanias is, of course, left indefinite. (See also 196 B x.)

184 Ὁ ὅταν yap κτλ. Notice the balance and rhythm of the clauses in this sentence—(a!) drav...éxdrepos, (b!) ὁ μὲν..ὑπηρετῶν, (68) ὁ δὲ... ὑπουργῶν, (01) ὁ μὲν.. «ξυμβάλλεσθαι, (03) ὁ δὲ..«κτᾶσθαι, (a) τότε δὴ...ἐνταῦθα, (a3) ξυμ- wimret...ovdapov.

ὑπηρετεῖν... ὑπουργεῖν. Both words are used in an erotic sense. So ὑπουργία is used in re venerea, Amphis ‘lak. That ὑπουργῶν (ὑπουργεῖν) is the best restoration is shown by Vahlen Op. Acad. τ. 499 ff: cp. 193.0.

185 ΑἹ ZYMTMTOZION 43

καὶ ὁ μὲν δυνάμενος εἰς φρόνησιν Kal τὴν ἄλλην ἀρετὴν ξυμβάλ- λεσθαι, ὁ δὲ δεόμενος εἰς παίδευσιν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην σοφίαν κτᾶσθαι,

t 4 ων a n - τότε δὴ τούτων ξυνιόντων εἰς ταὐτὸν τῶν νόμων μοναχοῦ ἐνταῦθα ΄

4 \ \ ξυμπίπτει τὸ καλὸν εἶναι παιδικὰ ἐραστῇ χαρίσασθαι, ἄλλοθι δὲ 18 an 2 Ν ΄ 7 2 θῇ δὲ 2 t ἢ μὴ \ οὐδαμοῦ. ἐπὶ τούτῳ . καὶ ἐξαπατηθῆναι οὐδὲν αἰσχρόν" ἐπὶ δὲ a Ὑ- lal ἢ 2 I > ΓΑ f % , 2 τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσι καὶ ἐξαπατωμένῳ αἰσχύνην φέρει καὶ μή. εἰ μ a γάρ τις ἐράστῃ ὡς mount πλούτου ἕνεκα χαρισάμενος ἐξαπα- Teen καὶ μὴ λάβοι χρήματα, ἀναφανέντος τοῦ ἐραστοῦ πένητος, οὐδὲν ἧττον αἰσχρὸν δοκεῖ γὰρ ὁ τοιοῦτος τό γε αὑτοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι,

fap ὅτι ἕνεκα χρημάτων ὁτιοῦν ἂν ὁτῳοῦν ὑπηβθτοῖ, τοῦτο δὲ οὐ καλόν. -

κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ λόγον Kav εἴ τις ὧς ἀγαθῷ χαρισάμενος Kal Ἧς ον τ Ἔ , 2? 9 ‘ x. - 2 nm 2? t αὐτὸς ὡς ἀμείνων ἐσόμενος διὰ THY φιλίαν ἐραστοῦ ἐξαπατηθείη,

184 Ὁ ξυμβάλλεσθαι T: ξυμβαλέσθαι ΒΒ Ἢ εἰς del. Schiitz J.-U. κτᾶσθαι: ἵστασθαι 8z.: κτᾶσθαί τι cj. Hug τότε δὲ Wolf τῶν νόμων del. Bast 185.Α ὡς πλουσίῳ secl. Cobet καὶ. «χρήματα del. Cobet κἂν : καὶ Hirschig χαρισόμενος cj. Steph. διὰ... ἐραστοῦ 560]. Hug τοῦ ἐραστοῦ apogr. Coisl. 155

184 Ἐ; els παίδευσιν..-«κτᾶσθαι. If the text is right we must suppose that κτᾶσθαι is here equiv. to ὥστε κτᾶσθαι, appended to the main verb ξυμβάλ- λεσθαι which is to be supplied with εἰς παίδευσιν κτλ. (so Vahlen). Of the corrections suggested (see crit. n.) Schanz’s is the neatest, but spoils the sense-balance with ξυμβάλλεσθαι. The corruption is, perhaps, to be sought elsewhere: the expression τὴν ἄλλην σσφίαν is open to suspicion, since σοφίαν as here used after ἄλλην stands as a generic subst. whereas σοφία has just been termed (184 Ο) μέρος ἀρετῆς : moreover, we should expect that σοφία should itself constitute the κτῆμα of the recipient, just as φρόνησις is itself the contribution of ὁ ξυμβαλλόμενος. On these grounds, I venture to suggest that another fem. subst., such as διδαχήν, may have fallen out after ἄλλην (ἐκπαίδευσιν for εἰς π. is just possible).

ἐπὶ τούτῳ. “In this case,” ἐδ. in the quest for ἀρετή, in contrast to “the other cases” where lucre or position is coveted (184 A).

εἰ γάρ τις κτλ. Observe the effort after rhythm, with strophe and anti- strophe. For the thought, see 184 4 and ep. Isocr. Hel. 219 σ τῶν ἐχόντων τὸ κάλλος τοὺς μὲν μισθαρνήσαντας.. ἀτιμάζομεν.

185 Α καὶ μὴ λάβοι χρήματα. In defence of the text here, against the excisions of Cobet and Hug, see Vahlen, Op. Acad. τι. 366: cp. Hipp. Afin. 372 πὶ σὺ οὖν χάρισαι καὶ μὴ φθονήσῃς ἰάσασθαι τὴν ψυχήν μου: Thue. π. 13. 1 μὴ τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὑτοῦ παραλίπῃ καὶ μὴ Sneon.

διὰ τὴν φιλίαν ἐραστοῦ. This phrase also is rejected by Hug (followed by Hirzel) on the grounds that (1) “an der comenponaiete dee Stelle nichts steht,” (2) we should expect rather διὰ τὸν ἔρωτα τοῦ ἐραστοῦ (cp. 182 ο). The latter objection falls if, with Rtickert, we take ἐραστοῦ as object. gen. (“suam caritatem erga amatorem”). φιλία ἐραστοῦ here is, I take it, equiv. to the compound φιλεραστία (213 D, cp. 1928).

EB

185

44 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [185 4

B avadavévtos ἐκείνου κακοῦ καὶ οὐ κεκτημένου ἀρετήν, ὅμως καλὴ ἡ ἀπάτη" δοκεῖ γὰρ αὖ καὶ οὗτος τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν δεδηλωκέναι, ὅτι ἀρετῆς γ᾽ ἕνεκα καὶ τοῦ βελτίων γενέσθαι πᾶν ἂν παντὶ προθυμη- θείη, τοῦτο δὲ αὖ πάντων κάλλιστον: οὕτω πάντως γε καλὸν ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα χαρίζεσθαι.

Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τῆς οὐρανίας θεοῦ ἔρως καὶ οὐράνιος καὶ πολλοῦ ἄξιος καὶ πόλει καὶ ἰδιώταις, πολλὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἀναγ-

C κάξων ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς ἀρετὴν τόν τε ἐρῶντα αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ καὶ τὸν ἐρώμενον" οἱ δ᾽ ἕτεροι πάντες τῆς ἑτέρας, τῆς πανδήμου. ταῦτά σοι, ἔφη, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα, ὦ Φαῖδρε, περὶ "Ἔρωτος συμ- βάλλομαι.

Παυσανίου δὲ παυσαμένου, διδάσκουσι γάρ με ἴσα λέγειν οὑτωσὶ οἱ σοφοί, ἔφη ὁ ᾿Αριστόδημος δεῖν μὲν ᾿Αριστοφάνη λέγειν, τυχεῖν δὲ αὐτῷ τινὰ ἢ ὑπὸ πλησμονῆς ἢ ὑπό τινος ἄλλου λύγγα

185 Β καὶ οὐ...ἀρετὴν secl. Hug ἡ om. pr. T (wav) πάντως Stob., Bt. ἀρετῆς γ᾽ ἕνεκα T: ἕνεκα ἀρετῆς Stob. Ο ἔρωτα Stob. αὑτοῦ (re) Ast

τοῦ ἐρωμένου Bast Ast συμβάλλομαι T, Method.: συμβάλλομεν B οὑτωσὶ om. Hermog.

185 Β καλὴ ἡ ἀπάτη. Se. τῷ ἐξαπατωμένῳ. δοκεῖ γὰρ αὖ καὶ οὗτος. This corresponds to δοκεῖ γὰρ ὁ τοιοῦτος κτλ. in 185 a. :

185 Ο ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα. For the sense subito 5. ex tempore, cp. Crat. 399 D, Critias 1075. On extempore, as opposed to premeditated orations, see Alcidamas de Soph. 3 εἰπεῖν ἐκ τοῦ παραυτίκα κτλ.

συμβάλλομαι. “This is my contribution,” with allusion to the literary épavos mentioned in 1770.

ἴσα λέγειν. This alludes to the ἴσα σχήματα (including sound-cchoes etc., as well as “isokolia”) of the rhetorical τεχνῖται (see Spengel, rhet. Gr. 11. pp. 436—7). We may render (after Jowett): “When Patst%ntis had come t5 & patise—a pretty piece of ‘isology’ I have been taught by the professors—” etc. The title οἱ σοφοί is variously applied in Plato to the Orphics (Rep. 583 B), to poets (Rep, 489 B), and, as here, to linguistic craftsmen. For σοφία as applied to etymological “puns,” cp. Crat. 396 c, D, and the use of σοφί- ζεσθαι (in connexion with the etymology of οὐρανός) in Rep. 509 D (see Adam’s n. ad loc.), For a rhetorical repetition of the same word (avo), see Gorg. Hel, 2 τὴν μὲν κακῶς ἀκούουσαν παῦσαι τῆς αἰτίας, τοὺς δὲ μεμφο- μένους..-παῦσαι τῆς ἀμαθίας.

λύγγα. The Scholiast has a long note here: τὸ τοῦ λυγμοῦ σύμπτωμα ἐπιγίνεται τῷ στομάχῳ διὰ πλήρωσιν ἢ κένωσιν ἢ ψῦξιν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ διὰ δῆξιν δριμέων ὑγρῶν καὶ φαρμακωδῶν ταῖς ποιύτησιν..«ὅταν δὲ ὑπὸ πληρώσεως λυγμὸς γένηται, ἔμετος τούτοις ἴαμα καὶ τῶν ἄκρων τρῖψις καὶ πνεύματος κατοχή. The hiccough of Aristophanes is part of the comic relief in the piece (see Introd. ὃ irc). For πλησμονή, as ἃ cause of disorder, cp. 186 0 ., Hippocr. de diaet. rr. 72 ff.

186 Α] ZYMMOZION 45

Ly a + nr ἐπιπεπτωκυΐαν Kal οὐχ οἷόν τε εἶναι λέγειν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν--- \ a

ἐν τῇ κάτω yap αὐτοῦ τὸν ἰατρὸν ᾿βρυξίμαχον κατακεῖσθαι---:Ὦ, Ὁ 2 ’ὔ / A n na Ἐρυξίμαχε, δίκαιος εἶ ἢ παῦσαί με τῆς λυγγὸς ἢ λέγειν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ,

ef xn " ἃ ΄ ἣν \ ΓΙ 7 Ὡ ἃ \ ,

ἕως ἂν ἐγὼ παύσωμαι. καὶ τὸν ᾿Βρυξίμαχον εἰπεῖν ᾿Αλλὰ ποιήσω

’ , n n an lal

ἀμφότερα ταῦτα" ἐγὼ μὲν yap ἐρῶ ἐν τῷ σῷ μέρει, σὺ δ᾽ ἐπειδὰν

7 A a

παύσῃ, ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ. ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼ λέγω, ἐὰν μέν σοι ἐθέλῃ

ε

ἀπνευστὶ ἔχοντι πολὺν χρόνον παύεσθαι ἡ λύγξ' εἰ δὲ μή, ὕδατι

Ls ,ὔ > > oF / ’ s 5 » , ἀνακογχυλίασον. εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα πάνυ ἰσχυρά ἐστιν, ἀναλαβών 1B ᾿ τοιοῦτον οἵῳ κνήσαις ἂν τὴν ῥῖνα, πτάρε" καὶ ἐὰν τοῦτο ποιήσῃς

μ᾿ By , \ > 2 > 42 ΄ > x s ἅπαξ ἢ δίς, καὶ εἰ πάνυ ἰσχυρά ἐστι, παύσεται. Οὐκ av φθάνοις λέγων, φάναι τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνη" ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα ποιήσω. ΧΙ]. Εἰὐπεῖν δὴ τὸν Ἐρυξίμαχον, Δοκεῖ τοίνυν μοι ἀναγκαῖον

> 2 ‘ ig ς- ΄ » ἃ Ν 4 a > © a εἶναι, ἐπειδὴ Παυσανίας ὁρμήσας ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον καλῶς οὐχ ἱκανῶς 186 ᾽ 3 ta > = n 4 ἐν tal an La ‘\ \ ἀπετέλεσε, δεῖν ἐμὲ πειρᾶσθαι τέλος ἐπιθεῖναι τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ μὲν

\ fa) a

yap διπλοῦν εἶναι τὸν "Epwra δοκεῖ μοι καλῶς διελέσθαι" ὅτι δὲ

185 Ο λέγειν om. W Ὁ ἐν τῇ κάτω: ἐγγυτάτω Steph. τὸν ἰατρὸν T: τῶν ἰατρῶν B (οὐ) πολὺν Sauppe παύσασθαι Stob. ἘΞ ἀναλαβών: λαβών Stob. οἵῳ : ὅτῳ Cobet κνήσαις Wyttenbach: κνήσαιο Luzac: κινήσαις BT, Stob. Athen. πταρὼν Stob. φᾶναι B: εἰπεῖν TW ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι del. Sz. οὐχ ἱκανῶς : οὐχὶ καλῶς olim Sz, 186 Α δεῖν om. Method. Sz.: δεῖν ἐμὲ del. Hirschig

ἐν τῇ κάτω αὐτοῦ. Sc. kAivy—referring to what might jocosely be termed the clinical position of the worthy doctor. Cp. 2. on ἔσχατον κατακείμενον, 175 ©.

185 Ὁ ἐν τῷ σῷ μέρει. Cp. Meno 92 ἀλλὰ σὺ δὴ ἐν τῷ μέρει αὐτοῦ εἰπέ.

ἐὰν μέν σοι κτλ. We have here a case of “aposiopesis” or suppressed apodosis; cp. Protag. 311 Ὁ; Hom. JU. 1. 135 ff.: see Goodwin G. Mf. T. § 482.

ἀνακογχυλίασον. Schol. ἀνακογχυλιάσαι- τὸ κλύσαι τὴν φάρυγγα, ὃ λέγομεν ἀναγαργαρίσαι. With Eryximachus’s treatment οὗ Avyé, cp. Hippocr. de diaet. mi. 75 Ε γίνεται δὲ καὶ τοιάδε πλησμονή" és τὴν ὑστεραίην τὸν σῖτον ἐρυγ- γάνεται κτλ.

185 E «wrdpe. Cp. Hippocr. Aphor. vi. 13 ὑπὸ λυγμοῦ ἐχομένῳ πταρμοὶ ἐπιγενόμενοι λύουσι τὸν λυγμόν : Arist. Probl. 33.

Οὐκ ἂν φθάνοις λέγων. A familiar idiom: “the sooner you speak the better” (see Goodwin G@. I. 7. § 894): more rarely of 1st person, 214 infra.

οὐχ ἱκανῶς. Schanz’s οὐχὶ καλῶς is ingenious but needless: for a similar variety in antithesis Vahlen cites Z'heact. 187 αὶ κρεῖττον γάρ mov σμικρὸν εὖ ἢ πολὺ μὴ ἱκανῶς περᾶναι. For δεῖν redundant cp. Ale. 11. 144d, 1468, Rep. 535 Δ, Laws 731 Ὁ, Β: Schanz in nov. comm. p. 83 regards both ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι and δεῖν ἐμέ as interpolations by copyists who failed to see the force of doxei=aptum videtur ; but in his text he excises only deity: against this, see Teuffel, 2h. Afus, XX1x. p. 140.

40 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [186 a

᾽ , 2 \ 7 \ - a fal » , Ἂν \ \ οὐ μόνον ἐστὶν ἐπὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τοὺς καλοὺς ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλα πολλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, τοῖς τε σώμασι τῶν πάντων ζώων καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῇ γῇ φυομένοις καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσι, καθεωρακέναι μοι δοκῶ ἐκ τῆς ἰατρικῆς, τῆς

ἐ n Ls bh B ἡμετέρας τέχνης, ὡς μέγας καὶ θαυμαστὸς καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ὁ θεὸς - Ν Ἂς τείνει καὶ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπινα καὶ κατὰ θεῖα πράγματα. ἄρξομαι δὲ

a a 4, ὦ « \ ἀπὸ τῆς ἰατρικῆς λέγων, ἵνα καὶ πρεσβεύωμεν THY τέχνην. ἡ γὰρ

a a fal 4 * Ἂ φύσις τῶν σωμάτων τὸν διπλοῦν "Ἰῦρωτα τοῦτον ἔχει. τὸ γὰρ a n tf \ , ὑγιὲς τοῦ σώματος Kal τὸ νοσοῦν ὁμολογουμένως ἕτερόν τε Kai

>? # ‘ ? Ν Ἂν > , 2 va >? 6 tal ‘ ? na ἄλλ ἀνόμοιόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀνόμοιον ἀνομοίων ἐπιθυμεῖ καὶ ἐρᾷς ἄλλος ᾿ 5 a ΄, μὲν οὖν ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ ὑγιεινῷ ἔρως, ἄλλος δὲ ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ νοσώδει. ἔστι -“ a \ δή, ὥσπερ ἄρτι Παυσανίας ἔλεγε τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς καλὸν yapi- C ζεσθαι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τοῖς δὲ ἀκολάστοις αἰσχρόν, οὕτω καὶ ἐν rhe ἐν \

186 Α πάντων τῶν Hirschig δοκῶ (γνοὺς) Herwerden τῆς ἰατρικῆς secl. Hirschig ὡς (καὶ) Ficinus Steph. B κατὰ τἀνθρώπινα Stob. κατὰ τὰ θεῖα Stob, καὶ om, Stob, πρεσβεύω pov Bdlim. ἡ γὰρ: ite γὰρ Sauppe: καὶ γὰρ 4.-Ὁ. ἔχει T: ἔχῃ B ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς TW, Stob. te: τι Stob., Thiersch ὑγιεινῷ ἔρως T: ὑγιεΐνοερος B ἔστι δή: ἔτι δὲ Bdhm. τῶν ἀνθρώπων del. Thiersch

186.Α τῆς ἰατρικῆς. Eryx. speaks, as a member of the Asclepiad guild, of “our art”: for his glorification of “the art,” see also 176 p, 196 4, and Agathon’s allusion in 196 Ὁ. Cp. Theaet. 161 Ε τὸ δὲ δὴ ἐμόν τε καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς τέχνης τῆς μαιευτικῆς κτλ., where also Naber excises τῆς p. (cp. Vahlen Op. Ae. τι. 273).

ds μέγας κτλ. This os-clause serves to repeat in another form the initial ért-clause, thus making two object-clauses to one main clause in the sentence, for which cp. 2118 2nfra, Apol. 20 ο.

186 Β ἐπὶ wav...relver. Cp. 222 B ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τείνοντες (Adyous): we might render “ of universal scope.” .

πρεσβεύωμεν. For the sense, “venerate,” cp. 1880, and πρεσβύτερον 218D: Crito 46 ὁ τοὺς αὐτοὺς πρεσβεύω καὶ τιμῶ : Hep, 591 ο.

τὸ δὲ ἀνόμοιον κτλ. “Things dissimilar in themselves crave dissimilar objects”: eg. the appetites of the sound body differ from those of the sick body. Cp. Hippoer. de nat. hom. 9 ὁκόσα πλησμονὴ τίκτει νουσήματα, κένωσις ἰῆται, ὁκόσα δὲ ἀπὸ κενώσιος γένεται νουσήματα, πλησμονὴ ἰῆται...τὸ δὲ ξύμπαν γνῶναι, δεῖ τὸν ἰητρὸν ἐναντίον ἵστασθαι τοῖσι καθεστεῶσι καὶ νουσήμασι καὶ εἴδεσι κτλ.

ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ ὑγιεινῷ ἔρως. “The craving felt by the sound body”: cp. ἐπὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς, 186.4. In the doctor’s parable, τὸ ὑγιεινόν corresponds to the good, τὸ νοσώδες to the bad ἐραστής.

ἔστι δή. This is, as Hug observes, a favourite opening with Eryx.: ep. ἔστι γάρ, 1860; ἔστι δέ, 186 dD, 187 Δ.

186 5] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 41

ES al, ἐς δὴ ας νον A n

αὑτοῖς τοῖς σώμασι τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ἑκάστου τοῦ σώματος Kal © ca ‘\ τ na a

ὑγιεινοῖς καλὸν χαρίζεσθαι καὶ δεῖ, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ᾧ ὄνομα TO

iar fe " δὲ a \ 58 > , Ν es a PLKOV, τοῖς OE κακοῖς καὶ νοσωόεσιν αισχρον TE Kab δεῖ axapt- τ

- ᾽ » %. στεῖν, εἰ μέλλει τις τεχνικὸς εἶναι. ἔστι γὰρ ἰατρική, ὡς ἐν κεφα- a > al} , n a n Ἂ λαίῳ εἰπεῖν, ἐπιστήμη τῶν τοῦ σώματος ἐρωτικῶν πρὸς πλησ- Ν \ ΄ - μονὴν καὶ κένωσιν, καὶ ὁ διαγιγνώσκων ἐν τούτοις τὸν καλόν τε Ἄ > Ν y κα t ? + ὦ a ἣξ / καὶ αἰσχρὸν ἔρωτα, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἰατρικώτατος, Kal ὁ μεταβάλλειν n / an a ποιῶν, ὥστε ἀντὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἔρωτος Tov ἕτερον κτᾶσθαι, καὶ οἷς Noo an ᾿ , ᾿ fo) μὴ ἔνεστιν ἔρως, δεῖ δ᾽ ἐγγενέσθαι, ἐπιστάμενος ἐμποιῆσαι καὶ »» a κ᾿ pie * ἐνόντα ἐξελεῖν, ἀγαθὸς ἂν ein δημιουργός. δεῖ yap δὴ τὰ ἔχθιστα

186 C αὐτοῖς : αὖ Rohde καὶ δεῖ, καὶ: καὶ δὴ καὶ Naber τὸν ante καλόν delend. cj. Usener D κτᾶσθαι B: κτήσασθαι T: fort. ἵστασθαι ἔρως secl. J.-U. καὶ...ἐξελεῖν secl. Sz. ἐνόντα (ois μὴ det) Herw.

186 Ο ἔστι γὰρ ἰατρική κτλ. Cp. (with Poschenrieder) Hippocr. de flat. τ. Ῥ. 570 Κ. πάλιν αὖ πλησμονὴν ἰῆται κένωσις" κένωσιν δὲ πλησμονή...τὰ ἐναν- τία τῶν ἐναντίων ἐστὶν ἰήματα. ἰητρικὴ γάρ ἐστι πρόσθεσις καὶ ἀφαίρεσις, ἀφαίρεσις μὲν τῶν ὑπερβαλλόντων, πρόσθεσις δὲ τῶν ἐλλιπόντων 6 δὲ κάλλιστα τοῦτο ποιέων ἄριστος ἰητρός. Also Phileb, 32a, 354 for “repletion” and “depletion” in connexion with bodily φύσις: and Zim. 82 ΧΑ γῆς πυρὸς ὕδατος τε καὶ ἀέρος... ἡ παρὰ φύσιν πλεονεξία καὶ ἔνδεια... στάσεις καὶ νόσους παρέχει.

ὁ διαγιγνώσκων κτλ. In this passage there is a distinction implied between pure and applied ἰατρική, between medicine as a science (ἐπιστήμη) and as an art (τέχνη). διαγιγνώσκω is here used almost in the technical sense of making a medical diagnosis (cp. Hippocr. de nat. hom. 9 τὴν διάγνωσιν... ποιέεσθαι): possibly earlier “ Asclepiads” than Hippocrates may have ear- marked διάγνωσις as a medical term. Cf. the distinction between κατὰ γνώμην and κατὰ xetpovpyinv in Hippocr. de morbis τ. 6.

186D ὁ μεταβάλλειν ποιῶν κτλ. Cp. Hippocr. de morbo sacro, p. 396 L. ὅστις δὲ ἐπίσταται ἐν ἀνθρώποισι THY τοιαύτην μεταβολὴν καὶ δύναται ὑγρὸν καὶ ξηρὸν ποιέειν καὶ θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν ὑπὸ διαίτης τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὗτος καὶ ταύτην τὴν νοῦσον ἰῷτο ἄν: id. de nat. hom. 9 τὴν θεραπείην χρὴ ποιέεσθαι. τῇ τῶν διαιτημάτων μεταβολῇ κτὰ. In later Greek δημιουργός becomes the vor propria for a medical “ practitioner,” as δημοσιεύειν for “to practise”: similarly yecpo- τέχνης, Hippocr. περὶ παθῶν 1.

ὥστε... κτᾶσθαι. Supply as subject τὰ σώματα.

καὶ ἐνόντα ἐξελεῖν. Schanz would excise these words; but though they present a rather awkward case of brachylogy, they are otherwise unobjection- able. Herwerden’s proposal (see crit. n.), though supplying the right sense, is needless; while Lehrs is obviously blundering when he construes ἐνόντα as neut. plural, “und wieder auch das Vorhandene fortzubringen.” Hommel gives the meaning rightly, ‘und die einwohnende (Neigung), die nicht ein- wohnen darf, heraus zu treiben.”

δεῖ γὰρ δὴ. “For he must, as a matter of fact”—an appeal to recognized

D

48 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [186 »

ὄντα ἐν τῷ σώματι φίλα οἷόν 7 εἶναι ποιεῖν καὶ ἐρᾶν ἀλλήλων. μ δὲ ΝΜ θ Ὰ Ν > ra Ν θ na τ Dr a ἔστι δὲ ἔχθιστα-τὰ ἐναντιώτατα, ψυχρὸν θερμῷ, πικρὸν γλυκεῖ, E ξηρὸν ὑγρῷ, πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα τούτοις ἐπιστηθεὶς ἔρωτα ἐμποιῆ- ὲ © / a ae ἐφ t ¥ rf ὥ ἴδ σαι καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ὁ ἡμέτερος πρόγονος ᾿Ασκληπιός, ὥς φασιν οἵδε οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ ἐγὼ πείθομαι, συνέστησε τὴν ἡμετέραν τέχνην. gd = Σ ra ὥ ¥ a \ n 0. lel ΄ ἥ τε οὖν ἰατρική, ὥσπερ λέγω, πᾶσα διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου κυβερ- 187 νᾶται, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ γυμναστικὴ καὶ γεωργία" μουσικὴ δὲ καὶ

180 Ὁ φίλια Hirschig πικρὸν γλυκεῖ del. Thiersch Hug (καὶ) πάντα Wolf Ἑ τοῦ θεοῦ secl. Bdhm. 187 Α καὶ γεωργία del. Sauppe Jn.

axioms of “the Art.” Hippocrates based his medical theory on the as- sumption of two pairs of opposite and primary qualities, ψυχρόν)(θερμόν, and Enpsv)(iypév. By the permutations and combinations of these he sought to account for all varieties of physical health and disease: see e.g. Hippocr. de morb. 1.2; de affect.1. Cp. Lys. 2158: Theo. Smyrn. Math. p. 15 Bull. καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέγιστον ἔργον θεοῦ κατὰ μουσικήν τε καὶ ἰατρικὴν, τὰ ἐχθρὰ φίλα ποιεῖν : also Tim. 82. Α for the “hot” and “cold” in health and disease.

πικρὸν γλυκεῖ. Ast’s excision of these words (approved by Stallb., Hug, and others) is, at first sight, plausible, inasmuch as these opposites of taste seem hardly on a par with the other two pairs of primary opposites. But in Lysis 215 & the same three pairs are mentioned, with ὀξύ)γἀμβλύ as a fourth, as exx. of the law of ἐπιθυμία τῶν ἐναντίων. Moreover, it is obvious that the question of savours is of special importance in medical science: cp. Theaet. 166 E τῷ... ἀσθενοῦντι πικρὰ φαίνεται ἃ ἐσθίει καὶ ἔστι: Hippocr. περὶ διαίτης τι. 56 τὰ γλυκέα...καὶ τὰ πικρὰ...θερμαίνειν πέφυκε, καὶ ὅσα ξηρά ἐστι καὶ ὅσα ὑγρά: id. de nat. hom, 2, 6: and the connexion between πικρύτης and χολή brought out in Zim. 83.4 ff. Further, as Hommel observed, πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα after only two exx. is unusual.

180 ἘΞ ὁ ἡμέτερος πρόγονος ᾿Α. Asclepius in Homer is not more than ἰητὴρ ἀμύμων : in Pindar (Pyth. 11.) and later poets he is the son of Apollo and Coronis. The earliest seats of his worship scem to have been Thessaly and Boeotia, and his cult, as a “chthonic” and “mantic” deity, may have its roots in a primitive ophiolatry (see Rohde, Psyche τ. 141 ff). Cp. Orph. Fr, 272 διὸ καὶ οἱ θεολόγοι τὴν μὲν εἰς ᾿Ασκληπιὸν ἀναφέρουσιν ὑγίειαν τὴν ἰατρικὴν πᾶσαν τῶν παρὰ φύσιν κτλ. Also Orph. H. 67, addressed to A. as Ἰητὴρ πάντων, ᾿Ασκληπιέ, δέσποτα παιάν «td. The Asclepiadae were a recognized medical guild, with hereditary traditions; their most famous schools were at Cos and Cnidus, for which see the account in Gomperz G. 7. (Εν tr.) vol. 1. pp. 275 ff: cp. PAaedr. 270 ὁ (with Thompson’s note).

οἵδε of ποιηταὶ. The “deictic” οἷδε points to the presence of Aristophanes and Agathon.

187 Α γυμναστικὴ The curative value of physical training is said to have been emphasized especially by Iccos of Tarentum and Herodicus of Selymbria, both 5th century experts in dieting. For the latter as an ad- vocate of walking exercise see Phaedr, 227 Ὁ (with Schol. ad loc.); cp. Rep.

187 8] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 49

παντὶ κατάδηλος τῷ καὶ σμικρὸν προσέχοντι τὸν νοῦν ὅτι κατὰ ON ὧν , a y v¢ s / if ταὐτὰ ἔχει τούτοις, ὥσπερ ἴσως Kal Ἡράκλειτος βούλεται λέγειν, ἐπεὶ τοῖς γε ῥήμασιν οὐ καλῶς λέγει. τὸ ἕν γάρ φησι “ διαφερό- we μενον αὐτὸ. αὑτῷ ξυμφέρεσθαι, ὥσπερ ἁρμονίαν τόξου τε καὶ , λύρας." ἔστι δὲ πολλὴ ἀλογία ἁρμονίαν φάναι διαφέρεσθαι ἢ ἐκ διαφερομένων ἔτι εἶναι. ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως τόδε ἐβούλετο λέγειν, OTL ἐκ διαφερομένων πρότερον τοῦ ὀξέος καὶ βαρέος, ἔπειτα ὕστερον Β 187 Α ἔχοντι νοῦν Hirschi ταὐτὰ T: ταῦτα B év: ὃν vel χ δ

πᾶν Ast τύξου.. «λύρας : τοῦ ὄξεος τε καὶ βαρέος Bast Gladisch λύρας: νεύρας Bergk

406 a: for the former, as an example of abstinence, see Laws 899, That Plato himself recognizes the connexion between ἰατρική and γυμναστική is shown by such passages as Gorg. 452 Δ ff, 464 B ff, Soph. 228 B, Polit. 295 ο.

καὶ γεωργία. The appositeness of γεωργία is not so evident as that of γυμναστικὴ, but the use of the word here is defended by 186 a (τοῖς ἐν τῇ γῇ φυομένοις) and by other exx. of a similar collocation, such as Lach, 198 p, Laws 889 D (cp. also Protag. 334A ἢ). The art which deals with φυτά is regarded as analogous to that which deals with (ga, involving a similar command of the permutations and combinations, the attractions and repulsions (τὰ ἐρω- τικά), of the fundamental qualities.

τὸ ἕν γάρ φησι κτλ. The words of Heraclitus (Fr. 45) are given in Hippol. refut. haer. 1X. 9 thus: οὐ ξυνίασιν ὅκως διαφερόμενον ἑωυτῷ ὁμολογέει" madiv- τρόπος ἁρμονίη ὅκωσπερ τόξου καὶ λύρης : cp. Plut. de Is. 45 παλίντονος yap ἁρμονίη κόσμου ὅκωσπερ λύρης καὶ τόξου καθ᾽ Ἣράκλειτον : Soph. 3428. Pro- bably, as Burnet holds, the original word used by H. was παλίντονος, not παλίντροπος, and dppovin combines the original sense of “structure” with the musical sense “octave,” the point of the simile being (see Campbell, Theaet. p. 244) “as the arrow leaves the string the hands are pulling opposite ways to each other, and to the different parts of the bow (cf. Plato, Rep. 4. 439) ; and the sweet note of the lyre is due to a similar tension and retention. The secret of the universe is the same.” That is to say, the world, both asa whole and in its parts, is maintained by the equilibrium resultant from opposite tensions. For more detailed discussion of the theory see Burnet, Early Gk. Phil. pp. 158 ff. Zeller, Pre-Socr. (E. T.) vol. 11. pp. 33 ff The τόξον H. had in mind is probably, as Bernays suggested, the Scythian bow— the φόρμιγξ ἄχορδος of Arist. het. 11. 1412) 35 (see the woodcut in Smith, D. A, 5.0. “arceus”).

GAN ἴσως κτλ. Eryximachus argues that H.’s dictum is defensible only if we understand the opposites to be not co-existent : the discordant cannot be simultaneously concordant, though it may be capable of becoming so in lapse of time (πρότερον.. ὕστερον). For τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ βαρύ as matter for ἁρμονία cp. Heraclit. Fr. 43 (R. and P. § 27) οὐ yap ἂν εἶναι ἁρμονίαν μὴ ὄντος ὀξέος καὶ βαρέος, οὐδὲ τὰ ζῷα ἄνευ θηλέος καὶ ἄρρενος, ἐναντίων ὄντων: Soph. 2534;

Phileb. 17 c, 264; Laws 665 B. Β. Ρ. 4

50 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [187 B

ὁμολογησάντων γέγονεν ὑπὸ τῆς μουσικῆς τέχνης. ov yap δή που ἐκ διαφερομένων γε ἔτι τοῦ ὀξέος καὶ βαρέος ἁρμονία ἂν εἴη" ἡ γὰρ ἁρμονία συμφωνία ἐστί, συμφωνία δὲ ὁμολογία τις. ὁμολο- γίαν δὲ ἐκ διαφερομένων, ἕως ἂν διαφέρωνται, ἀδύνατον εἶναι. δια- φερόμενον δὲ αὖ καὶ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ἀδυνατοῦν «δυνατὸν; ἁρμόσαι, ὥσπερ γε καὶ ὁ ῥυθμὸς ἐκ τοῦ ταχέος καὶ βραδέος ἐκ διενηνεγμένων πρότερον, ὕστερον δὲ ὁμολογησάντων γέγονε. τὴν δὲ ὁμολογίαν πᾶσι τούτοις, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ ἡ ἰατρική, ἐνταῦθα ἡ μουσικὴ ἐντίθησιν, ἔρωτα καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ἀλλήλων ἐμποιήσασα'" καὶ ἔστιν αὖ μουσικὴ περὶ ἁρμονίαν καὶ ῥυθμὸν ἐρωτικῶν ἐπιστήμη. καὶ ἐν μέν γε αὐτῇ τῇ συστάσει ἁρμονίας τε καὶ ῥυθμοῦ οὐδὲν χαλεπὸν τὰ

181 Β τέχνης (ἡ ἁρμονία) vulg. δὲ αὖ: δὲ δὴ 52.: δὴ οὖν Rohde ὁμολογεῖν

scripsi: ὁμολογοῦν codd., edd. ἀδυνατοῦν (δυνατὸν) scripsi: ἀδύνατον codd.. δυνατὸν Susem. Ο᾽ ἐκ post Bpadéos om. edd. rece. cum Vindob. 21 ὁμόνοιαν : ἁρμονίαν Wolf ἀλλήλοις Τ' (τῶν) περὶ Ast

187 Β ὁμολογησάντων κτλ. Cp. Theo, Smyrn. math. p. 15 καὶ οἱ Πνθα- γορικοὶ δέ, οἷς πολλαχῇ ἔπεται Πλάτων, τὴν μουσικήν φασιν ἐναντίων συναρ- μογὴν καὶ τῶν πολλῶν ἔνωσιν καὶ τῶν δίχα φρονούντων συμφρόνησιν, οὐ γὰρ ῥυθμῶν μόνον καὶ μέλους συντακτικήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς παντὸς συστήματος" τέλος γὰρ αὐτῆς τὸ ἑνοῦν τε καὶ συναρμόζει. For the Pythagorean ἁρμονία see Philolaus, fr. 4. 8 (Β. and P. § 56) τὰ δὲ ἀνόμοια... ἀνάγκα τᾷ τοιαύτᾳ ἁρμονίᾳ συγκεκλεῖσθαι κτλ. The same notion of a cosmic ἁρμονία or ὁμολογία appears in Orph. fr. 189 τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην...τάξιν καὶ ἁρμονίαν καὶ κοινωνίαν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐγκοσμίοις...(ὅ δημιουργὸς) φιλίας ἐστὶν αἴτιος τοῖς δημιουργήμασιν καὶ ὁμολογίας.

συμφωνία. Cp. Crat. 406 ἢ περὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ὠδῇ ἁρμονίαν, ἢ δὴ συμφωνία καλεῖται : Rep. 430 Ε, 398 D, ΕΒ with Adam’s notes: ‘in its musical application συμφωνία is used both of consonance in the octave or double octave and also of other musical intervals”: “ ἁρμονία ‘reconciles’ ὀξύ and βαρύ by a proper arrangement of notes of higher and lower pitch. In the wider sense, there- fore, any ὁμολογία of ὀξύ and βαρύ is a ἁρμονία, but in practice the word was used specifically of certain scales or modes.”

διαφερόμενον δὲ αὖ κτλ. With the ms. text the sequence of thought is dis- jointed and obscure; ad seems out of place, and the next clause (ὥσπερ γε καὶ κτλ.) seems to imply that the possibility rather than the impossibility of harmonizing opposites is stated in the present clause (vp. Susemihl, PAzlol. Anz, vil. 412). Hence, rather than alter αὖ with Schanz, I prefer to read διαφερόμενον δὲ αὖ καὶ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ἀδυνατοῦν (or ἀδύνατον) (δυνατὸν) ἁρμόσαι: this gives a proper antithesis to the clause preceding,

187 C ὁμόνοιαν. It is possible that this word may contain an allusion to Antiphon’s work περὶ ὁμονοίας, for which see Diimmler, Akad. p. 79.

αὐτῇ τῇ συστάσει ἁρμονίας. “In the constitution of harmony per se”: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἁρμονίᾳ might have sufficed, but the addition of συστάσει serves to emphasize the fact that ἁρμονία is a synthesis—épodroyia—of a plurality of

187 ΕἸ ΣΥΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 51

ἐρωτικὰ διαγιγνώσκειν, οὐδὲ ὁ διπλοῦς ἔρως ἐνταῦθά πω ἔστιν" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὰν δέῃ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καταχρῆσθαι ῥυθμῷ τε καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ ἢ ποιοῦντα, ὃ δὴ μελοποιίαν καλοῦσιν, ἢ χρώμενον ὀρθῶς τοῖς πεποιημένοις μέλεσί τε καὶ μέτροις, ὃ δὴ παιδεία

ἐκλήθη, ἐνταῦθα δὴ καὶ χαλεπὸν καὶ ἀγαθοῦ δημιουργοῦ δεῖ."

πάλιν γὰρ ἥκει ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν κοσμίοις τῶν ἀνθρώ- πων, καὶ ὡς ἂν κοσμιώτεροι γίγνοιντο οἱ μήπω ὄντες, δεῖ χαρί- ἕεσθαι καὶ φυλάττειν τὸν τούτων ἔρωτα, καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καλός, ὁ οὐράνιος, ὁ τῆς Οὐρανίας μούσης "Epws: ὁ δὲ Πολυμνίας ὁ πάν- δημος, ὃν δεῖ εὐλαβούμενον προσφέρειν οἷς ἂν προσφέρῃ, ὅπως ἂν τὴν μὲν ἡδονὴν αὐτοῦ καρπώσηται, ἀκολασίαν δὲ μηδεμίαν ἐμ- ποιήσῃ, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ τέχνῃ μέγα ἔργον ταῖς περὶ τὴν ὀψοποιικὴν τέχνην ἐπιθυμίαις καλῶς χρῆσθαι, ὥστ᾽ ἄνευ νόσου τὴν ἡδονὴν καρπώσασθαι. καὶ ἐν μουσικῇ δὴ καὶ ἐν ἰατρικῇ καὶ

ἢ Ἶ 2 ᾿ ‘ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσι Kal τοῖς ἀνθρωπείοις καὶ τοῖς θείοις, καθ᾽

τᾷ Ἅ , . ὅσον παρείκει, φυλακτέον ἑκάτερον τὸν "Epwra: ἔνεστον yap. an ”

187 Ο οὐδὲ... ἔστιν del. Schiitz πω Bdhm. Mdvg.: πῶς ΒΤ D μέτροις BT: ῥυθμοῖς τούτων BT: τοιούτων W μούσης del. Sauppe E ἔργον ταῖς Tb: ἐργῶντες Β παρείκει W rec. t: παρήκει BT ἕν ἐστὸν W

elements: cp. Laws 8120 τὰς τῶν ἁρμονιῶν συστάσεις: EEpin. 991 πὶ ἁρμονίας σύστασιν ἅπασαν. For ῥυθμός, see Adam’s note on 7ορ. 398 D: “The elements of music are ῥυθμός and ἁρμονία. The former ‘reconciles’ ταχύ and Bpadv by arranging a proper sequence of short and long notes and syllables”: also Laws 665A τῇ δὲ τῆς κινήσεως τάξει ῥυθμὸς ὄνομα εἴη, τῇ δὲ αὖ τῆς φωνῆς... ἁρμονία, κτὰ., Phileb. 17 Ὁ (with my note). ;

Eryximachus analyses Music into Theory (αὐτὴ ἡ σύστασις) and Practice (καταχρῆσθαι ῥ.), the latter being further subdivided into μελοποιία and παιδεία.

187 Ὁ παιδεία ἐκλήθη. For “education” as “the right use of melody and verse,” compare what Plato has to say about the psychological etfects of music and its place in education in Rep. IL, WL, Laws 11, vil. Of course παιδεία in the ordinary sense includes also gymnastic; cp. Rep. τι. 376 5, Laws 659D: in dancing to music (ὀρχηστική Laws 816 4) we have a com- bination of both. It is worth noticing that in the Pythagorean guadrivium μουσική had a place beside ἀριθμητική, γεωμετρία and σφαιρική or ἀστρονομία: see Adam's Republic vol. τι. pp. 168 ff.

πάλιν...ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος. Pausanias was the author of the λόγος, cp. 186 B supra.

187 Πολυμνίας. “The Muse of the sublime hymn” here replaces Aphrodite, being selected out of the Nine probably, as Ast supposes, because the first part of her name is congruous with the character of Aphr. πάνδημος.

προσφέρῃ..-καρπώσηται...«ἐμπονιήσῃ. Supply as subject the indef. res.

20

καθ᾽ ὅσον παρείκει. “So far as possible.” Cp. Rep. 374 5, Laws 734 B. 4—2

ἐν ne ot

52 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [188 a

18 ΧΠΙ. ᾿Επεὶ καὶ ἡ τῶν ὡρῶν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ σύστασις μεστή ἐστιν ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, καὶ ἐπειδὰν μὲν πρὸς ἄλληλα τοῦ κοσμίου τύχῃ ἔρωτος ἃ νῦν δὴ ἐγὼ ἔλεγον, τά τε θέρμὰ καὶ τὰ ψυχρὰ καὶ ξηρὰ καὶ ὑγρά, καὶ ἁρμονίαν καὶ κρᾶσιν λάβῃ σώ- φρονα, ἥκει φέροντα εὐετηρίαν τε καὶ ὑγίειαν ἀνθρώποις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζώοις τε καὶ φυτοῖς, καὶ οὐδὲν ἠδίκησεν: ὅταν δὲ ὁ μετὰ τῆς ὕβρεως "Ἔρως ἐγκρατέστερος περὶ τὰς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὥρας

Β γένηται, διέφθειρέν τε πολλὰ καὶ ἠδίκησεν. οἵ τε γὰρ λοιμοὶ φιλοῦσι γίγνεσθαι ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ ἄλλ᾽ ἀνόμοια πολλὰ νοσή- ματα καὶ τοῖς θηρίοις καὶ τοῖς φυτοῖς" καὶ γὰρ πάχναι καὶ χάλαζαι καὶ ἐρυσῖβαι ἐκ πλεονεξίας καὶ ἀκοσμίας περὶ ἄλληλα τῶν τοιούτων γίγνεται ἐρωτικῶν, ὧν ἐπιστήμη περὶ ἄστρων τε

188 A κοσμίου Bt, Stob.: κόσμον T ἐγὼ ἔλεγον BT: λέγω Stob.: ἔλεγον Wolf τὰ ξηρὰ Stob. (καὶ) περὶ Stob. ΒἘ διέφθειρεν Τ': διέφθειρε Stob.: διαφθείρει B ἀνόμοια BT: ἀνόμοια καὶ Stob.: ὅμοια Schiitz Bdhm.: ἂν ὅμοια Ovolli: αὖ ὅμοια Wormann: δὴ ὅμοια Sauppe: ἄττ᾽ Guo Ast Jn.: ἄνομα Sommer: ἀλλόκοτα Rohde: παντοῖα Winckelmann : ἀνήνυτα Stallb, γίγνεται del. Sauppe: γίγνονται Canter: fort. γίγνεται. ἐρωτικῶν οὖν ἐπιστήμη κτλ. ὧν. «καλεῖται del. Schiitz re: ye Christ

188 Α ἡ τῶν ὡρῶν... σύστασις. For the influence of the seasons on health see Hippocr. de nat. hom. '7 ὡς yap ὁ ἐνιαυτὸς μετέχει μὲν πᾶς πάντων καὶ τῶν θερμῶν καὶ τῶν ψυχρῶν καὶ τῶν ξηρῶν καὶ τῶν ὑγρῶν κτλ.: cp. Phileb. 36 Β.

ἃ νῦν δὴ... ἔλεγον. See above, 186 D.

οὐδὲν ἠδίκησεν κτλ. For these aorists, following presents, see Goodwin G. M. 1. § 155.

188 B dvopo.a...vorjpara. ‘Divers diseases”: the adj. is similarly used in Arist. Poet. 24. 1459” 30 ἐπεισοδιοῦν ἀνομοίοις ἐπεισοδίοις, “relieving the story with varying episodes” (Butcher): cp. id. H. An. Iv. 1. 523” 12: Hippocr. de flat. 3 δοκέει μὲν οὖν τὰ νουσήματα οὐδὲν ἀλλήλοισιν ἐοικέναι διὰ τὴν ἀλλοιότητα καὶ ἀνομοιότητα τῶν τόπων.

πάχναι..«καὶ ἐρυσῖβαι. Timaeus defines thus: ἐρυσίβη μιλτώδης δρόσος" πάχνη δὲ δρόσος χιονώδης. Roman religion had a goddess Robigo. Ruhnken (ad Tim. p. 122) cites Orph. de lap. 15, v. 91 καὶ αἰθερίην ἐρυσίβην, | ἥτε κατου- ρανόθεν πταμένη ποτὶ καρπὸν ἐρυθρή, | ἀμφὶ περὶ σταχύεσσι περισμύχουσα κάθηται.

τῶν τοιούτων γίγνεται κτλ. There are two difficulties in this passage: (1) the singular verb after the plural subjects is harsh; to explain it we must assume a mental unification of the subjects, of which similar but easier instances occur in ep. 363.4, 618D, Laws 9255. We might evade this difficulty by removing the colon at φυτοῖς, marking καὶ γὰρ... ἐρυσῖβαι as parenthetic, and thus construing @da...voonpara as the direct subject of γίγνεται. (2) We should naturally expect τοιούτων to have the same reference

188 Ὁ] ΣΥΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 58

‘ ΕἾ εἾ al Ul a φορὰς καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν ὥρας ἀστρονομία καλεῖται. ἔτι τοίνυν καὶ

€ 0 , lal \ 7 ne! a. a 3 4 \ € \ fp αἱ θυσίαι πᾶσαι καὶ ols μαντικὴ ἐπιστατεῖ---ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ - τ. t Ἂν ’ εἶ θεούς τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνία---οὐ περὶ ἄλλο C Ψ 5 x \ Ui ἊΝ τί ἐστιν ἢ περὶ "Ἔρωτος φυλακήν τε καὶ ἴασιν. πᾶσα yap [4h] '*

> F ~ , \ ' a ἀσέβεια φιλεῖ γίγνεσθαι, ἐὰν μή τις τῷ κοσμίῳ "Ἔρωτι xapifnrat wee μηδὲ τιμᾷ τε αὐτὸν καὶ πρεσβεύῃ ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ, ἀλλὰ [περὶ] τὸν ig Ν “ ἕτερον, καὶ περὶ γονέας καὶ ζῶντας καὶ τετελευτηκότας καὶ περὶ , δ ν t Vie na θεούς" ἃ δὴ προστέτακται τῇ μαντικῇ ἐπισκοπεῖν τοὺς "ἔρωτας yD , τ s c Α ta Lied ‘\ > , καὶ ἰατρεύειν, καὶ ἔστιν αὖ ἡ μαντικὴ φιλίας θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων Ν a , \ te δημιουργὸς τῷ ἐπίστασθαι τὰ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ἐρωτικά, ὅσα τὰ la τείνει πρὸς θέμιν καὶ εὐσέβειαν.

188 Β φορὰς W, Stob.: φορας B: φορᾶς T καὶ.. «ὥρας del. Bast. pas: ὅρους Creuzer ai T, Stob.: om. B πᾶσαι B Stob.: ἅπασαι T (ἡ) μαντικὴ Fischer ἐπιστατεῖ (τέχνη) Stob. ravra...xowevia del. Schiitz C ἀσεβεία Stob.: ἡ ἀσεβεία BT μή τις: μήτε ev Stob. (μὲν) ἐν Pflugk τὸν Stob.: περὶ τὸν BT: περιττῶς τὸν Koch: θεραπεύῃ Winckelm.: περιττότερον τὸν Pflugk: fort. πῃ τὸν (περὶ) ἃ Verm. προτέτακται Stob. ἔρωτας BT: ἐρῶντας Stob., Bt.: ἐρωτῶντας cj. Verm.: τοὺς ἔρωτας 560]. Herm. Hug Sz. D εὐσέβειαν Stob.: ἀσέβειαν BT

here as τῶν τοιούτων has above (viz. to the combinations of elements in which the bad Eros predominates), whereas it seemingly stands in agreement with Cowrikay: this being so, what docs ἐρωτικῶν precisely mean? For it cannot well retain, in this connexion, its proper meaning as genitive of τὰ ἐρωτικά “the laws of affinity” (186 σ, 187c). Ought we, then, to put a stop after γίγνεται and begin a new sentence with ἐρωτικῶν οὖν ἐπιστήμη xth.1

ἀστρονομίας. The term as here used includes what we should rather call “meteorology”: cp. Rep. 527D τρίτον θῶμεν ἀστρονομίαν ;...τὸ yap περὶ Spas εὐαισθητοτέρως ἔχειν καὶ μηνῶν καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν...«ναυτιλίᾳ προσήκει. For “as- tronomy” as ἃ regular part of the school curriculum see x. on παιδεία 187 Ὁ, and cp. Theaet. 145 ¢, b; L’rotag. 318 τ,

ἡ περὶ θεούς...κοινωνία. Simpler would have been ἡ dedv...cowwvia, but, as Hug remarks, “ Eryximachus liebt das unbestimmte περί ὁ. accus.”

188 C ἀσέβεια. “ Undutifulness,” impietas. Reverence to parents and country was a matter of religious obligation; cp. Xen. Mem. τι. 2. 13 ἐὰν δέ τις γονέας μὴ θεραπεύῃ, τούτῳ δίκην τε ἐπιτίθησι (ἡ πόλις) KTA.; τ. IV. 4. 20; Ltep. 615 c.

[περὶ] τὸν ἕτερον. Perhaps an original πῃ was mistaken for a compendium of περί: for the combination ἀλλά πῃ, cp. Theaet. 191 Β ἀλλά πῃ δυνατόν.

ἃ 81...larpevay. The infinitives may be taken as epexegetic of ἃ (so Stallb., Zeller), or ἃ may be construed separately as accus. of respect (“qua in caussa” Ast; “in welcher Beziehung” Hommel). There is no need to eject or emend τοὺς "Ἔρωτας: the phrase used 4 ll. above, περὶ "Epwros φυλακήν re καὶ ἴασιν, supports Ἔρωτας here.

54 TIAATQNO2 {188 D

Οὕτω πολλὴν Kai μεγάλην, μᾶλλον δὲ πᾶσαν δύναμιν ἔχει ξυλλήβδην μὲν ὁ πᾶς "Epas, ὁ δὲ περὶ τἀγαθὰ μετὰ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἀποτελούμενος καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ παρὰ θεοῖς, οὗτος τὴν μεγίστην δύναμιν ἔχει καὶ πᾶσαν ἡμῖν εὐδαιμονίαν παρασκευάζει καὶ ἀλλήλοις δυναμένους ὁμιλεῖν καὶ φίλους εἶναι

E καὶ τοῖς κρείττοσιν ἡμῶν θεοῖς. ἴσως μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐγὼ τὸν "ἔρωτα ἐπαινῶν πολλὰ παραλείπω, οὐ μέντοι ἑκών γε. ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τι ἐξέ- Aetrov, σὸν ἔργον, ὦ ᾿Αριστόφανες, ἀναπληρῶσαι" ἢ εἴ πως ἄλλως ἐν νῷ ἔχεις ἐγκωμιάζειν τὸν θεόν, ἐγκωμίαζε, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῆς λυγγὸς πέπαυσαι.

189 ᾿Εκδεξάμενον οὖν ἔφη εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνη ὅτι Καὶ μάλ᾽ ἐπαύσατο, οὐ μέντοι πρίν γε τὸν πταρμὸν προσενεχθῆναι αὐτῇ, ὥστε με θαυμάζειν εἰ τὸ κόσμιον τοῦ σώματος ἐπιθυμεῖ τοιούτων ψόφων καὶ γαργαλισμῶν, οἷον καὶ ὁ πταρμός ἐστι' πάνυ γὰρ εὐθὺς ἐπαύσατο, ἐπειδὴ αὐτῷ τὸν πταρμὸν προσήνεγκα. καὶ τὸν

188 Ὁ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν...θεοῖς 560]. Hug δυναμένοις Stob. φίλοις Stob. ἘΞ καὶ del. Riickert ἡμῶν θεοῖς secl. J.-U. 189 Α ὥστ᾽ ἐμὲ Bekk.

188 ἢ Οὕτω πολλὴν. The German translators mostly take οὕτω as qualifying the adjj., “so vielfach und gross” (Zeller, Schleierm.), but Hommel is probably right in taking οὕτω by itself (“hoc modo,” “itaque”) comparing οὕτω πολλαχόθεν 178 οθ. Cp. Hippocr. de flat. 3 οὗτος (sc. ὁ ἀὴρ) δὲ μέγιστος ἐν τοῖσι πᾶσι τῶν πάντων δυνάστης ἐστίν ἄξιον δὲ αὐτοῦ θεήσασθαι τὴν δύναμιν.

καὶ.. «παρὰ θεοῖς. Hug condemns these words, as implying a slur on the righteousness of the gods. But the phrase is merely a stock formula, like our “heaven and earth,” not intended to bear rigid analysis; cp. 186 Β, 187 E καὶ τοῖς avOpwreiots Kai τοῖς θείοις.

καὶ ἀλλήλοις...θεοῖς. For the accus. δυναμένους after ἡμῖν cp. 176. The καὶ after εἶναι is rendered “auch” by Hug, as if ὁμιλεῖν governed ἀλλήλοις and φίλους εἶναι the other datives, but Zeller’s rendering, which makes both the infinitives govern both sets of datives, seems more natural.

188 Ἐ; καὶ ἐγὼ, 1.6. “1 as well as Pausanias”: see 185 E ad fin.

ἔπειδὴ kal. καὶ implies a suppressed reason—“ since (it is your turn) and you are cured of your cough.”

189 A τὸν wrappov. This was one of the remedies prescribed by Eryx. in 185, hence the def. article. προσφέρειν is a vox propria for medical “applications,” cp. 187 8, Phaedr. 2684; Hippocr. de flat. 1 οἷος τ᾽ ἂν προσφέρειν τὰ ξυμφέροντα τῷ σώματι: id. de affect. 1 ὅσα δὲ τοὺς χειροτέχνας εἰκὸς ἐπίστασθαι καὶ προσφέρειν καὶ διαχειρίζειν κτλ.

τὸ κόσμιον. This is in ridicule of the theory of medicine stated in 186 ὁ ff and of the use of the term κόσμιος in 187 Ὁ, 188 Ο.

189 c] ZYMAOZION 55

᾿βρυξίμαχον, ᾿Ωγαθέ, φάναι, [Ἀριστόφανες,] ὅρα τί ποιεῖς. γελω- τοποιεῖς μέλλων λέγειν, καὶ φύλακά με τοῦ λόγου ἀναγκάζεις γίγνεσθαι τοῦ σεαυτοῦ, ἐάν τι γελοῖον εἴπῃς, ἐξόν σοι ἐν εἰρήνῃ Β λέγειν. καὶ τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνη γελάσαντα εἰπεῖν Ed λέγεις, ὦ Ἐρυξίμαχε, καί μοι ἔστω ἄρρητα τὰ εἰρημένα. ἀλλὰ μή με φύλαττε, ὡς ἐγὼ φοβοῦμαι. περὶ τῶν μελλόντων ῥηθήσεσθαι, οὔ τι μὴ γελοῖα εἴπω,---τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἂν κέρδος εἴη καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας μούσης ἐπιχώριον; -ὠλλὰ μὴ καταγέλαστα, Βαλών γε, φάναι; δ ᾿Αριστόφανες, οἴει ἐκφεύξεσθαι; ἀλλὰ πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν καὶ οὕτω λέγε ὡς δώσων devon: ἴσως μέντοι, ἂν δόξῃ peat ἀφήσω σε. σ.: XIV. Kal- μήν, ὦ Tipo κα χε εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνηχι ἄλλῃ γέ ‘tn ἐν νῷ ἔχω λέγειν, q ιν σύ τε καὶ Παυσανίας εἰπέτην. ἐμοὶ γὰρ δοκοῦσιν ¢ ἅν θρῳποι παντάπασι τὴν “τοῦ, ἔρωτος. “δύναμιν οὐκ

he

ἠσθῆσθαι, ἐπεὶ “aiaGavejerol ye μέγιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ κατα-

189 A ὀγαθὲ φάναι Τ': dyade φᾶναι dyabe B ᾿Αριστόφανες del. Sauppe Hug B dom. vulg. μή ye Bdhm. ῥηθήσεσθαι Τ' : ἡττηθήσεσθαι (sed ἡτ extra versum) B: ἤδη ῥηθήσεσθαι Rettig: fort. ἔτι ῥ. Ο᾽ εἴπετον Blass ἄνθρωποι Bekk.: ἄνθρωποι BT: of ἄνθρωποι W, vulg.

[Αριστόφανες]. I follow Sauppe and Hug in regarding the proper name as a gloss on ὠγαθέ: as a rule, ὠγαθέ stands alone.

189 B οὔ τι...εὕπω. In γελοῖα Arist. applies the term used by Eryx. iu a different sense, distinguishing between γελοῖα, ridicula, and καταγέλαστα, deridenda; whereas Eryx. had meant by γελοῖον what A. calls καταγέλαστον, cp. 199 D, 221 5. δ

Ths ἡμετέρας μούσης. This may allude (as Rettig thinks) to Eryximachus’s Οὐρανία μοῦσα and Πολυμνία, and to his phrase ἐ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ τέχνῃ (187 D, E).

Βαλών ye κτλ. “So you think you are going to get off scot-free!” Suidas 8.υ. βαλών explains by πρὸς τοὺς κακόν τι δράσαντας καὶ οἰομένους ἐκφεύγειν. Op. Rep. 844 Ὁ οἷον ἐμβαλὼν λύγου ἐν νῷ ἔχεις ἀπιέναι: Phaedo 916; Plut. de s.n. υ. 5488 ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ εἰ βαλὼν, εἶπεν, ἀπηλλάγη, καλῶς εἶχε περιορᾶν τὸ βέλος ἐγκείμενον.

189 α Καὶ μήν κτλ. This clause has reference to what Eryx. had said, not in 189 B, but in 188 Ε (εἴ πως ἄλλως ἐν. νῷ ἔχεις wrd.)—“ Vea verily, it 7s my intention to act as you suggested.”

παντάπασι...οὐκ. ‘To have completely failed to discern.” For δύναμις ()( dicts) as a rhetorical category, cp. Isocr. Hel. 218 Ὁ padiov δὲ γνῶναι τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ κτλ.

amet αἰσθ. γε κτλ. For ἐπεὶ...γε op. Πρ. 8523 σ. The following infinitives (with ἄν) are governed by δοκοῦσιν, repeated i in thought fromm the main clause. For the sense, cp. Isocr. Hel. 221 A as.. ἐδυναμένην, ἀναθήμασι καὶ θυσίαις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλαις προσόδοις ἱλάσκεσθαι καὶ τιμᾶν αὐτὴν χρή.

56 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [1890

σκενάσαι καὶ βωμούς, καὶ θυσίαζ ἂν 1 apaeey “μεγίστας, οὐχ ὥσπερ mae at es) νῦν τούτων. οὐδὲν᾽ ᾿χίγνεται, rept αὐτόν, δέον πάντων μάχιστα su byad σῦς, D γίγνεσθαι. ἔστι γὰρ ᾿ϑεῶν φιλανθρωπότατος, ἐ ἐπίκουρός. Te OY τῶν

ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἰατρὸς τούτων, ὦ ὧν ἰαθέντων μεγίστη εὐδαιμονία ἃ ἂν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ γένει εἴη. ἐγὼ οὖν πειράσομαι ὑμῖν εἰσηγήσασθαι on τὴν Sinden αὐτοῦ, ὑμεῖς δὲ τῶν ἄλλων διδάσκαλοι ἔσεσθε. δεῖ δὲ πρῶσον ὑμβς μαθεῖν σὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ τὰ παθήματα“ αὐτῆς. ἡ γὰρ πάλαι ce Φύσις BOX ate) ἦν ἥπερ νῦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοία. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τρία ἦν τὰ γένη τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οὐχ E ὥσπερ νῦν δύο, ἄρρεν καὶ δηλν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρίτον 'προσῆν κοινὸν ὃν ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, οὗ νῦν il a λοιπόν, αὐτὸ δὲ ἠφάνισται" ἀνδρόγυνον γὰρ ΟΝ μὲν ἦν καὶ εἶδος καὶ ὄνομα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων

189 Ο καὶ βωμούς del. Blass ποιεῖσθαι Hirschig Ὁ εὐδαιμονία ἂν BIW: ἂν εὐδαιμονία vulg. εἰσηγήσασθαι Bose αὐτοῦ trs. Blass ἔσεσθαι T δεῖ δὴ Blass παλαιὰ Blass αὑτὴ B: αὕτη T, Stoh.: ἡ αὐτὴ Euseb., Blass ἀλλὰ ἄλλη Euseb. πρῶτα W τὰ τῶν BT: τῶν W, Euseb, Stob. E δύο om. Stob. ἀλλὰ καὶ : ἀλλὰ Stob. Eusebii codd. aliquot ov om. Stob. Euseb, ἕν B: om. T, Euseb. Stob., Sz.

οὐχ ὥσπερ. “ Whereas”: cp. 179 BE.

189 Ὁ ἰατρὸς. This term recalls the doctor’s. speech, esp. 186 Β ff, 188 ο ff.; cp. Phaedr. 252 a.

ἐγὼ οὖν πειράσομαι. “Parodie des Pausanias (180 Ὁ) und Eryximachos (186 a)” (Rettig).

εἰσηγήσασθαι. The force of this word is lost if we render it “narrate,” “relate” with L. and S,: it means “to initiate into”: cp. 1765, Xen. Afem. τ. 7.10, For the next clause cp, Menewx. 240D ἡγεμόνες καὶ διδάσκαλοι τοῖς ἄλλοις γενόμενοι.

φύσιν... παθήματα. This is the order of A.’s exposition—mepi φύσεως 189 D—190 ¢, περὶ παθημάτων 190 c—193 a. For various views of physio- logists as to the φύσις ἀνθρώπου, see Hippocrates’ tract with this title, where the theory that man ἕν τι εἶναι (αἷμα, χολή, φλέγμα, etc.) is combated. Aristotle’s exposition is intended, no doubt, as a caricature of the medicos of his age (see Introd. § iii. 4).

189 Ἡ ἀνδρόγυνον «rd. Suidas ἀνδρόγυνος" ὁ ra ἀνδρὺς ποιῶν καὶ τὰ γυναικῶν πάσχων. Riickert wrongly renders εἶδος by “genus”: it means “forma” (as Stallb.). εἶδος καὶ ὄνομα are taken by Riickert and Hug as nomin., by Stallb, as accus. of respect, the construction being ἕν γὰρ (se. τῶν γενῶν) ἣν τότε ἀνδρόγυνον : the latter way seems the better. Rettig proposes to insert τό before ἕν, which would give the same sense. If εἶδος καὶ ὄνομα are construed as accus., it is better to take them closely with ἀνδρόγυνον

190 4] ZYMMOZION 57

* ; eh: Mh ea

κοινὸν τοῦ τε ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος, νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ee ἢ ἐν ὀνείδει ὄνομα κείμενον. ἔπειτα ὅλον ἦν ἑκάστου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ εἶδος Supine νῶτον καὶ . πλευρὰς κύκλῳ ἔχον, χεῖρας δὲ τέτταρες εἶχε, καὶ μέλη τὰ ἴσα ταῖς χερσί, καὶ πρόσωπα δύ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐχένι. κυκλοτερεῖ, ὅμοια ἌΝ ᾿κεφαλὴν δ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς προσώποις ἐναντίοις ΚΕΠΒΈΡΟΙΕ μίαν, καὶ ὦτα τέτταρα, καὶ αἰδοῖα τ δύο; καὶ τἄλλα πάντα ὡς ἀπὸ τούτων ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν. ἐπορεύετο δὲ καὶ ὀρθὸν ὥσπερ νῦν, ὁποτέρωσε βουληθείη" καὶ ὁπότε ταχὺ

ὁρμήσειε θεῖν, ὥσπερ οἱ κυβιστῶντες καὶ εἰς ὀρθὸν τὰ σκέλη περι- *

189 E (rod) θήλεος Euseb., Blass ἐν ὀνείδει T: ἐν ὃν εἴδει Β' νῶτόν τε καὶ Stob., Blass τὰ σκέλη ἴσα Hirschig: σκέλη (Se) Blass 190 A κει- μένοις om. Stob. ὡς; ὅσα Stob. OTE ROE Stob. θεῖν B, Stob.: ἐλθεῖν T καὶ BT, Stob.: om. al. ὀρθὸν ra: ὀρθὰ ὄντα Stob. : ὀρθὰ Blass

than with ἐξ ἀμῴοτ. κτλ. (as Stallb.). For ἀνδρόγυνος, see also Hippocr. de diaet. 28.

For the description cp. Emped. 257 ff. (St.) πολλὰ μὲν ἀμφιπρόσωπα καὶ ἀμφίστερνα φύεσθαι | ...μεμιγμένα τῇ μὲν an’ ἀνδρῶν | τῇ δὲ γυναικοφυῆ, στείροις ἠσκημένα γυίοις : Lucy. ν. 837 ff. portenta...androgynum, interutrasque nec utrum, utrimque remotum: Ov. Met. 1v. 378 nec femina dici | nec puer ut possint ; neutrumque et utrumque videntur: Livy xxvit. 11.4. Theophrastus (Cher, 16) mentions Hermaphroditus-statues; and the Orphic conception of Eros-Phanes may also be compared.

νῦν δὲ κτλ. “But now the name exists solely as a term of reproach”: cp. the use in Latin of semimir, Virg. A. Iv. 215 ille Paris cum semiviro comitatu : Livy xxxuir. 28, 7.

ὅλον ἦν κτλ. Cp. Emped. 265 (St.) οὐλοφυεῖς μὲν πρῶτα τύποι χθονὸς ἐξανέτελλον. ὅλον is predicate and not merely (as Ast, Schleierm.) a quali- fying adj. with τὸ εἶδος. Certainly, as Rettig notes, Zeller's “ganz rund” is impossible. Rabelais (1. 8) has a reference to this passage—“ung corps humain ayant deux testes, une virée vers Pautre, quatre bras, quatre pieds, et deux culs; tel que dict Platon, in Symposio, avoir esté "humaine nature ἃ son commencement mysticq”—in his description of Gargantua’s equipment.

190 A κεφαλὴν δ᾽ ἐπ’ κτλ. “Quis'uon Iani meminerit?” (Hommel). The notion of a similar double-fronted, androgynous being is found in the Talmud, and Euseb. pr. Evang. X11. 12 quotes our passage as a plagiarism from Moses.

οἱ κυβιστῶντες. Schol. κυβιστὴρ ὁ ὀρχηστής, καὶ κυβιστᾶν τὸ ὀρχεῖσθαι. Cp. Zl. xvi. 750, and the evolutions of the “tumbler” Hippoclides described in Hat. νι. 129: also Xen. Symp. τι. 11, vi. 3. The καί before εἰς ὀρθόν reads awkwardly ; if retained, we must render it “actually” (adeo, Wolf), but possibly ἴσα or toa καὶ may have been the original. Rettig quotes Cic.

e Fin. v. 35 si aut manibus ingrediatur quis aut non ante sed retro fugere, plane se ipse et hominen _ ens ex homine naturam odisse (videtur).

190

δ8 TAATQNOZ [190 a

ὦ γενοῦν 4 war heb LIAL | rg ᾿ ΜΝ > aN ᾿ φερόμενόι͵ Ὁ. ΘΙ ΤΟΙ κύκλῳ, ὀκτὼ τότε οὖσι τοῖς pener darepet-|

δόμενόι ταχὺ ἐφέροντο κύκλῳ! ἦν δὲ διὰ δσαῦτα ρίας τὰ- γένη. καὶ

seh fe ὦ, 2 Soo fim B Τοιαῦτα, ὅτι TO μὲν ἄρρεν ἦν τοῦ ἡλίου τὴν “ἀρχὴν᾽ ἔκγονον, τὸ δὲ

θῆλυ τῆς γῆς, τὸ δὲ ἀμφοτέρων ἃ μετέχον τῆς σελήνης, ὅτι καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἀμφοτέρων μετέχει "7 περιφερῆ δὲ δὴ ἦν καὶ αὐτὰ καὶ Ἢ

walkipa πορείᾳ, αὐτῶν διὰ τὸ τοῖς γορεῦσῳ ὅμοια εἶναι. ἣν οὖν τὴν io ὺν

eee feng Mews, Δ

eva “καὶ τὴν ῥώμην, [καὶ τὰ φρονήματα. “μεγάλα εἶχον, ἐπέχεί-

ρησαν δὲ τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ ὃ Mayet ‘Ounpos περὶ ᾿Εφιάλτόν Ὁ τε (αἱ se "τ ᾿ς, ὦ " tddtomale Ὥτου, περὶ, ἐκείνων » deyer eTat, τὸ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνίβασιν ἐ ἐπίχει- nels x. ΄ C ρεῖν ποιεῖν, ὡς ἐπι δησομένων τοῖς θεοῖς. Pee

XV. ὋὉ οὖν Ζεὺς καὶ of ἄλλοι θεοὶ ἐβουλεύοντο ὅ τι χρὴ ν ολυυ ζῶ αὐτοὺς ποιῆσαι, καὶ ἠπόρουν" οὔτε γὰρ ὅπως ἀποκτείναιεν εἶχον

1904 κυβιστῶσι κύκλῳ del. Sauppe Bdhm Sz. τότε ὀκτὼ T, Stob. ἀπερειδόμενοι T: ἅπερ εἰδομεναι B: ἐπερειδόμενοι cj. Steph. Β ἀμφότερον T ὅτι... μετέχει del. Jn, μετεῖχεν Stob., Blass (καὶ) περιφερῆ Blass δὴ om. Stob. αὐτῶν del. Blass τε καὶ BT: καὶ W Ο᾽ ὡς...θεοῖς post "Qrov transp. Steinhart ὁ γοῦν Stobaei A

190 B ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἄρρεν κτλ. Aristophanes too can pose as an erudite physicist. His astronomical lore may come partly from Parmenides, partly from the Pythagoreans. Cp. Arist. de gen. an. 1. 2 ἄρρεν yap λέγομεν ζῷον τὸ els ἄλλο γεννῶν, θῆλυ δὲ τὸ εἰς αὑτό" διὸ καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ τὴν τῆς γῆς φύσιν ὡς θῆλυ καὶ μητέρα νομίζουσιν, οὐρανὸν δὲ καὶ ἥλιον..«ὡς γεννῶντας καὶ πατέρας προσαγορεύουσιν. For the moon as bisexed, cp. Orph. Hymn. 1x. 4 (θηλύς τε καὶ ἄρσην); Macrob. 111. 8 Philochorus affirmat Venerem esse lunam et ei sacrificium facere viros cum veste muliebri, mulieres cum virili, quod eadem et mas aestimetur et femina. Procl. in Tim. p. 326 ο (οὕτω δὴ καὶ σεληνιακὴν ψυχὴν εἰς ἀνδρὸς κατιέναι φύσιν, καθὰ τὴν Μουσαίου φασί, καὶ ἀπολλωνιακὴν (ἡλιακὴν Jahn) εἰς γυναικός, καθάπερ ἱστοροῦσι τὴν Σίβυλλαν) shows that opinion on the matter was not uniform: see also Plutarch, Js. e¢ Os. τι. 368 ο, 371 F ff.

τι. «μετέχει. Végelin and others rightly defend this clause against athe- tizers like Jahn: it adds to the impression of “komische Gelehrsamkeit.”

περιφερῆ. =“ Globular” rather than “circular” (“kreisformig,” Ast, Schleierm.). For πορεία, incessus, cp. Tim. 45 a, Polct. 266 Β.

τὰ φρονήματα μεγάλα εἶχον. They were “high minded” and had “ proud looks”; they did not “refrain their soul and keep it low”: “peydda φρονήματα dicuntur habere qui contra dominos conspirant, ep. 182 c” (Hommel).

ὃ λέγει “Ὅμηρος. See Od. x1. 305 ff, 71. v. 385 ff. We may compare also Ps, ii. 2, “The kings of the earth set themselves...against the Lord”; and the Babel tradition (Gen. xi. 4 ff; ep. Orig. c. Cels, Iv. p. 515 a ff).

190 Ο οὔτε ydp...elxov. This obviously implies, as Hug remarks, moral rather than physical impossibility—the inexpedience of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Supply ἠφάνισαν with cepa σαντες.

190 0] ZYMMOZION 59

va are rpodes d hs ch bytinhaisaghe etaie rer punt

πὰ τ καὶ ὦσπερ τοὺς γίγαντας ἀεραυνωσι ντες τὸ γένος ἀφανίσαιεν---αἱ τιμαὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἱερὰ τὰ παρὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων a ἀρεδεπίο:-

ὡς ἈΝ ΧΕ Fe Os Vref tore ὠέσζ taken οὔθ᾽ ory ἐῴεν cine Nyaa, μόγις δὴ ὁ Ae ὺς ἐγνο ἧσάς met ἐς Sevle F συν 8: ὅτι Δοκῶ μοι, ἔφη, ἔχειν. μηχανήν, ὡς ἂν elev re ἄνθρωποι καὶ 246» ie Hey wets

παύσαιϊντὸ τῆς ἀκολασίᾳς ᾿ἀσθενέστεροι -ξγόμενοι. νῦν » ὲν γὰρ D

TEPOL αὐτούς, ἔφη, διάτέμῶ δίχα ς ἕκαστον, καὶ “ἅμα μὲν ἀσδενέστ ρ

pets ἔσονται, ἅμα δὲ χρὴσ (μωτέροι, ἡμῖν διὰ τὸ πλείους τὸν εἶριθηθι 4 nlf Nac fe ae σι (( (δι νας δ ae γεγονέναι" καὶ βαδιοῦνται splot ἐπὶ δυοῖν σκε οἷν. ἐὰν δ᾽ ἔτι

«ας se Suey “2 ΓΝ δοκῶσιν ἀσελγαίνειν καὶ μὴ ᾿᾽θέλωσιν ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν, πάλιν αὖ,

ye Hoe en 4, amselees 7p!

2

ἔφη, τεμῷ δίχα, ¢ wor ἐφ᾽ “ἑνὸς πορεύσονται σκέλους ἀσκώλίζοντες. “Gi

ταῦταΞεἰπὼν ὑτερις τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δίχα, ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ da τέμ-

190C γὰρ (au) Ast (ra) ἱερὰ Stob., J.-U. μόλις δὲ Stob. εἶέν τε: ἰῶνται Stob. ἄνθρωποι Voeg.: ἄνθρωποι BT ἀσθενέστεροι γενόμενοι 560]. Kreyenbiihl Sz. Ὦ δ᾽ ἔτι Stob., vulg.: δέ τε BT ᾿θέλωσιν Baiter Bt. : θέλωσιν 15, Stob.: ἐθέλωσιν T ἀσχαλίζοντες Stob. da Timaeus Pollux : ὠιὰ BT, Suidas: ὠὰ Stob, Photius: ὦτα Euseb.

’ ἠφανίζετο. For the impf. without ἄν, cp. (with Stallb.) Rep. 450 p, Euthyd. 304D; Ar, Vub. 1212.

poyts...2vvorjoas. Notice the comic touch: the omniscient Zeus has to cudgel his brains over the business!

ὡς ἂν εἶεν. For this construction after a present, cp. Xen. Cyrop. τ. 2. 5 (Goodwin G. Af, T. ὃ 349, ep. 8 351).

ἀσθενέστεροι γενόμενοι. Although these words are superfluous, a little legal verbosity may be excused in a comedian’s Zeus.

190 Ὁ χρησιμώτεροι. “More lucrative.” Zeus, with a sharp eye to “the loaves and fishes,” contrives to kill two birds with one stone. The propagation of piety by making fissures in men is an idea that tickles, and the discovery of the benefits—from the Olympian point of view—which result from schisms of this sort is νόημα γελοιότατον. This passage is alluded to by Musonius ap. Stob. flor. Lxvi1. 20; Julian, Zp. ux. p. 448 σ.

ἐὰν δ᾽ ἔτι κτλ. The ingenious Deity has still “ἃ rod in pickle”: the process of bisection may be repeated ad dzb. until the wicked are left literally with not a leg to stand on.

ἀσκωλίζοντες. Schol. ἀσκωλιάζειν κυρίως μὲν τὸ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσκοὺς ἄἅλλεσθαι ἀληλιμμένους, ἐφ᾽ οὺς ἐπήδων γελοίου ἕνεκα" τινὲς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν συμπεφυκόσι τοῖς σκέλεσιν ἁλλομένων. ἤδη δὲ τιθέασι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄλλεσθαι τὸ νεῦρον (τὸν ἕτερον cj. Bekk.) τῶν ποδῶν ἀνέχοντα, i) ὡς νῦν ἐπὶ σκέλους ἑνὸς βαίνοντα. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὸ χωλαίνειν. Hesych. ἀσκωλίζοντες" ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς ποδὸς ἐφαλλόμενοι. Cp. Schol. ad Ar. Plut. 1130: Virg. Georg. τι. 383 inter pocula laeti | mollibus in pratis unctos saluere per utres. See also Smith D. A. s.v. “ascoliasmus.”

ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ Sa κτλ. For da (see crit. n.) cp. Pollux vi. 79 ἦν δὲ τρωγάλια κάρυα puprides μέσπιλα, ἃ καὶ da καλεῖται : Tim, (Phot., Suid.) 8a- ἀκροδρύων

60 TAATQNO2 {80 D “αἰ ἑένν αἱ. we εἶ vt 2 a es ‘ E vovtes καὶ μέγλοντες ἴ ταριχεύειν [, ἢ ὥσπερ οἱ δὰ ¢ ὠὰ ταῖς » θριξίν" ἜΡΙΣ "ξέμοι, TOD - < Amey nen ἐκέλευε τό σε mpco acy) μέτάστ é- ie

P face

pew Μαὶ τὸ τοῦ αὐχένος ἥμισν πρὸς τὴν “τομήν, ἵνα βεὠμένος τὴν

αὑτοῦ τμῆσιν κοσμιώτεροφ" ein ὁ ἄνθρωπος, eal τἧλλα ἰᾶσθαι ἐκέλενεν. ὁ δὲ τό τε ἐσ σὐπῶν μετέστρεφε,. καὶ συνέλκων παντα-

“606 φίκ αὶ F πεν peh herag Catie Εν τὸ Seoun ἐπὶ τὴν LOCI Eph νῦν καλουμένην, ὦ αὐτὲρ τὰ vecles Spspng ma 46 σύσπαστα βαλλάντια, ἐν, στόμα ποίω eaten Ἢ κατὰ μέσην τὴν

ren kis γαστέρα, ὃ δὴ τὸν ὀμφαλὸν καλοῦσι. καὶ Tas μὲν ἄλλας ῥυτί ας

190 Ὁ τέμνοντες καὶ 5860]. Kreyenbiihl Bt.: καὶ 560]. Bdhm. Hug Sz. ἘΞ ταριχεύσειν Photius Suidas ἢ..«θριξίν 560]. Sydenham Sz. Bt. οἱ T,

Stob.: om. B θριξὶ (διαιροῦντες) Toup καὶ. «ἥμισυν del. Sauppe καὶ τὸ: κατὰ τὸ Verm, αὑτοῦ LT: αὐτοῦ Β, Stob. τμῆσιν: πρότμησιν Naber βαλλάντια T: βάλλοντα B dm éSece Stob. τὸν del. Hommel

τὰς om. Stob,

εἶδος μήλοις μικροῖς ἐμφερές. It is the “sorb-apple” or “service-berry,” Lat. sorbum; for the mode of preserving these cp. Varro de re rust. 1. 59 (putant manere) sorba quidam dissecta ct in sole macerata, ut pira, et sorba per se ubicuinque sint posita, in arido facile manere: and for ταριχεύειν in this sense of “drying,” cp. Phot. (Suid.) rapyxeverw>...oquaive δὲ καὶ τὸ ξηραίνειν.

The clause ἢ domep...rais θριξίν is condemned by most edd. It is an objection to the phrase that, as Rettig notes, we ought naturally to supply with it not only the appropriate τέμνοντες but also the inappropriate μέλλοντες ταριχεύειν : this objection however is not insuperable, and if necessary rép- vovres might be transposed. It is argued on the other hand by Hommel and Vogelin that a second simile is really required, the sorb-slicing describing only the mode of operation, whereas the egg-slicing adds the idea of ease and facility. That @a θριξὶ διαιρεῖν was a proverbial saying is shown by Plut. amat. 24, p. 770 B οἶσθα τοὺς παιδικοὺς ἔρωτας (eis) ἀβεβαιότητα πολλὰ λέγουσι καὶ σκώπτουσι λέγοντες ὥσπερ gov αὐτῶν τριχὶ διαιρεῖσθαι τὴν φιλίαν. Riickert supposes ‘‘ovorum per crines dissectionem [1] genus fuisse; fortasse ex ovorum dissectione per crines facta convivae futura praedicere solebant”: Zeller writes “vielleicht ein Gesellschafts- oder Liebesspiel, das darin bestanden haben kénnte, dass zwei Tischgenossen sich in die zwei Hiilften cines hartgesottenen Eies theilten, nachdem es mit cinem dem Kinen von ihnen ausgezogenen Haare zerschnitten war, also cin griechisches Vielliebchen.” It is, perhaps, possible that it had some connexion with (Orphic) magic and divination by φοσκοπία. For the process of bisection, cp. Phaedr, 265 Ε.

190 E τὴν αὑτοῦ τμῆσιν. Here τμῆσις denotes, of course, the result rather than the process: Naber’s πρότμησιν, umbilicum, is ingenious but needless.

τἄλλα ἰᾶσθαι. Apollo, as ἀκέσιος and ἰητήρ, very properly plays the part of surgeon’s assistaut.

τὰ σύσπαστα βαλλάντια. “Round pouches with strings to draw”: see Smith D. d. τ. 565.

191 6] Sey 61

Lviniacdacdney 4. ea Sina τιν be « τὰς πολλὰς ἐξελέαινε καὶ τὰ στήθη ἼΩΝ ἔχων τι τοιοῦτον 19]

ἐκ’ hegre Ghoew the 2 ὄργανον οἷον ou σκυτοτομοι περὶ Toh βαλάποδα λέίνοντες τὸ τὰς of (eech Sle say Greun TOV σκυτῶν puribay: ὀλίγας, δὲ ἀπ τθλοῖτοι 74s περι ee τὴ ν σε ser vee

γαστέρα καὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν, μνημεῖον εἶναι τοῦ παλαιοῦ. πάθους.

Ee ane ( ME

ἐπειδὴ οὖν ἡ Φύσις δίχα ἐτμήθη ποδούνε ἕκαστον τὸ ἥμισυ-- τὸ enous locleing be pda

αὑτοῦ Eurtes | καὶ περι βάχλογγετοτὰς χεῖρας καὶ σὐυμπλεκόμεϊοι agree we oO

ἀχλήλοις,, ,ἐπιθυβοῦν' ες συῤῥαῆναι, ἀπέθνῃσκον ὑπὸ χιμοῦ καὶ τῆς

ἀ “435

ἄλλης. ἀργίας διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἐθέλειν χωρὶς ἀλλήλων ποιεῖν. καὶ Β ὁπότε a βαροθάνοι τῶν ἡμίσεων, τὸ δὲ λειφθείη, τὸ ἀν ον ἄλλο "

τ 22}

ne καὶ αὐνεπλέκεζς, εἴτε γυναικὸς τῆς ὅλης ἐντύχοι ἡμίσει, ν γυναῖ, λοῦμεν, εἴτε ἀνδρό ὶ Ἄ ioe ape γυναῖκα καλοῦμεν, εἴτε ἀν pos: Ka οὕτως ἀπώλλψντο

> mov

ἐλξήσας δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς ἄλλην. -μηχανὴν͵ Ζορίξεται, καὶ μεζατίθησιν αὐτῶν. τὰ αἰδοῖα εἰς τὸ mpoa bey, reas γὰρ ga τὰ τὰ ἐκτὸς εἶχον, καὶ ἐγέννων καὶ ἔτικτον οὐκ εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀλλ᾽ εἰς γῆν, ὥσπερ οἱ C

191 A ὄργανον del. Creuzer καλάποδα T, Pollux Stob.: καλόποδα B, ἐπειδὴ : ἐπεὶ Stob. ἡ φύσις (αὐτῶν) vel (ἡμῶν) Ast ἐπόθουν Verm. J.-U. ἕκαστοι τῷ ἡμίσει Verm., τὸ libri: re Stob. Priscian: τῷ Verm. J.-U. αὑτοῦ om. Priscian ξυνήει T, Stob. Priscian: ξυνεῖναι B, Verm. J.-U.: del. Rettig ἀμπλεκόμενοι Stob. λιμοῦ B: τοῦ λιμοῦ T, Stob.: τῆς λιμοῦ W, vulg. Β τὸ δὲ T: τόδε B ξυνεπέπλεκτο Stob. ἡμισείας Stob. ἀπώλλοντο T: ἀπύλλυντο ; ἀπώλλυτο Stob.

191 A διήρθρου. “Shaped out,” “moulded”; cp. Phaedr. 368 dD. Cp. Aelian, #. A. τι. 19, v. 39, νι. 3.

τὸν καλάποδα. “The (cobbler’s) last”: Lat. forma (Hor. Sat. τι. 3. 106), or tentipelliwm. Suidas (s.v. κᾶλα) κᾶλον yap τὸ ξύλον: ἐξ οὗ καὶ καλόπους, ὁ ξύλινος ποῦς.

μνημεῖον.. «πάθους. The residue of the wrinkles was intended to serve as a memorial “of man’s first disobedience...and all our woe.” This repeats the idea already expressed in 190 E supra (iva θεώμενος κτλ.).

ἡ φύσις. Creuzer renders this by “nos homines,” disapproving of Ficinus’ “natura” and Schleierm.’s “forma”: but φύσις is no mere periphrasis but connotes original nature or form.

ποθοῦν ἕκαστον κτλ. To attempt to restore the Bodleian reading ξυνεῖναι, as several of the later critics do, involves too much alteration; thus Hug writes τῷ αὑτοῦ ξυνεῖναι, Usener ἐπόθουν. «τῷ αὑτοῦ ξυνεῖναι. Notice the “constructio ad sensum,” ποθοῦν... περιβϑάλλοντες.. «ἀπέθνῃσκον. There is an echo of this passage in Philo de op. mund. 53 p. 36 M.

τῆς ἄλλης ἀργίας. “General inactivity,” implying that the λιμός itself was due to dpyia. Cp. Rep. 554 a, c (with Adam ad loc.).

191 B εἴτε ἀνδρός. Abbreviated for εἴτε ἀνδρὸς τοῦ ὅλου ἐντύχοι ἡμίσει. Notice that the third possibility (εἴτ᾽ ἀνδρογύνου) is omitted.

191 Ο ὥσπερ of τέττιγες, This is not merely a piece of natural history ;

62 TIAATQNOZ [1910

, ¥ , , ΩΝ a nw? εἰ -“ , ΕἾ ¥ 0 τέταίγες μετέθηκέ τε οὖν οὕτω «ταῦτ᾽» αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν <I am. καὶ διὰ ΤῊ ΤΩΝ τὴν kandi ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἐποίησε, διὰ τοῦ ἄρρενος

ἐκ wfc spc

ἐν τῷ θήλει, eae &txa, iva ἐν τῇ ἀυμδλοκῇ ἅμα μὲν εἰ ἀνὴρ

Ὑυρανμῖ ἐντύχοι, Ὑενμώεη Καὶ καὶ γίγνοιτο τὸ γένος, ἅμα δ᾽ εἰ καὶ ἄρρην + nvr, he we lhept

dppevt, τἰχησμὠνὴ γοῦν eae τῆς συνουσίας καὶ διαπταύοιντο

ate ” καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τρέπδιντό. καὶ τοῦ « ἄλλου βίον ἐξίκοντο. ἐστι

D δὴ οὖν ἐκ, τόσου ὁ ἔρώς ἔμφῦτος ἀλλήλων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ τῆς

ἀρχαίας φύσεως συναγωγεὺς καὶ ἐπὶ χειβῶν ποιῆσαι & ἐς δυοῖν", καὶ ἰάσασθαι τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην.

191 Ο τε: δὲ Ast οὕτω αὐτῶν : ὁμοῦ πάντων cj. Usener (ταῦτ᾽) αὐτῶν scripsi: αὐτῶν B: αὐτῶν T: αὖ Schanz: αὐτὰ vulg.: del. Rickert αὐτῶν... πρόσθεν del. Jn. Hug ἔμπροσθεν Stob. fort. (ra αἰδοῖα) καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Stob. γέννησιν Verm. Sz. ἐν : νέαν Stob. διὰ...θήλει del. Jn. Sz. (σῶν) (vel ἔτι) yiyvorro Riickert: γένοιτο Stob.: σώζοιτο Susemihl τὸ γένος BT, Stob.: γένος J.-U.: τόκος Verm.: ὁ γόνος Hommel ἄρρεν apogr. Coisl. 155 Stob. D_ συναγωγὸς Stob. éva Stobaei A

it contains also an allusion to the cicada as the symbol of Athenian auto- chthony: cp. Polit. 271 a τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀλλήλων οὐκ ἣν ἐν τῇ τύτε φύσει γεννώμενον, τὸ δὲ δὴ γηγενὲς εἶναί ποτε γένος λεχθέν κτλ.: Thue. 1, 6, Ar. £g. 1331. For the mode of propagation of cicadae, cp. Ael. H. A. 11. 32 ταῖς ἀφύαις ὁ πηλὸς γένεσίς ἐστι" δι’ ἀλλήλων δὲ οὐ τίκτουσιν οὐδὲ ἐπιγίνονται κτλ. : the female lays her eggs in the sand, where the young are hatched out by the sun’s heat. Cp. also Plut. amat. 767 Ο. :

οὕτω...πρόσθεν. Hommel explains οὕτω by hac ratione, qua dixi; Riickert hy wet nune posita sunt, which seems preferable. αὐτῶν (sc. τὰ αἰδοῖα) by itself reads rather awkwardly; but, as Végelin points out, a glossator would cer- tainly have added the missing words. It is, perhaps, just possible that τὰ αἰδοῖα fell out before καὶ διὰ, owing to similarity of letters; but the insertion of ταῦτ᾽ is a simpler change.

γίγνοιτο τὸ γένος, 1.6. τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος, cp. 190 Ὁ τὸ γένος....ἅνθρωποι. There is no reason to tamper with the text: the present tense secures the notion of continuance without need of supplements such as Riickert’s σῶν or ἔτι. (A neater change would be reivaro.)

ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα. In contrast to their former ἀργία (191 B). Cp. Hesiod’s title ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι. Bios is here practically equiv. to ἡ τοῦ βίου κατασκευή (Laws 842 c); and the phrase means “husbandry and. other means of subsistence.”

ἔστι δὴ οὖν. Here at last we come to the point of the whole tale—-the function and value of Eros,

ἐκ τόσον. “From such early times,” tam longo ex tempore: the only other ex. in Plato is Laws 642 8, but the phrase is common in Hadt., e.g. v. 88, vi. 84.

191 ἢ συναγωγεὺς. “A unifier,” in the sense of “restorer.” This subst. is unique in Plato, and rare elsewhere; ep. the use of συναγωγός, Prot, 322 0, Tim. 310.

191 Ε] ZYMTIOZION 63

XVI. “Εκαστος οὖν ἡμῶν ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπου ξύμβολον, ἅτε -’

τετμημένος ὥσπερ αἱ ψῆτται, ἐξ ἑνὸς δύο. ζητεῖ δὴ ἀεὶ τὸ αὑτοῦ ἕκαστος ξύμβολον. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν' τῶν ἀνδρῶν τοῦ κοινοῦ τμῆμά εἰσιν, ὃ δὴ τότε ἀνδρόγυνον ἐκαλεῖτο, φιλογύναικές τ᾽ εἰσὶ καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν μοιχῶν ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένους γεγόνασι, καὶ ὅσαι αὖ γυναῖκες φίλανδροί τε καὶ μοιχεύτριαι [ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένους γίγνονται]. ὅσαι δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν γυναικὸς τμῆμά εἰσιν, οὐ πάνυ αὗται τοῖς ἀνδράσι τὸν νοῦν προσέχουσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὰς γυναῖκας τετραμμέναι εἰσί, καὶ αἱ ἑταιρίστριαι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ

191 Ὁ οὖν: γοῦν cj. Usener ἕκαστος TW: ἕκαστον B, Stob. τμήματος

Stob. ἘΞ φιλομοιχευτρίαι Stob. ἐκ. «γίγνονται del, Bdhm. Sz. γυναικῶν W καὶ al,..yiyvovra del. Voeg. ai om. Stob.

ἀνθρώπον EvpBohov. “But the indenture of a man” (Jowett): σύμβολον here is the tessera hospitalis; the host presents his departing guest with one half of ἃ broken die (ἀστράγαλος), retaining the other half himself (see Smith 2. A. 8.0, “hospitium”). Cp. the use of the word by Empedocles, in his theory of reproduction stated in Arist. de gen. an, τ. 18. 772» 10 ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς...φησὶ ἐν τῷ ἄρρενι καὶ ἐν τῷ θήλει οἷον σύμβολον εἶναι, ὅλον δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ οὐδετέρου ἀπιέναι--- “ad quod decretum philosophi respexit fortasse Aristophanes” (Stallb.).

ai ψῆτται. Lat. rhombi, a kind of flat-fish (perhaps plaice or turbot): Schol. ἰχθύδιόν τι τῶν πλατείων ἡ ψῆττα, ἐκ δύο δερμάτων συγκεῖσθαι τὴν ἰδέαν δοκοῦν, 6 τινες σανδάλιον καλοῦσιν κτλ. : “genus piscium, quod oculos ct nares in altera tantum parte capitis habet” (Stallb.). Cp. Ar. Lys. 115 (where the Schol. curiously defines yf. as ὄρνεον τετμημένον κατὰ τὸ μέσον, ds οἱ σφῆκες), Athen, vit. p. 329.

φιλογύναικές. Cp. Cic. Zuse. Iv. 11. 25 similiterque ceteri morbi...ut mulierositas, ut ita appellem eam, quae Graece φιλογυνία dicitur, etc. The sing. is φιλογύνης (see L. and S.).

191 ἘΞ φίλανδροί. The word here has the bad sense noted in Hermog. de td. 111, p. 324 W. τὴν yap ἀκολασίαν βούλεται viv δήπου σημαίνειν καὶ τὸ μοιχεύεσθαι. Somewhat different is the force in Soph. fr. 1006 N. (Hermog. Rhet. 11. p. 824) καὶ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς δὲ φίλανδρόν που τὴν ᾿Αταλάντην εἶπε διὰ τὸ ἀσπάζεσθαι σὺν ἀνδράσιν εἶναι: and Eur. Androm. 229; while in Ep. Titus ii. 4 φιλανδρία is a virtue.

ἐκ τούτου...γίγνονται, I follow Badham and Hug in rejecting these words as an adscript derived from the context (a view already suggested by Hommel), Badham writes, “si altero praedicato opus esse credidissct Plato, quod aegre adducar ut credam, aliquanto pulcrius orationem variasset quam γεγόνασι in γίγνονται mutando.” The three-fold repetition sounds clumsy.

γυναικὸς τμῆμα, 1.6. ἃ section of the γυνὴ ὅλη (“ Doppelweib”) of 191 Β. Similarly below ἄρρενος τμῆμα refers to the ἀνὴρ ὅλος (“Doppelmann”). With the theory of sex-characters here expounded, cp. Hippocr. de diaet. τ. 28 ff.

αἱ ἑταιρίστριαι. Timaeus ἑταιρίστριαι" αἱ καλούμεναι τριβάδες. Cp. Clem. Alex. Paed, 111. 21, p. 264 P. γυναῖκες ἀνδρίζονται παρὰ φύσιν γαμούμεναί τε καὶ γαμοῦσαι γυναῖκες : and Ep. Rom. 1. 26.

E

64 TAATQNOS [191 E

a a Ψ , y a U ? ‘ y ὃ ͵

γένους γίγνονται. ὅσοι δὲ ἄρρενος τμῆμά εἰσι, τὰ ἄρρενα διώ-

a ‘ a ΝΜ Ἂν

κουσι, καὶ τέως μὲν ἂν παῖδες ὦσιν, ἅτε τεμάχια ὄντα τοῦ ἄρρενος,

a Pe Ν

192 φιλοῦσι τοὺς ἀνδρας καὶ χαίρουσι συγκατακείμενοι καὶ συμπε-

a a τὰ Ἂν;

πλεγμένοι τοῖς ἀνδράσι, καί εἰσιν οὗτοι βέλτιστοι τῶν παίδων καὶ

4 a > , », ᾿ Ν δὲ ὃ ἐξ ? \

μειρακίων, ἅτε ἀνδρειότατοι ὄντες φύσει. φασὶ δὲ δή τινες αὐτοὺς

¢

ἀναισχύντους εἶναι, ψευδόμενοι: οὐ γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ἀναισχυντίας τοῦτο

δρώσιν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ θάρρους καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ ἀρρενωπίας, τὸ ὅμοιον a ΄

αὐτοῖς ἀσπαζόμενοι. μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον: καὶ γὰρ τελεωθέντες

a ‘

μόνοι ἀποβαίνουσιν εἰς τὰ πολιτικὰ ἄνδρες οἱ τοιοῦτοι. ἐπειδὰν

a nr Ν ,ὔ 2

B δὲ ἀνδρωθῶσι, παιδεραστοῦσι καὶ πρὸς γάμους καὶ παιδοποιίας οὐ

,, \ a ‘ > Ν ς .. an ΄ 4 ‘ a

προσέχουσι τὸν νοῦν φύσει, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμον ἀναγκάζονται

191 Ἡ (ἄρρενες) ἄρρενος Bast τέως: ἕως Ast Sz, τεμάχια om. Stob.

192 .Α οὗτοι (oi) Hommel Sz. τῶν μειρακίων Stob. δὲ δή: δὴ Stob.

οὔτε γὰρ Stob. αὑτοῖς vulg. Β φύσει... ἀναγκάζονται del. Hug ἀλλὰ... ἀναγκάζονται del, Jn. Sz.

τέως dv. “Tig. ἔως ἄν, quamdiu” (Ast), As this use is unique in Plato, Ast proposed to write ἕως av. In 191 τέως has its.usual force, adhue.

τεμάχια. “Slices”: this recalls the comparison with ψῆτται, τέμαχος being used esp. of fish.

συγκατακείμενοι, An example of this is Alcibiades: see his own account in 217 Ὁ ff.

192 A ἀνδρειότατοι. An allusion, as Hommel remarks, to the ambiguity of the word ἀνδρεῖος. Cp. Hippocr. de diaet. 1. 28 ἣν μὲν οὖν ἐς ἄρσενα τὰ σώματα ἀποκριθέντα ἀμφοτέρων τύχῃ...γίνονται οὗτοι ἄνδρες λαμπροὶ ras ψυχὰς καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἰσχυροί.

φασὶ... τινες. Cp. what Pausanias says in 182A (ὥστε τινὰς τολμᾶν λέγειν κτλ.).

ἀρρενωπίας. Etym. M. 8.0. ἀρρενωπός" ὁ ἄρρενος πρόσωπον ἔχων, κατὰ συνεκδοχήν. ἤγουν ὁ ἀνδρεῖος καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ δυνάμενος πρὸς ἐχθρὸν ἀντι- ταχθῆναι. The subst. is do. λεγ., but the adj. occurs in Laws 803 Β τὸ δὴ μεγαλοπρεπὲς οὖν καὶ τὸ τὴν πρὸς ἀνδρείαν ῥέπον ἀρρενωπὸν φατέον εἶναι. Rettig regards all these apparently encomiastic terms as ironical.

τελεωθέντες. “ When grown up,” cp. ep. 377 B, 466 Ε.

ἄνδρες is predicative: “Such as these, and they alone, turn out men (de. manly, capable) in public affairs”: Ficinus wrongly renders ‘cum adoleverint, soli ad civilem administrationem conversi, viri praestantes evadunt”; and Schleierm. also goes wrong. For the connexion between the paederastic temper and politics, cp. 1820, Ar. Wub. 1093, £g. 333 ff, etc.

_ ἀνδρωθῶσι. This verb is not found elsewhere in Plato: cp. Hdt. 1. 123, Eur.0H, F. 42.

192 B φύσει.. ἀναγκάζονται. Hug, on quite insufficient grounds, expunges these words. It is true that there was, so far as is known, no law at Athens to enforce matrimony, though there was such a law at Sparta, according to Stob, (Serm. 65 p. 410) and Pollux (vir1. 40), by which citizens were liable to a

192 Ὁ] ZYMTIOZION 65

ἀλλ᾽ ἐξαρκεῖ αὐτοῖς μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων καταζῆν ἀγάμοις. πάντως μὲν οὖν ὁ τοιοῦτος παιδεραστής τε καὶ φιλεραστὴς γίγνεται, ἀεὶ τὸ ξυγγενὲς ἀσπαζόμενος. ὅταν μὲν οὖν καὶ αὐτῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐντύχῃ τῷ αὑτοῦ ἡμίσει καὶ ὁ παιδεραστὴς καὶ ἄλλος πᾶς, τότε καὶ θαυμαστὰ ἐκπλήττονται φιλίᾳ τε καὶ οἰκειότητι καὶ ἔρωτι, οὐκ ἐθέλοντες, ws C ἔπος εἰπεῖν, χωρίζεσθαι ἀλλήλων οὐδὲ σμικρὸν χρόνον. καὶ οἱ διατελοῦντες μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων διὰ βίου οὗτοί εἰσιν, οὗ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἔχοιεν εἰπεῖν ὅ τι βούλονται σφίσι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων γίγνεσθαι. οὐδενὶ γὰρ ἂν δόξειε τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι ἡ τῶν ἀφροδισίων συνουσία, ὡς ἄρα τούτου ἕνεκα ἕτερος ἑτέρῳ χαίρει ξυνὼν οὕτως ἐπὶ μεγάλης σπουδῆς" ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλο τι βουλομένη ἑκατέρου ἡ ψυχὴ δήλη ἐστίν, ὃ οὐ δύναται D 192 Β ἀγάμοις οὖσι- Stob. μὲν οὖν (post ὅταν): μέντοι Sauppe: μὲν Sz. καὶ om. Stob. θαυμαστότατ᾽ Bdhm. C ἐκπλήττονται T: ἐκπλήττοντα B (emi) σμικρὸν Stob. οὐδενὶ Stob., Bt.: οὐδὲν BIW: οὐδὲ rece., J.-U. ἑτέρῳ: ἑκατέρῳ Stob. χαίρει T: χαίρειν B D ἡ ψυχὴ ἑκατέρου Stob.

γραφὴ ἀγαμίου (or ὀψιγαμίου). But, as Hommel notes, νόμος covers not only law but custom; and it appears that “certain disabilities attached, at Athens, to the state of celibacy ; those who entered public life, as ῥήτορες or στρατηγοί, were required παιδοποιεῖσθαι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους (Deinarch. ο. Demosth. p. 99 § 72)”: see Smith D. A. τ. 43a. And it is to be noticed that it is precisely public men who are spoken of in the text. The antithesis φύσει )( νόμῳ derives from the Sophists (Hippias v. Protagoras), see my Philebus p. xxviiin., Adam £2. 7. G. pp. 279 ff., Gomperz G@. 7’. τ. pp. 401 ff.

φιλεραστὴς. This applies to the ἐρώμενος ; cp. the use of φιλεραστία in 213D. Those who are παιδερασταί in manhood were φιλερασταί in boyhood (φιλοῦσι τοὺς ἄνδρας 191 £), so that the words here are put in chiastic order, as Stallb. observes. Hommel absurdly suggests that π. re καὶ φιλεραστής may denote “virum qui neque alios vituperet amatores puerorum, et ipse pueros amet.” The point is also missed by Riickert’s “amicorum amator,” and Wolf’s “sodalium amator.”

αὐτῷ.. «ἡμίσει. This refers to 191 D, ζητεῖ δὴ dei τὸ αὑτοῦ ξύμβολον.

ἄλλος mds. This is a short way of referring comprehensively to the segments of the other ὅλα, viz. the androgynous and the “Doppelweib” (191 D, E).

θαυμαστὰ ἐκπλήττονται κτλ. Cp. 211 D.

192 C ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν. This qualifies the negatives in the clause, like paene dixerim: “Barely consenting to be sundered for even a moment.”

καὶ of διατελοῦντες κτλ. “It is these who continue in fellowship their life long, although they could not so much as say what gain they expect from one another.” Schleierm. misses the force of οὗτοι by making it direct antecedent to οἵ (“diese sind es welche” etc.). For the thought of this passage, cp. 181D, 1838, Phaedr, 254 4 ff., 255 Ε ff

es) deed te 1g τούτου ἕνεκα, 1.6. τῆς τῶν app. συνουσίας ἕνεκα.

B. P. 5

66 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [192 p εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ μαντεύεται ὃ βούλεται καὶ αἰνίττεται. καὶ εἰ αὐτοῖς a « s g¢ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ὙΠ ὩΣ ἐπιστὰς ὁ'Ἥφαιστος, ἔχων τὰ ὄργανα, ἔροιτο" Τί ἔσθ᾽ ὃ βούλεσθε, ὦ ἄνθρωποι, ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων γενέσθαι; καὶ εἰ ἀποροῦντας αὐτοὺς πάλιν ἔροιτο" "Apa γε τοῦδε a a if % ἐπιθυμεῖτε, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γενέσθαι 6 τι μάλιστα ἀλλήλοις, ὥστε καὶ τῇ % € te A 3 t > ‘ ᾽ ‘A , νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν μὴ ἀπολείπεσθαι ἀλλήλων; εἰ γὰρ τούτου E ἐπιθυμεῖτε, ἐθέλω ὑμᾶς συντῆξαι καὶ συμφυσῆσαι εἰς τὸ αὐτό, a > Y oe ‘4 ς΄ ἐν 2 γῆς € Ψ a ὥστε δύ᾽ ὄντας ἕνα γεγονέναι καὶ ἕως τ᾽ ἂν ζῆτε, ὡς ἕνα ὄντα, κοινῇ ἀμφοτέρους ζῆν, καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἀποθάνητε, ἐκεῖ αὖ ἐν “Αἰδου Ἵ εἾ cal cig by 2 an a ῳ > > € a id & | a ἀντὶ δυοῖν ἕνα εἶναι κοινῇ τεθνεῶτε' ἀλλ᾽ ὁρᾶτε εἰ τούτου ἐρᾶτε καὶ ἐξαρκεῖ ὑμῖν ἂν τούτου τύχητε᾽ ταῦτα ἀκούσας ἴσμεν ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς ἐξαρνηθείη οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο τι ἂν φανείη βουλόμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ar eyes οἴοιτ᾽ ἂν ἀκηκοέναι τοῦτο ὃ πάλαι ἄρα ἐπεθύμει, συνελθὼν καὶ συντακεὶς τῷ ἐρωμένῳ ἐκ δυοῖν εἷς γενέσθαι. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι \ oo» o < ? 4 , con 3 [ἢ ΠῚ “ a τὸ αἴτιον, ὅτι ἡ ἀρχαία φύσις ἡμῶν jv αὕτη Kal ἦμεν ὅλοι" τοῦ 198 ὅλου οὖν τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ διώξει ἔρως ὄνομα. καὶ πρὸ τοῦ, ὥσπερ λέγω, ν ἦμεν, νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, 192 Ὁ θέλω Β E συμφυσῆσαι BTW: συμφῦσαι bt, vulg. ζῆτε ὡς T: ζχτήσεως Β ἄλλο ὅτι TW τοῦτο ὃ: τοῦ οὗ Bdhm. τούτου γάρ

Ficinus Bast: τούτου ἄρ᾽ Wolf 193 A διῳκίσθημεν: διεσχίσθημεν Cornarius ὑπὸ: ἀπὸ Hommel

192 D καὶ εἰ... ἔροιτο. The apodosis to this duplicated protasis is to be found in ἴσμεν ὅτι κτλ. (1928). For Hephaestus and his tools, see Od. vim. 266 ff., esp. 274 ἐν δ᾽ ἔθετ᾽ ἀκμοθέτῳ μέγαν ἄκμονα, κόπτε τε δεσμοὺς | ἀρρήκτους ἀλύτους ὄφρ᾽ ἔμπεδον αὖθι μένοιεν. He would also have his bellows (φῦσαι), tongs (πύραγρα), and hammer (σφῦρα, ῥαιστήρ) : see Ll, xviii. 372 ff, 474 fh

192E συντῆξαι. Cp. 1838, Tim. 43.4 πυκνοῖς γόμφοις ξυντήκοντες : Eur, fr. 964 πᾶσα yap ἀγαθὴ γυνὴ, | ἥ τις ἀνδρὶ συντέτηκε, σωφρονεῖν ἐπίσταται. For τήκειν of the effects of love, cp. Theocr. zd. 1. 66; Xen. Symp. vitt. 3.

συμφυσῆσαι. Stallb., Hommel and Jowett retain the vulgate, συμφῦσαι, but the other lection gives a better sense—“to weld together,” conflare: cp. Jl. xvi. 470. There is a ref. to this passage in Arist. Pol, τι. 4. 1262 11 καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς λόγοις ἴσμεν λέγοντα τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνην ὡς τῶν ἐρώντων διὰ τὸ σφόδρα φιλεῖν ἐπιθυμούντων συμφῦναι καὶ γενέσθαι ἐκ δύο ὄντων ἀμφοτέρους ἕνα (Newman here reads συμφνῆναι), but the word συμφῦναι is probably due to a reminiscence of 191.4. For the sense, cp. Orph. Fr. 139 mapnyayev...tov "Ἔρωτα, ἑνοποιὸν ὄντα τῶν ὅλων.

τοῦ Odov...dvopa. This definition sums up the description of Eros given in 191 D ad init.

193 A διῳκίσθημεν κτλ. This is apparently a reference—in spite of the audacious anachronism (cp. Jntrod. § vii), to the διοικεισμός of Mantinea in

193 c] ZYMTIOZION 67

καθάπερ ᾿Αρκάδες ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων. φόβος οὖν ἔστιν, ἐὰν μὴ κόσμιοι ὦμεν πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, ὅπως μὴ καὶ αὖθις διασχισθησό- μεθα, καὶ περίιμεν ἔχοντες ὥσπερ οἱ ἐν ταῖς στήλαις καταγραφὴν ἐκτετυπωμένοι, διαπεπρισμένοι κατὰ τὰς ῥῖνας, γεγονότες ὥσπερ λίσπαι. ἀλλὰ τούτων ἕνεκα πάντ᾽ ἄνδρα χρὴ ἅπαντα παρακε- λεύεσθαι εὐσεβεῖν περὶ θεούς, ἵνα τὰ μὲν ἐκφύγωμεν, τῶν δὲ τύχωμεν, ὡς ὁ "Ἔρως ἡμῖν ἡγεμὼν καὶ στρατηγός. ᾧ μηδεὶς

> , ἐπ ¢. > > td “ “ Ἵ ta

ἐναντία Spaniera—mpartes δ᾽ ἐναντία, ὅστις θεοῖς ἐπεχθάνεται:- ie

φίλοι yap γενόμενοι καὶ as aa: τῷ θεῷ Ἐξενρηόφηευ τε καὶ

ἐντευξόμεθα τοῖς παιδικοῖς τοῖς ἡμετέροις αὐτῶν, ὃ τῶν νῦν ὀλίγοι

ποιοῦσι. "καὶ μή μοι ὑπολάβῃ ᾿Ιὡρυξίμαχος, κωμῳδῶν τὸν λόγον, € ΄ Ν» , ¥ » \ + Ν a ,

ὡς Παυσανίαν καὶ ᾿Αγάθωνα λέγω" ἴσως μὲν γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι τούτων τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες καὶ εἰσὶν ἀμφότεροι τὴν φύσιν ἄρρενες" λέγω

193 A διασχισθησόμεθα T: διασχησθησώμεθα B καταγραφῇ Schneider :

κατὰ γραφὴν Ruhnken Sz. διαπεπρισμένοι T: διαπεπρησμένοι B: δίχα πεπρισμένοι Ruhnken ἅπαντι Hirschig Sz. Β ὡς BT: ὧν rece. vulg., Herm. J.-U.: fort. ὅσων ἡμιτόμοις αὑτῶν Bast μοι Β: μου T γὰρ kat: yap Wolf C ἄρρενος Bast: ἄρρενος évds Orelli

385 B.c., for which see Xen. Hell. v. 2. 1 ff. ἐκ δὲ τούτου καθῃρέθη μὲν τὸ τεῖχος, διῳκίσθη δὲ Mavrivela τετραχῆ καθάπερ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ᾧκουν (.6. κατὰ κώμας): Isocr. Pan. 67a: Arist. Pol. τι. 2, § 3.

καταγραφὴν. Many editors divide tho word κατὰ γραφήν. Probably whichever reading we adopt the meaning is the same, “in profile,” the figures being bas-reliefs (crusta). Cp. Plin. xxxv. 34 hic catagrapha invenit, hoc est obliquas imagines.

ὥσπερ Mona. These are διαπεπρισμένοι ἀστράγαλοι (Schol. ad loc., Suidas), like the σύμβολον of 191 D: ep. Ar. an. 826, Schol. ad Eur. Med. 610.

193 B ὡς ὁ "Ἔρως. The Bodleian’s ὡς, though doubtful, is possible. Perhaps the variants arose from an original ὅσων or ἐν 6.

πράττει... ἀπεχθάνεται. This may contain an allusion, as Usener suggests, to some familiar verse such as, ¢.9., πράττει δ᾽ ἐναντί᾽ ὃς θεοῖς ἀπήχθετο.

μή μοι ὑπολάβῃ. This is one of three cases in Plato of “py with the (independent) subjunctive implying apprehension coupled with the desire to avert the object of fear,”—the other cases being Huthyd. 2720, Laws 861 Ε (see Goodwin G@. M. 1. § 264).

κωμῳδῶν τὸν λόγον. “ Ridiculing my discourse,” cp. 189 Β : so ἐπικωμῳδῶν, Apol. 31p. As Hug observes, A. is really κωμῳδῶν himself when, in comic contrast to the picture drawn of Agathon in Thesm. 31 ff., he here suggests that he is τὴν φύσιν ἄρρην.

193 Ο dpcbdrepor...dippeves. “Η. 6. ἄρρενος ἑνός" Stallb. As Wolf (like Stallb.) says, ἄρρενες τὴν φύσιν means “mares origine, τμήματα seu τεμάχια τοῦ ἄρρενος," and implies further, as Rettig notes, “mares natura, geborene Paderasten.”

5—2

E

68 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [193 c

, 8 » 2 oe ἡ > a \ rn a “ δὲ οὖν ἔγωγε καθ᾽ ἁπάντων καὶ ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν, ὅτι οὕτως ἂν ἡμῶν τὸ γένος εὔδαιμον γένοιτο, εἰ ἐκτελέσαιμεν τὸν ἔρωτα καὶ a n n a 4 \ τῶν παιδικῶν τῶν αὑτοῦ ἕκαστος τύχοι, εἰς THY ἀρχαίαν ἀπελθὼν φύσιν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἄριστον, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τῶν νῦν παρόντων τὸ τούτου ἐγγυτάτω ἄριστον εἶναι" τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ παιδικῶν τυχεῖν κατὰ νοῦν αὐτῷ πεφυκότων! οὗ δὴ τὸν αἴτιον- θεὸν ὑμνοῦντες δικαίως ἂν ὑμνοῖμεν "ἔρωτα, ὃς ἐν τε τῷ παρόντι ἡμᾶς πλεῖστα ὀνίνησιν εἰς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἄγων, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἔπειτα ἐλπίδας μεγίστας παρέχεται, ἡμῶν παρεχομένων πρὸς θεοὺς εὐσέβειαν, κατἀστήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀρχαίαν φύσιν καὶ ἰασάμενος μακαρίους καὶ εὐδαί- μονας ποιῆσαι. τ Ἢ ΟὝὙ '' ς- Ν ΄

Οὗτος, ἔφη, ὦ ᾿Ερυξίμαχε, ὁ ἐμὸς λόγος ἐστὶ περὶ "ἔρωτος, 2 nn aA - / LA 4 δ 4θ A δ ¥ >t ἀλλοῖος ἢ 0 σὸς. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐδεήθην cov, μὴ κωμῳδήσῃς avToOr, oo A lal n ? # / μὴ 2 a n x , iva καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀκούσωμεν Ti ἕκαστος ἐρεῖ, μᾶλλον δὲ τί ς τ ᾧ ? 4 Ν ‘ ΄ a ἑκάτερος" ᾿Αγάθων yap καὶ Σωκράτης λοιποί.

193 © ἀπελθὼν: ἐπανελθὼν Mehler Naber τοῦτο δ᾽ T: τοῦτον δ᾽ B

D “Epwra del. Voeg. τε T: om. B jpov...evoéBerav del. Voeg. ποιήσειν Hirschig E_ λοιποὶ (μόνοι) Naber

ἀπελθὼν. “Returning,” “being restored to”: so, perhaps, ἀπῇῆμεν πρὸς τὸ ἄστυ Rep. 327 Β; cp. πάλιν ἀπιέναι Phaedr. 227 Β, etc. Hence Mehler’s ἐπανελθών is superfluous.

tpvoivres...ipvotpev. Cp. 184 D ὑπηρετῶν ὁτιοῦν δικαίως ἂν ὑπηρετεῖν κτλ.: and Agathon’s echo of the word (ἐφυμνοῦντα) in 197 Ε.

193 D εἰς τὸ οἰκεῖον. Cp. Charm. 163 D ὅτι τὰ οἰκεῖά τε καὶ τὰ αὑτοῦ ἀγαθὰ καλοίης : ftep. 5868. Possibly there is an intentional echo in the word of διῳκίσθημεν, as used in 193 4.

ἐλπίδας p. παρέχεται, Cp. 179B μαρτυρίαν παρέχεται: Xen. Symp. tv. 25. For the aor. infin. (without ἄν) after a verb of “hoping,” cp. Phaedo 678 (Goodwin G. Jf T. § 136). Notice the rhetorical care with which this peroration echoes (ἰασάμενος... εὐδαίμονας) the exordium (ἰατρὸς... εὐδαιμονία, 189 Ὁ); also, in εὐσέβειαν we have an echo of εὐσεβεῖν, 193 4 ad fin.: and the emphasis on ἰασάμενος (with Ἐρυξίμαχε in the next line) should not be missed.

ἀλλοῖος ἢ ὁ σός. This serves to emphasize, by repetition, the statement made by A. in 189 ὁ (ἄλλῃ γέ πῃ..«λέγειν κτλ.).

ὥσπερ οὖν ἐδεήθην σον. See 189 Β, 193 Β.

193 E τί ἑκάτερος. A. corrects himself’ with a precision worthy of Prodicus, the comparative form being more proper than the superlative (ἔκαστος) in speaking of two only. Observe that Aristodemus (the narrator) should have spoken next after Eryx., but is here ignored : to have represented him as a chief speaker “wire auch nicht richt passend gewesen ” (Zeller).

194 Α] ZYMTOZION 69

XVIT. ᾿Αλλὰ πείσομαί σοι, ἔφη φάναι τὸν ᾿Βρυξίμαχον" καὶ γάρ μοι ὁ λόγος ἡδέως ἐρρήθη. καὶ εἰ μὴ ξυνήδη Σωκράτει τε καὶ ᾿Αγάθωνι δεινοῖς οὖσι περὶ τὰ ἐρωτικά, πάνυ ἂν ἐφοβούμην μὴ ἀπορήσωσι λόγων διὰ τὸ πολλὰ καὶ παντοδαπὰ εἰρῆσθαι: νῦν δὲ ὅμως θαρρῶ. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη εἰπεῖν Καλῶς γὰρ αὐτὸς ἠγώνισαι, ὦ ᾿Ερυξίμαχε: εἰ δὲ γένοιο οὗ νῦν ἐγώ εἰμι, μᾶλλον δὲ ἴσως οὗ ἔσομαι, ἐπειδὰν καὶ ᾿Αγάθων εἴπῃ εὖ, καὶ μάλ᾽ ἂν φοβοῖο καὶ ἐν

193 ἘΞ ξυνήδη Cobet: ξυνήδειν libri ἀπορήσωσι T: ἀπορήσω B 194 A ov νῦν B ἴσως ov B: οὗ tows 8z.: οὗ Jn. εὖ, καὶ pad’ distinxi

auctore Vahlen: εὖ καὶ μάλ᾽ BT, Bt.: εὖ μάλ᾽ Hirschig Sz.: καὶ pad’ Verm.

καὶ γάρ.. ἐρρήθη. “ Indeed I was quite pleased with your discourse” : hence, Eryximachus could “let off” Aristophanes (cp. 189 ¢ ἴσως... «ἀφήσω ce). What- ever the esoteric meaning of A.’s discourse may have been, Eryx. apparently regards it simply as a piece of pleasantry—“ er hat sich also offenbar nicht verstanden, sondern hat sich blos an die lustige Aussenseite derselben gehalten ” (Rettig).

εἰ μὴ ξνυνήδη κτλ. For this construction with ξύνοιδα, cp. Prot. 348 B iva τούτῳ μὲν ταῦτα συνειδῶμεν (with Adam’s note); Phaedo 92D, Apol. 34 B.

πάνυ ἂν ἐφοβούμην. Tor the imperf. here (in an unfulfilled condition) as a primary tense, cp. Theaet. 143 5 (Goodwin G. M. T. § 172).

194 A Καλῶς... ἠγώνισαι. This implies that the various encomiasts are engaged in a rhetorical contest (ἀγών) : “ your display in the competition was a fine one.”

εἰ δὲ γένοιο κτλ. Cp. Ter. Andr. τι. 1. 9 tu si hic sis, aliter censeas, Yor μᾶλλον δὲ ἴσως (rashly altered by critics) cp. Rep. 589 p, Ar. Vesp. 1486, and see Vahlen Op. Acad. τ. 494 f.

ἐπειδὰν κτλ. Notice the elaborate courtesy, not devoid of irony, with which Κ΄. treats Agathon, who evidently is a man with a taste for flattery. Since the combination εὖ καὶ μάλα is open to suspicion, the regular forms being either εὖ μάλα (Gorg. 496 σ, etc.) or καὶ μάλα (Phaedr, 265 a, etc.), 1 adopt the punctuation suggested by Vahlen. Other critics have proposed to eject either the καὶ or the εὖ: it would be equally easy to alter εὖ to ov, or transpose to καὶ εὖ, The text, punctuated after εἴπῃ, has been construed (1) as “plenius dictum pro ed μάλα" (Stallb.), the καὶ connecting μάλα with εὖ (Hommel), or (2) as εὖ μάλα with καὶ, corresponding to the following καὶ, interjected (so Ast); but neither of these explanations is tenable. In favour of construing εὖ with εἴπῃ may be cited εὖ ἐροῦντος three Il. below and ed ἐρεῖ 198 a: for the order, cp. Rep. 618 Β ὅσοι ἂν θέωσιν εὖ: Laws 805 B, 913 B (see Vahlen Op. Acad. τ. 494ff.): add Thuc. 1 71. 7 πρὸς τάδε βουλεύεσθε εὖ, καὶ κτλ.

ἐν παντὶ εἴης. “ You would be at your wits’ end,” ἐπὶ summa consilii inopia (Ast). Cp. Zuthyd. 301.4 ἐν παντὶ ἐγενόμην ὑπὸ ἀπορίας: Rep. 579B; Xen. Hell. v. 4. 29. Cp. the use of παντοῖος εἶναι (γίγνεσθαι).

194

70 TIAATQNOZ (194 a

παντὶ εἴης ὥσπερ ἐγὼ viv. Φαρμάττειν βούλει pe, ὦ Σώκρατες, εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα, ἵνα θορυβηθῶ διὰ τὸ οἴεσθαι τὸ θέατρον προσδοκίαν μεγάλην ἔχειν ὡς εὖ ἐροῦντος ἐμοῦ. ᾿Εἰπιλήσμων μεντἂν εἴην, ὦ ᾿Αγάθων, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, εἰ ἰδὼν τὴν σὴν ἀνδρείαν καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνην ἀναβαίνοντος ἐπὶ τὸν ὀκρίβαντα μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, καὶ βχλέψαντος ἐναντία τοσούτῳ θεάτρῳ, μέλλοντος ἐπιδείξεσθαι σαυτοῦ λόγους, καὶ οὐδ᾽ ὁπωστιοῦν ἐκ- πλαγέντος, νῦν οἰηθείην σε θορυβηθήσεσθαι ἕνεκα ἡμῶν ὀλίγων ἀνθρώπων. Τί δέ, ὦ Σώκρατες; τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα φάναι, οὐ δή πού

194 Β ἀκρίβαντα Β ἐπεδείξασθαι T θορυβήσεσθαι TW σὺ δή πον cj. Steph.

Pappdrrav B. pe. “To cast a spell upon me.” Extravagant praise was liable to cause nemesis and the evil eye: cp. Phaedo 95 B μὴ μέγα λέγε, μή τις ἡμῖν βασκανία περιτρέψῃ τὸν λόγον τὸν μέλλοντα λέγεσθαι (with Stallb. ad loe.): Virg. Eel. vir. 27, and the Latin terms fascinum, mala lingua. For φαρμάττειν, cep. Meno 80 a yonrevers pe καὶ φαρμάττεις. Both here and in Meno J. ο. the phrase may be reminiscent of Gorg. Hel. 15 of δὲ τῶν λύγων πειθοῖ τινι κακῇ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐφαρμάκευσαν καὶ ἐξεγοήτευσαν.

τὸ θέατρον. “The house,”—rather absurdly applied to the small gathering of banqueters, but A. is still full of his recent triumph in the θέατρον proper and readily takes up the idea that he is again engaged in a literary ἀγών (cp. nyovioa, 1944 7.).

᾿Ἐπιλήσμων. Cp. Ar. Vub. 129 γέρων dv κἀπιλήσμων καὶ βραδύς. As Hommel notes, the word is “senum decrepitorum constans epitheton.” Socrates applies it to himself also in Prot. 334 c, Ὁ.

τὴν σὴν.. ἀναβαίνοντος. For the construction, cp. Ar. Ach. 93 (ἐκκόψειε...) τόν γε σὸν (ὀφθαλμὸν) rod mpécBews. See Madv. Gr. Syntax § 67.

194 Β ἐπὶ τὸν ὀκρίβαντα. It seems to have been usual for the poet, as well as the players and choreutae, to appear before the audience, wearing crowns but not in costume, at the προαγών of the great Dionysia held in the Odeum of Pericles on the 8th of Elaphebolion: see Aesch. 111. 67 (Schol.), Ar. Vesp. 1109 (Schol.). The ὀκρίβας was apparently a platform (βῆμα, cp. Lon 535 8) in the Odeum, and not, as formerly supposed, the λογεῖον or stage in the theatre itself (cp. Smith D. A. τι. 813 Ὁ, 818b): Schol. ὀκρίβαντα: τὸ λογεῖον, ἐφ᾽ οὗ of τραγῳδοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο. τινὲς δὲ κιλλίβαντα τρισκελὴ φασίν, ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἵστανται οἱ ὑποκριταὶ καὶ τὰ ἐκ μετεώρου λέγουσιν. Another meaning of ὀκρίβας is a painter’s “easel.”

μέλλοντος ἐπιδείξεσθαι. The force of μέλλοντος is seen when we remember that the ἀνάβασις of the poets took place at the προαγών, before the actual performance of the play. For ἐπιδείκνυσθαι of theatrical displays, cp. Ar. Ran. 771 ὅτε δὴ κατῆλθ᾽ ἙἘὐριπίδης, ἐπεδείκνυτο τοῖς λωποδύταις κτλ. With Agathon’s self-assurance cp. Isocr. Paneg. 480 μικρὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ θρασυνά- μενος. «ποιήσομαι τοὺς λόγους.

194 D] ZYMTTOZION 71

Ὁ θ t Ν e fal dé Ν ᾽ - 4 a " με οὕτω θεάτρου μεστὸν ἡγεῖ, ὥστε καὶ ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι νοῦν ἔχοντι ? , μὴ ed ¥ f ὀλίγοι Euhpoves πολλῶν ἀφρόνων φοβερώτεροι; Οὐ μεντἂν καλῶς C 4 , Ν nr ποιοίην, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, ὦ ᾿Αγάθων, περὶ σοῦ τι ἐγὼ ἄγροικον , ’ > κα rs δοξάζων: ἀλλ᾽ εὖ οἶδα, ὅτι εἴ τισιν ἐντύχοις ods ἡγοῖο σοφούς, μᾶλλον ἂν αὐτῶν φροντίζοις ἢ τῶν πολλῶν: ἀλλὰ μὴ οὐχ LJ - oF 5 . oe a οὗτοι ἡμεῖς ὦμεν---ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐκεῖ παρῆμεν καὶ ἦμεν τῶν Ed » wv. an πολλών---οἰ δὲ ἄλλοις ἐντύχοις σοφοῖς, τάχ᾽ ἂν αἰσχύνοιο αὐτούς, ” » " > Ν a a a εἴ Tt ἴσως οἴοιο αἰσχρὸν ὃν ποιεῖν" ἢ πῶς λέγεις ; ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις, if 4. ἈΝ Ἂς φάναι. Τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς οὐκ ἂν αἰσχύνοιο, εἴ τι οἴοιο αἰσχρὸν D tal 4 Ν n tal ποιεῖν; καὶ τὸν Φαῖδρον ἔφη ὑπολαβόντα εἰπεῖν Ὦ, pire Ἀγάθων, 2\ By , Σ , OX x , rypoane a a 2 , ἐὰν ἀποκρίνῃ Σωκράτει, οὐδὲν ἔτι διοίσει αὐτῷ ὁπῃοῦν τῶν ἐνθάδε id a , θ aN bd Ψ Ψ ow ὁτιοῦν γίγνεσθαι, ἐὰν μόνον ἔχῃ ὅτῳ διαλέγηται, ἄλλως τε καὶ A ? εἶ Zz καλῷ. ἐγὼ δὲ ἡδέως μὲν ἀκούω Σωκράτους διαλεγομένου, ἀναγ- μι , ΩΣ n a καῖον δέ μοι ἐπιμεληθῆναι τοῦ ἐγκωμίου To” Epwrte καὶ ἀποδέξασθαι 194 ΟΓ φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη vulg. ἄλλοις : ἀλλ᾽ Bdhm. ἴσως secl. Sz.

Bt.: wos cj. Usener: fort. transp. post ray’ ἂν ὃν secl. Wolf; ἂν cj. Bt. D οἴοιτο B. γίγνεται Mdvg.

οὕτω θεάτρου μεστὸν. This means “theatri applausu inflatum esse” (Stallb.); rather than “stage-struck,” cp. Themist. 26. 311 8; Synes. de provid. 105 B θεάτρου καὶ ἀγορᾶς ἄπληστος.

194 Ο πολλῶν ἀφρόνων. As Wolf observes, “ein feines Compliment fiir das Parterre in Athen.” But such a lofty contempt for the bourgeois of the pit and gallery is quite in keeping with A.’s position as the artistic aristocrat. If Aristophanes flatters his public on their σοφία (as ih Ran. 1109 ff.), it is obvious that he does so with his tongue in his cheek. Cp. Laws 659 a, οὔτε yap παρὰ θεάτρου δεῖ τόν γε ἀληθῆ κριτὴν κρίνειν μανθάνοντα.

περὶ σοῦ τι ἐγὼ “Nota vim pronominum...: de te, viro tanto tamque insigni, ego, homo vilis” (Hommel). For ἄγροικος, cp. 218 B, Laws 880A Theaet. 174 Ὁ ἄγροικον δὲ καὶ ἀπαίδευτον...γίγνεσθαι.

μὴ οὐχ..«ὦμεν. For Platonic exx. of μή or μή οὐ in “cautions assertions or negations,” see Goodwin G. Af. T. § 265.

ἄλλοις...«σοφοῖς. Not “other wise men” but “others who are wise” (sc. unlike us).

ἴσως. This word is probably genuine. Possibly, however, it should be transferred to a place before, or after, τάχ᾽ ἄν (for the combination ἴσως τάχ᾽ ἄν, op. Tim. 38 8, Laws 676 c, etc.; Schanz nov. comm. p. 14). The ὄν after αἰσχρόν is sufficiently confirmed by Rep. 4250, Phaedo 77a (see Vahlen, Op. Acad. 1. 496 f. on the whole passage).

194 Ὁ οὐδὲν ἔτι διοίσει...γίγνεσθαι. For Socrates as φιλόλογος, see Apol. 38.4, Phaedo 618; and for his “" cramp-fish” style of dialectic, Laches 187.

ἄλλως τε καὶ καλῷ: For Socrates as φιλόκαλος, cp. 318 6, 216 Ὁ: it is a mark of the ἐρωτικός.

E

195

72 TIAATQNOZ {194 D

4 A 4 ,ὕ ς n ‘ , 2 % ae ς f lel bead παρ᾽ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ὑμῶν Tov λόγον: ἀποδοὺς οὖν ἑκάτερος τῷ θεῷ n rn b οὕτως ἤδη διαλεγέσθω. ᾿Αλλὰ καλῶς λέγεις, ὦ Φαῖδρε, φάναι τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα, καὶ οὐδέν με κωλύει λέγειν: Σωκράτει γὰρ καὶ αὖθις ἔσται πολλάκις διαλέγεσθαι.

XVIII. ᾿γὼ δὲ δὴ βούλομαι πρῶτον μὲν εἰπεῖν ὡς χρή με εἰπεῖν, ἔπειτα εἰπεῖν. δοκοῦσι γάρ μοι πάντες οἱ πρόσθεν εἰρηκότες 2 4 \ > ,᾿ 2 . \ ? ae 2 , a ov τὸν θεὸν ἐγκωμιάζειν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εὐδαιμονίζειν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὧν ὁ θεὸς αὐτοῖς αἴτιος: ὁποῖος δέ τις αὐτὸς ὧν ταῦτα

ΕἾ f γ᾽ \ ΕΣ X / 2 A A > ts ἐδωρήσατο, οὐδεὶς εἴρηκεν. els δὲ τρόπος ὀρθὸς παντὸς ἐπαίνου A , r a n “ ᾿ ἈΝ ‘ περὶ παντός, λόγῳ διελθεῖν οἷος ὧν «οἵων; aitios ὧν τυγχάνει b a x « Ll + et \ + " ΕἾ ¢ cal ‘3 περὶ οὗ ἂν ὁ λόγος ἧ. οὕτω δὴ τὸν "Epwra καὶ ἡμᾶς δίκαιον

ἐπαινέσαι πρῶτον αὐτὸν οἷός ἐστιν, ἔπειτα τὰς δόσεις. Φημὶ οὖν ἐγὼ πάντων θεῶν εὐδαιμόνων ὄντων ”Epata, εἰ θέμις καὶ ἀνεμέσητον εἰπεῖν, εὐδαιμονέστατον εἶναι αὐτῶν, κάλλιστον

194Ὲ) ὡς BTW: Fvulg. ἐπαινεῖν, ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπαινεῖν Hirschig 195A ὀρθὸς

om. T παντὸς om, Bdhm, οἷος ὧν (οἵων) scripsi: οἷος οἵων Sz. Bt.: οἷς οἵων ex emend. T: οἷος ὧν BT: οἷος ὧν vulg., J.-U.: οἷος ὅσων Baiter: οἷος ὧν (ὅσων) Voeg.: οἷος Bdhm. αἴτιος : αὐτὸς Bdhm.

ἀποδοὺς οὖν. Cp. Polit. 267 a καλῶς καὶ καθαπερεὶ χρέως ἀπέδωκάς μοι τὸν λόγον : Rep, 6128, c; 2230 Ὁ infra.

194 E πρῶτον μὲν... ἔπειτα εἰπεῖν. Stallbaum, though reading és, punctuates like Hommel (who keeps the vulgate #) after the first as well as after the second εἰπεῖν, as if the meaning were “to speak in the way in which I ought to speak,” which is nonsense. The first εἰπεῖν (-Ξ- δηλοῦν) is different in force from the other two (=Adyov ποιεῖσθαι), the sense being “first to state the proper method I am to adopt in my oration, and secondly to deliver it.” Agathon has imbibed a “ worship of machinery ”—the machinery of method— from the fashionable schools of rhetoric.

δοκοῦσι γάρ μοι. Agathon, like the rest (cp. 180 D, 185 £), adopts the favourite rhetorical device of criticizing the manner or thought of previous speakers: cp. Isocr, Busir, 222 5, 2804 ; Hel. 2108 φησὶ μὲν yap ἐγκώμιον... τυγχάνει δ᾽ ἀπολογίαν εἰρηκώς κτὰλ.: Panegyr. 41 B ff, 44 ¢.

195 Α οἷος dv {otwv). This doubling of relatives is a favourite trick of poets and rhetors; cp. Soph. Aj. 923 οἷος ὧν οἵως ἔχεις (“mighty and mightily fallen”), 7b. 557, Trach. 995, 1045; Eur. Alc. 144; Gorg. Palam. 22 οἷος dv of λοιδορεῖ: τά. Hel. 11 ὅσοι δὲ ὅσους περὶ ὅσων καὶ ἔπεισαν καὶ πείσουσι.

εἰ θέμις καὶ ἀνεμέσητον. For excess in laudation as liable to provoke νέμεσις, See n. ON happdrrev, 1944, For the thought (here and at the end of A.’s speech) cp. Spenser, H. to Love, “Then would I sing of thine immortall praise...And thy triumphant name then would I raise Bove all the gods, thee onely honoring, My guide, my God, my victor, and my king.”

195 5] ΣΥΎΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 73

ὄντα καὶ ἄριστον. ἔστι δὲ κάλλιστος ὧν τοιόσδε. πρῶτον μὲν νεώτατος θεῶν, ὦ Φαῖδρε. μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον τῷ λόγῳ αὐτὸς Β παρέχεται, φεύγων φυγῇ τὸ γῆρας, ταχὺ ὃν δῆλον ὅτι" θᾶττον γοῦν τοῦ δέοντος ἡμῖν προσέρχεται. ὃ δὴ πέφυκεν "Epws μισεῖν καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐντὸς πολλοῦ πλησιάζειν. μετὰ δὲ νέων ἀεὶ ξύνεστί τε

\o» « Η͂ N , na cee ¢ , δ κα καὶ ἔστιν. ὁ γὰρ παλαιὸς λόγος εὖ ἔχει, ὡς “ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ ἀεὶ πελάζει. ἐγὼ δὲ Φαίδρῳ πολλὰ ἄλλα ὁμολογῶν τοῦτο οὐχ ὁμολογῶ, ὡς "Ἔρως Κρόνου καὶ Ἰαπετοῦ ἀρχαιότερός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ

195 Β τῶν λόγων Stob. (ἐν) φυγῇ Stob. ταχὺ... προσέρχεται del. Heusde ὃν B: οὖν T ἔρωτος B οὐδ᾽ ἐντὸς Stob.: οὐ δόντος B: οὐδ᾽ ὄντος Τ' πλησιάζειν T, Stob.: πλησιάζει B ἔστι (νέος) Sauppe J.-U. 8z.: ἕπεται Winckelmann δεῖ πελάζειν Stob. ἄλλα πολλὰ Hirschig

195 Β ὦ Φαῖδρε. Phaedrus is specially addressed because it is his thesis (ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατος ὁ Ἔρως 178 A, 6) which is here challenged.

μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον. This serves to echo, and reply to, Phaedrus’s τεκμήριον δὲ τούτου 178 B (cp. 192 A). For the attributes youth and beauty, cp. Callim. Hi. τι. 36 καὶ μὲν ἀεὶ καλὸς καὶ ἀεὶ νέος (of Phoebus).

φεύγων φυγῇ. A poetical mode of giving emphasis. “φυγῇ φεύγειν nun- quam sic legitur ut simplex φεύγειν de victis militibus, sed per transla- tionem, fugientium modo, h. e. omni contentione aliquid defugere atque abhorrere” (Lobeck Parall. τι. p. 524). Prose exx. are Epin. 9743, Epist. viii, 354 c; Lucian adv, indoct. 16.

ταχὺ ὃν..-«προσέρχεται. Bast, “motus ἀτοπίᾳ sententiae,” condemned these words ; but the presence of sophistical word-play is no reason for suspicion in A.’s speech. A. argues that Age, in spite of its ‘‘lean shrunk shanks,” is nimble, only too nimble indeed in its pursuit of men: therefore, ἃ fortiori, the god who can elude its swift pursuit must be still more nimble. For the agility of Eros, ep. Orph. H. 58.1, 2 (κικλήσκω) Ἔρωτα. ..εὔδρομον ὁρμῇ.

ἐντὸς πολλοῦ. Cp. Thue. τ᾿. 77 ἐντὸς yap πολλοῦ χωρίου τῆς πόλεως οὐκ ἦν πελάσαι. For the sense (abhorrence of age), cp. Anacr. 14. 5 ἡ δὲ (νῆνις)...τὴν μὲν ἐμὴν κόμην, λευκὴ γάρ, καταμέμφεται κτλ.

ἀεὶ ξύνεστί τε καὶ ἔστιν. Hug adopts Sauppe’s addition (νέος), but this spoils the ring of the clause and it is best to leave it to be mentally supplied: for the ellipse, cp. 213 ¢ γελοῖος ἔστι re καὶ βούλεται. For μετὰ...σύνεστι, cp. Laws 639 ¢ ; Plut. de Js. et Os. 8352.4 map’ αὐτῇ καὶ per αὐτῆς ὄντα καὶ συνόντα.

ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ. The original of this is Hom. Od. Xvi. 218 ὡς ἀεὶ τὸν ὁμοῖον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὁμοῖον. Cp. 1868 supra, Lysis 214 a, Rep. 3294; Aristaen. Ep. 1.10: and for a Latin equivalent, Cic. de Senect. 3.7 pares cum paribus, vetere proverbio, facillime congregantur: so Anglict, “birds of a feather flock together.” Similar in sense is ἧλιξ ἥλικα τέρπει (Arist. (het. τ. 11. 25).

Φαίδρῳ. The reference is to 178B. Spenser (H. to Love) combines these opposite views,—“ And yet a chyld, renewing still thy yeares, And yet the eldest of the heavenly Peares.”

Κρόνου καὶ ᾿Ιαπετοῦ dpxairepos. A proverbial expression to denote the

74 TAATQNOS [195 B

C φημὶ νεώτατον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεῶν καὶ ἀεὶ νέον, τὰ δὲ παλαιὰ πράγ- ματα περὶ θεούς, ἃ ‘Haiodos καὶ Παρμενίδης λέγουσιν, ᾿Ανάγκῃ καὶ οὐκ "ἔρωτι γεγονέναι, εἰ ἐκεῖνοι ἀληθῆ ἔλεγον: οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐκτομαὶ οὐδὲ δεσμοὶ ἀλλήλων ἐγίγνοντο καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ καὶ

au 2 > » ha 2 \ t A > “ “ βιαια, εἰ "Epws ἐν αὐτοῖς ἦν, ἀλλὰ φιλία καὶ εἰρήνη, ὥσπερ νῦν, ἐξ οὗ "Ἔρως τῶν θεῶν βασιλεύει. νέος μὲν οὖν ἐστί, πρὸς δὲ τῷ

D νέῳ ἁπαλός: ποιητοῦ δ᾽ ἔστιν ἐνδεὴς οἷος ἦν “Ὅμηρος πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεῖξαι θεοῦ ἁπαλότητα. “Ὅμηρος γὰρ “Arny θεόν τέ φησιν 4 Ν ς / \ a , > _ Ls ‘\ 9 L εἶναι καὶ ἁπαλήν---τοὺς γοῦν πόδας αὐτῆς ἁπαλοὺς εἶναι----λέγων

195 Ο νεώτατόν τε Stob. πράγματα T, Stob.: γράμματα B παρ- μενίδης T: παρμενείδης Β : Ἐπιμενίδης Ast εἰ ἐκεῖνοι om. Stob. λέγουσιν Stob. ἐγένοντο Stob. D οἷός περ ἦν ὁ Ὅμηρος Stob. τοὺς... εἶναι 560], Jn. Sz.: τοὺς... .βαίν ει secl. Orelli. (φησιν) εἶναι Stob.

“ne plus ultra” of antiquity : cp. Moeris p. 200 Ἰαπετός ἀντὶ τοῦ γέρων. καὶ Τίθωνος καὶ Κρόνος" ἐπὶ τῶν γερόντων : Lucian dial. deor. 2.1; Ar. Nub. 398, Plut. 581. Cronus and Japetus were both Titans, sons of Uranus and Gé (Hes. 1). 507), and imprisoned together in Tartarus (7, vit, 479). Tapetus was father of Prometheus, and grandfather of Deucalion, the Greek “‘ Adam ἢ: hence “older than Iapetus” might be rendered “ ante-preadatnite.”

195 Ο ἃ Ησίοδος καὶ II. λέγουσιν. These were the authorities adduced by Phaedrus (178 B). Hesiod relates such waka πράγματα in Theog. 176 ff., 746 ff. ; but no such accounts by Parmenides are extant. Accordingly, it has been supposed (e.g. by Schleierm.) that A. is mistaken, and Ast proposed to read ᾿Επιμενίδης : but cp. Macrob. somn, Seip. 1. 2 Parmenides quoque et Heraclitus de diis fabulati sunt. If P. did relate such matters in the poem of which portions remain, clearly (as Stallb. observed) it could only have been in Pt. IT. (“The Way of Opinion”). Cp. Ritter and Pr. § 101 p, “Generati sunt deinceps (1.6. post Amorem) ceteri dei, de quibus more antiquiorum poetarum παλαιὰ πράγματα narravit, v. Plat. Symp. 195 c, Cic. 2. Nat. 1.11”; Zeller, Presocr. p. 596 (E. Tr.); Krische Forsch. p. 111 f. For ᾿Ανάγκη in the cosmogonists, cp. Parmen. 84 K., κρατερὴ yap ᾿Ανάγκη | πείρατος ἐν δεσ- poiow ἔχει, τό μιν ἀμφὶς ἐέργει: td. 138 ds μιν ἄγουσ᾽ ἐπέδησεν ᾿Ανάγκη: Emped. 869 ἔστιν ᾿Ανάγκης χρῆμα κτλ.

εἰ. ἔλεγον. Rettig and Stallb. rightly explain the imperf. as due to the reference to Phaedrus’s mention of H. and P. (178 8).

ἐκτομαὶ οὐδὲ δεσμοὶ. Cp. Huthyphro 5 πὶ Β΄, Rep. 377 & where such tales of divine immorality are criticized.

195 Ὁ ἁπαλός. Cp. Theogn. 1341 αἰαῖ, παιδὸς ἐρῶ ἁπαλόχροος : Archil. 100 θάλλεις ἁπαλὸν χρόα: Phaedr, 245 A λαβοῦσα ἁπαλὴν καὶ ἄβατον ψυχήν.

“Ὅμηρος yap. See Jd. χιν. 92—3. Schol. πίλναται: προσπελάζει, προσεγ- γίζει.

τοὺς γοῦν... εἶναι. As Hug observes, the occurrence of καὶ ποσὶ καὶ πάντῃ below is sufficient to establish the soundness of these words,

196 ΑἹ ZYMMOZION 75

, ‘a id τῆς pév® ἁπαλοὶ πόδες" οὐ γὰρ ἐπ᾽ οὔδεος " >? Ya , πίλναται, ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα ἥ γε κατ᾽ ἀνδρῶν 'κράατα βαίνει. a cy a tf Ν᾿ καλῷ οὖν δοκεῖ μοι τεκμηρίῳ τὴν ἁπαλότητα ἀποφαίνειν, ὅτι οὐκ ? Ν Ὁ na tad ἐπὶ σκληροῦ βαίνει, GAN ἐπὶ μαλθακοῦ. τῷ αὐτῷ δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς tA , an χρησώμεθα τεκμηρίῳ περὶ "Ἔρωτα ὅτι ἁπαλός. ov yap ἐπὶ γῆς , 20 a βαίνει οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ κρανίων, ἅ ἐστιν οὐ πάνυ μαλακά, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς nn lj a μαλακωτάτοις τῶν ὄντων καὶ βαίνει καὶ οἰκεῖ. ἐν yap ἤθεσι καὶ a θ »ετ Ν > 6 ia Ν y ἴδ ὶ Ἂν ΚΣ Cea υχαῖς θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων τὴν οἴκησιν ἵδρυται, καὶ οὐκ αὖ ἑξῆς ᾿ ΄ ral tay ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ἥτινι ἂν σκληρὸν ἦθος ἐχούσῃ ἐντύχῃ, ᾽ “ a δ᾽ ὰ ᾿ a. ᾿ ε t 8 + ὶ Ν Ν ἀπέρχεται, ἡ ν μαλακόν, οἰκίζξεται. ἁπτόμενον οὖν ἀεὶ καὶ ποσὶ A a καὶ πάντῃ ἐν μαλακωτάτοις τῶν μαλακωτάτων, ἁπαλώτατον » 4 ἀνάγκη εἶναι. νεώτατος μὲν δή ἐστι καὶ ἁπαλώτατος, πρὸς δὲ , " 4 τούτοις ὑγρὸς TO εἶδος. ‘ov yap ἂν οἷός τ᾽ ἦν πάντῃ περιπτύσσεσθαι

195 Ὁ τῆς BT, Stob.: τῇ Aristarchus, Homeri (T 92) codd. οὔδεος BT, Stob.: οὔδει W, vulg., Hom. codd. πίλναται Cx midvarae T: πήδναται B: πιτνᾶται Stob. μοι δοκεῖ Stob. τῷ αὐτῷ TW, Stob.: τὸ αὐτὸ B ἘΞ χρη- σόμεθα Stob., vulg. καὶ (ante βαίνει) om. Stob. ἑξῆς T: ἐξ ἧς B ἐνοι- κίζεται Naber ἐν μαλακοῖς τ. p. Naber ἁπαλώτατον om. Stob.

195 Ἑ ἤθεσι καὶ ψυχαῖς. “In the tempers and souls”: here ἦθος seems to be co-ordinate with ψυχή, but below (ἦθος ἐχούσῃ, sc. ψυχῇ) subordinate, i.e. A. uses the word ‘loosely with more attention to sound than sense: ep. Lys. 222.4 κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ κατά τι τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος ἣ τρόπους ἢ εἶδος : 183 Β supra, 2078 infra. Notice also the material way in which ἤθη and ψυχαί are here conceived: cp. Moschus 1. 17 ἐπὶ σπλάχνοις δὲ κάθηται: and the figure in such a phrase as “the iron entered into his soul.”

καὶ ποσὶ Kal πάντῃ. “With feet and with form entire,” “nicht wie Ate blos mit Fiissen” (Wolf): πάντῃ, like ἀεί, is A.’s own extension of the Homeric statement. ve

ἐν μαλακωτάτοις τῶν p. The genitive is governed by ἁπτόμενον, and ἐν μαλακωτάτοις is parallel to ἐν τοῖς (πρεσβύτατον) 178A: “the most soft of softest things.”

196 A νεώτατος... ἁπαλώτατος. Cp. Rep. 377 A νέῳ καὶ ἁπαλῷ ὁτῳοῦν.

ὑγρὸς τὸ εἶδος. ὑγρός, here opposed to σκληρός, is often used “de rebus lubricis, lentis, flexibilibus, mollibus” (Stallb.): cp. Theaet. 1628 τῷ δὲ δὴ νεωτέρῳ τε καὶ ὑγροτέρῳ ὄντι (opp. to σκληρῷ ὄντι) προσπαλαίειν : Pind. Pyth. 1. 17 (11) ὁ δὲ (αἰετὸς) κνώσσων ὑγρὸν νῶτον αἰωρεῖ: Callistr. descript. 3 (of a bronze of Eros) ὑγρὸς μὲν ἦν ἀμοιρῶν μαλακότητος. Another sense of ὑγρός, in erotic terminology, is “melting,” “languishing,” eg. Anth. Plan. 306 ἐπ᾽ ὄμμασιν ὑγρὰ δεδορκώς : Anacr. XXVIII. 21: and in hymn. Hom. Xvill. 33 ὑγρός is an epithet of πόθος. “Supple of form” is the best rendering here. Arist. G. A. τ. 7. 8 applies ὑγρότης (τοῦ σώματος) to serpents.—epirricoecOa is da. Ney. in Plato, and mainly used in poetry.

E

196

76 TAATQNOZ [196 a

οὐδὲ διὰ πάσης ψυχῆς καὶ εἰσιὼν τὸ πρῶτον λανθάνειν καὶ ἐξιών, εἰ σκληρὸς ἦν. συμμέτρου δὲ καὶ ὑγρᾶς ἰδέας μέγα τεκμήριον ἡ εὐσχη- 7 a ‘\ , Σ a c ΄ uw ” μοσύνη, ὃ δὴ διαφερόντως ἐκ πάντων ὁμολογουμένως "Epws ἔχει" ἀσχημοσύνῃ yap Kal” Epwrt πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀεὶ πόλεμος. χρόας δὲ + ς ? vy # an an ld Σ lal x \ κάλλος ἡ Kat’ ἄνθη δίαιτα τοῦ θεοῦ σημαίνει" ἀνανθεῖ yap Kai ἀπηνθηκότι καὶ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ καὶ ἄλλῳ ὁτῳοῦν οὐκ ἐνίζει "ἔρως, κὴ tT ἊΝ > ,, \ a , Fe ἃ a ᾿ ὧδ Ν ᾿ οὗ δ᾽ ἂν εὐανθής τε καὶ εὐώδης τόπος ἢ, ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἵζει καὶ μένει. 196 A καὶ (ante εἰσιὼν) om. W καὶ ὑγρᾶς secl. Jn. 8z.: καὶ rpupepas Verm.: καὶ d8pas Sehrwald ἰδέας : οὐσίας Stob. ἡ κατ᾽ : ἢ καὶ τὰ Stob. δίαιτα : δὴ τὰ Stob. Β εὐώδης τε καὶ εὐανθὴς Stob. ἐνταῦθα (δὲ) Stob., Bt.

συμμέτρου.. ἰδέας. “Acute vidit Astius σύμμετρον referendum esse ad περιπτύσσεσθαι. Armor enim, quia potest πάντῃ περιπτύσσεσθαι, recte σύμμετρος vocatur. Itaque ne hic quidem audiendus est Orellius qui σύμ- Herpos legendum putabat” (Stallb., so too Riickert and Hommel). Rettig takes σύμμετρος to be merely a synonym for ὑγρός, supposing that the proof of the statement ὑγρὸς τὸ εἶδος, which was first stated negatively, is here being stated positively—*nun hingt συμμετρία mit der εὐσχημοσύνη zusammen und ebenso ὑγρότης mit συμμετρία. Vel. Legg. νι. 773.4, Phileb. 66 3.” On the other hand Hug, supposing that συμμετρία is introduced as a new attribute distinct from ὑγρότης, follows Jahn in ejecting the words καὶ ὑγρᾶς. Rettig’s view, adopted also by Teuffel, seems the most reasonable: A., with sophistical looseness, smuggles in the extra term σύμμετρος beside ὑγρός in order to secure the applicability of εὐσχημοσύνη. By συμμετρία, properly used, is meant the perfect proportion of the parts in relation to one another which results in a harmonious whole: see my Phileb. p. 176. For εὐσχημοσύνη, cp. Rep. 400c ff.

ἐκ πάντων. Cp. Theaet. 171B ἐξ ἁπάντων ἄρα... ἀμφισβητήσεται, “on all hands, then,...we find it disputed” (so Campbell ad Joc., who observes that “this use of ἐξ has been needlessly disputed by Heindorf and others”). Ficinus seems to connect ἐκ π. with d:ag., which is possible but less probable.

χρόας δὲ κάλλος κτλ. Possibly we have here a reminiscence of some passage in poetry: χρύας..«ἄνθη admits, as Hug observes, of being scanned as a “‘catalectic pentapody” (like Eur. Phoen. 29-4). In the repeated mention in these lines of ἄνθος and its compounds, we may discern an allusion to Agathon’s tragedy ᾿Ανθεύς. Cp. Plato 32 (2. 2. α΄. 11.311) αὐτὸς δ᾽ (80. ὁ Epos) ἐν καλύκεσσιν ῥόδων πεπεδημένος ὕπνῳ | εὗδεν μειδιόων : Aleman 38 pdpyos δ᾽ "Epos οἷα παῖς παίσδει...ἄκρ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἄν θη καβαίνων.. «τῷ κυπαιρίσκω:: Simon. fr. 47 ὁμιλεῖ δ᾽ ἄνθεσιν, (Sre) μέλισσα ξανθὸν μέλι μηδομένα : Eros, like Titania, loves “ἃ bank where the wild thyme blows” (εὐώδης τόπος), and might echo the song “where the bee sucks, there suck I,” etc. For the negative thought dvavOet...ov« ἐνίζει, cp. Philo de meretr. mere. 11. 264 ἐξώροις γενομέναις (“when past the flower of their age,” sc. ταῖς ἑταίραις) οὐδεὶς ἔτι πρόσεισιν, ἀπομωραν- θείσης ὥσπερ τινῶν ἀνθῶν τῆς ἀκμῆς. For εὐώδης τόπος, cp. Phaedr. 230 Β. The description of Eros lying soft in Soph. Antig. 781 ff. is somewhat similar,

196 6] ZYMIMOZION 77

XIX. Περὶ μὲν οὖν κάλλους τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ἱκανὰ καὶ ἔτι πολλὰ λείπεται, περὶ δὲ ἀρετῆς "ἔρωτος μετὰ ταῦτα λεκτέον, τὸ μὲν μέγιστον ὅτι "Epws οὔτ᾽ ἀδικεῖ οὔτ᾽ ἀδικεῖται οὔθ᾽ ὑπὸ θεοῦ οὔτε θεόν, οὔθ᾽ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπου οὔτε ἄνθρωπον. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτὸς βίᾳ πάσχει, εἴ τι πάσχει" βία γὰρ "Epwros οὐχ ἅπτεται" οὔτε ποιῶν ποιεῖ" πᾶς γὰρ ἑκὼν "ἔρωτι πᾶν ὑπηρετεῖ, ἃ δ᾽ ἂν ἑκὼν ἑκόντι ὁμολογήσῃ, φασὶν “ οἱ πόλεως βασιλῆς νόμοι δίκαια εἶναι. πρὸς

196 2, ἔτι: ὅτε Stob. οὔτ᾽ ἀδικεῖ om. Stob. οὔτε θεῶν Stob.

ἀνθρώπων. οὐδὲ Stob. C πάνθ᾽ Stob. ἂν BT, Stob.: ἄν ris vulg. τῶν πόλεων Stob. (τῶν om. Stobaei A).

("Epos) ὃς ἐν μαλακαῖς παρειαῖς | veavidos ἐννυχεύεις : cp. Hor. C. iv. 13. 6 ff. (Amor) virentis...pulcris excubat in genis. Also the echo of our passage in Aristaen. Zp. τι. 1.

196 B Περὶ μὲν οὖν...περὶ δὲ κτλ. Cp. Isocr. Pan. 470 περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ μεγίστου. ..ταῦτ᾽ εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν. περὶ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους κτλ.: Phaedr. 246 A.

περὶ δὲ ἀρετῆς. In drawing out this part of his theme Agathon follows the customary four-fold division of ἀρετή into δικαιοσύνη, σωφροσύνη, ἀνδρεία, copia. Adam (on Rep. 4278) writes “There is no evidence to shew that these four virtues and no others were regarded as the essential eléments of ἃ perfect character before Plato.” Yet it certainly seems probable that these four were commonly recognized as leading dperai at an earlier date (see the rest of the evidence cited by Adam), and a peculiarly Platonic tenet would hardly be put into the mouth of Agathon. Cp, Protag, 329 ὁ ff; and for a siinilar use made of this classification in encomiastic oratory, see Isocr. Jel. 31ff., Vicocl. 31 ff., 36 ff. (cp. n. on 184 0).

οὔτ᾽ ἀδικεῖ οὔτ᾽ ἀδικεῦται. The maxims “love your enemies, do good to them which despitefully treat you” formed no part of current Greek ethics: cp. Meno 71 Ὁ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀνδρὸς ἀρετή,...τοὺς μὲν Φίλους εὖ ποιεῖν, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθροὺς κακῶς : Crito 498: Xen. Mem. τι. 3. 14; and other passages cited by Adam on Rep. 3318. See also Dobbs, Philos. etc. pp. 39, 127, 243. Notice the chiasmus ἀδικεῖ... ἀδικεῖται.. ὑπὸ θεοῦ...θεόν.

βίᾳ πάσχει. These words form one notion and are put as a substitute for ἀδικεῖται, just as ποιεῖ (sc. βίᾳ) below is a substitute for ἀδικεῖ. Cp. Polit. 280 Ὁ ras Bia πράξεις. There may be a ref. here to the ἔρωτος ἀνάγκαι of Gorgias Hel. 19.

πᾶς yap κτλ. With but slight modification this would form an iambic trimeter. Cp. Gorgias ap. Phileb. 584 ἡ τοῦ πείθειν πολὺ διαφέρει πασῶν τεχνῶν: πάντα yap ὑφ᾽ αὐτῇ δοῦλα 80 ἑκόντων ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ βίας, of which our passage may be a reminiscence.

196 α ἃ δ᾽ ἂν κτλ. The argument is that where mutual consent obtains, since Bia is absent, there can be no ἀδικίας For a different view of δικαιοσύνη see Arist. Eth. Δ. v. 9. 1136° 32 ff. érepov γὰρ τὸ νομικὸν δίκαιον καὶ τὸ πρῶτον «th: Crito 52: Xen. Symp. vit. 20.

οἱ πόλεως..«νόμοι. Apparently a quotation from Alcidamas, a rhetor of the

C

78 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [1960

δὲ τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σωφροσυνὴς πλείστης μετέχει. εἶναι γὰρ ὁμο- λογεῖται σωφροσύνη τὸ κρατεῖν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν, Ἔρωτος δὲ μηδεμίαν ἡδονὴν κρείττω εἶναι" εἰ δὲ ἥττους, κρατοῖντ᾽ ἂν ὑπὸ “Epwrtos, ὁ δὲ κρατοῖ, κρατῶν δὲ ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν ὁ "ἔρως διαφερόντως ἂν σωφρονοῖ. καὶ μὴν εἴς γε ἀνδρείαν "Epwre “ οὐδ᾽ ἤάρης ἀνθίσταται." οὐ γὰρ ἔχει "Ἔρωτα “Apns, ἀλλ᾽ "Epos ἤΑρη, ᾿Αφροδίτης, ὡς λόγος" κρείττων δὲ ὁ ἔχων τοῦ ἐχομένου" τοῦ δ᾽ ἀνδρειοτάτου τῶν ἄλλων κρατῶν πάντων ἂν ἀνδρειότατος εἴη. περὶ μὲν οὖν δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας τοῦ θεοῦ εἴρηται, περὶ δὲ σοφίας λείπεται" ὅσον οὖν δυνατόν, πειρατέον μὴ ἐλλείπειν. καὶ πρῶτον μέν, ἵν᾿ αὖ καὶ ἐγὼ τὴν ἡμετέραν τέχνην

196 C πλεῖστον Cobet κρατεῖ Stob., Naber: κρατοίη Bdhm. σωφρονοίη

Stob. ἀνδρίαν BT D ἄρην Stob. ᾿Αφροδίτης del. Naber ἂν om. B ἵν᾽ αὖ T: αὖ B: ἵν᾽ οὖν Stob.

school of Gorgias: see Arist. Rhet. 111. 14065 18 ff. διὸ τὰ ᾿Αλκιδάμαντος ψυχρὰ φαίνεται" οὐ yap ἡδύσματι χρῆται ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐδέσματι τοῖς ἐπιθέτοις, οὕτω πυκνοῖς καὶ μειζόσι καὶ ἐπιδήλοις, οἷον...οὐχὶ νόμους ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῶν πόλεων βασιλεῖς νόμους (see Cope ad loc.). Two extant works are ascribed to Alcidamas, viz. an Odysseus and a de Sophistis: the latter is probably genuine and “seems to justify Aristotle’s strictures on his want of taste in the use of epithets” (Cope loc. cit.). See further Vahlen, Aldidamas ete. pp. 508 ff.; Blass, Att. Bereds. II. 328,

εἶναι ydp...cwdpooctvy. This definition of “temperance” is common to both scientific and popular morals. Cp. Rep. 389D σωφροσύνης... αὐτοὺς (εἶναι) ἄρχοντας τῶν περὶ πότους καὶ ἀφροδίσια καὶ περὶ ἐδωδὰς ἡδονῶν (“tem- perance, soberness and chastity”): 7b. 480, Phaedo 68c: Antiphon fr. 6 σωφροσύνην δ᾽ ἀνδρὸς... ὅστις τοῦ θυμοῦ τὰς παραχρῆμα ἡδονὰς ἐμφράσσων κρατεῖν τε καὶ νικᾶν ἠδυνήθη αὐτὸς ἑαυτόν. See Dobbs op. cit. pp. 149 ff.; Niagelsbach, Vachhom. Theol. pp. 227 ff.

"Ἔρωτος δὲ κτλ. The argument is vitiated both by the ambiguity in the use of Eros (as affection and as person) and by the ambiguity in κρατεῖ ἡδονῶν, which in the minor premiss is equivalent to ἐστὶν ἡ κρατίστη ἡδονή. For similar fallacies, see Huthyd. 216 Ὁ ff.; Arist. soph. el. 165» 32 ff. For ἔρως as a master-passion, cp. Rep. 572 Eff. Agathon here again echocs Gorgias (Hel. 6 πέφυκε γὰρ οὐ τὸ κρεῖσσον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἥσσονος κωλύεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἧσσον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείσσονος ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄγεσθαι κτλ.).

οὐδ᾽ "Αρης ἀνθίσταται. This comes from Soph. (Thyestes) fr. 235 N. πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγκην οὐδ᾽ "Apns ἀνθίσταται. Cp. Anacreontea 27 A, 13 ἔλαβεν βέλεμνον (se. "Epwros) “Apns.

196 Ὁ ὡς λόγος. See Hom. Od. vitt. 266 ff, already alluded to in 199 Ὁ.

πάντων ἂν..«εἴη. Another illegitimate conclusion. By means of a tacit substitution of the notion ἀνδρεία for κράτος, it is assumed that ὁ κρατῶν τοῦ ἀνδρείου must be ἀνδρειότερος.

197 ΑἹ ZYMTIOZION 79

Ψ ,ὦ > \ τιμήσω ὥσπερ Epukipayos τὴν αὑτοῦ, ποιητὴς ὁ θεὸς σοφὸς οὕτως E τῇ ὥστε καὶ ἄλλον ποιῆσαι" πᾶς γοῦν ποιητὴς γίγνεται, “ κἂν ἄμουσος με Ν id n 7 τὸ πρίν,᾽ οὗ ἂν Ἔρως ἅψηται. ᾧ δὴ πρέπει ἡμᾶς μαρτυρίῳ ΄ a ‘ cw 2 XxX > fa an tt χρήσασθαι, ὅτι ποιητὴς 6” Epws ἀγαθὸς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ πᾶσαν ποίησιν τὴν κατὰ μουσικήν" ἃ γάρ τις ἢ μὴ ἔχει ἢ μὴ οἶδεν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἑτέρῳ or % a \ \ x ἢ [οἷ ἕ t Pain ob οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἄλλον διδάξειε. καὶ μὲν δὴ τήν ye τῶν ζῴων ποίησιν 197 Ἂ πάντων τίς ἐναντιώσεται μὴ οὐχὶ ”"Epwros εἶναι σοφίαν, ἡ γίγνεταί ετε καὶ φύεται πάντα τὰ ζῷα; ἀλλὰ τὴν τῶν τεχνῶν δημιουργίαν > y a az AN c x La , L > 4 οὐκ ἴσμεν, ὅτι οὗ μὲν ἂν ὁ θεὸς οὗτος διδάσκαλος γένηται, ἐλλόγιμος καὶ φανὸς ἀπέβη, οὗ δ᾽ ἂν "Epas μὴ ἐφάψηται, σκοτεινός ; τοξικήν γε μὴν καὶ ἰατρικὴν καὶ μαντικὴν ᾿Απόλλων ἀνεῦρεν ἐπιθυμίας καὶ

196 B κἂν T: καὶ Β χρήσασθαι Stob., Blass: χρῆσθαι BT, cet. τὴν... μουσικήν del. Sauppe Jn. ἔχῃ T. 197 Α μὲν δὴ BT: μὴν δὴ Ὗ : μὴν Stob. ποίησιν del. Blass πάντως Stob. τε om. Stob. τὰ ζῷα πάντα Blass οὐκ del. Blass

196 ΕΒ ὥσπερ ᾿Εἰρυξίμαχος. See 1863.

πᾶς γοῦν κτλ. An allusion to Eurip. (Stheneboea) fr. 663 N. ποιητὴν δ᾽ ἄρα [Ἔρως διδάσκει, κἂν ἄμουσος 7 τὸ πρίν. This last phrase had a vogue: cp. Ar. Vesp. 1074; Menander Com. 4, p. 146; Plut. amat. 17. 762 Β, Symp. 1. 622c; Longin. de subl. 39. 2 (quoted with other passages by Nauck). For the ditties of a love-sick swain, cp. Lysis 304 9. See also Aristid. Ὁ. 1. Or. Iv. p. 30.

πᾶσαν..-μουσικήν. With A.’s bisection of ποίησις cp. the analysis of the notion by Socrates, 205 B infra.

197 Α καὶ μὲν 8y...ye Porro etiam, quin etiam. (See Madv. Gr. Synt.

236.)

: "Eporos...coplav. σοφίαν is here predicate (against Riickert) and stands for σοφίας ἔργον. For Eros as “poetic” in this sense, cp. Spenser (7. to Love), “But if thou be indeede, as men thee call, The worlds great Parent.”

rhy...Snprovpylav. This branch of ποίησις is really a distinct kind from the other two, as not involving invention or creation. For “demiurgic arts,” see Phileb. 55D ff., and for ἰατρική as an example Phileb. 56.4; cp. 186 σ, D supra. Cp. Isocr. Hel, 3198 (where H. is eulogized as the cause τεχνῶν καὶ φιλοσοφιῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὠφελειῶν).

Φφανὸς. Πἰιιοίγῖδ: Hesych. φανόν" φωτεινὸν καὶ λαμπρόν : cp. Phaedr. 256 Ὁ. For gods as διδάσκαλοι and ἡγεμόνες (197 Β), cp. Isocr. Busir, 229 B—c τοὺς θεοὺς... ἡ γοῦμαι...αὐτούς τε πάσας ἔχοντας τὰς ἀρετὰς φῦναι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν καλλίστων ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἡγεμόνας καὶ διδασκάλους γεγενῆσθαι.

᾿Απόλλων ἀνεῦρεν. For Apollo as the inventor of τοξική, see Hom. JU. 11. 827; of μαντική, Il. τ. 72; of ἰατρική, 190 Β ff. supra. See also h. Hom. Apoil. 131 Β΄; and for μαντική in connexion with the cult of A., Rohde Psyche τι. pp. 56 ff.

80 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [197 4

Β ἔρωτος ἡγεμονεύσαντος, ὥστε καὶ οὗτος "Ἔρωτος ἂν εἴη μαθητής ny > ᾿ καὶ Μοῦσαι μουσικῆς καὶ “Ἄφαιστος χαλκείας καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶ ἱστουρ- ¥ ὁ \ ( an nn εἾ ? ,ὔ .) ὅθ δΡ ὶ γίας καὶ Ζεὺς “ κυβερνᾶν θεῶν τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων." ὅθεν δὴ κα κατεσκευάσθη τῶν θεῶν τὰ πράγματα "Ἔρωτος ἐγγενομένου, δῆλον a - Ν \ 2 » » Ν a t v4 3 ὅτι κάλλους" αἴσχει γὰρ οὐκ ἔπι "Ἑρως" πρὸ τοῦ δέ, ὥσπερ ἐν >» a 3 AY ἐξ \ a > Ψ' ἣν V4 Ν \ ἀρχῇ εἶπον, πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ θεοῖς ἐγίγνετο, ὡς λέγεται, διὰ τὴν τῆς ᾿Ανάγκης βασιλείαν" ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος ἔφυ, ἐκ τοῦ ἐρᾶν τῶν καλῶν πάντ᾽ ἀγαθὰ γέγονε καὶ θεοῖς καὶ ἀνθρώποις. Ο οὕτως ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, ὦ Φαῖδρε, “Epws πρῶτος αὐτὸς ὧν κάλλιστος Now x nr fal γ BA ΄ Ww ᾿ς καὶ ἄριστος μετὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄλλων τοιούτων αἴτιος εἶναι.

191 Β καὶ οὗτος del. Blass (τε) χαλκείας Blass καὶ Ζεὺς... ἀνθρώττων om. Stobaei ed. princ. κυβερνᾶν BTW, Stob.: κυβερνήσεως Vindob, 21, vulg.: κυβερνᾶν τὰ cj. Voeg. ἐγγιγνομένου Stob. αἴσχους Ast ἔπι Blass Bt. (ἔπι vel ἔτι B): ἔπεστιν T, Stob.: ἔνε corr. Ὁ, Porson J.-U.: ἔνεστιν in mg. rec. b: ἔστιν D, Ast πρώτου δὲ Stob. Ο᾽ πρῶτον Stob.

191 Β ἔρωτος... "Ἑίρωτος. Here, as elsewhere in these λόγοι, there is a play on the double sense of the word ag (1) a mental affection (1.4. ἐπιθυμία), and (2) ἃ personal agent.

καὶ Μοῦσαι μουσικῆς. Supply (as Stallb. and Hug) "Ἔρωτος ἂν εἶεν μαθηταί. Less probable is the explanation of Ast and Riickert who, regarding Gore...uadnrns as parenthetic, supply ἀνεῦρον with Μοῦσαι (and the other nominatives) and take μουσικῆς (and the other genitives) as dependent on ἐπιθυμίας... ἡγεμονεύσαντος mentally repeated. For the double genitive of person and thing, cp. Rep. 599¢ τίνας μαθητὰς ἰατρικῆς κατελίπετο.

Xadkelas...ioroupylas. For Hephaestus, cp. 192 ἢ π.; and for Athene as patroness of weavers 70, χιν. 178, v. 735; Hes. Op. D. 63.

Ζεὺς κυβερνᾶν. The sudden change of construction from genitive to bare infin., together with the unusual genit. after κυβερνᾶν, are best explained by assuming (with Usener) that we have here another of Agathon’s poetical tags. For Zeus as world-pilot, see 77, 11. 205, 1x. 98: cp. Parmen. fr. 128 M. δαίμων, ἣ πάντα κυβερνᾷ: and below, 197 8 ad init., κυβερνήτης is applied to Eros (cp. 186 8).

κατεσκευάσθη κτλ. This sentence is quoted later on (201 a) by Socrates. τὰ πράγματα echoes the παλαιὰ πράγματα of 1950. κάλλους is object. gen. after "Ἔρωτος.

αἴσχει γὰρ κτλ. This repeats the assertion of 1964—B. Rettig reads αἴσχει...ἔστιν, arguing that ἔστιν, not ἔνι, is required by the ref. in 2014: but αἴσχει ἔστιν as an equiv. for αἴσχους ἔστιν would be a strange use. The restoration ἔπιε is as certain as such things can be.

ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶπον. See 195c. Notice that here as there A. refuses to make himself responsible for the ascription of violence to the gods, as shown by the saving clause ὡς λέγεται.

197 Ο ἄλλων τοιούτων. Se. ofa κάλλος καὶ ἀρετή : cp. Rep. 372 Ὁ.

197 p] ΣΥΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 81

ἐπέρχεται δέ μοί τι καὶ ἔμμετρον εἰπεῖν, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην μὲν ἐν ἀνθρώποις, πελάγει δὲ γαλήνην νηνεμίαν, ἀνέμων κοίτην ὕπνον τ᾽ ἐνὶ κήδει. οὗτος δὲ ἡμᾶς ἀλλοτριότητος μὲν κενοῖ, οἰκειότητος δὲ πληροῖ, τὰς D τοιάσδε ξυνόδους μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων πάσας τιθεὶς ξυνιέναι, ἐν ἑορταῖς,

197 Ο᾽ ἐμμέτρως Hermog. Method. ἀνέμων BT: τ᾽ ἀνέμων Stob. vulg.: δ᾽ ἀνέμοις Hermog. κοίτην BT: κοίτην τ᾽ Stob.: κοίτη Hermog. cod. Monac.: κοίτῃ θ᾽ Dindorf Jn.: κοίτῃ δ᾽ Herm. τ᾽ ἐνὶ κήδει Stob. Hermog.: τε νικηδει

B: τε νηκηδὴ T: τε νικήδει W (in mg. yp. καὶ νηκηδεῖ): τ᾽ ἐνὶ γήθει Bast: νηκηδῆ. Dindf. Herm. Jn.: λαθικηδὴ Winckelmann: τ᾽ ἐνὶ κήτει Hommel Christ (ὕπνον τ᾽ ἐνὶ κοίτῃ ἀκηδὴ Bdhm.) Ὦ οὗτος γὰρ Stob. ἀλλοτριώτατος Stob.

ἐπέρχεται δέ μοί κτλ. Here Agathon breaks out into verse of his own, whereas hitherto he had contented himself with quoting from others (196 ¢, E). Observe the alliterative effect, dear to the school of Gorgias, of the play with p and ν, y and Δ, in the former, and of ν and μ in the latter of the two verses.

νηνεμίαν... «κήδει, Both the punctuation and reading of this verse are doubtful. Rickert, Stallb., and the Zurich edd. print commas after γαλήνην and ἀνέμων, Hug and Burnet only after ἀνέμων, Hommel after γαλήνην and κοίτην. It would appear, however, from the Homeric passage (Od, v. 391= XII. 168, ἄνεμος μὲν ἐπαύσατο ἠδὲ γαλήνη | ἔπλετο νηνεμίη), of which this is obviously an echo, that no stop should be placed after γαλήνην, but rather after νηνεμίαν or ἀνέμων : while the compound word dvepoxoira, applied to a sect (γένος) in Corinth who claimed to be able τοὺς ἀνέμους κοιμίζειν (see Hesych. and Suid. s.v.; also Welcker XU. Schr. 3. 63; Rohde Psyche τι. p. 88; and 202 Β n.), makes it probable that ἀνέμων κοίτην are meant to go closely together. Further, although as Zeller argues it is appropriate enough in general to describe Love as “is qui non aequoris solum sed etiam humani pectoris turbas sedat” (cp. Jd. xx1v. 128 ff., Catull. 68. 1—8), still the reversion to human κῆδος after mentioning waves and winds is ἃ little curious, and it is tempting to adopt Hommel’s conjecture ἐνὶ κήτει which, if κῆτος can bear the sense of ‘‘sea-depths” (see L. and 5. s.vv. κῆτος, μεγακήτης) would furnish a more satisfactory disposition of ideas— peace on land and on sea, repose in heaven above and in the depths below.” Or, if we assumed that an original

νει ἐνὶ νείκῃ (Ξε νείκει) was corrupted by haplography to ἐνὶ κη, a fair sense would be obtained. If the ordinary text be kept, we may notice (with Végelin) how the force of the prepos. in ἐν dv@p....évi κήδει varies “in the style of the Sophists.” In Theaet. 168 ὁ we have a similar combination, νηνεμίας τε καὶ γαλήνας, the only other Platonic ex. of νηνεμία being Phaedo 778. γαληνός as an adj. occurs in Ax. 370 D.

197 Ὁ ἀλλοτριότητος κτλ. For Eros as the peace-maker, cp. Isocr. Hel. 221 B εὑρήσομεν τοὺς Ἕλληνας δι’ αὐτὴν ὁμονοήσαντας καὶ κοινὴν orpdreay... ποιησαμένους.

τὰς τοιάσδε ξυνόδους. “Ηδθο δεικτικῶς dicta sunt: quale est hoc convivium nostrum” (Stallb.).

Β. P. 6

82 TIAATQNOS [197 D

ἐν χοροῖς, ἐν θυσίαις γιγνόμενος ἡγεμών" πρᾳότητα μὲν πορίξων, ἀγριότητα δ᾽ ἐξορίξων: φιλόδωρος εὐμενείας, ἄδωρος δυσμενείας" ἵλεως ἀγανός" θεατὸς σοφοῖς, ἀγαστὸς θεοῖς" ζηλωτὸς ἀμοίροις, κτητὸς εὐμοίροις" τρυφῆς, ἁβρότητος, χλιδῆς, χαρίτων, ἱμέρου, πόθον πατήρ' ἐπιμελὴς ἀγαθῶν, ἀμελὴς κακῶν" ἐν πόνῳ, ἐν φόβῳ,

197 D θυσίαις BT: θυσίαισι : εὐθυμίαις Stob., Jn.: fort. θιάσοις dyavés Usener Bt.: ἀγαθός BT: ἀγαθοῖς Stob., In. Sz.: ἵλεως ἀγαθοῖς 500].

Rettig: ἱμερτὸς ἀγαθοῖς Schulthess τρυφῆς secl. J.-U. Sz. χλίδης T: χληδης B: χληδῆς W ἡμέρου B πόθου om. Stob., secl. Voeg. Sz. dvedjs B

ἐν θυσίαις. For 6. Stob. has εὐθυμίαις, which looks like a gloss on some word other than θυσίαις. I am inclined to suspect that θιάσοις should be restored: the word would fit in well between χοροῖς and ἡγεμών, “in festive bands.” The corruption might be due to the loss of the termination, after which θιάς was mistaken for θυσιάς. Cp. Xen. Symp. VIII. 1 πάντες ἐσμεν τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου θιασῶται.

ἀγανός. The ἀγαθός of the mss. cannot stand, and Stobaeus’s ἀγαθοῖς (adopted by most edd. since Wolf) is open to objection both as spoiling the symmetry and because of the occurrence of ἀγαθῶν just below. We want a more exquisite word, and Usener’s dyavds is more appropriate in sense than such possible alternatives as dyavés or dyhads. For Agathon’s antitheses, cp. Clem. Al. Strom. v. 614D; Athen. v. 11.

τρυφῆς... χλιδῆς. Moeris: χλιδὴ ᾿Αττικοί, τρυφὴ Ἕλληνες. Hence Hug omits τρυφῆς as a gloss on χλιδῆς, and (to preserve symmetry) omits πόθου also,

ἐν πόνῳ κτλ. These words have given rise to much discussion and many emendations (see crit. n.). Two main lines of interpretation are possible: either (1) we may suppose that maritime allusions are to be sought in these words to match those in κυβερνήτης xrd.; or (2) we may suppose the latter set of words to be used in a merely metaphorical sense. Badham adopts line (1); so too Schiitz regards the whole figure as borrowed “e re nautica. Nautis enim saepe timor naufragii, desiderium terrae, labor in difficultate navigandi, aerumna nauseantibus,..accidere solet” ; and he takes the following four substt. (κυβερν. κτλ.) as referring in order to these four conditions. And, adopting this line, I myself formerly proposed to read (for ἐν πόθῳ, ἐν λόγῳ) ἐν πόρῳ, ἐν ῥύθῳ. The 2nd line of explanation is adopted (a) by those who attempt to defend the vulgate, and (b) by some who have recourse to emen- dation, Thus (a) Stallb, commends Ast’s view that λόγος can stand here because Agathon’s speech is full of “merus verborum lusus”; while Hommel takes the words ἐν πόνῳ etc. as “e re amatoria depromta,” expressing the affections of the lover while seeking the society of his beloved, and connects (in the reverse order) λόγῳ with κυβερν., πόθῳ with ἐπιβ., φόβῳ with mapacr., and πόνῳ with σωτήρ. On the other hand, (Ὁ) Rettig—while altering the second pair to ἐν μόθῳ, ἐν Adyg—also disregards the maritime metaphor and

197 Ε] ZYMTIOZION 83

ΕἸ 4 5] f ,ὔ > t t \ \ ἐν πότῳ, ἐν λόγῳ κυβερνήτης, ἐπιβάτης, παραστάτης τε Kal σωτὴρ EB Yq a ἄριστος, ξυμπάντων te θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων κόσμος, ἡγεμὼν κάλ- toro i a, ὃ χρὴ ἕπεσθ ΐ ἄνδρα ἐ ῦ ς καὶ ἄριστος, ᾧ χρὴ ἕπεσθαι πάντα ἄνδρα ἐφυμνοῦντα

197 Ὁ ἐν πόνῳ ἐν φόβῳ ἐν πότῳ ἐν λόγῳ scripsi: ἐν πόνῳ ἐν φόβῳ ἐν πόθῳ ἐν λόγῳ codd.: ἐν φόβῳ ἐν πόθῳ ἐν πόνῳ ἐν μόγῳ Schiitz: ἐν πόνῳ ἐν φόβῳ ἐν μόθῳ ἐν μόγῳ In.: ἐν π. ἐν φ. ἐν μόθῳ ἐν λόχῳ Rettig: ἐν π. ἐν φ. ἐν πόθῳ ἐν νόσῳ Winckelmann: ἐν π. ἐν φ. ἐν πόθῳ ἐν σάλῳ Usener: ἐν πλῷ ἐν πόνῳ ἐν φόβῳ Bdhm. ἘΞ ἐπιβάτης del. Bdhm.: ἐπιδώτης Usener τε καὶ del. Bdhm.

understands the passage “iiberhaupt von Kriegsgefahren und dem in solchen geleisteten Beistand,” comparing the allusions to such matters by Phaedrus (179 4) and Alcibiades (290 ἡ ff). Here Rettig is, I believe, partly on the right track; since the clue to the sense (and reading) here is to be looked for in Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates. We find πόνῳ echoed there (219 E τοῖς πόνοις. -περιῆν), and φόβῳ also (2320 φυγῇ ἀνεχώρει, 2214 ἐν φόβῳ) and ἐν λόγῳ may be defended by the allusions to Socrates’ λόγοι (215 ὁ ff., 291 Ὁ ff.). Thus the only doubtful phrase is ἐν πόθῳ, which has no parallel in Alcib.’s speech, and is also objectionable here because of the proximity of πόθου. In place of it I propose ἐν πότῳ (cp. Phileb. 48 a), of which we find an echo (in sense if not in sound) in 220 4 ἐν τ᾽ αὖ ταῖς εὐωχίαις... καὶ πίνειν... πάντας ἐκράτει. For maritime terms in connexion with λόγος, cp. Lach. 1940 ἀνδράσι φίλοις χειμαζομένοις ἐν λόγῳ καὶ ἀποροῦσι βοήθησον : Parm. 1374 διανεῦσαι.. τοσοῦτον πέλαγος λόγων : Phaedr. 2644; Phileb.29B. So both λόγος and πότος in Dionys. Chale. 4. 1 ff. ὕμνους οἰνοχοεῖν. .«τόνδε...εἰρεσίῃ γλώσσης ἀποπέμψομεν. «τοῦδ᾽ ἐπὶ συμποσίου" δεξιότης τε λόγου | Φαίακος Μουσῶν ἐρέτας ἐπὶ σέλματα πέμπει: τά, 5. 1 ΠΕ καί τινες οἶνον ἄγοντες ἐν εἰρεσίῃ Διονύσου, | συμποσίου ναῦται καὶ κυλίκων ἐρέται | (μάρνανται) περὶ τοῦδε. Cp. also Cic. Z'use. Iv. 5. 9 quaerebam utrum panderem vela orationis statim, an eam...dialecti- corum remis propellerem. For παραστάτης, of Eros, cp. ὁ παρ᾽ ἑκάστῳ δαίμων in later Stoic literature (Rohde Psyche τι. 316): Epict. diss. 1. 14. 12; Menander (ap. Mein. Com. Iv. 238) ἅπαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ συμπαρίσταται | εὐθὺς γενομένῳ μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίου. For Socrates as σωτήρ, see 220} ff.: the term is regularly applied to a ἥρως, eg. Soph. Ὁ, C. 460 (Oedipus); Thuc. ν. 11. 2 (Brasidas); Eur. Heracl. 1032 (Eurystheus): Pind. fr. 132 has the same combination, σωτὴρ ἄριστος: cp. Spenser, “(Love) the most kind preserver Of living wights.” ἐν πόνῳ might be a reminiscence of Pind. Nem. x. 78 παῦροι...ἐν πόνῳ πιστοί: or used, Homerically, of “the toil of war” (Ξε ἐν payais, cp. 220D). For cvBepynrns used metonymously, cp. 197 Β (n. on κυβερνᾶν); so Emerson, “Beauty is the pilot of the young soul.” ἐπιβάτης, in the present context, must mean ‘a marine,” classiarius miles, and hence, by metonymy, “a comrade” in general.—The general sense of the passage is this: “in the contests both of war and peace the best guide and warden, comrade and rescuer is Eros.” Cp. also Procl. in I Ale. p. 40.

197 Ἐ ξυμπάντων... κόσμος. Cp. Gorg. Hel. 1 κόσμος πόλει μὲν edavdpia, σώματι δὲ κάλλος.

ἡγεμὼν... ἐφυμνοῦντα. The image is that of Eros as coryphaeus leading ἃ

6—2

84 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [191 Ε

a nr ’ καλῶς, ὠδῆς μετέχοντα ἣν ἄδει θέλγων πάντων θεῶν τε Kal av- θρώπων νόημα.

rn a a » ΕἾ Οὗτος, ἔφη, ὁ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ λόγος, ὦ Φαῖδρε, τῷ θεῷ ἀνακείσθω, τὰ μὲν παιδιᾶς, τὰ δὲ σπουδῆς μετρίας, καθ᾽ ὅσον ἐγὼ δύναμαι, μετέχων. 18 XX. Εἰπόντος δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αγάθωνος πάντας ἔφη ὁ Ἀριστόδημος ἀναθορυβῆσαι τοὺς παρόντας, ὡς πρεπόντως τοῦ νεανίσκου εἰρη- ἐπ Ν € a ‘ ~ an m3 ion , > a ΄ κότος καὶ αὑτῷ καὶ τῷ θεῷ. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη εἰπεῖν βλέψαντα εἰς τὸν ᾿Ερυξίμαχον, "Apa σοι δοκῶ, φάναι, ὦ παῖ ᾿Ακουμενοῦ, ἀδεὲς πάλαι δέος δεδιέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μαντικῶς ἃ νῦν δὴ ἔλεγον εἰπεῖν, a ᾽ ‘ a ᾽ n > XN τὰ ? f \ \ [4 ὅτι ᾿Αγάθων θαυμαστῶς ἐροῖ, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀπορήσοιμι; Τὸ μὲν ἕτερον, φάναι τὸν ᾿ρυξίμαχον, μαντικῶς μοι δοκεῖς εἰρηκέναι, ὅτι ᾿Αγάθων εὖ ἐρεῖ" τὸ δὲ σὲ ἀπορήσειν, οὐκ οἶμαι. 197 EB καλῶς BT: καλῆς Stob.: καλῶς καλῆς vulg.: καλῶς τῆς Ast: καλῶς

καὶ τῆς Orelli Teuffel: καὶ Mdvg. Sz. δὲ (καὶ) Method. 198. A πρεπόντως bt: πρέποντος BTW ἄρα B époin Cobet Jn. δοκεῖς por T

procession of singers, and singing (‘‘a song of my beloved ”) himself (φὠδῆς ἣν dée). Notice how Agathon repeats the phrase θεῶν τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων (cp. 197B). For ἡγεμών, cp. Spenser (ZZ. to Love) “Thou art his god, thou art his mighty guide.” καλῆς is omitted in Ficinus’ transl.

vénpo. Here used, poetically, as equivalent to vous: ep. Pind. Pyth. νι. 29; Theogn. 435; Emped. 329 St., αἷμα yap ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα.

τῷ θεῷ ἀνακείσθω. ‘Let it be presented as a votive-offering (ἀνάθημα) to the God (sc. Eros).”

παιδιᾶς... σπουδῆς. Possibly an echo of Gorg. Hel. ad fin. “Ἑλένης μὲν ἐγκώμιον, ἐμὸν δὲ παίγνιον. For the antithesis, cp. 2168; Laws 647 Ὁ; Philed. 308; Ar. Ran. 389.

μετρίας. “Η..6. xoopias” (Stallb.), with, perhaps, a latent play on the other sense of μέτρον, in allusion to the rhythmical style of A.’s oration; cp. 187 p, 205 c, Phaedr, 267 a ἐν μέτρῳ λέγειν.

198 Α ἀναθορυβῆσαι. Cp. Protag. 384 Ο εἰπόντος οὖν ταῦτα αὐτοῦ οἱ παρόντες ἀνεθορύβησαν ὡς εὖ λέγοι: Euthyd, 216 Β; Cic. Sen. 18, 64 a cuncto consessu plausus multiplex datus.

πρεπόντως... «τῷ θεῷ. Cp. Laws 699 D εἴρηκας σαυτῷ τε καὶ τῇ πατρίδι πρε- TOVTWS.

ὦ παῖ ᾿Ακουμενοῦ. Observe the mock-solemnity of this mode of address: cp. 172, 2148. Socrates addresses Eryx. with allusion to his language in 193 = (ef μὴ ξυνήδη κτλ.).

ἀδεὲς... δέος δεδιέναι. Schol. ἀδεὲς δέος: ἐπὶ τῶν τὰ μὴ ἄξια φόβου δεδιότων. ὅμοιον τούτῳ καὶ τὸ ψοφοδεὴς ἄνθρωπος (Phaedr. 257 Ὁ). Observe how Socr. here, in caricature of Agathon’s style (6.9. 197 Ὁ), combines in one phrase the figura etymologica and the figure oxymoron: cp. Eur. 7. 7.216 νύμφαν δύσνυμ- pov : ib. 566 χάριν ἄχαριν : id. Hel. 690 γάμον ἄγαμον.

ἃ viv δὲ ἔλεγον. The reference is to 194 4.

198 c] ΣΎΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 85

\ n ἣν nw »“

Καὶ πῶς, ὦ μακάριε, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, οὐ μέλλω ἀπορεῖν Β

ἈΝ ἈΝ oy € n Ἂ: καὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ἄλλος ὁστισοῦν, μέλλων λέξειν μετὰ καλὸν οὕτω καὶ

ἊΝ ,

παντοδαπὸν λόγον ῥηθέντα; καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα οὐχ ὁμοίως μὲν θαυμαστά: τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς τοῦ κάλλους τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐξεπλάγη ἀκούων; ἐπεὶ ἔγωγε ἐνθυμούμενος μή > = > , 7M 50» » ε - ᾽ ‘ \ εὐ bog ὅτι αὐτὸς οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἔσομαι οὐδ᾽ ἐγγὺς τούτων οὐδὲν καλὸν εἰπεῖν, ὑπ᾽ αἰσχύνης ὀλίγου ἀποδρὰς ὠχόμην, εἴ πῃ εἶχον. καὶ γάρ pe C Γοργίου ὁ λόγος ἀνεμίμνῃσκεν, ὥστε ἀτεχνῶς τὸ τοῦ “Opnpov

198 Β καὶ παντοδαπὸν οὕτω TW μὲν om. Vind. 21, vulg. Sz.: (μέν, θαυμαστὰ δέ: Bdhm.) ἀκούων om. W

198 B οὐ μέλλω κτλ. Notice the change of tense in dopeiv...dé€ew: Plato uses pres., fut., and aor. infinitives after μέλλω, of which the last is the rarest construction. For the sense, cp. Soph. 231 B.

παντοδαπὸν λόγον. Thoro is irony in the opithet. Socr. implies that he regards it as a motley λόγος, “a thing of shreds and patches.” Cp. 193 8, and 198 5 (πάντα λόγον κινοῦντες κτλ.).

οὐχ ὁμοίως μὲν θαυμαστά, The antithesis must be mentally supplied: “the earlier parts were not equally marvellous (although they were marvellous).” Stallb. explains differently, “ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα accipi potest absolute pro et quod cetera quidem attinet; quo facto non inepte pergitur sic: οὐχ ὁμοίως μὲν θαυμαστά, particula μὲν denuo iterata.” But the former explanation (adopted by Rettig and Hug, after Zeller) is the simpler and better.

τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς κτλ. τὸ is accus. of respect, going closely with ἐπὶ τελευτῆς, not with rod κάλλους (as Riickert): “quod autem exitum orationis tuae attinet” (Stallb., and so Hommel). τοῦ κάλλους is governed by ἐξε- mAdyn, as gen. of causative object (cp. Madv. Gr. Synt. § 61 δ). ἀκούων, “as he heard.”

τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων. Cp. 199 B ὀνόμασι δὲ καὶ θέσει ῥημάτων. Properly, ὄνομα and ῥῆμα are distinguished as, in logic, the subject and predi- cate and, in grammar, the noun and verb respectively. But commonly ὄνομα is used of any single word, and ῥῆμα of a clause, or proposition (¢.g. Protag. 3418); cp. Apol. 173; Cratyl. 399, 4813. Both here and below, as Athenaeus observes (v. 187 0), Πλάτων χλευάζει re τὰ ἰσόκωλα τὰ ᾿Αγάθωνος καὶ τὰ ἀντίθετα. Cp. the criticism of the Sophistic style in Alcid. de Soph. 12 of τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀκριβῶς ἐξειργασμένοι καὶ μᾶλλον ποιήμασιν ἢ λόγοις ἐοικότες καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτόματον καὶ πλέων ἀληθείας ἀποβεβληκότες : Isocr. 6. Soph. 394 Ὁ τοῖς ἐν θυμήμασι πρεπόντως ὅλον τὸν λόγον καταποικῖλαι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασι εὐρύθ- pos καὶ μουσικῶς εἰπεῖν.

οὐδ᾽ ἐγγὺς τούτων. Cp. 391} infra; Rep. 818 Ὁ τοὺς ποιητὰς ἐγγὺς τούτων ἀναγκαστέον λογοποιεῖν.

ὀλίγου. 1.6. ὀλίγου δεῖν. Cp. Theaet. 180D; Huthyd. 279 Ὁ.

198 GC Γοργίου...ἀνεμίμνῃσκεν. For Agathon as a “ Gorgiast,” see Introd. § 1. 5. Op. Philostr. de vit. Soph. 1. καὶ ᾿Αγάθων...πολλαχοῦ τῶν ἰαμβείων γοργιάζει: Xen. Symp. τι. 26, Iv. 24,

τὸ τοῦ “Ομήρον. See Od. XI. 632 ἐμὲ δὲ χλωρὸν δέος ἤρει | μή μοι yopyeiny

86 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [198 6

nn eo / , ‘ ἐπεπόνθη" ἐφοβούμην μή μοι τελευτῶν ὁ ᾿Αγάθων Γοργίου κεφαλὴν . Ὁ ᾿ a ͵ ᾽ a , ἃ ας \ > \ , ! > δεινοῦ λέγειν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐπὶ τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον πέμψας αὐτόν με t A ," λίθον τῇ ἀφωνίᾳ ποιήσειε. καὶ ἐνενόησα τότε ἄρα καταγέλαστος - f 4 - > Ul ὦν, ἡνίκα ὑμῖν ὡμολόγουν ἐν τῷ μέρει μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐγκωμιάσεσθαι ‘ wv na Ὁ rov”Epwra καὶ ἔφην εἶναι δεινὸς τὰ ἐρωτικά, οὐδὲν εἰδὼς dpa τοῦ , € » 2 U € a x, AN Ἄς AY e« 3 λ πράγματος, ὡς ἔδει ἐγκωμιάξειν ὁτιοῦν. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ἀβελ- an. a a ἔν τερίας ῴμην δεῖν τἀληθῆ λέγειν περὶ ἑκάστου τοῦ ἐγκωμιαζομένου, \ Ἔν ὙΠ ΡΝ, 2 2 κα δὲ , \ XX 2 Xx καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ὑπάρχειν, ἐξ αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων τὰ κάλλιστα ἐκλε- v4 ΄ ¢ γομένους ὡς εὐπρεπέστατα τιθέναι" καὶ πάνυ δὴ μέγα ἐφρόνουν ὡς 198 Ο ἐν τῷ λόγῳ 8560]. J.-U.: πελώρον Bdhm. τῇ ἀφωνίᾳ del. Hartmann Ὦ ἀβελτηρίας Τ τοῦ (post ἑκάστου) del. Hommel τοῦτο πρῶτον μὲν Bast

κεφαλὴν δεινοῖο πελώρου | ἐξ ᾿Αίδεω πέμψειεν ἀγανὴ Περσεφόνεια. Miss Harrison (Proleg. p. 191) renders γοργείην by “grizzly,” with the note “Homer does not commit himself to a definite Gorgon”: his Gorgoneion is “an underworld bogey, an ἀποτρόπαιον." That “the Gorgon was regarded ag a sort of incarnate evil eye” (¢bid. p. 196) appears from Athen. ν. 64. 221 κτείνει τὸν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς θεωρηθέντα, οὐ τῷ πνεύματι ἀλλὰ τῇ γιγνομένῃ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ὀμμάτων φύσεως φορᾷ καὶ νεκρὸν ποιεῖ. Rohde (Psyche 11. 407) points out that “ Hekate selbst wird angerufen als Γοργὼ καὶ Μορμὼ καὶ Μήνη καὶ πολύ- poppe: hymn bei Hippol. ref. haer. 4. 35 p. 73 Mill”; and that Γοργώ appears to be a shorter form for Topyipa (᾿Αχέροντος γυνή, Apollod.). For the pun on Gorgias-Gorgon, cp. that on ἀγαθῶν (1174 Β 7.). As against Diimmler’s inference that Gorgias’ previous death is here implied, see Vahlen op. Acad. 1. 482 ff.

ἐν τῷ λόγῳ. Cp. 201 a, Gorg. 457D, Theaet. 169 B. To eject these words with Hug, or to substitute πελώρου with Badham, would (as Voegelin and Rettig contend) destroy the antithesis ἐν τῷ X. )( ἐπὶ τὸν ἐμὸν X., and spoil the “Gorgianische Wortspiel.” Further, the phrase serves as a parallel to the Homeric ἐξ *Aidew. Observe, as a feature of the parody, the different sense in which Socr. uses δεινός : also, how the sentence as a whole forms a playful retort to Agathon’s remark in 194. (pappdrrew βούλει pe κτλ.). For the adverbial use of τελευτῶν, cp. Phaedr, 2288, 0; Gorg. 457D. (See also Vahlen, /.c. for a discussion and defence of the text.)

τότε.. «ἡνίκα. The τότε goes with dv which is imperf. partic.: the ref. is to 177 Ὁ.

198 D ἐγὼ μὲν κτλ. The μέν here is answered by the δέ in τὸ δὲ dpa below. For d@edrepia, ep. Theaet. 174 0, Phil. 48.0 (see my note ad loc.).

τοῦτο piv ὑπάρχειν. “That this (viz. the statement of the facts) should be the ground-work”: there is no need to insert, with Bast, πρῶτον or μέγιστον after τοῦτο. For this sense of ὑπάρχειν, cp. Menex. 987 Β. For the thought, cp. Emerson “Veracity first of all and forever. tien de beau que le vrai.”

ἐξ αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων. Rettig’s comment on this is “mit Beziehung auf das collective in τοῦτο gedachte τἀληθῆ." This is misleading, since τοῦτο means

198 Ε] ZYMTIOZION 87

εὖ ἐρῶν, ὡς εἰδὼς τὴν ἀλήθειαν [τοῦ ἐπαινεῖν ὁτιοῦν]. τὸ δὲ ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐ τοῦτο ἦν τὸ καλῶς ἐπαινεῖν ὁτιοῦν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὡς μέγιστα B ἀνατιθέναι τῷ πράγματι καὶ ὡς κάλλιστα, ἐάν τε ἦ οὕτως ἔχοντα ἐάν τε μή" εἰ δὲ ψευδῆ, οὐδὲν ἄρ᾽ ἦν πρᾶγμα. προυρρήθη γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὅπως ἕκαστος ἡμῶν τὸν "Epwra ἐγκωμιάζειν δόξει, οὐχ ὅπως ἐγκωμιάσεται. διὰ ταῦτα δή, οἶμαι, πάντα λόγον κινοῦντες

198 Ὁ τοῦ... ὁτιοῦν secl. Βάμιη. 5:2. τούτοις ἦν Bast E δόξει Steph.: δόξῃ BT

τὸ τἀληθὴ λέγειν, a Singular notion, and αὐτὰ ταῦτα here represents simply τἀληθῆ. In the Socratic theory of rhetoric here stated we have the following order of treatment proposed: (1) τὸ τἀληθῆ λέγειν, (2) ἡ τῶν καλλίστων ἐκλογή, (8) ἡ εὐπρεπὴς θέσις. But it is implied that the 2nd and 3rd of these—artistic selection and arrangement—are valueless, except in so far as they are based on the Ist requisite: in other words, matter is more important than form. Cp. Procl. in Tim. p. 27 ai yap ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας εὐφημίαι πασῶν προέχουσεν, ὡς καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ Συμποσίῳ Σωκράτης παραδίδωσιν.

ὡς εἰδὼς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. I follow Badham and Hug in bracketing the next words (τοῦ ἐπαινεῖν ὁτιοῦν) as an erroneous gloss on ἀλήθειαν, with which we must supply περὶ τοῦ ἔρωτος, as required by δεινὸς τὰ ἐρωτικά above and the passage there alluded to (175D). Cp. Phaedr. 259 Ε dp’ οὖν οὐχ ὑπάρχειν δεῖ τοῖς εὖ ye καὶ καλῶς ῥηθησομένοις τὴν τοῦ λέγοντος διάνοιαν εἰδυῖαν τὸ ἀληθὲς ὧν av ἐρεῖν πέρι μέλλῃ. Rettig defends the traditional text, asking “ist denn ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ ἐπαινεῖν ὁτιοῦν hier nicht identisch mit ἡ ἀλήθεια περὶ “Epwros?” To this the answer is “no!”: for if the tradition be kept we must take τὴν ἀλήθειαν as equivalent to τὴν ἀληθῆ (or rather ὀρθὴν) μέθοδον, which is a very unlikely equation, especially so soon after τἀληθῆ in another sense: Stallb.’s rendering may serve to indicate the difficulty involved,—“utpote veram tenens laudationis cujuslibet naturam et rationem”: Jowett’s “thinking I knew the nature of true praise” shirks the difficulty.

τὸ δὲ dpa. For τὸ δὲ, “but in reality,” cp. Meno 97 σ (with Thompson’s note), Apol. 23.4 (with Stallb.’s note).

198 E οὐ τοῦτο, 1.6. οὐ τὸ τἀληθῆ λέγειν.

τὸ.. «ἀνατιθέναι. Perhaps an allusion to the term used by Agathon, ἀνα- κείσθω 1978. For Socrates’ criticism, cp. Phaedr. 272 a, Menex. 2340 ot οὕτω καλῶς ἐπαινοῦσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰ προσόντα Kal τὰ μὴ περὶ ἑκάστου λέγοντες, κάλλιστά πως τοῖς ὀνόμασι ποικίλλοντες γοητεύουσιν ἡμῶν τὰς ψυχάς : Isocr. Busir. 322 Β δεῖ τοὺς μὲν εὐλογεῖν τινας βουλομένοις πλείω τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἀγαθῶν προσόντ᾽ ἀποφαίνειν (which sentiment is, perhaps, referred to here).

προυρρήθη. Cp. 180». The reference is to 177 Ὁ.

ἐγκωμιάζειν S6fa. The emphasis is on δόξει, implying the regular Platonic antithesis δόξα )( ἀλήθεια. Cp. Simon. 76 τὸ δοκεῖν καὶ τὰν ἀλάθειαν βιᾶται (cited in Rep. 365 c).

πάντα λόγον κινοῦντες. “ Raking up every tale.” Cp. Phileb. 15 ΕΒ; Theaet. 163.4; Rep. 450 a.

88 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [198 ©

a ral A i ἀνατίθετε τῷ "Epwti, καί φατε αὐτὸν τοιοῦτόν τε εἶναι Kai τοσού- fol v4 199 των αἴτιον, ὅπως ἂν φαίνηται ὡς κάλλιστος Kal ἄριστος, δῆλον OTL > n t Ν - ᾿ τοῖς μὴ γιγνώσκουσιν---οὐ γάρ δή που τοῖς γε εἰδόσι---, καὶ καλῶς γ ΝΜ \ a cw 2 AY A 2 Ἃ ? 45 ” \ 4 ἔχει καὶ σεμνῶς ὁ ἔπαινος. ἀλλὰ yap ἐγὼ οὐκ ἤδη ἄρα τὸν τρόπον an n ? an f τοῦ ἐπαίνου, ov δ᾽ εἰδὼς ὑμῖν ὡμολόγησα καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ μέρει a ς \ ΞΕ ἐπαινέσεσθαι. “ἡ γλῶσσα" οὖν ὑπέσχετο, “ἡ δὲ φρὴν" οὔ n ‘ 3 \ χαιρέτω δή. οὐ γὰρ ἔτι ἐγκωμιάξω τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον" ov yap an > f: ? t ἂν δυναίμην. ov μέντοι ἀλλὰ Ta ye ἀληθῆ, εἰ βούλεσθε, ἐθέλω na “ Ν I B εἰπεῖν κατ᾽ ἐμαυτόν, οὐ πρὸς τοὺς ὑμετέρους λόγους, iva μὴ γέλωτα a ΄ \ ὄφλω. ὅρα οὖν, ὦ Φαῖδρε, εἴ τι καὶ τοιούτου λόγου δέῃ, περὶ ” > a , > ͵ 27 ν᾿ \ , ε , Epwtos τἀληθῆ λεγόμενα ἀκούειν, ὀνόμασι δὲ καὶ θέσει ῥημάτων τοιαύτῃ ὁποία δὰν τις τύχῃ ἐπελθοῦσα.

198 EF τοιούτων τε εἶναι Steph. 199 A δήπου Cobet Bt.: ἄν που T: που B, Sz. ἤδη ἄρα T: ἤδη B οὐ δ᾽ Sauppe: οὐδ BT γλῶσσα W: γλῶττα ΒΤ' ἐγκωμιάσω Wolf Jn. Β δέει Bekk. Sz. περὶ..«λεγόμενα del. Hirschig ὀνομάσει W Vind. suppl. 7 dav J.-U. Sz. Bt.: δὴ ἄν

Stallb.: δ᾽ av B: δ᾽ ἄν T: ἄν apogr. Vat. 1030

199 Α ὅπως ἂν φαίνηται. φαίνηται here, as δόξει above, is emphatic. A com- parison with 195 a shows that Socr. is alluding especially to Agathon’s oration.

οὐ γάρ δή που κτλ. Op. Gorg. 459 ἃ οὐ yap δή που ἔν γε τοῖς εἰδύσι τοῦ ἰατροῦ πιθανώτερος ἔσται: and for οὐ γάρ πον... 2300 5, Luthyph. 13 Δ.

καὶ καλῶς γ᾽ κτλ. Earlier editors generally print a full stop after εἰδόσι. Socr. here sarcastically endorses the approval with which Agathon’s ἔπαινος had been received (ὡς πρεπόντως εἰρηκότος κτλ., 198 A).

ἡ γλῶσσα οὖν κτλ. Euripides’ line (ἡ γλῶσσ᾽ ὀμώμοχ᾽, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος Hippol. 612) soon became a familiar quotation : see Ar. Thesm. 275, Ran. 101, 1471; Theaet. 1540; Cic. de offic. 111. 29. 108 iuravi lingua, mentem iniuratam gero.

χαιρέτω δή. “1 say good-bye to it”: ep. Laws 636 D τὸ... τοῦ μύθον χαιρέτω: id. 886D. Rettig suggests that here the formula may be intended as another echo of Euripides: cp. Med. 1044 οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην - χαιρέτω βουλεύματα | τὰ πρόσθεν: Hippol. 113.

οὐ γὰρ ἔτι κτλ. “1 withdraw my offer to eulogize.” ἐγκωμιάζω must here be a “present for future” (see Madv. Gr. Synt. § 110. 3), since Socr. has not yet begun the eulogy.

199 Β kar’ ἐμαυτόν, οὐ πρὸς κτλ. “In my own fashion, not entering into competition with your orations.” For κατὰ ὁ. acc. in this sense, cp. Apol, 178 οὐ κατὰ τούτους εἶναι ῥήτωρ (“not after their pattern”): Gorg. 505 D.

γέλωτα ὄφλω. This resumes the notion in καταγέλαστος ὦν, 198 Ο.

ὦ Φαῖδρε. Socrates, like Agathon (197 8), politely appeals to Ph. as the πατὴρ λόγου : cp. 194 Ὁ.

εἴ τι κτλ. For εἴ τι, numguid, cp. Rep. 5268 σκοπεῖσθαι δεῖ εἴ τι πρὸς ἐκεῖνο τείνει κτλ.

ὀνόμασι δὲ κτλ. See 1988π. Of ὁποία δή Ast cites no instance; the

199 Ὁ] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 89

Τὸν οὖν Paidpov ἔφη καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους κελεύειν Χεγείι, ὅπῃ par οἴοιτο δεῖν εἰπεῖν, ταύτῃ. "Ere ταίνυν, φάναι, ὦ Φαῖδρε, πᾶρες μοι ᾿Αγάθωνα σμίκρ᾽ ἄττα epeatat, iva napa ye ariiiea ty παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ οὕτως ἤδη λέγω. ᾿Αλλὰ παρίημι, φάναι τὸν Φαῖδρον, C ἀλλ᾽ ἐρώτα. μετὰ ταῦτα δὴ τὸν Σωκράτη ἔφη ἐνθένδε ποθὲν ἄρξασθαι.

XXI. Καὶ μήν, ὦ φίλε ᾿Αγάθων, καλῶς μοι ἔδοξας καθη- γήσασθαι τοῦ λόγου, λέγων ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν δέοι αὐτὸν ἐπιδεῖξαι ὁποῖός τίς ἐστιν ὁΒρως, ὕστερον δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. ταύτην τὴν ἀρχὴν πάνυ ἄγαμαι. ἴθι οὖν μοι περὶ "ἔρωτος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τἄλλα καλῶς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶς, διῆλθες οἷός ἐστι, καὶ τόδε εἰπέ" D πότερόν ἐστι τοιοῦτος οἷος εἶναί τινος ὁ "ἔρως ἔρως, ἢ οὐδενός ; ἐρωτῶ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰ μητρός τινος ἢ πατρός ἐστι--- γελοῖον γὰρ ἂν εἴη τὸ

199 Ο ἀλλ᾽ ἐρώτα “Agathoni tribuit B, Naber D οἷός τ TW epas ἔρως B: ἔρως T

force of δή is to heighten the notion of indefiniteness which lies in ὁποία (so Hug).

ἔτι τοίνυν κτλ. ἔτι goes with ἐρέσθαι. Socrates appeals thus to Ph. because Ph. had previously (194 D, Β) debarred him from catechizing A.

ἀνομολογησάμενος κτλ. Cf. 200 B, Gorg. 4894. For οὕτως ἤδη, cp. 194 D. For ἐνθένδε ποθὲν, 178 Δ.

199 Ο καθηγήσασθαι. The ref. is to A.’s exordium, 195 Δ.

ἴθι οὖν. agedum; cp. Gorg. 452D, Rep. 376 Ὁ.

199 Ὁ τινος...ἢ οὐδενός. These are objective genitives to be construed with the second ἔρως: “Is Love love for some object or for none?” For the use of the indef. in such phrases, cp. Phileb. 35 Β 6 γ᾽ ἐπιθυμῶν τινὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ.

οὐκ el μητρός τινος κτλ. These words have been variously interpreted : (1) Lehrs and Prantl construe the genitives as subjective (“love felt by a mother”); (2) Ast as objective (“love for a mother”): (3) Riickert, followed by Hommel and Hug, takes them to be genn. of origin ; so too Zeller renders “ich meine damit aber nicht, ob er eine Mutter oder einen Vater hat.” Of these, (1) seems the least probable in point of sense, and with subjective genitives τινος would be superfluous. It is a serious objection (as Hug admits) to (3) that it compels us to regard the “absurdity” (γελοῖον) of the question as lying in its form rather than its substance. That the “absurdity ” lies in the substance of the statement is shown, ¢.g., by Lys. 221 A ἢ γελοῖον τὸ ἐρώτημα, 6 τί ποτ᾽ ἔσται τότε ἢ μὴ ἔσται; τίς yap οἶδεν; (cp. Phaedr. 274 0). But if so, recourse must be had to textual alteration: we must strike out either the second ἔρως, with Sommer, or the whole block of words εἰ Ἔρως... πατρός, aS Hug (followed by Jowett) suggests. This, however, is a hazardous alternative. On the whole, then, the explanation (2) put forward by Ast seems the most probable. Construing, “I do not ask whether Eros has for its object a father or a mother, since to ask whether Eros is evos for a parent

90 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ {199 D

2 ἐρώτημα, εἰ "Ἔρως ἐστὶν ἔρως μητρὸς ἢ πατρός---ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ ro € ἢ . αὐτὸ τοῦτο πατέρα ἠρώτων, Apa ὁ πατήρ ἐστι πατήρ τινος ἢ οὔ; 4 nx , cA »> 2 4 a ? , a Ba εἶπες ἂν δή πού μοι, εἰ ἐβούλου καλῶς ἀποκρίνασθαι, ὅτι ἔστιν δὲ ΠῚ ᾿, ig \ ct a » ΄ ΄ εἶ υἱέος γε ἢ θυγατρὸς ὁ πατὴρ πατήρ' ἢ οὔ; ἸΙάνυ γε, φάναι τὸν ? 4 > lel Ν 4 ᾿ κ av = a \ ᾿Αγάθωνα. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ἡ μήτηρ ὡσαύτως; ὋὉμολογεῖσθαι καὶ a w 4 ’ n ᾿ 4 > Ψ' 2 , la E τοῦτο. "Ere τοίνυν, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀπόκριναι ὀλίγῳ πλείω, ἵνα μᾶλλον καταμάθῃς ὃ βούλομαι. εἰ γὰρ ἐροίμην, τί δέ; ἁδελφός, aN “QQ ὦ μ᾿ 4 ‘\ 2 \ A ” , 2 αὐτὸ τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ἔστιν, ἔστι τινὸς ἀδελφὸς ἢ οὔ; Φάναι εἶναι. Οὐκοῦν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ ἀδελφῆς ; “Ομολογεῖν. Πειρῶ δή, φάναι, καὶ Lo» > κα cy ” ᾽ \ ᾽ Ἂν A , ΄ \ τὸν ἔρωτα εἰπεῖν. ὁ "ἔρως ἔρως ἐστὶν οὐδενὸς ἢ τινός; Πάνυ μὲν 200 οὖν ἔστιν. Τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, φύλαξον παρὰ σαυτῷ μεμνημένος ὅτου" τοσόνδε δὲ εἰπέ, πότερον ὁ "ἔρως ἐκείνου 199 Ὁ εἰ Ἔρως...πατρός 566]. Hug εἰ 6 Hirschig ἔρως del. Sommer ὁμολογεῖσθαι BTW : ὁμολογῆσαι vulg.: ὁμολογεῖν Stallb. Sz. E ἁδελφός

Cobet Sz.: ἀδελφός libri, Bt. ἀδελφὸς del. Bdhm. 200 Α μεμνημένος del. Bdhm. ὅπου Mdvg.

were an absurd question,” the point will be taken to lie in the fact that ἔρως, as properly denoting sexwal passion, cannot naturally have for its object a parent. The same interpretation might be kept if we struck out—as perhaps we ought—the words μητρὸς ἣ πατρός, and construed “ the question would be absurd if (or granting that) Eros is (really) ἔρως (1.9. sex-love).”

αὐτὸ τοῦτο πατέρα ἠρώτων. Rettig approves Stallbaum’s explanation, “h, 6. πατέρα, αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὅπερ ἔστιν ut mox loquitur. Vult autem cogitari de patris notione, qualem mente informatum habemus.” But the use of the neuter in apposition to the masc. is sufficient to indicate that “cogitari de patris notione”; and it is most natural to regard αὐτὸ τοῦτο as implying a reference to the previous use of “this very word, πατήρ."

εἶπες ἂν. “You would at once reply.” (See Goodwin G. M. 7. § 414, Thompson on Jeno 72 B.)

ἡ μήτηρ ὑσαύτως. Se. ἐστὶν vidos ye ἢ θυγατρὸς μήτηρ.

199 E Et γὰρ ἐροίμην. For apodosis we may supply τί ἂν φαίης; or the like : cp. 204 p, Prot. 311 5.

αὐτὸ τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ἔστιν. “ Notionally,” “in its abstract significance.”

200 Α Totro piv...orov. Rettig, Riickert and Lehrs put a comma before μεμνημένος, rendering “hoc igitur apud animum serva (sc. alicujus esse) atque cujus sit, memento.” Hommel and Hug, on the other hand, follow Ast and Schleierm. in removing the comma, explaining ὅτου (sc. ὁ Ἔρως ἔρως ἐστίν) as epexegetic of τοῦτο, and construing φύλαξον μεμνημένος closely together: thus Schleierm. renders “ Dieses nun, habe Socrates gesagt, halte noch bei dir fast in Gedanken, wovon sie (er) Liebe ist.” On this latter view—which is certainly preferable— we must suppose Socrates to be alluding to the definition of the object of love (viz, κάλλος) previously given by Agathon (in 197 B), while debarring him from restating it at this point in the discussion.

200 c] ZYMTIOZION 91

2 la . n οὗ ἔστιν ἔρως, ἐπιθυμεῖ αὐτοῦ ἢ ov; Πάνυ ye, φάναι. Πότερον μὰ ᾽ Ν ΓΞ: a ν 4 aA 4 > tal \ 9 an > ἔχων αὐτὸ οὗ ἐπιθυμεῖ τε καὶ ἐρᾷ, εἶτα ἐπιθυμεῖ τε καὶ ἐρᾷ, ἢ οὐκ » » » oF a ἔχων; Οὐκ ἔχων, ὡς τὸ εἰκός ye, φάναι. Σκόπει δή, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰκότος εἰ ἀνάγκη οὕτως, τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν ἐπι- a a , x tas θυμεῖν οὗ ἐνδεές ἐστιν, ἢ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐνδεὲς ἦ; ἐμοὶ μὲν \ fal an 7. ] a yap θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ ᾿Αγάθων, ws ἀνάγκη εἶναι" σοὶ δὲ πῶς; εξ ’, ΄ὔ lal A δ᾽ Κἀμοί, φάναι, δοκεῖ. Καλῶς λέγεις. dp’ οὖν βούλοιτ᾽ ἄν τις 4 A ae nxn >? n μέγας ὧν μέγας εἶναι, ἢ ἰσχυρὸς ὧν ἰσχυρός; ᾿Αδύνατον ἐκ τῶν - ΄ > ΄ ᾿ \ na ν 7 ad wo ὡμολογημένων. Ov γάρ που ἐνδεὴς ἂν ein τούτων ὅ ye ὦν. ᾿ ΝΣ , \ ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις. Ei yap καὶ ἰσχυρὸς ὧν βούλοιτο ἰσχυρὸς εἶναι, , a φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, καὶ ταχὺς ὧν ταχύς, καὶ ὑγιὴς ὧν ὑγιής--- i \ Uj a an ἴσως yap ἄν τις ταῦτα οἰηθείη καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα, τοὺς ὄντας τε τοιούτους καὶ ἔχοντας ταῦτα τούτων ἅπερ ἔχουσι καὶ ἐπιθυ- -" Ly ad a \ ? an Fa Ψ , x f . μεῖν, ἵν᾽ οὖν μὴ ἐξαπατηθῶμεν, τούτου ἕνεκα λέγω" τούτοις γάρ, ὦ μὰ a lal Αγάθων, εἰ ἐννοεῖς, ἔχειν μὲν ἕκαστα τούτων ἐν τῷ παρόντι Σ t Now af ΄ a7 td Ν Fd / ἀνάγκη ἃ ἔχουσιν, ἐάν τε βούλωνται ἐάν τε μή, Kal τούτου γε δή 200 Β ὁμολογημένων W: ὁμολογουμένων vulg. εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα Stallb. γὰρ καὶ BT: yap W ταυτὶ T C ἕκαστον vulg.

ἐπιθυμεῖ αὐτοῦ. For αὐτοῦ resuming ἐκείνου, cp. 195 a, Soph. Ο. 7. 248. Observe that the entire argument here is based on the identification of ἔρως with ἐπιθυμία (see 205 D): cp. the use of ἐρᾶν in Theogn. 256 πρῆγμα δὲ τερπνότατον, τοῦ τις ἐρᾷ, TO τυχεῖν. Cp., for the question here discussed, Lys. 221 Ὁ 1.

ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰκότος. Cp. Phaedr. 267 A, 269D; see Blass, Att. Bereds. τ. 78.

ἐπιθυμεῖν οὗ ἐνδεές ἐστιν. Cp. Lysis 221 D τό ye ἐπιθυμοῦν, οὗ ἂν ἐνδεὲς 7, τούτου ἐπιθυμεῖ: Eryx. 405 Ε αἱ δ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαι πᾶσαι οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ ἔνδειαί τινων : Gorg. 496». A similar theory is implied in PAileb. 36 A ὁ κενούμενος... ἐπιθυμεῖ τῶν ἐναντίων ἢ πάσχει" Kevoupevos yap ἐρᾷ πληροῦσθαϊ (which also illustrates the use of ἐρᾶν and ἐπιθυμεῖν as synonyms). Cp. also Isocr. 276, 219 a (quoted below, on 200 c).

200 B Oavpacrés...ds. For os thus separated from its adverb, ep. Phaedo 95 a, 99», Theact. 157 Ὁ. Thus Bast’s suspicions as to the soundness of the text were unfounded.

El γὰρ καὶ κτλ. In this sentence we have an ex. of anacoluthon : after the protasis the sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis (ἴσως... λέγω), then the protasis is resumed in an altered form (ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν τις κτλ.), which leads up finally to the apodosis in the form εἴποιμεν ἂν αὐτῷ κτλ. The main purpose of the whole paragraph is to guard against a possible misunderstanding as to the nature of βούλησις and ἐπιθυμία which might arise from carelessness in analyzing the sense of popular phraseology.

ταῦτα οἰηθείη. ταῦτα and πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα are accusatives of “‘remoter object” with οἰηθείη, “with regard to these and all similar cases.”

B

σ

92 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [200 c

που τίς ἂν ἐπιθυμήσειεν; ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν τις λέγῃ ὅτι ἐγὼ ὑγιαίνων nn nm A βούλομαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, καὶ πλουτῶν βούλομαι καὶ πλουτεῖν, καὶ 2 θ n > Ὁ ἡ AW ” xn > aA ed uA ἣν. ον' θ ἐπιθυμῶ αὐτῶν τούτων ἃ ἔχω, εἴποιμεν ἂν αὐτῷ ὅτι σύ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, n ͵ Ν πλοῦτον κεκτημένος καὶ ὑγίειαν καὶ ἰσχὺν βούλει καὶ εἰς τὸν ", n a a an t ἔπειτα χρόνον ταῦτα κεκτῆσθαι, ἐπεὶ ἐν τῷ ye viv παρόντι, ” , ” so” , - oe n ΄ “ ᾽ εἴτε βούλει εἴτε μή, ἔχεις" σκόπει οὖν, ὅταν τοῦτο λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐπι- an an QA lal θυμῶ τῶν παρόντων, εἰ ἄλλο τι λέγεις ἢ τόδε, ὅτι βούλομαι τὰ νῦν a am παρόντα καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον παρεῖναι. ἄλλο τι ὁμολογοῖ ἄν; Συμφάναι ἔφη τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα. εἰπεῖν δὴ τὸν Σωκράτη, Οὐκοῦν - n nr + τοῦτό γ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκείνον ἐρᾶν, ὃ οὔπω ἕτοιμον αὐτῷ ἐστὶν οὐδὲ ἔχει, TO a an * eis τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον ταῦτα εἶναι αὐτῷ σῳζόμενα καὶ « ἀεὶ» n ¥ παρόντα; Πάνυ ye, φάναι. Kai οὗτος dpa καὶ ἄλλος πᾶς ὁ ἐπι- n a n a ww θυμῶν τοῦ μὴ ἑτοίμου ἐπιθυμεῖ Kal τοῦ μὴ παρόντος, καὶ ὃ μὴ ἔχει 200 © καὶ πλουτεῖν Β: πλουτεῖν Τ' D ἔχεις Τ: ἔχῃς Β ὁμολογοῖς b: χ xn podoy ὁμολογοῖ᾽ Steph. οὐκοῦν δὴ pr. T vo...mapdvra 560]. Bdhm. Sz. τὸ T: τὰ B: τὸ τοῦ cj. Usener ταῦτα: τοιαῦτα Liebhold σῳζόμενα 860]. Liebhold καὶ TW, Bt.: μοι B: τὰ νῦν Vindob. 21: τὰ μὴ Sauppe: μὴ Rettig: οἱ Voeg. : ἤτοι cj. Usener: dei Schirlitz: καὶ ἀεὶ scripsi μοι παρόντα 560]. Herm. J.-U. Hug E ὁ ἄλλος T

200 C βούλομαι...καὶ ἐπιθυμῶς The point here emphasized is that βούλησις and ἐπιθυμία, when their sense is investigated, are found to apply only to the future (εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον), not to the present (ἐν τῷ παρόντι). For investi- gation shows that “I wish for what I have” is really an abbreviated phrase for “I wish to continue having in the future what I now at present have” (βούλομαι τὰ viv παρόντα παρεῖναι). For the force of βούλησις, ep. Isocr. Hel. 219A τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἄλλων, ὧν ἂν ἐν χρείᾳ γενώμεθα, τυχεῖν μόνον βουλόμεθα... τῶν δὲ καλῶν ἔρως ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεται, τοσούτῳ μείζω τοῦ βούλεσθαι ῥώμην ἔχων, ὅσῳπερ καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα κρεῖττον ἐστίν (with which cp. also 206 D infra).

200 D ἄλλο τι ὁμολογοῖ ἄν; For the interrogative ἄλλο τι, ἄλλο τι ἤ, See Meno 82 ὁ (with Thompson’s note) ; Prot. 353 c (with Adam’s note).

Οὐκοῦν τοῦτό γ᾽ ἐστὶν κτλ. The main construction is rightly explained by Stallb.: “τὸ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα yp. «rd. relativo pronomini per epexegesin ad- duntur, nec assentior Riickerto interpunctionem post αὐτῷ ἐστιν inferenti”: τὸ is in the nominative, where we should rather expect τοῦ in apposition to ἐκείνου, owing to assimilation to 6. For the reading of the last words in the sentence, see crit. n. Rettig reads μὴ παρόντα “in hypothetisch-causalem Sinne.” More attractive is Usener’s excision of the words μοι παρόντα, adopted by Hug. The objection to καὶ, printed by Burnet, is that it fails to supply an explanation of B’s μοι: hence I prefer to read καὶ ἀεὶ, supposing that an abbreviated καὶ blending with ἀεὶ might account for both variants.

200 BH Καὶ otros κτλ. οὗτος represents the typical τις and ἄνθρωπος of 2000; and ἄλλος πᾶς serves to generalise, cp. 192 Β.

201 8] ZYMTIOZION 93

καὶ ὃ μὴ ἔστιν αὐτὸς καὶ οὗ ἐνδεής ἐστι, τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄττα ἐστὶν ὧν ἡ ἐπιθυμία τε καὶ ὁ ἔρως ἐστίν; Πάνυ γ᾽, εἰπεῖν. Ἴθι δή, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀνομολογησώμεθα τὰ εἰρημένα. ἄλλο τι ἔστιν ὁ "Epos πρῶτον μὲν τινῶν, ἔπειτα τούτων ὧν ἂν ἔνδεια παρῇ αὐτῷ; Ναί, φάναι. "Ent δὴ τούτοις ἀναμνήσθητι τίνων ἔφησθα ἐν τῷ 201 λόγῳ εἶναι τὸν "Ερωτα" εἰ δὲ βούλει, ἐγώ σε ἀναμνήσω. οἶμαι

γάρ σε οὑτωσί πως εἰπεῖν, ὅτι τοῖς θεοῖς κατεσκευάσθη τὰ πράγ- ματα δι’ ἔρωτα καλῶν: αἰσχρῶν γὰρ οὐκ εἴη ἔρως. οὐχ οὑτωσί

mas ἔλεγες ; πον γάρ, φάναι τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα. Kat ἐπιεικῶς γ᾽ ἔλεγες, ὦ ἑταῖρε, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη" καὶ εἰ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, ἄλλο τι ὁ "ἕως κάλλους ἂν εἴη ἔρως, αἴσχους δ᾽ οὔ; Ὡμολόγει. Οὐκοῦν ὡμολόγηται, οὗ ἐνδεής ἐστι καὶ μὴ ἔχει, τούτου ἐρᾶν; Ναί,Β Κ εἰπεῖν. *Evdens ἄρ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐκ ἔχει ὁ "ἔρως κάλλος. ᾿Ανάγκη, ~ φάναι. Τί δέ; τὸ ἐνδεὲς κάλλους καὶ μηδαμῇ κεκτημένον κάλλος - dpa λέγεις σὺ καλὸν εἶναι; Οὐ δῆτα. "Ere οὖν ὁμολογεῖς "Epwra ; καλὸν εἶναι, εἰ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει; καὶ τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα εἰπεῖν Kuv- δυνεύω, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐδὲν εἰδέναι ὧν τότε εἶπον. Kal μὴν καλῶς,

sie

200 E τε καὶ BT: xai W ἀνομολογησόμεθα W ἂν ἔνδεια κτὰ. (usque>: ad 213 5 ὅτι) exstat in Oxyr. Pap. 843 παρην O.-P. 201 Α δι᾽ ἔρωτος 0.-P.: δι’ ἔρωτα O.-P. corr. ἔρως BT O.-P.: ὁ ἔρως W γ᾽ ἔλεγες scripsi : ye λέγεις libri, edd.: ye Néye[e]s Ο.-Ῥ. ἄλλο τι ἢ O.-P. corr., Ven. 184 Vind 21 Β ἔχει W: ἔχῃ BT του[τ]ου O.-P. corr.: rov O.-P. ὦ Swxpares κινδυ- veva ().-",

ἔνδεια παρῇς: This sounds like a jocular contradiction in terms: in Eros there is a plentiful lack.

201 Α ἔφησθα ἐν τῷ λόγῳ. See 1978 : cp. Isocr. Hel. 219 a τῶν δὲ καλῶν ἔρως ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεται.

ἐπιεικώς γ᾽ reyes. For ἐπιεικῶς, probe, recte, ep. Rep. 4318, Laws 635 a. I have ventured to read ἔλεγες for the traditional λέγεις. In the present context λέγεις seems objectionable because of its ambiguity, since “You say well” would more naturally be taken to refer to A.’s reply (εἶπον γάρ) than to his previous statement. This objection is not touched by Rettig’s defence of the tense: “auch das Prisens ist ganz an seinem Platze. Da Agathon bestitigt, dass er sich so gedussert habe, wie Sokrates angebe, so gilt seine obige Aeusserung auch jetzt.”

201 B od...xal μὴ ἔχει. “Sic dictum est ut ὅ apud ἔχει repetendum est” (Stallb.).

τὸ ἐνδεὲς κάλλους. With reference to this Proclus (in Tim. p. 128) com- ments: ἐνδεὲς κάλλους ἐν συμποσίῳ προσεῖπε τὸ μὴ πρώτως καλὸν ἀλλὰ μετέχον κάλλους: cp. ἐδ. p. 110. For the tautologous form of expression, cp. 18 ἃ τ. ; Eur. Jon 680 αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἄπαις ἦ καὶ λελειμμένη τέκνων : id. Heracl. 530, ete. (see Vahlen op. Acad. τι. 366).

Κινδυνεύω.. εἶπον. εἰδέναι is past, not present, in sense.

Kol piv...ctres. Not “recte dixisti” (Ficinus), but “praeclare dixisti”

σ

D

94 TAATQNOZ [201 0

> a. > = > γε εἶπες, φάναι, ὦ ᾿Αγάθων. ἀλλὰ σμικρὸν ἔτι εἰπέ" τἀγαθὰ ov ἊΣ of cw an na καὶ καλὰ δοκεῖ σοι εἶναι; "Ewouye. Ki dpa ὁ "ἔρως τῶν καλών a na wa > τ ἐνδεής ἐστι, τὰ δὲ ἀγαθὰ καλά, κἂν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐνδεὴς εἴη. “Kyo, ἢ Ω Y ) >

φάναι, ὦ Σώκρατες, σοὶ οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην ἀντιλέγειν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως

n ἢ ‘ ἐχέτω ὡς σὺ λέγεις. Οὐ μὲν οὖν TH ἀληθείᾳ, φάναι, ὦ φιλούμενε

t

᾿Αγάθων, δύνασαι ἀντιλέγειν, ἐπεὶ Σωκράτει ye οὐδὲν χαλεπόν.

XXII. Καὶ σὲ μέν γε ἤδη ἐάσω" τὸν δὲ λόγον τὸν περὶ τοῦ μέν γε ἤδη

wv gy > \ a a nN a 7 Ἔρωτος, ὕν ποτ᾽ ἤκουσα γυναικὸς Μαντινικῆς Acotipas, ἣ ταῦτα ¥ ‘ τε σοφὴ ἦν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά, καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις ποτὲ θυσαμένοις πρὸ n n a Ἁ, τοῦ λοιμοῦ δέκα ἔτη ἀναβολὴν ἐποίησε τῆς νόσου, ἣ δὴ καὶ ἐμὲ τὰ

201 Ο εἶπας O.-P. Vat. 227 φιλούμενε: φιλε O.-P. (οὐ) δύνασαι μ Sauppe Ὦ μαντινικῆς BT O.-P.: μαντικῆς W vulg. Διοτινας O.-P. τὴς ἦν : εἰναι Ο.-Ρ1 θυσαμένη Steph. δεκέτη Bdhm. Sz. [εἸποιησατο νοσου O.-P.

(Wolf). What Socr. alludes to is not A.’s foregoing reply, but his oration (cp. 1988, 199c); and the point of his remark is to suggest that formal beauty of diction does not necessarily involve the more essential beauty of ἀλήθεια.

201 C τὰ δὲ ἀγαθὰ καλά. For the coincidence of these two concepts, cp. Prot. 360 8, Hipp. Maj. 297 B, 0, Phileb. 648 ff. It might be near the truth to say that τὸ καλόν is neither less nor more than τὸ ἀγαθὸν in its external aspect, “goodness” as apprehended by the aesthetic faculty, or goodness qua attractive and soul-stirring. See also Plotin. de pulcr. p. 46; Procl. in I Ale. p. 329.

᾿Εγώ...σοὶ...«σὺ. The personal pronouns are, by position and repetition, emphatic. Agathon means to imply that he yields not so much to the force of argument as to the wordplay of Socrates’ invincible dialectic: cp. 2168 infra: Ken. Symp. v. 8.

201 Ὁ Καὶ σὲ... ἐάσω. “You I will now release”: this is said with reference to the phrase used in 199 B ἔτι... πάρες μοι ᾿Αγάθωνα κτλ.

Μαντινικῆς Διοτίμας. Probably both these names are meant to be ety- mologically significant : the resemblance of the adj. to μαντικὴ is patent (in fact some MSS. give μαντικῆς, and Ficin. fatidica muliere), while as illustrating the omen of Διοτίμα one might cite Soph. fr. 226 N. σοφὸς yap οὐδεὶς πλὴν ὃν ἂν τιμᾷ θεός. See further Introd. § 1v.c. Hug quotes an imitative passage from Dio. Chrys. 1. p. 59 R. μῦθον...ὃν ἐγώ ποτε ἤκουσα γυναικὸς Ἠλείας ἢ ᾿Αρκαδίας ὑπὲρ ‘Hpaxdéous διηγουμένης. See also Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. 4, p. 588 ; Clem. Al. Strom. vi. p. 631 B.

πρὸ τοῦ λοιμοῦ κτλ. For the Great Plague at Athens in 430 B.c. see Thue. 1. 47, Bury H. G. p. 407. That the plague had been rife elsewhere for some time previously is implied by Thue. 2. 6. For similar instances of the averting or postponing of impending evils by divine or prophetic agency, see Hdt. 1, 91 τρία yap ἔτεα ἐπανεβάλετο (80. ὁ Λοξίης) τὴν Σαρδίων ἅλωσιν:

201 Ε] ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΝ 9ὅ

ἐρωτικὰ ἐδίδαξεν,---ὃν οὖν ἐκείνη ἔλεγε λόγον, πειράσομαι ὑμῖν διελθεῖν ἐκ τῶν ὡμολογημένων ἐμοὶ καὶ ᾿Αγάθωνι, αὐτὸς én’ ἐμαυ- τοῦ, ὅπως ἂν δύνωμαι. δεῖ δή, ὦ ᾿Αγάθων, ὥσπερ σὺ διηγήσω, διελθεῖν αὐτὸν πρῶτον, τίς ἐστιν ὁ "Ἔρως καὶ ποῖός τις, ἔπειτα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. δοκεῖ οὖν μοι ῥᾷστον εἶναι οὕτω διελθεῖν, ὥς ποτέ με ἡ ξένη ἀνακρίνουσα διήει. σχεδὸν γάρ τι καὶ ἐγὼ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἕτερα τοιαῦτα ἔλεγον οἷάπερ νῦν πρὸς ἐμὲ ᾿Αγάθων, ὡς εἴη ὁ "Epws μέγας θεός, εἴη δὲ τῶν καλῶν: ἤλεγχε δή με τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις οἷσπερ ἐγὼ τοῦτον, ὡς οὔτε καλὸς εἴη κατὰ τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον οὔτε ἀγαθός. καὶ ἐγώ, Πῶς λέγεις, ἔφην, ὦ Διοτίμα; αἰσχρὸς ἄρα

201 Ὁ λογον εκεινὴ ἔλεγεν Ὁ.-Ρ. ἐπ᾽ Coisl. corr. Paris 1642 O.-P., Bast: ἀπ’ BIW δεῖ δὴ TW O.-P.: δείλη B διηγήσω BT O.-P.: δὴ ἡγήσω Sz.

Bt.: καθηγήσω Hirschig: ὑφηγήσω Sauppe: διήρησαι Usener: ἡγήσω olim Herm. ἘΞ ποῖός: οποιὸς O.-P. ποτ᾽ ἐμὲ vulg. γάρ: δὲ Ο.-Ρ. εφην

λεγεις O.-P. αἱσχροῖ »] 0.-P.

Athen. x11. 602 B: Euseb. praep. evang. v. 35, p. 233 B, c: cep. Virg. Aen. vu. 313 ff, vit. 398 ff. (where “decem annos” is the interval named). A specially interesting parallel, as mentioning the same 10 years’ interval, is Laws 642D ἀκήκοας ὡς Ἐπιμενίδης γέγονεν ἀνὴρ θεῖος...ἐλθὼν δὲ πρὸ τῶν Περσικῶν δέκα ἔτεσι πρότερον παρ᾽ ὑμᾶς... θυσίας τε ἐθύσατο τινας...καὶ δὴ καὶ φοβουμένων τὸν Περσικὸν ᾿Αθηναίων στόλον εἶπεν ὅτι δέκα μὲν ἐτῶν οὐχ ἥξουσιν κτλ.

αὐτὸς én’ ἐμαυτοῦ. Riickert alone retains the lection da’ ἐμαυτοῦ. Cp. I Ale. 1148 εἰ μὲν βούλει, ἐρωτῶν pe, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ σέ, εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ λόγῳ διέξελθε: Soph. 217 0.

ὥσπερ σὺ διηγήσω. I think the traditional text, supported also by the Papyrus, may stand, taking διηγήσω to imply—with veiled contempt—a lengthy or meticulous disquisition. Schanz’s δὴ ἡγήσω is open to a double objection, (1) the repeated δὴ is unpleasing, and (2) ἡγήσω is a feeble word to apply to Agathon’s dogmatic exposition (in 195 a) of the rules of method. Sauppe’s ὑφηγήσω is appropriate enough (cp. Gorg. 455 D, Crat. 392 Ὁ), but does not explain the corruption.

201 ἘΞ διελθεῖν αὐτὸν κτλ. Here Socrates cites almost verbatim the language used by Agathon in 195 a λόγῳ διελθεῖν... δόσεις. Observe however the significant addition by Socr. of the words τίς ἐστιν : he requires a state- ment of the essential notion (ris ἐστι) as well as of the attributes (ποῖός τις).

εἴη δὲ τῶν καλῶν. The genitive is not masc. nor one of origin (=e τῶν καλῶν) as Wolf thought, but as Stallb. rightly notes “ καλῶν pendet ex “Epas, quod etiam hic positum est ut p. 196D”: cp. 201 A, 204, for similar genn. of the object.

αἰσχρὸς ἄρα κτλ. Socrates represents himself (ironically) as unversed in the rules of logic, and habitually confusing contradictory with contrary notions (οὐ-καλός with αἰσχρός) : for the distinction, cp. Soph. 257 B, 257 D ff. ; Euthyd. 283 B, 285 a ff., Cratyl. 429 B ff.

E

96 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [201 Ε

ὁ "Ἔρως ἐστὶ καὶ κακός; καὶ ἥ, Οὐκ εὐφημήσεις ; ἔφη" ἢ οἴει, ὅ τι 202 ἂν μὴ καλὸν ἢ, ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι αἰσχρόν; Μάλιστά ye. Ἦ \ a \ / > θέ A ᾽ w 6 g ” \ καὶ ἂν μὴ σοφόν, ἀμαθές; ἢ οὐκ ἤσθησαι ὅτι ἔστι τι μεταξὺ σοφίας καὶ ἀμαθίας; Τί τοῦτο; Τὸ ὀρθὰ δοξάξειν [καὶ] ἄνευ τοῦ yw 4 na 3 4 > » a "ἢ 3 / ΕΞ. ἔχειν λόγον δοῦναι οὐκ οἶσθ᾽, ἔφη, ὅτι οὔτε ἐπίστασθαί ἐστιν" ἄλογον γὰρ πρᾶγμα πῶς ἂν εἴη ἐπιστήμη; οὔτε ἀμαθία" τὸ γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος τυγχάνον πῶς ἂν εἴη ἀμαθία; ἔστι δὲ δή που τοιοῦτον ἡ ὀρθὴ δόξα, μεταξὺ φρονήσεως καὶ ἀμαθίας. ᾿Αληθῆ, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, Β λέγεις. Μὴ τοίνυν ἀνάγκαζε ὃ μὴ καλόν ἐστιν αἰσχρὸν εἶναι, δὲ a Ν ἢ θ la 4 Ὁ δὲ Ν ‘ “EE 2 ὃ Ν (a μηδὲ ὃ μὴ ἀγαθόν, κακόν. οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸν “Epwra ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖς μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθὸν μηδὲ καλόν, μηδέν TL μᾶλλον οἴου δεῖν ΕΣ \ rd ed ᾿- ᾿ “4 2 , td mw τ αὐτὸν αἰσχρὸν καὶ κακὸν εἶναι, ἀλλά τι μεταξύ, ἔφη, τούτοιν. Καὶ μήν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ὁμολογεῖταί γε παρὰ πάντων μέγας θεὸς εἶναι. TS} ‘\ ἐδό yw ΄ λέ A ἣν n 186 a ira av μὴ εἰδότων, ἔφη, πάντων λέγεις, ἢ καὶ τῶν εἰδότων; Ἐυμ- ΄ Ν ἱ Von ΄ Ν a ” ” 53 > τὰ πάντων μὲν οὖν. Kal} γελάσασα, Καὶ πῶς ἄν, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες,

201E ἔφη: ἢ : εφην Ο.-Ρ.1 202 A ἂν (post καὶ): (6) ἂν Ast Mdvg. Sz.: 6 τι ἂν Steph. Hirschig: ὅτι dv, deleto καὶ, Reynders: ἂν οἴοιο Hommel τὸ ὀρθὰ δοξάζειν T O.-P.: τὸ τὰ ὀρθὰ ὃ. W: τὸ ὀρθοδοξάζειν B καὶ om. O.-P., del. Stallb. Bdhm. Sz. rosouro O.-P.: τοιοῦτόν τι Hirschig ἡ ὀρθὴ δόξα del. Bdhm. Β rovrow εφη O.-P. ye BT O.-P.: por W

202 A Ἦ καὶ dv μὴ κτλ. “Ἢ. 68. ἄν τι μὴ σοφόν. Nam τι e superiore 6 τι

facile intelligas” (Stallb.),

| Td ὀρθὰ δοξάζειν κτλ. This distinction between δύξα and ἐπιστήμη is much

' insisted on by Plato ; see esp. ep. 477 fi; Afeno 99 a: cp. Isocr, Hel. 209 a. For τὸ ἔχειν Adyov δοῦναι as the distinctive mark of ἐπιστήμη, cp. Afeno 98 a; but this definition is criticised unfavourably in Z'heaet. 201 ὁ ft. (see Zeller, Plato, pp. 171 8). I bracket καὶ before ἄνευ: if retained, we must render with Riickert (and Hug) “auch ohne Rechenschaft geben zu kénnen.” For this “intensive” use of καί, see Thompson on Afeno 71 8B. Rettig defends the Bodleian ὀρθοδοξάζειν thus “ dpa δοξάζειν ginge auf Einzelnes und Thatsiich- liches, nicht auf den Begriff als solchen und die geistige Kigenschaft” : but this distinction is imaginary, and there is no other evidence, in Plato or elsewhere, for the existence of this compound, Aristotle’s word (Z. WV. vi. 8. 4) being ὀρθοδοξέω. Possibly we should write καὶ (ὄντα) ἄ., cp. Rep. 413 a.

μεταξὺ φρονήσεως κτλ. Cp. ftep. 477 A μεταξύ τι.. ἀγνοίας τε καὶ ἐπιστήμης:

ib. 418 Ὁ.

202 Β Μὴ τοίνυν ἀνάγκαζε. “I. α. μὴ ἀναγκαῖον νόμιζε, ν. Heindorf ad Euthyd. (sic) p. 432.c” (Stallb.). For this use to denote logical compulsion, cp. also Cratyl. 432 B μὴ ἀνάγκαζε πάντ᾽ ἔχειν τὰ γράμματα... «ἀλλ᾽ ἔα κτλ. : Parmen. 188 0.

Τῶν μὴ εἰδότων. Se. παρὰ: cp. Crat. 408 p, Soph. 243 Ὁ, etc. A similar distinction had been drawn twice by Socr. himself, see 194 B ff., 199 a.

202 ἢ] ΣΎΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 97

€ tal , Ν oporoyoito μέγας θεὸς εἶναι παρὰ τούτων, οἵ φασιν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ Ο

\ 4 a θεὸν εἶναι; Τίνες οὗτοι; ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ. Els μέν, ἔφη, σύ, μία δ᾽ ἐγώ. ’ \ 4 n κἀγὼ εἶπον, Πῶς τοῦτο, ἔφην, λέγεις; Kal ἥ, “Padiws, ἔφη. λέγε 4 > ΄ 6 \ \ ὐδ ig ὦ Ν , A yap μοι, ob πάντας θεοὺς φὴς εὐδαίμονας εἶναι καὶ καλούς; ἢ uh ” \ ΄, , ᾽ κα , a 2 τολμήσαις ἄν τινα μὴ φάναι καλόν τε καὶ εὐδαίμονα θεῶν εἶναι; β ; Ma Ai οὐκ ἔγωγ᾽. ἔφην. Evdaipovas δὲ δὴ λέγεις οὐ τοὺς τἀγαθὰ * Ν 5 καὶ τὰ καλὰ κεκτημένους ; Πάνυ γε. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν "Ερωτά γε ὧμο- ’ ᾽ n a nn ΩΣ an λόγηκας δι’ ἔνδειαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν Kal καλῶν ἐπιθυμεῖν αὐτῶν 4 - lal τούτων ὧν ἐνδεής ἐστιν. ᾿Ὡμολόγηκα γάρ. Πῶς dav οὖν θεὸς [ἢ oe n fal ae a ” > - Ψ εἴη ὅ γε τῶν καλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἄμοιρος; Οὐδαμῶς, ὥς γ᾽ ἔοικεν. Ὅ a Ld wv cra \ \ "ER iJ 6 Ν ¥ Ἢ pas οὖν, ἔφη, ὅτι καὶ σὺ "Ερωτα οὐ θεὸν νομίξεις ; XXIII. Τί οὖν ἄν, ἔφην, εἴη ὁ "Ἔρως; θνητός; “Ηκιστά γε.

202 C ἔφην om. O.-P. καὶ καλούς 560]. Bdhm. Sz. καλόν τε καὶ 560].

Bdhm. Sz. θεῶν BT O.-P.: θεὸν pr. W τοὺς τἀγαθὰ BT Stob. O.-P.: τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τὰ καλὰ B O.-P., J.-U.: καλὰ TW Stob., Sz. Bt. D τῶν καλῶν καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν Stob. πῶς δὰν scripsi: πῶς ἂν Β Stob. O.-P., J.-U.: πῶς δ᾽ ἂν TW, Bt. τῶν TW Stob. 0.-P.: γ᾽ dv Β ὥστ᾽ ἔοικεν Stob. τί οὖν; ἔφην εἴη ἂν ὁ "Ἔρως θνητός; cj. Steph. ὁ ἔρως εἴη Stob. ἔφην Β

Stob., J.-U. Sz. Bt.: ἔφη TW O.-P., Jn.

202 Ο κἀγὼ εἶπον.. ἔφην. We might avoid this tautology (for which cp. 177 A) by reading κἀγώ, Εἶπον πῶς κτὰλ., construing εἶπον as 1st aor. imper., as in Meno 71 Ὁ. Cp. Rep. 388 D ἀλλὰ σαφέστερον εἰπὲ τί λέγεις.

Ῥᾳδίως. Sc. τοῦτο λέγω. For the use of ῥᾳδίως with λέγω and the like, often with a bad meaning, of ill-timed lightness, cp. d/feno 94 (with Thompson’s note), Rep. 377 B, 378.4. Here, however, the meaning is probably ῥᾷδιόν ἐστιν ὃ λέγω (so Rettig), or as Stallb. “sic ut res facilem habet expli- cationem”: cp. Rep. 475 Ἑ ἀλλὰ πῶς αὐτὸ λέγεις ; Οὐδαμῶς, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ῥᾳδίως πρός γε ἄλλον" σὲ δὲ οἶμαι κτλ. It would also be possible to suppose that Diotima is, playfully, adapting her reply to the form rather than the sense of Socr.’s question : “In what way do you speak thus?” “I speak it lightly” (without compunction): 1.6. the λέγω to be supplied with ῥᾳδίως may mean “T say, utter the word,” whereas the λέγεις of Socr. meant “do you mean.”

εὐδαίμονας εἶναι κτλ. Badham’s excision of both καὶ καλούς and καλόν τε καὶ is plausible: if the words are sound, we must assume the stress in each clause to be laid on the terms here in question, εὐδαίμονας... εὐδαίμονα.

Εἰὐδαίμονας δὲ δὴ κτλ. Cp. the phrases used by Agathon in 195 a.

202 Ὁ ᾿Ὡμολόγηκα γάρ. Socr. represents himself as having already con- ceded to Diotima exactly as much as Agathon had conceded to him (cp. 201 Ε σχεδὸν γάρ τι κτλ.): for A.’s concession of the point here in question, see 200 A, E.

ἄμοιρος. This word had already been employed by Agathon, 197 Ὁ (cp. 181 c); it is a poetical word rarely used by Plato elsewhere, except in Laws (693 8, etc.).

Β. P. 7

“i;

UA

98 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [202 Ὁ

τ

᾿Αλλὰ τί μήν; “Ὥσπερ τὰ πρότερα ἔφην, μεταξὺ θνητοῦ καὶ ἀθανάτου. Τί οὖν, ὦ Διοτίμα; Δαίμων μέγας, ὦ Σώκρατες" καὶ

A cal XN , ¥ 4 an \ a / 4

Ε ἐὰν νον. μα μὰ δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ. Τίνα, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, δύναμιν ὁ ἔχον; ‘Eppnveiov καὶ διαπορθμεῦον θεοῖς τὰ παρ'

Pr,"

ἀνθρώπων καὶ dvOpdrross. τὰ παρὰ θεῶν, τῶν μὲν τὰς δέήσεις καὶ dugias, τῶν δὲ τὰς ἐπὶ τάξεις τε καὶ ἐμοιβὰς [τῶν θυσιῶν), ἐν μέσῳ δὲ ὃν ἀμφοτέρων συμπληροῖ, ὥστε τὸ πᾶν αὐτὸ αὑτῷ ξυνδεδέσθαι.

202 B τε καὶ BT O.-P.: καὶ W Stob. τίνα δ᾽ ἦν Stob. διαπροθ- pevov Ο.-Ρ. θεοῖς τε τὰ Stob. τῶν θυσιῶν om. Pollux, 560]. Sz. (τὸ) ἐν μέσῳ δέον Vermehren ep μεσω O.-P.: ἐμμέσῳ Lobeck δὲ bv: δὴ ὃν Peipers: ὁδεῦον cj. anon. ὃν (ra) Bergk (τὰ ὅλα) συμπληροῖ Reynders: (ἀμφοτέ- pous) σ. Bdhm. τὸ πᾶν ὥστε αὐτὸ Orelli αὐτὸ om, Stob,

“Ὥσπερ τὰ πρότερα. Viz. the exx. of a mean between extremes given in 202 a, B.

Aalpov péyas. The epithet serves to point the correction of Socrates’ definition, μέγας θεός (202 B). Cp. Olyinpiod. in Alezb. I. p. 22 “8aipova” δὲ ὡς μέσον αὐτὸν προσαγορεύει: μέσος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ "Ἔρως οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας καὶ ἐρωμένου καὶ ἐραστοῦ: “péyav” δέ, ἐπειδὴ ὑπὲρ αἴσθησιν καὶ νοερῶς ἐνεργεῖ. Procl. in Alcib. J. p. 64 Cr., p. 66. For τὸ δαιμόνιον as μεταξύ, cp. Eur. Troad. 55—6: Med. 1391: Hel. 1137 6 τι θεὸς ἢ μὴ θεὸς ἢ τὸ μέσον κτλ. (see Rohde, Psyche τι. 249 n. 1).

202 ἘΞ ‘Eppyvetov κτλ. For the term ἑρμηνεύειν to describe the mediating office of δαίμονες, cp. pin. 985 B ἑρμηνεύεσθαι (δαίμονας) πρὸς ἀλλήλους τε καὶ τοὺς...θεοὺς πάντας τε καὶ πάντας, Hommel bids us take ἑρμηνεῦον with ἀνθρ. τὰ παρὰ θεῶν (as “eiusdem atque Ἕ ρμῆς radicis”) and διαπορθμεῦον with θεοῖς τὰ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπων (the office of the πορθμεύς, Charon, being “ animas e terra ad sedes deorum transvehere”). This is probably right ; but in any case it is a mistake to regard the two words as synonymous, as do L. and 8, (s. ν. διαπορθμεύω, “to translate from one tongue into another, to cnterpret”).

ἀμοιβὰς [τῶν θυσιῶν] ἀμοιβή as a “return-present” (in transactions between gods and men) is used in Hom. Od. 1. 318 σοὶ δ᾽ ἄξιον ἔσται ἀμοιβῆς (80. τὸ δῶρον) : 7b. 11. 58 ἄλλοισι δίδου χαρίεσσαν ἀμοιβὴν...ἀγακλειτῆς éxa- τόμβης: cp. Eur. Or. 467 οἷς,.«ἀττέδωκ᾽ ἀμοιβὰς οὐ καλάς. Pollux (νι. 187) when quoting our passage ignores τῶν θυσιῶν. Cp. also Procl. in Alcib. I. p. 46, 63: Plut. de Js. et Os. 26, p. 361B 6 τε Πλάτων ἑρμηνευτικὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον ὀνομάζει γένος καὶ διακονικὸν ἐν μέσῳ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων, εὐχὰς μὲν ἐκεῖ καὶ δεήσεις..-«ἀναπέμποντας, ἐκεῖθεν δὲ μαντεῖα δεῦρο καὶ δόσεις ἀγαθῶν φέροντας : Apuleius de deo Socr. 6 hos Graeci nomine δαίμονας nuncupant, inter homines caelicolasque vectores hinc precum inde donorum, qui ultro citro portant hinc petitiones inde suppetias, ceu quidam utrisque interpretes et salutigeri. per hos eosdem, ut Plato in symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata et magorum varia miracula omnesque praesagiorum species reguntur: see also Plut. de or. def. 4154; Philo Jud. de somn, p. 586 ἢ (δαίμονες) ras τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπικελεύσεις τοῖς ἐκγόνοις, καὶ τὰς τῶν ἐκγόνων χρείας τῷ πατρὶ διαγγέλλουσι.

ἐν μέσῳ δὲ ὃν. This calls for no alteration (such as is suggested by

208 Α] ΣΥΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 99

διὰ τούτου καὶ ἡ μαντικὴ πᾶσα χωρεῖ καὶ ἡ “τῶν ἱερέων τέχνη τῶν τε περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶ τὰς Σελετὰς καὶ τὰς ἐπῳδὰς καὶ τὴν 203 μαγγανείαν ππᾶσαν καὶ ἱγοητείαν. θεὸς δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ οὐ μίγνύται, ἀλλὰ διὰ τούτου πᾶσά ἐστιν ἡ ὁμιλία καὶ ἡ διάλεκτος θεοῖς πρὸς

ἀνθρώπους « καὶ πρὸς θεοὺς ἀνθρώποις», καὶ ἐγῥηγορόσι καὶ

202 E ἱερῶν Stob. 203 Α τὰς τελετὰς B Stob. O.-P., J.-U.: τελετὰς TW, Bt. καὶ ras ἐπῳδὰς... γοητείαν secl. Hug καὶ τὴν...γοητείαν 560]. Voeg. μαγγανείαν Geel J.-U. Sz.: μαντείαν BT Stob. O.-P.: μαγείαν Bdhm. Bt. ἀνθρώπους (καὶ πρὸς θεοὺς ἀν θρώποις) Wolf Usener Sz.: d. (καὶ ἀνθρώποις πρὸς θεοὺς) Heusde: ἀνθρώποις Stobaei P εγληγοροσίσἼ]ι O.-P.

Vermehren): with συμπληροῖ sc. ἀμφοτέρους. The μέσον serves as the δεσμός by which the extremes (here θνητοί and ἀθάνατοι) are united into an organic whole (ὅλον). Cp. Procl. in Ale. 1. pp. 69, 72, 77.

203. Α rds τελετὰς. “Ritual”: ep. Rep. 365 A λύσεις re καὶ καθαρμοὶ ἀδικη- pdroy...as δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν : Phaedr, 244 5 (with Thompson’s note): Laws 738 ὁ θυσίας τελεταῖς συμμίκτους. That καθαρμοί (and rederai) included περιθειώ- σεις, λουτρά, περιρράνσεις appears from Cratyl. 405 4. Rohde (Psyche τι. 70 n. 3) points out that “diese μάντεις entsprechen in allem Wesentlichen den Zaubern und Medicinmannern der Naturvélker. Wahrsager, Arzt, Zauberer, sind hier noch eine Person.” £.g. Apis in Aesch. Suppl. 260 ff.; cp. Eur. Heracl. 401, Phoen. 1255 ff., and the part played by Empedocles. In Hippocr. de morb. sucr. p. 591 the μάντεις and καθαρταί are witch-doctors, claiming control of the clements, as rain-makers, etc. (καθαρμοὺς προσφέροντες καὶ ἐπαοιδὰς.... περικαθαίρων καὶ payevor,..re καὶ θύων σελήνην τε καθαιρήσει καὶ ἥλιον ἀφανιεῖ καὶ χειμῶνα καὶ εὐδίην ποιήσει κτλ.) : cp. 197 Ο τ.

τὴν μαγγανείαν πᾶσαν. Geel’s correction μαγγανείαν is perhaps slightly preferable, on the ground of Platonic usage, to Badham’s payetay. Cp. Laws 908 ἢ ἐξ ὧν μάντεις τε κατασκευάζονται πολλοὶ καὶ περὶ πᾶσαν τὴν μαγγανείαν κεκινημένοι: td. 933 A ἄλλη δὲ (φαρμακεῖα) ἣ μαγγανείαις τέ τισι καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς καὶ καταδέσεσι λεγομέναις πείθει κτλ. (cp. 989 0): Gorg. 484 Α τὰ ἡμέτερα γράμματα καὶ μαγγανεύματα καὶ ἐπῳδάς : also [Dem.] xxv. 79 λαβὼν τὰ φάρμακα καὶ τὰς ἐπῴδας..«μαγγανεύει καὶ φενακίζει. Hug objects to γοητείαν, as elsewhere used by Plato in a bad sense. There is, however, no need to suppose that any of these terms are intended here to convey more than a neutral sense ; and to represent ἡ Μαντινική as a disbeliever in any of the arts of divination or wizardry would be less artistic than pedantic. Moreover, the language used here is supported by the echo it finds in the description of Eros below (203 D ad fin.) as δεινὸς γύης καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής. Ltep. 364 B, c shows Plato’s own low opinion of current μαντική, but Socrates was probably more credulous, see Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 9, 4. 15.

θεοῖς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους κτλ. Since the participles can neither be construed with θεοῖς, because of the sense, nor with ἀνθρώπους, because of the case, it is necessary to supply some such supplement as that adopted in the text. Rettig accepts Stallbaum’s explanation of the traditional text: “‘Quum enim

7—2

100 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [203 a

καθεύδουσι" Kal ὁ μὲν περὶ 9 τὰ τοιαῦτα σοφὸς δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ, ὁ δὲ ἄλλο τι capds ὧν ἢ περὶ τέχνὰς ἢ περὶ χεἱρουργίας. τινὰς βάναυσος. οὗτοι δὴ οἱ δαίμονες πολλοί τε καὶ παντόδαποί εἰσιν, εἷς δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ "Epos.

Πατρὸς δέ, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, τίνος ἐστὶ καὶ μητρός; Μακρότερον μέν, ἔφη, διηγήσασθαι" ὅμως δέ σοι ἐρῶ. ὅτε γὰρ ἐγένετο ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη,, «εἱστιῶντο οἱ θεοί, οἵ τε ἄλλοι καὶ ὁ TAS “Μήτιδος͵ vids, {ρος ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐδείπνησαν, προσαϊτήσουσα "ἴον δὲ δὴ εὐωχίας - οὔσης ἀφίκετο ἡ Πενία, καὶ ἦν περὶ τὰς θύρας. ὁ οὖν ἸΙόρος μεθυσθεὶς

203 A σοφὸς: opos 0.-P.: σφοδρὸς Stob. dv om. Stob. περὶ

β χειρουργίας Stob, O.-P.: χειρουργίας BTW, J.-U. Bt. αναυσους O.-P. πολλοί te Stob. O.-P.: πολλοὶ BTW τουτων- O.-P. ἐστὶ om. Stob. τίνος

ἐστὶ καὶ μητρός BW: καὶ μητρὸς τίνος ἐστι ΤΊ O.-P. (ἐστιν) Β εἱστιῶντο W bt, Hermog,, 8z.: ἵστιωντο O.-P.: ἡστιῶντο T, Bt.: ἡστιῶντο Β ol τε ἄλλοι θεοὶ καὶ Hermog. προσαιτήσουσα T O.-P.: προσαιτὴς οὖσα B: προσαῖτις

οὖσα Luseb. Origen

dicatur ὁμιλεῖν reve ct διαλέγεσθαί reve, etiam ὁμιλία καὶ διάλεκτος τινε vecte dici potuit. Et quum antea...perspicuitatis caussa usus esset praepositione πρὸς addito casu accusativo, nune ad legitimam constructionem revertens, neglecta grammatica diligentia, dativum post accusativum recte inferri potuit.” But at this rate one might justify anything in the way of distorted grammar ! Hug marks a lacuna after ἀνθρώπους. For the ref. to divine communications in sleep (“the visions of the head upon the bed”), cp. Pind. fr. 131. 3 ff. ; Rep. 571 v ff. (with Adam’s notes) ; Rohde, Psyche τ. 6 ff.

δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ. Compare the etymological definition (δαίμων -- δαήμων) in Cratyl. 398c. For Socrates as an example of the δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ, see 219 B.

περὶ τέχνας... βάναυσος. Cp. Theaet. 176 c, Laws 644 4; Arist. Phet. τ. 9. 1367" 31 (ἐλευθέρον σημεῖον) τὸ μηδεμίαν ἐργάζεσθαι βάναυσον τέχνην. The question as to why manual labour is held in contempt is asked in Rep. 590 Ο, and answered in /tep. 495 D (see Adam’s notes ad loc.).

οἱ δαίμονες. Other Platonic passages mentioning these intermediary beings are /tep. 392 a, 427 B, 617 D (with Adam’s note), Laws 713 v, 717 B. For later developments see esp. Plutarch (de defect. orac., de Is. et Os., de daem. Socr., etc.). Cp. Rohde, Psyche τ. 153.

Tlarpds δέ...τίνος κτλ. These are genitives of origin. Here we have it tacitly assumed that Phaedrus’s statement (178 B), that Eros is unbegotten, is untrue.

203 Β Πόρος. We find in Aleman fr. 16 (with the Schol. ὅτι τὸν Πόρον εἴρηκε Tov αὐτὸν τῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ “Ἡσιόδου μεμυθευμένῳ Xdet) a precedent for this personification of Πόρος. Πενία is personified by Aristophanes in the Plutus, passim. For Maris, see Hes. Theog. 886 Ζεὺς δὲ θεῶν βασιλεὺς πρώτην ἄλοχον θέτο Μῆτιν, | πλεῖστα θεῶν τε ἰδυῖαν ἰδὲ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων : (μῆτις is, in Epic, the especial attribute of Zeus, as μητιέτα): Mares was also an Orphic alias of

203 6] ZYMTIOZION 101

ae As

τοῦ νέκταρος. -οἶνρς γὰρ οὔπω ἦν----οΟἰς τὸν τοῦ Διὸς κῆπον εἰσελθὼν͵ βεβαρημένος᾽ ηὗδεν. ἡ οὖν Πενία ἐπιβουλεύουσα, διὰ τὴν αὐτῆς

Ἐπ

ἀπορίᾶν' παιδίον Πθοϊσασθαι ἐκ ποῦ ἀρῶ karaxhinenal te Tap" me ACO αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκύησε, τὸν Ἴβρωτας" “διὸ δὴ καὶ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης͵ ἀκό- ΕἾ

λόνθος" καὶ θεράπων γέγονεν ὁ Ἔρως, γεννηθεὶς ἐν τοῖς ἐκείνης

1s)

meucl Mole: καὶ ἅμα φύσει ἐρ ἐραστὴς ὧν περὶ τὸ καλὸν καὶ τῆς ᾽Αφρο- "

dirs ics Ee οὔσης. ἅτε οὖν Πόρου καὶ {Πείανα υἱὸς ὧν ὁ Ἔρως € ἐν τοιαύτῃ «τύχῃ κα δές τῆκὲ: πρῶτον μὲν πένης ἀεί ἐστι, καὶ πολλοῦ

203 Β εξελθων O.-P. ηὗδεν BTW: εὗδεν O.-P., al. σαϊδοποιητὰσ δαὶ Naber J.-U. C δὴ καὶ BT O.-P.: 84 W καὶ θεράπων : καὶ om. Orig.

ἐκείνων Orig. ἐραστὴς del. Bdhm. καλὸν καὶ BT O.-P.: caiom. W: fort. καλόν, ὡς καὶ τῆς.. οὔσης del. Bdhm. πένης TW O.-P.: πενίης B

Eros. For nectar as the primeval substitute for wine, cp. Hom. 71. v. 341, etc., also Phaedr. 247 © τοὺς inmous...véxrap ἐπότισε. The celestial δεῖπνον was, it appears, followed by a συμπόσιον. Spenser, H. to Love, speaks of the god as “ Begot. of Plentie and of Penury.” See further Jntrod. ὃ 1v. Ο 2.

els τὸν τοῦ Διὸς κῆπον. Cp. Soph. fr. (Lon) 297 N. ἐν Διὸς κήποις ἀροῦσθαι μόνον εὐδαίμονας ὄλβους. It is interesting to notice that Origen (Contra Cels. Iv. 39) identifies the “garden of Zeus” with Paradise, Poros with Adam, Penia with the Serpent. With the intoxication and its results we might compare the O. T. stories of Noah and his sons and of Lot and his daughters. For the neo-Platonic interpretation of the myth, see Plotinus Znn. ut. 5. 2, 292 F ff, 298 F: cp. also Introd. ὃ 1v.c 2. A similar Orphic legend is mentioned by Porphyry de antr. nymph. 16 (Orphica p. 180) mapa δὲ τῷ ᾿Ορφεῖ ὁ Κρόνος μέλιτι ὑπὸ Διὸς evedpeverar: πλησθεὶς yap μέλιτος μεθύει καὶ σκοτοῦται ὡς ὑπὸ οἴνου καὶ ὑπνοῖ, ὡς παρὰ Πλάτωνι ὁ Πόρος τοῦ νέκταρος πλησθείς, οὔπω γὰρ οἶνος ἦν. Another classical example is the trick played by Lady Macbeth on Duncan’s “spongy officers” (“his two chamberlains Will I with wine and wassail so convince” etc.).

βεβαρημένος. A later form for the Epic βεβαρηώς (Od. τι. 139): cp Theocr, XVI. 61 βεβαρημένα ὠδίνεσσιν.

παιδίον ποιήσασθαι ἐκ κτλ. So Andoc. Iv. 22 υἱὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς πεποίηται: and παῖδας ποιεῖσθαι in Crito 45 Ὁ, Laws 6174 Β, 783 D, as equiv. to the epd. παιδοποιεῖσθαι (Rep. 449 ν, Laws 784 Δ, B, BE). These parallels are sufficient to defend the text (see crit. n.), without resorting to Rettig’s absurd notion that παιδίον π΄. is “ verecundior” than the cpd.

203 Ο τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης... θεράπων. Cp. Orph. fr. 189 τὴν yap ᾿Αφροδίτην παρήγαγεν ὁ δημιουργὸς. ..-καὶ τὸν Ἔρωτα ὀπαδὸν αὐτῆς: Sappho fr. 74 (λέγει ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη) σύ τε καλὸς (κἀμὸς Bgk.) θεράπων "Epos: Hes. Theog. 201 τῇ δ᾽ (se. ᾿Αφροδίτῃ) "Epos ὡμάρτησε καὶ Ἵμερος ἔσπετο καλὸς | γεινομένῃ ταπρῶτα κτλ.: Max. Tyr. diss, XXIV. p. 297.

ἐραστὴς ὧν περὶ τὸ καλόν. Cp. 2048, 2068. For the thought, cp. Sir T. Browne (el. Med.) “I am naturally amorous of all that is beautiful.”

πρῶτον μὲν κτλ. Here follows a list of the properties which attach to Eros in virtue of his descent from Penia. Observe that the order is chiastic— here Penia-Poros, above Poros-Penia.

102 ΠΛΑΤΩ͂ΝΟΣ [908 ὁ

aa

δεῖ ἁπαλός τε καὶ καλός, οἷον οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται, ἀλλὰ σμλυγρὸς καὶ αὐχμηρὸς καὶ ἀνυπόδητος καὶ ἤφικος, χαμαιπεϊὴς ἀεὶ ὧν καὶ ἄστρῶτος, ἐπὶ θύραις καὶ ἐν ὁδοῖς ὑπαίθριος" κὀϊῥώμενος, τὴν τὴν

{Ὁ ς

μητρὸς φύσιω ἔχων, ἀεὶ ἐνδείᾳ ξύνοικος. κατὰ δὲ αὖ τὸν πατέρα, ἐπίβουλός ἐστι τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, ἀνδρεῖος ὦ ὧν καὶ ἔτης᾽

ΠΣ

καὶ σύντονος, θηρευτὴς δεινός, ἀεί τινας πλέκων μηχανάς, καὶ

203 Ὁ καὶ οἶκος Themistius ὑπαίθριος BW O.-P., Orig.: ὑπαι- θρίοις T (ἔστι μὲν οὖν) τὴν cj. Sommer τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς libri: ἀγαθοῖς O.-P. δεινὸς om. apogr. Paris. 1810, del. Kreyenbiih] ἀεὶ προσπλέκων Orig.

μηχανὰς: Ἴρις Bas O.-P. (6. ἀμοιβας O.-P.1)

οἷον of πολλοὶ οἴονται. This popular opinion had been esp. voiced by Agathon, 195c ff.; and he had used the term σκληρός in 1955, 1964. The properties of Eros are, as observed by Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. 4. p. 461, ἀτεχνῶς οἷα εἰς αὐτὸν Σωκράτην ἔσκωπτον ἐν Διονυσίοις of kopdoi: cp. Themist. or. 13. p. 161 Ὁ ff.

203 Ὁ αὐχμηρὸς. This is evidently intended as the contrary of Agathon’s epithet ὑγρός, 1964. Cp. Ar. Plut. 80 ff. (Πλοῦτος) ἀθλίως Staxeipevos...avypav βαδίζεις ; and the echoes in Plut. de fort. p. 98 D, in amat. 759 A.

ἀνυπόδητος... ἄστρωτοςς. These, too, are characteristics of the Socratic (and Cynic) way of life. For ἀνυπόδητος, see 173 B, 220 Β; for χαμαιπετὴς καὶ ἄστρω- ros the account given by Alcibiades in 220 Β, 6. Compare also the description of the Σελλοί (“ fakirs”) in Jd, XVI. 234 ff. Σελλοί, ἀνιπτόποδες, χαμαιεῦναι κτλ. (see Welcker αὐ, Schr. 3. 90 f. ; Rohde, Psyche 1. 122).

ἐπὶ θύραις κτλ. For the θυραυλίαι of ἐρασταί, see 183 a, Anthol. v. 5; and for this phrase as applicable to Socrates, 175 a, 220c, Ar. Nub. 169 ff. So too Penia was described in 203 B as (οὖσα) περὶ ras θύρας. ὑπαίθριος and σύνοικος are words of a poetical flavour: cp. Xen. Symp. VIII. 24 ὁ det σύνοικος ἐμοὶ ἔρως. :

trys. “Energetic” (“go-ahead”): Schol. trys: ἴστωρ, ἐπιστήμων, ὡς ἐνταῦθα. λαμβάνεται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ irapod καὶ θρασέος. The Scholiast’s ὡς ἐνταῦθα is clearly wrong, and that Plato connected the word with ἰέναι is shown by Protag. 349 E πότερον τοὺς ἀνδρείους θαρραλέους λέγεις ἢ ἄλλο τι; καὶ ἴτας γ᾽, ἔφη, ἐφ᾽ ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ φοβοῦνται ἰέναι. Cp. Prot. 3590: Callinus 1, 9—10 ἀλλά τις ἰθὺς ἴτω | ἔγχος ἀνασχόμενος κτλ. Here, however, the special sense of intellectual progress (μέθοδος, ἄνοδος) may be implied, cp. 2104 (μετίῃ, ἰόντα, ἰέναι), and my note on ἀνδρείαν 212 B (also 205 D).

θηρευτὴς δεινός. “A mighty hunter,” a very Nimrod. For the notion of the chase in erotics, cp. the use of ἑλεῖν and διώκειν in 1828, etc., and of θήρα in Soph. 222 Ὁ τῇ τῶν ἐρώντων θήρᾳ (cp. θηρῶμαι in Isocr. Hel. 219 pv): for the same notion applied to philosophical enquiry, cp. Phaedo θ6 0 τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θήραν: Gorg. 500 D, Theaet, 198 a ff’ So Emerson (On Beauty), “The sharpest- sighted hunter in the world is Love, for finding what he seeks and only that.”

πλέκων μηχανάς. “Weaving plots,” “intriguing”: cp. Eur. Aadrom. 66 ποίας μηχανὰς πλέκουσιν ad; Orph. H. 55. 3 (Adpodirn) δολοπλόκε: Aeclian H. A. IL, 80 σοφώτατος ὁ κόκκυξ, καὶ πλέκειν εὐπόρους ἐξ ἀπόρων μηχανὰς δεινότατος.

204 Α] See 103

wae

ls whale ppovilaeway ἐπιθυμητὴς καὶ͵ pips, φιλοσοφῶν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ

βίου, δεινὸς. “γόης "καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής! kab οὔτε ὡς ᾿ἀθάνᾳτος πέφυκεν. οὔτε ὡς θνητός, ἀλλὰ τοτὲ μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας θάλλει καὶ ζῇ, ὅταν εὐπόρήσην τοτὲ δὲ drrobuijones, πᾶλιν δὲ ava- βιώσκεται διὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς as τὸ δὲ "πὐριξὸμίνόν" ἀεὶ ὑπεκρεῖ . ὥστε οὔτε ἀπορεῖ Ἔρως ποτὲ οὔτε πλουτεῖ, σοφίας τε αὖ καὶ ἀμαθίας ἐ ἐν μέσῳ ἐστίν. ἔχει γὰρ ὧδε. θεῶν οὐδεὶς φιλοσοφεῖ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιθυμεῖ σοφὸς γενέσθαι--ἔστι γάρ---οὐδ᾽ εἴ τις ἄλλος σοφός,

οὐ φιλοσοφεῖ. οὐδ᾽ αὖ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς φιλοσοφοῦσιν οὐδ᾽ ἐπιθυμοῦσι

203 Ὁ πόριμος T O.-P. corr.: πορισμος B: φρονιμος Ο.-Ρ.1 φιλοσοφῶν

T: φιλοσόφων B γόης καὶ: καὶ om. O.-P. ἘΞ αὐτῆς om. O.-P. καὶ ᾧῇ Β 0.-Ρ.: τε καὶ (ἢ TW, Orig. ὅταν εὐπορήσῃ 860]. Jn. Hug: ὅταν ἀπορήσῃ Hommel πάλιν : παλιν παλιν O.-P. corr., Orig. αναβιοσκε[ἦται O.-P.

mor “Epes vulg. Hirschig τε αὖ T, Bt.: re Β, Herm.: δ᾽ αὖ Orig.: av O.-P.: δὲ Sommer Sz.

πόριμος. As son of Πόρος. Agathon, too, had described Eros as (πρᾳότητα) πορίζων, 197 Ὁ.

δεινὸς γόης κτλ. For γόης, see 2034 ”.; and for Socrates as wizard or charmer, 215 ff., Meno 80a ff., Xen. Mem. ut. 11. 17—18. For σοφιστής, cp. 1773, 2080; Rep. 596D; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1. 41 viv τοῦτο πεφιλοσόφηκα pera τοῦ ἀδίκου σοφιστοῦ τοῦ "Ἔρωτος: Maxim. Tyr. xxiv. 9 (=Sappho jr. 125) τὸν "Epwra Σωκράτης σοφιστὴν λέγει, Σαπφὼ μυθοπλόκον. The esoteric meaning of these epithets is thus explained by Hermias ἐπ Plat. Phaedr. p. 97: (εἶπε τὸν "Epwra) φιλόσοφον μὲν ὡς τὸ λογικὸν ἡμῶν διεγείροντα ἐπὶ τὰ καλά" γύητα δὲ ὡς τὸν θυμὸν καταστέλλοντα: φαρμακέα (δὲ) ὡς τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν κηλοῦντα": σοφιστὴν δὲ ὡς τὴν φύσιν ἀπατῶντα καὶ bededCovra—this however must be taken “with a grain of salt.” Cp. also Procl. in Cratyl. p. 94, 158 ὅτι οἶδεν ὁ Πλάτων τὸ ὄνομα τὸν σοφιστὴν ἐπὶ σεμνῷ τάττειν πράγματι" τὸν yap πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τὰ ἄλλα δυνάμενον ἐπιστρέφειν οὕτως καλεῖ, οἷον τὸν Δία (Min. 819 6), τὸν "Acdnv (Crat. 408 ΒΕ), τὸν Ἔρωτα.

203 E θάλλει. Cp. Cratyl. 4144 αὐτό γε τὸ θάλλειν τὴν αὔξην μοι δοκεῖ ἀπεικάζειν τὴν τῶν νέων. For the alternation of life and death in Eros, compare the case of Polydeuces in Pind. Vem. x. 87 ff.

ὅταν εὐπορήσῃ. These words are condemned, on no sufficient grounds, by Hug and others as “sehr prosaische und abschwachend.”

ἀεὶ ὑπεκρεῖ. “Die geistigen Giiter werden uns zu Theil nur insofern wir sie erwerben” (Rettig). The cpd. ὑπεκρεῖν is dw. λεγ. in Plato, but ep. Luthyd. 291 B αἱ δ᾽ (ἐπιστῆμαι) ἀεὶ ὑπεξέφυγον.

οὔτε ἀπορεῖ... οὔτε πλουτεῖ. ἀπορία is a quality of the mother of Eros (διὰ τὴν αὐτῆς ἀπορίαν 203 B), as πλοῦτος of the father. On the other hand πενία is described as a mean between πλοῦτος and πτωχεία in Ar. Plut. 552.

204 A ἔστι γάρ. 36. σοφός: cp. Simon. 5. 10 θεὸς ἂν μόνος τοῦτ᾽ ἔχοι γέρας (80. ἐσθλὸν ἔμμεναι). For the midway position of the φιλύσοφος, ep. Phaedr, 318 Ὁ, Lysis 2184; Plotin. Hnn. vi. 7. 35 ff.

E

204

αν

Ω" :

104 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [204 4

Cy ree: eee Po Ts

σοφοὶ γενέσθαι" αὐτὸ yap τοῦτό ἐστι χαχεπὸν ἀμαθία; oo, μὴ ὄντα καλὸν κἀγαθὸν μηδὲ φρόνϊμον δόκεῖν᾽ αὑτῷ elvas ἱκανόν. οὔκουν ἐπιθυμέϊ ὁ ὁ μὴ οἰόμενος “ἐνδεὴς: εἶναι οὗ ἂν μὴ οἴηται ἐπιδεῖσθαι.

Τίνες οὖν, ἔφην ἐγώ, ὦ Αἰοτέμα, ot PROTO POTS, εἰ μήτε οἱ σοφοὶ μήτε οἱ ἀμαθεῖς; Δῆλον δή, ἔφη, τοῦτό γε ἤδη: καὶ παιδί, ὅτι οἱ μεταξὺ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων, bY αὖ καὶ ὁ ἜΡΩΣ: ἔστι γὰρ δὴ τῶν καλλίστων ἡ σοφία, "ἔρως δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἔρως περὶ τὸ καλόν, ὥστε ἀναγκαῖον Ἔρωτα φιλόσοφον sve Φιλυδοβαν δὲ ὄντα μεταξὺ εἶναι ϑοψοῦ καὶ ἀμαθοῦς. αἰτία δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ “τούτων ἡ γένεσις" πατρὸς μὲν yep raga ἐστὶ καὶ εὐπόρου, Ha pos δὲ ov σοφῆς. καὶ Grey OU. ἢ μὲν, οὖν gious τοῦ δαίμονος, ὦ φίλε, Σώκραπες, αὕτη" oy δὲ σὺ φήθης Ἔρωτα εἶναι, ϑαυμασαὸν οὐδὲν ἔπαθες. φήθης δέ, ds ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ 7 τεκμαιρομένῃ ἐξ ὧν σὺ λέγεις, τὸ ἐρώμενον "Ἔρωτα εἶναι, οὐ τὸ ἐρών. διὰ ταῦτά σοι, οἶμαι, πάγκαλος ἐφαίνετο ὁ Ἔρως. καὶ γὰρ ἔστι τὸ ἐραστὸν τὸ τῷ ὄντι καλὸν καὶ ἁβρὸν καὶ τέλεον καὶ μακαριστόν" τὸ δέ γε ἐρῶν ἄλλην. ἰδέαν τοιαύτην ἔχον, οἵαν ἐγὼ διῆλθον

204 Α σοφοὶ γενέσθαι: σοφοις γ. O.-P. αὐτῷ γὰρ τούτῳ Vindob. 21, Sydenham χαλεπὸν del. Hommel Bdhm.: yademn O.-P. ἀμαθίας cj. Ast αὑτῷ W Ὁ: αὐτῷ T: avrw O.-P.: αὐτὸ B ἱκανὸν del. Hirschig Β δῆλον δή TW O.-P., vulg. Sz. Bt.: δηλονότι B: δῆλον Herm. J.-U.: δῆλόν ἐστι Rettig δῆλον τοῦτό γ᾽, ἦ δ᾽ ἥ, καὶ Bdhm. αὖ Ven. 184 Vind. 21, vulg. Bt.: ἂν εἴη 0.-P.: ἂν BTW: δὴ Usener Sz.: del. Rtickert: fort. εἷς μετοξυ O.-P. C wns O.-P. τεκμαιρομένη Bt λέγεις : ἐλεγες O.-P. ειναι Ἔρωτα O.-P. οιομαι O.-P. τὸ τῷ: τῷ Bdhm. aBpov O.-P. corr.: ἀγαθὸν O.-P.t τέλειον O,-P.

αὐτὸ γὰρ τοῦτό κτλ. “ Precisely herein is ignorance a grievous thing, (viz.) that” ete. If, with Stallb., we take αὐτὸ τοῦτο as adverbial accus. of respect, with τὸ μὴ.. ἱκανόν as an epexegetic supplement, no emendation is required. For the neuter χαλεπὸν in appos. to ἀμαθία, cp. 176 D, Phileb. 19 c.

204 Β Δῆλον δή...καὶ παιδί. Cp. Huthyd. 279 Ὁ τοῦτο δὲ κἂν παῖς γνοίη: ib. 301 B, Lys. 205 c (Schanz nov. comm. p. 72). Observe how sharply Diotima snubs Socrates, ὥσπερ of τέλεοι σοφισταί (2080). For my cj. ὧν εἷς, cp. 203 a.

φιλόσοφον εἶναι. Cp. Procl. in Tim. 52 δύο τούτους θεοὺς ὁ Πλάτων φιλο- σόφους ἐκάλεσε, τόν τε [Ἔρωτα καὶ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν (Tim. 34 Ὁ),...ἦν γὰρ ὁ δημιουργὸς “καὶ Μῆτις πρῶτος γενέτωρ καὶ "Ἔρως πολυτερπής" (Orph. Theog. fr. 8. 11), καὶ ὡς μὲν Μῆτις τίκτει τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν, ὡς δὲ "Ἔρως ἀπογεννᾷ τὴν ἐρωτικὴν σειράν.

204 Ο ἁβρὸν. Agathon (here alluded to) had used the subst. ἁβρότης (197 D), besides the epithets ἁπαλός and ὑγρός (195 ὁ ff.).

paxapioréy. The only other Platonic exx. are Rep. 465 p, Phaedr. 256 ¢. Cp. the use of μακαρίζω in 216 & infra.

ove:

904 Ε] ZYMIMOZION 105

XXIV. «Καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπον, Εἶεν δή, ὦ ξένη: καλῶς γὰρ λέγεις" τοιοῦτος ‘ou “ὁ “Ἔρως τίνα χρείαν ἔχει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις; Τοῦτο δὴ Μετὰ ταῦτ᾽, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, πειράσομαί oe διδάξαι. ἔστι μὲν Ὁ γὰρ δὴ τ Τοιοῦτος καὶ οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ "ἔρως, ἔστι ere καλῶν, ὡς

σὺ bys. εἰ δέ τις ἡμᾶς ἔροιτο" τί τῶν καλῶν ἐστὶν ὁ "Epos, ὦ

- arr or ele: δ ἢ Σώκρατές τε καὶ. Αἰρτέμας ὧδε δὲ δαφέστερον. ἐρῶ; ὁ mee τῶν Ψ δῇ εἶπον ὅτι Γενέσθαι αὑτῷ. . ᾿Αλλ ἔτι ποθεῖ, ἔφη, ἡ ἡ ἀπόκρισις ἐφώτησιν τοιάνδε" τί ἔσται ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ἂν γένηται ᾿

τὰ ἜΣ ἃ Οὐ πάνυ! ἔφην ἔτι ἔχειν ἐγὼ mpas ταύτην͵ τὴν ἐρώτησιν \

mpoxetnes pa pepivan Ga ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔφη, ὦ ὥσπερ ¢ ἂν εἴ τις μεταβαλὼν Ε ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ τῷ ayad@ x χρώμενος πυνδάνοιτο: φέρε, ὦ Σώκρατες,

ὅρα" ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν eyabay τί ἐρᾷ; Γενέσθαι, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, αὑτῷ. Καὶ τί

καλῶν τί ἐρᾷ; eh ἐγὼ

204 Ο (δὲν ὧν cj. Steph. δὴ (τὰ) μετὰ Bdhm. Ὁ και ovrw superscr. 0.-P. σὺ φής: σύμφῃς In. τε BO.-P.: om. TW ἐρῶ Aldin., edd.: ἐρῷ Ὁ: ἐρᾷ BTW: epa O.-P.: fort. dpa (cf. E infra) ἔτι ποθεῖ TW O.P., Bt.: ἐπιποθεῖ B, Sz.: ἔτι ἐπιποθεῖ Rickert τοιανδει O.-P. Ἑ πυνθάνοιτο 560], Usener ὅρα scripsi: ἐρᾷ BTW Ο.-Ρ. : ἐρῶ Aldin. vulg. Bt.: ἔροιτο Herm. J.-U.: om. Ven. 184, Bast Sz: εἴ γ᾽ ἐρᾷ Rohde τῶν ἀγαθῶν " ri ἀἰδυϊηχιῦ Winckelmann: τῶν ἀγαθῶν τί; olim Voeg. αὐτῷ ΒΤ

τίνα χρείαν κτλ. Here begins the second section of Socrates-Diotima’s exposition. For χρεία, “utility,”—equiv. here to the δύσεις of 195 a, the ἔργα of 199c—cp. Gorg. 480 Δ, etc.

Totro δὴ μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ κτλ. “Ebenso 180 D, 186.4, 189}, 1948. Also wohl parodisch und spittisch ” (Rettig).

204 Ὁ ἔστι δὲ τῶν καλῶν. This is object. genitive: cp. 2018, 206m. As Rettig notes, Diotima herself affects wept τὸ καλόν in preference to τοῦ καλοῦ (after ἔρως, etc.) ; and this may be used as an argument against Jahn-Usener’s σύμφῃς.

εἰ δέ τις κτλ. For the omission of the apodosis, cp. 199 Ε εἰ γὰρ ἐροίμην κτλ.

σαφέστερον ἐρῶ. The preceding query had been ambiguously worded, since τῶν καλῶν might be taken either as a partitive gen. dependent on τί, or as an object. gen. with "Ἔρως (ri being adverbial accus.): that the latter was the construction intended is now shown by the revised statement of the query— ὁ ἐρῶν....τί ἐρᾷ; Iam inclined to suspect that we should read ὅρα (see 204 Ε 7.) for ἐρῶ (ἐρᾷ MSS.).

ἔτι ποθεῖ. If we read ἐπιποθεῖ we must ascribe to the proposition its full force, “craves further”; the other exx. of the cpd. in Plato are Prot. 329 p τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ὃ ἔτι ἐπιποθῶ: Laws 8558. The former of these supports Riickert’s ἔτι ἐπιποθεῖ.

Οὐ πάνυ... ἔτι. For οὐ πάνυ, cp. Meno Τ1 σ (with Thompson’s note).

204 EB μεταβαλὼν. Here the participle “adverbii partes agit,” cp. Gorg. 480 8, Phileb. 51 a. For the ellipse, cp. 204d, 199 5.

φέρε, ὦ Σ., Opa. Most editors bracket the mss.’ ἐρᾷ: Stallb., after

205

106 TAATQNOZ [204 E

Betta, ἔφται ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ἂν γένηται τάγαθάςξ Tair ἢ εὐπορώτερον, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ,

{7 ἔχω ᾿ἀποβῤρίνασίθαι,ὅ ὅτι εὐδαίμων ἔσται. | τήσει γάρ, ἔφη, ᾿ἀγαδῶν rg ty ἃ δ.

οἱ εὐδαίμονες εὐδαίμονες, καὶ «οὐκέτι ἠρβοσδεῖ ἐρέσθαι, ἵνα τί δὲ

ΔΛ es)

τες

βούχεται εὐδαίμων εἶναι ὁ ὁ Βουλόμενος, ἀλλὰ τέλος δοκεῖ Exet ἡ ἀπόκρισις. A ae ᾿ἰλέγεις, εἶπον ἐγώ, Τωιπὴν δὲ τὴν βούλησιν! καὶ τὸν ἔρωτα τοῦτον. πῴτερα͵ κοιγὸν foley εἶναι πάντων ἀνθρώ:

αἴ baw τα

πων, καὶ ,πάντας τἀγαθὰ βούλεσθαι. αὑτοῖς “εἶναι ἀεί, ἢ πῶς

aa

Mayes Osrds” ἦν ἐ ἐγώ: κοιηὸν εἶναι πάντων. Τί δὴ οὖν, ως βέμοι, gary τς A ἰϑυ ἃ cve ed a ae

ἔφη, ὦ “Σώκρατες, οὐ στάντας ἐρᾶ γ᾿ φαμέν, εἴπερ᾽ γε πάντες τῶν

γα Ὁ χα: ἰών

aM she. paw eb gfe wot

εἶ αὐτῶν ἐρῶσι καὶ ἀεί, ἀλλά τινάς φαμεν ἐρᾶν, τοὺς ὃ 00 5 Θαμμάξω,

Paty ΑΖ’

ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, καὶ αὐτός. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴ θαύμαξ᾽, ἔφη" ἀξελόύτες ya, apa

daha. oe tt

τοῦ ἔρωγός τι "εἶδος, ὀνομάξομεν, τὸ τοῦ ὅλου ἐπιτιθέντες ἥνομα, ἔρωτα, τὰ δὲ ἄλλᾳ ἄλλοις μκαταχρώμεθα, ὁ ὀνόμασιν. “Ωσπὲρ τί; 1

Sarre than acer’ ye tet ἢ

γλᾷ δ᾽ ἐγώ. “Ὥσπερ τόδε. οἷσθ' ὅτι ποίησίς ἐστί τι πολύ" ἡ yap oi ere

205 A ἀγάθων B δὲ τὴν B O.-P., J.-U. Sz: δὴ τὴν TW, Be. εἶναι οἴει W Β αὐτῶν: ἀγαθῶν cj. Naber γὰρ ἄρα T O.-P., Bt.: γὰρ BW, J.-U. ἐρῶντος T (ἔν) τι εἶδος Hirschig τοι Vind. 21, vulg. Sz. Bt: τι BTW: τω O.-P., ὦ O.-P. mg.

Winckelmann, retains it with the punctuation ἐρᾷ ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν ἀγαθῶν" τί ép@;—a mode of expression which is “vchementius quam ut aptum videri possit huic loco” (Rettig). Liickert defends the Aldine reading ἐρῶ as a permissible superfluity “in familiari sermone.” I suspect that here, as above, we should read ὅρα: cp. ὅρα ri ποιεῖς 189.4; Rep. 596C; Crat. 385D pépe...cime.

205 Α ἵνα τί. Se. γένηται: for this colloquial use see Goodwin G@. 17. T. § 331.

τέλος... ἔχειν. Because it is recognized that εὐδαιμονία constitutes in itself the ethical τέλος or “summum bonum”: cp. Clit. 410 ἐμπόδιον τοῦ πρὸς τέλος ἀρετῆς ἐλθόντα εὐδαίμονα γενέσθαι: Arist. δ΄. NV. τ. 7. 10974 33 ἁπλῶς δὴ τέλειον τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν ἀεὶ.. «τοιοῦτον δ᾽ ἡ εὐδαιμονία μάλιστ᾽ εἶναι δοκεῖ. Cp. also 2108 πρὸς τέλος ἤδη ἰών κτλ.

πάντας..«ἀεί. Here ἀεί goes with βούλεσθαι, not with αὑτοῖς εἶναι (as in 206 a infr a).

Τί δὴ οὖν κτλ. Diotima here points out an apparent contradiction between the previous conclusion (κοινὸν πάντων) and common opinion, due to the ambiguity of the term ἔρως (ἐρᾶν) which is used both in a generic and in a specific sense.

205 Β “Ὥσπερ τί; “For example— ?”

ποίησίς. The selection of this term as an ex. of varying connotation is partly, no doubt, due to the fact that it was one of the matters specially emphasized by Agathon, 1974. For πολύ, multiplex, op. Polit. 282 a.

ἡ γάρ τοι κτλ. For the definition, cp. Soph. 219 B, 265 B ποιητικὴν..-«πᾶσαν ἔφαμεν εἶναι δύναμιν, ἥ τις dy αἰτία γίγνηται τοῖς μὴ πρότερον οὖσιν ὕστερον γίγνεσθαι: also Phileb, 26D; Xen. Mem. τι. 2.3; Procl. inst. theol. p. 74.

205 Ὁ] ΣΎΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 107

ae

“ L, Sr Le ie φκιν 1 ἧς χει ταν a: ΠΣ )

Tov μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ ὃν ὦ ἰόντι ὁτῳοῦν. αἰτία 7 πᾶσά ἔστι πρίησιϑι ὥστε sol Sor re wd καὶ αἱ ὑπὸ πάσαις ταῖς τέχναις ἐργασίαι “οιήσεις εἰσὶ καὶ οἱ σ ἌΣ aueporbhs ,

stl τούτων ᾿δημίοὐργοὶ πάντες ποιηταί. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις, ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅμως,

ἦ δ᾽ 7 ἥ, οἶσθ᾽ ὅ ὅτι ο οὐ Ναλούται ποιηταὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἄχλά Revo ovépara, : «νοῦς, πὶ ὦ {νι ε: εἰ ἀπὸ δὲ πάσης τὴς τοιήσεως ἕν μόριον a opea den. τὸ περὶ τὴν ΜΝ

PhO tLe naw

A τε eae? καὶ τὰ μέτρα. τῷ τοῦ ὅχου ὀνόματι πρὸσαγορέψεται. ποίησις αν εν cao

thee, γὰρ τ τοῦτο Hovey | Ναχεῖεαι; καὶ οι ἔχοντες τοῦτο τὸ «μόριον τῆς 5

hoy on τουήσεως ποιήταί. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις, ἔφην. τ. οὐτω"τοὶνῦν᾽ καὶ περὶ beg AE Le em be yer

τὸν es τὸ μὲν “κεφάλαιόν € ἐστι πᾶσα ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐπιθυμία D 205 Ο 7 δ᾽ ἥ Bekker: η Sy Ο.-Ρ.: ἤδη BIW οὐ om. W ἔχουσιν TW O.-P., Sz: sa B, Bt.: ἴσχουσιν Sauppe μόριον BT O.-P.: μόνον

pr. γὰρ τοῦτο: y. ravra O.-P. εφη[ν] λέγεις O.-P. D πᾶσα...εὐδαι- povety del. Bdhm.

205 Ο αἱ... ἐργασίαι. Cp. Gorg. 450 ο τῶν μὲν (τεχνῶν) ἐργασία τὸ πολύ ἐστι. The word denotes manufacturing processes: cp. 2. on περὶ τέχνας κτλ.) 208 A. For ὑπὸ 6. dat., a construction rare in Attic prose, cp. Phileb. 58a: Hipp. Maj. 295 D τά τε ὑπὸ τῇ μουσικῇ καὶ Ta ὑπὸ ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις (ὄργανα) : Mep. 5lla. Cp. Aristotle’s use of ὑπὸ 6. acc. to denote the subordination of arts, EN. 1. 10945 10 ff. ὅσαι δ᾽ εἰσὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὑπὸ play τινὰ δύναμιν κτλ.

ἕν μόριον. Equivalent to ἕν εἶδος (2058): for this logical use of the term cp. Gorg. 4648, Laws 6968. For ἀφορίζω, cp. Soph. 2570, 268 D τῆς ποιήσεως ἀφωρισμένον ἐν doyors...woptov.

τὸ περὶ...τὰ μέτρα. Cp. 187», 196 κ.

205 D τὸ μὲν κεφάλαιόν κτλ. Opinions are divided as to the construction of τὸ κεφάλαιον : it may be construed (1) as nominative and subject, “the generic concept (80. τοῦ ἔρωτος) is—”; so Hommel, Vermebren, Hug, Prantl, comparing Gorg. 463 A καλῷ δὲ αὐτοῦ (se. τῆς ῥητορικῆς) TO κεφάλαιον κολακείαν : or (2) as adverbial accus. (of respect), “in its generic aspect,” cp. Phileb. 48 Ὁ ἔστι δὴ πονηρία μέν τις τὸ κεφάλαιον : Luthyphr. 8. The latter is certainly the more natural mode of construing here, since no genitive (αὐτοῦ) is added. But other difficulties remain: what is the subject of ἐστι, if τὸ κεφάλαιον is adverbial? Should we (a) construe with Ficinus (followed by Stallb.?, Lehrs, Zeller, Jowett and others) “nam summatim quidem omnis bonorum felicita- tisque appetitio maximus et insidiator amor est cuique”? Or (b) should we rather, with Stallb.1 and Prantl, supply ὁ ἔρως as the subject of ἐστι and construe πᾶσα ἧ...εὐδαιμονεῖν as the predicate? To my mind the latter is the more natural method. Next arises the question, how are we to deal with the last part of the sentence, ὁ péyords...ravri? If with most edd. (except Riickert, Stallb.2 and Rettig) we regard δολερὸς as corrupt, the best plan is to excise the whole clause with Hug (and Stallb.'), since none of the corrections of δολερὸς hitherto proposed (see crit. n.) are at all convincing. The chief objection to δολερὸς is, not so much the meaning of the word itself (which may be defended by 203 Ὁ), as rather (to quote Stallb.*) “con- junctio superlativi μέγιστος cum δολερός positive.” But even this objection

108 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ , (205 » εἴς ( 5

ε econ happy ὃ : ‘Vs ve el καὶ τοῦ εὐδαιμονεῖν, oS “μέγιστός τε καὶ Bonepds” pay: παντί" ἀλλ᾽ ΡΝ "ιν ἢ ἐν πεν eu es

οἱ μὲν ἄλλῃ τρέπόμενοι 'πόλλαχῇ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ἢ κατὰ χρημάτισμὸν ἢ κατὰ Φιλογυ ναστίαν͵ ἢ κατὰ φίλοσο ίαν, οὔτ᾽ ἐρᾶῤ' Καλοῦνται

οὔτ᾽ ἐρασταί, ee nara hore ος ἰδντες)ες καὶ ἐσπουδακότες τὸ ΟΡ

τοῦ ὅλου ὄνομὰ" ἰσχοῦσιν, ἐρώτά τε καὶ ἐρᾶν καὶ ἐρᾶσταῖ, Κιν- wv

Suvevers ἀληθῆ, ἔφην ἐγώ, λέγειν. Kat λέγεται μέν γέ τις, ἔφη,

i , aA \ € a. a a ro A . ὁ δ᾽ ἐμὸ

E λόγος, ὡς of ἂν τὸ ἥμισν ἑαυτῶν ζητῶσιν, οὗτοι ἐρῶσιν" ὁ δ᾽ ἐμὸς

" 2 Ν

λόγος οὔθ᾽ ᾿ἡμίσεός φησιν εἶναι τὸν ἔρωτα οὔθ᾽ ὅλου, ἐὰν μὴ

τυγχάνῃ γέ που, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ἀγαθὸν ὄν: ἐπεὶ αὑτῶν γε καὶ πόδας

x a > f > ἰὴ ec χ᾽ θ ἜΝ 2 » ὃ a

καὶ χεῖρας ἐθέλουσιν ἀποτέμνεσθαι οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἐὰν αὐτοῖς δοκῇ

206 Ὦ ὁ...δολερὸς 860]. Usener: 6...mavri secl. Stallb, (1827) Hug μέ- γιστός : ὁρμητικός Creuzer δολερὸς : δολερώτατος Stallb. (1852): δεινότατος Ast: κοινὸς Hommel: ὁλόκληρος Pflugk Mdvg.: ὅλος Bdhm.: ἀθρόος Verm.: πρῶτος cj. Sz.: τολμηρὸς Creuzer: σφοδρότατος Sydenham: σφοδρὸς Cobet : μόνος Schirlitz: κερδαλέος Naber. πάντῃ Pflugk αὐτόν : αὐτὸ Voeg. Sz.: ἀγαθόν Orelli χρηματισμω O.-P.1 ἐσχον O,-P. ἔρωτά... ἐρασταί 560]. Sz. ἔρως τε Hertlein ἐρασταί : fort. ἐραστάς κινδυνενουσι Ο.-Ῥ.} E τὸ ἑαυτῶν ἥμισυ Sz: τὸ ἥμισυν τὸ ἑαυτῶν Sauppe Jn.: ἑαυτῶν 500]. Usener ἐπεὶ

T O.-P.. ἐπὶ Β

is not, I think, insuperable; for if we construe παντί closely with δολερὸς as “all-ensnaring,” we get a superlative idea which balances μέγιστος, while in sense it is supported by 203 Β, Ὁ and Sappho’s δολοπλόκε ᾿Αφροδίτα. If, adopting this explanation, we retain the traditional text, it seems best to regard the clause ὁ péyiords...ravTi as an appositional quotation and to construe, with Prantl, “nimlich jene grésste und fiir jeden verfingliche Liebe.” Hommel is singular in taking τοῦ εὐδαιμονεῖν (sc. ἡ ἐπιθυμία), as well as τὸ κεφάλαιον, as subject (“und das Streben nach dem héchsten Gute, d. i. nach Gliickseligkeit, ist die grésste Liebe”).

ἔρωτα... «ἐρασταί. This sequence is irregular. Usually with ὄνομα ἔχειν the name is in the nominative, in apposition with the subject, eg. Laws 9660 διαιτηταὶ dvopa...éxovres (80 here ἐρασταί): but the accus. is also possible (in appos. with ὄνομα), as in Plut. Arist. 2, But the combination of the two constructions is certainly awkward, and the words may well be, as Schanz supposes, a gloss.

Kal λέγεται κτλ. An allusion to Aristophanes’ speech, esp. 1923, Ε ff.: cp. 2120. For οὔθ᾽ ὅλον, below, cp. 192 8.

205 Ἡ ἐπεὶ αὑτῶν ye κτλ. Cp. Xen. Mem. τ. 2. 54 ἔλεγε δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ ζῶν ἕκαστος ἑαυτοῦ, ὃ πάντων μάλιστα φιλεῖ, τοῦ σώματος ὅ τι ἂν ἀχρεῖον ἢ καὶ ἀνωφελὲς αὐτός τε ἀφαιρεῖ καὶ ἄλλῳ παρέχει. αὐτοί τέ γε αὑτῶν ὄνυχας τε καὶ τρίχας καὶ τύλους ἀφαιροῦσι κτλ.: Ἐν. Matth. 5. 80 καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτήν κτλ.

206 8] ZYMTIOZION 109

τὰ ἑαυτῶν πονηρὰ εἶναι. ov yap Td ἑαυτῶν, οἶμαι, ἕκαστοι ἀσπά- ζονται, εἰ μὴ εἴ τις τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν οἰκεῖον καλεῖ καὶ ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ δὲ κακὸν ἀλλότριον" ὡς οὐδέν γε ἄλλο ἐστὶν οὗ ἐρῶσιν ἄνθρωποι 206 ἢ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ. ἢ σοὶ δοκοῦσιν; Μὰ Δί᾽ οὐκ ἔμοιγε, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ. "Ap οὖν, ἦ δ᾽ ἥ, οὕτως ἁπλοῦν ἐστὶ λέγειν, ὅτι of ἄνθρωποι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἐρῶσιν; Ναί, ἔφην. Τί δέ; οὐ προσθετέον, ἔφη, ὅτι καὶ εἶναι τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὑτοῖς ἐρῶσιν; ἸΠροσθετέον. ἾΑρ᾽ οὖν, ἔφη, καὶ οὐ μόνον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀεὶ εἶναι; Kal τοῦτο προσθετέον. "ἔστιν ἄρα ξυλλήβδην, ἔφη, ὁ ἔρως τοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὑτῷ εἶναι ἀεί. ᾿Αλη- θέστατα, ἔφην ἐγώ, λέγεις. XXV. “Ore δὴ τούτον ὁ ἔρως ἐστὶν ἀεί, ἡ δ᾽ ἥ, τῶν τίνα Β

τρόπον διωκόντων αὐτὸ καὶ ἐν τίνι πράξει ἡ σπουδὴ καὶ ἡ σύντασις ἔρως ἂν καλοῖτο; τί τοῦτο τυγχάνει ὃν τὸ ἔργον; ἔχεις εἰπεῖν; Οὐ

205 ΕΞ καλεῖ W: καλῇ BT 206 Α ἄνθρωποι Bekk. Sz. Bt.: ἄνθρωποι BT: ἀνθρωποι O.-P.: of ἄνθρωποι W: del. Baiter ἢ τἀγαθόν Hirschig ἢ σοὶ...ἀγαθοῦ om. Ο.-Ῥ.1 ἢ δ᾽ 7 Bekker: η[δ]η O.-P. corr.: ἤδη BT ὅτι ἄνθρωποι Sauppe Jn. τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ BW O.-P. corr.: τἀγαθοῦ T, Bt. προσθε- ταιον O.-P.1 (bis) οὖν BT O.-P.: om. W τοῦ τὸ T O.-P.: τοῦτο B αὐτῷ TW O.-P.; αὐτὸ B B δὴ: de O.-P. Paris 1642 τούτου Bast Sz. Bt.: τοῦτο libri, O.-P. ἀεί om. Vat., Bekk. Sz.: aye Usener ἢ δ᾽ ἥ Bekk.: ἤδη BT: 78 0.-P. τῶν TbO.-P.: τὸν ΒΞ αὐτὸν T σύντασις B O.-P.: σύστασις TW

εἰ μὴ et. Sce Goodwin G. AL, 7. § 4764.

τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν οἰκεῖον. Cp. Rep. 586 E εἴπερ τὸ βέλτιστον ἑκάστῳ, τοῦτο καὶ οἰκειότατον (with Adam’s note): Charm. 168 σ, D ἐμάνθανον τὸν λόγον, ὅτι τὰ οἰκεῖά τε καὶ τὰ αὑτοῦ ἀγαθὰ καλοίης : Arist. EH. NV. x. 7.

206 Α ἢ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ. For the assumption that τἀγαθὸν is the final end of desire, cp. Phileb. 208 ff., Gorg. 467D ff, etc. The statement here is referred to by Proclus in Alcib. I. p. 129,

ἁπλοῦν. Equivalent to ἄνευ προσθέσεως ἀληθές : cp. 183 Ὁ; Phaedr. 244.4 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἁπλοῦν τὸ μανίαν κακὸν εἶναι κτλ. (“true without qualification,” Thompson) ; Prot. 331 σ.

206 B ὁ ἔρως ἐστὶν del. Most edd. follow Bekker in ejecting dei: Rettig, however, rightly keeps it with the note “dei=die gegebene Definition gilt iiberall und fiir alle Fille”; cp. 205 a, B.

αὐτὸ. Se. τὸ τἀγαθὸν αὑτοῖς εἶναι ἀεί.

ἡ σύντασις. Cp. 908 D (Ἔρως ἐστι) σύντονος : Phileb. 46 D σύντασιν ἀγρίαν ποιεῖ (With my note): Euthyd. 388 Ὁ. For the limitation of the notion of Eros here (ἂν καλοῖτο), cp. that in 206 4 ff. (καλοῦνται, ©, Ὁ).

τυγχάνει dv. Not “what does it happen to be,” but “what in reality is it”: see Verrall on Eur. Med. 608: cp. Phaedo 65 D—E.

Οὐ μεντἂν κτλ. For the suppressed protasis (sc. εἰ τοῦτο εἶχον εἰπεῖν), cp. 175 D.

110 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [206 B

μεντἂν σέ, ἔφην ὁ ἐγώ, ὦ Διοτίμα, ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ ἐφοίτων Tapa σὲ αὐτὰ ταῦτα μαθησόμενος. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐγώ σοι, ἔφη, ἐρῶ. ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο τόκος ἐν καλῷ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν. Μαντείας, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, δεῖται 6 τί ποτε λέγεις, καὶ οὐ μανθάνω. ᾿Αλλ’ ἐγώ, ἢ δ᾽ i, σαφέστερον ἐρῶ. κυοῦσι γάρ, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, πάντες ἄνθρωποι καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἐν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ γένωνται, τίκτειν ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡμῶν ἡ φύσις. τίκτειν δὲ ἐν μὲν αἰσχρῷ οὐ δύναται, ἐν δὲ [τῷ] καλῷ. [ἡ γὰρ

206 Β ἔφην, ἐγὼ distinxit Ast καὶ οὐ μανθάνω del. Naber σ δ᾽ ἥ Bekk.: ἤδη BT: dy O.-P. ἅνθρωποι Sauppe Jn. καὶ κατὰ τὸ TW O.-P., Bt.: κατὰ τὸ Β τὴν om. T ἐν τῇ Bdhm, J.-U. 52. : ἔν τινι libri, Bt. :

ἐν Naber τίκτειν δὲ...ἐστίν del. Rettig καλῷ Bdhm.: καλω O.-P.: τῷ καλῷ libri ἡ γὰρ...ἐστίν del. Ast Sz. Bt.

ἐφοίτων παρὰ σὲ. φοιτᾶν is the regular word for “attending” lectures or a school, see J’rot. 3826 ὁ εἰς διδασκάλων. .«φοιτᾶν : Lep. 328 Ὁ δεῦρο παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς φοίτα: Phaedo 59 zB.

τόκος ἐν καλῷ. The act of procreation appears to be called almost in- differently (1) τόκος, as here, (2) γέννησις (206 6, πα, 209 D), (3) γέννησις καὶ τόκος (206 £), (4) in passive aspect γένεσις (206 Ὁ, 207D). Similarly with the verbs: we tind τίκτειν (206 ο, 2106, etc.), γεννᾶν (206 D, 207 A, etc.), τίκτειν καὶ γεννᾶν (206 D, 209 B, C).

Mavrelas...pav0dve. Notice the play on the stem-sound. Rettig, citing Eur. Hippol. 237 (τάδε μαντείας ἄξια πολλῆς), writes “ Witzspiel mit Anklang an Eur. und Anspielung auf Diotima’s Heimath und Beruf”: the latter allusion is likely enough, but the “Anklang an Eur.” is very problematical ; had it been specially intended we should have had ἄξια or πολλῆς echoed as well.

206 C κυοῦσι. κύησις, “pregnancy,” is properly the condition intermediate between conception (σύλληψις) and delivery. (τόκος). Cp. Achill. Tat. 1, 10 καὶ νεανίσκος ἔρωτος πρωτοκύμων ov δεῖται διδασκαλίας πρὸς τὸν τοκετόν. For the language and thought of this whole passage, cp. Theaet. 150 ff., Phaedr. 951 Α ff., Tim. 914: also Max. Tyr. diss, xvi. 4, p. 179 κνοῦσι δὲ πᾶσαι μὲν ψυχαὶ φύσει, ὠδίνουσι δὲ ἔθει, τίκτουσι δὲ λόγῳ κτλ. : Clem. Al. Strom. v. 552 B: Themist. or. XXXII. p. 355 Ὁ.

ἐν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ γ. I adopt Badham’s correction τῆι for τινε since the change involved is very slight and ἔν τινι ἡλικίᾳ is unexampled in Plato: cp. Gorg. 4840 ἐν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ: Rep. 461 Β; Phaedr. 209 Β infra; 2554; Meno 89 8. Plato also uses ἐν ἡλικίᾳ, e.g. Rep. 461 B: Charm. 1544: Laws 924 E.

τίκτειν δὲ..«καλῷ. There is much to be said for Rettig’s view that this sentence (as well as the next) isa gloss. As he argues, the words “ gehéren also ihrem Inhalte nach nicht an die Stelle, an welcher sie stehen, sondern sie miissten nach dem Satze ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο κτλ. folgen. An dieser Stelle collidiren sie aber mit den gleichbedeutenden Worten τὰ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἀναρμόστῳ.. «ἁρμόττον,

206 Ὁ] ZYMMOZION 111

᾿ ὃ \ \ bY ΄ , ? “ lg δὲ - θ a BY

ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς συνονσία τόκος ἐστίν. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο θεῖον τὸ a \ a ᾿ no» a ᾿ mn : » e

πρᾶγμα, Kal τοῦτο ἐν θνητῷ ὄντι τῷ ζώῳ ἀθάνατον ἔνεστιν, ἡ

a \ , \ a

κύησις καὶ ἡ γέννησις. τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἀναρμόστῳ ἀδύνατον γενέσθαι.

a , > na

ἀνάρμοστον δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ αἰσχρὸν παντὶ τῷ θείῳ, τὸ δὲ καλὸν ἁρμόττον.

Μοῖρα οὗν καὶ Ἰὐλείθυια ἡ Καλλονή ἐστι τῇ γενέσει. διὰ ταῦτα 206 Ο δὲ: yap Rohde ἔνεστιν B O.-P.: ἐστιν TW ra B O.-P.:

ταῦτα TW D θείῳ TW: θεῷ B O.-P. τῇ γενέσει διὰ ταῦτα: ὅταν κτλ. distinxit Schirlitz

fiir deren Glosse ich sie ansehe. Worauf sollten auch die Worte ἔστι δὲ... πρᾶγμα gehen, wenn ihnen die Worte τίκτειν δὲ..«καλῷ unmittelbar vor- angingen?” It is just possible, however, to retain the clause as a kind of parenthetic addendum to the preceding sentence, which forestalls, some- what confusingly, the sentences ra δ᾽.. «ἁρμόττον. The omission of the article before καλῷ, confirmed by the Papyrus, is certainly an improvement. For the thought, cp. Plotin. Hn. ur. v. p. 157 B.

[ἡ γὰρ..«τόκος ἐστίν) Most edd. (except Hommel and Stallb.) agree in excising this clause as a meaningless intrusion. Hommel and Stallb. explain the words as intended to introduce the first part of the exposition of τόκος, viz. τόκος κατὰ σῶμα: and Stallb. renders “nam (ydp=nemlich) viri et mulieris coitus, est ille nihil aliud nisi τόκος." Susemihl’s comment is “die Zeugung werde als die wahrhafte Aufhebung der Geschlechtsdifferenz be- zeichnet.” But, as Rettig shows, none of these attempts to justify the clause are satisfactory. Perhaps it is a gloss on ἡλικίᾳ.

ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο κτλ. Cp. Laws 7738, 721 Ο γαμεῖν δὲ...διανοηθέντα ὡς ἔστιν ἧ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος φύσει τινὶ μετείληφεν ἀθανασίας" οὗ καὶ πέφυκεν ἐπιθυ- μίαν ἴσχειν πᾶς πᾶσαν κτλ.: Cicero Tusc. τ. 35 quid procreatio liberorum, quid propagatio nominis...significant, nisi nos futura etiam cogitare?: Clem. Al. Strom. 11. p. 4210 ἐπισκευάσας τὴν ἀθανασίαν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν (sc. διὰ τοῦ γάμου), καὶ οἱονεὶ διαμονήν τινα παισὶ παίδων μεταλαμπαδευομένην.

ἐν τῷ ἀναρμόστῳ. For the connexion of Eros with ἁρμονία, see 187 a ff; for harmony of the body, cp. Rep. 591D; and of the soul, Rep. 430 Β ff, Phaedo 85m ff.

206 ἢ Μοῖρα... Εἰλείθυια. Cp. Pind. Οἱ. vi. 41 ra μὲν ὁ Χρυσοκόμας πραύμητίν τ᾽ ᾿Ἐλείθυιαν παρέστασέν τε Μοίρας: id. Nem. vil. 1 ᾿Ελείθυια πάρεδρε Μοιρᾶν βαθυφρόνων. Μοῖρα (“the Dispenser”) is a birth-goddess also in Hom. Jl. xxIv. 209 τῷδ᾽ ὥς ποθι Μοῖρα κραταίη | γιγνομένῳ ἐπένησε λίνῳ: For Eileithyia, sce also 17. x11. 270, Hes. Theog. 922; and it is note- worthy that Olen made out Eros to be the son of Hileithyia (see Paus. 1x. 27). Libanius (or. v. t. 1. p. 231 R.) identifies ἘΠ]. with Artemis,

ἡ Καλλονή. Usener was no doubt right in taking καλλονή here as a proper name, in spite of Rettig’s objection that “deren Existenz nachzuweisen ihm aber nicht gelungen ist”; for such a personification, in this context, requires no precedent. ‘“ Beauty acts the part of our Lady of Travail at the birth.” Possibly we ought to insert ἐπὶ after ἐστι(ν) or read ἔπε in place of ἐστι.

D

119 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [206 p

A 5 a U εἶ n ¢ , ἥδ \ 2 ὅταν μὲν καλῷ προσπελάζῃ τὸ κυοῦν, ἵλεών τε γίγνεται καὶ εὐ- φραινόμενον διαχεῖται καὶ τίκτει τε καὶ γεννᾷ" bray δὲ αἰσχρῷ, > ,

σκυθρωπόν τε καὶ λυπούμενον συσπειρᾶται καὶ ἀποτρέπεται καὶ > ἣν Ν ? n 2 Noy εἶ , a ΄ ἀνείλλεται καὶ οὐ γεννᾷ, ἀλλὰ ἴσχον τὸ κύημα χαλεπώς φέρει. ὅθεν δὴ ῶ a t ‘ HO ἂν Ar : ΄ 4

ἢ τῷ κυοῦντί τε καὶ ἤδη σπαργῶντι πολλὴ ἡ πτοίησις γέγονε

200 Ὁ σκυθρωπόν τε (γίγνεται) cj. Usener συσπειρᾶται TW: ξυ[ν]σπει- para O.-P.: συνσπείρεται B καὶ ἀποτρέπεται secl. Usener Sz. ἀνίλλεται O.-P.: ἀνείλλεται B: ἀνείλλεται Wi: ἀνείλλειται T σπαργοῦντι πτοίησις TW O.-P., Abresch: ποίησις B: πτόησις Bekk. 5Ζ.: πόνησις Sydenham

προσπελάζῃ. For this poetical word, cp. Hom. Od. 1x. 285, and (of sexual converse) Soph. O. 7. 1101 Πανὸς προσπελασθεῖσα.

ἵλεών. Cp. 197 Ὁ.

διαχεῖται. This word may signify both physical and emotional effects: for the former cp. Laws 7750 τῶν σωμάτων διακεχυμένων ὑπὸ μέθης : for the latter, Suidas (Hesych.) διαχεῖται" χαίρει, διαχέεται, and the Psalmist’s “I am poured out like water.”

συσπειρᾶται κτλ, Schol. cuomepara- συστρέφεται. Suid. κυρίως δὲ ἀνίλλεσθαι τὸ ἀπαξιοῦν. They are realistic terms to express aversion, derived perhaps from the action of a snail in drawing in its horns and rolling itself. into a ball. Cp. Plotin. Ann. 1. vi. 2. 51 ἡ ψυχὴ..-πρὸς τὸ αἰσχρὸν προσβα- λοῦσα ἀνίλλεται καὶ ἀρνεῖται καὶ dvavever ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ οὐ συμφωνοῦσα καὶ ἀλλοτριου- μένη. Usener and Hug may be right in bracketing καὶ ἀποτρέπεται, on which Hug comments “Zwischen dem der Gleichnissprache angehérenden συσπειρᾶται und ἀνίλλεται ist das matte, prosaische ἀποτρέπεται unpassend”; but the extra word helps to add emphasis, if nothing more, and Plotinus too uses three verbs. In ἀνείλλεται Rettig sees an “Anspielung auf dveAciOua” (cp. Eur. fon 453). Cp. Plut. de 8. n. νυ. p, 562 a.

σπαργῶντι. For σπαργᾶν, lacte turgere, cp. Rep. 460: in Phaedr. 256 a (σπαργῶν δὲ καὶ ἀπορῶν περιβάλλει τὸν ἐραστὴν καὶ φιλεῖ) σπαργῶν -- Venere tumens. The Scholiast here has σπαργῶντε' ὁρμῶντι, ὀργῶντι, ταραττομένῳ, ἢ ἀνθοῦντι. λαμβάνεται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μαστῶν πεπληρωμένων γάλακτος. Here the realism of the language and the juxtaposition of κυοῦντι compels us to construe “great with child” (as L. and S.) or “with swelling bosom ”—not merely “bursting with desire” or excitement. Cp. σφριγῶ as used in Ar. Lysistr. 80.

ἡ πτοίησις. “Sic feliciter emendavit Abresch”—his conj. turning out to have some ms. support. The subst. occurs also in Prot, 310} γιγνώσκων αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀνδρείαν καὶ τὴν πτοίησιν : Crat. 4044 τὴν τοῦ σώματος πτοίησιν καὶ μανίαν: and the verb (ἐπτοῆσθαι) in Rep. 439 Ὁ, Phaedo 68 ο, 1084. Cp. Mimnermus 5, 2 πτοιῶμαι δ᾽ ἐσορῶν ἄνθος ὁμηλικίης. 1t seems a vox propria for the condition of the lover “sighing like a furnace”: cp, Plotin. de puler, p. 26 (with Creuzer’s note).

207 Α] ZYMTTOZION 113

' ee

N \ \ a !

περὶ τὸ καλὸν διὰ TO μεγάλης ὠδῖνος ἀπολύειν τὸν ἔχοντα. ἔστι Ἐ) °''

' 4 ῃ ᾿ t any γάρ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔφη, οὐ τοῦ καλοῦ ὁ ἔρως, ὡς σὺ οἴει. ᾿Αλλὰ τί

’, a , Ν a ‘a » ind a 53 > i) , μήν; Τῆς γεννήσεως καὶ τοῦ τόκου ἐν τῷ καλῷ. Elev; ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ. ke Tl , Q 3 "ἢ ’ δΡ μ ἢ a ca [ 4 t ’ \

Ἰάνυ μὲν οὖν, ἔφη. τί δὴ οὖν τῆς γεννήσεως; ὅτι devyevés ἐστι |

\ 16. » - θ nA ς , ᾽ , . 4 a ? v καὶ ἀθάνατον ws θνητῷ ἡ γέννησις. ἀθανασίας δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐπι- 207 θυμεῖν μετὰ ἀγαθοῦ ἐκ τῶν ὡμολογημένων, εἴπερ τοῦ ἀγαθὸν 9 tal 3 Ὁ ae. 8 ? t γ᾽ an ‘\ 2 , a , ἑαυτῷ εἶναι ἀεὶ ἔρως ἐστίν. ἀναγκαῖον δὴ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τὸν ἔρωτα εἶναι.

XXXVI. Ταῦτά τε οὖν πάντα ἐδίδασκέ με, ὁπότε περὶ τῶν

206 BE ἀπολύειν TW O.-P.: ἀπολαύειν B: ἀποπαύειν cj. Naber ἔχοντα: ἐρῶντα Voeg. τίνος μήν Steph. πάνυ. .«ἔφη del. Bdhm. τί...γεννήσεως vulgo Socrati tribuunt, Diotimae Herm. (Voeg.) reddidit δὴ BT O.-P.: δεῖ γεννήσεως: yeverews O.-P. devyevés: act yeveots O.-P. 207A ἀγα- θὸν scripsi: ἀγαθοῦ BT O.-P.: τἀγαθὸν W Vind. Suppl. 7, vulg. Bast (ὁ) ἔρως Bekk. Sz. :

206 E ὠδῖνος ἀπολύειν. This is the office of Καλλονὴ as Εἰλείθυια : cp. Theact. 151 4 ταύτην...τὴν ὠδῖνα ἐγείρειν τε καὶ ἀποπαύειν ἡ ἐμὴ τέχνη (86. ἡ μαιευτικὴ) δύναται: Rep. 490B ᾧ πλησιάσας καὶ μιγεὶς τῷ ὄντως ὄντι, γεννήσας νοῦν καὶ ἀλήθειαν. ..καὶ οὕτω λήγοι ὠδῖνος: Max, Tyr. diss. xvi. 4, p. 179 λόγος μαιεύεται ψυχὴν κυοῦσαν καὶ ὠδίνων μεστήν.

τὸν ἔχοντα. “Sc. ταύτην τὴν ὠδῖνα " (Wolf): but Hommel and Stallb, supply αὐτό, 1.6. τὸ καλόν. Op, Phacdr, 252A τὸν τὸ κάλλος ἔχοντα ἰατρὸν εὕρηκε μόνον τῶν μεγίστων movev,—which settles the question.

τί..«γεννήσεως ; τί, answered by ὅτι, means “why” or “wherein” rather than “what” (as in 204 D), and the genitive, like those preceding, is objective. Supply ἐστὶν ὁ ἔρως.

deyevés. This is practically a re-assertion of the statement in 906 c (θεῶν τὸ πρᾶγμα κτλ.). Cp. Laws 118 ὡς χρὴ τῆς devyevois φύσεως ἀντέχεσθαι τῷ παῖδας παίδων καταλείποντα κτλ.

207 Α εἴπερ τοῦ ἀγαθὸν κτλ. Against Bekker, Dindorf, Ast, Stallb.1 who adopted τοῦ τἀγαθὸν Riickert wrote: “etiam vulg. proba est. Construe: εἴπερ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἔρως ἐστὶν, quibus ἐξηγητικῶς addita sunt verba ἑαυτῷ εἶναι ἀεί. In quibus supplendum est subj. ὁ ἔρως." To this Stallb.2 and Rettig assent, comparing Pind. Ol. 111. 33 τῶν νιν γλυκὺς ἵμερος ἔσχεν..-φυτεῦσαι: Thue. v. 15. 1 ἐπιθυμίᾳ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν ἐκ τῆς νήσου κομίσασθαι (where Poppo cites for the epexegetic infin. Crito 52c, Xen. Cyr. v. 281). None the less, the Mss.’ text seems—if not “sine ullo sensu” as Wolf put it—at least very awkward Greek. The obvious allusion to the former definition, 6 ἔρως ἐστὶ τοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὑτῷ εἶναι dei (2064 ad fin.), supports Bekker’s reading here as the right one: but if we read τοῦ τἀγαθόν here consistency requires that we also read μετὰ τἀγαθοῦ in the preceding line, an easy change but supported by no authority. Hence I content myself with the minimum of alteration, viz. ἀγαθὸν for ἀγαθοῦ.

B. P. 8

114 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [207 a

> a 3 a / Ba fo 3 ΄ yy ἐρωτικῶν λόγους ποιοῖτο, Kal ποτε ἤρετο Τί οἴει, ὦ Σώκρατες, αἴτιον , a a εἶναι τούτου τοῦ ἔρωτος καὶ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας; ἢ οὐκ αἰσθάνει ὡς a ig δεινῶς διατίθεται πάντα τὰ θηρία, ἐπειδὰν γεννᾶν ἐπιθυμήσῃ, Kai ‘ a lol Bra πεζὰ καὶ τὰ πτηνά, νοσοῦντά τε πάντα καὶ ἐρωτικῶς διατι- , n an ‘ θέμενα, πρῶτον μὲν περὶ τὸ ξυμμιγῆναι ἀλλήλοις, ἔπειτα περὶ τὴν τροφὴν τοῦ γενομένου, καὶ ἕτοιμά ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τούτων καὶ διαμά- χεσθαι τὰ ἀσθενέστατα τοῖς ἰσχυροτάτοις καὶ ὑπεραποθνήσκειν, Ν 2 AN ΩΝ a , Wa > 9 a ? tL Ν ἊΨ καὶ αὐτὰ τῷ λιμῷ παρατεινόμενα ὥστ᾽ ἐκεῖνα ἐκτρέφειν, καὶ ἄλλο πᾶν ποιοῦντα ; τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπους, ἔφη, οἴοιτ᾽ ἄν τις ἐκ λογισμοῦ ταῦτα ποιεῖν: τὰ δὲ θηρία τίς αἰτία οὕτως ἐρωτικῶς 4 C διατίθεσθαι; ἔχεις λέγειν; καὶ ἐγὼ ad ἔλεγον bre οὐκ εἰδείην" “δ 3) + a κ᾿ ’ ¥ \ 2? ΄ 2%. ἢ δ᾽ εἶπε, Διανοεῖ οὖν δεινός ποτε γενήσεσθαι τὰ ἐρωτικά, ἐὰν ca) Ἂ a fa’ a ταῦτα μὴ évvons; ᾿Αλλὰ διὰ ταῦτά τοι, ὦ Διοτίμα, ὅπερ νῦν δὴ 3 \ + \ ae t ΄ 5. ΄ tf εἶπον, Tapa σὲ ἥκω, γνοὺς ὅτι διδασκάλων δέομαι. ἀλλά μοι λέγε

207 A αἰσθάνῃ ΒΓ. επιθυμωσι Ο.-Ῥ1 Β ἐστιν del. Bhhm. τούτων καὶ BT O.-P.: τούτων W αὐτὰ : avtw O.-P. τῷ del. Bdhm. παρατει- νομενω O.-P.! ἐρωτικῶς del. Naber Cad ἔλεγον b, vulg. 52. Bt.: dvedeyov B: ἂν ἔλεγον TW: edeyov O.-P.

ὡς δεινῶς διατίθεται. “In welchem gewaltsamen Zustande sich die Thiere befinden” (Schlei.). The phrase is echoed by Alcibiades in 215 ΕΒ, cp. 207 Β, 208 σ. For διάθεσις see Phileb. 11D, with my note.

207 Β νοσοῦντα... περ. Cp. Phaedr. 228B νοσοῦντι περὶ λόγων ἀκοήν: Soph. fr. 162 (Dindf.) νόσημ᾽ ἔρωτος τοῦτ᾽ ἐφίμερον κακόν (but Nauck fr. 153 reads the verse otherwise).

kal διαμάχεσθαι κτλ. This is a correction of Phaedrus’s statement (179 B ff): cp. 220D ff. For the fact, cp. Aelian 27. A. τ. 18, τι. 40: Laws 8148 μήδ᾽ ὥσπερ ὄρνιθας περὶ τέκνων μαχομένας...ἐθέλειν ἀποθνήσκειν κτλ.

καὶ αὐτὰ κτλ. “Schleiermacher: um sie nur zu ernihren. Recte. Fallitur enim Hommel, ὥστε sic usurpari negans ideoque voculam ejectam cupiens. Conf. De Rep. vu. p. 549¢ al.” (Stallb.). As Stallb. explains, αὐτὰ κτλ. depend on αἰσθάνει, the construction being changed, and ai’ra=sponte. For mapateiver Oa, “racked,” cp. Lys. 204c: Ar. fr. 421.

τίς αἰτία κτλ. For αἰτία with the (anarthrous) infin. cp. Phaedo 974 airia,..yevéoOa. For the foregoing description of the phenomena connected with reproduction in the animal-world, cp. (with Rettig) Od. xv. 216 ff.; Laws 8148; Arist. Hist. An. vit. 1; Cic. de fin. m1. 19. 62.

207 C Διανοεῖ. “Do you fancy--?”: cp. Laws 755B μηκέτι... «τὴν τηλι- καύτην ἀρχὴν ὡς ἄρξων διανοηθήτω. Notice the tone of indignant scorn in which Diotima speaks, cp, 204 B,

δεινὸς τὰ épwrika. Cp. 193 5, 198 D.

ὅπερ νῦν δὴ εἶπον. Sce 200 Β.

207 0] ΣΥΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 11ὅ

Ἀ ’, an Ν ΕἾ καὶ τούτων τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν περὶ τὰ ἐρωτικά. 3 Fi \ Ei τοίνυν, ἔφη, πιστεύεις ἐκείνου εἶναι φύσει τὸν ἔρωτα, οὗ πολ- 4 τ Ψ' εἶ CA ᾽ lal \ 4A a Me > FA λάκις ὡμολογήκαμεν, μὴ θαύμαζε. ἐνταῦθα yap τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ D , [7 \ , a \ \ \ 2 ‘ 7. ? ν᾽ λόγον ἡ θνητὴ φύσις ζητεῖ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἀεὶ τὸ εἶναι ἀθάνα- τος. δύναται δὲ ταύτῃ μόνον, τῇ γενέσει, ὅτι ἀεὶ καταλείπει ἕτερον t > BY n lel > A * > * J a n ’ a νέον ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἕν ἕκαστον τῶν ζῴων ζῆν 201 Ὁ (κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν Hirschig αἰεὶ τὸ εἶναι ἀθάνατος B: ἀεί τε εἶναι καὶ ἀθάνατος Τ' O.-P., In. Bt.: τὸ ἀεὶ εἶναι Sz.: τὸ εἶναι ἀεί J.-U. τῇ γενέσει

libri, 0.-P.: τῇ γεννήσει Wolf Bdhm. J.-U.: secl. Verm. Sz. Bt. ὅτι: ὅταν Usener καταλείπῃ Usener ἕν. «ζῴων del. Ast

οὗ πολλάκις Gp. οὗ means ἀθανασίας : πολλάκις refers not only to 206 Ef. but also to other conversations such as are implied in 2074 (ἐδίδασκέ pe ὁπότε KTA.).

207 D ἐνταῦθα. “Here,” 1.6. in the case of τὰ θηρία, as distinguished from that of humans.

τὸν αὐτὸν... λόγον. Adv. accus.; cp. 178 Ε΄.

κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν. This implies (cp. 208 a ad fin. B) that only partial immortality, at the best, can attach to ἡ θνητὴ φύσις.

del τὸ εἶναι ἀθάνατος. 1 retain the reading of B rejected by recent edd. (see crit. n.): ἀεὶ goes with the preceding words, cp. ep. 618 C τὸν βελτίω ἐκ τῶν δυνατῶν ἀεὶ πανταχοῦ αἱρεῖσθαι: and 2064, B supra. If, with Burnet, we adopt the reading of T, we must suppose εἶναι to be doing double duty, “both to exist (εἶναι) always and to be (εἶναι) immortal.” For the desire of this mortal “to put on immortality,” cp. Eur. fr. 808 ὦ φιλόζωοι Bporoi... οὕτως ἔρως βρότοισιν ἔγκειται βίου : Browne Hydriot. c. 5 “ Restless inquietude for the diuturnity of our memories unto present considerations seems a vanity almost out of date, and superannuated piece of folly.”

δύναται κτλ. This introduces the explanation of the saving phrase κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. ταύτῃ is adverbial (equiv. to ταύτῃ τῇ μηχάνῃ in 2088 ad init.), and τῇ γενέσει, if genuine, is an cpexegetic supplement. Possibly we should excise τῇ γενέσει, with Vermehren ; or else alter to τῇ γεννήσει. But the use of τῇ γενέσει above (206 Ὁ) in the sense of “the process of generation,” com- bined with the emphasis, by repetition of its moods and tenses, laid on γίγνεσθαι in the sequel (207 D—208 a), may make us hesitate to adopt any change; cp. also the passage quoted in the next note.

del καταλείπει κτλ. Cp. Laws 7210 γένος οὖν ἀνθρώπων..«τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ ἀθάνατον ὄν, τῷ παῖδας παίδων καταλειπόμενον ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕν ὃν ἀεὶ γενέσει τῆς ἀθανασίας μετειληφέναι: ib. 178 5 (cited above). On this “conceit” of “a fruitful issue wherein, as in the truest chronicle, they seem to outlive them- selves,” Sir Τὶ Browne (tel. Med. § 41) observes “This counterfeit subsisting in our progenies seems to me a mere fallacy ἢ etc.

ἐπεὶ καὶ κτλ. We should expect this first clause to be followed by some- thing like οὐκ ἔστι τὸ αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ νέον ἀεὶ γίγνεται, τὰ δὲ ἀπόλλυσι OY οὐδέποτε τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ, but, affected by the parenthetic clause οἷον... γένηται, the

8—2

116 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [207 νυ

καλεῖται καὶ εἶναι τὸ αὐτό, οἷον ἐκ παιδαρίου ὁ αὐτὸς λέγεται ἕως A ἂν πρεσβύτης γένηται" οὗτος μέντοι οὐδέποτε τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχων ἐν Ly a αὑτῷ ὅμως ὁ αὐτὸς καλεῖται, ἀλλὰ νέος ἀεὶ γιγνόμενος, τὰ δὲ E ἀπολλύς, καὶ κατὰ τὰς τρίχας καὶ σάρκα καὶ ὀστᾶ καὶ αἷμα καὶ fal < a 5 Ν᾽, A | ξύμπαν τὸ σῶμα. καὶ μὴ ὅτι κατὰ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ Kal κατὰ τὴν \ a , ψυχὴν οἱ τρόποι, τὰ ἤθη, δόξαι, ἐπιθυμίαι, ἡδοναί, λῦπαι, φόβοι, γῇ Ψ ).. ἢ \ 2A s eA 2 x Ν ᾿ τούτων ἕκαστα οὐδέποτε τὰ αὐτὰ πάρεστιν ἑκάστῳ, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ' \ i La A Ν a: > , yw a γίγνεται, τὰ δὲ ἀπόλλυται. πολὺ δὲ τούτων ἀτοπώτερον ETL, OTL © a ¥ na 208 καὶ αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι μὴ ὅτι ai μὲν γίγνονται, ai δὲ ἀπόλλυνται ἡμῖν, \ 5» 7 € ᾽ 3 ἡ 2OX AY AY ᾿ ΄ > A Ν καὶ οὐδέποτε οἱ αὐτοί ἐσμεν οὐδὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστήμας, ἀλλὰ καὶ , a n a μία ἑκάστη τῶν ἐπιστημῶν ταὐτὸν πάσχει. ὃ γὰρ καλεῖται μελε-

201 Ὦ τὰ αὐτὰ: ravra O.-P.: ταῦτ᾽ Bdhm. ἀλλὰ νέος : ἀλλοῖος Steph. : ἀλλὰ νέος τὰ μὲν Sommer: fort. (τὰ μὲν) ἅμα νέος (τὰ μὲν προσλαμβάνων) τὰ δὲ Wolf: τὰ δὲ (παλαιὰν Bast E τρόποι Τ' O.-P.: τόποι Β ἔθη Fischer ἔτι ἢ Ο.-Ρ. : ἐστιν TW

sentence follows a different course. Cp. the cases of anacoluthon in 177 Β, 182 p. véos...7a δὲ ἀπολλύς. For the omission of ra μὲν, cp. Theaet. 181 τ, Protag. 330.4, Rep. 451 Ὁ. I think it not unlikely that for ἀλλὰ we should read ἅμα: the processes of growth and decay are synchronous. For the substance of this passage cp. Heraclitus fr. 41 dis és τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης: (Heraclitus ap.) Plut. de EI Delph. c. 18 ὁ χθὲς (ἄνθρωπος) εἰς τὸν σήμερον τέθνηκεν, ὁ δὲ σήμερον εἰς τὸν αὔριον ἀποθνήσκει. μένει δ᾽ οὐδείς, οὐδ᾽ ἔστιν εἷς, ἀλλὰ γιγνόμεθα πολλοὶ περὶ ἕν φάντασμα: Max. Tyr. diss. xii. 4 μεταβολὴν ὁρᾷς σωμάτων καὶ γενέσεως ἀλλαγήν, ὁδὸν ἄνω καὶ κάτω κατὰ τὸν Ἡράκλειτον κτλ.: Plut. cons. ad Apoll. 10: Oratyl. 439 Ὁ Εἰ: see also Rohde Psyche 11. 148. The influence of “the flowing philosophers” is noticeable also in Epicharm. fr. 40. 12 ff. (Lorenz)— ὧδε viv ὅρη καὶ τὸς ἀνθρώπους: ὁ μὲν yap αὔξεθ᾽, ὁ δέ γα μὰν φθίνει. ἐν μεταλλαγᾷ δὲ πάντες ἐντὶ πάντα τὸν χρόνον. ὁ δὲ μεταλλάσσει κατὰ φύσιν κωὔποκ᾽ ἐν τωὐτῷ μένει, ἅτερον εἴη κα τόδ᾽ ἤδη τοῦ παρεξεστακύτος. καὶ τὺ δὴ κἀγὼ χθὲς ἄλλοι καὶ νὺν ἄλλοι τελέθομες, καὖθις ἄλλοι κωὔποχ᾽ witol καττὸν αὐτὸν αὖ λόγον. Cp. Spenser 25. Ὁ. vir. 7. 19 And men themselves do change continually, | From youth to eld from wealth to poverty...Ne doe their bodies only flit and fly, | But eeke their minds (which they immortall call) | Still change and vary thoughts, as new occasions fall.” 208 Α αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι. The word is used here in the popular sense— “notitiae rerum in sensus cadentium” (Riickert); cp. Rep. 476 p ff. μελετᾶν. See note on ἀμελέτητος 172 A supra.

208 B] ZYMTIOZION 117

τᾶν, ws ἐξιούσης ἐστὶ τῆς ἐπιστήμης: λήθη yap ἐπιστήμης ἔξοδος, μελέτη δὲ πάλιν καινὴν ἐμποιοῦσα ἀντὶ τῆς ἀπιούσης [μνήμην] owtes τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ὥστε τὴν αὐτὴν δοκεῖν εἶναι. τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ τρόπῳ πᾶν τὸ θνητὸν σῴζεται, οὐ τῷ παντάπασι τὸ αὐτὸ ἀεὶ εἶναι ὥσπερ τὸ θεῖον, ἀλλὰ τῷ τὸ ἀπιὸν καὶ παλαιούμενον ἕτερον νέον Β ἐγκαταλείπειν οἷον αὐτὸ ἦν. ταύτῃ τῇ μηχανῇ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔφη, θνητὸν ἀθανασίας μετέχει, καὶ σῶμα καὶ τἄλλα πάντα" ἀδύνατον δὲ ἄλλῃ. μὴ οὖν θαύμαξε εἰ τὸ αὑτοῦ ἀποβλάστημα φύσει πᾶν τιμᾷ" ἀθανασίας γὰρ χάριν παντὶ αὕτη ἡ σπουδὴ καὶ ὁ ἔρως Lg

ἕπεται.

208 Α μνήμην 560], Baiter Sz. Bt.: μνημὴ O.-P.: μνήμῃ Sauppe In.

θνητὸν T O.-P.: ὀνητὸν B οὐ τῷ T O.-P.: οὕτω B τὸ αὐτὸν B O.-P.: ταὐτὸν Bdhm. J.-U. Β τῷτὸ: τῷ Liebhold: τῷ τὸ ἀεὶ Usener καὶ παλαιούμενον om. Stob., J.-U. ἐγκαταλείπειν : ενκαταλιπειν O.-P.: καταλείπειν Stob.: ἀεὶ καταλείπειν Hirschig Jn. raury...dAAq om. Stob. μετέχει Steph., 0.-P.: μετέχειν libri, Voeg. ἀδύνατον Creuzer Sz. Bt.: δυνατόν, ἀδύνατον Voeg.: ἀθάνατον libri, O.-P. ἅπαν Stob.

λήθη γὰρ κτλ. Cp. Phaedo 75D οὐ τοῦτο λήθην λέγομεν...ἐπιστήμης ἀπο- βολήν; Philed. 33. ἔστι γὰρ λήθη μνήμης ἔξοδος: Meno 810; Laws 732 6. For the πηγὴ Λήθης (Μνημοσύνης) in Hades, sco Pind. fr. 130; Rohde, L’syche IL. 209%, 390),

[μνήμην] This word is either interpolated or corrupted (pace Rettig who attempts to defend it by citing Phileb. 348): ἀπιούσης must refer to the same subst. as ἐξιούσης above, viz. τῆς ἐπιστήμης, while καινήν must qualify the same subst. as dmovons. For later reff. to this doctrine, see Philo Jud. de nom. mut. p. 1060; Nemes. de nat. hom. 13, p. 166.

208 Β ἀλλὰ τῷ..«οἷον αὐτὸ ἦν. This view is reproduced by Aristotle, de an. τι. 4. 415% 26 ff. φυσικώτατον yap τῶν ἔργων τοῖς ζῶσιν...«τὸ ποιῆσαι ἕτερον οἷον αὐτό.. ἵνα τοῦ ἀεὶ καὶ τοῦ θείου μετέχωσιν ...ἐπεὶ οὖν κοινωνεῖν ἀδυνατεῖ τοῦ ἀεὶ καὶ τοῦ θείου τῇ συνεχείᾳ...κοινωνεῖ ταύτῃ...καὶ διαμένει οὐκ αὐτὸ ἀλλ᾽ οἷον αὐτό, ἀριθμῷ μὲν οὐχ ἕν, εἴδει δ᾽ ev: cp. id. οῖ. τ. 12528 26 ff. ; de gen. an. τι. 735° 17 ff.

ταύτῃ τῇ μ- Cp. ταύτῃ, 207 D ad init.

ἀδύνατον δὲ ἄλλῃ. Stallb.?, retaining the traditional ἀθάνατον, comments: “haec addita videntur et oppositionis gratia et propter verba extrema καὶ τἄλλα πάντα: quae ne falso intelligerentur, sane cavendum fuit”—which, as Hommel points out, is unsatisfactory. Against ἀδύνατον Riickert absurdly objects that Plato would have written ἄλλῃ δὲ ἀδύνατον.

παντὶ... ἕπεται. Since ἔπεσθαι is more naturally used of attendance on a divinity (cp. 197 8, Phaedr. 248 a etc.) perhaps ἔπεστιν ought to be read (cp. 183 B crit. 2.). ἡ σπουδὴ serves to recall 206 B.

118 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [208 B

XXVII. Καὶ ἐγὼ ἀκούσας τὸν λόγον ἐθαύμασά τε καὶ εἶπον Kiev, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ὦ σοφωτάτη Διοτίμα, ταῦτα ὡς ἀληθῶς οὕτως ἔχει; καὶ ἥ, ὥσπερ οἱ τέλεοι σοφισταί, Ed ἴσθι, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες" ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰ ἐθέλεις εἰς τὴν φιλοτιμίαν βλέψαι, θαυμάζοις ἂν τῆς ἀλογίας [περὶ] ἃ ἐγὼ εἴρηκα εἰ μὴ ἐννοεῖς, évOv- | μηθεὶς ὡς δεινῶς διάκεινται ἔρωτι τοῦ ὀνομαστοὶ γενέσθαι “ καὶ κλέος ἐς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον ἀθάνατον καταθέσθαι,᾽ καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτου κινδύνους τε κινδυνεύειν ἕτοιμοί εἰσι πάντας ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ ὑπὲρ τῶν παίδων, καὶ χρήματ᾽ ἀναλίσκειν καὶ πόνους πονεῖν οὑστινασοῦν

208 Ο ἔφη BT O.-P.: om. W ἐπεὶ B O.-P., Sz: ἐπεί ye TW, Bt. ἐθέλοις Steph. περὶ BT: πέρι Vind. 21, Bast Herm.: περι O.-P.: secl. Ast Sz. és B, Sz. Bt: εἰς TW O.-P. ἀθάνατον del. Wolf πάντες W μᾶλλον om. T

Etev. “Really!”: “In irrisione verti potest so?” (Ast). This is ἃ some- what rare use; cp. Rep. 350 Ε ἐγὼ δέ σοι, ὥσπερ ταῖς γραῦσιν ταῖς τοὺς μύθους λεγούσαις, “elev” ἐρῶ: ib. 424; Huthyd. 290 6. For the doubled “verbum dicendi” (εἶπον...ἦν), cp. 177.4, 202 ¢.

208 C ὥσπερ of τέλεοι σοφισταί, We might render ‘in true professorial style.” The reference may be partly (as Wolf and Hommel suggest) to the fact that the sophistic, as contrasted with the Socratic, method was that of didactic monologue (δύλιχον κατατείνουσι τοῦ λόγου Prot. 329 a)—the lecture rather than the conversation. Thus in the sequel (208c—212a) Diotima developes her own doctrine without the aid of further question-and-answer. Stallb., however, explains the phrase as intended to ridicule the pretended omniscience of the sophists; Rettig sees in it an indication that what follows is meant, in part, as a parody of the earlier speeches; and by Ast and Schleierm, it is taken to refer only to the dogmatic tono of εὖ ἴσθι. For τέλεος σοφιστής, cp. Crat. 403 πὶ (applied to Hades); σοφιστής applied to Eros, 203 Ὁ; οἱ χρηστοὶ σοφισταί, 177 B; of σοφοί, 1850. It is possible also that in τέλεος there may be a hint at the mystery-element in D.’s speech (cp. 210 4 and πρὸς τέλος 210 B).

εἰ ἐθέλεις κτλ. For φιλοτιμία, cp. 178 Ὁ. The thought here recalls Milton’s ‘Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise” etc.

θαυμάζοις ἂν κτὰ. Stallb., defending περὶ, says “ad ἐννοεῖς facillime ὁ superioribus intelligitur αὐτά." But we may justly complain here, as Badham does at Phileb. 49 a, of “the dunce who inserted περὶ."

kal κλέος... καταθέσθαι. “Ex poeta aliquo petita esse ipse verborum numerus declarat” (Stallb.): but it is just as probable that Diotima herself is the authoress—rivalling Agathon. Cp. Tyrtaeus 12. 31—2 οὐδέ more κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἀπόλλυται οὐδ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ αὐτοῦ | ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆς περ ἐὼν γίγνεται ἀθάνατος: Theogn. 245—6 οὐδὲ τότ᾽ οὐδὲ θανὼν ἀπολεῖς κλέος, ἀλλὰ μελήσεις | ἄφθιτον ἀνθρώποις αἰὲν ἔχων ὄνομα: Simon. 99. 1 ἄσβεστον κλέος...θέντες. For the thought, see also Cic. 71,86. 1. p, 303; Cat. Afat. 22. 3.

208 D] ZYMTTOZION 119

τ καὶ ὑπεραποθνήσκειν. ἐπεὶ οἴει σύ, ἔφη,"Αλκηστιν ὑπὲρ ᾿Αδμήτον ’ . » a? , a a ἀποθανεῖν ἄν, ἢ ᾿Αχιλλέα Πατρόκλῳ ἐπαποθανεῖν, ἢ προαποθανεῖν Ν Ἔ , K 55 € \ fol t n f \ ΕΣ tf Tov ὑμέτερον Κόδρον ὑπὲρ τῆς βασιλείας τῶν παίδων, μὴ οἰομένους "4,7 ΄ n « a a “ἀθάνατον μνήμην ἀρετῆς πέρι" ἑαυτῶν ἔσεσθαι, ἣν νῦν ἡμεῖς mv ral - fol ἔχομεν; πολλοῦ γε δεῖ, ἔφη, ἀλλ᾽, οἶμαι, ὑπὲρ ἀρετῆς ἀθανάτου ila nx , i ὅσῳ ἂν ἀμεί-

lig ψιυ 208 Ὁ ἄν... προαποθανεῖν om. W βαλειας O,-P. πέρι Ast Sz. Bt.: περὶ BT

\ Lf t lal na καὶ τοιαύτης δόξης εὐκλεοῦς πάντες πάντα ποιοῦσιν

208 Ὁ ὑπεραποθνήσκειν. An obvious allusion to 1604 ff.: Diotima corrects Phaedrus by showing the motive for self-sacrifice to be not so much personal ἔρως as ἔρως for immortal fame. The use of the cognate accus. (κινδύνους, πόνους) is another poetical feature in this passage—reminiscent of Agathon’s style.

Κόδρον. Schol.: πολέμου τοῖς Δωριεῦσιν ὄντος πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους, ἔχρησεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς Δωριεῦσιν σἱρήσειν τὰς ᾿Αθήνας, εἰ Κόδρον τὸν βασιλέα μὴ φονεύ- σουσιν. γνοὺς δὲ τοῦτο ὁ Κόδρος, στείλας ἑαυτὸν εὐτελεῖ σκεύῃ ὡς ξυλιστὴν καὶ δρέπανον λαβών, ἐπὶ τὸν χάρακα τῶν πολεμίων προήει. δύο δὲ αὐτῷ ἀπαντη- σάντων πολεμίων τὸν μὲν ἕνα πατάξας κατέβαλεν, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἀγνοηθεὶς ὅστις ἦν, πληγεὶς ἀπέθανε. This “popular story” is late: “according to the older tradition Codrus fell in battle” (see Bury Hist. Gr. p. 169): the traditional date of the event is about 1068 B.c. Notice the rare προαπο- θανεῖν (once each in Hdt., Antiphon, Xen.), and the “sophistic” jingle in mpo-, ἐπ-, ἀποθανεῖν. For later allusions to Codrus, see Cic. J'use. 1. 48; Hor. C. ur. 19. 2.

ἀθάνατον μνήμην κτλ. Cp. Simon. 123 μνῆμα δ᾽ ἀποφθιμένοισι πατὴρ Μεγάριστος ἔθηκεν ἀθάνατον θνητοῖς παισὶ χαριζόμενος : id. 4. 8 (Λεωνίδας) ἀρετᾶς λελοιπὼς | κόσμον ἀέναον κλέος τε: td. 96. Observe how near ἀθάνατον ...€oerOa goes to forming a complete hexameter.

ἀρετῆς ἀθανάτου. Cp. Soph. Philoct. 1419 ὅσους πονήσας καὶ διεξελθὼν πόνους | ἀθάνατον ἀρετὴν ἔσχον : Pind. Ol. vil. 163 ἄνδρα τε πὺξ ἀρετὰν εὑ- povta: τά. Nem. x. 2 φλέγεται δ᾽ ἀρεταῖς μυρίαις ἔργων θρασέων ἕνεκεν (“countless monuments” J. B. Bury, see Append. A in his ed.): id. Isthm. ιν. 17 (with Bury, App. F): Thue. τ. 33.2: Rep. 618 B ἐπὶ γένεσι καὶ προγόνων ἀρεταῖς : Xen. Cyrop. vill. 1. 29: Anth, Pal, vit. 252. These passages show that ἀρετή can denote not only “excellence” but its result, reward or token, “renown,” “distinction,” whether or not embodied in a concrete “monument.” For the thought cp. Spenser /. Q. 111. iii. 1 “Most sacred fyre, that burnest mightily In living brests...which men call Love...Whence spring all noble deedes and never dying fame.”

εὐκλεοῦς. Cp. Simon. 95 εὐκλέας aia κέκευθε, Λεωνίδα, of μετὰ σεῖο | τῇδ᾽ ἔθανον : Menex. 347 ". With the thought of this passage, cp. Sir T. Browne Hydriot. c. 5 “There is no antidote against the opium of time....But the iniquity of oblivion blindly scattereth her poppy, and deals with the memory of men without distinction to merit of perpetuity....In vain do individuals

120 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [208 »

E vous ὦσι, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον" τοῦ γὰρ ἀθανάτου ἐρῶσιν. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐγκύμονες, ἔφη, κατὰ τὰ σώματα ὄντες πρὸς τὰς γυναῖκας μᾶλλον τρέπονται καὶ ταύτῃ ἐρωτικοί εἰσι, διὰ παιδογονίας ἀθανασίαν καὶ μνήμην καὶ εὐδαιμονίαν, ὡς οἴονται, αὑτοῖς “ eis τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον

209 πάντα ποριζόμενοι"" οἱ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν---εἰσὶ γὰρ οὖν, ἔφη, οἱ ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς κυοῦσιν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν, ἃ ψυχῇ προσήκει καὶ κνῆσαι καὶ τεκεῖν" τί οὖν προσήκει; φρόνησίν τε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ἀρετήν' ὧν δή εἰσι καὶ οἱ ποιηταὶ πάντες γεννή-

208E κατὰ τὰ O.-P., Paris 1812, vulg. Sz.: κατὰ BTW, Bt. οἷόν re Vind. 21

209 A ἢ (ai) ἐν Naber κυησεται Ο.- Δ; κνησαιτε O.-P. corr.: κυεῖσθαι Bdhm. τεκεῖν Hug Sz., O.-P.: κυεῖν libri: τίκτειν Jn.: γεννᾶν cj. Teuffel

hope for immortality, or any patent from oblivion, in preservations below the moone.” Also Soph. Philoct. 1422 ἐκ τῶν πόνων τῶνδ᾽ εὐκλεᾶ θέσθαι βίον.

208 E οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐγκύμονες. Here first the two kinds of pregnancy, bodily and mental,— mentioned together in 206 B, c—are definitely separated.

πρὸς τὰς y. μ. τρέπονται. Cp. 181] ο, 191 ΕΒ.

ἀθανασίαν κτλ. Hug points out that by a few slight alterations this can be turned into an elegiac couplet :—

ἀθάνατον μνήμην κεὐδαιμονίαν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον πάντα ποριζόμενοι. Hommel had already printed ¢is...ypévov as a half-verse.

209 Α of δὲ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν. Se. ἐγκύμονες ὄντες. In this anacoluthic period Rettig sees a parody of Phaedrus’s style with its ‘“langathmigen, anakoluthischen und regellosen Perioden.”

καὶ κνῆσαι καὶ τεκεῖν. Hug’s conjecture, τεκεῖν for κυεῖν, is fortunate in finding confirmation in the Papyrus. If κυεῖν be read, what is the point of the distinction of tenses? Schleierm. renders by “erzeugen und erzeugen zu wollen”; Schulthess, ‘‘zeugen und empfangen”; Rettig explains that “κυεῖν geht auf den dauernden, κυῆσαι auf den vollendeten Process”; Stallb. “et concepisse (quae est actio semel...perfecta) et conceptum tenere.” But there is certainly not much point here in making any such fine-spun distinction, unless it be to imply that Diotima is playing the part of a σοφιστής!

φρόνησιν... ἀρετήν. “ Moral wisdom and virtue in general”: the phrase is an echo of that in 184 0. For φρύνησις, cp. Rep. 421 Β (with Adam’s note) ; Meno 88 B (with Thompson’s note).

oi ποιηταὶ, That the poets were ethical teachers and the stage a pulpit— just as Homer was the Greek Bible—was an axiom in the Hellenic world. See the appeal to the authority of poets in the Protagoras (and Adam’s note on 3388); Ar. Ran. 1009 (Eurip. loquitur) βελτίους re ποιοῦμεν τοὺς ἀν θρώ- πους ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν : Lysis 214 Α οὗτοι yap (80. of ποιηταὶ) ἡμῖν ὥσπερ πατέρες τῆς σοφίας εἰσὶ καὶ ἡγεμόνες. The fact that most kinds of poetry were pro- duced in connexion with, and under the sanction of, religion, had no doubt something to do with this estimate of it. See further Adam A. 7’. G. pp. 9 ff.

209 B] ZYMTIOZION 121

Topes καὶ τῶν δημιουργῶν ὅσοι λέγονται εὑρετικοὶ εἶναι" πολὺ δὲ μεγίστη, ἔφη, καὶ καλλίστη τῆς φρονήσεως ἡ περὶ τὰς τῶν πόλεών τε καὶ οἰκήσεων διακοσμήσεις, ἣ δὴ ὄνομά ἐστι σωφροσύνη τε καὶ δικαιοσύνη" τούτων αὖ ὅταν τις ἐκ νέου ἐγκύμων ἦ τὴν ψυχὴν Β θεῖος ὧν καὶ ἡκούσης τῆς ἡλικίας τίκτειν τε καὶ γεννᾶν ἤδη ἐπι- θυμῇ, ξητεῖ δή, οἶμαι, καὶ οὗτος περιιὼν τὸ καλὸν ἐν ᾧ ἂν γεννή- σειεν" ἐν τῷ γὰρ αἰσχρῷ οὐδέποτε γεννήσει. τά τε οὖν σώματα τὰ καλὰ μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ αἰσχρὰ ἀσπάζεται ἅτε κυῶν, καὶ ἂν ἐντύχῃ ψυχῇ καλῇ καὶ γενναίᾳ καὶ εὐφυεῖ, πάνυ δὴ ἀσπάζεται τὸ ξυναμ-

209 Α τὰς libri, O.-P.: τὰ Sommer Bt. διακοσμήσεις Vind. 21, vulg. Bast Heindorf J.-U. 8z.: διακόσμησις libri, O.-P., Sommer Bt. Β αὖ Β O.-P., J.-U. Sz.: δ᾽ αὖ TW, Bt. ψυχήν, (τὴν φύσιν) Heusde θεῖος libri, O.-P., Sz.: ἤθεος Parmentier Bt.: θεῖος ὧν del. Jn. ἐπιθυμῇ Steph. J.-U. Sz.: ἐπεθυμη O.-P.: ἐπιθυμεῖ libri, Bt. δὴ BT O.-P.: 8€ W περιιὼν T O.-P.: περὶ ὧν B ἐν ᾧ δὴ γεννήσῃ Bdhm. ἣ τὰ αἰσχρὰ del. Bdhm. ἅτε: 6 ye Usener

Syproupyav...ebpercxol. An allusion to 197 Α δημιουργίαν... ἀνεῦρεν.

μεγίστη... τῆς φρονήσεως. Cp. Crat. 391 B ὀρθοτάτη τῆς σκέψεως: Rep. 416 B; Thue. 1. 2 τῆς γῆς ἡ ἀρίστη : see Madv. Gr. S. § 50a, R. 3.

σωφροσύνη τε kal δικαιοσύνη. Cp. Phaedo 82 a οἱ τὴν δημοτικήν τε καὶ πολι- τικὴν ἀρετὴν ἐπιτετηδευκότες, ἣν δὴ καλοῦσι σωφροσύνην τε καὶ δικαιοσύνην, ἐξ ἔθους τε καὶ μελέτης γεγονυῖαν ἄνευ φιλοσοφίας τε καὶ νοῦ: Meno 73a. For these virtues in the Republic, see Adam on 432 Aa, 4340. Here they combine to form a description of “ordinary civil virtue.”

209 Β τούτων av κτλ. Here the main statement is resumed. With Stephens (followed by Ast, Riickert and Hug) I read ἐπιθυμῇ, whereas Burnet prints ἐπιθυμεῖ. ζητεῖ δὴ κτλ., with commas after ψυχὴν δια ἡλικίας. Stallb. takes καί as intensive rather than connective, and renders θεῖος dv “quippe divinus.” Burnet adopts Parmentier’s ἤθεος, but there seems little point in emphasizing the celibacy of the youth. If alteration be required, the best would be ἔνθεος, for which cp. 179 a, 180B. But in Meno 99c ff. θεῖος, in much the same sense as ἔνθεος, is applied to the very classes here mentioned—épOas ἂν καλοῖμεν θείους τε, ods viv δὴ ἐλέγομεν χρησμῳδοὺς καὶ μάντεις καὶ τοὺς ποιητικοὺς ἅπαντας" καὶ τοὺς πολιτικοὺς. «φαῖμεν ἂν θείους τε εἶναι καὶ ἐνθουσιάζειν κτλ. (see Thompson ad loc.): hence the word may well be sound here also. For τῆς ἡλικίας (and θεῖος) cp. 206 c.

ἴητεῖ.. «περιιὼν. Cp. Prot. 348D περιιὼν ζητεῖ ὅτῳ ἐπιδείξηται: Rep. 620¢: Apol. 238. περιιέναι occurs also in 193 a, 919 ΒΕ.

ἐν τῷ γὰρ αἰσχρῷ. A repetition of 206c: cp. Rep. 402 ν», Phaedr. 253 a ff.

καὶ dv...eupuet. Notice the iambic rhythm. For the sense of γενναῖος, “well-bred” (of a dog, Rep. 375), cp. (Eurip. ap.) Gorg. 4855. For εὐφυής also cp. (Eurip. ap.) Gorg. 484 ο ff; Rep. 4098. Cp. for the sense Plotin. de pulcr. 309 (Cr.); Rep. 620 B; Cic. Lael. 14; and esp. Phacdr. 276 u.

τὸ ξυναμφότερον. Cp. 1. Alc. 1304 ψυχὴν ἢ σῶμα ἣ ξυναμφύτερον.

κι

122 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [209 B

φότερον, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτον τὸν ἄνθρωπον εὐθὺς εὐπορεῖ λόγων περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ [περὶ] οἷον χρὴ εἶναι τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἃ ἐπιτη- δεύειν, καὶ ἐπιχειρεῖ παιδεύειν. ἁπτόμενος γάρ, οἶμαι, τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ὁμιλῶν αὐτῷ, ἃ πάλαι ἐκύει. τίκτει καὶ γεννᾷ, καὶ παρὼν καὶ ἀπὼν μεμνημένος, καὶ τὸ γεννηθὲν συνεκτρέφει κοινῇ μετ᾽ ἐκείνου, ὥστε πολὺ μείζω κοινωνίαν [τῆς τῶν παίδων] πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἴσχουσι καὶ φιλίαν βεβαιοτέραν, ἅτε καλλιόνων καὶ ἀθανατωτέρων παίδων κεκοινωνηκότες. καὶ πᾶς ἂν δέξαιτο ἑαυτῷ τοιούτους παῖδας μᾶλλον γεγονέναι ἢ τοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους, καὶ εἰς “Ὅμηρον ἀποβλέψας καὶ « εἰς» ᾿Ησίοδον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ποιητὰς τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ζηλῶν οἷα ἔκγονα ἑαυτῶν καταλείπουσιν, ἃ ἐκείνοις

209 C περὶ 566]. Steph. Mdvg. Sz. Bt.: περὶ τοῦ Coisl.: περὶ οἵου Sommer ἀπὼν καὶ παρὼν Τ' καὶ (ante τὸ) om. Vind. 21, Bast τῆς..-«παίδων seclusi τῶν παίδων : ἄλλων παίδων Hug!: θνητῶν παίδων Schirlitz: τῶν πολλῶν Rohde: τῶν παιδογόνων Bast: fort. τῶν (γηίνων) παίδων καλλίων ὧν Β παίδων 560]. Creuzer J.-U. Ὦ εἰς Ἡσιοδον O.-P.: Ἡσίοδον libri, edd. ἀητῶν ὅσα Proclus: ζηλοίη οἷα Ast καταλελοίπασιν Method. Bdhm.

εὐπορεῖ λόγων. Cp. 223.4; Tim. 26 Ὁ iva εὐποροῖεν λόγων μετ΄ ἐμοῦ.

209 © καὶ [περὶ] οἷον κτλ. περὶ is retained by Hommel and Stallb. who renders “quale sit in quo tractando versari debeat is qui boni viri nomen et dignitatem obtinere velit,” taking οἷον as neut., and by Rettig who regards the “redundance and tautology” of the words as due to the “sophistical character” of the passage.

τοῦ καλοῦ. This is masc., not neuter, as the context shows.

καὶ παρὼν καὶ ἀπὼν. A rhetorical formula; ep. Soph. Antig. 1109 of τ᾽ ὄντες of τ᾽ ἀπόντες: id, El. 305: Crat. 420a, Laws 63854. As Hommel observes, μεμνημένος (sc. αὐτοῦ) can in strictness apply only to ἀπών.

τὸ γεννηθὲν κτλ. Cp. 2073, Phaedr. 276 5.

τῆς τών παίδων. Hugprintsray < x x παίδων with the note (after Vermehren) “es scheint ein Epitheton wie φύσει o. dhnl. ausgefallen zu sein.” Stallb. explains ἡ κοινωνία τῶν παίδων to mean “conjunctio ex liberorum procreatione oriunda.” The simplest remedy is to bracket the words τῆς τῶν παίδων (sce crit, n.).

ἀθανατωτέρων. For this Hibernian comparison cp. Phaedo 99 c.

209 Ὁ ζηλῶν ola κτλ. Le. ζηλῶν αὐτοὺς ὅτι τοιαῦτα κτλ. “ With envy for the noble offspring they leave.” For οἷος Ξ- ὅτι τοιοῦτος, cp. Xen. Cyr, vit. 8. 13 (Mady. Gr. S. 8.198 R. 3). Riickert punctuates after ‘Hoiodov, Hommel after ἀπόβλεψας, and it is evident from Rettig’s note,—“ Homer kann man nur bewundern, mit andern Dichtern ist es eher méglich zu wetteifern,”—that he too mistakes the construction: we must supply αὐτούς (as Stallb.) with ζηλῶν and construe all the accusatives as depending on eis: ep. 1. Ale. 120 a, 192 Β,σ. This passage is quoted by Proclus ad Pl. Rep. p. 393.

209 Ε] ZYMTTOZION 123

ἀθάνατον κλέος καὶ μνήμην παρέχεται αὐτὰ τοιαῦτα ὄντα" εἰ δὲ βούλει, ἔφη, οἵους Λυκοῦργος παῖδας κατελίπετο ἐν Λακεδαίμονι σωτῆρας τῆς Λακεδαίμονος καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν τῆς Ελλάδος. τίμιος δὲ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ Σόλων διὰ τὴν τῶν νόμων γέννησιν, καὶ ἄλλοι ἄλλοθι πολλαχοῦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἐν “Ἕλλησι καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις, EB πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἀποφηνάμενοι ἔργα, γεννήσαντες παντοίαν ἀρετήν" ὧν καὶ ἱερὰ πολλὰ ἤδη γέγονε διὰ τοὺς τοιούτους παῖδας, διὰ δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους οὐδενός πω.

XXVIII. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐρωτικὰ ἴσως, ὦ Σώκρατες, κἂν

209 Ὁ κατελίπετο Ὁ O.-P, J.-U. Sz. Bt.: κατελιπεν..«τὸ B: κατελείπετο T: κατέλιπε τοῖς vulg.: κατέλιπεν αὑτοῦ Rettig ὑμῖν TW vulg.: ἡμῖν BO.-P. (probab.) (0) Σολων O.-P. E ἐν Ἕλλησι: Ἑλλησι O.-P. ἐν βαρβάροις: βαρβάροις Clement πολλὰ...ἔργα secl. Hartmann καλὰ: αλλα O.-P. (και) γεννήσαντες O.-P. (οὐδὲν) οὐδενός πω Hirschig

ἀθάνατον κλέος καὶ μνήμην. Cp. 208 D (note).

αὐτὰ τοιαῦτα. Rettig says “sc. ἀθάνατα; but the words imply κλέος as well as ἀθανασία.

εἰ δὲ βούλει. See on 177 Ὁ. This is a brachylogy for εἰ δὲ βούλει, ζηλῶν Λυκοῦργον οἴους παῖδας κτλ.

παῖδας κατελίπετος For the middle, cp. Laws 721 Ο, Rep. 894 ¢.

σωτήρας τῆς A. “Dadurch, dass sie den revolutioniiren Bewegungen ein Ende machten” (Rettig). Agathon had already applied σωτήρ to Eros (197 5). For Plato’s philo-Laconism, sec Zeller’s Plato (Τὰ. T.) p. 484. For the mythical lawgiver “Lycurgus” (vulgarly dated at 885 3.c.), see Bury ΜΙ. Gr. p. 135. -The statement that his laws were the salvation “ practically” of Hellas may be taken to refer to the part played by the Spartans during the Persian invasions, cp. Pind. Pyth. 1.77 ff. See also the parallel passage in Xen. Symp. vit. 38—9.

τίμιος δὲ κτλ. For this emphatic position of the adj., cp. Laws 730 D τίμιος μὲν δὴ καὶ ὁ μηδὲν ἀδικῶν.

209 E ἄλλοι ἄλλοθι πολλαχοῦ. An echo of 1828: cp. Prot. 926 Ὁ. This passage is alluded to by Clem. Al. Strom. I. p. 130. 38 ἔν τε τῷ συμποσίῳ ἐπαινῶν Πλάτων τοὺς βαρβάρους κτλ.

πολλὰ... «ἔργας Another rhetorical “tag,” as is shown by the parallel in Menexv. 239A πολλὰ...«καὶ καλὰ ἔργα ἀπεφήναντο εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους: cp. Phaedrus’s expressions in 179 Β, Ὁ

παντοίαν ἀρετήν. Op. Critias 112 B κατὰ τὴν τῶν ψυχῶν παντοίαν ἀρετήν: Eur. dled. 845 (ἔρωτας) παντοίας ἀρετᾶς ξυνέργους.

ἱερὰ πολλὰ. For the shrine of Lycurgus, see Hat. 1. 66, Plut. Lye. 31. The language echoes Aristophanes’ μέγιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ κατασκευάσαι (189 0); and it is cited by Clem. Al. ϑέροην. 1. p. 300 P.

Ταῦτα... κἂν σὺ μνηθείης. Here Diotima passes on to the final section of her discourse on erotics (see 210} 5). Hug and P. Crain (following C. F. Hermann and Schwegler) suppose that κἂν σὺ μ. indicates that what follows is something beyond the ken of the historical Socrates, whose view

124 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [209 Ε

210 σὺ μνηθείης" τὰ δὲ τέλεα καὶ ἐποπτικά, ὧν ἕνεκα καὶ ταῦτα ἔστιν, af > an f ? LAN ᾽ ἰὰ 7 2 ww 3 n X a y ἐάν τις ὀρθῶς μετίῃ, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἰ olds 7 ἂν εἴης. ἐρῶ μὲν οὖν, ἔφη, ἐγὼ καὶ προθυμίας οὐδὲν ἀπολείψω" πειρῶ δὲ « καὶ σὺ» ἕπεσθαι,

210 A ἂν post οἶδ᾽ transp. Naber εφὴην O.-P. και ov ἐπεσθαι Ο.-Ῥ.: ἕπεσθαι libri, edd.

they regard as correctly represented in Xen. Symp. vu. 97 ff. But although we may admit (with Thompson, Jeno p. 158) that “we often find Plato making his ideal Socrates criticise the views the real Socrates held,” we are not hereby justified in assuming such criticism on every possible occasion. And, in the case before us, another and more probable explanation of the words lies to hand. Socrates throughout—with his usual irony—depicts himself as a mere tiro in the hands of the Mantinean mistress; but he is still, in spite of his mock-modesty, the ideal philosopher of Alcibiades’ encomium. As it was a part of his irony that he had already (201 £) put himself on the level of Agathon and the rest of the unphilosophic, so the contemptuous κἂν σὺ here serves to keep up the same ironical fiction,—z.e. it applies neither to the ideal nor to the real (historical) Socrates, but to the hypothetical Socrates—the disguise assumed by the ideal Socrates when he played the part of pupil (cp. Rettig’s note, and F. Horn Platonstud. p. 248). The attitude of Socr. may be illustrated by the words of 8. Paul (1 Cor. iv. 6) ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ ᾿Απολλὼ Ov ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν ὑμῖν μάθητε κτλ. For μνηθείης, see next note.

210 A ta δὲ... ἐποπτικά. Cp. Phaedr. 250¢ εὐδαίμονα φάσματα μνούμενοί τε καὶ ἐποπτεύοντες: ib, 349 Ο τελέους det τελετὰς τελούμενος. On the former passage Thompson comments, “ μυούμενοι and ἐποπτεύοντες are not to be distinguished here, except in so far as the latter word defines the sense of the former. Properly speaking μύησις is the generic term for the entire process, including the ἐποπτεία, or state of the epopt or adept, who after due previous lustrations and the like is admitted into the adytum to behold the αὐτοπτικὰ ἀγάλματα (Iambl, Myst. 11. 10. 53)”: “the distinction between the two words (μύησις and ἐποπτεία), as if they implied, the one an earlier, the other a more advanced stage of imitation, was a later refinement.” <Ac- cording to Theo Smyrnaeus (J/ath. p. 18) there were five grades of initiation, viz. καθαρμός, ἡ τῆς τελετῆς παράδοσις, ἐποπτεία, ἀνάδεσις καὶ στεμμάτων ἐπίθεσις, ἡ θεοφιλὴς καὶ θεοῖς συνδίαιτος εὐδαιμονία, For the language and rites used in the mysteries, see also Plut. de Js. ο. 78; id. Demetr. 26; Clem. Al. Strom. v. p. 689; Rohde Psyche 11. 284; and the designs from a cinerary urn reproduced in Harrison, Proley. p. 547.

dv ἕνεκα. “The final cause”: cp. 210 8, Charm. 165 a.

ταῦτα. Repeating ταῦτα... τὰ ἐρωτικά : see the recapitulation in 2110,

olds τ᾽ ἂν εἴης. Se. μνηθῆναι: this, as Thompson observes, shows that μύησις includes ¢romreia. Notice the emphasis laid, here at the start and throughout, on educational method, τὸ ὀρθῶς μετιέναι.

προθυμίας... ἀπολείψω. Cp. ep. 533 4 τό γ᾽ ἐμὸν οὐδὲν ἂν προθυμίας ἀπολείποι.

πειρῶ δὲ (καὶ σὺ) ἕπεσθαι. I have added καὶ σὺ from the Papyrus; it serves

210 8] ZYMTIOZION 125

xn 16 4 ὃ a ld μ ‘\ ’ θ fal ha "- ἃ ἐν 'Σ * a

ἂν οἷος τε ἧς. δεῖ yap, ἔφη, τὸν ὀρθῶς ἰόντα ἐπὶ τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα lq 4

ἄρχεσθαι μὲν νέον ὄντα ἰέναι ἐπὶ τὰ καλὰ σώματα, Kai πρῶτον

“ Ν As a ε \ Ἂ an

μέν, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς ἡγῆται ὁ ἡγούμενος, ἑνὸς αὐτὸν σώματος ἐρᾶν καὶ > n a £ - wv > XN . δὴ a Ψ A ἐνταῦθα γεννᾶν λόγους καλούς, ἔπειτα δὲ αὐτὸν κατανοῆσαι, ὅτι τὸ

Ν c r a tf t κάλλος τὸ ἐπὶ ὁτῳοῦν σώματι τῷ ἐπὶ ἑτέρῳ σώματι ἀδελφόν ἐστι, B

καὶ εἰ δεῖ διώκειν τὸ ἐπ᾽ εἴδει καλόν, πολλὴ ἄνοια μὴ οὐχ ἕν τε Ἂ, ᾽ Ν € lal Ἂς + A a a ΄ / fol ᾿ καὶ ταὐτὸν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῖς σώμασι κάλλος" τοῦτο ὃ , a n na ἐννοήσαντα κατᾳστῆναι. πάντων τῶν καλῶν σωμάτων ἐραστήν, ey yok "αὐ a ΄ , \ \ ἑνὸς δὲ τὸ σφόδρα τοῦτο χαλάσαι καταφρονήσαντα καὶ σμικρὸν 210 A ἂν: eav O.-P. αὐτὸν TW O.-P.: αὐτῶν B, Sz. Bt.: ad του Verm. σώματος secl. (Riickert) Voeg. J.-U. Hug ἔπειτα δὲ libri, O.-P.: ἔπειτα καὶ Themist. : ἔπειτα Usener αὐτὸν : fort. αὖ Β κάλλος τὸ ἐπὶ BT O.-P.: x. τῷ ἐπὶ W σώματι τῷ TW O.-P.: σ. τὸ Β ἐπὶ ἑτέρῳ Β O.-P.: ἑτέρῳ Τ' εἰ (δὴ) δεῖ cj. Jn. τοῦτο 8 BW O.-P.: τούτῳ δ᾽ T

to lay an appropriate stress on the personal effort required on the part of the disciple, the incapacity of whose “natural man” is so persistently emphasized.

Set γάρ κτλ. The sentence runs on without a full stop till we reach the close of 210}: Rettig sees in this straggling style a parody of the style of Pausanias. The passage following was a favourite with the neo-Platonists; sec the reff. in Alcinous isag. 5; Plut. quaest. Plat. 3. 2. 1002; Themist. or. 13, p. 1680; Plotin. Lan. 1. 6.1, p. 50; Procl. in Aletb. 7. p. 330.

6 ἡγούμενος. The educational “conductor” is represented as a μυσταγωγύς. So we have ἀγαγεῖν 2100, παιδαγωγηθῇ 210 B, ἄγεσθαι 211 ¢.

ἑνὸς αὐτὸν σώματος. If we retain caparos—and emphasis requires its retention,—it is difficult to justify the Bodleian αὐτῶν: and αὐτὸν, which has the support of the Papyrus, although rather otiose, is preferable to such substitutes as Hommel’s αὖ τῶν (σωμάτων) or Vermehren’s ad του, since αὖ is hardly in place here. Voegelin’s objection to αὐτὸν, endorsed by Rettig, that it should involve the repetition of δεῖ, does not strike one as fatal; and I follow Riickert and Stallb. in adopting it.

210 B τὸ ἐπὶ...σώματι. Cp. 186 a.

τὸ ἐπ᾽ εἴδει καλόν. This has been interpreted in three ways: (1) “das in der Idee Schéne” (Schleierm.), “das Schéne der Gesammtgattung” (Schulthess); so too Zeller and F. Horn; (2) “quod in specie (opp. to ‘summo genere’) pulchrum est” (Stallb., after Wyttenbach), so too Hommel; (3) “das in der Gestalt Schéne” (Ruge), “‘pulcritudo quae in forma est atque sensibus per- cipitur” (Riickert). The last of these is undoubtedly right, and has the support also of Vermehren, Rettig and Hug; for εἶδος of physical “form” or “outward appearance,” cp, 196 a, 215 B.

μὴ οὐχ... «ἡγεῖσθαι. See Goodwin G. M. 7. § 817.

ἐννοήσαντα καταστῆναι. Sc. αὐτὸν δεῖ, resuming the oblique construction.

τὸ σφόδρα τοῦτο. “Idem est quod τοῦτο τὸ σφόδρα ἐρᾶν vel τὸν σφοδρὸν τοῦτον ἔρωτα" (Stallb.). We have had a description of this σφοδρότης already, in 183 4 ff.

ΤῈ

196 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [210 Β

ἡγησάμενον" μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὸ ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς κάλλος τιμιώτερον

a Ἂς \

ἡγήσασθαι τοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι, ὥστε Kai ἐὰν ἐπιεικὴς ὧν τὴν

a a a \

Ο ψυχήν tis κἂν σμικρὸν ἄνθος ἔχῃ, ἐξαρκεῖν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐρᾶν καὶ

-“ Ψ'

κήδεσθαι καὶ τίκτειν λόγους τοιούτους [καὶ ζητεῖν] οἵτινες ποιή- Ν

σουσι βελτίους τοὺς νέους, ἵνα ἀναγκασθῇ αὖ θεάσασθαι τὸ ἐν

τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι καὶ τοῖς νόμοις καλὸν καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἰδεῖν ὅτι πᾶν a n ,

αὐτὸ αὑτῷ ξυγγενές ἐστιν, ἵνα τὸ περὶ τὸ σῶμα καλὸν σμικρόν τι * 4 ,

ἡγήσηται εἶναι" μετὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα ἐπὶ τὰς ἐπιστήμας a “a al ᾿ς

ἀγαγεῖν, ἵνα ἴδῃ αὖ ἐπιστημῶν κάλλος, καὶ βλέπων πρὸς πολὺ ἤδη

an lal ΄

Ὁ τὸ καλὸν μηκέτι τῷ παρ᾽ ἑνί, ὥσπερ οἰκέτης, ἀγαπῶν. παιδαρίου

210 C0 κἂν Herm. Bdhm. Bt.: καὶ ἐὰν BT 0.-P.: καὶ ἂν W: καὶ Ast Sz.

καὶ ζητεῖν secl. Ast (fort. transp. post αὐτῷ) : καὶ secl. Bdhm, Mdvg. Sz. Bt.

εἴ τινες W ἀναγκασθεὶς Ast ἵνα... εἶναι 580]. Hug: ἵνα del. Ast ἵνα

ἴδηι T: wa edn O.-P.: ἵν᾽ αἰδηι B: fort. ἵνα διίδῃ αὖ (ro τῶν) Hirschig

D τῷ Schleierm. Sz. Bt.: τὸ libri, O.-P. οἰκέτης : ὃ ἱκέτης Hommel

παιδαρίου del. Ast

ὥστε kal ἐὰν κτλ. The uncontracted form καὶ ἐάν is very rare in Plato, see Schanz nov. comm. Ὁ. 95. For ἄνθος, ep. 183 B. ‘

210 C [καὶ ζητεῖν] Ast rightly condemned these words as “ineptum glossema.” To excise καὶ only (as Badham) is unsatisfactory, since as Hug justly observes τίκτειν ζητεῖν λόγους “ist unertriglich matt.” Stallb. attempts to justify the words thus: “Diotima hoc dicit, talem amatorem non modo ipsum parere quasi et ex se procreare, sed etiam aliunde quaerere et in- vestigare ciusmodi sermones, qui iuvenes reddant meliores”; so too Rettig. But this is futile.

ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι. “In Morals” (Stewart): cp. Laws 793 D ὅσα νόμους ἢ ἔθη τις ἣ ἐπιτηδεύματα καλεῖ: Ltep. 444: Gorg. 474 u.

ἵνα τὸ.. εἶναι. This clause is subordinate to, rather than coordinate with, the preceding iva clause (like the ἕως ἂν clause in Ὁ infra),—a juxtaposition which sounds awkward. Hence it is tempting either to excise this clause with Hug, or with Ast to read ἀναγκασθεὶς for ἀναγκασθῇ, and delete the second iva, Against Hug’s method it may be urged that the words are wanted to correspond to ἑνὸς..«σμικρὸν ἡγησάμενον in 210B above, and to emphasize the “littleness” of corporeal beauty even when taken in the mass. For this belittling of things of the earth, cp. Theact. 173 Ε ἡ δὲ διάνοια, ταῦτα πάντα ἡγησαμένη σμικρὰ καὶ οὐδέν, dripdoaca...péperar κτλ. Observe how πᾶν .. .€uyyevés here balances (πᾶν) κάλλος, ἀδελφόν in 210 Β.

ἀγαγεῖν. The construction is still dependent upon δεῖ, but the subject to be supplied (v7z. τὸν ἡγούμενον) is changed.

210) μηκέτι τῷ παρ᾽ ἑνί κτλ. τῷ, 80. καλῷ, is governed by δουλεύων, and the phrase contains a clear reference to the language of Pausanias in 183 a ff. ὥσπερ οἰκέτης, “like a lackey,” is of course contemptuous, as in Theaet. 172 Ὁ κινδυνεύουσιν... .ὡὡς οἰκέται πρὸς ἐλευθέρους τεθράφθαι. For ἀγαπῶν, “contented with,” cp. Menex. 240c. If we retain the Mss.’ τὸ παρ᾽ ἑνί the construction is

210 Ε] ΣΥΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 127

κάλλος ἢ ἀνθρώπου τινὸς ἢ ἐπιτηδεύματος ἑνός, δουλεύων φαῦλος + \ , > > 24 Ν \ I ΄ n ἢ καὶ σμικρολογος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ TO πολὺ πέλαγος τετραμμένος τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ θεωρῶν πολλοὺς καὶ καλοὺς λόγους καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς τίκτῃ καὶ διανοήματα ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ἀφθόνῳ, ἕως ἂν ἐνταῦθα ῥω- σθεὶς καὶ αὐξηθεὶς κατίδῃ τινὰ ἐπιστήμην μίαν τοιαύτην, ἥ ἐστι

a a a ΄ μ Χ a L € 4 καλοῦ τοιοῦδε. πειρῶ δέ μοι, ἔφη, τὸν νοῦν προσέχειν ws οἷόν τε E μάλιστα.

210 Ὁ κάλλος del. Bdhm. ἢ ἀνθρώπου del. Schirlitz: fort. ἄνου

ἑνός: τινος Ο.-Ρ1 δουλεύων del. Bast τίκτῃ Coisl. corr.: τέκτει BT καὶ διανοήματα del. Bdhm.: ante τίκτῃ transp. Hommel ἄφθονα Ast poles W

awkward, as Stallb.? admits—“ quod olim accusativum defendendum susce- pimus, videtur nunc interpretatio loci quam proposuimus, quamvis Riickerto et Hommelio probata, nimis contorta nec satis simplex esse.” J am inclined to suspect the phrase ἢ ἀνθρώπου τινὸς. Schirlitz proposed to excise ἢ ἀνθρώ- που: I suggest παιδαρίου κάλλος [ἢ] ἄνου τινὸς, “of some witless urchin,” and suppose a reference to what Pausanias said in 18] Β ἐρῶσι...ὡς ἂν δύνωνται ἀνοητοτάτων : 181 D ob yap ἐρῶσι παίδων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὰν ἤδη ἄρχωνται νοῦν ἴσχειν (cp. next 2.).

φαῦλος...σμικρολόγος. Cp. 18] Β, where those who follow Aphrodite Pan- demos (loving women and boys) are described as of φαῦλοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ πέλαγος. πέλαγος of itself counotes vastness; cp. Ltep. 453 p els τὸ μέγιστον πέλαγος μέσον (ἄν τις ἐμπέσῃ): Dot. 338 A φεύγειν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος τῶν λύγων. The phrase is alluded to in Clem. Al. protrept. 69 4; Plut. guaest. Plat. 10015; Themist. or. x11. p. 177 Ὁ.

θεωρῶν. This should be taken closely (supplying αὐτό) with what precedes, not with πολλοὺς... λόγους (as Ast’s Dict. 8.0. implies). The parable suggests that the spectator, having reached the hill-top, turns himself about and gazes, wonder-struck, at the mighty ocean of beauty which lies spread before him, till the spectacle quickens his soul and moves it to deliver itself of many a deep-lying thought.

kaous...peyahorpereis. Cp. Menex. 3478: ib. 2340: Rep. 808 ὁ νεανικοί re καὶ μ. τὰς διανοίας : tb. 486 A, 496 A γεννᾶν διανοήματά τε καὶ δόξας. Cp. for the sense Plotin. de puler. 8c (Cr.).

ἀφθόνῳ. ἄφθονος is used alike of fruits (Polit. 272 a) and of soils (Soph. 222), thus meaning both “abundant” and “bountiful "—“ unstinted” and “unstinting.”

poobds. Cp. Phaedr. 238 Ὁ; 176 B supra.

ἐπιστήμην μίαν. This unitary Βοϊθποθ- -ἐπιστήμη in the strict Platonic sense, called also (211¢) pa@npa—is dialectic: ep. Phaedr. 247B τὴν ἐν τῷ 8 ἐστιν ὃν ὄντως ἐπιστήμην οὖσαν. See parallels in Plotin. de puler. 2. (Cr.); Procl. in £. Ale. p. 246.

210 ἘΙ πειρῶ δέ μοι κτλ. Here again, as at 210A (πειρῶ δὲ ἕπεσθαι κτλ.), a climax in the exposition is marked.

128 ~ TIAATQNOS [210 Ε

XXIX. “Os yap ἂν μέχρι ἐνταῦθα πρὸς τὰ ἐρωτικὰ παιδα- γωγηθῇ, θεώμενος ἐφεξῆς τε καὶ ὀρθῶς τὰ καλά, πρὸς τέλος ἤδη aA a ? a 2 , , ΄ \ κ᾿. ia ἰὼν τῶν ἐρωτικῶν ἐξαίφνης κατόψεταί τι θαυμαστὸν͵ τὴν φύσιν

, a dA . , @ \@ \ cy καλόν, τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὗ δὴ ἕνεκεν Kai οἱ ἔμπροσθεν

211 πάντες πόνοι ἦσαν, πρῶτον μὲν ἀεὶ ὃν καὶ οὔτε γιγνόμενον οὔτε > 4 2, > t A “ μ᾿ 3 lal Ν ἀπολλύμενον, οὔτε αὐξανόμενον οὔτε φθῖνον, ἔπειτα οὐ τῇ μὲν

, a Ν 3 , ΕΣ Ν Ν ἵν ΝΥ Ν ᾽» > ja! Ν Ν x καλόν, TH δὲ αἰσχρόν, οὐδὲ τοτὲ μέν, τοτὲ δὲ οὔ, οὐδὲ πρὸς μὲν τὸ

, ἷ Ἂς 3 ΓΙ »ΟΣ ν»γ \ - Μ᾿ Ἂν > , καλόν, πρὸς δὲ τὸ αἰσχρόν, οὐδ᾽ ἔνθα μὲν καλόν, ἔνθα δὲ αἰσχρόν

211 Α rode δε O.-P.

ἐφεξῆς τε καὶ ὀρθῶς. “In correct and orderly succession”; see 211 Β ad fin. τοῦτο γὰρ δή ἐστι τὸ ὀρθῶς.. «ἰέναι xrd., and 2104 where the right order of procedure (πρῶτον. ..ἔπειτα, etc.) is specially emphasized.

πρὸς τέλος ἤδη ἰὼν. “‘apos τέλος ἰέναι dicebantur ii, qui superatis gradibus tandem ad spectanda arcana admittebantur” (Hommel). Cp. the use of τέλεα in 210 4, τέλεον 204.6, τέλος 205 A.

ἐξαίφνης. “Ona sudden”: this suggests the final stage in the mystery- rites, when out of darkness there blazed forth suddenly the mystical φέγγος, and ἐν αὐγῇ καθαρᾷ the φάσματα (Phaedr. 280 0) or ἱερὰ pvorixd—cousisting probably of images of Demeter, Iacchus and Persephone, and other sacred emblems—were displayed to the awe-struck worshipper (μακαρία ὄψις τε καὶ θέα). Cp. Plotin. Han. 43.17 ὅταν ἡ ψυχὴ ἐξαίφνης φῶς λάβῃ κτλ. ; Plato Ep. vii. 341 ὁ ἐξαίφνης, οἷον ἀπὸ πυρὸς πηδήσαντος ἐξαφθὲν φῶς, ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γενό- μενον (sc. the highest μάθημα). See further Rohde, Psyche 11. 284.

κατόψεται. Cp. 210D supra, and Phaedr. 247 Ὁ (καθορᾷ μὲν αὐτὴν δικαιο- σύνην κτλ.), which suggest that καθορᾶν was a vox propria for viewing ritual displays.

θαυμαστὸν... καλόν. Similarly Phaedr. 260 Β κάλλος δὲ τύτ᾽ ἦν ἰδεῖν λαμπρόν. For θαυμαστόν cp. 219}: it often connotes the supernatural, e.g. Lep. 398 a mpookuvoiper ἂν αὐτὸν ὡς ἱερὸν καὶ θ. καὶ ἡδύν.

οὗ δὴ ἕνεκεν κτλ. “The goal to which all our efforts have been directed”: cp. 2104; Phuedr, 248 B οὗ δ᾽ ἕνεχ᾽ ἡ πολλὴ σπουδὴ κτλ. See the parallel in Plotin. de puler. 42 ο,Ὁ (Cr.).

211.Α πρῶτον μὲν... ἔπειτα... οὐδ᾽ αὖ κτλ. The Ideal object is distinguished by three leading characteristics, viz. (1) eternity and immutability ; (2) abso- luteness, or freedom from relativity ; (3) self-existence. Compare the accounts of Ideal being given in Phaedo 78 ὁ ff., Phaedr. 247 ο ff., Cratyl. 386 p, 439 c ff, ftep. 476 a, 479 4 ff, Soph. 249 8 ff., Phileb. 153, 58a, Tim. 51D ff. The description has, necessarily, to be conveyed by means of negative propositions, ae. by way of contrast with phenomenal objects. See also the parallels in Plotin. Ena. v. viii. 546 ¢, vi. vii. 727 ο.

τῇ μὲν..«.«τῇ δὲ. “In part...in part”: so Theaet. 158 5, Polit. 2745, Laws 635 D.

πρὸς μὲν τὸ...τὸς This denotes varying “relation,” as in the Aristotelian

τὸ πρός τι.

211 8] ZYMTIOZION 129

[ὡς τισὶ μὲν ὃν καλόν, τισὶ δὲ αἰσχρόν)" οὐδ᾽ ad φαντασθήσεται > A Ν t v > 7 a > \ Υ- ᾽ Ἂν a αὐτῷ τὸ καλὸν οἷον πρόσωπόν τι οὐδὲ χεῖρες οὐδὲ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ὧν σῶμα μετέχει, οὐδέ τις λόγος οὐδέ τις ἐπιστήμη, οὐδέ που ὃν ἐν ἑτέρῳ τινί, οἷον ἐν ζώῳ ἢ ἐν γῇ ἢ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἢ ἔν τῳ ἄλλῳ, ἀλλὰ Β a > eX > © a \ ΔΝ, \ my ΄ \

αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ μονοειδὲς ἀεὶ ὄν, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα πάντα καλὰ ἐκείνου μετέχοντα τρόπον τινὰ τοιοῦτον, οἷον γιγνομένων τε τῶν

211 A ὡς.. αἰσχρόν 560]. Voeg. J.-U. Hug Sz. Bt. ὃν οἵα. αὖ BT 0.-P.: αὐτὸ W αὐτῷ BT O.-P.: αὐτὸ W οὐδὲν ὧν libri, edd.: ovde ev O.-P. B μετ αὐτου O.-P.: del. Naber τρόπον τινὰ B O.-P.: τινα τρόπον TW

ὥς τισὶ... αἰσχρόν. Rettig defends this clause, quoting Wolf’s note, “ τισί (geht) auf alle vier (vorher genannten) Ideen, Theile, Zeit, Verhiltniss, Ort.” Teuffel argues that “ausser Platon selbst hitte nicht leicht Jemand einen Anlass gehalt einen Beisatz zu machen.” None the less, I believe we have here another “ineptum glossema.”

φαντασθήσεται αὐτῷ. Sc. τῷ θεωμένῳ. φαντάζεσθαι often connotes illusive semblance; cp. Phaedo 110 Ὁ, Mep. 572 B.

οὐδέ τις λόγος. It is difficult to be sure of the sense in which λόγος is used here. (1) It is most natural to refer it, and ἐπιστήμη following, to the λόγοι and ἐπιστῆμαι of 210 c, and to render by “discourse,” “argument” (with Gomperz, Stewart and Zeller). This rendering has in its favour the fact that this is the usual sense of λύγος (λόγοι) throughout this dialogue. (2) Or λόγος May mean “concept”; so Rettig, who comments: “Die Ideen sind nicht blosse Begriffe, sie sind vielmehr Existenzen, χωρισταί, wie Aristoteles sich ausdriickt, und Bedingungen des Seins und Werdens der Dinge der Sinnenwelt.” Cp. Phaedr. 245 8, Laws 8958, Phaedo 780, in which places (to quote Thompson) “λόγος is equivalent to ὅρος or ὁρισμός, of which οὐσία is the objective counterpart.” This more technical sense is, perhaps, less probable in the present context; but, after all, the difference between the two renderings is not of vital importance. The essence of the statement, in either case, is that the Idea is not dependent upon either corporeal or mental realization, 1.6. that it is not subjective, as a quality or product of body or mind, but an objective, self-conditioned entity. A third possible sense of Adyos is “ratio,” or mathematical relation. Perhaps “formula” would best render the word here.

οὐδέ που Sv. ov is probably used in a local sense: cp. Arist. Phys. ut. 4. 2035 7 Πλάτων δὲ ἔξω μὲν οὐδὲν εἶναι σῶμα, οὐδὲ ras ἰδέας, διὰ τὸ μηδέ που εἶναι αὐτάς. But though the Ideas are extra-spatial, it is Platonic (as Aristotle implies, de An. 11. 4. 429° 27) to say τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι τόπον εἰδῶν.

211} μονοειδὲς. Cp. Phaedo 78D μ. dv αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτό: 1b. 80 B μονοειδεῖ καὶ ἀδιαλύτῳ: Theaet. 20ῦ Ὁ: Tim. 59B: Rep. 6124 εἴτε πολυειδὴς εἴτε μονοει- δής (ἡ ἀληθὴς φύσις). Stewart renders “of one Form,” but the full force may be rather “specifically unique,” implying that it is the sole member of its class.

μετέχοντα. For the doctrine of “participation,” see esp. Phaedo 100 ὁ ff., Parmen. 1308 ff.

τοιοῦτον, οἷον. Equiv. to τοιοῦτον ὥστε (see Madv. Gr. S. § 166 ὁ).

B. P. 9

180 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [211 B

- "-

ἄλλων καὶ ἀπολλυμένων μηδὲν ἐκεῖνο μήτε τι πλέον μήτε ἔλαττον , A ΄ὔ / ca ὃ ‘a ¥ \ fal δι ὃ \ A γίγνεσθαι μηδὲ πάσχειν μηδέν. ὅταν δή τις ἀπὸ τῶνδε διὰ TO ὀρθῶς παιδεραστεῖν ἐπανιὼν ἐκεῖνο τὸ καλὸν ἄρχηται καθορᾶν, Ν v a a t an \ et 3 A 2 n 2 NY σχεδὸν ἄν τι ἅπτοιτο τοῦ τέλους. τοῦτο yap δή ἐστι TO ὀρθῶς ἐπὶ

‘a 2 Ἂν ᾽7 A e > Ψ' ” 2 3 > A a ὃ lol τὰ ἐρωτικὰ ἰέναι ἢ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου ἄγεσθαι, ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τῶνδε τῶν καλῶν ἐκείνου ἕνεκα τοῦ καλοῦ ἀεὶ ἐπανιέναι, ὥσπερ ἐπαναβαθμοῖς , > a Ὶ 2 ὦ ΄ὔ΄ Ν 2 Ν a. + 4% ἣν \ x. χρώμενον, ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἐπὶ δύο καὶ ἀπὸ δυοῖν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ καλὰ σώματα, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν καλῶν σωμάτων ἐπὶ τὰ καλὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα, a \ Kal ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἐπὶ τὰ καλὰ μαθήματα, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνο τὸ μάθημα τελευτῆσαι, ὅ ἐστιν οὐκ 211 Β ἐκεῖνο 15) O.-P.: ἐκείνῳ TW μήτε τι BTW: μήτε Vind. 31 Paris 1642 O.-P. ὅταν δή B O.-P.: ὅταν δὲ δή TW Ο ἐπαναβαθμοῖς W: ἐπ᾽ ἀναβαθμοῖς B: ἐπαναβασμοῖς Τ' Ο.-Ρ, σωμάτων (ἐπὶ τὰς καλὰς ψυχάς, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν καλῶν ψυχῶν) ἐπὶ Sydenham ἀπὸ τῶν (καλῶν) ἐπιτ. vulg. μαθήματα, καὶ libri O.-P., Bdhm. Usener Hug: pad., ὡς Sz. Bt: μαθ., ἔστ᾽ ἂν vulg.: p., ἕως ἂν Stallb.: μ. ἔως Herm: p., iva Sauppe: μ., ἵνα καὶ Winckelmann τὸ

μάθημα τελευτήσῃ del. Bdhm. τελευτῆσαι Usener Hug: τελευτήσῃ libri, Sz. Bt.: ante τελευτήσῃ lacunam statuit Voeg.

ἐκεῖνο. Sc. (αὐτὸ) τὸ καλόν. So frequently “ ἐκεῖνο et ἐκεῖνα das Ueber- sinnliche significat, τάδε vero vel ταῦτα das Sinnliche” (Ast): cp. Phaedr. 250 4, Phaedo 748, ete.

μηδὲ πάσχειν μηδέν. As to the ἀπάθεια of the Idea, see Soph. 248 ff., 251c ff, and my article on “The Later Platonism” in Journal of Philol. XXII. pp. 189 ff

ἐπανιὼν. Cp. Rep. 521 rod ὄντος οὖσαν ἐπάνοδον, ἣν δὴ φιλοσοφίαν ἀληθῆ φήσομεν εἶναι: ib, 532 B, Ο.

τοῦ τέλους. This combines the senses “goal” and “sacred symbol”: cf. 2104; Soph. fr. 753 N. ὡς τρὶς ὄλβιοι | κεῖνοι βροτῶν, of ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη | μόλωσ᾽ ἐς “Atdov.

τοῦτο γὰρ δή κτλ. Here commences a recapitulation of “the Ascent of Love” as described in 210 a—211 8; cp. Rep. vi., vit. for both language and thought.

211 Ο ὑπ’ ἄλλον ἄγεσθαι. This refers to the παιδαγωγός or μυσταγωγός of 210 8, not (as Wolf thought) to the operation of a δαίμων.

éravaBadpots. For the notion of a ladder of ascent cp. Jtep, 610 Β ff, 511 3B τὰς ὑποθέσεις ποιούμενος οὐκ ἀρχὰς ἀλλὰ... οἷον ἐπιβάσεις τε Kai ὁρμὰς ἵνα μέχρι τοῦ ἀνυποθέτου ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὴν ἰὼν..«οὕτως ἐπὶ τελευτὴν καταβαίνῃ κτλ. Cp. Tennyson’s “the great world’s altar-stairs”; the dream-ladder at Bethel; and the Titanic heaven-scaling of 1908. Possibly a contrast is intended between the futile attempt of the Earth-born εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάβασιν ποιεῖν, and the successful efforts of the Heaven-born lover ἐπὶ τὸ καλὸν ἐπανιέναι. For later parallels, see Plotin. de puler. 60 Β (Cr.); Clem. Al. Strom. ν. p. 611 D.

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων κτλ. The reading and construction of this passage

211 κ ZYMITTOZION 131

> a

Yd an n ν ἄλλου ἢ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου τοῦ καλοῦ μάθημα, «ἵνα! καὶ γνῷ αὐτὸ rn nr , τελευτῶν ὃ ἔστι καλόν. ἐνταῦθα τοῦ βίου, ὦ φίλε Σώκρατες, ἔφη D ν ’ ἡ Μαντινικὴ ξένη, εἴπερ που ἄλλοθι, βιωτὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, θεωμένῳ αὐτὸ τὸ καλόν. ὃ ἐάν ποτε ἴδῃς, οὐ κατὰ χρυσίον τε καὶ ἐσθῆτα " an ri lol Kal τοὺς καλοὺς παῖδάς τε καὶ νεανίσκους δόξει σοι εἶναι, ods νῦν ὁρῶν ἐκπέπληξαι καὶ ἕτοιμος εἶ καὶ σὺ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὁρῶντες x \ , 7 > -" ΕΣ - ¥ = ΄ὔ ? Ps τὰ παιδικὰ καὶ ξυνόντες ἀεὶ αὐτοῖς, εἴ πως οἷόν T ἦν, μήτε ἐσθίειν μήτε πίνειν, ἀλλὰ θεᾶσθαι μόνον καὶ ξυνεῖναι. τί δῆτα, ἔφη, a ” ΄ > \ Ἂς \ 2 cad ¥¢ , οἰόμεθα, εἴ τῳ γένοιτο αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν ἰδεῖν εἰλικρινές, καθαρόν, E Fal / ἄμικτον, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀνάπλεων σαρκῶν Te ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ χρωμάτων

211 Ο (iva) καὶ scripsi: καὶ libri: ἵνα Usener: κἂν Bdhm.: καὶ γνῷ. .«καλόν

secl. Hug αὐτὸ : aura O.-P. Ὁ μαντικὴ vulg., Themistius ποτε ιδης 0.-P.: ποτ᾽ εἴδῃς B: ποτ᾽ εἰδῃς T: ποτ᾽ ἴδης apographa, Sz. χρυσίον: χρυσον O.-P. det post μόνον καὶ transp. Ast θεᾶσθαι μόνον TW: θεάσασθαι μόνον B: povov θεασασθαι O.-P. ἘΞ ἄμικτον post θνητῆς, ἀλλ᾽ transp.

Liebhold ἀλλὰ del. Ast Liebhold αναπλεω O.-P.

are uncertain. I follow Usener in changing τελευτήσῃ to the infinitive and in inserting ἵνα after μάθημα (retaining, however, καὶ before γνῷ which he need- lessly deletes). The objection to Schanz’s ὡς (for καὶ) ἀπὸ τῶν μ. is that os, in the final use, occurs but once elsewhere in Plato, according to Weber’s statistics (see Goodwin, G. A. 7. p. 398), being very rare in all good prose- writers except Xenophon. Another possible expedient would be to read γνῶναι in place of γνῷ. ἔστ᾽ ἄν is a non-Platonic form.

τελευτῆσαι... τελευτῶν. The repetition serves to emphasize the finality of the Idea.

aird...6 ἔστι. For this formula to express ideality, cp. Phaedo 74 8, 75 B ois ἐπισφραγιζόμεθα τοῦτο ὃ ἔστι : Theaet. 146 5.

211 Ὁ évrai@a...clrep που ἄλλοθι. ‘There above all places”; so Phaedo 678 ἐκεῖ... εἴπερ που ἄλλοθι: cp. 212A εἴπερ τῳ ἄλλῳ... ἐκείνῳ. For ἐνταῦθα 6. gen. cp. Theaet. 1770, Rep. 3288. For βίος βιωτός, cp. Apol. 384, Eur. Ale. 802.

οὐ κατὰ χρυσίον κτλ. Similar is Proverbs viii. 11 “ Wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.” That Socr. held this view is shown in 216D,B. For κατά c. acc., of comparison, cp. Gorg. 512 B, Rep. 466 B.

ξυνόντες..«μήτε πίνειν. Cp. 1914 ff.; also Sappho 2, Archil. 103, Soph. 77. 161 N. (ὀμμάτειος πόθος): Rel. Med. “There are wonders in true affection— when J am from him I am dead till I be with him,” etc.

τί δῆτα.. οἰόμεθα. Se. γενέσθαι αὐτῷ, or the like.

211 Ἑ εἰλικρινές κτλ. Cp. Phileb. δ2 Ὁ τὸ καθαρόν τε καὶ εἰλικρινές : Phaedo 66 A, Rep. 418 8.

μὲ ἀνάπλεων. Tim. ἀνάπλεως" ἀναπεπλησμένος" χρῆται δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ pepo- λυσμένου: cp. Phaedo 83D and the use of the verb in Phaedo 674 μηδὲ

9—2

182 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [211 Ε

a n a A καὶ ἄλλης πολλῆς φλυαρίας θνητῆς, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον καλὸν a a t

δύναιτο μονοειδὲς κατιδεῖν ; ap’ οἴει, ἔφη, φαῦλον βίον γίγνεσθαι 212 ἐκεῖσε βλέποντος ἀνθρώπον καὶ ἐκεῖνο ᾧ δεῖ θεωμένου καὶ ξυνόντος αὐτῷ; ἢ οὐκ ἐνθυμῇ, ἔφη, ὅτι ἐνταῦθα αὐτῷ μοναχοῦ γενήσεται, ὁρῶντε ᾧ ὁρατὸν τὸ καλόν, τίκτειν οὐκ εἴδωλα ἀρε- τῆς, ἅτε οὐκ εἰδώλου ἐφαπτομένῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῆ, ἅτε τοῦ ἀληθοῦς

’ ‘4 la i > A » n Ν , € - ἐφαπτομένῳ" τέκοντι δὲ ἀρετὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ θρεψαμένῳ ὑπάρχει

211 ἘΞ θνητῆς del. Bdhm. ἀλλ᾽..«κατιδεῖν del. Bdhm. ἔφη om. T 212A ᾧ δεῖ Ast: ὦ δεῖ B: ὡδὶ Ὁ: ὁ δεῖ T: δὴ Schleierm.: dei Rohde Sz. ἐφαπτομένῳ del. Voeg.

ἀναπιμπλώμεθα τῆς τούτου (sc. τοῦ σώματος) φύσεως, ἀλλὰ καθαρεύωμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Also Rep. 5168, Theaet. 196. This passage is cited by Plotin. Ena. 1. vi. 7, p. 56.

χρωμάτων. For the Idea as ἀχρώματος οὐσία, see Phaedr. 247 c.

φλυαρίας θνητῆς. “Lumber of mortality”: cp. Phaedo 66 ἐρώτων δὲ καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ φόβων καὶ εἰδώλων παντοδαπῶν καὶ PAvapias ἐμπίπλησιν ἡμᾶς πολλῆς (sc. τὸ σῶμα); Gorg. 4906; 7ίορ. 581 Ὁ.

φαῦλον βίον. For the sense, cp. Soph. fr. 158 N., Eur. fr. 966 Ὁ. ὄλβιος ὅστις «ἀθανάτου καθορῶν φύσεως | κόσμον ἀγήρω κτλ.

212 Α ἐκεῖνο ᾧ δεῖ. “With the proper organ,” sc. τῷ νῷ: cp. Phaedr. 247 ο ἡ γὰρ...ἀναφὴς οὐσία, ὄντως οὖσα, ψυχῆς κυβερνήτῃ μόνῳ θεατὴ νῷ κτλ.: Phaedo 658; ep. 490 Β αὐτοῦ 6 ἔστιν ἑκάστου τῆς φύσεως ἅψασθαι ᾧ προσήκει ψυχῆς ἐφάπτεσθαι τοῦ τοιούτου: ib. 5824 πρὶν ἂν αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν αὐτῇ νοήσει λάβῃ. For the organ of intellectual vision (τὸ ὄργανον ᾧ καταμανθάνει ἕκαστος..«οἷον εἰ ὄμμα), see Rep, 618 c: cp. 5. Afatth. vi. 22 ff. So Browne Hydriot. “Let intellectual tubes give thee a glance of things which visive organs reach not”: cp. Plotin. de pulcr. 60 B (Cr.).

οὐκ εἴδωλα.. ἀλλ᾽ ddnor. Rettig writes, “ εἴδωλον ist hier nicht Trugbild, sondern Abbild. εἴδωλα ἀρετῆς sind... Tugenden zweiten Grades, Vg). Pol. vit. 516 A, 5340, x. 596 a, 598 5,..Commentar zu unserer Stelle ist Symp. 206 p.” On the other hand, cp. Theaet. 150 A εἴδωλα τίκτειν, with 150. πύτερον εἴδωλον καὶ ψεῦδος ἀποτίκτει τοῦ νέου ἡ διάνοια ἢ γόνιμόν τε καὶ ἀληθές. Evidently here the point of εἴδωλα lies in the inferiority rather than the similarity of the objects when compared with ὄντως ὄντα. But it is scarcely probable that'an allusion is inteuded, as Zeller suggests, to the myth of Ixion “der seine frevelnden Wiinsche zu Here erhob, aber statt ihrer ein Wolkenbild umarmte und mit ihm die Centauren erzeugte.”

ἐφαπτομένῳ. Of mental action, cp. Rep. 4908 (quoted above). Voegelin proposed to omit the second ἐφαπτομένῳ, but Plato never omits the participle with dre. For parallels, see Phaedo 678, Zep. 5340; Plotin. de puler. 46 κὶ (Cr.).

θρεψαμένῳ. Cp. 309 ο.

212 8] ZYMITTOZION 133

a ” , , θεοφιλεῖ γενέσθαι, καὶ εἴπερ τῳ ἄλλῳ ἀνθρώπων ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἐκείνῳ; Ταῦτα δή, ὦ Daidpé τε καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι, é ἐν Διοτέμα, πέπεισμαι B UE ρ ᾿ ,

δ᾽ ἐγώ" πεπεισμένος δὲ πειρῶμαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πείθειν ὅτι τού- του τοῦ κτήματος τῇ ἀνθρωπείᾳ φύσει συνεργὸν ἀμείνω "Ἔρωτος

“ἢ A a na οὐκ ἄν τις ῥᾳδίως λάβοι. διὸ δὴ ἔγωγέ φημι χρῆναι πάντα ἄνδρα

:3 wv cal Ν ᾽ \ a Α x ἡ A ‘ τὸν Ἔρωτα τιμᾶν καὶ αὐτὸς τιμῶ, «καὶ» τὰ ἐρωτικὰ καὶ δια-

n n Ul na

φερόντως ἀσκῶ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πιαρακελεύομαι, καὶ νῦν Te καὶ ἀεὶ ἐγκωμιάξω τὴν δύναμιν καὶ ἀνδρείαν τοῦ "ξρωτος καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷός τ᾽

212 Α θεοφιλεῖ rec. ὑ O.-P., vulg.: θεοφιλῆ BTW B som. O.-P. ἐγὼ χρῆναί φημι Method. (καὶ) τὰ ἐρωτικὰ καὶ Sz.: καὶ τὰ ἐρωτικὰ Usener: τὰ δ᾽ ἐρωτικὰ καὶ Bdhm. ἀσκῶν Vahlen τὸν ἐερωτα post ἐγκωμιάζω add.

O.-P.! καὶ ἀνδρείαν secl. Hug: re καὶ χρείαν Bdhm.

θεοφιλεῖ. Cp. Rep. 619 5, Phil. 39 n.

εἴπερ τῳ ἄλλῳ. Cp. Phaedo 5885, 66.4; and 211 D supra (ad init.).

ἀθανάτῳ. Cp. Soph. fr. 864 N. οὐκ ἔστι γῆρας τῶν σοφῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ νοῦς | θείᾳ ξύνεστιν ἡμέρᾳ τεθραμμένος. A passage such as this might have evoked the remark in Isocr. ὁ. Soph. 2918 μόνον οὐκ ἀθανάτους ὑπισχνοῦνται τοὺς συνόντας ποιήσειν.

᾿212 Β πέπεισμαι κτλ. “Beachte man das Spiel mit πέπεισμαι, πεπεισ-

μένος, πειρῶμαι, πείθειν " (Rettig). Cp. 189 » ἐγὼ οὖν πειράσομαι κτλ.

κτήματος. 1.6. αὐτοῦ τοῦ καλοῦ, Cp. Phil. 19 ὁ τί τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων κτημάτων ἄριστον : tb. 06 A.

συνεργὸν. Cp. 1808; and 218 D τούτου δὲ οἶμαί μου συλλήπτορα οὐδένα κυριώτερον εἶναι σοῦ.

διὸ δὴ...τιμᾶν. This echoes both Phaedrus’s οὕτω δὴ ἔγωγέ φημι Ἔρωτα θεῶν...«τιμιώτατον (180 Β) and Agathon’s ᾧ χρὴ ἔπεσθαι πάντ᾽ ἄνδρα (197 5). Probably τιμᾶν here implies practical veneration; cp. the Homeric use of τιμή (P 251, λ 304, w 30, etc.), and Hes. Theog. 142.

τὰ ἐρωτικὰ... ἀσκῶ. For Socrates’ devotion to “erotics,” see 177 Ὁ οὐδέν φημι ἄλλο ἐπίστασθαι ἢ τὰ ἐρωτικά, 198 Ὁ ad init. Probably ἀσκῶ (like τιμῶ) has a religious connotation here, “I am a devotee of”; cp. Hesych. ἄσκεια:" θρήσκεια, εὐσέβεια: Pind. Nem. 1x. 9 (with J. B. Bury’s note). In spite of Rettig’s objection that Usener’s conj. (see crit. n.) “bewirkt eine Tautologie mit dem Folgenden καὶ νῦν.. "Ἔρωτος," it seems to me—as to Hug-—an im- provement, and (as modified by Schanz) I adopt it: a certain amount of tautology is inevitable, unless we resort to excision. For καὶ (intensive) διαφερόντως cp. Phaedo 594, Rep. 528p. Vahlen, reading ἀσκῶν, construes καὶ αὐτὸς τ. and καὶ τ. d. wapax. as parallel; but in this case I should expect αὐτός (re). Most edd. (Bekk., Bt., etc.) put commas after τιμᾶν and ἀσκῶ.

τὴν δύναμιν καὶ ἀνδρείαν. For the δύναμις of Eros cp. 188 p (Eryx.) πᾶσαν δύναμιν eyet...6 πᾶς Ἔρως: and for his ἀνδρεία, 1794 (Phaedr,), 196¢ ff. (Agathon) εἴς γε ἀνδρείαν κτὰ., 203 D (Socr.) ἀνδρεῖος ὧν (cp. 219D ff.). The intention here may be (as I find suggested also by Schirlitz) that the long

184 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [212 8

Ο εἰμί. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν λόγον, ὦ Φαῖδρε, εἰ μὲν βούλει, ὡς ἐγκώμιον εἰς Ἔρωτα νόμισον εἰρῆσθαι, εἰ δέ, ὅ τι καὶ ὅπῃ χαίρεις ὀνομάξων, τοῦτο ὀνόμαζε. ᾿ΧΧΧ, Εἰπόντος δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ Σωκράτους τοὺς μὲν ἐπαινεῖν, τὸν Se Ἀριστοφάνη λέγειν τι ἐπιχειρεῖν, ὅτι ἐμνήσθη αὐτοῦ λέγων ὁ Σωκράτης περὶ τοῦ λόγου' καὶ ἐξαίφνης τὴν αὔλειον θύραν κρονομένην πολὺν ψόφον παρασχεῖν ὡς κωμαστών, καὶ αὐλητρίδος

D φωνὴν ἀκούειν. τὸν οὖν ᾿Αγάθωνα, Iaides, φάναι, οὐ σκέψεσθε; καὶ ἐὰν μέν τις τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἡ, καλεῖτε" εἰ δὲ μή, λέγετε ὅτι οὐ

212 © επιχειρειν λέγειν τι O.-P. αὔλειον rec, ὑ O.-P., vulg.: αὔλιον BT κροτουμένην T (καὶ) ὡς Bdhm.: ὡς (ὑπὸ) Naber: καὶ Ast D κεψεσθε

Ο.-Ρ. ἐὰν : αν O.-P.

course οὗ παιδαγωγία described above requires ἀνδρεία in the learner who is to attain πρὸς τὸ τέλος: ΟΡ. Meno 81D ἐάν τις ἀνδρεῖος ἦ καὶ μὴ ἀποκάμῃ ζητῶν. Neither Badham’s χρείαν (cp. 204 c) nor Hug’s athetesis of ἀνδρείαν is probable.

2120 εἰ μὲν Botrha...ct δέ. Cp, Huthyd. 285 c (with Gifford’s n.); Goodwin G. M. 1. § 418.

ὁ τι.. «χαίρεις ὀνομάζων. Cp. Prot. 3584; Phaedr. 273 c; Eur. fr. 967 Ὁ. σοὶ... Ζεὺς εἴτ᾽ ᾿Αίδης | ὀνομαζόμενος στέργεις.

τοὺς μὲν ἐπαινεῖν. Observe that Socr. is not so enthusiastically applauded as Agathon (πάντας ἀναθορυβῆσαι, 198 4): Socrates appealed rather τῷ ἔχοντι ὦτα ἀκούειν.

λέγων...περὶ τοῦ λόγου. See 205D ff. καὶ λέγεται... λόγος κτλ.

τὴν αὔλειον θύραν. For this “street-door,” which generally opened in- wards and gave admittance to a narrow passage (θυρωρεῖον), see Smith D. A. 1. 661 ὁ.

κρονομένην. As the Porter in Jfacbeth would say, “there was old knocking at the door.” For κρούειν cp. Prot. 3104, 314} ; but the usual Attic word is κόπτειν (Moeris κόπτει τὴν θύραν cEwev...’Artixas, κροτεῖ δὲ ‘EAAnuixds: Schol. ad Ar. Nub. 132 ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν κρουόντων κόπτειν λέγουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἔσωθεν ψοφεῖν), or πατάσσειν Ar. tun. 38. Cp. Smith D. A. τ. 990 ὁ.

ὡς κωμαστῶν. “Ut comissatorum, ἢ. 6. quasi comissatores eum (sc. strepi- tum) excitarent” (Stallb.). Stallb. rightly removed the comma placed after παρασχεῖν in Bekker’s text. κωμασταί, “flown with insolence and wine,” would naturally be in a noisy mood. For Alcib. as a reveller, see Plut. Alcib. 193 Ὁ.

αὐλητρίδος φωνὴν. Not “tibicinae vocem,” as Wolf, but rather “sonum tibiae, quam illa inflavit,” as Stallb. For φωνή thus (poetically) applied to instrumental music, cp. Rep. 397 A πάντων ὀργάνων φωνάς : similarly Xen. Symp. νι. 3 ὅταν ὁ αὐλὸς φθέγγηται. For the αὐλητρίς as a regular accessory of κῶμοι, cp. 1768, Theaet, 173D: similar are the ἑταῖραι of Iep. 373 a, 573D: cp. Catullus’s “cenam non sine candida puella.”

212 Ὁ καλεῖτε. “Invite him in”; cp. 174D,B, 1753.

212 Ε] ZYMIMOZION 135

πίνομεν ἀλλὰ ἀναπαυόμεθα ἤδη. καὶ ov πολὺ ὕστερον ᾿ΑΛλκι- βιάδου τὴν φωνὴν ἀκούειν ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ σφόδρα μεθύοντος καὶ μέγα βοῶντος, ἐρωτῶντος ὅπου ᾿Αγάθων καὶ κελεύοντος ἄγειν παρ᾽ ᾿Αγάθωνα. ἄγειν οὖν αὐτὸν παρὰ σφᾶς τήν τε αὐλητρίδα ὑπο- λαβοῦσαν καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς τών ἀκολούθων, καὶ ἐπιστῆναι ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας ἐστεφανωμένον αὐτὸν κιττοῦ τέ τινι στεφάνῳ δασεῖ καὶ ἴων, καὶ ταινίας ἔχοντα ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς πάνυ πολλάς, καὶ εἰπεῖν" "Ανδρες, χαίρετε: μεθύοντα ἄνδρα πάνυ σφόδρα δέξεσθε συμπότην,

212 Ὁ αλλα παυομεθα O.-P. σφόδρα μ. καὶ del. Hartmann (καὶ) ἐρωτῶντος vulg. Hirschig: del. Hommel Hartmann κελεύοντος (é) Hirschig Sz. E ταινίας T O.-P.: revias B (et mox) ὦνδρες Sz.: ὦ ᾽νδρες Usener

δέξεσθε B O.-P. corr.: δέξασθε T: δεξεσθαι O.-P.1

ἀναπανόμεθα ἤδη. “ We are retiring already,” rather than “the drinking is over” (Jowett): cp. Prot. 310 c ἐπειδὴ...δεδειπνηκότες ἦμεν καὶ ἐμέλλομεν ἀναπαύεσθαι κτλ. The statement here would be a social fiction (see 174 D 7.).

σφόδρα μεθύοντος κτλ. Hommel and Hartman may be right in regarding ἐρωτῶντος as a gloss: for βοᾶν followed directly by a question the former quotes Asclep. Lpigr. xx. 5 τῇ δὲ τοσοῦτ᾽ ἐβόησα βεβρεγμένος: ἄχρι τίνος, Ζεῦ;

ἄγειν οὖν. Evidently the subject of this infin. is not Agathon’s παῖδες, as implicd in Schleierm.’s transl., but Alcib.’s own attendants.

ὑπολαβοῦσαν. For ὑπολαβεῖν in this physical sense, *casurum sustentare,” cp. Rep. 408 Ὁ (the only other ex. in Plato), and Hdt. 1. 24 of the dolphin “supporting” by “getting under” Arion (L. and §.’s “take by the hand” is probably wrong).

ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας. ‘‘Intellige fores ipsius domus, in qua convivae erant, sive τὴν μέταυλον θύραν " (Stallb.).

212 ἘΞ αὐτὸν... «ἴων. “More Graecorum abundat αὐτόν propter oppositio- nem taeniarum quas gestabat in capite” (Wolf). Violets were specially in fashion at Athens, as implied in the epithet ἰοστέφανοι (Pind. fr. 46). Other favourite materials for wreaths were myrtle and roses: cp. Stesich. 29 πολλὰ δὲ μύρσινα φύλλα | καὶ podivous στεφάνους ἴων τε κορωνίδας οὔλας.

ταινίας. Op. Thuc. tv. 121 δημοσίᾳ μὲν χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ ἀνέδησαν.. ἰδίᾳ δὲ ἐταινίουν κτλ. : Pind. Pyth. 1v. 240; Hor. Carm. τν. 11. 2. See Holden on Plut. Timol. p. 266: “ταινία, taenia, lemniscus, a sort of fillet or riband, given as a reward of honour, either by itself, or more commonly as a decoration to be fastened upon other prizes, such as crowns, wreaths, which were considered more honourable when accompanied with a lemniscus than when they were simply givon by themselves. Originally it was made of linden-bark or of wool, but afterwards of gold and silver tinsel (Plin. W. 1). 21. 4).”

μεθύοντα,..«πάνυ σφόδρα. The peculiar order—“a drunken fellow right royally (drunk)”—seems intended to indicate that the speaker is, or feigns to be, considerably mixed.

218

136 TIAATQNOS [212 Ε

᾿ Ἂ ἡ ἀπίωμεν ἀναδήσαντες μόνον ᾿Αγάθωνα, ἐφ᾽ ᾧπερ ἤλθομεν; ἐγὼ Fa , \ \ ΕΣ t . 2 , * é 0 n δὲ γάρ τοι, φάναι, χθὲς μὲν οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἐγενόμην ἀφικέσθαι, νῦν δὲ lol a x an a a ἥκω ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ ἔχων τὰς ταινίας, ἵνα ἀπὸ τῆς ἐμῆς κεφαλῆς n δ « XN τὴν τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ καλλίστου κεφαλὴν {ἐὰν εἴπω οὑτωσὶ ᾿ , a ᾿ , € Ov ᾿ > NX δέ AY ἀναδήσω. dpa καταγελάσεσθέ μου ws μεθύοντος; ἐγὼ ὃὲέ, κἂν ὑμεῖς γελᾶτε, ὅμως εὖ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω. ἀλλά μοι λέγετε αὐτόθεν, ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς εἰσίω ἢ μή; συμπίεσθε ἢ οὔ; Πάντας’ οὖν ἀναθορυβῆσαι καὶ κελεύειν εἰσιέναι καὶ κατα- a Ψ / κλίνεσθαι, καὶ τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα καλεῖν αὐτόν. καὶ τὸν ἰέναι ἀγόμενον a ,ὔ > tA ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ περιαιρούμενον ἅμα τὰς ταινίας ὡς ἀναδή- na an a Ἂς 4

covta, ἐπίπροσθε τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχοντα οὐ κατιδεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, \ ἀλλὰ καθίζεσθαι παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα ἐν μέσῳ Σωκράτους τε Kal 212E ᾧπερ Β: ὅπερ TW O-P. ἤλθομεν TW Ο.-Ῥ.: ἤχθομεν B εχθες O.-P. οἷός τ᾽ Τ' O.-P.: οἷς τ᾽ Β ἐπὶ..«ταινίας del. Naber ἐὰν εἴπω οὑτωσὶ BT: κεφαλὴν add. W: post ἀναδήσω transp. οἷ. Steph., post dpa Ast:

secl. Wolf J.-U. Bt.: ἀνειπὼν (vel ἐὰν ἀν είπω) οὑτωσὶ Winckelmann: ὧν εἶδον

ovr. Usener: ἐὰν εἰσίω οὗτ. Bergk: ἐὰν ἔτι οἷός τ᾽ ὦ, οὗτ. temptabam κατα- γελάσασθαι W 213 Α κελεύειν T: κελεύει B

χθὲς. 1.6. at the main celebration of Agathon’s victory, cp. 174 4.

ἐὰν εἴπω οὑτωσὶ. Since Wolf most edd. agree in obelizing these words as a (misplaced) gloss on the following clause. Hommel’s conj. is ingenious, though far-fetched—éay εἶπον (addressed to his attendants) “dixi iam saepius, mitti me velle liberum a vestris manibus.” I have proposed ἐὰν ἔτι οἷός τ᾽ ὦ, οὑτωσὶ ἀναδήσω, “if I am still capable of doing so,” in jesting allusion to his own incapable condition: or perhaps the original had νεανίσκου. The scenic effectiveness of οὑτωσὶ, used δεικτικῶς, I should be loth to use. Jowett’s “as I may be allowed to call him” cannot be got out of the Greek.

213A αὐτόθεν. Statim, illico (Stallb.); cp. Thuc. vi. 21. 2.

ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς. “On the terms stated” (cp. Laws 850), 1.6. as a συμπότης. This is made clear by the following clause, συμπίεσθε ἢ οὔ; which repeats the condition already stated in 212 B (μεθύοντα... δέξεσθε συμπότην): Riickert, as Stallb. observes, is wrong in saying “at nullam (conditionem) dixit adhuc.” That Alcibiades meant his “conditions” to be taken seriously is shown by the sequel, 213 & ff.

ἀναθορυβῆσαι. Cp. 1984. For καλεῖν, see 212 Ὁ ad init.

ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Including, we may suppose, the adAnrpis, see 212 Ὁ.

ἐπίπροσθε... Σωκράτη. “πα da er sie sich vor die Augen hielt, bemerkte er Sokrates nicht” (Zeller). Ficinus, followed by Wolf and Schleierm., wrongly renders “Socratem, licet 6 conspectu adstantem, non vidit”; so too Hommel writes “ante oculos habuit et vidit Socratem, sed eum non agnovit.” For ἐπίπροσθεν ἔχειν, cp. Critias 108 0.

παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα. 1716. on the ἐσχάτη κλίνη: for the disposition of the company see 175 o.

218 c] ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΝ 137

ἐκείνου" παραχωρῆσαι yap τὸν Σωκράτη ὡς ἐκεῖνον κατεῖδεν. B παρακαθεζόμενον δὲ αὐτὸν ἀσπάζεσθαί τε τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα καὶ ἀναδεῖν. εἰπεῖν οὖν τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα Ὑ πολύετε, παῖδες, ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, ἵνα ἐκ τρίτων κατακέηται. Πάνυ γε, εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην" ἀλλὰ τίς ἡμῖν ὅδε τρίτος συμπότης; καὶ ἅμα μεταστρεφόμενον αὐτὸν ὁρᾶν τὸν Σωκράτη, ἰδόντα δὲ ἀναπηδῆσαι καὶ εἰπεῖν Ὦ Ἡράκλεις, τουτὶ τί ἦν; Σωκράτης οὗτος; ἐλλοχῶν αὖ με ἐνταῦθα κατέκεισο, ὥσπερ εἰώθεις ἐξαίφνης ἀναφαίνεσθαι ὅπου ἐγὼ ᾧμην Ο ἥκιστά σε ἔσεσθαι. καὶ νῦν τί ἥκεις; καὶ τί αὖ ἐνταῦθα κατε- κλίνης, καὶ οὐ παρὰ ᾿Αριστοφάνει οὐδὲ εἴ τις ἄλλος γελοῖος ἔστι

213 Β κατεῖδεν scripsi: κατιδεῖν] O.-P.: καθίζειν libri: ὡς.. «καθίζειν 566]. Bdhm. Sz. Bt. ὅδε τρίτος W O.-P., Sz. Bt.: ᾧδε τρίτος Β, J.-U.: τρίτος ὅδε T ὁρᾶν T O.-P.: ὁρᾷ Β τουτὶ τί ἦν TW O.-P.: τοῦτ᾽ εἰπεῖν BWmg. Σωκράτης del. Naber ἐνλοχῶν Β C εἰώθης vulg. καὶ ov Herm. Sz. Bt.: ὡς οὐ B: més ov Hug οὐδὲ B: οὔτε T

219 Β παραχωρῆσαι. ‘Locum dedisse”: cp. Prot. 336 B.

ὡς ἐκεῖνον κατεῖδεν. The adoption of this reading from the Papyrus obviates the necessity of bracketing the words (see crit. n.). Adain on Rep. 365D writes “ws for dare...is a curious archaism, tolerably frequent in Xenophon... but almost uncxampled in Plato,” citing as instances /’rot. 33018, /’haedo 108 5, 71. Ale. 141 Β, and our passage: Goodwin, however (G. Jf. 7. § 609), recognizes only one instance of as=dore ὁ. infin. in Plato (viz. Ltep. l.c.). Certainly this is no fit context for the introduction of a “curious archaism.”

“Ὑπολύετε. “Calceos solvite”: see Smith D. A. 1. 393 δ. The opposite process is ὑποδεῖν (174 a).

ἐκ τρίτων. Cp. Gorg. 5004, Tim. 54a; Eur. Or. 1178.

τουτὶ τί mv; “Mirandi formula, qua utuntur, quibus aliquid subito et praeter exspectationem accidit” (Stallb.). The idiom is common in Aristo- phanes, eg. Vesp. 183, 1509, Man. 39, etc. The words 3. οὗτος are, as Rettig observes, “nicht Ausruf, sondern an sich selbst gerichtete Frage des Alcibiades.”

ἐλλοχῶν. Cp. Prot. 3094 ἀπὸ κυνηγεσίου τοῦ περὶ τὴν ᾿Αλκιβιάδου ὥραν ; I. Ale. 104 σ. See also the description of Eros in 203 Ὁ (ἐπίβουλος κτλ.).

213 Ο ἐξαίφνης ἀναφαίνεσθαι. Cp. 2108; Theaet. 1620 εἰ ἐξαίφνης οὕτως ἀναφανήσει κτλ.

καὶ οὐ παρὰ κτλ. I adopt Hermann’s καὶ for the ὡς of the mss. Stallb. explains ὡς by “quippe, nam, ut mox in verbis ὡς ἐμοὶ...γέγονεν "- Hommel, putting a question-mark after βούλεται, renders “‘warum setzest du dich grade dahin, als zum Beispiel nicht neben A.” etc.: but, if ὡς be kept, it would be best to mark a question after κατεκλίνης.

γελοῖος... βούλεται. With βούλεται, supply γελοῖος εἶναι. For Aristoph. as γελοῖος, cp. 1898. The sense is, as Rettig puts it, “Was hast du γελοῖος und

188 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [213 c

τε καὶ βούλεται, ἀλλὰ διεμηχανήσω ὅπως Tapa τῷ καλλίστῳ TOV ἔνδον κατακείσῃ; καὶ τὸν Σωκράτη, ᾿Αγάθων, φάναι, ὅρα εἴ μοι ἐπαμύνεις: ὡς ἐμοὶ ὁ τούτου ἔρως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐ φαῦλον πρᾶγμα γέγονεν. ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου γὰρ τοῦ χρόνου, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τούτου D ἠράσθην, οὐκέτι ἔξεστί μοι οὔτε προσβλέψαι οὔτε διαλεχθῆναι καλῷ οὐδ᾽ ἑνί, ἢ οὑτοσὶ ζηλοτυπῶν με καὶ φθονῶν θαυμαστὰ ἐργάζεται καὶ λοιδορεῖταί τε καὶ τὼ χεῖρε μόγις ἀπέχεται. ὅρα οὖν μή τι καὶ νῦν ἐργάσηται, ἀλλὰ διάλλαξον ἡμᾶς, ἢ ἐὰν ἐπιχειρῇ βιάξεσθαι, ἐπάμυνε, ὧς ἐγὼ τὴν τούτου μανίαν τε καὶ φιλεραστίαν πάνυ ὀρρωδῶ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι, φάναι τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ διαλλαγή. ἀλλὰ τούτων μὲν εἰσαῦθίς σε τιμωρή-

218 Ο᾽ βούλεται (εἶναι) Bdhm. διεμηχανήσω: τι ἐεμηχανήσω 0.-P. (ὦ) ᾿Αγάθων vulg. Jn. ἐπαμύνεις libri, Bt.: ἐπαμυνεῖς Steph. J.-U. Sz. ov T: οὗ B Ὁ οὑτοσὶ... T: οὗτοσί ras Coisl. θαυμαστὰ B O.-P.: θαυμάσια TW ἐπάμυνε Τ' : ἐπάμυναι B

ὑβριστής bei dem licbenswiirdigen Tragiker zu thun, du gehdrst zu dem Spott- vogel Aristophanes”: “birds of a feather should flock together.” Riickert suggests that the antithesis γελοῖος )( κάλλιστος may imply a reflection on “ Aristophanis forma.”

διεμηχανήσω. For erotic scheming, cp. 203D ff.

ἐπαμύνεις. ‘In animated language the present often refers to the future, to express likelihood, intention, or danger” (Goodwin, G. M. 7. § 32).

213 Ὁ προσβλέψαι. This may have been the vox propria for a lover’s glance, cp. Ar. Plut. 1014 (quoted below).

ἢ οὑτοσὶ. = This (elliptical) use of ἤ, alioquin, “but that,” is “regular with δεῖ, προσήκει, and the like, in the preceding clause” (Adam on Prot. 323 a).

ζηλοτυπῶν. This is a dz. eip.in Plato: cp. Ar. Plué. 1014 ff. ὅτι προσέβλεψέν μέ τις, | ἐτυπτόμην διὰ τοῦθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν. ] οὕτω σφύδρα ζηλότυπος ὃ νεανίσκος ἦν.

θαυμαστὰ ἐργάζεται. Cp. Laws 686c 6. ἐργασάμενον; Theaet. 1514 θ. δρῶντες; 182 1 supra θ. ἔργα ἐργαζομένῳ : similarly 218A ποιοῦσι dpav τε καὶ λέγειν ὁτιοῦν.

td χεῖρε. This and 214} infra are the only exx. in Plato of ἀπέχεσθαι in the sense continere (manum): elsewhere it occurs mainly in poetry (Od. xx1I. 316, etc.).

μανίαν. Cp. Laws 839 4 λύττης...ἐρωτικῆς καὶ pavias: Soph. fr. 162 νόσημ᾽ ἔρωτος τοῦτ᾽ ἐφίμερον κακόν : and 173D supra.

φιλεραστίαν. ‘“‘Amor quo quis amatorem amplectitur” (Ast); equivalent to dvrépws (Phaedr. 255 Ὁ): cp. 192 B.

ὀρρωδῶ, Horresco, a strong word for “quaking with fear.”

διαλλαγή. Alcib. catches up Socrates’ word διάλλαξον and negatives it with a ‘‘ What hast thou to do with peace?” “But,” he proceeds, “111 have

218 Ε] ΣΥΛΛΠΟΣΙΟΝ 189

a a Ὁ σομαι" νῦν δέ μοι, ᾿Αγάθων, φάναι, μετάδος τῶν ταινιῶν, ἵνα 2 τ \ \ , ‘ \ \ ΄ \ ΄ ἀναδήσω καὶ τὴν τούτου ταυτηνὶ τὴν θαυμαστὴν κεφαλήν, καὶ μή EB

᾿ a Ν \ 2 ἐδ 2X δὲ a 2 λό μοι μέμφηται ὅτι σὲ μὲν ἀνέδησα, αὐτὸν δὲ νικώντα ἐν λόγοις , ? , > , ιν τ , 3. > κα 7 ν πάντας ἀνθρώπους, οὐ μόνον πρῴην ὥσπερ σύ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί, ἔπειτα > x , Ν ΓΒ > - f fal a > ὃ a ‘ οὐκ ἀνέδησα. καὶ ἅμ᾽ αὐτὸν λαβόντα τῶν ταινιῶν ἀναδεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη καὶ κατακλίνεσθαι. an a la ἢ ΧΧΧΙ. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ κατεκλίνη, εἰπεῖν: Liev δή, ἄνδρες" n 4 a 2. 4 δοκεῖτε yap μοι νήφειν" οὐκ ἐπιτρεπτέον οὖν ὑμῖν, ἀλλὰ ποτέον" rn lal Ya a an , ὡμολόγηται yap ταῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν. ἄρχοντα οὖν αἱροῦμαι τῆς πόσεως, Ψ vn e na € tal - > , ᾽ 4 ΄ Sa , ν ἕως ἂν ὑμεῖς ἱκανῶς πίητε, ἐμαυτόν. ἀλλὰ φερέτω, ᾿Αγάθων, εἴ τι a n / al ἔστιν ἔκπωμα μέγα. μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲν Sel, ἀλλὰ φέρε, παῖ, φάναι,

218 Ὁ (ὦ) ᾿Αγάθων Sauppe Jn. 8z.: ὦ ᾽γάθων J.-U. Ἢ ἀναδήσω καὶ TW O.-P.,8z. θὲ. : ἀναδησώμεθα B: ἀναδήσωμεν καὶ Herm. J.-U. τὴν τούτου 560]. Jn. ἄνδρες: ὦνδρες Sz. J.-U. οὖν ὑμῖν T, Winckelmann Bt.: ὑμῖν B, J.-U. Sz. φερέτω, ᾿Αγάθων Bt.: φερέτω Ay. libri: φέρετ᾽, ὦ Ay. Cobet J.-U.: φερέτω, &’Ay. Naber: ᾿Αγάθων 560]. Sz. ἔκπωμα T: ἔκπομα B

that out with you by-and-bye!” (see 914 ad jin. ff.). Then, with a sudden change of tone from bullying and banter to affectionate earnestness, he begins νῦν δέ μοι κτλ.

213 Ἐ τὴν τούτου... κεφαλήν. “Incipit Ale. dicere τὴν τούτου κεφαλήν, quod priusquam elocutus est, sentit nimis languidum esse; indo revertitur quasi ac denuo progreditur, positis verbis ταυτηνὶ τὴν 6. x.” (Riickert). Per- haps as Alc. says these words (notice the deictic ταυτηνί) he playfully strokes the head of Socr. rovrov is expanded by Jowett into “of this universal despot.”

γικῶντα. The present symposium was part of Agathon’s epinikian celebra- tion (see 174 a), and his victory also was gained by λόγοι (cp. 194 B).

ἔπειτα. Tamen, “yet after all,” ze. in spite of the fact of his perpetual victoriousness, Cp. Prot. 319 p, 343 Ὁ.

κατακλίνεσθαι. Ever since he first discovered Socrates, Alcibiades had’ been standing (see 213 B ad fin. ἀναπηδῆσαι).

Elev δή. “Come now”: “die Worte enthalten hier eine Aufforderung” (Rettig). Cp. 204, Phaedo 95a. The question to drink or not to drink is now resumed from 213 4 ad init.

οὐκ ἔπιτρεπτέον. “This can’t be allowed”: cp. Rep. 379 a and 219 ¢ infra.

ὡμολόγηται κτλ. See 212 Bf.

ἄρχοντα...τῆς πόσεως. “As symposiarch”: cp. the Latin arbiter (magister) bibendi Hor. C. τ. 4. 17, 1. 7. 25. For the qualifications proper in such “archons,” see Laws θ40 ff.; and for other details, Smith D. A. τι. 7400 ff. The emphatic position of ἐμαυτὸν is to be noticed.

Φερέτω, ᾿Αγάθων. Sc. ὁ παῖς: I adopt Burnet’s improved punctuation, which renders further change needless.

140 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [218 &

\ an a a 214 τὸν ψυκτῆρα ἐκεῖνον, ἰδόντα αὐτὸν πλέον ἢ ὀκτὼ κοτύλας χωροῦντα.

Β

τοῦτον ἐμπλησάμενον πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὸν ἐκπιεῖν, ἔπειτα τῷ Σω- if μὲ 2 a “ > a \ Ν , " κράτει κελεύειν ἐγχεῖν καὶ ἅμα εἰπεῖν! Πρὸς μὲν Σωκράτη, ὦ ΕΣ ὃ 3 ¥ ἢ δέ ἕ © , \ a 4 a ἄνδρες, τὸ σόφισμά μοι οὐδέν: ὁπόσον yap ἂν κελεύῃ τις, τοσοῦτον 3 \ Or a ἢ a \ Ν 5 if ἐκπιὼν οὐδὲν μᾶλλον μή ποτε μεθυσθῇ. τὸν μὲν οὖν Σωκράτη ἐγχέαντος τοῦ παιδὸς πίνειν" τὸν δ᾽ ᾿Ερυξίμαχον Πῶς οὗν, φάναι, ὦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδη, ποιοῦμεν; οὕτως οὔτε τι λέγομεν ἐπὶ τῇ κύλικι a οὔτε τι ἄδομεν, GAN ἀτεχνῶς ὥσπερ οἱ διψῶντες πιόμεθα; τὸν οὖν 214 Α πλέον: πλεῖν 4.-Ὁ. τοῦτον (abv) Athenaeus κελεύῃ Β:

κελεύσῃ T ποιῶμεν apogr. Laur. 1x. 85, Hirschig Naber (ποιῶμεν---λέγωμεν--- ᾷδωμεν Sommer) B οὔτε τι ᾷδομεν T, Bt.: οὔτ᾽ ἐπάδομεν B, J.-U. Sz.

214 Α τὸν ψυκτῆρα. “Yonder wine-cooler.” Suid. ψυκτῆρα- κάδδον ἢ ποτή- ριον μέγα, ἀπὸ τοῦ θᾶττον ψύχεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν κρᾶσιν : Poll. ν!. 99 ὁ δὲ ψυκτὴρ πολυθρύλητος, ὃν καὶ δῖνον ἐκάλουν, ἐν ᾧ ἦν ὁ ἄκρατος οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ ἀκρατοφόρον αὐτὸν καλοῦσιν. οὐ μὴν ἔχει πυθμένα ἀλλ᾽ ἀστραγαλίσκους. Other names for it were πρόχυμα (Moeris, Schol. Ar. Vesp. 617) and κάλαθος (Hesych. s.v.): for details sce Smith D. A. s.v. Psycter; cp. Xen. fem. τι. i. 30 iva δὲ ἡδέως mins,...rod θέρους χιόνα περιθέουσα ζητεῖς : Xen, Symp. 11. 23 ff.

ὀκτὼ κοτύλας. The κοτύλη or ἡμίνα (=6 κύαθοι) was ‘48 of a pint, so that 8 κοτύλαι are nearly equal to 2 quarts. For a ψυκτήρ this seems to have been a small size, since Athenaeus (v. 199) mentions ψυκτῆρες holding 18 to 54 gallons. Alcib. was not alone in his taste for an ἔκπωμα μέγα: cp. Anacr. 32 τρικύαθον κελέβην ἔχουσα: Alcaeus 41.2 καδ᾽ δ᾽ ἄειρε κυλίχναις μεγάλαις : Xen. Symp. lc, ὁ παῖς ἐγχεάτω μοι τὴν μεγάλην φιάλην : Gouffé (Le Verre) “ Nous devons aux petites gens Laisser les petits verres.”

ἐμπλησάμενον. “ Ast: emplevisse. Immo implendum curasse” (Riickert).

éyxetv. Cp. Soph. fr. 149 Ὁ gopeire, μασσέτω τις, ἐγχείτω βαθὺν κρητῆρα: Alcaeus 31. 4 ἔγχεε κίρναις ἕνα καὶ δύο κτλ.: Theogn. 487 σὺ δ᾽ ἔγχεε τοῦτο μάταιον | κωτίλλεις ἀεί" τοὔνεκά τοι μεθύεις. Notice that Alcib. adopts the order ἐπὶ δεξιά, see 175 Ε.

τὸ σόφισμά μοι οὐδέν. “My trick avails nothing.” For σόφισμα, “a witty invention,” cp. Lach. 188 », Rep. 4964; Aesch. P.V. 470. Alcib., with his σόφισμα, recals Eros the σοφιστής (203 Ὁ).

οὐδὲν... μεθυσθῇ. See Goodwin 6... 7.. § 295. For Socrates’ invincible head for wine, see also 176 c, 220 B, 293 ο.

Πῶς oty...qovotpey. The present indic. differs from the subjunctive, “quod dicitur de eo quod revera iam fit, neque adhuc suscipiendum est” (Stallb.) : contrast ἀλλὰ τί ποιῶμεν (deliberative) just below. For the indignant οὕτω cp. Hom. JZ. 11. 158 οὕτω δὴ oikdvde...pevEovrat.

214B οὔτε τι ἄδομεν. This lection is preferable to B.’s οὔτ᾽ ἐπάδομεν which is accepted by most later editors. Eryx. would not propose to “ chant spells,” the only sense in which the compound word is used by Plato. For the idea of trolling a catch over one’s cups, cp. Gouffé (Couplets) “ On boit

914 ο] ZYMMOSION 141

’ “a ‘ Αλκιβιάδην εἰπεῖν Ὦ ᾿ΚΒρυξίμαχε, βέλτιστε βελτίστου πατρὸς \ i a καὶ σωφρονεστάτου, χαῖρε. Kai yap σύ, φάναι tov ᾿Βρυξίμαχον" 2 \ . ἀλλὰ τί ποιῶμεν; Ὅ τι dav σὺ κελεύῃς. δεῖ γάρ σοι πείθεσθαι" > \ \ 5 ἐν tal ᾽ Υ̓ γ- ἰητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων" ἐπίταττε οὖν ὅ τι βούλει. Ακουσον δή, εἰπεῖν τὸν ’Epukipaxov. ἡμῖν πρὶν σὲ εἰσελθεῖν ἔδοξε χρῆναι ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει , a λόγον περὶ "ἔρωτος εἰπεῖν ὡς δύναιτο κάλλιστον, καὶ ἐγκωμιάσαι. C « \ a ” , e . ὦ ‘ 1 \ ᾽ ” οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πάντες ἡμεῖς εἰρήκαμεν" σὺ δ᾽ ἐπειδὴ οὐκ εἴρηκας \ > L Wir Cr ee, 2 \ x» , ΄ “ καὶ ἐκπέπωκας, δίκαιος εἶ εἰπεῖν, εἰπτὼν δ᾽ ἐπιτάξαι Σωκράτει ὅ τι ἂν βούλῃ, καὶ τοῦτον τῷ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ καὶ οὕτω τοὺς ἄλλους. ᾿Αλλά, φάναι, ὦ ᾿Βρυξίμαχε, τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, καλῶς μὲν λέγεις, μεθύοντα δὲ ἄνδρα παρὰ νηφόντων λόγους παραβάλλειν μὴ οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου 7.

214 Β ᾿Ἐρυξίμαχε del. Naber δὲν Bt.: δ᾽ ἂν T: ἂν B,J.-U. πιθέσθαι Bdhm. ἰητρὸς T, Sz. Bt.: ἰατρὸς B C ὡς (ἂν) Sauppe (τοὺς) νηφόντων vel νήφοντας cj. Steph. λόγους (λόγον) Bast

chez eux, on boit beaucoup Et de bourgogne et de champagne; Mais rien ne vaut un petit coup Qu’un petit couplet accompagne.”

For λόγοι ἐπικυλίκειοι, cp. Athen. 2A; Lucian Timon, c. 55.

Ὦ Ἐρυξίμαχε κτλ. Alcibiades—as if to show how ready he is ἄδειν τι--- replies with an iambic trimeter—“ A noble sire’s most noble, sober son !” The superlatives are not without irony, cp. 177 85, Xen. Mem, 11. 13. 2.

χαῖρε. “All hail!” Alcibiades pretends not to have noticed the doctor before.

ἰητρὸς γὰρ.. ἄλλων. From 71. x1. 514: “Surely one learnéd leech is a match for an army of laymen.” Pope’s rendering—“ the wise physician skilled our wounds to heal ”—hardly deserves the name, although Jowett paid it the compliment of borrowing it.

ἐπίταττε. ‘ Prescribe”: the techn. term for a medical prescription, cp. Rep. 347.4 κατὰ τὴν τέχνην ἐπιτάττων : Polit. 2394 Ὁ, Laws 7225.

ἔδοξε κτλ. See 177 Ὁ.

214 Ο᾽ ὡς δύναιτο κάλλιστον. Cp. Thuc. vil. 21 ναῦς ὡς δύνανται πλείστας πληροῦσιν (Madv. Gr. S. § 96): there is no need to insert ἄν, as Sauppe suggested.

καὶ ἐκπέπωκας. “ But have finished your draught.”

peOvovra...rapaBaddev. ““μεθύοντα negligentius dictum est pro λόγον ἀνδρὸς μεθύοντος" (Wolf). For the brachylogy cp. 180 pera δὲ Φαῖδρον κτλ. (see note ad loc.); 217D ἐν τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἐμοῦ κλίνῃ. With παραβάλλειν we must supply as subject τινα (with Rettig) rather than σε, i.e. Ἐρυξίμαχον (with Wolf). Of conjectures Bast’s is the most plausible. Cp. Theogn. 627 αἰσχρόν τοι μεθύοντα παρ᾽ ἀνδράσι νηφόσι μεῖναι.

For a stricture on ἔπαινοι μεθύοντος, see Phaedr, 340 5.

142 TAATQNOS [2140

κα 3 ΄ ’ὔ a , e ΝΜ “ ΕΥ̓ Ὁ καὶ ἅμα, ὦ μακάριε, πείθει τί σε Σωκράτης ὧν ἄρτι εἶπεν; ἢ a oe > # ? \ lal A Ad YF a # b ed δι οἶσθα ὅτι τοὐναντίον ἐστὶ πᾶν ἢ ὃ ἔλεγεν; οὗτος γάρ, ἐάν τινα ἐγὼ ? ,ὔ a f Kx Ἂ, A «ἢ, bd na a >

ἐπαινέσω τούτου παρόντος ἢ θεὸν ἢ ἄνθρωπον ἄλλον ἢ τοῦτον, οὐκ

>? a , + a O > ? ’ , X\ Ss , ἀφέξεταί μου τὼ χεῖρε. vx εὐφημήσεις ; φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη. Μὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ, εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, μηδὲν λέγε πρὸς ταῦτα,

© > a 20 ἡ i Μ' 2 ’ a , ᾽ + cd ὡς ἐγὼ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἕνα ἄλλον ἐπαινέσαιμι σοῦ παρόντος. “AX οὕτω ποίει, φάναι τὸν Ἐρυξίμαχον, εἰ βούλει" Σωκράτη ἐπαίνεσον. E Πῶς λέγεις; εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην: δοκεῖ χρῆναι, ὦ Ἐρυξίμαχε; ἐπιθῶμαι τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ τιμωρήσωμαι ὑμῶν ἐναντίον; Οὗτος, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, τί ἐν νῷ ἔχεις ; ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερά με ἐπαινέσει; ἢ τί ποιήσεις; Τἀληθῆ ἐρῶ. ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα εἰ παρίης. ᾿Αλλὰ μέντοι, φάναι, , 2 n rd \ 4 ,ὔ ᾿ ΕΥ͂ , 2 a τά ye ἀληθῆ παρίημι Kal κελεύω λέγειν. Οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιμι, εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην. καὶ μέντοι οὑτωσὶ ποίησον. ἐάν τι μὴ ἀληθὲς λέγω, μεταξὺ ἐπιλαβοῦ, ἂν βούλῃ, καὶ εἰπὲ ὅτι τοῦτο ψεύδομαι"

214 Ὁ 7 οἶσθ᾽ J.-U. ἘΞ τιμωρήσομαι W ἐπαινέσει Bekk. Sz.: ἐπαινέσεις BTW: ἐπαινέσαι Bt. παριεῖς Schanz

214 Ὁ ὦ μακάριε. ‘“ Gutmuthig-ironisch” (Rettig): ep. 219 a.

πείθει... εἶπεν; “H. 6. πείθει σέ τὶ τούτων ἃ Σ. ἄρτι eiwev;...h. 6. noli quidquam eorum credere quae modo dixit 8.” (Stallb.). A. is alluding to 918 ο---Ὁ (ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνον yap τοῦ χρόνου κτλ.).

οὐκ ἀφέξεται κτλ. “Satis lepide iisdem fere verbis hic utitur Alcib. quae Soer. 1. 1. exhibuit” (Hommel); A. is turning the tables on 8.

Ma τὸν Ποσειδῶ. This form of oath is rare in Plato, see Schanz nov. comm. Plat. p. 23. The main reason why A. chooses Poscidon to swear hy is, no doubt, because P. was the special deity of the ancient aristocracy of Athens (see R. A. Neile’s ed. of Ar. Knights, p. 83); but A. may also be punning on πόσις, a8 if Πποσειδών meant “drink-giver,” and invoking a “deus madidus” as appropriate to his own “madid” condition. Cp. Huthyd. 301 B, 808 a.

214 EB τιμωρήσωμαι. This echoes the τιμωρήσομαι of 213 Ὁ.

Otros. “Ho, there!” Cp. 172 Δ.

ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα. “To make fun of me”: cp. Phileb. 40 ὁ (ἡδοναὶ) pepe- μημέναι τὰς ἀληθεῖς ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιύτερα (“caricatures”): 80 ἐπὶ τὰ αἰσχίονα Polit, 293 B, 297 Ο.

ἐπαινέσει. Plato always uses the middle form of the future, with the doubtful exception of Laws 719 = (where Burnet, after Bekker, corrects ἐπαι- νέσοι to ἐπαινέσαι), See Veitch Gk. Verbs s.v._

Οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιμι. Se. τἀληθῆ λέγων : tamiam dicam. Cp. 1855, Phaedo 100 c, Luthyd. 212 Ὁ (in all which places the participle is expressed).

καὶ...«ποίησον. Hommel rashly proposes to read ποιήσων for ποίησον and remove the stop after the word. For καὶ μέντοι, see Madv. Grr. 5. § 254,

ἐπιλαβοῦ. “Pull me up,” “call me to order.” Cp. Gorg. 4690, 506B

ἐπιλαμβάνου ἐάν τί σοι δοκῶ μὴ καλῶς λέγειν.

215 A] ZYMMOZION 143

Ἐς \ μ 2QO\ , 2\ ‘ 2 , ἑκὼν yap εἶναι οὐδὲν ψεύσομαι.. ἐὰν μέντοι ἀναμιμνῃσκομενος 218 ἄλλο ἄλλοθεν λέγω, μηδὲν θαυμάσῃς" οὐ yap τι ῥᾷάδιον τὴν σὴν 2 , Lt aed 5) “ 5 a lol ἀτοπίαν ὧδ᾽ ἔχοντι εὐπόρως καὶ ἐφεξῆς καταριθμῆσαι. 7 4 lal XXXII. Σωκράτη δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐπαινεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὕτως ἐπιχειρήσω, > tf

δι’ εἰκόνων. οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἴσως οἰήσεται ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα, ἔσται δ᾽ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἕνεκα, οὐ τοῦ yedotov. φημὶ γὰρ δὴ ὁμοιό- τατον αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῖς σιληνοῖς τούτοις τοῖς ἐν τοῖς ἑρμογλυφείοις

215 Α τι: rot vulg. Hirschig Eppoyruvpios T

215 A ἄλλο ἄλλοθεν. “In a wrong order,” or “in promiscuous fashion” : cp. Jl. 11.75, Aesch. Ag. 92, etc. Alcib. forestalls criticism by this apology for the “mixed” style of his reminiscences, on the ground of what he calls his “present condition” (ὧδ᾽ ἔχοντι Ξε μεθύοντι, crapula laborantt).

οὐ γάρ τι ῥᾷάδιον. For οὔτι, handquaquam, cp. 189 B.

ἀτοπίαν. Cp. Gorg. 494 Ὁ; 221c infra. That Socrates is an “ out-of-the- way” character, a walking conundrum, is, in fact, the main theme of Alc.’s speech: it is a mistake to limit this ἀτοπία to the contradiction between his outer and inner man, as Susemihl does.

οὕτως...δι᾿ εἰκόνων. For οὕτως with an epexegetic phrase, cp. 193 c, Laws 633 Ὁ, Rep. 561 σ οὕτω... ἀπὸ τιμημάτων. For εἰκόνες; “similes,” see Ar. het. m1. 4, where they are described as a kind of μεταφοραί (“A simile is a metaphor writ large, with the details filled in,” Cope ad loc.). εἰκασίαι (“conundrums”) were also “(a fashionable amusement at Greek social gatherings” (Thompson on Meno 80 6), see for exx. Ar. Vesp. 1308 ff., Av. 804 ff. : cp. ltep. 487 5, Phaedo 878; Xen. Symp. νι. 8 ff. ᾿

ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα. Sc. οὕτως ποιήσειν, or the like: cp. 214 Ε.

τοῖς σιληνοῖς κτλ, These were statuettes representing a Silenus playing a flute or pipe; the interiors were hollow and served as caskets to hold little figures of gods wrought in gold or other precious materials. But the precise fashion of their construction and how they opened (διχάδε διοιχθέντες) is by no means clear. (1) Hug thinks they were made with a double door (δικλίδες): similarly Stallb. and Hommel (“in contrariis Silenorum lateribus duobus duo foramina erant, quae epistomio quodam claudi poterant”). (2) Schulthess supposes that one section telescoped into the other (“‘Schiebt man sie aus- einander, so erblickt man inwendig Gotterbilder”). (3) Panofka, with Schleiermacher, supposes that the top came off like a lid. (4) Lastly, Rettig ““denkt an ein Auseinandernehmen in zwei Hiilfte,” though exactly how this differs from (3) he does not clearly explain. But—as Rettig himself observes—“ mag es verschiedene Arten solche Gehiduse gegeben haben,” and in the absence of further evidence it would be rash to decide which of the possible patterns is here intended: the language (διχάδε διοιχθέντες) rather favours the idea that the figures split into two, either horizontally or vertically—possibly, also, with a hinge. Cp. Synes. Hp. 153, p. 3928 ὥσπερ ἐποίουν ᾿Αθήνησιν οἱ δημιουργοὶ ᾿Αφροδίτην καὶ Χάριτας καὶ τοιαῦτα κάλλη θεῶν ἀγάλμασι σιληνῶν καὶ σατύρων ἀμπίσχοντες : Maximus comm. in Dion. Areop. de div. nom. ο. ix, t. τι. p. 201 f. (ed. Cord.) ἐκεῖνοι yap οἷά τινας ἀνδριάντας

144 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ (215 a

Β καθημένοις, οὕς τινας ἐργάξονται of δημιουργοὶ σύριγγας ἢ αὐλοὺς ἔχοντας, οἱ διχάδε διοιχθέντες φαίνονται ἔνδοθεν ἀγάλματα ἔχοντες θεῶν. καὶ φημὶ αὖ ἐοικέναι αὐτὸν τῷ σατύρῳ τῷ Μαρσύᾳ. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τό γε εἶδος ὅμοιος εἶ τούτοις, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐδ᾽ « ἂν; αὐτὸς δή που ἀμφισβητήσαις" ὡς δὲ καὶ τἄλλα ἔοικας, μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε. ὑβριστὴς εἶ: ἢ οὔ; ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ὁμολογῇς, μάρτυρας παρέξομαι. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ αὐλητής; πολύ γε θαυμασιώτερος ἐκείνου.

C ὁ μέν γε δι’ ὀργάνων ἐκήλει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος δυνάμει, καὶ ἔτι νυνὶ ὃς ἂν τὰ ἐκείνου αὐλῇ" ἃ γὰρ "Ολυμπος ηὔλει,

215 Β διχάδε: δίχα Steph. Ast οὐδ᾽ (ἂν) αὐτὸς Stallb. δήπου BT,

vulg.: ἂν δήπου Sauppe: ἄν που Baiter Sz. Bt.: om. Stallb. ἀμφισβητήσεις vulg.

ἐποίουν μήτε χεῖρας μήτε πόδας ἔχοντας, ods ἑρμᾶς ἐκάλουν" ἐποίουν δὲ αὐτοὺς διακένους, θύρας ἔχοντας, καθάπερ τοιχοπυργίσκους" ἔσωθεν οὖν αὐτῶν ἐτίθεσαν ἀγάλματα ὧν ἔσεβον θεῶν κτλ. (cp. Etym. Magn. s.v. ἀρμάριον): Xen. Symp. Iv. 19; Julian ὁ». vi. p. 187 a.

τοῖς ἑρμογλυφείοις. “The statuaries’ shops,” apparently a ἅπαξ εἰρ.: cp. Ic. Somn. 2. 7

215 Β ἀγάλματα. ..θεῶν. Cp, 2224, Phaedr. 251 Δ.

φημὶ αὖ κτλ. This second comparison arises out of the first, since the Satyr is himself akin to the Sileni: on the connexion between the two (as both originally horse-demons) see Harrison, Proleg. Ὁ. 388. Schol.: Μαρσύας δὲ αὐλητής, ᾿Ολύμπον vids, ὃς..«ἦρισεν ᾿Απόλλωνι περὶ μουσικῆς καὶ ἡττήθη, καὶ ποινὴν δέδωκε τὸ δέρμα δαρείς, κτλ.

τό γε εἶδος. For the Satyr-like ugliness of Socr., cp. Schol. ad Ar. Vub. 223 rae δὲ ὁ Σωκράτης τὴν ὄψιν Σειλήνῳ παρεμφαίνειν᾽ σιμός τε γὰρ καὶ φαλακρὸς

: Theaet. 148 προσέοικε δὲ σοὶ τήν τε σιμότητα καὶ τὸ ἔξω τῶν ὀμμάτων : tb, 309 B, Meno 80a f.; Xen. Symp. tv. 19, v. 7.---δήπου (ἄν) ἀμφισβ. (cp. Meno 72) is snotlier possible order of words.

ὑβριστὴς εἰ. “You are a mocker” or “a bully” (Jowett): so too Agathon had said, in 1758. For the present Alcib. forbears to enlarge on this Satyr-like quality, but he resumes the subject in 216 ὁ ff, see esp. 2190, 222.4. Observe also that Alcib. is here turning the tables on Socr., who had brought practically the same charge against A. in 213¢c, Ὁ. Schleierm.’s rendering, “ Bist du iiber- miithig, oder nicht?”, is based on a wrong punctuation.

οὐκ αὐλητής. Le. (as Schol. B puts it) ἐν ἤθει. ἐκείνου, sc. Mapovov.

215 C "Ολυμπος. For”Odvpmos ὁ Φρύξ as τὰ παιδικά of Marsyas, cp. Minos 318B; Paus. x. 30; also Zaws 677 Ὁ, 790 D fi.; Arist. Pol. ν. 5. 13409 8 ff.; Clem. Al. Strom. τ. p. 307 σ.

For κατέχεσθαι of “ possession ” (by supernal or infernal powers), cp. Meno 99D, Phaedr. 2448; Jon 583 κ ff. (Rohde Psyche τι. pp. 11, 18 ff., 481, 88). The orgiastic flute-music (having a cathartic effect parallel to that of tragedy) provided, as Aristotle explains, a kind of homoeopathic remedy for the fit of ἐνθονσιασμύς.

215 Ε] ZYMTIOZION 145

Μαρσύου λέγω που, τοῦ διδάξαντος" τὰ οὖν ἐκείνου ἐάν τε ἀγαθὸς αὐλητὴς αὐλῇ ἐάν τε φαύλη αὐλητρίς, μόνα καξέχεσδϑαὶ ποιεῖ καὶ δηλοῖ τοὺς τῶν θεῶν τε καὶ τελετῶν δεομένους; διὰ τὸ θεῖα εἶναι. σὺ δ᾽ ἐκείνου τοσοῦτον μόνον διαφέρεις, ὅτι ἄνευ ὀργάνων ψιλοῖς λόγοις ταὐτὸν τοῦτο ποιεῖς. ἡμεῖς γοῦν ὅταν μέν του ἄλλου ἀκού- D μεν λέγοντος καὶ πάνυ ἀγαθοῦ ῥήτορος ἄλλους λόγους, οὐδὲν μέλει ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδενί" ἐπειδὰν δὲ σοῦ τις ἀκούῃ ἢ τῶν σῶν λόγων ἄλλου eyauras, κἂν πάνυ φαῦλος ἢ ὁ λέγων, ἐάν τε γυνὴ ἀκούῃ ἐάν τε ἀνὴρ ἐάν τε μειράκιον, ἐκπεπληγμένοι ἐσμὲν καὶ ΘΠΕΆΘΒΕΙ a ae γοῦν, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰ μὴ ἔμελλον κομιδῇ δόξειν μεθύειν, εἶπον ὀμόσας ἂν ὑμῖν, ola δὴ πέπονθα αὐτὸς ὑπὸ τῶν τούτου λόγων καὶ πάσχω ἔτι καὶ νυνί. ὅταν γὰρ ἀκούω, πολύ μοι E μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν κορυβαντιώντων Hh τε καρδία πηδᾷ καὶ δάκρυα

215 Ο που, τοῦ scripsi: τούτου BT, Bt.: τοῦ τοῦτον Voeg.: τοῦ Bdhm. Sz.:

τοῦτον Sommer: αὐτοῦ Liebhold μόνους olim Orelli: μανία Winckelmann δηλοῖ τοὺς: 6. θνητοὺς Hommel: κηλεῖ rods Orelli D res ἀκούῃ del. Hirschig ἔγωγ᾽ οὖν T κομιδὴ ΒΟ ἐπομόσας cj. Naber E νῦν T

M. λέγω πον, τοῦ 8. I venture on this slight innovation: otherwise it were best, with Badham, to cut down the τούτου to τοῦ.

ByAoi...5eopévouvs. Cp. the imitative passage in Minos 318 B καὶ μόνα κινεῖ καὶ ἐκφαίνει τοὺς τῶν θεῶν ἐν χρείᾳ ὄντας. θεῶν Sedpevor is virtually equiv. to κορυβαντιῶντες (215 E); cp. Rohde Psyche τι. 481, “ pova=vorzugsweise. Vel. Symp. 222 a” (Rettig).

rots λόγοις. 16. “in .prose,” devoid of metrical form as well as of musical accompaniment (ἄνευ ὀργάνων). Cp. Laws 669D λόγους Ψ. eis μέτρα τιθέντες: Menex. 239 c.

215 Ὁ ὅταν μέν κτλ. Observe the antitheses σοῦ )( του ἀἄλλου---τῶν σῶν λόγων )( ἄλλους λόγους---πάννυ φαῦλος...λέγων )( πανὺ ἀγαθοῦ ῥήτορος.

«ἄλλον λέγοντος. A case in point is the Symposium itself, where Socrates’ λόγοι are reported at second-hand.

ἐάν te γυνὴ κτλ. “No sex or age is impervious to the impression ”—in antithesis to the preceding universal negative οὐδενί. For ἔκπληξις as a love-symptom, cp. Charm. 154 Ο.

κομιδῇ... μεθύειν. Schol. κομιδῇ" ἰσοδυναμεῖ.. «τῷ σφόδρα καὶ τελέως. Cp. 212 5.

εἶπον ὀμόσας ἂν. “1 would have stated on my oath,” 6. I would not merely have described the facts, as I am about to do, but would have called Heaven to witness by a ὅρκος (cp. 1834). Hommel supposes that Alcib. “rem silentio praeterire apud se constituit”; but this is confuted by the context. For a ref. to this passage, see Procl. in 71. Ale. p. 89.

215 ἘΞ τῶν κορυβαντιώντων. ‘Tim. κορυβαντιᾶν" παρεμμαίνεσθαι καὶ ἐνθου- σιαστικῶς κινεῖσθαι : Schol. δὰ Ar. Vesp. 9 κορυβαντιᾶν " τὸ κορύβασι κατέχεσθαι. Cp. Crito 54D ταῦτα...ἐγὼ δοκῶ ἀκούειν, ὥσπερ οἱ κορυβαντιῶντές τῶν αὐλῶν

Β. Ρ. 10

146 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [215 Ε

ἐκχεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων τῶν τούτου" ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλους παμ- πόλλους τὰ αὐτὰ πάσχοντας. Περικλέους δὲ ἀκούων καὶ ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν, ῥητόρων εὖ μὲν ἡγούμην λέγειν, τοιοῦτον δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔπασχον, οὐδ᾽ ἐτεθορύβητό μου ἡ ψυχὴ οὐδ᾽ ἠγανάκτει ὡς ἀνδραποδωδῶς διακειμένου: ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τουτουὶ τοῦ Μαρσύου πολλάκις δὴ οὕτω 216 διετέθην, ὥστε μοι δόξαι μὴ βιωτὸν εἶναι ἔχοντι ὡς ἔχω. καὶ ταῦτα, Σώκρατες, οὐκ ἐρεῖς ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ. καὶ ἔτι γε νῦν ξύνοιδ᾽ ἐμαυτῷ ὅτι εἰ ἐθέλοιμι παρέχειν τὰ ὦτα, οὐκ ἂν καρτερήσαιμι ἀλλὰ ταὐτὰ ἂν πάσχοιμι. ἀναγκάζει γάρ με ὁμολογεῖν ὅτι πολλοῦ ἐνδεὴς ὧν αὐτὸς ἔτι ἐμαυτοῦ μὲν ἀμελῶ, τὰ δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων 215 Ἐ ὑπὸ. ..τούτου 560]. Voeg. Hug τῶν τούτου TW: τούτον B: τούτου

secl. J.-U. ταὐτὰ (ταῦτα) π. Naber 216 Α Σώκρατες B, J.-U.: ὦ Σ. T, Jn. Bt. (cf. 217 B) ταὐτὰ: ταῦτα BT ἔτι T: τι Β

δοκοῦσιν ἀκούειν: Ion 5338, 536c. Among the symptoms οὗ κορυβαντιασμός were the hearing of faery flute-notes, visions, hypnotic dreams, dance-motions etc. (see Rohde Psyche 11. 47 ff.): ep. also Plut. adv. Colot. 1123 Ὁ.

Ὁ τε καρδία πηδᾷ. Cp. [on 5350, Phaedr. 2510; Sappho 2. 5 τό μοι μάν | καρδίαν ἐν στήθεσιν ἐπτύασεν : Ar. Nub. 1393 οἶμαί ye τῶν νεωτέρων ras καρδίας | πηδᾶν ὅτι λέξει.

ὑπὸ τῶν λ. τ. τούτους Rettig seems right in arguing that a Glossator would be unlikely to write thus; and repetitions of this kind are characteristic of Alc.’s speech (cp. 221 D).

Tlepukdeous δὲ ἀκούων. For the oratorical powers of Pericles, cp. Phaedr. 2698, Meno 94, Afenex. 2358; Thuc. τι. 65; Ar. Ach. 530 ff.; Cic. Brut. x1. 44, de or. 111. 34; and esp. Eupolis Δῆμοι (fr. 6. 34) κράτιστος οὗτος (sc. Περικλῆς) ἐγένετ᾽ ἀνθρώπων λέγειν | ..-πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθιζεν ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν | οὕτως ἐκήλει, καὶ μόνος τῶν ῥητύρων τὸ κέντρον ἐγκατέλειπε τοῖς ἀκροωμένοις. Comparing this with our passage,—taken in conjunction with 213 Ὁ (νικῶντα ἐν λόγοις πάντας ἀνθρώπους), 215 B (ἐκήλει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους), 218 A (πληγείς τε καὶ δηχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν..«λόγων), 2391 Ο (οἷος αὖ Περικλῆς κτλ.),----ἰῦ seems probable that Plato has this passage of Eupolis in mind, and represents Alcib. as confuting Eupolis— as a return for the raillery he had suffered at the hands of E, in his Βαπταί: cp. the story told in Cic. Att. v1. 1 that Alcib. got Eupolis drowned.

pov ἡ ψυχὴ. For this position of the genitive of the pronoun, which gives it nearly the force of an ethic dat., ep. ep. 518c, Phaedo 1178 (cp. Vahlen op. Acad. τ. 440 ff.).

ds ἀνδραποδωδῶς § Cp. Xen. Mem. Iv. 2. 39: 210D ὥσπερ οἰκέτης... δουλεύων.

216 Α μὴ βιωτὸν. This echoes, by way of contrast, 211 Ὁ ἐνταῦθα... βιωτόν.

ἔχοντι ὡς ἔχω. Cp. ὧδ᾽ ἔχοντι, 215 Α,

οὐκ... ἀληθῆ. Notice these repeated protestations of veracity: cp. 2148, 215 8B (and see Introd. § τι. A).

οὐκ ἂν καρτερέσαιμι. Contrast with this the καρτερία of Socr., 219 "Ὁ, 220 a.

216 ὁ] ZYMTTOZION 147

jae, Ἢ πράττω. βίᾳ οὖν ὥσπερ ene τῶν “Σειρήνων ἐπισχόμενος τὰς ὦτα, οἴχομαι φεύγων, i ἵνα μὴ αὐτοῦ ᾿χαθήμένος Ἢ Tapa, TQUTe Karaynpaes. πέπονθα δὲ πρὸς τοῦτον μόνον ἐὐθρώπων, ὃ ue, ὧν "τὶς οἴοιτο ἐ ἐν Β΄ ἐμοὶ é ἐνεῖναι, τὸ αἰσχύνεθθας ὁ ὁντινοῦν" eye 5 δὲ “τοῦτον μόνου αἰσχύ-, νομαι. «ξύγοιδα" yap ἐμαυτῷ ΕἸ ἄν εν μὲν οὐ δυναμένῳ, ὁ ὡς οὐ Set μενον “ἃ οὗτος κελεύει, bn δε δι θα ΠΗ τῆς τιμῆς τῆν ᾿ ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν y πολλῶν. hs ραπετεύω οὖν αὐτὸν͵ καὶ φεύ "γῶν ἡ καὶ 8 ὅταν ἴδω ω, αἰσχύνομαι “τὰ ὡμολογημένα: ΠΩ τόλλάκις jay ἡδέως ἂν ἴδοιμι, αὐτὸν μὴ ie ἐν “ἀνθρώποις εἰ δὶ αὖ αὖ τ' τοῦτο͵ γένοϊτο, εὖ οἶδα ὅτι C ὌΝ

πολὺ μεῖζον ἂν ἀχθοίμην, ὥστε οὐκ ἔχω ὃ τι ΠΕΡ ΝΙΝ τούτῳ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.

216 Α βίᾳ: βύων Abresch J.-U. ἐπισχόμενος 560]. J.-U. C ἂν μεῖζον Sauppe χρήσωμαι corr. Ven. 185, Bekk.: χρήσομαι BT

Bla...pevyov. “Invitus mihique ipsi vim inferens aufugio” (Riickert). Hommel wrongly takes Bia with ἐπισχόμενος. βύων, the conjecture of Abresch, based on Hesych. (βύων τὰ dra‘ ἐπιφράττων) makes the order awkward and produces tautology. ἐπισχόμενος τὰ ὦτα is the opposite of the foregoing παρέχειν τὰ dra: cp. Plut. Pomp. 65; Hor. £p. τι. 2. 105 obturem patulas impune legentibus aures; Acts vii. 57 συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν: 195. lviii. 4, 5 (A.V.) “they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.” For the Σειρῆνες, cp. Hom. Od. x11. 39 ff, and seo Harrison Proleg. pp. 197 ff.

αὐτοῦ...παρὰ τούτῳ. αὐτοῦ is not really “redundant” (as Ast)—“sitting still here beside him,” 1.6. “ miissig und entfernt von Staatsgeschaften” etc. (Rettig); cp. Ar. Ran. 1490 ff.; Apol. 31 ὁ ff.

καταγηράσω. Perhaps a double entendre—A. implying that 8.’s moralizings (“rumores senum severiorum ”) would soon make an old man of him.

216 Β ὃ ovk...évetvar. This is a specimen of the naive candour which characterizes Alcib. throughout. For Alcib.’s self-assurance, cp. Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 41.

ἡττημένῳ...πολλῶν. ‘Me honori, quo me ornet populi multitudo, suc- cumbere” (Stallb.). Cp. Rep. 3594: Ken. Cyrop. il. 3. 2 ἥδεσθαι τῇ ὑπὸ πάντων τιμῇ : Thuc. 1.180. 1. For the thought, cp. Rep. 491 ο ff.

δραπετεύω. “I take to my heels,” like a runaway slave (δραπέτης, Meno 97 E).

τὰ ὡμολογημένα. J.e. the conclusions as to his own ἔνδεια forced upon him by 8.; cp. 2164 ἀναγκάζει.. ὁμολογεῖν.

216 C πολὺ μεῖζον. So μέγα κήδεται 71. τι. 26.

οὐκ ἔχω ὅ τι χρήσωμαι. Since Alcib, is here generalizing, the (dubitative) subj. seems preferable to the more definite fut., as Hommel argues against Stallb.

Alcib. is in the position of a “ Dipsychus,” “halting between two opinions”

10—2

D

148 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [216 ©

~ Z

ΧΧΧΠΙ. Καὶ ὑπὸ coe Bi τῶν ἀῤχημάτων καὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τοιαῦτα! πεπόνθαδεν ὑ ὑπὸ τοῦδε 7 τοῦ ᾿σατύρου" ἀλλα δὲ ἐμοῦ

Ado he dg ἐκ oO ἐξ εν Wo ΤΙ 5

ἀκούσατε ὡς ὅμριός is ἐστὶν ὁ οἷς ἐγὼ ἤκασα αὐτὸν, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ΣΙ ;

ὡς θαυμασία y ἔχει. "εὖ γὰρ ἴ ἴστε ὅτι “ὀὔδεὶς ὑ raga τοῦτον γιγνώσκει"

ae LGR, Se κα ἢ

ee ἐγὼ “δηλώσω, ἐπείπερ 1 Ἡρξάμην, "ὁρᾶτε, γὰρ ὅτι Σωιράτης

andy ἐρωτικῶς εδιάκειται, τῶν “καλῶν Καὶ ae “TEAL. τούτους ἐστὶ, “καὶ

aR ah) queried ἃ der é Ἐπ geIe

ἐκ ἐπ ληντας καὶ αὖ ἀγνοεῖ πάντα καὶ οὐδὲν οἶδεν, ἡ ὡς τὸ σχῆμα

210 Ο ἤκασα Fischer: εἴκασα libri D καὶ αὖ... οἶδεν secl. Jn. Bdhm. Sz. αὖ Β: om. TW ἀγνοεῖ wavrn (καὶ... «οἶδεν deletis) Bast οἶδεν. ὡς distinxit Bt. os: πῶς Ast: ἡ Usener 2

τ

or rather two instincts. Cp. Soph. fr. 162. 8 οὕτω γε τοὺς ἐρῶντας αὑτὸς ἵμερος | δρᾶν καὶ τὸ μὴ δρᾶν πολλάκις προΐεται : Anacr. fr. 89 ἐρῶ re δηὖτε κοὐκ ἐρῶ | καὶ μαίνομαι κοὐ μαίνομαι.

οἷς ἐγὼ ἤκασα αὐτὸν. Sc. τοῖς σιληνοῖς. ἤκασα recals the δι᾽ εἰκόνων of 218 a.

οὐδεὶς...γιγνώσκει. Plato may mean by this, as Hug suggests, that the majority of the admirers and followers of Socr. possessed a very dim insight into the sources of his real greatness—dAX’ ἐγὼ (Plato, behind the mask of Alcib.) δηλώσω.

210 D ἐρωτικῶς διάκειται κτλ. For Socrates as (professing to be) subject to intense erotic emotion, see the vivid description in Charm. 155c¢ ff. ἐγὼ ἤδη ἠπόρουν, καί pov ἡ πρόσθεν θρασύτης ἐξεκέκοπτο...καὶ ἐφλέγομην καὶ οὐκέτ᾽ ἐν ἐμαυτοῦ ἢν κτλ.

καὶ αὖ.. οἶδεν. Most of the later critics (including Voeg., Teuffel, Hug) agree in ejecting this clause. Rettig, who defends it, writes: “die Worte gehen auf den vermeintlichen Stumpfsinn des S., wie er so hiufig mit roher Sinnlichkeit verbunden ist.,.Die Worte εἰρωνευόμενος...διατελεῖ den obigen καὶ αὖ... οἶδεν gegensitzlich gegeniiberstanden...Da nicht blos die Silene ἐρω- τικῶς διάκεινται κτλ.» 80 wiirde ohne unsere Worte die folgende Frage ὡς τὸ σχῆμα...οὐ σιληνῶδες; kaum motivirt sein.” But (as generally interpreted) the clause seems hardly pertinent to the main argument, which is the contrast between the outward appearance of eroticism and the inner σωφροσύνη of Socr.: the clause εἰρωνευόμενος «rd. does nothing to strengthen the case for the reference to γνῶσις here; while there is no reason to suppose that professions of ignorance were specially characteristic of Sileni (in spite of the story of Midas and Silenus in Plut. ad Ap. de consol. 1150 (Σειλ.) οὐδὲν ἔθελεν εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ σιωπᾶν ἀρρήτως). If retained as it stands the clause is best taken closely with the previous words, as expressing an erotic symptom. [Possibly, however, for πάντα we should read πάντας and for οὐδὲν, οὐδέν᾽, taking the words as mase. (86. τοὺς καλούς). This implies of course that οἶδεν bears the sense “agnoscit” (and ἀγνοεῖ the opposite), for which cp. Eur. H. /. 1105 ff. ἔκ roe πέπληγμαι...τίς.««δύσγνοιαν ὅστις τὴν ἐμὴν ἰάσεται; σαφῶς yap οὐδὲν οἶδα τῶν εἰωθότων : id. El. 767 ἔκ τοι δείματος δυσγνωσίαν | εἶχον προσώ- που" νῦν δὲ γιγνώσκω σε δή. (Cp. for this sense, Vahlen op. Ac. τι. 63 f.)

ds τὸ σχῆμα αὐτοῦ, “ Which is the réle he affects.” For this use of σχῆμα

216 Ε] = CANTO ON 149

. νει} i

αὐτοῦ. : (τοῦτο οὐ σιληνῶδες; σφόδρα γε. “τοῦτο γὰρ, fee ts Fae, i ΓΝ ἔξωθεν, we βέβληται, ὥόπερ ὁ γέγλυμμένος᾽ σιληνός. A 0 θεν δὲ oped kar λον Balin dete arg OL 50.

ἀνοιχθεὶς" πρσὴς͵ οἴεσθε εγέμει, ὦ ἄνδρες - συμπόται, ow! ῥοσύνης ;

onan ἐν io αν G hue

°

ἴστε ὅτι οὔτ᾽ εἴ Ts wands. ἐστι μέλει ἄυτῷ οὐ ev, ἀχλὰ ene

at ὡς “oa καρ. > yet VS, Sau «5.

τοσοῦτον ὅσον οὐδ᾽ ἂν ele οἰηθείη, οὔτ᾽ εἴ τις πλούσιος, οὔτ᾽ εἰ Εἰ BES ὦ, 1 | EXC uy ha erhg ote bt ide ἀκλοίάεαμ ες

ve ἀλλὴν τινὰ τιμὴν exer τῶν ὑπὸ ᾿πλήδους, μάκἀριξομένων ν᾽ ἀω δὲ πάντα ταῦτα Τὰ κτήματα οὐδενὸς ἀξιῶ καὶ ἡμᾶς ᾿οὐδὲν εἶναι---

216 Ὁ αὐτοῦ. τοῦτο disting. vulg. Schleierm. Sz. τοῦτο' οὐ distinxit Bernhardy ἐγλυμμένος J.-U. (ed) tore cj. Bdhm. Ἑ ἡμᾶς: τιμὰς Heusde ἷ

of an acted part, cp. 1. Ale. 135 νυ, Rep. 576 a: similarly σχηματίζω, simulo, Phaedr, 255 ody ὑπὸ σχηματιζομένου τοῦ ἐρῶντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς τοῦτο πεπον- θότος. This is preferable to rendering by ‘forma et habitus,” as Stallb. The punctuation of the passage has been disputed: “vulgo enim legebatur καὶ οὐδὲν οἶδεν, ὡς τὸ σχῆμα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο οὐ σειληνῶδες σφόδρα ye, quod Stephanus ita corrigebat ut pro οὐ σειληνῶδες scriberet ὃν σειλ." (Stallb.): Stallb., Riickert, Badham, Schanz and Hug follow Bekk. and Schleierm. in putting a comma after οἶδεν and a full stop after αὐτοῦ (so too Hommel, but proposing οὐδέ for οὐδέν) : Rettig follows Bernhardy in putting the full stop after τοῦτο, with a comma at οἶδεν : Burnet puts a full stop at οἶδεν, and no further stop before σιληνῶδες; : Ast proposed πῶς for os. Bast, reading πάντη for πάντα and ejecting καὶ οὐδὲν οἶδεν, construed as...cpddpa γέ as dependent on ἀγνοεῖ: and Stephens’s οὐδέ involves a similar construction.

περιβέβληται. “Has donned” as it were a “cloak” of dissimulation: cp. Xen. Oec. τι. 5 εἰς δὲ τὸ σὸν σχῆμα d σὺ περιβέβλησαι: Ps. cix. 18 “he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment.”

ἔνδοθεν δὲ ἀνοιχθεὶςς Cp. 215B: Soph. Antig. 709. The word ἔνδοθεν recals Socrates’ prayer in Phaedr. 3198 ὦ...θεοί, Soinré μοι καλῷ γενέσθαι τἀνδόθεν.

ἴστε ὅτι κτλ. For the general sense, cp. Charm. 104 Β.

216 E ὅσον οὐδ᾽ ἂν els. Cp. 2314}.

πλούσιος... τιμὴν ἔχων, Stallb. renders “aut praeterea honore aliquo ornatus,” distinguishing τιμή from κάλλος and πλοῦτος; whereas Riickert states that “ τιμή dicta est h. 1. de re, quae honorem habet efficitque τιμίᾳ, ita ut κάλλος et πλοῦτος etiam τιμαί esse possint.” Rettig supports Stallb., but probably the other two ἀγαθά are also classed in A.’s mind as τίμια. Cp. 178c, 2168: Pind. fr. ine. 25.

τῶν..-μακαριζομένων. Sc. τιμῶν.

καὶ ‘pas οὐδὲν εἶναι. “h. 6. atque nos, qui talia magni faciamus nullo in numero habendos censet” (Stallb.), This,—or Riickert’s “nos ipsos qui pulcri, qui divites sumus,”—seems to bring out rightly the point of the personal reference; in spite of Rettig, who writes “vollig fremd ist der Platonischen Stelle der Zusatz, welchen Stallb. hier macht.” For this use of οὐδὲν (Ξε οὐδενὸς ἀξίους) cp. 219 A, 2204. The attitude here ascribed to Socr. is very like that ascribed to his admirer Apollodorus in 173 ¢, D.

180 TAATQNOZ [216 Ε

Pack g' Sis cemiteny 4 te λέγω ὑμῖν, --εἰρωνευόμενος δὲ ὁ καὶ ιπαίξων᾽ πάντα τὸν βίον᾽ πρὸς

gery og ἡ τὸ "δὰ ie

πῇ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὁ διᾳτελεῖ, σπουδάσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνοίχϑέντος, τ

3 εν ᾿" ἀπὸ. nia nas 'S Η οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τις ἑῴ ace τὰ ἐντὸς ᾿ἀγάλματὰ. ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὰ ἤδη, ποτ᾽ τ ΠῚ ae 217 εἶδον, καί (δι "ἔδοξεν οὕτω rhe καὶ χρυσᾶ εἶναι καὶ πάγκὰ a καὶ obs ie ab ahe eae 4 ΧΩ t ah αὖ wp egs aie day ᾳστά ὥστε Ἰποιητέὸν εἶναι ἔμβραχυ ὅ δι: κελεύφι > Σωκράτης. ῥαυμς ae ae fi ey oI ANI 92 zon xe . “44, ΒΕ pd ΜΝ) at

ἡγούμενός δὲ αὐτὸν Ὡσπουδακέναι ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ ἐμῇ ὦ ὥρᾳ. ἕρμαιον ἥγη- Io bad αι πλίτων ἀλη RTOs gC ED ὁ

σάμην εἰναι καὶ pat α ἐμὸν Gav αστὸν ὡ ὑπά ον μοι ᾿ Mies ; § So AAU wpe, has aie *¢ Dake 3 PX? Hoe χαῤισάμένῳ Σ ἐφκράτει πάντ ἀκοῦσαι ὅσαπίερ οὗτος Bee" ἐφρόνουν

Que ad wird dip EMT

yap p δὴ ἐ ἐπὶ τῇ ὥρᾳ θαυμάσιον ὅ cov. taira δὴ» διανοηθείς, πρὸ Tod

216 E λέγω ὑμῖν BT: λέγων μὲν οὔ Herm.: ἡγούμενος Bdhm.: ἵνα λέγω ὑμῖν Sz.: ἀλλ᾽ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν Usener: del. Voeg.: fort. transp. post ἀλλὰ infra τε καὶ Usener 217 Α καί μοι T, J.-U. Bt.: καὶ ἐμοὶ B: κἀμοὶ Hirschig Sz. ἔμβραχυ Cobet Sz. Bt.: ἐν βραχεῖ BT 6 τι (ἂν) Sauppe Jn. οὗτος : αὐτὸς Bdhm. δὴ B: ἤδη TW: ἔτι cj. Wolf

λέγω ὑμῖν. There is no objection, at least in A.’s speech, to this kind of parenthetic interjection (cp. οἴεσθε, D supra); cp. Apol. 304, Thue. νι. 37. 2, Eur. Med, 226. Similarly in Gorg. 4640, 526 c “asseverandi causa orator ad ea quae maxime attendi vult addit illa φημί, Aéyw” (see Vahlen op, Acad. 1. 479). I am, however, inclined to suspect that the words are misplaced, and originally stood after ἀλλά, three lines lower down; if so, we should read dAkd— λέγω ὑμῖν ---ἐγὼ κτλ., or perhaps ἀλλὰ ἃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐγὼ : this would serve to echo the ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ δηλώσω of D ad init, Cp. also 222 Β ἃ δὴ καὶ σοὶ λέγω.

elpwvevdpevos. Schol. εἰρων. : ὑποκρινόμενος, χλευάζων. Cp. 218D; Rep. 337A αὕτη ἐκείνη ἡ eiwOvia εἰρωνεία Σωκράτους.

τὰ ἐντὸς ἀγάλματα. See 2154 π.: ἄγαλμα, as ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τις ἀγάλλεται, can fitly be applied to spiritual as well as material treasures: cp. the use of ἱερόν in Eur, Hel. 1002. This passage is cited in Procl. in Alc. I. p. 89; Clem. Alex. Strom. vit. 5, p. 846 P.: cp. Cic. de Legg. τ. 22 “ingeniumque in se suum sicut simulacrum aliquod dedicatum putabit.”

217 Α χρυσά. “Nur ein poetischer mit καλός synonymer Ausdruck” (Rettig); no doubt the material ἀγάλματα referred to were of gold or gilt, cp. Crittas 116 D χρυσᾶ... ἀγάλματα ἐνέστησαν. For the metaph. use, ep. Zipp. Mat. 301 Δ, Phaedr, 235 u φίλτατος εἶ καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς χρυσοῦς: Gory. 486 D χρυσῆν ἔχων...τὴν ψυχήν: and Shakspere’s “ Golden lads and lasses.”

ἔμβραχυ. “In short,” used to qualify a universal statement expressed by « relative such as ὅστις : ep. Gorg. 4574 (with Heindorf ad loe.), Hipp. Min. 3650; Ar. Vesp. 1120.

ἐσπουδακέναι ἐπὶ κτλ. Observe how this contrasts with the παίζειν of 216 Εἰ: A., we are to infer, had not as yet (at the date of the incident following) learnt the “irony” of Socr. With the attitude of Alcib. here cp. what Pausanias says in 184 Β ff.

ὥρᾳ. ὥρα as flos aetatis is nearly equiv. to ἄνθος (183 8, 910 0): cp. 219 Ο, Phaedr, 234 a, I, Ale, 181 Ἐ τὰ..«σὰ λήγει ὥρας, σὺ δ᾽ ἄρχει ἀνθεῖν.

ἐφρόνουν κτλ. For Alc.’s vanity, cp. 1. Ale. 104 a.

Hie tt ¢ σον pase fu me

γοῦν

shi ane pipe Tame! Wim aeckbine ἢ

217 0] ZYMTIOZION 151

ee Gand ae ὡς 4 μευ ΤᾺ nah notas wie gs felipe ©

, 5 /

1G οὐκ εἰωθὼς ἄνευ ἀκολρφύθου" ᾿μόνος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γἱγυέσθας, τότε ἐπα

πέμπων τὸν δεόλθυθον. ᾿μόγος͵ συνεγυγνόμην; δεῖ γὰρ rors 6 ὑμᾶς B eae ue εἰπεῖν' Gare πρ ῥοσέχετε. foe wan καὶ εἰ feud ὁμαῖ; ἀν κρατεν, ὁ ἐ Laney τὰ δύγεγὺ γόμην᾽ γάρ, @ ἄνδρες, μόνος μόνῳ, καὶ ey αὐτίκα διαλέξερ a αὐτόν μοι ἅπερ ἃ; ἂν ἐβαδτὴς παιδὶ κοῖς ἐν “ἐρημίᾳ διαλεχθείη, καὶ τ ἀν Τούτων δ᾽ τὴ pana ἐγίγνετο οὐδέν,

Nae. I 7

as ; eo A σι» “ἀν, « 4s, le Wa Aa ὡρὸΐ “ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ εἰώθει yeu λεχθεὶς ἄν βοι καὶ συνημερεύσας "ὀχετό ἐμὰ τοῦς x :

: ἀπιών. μετὰ ταῦτα, ξυγγυμνάξεσθαι, προὐκαλούμην αὐτὸν καὶ εὐχὰς my ea 2 σύ εγύμναξόμην, ae τι ᾿ἐνταῦθᾳ!' περανῶν. ᾿συνεγυμνάξετο οὖν μοι C

ΠΥ

καὶ προσεπάλαιε, ,Τρλλάκις 0 οὐδενὸς παρόντος. καὶ τί δεῖ λέγειν;

Pac

ovdey γάρ μοι πλέον ἦν, ἐπειδὴ δὲ "οὐδαμῇ. ταύτῃ fives ἔδοξέ μοι ἐπιθετέρν εἶναι τῷ ἀνδρὶ “κῶτὰ "τὸ καρτερὸν κι καὶ οὐκ dveréov, ἐπειδήπερ ἐνεκεχειρήκη, "ἀχλὰ ἱφτέον ἤδη τί ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγμα. προκαλοῦμαι δὴ αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸ συνδειπνεῖν, ἀτεχνῶς ὥσπερ 4

217 Α μόνος secl. Hirschig J.-U. Hug B (ὦ) Σώκρατες Sz. δ᾽ οὐ:

“ὦ τας

δη Ο.-Ρ. ἄν BT: αὖ Wolf: δὴ Sauppe Sz.: ἅττα Ast: ἄλλα Rettig: del. Hommel Hirschig : fort. ἀεί καὶ συνεγυμναζόμην secl. Sauppe Sz. Hug C ἐνταῦθά (ye) Naber ἀνετέον : averacov O.-P.} ἰτέον ἤδη ἐπὶ τὸ mp. Wyttenbach

217 Β τἀληθῆ... ψεύδομαι. Cp. 2164, 214 E for similar protestations. Observe the effectivencss of this pause in the narration, and of the challenge to contradic- tion, as marking an approaching climax: cp. Phaedo 85 Ὁ.

ἐν ἐρημίᾳ. ‘“Téte-a-téte”: cp. Hep. 6044, Phaedr. 236 ὁ ἐσμὲν...μόνω ἐν ἐρημίᾳ.

ἄν... ὥχετο. If ἄν is right we must take it to denote repeated action, “solebat identidem discedere” (Stallb.): cp. Apol. 22B (Madv. Gr. S. 8. 1170, R. 3; Τῷ and S. sv. avo).

συνημερεύσας. The only other ex. in Plato is Phaedr. 240¢ παιδικοῖς... ἐραστὴς.. «εἰς τὸ συνημερεύειν πάντων ἀηδέστατον.

ξυγγυμνάζεσθαι. For this practice, cp. 182 c, Menex. 236 Ὁ, Rep. 452 a ff. ; and Xen. Symp. 11. 16 ff., where Socr. treats of public and private gymnastics.

2117 Ο᾽ οὐδὲν.. πλέον qv. “ Nihil enim proficiebam ” (Stallb.): cp. 222 "Ὁ.

ἐπειδὴ δὲ κτλ. Rettig supposes an allusion to Eur. Hipp. 390 ff. ἐπειδὴ τοισίδ᾽ οὐκ ἐξήνυτον Κύπριν | κρατῆσαι, κατθανεῖν ἔδοξέ μοι. For other reff. to Eurip., see 177 A, 189 c, 196 B.

ἱστέον.. “πρᾶγμα. Reynders is alone in approving of Wyttenbach’s “restora- tion,” ἰτέον ἤδη ἐπὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα: for, as Riickert argues, this must imply either that A. had as yet made no “ conamen alliciendi S.,” which is untrue, or that he had net as yet begun his narration, which is equally untrue. The sense of the text is “I must get to the bottom of the matter without more ado,” ae. discover the real ground of Socrates’ indifference. Cp. Apol. 20¢ τὸ σὸν τί ἐστι πρᾶγμα;

προκαλοῦμαι δὴ κτλ. Here comes the third and most desperate expedient,

152 TAATQNOZ [217 σ

fox Pe, re De ἐραστὴς παιδικοῖς ἐπὶ βουλεύων, καί “μοι. οὐδε, τοῦτο ταχὺ ὑπή-

κουσεν, ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν χρόνῳ ἐπείσθη. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀφίκετο τὸ πρῶτον, δειπνῆσας ἀπιένᾳι͵ ἐβούλετο. καὶ τότε μὲν ,αἰσχυνόμενος ἀφῆκα αὐτόν" αὖθις ὃ δὲ ᾿ἐπιβουχεύσας, ἐπειδὴ ἐδεδειπνήκεμεν, διελεγόμην ἀεὶ πύρρω͵ τῶν νυκτῶν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐβούλετο ἀπιέναι, σκηπτόμενός ὅτι ὀψὲ ein, ἡροσηνάγκασα αὐτὸν μένειν. ἀνεπαύετο οὖν ἐν. τῇ ᾿ἐχομένῃ ἐμοῦ κλίνῃ, ΕΣ ἧπερ ἐδείπνει, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι E ἄλλος καθηῦδεν᾽ ἢ ἡμεῖς. μέχρι μὲν οὖν ᾿δὴ δεῦρο τοῦ νων: καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι καὶ πρὸς ᾿ἐνταγοῦν Moyen Ὁ Τὸ δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν οὐκ ἄν uae ᾿ἠκούσατε λέγοντος, εἰ μὴ πρῶτον μέν, τὸ λεγόμενον, οἶνος. ἄνευ

2117 Ἢ ἐδεδειπνήκεμεν Bt.: ᾿δεδειπνήκειμεν Usener: δεδειπνήκαμεν Bekk. anecd.: ἐδεδειπνήκει BT O.-P. ἀεὶ add. Bekk. anecd.: om. BT ΟὉ.-Ρ, επειδη (ye) O.-P. αὐτὸν : αὐτοῦ Sauppe μένειν: μονον Ο.-Ρ.1 Ἑ οὖν δὴ B O.-P. Tmg.: οὖν TW καὶ (ἐξείη) πρὸς 6). Liebhold

in which Alcib. reverses their respective réles and acts towards Socr. no longer ag παιδικά but as ἐραστής (cp. 213 c, 222 B, and see Introd. ὃ v1.3). For threeasa climacteric number cp. Phil. 66 pv, Luthyd. 277 o, Rep. 472 a. For émiBovdetor, cp. 203 B, 203 Ὁ.

217 D ἀεὶ... νυκτῶν. “Usque ad multam noctem” (Stallb.). For this force of dei, cp. ἀεὶ διὰ τοῦ βίου Phaedo 75 B, etc.; so with πόρρω, Gorg. 486 a τοὺς πόρρω ἀεὶ φιλοσοφίας ἐλαύνοντας. For the plural νύκτες, “night-watches,” cp. 398 0, Prot. 8100 πόρρω τῶν νυκτῶν; Phil. 50d.

ἐν τῇ..«κλίνῃ. ἐμοῦ is short for τῆς ἐμῆς (or ἐμοῦ) κλίνης : cp. the similar brachylogy in 2140: Hom. Od. νι. 308.

οἰκήματι. “Room”: cp. Prot. 315 D, Phaedo 116 a.

217 ἘΞ μέχρι... δεῦρο. So Laws 814 D rijs...duvdpews τὸ μέχρι δεῦρο ἡμῖν εἰρήσθω.

καὶ πρὸς ὁντινοῦν λέγειν. ‘This reminds one of Diotima’s language in 209 Ε ff. (ταῦτα μὲν οὖν κτλ.).

τὸ λεγόμενον κτλ. Photius explains thus: οἶνος ἄνευ παίδων δύο παροιμίαι" ἡ μὲν οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια, ἡ δὲ οἶνος καὶ παῖδες ἀληθεῖς. For the first of these, cp. Alcaeus fr. 67 Β, Theocr. Jd. xx1x.1. We might render “In wine and wean is candour seen.” Cp. Schol. ad ἢ. l.; Athen. 11. 87 ΕΒ Φιλόχορος δέ φησιν ὅτι of πίνοντες ov μόνον ἑαντοὺς ἐμφανίζουσιν οἵτινές εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον ἀνακαλύπτουσι, παρρησίαν ἄγοντες. ὅθεν “ οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια" λέγεται: Alcaeus fr. 53 οἶνος γὰρ ἀνθρώποις δίοπτρον : Hor, Sat. 1. 4. 89 condita cum verax aperit praecordia Liber. Similar sayings about the effects of wine are Ar. Plut. 1048 μεθύων ὀξύτερον βλέπει: Theogn. 479 ff. οἶνος. «κοῦφον ἔθηκε νόον. The explanations of H. Miiller (“Trunkene sagten die Wahrheit, mochten Diener zugegen sein oder nicht”) and of Hommel (‘si proverbio illo vinum, quod neque praesentiam neque absentiam servorum curat (alluding to the ἀκόλουθος of 217A), non esset veridicum”) are clearly wrong. Cp. Xen. Symp. Vil. 24.

218 a] ZYMMOZION 153

τε παίδων καὶ μετὰ παίδῳν-- ἦν ἀληθής, ἔ ἔπειτά ἀφανίσαι Σωκρά- τοὺς ἔργον ὑπερήφανον, εἰς ἔπαινον ἐλθόντα ἄδικόν μοι φαίνεται. ἔτι δὲ τὸ τοῦ δηχθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ, ἔχεως πάθος ᾿'κἀμὲ ἄχει, pact yap πού τινα τοῦτο παθόντα οὐκ ἐθέλειν λέγειν ‘olov ἦ ἣν may τοῖς δεδηγμένοις, ὦ ὡς μόνοις γνωσομέγοιξ, 'τε καὶ συγγνωσομένοις, εἰ πᾶν 218 ἐτόλμα δρᾶν" τε καὶ λέγει ὑπὸ τ τῆς ὀδύνης. oe οὖν “δεδηγμένος τε

ὑπὸ ἀχγεινότέρου καὶ "τὸ ἀχγξίνότᾳτόν ὁ ὧν ἄν τις ᾿ἰδηχθείη-- τὴν. καρδίαν ἢ ἢ ψυχὴν [γὰρ] ἢ ὅ τι δεῖ αὐτὸ ὀνομάσαι, πληγείς τε καὶ

ee

218 Α τε καὶ ind W ἀλγεινοτάτου Steph. δηχθείη T O.-P.: δειχθῇ B ἢ ψυχὴν yap B: yap ἣ Ψ. TW O.-P.: ἢ ψ. non legit Schol. B, secl. Usener Sz. Bt.: ἢ ψ. yap 560], Christ: yap seclusi: fort. ἢ Ψ. τἄρα

ἀφανίσαι. “To keep dark”: notice the play ἀφανίσαι.. φαίνεται, which Lehrs represents by “eine helle That des 8. ins Dunkle zu setzen.” φαίνεται after the impf. ἦν is one of Ale.’s anacolutha.

ὑπερήφανον. The adj. here, though prima facie eulogistic, evidently contains (as Riickert notes) “grata quaedam ambiguitas,” as alluding to the ὕβρις of Socr., cp. the use of ὑπερηφανία to denote “superbia cum contemtione coniuncta,” (Ast) in 2190. For the good sense of the word, cp. Phaedo 96 a, Gorg. 511 D.

τὸ τοῦ δηχθέντος κτλ. For this proverbial case, cp. Aristides or. 15, 1. p. 234 ὥσπερ τὸν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐχίδνης φασὶ πληγέντα μὴ ἐθέλειν ἑτέρῳ λέγειν GAN ἢ ὅστις πεπείραται: td. or. 49, τι. p. 395: Ken. Symp. Iv. 28 ὥσπερ ὑπὸ θηρίου τινὸς δεδηγμένος...ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὥσπερ. κνῆσμά τι ἐδόκουν ἔχειν : ta. Mem. τ. ὃ. 12 ff. ἐνίησι γάρ τι τὰ φαλάγγια κατὰ τὸ δῆγμα... ὥστε μαίνεσθαι ποιεῖν. This last passage refers to the “bite of love,” for which cp. Soph. fr. 721 ἔρωτος δῆγμα. Socrates (Bergk P. L. G. τι. p. 288) πόθῳ δηχθείς. Riickert is no doubt right in holding that there is allusion here “ad certam fabellam, nobis licet ignotam.” Cp. also Aesch. Cho. 996.

218 Α πάν... λέγειν. “Alii de remediis totoque curationis genere (haec) verba intelligunt, alii de motibus, gestibus furibundis, dictisque quae doloris magnitudo elicuerit, sanis hominibus nil nisi risum moturis” (Riickert). The former of these views is adopted by Stallb. and Rettig (who takes the phrase to refer to the superstitious use of charms, amulets, etc.), the latter by Hommel. The phrase recals 182 © θαυμαστὰ ἔργα...τολμώῃ ποιεῖν : 208 D πάντα ποιοῦσιν : cp. Rep. 5764. It seems best here to interpret it broadly of the results of the δῆγμα, whether or not directly aiming at a cure: i.e. as covering both the senses indicated above.

τὸ ἀλγεινότατον. “In my most sensitive part.”

τὴν καρδίαν. Schol. B, ὅτι τὴν καρδίαν (καρδίαν τὴν Herm.) ψυχὴν καλεῖ. This implies—as Usener inferred—that the words ἢ ψυχὴν were absent from the Scholiast’s text: none the less, in view of the context, I think it rash to expunge the words, and content myself with obelizing γάρ. For ἢ ὅτι xrA., ep. 2126.

154 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [218 a

δηχϑεὶς ὑπὸ τ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ, λόγων, οἱ b ἔχονται ἐχίδνης κα ἀγριώ- ; τερον, νέου Ψυχῆς μὴ ἀφυοῦς 'ὅταν λάβωνται, καὶ πΠοϊοῦσι δρᾶν τε καὶ λέγειν ᾿ὁτιοῦν--καὶ ὁρῶν αὖ Φαΐδρους, ᾿Αγάθωνας, ᾽Ἔρυξι- Β μάχους, ἢ [ αυσανίας, ᾿Αριστοδήμους 1 τε καὶ pio topavas: Σωκράτη δὲ ἄὐτον α τί δεῖ λέγειν, καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι ;" πάντες γὰρ κεκοιγωνή- I. kate τῆς͵ φιλοσόφου μανίας: τε καὶ βακχείας" διὸ πάντες͵ ἀκούσεσθε: συγγνώσεσῷ ε τ τοῖς τὲ τότε πραχθεῖσι καὶ "Τοῖς νῦν λεγομένοις" οἱ δὲ ὁ οἰκέται, καὶ εἴ τις ἄχχος ἐστὶ βέβηλός τε καὶ ἄγροικος, πύλας παβμεγάλας τὸϊς ὠσὶν ἐπίθεσθε. XXXIV. ᾿Επειδὴ γὰρ οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅ τε λύχνος ἀπεσβήκει C καὶ οἱ παῖδες ἔξω ἦσαν, ἔδοξέ μοι χρῆναι μηδὲν ποικίλλειν πρὸς αὐτόν, GAN ἐλευθέρως εἰπεῖν ἅ μοι ἐδόκει" καὶ εἶπον κινήσας 218 Α μὴ BO.-P.: καὶ μὴ T, Bt. B δεῖ καὶ vulg. τοῖς τε Β (ἢ):

τοῖς T (Ὁ εἴτις T O.-P.: εἴ τι Β παμμεγάλας Naber J.-U.: πάνυ μεγάλας libri, Sz. Bt. C (καὶ) κινήσας O.-P.

ὑπὸ τῶν.. λόγων. Cp. 210 D Adyous...€v φιλοσοφίᾳ ἀφθύνῳ. For πληγείς, ep. Luthyd, 303.4 ὥσπερ πληγεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ λύγου ἄφωνος ἐκείμην : Epist. vii. 347 Ὁ.

νέον ψυχῆς. Rost, removing the comma before νέου, connected ν. ψυχῆς with ἔχονται, wrongly: for ἔχεσθαι without a genitive, cp. Gorg. 494 Ἑ.

Observe the word-play ἔχ-ονται ἐχ-ίδνης.

μὴ ἀφυοῦς. Cp. 209 B ψυχῇ...εὐφυεῖ.

Φαίδρους κτλ. For a similar (generalizing) use of the plural of proper names, cp. Menev. 245 Ὁ, Ar. Man. 1040 ff., Av. 558 ἢ

218 B συγγνώσεσθε. This echoes the συγγνωσομένοις of 218 A supra.

οἱ δὲ οἰκέται. This echoes Diotima’s ὥσπερ οἰκέτης, 210 D ad init.: cp. Ar. Ach, 242, Ran, 41 for the nomin. of address.

βέβηλός. Cp. Schol. Aristid. 111. p, 471 ἔστι δὲ κήρυγμα μυστικὸν τὸ “Odpas... βέβηλοι," ὥς που καὶ Oppeds δηλοῖ “ φθέγξομαι ois θέμις ἐστί" θύρας δ᾽ ἐπίθεσθε βέβηλοι": Tim. βέβηλοι" ἀμύητοι. Alcib.’s language, like Diotima’s, is sugges- tive of mystery-lore: cp. Theaet. 1555; Eur. Bacch. 70 &., 472; Horace’s “odi profanum volgus et arceo.”

mohas...tots ὠσὶν. Cp. Theogn. 421 πολλοῖς ἀνθρώπων γλώσσῃ θύραι οὐκ ἐπίκεινται | ἁρμόδιαι.

ὅ τε λύχνος ἀπεσβήκει. Cp, Ar. Plut. 668 ὡς δὲ τοὺς λύχνους ἀποσβέσας... ἐγκαθεύδειν : Juv, 1x. 104, Hor. Οἱ πι. 6. 38.

218 Ο ποικίλλειν. ‘‘Artificiose, h. 6. obscure vel ambigue loqui” (Ast): “to beat about the bush.” Cp. the use of ποικίλος in 1828: Laws 863 καὶ τό τε δίκαιον καὶ τὸ ἄδικον, «σαφῶς ἂν διορισαίμην οὐδὲν ποικίλλων : Soph. Trach. 421, 1121.

ἐλευθέρως εἰπεῖν. Cp. Pind. Vem. 1x. 49 θαρσαλέα δὲ παρὰ κρατῆρι φωνὰ γίνεται. Notice the word-play ἔδοξε.. ἐδύκει. For κινήσας, cp. Rep. 399 Ὁ

, »ὄ ΄ +. % * ὁ Ν αὐ βουλόμενος ἔτι λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐκίνουν καὶ εἶπον κτλ.

218 Ὁ] ZYMTTOZION 155

αὐτόν, Σώκρατες, καθεύδεις; Οὐ δῆτα, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς. Οἶσθα οὖν & μοι δέδοκται; Τί μάλιστα; ἔφη. Σὺ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖς, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ἐμοῦ ἐραστὴς ἄξιος γεγονέναι μόνος, καί μοι φαίνῃ ὀκνεῖν μνησθῆναι πρός με. ἐγὼ δὲ οὑτωσὶ ἔχω: πάνυ ἀνόητον ἡγοῦμαι εἶναι σοὶ μὴ οὐ καὶ τοῦτο χαρίζεσθαι καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ὴ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς ἐμῆς δέοιο ἢ τῶν φίλων τῶν ἐμῶν. ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστι πρεσβύτερον τοῦ ὡς ὅ τι βέλτιστον ἐμὲ γενέσθαι, τούτου δὲ οἶμαί μοι συλ- λήπτορα οὐδένα κυριώτερον εἶναι σοῦ. ἐγὼ δὴ τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἂν μὴ χαριζόμενος αἰσχυνοίμην τοὺς φρονίμους, ἢ χαριζόμενος τούς τε πολλοὺς καὶ ἄφρονας. καὶ οὗτος ἀκούσας μάλα εἰρωνικῶς καὶ σφόδρα ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ εἰωθότως ἔλεξεν Ὦ φίλε ᾿Αλκιβιάδη, κινδυνεύεις τῷ ὄντι οὐ φαῦλος εἶναι, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ

218 Ο ἔχω BO.-P.: ἔχων TW χαρισασθαι O.-P. εἴ τι BO.-P.: ἔτι TW D ὡς ὅτι ΤῊ O-P.: ὅσῳ τι B μοι Vind. 21 Ο.-Ῥ. (prob.), vulg. : pou BTW «(παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ Stallb.: (πρὸς) ἑαυτοῦ Herwerden ἑαυτῷ εἰωθότως vulg. φίλε om. O.-P.t xuvOuvever...pavr’ εἶναι Bdhm.

ἐμοῦ.. ἄξιος. Whether ἐμοῦ goes closely with ἐραστὴς or with ἄξιος is open to doubt: Jowett renders “the only one who is worthy of me,” whereas Rettig writes “ ἄξιος absolut = wiirdig, beachtenswerth.”

ὀκνεῖν κτλ. “Ὁ bo shy of mentioning (your love) to mo”: ep. 1. Ale. 103 A οἶμαί σε θαυμάζειν ὅτι πρῶτος ἐραστής σου γενόμενος... τοσούτων ἐτῶν οὐδὲ προσεῖπον.

τῆς οὐσίας...τῶν φίλων. Οὐ. 188 Α ἢ χρήματα.. ὑπὸ φίλων. For ἢ τῶν φίλων =} τῆς τῶν φίλων, cp. the brachylogy in 217 D (ἐμοῦ).

218 Ὁ πρεσβύτερον. Poll. τι. 12 καὶ πρεσβεύειν τὸ τιμᾶν παρὰ Πλάτωνι καὶ τὸ “οὐδέν ἐστι πρεσβύτερον ᾽" ἀντὶ τοῦ “οὐδὲν τιμιώτερον ἢ: 186 B, 188 ὁ supra.

συλλήπτορα. For the ἐραστής as an aid to ἀρετή, see 185 a; cp. Socrates’ description of Eros as συνεργός, 212 B. μοι was taken by Stallb. with συλλήπ- ropa, by Riickert with εἶναι, but it is better to say with Hommel that, as an ethic dat., “ad totum verborum complexum refertur.”

κυριώτερον. “More competent”: cp. Theaet. 161 Ὁ.

τοὺς φρονίμους... ἄφρονας. Compare the similar aristocratic sentiment of Agathon, 1948. It is worth noticing that whereas Pausanias had spoken of those who disapprove of χαρίζεσθαι as τινές, here they are termed οἱ πολλοί. Cp. Xen. Mem. τ. 6.13. Similarly Browne, Rel. Med. “This noble affection falls not on vulgar and common constitutions.”

σφόδρα ἑαυτοῦ. “ Very characteristically”: cp. “suum illud est” Cic. Tuse. 1. 42. 99. .

οὐ φαῦλος. “Kein Dummkopf” (Hug); cp. 174¢, 1758. Socr. means that if Alcib. proposes to make such a profitable bargain, bartering his own cheap κάλλος for the rare κάλλος of Socr., he evidently is a “cute” man of

D

156 TIAATQNOZ [218 D

E τυγχάνει ὄντα ἃ λέγεις περὶ ἐμοῦ, καί τις ἔστ᾽ ἐν ἐμοὶ δύναμις, δι᾿ ἧς ἂν σὺ γένοιο ἀμείνων" ἀμήχανόν τοι κάλλος ὁρῴης ἂν ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ εὐμορφίας πάμπολυν διαφέρον. εἰ δὴ καθορῶν αὐτὸ κοινώσασθαί τέ μοι ἐπιχειρεῖς καὶ ἀλλάξασθαι κάλλος ἀντὶ κάλλους, οὐκ ὀλίγῳ μον πλεονεκτεῖν διανοῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ δόξης

219 ἀλήθειαν καλῶν κτᾶσθαι ἐπιχειρεῖς καὶ τῷ ὄντι "χρύσεα χαλκείων᾽" διαμείβεσθαι νοεῖς. ἀλλ᾽, ὦ μακάριε, ἄμεινον σκόπει, μή σε λαν- θάνω οὐδὲν ὦν. ἥ τοι τῆς διανοίας ὄψις ἄρχεται ὀξὺ βλέπειν ὅταν ἡ τῶν ὀμμάτων τῆς ἀκμῆς λήγειν ἐπιχειρῇ" σὺ δὲ τούτων ἔτι πόρρω. κἀγὼ ἀκούσας, Τὰ μὲν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἔφην, ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὧν οὐδὲν ἄλλως εἴρηται ἢ ὡς διανοοῦμαι" σὺ δὲ αὐτὸς οὕτω βουλεύου ὅ τι aol τε ἄριστον καὶ ἐμοὶ ἡγεῖ. ᾿Αλλ᾽, ἔφη, τοῦτό γε εὖ λέγεις"

Β ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἐπιόντι χρόνῳ βουλευόμενοι πράξομεν ὃ ἂν φαί- νηται νῷν περί τε τούτων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀριστον.

218 E τοι BTW O.-P.: τι 8]., Bekk.: re vulg. τέ μοι BT O.-P.: por W

219 A καλῶν del. Bdhm. νοεῖς 560]. Voeg., J.-U. ἥ τοι W, Steph.: ἤτοι BT ὄψις ἄρχεται om. Stob. ἐμοῦ TW O.-P.: ἐμοί B [σοι τε] οτι O.-P.

business. Cp. Diog. L. 111. 63 ὁ γοῦν φαῦλος λέγεται παρ᾽ αὐτῷ (sc. Platoni) καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁπλοῦ, ὡς καὶ wap’ Ἑὐριπίδῃ ἐν Λικυμνίῳ κτλ. (see Eurip. fr. 476 N. φαῦλον, ἄκομψον, τὰ μέγιστ᾽ ἀγαθόν κτλ...

218 ἘΞ ἀμήχανόν κτλ. Supply from the context, with Stallb., “nam hoc ita si sit.” Riickert, after Schleierm., wrongly connects this clause with the preceding, “qua fiat, ut tu melior evadas, atque exinde immensam in me pulcritudinem cernas”; while Hommel makes it depend upon εἴπερ. Cp. Rep. 509 B, 608 D; Charm, 155 Ὁ.

εὐμορφίας. For the notion of a beauty-competition here suggested, cp. Xen. Symp. Vv. 1. Cp. also the codia-match of 175 E.

ἀντὶ δόξης ἀλήθειαν «. “Real for sham beauties”: ἀλήθειαν καλῶν = ἀλήθινα καλά. Cp. Phil. 36 ο ff.; and for the antithesis, cp. 198 8, 212 4 supra.

219 Α χρύσεα χαλκείων. A “familiar quotation” from JI. νι. 235—6 (Γλαῦκος) ὃς πρὸς Τυδείδην Διομήδεα revye ἄμειβεν | χρύσεα χαλκείων, ἑκατόμ- Bow ἐννεαβοίων. Later reff. to the proverb are frequent, e.g. Plut. adv. Stoic. 1063 κι; Clem. Alex. Cohort. ad Gent. 710. Cp. Winters Vale τ. 2 “take eggs for money.” In χρύσεα there is an obvious allusion to the ἀγάλματα χρυσᾶ of 216 Β.

ἥ τοι.. «ὄψις. For this idea of the inverse development of vision, cp. Laws 715 », 11. Ale. 150. Rettig thinks that in this passage there may lie a ref. to Phaedr, 253 Ὁ ff., and an indication that the views there put forward are crude and the book itvyelf “eine jugendliche Schrift.”

219 Β ἐν γὰρ τῷ κτλ. Thus Socr. practically defers the consideration of the matter to “the Greek Kalends.” Rettig calls attention to the catalectic hexameter in ἐν γὰρ... βουλενόμενοι, Which gives a touch of jocular liveliness.

219 c] ZYMIMOZION 157

> AY % A an ’ ἢ Ἐγὼ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα ἀκούσας τε καὶ εἰπών, καὶ ἀφεὶς ὥσπερ t a βέλη, τετρῶσθαι αὐτὸν @pnv: καὶ ἀναστάς γε, οὐδὲ ἐπιτρέψας , a nr lad τούτῳ εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν ἔτι, ἀμφιέσας TO ἱμάτιον TO ἐμαυτοῦ τοῦτον--- Ν ᾿ A , la καὶ yap ἦν χειμών---ῥὑπὸ τὸν τρίβωνα κατακλινεὶς τὸν τουτουΐ, \ \ » ΄,΄ a ΄ τ ’ n \ lel περιβαλὼν τὼ χεῖρε τούτῳ τῷ δαιμονίῳ ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ θαυμαστῷ, , \ , Ψ' EX a 5 3 , 2 ~ κατεκείμην τὴν νύκτα ὅλην. καὶ οὐδὲ ταῦτα ad, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐρεῖς 14 t nr fol ὅτι ψεύδομαι. ποιήσαντος δὲ δὴ ταῦτα ἐμοῦ οὗτος τοσοῦτον περιε- f , * t a an γένετό τε Kal κατεφρόνησε καὶ κατεγέλασε τῆς ἐμῆς ὥρας καὶ tA \ a ὕβρισε καὶ περὶ ἐκεῖνο <é> ye ᾧμην τὶ εἶναι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί--- 219B βέλει TW Ο.-Ρ. τούτῳ T, Thiersch: τοῦτο B: τοῦτον W τουτουί TW O.-P. (prob.), Bt.: τούτον B, J.-U. Sz. C αὖ B: om. TW

καὶ περὶ ἐκεῖνο (δ) ye scripsi: [και] περι exervo ye O.-P.: καίπερ ἐκεῖνό ye TW: , ~ κ 3 yon, ͵ ee oa , ᾽ καίπερ κεῖνό γε B: καὶ ᾽κεῖνό γε Sz.: καίτοι ᾽κεῖνό ye Bt.: καίπερ... «εἶναι 860]. Hug

ἀφεὶς ὥσπερ βέλη. Sec. τοὺς λόγους. For this image applied to “winged words,” cp. the use of βαλών 1898; Phileb. 23B βέλη ἔχειν ἕτερα τῶν ἔμ- προσθεν λόγων: Theaet. 180A; Pind. Ol. τ. 112.

τετρῶσθαι. “I thought I had winged him.” Cp. Theogn. 1287 ἀλλά σ᾽ ἐγὼ τρώσω φεύγοντά περ: and the description of Eros as θηρευτὴς δεινός, 208 Ὁ.

τρίβωνα. Cp. Prot. 335 ἡ; Ar. Ach. 184, etc. The vogue of the “philosopher’s cloak” (pallium) seems to date from Socrates: cp. Plut. de disc. ad. 56. c. For the incident, see also Lysias in Alcib. xiv. 25 (Teichmiiller Litt. J. 11. 267 ff); Theoer. Jd. xvi. 19; cp. Theogn. 1063 ff. ἐν δ᾽ ἤβῃ πάρα μὲν ξὺν ὁμήλικι Kad NiO’ εὕδειν | ἱμερτῶν ἔργων ἐξ ἔρον ἱέμενον. Notice the stylistic effect produced both by the row of successive participles, mostly asyndetic (“der Sturmlauf ist vergeblich” Rettig); and by the repetition of the pronoun (τούτῳ, -rov, -rovi, -τῳ, οὗτος). “Forsan haec illustrat Soph. Track. 944. Respexit Alciphron 1. 38” (Wyttenb.).

219 Ο δαιμονίῳ. Cp. 202 v.

καὶ οὐδὲ ταῦτα κτλ. Alcib.’s fourth appeal to Socr. for confirmation, cp. 217 B.

τοσοῦτον. “ Dictum est δεικτικῶς et per quandam exclamationem ut signi- ficet : mirum quantum me vicit” (Stallb.): Riickert and Hommel, on the other hand, suppose that ‘“‘sequi debebat dare” so as to give the sense “ut non aliter ab eo surrexerim,” etc. (Riickert), or ὥστε καὶ καταφρονῆσαι κτλ. (Hommel). Riickert’s view, which explains the change of construction as due to the intervening parenthesis, seems the most probable.

περιεγένετό κτλ. Alcib. is fond of piling up synonytns by way of emphasis ; cp. 207 A, 219 D, 221 π᾿.

ὕβρισε. ὕβρις is a vox propria in erotic literature for the “spretae iniuria formae”; cp. Anthol. Pal. v. 213 οὐκ οἴσω τὰν ἀπάλαιστρον ὕβριν.

Anacreon fr. 129 ὑβρισταὶ καὶ ἀτάσθαλοι (Ἀνακρέων ἀπειλεῖ τοῖς Ἔρωσιν... ἐπειδήπερ ἑώρα τὸν ἔφηβον ὀλίγον αὐτοῦ φροντίζοντα...εἰ μὴ αὐτῷ τιτρώσκοιεν

158 TAATQNOZ [2190

δικασταὶ γάρ ἐστε τῆς Σωκράτους ὑπερηφανίας. εὖ γὰρ ἴστε μὰ θεούς, μὰ θεάς, οὐδὲν περιττότερον καταδεδαρθηκὼς ἀνέστην μετὰ D Σωκράτους, ἢ εἰ μετὰ πατρὸς καθηῦδον ἢ ἀδελφοῦ πρεσβυτέρου. XXXV. To δὴ μετὰ τοῦτο τίνα οἴεσθέ με διάνοιαν ἔχειν, ἡγού- μενον μὲν ἠτιμάσθαι, ἀγάμενον δὲ τὴν τούτου φύσιν τε καὶ σωφρο- σύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν, ἐντετυχηκότα ἀνθρώπῳ τοιούτῳ οἵῳ ἐγὼ οὐκ

219 Ὁ ἢ εἰ Β0.-.: ἣ ΤῊ

αὐτίκα τὸν ἔφηβον κτλ.). Cp. Spenser’s, “Thou hast enfrosen her disdainefull brest,” and “Whilst thou tyrant Love doest laugh and scorne At their com- plaints, making their paine thy play, Whylest they lie languishing like thrals forlorne” (cp. καταδεδουλωμένος 219 Ε infra).

καὶ περὶ ἐκεῖνο (0) ye κτλ. So I have ventured to write on the strength of the evidence of the Papyrus.

Rettig keeps the Bodleian κεῖνο, as tolerable “in hac Alcibiadis oratione singularia amantis,” and refers to Poppo ad Thue. vii. 86, Lob. ad Phryn. p. 7, and other authorities: but to bolster up the double anomaly “vain is the strength of man”: if κεῖνο be retained we must assume prodelision (κεῖνο).

τὶ εἶναι. ‘ Magni quid esse” (Riickert): ep. Gorg. 472 a: it is the opposite of οὐδὲν εἶναι, 216 B, 219 Δ. ;

δικασταὶ. Alcib. appeals to the audience to try the case, the notion of a° lawsuit (γραφὴ ὕβρεως) having been suggested by the word ὕβρισεν. We have already had, in this speech, terms suggestive of legal proceedings, wz. 214 Ὁ τιμωρήσωμαι ὑμῶν ἐναντίον : 215 B μάρτυρας παρέξομαι: and δικαστής itself was already used by Agathon in 175 £.

μὰ θεούς, μὰ θεάς. Such an invocation of the whole pantheon is unusual, but cp. Zim. 27 0.

οὐδὲν περιττότερον. Maud aliter, cp. Isocr. 111. 43.

καταδεδαρθηκὼς. Cp. 998 ο, dol, 40 p. For the incident cp. Petron. 128 non tam intactus Alcibiades in praeceptoris sui lecto iacuit: Lucian vit. auet. 15; Corn. Nep. Alczb. ο. ii.

219 Ὁ τίνα...διάνοιαν. A.’s feelings were a blend of chagrin and venera- tion: cp. the perplexity described in 2160; Theogn. 1091 ff. dpyadéws μοι θυμὸς ἔχει περὶ σῆς φιλότητος" | οὔτε yap ἐχθαίρειν οὔτε φιλεῖν δύναμαι, κτλ.

ἠτιμάσθαι. Cp. Theogn. 1313 ἐμὴν δὲ μεθῆκας ἀτίμητον φιλότητα.

ἀγάμενον. This is an echo, both of Phaedrus’s language in 179 Ο, 180 Α, and of ἀγαστός applied to Eros (197 Ὁ). Observe the assonance ἡγούμενον... dydpevov. Cp, Xen. Symp. viii. 8.

τὴν τούτον φύσιν κτλ. Hommel renders “des Mannes ganzem Wesen besonders seiner Besonnenheit und Charakterfestigkeit” etc. ; Rettig explains φύσις as “die geistige Naturanlage des S., seine theoretische und spekulative Begabung, ingenium, σοφία (vgl. Theaet. 144 a).” The former seems the more natural interpretation ; φύσιες may be intended also as an echo of Aristophanes’ use of the word (189 ἢ ete.).

219 2] ZYMMOZION 159

a wv Ἄ * - > , ν ᾽ # = iA ὕθ᾽ ν ὦμην ποτὲ ἐντυχεῖν εἰς φρόνησιν καὶ εἰς καρτερίαν; ὥστε οὔ oe 2 b t a ὅπως οὖν ὀργιζοίμην εἶχον καὶ ἀποστερηθείην τῆς τούτου συνου- 7 rap “ Ἢ σίας, οὔθ᾽ ὅπῃ προσαγαγοίμην αὐτὸν ηὐπόρουν. εὖ γὰρ ἤδη OTLB f » \ a y τῷ ὅν 4 ¢ y χρήμασί γε πολὺ μᾶλλον ἄτρωτος ἦν πανταχῇ ἢ σιδήρῳ ὁ Αἴας, Ad v \ , ΄ »» ᾧ τε ὥμην αὐτὸν μόνῳ ἁλώσεσθαι, διεπεφεύγει με. ἠπόρουν δή, bai fol καταδεδουλωμένος τε ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὡς οὐδεὶς ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς ΕΖ fol na τ ἄλλου περιῇα. ταῦτά τε γάρ μοι ἅπαντα προυγεγόνει, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα στρατεία ἡμῖν εἰς Ποτίδαιαν ἐγένετο κοινῇ καὶ συνεσιτοῦμεν a na Ν + a ᾿ an na ἐκεῖ. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τοῖς πόνοις οὐ μόνον ἐμοῦ περιῆν, ἀλλὰ Kal n wy. € 4 ἢ fod ’ tS 2 f TOV ἄλλων ἁπάντων" ὁπότ᾽ ἀναγκασθείημεν ἀποληφθέντες που,

219 Ὁ ὠομην O.-P. corr. καρτερίαν: εγκρατειαν Ο.-Ρ. οὔθ᾽ : ουὃ O.-P. corr. ec και O.-P. ovvnOeas O.-P.1 E ὅποι vulg. ἤδη B: ἤἥδειν W O.-P. ye TW O.-P., Jn.: re B, J.-U. Sz. Bt. δή BT O.-P.: re W ταῦτά τ᾽ ἄρα Bdhm. κοινῇ vulg. J.-U. Naber: κοινὴ BT O.-P., Sz. Bt. οὖν libri, Bt.: οὖν (ἐν) Winckelmann J.-U. Sz. ὁπότ᾽ W, Herm.: ὁπόταν BT O.-P.: ὁπόταν γοῦν vulg.: ὁπότε δ᾽ Sauppe Jn.: ὁπότ᾽ αὖ Rohde: οἷον ὁπότ᾽ cj. Usener ἀποληφθέντες Cornarius, Sz. Bt.: ἀπολειφθέντες libri, O.-P.: ἀπολειφθέντες σίτου, οἷα Heusde

φρόνησιν... καρτερίαν. “φρόνησις verbunden mit καρτερία ist doch nichts Anderes als die Auflésung des Begriffs der σωφροσύνη in seine beiden Bestand- theile. Vgl. Pol. rv. 4308, Phadr. 237 5, Krat. 411 ©” (Rettig).

οὔθ᾽... εἶχον. Of moral impossibility, as in 190c, Phaedr. 241 A,

219 ἄτρωτος. “Invulucrable on all sides”: cp. τετρῶσθαι 2198. For the incorruptibility of Socr., shown by his sending back Alcib.’s presents, see Stob. Flor. xvi. 17, Ael. v. ἢ. 1x. 29.

σιδήρῳ ὁ Alas. For the impregnable seven-fold shield of Ajax, see Pind. Isthm. v. 45; Soph. Aj. 576; Welcker AZ. Schr. 11. p. 267.

& τε ᾧμην. Se. τῇ ὥρᾳ (cp. 219 c): the antecedent, κατὰ τοῦτο (διαπεφ.), has to be supplied.

καταδεδουλωμένος. Cp. Huthyd. 303c. Above, 215 5, we had ἀνδραποδωδῶς διακείμενος.

περιῇα. “I wandered about,” suggestive of aimless despair: cp. Prot. 348 p, Rep. 620 c: so περιτρέχων 173 A.

στρατεία...κοινῇς Potidaea revolted from Athens in 435 Β.0. and after 5 years of war was reduced in 430 (see Bury’s Hist. Gr. pp. 392—38) : Socr.’s part in the campaign is alluded to also in Apol. 28 5, Charm. 153 a, c: cp. Plut. adv. Colot. p. 1117 5.

συνεσιτοῦμεν. “We were mess-mates” (σύσσιτοι). This implies personal friendship rather than proximity of origin; for Socr. and Alcib. belonged to different φυλαί and to different τάξεις.

τοῖς πόνοις. Cp. 197 Ε (Ἔρως) ἐν πόνφῳ...ἄριστος.

ἀποληφθέντες. “Cut off,” “a commeatu intercepti et prohibiti” (Stallb.) : cp. Hdt. 1. 115. 2; Thue. vi. 22; Gorg. 522 a.

160 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [219 Ε

lal ᾿ ‘ 220 ola δὴ ἐπὶ στρατείας, ἀσιτεῖν, οὐδὲν ἦσαν οἱ ἄλλοι πρὸς τὸ Kap- a n tf 3 ᾿ > τερεῖν. ἔν τ᾽ αὖ ταῖς εὐωχίαις μόνος ἀπολαύειν οἷός T ἦν τά T ,ὔ ? , ἄλλα καὶ πίνειν οὐκ ἐθέλων, ὁπότε ἀναγκασθείη, πάντας ἐκράτει, ἊΝ , καὶ ὃ πάντων θαυμαστότατον, Σωκράτη μεθύοντα οὐδεὶς πώποτε a ra © » ἑώρακεν ἀνθρώπων. τούτου μὲν οὖν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ αὐτίκα ὁ ἔλεγχος na n v4 ‘+ ‘ ἔσεσθαι. πρὸς δὲ ad τὰς τοῦ χειμῶνος καρτερήσεις---δεινοὶ yap >? ἐδ n # > ΄ὔ 4 ΜΨ- τὰ ΗΣ αὐτόθι χειμῶνες--- θαυμάσια εἰργάζετο τά τε ἄλλα, καί ποτε ὄντος Β πάγου οἵου δεινοτάτου, καὶ πιάντων ἢ οὐκ ἐξιόντων ἔνδοθεν ἢ εἴ τις ἐξίοι ἠμφιεσμένων τε θαυμαστὰ δὴ ὅσα καὶ ὑποδεδεμένων καὶ 2 ‘ \ / 2 , ἊΝ >? (ὃ μὰ δ᾽ >? ἐνειλιγμένων τοὺς πόδας εἰς πίλους Kal apvakidas, οὗτος δ᾽ ἐν

220 Α πρὸς τὸ: πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ Sauppe: πρὸς αὐτὸν τῷ Bdhm. ἐν δ᾽ av Wolf amoddvev O.-P.1 οἷός τ᾽ ἦν del. Bdhm. τε τἄλλα Bdhm. πίνων Usener πάντας: πάντων Hirschig ὃ πάντων TW O.-P.: ὁπόταν Β θαυμασιωτατον O.-P. Vind. 21 ἑώρακεν TW O.-P.: ἑωράκει B χειμῶνες del. Naber Β πάγου B 0.-Ρ.: τοῦ πάγου TW ἢ οὐκ BO.-P.: οὐκ TW δὴ ΤῊ O.-P.: ἢ Β οὗτος δ᾽ BTW: οὗτος O.-P. Vind. 21

220 Α οἷα δὴ κτλ. Se. φιλεῖ γίγνεσθαι, or the like; cp. Rep. 467B οἷα δὴ ἐν πολέμῳ φιλεῖ (80. γίγνεσθαι); Huthyd. 272 a.

οὐδὲν ἦσαν...«πρὸς κτλ. Cp. 195D οἷος ἦν...πρὸς κτλ., and 21GE οὐδὲν εἶναι.

εὐωχίαις. Cp. Laws 6668 ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις εὐωχηθέντα : 203 Β supra.

τά τ᾽ ἄλλα κτλ. The construction is loose; we may either explain it (with Stallb.) as a brachylogy for τά τ᾽ ἄλλα καὶ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο ὅτι...ἐκράτει, or say (with Wolf) that ἐκράτει is carelessly put for κρατῶν. Hug construes πίνειν closely with ἀναγκασθείη, marking οὐκ ἐθέλων as a parenthesis; but it is simpler to regard πίνειν as a kind of aceus. of respect (“at drinking”) with ἐκράτει. For the ἀνάγκη of the “symposiarch’s” ruling cp. 176 Δ, 223 B.

ἑώρακεν. The plpf. ἑωράκει (in spite of Rettig, etc.) is inconsistent with πώποτε. For Socr.’s invincibility in carousals, see 176c, 2144, 223c; and cp. Theogn. 491 ἀνίκητος δέ rot οὗτος | ὃς πολλὰς πίνων μή τι μάταιον ἐρεῖ.

αὐτίκα... ἔσεσθαι. 1.6. we shall have proof, before the night is over, of Socr.’s καρτερία in this regard.

δεινοὶ... χειμῶνες. Cp, Thuc. 1. 70 ὁρῶντες μὲν τῆς στρατιᾶς τὴν ταλαιπωρίαν ἐν χωρίῳ χειμερινῷ : Aesch, Pers. 495 ff.

θαυμάσια εἰργάζετο. An echo of 182 ΒΕ and 218 ἢ.

220 Β οἵου δεινοτάτου. 7.6. τοιούτου οἷος δεινότατός ἐστιν : cp. Apol. 23.4 (Madv. Gr. S. § 96. 1).

πίλους. Schol. πῖλος: ἱμάτιον ἐξ ἐρίου πιλήσεως γινόμενον, εἰς ὑετῶν καὶ χειμώνων ἄμυναν. Cp. Laws 942 Ὁ; Hes. Op. 541 ff. “Had their feet swathed in felt and fleeces” (Jowett).

ἀρνακίδας. Schol. dpvaxides δὲ ἀρνῶν κώδια: Suid. dpvaxis: τὸ τοῦ ἀρνὸς κώδιον, τὸ μετὰ τῶν ἐρίων δέρμα. Cp. Themist. or. rv. 50 B.

220 c] ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΝ 161

᾿ς a τούτοις ἐξήει ἔχων ἱμάτιον μὲν τοιοῦτον oldvirep καὶ πρότερον ee n n les t εἰώθει φορεῖν, ἀνυπόδητος δὲ διὰ τοῦ κρυστάλλου ῥᾷον ἐπορεύετο x c © t © \ n τ t “ὦ © ἢ Ol ἄλλοι ὑποδεδεμένοι. οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ὑπέβλεπον αὐτὸν ὡς καταφρονοῦντα σφῶν.

XXXVI. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν δὴ ταῦτα"

Ν ’ οἷον δ᾽ αὖ τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε καὶ ἔτλη καρτερὸς ἀνὴρ

2 ~ Ν Ὁ y n y ’ a - ‘ ἐς rd ἐκεῖ ποτὲ ἐπὶ στρατιᾶς, ἄξιον ἀκοῦσαι. ξυννοήσας γὰρ αὐτόθι

Ff a i , a ἕωθέν τι εἱστήκει σκοπῶν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ od προυχώρει αὐτῷ, οὐκ ᾽ a , ἀνίει ἀλλὰ εἱστήκει ζητῶν. καὶ ἤδη ἦν μεσημβρία, καὶ ἅνθρωποι ἠσθάνοντο, καὶ θαυμάζοντες ἄλλος ἄλλῳ ἔλεγον bre Σωκράτης ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ φροντίζων tu ἕστηκε. τελευτῶντες δέ τινες τῶν ᾿Ιώνων,

220 Β οἷόνπερ Β O.-P.: οἷον TW C αὖ τόδ᾽ W O.-P., Cornarius: αὐτὸ BT ἔρρεξε B στρατιᾶς O.-P., Cobet Sz. Bt.: στρατείας libri, J.-U. εἱστήκει vulg. O.-P.: ἑστήκει libri προχώρει Β ἀνίει : ave O.-P. ἄνθρωποι Mehler Cobet Sz. Bt.: ἄνθρωποι libri ἔλεγον Mchler Cobet 8z.: ἔλεγεν libri, O.-P., Bt. ἐξ: ws εξ O.-P. καὶ ante τελευτῶντες add. W Ἰώνων libri, O.-P.: νέων Mehler Hug Sz.: ἰδόντων Schmidt: Παιόνων Rettig

ἱμάτιον.. φορεῖν. Cp. 220 α ”.; Xen. Mem. τ. 2. 1,6. 2 καὶ ἱμάτιον ἠμφίεσαι οὐ μόνον φαῦλον ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ θέρους τε καὶ χειμῶνος, ἀνυπόδητος δὲ καὶ ἀχίτων διατελεῖς. For ἀνυπόδητος, see also 174 a, 203 Ὁ.

ὑπέβλεπον. “ Looked askance (suspiciously) at him,” ὁ.6. “quippe quem ipsos despicere opinarentur” (Stallb.). Cp. Eryx. 395 A ὑποβλέψας... ὥσπερ τι ἀδικούμενος : Crito 53 B ὑποβλέψονταί σε διαφθορέα ἡγούμενοι τῶν νόμων.

220 Ο Kat ταῦτα...ταῦτα. For this formula of transition, dismissing the subject, cp. Laws 676 a.

οἷον δ᾽ αὖ... ἀνὴρ. From Hom. Od. Iv. 242, with the slight alteration οἷοι δ᾽ αὖ for ἀλλ᾽ οἷον : there it is spoken by Helen in describing Odysseus.

ξυννοήσας. Rettig holds that the following section is an illustration of the “spekulative Begabung” (φύσις 219 D) of Socr.; but it describes, primarily, another phase of his καρτερία. For 8.’s habit of thought-immersion, cp. 1748 ff., Gell. VW. A. u. 1; similarly, in Indian gymnosophists, Plin. 7. 4. vu. 2. 22. The similar incident in 174 5 ff. is there construed by Agathon as a symptom of σοφία (see 175 c—D). :

*Idvev. Riickert comments “Tones illo tempore sub Atheniensium ditione erant, unaque militabant”; but most recent editors suspect corruption after Mehler (ad Xen. Symp. p. 75) “Neque fuere eorum in ordinibus, neque Platonis haec sunt verba.” To Mehler’s restoration, τῶν νεῶν, Rettig objects that “den Athenern gleichviel ob jung oder alt diese Weise des Sokrates kaum auffallend war, da man ihn genugsam kannte”; while in favour of his own conj. Παιόνων, he cites Thuc. 1. 59, 61, etc. But I agree with Usener (Ihein. Mus. Lit. p. 372) that Ἰώνων may well be genuine.

B. P. 11

162 TAATQNOS [220 ὁ

, 3 ia ε D ἐπειδὴ ἑσπέρα ἦν, δειπνήσαντες---καὶ γὰρ θέρος τότε γ᾽ ἦν---χα- ‘ 2 , a \ 2 n ἕ θ D8 “ δὲ μεύνια ἐξενεγκάμενον ἅμα μὲν ἐν τῷ ψύχει καθηῦδον, ἅμα δὲ ? t + *% 7 \ A x € 3 ς δὲ ε , , ἐφύλαττον αὐτὸν εἰ καὶ τὴν νύκτα ἑστήξοι. ὁ δὲ εἱστήκει μέχρι ac ᾽ f . ΤΑ ἘΆΝ ὦ 4, ΜΝ ” > ? ‘\ , ἕως ἐγένετο καὶ ἥλιος ἀνέσχεν" ἔπειτα ᾧχετ᾽ ἀπιὼν προσευξάμενος τῷ ἡλίῳ. a , ᾽ Ki δὲ βούλεσθε ἐν ταῖς μάχαις" τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ δίκαιόν γε αὐτῷ n n wv £ ἀποδοῦναι" ὅτε yap ἡ μάχη ἦν, ἐξ ἧς ἐμοὶ καὶ τἀριστεῖα ἔδοσαν οἱ Ψ' Ἂν + Μ 2 Ν » > θ 4 x ἪΡ. στρατηγοί, οὐδεὶς ἄλλος ἐμὲ ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπων ἢ οὗτος, τετρω- a f Ἑ μένον οὐκ ἐθέλων ἀπολιπεῖν, ἀλλὰ συνδιέσωσε καὶ τὰ ὅπλα καὶ Ἂ. Ὰ 2 tL . + Se Zz 53 t ἰὴ > t \ αὐτὸν ἐμέ. καὶ ἐγὼ μέν, ὦ Σώκρατες, καὶ τότε ἐκέλευον σοὶ a a ft διδόναι τἀριστεῖα τοὺς στρατηγούς, καὶ τοῦτό γέ μοι οὔτε μέ βατήγους, 1 220 Ὁ προσευξόμενος Ὁ ἐν ταῖς : και ev ταις Ο.-", οὐκ ἐθέλων τετρώμενον T ἘΞ Σωκρατην O.-P.

220 Ὁ χαμεύνια. ταπεινὰ κλινίδια (Schol.); τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς στρωννύμενα (Tim.): ep. (Eros) χαμαιπετής, 203 Ὁ: Hipponax 67 ἐν σταθμίῳ τε καὶ χαμευνίῳ γυμνόν.

προσευξάμενος τῷ ἡλίῳ. Hesiod (Op. 339) prescribes prayer at sunrise and sunset ; cp. Laws 887 x, 966 ἡ; Soph. 0. C. 477; Ar. Plut. 771 καὶ προσκυνῶ ye πρῶτα μὲν τὸν ἥλιον. The suggestion here may be that the Sun-god (Phoebus, the revealer, “the light of the world”) brings mental illumination, and that Socr.’s εὐχή was in part a thanksgiving therefor. As a parallel to Socr., we may refer to “the devotion of Orpheus to Helios” ay pointed out in Harrison Proleg. p. 462. Moreover, Socr. regarded Apollo as his special patron-god, see Apol. 39 Ὁ ΕἾ, Phaedo 85 8, Tim. 40 a (Adam, Δ. 7. G. pp. 325, 434 ff.): and the sun is the symbol of ideal Good, sec fep. 530 a, Phaileb. 28 p. For the content of a Socratic prayer, see Phaedr. 279 B—c; Xen, Mem. τ. 3. 2 ηὔχετο δὲ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἁπλῶς τἀγαθὰ διδόναι. Of prayers to Helios we have exx, in Soph, Aj. 845 ff. ; id. 7». 1712 ᾿Ηέλιος οἰκτείρειέ pe | ὃν σοφοὶ λέγουσι γεννητὴν θεῶν | καὶ πατέρα πάντων.

Et δὲ βούλεσθε. Se. ἀκοῦσαι οἷος ἦν, or the like; ορ. 177 Β. Alcib. here passes on to treat of the ἀνδρεία of Socr.

ἀποδοῦναι. “'Tanquam debitum persolvere” (Stallb.).

ἡ μάχη. “Tila pugna (omnibus nota)” (Riickert); Ze. the fight (in 432 8.0.) which preceded the blockade of Potidaea, cp. 219 en, Thue, 1 62 ff, τι. 2.

ἔσωσεν. With this, and συνδιέσωσεν below, cp. Eros as σωτὴρ ἄριστος, 197 E.

220 E οὐκ ἐθέλων ὀὁπολιπεῖν. This passage echoes the language of Phaedrus in 179 A: ἐγκαταλιπεῖν γε τὰ παιδικὰ κτλ., and ὅπλα ἀποβαλών. To rescue a man’s arms was to save him from the disgrace attaching to ὅπλων ἀποβολή.

οὔτε μέμψῃ. Here for the fifth time Alcib. challenges Socr. to contradict him (cf. 219 0): for μέμφομαι, cp. 213 π᾿.

221 8] ZYMITTOZION 163

” ᾿ a ao , ’ Ν \ a - 4 Ἀν ἈΠ Ὁ οὔτε ἐρεῖς OTL ψεύδομαι" ἀλλὰ γὰρ τῶν στρατηγῶν πρὸς τὸ ἐμὸν 7 > , 7 4 > AY ¥ 2 a ἀξίωμα ἀποβλεπόντων καὶ βουλομένων ἐμοὶ διδόναι τἀριστεῖα,

᾽ tal » a αὐτὸς προθυμότερος ἐγένου τῶν στρατηγῶν ἐμὲ λαβεῖν ἢ σαυτόν. ἔτι τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἄξιον ἦν θεάσασθαι Σωκράτη, ὅτε ἀπὸ Δηλίου 221 φυγῇ ἀνεχώρει τὸ στρατόπεδον" ἔτυχον γὰρ παραγενόμενος ἵππον mw ἡ νι ? , > ’ ΄ » a > ἔχων, οὗτος δὲ ὅπλα. ἀνεχώρει οὖν ἐσκεδασμένων ἤδη τῶν av- θρώπων οὗτός τε ἅμα καὶ Λάχης" καὶ ἐγὼ περιτυγχάνω, καὶ ἰδὼν εὐθὺς παρακελεύομαί τε αὐτοῖν θαρρεῖν, καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι οὐκ ἀπο- λείψω αὐτώ. ἐνταῦθα δὴ καὶ κάλλιον ἐθεασάμην Σωκράτη ἢ ἐν Ποτιδαίᾳ--- αὐτὸς yap ἧττον ἐν φόβῳ ἡ διὰ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἵππου εἶναι--- πρῶτον μὲν ὅσον περιὴν Λάχητος τῷ ἔμφρων εἶναι" ἔπειτα ἔμοιγε Β 207 so ) t \ \ \ “ 3 a , ἐδόκει, ὦ ᾿Αριστόφανες, τὸ σὸν δὴ τοῦτο, καὶ ἐκεῖ διαπορεύεσθαι ὥσπερ καὶ ἐνθάδε, “ βρενθυόμενος καὶ τὠφθαλμὼ παραβάλλων,"

221 Α σωκράτην T ἢ Β: ἡ TW: η O-P.: ἦν vulg. Β ὥσπερ καὶ ἐνθάδε 560]. Jn. J.-U. τὼ ὀφθαλμὼ T O.-P.: τῶ φθαλμῷ Β: τ᾽ ὀφθαλμὼ W

ἀξίωμα. ‘Social standing”: “erat genere Alcmaeonida...ipse Periclis in tutela erat” (Riickert). Cp. 1 Ale. 1048; Thuc. 11 37, v. 48, ete.

ἢ σαντόν. We should expect μᾶλλον ἣ αὐτός, but the accus. is put in order to balance ἐμὲ, “‘ propter oppositionis gravitatem” (Stallb.). For the omission of μᾶλλον after words ‘denoting a wish or choice,” see Madv. Gr. S. § 93 ὁ.

221 Α ἀπὸ Δηλίον. For this famous battle in Boeotia (424 B.c.), when the Athenians under Hippocrates were routed by the Thebans under Pagondas, see Thuc. tv. 76 ff, Bury’s Hist. Gr. pp. 442—3.

καὶ Λάχης. Cp. Lach. 181 3. Athenaeus (v. 329 ff.) perversely contends that Socr. took part in no battle.

περιτυγχάνω. Cp. Hermann on Ar. Vub. 196, “ ἐπιτυγχάνειν dicitur qui quaerit, περιτυγχ. qui non quaerens in aliquid incidit.”

κάλλιον ἐθεασάμην. “1 got a finer view of”: cp. Rep. 467 B ἐφ᾽ ἵππων... κάλλιστά τε θεάσονται.. καὶ ἀσφαλέστατα κτλ.

ἐν φόβῳ. Cp. 197 D,

ἔμφρων. “Cool,” “collected”; cp. Jon 535 Β πότερον ἔμφρων εἶ, ἢ ἔξω σαυτοῦ γίγνει; Laws 19] Β ἀντὶ μανικῶν..«ἕξεις ἔμφρονας ἔχειν.

221 Β τὸ σὸν δὴ τοῦτος An accus. absol., like τὸ λεγόμενον : “ut tuo illo utar” (Stallb.). Cp. Soph. 233 B, Huthyd. 284 c (with Schanz, nov, comm. pp. 76f.). The ref. is to Ar. Wub. 362 ὅτι βρενθύει τ' ἐν ταῖσιν ὁδοῖς καὶ τὠφθάλμω παραβάλλεις. The Clouds was not produced until the year after the battle of Delium, viz. 423 B.c.

βρενθυόμενος. “Stalking like a pelican” (Jowett): Schol. ad Nub. 362 βρενθύει: ἀποσεμνύνεις σεαυτὸν ἐν τῷ σχήματι καὶ ταυρηδὸν ὁρᾷς" κομπάζεις καὶ ὑπεροπτικῶς βαδίζεις: cp. Schol. ad Pax 25, ad Lysist. 887. “ Nimirum ductum est verbum a βρένθος, quod significat avem aquaticam, frequenter ad paludes commorantem altisque pedibus incedentem” (Stallb.).

τὠφθαλμὼ παραβάλλων. ‘“H. 6. torvo vultu oculos in obliquum vertens ἢ

11—2

164 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [221 B

e a \ n ἠρέμα παρασκοπῶν καὶ τοὺς φιλίους καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους, δῆλος ὧν tf a παντὶ καὶ πάνυ πόρρωθεν, ὅτι εἴ τις ἅψεται τούτου τοῦ ἀνδρός, ΄΄ > i > a Ν εἶ ? lal 3 , Ν a μάλα ἐρρωμένως ἀμυνεῖται. διὸ καὶ ἀσφαλῶς ἀπήει καὶ οὗτος a n Ζ καὶ ὁ ἑταῖρος" σχεδὸν γάρ τι τῶν οὕτω διακειμένων ἐν τῷ Ο πολέμῳ οὐδὲ ἅπτονται, ἀλλὰ τοὺς προτροπάδην φεύγοντας διώ- η ᾽ κουσι. Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν ἄν τις καὶ ἄλλα ἔχοι Σωκράτη ἐπαινέσαι καὶ θαυμάσια: ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων ἐπιτηδευμάτων τάχ᾽ ἄν τις καὶ μ μ 7 x Ν ow nr ΝΜ Ν Ν \ 3% 14 a ἐν Es περὶ ἄλλου τοιαῦτα εἴποι, τὸ δὲ μηδενὶ ἀνθρώπων ὅμοιον εἶναι, μήτε τῶν παλαιῶν μήτε τῶν νῦν ὄντων, τοῦτο ἄξιον παντὸς θαύματος. \ 3 Ἂς ? - > , yw \ ,ὔ Ἂ οἷος yap ᾿Αχιλλεὺς ἐγένετο, ἀπεικάσειεν ἄν τις καὶ Βρασίδαν καὶ

221 Β περισκοπῶν Ast Bekk, Sz. φιλίους BTW: φίλους al., O.-P., Steph. αψαιτο O,-P. ἀμύνηται B διὸ... διώκουσιν 560]. Hartmann διὸ δὴ καὶ Arist. οὗτος : autos O.-P. ἑταῖρος Arist., Sz. Bt.: ἕτερος libri, O.-P., J.-U. ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ante ἀλλὰ ponit Arist. C μᾶλλον post φεύ- yovras addit Arist. θαυμάσαι Hirschig τῶν μὲν : των O.-P. (ut videtur) δὲ: δὲ dn Ο.-Ρ, εἶναι μήτε TW.O.-P.: εἶναί pe B

(Stallb.). Rettig objects that this rendering is inconsistent with ἠρέμα φιλίους, and explains by “oculis prope admotis intueri, also scharf ansehen,” cp. Phaedo 103 a, Rep. 531 4, Ast gives “oculos in aliquid immotos habere intentos”: Reynders, τὸ βλέμμα ἄνω καὶ κάτω κινεῖν: Jowett, “rolling his eyes.”

ἠρέμα παρασκοπῶν. This verb is dz. εἰρ. in Plato, and perhaps conveys a literary allusion: Riickert explains it to mean “oculis quasi comitari, ob- servare, ut omnes motus lento oculorum motu notare videaris.”

δῆλος... «πόρρωθεν. “Similiter Apollodorus, qui Socratis incessum imitatus est, τῶν οὖν...πόρρωθεν ἐκάλεσεν κτλ." (Hommel).

ὁ ἑταῖρος. So Jahn, after Aristides t. 11. p. 72: the more definite term is preferable, as Rettig argues against Teuffel. For confusion of the two words in the codd., ep. 183 ὁ (crzt. n.), and see Schanz, nov. comm. Ὁ. 59.

221 Ο προτροπάδην. “In headlong rout”—an Epic (11. xvi. 304) word, ἅπ. εἰρ. in Plato. For the sense, cp. Tyrt. 11. 11—13 of μὲν yap τολμῶσι... παυρότεροι θνήσκουσι κτλ. : Seneca, Hp. 94 audentes fortuna iuvat (see Bergk, ad Simon. fr. 227): Zl. v. 531 f. αἰδομένων δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν πλέονες σόοι ἠὲ πέφαν- ται" φευγόντων δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἂρ κλέος ὄρνυται οὔτε τις ἀλκή: ἐδ. XV. 561 ff.

Πολλὰ...καὶ ἄλλα κτλ. Cp, 195 B, 201 ν. Hirschig’s θαυμάσαι gives us (as Rettig argues) “einen matten Gedanken.”

θαύματος. “Of wonder” (the subjective feeling), cp. Phil. 36 pv, Laws 967 a: elsewhere in Plato θαῦμα means “quod mirum est.”

οἷος γὰρ κτλ. For Achilles, see Od. Iv. 267 ff.; and cp. 179 Ef.

Βρασίδαν. For this famous Spartan leader, who fell fighting at Amphi- polis in 422 3.c., see Thue. 11. 25, 85 ff, ν. 6; Bury, Hist. Gr. pp. 445 ff.

221 Ε] ZYMTOZION 165

ἄλλους, καὶ οἷος αὖ Περικλῆς, καὶ Νέστορα καὶ ᾿Αντήνορα, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι" καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους κατὰ ταῦὔτ' ἄν τις ἀπεικάξοι" οἷος D δὲ οὑτοσὶ γέγονε τὴν ἀτοπίαν ἅνθρωπος, καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ, οὐδ᾽ ἐγγὺς ἂν εὕροι τις ζητῶν, οὔτε τῶν νῦν οὔτε τῶν παλαιῶν, εἰ μὴ ἄρα εἰ οἷς ἐγὼ λέγω ἀπεικάζοι τις αὐτόν, ἀν- θρώπων μὲν μηδενί, τοῖς δὲ σιληνοῖς καὶ σατύροις, αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς λόγους.

XXXVII. Καὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις παρέλιπον, ὅτι καὶ οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ ὁμοιότατοί εἰσι τοῖς σιληνοῖς τοῖς διοιγο- μένοις. εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλοι τις τῶν Σωκράτους ἀκούειν λόγων, φανεῖεν EB ἂν παγγέλοιοι τὸ πρῶτον" τοιαῦτα καὶ ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα ἔξωθεν περιαμπέχονται, σατύρου [ἂν] τινὰ ὑβριστοῦ δοράν. ὄνους γὰρ

221 Ο εἰσὶ... ἕτεροι 560]. Jn. J.-U. εἰσὶ : οἷοι Bdhm. Ὁ τοὺς del. Bdhm.: τοὺς (μὲν) Hirschig ταὔτ᾽ : ταῦτ᾽ B: τοῦτ᾽ W ἅνθρωπος Sauppe Sz. Bt.: ἄνθρωπος BT οὔτε τῶν νῦν..-παλαιῶν del. (Hommel) Hirschig Jn.

ἄρα εἰ B: dpa TW O.-P. λέγω TW O.-P.: λέγων B αὐτόν τε καὶ vulg. E ἐθέλοι B: ἐθέλει T τῶν..«λόγων TW O.-P.: τὸν..«λόγον B παγγέλοιοι Scripsi: πάνυ γελοῖοι TW O.-P., vulg. Bt.: γελοῖοι Β, J.-U. Sz. τινὰ B O.-P., J.-U. Sz.: ἄν τινα TW: δή τινα Baiter Cobet Bt.: αὖ τινα Riickert

Περικλῆς. Seo 215 αὶ π.) Gorg. 515 ὁ ff, 519 a.

Νέστορα καὶ ᾿Αντήνορα. Comparable to Pericles on the ground of cloquence (cp. 215 B, Pericles as ἀγαθὸς ῥήτωρ). For Nestor, see Hom. J/. 1. 247 ff. ; for Antenor, Jd. vir. 347 ff.; Hor. Hp. τ. 2. 9.

221 D τὴν ἀτοπίαν. “Originalitit” (Wolf): see 215 A n.

ἀνθρώπων μὲν κτλ. See 215 4,3, 2168, ,

221 Ἡ παγγέλοιοι. Cp. 189 B, 215 a; the context shows that -γέλοιος here is nearly equiv. to καταγέλαστος. Of Socr., as of δ. Paul, it was said that “his speech was contemptible.”

ὀνόματα kal ῥήματα. See 198 Bn.

ἔξωθεν περιαμπέχονται. Cp. 216 B ἔξωθεν περιβέβληται.

σατύρου [ἂν] τινὰ. Stallb. vainly argues in ἃ long note “dy tenendum et per ellipsin verbi (1.9. οὖσαν) explicandum esse.”

ὑβριστοῦ. Cp. 215 B, 175 Ε. In dopdy, the satyr’s “hide,” there is an allusion, no doubt, to the flaying of Marsyas by Apollo.

ὄνους yap κτλ. “His talk is of pack-asses and smiths and cobblers and curriers” (Jowett). Schol. κανθηλίους- τοὺς βραδεῖς νοῆσαι ἢ ἀφυεῖς. ἀπὸ κάν- θωνος, ὅς ἐστιν ὄνος, εἰρημένοι, κτλ. : cp. Ar. Vesp. 170ff., 177 ff. For ὄνοι in Plato, ep. Gorg. 516 a, Rep. 663 σ ; for χαλκεῖς, Prot. 819 D, Crat. 388 D, 389 ΕΒ. Cp. Gorg. 490 c ff., where Callicles objects ἀτεχνῶς ye det σκυτέας τε καὶ κναφέας καὶ μαγείρους λέγων καὶ ἰατροὺς οὐδὲν παύει κτλ.: Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 37 ὁ δὲ Κριτίας, ᾿Αλλὰ τῶνδέ τοί σε ἀπέχεσθαι, ἔφη, δεήσει, ὦ Σώκρατες, τῶν σκυτέων καὶ τῶν τεκτόνων καὶ τῶν χαλκέων : tb. IV. 4.5—6: Max. Tyr. diss. 1x. 1.

166 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [22] Ε

FA ‘

κανθηλίους λέγει καὶ χαλκέας τινὰς Kal σκυτοτόμους καὶ βυρ-

an n , 4

σοδέψας, καὶ del διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν τὰ αὐτὰ φαίνεται λέγειν, ὥστε a n ’ Ψ'

ἄπειρος καὶ ἀνόητος ἄνθρωπος πᾶς ἂν τῶν λόγων καταγελάσειεν.

‘ A OON a \ 2? XN ᾽ n a nq \

222 διοιγομένους δὲ ἰδὼν αὖ τις Kal ἐντὸς αὐτῶν γιγνόμενος πρῶτον μὲν n , 14 -

νοῦν ἔχοντας ἔνδον μόνους εὑρήσει τῶν λόγων, ἔπειτα θειοτάτους \ a > > + >» 9 a 2 e “ιν ᾿ς κκ αὶ a

καὶ πλεῖστ᾽ ἀγάλματ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχοντας καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον

- an a a £ τείνοντας, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπὶ wav ὅσον προσήκει σκοπεῖν τῷ μέλλοντι καλῷ κἀγαθῷ ἔσεσθαι.

n oon

Ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἃ ἐγὼ Σωκράτη ἐπαινῶ" καὶ αὖ ἃ pép-

a \ a ‘+ 5 X

φομαι συμμίξας ὑμῖν εἶπον & με ὕβρισεν. Kal μέντοι οὐκ ἐμὲ

n ΕἾ 7 .

Β μόνον ταῦτα πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Xappidnv τὸν Pravewvos καὶ

Evdvenuoy τὸν Διοκλέους καὶ ἄλλους πάνυ πολλούς, ods οὗτος

nye

3 lal © > \ Ν na 2 4 tf ? Ls

ἐξαπατῶν ὡς ἐραστὴς παιδικὰ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς καθίσταται ἀντ

221 Ἐ; κανθηλινους O.-P. 222 A διοιγουμένου: Β αὖ Bekk. Hug Bt.:

ἄν libri, O.-P.: δὴ Sz. ἐγγὺς αὐτῶν ye Hommel εὑρήσειε Usener τῶν

λόγων TW O.-P.: τὸν λόγον B: del. Wagner Voeg. τείνοντας TW: τινοντας 0.-P.: τείναντας B ἐπὶ TW O.-P.: ἔτι B Β πάνυ om. Ο.-Ρ.

222 Α ἰδὼν αὖ τις. “ἄν cum participio cohaeret hoc sensu, ἐάν τις ἴδῃ... st quis forte viderit” (Riickert) ; Stallb., too, defends ἄν, citing Rep. 589 Ἐ, Phaedo 610, Huthyd. 287 Ὁ ; the objection of Riickert and Rettig, that αὖ ought to stand after διοιγομένους rather than after ἰδών, is not fatal.

μόνους... τῶν λόγων. For the contrast implied, cp. Homer’s οἷος πέπνυται, ταὶ δὲ σκιαὶ ἀΐσσουσιν (Meno 100 4). A similar ascription of life to λόγοι is to be found in λαρά». 276 a.

θειοτάτους κτλ. Cp. 216 »--π, The whole of this account of Socrates’ λόγοι is virtually an encomium of his σοφία.

τείνοντας... ἐπὶ πᾶν. Cp. 188 B ἐπὶ wav ὁ θεὸς τείνει: Rep. 581 B. For echoes of phrases in the previous speeches here, and throughout Alcib.’s speech, see Introd. § vi (3).

ἃ μέμφομαι κτλ. “Verba ita connectenda sunt: καὶ συμμίξας αὖ ἃ pép- φομαι εἶπον ὑμῖν ἅ με ὕβρισε" (Stallb.). Stephens erroneously put a comma, Wolf ἃ full stop, after μέμφομαι. Riickert, agreeing with Stallb., put a comma after συμμίξας, and Hommel added another after αὖ. Jowett’s transl.,—“I have added my blame of him for his ill-treatment of me”—seems to imply a different view of the construction. The points alluded to are those men- tioned in 217 Β ff., 219 ο.

222 Β Χαρμίδην. For Charmides, Plato’s avunculus, see Charm. 154, 157; Xen. Mem. 111. 7, Symp. τι. 9 ete.

Εἰ ὑθύδημον. This Euthydemus, son of Diocles (see Xen. Mem. tv. 2. 40), is not to be confounded with his namesake the sophist, who appears in the dialogue Luthyd.

παιδικὰ, ἀντ᾽ ἐραστοῦ. “The object rather than the subject of love.” This may fairly be construed, with Rettig, as an indication that Socr., the

222 o| ZYMTIOZION 167

> an fal

ἐραστοῦ. ἃ δὴ καὶ col λέγω, ὦ ᾿Αγάθων, μὴ ἐξαπατᾶσθαι ὑπὸ ΄ ’ > ’ AY a ¢ , f , ᾽

τούτου, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων παθημάτων γνόντα εὐλαβη-

θῆναι, καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν ὥσπερ νήπιον παθόντα

γνῶναι. ΧΧΧΥ͂ΠΙ. Εἰπόντος δὴ ταῦτα τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου γέλωτα Lé na el

γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ παρρησίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐδόκει ἔτι ἐρωτικῶς ἔχειν TOD

4 a

Σωκράτους. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη, Νήφειν μοι δοκεῖς, φάναι, ὦ ᾿Αλκι- t ea

βιάδη. οὐ yap ἄν ποθ᾽ οὕτω κομψῶς κύκλῳ περιβαλλόμενος

> ,ὔ a

ἀφανίσαι ἐνεχείρεις ov ἕνεκα ταῦτω πάντα εἴρηκας, καὶ ὡς ἐν f \ tf fal

παρέργῳ δὴ λέγων ἐπὶ τελευτῆς αὐτὸ ἔθηκας, WS οὐ πάντα τούτου 222 Β ἐξαπατᾶσθε Β αλλ᾽ υπο Ο.-Ρ1 γνῶντα Β Ο᾽ παρησια O.-P.

εδοκε τ[ι] Ο.- 1 ομψῶς pr. B οὗ ἕνεκα TW: οὐδ᾽ ἕνεκα B: owexa O.-P. (vy e ὃ corr.): οὗ δὴ ἕνεκα Usener

embodiment of the ideal κάλλος, is exalted above Eros (cp. 201 A): contrast 180 B θειότερον ἐραστὴς παιδικῶν. For the reversal of the réles of Alc. and Soer., ep. 1. Ale. 135 D κινδυνεύσομεν μεταβαλεῖν τὸ σχῆμα, ὦ Σώκρατες, τὸ μὲν σὸν ἐγώ, σὺ δὲ τοὐμόν. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅπως οὐ παιδαγωγήσω σε κτλ. Cp. also Xen. Symp. vu. 5; and see Introd. § vi. 3.

ἃ δὺ.. ἐξαπατᾶσθαι. Hommel and Rettig, after Stallb., take the infin. clause to be cpexegetic of ἅ: Riickert construes éfar. as a second accus, depending on λέγω: Hug makes the infin. depend on ἃ λέγω (equiv. to “I givo you this warning”) as on a “verbum voluntatis.” It may be simply an oblique imperative.

κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν. Cp. Hom. 11. xvil. 33 ῥεχθὲν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω: ib, XX. 198: Hes. Op. 218 παθὼν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω: Hat. 1. 207 παθήματα μαθή- para: Aesch. Ag. 177, Cho. 313: Soph. O. C. 143: and our English proverb “a, burnt child dreads the fire.” Schol. ῥεχθὲν...ἔγνω- ἐπὶ τῶν μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν συνιέντων τὸ ἁμάρτημα. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἑτέρα παροιμία: ὁ ἁλιεὺς πληγεὶς νοῦν φύσει. κτλ.

222 Ο παρρησίᾳ. “Naivetit” (Wolf); see A.’s excuses for it in 217 Ε.

Nie μοι δοκεῖς. Echoing the phrase previously used by Alcib. (δοκεῖτε γάρ μοι νήφειν 213 8), Socr. jocosely derides his repeated plea of intoxication 212 8, 2146, etc.), saying in effect: “It’s sober you are, not drunk; otherwise you could never have excogitated so deep a scheme.”

κομψῶς. Of a “pretty” trick; cp. Z'hecaet. 202 p, Soph. 236 Ὁ.

κύκλῳ περιβαλλόμενος. See Ast ad Phaedr. 272 Ὁ “imago desumta est ab amictu, quem rhetores, priusquam perorarent, componere solebant: V. Quintil. χα, 3. 116”: Cic. de or. m1. 39, 188 se circumvestit dictis. For κύκλῳ ep. Ar. het. τ. 9. 33 (with Cope’s note), 1. 14. 10, and Virgil’s “per ambages” (G. τι. 45).

ἐπὶ τελευτῆς. 7.6. as if it were an after-thought only: cp. 198 B, Phaedr. 267 Dv.

168 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [222 c

Ὁ ἕνεκα εἰρηκώς, τοῦ ἐμὲ καὶ ᾿Αγάθωνα διαβάλλειν, οἰόμενος δεῖν ἐμὲ μὲν σοῦ ἐρᾶν καὶ μηδενὸς ἄλλου, ᾿Αγάθωνα δὲ ὑπὸ σοῦ ἐρᾶσθαι καὶ μηδ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἄλλου. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔλαθες, ἀλλὰ τὸ σατυρικόν σου δρᾶμα τοῦτο καὶ σιληνικὸν κατάδηλον ἐγένετο. adr’, ὦ φίλε ᾿Αγάθων, μηδὲν πλέον αὐτῷ γένηται, ἀλλὰ παρασκενάξου ὅπως ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ μηδεὶς διαβαλεῖ. τὸν οὖν ᾿Αγάθωνα εἰπεῖν, Kal μήν,

Ed Σώκρατες, κινδυνεύεις ἀληθῆ λέγειν. τεκμαίρομαι δὲ καὶ ὡς κατεκλίνη ἐν μέσῳ ἐμοῦ τε καὶ σοῦ, ἵνα χωρὶς ἡμᾶς διαλάβῃ. οὐδὲν οὖν πλέον αὐτῷ ἔσται, GAN ἐγὼ παρὰ σὲ ἐλθὼν κατακλινή- σομαι. Πάνυ γε, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, δεῦρο ὑποκάτω ἐμοῦ κατα-

222 Ὁ διαβαλεῖ Hirschig Cobet Sz. Bt.: διαβαλει O.-P.: διαβάλῃ BTW

222D ἐμὲ...διαβάλλειν. “To set us at variance”: ep. 222 Ὁ, Rep. 498 c.

οἰόμενος δεῖν κτλ. 116. thinking that you must at once monopolise Socr. as your ἐραστής and Agathon as your παιδικά. For δεῖν, cp, 222 ΠΕ.

GAN οὐκ ἔλαθες κτλ. For the conversational carelessness of the repeated ἀλλά, ep. 175 B (four times).

τὸ σατυρικόν cov δρᾶμα κτλ. A playful allusion to the εἰκόνες employed by Alcib. in his encomium (see 215 B). For “satyric drama” see Smith, D. A. ut. 860b: “The satyr-drama was so-called because the Chorus consisted of satyrs attendant on Dionysus...it was aptly described as παίζουσα rpa- yodia”: Jevons, Hist. Gk. Lit. p. 186.

μηδὲν πλέον κτλ. An echo of the language of Alcib. in 217 c.

222 ἘΞ χωρὶς διαλάβῃ. ‘Dictum hoc eleganter cum amphibolia quadam, ut ct de spatio possit cogitari et de animoruin disiunctione” (Stallb.): ep. Phil. 55 ν.

ὑποκάτω ἐμοῦ. The original order of the places on this (ἐσχάτη) κλίνη was (1) Agathon, Socrates (see 175 c—p): then Alcibiades on his entrance had seated himself in the middle (213 B ad init.), thus making the order (2) Agathon, Alcib., Socr.: now Socrates invites Agathon to shift his position so as to change the order to (3) Alcib., Socr., Agathon: presently, in the sentence following, Alcibiades suggests that, instead of this, Agathon should take the middle place (ἐν μέσῳ ἡμῶν), which would result in the order (4) Alcib., Agathon, Socrates. But the adoption of this last order is, as Socr. hastens to point out, impossible, inasmuch as it would cause serious dislocation in the series of λόγοι which are bound to procecd in order from left to right (see 214 6), each speaker taking for his theme his next neighbour on the right. If the order (4) were adopted, it would be the duty of the next speaker, Agathon, to eulogize Socrates, a task already performed by Alcib. himself; whereas by adopting the order (3), the next speech would fall to Socr., and he would have for his theme Agathon, an arrangement unobjection- able in itself and well-pleasing to Socr. (πάνυ ἐπιθυμῶ αὐτὸν ἐγκωμιάσαι, 223 A) as well as to Agathon (ἰοῦ ἰοῦ κτλ., 223 A).

228 Α] ZYMTIOZION 169

Ψ᾿ ε J a ‘ κλίνου. Ὦ Zed, εἰπεῖν τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, ola αὖ πάσχω ὑπὸ τοῦ Σ , , , A a a ἀνθρώπου. οἴεταί pou δεῖν πανταχῇ περιεῖναι. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μή τι Μ' Ay , 2 a n > ἄλλο, ὦ θαυμάσιε, ἐν μέσῳ ἡμῶν ἔα ᾿Αγάθωνα κατακεῖσθαι. “AN ἰδύ ᾿ ‘ , \ \ \ a Ὁ oe ἐἱ a} ἀδύνατον, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη. σὺ μὲν yap ἐμὲ ἐπήνεσας, δεῖ ὃ 3 Ν + BY by Ἂν » a ἐμὲ av τὸν ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἐπαινεῖν. ἐὰν οὖν ὑπὸ σοὶ κατακλινῇ ᾿Αγά- > La 7 4 rn θων--οὐ δή που ἐμὲ πάλιν ἐπαινέσεται, πρὶν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ μᾶλλον ᾽ a > > »¥ 7 , τ ἐπαινεθῆναι; ἀλλ᾽ ἔασον, ὦ δαιμόνιε, καὶ μὴ φθονήσῃς τῷ 223 4 Ὁ > > an ᾽ a Led μειρακίῳ ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐπαινεθῆναι" καὶ yap πάνυ ἐπιθυμῶ αὐτὸν : ; : ᾿ : ἐγκωμιάσαι. “lod ἰοῦ, φάναι τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα, ᾿Αλκιβιάδη, οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ μιᾷ x ᾿ é n ὅπως ἂν ἐνθάδε μείναιμι, ἀλλὰ παντὸς μᾶλλον μεταναστήσομαι, oe 4 A a lal a ἵνα ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἐπαινεθῶ. Ταῦτα ἐκεῖνα, φάναι tov ᾿Αλκι- ὃ N28 66 a ᾿ ΄ a a a βιάδην, τὰ εἰωθότα Σωκράτους παρόντος τῶν καλῶν μεταλαβεῖν i , ba \ a © ? 12 \ ἢ , @ ἀδύνατον ἄλλῳ. καὶ viv ὡς εὐπόρως Kat πιθανὸν λόγον ηὗρεν, La ’ a ὥστε Tap ἑαυτῷ τουτονὶ κατακεῖσθαι.

222 EB περιεῖναι: περιΐεναι O.-P. γὰρ ἐμὲ BO.-P.: γάρ pe TW αὖ τὸν

Bekk.: αὖ rov B O.-P.: αὐτὸν T: αὖ τόνδ᾽ Ast κατακλιθὴη O.-P. οὐ δή mov: οὕτω δήπου Bdhm.: fort. οὐ δεῖ που ἐπαινέσεται: fort. ἐπαινέσαι vel ἐπαινεῖσθαι πρὶν : δεῖν Usener Hug: παρὸν (vel παρεὶς... ἄλλον) Bdhm. 223 Α μᾶλλον B O.-P.: ,,, μᾶλλον T: om. Vind. 21: ἄλλον Mdvg.

ε Ἢ ἐπαινεθῆναι; distinxit Ast ἰού ἰού T παντὸς : παντοσ[ᾳ) O.-P. εὐπορω O.-P.

ola av πάσχω. “How I am fooled” (Jowett). This echoes 215 Ὁ οἷα δὴ πέπονθα κτλ.: cp. 184 B κακῶς πάσχων (80. ὁ épapevos).

ὑπὸ σοὶ. ὁ ὑπό τινι (or ὑποκάτω τινος) is equiv. to ὁ ἐπὶ δεξιά (cp. 175 ¢ n.).

οὐ δή που κτλ. If we retain the ms. reading, this clause is best printed as interrogative (so Bt. and Lehrs)—taking the place of a regular apodosis, such as δεήσει αὐτὸν ἐμὲ πάλιν ἐπαινεῖν. Against Badh.,—who wrote “ mon- stri vero simile est, rpiv im’ ἐμοῦ μᾶλλον éeraveOjvat,”—Rettig attempts to defend the text thus: “Statt der Worte: ‘er wird eher wollen von mir gelobt werden, als mich loben,’ setze man: es wird nicht verlangt werden k6nnen, dass er mich lobe, bevor ich vielmehr ihn gelobt habe”; ἐ6. οὐ δήπου ἐπαινέσεται is equiv, to οὐ δήπου ἐπαινεῖν ἐθελήσει. This, however, is awkward ; and some corruption must, I believe, be assumed: if so, the changes I have proposed seem the most plausible.

223 A ᾿Ιοῦ tod. For a distinction between ἰοῦ, as a cry of joy, and ἰού, of pain, see Schol.on Ar. Vub. 1170. Here it denotes jubilation, not commisera- tion as Hommel suggests (““Wehe, wehe, armer Alkibiades ” etc.).

Tatra ἐκεῖνα. Cp. 210 2, Charm. 166 Β (Schanz nov. comm. Ὁ. 16).

εὐπόρως. This echoes phrases in the description of Eros, son of Πόρος, see 203 Ὁ (πόριμος), 203 ΒΕ (εὐπορήσῃ), 204 Β (warpos...edmdpov). Similarly πιθανὸν suggests the plausible tongue of the γόης and σοφιστής of 308 Ὁ.

πιθανὸν λόγον ηὗρεν. For this “inventiveness of plausible argument” as belonging to the art of the sophistical rhetor, cp. Gorg.457 a ff., Phaedr. 269 p.

170 TIAATQNOZ (223 B

XXXIX. Tov μὲν οὖν ᾿Αγάθωνα ὡς κατακεισόμενον παρὰ τῷ t ee ° rg > A a ,

Σωκράτει ἀνίστασθαι" ἐξαίφνης δὲ BONDE ES ἥκειν mama Mans ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας, καὶ ἐπιτυχόντας ἀνεῳγμέναις ἐξιόντος τινὸς εἰς τὸ ὄνημορας πορεύεσθαι παρὰ φᾶς καὶ κατακλίνεσθαι, καὶ θορύβον μεστὰ πάντα εἶναι, καὶ οὐκέτι ἐν κόσμῳ οὐδενὶ, ἀναγκάζεσθαι πίνειν πάμπολυν οἶνον. τὸν μὲν οὖν ᾿ΕἘρυξίμαχον καὶ τὸν Φαῖδρον καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς ἔφη ὁ ᾿Αριστόδημος οἴχεσθαι ἀπιόντας, ὲ δὲ [ἡ tal Ν tal ͵ὔ , é n tad a ὕπνον λαβεῖν, καὶ καταδαρθεῖν πάνυ πολύ, ἅτε μακρῶν τῶν νυκτῶν

πων δ: 4 δὲ \ ἅν οὐ "δ ᾽ , 86 οὐσῶν, ἐξεγρέσθαι δὲ πρὸς ἡμέραν ἤδη ἀλεκτρνόνων ἀδόντων, ? i + “οΝ n A ¥ Ψ' t \ ? ἡ ἐξεγρόμενος δὲ ἰδεῖν τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους καθεύδοντας καὶ οἰχομένους, ᾽ , ΄᾿ \? ta x 3 ” , ? ΓΙ Ayabova δὲ καὶ ᾿Αριστοφάνη καὶ Σωκράτη ἔτι μόνους ἐγρηγορέναι

\ 7 > f ͵ 2 Ne / XX > f ᾽ -“ καὶ πίνειν ἐκ φιάλης μεγάλης ἐπὶ δεξιά. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη αὐτοῖς

223 Β αναιωγμεναις O.-P.! εἰς τὸ: εἰσω O.-P. (τους) αλλους Ο.-Ρ. ἑ δὲ BW: ἔαδε T: εαυτον δε O.-P. C καταδάρθειν Rettig πάνυ: ate 0.-P.1 Σωκρατὴ και Αριστοφανη O.-P. Ven. 184 Vind. 21 peyadns

φι[λΊαλης O.-P. Paris 1642 Vat. 229

223 Β ἐξαίφνης δὲ κτλ. Cp. the “sudden” tumultuous entrance of Alcibiades (212 © καὶ ἐξαίφνης κτλ.). The incursion here is devised in order to save the situation. For the sake of artistic effect, the series of λόγοι must now stop: the climax having been reached in the encomium of Socr. by Alcib., to add a eulogy of any lesser personage would be bathos.

ἐξιόντος τινὸς κτλ. Hommel comments: “imaginem proponit comissatorum contra nitente eo, qui iam exiturus erat, aditum vi expugnantium.” But, as Rettig remarks, there is no hint in the text of wis or of nisus. The words ἐξιόντος τινὸς are merely put in to explain how it was that they found the doors open. eis τὸ ἄντικρυς is connected by Hommel and Stallb.? with ἐξιόντος, but by Riickert, Ast and Stallb.' with πορεύεσθαι: the former view is preferable.

᾿Ερυξίμαχον. Eryx. and Phaedrus are represented throughout as “hunting in couples”; and it is characteristic of the former, as an authority on health, and of the latter, as a valetudinarian, that they should be the first to escape from the scene of θόρυβος and παμπολὺς οἶνος : cp. 176 BEL, 214 a ff.

223 Ο μακρῶν τῶν νυκτῶν. This indication of date would suit either the Lenaea in January or the Great Dionysia in March, though rather favouring the former (cp. Introd. § ὙἼΠ a).

ἀλεκτρυόνων ἀφδόντων. Cp. Theaet. 164 ¢ ἀλεκτρυόνος ἀγεννοῦς δίκην... «δειν. The hour of cock-crow was, theoretically, the 3rd watch (12—3 a.m.): cp. Ev. Me, xiii. 35. Jowett’s “he was awakened by a crowing of cocks” misses ἤδη, which goes with ἀδόντων. ‘

καὶ olxopévous. We should expect ἢ rather than καί: but (as Riickert observes) of μὲν ἄλλοι fall into two subdivisions,—those absent in spirit (καθεύδ.), and those absent in body (οἶχομ.).

ἐγρηγορέναι κτλ. Cp, Athen, v. 192 A Σωκράτης...ἐγρήγορε...καὶ πίνει ἐξ ἀργυροῦ φρέατος: καλῶς γάρ τις τὰ μέγαλα ποτήρια οὕτως ὠνόμασε κτλ.

223 Ὁ] ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΝ 171

διαλέγεσθαι" καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ὁ ᾿Αριστόδημος οὐκ ἔφη μεμνῆσθαι τῶν λόγων---οὔτε γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραγενέσθαι ὑπονυστάζειν τε" τὸ μέντοι κεφάλαιον, ἔφη, προσαναγκάξειν τὸν Σωκράτη ὁμολογεῖν αὐτοὺς τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀνδρὸς εἶναι κωμῳδίαν καὶ τραγῳδίαν ἐπίστασθαι ποιεῖν, καὶ τὸν τέχνῃ τραγῳδοποιὸν ὄντα «καὶ; κωμῳδοποιὸν εἶναι. ταῦτα δὴ ἀναγκαζομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐ σφόδρα ἑπομένους νυστάζξειν, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν καταδαρθεῖν τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνη, ἤδη δὲ ἡμέρας γιγνομένης τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη, κατακοιμί- σαντ᾽ ἐκείνους, ἀναστάντα ἀπιέναι, καὶ <é> ὥσπερ εἰώθει ἕπεσθαι, καὶ ἐλθόντα εἰς Λύκειον, ἀπονιψάμενον, ὥσπερ ἄλλοτε τὴν ἄλλην

2235 Ὁ καὶ κωμωδοποιὸν Vind. 21, vulg. Sz. Bt.: κωμῳδοποιὸν BTW O.-P. πρῶτον B: πρότερον TW O.-P. Δριστοφανου. O.-P. γενομένης vulg.

Hirschig κατακοιμίσαντ᾽ BW 0.-P.: κατακοιμήσαντ᾽ T καὶ ὃ Herm. Sz. Bt.: καὶ libri, O.-P.: καὶ t Bekker ἄλλην : ὅλην Ficivus

τὰ μὲν ἄλλα κτλ. This is artistic selection disguised under the cloke of imperfect recollection, cp. 178 a, 180 σ.

223 Ὁ τὸ μέντοι κεφάλαιον. “The gist of it was...”: cp. 205 D ad init.

τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀνδρὸς κτλ. Cp. Lon 534 B τέχνῃ ποιοῦντες. Here both τέχνῃ and ἐπίστασθαι are emphatic, with no distinction between them implied. The point of Socrates’ argument is that the sczentzfie poet must be mastor of the art of poetry in its universal, generic aspect, and therefore of both its included species, tragedy and comedy. This thought, if developed, might be shown to mean that full knowledge both of λόγοι and of ψυχαί, and of the effects of the one on the other, is requisite to form a master-poet. Which is equivalent to saying that, just as the ideal State requires the philosopher- king, so ideal Art is impossible without the φιλόσοφος- ποιητής. The thesis here maintained by Socrates finds in the supreme instance of Shakspere both illustration and confirmation: “The Merry Wives” came from the same hand as “Othello” and “ Lear.”

The statement in Schol. ad Ar. Ran. 214 and Philostr. (vit. soph. 1. 9, p. 439) that Agathon wrote comedies as well as tragedies is probably due to a blunder: see Bentley, opuse. phil. p. 618.

οὐ σφόδρα ἑπομένους. “Erant enim vino languidi. Ad ἑπομένους in- telligi potest τοῖς λεγομένοις Luthyphr. p. 12 a οὐχ ἔπομαι τοῖς λεγομένοις ἢ (Stallb.).

κατακοιμίσαντα. An allusion, perhaps, to Agathon’s κοίτην ὕπνον τ᾽ ἐνὶ κήδει, 197 c. Cp. Laws 790 D κατακοιμίζειν τὰ δυσυπνοῦντα τῶν παιδίων.

<t>. Je. Aristodemus, the narrator: for his practice (εἰώθει) of dogging the footsteps of the Master, cp. 173 B, 174 B (ἔπου).

Λύκειον. This was ἃ gymnasium, sacred to Apollo Lyceus, situated in the eastern suburbs of Athens, though the exact site—whether 8.Ε. or N. of the

172 TAATQNOZ ZYMITTOZION [223 D

ἡμέραν διατρίβειν, καὶ οὕτω διατρίψαντα eis ἑσπέραν οἴκοι ἀνα- παύεσθαι. 223 D και x[a]e ovrw O.-P.

Cynosarges—is uncertain, The Lyceum is mentioned also in the beginning of the Lysis and of the Euthyphro; cp. Xen. Mem. τ. 1. 10, Paus. 1. 19. 4. “Thi Socr. versabatur propterea quod sophistae in eo scholas habcbant, quorum inscitiam solebat convincere, et quod plurimos illic adolescentes nanciscebatur, quibus cum sermones instituere posset” (Stallb.).

INDEX I.

᾿Αγαθόν, τὸ 109

ἄγαλμα 150

ἄγασθαι 27, 158

ἀγανός 82

ἀγαπᾶν 126

ἀγένειος 29

dyptaivew 6

dev, “to crow” 170

ἀεὶ πόρρω 6. gen. 152

ἀειγενῆης 113

ἀθανατώτερος 122

αἰτία ο. infin. 114

ἀκαιρία 84

ἄκλητος 7

ἀλγεινός, “sensitive” 153

ἅλες, encomia on xxi

ἀλήθεια )( δόξα 1111, 156

ἄλλο ἄλλοθεν 148

ἀμελέτητος 1

ἀμοιβή 98

ἄμοιρος 88, 97

ἄν, of repeated action 151

ἀνακογχυλιάσαι 45

ἀνάπλεως 131

ἀνδρόγυνος Xxxii, 56

ἀνδροῦσθαι 64

ἀνεμέσητος 72

ἄνθος 40, 76, 126

ἀνίλλεσθαι 112

ἀνόμοιος 46, 52

ἄντικρυς, εἰς τὸ 170

ἀνυπόδητος 4, 102

ἀξιομνημόνευτον 21

ἀξίωμα 163

ἁπαλός 74

ἁπλοῦν, verum 39

ἀποβάλλειν ὅπλα 26

ἀποληφθῆναι 159

ἀπονίζειν 11

ἀρετή, “renown” 119 » divisions of 77

GREEK.

dppovia 50, 111 dpvaxis 160 ἀρρενωπία 64 ἄρχων τῆς πόσεως 139 ἀσέβεια 53

ἀσκεῖν 133 ἀσκωλίζειν 59 ἀστρονομία 53 ἄστρωτος 102 ἀτοπία 143, 165 ἄτρωτος 159 αὔλειος θύρα 134 ἀφροδίσιος ὅρκος 38 duns 154

Βαλλάντιον 60 βάναυσος 100 βασανίζειν 41 βεβαπτισμένος 16 βέβηλος 154

βέλος 157

βιωτός 131, 146 Bratra 7

βούλομαι, sense of 92 BpevOverOa 163

Γελοῖος xxxiii, 55, 137 γελοιότερα, ἐπὶ ra 142, 143 γενειάσκειν 33

γένεσις 22, 23, 115 γενναῖος 121

γεωργία 49

yons 103

γοητεία 99

γυμναστική 48

Aatpovios 1x, 100, 157 δαίμων xxxvii, 98, 100 δεῖν, redundant 45 δῆλον καὶ παιδί 104 δημιουργία 79

174 INDEX

διαβάλλειν 168 ἐπιεικῶς 93

διαγιγνώσκειν 47 ἐπιλαβέσθαι 142

διαδικάζεσθαι 14 (cp. xx) ἐπιλήσμων 70

διαλαβεῖν 168 ἐπιμελὲς ποιεῖσθαι ὃ

διαπορθμεύειν 98 ἐπινίκια 3

διαπράξασθαι 32 ἐπίπνους 33

διαρθροῦν 61 ἐπιποθεῖν 105

διατίθεσθαι 114 ἐπιστήμη (Platonic) 127

διαφέρεσθαι 49, 50 ” (popular) xlii, 116

διαφθείρειν (παροιμίαν) 8 ἐπισχέσθαι 147

διαχεῖσθαι 112 ἐπιτάττειν 141

διηγεῖσθαι 95 ἐπιτήδευμα 126

δικαιοσύνη 77 ἐποπτικά, τὰ, xiii, 124

διοικίζεσθαι 66 ἔρανος 20

δόξα γ( ἀλήθεια 1111, 87 ἐργασία 107

» )(ἐπιστήμη 96 ἐρίζειν 6

δραπετεύειν 147 ἑρμηνεύειν 98

δύναμις 55, 133 ἑρμογλυφεῖον 144 ἐρυσίβη 52

“Ἑαυτοῦ, “characteristically” 155 ἔρως -- ἐπιθυμία xxxvii, 91

ἐγκύμων 120 ἐρωτικά, τὰ 20, 188

ἐγχεῖν 140 ἔσχατος 18

εἰ δὲ βούλει 19, 162 (cp. 184) ἑταιρίστρια χχχῖ, 63

εἴ τι, numquid 88 evavOns 76

εἶδος 56, 125 εὐαρίθμητος 27

εἴδωλον 132 εὐκλεής 119

εἶεν 118, 139 εὐπορεῖν 122

εἰκόνες 143 εὐπόρως 169

εἰκός, TO 9] εὑρετικός 121

Εἰλείθυια 111 evpuns 121

εἰλικρινῆς 131 εὐώδης 76

εἰπεῖν, senses of 73 ἐφάπτεσθαι 132

εἰρωνεύεσθαι 150 ἐφεξῆς 128

εἰσηγεῖσθαι 17, 56 ἔχειν, intrans. 146

ἐκ τόσον 62 » “8 able” 159

ἐκ τρίτων 137

ἐκεῖνος, “supersensual” 130 Ζηλοτυπεῖν 138

ἐκπεπληγμένος 145

ἐλλοχεῖν 137 "H, alioguin 138

ἔμβραχυ 150 j=padrdov ἤ 163

ἕν, τὸ 49 ἡγεῖσθαι ὁ. dat. et gen. 24

ev ἐρημίᾳ 151 ἦθος )( ψυχή 75

ἐν παντὶ εἶναι 69 ἡλικίᾳ, ἐν (τῇ) 110

ἐν τοῖς 6. superl. 22 ἣν σ. accus. et infin. 41

ἔνδεια 93

ἔνθεος, xlv n., 26, 29 Θάλλειν 103

ἐντὸς πολλοῦ 73 θαῦμα, subjective sense οὗ 164

ἐξαίφνης 128 θαυμάσια (-αστὰ) ἐργάζεσθαι 138, 160,

ἐπαναβαθμός 180 (87)

ἐπαποθανεῖν 119 θεά, θεός 81

ἔπειτα, tamen 139 θέατρον 70, 71

ἐπὶ δεξιά 20 θεῖος xliv n., 121, 166

ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς 136 θεοφιλής xlili, 133

ἐπιβάτης 83 θηρεντής 102

ἐπιδείκνυσθαι 70: ἐπίδοσιν ἔχειν 14 Ἰατρική 46, 47

ἰδιώτης )( ποιήτης 22 ἵνα τί;

ἴσα λέγειν 44 ἱστουργία 80

ἴσως 69, 71

ἴτης 102

Καθορᾶν 128

καί, position of 19

» =f 110

καὶ ἐάν 126

καὶ μάλα 69

καλάπους 6]

καλεῖν, ““ἴο invite” 184, 186 Καλλονή 111 καλλωπίζεσθαι καλόν, τὸ 94 καρποῦσθαι 37 καρτερία 159

κατά 6. accus. 131 καταγελᾶν 33 καταγέλαστος XXxiii, 56 καταγηρᾶν 147 καταγραφή 67 καταδαρθεῖν 158 κατακοιμίζειν 171 καταλίπεσθαι 123 καταλογάδην 19 κατέχεσθαι 144 κένωσις 47

κεφάλαιον, τὸ 107, 171 κῆπος, ὁ τοῦ Διὸς xli, 101 κιθαρῳδός 28

κινεῖν 87, 154

κλέος 118

κοιμήσεις ἐπὶ θύρας 38 κορυβαντιᾶν 148 κραιπαλᾶν 17

κρούειν 184

κυβερνᾶν 6. gen, 80 κυβερνήτης 83 κυβιστᾶν 57 Κυδαθηναιεύς 4

κυεῖν 110 (cp. xxxviii) κύκλῳ 167

κυριώτερος 155 κωμαστής 134 κωμῳδεῖν 67

Δήθη, defin. of 117 λιποταξίου γραφή 26 λίσπαι 67

λόγος 129 a Avyé xxil, xxvii, 44

Μὰ θεούς, pa θεάς 158

GREEK

pa τὸν Ποσειδῶ 142 payyaveia 99 μακαρίζεσθαι 149, (-ιστός) 104 μακάρων νῆσοι 28 μαλθακός 9

μάλιστα, circiter 13 μανικός xvin., 6 μάντεις 99

Μαντινική, γυνὴ XXxviii μεγαλοπρεπής 127

μέθη xxi, xxviii, 16 μεῖζον, magis 147 μελετᾶν 116

μέλλω, constr. of 85 μέρος ἀρετῆς 42

μεσοῦν c. partic. 13 μεταβάλλειν, “ to transpose” 8 μετέχειν 129

μέτριος 84

μή 6. subj. 67

μὴ ov 71, 125

Mares xli, 100

Μοῖρα 111

μονοειδής 129

μόριον 107

μουσική 80

μνεῖσθαι 124

Néxrap 101

νήφειν 167

νόημα 84

νόμοι concerning Lros viii νόμος, Sense of 34

νοσεῖν περὶ 6. accus. 114 νοσῶδες, τὸ 46

νύκτες 152

Ξυγγυμνάζεσθαι 151 ξύμβολον 68 Evvappdrepos 121 ξύνοιδα 29

Ὃ ἔστι, of Ideas 131 da 59 οἷ ὁ. gen, 34 οἷα δή, with ellipse, 160 οἰκεῖον, τὸ xliv 7., 68 οἰκέτης 126, 154 οἷος c. superl. 160

» =6re τοιοῦτος 122 ὁμολογεῖν 50 ὁμόνοια 50 ὄνειδος 37 ὄνομα 85, 88, 165

» ἔχειν, constr. of 108 ὄνος κανθήλιος 165

175

176

Ἀὀρθοδοξάζειν 96 ὀρρωδεῖν 138

ov μόνον ὅτι 26 οὐδὲν εἶναι 149

.» (μηδὲν) πλέον ἦν 151, 168

» πρὸς 6. accus. 160 οὕτως 17, 30, 54, 62, 89 οὐχ ὥσπερ 28, 56 ὄψις τῆς διανοίας 156

Παιδεία 51

παιδίον ποιεῖσθαι 101 παιῶνες 18

παμμέγας 154

πάνδημος 31

παιντοδαπός 85

παντοῖος 123

πάντως 6. imper, 12, π. δέ 4

παραβάλλειν 141, wr. τὠφθαλμώ 168

παραπαίειν 6 παρασκοπεῖν 164 παραστάτης 88 παρατείνεσθαι 114 παραχρῆμα, ἐκ τοῦ 44 παρείκειν 51

παρὼν καὶ ἀπών 122 πάσχειν, of Ideas 180 πατὴρ τοῦ λόγου Xxiv, 20 πέλαγος τοῦ καλοῦ 1, 127 Πενία xli, 100 περιαμπέχεσθαι 165 περιβάλλεσθαι 149, 167 περιττότερον, aliter 158 περιτυγχάνειν 163 περιφερής 58

πιθανὸς λόγος 169 πικρόν )( γλυκύ 48 πῖλος 160

πλησμονή xxiii, 47 ποίησις 79, 106 ποικίλλειν 154 πολλαχοῦ ὁ. gen. 35 πόνος lxi, 159

πόριμος 103

Πόρος ΧΙ, xli, 100 πρεπόντως 84 πρεσβεύειν 46 πρεσβύτερος 155 προαποθανεῖν 119 προρρηθῆναι 30, 87

προσαναγκάζειν ὁ. db, accus, 34

προσπελάζειν 112 προσφέρειν 54 προτροπάδην 164 πταρεῖν (πταρμύς) 45, 54 πτοίησις 112

INDEX

“Ῥᾳδίως λέγω 97 ῥᾷστατεἥδιστα 15 ῥῆμα 8ῦ, 88 ῥωσθείς 127

Σατυρικὸν δρᾶμα 168 σάτυρος 165

σιληνοί 143

σοφία, of Socrates xx, xxi σόφισμα 140 σοφιστής 103, 118 σοφός 10, 44 omapyav 112

σπονδαί 15 στρατόπεδον ἐραστῶν 25 συγγένεια 24 συλλήπτωρ 155 σύμμετρος 76 συμφυσᾶν 66 συμφωνία 50 συναγωγεύς 62 σύνδειπνον 2 συνεργός 133 συνημερεύειν 151 συνουσία διὰ λόγων 18 σύντασις 109 συντήκειν 40, 66 σύσπαστος 60 συσπειρᾶσθαι 112 συσσιτεῖν 159 σύστασις 50, 52 σχῆμα, “réle” 148 σωτήρ 83, 123 σωφροσύνη 78

Tavia 135 ταῦτα ἐκεῖνα 169 » ταῦτα 16] τείνειν ἐπὶ 6. accus. 46, 166 τέλεος 118 τελεταί 99 τελευτῶν 131 τέλος xliii, 106, 128, 130 τεμάχιον 64 τετρῶσθαι 157 τέττιξ 61 τέχνῃ 171 τέως ἄν θά τῇ pev...tH δέ 128 τηλικοῦτος 19 τὶ, magnum quid 158 ti...ov; 4 τιμᾶν 133 τιμή 149 τμῆσας 60

τὸ δὲ (ἔχει), “but in reality ”.39, 87

GREEK 177

τόκος XXXVili φιλία ἐραστοῦ 43 τοσοῦτον, (Ὁ) mirum quantum 157 φιλογύνης xxxi, 63 τουτὶ τί ἦν; 137 φιλοτιμία xxxvii, 118 τρίβων 157 φλυαρία 132

φοιτᾶν 110 Ὑβρίζειν 9, 157 φορεῖν ἱμάτιον 161 ὕβρις XV, Xx, 33 φρόνησις 120, 159 ὑβριστής xx, 14, 144, 165 φυγῇ φεύγειν 73 ὑγιεινόν, τὸ 46 φύσις (-σει) xlii, Ixiv, 26, 56, 61, 158 ὑγρός 75 φωνή, of instruments 134 ὕμνοι 18 ὑπάρχειν 86 Χαιρέτω 88 ὑπεκρεῖν xxxii, 103 χαμεύνιον 162 ὑπεραποθνήσκειν 26, 119 χαρίζεσθαι 34 ὑπερήφανος 153 χλιδή 82 ὑπερφνῶς ὡς 5 χρεία 105 ὑπηρετεῖν 42 χρηματιστικοί ὃ ὑπὸ c. dat. 169 χρήσιμος 59 ὑποβλέπειν 161 χρηστός 19 ὑποκάτω c. gen. 168 χρυσοῦς, metaph. 150 ὑπολαβεῖν 135 ὑπολύειν 137 Vijrra 63 ὑπουργεῖν 42 ψιλοὶ Adyou 145 ὕστατος 21 Wouxrnp 140 Φαληρεύς, play on 1 Od, διαιρεῖν θριξὶ 60 φανός 79 ὠδίς 113 φαντάζεσθαι 129 ὧν ἕνεκα 124, 128 φαρμάττειν 70 dpa, flos aetatis 150 φαῦλος 14, 155 ὡς, constr. with 33 φθάνοις (-οιμι), οὐκ ἂν 45, 142 » separated from adv. 91 φιάλη 170 » =ooarte (Ὁ) 137 φίλανδρος xxxi, 63 ὡς ἄν ¢. opt. 59 φιλεραστής 65 as ye 38 φιλεραστία 138 ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν 65

INDEX II. Enauisu.

Accusative, absolute 163

% adverbial 104, 115

ἢ after dative 54

of remoter object 91

Achilles viii, xxv, lviii, 28, 29, 104 Acusilaus xxv, 23 Adjective, neut. with fem. subst. 16 Aeschylus 29 Agathon xxxiv Ajax 159 Akumenus xxviii Alcestis viii, lviii, 27 Allegory, Diotima’s xl Alliteration xxvii Amplitude, rhetorical 28

Anacolutha xxvi, lii, 41, 91, 115,

120 Antenor 165 Antisthenes xxi Aorist infin., after ἐλπίς 68 Aphrodite viii, xlii, 20, 31 Apodosis, ellipse of 105 Apollo x, xi, 79 Apollodorus xvi Aristodemus xvi Aristogiton 36 Aristophanes xxix quoted 163

Article, added with second subst. 27 Asclepiadae 48

Asclepius ix, 48 Assimilation, of infin. 10 Astronomy, defined ix Athene xi, 80

Banquet, date of Agathon’s lxvi Bathing, before meals 7

Beauty xxxvii, xlvi

Brachylogy 30, 32, 123 Brasidas 164

Charmides 166

Chiasmus xxv

Compendious constr. 3 Constructions, irregular 26, 36, 37 Contradictory )( contrary 95 Cronus 74

Daemons, functions of xii, 98 Delium, battle of 163

Dialogues, classification of xiii Dionysus 15, 20

Diotima xxxix, 94

Dramatic setting, date of the lxvi

Elis, morals of 35 Ellipse lii, 30, 85

A of apodosis 45, 90

κα of predicate 17

a: of protasis 14 Empedocles xxxiii Eros, antiquity of viii, 22

» defined, x, xiii

» dual viii, ix, viii, 31

» Pandemos viii, ix

» parentage of viii, xl, 22

» properties of xi, xii, xl, 102

Uranios viii, ix

Eryximachus xxvili Euripides, alluded to 18, 79, 88 Euthydemus 166

Fallacies 78

Genitive, absol. after dat, 38 7 of cause 85 3 of object 89, 95 5 of origin 100 Glaucon vii, 3 Gorgias xxxv, 85 Gorgon xi, 86 Gymnasia 35

ENGLISH

Harmodius 36

Uelios, prayer to 162

Hephaestus x, xxxiii, 66

Heraclitus ix, 49, 116

Herodicus 48

Hesiod, quoted or alluded to 22, 74, 167

Hippocrates xxix, xxxii, 48

Homer, quoted or alluded to viii ee 26, 40, 58, 74, 78, 81, €5,

Homoeoteleuton xxxvi

Tapetus 74 Iccos 48 Ideas, characteristics of the 128 Immortality xxxvii, xliii Imperfect, without dv 59 Infinitive, =accus. of respect 160 i epexegetic 30, 53 ᾿ “indignantis” 19 Tonians 161 Isocrates xx Isokola xxvii, xxxvi Isology xxii, xxiii

Laches 163

Laconia, morals of 35 Lyceum, the 171 Lycurgus 123

Mantinea xxxix, 66 Marsyas xiv Matrimony, laws concerning 64 Medicine ix Melanippe 18 Method, rhetorical xi, xii $5 erotic xiii, xliii Metis xli Moon, bisexed 58 Music ix

Nestor 165 Neuter, in appos. with masc. 90

Orpheus viii, 28 Oxymoron 84

179

Parmenides 23, 74 Paronomasia xxv, xxvii, 9, 86 Pausanias xxvi Penia xl Pericles 165 Phaedrus xxiv Phaedrus, connexion of with Symp. Ixvii Phalerum 1 Philosophy, Eros as xlvii Phoenix xvii, 2 Plague, at Athens 94 Poets, as teachers 120 Polycrates xviii, xxi, 19 Polymnia 51 Poros xl Potidaea 159, 162 Present, =fut. 88 Procreation, intellectual xxxviii Prodicus 19 Protasis, ellipse of 109 3 double 66 Proverbs, cited 8, 55, 73, 167

Relative, doubled 72 Religion, defined x

ἣν Eros as xlviii Responsions, or echoes xx, 1xi, lxii Retaliation 24, 77 Rhetoric, Socrates’ theory of 87 Rhythm, clausal xxvii, 42, 43 Ritual, at symposia 15

Sex-characteristics, theory of xxxi

Sileni xiv

Similes lii

Socrates, qualities of xiv, lx ff.

Solon 123

Sophists, rhetorical style of xxii, XXv, xxvii, xxxv, lvii

Sophocles, cited 78 Tautology 93, 97 Xenophon, the Symposium of Ixvii

Zeus x, xxxiii, xxxix

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

This preservation photocopy was made and hand bound at BookLab, Inc., in compliance with copyright law. The paper is Weyerhaeuser Cougar Opaque Natural, which exceeds ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984.

1993

ΚΑῚ 14' ΗΝ "| BMY

it

τὸ

Sh aa Hl fetta

oF

seit ΠΥΜΗῚ tpi +f nin fi Ἷ fie ΑΝ.

Paterno

ee} vente ara ipa if ΓΗ Ἐ ΜΉΤΗ