Gorgias. With English notes, introd., and appendix by W.H. Thompson

Tistit
Babs*anet

ait

Amst pap heh ee anh shah mae ded bland edt bd Ahad

teverrevevepey®
Sees everyyeees

os

ore
euevesyert veer eyed
oe Sree mia
RAAAMMPSAASE EAA RAS AR ALAA CALE ALAR OL RO RRL LOL a
Sy ae Cr ereree yee

werrvee.

eee

weer Pyvey) foreoereee

Vereen) \yreeerrsceweyee
ess eve

Serpe pes sweyerery
aL ao
eed ean Le
“eee IN eT IITD
aes ES
eee

ray
ere reeey

hes
ere

eye ene
neater aE as
eee h nt hse asses

eee ver
ev eeeevere ret ers py

Oe een Opp esere
SION
Saw

eyeeet

VIVE YT ers Vereyvreeyeeyyeeyye
ae )

ye PTT Te HN wet VUE VESUP OY PETC Sey POY.
ENTE IT ery Tet tey, eeretyeye yes
eee eee

6s
Type
eee snns

Tay yy revere ere

VA ere
g
ms

Co
wreyresetee
7
phided
m1
‘s

ererrrys

SS pavortiga
SST : :
PROUT
RR eeedry Coryywery

ae

prenrewwny
ae

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/gorgiaswithengli0Oplatuoft

ae
+ See
7 cA

-
,
wl

“le

LONDON :
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. JOHN’S SQUARE.

BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA.

EDITED BY

GEORGE LONG, M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

THE GORGIAS OF PLATO.

WITH

English Notes, Introvuction, and Appendir,

By W. H. THOMPSON, D.D.

LONDON:
WHITTAKER & CO., AVE MARIA LANE;
GEORGE BELL, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
1871.

oe Va —
ee EU

I rt shy Fy
RPTL

42 "— 2
_ '

hag

eet mF eed 9
heey tie Say
pet 7 ee

'
.
.

tk

THE

GORGIAS OF PLATO.

WITH

English Motes, Entroduction, and Appendix,

BY

i)

W. H. THOMPSON, D.D.

MASTER OF TRINITY OOLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND

LATE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK.

Aci &pa, ef Tis weAAet ev Tots WoAITiKOIs MpaKTiKds elvar, TH HO0s elvax TMOVdaiov.—
Avotork Maen. Morat.

LONDON:
WHITTAKER & CO., AVE MARIA LANE;
GEORGE BELL, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
1871.

+ nies

a oy 3 i

spel . ~ A mn

a ee
eu < GSS .

2 ee on) a

Bee ea

4 > ~ sas vel =

ih ag ox ; .

S30 © F¥

EAS" CS

ey} Zz <

—wO
Eo f =

te Oo O |

2°

mx J

ry F =

my pt me ‘ a
ay ¢ Nite 1) ee |)

i a al A
: . >

:

SPAT Ae?

2 ROMS See

: . SsyNS0Q Ree

SPAM st % Enk—. 21g nase

PREFACE.

Or the more important changes adopted in the text of this
edition, or suggested in the notes, the following is a list :—

1. In p. 5 (448, B) ré for teva.

2. In p.19 (454, p) for yap ad I give dpa with Olympiodorus,
and with Dr. Badham éorov for éotiv.

3. In p. 22 (456, B) éd@dvre, at Dobree’s suggestion, for
erbovra.

4. p. 28 (469, v) for odxodv avayken tov pnropiKov Sixacov
elvat, Tov 5é Sixavov BovrAgxcoOar adel Sixara twparrey, I add de
after BovrAeo Pat, and with Woolsey and Hirschig omit the words
pytoptxov to Tov Sé inclusive.

5. p. 66 (478, B) I ought to have received into the text the
emendation of Dobree recommended in the notes, 6 éyav kaxiav
for 6 éywv adixiav.

6. p. 70 (481) for the solecistic dvadicknras in transitive
sense, which, strange to say, has stood in all editions hitherto,
I give advanrioky.

7. p. 84 (486, B) for tpla dpa, I venture to suggest the
stereotyped Attic tpi drra.

8. In pp. 91, 92 (490, c, and 491, a) the prep. zrep/, bracketed
by Hirschig, should be expelled from the text.

9. p. 96 (492, z) Dr. Badham’s excellent emendation ov for
ws is adopted, and justified in the note.

10. p. 99 (493, c) I ought to have mentioned the same

8

37)
»Al

Ff}

x] PREFACE.

critic’s ingenious conjecture Tadr’ dmreikacpév’ eotiv bro Tt &toTa
for the received éwverkas pwév éotuv U0 Tt aroTa.

ll. p. 106 (496, p) I omit with Badham kat éyo before
pav0avo.

12. p. 118 (501, c) the words rv atti Sokav should cease to
stand in the text.

13. p. 142 (512) for Kat rodrov dvncecvev, I now prefer dvyjces.

Of these changes some, it will be seen, rest on the authority of
Olympiodorus, whose lemmata are perfectly distinguishable from
his commentary. In no case have his readings been adopted
. without regard to their intrinsic merit, as compared with those
of our surviving MSS., the oldest of which is more recent than
that which he used by at least four centuries. The two
emendations suggested by Dobree (“criticorum princeps,” as Cobet
calls him) seem to need no recommendation. Students of Plato
can only regret that he did not bestow on their favourite author
more of the time and pains spent on the minor orators. To the
suggestions of the eminent Dutch scholar Cobet, and to those
of his meritorious disciple M. Hirschig, I have always given
eareful attention, even when they have not commended them-
selves to my judgment. The latter scholar published in 1859!
an elaborate examination of the arguments contained in this
dialogue and in the Philebus, with a view to removing the
“non sequiturs” introduced by unintelligent or officious copyists.
This book reached my hands before I had finished my com-
mentary. The following extract gives a fair idea of its scope
and method :—

“‘ Non poenitet me investigationis et correctionis disputationum
quas dixi, imprimis quod pro ineptiis genuinam disserendi subti-
litatem auctori reddere mihi contigit, sed etiam quod, cum omnes
de hujus generis emendationibus judicare possint, eas omnibus
me probaturum spero, tam philosophis et caeteris quam gram-
maticis. Atque illos his leetis cautiores fore in laudandis Platonis

1 Exploratio argumentationum Socraticarum in quibus scribae labefactarunt
medios Platonis dialogos, Gorgiam et Philebum. Trajecti ad Rhenum ap. Kemink

et fil:

PREFACE. [xi

scriptis confido, simulque in his luculentissima exempla visuros,
unde liquido discant, quid possit critica et quam late pateat ejus
provincia. Verum erunt fortasse qui hujusmodi emendationes
minus certas esse suspicentur. Sed certo scio omnes mihi assen-
suros nullas esse posse certiores. Habet enim Socratica disserendi
ratio mathematicam fere subtilitatem, et tantam avayxnv logicam
sive dialecticam (sit venia verbis) ut corrigenti ipsa quaeque dispu-
tatio certissima praebeat argumenta, et poetam emendans ne ex
metro quidem evidentiora petere possit. Fieri enim potest ut
metrum plures voces admittat, argumentationes autem illae par-
tibus tam firmo et rationis et orationis vinculo connexis constant,
ut una: tantum vox quemque locum occupare possit, alia, vel idem
significans, omnem avayxny tollat.”

Of German editions more recent than Stallbaum’s latest, I
know nothing but what may be learnt from Cron’s “ Beitrige
zur Erklarung des Platonischen Gorgias’,’ which reached me
a few weeks ago, and which I have cursorily inspected, long
however after this book was in print. Of the older editions of
the Gorgias I must not omit to speak with respect of that
(published in his early manhood) of the late venerable President
of Magdalen College, Oxford, Dr. Routh, Ast and Heindorf
have of course been consulted, and I can also speak with praise
of a very useful edition by Mr. Woolsey, formerly Professor of
Greek in Yale College, U.S.A.

In the annotations, which in the main were written some
ten years ago, I have endeavoured, as in those to the Phaedrus,
to call the student’s attention to the substance as well as to the
words of the dialogue. In doing this I have in many cases
ventured to criticize my author’s premisses. This, I trust,
has been done with candour, and with due allowance for the
circumstances of the time and his own personal antecedents.
It is certainly true that many of the arguments in this Dialogue
are more logical than convincing; but it is also true that its
purely ethical conclusions are as sound as they are noble and
elevating. Of this, as of so many works of genius (if I may be

2 Leipzig, Teubner, 1870.

xii] PREFACE.

allowed the quotation) it is the ‘spirit’ that ‘giveth life: nor
is there one of the whole series of dialogues that. may be more
safely recommended to beginners in the study of Plato and his
philosophy.

The Introduction prefixed to the Dialogue aims only at con-
veying a clear and connected notion, from the Editor’s standing-
point, of its general drift and purpose. A much more elaborate
analysis was of course possible; but in such compositions there
is always a danger of the details obstructing the student’s view,
and making it difficult for him “ to see the wood for the trees.”

In the text the critical reader will detect a few orthographical
inconsistencies, arising from the circumstance that the sheets of
the Zurich text from which these are printed were insufficiently
corrected. These errors chiefly consist in the retention of the
iota subscriptum where it ought to have been omitted; and in
one case at least, in its omission where it ought to have been
retained. A graver lapse will be found in p. vu of the Intro-
duction, where ‘ Callicles’ appears as ‘ Callias.’

The fragments of Gorgias, printed in the Appendix, seemed
necessary in order to enable the student to form an independent
judgment of the character of his writings, and of the fairness
of the treatment which the great rhetorician receives in this
dialogue. The collection will be found slightly more complete
than those of previous editors.

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
December, 1870.

INTRODUCTION.

Or the genuine Platonic Dialogues, the majority are named after
some one of the different persons who bear a part in the discussion.
Sometimes this distinction is conferred on the interlocutor who con-

tributes the greatest or next to Socrates the greatest share towards
the elucidation of the subject debated, as Timaeus, Critias, Par-
na 4 luie—ormost. formidable

ERRATA.

Preface, page xii, lines 17, 18, d
Ba i ele the concluding sente
Page 183, line 10, Jor Three read Four

— 183, — 27, for two read three, and for third read fourth

nce of the

display, he seems the~aesvrreu=v

prowess. But the encounter between Socrates and Gorgias is
but a preliminary skirmish. The triumph or the defeat of the
master is prevented by the officious zeal of his disciple Polus ;
whose retreat again is covered by the impetuous advance of their
eloquent and reckless host. Not only is the larger half of the
dialogue devoted to the single combat between Socrates and Callicles,
but whether we regard the comparative importance of the sub-
jects discussed, or the earnest tone assumed and maintained to
the end, we are led to conclude that in this latter portion we
are to look for the main scope and intended result of the entire
discussion.
VOL, Il. a

xii] PREFACE.

allowed the quotation) it is the ‘spirit’ that ‘giveth life:? nor
is there one of the whole series of dialogues that: may be more
safely recommended to beginners in the study of Plato and his
philosophy.

The Introduction prefixed to the Dialogue aims only at con-
veying a clear and connected notion, from the Editor’s standing-
point, of its general drift and purpose. A much more elaborate
analysis was of course possible; but in such compositions there
is always a danger of the details obstructing the student’s view,
and making it difficult for him “to see the wood for the trees.”

In the text the critical reader will detect a few orthographical
inconsistencies, arising from the circumstance that the sheets of
the Zurich text from which these are printed were insufficiently
corrected. These errors chiefly consist in the retention of the
iota subscriptum where it ought to have been omitted; and in
one case at least, in its omission where it ought to have been

retained. A graver lapse will be found in ap. viii of the Intro-
J BPS Ena ey OR eo PS be BS eet

es ee

INTRODUCTION.

Or the genuine Platonic Dialogues, the majority are named after
some one of the different persons who bear a part in the discussion.
Sometimes this distinction is conferred on the interlocutor who con-
tributes the greatest or next to Socrates the greatest share towards
the elucidation of the subject debated, as Timaeus, Critias, Par-
menides ; sometimes again on the most resolute or most formidable
of Socrates’ opponents, as in the Protagoras, Philebus, Hippias,
Euthydemus. <A third set of dialogues are named after persons
whose part in the discussion is subordinate, but who appear to have
been singled out in testimony of the respect and affection of the
author. Such is the Phaedo, such the Charmides, and probably the
Lysis. It cannot be said that the Gorgias falls into any one
of these three classes. The part which the great rhetorician bears
in the dialogue is comparatively insignificant. As the most dis-
tinguished of the assembled group he is naturally the first object of
Socrates’ curiosity, and for a while, notwithstanding the intimation
given at the commencement that he is exhausted by a previous
display, he seems the destined victim of the philosopher’s dialectical
prowess. But the encounter between Socrates and Gorgias is
but a preliminary skirmish. The triumph or the defeat of the
master is prevented by the officious zeal of his disciple Polus;
whose retreat again is covered by the impetuous advance of their
eloquent and reckless host. Not only is the larger half of the
dialogue devoted to the single combat between Socrates and Callicles,
but whether we regard the comparative importance of the sub-
jects discussed, or the earnest tone assumed and maintained to
the end, we are led to conclude that in this latter portion we
are to look for the main scope and intended result of the entire
discussion.
VOL, II. a

ii INTRODUCTION.

Such is in effect the view adopted by the Neo-Platonist Olym-
piodorus', in the introduction to his Scholia on the Gorgias, whose
theory of the oxomds, as he calls it, of the dialogue, though perhaps
incomplete, is well worthy of attention. Some, says this philo-
sopher, think that the purpose of the author is zept fyropuKys
diadexG7jvo1,—to discuss the Art of Rhetoric,—and they accordingly
prefix to the dialogue the words still found in the MSS., Topyias 7
mept pytopikns. But, he justly observes, this were to characterize
the whole by a part, and that not the larger part, cat yap ob roAAol
cioly of Tovodror Adyor. Others, he adds, conceive that Justice and
Injustice form the subject of the dialogue: an account truer perhaps
than the former, but still, he thinks, inadequate and partial. Much
less can he admit the absurd notion of a third class of expositors,
who pretend that the contemplation of the dyp.ovpyds or Creator of
the world, is the object to which Plato would conduct his readers.
This notable explanation (a fair specimen, by the way, of the
mystical interpretations of Proclus and some other later Platonists)
is founded, says Olympiodorus, on the consideration that the
Syprovpyds (it may be presumed under his exoteric name Zeus) is
introduced in the concluding mythus. His own account, it appears
to me, is worthy of the reputation of Olympiodorus for comparative*
good sense and insight into his master’s meaning. ®apey roivey, he
observes, étt oxomds ait rept tov dpxdv Tov HOudv diadrexGjvar Tav
hepovedy Hpas ext tHv modituxny eddayoviev®, The aim of the
Gorgias is to discuss the ethical principles which conduct to political
well-being. 1t explatmsyat-tcast to a considerable extent, the later
as well as the earlier discussions ; whereas, if we asstime that the
main end of the dialogue is to bring the art of rhetoric and its
professors into diseredit, we can assign no sufficient motive for the
importance assigned to a character like Callicles, who heartily
despises the profession of a Sophist, and hates the schools and their
pedantry ; and who, though he makes an exception in favour of a

-

1 Given by Routh, p. 561 of hised. The entire Commentary is printed in the
Supplement to Jahn’s Jahrbiicher, Bd. xiv., from a hitherto unedited MS., a copy
of what profess to be contemporary notes of the oral lectures of the master.

2 I say “comparative ”—for Olymp. is a Neo-Platonist, and repeats much of the
nonsense of his predecessors. But the Greeks, even in their decline, were excellent
interpreters. The commentaries of Simplicius on Aristotle are, with the single
exception of those of Alexander, the best ever written ; and he was a member of the
Neo-Platonic brotherhood, on whom Justinian planted his armed heel. Proclus was
by nature a ‘weak vessel ;? but even in him treasure may occasionally be found.

3 P. 4, ed. Jahn. modrrixés is often used by the later Platonists where other
writers would have preferred 7@:xés. In such passages it is used in a semi-mystical
sense, to denote the relation of the Philosopher to his true country, the méArs év
ovpavg dvaxemévn of which Plato sublimely speaks in the ninth book of the
Republic (592 B).

INTRODUCTION. lii

polished and brilliant man of the world like Gorgias*, would pro-
bably regard the frigid pedantries of his disciple Polus with a
contempt as hearty as the author of the Phaedrus could himself have
desired. Had Plato seriously harboured the intention of destroying
the reputation of Gorgias, whether as a thinker or a speaker, it
would have cost him little trouble to put words into his mouth which
would have seemed to his readers sufficient for either purpose ®.
Had he wished, for instance, to impair his dialectical reputation,
what expedient more obvious than to lead the veteran speculator into
a discussion on the j) éy or “non-existent,” the title of a metaphysi-
eal work of Gorgias, of which Aristotle or his epitomator has given
us a careful analysis ; fragments of which work, a good deal carica-
tured it is true, are paraded with much complacency by Gorgias’s
pupil Euthydemus in the dialogue which bears the name of this
latter Sophist. Or if his rhetorical success had roused that spirit of
envious emulation with which, according to Athenaeus and others,
Plato was so strongly imbued, what was easier than to have put into
his mouth an ézidegéis or ‘ panegyrical oration,’ full of pointless anti-
theses and glittering with meretricious ornament, like that famous
Funeral Oration which is condemned by the very Scholiast® who
quotes it, as “enunciating superficial thoughts in pompous and stilted
phrase’”? That Plato was not afraid tolet his Sophists tell their
own tale in their choicest manner, is clear from the instances of the
érideéis delivered by Protagoras in the dialogue so named (p. 320),
and of the epistle, assuredly a genuine work of Lysias, which is
read aloud inthe Phaedrus. The discourse of Protagoras meets with
the unqualified approbation of an eminent modern historian, and is
quite as moral in its tendency, and at least as elegant in style as
any of the polished platitudes of “the estimable Isocrates.” We
hear, however, nothing of this kind from Gorgias, and as if to guard

# See Diod. § xii. 53, 7G Eevi€ovts tis Ackews eEéwAnte robs "AOnvalous svras ed-
gveis Kat piAoAdyous. Diodorus here refers to the first visit of Gorgias to Athens,
B.C.. 427, as one of the Leontine embassy, which is mentioned also by Thucydides,
though he seems to have considered it beneath the dignity of history to mention
the names of the persons who composed it. Olymp., who repeats the account of
Diodorus, adds, on what authority we know not, eye 5 wer’ abrod MaAov. But
the present interview is supposed to take place more than twenty years later.

5 An ethical dogma of Gorgias, which is mentioned not without respect by Aris-
totle, is critically handled in the Menon (71 E seq.), but in this dialogue no similar
opinion is attributed to him, the moral heresies refuted being those of Polus and
of Callicles.

6 On Hermogenes. See Spengel, Artt. Scriptt. pp. 78, 79, 80.

7 ceuvas yap evraiOa osuupophoas Acters 6 Topylas évvolas émimoAaorépas
bretayyeAAci, Tots te maploois Kal duoworeAcdTos Kal duoioKatdpKTois KaAAwrl-
(wv 8° BAov xpockdpws tov Adyov. “Sickening his readers with the lavish and
continued use of ornamental figures of speech, with clauses of exactly the same
length, and sentences which rhyme at the end or at the beginning.” This speech,
or what remains of it, will be found in the Appendix.

a 2

iv INTRODUCTION.

against possible disappointment, we are warned at the outset of the
dialogue, that the orator has already perorated, and that we are to
expect no second display from the exhausted physical powers of the
now elderly statesman*. And in truth, if we examine carefully
that part of the dialogue in which Gorgias takes a part, and the few
incidental remarks put into his mouth in the course of the conver-
sation with Polus and Callicles, we cannot but feel the justice of
Mr. Grote’s observation that the treatment he receives in this
dialogue is respectful rather than contumelious. It is true he is
forced into certain admissions not favourable to the art he professes ;
true also that he shows himself no adept in the art of definition.
This art, on which Greek philosophers lay so much stress, is
mentioned as one of the two philosophical inventions of which
Socrates was the undisputed author. It is not likely that Sophocles
would have defined Poetry better than Gorgias defines Rhetoric ?:
and we know from Xenophon how poor a figure Pericles made when
his irreverent ward Alcibiades, fresh from a dvatp13y with Socrates’,
importuned him for a Socratic definition of Law. On the whole, if
by any perverse fortune this dialogue had been lost, and the works
of Gorgias had come down to us entire, there is reason to doubt
whether his reputation would have stood so high as it does at
present. However this may be, enough has been said to show that
the Gorgias is not a direct attack upon the great Rhetor or his
opinions: and it is still more evident that it is not, like the Phaedrus,
a critical treatise on the Art of Rhetoric. Here, as in that dialogue,
Plato recognizes, it must be granted, the distinction between a false
rhetoric and a true: but his exposure of the former, instead of being
reasoned out on sound esthetic and psychological principles, as in the
Phaedrus, is conducted in a spirit of mockery and caricature, skilfully
covered by a show of dialectical precision. He treats Rhetoric in the
Gorgias much as he treats ‘ Sophistic’ in the Sophist: and stoops,
intentionally or not, to the artifice of putting the abuse of a thing
for its use. But whatever its philosophical value, this part of the
conversation has not only a high dramatic propriety, but leads, as we

8 45n ynpdoKovros, according to Philostratus, p. 493, in B.c. 427, when he first
came to Athens as ambassador from Leontini; and therefore a very old man at the
period when the conversation is supposed to be held, viz. at or about B.c. 405 3 if
we adopt the strict view of the Platonic chronology advocated by Mr. Cope in
a note on p. 45 of his Translation.

9 Compare Phaedr. 269 B, ob xph xaAeralvew ef Ties wh emirrduevor diadreyer Gar
adbvara eyévovto dploacda ti mor’ éort pytopiuch, x.7.A. This reads like a good-
humoured apology for past severities; or like a caution to the reader not to
exaggerate the intellectual deficiencies of the Sophists and Rhetoricians who succumb
to the dialectical skill of Socrates, as he worries them with inquiries into the 7/
éor of the matters on which they discourse or the arts and sciences they profess.

1 Memorab. i. 2. 40.

INTRODUCTION. v

shall see, by an easy and natural sequence to the later and more
important discussions.

In the second Act*, so to speak, of the Gorgias, the part of
respondent is undertaken by Polus. Of this Rhetor we have but
few and scanty notices. What little we know leads us to think
that he was no unfit subject for the exercise of Plato’s comic
powers: and if the remark attributed to Gorgias by Athenaeus, ds
kadés olde TAdrwv iapBilew (what a master in the art of lampooning
is Plato!), was ever made, it is certainly more characteristic of this
second portion of the dialogue than of the first. Gorgias himself
could not have desired a better foil to set off his talents and character,
than that which is afforded by the presence of his faithful famulus.
The juvenile ardour of Polus* appears to have attracted the notice
of others beside Socrates; for Aristotle*, in enumerating various
punning accusations brought against persons who had the misfortune
to bear names susceptible of this species of wit, condescends to
mention one of which Polus was the subject. His “coltish”
humour betrays him into many misadventures in the course of the
discussion. At the outset his indiscreet zeal provokes a most
disparaging description of the art in which he gloried. Rhetoric, he
is informed, is no art, but the counterfeit of an art. It seeks not
Good but Pleasure: flattering the mental.as the confectioner flatters
the bodily palate. It recks no more of the health of the soul to
which it serves up its highly flavoured compositions, than the cook
is troubled by the vision of the dyspepsy or podagra which lurk
beneath his covers. Both alike have attained their object, so long
as the taste of the consumer is gratified.

The sareasm implied in this comparison was calculated to touch
Polus in a tender part. He had himself composed a work on
Rhetoric, and Socrates* had just read it. To that work he had
prefixed the very word Téyvn by way of title. This term, as
every reader of the Phaedrus knows, was appropriated by the
Rhetoricians to Rhetoric as the art xar éfoxyv, or KadXiorn Tov
texvav, as Polus and Gorgias agree in calling it. So generally
was this sense recognized, that % IéAov—7 Képaxos—7 Tisiov réxvn,
without the addition of Adywv, would have conveyed to a Greek the
idea of a treatise on Rhetoric, by Polus, Corax, or Tisias, as the case

2 P, 461 seq. :

3 Gorg. 463, TldAos 85e véos gor) Kal dtds, “This colt Polus is young and
hot.”

4 Rhetoric, b. ii. c. 23, § 29, del ob MadAos ef, “Colt by name and colt by
nature.” :

5 P. 462, év 7G ovyypduparte d eye evaryxos avéyvwy, where the Schol. observes,
x Tovrov dHAov, Sri ovx 6 CE apxiis MdAov Adyos adrocxédios Hv GAAA oby-

ypanpa.

vi INTRODUCTION.

might be. And as réyvy meant Rhetoric, so rexvoypddos meant a
rhetorical teacher. Of this réyvn of Polus, there can be little
doubt, as indeed the Scholiast® relates, that Plato has preserved a
characteristic fragment (perhaps the initial sentence) in the opening
scene of this Dialogue’.

This same treatise is the subject of a bantering notice in the
Phaedrus, p. 267, where Polus is ridiculed for parading certain novel
terms of art, diplasiology, gnomology, eiconology, and certain others
not specified, which he borrowed from a brother rhetorician Licym-
nius “to help in the construction of an elegant style” (évoydrwv
Aixvpviov & éxeivy éSwpnoaro rpos toinow evereias). Polus* was by no
means the earliest of the reyvoypadoi—he had been preceded by
Corax and Tisias and probably by others. As Polus and his book
have both perished, and as no plea in their favour has been entered
by any ancient or modern apologist of departed charlatanism, no
great injustice will probably be done to his memory if we accept as
sufficiently faithful the certainly life-like portrait with which Plato
has presented us, and, assuming that he was a Euphuist and a cox-
comb, resign ourselves without misgiving to the amusement which
his maladroit proceedings are intended to afford. We have indeed
the less compunetion on this head, as Polus himself is thoroughly
unaware of Socrates’ satire. Even when informed (p. 463) that
Rhetoric is “the counterfeit of a branch of the art Politic,” he

6 hact ph & abrooxediov Toy T1GAov Tadra eimeiv, mpocvyypapduevor 5é.

7 P. 449, woddal réxvat ev avOpdmois cioly ex THv eumeipi@v eumelpws eipnue-
va eumeipia mev yap moe? Toy aidva hua wopeverOa Kata TéxYNV, Greipla dé Kata
Tixny’ Exdotwy dt TobTwy meTadauBdvovow &AAo tAAwS UAAwY, TY BE dpiotwy vf
&pioro.. .

8 If, as seems not improbable, Polus handled rhetoric rather in an esthetical
than in a practical manner, the comparison of his réxvy with that of the fancy-cook
will appear more pointed and appropriate. Plato, though he had deeply studied,
systematically depreciates the fine arts: poetry, painting, and music (p. 502), as well
as rhetoric, he reckons among the arts that minister to Pleasure rather than to
Good. This is undoubtedly one of the shallow places in his philosophy. We may
trace in his way of treating such subjects, a vestige of that Socratic utilitarianism,
which, in the hands of the Cynic school, degenerated into a worship of the
physically and morally hideous. Plato is, however, inconsistent with himself in
this disparagement of the fine in comparison with the useful arts. In the Philebus
he distinguishes between pure and impure’ pleasure, and censures those who, like
the coarse and really sensual Antisthenes, affect to condemn all pleasure as evil.
[Compare Phileb. p. 44 ©, where the speaker condemns the dvcxepdouata of
those who detest pleasure in all its forms, kal vevouixdrwy oddty tyés, a passage
generally allowed to refer to Antisthenes.] It is indeed not a little remarkable
that Plato’s own writings furnish the means of completely refuting those low views
of the nature and object of the fine arts which alone could justify his disparaging
treatment of them in this dialogue and in the Republic. At the same time it is
impossible to deny the foree of this portion of the Gorgias, considered as an argu-
mentum ad hominem in relation to Polus and his much-boasted réxvy: for there
is no reason to suppose that Polus was prepared with any esthetical theory sounder
or purer than that exemplified in the evéreia, of which he offers us a specimen in
the passage (p. 449) quoted above.

INTRODUCTION. vii

asks with amusing naiveté, “Very well then, is it a fine thing
or the contrary ?” as if Socrates had uttered a truism which he had
heard a hundred times. Not so Gorgias, who is at once struck with
the singularity of the remark which Polus, true to his name, “ doth
gambol from,” and putting his disciple aside with little ceremony,
calls upon Socrates for a fuller explanation of his meaning®. A
very delicate touch this, showing what was Plato’s estimate of the
relative powers of master and scholar.

The discussion, however, does not linger long over Rhetoric, but
passes, by natural transition, into that Ethical speculation, which, as
has been said, occupies the greater part of the Dialogue; the third
and last Act into which the colloquial Drama resolves itself. The
incautious rhetorician is speedily betrayed into a confession of his
ethical faith, by the paradoxical statement of his opponent, that the
publie rhetors are not, as Polus thinks, the strongest, but the weakest
members of the community, albeit they have the power which P.
claims for them of “‘ doing what seems them good,” p. 468. “ As if
you yourself, Socrates,” he exclaims, “would not rather have this
power than be without it—as if you did not wish yourself in the
rhetor’s place, when you see him take the life or spoil the goods or
imprison the person of any body he happens to dislike’.” This, it
may be conceded, is no theory characteristic of the Sophist. It is
rather the voice of unsophisticated human nature, expressed with
more than usual candour by the ingenuous Sicilian—being in effect
none other than “ That good old rule, that ancient plan, That those
should take who have the power, And those should keep who can,”
of which our own philosophic poet sings. _ Socrates, however,
promptly joins issue on this point, and proceeds to assert with equal
boldness the two paradoxes “that no man wishes to do evil,” and
“that it is better to suffer than to inflict a wrong,” inferring from
both combined that the Rhetor is not only the weakest but the most
miserable of his species.

The latter of these two propositions (kpetrrov ddiKeioOat 7) ddcxetv)
has excited the admiration of all ages, and its close approximation to
the great principle of Christian Ethics is too obvious to need remark.
Socrates, moreover, was soon to give his life in testimony of his
sincere belief in its truth, and, paradox as it seems to his hearers,
they fail to detect a flaw in the reasoning on which it is built. So
much can hardly be said in favour of the paradox otdcs BovAcrat

9 GAA& TodTOV wey za, euol F cimé ws A€yers.

1 Gs 3h ob, & Séupares, odn by Fétao eteival wor b ri SoKeT oor ev TH wWéAEL
BGDAAOV H wh, ovdE CyAors bray Wns Tid H GroKrelvavTa dy Boker adT@, 7) dpeAduevov
Xpheara, } dqoavra.

viii INTRODUCTION.

KaK@S Totety, Or as it is sometimes worded, ovdeits Exwv Kaxds. The
distinction between BovAopor and Sdoxet por, between Will and Judg-
ment, is sufficiently obvious; but Socrates’ reasoning is of that
a priort type which alternately vexes and amuses us in the early
dialogues ; and his conclusion that every sin is but an error of
opinion is one against which the common sense of mankind rebels.
The paradox is, however, too closely connected with the leading
principles of the Socratical ethics, that Virtue and Knowledge are
one, to allow us to doubt that it was seriously maintained by
Socrates, even if we had not the independent testimonies of Xeno-
phon and of Aristotle to appeal to *.

Not indeed that Plato affirms this dogma, that Virtue is Knowledge,
in the Gorgias. It was one of those Socratic prejudices from which
he gradually emancipated himself, as his Ethical views matured;
and in the present dialogue he proposes a theory of Virtue substan-
tially the same with that which is more fully developed in the
Republic. The passage in the Gorgias which contains this newer
theory occurs at a later stage of the dialogue, in that long and
animated discussion with Callicles in which the “ exagitator omnium
rhetorum” proves himself a consummate master of the art which he
has been disparaging. The Virtue or Excellence, he argues, of
any thing which contains a multiplicity of parts, whether such parts
be vitally or only mechanically connected,—whether the thing spoken
of be characterized as a oxedos or a €Gov—consists in the Law, order,
or arrangement proper to the organism in question*. In living
material organizations this order or harmony of parts is called
Health; in the case of the human Soul it is called Temperance,
Justice or Righteousness, Goodness or Virtue; and the regulating
cause bears the name of Law or Right*. This description, if we
compare it with those given in the purely Socratic dialogues, the
Laches, for instance, the Charmides, or the Protagoras, will be
seen to mark an epoch in Plato’s mental growth, or, what is the
same thing, in the History of Moral Science. Order or Harmony
is the germinal idea of the Republic, as it gives unity and coherence
to the parts, otherwise ill-connected, of the present dialogue. We
shall illustrate this new standing-point by a fuller comparison of the
two works and with parts of other dialogues, early and late.

First, then, every reader of the Republic knows that the Platonic

2 Aristotle, Ethics, b. iii. 6 [4]. Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 4.

3 P. 503 r—507 o.

4 504 D, rais 58 rijs Wuxijs tdéeol Te kal Koouhoer: vdurudy re Kad vduos, S0ev
kal vouimor ylyvovra Kad kéomior Tadra 8 for: Sixasoctvn Te Kal cwppoobyyn: com-
pared with 506 ©, kéopos tis &pa eyyevduevos év Exdory 6 éxdorov oikeios &yabby
mapexet Exagrov Tay BYTWY, K.T.A.

INTRODUCTION. ix

Suxatocvvy represents not any single feeling or faculty of the soul,
but the just proportion of the whole, as shown in the correlation
of its constituent parts. The same conception is expressed, as we
have seen, though less completely, in the Gorgias*®. The readers of
the Republic also know how nearly the descriptions there given of
these two virtues duxaoctvn and cwdpooivy coincide, and we should
be at a loss to account for Plato’s using the former rather than the
latter word to designate the virtue which is to include all other
virtues, did we not know that his choice was determined by his
peculiar theory of the exact parallelism between the constituent ele-
ments of the State and of the individual Man, and by the consequent
necessity of denoting the corresponding virtues of each and every
part of each by one and the same word. Whatever objections may
be raised against the propriety of this terminology, the fact is so,
that in the Republic the description given of the particular virtue of
Justice is in effect a description of Virtue in general. *Apery in that
dialogue is dixatoovvyn, and dikaocvvyn is dpern. In the Gorgias too,
p- 506, we find the same thing predicated of dperj which was pre-
dicated in p. 504 of cwdpocvvy, that it consists in kécpos or ragis, an
order or constitution or right state of the soul. As in the former pas-
sage dixaocvvyn, so here cwdpootvyn is made synonymous with dpery°.

This, we repeat, is a proof that when Plato wrote the Gorgias
his ethical theory had grown into something different from that of
Socrates, who taught that dpery and éricrjyy, virtue and science,
are one: all special virtues being resolved into true theories of
certain external relations ; courage, for instance, being but the exact
knowledge of what was really to be dreaded, temperance the know-
ledge of what was truly pleasurable, and so on. And to this
Socratic theory Plato adheres in his earlier dialogues; whereas in
those of his maturity éricrjyn is dethroned from the exclusive
supremacy which Socrates assigned to her. At the conclusion
of that abstruse and closely reasoned dialogue, the Philebus
(pp. 65, 66), a passage occurs, containing in brief language
a summary of the whole intricate argument, and assigning their
relative precedence to three principles, pérpov, érucryjyyn, and 7dov%,
which had severally claimed to be considered the dya@dv or
highest Good. The Philebus is indeed an ethico-metapbysical
rather than, like the Gorgias, an ethico-political dialogue, and

5 This definition of Justice was preserved among the traditions of the Old
Academy. Thus, in the so-called “Opo: Srevolamov, we read, A:caooiyn: dudvora
Tis Wuxis mpds abthy, nal edratla Tay Tijs Puxns mep@v mpds UAANAa.

6 7 dpa céppwv Yuxh ayabh. A passage by the way illustrative of Aristotle’s
drift, woe he censures robs Alay évécavras Thy apethy, ‘those who unified virtue
overmuch.’

x INTRODUCTION.

therefore the more abstract term pézpov is preferred to xdapos or
tagis. The same associations, however, are suggested by all three
terms: for if Measure or Law is the supreme principle of the
Universe, co-ordinate with the Creative Reason, it must also be the
ruling principle in the microcosm called man; cognate but superior
to the human intellect’, whose noblest employment is to trace out the
Law or Idea in all its varied manifestations. This theory of virtue
as an Order, Constitution, or, as it is called in a parallel passage of
the Republic (b. iv. 443 D), a Harmony, was probably suggested
to Plato by Pythagorean teaching *; but as Plato handles it, the
theory is neither extravagant nor unfruitful, for both here and in
the Republic he carefully avoids confusing the sign with the
thing signified, an error into which the Pythagoreans, like other
‘‘ dreamers in the dawn of science,” seem to have been betrayed.

Enough has been said to show the substantial identity of the
notions of Justice or Virtue which are briefly sketched in the
Gorgias, and thoroughly worked out in the Republic. We shall
now see that there is a corresponding congruity between the political
ideas, and still more in the tone of political feeling and sentiment
which pervades the larger and the smaller dialogue.

Plato’s contempt and dislike of the Athenian democracy are
notorious. In the Republic® he represents Democracy as but one
degree better than absolute government or tyranny, and in a picture,
evidently a grotesque likeness of Athens and Athenian society, he
gives a description, half humorous, half contemptuous, of the results
of unbridled liberty. This is followed by an equally vivid portrait
of one whom he ealls the Sypoxparixds dévyp, the man whose principles
and disposition are framed upon the democratic model. Now of
this ‘democratic man,’ allowing for the personal traits necessary for
dramatic effect, the Callicles of the Gorgias’ may be considered a
fair specimen. He is a free and enlightened citizen of the freest
state in the world; one to whom his lusts are law, keen of wit and
ready of speech, without prejudice and without principle, to whom
virtue and its semblance are alike contemptible: he is one who

7 I say the “human intellect” advisedly: for Plato in more than one passage
seems to identify the Supreme Good with the divine intelligence. This side of a
difficult Platonic question is well argued by Bonitz in a short treatise ‘De Idea
Boni,’ Dresden, 1837.

8 The passage in the Gorgias bearing on this subject is, however, hardly
sufficient to support Schleiermacher’s inference that the dialogue cannot have
been written until after its author’s return from his sojourn in Magna Graecia,
i. e. 388 B.C.

9 B. viii. p. 557 seq.

1 Compare p. 513 A, kal viv 58 tpa de? oe ds Suordtaroy ylyverOa TG Shy Tov
AOnvaiwy, ei wéAAEis TOUTH mporHpiArs elvar kat péya Sivacba ev TH WéAEL.

INTRODUCTION. xi

“calls shame silliness, and temperance cowardice, and moderation
and frugal living the attributes of hinds and mechanics*;” one who
yields himself in turn to the instinets of his intellectual and his
physical nature; whose life is spent in gratifying the desire
that for the time is uppermost; giving one day to wine and music,
another to idle pastime, a third it may be to literature and
philosophy *. Frequently too he engages in politics, and rises on ~
his feet in the assembly, speaking and acting with equal reckless-
ness: kal ovte tis Takis OUTE dvayKn Ereotw adrod TH Biw, GAN Hdtv
re 5) Kat édXevOepiov Kal paxdprov Kaddv tov Biov rodrov, xpirat aire
dud. zavrds *.

This description and its impersonation in Callicles are equally
happy specimens of Plato’s talent for the higher comedy. His
tragic powers also are exemplified in passages of both dialogues,
remarkable for their excellence and for their resemblance. Those
who have once read will not easily forget that opening passage of
the second book of the Republic, in which a comparison is instituted
between the ideal Just Man and the ideal Unjust Man, for the
purpose of ascertaining whether of the two is the happier’. The
candidates, like statues at an exhibition, are stripped and cleaned
for the inspection of the judges*: the unjust man is denuded of all
moral scruples, the just man of all worldly prudence and of all the
outward advantages which a reputation for honesty confers on a
man wise in his generation. Each is endued with the intellectual
qualities which will make him perfect in his own business; the
unjust man with boundless cunning and perfect worldly wisdom,
his rival with intelligence enough, and not more than enough, to
render him perfectly just; the unjust man will consequently, by the
hypothesis, have established a character for perfect justice and fair
dealing, while the just man, who is to know nothing of the art of
seeming, will seem to the vulgar eye as great a scoundrel as his
rival is’. This being supposed, it is no longer difficult, says Glau-
con in the dialogue, to foretell the fortunes of the two. The unjust
man is of course promised a career of uninterrupted enjoyment,
victory over his enemies, wealth, popularity among men, and, if

2 thy pey aidd HAwvidtyTa dvoudlovtres—owhpooivyny St avavdplay Kadrodyres—
uetpidtnta 5é kal kooplay dardunv as a&ypociay Kal dveAev9eplay odcay, Rep.
560 p. Comp. Gorg. 491.

3 Compare Gorg. 484 D.

4 Compare Gorg. 491, trovs HAWlous Aێyeis Tobs TSppovas: mox, Sez ry 6p8as
Biwoduevoy Tas pev emiBvulas Tas abrod eav ds peyloras elva: Kal wh KordCety,
K.T.A.

5 Rep. ii. 361 D, éxdrepoy Somep dvdplayra cis thy kplow exxabalpers toiv dy-
Spotv.

6

. li. 360 FE.
7 pndev GdinGy Sdtay exérw Thy peylorny adixlas, 361 c.

xii INTRODUCTION.

costly sacrifices avail with heaven, the favour of the gods. Of his
opponent martyrdom is the too certain doom: he will be scourged,
tormented, cast into prison, and will end a life of misery upon the
cross. Whether of the two, it is asked, is the happier man °.

This, it is clear, is but a statement in its most abstract form ° of the
question discussed with Polus in the second, and with Callicles in
the third act of the Gorgias, and the prophecy in the latter passage *
of the condemnation and death of Socrates completes the resem-
blance. Only, as Glaucon complains (Rep. p. 358 pb), as if with
reference to this dialogue, the case of the just man is not repre-
sented quite so unfavourably as it ought to be, in order to the final
and irreversible decision of the suit between him and his rival.
From which it would seem as if Plato himself had been dissatisfied
with the too hasty decision of the question at issue which Socrates
in the Gorgias pronounces, and accordingly it is much more elabo-
rately discussed in the Republic: the arbitrator declining to adju-
dicate until many previous questions are disposed of; in fact until
the definition of Justice, moral and political, is satisfactorily made
out, and the various stages and modifications of Injustice discri-
minated. In the tenth book, however, Socrates sums up, and
delivers sentence according to the evidence. And even here there
is this analogy between the Gorgias and the Republic, that both
end with mythical descriptions of the doom which awaits the
righteous and the unrighteous after the soul shall be parted from
the body. The scenery of the myth in the Gorgias is far less
elaborate than that in the Republic: but the inference intended to
be drawn is evidently the same in both cases.

To bring the points of resemblance between the two dialogues
into yet clearer light, it may be well to quote in free translation, and
with a few unimportant omissions, a passage of some length but great
interest from the seventh of the thirteen Epistles attributed to Plato’.

8 This passage is perhaps glanced at by Arist. Eth. N.i. 3: raya 5& kal waradAov
&v tis TéAos TOD ToAiTiKodD Blov Tavtny SwodAdBor. galvera Sé bwodcecrépa Kat
airy. doKxet yap évdéxerOa kal nabeddew Exovra Thy dperhy, ) ampanreiv 51a Biov,
Kal mpds TovTots Kakomabety Kal aruxelv TA péeyiota: Toy DF obtw (avTa oddels by
evdaimovioeev, ci wh Oéorvy SiapvaAdTtoy.

9 P. 469 A, 4 mov 8 ye aroOvhoKwy Gdixws eAcwds Kal HOAws. Arrov i 6
dmoxrivis, «.7.A. The case of Archelaus follows, pp. 470, 471; an instance of
successful wickedness to which Polus points with triumph.

1 Pp. 521 B, co.

2 The case for the Platonic Epistles has of late gained greatly from Mr. Grote’s
masterly historical analysis of their contents; while an eminent scholar of a totally
different type, Gabriel Cobet, has pronounced in favour of their genuineness on
grounds purely philological. This most fastidious of critics declares that no one
but Plato could have written them. But however the question of authorship is
decided, the authority of the seventh Epistle, of which the eighth is properly a
part, has never been impugned by any competent scholar.

INTRODUCTION. xiii

In this document, professing to be written when its author had reached
an advanced age, Plato (if Plato it is) prefaces a detailed history of
his dealings with Syracuse and her successive rulers, by a brief sum-
mary of his early political experiences in Athens*. ‘ While young,”
he says, “I, like so many others, resolved that as soon as I became
my own master I would try my fortune in public life. This reso-
lution of mine coincided with certain changes in the state of Athens,
which I shall describe. The then much-abused constitution under-
went a radical change; and the government in its altered form was
entrusted to a body of fifty-one magistrates, of whom eleven admi-
nistered affairs in the city, and ten in Peiraeus. Over these twenty-
one was set a board of Thirty with absolute powers. Among the
fifty-one were several of my own kindred and acquaintance, who
soon invited me to take part in carrying out a policy which they
thought would suit me well. Young as I then was, who can
wonder at the error into which I was betrayed? For I fondly
thought, that their administration would be directed to the great
end of leading their countrymen from an unrighteous to a righteous
course of life and manners, and so thinking I began carefully to
watch their proceedings. What was my surprise to find that faulty
as was the old order of things, it was pure gold* in comparison with
the iron rule now set up in its stead. Among their worst acts of
tyranny, was one they practised on my friend Socrates, now advanced
in life, who, I make bold to say, was the most righteous man then
living. Him they ordered to go with certain others to fetch from
Salamis one Leon, whom they had doomed to death, evidently for
the purpose of compromising Socrates, and making him an en-
forced accomplice in their crimes. This order, however, he refused
to obey, being prepared to face the consequences of disobedience
rather than assist in their unhallowed proceedings. When I wit-
nessed these and other equally infamous doings, I was filled with
disgust, and withdrew myself altogether from the horrors of that
evil time®. Ere long however the Thirty were unseated, and a
counter-revolution took place; whereupon my old passion revived,
though slowly, and I was again fain to take an active part in
politics. Under this new regimen, affairs being still in an unsettled
state, many things occurred which might justly be objected to:
though on the whole the restored fugitives acted with considerable
moderation. It is not wonderful that reprisals should be inflicted
by political. opponents in times of revolution, but it was a strange

3 yebs eyw Oy, K.T.A., p. 324 © to 326 B.
4 xpuoby drddekay thy umpoobev moditelay.
5 éxavhyayov euautby dmb Tay TéTE KaKGy.

xiv INTRODUCTION.

chance that led certain of the people then in power to arraign
Socrates in a court of justice on an atrocious charge which fitted
him less than any man. He was accused of impiety: and the
judges had the ingratitude to condemn and put to death one who,
when they were in trouble, had refused to perpetrate an act of
unhallowed violence against one of their exiled friends. When I
reflected, I say, on proceedings like these, and on the characters of
the principal public men, and the laws and customs prevalent at the
time ; the longer I considered and the older I grew, the more diffi-
cult it appeared to me to govern Athens on right principles. In the
first place it was impossible to act without a party; which the
universal corruption rendered it difficult to find ready made, and
which it was not easy to construct anew; in the next place both
laws and manners were degenerating with fearful rapidity. The
consequence was that, full as I had once been of political enthu-
siasm, the spectacle of the general disorder and confusion almost
turned my brain: and though I would not desist from looking out
for some opportunity of mending the present state of things and was
prepared to bide my time, I finally arrived at the clear conviction
that all existing forms of government are radically wrong ; and that
their reformation will require a machinery of extraordinary power,
working under unusually favourable circumstances.

‘Thus I was constrained to say, that it is true philosophy alone
which can enlighten us to discern the principles of justice whether
in the State or in the Individual; and that accordingly the crimes
and misery of mankind will never have an end, until either the
highest class of philosophic thinkers shall step into the seats of
power, or the existing rulers shall by some miracle become imbued
with philosophic ideas.”

In this passage there is scarcely an expression of which we do not
hear the echo either in the Gorgias or in the Republic. The tone of
political despair which pervades the former dialogue, and the equal
scorn poured on the professions of the rhetor of the agora and the
rhetor of the schools, as exemplified in Callicles and in Polus ; all the
intolerance and all the exaggeration which mark its polemical pas-
sages, find, if not their complete apology, at least their explanation
and palliation in the sad tale of his political experiences which Plato
unfolds to his correspondents in the letter just quoted. His hopes
of serving his country had twice been blighted. The severity of the
first disappointment may be inferred from the fact that among the
Thirty and their subordinates were men endeared to him by literary
sympathies as well as hy near relationship. Critias and Charmides
are names that figure in his earliest dialogues ; one was his uncle, the

INTRODUCTION. _ xv

other his cousin by the mother’s side; and of Charmides he himself
says that he was Adco0dos xal ravy mointixds, a description also
applicable to Critias. Glaucon * too, his maternal grandfather, was
one of the Piraeic Decemvirate. Add to this, that Plato was an
Eupatrid both by father’s and mother’s side; and his aristocratical
prejudices, derived from his ancestors, and fed by a naturally nice
and fastidious temper, a ducxépera picews ok ayevvods, to use his own
phrase’, would incline him to augur well of any attempt to reform
and remodel the state on Lacedaemonian principles, even had the
enterprise been confided to persons less known and trusted than
those friends and patrons of his youth, with whom he had spent
many an hour in the society of the man who was to him the ideal of
all that was wise and good in humanity. Disappointed in the hopes
he had formed of the aristocratic party, he was the better prepared
to take a favourable view of the proceedings of the people’s friends
when their hour of triumph came: and for some time their conduct
was such as to encourage his reviving hopes of operating a bene-
ficial change in public and private morality by the methods (which
Socrates himself by no means despised) of. the rhetor and legislator.
The extensive knowledge which the author of the Phaedrus displays
of the writings of the leaders of both the great schools of oratory,
the Attic and the Sicilian, may lead to the conjecture that he had at
one period of his life studied rhetoric with a view to its public
practice: and one can hardly doubt that under moderately favour-
able circumstances, his success as a speaker would have been bril-
liant. It is even probable that the interval which elapsed between
the overthrow of the Thirty and the death of Socrates—an interval
of from three to four years—was employed by Plato in studies pre-
paratory to political life. That he ever ascended the bema during
this period we do not indeed learn. He was not more than twenty-
six years of age at its commencement, and we know that Demos-
thenes did not begin to speak in public until he had entered on his
thirtieth year. Possibly, too, the unsettled state of parties to which
he alludes in the Epistle above quoted, may have contributed to the
delay. He himself says, Bpadvrepov perv, cidxe d€ pe Gpws 7 wept 7d
mparrev Ta Kowa Kal ToALTLKG érOvpia.

But whatever degree of maturity Plato’s purpose may have
attained, it was checked at once and for ever by the unrighteous
sentence passed upon his Master and Friend. It was this that
forced upon him the conviction that oligarchs and democrats were
alike unprincipled, and that the task of forming a third party,

5 So Taylor, Life of Lysias, p. xly, note k.
7 In Philebus, 44 ¢. — -

XVi INTRODUCTION.

sufficiently honest and sufficiently powerful to effect a radical reform
of Athenian institutions was a mere impossibility, and the hopes
founded on such a contingency chimerical. We know from other
authorities, that immediately after the perpetration of that great
judicial crime, he retired from Athens, and took refuge in the neigh-
bouring city of Megara, where Euclides, a native of that place, a
friend and admiring disciple of Socrates, and the founder of the
Megarian sect, is said to have received him under his roof. That
residence, and his subsequent travels, may have contributed in more
ways than one towards maturing and enlarging his philosophical
views: but we have it on his own word, or the word at least of the
author of that seventh Epistle, that the two most important practical
convictions of his life,—the hopelessness of any attempt to amend
the existing laws and practice of the Greek communities by any of
the ordinary and constitutional means, and the necessity, and under
given circumstances the feasibility, of an entire re-construction of
the political fabric on principles of pure reason and philosophy—that
these two convictions date from the death of Socrates, and were the
result of conclusions deliberately drawn from that and his former
experiences in Athens. Of the first of these convictions, as it seems
to me, the Gorgias is the public vindication: of the latter, the
Republic. Of the time and place at which these dialogues were
composed, we have no distinct testimony; but it is difficult to
believe that the Gorgias could have been written any where but
at Athens; and we cannot but incline to the conjecture that it
was the first or one of the first written after his return, which
according to more than one witness must have taken place about
four years after the death of Socrates, that is to say not later than
395 B.c.® Plato’s deep and passionate disapproval of Athenian
institutions does not seem to have deterred him from serving in his
country’s armies, and bearing his part in three distinct engagements,
at Tanagra, at Corinth, and at Delium. His performance of the
military duties of a citizen may have encouraged his friends in
Athens to hope that his quarrel with the Athenian people was now
made up, and that the disposition to public life of which he had
twice before shown indications, would now ripen into act. Regard

® The fabulous extent and duration assigned to Plato’s travels by his later biogra-
phers need not cause any embarrassment. The accounts are so discrepant and so ill-
supported as to excite our wonder at the trouble which modern scholars have taken
to mannfacture them into history. As usual in such cases, the later the narrative,
the better informed we find the narrator. The “doctrine of development” alone
could give value to the discoveries of Lactantius and other Christian Apologists
who have favoured us with Platonic Itineraries; but the Pagan Apuleius, and, in a
less degree, the,more accurate Cicero, have lent their names to very questionable
statements. ~

INTRODUCTION. xvii

for his own safety may have been one of the considerations by which
his friends would urge him to cultivate the power of public or judicial
speaking: for, they may have plausibly urged, it was the want of
this accomplishment that sealed the doom of Socrates. “Azoxrevel ce
& TAdrwv 6 Bovddpevos, kat cicaxOnoe eis Suxacrypiov bird Tévy iows
poxOnpod avOpurov kai pavAov, by a vulgar leather-seller like Anytus,
or a wretched scribbler for the stage such as Meletus,—may have
been among the warnings given by some friendly Callicles*. Or,
these considerations apart, what nobler end could be pursued by an
Athenian of family, than the acquisition of influence and wealth and
distinction in the State; or what nobler art than that of bridling
and taming the multitude, and riding into power on their backs ?
They too, his friends and well-wishers, had philosophized in their
time: for philosophy was doubtless an elegant amusement’ for a
young man of rank and leisure, and an excellent training for the
mind, as his fellow-pupil Isocrates, now making his fortune by his
pen, had substantial reasons for acknowledging.

The speech of Callicles is indeed throughout more applicable to
the circumstances of a comparatively young man, who, like Plato on
his first return to Athens, had his profession to choose, than to an
elderly and inveterate dialectician, such as Socrates must have
seemed at the time when this conversation is supposed to take place.
The readers of Plato will be at no loss for parallel instances of
passages in which his contemporaries would recognize the author
under the mask of his hero, or in which the opinions, the parties, and
the personages of his own time are antedated by some twenty or
thirty years.

But the best argument in favour of our hypothesis is, that it
affords a point of view from which the various divisions and sub-
divisions of the dialogue group themselves into unity. The Gorgias
is in effect an *AzoXoyia WAdtwvos. It contains his reasons for
preferring, under existing circumstances, the contemplative to the
active, the philosophic to the rhetorical life. The philosopher, as
Socrates says’, is the only true master of the science of Politics.

9 See Gorg. p. 521 B, c.

1 girocogla ydp tol éorw & Séxpares xaplev ay tis abtod petplws Gynra
év TH jAular eay de wepatépw tod SedvTos evdiatpiy, SiapOopda trav avOpdrwr,
éav yap nal mdvv eipuis Ff, nal wéppw tis jAklas pirocopH, avdynn wdvTwrv
&xeipov yeyovéva: éorlv, dv xph Eumeipoy elvar toy méAAOvTA Kaddy Kayabdy Kal
edddnimov ErcoOa: tvdpa, nal yap tav véuwy tmeipo ylyvovra: Tov Kata Thy
mod, Kal Tav Adywr, ols Set Xpdpevoy dutdrciv ev tots cvpBoralos Tots avOpe-
mos Kal idfa Kal dnuocla, Kal tev HSovGv Te Kad eriOuuidv Tay avOpwrelwr, Kab
EvAANBSHY Tv 7Odv TayTdracw Ureipo yiyvovra. Gorg. 484D. Ib. 485 a, Gar’
oluat Td opOdrardv eorw audorépwy petéxew, pirdocoplas wey, boov wadelas
xdpw, Kaddy peréxew, Kal od aicxpdy peipaxly dyti pirogodeir.

2 oluat mer’ GAbywv "AOnvalwy, iva ph claw pdvos, emixepeiy TH ds GAnPas
WoAiTiKH TEXvN, p. 521 v.

VOL. I. b

xviii INTRODUCTION.

The end of that science and of the art founded upon it is not to
pander to the inclinations of a people, but to make them wiser,
juster, and by that means happier *. The only true rhetoric is that
of the philosopher who is able to persuade his fellow-citizens to
cultivate these virtues in themselves, and to embody them in their
legislation. Consequently‘, the true rhetorician must be just himself,
and acquainted with the principles of justice. How then is it
possible that one who holds these principles can take part in the
administration of a state like that of Athens, where the statesman is
but the tool, the dudxovos, or upper servant, of the Demus *, hired for.
the purpose of supplying its outward needs, and gratifying its
passions of vainglory and ambition ? As the ends pursued by the
ablest of the only statesmen possible in a popular government, are
such as no wise man can esteem; so the means they are compelled
to employ are such as no honest man can stoop to. The most
approved of these means is Rhetoric, the Rhetoric taught by Gorgias
and practised by Callicles, the rodirixps popiov «idwrov, or semblance
of that true Rhetoric ® which is auxiliary to the higher and only true
art Politic, the art of producing justice in the souls of individual
citizens, and in that aggregate of souls we call the State.

To complete this statement, it was necessary to describe the true
nature of Justice, which, as we have seen, Plato expresses in terms
substantially, and as far as they go, literally the same as those which
he employs in the Republic.

With the same object in view, he seeks to establish the essential
difference of Pleasure and Good, which is done briefly, but accurately
enough for the purpose we assumed’. The question is determined
on its own merits in the Philebus, which contains, as it seems to me,
the most satisfactory analysis of Pleasure and its ingredients that is
to be found in any Greek writer, and in which the discussion is of a
more searching and speculative kind than that in the Gorgias. In the

3 obtos Euorye Sone? 6 cKomds elvar mpds dv BAmovta det Civ, Kal mdvra eis TodTO
kal T& adTod cuvtelvovTa Kol TH THs wéAEws, Baws Sixaoctyn mapéoTat Kal TwHpo-
cbvn TS pakaplw wéAAovTi EvecOa, p. 507.

4 roy péddAovta bp0Gs pnropikdy ~recOa Sikaov Sef elvar kal emiorhpova Tay
dixatwy, p.508 B. ©

5 P. 517 a.

6 See Phaedrus, Introd. p. xvii.

7 P. 500 &, elvas wey Te Hdd elva BE te Gryabdv, €repoy BE 7d HSV Tod ayabod.
If we compare this with a passage in the Protagoras, we shall see that Plato’s
views on this subject had undergone an important change during the interval
between the composition of that dialogue and the Gorgias. ¢% mn €xere HAAO TL
pdvon eivar Td ayabdy } Thy Hdovhy, } Td Kandy GAdrO Te } Thy avlav, 7} apKe? buiv 7d
ndéws KataBiavar Tov Bloy &vev Avtav; Protag. p. 354 E, compared with the con-
text preceding and following. As the opinion in the Gorgias was certainly that of
his later life, it seems irrational to doubt that the Protagoras was the earlier ; ro<
duction of the two.

INTRODUCTION. xix

Philebus, tere is little doubt that the tenets of the Cyrenaic school
are attacked ; but I cannot, with Schleiermacher, detect any such
polemical reference in the Gorgias; where the “hedonistic” senti-
ments put into the mouth of Callicles are the expression of mere
practical libertinism seeking arguments in defence of its own
practice, and are totally unlike the scientific sensualism attributed
to Aristippus.

Throughout the whole dialogue there reigns a spirit of passionate
vehemence, scarcely reconcilable with a scientific or speculative
purpose, but thoroughly consistent with that more practical object
of justifying abstinence from political action in a depraved. common-
wealth which I suppose Plato to have had in view when he wrote.)
Bitter indeed must have been his feelings on revisiting the guilty
city for the first time after his master’s death: deep his abhorrence
of that art whose professors, represented by the rhetor Lycon, had
mainly contributed to the perpetration of that crime: not over-
friendly his feelings towards the poets who had conspired with the
rhetoricians in their attack upon the man whom both hated with
nearly equal hatred. His dislike of public life, at least in Athens,
never left him. It is expressed in the Theaetetus*, but with more
of scorn than of anger: but there is not one of his dialogues in
which the public men of the best times of the Athenian History,
such men as Pericles and Miltiades and Cimon, are treated with
such indiscriminating severity as in the Gorgias ®.

After all, it may be said, the date here assigned to the Gorgias
rests on mere hypothesis: for the dialogue itself contains no indi-
cation of the time at which it was written. This however is not
exactly true. The prophecy of Socrates’ death put into his own
mouth (p. 521 D, ovdév arorov «i droPdvoun), coupled with the warn-
ing of Callicles before alluded to, compel us to place the composition
of the dialogue after the year 399: and its evident applicability to
Athenian life and to nothing else, almost compel us to defer its
composition to the time of its author’s return. It also expresses the
very sentiments which, as we read in the seventh Epistle, were upper-
most in the mind of Plato at that period. We are moreover told by
Athenaeus, and there is no improbability in the story, that this
dialogue was read by the personage after whom it was named, who
assured his friends, somewhat gratuitously, one would have thought,
that he never said or heard any of the things contained in it. Now
Gorgias is said to have been 759 yypdoxwv, already advanced in

8 P. 172 © seq.

® Compare, e. g. Protagoras, 319 E, 322 A, and still more the Phaedrus, 270 a, in

which the eloquence of Pericles is spoken of in terms of the most exalted admira-
tion.

xx INTRODUCTION.

years, when he came as ambassador to Athens in the fifth year of
the Peloponnesian war, B.c. 427, twenty-eight years before the
death of Socrates. He is also said by Quintilian “ultra Socratem
usque durasse,” to have outlived Socrates; and the duration of his
life is put at 105 and even 108 years, a longevity greater by
ten or thirteen years than that attained by his celebrated pupil
Isocrates. These and similar notices (which it would be tedious to
enumerate) have induced his biographer Foss to assign the year 496
as his approximate birth-year, on which supposition he must have
died not later than 388, which is the date of Plato’s second return
to Athens. If therefore we accept as true the story in Athenaeus,
we must infer that the Gorgias was written before Plato’s second
departure from Athens, i.e. in the interval between 395 and 389.
The date of the composition of the Republic, or at any rate of its
commencement by Plato, is assigned by many scholars to the same
period of time. This opinion seems a plausible inference from
the concluding sentence of the passage quoted above from the
seventh Epistle: A€yew te jvayxacOnv, érawav tiv dpOnv dirocodiary,
ds éx ravrns éore ta Te wWoAuTiKa Sikara Kal Ta THY wrdv KaTiWeiv" KaKOV
obv od Angew 7a GvOpirwa yévy, zplv av 7 76 Tav procodovvrwy dpHHs
Te Kat GANOds yevos eis Gpxas €AOy Tas ToALTLKds, 7) TO TOY SvVacTevdyTwY
év tats moAcow &k Twos poipas Oeias dvtws pitocodyjoy. These two
sentiments are, as I have before observed, the texts on which the
Gorgias and the Republic are respectively founded; and when Plato
goes on to say, that these ideas had been formed in his mind before
he first visited Sicily* (.c. 3889), it is difficult to avoid the inference
that the Gorgias was written and the Republic at least begun at
the period last specified.

It is also a general opinion that the idea of a female common-
wealth exhibited by Aristophanes in the Ecclesiazusae was written
by the comic poet in ridicule of the Platonic commonwealth’.
The Ecclesiazusae was represented in the year 392; it seems there-
fore possible that at this date some part at least of the Republic was
written, and had been publicly read, if we may not say published, in
Athens.

1 rabrny thy Siavoray eis *IraAlay Te Kad SineAlay Aor bre mpGrov adixduny.

2 Meineke has even pointed out two passages, one in this play, and one in the
Plutus, in which, as he supposes, Plato himself is ridiculed under the name of
Aristyllus, the diminutive of Plato’s original name Aristocles, which, if he ever bore
it, was inherited from his grandfather. Com. Gr. i. p. 281. I confess, however,
that such an allusion seems too far-fetched to have been intelligible to an Athenian
or any other audience. The Aristyllus in question was probably some person
‘notorious for low profligacy , and quite unconnected with Plato.

ITAATQNOS TOPTIAS.

VOL. Il. B

TA TOY AIAAOTOYL IIPOXNIIA.

KAAATKAHS.
SOKPATHS.
XAIPE®@ON.
TOPIIAS.
TOAOS.

ITAATQNOS VOPIIA’S.

ti. p.
447 I. Iohépov Kai payns haci ypqvat, @ Sdxpares, ovTw «.¢ PAS
petadayyavew.
SN. "AN F, 7d heydpevov, Kardmw éoptis HKopev

[kal torepodper] ;

KAA. Kai pdda ye doreias éoptns’ To\da yap Kai
Kaha Topyias nuy ddiyov mpdtepov émedei€ato.

7

x2. Tovrwv pévto, @

KadXikdreus, aitios Xaipedav
p

60¢, &v ayope dvayKkdoas Huas Siatpipat.
XAI. Ovddév mpaypa, & Sdxpares eyo yap Kal id-

TOMat.

pidos yap por Topyias, war émidei€erar Hpiy, €t

pev Soxet, viv, €av dé Bovhy, eioadis.

TloA€uov| First at a feast, last at a
fray,” is the corresponding English saw.

xarémw €opris| Olymp., ras huépas év
ais éredelxvuto 6 Topylas €opTa&s éxdAouy.
Moeris, karémiv Arrixol, Iria ev “EA-
Anves. ‘Are we come the day after the
feast ?’

[xal dborepoduey| These words are ap-
parently a mere interpretation of the
foregoing proverb, the point of which
is blunted by their retention. Olym-
piodorus quotes only as far as fKopev. I
have bracketed the words, thinking with
Cobet (De Arte Interpret. p. 141) that
they ought to be ejected from the text.
A similar interpolation is detected by
Cob. in the Axiochus, p. 366 ©, 5: rayrds
BE Gos eoriv aitG pwveiv 7d °Emxdp-
mewov & Bt yelp Trav xetpa vice: [dds
Tt kal AaBE 71], where it is impossible to
adapt the words in brackets to the
trochaic metre.

pévto| The force of the particle is
this: ‘You may think it my fault; you

are mistaken, however; Chaerephon is
the person to be blamed.’

B. eyh yap Kal idooua] ‘for I who
have done the mischief will repair it.’
Such is the force of «af. Schol., ard
Tnr<pov kal tod tpdécavros "AxiAAEws,
kal tod xpnornplov aveAdvtos bri 6
tpdcas Kal tdoerat. Observe the,
special use of émdelEerat, = émldertiv rot-
ficeras, i. ¢-_sfter_the_manner of the |
Sophists.” Such an éridectis, or exhibition |
of literary skill, according to Xenophon,
was the celebrated apologue of Prodicus, |
called the Judgment of Hercules (Mem.
ii. 1.21). 82ep 5 (Mpddixos 6 copds)
kal mwAetoros émideikvuTat. So after
the long speech of Protagoras in the
dialogue bearing his name, Socr. ob-
serves, TIpwraydpas pty tocaira kal
TowbTa éridertdpevos awemavoato TOU
Adyou (p. 328 D). The active form of
the verb has the sense ‘indicare,’ ‘ de-
monstrare,’ as below, p. 464 B, capé-
orepov émideliw d A€yw.

B 2

le

4 IAATQNOS

[447, B

KAA. Ti 8, & Xaipepav ; émfupet Yoxparys akovoau
Topyiov ;
XAI. °E@ aitoé yé Tou TovTo Tapecper.
Le) ¥
KAA. Odxodv érav Bovd\nobe wap eve jeew oixade
> 23 ‘ i / , eee) 8 / ce
—ap uot yap Topyias karadver Kat éridetSerar vpiv.
XN. Ed déyes, d Kaddixders. GAN dpa eedjoevev
dv npiv duadexOjvar ; Bovropar yap mvléc0a1 wap avTov,
tis f Svvapis THS TEexVNS TOD aVvdpds, Kal Ti €oTW 6 Emay-
yédrerai te Kal Siddoner. tiv S€ aAdyv eideréw cio-
lal WA ‘\ , 4 0 =
adlis, daTep ad héyeis, ToLnTao lw.

KAA. Ovd8év ofov 7d adtov épwrav, @ Sdxpates. Kat
yap atta ev todr Hv THs emdeifews: Exedeve yodv viv
A 2658 PC Ce 42.7 , A ¥ » \ \
8})-épwrav 6 ti tis Bovdouro Tv Evdov dvTwy, Kai Tpds

9 ¥ > tad
dmavra edn aaroxpweto bau.

SN. *H kadds héeyers. *Q2 Xapepar, épov avdrdv.

XAI.
>2.
XAI.

Ti epopat ;
4 > 4

OotTts €oTiv.

TIds héyets ;

SQ. “Nowep av ei ervyxavey dv drodnudrov Sypi-

Ti 8] So Olymp.; vulg. ri 5€; Ziir.
rt dal ;

Oixodv Srav BobAnobe] Supply aiod-
cece from the foregoing a&kotca. ‘You
shall hear him then, when you think
proper to pay me a visit at my house;
for Gorgias is my guest, and will exhibit
to you.’ Schleiermacher infers from this,
that the scene of the conversation is not
the house of Callicles, as commonly sup-
posed, but a gymnasium or other place
of public resort. The 8rav, which “ mar-
vellously offends” Stallbaum, may thus
be defended, and the cicat@is é0mep od
Aéyers woinodc@w of Socr. explained.
I cannot believe with Ast that ffKew is
here used imperatively, or with Schleierm.
that the «al before émdelterar is in
apodosi. Hemsterhuis conjectured @
*rav for Gray, retaining the vulg. Bov-
Aeoe, but has found no follower among
the edd.

©. SiadexO7var] Resigning himself to
the loss of the formal értdeéis, Socr.
hopes that Gorgias will not at any rate
be indisposed for a conversation. The
words thy wAAny erldekw are equiva-

lent to rhy enlbekw, UXAny otcay. This

use of &Ados is familiar to readers of
Plato, and will be found illustrated in
the note on p. 473 o.

Ovsey ofov] “Nothing like inquiring
at head-quarters.” “Best go to the
fountain-head.” Il n’y a rien tel que
de parler 4 lui mesme” (Steph.). “ Nichts
besser als ihn selbst fragen ” (Schl.). In
Demosth. Mid. 529, we find, obS&ty ofoy
&kovey avTod Tod vduov, the art. before
the infin. being omitted ; as it is likewise
in Aristoph. Aves 966, GAA’ oddéy ofdy
éor dkovew Tay émdv. On the other
hand 74 is inserted both here and below,
p- 481 B, as well as in Xen. Oec. 3. 14
adduced by Matth. (Gr. Gr. § 541, q. v.).
In Lysistr. 135, od8tv yap ofov & pian
Avoictpadrn, the inf., or word answering
to the inf., is suppressed. The Schol. on
the last passage erroneously explains the
phrase by obSev kwAves.

éx€Aeve your | Comp. Philostratus, Vitt.
Soph. p. 487, oxediov Adyou Topylas
hpiev ... mapedAOwv yap és 7d ’AOnvalwy
Oéarpov eOdpinoev cimeiv, mpoBddAAEeTE
+. evderxvimevos Shrov mdvra mev eidévai,
wept mavtds 8 by eimeiv egiels TE Kaups.

—448, B.]

/, > ‘4 xX» 8 , 4 4 ,
D ovpyos, amTeKpivato av ON TOV Dol OTL OKUTOTOLOS.

pavdavers ws heya ;
IJ. XAI.

Mavédva Kat épyoopar.

TOPTIAX. 5

x
7 ov

>
Eiré po, @

Topyia, adn déyer Kadduxdijs ode, ore éexayyédder dzro-
Kplveo Oa 6 Tu av Tis OE epwre ;

TOP. *Adnfj, | & Xatpeddv: cal yap viv 8) aira

KQLVOV ovdeV TOoAAOP EeTOV.

XAI,

448 radTa emnyyeddounp, Kai héyw dtu oddeis pwé TH HpadTyKE

- ȴ e , ] a ,
H trov apa padios amroxpwel, @ Topyia.

TOP. IIdpeot tovrov weipay, & Xaipedav, hapBa-

VEL.

TINA. Ny Ai av dé ye Bovd\y, & Xaipehdv, euod.
Topyias méev yap Kal dmreipnKévar por Soxet> moda yap

aptt Suen drvoev.
XAI,

> ,
amokpivac bat ;

Ti Sai, & Wdde ; ote. od Kdéddov av Topyiov

TNA. Ti &€ rodro, éav cot ye tKavas ;
XAI. Ovd5&" Gd éerred7) od Bovhe, a amroKpivou.

TNA. "Epota.
XAI. *Epwra 57.

Ce SRY ld > 4 x»
€t ETUYX AVE Topyias ETLOTHN MOV WV

THS TExVNS HoTeEp 6 adehPds adTod “Hpddikos, Ti av adrov

> 4 , > 9 > nw
avopalowev duKkatws ; OvuX oT7ep EKELVOP ;

TINA. Idvv ye.
XAI.
€déyopev.

D. &mrexplvaro| One MS. has arexpl6n,
an aorist inadmissible in this sense, in
an Attic writer. dmoxp:@jva: occurs in
the sense of ‘answering’ in the 2nd
Alcib. 149 B, and is one among many
indications of the spuriousness of that
dialogue.

448. aroxpwet| So the Bodl. The
other MSS. and edd. except Hermann’s
have &moxplve:. Chaerephon means to
say, ‘If such has been your past success,
you will have no difficulty in answering
any question I may propose.’

B. ‘Hpéd:xos| The Schol. cautions us
against confounding this Herodicus with
Herodicus the Selymbrian, also a phy-
sician, of whom see an amusing notice 1 in

> ‘ ¥ , - “
Iatpov apa dacKovtes avrov eivar Kadas. av

Republ. iii. 406. The brother of Aris-
pe a presently mentioned was no less

a person than the ¢ famous Folygnotns,
who painted the Lesche at Delphi. This
is proved by an epigram quoted ‘by the
Schol. :—

ypave TMoAvyvwros,
*AyAaopavtos
vids, wepOouevny *IAlov a&xpdmoduy.

Odows ‘yévos,

Also by a passage in the Ion, p. 532 E.

wt by aitév| The MSS. have tiva.
Olymp. reads tf, which had been con-
jectured by Buttmann, in consideration
of the following S:rep.

ILAATONOX [448, B

TINA. Nat.

XAI. Ei dé ye Homep —Apioropav 6 Co) "Ap daogavos 4 |
5 ddeddods avTod eureipos Hv TExvys, Tiva Gv abtov dpOds
Exahovpe ;

TINA. Andov or Cwypadov.

XAI. Nov & éwed&) Tivos téyvyns emorypov éati,
tiva av Kadovvtes adrov 6pOGs Kahoiper ;

TINA. 72 Xaipepav, woddal réxvar év avOparrors civ
€k TOV éuTrelplov eumeipws evpnuevarr eutrerpia per yap
TOL TOV alOva HOV TopeverOar Kata Téxvnv, ameipia dé
Exadotov d€ ToUTwV peTahapBavovow addou

18)

KaTQ TUXNV.
ddAwv ddd\ws, TOv 5é apiotwy ot apistor av kat Topyias
_—

éatlv d0€, Kal peTexet THS KaANOTHS TOV TEXVOV.
III. 3. Kaddas ye, & Topyia, paiverar Todos wap- D

4 > 4
exxevao Oar eis dyous*
POVTL OV TOLEL.

GAA yap & vTécxeTo Xaipe-

TOP. Ti padwora, @ Séxpares ;

32. Td €pwradpevov ov
veo Bau.
Top.

, , > rd
Tavu mor PaiveTar azroKpi-

"ANG ov, ci Bove, Epod adrdv.

X
XQ. Ovk, ci ait@ ye cot Boviopév éotiv amoxpive-

oOat, GddAa TOAD Gy Hd.ov oe.

Sndos yap pot IlaXos Kat

ef av eipnker, OTL THY Kadovperny pNTopLKHY paddov

pemehernkev 7) Siadeyeo Par.

C. 72 Xapepay] This speech of Polus
was a part of his réxv7, or treatise on
Rhetoric, of which we hear below, p.
462 c. So the Schol. on Hermogenes,
p- 18 (Rhetores Graeci Walz. iv. 44),
dev kal Ti@Aos 6 Topylov pabyrhs év 7
TEXYN onoty ToAAal réexvat é€v ay-
Opémois eicty éx trav eumerpiay
éumetplas (L. eumetpws) cipnmevat.
Comp. Arist. Metaph. i. 1, 7 pev -yap
eumetpia téxvnv érolnoev, Ss ono Waddos,
opbas Aéywv, K.T.A,

THs KadAlorns tev Texvav] Com-
pare Philebus, p. 58, #rovoy péy yore,
ra) Zdxpares, éxdorore Topytov Aéyovros
moAAdKLs, os a Tov jwelSew word Biapépor
wacay Texvav’ mdvta yap bp’ abrA
BovAa 8 Exdvrwy GAN ov did Blas
mototro, kat waKp@ wacav aplorn efn TOY

TEXVOV.

D. gol Bovrouévm eorly] This suffi-
ciently common idiom is illustrated in all
the Grammars, as in Donaldson, § 458
gg. Vt is imitated in Latin by Sallust
and Tacitus.

d7A0s yap por] This construction (for
dnAdy pol éorw Gri TdAos), which is
illustrated by Stallb., is especially fre-
quent in the case of the words 57A0s and
dtxatos. Soph. Ant. 400, Sikaids ceive
TaVS GmnrdAGxOat Kak@v. dSHAos, and
SnAovy in its intrans. sense, are more
frequently used with participles, as ib. v.
20, dnAots yap Te Kadxalvouc’ ros. Stallb.
quotes three instances from Plato in
which avayatos is similarly used, among
these the passage below, 449 o..

—149, B. | TOPTIAX. 7

gE TWQA. Ti dy, & Séxpares ;

XQ. “Or, & HMade, épopévov Xarpepavtos rivos Top-
ylas emiotypev Téxvys, eyKopidlers wév adtod THY TEXYNY
w@oTeEp TVds WeyovTos, HTLs Sé €aTW OvK aTeEKpive.

IQA, Ov yap amexpwapny ote ein 7) KaddioTy ;

32. Kai para ye. add’ ovddcis Hpdta Tota tis etn H
Topyiov réxvn, adda Tis, Kal ovtwa Séou Kade Tov Top
ylav. dotep Ta eutrpoober cou Ureteivato Xaipedav Kat}?

449 avT@ Kaos Kat | dia Bpaxéav arexpivo, Kat vuv ovTws A
elmé, Tis 1) TExVN Kal Tiva Topyiavy Kaew yp pas.
Haov dé, @ Topyia, avtos jpiv eid, tiva oe yp) Kade
Os TlWos ETLOTHMOVa TEXVNS.

TOP. Tis pytopixns, ® Xoxpares.

32. ‘Prropa apa xP" oe Kale ;

TOP. “Ayabdv ye, ® Saxpates, eb 5p 6 ye euxtot
elvat, ws efn “Ounpos, Bovrer we Kadetv.

S22. “Adda Bovropat.

TOP. Kdnde dy.

2. Ovkovv Kat addrovs oe dopey Svvardv evar
ToOLew ;

B TOP. ’Emayyé\opai ye 8) Tatra ov povov évOdde
ahha Kat adr\0oft.

32. *Ap odv Ceryjoas av, & Topyia, dowep viv dia-
heydpea, Siareh€oat 7d perv EpwTav, 76 8 droKxpwdpevos,
To S€ pHKos TOV Aéywy TodTO, oloy Kal Ildhos jp§aro,

E. Gorep Ta Eurpoobey merelvaro} stand after viv, though patronized by
be Ghéctfison a sie sure vol par des Heind., is now properly omitted by the
exemples” (Cousin). dor. is used simi- edd. It is absent from the Bodl.
larly in Theaet. 179 D, oxewréoy e 449. Oixody kal &AAovs] Olymp. in L.,
apxiis, domep adrol sworelvovrar. The €&y éor: ray xapaxtnpiCévtwy toy émarth-
active is found in like sense in Clitoph. pova rd kal &AAous SbvacOat Toleiv em-
408 pv. It is nearly equivalent to orhpovas, ds Kal év TG’ AAKiBiddy cipntat.
| bpnyeto@as as “Ad vy. &AAous int. bftopas. Plene infra
- | Hemdorf remarks. Comp. 455 D, abrds 0, pnropixis yap ohs émiorhuwv téxvns

yap Kad@s ak ‘have shownme the clvat, cal woijoa by Kab &AAov phropa.

way. @ allusion here is to the exam- Conviv. 196 E, roinris 6 beds copds oft ws
ples of the physician and painter above dare Kab &dAov morjou” (Ast).

proposed by Chaerephon. Observe the B. oiov kat T@Aos Hptaro| ‘such as
hendiadys, for Samep,.. . dwotewauéevov was the exordium of Polus,’ as if he had
Xaipeparros, ate RAXGS ser expive, said otay apxhy hptaro, as in Soph. 242 B,
kal voy OUTws ele. Comp. omeypdyauer, tiva apxhy tis by tptaro Adyou; Tim.

Theaet: ovv which used to 36 £, Oclay dpxhy iptaro.

a

a

ob (age Sree kt ones my ome eit
dad{es Kara Deryev! ov Bak ier Twa

8 ITAATQNOX [ 449, B

eioavOis amobécbat ; add’ omep vmvoyxvel, wy Wevon, GAN
eOédynoov kata Bpaxvd 76 EpwTapmevov dmroxpiveo Ua.

TOP. Eici p&, & Soxpares, Gia. Tov amoKpioewv CO
dvaykata. Sua paKkpav Tovs Ndyous movetoOau ov pH
GANA Teipdoopai ye ws Sia Bpaxutdrwv. Kal yap ad Kal
TovTo ev éoTw av dypt, pndeva av ev Bpayvtépors Enov
TAUTG ElTrELy.

x2. Tovtov pv Set, & Topyia: cai pou ériderguv
QUTOV TOVTOV ToOlNT aL, THS Pesgehoyies, paxpodoyias dé
eioavits. :

TOP. “Adda Toijoe, Kai ovdevds dyaoes Bpayvdoyw-
‘Tépov akovaa. Sealer
IV. 32. Sépe Sy fytopurns yap dis émorypev
Téxyns evar Kat mounoau &v Kal aAdov pryTopa % pyTo- p
pik Tept TL TOV OVT@Y TYyXaVvEL OTA; BOTEP 1 Vpay-

TUN TEPL THY TOV ipatiov épyaciav 4 yap;

TOP. Nai.

32. Odxodv kai 7 povauky wept THY TOY WEdOV TOinoW ;

TOP. Nai.

x2. Ny tiv "Hpav, & Topyia, d&yapai yé cov tas

9 4
GTOKpPLOELS, OTL ATOKpIVEL WS

GAN Sep bmioxvet | Sup. 447 £, eiwé
pot, @ Topyta, &dAnOj Ayer KadAikAjs
8Se, Ort emayyéAAet Groxplvacba b Ti dy
tls oe €pwrG ; "AANO, @ XatpepOr, kal yap
viv 5) adTa tTadtra émnyyeAAdunyv. After
Gro0écOu some few codd. give val.
Buttmann would receive this into the
text, as the answer of Gorgias to the
request made by Socr. He urges that
the general émdyyeAua of Gorgias did
not imply all that Socr. here requires
of him. To evade the difficulty Ast
proposes e%rep for dep. It is, I think,
conceivable that Socr. refers to a boast
which he regards as notorious, and which
Gorgias presently repeats, undéva dy év
Bpaxurépots, «.7.A. dmioxve? will thus
have its natural meaning—‘ the profes-
sion you habitually make.’ I hesitate
between this view and the expedient
proposed by Buttm. Sext. Empir. (adv.
Matth. ii. 7) gives a well-known anecdote
in illustration of the contrast between
dialectical brevity and rhetorical diffuse-
ness: Zhvwy 6 Kirrieds epwrndels rm

er ‘ ,
otdv Te Sia Bpaxurdrwv.

Biaéper Siadrextikh pyropirjs, cvorpéeyas
Thy xeipa Kal mddAw etamAdoas ey
“robT@,” KaTa uty Thy svoTpophy Td
otpéyyvaoy Kal Boaxd tis diardeKTiKis
TaTTwY iDiwua, Sia de THs ekaTAdoEws
kal éxtdoews TOV SaxTVAwy Td TAaTY
THs pnropiKis Suvdwews aivirropevos.

C. Eiol wév, & Séupares | Olymp., drdp-
Xovet pév tives TOV epwTngéwy Kal waKkpod
Adyou xpi(ovom. Rightly as regards
the sense. For the use of dvayxata:
comp. Legg. i. 648 0; Soph. 242 B, and
the note on 448 p above. Tr., ‘There
are answers, Socr., which cannot choose
but be diffuse. “Not but what I will try
to be as brief as possible.’

kal yap ad] This boast was common to
Gorgias and his master Tisias. See
Phaedr. 267 B.

Tovtov why] Olymp. reads
pévra, which is perhaps better,

D. &yaual yé cov] So Heind. Some
MSS. have ye only, some cov only, but
both are required by usage. Hirschig
in a recent tract insists on expelling tas

TovTou

—450, B. |

TOPTIAS.

9

\ na val
TOP. Ildvv yap otwor, & Yoxpares, ErreKas TovTo

qTOLELY.

x. Ed héyes.

¥ , ieee y \ \
Ou 8n HOt ATOKpPLVat OUTW KQAL TEpt

ETHS PyTOpiKHs, wept Ti T@Y OvTwY eoTiV ETLATHEN 3.

450

TOP. Ilepi \édyovs.

4 > aA “~ ‘
x2. “Ioiovs tovtovs, & Topyia; dpa ot Sndovor Tovs
, 4
KGpLVoVTas, @s av SuaiTedpevor VyLatvouer ;

TOP. Ov.
SN.
€oTL.
TOP. Ov dira.
SN.
TOP. Nai.
pips
TOP. [Ids yap ov ;

Ovix dpa wept mdvtas ye TOs Adyous 7H PyTOpLKH

"ANAG pv héyew ye Tovet Suvatovs.

Ovxovy Tept Gviep héyew, Kat dpoveir ;

XQ. *Ap odv, Hv viv 8) edéyouer, 4 latpixy | wept
TOV KapvovTav Trovet SuvaTods eivar ppovelv Kat héye ;

TOP. *Avadyky.

x2. Kai % iatpixy dpa, ws €ouxe, epi dyous éort.

TOP. Nai.

XN. Tovs ye wept ta voojpara ;

TOP. Madtora.

> “a x ¢ ‘ ‘ , > ‘\ ‘
2. Ovxovv kat n yupvactixyn wept Aoyous EaTL TOUS
\
mepi eveElay TE TOV TwpdTwV Kai Kaxe€iar ;

TOP. Ildvv ye.

XN. Kai pay cat at adda téyvar, @ Topyia, ovTws
an , \ a
Bexovow" exdaoTn avtav wept dyous EaTi TovTOUS, Ot TUYy-
» ‘ ”~ ee ‘
Xdvovow OVTES TEPL TO TPAyya OD EKaoTH EoTIV 1H TEXVN.

TOP. Gaiverac.

aroxpices, reading &yaual yé cov Sri
amroxplver «.7.A. So Hipp. Maj. 291 2,
&yapal cov Ste por Soxets K.7.A.

E. @s &y diaitépevar Syialvorey|] ‘how
they must live in order to get well:’ or
more literally, ‘by observing what rules
of diet they will get well.’

450. meph Tay kapvdvTwy Tote? | motel,
which some of the best MSS. omit, seems
to me indispensable.

4 yunvaorixh | Olympiodorus makes a
curious remark on this passage. He says,
“Socr. is not speaking of the trainers
(wa:dorpiBwy) of the present day, but of
ancient times, when it was the task of
the physician to restore heaith, and of
the trainer to preserve it” () 5 yuura-
orikh épvaatte). “In our day,” he says,
“the two functions are confounded ”—
ovykéxuvTa TAadTa.

TLAATA NOX

10 [ 450, B

3N. Ti odv Sy mote tas addas Téxvas od PyTopiKas
KaNEls, OVTAas TEpt Adyous, ElTEP TAVTHY PHTOpLKHY KaNels,
H Gv 4 wept Noyous ;
> n Q »” an ‘
TOP. “Om, & Xaxpares, Tov pev addwv Texvav TEpt
xeipoupyias Te Kal ToLavTas mpakeis, ws Eros EiTElv, TACK.
€oTw emioTHun, THS SE pyTopiKHs ovdév EaTL TOLOUTOV
Xepovpynua, Ga Taca 7 mpagis Kai 7 KUpwors Oud
——y s lot ‘oat > ~
hoyav €ori. Sid Tadr eyo THY pyTopiKHY TéxvnV GEL CO
> XN , > eo 4 c > 4
elvat ept Adyous, d6pOas héywv, ws eyd hyp.
V. 32. *Ap’ ody pavOdve oiav aitnv Bovder kahety ;
= nw
taxa. 8 eloopat cadéatepov. ad aardxpwar. elaiv npiv
TEXVOL, Hh yep;
TOP. Nai.
na , i nw “ nw Q 3 , x
32. Tacav 8€, cipar, Trav tTexvav Tav pev epyacia Td
ries \ , , , »” ers Cae
Tov eat. Kal hdyou Bpaxéos dSé€ovTar, eviar de ovoeves,
adda To THS TéexVNS TEpaivoito av Kai dia ovyjs, otov
XN weed 5 , \ ¥ / ‘\
ypapicn kal avOpiavtomoua Kat ahAat Tohhai* Tas Tot-
avtas por Soxets Aéyewv, Tepl as ov PHS THY pPyTopiKHy D
civau. 7) ov;
TOP. Ildvy pev odv Kkahos vrohapBavers, @ Yo-
Kpares.
32. “Erepar 5 y eiot tov Texvav ai dia Adyou wav
mepaivoval, Kal epyou, ws eros eimelv, Y ovdevds TpoT-

B. xetpovpynua| This word and the
followitig-Kipwois are pronounced Sice-
lisms by the Schol. xvpwors is found in
Thucyd. vi. 103, and perhaps may be set
down as an instance of the Gorgiasm of
which the ancient rhetoricians accuse
him. «vpos is presently used by Socr. in
the samé sense.” Later writers do not
scruple to employ both the words ob-
jected to. Olymp. quotes the Boeotism
trtw Zevs put into the mouth of the
Theban Cebes in Phaedo 62 A as a proof
that Plato sometimes indulges his cha-
racters in the use of their native pro-
vincialisms.

c. 7 Ap’ oty pavOdvw| <I am not sure
that I understand what art you mean to
call it: but I shall presently’ &e. dpa is

frequently used when the speaker ques-
tions himself. See below, 463 D, ap- ody

dy wdOors Groxpwauévov; ‘I should like
to kigw-whether you will understand
my answer when I have given it.” _zdéxa
= airixa, as freq. in Plato and Xeno-
phon. Below, 466 a, ri taxa Spdoess ;
where the gloss zpeo8urns yevduevos used
to stand in the text but is now ejected.
In Phaedr. 228 0 tax? emeiddy = emerdav
Taxista. With efroua, Taxa has nearly
always this sense, but there is a seeming
exception in the Minos, p. 314 ©, kat
tows ev Kad@s dAéyets, Taxa BE Bde
&uewwov ciodueda.

Maggy 3é, oluat, ray _texvav] ‘of the
various arts there are some in which
work is the principal ingredient, and
they require little or perhaps no dis-
course.”

D. @s Eros eimweiy| ‘paene dixerim,’
opposed to axpiBe? Adyw in Rep. i. 341 B,

—451, A.| TOPIIAS. 11

Séovrar 7 Bpaxéos mavv, otov apiOpyntiKy) Kai oyvotiKi)

Kal YEeOpETPLKT) Kal TETTEVTLKY Ye Kal dhdat TodAal Téyvat,

&v evar oxeddv Tu taous Tovs Adyous Exovort Tats Tpateo iv,
Eat d¢ wodhai mAclouvs Kal TO Tapdray Taca H mpakis Kal
TO KUpos avTats dia Adywv EoTi.
Soxets Neyew THY PyTopuKny.

TOP. *AhdnOy déyers.

32. *AN’ ovrou TovTwr ye ovdepiay otpai oe Bovde-
oOa. pytopikny Kadelv, ody OTL TO PHWaTL ovTws ElTes,
ort H Sua Adyou Td KUpos EXoVTa PHTOPLKH €oTL, Kal U7O-
hd Bou ay tis, et Bovdouro Svcyxepaivew ev Tots Ndyous, THY
apiluntikny apa pntopucyv, ® Topyia, héyers ; ad’ ovK
otal oe VTE THY apiOunTLKHY OVTE THY yewpeTpiay pyTo-
puny déyetv.

| TOP. “Op@as yap ote, & Yadxpares, kal Sixaiws
brohkapBavers.

VI. 32. "I0e vv cat od rh ardokpiow Hv Hpdpnv
Suamépavov. €mel yap y pyTopiKy TYyxaver pev odaa Tov-

76005 Vn

TOV TOLOVT@V TWa [LOL

451

and to éyrws in Legg. ii. 656 E, in which
passages tr. ‘in popular language,’ ‘in
vulgar parlance,’ or the like.

aoxeddv tt Yoovs}] Schol., as mer-
TevTikh Kal KiGapwdia. It is hard to see
how the game of draughts should require
speech and action in equal proportion.
Olympiodorus’s. explanation, which is
somewhat obscure, shows, however, that
a mixed game of chance and skill, like
our backgammon, is to be understood by
mettevtikh. ‘The ‘speech’ consisted in
calling out the number of each throw of
the dice; the action in moving the pieces
to the best advantage under the cir-
cumstances. é frou exer Td TE Epyor
kal tov Adyov" iua yap TE platew Tas
Whoous kal émArcyoual triva’ oiov s’ & &
tplenta (sc. tpls €f, Aesch. Ag. init.)
H tT Towdtov. By wWihpovs I imagine
that he means «vfous, for the draught-
men can hardly have been made to
serve a double purpose even though
they were, as he says, like a split die
(Steornkas KvBos ex Tpia@v Tpryover
mepiex duevos).
_ EB. obx br] ‘not but what, taken at
your See at’

Prota:

&e. g. 336 D, obx Sti wallet Kal
_----

gnaw emAhcuwy civa, ‘though he does
make believe and protest that he has no
memory.’

kal droAdBa &y tis] ‘and a captious
opponent, if so disposed, might reply,
“Qh, so it is arithmetic you mean when
you say rhetoric.”? ducxepatvery,
ptAovescety (Olymp.). ;

451. *I1@: vuy} Most MSS. have vir.
Bekker reads ody on the authority of one
or two. I have restored the enclitic,
which Dindorf replaces likewise in
Sophist. p. 224 0, “I: 84 vuv cuva-
yeyouey até for the vulg. 5) viv (Ad
Steph. Thes. ii. p. 1049). So in Xen.
Hell. v..1. 32, tre vuy nal épwrare. “ Non
est enim cur poeticum putetur vuy en-
cliticum, quod prosae quoque tribuere
videtur Schol. ad Eur. Hee. 975 Matth.”
(Dind. ibid. tom. v. p. 1613). The tem-
poral adverb is out of place here, and the
reading ov was probably a gloss on the
original vuy or viv. The same account
may be given of 57, which is found in
another MS. On the quantity of the
enclitic vuy see the accurate remarks of
Mr. J. Wordsworth in the Philological
Museum, i. p. 226.

~

12

ITAATQNOX

[451, A

TOV TLS TOV TEXVOV TOV TO TOAD OyM KpOpEVOV, TUYXG-
vovot O€ Kai dANaL ToLadTaL ovat, TELpa EizrElY, 7 TmeEpt Tt
> , \ a ¥ e Pe 7 a ¥
€v Ndyous TO KUpOS EXoVT'G PHTOpLKy €oTW* WoTEp av El

4 @ a Oo? Ey Ye n an nw
Tis Ee EPOLTO Gv Vuv On Eeyov TEpL HAOTWOT OUD TOV TEXVA?,
> , , > e > AY , ¥ ; weer

2 Boxpates, tis €oTw Q apiOuntixy Téxvy ; Eloy. av

laa WA ‘ » 9 A
avT@, WOTEP TV apTL, OTL TOV Sia Adyou Tis TO KUPOSB

> a
eX OVO@)D.

\ cl > , “ ‘ / ¥ > K#
Kal €l Ee EmavepoLTo Twy wept TL; ElTOUL GY

9 a ee aed , \ ae. Be ae en 4
OTL TWV TEPL TO APTLOV TE KAL TEPLTTOV, OD AV EKATEPA TUY~

, ”
: Xavou OVTa.

et 8 av époito, Ti S€ oyrotikny tiva

lal , ¥ > kK 4 ‘ 9 > \ ” ‘4 ‘\
Kakels TEXVNV 3 ELTOWL GY OTL Kal avTH EoTL TMV hoy TO

Tav KUpOUMEVOr.

he ee s € ee ¥ >
Kat €b €TAVEPOLTO H TEpl TL; ELTOLL

N A £49 ial / / 9 ‘ \ ¥
dv dotep ot ev TO OHM ovyypaddpevot, TL TA pev ada

B. mepitrév| After this word yvdois
stands in the MSS. Bekker and all sub-
sequent edd. have bracketed it. It is
so palpably a gloss that it is better
removed.

bo°?_by éxdrepa tuyxdvar bvta] boa
here and in 453 E is used for méoa or
éxéga. Soph. Oed. R. 1271, 500bveR” obx
BYowTd viv OVP of fracxev otf brow
edpa wand. Xen. Cyr. v. 29, Hyayov
cupudxous ovx bcouvs ob Ereicas GAN
émrécous éy® mAciorous éduvdunyv. For
tvyxdvot the Bodl. and others give
tTuvyxdvy, and so the Ziir. edd. But this
could only mean, ‘as many as there may
be of either sort,’ whereas the meaning
required is, ‘how many either may be;’
i. aon oad « _are; or ‘may
be,” in any particular odd_or even num-
ber. The-potential By vy vot will give
this sense, but we should have expected
to find goa... Tvyxdver, as in the
passage of this dial. just referred to we
have 60a éorly and cov éotiy, and in
Theaet. 198 © oxometo 8a: récos Tis &piOuds
Tuyxdver &v. One MS. has tvy-
xévet, though apparently retaining &.
—Arithmetic, in its popular acceptation
among the Greeks, was limited to Nota-
tion or Numeration : speculative or scien-
tific Arithmetic took a much wider range,
including the science of the forms and
properties of numbers, as developed for
instance in the four books of Euclid
succeeding the sixth. Logistic in like
manner was both popular and_philo-
sophical, the former being confined to
the “four rules” and their applications.
It is evident that Socr. is here speaking

only of the popular Arithmetic and
Logistic : Olympiodorus is therefore wide
of the mark when he says, 7 méyv &p.8-
pntixh wept Td eldos aber (sc. Tob aptiov
kal TOD wepiT Tod) H BE AoyioTiKh wepl Thy
#Anv—for his statement, if true, is in-
applicable to the passage before us.
Those who are interested in the history
of Greek mathematics may consult upon
this point Kliigel’s Mathematisches W ér-
terbuch, i. 174 fol., comparing Plat.
Politic. 299 £, and Phileb. 56 c fol. The
theorem given in Theaet. 147 D is an
elegant specimen of the higher Arith-
metic.

kupoumévwy] ‘which accomplish’ or
‘achieve :’ nearly = d:ampartouévwr, with
which it is coupled below (D). kvpodv=
to give validity to the will or act of
another.

of ev TE Shuw cvyypapducyor| ‘those
who frame amendments in the assembly,’
i.e. upon the probouleumata brough
down from the Council. The force o
the following words will be at once eviden
from an inscription in Boeckh (No. 84)
Ta pev HAAG Kabdmrep TH Bova, avaypdya
dt bavdéxpirov Toy Taplavoy mpdievov Kal
evepyérny avtoy Kal rods exydvous év
oTtAn AOivy. The honours decreed by
the Council to this Phanocritus had been
more limited, and the orator Cephalus
adds this ‘rider.’ In Aesch. c. Ctes. p.
71, § 127, we find ovyypaupa used in the
corresponding sense of a clause in a bill:
kal madw év TG adTG Whdlopar: odd
Kal capéorepov kal mixpdrepov obyypauma
ypdper, ‘he inserts a much harsher pro-
vision.’

—451, E. | TOPIIAS. 13

TEpt TO avTo

Siadepea Se
TOTOUVTOY, OTL Kal TPOS avTa Kal Tpds GAAnAa TAS exer
tAnGovs emiokoTel TO TEpITTOV Kal TO apTiov 7 hoyLaTLKY,

Kalazrep n dpilunrucn 7 n AoyuoruKy) exe"
O ydp €ott, 76 TE dptvoy Kal TO mepurroy"

Kal € Tis THY aoOTpOVomiay avépo.To, E“ov héyovTos OTL
Kal avtTn Aéyw Kupovtar TA TadvtTa, Oi S€ Adyou ot Tis
dotpovopmias, ei pain, wept Ti ciow, ® YaKpates ; eloyw
Gy OTe TEpl THY TOV AOTPwY popar Kat HAlov Kat oedyvys,
MOS Tpos Gna Taxous EXEL.

TOP. ’Op as ye héywr ot, & Yaxpares.

D 3M. “16 8) Kai ov, d Topyia. tvyxdver pev yap 8)
H pyntopiKy ovoa Tov Moyo Ta TdvTa Siampatromévwr TE
kal Kupovpévor [Tis | H yap ;

TOP. *Eort ravra.

FN. Atye 37 TOV mept ti; *7i* éote TovTO TOY OVTOr,
mept 08 o8rot ot héyou eiaiv, ols 7) pyTopiK? Xpira 5 ;

TOP. Ta péywota tov avOpwreiov tpaypdtor, @
Saéxpates, Kal apiora.

VII. 3. °AN’, & Topyia, audioByntyopov Kai
TovTo héyes Kal ovdév Tw cadés. olopar yap oe aKn-

EKoéva €v Tots cuptrocios gddvtTav avOpdtav TodTo TO
oKoN\uor, &v @ KatapiOpovvTar GdovTes OTe vytaivey pev
dpuotév éot, 7d Sé Sevrepov Kadov yevéo Oar, tpiroy Sé,
as dyow 6 Tots TOV TKO\OV, TO TAOUTEW Adddws.

——_- —.

baa bere

———————

D. tvyxdver—[tis] For this ris the
Bodl. and some other MSS. have tivéy,
possibly, as Herm. thinks, a relic of
texvav, which may have been itself a
gloss. I have followed his example in
bracketing tis, which though harmless
is unnecessary.

*7{*] This second rf was introduced
by Heind. Some MSS. omit ray zepl,
which Ast inclines to do.

E. todto Td cxoAtéy| This ran thus,

as edited by Bergk :—

byialvew pey &piorov avdpt OvaTe,

devrepov SE Guay Kadrdy yevéo Gat,

7d tpitov dé mAouTEtv GddAws,

kal 7d Téraptoy nBay meta Tay plrwy.
Anth. Lyr. p. 408.

«These Scolia were a kind of lyric com-
position sung either in concert or suc-
cessively, by all the guests after a
banquet: the subjects of them were
either the praises of some Attic Divinity,
or moral precepts, or reflections on life,
or gay exhortations to mirth or wine, or
to love. There were some scolia of great
antiquity ; the most esteemed were those
of Alcaeus, of Praxilla, and of Anacreon”
(T. Gray). Olympiodorus says that the
oxoArd were so called because the myrtle-
branch held by the singer inter can-
tandum, was not handed to his next
neighbour, but to the person opposite
him on the other side of the table: «ai
cKoAa 7 weTddoois éyivero. This par-
ticular scolium is quoted by Athen. (xv.

14 IIAATQNOX [451, B

ate TOP. *Axyjxoa yap’ adda mpods Ti ToUTO héyes ;
we WPN-- SO. "Oru cou avtix dv | mapacratey ot Sypvovpyot 452
TOUTWY GV emyverev 6 TS TKOMLOY ToLnCas, laTpds TE Kat
»” a
madotpiBys Kal ypnpLaTLoTHs, Kal Elo. av TpaTOV meV O
a ae nm
iatpos o7e °Q Ydk«pares, e€awatgG oe Topyias: ov yap
€oTi 1) TovTOV TExVN TEpL Td peytoTov ayalbyv Tos av-
7 > > e > 4 > > ; ESS > ‘\ > , ‘ A
Opéro.s, GAN 7H enn. ei ody adrov ey@ epoiunv Xv dé
, KR lal , ¥ » w, y > , , -
Tis @Y TavTa héyels; ElTOL Gv Lows OTL Iatpds. Tt ovv
héyers ; 7) TO THS ONS TExVNS Epyov péyaTov €oTW ayalor ;
IIds yap ov, dain av tows, & Yéxpares, vyieva ; TiO €orri
A > ‘ > 4 i 7 > S° oy A ~ c
peclov ayalov avOparrois vyveias ; Et 3 ad peta Trovtov 6B
, ¥ Y , 229 > , ‘
mavdorpiBys elrou Ort Oavpdloui y av, ® SaxKpates, Kat
> , ¥ ¥ , “ > Q > A rt
avTds, e&¢ aou exer Topyias petlov ayaldv éemidetEar THs
lal nw nw ¥ >
avTov Téxvns 7) eyo THS Euns’ Elmo av av Kal pds
lal \ \ ‘ ld > p> *# ‘\ , XX A A
tovtov Xv dé by tis et, & avOpwre ; Kal Ti Td wdv Epyov ;
, Fie . 9 Y¥ 3 , A
IIadorpiBys, pain av, 7s 8 Epyov pov €or. Kadovs TE Kat
> ‘ “ ‘\ > 4 “ 7 ‘x \
ioyupovs tore Tovs avOpdérovs Ta odpata. Mera dé
>
Tov madotpiBnv eiro. Gv 6 ypynpaTioTys, ws ey@pmat,
Tavu Katadpovav amdvrav, kde. Sita, @ Sdkpates, av C
, lal tal) b) \ >» x ‘ , ~*~
oo. tAovTOV gary Tu peilov aryaldv dv H mapa Topyia 7
> »¥ e Lal “A a > ‘\ JRE 7 \ "4 >
Tap aw 6twovr. paipev Gv ovv mpds avrov Ti dé dy ; 7
N , , so» gy ,
ov TovTov Onuioupyds ; Pain av. Tis av; Xpynpatiorys.
Ti otv; Kpivets od péyrotov avOpamois ayaldv civac
A , A ‘ ¥ > La) ‘\ ‘\ >
mdovtov ; dyoopev. Ilds yap ovK; épet. Kat pv ap-
Lal , 4 A > e “~ “4 ,
gio Byret ye Topyias ode tHv wap avt@ téyvyv peilovos
> A Eee 4 > a i. , A ad e an A
ayabov aitiay eivar 7) THY onv, daiwev av Hues. SHrov
> y Q QA A ¥ > a \ , > wn \
ovv OTL TO peETa TOVTO EpoiT av Kai ti éoti TovTo Td
> , > , , Y > , >
ayabov ; amokpwacbw Topyias. “du otv vopioas, @D
Topyia, épwtacbar Kai vm éxeivwy Kal bm é"ov, a70-
Kpwat Ti €oTL TOUTO 6 Gs od péeyoTov ayabdv eivar Tots
avOpadmo.s Kal o€ Sypvovpyov elvat avrod.

p- 694) and attributed by Clemens Alex. of the verb requires the repetition of the
to Simonides. particle.

452. nat etro &v| I have followed D. 6 ons od —Kal cé] The same kind
Hirschig in inserting &. mapacratey dy of anacoluthia occurs inf. 454 B, d doe?
. . kad efrorey would have been agreeable pév d7Aov civar ey F emavepwra,
to usage, but the change in the subject

—453, A. | TOPIIAX. 15

9 ¥ >
TOP. “Ovep €otw, & Xéxpates, TH adyPeia peyrorov
> ‘ ‘ ” 9 * > , > a A > ,
ayalov Kai attov apa peév €hevlepias adrots Tots avOpa-
y A an 7 * > “A e la , ec ,
Trois, dua Sé Tod ahdwv apxew ev TH avTod TOE ExdoTo.
x2. Ti ody &) rovro héyets ;
E TOP. To weibew eywy oidv 7 eivat tots Adyous Kal
ev duxacrypio 8 us Kai ev Bovd iw Bovdevra
oTnpi Ouactas Kat €v BovdevTnpiw Bovdeuvtas
kal év exxrnoig cele ards Kal ev dd\Aw Evd\dAOyo TarTi,
Gotis Gy tohutiKds EVANoyos yiyvytat. Kaitou év TadTy TH
4 La \ 4 A > 4 A \ 8
Suvdper Soddov pev E€ers Tov iatpdv, Soddov S€ Tov zat-
SotpiByv: 6 Se aTuaTHs ovTos ahiw avadavyoerat
pLey XPNP ns s ; vy)

\ > ¢ Lal 5 ‘ ‘\ at 4
xXpnparilouevos Kal ovy avT@, adda cot TO Suvvapeve
héyew kat weiGew Ta 7rHOn.

a a A >

VIIL 3S. Nov por doxets Syrocat, d Topyia, éyyv-

453 TaTa THY pytopiKnY | HYTWwa Téxvyv yet elvaL, Kal Et TL
eye ovvinpt, éyers Ort wevHovs Snpiovpyds eoTw 7 pyTo-
piky, Kal 7) Tpaypateia aiTAs amaca Kal Td Kedadaoy
eis TOUTO TehevTG. 7) Exes TL A€yew emi Téov THY pPyTO-
pixny Sivacbar } Teva Tots dxovovew ev TH Wuyy Torely ;

+ then

TOP. Ovdapas, 6 Yoxpares, ad\dd por Soxeis ixavads
ec , »” ‘ ~ % 7, > “

OpilerOaur Eore yap TovTo Td Kedadatoy avris.

x2. “Axovoov 84, & Topyia. eye yap eb tof dru, as

E. év tatty TH Suvdper| ‘armed with
this power you will hold in thraldom
both physician and gymnast, while your
great capitalist will be seen to be
heaping up riches for another rather
than himself, even for you who are
able to move the masses by your elo-
quence. For the use of év comp. Xen.
Cyr. viii. 6. 20, tatrny thy orpatidy
Exwv év 7 AéyeTu Katactpepacba mdvTa
7a @0vn. For that of GAAd see below,
454 co. ;

453. mesQois Enusaueryes—i_ bar opie
This definition was not inven y Plato

for the occasion. It appears to have
been an heirloom in the schools of
rhetoric, originating, according to the
author of the Prolegomena to Her-
mogenes (p. 8), with Corax and Tisias, or,
according to Quintilian, wi socrates
(Inst. Or. ii. c. 15, § 4): “ Haec opinio
originem ab Isocrate, si tamen revera
ars quae circumfertur ejus est, duxit,
qui cum longe sit a voluntate infa-

mantium oratoris officia, finem artis
temere comprehendit, dicens esse rhe-
toricen persuadendi opificem, id est,
meiOovs Snuouvpydv.” The circumstance
that it proceeds from the mouth of Socr.
rather than of Gorgias, is an intimation
that the definition was current in Athens
when this dialogue was written. An
amended definition is given by Socr. in
Phaedr. 271 A: % fntopih dv etn tTéxvn
Woxaywyla tis 1a Adyar.

eya yap eb to? br1—elvat TobTwv Eva |
An anacoluthon. The regular constr.
would have been xa) éyé cius TobTwy efs,
both ¢& io@ 67: and és éuavrdy welOw
being parenthetical. The phrase «dé ic@
8rt is sometimes in construction and some-
times independent, as 57A0v S71. In B,
capes pev ed 168 rt ovK oida its use is
ambiguous. Socr. alludes in this passage
to his invariable practice of seeking a
definition of the terms of an argument—
the vi Zor, in the language of Greek
dialectic.

16 TIAATQNOX [453, A

¥ ¥ ¥ ,
€uavtTov meiOw, elmep tus aAdos ahdw Siadéyerar Bov-
na , ‘
hdopevos €idévar avTd TOUTO Tept oTOV 6 Adyos E€oTi, Kal B
> ‘\ ‘a , y Le og 2.) de ‘ ,
€ue elvar ToUTwY eva aio OE Kal CE.
TOP. Ti ovv &y, & Yadxpates ;
> QA > nw nw > QA A 5 .Y Lal e A 4
SN. °Eya €po viv. eye tHv amd THs pytopikys Ted,
n Tis ToT eoTiv HY ov éyets Kal TEpi GVTWaV TpAayLaToV
> AQ , A \ Oe 9 pg > > > s > >
€ott ed, cadds pev ed tof Ott ovdK oda, od pv adr
broTTEvw ye Hv olpat oe héyew Kal TEepi OY ovdev mévTOL
HTTov epyoopat oe tiva mote héyes THY TELOe THY amo
nA lal > a > A
THS PYTOPLKHS Kal Tept Tivwy avTHV ElvaL. TOU OY EVEKA O
‘ eS 3 , A > , > > > 2.5 ,
617 avtds UromTEvav GE Epjoomat, GAN ovK avTds héyo ;
> epi 4 > ‘ Les 4 > id oh € , >
ov aov Eveka, GANG TOU oyou, Va OVT@ TpOin, ws MahLoT
av npiv Katapaves trovot wept oTov héyeTa. oKOTEL yap
el got OoK@ Sikaiws avepwrav oe. woTEp ay ei eTUyYavov
an fal a ¥ >
oe epwtav Tis Eat TOV Cwypddav Zevkis, et jrou Eltes OTL
€ \ A , ed > x 8 , 2-2 F e &
6 Ta loa ypadwv, ap ovK Gv dikaiws oe Hpdopnv 6 Ta

mova Tav Céwv ypadwv ; [Kal wrod ; |

TOP. Ilaw ye.

32. "Apa dia rovTo Stu Kat aAdor ciot Cwypadou ypd-

dhovres adda Tokda Loa ;

B. "Ey® ép@ viv. eye] The first éyd is
absent from the older edd. but is found
in the Bodl. and elsewhere. The re-
petition is, however, harsh, and one would
gladly dispense with the second éyd,
which is omitted in one of the less im-
portant Paris MSS.

od why GAA’ ] ‘not but what I have my
suspicions as to its nature and its pro-
vince.’

0. @s padior’ &y—ro107 | In this clause
as isrelative. Tr., ‘so as it shall leave no
doubt in our minds what we are talking
about.’ Lat., ‘quo maxime modo.’

[kal mod] These two little words
have greatly embarrassed the inter-
preters. It is, however, clear from the
next speech of Socr. (dpa... . HAAa
moAAa (Ga;) that the sentence closed
with ypdpwv, for otherwise ral &AA0M
moAAaxod or something equivalent must
have occurred after (ga. This considera-
tion may relieve us from the trouble of
discussing the merits, or rather perhaps
demerits, of the various conjectures (7@s,
mécov &c.) which have been made or

adopted by various interpreters from
Ficinus downwards. How the words
forced their way into the text it is hard
to understand. They were read by one
Scholiast, who adds the gloss, év 7
moiulrn orog, which, besides being irre-
levant, is untrue, for the portico in
question was painted by Polygnotus, not
by Zeuxis. Ast defends the vulgate,
translating thus: “welche Thiere malt
er, und von welcher Seite malt er sie,
d.h. was stellt er an ihnen dar?”
Another interpretation is ‘whether he
painted on walls (in fresco) or on panel’
&e.; but if Plato had meant this, he
would certainly have expressed it differ-
ently. The clause, it seems to me, can
have no relevant meaning, nor is any
other clause needed in its stead. Hir-
schig leaves the text untouched, retain-
ing the old interpretation of Ficinus,

‘quo pacto,” as if he had read kal més; °

Olympiodorus quotes only as far as
yedpwy, and ignores the xa} mod in his
paraphrase, which he could hardly have
done had he found the words in his copy.

{/

—4154, B.| TOPIIAS. 17

TOP. Nai.

SQ. Ei Sé ye pndels addos H Zet&is eypade, kahds
av cou ameKéKpito ;

TOP. Ids yap ov;

XQ. "I Si) kai epi ths Pyntopixys elwé wdTEpdv cou
Soxet ted orev Y PyTopiKy pdovyn } Kai ahdau Téyvas ;
héeyw dé 76 Todvde GaTis SiddoKer 6TLOVY TPAyLA, TOTEPOV
0 SiddoKer wee 7 ov ;

TOP. Ov dita, & expates, adda wavTwv paiora hea tit

mein.
, > S39 N a eae: lal , e
gp 3. Idhkw & ci evi trav airav texvav éyomer Gviep
“A , ec > ‘ > , e “ 9 > ‘\ ‘ a
vov 8H, ) dpiluntixy od SiddoKe Nuas doa éoTt TA TOU
apiOwod, kat 6 apiOuntikds avOpwros ;
TOP. Ilavv ye.
SQ. Odxodv cai weiber ;
TOP. Nai.
32. Tefods dpa Syu.rovpyds éote kat 4 apiOuntixy.
TOP. Gaivera..
32. Odkody édv Tis epwTd Huds Totas teHovs Kai
mept Ti, adwoKpwovpeOa tov avt@ oT THS SiOacKadiKys
454 79S Tept TO apTidy Te Kal TO TEpiTTOV GooV eoTi. | Kal
‘\ » a nw \ > 4 , e , 4 >
Tas addas as vuv dy ehéyomer evan amaeds efopey amro-
Seifat mevfovs Snutovpyovs ovcas Kal Hotiwos Kat Tept 6
Ti. 400;
TOP. Nai.
XQ. OvdK« dpa pytopixy pdvyn TeBods eori Syp.ovpyds.
TOP. °Adn Oy déyets.
IX. 3. Ered) toivuy od povn amepyalerar Todo
X ¥ > ‘ ‘\ ll 7, 9 ‘\ ‘al
TO epyov, adda Kat addat, dikatws @OTEP TEPL TOU lo-
, we! wn > 4 > A 4 7 s
ypaov peta TovTO eravepoitel Gy Tov héyovTa, Toias 57)
melovs Kai THs TEept Ti TELDOUs H PHTOpLKH éaTi TExYN; 7
B ov Soxel cou Sikavov evar emravepeo au ; ;
TOP. “Epovye.

D. “14: 54} Socr. objects to the defini- which creates belief only. Below, p.
tion that its terms are ambiguous. For 455 a.
there are two kinds of we:6é, that which Od dita] Not the negative of wefGec,
imparts knowledge with belief, and that but of ob wef@ex. ‘Nay, he persuades

VOL. II. Cc

ahd ;

fs

sé Seu there ‘s

‘ial

18

ITAATQNNOZS

[ 454, B

5 Q \ A
32. “Amoxpwar 67, ® Topyia, éredy ye Kat cot Soket

y
OUTWS.

lal é ,
TOP. Tavrns toivuy THs wefods éyw, ® YoKpares,
la > / ‘\ b) “A » »” Y %
j " Ths év Suxaornplois Kat €v Tots adows OxAOLS, WOTEP Kat
casi doze éheyov, kal Tept TovTwY a é€oTt Sikaud TE Kai GdLKA.
SN. Kai éyd tow vadartevov tavtnv oe héyew THY

me0e Kal Tept TovTwr, @ Topyias ad\\’—iva py Oavpalys,

3X sy 4 y a P. 7 PAZ a 8 wn \

EQaV o\vyov VOTEpovV TOLOUTOV TL OE AVEPWILAL, O OOKEL MEV
lal > > \ a la 9 X: , nan ten

dn ov EWal, EYw 5 ETAVEPWTW—OTIEP yap héyo,|708 €&7s 0

wd 4 \ 4 > nw 3 Lal 9 > > J
evexa TepaiverOar Tov Adyov \epwr, ov cod evexa, ahd

Qn A

iva pry €OrlapeOa vrovoovrTe aptatew addAyndwy Ta
aK

Aeyopeva, Ga od TA GavTOD Kata THY VTOVETW OTMS GV

Bovhy Tepairys.

TOP. Kando.

TOP. Kai dp0ds yé por Soxeis trove, & SH«pares.
SQ. "Te 8) Kai 76d€ emoxepopela.

ral at pabynkevar ;
it ,

KaNets TL peE-

SOQ. Ti dé; wemoreveeva;

TOP. "Eywye.

> Lal >
32. IIdtepov odv tavrov doxet cou evar pepabyxevar D
v» »
Kat memurTevKeval, Kal pabynots Kal TioTis, Y ado TL;
TOP. Olopa pév eywye, & Xoxpartes, addo.

x. Kadds yap ota yrodoe dé evbévde.

> , ,
€l yop TUS

oe epoito Ap €ott Tis, ® Topyia, miotis Wevdys Kat ady-

, , » ¢ > ‘ >
Ons; pains av, as ey@ oipat.

unquestionably.’ So inf. 501 ©, aére-
pov ovykatariderat july . . i) avtipns;
K, Ovn éywye, GAAG TVyXwWPG.

454 B. wep) tottTwy & éoti Blkaid Te
kal &ixa] This definition applies in
strictness only to Sicavirot Adyo. The
province of deliberative oratory (cupBov-
Aevtixh) is Ta Gyab& Kal Kaxd. See
Phaedr..261 c D, and the notes.

&AN—iva wh—Srep yap A€éyw] “Sed

, ut ne shiver + noite ma iphatiodene’?
‘ &e. (Heind.) The particle yép is here in
| apodosi, as frequently after a parenthesis.
| See by all means Demosth. de F. L. § 107,
| and Mr. Shilleto’s accurate remarks in
the Vy. Ll. The idiom has escaped Stallb.
drep Aéyw is explained by 453 0, od cod
éveka, K.7.A.

0. Tob éffjs] The order is, épwr@ Evexa
Tov étjs mepaiverOa Toy Adyov. ‘I ask
in order that the argument may move
towards its completion in regular order,
by due steps.’ mepalver@a is passive, as
below, 497 D, tva wepavOGow of Adyot.
Stallb. translates as if it were transitive
and governed Adyoy, which can hardly be
the case, though the comp. di:amepalver Oa
is not unfrequently used in the middle,
as-Phaedr. 263 bn, Adyoy d:erepdvaro.

GAN ta wh €0Cdue0a] ‘that we may
not contrac it of forestalling or
taking for granted each other’sstatements
from vague suspicions of what they are
likely to be; but that you may rather de-
velop your own views in your own way in
accordance with the premisses assumed.’

—455, A.| TOPIIAS. 19

TOP. Nai.
XQ. Ti dé; emorjpy éoti pevdis Kat adyOys ;
TOP. Ovdapés.
32. Andov dpa ore od rav7Tdv eorov.
TOP. “Ady 7, déyets.
32. *“AdrAa pay ot TE ye peualykdres TemELopEvoL Eiot
E Kal ot TemuoTevKOTEs.
TOP. *Eot tadra.
32. Bovder ovv Svo cidn Odpev weOods, 75 pev wiotw
Tapexomevov avev Tod eidévar, Ts S emiaotypny ;
TOP. Ilavv ye.
x2. Tlorépav ovv % pyropixn wea moet év SiKxa-
oTnpio.s TE Kal Tots aAXoLS OyAoLs TEpi TOY SiKaiwy TE Kal
397 > a ‘\ 4, , ” nw sf 7 a 3
ddixwv ; &€ hs Td mioTevew yiyveras avev Tod cidevar H EE
Hs TO eideévas ;
TOP. Axjdov Syrov, & Yéxpares, ore €€ Fs TO THe-
OTEvELY.
XQ. ‘H pytopixy apa, as eouxe, wevHovs | Snusrovpyds
> a aw S28 A wae , ,
éoTe TicTEvTiKHs, GAN’ od SidacKkahikys wept 7d Sixaidv TE
\ » —_err
Kal aduKov.
TOP. Nai.
XQ. Od8 dpa Sidackadikds 6 pyTwp éoti Sikacry-
, ‘ aA ¥ »” 8 , ld ¥ 3Q7
ploy Te Kal TOV addAwr OXov OLKalwY TE TEpL Kal GOLKwY,
GANG TEveTLKds pdvov. ov yap Sov dydov y dv S¥vaito
“ > > / , Ud 9 , 7
TocovTov ev ddiyy xpovm SidaFar ovTw peydda mpdypara.
TOP. 0% Sfra.
X. 3M. Sépe Sy, oper ti wore Kat éyouer wepi

455

D. AfjAoy tpa—éeorov] Vulg. d7jXov yap
.éotv. An illative particle being
evidently needed here, I have not scrupled
to adopt the excellent reading of Olym-
piodorus, épa. The éordy was suggested
by Dr. Badham, who had also acutely
conjectured 23 &pa for yap ad. Olymp.
reads ta’rd eiow, but Taitdv, ‘the same
thing,’ is commonly used in such cases,
as in 462. The received yap ad converts
an inference into a reason. éordéy is fre-
quently replaced by éoriv, as in Politicus
263 A, where the vulg. has éoriy for the
éordéy of the Bodl. and other MSS.

455. we:orixés | meorixéds is the reading
of the Bodl. and the majority of MSS., the
rest giving reiotixds. Sext. Emp. (adv.
Math. ii. §§ 2, 75) seems to have read
meorikés here and we:orixfs for morev-
tics paul. sup. In the latter case he is
doubtless wrong, but both Buttm. and
Heind. seem with reason to question the
legitimacy of the form morixés. There
is the same confusion in the readings of
Aristot. Rhet. i. 2.1, where zetorixh is
now accepted by the edd. instead of the
old miorikh

¢ 2

honne

of ov
Stbuse ,

20 TIAATQNOX [455, A

nS p ns’ eye pe 4 ove autos Tw Svvayar
THS PNTOpiKHs eyo mev yap ToL S bh

an 7] , Y ,*> "3 lal er. %. ts a
KAaTAVONOAL O TL héyo. OTQAV TEpt LAT PWV aLpET EWS Hf] ™) B

moder cUANOYOS 7) TEpt VavTNyaV 7H TEpt GAdov TLVds Sy-
puoupyiKod eOvous, dddo Tt TéTE 6 pyTopuKos|ov oupBov-
hevorerl SnAov yap Oru ev Exdoryn aipeéoer TOV TEXVLKMTATOV
det aipetoOav ovd dray TELyav Tepi oiKodopycews 7
Aysevav KaTacKerns H vewpiwv, aN’ ob dpxutékroves’ Vd
av oTav oTpatnyav alpécews Tepe TAEds TLWOS TPOS
Tohentovs yopiwv Katadyweos ovpBovdr 7, add’ ot
oTpatnyiKol TOTE TUpBovrAEdaovaL,, ot PyTopLKol SE Ov. 7)
TOs héyes, ® Topyia, Ta Towra; eredyn yap avTds Te
dis pytwp civar Kat addovs qolety PNTopiKovs, ED EexEL
Ta THS ONS TEXYVNS Tapa cov TVOdverOaL.
Vopigov Kal TO Gov omevoeLv.

\ so. & ~
Kal. we vov
»” ,
lows yap Kal TUyyaveL TUS

a »¥ Spraw MiaAeR. , s ¢
Tov evdov dvtwv palytys cov Bovddpevos yevérbar, ws
‘ ay
ey@ Twas cxEddv Kal avyxvods aicAavopat, ot iaws aiayv-
»” nw >
vowT av oe avepécbar. wm éuov ody avepwrapevos vo-
Me te ee , r) a J. 2€ 8 > ,
pucov Kal UT exelwov avepwTacbar Ti yyw, & Topyia,
A Q A
EOTAL, Ed TOL OVWApEV ; TEpt TivwY TH TOEL TYP BovdrEdew
® 3 4
otot Te Eodpela ; méTEpov Tept Sixaiov pdovoy Kai ddikov

B. 8ray rep) iatpav aipécews| “There
were pibie. phywcians elected in most
of the Greek cities, who received a salary
from the commonwealth, and seem to
have taken no fees of particular people.
Those physicians who exercised this
office were said Snuoctevew. See Aristoph.
in Avibus 584, 7 dAdAwv iatpds
oy dv ido Ow, wro8opoper 6€: Acharn. 994,
"‘~rdvcnov elphyyn me tHPOakud raxd.
AI. *AAX’ & rovnp’ ov Snuootedwv tvy-
xdvw. But this custom seems to have
been laid aside before Ol. 97.4. Arist.
Plut. 407, Tis di7° iarpds éori viv ev tH
mover; Ovre yap 6 micdds obdév eat’ otf
n tTéxvn. Gorg. 514. Politic. 259, ef TG
vis Tv SnuootevdvtTwy iatpav ikavds
Eup Bovaredery idiwredwv aitdés, Gp odk
avaykatov avTg mpocayopeverOa Tobvona
Ths Téexvns TavTby brep @ ~EvuBovacver”
(T. Gray). Hesych., Sypoctevery 7d
Snuocia banpeteiv em) uicbG. Suid. v.
Snuootedw. of Syuoola xetporovoimevar
tatpol kat Snuocia mpotka eOepdmevor.
Comp. Hom. Od. xvii.382, Tis yap 5} Eetvoy
KaAel GAAQVEy AAOS emeAOdy, “AAAOV

6)

D

oy ei uh Ta of Snutoepyol aor; Mdvrw |

} intipakardy, } Téxtova dobpwyr,
*H kal Geom aoddv, 6 kev Téprnow acldwv.
These passages explain the origin of the
oft-recurring distinction of dnuovpyds
and id:érns, equivalent in the time of
Plato to that between professional and
unprofessional, clerk and layman, the
learned and the vulgar.

} wep) vavrnyav 7 wept | Understand
aipécews, unless with Hirschig we sup-
pose the prepositions to have been im-
ported into the text. 2@vovs is used as
the Lat. natio in Cic. pro Murena 33,
“tota natio candidatorum. o Ast,
who re p- 1. 351 o, &e.

&AAo tt tTéTe] So Bekk. after a few
MSS. Vulg. &AAo 7: 4 rTéTe. Here &AAo
Tt is equiv. to dp’ ov, nonne ;~as—inf.
499 & corresponds to the Germ.
nicht wahr, as Ast observes. I do not
deny that there are cases in which #
is to be retained, as in Phaedo 79, %AAo
TL huaV ata Td wev oGpd eotr Td SE
wuxh; to which the answer is, Ovdty
&AXo.

456

—456, B. |

TOPITIAX.

21

xX ‘ \ @ A A A a
} kal wept Gv viv 8) Ywxparys edeye ; TE odv adrois

atroKpiveo Oa.
TOP.

“ANN eyo cou Teipdoopat, & Sdxpates, cadds

> Av \ A“ c “~ bv 9 >
amokahvvar THY THS pyTopiKHs SvvayW amacay avTds

yap Kalas v

, > ‘
now. oicba yap dimou or Ta vedpia

a“ » ‘ A

ETavra kat Ta Tetyn TA AOnvaiwy kal 4h TOV Ayévev KaTa-
oKevn ex THS O é lys yé 18 é
wy €k THS OeptotoKhéovs cupBovhis yéyove, Ta 8 ex

THs Ilepuxhéous, ad’ ob €x TaV Snpuovpyar.

Le >

32. Aéyetar radta, ® Topyia, wept Oeuroroxdéovs’
‘ ¥ A
Tlepuxéovs S€ Kai abrds HKovoy dre ovveBovrever Hpiv

Tept Tod Sia péoou Teixous.
rT

y a @ A \ , ȴ
alt OTAV YE TLS ALPEGLS 7) @V Vuv &) | ov edeyes,

> , ae, Wee ak , > e ,

@ YoKpares, Opas OTL ol PyHTopes elow ot cvpPovdevovtTes
A ¢

Kat Ol VLK@VTES TAS yYapas TeEpl TOUTwY.

/ 32. Tatra kat Oavpdlwr, & Topyia, mara. épwrd
n Tis mote H SUvapis éote TIS pyTopuchs. Saipovia yap
Tus Emovye Karapaiverat TO péyefos ovtw oKoTodrTL.

7 XI. TOP. Ei wavra ye cideins, & Yaxkpares, OTL v4)

GS Eros eiTely ATacas TAs Suvdpets ovhhaBovoa vp Lauryn

Beyer. péya dé vou Texpyprov €p@ ToddadKis yap dyn eywye
‘ A > A . ‘ a »* > a > ‘

pera Tov ddehdov Kai peta TOV addwY iatpav cioeMOav

E. TepixAgovs—relxous] “The paxpa
- relxn which jot ens to the Piraeus
were begun on the motion of Pericles,
Ol. 80. 4, B.c. 457. Socr. at that time
was about twelve years old. See Plu-
tarch in Vitt. Pericl. et Cimon. Har-
‘pocration tells us that of the two walls
which extended from the city to Piraeus,
the southern only, or the innermost, was
called 7d 5:4 uwéoov, as lying between the
innermost, 7d Bdperov, and 7d Sadrnpixdy,
which was a third wall drawn from
Athens to the Port Phalerum, and he
cites this very passage” (T. Gray). This
statement is substantially correct, but
Gray is mistaken in supposing that the
intermediate or southern Peiraic wall
was projected at the same time with the
two mentioned in Thue. i. 107, 108. It
was not built until a later period, when
the northern Peiraic and the Phaleric
wall were finished, i.e. after B.c. 456.
We thus get rid of the difficulty, such as
it is, of supposing Socr. a hearer of Peri-

cles at the early age of twelve. The
two Peiraic Long Walls ran parallel to
each other, enclosing an oblong space of
four or five miles in length (40 stades)
and 550 feet in width. That to Phale-
rum was built at an angle to the other
two. Since the appearance of the work
of Ulrichs on the subject, most topo-
graphers have agreed to place Phalerum
on the spot called Trispyrgi, rather than
on that now appropriated as the site of

Munychia, and distant from the former ©

by the whole extent of the lnc bay.
See Leake (Topog. Ath. i. 422), who
differs however in regard of ‘the situation
of Phalerum. This latter question is
probably not yet definitively settled.

av viv 54] One MS. has viv ad. The
rest omit vvv. Heind. properly insists
on retaining it. See note to p. 462.

456. Ei wdyta ye eidelns} ‘well it
might, Socr., if you knew all—if you
were aware that Rhetoric includes in
her domain—I may say ali the faculties.’

lolicas

Pont

He|

ITAATQNOZ

22 [ 456, B

x ,
Tapa Twa Tov Kapvdvtov ovxt eédovta 7» dappakov
A a a a a na ,
mie TEepely H Kavoa TapacyxeW TO iaTpe, ov Suvape-
A a a ¥ > »” , a LA
vou Tov iatpov TEeloal, eyo Ereoa, OVK addy TEXYN 7) TH
pytopikn. Pyut S€ kat eis wédw Orror Bovdex EMMOvteE py-
Q » » Wee J , > 8 , 4, 5 / a] >
Topikov avdpa Kat iarpdv, et Séou Moyo dSiaywvilerOar ev
“ c ~~
exkrnoia } ev adAw Twi ovANOyw, d7dTEpor Set aipeOnvar
> pc 4 > a ek a ‘ > , iA? e én
iatpdov, ovdapod av davyvar Tov tatpov, add’ aipeOjvar 0
x» X > ~~ 8 , 3 X. x > Ay tAX
&v tov eizety Suvvatov, ei BovdouTo. Kal ei mpds aAdov
ye Snpuovpyov évtwaocdv aywviloito, Teicevey Gv avTov
Ehéabar 6 pyTopiKds paddov 7} aAdos OaTiGOdY ov yap
¥
€oT. wept oTov ovKk ay miOavetepov eEltrou 6 pHTOpLKds
lal lal Lal »
H Gddos GoTicovy TOV Synp.tovpyav év THO. “H pev odv
WB ael 2. ral
Svvapus ToravTn €ott Kal ToLad’Tyn THs TExVNS. Set pEvToL,
a A oe nan »* ,
@ Xaxpates, TH pytopucn xpnoa worep TH addy TAaoH
5 , \ ‘ “A LAX: > / > 4 9 det ‘\ D
ayovia. Kal yap TH GAAn aywvia ov TovTOV eveka Set mpds
wn 4 4 , 7,
amravTas xpnola. avOparovs, ote ewalé Tis muKrevew
4
TE Kal TayKpaTidlew Kai ev Omots payeorOar, BoTE KpEiT-
> lal ‘
Tov evar Kat dilwv Kai éxOpav- od TovTov EveKa TOUS
didous Set TUrTew ovdE KEVTElY TE Kal amoKTIVYUVAL. OVE
‘ , 3:7 > , , _: - x
ye pa Aia édy tis eis Tahaiotpay ghoirjcas, ed Exov Td
TOA Kal TUKTLKOS yevomeEvos, ErELTA TOV TaTépa TUTTH
AEN , a » N A ae x A ,
Kat THY pyTépa 7H addov TWA TOV OlKElwy H TOV hirwr,
ov TovTov evexa Set Tovs TaidoTpiBas Kal Tods ev TOISE
4 , , “ 4. 2 , >
OmAois SiddoKovtas pdyerOar picety Te Kal exBaddew ex
TOV TOhEwY. EKEWoL Mev yap Tapédocay emt TO SiKaiws
xpnclar tovTois pds Tovs ToEpiouvs Kal TOs adOLKOUY-
Tas, Gpuvouevors, wy Vadpxovtas ot | dé peraoTpepavres 457
BSB i BN" SI

_

B. €Addvre] Vulg. A@dvra, corr. Do-
bree.

C. obdaypt by gaviva | Tr., ‘would
be entirely distanced,” as we say of a
beaten horse, ‘he is_ nowhere.’ " Book,
Ant. 183, rotroy ovdamod Aéyw. For
bmérepov Se? aipeBiiva: iarpéy, which is
the reading of the Bodl. and several
codd., the edd. retain the inferior, é2é-
Tepov Set aipeOijvat, phropa % iarpdr,
which destroys the point of the example.
The rhetor will persuade the people to
elect him state-physician in preference
to a regularly trained practitioner. See

above, 455 B, ray wep) iarpay aipécews 7
TH woAe TUAAOYOS.

D. &ua0é tis} The Bodl. omits tis.
So the Ald., which Heind. was disposed
to follow. I retain it, with Bekk. and
the majority of MSS.

457. petartpévayres | “Vern. es wm-
kehrend, h.e. wngekehrt, i. q. evavriws
(ut ©) Latinor. ex contrario. Polit. ix,
587 D, édv tis werdortpelas .. Adyn,
x.7.d.” (Ast). Participles are frequently
used thus adverbially, of which usage
TeAcuT@y, ‘tandem,’ is a familiar in-
stance. See not. on Phedr. 228.

—457, 0.] TOPIIAS. 23

la “> aoe ‘ Lad * a > > ~ ¥ . e
Xpavra TH toxvi Kal TH Téxvy OvK dps. ovKoVY oi b.-
Sd€avres wovnpot, ode 7H TEéxvN OTE aiTia- oUTE ToVNnpAa

4 y , > > > e ‘ , > 3 an
TovTOV eveKa eat, GAN ol My) Kpapevor, olwat, dpOas.
6 avtds 87) Adyos Kal mepi THs PyTopiKys. SuvvaTds pév
yap mpos amavTas é€oTw 6 pyTwp Kal Tept TavTos héyel,
wote miPavdtepos civar ev Tois TAYOeTw euBpaxy rept

B OTov av BovAntar: add’ ovdey Tu paddov TovTOV evexa Set
¥ ‘ > ‘ ‘ , > a 9 7 »
ovTe TOUS iaTpovs THY Sdkav adatpeto Oar, Gt. Svvacto av
a A ¥ See th , > \ ,
TOVTO TOLHTaL, OUTE TOVs GAAOUS SyHpLOUpyoUs, GAA Sixatws
Kal TH pyTopiKH xpHoOar, OoTEp Kal TH dywvia. ay Sé,

: » 5
otal, PHTOpLKds yevoueds Tis KATA TavTH TH SuVdpe Kat
“~ ld > “ > ‘ / ~ “A See ,
TH TéExVN adiKp, od Tov SiddEavta Set pucety Te Kal exBad-
> “A i > a“ A ‘ Sa SS , ,
ew €« TOV mohewy. exeivos men yap emt Sixaia ypeia
c > “~ . lal
o mapédwxev, 6 S evavtiws ypnta. Tov ovv ovK dpOds

, lal , ‘ > , \ > 4
Xpepevov picety Sixavov kat ekBdddew Kal amoKtwvivat,
> > > ‘\ 4
Gd’ od Tov Sidaavra.

is oysnezal
tchule I.

XII. 3. Otwo, & Topyia, Kai oé Eumepory etvar
Le , 4" ia > > “ S. l4
mo\A@v AOywv Kat xaBeopaxévas €v avTots Td TOLOVOE,
OTL xe padles Svvavra. qept ov ap emixerpyraae Suaheye- |
aba.’ Ovopurdpevor Tpos aGddjhovs Kai paldvres Kai dida-

zuBpaxy mepl Srov by BotaAnra] “ Vox
euBpaxt, ,» quam veteres cuvtdéuws vel
j amd@s explicant, eodem fere modo, quo
formula illa és éros eizeiy orationi mo-
deste restringendae inservit, nisi quod
illa fere ante oddéy et mdyres inferri
solent, hoe ante doris &y, doris Bobet,
Smovrep et talia. V. Tim. Lex. v. Zu-
Bpaxv ibique Ruhnk. imprimisque Schol.
Plat. ad Theagem, p. 88” (Heind.).
The Schol. in question quotes a line of
Cratinus thus: @e: wapéxew 6 re Tis
evtair’ uBeaxu, where read, with Cobet,
er wapacxeiv. The use of the formula
is restricted, in good authors, to the
cases noted by Heind., though later
writers do not scruple to use it generally
' in the sense of amA@s, ourt duos, % as Dion
Chrys. (p. 446 ©), 6 3& Adyos obros eu-
Bpaxy éomovdace tvvapudca TG OeG 7d
avOpwreiov yévos. I quote this from
| Cobet’s Varr. Lectt., p. 208, where @u-
Bpaxy i is shown to be froquently altered
by copyists into év Bpaxe?, as in Plat.
Sympos. 217 a, éore moiréoy eivar ev
Bpaxet 8 tt KeAevor Swxpdrns. Cobet

adds, “ Apparebit nunc quam infeliciter
Stallbaum in Platonis Hippia minore,
365 D, pro épéta EuBpaxu 6 7: BovAc: ex
deterioribus receperit év Bpaxei.” Cobet
justly observes that év Bpaxe? is. not
synonymous with gu8paxv, but means
rather ‘briefly’ (as in Soph. El. 637,
év Bpaxe? ouvOels A€yw). Ast in his
Lexicon correctly renders @Bpaxuv by
the Latin ‘cunque’ (Germ. was nur
immer). The form of the word is illus-
trated by euras, gumav, Eura.

B. Kata] Kaé7a and K&me:ra not unfre-
quently occur after participles, where we
should have expected e?ra and ére:ra.
Of this usage Heind. quotes two in-
stances from Aristophanes: Equit. 391,
GAN’ bus ovTOS ToLOvTOS dv G&rayta Toy
Blov Kar avhp eoter civa:: Nub. 623,
av0 ay Aaxev “LmépBodos Tires iepouyn-
poveiy K&mre® oy tuav tev Oca@v Tov
orépavoy aepnpéOn. Add Xen. Mem. i.
1. 5, ef rpoaryopedwv &s id Geod paivd-
peva kGra Wevdduevos épaivero: and the
reff. in Kiihner’s note.

24 IITAATQNNOS [ 457, ©

‘ ‘ , > > ‘
Eavres EavTovs ovtw dialverOar Tas avvovaias, add’ ea
, > 4 \ ‘ ine . Te ‘ 4
mept Tov audio BynTHowor Kal py py O ETEpos TOV ETEPOY H
A la XN ‘
6p0as déyeww 7) py Tadhds, yaderaivovoi Te Kal KaTa
nw n > >
dOdvov otovrar Tov EavTav héyew, diroverkovvTas ad’ ov
lal lal ¥ ,
(nrovvras TO mpoKelwevov €v TH NOyo. Kal Evioi ye Tehev-
lal : XN
ToVTES aloxyioTa amadddtTovTat, owdopynOevtes TE Kat
A an a e
elmovTes Kal akovoavTes TEPL OPOV aUTOY TOLAUTA, ola
. A A Y
Kal Tovs mapovtas axPecOar vrep ohov avdTav, OTL TOL-
“ ‘
otov avOpotev jAkiwcav adxpoatal yevéoOa. Tod dyn
evexa h€yw TavTa; OTL voV eno Soxets oD ov Tavu aK-
hovda héyew ovoe ouppove. ols TO Tp@TOV éheyes TEpt THS
pyropucis. hoBovpat ovv duehéyyew oe, pr pe VrokdBys
hie ff. [od mpds 7 mparypa| Prhovewourra Aeyew \rod karapaves
wa" yevér Oar; adda mpos o€. eyo obv, ei pev Kal ov et TOV
avOpdirav | @ WVTEp Kal eyo, ndews a av GE SuepwTonv: el O€ 458
oe Yee ¥ > de , EY la) NOE \ x 2\
By, edynv av. eyw S€ Tivwv cipi ; TOY Nd€ws pEv Gv édeyy-
¥
O&vtwv, et Te pt) AAnOEs A€yw, Hd€ws SD av edeyEdvTwr, Et
, ‘ 3 \ id * > > , , nS > /
Tis TL pn adnbes Néyou, odk andéaTepov pévT’ av e\eyyOev-

tov 1 eheyEavtwv'
OOWTE

Tov peyiotov 7) addov amaddd€au.

petlov yap aitd ayaloy yyotpa,

“a > /, > > ‘ s Lal la!
eilov ayabdv éotw avtov amahhaynvar Kakov

Se \ >
OVOEV YAP OLLAL TOT=

ovTov Kako elvar avOpémw, doov Sdéa yevdhs wept Gv B

E. ob mdvu a&kddrovba | Olymp. S Spa
HOos Octov Tod SwKpdrous: ovdK elie yap
Bri dvardrovda 4 Wevdh Aé€yers, GAN ov
advu &xkdrov0a, TE wetpiy Koad wy Td
Spud tis eyxAhoews. This use of ov
mdvvas a qualified negative is common, if
not universal, in the Atticists of the Em-
pire, as in Lucian according to Cobet (Vv.
LI. p. 222), who at the same time denies
that this sense was known to the Attics
themselves. Mr. Cope, in a carefully-
written and candid Excursus to his Trans-
lation of this dialogue, strenuously main-
tains the view expressed by Olympio-
dorus, and I observe that the late Mr.
Riddell, in the ** Digest of Idioms,” at-
tached to his edition of the Apology, held
the same opinion. On the other hand, see
among Greek authorities, the Scholiast
on Phaedo 57 a (oddeis mdvu te em-
Xwpid(er.. .), who writes av7) Tod od-
Saua@s* ear) yap Td ékijs obtws' mdavu
ovdels emixwpid er. It seems also diffi-

cult to explain Lysis 204 &, od yap
advu TL avTod Toiivoua A€yovow, GAN
ért marpddey erovoudera:—except as an
unqualified negation. The same remark
applies to Legg. iv. 704 ©, yelrwy 5&
aurTis méAus ap gorat Tis TAHTLOV; K. Od}
wdvu: dd Kal KarouiCera, to Aristot.
Eth. N. x. 5.4, xalpovres dtwotv spddpa
ov wdavu Spauev Erepov, to Menander,
frag. 198, 0d mdvv Etw6 GdAndés ode
év yovn Aéyeww—and, as Mr. Cope seems
to admit, to ovdév wdvu wheresoever it
occurs. In Plat. Rep. 549 D, éaurhy
bt wre wavy TmMavTa hTe atid ovTa
-—we should perhaps adopt the variant
of Cod. D and two others, wire raven
arid (ovra. If mdyvv be retained, the
passage makes unequivocally in favour
of Mr. Cope’s view, and we shall have to
admit that the same negative is some-
times used in the qualified, and some-
times in the unqualified sense by the
same authors.

—458, E. | TOPITIAS. 25

? lal Se e , + 5 \ > \ ‘ ‘
Tuyxaver viv new Oo Adyos Oy. El meV OvV Kal av drjs
To.ovTos elvat, SiareydpcBar ei S€ Kai Soxet ypHnvar éav,
3A ¥ , \ , \ ,
eGpev HON xaipew Kat Sialvapev Tov hdyor.

TOP. ’Adda dnp pev eywye, @ Yoxpares, kai avros
e Lal ¥ a

TOLOUTOS Elvar olov od UdyyEe” Lows pevTOL ypHY evvoetv

Kal TO TOV TapovTev. Tahar yap ToL, mpl Kal tpas

> ~ ee a A ha > 8 , Q lal ¥

ebeiv, éy@ Tots Tapodor Tohha erederEduny, Kal vov tows
Cmdppw amotevotper, Hv Siaheydpela. oKoreiv odv xpr
Kal TO TOUTWY, WH TWas avTo@V KaTéxopev Bovhopevous Tt
kal a\\o Tparrew.

XIII. XAI. Tod pev OopvBov, & Topyia te kat

7 > ‘ > 4 7 Lal a nw
Soxpares, avTot dkovete TovTwy Tov avdpav, Bovdo-
pevov axovew éav Tu héynte’

Brees

> \ > > ‘\ > “ ‘
éuot 8 ovv Kal adT@ pr)
, & > , 7 , / ¥ 4
yoo tocavTn aoxoNla, waTE ToLOVTwY héywr Kai oUTw . ee
heyopevav adepevw mpovpyrairepdy Tu yevér Oar ado Tpar- usloer pat
: }
TEW.
8 A

D KAA. Ny ods Beovs, 6 Xatpedov. kai pev dy Kat

eS “ ¥ ig , > 303 > 7
avTos Todos On Adyows Tapayevdpevos ovK O10 ei TH-
mote HaOnv ovTws WaTEp VUVi, WAT Emouye, KaV THY HpEe-
pav odnv ebédyte Siaréyer Oar, yapreto be.

SQ. “AdrAa pyjv, © Kaddixdes, 76 y nov ovdev Ko-
hve, eirep Oder Topyias.

= poole
TOP. Aicypov 8) 76 dowrdv, @ Yoxpares, yiyverac ad
SEE ea ae Ea SOUS
ee ye pn eOédew, adrov éerayye\dpevov epwrav 0 Ti Tis ano

E Bovderar. aN ei SoKet TovToici, Suadéyou Te Kal épdta 6 SI”. ashe ,
Tt BovyXeu. lhe tcee
x2. “Axove 574, & Topyia, & Oavpalw év Tots heyo-
pévois BTO Gov: tows yap ToL Gov dpOas éyovTos eyw
3 > ~ c , c \ X ~ Lo >
ov dp0as vrokapBavw. pytopikov dys Tove olds T
eivat, edv Tis BovAnTat Tapa cov pavOavew ;

TOP. Nai.

458. 0. uo ® ody] yotv Olymp., and
for tocavtn, Todtrn. ‘And for my
own part, God forbid that my hands
should ever be so full, that I must
abandon a discussion so interesting and
so ably conducted, in favour of any other
employment however profitable.’

D. Aicxpdy 5)—BovdAera] ‘After my
voluntary challenge to all questioners I
cannot for very shame refuse henceforth.’
a’réy = ‘ultro.’ After é0éAcew formerly
stood kal ratra, now omitted by the
edd. in conformity with the Bodl. and
some other MSS.

26 ITAATQNOX [458, E

\

32. Odxodv repi ravrwv aot ev dydo TiBavor eivat,

> , 3 ‘ /
ov diddoKovTa adda etOovra;

| TOP. T[dvv peév ovv.

XQ. “Edeyés Tou viv 8% ote Kat wept Tov vyvewod Tov
iarpov midavdrepos eotar 6 pyTop.

‘\ ‘\ A ¥ 4
TOP. Kai yap €deyor, ev ye oxy.
la) + la aA ‘ > ld

32. Odxody 7d ev dydw TodTS eoTw, ev Tots pr €idd-
ow; ov yap Synmov ev ye Tots eiddau TOV iatpod TmiOave-
TEpOS EOTAL.

TOP. *AdnOy déyess.

> Le! A We n~ , ¥ lal

32. Ovdxody eirep Tod iarpod miBavedtepos Eatat, TOU
elddTos TuUlavetepos yiyverat ;

TOP. Ildvv ye.

XN. Ovx« iatpds ye wv H yap;

TOP. Nai. ; B

SQ. ‘O S€ pH iatpds ye SHTov dverioTypwv dv 6
larpos €mLoTH Lov.

TOP. Andov ore.

32. ‘O ovdk cidas dpa Tov ciddtos ev odk Edda TM-
Oavetepos EoTat, OTav 6 PyTwp Tod iatpod miavdrepos
2 a a »

}. TovTO cvpPBaiver addo Tt ;
TOP. Tovto evradvda ye cvpBaive.
> n ‘\ ~ ‘\ »” € , ta e
XQ. OvKovv kat wept tas addas amacas Téyvas wo-
avTws EXEL 6 PHTHP Kal H PHTOPLKY ; avTa pev TA TPay-
> \ A > % > , 4 »¥ ‘ ,
para ovdev Set adriy eidévar Oras Exet, mnxavyny Sé Twa 0
lal ec / 4 ld aA > > / “
melovs evpyKkevar, wate daiverOar Tots ovK ciddau pad-
Nov eidévar TOV €iddTwr.

XIV. TOP. Odxovv odd) pacrdvy, @ Yoxpares,

, \ , \ ¥ Sy aces ee N , ,
ylyvera, wn paldvta Tas ahdas Téexvas, ahAG pilav Tav-
TyVv, pydev éeLatrova bar Tav Syprovpyar ;

32. Ei pev édatrovrar } py €dattovrar 6 pryjtwp

459

459. B. aiTa wey Ta mpdywara] This
was distinctly maintained by Tisias, ac-
cording to Phaedr. 272 D, 811i oddty
GAnbetas peréxerv Séor ... Tov méAAOVTA
ixav@s pntopixdy elya:. Presently in p.
460, Gorgias seems disposed to qualify
this broad statement of his master. His

disciple Polus is less scrupulous, as we
shall find below, 461 B.

©. Odxody woAAy fpacrévn] ‘And is it
not a great comfort, Socr., to find yourself
fully a match for the professors of any
other art, without having had the trouble
of learning any but this one P’

—460, A.| TOPIIAS. 27

Tov dAdov Sia 7 OVTWS Eye, adtixa emioKeoueOa, eav
eon x , > A de 48 / ,
TL Huw Tpos AOyou 7H vv dé Tdd€ TpPdTEpOY oKEpdpcBa,
D dpa tvyxaver Tept Td Sikatov Kai 7d adeKov Kal 7d aicxpov
Kai Td Kadov Kal ayabdv Kal KaKdv OUTwSs Exav 6 pyTO-
N e ae ue ’ \ \ \ » a e »
PlkOs WS TEpL TO VyLELVOY Kal TEpL TA ada wv at addae
, >. NN Q > io , ran ‘\ Ral , , > x
TEXVAL, AUTA MEV OVK Eldds, TL ayabdv H Ti KaKdv EoTLY 7
, \ x , > Cae , aA YD ‘ x ‘
Ti Kahov 7 Ti aicypor 7 Sixaov 7 adikov, TeLOd Sé wepi
avTav peunxavynpevos, wate Soxelv eidévar odk eldas év
> iad arr A ind Ay pe - ioe t det
ovK Edda paddov TOU ELddTOS ; 7 avayKn Eidévat, Kal Set
E TpoemioTapevoy TavTa adikéoOar Tapa oe TOY peddAovTA
pabjcecbar THY pytopiKyy ; ei S€ uj, OD 6 THS PHTopLKys
ld , X cANB , \ > ,
SiddoKados TovTwr pev ovdev Sidakeis TOV aduxvovpevov—
ov yap oov épyov,—moijoes S ev Tots Twoddols Soxety
29 7 22% ‘ A > 29 7 X . a > ‘
eldévar atrov Ta ToLadTa ovK eiddta Kal Soxeiv dyabldov
> > ¥ x \ , > ar »¥ ,
eival OUK OVTAa; 7) TO Tapatay ovy olds TE Eoer SiddEaL
avTOV THY PHTOpLKyY, €dv pq) TpoELdM Tept TovTwY THY
460 ahyOeav ; ) Tas Ta ToLadTa Exel, 6 Topyia; | Kat pds
| Aués, GoTEp apte eles, dtoKahiWas THS PyTopiKHs etme
tis To? H SUvapis éotw.
TOP. *AdN éya pev otwar, & Sdxpares, éav TUyy [7
eldds, Kal TadTa Tap éuov pabjoeran.

x2. "Eye dy Kaas yap éyes. edvrep pytopiKdy

mpos Adyou| C. F. Herm. proposes
mpds Adyov, on the ground that mpds
Aédyov is found nowhere else. Phileb. 33
©, cay mpds Adyor tt Hj. So mpds eros,
ibid. 18D. But apds Adyou is supported
by mpds tpérov, Phaedr. 252 pb, and
Theophr. Char. xxx., to which the anti-
theton is ard tpdérov. Comp. od« ard
akorod etpnxev, Theaet. 179°c. Olymp.
gives mpd Adyov, which, if not a copyist’s
error, has the analogy of apd d6500 and
mpovpyov in its favour. Tr., ‘If it should
answer our purpose;’ ‘if it be in the
inter Y discussion to doso.” After
Tvyxéver it the next line Olymp. inserts
nal.

460. Scmep tpt: cimes, aroxaddtipas |
Above, 455 D, GAN’ éyé cot weipdcomat,
@ Xdéupares, capGs amoxarddpar Thy
Tis pntopinjs Svvaucv.

"AAN ey@ wev—pabhoera] Perhaps
the cloud of quotations collected by
Stallb. may be sufficient to protect

this reading of the MSS. against Ste-
phen, who alters pa@fjoera: into wabh-
cec@a. I confess that the position of
éy® pév oiuat in the sentence seems to
me to distinguish it from cases in which
oiuat dé, doxG 5é, Sox wév, Done? 5 por,
and the like are placed in parenthesi.
Heind. reads pa@foecOar with Steph.
Stallb.’s argument, “quod indicativus
longe accommodatior est Sophistae con-
fidentiae quam oratio aliunde suspensa,”
is characteristic.

“Exe 84] This phrase oceurs again
490 B, exe 3% abrod, evidently in the
sense of érfoxes, ‘hold,’ a meaning how-
ever which it will not always bear. The
grammarians explain it by mpécexe, tye
df, Spa 54, and the like: but the parallel
passage in this dialogue justifies Heind.’s
version, “subsiste,’” with which Stallb.
quarrels. Compare Protag. 349 p, and
Heind.’s note. The argument which
follows is to our notions sophistical

28

IAATQNOZ

[460, a

, , > 4 2 8, > , ae ? \ ~
ov Twa ToOLnoNs, avayKyn avTov eidévar TA Sikava Kal TA
»” » aA \ an
aouKa NTO. TOTEPOV ye 7) VaTEpov paldvTa Tapa cod.

TOP. Ilavv ye.

ld
SQ. Ti ov; 6 ta TexTovKa penabynkas TEKTOVLKOS, B
Sessa sa

a A
1) OV;

TOP. Nai.

—

SN. Odxovv kai 6 Ta povoika povarkds ;

TOP. Nat.

A: ve \ 9 ‘ee rd ‘\ > y ‘\
32. Kat 6 ta iarpixa iatpuxds ; Kat Tadda ovTw Kata
nA e
Tov avTov Adyor, 6 peLalnKas ExaoTa ToLOUTds EaTW Olov
4
}) emioTypN EKACTOV amepyaleTat ;

TOP. Ildavv ye.

6 Lal nN 4
SQ. Ovxotv xara Todrov Tov Adyov Kal 6 Ta Sikara

pepabnkas Sikatos ;
TOP. Idvrws dyrov.

SQ. ‘O &é Sixatos Sixaud mov mparre.

TOP. Nai.

SQ. Oidxodv avdyxn tov [ pytopiKdy Sixarov eivat, Tov 0
dé] Sixarov Bovrdceo Oar * det * Sixava mpdrrew ;

enough. Not so, however, from the
Socratic point of view, according to
which every virtue is a form of know-
ledge, and every vice the result of igno-
rance. Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 4, 5.
It may seem that Gorgias might have
turned the tables upon Socr. by simply
substituting &:cos for d{xacos in the pre-
misses, as indeed Olymp. remarks (p. 49),
ioréoy 5& St1 Suvardy Kad ec Tod évavttov
cupmepavat Kal eimetys ‘O phrwp émorh-
Boy Tov GdliKkou: 6 émoThuwv Tod adiKkou
&dina BovAerarr 6 &dixa BovAduevos &dixa
diamparrerat 6 Siamparrépevos &dika ovK
gor wore Slkaos: 6 &pa phtwp ovdémore
Sleaids eorw. “AAAG dauév, he adds,
Sri Sbvarar 6 phrwp cidévar rd Slxasov
ovx Iva xphontat GAN Iva piyn adtd kal
Mh ayvoey mepimécn. The objection how-
ever is fallacious, for, according to the
doctrine of Socr., the &:xos is not 6 Ta
&dica eidds, but 6 ra Sika, and (as a
consequence) Ta &diKa wh €idds.

©. OvdKodv avdyrn| Quintilian adverts
to this passage in terms which prove
that he read it nearly as it now stands,
but in a different position, at the end,
namely, of the argument, after patveral

ye. “ Disputatio illa contra Gorgiam zta
clauditur : obkody avdynn Tov pnropikdy
Sixatov elvat, toy Sé Slearov BovAcobar
Sika mpdrrev” (Inst. ii. 15.27). From
this it is pretty evident that the text
had been disturbed before his time, and
the sequence of the reasoning inter-
rupted. The mention of fyropixds in the
sentence as it stands in our copies is
clearly premature, his turn coming after
the Sixaos has been disposed of. Another
fault is, that the proposition oddérore
BovaAhoerat 6 Sikatos adixeiv is more than
the premiss, as it stands, can support.
If we insert def, which may easily have
been absorbed by the last syllable of
BotbAccOa, the reasoning becomes conse-
quent, as, by expelling the clause I have
bracketed, it is made regular in its form. }
‘The just man performs just actions, |
does he not?’ ‘He does.’ ‘In fact he

wills to do just actions always.’ *‘Ap-

parently.’ ‘If so, the just man will

never will to act unjustly.’ ‘That fol-

lows of necessity.’ ‘But from the pre-

misses it follows of necessity that the

rhetorical man is just’ (sc. 87: 7a dleara

MeudOnnevy, sup. A and B). ‘Yes’ ‘If

ee

ee

—461, A.|

TOP. Saiverai ye.
xy.
TOP. *Avayxn.
x.
Elva.
TOP. Nat.
x.
TOP. Ov daiverai ye.

TOPITIAS.

29

Oidsérote apa Bovdyoerar 6 ye Sikavos adiKelv.

\ de ¢ X > , C. lal ld ,
Tov dé pytopiKoyv avayKn €x Tov hoyou dixavov

Ovdsérore apa Bovdjoerat 6 PyTopiKds aduKetv.

XV. SA. Méurnoa ody déyov ddtyo mpdrepor dru

pow Set trois wadoTpiBais éyKahety odd éxBaddew ex TaV

modewv, Cav 6 TUKTNS TH TUKTUKH XpHTai Te Kal dOduKy ;
aoavtws S€ ovTw Kal éay 6 pyTwp TH PyTopiKH adixas
XpHrat, py TO SiddEavre eynadety pnd e€ehavvew ex THs
modews, GANA TO adikodyTL Kal ovK 6pOAs ypwopervw TH

pntopucn ; &ppyOn tadra 7H ov ;

TOP. *Epp746n.

32. Nov 8€ ye 6 adris obros daiverar, 6 pyTopiKéds,

35 » 25 , a
Bi OVK GV TOTE QAOLKNOAS. 7 OV ;

TOP. Gaivera.

XN. Kat &v rots mparous ye, © Topyia, Myous éd€yero,

OTL H PyTopiKy Tept Ndyous

ral J ‘ A nw rd A Ss 4
TEPLTTOV, GANA TOUS TOV SiKaiov Kal aOdiKov.

TOP. Nat.

¥ > x a 5 , ‘
€ly OUV TOUS TOU ApTlLov Kat

> ,
7 yap ;

SN. “Ey towvvy cov tore Tavta h€éyovtos vréhaBov

e 2907 > K ¥ € ¢ ‘ ¥ al Ld + i 2EN

@s ovdéror ay ein PyTopiKy adiKov Tpaypa, Oo y° aet

‘ Cal

mept Sixavoovvns Tovs Adyous woretrau Ezedy SE ddiyov
9 a lad an

Yatepov eheyes OTL O PYTwP TH PyTopLKH Kay adixws xporo,

; ‘ e

461 | ovrw Oavpdoas Kal iyynodpevos ob ovvddew 7a heyé-

> ‘ lal

peva. éxeivous elroy Tovs oyous, OTL €L pev KEpdos 7yoLO

so, the rhetorical man will be incapable
of willing to act unjustly.’ [Of these
alterations the first was anticipated by
Professor Woolsey of Boston, U.S., in
his edition, p. 147. The second (the in-
sertion of df) occurred to me some years

All three have, I now see, occurred
independently to M. Hirschig (Explora-
tio Argumentationum Socraticarum, &c.,
1859). I mention this by way of external
evidence in favour of the emendations

proposed, which, however, need no re-
commendation beyond their intrinsic ne-
cessity. In defence of def, which Hirschig
places before BovAco bat, he justly appeals
to 460 E, odde€mor by elm H pyntopiKh
Rdicoy mpayua, 6 y aed wepl dixasocivns
Tous Adyous moteiTau. |

D. dcatvtws 5 oftw} So Protag. 351
OC, Ta Gyiapa doatiTws otTws ov Kal?
dcov dviapd KaKd.

1,0 lw 4
tt ake a2

st
le .“*

Nbee

nese

30 IIAATQNOX [461, A

» ¥ , F)
civar TO édéyyeo Oar Gamep eyd, akvov ein Siahéyeo Bas, et
nw © 0.
dé py, ed yaipew Votepov Sé Huey emioKoTOUpEVwY Opas
lal > uA
5) Kal abros bru ad bpodoyetra Tov pytopiKdy advvarov
2 297 a a ¢ a \ 20 ay > § a
civar adikws ypyodo. TH pyTopiKH Kat EHedew aduKew.
an co Ss , >
TavTA OU OTN TOTE EXEL, pa TOV KUVa, W Topyia, ovK
s\ 7 lA b] ‘\ y e lal , 0
ddiyns cuvovoias éotiy wate ikavds SiacKepacGan.
2 ‘ ‘ ‘
XVI. TMA. Ti dai, a Badkpares ; OUTM Kal OD TEpL
THs PyTopuKns dofdlas & @oTep vov héyets ; i} ote 6 oleu OTL Top-
yias noxsvOn oou ji) Tpooopohoyha ay TOV ‘ey pyTopuKdy
avdpa p17) obx! Kal Ta Sikawa €ldévat Kal TA KaAG Kal TO
ayabd, Kat éav al edOy TadTa eldws Tap avTdv, avTos
dudd€ew ; emeita ex Ta’Tns tows THS dpohoyias évayTiov
TU ovveBn €v TOUS Ad yous, Tod" 6 } 87 dyads, abtos aya-
ne"
yov éml TowadTa epwTHpata. émel Tiva, olet arapvyicer Oar

ȴ
py ovyt Kal avrov eriotacOar Ta Sikara Kal addous bidd-,

few; GdW eis TA TOLADTA ayew Tod} d-ypouxia, €oTl TOUS

Adyous.

SN. 7A Kdéddore dde, add tou eEerirydes xrapela

Eraipous Kai viels, wa erevoay avTol mpeaBuTepor yryvd-

461. wa roy Kiva] A choice specimen
of Neoplatonic trifling is the following
scholium of Olympiodorus: wa Tov Kbva.
oupBorkas TodTo. 6 yap Kiwy cipBodrdy
eort THs AoyiKTs (wis, ws elpnra év Tals
moAitelats: @xer Tt 6 KbwY piAdcoor, Td
dtaxpitixdy, k.7.A. He alludes to Rep. ii.
876 a. The Socratic oaths, not however
peculiar to Socr., vy or ma tov ktva,
or Tov x7va, find an odd counterpart in
the old Engl. “by cock and pye.”

B. 7) ofe: 671] Stallb. stops before and
after ofe:, and interprets dr: by “ prop-
terea quod,” quoting Theaet. 147 a, 7,
ote:, Tis Te ouvvinol Tivos byoma, K.T.A.
The 2nd Ziirich ed. agrees with him and
with Hirschig in placing the interrog.
after Adyors. I am not sure that this is
any improvement on the punctuation of
the first ed., which I have retained.
Professor Woolsey conceives that the
sentence ends abruptly at Sddtew, and
that Polus meant to have added, ‘that
therefore his inconsistency is to be
charged to rhetoric,’ or something to
that effect. And certainly the clause
éreita kK.T.A. Would be no just apodosis to

the causal clause rs Topylas «.7.A. The
passage however seems to me to make
sense without resorting to either sup-
position. ‘Do you who maintain these
paradoxes yourself believe them? or do
you think (with me) that Gorgias was
ashamed, &c. And then, in consequence
of this unlucky admission of his, I dare
say a contradiction did occur in the
reasoning —the thing we know you
dearly love—for it was you, not he, who
gave the conversation this interrogative
turn.” In oftw nal cd the kal does not
belong to doéd¢ers, as Ast strangely sup+
poses, but to od: ‘Do even you think as
you say—to say nothing of your audi-
ence P?

0.72 KdAALoTe TI@A€ | It is possible that
this homceoteleuton was intentional, and
by way of parody of the Sicilian practice.
In sense it is much the same as é Agate
Ti@Ae, inf. 467 B. See note to Phaedr.
278 E.

&AAd to} A Paris MS. (C) gives
71, perhaps a relic of an old reading %AAo
vt. But rof and ri are perpetually con-
founded in the MSS.

C

—461, E. | TOPIIAX. 31

, , e “A e , BJ
pevor ohadopefa, mapdvTes wets ol vedtepor emavop-
Potre yay Tov Biov Kai év Epyos Kat év Adyous. Kal vov
» RN \ , > A , ,
pei Te ey® Kat Topyias év tots hoyous ohadddpeba,
‘\ > /, , - Dede 5 es A e
mapav éravépOov: Sixavos 8 et. Kal eye €Oé\w Tov apo-

4 ¥ , A . A e A PY
hoynpever et ti wou SoKet py Kah@s wporoynabar, ava-
Décbar 6 tu dv ov Boddy, éav por Ev povov huddrtys.

TWQA.~ Ti rotro héyets ;

xn. Tip HaKpohoyiay, @ Ilade, Hv Kabepeys, ) TO
TpOTov éerexeipnoas xpho Pat.

WAA. Ti sat;
wpa ;

ov e€éarat pou Néyew érdoa dv Bov-

32. Aewa pévr av wdBors, & Bédrriote, ei “AOjvale
adixdpevos, 00 THS “E\Nddos TrELaTH eotlv eEovaoia Tod

id ¥ be “ 4, 4 > ,
héyew, ereita od evTavdla TovToV pdvos aTvynoats.

> 4
avTides Tow
S|

GAN’

a S 4 ‘\ ‘\ > / ‘\
ood papa éyovTos Kal py €OéovTos Td

> 4 > , > 7> x > > ‘\ ts >
EPWTWLEVOV aroKpiveo Gan, ov Sey av ad eyo a7aGouur, €L

éravopOoire| Heind. reads, with one
MS., éravop0@re, adding, “‘ Vulgo éravop-
@otre, quod soloece infertur post prae-
gressum praesens tempus xTdpeba. V.
Dawes, Misc. Cr, p. 85.” See however
Porson on Eur. Ph. 1. 68, “ Hane regu-
lam (se. Dawesianam) non videntur per
omnia servasse Tragici: cf. Hec. 1121,
1131;” and Gram. Meerm. ap. Schaef.
Greg. Cor. p. 647, 7a ebetixd dytl iro-
TaKTiKavy AauBdvovow (oi *Arzikol).
Comp. also Rep. iii. 410 0. “Hoe dicit,
ut nos, id quod optamus, sustentetis et
erigatis”’ (Stallb.).

kal viv] Tr., ‘and if in the present
discussion Gorgias and I are in danger
of breaking down, pray come and help
us up again, as it is but fair you should.
On my part too I am prepared to cancel
any of the premisses you may disapprove
of, if you will oblige me by observing
one condition.’ _avabec0ar is proper! ber ly
to revoke a move in a game of draughts.
Hippareh. 229 BE, GAAd why Kad Seicep
TETTEVOY e0€Aw co avabécbar & tT
BobrAct Tv cipnuevwr.

D. xabépitns| Vulg. Kadelptns: St.
«addins with one MS., an impossible
tense. The older form xa@épins is pre-
served by Olymp. and the Bodl. and
seven other MSS. Baiter, who has
changed the kaelptns of the first into
xaéptns in the second ed. of the Ziirich,

gives the following passages in justifi-
cation: Rep. v. 461 B, tuvéptayros: Tim.
34 0, tuvéptas: Polit. 285 B, éptas: Tim.
18 D, ctvepiwv: Rep. v. 460 A, cuvéptews:
Thue. v. 11, wepiéptavtes: Soph. Aj. 593,
tuvéptere: Oed. T. 890, 894, eptera:. He
might have added «aépyvura: in Cratin.
ap. Polluc. 10. 160. As the tendency of
the scribes would be to alter the older
form into the more modern, I have
adopted kaSéptns, which, as Baiter ob-
serves, is further confirmed by the cor-
rupt reading xadétys.

E. atuxjoous| Bas. 2 amoruxhoas:
“bene” (Findeisen). Rather male, for
Plato would have written dmortxors, an
objection which seems to have escaped
Ast. &rvx@ occurs with the gen. in
Isocr. Nicocl. p. 20, St., é&v... undevds
ToUT@Y aTUXTS.

GAX’ ayrides ror} This reading of the
Bodl. and many other MSS. was restored
by Bekk. in place of the vulg. 76 or ti.
Comp. Soph. El. 298, GA’ Yo Ta
tlrovod 7 Gtiay Sixnv, as one instance
among many of the separation of AAG
and rot. The meaning is, ‘as a set-o

this, think what a hard case mine will be,
if Pou-are-t0 TOIT Forth without deign-

ing to answer my questions, while Z am
not to be at liberty to leave the room, and
get out of hearing.’

ules of

erh Case

32

ITAATQNOX

[461,

py e&éorar pou dmévar Kal pr axovew aov; | add’ el Tu 462
KHSEL TOD Adyov TOD cipnuevou Kat eravopIdaac Ba. auToV
Bovhe, & @OTEp vov o7 eheyov, dvabewevos 6 Ti gou doxel,
eV TO MEpEL EPWTOV TE Kal EPwWTAMEVOS, aomep éyd TE Kal

Topyias, edeyyxe TE Kat ehéyyxov.
H Ov;

eriatac0an amep Topyias.
TOA. "Eyoye.

dys yap Symov Kal ov

a“ La) c ,
2. Odvxovv cat od Kedevers TavTov EpwTav ExaoToTE
9 » , € > , > , 0
0 TL av Tis BovAnTaL, ws ETLTTaMEVOS aToKpived Can ;

TINA. Idvv pév odv.

SQ. Kai viv 8) rovrwv dmdrepov Bovdeu troiev épdta

) aaroxpivov.
XVII. IQA.

Kpwat, @ YoHKpares

"AMAA ToWWoTw TavTA.
> ‘\ , > “~ 8 nw
érerd7) Topyias amopetv cou doxet

, SP
KQL [LOL ATO-

A e a > >
TEpt THS Props, ov avTnv iva ys eiva.s
32. "Apa épwtds nvtwa téxvyv pypt eivar ;

TINA. “Eyoye.

SQ. Ovddsepia Ewouye Soxet, @ Ilade, ds Ss YE Tpos oe
TadnOn eipno Oa.
| “ANG Ti cou Soxet H PyTopiKy etvar ;

TINA.

x2. [Ipaypa 6 gis od Torjoo Téxynv ev TO ovy-

, a.MS. ON 5p
YP2LLPATL O CYwW CVAYKOS AVEYVWV.

TINA. Ti rovro déyets ;

VE

32. “Epteipiav éywyé twa.

462. Kal viv 54] viv 5n, it is scarcely
necessary to observe, has usually the
sense of ‘ modo,’ ‘ but now,’ ‘a short time
ago’ (dAlyov €umpoobev, as the gram-
marians explain it), and takes an imperf.
and sometimes an aorist. It is so used a
few lines above, domep viv 5) @eyor,
and in this sense is occasionally opposed
to voy, as in a passage of the Laws (iii.
683 E), } viv 5h pev [ortyor eumpoa der |
ToUTOLS mepituxdvres Tois Adyots oft w
Tait éridenev, viv 8 éemircAhopueda,
whence Cobet ejects the palpable gloss
oAlyov Eumpoobev. Magnes Comicus (ap.
Meineke ii. p. 10), eié pot, viv 5h pev
dpuyus wh yeyovevat, viv 5& pfs, where,
as well as in Kurip. Hipp. 233, Cobet
reads vuydh (following the analogy of
ered, Snradh, &c.). Compare by all

means his Vv. Lectt. p. 238, “Con-
firmat hance observationem et veram esse
demonstrat quod yvvvdh non dirimitur
interposita particula, et dicitur vuvdh
Bév, non viv pev 5h, quod sicubi legitur
videbis ad viv 54 referendum, et cum
praesenti tempore et futuro conjungi.”
In the passage ri, us, however, viv
57 is used as TéTe 5h, adtixa 57, Ke.,
each adverb and particle retaining its
ordinary sense. Stallb. has collected in-
stances in his note: which perhaps are
hardly called for.

B. Mpayua b pys ob maou réxvny]:

‘a thing which you say created Art.

See the quotation from his own book

given | by Polus, sup. 448 ©, €umeipla

bey yep Tole? Tov aidva jua@v mopeverOat

Kata TEXVHV. me
—

B

—463, a.] TOPTTAS. | 33

TINA. °Eprreipia apa cou Soxet 4 pyTopiKy elvar ;

XQ. “Eporye, ei py Te od addo héyets.

TIQA. Tivos €uzreipia ; Ame

32. Xdpitds twos kai ndovijs dwepyacias. — Ahihee

TIQA, Ovdxotv caddy cor Soxet ) pytopiKy elvat, yapt-
leoOan oldv 7° ctvar dvOparois ;

SQ. Ti dé, & lode; ydy wérvoea wap eyod 6 tu
dnp avrnv eivar, @oTE TO ETA TOVTO épwTas ei Od Kady}

D pou Soxel €ivat ;

TNA. Ov yap rérvopas or €ureipiay Twa airhy dis
eivat ;

XQ. Bovdeu odv, ered) Tiysds 7d xapilerOar, cpuxpov
Ti pot xapioacban ;

TINA. “Eywye.

Z2. °Epod vov pe, Sporrovia 7 HTus pou Soxet Téxvy €lvat.

TINA. °Epote oy, tls TEXVN OYsorroLLa. ;

XQ. Ovddepia, & dade.

TINA. *Adda ti; Pade.

SQ. Snypi 8y, eurreipia ris.

TNA. Tivos; dah.

E 2. Sypi oy, xdpitos kat Hdovas amepyacias, & dhe.
TINA. Tatriv ap’ éorv Siporrovia. Kat PaTopexy 5 ;
32. Ovdsapads ye, adda THs aiTis pev emitndedorews

HOptov.
TNA. Tivos deyets Tavrns 3 ;

x2. My drypouKdrepov i TO adn bes €imrewv* OKVO yap

Topyiou EVEKY heyew, 2) olnrat pe Staxappdeiv TO €av-

Tov éemityjdevpa. eye Sé, ei pev TOUTS EoTLV | PNTOPLKy

163 Av | Topyias émirndevder odK oldar Kai yap dpte é« rod

Adyou ovdev Huiv Karapaves eyévero Ti TOTE OUTOS HyEtTaL

6 8 éya Kah tiv pytopiKyy, Tpaypatds Twds eaTL pdptov
ovdevos TOV KahOv.

TOP. Tivos, & Xaxpares ; ciré, wndev Eve aioyvvOeis.

vel tans

E. Mi aypodtepoy #| ‘I fear it may ence to Gorgias, lest he should ‘pa |

be she So Sg eee ae ey that Iam caricaturing his special pur-
for I shrink from speaking, out of defer- suit.”

VOL. H. D

Lis ens

[r4o% r
a Noes

tee

34
XVIII.

ITAATQNOX

[ 463, A

“tp > , >
x. Aoxeu Towwuv pot, @ Topyta, ELL

al A ‘\
TL €miTHOEYPA TEXVLKOY pev Ov, Wuyns S€ TTOYATTLKAS Kal
. A = ia) “A ,
golem vss avopeias Kat dvoe. Sewyns Tporomrew Tots avOparois

KaN@ S€ avTod éyw Td Kedddatov KoAaKeiav. TavTyS pou B
tal aA > , X X \ » , k 3
Soxet THs emiTNdevoews OANA péev Kal ara pdpta elvan,

wn > > 2

év dé Kal 7 dworouky 6 SoKet pev eivas Téxvy, as D9 6
- ema. , > ¥ , > > > , A ,
€uds Adyos, ovK €oTu TéExvy, GAN eprerpia Kai TpLBy.
Ny es

TavTNS pdploy Kal THY PHTOpPLKHY ey@® KaA@ Kal THY YE
na , a 4

KOMMOTLKAY Kal THY TOPLATLKHY, TETTApa TATA pOpLa ETl

auvbavér ba

A 4
"Sérrapat Tpaypacw. et ovv Bovdr\cTat I@dos tuvOdver Oat,
“nw QA “
ov yap Tw mwémvaTar STroty pny eye THs O

Kodakelas poptov elvas THY pyTopLKHY, GAN avrdv hédnOa
ovTw aroKEeKpyLevos, 6 S€ emavepwTE Ei od KabY HyodpaL
elvat. eyo 8 adT@ ovK amroKpwvodpat mpdtEpor Eire KaOV
elTe aioypor Hyodpar elvar THY PHTopLKHY, Tply av TP@Tov
atrokpivapat 6 TL €oTiv. ov yap Sixatov, @ Ild\e aN
eltep Bovder rubéobar, épwta dmotov pdpiov THs Koda-
Kelas Pypt eivar THY PHTOpLKHY,

TINA,

463. Aoxe? rolvvy] This entire passage,
as far as dixatocdyny, 466 ©, is quoted by
Aristides Rhetor in his spirited but ver-
bose treatise De Rhetorica (p. 6, Dind.).
I have noted many and adopted some of
his various readings.

tT] Sts te Rh. }

puxis 5€ croxaotiKhs | Isocr. c. Soph.
294, EOVUTE PAGS émmeAclas Seicbat,
kal Wuxijs avdpicjs nal Sotacrinjs (f.
oroxactixjs, Hirschig) epyorv elvat,—as
here, an enumeration of the qualities re-
quired ina rhetor. The coincidence be-
tween this passage and that in the text
cannot be thought fortuitous; and as
Isocrates wrote the speech against the
Sophists at an early period (see Antid.
§ 7, p. 280, Ziir.), it is probably Plato
who is the borrower. There is some
malice in the substitution of croxacrikjjs,
‘shrewd,’ for the dotacrixjs of Isocr.,
who meant to deser ” person, dofédoat
mept Exdorov Thy GANOeay padrAov duvd-
pevoy Tav cidévar packdytwy, which he
boasts to have been his own case (Panath.
234 Dp). These considerations should, I
think, prevent the acceptance of Hir-
schig’s plausible conjecture noted above,

> A , Y..'3 4, c La) ,
Epoto oy, Kat ATOKPWAl, OTOLOV MOpPLOV.

B. 7 dWorouxh] A qualitative adj. de-
rived directly from éWorods. The art
of the fancy-cook or cuisinier. Stephen
injudiciously adopts éwororntixh on in-
ferior MS. authority. In A. Rh. the
article 7 is omitted.

as 8 6] So A. Rh.; vulg. ds dé 6.

“ gone éyé] So A. Rh.; vulg. pnp
é

yo.

éym ©] A. Rh.; vulg. eyo dé.

etre xaddy etre aicxpdv| A. Rh. etre
aicxpoy elre kaddy.

6 rt éoriv] A. Rh. 8 éoriv.

muv0éc0e |} A. Rh. ruvOdvecOa.

amdxpivat| A. Rh. droxp. por. With
the entire passage which follows, and its
tabulation of sciences and pseudo-sciences,
the reader may compare a passage in the
Antidosis of Isocrates, possibly suggested
by the present. BovAoua 5& wep) ris
Tav Adywv mwaselas Somwep of yevea-
Aoyotytes mp@tov SedGeciv ... duodo-
yetrat mev yap Thy plow huey ek Te Tod
cépatos ovyKetobat nal THs Wuxts...
oftw 3& rodtwy éxdyvTwy dpavTés tives
mepl wev TOV YAAwY TOAAdS Téxvas TuVE-
ornkuias, wept 5¢ Td cGua Kal Thy Wuxhy
ovdty rowdtoy cuvtetayuévoy, eipdytes

—464, A.]

TOPTIAZ. 35

SQ. *Ap’ obv ay pdbors droxpwapévov ; eat yap 7
pytopiky Kata Tov e“ov Adyoy ToduTLKHS poptov Eldwdov.
TINA. Ti otv; xaddv } aicypov déyes av7Hy civa ;
XN. Aicypov eywye Ta yap KaKa aioxypa Kaho
> \ a > , ¢ ¥ > /, a | 3 ‘ id
emevon Set wor amoxpwwacbat ws 4dn ciddrt & ey@ héeyw.
TOP. Ma tov Aia, & Xéxpares, aN’ ey@ ovdé aurds

E ouvinps oO Te héyes.

3. LEixdrws ye, & Topyia: od& ydp mw cadés
héyw, ITddos Sé o8e véos eati Kat d€us.

TOP. ’Adda rodrov pev ea, euol & eimé THs éyets
TohiTiKHS opiov ElOwdov elvar THY PHTOPLKHY.

22. “AN eye Teipdcopar dpdoar 6 yé por haiverau
2 a ¢ 4 > 5 \ , R a A Y
elvar } pytopixy «i dé py Tvyxdver dv TodTo, TI@dos de

ehéyEet.
| TOP. Ids yap ov ;

lal ? La) X ta
TOMA TOV KahEls TL Ka WuyxN?Y ;

an ¥ ‘ >
XN. OvKxodv Kai TovTwvy ole Twa eElvar ExaTépov

eveiap ;
TOP. "Eywye.

XQ. Ti Sé; Soxodoar pev cvetiav, ovaoav & ov; otov

, 2 ‘ “A a & ‘ , a

Towdvde Néyw: Tohdot Soxovow ed Exe TA THpaTa, ovs

> a» c 4 ¥ / 4 > > ¥ > > aK

ovK av padiws atoOo.Td Tis, dtu odK ED ExovTW, GAN’ F
iarpdos TE Kal TOV YuUpLVATTLKOY TIS.

TOP. *AdnO7 déEyets.

32. Td rowdtrov Aéyw kal &v odpate eivar Kal ev
n, © Toves wev SoKELY EV EXEL TO TOMA Kal THY WV,
Xn

€yer S€ ovdev paddov.

dirtas erimedclas KaTéAvrov juiv, meph
Bey Ta Cdpata Thy wadorpiBikhy hs 7
yunvactixh pépos éorl, wep) 5¢ Tas Wuxas
Thy pirocoglay mepl hs eye uéAAW Trotel-
oat tovs Adyous, &vtictpdpovs Kah
cicvyas nal ooplow aitats dpuodoyou-
pévas, k.7.A. Antid. § 193, Bekk. Observe
the expressions éomep of yeveadoyoirvtes
and cv(vyas, as illustrative of those tabu-
lar arrangements of which Plato is so
fond; and of which we have elaborate
specimens in the Sophistes and Politicus.

E. Ti@Aos 58 85¢] Of course a play
upon the name Polus. See Introd. and
the passage there quoted from Aristotle’s

Rhet. The dfirns of Polus arose from
his failing to perceive the importance of
knowing the rf éo7: of thething discoursed
of. He inverts the natural order by
asking for the zo:dv before he knows the
tt. In fact he was ignorant of the first
elements of the dialectic art. Gorgias
is better instructed, and exclaims, with
something of impatience, ‘Oh! never

mind him. Tell me what you mean by |

saying that Rhetoric is the image or coun-

terfeit of a branch of the art Politic.’
464. GAN’ #] So A. Rh. ; vulg. &AAos #.
8 moe?] So A. Rh.; vulg. 8 71.

D 2

et ,

ITAATQNOZ

36 (464, B

TOP. "Eot tavra. B

XIX. SN. Sépe dy cor, edv Sivopa, capéotepov
> if. a , “ » Lal , 4 ¢
emdetEw 6 éyw. Avoiv ovrow rolv mpaypdrow dvo0 héyw
Téxvas’ THY pev ert TH Wyn ToduTiKHY Kado, THY SD émt
[To | odpare piay perv ovTws dvopaoat ovK EXw TOL, MLAS
dé ovons THS TOD THpaTos Heparreias Sv0 pdpia héyw, THY
pev yvpvaotikny, thy dé iarpixny: ths Sé mohituKys

dvrigrpogey pev TH yupvactikTh THY vowoberiKHy, avTi-

ricki oTpopov S€ TH iarpixn riv Sicacoovyynv. €miKowwvovar C
“Tike x > 2 rh 9 ee wasnt ee e) 7 i Tee
all + pev On ahAnhaus, ATE TEPL TO AUTO OVAL, EKATEPAL TOUTY,

H Te iaTpiK) TH yupvactiKyH Kal y SiKavocvvyn TH vojLo-

A 9 \ , , E) , , \
Oerixy cpaws 5é Siadepovot te addAjdwv. Tertdpwv 1
TOUTwWY ovTaY, Kal det Tpds TO BéATLGTOV DepatevOVTwV
TOV pev TO THpa, TOV SE THY yyy, H KOhaKEUTLK? aio~
Oopévn, od yvotoa héyw adda oToxavapern, TéTpaya

|

B. thy wey] A. Rh. rhv pey ody.

Bekk. wal thv pév, with one MS. 7g
before odéuart omitted in Bodl.
_ play wey ofrws| Of this idiomatic use
of ofrws see exx. Phaedr. 235 o, ‘I
cannot invent a single name on the
instant.’

avrlotpopoy piv TH yuuvacrixh | So A.
Rh. ;-wulg. Gur) wey ris yuuvaorinis.
The repetition of éyrlarpomoy seems to
me moré forcible. The word is used
with a dative Rep. x. 616 B; with a
gen. Phileb. 40 D and elsewhere, as below,
465 p. It denotes a relation like that of
‘strophe’_and ‘antistrophe’ in poetry ;
or between the two wings ofa regular
fagade in architecture, or a picture and
its ‘ nt,’ &e.

C. dixasocdvny] I have retained d:xao-
avvnv in preference to the rival reading
Sixacrixjyv, which has the support of two
inferior MSS., and is confirmed by the
authors of the Prolegomena to Hermo-
genes, p. 9 (Rhett. Graeci, p. 22. 15, ed.
Walz). But Quintilian certainly read
dixatoovyny (Inst. Or. ii. c. 15, “ duas
partes civilitatis . . animo assignet, lega-
lem atque justitiam”), which is also
found in Aristides Rh., in the Schol. on
this passage, and in Olympiodorus, who
has the gloss, pds S:katocdvny avtl
Tod mpds Sikaotixhy. Socr. is en-
titled to assume the identity of justice
and dicastic, for he has just proved 8r: 6

ee

Menabynkas Ta Slxaia Sleaos. He ‘who
has learnt all about justice’ is the ideal
dicast, and it is of his art that Socr. now
speaks under the name of justice. A
passage in the Politicus is illustrative of
the present: AelrecOar 5& Ta Tiuia Kal
tuyyevn (woditufjs émiothuns), TovtTwy
3 éori mov otparnyla nal Sixkacrikh
(303 ©). So inf. 520 B, we read, kdA-
Aibv €or copiotikh fnropixjis dSomep
vomoberixy SikaotiK}s, where however
we find in the text quoted by Arist. Rh.,
as here, Sixaoodvns. The passage of
Rep. i. 332 D, where Sixaocvvn is for
the sake of the argument virtually iden-
tified with diaorieh, is not really in
point, as the opinion is only advanced
for the purpose of being refuted: nor is
it safe to build upon a passage in a
doubtful dialogue like the Clitophon
(408 B), where d:xatoodvn is identified
with both woArtixy and dicactuch. But
the passage from the Politicus proves
that Plato could use dicacrich in a good
sense, as the art of the model d:caorhs,
who, as we have seen, has been shown to
be Slkaos.

h Kodaxevtich | Olymp. p. 62, ioréoy
bri TocodTov diapeper, ds poly ’"Apicro-
TéAns, pldos KdAakos bcov Td dyabdy TOD
ee alluding perhaps to Eth. N. ii.

. 13.

Tétpaxa—bdiaveluaca] The following

scheme will assist the reader :—

—4165, B. | TOPIIAS. 37

¢ ‘ , e A c . 9 A“ 7
€avTny Suaveipaca, vrodvca vrs EKaoTOV TOY popiwr,
~ > en, | . nw .
Dmpoomovetra. elvas TovTO OmEep vmédv, Kal TOD wey Bedri-
aotouv ovoey dpovtiler, To Sé€ del HOdlaoTw Onpeverar THY
Pp Pe Ce ek eran TY
» s\9 a. & A , > &/ > £25
avo kal e€amata, wate SoKet mrEioTov aia civar. 7d
— * ‘ > ‘ ¢ o3 a Me , ‘
pev ovv THY iatpiKnY 7 dYWoToLwK? wTodébuKE, Kal Tpoo-
mouita, Ta BéATLoTA oiTia TO Odpate eidéval, WoT ew
, > ‘ , > , beter ‘ 3
dot ev matot Siaywviler Oar dypomoidy te Kai iatpdv ev — - fr fn

> 5 7 ” $e c 7S , 3 Lt fet

dvopdow ovTas dvowtous Gomep ol waives, TérEpos Emaler “as |. 50
a an Q A

TEpt TOV xpnoTav o.tiwy Kal Tovnpar, 6 iatpds 7} 6 y,Jevs ba)

> , a xz > “ 5 > , , A
E 6yporrouds, Aw@ Gv atrofavely Tov iatpdv. Kodakeiav pev
465 ov e- % Ao ‘ > , > Q A ’ >

v avTd Kah@, Kal aloxypdv dye eivat Td ToLovdTor, | a
TI@\e—rTovT0 yap mpds GE héyw,—<sTi Tov Hd€os GTOYXG-
yep mp éyo, 7 x
¥ a , , \ eS » >
Cerau avev tov Bedtiorov: téxvnv dé avTny ov dye eivar,
2\\2 >» , 9 > ¥ , 2907 a ,
GAN Eurrerpiay, OTL ovK Eyer oyov ovoeva Ov Tpoopepet,
c lo en ‘ 4 > / wa ‘ + BST. e "4 ‘
omot atta THY dvow éoTiv, waTE THY aiTiav ExdoToU p17)
¥ f eRe a de r ? Xo a BAe
exew elmeiv. eym S€ Téyvnv ov Kah@ 6 dy 7 adoyov
A 4 \ 4 > > “A > e
Tpaypna. tovtwv Sé wépu ei audioByrtets, eOéhw wo-
axe ddoyov.
XX. Ty pév ovv iatpixn, aorep dEyo, 7H dyorrowKn
, ¢ / “ A “A ‘ ‘ SD, . .%
Bkohakela vrdxetau TH S€ yupvactiKH Rene coe" abr oP
, A € 7 “~ 4 >
TPOTOV TOVTOV 7) KOMPWTLKH, KaKOUPYOS TE OVTA Kal aTra~
Ty} Kal ayevvys Kai dvehevOepos, TXHpATL Kal YpOpact
—_— ee

[; 4S [esi

TOAITLKH
|
vouwoberikh dixaocbvyn or dtkacTiKh
| |
(cogiorixh) (pnropixh)
h TOU Téparos Oeparela
yupvacTikh iarpicy
(koupwrikh) (dporourh).

bmédv| Arist. Met. 3. 2. 19, of d:a-
Aextixol Kal cogioral taitov brodtor-
Tat oxipa TS pirocddy. Id. Rhet. i. 2.
7, 5d cad Swodberar bed 7d oxTma Td
Tis TodiTiKHs } pntopich. The metaphor
seems taken from the stage: Luc. Pisc.
c. 33, dwodver Oar Tov Ala, ‘to personate

Jupiter; Tim. Lex., couvds Adyos.
Kal ayabos oe kal 6 miavdTnTt UTodud-
fevos Thy GAfGeay. (In Xen. Oec. 14.
3, h Kat thy Sicaocbvny brodver d-
ddonew, used for drodéxet.)

D. dare doxei—aiia} Ar. Rh. has
doxety and dtiar.

38 IIAATQNOX [465, B
Kat evoTnoL Kal éoOnow araTaoa, BaTE ToLEW aANOTPLOV
KdANOS EhEAKOMEVOUS TOU OLKELOU TOD Sia THS YULVATTLKS

Ty es, 2 DRO ERLE meee A
dpedew. W* ovv py) paxportoya, €0dw wou cirely womTEp

ol yewperpai—non yap av tows axohovOjoaus—l[ore 6 ,

KOMMOTLKY TPs YURVAGTLUKHY, TOUTO GYyoTOUKy Tpos LaTpL-
KHv* Laddov Se We,| OTL KOMPWTLKT TPOS YULVATTUKHP, ©
Nr a Na LS

mpos iarpixyy, Tovto pyTopiKy mpos Suxaocvyyny. daep
perro. héya, Si€oTyKe pev ovTo dioev ate S eyyds dvTwv
pdpovTa ev TH avT@ kal wept TavTa GodioTai Kal prToO-
pes, Kal ovK exovTW 6 TL xXpHowvrTar odre adrol EavTots
ovTe of GAOL avOpwmor TovTOIS. Kai yap av, EL MH 7

\ ~ ? > 4
Wuyn TH THOMATL ETEOTATEL,

465 B. Aedrnot Kal éoPjow] Vulg.
Aer nti kal aicOhoe:. Ar. Rh. has éo6H71,
which confirms the (as it seems to me)
certain emendation adopted by Bekker
from three MSS., two of which give
Aerdtynor and the other éc6jo.w, which is
also recommended by Heind. Tim. 65 0,
tpaxuTnot re Kal Aedtyot. Hirschig
gives éc@fcet, a word of doubtful note, to
say nothing of the inelegance of the change
from a significant plural to singular.

[ért } koppwrikh | The brackets in the
text include the words omitted by Ar.
Rh. pa@adrov be Hde sound to me like a
gloss, introducing a duplicate reading.
Certainly the terms of the proportion
which Aristides retains are all that are
necessary for Socr.’s purpose. The word
kou.podv.is of somewhat uncertain lineage.
A scholiast derives it from Kéup1, gummi,
which can hardly be true. Modern lexi-
cographers connect it with xopuety, comere,
or, still better, with «écpos, rouds. The
arts of the coupérns or Koupwrpla are
vividly described in a passage of the
comic poet Alexis, quoted by Athen. xiii.
p- 568 (Meineke iii. p. 422, *Iooordotor),
and more briefly by Philostratus, Ep. 39,
as 6~0adpuav broypapal, ka Kkouay mpoc-
Oéces Kah Copan TapEer@y Kal XelAéwy
Bapat. The corresponding Latin terms
are mango, mangonizare, as in Plin.
N. H. xxiii. 1, “Succus radicis vitis
nigrae cum ervo laetiore quodam colore
et cutis teneritate mangonizat corpora,”
a passage which illustrates Aedryor in
the text. Koay mpocbéces would come
under the head of oxjmaor, which would

2rD? 2 4 ¢ A \ 4 ee
a QUTO GAUTW, KAL {L7) VITO

not include éo@jor. Other oxhuara were
the paddings with which lean persons
eked out their figures, and the thick
soles with which the dwarfish supplied
their lack of stature, as set forth by
Alexis in the edifying passage referred
to. This use of oxquara is analogous to
its rhetorical sense. Illustrative of this
analogy of the decorative and rhetorical
art is likewise the following passage of
Photius quoted by Jacobs (ap. Steph.
Lex. ed. Dind.): érav0e? trois Adyots (Tod
*Iooxpdrous) ov pudvov eupuTov, AX Kar
KopmwriKoy KdAXos.

C. drep—pnropes| This passage seems
to be corfectly-explained by Stallb., who
understands tatra after diéornKe, and
retains cogic’ a solutely
necessary to the sense, though omitted
in one MS. and by Bekker at Schleier-/
macher’s instigation. dvrwy refers ap-
parently to rhetoric and sophistic. Tr.,
* However, though as I say, there is this
essential difference between the arts in
question, yet as they are near neighbours,
their professors, the sophist and the
rhetor, are apt to be confounded as oc-
cupying common ground and employed
upon the same subject-matter, insomuch
that they know not what_to make of
each other (abrots for aAAHAos as freq.),
nor indeed does the rest of the world
know what to make of them.’ Invectives
against ‘Sophists,’ it may be observed,
are as frequent in some of Isocratés’s
orations as in the Platonic dialogues (see
esp. Isocr. c. Sophistas, Busiris, Helenes
Encomium), and the Eristics entertained

Dtavrns KateVewpetro Kat Siexpivero Hy Te dwoToUK?) Kat
9 iatpixy, GAN adtd 75 cHpa expwe oTaOpodpevov Talis
4 la) ie > , . a > , xa ‘ >
Xapiot Tats Tpods avTd, TO TOV "Avakaydpou av TOAD Hr, @
pire IGhe—ovd yap Tovtwy eureipos,—6j.00 av mavTa
Cal nw ~ at Roe
Xpypata épvpeto &v TH adT@, axpitwyv dvTwV THY TE
laTpikav Kat vyvewav Kal dporouKov. 6 pev ovv eye
one. THY pyTopuxyy elvar, dkyKoas: davtiotpodov dyso-
Totlas €v iuy7, ws exelvo &v odpatt. "Iows peév ovv ato-
E Tov TeToinKa, OTL GE OK EOY paKpods Adyous héeyew
avTos @vxVvov héyor amoTéraka. afvov pev odv enol ovy-
yvauny exew é€oti: éyovtos yap pov Bpayéa ovk euav-
Oaves, ovdé ypjobar TH amoKpioe jv cor areKpwapnv
poe er s = 6 > > 25 4 8 4 > \ >
ovoev olos T Hoba, add €d€ouv OinyynoEws. Eay pev ovV
466 Kai €y@ Tov droKpwopmevov jar) Exw 6 TLXpPHowpat, | ard-
Tewe Kal OD héyor, éav Sé Exo, Ea pe xpnobar Sixarov
yap. Katvodv tavTy TH amroKpicoe Et TL ExELs xpHoOat, ypa.
XXI. TMA. Ti otv dis; Kodaxeia Soxet cou eivar
c c ee
i) PyTopury ;
32. Kohdaxeias pév ody eywye elrov popiov. add’ ov
prnpoveders THALKODTOS Wr, @ Ide ; ti taxa Spacers ;
> ie en As € , Tag ag a ,
TINA. *Ap’ obv Soxodtai cot ws Kddaxes Ev Tals TOMETL
cal / <3 Wy G:F
avdror vopiler Oar ot ayabot pyropes ;

'.g ee

B 22. “Epdtnpa totr epwrds Adyov twds apyxiv

héyets ;

doubtless an equal contempt for the more
popular accomplishments of the pro-
fessed rhetor, while both were in dis-
repute with the simple citizens, the
idi@rax of the day.

D. Td Tov *Avataydpov by word Fr]
“Late pa ac frequens eésset illud
Anaxagorae dictum” (Stallb.). The
“dictum” ed at the commence-
menf of. his celebrated treatise. See the
authorities in Ritt. and Preller, Hist.

Ph. § 61. Anaxagoras_was the first to

give to vods or Wuyx7h the heer of
which Socr. has just spoken.

@s é€xewo ey gépati] i.e. as 7
byorola aytictpopdy eori TH pnTopiKy
évcdépart. Rhetoric is a spiritual cookery,
as cookery is a corporeal rhetoric. Each
is the pendant or counterpart of the other.

466. Kodakelas pty ody — dpdoes |
‘No! I called it a Erich of Flattery.
Is your memory failing, Polus, and you
so young? What will you do presently ?”
He had understood Socr. to identify
Rhetoric with Flattery, as if they had
been co-extensive terms. mpeoBuTns
yevéuevos formerly stood in the edd.
after Opdces, but some of the best
MSS., including the Bodl., omit the
words. That they are a gloss appears
from another v. l., véos Sv mpecBirns
yevéuevos—an interpretation of tnAu-
odtos as well as taxa. There is certainly
some difficulty about the use of réxa,
but perhaps Stallb.’s defence is satis-
factory, “tdxa nunc facete et jocose de

longiore temporis spatio dicitur.” Comp.
Ar. Ran. 528, ob 54 BAX Hon TOG.

40 TIAATQNOS (466, B

170) TINA. °Epwtd eywye.

ae y SQ. Ovsdé vowiler Bar Epouye Soxotow.
pes TINA. [lds ov vopilerOar; od péyratov Sivavra. év

Lal ,
Tals TONEoW ;
> ~~

32. Ovk, ei 75 Sivacbai ye héyers dyabor ru civar TO
Suvapevo.

TINA. °Adda pev 87 déyo ye.

32. “Eddyiotov toivuy pou Soxovor Ta ev TH TOE
Svvac bat ot pHTopes.

TINA. Ti 8€; ovy, damep ot Tipavvor, aroxtwrdaci O

a *» 4 A b) an , Q >
Te Ov Gv Bovr\wrTa, Kal adatpodvTa. ypymata Kal éK-
Baddovow ek TaY TodEewr dv Gv SOKH adTots ;

SN. Ny tov kvva, appryvoe perro, @ Tae, ef’
Exdotou av héyeis, TOTEPOV AUTOS TavTa héyels Kal yyouNV
wavTod amodaiver, } Ewe Epwras.

TINA, *AXdN eywye oé Epwrd.

y lal
x2. Elev, & dire ereita Sv0 dpa pe épwras ;
TINA. Ids dvo;
ry » wd ¥ 9 3 ,
SQ. Ovx dptu ovtw was edeyes, OTe amoKTwrvacw
e | at aA x» 4 WA e , .
ol pyTopes ovs Gv BovwrvTar, @oTEp ol TUpavvor, Kal

4 > rd ww A 5 , > “ 4 a
xXpHpar adarpovvra Kat é€ehavvovow €K ToV TdEwv Ov D
dv Soxp avrots ;

TINA. "Eywye.

XXII. 3. Aéyw roivyy cou ote Svo0 tad7 ori Ta
EpwoTypata, Kat amroKpwovpat yé wor mpos apddrepa.
gnpt yap, @ ade, éy® kat tods pyTopas Kat Tods TUpar-
vous dvvacBar pév ev Tais moeoL OpiKpdoTaToY, waTEP

A Sy 2904 N nm @ , e ¥

vov 8) €deyov: ovdev yap more dv BovdovTat, ws E7ros
3 A cal , bd x» > a , , >
eimreiy* Tovely evo. 6 TL Gv adtots Sdéy BéATicTOV elvar. F

C. Nh tov Kiva} ‘I swear to you,
Polus, that I am really in doubt, each
time you speak, whether you are stating
your own views, or asking my opinion.’

amopatver| So Protag. 336 D, thy
éavtod yvéuny amopatverOa: ib. 340 B.
Stallb., following Bekk., places a colon
after vy roy xtva, thus making Socr.
answer Polus’s question in the affirma-
tive, though he immediately afterwards
declines to reply to it, as involving two

questions instead of one. It seems to me
that the position of wévro in the sen-
tence is sufficiently justified by the pas-
sages adduced by Ast, viz. Gorg. 481 3B,
vy Tovs Oeovs GAA” émtOuuG@: Arist. Nub.
652, vy tov AP GAN olda. Clearly wévrox
could not precede audiyvod, as aAAd
could not have followed it. I do not
therefore perceive the force of Stallb.’s
objection.

—467, A. | TOPIIA. Al

TINA. Odxodv todr6 éott 75 péya Sivacbat ;
SN. Ovy, as yé dyor ados.
be
TINA. °Eye ov dynps; dypi pév ody eywye.
SQ. Ma tov od av ye, érel Td péya Svvacbar dis
ayabov civar TO Svvapeve.
TINA. nyt yap odv.
XN. *Ayabdv ody ote. elvar, dv Tis Town TadTa &
» a > n la > “ VY PP x A
av Soxn ait@ Bédricta civar, vovv py EXwV; Kal ToOdTO
Kadets péya Sivacban ;
TINA. Ovdx eywye.
32. Ovdxodv aodei~es Tods prropas vouv €yovTas
‘\ la ‘ ¢ ‘ > ‘ X , > \ >
467 kal téyvnv Thy pynTopiKhy adda | 7) KoaKelav, ewe é€e-
héy€as. ci dé pe edcrers avedeyKTOr, ol pHTOpEs ol ToLOUYTES
év Tals mokeow & Soxet adTois Kal of TUpavvoL OvdEeY aya-
Odov todto Kextynoovtat, ei 87 S¥vapis eat, ws ad dys,
> , \ \ La) + a aA “ ‘ ‘ e “~
dyalov, To Sé movety avev vov & SoKet Kai od dpodoyeis
KQKOV €lval. 7 OU;
TINA. "Eywye.
SQ. ds ay ody ot pyropes péya SvvawrTo 7 ot TUpar-
> an , 2X ‘ , > a e \
vou ev Tals TodEoWw, eav py YwKparyns e&ereyyOyn wo

“ a
IIéXov ott movovew a BovdovtTat ;

TINA. Otros avip—

E. Odxody Todrd €or: Td péya divacba |
In illustration of this use of the article
in the predicate, compare Mr. Shilleto’s
note on Dem. F. L. § 130, rotro ydp
éott Td Aaumpdv, where he refers to the
expression of Callicles (492 c), 7a 5¢ &AAa
Tavr éortl Ta KadAwtiouata, TA Tapa
ptow ovvOqyara. Tr. ‘Is not this
what I called’ (above, B) ‘having great
power 2?

"Eye of gnu] ‘I say no? I tell youl

Ma rév] Olymp., diddone: juas ws Se7
e0iCecGat Kpatety Tov Bpxwy. A similar

pious motive “is assigne by the Greek

interpreters for Socr.’s habit of swear-
ing ‘by the dog’ and ‘by the goose.’
This however, it is to be feared, arose as
much from whim as from piety, for in
this dialogue (449 D) we find him swear-
ing v} thy “Hpay, and adjuring mpds Aids,
in cases which hardly require the inter-
position of a deity. And as to the pa

vév, we find a like aposiopesis in Arist.
Ran. 1374, wa tdv, eyo mev_od8 by éis,
«.TX., where no such motive can be as-
sigued. See however the Schol. on that
passage and Routh’s learned note on this
place. Compare also the sixth Platonic
Epistle, ad fin., where the writer’s
friends are bid to swear ‘at once with
scholarly seriousness, and with that
sportiveness, of which seriousness is twin-
sister”’—no inapt description, by the
way, of the true Socratic temperament.
ons] Vulg. ons, corr. Baiter.

467. parses! ‘will have herein
no advantage—nothing congratulate
themselves on: a future distinguished
from KThoouat as KeeTnpat ‘to have’
from kTr@par ‘to acquire.’

Oiros avp—] Schol., dcavel Greyev, 6
&vOpwmos obros th mdaxet; Socr. finishes
the sentence for him. Comp. Rep. 506
B, ovtos, Hv 3 eye, avyp Kadds,

42.

SQ. Ov dype Tore adrods & Bovdorrau

eheyXe.

TIAATQNOZ

[467, B

GANG ph B

TINA. Ovdx dpti mpoddyes Tovey & Soxet adtots Béd-
TuoTa evar |, TovTOV tpdcber | ;

s2. Kai yap vov sporoya.

TINA. Odxovv movovow & Bovdovrar.

2. Ov hype.

a nw
TINA. Tlovodvres 5€ & Soxet adrots ;

SQ. PSnpi.
TINA.

Sethu ye héyers kai vrephuy, @ Ydxpares.

> ~ 7.
32. My xarnyope, & Ac ote TaXe, va tpgoeitw ce
‘ Fe > > > \ ¥ 2S ND A S- ¥ 4 Ua
Kata o€ GAN’ ek per exers ewe epwrav, ériderEov ote Wev-
Sopar, ci O€ Hj, adTds amroKpivov.

TNA,
héyeus.

"ANN eOéd\@ amoxpiver Oar, iva Kai cid@ 6 71

XXIII. 3A. [érepov odv cou Soxodvow ot avOpwmor
an , a a , e , a ae A e
Touro Bov\ecOar 6 av mpaTTwoWw EKaOTOTE, } EKELVO OU
eveka TpaTTovet TOVE 6 TpaTToVeW ; olov ot Ta Pappmaka
mivoyres Tapa Tov latpav métepdv aor SoKoda. TovTO

B. [tovtov mpdc0ev| There can be no
doubt that these words are a mere in-
terpretation of &pri, as Bekk. perceived.
Stallb. defends them on the remarkable
ground that they are “agreeable to the
genius of the man,” namely of Polus.
See the note on viv 57, 462 a, and the
passage there quoted from the Laws.

BxerAia ye Aéyeas}] Vulg. cxérALa
Aéyets. The yé is added from Olymp.,
as freq. in quasi exclamatory passages
like the present. So, from Stobaeus,
Heind. also; who refers to p. 473, &romd
ye . . emixetpers Adve.

& Agere rane] A jingle of sounds,
such-as ad prescribed in his art
of Rhetoric. So in the Symp. (p. 185),
Mavoavtov d¢ ravoauevou (StddoKover yap
ue toa A€yewv of copol), and Hipparch.
p- 225, nal xépq nal dpa” (T. Gray).
So also Olymp. p. 70, and Philostr. Vitt.
Soph. § 13, who observe the same jingle
in the foll. va mpoocelrw oe Kata oé.
Here again possibly Plato casts a side
glance at Isocrates, who, as a pupil of
Gorgias, frequently sins in this way.

©. Mérepoy ofv—mpdrrovow] “He is
proving that fundamental principle of his
doctrine, viz. that the wicked man is
doing he knows not what, and sins only
through ignorance: and that the end of
his actions, like that of all other men, is
good, but he mistakes the nature of it,
and uses wrong means to attain it” (T.
Gray). Compare Arist. Eth. Nie. iii. 6,
h 5& BodAnots Brit pev Tod TéAous éorly,
eipntat, Sone? St rots piv ayadod elvan,
Tots 5¢ Tod paivomevov a&yaod. cuuBatve
dé Tots wey Td Bovanrdy Tayabdy A€yovat
Bh elvar Bovanroy d BovrAcTa 6 wh 6pdads
aipoduevos (ei yap ora Bovdntdv, Kah
ayabdy, hv 3, ei ovrws Ervxe, kardv), Tots
F ad Td pawduevoy ayabby To Bovdnrdy
A€yovot ph eivar pice: Bovanrdév, aA’
éxdor@ Td SoKxody: %AAo F AAW palvera,
kal ef ofrws @rvxe, TavayTia, K.7.A. Also
Meno, pp. 77, 78; Protag. 357 c. Gray
refers his readers also to Locke’s cele-
brated chapter on Power (Hssay on
Human Understanding, b. ii. c. xxi. §§
41, 42), which is interesting from its co-

- incidence with the Socratic view.

D

— 468, A.] TOPIIAS. 43

, 9 A , ‘ , Va SA a, A

Bov\ec Oar orep Tovover, Tivewy TO PappaKov Kat adyev,
a . ‘a

} éxeivo, Td byvaivew, ob Eveka Tivovow ;

TINA. <Andov or. 76 dyvaivew | ,06 Evexa Tivovow |.

SQ. Odxodtv Kat ot wr€ovrés TE Kal TOV adXov XPn-
patio pov patilduevor ov TOUTS \éoTwW 6 \Bovddovrat, 0
Towvew éexdorote Tis yap Bovderar mrEW TE Kal KWWdv-

, \ , > ȴ SEND. eso cs , by
vevew Kal mpaypat €yew; add’ exetvo, olwa, 00 evexa

na &%

méovet, TAovTEW* TOVTOU yap EveKa TEOVTW.

TINA. Tdvv ye.

4
XN. “Addo Tt ody ovTw Kal TEepi TdvT@V; édv Tis TL

, g , > a“ 4, A , > >
_Mpattn €vekd Tov, ov TovTo Bovderar 6 wpdrrer, add

E

468

—

EKEWVO OU EVEKA TPATTEL ;
TINA. Nai.
> na ‘i: ¥
XQ. *Ap’ obv €or Tt TOV OvTwV, 6 Odvxi TOL ayaldv

b
Y é€otly } Kaxov } petakd TovTwy, ovte dyaldv ovTe /-

Kakov ;

TINA. Toddy avéynyn, & Ydxpares.

XQ. Odxovy déyes civar dyabdv pev codiav te Kal
e 4 A “ 7 > ‘ A ‘ de >
vyietav Kal mOVTOV Kal TaAAa TA TOLAVTA, KaKa O€ TA-
VavTia TOUTWD ;

TNA. "Eyoye.

- >

BQ. Ta dé pajre ayaba pyre Kaka dpa todde dyes,
a A an A nA
& éviote pev peréyet TOU ayalod, | eviore 5€ Tod Kakod,
éviote 5€ odderépov, ofov Kabjobar Kai Badilew Kal tpé-
xew Kat mrev, Kal otov ad NiPovs Kai Eva Kal Tada

A lol > A , a » > ¥ “~ 4 ,
TQ TOLAUTA ; OV TaUTa héyers; 7 GAA aTTa KadeEls TA TE
ayaa pyre Kaka ;

AjjAov 611—[lvovow] This second ob esse” (Buttm.). In the Lysis the theory;
&veka wivovcty is omitted in two MSS., is worked out in considerable detail, rq
and in Stobaeus, as it seems to me, as here, assumed as self-evident: which

y- we may take, with Schleierm., as an|

E. °Ap’ ody %or: ti] This theory of indication of the later date of the Gorgias. |
&didoopa is put forward mor Neitatingly For Plato will often be found to take for |
in the Lysis, p. 216 D: doxet wor dowepe) granted in a later what he has been at!
¢ arta eivat yévn, Td wev a&yabdy, 7d great pains to prove in some earlier)
d€ kaxdy, 7d 8 os’ ayabdy obre Kandy. dialogue. In the Philebus (p. 43) we
tl 8& col ;—Ka) euol, 2pm. The terms of find an analogous distribution of #3¢a,
Polus’s reply are to be understood xara Avmnpd and undérepa, which Plato em-
7d onuawéouevoy. “« ee a omnino, ploys in refutation of a well-known Cyni-

his tribus

Sc. omne quod sit u ex cal paradox.

the
te djie4

4A: IIAATQNOZ [ 468, A

TINA. Ovdk, add\a tavTa.

XO. Lédrepov odv ta peraéd tadra evexev Tav aya-
Oav mpatrovew, oTav TpatTwoW, H tayaba TOV pera€y ;

TINA. Ta petaéd Symov tov ayabar.

XN. Td dyabdv dpa SidKovres kat Badiloper, oray B

Badiloper, oidpevor Bédriov evar, kat 7d evavtiov €oTa-
bev, OTAY ET@MEV, TOV avTOD EveKa, TOU ayalod. H ov;

TINA. . Nat.

SN. Odxodv Kat daoxtivvvper, et Twa amroKrivvuper,
Kat éxBdddoper Kat ddatpovpeba xpypata, oldpevor apet-
vov €lvat Hiv TAaVTA TroLEely 7 BH ;

TINA. ITTavv ye.

SQ. “Ever dpa tod ayaov amavta tatta movovow
Ol TroLourTes.

TINA. yp.

XXIV. 3. OvKodtv aporoynoaper, & Evexd Tov

lal wn > A @ 9g
Tovovpevr, py exewa PBovrAceoOar, add Exewo ov EveKka O

TAUTA TOLOUMED ;
TINA. Madora.
32. OiKx dpa oddrrewv Bovddopeba odd exBadrew Ex
A /, > % , > “ e A“ y
TOV ToEwY OvdE xpHpaTa adhaipetoAar amTrA@s OUTS,
adn’ éav pév Shera F tavra, Boviépela mpattew Guta,
BraBepa Sé dvra ov Bovddpeba. Ta yap ayaa Bovdd-
0 ¢ \ 4 ‘ de , > ie 4 ‘\ >
pela, as dys ov, Ta SE pyre ayaa pyre Kaka od Bov-
Adpcba, odSE TA KaKd. H ydp; adnOn cou SoK@ déyew,
> A a y ** 9 > ,
® ade, H ov ; Ti ovk atroxpive ;
TINA, °AdnO7.
n ¥ lal A
32. Ovxovv eirep tadta dporoyodper, et Tis azo-
, * al
KTelver TWA H EKBadder ex wdews H ApaipEetrar xpymara,
. AE 4 xa ¥ nw
ELTE TUPAVVOS MV ELTE PHTMp, OidpEVoS apeEwoV Elva AUTO,
4 \ , lal a A
tuyxaver S€ dv KdKiov, odros SyHmov Tovel & SoKEl aiTa.
> ,
Hh ydp ;
TINA. Nai.
468 ©. axA@s ofrws] In the abstract; ‘we do not will murder for murder’s

out of mere wantonness and without any sake,’ &e.
ulterior view. Or, as we should say,

D

TOPIIAX.

—469, B. | 45

Ce ae a

x. *Ap’ obv Kat & BovdeTaL, eimep Tvyydve TadTa
kaka ovta; Tt ovK amoxpive ;

TINA. *AXN ov por Soxet wovetv & Bovderau.

¥ lal A
x2. “Eorw ovv éras 6 Towwdtos péya Sivatar ev TH

, , x > ‘ X id , > , \

Emdhe TavTy, etrep €oTi Td péeya S¥vacbat dyaldv TL KaTa
THY anv dporoyiar ;
TINA. Ovx é€orw. ,
eet ee .

XQ. ~AdnOy apa eye edeyor, éywv ott eoTw avOpw-
Tov tovovvTa év moder & Soke aiT@ py péya SvvacOat
pndé rovety & Bovderau.

WANA. ‘As 57) ov, ® Sdkpares, ovK Gv SéEao éeivai

A 9 na > A“ , “ a. Biv 3 \

gou Tovey 6 Te SoKet cou ev TH TWOEL paddov 7 py, OVSE

A 9 s A. 3 , a ¥ Fale

Gndots stay tons Twa H amoKteivavta bv edokev aiTo 7
adehopevov xpypata H Syoavra.

SN. Arxaiws déyers H ddixas ;

469 TINA. ‘Omdrep’ | Gv rou, odk apdotépws Lnrordv
Hts a aed
ECT ;

XQ. Evtdyjwer, & Made.

HANA. Ti 87 ;

XN. “Or od xpy ovre Todvs alyrdrovs Cydovv ovre
Tovs GOXious, GAN’ ENeetv.

TINA. Ti Sai; ovrw oor Soxet eyew mepi av eyo
héyw Tov avOpadror ; ,

=. lds yap ov;

TINA. “Ootis otv amoxtivvvew sv av 8d) aire,
. , 2 POT ay a > \ 2 ,
Sixaiws amoxtivvis, aOdALos SoKet wou etvar Kat EdeWOs ;

> ¥ > \ id re

SQ. Ov Eporye, od5€é pévtot (yrords.

TINA. OvK dpt aOd\uov edyoba. eivar ;

XQ. Tov ddixwos ye, @ Eratpe, amoxteivavTa, Kat

B éhewdv ye mpds Tov S€ Suxatws aljdrwrtov.

469. ércwds] Vulg. éAcewds. See édAciwés, is a proof that the authority of

Porson’s Pref. ad Hee. p. vi: “ Atticae
linguae analogia hance scripturam flagitat.
Ut enim a déos formatur Sewds, ut a
KAéos KAcivds, sic ab éAeos formatur
éAewés.” The circumstance that the form
éAcewds is almost universally found in
the tragedians, where the metre requires

the MSS. may be safely set aside in
prose writers also. The Attic form is
preserved in the case of the derivative
adverb in Arist. Thesm. 1063, KAde
éAeiva@s, and by one MS. in Soph. Phil.
870.

lee

46

IITAATQNOX

[ 469, B

TINA. °H mov 6 ye amoOvicKkwr adixas éhewds TE Kat

aO\uds €orw.

> a pape aA €
SQ. “*Hrrov } 6 amroxtwvds, ® Tlade, kat HTTov H O

4 2 ,
Siuxaiws atoOvyncKwr.

TINA, lds d47a, & YdéKpares ;
YQ. Ovrws, os péyrotov Tov KaKav Tvyxdver dv TO

GOLKEL.

TINA. *H yap tovto péyiatov; ov

pecCov;
x2. “Hora ye.

nw
KEW ;

T) aoukera Oar

TINA, Sd dpa Bovdow av ddiccioOar padrov } do.-

SN. Bovroipnv pev av eywye ovdérepa: ci 8 dvay-
Katov ein aodiKely 7 adiKeto Oar, EXoiwny Gv paddov aO-

Keto Oat H aduKelv.

TINA, Xd dpa tupavvety odk av d€Eauo ;
SQ. Ovx, ei 7d Tupavve ye eyes Orrep eyo.
3 > ¥ “ 4 9 ll > ~ 5 “
TINA. °ANN éywye TodTo héyw Gmep apti, efetvar ev TH
A lal an lal A > UA »
TONE, O Gv SOKH AUTO, ToLELY TOUTO, Kal aTOKTWYUYTL Kat
> , ‘ 4 4, Xs ‘ ec “ 8 ,
éxBaddovts Kal TavTa TpaTrovTs KaTa THY avToV Sdfav.
XXV. 3M. 7A paxdpre, euod 87 AéyovTos TO Ady@
° aA Py N cA.5.3.. & va 7? cy ¢ oN ,
emuhaBov. ci yap éy® ev ayope mynovoyn haBov vio pa-

Ans €yxerpioiov Aeyouns pos

C. TE Adyw emtAaBod] Inf. 506 B, éuod
ve axovwy emAauBdvov, edy th cor done
BY KaAGS A€yenv.

D. év dyopG mAnOoton]| h.e. in the
forenoon. Herod. ii.173; Athen. p. 279.
2. Xenophon says of. Soer., rpwt eis
Tos Tepimdrous Kal TA yuuvdown Het, Kar
TAnQovaons &yopas exet havepds Fr,
Kal Td Aowdy adel THS Hucpas tv drov
mrelorots wéAAOL Guvéced bat.

bd wddns]| Schol., él rod kpudiws te
mparrew, as Anuoodéyvns év “Addy (p.
848.12), <aAAa why od8 brd udans 7H mpd-
KAnots yéyovev, GAN’ ev TH Gyopa.’ wAn-
Ouvtix@s 3& ob padas Aé€yovalv, GAA
phacxdrAas. Avolas—‘xat thy wey Kdunv
WaAhy exes, Tas 5& pacxdaas dacelas.?
As synonymous phrases he mentions bird
«édmov or bd KéArov. Comp. Aesch.
Choeph. 73, Saxpiw & id’ ciudrwy, and
the vern. ‘in the sleeve ;’ Fr., sous cape.

oé OTe 2 lade, eno Svvapis

Olymp. seems to have read, trd udAns
éyxeipliiov’ kal Adxvov, and below, ei
otv ... delta Td eyxeipldiov Kat Toy
Avxvoyv. The Avxvos may have been a
bright thought of his own, to account for
the burning of the arsenal, for which pur-
pose a dagger would be an unsuitable im-
plement. Or he may have really found the
words in his copy. That id uddns needs
not to be interpreted literally here, we see
from the following passage of the Laws
(vii. 789 c), where, speaking of the mania
for cock or quail fighting prevalent in
Athens, Plato says, rpds rovrois AaBdyTes
bard wddns Exaoros, Tovs péev éAdrrovas
eis Tas xXeipas, melCous 8 5rd Thy ayKdAanv
évtés, wopevovta TepimatobyTes oTadlous
maumbdrArous evexa THs evetias o Tt Tis
TOV abTayv CwudTwy GAAG THs TOUTWY TOY
Opexudrwy, where Ast observes justly,
“Grd pwddns AaBdytes generale est—de

—470, A.] TOPTIAS. 47

‘

Tis Kal Tupavvis Oavpacia aptr mpooyéyovers éav yap

»¥ > ‘ 8 , ‘ A “ > 4 ae ‘ c “

dpa éuoi dd€ twa Tovtwri tav avOpdmwv dv avd Spas

abtika pada dew teOvdvar, teOvy ger odtos bv dv Sdn:
» 86 lal “~ 7 A , -
kav twa Sd) pou THs Kedhadys adTav Kateayévar Sety,

Kateayas €ota avtika pada, Kav Oomdriov Siecyisba,

7 ¥ = y 7 > \ , > its “
E dveoxiopévor €otau ovTw péya eyo Stvapar ev THS€ TH

, > > > “ 4 7 x > , ¥
TONE. EL OdV amLOTOUYTL Got SEeiEayL TO eyxELpidioY, irws
& ¥ ioc. o Ss , B < \ , xX ,

v evmots Lowy OTL 2 Yexpates, ovTw pev TavTes av péeya
dvvawrTo, érel Kav eumpnobein oixia TovTe TO TpdTe
9 > ¥ “ \ 4, > 7 , ‘\ e
nvtTw av cor Sox, Kal ta ye “AOnvaiwy vedpia Kal ai

4A n
Tpinpes Kal TA TAOLa TavTa Kal TA Syudoia Kal Ta td.a.

> > > ¥ a > ¥ . , , Ss 5 a
GAN’ ovK apa TodT E€oTe Td péeya SvvacOar, 7d Tovely &
Soxet atta. 7 SoKxet oor;

TINA. Ov Syra ovtw ye.
¥ A
| SQ. "Eyes ody eimety 80 6 te peuder tH TovadTnv
Svvapw ;
TINA. “Eywye.
Sa.) TE 8y ; heye.
4 > “A A yg , A“ ,
TINA. “Ore dvayKatov Tov otra mpatrovta Cnp.ova bai
€oTW.
SQ. Td dé CyprodePar od Kaxdv ;
TINA, ITavv ye.
XN. Oidxodv, & Oavpaore, [7d péya SivacGar| wad
av oot daiverar, av pev mpattovTs & Soxet Exntar 7d

470

hen ished

omnibus usurpatur quae occultantur et
omnino teguntur, ne cadant vel effugiant,
vel omnino conspiciantur.” Arist. Lys.
985, Krerta Sdépu 5790 bwd wadans Hers
éxwv, where the literal sense is equally
excluded.

Ths Kedadts—kateayevar] A suffi-
ciently familiar use of the gen. of the
part or place. Arist. Acharn. 1180, ris
Kepadts Karéaye wept AlGov weodyv: ib,
Vesp. 1428. Herodian ap. Dind. ad
Steph. Lex., cateayas tis Kepadts, ov
phy nagay thy Kepadhy, GAAG pépos TE
avris. Evmodis. Ob yap Kardteas THs
Kegadjs Ta fpdupara. But Kareayévar
Thy Kepadty is equally good Attic:
Lysias, p. 99.43. So 7a dra xateaydtor,
inf. 515 8. Here tr., ‘If I resolve that
any one of them should have his head

broken, broken it shall be,’ &c.

470, Ovxodv, & Cavydore | The frequent
repetition of Sdvac@a is at least un-
pleasing. In Olympiodorus’s copy, the
sentence plainly ended with ocpmpdy
(Comm. p. 78, Jahn), and I cannot but
think that the first 7d wéya SbvacOat
was added in the margin by an inter-
preter who did not perceive that the
subject of eva: is the clause édy pév
mpartovt....aperluws mpartew. Thestu-

dent will observe that éav pév is followed \

in apodosi by ef 5¢ wu, not b Bn.
This usage is universal, where no second
verb follows, <i 82 uf having the farce of
BAdrAws 5é, aliogui. Sympos. 185 p,
cay mY coi C0eAQ waverOa H Avyé, .. ef

58 uh, B5art avaxoyxvAlacor (for éay 5t
ph €€An).

ITAATONOX [470, A

48

> eee. , 3 , > SoA e »

aderipas mparrew, ayabdy te elvat, Kal TOUTO, ws EoLKEr,

> ‘ ‘ , ou a] ” > de , x‘ ‘ ‘

€oti To péeya Stvvacbau ei SE py, KaKOV Kal opiKpoV

¥

[Sivacba]. SkepdpeOa dé cai tdde. GAO TL opodo-B
a a A aA A

yodpev éviore ev dmewov elvar Tada wovey & viv dy

éhéyomev, amoxtwrivar Te Kat é€edavvew avOpwmovs Kat

Me bay

an , \ ¥
adatpeta bar ypypara, éviore dé ov ;

TINA, ITavv ye.

a \ ‘ A A >
x2. Tovro pev dy, as EOLKE, KAL Tapa TOU Kal Tap

€“ov Gmodoyeirar.
MINA. Nai. .

» 5 A A
SN. dre ovv od dijs apewov evar tavta move ;

v4 4

> A € ,
ELTTE TLYA_OPOV OPLCEL.

> >
TINA, Sd pev ovv, ® Yoxpares, amdkpwa. Tavrd

TOUTO.

YN. “Eye peév toivuv dypi, & ade, et wou wap’ euod
no.v eotw daxovew, otav pev Sixaiws Tis TAVTA ToL,
dpewwov etvat, Tay S€ adikws, KAKLOV.

XXVI. TINA. Xanderov yé ce ehéyEar, & Yodxpares.
GNX’ odyi Kav mais oe ehéyéerev Stu odK AANOH Eyes ;

32. o\djv dpa éyo t@ waidi ydpw fw, tonv Se

Kal ool, éav pe eéyéns Kai amadda€éys pdvapias.

aha

pH Kdpys pirov avdpa evepyerav, add’ eheyye.

TNA.

"ANG pv, @ Sdxpares, ovdev yé oe Set wa-

Aaols Tpdypacw ehéyxew TA yap ExOés Kal mpanv ye-D
; a a cei oa.

D. Ta yap éxbes Kal mpdny] < yester-
day or =the other day.’
Hom., x0¢é te wal mpwifa: Thue. iii.

| 118, oddém euaxducba x OEs GAAA mpdnv.
| “As the time of this Salogue—plainly

appears (from that passage in p. 473, rat
_mépvot Bovaevewy Aaxév, which is taken
notice of by Athenaeus, v. 217) to be
Ol. 93. 4 (B.c. 405), the year after the
sea-fight Pcie this words must
be taken in a larger sense, as we say of
a thing long past, ‘It happened but the
other day,’ when we compare it with
more ancient times: for Archelaus had
now _reigned at least nine years” (say
eight years—s . an.

414, 2; ib. p. 223), “and continued on

the terone—about six years longer. So
in p. 503 in these words, TlepixAéa tov-

Tov. Tov veworl TereAcuTHKdSTA, We must
understand veworf in the same manner,
for Pericles had been dead twenty-
three years, but the time is there com-
pared with that of Cimon, Themistocles,
&e., who died many years before. Soer.
indeed might have seen and remembered
Cimon, the other two he could not.
These particulars of Archelaus’s history
are curious and not to be met with else-
where. Athenaeus (xi. 506) is absurd
enough to question the truth of these
particulars, or, supposing them to be
true, he says that they are instances of
Plato’s ingratitude, who was much in
favour with Archelaus. The passage
which he cites immediately after from
Carystius of Pergamus disproves all this,
for it shows Plato’s connexion to have

E

|

—470, E. |

TOPTIAX.

49

yoveta TavTa tkava oe e€ehéy€ar éoti Kal dmodetEar ws

Todol ddixovvTes avOpwrror
S02. Ta rota tavra;

> , 4 >
evdaipoves EeLolvV.

TINA. *Apxédaov Sirov Todrov tov THepdixxov spas

apyovTa Maxedovias ;

22. Ei 5é py, adv’ adxovo ye.
TINA, Evsaipov ody cor Soxet civar } aOd0os ;
XQ. Ov« oida, & dade ob yap tw ovyyéyova To

avdpi.

TINA. Ti Sat; ovyyevopevos av yvoins, adds Sé

autébev ov VOOKELS OTL EVOALMOVEL ;sx
uTdbev ov yryvaoKets OTL evdatpovel ;

2. Ma AC ov dyra.

TINA. Androv 84, @ Xéxpares, dtr ove Tov péyav
Baciréa yryvdoKew dycets evdaimova svta.
yy y ye
XN. Kai adyOy ye épa ov yap oida waeias draws

¥
ever Kal Suxaroovrns.
OA. Tidal; & rovro

been with Perdiccas the Third, who
began to reign thirty-five years after
Archelaus’s death, and was elder brother
to the famous Philip of Macedon. We
have an epistle of Plato to that prince
still remaining. At the time of Arche-
laus’s death, Plato was under thirty
years of age” (T. Gray). The blunder
of Athenaeus is almost incredible. It
may serve as a criterion of the value
of other malignant accusations of Plato
and his schvol which we have no direct
means of refuting. Archelaus is the
king who entertained Euripides, and
at whose court the poet died. His
talent as a ruler is highly extolled by
Thucydides (ii. 100). According to
Aelian (V. H. xii. 43), SotAns vids Fv
Tis Syutxns. The author of the Second
Alcib. alludes to his death and its cir-
cumstances as x@i(4 te Kal mpaila
yeyevnuéva (141 dD). This anachronism

hardly needs the elaborate apology of
Mr. Clinton (1.1. p. 224, not. k), for the

dialogue in which it occurs is the work
of a later and probably an ignorant
imitator. Anachronisms differ in kind
and degree, and it is hardly possible to
conceive that Plato or Xenophon (to
whom the Alcib. ii. is by some attributed)
would have represented Alcibiades, who
died at a mature age in 404, as still

VOL, II.

e J 2a > Vee ,
) TAa0"a evoaypovia €OTLD ;

young in B.C. 399; still less would either
of these authors have introduced Socr.
conversing with his young friend at least
two years after his own death. Ibid. x,
and Buttmann’s note. The hand of an
imitator is betrayed by the x@:(4 re Kal
mpwiCd, as compared with the éx@és cal
apeénv of the passage before us.

E. avtd0ev od yryvéorets| ‘don’t you

know already,’ i.e. from the facts men-
tioned; as if ho had sald-2F abros ToD
&pxew abroy Maxedovlas. Arist. Eq. 330,
d7Xbs Cot avTdbev. The passage from
obk olda to Gdixos is thus rendered by
Cicero: “Haud scio, nunquam enim
cum eo collocutus sum.—<Ain’ tu? an
aliter id scire non potes ?—Nullo modo.
—Tu igitur ne de Persarum quidem rege
magno potes dicere, beatusne sit >—An
ego possim, quum ignorem, quam sit
doctus, quam vir bonus ?—Quid? tu in
eo sitam vitam beatam putas ?—Ita
prorsus existimo: bonos beatos, improbos
miseros.— Miser ergo Archelaus ?—Certe,
si injustus” (Tusc. Quaest. v. 12 [35)).
The object of the chapter is to claim for
Plato the credit of a sentiment after-
wards maintained by Zeno of Citium,
who is called “advena quidam et igno-
bilis verborum artifex.” Cicero proceeds
to translate a kindred p from the
Menexenus, p. 248, 8t@ yap avdpl, «.7.A.

EB

———

50 ITAATANOS [470, B

XN. "As ye eyo déyw, & dre Tov pév yap Kadov

> X »” \ a y) , > , \ Se
Kayabov avipa Kal yuvatka evdaipova civat put, TOV OE
aoukov Kai movnpov aOuov.

| WAA. *A@ddtos dpa ovTés €aoTW O "Apxéaos KaTa 471

‘\ X\ /
Tov aov hoyopr ;
»
x2. Elmep ye, & pide, aduxos.
> ‘ \ \ a > ¥ ® al
TINA. "AAG pév 87) Tas odK adiKOS, @ YE mpomuKe
lal lad lal + 4 \ a
pe THs apxyns ovdev Hv vov Exel, OvTL EK yuvaLKds 7H HV
lo) X ‘ \
Sovdyn *Adkérov TOD Ilepdixxov ddehdod, Kal KaTa EV TO
lal i ‘ ,
Sixavov SodvAos Hv *Adkérov, Kal et éBovdeTo Ta Sikora
move, EOovevev ay *AkérTyn Kal Hv eddaimov Kata TOV
‘XN l4 Les \ / ¢ 7 , > .
cov Adyov viv Sé Oavpaciws ws adios yéyover, Emel
Ta péeyvota HoiknKkes OS YE TPOTov pev ToOVTOV avTOV
Tov SeomdTynv Kal Oeiov petameprydpevos as aToddowr
‘ p) \ a ches SN E) s , \
THv apxnv nv Ilepdixxas avrov adetdero, Eevioas Kat
, > A \ ‘ en > a 3 ,
katapeOvoas aitév Te Kal Tov vidv avTov “AhéeEavdpor,
> \ € Led ‘ e , > A > wa
dveyuov avTov, axedov HALKLaTHY, EuBahav cis apatar
? > x > / 4 Sa 4, > ,
vixtop eLayayav amrérgpaké te Kat npdvicev dyporépors.
\ in > , ” ¢ \ > , /
Kal TavTa aducyoas eAabev EavTdov aOdidtatos yevdopevos
‘ > es RNs 2 9\7 M4 x > ;
Kal ov pereweAnoev avT@, GAN ddiyov vVaTEpoy Tov adeh-
ov Tov yryouov, TOU Iepdixxov vidv, maida ws éntérn,
@ ¢€ S ‘\ - wets \ \ id > ? / > 4
ov ) apxn eyiyveto kata 7d Sixaov, ov« eBovdrHOy evdat-
, / > , \ > \ \ > ‘\
pov yevéoOar Sixaiws exOpépas Kal amodods Thy apynv
ék , IAN > / > B de > ha ‘ »! a
civ, GN’ cis_dpéap euBahwv amomvigas mpos THY py

tépa avtov Kdeordtpay yjva en Sudkovra éumecety Kat

“a hid lal
dmoBavelv. TovydpTo. vor, ATE péeytoTa HOuKYNKaS TOV EV
Maxedovia, a0\udtarés éote wavtTwv Maxeddvev add’ ovk

471 ©. éwrérn]| Vulg. érraer9. I have
restored the undoubtedly Attic form.
Comp. Arist. Ran. 421, $s éwrérns dv
ovk Epuae hpdtropas. So éfére in Nub.
862; érréeriv, Thesm. 480. The genuine
form is preserved by the transcribers in
Alcib. i. p. 121 8, éCweibdv éwréres
yévovra of maides, and in dexérns where-
ever it occurs in the text of Plato. On
the other hand the vicious form Sexaé-
thpos occurs Legg. 772 B, where dexe-

thpns is found in one MS. and is probably
the true reading. See Lobeck on Phry-
nichus, p. 406 foll., whose authority,
supported by the unvarying practice of
the Attic poets as well as by the testi-
mony of the grammarians, outweighs
that of “Bremius on Aeschines,”’ to
which Stallb. appeals in defence of the
vulgate reading.

amd cod dpiduevos| “nec te excepto”
(Ast) ;**tuque imprimis s. interque eos

B

—472, A. |

TOPTIAX.

51

>
ap&dpevos dé€aur’ Gv addos SaTicoby Maxeddvev yevér Oar

D paddov 4 Apxédaos.

XXVIII. 3. Kai nar

apyas Tav hoyov, ® Tdade,

» , ss Sd y a > \ \ € \
eyoye OE ETNVETA OTL (LOL doKets €U T pos THY PYTOPLKNHV

meTravoevobar, Tov Se Sraréyer Oar

5 , A nw
eAnKEeval’ KaL VoUV

»” @ +f > e , K x a > ,
aAdo TL OUVTOS EoTLY O héyos w pe Kav Tats eEeréyéae,
\ 5 ‘ 3 A A“ “~ e ‘ ¥ > , 4 nn
Kal €y® UTO Gov viv, ws od ole, EEehjeypat TOUTH TO
Moyo, doKkwv Tov ddikodvTA odK EVSaiwova eivar; wdber,

@ "yale ; Kat pny ob8& yé cou ToUTwY Gpooyo Sv od dis.
TINA. Ov yap eBédas, évet Soxet yé cor as eyo héyw.
SQ. °Q paxdpre, pytopucds ydp je emruyeupets ehéyxew,

9 c > ~ , ¢ , > 7
@oTep ot &y Tots SiKacTypiots Hyovpevor éhéyyxewv.

\
KQUL

‘ > “ ¢ y ‘\ ¢ 4 A > if >
yap ¢€kKel Ob ETEPOL TOUS ETEPOVS SoKovow eheyyxet, €7T EL-

dav Tav héywv dv av héywou paptupas Toddods Tape-

A > ,
XovTa. Kat evdokiuous, 6 S€ tavartia héywv ea twa

Tapexytar H pndéva.

es RAs S 4 4 > ‘ + ,
outros 5€ 6 Edeyyos ovdevds a€ids
172 €ote mpds THY | adyPevav eviore yap av Kal Karaypevdo-
paptupydetn Tis Ud TOAN@Y Kal SoKovyTwr eivat TL.

Nn
KQUL

lal ‘ , > / , , et
Vov TEpL OV OV héyets ONiyou Gol TaVTES TUULPHTOVOL TAUTE
*AOnvator Kat ot Févor, éav Bovdyn Kat Euod paptupa
ve ; if] peo. Ropes
e > > lal 7 ,

Tmapacxeobar ws ovK anOn éyw. paptupycovai cou, av
\ uA / ¢ , ‘\ e's ‘\ > > ~~
pev Boddy, Nixias 6 Nuxnparov kat ot ddeddoi per’ avrov,

tu primus” (Heind., who compares Rep.
ii. 8386 D; ib. vi. 498 c, &e.). Tr., ‘And
I dare say there are those in Athens
who, with you at their head (following
your lead), would rather change places
with any Macedonian you could name
than with King Archelaus.’

D. doxets| We should rather have
expected éddéxers, which at any rate is
better than Heind.’s conj. Soxots. He
alludes to p. 448 D, d7A0s ydép wor T1GAos
«+ Ort Thy Kadounevny pytopiKny MaAAOV
pmewedernxev 2) SiadréyeoOa, a remark
here ironically called a compliment.

E. €va twa— wndéva] Xen. Cyr. v.
5. 45, robrwy 8 Tay TepiecTyKdtey 4
twa } ovdéva olda. Pers. Sat. i. init.,
‘vel duo vel nemo.”

472. Boxotvtwy eivat +1] Equivalent
of course to eb5oxiuwv. So Euthyd. 303 0,
Tay ceuvay Kal doxodvtwv te elvat.
Sometimes the efvai tr: is omitted, as in

Eur. Hee. 294, Adyos yap &k 7° adototyrwv
idy Kan tév Soxotytwy aiTds ob TabTdy
o0éver: and by St. Paul in his Epistle to
the Galatians (ii. 2), car’ idlav 5é rots
doxodoww, where he alludes to his fellow-
apostles “ James, Peter, and John,” the
ortaAo: of the church, as they are pre-
sently called (ib. ver. 9).

tavTd| Van Heusde’s emendation, ac-
cepted by Stallb. for the vulg. raira,
which Ast defends. But the passage
from Rep. iv. 432 4, mapexouévn tuvg-
dovtas TavToy Kal icxupoTtarous Kal Tovs
séoous, makes in favour of the change,
or at any rate justifies the pleonasm,
which is idiomatic. The Ziirich punctua-
tion of the sentence—a full stop after
Aéyw—is evidently right. There is great
force in the asyndeton with which the
following sentence commences.

Nixlas 6 Nixnpdrov| The famous Nicias.
“The tripods mentioned here as dedi-

E 2

52 ITAATQNOX

[472, A

lal la 5 a la
@v ot Tpimodes ot efeEns EotHTés ciow ev TO Avorvatg,

ig
éav dé Bovdy, "Apuotokpatys 6 ZkedXiov, ov av eoTW

+ €v_IIvOott todrto 7d Kahov dvaOypa, édv dé Bovdhy, 7B

Tlepuxhéovs dn oikia } GAN ovyyévera HvTw Gv Bovhy

tov evbévde exreEac Oar.

> - ee) , @ a > ec
GAN €y® gow €ls @Y OVX OLO-

X at 2s , ‘\ > LC IANA 8 4,

oy@' ov yap pe gv avayKalers, adda pevdopapTupas
A “A 4,

mo\ovs KAT e400 Tapacydpmevos Emtyerpers ExBaddew me

>. lal > /, \ a > 6 la) Bees de x» \ \ 2 &
€K TNS OVvOLaAS KAL TOV ar Ovs. eyo € Ay YN OE QUTOV

cated in the temple of Bacchus, must be
the prizes which he and his family must
have gained in their frequent xopnyla:.
. . . The brother of Nicias was named
Eucrates: he outlived his brother, and
was this very year Trierarch at Aegos
Potami (Lysias, Orat. contra Poliorchum,
p- 320 [149]); and soon after was put to
death with Niceratus his nephew, by
order of the Thirty Tyrants, in the number
of which he refused to be” (T. Gray).
Plut. Vit. Nic. c. 8, rods ’A@nvatious
xopnytas aveAduBave ... brepBardAduevos
moAuteAely Kad XapiTe TOUS TPd adTOD Kab
Ka® éavroy &ravras. éorhe dé kal roy
avabnudtov avrod Kal’ judas 76 Te TlaAAd-
diy ev akpordrAc, thy xptowow &ro-
BeBAnkéds, kal 6 Tots xopnyiKkots tplroow
bmoxeluevos ev Atovicov veds. evixnoe
yap morAAdKis Xopnyhoas, erelpOn 5 ovddé-
more. It appears from this passage, as
Col. Leake observes, that Nicias built a
temple to support his tripods: larger,
no doubt, than the surviving choragic
monuments of Lysicrates and Thrasyllus,
but, like them, situated within the
peribolus of Bacchus (for so we must
interpret év 7t@ Atovvolw), not in the
theatre itself, r@ ev Aovdcov Oedrpy
(Athens and Attica, i. p. 185, note 3).

"Apiotoxpdras 6 a ag as ~~
cipal man in the oligarchy of Four Hun-
dred (Ol. 92. 1), and of the mame party
with Theramenes. See Thucyd. L. viii.
(ec. 89) and Lysias contra Eratosth.
(§ 66), Aristoph. in Av. 125 et Schol.”
(T. Gray). “This is the person men-
tioned by Xenophon, Hellen. i. 4. 21; 5.
16; 7.2. He perished with five others
of the generals, by the result of the
famous trial which followed the battle of
Arginusae”’ (Arnold on Thue. 1.1.). The
same Aristocrates is extolled by the
author of the speech against Theocrines
attributed to Demosthenes, for the part
he took in destroying the fort of Eetionea
(B.c. 411), and restoring the popular

party to power: a passage in which the
orator commits the singular blunder
of identifying the destruction of the
power of the Four Hundred with that of
the Thirty Tyrants. See Grote, H. G.
viii. p. 93, note 2.

+ év I1v607 +] One MS. gives ev Tu@iou,
i.e. fep@, meaning the sanctuary of
Apollo Pythius, called 7d T1d@:ov, which
was adjacent to the celebrated Olym-/
picum, in the southern quarter of Athens. |
This, I confess, appears to me the more.
probable reading, for several reasons. In|
the first place it is more probable that)
Aristocrates should have made the dedi-,
cation in question at home, and in a)
place which we know from Suidas (v.,
T1d@:ov) was appropriated to the reception |
of the tripods consecrated by of 7@\
kurl@ xépw viknoaytes TH Oapytrza, |
than that he should have presented at
Delphi an offering so distinguished
among the splendours of that sanctuary,
as to have won for him a Hellenic
reputation (rodT0 Td Kaddy avdO., “pul-
erum illud denarium quod satis notum
et celebratumr est” [Stallb.]). Secondly,
Tivo? rather than év Tlv@o7 is the stereo-
typed form in such cases. Plat. Lys.
205 C, Tlv@0t kat *Io@uot nal Neueg:
Axioch. 367 ©, 7d Tlv@o? réuevos: Arist.
Lys. 1131, OAvurlacty, év TvAats, Mv8o7,
mwécous, K.T.A.: Lysias de Bonis Arist. §
63, évixnoev *lo@uot Kal Newéa. Thirdly,
as Pytho was a shrine better known
than the Pythium, Mv@o7 is more likely
to have been substituted for Tiv@fov than
vice versa, not to mention the elliptical
construction éy Tuv@lov, which might
puzzle an arene scribe.

B. ov ydp me ch dvayna ces | ‘I am not
compallet BY ot aneaeae of yours,’ |
ov being emphatic. Olymp., id0b avd-yenv
Kadel THY GrodekTiKyy TioTLY.

éx THs ovaolas Kal re ee ee
my patrimony, the truth.’ If kat is to

be retained if must be understood as

—472, D.| TOPTIAS. 53

9 »” ,
eva OvTa papTupa Tapdoywopat 6uoroyodvta epi dv
, \ +

héyw, ovdev olwar a€vov Adyou prow TeTepavOar wept Sv av
Cle i / ea > de soe SF SS a ey.

C pty 0 oyos 7° oipat dé ovdE Gol, éav pH eyd GoL pap-

A e xX» > »¥

Tup@ ¢is dv povos, Tos & addovs TavTas TovTOUS Yaipew
b Sees ¥ bs > 5%

Eds. EOTL MEV OU OUTOS TLS TPdTOS E€yXoU, WS OU TE OLE
TAY FONE sae x . ȴ eae el > >
Kat adAou Toddoi: Eote S€ Kai addos, bv eyo ad oipar.

>
mapaBaddvtes ovv tap’ addjdovs oKepopeba, et Tr Sx0i-
7 > r \ N , \, @ >
govow ahAnhov. Kal yap tvyydver wept dv audicBn-
nw > ~~
TOUMEV OV TAVU GpLKPa VTA, GAA OXEddY TL TAaDTA Tept
a id ld cd ‘ ioe ¥ x \
av eloevar TE KANALTTOV py ELOEVAL TE aLaXLOTOY* TO yap
, A lal
Keddhavov avtav éotly yryvdoKew 7% adyvoev satis TE
> 4 nw lal
Devdaiwwv éoti Kal dotis my. avtika Tp@Tov, wept ob vor
ag Le Ne SOREL: Be > s ¥ >
0 Noyos EoTi, od Hyel oid TE Ecivar pakdpLov avdpa adu-
Le] , \ + ¥ »” > / ¥ \
KOUVTa TE Kal adiKoY OvTa, elmep “Apyédaov adiKov pev

e “ > e a 4

nye elvar, evdaipova Se.

Covtos Stavodpeba ;
TINA. ITdvv ye.

¥ ec y ,
ado TL @S OVTW GOV Vvo-l-
O11".

XXVIII. FN. ’Eya € dynpe advvarov. ev pev rovrti

appa Byntovper.

elev adixkav Sé dy eddaipwv eotar ap

av tuyxavy Sixns Te kal Tyswpias ;

epexegetic. I much doubt the double
reference in ovolas which Stallb. sug-
gests: “Ludit in ambiguitate vocis
ovctas quae et de bonis ac facultatibus
dicitur, et de eo quod re vera est.”
Compare the boast of Polus, p. 466 o,
amroxtiwviacl @ dv ky BotAwyvra kar
apatpodyra xphuata Kal éxBdddAovow ex
Tav TéAcwY by by Sox.

ovdéy oluat | Between these two words
Hirschig inserts ay, ex conj., so that the
sense shall be, ‘I conceive nothing wild
have been accomplished, unless I can
secure your testimony and your assent
in the course of our subsequent dis-
cussion.’ I doubt, however, the admis-
sibility of this construction here. The
irregularity is in the use of olua, for
which we should expect nyhooum. <I
shall not think that any thing has been
done.’ But the text as it stands is de-
fensible. An analogous case is Isocr.
Evag. § 36, jyotdua pév ob, ei Kal wn-

devds BAAov pvnoOelny, GAN evTadOa

karadelroius Tov Ad-yor, pgdioy ek ToUTwY
elvat yv@var Thy aperhy Thy Evayépov, for

nynoatuny ty.

C. by eye ad ofa] Supply deiv, as
below, p. 474, rod éAéyxouv ofoy eye
olucn Sey elvat. Sety is not unfrequently
omitted after ofua:, as in Xen. Hell. iv.
7.4, Govro amévai, and after 7yfjocaro in
Protag. 346 B.

D. a’tixa| ‘for instance.’ See Ruhnk.
in Tim. Lex. Plat. Vv. airlxa. Hirschig
brackets mp@rov, as an “ interpretamen-
tum.” But see inf. 474 D, oiov mpéror,
a phrase exactly equivalent.

adixav—Gp’ &v] * You say that a wrong-
doer may be happy: good—but I want
to know whether he will be so if he
obtains his deserts and is punished.’
Something like this is implied by the
position of épa in the middle of the sen-
tence. It occurs in a similar position.
p- 476 A, 7d GdixodvTa d:ddvar dinny apa
péyiotov Ta&y Kax@y éoriy; And so per-
haps we ought to read Hipp. ii. 366 B,
duvards FY eotly Exdoror’ ap’ bs bv
moj TéTe > By BovAnta, Stay BobAntat ;
for the vulg. €xaoros dpa.

o4 ITAATQ NOX [472, D

TINA. "Hrworta ye, éret ovtw y’ Gv aO\udtartos ein.

SN. °ANN édv dpa pi) tvyxdvy Sixns 6 dduKkdv, Kata B
Tov adv Aéyov evdatwwv EoTat ;

TINA. np.

SN. Kara dé ye thv éujv dd€av, & Wdde, 6 dducdv
TE Kal 6 adiKos TaVTWS pev AMALOS, AOALSTEpOS pévToL,
éav py Oid0@ Sixny pyndé tvyxdvy Tywpias adiKdv, HrTov
Sé dO\uos, eav S180 Sixny Kal Tvyxdvy Sikyns bd Oedv TE
Kat avopaTav.

| IQA. “Aroma ye, & Xaixpares, emiyerpets héyew. 478

SN. Tepdocopa dé ye kal oé moujoa, @ Eraipe,
TAUTA eol héyeuw pidov yap oe Hyovpau. vov pev ovv &
Suaepd eOa tavr éori oxdme S€ Kal ov. elroy eyo
mov ev Tols Eumpoobev Td adiKEty TOV adiKetoOaL KaKLOY
eivat.

TINA. ITdvv ye.

XO. Fd dé 7d dduxetoOar.

TINA. Nai.

32. Kati rovs aducotvtas aPdtovs epyy civar yd,
Kat e&nhéyyxOnv v7 cod.

TINA. Nat pa Aia.

SN. ‘Ns ov ye ote, & ade. B

TINA. Ady Oi YE oidmevos tows.

XN. Yd 8&y ye evdaipovas ad Tovs ddiKodYTas, eav pr)
d1ddcr Sikny.

TIQA. - Idvv peév odv.

SN. "Eya 8é avrovs aO\wwrdrovs dypil, Tovs dé du-
ddvras Sikyny Hrrov. Bovder Kai TovTo éhéyyew ;

TINA. °ANN et TovT Exeivov xaheradtepdv eat, @
Saéxpares, e€eréyEau.

XQ. Ov djra, & Wade, ard’ advvarov 75 yap ady-
Bes oddéroTe Ed€yyeTau.

TINA. Ids déyeus ; eav adixov avOpwros AndOn rv-

EB. wdvrws—péevtot| These two words péyro: in apodosi to wéy is noted by the
are supplied from Stobaeus in place of grammarians as a peculiarly Attic usage.
the old readings of the MSS., amdvrwy The emendation mdyrws had been antici-

- Rev Tolvuy (ed. Gaisf. vol. ili. p. 352). pated by Stephen.

—473, E.| TOPTIAX. d5

C pavvids ériBovhevov, kat Andbels otpeBdOTat Kal exréy-

ee ——

vytar Kat Tovs dPOahpods exKdynTat, Kat das Todas
kat peydhas kal mavrodamas hwBas airds TE LwByGeis
Kal Tovs avtod émidav maidds Te Kal yuvaixa|7d écya-
Tov avagtavpolh % KatamitTwOy, odTos evdayoveaTeEpos
ȴ x tal al
Eota 7 eav Stadvyav Tipavvos KataoTH Kal dpyewv év TH
moder SiaBi@ mov 6 tu av Bovdntat, yrotds dv Kai
TS) 7 en.% a al ‘ a ¥” ,

evdaporildplevos bd TOv Twodtrov Kai Tov dAdo E€vor ;

DTavrTa héyers ddvvaTov civar eehéyye ;

BE Tupavvevoas.

XXIX. SN. Moppohdvrret av, @ yevvate lade, Kat

> » 7 ¥ SE | , y \ e. # , ft *
ovK éhéyxeiss dptu dé euaptipov. duos S€ vadpvnody Callen |
Ee opixpov: édv ddixws EmBovdhevwv Tuparvids, eizes ; fer.a4 ne

TINA. “Eyowye.

YN. EvSaypovérrepos pev Toivuy ovdérote erat ov-
S€repos adT@v, ovTE 6 KaTEelpyacpevos THY TUpavvida adi-
¥ c , oes A ‘ > , 3) 4
Ks ovre 6 Siknv Sid0vs* Svoiv yap aOdiow evdaipove-
\ > a 4 > , / c \ \
OTEpos pev ovK ay Ein? dOALdTEpOS peVTOL 6 Siadvy@v Kat
Ti rodto, & Tlade ; yeas; ado ad TovTO

+ 2\ 4 > 4 > , s ¥ a »\ 7
eldos ehéyyxou eotiv, éredav Tis Te ety, KaTayedar, éhéy-

xew S€ py ;

473 ©. éxréuynta| “ éxréuvew, abso-
lute positum, est Latinorum ezsecare,
h.e. castrare. Euthyphr. 6 4, xémetvdv
ye Toy abtot warépa exreueiv 80 Erepa
Toaita. Xen. Cyrop. v. 2. 28; vii. 5.
62 al. Unde éxrouat Conviv. 195 c”
(Ast, who quotes in illustration of éx-
«dntat Herod. vii. 18, Oepuoto: otSnploor
éxxalew Tovs épPadmods).

émdév] ‘having lived to see.’ So
used, whether the spectacle is gratifying,
or, as here, distressing. Hom. Il. xxii.
61, pee ndan_ deiBintey Vides Whae-
bévous Wociods te Qvyarpas. But
Xen. Cyr. viii. 7.7, rods pidous éwetiov
80 €uod eddatuovas yevouévous, where the
dying Cyrus speaks: Thue. vii. 77, rev-

“Eduevor Gy ewiOupetré mov éwidety: Ari-

stoph. Acharn. 1156, dv é1_émldoiur
Tevoldos Seducvov: “Sophy Trach. 1027,
TAY @) ewLooi ut mecovcay. After matdds
Te kal yuvaika we may understand tata

Tagxovtas, which_however_is elegantly
omitted.

katamitTw67] The usual euphemism

for burning alive, as appears from a pas-
sage of Heraclides Ponticus (ap. Athen.
xii, 524) quoted by Gray: totyapro
mdAw of mAovciot Kpatnoaytes [Tov
djuov| Gravtas av Kipion Katéctyoay
beta Tay Téxvwy KateTitTwCaY, ay
Katouévwy paoly %AAa TE TOAAG yeve-
oOa: Tépata Kal eAalay iepay abtoudrny
avap0jva. Every one remembers the
lines of Juvenal, “taeda lucebis in illa,
Qua stantes ardent,” &c. (Sat. i. 155).
Many other parallel passages are ac-
cumulated by the comm.

bad Tay TOALTGY Kal TGV %Adwr Eévov ]
‘by citizens: and foreigners as. well,’ a
well-known idiom: 480 D, adrov kal trav
&AAwy oikelwy: Isocr. de Permut. § 103,
te Te Tay émiTndevudtwy Kal Tay GAAwy
cuvovatay SiaBeBAnuévors.

D. Mopuoarttrea:_atd] ‘Now you are
trying to frighten, instead of refuting
me.” Olymp., avtl tov as madiov poBeis.
Crit. 46 c, ay ... domep maidas judas
MOpuoArAUTTATaL. Mopue OY popuoduKetoy
answers to our ‘ bugbear’ or ‘ hobgoblin.’

—

{u<e,

56 ITAATOQ.NOS [473, §

s ”

TINA. Ovx oter e&ednréyyPar, @ SadKpares, orav

aA , a > ‘ x , > , > i. A
To.adTa éyns & ovdels av dyoeey avOpwTrwr ; ETEL EpOU
7-_
TWA TOUTMVi.

SM. 7A Tldde, ovk eipt rv wodutiKav, Kat mépvoe
Bovredvew Nayar, érevd7) 7 Hudy empuTdveve Kal Eder pe
> , lA “a ‘\ > > , >
erubndilew, yéhwra mapetyov | kal ovK HmvaTduny émupn- 474
pilew. pr ovv pndé vov pe Kédeve Erupyndilew Tods Tap-
, > > > ‘ ¥ 4 , ¥ 9 lal
dvTas, GAN ei pn Exes TOVT@Y Betiw Eheyyxor, OEP VV
57) ey Eheyov, euol ev TH péper tmapdados, Kal meipacar

A Sik e ae S > a > >. Ss \ a xa
Tov éhéyyou otov éyd® otmar Sety elvar. eyo yap av av
héyw eva péev tapacyécbar pdptupa emiorapat, avrov

‘ a »” € , > ‘ \ ‘ 2A ,
mpos dv av pou d Adyos 7, ToVs SE Todds EO yalpew,
Kal eva erunpilew eriotapat, Tots 5€ moddots ovde Sia-

BE. émel épod] ‘If you doubt me, ask
one of the company present,’ or ‘you
have only to ask,’ &c. This rhetorical
use of éref with the imperative or with
an interrogation is common. Soph. El.
8352, éwel Sidatov 4. ud e& euod, ri por
Képdos yévoir’ &v, ravde Anidon ydwv;
cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 519. “ Elliptice ézef

| ponitur cum Imperativo cum res videtur

| certa et minime dubia, adeo ut tuto
| adversarius ad objiciendum provocari
| possit ” (G. Hermann).

'_-m€pugs Bovdevew Aaxdy] ‘ Last year
when I was drawn for the Council,
and when my tribe succeeded to the

Prytany and it became my duty (as

their émiordrns or chairman—Xen. Mem.

iv. 4. 2) to take the votes of the as-

sembly, I exposed myself to ridicule,

because I knew not how to collect the
suffrages "—an ironical description, more
suo, of one of the noblest acts of his life,
me refusing to put to the vote the illegal

roposition of Callixenus against the
generals who had fought at Arginusae.

Compare Xen. Hellen. i. 7.14, 15 with

\Memor. i. 1.18 (@miordrns ev tg Siup

| vyevouevos, émibuuhoayros Tod Siuov mapa

Tovs vouous evvea oTpaTnyovs ma Whpw

. . GwoKTeivar avTas, ovK HOéAnTEV ém-
wWnploa, x.7.A.; and both passages with
Plat. Apol. p. 32, éy@ ydp, & *A@nvator,
&AAnv pev apxhy ovdeulay mémore hpta év
TH wéAct, €BovAevoo, 5é Kal Ervxev judy
H puady *Avtioxts mpuravevovoa, bre Spueis
Tous déxa oTparnyous Tos ovK GvEAOLEVOUS
Tovs €k THs vavpaxlas €BovrAecbe &Opdous
kplvew, wapavéuws, as ev TE SorTépy
xpbvy miow buiv ote. rd7° eyo udvos

TaY MpuTdvewy jvavTidOnvy suiv pndev
mo.eiy Tap% Tovs vduous, Kal éevayTia
éWngpiodunyv, x.7.A. The author of the
Axiochus (368 D) tells the tale differently,
and with embellishments. Mr. Grote,
in the course of his able and searching
discussion of this event and its circum-
stances, takes occasion (H. G. viii. p. 271,
note) to question the accuracy of Xeno-
phon’s statement in the first book of
the Memorabilia, that Socr. was ém-
ordtns on the day referred to: but it
seems to me difficult to understand the
language of Plato in the text, without
supposing that Socr. was individually
responsible in the matter of taking the
suffrages, ‘and not merely entitled to a
vote as one of ten Proedri upon the ques-
tion whether the suffrages were to be
taken or not. How could he else have
betrayed his ‘ignorance’ of the proper
mode of proceeding—in other words, his
invincible repugnance to the act required
of him? If this view be correct, it is
not a little bold to call in question a
statement resting on the consilient testi-
mony of two such authors as Xenophon
and Plato. The passage in the Apology
does not confirm, but surely does not
contradict it.

AT4. Eva pev—erloraya:] Olymp. has
the following interesting scholium on
this passage: oftw nal 6 ‘Hpd«dAeros
fAeyev. eis éuol avr) wodAdAay, Kah
Aéyw Totro Kal mapa Mepoepdyyn
é€#v, a fragment which, so far as I know,
exists nowhere else, and is highly charac-
teristic of its author.

ro

—174, D.] TOPTIAS. 57

, 9 > > > ? - 5% , , »~

B \éyomat. Cpa obv ei Cedyjoers ev TO péper Siddvar ehey-
> ‘ ‘\ A ‘ > ‘
Xov amroKkpwopevos Ta epwTapeva. eyo yap 57) otpar Kai
wr, & A \ \ ‘ * > 7 X > ~ “A
ewe Kat oe Kal Tovs addouvs avOpamovs TO adiKEW TOD
ddixetabar Kax.ov yyetod i 7d py Sddvar dé v
nyetobar Kat TO py Siddvar dikynv Tov

Sddvat.

TINA. *Eya Sé ye ovr ee ovr addov avOparrwr ov-
déva. éret od SéEav Sv paddov addixetoOar } adicetv ;

‘\ 7 > +# ‘\ Gv. ,

x2. Kat ov y Gv cat ot addou wavtes.

ITTMNA. ITod\od ye Set, GAN ovr ey@ ovte ad ovr
ȴ > ,
aos ovdeis.

© 3M. OvdKxovv daronpwvel 5 ;

TINA. IIdvv pév ody Kai yap Stidups eidevar 6 Ti
TOT €peis.

XQ. Aéye SH por, w cidyjs, doTep Gv ei €€ apyys ce
npoter motepov Soxel aor, @ TI@\e, KadKvov etvas 7d
aducety H TO ddixecoOan ;

TINA. Tod dducetoar Eporye.

XN. Ti dé 8) aicyiov ; worepov 7d adiKety 7H 7d adi-
Keto Oar ; “Amoxpivov.

TINA. Tod aduxew.

XXX. 32. Odxodv kal Kdkiov, eitep atoy.ov ;

TINA. “Hrwora ye

2. Mavédve: od tadbrov ye. av, @s €oLKas,

DTE Kal ayaldv Kai KaKov Kal aloypor.
TINA. Ov dyra.
SQ. Ti d€ 1r6d€; Ta Kata wavta, otov Kal odpata

KaNov

At the same time we must conceive Socr.
in the passage before us to be arguing
‘ad hominem,’ and it would be unsafe
to infer that Plato really regarded Plea-
sure apart from Good, as sufficient to
constitute an object beautiful. Compare
esp. Philebus, p. 64 fol. The steps in
the present argument are these :—

C. ob tavrdy nye? ot] Cic. de Off. iii.
3. 11, “Socratem accepimus exsecrari
solitum eos qui primum honestum et
utile, natura cohaerentia, opinione dis-
traxissent.” Throughout the whole of
this reasoning the aya@dy is assumed to
be synonymous with the @péAmov and
the xaxév with the BAaBepéy. But this
utilitarianism is, it must be confessed, of

a very transcendental order. *

D. Ta KaAa wdvra] This little “theory
of the beautiful” is an improvement
upon that of Xenophon’s Socrates, Mem.
iii. 8. 4, and Conv. c. 5, where utility is
represented as the sole test of beauty.

7> Kxaddv implies either utility or
pleasure, or both.
7» aioxpdy either hurtfulness or pain,
or both.
But Polus had said Or: 7d GdiKeiv
aloxiov Tod adixeiobat.

58 IIAATANOS [474, D
\ , ‘ 4 \ \ AEP 8 ,

Kat ypOmaTra Kal oOxXnMaTa Kal pwvas Kal EmiTNOEpATA,
> 2O\ > , re eee) , by ee aman |
els ovdev amoBhérwv Kaheis ExdoTOTE RONG ; OLOV TPWTOV
she

TO. Topara Ta Kaa ovxt L nTow KaTa THY _Xpetav heyets
Kaha civat, mpos 6 adv ExaoTov xpyoyov 4%; mpos TOUTO,
Kata noovyy Twa, eav ev TO OewpetoOar yaipew moun

\ le) »” > \ 4 4 \ ,
TOUS Jewpovvras ; EXels Tl EKTOS TOUTWV héyew TEpt OW-

patos KadAXovs ;
TQA. Ov« EXO.

32. OdKodv cal radrda tévf ovtw Kal oyrpara Kat
Xpopara 7 dv ndovyv twa H Sv dpédevav 7) Su duddtepa

Kaa TpomayopEvets ;

TINA. "Eywye.

x2. Od Kai Tas hovas
Tuvl aoavros ;

TINA. Nai.

‘ \ \ \ \
KGL Th KATH THNV MLOVOLKYV

XN \ , ‘ a , bs \ >
32. Kat pyv ta ye xata Tovs voxovs Kat Ta EmiTn-

4 > , > x , > ‘\ ‘
Sevpata ov Symrov éxtds TovtTwv éoti [7a]

, aA x
Kaha, TOV 7

adgédipa civar } nd€a 7 appdrepa.

TINA. Ov epovye Soxet.

SQ. Ovxodvv kat! 7rd Tov pwabnudtrov Kadd\d\os ao-
pany

avTws ;

7d Gdixety is therefore either more
painful or more hurtful than 7d
adixeto Oat.

But it is not more painful, by Polus’s
admission.

Nor, consequently, is it more painful
and more hurtful.

Therefore it is more hurtful, or, in
other words, worse than Td ad:-
KetoOa.

A similar disjunctive syllogism occurs
inf. 477 0. There is a locus classicus
concerning the relation of addy and
ayabdy, randy and aiocxpdr, in the Fifth
Book of the Republic, p. 453. In the
last clause of the passage referred to, an
obvious but necessary emendation has
escaped the edd.: udraws os yeAotoy
BAAo Ti Hyetta 2 7d Kakdv, Kad 6 yeAw-
Tomo.ety éwtxerpav mpds BAAnY TW dw
a&moBAérwv ws yedolov } Thy TOD &dpovds
Te Kal Kakov, Kat Kadod ad orovddle
mpbs &Adov Tue ckomby goTHodMEVOS }}

Tov Tod dyabod (ib. D). Who ever said
mpos oKkowsy otnoacba? or how can
orthoacba: mean “se convertere,” as Ast
renders it? Dele mpdés, and compare
Critias, Eleg. i. 2 (ap. Athen.), dy oxo-
mov eis Aatdywv Téta Kadtordmeda.
The sense will thus be, ‘ He is a fool who
in his serious compositions proposes to
himself any other standard of beauty
than that of Good” The zpés is a mere
repetition of the rpés which stands before
&AAnv in the clause preceding.

BE. ov Shmrov—Kadrd| The ta before
kaAd is omitted in one MS. Though
defensible, it seems better absent. ‘ Laws
and Institutions surely are not beau-
tiful irrespectively of their utility, or
pleasantness, or both; or, if we retain
7d, ‘The beauty which resides in laws,
&e., is not independent of utility,’ &e. ;
or, more literally, * The instances in laws
and institutions—of beauty, I mean,’ so
that Te tard shall be explanatory of ra
Kata Tovs vduous, K.T.A.

47

v

—475, 0. |

TINA. avy ye
ndovyn Te Kal ayale
+2. OvKovv Td

KAK@ ;
TINA. . *Avéyry.
>.

_TOPITIAS.

59

XN lal “ c a > ,
Kal Kah@s ye viv opie, & Yaxpares,
opilduevos TO Kahdv.

> x ~ > / , ‘\
alaypov T@ evavTiw, hvTH TE Kal

9 ¥ a a“ , , Be a A
Orav apa Svotv KaXotv Oarepov Kad\tov > 2 TO

ETEp@ TOUTOW 7H audoTéepots UTE

a , x > 4 e , ld
adA\Xov Kadhudv éotw,
ȴ e 7,
.7 c

HTo noovyn H aPEXcia H apdotéepors.

TWQA. Tavv “ye.

XN. Kai drav ێ 84 Svoty aicypoiy rd Erepov aicy.ov

SS. »> hd a a ¢ Bard ¥ ¥
> TOU UT) i] KAK@ vuTEep QAAAOV ato Kx LOV e€OTaL.

avayKN ;
QA. Nai.

x» >
1) OvK

XN. GSépe Sy, was eéyero viv Sy) wept tod aduxety
be al > ¥ ‘ ‘ > “A "s >
Kal aduccto Oat ; ovk Edeyes TO pmev AdiKeto Oar KaKLOV Elval,

TO 5€ dduKety atoyxuov ;
TNA. "Endeyov.

SN. Odxodv eirep atoyrov To ddiKetv TOD ddiKeto Oat,
¥ , , > \ , e , ¥ a
nto. huTnpdtepov e€ote Kat hiay vEepBaddov atoyxiov av
ein 7) KAK@ 7) apotépots ; Ov Kal TOUTO avayKy ;

TINA. Ids yap ov ;

XXXII. F.0. IIparov pev dy oKxepdpeda, dpa hump
direpBadhev TO GOLKEL TOD aoLKEeLo Oat, Kat adyouot paddov
ot aduKovvTes F of adancrapierons ;

TINA. Ovdsapas, & Yéxpartes, Todd ve.
x. Ov dpa imy ye vrepeyxes.

TINA. Od Sara.

> nw > ‘ r > / ‘ > a» +
32. OvKodvv et py vTy, apdotépors pev ovK Gy ETL

wmepBadrXou.
TINA. Ov daiverar.

TN. Ovxodv 7@ Erépw deiwrerau.

475. Kal Srav—éora] This proposition
ought evidently to correspond to the
foregoing, substituting aicxpdéy, Avrn,
and xax@ for their antitheta. Hence it
seems impossible to dispense with
auporépors, which Hirschig accordingly
would insert after rag.

B. Aurn dmepBdAXov] The participle

is of course causal. ‘If the doing in-
justice is more ugly or offensive than the
suffering it, either it is more painful, and
it is because it exceeds in pain that it is
more ugly, or (because it exceeds) in evil,
or in both,’ i.e. it owes its greater ugli-
ness either to its exceeding in pain or to
its exceeding in evil, &e.

60 HAATONOS [475, 0
QA. Nat.
SN. Toe kako.
WQA. "Eoue.

SQ. Ovdxodtv kako brepBaddov 7d adikety KaKov ay
Ein TOD aOduKeto Oa.

TINA. . Ajdov 8H ort.

YN. "Addo Te ody UTS ev TOV TOMOV GVOpéTOV Kai D
bd God wpodoyeiTo Huiv év TO EuTrpoTOev Xpdve aiayxrov
elvat TO GOLKELY TOD aoLKEeto Ban ;

AA. Nat.
SQ. Nov 8€ ye Kao epavn.
WQA. *Eouxev.

xO. AéEar’ ay ody od paddov 75 KadKiov Kat Td
atoxvov avti Tov Hrtov ; My oxver droxpivacOa, & Wade
—ovdev yap BraByjoe,—ahra yervaios TO héoyw GoTEp
iatp@ mapéxwv asroKpivov, Kat } pal } py & épwrd.

TIQA. "AW odk Gv deLaiunv, & Sadxpares. E

XN. “Addos bé tis avOpadrroav ;

TINA. OW por Soxet Kata ye TovTov Tov ddyor.

YN. °AdnOH apa éyw Edeyor, dtu ov7’ av éyw ovr’ dv
ov ovT addos ovdels avOpaTwr SéEair’ av paddov aduKetv
hy dducctobau KaKvov yap Tvyxdver ov.

TINA. Paivera.

XA. ‘Opds obv, & ade, 6 €deyxos wapa tov €heyyov
mapaBadddpevos O71 ovdev Eoikev, GAA Gol pev of addou
TaVTES OpPooyovat TRV e100, eo d€ od é€apxels els dv
pdvos Kat dpohoyav Kat paprupar, | Kat éy® oé pdvov 476

D. TE Adyw Sonep larpg wapéxwr]
‘ submitting to the argument as a patient

to the surgeon.’ mapéxey = ‘copiam
facere” See above, 456 B, Teuety

adjective as secondary predicate, as
Euthyph. 3 D, doxe?s AP ake ceauToy
mapéxew, “rarissime tui copiam facis ;”
and by an adverb, as here and in Arist.

kavoa mwapacxew TH iarpg: and 480 c.
If any thing is to be “understood ” it is
probably 7d o@ua, which is expressed in
Arist. Nub. 440, tour! 76 7 eudy cap
abtoiow mapéxw timTew mewiv Subjy,
«.7.A. Similarly Aesch. Pers. 210, rrngas
déuas mapetxe, and with ~uvx4v Protag.
312 oc. On the other hand we have
éuavrdby m. in Phaedr. 228 5, a com-
bination very frequently followed by an

Lys. 162, 227. Similar is the use of
mapadodvat in Phaedr. 250 E, 7509 mapa-
Sovs.

} pdb } wh & épwrd} ‘Say yes or no
(pnut or of pnur) to my questions.’

E. obdév @oixey| “Intell., 6 Zreyxos
TP CALYXY st). e context proves
that this is the right interpretation, and
that Heind. is mistaken in supplying
eiva: as if ovdév meant “ res nihili.”

—476, 0.] TOPTIAS. 61

erulndpilav Tovs addovs €@ yaipew. Kat rodto pev jpiv
9 > 4 ‘ Lal \ ‘ e x 4, >
oUTws €xeT@* peTa TOUTO 5é epi OD Td SevTEpov HuderBn-
, , N > a , , >
Thoapev, cxepaduela 75 adikodvTa Siddvar Sixnv apa
péytotov Tov KaKdv éoTiv, ws od ov, 7 pellov Td Ar)
Sddvat, as ad éya @ SueOa Sé 7HSe° 7d 81d
, OS ya ony. cKkoTadpcla dé HSE 7d Siddvar
, ‘ N , , > a > \ 2 4
Sikynv Kal 7d Koraler Oat Sixaiws ddicodvTa apa Td adTd

KaXets ;

TINA. "Eywye.

¥
32. “Exes otv héyew as ovdxti Ta ye Sikawa mavra

is > 7 ,
Kaha €ort, Kal dcov Sikata. ;
"ANd pot Soxet, @ YdKpares.

TNA.

‘ ,
Kal SuacKkeysdpevos eizeé.

XXXII. SM. Yedzev 8} wai rdde° Gp’ et tis Tu wovel,

aa oe > \ , eo. A an
avayrKy) Tl EWAL KAL TAOVXOV VTO TOUTOV TOU TOLOVIYTOS ;

TINA. "Epovye Soxet.

s “a , a \ a“ n x
x. Apa TovTo maaxov O TO ToOLOVY TOLEL, KAaL TOL-

A ae a X a , Q N , ¥
OUTOV OLOV TOLEL TO TOLOVYD ; héyw dé TO TOLOVOE’ €l TLS

TUmTE, avayKy TL TUTTETO aL ;

TINA. *Avdyxy.

XQ. Kai ci ofddpa tiares 7} Taxd 6 TUTTwY, OTH Kal

CTO TuTTopevov TUTTETA aL ;
TINA. Nai.

A » , nw , > , es x
32. Tovovtov apa m7d0os T@ TUTTOMEV EaTLV, OloV av

‘ , “~
TO TUTTOV TON ;

TWQA. [avy ye

lal A ,
SQ. Ovdxodv kat ei Kdeu Tis, dvayKn Te kde Ban ;

476. judecBnthcavey| This form
alternates in the MSS. with judicB.
The second augment is in principle
indefensible, implying as it does that the
word is compounded of aéu¢i and ¢Bnré.
* Augmentum mire interpositum, quod
cadentis jam linguae vitio similius et
recentioribus, quorum in libris apparet
relinguendum” (L. Dindorf). In this
passage the Bodl. and all the best codd.
seem to have judeoB.

B. Sxdwer| The tenses of this verb
used by Attic writers sensu transitivo
are the following: ckor@, ckoTrodua,
éoxdmouy, éoxoTotunv, oKelouct, éoKe-
Wduny, €oxeupar. They never say oxéz-
Towa (far less oxémtw), ckomAgonat or

écxornogdunv (Elmsl. on Eur. Heracl.
148, who adds, “‘ povoxerto pro mpov-
oxérteto restituendum Thucydidi viii.
66”). One exception is found in a
genuine dialogue of Plato, the Laches,
185 3B, BovdAevéucba Kal oxeTTducba,
and another in the spurious Seeond
Alcib. 140 A, ocxerrouévw. In the for-
mer passage the last two words, ral
oxemtTéueOa, are unnecessary and in-
elegant (comp. ib. 185 A), and have the
air of a gloss. With the latter dial. it
is not necessary to take any trouble, as
this is not the only instance of vicious
phraseology which it contains. See note
447 D.

62 IIAATONOS [476, ©

TINA. las yap ov ;

SQ. Kai ci ofddpa ye caer} adyewds, ovrw kaerPau
TO KadMEVOY WS GY TO KaOV Ka ;

TINA. Tlavv ve.

XQ. OvKoty kai et Téuver Tis, 6 adTds Adyos; TEU-
VETAL YAP Tl.

TINA. Nai.

2. Kai ei péya ye 7 Bald 7d Typha 7} adyewodr,
TOLOUTOV TUNA TEuvETaL TO TEUVYOpEVOY, OLoV TO TéAVOY D
TEMVEL ;

TINA. Gaivera.

sQ. Xv Mai Bony 57) Opa el Oporoyeis 0 re) dprt eheyov

tutpe mepl mdyr ow otov dv Trou Td ToLody, TOLOUTOY TO TAaAKOV
cbke} aaoyew.
pel TINA. *AdW dpodoyd.

SN. Tovtov oH opohoyoupnevan, TO Oikynv Siddvae
TOTEpOV TaoYEW TL EOTW 7H ToLELD ;

TINA. *Avdayxn, & Yoxpates, TacTxew.

SOQ. Ovdxodv bro twos tovovrtos ;

TINA, Ids yap ov; br6d ye Tov KodaLortos.

SQ. ‘O dé dp0ds Koddlwv Sixaiws Koddler. E

TINA. Nai.

SN. Aixava rowdy 7H ov ;

TINA. Aixava.

YN. Odxody 6 coralopevos Sixynv dors Sixava taoyer ;

TINA. Gaiverau.

SOQ. Ta dé dStkava wov Kara apohoyntar ;

TINA. IIavv ye. »

YQ. Tovtov dpa 6 pév wor Kadd, 6 dé wdoye, 6
Kodaldpevos.

TINA. Nat.

XXXITI. 3A. Ovxodtv eirep xadd, dyabd ; | } yap 477
noea ) @peduua.

TINA. *Avéyry.

YQ. "Ayada dpa rdoye 6 Sixny dors ;

TINA. *Eowxev.

—477, 0. |

SQ. ~“Adedeirar dpa ;
TINA. Nat.

TOPTIAS.

63

SQ. "Apa nuTep éy® vrolapBavw tiv wodédevar ;
eAtiov THY Wuyny yiyveTat, elmep Sixaiws Koddleras ;
MY MUNGY Vey P

TINA. Eixés ye.

XQ. Kakias dpa Wuyns dmaddadrrerar 6 Sixnv didovs ;

WOQA. Nat.

XQ. *Ap ody Tod peyiorov dtadddrreTat Kakod ; “N8e

dé okdrel.
»* >? 2» ea x "2
ahrAnv TW Evopas 7 Teviar ;

TINA. Ovkx, adda weviav.

> , “~ > 7 ,
EV XPNKPATOV KATA KEV) avOpadrrov KQKLOV

, - ne , Lad 4 a 4
sa. Tis & TWLATOS KATATKEVY ; KaKiay av dycais

> s > ree \ 9 NaN a
ag bévevav clWal KAL VOOOV KAL ALO YOS KAL TA TOLAUTA ;

TIQA. "Eywye.

XQ. Odvxodvv kai év Woy Tovnpiav yet Twa eivar ;

TINA. Ilas yap ov;

/ “ \
SQ. Tavrnv obv ov dduxiav Kadets kal dpablav Kat

, ‘ ‘ an
Seilav Kal Ta TOLAvTA ;

TINA. ITdvv pev ovr.

> A 4 ‘\ ? b ~ la)
32. Ovkovy xpnpatov Kat cwpatos Kal Wuyns, TpLo@v
»” , ,
OVT@Y, TPLTTAS ElpyKas ToVypias, TEeviav, Vdcor, aduKiay ;

TINA. Nat.

XQ. Tis ody rovtwv tov Tovnpiav aicxiorn ; ody 7
adixia Kat ovAAnBSynv H THS Wuy7s Tovypia ;

TINA. ITodv ye.

x2. Ei dy aicytory, cat xaxiory ;
TINA. Ids, & Ydéxpares, Eyes ;
XN. ‘N8i. del 7d aloyroror Arow AVTHV peyioTny Tap-

A477 B. ev xpnudtev KatacKevn GvOpd-

mov| Inthe ams or fabric of a man’s
—S a

fortune. So ey éuatos Katackevh pre-

sently—‘in his bodily frame or consti-
tution.’

C. del rd aicyicroy| The steps of the
arguufent are the following :—

1. That which exceeds in ugliness
always does so, because it is either
the most painful or the most hurtful
or both (by the duoAdynua 475 B).

2. But Injustice exceeds in ugliness
(ex concessis).

Therefore Injustice is either the most
painful or the most hurtful, or both.

&<{ means, in any list of uglinesses, what-
eveF they May be +-the major proposition
is universal, the minor and_ conclusion
particular. imparing any set of
ugly things, if there be one uglier than
the rest, it is always because it is either
the most painful or most harmful of the

pa.

ih ult
“55,

Fa)

|
|

64:

ITAATQNOX

[477, C

éxov 7) BraBnv 7 duddrepa atoyiotov EoTw EK TOV Opo-

hoynpevwr ev TO EuTrpoo er.

TINA. Medndora.

YN. Aloyioroy S€ d8ixia Kat ovptaca Wuxns Tovnpia

vov 51) @pooynTar Huw ;
TTNA.

€ / 7
DQporoyntar yap.

> A » 3 / , > \
32. Ovkovv n aviapotatov eat. Kat

a. ¥ ec 4
avi. viepBaddov

by Aa 3 ,
aisyictov TovTwy éotiv Y BaByn 7H aydoréports ;

TINA. *Avdykn.

> lal . 7

YQ. *Ap’ ovv ddyewdtepdv €or. Tov wéverOau Kat

, x x > \ b] aN ‘ 8 he A
Kapvew Td adiKov elvat Kal aKddacTov Kat deov Kal

apaly ;

SO. ‘Yrepdhvet rwi apa

mo” TINA. OvdK emovye Soxel, & Sdxpares, awd tovtwv ye.

@s peyddy BAG By Kat Kako

Oavpaciv trepBdddovoa Tara H THS WuyHs Tovypia al-
> / e c x

oxicTov eat. TavTwV, émeidy ovK ahynddovi ye, ws 6 OOS E
——

hoyos.
TINA. Gaiverar.

SQ. “Ada pyv tov 76 ye peyioTn Ba Bn brepBadrov
peéytorov Gy Kakov ein TOV OVTwY.

TINA. Nai.

XN. “H ddtxia dpa kat 4 dxokacia Kat 4 aGdAdAn Wuy7s

Tovnpia eytoTov TOV OVT@V

set, or both. But Injustice is ugliest of
a certain set of ugly things. Therefore,
it is so because of that set it is either
most painful or most harmful. From
this, I think, it will appear that Hir-
schig is mistaken in proposing the ex-
pulsion of rodrwy in the last pio. It
had also offended Heind., who proposed
mdévtwy instead. But this would make
the conclusion a ‘non-sequitur.’ It has
only been granted that adicia is uglier
than zrevia and vécos (rodT wy Tav movn-
pi@v, paul. sup.).

D. Ovxody } aviapdtardéy éoti—apo-
tépois| This sentence is framed on the
same model as that in 475 B, odkotv...
Td Gdiceiv .. . rot Aumnpdtepdy ear Kal
Adan drepBddrrov atoxiov dy etn 7) Kang
}) d&uporépors; In the present passage
&upéstepa stands in the MSS., though
duporépors dwepBadAew is the unvarying

KQKOV €OTW ;

construction elsewhere, as ]. ]. and ib. A.
I believe that the adupérepa (mapéxov) of
the last proposition but one misled the
scribe, and therefore do not hesitate to
accept Hirschig’s emendation, though
the quasi-adverbial a@ugérepa is common
enough eet

“Ymreppvet—Adyos | If, as you say, it is
not imp ries the es _ bad-
ness of the soul to be of all things
foulest, how extraordinarily great must
be the hurtfulness, how astonishing the
evil effects—far beyond those of aught
besides—which entitle it to this bad
eminence. Such is the meaning of this
very closely packed sentence, which with-
out some such dilution would perhaps
be scarcely intelligible in English. It is
a necessary conclusion from the alter-
natives accepted by Polus, #) avig # BAdBy
} apporépos.

—478, 0.] TOPIIAS. 65

TINA. Gaiverar.

XXXIV. 3. Tis odv réyvy tevias amahharret ; j ov
XPNMATLOTLKY ;

TINA. Nai.

SN. Tis S€ vdcov; ovk lar piKy ;

TINA. *Avdéyxn.

478 XN. Tis Se mrovmpias Kat | dduxias; Ei ra oUTws
edrropels, @0€ oKOTEL’ Tot paper Kal Tapa Tivas Tovs
KapvovTas Ta. oapara ; ;

TINA. ITTapa tovs iarpovs, & Yoxpares.

XM. Tot S€ rods dducodyvtas Kal rods dKodacTai-
vovTas ;

TINA. Tapa rods dixacras déyets ;

SQ. Odxodv Sixnv Sdaovrtas ;

TINA. Spi.

XQ. *Ap’ odv od Suxavocvyp twt ypdpevor Kohalovow
ot 6p0as Kohalovtes ;

TINA. <Andov dy.

SQ. Xpynpariorikyn péev apa wevias amadddrrer, ia-

B TpiKy S€ voor, Sixn Sé dxodacias Kal dduKias.

TINA. Gaivera.

YQ. Ti ody rovtav Kad\uordv cae:

TINA. Tivov héyets ;

yN. Xpypatroricys, larpuriis, Bes.

TINA... Ilodd dtadéper, d Yadxpares, 7 Sixy.

SQ. Ovdxodv ad jrou nSovyv wrElaTHV Tovet F OPedevav
H dapddtepa, eitep Kahduotov éotw ;

co FINA. Nai.
XN. *Ap’ obv 7d iarpederOar ASU €or, Kal yatpovow 1 /),, aie

ot iatpevdpevor ; lirde~ ot
QA. Ov« enouye Soxel. eo
SQ. “AN addrupdv ye. 7 yap;
TINA. Nai.

x2. Meyddov yap Kkakov amah\drrerat, woTe Avot-
Teel Viropetvar THY ahynddva Kal vyrel Elvar.
TINA. las yap ov ;
VOL. Il. F

ra Mees

66 ITAATQNOS

x2.

[478, 0

> > Ss 9 x ‘ a b) ,
Ap ovv ovtws av mepi capa evdapovéotatos

avOpwros ein, iatpevdpevos, H mNde Kapvev apyyy ;
TINA. Andov ore pydé kdpvor.
SQ. Ov yap Todr Hv eddaipovia, ws €ouKe, KaKOD
amahhayy, GAG THY apynv pydoe KTHALS.

TINA. "Eort ravra.

SO. Ti dé; dPdudrepos wotepos Svolw éyovrow Kakov D |

PD, 2 , gt aie) A e 3 , s 3
ELT EV OMPATL ELT EV WuYXT ;- 0 LaTpEvomeEvos Kal amadhat-
TOMEVOS TOV KaKOD, 7 6 py LaTpEevdpevos, Exwv O€ ;
7 , ¢ AX > ,
TNA. Patvetai pou o py latpevopevos.
> A X , l4 ‘d A >
32. Ovxody 7d Sixny diddvar peyiorov Kakod damah-

hay? Hv, Tovnpias ;
TINA. *Hpv yap.

32. Sawdpoviler yap wov Kat Suxavorépovs qwovet Kab
iatpuxn yiyveTas Tovnpias 7 Sixn.

WANA. Nai.

SN. Evdapovéoraros peev apa 6 Bi) exov Kakiay év E
yyy, emer TOVTO péyvorov TOV KaKav epavy.

TINA. Andov dy.

32. Aedtrepos Sijrov 6 arad\atTopevos.

WONA. *Eouxev.

XN. Otros & jv 6 vovberovperds. Te Kal emuTdnrTo-

Hevos Kal dixnv dud0vs.
TINA. Nat.

Se

32. Kdkora dpa Cy 6 €xov + dSuciav T Kal pr) dmad-

haTTomevos.

478 ©. edvdamovéoraros| ‘Is this then
the highest physical happiness of which
a man is capable, to be under medical
treatment, or never to have been sick at
all?’ The reason of the preference of
pndé to ovdé here is evident, if we resolve
the participles into their equivalents, ei
iatpevorro, }) ci und apxhv képuva. A few
lines farther on we have riv apxhv wndée
xTjots, which may be similarly analysed.
As regards the latter, observe the absence
of the article, which is usually prefixed
in such cases: Ar, Eccles. 115, denvdy &
éorly H wh ureipla: but omitted in Eur.
Bacch. 455, tAdkapuds te ydp cov Tavads
ov mwdAns fo, a line which Porson was

the first to explain (0b wdAns tro = ba”
ayuuvactas). In the present passage
symmetry requires its omission. Tr.,
‘ For this was not happiness—the getting
rid of a malady—but _ the not having
caught it originally.” jv = ‘in the case
supposed above.’ riy apxhv or apxhv are
used indiscriminately in the sense, ‘from
the first,’ ‘in the first instance,’ and
with. neg. ‘not at all” Theaet. 185 p,
Thy apxhy ovd eivat ToLodTOY.

D. SwppovlCec—8ixn| ‘For justice, I
conceive, sobers men and makes them
more honest, and thus acts upon crime
medicinally :’ or ‘asa moral medicine.’

E. 6 txav fF aduclav t+] “Lege 6 éxwv

ee ee

—479, D.] TOPTIAS. 67

TINA. Gaiverac.
XQ. Odxodv otros tvyxdver dv bs Gv Ta péytoTta
adikav Kal ypdpevos peyiotn adixia Stampaéntar aoTe
479 uyTe vovlereto Oar | wHte Kordlec Oar pyre Sixynv diddvar,
y ‘ ‘ > / , x ‘ ¥
ootep ov dys Apxédaov taperkevacbat Kai ToVs addous
Tupavvous kal pyTopas Kai Suvdoras ;
¥
MNA. “Eovxev.
»
XXXV. 3. Syeddv ydp wov oro, @ apiote, Td
¥ Lal
abvT Suatempaypevor cioly Bamep Gv et Tis Tots peyioToLs
voonpac. cuvicxdpevos Siampdaito pn Siddvar Siknv
TOV TEpL TO TOpa awapTHudTwv Tots iatpots unde Larped-
ecOat, poBovpevos, womepavel Tats, TO KderOat Kal Td
, Y > ee a \ Ve
BTéuver Oar, OT. ddyewov. 7 ov SoKel Kal col ovTas ;
¥
MQA. “Epovye.
> A e ¥ er > 6.7 ‘
32. “Ayvoov ye, as eorxey, oldv éoTw 7H vylea Kat
GpeTn THpaTos. KiWduvEevovaL yap ek TOV Viv Huy @po-
hoynpevwv Torodrdv Te Tovety Kai ot THY Sikyny hevyortes,
> cal an a
® IlaXe, 75 adyewdv adtovd Kafopay, mpds Sé 76 dPeAupwov

“~ ¥ Ry ~ 97 > , id > X e “
Tuphas Exew Kal ayvoew oom aO\udTEpdy ETL (7) bywods|
THparos\un vyret ppvyyn ovvoikeiv, aAa Gabpa Kai adikw

+S 4 9 A ~ lal 4 , © 4
CO kat dvociv. olev kal wav Towovaw aote Siknv ph diddvat
pnd amaddatrec Oat Tod peylotov Kakov, Kal xpypara
mapacKkevalopevor Kat ditous Kal ows av Gow as Tiba-
, 7 > cr 2 A 3 a c , >
votator héyew. et Sé Hyeis adnO7 wporoyyjKkaper, @
Tlade, Gp aicbaver ta ovpBaivovta éx Tod héyouv; 7
4 , > 4
Bovdder cv\dA00yiodpcba avira ;
TINA, Ei pH coi ye adds Soxet.
> *>>
x2. “Ap odv cvpBaiver péyiorov KaKov 7 GoLKia Kat
TO GOLKEL ;
TINA. Gaiverai ye.
p 2. Kat pHv draddayy ye ebdvn tovtov Tod KaKov
Td Sixnv Siddvar ;

‘kanlay, Alias mpoaprd(e: toy Adyov dmadkAarréuevos (sc. THs Kaxlas). As the
Rocxaten * (Dobree). The emendation text stands, the conclusion 2 a non
seems to me certain. Compare the con- sequitur. The identity of xaxla with
‘text, ebdaimovéoraros piv pa d uh exwv Gdila is first acknowledged in the -ques-
kaklav év ux... Sebrepos Shrov 6 tion and answer which follow.

F 2

Wen -|>

fai

ne be ume
uP

Hin Lined

68 IIAATONOS [479, D

TINA. Kuwdvveveu.
YN. Tod dé ye py SWdvou eupovy Tov Kakod ;
TINA. Nat. a
XN. Aedrepov dpa éott Tov kakdv peyer Td adiKetv"
4 a) n \ / , 4 4 / ‘
To O€ ddixodvTa py Siddvar Sikny mdvtwv péyioTov TE Kat
TPO@TOV KAK@V TEPUKEV.
TINA. *Eowxev.
SQ. *Ap otv ov wept Tovrov, ® dire, HuderByTy-
‘\ \ A > la > 4 . ‘\ td >
cape, od pev TOV “Apyéhaov eddatpovilwy Tov Ta pEeyLoT
bY al , > , ld > A \ > / ‘
adikovvTa Siknv ovdepiay Siddvra, eyo dé TovvavTiov
Die y>3 , y¥> ¥ > 4 e lal Y
oldpevos, eit “Apyédaos ett addos avOpatwv ooTicovy mH
/ , > A“ , , > 7 >
didwar Sixny adixOv, TovT@ TpoojKew aOXiw eivar Sia-
hepovtws Tov arwv avOpdrwv, Kai del Tov GdiKOdDYTA TOD
b) , b) , > ‘ ‘ ‘ / 9
doikoupéevov GOduwTepov etvar Kal Tov. pH SiddvTa Sixyv
Tov SiddvTos ; ov TavT’ Hv TA VT Ewov eyopeva ;
TNA. Nai.
YQ. Odxodv arodéderxrar ote adnO7n edéyero ;
TINA. Gaivera.
XXXVI. | 32. Eiev. ci otv 8) tadta adnOy, &
A , e , , > A “ ec ~ al Q
Tle, tis Y peyddn xpeta €oti THs pyTopiys ; Set pev
yap on €k TOV VoV Gmodoynpevar adrov EavTov pddiora
puharrew Oras py) aduKyoEL, @S ikavov Kakodv E€ovTa. ov
,
YP 5
TINA. ITdvv ye.
ITS 4 > , ad ya. A» a. 2
SQ. *Eav 6é ye addiucyjoyn } aitds 7 addos tis Sv dv
la »% € , :7 al
KHONTAL, AVTOV ExOVTA iévat EKELTE OTOU WS Taxiota SHEL
diknv, Tapa Tov SuxaorHv, WoTEp Tapa Tov iaTpdv, oTeEd-

E

480

SovTa ows LN eyypovic bev TO Vé6oNnMA THS GOLKLas UToVAOV B
B71 eyKXpoviat Ha TH TOVAOV

‘\ ‘ ‘\ , lal A
THY WuxXHV ToLnTEL Kal aviatov' 7 Tas héywper, @ Ide,

A479 £. Tov &dixodyta Tod 4dicovnevov 46- tunc habebis tuum, cum intelleges in-
Aihrepoy] Also a Stoical doctrine. Seneca felicissimos esse felices.” Ibid. xx. 7. 24,
Ep. Mor. xv. 3. 52, “ Ex illius (se. Natu- 480. drws wh eyxponcbiv—avlatov]
rae) constitutione miserius est nocere ‘lest the disease of injustice become
quam laedi;” surely a deep moral truth, chronic, and render his soul gangrenous
though in the guise of a paradox. But and past cure.’ #movaAos is said of a
another passage in Seneca goes beyond sloughing sore. Comp. Plut. Qu. Plat.
the modesty of nature and the Academy: 1000 c, ob yap oéparos % Swxpdrous
*Brevem tibi formulam dabo, qua te iatpela, puxijs dt Hy dwovAou Kabapuds.
metiaris, qua perfectum esse jam sentias :

C

D

E

—480, E.] TOPTIAS. 69

” a
elTep Ta TpOTEpoY peéver Huly Sporoyypata ; ovK avayKn
TadTa exeivows ovTH pev Gupdwvelv, drrws SE Ly ;

a

TINA. Ti yap 8) paper, 6 Yadxpares ;

XQ. Emi pév dpa 7d drodoyeto bar trép THs ddukias
THS avTov H yovéwy 7H Etaipwv 7) Taidwv 7 matpidos
> § , > s SIONe »€% € Cae Cet > a
aSiKovons od Xpyoywos ovdev 7 PyTopiH jpiv, @ ITaXe,
ei pa el Ts drohd Bor emt _ tobvaytiov, KaTayopely deiv
y pediorra pey éavrov, ereita S€ Kal TOV oiKEiwy Kal TOV
a\\wv Os Gy del TOV hitov Tvyxdvy AdiKOV, Kal py azTO-

, > > - a ‘ ‘\ »¥ 5 > , ¥
KpumTecOar, add’ eis TO havepdv ayew 7d ddiknua, wa
80 Sikny Kal vyujs yéeryntas, dvaykdlew S€ Kai avTov Kat

4 + ) > Land > ‘ , 4 x
Tovs GANovs p7) aodeiiav GANA Tapéyew ptoavTa Kat

- —— a Q

> , 9 . ee x 7 > A ee N

avopEiws, BoOTEP TE“VEW Kal Kaew latp@, TO ayalov Kat
‘ 4 \ e , X\ > , >N Le

Kadov SidKovTa, 1.7) UTodoyilopevov 7d adyewor, Eav pev

a >
ye mAnyav akia HdiuynKos 7, TUTTEW TapéxorTa, eav SE
“a ms > \ / > , 2% \ A
Secpod, Seiv, eav S€ Cnpuias, drorivorta, éav Sé duyjs,
devyovta, éav S€ Pavdrov, amobvycKovta, avTdv TpaTov

»” 4 \ e “ ‘ “A + > / ‘ > A&
OvTa KaTHYyOpOV Kal avTOU Kal TOV aAhwY oiKkEiwy Kal emt
TOUTW XpepEvoy TH PHTOpLKH, OTS Gv KaTadHrwY TOV
adiucnudtov yryvonévey damahddtrwvta. Tov peyiaTou

KakOU, Gd.Kias. Popev ovTas oe) Paper, @ IIdXe ;
TINA, "Arora pév, & ZaKpares, ewouye Soxel, Tots
pevtor Eeutrpoobev tows oor 6podoyetrat.

B. elrep—bporoyhuara | ‘if our pre-
misses still hold

Em) wey &pa—ar vewwby | ‘It follows
that“asa means of defending our own

misdeeds or those of parent or friend,

child or country, rhetoric is of no real
value to us: unless indeed we adopt the
contrary view—that it is our duty to
denounce first ourselves, then our kindred,

and finally any one of our friends who

may be guilty of injustice—not, I say, to
sereen the delinquent, but rather to
drag his offence to the light, that he
may be punished and made whole. We
should even force ourselves and our
neighbours-not to shrink from the ordeal,
but like brave men, with closed eyes, to

invite the physician to opera rate upon us
with knife or mene ee pursuing an

end which is good and_noble without
weighing the ottexidant pain.” After éx)

tovvayttoy Heind. understands xpnotuny
elvat, but it seems rather equivalent to
eis tovvaytiov in Soph. 221, or kara
Tovvavriov, Tim. 36 D, or to é évaytias,
which is the most common. dmoxpvt7-
tesOat is frequently transitive, as inf.
492, GmoxpumTéuevot Thy abtay aduva-
play. It seems indifferent whether rdv
aitod odtAov, or Td adiknua Tod abrod
trou be regarded as the object of the
action here, as the middle form is ap-
plicable in either case. For picavra
Olymp. reads picayras, but the vulg. is
preferable. He adds the explanation,
iva wh dpaor was Téuvovrai—as patients
are now blindfolded on the operating-
table. For tuyxdvn &Gdiux@v the Bodl.
gives tuyxdvoi, which Heind. (‘quod
mireris’) endeavours to defend. The
formula ei uh €?% tis p. supr., of which
there are many instances, may support

in

ToLs ETT Wee. I, =

LL

rs

S

Kip.

s

eR

4

bs les

lhe

70

x2.

Baivew ;

IIAATNNOX

[480, B

A A aA , ’ ,
Ovxovv 7H Kakewa AvTéovy H TAdE avdyKNn TUp-

“TINA. Nat, rovrd ye ovtws eeu.
» A
XQ. Torvavtiov dé ye ad peraBaddvta ei apa det

‘ pe -y y D9 ‘ S 2 4 ‘
TWA KAKOS Tove, ELT EXOpdv EiTE OVTWOUP, Eav pLOVOY BH
avTos aOLKnTaL VTd Tod e€yOpov TovTO pev yap edda-

/ 3X a > Fes ee , \ /
Byréov- éay S€ addov adic 6 €xOpds, Tavti Tpd7@ Tapa-

, QA , a" 4 y ay 8 “
OKEVAOTEOV KAL TPATTOVTA Kat héyovTa, | oT@s pn Ow 481

dikny pyndé €hOn mapa tov Sixaoryy: éeav Se ENOy, pyyxa-
, Ld x» , \ ‘ a 86. ¢ 2 0 , iA?
vyntéov Oras Gv Siaddyn Kat pa So dixnv 6 éxOpéds, a
27 , € ‘ > , ‘ > 8 8 A a iNA?
édv TE xpvoiov ypTaKas H TOV, yj G7T0dLO@ TOTO «a
éxov avadioky Kal eis EavTov Kal eis Tos EavTOD ddixws
\ > 4 7 , + > ‘ S wd x
Kat abéws, eav te Oavarov akia Hducnkos 7, STwS py
d “ , \ 2. > Ae 4 ¥
dmofavetras padiota perv pndémote, GN aOdvaros Eotau
Tovnpos av, ei 5€ pH, OWS ws TEtoTOV xpdvov BidoeTaL B

na »
TOLOUTOS WV.

a la lal e
ert Ta TowavTa epouye Soxel, ® Ilde,

PYTOpLK? KpHomos elvat, Emel TO ye py pedovre aSucedy
ov peyddy tis pot Soxel 4 xpela adrns civat, ei 57 Kat
€oTu Tis ypela, ws eV ye Tols TPdTVEV OvdapyH ehavyn ovad.

XXXVII. KAA. Eiwé pou, & Xatpepov, crovddler

A , A id
TavtTa YwKparns H mailer ;

the Bodl. reading of Phaedrus 279, etre
el aiT@ wh aroxphoat Tadta, where per-
haps I ought not to have bracketed the
following 5é.

} E. Tobvaytiov, x.7.A.|_ “This,” says
Gray, “is a conclusion so extravagant,
that it seems to be only a way of
triumphing over Polus after his defeat,
or perhaps in order to irritate Callicles,
who had heard with great. impatience
the concessions which Polus had been
forced to make, and now breaks out with
warmth, and enters into the dispute.”
The dramatic intention is not to be mis-
taken, still the extravagance is not so
great as Gray supposed. He did not
sufficiently attend to the important con-
dition, ei &pa def rd Kaxds woreiv. If
it is our duty ‘to do evil to our enemy,’
as written in the popular Greek code,
Socr.’s conclusion is perfectly sound. We
cannot really hurt a man more than by
promoting his growth in wickedness. If
revenge is lawful, this is its most perfect
form, But in assuming that ‘it is our

duty to do harm to any body, so long as
we can do it without being injured our-
selves,’ Socr. is obviously ironical, as
one wonders that so acute a critic as
Gray did not perceive. Socr. is assuming
the premisses of his opponents in order
to lead them to a conclusion from which
their common sense will revolt.

481. avartonn] Codd. and edd. éva-
Atoxnrat. A similar solecism of the
kind known to grammarians by the word
* Datismus,’ has hitherto held its ground
in Rep. viii. 563 D, xiv drioty SovAelas
Tis mpoopepnrat (sc. Tots moAirats),
where read of course mpoogépn.

aOdvaros eotat movnpos wv] Live
through an immortality of wickedness.
Hyperides pro Lycoph. ¢. 3, 8rws dy 7
&0dvatos asvkopdyrns: Shaksp. Othello,
iv. 2, “I will be hanged if some eternal
villain,’ &e. Observe the variety in the
constructions with érws—érws wh 56—
brws dy Brapvyn Kal ph SG (V. don, an
inadmissible form for dof): v. Lobeck ad
Phryn. p. 345)—p%} amrodiim &AA’—ava-

—481, D.] TOPTIAS. 71

XAI. ’Epot pev Soxet, & Kaddixdets, brepdhuds omov-

4 > \ , L ‘ aX > nr
Sdlew: oddev pevror olov Td avTov Epwrar.

A >

KAA. Ny tovs Oeods: Gd ériOupo. Eiré pow, o

x» ,
Néxpates, Torepov oe Papev vuvi omovdalovra 7 Tai-
Covta; «i pev yap omovddles Te Kal Tvyxdver TavTa
GAnOH dvta & déyets, GAO Te [H] Huav 6 Bios avaretpap-
pévos Gy ein Tov avOpdéTwv Kal TavTa TA évavTia TparT-
a A a
Tomer, ws EouKev, H & Set ;

SN. °D Kaddikdes, ei pH te Hv tots avOpdmots wa-
Bos, rots perv aGddo Tt, Tots S€ aAXO 71, 7d adTd, GAA Tis
Hpav ld.dv Te eracye TADS H ot addot, OdK Gv Hv pddrov
> , a .e 4 ee 16 Lal 10 Ne 8 > 7
evdciEac Oat TO ETépw Td EavTOD TAOnpa. éyw BS evvoyjoas
OTL €y@ TE Kal od VUY TYyXavope TaUTdV TL TETOVOOTE,
7 A , »” A e , 3. 4X \ > 7d.
epavte Svo ovte Svety Exdrepos, ey@ pev “AhkiBiddov Te
tod Kvewiov cai dirtocodias, od S€ Tod Te *APnvaiwv

, ‘ cal , > , > e ,
Snpov Kal Tod IIvpitdptovs. aicOdvopar obv cov éExao-

Aloxn— res ph drobavetrat— aAN—
éctai—drws Biwoetat.

B. ovdtv—épwray| See note on p.
447 ©.

C. &Ao tm [%H]] Bekk. omits the 4,
though found in all the MSS. I think
rightly, if only on the ground of euphony.
&AAo 71, as a formula of interrogation,
needs no defence.

ei uh tt] ‘ Were it not that mankind
had feelings in common,’ some being the
subjects of one kind of emotion, others of
another, i. e. some sharing the passion of
love, others that of ambition, &e. «i uh
Tt hv = ‘nisi forte accidisset ut: ef uj
vt being taken togéther, as one particle,
like ei uf mov, or as eZ Tt wh is sometimes
used. Rep. vi. 509 ©, kal undauads vy’,
épn, maton ef ph Tt, GAAA Thy wept Toy
jAwy duodtynT ad Stekidy. So inf. 513 0,
ef wh Tt av GAO Aé€yeis, ‘nisi forte,’ &e.
In the sequel 7:0 is constructed with #
as if €repoy had been used. So paulo
sup. éevaytiov...% de. ‘Were one or
other of us capable of any feeling in
which the rest of mankind had no part,
it would in that case have been difficult
to make our own experiences intelligible
to our neighbours.’ Routh thinks that
Soer. alludes to the Protagorean doctrine
@s Tia aicOjeets Exdotw Nuay yiyvovrat
(Theaet. 166 c) ; but this seems question-
able, though the suggestion is ingenious.
Before 7d ard all the codd. without ex-

ception interpolate #, thus inverting the

meaning.
D. kal Tod ups Se. Ajpou,
the son” of Pyrilampes being so called.

“It is possible too that there may be a
secret allusion to the Equites of Aristo-
phanes, where the Athenian people is
introduced as a person, under the’ name
of Demus,” &c. (T. Gray). This seems
a needless refinement. Demus was in
his bloom when the Vespae was acted
(B.c. 422): Kat vy At jv tn yé mov
yeypaupévov Thy TuptAdurovs év Oupéa,
Ajjmov Kaddéy (vy. 98), where the Schol,
remarks, jv 5 kal euoppos 6 Ajjuos-
éréypagoy St of "A@nvaio: Ta Tay KaAGY
évéuata oUtws: Ajjos kadds. Demus
was also mentioned by Eupolis in his
ect named IdéAets : kal TG TMupiAdurous

p év wot xupéAn, as Meineke corrects
the line quoted by the Schol. 1.1. xupéan
év wat, ‘sordes in auribus,’ was a figura-
tive expression for dulness (compare: the
“ purgatas aures”’ of Persius v. 63, and
Bekk. Aneed. p. 425) which agrees well
enough with the description of the cha-
tacter of Demus in the text. He is also
noted as effeminate (@nAvdplas) by Liba-
nius (Pro Salt. xix. p. 500 D), and by
Athen. (ix. 397 C) he is said to have kept
peacocks, inheriting this taste from his
father Pyrilampes, according to Plutarch
(Per. c. 13), who speaks of the épv:00Tpo-
pla: tod MuptAdurous bs Eraipos Hv TMepi-

72

MAATANOZ

[481, D

TOTE, Kaimép OVTOS Sewod, OTL OTda Gv dy Tov Ta TaL-
Sika Kal dws dv dp eyew, ov Svvapévov avtidéyew, GAN’
avo kat KatTw petaBaddopevov. ev te [yap] TH exxdynoig,
édv TL Gov éyovtos 6 Shpos 6 "APnvaiwy pH Pp ovTws
exew, peTaBaddopevos héyes & exeivos BovdeTat, Kai mpos
Tov IIvpitdprovs veaviay Tov Kahov TodTov ToLavf’ ETEpa
mérovOas. Tois yap Tov TaduK@v Bovdrevpaci TE Kat

e a y ¥ ,

Adyous ody olds 7 ef evavTiotcAaL, WoTE, EL Tis GOV
/ + 4,

héyovtos Exaatote & Sia TovTOVS héeyers Oavpdlo. ws aToma

9

EOTLW, tows Elois Gv avT@, et BovroLto TaAAHOH Eyer, OTL,
> , , ‘ ‘ 8 ‘ , a X , i) \
el wy Tis Tavoe | TA OA TALdLKa TOUTWY TOV Adyar, OVOE

‘ 4 ‘\ a“ 4 , 4 ‘ >
ov Tavoe Tore TadTa héywv. vopile Tolvy Kal Tap
E400 xpHvar eTepa ToradT aKovew, Kal py Oavpale ore
éy® TavTa héyw, adda THY diiocodiav, Tapa TadiKd,

a aA , , , > , ec ooAa 2A A
mavoov TavTa héyovoav. héyer yap, @ pide ETatpE, ael a
vov €“ov aKovets, Kal pol €oTL TOV ETEpwWY TALOLKOV TOD

QTTov eumAnKToss 6 pev yap Knveuwievos obtos addoT
SS

xAéous. Gray adds, “Demus is men-
tioned as a Trierarch in the expedition
to Cyprus (as I imagine) about Ol. 98.
1, under Chabrias (Lysias de Bonis Aris-
toph. p. 340 [154]).” If we assume 405
as the, date of this dialogue, Demus is
too old to be the madiucd of Callicles.
Comp. Protag. init. It is curious that
the clauses relating to Demus and Alci-
biades are entirely passed over in the
version of Ficinus, which in other points
also disagrees with the received text.
In 513 B the elause, kat val wa Ala re
TlvpiAdurous ye mpéds, is translated thus:
“ae per Jovem insuper Pyrilampi,” this
being the only passage in which the
name of Pyrilampes occurs in this
version.

aigOdvouai—oov—bri— od + Buvapévov |
The blending of two constructions —(1)
aic@dvoual cov ov Suvauevov, (2) aicbd-
vouat 8rt ob Sivaca1—is sufficiently justi-
fied by the passage quoted by Heind.
from Thue. iv. 37, yvots 5¢ 6 KAéwy...
8ru, ef Kal drocovody madrdAov evddcovet,
StapOapnoopmévovs adtous,

étt bado’ av gy] Some MSS. give
drws, others avripH. Here dadoa refers
to the number, érws éyerv to the nature
of his assertions. ‘Let him say a thou-
sand things in a day and all different.’
I once suspected that the original read-

ing was drws kv of cov Ta maidiKkd Kal
dros dy wh OF exew, comparing E, édv 6
duos .. uN OF obtws Zxev. In the next
sentence éy Te yap, k.T.A., yap is not found
in the Bodl. nor in many other codd. The
asyndeton might, I think, be tolerated.

E. Bovaetpaot| Bovahwacr is also
found, and agrees better with the fore-
going & éxetvos BovAerm. It isin Ald.
and Steph. and perhaps ought not to
have been altered, even in deference to
overwhelming MS. authority. The words
in question are perpetually interchanged
in the codd., as few can fail to have
observed.

482. modd Arrov fumAnktos| ‘she is
far less e than her rival
in my affections.’ &«8Antos, mentioned .
as a v.1. by Olymp., is possibly a cor-
ruption of @cmAnxtos, with which éu-
mAnKTos is perpetually confounded.
Comp. Hesych., éurAhnt ous weunvértas,
edmeTtabétous: Soph. Aj. 1358, roolde
MévTa Hates EuwmANKTOL BpoTav, where
the Schol. int. ckodpo.: Eur. Tro. 1205,
ai TUXat, “EuTAnKTOS ws kvOpwros,
&AAor’ &AAvoe Mndao1, xovdels adrds
evtuxet more: Plat. Lys. 214 pd, éu-
TAHKTOVS TE Kal dorabuhrous (speaking
of fickleness in friendship): Thue. iii,
82 has 7d éumAtnrws dtd, where see
Arnold, who compares Aeschines, F. L.

&

—482, C. | TOPTIAY. 73

adhi\wv €oti hdywr, n S€ ditocodia dei TAY aiTav. héyer

Be & od viv Oavpdles, tapyoda Sێ Kai avTos heyouevors.

aA ae 2 a. € > \
j) ov éxeivnv e&édey€ov, omep aptu Eedeyov, @s ov TO
> ~ > \ ‘\ > e , \ , ec ,

Gdikeiy é€ott Kal ddiuovvta Sikny pr Siddvar amdvTwv
ECXaTOV Kak@v" 7 el TOUT édoeis avédeyKTOV, pa TOV
4 ‘\ > , , ¥ c l4 ~
Kiva, Tov AiyuTTiov Oedv, ov cor Gportoynae Kadduxdyjs,
® KahXikdes, dhd\a Stadwrvyce ev amavt.T@ Bio. Katrou
éywye olpat, & BéXTioTe, Kat THY hivpav pou KpeEtTToV

> > a x iy er ek > ol
© €lvau AVAaAPHLOOTEW TE KAL Stadwvewv, KQaL Xopov @ X°P)-

—

, diy 7 > 2 were CET ET PORTS ee
yotnv, Kat mrelatous avOpadrovs py opodoyew por add
2— 27 , a a ¢ ¥ ie Po ey.
evarvtia héyew paddov 7 eva OvTa Eue EavT@ agvppwvov
eivau Kal evavtia héyeuw.

XXXVIII. KAA. ° Yoxpares, Soxeis vearreverOar
év Tots hdyois ws adnOas Synunydpos wv Kal vv TavTa
8 a re, a) , a Wh Ee 44) 9 ,
nENyopets TavTov Tafovtos Il@dov alos, o7ep Topyiov
KaTynyope: mpos oé mabey. én yap mov Topyiay épwre-
pevov 07d Gov, éav adixntat Tap avTov py émLTTapeEvos

‘ , e ‘\ e ‘\ / “A > ,
Ta Sixava 6 THY pnTopiKny Bovddpevos pabety, ei Sidafor

p- 327 R. (§ 164), where modrtelas éu-
mAntia means little more than ‘politi-
cal inconsistency.’ In Hom. Od. xx. 132,
éumanyony, which is commonly inter-
preted ‘insanely,’ will better bear the
meaning ‘capriciously.’ Later writers
use these compounds to denote madness
or folly in general, except in a few
passages written in imitation of Attic
models.

6—KaAeiwieos] “Alcibiades had now
left Athens, and taken refuge in Thrace,
and the year after he was murdered”
(T. Gray). The éorf seems to imply that
Plato had forgotten this circumstance, or
at any rate disregarded it.

©. xopoy & xopnyolny| For @ kv xo-
pny®, an war use of the optative
after a leading verb. in the indic. pres.
Comp. Soph. Oed. R. 979, eixy xpdticrov
Giv bxws divaird tis. In this passage
oiuat—elva is equivalent to olua: éti—
cin Sy, e—ease supposed Dame an

acne

imagimary one. The reading avapuooreiv
was first proposed by Van Heusde for the
vulg. avdpuoorov. The verb is found
Soph. 253 a, and elsewhere in Plato.
Tr., ‘I cannot but think it better that
my lyre should be out of order and give
discordant notes, or that any chorus I

had to lead should sing out of tune, or
that great masses of men should dis-
agree with and contradict me,—than
that I, who am but one, should be out of
harmony with myself and contradict my
own assertions.’

7a AéuparessBonsis-reavietectat] ¢ you
seem to me, Socr., to be reckless in your
talk, like an arran Scan as you are.’
The word Snuaryspos i is equally applicable
to a ‘stump-orator’ and a fashionable
preacher, tote who rants and to one
who cants. Compare Theaet. 162 D, @
yevvaio mwaidés te Kal yépovtes, Snun-
yopeire EvykabeCouevar. . . Kad & of moAAOl
by drodéxowro akotovtes, AéyeTe TadTa,
where the latter clause explains 5nu7-
yopeite. In Demosth. Olynth. iii. § 3,
mpos xdpiv Snunyopety = ‘to speak ad
captandum.’

kal yov, x.7.A.] ‘and if you now hold
forth in this strain, it is because Polus
has made the very mistake for which he
blamed Gorgias ’"—the mistake of giving
way to false shame. Presently ei d:ddéo
depends on épwtémevoy, according to the
strict use of the fut. optat.in the obliqua
oratio after a past tense. The MSS., as
usual in this case, vacillate between
Sddter and d:datou.

7A TIAATQNOX [ 482, D
\ , ,
abtov 6 Topyias, alaxuvOjvar adrov Kai ddvar didaew D
lal A a »” a
dua 7d Hos Tov avOpeTaV, OTL ayavaKTotEV Gv EL TLS PY
a ,
hain: dia 8) Tavrynv THY dpodoyiav avayKacOjnvar evavTia
~ ~ lal “A ,
avrov avT@ eimely, oé S€ avTd TOVTO adyaTav. Kat cov
tal lal lal \ 4,
Kateyéda, os y enol Soxety, dpOGs Tore. vov Sé maw
avTos TavToV TOUTO erable, Kal Eywye KaT avTd TOUTO OVK
an A ¥
dyapat Id\ov, dt. wou ouveydpnoe TO aOiKEly atoxvov
n A ny > wn 4
eivar TOU adiketoOau ex TavTNS yap av THS Opodoyias
2% CRESS la) 8 0 ‘ > a Xo: > , 0
avTos UTO Gov cupTOdic Hels ev TOLs Adyous ErEeoTOpLLGOn, EB
> \ aA oe ear. ‘ . ae 2 a as.
aicxuvbeis & evden citely. od yap TO OvTL, @ SHxKpares,
la) , , XN
els TotadTa ayers hoptika Kat Snunyopika, PacKwv Tv
__ az. « =
aknbevay Sicjkew, & Poo ev OUK eaTL Kad, VOp@ OE.
e ‘\ xy X\ “A > , 3 4 > A 4 ,
OS TA TOAAG OE TadTA evavTia adAyAOLS eoTiv, H TE HUTLS
\ kal 6 vopmos. €av OvV TiS aicxuvyTaL Kal py Towa | 483
0 héyew amep voet, dvayKalerar evavtia héyew. 6 87 Kal
ov TovTo Td codpdv KaTavevonkas KaKoupyels EV TOUS

Ne

D. ot 8¢ adrd TodTO Gyaray| Supr. 461
C, TODO b By Gyamds, adtds ayayav én
ToadTa épwrhwara.

és y euol Soxety] Meno 81, 4An9%,
Zpnovye Soxety, kal kaddv. Soph. El. 410,
éx Seluards tov vuxrépov, SoKeiv euol.
Herod. ii. 124, ds 7 euol donde.

E. érecroulcOn | ‘gagged,’ i. e. silenced
and pufdown.

ob yap TG ovTt] ‘For it is you, in
point of fact, Socr., who, under pretence
of pursuing the truth, lead your hearers
to adopt (pass off upon your audience)
a set of stale popular fallacies, grounded
on legal (conventional) notions of the
fair and comely, which have no founda-
tion in nature.’ Schol., goprixda Ta Bdpos
éurotovvta (molesta, putida). Snunyopira
Ta mpos Thy TaV TOAAG@Y BA€ToVTaA Sdtav.

483. 8 5) kal od TodTo] “ Verba Todt
Td copy epexegeseos instar praegressi 6
interposita sunt usu satis trito. . Soph.
Ant. 404, Tadrny vy idov Odrrovcay, dv
ov Tov vexpdy *Ametras: ubi Schol., rdv
vexpov dv ov ametras Odwrew oftws Bt
xpavrat of madaol...Kpartivos, “Ovrep
bidokArens Tov Adyov b:épOopev ” (Heind.).
To the numerous examples he gives from
Rep. 579 o, 583 8, &e., may be added
Hyperides pro Euxenippo, Col. 19, dy
ovdeula Shrov tT&v aitiav ToiTtwy ovdéey
Kowwver TO cicayyeATIKG vouw. For
kakoupyets é, T. Adyois compare inf,

489 B, & 5) Kal eye yvobs Kakovpyd
év tots Adyots. Routh has seized the
point of the clause, rodro 7b copdy kara-
vevonkés, which contains an allusion to
Socr.’s early training under the Ionic
philosopher Archelaus, to whom was as-
signed the credit of having invented the
antithesis between 7a véum add and Ta
gtce. The passage Routh quotes from
Aristotle is highly illustrative of this
portion of the dialogue: mAcioros 8
témos éor) Tod moteiv wapddota Aé€yewv,
&omep kat 6 KaddAucaAjjs ev TG Topyla
yéypamrat Aéywr, xad of apxaiol ye waves
@ovto gupBatvew, mapa Td Kata plow
kal Kata Toy vouov. evavtia yap elvat
ptow Kat vdpor, kab Thy Sixaoctynv kata
vomov méev eivat Kaddby KaTa tow & ov
kaddv. Seiv ody mpds peyv toy eimdvTa
Kata plow Kata véuov aravtayv, mpds dé
Tov Kata vouov em) thy ptiow eye:
duporépws yap elvat A€yew wapddota. iv
de 7d wey KaTa Hiow avTois Td GAnpOés,
7d 5& Kata vépov Th Tois ToAXois Soxody*
Gore ShArov Sri Kaxetvor, radwep Kad of
viv, eréyka 4 mwapddota rAéyew Toy
mokpiwénevov érexelpovy moteiv (Soph.
Elench. c. 12, § 6). Comp. Diog. Laert.
ii. 4, "ApxéAaos, wabnrhs ’Avatayédpou,
diddoxadros Swxpdrovs ... owe 5& Kal
obTos tibacOa Tis HOuKAS. Kat yap mepl
vépwv Tepirocdpnke kal Kaday Kal b1-

kalwys map oF AaBdov Swxpdrns TE

7

|
+
Hd
‘

—483, 0. TOPTIAY. 75

Adyous, €av pév Tis KaTa vdpov éyyn, Kata dvow UTEpw-
Tov, eav Sé Ta THs HUoEWS, TA TOD POpov. GWOTEP aUTiKA
Te , aA > § a) \ A 2 a , x
ev TOUTOLS, TO aduKElY TE Kal TH aGdiKEetoOaL, IIddov 7d
Kata vowov atoytov éyovtos od Tov vopov edidKabes
Kata diow. gvoe pev yap TAY GLO XLOV EOTW OTEP Kal
7 X > a | Nes ead, > a 29% \

KaKioV, TO adiKetobar, vouwm O€ TO ddLKELY. OVSE yap
Bavdpds tovTd y €oTl Td wdOnua, TO adiketoOar, add’
> 8 58 / = a , 2 , x A 9

avdpatddov Tivds, @ KpeitTév eote TEOvdvar 7} CHv, doTis

> , ‘ , ‘ es 2 = ‘ ia Re
adukovpevos Kal mpoTnrakilopevos py oldaT eotiv avTos
a a »” x >
avt@ Bonbeiv pyndé addo od Gv KySyrar. GAN’, olpat, ot
‘ Py a ¥
TUOuevor Tos vopous ot aobevets avOpwrot ciot Kai ot
, ‘\ e \ > A \ ¢ “A £. ,
ToANOl. Mpos avTOVS OY Kal TO a’TOLs TULEpoV TOUS TE
‘\ ‘ fal
vopous TiWevtar Kal Tovs émaivovs érawovar Kal TOUS
woyous Wéeyovow, expoBovvtés TE TOs eppapevertépous
A ‘ 9
Crav avOpdrev Kai Suvatods dvtas méov Exew, Wa pi)
A AY »
avtav mhéov exwor, €yovow, ws aioypov Kal adiKov TO
A ‘ a) ¥ ee ~ \ 4 A
TAEOVEKTELY, Kal TOUTO €aTLTO GOLKELY, TO TA€OY TOV GAAwP
————
A an > ¥
{nrew exew ayataou yap, oiwat, avTot av Tb toov Exwor

, »
davhdrepor ovtes.

avijoa avtds edpetvy breAhpdn. Zrcye
be... 7d Sixauoy civar Kal rd aicxpdy ov
pice, GAAX vu. In the sequel ize-
pwr is explained by Ast, “ interrogans
ita ut aliud quid subjiciat;” but pro-
bably éwé has the same force as in d7o-
AaBeiv, so that drepwrS shall be equi-
valent to iroAaBov épwrd. The sense
will tlits"be: “meeting your opponent
with a question framed_in accordance
Witie the eathfal Wense of tha Gerual’ ex
ployed, heherime-emptoyed the same or
Leet terms, 7d aicxpdv, Td Kaddv, Td
dixasov, in their conventional sense. The
word émepwra@y is not found in any other
classical writer. .

ed:dnabes| “urgebas” (Ast in Lex. v.
diwxdw). But edidxaGes is an aorist, not
an imperfect, nor is there such a word as
diwxd@w. This point seems to be proved
by Elmsley (Annot. in Eurip. Med. p.
113, not. y): “Rectius auuvabeiv, d10-
Kabeiv, eixadeiv, eipyabeiv, ut ayayeiv:”
cet. Dind. assents (H. Steph. Lex. Gr.
in v. diwxaGeiv). Tr., ‘when Polus meant
that which was legally or conventionally
fouler, you dealt with his conventionalism
as if he had been speaking the language

of nature,’ i. e. you made his conventional
to include-a natural deformity.

ovoe pev yap—rd adixeitc8a:| Dobree
pr ponent Seaton oF oe Duccioten
vou de 7d Gdiceiv. Asa milder remedy
Stallb. suggests wacw tor-aav- Steph.
Deere 7rd GdixeioGa, which
does not much mend the matter. I had
bracketed the clause, but am now dis-
posed to leave it untouched, not because I
think Dobree’s conjecture “inane,” but
because the context seems to require
either these or other equivalent words.
Olympiodorus remarks on this passage,
ef 5 Gdicetrat tis wep Ta exTds 7H Td
o&ma, ovn ott kakdv. ovde yap ovveyer-
vhOnuevy rovTos, Gote Ta wh ed. Hutv
a&mudAbyTes ovK OpelAouey axOécOat- ef
3é Gdixotro H Wuxh, Kdxiorov: Kal Set
TéTe omevdew Tal’tns amadAayiva THs
adiclas. ppovticwpey ody Tov cwOFvat
Thy vuxhy, cidéres ds TA Xphuata Kat Td
capa ovdéy ovupBdAdAovTa. worhowmev
obv } elwev éxeivos. Atbtdy mév we
éodwoa Ti por méAct; aomls éxelvn
°Eppérw. The words quoted are from
Archilochus, and are generally cited
thus: abrds & eképuyov Oavdrov téA0s"

76
XXXIX. Ava radra dy

ITAATQNOX

[483, ©

, QA A 1 ‘
VOR@ pev TOUVTO QOLKOV KQl

A al A \
atioypov héyeta, TO TEoV CyTew Exew TOV TOAAOD, Kat

a an ‘\
dducety adtd Kahovow H O€ ye, olpat, Pvats avTH azro-

4 > 4 , /, > x > 4 lal Q 4
paiver av OTL Stkavov €OTL TOV AMLEWW TOU XE“povos a \€ov D

¥ Ss bit , Pr he , las \
EXelv KAL TOV SuvaTotepov TOU GOvvaTwTepov. Snot oe

n Lal 9 y yy A739 lal ȴ ,
TavTa Tohhaxov OTL OVTwS EXEL, Kal ev TOLS aAdoLs Caos

‘\ A > 4 5 9 Lal , A A tA
KQL TMV avOpadtrav €V oats Tals TONE L KQt TOLS yYEeveow,

9 Y N / , N , nan ¢
OTL OUTW TO OiKavov KEKPLTQL, TOV KPELTT@ TOV YTTOVOS

+ XN , ¥
apxyew Kal mA€ov EXEL.

> 4. / 8 , ,
E€7TEL TOLM LKOL@ XPeHEvos

BépEns emi tiv “E\\dda éorparevoey } 6 TaTHp avTov
> N 4 A. ¥ f9 ¥ lal , b) >
ert SxvOas; 7 adda Pupt av Tis Exo ToLavTa héyew. add,

> & ‘ , Q fal , A ,

olpat, ovToL KaTa pvow [THY Tod Sixaiov| TadTa mpar-
‘\ ‘ ‘ , 2S / lal

TOVOL, Kal val pa Ala KaTa vopov ye TOV THS PiTEWS, OV

, ¥ \ a oN e A , ,
pevto. tows Kata TovTOV dv Huets TIE UEOa wAdTTOVTES

domls éxelyn "Eppérw: etatris KThooma
od xaxlw. But in Aristoph. Pac. 1267,
the former line begins, Wuxhv & éée-
odwoa. It would therefore seem that
there were several readings of this cele-
brated Elegy. Possibly the Aristophanic
included the rf wot wéAee ; of Olymp.
aropatve: ad | Restored by Bekk. from
one MS. in place of airdé, which Stallb.
defends. Vulg. dv dropatvo: &v, which
he rejects as ‘‘lenius ac modestius quam
pro Calliclis superbia et confidentia.”’

D. dyAot] This verb may be in con-
struction with dvots, but it is better to
regard it as intransitive, either in con-
struction with tadra, or, better still, as
impersonal. ‘That such is the case may
be seen in a variety of instances; both
among the inferior animals, and in the
great civic communities of the human
race, as well as in whole families.” The
sentiments of Callicles, though differing
somewhat in terms, are substantially the
same with the doctrine attributed to
Thrasymachus in the first book of the
Republic, p. 338 © fol., Td Sixaoy odk
BAAo te elvar 7) Td Tod Kpeltrovos Evp-
pépov.

érel] ‘what right for instance had
Xerxes to invade Greece?’ éei is fre-
quently thus used with the imp. or an
interrog. Comp. Protag. 319 E, ézel
TlepikAjjs, K.7.A.: sup. 473 E, eel éepod
Twa Tovtwvi, where see the note.

} GAAa pup? &y] Routh quotes Apol.
41 B, } &AAous pvplous by tis fro Kad

&vbpas xa) yuvairas.

E. [thy tov &ixatov| Schleierm. first
cast suspicion on these words, which
have evidently crept in from the margin.

Tibéucba mAdtrovtes| Explained as
equiv. to T:@éuevor wAdTTOMEY, ‘ the laws
we model in our legislation.” wAdrrew
is joined with véuos. Also in Legg. 712
B, Tweipmucba, Kabdmrep maida mpecRoTa,
mAaTTEW TG AdYyH Tos véuovs. So with
modu, Rep. 374, in the sense of shaping
an ideal commonwealth. The word, of
course, originally meant to mould in wax
or clay, as the sculptor his models, but
in its metaphorical sense it is far more
frequently applied to persons or parts of
persons, as o@ua or Wux7jy, than to inani-
mate things, as indeed appears from
the passage quoted from the Laws. On
this account, I know not whether Ast’s
punctuation is not ‘better than that in
the text: tTi@éueOa. mwAdrTovres Tobs
BeAtiorovs kal epfpwuceverrdrovs judy
avtay, ex véwy AapBavortes (i.e. ofoTeEp
éx véwy AauBdvouer), «.7.A. The asyn-
deton may be compared with that in
Protag. 325 ©, ée maliwy cumpav aptd-
Hevol, «.7.A.. and the passage may be
thus translated: ‘in bringing into shape
(educating) the best and most vigorous
of our youth, we take them in hand at
an early age, and tame them as men tame
lions, plying them with spells and sor-
ceries, and telling them,’ &e. The art of
beast-taming was brought to great per-
fection at Athens, according to Isocrates,

—484, B. |

TOPTIAS.

77

‘ Af ‘ 22¢ , Me 2A >
tovs Bedtictovs Kal éppwpevertatovs Nua aviTav, eK
véwv hapBavovtes, G@oTEp éovtas KateTddovtés TE Kal

¥
yontevovtes katadovdovpeba | héyovtes ws TO toov xp)

¥ ‘ Ls, Ot = ‘ ‘ ‘\ ‘ ot
exew KQt TOVTO €OTL TO KaNov Kat TO OLKGLOYV.

2X ,
€av dé Y®&

oat, pvow ikavyy yévytar Exwv avyp, TavTa TadTa

amoceacdpevos Kai Siuappyiéas Kal Siuadvyav, Katama-

THoAS Th HETEPA YpdppaTa Kal payyavevpata Kal eT@-

Sas Kai vopous Tods Tapa diow aTavTas, eTavacTas ave-
, ra 3 / c “A ‘ > aA > yd

havyn Seaororns Nuetepos 6 Soddos, Kal évtadvla e€éaprpe
‘ a 7 , Land A ‘ , 9

To THS dvoews Sixaov. Soxet dé por Kat Iivdapos azep
Vi % , 2 § , ra) > a 7 3 Fy 7 Y

e€y® éyw evdcixvvclar ev TH Gopat. eY w héyer OTL

Nopos 6 mwavtrwv Bacireds Ovatav Te Kat aba-

Antid. § 228: Ka Exaorov roy éviavtdy
Oewpodytes ev Tots Batyact Tovs pey
Agovtas mpadrepor Siakeuevous mpds Tos
Ocpawevovtas 7) Tav avOpérwy evict rpds
Tovs eb ToiovvTas, Tas 8 &pKTous KaAty-
dovuévas kal mwadaovoas Kal pimoupévas
Tas juetépas émorhuas. Juvenal too
speaks of a tame lion as one of the
domestic pets of a Roman gentleman
(vii. 75). Aesch. Ag. 696, E@pepev 8e
A€ovros *Ivw Sduots GydAaxroy, k.T.A.

484. ay dé ye] ‘Ay, but if there come
a thoroughly strong-minded man, he, me-
thinks, will shake off from him and tear
asunder and escape from these trammels ;
he will tread under foot our prescriptions,
our witcheries and spells, in a word, every
ordinance that is at variance with nature ;
until, rising in open rebellion, he, the some-
time slave, appears in a new character as
our master; and herein does Nature’s
Justice shine forth in full lustre.’

Moyyavetuata}] Legg. 933 ¢, pay-
yavevpact Kat ofAtpos: Arist. Plut.
309, oveotv ce Thy Kipxny ye thy Ta
odpuar’ dvaxuedcav Kal payyavevovcar
poddvovedy Te Tovs ératpovs. Hesych.,
payyava, pdpnara, dlktva, yontevuata.
The form yayyaveia is found twice in
the Laws—908 pb, and 933 a—coupled
in the latter passage with gapuaxeia,
éerpdal, and karadécers. The alleged
etymology is udoow, whence uay-ls, udy-
epos. Sanscr. Masg, to soak—feucht-
machen (Benfey, Wiirz. Lex. i. p. 515).
Others derive the word from pdyos
directly.

B. Néuos 6 mdvtwy Bacireds] This
remarkable fragment is thus restored
and interpreted by Boeckh, Frag. Pind.

151:... Kara pvow ... Néuos 6 rdvtwv
Bactrebds @vatay te Kal dbavdrwr “Ayer
dicarav 7d Biadtatov “Treprdta xepi:
Texpalpouat “Epyo.oiy ‘HpakAéos, érel
Tnpudva Bdéas KuxAwrlwv én) mpobipwr
Eipuc@éos *Avaitjtas te Kal ampidtas
HAacev: “Secundum rerum naturam...
Lex omnium dominus mortalium et im-
mortalium affert vim maximam, justam
eam efficiens, potentissima manu. Id
assero ex Herculis facinoribus: quippe
Geryonae boves ad Cyclopia Eurysthei
vestibula neque prece nec pretio adeptus
egit.” Of the words not found in the text
kata puow are restored by coniparison of
p- 488 B of this dial. with Legg. 690 3,
with a gloss in Hesych. (Nopos. mavtwv
6 Baotreds Kata Thy pvow), and some
other passages ; Inpvdva ... Kai and
fjAacevy, from a Scholion on Aristides
Rhet. ii. 52, to which Boeckh was the
first to call attention. dva:tqras, ‘un-
hegged,’ though a Gat Acyduevor, is a
probable emendation of the unmeaning
avaipetrov of the Schol. referred to. For
dixatayv in the text of Plato h.1. the MSS.
give Biaiwy and Biai@y, whence the vulg.
Bialws. But d:ca:@y is found both in the
text of Aristides, 1]. 1., and in the Schol.
to Pind. Nem. ix. 35; also in Plat. Legg.
iv. 714 £. On the whole, the restoration
may be considered satisfactory, as it is
certainly most skilful. But to Boeckh’s
interpretation of &ye: Ast demurs, and
with apparent reason, for Biay or 7d
Biaéraroy &yew can hardly mean “ vim”
or “vim maximam afferre.’” His own
interpretation is better: “Abigit (ut
Hercules boves) s. rapit. Sic 488 B,
&yew Big tov Kpelrtw Ta Tov ATTévwY.”

78

IAATQNOS

[ 184, B

id ea A , , + ~ 1 &
vatov outros dé Oy, dnoiv, ayer Sukar@v TO Biard-
TATOV UTEPTATG XEpl TEKPalpopat Eepyototy Hpa-
khéos, émet amTpiatas—léye OVT@ Tas' TO yap Goma

ovK éTioTapal.
a , %\ 7 N
Tov Inpudvov yHrAacaro Tas

\ ‘ oy . iy ,
duxaiov duce, Kat Bovs Kat TaAG KTHpaTa Elvat wavTa C

, 2 9 ¥ , ¥ s
héyeu 5 OTL OUTE T PLAPLEVOS OVTE SovTos

Bovs, ws tovTov ovTos TOU

Le. a 4 ‘\ , ‘ lal fy ‘\
TOU BeXrtioveds TE KAL KPELTTOVOS TAHA TWV XELPOV@V TE KAL

HTTOVOV.

XL. To perv ody adnbes ovtas exer, yuooe dé, av emt

Ta peilw €Ons edoas non pirocodiar.

diiocodia yap

A 2 > , , ¥ Fy a ,
TOL €OTW, W@W SWKPATEs, XaPLEV; QV TLS AVTOV METPLOS

At the same time it is not impossible
that the dependent noun to &ye: is lost
with the context. Provisionally the
words may be rendered, ‘ carries all with
a high hand, justifying the extreme of
violence ;’ i. e. turning might into right;
and the entire fragment may be thus
paraphrased: ‘There is a law of nature,
the law of the stronger, to which all in
heaven and earth must submit, and which
overrides at times all positive enact-
ments, justifying deeds of violence which
are condemned by human codes. This
law sanctioned many of the exploits of
Hercules, otherwise indefensible: as in
particular, that in which he seized with-
out money paid or leave asked, the cows
of Geryones, and drove them from the
far-west away to the palace of Eury-
stheus, at Argos.’ The same thought is
expressed in homelier language by Words-
worth, in his poem on Rob Roy’s
Grave :—

“For why ? because the good old rule,
Sufficeth them; the simple plan,
That they should take who have the
power,
And they should keep who can.”

The phrase véuos mévrwy Bacidreds, de-
tached from the context, very soon be-
came proverbial ; and was used by Hero-
dotus and many after him, to signify the
‘tyranny of custom,’ a sense nearly the
reverse of that in which Pindar uses
it. See Herod. iii. 38, kad dp0ds por
Songer Tivdapos mwoijoa, véuov mavTwv
Bactréa phoas eivat. -When Boeckh
speaks of a law of fate, “fatalis lex,” he
introduces an idea equally foreign to

Pindar’s drift. The Law_spoken of is
that which the Greeks understood by
xetpav vduos (Aeschines c. Tim. § 5), the
Germans by ‘Faust-recht,’ and we by
‘Club-law,’ or the ‘law of the stronger,’
as I have paraphrased it. This sense
alone agrees with the context in Plato,
who in the Legg. (690 c) contrasts, with
a reference to this passage, T)v Tod vduov
éxdvtwy apxhv with Biaoyv. Ast takes
7 Biadtarov adverbially, translating
&yer Sicau@v “rapit ex suo jure agens;”
but I cannot agree with him. The Schol.
on Aristides has by way of interpretation
7 Sikaov ev isxupotdtn xepl aves.
Did he read &ve: for &ye: in Pindar’s
text?

érloraucat] This verb is frequently
used in the sense of knowing by rote, as
in Phaedo 61 B, ods mpoxelpous efxov Kah
Amiotdunv wv0ovs Tovs Aicémov, and
other passages quoted by Ast. It is also
used to denote personal acquaintance:
as by Aristoph. Equit. 1278, viv & *Apt-
yorov yap ovdels Boris ovK emlarTaTaL.

0. Pirocopia yap to] This view of
the use and abuse of philosophy was
doubtless very generally adopted by men
of quality and education, in Athens as
elsewhere, and it is a proof of Plato’s
dramatic impartiality, distinguishing
him favourably from most writers of
dialogues, that he should have put words
into the mouth of Callicles which to the
majority of his contemporaries would
seem the perfection of good sense and
political wisdom. Isocrates, a much more
decorous character than Callicles, indeed
a model of conventional propriety, speaks
precisely to the same effect in more than
one of his orations. For instance, in the

—

—484, D.|

TOFTIAX.

79

a > a ¢ F 38 \ , Len , >
auntar ev TH HAruKiar eav Sé mEepartépw tov Séovtos év-
4 x ww“ > , 3 ‘ ‘ ,
Suatpiby, SiapOopa tov avOpdtev. av yap Kal Tavu
> ‘ <a ‘ sae A ¢ , ey LS USS ,
evhuns 7 Kat TOPpw THS HrLKias Piiocody, avayKyn Tav-
Dtwv azmetpoyv yeyovevar éativ, Gv xp EuTerpov elvau TOV
, \ > \ ‘\ > , ¥ ¥ by
pédXNovta Kahov Kayabov Kal evddxyov eoeoOar avdpa.

kal yap TOV vopwv amreipoL ylyvovTar TOY KaTa THY TOW,
A nn , a Lal a ec al > n
Kal Tov Adywv ois Set ypopevov Spidretv ev Tols TupPBo-

hatois Tots dvOpamos Kai idia Kai ogia, Kal TOY
P a B &
Lal QA a Qn > 4 ‘ 7
Hoover Te Kal éemiOupiov Tov avOpwTeiwv, Kat ov\\HABdyv

Panathenaicus (p. 238 B) he observes,
THs pev otv madelas THs brd TeV mpo-
yovey katarepbetans TorovTou Séw kaTa-
ppoveiv, ScTe wal thy ep Huay kaTacra-
Ocioay éraiva, Aéyw 5& Thy Te yewueTplay
kal thy dotpodoylay Kat rods diadd-yous
Tovs épiotixo’s Kkadoupévous, ois of wey
veéTepot ma@AdAov xalpovor tov dé€ovTos,
tav d& mpecBuTépwy ovdels Eotw BorTis
by dvexrods abrovs elvar piace. GAN
bas eym tots apunuévas em tadra
mapaxcAcvouat toveiy Kal mpooexew Toy
voov Gract TovTots, Aéywy ws ei kal undev
BAAo Stvata TA pabhuata TadTa To.eiv
Gyabdv, GAN’ ody aworpéme: ye TOUS vew-
TE€pous TOAAGY KAAwWY GuapTnudTwY. Tots
“pev ody THAtkobTos ovdéroT’ by edpe-
Ojra voul(w siatpiBas wpeApmwrépas
TOUTwY OVSE uaAAOY Mpemovaas. Tots dE
mpeaButepois kat Tois eis &vSpas deSoxr-
pacpévots ovKétt Onl Tas meAeTas TabTas
apudttew. dpe yap évlovs tay én) Tots
pabhuact tovTas oftws aarnkpiBwopéervwv
Gore kal Tovs &AAous SiddoKev, od7’
edkalpws Tails émiothuats ais exovar xpw-
pévous, &y Te Tals mpayyatelas Tais wept
toy Blov appoveorépous bvtas Tay wabn-
TY, dxvm yap ciweiy Tay oikeTav. The
appositeness of this quotation must ex-
cuse its length. More to the same effect
will be found in Antid. § 280 fol.
(Bekker), in the Helenes Encom. init.
and other speeches: some of which con-
tain obvious polemical insinuations aimed
at Plato and his school. The Xeno-
phontic Socrates will be found also to
agree with Callicles in his sentiments on
this subject, better at least than with
his Platonic self. Comp. Mem. iv. 7. 2
fol.—Socr., as a philosopher, argues
Callicles, might naturally doubt the truth
of these doctrines: but let him take part
in the serious affairs of life, and his
doubts will disappear. ‘For Philosophy
is doubtless a pretty thing—a_ nice

amusement—if studied in youth, and
within reasonable bounds: but it is ab-
solute ruin to those who remain at their
studies too long: in fact, let a_man be
ever so highly gifted, if he philosophize
to an advanced period of life, it is im-
possible he can be versed in those accom-
plishments which every gentleman, every
man of consideration, should possess.’
év Axia means, strictly speaking, ‘at
the proper age,’ according to the original
sense of the word 7Afxos. It may there-
fore denote youth, or manhood, or mature
life, according to circumstances. In
Charm. 154 B, év 7H Ale is applied to
boys who are old enough and not too old
to have lovers, and so means ‘in early
youth,’ as it does here. But 2ép5w ris
mA.ktas does not necessarily mean “ ultra
juventutem,” as Stallb. translates: but
rather ‘far into life,’ as in such phrases
as méppw coplas édatvew (inf. 486 A),
réphw %5n éort rod Blov (Apol. 38 c),
which is in fact the more idiomatic use
of 7é$5w with the genitive. Comp. Xen.
Apol. Soc. 30, mpoBjrecba méphw pox-
Onplas: Arist. Vesp. 192, movnpds ef
awéppw TExvnSs.

D. Kal yap tv véuwy] The ignorance
of pedants like these extends not merely
to the laws of their country, and to
those principles which enter into all
covenants between man and man, or be-
tween one country and another; they
are equally ignorant of human pleasures

cha-

and passions; ingshort, of huma
racter in the aggregate. Trav Adywy, §

‘the AO aT eOeNeNAtone

duiretv is to be constructed with ois
av 06 : Tt S bis Se
xpjoba ev Te Sutdeiv Tots avOp. cup-
BéAaa is explained by the Schol., ai
aopddrciar Kal ovyypadad nal cvvOjKat

morcwv, Kal bs 1d Sikasov GAATHAaS i

Eveuor.

Solel

80

Tov HOaY TavTdTacw ameipo. ylyvovrat.
|

IIAATQNOX

[484, B

é€TELOav OvVE

EMwow eis Twa idiav 7 ToduTiKHYy mpakw, KaTayéAacToL

ylyvovtat, @aTEp ‘ye, Olwat, ob modtTLKOL, érevdav ad eis
\ ¢e ld ‘ »¥ Y ‘ 4

Tas vpetépas SiatpiBas EhOwou Kai Tovs Adyous, KaTa-

yehacrot Eliot.

oupBaiver yap Td Tod Evpuidov: hap-

, a 4 \ 9 > ,
T POs T €OTW EKQAOTOS €V TOUT®,

E. domep ye, oiuat| ‘as I suppose men
of the world are when they are admitted
to your reunions and the discussions that
take place there.’ S:arpiB7 is either the
place in which, or the matter about
which SarpiBe: ris. Of the former we
have an example in Charm. 153 a, ja
em) Tas ~vvnPers SiatpiBds. ‘1 was pro-
ceeding to my accustomed haunts: of
the latter passim. SiatpiBal Kal Adyor
are found together Apol. 37 0. Sd:atpiBA
is used for ‘ludus,’ a school of rhetoric
or philosophy, by Isocr. Panath. 237 a,
tTovs eoxnndtas THS euns SiatpiBis. So
by later writers in such phrases as 4
TlAdtwvos, ) Zhvwvos SiatpiBh. A. Gell.
xviii. 18, “ Sophisma a quodam dialectico
ex Platonis diatriba propositum.” Ibid.
xvii. 20 al.

To Tovd_EvpimiSov] These lines, and
those which follow presently, are quoted
from the Antiopa of Euripides, a drama,
which, if we may judge from the number
of fragments preserved by Clemens, Sto-
baeus, and others, was a favourite in the
schools. Zethus and Amphion were
twins, born to Zeus by the beautiful
Antiopa, and whom she was constrained
to leave on Mount Cithaeron, under the
care of a faithful shepherd. In this
seclusion Amphion, to whom Hermes
had given the lyre, devoted himself to
music and other liberal pursuits, while
the ruder Zethus led the life of a shep-
herd and huntsman. In the animated
dialogue, of which these lines form a
part, and of which some eighty or ninety
survive, each brother extols his own pur-
suits; Zethus twitting his brother with
effeminacy, unbusiness-like habits, &c.,
while Amphion dilates on the superiority
of intelligence to brute force, and similar
' topics. ‘The three verses in the text are
said by the Scholiast to have formed
part of the fjois of Zethus: but from
their tenour they seem more appropriate
to the character of the gentler and more
reasonable Amphion, and to him ac-
cordingly Hartung gives them (Euri-
pides Restitutus ii. p. 420). However

this be, Hartung is probably right in
regarding the words Aaumpds and i 8
as belonging to the text of Euripides :
Aaumpds & (8 Hart.) Exaoros xaml tod7’
émelyerat. The second verse is quoted
twice by Aristotle, once with a slight
variation, unimportant as regards the
sense (Rhet. i. 11. 28); the third by
Plutarch (Mor. pp. 514 a, and 630 B),
whose MSS. in the latter passage give
tvyxdvn, in the former rvyxdvet. The
reading tuyxdvn is also that of the MSS.
of Plato here and Ale. ii. 146 a, where
only one codex gives rvyxdve. This
latter is however more legitimate with
tva in the sense of dmov or év g, and
Buttm., Bekk., and the Ziir. Edd. adopt
it. Stallb. defends the vulg. tuyxdvn
on the ground that zplv, Sov, 80ev, and
similar adverbs of time or place, are by
the tragic poets frequently constructed .
with the conjunctive alone, in cases where
a prose author would have added &p.
He appeals to two well-known notes of
Porson, on Med. 222 and Orest. 141,
where however there is no mention of
tva. Some colour is lent to his opinion
by the succeeding érov & &y, and Ast
accordingly approves, though he had
given truyxdve: in his text. I have never
seen an instance of iva in its local sense
with the conj., and the ambiguity which
would arise from such use, between the
final and topical use of the particle, may
have caused it to be exempted from the
licence taken in the case of dzov, &e.
Probably, for a similar reason, fv’ & is
never used in a final sense, as as &yv and
brws &y frequently are. I have there-
fore not hesitated to retain Bekker’s
tuyxdvei, and the less so as the confusion
of e: and 7 or 71 is of perpetual occurrence
in ordinary MSS. In the degenerate
pronunciation of later times, 7, €1, o1, 1,
v had all precisely the same sound, as
they have in modern Greece at the pre-
sent day, the sound namely of our long
e or of the Italian 7 This confusion is
well known to scholars by the term
‘itacism,’ and has naturally been the

—485, 0. | TOPIIAS. 81

ay a + 7, ’
Kdmt Tour émelyerat,
, » “~ uA
vé“wv TO TAEioTOV Huepas TOUT [Epos,
93 rR e a 4 s *
iv avtos avrod tvyxdvee BeATLCTOS wv.

bd > x aA > A a aA
485 | orov & Gv daddos 7, evred0ev hevyer Kal Nowopel TodTO,
x > 4 nw , nw wn
To 8 erepov érawei, edvoia TH EavTov, Wyovpevos ovTws
22% € X > a) ~~ 24 49 - pang. , , >
auTOs E€auTov eae. add’, olwat, TO dpOdtaTov éeoTw
> j 4 “ , 4 4 a
ap.poTtépwv petacye. diiocodias pév, ooov tatdetas
xapw, Kahov peréyew, Kat ovk aicypdv peipakig ovte
~ > ‘\ A ¥ , x »¥
giiocopet ereidav Sé 4dy tpeaButepos av avOpwros
» X nn aN > > 4 ‘ iad ld
ett piiogody, katayéhactov, & Yakpares, TO xpHa yiyve-
» lal
BTA, Kal €ywye Guoidtatov Tagyw Tpds TOvs Piiocododv-
Tas WoTEP Tpds TOUS WedAiLouevous Kat TailovTas. Grav
X N , ¥ wy ? 2 y
fev yap tadiov dw @ ETL TpoorjKe SialéyerOar ovTw
Weddulopevov Kal matlov, xaipw Te Kat yapiey pou daive-
Tat Kat édevOepiov Kat mpérov TH Tod TaLtdiov HLKia:

y \ a SM , > , ,
otav S€ cadads Sialeyouévov madapiov aKovow, TiKpOV
=—_——
Ti pow Soxet yphma elvar Kal avid prov Ta OTa Kai pot
a v4 ee Fs SN. SD x > ,
Soxet Sovdompetés Tu civaur Grav dé avdpds adxovon Tis
Ail , x iC C- A aN 7 ‘ a
Weddilopevov 7H mailovta dpa, Katayéhactov ghaivetar Kat
ȴ wn
avavdpov Kat mnyav dfiov. Tadvtdv odv eywye ToOUTO
TATXW Kal Tpds TOds hilowopovrTas. Tapa véw pev yap

Q

cause of much vicious orthography in the
MSS. The general sense of the passage
is this: ‘every man will most distinguish
himself in those pursuits for which he
has a natural turn: to these he will ap-
ply himself with the greatest zeal and
assiduity.’

Aaumpéds | ‘eminent,’ ‘shining,’ as Eur.
Supp. 902, ob év Adyois Hv Aaumpds,
GAN ev aorld: Acids copioThs.

t¥—BéAtiotos Sy] ‘in which he is at
his best,’ or, ‘in which his forte lies.’
The idiom is sufficiently common, and is
illustrated in all the grammars.

485. gidocogias péev] ‘It is good, I
know, to have just such a tincture of
philosophy as may serve the ends of a
liberal training, and it is therefore no
discredit to a mere lad to philosophize.’
This comparative liberality is more in
' harmony with the notions prevalent in
the fourth than in the fifth century, B.c.
Aristophanes at least makes no such con-
cessions. Isocrates, on the other hand,

VOL. II.

though he had no head for abstruse philo-
sophy, and indeed thoroughly hated. it,

acknowledges very freely its educational

uses. After informing us that mathe-
matics and such-like sciences are of no
value whatever to those who profess them,
except as a means of getting their bread,
he admits that they are exceedingly
valuable to the pupils of such persons:
Tovs d€ pavOavovtas dvlynot- wep) yap
Thy wepittoAoylay Kai Thy axplBeay Tis
d&ortporoylas kal yewuetplas diarplBorTes,
kal Svcxarapabhjros mpdypacw avayKate-
bevor mpocéxew Toy voor, ert 5 cuveb-
Céuevor Aéyew Kal woveivy éxl Trois Aeyo-
pévois kal Secxvupevas, kal wh wewAavn-
méevny eéxew thy Sidvoy, év Tovrois
yupvacbertes Kal mapotvvOévtes pdov Kal
Oarroy T& onxovdadtepa Kal mwA€ovos kita
Tay Tpayudtwv amodéxecOau Kal pav-
Odvew Stvavra (Antid. 3, § 283, Bkk.).
We seem to hear some modern apologist
for “ University studies.”

G

Me

IIAATQNOZ

82 [485, ©

, CR , »¥ ‘ rs 5
peipakio dpav diiocodiav ayapat, kat mpéTEw pou Oo-
A le) ~ » mA
Kel, Kal Wyotpar e\evOepdv twa €ivar ToUTOV TOV avOpw-
mov, Tov S€ pn piiocododvta avedevOepov Kal ovdérore
a 4
ovdevds a€idcovta éavTov ovTE Kahov ovTE yevvaiou Tpay-
paros: orav dé dy tpecBurepov idw er. diiocododvTa D
i pa daaddarrd nye Soxet 78y Seto
Kal py amahdatrépevor, TAnyav pot Soxet Hdn detoOar,
> 4 e& c > , a ‘ n oy ¥ eee
® JaKpates, oVTOS O avynp. 0 yap voy Oy Edeyor, UTap-
, mr. 29 , x , > \ > FoF 8
xeu TOUT TO aVOpaTy, Kav Tavy evpuys 7H, avavdpy
yevér Oat hevyovt, Ta péoa THS TOEWS Kal Tas ayopds,
arch. 54 € > i camecyh, ey 5 > A ,
év ais ey 6 TownTys Tovs avdpas apumperets ylyver Oat,
KaTadeduKdte S€ TOV ourov Biov Biovar pera peipaxiwv
Die aeee Ce an a-~ , Q iC 2) 50 8é ‘
év yovia Tpiav 2 TeTTApav WiOupilovta, éhevHepov Sé Kat

péya kat ixavov pndémore PleyEac Oa.

XLI. “Eye dé, & Seéxpates, mpos oe erverKds exw
lal , Y , ~ 9 e “
puixds. Kwduveto obv rerovOévar viv dmep 6 ZiOos

\ \ 3 f ec > , -@ > 4 ‘\ ‘\
mpos Tov “Apdiova 6 Eipunisov, obzep euviabnv. Kai yap
a a gee a al
€mol TOLAUT aTTa ETEpXETaL TPOS GE hEyeELV oldmEP EKELVOS

Tpos TOV ddehpor, OTL Gpedets, @ Ydkpares, av oe oe
emypeheio Ba, Kat pvow Yoyns ade yervaiay peipaKiodes —

Twi Suampérers poppopart, | Kai ovr’ av Sixys Bovdaior 4 486
apobet’ dv dp0as déyov, ov7’ eixds dv Kat wiavov dd Bors,

E. GmeActs, & Séxpares] Critics can-
not be said to have succeeded in integrat-
ing the text of Euripides satisfactorily.
Nauck gives the following :—

« meres Gv [oe ppovritew expav ]
puxis Léxwv yap] ade yevvalay puow
[yuvatcoulu | Stampérets wopddpari
.... kovr dy donidos rire
[6p0Gs | dutAnoetas, ob7’ XAAwY brep
veavixdy BovAcvma Bovrctoatd [71].

(Frag. Eur. 185.)

Of these the second line is poor, though
not unmetrical, as Valckenaer’s: Aiox pas
Te wWuxis @de yevvala gto. The
first may probably have begun with
the voc. *Audiov. Nauck’s gpovricew is
perhaps better than the more prosaic
av éxmedciobal oe Se? of other edd., nor
is it unlike Plato to change a word in a
quotation. For yuvaixoulum we have
the authority of Philostratus: -yuvatro-
plum 8€ poppduatt Kara Toy Evpimldny

aisxp@s Si:ampémov (Vit. Apoll. iv. 160).
Olymp. by a slip of memory, aided by
ignorance of metre, says that Euripides
wrote yuvaindde.. He adds, cat ofr’ &y
Slxats (sic) BovAator: 6 Evpim. ebre
‘xa ob? &y domidos KUTEL mpoTomiAhoets.’
We are not therefore to force the former
words into the text, as Hartung and for-
mer critics have done; reading, oi7’ év
Binns Bovaaiow dpbds ‘ay Adyov TpoGeto
, mi0avdy. The vicious pause condemns the
former line: we must therefore presume
that Callicles paraphrases Euripides here,
as subsequently he puts mpayudrow for
moAeulwy. It is difficult to account fo
the apparent construction of géow with
diampérerv in Plato’s text, but it appears
from the passage of Philostr. that Euri-
pides did not intend his words to be so
taken, and that pbow depends on some
participle, éxwr, tpépwv, BAacrdy or the
like, which Callicles or the copyists wie
omitted.

[ lll saa thal daaltaes ‘5 Baal

BddoKov adixely undév adixodvta, oto f dtu ovK av Exous 6 2

©

—4186, 0.] TOPTIAS. 83
ov? dmép addov veavixdov Bovhevpa Bovredoato. Kaitou,

® bite SHxpares—xai pou pydev axPecOns edvoia yap
€p® TH on—ovK aicypor Soxet cou evar otTws exew ws
eyo oe ola Evew Kal TOVs aNouS TOS Tdpfpw aet dido-
codias éhavvovtas; viv yap el Tis Gov haBdpevos 7
d\Xov OTovoby TAY ToLOUTwY Eis TO Seo pwTHpLov amayayou,

4 nw > > > , xa A Lal 5
Te xpnoato cavT@, add idvyyt@ns av Kal yaop@o ovK
Exo 6 TL elmrots, Kal eis TO SuKacTHpLov avaBds, KaTyydpou
X , 4 »! “A > 4, + > 7
Tuxav Tavu pavrov Kat poxOnpod, arobdvors av, ei Bov-
hoito Oavdtov cou Timacbat. Kaito. Tas Godoy TodTO

> > , ¥ > A A , a
€oTw, ® BawKpates, ev tis evpva haBovoa réyvn hora
», 4 , } ¢ “A 7 “a >
€Onke xElpova, pyTe adTov avT@ Suvdwevov Boyle pnd
exo@oar ek Tov peyiotwv KwWdvvev pyTE EavTdY pyre

» / Lees \ A > a) n a

Gddov pndéva, b7d Sé Tav é€yOpav TepicvrAdobat Tacav
aS Ae > a Se ¥ a 2 a , x x
Tv ovoiay, atexvas O€ atiywov Chv év TH moda; TOV Se
TOLOUTOV, EL TL Kal aypolKdTepov eipnobar, eLeotw emi
Am, © fi \ 8 PS) / bi > a) ae , > ‘\
KOppys TUTTOVTA py OLddvar diknv. GArAN @ “yale, enol

Lal > > 7 / > > ,
wevov, mavoar S édéyywr, mpaypdrov § evpova tap

émt xépins| The blow np the face
with tie open hand, oppos 0 Kov-

486. wéppw dael— edadvovtas] The
phrase recurs in Crat. 410 E; Euthyph.

4; Plut. de Invid. 5388 a (eis écxarov
movnplas éAnAakétas). Comp. Euthyd.
294 8, 1ép5w codlas HKes, and tr., ‘who
are never satisfied with the progress
they have made in philosophy,’ but wade
deeper and deeper into its mysteries.

B. xarnyépov tuxav mdavu dpavdrov]
Alluding proba itus. Apol.
36 als. Anytus, though poxénpés,
would not have been called gavAos.

Oavdrov—ripacba| Apol. 36 B, Tima-
ta 3 obv por 5 avhp Oavdrov. The
formula is well known.

kaltot tas copdv| We have here at
least two lines from the drama: kal a@s
goody todT ectiy, ef Tis evpva AaBodtoa
téxvn ~a7 ZnKe xelpova. Some adda
third: uht’ abrdy aitg Suvdmevor [ xpoa-
apréoat|. With Bekk. I have given
evpva, as the Attic form, for evdvi,
which is found in the Bodl. and several
other MSS.

C. Grexvas 5 Hersuor | In a state of
virtual aziuta or disfranchisement: ‘to
all fateube and purposes WIT Gateast?

G

dvAots, Dem. Mid. p. 5387. See infra on
p- 527, note.

GAN & *yabé, €uol wel8ov] Here Stob.
and Olymp. together enable us to restore
the text of Euripides with tolerable con-
fidence. Read with Nauck—

«22+ GAA’ euol mi8od-

mavoat [meAwdar P|] moAcutwy 8 edmov-
olay

hore ToiadT &eide kad Sdtets ppoveiv:

okdrtwy, apav yiv, momvios [-wr,
Stob.] émotatar,

BAAos Ta Koma tadr’ apels coplc-
para,

ef Gy kevoiow eyxarounoes Sduots.

Nauck gets his neAgdav, whether fairly
or not, from Arist. Av. 1382, and Com.
ine. ap. Mein. iv. p. 659. Olymp. tells
us that woA¢uwy, not mpayudrwy, was in
the original, meaning evidently roAeuiwy
(Hesych. roAcplwv: wodcundy). For
tor ede «al Hartung proposes
To.adr wed 80ev 5. pp. as nearer to
Plato’s text. But «af is found in Stob.,

2

oneoe

Vita ab

ss

TIAATQNOX [ 486, 0

84

A » A x

doKel, kat doKe omdbev dd€ers fpovetv, addows TA Koprpa

na > od

Tavr adeis, etre \npypata xp? pavar civar etre pdvapias,

e€ Gv Kevotow éyKaTouknoets Sdpois Cyhdv ovk €hey-

an -_ x

XovTas avdpas Ta piKpa TadTa, GAN’ ols EaTt Kat Bios Kat
dda Kat d\Xa Toda ayaba.

XLII. SN. Ei xpvojv eyav érdyyavov thy Wuyyp,
> 4 > x ¥ ¥ ? ¢€ a“ 4 ‘\
® KadXikdeus, ovk Gv olen pe Aopevoy EevpEety TOUT@Y TWA.

“ , @ / ‘ 4 ‘ 5 , x
Tov NOwv 4 Bacavilovor Tov xpvadr, THY apiaTHY, TpOS
nvTwa epeddov Tposayayav avTyv, eb wou dwohoyynoecev

na a > »¥ 9’

exelvyn Kahds TeHcpaTedoOar THY Woyry, Ee eloerOaL OTL
e “A ¥ ‘\ > vA a» ,
LKaVOS EXW Kat OvdEeY [OL det ahdns Bacavov ;

KAA. [Ipods ti 8) tovT épwrds, & Yexpares ;

32. "Eydé cou €p& viv. oipar éy® coi evtetvynkas

7 e , > ,
TOLOUTH EppLai@ EVTETVYNKEVAL
,

KAA. “TUy ;

XN. Ed old dru av pou ad sporoyyoyns tepi av 7
9. =:S ‘ , PND > ‘ ees > A > la
eur yuyn So€dler, tavr ydn é€otiv avta TadnOn. €evv0d

yap ot. Tov péddovTa | Bacaveiy ikavas uyys mépr 487

3 A , ‘\ ‘ 4 » Ly, aA ‘ oA
dpbds te Ldons Kai pr tpia dpa Set eyew, & od Tarra
EXELS, ETLOTHPNY TE Kal EvVOLAY Kal Tappnoiav. eyo yap
nan py vA Oe dN > sed 22:5 , \
modXots evTvyxave ot ee ov oloi Te eiot Bacavilew dia

\ \ VS y E PETS Se \ Pas AEP
TO py Godot eivar woTEp ov ETEpoL SE Godot pév Elow,,

> > , 4 4 ‘\ > , ‘\ ~~ by 4
ov eBédovar S€é pou héyew THY adkyOaav Sid Td pr KASEO-
"6 WA , ‘\ be / >) * , .
Bai pov domep ov: Ta Sé Eévw Tadd, Topyias te Kal

For I remark that before

who quotes from roar’ to coplopata
(Anthol. 56. 13). Those who would
know all that is to be learnt of the
Antiope, and a little more, are referred to
Hartung’s Euripides Restitutus ii. 415.

D. Ei xpvojv éxwv]| Arist. Rhet. Qua-
tuorv. 174. 15, ef xpuojv ériyxavev
exwv thy Woxhy, oik by aitg Kaddlw
Bdoavoy mpoonveyxev : where the Schol.,
aytTiptAotimeirar Tots mapadelyuact Tod
MAdtwvos: 6 yap TAdrwy robs ayalods
xpucis txew Aéyer Tas Wuxds. The
xadAtw of Arist. illustrates thy aplorny
in the text.

E. Ed off S71] ‘Sure I am that if I
get you to assent to any opinions of
which my judgment approves, such
opinions may pass henceforth as abso-

lutely true.
any one can adequately try a human
soul as to its right or wrong living, he
requires some three qualifications, all of
which exist in you—knowledge, good-
will, and moral courage.’ For tpla &pa
I should propose tp? &rra. “Arta is very
commonly used with numerals, and the
force of &pa is but slight in the present
context. The interpreters give “tria
potissimum,” a rendering which answers
to &rra, but not to dpa. Rep. iv. 445 0,
Tértapa 8 éy adtois &rta ay Kal &kiov
emiuynoOjvatr; ib. iii. 400 A, bri ey yap
tpl &rra early clin... TeBeauévos by
etroiut. So in Arist. Eth. N.x. 10. 9, for
a unmeaning aird the context suggests
TTA.

—487, D.] TOPTIAS. 85

BIId\os, coda pev Kai dilw eordv eno, evdceatépw dé
mappnotas Kal aiaxuvTnpotépw paddov Tod S€ovros' Tas
yap ov; @ ye Els ToTOUTOY aigydyys EAndVOaTov, BaTE
dua 7d aloyvverOar Tohpa ExaTEpos adiTav avdTds avdT@
evaytia héyew évavtiov Tod\hav avOpdrev, Kal TadTa TeEpi
Tov peyiotav. ov dé TtadTa mavra exes & of addou OvK
¥ / , X e cal ec Wra ,
€xovou TeTaidevoai Te yap ixavas, ws Toddol av dyoaey
7A , ¢ \ 9 ¥ 4 4 Lal , > 4
‘APnvaiwv, kat wot el evvous. Tine TeKUNPLMY xpGpat; eye

7: A > ert 7% > , > Vd , »

CooL €pwo. oda vas €yw, ® KadXikheus, tTérTapas ovTas

‘ / / 4, \ 4 ‘ &
Kow@vovs yeyovdtas aodias, o€ Te Kai Ticavdpov tov is
*"Adudvatov Kat AvOpova Tov’ Avdpotiwvos Kai Navoixvdny Ruis ‘

tis Vous

A , / c “A > ‘ > ,
Tov Xodapyéa. Kat woTe vuav eyw éemyKovoa Bovdevo-
id ld 9 ‘ , > 4 ¥ ‘\ 303 4
pevav péxpt omot THY codiav aoKyTéov Ein, Kal oid OTL
+ > e ”~ 4, / ‘\ ~ > ‘\
évixa év tpiv todde tis Sd€a, py TpoPvpeto Oar eis _THY
axpiBevav ditocodety, adda evdaBetoOar wapexehever Oe
—_—_—
D addy ots OWS "7H Tépa TOU S€ovTos GodPwrepor yevdopevot

Ajoere SiapOaperres.

B. aioxuvTnpotépw uaAdAov Tod SéovTos |
So presently (D), répa tod S€ovTos copa-
TEpol.

©. “Avipwra toy *Avdporiwvos] He is
named among the godof assembled in
the house of Callias, Protag. 315 0. Of
Tisander nothing seems to be known.
The deme of Nausicydes was not XoAap-
yevs, as the Schol. gives it, but XoAap-
yeis. He may have been the same per-
son as the Nausicydes mentioned Xen.
Mem. ii. 7. 6, and Aristoph. Eccles. 426,
as a wealthy meal-merchant (éAqita-
poiBds, GAdiroroids).

éxjkovca|] So the Bodl. and Bekk.
Vulg. irfhxovea, which Heind., strange
to say, prefers. The confusion is of
common occurrence in MSS. Thus in
Arist. Nub. 263, eipnuciv xph Tov mpeo-
Birny kal rijs ebxjs éwmakovery, the old
reading, corrected from the Ravenna,
was tbraxovey. Ib. Vesp. 318, pido,
Thkopat wey mada, ia THs Orjs “Tuav
bmwaxovwv (Meineke, érakotwyr). énra-
nove is ‘to lend an ear,’ ‘to listen,’ ‘to
attend to,’ draxover, ‘to answer toa call,’
*to obey :’ the former always takes the
genitive, the latter generally the dative.
In Theaet. 162 p, we have, r7js dnunyoptias
bg€ws traxovers xal wefOe, no MS. giving

émaxovers, which seems however prefer-

> ‘ > > 4 ~ > fe!
€mrELOy) OVV GOV AKOV@ TAVTA EOL

able, if only to avoid tautology. Ib. 255,
“AOpe: 5) mepicxomav, va wh Tis TOV
duvhtwv émaxoty, the MSS. are unani-
mous, yet Heind. says, “ Malin éraxovn,”
adducing the present passage. Comp.
however Arist. Thesm. 627, oi & azo-
oT7Ol pot, “Iva ph "raxovons (sc. éra-
kovons) &v avhp, where, as in Theaet. 1. 1.
the word implies ‘to hear as a bystander
who has no right there—to overhear’
(nearly as rapaxovey, Euthyd. 300 p, 6
dé, Gre wavodpyos Gy,.. avT& TavTa mapa-
«nxder). Add to these exx. Xen. Anab. vii.
1.14, ewaxotoavres 5€ tives TOY OTpa-
Tiwrav Tadra, i.e. from Anaxibius, whose
words were intended for the officers.

méxpt S101] So Xen. H. G. iv. 7. 5,
méxpt mev wot mpos Td Tetxos Hyayev 6
*AynalAaos, méxpe 5& wot Thy xdpay
édjywoev. Hirschig gives the commoner
expt Sov, on no MSS. authority.

evAaBeic0c1—diapbapevtes] ‘to take
heed lest if you become wise overmuch
(over-educated) you be spoilt ere you are
aware,’ i.e. or, as we should say, ‘lest
you find, when too late, that you are
quite unfitted for practical life.’ So
A484 0, éay 5 wepairépw evdiarpivn, dia-
p0opa Tay avOpérwv. It was in this sense
that Socr. was said by his accusers d:a-
pbeipew Tods véous,

86 ITAATOQNOX [487, D

“ ~ , e ,
cupBovdevovtos, amep Tots TEavTOD ETALpOTAaTOLS, LKAVOV
a ” > \ ‘
pou TeKENpLov eat OTL WS GANOAs jot EdVOUS EL. Kal pNY
, > ,
6ru ye olos mappynoidler Oar Kai py aloxdver Oar, avtds TE
X ee 4 a BNC 4 aN e » a
dys Kat 6 Néyos Gv ddtyov mpoTeEpov Eheyes OMoAoyel TOL.
ad \ e A lal 9 4 la /. 52 ape
éyet 51) ovTwot SHdrov OTL TOUTHY TépL VUV' eav TL OV &Y
lal 4 . gar +
Tois dyous Gpoloyyjons por, BeBacavicpévoy tovr 75n E
cora. ikavas br euov TE Kal Gov, Kal ovKETL adTo SejoeL
t ee es , > , > ‘ » 222%,
ém addnv Bacavoy avapépev. ov yap av TOTE AUTO GUP-
¥ 9 ,
exépynoas od ovte codias évdeia ov7 aicyvvyns TEpLovaigs
793 > s lal > 7 A »” w aN , >
ovd ad amatav ewe ovyxwpyioas av dios yap pou él,
ie ay \ ‘\ ‘ ?
@S Kal. avTds dys. TO ovTL ody N-EuN Kal on Opodoyia
»” y A 5 7 , , , > .\
Téhos Non e€er THS GdAnOeias. mdvrwy dé KaddioTn éoTiv
4 oxdds, ® KadXikdets, wept tovTav dv od Sy pou éme-
A > ¥ ‘ ,
Tipnoas, Toldv Twa xpi) Elva TOV avdpa Kal Ti émiTY-
la) \
Sevew Kal | wéxpr Tod, Kal mpeoBvrepov Kat vedrtepov 488
lal \ \
OvTa. eya yap el TL pi) 6p0Hs mpdtTw Kata Tov Biov Tov
> A a * an 9 > SIN > , > >
€uavTov, ed tau TovTo OTL ovx Exav eLapapTdva add
A lal Ss 4 ¥ “ X
dpalia TH eun. od ody, doTEep Hp&w vovlerely pe, pH
> Lal b) 9 a » 4.» nw aA >
GmroaTHs, GAN ikavds por evderEar Ti EoTL TOVTO 6 EmiTY-
Kat
ts X , “ , e X 4 > de eons 4 -?
edv we ha Bys viv pév vor dmoroyjcavta, év 5€ TH VATEPH
A 9
Xpov@ py TavTA TpaTToVTA aTEep Hpohoynoa, Tavu ME
A aA >
Hyod Braka eivar Kat pnKéte ToTE me vouleTHays VaTEpor,
€ Sepne 4 ¥ 2¢ 3 a § , > , a
@s pndevds akvov ovta. €€ apxyns Sé pou éravddaBe, Tas

X
Sevréov por, Kal Tiva Tpdmov KTNoaipny ay avTo.

B

D. exet 5h odtwot SjAov bri] ‘The
case then evidently stands for the pre-
sent thus: d5%Aov dr: being adverbial, as
inf. 490 B, GAA’ cis brodhuara SiAov Srt
def TACovenTeiv.

E. TG byt oby| ‘Thus, without exag-
geration, our agreement will result in the

_ perfect truth :’ i.e. any proposition upon

| which you and I shall agree, is sure to

/ be thoroughly true. 7@ dvti, like arex-
v@s, is used by way of apology for a
seemiilgly hyperbolical statement.

488. édy we AdBns| If you gain my
assent now, and then in time to come
find that I fail to practise what I have
agreed to, account me a very dolt, an
imbecile, and never waste advice upon
me again. Adi implies feebleness both
of mind and character. Thus in Xen.

Eq. 9. 12, BAat trmos is opposed to
Ovpoedhs. Olympiod. in 1, 7d BAdE
bvowa yéyovev amd Tod wadakod. For the
interchange of « and 8 compare Buttm.
Lexil. No. 108; Donaldson, N. Crat.
§ 218. Also Curtius, Gr. Etym. pp. 292,
297, 471. :

B, ef dpxijs dé wor ewmavddaBe| After a
long rhetorical interlude, Socr. resumes
his dialectical weapons, and makes a
formal attack upon the position taken
up by Callicles, sup. p. 484 a. The
elenchus is thus managed. The more
powerful, the better, and the stronger,
mean, according to Callicles, all the
same thing. But the Many are more
powerful than the One. Hence the laws
and maxims of the Many are those of the
more powerful, and therefore of the

—488, D.] TOPTIAS. 87

/ A ‘ UA
dis To Sixavov eyew kai od Kat Iivdapos 70 Kara diow ;
lal ‘ ¥
ayew Bia Tov KpeitTw Ta TOY YTTOVEY Kai apyew TOP
e\riw TOV yeLpoveyv Kal mréov Eyew Tov GapEivw TOU
ey alia X : Z
7 7 ‘\ / > Lal
davdorépov ; py TL GANO Ayers 7d Sixarov eivar, } dpOas
4
pepo ; : :
‘ n , fal
: : & TavTa €heyov Kat » Kal vv
XLII. KAA. *AdXr d TOTE v
héyo.
“~ ‘
XN. orepov Sé tov avrov Bedtiw Kadeis od Kat
® * “A
O Kpeitt@ ; ovd€ ydp Tou TéTE olds T 7 mabey Gov TI ToTE
A .
héyers. WdTEpov Tovs LaxUpoTEépous KpEiTTOUS KahEls Kat
a cal val e
Set dxpoacba Tod ioyupotépov Tovs adaUeveorépous, oidv
Las ‘ , > 5 , e € , ,
prot Soxeis Kal Tore evdeixvvcar ws at peyadau modeLs
9
€mt Tas opikpas Kata 7d hice Sixavoyv epyxovTat, ore
Kpeitrous eiol Kai ioyupdTrepar, ws TO KpEtTTOV Kal Loyxv-
porepov kai Bédriov TavTov ov, } eat. Bedtiw pév eivat,
ntTw dé kai adoevéotepor, Kal KpeitTw pev elvat, woxOn-
/ 2. ln € 2 4 9 > ‘ A ‘4 ‘ A
D potepov Sé H 6 adtos opos éati Tov Bedtiovos Kai Tod
la A A \ a
Kpeittovos ; TOUTS por avTO Gadhas Sidpicov, TadTov 7
4 , > \ im ‘ \ , ‘ 1 Fer ,
Erepov €oTL TO KpetTTov Kail TO BédtLOV Kat TO ioxupd-
TEPOV ;
KAA. *A\N éyé cor cadds déyw Stu TabTév éoTw.
32. OvdKody ot woddot Tov Evds KpettTovs eloi KaTa
4 a ‘ ‘ ‘ / , } eM, Re €...8 y
dvow ; ot 8} Kai Tods vopous TiWevrar emi TO evi, GaTEP
Kal ov apte edeyes.
KAA. IIés yap Ov ;
. “A ll lal
32. Ta trav wodd\@y apa vopipa Ta TOV KpELTTOVaY
€oTl.
KAA. IIdvv ye.

better. By the premisses, therefore,
these maxims are by nature beautiful.
But it is the opinion of the Many, as
indeed Callicles had himself insisted,
that equality is just, and also that to do
injustice is ‘uglier’ than to suffer it.
These maxims are therefore ‘ beautiful by
nature,” and not by law or convention
only, and law and nature are not con-
trary the one to the other, as Callicles
had maintained; nor had Socr. been
guilty of sophistry in ignoring the dis-

tinction. A similar dialectical artifice is
in the Theaetetus employed against a
paradox of Protagoras (Theaet. p. 170).

kal od Kal Tflvdapos}] Above, 484 B.

C. axpoacGa | Used, as more frequently
a&xovew, in the sense of iraxovew, obe-
dire.

D. éx! r@ év{] As a check upon the
one. So Legg. 853 c, quoted by Heind.,
tTovTwy &rotpomis Te Evexa Kal yevouevar ,
KkoAdoews Tiévat én’ abrois vduous. i

88 TIAATQNOS [ 488, E

: a 4 ‘ ,
- YQ. Odxotv ta tov Bedrtidvav; ot yap KpeEltTovs E
, ‘ ‘ \ \ /
BeXztiovs mod Kata Tov cov oyov.

KAA. Nat.

,

SQ. Ovxodvy ta TovTav vopiwa Kata dvow Kadd,
KPELTTOVO@V YE OVT@V 5 —

KAA. @npt.

> y »”

32. *Ap’ odv ody ot Toddol vopifovaew ovTws, ws apTL

> \S » pass 5 \ » ¥ 4.0 ey N

av ov éheyes, Sixasov eivar TO toov Exe Kal aloo TO

> a nA 3 a » A a. SY . ¢ \
GdiKely TOD adiKetoOat ; | EoTL TAVTA H OV; Kal OTws MH 489
lal a €
Gdooe evTav0a ad aioyuvdpevos. vopilovaw, 7 ov, ob
\ \ ” »” C] > b) \ /, / > \
modXot |r5 toov éxew GAN ov Td TEov} Sikasoy civat, Kat

¥ ‘ 5 La) A > A“ \ , >
aigxiov TO ddiKely TOV adiKetobar; My POdver por azro-

, “~ ld AR Bg ec 4
KpivacOa. tovto, Kah\ikhes, w, €dv por oporoynays,

, ¥ ‘ Coheed e nA 39 \ A
BeBardcopar ndn Tapa ood, are ikavov avdpos Siayvavar
@pLohoynkOTOS.

KAA. “AX ot ye Todt vopilovow ovtas.

SQ. Ov vdpw dpa povov éotiv aicxyiov Td adiKety TOU
> a 2QA , A. &. ¥ > \ ‘ ,
adiuceta Oar, ovdée Sikaroy Td toov Exe, GANA Kal pice
9 , py > lal , > “a ld HOE
@oTe KWouvevets OVK anOH éyeww ev Tots TpdcOE OvdE
6pOas euov KaTynyopew héyeor| dru évavtiov é€otly 6 vdj0$

A 3e , a \ ONE ‘ eR. etn ,
Kal» pvows, & 57) Kal ey yvods Kakoupy® €év Tots hdyots,
3X , ‘\ , 6 >. A ‘ ld + aN ,
éav péev Tis Kata pvow héyp, emt Tov vopov adywr, éav dé
Tis KATA TOV Vdmor, ert THY Pow.

XLIV. KAA. Otdrtociv dvnp od mavcerar hdvaper.
Eimé pou, & YdHKpartes, ovK aloyvver, THALKOUTOS WY, 6VO-
pata Onpevav, Kai édv Tis PHwaTL apapTH, Eppavoy TOvTO

4 > ‘\ ” »” , ‘ 4 >
TOLOUVMEVOS 3 EME yap oler AAO TL A€yew TO KpEiTTOVS Elvat O

E. Ap’ ody ovx| Bekk. retains this
old reading But the odx is not found
in the Bodl. nor in the majority of MSS.,
and is omitted by the Ziir. and Stallb.
With Hirschig I prefer to retain it.
‘Is it not true—as in fact you yourself
recently maintained—that the majority
hold the opinion,’ &e.

489. BeBardowpuot Hin mapa cod} ‘that
I may henceforth make sure of it on
your authority,’ adrdé, understood from
Tovro, being the object of the verb.
BeBaréoac0a is a middle transitive, as

Heind. remarks, and = ‘mihi confir-

mare.’ Compare Rep. 461 2, as 58
érouevn TE TH UAAH ToArTela Kad paKpe
Beatiorn, Set 5 7d peta ToITO BeBatd-
cacbat tape Tov Adyou.

B. dvéuara Onpedwy| The * aucupari
verba” of Cicero. To give chase to
words—to lie in wait for verbal inaccu-
racies, as a fowler for game. Socr., says
Callias, reckoned a slip of the tongue a
very god-send, and of this, at his time of
life, he ought to be ashamed.

D

E

—489, E.|

TOPTIAS.

89

) TO Bedrious + ov 7adau.cot Age OTL TAVTOV Pye elvat
To Bédtiov Kai Td Kpeirrov ; ; 7 olew pe héyew, éav cup-
eros ouheyp Soviov Kal ravtodatav avOparrav padevds
afiov may icws TO oopare ioxupioac bat, Kat. obToL
POCW, aUTA TavTA Elva Vopina ; SSG

x2. Eiev, & coddrate Kaddixdess ovTw déyens ;

KAA. Ilavv pév ovr.
3. "ANN eyo per, @

8 4 \ He -N 4
QULOVLE, Kal auTos madat

, Lal , 4 4 A “~ \ 5 al
Tomalw TovwovTov TL oe eye 70 KpELTTOY, Kal avEepwTo

waiter 4 a
yixopnevos cahas ELOeval © TL héyeus.

> ‘ /, ,
ov yap Syrov ov

ye Tovs S¥o Bedriovs Hyet TOV Evds, OVSE TOVS Gods Sov-
hous Bedriovs ood, dtu ioyuporepol eiow H ov. GAA Taw
> > A ee - , , ‘ , > or > ‘
e€ apyns eimé, Ti mote héyets TOUS BeXtious, éELdn Ov TOs
ioyupotépous ; Kal & Oavpaove tpadtepdv pe mpodidacke,
Wa pn aropowryiow Tapa cov.

KAA. Eipavedver, & Ydxpares.

2. Ma Tov Zhbov, & Kaddikras, @ od ypdpevos

——

©. 7 ofer we A€yeww—vdpima | ‘Or think
you I mean that if a rabble be got toge-
ther,—of slaves and all sorts of wretches,
good for nothing unless, perhaps, for

feats of Physicat strength, and these
people say this or that,—that these their

mere dicta are to have the force of law ?’
The interpp. differ in the sense they
attach to ioxuploac@a:. Heind., “cor-
poris viribus fidere;’” Ast, “corporis
viribus pollere.’” The verb has both
senses, but the latter suits the context
better. Prof. Woolsey quotes Dio Cass.
p- 406 (Reimar. ), xarAerdy ioxupiComevdv
TL T@ Thpatt dpoviueratoyv éxBjvat. The
same sense is evident in Arist. Eth. N.
iv. 3. 26, cis téds AoGeveis irxupl(erOa
goptixdy. The article evidently belongs
to odéyuari, not, as Ast supposes, to icxvu-
ploac@at, which depends on duvarol, or
some equivalent antitheton to ovdévos
BEto1,—a very common form of the ox7jua
Kata Td onuawducvoy. daow standing
without a case has scandalized many of
the comm., but the remedies proposed
oy not happy. The best, perhaps, is &
dy obra paow, adta Tadr elvar vdutma.
Ficinus, “hos, praeterquam fortasse cor-
poris viribus, esse potentiores : et quae
hi statuant, esse jura.” From this Van
Heusde extracts the following: icxup!-

cacbat, TovTous elvat Tods Kpelrrous, Kal
& ay paow, aitd, x.T.A. But probably
Fic. was merely translating his own con-
jectural text, as we frequently find him
doing. Ast in his larger comm. ap-
proves the conj. of Heind., nal obra
oaow tra, TadT’ elvat véuma, to which,
neat as it is, I prefer the received text.

D. mpadrepdy. we mpodldacKe — cod]
‘Instruct me with more gentleness, lest
I leave your school’ and seek another
master. mpodiddoxew is said by the
Schol. to be equiv. to the simple d:ddo-
Kew, Tepittever % mpd0ects “ArtiKds.
Soph. Phil. 1015, ed mpovdldater ey xaxois
elvat ooddy: where Ellendt observes,
* Praepositio non alii rei constituta est,
nisi ut monita tempore priora esse quam
quod inde redundet indicet.” But zpo-
diidoxe and mpomayvOdvew are corre-
lative terms, denoting the relation be-
tween master and pupil. Arist. Nub.
966, «iv? ad mpomabety dow edlSacker:
Legg. 643 ©, bet éx waldwv ... Ta
pabnudr ov boa avaryKaia mpouenadn-
Kévat TpowavOdvery.

E. M& roy ZH0ov] od is absent in all
the codd., but is added from Hermo-
genes and the margin of a Florentine
cod.’ by Stallb., who remarks, “aut
diserte addenda est negandi particula,

90

ITAATQNOZX

[489, EB

TOAAG vov Sy eipwrvevou mpds pe GAN Ut eimé, Tivas dé-

yeus ToUs Bedtious civas ;

KAA. Tovds dpetvous eywye.

>2.

‘O a » 9 ‘ Bi > & es dé PS) X n
Pes apa OTL OV AUTOS OVOLATA cyYEls, ) ous

dé ovdev. ovK Epels, TOVs BeATiovs Kal KpeitTous TéTEPOV
‘ / , a » ,

ToUs Ppoviswrepovs Eyes 7) adAous Twas ;
KAA. “Adda vai pa Aia TovTovs heyoo, Kal opddpa Ve.

2. Todddkus dpa es Ppovev pupiov | al Ppovovv- 490

Tov Kpeltrav €oTl KaTa TOV OOV Aoyor, Kat TOUTOV dpxew
Set, Tos 8 dpyerOa, kat mréov Exew Tov apxovTa TaV
apyopn.evav. TodTo yap pou Soxels BovrdecIar éyeww—xat
ov pypata Onpevw—, ei 6 els TOV pupiwr KpeitTwr.

KAA. ’Add\a tadr eorw

a , la) ‘ >
a €yw. TOVTO yap olpat

- ees XV , +> , 53 7 »” ‘ ,
ey@® 7d Sixaioy etvar dioe, TO Bedtiw dvta Kat dpovipe-
TEpov Kal apyel Kat m€ov Exew TOV PavdoTépov.
XLV. 3. "Eye 8% adrod. ti wore ad viv héyeus ; Cav
> Lal > nan Ss y nw ». 2 , >” A
€v TQ AVT@ Gpev, WoTEP VUV, TOOL AOpdot avOpwroL, Kat
e la 3 9 Lal A , A 4 > X
Hpi 7 ev Kow@ Todda oiTia Kat ToTd, @wev SE TavToda-
, a a) 4 , e ee a @ i. Greg 5
mot, ot pev ioxupoi, ot S€ aabeveis, cis Sé Hudv 7 Pporr-
P@TEpos Tepl TadTa iatpds wv, 7 Sé, oloy eikds, TOV per

> , A , <5 , e » a
ioyupdrepos, Tov Sé daOevéatepos, ado TL ovTOS Ppori-
POTEpos Yuov av Bedtiov Kal KpEiTT@V EoTaL Eis TAUTE ;

KAA. Ilavu Ye.

aut, si ea omittitur, formula referri debet
vel ad praecedentem aliquam interro-
gationem cum negatione conjunctam, vel
ad sententiam subsequentem, quae aut
particulam adversantem habeat, aut
negandi vi praedita sit.” But the usage
in Alcib. i. 109 D is exactly in point:
oxémres, @ Sdxpares—Ma Tov opidrsov
Tov éudy te Kal ody, dv eyo Heior” by
emiopxhoamt GAN elxep Exes, ele, ths
éort; The following passage would fall
under Stallb.’s rule: Phileb. 36 a, rére-
pov adyotv® bAws y) Xatpovra ;—Ma Ae,
GAAG SiwaH tive Abn Avwodmevov. But
that in the Alcibiades would need altera-
tion as well as the present. It is to be
observed that Hermogenes quotes from
memory, as appears from his substituting
tow Ziva for roy Z7Gov (Rhet. Gr. ed.
Walz. iii. p. 425; Aldus, p. 155).

490, *AAAG Tadr’ Zor & Aéyw] Calli-
cles, seeing the absurdity of making
physical strength the criterion of justice,
declares that he meant by ‘ the stronger’
the better and wiser. It is these who,
aceording to natural justice, ought to
govern and ‘have more’ than their in-
feriors. The analogies which Socr. sug-
gests, go to prove that the wise man is
entitled to more power, but not to a
larger share of property than his in-
feriors. On this principle the ruling
body in the Republic is constituted.
The instances adduced are taken as usual
from common life, and are not the less
apposite for their studied grotesqueness.

B, &AAo t obtos| I have followed
Bekk. in omitting #, which the codd.
insert after zi.

—490, E. | TOPTIAS. 91

s > A ean
© 32. °H ovv tovtwov Tov oitiwy mhéov Hueov ExTéov
lal / lal ¥ lal
ait@, ott Bedtiwv eotiv, TO péev apxew TavTa eKeivov
Las 4 > \ a > , : ye. x oe
Set véwew, ev S¢ TO avadioxew TE avTA Kal KaTaypnolaL
‘
€is TO EAUTOV THA OV TNEOVEKTHTEOY, EL oy meer Cypi-
Leal .Y ~
ovoGa, dA\aA Tov pev TAEOV, TOV O EeAaTTOV ExTéov" éav

5 , , > , ¥ , 2» 7 a
de TUXN TAVT@V AT 0 EVEOTATOS WV, TAVTWV elayio TOV T@
Seen,

Bedtiot@, & KadXirdeus ; ody ovTws, & “yale ;
KAA. [Tlepi] Xuria déyers Kai word Kai tatpovs Kat
, > A \ > “~ 4
D ddvapias: éya Sé od Tadra héyo.
3. Idtepov ody tov dpovipwtepov Bedrtiw déyers ;

Sar 7} py.
KAA. "Eyoye.

XQ. °ANN od tov Bedtiw mhéov Sev Exe ;

KAA, Od citiwv ye od8é roTar.

32. MavOdve, aX tows ipariov, cat det tov ihay-
TUOTATOV méytoTov iwdtiov Exew Kal mrEloTa Kal Kad-

Avora. autreydpmevov TEepwévar.

KAA. Iloiwv ipariwv ;

XQ. °AN’ cis brodjpara SHrov dru Set wheoverretv

‘ 7 > A“ ‘\ ,
ETOv dpovipetartov eis TavTa Kat BédAticTOv.

TOV OKUTOTO-

¥ 4 8 “ e 5 , ‘ X “A e 5 8 &
Mov lows beyloTa €l UTOONMATA KAL TACLOTA VITOOEOE

fevov TEpuTarelv.

KAA. [lota irodypara pdvapeis Exar ;

D. [Tept] Sitla Aéyers. The preposi-
tion is interpolated. Plato would have
written wep) ovriwy Aéyers. I have there-
fore followed Hirschig in bracketing it.
So 491 a, for wept tlywy 6 xpelrtwy Te
kal poviudrepos mAdovy exwv Sixalws
mTAcoverte?; it is clear that Plato wrote
tlywv ... wAéov xa, i.e. if not iuatiwv
or drodnudrwy. In this latter instance
we must have had ep) riva, ‘in regard
of what?’ In one cod. a is written over
wy, and Heind. remarks, “ Rarius lo-
quendi hoc genus wAcovextety wept Tivos
pro wepi 71; cujus exemplum non est in
promptu.” In both cases the preposition
mars the idiom of the language; and in
the second instance it seems to have
come down from the preceding line. Of
an interpolated wepi I see an instance
also in Theaet. 179 E, kat ydp, 4 Sexpares,
[wept] robrwy Trav ‘Hpaxarcctelwy, }) Somep

od Ayers ‘Ounpelwy, wad eri maraoréepwy,
avrois uv Tots wep) thy “Edecor, boat
Tpoomo.odvTat Eumerpor elvat, ovdey UaAAOY
oidv re diadexOjvat 2 Tots oioTpaow:
«Of these Heracleiteans, &c., those at
head-quarters (airots) who live at or
near Ephesus,” as distinguished, for ex-
ample, from the Heracleiteans at Athens.
This seems better than the awkward
rendering, “quod attinet ad,” or even,
as it seems to me, than the more in-
genious supposition that “HparAcrelwy
is the epithet of doyudrwy understood,
not of avipav, as the words ‘HpaAeclrov
ératpo: occurring a few lines before
would lead us to suppose. A clear in-
stance, noted by the’comm., occurs ibid.
181 D: Thy pev GAdoiwow, Thy St [rept]
popav,

E. Iota drodquata pavapeis exw]
‘What shoes are you prating about?’

bush

-

92 ITAATANOX [490, #

’ “
BQ. "AN ei py Ta Towadra éyeus, lows Ta TOLddE
2 x A § \ al 4 / x X ‘
otov yewpyikov avdpa trepi ynv ppdviypdv Te Kat Kadov Kal
lal ¥ al A la :
ayaldv, TovTov 51) tows Set mEoventely TOV OTEpPaTwV

‘\ lal la) lal
Kal ws ThelaT@ oTeppat. ypnoOar eis THY avdTOd yh.

KAA. ‘Ns det Taira héyers, & Sdxpares.

XQ. Ov pdvov ye, ® Kadd{ixdes, dda Kal wept ToV
avuTOV.

KAA. Ny? | rods Oeovs, areyvds ye del oxutéas Te Kal 491
Kvapéas Kal payeipovs héywv Kal iatpods ovdey aver,
OOTEp TEpl TOVTAV Huw ovTAa TOV éOyor.

32. OvKodtv od épets [wept] tivwv 6 Kpeittwv TE Kal
ppovipwTepos Té€ov Eywv Sikaiws TeoveKTEl ; 7) OUTE E00
¢ 4 > - ¥ 3 > \ > *
vroBaddovros avéFer oT avTos épets ;

KAA.

, 4 > > / 4 > A ?
KpelTTOUs Ol Elo, OV OKUTOTOMOVS héyw OddE payeipous, B

AN eywye Kal maha héyw. Tpa@TOV pev TOS

> 2 A AB > \ aA , , , >

GAN ov ay Els TA THS TOMEWS TPaypaTa Ppdvisor Bow,

4 *» 4 > 5 lal A A , , 3 ‘

ovTWa Gy TPOTOV EV OLKOLTO, Kal Ny Ovo Ppovipot, adda.
\ an e \ aa re

Kal avd petou, tKavol OVTES &@ GV VoHowoW EmTEdElV, Kal

py amrokdpvoct dia padaktiayv THs Wuy7s.

XLVI. 3.

Comp. Phaedr. 236 8, ri dfTa exwv
otpeper; Ar. Eccl. 1151, rf dra dia-
TpliBes €xwv; Such phrases as Anpets
exwv, prvapeis Exwy are common in Plato
and Aristophanes. The force of wotos in
such cases is familiar.

GAAG Kal wept tev ata] See a simi-
lar retort in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 6, kal 6
‘Innias axovous TadTa, bowep emickont@v
abtév, "Ett yap abt, pn, & Séxpares,
exeiva TH abTa A€yels, & ey méAaL more
gov Hkovoa; Kat 6 Swxparns, “O dé ye
tovrou dSewdrepov, & ‘Immta, ov udvov del
TO aT Aéyw, GAAA Kal wep) TOY adTav-
ob 8 tows 81 7d moAvmabhs elvas ep
TaV ad’Ta@v oddéroTe TA avTa Aéyets. Cal-
licles here affects not to see the point of
ithe remark, which is really lost upon
‘Hippias (1. c.), who answers in apparent
good faith, “AwéAc, meipGuar Kawdy Te
Aéyew Get. Alcibiades shows greater in-
telligence: Symp. 221 2B, dvovs kavOn-
Alous Aéyet kal xXaAKkéas Tivds Kal oKUTO-
téuous Kal BupocodéWas, kal adel 51d Tov
1 avTa@v Tav’Ta patvera Adyelv, Bore Uret-
pos Kal dvdntos tvOpwros mis by Tay

‘Opas, @ Bédtiote “KadXikdeus, ws od

Adywrv KaTayeAdoete, K.T.A.

491. arexvas ye Gel] ‘You literally
never cease from talking,’ &c., = it is no
exaggeration to say that these topics are
always in your mouth, to the exclusion of
others. It is difficult to understand
Schleierm.’s preference for the aréxvws
of the Bodl. The idiomatic use of arex-
v@s, ‘actually,’ ‘literally,’ ‘ without
metaphor’ or ‘exaggeration,’ is familiar
to all readers of Plato and Aristophanes.

*AAN eywye kal mda Aéyw]| ‘why, I
have told you long ago.” On this Stallb.
remarks, ‘‘ Callide se simulat Callicles ea,
quae nunc dicturus est, jam antea dixisse,
quum tandem longe alia proposuerit.”
This is unjust to Callicles, who had elo-
quently maintained the superiority of
practical talent over the wisdom of the
schools, and had stood up for the right
of the abler man (dow ikxavhv etxwv
avnp, p. 484) to work his will upon the
vulgar herd. The “ calliditas” is rather
on the part of Socr., who had taken a
dialectician’s advantage of a rhetorical
opponent. i

TOPIIA.

—491, E.] 93

A A A 4 A A .
TAaUTA GUT E“ov KaTYYOpEls KaL Ey@ GOV; oV peEv yap
ene dys det tavTa héyew, kat péeuder pou éeya dé cod
5 4 9 > 4 > X , \ nw > ~ 5 A
ToUVaVTLOV OTL OVOETOTE TATA héyets TEpl TV avTa@r, adda
‘\ 4 A
Otoré pev Tos Bedtiovs TE Kal KpEltTovs Tods iayxupo-
, eon > \ ‘ , a so >
Tépovs wpilov, avOus d€ Tovs hpovyzwrépovs, vov av
ETEPOV TL NKELS EXOV" avdpedTepol TwWes VTO God héyovTaL
5 >

ot Kpeittous Kat ot Bedtiovs. ad)’, @ “yall, eitav dzrah-
AdynOt tivas mote héyers Tovs Bedtious TE Kai KpeitTous

5s)
KGL ELS O TL.

KAA. ’AXN eipynka ye eywye Tovs dpovipous eis Ta

A , , y 5 ,
TNS TOAEWS TPAayPaTa KaL avSpetous.

TOvTOUS yap Tpoo-

, na , »¥ A \ 86. Ass § 7 4
DHKEeL TOV TOEWY APXELV, KAL TO OLKALOV TOUT EOTL, am€ov

eye TovTOUs TOV ahwY, TOs apXoVTas TOV apxomevar.
XN. Ti dé; avrav, & éraipe ;

KAA. [Ids héyeis ;

A ¥
32. “Eva €xacrov héyw avtov EavTov apxorvta. 7
A x Oe 8 A + alle. e a * a de iAX
ToUTO pev ovdev Set, avTov EavTov apyew, TOV 5é addr ;
KAA. [Ids éavrtov apyovra héyets ;
XN. Ovddséev wouxidov, dd’ daweEp ot toddol, cddpova
évTa Kal éyKpaty avTov éavTod, THY HSovav Kai émbv-

E PlOv apxovTa TOV €v EavT@.
‘As dds ef! Tods HAiovs Aéyers Tos od-

KAA.
dpovas.

SN. lds ydp; ovddeis cotis odK Gy yvoin ori ov

nr -
TovTo héeyw.

D. Ti d€; aitav, & Eraipe] ‘ Tell me,
do you mean rulers of themselves’ when
you speak of &pxovras? To these words
the codd. add variously # tT: &pxovras 7
apxouevous: Th % Te &pxovras 7) apxo-
pévous: Bodl. # rt @pxouévous. All this
was expelled from the text by Bekk.,
who is followed by the Ziir. and Hirschig.
Some attempts have been made to ex-
plain or emend these additional words,
which, however in all probability, re-
present an old gloss upon Socr.’s ques-
tion. The # 71, perhaps, is a corruption
of fro, ‘videlicet,’ which, like j-your,
is found in this sense in scholiastic
Greek. Socr. presently states his mean-
ing to be such as I have represented it;

and indeed there is evidently no place
for apxouévous. Callicles is not familiar
with the phrase airod &pxew, which,
nevertheless, Socr. declares to be ‘no-
thing subtle or recondite,’ but identical
with éyxparis éavrod, a phrase of current
use in general society.

E. Il@s ydp; ovdels — br ob Totro
Aéyw] This is the reading of Ast and
the Ziir. The majority of MSS. have
mas yap o¥; words which, to avoid the
contradiction, Bekk. gives to Callicles.
The of however may be accounted for by
the following oddefs; and we obtain the
following reasonably satisfactory sense :
Call. ‘How droll you are! by your
temperate men you mean the weak and

94

KAA. Ildvy ye odddpa, & Yadxpares.

ITAATNNOZS

[491, E

3 \ A x
E€TEL TWS AV

> 4 , ¥ , € a > \ a3
evdaipav yévoito avOpwros Sovevav Stwodv ; GANA TOOT
> ‘ ‘ ‘ , ‘ ‘ Ou lee oe a
éo7Tt 76 Kata dvow Kadov Kal OiKaLoy, 0 e€yw GoL VvUP
se / /, 9 “ X > lal , X
Tmappnovalopevos éya, ore Set Tov d6pIGs Broodpevov Tas
a Bh gE aT € Ss 2A ec A yA ‘ \
pev ervpias Tas EavTov édv ws peyloTas elvar Kal pH

Koddlew, Tavrais S€ ws peyiotais ovoais txavov | eivar 492

e a > ] 4 ‘\ / b b) id
VITYPETEW du avdpetav Kat ppovynow Kat amoTipmThavar

@ x PIES Wigs eee , ,
@V GOV QAEL erupia yoyvyTat.

> ‘ a > > na
GANG TOUT, Ola, TOLS

la) 9 >
moddots ov Suvarev: dev Wéyovar Tovs TovovTovs Su ai-
oxvvnv damoKpuTTopevot THY avTav dOvvapiav, Kai ai-

XN 4 > ‘\ 3 , 9 > “A /
oxpov 84 dacw eivar Thy dkokactay, Orep év Tots Tpdaber
- PATE 4 4 ‘ , > , > /
ey édeyor, Sovlovpevor tovs Bedtiovs rHv diaw avOpa-
mous, Kal avTol ov Suvdpevor extopiler Oar Tats 7dovats

/ > lal ‘ , ‘ \ «
TYipwow erawovor THY cwppoovyyy Kal THY SiuKaroovrnY B
émel ye ots €€ dpyns umnpkev

\ \ Cs ne ,
dua TYHV AVTWV dvavdpiav.

simple.’ Socr. ‘How so? every one
must know that that is not my mean-
ing’ Call. ‘Oh! but it is, Socr.; for
how can a man possibly be happy so long
as he is in bondage—I care not to whom
or what ;’ i.e. whether to himself or to
another. For an instance of this rather
rare use of mdvu ye opddpa (which is
commonly a affirmation, and not,
as here, a_contradiction), compare De-
mosth. de Falsa Legat. p. 395, § 191.
Bekk., od yap_gywy’ oftws jy &OALos
ore... TavT ovK Fasckbunv “ylyveo Oa.
nal opdopa ye, Dope Varo. A
di urn is given to the passtge, by
the reading found in the Bodl., and at
least two others. 30. Ids yap ov;
ovdels doTis ovK By yvoln BTL obTw A€yu.
KAA. Ildvuv ye ooddpa, «.7.A. This is
adopted by Stallb., who gets over the
difficulty of making Socr. identify the
temperate with the foolish by the re-
mark, “Quod Socrates urbane concedit,
ideoque respondet sic: Quidni vero?
quilibet enim intelligat ita me sentire.”
This “urbanity ” I cannot but think
misplaced; and therefore, though not
without reluctance, have preferred in
this instance the vulgate to the Bodleian
reading. For the sentiment expressed
by Callicles compare the conversation of
Soer. with Thrasymachus, Republ. 348 o,
obxody Thy mev Sieacoodvny apethy [Ka-
Aeis] thy B Gdiclav-nanlay. Eixds 7,
tpn, & Hore, ewerdy nal Adyw adinlav

bev AvowreActy, Sixaocbyvny 8 of. "AAAY
cl phy; Tovvayttov, # 8 bs. 7H rhy
Sixaootyvnvy Kaktay; OvK, GAAG mdavu
yevvalay edi@eav. With which comp.
Thue. iii. 83, nai 7d etnbes, ob 7d yev-
vatov wAcioroy peTéxel, KaTaryeAacbey
Agpavicbn.

érel r&s ty | Comp. Lysis 207 D, done?
dé vor evdatluwv elvar %vOpwros SovdAcbwv
Te, Kal @ pndev ekeln morety Ov émOvpor ;
Ma AP od euorye, py. Schol., évreiOerv
6 wept rHs TeAuKis aitlas Tay HOumaoy
Adyos. ort St apxh Kara wey Swxpdrny
Tayabd, Kare 5¢ KaAAiKA€a aioxpa Hdovh.

492. admommmaAava: ov by del 7 ém-
Ouula yiyvnra:| ‘to glut each successive
appetite with its appropriate food.’ Of
this, says Callicles, the vulgar are in-
capable: and hence they condemn the
abler few, being ashamed of their own
incapacity, and wishing to hide it: i.e.
they divert attention from their own
defects by abusing others.

B. émel ye ois] ‘Suppose, for instance,
a man is a king’s son to begin with, or
is able by his own natural genius to get
himself appointed to a high office, or to
make himself a tyrant or member of
an absolute government, what were in
truth more disgraceful or more injurious
than temperance to persons like these:
who, instead of taking their fill of good
things without let or hindrance, should
voluntarily invite the law to be lord
over them, with the idle talk and ill-

;

—192, D.] TOPTTAS. 95

a /, cs > ZX > < “ ? e ‘ >
} Bacrréwv vieow eivat } avtovs TH pvoeL LKavous EK7O-
picacOa apyyv twa % tupavvida 4 Suvacteiay, ti TH
Gdynfeia atoyiov Kai KdKvov ein Gwppoovrys TovTots Tots
> , e 38 3 , A > an ‘ ‘
avOpaérois ; ots e€dv dmohavew Tav ayabav Kai pydevds
éumooav OvTos, avTot éavtois Seamdtny éemaydyowrTo Tov
Cal a > 7 /, ‘ , ‘ , x
TOV TOMNOY avOpdétaV Vopov TE Kal héyov Kat Woyor ; 7
an > a ¥ / »” es “~ la) lal
O mas ovK Gv GOdLoL yeyovdTes Etnoay VT TOD Kadov TOD
THs Sixaoovrys kal THs cwppoo ys, wndev Théov vewovTes
Tois dirous Tots avTaY 7 Tots ExOpots, Kal TAUTA apyorTeES
> nm ¢ A 4 AO la iX. 0 , > , a
ev TH éavTav moder; adda TH adnOeia, & Naxpares, Hv
N N , ao x \ V3 , \ >
djs avd SidKkew, S Exe Tpudpy Kai dkohacia Kai édev-
Oepia, av émixovpiav éxn, ToUT éativ apeTy TE Kal eddat-
/ ‘ . ¥ Oe “D> ‘ ‘ , ‘ ‘\
poviat 7a S¢ adda TadT éoti TA Kad\wTiopata, TA Tapa
, , 3 4 / ‘ > ‘ =4
diaw ocvvOypata, avopoTwrv prvapia kai ovdevds aia.
p XLVIL. 32. Ov« dyads ye, & Kaddikders, éve€-
épxes TO Ady Tappynoialopevoss cadas yap avd vor

natured censure of the multitude.” “Cum
verbis véuorv, Adyor, Wéyov: conf. Aga-
thonis illud Conviv. 197 D, év rév@, ev
poBy, ev 760m, ev Ady” (Ast).

7tt—ein| The omission of &y seems
justified by Soph. Antig. 604, réav, Zed,
divacw tis avdpGv imrepBacta Katrdoxot ;
Aesch. Choeph. 314, GAA’ daréproApoy
avdpbs dpdvnua tis Aéyor; yet the cases
are not precisely in point—see Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. p. 125; and “&y may have
dropt out here, as rf itself is wanting in
ten MSS., both being absorbed, so to
speak, by the two last syllables of 5uvac-
telav” (Woolsey).

ois égby Grodavew] For ofrives, éetdv
avtots G@roAavery. Compare, for sense as
well as construction, Rep. 465 E, ox off
Brov Adyos nuivy éwérAntey Sri Tovds
pvAakas odk evdaluovas motoimer, ois etdy
mdvra éxew TA TY TOALTGY Ovdey ExoLEv.
Presently for efnoay Hirschig gives «ev,
on no authority. The shorter form is
preferred by Plato in ciyev, efrny, eire.

C. éav emovplay éxn]} Schol., 4 rhyv
ék mAovrTov Kal mepiovcias, } Thy ex Tis
Tapa TG KadAtkAc? kadovupevns ppovhaeds
te «al dvdpias.. The latter is perhaps
the more correct view: sup. A, Tadtas
® ds peyloras otcas ixavdy eivar bxn-
peteiv 5¢ dvdpelay nal ppdvnow. The
end is pleasure, to which valour and
prudence are means. In other words,

they are the auxiliary forces, the é7t-
kovpot of luxury, &c. But he may have
meant éav tots éxtds ayafois ikavés
Kexopnynuevoy 7 (Arist. Ethic. i. 10.
15).

Te 8 dr’—tiva] Most comm.
understand ra xaAAwmicuara to be the
subject of éorl. ‘As for those other
matters—the fopperies, the unnatural
conventionalities—they are the mere
cant of men, and nothing worth.” But I
am disposed, with Mr. Shilleto, to make
Ta KadA. the predicate: ‘As for those
other matters (justice and_temperance
and their like), they are the mere fop-
peéries, ons of

the prat; ; &e. For the
sentiment, compare Eur. Cycl. 317,—

6 mAodros, avOpemoxe, Tots copois
beds:

Ta § BrAa Kduroa Kal Adywr ed-
popolan

Ibid. 339,—
ot 5& Tovs vduous
evro, woiutArAovtes avOpdrwy ior,
kAatew &yvwya.

D. éwetépxer TE Adyw]| Legg. ii. 672
A, éwetéx@ot iceb oratione.’
Soer. applauds the courageous frankness

with which his o t avows senti-
ments which the majority of mankind
ee

96 IIAATQNOS [ 492, D
A » nA

héyers & of aANou SiavoodvTar per, Néyew Sé ovK eOédovor.
ddopat ovv eyo cov pydevri TpdT@ aveivar, Wa TO OvTL
KaTdonrov yerytar was Biwréov. Kat pow héye: Tas pev
> , \ > 4 > , ™ a >

erOupias djs od KodaaTéor, ei péddeu Tis olov Set eEivat,
eovta S€ aiTas ws peyiotas TAHpwow avtais apdbev yé

e , nN a > Ny ° ,
moder éerounalew, Kal TOUTO Elva THY ApETHY ; E

KAA. Gnpi tadra eyo.

xN. OvK« dpa dpOds déyovrar ot pndevds Sedpevor

> , >
EVOALLOVvES €lwal.

KAA. Ot diBor yap av ovtTw ye Kal ot vexpot evdat-

x
povéorratot elev.

x2.

"AdAGa pev 7 Kal dv ye od éyers Sewds 6 Bios.

ob ydp Tor Oavpdlouw’ av, ei Evpimidns adynOn ev tolade

héeyet, Aé€ywv

vo katOaveiv Se Civ ;

secretly entertain, but are loth to ex-
press.

Gpddev ye mre ‘from some source |
or_other. restored by Bekk. for @Ao-

Gey yé woOev found in all the MSS. The
confusion is very common, as the forms
Gpuod, auddey, Gun, aua@s had ceased to
exist in the later dialect. See Cobet, Vv.
Ll., p. 255, and Schol. in Plat. Sophist.
259 p. In the Attic dialect these words
are aspirated.

E. Ovx &pa dp0Gs A€yovtra:] Xen. Mem.
i. 6. 10, “Eotkas, & ’AvTipav, Thy €vdat-
povlay oiouéevp tpuphy kat mwoduvTérciay
elvat, eyo dé voul(w 7d ev undevds Seto bat
Ociov civar, Td ® ws CAaxlotoy eyyuTdtw
Tov Oclov. Kat Td pev Oeiov KpdrioToy, Td
dt eyyutdrw tod Oelov eyyuTdtrw Tov
xpatiarov. Hence correct Olymp. in
Gorg. comm. p. 121 (358 Jahn), 6 ody
TAhpn exwv (sc. Tov wlBov) Ocod Blov Ch,
for the corrupt @¢00 6:¢4, by which the
editor is baffled.

ay ye ov A€yets| Vulg. Ss ye od Ayes,
corr. Badh. This again is a frequent error
of copyists. Aesch. Prom. 629, wn pov
mpokndov pacoov ws euot yAuvkv. Her-
mann @y—which is much better than
Elmsley’s paoodvws 7 *uol yAvKd. In
Lysias vii. § 31, mpo@vpdtepov &s jvay-
xaCdunr, read Gv jvayraCéunv. The use
of ws for # after a comparative is a
barbarism, though introduced by Prof.

tis 8 otdev, «i To Cov pev éote KatOaveir,

Sauppe into the text of the Epitaphius
of Hyperides, Col. 14, 1. 22. Here ay
ve od Aéyeis is in antithesis to of Al@o
kad oi vexpol.

tls 8 oldev, ci 7d (Hv). This passage
appears to have come from the Polyidus ;
and is thus completed by the Schol.,—

tls 8 oldev ci 7d Civ pey eort KaTOa-
veiVv,
7d KatOaveiy 5é Cv Kdrw voulCerat.

He is apparently in error when he says,
ék Tov Ppltov Tov Spduaros Evpimtdov.
The lines in the Phrixus ran thus, ac-
cording to Stobaeus (Anth. 120. 18) :—

tls & otdev ef Civ rov® 3 KéxAnTra
Oaveiy,

7) Civ 5& OvhoKew earl; wAhy Bums
Bpotav

vooovat oi BAémovres, of 8 GAwASTES

ovdév vorovow ovdé KEKTHVYTAL KaKd.

The sentiment is parodied by Aristoph.
(Ran. 1477). Tis ofdev, ef 7d Gv wey
éott KatOaveiv, Td mvety dé Sermvety Td
dé nabevdew xddiov; From ib. 1082,
kal packovcas ob Civ Td Civ, we may
infer that a woman was the speaker in
one at least of the Euripidean passages.
The idea, though not the precise words,
was borrowed from Heraclitus (Philo,

493

aes

—493, A.|

TOPTIAY.

97

Ve “ a »* ¥ , 9 ¥x¥Q- »
Kal Mets TO OVTL Lows TEOVaper” STEP HOH Tov | Eywye
Kal nKOVTa TOV GOPaV, WS VUV Huets TEOVapEY, Kal TO eV

Alleg. Leg. 1, fin.) : povovod nal 6 “Hpd-
kAeTOs kaT& TOUTO Mwiicéws GkoAovOjoas
7@ Sdyparl, dnow Zomev tov exelvav
(sc. OcGv) Odvatov, TeOvhKapev Sk
toy éxelvwy Blov ds viv wey bre ev-
(@pev reOvnxvias tis Wuxis, Kal ds by
év ohpatt TE ochpatt evrerumBevpérns,
ef 8& arobdvomer ris Wuxhs Céons Tov
%iov Blov. From which the editors of
Heraclitus’ fragments infer that the well-
known o@ua ojua was first said by him.
The Heraclitean fragm. is given at
greater length by his namesake the
author of the Homeric Allegories: &v@pw-
mot Geol Ovntol, Geol 7° &vOpwrot GOdvarot,
(Grvtes tov exelvwv Odvarov, OvhoKovTes
Thy exeivov (why (Ed. Gale, p. 442). A
fragment quoted by Sext. Empir. comes
nearer still to the words of Euripides:
6 58 ‘HpdxAcirés dnow bri Kal 7d Civ Kal
7d arobaveiy kal év TS Civ Huas eott Kab
év T@ TeOvdvar- Bre wey yap jucts (Omer
Tas Wuxas judy rebvdvar Kal év juiv
Tebdpbat, bre 5¢ Hucis aroOvqocKouev Tas
Wuxas avaBioiy nal Civ: “ Heraclitus
says that both living and dying are in
our life as well as in our death: when
we live our souls are dead and are buried
in us, when we die our souls revive and
live” (Pyrrh. Hypot. iii. 230). But
closer than all is the citation in Plutarch,
Consol. ad Apoll. 106 5, gnolv “Hpd-
KAerTos, TaVTO .. Cv kal TeOvnKds
-.. Ta8€ yap petamecdvtTa éxeivd
éott Kakeiva wdAw petamecdyta
tavra. The meaning of this probably
is, that life and death are part of one
and the same process of continuous
growth and decay, according to the prin-
ciple implied in the formula d:apepduevor
Gel tuyudepera: (Plat. Soph. 242 8). It
is not however to be supposed that Plato
in the present passage refers to Hera-
clitus. The copés whom Socr. affects to
quote may have been some Orphic or
Pythagorizing speculator of his own
day, for we know that both Pytha-
goreans and Orphies held the notion of a
penal incarceration of the soul in the
body (Plat. Crat. p. 400 B c, compared
with Phaedo, 62 8). On the other hand
the words rijs Wuxijs todTo (sc. uépos)
év @ af emOvula eiow point to the Pla-
tonie doctrine of the tripartition of the
soul (see Phaedrus, App. i. p. 164),
and it might seem that Plato had here
committed a conscious anachronism, in
attributing the doctrine to some earlier

VOL. II.

school. Even this would: not be incon-
sistent with the only half-in-earnest tone
of the entire passage; for we know how
easily the Platonic Socrates could evoke
imaginary vouchers for his own views
(comp. Phaedr.' 275 3B, "2 Sdéxpares,
padlws ot, x.7.A.). Still as the copds in
question appears in company with other
undoubtedly real personages, I incline to
think that some particular speculatist is
intended. The comm. give us no light,
but content themselves with accumu-
lating passages from Heraclitus and from
Plato, as if the difficulty were not rather
to account for the juxtaposition of the
dogmas of schools so distinct both in
time and character. In suggesting the
name of Philolaus, I rest upon the slender
data that some rude “partition of the
soul is attributed to’ him on reasonable
and good authority ” (see Zeller, Phil. der
Griechen, i. p. 325, 2te Ausg.). Clemens
Alex. quotes a fragment purporting to
be his, but which may be only Plato in
a Doric dress: é&s did tivas auaptlas
& WXa TE chmart cvveCeveTat, Kal Ka-
Odrep év oduatt téOawra: (Strom. iii.
433 A, ap. Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 795).
A better critic than Clemens, Athenaeus,
gives the following important notice, on
the authority of Clearchus the Peri-
patetic: Evél@eos 6 Mubarydpeios, & Nixtoy,
és onot KAéapxos 6 Tepimarntixds év
devtépw Biwy, ereyev evdedécbar Te
céuat: Kal TG THdE Biy Tas amdvTwy
Wuxas Tiuwplas xapiv* Kal dielracba Toy
Gedy, ds ei wh pevodow em) Todvrois, Ews
dv éxay abrds Avon, TA€oor Kal pelCoow
éumecovvta: téTe Avmas: 51d mdayTas
evAaBoupévous Thy Tay Kuplay avdracw
poBeicOa Tod Cav ExdvTas éxBivat, udvov
Te tov év TE yhpa Odvaroy aonaciws
mpootecGat, wemetopéevous Thy GardAvow
THs WuxXIs MeTa THs TAY Kuplwy ylyvecOau
yvéuns, iv. p. 157 c. Compare Plat.
Phaedo, 61 £, where Philolaus and ‘ cer-
tain others’ are appealed to by Cebes as
affirming the unlawfulness of suicide.
This evidence in favour of the Pythago-
rean origin of the speculation in the text
seems to me unexceptionable, and we can
afford to give up the suspicious fragment
of Clemens. Add Cicero de Senect. c. 20,
* Vetat Pythagoras injussu imperatoris,
id est Dei, de praesidio et vitae statione
discedere.”

brep H5n Tov éywye}| The Bodl. omits
éxep with several other MSS. The

H

98

copa éoTw Huw ona, THS

IAATQNOS

[493, A

Q A a > Oe
dé yuyyjs TovTo év @ émibv-

, >. A , d e > (A Q \ 4
Lat €lLoOvu TVYXaVEL OV OLOV QAVATFELUED UAL KAL METQATTLTTELW

¥ ,
aVvW KAT.

A lal » A“ . > 4
Kal ToUTO apa Tis pvOohoyar Koprbods avyp,

» a2 , ?
tows Suxehds tis H “Itahuxds, Tapayov TO dvopat. Sia Td
X \ , sk ‘
miBavov TE Kal TLCTLKOV @VdpaceE TIMoV, TOUS S€ dvorjToUS

5 , ~ S b) , a lal a a e >
apuyTous* TOV ApvyTwY TOUTO THS WuyHs ov at éem-
> > 4 A > 4 > “ ‘ > , ¢
Ovpiiau ciat, TO aKdhacTov avTov Kai ov oTeyavdv, ws

, Y , § \ \ b) , , >

TET, EVOS €ln miOos, dia THY amdnoTiay ameiKaoas. TOv-
, oy a , > rZ > > 8 ld e an

VQaVTLOV %) OvUTOS OOl, W Ka LKAELS, EVOELKVUTAL WS TMV

év "Avsov—rd aevdes 57) héywv—obrou dO\dTaTo. ay elev

original reading may therefore have been
hi 5 Tov eywye.

493. nal todro &pa tis pvPodAoyay ]
‘And it was this part of the soul, we
may suppose, that an ingenious person,
a Sicilian mayhap or Italian, allegorically
styled a jar, in consideration of its per-
suadable and credulous nature, by a
change in the word mivaves, which he
made into alos, Ihe sikeAds was
possibly Empedocles, as Olympiodorus
and the Schol. assert. To this Karsten,
the editor of Empedocles, assents. “ Pro-
babile mihi videtur Empedoclem, ut re-
ligiosum hominem et mysteriorum pa-
tronum, @uvfrovs vocasse dementes et
miseros, eosque ut est in Danaidum
fabula finxisse velut aquam fundentes in
dolium perforatum (midoy tetpnuévor)
quod insatiabilem libidinum cupiditatem
significat. Haec fictio ab ingenio poetae
(qualis fuit Empedocles) fabulas alle-
gorice interpretantis haud aliena, neque
vero e veterum judicio abhorret a fabulae
sensu. Similiter in celebri Polygnoti
picturd praeter multa alia pictae erant
duae mulieres, pépovca: dwp ev Karea-
yéow éorpdxos, quibus erat inscriptio
elva opas Tay ob meuunucvey. Paus. x.
ec. 31. Caeterum quam misera haberetur
in inferis ty auvjtwy sors, declarant
nota Platonis dicta in Phaedon. p. 69”
(Empedocl. ed. Karsten, p. 302). Here
however we are not to suppose that
Empedocles is seriously credited with the
authorship of the psychological doctrine
implied in the words tijs puxijs Todt év
6 ai émiOvpia cioi. The particle pa
frequently denotes an inference false but
specious. Theaet. 171 0, cixds 7 epa
exeivoy (sc. Tpwrayopav) mpeoBurepoy
byta copmtepoy jay eivat. Rep. 358 ©,
ToAY yap amelyvwv &pa 5 Tod Gdixov 7H 6

Tov Sixatov Blos, as Aéyovow. Inf. B, 7d
d& KéoKiwov Upa Aé€éyet, ws epn 6 pds
emt A€ywv, Thy Wuxhy avThy.

Yows SuneAds Tis] Why Suxerds, rather
than 2ixeAucds, which was read by Olymp.
and Stobaeus, and is found in some codd. ?
The answer to this was given by Butt-
mann, who calls attention to a love-song
of Timocreon Rhodius, beginning with
the lines, SiceAds koupds avhp Mot) rav
barép’ pa, ap. Hephaest. p. 40. Hence
Bucedds koupds avhp became proverbial.

5a rd wiOavdy] Of miBavds used pas-
sively we have an instance in Aesch. Ag.
485, miOavds &yav 6 OjAus Gpos.

Tov § auvitwy | Socrates makes auuhy
Tovs synonymous With od oreyavous, ‘the
contrary of watertight,’ deriving the
word from pide ‘ alanis? Instead of pvéw
‘initio. For this etymology his ‘learned
friend’ is made responsible. Tr. ‘ But
that portion of the uninitiate soul in
which the appetites reside, its incon-
tinent and irretentive part, he repre-
sented as a leaky jar, figuring thereby its
insatiate nature,’—literally, ‘using that
similitude in consequence of the impos-
sibility of filling it.’

B. ov oteyavéy| Compare with this
Repub. ix. p. 586 B, dre ody) Tots otow
ovdé 7d dv odde TH OTéyor éavTaY Tip-
TAGYTES.

as teTpnucvos etn mos | Shakspeare,
Cymb. i. Se. 7, “The cloyed will, That
satiate yet unsatisfied desire, That tub
both filled and running.”

tovvaytlov 8) otros wot] ‘Thus does
my friend set forth to us, in direct op-
position to you, Callicles, that of all the
dwellers in Hades these, the uninitiated,
must be the most wretched, being ever
employed in lading water into the leaky
jar with an equally leaky sieve.’

——

——

—493, D. |

TOPIIAS.

99

e > , ‘ Lad > ‘ , , nA
ot dpdtynro., Kal popoter eis Tov TeTpnmevovy TiBov Vdwp

/
ETEpW TOLOVTM TETPHUEVY KOTKIVO.

\ \ , ¥
TO de KOOKLYOV apa

héyer, @s efy 6 Tpds Eve NEéyor, THY Woyny elvar THY dé

\ 7 > rg ‘ “A > / ¢ 7
CWuynV KOTKIV® ATELKATE THY TOV AVONTWY ws TETPNMEVHY,

? > , id > > 7 \ ,
aTE Ov Suvapevnv OTEyew du ATLOTLAV TE KAL dy Onv.

co > ~ , > e , ȴ 8 nA A aA > A
TOUT €MLELK@S eV EOTW UTO_TL aTOTa, Onrot pHY 6 eyw

Bovdopat cor evdeEapevos,

37 oe? > lal
EaV T7WS GLOS TE W, TELOAL

an ¥
petabéobar, dvti Tov adm\joTws Kal dkohdoTws ExorTOS

, ‘ “ > A e wn ‘\
Biov tov Kocpiws Kai Tots del mapovow ikavas Kai e€ap-

KovvTws €xovTa Biov édéo Oar.

ahha woTepov TeiOw Ti oe

\ - -_ ‘ ,
Dkat petatieca evdapovertépovs eivat Tovs Kooplous

érépw towoitw tetpnueve] The repe-
tition of terpnuéve, though suspicious,
seems to be supported by Phaedo, 80 p,
H Wuxh Upa, To Gerdes, Td eis ToL0odTOV
témov €repov oixduevov, yevvaiov Kat
Kabapdy Kai &e1d%, cis “Aidou ds GAnOas,
a passage which also illustrates the fore-
going ev “Aidov, 7d dedés 3) A€yor.
The image is also found in Shakspeare,—

“Yet in this captious and intenible
sieve
I still pour in the waters of my love,
And lack not to lose still.”
All’s Well that ends Weil, 1. iii. 193.

©. 80 amotiay te Kal AnOny] ‘by
reason of its fickle and forgetful nature.’
Legg. iv. 705 A, 70n madrluBora kal
amora. Ibid. vi. 775 D, dvépmada kad
&mora.

émietn@s .. . 676 Tt &TOTA| ‘Satis sub-
absurda,’ the-only rendering of which
thése words will admit, is more than
‘somewhat absurd. There seems to
be no authority for the meaning of
émtenx@s, assumed by Ast and Stallb.
‘freilich,’ Eng. ‘it must be confessed,’
which is rather the force of the particle
“ev, nor is the rendering ‘sane’ given in
his Lexicon justified by the passage of
the Phaedon there adduced. émrekds

can here only Sa Ae oa pag wh’
—as we say, ‘a enough ?_so_supr.
485, mpds oe emierxas exw piAuKas. One
might conjecture, émends ev dori 7) bad
Tt &tora sub-
JSrigid. And yet few would consent, ex-
cept in the last resort, to omit émeids,
as Hirsch. following Cobet has done. If
either must be sacrificed, it is better to
one-MS. gives

omit ee
eindvtt, Bekker aright.

If this was not originally intended to sup-
plement émes@s, it may represent a dif-
ferent reading from the received. What
Olympiodorus found is also doubtful, as
his gloss hardly corresponds to the text
as we have it. He says, robs 5€ To.ovTous
pdbOous od mavu ardémous Kade as Tpds ToS
Tointikovs TapaBadAwr, ered) exeivor wey
BAdmrova, Ol. Schol. p. 120. Perhaps
he only meant to paraphrase trdé tt by
ov mdvv in the sense, ‘not altogether,’
‘not quite.’ Meanwhile we may trans-
late the passage thus: ‘These details, it
is true, are more or less absurd ; yet there
is no doubt as to the point, by proving
which I mean, if possible, to induce you to
retract your former preference,—in lieu,
that is, of the life of unsated indulgence,
to elect that rival life which is charac-
terized by moderation and contentment.’
6 depends upon évdekéduevos, ‘what
having proved, I wish,’ and, as Stallb.
observes, there is no necessity for ad-
mitting the inferior reading évdelt{ac@at.
It is nearly indifferent whether we take
SnAot as impersonal (‘patet,’ ‘ liquet’),
or construct it asa transitive with Tatra.
The «af, which in one MS. follows yera-
6éc0a: and is admitted by Bekk. and
Hirsch., is not needed, as éAéoOa is
either epexegetic or may be understood
to depend upon petadécOu. Stallb.
prefers the latter view; to me the
former seems the simpler of the two,
and in accordance with Plato’s usage.

petadécbat | Comp. Rep. 345 B, Eupeve
TouTo.s, 7) ey perariOn pavepas peta-
TiWeco, Kal Huas wh ekawdta. The word,
like @é7 0a and ava0éo@a:, may have been
transferred from the game of draughts
to verbal contests.

peraridera| Equiv. to petabéuevos

H 2

mare

ITAATQ NOX

100 | 493, D

Tov dkortdoTwv, 7 ovder, GAN Gv Kal TOAMA TOLAdTA pU-
Bohoya, ovdev Tt waddov perabycer ;
a ¥

KAA. Todr adnOéatepov eipnKas, YdKpares.

XLVI. 3. Pépe om, adhqy got cixdva heyw eK
TOU GUTOU yupyaciov TH vov. oKdTEL yap Et F roudv8e héeyets
mepi TOV Biov Exatépov TOU Te Gddppovos Kal TOD aKoha-

e > a > lal € /, , A X

oTov, olov ei Svoty dvdpoiv Exatépw TiPor wool elev, Kat

~ \ ¢ / e “~ \ Xx , c \ x” c be aN
TO pev ETepw vyvets Kat wArpets, 6 peév olwov, O dE péhiTOS,
6 Oé€ yahascros Kat addot rodXol Todnan; vai Ta o€
ordvia kal xahera ExdoTov TOUTwY ein kat pera TOAAOV
mover Kat Xahemev Exrroprlopeva 6 pev ovv ETEPOS ahy-
pwodpevos pit éroxerevou pte tu ppoytilor, add’ evera
TovTwv havxiav Exo TOS ETépw TA pev Vapata, BoTEp

¥ > , ‘ \ , ‘\ la ‘ >
Kai éxeivw, Suvata pev topilerOar, xadera dé, Ta 8
dyyela TeTpynpeva Kat calpa, Kat avayKdloiro ae Kat

X
VUKTa Kal
aA 4 oy , e , »” aA ,
Autotro AUTas' Apa TowovTov Exatépov ovTos Tov Biov,
lal > ¢
héyers TOV Tod dKoddaToU EvdapovéaTEepoy Elvar 7) TOV
nw - , a lal
Tov Koopiov; Téi0w Ti oe TavVTAa héywv GvyxapHnoat TOV
, , eee , > , an x» > ,
Kocp.ov Biov Tov akoddcoTou apelvw eivat, H ov TElOw ;
> , > , a \ \
KAA. Od qweidets, d JKpares. T@ LEV yap 7\npw-

nye. “ Mutasne ita sententiam ut
statuas feliciores esse modestos libidi-
nosis?” Simili Bpaxvaoyla petayvavat
adhibitum a Thucyd. i. 44, petéyvwoav
Kepkupatois tuupaxlay wey wh worhoacbat,
«.7.A. Heind. The Bodl. and several
other MSS. have perari@ec@a, an evi-
dent blunder.

D. Todr’ ddAnbéorepov] i.e. éxelvov.
No number of such fables will induce
Callicles to transfer his preference.

éx Tov rod youvarion fst) ‘from
the sam with the last,’ qu. T7
vov 54. The-moratofthis tatter allegory
is much the same as that of the former,
of which it seems to have been but an-
other version—possibly by a different
hand. The Schol. suggests, iv S& exeivo
bevy rev TlvOayopelwy oikciov, Tovro 5é
Swxpdrous, ds capéorepdy Te Kal TAHK-
tudrepov. Olymp., ioréoy bri oxeddy Td
avrdé éori Td emixelpnua TovTO TE Tv0a-
yopelw: 514 TodTo yap cimev 56 Swxpadrns
bri Tov abTrov yuuvaciov. Empedocles,
as an Eclectic, borrowed much from the

Pythagoreans, with whom he is sometimes
classed, as by Olymp. and the Schol.

E. vdpata 5¢ omdvia}] ‘Suppose that
the suppties-Of these several liquids are
scanty and hard to get; in fact, not to
be procured without frequent and severe
exertion. We will further suppose that
one of the two persons mentioned, when
he has once filled his jars, does not trou-
ble himself to Toot thom with fresh sup-
plies, but lets wéthttorre;so-far as the ves-
sels are concerned.’ The different liquids
denote of course the variety in the objects
of human desire. All are represented as
more or less agreeable to the taste. For
the sense of vaua compare Phaedr. 235 p,
Aelrerat 54, oluat, && GAAoTplwy mobev
vapdt wy memAnpoadat me Siieny ayyelov.

494. 2) Tas éoxdras Av Adras |
‘or else beaeprey-to the most RoR
ciating pains.’ Referring to the uneasi-
ness with which impure pleasures are
preceded and accompanied. See inf.
496 O—E.

E

e 4 , > 4 aK ‘ > ,
neepay mysmrdvar | ard, 7 Tas eoxarTas 494

=

Ee
Ce ee eee

—494, 0.]

TOPIIA.

101

4 > , 5 43 y¥ e . 5 P > ‘ “~ >
capevm exeivm ovKer eoTw dor) ovdenta, GANA TOUT
wn ~ A

€otw 6 viv dn ey edeyov, Td Gomep hiOov Chv, éredav

BaAnpoOoyn, MYTE XalpovTa ETL pyTE AvTOvpEVOY.

avn’ év

- > A QA nd 4 G) > ww e X -~ > > €.&
TOUT €aTi TS NO€ws CnV, ev TO w@S ThetoToV EmippElv.
SN. Ovdxovv ava Poe Av éemippe dv i
. yen y Gv todd emippey, ToD Kat
A > A > \ 4\3> »¥ A a > “
TO amv elvar Kal peydd’ atta Ta Tpypata eivay Tals

expoats ;
KAA. Ilavv pév ovv.

32. Xapadpiod rw’ ad od Biov héyes, add’ od ve-

Kpov ovoe AiGov.

‘KAA. "Eywye.

, , X , , e
kat por héye, Td ToLdvde éyets otov
Tewnv Kat TewovtTa eo bier ;

ZN. Kai Subjv ye cai Supavra trivew ;
KAA. Aéyo, kai tas addas ériOupias amdoas €xovta
kat Suvdpevov mrypodvra xatpovta evdaynoves Cyr.

B. OvdKotv avdyrn vy’ | ‘The more then
you pour in, the greater the waste—wide
too must be the holes for the liquid to
escape by.’

Xapadpi00} The Schol. favours us with
an edifying description of this bird and
its habits: xap. dpyis tis bs Gua TE
écOlew éxxptver (the peculiarity to which
Soer. alludes). He adds: els dv dmo-
Brébavtes, &s Adyos, of ixrepi@vTes pgov
GmrakAdtrovra bev Kal a&woxpimrovow
avroy of mimpdcKovtes, va wh mpoika
@perAa@vrat of kduvoyres.

kal pw Kaddrret.
mepvas ;

av xapadpiby

&s gnow ‘Ixm@vat. The yxapadpids is
mentioned by Arist. Av. 1141, among
the morduia dpvea, in accordance with
the apparent etymology of his name,
Tapa To év Tats xapddpas SiarpiBewv, as
the Schol. on Aristoph. observes. With
him Aristotle agrees, H. A. ix. ec. 11,
adding, gor: 3 6 xapadpids kad Thy xpdav
kal thy pwvhv pairos: palvera: de vixtwp,
huépas dt arodidpdoxe. He is therefore
not the ‘lapwing,’ as Lidd. and Scott
suggest: nor does the gavAdrns of his
colour agree with the ‘curlew.’ Nor is
he the same as af@uia, as Timaeus in Lex.
supposes, for the birds are mentioned as
distinct by Arist. H. A. 8. 3. Some
species of plover is probably meant;
‘charadriadae’ being the name given by
modern ornithologists to the plover-tribe.

Many of these, e. g. the dotterels and
golden plovers, are said to be night-
feeders, as Aristotle reports of his ‘ cha-
radrius. According to Plut. Sympos.
p- 681 c, the xap. cures the jaundice by
catching it himself through the eyes:
hence amoorpépetat tovs ixtepidvtas,
kal Ta Oupara ovyKAcioas ~xe1,—from
which we may conjecture that the ex-
periment had never been fairly tried.
The xapadpids, which is the subject of
one of Babrius’s fables, is a crested bird,
kopuddAAw mpds Toy BpOpoy dyTgdwv.
tw ad ov} You said the life I ap-
proved was no life, but the state of a
lifeless body or a stone: and now you
in your turn are depicting a life like
that of an obscene and ravenous bird. _
C. duvduevov wAnpodvta] If we are not
to adopt Stephen’s correction mAnpody,
we must suppose that infinitive under-
stood in connexion with duvduevov. The
concourse of participles is difficult to
render in another language, but it is
much in Plato’s manner, and here, in
particular, is not without force. ‘I do
acknowledge the existence of the appe-
tites you mention,’ says Call.: ‘I speak
of a man drinking when he is thirsty,
and eating when he is hungry; and not
only so, but also of one who all
the other natural appetites, with the
means of gratifying them, and who does
gratify them and enjoys it,—and that
man, I say, leads a happy life’ As

102

ITAATQNOX

| 494, ©

XLIX. 3M. Eye, & Bédriote Siatéden yap aomep

»” \ An ‘ > 2
npto, Kal OTWS PN ATALTXVUVEL.

> EB lal
ene atraroyvvOnva.

Set dé, ws Eouxe, pnd

\ a \ Tee \ na
KQt T PWTOV MEV €l7TE El KAL WopovTa

ee

‘ a la) lal
Kat KvyyoiovtTa, apOdvas exovtTa Tov KyncOaL, KYapeEvoV

duatedovrta Tov Biov evdaydvas eore hv.

KAA. ‘Ns atomos el, & Saéxpares, kat atexvds Syuy- D

yopos.

32. Tovydptor, & Kaddixdes, Iadov péev Kat Top-

yiav kat e€émryn€a kat aicyiverGar eroinaa, od dé od py

extrayns ovde pr aloxuvOyns: avdpetos yap i.

aroKptvov [.ovov.

GAN’

\ , \ » lal
KAA. yp roivur kai Tov Kvdépevov 7d€éws av Brdvan.

SQ. Odxodyv citep 7S€ws, Kai eddapdvas ; -

KAA. Ilavv ye.

/, > ‘ \ , ~ x * 7
3. Idrepov et tHv Kehadrjv pdvov kvynow, €r TEE

> a 9 = , 1 Pn oF ,
TE EPWTW ; OPA, @ Kad\tkdeus, Ti amoKpivel, €av Tis oe

‘\ > , 7 > lal

Ta €xdpeva TovTos epeEns
y¥ ,

TOLOUT@Y OVT@Y KEedahaLor,

Stallb. observes, Callicles cuts Socrates
short in his tedious enumeration of appe-
tites, any or all of which he is prepared
to recognize; and then, with charac-
teristic #Bpis, adds unasked his opinion
that he who indulges them all to the top
of his bent is the happy man. .
eizt ei kal Wwpavra| ‘Tell me whether
one iced with te itch, who has a
pefpetual desire to scratch, and who
ean scratch to his heart’s content, and
spends his life in scratching, whether it
can be said that such a person lives
happily ?? Obs. «vjjc@ar not KvacPar is
the Attic form, analogous to (iv, Way,
ouav, viv for view. See Cobet, N. Lectt.
p. <—So Wwpdvras is better than
Wwpidvras, the common form, and found
here in the old edd. Phot., A:@dvras
TpicvAAdBws, ov ALOiavTas. TlAdrwy id
Népov (p. 916 A)... Pwpav Kad Bpayxav
SicvaAAdBws Aéyovot. So Oavaray, not
Cavariav, Saimovay not daimovay. Lob.
Phryn. p. 80 fol. In xvnoimy the « be-
longs to the root, and is to be retained.
Presently for xvnoig (or perhaps kynatgn)
the codd. give xvno.wt. The phenomena
of pruriency are described with grotesque
accuracy in the Philebus, p. 46 D, a
passage illustrative of the present in

Kal TovTwDY
e lal , , a
6 Tov Kwatdev Bios, obtos

4 > nw
ATOAVTA EPWTE.

more than one respect. Compare also
Democritus, Frag. Mor. 49, ed. Mullach.,
Evduevor tvOpwrot Hdovra Kal opw yl-
vera. &mep Toiot appodioid Cover.

D. ‘Qs &romos «i, & &., nal arexvds
dnunyédpos | ‘How absurd you are! what
a thorough mob-orator!’ i.e. how
thoroughly unscrupulous as to the
nature of the arguments you use, stoop-
ing, as you do, to the lowest kind of
clap-trap. Olymp., Snunydpos ef 7a
Tois moAAois apéoKovTa AeEyers> ovTOL
yap obk by elroiev Tovs ToL1ovTos evdal-
povas.

ov dt ob wh extAayfs} ‘I have no fear
of your being shocked or put to shame.’
Inf. 520 dD, obStv Sewdy phmwore GdiucnOp.
Phaedr. 84 B, oddtv Sewdv wh pohy OF.

BE. kal roitwy rowttTwy byTwy KEepa-
Aaoy] ‘and,—to mention the crowning
instance of all such—is not, &c.’? The
object of Socr. in introducing a coarse
topic like this, is, as he presently says,
to prove that “there are pleasant things
which are not good.” Callicles was proof
against the last instance, but recoils
before this, which Socr. calls the repd-
Aaov, that in which the argument is
‘brought to a head,’ or ‘reaches its eli-
max.” In Theaet. 190 B, 7d mdvrwy

495

al »” 4
BTOUTO, OUVTE GU.

—495, B.| TOPTIA. 103

> ‘ ‘\ > x ‘ » x» 4 ,
ov Sewds Kat aicypds Kal ab\tos ; 7% TovTOUS TOApHoELS
4 > 7 > 3:7 > , »” ea ,
héyew eddaipovas civar, édv dpOdves Eywow dv Séovrat ;
KAA. Ovx« aicydver eis TowwtTa dywov, ® Yex«pares,
Tovs hoyous ;
XN. °H yap eyo dyw &vravia, & yevvate, 7} eketvos
aA >» Lal > s y A 4 97 » 4
ds av hy avédynv ovTw Tods xalporTas, Ores av yalipwow,
ec, ewe lal a a
evoaimovas eivar, | Kal wr Siopilntar Tov HSovav dmotat
> ‘ b. 7, > > ¥ \ a / , ‘
dyabat Kal Kakal; add €re Kat vov éye, wdTepov drjs
> X > x e€Qr % 3 , x > , a eQz a >
eivat TO avTO HOV Kal adyaldr, 7 cival TL TOV Hdێwv 6 OdK

ȴ > ,
eotw ayalor ;

KAA. “Iva 5% pou py dvopodoyovpevos 7 6 dyos, éav
4 , > ‘ a > .
eTepov dyow eivat, Td avTo dye elvar.

XQ. AradGeipes, & Kaddixders, rods tpaTOvs dyous,
Kal ovK Gy ete per euovd ixavas Ta ovta eLerdlors, elrep
Tapa Ta SoKovVTA TavTe@ pets.

KAA. Kai yap ov, & Xdéxpares.

32. Od roiwwy 6p0as Tod ovr’ eyo, elTEp TOL@

GAN’, @ pakdpie, aOpe py od TodTO H

x > , . , , al , ‘ ‘\ “~ mt

7 ayabdv, 7 TavTws xalpew TadTd Te yap TA Vdv S1
ae ud Q . ‘\ > ‘ , / >

aiviySevra Tohha Kai aicypa daiverar ovpBaivorra, et
an 4 ȴ bee, 4 ,

TOUTO OUTWS EVEL, Kal adda TOAXa.

KAA. ‘As ov ye oie, & Yoxpares.
XN. Yd Se 7@ ovr, 6 Kaddixhes, tadra ioyvpices ;

KepdaAaioy denotes the most general form
in which a number of particular in-
stances can be summed up. This can
hardly be said of the present question,
except in a rhetorical sense.

avédnv oftw]) ‘ Broadly, without limi-
tation or exception.” Inf. 509; as oir
ay Sabeie ooraat: ‘at first sight.’ Arist.
Ran. 625, oftw 5¢ Bacduil’ arayayar,
‘without more ado.’ Soph. Antig. 315,
cimeiv Tt Sécecis, ) oTpagels oltws tw;
‘without a hearing.’ Above, p. 464 B,
thy & emt Te compat: play wey obtTws
évoudoa ovx éxw. ‘I cannot give it one
single name.’ Also p. 503 D, odtwoly
arpéua ckoTovpmevot.

495. “Iva 5h wor wh dvopodoyotvmevos
3) ‘Just fhat I may ae contradict
myself, as I must if I say that the
pleasant and the good are distinct, I say

that they are the same.” To which
Socr. replies, that by such an answer
Callicles destroys the force of his first
speech (in which he had censured Gorgias
and Polus for answering against their
conviction), and that if he too says
one thing while he means another there
is an end of their joint investigation of
the truth. dvouodoyotmevos has the
force of an adj. as in Arist. Anal. i. 34,
quoted by Heind., avopodoyotmevoy rots
mpocipnuevots. So Plat. Legg. 741 a,
To duoroyotmevoy Tiw@yres, * honouring
consistency.’

B. Ta’Td Te yap—tAAa woAAd] ‘For
if this is so—if Good is always Pleasure,
and Pleasure Good—there will plainly
follow many other disgusting conclusions
besides those at which I have just now
darkly hinted.’

-

aie
ia vig er

wmcous est

104. TIAATANOS [495, B

KAA.

L.
dSalovTos ;

KAA. Ilavv ye ofddpa.

SQ. "Ie 8H por, émedy ovtw Soxet, Siedov 7dde.
ETLOTH UNV TOV KaNEls TL ;

KAA. "Eywye.

YQ. Od Kai dvdpeiav viv Sy Eheyés Twa elvan pera
ETLOTHENS 3

KAA. "Eheyovr yap.

XQ. "Ado tu ody ws ETEepov Thy avdpetavy THs ém-
oTnpns Svo TavTa Edeyes ;

KAA. Xddpa ye.

SQ. Ti dé; ndoviv kai émiarypnv tadrov 7 ETEpov ;

KAA. “Erepov dj7ov, & codwtate ov. D

SQ. "H Kal avdpeiav érépav 7dovys ;

KAA. Ils yap ov ;

XN. Dépe Sy) oTws peuvnodpcla tadvra, or. Kadhu-
Kyns eby 6 “Ayapveds 7d0 pev Kal ayalov Tavrov eivat,

"Eyoye.
YN. ~Emyepopev apa TO hoyw @s Gov omTov-

OM,

emornnny dé Kal avdpetav kat ahdydwv Kat Tod adyafod
ETEpOV.

KAA. Bonparys Sé y nw 6 ’Adhwecnbev ody dpo-
hoyet Tava. f Opodoyet ;

Cc. “16: 5 wor} The last elenchus con- pleasure and pain do co-exist and end |

sisted in an appeal to the moral sense.
The position of Callicles had been shown
to involve consequences revolting to his
natural taste and feeling: this he had
virtually acknowledged, owning that it
was merely for consistency’s sake that
he still clung to his thesis, 67: raya6dv
kal Td 7d¥ TavTév. The argument which
follows is dialectical, as the former was
popular. Olymp., tod €xrov émixeiph-
patos épanréucba: 9 Sirrdéy eor1, Td pev
Kar’ ev0b, To de 51a THs eis Gddvaror ara-
ywyns. He means that there is direct
proof of the impossibility of good and
evil, which are contraries, existing and
ending simultaneously in the same in-
dividual. The dmaywy) cis adbvaroy
consists in showing the incompatibility
of this principle with the proposition 87:
To dv Kal Tayabdy taiTdv, which is
effected by producing instances in which

together.

éreid} oftw Boxe? |] Stephen followed
by Hirsch. gives ofrw co: Soxet from one
MS. But co: is better absent ; ‘seeing
that it is so ruled,’ Lat. ‘sic placet,’ viz.,
emixeipelv TE nove &s cov cmovddCovTos.
Parmen. 137 B, 4 BovAecOe, émeidhmep
done? mpaymarerddn mwaidlay walle, am
e€uavTov &ptwua Kal ris euavtov bro-
@écews; Inthe next pois but one as
erepoy Thy avdpelay THs éemiorhuns Heind.
and Bkk. insert év after €repov. So also
Hirsch. The instances quoted by Stallb.
(though not all in point) establish the
legitimacy of the omission even in abso-
lute clauses. Yet 1 incline with Heind.
to suppose that in the present case év
has been accidentally absorbed by the
preceding word.

dieQo
tt; |-* Resolve me this.

vy mou KaAeis
I presume you
ES

—496, A.|

TOPITIAX.

105

XQ. Ody dpodoyet otpar S€ y’ ovdé Kadduxdijs, orav
avtos avTov Oedontat dpOads. ime yap jot, TOs Ev TpPaT-
ToVTas TOs KAK@S TpaTTOVEW ov ToOUVaVTioV tyyet TAAOS

4
metrovbévat ;y

KAA. "Eyoye.

x2. "Ap ovv, eitep evavtia éoti tadta dddyows
avayKn TEpt avTa@v Exew WaTEP TeEpl Uytelas EXEL Kal Vd-

> ‘ 9 , e , . ~ ¢ »
Gov; Ov yp awa Syov VYLALVEL TE KALVOCEL O avOpwros,

sQA\ > 7 ¢ , ‘ 4
ovoee aa amahddTTeTaL Vyretas TE Kal VocoV.

KAA. ITds héyens ;

x. Otov wept doov PBovder Tov adpatos azoda-
‘ , “~ bd > , @ ¥
Bav oxdme. vooet | tov avOpwros dd0adpovs, @ dvopa

dbapia ;
KAA. IIas yap ov ;

9 X\
SQ. Od Sjrov kai tyiaiver ye apa Tovs avTous ;

KAA. O08 érwoc7rtodvv.

la >
SQ. Ti Sé; orav ths ddOadpias amadddtrynTa, dpa
, ‘ Lal e , > , “a > A ‘
TOTE Kal THS Vyleias amaddarreTaL TOV dPOahpov Kat

TeMEVTOV Gua audotépwv amyddaKTaL ;

KAA. “Hrwora ye.

SN. Oavpdorov yap, oipar, Kal adroyov yiyvetar. 7

yap ;
KAA. Xpddpa Ye

call something Science,’ i.e. you recog-
nize the existence of a thing called
Science. Cs oo a re
“D. } dporoye?; Ox duodroye?.] What
the Platonic Socr. really thought on this
subject he tells us plainly in the Phile-
bus, p. 60, where after stating the opinion
of Philebus, that pleasure was the finis
bonorum, and that Good and Pleasant
interchangeable terms, he adds:
Swkpatns d¢ mp@trov wey of onot tod”
elvat, S00 5 Kabdwep Ta dvduara, Kal Td
Te ayabdy Kal Th Hdd Siddopoy GAAhAwY
bow exew, waAdAov 5 wéroxov elvat Tijs
Tod ayabod polpas Thy ppdynow } Thr
joovhy.

E. Tovs ed mpdttovtas . . aor
In order to prove that good and evi
cannot co-exist in the same individual,
he enumerates instances of both states,

in which their incompatibility is evident.
The induction, though imperfect, satisfies
Callias, who finally admits the pro-
position in its utmost generality (496 B,
Iidytws dfrov).
arokaBay cxdret] The participle has
the force of anadv. ‘ Examine separately
any part of the body you think proper.’
So Rep. 420 ©, thy eddaiuova (méaww)
mwAdtTomev ovk amoAaBdrres, dAlyous
€v auth To.ovTovs Twas TiBevTes, GAN
5Anv, ‘not in detail, but in its totality.
.496. @avudoroy .. ylyverat| ‘No, for
such a conclusion is both startling and
absurd.’ yiyveraris equiv. to cupBaives,
as in 497 A, €repov ylyverar Td Hdd Tod
&ya0od = Lat. efficitur. Compare Phileb.
55, TIoAAq tis . . GAoyla ~EvuBalver yly-
veoOat.

106

TMAATQNOZX

— [496, B

/
SQ. °ANN & péper, otwar, Exdtepov Kat LapBaver Kai B

atro\dvet ;
KAA, @npi.

> lal A 3. X A > Q , e ,
32. Ovxovv kat toxvv Kat aoleveray woavTws ;

KAA. Nat.

XQ. Kai tdyos kat Bpadurira ;

KAA. Taw ye.

Ss \ > ‘\ \ ‘ > , 4. > ,
32. °H Kat tayala Kai thy evdapoviay Kal tavavria

4 4 \ > / > , , b ee!
TOUTwY, Kaka TE Kal aOALOTHTA, EV péeper hap Paver Kal ev

pepe atraddarreras Exatépov ;

KAA. ITdvras dy7o0v.
zN.

974, Y 7 95» a Y > ,
Eav evpopev ap atta av aya Te amahdatrerat
> \ 9 ¥ lal 4 “A , > * »”
avOpwros Kai dua ever, nov ott TaVTa ye OVK av ENO
76 Te ayabdv Kal 75 Kakdv. Opooyodpev TadTa; Kat ed
para oKepdpevos amroKpivov.

KAA, °AdN trephuvas ws Gpodoye.

LI. 3. "Ide 8) emt ra eurpoobe apodroynpeva.
‘\ A ¥ / ASV X» > ‘ > Few /
TO TewHy Eheyes TOTEPOV HOV 7 aviapov eivar; avTO héyw

TO TEWnD.

KAA. ’Aviapov éywye 76 péevro Tewavta Eobiew Hdv.
32. Mavidver add’ ody 76 ye wewhy avtd davapov.

} ovyt ;
KAA. Pypi.

SQ. Odxodv cat 7d Supp ;

KAA. %dddpa ye.

3. drepov obv ete Treiw Epwrad, 7 Spodoyets ama-

» \ 3 , > 2 -
Oav EvoeLay Kat emu upiav AVLAPOV EWAQL 5S

B. &mroAAve:] Hirsch., who agrees with
Cobet in banishing the forms in vw from
Attic writers, reads of course admréAAvot.
EI and CI are easily interchanged, but
there are passages in the comic poets
where the metre forbids us to alter the
forms objected to. Porson’s note on
Medea, 744, exhausts the subject : “ Hac
forma, ea nempe ubi dw pro vur in fine
verbi ponitur, nunquam uti Tragicos ;
rarissime veteres Comicos; saepius me-
diae, saepissime novae Comoediae poetas.
Paulatim et parce adhiberi coepta est sub

mediam fere Aristophanis aetatem ; tan-
tum enim oceurrit duvdn Av. 1610, cup-
mapaptyvowy in ultima ejus fabula Pluto
719. Cetera loca, ubi usurpari videtur,
aut emendata sunt, aut emendanda.”

D. Mav@dvw| The MSS. here give
either kal éya pavOdyw, or "Eye pavOdve.
Possibly this was a corruption of another
reading, Aéyw, or, as Dr. Badham sug-
gests, of kad@ at the end of the last pious.
(KALQ KAAQ). Any how it cannot be
tolerated.

D

E

497

—497, A. |

KAA.

TOPITIAX.

107

“Opodoye, adda 7) Epdita.

YQ. Etev. SubGvra $é 87 rive addo tu7) HSd dips elvar ;

KAA. "Eyoye.

SQ. Ovdxodv rodrov of déyers Td pev Subovta AvTOv-

peevov Sirov éotiv ;x
KAA. Nai.

SQ. Td dé rivew mrypwcis te THs evdeias Kal HSovy ;

KAA. Nai.

S22. Ovdxodtv xara 7d Tivew yxaipew héyets ;

KAA. Mandora.
SQ. Aubavra ye;

KAA. Gypi.
2. Avrovpevor ;
KAA. Nai.

32. AicOdve ody 76 cvpBaivor, ott huTovpevov xat-

4 9 9 “ / id x» > ia
pew Néyers awa, Oray Supavta wivew héyns; 7} ody apa
TOUTO yiyveTat KaTa Tov avTov TéTOV Kal yxpdvor Eire

Yuxis etre cdpatos Bove; oddev ydp, otwat, Siadéper.

EOTL TAUTA 7 OU ;
KAA. *Eotw.
ZN.

advvatov + édys + elvan.
KAA. Pypt yap.

> N \ > , a , 9
Adda pny ed ye TpaTTOVTA KaKOS TpPaTTEW apa

| 32. "Avidpevor 8é ye xaipew Svvardv dpoddynkas.

KAA. Gaiverac.

>
ZN. OvK apa 7d xaipew eortiv ed mpatrew ovde Td
aviacbat KaK@s, @oTE ETEpOV ylyveTat Td HOV TOD ayaod.
KAA. Odx of8 drra codiler, & Yoéxpares.

7) pey SulavtTa AvTodpevoy Shrov
éorty;| “In this phrase ‘to drink when
athirst,’ the word ‘athirst’ is equivalent
to ‘being in pain,’ is it not?” So pre-
sently, cata 7d wivew xalpew Ayers; “it
is in respect of his ‘drinking’ you mean
that the drinker feels delight ?”

EB. tions t clva:] Hirsch. épno@ civat.
Phrynichus: “Eds for: wév rapa Tots
Gpxatois, GAN dAlyov Td BE wAEioTOV
€pno8a: where Lobeck observes: “”Egys
tam pauca habet idoneae auctoritatis

.

exempla (Plat. Gorg. 466 B, 496 a, Xen.
Cyr. iv. 1. 23, Isocr. Busir. 3. 367), ut
Phrynichi mirer verecundiam, praesertim
eum affini 7s, quod nihilo melius est,
tam grave subierit judicium.” The fol-
lowing @nut inclines me to substitute fs
here, as in 466 E, and in Euthyd. 293 c.
The passage from the Busiris has been
corrected from the MSS. I agree with
Baiter in thinking @p7s inadmissible in
Plato. ’

497. Odx off arta copl(ar, & Sa-

108

XN. Oicba, add’ axniler, d Kaddikders. Kat arpdidi

ITAATQNOX

[497, A

a é .Y + = 7 »” a 7 9 AA e
YY €TL €ls TO eum poo Oer, [ ore EX OV Anpets; | uw elons @S

kpates] Though he has assented to all
_ the premisses, Callicles is unable or un-
willing to accept the apparently inevi-
table conclusion. Even the Platonist
Olympiodorus finds a difficulty. Health
and sickness, he says, cannot co-exist,
because they are contraries: so of well-
being and ill-being generally. How then
can pleasure and pain co-exist? Are not
they contraries also? ms Aéyets mh
elva: évaytiav thy Hdovhy Kal Thy AuThy;
Of this &ropla he offers a characteristic
solution, But the true key to the diffi-
culty is furnished in the Philebus, where
Soer. argues on grounds physical rather
than dialectical. The good state of a
thing, it is there argued, is its healthy
normal state, free alike from @vde.a and
from mAnopovh, either of which con-
stitutes disease. The perception of dea
is painful, the process of its removal
causes pleasure. So long as the process
continues, pain does. not cease, though
pleasure may predominate. When the
want is removed, and the normal state
of the body is re-established, pleasure and
pain cease together. But the normal is
the good state, and as it is that in which
pleasure ceases to be perceptible, the
good and the pleasant cannot be con-
vertible terms. It is conceivable that
the subtle speculations of the Philebus,
in which, though there may be occasional
defects of analysis, there is no taint of
logomachy, may have been suggested by
objections raised to the reasoning in this
| part of the Gorgias: reasoning which is
rather unconvincing than illogical. The
student needs reminding that the pro-
position against which Socr. is arguing,
is not that Pleasure is or may be good,
but that Good consists in Pleasure: that
| the two words ‘ good’ and ‘ pleasant’ are
convertible ; that all which is pleasant is
good, and all which is good is pleasant.
This was the doctrine of Aristippus, of
which Callicles is a popular, perhaps an
unconscious exponent.

Oic@a, GAN’ GxiCer] The verb dct-
CeoOat Its derivative aKiouds are
used to denote any kind of mock modesty
or prudery, especially, though not ex-
clusively, on the part of women. Philip-
pides, Com. ap. Athen. p. 384 E, 7a peév
oov yivaia THAN AnKiCero, ‘pretended
to beshocked.’? Philemon, ib. 569 D, od«
Zot’ ovdé cfs *Akkiomds ovdé Atjipos, ‘there

A

is no coyness or nonsense here.” Hence
the glosses, @pumrduevos, mpoorotovmevos,
yuvaui(duevos. The grammarians derive
the word from a female appellative
*Axxoé, and add biographical particulars
of the lady. These are doubtless apocry-
phal, for we find from Plutarch that
*Akk® was used as a name of fear to
terrify children, like Mopyoé, kaprd
(=Aapta), &e. Plut. de Stoicorum re-
pugnantiis, p. 1040 3B, where Chry-
sippus is said to have derided Plato’s
doctrine of divine retribution, és oddtv
diapépovta Tis "Axkods kal ris *AAgirods
dC dy Ta maiddpia Tod KakooxXoAEiv al
yuvaires avelpyovow. Hence the word
axkiCer@ar may originally have denoted
chimerical or feigned alarm, the transi-
tion from which meaning to that of
affected modesty or niceness is not diffi-
cult. The word first occurs in Pindar
Frag. ine. 217,”Avdpes tives &rniCduevor
Sxv6at Nexpoy trmov otvyéoiw Adyy.
Hence the proverb, 6 Sxvns tov tov,
said of those who affect dislike of what
they secretly hanker after. Here the
sense is obvious: You know, though you
make believe that you don’t know. You
know perfectly well whither my argu-
ments are leading you, but it does not
suit your purpose to acknowledge it.
In the sequel the words 87: @xywv Anpets
seem to have strayed from elsewhere.
Heind. thinks they stood in the place of

Aéyeis in the next reply of Callicles.

Others divide the fjoces as follows:
giving SQ. Oic@a, aad anniCer, d Kad-
AlkAeis. KAA. Kal mpéi0t 7 er eis
Tovumpoobev, tt Exwv Anpeis, iv’ ecidis
@s coog¢os ay pe vovlereis. FQ. Ovx
dua Sway @ exacros huey «.7.A. Even
so the clause 67: @xwy Anpe?s is in the
way: nor is there much point in the
next clause, iv” eidijs, &c., as coming from
Callicles. In the mouth of Socr. it is
an apt retort to odk 018 &rra copiCe, as
if he had said, You blame me 8a 7d
copl(erOa, answer a few more questions,
and you will discover that you are no
gopds. Comp. & copmratré ov supr.
495 D. Moreover, the succeeding ques-
tion of Socr., Odx dua Sway x.7.A.,
comes in abruptly. We should have
expected TIpdéeiu: 54, or some such pre-
fatory formula. However the phoeis be
divided, one thing seems clear, that érz
éxwv Anpets comes more naturally from

—497, ©. ] TOPTIAS. 109

Yt »” lal > 9 8 lal 4 e n
coos av pe vovbetets. ov apa dSupwr Te EKaTTOS NMOV
9 a ,
B TéravTat Kal dpa nodopevos Sia TOV Tivew ;
KAA. Ovx oida 6 Tt déyets.

TOP. Mydapas, & KadXikdets, addN adroxpivov Kat
HpOv eveka, iva wepavOaow ot hdyot.
KAA. ’AXN adel TowdTds eott Ywoxpatns, @ Topyia:
X Say 7 A > ~ x, - 3 dé
opiKpa kal ddiyou akia avepwrTd Kal efehéyxer.

TOP.

‘\ M4 e
"AAG Ti col Siadeper; TavTws OV On avTH 7

Tui, @ Kaddixdes: add’ brdcyes Swxparer efehéyEar

Y gare!

omws Gv Bovdntat.
KAA.

> , , “ yy

éereitep Topyia Soxet ovtas.

rit.

> 4 ‘\ ‘ \ , ‘ ‘ A
Epotra 87) Ov Ta OPLKpa TE KAL OTEVA TAVTA,

~——.

SQ. Evdaipwvr ei, & Kaddixders, ore Ta peyada

4 ‘ S , ST. % 8 > ¥ 0 =
pepvynoar mpw Ta opLiKpa eya ovK wpnv POGensrov
> 4 4 ,
eivar. OUev ovv amédures, AToKpivov, EL OVX Aa TAvETAL

a 4 e ~ Te? ,
Subav Exactos Huav Kal Hddpevos.

KAA, @npi.

Callicles, and that, if retained, it ought
to be transposed as Heindorf suggests.
KAA. Ov« off 8 tt Exwv Anpeis. TOP.
Mndapuas, & KadAliAeis k.7.A.

B. kal judy Evexa] i.e. not merely to
please Socr., but to save us from the
tedium of a protracted discussion.

mdvtTws ov oh abtn % Tywh| A pro-
verbial expfession;duubtiess: but whether
Tuy is put for tlunua, ‘multa,’ ‘dam-
num,’ is not so certain. The sense re-
quired is, “ vet is not your affair ”—
not your reputation, bu at of Soer. is
at stake in consequence of his objection-
able “practice 0 @ your assertions
by staple fistances. So Olymp., etre
Kak@s epwrG cite Kad@s, ovdty mpds ce.
We have here a touch of the eipwveia,
for which, according to Aristotle, Gorgias
was remarkable. Presently Orbe XeS =

ong as frequently.

©. *Epéta 5% cv] ‘Proceed then you,
sir, with your little cramped questions.’
This, says the Schol. was a standing scoff
on the part of the rhetoricians against
dialectical arguments. Hippias, for in-
stance, called them mrepitujwara, shreds
or parings.

TH peyddra pmeninoa amply Ta oan
supp. wun0jvat. The Schol. explains 7
oukpa of the Horta év tore, the
MeydAa as Ta év “Edevoiv. It was

necessary, he says, to be initiated in the
former before witnessing the latter. The
lesser Eleusinia were celebrated at the
temple in the suburb Agra: the greater
both at Athens in the Eleusinium, and
at Eleusis itself. See the testimonies
in Leake’s Athens, p. 250. Symp.
210 A, Tatra Td epwrika tows Kay od
pundelns, Ta 5¢ tTéAca Kal ewowtind, ov
évexa Kal tavt’ éotiy, ovK 018 ei.vids 7°
av «ims. Synesius (Dion. 52 ©) seems to
understand 7& sixpa of the preliminary
rites: Sef Ta pixpa emomtedoa: mpd Tay
perCévwr, Kal xopedoa mply dgdovxjoat,
kal Sadovxjoau mply iepopaytica. But
there is no discrepancy between his view
and that of the Schol. if we are to
believe Plutarch, vit. Demetrii, c 26
(900 p), tére 8 ody Gvaevyviwy cis Tas
-Adhvas, eyparpey brt BovAerat Twaparyevd-
mevos evOds punOivalt, Kal Thy TeAETHY
Gracay ard TOY Likp@v axpl Tay éroT-
TiK@V TapadaBety, TovTO 5é od OemiTdy
Hv oddé yeyovbs mpdtepov. GAARA TA wiKpd
Tov “AvOeatnpi@vos éTedovyTO, TH dé
peydAa TOD Bondpoui@vos: éerdmrevoyv 5é&
TOVAGXLOTOV amd TaY MeydAwy éviavTdy
diadrmévres. Hence from the pixp& to
the state of a complete epopt eighteen
months would intervene. See, however,
Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 36.

110 IIAATANOS [497, ©

XQ. Odxovv kal wewav kal Tov adrA@v éemiupia@v Kat
HOovav apa TaveTat ;

KAA. "Eott tadta.

2. Ovxodv kai tov AvTaVv Kal TaV Hdovar
TAvETat ;

KAA. Nai.

XQ. *AMa pnv tov ayalav Kat Kakov ody
TAVETAL, WS TV Wpohdyeis? VOY SE OvY Spodoyets ;

KAA. “Eywye, ti ovv 87 ;

SQ. "Ore od Tavita yiyverar, & Hide, Tayaba Tots
noéow ovde Ta KaKa Tols dviapols. TOV pev yap aya

dpa D

Y
Apa

, lan \ » e ¢ /, »” La) iO > \ x
TAVETAL, TOV OE OV, WS ETEpWY OYTWV. TOS OdV TavTA av
¥ \ £07 A > a mh te \ A A Sak
ein TA HO€a Tots ayabois H TA aviapa Tols KaKots ; “Eav
\ , \ ANS > 9.2.7 > , 2QX 4
dé Bovhy, kat 778° erioxeparr oiwar yép cou ovde TavTn

y A »” , x. > ‘\ c > A
6poroyetabar. alpe dé Tos ayalods odxl adyabav y

, cd ‘\ lal Y \ \ a a
TApovala ayabllovs KaNets, WOTEP TOUS Kadovs ois av

Ka\os Tapy ;
KAA. "Eyoye.

XQ. Ti 5€; dyabods avdpas Kanes tods adpovas
\ , b) x »” 5 A AY 5 tA A
Kat Seuiovs ; ov yap aptu ye, adda Tovs avdpetous Kal

dpovisous Edeyes.
KAA. Ildvv pev odv.

Xx > , > X A
} ov TovTous ayalovs Kahels ;

x2. Ti dé; watda dvdnrov yaipovra ndn «ides ;

KAA. "Eyoye.

32. "Avdpa Sé ovrw cides dvdnrov yalpovta ;
KAA: Oipa éywye. adda Ti TodTO ;
SQ. Ovdé add’ asroxpivov.

D. Odxody kal tev AvTGv| To prove
that during the act of drinking the
thirsty man is the subject both of pain
and pleasure, Olympiod. suggests the
experiment of stopping short (avaxaticat
éavrdyv) before the thirst is slaked: under
these circumstances, he says, aicPavdueba
THs AuTAS waAw. ef 5& euTAHTOMEY Eav-
tous, ylverat Hutv To AcXOe” wlov 7
axéovTd Te Sivay. (Il. x. 2.)

kal thd éxicxepa| Here begins a
new elenchus. If the essence of good
and evil be pleasure and pain respectively,
those who feel pleasure are better under
all circumstances than those who feel

pain. But there are circumstances under
which the coward feels as much pleasure
as the brave man, or more. Where-
fore, the brave man being good and the
coward evil, under such circumstances
the evil man is better than the good
man, or at least as good—the good and
the bad are put on a level in regard
of goodness and badness, or, if there be

- any difference, the bad man is at one

and the same time better and worse
than the good. Here again a paradoxical
conclusion is shown to follow necessarily
from paradoxical premisses.

—498, 0.] TOPTIAS. 111

KAA. Eiéov.
498 | 32. Ti dé; vodv €xovta \vTovpevor Kal xaiporta ;
KAA. ypi.
XN. T6repor S€ paddov yaipovor Kai uTovvTat, ob
Ppovipor H ot adpoves ;
KAA. Oitpar éywye od odd Te Siadepew.
XQ. °AN dpxet Kal TodTo. év woheum S€é dy eldes
avdpa Sedov ;
KAA. IIés yap ov;
XQ. Ti ovv; dmidvrav tov toesiwy motepot cor
€ddxouv paddov xaipev, ot Sevrol H of avdpetor ;
B KAA. *Ayuddrepor ewovye paddov ci 5€ pH, Tapamdn-
glws Ye.
XQ. Ovdev Siadéper. yatipovor S ovv cal ot Serdroi ;
KAA. Xdddpa ye.
x2. Kat ot ddpoves, ws eorxer.
KAA. Nat.
XQ. LHpocrdvrwv Sé ot Sevtot pdovov AvTodvvTat 7} Kal
ot dvdpetot ;
KAA. *Apdorepo..
SQ. "Apa dpoias ;
KAA. MaddXov ioas ot Seudol.
XQ. “Amidvrav & od paddov yaipovew ;
KAA. “Icws. ,
XN. Ovxodv AvTovvTat péev Kat yaipovot Kal ot adpo-
Cves Kat ot dpdvysot Kat ot Sevol Kal of advdpetor
mapamynoiws, ws av dys, paddov Sé ot Seot Tov
avdpetov ;
KAA. Gypi.
XQ. “Adda py ot ye Ppdvipoe Kal sh dyabot, ot
dé Sevdol Kat dppoves KQKOL ;
KAA. Nai.
32. Tapamdr\noiws apa xaipovor cal vTodvrar ot
ayalot Kat ot KaKot ;
KAA, ypi.
x2. "Ap odv wapatdynoiws cioly dyaboi Kat Kaxol ot

A
we /
ite
y

wie

3 , \ e 4 * ‘\ ¥ “ > ‘ \
ayafot Te Kat ol KaKol; 7 Kal ett waddov dyabol Kal

e ,
KQKOL ELOY OL KAKOL ;

ITAATQNOZX

[ 498, c

LITT. KAA. *AdNG pa AP od of8 6 7 déyers.
32. Ov« otic ore tovs ayabods ayabav dis Ta-
povoig etvar ayabovs, Kakovs Sé Kaxav; ta Sé dyaba

> A e , ‘ A ‘ > v
elvar Tas NOoVdsS, KaKa O€ TAS avias ;

KAA. "Eyoye.

XQ. Odxody rots yatpovor tapeote Tayabd, ai ndovai,

elirep Xatpover ;
KAA. Ils yap OU;

32. Ovxodty ayalav tapdvtav ayaoi ciow ot xat-

povTes ;
KAA. Nat.

a“ > , ,
2. Ti d€; rots aviwpévors ov mapeoti TA Kaka, at

Umar ;

KAA. IIapeotu.

D

32. Kakav dé ye wapovaia dys od eivar kakods B

TOUS KaKOUS. 7) OVKETL HIS ;
KAA. "Eywye.
sN.
@VTat ;

KAA. IlIavv ye.

> \ »*” a KX , \ \ aK >
Ayaboi apa Ol QV XALpact, KQKOUL de Ol QV AVi-

SQ. Ot pe ye paddov paddor, ot 8 Arrov Arrov, ot
d€ wapathynoiws Tapamhyotas ;

KAA. Nai.

SQ. Odxodv dys wapamdynoiws xaipew kat AvTEeto Bat
. , \ \ » \ N N \
Tovs dpovifovs Kal Tovs adpovas Kal Tovs Seods Kai
‘ > , x ‘ fu + ‘ ,
Tovs avdpeious, 7} Kal waddov Ere Tovs Setros ;

KAA. "Eyoye.

YN. Zvdd\,yroat 87 Kowp per ewod, ti july ocup-
Baiver ek Tav apodoynpévor Kai Sis ydp Tou Kal Tpis

498. oO. } Kad ert waAdAov ayabol Kab
Karol eto of kakol] The meaning of
this is explained in the foregoing note.
But the reasoning was spoilt by the
copyists, who inserted of dyaGol after
éyadoi, writing thus: } Kal &rs maddov
yao) of GyaBol Kal xaxol eiow of kaxol ;
Routh first perceived the interpolation,

which the Ziir. edd. expelled from the
text.

D. kakovs 5¢ xaxdv] Hirsch. unneces-
sarily inserts the article, reading tobs
kakovs 5¢ kax@y. The art. is again omitted
in the following clause: kaka 5¢ ras avlas.

kat dis ydp To Kad rpts] Schol. *Eue-
SoxA€ous Td eros, ad’ of Kal % mapoula

—499, B. |

TOPITIAX.

113

499 daou Kahov elvar Ta Kaa héyew Te Kal | emia KoTreto Oa.

"Ayabbdr pev eivar Tov Ppdviov Kal avdpetov hapev. H yap;

KAA. Nai.

x2. Kaxdv dé tov ddpova kat Sedov ;

KAA. ITavv Ye
x.
KAA. Nat.

"Ayaldv Sێ ad tov yatpovta ;

x2. Kaxdv dé rov avidpevor ;x

KAA. *Avéyxn.

32. “Anacbar dé Kai yaipew tov dyafdv Kai

KaKOV

e ld ¥ \ X a ‘ 4,
dpoiws, tows dé kal waddov Tov KakOP ;

KAA. Nai.

32. Ovdxovv spotws yiyverar Kakds Kal ayalds Te
Po skh LPs t
> a xk ‘ ~ > ‘\ c , -_ 7 ~ ,
Bayale@ 7 Kat waddov ayalds 6 Kakds ; ov Tad’Ta cvpBai-
vel Kal Ta TpdOTEpa exelva, edy Tis TATA HH Ndéa TE Kal
> ‘\ > > Av > /, > ld
ayaa. eval ; ov TavT avayKn, @ KadXixhets ;
LIV. KAA. ITdhav tot cov axpodpa, & Ydéxpares,

na > , A x» rs 4 > A
Kafopodoyar, évOvpovpevos oTt, Kav Tailwy Tis ao evd@

e an » <
OTLOUY, TOVTOV ATMEVOS EXEL WOTEP TA PELPAKLA.

as 57

‘ ¥ : ao i> c lal b , ae e a
ov ole Ewe H Kal addov dvtwodrv avOpdértawv ovy HyetcOar
‘ A , e 4 ‘ 7 ,
Tas pev Bedrious Hdovds, Tas 5é YELpous.
YN. "Iod io’, & KadXikdets, ws Tavoupyos €l, Kat

not 5é Kal Sis yap d Sef Kadrdv eotw
évicretv. The proverb is repeated, Phileb.
595. Legg. 956 E, kadbv td ye dpbdv
kal dts «ad tls.

499 B. xv ral(wy]} Callicles is driven to
the pretext that he was not speaking
seriously when he-affirmed the identity
of good and pleasure. ‘As if he did not
know as well as any man that some plea-
sures were better than others.’ Contrast
with this Phileb. 13 B, Gs Aéyeis, &
Béxpares; oter yap Twa cvyxwphoecea,
Oguevoy jdovhy civa Tayabdy, cita avé-
tec@al cov A€yovtos vas pév cival Tivas
ayabas Hdovds, Tas 5€ Twas Erépas abtay
xaxds; Of course, no consistent Hedo-
nist would make such an admission.
But Callicles was no philosopher, but a
repeater by rote of dogmas which hap-
pened to take his fancy, as furnishing a
theoretical ground for his own practice.
That practice was probably not so bad
as his theory, which he accordingly lays

VOL. IT.

aside as lightly as he had taken it up.
The quickness with which he resumes
the offensive after his defeat is a happy
dramatic touch. Plato evidently intends
to contrast his rhetorical address with
the ovdevia he displays as a dialectician.

*Iov tov] Noted by MHesych. as a .
oxeTAiaotiKoy éxlpinua as Td ged.
Arist. Plut. 477, Ob Se? cxetAidCew rad
Body mply by wdéns—Kat tis dbvar’ by
bh Body iod iod Toadr’ axotwy; Both
in tragedy and comedy iod io’ denote
pain, sorrow, or indignation; but in
comedy sometimes agreeable surprise.
Arist. Equit. 1091, tod iod. OdK jv &p’
ovdels tov TAdvidos copmérepos. Here
the interj. has its ordinary sense; Socr.
protesting, or affecting to protest, against
the ill-usage he has received from Call.
This seems obvious, but Heind. says,
*Mirantis magis sunt voculae quam in-

dignantis.”

114 IIAATAQNOS [499, ©

y ‘\ ~ ‘\ X\ lal , 9 ¥
por WomTEp TaLoL Xp, TOTE pev TAVTA PaTKwY OUTMS EXE,
nw » 5
rote S€ Etépws, eEataTav pe. Kaito. ovK @pnv ye KaT
a > € ¥”
apxas td god ExdvTos eivar eLararnOycecIa1, ws ovTos

/ “ \ > 4 a. ¥ > 7, ‘\ ‘
dirou: vov dé epedoOnv, Kat ws EoiKev avayKy Lol KATA TOV

> lal lal X
madaiov Adyov TO Tapody Ev Tove Kal TOUTO déyerOau TO
, N bas ona EE OG ~O Pe, ,
Siddpevov Tapa cov. Eat. dé dH, ws Eouxer, 6 viv Eyes,

4 c , , > e \ > , e€ \ 7 > 4
6Tt NOovat Tivés elow at pev ayabal, ai d€ Kakat. 7 yap ;

KAA. Nat. :

> 5 e

YO. *Ap odv dyabat péev ai dfédwor, kaxat 5€ at
BraBepai ;

KAA. IIdvv ye.

‘

SN. ~Ndddrpor 6€ ye at adyaldv tu Towodoa, KaKkat
O€ AL KAKOV TL;

KAA. ypi.

YN. *Ap odv tas toidode déyets, otov Kata TO TOG
aA lal ‘ > , > Lal > ?, ‘ / ¢ , >
as vov 7 édéyonev ev TO eobiew Kal Tivew dovas* Et
dpa TovTwy at pev vyievay Tovovow év TH TdpaTL 7
ioydv H addy Twa apeTHVY TOD THpaTos, avTaL pev aya-

, CNA A'S , , ,
bai, au de TAVAVTLA TOUTWVY KAKAL 5

KAA. Ilavv ye.

Lal X lal
SN. OvKovy Kat oTar @oavTws al pev ypynoTat Elow,

at dé movnpat ;
KAA. Ids yap ov ;

> lal 4 A \ A e ‘ Q 4
32. Ovxodv tas pev xpnotas Kal ndovas Kat vas
\
Kal alpEeTeov EOTL Kat TPAKTEOP ;

KAA. . Ilavv ye.

c. TéTe wey TadTa ddokwy] The Bodl.
with others gives réTe piv ad pdoKkwr.
If this is not a mere blunder, probably
ad has been transposed, and we should
read téte 8 ad érépws. The Ziir. edd.
with Stallb. follow the Bodl., but the
meaning given by Stallb. is somewhat
forced: “ Respicit enim Socrates ad ea
quae supra cap. xlvi. in. Callicli dixerat,
oddémote TavTa A€yers wep) TOY adTav.”
Others give téTe wey Ta adrad or Tabra
pdoKwr.

7d mwapdy_¢d moreiy] ‘I must do the
best I can’ Generally ed TWecVai, as
in“fucian, Necyom. § 21, 7d rapdy «db
Oéuevos. But Legg. 959 £, 7d St wapdy

dey eb moretv. Olymp., 8:& rodrov 5é
onpatverat, bri, TH ex THS TUXNS Diddueva
Kéoper. pddcoTta 5¢ TodTo Aéyerar brd
(leg. éml) t&v KuBevdvtwy. édy yap
&piOudrs vinnthpios méon, etn Se Kab
texvitns 6 kuBedwv, Oavmartaes viKa: et
dt m Tixn mev mapéxor TA Sekia, 5 BE
dexduevos &rexvos dv ph eideln xph-
cacbat, ovdtv xpnotdy GmoBalve. In
the first part of the scholium he alludes
to the well-known Sardprav @Aaxes, Tav-
Tav Kbomel.

D. ei 4pa—mroitow| The old reading
was To.vcat. mowvcw was adopted by
Bekk. from four MSS.

0

D

E

SQ. Tas Sé rovypas ov ;
KAA. Andov 8y.
YQ. “Evexa yap mov tov ayabav aravra hpi coke
mpaxtéov eivat, et pvnpovevers, euol Te Kai IIdhkw. dpa
Kal gol auvdoKel oUTw, TéAos Elval aTacay TaV Tpakewr
A > , \ > 7 4 “~ , S ,
TO ayabov, Kat éxeivou EeveKev Sev mavtTa Tada “et
500 TerOau, GAN odk éxetvo | Tov dAdo ; ovpyyn pos new & doc ee
Kal ov €K Tpitev 3 :
KAA. "Eyoye.
XN. Tédv ayaldv dpa vera Set kai Tada Kai ra
e , 4 > > > > X “w e ,
noca mpatrew, GAN ov Tayala Tov 7déwr.
KAA. Ilavv Yé
rN.

> 0a n yd > \ ‘ ¢€ “ , xa al 8 A >
ayava T@V YOEWV EOTL KAL OTOLA KAKA, 1) TEXVLKOU €l €LS

"Ap ovv mavtds avdpds éotw éxhéEacbar rota

€KACTOV ;
KAA. Teyvixov.
LV. 32. “Avapvyncbdper 8) Gv ad éya pos II@\ov
Kat Topyiav étiyyavov éywv. Eédeyov ydp, et pry-
B Movevels, OTL elev Tapackeval al pev expt NOovyns, avTO
TovTO povoy TapacKevalovoa, ayvoodaoa dé 7d BéATLov
Kat TO xelpov, at S€ yryvdoKovoa 6 Ti Te ayaldv Kat
6 TL Kakovy Kal ériOynv Tav pev Tept Tas Hdovas THY
\ > , > > > 4 “ ‘\ \ ‘ >
payeipiny eurrerptav, aAN ov Téxvyny, TOV SE TeEpl Td aya-
Odv Thy iatpixny Téyvyv.
, Se & ¥ 8 ap x TS 7 9 » 4
pyre avtds otov Sety pds eve wailew pd 6 tu dv rdyys

Kat mpos didtov, ® KadXikXets,

E. euol te Kal TldA@] See p. 468 B,
evek Spa tod Gyabot Gravta Taira
motovow of movodyres—Oynut. We must
know, says Olymp., that good is not a
means but an end: ioréoy 81: 7d ayabdy
obk €or Evexd Tov GAAG ov Eveka: Evera
bev ydp tov éotiv 7 6dds 7} &yovca em)
7) Tédos- oF SE Evexa aiTd Td TéAos.
The episodical fight with Call. is now
at an end, and Socr. brings the dis-
cussion round again to the topics pre-
viously under consideration.

500. éx tpirwy]| ‘in the third place,’
‘of the t Same peri-
phrasis occurs, = Test. n-

B. S71 elev wapackevat] “quwil y a
certaines industries,” Cousin. mapackevh
is a general term, including true réxvat,
and those empirical contrivances which
pretend to be réxva: but are not.
definition of a réxvn is, a process or
“industry” which aims at good. So
Aristotle : maca Zen ayabod Twos éple-
cba et. e Texvat, on the

contitry, limit their aim to pleasure.

mpos iAtov] sc. Ards. Phaedr. 234
E. mm comedy ;

as Diodorus
ap. Athen. vi. 239 B, 6 Zeds 6 olAtos,

‘O ta&v Gedy péyiotos dpodoyounévws.

Call. had professed a friendship for
play gol TQdé 7° ex Tpitwv 7° enol. Also Socr.: mpdés ce emienk®s Exw PiducGs,
Symp. 213 s. In Timaeus 54 4,we have 485 RB.

éx tplrov in the same sense.

rT 2

The ,

Mie A, Uh '

116 ITAATNNOX [ 500, B

‘ ‘ A b) / LD > ‘ 7s n 7

Tapa Ta SoKovvTa. amroKplvou, pT av Ta Tap ELOD OVTWS
> , ce / e “A ‘ 4 ‘ , 2 &X
amodéyou ws TailovTos épads yap oT’ Tept TovTOU Eto O
eon ry , @ en an , , ‘ x
Hew ot eyou, ob Ti av paddov oTroVddcELE TiS Kal TLKPOV

A ¥ x A EY A y ‘ , fal
voov €xov avOpwros, 7) TovtTo, OvTwa xpH Tpdmov Cyr,

Naat, Hee
x

, 2A e ‘ a eet A ‘ lal > >) X 8
moTEepov é€ml Ov ov TapaKadels eve, TA TOV avdpos 57
lal ‘
TavTa mpatrovTa, héyovTa Te ev TH Siw Kal pyTopiKry
ACKODVTA Kal TONLTEVOPEVOY TOUTOV TOY TPdTOV BY YEts
vov toditeveo Oe, 7 [ert] Tovde Tov Biov Tov év irocodia,
\ , ee \ a 2 , , ¥” S
Kat ti wot éotlv ovTos éxeivov Sdiadépwr. tows ovv
Batiordv éeotw, ws apti eyo émexeipnoa, Siapetobar,
> »
Suehopevovs S€ Kal dpotoyyaavTas aAdj ows, El _€oTLD
,
TovTw Sitta TH Biw, oxepacOa Ti Te Siad€perov aAdr}-
Aye , , > a] ¥ > »” > 0
how Kat omdtepov Biwréov avTow. tows ovv ovr oicba
Tt héyo.
KAA. Ov dyra.
XN. “AN éyd oor cadéotepov épd. éerd1) apohoyy-
> 4 ‘ ‘ +» 4 > Q v4 io PS) , a>) 4
Kapev eyo TE Kal OV eivar pev TL ayaldr, eivar dé TL HOU,
9 \ XV €QN aA > A ¢ , \ > La) /
erepov S€ 70.950 TOD ayabod, Exatépov Sé adTow pedéryv
C. dpas yap 871] ‘The subject of our
discussion, you perceive, is one which
cannot fail to be most interesting toa

man of even ordinary intelligence, the
question being, after what manner we

eipwretas earl.

D. ef kez neta DA Biw}] An
instance of the Schema Pindaricum of
the grammarians, the dual however ,
taking the place of the plural. This

ought to live: whether in that to which
you invite me, in doing man’s work, as
you call it, speaking in the assembly,
and practising rhetoric, and playing a
part in politics on the principles now in
vogue with you politicians; or,’ &c.
omovddeee is opposed to the foregoing
mai¢ev. In the next clause émf, which
Hirsch. brackets, is found in all the
MSS. It is evidently better absent—
métepoy TovTov or éxeivoy toy Blov eq”
by od mapaxadrets ut (Se? Civ) Tdvde_
Tov ev gpirogopla. If retained, we can
only suppose a confusion of thought pro-
duced by the foregoing mapakadeis, from
which aapaxkAntéov may be “ under-
stood.” But this would surely be bad
rather than colloquial writing; and it
is equally easy to presume a confusion
on the part of the copyist. In 7a Tod
av5pbs 5) Tadra lies an allusion to the
invective of Callicles, p. 485; 6%, as
usual, denoting that the sentiment is
not that of Socr. but of his opponent.
So the Schol., 6 5% cvvSeruds eudaytinds

construction, we are told, is in Attic
admissible only when a substantive verb,
as @or. or yi-yvera, stands at the begin-
ning of a clause. Euth gore
yap Zuorye kat Bwuot. Soph. Trach. 520,
ener eA Lunes Aristoph.
. DO; UI Vap ovK Fac 9 Kapu"
popuidos AvtrAw diagpinzaprre Tois
Oewuevors. In these cases €ors answers
to the Germ. es giebt, or Fr. il y a or il
est with plur. Here however éo7: is
apparently the copula, of which r& Biw
is the subj. and dirrw the predicate, and
this seems to distinguish the case from
those quoted in the ordinary grammars.
‘If these lives are really two,’ i. e.
diverse and opposite. Stephen, following
the Aldine, omitted the article 7é in his
text. If we could adopt this reading in
defiance of the MSS., the passage would
fall under ordinary rules, and we might
translate: ‘If there really exists such a
pair of lives as that supposed, let us see
how they differ,’ &c.
éxatépov 5& abroiy] ‘and that a cer-

501

—501, A.]

TOPIIAX.

117

Twa elvat Kal TapacKeuny THS KTHOEwWS, THY pev TOD
c , , ‘ A lal > lal +. , lal
Eyd€0s Onpav, tTHv Sé Tov adyafod—aird S€ por TodTO

Tmpatov » cvpdoalk H py ovpdys ;

KAA. Ovrw dnypi.

¥

LVI. 3A. “I. 54, & Kai mpds Tovade eya edeyov
8 / , > ¥ +) , > ial ld
tomoddynoat por, ei dpa wor edo€a TéTe ayy Eye.
eNeyov S€ ov OTe H pev dyorouK? ov pou Soxed téyvyn
> > Lee , ¢ a 3 , , 9 ¢ \ 4
elvat GAN’ eurrerpia, 7) S iatpuxy, héywy dre | 7 wéev TovTOV
e , \ N , ¥ \ N > 7 a
ob Geparever Kat THY pvow eoKeTTaL Kal THY aitiay av

, \ , x , CY a e t3
TPAaTTel, KQL hoyov EXEL TOUTWV EKACTOU Sovvat, Hn la-

Tpixy 4 S érépa ths NSovys, pds Hv H Oepareia airy

tain study and preparation go to the
acquisition of either.’ The next clause,
Tiv wtv—Tod ayabov, is bracketed by
Hirsch. as suspicious. But there is dra-
matic propriety in the iteration.

E. } cbupah: } ph: obudns ;] Formerly
the edd. gave } cippoab: } wh cundis.
Heind. first pointed out the solecism—
zm prohib. with the subj. present. It
is a question whether this cuuzp7js was
not originally an ‘interpretamentum.’
Heind. quotes Charm. § 29, érepdv éort
7d Bap te Kal Td Kovmoy THs oTaTiKijs
auriiss ~Evyxwpeis; But we nowhere
meet with such interrogative clause
after the formula 4% od: 4 wh, ‘say yes
or no,’ of which the present is a variety.

ZAeyov 5€ wou] ‘I said, I believe, that
cookery is in my view no art, but an
expertness—unlike medicine, which is
an art—arguing that the latter has ex-
plored the nature of the subject she has
to treat, as well as the causes of the
treatment she adopts, and that she,
medicine, can give a reasonable account
of both : whereas her rival, even in regard
of that pleasure which she exclusively
cultivates, goes to work in a_ tho-
roughly inartistic manner, having never
studied either the nature of pleasure or
its cause, and without a pretence of
reason, without any attempt, one may
say, at classification—the creature of
routine and practice—she is content with
keeping record of what usually comes to
pass, whereby in fact she is enabled to
provide her various pleasures. The
sentence is irregularly constructed. In
the clause, 7 8 érépa ris jdovijs, the
genitive is out of construction, its con-
nexion with ¢vow being interrupted by

the words xowdj—épxeta. This two
codd. seek to rectify by repeating 4,—
n & érépa, h THs Hdovjs,—but we thus
lose the correspondence with the anti-
thetic clause, 7 mév tovtov, which is
important, rhetorically speaking. In the
sequel tp:B} kal eurepla are in the
nature of epithets rather than of pre-
dicates, depending with the participles
ore. SiaptOu. upon the finite verb épyxe-
Tat. ow ouévn, on the other hand,
belongs rather to tp:8} Kat éumeipta, as
if he had said rpiB} obca ral eumeipla,
Gre uvhunv pdvovy cwlouevn, Ke. & 5h
refers to Tov ciwOdros yiyverGa, ovdév
diapiOunoauévy in the next clause being
only a development of &Adyws. Rational
sciences count and classify their subject-
matter, as medicine counts and classifies
the diseases of the body. In the Phae-
drus, Socr. proposes a scheme of rational
rhetoric, which shall undertake d:ap.0-
peio@cu (Lat. dinumerare) tas pices Tay
a&xovtomevwy... Kal Kat et5n diapetoOa,
according to the analogy of that rational
(as opposed to empirical) medicine, of
which Hippocrates and the Coan school
were the founders. See Phaedr. 270—
273. The popular rhetoric, here com-
pared to cookery, is in the Phaedrus
illustrated by the analogy of medical
quackery, p. 268 4—c, where see the notes.
The subordination of the arts and sciences
to an ethical law is peculiar to the
Gorgias. The empiric looks only to
pleasure, the true artist extends his
view to the useful and the good: a dis-
tinction which is put in the background
in the Phaedrus, where the form of
science is in question rather than its
practical tendency.

118 ITAATONOX [501, A

b] ‘ 9 ~ 3 3.3 ae. + »”
éoTly ataca, Komion aTéxvas Em avTHV EpXETat, OUTE TL
‘\ 4 4 Lal a) “~ + ‘ - iAG
Tv diow oKebapevy THS NSovyAs ovTE THY aiTiav, adoyws
~ \ 4
Te TavTdmacw, ws eros eimetv, ovdev Siapiounoapery,
XN ‘ > / "2 /, ah 06
TpiBy Kal éumepia, pyyunv povov cwlopern Tov ciwHo-
, ®On N , N c , A> >
tos ylyverOar, @ 817 Kai wopilerar Tas Sovds. TavT odv
~ A a \ > ,
mTpatov oKdme ei SoKEet Tou tkavads éyerOat, Kal eivat
lal + e \
TwWes Kal wept Wuy?y ToLadTaL addNaL TpaypaTeEtaL, al meV
la! , x
Texvikal, mpopyedy twa €xovoa Tov Bedtictov wept
/ c \ 4, \ ° Les > 4,
mv Yuyyv, at d€ tovrov pév dduywpodoa, EoKeppevat

> Ss WA > ~ ‘ e€ ‘ / “A Lal s x p
& av, @omeEp EKEL, THV noovnv pdvov THs Wuyns, Twa av

ei , , - de aA B Xv , x , a
avTn TpoTov yiyvowto, nTis O€ 7) BedTiov H XElpwr Tar
e la » 4 » , > “ A a
HoovOv, OVTE TKOTOVMEVaL, OVTE péAOV avTais ado F
v4 , ~* sd a o] \ \ ,
xapiler Oar pdvov, etre Bedtuov Elite YElpov. €Epmol pev yap,
> , a) td G Ny , ‘ A
® KadXixdes, Soxovat te eivat, kai Eeywyé pnt Td ToLovTOV
KoNakelay €ivar Kal TEpl TOA Kal Tepl Wuyny Kal rept
ao OTOV av Tis THY NOoVHY Departed AoKeTTMS ExwV TOU
0 nv noovnv Vep n X
aA , ‘\ \ ‘\ ,
dpeivoves TE Kal TOU xElpovos: od dé 57 TéTEpoY OVyKaTa-
, ean A , \ S Fh , A 9 ,
TiPeoat nul wept TovTwr [THY avTnv dd€av| Hh avtidys ;
> ¥ > ‘ n 4 \
KAA. Ovx éywye, adda ovyxwpe@, wa got Kal Te-
pavO7 6 Noyos kat Topyia T@de xapioapau.
, \ ‘\ A 4 ‘ »” lal \
XQ. drepov 5€ wept pev piav Wuynv €ote TovTo, TEpt
\ , \ ‘ > »”
dé Ovo Kal TOAAaS OVK COTW ;
KAA. Ovk, adda kai wepi S00 Kai wept Todds.
32. Ovkodv kai dOpdais apa yapilerOar eore pndev
oKoTovpevov TO BétioTOv ;
KAA. Oitpa eywye.

501 B. mpayyareta:] Equiv. to mapa-
oreval, 500 B, ‘operations,’ ‘modes of
procedure,’ or simply ‘occupations.’ Pre-
sently we have émir}devors in the same
sense.

0. cvyxatatlWeca—rhy adthy ddtav]
This is an uncommo Uge, cvyKaratt-
Oeuor being generally put absolutely, or
with a dative. It is very doubtful
whether Wjpov is ever to be supplied, as
the Lexx. suggest. The Greeks do not
say kaTtabécOa Wipor, but Oéc8a. Here,
according to the Schol., the phrase=
ovyxwpets TH avTa Topyla kal TdAq.
Hesych., karadécOat’ ocvvavéoa. Rost
and Palm quote A. Gellius, N. A. xix. 1,

ovyKatarldera: Tas To1adTas payTacias,
as parallel to the present passage, but the
quotation is not accurate, as davracias
1. 1. depends upon ‘approbare,’ not on
cuvyKatatlderat, which belongs to a
subsequent clause. In Isaeus 59, 25,
ovyKrarabvécba: has the sense ‘ una depo-
nere,’ scil. ypaumaretoy mapd tw. But
this does not support the present read-
ing. In one MS. we find riy adrhy ddtav
éxwv, and this suggests the suspicion that
Thy avthv ddkav €xers may have been
an old marginal gloss on cvyxararl@ecat.

Oix &ywye| Compare note to 453 D.
We have the same use of the negative
in the next fijots but one.

C

phi sanihipabenainip ena DO aw”

E

502

—

—502, A. |

TOPIIA.

119

LVII. 32. "Eyes oty ecizety airwes ciow at emiry-

3 , 4 Lal aA ~
Sevoers ai TovTO TwoLtovoa:; Maddov 8é, ei Bovrer, €/LOU

al A wn
EpwTavtos, } pev av cor Soxn TovTwv elvar, babi, ) S av

BH, py pale.

mparov S€ cxebdpela tiv avdynTiKHD.

>
OU

Soxet cou Town Tis ctvar, & KadXixdeus, THY Hdoviy
c a 4 4 ȴ > > \ ,
Hav povov Sidxew, dro S ovdéev dpovtiler ;

KAA. *Epovye Soxee.

a ®
XQ. OvKodv cai ai tovaidse daca, otov y KiBapi-

OTLKH 1 EV TOS ayaow ;
KAA. Nat.

yQ. Ti dé 4 tov yopav Sidackahia Kal y Tov SiOv-
papBov roinots od TovatTn Tis cou Katadaiveras ; } Hyet

9 an“ nw
tu hpovtiley Kwyotav tov Médnrtos, ows pet Te TovodTov

oUev Gv ot aKxovovTes Behtious ylyvowro, | 6 Tu pédrer

xapreto Bau TO ox@ tov Gearav ;

KAA. Andov 87) TovT6 ye, & Yoxpates, Kuyoiov ye wept.
SQ. Ti 8€ 6 raryp aitod Médns; 7 mpds 7d BéAti-
aotov Brérav eddxer cor KiPap@dety ; 7H exetvos péev ovde

E. Thy avAntixhy] ‘ Auletic’ was one
of Plato’s favourite aversions. Rep.
399 pv, rl 5€; avAotrowwts } abAntas
mapadéte: eis Thy méAw; 4 ov TovTO
moAvxopddétaroy, kat a’rTa Ta Tavapudvia
avAod tuyxdver dvTa pyhpata; This
illustrates a difficult passage in Philebus
56, where the reading adAnrirh is not to
be disturbed. The flute was used in
religious ceremonies of an exciting and
impassioned kind, such as the orgiastic
rites of Bacchus and Cybele. It was
probably from the associations thus sug-
gested that it derived its ill name; for
we must not forget, in estimating the
reasonableness of the prejudice, that the
dramas of Sophocles and Aeschylus were
accompanied by the flute.

Hh KOapiotixh % év Tots &yGow] The
latter words are emphatic, as the Schol.
has correctly observed: atAntixhy pmey
macav éxBdAAct TeV bp0@y ToALTELOY,
Kiapiotinhy 5¢ od macay, GAAG Thy év
Tots &y@or wdvnv: olde yap &AAnY hy
od (ew Tas roditelas vevduxev. He refers
to Rep. 1. 1, Avpa 34 cor Kal KiOdpa
Aciwerai, kal Kara wéAw xphoma. In
fact all the fine arts, rhetoric included,
are allowed in the Platonic state, but in
subordination to the educational pur-

poses for which civil society is supposed ,

to exist. The citharistic practised in the
musical contests seemed to Plato an
aimless exhibition of manual skill, and
therefore an &Aoyos TpiBH, “7d ivudwvov
apudttovca ov méeTp@ GAA meAETNS OTO-
xacue”’—“<by rule of thumb,” as we
should say (Phileb. 1. 1.).

Kwyotav tov MéAnros| Cinesias is
mercilessly ridiculed by Aristophanes
for the wildness and incoherency of his
dithyrambic effusions: Ran. 153, where
see Schol., ib. 366. Nub. 333. Av. 1379,
&e. The hearty assent of Callicles to the
censure in the text seems to prove that
Plato and Aristophanes represented the
general opinion in regard of this poet.

502. Ti 5& 6 marhp avtod MéAns]
Pherecrates, Com. ap. Schol. Arist. Av.
858, Bép’ T5w, Kibapwdds tls KdKiortos
éyévero; ‘O Tletov MéAns. peta dé
MéAnta tls; “EX? arpéw’, éyg@da, Xaipis.
Presently éxeivos = this last,as in Phaedr.
231 ©, Scwv adv orepov epactaow,
éxelvous abray wepl mAclovos mornoovTat,
where see the note.

mpos Td BéATiotov BAérwy] One MS.
omits BAérwy, which Hirsch. brackets.
Though not needed, the participle seems
to me innocuous.

bene

tak

120

IAATQNNOX

[502, A

> ‘ A

mpos TO HovaToV ; yvia yap ddwv Tods Yeards. adda dy
i al lal = lal

oKdTe ovyt 4 TE Kapw@diuKy SoKet Gor TATA Kal N TOV

SiOupdpBov troinots ndovns xapw evpnoba ;

KAA. "Epovye.

YQ. Ti dé 8) HY cepvy avry Kai Oavpacry, H THSB

, s a9, @ 8 , , s 2
Tpaywdtas TOLYNOLS, éd @ €orovoaKke 3 TWOTEPOV E€OTLV

2A ee , Ae S. € \ 5 a ,
QAUTYNS TO ETLYELPNNA KAL 1) GDTOVOY, WS TOL OOKEL, Xopt-

CecOar tots Jearats povor,

x ‘ , 27
H Kat SiapdyerOar, eav tH

2 oA eQ\ \ > \ , \ Sé 7]
QUTOLS nod Bev 7 KQU KEXaplo pEvor, TOVY) POV €, OT7@S

lal a ‘
TOUTO pev pr) €pel, et O€ TL TUYXAVEL aNdes Kal apEeALmor,

Bro 8¢ Kal hé€er Kat ¢ dv re yalpwow édp te pa;
TOVUTO O€ KQAL AECEL KAL Q2OETAL, E€QV TE XALpwaow BY) ;

motépws oo SoKet mapeokevdcOa, Tay tpaywdiov

Toinats ;

KAA. Andov i todd ye, @ Sadxpares, ote mpds THY
Hoovny pahdov a@pyntat Kat TO xapilea Oar Tots Pearais.
SQ. OvKovv 7d Tovwodrov, & Kaddixdeus, epapev vov dy

, —
KO\GKELaY €ivat.

KAA. ITdvv ye.

XQ. dépe Sy, et tus wepiehouro THs Toujoews TAONS

-. , ‘\ 4 e A A ‘ / » ,
76 Te péhos Kal Tov pvOpor Kai TO pétpov, GAO TL hoyou

yiyvovTat TO NeuTopevor ;

B. Ti 38 3) 7 ceuvn—ed’ @ eomovdare |
The order is: ti 5¢ 5h (€orw éxetvo)
ep © éorovdakey 7 ceuvyn Kal @. ‘What
of That grave and august personage,
Tragedy—what, I say, is the object of
her ambition?’ ‘The repetition of 7 is
thus illustrated by Stallb.: “E vulgari
ratione dicendum erat: rf 5¢ 3) 7 ceuvh
airn kad Oavpacrh motnots, H THs Tpayy-
dlas; sc. mwolnois. Sed eodem modo
Herod. vii. 196: 6 vavtixbs 6 tav Bap-
Bdpwy orparés. Plat. Symp. 213 2, thy
TovTov TavTny Thy BavpacThy Kepadrhy,”
&c. The censure which follows is too
sweeping even from Plato’s point of
view, for Euripides at any rate aimed at
a moral purpose of one sort or other, and
sacrificed to his zeal as an instructor much
of the popularity and much also of the
poetical beauty of his plays. As a
criticism on Sophocles and Aeschylus it
is, to modern apprehension, still more
deplorable. Compare, or rather con-
trast Phaedrus 268 c,.a passage which

proves that Plato had a thorough per-
ception of poetic excellence, whenever it
suited him to forget his political theories.

ef 5€ te Tvyxdver—apéeAmoy] On
the omission of the participle see note
to Phaedrus 263 p. Hirsch., as usual,
inserts dv after @PéeArmor.

kal Aéger kal Goerat| ‘he will intro-
duce both in dialogue and in song.’

C. ef Tis mepiéAoito | ‘if we strip any
kind of poetry of melody, rhythm, and
metre, the residue consists of speeches,
does it not ?’—where Ylyvovra: agrees
with the predicate, as freq. in Plato.
All the MSS. but one have &AAo ri 4,
but this is a case in which the con-
junction is better omitted. This follows
from the answer of Callicles—not oddév
&Adro, but avaynh. For mepiéAoito the
Schol. gives wep:€Ao1, and so Ar. Rhet. in
a passage copied from this: ¢«% tis Tijs
mwoinoews mepréAor Td pérpoy Kal Toy
pududy, Snunyopla 3h 7d Acimdpevdy eotiy,

Or. Plat. ii. p. 278. But Ast quotes

CO

——,

—502, E. |

KAA. *Avdéy«y.

TOPTIAX.

121

SQ. OvKodv mpds todd dydov kat SHpov obra. eé-

yovrat ot Adyou.
KAA. Oypt.

2. Anpnyopia apa tis €otw 7 TowutiKy.

KAA. Gaiverac.

SQ. Odxody pytopixy) Snunyopia av ein. 7 ov fyto-

A c ‘ ~ A
pevew Soxovai OOl Ol TOLYTAL €v TOLS Gear pots ;

KAA. *E prouye.

22. Nov apa jpets evpyKamev pyTopucyy Twa mpods

Snpov To.ovTov olov waidwy Te duov Kal yuvaikov Kai
> aA N / ‘ > , aA > , > Ves
avdpav, kat Sovhwv Kai éevOepwr, Hv od mavy aydpeba-
. 2
KONaKiKHY yap avTnv paper eivar.
KAA. Ilavv ye.
LVIII. 3. Ete.

wn e ‘ ‘ ‘ ¥ ‘ > “A l4 la
E Sjpov pyTopiKn Kat Tovs adXovs Tovs Ev Tats TOAECL 57}-

ti S€ y mpds Tov *AOnvaiwy
‘ ~ > , > a a c “A y > ,

fous Tovs Tav edevOepav avdpar, Ti ToTE Huiv avTH éoTi ;
, , A ‘ x S % id e
moTEepov gor Sokovot pos TO BédAticTov dei héyew ot
pytopes, TovTov otoxaldpevor OTws ot Todtrar ws Béd-
TisToL EgovTat Sid TOVS avTa@V hdyous, } Kal OUTOL mpds
TO xapilerOar Tots Toditats wpunpevor, Kal EveKa TOV
idiov Tod avTav dduywpovrTes TOV KoWOv, woTEP TaLot

Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 47, 7d wey wepieréoOan
avTav Ta Sra Kal Grodcuovs moijou
amedoxluace.

D. 4 ob pnropevew Soxotcr| Probably
this was more true of the tragic poets of
the fourth than of the fifth century.
But the rhetorical tendency of Euripides
is proverbial, and even in Sophocles there
is much which seems to us to need
apology on this score. But Socr. means
the proposition to be absolute, in which
case it becomes untrue; for ‘ persuasion’
is not the end of tragic poetry as of
rhetoric. Nor indeed is ‘pleasure’ the
end, but rather a condition of its excel-
lence. In the Laws the ‘truest tragedy’
is said to be the ‘imitation of the noblest
and best life’ (817 8).

Nov &pa jets} ‘So now between us
we have discovered a species of rhetoric
which addresses itself to a concourse of
people comprising men, women, and
children, both bond and free, and it is

one we are far from admiring.’ It follows
from this that there was no restriction
of age or sex in the admission to tragic
spectacles. From the Laws, p. 658 D,
we should infer that ‘big boys’ were
allowed to witness comedies; but that
women were excluded seems to follow
from the classification of the audience in
Arist. Pax 50, which includes only males.

KoAakikhy yap aithvy gpauey elvar]
Tragedy, says the Schol., is a roAakela,
because it utters moral sentiments, and
talks largely of justice, beauty, and good-
ness. Stript of its metres, it is a dnun-
yopia, for both are provocative of violent
emotions (ra8aév tmwepBadAdytwy Kw7-
tial aupdtrepa). Comp. Isocr. Evag.
p- 191, hv yap tis T&v wompdtey Tov
evdokimotyTwy Ta wev dvduata Kal Tas
diavolas karaAdlan, Td 5€ wétpov diadvon,
pavhoetat TOAD KatadeéoTepa THs ddéns
hy viv exouev wep abtar.

122

MAATQNOZX

[ 502, B

Tpocoptrover Tots Sypors, yapilerVar adrots mreipmpevor
4, > 4 / ¥ a , ‘ wn. 2
pdvov, ei dé ye Bedtiovs Exovtar 7 yxelpovs Sua Tad,

ovdev dpovtilovow ;

| KAA. Ody am)odv ert TodTO Epwras: ciot mev yap ot 503

/ “~ $3 , a 4 ~ ee.) \ x
Knodopevor TOV TohiTaY héyovow & héyovaw, elot dé Kai

otouvs ov heyets.
x2. *E€apxet.

> & ‘ a foe] nn a X
el yap Kal TodTd €or Sumdovr, TS Mev

4 4 , , » of ‘ > S| ,

eTepov Tov TovTOV Kodakela ay Ein Kal aicypa Snunyopia,
os ;, ¢ / ‘\ 4 4 ¢ la

70 8 €repov Kaddv, 70 Tapackevalew Orws ws BétioTaL

€covra, Tov TohiTav at wWuyxai, Kal det SiapayerOau

, ‘ , »” € id ¥ > ld ¥ “
héyovra Ta BéAtLOTA, Eire HdSiw Eire dndéoTEpa EaTat Tots

GKOvOVa LW.
puny

> > > , ‘ 4 ) B.' c B
ah\X ov Twrote au TavTyv eldes THV pyTo- B
x ¥ ¥ lal a > a

Hel Twa ExXELS TOV PYHTOpwY ToLOVTOY Ele, TL

2. a R52 ON. SUN ey 0 Ns
ovuXl KGL E{LOL QuTOV eppacas TLS EOTLY 5

KAA.
vov pytopav ovdeva.

> A ‘\ 43 > ¥ + 4 5 Lal lal
Ada pa Ai ovK €yw Eywyé vou eiTEW THY YE

YQ. Ti dé; trav waradv exes twa eimety Ov OvTwa

| Ae ¥ > “ , , > 5 ae ~
QUTLAV €XOVOLW AGqvaiat BeXrious igs saeiauaes emeud7) EKELWOS
npsaro Snuayyopew, € €V TO mpda Dev Xpove xeipovs OVTEs ; ;
eyo pev yap OUK oloa Tis €oOTW oUToS.

503. Odx GmAody Ett TovTO épwras |
*To this question the answer is not
single as hitherto: there are speakers
who in what they say have a due regard
to the good of their fellow-citizens ; and
there are also speakers such as you de-
scribe.’ Early edd. have rodro 6 épwrgs,
which Bekk. following Heind. corrected
from two MSS. The abbreviated con-
struction is neater, and of constant oc-
currence. Phileb. 29 ©, Todro wey ov
amoxploews &kiov Epwrds.

ei yap nal tovTé éort Simdody] ‘If
even this is double;’ i.e. if rhetoric also
has two aspects, like that of which it is
a part. Socr. is thinking of his own
frequent “dichotomies,” especially of
that which occurs in this dialogue, 464
B, where sophistic and rhetoric divide
between them the psychical branch of
kodacixh. He does not absolutely deny
that there is a sound and good rhetoric,
but leaves the onus probandi to Callicles,
who owns that he knows not where to
look for such a rhetoric among the politi-
cians of the day, but reminds Socr. of the
four great statesmen of the past. This

.

gives occasion to Plato’s celebrated attack
on the ‘ Quatuorviri,’ which called forth
the elaborate apology of Aristides Rhetor.

B. tl ovxl—é&ppacas|] Equiv. to
ppdcov 8 tt TdxLcTa—ovx by evden |

podCwv; Menex. 236 ©, rf ody ob di: Ges =
Eur. Heracl. 804, Kéare:t? @rctev, &
otpathy ds *Apyd0ey “Hees, tl thvde
yatay ok eidoawev; where see Elmsley’s
note. Here transl. ‘Pray lose no time
in telling his name.’ «al euol, ‘that I
may know as well as you.’ Lat. ‘Quin ~
mihi etiam quis sit indicas P” :

"AAAG pa AP ovK Exw] Aristophanes
makes a similar complaint : ‘H dnuaywyla
yap ov mpds povoiKod “Er éorly avdpbs
ovdt xpnorod rods tpdmous, “AAD” eis
dyad Kal Bdedupdv, Eq. 191. Comp.
Pax 680.

TL dé; Trev wadady k.7.A.] ‘ Well, and
of the statesmen of the old time, is there
one you can name, by whom the Athe-
nians are alleged to have been made
better; the improvement dating from
his first appearance on the bema, before
which they were worse than they after-
wards became ?’

ee et neta Oeet tt

—503, D.|

TOPTIAX.

125

KAA. Ti dé; OeuiotoKdéa ovk axkovers avdpa ayabdv

, ‘ 7 ‘ Lo ‘\ ii oN ld ‘XN

yeyovota Kat Kipova cat Midriaoyv Kat epixhéa tovrovi
TOV vewoTl TeTEMEUTHKOTA, OD Kal OV aKTKOAS ;

XQ. Ei €or ye, @ Kaddixhes, Hv mpdrepov ov Edeyes
> 7 > la XQ ‘ FS 4 > , ‘\ ‘\
apeTnv, dAnOys, Td Tas emiPupias atoTmiTAdva, Kal Tas

sank roe x A> pF 2 Or \ A > 2 > an
avTov Kal Tas TOV ahNwr: ei SE 7) TOUTO, GAN OrEp ev TO
vaoTépw hoy@ jvaykacOnpev Huets Gpwodoyety, ote at pev
Tov éeTiOvpav mrAynpovpevat Bedtiw Tovovar Tov avOpwror,

, SY o's a A QA , , A \ ,
DTQUTAS MEV aTroTe\ewv, Qu dé XELP, BY’ TOVTO de TEXVY) TL

> A + ‘ ¥ a
ELVAL’ TOLOUVTOV avdpa TOUTWY TWa yeyovevat EXELS Elev ;

KAA. Ovx €yw eywye THs €lT@.

©. Tov vewor) TeTeAcuTHKéTa| Athe-
naeus pounces upon this as a gross ana-
chronism. He argues (v. 217 D) that if
Archelaus is reigning at this time (supra,
470 D), Pericles has been long dead; and
vice versa, that if Pericles is but re-
cently dead, Archelaus is not yet seated
on the throne. Casaubon attempts to
get out of the dilemma by insisting
(valeat quantum) that the death of
Pericles was comparatively recent ‘re-
spectu superiorum.’ But two times are
pretty distinctly indicated in the dia-
logue (compare sup. 473 E), and the
liberty taken is by no means so great as
in the Menexenus, where an event is
alluded to which notoriously occurred
thirteen years after the death of Socr.
Nothing can be more true than the
remark of Athenaeus, 6r: woAAd 6 TIAd-
Twv Tapa Tovs xpdvovs auapTadve:, nor
any thing idler than his abuse of Plato

on this account.

ei 5 wh todTo—ph] This passage
loses its difficulty if we suppose aper)
&AnOhs éorw repeated after at 5& xelpa,
wh. ‘But if this is not so, but that is
true which we were forced to acknowledge
later in the discussion, viz. that the ful-
filment of those desires which we are the
better for indulging, and the restraint of
those which make us worse, is true virtue.’
In the next clause, whether we read todro
with the Bodl. or rodrov with the vulg.,
an apparent breach of syntax remains:
téxvn tis for téxvnv twa. Hence Ast
ingeniously proposed todro 5& réxvns
eivat. He now assents to Stallb., who
conceives Plato to have written as if for
the preceding jvayxdcOnuey jucis duo-
Aoyety the words duodoyeiro juiy had
occurred ; and if the text is to stand, we

must suppose some such ellipsis. In any
case there is no room for the coarse expe-
dient of supposing “ 87: followed by an
infinitive,” for in that case we must have
found réxvnv twa. Neither is dezv under-
stood after amoreAciv, for we have here
a scientific description of aperh, not a
mere moral maxim. Otherwise it would
be better at once to replace deity in the
text, from which it might easily have
dropped, ‘absorbed’ by the foregoing
AMTIOTEAEIN. But if any alteration
were needed, I should prefer changing
elvat for the oblique «%. In an ethi-
cal point of view the passage is note-
worthy, as it presents in harmony two
theories which are generally contrasted,
the psychological and the utilitarian.
Our actions are to be determined by a
consideration of their consequences, but
of these consequences those which affect
the moral nature of ourselves or others
are mainly to be kept in view. Observe
also that development is to accompany
restraint; the statesman is not only to
curb the evil passions of the citizens,
but also to foster their nobler impulses,
such as the desire of knowledge, beauty,
&e. This is the true statecraft; and
tried by this standard Themistocles and
his compeers are found wanting. They
had not the skill to determine what
desires were legitimate and what not,
nor how to further the one and restrain
the other: in a word, they were not
Texvixol TovTwv mwépt. This is the force
of to.ovroy &vSpa in the next clause: we
need not understand the question as an
insinuation against the private charac-
ters, which were very various, of the great
men enumerated.

124 IITAATQNOZ [ 503, D
LIX. 3A. °AdN éav lyths Kadds, eipyoes: ape

ȴ an
57) ovtwoly atpéua oKoTovpevon eb Tis TOUTWY TOLOUTOS
7 , es.) ‘ ee \ 2 2h ‘\ aN
yéyove. épe yap, 6 dyads avip Kat ext 76 BédticTOv
lal > i4
héywv & dv éyy, GAO TL odk eixH pel, dA’ amoPdEToV E
/ 9 ‘ e IAN , 8 ‘ hé.
mpos TL; @omEp Kal ot ahdou TavTes Synmiovpyot Pdé-
an rn ,
MOVTES TPOs TO AVT@Y Epyov EKagTOS OVK ELK) EKAEYOMEVOS
4 a ld x ‘ A XN ¢ Le iArN’
mpoopeper & Tpoapeper TpPos TO Epyov TO avUTOV, a
> a a e >
Omws Gy eldds TL AVT@ TyYH TOVTO 6 épydleTat. tov Et
4, > La) ‘ ¥. ‘ > , \
Bovdeu idetv Tovs Cwypadous, Tovs olkoddpmous, ToVS vav-
, ‘ »” , , 4 4
anyouvs, ToUs aANovs Tavtas Syp.ovpyouvs, ovrwa Bove
lal a KX
avTaVv, ws els Taki TWA EKaoTOs ExacToV TiOnow 6 av
70, Kal mpooavayKaler Td ETEpov TH ETEPH TPETOV TE
elvat Kal apporrew, ews | Gv TO atrav GvoTHONTAL TETAy-
A Y x, ¥
pevov Te Kal Kekoopnmevoy mpaypa, Kal ot te dy ahdou
nw e ‘ A “~
Synpovpyot Kai ods viv 8) éhéyomer, ol epl TO TOpa
“A ‘\
madoTpiBar Te Kal tatpol, Koopovot Tov TO GGpa Kal

504

A“ Y ote ae a ¥
TUVTATTOVOW. OLOOYOUMLEV OVTW TOUT EXEL 7) OV;

KAA.

¥ an Y
Eotw Tovto ovtTws.

x2. Tdfews apa Kat Kdopov Tvxovea oikia xpnoTn

av ein, arakias dé woyOnpa ;
KAA. @npi.

n ~*~ a“
SQ. Ovdxovv kat mrotov acavTos ;

KAA. Nat.

D. obtwolv &rpéua | The majority of codd.
give obtwal arpéua. So also Bekk. here
and in p. 509 a, 510 E. But the v epedAk.
is legitimate in obroolvy éxewooly and
their cases ending in s. See the reff. to
the Greek Grammarians in Steph. Lex.
ili. p. 408 p, ed. Dind., comparing ibid.
v. pp. 2432. 2435. The idiom oitwoiy
arpéua has been illustrated in the note
to 494. Here tr. ‘ quite at our ease.’

6 ayabds avip nal em rb BéATicToy
Aéywy]| A true political rhetoric, it is
urged, must follow the analogy of other
arts. It must have a definite object,
and select its means and instruments
intelligently and with an eye to that
object. ‘The craftsman, whether painter,
architect, or shipwright, seeks to fashion
his materials according to a particular
type or form; and his work is done

when he has so marshalled the parts
that they constitute an orderly and con-
sistent whole. In this order, when
realized, consists the excellence of the
work. In the human body such order
or excellence is called health; in the
soul it is virtue. But the soul is the
matter on which the rhetorical states-
man operates: for rhetoric, as defined in
the Phaedrus, is a puxaywyla dia Adywr,
and the art Politic has already been pro-
nounced to be a Ocpamrela Wuxis, sup.
4648. It is therefore the business of
the fjrwp or statesman (for present pur-
poses the two being identical) to make
his hearers sober, just, and generally
virtuous; and that not only by direct
encouragement, but by the restraints of
law. With this entire passage compare
Sophist. p. 228.

—504, D. |

TOPTIAY.

125

XQ. Kai phy cai 7a odpard hapev Ta Hperepa ;

KAA, Ilavv ye.

, > ¢ , , A
xQ. TiS 4» Wyn; arakias tvxodca e€otar ypnory,
x
H Takews TE Kal KOOpOV TLVOS ;
KAA. ‘Avaykn éx Tov Tpda bev Kat TovTO TvvoOpoNoyelv.
Lg > 4 eS a , a a
2. Ti ovv ovopa €otw &v 7@ oopmatt TO EK THS
TAaLEOS TE Kal TOV KOO POU YLyVoLEeVa ;

KAA.
sn. "Eyoye.

c , Ry ‘ ¥ ,

Tylevay Kat taxuv vows Eyes.

, de > me 2 ~ Ny > ,
Ti O€ av TM EV TH Wyn eyyLyvopEev@

> “~ ld \ A“ / “A € ~ ‘ > A“
C0 €K TNS TacEws Kat TOU KOO}LOV ; TElp@ E€UPElLVY KAL ELTTELV

A > , x. Se
WOTTEP EKELVO@ TO OVOLA.

KAA. Ti 8é ovk aitos héyets, & Yaxpares ;

>.

"AN et cou Hdidy eat, eyd Epa.

A x
ov 8é, dp

pev gor Sox éyd Kahas héyew, Pabu ci SE py, Edeyye

\ APC SP
KQL [L7) ET LT PETE.

€mol yap Soxet Tals perv TOD oa@patos

, & »¥ > € , 2é @ 9 tC ey estas
TACEOLV OVOLA EWAL vylevor, € OU €V QAUT®@ 7] vylela

, a C48 56 ee ey , ¥ a a
ylyvetat Kat addy apeTH TOV DepaTos. EoTL Ta’Ta 7

> ¥
OUK EOTLY ;

KAA. “Eotw.

r . a a , \ , , ,
x2. Tats 5€ rhs Wuyns td€eou Kai KoopHoect vopipov
\ , y ey: , Sak ,
pTE Kal vopuos, dev Kat voto yiyvovTar Kat KdopULOL
a > ¥ , ‘ , ‘ x MA
tavta 8 €or. Sixawocvvyn Te Kal cwhpocvyyn. dys 7 ov;

KAA. “"Eoto.

LX. 32. Odxovv mpds tatta Pdérov 6 pytap
Exelvos, 6 TEXViKds TE Kal ayalds, Kai TOvs Adyous Tpoc-
, nw lal aA a» 4 A ‘ 4 e ,
oloer Tats Wuyxais ods av héyn Kal Tas Tpdkes amdoas,

‘ aA 37 “ 4 ‘ >7 > “~
Kat S@pov édy te S1d@, Sdce, Kal edv TL adhaipnTat,

504 ©. elwetvy Sarep exelvp 7d bvoua |
Crat. 385 D, xaAeiy Exdorw bvoua, where
see the instances quoted by Heind. More
freq. is éwt Ti.

Tals nay Toi_cdparos—zdtecw| The
appliances for producing order in the
body are called salutary or “sanitary,”
and the result-of-such means and ap-
pliances is health, and the general virtue
or excellence of the body. So in the
soul, right and law are the means, moral
virtue the result. xoophoes and tdters
are here synonymous, and mean ‘pro-

cesses_which produce order,’ ‘ arrange-

ments,’ ‘ ordinancés.

D. tadta F €or | Not 7d vdéummdy re wad
véuos, which are causes, but 7d vduimov
kal Kdopuoy yeyovévas, the result of law
and regular government, is the same
thing as temperance and justice.

dapov édy tt &5G] This may have
special reference to the well-known
liberality of Cimon: or perhaps to the
theoric allowances made to the Athenian
demus by Pericles, who might very
fairly have argued that the Athenians

126 ITAATQNOX [ 504, D

> , A A 2.4 ‘ la) 4 9 a
apaipyoeTat, Tpds TOUTO del TOV VOY EXwY, OTS GY
Lal al “~ a“ * 3
auTOD Tots ToOATaLs SuKaLoavVN meV Ev Tals Wuyxals yryvn- E
> / \ > , ‘\ , \ > 7
Tat, aoducia dé amadddrryTal, Kal owppoovryn pev eyyiy-

> vw A 5 , \ e LAX > A
vytat, akohacia S€ amaddatrytat, Kal y adn apeTy
aA as »”
éyyiyvntat, kakia S€ arin. ovyxwpets 7) ov ;
KAA. vyxwpa.
¢
XN. Ti yap ddedos, & Kaddixdes, odpari ye Ka-
~ A 8 4 , X bel 8 8 , x
pvovTe Kal poxOnpas Siakeypev@ oitia Toda OLvoovar Kat
‘\ “ayy x wR »* 2 A a \ b] , > 2% ¥ 2?
TA NOLOTA HY TOTA 7) GAN OTLOVY, 6 PN SVHTEL aVTO Eo
9 , bal > , , X yA Xd ‘
OTe TA€ov ) TovvayTiov KaTa ye TOV OiKaLoy oyor Kal
€XaTTOV ; €OTL TAVTA;
| KAA.
32. Od ydp, oipar, Avowredet pera poxOnpias oa-
patos Cov avOpare avadyKn yap ovtw Kat (nv poxOnpas.
} ovy ovTas ;
KAA. Nat.

a , -
SN. Ovxodyv Kat tas émOvupias atomiumddavat, otov

"Eoto. 505

A A 9 , x 8 A a € 7
mewavta dayew ooov Bovderar ) OupavTa mew, VyLat-
vovta pev eoow ot iatpol as Ta Todd, Kdpvovta dé,
e ¥ is 2a 2Q7 2 9A > , a a A
@s €mos elmelv, ovder0T eGow ewtimhacbar dv ériOupel ;
OVYKwpEls TOUTO YE Kal aU ;

¥
KAA. Eywye.
»
x2. lepi 5é puyyv, & apiote, ody 6 adTds Tpdz7os ;
x > >
Ews ev GY TovNpa 7, GVONTOS TE OVTA Kal aKddacToOS Kal
¥ a A
addikos Kal avdctos, eipyew avTny Set Tov emiOupLov Kat
\ 93 , ¥\> »¥ a AS 2S , ¥
py emutpémew aN’ atta Tovey y ad av Bedtiov Eorar ;
mi Lor ¥
PIs 7) ov ;
KAA. @npi.

JN. Ovrtw yap tov airy

were, or ought to have been made better
by listening to the plays of Sophocles
and his brother-tragedians.

E. Tl yap dpedos}] The meaning
seems to be: ‘ What is the use of ad-
ministering to a diseased body a variety
of dishes, or the most delicious of drinks
or other compounds, when these will
frequently be of no more service to it
than abstinence and mortification (7o0d-

apLevor TH Wuyx7 ;

vavtlov mwoAAGv oiTiwy K.T.A.), nay,
rightly considered, will do it even less
good than abstinence?’ But there re-
mains a seeming asyndeton in the last
clause, which Heind. proposes to remove
by reading 4) kard ye roy dixatoy Adyov
kal €datrov: but Stallb. is possibly right
in defending the received text by the
analogy of such phrases as éAlyoy kal
oder.

—505, D. |

KAA. Ilavv ye.

YQ. Ovdxody 7d elpyew éotiv

halew ;
KAA. Nat.

TOPITIAX.

127

ad’ dv émbupet ko-

32. Td coddlecOar dpa 7H Wyn apewdr éotw 7 7
dxokacia, aomep ov vov 1) gov.

KAA. Ovx oi8 arra déyes, & Ydxpares, add’ addov

SS! 2
TWa E€pwTa.

SQ. Obros avip ody vropéver ahedovpevos Kal adrds
TOVTO TAT XwY TEpL OD 6 Adyos €oTi, Kohaldpevos.

KAA. Ovddé yé pou pérer ovddev dv ad héyets, Kal
Tavtad oot Topyiov ydpw amexpwdpyp.

x2. Etev.
KaTahvoper ;
KAA. Adtos yrooe.
s2.

, > N , \ N ,
Ti ovv 87) Tomjocoper ; petasd Tov Adyov

"ANN odd€ Tods pVOous dhact pera€d Demis eivar

Katadeirew, add’ émifevtas Kedpadyjpy, iva py avev Keha-

505 B. Odxoty 7d eipyew] The order
is, ovmoty TO elpyew ad” ay éemibupet
Kord(ew éorly; ‘to restrain a man from
gratifying his appetites is to chasten
him, is it not ?? The seeming play upon
the words xoAd(ec@a: and akoAacla in
the next question may be represented in
English by ‘chastisement’ and_‘un-
chagteness,’ thoug fe latter word
denotes only one form of dkodAacta.

' Punishment is treated by Plato as
either exemplary or corrective, never as
simply retributive, a view which he
distinctly deprecates. See Legg. 934 a,
ovX Evexa TOV KaKxoupyjoau (d:d0Tw) Thy
dlknv, od yap Td yeyovbs ayévnTov Eorat
mwoté, ToU & eis thy adOis Evexa xpdvor
4 7d wapdrav piojoo thy adiKnlav adbtrév
Te kal Tous iddvrTas abroy Sixaovpevoy, h
Awpijca: wépn TOAAA THs ToLad’Tns Evp-
gopas. Comp. ibid. p. 854 B, and see
note inf. p. 525 A.

C. Odros avnp] ‘Behold a man who
cannot bear to be improved, or to submit
in his own person to that ‘ chastisement’
which is the subject of our conversation.”
See above, 489 B, obtooly avhp ob mat-
weTat pAvapor.

petatd toy Ad-yor katadvouer| ‘Do we
break off,’ or ‘are we to break off the dis-

cussion ?? Some MSS. have cataAvaper,
but the pres. indic. is idiomatic, as in
such phrases as rl; m@s Aéyouev; Sup.
504, duodoyodmey oftw Tod7 exew; inf.
513 ©, Aéyouev Tt mpbs Tada;

Airbs yréoe:] ‘You will judge for
yourself,’ i.e. ‘that is your affair, not
mine.’ So Phileb. 12 A, éuol pév rdytws
vikay ndovy Sone? rai Sdter, od 8, & Tpa-
Tapxe, avTos yvdoe. Olymp., ef Tt O€AELS
mole, éuol yap ob péAct.

D. AAA’ ob5é Tobs wtOovs] ‘ Nay, they
tell us we ought not to leave even tales
half told, but ought first to fit them
with a head, that our story may not

walk abroad headless.” a&kég@ados piOos,
. stony ‘without head “oF is a
proverbial expression. So in the Laws,
752 a, quoted by Routh, ofkovy 8) mov
Aéyor ye kv pdOov axépadrov Exdv kara-
Alto TAavépevos yap ky amdyrn To-
ovtos dy tpmoppos galyorro. Compare
Phaedr. 264, Seiv mdvra Adyov Somep
(Gov cuvertdvar... SoTe phr axéparov
elvat phre &movv x.7.A. Phileb. 66 D,
ovdévy Aowrdy wAhy dowep Kepadhy aro-
dodvat Tots cipnuévors.
perati—katarelrey| Isocr. varies
the phrase, Panath. § 27, deAfoarte
TovTwy kal weratd KkataBaddvrTt.

ITAATQNOX

128 [505, D

Ais wepiin. aadxpwar ody Kal Ta houTd, Wa Huw 6

4 ‘ ,
hoyos kehadnv haBy.

e , ,

LXI. KAA. ‘As Bias ci, & Yoxpares.
> ‘ (0 27 , a) \ Xo z ‘ AX
enol meiOn, Edoers yalpew TovToOV TOV hoyov 7 Kal alA@
Tw Siadé€e.

SQ. Tis ody addos eOéder; pr) yap Tou aredy ye TOV
hoyov kaTahizopev.

KAA, Auris S€ ovKx av Sivao SuedOetv Tov ddyor,
} \€yov KaTa GavToy 7 aroKpWoMEVOS TAVTO ;

SQ. “Iva pow 76 Tod "Emiydppov yévyntar, & mpd Tod
ae ¥ Mesh Te x , 2X 5
vo avopes edeyov, els Ov ikavds yévopat. atap Kwdv-
el PEVTOL TOLnoopmeED,

éav Oe

E

vever avayKaloTaTov elvar ovTwS.
> ¥ A , ears , »¥ N
oar eywye xphvar mavTas Huds pirovelkws Exew Tpds

A Je << ‘ 9 5a , \ , aA

TO eidevar TO adnOes Ti eot. TEpL Ov héyomev Kal Ti Yev-
Sos' Kowov yap ayabdy dao. havepdv yevéoOat avro.

Ph A > “~ Ao - eee. e ¥ 8 Pa 2X
fete pev oov TO Aoyw eyo ws av por SoxH Exe | eay 506
b¢ c i> \ ‘ ” PS) a“ e X A > ” ‘

é€ Tm tuav py Ta GvTa SoKH Opodoyelv E“avT@, Xp7

> , » ar , sQX , 4 sO A
avtapBaveorbar Kai éhéyyew. ovdd€ ydp ToL eywye Eidas

> e nn

héyw & éyw, ada Cy7@ Kowy] pw €, av Te
dhairynta héywv 6 apdioBytav Ep BP@TOS TVYXO-

pyoopa éyw pevTo Tavra, ei SoKxet ypyvar Siatrepar-
Onvar Tov Adyov: «i SE pn BovdreoHe, eOpev 67) yaipew
Kal amTiwper.

TOP. *AdN epol péev ov Soxet, & YoKpares, xphvat
mw amvévar, ara Sue€eMetv oe Tov Adyour daiverar SEB

Ot Kal Tots aAdots Soxet.
m

Bovdomar yap eywye Kat

> 8 p) a is ae § , Nout 9
AUTOS AKOVOAL GOV AUTOV OLLOVTOS TA emtAouTra.

E. 7d Tod "Emixdpuov] We have the
line in full, Athen. vii. 308 ©, éya 5é
Kata Toy copdy *Enlxapuoy, undev dro-
Kpwauévov tod Kuvds, T& mpd Tov bv
&vdpes trAeyov cis éyav &moxpéw—where
it may be well to mention that «iwy is
not a quadruped brought on the stage
by Epicharmus, but the Cynic Cynulcus,
who is one of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists.
Of the original purport of the line the
account given by the Schol. is palpably an
improvisation. The comedies attributed
to Epicharmus contained philosophical
dialogues, specimens of which have been

preserved to us; and the line in question
was possibly the first of a soliloquy im-
mediately succeeding one of such dis-
cussions. The change of aroxpéw into
an Attic equivalent is agreeable to Plato’s
frequent practice, as remarked on supra,
485 E. ;

506. av ti palynra] If there be any
thing in the objections of his opponent,
says Socr., he will be the first to concede
the point in dispute. For, as he has
already informed the company, he is one
of those ray jdé€ws wey dy ercyxbévrov
ef Tt ph GAnbes Ayo, p. 458.

—506, D. | TOPITIAS. 129

SQ. *Adda péev 84, & Topyia, Kai adris 7déws pev
dv Kad\ukdet todr@ re Siedeyounv, Ews aita Tv TOV
> / > 45 en > ‘ “~ a“ , > ‘
Apudiovos amédoxa pnow avti THs ToD ZHOov: émedy
dé ov, & KadXitkdets, od« Odes cvvdiarepavar Tov
, > > > > Le > , > , 27 ,
Adyov, aA ovv E“ov ye akovwy éeriiauPBavov, eav Ti Got
0 Sox pi) Kadas héyew. Kati pe eav eLedeyEns, odK ayOe-
Topat ToL woTEP TV ELol, GAAG péyroTos evepyérns Tap’
enol dvaryeyparpet.
KAA. Aéye, & *yabé, adris Kai mépauve.
LXII. 32. “Axove 8) ef apxijs rou dvaaBévr0s
Tov dyov. “Apa To Hdd Kal 7 adyabdv 7d adtd éoTW;
> DEY. € ey \ An c , ,
Ov Tadrov, ws eyo kat KahdXukdjs wporoyyoapev. IId-
\ Ww sen > & aA 3 A , x See X
tepov S€ 76 HOU Evexa TOV ayalod tpaxtéor, 7 Td dyadv
evexa TOV Hdeos; Td dv Evexa ToD dyafod. “Hdd dé
Déort TodTO oO Tapayevouévov yddpeOa, dayaldv Sé ob
, > ree , > ‘ ‘ > , ,
mapovtos ayabot éopev ; Ilavu ye. “Adda pry ayaboi yé
> ‘ c Lal A > ld oy > , > >
Eopev Kal Nuels Kal TaAAA TAaVTA OoAa ayabd EOTL, Ape-
THs Twos Tapayevonerns ; “Epovye Soxet avayxKatov civat,
> , ~ N \ 3} 9 . wi gre 22 \
@® Kad)XixXeus. ea ) N YE GpETH EKaoToOV, Kal
4 ‘\ , : ian ~ = \ , /, >
oKevous Kal TdpaToS KEL Wux7ys ad Kai Cdov Travrds, ody

ouTws eikn Kdéh\ioTa Tapayiyverat, adda Ta€er Kat dplo-

B. Thy Tov "Audtovos] ‘The speech of
Zethus’ is of course the plea for public
and active as distinguished from the
contemplative life—é év g:Aocogla Bios,
sup. 485 E. Socr. had already in some
measure answered the arguments of
Callicles, but his answer is not yet com-
plete. He has still much to explain: in
particular the causes which make it im-
possible for a righteous man to take
part in the administration of an un-
righteous polity, such as he considers
the Athenian to be. Here amrédwxa has
its proper sense of paying a debt; giving
an equivalent for value received. Pre-
sently fjris éxdot@ arodéd0ra = ‘ which
is the due of each,’ in other words that
which is appropriate, or suitable to the
nature of any given subject.

C. ok &xécouar| The MSS., followed
by all the edd. except Hirschig, give the
form &x@ec@hocouct, which is elsewhere
substituted by copyists for the Attic
&x@écouc:. So in Rep. x. 603 E, where
&x0écoua is now universally adopted.

VOL. Il.

D. "AAAG pev bh H ye apeth] This
passage, most important as determining
the scope of the entire dialogue, has
already been illustrated in the Prole-
gomena, p. villi. Those who delight in
parallelisms of ancient and modern
authors, will do well to compare Bp. But-
ler’s justly celebrated Preface to his Ser-
mons. The “ground-idea” of his ethical
system will be seen to be rather Platonic
than, as he himself supposed, Stoical.
The ‘ conformity to nature’ of the Stoics,
though he borrows the phrase, was some-
thing different from Butler’s.

ovx obrws eixf] ‘not by mere hap-
hazard.” So Ale. ii. 143 B, ofrws elichh
peyew. Ib. D. The Ziirich reading od
7@ cixh, founded on some MSS. “ is also
admissible. Phileb. 28 D, thy rod addyou
kal eixy Sivauiv. Tim. 34 0, weréxovres
700 mpootuxdyros Ka eixj. One cod.
has oro, and so the 2nd Ziir. ed. But
otzws is preserved in the Bodl., which
however, with others, omits ody. The
following xdéAAiwra is bracketed by

K

130 HAATNNOS [ 506, D
THTL Kat TV: irs ExdoT@ amoddboTat avTav. apa €orte

TQVTO. ; ‘Bye bev yap pnp. Tage dpa. TET ay pevov Kat
KeKoo pnpevov €oTlv 7 dpern Exdorov ; Painv av eywye. B
Kécpos Tis apa eyyevopevos ev ExdoT@ 6 ExdoTov OiKEtos
ayalov wapéyer Exacrtov Tov dvTwy ; "Epouye Soxet. Kat
Wx) apa Kdocpov €yovoa Tov EavTHS apeivwv THS aKo-
opntov; “Avdykn. "AAG piv H ye Koopov Eexovca
koopla ; Ilds yap ov péd\der; “H Sé ye koopia cadpov ;
| IIo\\} dvdykyn. “H dpa cédpav woyy ayaby. “Ey 507
pev ovk Exw Tapa Tavta ara hava, @ hire Kaddixdeus"

ov © «i exes, didacke.
KAA, Aéy’, & ’yalle.

32. Aéyw dy or, ci 7» cddpwv ayaly éotw, 1) Tod=

Hirschig, but is certainly no interpola-
tion. For, to say nothing of the pos-
sibility of the body’s attaining health
by the operation of natural causes, Plato
in many passages admits the idea of a
spontaneous virtue in the soul bearing
the same relation to the conscious virtue
of the philosopher as in the region of the
intellect subsists between 6p6% défa and
émothun. Thus in the Phaedo he speaks
of of Thy Snuotikhy Te Kal moAitiKhy
Gperhny émiterndevkdtes, hy 5) Kadodor
cwppooivyny te Kar dicaoodyny, e ous
Te Kal meAEeTIS yeyovviay tvev pirocoptas
te kal vod, 82 A. The distinction is also
brought out in the Laws, i. p. 642 0,
where he allows the existence of a natural
goodness, produced aitopuds Oela polpa.
Compare also a remarkable passage in
the Meno, 99 s—p. The qualification is
therefore introduced purposely, though
for obvious reasons not dwelt on.

E. Kéopos—ayabov mapéxe: exacrov
tav bvrwy| This idea is worked out
with greater completeness in the Philebus,
where the absolute good is found to
reside mep) mérpovy kal Td pérpioy ab
xalpov, and to manifest itself in 7d otp-
petpov kal Kadby Kal 7d TéAcov Kad ixavdr,

p- 66 A.

507. ‘H &pa cddpwv Wuxh ayabh | This
passage, taken together with the context,
clearly identifies aappociyn with 7
ciumaca a&peth. ‘Temperance’ is that
capital virtue whicirincludes all others,
as courage, justice, and piety. It is, in
a word, the right state of the soul, in
which all the parts of our complex nature
are kept in due subordination, and so

organized as to form a harmonious whole.
This pre-eminence, as is well known,
is in the Republic assigned to d:cato-
cvvn, the sister virtue ; Sophrosyne being
there relegated to a subordinate pro-
vince in the moral economy. But if
this theory is less mature than that in
the Republic, it is an advance upon the
speculations, pursued in the Charmides,
where Socr. is made to arrive at the
merely negative conclusion that owdpo-
cvvn is not a mode of émorthun. This
has been taken to prove that when he
wrote the Charmides Plato was dis-
satisfied with the Socratic definitions of
the virtues, and was feeling his way to
some more satisfactory theory: astate of
mind of which, in my opinion, there are
indications in the Protagoras, at the end
of which dialogue Socrates stands self-
convicted of inconsistency.

ei 7 cHppwv &yabh| ‘If the temperate
soul is (eo nomine) good, the soul which
is in a condition directly opposed to
temperance is evil. But this, as we
have seen, is none other than the in-
sensate and dissolute soul.’ We cannot
in Eng. give the antithesis between
céppwv and &ppwv, which even in
Greek is a false one, for the true anti-
theta are &ppov and zuppwv. The force
of the imp. jv is nearly the same as in
the familiar formula 7d ® hv &pa, but it
retains more of its past signification.
In later writers the past sense seems to
disappear, and #v is used for éorf in
general propositions. Hence we may
explain the Aristotelian formula 7d cf
hv eivat.

—507, B. |

, ~ , “~ , 5
vavtiov TH Gdppov weTmovOvia KaKy EoTLW.
e » A > 4 7
H adpwv te Kat axddacros; Iavu ye.

TOPTIAX.

131

> Se Y
Hv S€ avrn
Kai pay 6 ye

7 ‘ , , x \ ‘ ‘ \
cadpov Ta TpoonKovta mpaTTo. &v Kat mept Oeovs Kat
Tept avOpadrous ; od yap av cwdhpovoln Ta py TpoTHKOVTA

, > td n> > Y
Bapattwoyv; Avaykyn TavT Elva OUTWS.

Kai pap rept pev

> 7 x 7 , / > * ,
avOparovs TH TPOTYKOVTA TT pPAaTT@v Sikac av TPAaTTOL,
\ § \ 6 eg Se. § Rie § , ee ,
TEpt € VEOVS ODOLA* TOV OE TA OLKALA KAL OTDLA T PATTOVTA

Cyr. , > ¥ a
dvadyKn Sikavov Kat oovov eivar; "Eote tadra.

Kai peév

57) Kat avdpetov ye avayKn; ov yap 8%) aadpovos avdpds

Kal uny 8 ye céppwv] This introduces
an idea quite foreign to our notion of
‘temperance.’ The cégpwyr, the man of
orderly well-regulated mind, will not be
content with abstaining from evil: he
will be inclined to the performance of
all positive duties both towards men and
towards gods. cwpoctvn is thus seen
to include conscientiousness, an idea
which associates itself much more natu-
rally with S:xcatocvvn. The theory of
Duties, it may be observed, which fills so
large a proportion of our modern treatises,
is very slightly touched by Plato and
Aristotle. The scholion of Olympiodorus
on this passage, though evidently much
blundered by the student who took it
down, is curious and worth quoting: 6
cdppwv kat Slabs éott kal avdpeios: 6
yap trotdttwy Ta xelpova Tots Kpelttoct
kal ph é@y HrracOa Tov Adyov bird Tod
Ovuod (read rijs éw:Ouplas, coll. Rep. iv.
430 E), obros Gvdpeids ori. 7 SE dixao-
obvn exer Kal Td Sotoy, OG yap apécke: 6
towvros. “Thus,” he continues, “the
different virtues are concurrent (cvytpé-
xovow &AAHAas), and we are enabled to
solve the well-known aopfa with regard
to divine providence: viz. that if virtue is
sufficient for happiness (for abrdpxns 7
eddamovla mpds aperhy read abtdpKns f
Gperh mpds cddamorlay), virtuous people
ought not to offer prayers and suppli-
cations to heaven, but rather to acquiesce
in their lot. To this we reply, that the
céppwy, as before remarked, desires to
acquaint himself with the higher powers
and to give them pre-eminence: for this
is a duty of piety, and hence we are
bound to pray. For prayer is a sign
that we know the higher powers and
invoke their aid. So that prayer, through
its being pious, is included even in the
list of moral virtues.” déo:dérns, it will
be remembered, is added by Protagoras

to the received list of cardinal virtues,
Protag. p. 329 o.

ov yap ky cwhpovoln] ‘He would not
deserve to be called temperate if he did
what he had no business todo.” This is,
to say the least, a very popular kind of
reasoning, and scarcely equal tosustain the
conclusion that the cégpwr, qua sdgpwr,
will perform all his duties—all the things
that concern him. If Socr. had said uy
7% mpoohkovta mpattwy, the syllogism
would have been good, though the premiss
might seem doubtful. But the parallelism
between the cp. of this passage and the
d{xatos of the Republic is kept up. For
the Sixa:os also is one 6s Ta adtod mpar-
vet, Rep. p. 433 B. In the immediate
sequel all the special virtues are subordi-
nated to cwdpocivn, as in the Rep. to
dixatocvvyn. Plato must have felt that
none of the popular terms were quite
adequate to express his own more com-
prehensive idea of Virtue as a state
or constitution of the inner man. For
it must be owned that some of the
functions of d:xa:ocdvn, as described in
the larger dialogue, are more appropriate
to the sister virtue; and the truth may
be that in each case he has selected the
one which best served his immediate
purpose. This union of edxépera in the
use of terms with elaborate clearness in
the elucidation of ideas is characteristic
of the author. See Theaet. 184 B, 7d ®
edxepts Tay dvoudtwr Te Kal pnudtov
kal wh OC axpiBelas ekeraCduevoy Ta mev
WOAAG odk Gyevves, GAG MaAAOY Td TOv-
tov évavtiov aveAcetiOepov. There is a
palpable sneer at Plato in Isocrates, En-
com. Helenae init., as one who kataye-
yhpaxe dietiay ds avdpla xa copia Kal
dixatocivn TavTdéy éort, kal... pla émi-
oThun Ka ardyrwy éorly.

B. ov yap 5) odppovos—gevyew &
uh mpoohke] Hence the deAds is one

K 2

132 IIAATANOS [507, B

> ¥ 4 ¥ , aA A , b) > aA
€oTW ovTE SidKEW ovTE Hevyew & py TPOTHKEL, GAN 4
det Kal mpdypata Kal avOpemovs Kai ndovas Kat vmas
devyew Kat Sidkew, kal vrouévovTa Kaptepetv Orov Set.
@oTe TOMMY) avedyKn, ® KadNikdes, Tov cddpova, aaTeEp O

4 4 4 7 > A“ X\ y 3 ny
SipOopev, Sixatov dvta Kat dvdpetov Kal dovov ayabov
»” > / Xx \ 9 SN > \ val ,
avopa evar Tehéws, TOV de ayalov ed TE Kal Kah@s Tpar-
Tew & Gv TpatTn, TOY O ED TPaTTOVTA paKdpLoV TE Kal
evdaipova eivar, Tov S€ Tovnpdy Kal KaKOS TpaTTOVTA
¥ a > # ¥ e > , » A ,
aOdwov. otros 8 ay ein 6 évavtins Exwv TH THdpoM,
6 adkohaoTos, dv od Em7vets.

LXIII. “Eye pév ody tadra ovtw TiPewar Kat dype
Tavta adnOy elvar. et dé Eotw adryOy, Tsv Bovddpevor,
@S €oukev, evdaipova elvar cwppoovyvynv pev SiwxrTéov Kal D
> 7 5 , \ , e ¥ nw 9
aoKntéov, dkohaciav S€ hevktéov ws Exel TOOGV EKATTOS
pov, Kal TapacKevactéov padiota pev pyndev Setabar

A , 3X \ aA KR S55.%. A »* la
tov KoddleoOar, eav dé SenOp 7) adtos 7H addos Tis TOV
> 4 x» > , a , > 4, , \
oixeiwy, H idudtys 7 wodus, emferéov Sixnv Kal Koda-

, > , > , > a » me
otéov, eb perder evdatpwv elvat. obTos Epouye SoKel 6

Q > A aA , “a ial ‘\ y >
oKoTOs eivat, Tpos Ov BdérovTa det Cyv, Kal wavta eis

ds TA wh TpoohKovTa pevyet Te Kal didKeL,
The old Socratic definition would rather
be, ds obk ofdev 080 & SiwKTéov early
ov8 & gevxtéoyv. Plato’s includes both
the knowledge and the disposition (the
790s as well as the émorhun), and is
therefore more true to nature.

OC. Tov 8 eb mpdrrovta paxdpioy | This,
which seems a sophism founded on the
double sense of ed mpdrrey, is in fact a
cherished paradox. It was a point of
honour with the Platonists to preface
their letters with the salutation ed rpar-
Tew instead of the more usual xaipew.
Ep. iii. init., WAdtwy Atovucle xat-
petv emorelAas Gp dp9as bv Truyxdvoyu
THs Bedtlotns tpocphorews; 7) waAdov
Kata Thy éuhy ovvhOeciavy ypdpwv e€b
mparrev; «.7.A. Comp. Charm. p. 172
A, 6p0drnTos Be Hyounévns ev mdon mpdéer
avaykaiov KaA@s Kal ed mpdrrew Tovs
oftw diaxemuévous, Tos 8 eb mpdrrovtas
evdaluovas eivar. So Alc. i. 116 B, éa715
KaA@s mpdrret ovx) Kal eb mpdtTeaL; We
find a similar ambiguity in Arist. Eth.
N. vi. 2. 5.

D. ovtos euorvye] ‘This, as I think, is
the mark on which we should fix our
gaze through life; to that we should

bend all our powers and all the powers
of the state, and so act that Justice and
Temperance shall be our portion, as they
must be if we would be truly blest.’ The
otTw mpdrrev is illustrated by Phaedr.
253 B, GAN’ eis duoidrnTa adtois Kal TE
OeG dv by Tiudol, wicay mdévtTws 6 TL
pddicTa meipduevor &yew ofrw ToLov-
ctv (equiv. to oftw rootow date &yeuv).
Phaedr. 67 b, yeAotov ay etn &vdpa mapa-
oKeva ov éaurdy ev TG Bip bri eyyuTatw
bvta Tod Tebvdva oftTw Civ (= otTw
Civ ore eiva). Presently dayfvurov
kaxéy (an evil of which there is no end
—a sort of ‘vicious circle’) is intended
to recall the simile of the Danaids with
their sieve, p. 493. Ast quotes Legg.
iv. 714 a, Wuxhy exovoa jdovay kad ém-
Ouuiav dpeyouervny Kat wAnpodobat TovTwY
Seouevny, oréyoucay 5é ovdév, GAN avn-
viT@ Kal amrAhoTr@ Kak@ ... Evvexo-
hévnv. The ‘brigand’s life’ is explained
in the immediate sequel as that of one
who by his excesses cuts himself off from
communion with gods and men, as an
outlaw does. Olymp., Anorod 5& Blov GF
éreid}) ... TGV GAAoTplwy epa- emépxeTat
ody Kal yuvat Kal xphuact, AdOpa de
TadvTa Motel Homep AnoThs.

—508, B. | TOPTIAS. 133

9
oTws
ped-

A eet" al A .
TOUTO Kal TA AUTOV OUYTEiVOYTA Kal TA THS TOAEWS,
Sixavoctyyn tapéora, Kal cwppootrn TO pakapio

Edovte €vecOat, ovT@ TpaTTEv, odK emOupias EOVTA aKo-
, > ‘\ la) n
Adorous civar Kal TavTas EriyeipodvTa Typodr, avyvUTOV
Kakov, Mpotov Biov Cavta. ovrTe yap av a\d\w avOpaT@
‘ xa» ¥ lal a nA

Tporpirns av ein 6 ToLovTos ovTE Dew KoWwwvelv yap

297 9 \ , » , , > x +

advvatos’ otw Sé py eve Kowwvia, dita ovk ay ein.

\ > a
gact & ot codpot, @ Kaddixhes, kal otpavoyv Kal ynv Kai
“ >. AF 4 ‘ , 4 ‘\ id
508 Beovs Kat dv parrous THY Koweviar | aowvexew Kal pidiav
kat KoopuoryTa Kal cappoovvyy Kat Sucardryra, Kat TO

Odov TodTo Sia TadTa Koo pov Kahovow, @: éeraipe, oUK aKo-

opiav ovde axodaciav.

cui 195

od Sé pou Soxets od mporéyew
‘ a , \ 7 \ ¥ > \ , y
TOV VOUV TOUTOLS, Kal TAUTA Topds wv, AAA EANOE GE OTL
9 todtns 7 yewpeTpixy Kat ev Deots Kai év avOparrois péya
dvvaral. ov oe mreovetiay ote. Seiv doKeiv’ yewperpias
A > “ > a» 3 4 ‘\ es c , e “
yep: dpehets. Eies 4 efeheyKréos 81) obros 6 Aeyos npew
BéoTiv, ws ov Sukatoovvys Kat cappoovrys KTH OE evoai-
proves of evdaipoves, Kakias dé aOALOL ot AOALOW 7 ei ovToss

E. of copot] According to Olymp. the
Pythagoreans, and Empedocles, who said
Thy pirlay évovy Toy cpaipov. Comp. Em-
ped. v. 94, Karst.,”AAAoTe péy piddrytt
ouvepxduerv’ cis Ev Gravta,”AAAoTE F ad
dix’ Exacta popedueva velkeos €x Ger, with
ibid. v. 59, Obtws appovins unig xptdy
eoThpiktat Xpaipos KvKAorephs povly
mepinyei yalwy. In the semi-Pythagorean
system of Empedocles, @:Ala, giAdrns,
*A@podirn represented the conservative
principle of the universe (7d dAov, apat-
pos), as Neixos stood for the principle of
change and dissolution. See Cic. de
Amic. vii. The Pythagoreans, according
to ancient tradition, first called the uni-
verse Kécpos, and the word in that sense
occurs in a frag. attributed to Philolaus
ap. Stob. Eel. Phys. p. 420, is b5¢ 6 Kdo-
pos et aidvos.

508. 4 icdrns H yewpetpixh| This
* geometric,” as di mere

arithmetical is_what

in a well-
known passage of the Nic. Ethics, de-
fines “distributive justice” as the ren-
dering to each citizen according to his
merits, adding, goriv &pa Td dikaoy ava-
Aoydv Te... KaAodar. 5& Thy to.adTHy

dvaroylay YewmeT puchy of uabnuarixol,
év yap TH yewperpiKy ouuBalver kal 7d
SAov mpds Td SAov bmep Exdrepov mpds
éxdrepov, B. v. 3, 8. So Olymp., icréov
bre tpets ciow iodrntes, yewmerpixn,
Gpiuntikh, apnovinhn. Kal) pev .yew-
petpikh iodtns éoriv, bray dvadroyta
gpuadrrynta... ioréoy dé bri h ev yew-
petpla mpds diavouas ocupBdddrAeTrar ...
kal yap orparnyds Adpupa diaveuwv oTpa-
TidTais ov Taot TH avTd Twapéxer... KG)
6 months your gnow: "Ec@Aad pe
écOAds eduve, xépna Ge xXelpous
déoxey (Il. xiv. 382). The idea is full
developed in the Laws, p. 757, whe
the legislator is taught to distinguis
between simple and proportional equalit
and to enforce the latter—rihy ® aAnde
ordrny Kal aplorny icdrynta ovKére pddio
mavt) ideiv. Aids yap 5h xplots éorly—
TE pev yap pel Cove twrAclw TH bf eAdrrovt
ouiKpérepa veuer... ort 7: p 54 mov
kal Td TwoAiTiKdy Huiv del TodT’ abTd Td
dixaov. Following this rule, Lycurgus,
according to Plutarch, “expelled from
Lacedaemon arithmetical equality, hold-
ing it to be democratic and levelling in
principle, and introduced the geometric,
as best suited to a temperate oligarchy
and monarchy.” Mor. p. 719 B.

134 TAATQNOS [ 508, B
A

GAnOyns eat, oxenTéov Ti Ta TuBawovta. Ta Ttpdcber
nA * > e

éxetva, @ Kaddikdeus, ovpBaive. mavta, €b ots ov pe

¥

jpov et aorovddlwr héyount, MyovTa OTL KaTyyopyTéov Ein

al . al A ~

Kat avTov Kat vidos Kal Eéraipou, édy TL aduKy, Kal TH

pytopixn €mt tTovto xpyaTéor.

i iv, adnOn dpa Hv, TO civar Td aGduKElY TOD

@ouv avyxewpev, ann apa qv, i }

Kat & IIl@\ov aicyivy

> A 7 ¥ Pal , \ 9.
adicetoOa, OowTEP aloxLoy, TOTOUVTM KaKLOVY Kal TOV CO
, 5) A e ‘ ¥ 0 St + 8 Aas
BédNovTa SpOas pytopikov EveoOar Oikatoyv apa det eWwaL
A lal 3
Kal émuoTypova TOV Sixaiwv, 6 ad Topyiav épy Iados de
aicyvvynv dpohoynoat.
LXIV. Tovrav &€ ovtws éydvTwr, cxepdpeOa Ti mor
> ‘ a \. 3 A -9 8c 7” A 4 EN ¥~ee
€oTiv & ov emot dvevdilers, apa Kaas éyeTau 7 ov, ws
»~ eee > er b] SKN A ¥ > lal »” ral
dpa €y@ ovy olds 7 eit BonOjoa ovte EuavT@ ovTEe TOY
/ >) \ noe lal > ld 5S > “A > A
ditwy ovderi ovdE THY OLKELwY, OVD EKTOOAL EK TOV
, , t ae \ 2 AN A id WA
peylotav Kwdvvor, cipt S€ ert t@ Bovropevm daoTep
Tumtew Bovdyta, TOD
‘\ \ a la “A / a. ae 0 »t 3.7
veavikov 81) TOUTO TOU Gov édyou, emt Kdppys, edv TE
t Vistece 3 a 27 > / > a ,
xpyjpata adaipetoOar, av te ExBadrew Ex THS TddEwS,
€dv Te, TO ExYaToV, aToKTEVar Kal ovTW SiaKeicOaL Tay-
Tov 679 aloxioTov eat, ws 6 Gds hOyos.

€ A A 277 »”
ol atiyno. Tov €OédovTos, av TE

e \ ‘\ > /,
6 d¢ 87 ends,
Mg , \ ¥ » »QA \ , > ae
GoTis mohAdKis pev HON ElpnTat, ovdev SE KwdAVEL Kal ETL
héyerOaur ov hyut, ® Kaddixdeis, 76 TUTTETOaL emi KOp-

B. Td Gdixeiv Tod adixetrOau] Among
the impugners of this splendid paradox
is Aristides Rhet., whose spirited but
wordy tirade is to be found, T. iii. p. 103,
ed. Cant. In his Epist. ad Capitonem
(ibid. p. 533) he produces with great
glee a passage from the Laws (829 A)
which he conceives to be inconsistent
with the doctrine laid down in the
Gorgias.

©. kal Toy wéAAovta] This passage is
quoted with approbation by Quintilian,
ii. 15, 28.

& ob euol dveid{Cers] He refers to the
warning of Callicles, p. 486. Presently,
in ciul & éxl TG BovrAoudve, Sorep of
&riwot Tod e0é€AovTos, Hirsch. brackets
Tov é0€Aoyros as an interpolation. But
the pleonasm is surely not unexampled.
The two phrases mean of course the same
thing—lI am at the merey, or in the power
of any one who chooses to molest me,
just as an outlaw is at the mercy of the

first comer—tovmdytos. Heind. quotes
Legg. iv. 707 E, métepoy ée& amdons
Kpjtrns 6 é0éAwy ... 0d ydp mov Toy
BovaAduevdy ye “EAAhvev ovvdyere: and
Stallb. a passage from Xen. Anab. i. 4,
brws phrore ett fora em) TH GdEAGG.
Add Rep. v. 460 A, Td 7A} 00s TaY yauwv
emt Tois &pxover worhoomer.

D. th veavixdy 8) todto] ‘To quote
Ehatcatete Uneaie Be Pears: Callicles
had apologized for the roughness of the
expression: ef Tt kal Gypoucdtepoy eipyj-
o0a, tear em xdppns timtovTd oe
k.T.A., p. 486 0, where see the note. Socr.
softens down the &ypoixoy of Callicles
into veavixéy, ‘bold,’ ‘smart.’? In apolo-
gizing for the vigour of his own lan-
guage, he presently adopts the stronger
epithet dypoixdrepoy, inf. 509 A. veavikdv
is one of those epithets which may imply
either praise or censure; and on that
account commends itself to an e%pwy
such as Socr. was. ,

—509, B. | TOPIIAS. 135

e 3Q7 ¥” je > b) , A , A
pys ddikws aloyiortov elvat, ovdé ye Td TéuverOar ovTE
. a ,
ETO cpa TO ewdv ovte TO Badddvtiov, d\da TO TUTTEW
¥ ‘
kal ewe Kal Ta ea adikws Kal TéwvEely Kal aloxLoV Kal
, ‘ , 9 \ 3 , \
KdKlov, Kal KNémTEW ye Gua Kal avdpamodiler Oar Kat
~ ‘ , c lal > A 3 ee E." ‘ \
Toixwpuxew Kat cvAMABSnv Stiody aduKety Kal Eue Kal TA
a A ¥ > xz 2 &
Eua TH GOLKOUYTL Kal KdKLOY Kal aloxyLoV ElvaL 7) Eol TO
ddikoupev@e. Tadta Huiv avw éxel év Tots mpdabe dyots
‘ ‘\
509 ovTw davevta, ws eya héyw, Karéxerar Kal déderar, | Kat
aA A ‘\ ,
el dypoukdrepov Tu elmety eotl, ovdynpots Kal adapavTivots
A > ‘
Adyots, as your av ddeev ovTwaiv, ods ad Ei py) AVoELS
A es aed x EN
} Tov Tis veaviKdTeEpos, ov olov TE Gdws éyovTa 7H ws
> ‘ A ld “ 4 > \ +” ¢ ts § 4
€y® viv héyw Kadas héyew" Ever E“ovye O avTos hoyos
€oTly del, OTL €y@ TadTa ovK Olda STMS EVEL, OTL PEVTOL
ba oe Ne TS , 9 A > Si er | uae \ »
av eyo évtetiynka, woTep viv, ovdels olds T eat ah-
\ > -
ws Aéywr pa) od KaTayéAacTos civar. yw pev odv ad
lal ‘
TiOnut TadTa oUTws exew. ei SE OVTWS EXEL Kal péytoTOV
Br@v KakOv éoTly yn adikia TO aOiKOdYTL Kal ETL TOUTOU
a , ” > By R29 A ‘ 8 8 ,
petlov peyiotou ovtos, el oldv TE, TO dOiKodvTA py SiddvaL
, if x 4 \ 4, ” ~
Sixyny, tiva dy BoyPevav pr) Suvdpevos avOpwmos Bonbetv
c lal xX “A ) , ¥ yd b] ,
€avT@ KaTayédacTos av TH adneia etn; ap ov Tavrqy
4 4 \ 7 c - , 3 ‘\
Nts amotpepe. THY peyioTnv nuav BrAdBnv; adda odd}
avayKn Tavrny evar THY aicxiaTnv BoyPeav yn Sivacbar

E. taita juiv tvw| ‘These state-
ments, which were before shown in the
course of our past discussion to be as I
say, are, however uncouth the expression
may sound (however harsh the meta-
phor), held firmly and tied fast by a
chain of argument strong as iron or as
adamant.’ The expression &vw éxe? could
not have been introduced by way of
gloss upon the more usual év rots mpdéo8e
Aédyors, as Hirsch., who brackets them,
would seem to imagine. The conclusion
Socr. has just drawn (év@dde) had been
shown éxe?, in another place, farther
back in the discussion, to follow from the
premisses. It is conceivable that é rt.
mp. A. may have been added as a mar-
ginal explanation of &yw éxei, as eu-
mpooGey occasionally appears after viv 64
when it is not wanted: but on this I do
not insist, as the redundancy is not with-
out its rhetorical effect in the present
instance. mpdéo@e for the vulg. rpdcdev

occurs in the Bodl., and is retained by
Bekk. and Hirsch., though condemned
as un-Attic by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 284.
The constant occurrence of rpéo0¢ in the
comic poets, in places where the metre
forbids axpéc6ev, makes it unlikely that
it would grate on Athenian ears when
occurring in prose.

509. as yotv ay Sdferey obtwaoly] ‘as

would seem, at_any “rate7on~a prima
facie View? that is, unless proved to be

otherwise.

B. WoAAH avdynyn tabrny] ‘It cannot
fail but that this is the power it is most
shamefal to be without—the power of
tondianiaie! Re, cabcsird. vir alos.
fof. is put by ‘attraction” for toiro
elvat atoxicrov, ph Sivacba Bondeiv.
Properly it is not the BofPea but its
absence which is disgraceful—7 aicxtorn
a5uvaula tod Bondeiv, as Heind. puts it.
The most disgraceful form of helpless-
ness is, not to be able, after wrong done,

136

ITAATQNOX

[ 509, B

a] , C. 2 , Lal e la) , ‘ > ,
Bonbety pyre atta pire Tots avTov dtdous TE Kal OlKELoLs,
wn lal 4 ‘ -
Sevtépav S€ tHv Tov Sevtépov KaKovd Kal TpiTyY THY TOU C

7 ‘ 5S WA c ¢ , lal 4 -
Tpitov Kai TaAXa OvTUS, as ExdoToU KaKod péyeHos TEpuKEY,
Y A , na a > 37> ¥ las A
ovTw Kal KaAXOs TOD SuvaTor elvar ef ExaoTa Bone Kat

aicxvrn Tod py. Gpa addus 7 ovTws exer, @ Kaddixdecs ;

KAA. OvxK adds.

LXV. XR. Avot ody ovTow, Tod adiKetvy TE Kal

adiketoOar, peilov pev hapev Kakdv TO dduKety, EhaTToV

\ 4.9 a FS 5 4 »”
6€ 75 ddiKeto Oar. Ti ovv av TapacKEevacdpevos avOpwiros
, e nw A S , ‘ > , ,
BonPyjoeev avt@, woTe audotépas Tas wdedelas TavTAs
exe, THY TE aT TOU pH adiKely Kal THY Gad TOU pH D
adiucetoOar ; ToTepa Svvapw 7} Bovdnow; ade Sé éyor

, as ‘\ 4 > ~ > LO , aA
motepov éav py Bovdyntar addiucctoOar, ovK aducynoeTat, 7
cay Svvapw Tapackevdontar ToD pu aOdiKetaOal, ovK

5 La
GOLKTHOETAL ;

to render oneself up to justice: the
second, not to be able to preserve oneself
from doing wrong: the third, to be
unable to defend self or friends from
wrong done by others. This paradox of
course must rest on the principle that
punishment, and nothing besides punish-

ent, has a medicinal effect upon the
offender : which being granted, it follows
that it is, if possible, worse for a man to
* continue in sin’ by escaping punishment,
than to sin in the first instance; and that
if worse, it is more disgraceful. The fal-
mnaqr hay Ho other mean Of Panitying his
mati has no other means of purifying his
soul from the taint of wickedness than
that implied in the words d:ddvar dixny.
For though d:dd6vae dixny might admit the
milder meaning of ‘making amends’ to
the person injured, that is not Plato’s
meaning here. Again, it can by no means
be conceded that the shame of not per-
forming an act of heroic virtue is pro-
portional to the glory of performing
it, as the sequel would seem to im-
ply. Shame and glory are rather in
inverse than direct proportion in such
cases: for it is never glorious to perform
an act which it is very disgraceful to
omit. Noone, for instance, ever thought
himself a hero for supporting his wife
and family, or again, for abstaining from
murder or theft. Nor does any stain rest
on the Roman name, because Curtius
alone dared to leap into the gulf. But
the words xaxdv and déyaédy, as used in

this argument, referred to the effect of
a man’s conduct on his spiritual nature,
and this is a matter to which the con-
sideration of judicial penalties is in
reality irrelevant. Plato’s reasoning
involves the principle of punishment ‘ pro
salute animae,’ which he avows in more
places than one, but nowhere perhaps so
distinctly as in the Laws, viii. 862 D, E.
The ‘medicinal’ nature of punishment
is recognized also by Arist. Eth. N. ii.
3, 4, (al KoAdoe:s) tarpeial ties eiow.

c. tl obv &y mapackevacduevos| A
new question is here started: wrong-
doing and wrong-suffering being evils,
and wrong-doing a greater evil than
wrong-suffering, how is a man to pro-
cure himself the advantage of exemption
from either? As regards the former it
is argued that, inasmuch as no man does
wrong willingly, his wrong-doing must
be due to want of power, not to want of
will to avoid it. He must therefore
procure this power or art by instruction
and exercise—by such discipline, we may
suppose, as we find prescribed in the
Republic. But to avoid suffering wrong
there are but two methods possible:
either a man must make himself absolute
ruler in the state, or else he must make
friends with those in power (inf. 510):
and that can only be done by making
himself like them (ibid. £). He who
succeeds in doing this is safe; he who
refuses is in jeopardy every hour.

—510, B. | TOPTIAY. 137

KAA. Andov &) todd ye, ore ea Sdvapwv.
XQ. Ti dé 8x tod ddicety ; worepov édv py BovrAynTau
aduxelv, ixavdv Todt éativ—ov yap dadiuKyjoe,—h Kal
E émt Touro Set Suvapiv twa Kal téxvnv TapacKevdcac ban,
e 2N\ .' , > ‘ \ > 4 > / Ld >
as, €av py baby aita Kai doxjon, aducjoer; Ti ovK
a # , a 3 , > , , ,
aUTO YE LOL TOUTO aTEKpiVW, @ KadXikhets, 7oTepov aoe
Soxotpev dp0as avayxacOnvar Gporoyeiy év Tols Eumpo-
td > 4 ‘ Lal a ¥ ec , e 4
aber doyots eye Te Kai [laos 7 ov, Hvixa wpohoyyoapey
§ , Ad io A iA’ ¥ ‘ BD) A
pndeva Bovddpevoy aduKeiv, GAN’ akovTas Tovs adiKOvYTAS
TAVTAS GOLKELD ;
¥ A
KAA. “Eotw got Tovto,
Suatepavy Tov ddyov.

XQ. Kai émi rovro apa,

9 9
510 ® exKpates, ovtws, | wa
e ¥ 4
@S €0LKE, TapacKevacTéov
> ‘ , , \ , 9 \ > ,
éott Svvapmiv twa Kal Téxvny, OTws pr aduKHcoper.
KAA, IlIavv ye.
, > age. \ , A A A
32. Tis ovv wot €ott Téxvn THS TapacKeuns TOV
pndev adixetoOar } as ddiyvota; oKdpar et col SoKet
9 > C > ‘ \ ‘ Cte x eo! » A
Hep euol. euol pev yap Soxet nde 7) adrov dpyew Sev
€v TH TOE ) Kal TUpavvElVY, } THS UTapxovans TodLTELas
E€Tatpor eivat.
c “~ ‘
B KAA. ‘Opds, & Séxpates, as ey@ ETounds eEipe Erat-
~ »¥ “~ al nw a
vew, av TL Kah@s héeyyns; TovTd pow SoKel’s Tav Kaas
elpnKevat.
LXVI. 3. Sxdrev dy Kai rdde edv cor Boxe eb
héyew. didos por Soxet Exactos ExdotT@ €lvat ws oidv TE
, 9 ¢ 4 ‘ \ 7 ¢
padtota, ovmep ol tadaot Te Kat codot éyovaw, oO
OpfoLlos TO Opoiw. ov Kal cot;

E. undéva Bovdduevoy &dikeiv] Olymp.,

with the fut., not with the conj. The
évtaida avapaiverar WAatwvindy ddéyya,

reason is obvious: 8rws in such a

7d A€vyor bt WavTa TA GuapThuata aKov-
ou eoTw...Kkal €or: mapddotoy. The
Gropla: suggested by this paradox are
discussed at length Legg. ix. 861 sqq.
510. d:arepdvn] The Bodl. and one
other have diawepavy. Edd. d:areparys.
The middle aor. is sufficiently common,
and here, perhaps, better than the active.
Kal éri trovro—Sbrws ph adiKxh-
couey| Codd. adixqowyev, corr. Heind.
The correction was indispensable. Such
verbs as dpav, oxomeiv, wapackeva lev,
unxavacbat, &e., are followed by éxws

context retains its original sense ‘ quo-
modo.’ So inf. D, mapackevd (ew Saws
8 rt wddAwora Guotos Zora: exelvw. 513 A,
dpa . . dxws ph meroducba, where the
codd. give the solecistic form reiwducda
(for rd0wper).

B. of taAatol re xa! cool] So in the
Lysis this trite proverb is said to be
found ‘in the writings of the very wise,”
who it would seem are of wept “Ounpor.
Od. xvii. 218, ds aiel rdv Suowoy Hyer Beds
@s tov buoov. Aristotle gives a list of
proverbs with this meaning. Rhet. i.

138

KAA. "Epovye.

IAATANOS

[510, B

> A L4 , , 3 »” ¥ NN
x2. Ovdxovv orov tipavyds EoTW apxwv ayplos Kat
“~ ‘ , ¥
amatdevTos, el Tis TOUTOV ev TH TWOdEL TOAD BedTiov Ey,
La) , xX» 2% ¢€ 4 ‘\ a > 4
hoBotro Syov ay avrov 6 TUpavvos Kai TOUT@ EF amavTOS O
TOU vod ovK av Tote SUVaLTO Hiros yever Oar ;

KAA. *Eowtt tadra.

¥

YN. Ovdé ye et tis Tod Gavddrepos ety, ovd av

A Lal +

ovTos’ KaTadpovot yap av avTov 6 TUpavvos Kal OvK av
ToTe ws Tpos hitov omTovddceter.

KAA. Kat tadr’ adnOy.

SQ. Aelrerau dx exeivos povos akios Adyov dihos TO
TolovT@, bs Gv oponOyns wv, TavTAa Péywv Kal Eewawer,

Oddy dpxyerOar Kat vroKketoOar TO apxovTet.

es ,
ovTOS PEeya

F) , a , , a 2Q 8 , 5
ev TAUTY TY TONEL Suvyoeran, TOUTOV ovoels XaLp av Qaou~

KHOEL. OVX OUVTWS EXEL ;
KAA. Nai.

11. 25, &s HAE HAika Tépwet, nal as
atel roy Suorov, Kal €yvw SE Ohp
Onjpa, Kal del KoAoLdS Tapa KoAOLdY.
But ‘birds’ of this ‘feather’ are heard in
all languages.

Ovxotv brov tipavyvos| These words
have been supposed to contain a covert
allusion to a passage in Plato’s private
history; his sojourn at the court of
Dionysius I., and its disastrous termina-
tion. If this is so, this dialogue must
have been composed after B.c. 388. But
the epithet amaldevros is hardly applica-
ble to a man of such literary accomplish-
ments as the elder Dionysius, who is
moreover credited with copia by Plato
himself, and contrasted in that respect
with his successor, Ep. vii. 332 ©, D.
And in any case the supposition is gra-
tuitous: for Plato had enjoyed ample
opportunities of acquainting himself with
the characteristics of the tépayves even
before he left Athens. See the same
Epistle, p. 324 p.

©. kal rodr@ ef &.] ‘And to him, the
tyrant, he, the virtuous man, could never
in his heart of hearts be a friend.’ That
there is this change of subject in the
sentence appears from the next pjots of
Socr., where the implied predicate to
obtos is ok &y Sbvaito >. yev. Parallel
instances are accumulated by Heind. and
Stallb., the latter referring to Liv. i. 50,

‘Ne id quidem ab Turno tulisse tacitum
ferunt [sc. Tarquinium]; dixisse enim
{h.e. Turnum] Nullam breviorem esse
cognitionem ” &c., where the student will
find the notes in Drakenborch’s ed. worth
attention. In Greek a good instance is
that in Rep. ii. p. 359 EB, rodrou d¢ yevo-
bévov apavy abvtoy yevéoOar (sc. Toy
Tdynv): tots maparabnuevois, Kal S1adr€-
yer0at &s wept oixouévou (sc. To’s mapa-
KaOnuévous).

as mpos plrov omovddcetey| As orovdh
denotes warmth, earnestness, omovddCew
mpés Twa (comp. Lat. ‘studere alicui’),
signifies esteem, affection, or attachment.
In Rep. iii. 403 0, we find mpds 8v tis
orovda (or said of the attachment of an
épaoths. The tyrant might amuse him-
self in the society of a man worse than
himself, but could never feel for him the
esteem and affection due to a friend.

obros méya—Tovrov ovdels| So Per-
sius, Sat. ii. 37, “Hune optent gene-
rum rex et regina, puellae Hune rapiant,
quicquid calcaverit Ac rosa fiat.” Comp.
the double exe?vos in Eur. Bacch. 243,
exeivos eival pnot Aidvucoy Oedyv, Exeivos
ev unp@ wor efapa Ards, where the
repetition implies contempt instead of
honour. Presently rairn tH méAct re-
fers not to Athens, but to the wdéaAts
bmrov Tipavvds cor &pxwy K.T.A. SUD. B.

—511, A.| TOPTIAS. 139

> ¥ > , > , ~ , A
x2. Et apa ts évvonoee €v tavty TH Tod. TOV
7 & x» , > b , , X 4 r
véwv, Tiva dv tpdtov eyo péya Suvaipnv Kal pndeis pe
LO 4 Y c ¥ > “ ¢ / > > ‘ > ,
GOLKOLN, AUTN, WS EoLKEY, a’T@ 600s eaTW, EVOYS Ex Veo”
2f)7 6. _% a > A , ‘ ¥ A
eGilew avtov tots avtots yaipew Kat ayfecOa te Se-
‘
omdrTy, Kat mapackevdlew OTWS O TL UAALTTA GpoLos EOTAL
EKEiv@. OVX OUTAS ;
KAA. Nai.
E 32. Odxovv tovt@ 75 pev pH adiucetoar Kal péya
4 ¢ €.€ 4 , > “ / ,
Svvacbat, as 6 duérepos Adyos, ev TH WOAEL Suamrempa€erat.
- —————__— <
KA avu YE.
> A A
XQ. *Ap’ otv kal 7d py ddixety ; 7 oddod Set, eizrep
9 aA
Of.0los ETTAL TM apyovTL GvTL adikw Kal Tapa ToOvTY
péya Suvyceras; aN oiwas eywye, wav Tovvavtiov ottwat
Tapackev? €oTat aVT@ Emi TO olw TE Elva WS TELTTA
> an . ~ a) ‘ , , > ,
aducey Kal dduKodvTa px Siddvar Sikynv. 7 yap;
KAA. Saiverau
| 32. Ovxodv 7d péyvorrov avT@ KaKOV drrdpset, pLo-
XInp@ 6 OVTL THY oxy kat eo Bnuery dua THY pipnow

511

Tov Seomdtov Kal Sivapuy.

KAA. Ovx oid’ orn otpépers ExdaortoTe Tovs Adyous
» ‘\ , > , xa ° > 4 & e
ava Kal KdTo, ® Yoxpares. 7 ovK otaoOa dtu ovTos 6

E. ws 6 dpérepos Adyos| ‘As you and
your efers
especially to uéya Bévacbat, which Socr.
himself would of course refuse to pre-
dicate of the person described. Sup.
466 B, éAdxiotdv pot Soxotar TaY év
7H mode divacOa of phropes. But the
general doctrine that in order to rise in
4 state it is necessary to share the spirit
or 490s which animates such state was a
commonplace both with philosophers
and orators. So Demosth. ce. Androt.
p- 613 (§ 79), tov bxép wéAcws mpdr-
TovTd Tt Set Td THs TéAcws HOos pimet-
0a. Compare Timocr. p. 753, where
the bright side of the Athenian 7@os is
exhibited. Iscer. Niecocl. 21 a, 7d rijs
mérews BAns HOos Spuowodra: Tots up-
xovow, is the converse of the proposition.

diamempdterat| ‘will have been
achieved :’ i.e. after he has thus schooled
himself into sympathy with the ruling
powers, he, the aspirant just mentioned,
will have attained to the much-coveted

power and security from wrong. In the
Laws, viii. 829, we read, 7d Hey (uh
Gdicetv) ov odie warembe, Tov 8& Bh
GSiketo Oat Kerhoao Gat Sivan mayxdre-
mov, Kal ovk éoTw avTd TeAews oKEIV
dAAws 2) TeAgws yevducvoy ayabdy. In
the sequel of this passage the principle
is applied to international relations, in a
manner not uninteresting to the citi-
zens of a non-intervening state.

oly te elvat—xal abdixodvta| The
change of case is justified by 492 3,
émel ye ois e& apxis briptev } BariAéwv
vi€ow elvas } abrovs tH pice ixavods
«.7.A. Of the MSS., however, one gives
oidv Te, and several ad:xodvT:, The same
variation is found 525 B, # BeAriov
ylyverOat ... 2) mapadelypwari (al. rapd-
devyua) Tots &AAas ylyvecOat.

511. 4 od« ofo@a bt1] ‘or do you need
to be told that our imitator will slay
your non-imitator, if he have a mind,
and will spoil his goods?’ 6 mimodmevos
is transitive, though foolishly supposed to

140 IIAATQNNOZ

[ 511, A
, Q me, , >, A > Lal 38
Piovpevos TOV PN pLLovpmEvoY EKELVOY GATOKTEVEL, EaV

, A

BovrAnrat, Kat apaipyoeTa TA OVTE ;
> b 9 #

32. Oida, yale Kaddixdes, ei pr) Kodds y €ipt, B

X wn al ȴ

Kal ©OUv akovwv Kat IIé\ov apt To\NaKus Kal TOV G\AwV
aC , lal > la , > A A & 19 i ow
ohtyou mavTwv Tov €v TH TOEL. GAAA KAaL TU EMOU AKOUE,
4 > A“ , a» 4 5 ‘\ A a A
OTL GMOKTEVEL MEV, GV BovAnra, GahAG Tovypos wv KaNOV
Kayabdv ovra.

KAA. Odxodyv todro 81) Kal 75 GyavaKTnrov ;

al a ȴ

32. Od vovv ye Exovtt, as 6 Aéyos Onpaiver. 7 ole
Sety TovTo wapackevaler bar avOpwrovr, as mrElaTOV xpd-
vov Cyv, kal pedeTav Tas Téxvas TAUTAS al Nuas adel ex TOV

8 4 -, yY > aoe”, A 4 5 A “
Kwodvvev calovaow, woTEp Kal HV od KEeheveErs EME eheTav O

A A nA
THY pyTopiKyny THY év Tots SiKaaTyplors Siacwloverar ;
KAA. Nai pa Av’ dp0as yé cor cvpBovdevwr.
3S \ A

LXVII. 32. .Ti dé, 6 Bédriote; 7 Kal H Tov vew
ETLOTH UN TELVH Tis ToL SoKeEl Elvas ;

KAA, Ma Av ovx ELOLYE.

SQ. Kai piv cole ye kat avrn €x Oavdtov tovs
avOpatrovs, Otay eis ToLvovToV euméowow ov Set TavTns
THS ETLOTHLNS.

, , a 25 A la aA > ,
cou peilova Tavtys €pa, THY KUBEpynTiKHV, 7 ov povov D
A A , > A A A 4 A A ,
Tas wuxas cooler Gh\a Kal TA THpaTa Kal TA ypHmata

ae

> 99 Y a \ 9% > Hep
€l ) avTy GOL Soxet OPLKpa ELVAaL, EYwW

be passive by Thomas Mag., in v. uimod-
pot, as if it referred to t¥payyos—the
person imitated. The imitator will
have this power, &re uéya Suvduevos év
Th wore.

B. Odxody todro 64] Germ. Tr. “ Ist
nun nicht eben das das Empérende?”
“And is not this the very thing that
makes one so indignant?” viz. that a
poxnpés should take the life of a adds
Kayabds? This is the sense required in
order to give point to Socr.’s reply. The
‘irrisio’? which Ast and Stallb. discover
is out of place here, for Callicles was
quite earnest in the warning he addressed
to Socr. Comp. 486 B, karnydpov Tuxdy
mdvu pavrov kal moxOnpod, arobdvois ty,
ei BovAo:ro Cavdrou oot Tivao Oa.

} ote Sety rodto] Socr. proceeds to
show, with an affectation of inductive
reasoning, that if forensic rhetoric has
the life-preserving power claimed for it,

it does not therefore follow that it isa
liberal or dignified art. Exaggerated as
this may seem, Plato’s deliberate con-
victions pointed this way. Thus in the
Laws, his latest work, he says, ‘The
union of soul and body is in no wise a
better thing than their dissolution, as I
should say, and that with perfect serious-
ness.” And accordingly he enjoins that
public honours be paid to Pluto every
twelfth month, adding, nal ob Svaxe- -
payréov woAcuixots avOpémois Toy ToOL0d-
Tov Oedv, GAA Tiyuntéov ws bvTa del TE
ToY avOpoTwY yéevel &pirrov, 828 O, D.

D. od udvoy Tas uxds odCer} Olymp.,
Wuxds viv nade tas Cwds. True, no
doubt; but what becomes of the anti-
thesis AAG Kal Ta cHuatTa? This refers
to the ‘ bodies’ of other members of the
passenger’s family—zaidas nal yuvatkas
named faceohtly hee “The pilot’s art
saves not only the lives of passengers,

4 7 A
Eepyecias, cooan & UV

512

|

, had

|

—512, A.| TOPTIA. 141

ek TOV éoxadtov KWovver, GoTEP 7 PNTOPLKYH. Kal avTy
pev mpocertahpern é€oTi Kai Koopia, Kal ov cEpviveTaL
LE —
ECXNLaTLTLEN Gs vTepypavdv tT. SiatpatTopery, ahha
TAUT pataperyn 7H Sixavixy, eav pev €€ Aiyivys Sedpo
, > 8 45-9 X ‘ > , 2% de > > &
coon, oipar dv dBodods empdkato, éay 5é &€ Aiyvarou
} €k Tod IIdvtov, éav tdéptodv_tavtys THS peyadns ev-
€deyov, kal avTov Kal matdas
\ 4 ‘ “ > , > > ‘ 7

Kal Xpymata Kal yuvatkas, amoBiBacac «is Tov Aipéva
dvo Spaypas empafato, Kal abtos 6 exw THY TéxVHY Kal
tavta Suampatdpevos exBas mapa THY Oddatray Kal THY
vavv Tepimater ev petpiw oxnpatt. oyilerOar yap,
> oF 9 + , > 9 , >

oipwat, erictatay OTL ddnr\Ov eoTW ovaTIWas TE @hEANKE
TOV TUPTAEOVTMV OUK Edoas’ KaTaTOVTMOHVAL Kal OVaTLVAS
eBrarbev, cidas dtr ovdév avdtods Bedtiovs e&eBiBace 7
e 4 iA x , A ‘ , ,
oto. | évéBnoav, ovte TA THpata ovTE Tas uxds. oyile-
Tat OvY OTL OvK, Ei peY TIS peyadoLs Kal avidTOLS VvOo?-

but the persons and chattels belonging
to them.

mpoceotaAuevn| Said properly of a
close-fitting—dress—vestis appressa cor-
pori—or of -skin—or—other—integument
which adheres tightly to the body.
Galen, mpocoréAAcTat Te xpwtl Td
dépua. Arist. Hist. An. 9, Oplt apoce-
oraduéeyn. Hence in its applied sense
TpocecT. plain, humble, modest.
guvedTaAmevos 18 T e
same manner, as Isocr. p. 280 D, cuve-
oTadpevny txwv thy didvoav, Screp xpy
tTovs eb ppovotytas. Opposed to dyxé5ns
or éraxOfs.

ov ceuviverar eoxnuatiopévn] ‘She
does not plume es on her perform-
ance, making believe that it is some
dazzling achievement.’ Tim. GL, cx7-
pariCéuevos, mpoomovmevos. Phaedr.
' 255 A, odx tnd oxnuatiCouévov Tod
épavtos GAN GAnOGs TodTO TemovOdTos.
Ach. Tat. p. 148, dxki(y wal oxnuatl¢n
pos ardvoiay. ‘Your mincing and affec-
tation are intolerable.’
58 6Bodovs] This very modest fare
been greatly increased in Lucian’s
time. Navig. 15, és Afyway ém) thy rijs
*Evodlas TeAeThv ... aves Gua of pirat

TeTTAdpwv ExagTos GBoAGy SierAct--

cayev. Here, on the contrary, the two
oboli are paid for the entire party. See
Boeckh. Staatsh. i. p. 166, 2te Ausg.

eay mdurodv TabTns Tis weydAns evep-
yeolas| Supply mzpdérrnra, and comp.
Eriphus, Com. ap. Athen. 84 8B, rotrwy
bev OBoAdy, ei woAd, Tlenur. -Also Apol.
26 D, deotw, ei mdvv woddAod, Epaxuiis
mpianevors «.7.A. The utmost she ever
asks for this great service is two drachms,
for saving the good-man, his children,
his money, and his womankind. év
betple oxfpart, ‘with unassuming car-
riage,’ without pomp or parade. oxjjue,
as Stallb. points out, is not ‘vestitus,’
but ‘ habitus;’ ‘ port,’ ‘ bearing,’ ‘ general
aspect.’ So Soph. Ant., cal (@ tuUpavvoy
oxi éxwv. Lucian, Timon, c. 54, obros
6 7d oxijua edotadrhs, Kal kéoutos Td
Bddiopa, kal cwppovixds thy avaBorjy.

512. Aoyl¢era: ody rt ove] The nega-
tive belongs properly to the second limb
of the sentence, rovt@ 5& Biwréoy éort.
The meditative skipper cannot tolerate
the inconsistency of supposing that ifa
man labouring under an incurable bodily
disease had better perish at sea and have
done with it, one whose soul is a mass
of vice and corruption ought to live
on, and will be greatly the better for
his preserver’s exertions. Hirsch. un-
accountably brackets otx, but Stallb.
properly compares 516 E, ofxovyv of ye
Gyabol nvloxo: Kat’ apxas wey ovK exnla-
Tovow ék Tay Cevyar, ereiday SE Oepa-
mevowot Tous Immous ... ToT exmintovet.

\ ee

\

142

IIAATQNOX

[512, A

A \ , es A

Pace KaTa TO OOpA TUVvEXdpmEvos py aTETVLyN, OUTOS MEV
A / > 9 > > 4 \ > \ ¢€ > > Le) 3 ,
aOd\us €otw ott ovK améBave, Kal ovdev bm aiTod ade-
> 4 ¥ > Lal “~ , la “

Anta ei Sێ Tis dpa ev TH TOV THpaTos TYmiwTepH, TH

la ‘ , ¥ \ RR 4 , \ 4,

Puxy> TONG UOT PATA EKEh al CrkaTa; FOUTe dé Buwréov

€oTl Kal TovTOV dvyjgeiev, av TE EK dadderns av Te €k
cata ec

Sixacrnpiou dy Te addobev drobevody oadon, add’ oidev

OTL ovkK apewdv eat. Chv TO poxOnpe avOpdéTw KaKds B

yap avéyKn éott Lnv.

LXVIII. Ava radra ob vopos éort cepviver ar Tov
KuBepyyrny, Kaitep odlovta Has. ovd€ ye, @ Oavpdore,
TOV pnYavoToLdr, Os OVTE OTPaTHYOD, fy OTL KUBEpYyATOU,

A ¥ > Ny \ 7 > 7 , , ,
ovTE GANOV ovdEevds eddTTH eviore SivaTat owlew" modes

N ¥ 9 Y , , § in ae §
yap €oTw ore O\as odLe. py cor SoKxet Karta TOV diKa-
vuxov evar; Kaitor eb Bovdotto héyew, @ Kahdikdets, aarep
bets, TEv¥vov TO TPAyya, KaTayaoeey Gv Vyas Tots 0
Adyous, Méywv Kat Tapaxadav eri 7d Sey yiyverOar pn-
4 ce > A S , > e “ ‘ > A ¢
XavoTrovovs, ws ovdev TaAAA EoTU Lkavds yap ai’T@ 6

hoyos.

b) ‘ ‘ QA “A lal A al
GANA GV ovdeY HTTOV avTOU KaTadpovets Kal THS

, A > ¢ ote > » , > , x
TEXVNS TNS E€KELVOV, KAL WS év OVELOEL amTroKaNéoats av BY-

‘We cannot suppose that skilful drivers,
who are not thrown out when their team
is raw, will be unable to keep their foot-
ing when driving well-broken steeds.’

In totrw 5é Bw éov éott kal rovTov
évioeev; y a change
from. direct ique, as Tim. 18 ©,
unxavepevos Oras pndels 7d yeyevnuévoy
yvdootto, vomiotar 5& mayres K.T.A.
Conversely Menex. 240 D, S:doxarn...
vyevduevot, 8tt ob %uaxos etn H Meprav
dbvauis, GAAG wav wAROos .. . apeTH
bmrelxet. So Stallb., but he translates
évhoeey as if it were potential, ‘juvari
posse. In which case we must read
ovicerey &y, or &y dvhoerev, as Heind.
suggests. J am not aware of any certain

instance in Attic prose of the omission of
&v, where the so-called optative is evi-
dently potential. That quoted in Heind.’s
note is not in point, being an ordinary
case of oratio obliqua. Rep. 352 o,

|

quoted by Kihner (Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 426,
Obs. 1), is equally wide of the mark, for
yo a &v is merely not repeated.
aviKov
evar YTYou would not think of bring-
ing him, the engineer, down to the level
Ly

\

"kaA@v Ttovs &Adovs kat

of a mere advocate?’ Symp. 211 pb,
d (sc. adrd Td Kadrdv) édy wore Ins, ob
Kata xpvotov te Kal éoO7Ta Kal rods
Kadovs maidas Kat veavloxous Sdket cot
efvat.

©. ikavds yap arg 6 Adyos] Germ.
Tr. “denn an Griinden wiirde es ihm
nicht fehlen.” Better than Stallb.’s
“ Nam larga ei dicendi copia.” Adyos is
the theme or argument taken up by
the supposed engineer, who will find
plenty to say about it. We might say
“his theme is a fruitful one.” In the
previous clause there is an apparent
pleonasm, ém) 7d deity yiyverOoe for én
7d ylyvecOa. Tr. ‘arguing and preach-
ing up the duty of becoming engineers
—no other profession being worth any
thing.’

ws év dvelSec Groxarécas tv] The
comp. amokadeiv generally implies the
as ev dvelde, as Theaet. 168 D, yapter-
Tigpoyv aroxadGy. Demosth. F. L. p. 417,
Aoyoypdpous tolvuy Kah gopioras aro-
bBplew reipd-
Mevos, adtbs ekeAeyxXOjoerat TovTos dv
évoxos. So in Xenophon, Sophocles,
Euripides. But in the spurious Sisyphus

—512, B.] TOPTTAS. 143
, ‘ a“ en > A ¥> KX 8 a 0 ,
XavoToidy, Kal T@ viet avTod ovT Gy dovvat Ovyatepa
eHddows, ovr Gv adtds Te aavTov aBew THY é€xelvov.
kairo. €€ Gv Ta Gavtod Eraiveis, Tin SiKaiw dy@ TOD
a a \ na» e a \
pnxXavoTo.od Katadpovels Kal TOv d\\wv dv viv 87 €he-
Dyov; old dtu dains av Bedtiwy eivar Kai ex Bedridver.
To Sé Bédriov ei py eoTw 6 éya. héyw, ad’ adrd TOUT
€otiv dpety, Td odlew avTiv Kal TA EavTOD dvTAa dToOids
Tis eTvye, KaTayé\acTds cot 6 Woyos yiyveTar Kai pyya-
votro.od Kai iarpov Kal T@v ad\wr TEXVOY, 6oaL TOD TH-
y td > > > , 9 .Y »” ;
Cew €vexa TweTotnvTat. add, @ paKaple, opa py addo TL
X a ‘ i Fe ‘ Se “A , \ ,
To yevvatov Kat 76 dyabov 7 TOU odlew TE Kal odlerOaL.
) yap TovTo pev, To Chv dtocovdy ypovov, Tév ye as
> a > 7 > . ‘ > td > x
EWAnIGs avdpa éatéov €oti Kat ov dirowvyyntéov, adda
emitpebavTa Tept TovTwv FO Oe@ Kat muoTEVoarTA Tals

x 9 ‘ e , 3903 HK } ee, |
yuvarEw OTL TYV elu“apphe Vv ove av éts EKPVYOL, TO €7l
a eee ©

we have a&mroxadovow evBodAous, and it
may be observed that in later Greek
generally, dox. is used in a neutral or
laudatory, as well as in the vituperative
sense, which is the only one noticed by
Dr. Donaldson, N. Crat. § 184, who ac-
counts in an ingenious manner for the
bad sense of the compound.

D. katayéAactés co 6 Wéyos] Calli-
cles seems from the context to have
been a man of rank. A citizen of the
middle class would scarcely have dis-
dained to ally himself with a physician,
whatever he might think of a pnxavo-
roids. In Greece the medical profession.
was esteemed ‘liberal.’ See Bekker’s
Charicles, p. 281, Transl.

uh yap todro pév, Td Civ drocovdh

| xpévov] ‘For the question of living a
few years more or less is one, I appre-
hend, which he who is really and not in
name only a man, will do well to dismiss
from his thoughts.’ An objection was
taken by Buttmann to the construction
ph—eorl, following ph 7. He accord-
ingly proposed kal yap totro pév, but
afterwards recanted. The use of pf in-
terrogative or dubitative with the indic.
is recognized by grammarians. Alle. ii.
139 D, Spa ph ovx oftw tTadr exer.
Soph. Trach. 551, tadr’ ody poBodua ph
moots pev ‘Hpakajjs ’Euds xadetrat, Tis
vewtépas 8 aynp. Thue. iii. 53, viv 5&
poBotpeba ph audotépay uaptheaper.
Isocr. ad Phil. p. 85 £, éfewAdynoay ph

ba 7d yijpas eféarnka To’ ppoveiv (Bekk.
eeatnxws @). Theaet. 196 B, évOuuod
bh tt tére ylyverat &AAo, where see
Heind. In all these cases um denotes
doubt or misgiving concerning the pre-
sent ‘Sathertieh fear for EHS future.
Hence the frequent use of phrore in
Aristotle, where an dopia is suggested.
Eth. N. x. 1. 3, Mf wore 5& ov Karas
Todo Aéyerat. From this the transition
to the later meaning ‘perhaps’ is very
a: For émocovdn the MSS. give
érécov dé or Sez, the former being re-
tained by the Ziirich edd. The emen-
dation evxréoy for éaréov may be passed
over in silence; but C. F. Hermann’s
75d ev todiro Td Civ, éwdcov Be xp.
k.7.A., deserves to be mentioned for its
curiosity. Stallb.’s uh yap rodro pév, Td
(iv: éxécov 5& xpévoy x.7.A. appears to
me very lame. He interprets his text
thus: “noli enim putare istud quidem,
videlicet ut vivas, honestum atque bonum
esse: imo quamdiu (vivat) id eum, qui
vere vir sit, curare non oportet,” &e.

E. miotetoavta Tais yuvatly| Routh
appositely quotes Cic. N. D. i. 20,
“Quanti haec philosophia aestimanda
est, cui tanquam aniculis et his quidem
indoctis fato fieri videntur omnia.” 7d
éxl robrm = ‘in the next place.’ “Ad-
verbii loco adhibetur 7d ém) roite, 7d
ém) rede velut Td werd TodTo. Apol.
27 B, GAAG Td emt TodTp amoxplyat, Eo?
Sorts ete.” Heind,

pee eatperinnnretcintaiaren

144

ITAATQ NOX

[ 512, E

vf , >a wR l4 “ a 4 ,
TOUT@ oKeTTéoV Tiv av TpPdTOV TOUTOV OV pEdAOL KpOvoY
nw , 5S lal Lal ,
Bidvat as dpiota Bion, dpa eLopoiwy avtov TH Todhuteia

4 3 @ wR > = \ ~ de + 8 A A. 8 € ,
TavTyn | &v 7 Gv oiKy, Kal vov O€ apa det GE WS OpoLdTaToV

yiyvec Oat To SHpuw TO “AOyvaiar, ei wéddets TOVTH TpOT-

N > \ , , > a , ay >
Pidrs eivar kai péya Sivacbar &v TH woder; TOVM dpa et

Q an ‘\ > , 9 , > 8 , 4
got Avowrehet Kal enol, OTwS MH, @ Saude, TELcducDa

omep hacl Tas THY TeyVHY Kafaipovoas, TAs OerTahidas*

OvdV TOLs PiATATOLS Y ALPETIS NW ETAL TavTYS THS OuVa-

pews THS Ev TH TONEL.

> la ¥ ¢ A“ 3 ,
€l de OOt OLEL OVTLWOVU)V avOpatrav

9

TApAowoeE TEXVNY TWA TOLAUTHY, NTIS TE Tooe peya

4 > ~ if “ 3 , + “A , ¥ 3
Svvacbar ev TH TodEL THOE AvdpoLoy OvTa TH TohuTEl@ Ett
DSA ‘ 4, VD EX N “A e > \ “A > > Lan

émt To Bédruov eir’ eri Td xElpor, ws enol Soxet, ovK dpOGs

Bovrever, @ KadXikders: od yap pysnthy Set eivar adN’

avTopuas oporoy TovToLs, EL peAders TL yYHoLOV amrEpya-

> s / a? , , ‘\ ‘\ ~ id “a

leofar eis didiav T@ “AOnvaiwy Sy Kat vat pa Ala TO

IIvpi\aptrovs ye pds.

518. kal viv 3& &pa det o€] ‘And
whether at the present time it is not
your special duty to make yourself as
like as possible to the Athenian demus,
if you would make friends with it, and
acquire great power and influence in the
state. &pa ‘all things considered.’
The clause depends on oxemrréoy, as if

érepov had followed with a finite verb,
nstead of dpa with a participle.

brws wh weisdue8a | So Heind. for the
solecistle Feirdpeba of earlier edd. The
emendation is confirmed by the Bodl.
Before Saws, Spa is virtually repeated,
and the following gora: is in apposition
with weioducba. ‘See that we do not
suffer the supposed fate of those witches
of Thessaly who bring or try to bring
the moon down from the sky. See, I
mean, that the choice of that poli-
tical power we spoke of, do not cost us
all that we holttmost dear.’ The Comm.
quote Virg. Ecl. viii. 69, “Carmina vel
caelo possunt deducere Lunam.” Arist.
Nub. 749, where Strepsiades proposes
to purchase a Thessalian hag possessed
of these accomplishments, for the pur-
pose of defrauding his creditors—for, as
he observes, ef unkér’ GvatréAAor ceAHvH
pndapod, Ovd« bv arodolnv robs téKovus.
Lucan (Phars. vi. 438 sqq.) describes
with his usual diffuseness the black arts
of the Thessalides. In particular see

Y >
OOTLS OUY GE TOVTOLS GpoLoTaTOY

line 499, “‘illis et sidera primum Prae-
cipiti deducta polo: Phoebeque serena
Non aliter, diris verborum obsessa vene-
nis, Palluit, et nigris terrenisque ignibus
arsit, Quam si fraterna prohiberet ima-
gine tellus.” The superstition that the
exercise of supernatural influence is
dearly purchased by the adept has sur-
vived to modern times. It is expressed
in the Greek proverb (Paroemiogr. ii.
p- 417, Leutsch.), éw) cavtT@ tiv cEAh-
vnv KadéAkets: én) Tay EavTots KaKd
emicTrwpevarv. at yap Thy ceAhvny KabeA-
Kovoa Oetradldes A€yovTa: TY dpOar-
Hav Kal Tév woday orepioxecOa. For
the idiom ody tots piArdrots, comp. Xen.
Cyr. iii. 1. 384, oly TG oG GyadG Tas
Tiywwplas moretobar. Stallb. quotes Hom.
Il. iv. 161, odv re peydA@ arérioay, Sbv
oojow Kepadjor, yuvatl re kal TeKéeot.

B. ov yap myunthy det eivar| ‘It will
not do,’ says Socr., ‘merely to copy the
ways, whether of the Athenian Demus,
or the Demus of Pyrilampes; you must
be radically like them if you would make
any real progress in the affections either
of the former, or, by heaven, of the latter
either.’ rovrors refers to the Athenians :
the ‘Demus of Pyrilampes’ being an
after-thought. But it is difficult to render
the passage intelligibly without some
such prolepsis as that adopted in the
translation.

513

—s13, B.] TOPTIAS. 145

> , LER g ,_ e > a ‘
amEepyaceTalt, OUTdS GE ToInoeEl, ws EmiPvpets TodLTLKdS
~ ca ¥ ,

C elvat, ToduTiKdv Kal pytopiKdv:\r@ adTav yap HOE deyo-
pevav TOV déyar | exaoto. xatpovot,\7@ Sé dddotpio
axOovrar. ei py Te ov addo déyes, @ Pin Kedhady.
Aéyopév Ti Tpds Tadta, @ KadXikXets ;

LXIX. KAA. Ovd« of8 ovtwd jot Tpdmov Soxels €d
héyew, ®@ Xéxpares. wétovOa dé 75 TOV TOAOV TAOOS"
ov Tavu oot TeiMopat.

XQ. ‘O Sypov yap epws, @ KadX{kdes, evav &v TH

DwWuxyn TH Of avtiotaTet pow add E€ay TOAAAKIS tows Kat
Bédriov taita tatta SiacKkoToépeOa, TrecOnoe. dva-

, aie ) aaa, St > \ gt co) '%
prynaOnte & ovv, ore Svo epaper civar Tas TapacKevas ert
TO exaotov Oepamevew Kal copa Kal oy, piav pev

x e \ ce “A \ e , be X . ,
mpos noovnvy dpirely, THY érépay S€ wpds 7d Bédrvoror,
BA Kataxapilopevov adda Stapaxdpevor. ov TavTa HV &
Tore wpilopeba ;

KAA. Ilavv ye.

> A e A €+ e AQ e , > \ A

XQ. OvKodv 7 pév Erépa, 7 Tpds NOovyy, ayevvyns Kal

END ¥ x , , > te 7,
ovdev addo 7 Kohakeia Tuyxave oOvoa. 7 yap;

KAA. *Eorta, «i Bovder, cot ovTws.

BE 3. ‘H dé ye érépa, orws as BédticTov éatat TodTO,
Eire TOpa Tvyxaver dv eite Wuyy, 6 Oeparrevomer ;

KAA. IIdvv ye.

XQ. *Ap’ odv ovtws emiyeipyntéov july éeoti TH mddex

. "Ap Xerpnréov ay i

‘ al , , e , ‘ ‘

Kal Tots ToAitais Oepamevew, ws Bedtiotovs adtovds Tovs

©. Aéyouéy 71] The more usual Aéyw-
wey is found in five codd. named by Bekk.
But the best give Aéyouey, which, as
Heind. remarks, is justified by the com-
mon formula } m@s Aéyouer ;

7) Tav mohAGv wdGos] An example of
this md@os is found in the admission of
Meno, airds dep of moAdol mérov0a ;
tTéTe pév wot Soxova1, tore Sé ov, Men.

was used in the sense ‘si forte,’
that tows nal BéAriov (é
better’) went together. But it is better
with Heind. to regard tows as trans-
posed, as if we had found 4AA’ tows, day
moAAdKis Kal BéeAtioy ... SiackoTepcOa,
mweoOhoet. For d:acKkoméueba some codd.
have the un-Attic d:ackerrdépecba.

dio paper elvar Tas mapacKkevds| See

and
equally well or

95 c. Compare the well-known passage
in Cicero, Tuse. Disp. i. 11, 24, “dum
lego assentior ; quum posui librum...
assensio omnis illa elabitur :” the ‘liber’
being the Phaedo of Plato.

D. édy woAAdais tows] “In Cod. Reg.
@ manu recente superscriptum Yoov.”
Heind. This seems to have been done
on the supposition that éay moAAd«is

VOL. Il.

p. 464 B foll.

E. émtxeipntéov—@epamevery | literally :
‘ought we not so to set to work upon the
city and its citizens in order to their
tendance, as to try to make them as good
as they can be made?’ Here the inf.
Oepamevery is epexegetic, as in the passage
quoted by Stallb. from Rep. iii. 416,

emixeipjigat Fois- mpoBarois KakoupyeiVs

L

146 IAATANOX [513, &

, lal »¥ A ‘ , e > A y -
moXiTas TowdvTas ; avev yap SH TovTOU, ws EV TOS EM-
e , > \ + » > ,

ampoolev evpicxoper, ovdev ddehos addnv evepyeciav

>. rd , bea PS ‘ 3 ‘\ € 4 >
ovdeniav mpoadépe, eav | wr) Kad) Koryab) 7 Sudvom 7 514
lal /, a» 4 ‘\ , a 3 ,
Tov pEedd\OvT@v 7 xpypata mohha apBavew 7H apyynv
Twov H GdAAnv Svvapw HvTworv. Oopev ovTas ExeEL ;

KAA. Ildvv ye, & cou Hd10r.

SN. Ei ovv Tmapexahodper G\AHAOUS, @ Kahdixhess,
Synpocia mpdovtas Tav ToduTLKaY mpayparav emt Ta

UDG RPGR farten
oiKodopiKa, 7) Texxav 7 veopior 7 lepov €ml TH peyiora.
oikooopnpata, ToTEpov edau av Huas oKepacbar yas
avtovs Kat é€erdoa, TPaTOV per ei emioTapela THY TEXVNV B
} ovk émuotdpeOa, THY oikodopiKyy, Kal Tapa Tov éud-
x x A

Oopev ; eeu Gv 7 Ov;

KAA, Ildvv ye.

SN. Ovdxody Sevtepov ad Tdde, et TL THTOTE oiKOdd-

: > 8 7 iou aA A aN \ aK € id
pnpa @Kodopyjkapev idia H TOV pilwvy TivL 7 NMETEpoV
avTav, Kal TOUTO Td olKOddpnua Kahdv 7 aloypdv EoTL
Kal el pev EevploKomev oKotrovpevor SidacKddovs TE HOV
ayabovs Kat éddoyipous yeyovdtas Kal oikodopjpara
\ 5 | \ ‘ » A 4 > ,

moda pev Kal Kaha pera TOV Sidackdrwv w@Kodopnpeva

a »” “nw lal
Hutv, ToAAKa SE Kal Lda Huov, ered) TOV SidacKddwr O
am \Adynpev, ota pev Siakeypevwr, vodv éxdvT@v Hv ay
27 oN \ 8 , » ‘ > de / 8 8 , X ¥
i€vas emt Ta Onpdova epya ei Sé pte SuvddoKadov etyomev

Comp. Phaedr. 242 B, nal viv ad Soxe?s

to Syuoota—‘in a private’ as distin-
alrids por yeyerAcba Ady Ti) pnojva.

guished from a public or official capacity.

514. mpatovras| I have given this on
the authority of a few codd. The best
seem to give mpdiavres. So Bodl.; but
according to Gaisford, “o suprascriptum
a manu recente.” mpdtovras is equiv. to
as mpdtovras, as 521 B, KoAakevoovTa
&pa we wapaxadets. Stallb. defends mpd-
éaytes because it is equiv. to émyeiph-
caytes mpaéa. This I am unable to un-
derstand. Buttm. mpdtovres. For the
genitive moAiTiK@v mpayundtwy, comp.
Rep. iv. 445 D, kwhoeav by tov dilwv
Adyou véuwy THs wéAEws.

GC. TWOAAG Be Kal Wa Hudy] “Dictum
ut quétepa aitar.” Heind. Bekk.,
Stallb., and Hirsch. have idig i¢’ jar,
the preposition occurring in but one MS.
idt¢, though better supported, is inap-
propriate here., It is properly opposed

But a work done under the eye of a
master (uerd didacxddAwyv) may be done
idtg, though it is not %5.ov Tod uabyrod,
as an independent performance is.

otTw wey Siaxepevav|] ‘If we had
fulfilled these conditions, we might with
prudence venture on the public works,
otherwise it were absurd to attempt
them.’ After dvdéyjrov jv the by is
omitted. Soph. Oed. T. 255, ob8 «i yap
iy Td) mpiyna wh Oehrarov, *AxdOaproy
buds eikds tv ottrws éav. With this
idiom the Latin coincides: Ovid, Am.
i. 6. 34, “Solus eram, si non saevus
adesset Amor.” Virg. Georg. ii. 132,
« Et, si non alium longe jactaret odorem,
Laurus erat.” See instances from Plato
in Ast, Lex. P., p. 136,

D

E

515

|

TOPTIA. 147

—B515, A.]
* oT

Hav avtav emdetEar oixodopyjpata Te H pndev 7 Toda

‘ x » A 8h CR s 8 ld > lal
kal pndevos afia, ovtw 5) avdntov nv Symov émixepety

A , »¥ A a“ > "4 > 3 > 4
Tots Snpocios epyous Kal mapaKkadety adAjovs én ava.
dapev Tadta dpOas éyeo Oar 7H ov ;

KAA. Ilavv Ye

LXX. 3S. Odxodtv ovtw ravta, Ta TE adda, Kay
el emixeipyoavtes Snmoorevew Tapexadodpev addyjdovs ws

bee ne CS AEE

ixavot iarpol ovres, emerkesapela SHimov av éyd te oe

uA X > , , . lal > pati. de c , a
Kal od end, Pepe mpds Oeav, adtis 5€ 6 Ywxparys Tas
¥ c lal A ec , a» “oy tAX 8 ‘ ,
€yer TO OGpa pds vylevay ; 7% Ady Tis addos bia Yoxpa-
Tv amndd\dyn vooov, 7} Sovdos H é\edMepos; Kav eyo,
ola, TEpL WOU ETEpa ToLadTa eoKdTOUY. Kal El pw Nupi-
oKopev Sv Huds pndéva Bedtiw yeyovdta To copa, pyre
tov E€vov pute TOV aoTav, pyre avdpa pre yvvaixa,
mpos Aids, ® Kadvixdes, od Katayé\actov ay jv TH
> , 5 nw > 4 > “ > 4 4 b
adnOeia eis TorodTov advoias éMew avOparovs, woTeE, Tpiv
> 4 A 4 9 > 4 Lal ‘\ 4
idtwTevovTas TOAAa Hev OTWS ETUXOMEV TOLNo AL, TONG 5é

Katop0acat kal yupvdcaclar tKavas THY TéxVNV, TO heyo-
pevov 59 TovT0, &v TH TIO~ THY KEpapelay _emiyeipetv
pavOavew, kat abrovs Te Onfiomieve emiyerper Kat adAXous
TolovTous Tapakahel ; ovK avdnTov cou SoKet Gy eivar
OUTW TpaTTELW ;

KAA. “Epovye.

XQ. Nodv dé, | & Bédriore avdpar, ered) od péev av-
TOS GpTL apxeL TpaTTEW TA THS TOEwWS TPadypaTa, ene
Sé mapaxadels Kal dvedilers dtu ov mpatTw, ovK ém-

D. Snpoasevew] See the note on p. 455
B. ‘Before we set up for state-phy-
sicians,’ says Socr., ‘we ought to have
had considerable and successful private
practice, otherwise we shall be acting
like a potter’s apprentice, who should
try his unpractised hand on a wine-jar,
instead of some smaller and less costly
vessel—we shall begin in fact where we
ought to have ended.’

niptoxouey| The rare augmented form
has been replaced by Bekk., following
the Bodl. See L. Dindorf in Steph.
Lex. iii. col. 2420, who defends the
augment by reference to an inscription

dating from the 95th Olymp. Comp.
Elmsley on Heracl. 305, and see inf.
515 E.

BE. €v TG TlOy thy Kepauelay] This
proverb in effect answers to the adage,
“ Fiat experimentum in corpore vili,” and
to the Greek év TG Kapl 6 kivdvvos.
See Laches 187 B. So taken by most
writers. See Paroemiogr. Gr. i. p. 73,
Leutsch.,where an alternative explanation
is cited from Dicaearchus: thy wedérny
éy Tots duoiots mworetcOa, &s xuBepvirns
én) Tis vijos Kal jvloxos emt Tay ixrwr.
An instance of this application is given’
in the note 1.1,

L 2

148 ITAATQNOS [515, A
oxeyduela addydous, Sépe, Kadduxdys 48 Twa Bedtia
meToinkKe TOV TodLTaY; EOTLW OOTLS TPOTEPOY TOVNPOS
Gv, aduKds TE Kal aKd\acTos Kal adpwr, dia Kaddixhéa

Kaos Te Kayabds yéyover, } E€vos } dats, H Soddos 7

ehevbepos ; Adye pou, dv Tis oe Tadra e€erdly, @ KadXi- B

, oe aA ad 4 , , »”
KXets, TL epets ; Tiva dynoets Bedtiw TemounKévar avOpwrrov
77 guvovoia TH on; Oxvels daroxpivac Oat, clirep EOTL Tt
Epyov oov ert iStwrevorros, mpl Snpocreve ETLyELpeEW ;
~ KAA. iddveixos et, & YHxpares.
LXXI. 3. °AXW od didroverkia ye pwd, aA’ ws
3 a la > ld 9 , /, ¥ 8 ~
GAnOGs Bovddpevos eidé&var SvTwd Tote TpdTOoV ole SEtv
, > e “a > ¥ » 3 ¢ ew
moditever Oar ev nuiv, eb ado Tov apa emmednoe Huw
> ‘ Be ‘ la / , a 9 9 ,
eOav emi Ta THS TOMEWS TPdypaTa H OTws O TL BEATLOTOL
e a“ > a > 4 ¥” e ,
of moNtTar @pev. 7 ov ToAAdKis NON wpodoyHKapey
TovTo Sev mpatTew Tov TodTLKOY avdpa ; ‘QmohoyyKapev
7) 0; amoxkpivov. “Qyodroyjkapevs eyo vTep Gov aro-
Kpwotpat. Ei roivuy todro Set Tov dyabdv avdpa mapa-
oKevalew TH EavTovd ode, VOV por davapvynobeis eEize TeEpt
> , lal > lal ef: 9 , , ¥ > »¥
éxeivwy TOV avdpav dv dd{iyw mporepov edeyes, €l ETL TOL
Soxovaow ayalot moNtrau yeyovevat, Tlepuchys” Kat Kipov
Kat Mutiddys Kal Oeprotokd 7s.
KAA, "Epovye.
SQ. Ovdxody eirep ayaboi, Snrov dtu ExacTos av’Tav
, > / N 4 > ‘\ , > 4 aA ¥
Bedrious éote Tovs Toditas avTi xELpovwr. EmolEeL 7 OV;
KAA. °Emoie.
> A 9 A ¥ , b) “~ 4
32. Ovdxodv ore Ilepuxdns ypyero déyew ev TO Shwe,
4 i 2.9 A a 9 Q e ¥
xElpous Hoav ot “APnvator 7} OTe Ta TEdevTAla EheyeD ;
¥
KAA. “Iows.
x2. Odvx tows by, & Bédtvcte, aN avayKn eK ToV
G@podoynpevar, elrrep ayalds y’ Hv éexewos Todirys.

515 o. brws § re BéATIOTOL Of ToATTAL
dpev| ‘That we the citizens may be as
good as possible:’ unless the of be a
careless repetition of the last two letters
of BéATio ToL.

D. Oix tows 54] So Legg. 965 o,
Oix Yows GAN dvtws. Bekk. retains
de7, the reading of the best MSS., which
may perhaps be defended by Theaetet.

184 A, Se7 St oddérepa, GAAA Ocalrnrov
av kvet wep) emiorhuns weipacOa juas
Th poevtieh Ttéxvn aroddoa. But
def and 5% are not unfrequently con-
founded, as Phaedr. 261 a, rodrwyv 57
Tov Adywr, vulg. robTwy 5h. In either
case we may translate: “There is no
room for a ‘perhaps;’ it follows neces-
sarily from the premisses,” &c.

0

D

E

—516, A.] TOPIIAY. 149

KAA. Ti ovv 89;

SN. OdS&. adda 7d8e por Eire ext TOUT, Ei NEyovTat
*"AOnvator Sia Ilepuxhéa Bedtiovs yeyovévar, 7} wav Tov-
vavtiov Siadbaphvar tm’ éxeivov. TavTi yap eywye axovw,
Tlepixhéa teromKevar APnvaiovs apyods Kat deitods Kat

Aaddovs Kai ditapyvpous, eis pioGodopiav mpeTov Kata-

oTHOavTa.
“ >
KAA. Tov ta_6ra Kxateaydétwv akovers Tadta, @ So-
Kpares. .

> aA ah!
SQ. "Adda rade odKéri dxovw, GANA oda Tadds Kat
A ~ ‘
ey® Kal ov, OTe TO ev Tp@Tov yvdoKiper Tlepixdys Kat
> , > ‘ / , > “~ > A
ovdeuiay aioypav Sikny Kateyndicarvto adtov “APnvaior,
ce’ 4 , > > ‘ \ X > ‘ > ,
Hvixa xeipous Hoav: émevdy Sé Kadol Kkayaloi éyeyoverav
e259 > A a a , aA , ‘
516| Um avTov, et TeXevTH Tov Biov Tov ITepixhéovs, KAoTHV
> A , 2\ 7 de ‘ 0 , 2. 2
avTov KateympioarTo, ddtyouv d€ Kal Pavatouv EeTimynoar,

SnAov GTt ws TovNpoy GrTos.

E. AdAovs] In the Ranae of Aristo-
phanes, Euripides claims the credit of
having made the Athenians garrulous:
“Emeita toutovol Aadeiv edldata. Atoy.
Snul Kkayé. How Pericles can have
made the Athenians ‘ cowardly,’ it is not
easy to understand. Aristides is justly
indignant at the imputation, and asks
with great force, ti Aéyes; SetAovs
TlepixAjs, ® Oeol, Se:Aods; ds Kal Snun-
yopav «dds evOdvde Hptaro, Tis mév
yvauns, on, THs abtis, @ *A9nvator, del
éxouat, wh elke TWeAorovynctos, 8 ris
Tav eis éxelyny thy tuépay ciodmat
cimeiy eOdppnoev; De Quatuorv. p. 136,
Jebb.

eis uto8opoplav—katasthcavta| Peri-

les introduced the practice of paying
dicasts- st. Polit. ii. ad fin., Ta diea-
oThpia picOdpopa Karéornoe Tlepixaajs.
It was he also who persuaded the Athe-
nians to pay their soldiers, who had pre-
viously served at their own expense
(Boeckh. Staatsh. i. 377, 2te Ausg.). The
theoricon does not so properly come
under the head of p:o@opopia, but Plato
may have had it in view when he added
dpyla to the vices which he supposes
Pericles to have fostered.
Tav ta dta Kateaydtwy}| ‘You hear
this front the men of bruised ears,’ i. e.
from those who are addicted to_pugilistic

exercises, a sign of Laconism. Protag.
34273, dinnar eat Tous év tails méAcot

AakwviCovras, kat of wev Ta Ord TE KaTd-
yvurTat pimotpevor avrovs, Kal iudvras
TeptetAitrovTat kal pidoyupvacTovat kar
Bpaxelas avaBords popovtoww, &s 3h Tov- -
Tots KpaTobvTas TY ‘“EAAhvwr Tovs Aake-
Samoviovs. Theocr. xxii. 45, devds ideiv,
okAnpaiot TeOAayuévos ovata muyuats.
The affectation of Laconian manners,
ridiculed in the Protag., is however attri
buted to Socrates himself by Aristoph.\
Av. 1281, ’EAakwvoudvouy Gravtes &y-
Opwrot téTe "Exduwv, éreivwv, éppirwr,
éowxpdtwy. Laconism was affected by |
the oligarchs, whose prejudices Callicles
accuses Socr. of having adopted.

Saeed So the Bodl. and Vat. 1.
Vulg. eddoxiwer.

éyeyéveray| Found in the Bodle&e.
yeyoveoay Bekk., Heind., Stallb., from
inferior MSS. But in Symp. 173-8 all
give mapayeyédvet.

516. KAorhy abtod xareyndloavro|
Thucydides mentions only the fine, with-
out specifying the pretext under which
it was inflicted, ii. 65, ob wévror mpdrepdy
ve of tduwavres ematcavro év opyh exov-
Tes avrov ply eCnulwoay xphuaciw. tore-
pov 5é ad@s ov TOAAG, Sep pire? Suidos
mo.eiv, oTparnyy eldovto Kal mavTa Ta
Xphuara érérpepay. It would have been
fairer if Socr. had noticed the change of
feeling on the part of his countrymen,
and the handsome amends they made to
the statesman whom they had injured:

150 ITAATQN Ox

[516, A

2D >

LXXII. KAA. Ti ovv; rovrov evexa xakds Hv Iepi-
Kis ;

SQ. "“Ovev yodv av érmedyntis Kat imtov Kat Bodv

“A dx \ x» 3Q 7 Ly > eo &

TotovTos Ov Kakdos Gv eddKeu civa, eb mapataBav py

haxrilovras [éavTov] pndé Kupitrovtas pndé Sdxvovtas

dméseke tadta adravtTa Tovovvtas 8. aypidtynTa. H ov

SoKel Woe KaKds Elvar eripeEAnTHS doTLTOdY dToVOUY CdouU,

ds dv mapahaBav juepdtepa atodeiEn aypidtepa i Tape-

haBe ; Aoxet H ov;

gy
KAA. Ildvv ye, iva wou yapioopas.
‘\ 48 4 4, > Ud 4
22. Kat trode toivvy pou xapioas aroxpwapevos, TOTE-
2) 2% 0 a “A , > ‘ x ¥
pov kat 6 avOpwros ev TaV Cawy eat 7 ov;

KAA. II@s yap ov ;

2. Ovxodv avOparev ITepuchys érepédero ;

KAA. Nat.

fairer also if he had made some allow-
ance for the effect of unexampled cala-
mity in disturbing their judgment.
Meanwhile it is clear that Plato dis-
believed the charge on which Pericles
was condemned, else he would not have
brought it forward in proof of the sup-
posed deterioration of the Athenians
under his government. I assume that
Plato and Thucydides allude to the same
charge, though Heind., and with him
Stallb., suppose that the xAozjjs dikn is
that in which Phidias had been impli-
cated before the Peloponnesian war.
But it does not appear that Pericles
was condemned or even brought to trial
on this charge. In fact, the malicious
report that he “blew into a flame”
the warlike passions of the Athenians,
in grder that they might be diverted
from inquiring into his proceedings
(Plut. Per. p. 169 ¥), coupled with the
absence of any testimony as to the fact
of the trial or its result, is a proof that
it never took place: unless, indeed, we
suppose that the old charge was re-
vived on the occasion alluded to by
Thucydides. But this we are nowhere
told, and it is more probable that the
pretext for the latter attack was mis-
appropriation of money entrusted to him
in his capacity of strategus (xAom)
dnuocla, Legg. 857 B). This supposition
is not inconsistent with the narrative of
Plutarch, p.171D,£, and is even suggested
by the emphatie words of Thucydides,

otpatnyov <lAovro Kal mdvTa Ta Xph-
para éerérpepay. Lastly, Plato’s phrase,
ém) reAevTh Tod Blov, seems of itself to
fix the date of the transaction. The
words éAlyou d¢ kal Oavdrov ériunoay
may be an exaggeration, for they are not
confirmed by the historians; but with
this possible abatement, there seems no
reason to impeach the accuracy of Plato’s
story. The amount of the fine inflicted
was very large: 15 talents according to
the lowest, 50 and even 80 according to
other estimates. See Grote, H. G. vi.
p- 226, note (1). Boeckh. Staatsh. i.
p- 506, who supposes that the larger sum
represents the damages fixed by the
accuser, the smaller those actually re-
covered.

“Ovev yotv dy émpednths| The same
homely comparison is put in the mouth
of Socr. by Xenophon, Mem. i. 2. 32,
Eimé wov 6 Swxpdtns br. Oavpacrdy of
Soxoln elvat, ef Tis, yevduevos Bowy ayé-
Ans voueds Kad Tas Bods éAdrrous Te Kal
xelpous tomy, wh duoroyoin Kkaxds Bot-
KoAos elvat, étt 5& Oavpacrdtepor, ef Tis,
mpooTatns yevouevos TéAcws, Kal Toy
tovs woAltas éAdrrous Kat xelpovs, my
aicxiverat pnd oferar Kands eivas mpo-
orarns THs mwéAcws. This is said in
reference to the administration of the
XXX.—After AaxriCovras several MSS.
insert €avrdy, in which there is ob-
viously an error. See later, p. 519 o.
Others give adrots, which is more tole-
rable, and Aristides Rhet. airdév.

B

—516, D.|

'TOPTIAS.

151

ȴ al
SQ. Ti odv; ov« Sev avtovs, os apts wpodoyodper,
€ '¥
Suxatotépous yeyovéevar avti aducwtépwv UT exelvov, elrEep
0 éxeivos érepedetro aitav ayalds dv Ta TohitiKa ;

KAA. IIdvv ye.

XN. OdKody ot ye Sixator jyepor ws efyn “Opnpos.

‘ \ , / > 9
ad S€ ti djs; ovy ovTAS ;
KAA, Nai.

YA. "Adda pv dypiwrepous ye adtods darédyvev fj otovs
mapéaBe, Kai Tad7’ cis avTov, dv HKioT Gy éBovdeTo,

KAA. Bovdeu oor dpodoyyjoe ;

SQ. Ei S0xa yé cot adyOy déyew.

KAA, "Eotw 8) tadra.

A \
YQ. Ovdxodv eitep aypwrtépouvs, aducwtépovs TE Kal

xElpous ;

KAA. *Eoto.

XN. OtiK« dp ayabds ra wohitiKad Iepiuxdjs Hv é«

ToUTOV Tov hdyov.
KAA. Ov av ye drs.

XN. Ma Av ovd€ ye od e& Gv apoddyes.

ITdd\w dé

, x
héye por wept Kipwvos: obk eEwotpdkicayv adtov ovTou
: y A A nw
os eOepdmevev, wa aditov déka éerav py akovoeav TIS
dovys ; Kat Oeutotokhéa TavTa TadTa Eroinoav Kat puyn

C. fuepor ws pn “Ounpos| No such
words of Homer are extant in our copies.
The nearest approach to the sentiment
is in the lines quoted by Routh from
Od. vi. 120; ix. 175, ”H § ofy bBpiocrai
re Kal &ypio1, oddé Sixaor, "HE pirdtewvor
kal og vdos éott Ocovdhs.

eis abtév, bv feior by €BotdAcro] For
els by fxior’ dv 28. This ellipse Heind.
justifies by p. 453 D, éml tay abtay
TEXVaY A€youcy Gvrep viv 57. Phaed.
76 D, év robT ardAAuuev rep kal Aau-
Bdvouev, where however the best MSS.
give év grep. More to the purpose is
Lysias adv. Andoc., p. 255, Reisk., @@ucey
én) Tév Bwudy dy ovk éetiv aita.

D. obk ékworpdkicay abtéy} Cimon’s
ostracism took place B.c. 461. He was
recalled at the instance of his rival
Pericles, B.c. 456, more than five years
before the completion of his term of
exile : ob3érw wévte erav mapeAnarAvOdtoyv,
as we learn from a fragment of Theo-

pompus. Both his banishment and recall
were owing to political causes; and
Plato ought to have mentioned the re-
paration as well as the supposed injury,
as Aristides has justly remarked, Qua-
tuorv. p. 158. Comp. Grote, H. G. v.
p. 443. ‘
OcuicroKrAda — puyh mpoo'e(nulwcar |
This statement is quite correct, as the
final sentence was passed during the
ostracism of Themistocles. Thuc. i.
135, rod 8 Mydicopod tov Mavoaviov
AaxeSaimdviot mpéoBers wéewpavres mapa
Tovs *A@nvatovs tuvernti@vTo Kal Tov
@cuiororrAéa, ws eSpirxov ex tav epl
Tlavoaviay éAéyxwvr, htlovy Te Tots adtois
Kordd(ecOa: abtov. of 3& meicOévres
(Eruxe yap @orpakiopévos Kal Exwv
dtartay wey év”Apye:, émiporta@v 5 Kal és
Thy &AAnv WeAordvyvngov) wéumover peta
Tav Aakedatpoviwy érolwwv jvtwy ~vv-
didxew &vdpas ols eipnro Bye Brov bv
mwepitixwow. Thucydides adds, c. 138,

152

ITTAATQNOS

| 516,-D

mpocelniincay ; Murriddny dé tov | €v| Mapabav eis 75
Bdpabpov éuBareiv &lypioavro, Kai et px Sia Tov Tpv-

that he could not be publicly buried in
Attica, ds ém) mpodocia getywv. With
Plato, he omits to mention the heavier

nalty of confiscation to which The-
mistocles as a traitor was subject, Plut.
Them. c. 25. The language of Thucy-
dides (&s efpicxoy x.7.A.) does not prove
either his belief or disbelief in the truth
of the charges alleged by the Lacedae-
monians; but the flight of Themistocles
and his friendly reception at the Persian
court could not fail to convince the
Athenian people of his guilt, and ought
to be taken in justification of the second
sentence. , ‘

tov [év] Mapadeu] I have bracketed
the preposition, not being satisfied of its
admissibility. The stereotyped formula
is toy Mapad@u, as may be seen from
the following passages of Aristophanes,
in some of which éy is excluded by the
metre, while in not one is it required.
Arist. Eq. 781, c& yap 8s Mfdoror drekt-
glow wep) ris xépas Mapabau, where
the Ravenna Cod. inserts év in violation
of the metre. Ibid. 1334, cal rod Mapa-
0a Tporatov (al. Trodupapadervr). Ach.
696, 697.. Vesp. 711. .Thesm: 806, apds
éxelynv thy Mapadéu. And such in the
majority of cases is Plato’s usage, ac-
cording to the codd. Comp. Arist. Rh.
1.1. p. 196, M:Ariddns mpGrov Mapabau,
Kal Tavoavlas borepoyMAaraaor: whence
we see that Mapaéau is in effect an ad-
verb of place. On the other hand, no
doubt rests on the reading riv év Sada-
wim in Arist. Eq. 785. And in Isocr.
Philipp. p. 112, we find é« 8 rs Mapa-
0Gvi paxns Kal Tis ev Sardapine vavyaxtas.
But we sometimes find SaAauiv alone,
as in Menex. 245, 7a rpdmaia Td Te Mapa-
06 Kal Sadapivi kal TAaroats—though
more frequently év &. or wep) Sadrauiva,
where the battle is spoken of. So 7 ev
*Apteuiolw, or wep) Apreuioioy vavuaxla
—never 7 “Apteuictw, for an obvious
reason. It would therefore be wrong to
banish the preposition from all such
formulae, as Cobet seems to recommend,
Vy. LI. p. 204. Hirschig has not scrupled
in the present instance to cut the knot
by proposing to expunge toy év Mapadau
as a gloss, But the words have con-
siderable rhetorical force as ‘augentia
invidiam.’

eis TO Bdpabpov éuBadrciy] The crime
imputed to Miltiades was, that he had
deceived and injured the Athenian people

by employing the forces entrusted to him
in prosecuting a private quarrel. We
find from Xen. Hell. i. 7. 20, that
there was Widicua Kavydvouv ioxupd-
Tatov, ® KeAever, €dv Tis Toy TaV *AOn-
valwy Sijpov &dinh, Sedeuevoy drodinetv ev
TS Shug: Kal av catayvwobH adicety,
dmobavévta és Td Bapabpov euBAnOjvat.
The psephism of Cannonus was passed,
no doubt, later than the time of Mil-
tiades, but it refers to an existing punish-
ment. There is, therefore, no antecedent
improbability in the account given by
Plato, though confirmed only by the
Scholiast on Aristid. Rhet. p. 232, who
says, 70¢éAncay abtoy Karaxpnuvioa. 6
ae mpvtavis eiceAOay eéntrhoato abrév.
According to Herod. vi. 136, the charge
against Miltiades was capital: (Edv@:r7os)
Oavdrov brayayov trd toy Sjuov MiA-
Tidden ediwke THs AOnvalwy ardrys evera,
a statement which by no means excludes
the former. The Prytanis mentioned by
Plato and the Schol. was doubtless the
Epistates or Chairman for the day, who
had the. power of refusing to put an
objectionable motion to the vote. Hero-
dotus, it is true, gives the people the
credit of refusing to allow Miltiades to
be punished capitally. But their wishes
may have been carried out by the Pry-
tanis in the exercise of his lawful power ;
and Plato may be guilty of unfairness
in imputing to the Athenians at large a
sanguinary proposal emanating from a
personal enemy of the accused. But
more probably he only repeats a tradition
of the anti-democratic clique in which
he was brought up. The Bdpadpoy is
explained as an dpvyua (Tim. Lex. in v.),
or xdoua ppeara@des (Schol. Arist. Plut.
431), into which condemned malefactors,
or more probably their bodies after exe-
cution, were thrown. The proposal would
therefore, in the case of Miltiades, amount
to a denial of the rites of sepulture. The
Lacedaemonians, as we read in Thucy-
dides i. 135, had designed to throw the
dead body of Pausanias into the Caeadas
(a pit or chasm corresponding to the
Bdpadpoy at Athens), but afterwards re-
lented and gave it burial. The Schol.
on Aristides appears however to have
thought that the Athenians, but for the
Prytanis, would have had the victor of
Marathon thrown down the pit alive
(karaxpnurioat), and such may have been
the practice in early and barbarous times,

&

—517, B.| TOPTIAS. 153

. » ¢ : a ¥ ,
Tavw, evérerev av ; Kaitou ovo, eb Hoav avdpes ayaboi,
¥ lal 9
as ov dis, ovK av ToTEe TadTa EemacKXoV. OUKOUY ot YE
dyaloi nvioxot Kat apxas pév ovK extintovaw eK TOV
Cevyav, éemedav Sé Oeparedowor Tods tmmous Kal adroit
dpetvous yevavTat Hvioyo., TOT exTimTovaW. OVK ETL TAT
PAD, Ds ¢ o cia UT. é tA ¥ We) ,
ovr ev Hrioxeig ovr’ ev addy epyy ovderi.
>
KAA. Ouvk eporye.
SQ. “Adnbeis dpa, ws corer, ot eumporev doyor
> 9 297 eon ¥ ¥ . . , \
517 Hoav, OTL ovdeva nets | topev advdpa ayaldv yeyovdra Ta
TodTiuKa ev THOE TH TOE. od SE Gpoddyes TAY ye Viv
ovdeva, TOV mevToL EuTrpoo ev, Kal mpoethov TovTOUS ToOvs
¥ e “Hs , 2¢ A Pe ¥
avopas. ovrou dé dvepavnoay é€ icov Tots viv artes,
> A“ “ an
@oTE, €l OUTOL PyTOpEes Hoav, ovTe TH GANOWH pPyTopiKH
éypavto—ov yap av é&érecov—ovre TH KohaKuKy.
LXXIII. KAA. *Ad\a pérou Toddod ye Sel, & Yo-
BKpares, fy} TOTE Tis TOV ViV Epya ToLa’Ta EpyaoyTat ola

x 5 a
7) OOKEL TOL ;

4 a 4 ¥
TovTwv os Bovre eipyaorat.

>
SQ. *D saps, 008 eyo Wéyw Tovtouvs ws ye Sia-
Kovous €lvat Toews, GANA por SoKovaL TaY ye Vvov Sdia-

We are told by Pausanias, iv. 18. 4, that
the Lacedaemonians thus punished their
captives taken in one of the Messenian
wars, and this sanguinary view of the
uses of the barathrum seems to have
found favour with scholiasts generally.
Comp. Schol. Arist. Plut. 431, év 5 7@
xdopatt TovTH bripxov dyxivo:, of mev
&yw of 3& Kxdtw. So the Schol. Arist.
Eccles. 1089, in giving his version of the
psephism of Cannonus, alters the words
of Xenophon from 4dro8avdvra eis rd
Bdpabpov éuBAnOijva to eis rd Bdpabpov
euBAnberra aro8aveiv. But from a well-
known passage in Plato’s Republic (iv.
439 ©) it appears to have been the
practice to expose the bodies of criminals
for some time after their execution. The
executioner would afterwards probably
throw the remains into the Bdpa§por, if,
as I suppose, that is the same thing with
the dpuvyua, from which the functionary
in question derived his euphemistic name
of ‘the man at the pit’ (6 él r@ dpty-
watt), by which he is known to the
orators. The Schol. on Plutus 1. 1. even
states that the original barathrum was
filled up by the Athenians in mythical

times. This amounts to saying that the
punishment of xaraxphuviots had long
been obsolete at Athens.

E. ofxovy of ye aya0ol jvioxo:| The
force of the negative in this sentence is
explained in the note to 512 a.

517. Sore ei obra pHtopes joav| The
final cause of the true rhetoric is to make
men better, that of the false to gratify
their inclinations. But the statesmen
in question had not attained either
object, and therefore, if rhetors in
either sense, they were not masters of
their craft. Callicles is unable to evade
the dilemma, but says, that, bad as they
may have been, it will be long ere any
of the statesmen of the day accomplish
such feats as the worst of the four men-
tioned.

moddod ye Sei—uh wore] The usual
construction of roAAod Se? is with the
infinitive, as the Comm. observe. Plato
might have written od whore épydonrat,
modAod ye kat Se?, of which the construc-
tion in the text is a kind of abridgment.
For és BotvAe, comp. Cratyl. p. 482, 4
boris BovAet GAAS &piOuos.

B. és ye Siaxdvous elvat] ‘ Viewed as

154 IIAATANOS [517, B

; , 4 , ‘ A e 2 3 , al
KoviKoTEpoL ‘yeyovévat Kat wahdoy olot Te exmopilew TH
Toke, Gv ereOipe. adda yap petaBiBdlew tas éemiv-
pias Kat pr emitpérenv, weiBovtes Kat Braldpuevor ei TodTO
y ¥ eek ¥ e a ese 2 4
olev Ewedrov apetvous everMat ot ToNtTaL, ws Eros Etzel,
ovdev TovTav Si€hEepov exeivou OTEp p.dvov epyov eaTiv
> a“ 4 ca) \ ‘ - ‘ 4, 2
dyalod modirov. vais d€ Kai teiyn Kal vedpia Kal adda 0
mTohha TovadTa Kal eyo cou dpuoroy@ Seworépovs e€tvat
exeivous TovTwy extopilew. TIpaypa ovv yedotov tovod-
Lal >. lal
fev €yd TE Kal od EV Tols Adyots. Ev TaVTL yap TO xpdve
a 2 sO’ / > ‘ - SAS ba
ov Siadreyouela ovdev mavdpcla eis 7 adTd del TEpide-
popevot Kal ayvoovrres addjwv 6 TL €yopev. ey@ yodr D
oe TONAGKLS OtaL MMooynKévaL Kal eyvweKevar ws apa
Surry avrn Tis Tpaypateia eotl Kal wept Td cdpa Kal
\ ‘ , Le X me PS e
TEept THY WuyyV, Kal ) mev ETépa SiaKoviKyn eoTw, 7H Sv-

servants of the state,’ says Socr., ‘I dis-
parage them no more than you do; on
the contrary, they seem to me-to have
been. more serviceable, certainly, than
their successors of the present day.’
Complaints of the falling off of the
public men succeeding Pericles occur in
the comic poets, Arist. Eq. 191. Eu-
polis, Ajo, Fr. xiii. and xv. Mein. But
Plato probably intended the remark to
apply to the times in which he was him-
self writing, as well as to those in which
the dialogue is supposed to take place.
The idiom &s efva: is familiar. Herod.
li. 135, weydAa éxthoaro xphuata, as
ay civat ‘Pod@my, i.e. considering she
was but a hetaera.

GAAG yap perabiBdCew} * But then in
the art of turning the desires of their
countrymen into other channels, instead
of giving them free course,—leading
them by persuasion or force to measures
likely to make them better,—in this the
men of old were little superior if at all
to our own contemporaries.’ Aristides
has an ingenious argument to show that
the Athenians did gradually improve
under the auspices of the Four. Més,
@ pardpie; ef ydp éoti GAnOhs 6 ods
Adyos as MiAtiddny ye puxpod eis 7d
Bdpabpov évéBadov, may rovvaytloy Hdn
patvera, 6 wey OcuicroKAs aypiwrdrous
maparaBav juepwrépovs woihoas, Td yoo
eLootpakicOjva, cal mpds y, €i BovaAc,
Dvyii (nuwOijvat, Képdos wap’ exelyny thy
ouppopdy. wddw 8 6 Kinwy eEworpakiaby

Mev, muy 5 ob mporeCnueOn, GAAG Kad
karirde : mpd Tod xpdvou, obtws ert mpgo-
Tépots obros exphoaro. 6 & ab Mepucajs
ert TovToU meTpioTepa SvaoTuxXhoas K.T.A.
Quatuorv. p. 284 (367, Dind.). It is
obyiously quite untrue that Pericles had
no skill in bridling the passions of the
multitude, and the greatest sacrifice the
Athenians ever made was instigated by
Themistocles. In fact of all the four
Cimon alone seems to have been open to
the imputation of unduly flattering and
cajoling the populace. Pericles and
Themistocles led quite as much as they
followed the tendencies of the public
mind.

©. Tpayua obv yeAoioy rotodper | Socr.
here reminds Callicles that he had as-
sented to premisses of which he rejects
the logical conclusion: the premisses
being contained in the original dicho-
tomy of Bepawefa and Kodrakixh (464 0,
and note), and the assumption that
statesmanship as vulgarly practised falls
under the psychical branch of the latter.
This admission Callicles wilfully forgets,
perpetually coming round again to his
own point of view, that of common sense
and the received opinion. In this pas-
sage koAakela is softened down, or rather
generalized, into d:axovia—ministration
—a somewhat less invidious word, but
equally available for Plato’s purpose.
Comp. inf. 521 A, where diaxovety is
made equivalent to mpds xdpw dmiaciv,
and then to roAakeverv.

—518, A.| TOPTIAS. 155

. » > , aN XQ a “A , e A

vatov civar extropilew, €av pev TEWH TA THMaTA Nar,
fa. dav Se. Sub i da» Sé 4 Ae 28 1

ouria, €av d€ Ouly, word, éay SE pry@, watia, oTpapmata,
e , » > @ id , > > , ‘
Uroonpara, GAN Ov Epyerar odparta eis emiPvpiav. Kat

> , , ‘ a aw a2 , ° cna
BE é€erizndés wou Sua Tov adTdv cikdvav éyo, Wa pPgov

Ye 2
Katapabns. TovTwv yap TopioTtiKor elvat 7 KamTNoY OVTA
x x A x
} €utopov 7% Snuscovpydv tov avtav tovtTwv, aitoTowr 7
> x See x € , a , x 58 Doe
dyoto.v vdavTnv } oKUTOTOpMoY 7 TKUTOSEWor, OvdEV
A QA na an
Oavpactdv éatwv, dvta Tovodtov ddéfar Kat avT@ Kal Tots
ȴ >" > , 4 A X iod 4
addous OeparreuTyy civar O@patos, TavTL TO pH ElddTL OTL
€oTt Tis Tapa TavTas amdoas TExYN yuEVaTTLKYH TE Kat
> eS... Gis &) a > \ , 0. , 4 ‘\
tatpiky, 4 On TO OvTL EoTi ToHpaTos Yepameia, HYTEP Kal
Tpoonke, TOUT@V ApYEW TaTav TOV TEXVaV Kal ypnabas
Tols ToUTwY epyois Sia TO cid€var 6 TL yxpyoToY Kal ToVn-
518 pov Tav oitiwy 7 ToTaV éoTlv eis apeThy | gdpaTOS, Tas
> + , 4 > “ , ‘ . 7 A
& ddd\as mdcas tavras ayvoew 86 dy Kat TavTas pev
Sovrompemets Te Kal Suakovixas Kal dvehevfépous civat
»
Tept cwHpatos Tpayparteiav, Tas adhas Téyvass THY dé
,

yupvactikny Kal liatpuxiy Kata 7d Sikavov Seomoivas

D. éav 5& fryG] Moeris (corrected by
Buttmann), ‘Pryéy, “Attikés, pryodv
Kkow@s. “Peyg “Attix@s, pryot “EAAnviKGs.
This precept of the grammarians is fre-
quently but not always confirmed by the
codd. Its meaning is that fryéw makes
pry@y instead of fryody in the infin., and
pey@ for pryot in the conj.; the opt.
bry¢n being formed after the analogy of
other verbs in ow. Comp. Arist. Vesp.
446, Sorte uh pry@v Exdotor’. Av. 935,
GAA pot pry@v Soxe?s. But the com-
mon form fryot occurs in Phaed. 85 4,
and fryoty in Rep. 440 co. These ought
probably to be corrected, as well as Arist.
Nub. 442, where the codd. have fryotr,
Meineke fryav. The form in oy is
Doric, and analogous to rewiv, Subiv, Ke.

E. oxvtddeyorv } Schol. Olymp. p. 171,
artiKnétepoy To okvaddeWor, ered) Ta
oKdAa, 6 éott TH veKpa odpata Kal 5ép-
para é~avrat (sic). The forms cxvtodéyns
and oxvAcdéjns are more common, but
Tov okvdddeyov occurs in Demosth. ec.
Aristog. p. 781. In the two best MSS.
oxutddeov is accented as in the text;
all the others, followed by the edd.,
make the word oxytone. The reasoning
in the passage is explained by reference

to the earlier portion of the dialogue,
464 seq., in which the 6epame?a: of the
body and of the soul are classified, and
distinguished from the xcoAaxeta: which
simulate them. But the argument is
vitiated by the confusion of arts which
minister to utility, such as those of
the igdyrns or eumopos, with those of
which mere sensual indulgence is the
object. Statesmanship implies the power
of making provision for the physical
well-being, as well as for the mental
culture of the people; but this is quite
another thing from pandering to licen-
tious appetite, whether mental or cor-
poreal. But Socrates is made to identify
dtaxovia with koAakela, wherein he is by
no means justified even on his own pre-
misses. It is, besides, very perverse to
represent Pericles, who reorganized the
Athenian commonwealth, as a mere d:d-
kovos, even if we take that word in its
least contemptuous sense. He was at
any rate a vouodérns on a large scale,
and therefore, from Plato’s point of view,
a madoTpiBns or iatpés of the soul, how-
ever bad his therapeutic may have ap-
peared to critics of aristocratic leanings.

econ rent
—

156

MAATOQNOS

[518, A

ae

. , % SPOS. aire. a Y ¥ . ‘ ,
elvat TOUTMY. TAYTA OvY TADTA OTL EOTL Kal TEpL WryyD,
ToTé pev pow Soxets pavOavew, oti héyw, Kal dpodoyets
e SQN bid ee d 4 SRA A ,
as eldas 6 TL eym éyw Hees 5é ddiyov vaTepoy éywv

4 + A > \ , “ > “~ /
OTL avOpwrrou KaAOL Kayabot yeyovact moira €v TH TONEL,

\ > \ > ‘ > “A 7 “A c ,
kat éredav éy® épwt@ oitwes, SoKeis poor GporoTdtous B
mpoteiver Oar avOpdmovs mept Ta ToiTiKd, WoTEP ay Et
Tepl TA YULVATTLKA E“od epwTOvTos oiTiwWes ayaloi yeyd-
vaow } cial cwpatov Oepamevtat, edeyés pou Tavu oTOV-
, ‘4 c > / ‘ , e \ > ,
Sdalwv, Ocapiwv 6 aprokdmos Kat MiBarkos 6 Thv dporoutay
\ ‘\ % \ 4 € , 4
ovyyeypadas Thy XiKehuxnv Kat YapaBos 6 Kamndos, ort
ovto. Gavpado.o yeydvac. cwpdtwv Oeparevtai, 6 pev
»” A , e€ Wee 2 € 3 a
aptous Javpactovs tapackevalav, 6 Sé dor, 6 dé oivov. ©

LXXTIV.

¥ x ee , ¥ ¥ C Yen
Ioos QV oOvV NYFIVAKTELS, €l OOL eXeyov eyo

9 ¥ > oh SQN 9 lal ,
61. AvOpwre, ematers ovdev TEpt yupvactiKns: SiaKdvous
TOLLELS

518 B. Ocaplwy 6 a&proxdmos| Athens
was famous for the excellence of its
bread. Archestratus ap. Athen. p. 112 B,
Tov & eis &yopay moretpevoy &prov At
KAeiwwal mapéxovot Bporots KdAALoTOV
*A@jvat. The baker Thearion: is men-
tioned by two comic poets, Antiphanes
and Aristophanes. Athen. ib. D, E, *Api-
oropayns évy Tnputddin nal Aiodroalkwrt
da tovTwy “Hkw Ocaplwvos aptomdAtoy
Aimoy ty” éort xpiBdvwy edédAa. So
Antiph. in Omphale 1. 1., &provs—ods
Snudtas Ocaplwy eecke, whence we con-
clude that Thearion was an Athenian
citizen. The form aproxémos is recog-
nized as more Attic than dpromoids,
Lobeck on Phryn. p. 222.

MlOakos 6 rhy dvoroilav ets
eee ae dapes re proverbial.

404: D; Supaxoctay 5¢ @ pire ae
aes kat Suceduchy moudlay oyov...
oix aiveis. In Hpist. vii. 326 B, Plato
speaks of the excessive luxury at the
court of Dionysius: Blos *IraAwrikav
kal Supaxoclwy tpawe(av mAhpns. Comp.
Athen. p. 25 E, SuceAuas nal SuBapi-
Tikas Kal "IradiKkas tTpamélas, Hon 5é Kar
Xfas. Mithaecus, according to Maximus
'yrius, Diss. vii., was a Syracusan, as
reat in éWomrowla as Phidias in sculp-
ure. He was expelled from Sparta,
here he had begun to exercise his skill,
ut welcomed by all other cities that
e visited. Possibly his was the first
ookery-book. It does not however seem
have survived to the time of Athenaeus,
ho would not have failed to quote,

had he known it. Of Sarambus, as the
copies have it, or Sarabus, as the name
ought to be written and pronounced
(ZapaBixav korliwv cvvoudvune, Achaeus
ap. Athen. p. 173 ©), we learn from an-
other comic poet that he was a Plataean,
and his reputation one of the very few
things on which that small city could
plume itself. Posidippus, Fr. ine. iii,
Meineke iv. p. 525. Jul? Poll. vii. 193,
explains the Teatoens of the kdmrnaos to
have included the mixing of wines for
the table: kamndAo: od mdvoy of mera-
Bodéis, GAAG Kal of Tov oivoy KepavviyTes:
bev Kal SdpaBov 6 TlAdtrwy Kdmndov
avéuacev, emawvav abtdoy én’ oivoupyia
(for the vulg. SapdéBwva). The true form
SdpaBos also lurks in a MS. reading of
Athen. 112 ©, nal odpayiBos 6 kdpaBos
6 «dmrndos: doubtless a duplex lectio—
SdpauBos (7) SdpaBos). From the yeyé-
vaot which follows, we may infer that
these three worthies were dead when the
Gorgias was written.

0. “lows bv obv jryavdkres| ‘Now, I
dare say you would have been indignant
if I had said, Friend, you know nothing
of Gymnastic ; you tell me of fellows who
are mere ministers and caterers to the
desires, destitute of all sound and right
views concerning them,’ i.e. concerning
the desires, and their fitness or unfitness
to be gratified. Comp. p. 501 B, #ris 5&
} Bedtiov xelpwy tav Hdovav ore
Tkorovpevat ore péAov aitais &AAO A
xapllerOar udvov.

—519, A. | TOPTIAS. 157

, 259 A reece? S ¥ Batis
prot Néyers Kal eriOvprdv tapacKevacras avOpdrovs, odK
ee ‘ > ‘ 39. ‘ Shieh 7, * 9
ératovras Kadov Kayaldv oddev TEept avTar, ot, av ovTw

x lal
TUXwoW, euTnoarTES Kal TaXvVaYTES TA THMaTa TOV

> a A 7, A
D dvOparrer, Erawovpevor UT avTwY, TPOTaTOhOVEW avTaV |

‘ x > , , c S > 8 3 3 , > ‘
Kai Tas apyalas adpKas. ol O avd dv ametpiay ov Tovs
a a 2 A > ‘ lal
EgTLOVTAaS aiTidcoVTaL TOV VoTwV aiTiovs ElvaL Kal TIS
a lal A > a xn Ay
dmoBohijs Tav apyatwv capkar, add’ ot dv avTois TYXwoL
/, , ‘ 4 4 9 ‘ > “ 4
ToTE Tapovtes Kal cup Bovdevortés TL, OTav Sy avdTois HKY
» y ,
TOTE TANT POV) VoTov Pépovtea TDvyV@ VaTEpOY xpdVy,
—— Fe A A > , ‘
-GT€ avev TOU _YyLEWoU yeyovvta, TOVTOUS alTLATOVTAL Kat
x » at ES ‘ \
wWetovot Kal Kakdv TL TOMMTOVEW, Gv otot 7 Bot, Tovs dé
- “ “~ ,
mpotépous ekélvous Kal aitlous TOY KaKaV éyKMpLacovCL.
\ ‘ A > , e , , > ,
Exkal ov vov, ® KadXjxdes, opowrtatov tovTm éepyaler
eyKopidles avOpatrovs ot TovTOUs EloTidKagW EdwyXodVTES
e > , , la A , or
&v éereOvpovr. Kat dace peyadnv THv ody TreToinKEevaL
> , bd de is al pF Xr , > 8 2-2 r ‘
avrovs' ott dé olde Kal Umovdds EoTt Ou ExEivous TOUS

, > > , ee N , \
519 Wadaovs, ovK aicOdvovtar. | avev yap cwdpoovvns Kat

Sixacocvvns ypevwv Kal vewpiov Kal TELXYov Kal dopwv
\ , A > , \ , ’ >
kat TovovTwv ddvapiov eurremdyKact THY TOW" TAY OvV

» ec N C7 a . , N , ,
EhOn H KataBody avTn THs aceveias, Tovs TOTE TapdvTas
> , , , \ ‘\ , ‘
aitudcovtar cuvpBovdrovs, Oeurotokhéa S€ Kai Kipwva kai
Tlepuxhéa éyKopidcovor, Tovs aitiovs Tov KaKav> god dé

D. Tpocamorotaw a’tav Kal tas dp-
xalas Kkas| These quacks will not
only add no new flesh to the bodies they
cram and pamper, but will eventually
cause them to lose the flesh they had.
They may grow fat for a time, but re-
pletion will bring in its train disease and
ultimate emaciation, having been effected
without regard to sanitary rules.

E. kal gact weydAny Thy wéAw wemorn-
kévat a’tovs | Comp. Thuc. ii. 65, éyévero
ém éxelvov weyliotn. People pretend that
the statesmen of old have made Athens
great, not perceiving that she is tumid
from disease, and rotten at the core—all
in consequence of those men and their
measures. They have glutted the city
with all the appliances of material pro-
sperity, without teaching her to use them
temperately and righteously ; and hence,
when the disease shall come to a head,
blame will be thrown on whoever shall

happen to be her advisers, instead of on
the true authors of her woe. 4 xaraBoA}
airn is the rAncuovh vécor pépovca just
mentioned. xataBoA7% is a medical term
for the ‘access’ of a periodic or inter-
mitting fever, which leaves the patient
apparently well in the interval. The
metaphor is not uncommon. Thus De-
mosth. Philipp. iii. p. 118, in speaking
of the insidious approaches of the Mace-
donian power, says, St: ye Somep mweplodos
} karaBorAy mupetod H Tivos BAAOv Kako
kal TE mavu Téphw SoKodvt: viv aderrdvat
mpocépxetat, ovdels &yvoe?. Comp. Hipp.
Min. 372 E, vuvt © ev rg wdporti por
&omep kataBoA? mepreAjAvbe ... od ody
xdpicat, Kal ph POovhions idoacba Thy
Wuxhv wov. Socrates having said that he
was liable to vacillation—to hot and cold
fits of opinion—on a certain doubtful
question.

158 IAATONNOS [519, A
¥ S . Aw < A
tows émaArrbovra, éav pi) evaBy, Kal Tov Euod Eratpov
> 4 4 \ ‘ 3 ~ 4 ‘4
AdkiBiddov, orav Kat Ta apxata mpooamok\vwot pos
an A ¥
ols €xTHoavto, ovK aitiwy dvTwy TOV KaKaVv GAN tows B
cuvaitiov. Kaito. éywye avontov mpaypa Kal viv ope
yuyvopevov Kal dxotvw Tav Tadadv avdpav Tépr. aio-
Odévopar yap, otav % modus TWA TOY TohiTLKaY avdpav
petayepilntar ws GdiKovvTa, ayavaKTovvT@Y Kal oxEThia-
Covrwy as dewa Tadoxovol TOhha Kal ayaa THY TOW
~~ re lal
TeToUKoTEs dpa adikws bm avdTns amddduyTal, as 6
, , A , ¢ A / > , ‘
TovTav ddyos. Td Sé drov Wevdds EoTL. WpooTdTns yap o
, 3Q3 xX e \ 3Q7 > / RE pe.) A
TOdEws OVO ay Els ToTe Gdikws AmdhoLTO UT avdTHS THS
TOMEWS NS TpoTTaTEL. KWOvVEvEL yap TavTOV Eival, COOL
T€ ToNTiKOL TpoomolodyTaL Elva Kal Goot oodLoTai.
‘ ‘ ec , a ee a ¥
Kat yap ot coduotat, TaMXa Godot ovTes, TOVTO aToTOV
epyalovta, mpaypnat pdoKovtes yap apeTrns SiddoKaou

519. kal rod éuod éEratpou *AAKiBiddov |
This part of the prophecy was fulfilled,
for the fall of Athens was very generally
attributed to the rashness’ of Alcibiades
in urging on the Sicilian expedition.
The admirers of Pericles might justly
complain of his being thus made re-
sponsible for a step the most directly op-
posed to his own policy. Thucyd. 1. 1.
§ 6 seq. The present passage seems to
imply that Alcibiades was still in Athens.
If this is so, and we assume 405 B.o. for
the date of the conversation (473 £), Plato
is guilty of an anachronism, for Alci-
biades left the city for the last time
B.c. 407. But he was probably aware of
the inconsistency, and indifferent to it.

B. aicOdvowat—aAdyos| “When the
state,” says Socr., “deals with any of
our public characters as wrong-doers, I
hear of their being indignant and loudly
lamenting the injustice they are made to
suffer: ‘So, after all our valuable ser-
vices to the state, we are perishing un-
righteously at her hands’—such is the
language they hold.” This version shows
the force of &pa, which has its usual in-
ferential sense, though placed somewhat
late in the sentence. Of this however
there are other examples. Symp. 199 a,
GAAa yap ey odk Hdn pa toy Tpdroy
tov ératvov. Ibid. 177 2, radra 5% Kab
of %AAa mwavres pa tvvépacav. “ But
in this,” proceeds Socr., “there is not

one word of truth, for there can be no
such thing as a ruler of a state perishing
unrighteously at the hands of the state
he rules. For I fancy the case is much
the same with professed politicians as
with professed sophists or teachers of
wisdom. Such teachers, wise as they
are in all other respects, are in one point
guilty of gross absurdity: pretending to
be teachers of virtue, they not unfre-
quently accuse their pupils of wrong-
doing in withholding their fees,” &e.
This may be a fair ‘argumentum ad
hominem’ against a sophist who should
give out that virtue is capable of being
taught, and that he can teach it; in
fact, we know that it was a common
taunt against such persons. See Isocr.
c. Soph. § 4, 5, 6. No such boast how-
ever was made by Pericles or his suc
cessors; and the principle Socrates en-
deavours to establish is an extravagant
paradox, quite unsupported by the ana-
logy he alleges. ‘To make men good’
may be the final cause of statesman-
ship, but it is an end which in the
nature of things can only be partially
accomplished, even under the most
favourable circumstances. In practice
such professions are usually a cloak of
tyranny, as Plato might have learned
from the case of his relative Critias.
His Sicilian experiences were probably
not yet purchased.

—520, A.| TOPTIAS. 159

> , ee lal lal : ~ e > lol
evar moddaKis KaTyyopovo. Tov pabyTayv ws adiKodct
a“ > , , ‘ > lal , »
oas [adtovs,| rods Te prrbods daootepovrTes Kal addnv
D xXapw ovk amod.iddrtes, eb mabdrtes bm aiTav. Kali TodToU
Tod Adyou Ti dy adoywtepor ein Tpaypa, avOpadmovs aya-
Bods Kat Sixatovs yevouevous, eEaipeOevtas péev adixiav
€ ‘ ~ , , \ , > lal
timo Tod SidacKkddov, oxdvtas Sé Sixatootvyny, aduKelv
TOUTW @ OVK Exovaw ; Ov SoKEl GOL TODTO ATOTOV Elval, @
Eratpe; “As ahnOas Snunyopew pe jvdyxacas, & Kah-
Nixdeus, ovK EOéhwy amroKpiver Oar. |
LXXV. KAA. 3d & ov« Gy oids 7 eins éyew, €
pH Tis WoL amoKpivoiro ;
” , a a ‘ , a rues
E 22. Eoua ye vuy your ovxyvovs Telvw Tov oyu,
émerOy ou ovK eeders amroKpiver Oar. GAN’, @ yall, eiwe
> , > aA » > > x ,
mpos didtov, ov Soxet aou ahoyov elvar dyabov dadcKkovta
7 x 4 , 4 e >» 2 A «3 ‘
meToinkevar TWA peuderOar TovTw TL UP EavTod. dyads

yeyovas TE Kal Gy ereita Tovnpds EaTwW ;

KAA, “Epovye Soxet.

52. Ovdxodty axovers Tovadra eydvtTwy tTav dackdr-
Tov Tawdevew avOparrovs eis apETHy ;

| KAA. "Eywye.
ovdevos air ;

C. ds Gdixoto: opas] I agree with
Bekker in thinking airovs inadmissible.
&dixodet opas abtovs would mean ‘they,
the pupils, are wronging themselves,’
‘ipsi se injuria afficiunt.’ The follow-
ing tovs easily explains the origin of the
error. See above 506 A; also 520 B, as
movnpdv éoriv eis opas. A similar error
has been corrected in Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 6,
émoreiAa 5 odlow [abtots] tovs épd-
pous.

D. ddiceiv roitp @ ov‘ Exovow] In
Socratic language, adixig of ddicovvres
adixovdorr.

‘Qs GdnOads Snunyopetv] Callicles had
said,*Q Séxpares, doxeis veaneterOar ev
Tots Adyos @s GANOGs Snunydpos dr.
Socrates quotes his words, and tells him
that his declamatory style is this time
compulsory. Callicles had the remedy
in his own hands; he had but to answer
the questions proposed to him, and the
long harangue would be exchanged for
dialogue.

E. viv yotv—Adéywyv] Heind. quotes

GANA Ti Gv héyous avOparav Tépl

Protag. 329 A, kad of phropes ofrw cuiKpda
épwrndevtes Sorixdvy Katatelvovor tod
Adyov. But in his note on that passage,
he alleges that the cases are not parallel.
However this may be, the phrase cvx-
vous Telyw T&v Abywv is scarcely to be
distinguished from the ordinary svxvobs
telyw Tovs Adyous. ‘It would seem,’ says
Socr., ‘that I can get on without such
assistance —for now, at any rate, the
speeches I make are prolix enough.’
“In sequentibus €we:ta movnpds éotw,
positum ére:ra pro Sus, usu frequentis-
simo.” Heind.

520. avOpémrwv mépr ovderds atior]
This is a good dramatic touch. Calli-
cles, an admirer of the pure rhetoricians,
adopts their tone of contempt for the
sophists, who professed to teach virtue.
See in particular the curious fragment of
Isoerates, kara tay codioTay, in which
he describes those who make such pro-
fessions as Alay arepioxémtws GAaCovevd-
pevor—pdvov odK Gbardrous mie xvovpmevot
Tovs cvvévtas mahoev, §§ 1,4. In this

160. ITAATQNOX [ 520, A

; ~ . a , 7
SN. Tis av rept exeivwv déyos ot daoKovtes mpoe-
4 al / ‘ > A bi e Cd
oTdvat THS Toews Kal eripedetcOar Orws ws BedtioTy
EoTat TAAW AUTHS KAaTHYOpOvaLW, OTaV TUVXwWOW, WS TOVY-
Ed
potarns ; over TL Suadepew TovTovs exeivwv ; TavTdv, @
pakdpr, €ott cogioTns Kai pyTwp, 7 éyyvs TL Kal Tapa-
, Y t ae, aN \ aN ‘ be PS) >
TARTLOV, BoTEp ey@ Edeyov mpos II@dov. od de Ou B
dyvouay TO ev TdaykKaNov TL oleL ElvaL, THY PNTOPLKHY, TOU
‘ A a A 49) , , , > \
—8é Katadpoveiss TH SE adyOeia Kdddudv €ot. codioTiKH
“ ~ ‘ \
PyTopiKyns Gowmep vowobeTiKy SixagTUKHS Kal yuEvaoTLKy
Qn \ >» ~
lar puKi)s. pdvors o eyoye Kal @pENV Tots Snunydpors TE
Kat copiorais ovK eyXapew peuper ar TOUT@® TO mpay-
part 0 avTot madevovorw, ¢ @S Trovnpov €oTw eis obas, i
T@ avT@ oyw TOVTH Gua Kal EavToY KaTYYOpEl OTL pee
CO

apelykacw ovs pacw adpedev. ody ovTws EXEL ;

KAA. Ila ye.

x2. Kai mpoéobar ye Sirov tHv evepyeciav avev
pcbod, as Td Eixds, povots TOUTOLS. evexwpel, Elrep GANOH

eheyov.

Isocrates follows the traditions of his
master Gorgias, as appears from Menon,
p- 95 ©. Socrates presently main-
tains that if a comparison be made be-
tween rhetoric and sophistic, the latter
must be preferred: just as legislation is
a higher art than dicastic, and the art
which keeps the body in health superior
to that which removes sickness. But
here again the analogy fails; for the
political rhetor (Snunydpos) is on occa-
sion a vouodérns, and is not eo nomine
a pleader in the courts (S:caorinds). As
a public speaker, it is true, he may have
to rebuke as well as to exhort; but to
make that his principal or only duty is
surely perverse.

étav TUXwowv | * when occasion serves,’
as when they are unjustly punished, os-
tracized, or the like.

B. ToUT@ TE mpdyuatt] Not exclusively
‘the people,’ as Ast puts it, but the peo-
ple in the case of the orators, their pupils
in that of the Sophists. mpayua and
xpiua are not unfrequently applied to
persons. <Aristoph. Eccles. 441, yuvaika
® clvar mpayw pn vovBvorixéy. Kubu-
lus, fr. Chrys. ii. ap. Mein. iii. 260, kak)

¥ . ‘ > , > ? e
aAdynv pev yap evepyeciav Tis evepyeTy Geis, otov
TaXVs yevomevos Sia TadotpiByy, tows av dmoaTepHoee

yurvh Mndera, TnverAdmeia 5¢ Méya mparyna.
With a genitive, Criton 53 ©, ob« ote
toxnmov paveic0at Td Tov Zwkpdtovs
Tpary La.

C. Kal mpoécOa ye Shrov] Sophists
and publié men, if their professions had
been worth any thing, could alone afford
to trust those whom they benefit. A
trainer would have less reason to com-
plain if his pupil, when he had learnt to
run fast, should refuse to pay him—
supposing he had left the question of
payment open, instead of stipulating for
a fee to be paid down as nearly as pos-
sible at the time of imparting the desired
accomplishment. mpoéo@ai—to trust a
customer, to leave the time or amount
of payment to his honour—occurs in
much the same sense, Legg. 849 £, 6 dé
mMpoeuevos ws morebav, € sh TE koulonrat
édy Te Bh, orepyerw ds ovxétt dikns
ovens T&Y ToLOUTwY mépL Tvarhrdzewy,
Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 47, mor edu oe ovK
avéterOat Tovs cor mpoeuévous ebepyeciav
dp@vTrd gor eykadovvras. (sc. bt odK
améSwxas). Our modern honoraria an-
swer in theory to the suggestion in the
text.

, eee

—s21, A.]: TOPTIAS. 161

THY xdpw, €& Tpootro ai’T@ 6 tatdorpiBys Kal py cvr- leat Ah

Oguevos atta picor & Tu pddvora dua peraddods rod
DTdxouvs hapBavor Td dpyvpiov. od yap tH BpaduTyti,

oiwat, ddiKodow ot avOpwrot, GAN ddukia. 7 yap;

KAA. Nai.

SQ. OdvKodv et Tis avTd TodvTo adaipet, THY dOdiKiar,
ovdev Sewov adT@ pymote adicnOy, Gd\d\A povw aadadés
TavTnv THY evepyeciav mpodcba, eimep TO GvTL S¥vaiTS
Tus ayabovs Toe. ody OUTS;

KAA. @npi. :

LXXVI. 3. Aid radr’ apa, ws eouxe, Tas pev addas
cupBovras oupBovrevew AapBavovta dpyvpiov, otov
oikodopias mép. 7) TOV GAdwY TEXVaV, Oddy aicypdr.

E KAA. "Eoué ye.

XM. epi dé ye tavrys THs mpdkews, ovtw av tis
tpotmov as BétioTos Ein Kal apiota THY avTOD oikiay Sx0L-
Kot?) TOW, aloypov vevopioTa py pavar ovpBovdevewv,
av Ly Tis avVT@ apyvpiov Sido. 7 yap;

KAA. Nai.

XN. Androv yap ore Todto aitiy éortw, OTL povyn avT
Tov evepyeriav Tov ev TafdvTa éemiOvpely ToLet avT ev
TOLeLy, WATE KAAOV OOKEL TO on p.etov eivat, eb EU ToLnoas
TavTyny THY evepyeoiav avT eV TeiceTaL cl SE pH, OV. eoTL
TAUTA OUTWS EXOVTE ;

| KAA, "Eotuw.

XN. °Eni worépay oby pe tapaxadeis tHv Oepareiar

521

D. Obxotvy ef tis] ‘Whoever then
can remove injustice from the soul, need
be under no apprehension of ever being
wronged: for him alone it is safe to
bestow this boon unconditionally.’ For
puévm it would have been more cor-
rect to say udvnv. In the next clause
Socrates intimates scepticism as to the
reality of such pretensions. ‘If indeed
there were any one capable of making
men good” The Comm. speak of the
sophists Protagoras and Prodicus as the
objects of these satirical remarks. But
it is to be observed that Plato’s con-
temporaries the Cynics made the same

VOL. II.

profession, and to them the description
in Isocrates, kara tay cogiotay, § 4
seq., is applicable in all its features.
Doubtless also there were sophists un-
attached to any sect who followed the
example. The rhetors, who did zot
teach virtue, consistently demanded pay-
ment in advance. This we gather from
Demosth. c. Lacritum, p. 938, together
with the information that the amount
of the fee was ten minae. Evenus the
Parian, an educator of the ethical school,
was content with five, Apol. 208. The
formula ovdty Sevdy ph occurs Apol.
28 B, obdéy 8. uh ev euol arF.

M

|

162

TIAATQNOS

[521, A

Ts Toews ; Sudpicdy pou THY Tod SiapdyerOar *AOn-
4 4 c 4 ¥ ec > 4, x e 8
vatois ows ws Bé\tuoTOL EcovTat, @s Latpdv, HY ws dia-
KovryoovTa Kal mpos ydpw dpitjoovTa; TadnOy jor
ee tee , , . > »¢ » 2¢
ciré, @ Kadhixders: Sigaos yap et, domep npfw Twappy-

cidleabar mpos end, Svarehety & voets éywv.

\ , > 2
KQL YEVVALWS ELTTE.

s la) >
KQL VUV €U

KAA. Aéyw toivur ori ws SiaKxovycorra.
4 » > / lal
XQ. Kodakevoovta apa pe, @ yevvavotate, TapaKahets.
< y lal
KAA, Ei cou Mvodv ye div Karey, & Yoxpares
e > ‘ lal , w
OS El £L) TAVTA YE TOLNTELS—.,
‘ ¥ a , ¥ 9 > lal e
SQ. My evrns 6 woddanis EtpyKas, OTL aoKTEveEl pe O
> ¥
Bovddpevos, iva pn ad Kat éyw ela, OT. Tovnpds ye Ov aya-
‘ ” + > , >7 ¥y 4 ‘\ SS
Oov ovrar pnd ore adaipyoerar éav TL Ex, Wa py av eyo
»” 9 5 > > / > 4 4 "4 > nw
elmw OTL ANN aeddpevos ody E€er 6 TL ypHoeTat adTots,

GAN’ oTEp pe Adikws adeideTo, ovTW Kal haBav adixws C

4 > A > , > lal > A > nw Qn
xpyoerau ei 5é ddixws, aioypds: ei S€ aioypds, Kakds.
LXXVII. KAA. "As pou Soxeis, & Sodxpares, m-

521. dixaos yap «lf, dowep Hpiw]| ‘As
you spoke your mind freely from the
first, I have a right to expect you to be
consistent and to tell me now what you
really think.” In the next speech of
Socrates the construction xoAaxetoovra
mapakadety is rare, and many edd. pre-
fer &s KoAakevoovta, which has no MS.
authority. But the sense is the same
whether we prefix @s or not. We may
say, for instance, indifferently, mapa-
Kadeiv eis KoAdKevow, and mapaxadeiv
és eis KoAdKevoty, and so too, I conceive,
where the participle is used. See above,
514 A.

B. EY oo: Muody ye Hdiov_Kadeiv| The
Comm. have given themselves much
needless trouble with this passage, which
is perfectly clear when seen by the light
of the context. Socrates had asked Calli-
cles whether he would have him come for-
ward as the iarpés or as the didxovos of the
Athenian people.—‘ As the d:dKovos cer-
tainly.’ ‘In other words, as its flatterer.’
—‘ Yes,’ answers Callicles, ‘its flatterer,
if you prefer to use the most opprobrious
word you can think of. If you are too
proud to flatter—’ you must take the
consequences. The prov. Mvody kadciy
hangs together with Muo@y écxaros,
Mvoav Acia, The Mysians, like the

Carians, were regarded as the refuse ot
mankind. Hence Muody kadciv=to call
names. This the Greek interpreter Olym-
piodorus has understood, but it was hid-
den from all the edd. preceding Bekker.
It should be observed that the word «éAaké
(later. rapdorros) is much more invidious
than our ‘flatterer.’ ‘Toad-eater,’ or even
‘pander,’ would better convey its force
to an English reader. (See Plaut. Am-
phitr. i. 3. 17.) Compare also the de-
scription of the xéAaé in Eupolis a
Fr. i.) with that of the mapdoiros in
Diodorus Com. (EmlxAnpos, Mein. iv.
543). Another comic poet records of
Socrates that starved as he was he never
stooped tobe a nédAak—obros weévror wewav
oUTws ovmamOT ETAN KoAaKEvoaL, Ameip-
sias, Connus. Fr. i.

movnpds ye dv &yabby bvra| For the
full force of these words in the mouth of
Socrates, compare Apol. 30 D.

©. “Os wot Soxe?s| ‘How confident you
seem that nothing of this kind will ever
happen to you—as if you dwelt apart
and were not liable to be dragged into
court—it may be by some wretch of the
vilest character.’ Possibly Plato aimed
this at Meletus, who seems to have been
a bad man as well as an indifferent poet.
Mein. Com. Gr. ii. p. 1126.

—522, A. | TOPTIAS. 163

e > K a , A e 2 A b ‘ ‘
orevew pnd av ev TovtTwrv mabey, as oiKav exTodav Kat
¥
ovK av eioaxGels eis Sixactypiov v7d Tdvu tows po-
0: e&. 29 0 / ‘ , !
X9npov avOpaov Kat davidov!
SQ. *Avdntos dpa cipi, d KadXikdes, as adynOds, </
X\ ¥ a la lal An
fy Olopar ev THE TH TOAEL GvTWodY av, 6 TL TUYOL, TODTO
A , , > e090 ¢ 27 eae >
mabe. Tdde pevTor ed Old Ort, edvTep eiciw cis Sixa-
D oTyptov Tept TovTwY Twos KWduVEdwY dv od héyets, TOVN-
pos Tis pe €otat 6 cicdywr ovdeis yap Gv xpnoTods p17)
ddixovvT’ avOpwrov eiaaydyor. Kali ovdév ye atomov ei
> 7 4 ¥ > 4 lal
amolavoyt. Bove vou eimwm 8: O TL TadTa Tpoo-
Soko ;
KAA. IIdvv ye.
¥
SQ. Oipar per ddiyov ’APnvaiwr, va pr eit pdvos,
ETLXElpelv TH WS AAyNOGs TodtTLKH TExVN Kal TpaTTEW TA
‘qohuwtiKa povos TOV VOY. GATE OY Ov TpPds xapw héyov
‘ , a oh e , > ‘ . x 4
Tous Ndyous os héyw ExdoToTE, adda pos TO BEdtLCTOP,
> x an A ‘ > > A a ‘
Eov mpos 7d HdtoTor, Kai odk eédwy Toe & Od Tapa-
~ ‘ ‘\ lal > gy, 9 l4 > ~
veis, TH Kopa TadTa, ody e€w O TL déyw &Y TH SiKa-
, ec os , 9 /, 9 X ~
o7Tnpiv. 6 avTos 5é pou HKet Adyos OvmEep Tpds IaXov
al a
eheyov" Kpiwvodpar yap ws év matdiois iatpds ay KpivoiTo
lal lol a a)
KatnyopovvTos éomo.ov. oKdTEL yap, Ti Gv amodoyotTo
6 TowdTos avOpwros ev TovTos AnPOeis, ci adtod KarTn-
“ , 9 a “~ ‘ c “ x a 9
yopot Tis héywv oT.’ mraides, TOAAA Bpas Kai Kaka ode
eipyaotat aynp Kat avtovs, Kal Tods vEewTdTovs wuav
522 Siadeipea Téuvwr Te Kal Kdwv, Kal icyvaiver | Kai Triywv
“~ Lal ‘ ~
Gmopew Toll, TUKpOTAaTA TomaTa. Siders Kal Tewny Kai
8 A > , > MA Sees! da > a dé ‘
ubnv avayKalov, ovx womep €yw ToAAa Kal HOEa Kal

f
Ane, tu

ota rls

tte lke lhe.

D. wept totrwy tivds Kiwdvredoy]
*Videlicet de capite et bonis: quae
ante commemoraverat Callicles.” Stallb.

E. Ta Kopya tadra] We must sup-

this a quotation. Callicles had
adjured Socrates to abandon philosophy
—Hdrdos Ta Kowa rair’ apels—and
Socrates retorts by calling the arts of
the rhetor 74 xouya tadra. Sup. 486 o.
The next sentence is an amplification of
464 p. A philosopher in a court of
justice is like a physician accused by a
confectioner before a jury of school-boys.
dYoroids stands of course for the rhetor

who accuses him.

522. méuara] The codd. give réuara,
some few mwéupara. Pors. on Hee. 392,
kal Sls técov map aluatos yevqoerat.
“adu MSS. et edd., sed haec forma
Atticis erat incognita. Quod hoc uno
argumento satis probatur. Multa sunt
loca in quibus metrum z@ya flagitet ;
nullum ubi wéua postulet; pauca, ubi ad-
mittat.” It may be added that the codd.
sometimes give méua where the metre
convicts them. Thus in Alexides Com.
aéuatos is made to end a senarius, in a
frag. cited by Athenaeus, p. 28 E.

M 2

is

ITAATQNOS [522, A

164:
‘ 937 Cys ,o*R ¥ > , lal A
TavrooaTa evdxovv vas. Th Gy OleL EV TOUT TH KAK@
: a Famed X Le ee 4
arohndbérta iarpov exe eimeiv ; 7 et eto THY ad7jOevay,
lal “A /,
ére Tatra wdvta éyw érolouv, & Tatdes, Vyvewas, TOCOV
la , 3 ,
ole. av avaBonoat Tods ToLovTOUS SuKacTas ; Ov péya ;
KAA. “Ics: otecBai ye xpy.
lal bd
SQ. Odxodv oier €v mdon amopia av adrov exerOat 6
TL XpyH Elmetv ;
KAA. Ilavvu ye.
wn 03
LXXVIII. 3. Towdrov pévroe cai éya ot Gre
, 4 *» > ‘ > 8 4, A ‘
md0os ma0oyw av eioeOav eis SikaoTYHpiov. ovTE yap
€ bs a b] , 4 > a , a e >
ndovas as exmerdpuca €&w avTois héyew, As ovTOL EvEp-
, ‘ 5 , / . > \ de aA ‘ v
yeoias Kal @dpedetas vopilovaw, éya dé ovTE TOUS Topt-
Covras Lnd@ ovte ols mopiterau: édv Té. Tis pe 7) VEewrTeE-
lal 4 be) Cal lal KA ‘ ,
pous on Siadbeipew amopety Trovovvta, 7 Tovs mpeoBute-

B

pous kakyyopeiv héyovra muKpovs Adyous 7 idia H Snpooia,

ovte TO adnbes E&w eimeiv, GTi Atkaiws TavTa TavTA ey@
“A ¥
héyw, kal mpattw 7d buerEpov 57 TOTO, @ avOpes SuxacTat,

»” » > , Y » 9 a» , “A ,
OUTE GAO OVSEV. WOTE Lows, 6 TL GY TUX, TOUTO TElLoomaL.

“A > > A ¥ »”
KAA. JAoKet ovv cou @ So«pares, KaAQS EXEL ap-

Opwrros év moet
Bonfeiv ;

tt by ofei— a roanpberra. | ‘What would
the physician find to say, think you,
under these desperate circumstances ?’
&roAnoé., shut off as it were from all aid
and sympathy—‘driven into a corner,’
as we say. Menex. 243 0, dmreAnupévov
évy MutiAqvn tev veav. Euthyd. 305 v,
év dé Tots idlois Adyous bray amroanpoaor,
bro Tdv dupl EvOddnuwoy KkodoverPai—
said of a fluent rhetorician brought to
bay by a skilful controversialist.

aécov ote: | This rests on the authority
of a single MS. All the rest have
érécov, and so every ed. but Hirschig.
Several instances of the oblique for the
direct interrogation occur in Plato, if
the codd. are to be trusted; as érérepos,
Lysis 212 o, Euthyd. 271 a. droios,
Alcib. i. 110 c. But in Charm. 170 3,
for tatty TH emothun brws eloerau;
the edd. now give m@s on the strength
of one MS. The other instances are not
improbably neoterisms introduced by
copyists. No example has been adduced
from an Attic poet, where the oblique

9 , ‘ > 4 a ec “
OUTW SuaKeipevos Kat GaOvvaTOS WV EAUT@

form in the direct sense is required by
the metre, and till this is done the legi-
timacy of the usage may be doubted.

B. Towdrov wévro:| Compare the ex-
ordium of the Apologia, where Socrates
disavows the devdrns attributed to him
by his accusers.

Gmopeiv movotvra | He alludes of course
to the effect produced by his cross-ques-
tioning. This could not be made an
article of impeachment by his accusers,

C

but Socrates points to it in the Apol. as «

one principal cause of his unpopularity,
p- 23. The Comm. quote Menon 79 8,
Theaet. 149 a.

CO. mpdrrw Td tuérepoy 3) rTodTo]
‘Herein I am acting in your interest,
not in my own.’ Apol. 31 8, he makes
the same assertion: tév pév euavrod
amdvtwv huednnéva...7d 8 buérepov
mparrey ae... welOovra emimedciobat
dperijs. Similar is the expression, 455 0,
Kaue viv voucov Kal ro obv ometder.
After ore %AAo ovdéy supply of course
etw elmeiv.

—523, A.| TOPIIAS. 165

SN. Ei exetvd ye [ev] adrd badpyou, & Kaddixhes,
6 od TodddKis @poddynoas: ei BeBonOynkas «cin av7e@,
D pyre wept avOpamovs pte epi Oeods adicov pyndev pyre

eipnKas Te cipyaopmevos. avty ydp tis BoyOea éavt
modNaKis Hiv apoddyytar KpatioTn elvar. ei pev ovv

¥
enue tis e€edéyxou Tavtnv THY BoyPaav advvatov ovta
> a ee a + , x us dr n
€uavT@ Kat alr\w Bonfew, aioxvvoipny av Kat €v todXots
‘
Kal év ddiyous e€eheyydmevos Kal pdvos Ud mdvov, Kat €
»
dua tavtnv THY advvapiay amobvyoKou, dyavaKToiyny av.
2 \ a e A > , 4 ¥ mg
et S€ Kodakikns pyTopikns evdeia TehevTaynV Eywye, €v
ȴ , ra
Eotda OTe padiws dos av pe hépovta Tov Odvarov. avTo
\ ‘ ‘ > 4 > ‘ A 9 ‘\
pev yap 7d amobvyoKew oddeis hoBeitaL, atts py Tar-
, > /, , ‘\ ¥ 5 /, > ‘ de iO ”A
Tamacw ahdyiotés TE Kal avavdpds €aTL, TO OE GOLKELY
ag A“ ‘ > , id ‘\ ‘\ >
hoBeirar TodNGv yap ddiKnpatov yenovta THY WuxHV Els

9 > , 4 ¥ “A > ,
Avdov adixéo Oar TOVT@VY ETKATOV KAKWYV €oTly.

el O€

Bovdeu, coi éya, as TodTO oUTas exer, EHEAw Adyor heEat.

KAA.

TEepavov.

"ANN éretzrep ye kai Ta\Na erépavas, Kal TOTO

LXXIX. | 3. “Axove 57, daci, wdda Kadod dAdyov,

Ei éxeivd ye [év] a’rgG iwdpxo:] The
omission of évy is suggested by Heind.
Stallb. defends the prep. on the insuffi-
cient plea that imdapxo: has the force of
évefn. The phrase imdapxew tivi seems
invariable. ‘I think it would be well
with him if he stood on that vantage-
ground which you have frequently ac-
knowledged in the course of our argu-
ment. I meanif he had ‘helped himself’
by abstinence from injustice to men and
gods, whether in word or deed. For this
isa kind of self-help which we have more
than once allowed to be of all the best.”
With Bo7néea éavtg comp. Apol. 30 4,
Thy éuhv TG eG Exnpectav. Ib. D, wept
Thy Tov Geod Sdow Syiv.

D. d&yavaxtolny ty] In the Apology,
after his condemnation, he says, Td pev
ph G&yavaxreiv, & kvdpes “AOnvaio:, én
ToUT@ TH yeyovdti, Ste pov Karen-
ploacbe, %AAa TE wot WOAAG EvuBdAAETAaL,
kal ode avéAmotéyv por yéyove Td yeyo-
vos TovTO, 35 E.

E. abrb wey yap Td arobvicKew] Apol.
28 B, o} Kad@s Aé€yeis, ef oer Sety Klv-
duvoyv bworoyi{erOar Tod Civ H TeOvdvat
&vSpa Srov Tt Kal opixpdy Bpedos K.T.A.

523. “Axove 8h, acl, wdAa Kadrod
Aéyou] Here, as in the Republic, after
he has proved that, irrespectively of con-
sequences, Justice is better than In-
justice, Socrates adds a mythical account
of the rewards of the righteous and the
punishments of the wicked after death.
This in the Republic he prefaces by the
apologetic remark, that to dwell on the
subject of rewards is free (averlpOovor)
only to those who have shown on inde-
pendent grounds the superiority of suf-
fering virtue to prosperous wickedness,
the thesis which it was the professed
object of that dialogue to defend, x. 612.
In the Gorgias he has a different audi-
ence to deal with, and therefore makes
no apology for thus shifting his ground.
Still it is surprising to find him ex-
pressing his belief in the myths he is
about to relate: as GAnOq yap byTa oor
Adtw & MéAAW A€yerv. What however
Plato meant to convey, we may see in
Phaed. 114 p, where, after a recital dif-
fering from that of the Gorgias in its
scenery and accessories, he adds, 7d uév
ody TavTa Sucxupicacba obtws exew as
ey dieAfAvOa, ob mpémer vody ExovTs

166 IIAATQNOS [523, A

ie a ‘ x e , 06. e€ ae 2% de X s “

on " cig tial ta be Nhe pith esl 5 tae a bali hoyov

tressdos GAnOn yap dvTa co. héEw & pehho héyew. ‘Nowep yap

"Ounpos Neyet, SueveiwavTo THY apxny 6 Zeds Kat 6 Io-

cevoav Kal 6 IIovtTwv, ered) Tapa Tod maTpds mapé-

haBov. Av ody vopos 6d€ wept avOpadmrav emi Kpdvov,

Kal det Kal vov ete eotw ev Oeots, Tov avOpaTwv Tov

x , X , , EM Raper 2 > da

pev Sixatws tov Biov SuedOdvta Kal dciws, émeday Te-
AeuTHoy, cis pakdpwv vycovs amidvTa oiKew ev TAT B

> , > ‘ “A ‘ \ 3Q7 ‘ ° , >

evdaipovia exTds KaKav, Tov Sé adixws Kal abéws eis

X lal , , \ , / a on} ,

TO THs Tiveds Te Kal Sixns SeopwrTypvov, 6 57) TapTapov

an ~ Bed 4 \ ‘ oN , \ »

kahovow, iévat. TovTwv dé Sukacral emi Kpoven Kal ETL

vewoTl Tod Aids Thy dpynv Exovtos Cavres Hoav Cavron,

exe ™ mH pa wea Covres il a hovey TehevTaAv. KAKOS

ovv at Sixas éxpivovto. 6 Te ovv IIhovTwr Kai ot éme-

‘\ e | , ia 7 ” ‘ ‘ ,

AnTal ob EK paKadpwrv vHowY LovTEes EXeyov Tpos TOV Ata

avopl, Sri wévror } Tad’ éorly 4 To.ad7’
&rra wept Tas Wuxas hudv kal Tas oikh-
wets, wel wep abdivarr dv YE nh wuxh oal-
vetat otoa, TOUTO Kak mpémety pot SoKe?
kal &k.ov kiwdvvedoa oiouevm ofrws Exe.
And with this passage agree others, in
which Plato gives us hints of what he
intends by his mythical narrations. It
may be observed that of the three myths
referred to, that in the present dialogue
is much the simplest, and least removed
from the accepted popular mythology.
This difference may be due to considera-
tions of dramatic propriety; but it is
not easy to believe that Plato would
have written the recital in the Gorgias
after those in the Phaedo and Republic
were before the world. The passage
from “Akove 54 to adm’ GdAAhAaww, 524 B,
is quoted by Plutarch in the Consolatio
ad Apollonium, c. 36; the entire myth
by Eusebius in the Praeparatio Evang.
xii. p. 577, and by Theodoret, Graec.
Affect. Cur. For act Plut. has onet.
But ¢act refers to the conventional
beginning ~“Arove 6%, which recurs in
Tim. 20 p. So Arist. Equit. 1014,
“Axove 5) viv nal mpdcexe Tv vody euol.
The words following are given by Plut.
in a slightly different order: dy od pév
ANON, @s eye oiwat, miOov. eyGucu, for
the vulg. éy® oiuat, is restored from
Euseb. and Theodor.

“Qomrep yap “Ounpos Aéye] In the
15th Book of the Iliad, 186 fol., Tpe?s

yap 7° éx Kpdvov eiuey abdeAdeod ods
Téxero ‘Péa, Zebvs nal eye tplratos &
*Aldns evépoiow avdoowr, Tpix0a dé
mdvTa, SédacTa, Exacros F eupope Tyjjs.

B. tovtwy 5¢ dixaoral| ‘These, in the
reign of Cronus and even in the early
days of Zeus, were tried while yet alive
by Tiving judges, who judged them the
very day on which it was their fate to die.’
Plutarch has of S:cacral, which is clearly
wrong. For kax@s oby x.7.A. he gives
éreita ai dixat mws ov KaA@s éxplvovTo.
“In Aegypto, referente Diodoro, i. c. 92,
judicia de mortuis ad sepulturae diem
haberi solita sunt. Et multa Orpheus,
si modo verum narraverint Aegyptii, ex
hac regione transtulit in Graecorum
fabulas. Hine igitur originem suam
traxisse poterat commentum istud.”
Routh. Without putting faith in the
veracity of the Aegyptians, we may think
it probable that Plato was indebted for
this and other features of his story to
the Orphic poets.

of émmeAntal of éx wu. v.] The second
of is supplied from Plutarch. Without
it Pluto would be represented as coming
from the same region as the ‘ overseers
of the Isles of the Blest.’ Presently for
poirgev opy Plut. has . opiow, which
is much more usual in prose. But in
mythical narrative we sometimes find
these semi-poetical forms. éxarépwoe

means, of course, ‘to either place hat
of reward and to that of punishment.

—524, A.]

TOPTIAYX.

167

9 aA »
Odre horaev odw avOpwro. Exatépwoce avadgor. elev obdv

6 Zets, “AN éyd, €fy, Tavow TovTO yuyvdpevor.

vuv

pev yap Kax@s at Sixar SixdLovtar. dumeyduevor yap,

¥ c 4 4
Edy, Ol Kpwopevot KplwovTat’

Cavtes yap Kpivovtat. od-

ol ovr, 7 S ds, Wuxas Tovypas Exovtes Hudverpévor eici
oépatd Te Kaha Kal yé&y Kal Tovrous, Kal, émedav 7
Kpiots 7, EpXovTat avTots TohAot pdptupes, wapTupyaortes

as Sixaiws BeBidxacw.

e > a ae ,
Ol OUVV SukacTat VUTO TE TOUT@MV

> , A 9 . > ‘ > / ,
DéxTyTTovTal, Kal Gua Kal adTot apmrexdpmevor Suxdlover,

XA A a a e A 5 ‘ XN: Oe ‘
Tpo THS Wuyns THs avrav ddOarpovs Kal Gta Kal ddov Td

cGpa TpoKekahvppevot.

A S> =, , 2.
TAUTA ) QuTols TAaVTA E7L-

4 ‘ ‘ lal ~

mpoobev yiyvetat, Kat TA avTaV audicpata Kal TA TOV
\ » ¥

Kpwopévav. Tmpatov pev ovr, edn, TavaTéov éati Tpo-

4 > ‘\ QA ,
eLodtas avTovs Tov Oavaror"

A A — a
VUV yep Tpoloact, TOUTOC

Y > x St ¥ lal ai @ a 9 >» ,
pev ovy Kat 0H elpnTat T® IIpopynler oTws av tavoyn

EB avtav.

nw 4A nw -
veotas yap det Kpiver Oa.

‘ e ,
ETELTA ‘YULVOUS KpLTéov amavTwy TovTwV TEO-

\ x \ ° x
KQt TOV KpPLT)V Set YUPVOV

> la > A A ~ ‘ ‘ A
etvat, TeOvedTa, adTH TH WuyH avTHY THY Wynv Dewpodvra
e€aidvns amolavdvros ExaoTov, Epnuov TavTwy TaV ovy-

an \ ¥ , : ek"
yovev KQtL KQATQAALTIOVTA €77L

lal lal , “A
THS YHS TWavTa €xelvoy Tov

, Y , e ? - Fue \ > an >
Koopov, wa Sikaia y Kpiois p. eyw pev ody TadTa éyvw-
a “A 4 ‘\ a“ “
KOS TPOTEpOS 7H UpmeEls EToLnTdpHV SikacTas viels EuavTod,

524 S¥o pev ex THS Aatas, Mivw

D. eximpocbery] Plut. emimpdcOnois, a
word found in Aristotle, but unknown to
Plato. éxlapocGey has nearly the sense
of éumoddy, as Legg. i. 648 D, 7d Tijs
ai¢xivns erimpoobey mototmevos.

kal Sh_elpnta To Mpoundet—aitar]
‘This power ofders have already been

given fe Pevmihiens. shah he. sinse to
cease In_them’—‘ this power of theirs
he has had orders to suppress.’ Prome-
theus as the giver of foresight could also
take it away, according to a received
principle in Greek theology. Plato may
also have remembered the line in the
Prometheus 248, @yntovs 7 éxavoa ph
mpodépxeaOat wdpov, i.e. as he explains,
by making them hope against hope:
Tuparas ev abtois éAmldas katgxioa. For
avtéy, the reading of the best codd., some
give avtéy, others aitd ai7@, whence
Steph. aird abrav. But the construction

Te Kat “PaddpavOvr, | eva dé

of the genitive is usual enough, though
it seems to have perplexed transcribers.
E. 500 ev ex THs Acias] Both Minos
and Rhada ere born in Crete,
which we must therefore understand
Plato to class with the Asiatic islands.
According to the perhaps interpolated
passage in the Iliad, xiv. 322, they were
sons of Jupiter and Europa, the daughter
of Phoenix. Plato’s contemporaries seem
to have recognized only two capital divi-
sions of the earth’s surface. Isocr. Paneg.
p- 78, tiis yiis ardons tis bmd TE Kdopw
keméevns dixa TeTunméevns, Kal THs ev
*Aclas tis F Evpaéarns cadoupérns. Aegypt
and Libya were according to this division
parts of Asia; but I know no passage
except that in the text where Crete is so
represented. Olympiodorus indeed says,
ered} KaT& Tovs yewypdpous Tovs Sia-
podytas eis Sto Thy Kad’ judas oixoupervny

\

lagk

IAATQNOF

168 [ 524, A

éx ths Eipaays, Aiaxdv: obrou obv éreddv TehevTA ow,
Sucdcovow &v TO eipdvi, ev TH TPLdd@ e€ Hs hEepEeTov TH
65d, 4% pev eis paxdpwv vicous, 7 8 eis Tdptapov. Kat
rods pev ex THS Acias “PaddpavOus Kpwvet, Tods SE ex THs
Eipaans Aiakds’ Miro 8é rpec Beta ddécu, émduaxpivery,
ev dropyrév tT TH Erépw, wa as Suxavordryn } Kpiows 7

TEPL THS TO elas Tots avOpwrrats.
LUXXX. Tatr €otw, & KadXikdes, & eya aknKows

muotevw adynOn elvarr Kal éx TovTwy TOY héywr ToLdvd€E
/ / c , , + ¢€ > \
Tt hoyilopar ovpBaivew. “O Oavatos tvyxaver wv, as Emot
Soxei, ovdSév GAO H Svoly tpaypdrow Siddvors, THs Wuy7s
kal ToD Gwpatos, adm addAjdrow. eredav Sé SiatvOjrov
+ cee INR | 4 > \ @ e€ ld > “ »” \
dpa am ahdyjdouw, ov rod NTTOV EKaTEpoV avTOLW EXEL THY
e€w THv avTov nvmEep Kat OTe Ely 6 avOpwros, TO TE TOpa.
Thy piow THY avTod Kal Ta_Ocparedpara Kat Ta maby-
¥ 4 ) Pe 2 , = Sn
para, evdnda mavTa. olov el Twos péya HV TO Toma

}

dice 7 tpodn } ayddrepa Cavros, tovTov Kat émeday O

eis *Aclay Kal Etpdany, al h AiBbn Kat
4 Kphrn tis *Aolas edpioxero, but he
gives no authority for this statement,
nor for the stranger one that Rhada-
manthys Alfus jv.

524. ev TG Acmmani, ev TH Tpiddw] The
topography of the corresponding scene
in the Republic is slightly different. The
ghosts are there brought eis témoy tTivd
damdviov, é€v @ THs Te yas Sv earl
xdopara exouevw &AAHAOLW, Kal Tod od-
pavod ad ev TG tyw HAAG KaTayTiKpd.
The Aciudy is in the spurious Axiochus
converted into médiov GAnOelas, con-
cerning which see note to Phaedrus
248 B. For rpiddp comp. Virg. Aen. vi.
540.

Mivy 8& mpeaBeia 50w]| Minos enjoys
this precedence as Aids peydAou dapioThs,
Od. xix. 179. See the Minos, p. 319 seq.
Of Rhadamanthys it is said, “Padduavdus
Bt ayabds uty Hy avhp, éremaldevto pévror
ovx Any thy Baciruchy Téxvny, GAN’
brnpeclay TH Bacirinh, Soov emortareiv
év Trois Sikacrnpios. 80ev Kat Sinaorhs
Gyabds eA€xOn elvat: vopoptaakt yap
aitae éxpitro 6 Mivws Kard 7d torr.
Ib. 8320 B. Minos is accordingly made a
‘judge of appeal’ in doubtful cases. In
the Apol. 41 A, Socrates adds to the
three the name of an Attic hero Tripto-

lemus, whose duty it would be to try
departed Athenians.

B. émeiddy 5 diarvOjrov &pa]| ‘And
when accordingly they are separated the
one from the other, each retains with
little alteration the condition it had while
the person lived ; the body preserving its
natural characteristics, and the results of
training or accident all still traceable upon
it—for instance,” Ke: e apodosis to re
seems to be forgotten, but is represented
by tabrby 54 wor Sone? inf. D. wabhuara
denotes the effects of impressions from
without, Oepameduara those of self-treat-
ment, whether in reference to health or
appearance.

C. 2) G&uddrepa] ‘or in both ways.’
This adverbial use of augérepa is illus-
trated by Heind. on Charm. 303 pb
(where however &udorépas is found in
nearly all the codd.). Laches 187 a,
melbwpev 2 Sdpors } Xdprow 2) aupdrepa.
See above 477 D, avig—i) BAdBn—F
aupérepa. Different but analogous is the
Homeric usage with augédrepov. Od. xiv.
505, ’Aupdrepoy, pirdrnti kal aidot pwrds
éjos. Comp. Il. iii. 179. oddérepa and
érétepa, as Stallb. remarks, are used in
the same manner, Theaet. 184 a, Gorg.
469 A.

—525, A. | TOPTIAS. 169

= , e 4 , os , N A Lis
amolavn 6 vexpos péyas’ Kal €i Tayvs, Tayds Kal dzro-
\ > A
Oavdvtos, Kat TaANa OVTwS. Kal ei ad éeTHSevEe KOMar,
4 ‘
KOPHTHS TOVTOV Kal 6 veKpds. pacTuyias ad Et Tis HY Kal
¥ > nq An A
ixyn €ixe TOV TANYaV ovdaS EV TH GHpati 7} UTd pacTi-
Hn, ¥ A A A
yov 7} ad\wv tpavpdtev Cov, Kal TeOvedtos TO THpa
¥ > La) cal
eotw ideiy Tadta exov. KaTeaydTa Te el Tov HY MEAN 7H
Sieotpaypéva Ldvtos, kal teOvedros TavTa Tadra evdyda.
D évt d€ hoya, olos eiva acto TO capa Cav, &vdyndr
dy@, olos eivar TaperKevacTo TO oGpma Cav, evdnha
lal \ ‘ ,
TavTa Kal TehevTHOaYTOS 7 TaVTA 7 TA OANA emi TWA
xpovov. tavtov Sy pow Soxet Todt apa Kal wept TH
2 a
wWoynv elvar, & Kaddixdeus* evdnha. TdvTa €oTiv ev TH
WI érevoav yupready TOU THpaTos, TA TE THs pdocws
Kal Ta wabhipara a & dua my emiTHoevow ExdoToU apy
patos €oyev ev TH Wuyn 6 avOpwros. *Ezedav obv adi-
K@VTAaL Tapa Tov SuKaoTHy, ot pev ek THS “Acias Tapa
ETov “PaddpavOuv, 6 “PaddpavOus éxeivouvs éemuotyoas
a“ c , " 4 > > \ 9 > 7 > ‘\
Oearar Exdorov Thy Wryyv, ovK Eidas dTov éativ, adda
modhdkis TOU peyddov Bacitéws eribaBdpevos 4 addov
c an , ry , A 2QA\ eS nA
dtovovv Baciréws } Suvdarov Kateidev ovdev vytés dv THs
Wis, aha Stapewacrryaperny Kat ovA@y peorhy vd

} Vaz

525 €miopKiav Kal ddixias, & | ExdoTtw 4 mpakis avTov éfo- pee Sx,
=

popgar o eis THY bux, Kal mdvTa oKohia vmod WevSous — 2

Kat al dhaLovetas Kal ovoey evOd dua Td avev adyfeias «
teOpddbar Kal imd e€ovoias Kal Tpudys Kai VBpews Kai
dxpatias Tov mpdgewv dovpperpias TE Kal aloypdryTos

ee peng

paorvylas a8] ‘Once more, if he was
some wretched gaol-bird who bore traces
of the blows he had received when alive,
whether inflicted with the lash or other-
wise, in the shape of scars upon his
body.’ yagriylas answers to ‘knight
of the post.’ Germ. ‘ Galgenstrick.’

E. éxelvouvs ériothoas| ‘ Rhadaman-
thys causes them, the spirits from Asia,
to confront him (has them up before
him), and inspects each one separately,’
&e. Kareidey oddty Syiés bv—‘he finds
there is no soundness in it—that it is
seamed all over and covered with scars,
the effect of perjuries and wrong-doing
—the foul traces left upon the soul of
each man by his past conduct.’ Pre-

sently we have d«parifas, an old form.
Euseb. axparefas, perhaps rightly, for
this seems the favourite form in Plato,
who nowhere uses &xpacta, which is com-
mon in later Attic. See Lobeck, Phryn.
p- 525. With this picture of a mind
diseased may be compared the image of
the battered and weedy sea-god, Repub.
x.61l1c. Also the well-known passage
in Tacit. Ann. vi. 6, ‘“ Neque frustra
praestantissimus sapientiae firmare soli-
tus est, si recludantur tyrannorum men-
tes, posse adspici laniatus et ictus;
quando, ut corpora verberibus, ita sae-
vitia, libidine, malis consultis, animus
dilaceretur.”

170

, ‘ ‘ 5
yemovoay Thy wuyny cider.
> ‘\ ial a
Tepper evOd THs hpovpas,
Ta TpoonKovTa TaOn.

LXXXI. Ipoorjne dé

ITAATQNOZ

[ 525, A

sQAn \ 9_&f 4 bd id
idav dé atiwws TavTny areé-

of péd\der EMovoa avathnvar

\ ee. Ae ¢ 9
TAVTL TM EV TLULWPLA OVTL, UT

addov plas Tynwpovpeve, 7 Bedtiove yiyverOar Kat dvi-
Xx , a » , ° ¥

vacOar } wapade’ypate Tots aAdous yiyverOar, wa addou

6pavres TagxovTa & av maoyyn PoBovpmevor Bedriovs

yiyvevrat.

a et \ e \ > , , ‘ /
cial dé ot pev adedovpevoi te Kal Sixnv

, €. IN lal Kee? , @ A re ee
dvdovTes vTO Oeav TE KQL avOparav OUTOL Obl GV LADLAA

GpmapTHwaTa apapTocw

9 \
opos S€
> lal 4 > “a e > "4

dduvav yiyvetar avtois 7 adpédeva
"Avdov' ov yap oldv te a\AwS GOuKias

du ddynddvev Kai
Kat évOdde Kai év

amad\arter bat. ot

> K A y > la \ ‘ “ > "4
fs) av TH ETKATA GOuKHOwo’ KQL dua TOLQVUTA GOUKH ara.

dviatro. yévwvTal, ék TovTwv Ta Tapadelypata yiyverat,

A a > x A a) , ew b) 4 A ey 3
Kal o0TOL avTol ev ovKEeTL dvivavTaL OvdeV, aTE aviaToL
»¥ » nae ete e ¥ ¢ A XN ‘\ €
OvTes, GAAoL O€ dvivavTat ol TOVTOUS SparTes Oia TAS apap-

lA i /, ‘\ 3 , ‘\ , ,
tias TA péytoTa Kal ddvvypdtata Kail doBepdtata may
TéoxXovTas TOV GEL xpdvor, ATEXVGs Tapadelypara dyyp-

525. eb0b_tiis ppoupas] ‘straight to
the placé of. custody. ‘ympiodorus,
and, according to Ast, the Cod. Vind. 1
have «dvs, a v. 1. not noticed by Bekk.
The distinction is familiar. Phryn. Ecl.
p. 144, Ev@u- moddAol avr) tov eddds.
Siapéper Se 7d ev yap témxov early
ed0d "AOnvay, Td 5& xpdvov. He ought
vather to have said opas or metaBoAjjs
témov early. Lysis, init., emopevduny éf
*Axadnulas «v0 Avxelov. edOts is very
frequently topical, as Thuc. vi. 96, xwptou

. tatp tijs médAews evObs Kemevov,
where «64 would have been incorrect.
On the other hand, most of the passages
in which «dvs is put for ed@d either
have been or may easily be corrected.
Perhaps the only certain instance of this
kind is the well-known line, Eur. Hipp.
1197, rhy ed0ds”Apyous Kamdauplas d5dv.
ppoupd for Secuwrthpioy or Sicawthprov
occurs Phaedr. 62 B.

Mpoohke: 5¢ maytl TO ev Tim. byTi]
Plato recognizes no other uses of punish-
ment than the corrective and the ex-
emplary. See note to 505 B, and com-
pare Critias init., dfmn 5& 6p) Tov wAnu-
peAodvTa éupeAH morety. The same was
the opinion of Protagoras, if we may
draw that inference from its occurrence

in the speech, Protag. 324 a, ef e6éAes
évvojnga: Td KoAdCew, @ SHKpares, Tos
Gdikovvtas ttl mote Sdbvara, a’Ttd ce
diddker, Fre of ye &vOpwmor jryobvTat wapa-
oKevacroy clvat apeThv. ovdels yap KoAd-
(et Tovs GdikodyTas mpos ToiT@ TY Vodv
zéxwv kat rodrov evexa, bri Hdlknoev,
doris ur dowep Ohpiov adroyiorws Tiynw-
petra 6 dé wera Adyou emixeipoy KoAd-
Ce ov TOU mapeAnaAvOdtos Evera ddiKh-
Paros TinwpetTat—ov yap dy Té ye Tpax-
Bev ayévyntov Oeln—GAAA Tod meAAOVTOS
xdpw, va ph adds adichon phte adds
odTos whre &AAos 6 Tovroy idav KodAac-
6évra. And this is the view which seems
to have commended itself to the civilized
Greek mind generally. The notion of
‘satisfaction’ shows itself however in
some of the details of the myths at the
end of the Republic, 615 B.

B. audprwow] Three codd., according
to Bekk., give the solec. auapthawow.

ov yap oidy Te %AXws | This and similar
passages in Plato doubtless laid the
foundation of the theological idea of a
purgatory, which seems to have been
alien from the native Hebrew mind.

©. drexyvas| As usual, the particle
apologizes for as expression. “Lite:

une

rally hung up as warnings in that

B

6)

eel

—526, B. | TOPTIAY. 171

, > (at Be Oe 8 > nw PS) , “ > N “
THpEévous exe ev Aldov €v TH Seapornpie, Tots del. TOV
D iO > / 0. 7 ‘ 0 , se > 7
adikov adixvovpevois Oedwata Kat vovlerjpata. av éyd
bid x, 3 ¥ > lal ~
one eva Kat Apyédaov evecGar, ci adnOn déyes I1@Xos,
¥” na
Kat addov datis Gv ToLodTos TUpavvos 7. olpar dé Kal
Tovs Toddods elvar TOUTMY TOV TapaderypaTwY eK TUpav-
vev Kat Baciéwv kat Suvvactav Kal Ta TOV TOMEwWY TPA€-
dvTwv yeyovdtas’ otto. yap Sia tHv e€ovciay péyrora
Kal dvooiTaTa apapTypata apapTdvovalt. paptuper dé
TovTows Kat Opunpos: Baciiéas yap Kal Suvdortas éxetvos
Ememoinke Tovs ev “Aidov Tov del ypdvov TYLwpovpevous,
Tdévtadov Kai Siovdov kat Tirvdv. Oepoirny dé, Kai «&
Tis GdAos rovynpds Hv ididtys, oddels wemoinke peydhats
TYyL@piais TUVEXdmEvov ws aviaTov ov ydp, oipat, e&nV
ne 8 X ~ os b) , a, a ASF os) iG ,
avT@ 810 kal evdayovéatepos Hv 7 ots env. adda yap,
> K rr X > na 8 , 8 ‘ e 73)
® KadXikdets, €k Tov Suvapevar eigi Kai ot ofddpa Tovn-
‘\ , >» 3QX ‘ , a po
526 pou | yryvopevot av pwtrou ovdev pny K@dver Kal ev TOU-
> 0. ‘ ¥ 5 > 7 A 3) »¥
Tos ayabods avdpas éyylyverbar, kal opddpa ye agvov
dyaoOa, Tov yryvopévwr: xadewov yap, ® Kadd{ixXers,
‘ a 93 , * > , > , A iO ‘a
Kal To\Xod éraivov afiov év peyddy eLovaia Tod aduKety
yevopevov Sikaiws SiaBidvar. ddiyou S€ yiyvovTar ot
lal > ‘ po. 0 45) x, /, > Se
TovovTow eel Kat evOdde Kai addrofi yeydvacw, oipar de
= i
Kat €govTat Kado Kayalol tavTnv THY apeTHY THY TOD
Bdukaiws Suayepilew & av tis emitpéemp’ cis Sé Kal wave
e\Adyyos yeyove Kal eis Tovs addous “EdAnvas, *Api-
‘s e , € Se lo. aa; \
aTeions 0 Avowdyov. ot d€ TodAol, @ aploTE, KaKOL
ylyvovta: Tov SuvacTav.

geon down in Hades.’ Olympiodorus
refuses to take tov del xpédvoy literally,
and understands by the words the péyas
éviavtés, or period in which the heavenly
bodies recover their relative position:
Togatta ern KoAdera: boa apKet mpds
Thv guvaroxatdotaciv. Comp. Phaedr.
256 E.

D. ’ApxéAaov | So in the similar myths,
Rep. x., *Apdiaios 6 wéyas is mentioned
by name as one of the hopelessly lost,
615 co. Kings and potentates, temporal
and spiritual, occupy prominent places
in the Judgment-pieces of the Catholic
painters, as particularly in those of Fra
Angelico.

E. ob yap—étiv avrg] We must un-
derstand peydAa GuapThata Guaprdvey.
Whatever may have been the animus of
Thersites, his power, fortunately for him-
self, was limited by reason of his low
estate.

526 B. *Apioreidns 6 Avowdxov] On
this passage Olymp. makes the following
curious remark : dt: dé «ad abtds (5 "Api-
oreldns) ovn hv eis &xpov wodutinds SiAov,
bri Kal Kak@s @rade, nal bri 7 Kwouwdla
onol wept avtov, Sri emi *Apioreidov
dikatov ovdev ovdapod yéyove vedt-
tiov. The comic line is omitted in
Meineke’s collection. The poet seems to
have meant that, righteous as Aristides

172 ITAATNNOS [ 526, B

y

LXXXII. "Omep ody édeyov, éredav 6 ‘PaddpavOus
> a en WE , ¥ \ \ > la) > i
Exeivos ToLovToV Twa Aa By, GAO pev Epi avTOU OdK OldEV

2Q7 ¥—Q> xa? @& 9 \ , \
ovdev, of dotis ov Gvtwov, dt. S€ movnpds Tis Kal
TovTO KaTLOMY amémeprbev eis TdpTapov, emianunvapevos,
édy TE idomwos éedv Te aviatos SoxH elvarr 6 S€é exeloe
3 ey", \ , , 27 >» Fy
apiKdpevos TA TpTHKovTAa TaaxEL. Eeviore O ahdnv eior-

A ec / A“ ‘\ 2 22 , > ‘ > ,
dav dciws BeBioxviay Kat per adyOeias, dvdpds idudrov
addov Tivds, patiota pev, eywyé dnt, @ Kadd{xdets,
dpiiocddov Ta avTod mpd€avTos Kai od mokumpaypory-
cavtos €v TO Biv, hyaoOn Te Kal €s paKkdpwv vycovs
> A > ‘\ lal \ c > la e , \ ,
dmérepype. TavTA TadTa Kat 6 Aiakds. ExdTEpos S€é TOv-

er 4 , ec \ 4 > “ 4
Tov paBdov éywv dSuxaler. 6 5€ Mivaws emirxotav KkaOynrar
povos €xav xpvoodv oKnTTpov, as dnow “Odvaceds 6
“Oprpov ety adrov
xpvocov oxyrtpov exovra, Oeuroredvovta véxvoow.

"Eyo pev ovv, ® Kaddikdeus, td TovTay ToV éoyov
TETELOPAL, Kal TKOT@® OTWS aTopavovpat TH KplTH ws
vyieoTaTyny THY WuyHV. yaipew ovv edoas Tas TYLAS TAS
Tov Toh\hov avOpdrwv, THY adjPeav oKoTaV TeELpa-

“~ 4 e a PS) i 4 xa ‘ “ \
coat TO ovTL ws av Svvwpat BédAtLaTOS dv Kal Chv Kai

sense Ta abrod mpdtret. But here Plato

may have been, his example was not
followed by the youth of his generation.
émionunvdpuevos, edy Te| ‘denoting by
a mark whether he may think him
curable or incurable; i.e. distinguish-
ing the curable from the hopeless cases
by separate marks. A similar detail
occurs in the Rep. 1.1. p. 614 ©, rods
dixacrds ...Tovs mev Sixalovs Kedcderv
mopeverOar Thy eis Setlay .. . onpueta
mepidaytes tay Bdedixacuevov ev TE
mpdcbev' rovs dt Gdikous Thy eis Gpi-
orépay...éxovtas kal tovtouvs ev Te
bmicbev onucia mavtwv ev expatav.

C. ididTrov— 7d adrod mpdtaytos |
Readers of the Republic are aware that
a special meaning is there given to the
phrase ‘to mind one’s own business.’
B. iv. p. 483 a, 871 ye 7d Ta abrod
mparrewv Kal wh mroAuTpayyoveiy Sikaco-
ctvn éott, kal TodTO HAAwY TE TOAAGY
axnkdapev Kat avrol moAAdxts eiphraper.
The righteous man acts always in con-
formity with the law of his nature,
which subordinates appetite and passion
to reason. He therefore in the truest

may use the phrase to denote the sin-
gle-minded devotion to his calling which
distinguished Socrates. Comp. Apol.
31 £, where, after pointing out the
causes which made it impossible for him
to take part in public affairs, he adds,
dvaykaidy éort Thy TE bvTL paxovmevoy
brtp tod Sixatov Kal ef méAAEL GALyov
xpdvov cwOhoecOat, idiwrevety GAAG MH
Snmooteverv.

éxdrepos—véxvootv] This passage Ast
and Heind. agree in thinking an inter-
polation, but, as it seems to me, on quite
insufficient grounds. The quotation is
from the Odyssey, xi. 569.

D. cKor® brws aropavodua] ‘I study
how I shall present my soul to the
judge’s eye in the healthiest possible
condition.’ dod. as a middle transitive
is extremely common; not so as a middle
neuter. Hence the folly of the old in-
terpolation xy, inserted before thy
Wuxhv, as if dmropavodua: were used for
pavovpat.

0)

D

— 527, 0.| TOPTIAS. 173

> ‘ 3 , be) 4 ~ ‘\ ‘ ‘
E érevdav atobvycKw amobvyoKev. Tapakada Sé Kal Tods
+ , > , . 9 4 \ . ‘
addovs tavtas avOpérovs, Kal’ doov Sivapat, Kat 87) Kal
G€ GvTLTApaKah® emi TovTOV Tov Biov Kal Tov ayava TOv-
a ae. > \ , A > , > , >
Tov, Ov éyd dye avti ravtav tov evOdde aydvewr eivat,
Ses , 9 5 @s es n A
Kat dverdila aor dtu ovx olds T exer cavTa BonOjoa,
4 e 82 oy \ ¢ , A Le) on 3 ‘ ¥
oTav 1 OlKN GOL H Kal } Kplo.s HY viv On Ey@ €Edeyor,
> ‘ > ‘ bn ‘ \ » nw aS cs
ahha €Mav apa tov SikacTHy Tov THs Alyivyns vidr,
- , > , y 4 a a
527 €revddv cov | emdaBopevos ayn, xaopyoe Kal ihuyyid-
SSS a Bi STN > , Vga A , ¥ 4
wets ovdev HrToV H eyw evOdde ov Exel, Kai w€ Lows TUTTH-
oe TLS Kal emt KdPpys aTiws Kal TavTwS TpoTHaKLEL.
, > 9S n n , nA va 9
Taxa & ovv tadta pvOds cou Soke éyer Oar, Gomep
, \ A 21 ‘ LANE > x s
ypa0s, Kat Katadpovels aitav. Kai ovdev y’ av Hv Oav-
<Y¥..1 nw ¥ a
pactov Katadpovety TovTwY, El Ty CnTodYTES ELyomeV adTOV
, >» RE , e A a es: 9 a UM»
Bedtio Kai ddybéotepa edpetvs viv Sé pas OTe TpEts ovTES
e a 9 , ye lal la e 4 4 ‘
vpels, olTEep GopeTatol eaTe TOV VUY EANVwY, OV TE Kal
BII@\os Kai Topyias, ovk eyere dmodeiEar ws Set addov
twa Biov Lyv TovTov Gomep Kal éxetoe haiverar ovp-
4 > tM 4 ¢ A“ ¥ > 4
dépav, add’ Ev To~ovToLs Adyous TOV adr\wv eheyyopevav
/ kg > mae / e > i4 > ‘ x tS)
fOvos OUTOS NpELEl 6 Adyos, ws evVAaByTEov EoTi Td adi-
a fn << > A + . lal 5 A
kely padov % TO adiKetoOar, Kai mavTds paddov avdpi
, > ‘ Py A > > ‘ > ‘ ‘ > x
pedeTntéov ov 70. doxel eivar ayafdyv adda 76 €ivat, Kai
3Q7 2 ia 3N\ 4 4 >! 4
idia Kal Snpooig: éav Sé tis KaTd Te KaKds yiyryTat,
id ‘\ “A
Kohagtéos é€ott, Kal TodTO SevTepoy ayaldv pera TO elvat
0 dixawov, 7d yiyverOar Kat Kohaldpevov Siddvar Sixnv:

E. aytimapakak@®]| Callicles had ex-
horted Socrates to the rhetorico-political
life, p. 521 a. Socrates replies by an
invitation to a life of self-culture in
preparation for a contest which, as he
affirms, outweighs in importance all the
contests of the dicastery.

527. xacuhoe nal iAryyidoes | ‘ Before
that tribunal you shall gasp and be
ready to swoon, even as I might before a
human court.’ In the next clause Heind.
suspects em! xdpins, and Cobet kai and
ariuws, Vv. Li. p. 341. It is true that
a blow em) «éppns of itself implies art-
pwots, but to object to so slight a re-
dundaney seems to me _ hypercritical.
The «ai is supplied from the best MSS.
It would in strictness have come before
tumThoe:, but the transposition is far

from unprecedented. Socrates here re-
torts upon Callicles his own words,
iryyidns by Kal xacugo obk Exwv 6 tT
elrots, 486 B. dv dé To1odTor, ef Tt Kar
aypoidrepoy eipjoOa, tear em Kdppns
TintovTa mh Siddévac Sienv, ib. c. With
the entire passage compare Theaet. 175
D, where the rhetorician is represented
as suffering in a similar manner in pre-
sence of the philosopher.

B. ékeioe| ‘in the other world, when
we get there” Presently—pepe?
* stands its nd,’ ‘remains unshaken.’
jpeueiv is in other dialogues opposed to
peiy or kiveto@a, and equiv. to éordva.
Soph. 248 8, thy obctay .. . KiveicOan
da 7d tdoxew, 6 5h Hauer odk by yevéo-
Oat wept To jpewody.

K'

174: IITAATQNOX TOPTIAS.

XN A , \ ‘ & 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Kal Tacay KohaKeiay Kal THY TEpL EavTOV Kal THY TEpL
\ » \ AO 3 4 ‘ ‘\ 4 /
Tovs aAAovs, Kal Tept dAtyous Kat mEpt Tmohovs, phevKTEor"

lal lal ‘ “A
Kal TH PHTOpiKH ovTw xpHaTéor, éEmt TO Sikavoy del, Kal TH
adn aon pager.
‘ >
LXXXIII. ’Epot otv reOdpevos axodovOnoov év-
~ m 2d , i) , XQ an Q
Tad0a, ot adixopevos evdayovyoers Kat Cov Kal Tedev-
THOUS, WS 6 Adyos ONpaiver. Kal €aody Td TOV KaTa-
dpovncar ws avorrov Kal mpoTndakioa, é€av Bovdyrat,
“A +
Kal vai pa Ala ov ye Oappav ward€at THY aTimov TavTHV D
, 2Q\ \ . 4 =) 98 a 4 > x
Tmr(nynv: ovdev yap Sewov meioe, av TO OVTL Hs Kadds
Kayalds, GoKOv apeTHv. KaTELTA OVTW KOWH aoKy-
oavres, TOTE HON, eav SoKH yxpHnvat, éemiOnodpueBa Tots
qTONLTLKOLS, 1) OTFOLOV a niv SoKy, TOTE Bovrevo dpc
Ss, } Omovov av TL Hpty OoKN, opela,
, + , x» “ > be ‘\ ¥ ,
Bedriovs dvtes Bovhever Oar } viv. aioxpov yap ExovTds
a“ +
ye os vov dhawopucla eyew, ererta veavieverOar ws TL
Lal ‘ ~ na
6vTas, ols ovdemoTe TavTa SoKel Tepl TOV avTar, Kal
A A fal V4
TavTa TEepl TOV peylioTwY Eis TOTOUTOY HKoMEv amat- E
Y > e , a ,
Sevoias. waomep ovv nyenove T@ Adyo xpnodpcla TO
vov tapadavertt, Os Huy onpatver OTL OvTOS 6 TpdrTOS
» A , ‘ N § , \ N ¥
apistos Tov Biov, Kat THY SiKatoovryyY Kal THY adAAnv
dpernv doKouvtas Kai (nv Kat TeOvdvar. TovTw ody éro-
\ \ >” la) ‘ > 7 @ ‘
peOa, Kal Tods addovs Tapakalopev, pH exeivw © OD
, ees “Se \ a . ¥ =
TLTTEVOV EME Tapakadels’ EaTL yap ovdevds akios, @ Kad-
hikdets.

©. a&koAdovdnaor évradda] ‘Go with me
in pursuit of that which when attained
will secure your well-being in either
state of existence.’ évrav@a with verbs
implying motion is very common in
Plato, e. g. évrada eAnavdauer, Rep. iv.
445 B.

D. Kal val wa Ala od ye] ‘Nay, fear
not to let him inflict upon you that
last indignity, the blow with the open
palm.’ éacoy must of course be supplied
before wardta:. The proposed méraga,
‘let yourself be struck,’ is a mere
barbarism introduced by Stephen on
next to no authority, and was properly
expelled from the text by Routh, though

afterwards patronized by Van Heusde.
The latter quotes, in illustration of rhv
&rimoy mAnyhv, Lucian Necyom. p. 481,
Kata Képpns waduevos, Somwep Tay avdpa-
médov Ta &TiméTaTa: With which we
may compare Plato’s language in p. 508
0, eiul éml +rG Bovdouevw, daowep of
&rimo.,... tv te toate BovAnrar...
ért xépins. Readers of the Midias will
remember the blow én «éfsns which
Alcibiades inflicted upon Taureas, De-
mosth. p. 562. Add Chrysostom on 8S.
Matth. v. 39, nal évrad0a thy wdAtora
Sonotoav elvar mAnyhy émovelb-
oTov, Thy emt ciaydvos, Kal moAAhv
Exovoay Thy bBpw Tébeke.

APPENDIX.

+

THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS.

Tue fragments of Gorgias have been collected by his biographer
Foss, by Spengel in his Artium Scriptores, and by Mullach, in the
second volume of his Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum. Few
as these are, enough remains to enable us to form a judgment of the
truth of Plato’s representations of his style, both in the Phaedrus
and in the elaborate imitation contained in the Symposium. The
most considerable by far, and in every way the most important of
these fragments, is preserved in the Scholia to the treatise wept iSedv
of the Greek rhetorician Hermogenes*. This writer (who lived in
the time of Hadrian), in his chapter repi cenvéryros, after citing with
measured praise certain bold Demosthenic metaphors, contrasts with
them an instance of counterfeit sublimity taken from a speech of
Gorgias, whom however he does not name: zapadetypa rovrov
AnpocGevixov otk av AdBors, ov8e yap éott. Tapa 8 Trois trokdAors
TovTot codpictais taprodAa eipos av. tddovs Te yap éuwvtxovs?
Tovs yiras Néyovoww, dvrep ciot padwora aétot, Kal adda. roatra Yuyxpev-
ovrat mdap7rodAa. In a later passage, too, he censures ‘‘ Polus and
Gorgias and Menon” for their pompous and pretentious way of
writing : daiverar St Adyos Sewvds, odk dy TowtTos . . 6 TdY codiaTav,
A€yw tav wept TdAov wat Topyiav wai Mévwva x.t.d. (repli id. B.).
On this his annotator Planudes remarks: Avoviows év 76 Sevrépw
mept xapaxrypev wept Topyiov rade pyciv, Stu THs id€as tdv abrod AGyov
Towovros 6 xapaxTyp* eyKxwpidler S& Tods év ToAguw apiotevoavTas Tov
"AOnvaiwv. “Ti yap damiv tots dvipdct tovras dv Set avdpdo. zpoc-
“evar; ti Se Kal mpoony dy ov Set mpoceivar; ciety Suvainny & Bov'-
Nouat, Bovdoipny Se & det, AaSdv pev tH Geiav véperw, pvydy SF rov
1 Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz. iii. pp. 226, 362, compared with v. p. 548.

2 The author of the treatise aep) thous, c. iii. 2, attributes the metaphor to
Gorgias.

176 THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS,

“avOpimwov pOdvov. Otbrow yap exéxtyvto evOcov pev tHv aperny,
“ évOpdrwov 88 76 Ovyrov: woAAGd pev 8) 7 F rapov *F erveckés TOD adOadous
“8ixatov mpoxpivovres, TOAAG Se vduov axpyBeias Adywv épOdryTa, TodTO
“c , , \ s , N s 3 a , \
vouilovres Oevdratov Kal Kowdtatov vdémov, Td déov év TO Séovte Kat
“ Néyew Kat ovyav kat roveiv*, kal diusod aoxjoavres pariota dv dei,
“wopnv *xat pounv*®, riv pev Bovdevovres tHv 8 daoredotvtes, Oepa-
“cc \ cal LOU 8 4 Aa ‘ be cal 40U 3 4
movres pev TOV Gdikws SvoTvxovvTov, KoAacTat Sé Tay Gdikws edTLXOVVTWY,
“ce > io ‘ \ , s/s \ A Va a , ee
avOddes mpos Td cvuépov, edopynto. mpos TO Tpérov, TO Ppovipw THs
“ wouns TavovTes TO appov * rs hops * °, bBpioral eis HBpiards, Koop.or Eis
TOP? POP TS PEGS 9 Uiee p 9 KOO
“rods kooplous, apofot eis rods apdBovs, Sevot ev Tots Sewois. paptupias
“$2 rovrwv Tpdraa éoryoavTo Tov ToAEpiov, As pev aydApara’, rovTwv
“$82 dvabjpata, obk amepor ote euditov “Apeos, ovre vouipwv épwrwv,
“ ore évorrAlou épidos, ovre hiAoKdAov cipyvys, cEvot pev mpds TOvs Deods
“eo 8 7 ay 32 x N s ~ 6 fo, Si, x NALS A.
T@ Sixai, dovot O€ pos TOs ToKEas TH Ceparreia,, Sikaroe pds TOS GoTOVS
a s A X \ \ , lal , ‘s a a.
“7G low, edoeBeis S& mpds Tos idovs TH Ticre: Tovyapody adTdv
* érobavovrwv 6 700s od cvvarébaver, GAN abdvaros ev fovk t dcwpdrors®
“Gcdpac. h od fdvtwv.” Seuvas yap évratOa cuvpdopjoas Aékes 6
T s > , > Xr , ef Err ~ s Se
opyias évvotas éruroAaotépas efayyéAAct, Tols Te trapicors Kal dp010-
Terevrois Kal SpovoxatdpKtos KaAAwrilwv SudAov mpookdpws® tov Adyov.
In reading this fragment of the Epitaphius (probably its per-
oration), we are disposed to concur on the whole in the censure of
the Scholiast, echoing that of Hermogenes. The ideas are, with some
exceptions, ‘superficial,’ the assonances tedious, and the sacrifice of
sense to sound, perspicuity to point, manifest throughout. Yet
3 mapédv obviously is corrupt. The easiest remedy, so far as the letters go, would
be to substitute mpaov, and this was suggested by Spengel and adopted by the
Ziirich edd. rightly, as I think. Mullach adopts the ingenious conjecture of Foss,
map.ev (‘indulgent,’ ‘ yielding’), which gives an apt sense, though I should like to
see another example of this adjectival use of the active participle. The perf.
mapemévoy would give nearly the same sense, and is more accordant with usage.
4 Here, in order to create a second antithesis, Sauppe has introduced into the text

the words xa} éav, and that, or something equivalent, seems to be required. Perhaps
kal wociv Kal wh wotety.

5 kal founv. These words do not occur in the codd., but were introduced, not
without necessity, by Foss. The antithesis of yvéun and péun occurs Aristoph. Av.
637.

6 ris pouns, introduced into the text by Sauppe.

7 Ads wey Gyddwara. Comp. Eurip. Phoen. 1473, ds 8 évixduev udxy, Of wey
Abs tpowaioy toracay Bpéras. Heraclid. 936, Bpéras Aids tpomalov KkadAlyvixoy
ioracav.

8 So3 codd. Al. 40. obk év dBavdrois. Ald. obk év dowudros. If we read as in
the text, the ob« dc0duatra céuara must refer to the aydAuara named above. Walz
prefers 4. év obk a0avdros odpaowv, the meaning of which escapes me. év dowudrors
oépaciv was proposed by Hermann, which, though enigmatical, is perhaps best of
all. I should refer it to their “bodiless forms” still haunting the minds of the
survivors.

9 So Walz. Al. mpds xépov. But the adverb is found in Hermogenes, who
also frequently uses rpooxophs, as does Aristotle in the Rhet.

THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS. 177

there runs through the whole a certain loftiness of sentiment which
seems to take Gorgias out of the category of “ gingerbread sophists*”
to which Hermogenes condemns him. Some of the antitheses, as
those of émvexés and dixaov, vduos and Adyos, are true, and were
possibly new: and though others are little more than verbal, the
same may be said of many of the antithetic clauses which stud the
earlier speeches in Thucydides. We can well understand that the
historian should have incurred the blame of ‘ Gorgiasm’ at the hands
of the ancient critics: and it seems probable that the funeral
oration which he puts in the mouth of Pericles, admirable as it is,
may have owed some part of its spirit, as well as its style, to the
earlier effort of Gorgias*. And though there can be no comparison
between the sparkling ingenuity of the Sicilian rhetorician, and the
vivid and penetrating intellect of the historian—that “ philosopher
not of the schools ”— it is something to have aided in the formation
of a style like that of Thucydides, which was itself the model of that
of the first of Attic orators. In general there can be little doubt
that the excesses of the early rhetoricians, like those of the euphuistic
writers of the time of Elizabeth, tended both to refine and invigorate
the language of prose, and to render it a more adequate vehicle of
thought than it had hitherto been’.

It should further be observed that this fragment enables us
without hesitation to condemn as spurious the two entire, or nearly
entire speeches which under the name of Gorgias used to stand
in editions of the Oratores Attici, beginning with the Aldine‘,
under the titles IaAapydous droAoyia, and “Edévns éyxwptov. Of
these the former has none of the peculiarities of Gorgias’ style’:
the second, though abounding in alliterations, verbal antitheses, and
other characteristics of the Sicilian school, has little or nothing of
the pomp and splendour of the author of the fragment. Neither is
mentioned as a work of Gorgias by any ancient writer, and the
absence of such notice in the Helenae Encomium of Isocrates* has been

1 SmotvAots. Hermog. ubi supra. Literally «plated ” as opposed to solid metal ;
‘« tinsel,” or, more exactly, ‘‘ Brummagem”’ would be the English equivalent.

2 See Dionys. Halic. de Lysia, p. 458, Reiske. Philostratus, Epist. 18, Kp:tfas
Be Kal Oovevdldns ode ayvoodyra Td peyaddyvwpoy kal Thy dppdv wap’ adrod
KEKTNMEVOL, KETaToLodyTES Dé avTd cis Td oixeiov b wey bm” edyAwTTias, 6 St bd pouns.

3 See on this subject some judicious remarks of Mure, Critical Hist. iv. p. 121.

4 They are given in the Ziirich edition, p. 132, not however as genuine.

5 Nor even of his dialect, for it is written in new Attic, the Encomium Helenae
affecting the old forms.

§ Isocrates refers to a declaimer on the subject, whom he does not name ; but it
has been sagaciously inferred from the tone of the passage that it refers to a then
living writer, who cannot however have been the author of the declamation attri-
buted to Gorgias, which is written in old Attic. It is curious that in the same
speech Gorgias is referred to by name as the author of the well-known work zrep)

rod wy byros, and this is a proof that Isocrates would not have scrupled to name the
author of the speech, had he been Gorgias.

VOL. II. N

178 THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS.

taken as evidence that there was no work of Gorgias bearing that
title. . )

Another fragment of the Epitaphius is preserved by Philostratus,
from whom we learn that it was delivered in Athens—

“Ta pev kata tov BapBdpwv tpdraa Vuvous arairel, Ta 5é Kata TOY
“EAAjvov Opyvovs".”

He had harped on the same string in his Olympicus, where he
endeavours to persuade the Greeks “G0Aa rovcto bau Tov OrAwV ph Tas
GdAjAwv Tres, GANA THY Tov BapBdpwv xépav.” Ibid. This was a
favourite theme of Isocrates, and probably a common-place in the
rhetorical schools.

A Pythicus of Gorgias is also mentioned by Philostratus, with the
fabulous addition that on the altar or pedestal from which he spoke,
a golden statue of the orator was set up év 7@ Tod IIv6iov tepa.

Aristotle, Rhet. iii. 14. 11, quotes the initial clause of his éyxdépsov
eis HAeious* “*HAus modus eddaipwv,” at the same time censuring the
speaker for rushing im medias res, without any prelusive sparring
(oddev mpoe~ayxwvicas).

From another passage of the Rhetoric we may infer the existence
of a fourth panegyric oration, “in praise of Achilles,” from which
however Aristotle gives us no extract. It resembled, he tells us,
the epideictic speeches of Isocrates, in the complimentary episodes
with which it abounded (76 érewrodvodv éraivos). A fragment pre-
served by the Scholiast on Iliad iv. 450 may have belonged to this
speech: dveuloyovro dé Airats dzreal Kal edxats oiuwyai.

Whether Gorgias, like his countrymen Tisias and Polus, wrote a
téxvy, or formal treatise on rhetoric, has been disputed*; but there
can be no doubt that the precept recorded by the Scholiast on Gorg.
348 is a genuine fragment from some written work of his, whether
strictly a réyvn or not, “ (det) tas orovdds Tar. dvTidikwy yéAwrt
exdvev, Ta St yeota Tats orovdais éxxpovew,” and it is to this doubtless
that Aristotle refers in the Rhetoric, iii. 18. 7, detv éfy Topytas ryv
pev orovdyy x.r.A. The remark is one which could not have been
made by an ordinary man, and the sentence is too nicely balanced
for a mere colloquial dictum.

The definition of rhetoric given by a Scholiast on the Srdces of
Hermogenes®, under the title “Opos pyropixis kara. Topyiar, is evidently

7 It is difficult to imagine that this sentiment can have been introduced with
propriety into a speech in honour of Athenians who had died fighting against
Peloponnesians ; yet we do not hear of Gorgias visiting Athens before the year
427; for the statement that Pericles was his disciple is probably a late fable.
Possibly the fragment may have belonged to the speech next mentioned, and
Philostratus’ memory may have failed him.

8 See note on Phaedrus, 261 c.
9 Rhet. Gr., ed. Walz., t. vii. p. 33.

THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS. 179

only a compilation from the Platonie dialogue (comp. 450 zB, 455),
though it is given by the Ziirich editors as an extract from Gorgias’
TEXVN.

The remaining fragments it is impossible with certainty to refer to
any one speech or treatise in particular. Some of them were doubt-
less taken from his writings, but others, and those not the least
characteristic of the man, seem to have been orally delivered, pro-
bably in conversation. Of the former class one has already been
quoted: 1. yires guyvxot tador—a metaphor which shocked the
taste of Hermogenes, and drew forth, as we have seen, a malediction
upon its author.

2. Longinus, or whoever was the writer of the well-known treatise
on the Sublime, quotes a similar metaphor of Gorgias: Hépéys 6 raév
Ilepodv Zev’s. This does not appear to our modern taste either very
‘ridiculous,’ or particularly revolting : though we may accede to the
remark that it and the foregoing are rather “ high-flown than lofty.”

3. Other more or less violently metaphorical phrases are quoted
by Aristotle, Rhetoric iii. 3. 4, ofov Topyias “‘yAwpa kai dvarpa?
7a Tpdypata: od Sé ratta aicxpds pév éoretpas, Kaxds Se
éOépicas.” These he condemns because they are “too grand and
tragic,” the former also because “ obscure and far-fetched.” To us
the metaphor of reaping and sowing is a mere common-place, and it is
used by Plato in the Phaedrus without offence. But “pallid and blood-
less affairs” is a phrase which would need apology even from a modern.

4. In the same chapter of the Rhetoric, Gorgias is censured for
using extraordinary compounds : 7a dé Yuxpa . . yéyverae Kara tiv Adéw
év . . Tois SurAois évopaow . . . ds Topyias dvopate, “atwxdpov-
cos® kodaég,” “értopkyoavtas kal Kkatevopkycavras.”

5. In the Convivium of Xenophon (ce. 2. 21) we are presented
with what Socrates calls a Topyieuov pjya—iv 82 jpiv ot raides prxpats
Ktdigt wuKva Emipaxdlworv, where the last word, or possibly the
last two, may be assigned to Gorgias.

On the whole, the charges of tumour, affectation, and “ frigidity ”
may be taken as ‘proven’ against the Sicilian rhetor; though the
less fastidious taste of the moderns, accustomed to use unconsciously
phrases which to an Attic ear would have appeared startling meta-

1 x. tous, c. iii. 2, ra Tod Acovtlvov Topylou yeAara, ypddovtos, Zépins 6 Tav
Tlepoa@y Zevs, nal, yores EupuxorTdgpoar . . dvta ovx HWHad& GAAS eT ewpa.

2 Vulg. and Bkk. @vama. But &vaima is well supported, and cannot but be right.

3 This can hardly mean ‘arm an dichterischer Begabung,’ as Rost and Palm
explain, Liddell and Scott give with greater probability “living (or rather
starving) by his wits.” It might also mean, “one whom poverty inspires” (cui
ingeni largitor Venter). Wit and poverty are the hackneyed attributes of the
Greek parasite, and in a comic poet the epithet would probab!y baye been thought
happy. Asimilar compound, rrwxaAd(wr, is quoted from Phrynichns com. (Meineke,
C, G. ii. p. 582). Foss, not too happily, changes «éAaét intu xeput. De Gorg. p. 53.

N 2

~

180 THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS.

phors, may sometimes disagree with that of the ancient critics.
There is, however, a passage of Aristotle in which he seems to
compare the grandiloquence of Gorgias with that of Plato in the
more poetical parts of the Phaedrus, defending both as ‘ironical +,’
We can discover no trace of irony in the inflated passage recorded
by the Scholiast: and we should be at some loss to account for
Aristotle’s phrase, but for an amusing instance which he has happily
preserved for us in the same chapter of his Rhetoric in which he
censures the tragic pomp of the Sicilian school and its founder.

6. Td d& Topyiov <is xediddva, érel Kar airod reropevn adaKe TO
TepitTHLA, apiota TOV TpayiKav elme yap “Aicxpdov ye, & Bido-
pnra’.” dpvibe pev yap, ei éroinoe odk aicxpov, TapOévw dé aicxpov.
eb otv édoldopycev eizav 5 jv, GAN ody 6 éeotw®. That Gorgias had a
sense of humour appears even from Plato, and will appear in sayings
hereafter to be quoted; but we may conclude from the Aristotelian
passage that whatever gift of pleasantry he may have possessed,
whether ironical or otherwise, he reserved for conversational use.

7. Topyias pev otv 6 Acovrivos, 7a ev tows dropdv 7a & cipwvevdpevos
ey, KaOdmrep OApovs elvar Tovs td Tov SApoToLoY TeroLnpEvoUs, OUTW
kat Aapicaiovs tods tro tov Sypiovpywv remomnpévous’ elvax ydp Twas
Aapicorowts. Arist. Pol. iii. ¢. 1.

This saying has been understood as a reflection on the undue
facility with which strangers obtained the franchise at Larisa.
Whether in its original form it was spoken or written we have no
means of determining ; but it seems to have been called forth by
some political arrangement which fell under its author’s notice
during his long sojourn in Thessaly’. .

4 Rhet. iii. 7. 11. After observing that poetical language is admissible in
oratory when the speaker has succeeded in raising his audience to the proper pitch
of passion or enthusiasm, he adds: 7) 5% obtw dei, 7) wer’ cipwrvelas, brep Topylas
éroler kal Ta ev TE Haldpy.

5 What poet first transposed the names of Procne and Philomela is not quite
certain. In all Greek authors, so far as I know, ‘ Philomel ’ is the name of the
swallow, and Procne of the nightingale (Arist. Aves 665). The Latins generally
reverse this: but Varro de L. L. and Virg. Ecl. vi. 81 adhere to the Greek version |
of the story.

6 The same story is told, but less neatly, by Plutarch, Sympos. viii. 7. 4.

7 The conjecture suggests itself, that more may have been meant by Gorgias.
From the passages presently to be quoted it is clear that he shrunk from, or was
incapable of, wide ethical generalizations. This dictum about Larisa and its insti-
tutions may have been intended as a scoffingly evasive answer to a question in
political science, What constitutes a citizen ?—a question which Aristotle takes so
much pains to answer. The conjecture that there may be a play on the two words
capicoroids and Aapicoroids is not improbable; in my opinion, less so than the
notion propounded by Schneider, that the ambiguity lies in the twofold sense of
Aapioaios, which may mean either a Larisaean man or Larisaean kettle, in which
case it would be necessary to substitute Aapioa:oroiots in the text of Aristotle.
See Anthol. Pal. vi. 305, ras Aapicalws Kutoydoropas évnripas. But it seems
unlikely that Aapiogios without a substantive would have suggested any other
notion than that of a man of Larisa,

THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS. 181

8. Besides his rhetorical course of instruction, Gorgias seems to
have entertained his Thessalian admirers with ethical discussion.
As he disowns the imputation of professing to “make men better,”
these lucubrations were probably of a purely speculative or perhaps
sceptical character. The question, What is virtue? raised originally
in Attica, had apparently troubled the grosser wits of the Thessalian
landowners, one of whom is represented as answering it in the sense
if not the words of Gorgias*, and of course as failing to defend his
thesis when subjected to a course of Socratic cross-questioning.
Aristotle, who seems to have had a better opinion of Gorgias’ under-
standing than of his taste, gives us the following account of the
philosopheme in question : xa6éXov yap of Aéyovres eLararaow éavrors,
bre TO ed Zyew tiv Wx Gpery, 7) 7d dpborpayeiv, 7 Te THY ToLodTw.
word yap dpevov Aéyovow oi eLapiOmorvres Tas dperds, domep Topyias,
Tav ovTus dpilopévov.

Waiving the question of the consistency of this opinion with
Aristotle’s treatment of Virtue in the Ethics, we may observe that
the passage obviously refers to an opinion advanced by Gorgias’
admiring disciple Meno in the dialogue bearing his name. The
context proves that Plato intends to criticize the master rather than
the pupil*®, and independently of this circumstance it is plain that
the egapiOynots tv dperav Which Aristotle commends is that given in
the Meno, viz. an enumeration of the different virtues corresponding
to differences of sex, age, and condition—xaf’ éxdéoryy yap tov
mpagewy Kal Tov HALKLOV pos ExagToOV épyov ExdoTH Hudv H apeTH eat’.
It seems probable, though it cannot perhaps be proved, that Gorgias
denied the possibility of any more general definition, such as that
which Socrates professes to seek’; or it may be that he felt the
same difficulty in apprehending the nature of Definition which Plato
elsewhere attributes to many of his speakers, and here in particular
to Meno. However this may be, Virtue, according to Gorgias,
amounts to much the same thing as Efficiency—a defensible and’
not un-Socratic view of the matter. In what work these speculations
were contained is a question we have no means of determining :
but whatever may have been its title, to it probably belonged the
two apophthegms which follow.

8 See Meno, p. 71 & foll.

9 Meno, 71 D, dv pavijs ob wey cidws kal Topyias.

1 In these concluding words we seem to perceive the hand of the master.
Compare with the repetition, éxdorny—€xacrov—éxdory, the language of Polus,
p- 448 ©, especially 4AAc1i—&AAwy—GAAws, Tdv Bt aplorwy—oi kpicrot.

? Gorgias, we know, ridiculed the pretensions of Protagoras and other sophists
who professed to teach Virtue. Possibly therefore this treatise of his contained a
proof of the thesis 67: od didaxrdy 7 aperq, and as part of that proof he may have

insisted that there is no general conception answering to the word, but that there

are as many separate virtues as there are classes of human beings and departments
of human activity.

182 THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS.

9. “Hytv S& Kopydrepos® piv & Topyias daivera, xeXevov pi 70
eldos GAAG THY Sdéav civat TOAXAOLS yvw@plmov THS yuVvVaLKos.
Plutarch, Mulierum Virtutes, c. 1; Moralia, p. 242 £.

10. Od yap dads dAnbes 0 Aeyer Topyias: ereye 5 TH pev ctvar
agavés mH TvXOV TOD doKely, Td dé SoKetv dabeves, mH TVXOV
Tod etvat. Proclus, Schol. in Hesiodi Opp. 1. 758 (Gaisford, Poet.
Min. iii. p. 340).

This is probably a literal quotation, and may have been a con-
tinuation of the foregoing. To the same treatise we may not
improbably refer—

15. ‘O pev yap giros ody, dorep aredpaivero Topyias, adtG pev
agvdoe. Ta Sixaca Tov Pirov trovpyetv, éxeivm 9 ards tr7y-
peTynoes TOAAG Kal TOV py Stxaiwyv. Plutarch, Mor. p. 64 c.

This maxim, more generous than just, may have occurred in the
description of ‘‘The Virtue of a Friend ;” but though in substance
doubtless a true quotation, the phraseology has probably been
altered. It is far less easy to admit the genuineness of the following
fragment, omitted, whether by oversight or design, in Mullach’s
Fragmenta :—

16. Topyias 6 pyrwp eAeye tods hirocodias pév dmeodvras wept 5é Ta
eykixdua pabjpata ywopevous bolovs etvat TOls WY YOTTHPST Ly, Ob THY
IInvedornyv €0€AXovtes tats Geparaivicouy aiths euiyvuvto. 46
avtos TOYS PHTOpas ey Spolovs civat Barpaxotss TOS mev yap
év Boats keAadeiy, Tovs dé év TH yp. (In Spengel’s Artt. Serip-
tores, p. 70 note, from an inedited Munich MS.) The former of
these dicta, if not too witty, is too wise for its reputed author,
being rather in the manner of Plato than of Gorgias, to whom it
seems an anachronism to attribute the distinction of supreme and
ancillary sciences. The word éyxv«os, in the sense here given to
it, is also of later date*; and it is difficult to believe that the author
of the sceptical or rather nihilistic treatise rept rod pa dvros can have

3 «Finer, that is to say, than an opinion of Thucydides just referred to by
Plutarch: 6 wév ydp, his dv CAdxioTOs 7H Tapa Tois extds Wéyou wépt } emalvov Adyos,
aplorny amrodalvera’ Kabdrep Td cHua Kal Tovvoua THs ayabjs yuvakds oiduevos
deity kardkAciorov elva: Kal avekodov. The words of Thucydides, ii. 45, are not
repeated, but his meaning is fairly given. So probably in regard of the citation
from Gorgias.

4 First so used by Aristotle, as Eth. N. i.5 (3), where Michelet observes: “ Philo-
sophia Aristotelis temporibus reliquis a scientiis nondum distinguebatur; quam-
obrem ii ipsi, qui proprie philosophi neque erant neque fieri cupiebant, philosophicas
materias docebantur, sed aliter ac philosophantes, nempe eo modo, quo vulgi auribus
et intellectui accommodatae erant. Illae scientiae quibus omnes Graeci imbuebantur,
qui memaidevuévor esse vellent, nominabantur Adyo: etwrepinol, eyxdndAro1, ev Kowg
vyevduevol, exdedouevor, Ta Mw pabhuara, quibus opponuntur Adyo kata pirocoplav.”
éyxviKa. pabhuara were therefore those sciences or parts of sciences which entered
into the ordinary curriculum of liberal instruction—‘ popular’ as opposed to
‘exact.’

THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS. 183

thought thus highly of philosophy. Still less can we believe that
he would have disparaged the practitioners of his own art, as he is
made to do in the second quotation.

17. "Ext roivey Topyias piv 6 Acovrivés pyot, Tov Kipova ra
xpypata xracdat piv os xpOro, xppoGar de Sstipdro. Plut.
Cim. c. 10. This fragment, which has every note of genuineness,
may possibly have come from the Epitaphius, as Mullach supposes.

The dicta which follow, though not fragments from his writings,
illustrate the personal character of Gorgias in an interesting manner.

18. Three sayings are preserved, which, whether written or only
spoken, are not improbably authentic®. Gorgias is said to have been
the author of a phrase adopted by Aristophanes : é¢v rv (AioyxvaAov)
Spapdtwv peorov “Apews eva, tods Erta eri @nBas. Plut.
Sympos. vii. 10. 2. In a similar vein is the following: Topyias
THv tTpaywdiav cme ararnyv, Hv 6 Te Gmatyoas SiKardtepos
ToD py) aTaTHoavTos, kal 6dratynOels copwTepos TOD py ama-
tnOévros. Ib. de Audiendis Poetis, ec. 1.

Ilécw rotrwv BedXtiov Topyias 6 Acovtivos rept ob dyow 6 airds
KXéapxos év 76 byddw trav Biwv, dre dia 7d coppdvs Liv cxeddv dydoy-
Kovta én TO ppovely ovveBince. Kal rel Tis adrov jpero Tie SiaiTy
xpepevos ottws eupedds cal peta aicOyoews tooodrov xpdvov Lycecev,
Ovdév wrarore, cizev, HdovasS Evexev tpagéas. Anpyrpws Se 6
Buldvrios év trerdpro wept rompdrov “Topyias, dyoiv, 6 Aecovrivos
épwtnbeis ti abte yéyovey aitioy tod Bidoat wrciw Tov Exardv érov,
éfy, TO pndiv rémore éErépov evexev metoinkévat.” Ib. de
Gloria Athen. ¢. 5.

Of these replies the first two need no comment, but the third is
more obscure. The French translation, “‘ Jamais je n’ai rien fait par
complaisance pour autrui (contre ma santé),” is countenanced by a
passage of Lucian which seems a paraphrase rather than a quotation:
dv (se. Topyiav) daciv épwrnfevra rhv airiay tod paxpod yypws Kal
byewod ev rdoas Tails aicOjoeow, <ireiv 61a TH ppndéroTre TvpTEpe-
evexOjvat tats dAXwv edwxiars. Macrob.c. 23. Meineke how-
ever takes the words érépov &«xev in their most general sense, as an
avowal of mere selfishness, which he thinks it incredible that Gorgias
should have made. He therefore (Philologus xiii. p. 242) proposes
to read, du 7d pnd zémore Evtépov &vexey weromnxévar— er habe
nie der sinnlichen Lust gedient.” The word &repov is once used by
Archilochus'‘ in an indelicate sense, but the emendation is not justified

5 It is quite possible that they may have formed part of the celebrated Epitaphius,
in which they might have found a place as easily as in Plutarch’s treatise de
Gloria Atheniensium. The words és Topylas @noiv, in the latter passage, rather
imply that the dictum came from a written work.

6 Frag. Lyr. 141 Bergk.

184 THE FRAGMENTS OF GORGIAS.

by the passage adduced, nor, it seems to me, is it necessary to alter
the text, if we accept the interpretation above given’. A critic in
the Rhenish Museum for 1860, p. 624, censures Meineke for his
bad taste, thinking that the reply of Gorgias really contains a playful
admission of his habitual “‘ Egoismus,” though exaggerated for the
sake of effect. But neither Meineke nor his opponent has noticed
the illustrative passage of Lucian, where the word cupzrepievexOjvar®
bears out the “ par complaisance ” of the French interpreter.

A different version of the same reply is given in Stobaeus, Anthol.
101. 21, Topyias épwrnfeis rota dtairn xpopevos eis waxpov ynpas 7AGev"
Oddév obSérore, ehy, Teds Hdovyv ottre haydv otre Spacas.
Also in Valerius Maximus, viii. 13, “Gorgias Leontinus . . cum
centesimum et septimum ageret annum, interrogatus ‘ quapropter tam
diu vellet in vita remanere:’ ‘ Quia nihil,’ inquit, ‘habeo, quod
senectutem meam accusem.’” Equally characteristic of the man were
his last words—

19. Topyias 6 Acovrivos émi répyari dv rod Biov, in’ dobevelas xara-
Andbeis, Kat dALyov «is wrvov vrodwwbavwv exeito eet S€ Tis aiTov TOV
émirydeiwv jpeto ti mpdrrot, 6 Topyias daexpivaro: "Hdn pe 6 vavos
dpxerar wapaxaratiGer Oa 7adeApG. Stob. Anth. 118. 23, from Aclian,
V. iH. ii. 35.

20. The following is given on the authority of Arsenius*, who
certainly did not invent it: 6 adrds (sc. Topyias) 75 -ynpaws
vrdpxwv, épurnbets ci Hd€ws droOvjcKo, AKiota, eirev, GoTEp Se
éx campod kal péovtos auvotkiov dopévos aradddrropat

The treatise of Gorgias zepi rod py dvros, though it is important
in a history of philosophy, as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the
Eleatic method, is preserved to us only in epitome. For that reason,
and because it throws no light on the personal or purely literary
characteristics of its author, and is therefore of. no direct use to a
student of this dialogue, I have thought better to omit it. The best
edition of the Aristotelian critique is, so far as I know, that of
Mullach in the first volume of his “ Fragmenta Philosophorum ” in

Didot’s series.

7 Another conjecture, yaorépos Evexa, is approved by Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 787,
note (5).

8 Gentior se dare, alicui morigerum esse,” Budaeus, quoted in Steph. Lex. s. v.
ovumepipépe. cupmepipéper da is frequently used in this sense of “going with
the multitude,” but only in late writers.

9 In the “ Praeclara Dicta Philosophorum,” an early-printed and once well-known
compilation by a Greek Archbishop, son of Michael Apostolius, a Byzantine refugee
of the fifteenth century.

THE END.

INDEX I.

A.

ayabdv = aédripor, 57.
a&yavaxtnrés, 140.
éyao Bat, construction, 8.
ayyeia terpnpeva kal aaOpa, 100.
a pa mAnbovea, 46.
adtagopa, theory of, 43.
adixety Tou adtxeto Oat. . . Kaxtov, 134.
péyorov TOV KaKav, 46.
adixeio Oat aiperorepov j) adtxeiv, ib.
adixnooper, not adixnooper, 137.
ddtxiay é£atpeito Oa, 159.
adixos—aOru0s, 50.
dei, insertion of, 28.
— force of, 63.
adavaros éorat rovnpos ov, 70.
aig Oavopar—oov—éti—ov Suvapévov,

aioxiorn Bondeva, 135.

axkiter Oat, a axxtopés, 108.

"Akko, ib.

axpagia, unplatoniec, 169.

dxpareia preferred to axparia, ib.

RD used as trraxovey, 87.

G@Xo te... . 20, 48, 51, 60, 71, 90,
104.

Gore ovk, 124.

aos, idiomatic use of, 4, 55.

"Adgura, 108.

apddev yé wobev for doer y: 7, 96.

Gpuod, apdber, dpi, apas, aspirated i in
Atti tic, ib

apinros, 98.

"Apoiovos p pots, 129.

audio Byrew, 68.

apudérepa, adverbial use of, 64, 168.

dupsrepov, Homeric usage of, ib.

ay, omission of, 95.

ay not omitted with potential, 142.

— omitted after Ay, 146.

VOL. IT.

dvaydcew, 52.

dvayxaios, construction of, 8.

dvabéa Gat, 31.

dvaitntos, 77.

avadaBeiv Tov Adyov, 129.

dvaXioxy, not dvadioxyras, 70.

dvappoorteiv, 73.

dvacravpova bat, 55.

dvebny ovre, 103.

aver for dye? 78.

aveiva, 96.

dvapaivec Bat, 77.

cynvurov Kakoy, 132.

dyénrov mpaypa, 158.

dvoporoyovpevos = inconsistent, 103.

avtitAapBaved ba, 128.

avrimapaxane, 173.

avricratetv, 145.

avriatpogos, 36.

dvririBévat, SL;

araywy) cis advvarov, 104.

admaddarrnra, passive, 126.

amédaxa, sense of, 129.

dzexpi6n, inadmissible in Attic, 5.

amtotia, 99.

amas otras, 44.

amd cod apEdpevos, 50.

arrodecxvivat, 150.

arrodetAtay, 69.

arrodidoa Gat, 130.

drroxakeiv, generally implies reproach,
but not always in later Greek, 142.

aroxpvrrec bat, transitive, 69.

aro\aBey used adverbially, 105.

arroXeitrer Oat, 164.

dmodAvet, ardAAvert, 106.

adromtumdvat, 94.

droceier Bat, th:

aroteivey, 39.

dmopaives Gat, transitive, 40, 172.

arogporay, 89.

18)

186

droxpéeo, 128.

dpa, 98, 144, 158.

— for yap av, reading from Olym-
piodorus, 19.

— placed late in sentence, 158.

dpa, 10.

—— in the middle of the sentence, 53,
61.

ap ovv ody, 88.

dpern, according to Callicles, 95, 96.

— defined, 129.

dpern SnporiK, 130.

dpetn Tov c@paros, 67, 125.

apeOpnrexn, 12, 17.

“Aptotoxpdrns 6 SkeAXiov, 52.

dproxémos more Attic than dproroids,
156.

dpxeo Oa, with aceus. of cognate signi-
fication, 7.

dpxnv = “in the first instance,” and
with neg., “ not at all,” 66.

dpxovra éuvtov, 93.

aoxentas €xav, 118.

dragia, 125.

dréxves, 92, 118.

drexvas, 92, 170.

— aripor, 83.

ca Snunyédpos, 102.

dripos mAnyn, 174,

dromov epyafovrar mpaypa, 158.

drra, 107.

druxnoas, not adrorvyjoass, 31.

arvx6, with genitive, ib.

avAnrixn, 119.

+ in Philebus, not to be altered,

ib.

avrtixa, *‘ for instance,” 53.
mp@rtor, ib.

avrdber, 49.

abrois for ddAjAots, 38.
avrov = ultro, 25.

abros yrooe, 127.

avrovs interpolated, 159.
avropvas duowor, 144.
avtay, 93.

avréy, construction of, 167.
ax Oécopat, not dx bec Onoopat, 129,

B.

Badddvrior, 135.
Bapa€por, 152.
Bacavifety, 84.

Bacavos, 86.

BeBatoowpat rapa cod, ib.
BAaE ard Tov padaxoi, ib.

INDEX I.

Bondeua € éavT@, 165.

Bovdeveuy, 56.

Bovretpaot and PovAnpact, inter-
changed in codd., 72.

BovAnots Tod rédovs, 42.

BovAopat, distinction of from Soxei pot,
viii, 40.

Bovdoper@ cot eorir, 6.

Tr.

yap, in apodosi after parenthesis, 18.

yé, in exclamation, 42.

ylyve Oat, 149.

ylyyeran = = ovpBaiver, 105.

yynowv te amepydterba eis oidiar,
44.,

yonrevery, 77.

Topyietov pijpa, 179.

yupvaciov = school of philosophy,
100.

yupvaotikn, 37.
yvvatkopipos, 82.
yores Epspuxor taor, 179,

A.

datpovay, not daiponéar, 102,

déSerar... odnpois Kai adapaytivots
Adyots, 135.

det and 47 confounded, 148.

deity, ellipse of, 53.

pleonasm of, 142.

Secvorns attributed to Socrates, 164.

57) used ironically, 116.

dndoi, 76, 99.

dnAov Sri, 86, 149.

d7Aos, construction of, 6,

Snunyopetv, 73, 159.

Snpnyopia ,. . 7 wointixy, 121.

Snusyopixés, 7 4.

Snpnyopos, 73.

necoupyds and idimrys, distinction

between, 20.

dnpokparikds avnp, in the Republic, x

Callicles, a speci-

men of, ib.

Snpooredery and idiwreverv, distinction
between, 20, 147, 148.

dcaxovia identified with codakeia, 155.

dtaxopodety, 33.

diarrepaiver Oa, 18.

Starrepdyn, not js, 137.

diamempagerat, 139.

Starpérecyv, whether transitive, 82.

INDEX I.

StapOpeio Oa, 117.

dvacxerropeda, solecistic reading, 145.

dtarpiBn, 80.

dtaPGeipers rods mpwrovs Adyous, 103.

ddaEor, not didaker, 73.

d:ddvar Sixny, 136.

Sixkaca = xadd, 61.

Sixator Fpepor, 151.

Sixatos, 28.

-—--— construction of, 6.

dtxavoovvn, Platonic, ix.

Stxaocivn and cadpocivyn, nearly
coincide in the Republie, ib.

Stxatoovyny preferred to dixaoteKyy,
36.

dixatdv rd Bradrarov, 78.
dtxaotns—dixatos, 36.
dixn rrovnpias iarpixn, 66.
dixny diddvac drradXay?) Kaxov, 67.
Atds ayd\para = tporaia, 176.
dis Kat rpis, 112.
Stexadeiv, not dirwxdbery, 75.
Soxei, use of, 104.

pot, distinction of from BotvAopat,

Viil.

Soxeiv euoi, 74.
Soxeis for éddxers, 51.
Soxovvrer eivai tt, ib.
Sovdorpemns, 81.
dvvacba, interpolated, 48.
divacba dyabdy ro Svvapeve, 40.
dvoxepaivery, 11.
80n for doin, inadmissible, 70.

E.

edy maproXdv, 141.

éaurér, interpolated, 150.

eyxixdia pabjpara, 182.

éyxapuov eis "HXeious, of Gorgias, 178.
eyOpat, not éy® oipat, 166.
edi@xales, aorist, not imperfect, 75.
¢6vos, used as Latin ‘ natio,’ 20.

ei b¢ pn after ay pév, 47.

— py ef ris, 69.

— py tt, taken as one particle, 71.
av Go déyets, 145,

— mavv rodno, 141.

— ond, ib.

etev for einoay, 95.

ein for eiva, 123.

eipappevos, 143.

eipev, 95.

eimav dradddynh, ib.

eis éuol dvti roddGr, 56.

eis TO abrd mepihepdpevor, 154.

187

eis TO Bapabpoy éuBanreiy, 152.

eiotidxaow ... dv éreOvpovr, 157. .

etre, etrnv, 95.

€x tpirou, tpirey, 115.

éxatrepoce, 166.

éxeivos = this last, 119.

éxeioe, 173.

exAdurrew, 77.

exrépvew, 55.

éxov eivat, 114,

€deyxos, 60.

éXevds, not eAeetvds, 45.

‘Edévns éyxdpsor, falsely attributed to
Gorgias, 177.

edGovre, not €A@dvra, 22.

éuBpaxv, altered into év Bpayei, 23.

eupovn, 68.

éumetpia and téxvy distinguished, 37.

epmadnydny, 73

éumAnxros, Attic sense of, 72.

——- confounded with &kzAnxros,
ib.

épmAnéia, 73.

ev, use of, 15.

— omission of, 168.

— perpig oxjpare, 141.

— Ilvéiov, preferred to év Tuoi, 52.

— 7@ Avoyvoig, distinguished from
T@ ev Atovicov Oedrpa, ib.

niO@ thy kepapetay, 147.

éva i) wndéva, 51.

évdecxvivat, 86.

evdiddvat, 113.

évravéa with verbs of motion, 174.

e& Gmaytos Tov vod, 138.

e£opoay abrév tH Twodureia, 144.

eEoorpaxifery, 151.

eEwreptxoi Adyot, 182. :

émaxovery—iraxovery—rrapakover dis-
tinguished, 85.

eravioracb6at, 77.

eravopboire, not éravopbare, 31.

érei, rhetorical use of with imperative
or an interrogation, 56, 76.

erecta for dues, 159.

ere£epxet TG Adyq, 95.

erépxer Oa, 82.

emnxovea, not imjxovea, 85.

eri after xaXeiv omitted, 125.

ext xéppns, 83, 134, 173, 174.

— tovvayrioy, 69.

— T@ Bovdropéva, 134.

— 76 évi ridec bar vépovs, 87.

emdecxvovae and émWeixvvcba
tinguished, 3.

erideréts, ib.

emdar, 55.

dis-

0 2

188

emetk@s, meaning of, 99.

- €x@ Pirixds, 82.

emOévras xepadny, 127.

emtOeréov dixny, 132.

emtOupi@v tmapackevacral, 157.

emtxoupia, 95.

émtdaBod, 46.

émuapBaver Oa, 158.

értAapBavov, 46.

émtpedeto bat, 151.

émtpéereo Oa, 150.

emipmeAntns dvav, ib.

. emimpoobev = éurrodar, 167.

éemippeiv, 101.

emtonpuaiver Oa, 172.

eriotapat, used for knowing by rote,
also to denote personal acquaint-
ance, 78.

émorarns, 56.

emeatnun and mioris distinguished, 19.

— its identity with aya@dv, 104.

emoropicerOa, 74.

emirndevoets = mapackevai, 118.

emtxetpntéov .... 7H moder Kal Tots
moniras beparevev, 145.

emupaxacew, 179.

emivnpitew, 56.

émoxerevetv, 100.

émrétns, not érraérns, 50.

eppatoy, 84,

eoOjow for aicOnoe, 38.

éxOnots, a word of doubtful note, ib.

éordv and eoriv, confused in MSS., 19.

€oxnpariopevos, 141.

€repov, 104.

érépov évexev, 183.

ed io@ Ort, 15.

evdatpovia wept capa, 66.

evdoxtpetv, 149.

evepyetns avaypaperOa, 129.

evs and ev6vs distinguished, 170.

EUKTLKa avTt UmorakTikor, 31.

ed mparretv, double sense of, 132.

instead of xaipery, ib.

épynoda, not épns, 107.

exe 87, 27

€xbes Kai mpany, 48.

éxo Tas eira, 123.

ta, 16.

INDEX I.

H.

i) after évayriov, 71.

— after id.ov, ib.

7, repetition of, 120.

7 for jv, 87.

7 €v ‘Aprepioci@ or mepl *Aprepiorov
paxn, never 7 ’"Aprepicio, 152.

— pn "pretpia, 66.

7 On for 75n, 98.

ndovn mapadovs, 60.

ndovn Kai émornun, 104.

780 Tod dyabod €repov, 107.

760s, of a polity, 139.

nArtkia, HAikos, 79.

nuperBntncaper, 61.

nv, use of, 66.

— used for ¢ori in general proposi-
tions, 130.

nuioxeia, 153.

npepetv, 173.

qs for #aGa, inadmissible, 107.

nupioxopev, 147.

e.

Oavaray, not Oavariay, 102.
Oavarou—tipacba, 83.

Ocparreia o@paros, division of, 37.
Oerradides ceAnuny kabatpovoa, 144.

iarpeverOa, 65.

iarpixn, 37.

ida Huey, 146.

idtwrevew, 20.

idtarns, ib.

ievat emi, 146.

ixavds 6 Adyos, 142. *

ryyrav, 83.

tva, in local and final sense, 80.
iod iov, 113.

iodrns yewperpixn, 133.
ioxupifer Oa eis Tovs dobeveis, 89.
icxuvpicacba TO cdpart, ib.

K.

xabepéns, not xabeipéns, 31.
kabopodoyety, 113.

INDEX I.

kal ¢y® pavOave, corrected, 106.
— mov, interpolated, 16.
kakia = vdaos, 63.
kakiay, not ddckiay, 66.
kKakov = BhraBepor, 57.
kaxoupyets €v Tois Aéyots, 74.
ka\A@miopa, 95.
kaov, 76, 59.
Katnvos, business of, 156.
KapKa = Moppe, 108.
avs and xadmera for eira and érera,
3.

karaBokn, a medical term, 157.
karadeduxas, 82.
karabéa Bat = ovvaveoca, 118.
karakpypvicat, 152.
KaTaxpnuyats, punishment of, 153.
katadvoper, not karadvopey, 127.
karamirrova ba, 55.
Kararovrova ba, 141.
kaTacKeul) Toparos, 63.
nparay, ib.
kara Tiva eiva, 142.
katax@oetey dy trois Aéyots, ib.
kKaTeayevat, with genitive, 47.

THY Kearny, ib.

ra @ra, 149.
karemgdew, 77.
Karon éoptns ijkopev, 3.
kexTnoopa and crncopuat distinguished,

4l.

xeadaior, 102.

KiOapiotixy 7) €v Tois ayaotv, 119.

kivatdev Bios, 102.

kuvduvevery, 158.

Krom kataynpifer da, 149.

xvjo Oar, not xvacOa, 102.

Kynovay, ib.

Kynoi@ or Kunoupn, not xvnovot, ib.

koddter Oat dpewvov 4 dxodacia, 127.

xoAakeia, 37, 120, 122, 145.

— softened into ‘Diaxonls, 154.

koAaxevoorra trapaxaXeiv, 162.

KoAakevtixn), 36.

koXaxtxn, applied to tragedy, 121.

kdda€, 162.

koppouy, etymology of, 38.

Kopparns, i

KOMpOTLKn, 37.

Kopperixoy Kxdddos, applied to Iso-
crates, 38.

kopperpia, ib.

kéokuwwor, 99

koopnots, 125.

kuBepyntixn, 140.

kupirrew, 150. ;

kupoupévoy = diamparropever, 12.

189
kupody and xvpodoOa distinguished,
12

nipeots, 10.
Kupedn év daci, 71.

Addos, 149.

Aapurpés, 81.

Aapioorrotds, 180.
Aéyouer, not Aéywuer, 145.
Aevdrns, 38.

Anpypara, 84.

Anoere diap dapevres, 85.
Anotod Bios, 133.

ALOavras, not AcGcavras, 102.
Avrotro Auras, 100.
AwoBacba rhv yuyny, 139.

Ag@ore Hl@de, 42

M.

p and 8, interchange of, 86.

pd, or ov pad, 89.

— rov, 41.

kova, 30.

Tov Alyurrioy dedv, 73.

payyaveia, payyavevpa, payyavor, 77.

pabycerat, or padnoec Oa, 27.
paxpa teixn, 21.

paAn, use in singular only, 46

Mapabéu, 152.

paottyias, 169.

péeya divacba, 139, 144,

péXoy, put absolutely, 118.

peévrot, 3.

position of, 40.

in apodosi to pév, an Attic
usage, 54.

peragd xaradeiresv, 127.

ae ag 22.

perarGevat, 99

PEXpL rot, 85.

BA prohib. with subj. present, 117.

py—eori, 143.

pn interrogative, 142.

— interrogative or dubitative with
indicative, 143.

py ov with conjunctive, 103.

pndeé preferred to ovde, 66.

pnd xrijots, ib

pndeis in interrogation, 139.
ppdérepa, 43.
pnrore, use of in Aristotle, 143.

190

pnxavorroids, 142.

pilav ovTas, 36.

Midacxos 6 thy dyorotiay ovyyeypa-
hos, 156.

poppodvtrrec bat, 55.

poppe, ib., 108.

Mvoov kadety, 162.

Mvuoov €axaros, ib.

Xeta, ib.

vapa, 100.

yeaviever Oa, 73.

veavixoyv BovAeupa, 83.

veavikos, 134.

yn Tov Kova, 40.

vnv, 102.

Nuxias 6 Nexnparov, 51.

vopoberikn, 37.

vopos 6 ravrav Baowdevs, 77, 78.

véuo—ooet, antithesis attributed to
Archelaus, 74.

vous, 39.

vuv, enclitic used in prose, 11.

vov dé, 114.

—— 6n, 21, 100.

vuvon, 32.

O.

6 dei xpdvos, 170, 171.

— behov, 134,

— éni r@ dpiypart, 153.

— dpotos TO dpoig, 137.

— SKvOns tov immov, 108.

— tpecas kal idcerat, 3.

oi codoi, who? 133.

oidety, 157.

oi Sokodvres, 51.

eivai te, ib.

otwat for 7ynoopat, 53.
driytora, 137. ‘

dponOns, 138.

dpodoynpara pever, 69.

600 Tavra xpnyara, 39.

dv, omission of, 104.

évnoerev, or dvncevev av, 142.
dvopa éxeiv@ eimeiv, 125.
évopata Onpevor, 88.

heyets, 90.

érocovdn, 143.

émérepa, adverbial use of, 168.
dros with future, 104, 137, 139, 160.
dras py, 144.

——- with future, 88, 102.

INDEX I.

bs BovAet = Soricody, 153.

6oa for roca or 6rdea, 12.

éotérns, 131.

drt followed by infinitive, doubtful
construction, 123.

6 re €xwv Anpeis, 108.

ov évexa rrivovory, interpolated, 43.

ov pn with conj. ovdey Sewvoy py,
102.

— nddns tro, 66.

— mayv, 24, 145.

— in the sense of izé tu, accord-
ing to Olympiodorus, 99.

— on avtn 7 Tin, 109.

ovdapod av havnva, 22.

ovdels BovAerat KakOs Trotety, Vil.

ovdev Sevvov py, 161.

Zoixev, 60.

oiov, 4, 71.

mavu, 24.

ovdérepa, adverbial use of, 168.

ovk, force of before wev—8é, 141.

—iows... dd dvayxn, 148.

—-— oid’ drra, 127.

ovcouv before pev—de, 153.

ovros, repetition of, 138.

avnp, 41, 127.

ovtoaiv, 88.

oUT@ mparrew, 132.

ovtas, use of, 103.

— eixn, 129.

ovt@oly arpepa, 124.

ovx amdotv—éeparas, 122.

—- 6, 11.

dpdadpia, 105.

dorrotia, 33.

éorroukn, 37.

preferred to dyomourixh,

34,
éyorrotds, 37, 165.

II.

maOnpa and Oepdmrevpa compared, 168.

maorpiBns, 9.

makati te kai copoi, 137.

Tladapndovs dmodoyia, falsely attri-
buted to Gorgias, 177.

dvrd ye opddpa, uncommon use of,

mapactros, 162.

mapackeun, 115.

mapewmevor, 176.

ger aed adAndous . . . wpd&ovras,
46. ‘

INDEX IL

mapexew iarp®, 60.

pogarra . . larp@, 69.
mapexav As yo, 60.
Tapiey, We
mapor, ib.
mea, 17.
mewnyv, 101.

meio opeba, not mecodpefa, 144.

Tetotixds, not muoreKds, 19.

meto@peOa, solec. reading, 137.

mepaiver Oat, passive, 18.

mepi i interpolated, instances of, 91.

ie tiva and rept rive distinguished,
ib.

meptatpeto Oat, 120.
mepitpnpara applied to dialectics, 109.
merrevtikn, 11.
_ mOavés used passively, 98.
mtotikés, ib.
miortis Wevdis Kai ddnOnjs, 18.
mAatrev .. . vopous, 76.
. modu, ib.
mheor Exe, 90.
mAnpovvra, Stephen corr. wAnpodr,
101.
Tokepiov = todeptkor, 83.
ToX€pov Kal paxns, 3.
moXtreias €raipos, 137.
mokeriky, division of, 37.
moditixds equivalent to 76cxéds in later
Platonists, il.
TOAAy pactavn, 26.
modXov dei, construction of with py
and conj., 153.
mop.oTikés, 155.
méppe THs NAtkias, 79.
purogopias edavve, 83.
mbaov, not émrdcor, 164.
mpaypa applied to persons, 160.
Tpaypateiar = mapacevai, 118.
a equivalent to as mpagovras,

cS. corr. for mapév, 176.

mpeo Burns yevopevos, interpolated, 39.

mpo Adyou, 27.

mpoBddrere, 4.

mpodidackew equivalent to dddcxery,
89.

—— and mpopavOdvew correla-
tive, ib.

mpoeo bat, 160.

evepyeciay, ib.

mpos noovny Spunrat, 120.

—— Aédyor, Adyou, 27.

—— gidriov, 115.

— Tas dpxaias odpxas,

191

mpoceatarpevos, 141.

mpoo<nusovr, 152.

mpdaGe for mpéaGev, 135.

mpockopns, 176.

mpooképas, ib.

“mpovoKento pro mpovoKéerrero resti-
tuendum Thucydidi,” 61.

mTwxdpovros Kdda€, 179.

Iv6oi rather than év Iv6oi, 52.

nr@pa preferred to mépa, 163.

mwas yap ov, 62.

P.

pypara Onpevo, 90.

pnyare Guaprdvery, 88.

pnTopevew, 121.

pytopikn, 37.

—- definition of, 33.

—- limits of, 26.

———— avriotpohos dyorotias, 39.

—- koNakeias pdpioy, ib

——— rrevOois Snuoupyés, 15.

— qoXurikns popiou eid@doyr, 35.

— puxayoyia, 15.

pyroptdy Sixatoy . . . det eivat Kal émt-
oThpova Tay Skiloy, 134.

pyropixds—dixavos, | 28.

pty9, "ATTLKOS, pryoi, “EMAnuikds } 155

ptyav, "Arrixds, ptyody Kowdas :

2.

Sadapive alone, or with év, 152.

SdpaBos 6 xamndos, 156.

Scxedos, rather than DexeAdckds, 98.

Koprpos a avnp, ib

otrorotds, 155.

okérropat, oxént@, barbarisms, 61.

spr tha occurs in text of Laches,
ib.

oxerropevm occurs in Alcibiades, ii,
ib.

oxodwdy, 13.

oxotréyv kabiorac ba, 58.

— ornoacba, not mpds oKordv
ornoagba, ib.

oxo7ra, tenses of, used by Attic writers,

axvrodéeyrns—oxvdodens, 155.
ovr odeyros—oxvadddewpos, ib.
opnv, 102.

gopioris kai pntep tavrév, 160.
copiorixh, 37

codiorixn pytopikns KddAvov, 160.

192

Smdprav éhaxes, ravrav kdopet, 114.

orovddlew mpos tia, 138.

oreyavos—oreyew, 98.

oroxaorixds—SofaoT Kos, 34.

ovyypappa, 12.

ovyypapdopevor, ib.

ovykararibepat, usage of, 118.

ovpBaiver Kakoy, without 3 dv, 67.

ovpBdraa, 79.

oupBovdevrekn, 18.

oupmepipéped Oat, 184.

oipynpos, 115.

ovv Tois girrarots 7 aipects, 144.

ovvatrios, 158.

cuveotadpévos opposed to dyxmdns or
éraxOns = = mpooeotadpevos, 141.

ovviorac bat, 124,

curio xdpevos, passive, 67.

oupherss, 89.

ovxvovs Teiva TOV Adyar, 159.

odiv for opiow, 166.

oxedov yap mov, 67.

oxjpa, 141.

Kata TO onpawopevoy, 89.

oxnpara, various kinds of, 38.

coew te kai cafecba, 143.

capa, ojpa, first said by Heraclitus,
97.

oéparos Gepareia, oon of, 37.

oaparos poxOnpia, 12

cwppoovry and dixaoovvy nearly coin-
cide in the Republic, ix.

— identified with otpraca
dperi, 130.

codpociry, its wide sense in Gorgias,
131.

copper and appar, a false antithesis,
1

re

— and déxatos, parallelism be-
tween, 131.

408

Ta avrov mparrety, meaning of in Re-
public and in Gorgias, 172.

— xadd, 113.

— kona raira, 163.

— peydda pepinoa mply ta optxpd,
109.

—_ perag, 43, 44.

— mpo Tov bv dvdpes Oreyou els eyo
aroxpew, 128.

rags, 125.

ravra for ravra, 51.

rapos euypuxos, 175.
Taxa, 39.

INDEX I.

Tay’ eioopat, 10.
—— érevday, ib.
Teixos, TO dia pecou, 21.
Tédos e&et THs adnGeias, 86.
retpnpevos miOos, 98.
TéXYN, technical sense of, v.
— én Tl vuxi, 36.
TP Topare, i
Texvixai mpaypareta, 118.
Texvoypapos, V.
Thy ev Sadapin, 152.
—- dpxnv = ‘in the first instance,’
and with neg., ‘ not at all,’ 66.
ti hv eiva, 130.
_ ovdxt-€ppacas ; 122.
Tush), whether put for ripnpa, 109.
TO emt TovT@, TO emt T@de, adverbial,
143.
— péya Sivarba, 45, 48.
- interpolated, 47.
_— mapov ev rroveiv, 114.
— tev Tod\A@y abos, 145.
Totxwpuxetv, 135.

| rév Mapadon, not rov év Mapabon,

152.
Tourou mpoober, interpolated, 42.
tpayedias moinots, 120.
tpt arra for tpia dpa, 84,
rpiBn, 118.
tp.iddos, 168.
tuphdas éxeww, 67.
T@ Sve, use of, 86.

brdpxetv, 82.
tivi, not éy r., 165.

trédv, 37.

imephuei & as peydAn BraBn, 64.

imeparar,

td padns, 46.

uno tt droma, 99.

troBddXeu, 92.

ee = wtmodéyee in Xenophon,
37.

brodver Oat, ib.

bmoxeio Gat, ib.

trokaBeiy, 11.

trdévdos, 175.

imdaxes, 109.

troteiver Oa, 7.

drovdos, 68, 157.

ig’ cipdray, 46.

ve, verbs in, whether used by Attic
writers, 106.

INDEX I.

g.

pidia, prrorns, *Adpodirn, Neikos,
meaning of i in Empedocles, 133.
Prrdverxos ei, 148.
rvapeis Exar, 91.
pTiKds,

poupa for Secpwrnpror, 170.

ics

xapadpis, 101. :
———— in Babrius a singing bird,
ib.

adpiov Bios, ib.
Sopirbn 83.
xetpovpynpa, 10.
XEtpa@v vopos, 78.
xA@pa kai dvatya Ta mpadypara, 179.
xphpea applied to persons, 160.
XPyHATLOTEKH comp. with dixn and
iarptxn, 65.
xpuony Wuxny, 84.

193

Vv.

Pariferda, 81.

wiv, 102.

Wnpov béc6a, not xarabeoOa, 118.
Wopar, 102.

Woporras better than yepidrras, ib.

Q.

& pirn xeaay, 145.
dy for ds, 96.
as for 7 after comparative, a bar-
barism, ib.
@s—ay with optative, 16.
— dv dd€erev ottaciv, 135.
civat, 154.
ds y epoi Soxeiy, | 74,
rua 4: diaxdvous eivat, 153.
@s eros eizeiv, 10, 11, 118, 154.
— exer TOoO@Y, 132.
@cavTas ovTa, 29.
aorep ay i, 67.
avrixa, 75.

INDEX II.

A.

Aegina, fare to Athens from, 141.

Alcibiades, 158.

year of his death, 73.

II., the, spuriousness of, 5,
49, 61.

——— by some falsely attributed to
Xenophon, 49.

Alexis, comic poet, cited, 38.

Alliteration, 95.

Anachronism in Gorgias, 73.

Anachronisms in Plato, 48, 158.

Anacoluthia, 14, 15. ;

Analogy, false, in Gorgias, 160.

Anaxagoras, 39.

Andron, 85.

Antisthenes characterized, vi.

Anytus, though poxOnpés not paddos,
83

Aorist, force of, 122.
Apollo Pythius, sanctuary of, 52.
Apologia, the, 164, 165, 172.
Aposiopesis, 41.
Apuleius, xvi.
Archelaus, 123, 171.
reign of, 48.
vids Stpixns, 49.
entertained Euripides, ib.
his talent extolled by
Thucydides, ib.
his history, particulars of,
_found only in Plato, 48.
Tonic philosopher, Socrates’
early training under, 74.
Archilochus, fragment of, variously
cited, 75.
Aristides, 171.
———— Rhetor, 122.
—_ Rhetor, cited, 34, 36, 38,
134, 149, 151, 154.

Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, said to
ridicule the Platonic Common-
wealth, xx.

Aristotle, cited, 42.

on the unity of virtue, ix.

Soph. Elench., 74.

Ethics, 84.

Arithmetic, among the Greeks, 12.

4 specimen of, in Theaetetus,
ib.

Arithmetical equality distinguished
from geometric, 133.
Arnold on Thucydides, cited, 52.
Arsenius, cited, 184.
Art, decorative afid rhetorical, 38.
Arts and sciences, subordination of to
Ossie law, peculiar to Gorgias,
117;
Arts, useful, confused with those
which aim at pleasure only, 155.
—— higher and lower, ib.
Article, omitted, 112.
Ast, corrected, 75.
cited, 170.
Asyndeton, 51, 72, 76.
Athenaeus, cited, 97.
refuted, 48, 123.
————— value of his accusations of
Plato, 49, 123.
emended, 156.
Athenian people, justification of,
152.
Athens, famous for good bread, 156.
Attraction, 135.
Augment, doubtful, 61.
Auletic, disliked by Plato, 119.
Axiochus, the, interpolation in, 3.
cited, 56.

INDEX II.

B.

Babrius, cited, 101.

Badham, Dr., cited, 19, 96, 106.

Baiter, cited, 41.

Barathrum, 153.

Beast-taming, brought to perfection
at Athens, 76.

Beauty, definition of, 59.

Bekker, cited, 170.

Boeckh, cited, 141, 150.

Butler, Bp., his system rather Platonic
than Stoical, 129.

C.

Callicles, characterized, 113.

— a specimen of the dnpoxpart-
kos aynp, X.

speech of, more applicable to
Plato than Socrates, xvii.

hedonism of, not that of
Aristippus, xix.

— his d8prs, 102.

earnest in his warning to
Socrates, 140.

a man of rank, 143.

an admirer of Rhetoricians,

159.

—— a despiser of Sophists, ib.
Cannonus, psephism of, 152.
Casaubon, cited, 123.

Case, change of, 139.

Change from direct to oblique, 142.

Charadriadae, modern name of the
plover tribe, 101.

Charmides, cousin of Plato, xiv.

————_—- the, erudeness of, 130.

Christian ethics, likeness of to Pla-
tonic, vii.

Chrysostom, cited, 174.

Cicero translates Gorgias, 49.

de Officiis cited, 57.

Cimon, 123, 148.

his liberality, 1265.

ostracized, 151.

aan ridiculed by Aristophanes,

Classification, scientific value of, 117.
Cobet, cited, 3, 23, 32,-96, 106, 152.
—— controverted, 173.

Comedies, women excluded from, 121.
Construction, abbreviated, 95, 122.

195

Constructions, blending of two, 72.
7 with des, variety. in,
0.

Cope, Mr., cited, iv, 24.

Crete, classed by Plato with the
Asiatic islands, 167.

Criminals, bodies of, exposed, 153.

Critias, uncle of Plato, xiv.

Critias, the, cited, 170.

Cynical paradox, refutation of in
Philebus, 43.

D.

Danaids, fable of, moralized, 98.

Datismus, 70.

Definition, iv, 15.

Democritus, cited, 102.

Demus, son of Pyrilampes, 71.

mentioned by Eupolis and

Aristophanes, ib.

a trierarch, Ol. 98, 72.

Dialectic and rhetoric, contrast of, 8.

Dichotomy, Socratic, 122, 154.

Dionysius I., supposed allusion to,
138.

————- a man of literary accom-
plishments, ib.

Disjunctive syllogism in Gorgias,
58

Distributive justice, 133.

Dobree, cited, 22, 67, 75.

Donaldson, Dr., cited, 143.

Drakenborch, cited, 138.

Duplex quaestio, 40.

Duties, theory of, slightly touched by
Plato and Aristotle, 131.

E.

Ecclesiazusae, written by Aristophanes
in ridicule of the Platonic Common-
wealth, xx.

Elenchus, Socratic, 109.

Eleusinia, lesser and greater, ib.

Ellipse of preposition, 151.

Ellipse of deity, 53.

Elmsley, in Med., cited, 75.

~— on Eur. Heracl. cited, 61.

Empedocles, cited, 133.

———— an Eclectic, 100.

borrowed from Pytha-
goreans, ib.

196

Empedocles, semi-Pythagorean, sys-
tem of, 133.

Epicharmus, cited, 128.

Epistles, Platonic, genuineness of,
maintained by Grote and Cobet,
xii.

Epistle in the Phaedrus, a genuine
work of Lysias, iii.

Epitaphius, the, of Gorgias, 176.

Equality, simple and proportional,
133.

Ethics, Christian, likeness of to Pla-
tonic, vii. "6

Etymology, false, 98.

Evelides the host of Plato, xvi.

Eucrates, brother of Nicias, 52.

Euripides, Antiopa of, described, 80.

———— Hippolytus of, cited, 170.

Eusebius, cited, 166.

Euxitheus, the Pythagorean, con-
demned suicide, 97.

“ Exagitator omnium Rbhetorum,’
said of Plato, viii.

>

F.

Fine arts, allowed in the Platonic
state under certain conditions, 119.
Future optative in obliqua oratio, 73.

G.

Galatians, St. Paul’s Epistle to, cited,
51.

Genitive, use of, 146.

Geographical divisions, according to
Plato’s contemporaries, 167.

Good and pleasure, identified in Pro-
tagoras, contrasted in Gorgias,
xviii.

Good, how far synonymous with use-
ful in Gorgias, 57.

standard of beauty in Plato, 58.

not identical with pleasure, nor
pain with evil, 110.

Gorgias, his first visit to Athens, ii.

— his funeral oration, iii.

— ditto, characterized, 176.

— ethical dogma of, mentioned

by Aristotle, handled in the Menon,

ill.

— treatment of, in dialogue, iv.
— his age, ib.
— omniscience of, 4.

INDEX II.

Gorgias, sicelisms of, 10.

— irony of, 109, 180.

— fragments of, 175.

— spurious speeches, 177.

his Olympicus, 178.
————— his Pythicus, ib.
———his éyxapiov eis ’Hdeious,

ib.

his oration “in praise of
Achilles,” ib.
written work of, on Rhetoric,

ib.

—that Pericles was his dis-
ciple, a late fable, ib.

— metaphors of, 179.

- pager of, 180.

4 > id cal > a
is €£apiOunots Tav aperar,

181.

— ridiculed Sophists who pro-
fessed to teach virtue, ib.

—ethics of, commended by
Aristotle, ib.

— regards virtue as equivalent
to efficiency, ib.

— three sayings of, 183.
phrase of, adopted by Aris-
tophanes, ib.

zs his description of tragedy,
ib.

———- dictum of, explained, ib.
longevity of, attributed by
himself to his temperance, ib.

last saying of, 184.

and Tisias, their brachylogy,

the, date of the dialogue,

xvi, xix, 158.

8.

date of, according to
Gray, 48.
of later date than the

Lysis, 43.
scenes of the conver-

sation, 4.

an ethico-political
dialogue, vii, ix. Ms
not a treatise on Rhe-

toric, iv.

marks an epoch in the
growth of Platonic system and of
moral science, vili.

Order or Harmony,
the germinal idea of, ib.

analogy between it
and the Republic, xii.

identity of notions in
Gorgias and Republic, x.

INDEX I.

Gorgias, the, an *Amodoyia IAd-_

T@Vvos, XVIl.

not anti-Cyrenaic, xix.
tone of political de-

spair in, xiv.

undiscriminating se-
verity of, xix.

reasoning in, some-
times unconvincing, 108.

exaggerations in, 140.
prophecy of Socrates’

death in, xii.
anachronisms in, 73,

123.

Gray cited, 13, 20, 21, 42, 49, 51, 52,
70, 71, 72, 73.

Grote, History of Greece, cited, 52,
150, 151.

controvert-

ed, 56.

H.

Happiness, bodily and mental, 66.
Harmony, the germinal idea of the
Republic, viii.
and of the Gorgias, ib.
Hartung, Euripides Restitutus, re-
fe to, 84.
Heindorf, cited, 165, 168.
controverted, 173.
Helenae Encomium of Isocrates, 177.
Hendiadys, 7.
Heraclides Ponticus quoted, 55.
Heraclitus, anecdoton from, 56.
———-- cited, 96.
explained, 97.
Hermann, C. F., curious emendation
by, 143.
——__ G., cited, 56.
Hermogenes, cited, 175.
Herodicus, the brother of Gorgias, 5.
———— the Selymbrian, ib.
Hesychius, cited, 72, 77, 113.
Hippias, in Xenophon, 92.
IL., emendation of, 53.
Hirschig, cited, 14, 20, 29, 38, 53, 59,
64, 85, 95, 106, 119, 120, 130, 134,
141, 152.
Homeoteleuton, 30.
Hyperides pro Euxenippo, cited, 74.
— Lycoph., cited, 70.

197

E.

Indifferent things defined, 43.
Induction, imperfect, 105.
Infinitive epexegetic, 145.
Interpolations in text, 112, 118.
Interrogation, oblique for direct, in-
stances of in Plato doubted, 164.
Irony, Socratic, instances of, 56, 70.
‘ Trrisio,’ out of place, 140.
Isocrates, 42.
——- cited, 34, 38, 78, 81, 167.
——— xara téy coguoray, cited,
159.
——- Evag., cited, 53.
Helenae Encomium of, 177.
— wrote speech Against So-
phists early, 34.

his insinuations inst
Plato and his school, 79, 131.
—— hated philosophy, 81.
acknowledges its educa-

tional uses, ib.
an apologist for “ Univer-
sity Studies,” ib.
—— follows the traditions of
Gorgias, 160.
Itacism, 80.

J.

Julius Pollux, cited, 156.

Justice, according to Plato, a harmony
or proportion, ix.

in the Republic, equivalent to

virtue in general, ib.

defined by Callicles, 90.

L.

Laches, the, emended, 61.
Laconism, attributed to Socrates by
Aristophanes, 149.
affected by the oligarchs,
ib.

Lactantius, xvi.

Laws, the, referred to, 46.

Leake, cited, 21, 52, 109.

Lobeck, cited, 102, 107, 156, 169.
on Phrynichus cited, 50, 107.
yy te! me cited, 109.

Locke, cited, 42.

Logistic, 12.

198

Long Walls, the, 21.

Lucan, cited, 144.

Lycurgus, 133.

Lysias, epistle in Phaedrus, a genuine
work of, iii.

M.

Mango, Mangonizare, 38.

Medical profession, liberal in Greece,
143.

Meineke, emendation of Gorgias by,
183.

Meles, ridiculed by comic poets, 119.

Melitus, allusion to, 83, 162.

Menexenus, the, anachronism in, 123.

Meno, disciple of Gorgias, 181.

the, referred to, 42.

quoted, 181.

Miltiades, 123, 148.

crime imputed to, 152.
saved by the Prytanis or

Epistates, ib.

Minos, 168.

Mithaecus, a Syracusan, great in
éyrorrotia, 156.

————~ his the first cookery-book,
ib.

MSS., authority of, set aside, 45.

Mysians, the, regarded as the refuse
of mankind, 162.

Myths, the, in Gorgias and Republic
compared, xii, 165.

in Phaedo and Republic, later
than that in Gorgias, 166.

Mythical account of rewards and
punishments after death, 165.

N.

Nausicydes, mentioned by Xenophon
and Aristophanes, 85.

Negative constr. with a substantive,
with and without article, 66.

Neo-platonic trifling of Olympiodorus,
30

Nicias, built a temple within the peri-
bolus of Bacchus, 52.
ditto, 51.

O.
Oaths, used by Socrates, motive of,
Al.

INDEX II.

Oaths, recommended in sixth Epistle,
41

Odyssey, the, quoted, 172.

Olympicus of Gorgias, 178.

Olympiodorus, characterized, ii.

——_—— cited, 9, 27, 28, 42, 47,
56, 75, 82, 99, 100, 102, 104, 108,
110, 114, 131, 133, 137, 167, 170,
472:

—_———- emended, 96.

———_——- Neo-platonic trifling of,

30.
eee readings from, 4, 5, 19.
Optative, for conjunctive, 31.
———— after indicative present, 73.
Oration of Gorgias “in praise of
Achilles,” 178.
Order, the germinal idea of the Re-
publie, vii.

Be

Pain not identical with evi], 110.

Paradoxes in Gorgias, 136, 137, 158.

Participle, causal, 59.

——— omission of, after rvyyavet,
&ce., 120.

Participles, used adverbially, 22.

—- concourse of, in Plato, 101.

Peacocks, kept by Pyrilampes and his
son Demus, 71.

Perdiccas the Third, his reign, 49.

Pericles, 123, 148.

— unjustly handled in Gorgias,

xix.
— unfairness of Plato’s attacks
on, 154, 155, 158.

his eloquence spoken of in
Protagoras and Phaedrus, xix.
whether he improved the
Athenian character, 148.

— his theoric allowances justi-
fied, 125.

— accused of making the Athe-
nians mercenary, 149.

— fine imposed on, 150.

4 ,
— a vopobérns, not a dudKovos,

155.

Persuasion not the end of tragic
poetry, 121.

Phaedrus, the, cited, 70.

epistle in, a genuine

work of Lysias, iii.

eloquence of Pericles
spoken of in, xix.

Phalerum, site of, 21.

INDEX I.

Philebus, the, characterized, ix, xviii.
referred to, 43, 57, 102.
passage referring to Antis-

thenes, vi.
theory of Pleasure and Good
contained in, 105, 108.
possibly written to meet ob-
jections to reasoning in Gorgias,
108.

————- greater completeness of, 130.

Philo, cited, 96.

Philolaus, partition of the soul attri-
buted to him, 97.

——— condemned suicide, ib.

Philomela, name of the swallow, Pro-
ene that of the nightingale, in Greek
authors, 180.

Philostratus, cited, 38.

Phrynichus, cited, 107.

Physicians, public, 20.

Pindar, fragment of, examined, 77.

Plato, his feelings towards Athenian
democracy, x.

his early political experiences,

xiii.

—his connexion with members of

the Thirty, xiv.

an upatrid, both by his
father’s and mother’s side, xv.

—- brought up an oligarch, 152.

——- repeats party traditions, ib.

—— his dislike of public life, xix.

—— himself a rhetorician, viii.

probably studied rhetoric with

a view to public life, xv.

his treatment of the Sophists, iii.

depreciates the fine arts, vi.

—- utilitarianism in, ib.

how far utilitarian in Gorgias,

123.

——~ his censure of Tragedy, 120.

—- had a thorough Seeded of
poetic excellence, ib.

intention of his mythical narra-
tions, 166.

- indebted to the Orphic poets,
ib.

a borrower from Isocrates, 34.

——- dramatic impartiality of, 78.

——— ante-dates the opinions, etc., of
his own time, xvii.

changes words in quotations, 82.

substitutes Attic equivalents in

quotations from poets, 128.

provincialisms in, 10.

tabular arrangements in, 35.

—- anachronisms in, 48.

199

Plato, epistles of, cited, 49.
his original name Aristocles,

xx.

——- takes refuge in Megara, xvi.
his travels, fabulous extent and
duration assigned to, by his bio-
graphers, ib.

—his service in the army at
Tanagra, Corinth, and Delium, ib.
—— his evxépera in the choice of

terms, 131.
his attack on the Quatuorviri,
122.

Platonic Dialogues, on what princi-
ples named, 1.

earlier and later,

contrast between, ix.

doctrine of tripartition of the

soul, 97.

Epistles, genuineness of, main-
tained by Grote and Cobet, xii.

Pleasure and Good, identified in the
Protagoras, contrasted in the Gor-
gias, xviii.

Pleasure the final cause of lyrie and
dithyrambic poetry, and of Tragedy,
120.

Pleasures, impure, preceded and ac-
companied by uneasiness, 100.

Pleonasm of deiv, 142.

————— in pronouns, 74.

Plutarch, cited, 52, 68, 108, 166.

Pluto, in the Laws, public honours to
be paid to, 140.

Poetry, a kind of popular oratory, 121.

Politic, a Gepamcia yuxns, 124

Politicus, the, 36.

Polus, character of, v.

a Euphuist and coxcomb, vi.

——- puns on his name, v, 35.

——~- banter of in Phaedrus, vi.

— everera Of, ib.

his réxvn, 6.

a ditto, a fragment of in dialogue,

vi.
aK handled rhetoric zxsthetically,

ib.

Polygnotus, 5.

Polyidus of Euripides, cited, 96.

Porson, cited, 31, 45, 66, 80, 106, 163.

Prayer, Neo-platonic theory of, 131.

Proclus, characterized, ii.

Procne and Philomela transposed,
180.

Prodicus, apologue of, 3.

Protagoras, discourse of, characterized,
iii.

200

Protagoras, his émidecécs, iii.
—————— paradox of, in Theaete-
tus, 87.

the, earlier than the Gor-

gias, xviii.
eloquence of Pericles ‘spo-
ken of in, xix.
referred to, 42.
—a transitional dialogue,

130.
cited, 170.
Proverbs, 3, 56, 71, 78, 98, 108, 109,
112, 114, 128, 137, 144, 147, 162.
Provincialisms in Plato, 10.
Public men succeeding Pericles, in-
feriority of, 154.
Punishment, remedial, according to
Plato, 63, 66.
treated by Plato as exem-
plary or corrective, never as retri-
_butive, 127, 170.
—————- ‘ medicinal,’
by Aristotle, 136.
———— “pro salute animae,” a
principle avowed by Plato, ib.
‘ regarded as ‘satisfactory,’
170.

Purgatory, theological idea of, had its
foundation in Plato, ib.

Pyrilampes, Demus of, 144.

Pythagoras, quoted by Cicero against
suicide, 97.

—————. Theory of Virtue as an
Order or Harmony, probably sug-
gested by, x.

——— first called the universe
kéopos, 133.

Pythicus of Gorgias, 178.

recognized

Q.

Quatuorviri, the, 122, 148.
Quintilian, cited, 28, 134.

R.

Redundancy, justifiable, 135.
Republic, the, date of, xx.
— Order or Harmony, the
germinal idea of, viii.
—_ picture of ideal Just and
Unjust Men in, Xi.
cited, 58, 169, 172.
—— emended, 58, 70.
Rhadamanthys, 168.

INDEX II.

Rhetoric, false and true, in Phaedrus,
iv.
the true, xviii.
——— definition of, 15.
—— ditto, in Phaedrus, ib.
a spiritual cookery, 39.
its uselessness, 68, 70.
—- rational, scheme of in Phae-
drus, 117.
treated formally in Phae-
drus, ethically in Gorgias, ib.
true political, must follow
the analogy of other arts, 124.
true and false distinguished,
153.

Rhetorician, the true, must be just
and acquainted with justice, xviii.
Rhetoricians, early, effect of their writ-

ings, 177.
Routh, cited, 41, 71, 74, 112, 166.

Ss.

St. Paul, cited, 51.
Sarabus, not Sarambus, 156.
— a Plataean, ib.
Saving life, not the highest end, 143.
Schema Pindaricum, when admissible
in Attic, 116.
Schleiermacher controverted, xix.
Scolia, 13.
Seneca, cited, 68.
Sextus Empiricus, quoted, 8.
Shakespeare, cited, 70, 98, 99.
Shilleto, Mr., cited, 18.
Sicelisms of Gorgias, 10.
Simplicius, commentaries of, ii.
Socrates, inventions of, iv.
paradoxes asserted by, vii.
—— prophecy of his death in the
Gorgias, xii, xix.
——— his conduct as chairman of
the assembly, 56.
his utilitarianism, 57.
his theory of the beautiful,

ib.
———— his passion for consistency,
73, 92.
in what sense said d:apei-
petv Tovs véous, 85. ;
prefers rhetoric to sophistic,
160.
effect produced by his cross-
questioning, 164.
———— his professed belief in the
myths related by him, 165.

INDEX II.

Socrates, his devotion to his calling,
172.

of Xenophon, 57.

his opinions, 79.

Socratic elenchus, 86.

Socratic Ethics, fundamental princi-
ples of, 42.

———— irony, instances of, 85.

paradox, only seeming, 68,

= 70.
—— oaths, 30.
temperament, 41.
——— view of virtue, 28.
Solecisms, 137, 144, 145, 170.
Sophists, common taunt against, 158.
Soul, penal incarceration of, held by
Pythagoreans and Orphices, 97.
State, the, and Individual, parallelism
between, in the Republic, ix.
Statecraft, the true, according to Plato,
123. ;
Statesmanship, final cause of, 158.
Stobaeus, cited, 54.
Stoical doctrine, resembling Platonic,
68.

exaggeration, ib.
Subject, change of in sentence, 138.
Suicide condemned by followers of

Pythagoras, 97.
Synesius, cited, 109.

*.

Tacitus, Annales of, cited, 169.

Temperance, the right state of the
soul, 130.

Theaetetus, the, explained, 91.

—_——- cited, 173.

Thearion, 156.

Themistocles, 123, 148.

———_—_—_—— banished after being

Dear api 151. q dias
eocrines, s inst, y
attributed © Dwncethenen 52.

Theodoret, cited, 166.

Theoricon, the, 149.

Thersites, 171.

Thessalides, black arts of the, 144.

Thucydides, cited, 149.

——_——_ Gorgiasm of, 10, 177.

Tisander, 85.

To

public, 168.

VOL. Il..

hy of myths in Gorgias and

201

Tragic ts of the fourth more
rhetorical than those of the fifth
century B.c., 121. ;

apy boeing no restriction in the
admission to, ib.

Triptolemus, 168.

U.

Se aa the, wretched condition

of, 98.

Utilitarian and psychological view of
Ethics reconciled, 123.

Utility not the sole test of beauty
according to Plato, 57.

N:

Van Heusde, cited; 73, 174.

Vice, a disease or deformity, 63.

—— the greatest of all evils, 64.

Virtue, definition of, viii.

Theory of as an Order or
Harmony, probably suggested by
Pythagoreans, x.

— Socratic view of, 28.

a spontaneous, admitted by

Plato, 130.

consists in harmony, order,
and proportion, ib.

Virtue = efficiency, according to Gor-
gias, 181.

W.

Woolsey, Prof., cited, 29, 30, 95.
Wordsworth cited, 78.
—_——_— Mr. J, cited, 11.

o ¢.
Xenophon, 56.
——— cited, 46.
—— Alcibiades II, by some attri-
buted to, 49.
Z.
Zeno of Citium, 49.
i

t ad
wiery jie

ae
AGH

io cue ai é Hi 57

+ ye
t —
j >
ru . i A
4 4 ¥! : ht t 7 35
; j a4 eT + ne
x; > ack Gy iG “a g a%
L. ; r tY
ei whine > ty Seen te
a .
! rs rr 1 Teas . x
vk te as tihiis: ert i ¥
- te Y aa » ‘
‘ Fel :
lpale a? é i is
r ‘pe : : sens @ ud
oF is
jaty °
? - rf
< > 43 “i
4 eee! i LA
- as rf
iad eh ite
, 1 ' 4
Bare eos io ‘ 7
+ aah”
: ;
kp CF *ui © , ars
i “sz
Jeg
,, mee
\ : i
, + r - *
me Oye ON fy (tier t ¢” is
an 6 . y.
ay Pitt: bay ny
ce Ff mi DA
; okt bea} Py PLE Cas
u K
y
on
¥ 7
eet thes,
§
a
Eds Singh yen
3 ‘ Site aT " we :
< fat: Sis ef Af a : "

= 7 ee | “fib ob Lash

- ‘ 4
¥ . « c A ap

at 4 : 4 ; * * >

+! bi ae eae Ai arreeit ayia wis Bote

aa Bose aes
a a ts nee Tater = Fa

fy. 3r
PRE AA TE

met
S 83133 Tee ee pelt
ti» Fs f Hy
oa ere, EE jeclksel
sk

- ‘ae , * “7
stp Mars Wiles) ee
t ‘ te ——

of Saaeae
updos uu hj, iyhnday
reba’

ai

= ’
1s et
_ % ero
i i se
:
By sott|

} is ni
whee a +5} 3

¥ rt
SO

Agatha icaceaeper nie
popee aes oa iat c
Aare tt FE trader -f

Be t ~~ Vee, eh
r et alg Wiha tat Dhity
; set, here = ipa
t wey TAF 4 Leen cy ones

oe.
ts t “tr ty r “5

PGE lbtiead ¢

J a ' 3
Diy wean Lie
cr tee ote bbe

|

A SELECTION OF WORKS,

PUBLISHED BY

WHITTAKER & CO., AVE MARIA LANE,

NTHON’S VIRGIL. With English Notes. New edition.

£ s.d.

By the Rev. F. Mercatre. 12mo. cloth f sy eh, Ue

ARETTI’S Dictionary of the Italian and English her
guages. Newedition. 2 vols. 8vo.cloth . ]
BEATSON’S Progressive Exercises on the Composition of
Greek Iambie Verse. 12mo. cloth . 0
BELLENGER’S FrenchConversations. New ed. 12mo, cloth 0
BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA:—
ZESCHYLUS. With a Commentary, by F. A. Patey, M.A. 0
CICERO’S ORATIONS. With a Commentary, by G,
Lone, M.A. 4 vols, 8vo. cloth
*,* The volumes are sold separately.
DEMOSTHENES. With a Commentary, by the Rev. R.
Wuiston. Vols. I. and II. 8vo. cloth . ; - each 0
EURIPIDES. With a Commentary, by FF, A. Parzy,
M.A. 8 vols., sold separately. 8vo.cloth . - each 0
HERODOTUS. With English Notes, &c., by the Rev. J.
W. Braxestey, B.D. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth ‘ . one
HESIOD. With Eng. Notes, by F. A. Parry, M.A. 8vo. cl. 0
HOMER, The Iliad. Vol. I. Books 1 to 12. With
English Notes, by F. A. Parey, M.A. 8vo. cloth .
Vol. Il. Books 13 to 24. With
English Notes, by F. A. Paley, M.A. 8vo.cloth .
HORACE. With a Commentary, by the Rev. A. J.
Macteane. 8vo.cloth .
JUVENAL and PERSIUS. Witha , Commentary, by the
Rev. A. J. Macreane. 8vo. cloth.

se U

Pa,

- 0

Pa,
PLATO, PHAEDRUS, with English “Notes, &e,, by

W. H. Tuompson, D. D. 8vo, cloth ’ . 0

GEORGIAS, with English Notes, &e., by

W. H. TuompPson, D. D. 8vo. cloth . . 0

SOPHOCLES. Vol. L. With a Commentary, by the Rev.

F. H. M. Braypes, M.A. 8vo. cloth ; . 0

Vol. II, With English Notes, by FA.

Pacey, M.A. . 0

0

=O

TACITUS, The Annals. By Rev, P. Frost, M.A. 8vo. cl.

TERENCE. With a Commentary, by the Rev. E. Sr.
Jounx Parry. 8vo. cloth ;

VIRGIL. With a Commentary, by Joun Conincton, "M.A.
Vol. I., containing the Eclogues and Georgics. 8vo. cloth 0
Vol, IL, containing Books I. to VI. ofthe Aineid. 8vo. cl. 0
Vol. ILI., containing Books VII. to XII. of the Mneid,

with a ‘Commentary by J. Contneron, M.A., and H.
Nettiesuip, M.A. 8vo.cloth . . 0
ZESAR de Bello Gallico. With English Notes, &e., by
Grorce Lone, M.A. 12mo. cloth . . 0
Books | to8,by G. Lone, M.A. 12mo.cloth 0
CAMBRIDGEGREEK AND LA TIN TEXTS, 16mo. cloth :—
AESCHYLUS. Patey . é HciplO
CHSAR de BELLO GALLICO. Lone. . 0
CICERO de SENECTUTE et de AMICITIA. Lone. 0
CICERO’S ORATIONS, Lone. Vol. I. . ° 5)
EURIPIDES. Patery. 8 vols. . 4 : . each 0
HERODOTUS. Braxestey. 2vols, . , ° Pm

10 0

“102 Go = bo do or
SAaaaRCS an

oo o oo eS oO or) o ° Oo Oo ao o So

o

a

NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRACUM. Scrivener ;

CAMBRIDGE GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS, with

English Notes. 18mo. cloth . ° ° - each 0 1 6

ZESCHYLUS, AGAMEMNON. Pacey.’
——___—-—- HUMENIDES.. Pater.

PERS. Patey.

ees PROMELHEUS VWINGLUS. Parry,
ee (SP TEM GONLRA LoOEDBDES:” PAsrey,
CICERO, DE AMICITIA. Lone.

ne DP ISENECTU TE. “Lowe,

——-———- EPISTOLZ SELECT2. Lone.
EURIPIDES, ALCESTES. Pacey.

een, DACCH A, PArky,

—— ee ECU BA. « PALEY:

eee IPP OLAWUS. JCALEY;

—__———— MEDEA. Patry.
————. ION. Parry. 2s.
————— ORESTES. Patey.
PHCENISSZ. Patey.
——_———— TROADES. Patey.
HOMER’S ILIAD. BookI. Patey, Is.
OVID, Selections from. MaAcLeane.
SOPHOCLES, ANTIGONE. Patey.
CGEDIPUS COLONEUS. Patey.
CEDIPUS TYRANNUS. Patey.
CAMPAN’S (Madame) Conversations in French and English.
New edition. 12mo.cloth . -0 36
CATULLUS, TIBULLUS, and PROPERTIUS. With Eng.
Notes. By the Rev. A. H. Wratistaw, M.A. 12mo.cl.0 3 6
CHEPMELL’S (Rev. Dr.) Course of History. Newed. 12mo.cl. 0 5 0
Questions on ditto. I2mo. sewed . 010
CICERO’S Minor Works. De Officiis, &c. &. With English
Notes, by W. C. Taytor, LL.D. New edit. 12mo. cloth 0 4 6
CICERO de Amicitia, de Senectute, &c. With Notes &c.,
by G. Lone, Esq., M.A. 12mo. cloth . .0 46
COMSTOCK’S System of Natural Philosophy. New edition
by Lees. 18mo. bound > : . . OO dup
AWSON’S Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament.
New edition, by Dr. Taytor. 8vo. cloth ‘ 0
DES CARRIERE, Histoire de France. Par C. J. Dette.
12mo. bound . 0
French Idiomatical Phrases and Familiar
Dialogues. Square cloth . : : .0 36
LUGEL’S German and English, and English and Givin
Dictionary. New edition. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth : 1 10
Abridged. Revised edition. 12rmo. cloth 0 6 re
)

Yl
2 WHITTAKER’S LIST
Foy i

CAMBRIDGE GREEK ANDLATIN TEXTS oan —_—
HOMERI ILIAS. Patey . 0
HORATIUS. Macteane : . 6
JUVENAL et PERSIUS. Micteawe ~ 0
LUCRETIUS. Muwro . ‘ oo |)
SALLUST, CATILINA et JUGURTHA. ‘Lone cou)
TERENCE. WaGNER . “0
THUCYDIDES. Doak Dhow. 2 vole. ; ee |
VIRGIL. Conineton . : 5 ee
XENOPHON, ANABASIS. ‘Miswicenker . . 0

0

large paper, 4to. half-bound. 0 12

m bo Co 51 CO DD — bd DO
SAMRRDORAAQAQAG : &

OF STANDARD WORKS.

2

FOREIGN CLASSICS. 12mo. cloth :—

GERMAN BALLADS. By Brerererp. : .

CHARLES XllIth. By Direy ‘ F é .

FONTAINE’S FABLES. By Gasc .

GOETHE’S HERMANN ee DOROTHEA. By ‘Bet

PICCIOLA, SAINTINE. By Duzuc .

SCHILLER’S MAID OF ORLEANS. By W. Wacnzr

WALLENSTEIN. By Bucnuerm .
——_——-——-MARIA STUART. By Kasrner .
TELEMAQUE, FENELON. By Devitte .
RADUS ad PARNASSUM. Pyper. Improved ed. 12mo. oli
GREEK TESTAMENT. With Notes, &c., by the Rey.
J. F. Macmicwaer, B.A. 12mo.cloth .
Edited by Dr. Scrivener. New
edition, revised. 18mo. cloth
An edition on writing eper with wide margin "for Notes.
4to. half-bound :
AMEL’S New Universal French Grammar. " New ed.
12mo. bound .
French Exercises. New edition. 12mo. bound . :
Key to ditto. New edition. 12mo. bound.
French Grammar and Exercises. By Lampert.
12mo. bound ° :
——_——_ Key to ditto, by Lamaenrr. " 12mo. bound °
HOBLYN’S Dictionary of Medical Terms. New edition, much
enlarged. Sm. 8vo. cloth é é wits . :
HOMER'S ILIAD, Books I.—XII. With English Notes, by
F. A. Parry, M.A. 12mo. cloth
HOOPER’S Physician’s Vade Mecum. New edition, by Guy
and Hartey. 12mo.cloth .
HORACE. With English Notes, by the Rev. A. J. Mactrane,
M.A. Abridged. 12mo. cloth °

UVENALIS SATIRA XVI. With English "Notes, by
H. Prior, M.A. 12mo. cloth ?

EVIZAC’S French Dictionary. New ed. “12mo. Ketind
LONG'S Atlas of Classical Geography. With copious
Index, &e. New edition. Royal 8vo. half-bound

Grammar School Atlas of Classical
Geography. Royal 8vo. cloth. ‘
ARTIAL’S Select Epigrams. With English Notes, by F.
A. Patey, M.A. 12mo. cloth -
EUMAN and BARETTIS Spanish and English, aa
English and Spanish Dictionary. Revised ed. 2 vols. 8vo. cl.
Pocket Edition. 24mo. cloth
LLENDORFP'S (Dr. H. G.) French Method. New edi-
tion. 12mo.cloth . é
Key to ditto, by Dr. OLLENDorrr. 8vo. cloth
Italian Method. 12mo. cloth
Key to ditto, by Dr. OLLENDoRFF. 8vo.cloth . .
German Method. New edit. Cr. 8vo. cl.
Key to ditto, by Dr. Octenporrr. 8vo. cloth .
Spanish Method. 8vo.cloth .
Key to ditto, by Dr. OLteNDoRFF. 8vo. cloth
OVID, AS susan With English Notes, &c., by F. A. Paty,

mae ht Mie Be ee a a ee a Se ehh Lg ng pe eM ae

So °° coceeqges o-

12mo. cloth . :
p= ROSES Easy Exercises in Latin Elegiac Verse. New
edition. - 12mo. cloth . : : ‘ :

a
op

1

—
NYNHVV UNA

o o cooocoooococoe

SI mW & W CO DD GO CO CO

~1

rs
for) for) for) co oco i=) lor) a SHOT AaAMRMAHRHOTAD

2

or
coo

Gr

bo

o>)

for) Oo fo>) an

4 WHITTAKER’S STANDARD WORKS,

WHITTAKER’S IMPROVED EDITIONS OF
PINNOCK’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. New and revised
edition. 12mo. bound .

ROME. New adidon. 1 Quis nnd
GREECE. Newedition. 12mo. bound
English Spelling Book. 12mo. cloth
Exercises in False Spelling. 18mo. cloth
————_——- First Spelling Book. 18mo. cloth

——_—_—_——— Catechisms of the Arts, Sciences, History, &e., ea.

ALLUST. With English Notes, by Grorce Lone, M.A.

k 12mo. cloth.

SCHINZEL’S German Preparatory Course. 12mo. cloth .

SHAKESPEARE’S Plays and Poems. A Library Edition.
Edited by J. Payne Cotuier, F.S.A. 6 vols. 8vo. cloth

Edited by J. Payne Cottier, Esq. With
Portrait and Vignette. Super-royal 8vo. cloth

SPIERS’ French-English and English-French Dictionary. New
edition. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. cloth

— French Dictionary. School edition. 12mo. bound

STODDART’S New Latin Delectus. 5th ed., Revised. 12mo. cl.

ACITUS. Germania and Agricola. With English Notes,
by the Rev. P. Frost. 12mo. clota ° ° . P

ALPY’S GRADUS, Latin and English. New edition.
Royal 12mo. bound .

edition, by Dr. Masor. 8vo. cloth : .
VENERONTS Italian Grammar. New edition. 12mo. bound ;
VIRGIL. Abridged from Conrneron’s edition. Vol. I. Bu-

cortices. Groreics. Aine. Books I.—IV. With English

Notes. By the Rev. J. G. SHerrarp, D.C.L. 12mo. el
Vol.2. AEnzrp. Books V. to XII. With English

~ Notes. By H. Nerrcesurpe and W.-Waener. 12mo. cl.
———— inz1v. Books V., VI. With English Notes. By

H. Nerriesui. 12mo. cloth ;

Bucotics. Groreics. With English Notes by
the late Rev. J. G. Suepparp, D.C.L. 12mo, cloth

Groreics. Books I.—II. 12mo, cloth ‘

Ainerp. Books I.—X. In 5 parts. 12mo, cloth .

ALKER’S DICTIONARY. Remodelled by Smarr. New
edition. 8vo. cloth

Epitomized by ditto. 12mo. cl.
WALKINGAME’S Tutor’s Assistant. By Fraser. 12mo. cl.
Key to ditto. New edition. 12mo. cloth .
WEBER’S Outlines of Universal History. Translated by Dr.
M. Benr. 8vo.cloth .
WHITTAKER’S Florilegium Poeticum. New edition. By
the Rev. P. Frost. 12mo. cloth . ° °

ENOPHON’S Anabasis. With Notes, &c., by the Rev. J. F.
MacmicuaEL, B.A. New edition. iene, cloth
In 4 parts. 12mo. cloth . each
Cyropedia. With English Notes, by the
Rev. G. M. Gornam, M.A. New edition. 12mo. cloth
Memorabilia. With Notes, iy the = P;
Frost. New edition. 12mo. cloth ,

Greek Testament, for Schools. New ed. 12mo. bd.
Schrevelius’s Greek and English Lexicon. New

1

- 0
= 0
0

j)

oO oo <6

ooo

0
. 0

iv)
lor)

ie

—

=
oao Oo S aoc ODBDAAaARS

or
om

4

- 3: Nis

ay
“
hy ‘

“e

ca

: ;
Se “3 ns
OO eee panadedaeetaeraar” = ry ‘ 4 —
a cease ani Brats sion 20-2 Seren aeconne
Woovdgotre cot he ws fies ‘s ery oT Fe ? roweee wore
tse win . = Roamepee cece
i : eee
oer

* ferro 3 :

verre
Peeve even .

ane as
y= ,, os
see apa ieatinees ore

St
ree o<
moe 2

Sores owes
. Pe
a
oy.
oe

Ber re en Oe na ats %
Saanich ncaa tenn tate
ree 2 Ann OOD he? hPa Oe:

pans tl hese eee