PLATONICA 
 
Bv THE SAME AUTHOR 
 NOTES ON XENOPHON AND 
 OTHERS. 1907 
 
 [On Xenophon, especially the Opera 
 Minora, Herodotus, Pausanias, Plu- 
 tarch's Lives, the Erotici, &c. ; also 
 on Catullus, Propertius, Juvenal, 
 and others.] 
 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth. 6s. net. 
 
 ARISTOPHANES AND 
 OTHERS 
 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth. 7$. net. 
 
 TWO LATIN TEXTS 
 By A. E. HOUSMAN 
 
 D. JUNII JUVENALIS 
 SATURAE 
 
 Demy 8vo. Paper boards. 43. 6d. net. 
 
 M. MANILII ASTRONOMI- 
 CON I 
 
 Demy 8vo. Paper boards. 45. 6d. net. 
 
 THE AGAMEMNON OF 
 AESCHYLUS 
 
 Translated by ARTHUR PLATT, M.A., 
 Professor of Greek at University 
 College. 
 
 F'cap 8vo. Cloth. 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 GRANT RICHARDS LTD., 
 7, CARLTON STREET, LONDON. 
 
PLATONICA 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT RICHARDS, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW AND TUTOR OF WADHAM COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 5' eir) traai rervKrai. XENOPIIANES 
 
 LONDON 
 
 GRANT RICHARDS LTD. 
 1911 
 
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITKD, 
 
 BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., B.C., AND 
 BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 THE notes on the Philebus form the only part of 
 this book which is entirely new. The other Platonic 
 sections appeared at different times from 1893 to 1909 
 in the Classical Review or Classical Quarterly. But 
 all of them, and especially the notes on the Republic, 
 have now been revised and often considerably enlarged, 
 though at the same time some things have been 
 omitted. Included in an appendix, as being in some 
 degree akin, are emendations of the text of Marcus 
 Aurelius (1905), Epictetus (1905), and Diogenes 
 Laertius (1904). The notes on the Violetum of 
 Arsenius were first published in 1910. 
 
 In textual criticism it is often the case that 
 suggestions on this or that passage cannot be judged 
 by themselves singly, but must be taken along with 
 those made on other passages. A conjecture which, 
 standing alone, will not appear sufficiently probable 
 may easily assume a new aspect, when it is seen that in 
 
 256596 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 other cases too where error is likely or certain a 
 similar suggestion seems to set things right. The 
 hypothesis which suits half a dozen passages 
 recommends itself much more strongly than that which 
 explains one. It is only by long and minute study 
 that a scholar becomes so familiar with possible 
 mistakes that he can estimate fairly the chances of 
 their occurrence. But the indexes to this book, to 
 Notes on Xenophon and Others^ and to Aristophanes 
 and Others, will often aid judgment on the proposal 
 put forward as to a particular passage by indicating 
 others, sometimes not a few, to which the same remedy 
 may apply, and occasionally others again in which it is 
 generally allowed, or actually known, to be right. 
 
 I am once more indebted to my printers and their 
 reader for the care which they have given to a piece of 
 work involving no small amount of trouble. 
 
 HERBERT RICHARDS. 
 
 OXFORD, January, 1911. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 EUTHYPHRO 1 
 
 APOLOGY 2 
 
 CRITO 14 
 
 CHARMIDES 16 
 
 LACHES 19 
 
 LYSIS 21 
 
 HIPPIAS MAIOR 24 
 
 ,, MINOR 26 
 
 ION 27 
 
 MENEXEXUS 29 
 
 ALCIBIADES 1 32 
 
 II 34 
 
 HIPPARCHUS 36 
 
 ERASTAE 37 
 
 THEAGES . 38 
 
 PROTAGORAS 39 
 
 MENO ..... 44 
 
 EUTHYDEMUS 49 
 
 GORGIAS 54 
 
 CRATYLUS 64 
 
 SYMPOSIUM 68 
 
 PHAEDO . . 73 
 
viii CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 REPUBLIC 83 
 
 CLITOPHON 157 
 
 PHAEDRUS 158 
 
 THEAETETUS 165 
 
 PARMENIDES 178 
 
 SOPHIST 180 
 
 POLITICUS 187 
 
 PHILEBUS . 193 
 
 TIMAEUS 221 
 
 CRITIAS 226 
 
 MINOS 230 
 
 LAWS . .... 231 
 
 EPINOMIS 254 
 
 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 255 
 
 TA NO0EYOMENA 
 
 "Opoi 293 
 
 nepl AtKalov 294 
 
 Demodocus 295 
 
 Sisyphus .... 295 
 
 Eryxias 297 
 
 Axiochus 298 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Marcus Aurelius 301 
 
 Epictetus .... 319 
 
 Laertiana ... 326 
 
 Arsenii Violetuin 340 
 
 GENERAL INDEX ,'.... 347 
 
 GREEK INDEX ... . 350 
 
PLATONICA 
 
 EUTHYPHRO 
 
 5 C <T /xev oiiof SOKCI opav, ifjik ot ovrtos oco>s drc^vtu? KCU 
 ev OJO-TC K.r.X. 
 
 tos is absent from the Bodleian MS. and bracketed 
 or omitted by recent editors. Burnet suggests that it 
 may represent drevais. It is not clear whether he means 
 that in that case Plato wrote drevtos and that oeW is a 
 gloss on it. This seems unlikely. 'Arevcog is probably not 
 a word that would be used to qualify KaOopav, when 
 KaOopav is used transitively. It expresses fixity and 
 intensity of gaze (/5Xe7Tiv is, OtacrOai.), whereas KaOopav is 
 only to see, descry, etc. Matthew Arnold could write of 
 Sophocles that * he saw life steadily,' but no one would say 
 1 he saw me steadily.' o^'w? on the other hand, which is 
 not the same thing, is often coupled with KaOopav in Plato 
 and elsewhere. 
 
 Is it possible that drc^vws would really be in place before 
 or after ovSe So/m opav 1 Cf. Polit. 287 E eTSos - . . TTJ 
 
 flTOVJJiVr] . . . TTpOO-TJKOV OVOV <XT>(VCUS e7TL(TT^fJir) '. A.T. N. 425 
 
 ou8' av 
 
 7 C 7T/Ol TtVOS 8e Sr) $LtV)(OtVTC<; Kttt CTTt TlVtt KplO~W OV 
 
 OVVOL^VOL d<f>iKo~Oai ^0poc ye av dAX^Xois elucv ; 
 
 Schanz nva for TWO.. Perhaps it should be TIJ/OS. Cf. D 
 Kpio~LV avT&v l B rj TTf.pl TLV(I)V oLacfropd ; 13 D rj larpots vTrrjpfTLKr) 
 eis TIVOS pyov virrjptGriav rvy^dvei ovtra vTTTypertK^ ; etc. 
 Cf. p. 86. 
 
 HE The old V7ro0w//.e0a, though it seems to have no MS. 
 authority, is surely more suitable to the context than 
 TrpoOufjLtOa. It is however not mentioned by either Schanz 
 or Burnet. Cf . V7ro0/>uvos 9 D : vTrofleWs 1 1 c, and 
 see p. 150. 
 
 B 
 
'2'<- J APOLOGY 
 
 APOLOGY 
 
 18 B Ot VyHa>V TOUS TToAAouS . . . (.7Ti06v Tf. KOLL 
 
 e/xov [/xaAAovJ ovSev dAr^e?, OK ecrriv rts 2wKpaT7^ o~o<^>6? avrjp 
 
 Ttt T /terewpa (^pOl/TlOTr)? Kttt TO, V7TO yJ^S TTOLVTa dve^T^KWS 
 
 K.T.A. 23 C Aeyovo-tv a>s SwKpaV^s TI'S ecrrt /xtapwraTO? Kat 
 Sta<j!>$ipei TOVS veovs. 
 
 If in 23 c TTI were only the copula, could rts stand 
 first 1 ? should it not then be /uapomxro's rt's eo-rt? This 
 reflexion and the comparison of 18 B (cf. Dem. 21. 58) 
 seem to show that it is eo-ri, not eo-rt ; ' there is a very 
 objectionable person named Socrates.' But then Plato can- 
 not have gone on Kat Sta<#ipei. Probably the last letters 
 of the adjective have absorbed a relative pronoun, and we 
 should read ]. TIS cart /xiapwrarog, <Tos> KCU SiatfrOeipci rovs 
 veovs. In T/ieae/J. 152 E : Lys. 7. 10 : Xen. An. 1. 8. 26 : 
 [Ar.] 'A0. IIoX. 33. 1 like insertions (os after -05) have 
 been made and are either necessary or extremely probable. 
 
 For ra /xcrewpa <poi/TioT779, which there is no sufficient 
 reason to suspect, the best parallel is Ar. Poet. 4, 1448 b 34 
 uxTTTfp Se KO.I TO. CTTTOvSara yuaA-iara TrotTyTTys ^Oyu^pos (Vahlen 
 ad loc.). Another good prose parallel is Xen. B. L. 13, 11 
 tcpet fjiv TO. Trpos TOVS ^eovs tivai, orpaT^yo) 8e ra Trpos TOVS 
 dr^pwTrovs. Add App. B.C. 4. 67 TO. 'EXAr/viKO. StSacrKaXos 
 cyevero rai Kao-o-tw, Perhaps we might also add Plato 
 Sytnp. 196 E Trot^r^s 6 "Epws dya^o? Traaav Trooycrtv, but there 
 dyatfos may determine the construction. 
 
 ibid. C L<rlv OVTOI 01 Korriyopoi iroXXol KCU TTO\VV \povov rfSr) 
 Acar7;yopr;KOT5, Irt Se Kat ev ravrrj TJJ ^XtKta Aeyovres Trpos v/xas 
 ev 77 av /xaAtcrra eTrtcrrcvcraTC TratSes ovr5. 
 
 In his edition of 1893 Schanz reads 8rJ for av. Certainly 
 av is curious, for with an indicative tense its regular use is 
 to express that something would have happened under 
 other circumstances but in the actual circumstances did 
 not. Adam makes av cTrio-revVa-re iterative, but that is 
 very improbable here. Antiphon 6. 11 wo-Trep av ^/Sierra Kat 
 eTrtTrySeiorara d//,</>oTpots eyiyi'cro, cyw /xo> KC\evov Kat 
 rJTov/jirjv, ot Se . . . ITT^TTOV (Goodwin, M.T. 244) seems an 
 exact parallel, and the two passages may stand or fall 
 
APOLOGY 3 
 
 together. I think the construction is due to a certain 
 confusion between two possible modes of expression, 
 e.g. ' in the pleasantest way (that was) possible ' and ' in 
 such a way that no other would have been pleasanter ' : 
 dv is really proper only in the second case. If it should be 
 thought that both passages are wrong, though Antiphon 
 would hardly have written oJo-Trep ^Sierra . . . eyi'yvero, we 
 might think of TriorTeuVatTe, which would be possible Greek, 
 though referring to past time (see my Aristophanes and 
 Others, jx 15). Cf. Euthyphro 5 c, where MSS. vary 
 between eye'vero and yei/otro : Xen. Cyrop. 2. 1. 9, where 
 they vary between nrotovfn/y and Troiot/xr/v. But I incline 
 to think the text right. 
 
 19 C Kol oi>x a)? dn/xa^o)!/ Xeya) rrjv rotavr^v 
 
 TtS TTfpl T(01/ TOlOVTtOV (TO^OS OTIV - /A^ TTO)? eyoJ 
 
 TCKrauras St'xas <^>vyot/xi (not <f>vyoifu) dAAa yap eynoi TOUTCOV, 
 a) avSpes ' AOrjvaloi, ovSev flfT*&TlV. 
 
 I have not found anywhere, though it has probably been 
 given, what seems to me the right explanation of ^ TTCO? 
 /c.T.A. Setting aside the view that px) is here final, we take 
 the words as expressing a wish. But what is the exact 
 meaning of roo-airras Sucas 1 ' So grave a charge ' ( Jowett) 
 it cannot mean, even if that made satisfactory sense under 
 the circumstances, because Sue??, not Sticat, is invariably 
 used, at any rate in prose, for a single suit or action. It 
 must then be 'so many actions.' This is sometimes 
 explained to mean (1) an action for contempt of iirtcrTrj^t] 
 as well as one on the charge on which Socrates is now 
 actually arraigned. But ' so many actions as that would 
 amount to ' seems very feeble, when only two are meant ; 
 and there ia also the objection to be stated in a moment. 
 Then we have the view (2) indicated by Heindorf and 
 developed by Schanz that roo-atVas refers to the number of 
 separate branches of knowledge, in this case of natural 
 science, which he might be arraigned for slighting or 
 insulting. Schanz adopts this explanation in his com- 
 mentary (1893), but feels bound to alter MeX-^rov to 
 MeArJTO)v, a number of Meletuses or persons like Meletus. 
 But at least three objections present themselves to this 
 theory. First Socrates does not distinguish the various 
 
 B 2 
 
4 APOLOGY 
 
 branches, so as to lead up to the plural roo-avVas : he says 
 TT)V Totavr^v 7ricm}/7v. The sciences were not at that time 
 so differentiated. Then why in such a connexion should 
 Socrates put it all upon Meletus, when he takes pains to 
 assert that, as it was, there were other accusers represent- 
 ing in a way (23 E) separate professions or sets of people 1 
 (This, I suppose, is the sort of reason for which Schanz 
 would read the plural MeXr/rtov.) Finally what sort of 
 verisimilitude or propriety is there in suggesting that he 
 could ever be indicted by Meletus or anyone like him for 
 contemning science 1 Need it be pointed out that no 
 action would lie for anything of the kind, and still further 
 that the Meletuses would according to Socrates be the 
 last people to bring such an action, if it did lie ? The 
 prejudice against Socrates, on which he dwells, was that 
 he knew too much and that he busied himself too much 
 with these scientific speculations. That is the very source 
 (he says) of the feeling against him. And yet he is 
 supposed to think of Meletus as actually arraigning him 
 for not treating such speculations with due respect. This 
 last objection seems quite fatal to any interpretation of the 
 passage that makes contumelious treatment of science a 
 possible charge. 
 
 What explanation then remains ? I think simply this. 
 ' I don't speak thus by way of casting any reflexion upon 
 such knowledge, if anyone really has it. I hope Meletus 
 may never bring actions against me enough to make me do 
 that.' If accused of science, a man might in self-defence 
 not only disclaim it, but court the goodwill of his judges 
 by speaking of it with a cowardly affectation of contempt. 
 
 20 A eTret KOL aXXos avrjp ecrri TLdpios evOdfte (ro<os, ov eyou 
 erv^ov yap K.T.\. 
 
 After tvOdSe the words ov . . . eTriSvyjuowra seem so poor 
 by themselves, that I cannot but suspect an error. Perhaps 
 something has been lost, such as ' the other day 'or 'by 
 accident.' Perhaps evflaSe should be transferred to the 
 relative clause. As it stands, it seems to imply that the 
 three men just named were all then in Athens : is that 
 Plato's meaning 1 
 
APOLOGY 
 
 22 A Set ST) vfj.lv TT)V e/x,r)v TrAcxvT/v eTrtSci^ai wcrTrep TTOVOVS 
 Tivas TroyoiWos, tva fJLOi KOL avcXeynTOS rj /xavrcia yeVocro. 
 
 I think those critics are right who from Stephanus 
 downwards have wished to insert a /JLTJ in the final clause, 
 reading Iva. w /xoi /c.r.A.., and whose proposal now gains 
 support from the old Armenian version. Without this 
 insertion the words mean * that the oracle might be made 
 irrefutable.' It is perhaps questionable whether you can 
 properly be said to make a thing irrefutable by unsuccessful 
 attempts to refute it. TeVotTo is not quite the same thing 
 as <f>a.vtir] ova-a. Moreover this hardly represents Socrates' 
 real state of mind, as he describes it. He was perplexed 
 by the oracle and set to work, not to prove its truth that 
 was not his direct object but to test its truth and 
 ascertain its exact meaning. He thought it must be 
 true (21 B), but he wanted to make sure. His object was 
 to verify (in the proper sense of that word) and to under- 
 stand, not to demonstrate. He therefore began with an 
 instance which was likely, if any, to upset the proposition 
 that the god had laid down : 2 1 B rj\6ov eVi nva TWV 
 SOKOWTWV cro(toj/ Ivai, d>s fvravQa ciTrcp TTOV eAey^wv TO 
 jj-avrfLOv Kai a7ro<ava>v TO) \pf]<J~ /xa> 6V i ovrocrl e'/zou cro^xorepos 
 e'ori, 0-v 8' //, t<j>f]<rOa. In other words his object was, not 
 directly eAcyxetv TO /xavTeiov in the sense of refuting or 
 exposing it, but to test it and thus possibly refute it. 
 Having then started according to his own statement with 
 the idea of possibly refuting the oracle, not indeed expect- 
 ing to do so but contemplating it as a thing that might 
 happen, how can he describe himself as labouring to make 
 or prove the oracle irrefutable 1 It is true that presently 
 he speaks of himself as (:$o-f]0uv TW 0a5 (23 B) in exposing 
 the pretence of knowledge. But this is at a much later 
 time, when he has long found out the meaning of the 
 oracle and is perfectly satisfied as to its truth. 'EXey^ttv 
 refers to his first immediate perplexity, poyOtlv to the 
 settled conviction of his after-life. 
 
 We are then to read Tva /XT) for Iva and understand that 
 he set out on his labours in order that he might not leave 
 the truth of the oracle untested, that he might not too 
 readily take it for granted as true in its first and most 
 obvious sense. His labours were rewarded by the 
 
G APOLOGY 
 
 discovery that it was true, but not in this sense, and he 
 had therefore good ground for rejoicing that he had not 
 left it unexamined and untested. 
 
 This view seems fully confirmed by a passage in the 
 Philebus, which as far as I know has not been quoted in 
 this connexion and which is really my justification for this 
 long note. In 41 B we read TOVTO 8e TO Soy//,a, Iws av 
 Kcr/Tai Trap' i^uV, dSwarov aWA.yKToi> ST/TTOV yiyveaflai, where 
 Badham writes as follows : ' the sense of the passage thus 
 becomes plain : But until this judgment (of mine) is 
 approved and established in us both, it is impossible for it 
 to escape (or become exempt from) examination. I have 
 endeavoured to give the force of the word ytyvco-Oai, which, 
 as will be seen, signifies a great deal more than eTvcu.' 
 
 23 A Kw&wevfi, a> avSpes, ru) OVTL 6 0os cro^>O5 dvai /ecu V 
 T<3 ^p^cr/xaJ TOVTO) TOVTO Aeyeiv, on fj avOpMTTLvrf (Tofyia oAiyov 
 Ttvos OLIOL ecrrlv KCU ovSeyos* Kat tfaawfTCLi TOVTOV Xf.yf.iv TOV 
 
 O TU> ya< ovo/xari, 
 av <ti> CITTOI K.T.A.. 
 
 TOVTOV is admittedly wrong and either TOVTO or TOVT' ov is 
 usually read for it. But neither is at all satisfactory. 
 (1) TOVTO, if read, means that human knowledge is a mere 
 pretence. But it is quite untrue to say that the oracle 
 appears to say this of Socrates, and, if ^atVeTat A.eyciv could 
 mean is found in reality to say, it is also untrue that the 
 oracle really said this of Socrates. The oracle did not even 
 mean it (Xe'yeiv in another sense) of Socrates : it meant it 
 of all mankind, Socrates of course included. (2) TOVT' ov 
 is equally unsatisfactory. TOVTO is now explained to mean, 
 and must mean, the being wise or possessed of genuine 
 knowledge (TO o-o<f>ov eTvcu). But it is most unlikely that 
 TOVTO in TOVT' ov Xcyeiv should be something quite different 
 from the TOVTO in TOVTO Xeyetv just before : the cro<>ov clvou 
 is not in reality quite obvious to supply'; and the very 
 repetition of the phrase TOVTO A.e'yetv is inartistic. TOVTO in 
 this case cannot be the unreality of knowledge, because 
 <cuvTcu ov Ae'yeiv, meaning turns out not to say, would 
 imply that at first sight it seemed to say, which it did 
 not. The sense required certainly appears to be 'the 
 oracle does not really mean that Socrates has knowledge,' 
 
APOLOGY 7 
 
 and I do not see how to get this without rather larger 
 change. Two possible lines of emendation occur to me, 
 but I do not mention them with any confidence. One 
 would be /cat (^aiWrai TOIOVTOV Atyciv rov 2., Trpo<TK)(pr)Tai Se 
 K.r.X. ' The god seems to call Socrates wise, but really he 
 has just made use of my name.' Or we might read some- 
 thing like TOIOVTOV ov Aeyctv . . . Trpo<TKexpr)<rOai Se . . . i.e. 
 1 it appears that he does not really call Socrates wise, but 
 has only made use ' etc. Another possible form of sentence 
 would be KLvSvvvL . . . crones clvat /cat . . . TOVTO Ae'yeiv OTI 17 
 avOpwTrivr) o~o(f>La oXiyov TWOS aia cfrrlv KOL ouSevos, AC a v 
 < a i v r) T a i (or e i K a t <f>aivcTai) TOLOVTOV Aeyeiv TOV ^WKparr], 
 7rpo(TKXpf)(r6aL 8e /c.T.X. In this latter form TrpoarKe^prjcrOai 
 would depend on KivSwevei. It may be noticed that an ei 
 has obviously fallen out two lines lower before 
 
 25 E et 6\a<$ei/Do> might be omitted as a whole and not 
 the ei only. 
 
 26 D 'Avaayopov otet Karrjyopf.lv K.T.\. 
 
 I cannot see any sufficient reason for doubting, with 
 Schanz and others, the correctness of 'Avaoyopou, though 
 it must be admitted that Socrates' meaning is not expressed 
 as clearly as it might have been. Possibly the want of 
 clearness is intentional, for, beautiful as the Apology is, 
 any logical reader must detect in it certain defects of 
 reasoning which, if Gorgias or Protagoras were the speaker, 
 might be called sophistry. But the meaning appears to be 
 this. Meletus taxes Socrates with irreligious ideas about 
 the sun and the moon. Socrates rejoins that in the first 
 place he does not hold any such views and Meletus must 
 be confounding him with Anaxagoras who did, and that in 
 the second it would be absurd to tax him with having 
 propounded such ideas as original views of his own, when 
 everybody knew that they had been put forward fifty 
 years ago by Anaxagoras. (It will be observed that 
 Meletus is not made to charge Socrates with propounding 
 them as original. Socrates is ridiculing an accusation that 
 Meletus had not brought.) The want of clearness consists 
 in the fact that the two points are not put markedly 
 enough as distinct : ' I don't hold any such opinions, and, 
 
8 APOLOGY 
 
 if I did, I certainly should not claim originality for them.' 
 But it is the first point which is really important, though 
 more space is given for the moment to the second. The 
 main thing is that he does not hold the opinions in 
 question. Now the omission of 'Avaayopov (Schanz) or 
 the substitution of Sw/cparovs (Baiter) would drop the first 
 and important point altogether. Meletus would say 'he 
 thinks the sun is only stone/ and Socrates would answer 
 ' well, there is nothing new in that.' But, if he does not 
 deny the charge here, he does not deny it at all, for the 
 argument beginning in 26 E aXX\ w Trpos A to?, K.T.\. has no 
 reference to this charge specifically. He may believe even 
 in gods and yet hold this offensive theory about the sun. 
 (It might be thought that 'Avaayopov is likely to be 
 wrong because of the addition of TOU KAao/x,viov to 
 'Avaayopov immediately afterwards. Cf. however the 
 Clouds, where Chaerephon is mentioned just by his name 
 in 144 and then in 156, as though not already mentioned, 
 referred to as X. 6 S^^rrtos.) This argument, if sound, 
 will show that Kai is right as well as ' Avagayopov and not 
 to be altered to r/. All three main clauses are to be made 
 interrogative, and not with Schanz affirmative. 
 
 I should like to add a remark on the much disputed 
 
 WOrds Ct ZfCTTlV VLOT, 1 TTOLVV TToAAoi), Spa)(fJ.f)<S K T?}? 
 
 opx^crTpas Trpia/xeVois ^toKparous /carayeAav. The use of 
 tvtore has been turned against the bookselling theory of 
 the passage. The use is indeed somewhat odd, at any 
 rate at first sight, but as far as I can see it is equally a 
 difficulty on either interpretation ; or rather perhaps, when 
 examined, it is more of a difficulty on the old view. If we 
 take the words as uttered, so to speak, in a breath, 
 sometimes is certainly hard to understand : doctrines which 
 you can sometimes buy for a drachma at most. We should 
 rather say which you can buy any day, always. But 
 ew'orc . . . Spax/^s is a sort of little pareiithesis or semi- 
 detached group of words : which it is open to you sortie- 
 times, if unusually dear, they may cost you a drachma to 
 buy in the orchestra. Leaving out of sight the fact, which 
 we may really regard as established, that there were no 
 drachma seats in the theatre of Dionysus, I hardly see 
 what would be the point of saying that a man might 
 
APOLOGY 9 
 
 possibly have to give as much as a drachma for a seat. 
 There were undoubtedly plenty of two-obol seats, as 
 Demosthenes remarks, even if there were also dearer ones. 
 But for a book on a stall, if he wanted it, a man might 
 very well have to give a drachma. 
 
 27 E 07TOJS 8c (TV TWO. TTflOoiS O.V KOL (TfALKpOV VOVV f.\OVTO. 
 
 avOptoTTOv, d)S ov TOV OiVTOv OTiv KO.I Scu/AoVia Kat 0ta rjyelcrOat, 
 Kal av TOV O.VTOV fJ-t/jre Scu'yaovas /xryrc Otovs /x^re ^pwag, ou8e/ua 
 
 Schanz in his commentary completely alters this 
 sentence by insertions and omissions. In his text of 
 1877 he had inserted nothing, but omitted the second TOV 
 avTov and />UJT ^jpooas. Even Adam would make insertions 
 here, though not the same, and Burnet follows Rieckher 
 in omitting ou TOV avrov. MTJTC ^pwas is unimportant, and 
 for the rest is it clear that any change is necessary 1 * You 
 will never persuade anybody that the same man will not 
 believe in both 8cu/xoi/6a and $eta ' (that is, a man must 
 believe in Otla, if he believes in SaipovLa) : ' or again that 
 the same man will not disbelieve in both Satju-oves and foot ' 
 (that is, he must disbelieve in Scu/zoves, if he disbelieves in 
 0eot). There is a slight objection to the form of the latter 
 clause, as /xrjre Ocovs /XTJT Scu/xovas would seem the more 
 logical order. It is possible that Plato really wrote the 
 words so, and /xrjre ^p<oas would then come in better, in 
 immediate sequence on Sat/uova?. But, even if he did not, 
 the meaning may fairly be got from the words, when we 
 know from the context what it is. There is also a slight 
 objection to the substance of the former clause, for, though 
 Socrates seems here to be recapitulating, he has not 
 previously argued directly from SCU/AOVIO, to 0eta, only from 
 odL/jLovia to Sai/Aorc? and from Sai'/xoves to Oeoi. But the 
 slipping in of the 6f.la is very easy and the point is 
 virtually implied in the parallel inference of $eoi from 
 So/ftovc?. 
 
 In the sentence almost immediately preceding this those 
 scholars are, I think, equally wrong who would omit TOVS 
 q/xtoVovs, necessary as it is not exactly to the logical justice 
 of the illustration but to its artistic finish. Just as the 
 offspring of gods are not gods but Scu/xoves, so the offspring 
 
10 APOLOGY 
 
 of horses are not horses but mules, On the other hand 
 the contention that in this case Plato ought to have 
 mentioned a possible denial of nymphs, to balance exactly 
 the supposed denial of donkeys, seems to ask for too much. 
 This is a small point that the reader can easily supply, and 
 after all it is the gods who are in question. The nymphs 
 do not matter. 
 
 I am not even sure that in et rts i-mriDv /xev TratSas rjyoiro 
 T) /cat ova>]/, TOVS ^/xtovovs we need omit r/. A man may be 
 thinking or speaking of mules as offspring of horses or as 
 offspring of donkeys. We may call them offspring of 
 horses, as Simonides did when it was made worth his 
 while. We may also call them offspring of donkeys. It is 
 only when we want to be exact that we need specify both 
 parents. But ^ and /cat are often confused, and one may 
 very well have grown out of the other. 
 
 28 A a ST) /cat dAAovs TroAAous /cat dya$ovs aVSpas 77/377 /cev, 
 oT/xat Se Kat aiprjorei' ovfttv Se Seivoi> fjLrj ev e/u,ot OTT/. 
 
 After ovSeV I should prefer ydp to Se'. The two words 
 are apt to get interchanged. 
 
 29 C ojonr' ovS' et ju,e vvv dc/uere . . ., ei /xot Trpos ravra 
 
 t7TOlT . . ., el OVV //,, (ScTTTCp t7TOV, CtC/)tOtTe, CtTTOt/X,' O.V 
 U/JLIV K.T.A.. 
 
 Was not Stephanus right in wishing to change demure 
 to the optative ? Be it remembered that, though lav d^re 
 can refer and usually does refer to future time, et d<^tVre 
 cannot. It is not like our if you acquit, i.e. if you shall 
 acquit, but it would ordinarily mean if you are now acquit- 
 ting. It can only stand here, if at all, in the sense if you 
 are feeling inclined to acquit, which is not really very 
 suitable. What is really wanted is if you were to feel 
 inclined, were to propose, to acquit, and that is et dc/>totre. 
 
 31 D c/xovry rts ytyvo/teVr? rj OTO.V yev^rat del aTrorpeTret ^u,e. 
 
 Head yiyvyrai for yeVryrat, which would mean 'after its 
 occurrence.' Cf. the note below on Phaedr. 256 E. In 
 Phil. 26 E ra ytyvo/xeva Sid TLV atrtav yiyvecr$ai and Laws 
 687 C TO Kara TT/V TT}S avrov i//v^s hriTQ&v ra ytyvo/xeva 
 we might just as well read yevo'/^eva as keep 
 
APOLOGY 11 
 
 yewjrcu here. Cf. Meno 100 A and B (Trapaytyvo/zevry . . . 
 TTapayiyvTjTai). In the parallel passage Theages 128 D the 
 same change should be made twice, as the present tense 
 dva/cotvamit helps to show. 
 
 32 A tva 1817x6 OTI ovS' av eVt VTret/ca^ot/u Trapa TO 
 oeuras $aVaTov, jU,^ VTret/ccov Se a/xa Kat ayua ai> aTroXot'toyv. 
 
 For a/za Kat a//,a, which is unintelligible, the Venetian 
 codex has /cat a/za. Many slight changes have been 
 proposed. T add the suggestion a/Aa Kat avros av aTroXot/^v, 
 taking the second a/za as an accidental repetition of the 
 first, avTos would be added, because Trapa TO St/cato? 
 suggests, as in the cases he quotes, unjust or illegal 
 executions. 
 
 34 A vvv Trapacr^crOio eyw Trapa^copoi /cat AeyeVo). 
 
 Perhaps eyw <yap> Trapa^wpco. yap and Trap are almost 
 undistinguishable. 
 
 j v l ^, ' j- 
 
 TlVt TCOV TToXXaJV 
 
 So Burnet reports the readings of the Bodleian and the 
 Yenetus, adding 'TO ^wKparrj al.' He himself reads TO> 
 2a>/cpaTi;. I think we might read TOI 5wAfpaT>7, TOI being 
 quite suitable with aAA' ovv y. 
 
 36 B a/zeA^o-as wvTrep ot TroXXot'. 
 
 It is certain that the sense required is disregarding what 
 most men regard. I should call it equally certain that by 
 Greek usage the idea to be supplied with oWep is the idea 
 which precedes it. For instance in eTriflv/xal oWep ot aXXot 
 we can only understand err i6v pova-iv. I should therefore 
 feel quite sure that some such word as <porrtovo-t (not 
 ov, as Schanz thinks) had been omitted here by accident, 
 if it did not seem just possible that d/xeXrjo^ might be 
 resolved into ovfev 7rt/x,eX?7$iV ovSev /AeXet //,ot oWep Tots 
 aXXois would be unimpeachable, and possibly d/xeX^o-as 
 might be regarded only as an equivalent. Is there any 
 example of a positive word, verb, substantive, or adjective, 
 being thus as it were supplied out of the privative 
 
12 APOLOGY 
 
 compound 1 l I do not think the common cases where Tras 
 is supplied to a new clause from ovSet's, fao-i from ov faari, 
 etc., help us much, especially as the clauses are always 
 antithetic in form. 
 
 ibid. D OVK e<r0' OTI /xaAAov, oi oVSpes 'AOyvcuoi, TrpeTm 
 
 U)5 TOV TOIOVTOV ttVSpa V TTpVTaVeiO) (TLTtlO'Oai. 
 
 Schanz (1893) cuts out /xaAAov, and so Burnet ; others 
 OUTWS. /xaAAov may be due to the same word coming in the 
 next line, but there is no obvious reason why anyone 
 should have put it in. 30 B is quite different. It may 
 stand for aAAo used along with Zo-6' on as in Phaedo 
 94 B co-0' on aAAo Ae'yeis ap^iv ; Xen. Oecon. 3. 12 CCTTIV 
 era) aAAa) Toiv Q-TrouSaiW TrActw eTriTpeTrcis 17 T-/] yvvaiKi ; 
 
 37 B dvrt rovrov 87) cA<o/xai wv cv 018' ort KOKUJV OVTCOV, 
 TOVTOV Tt/>tryo*a/>ivos ; irorepov Stcr/xoi) ; . . . aAAa xp^/xarouv Kat 
 
 Schanz and Burnet seem right in following Baumann and 
 reading TI for on with one inferior MS. Adam reads 
 l^w/xai, but (1) this would be a misuse of Z^o-Oat, which is 
 not to take hold, but to keep hold ; (2) wv cv oTS' on KaKwv 
 OVTWV is impossible Greek. The parenthetic use of oT8' on is 
 nothing to the point, for it is parenthetic and can be removed 
 without affecting the construction, e.g. TTOLVTW [oT8' cm] <f>r)<rdv- 
 TWV av (Adam's instance), whereas here /ca/cwv WTWV would be 
 governed by it. The Greek expression would be aiv eu oT8' 
 <m Ka/ca eo-Tt. Cf. Hep. 465 D 8ta (TfJiiKpov /xepos <av TOVTOIS 
 vrrdpxti : Herod. 1. 78 ovSev KO> ciSoTes TOJV r]v vrepi 2ap8ts : 
 Thuc. 7. 67 d(' wv -^/xlv ?rapo-Ki;acrTai : Ar. Rhet. 1. 5, 
 1361 b 14 TO /jLTj^v ex av ^ v T ^ 7^P a ^ Aco^SaTai : C.I. A. ii. 
 281. 12 7Tpt TravTwv wv yeyo/. In Hipp. 1^/Lin. 363 D OTI av 
 TIS (3ov\r]Tai tov av /xot ts eTrtSci^iv 7rapcr/cvao-/xeVov 17 I do 
 not see how anything but TrapecrKeuacr/xeVov $, could be right, 
 
 1 I have noticed an instance in the letters of Horace Walpole. 
 See letter to Pownall of Oct. 27, 1783 : '1 myself do not pretend to 
 be unprejudiced. I must be so' (i.e. prejudiced, partial) 'to the 
 best of fathers : I should be ashamed to be quite impartial.' The 
 Spectator of June 26, 1909, has in a quotation the words ' It is 
 impossible anywhere and least of all' (i.e. least possible of all) 'in 
 a country like India.'. 
 
APOLOGY 13 
 
 like 7rapeo-Kv'ao-Tat in Thucydides. Stallbaum's 7rapco-/<eva- 
 o-/aeVwv would be as bad as on /caKwv ovrwv here. Riddell 
 Digest 26 c takes a different view of the passage before 
 us, but he ignores on. 
 
 Possibly Meiser's TOV for TOVTOV, whereby TOV ri/x^o-a/xei/o? 
 becomes a distinct question, like TI SetVas above, is to be 
 preferred. It accounts better for the genitives Seoyxov and 
 Xprj/jLOLTuv, which might be expected otherwise rather to 
 follow the construction of TI, if TI is right, after eAw/xai. 
 
 The omission of the article before ScSco-tfat is very 
 unusual, nor do I know anything in prose quite like it. It 
 may be due, if right, to there being no article with 
 XprjfJidTw. Cf. however Ar. Ach. 196-7, where /*>) 'TriT^petv 
 represents a genitive, unless 197 and 198 are to change 
 places. 
 
 38 D aTropia fj,fv eaXooKa, ov /X.CJ/TOI Aoywi/, dXXa 
 
 i'as Kat TOV ^ iOfXf.iv Aeycti/ K.T.\. 
 
 ' Hy T Arm. : om. B ' Burnet, who retains it. No doubt 
 Thucydides 2. 49 has f) aTropio, TOV /a>) ^a'v^a^ctv, where /x->y 
 is superfluous, but the interposition of ToX/xr;? KOL dvaio-^w- 
 Tias here alters the case. Anything added further should 
 be as positive as they are. Cf. however Philostr. Vit* 
 Apoll. 6. 13 (251) xp^/taTwv OLTrdywv (XVTOV Kat TOV p 
 TO e aTravTos KepSos. I do not feel sure that T<3 /x 
 parallel to aTropia, is not what Plato wrote. 
 
 39 B Kat rvv eya) fjikv aTrei/zi . . . Kat eyoi T T(3 
 
 Kttt OVTOt. 
 
 o) will be better both in sense and in conformity to 
 He does not mean that he and they are now 
 abiding or disposed to abide by the judgment, but that in 
 the future they will have to accept it and acquiesce. Cn 
 Crito 50 c ffjip,fvflv is now read and 53 A 
 Perhaps we ought to read a Xe^a> for a Xe'yw (av 
 Schanz) in 1 7 c. 
 
CEITO 
 
 45 C TOiaVTO, <T7Tv8lS TTCpt (TttVTOV yeVT0CU ttTTCp ttV KCU Ol 
 
 I do not know whether oWep is elsewhere used in 
 correlation with TOIOUTOS. If not, we might write otaTrep, 
 like TotovTon/ olaTTcp just below, ot would easily be lost 
 after cu. 
 
 ibid. E aurj(wo^iai /AT) 80^17 aVai/ TO 7rpay/xa TO Trept o~e 
 dvavSpia Ttvt T^ -vj^ripa. 7r7rpa^^at, Kat ^ eicroSo? T^S SiKrjs . . ., 
 /cat avTos 6 dyoGv . . ., Kat TO rcXtvTalov 87) TOUT/, a>o-7rep 
 T^S Trpa^ews, Ka/cta Tivl Kat dvavSpia T 
 
 In spite of the length of the sentence it is difficult to 
 believe that Plato wrote what comes to ^ 80^ TOUT! 8oKtv 
 Sta7T<vyeVat ^as. AoKetv being intolerable, I am inclined 
 to think that Plato wrote SOKOW or SOKWV. It might also 
 be 8o'ei. Each step in the change (8o'^ct to So*et, 8oKt to 
 SOKCIV) is quite frequent. The future would be slightly 
 irregular but very much in Plato's manner. 
 
 51 C ^ftets yap o~ ytvvr}cra.VT<s, eK^pf'i^avTc?, K.T.A.. 
 wpoayopevo/xev TO) e^ovo-tav TTCTroi^Kevai ' AOyvaifDv TW ySovXo/xcvw 
 . . . w av /XT) dpo-KO)jU.v ^/xets, e^etvat \af36vTa TO. avrov aTrteVat 
 OTTOt av fiovXrjTai. 
 
 ' We proclaim by having given leave to any Athenian 
 who likes that he has leave ' etc. Is this good sense or 
 what Plato was likely to write 1 There seems also to be a 
 certain want of connexion between the personal touch of 
 o-e yevv7Jo-avTs K.T.A.. and the quite general bearing of 
 Trpoayopcvo/xev T(5 e^ovai'av 7r7rot^KtVai K.T.A. Both these 
 
 14 
 
CRITO 15 
 
 faults might be removed by reading crot for TW. It may be 
 said of course that eovcriav TreTror^/ceVat eetVai aTrtevat is 
 grossly pleonastic, and so it is. But e^etmi (like Sciy) is 
 often put in quite pleonastically. Cf. Dem. 22, 8 OVK 
 eeivat . . . eurocrat : 59. 106 OVK ea yiyvtcrOai 'AOrjvaiov 
 and 113 aSciav . . . rov e^eu/ai TratSoTrotTyo-acr^at : Plat. 
 555 C ffpyfLV vofjuo . . . fJirj e^elvat avrot^s dvaXiV/ceiv I 
 Isaeus 10. 10 6 vo/xos . . . KwXvet /xr) e^eivai. For repetition 
 of practically the same word in such a pleonasm cf . Laws 
 839 C /AT) Swarbv etvat Svvacr$ai . , . TTO\LV tfiv TrparTovcrav 
 
CHAEMIDES 
 
 153 C KCU afjia /xc KaOi^fL dyo>v Trapa Kpm'av. 
 
 I suggest KaOlfa or cKaOL&v. Plato makes next to no 
 use of the historic or graphic present. Even ^-rja-i is 
 scarcely used by him, tyy and 5 8' os being his regular 
 expressions. 
 
 155 D /xoipav alpelarOaL in the quotation certainly seems 
 wrong for claiming or trying to get a share. Cobet 
 aiTio-$ai. Perhaps it should be /xoipai/ dyecr^at, a quite 
 proper use. cup and ay are certainly sometimes confused. 
 
 156 A o.Troypai/'O/xai TOI'VW, ^^j Trapa o~ov Tr) 
 IIoTepov, ^v 8' eyw, eav /xe TTCI^S 17 Kav /x>j ; yeXao-as ovv ' 
 
 <T TTCt^O), t^)^' 
 
 Read Trcurfl? and TreiVw, the proper tense and habitual in 
 this phrase, e.g. -Z^ep- 327 C eAXeiVerat TO -Jyv Tre/crco/xev v/xas : 
 Mewo 100 c eav TTCIO-^S rovrov, etc. The mistake is 
 frequent. 
 
 ibid. B wo-Trcp tcrws Kat trv cxK^Koas TWV dya^coi/ tarpwv . . 
 Xtyovari TTOV on ov^( otov re ... dXA.' aray/catov ei^ a/xa Kat r^v 
 
 Schanz after Madvig dvayKaiov <av> cir;, but this is a 
 mistake. The optative, though not really grammatical 
 after the present tense A.eyovo-6, is due to the perfect 
 preceding, as though the words had been d/c^Koas 
 on avayKalov tirj. Further on in the same page 
 we have an even stronger case of the same confusion : 
 ZaA/xois, <^>T7, Acyei . . . ort . . . TOVTO KCLI CUTLOV c.*rj . . . Trdvra 
 yap (f>rj (K -n}s V'^X^ 5 wp/x^cr^ai, where the <>; following 
 makes it clear that the earlier words are constructed as if 
 
 16 
 
CHARMIDES 17 
 
 not Ae'yet but cAeyev had been used. It is of course possible 
 that Plato really wrote eAeyev, but there is no adequate 
 reason for change. 
 
 157 C eav /2ovA>7 . . . TT/V i}/v\r)V TTpwTOV TTapao^ctv cTraaat 
 TCUS TOV pa/cos CTnoSats. 
 
 The regular accusative after 7ra'5etv is the charm, not the 
 person. I would] therefore write ras TOV pa/cos 7ra>3as. 
 It is true that in 176B we seem to have the personal 
 passive e7ra'Seo-0at, but such passive uses do not guarantee a 
 corresponding active use, e.g. e7ri/3ovAevo/zai, 7riTaTTo/uat, 
 eTTiTi/xai/xat do not prove that e7rt/3ovAevw, etc. can take an 
 accusative of the person. Nor does the construction 
 require the object of Trapaarx^v and of eVao-at to be the 
 same. It seems unlikely that rat? e7ra>8ats is governed 
 directly by Trapacr\<Civ. For the corruption cf. Lack. 190 B 
 aperr) Trapaycvo/xevry ras i^v^a? (or TCUS i^v^cus) dpctvovs 
 TToi^crcie, where Schanz gives ^v^as from a Vatican MS. 
 but B and T have the dative. 
 
 1 60 E 8oKt . . . al(T\vv(rOaii moiety 17 <rto<j>po(Tvvr) KO! 
 
 TT]\.OV TOV avOpttiTTOV, KOLL elvai O7Tp tttSwS 17 <T(i)<f>pO(TVVr]. 
 
 It is very harsh for TTOICIV to take first the infinitive and 
 then the adjective after it. Cf. note on Laches 178B. 
 Unless parallels are forthcoming, I think something like 
 Trape'xav render should be added with the adjective ( 
 rrj\ov Trape^av), or ewxi (Troutv . . . aicr^vvTTyXov eTvcu). 
 
 161 E SoKt OV (TOl TToXlS V OlKt(T$ai V7TO TOVTOV TOV VOfJiOV 
 
 TOV KcXevovTOS TO eavrov i/xaTtov e'/cacrrov v^>aivtv Kat TrXwciv, 
 Kat vTroS^/xaTa o-KVTOTO/xetv, Kai AT;KV^OV /<at o*TA.eyyi'8a Kat 
 TravTa KUTO. TOV <XVTOV Aoyov, rtuv /xV aAAoTpuov /XT/ 
 i, TO Se eavTOv CKao-rov (pyd&crOai TC Kat TrpdrrtLV ; 
 
 The deficiency of proper government for ATJKV^OV etc. 
 might pass, something being supplied out of the previous 
 infinitives. But the asyndeton of TCOV /xev K.T.A.. makes it 
 probable that we ought to remedy both defects by adding 
 something like Trotovvra after or before KaTa TOV avYov Aoyov. 
 A certain similarity between TroWa and TroiovvTa might 
 lead to the omission. Or is iravra itself an error for 
 Cf. on Ion 530 B. 
 
18 CHARMIDES 
 
 163 D 877X01; Se judvov e0' on av </>p^5 TOVVO/J.O. on av 
 
 We shall get not only more elegant but more correct 
 Greek, if we write e$' on 8r) ^cpeis, availing ourselves of 
 the frequent confusion of av and Srj, or simply e^>' on <epeis. 
 The indirect interrogative is more proper here than the 
 relative, and the double ore av is very awkward. Many 
 editors write <e'pot9, but Schanz does not record any MS. 
 variation from ^>ep^s. The optative does not seem quite 
 in place. 
 
 164 A dXXa Xeyc i 8oKt TIS o~ot tarpos vyta Tiva TTOUOV 
 a<eXi//,a KCU eavrw Troulv Kat CKtiVa) ov IWTO. 
 
 The optative IWTO would hardly be used unless an av 
 with TTOICIV preceded. Perhaps o><e'A.i/x,' ai/ ; but the av 
 would be very likely to be placed with (Wet. 
 
 166 B CTT' avro ^KCIS cpeuvoiv, OTW Sia^>epet Trao-wv TU>V 
 7rio~T77//iu>v 17 croxfrpocrvvr]. 
 
 I do not see how 6Va> can be justified, as the sense is 
 relative, not interrogative. Read CTT' avro ... TO w. So 
 for instance Phaedr. 247 E T^V ev TO> o eo-nv ov 6W<os 
 
 7TL(TT^IJLr)V OVattV '. LdcH. 185 D TTfpt TOV O CVC/Ctt aAA.OV 6^>?Tt 
 
 (MSS. ov ve/ca aAAo : the error there too caused or helped 
 by the unusual construction). 
 
 173 A et yap on fiaXia-ra r^^v apx ot ^ (ru><j>po(Ti>vr}. ovcra 
 otav vt>v opt^o/xe^a, aXXo n Kara ras e7ricrr>;/Aas av irpdrroiTO ] 
 
 Stallbaum lightly translates, nonne secundum artium 
 scientiam agatur 1 But there is no impersonal TrpaTrerai like 
 agitur. Meno 96 E irparr^rai ra Trpay/xara. Something 
 therefore is wrong or missing. <7rav> av TrparroiTo ? 
 [I did not know that Stobaeus had iravra irparroiTo. Burnet 
 Travr' av TrparTOiro.] 
 
 ibid. C i Se /3ovXoio ye, . . ^vy^tup^crw/xev. 
 Probably /Jov'Xei. Cf. on ^^ctft. M. 144D.- 
 
 174 A n'va ; j]V 8' eyco. apa /x^| TOV TOiovSc, et Ti? Trpos Tot? 
 /xeXXovaiv Kat TCI yeyovoVa Trdvra etSet^ Kat TOL vuv ovTa Kat 
 ya^Sev ayvooT; <^>(uyu.ev yap Tiva ctvat avTov. 
 
 Does nva etvat avTov make any sense ? Should not avrov 
 
 be TOIOVTOV ? 
 
LACHES 
 
 178 B veto's Se ^/xeis ^yryo-a/xevoi /cat t/cavovs yvaJvat KO.I 
 yvovras aTrAais av CITTCIV a SOKCI v/uv, OVTW /c.T.X. 
 
 The adjective and the infinitive are very awkwardly 
 paired. Cf. on Charm. 160 E. Has tlvai dropped out 
 before or after yvwvat 1 or should we read KO. 
 
 182 E oTyotat eya) TOVTO . . OVK av XeXr^e'vai Aa/ce8ai/AOViov$ 
 . . . et 8' e*ctvovs eAcX^eiv, ciXX' ou TOVTOVS ye TOVS StSacr/caXovs 
 avrov A.e'Ar7#V avro TOVTO, OTI K.T.A. 
 
 Schanz writes avTov 'XcX^civ, but we must add av, 
 probably before avTo'. 'If it had escaped the Lacedae- 
 monians, the fact would not have escaped etc.' The 
 previous OVK av AcA^eVcu and et 8' AeA.^#eiv show \e\rjOtv to 
 be wrong, and OVK av X. shows the meaning of ci 8' e. 
 
 184 A 7r6t8^ ^SaXovTO? TIVOS \i6o) Trapa TOVS TroSa? avTOv CTTC 
 TO KaTao"Tpa)/xa d^>iTat (-CTO 1 Cf. on ChCLTtn. 153 c) TOV 
 SopaTos, TOT' ySr) K.T.\. 
 
 Is the dative Ai^w right ? To say nothing of the want of 
 an expressed object for /ftxXoWo?, * having struck (him) 
 with a stone ' does not harmonise with Trapa and eW, which 
 point to a verb of motion. Surely /SaXovTos TIVOS \iOov is 
 what Plato wrote. The confusion of -ov and -o> is not very 
 uncommon. In Anthol. 7. 378 
 
 a/x,^>o) 8', cos a/n,' evaiov, VTTO TrXaKt Tv/x/3evovTai 
 ^vvov dyaXXo/xevot Kal rd(f)ov a>s Od\a/j.ov 
 
 we seem to need the reverse change, /cat Ta<a> a>s ^aXa/xw, 
 for dydXXo/xat has no business with datives. Probably 
 w<3 also, but it is just possible to make vvov adverbial, 
 though it and KOIVO'V are not, I think, known in that sense. 
 
 19 C 2 
 
20 LACHES 
 
 ibid. B el jjitv SetA.os TIS o>v otoiro CLVTOV 
 Opaarvrepos av oY avro yevdyucvos eTri^ayecrrepos yevoiTO otos ^i/. 
 
 AVTO'J> should be avro, as in the next clause, i.e. the 
 fMaOrj/Jia ; and ^v must be a mistake for 07, an easy and not 
 infrequent error. Cf. p. 90. 
 
 185 C cire xp?) avTO (the <a/3//,a/<ov) V7ra\i(j>c<r0ai cire /xry. 
 
 I suspect we should read either avrw or ira\i<j><rOai. 
 So in Ar. Probl. 38. 3. 967 a 4 V7ra\ei<0ei/ might very well 
 be 7raA.ei<j!>$eV. 
 
 ifo'd. D There seems no reason for the imperfects e 
 and crJTi, and we should probably read o-K07T6, 
 Charm. 157 D should certainly have So/cct, not eSo/<a. 
 
 ibid. E i ^u,^ . . . epyov e^oiev eTrtSet^cu eu eipyacr^xevoi' Kat ev 
 KCU TrX^t'w. 
 
 The double Kai is illogical, as the two cases exclude each 
 other. Should it not be a double rj "? Cf . 1 9 1 D E where a 
 similar question arises. 
 
 187 E os av eyyvrara ^WK/aarovs 77 Xdya) wcnrep yevci Kai 
 
 Much difficulty has been found in this and some 
 surprising changes proposed (see Schanz). I do not know 
 whether the parallel of Sopli. 265 A has been adduced, TOIS 
 (masc.) e'yyvTaTw ycvci TI}S roiairn;? /xe^dSov rre^vKocrtv, which 
 seems to show that there is nothing wrong. 
 
 189 c Probably rd <y> v/xercpa or ra v. ye. 
 
 191 B Kat crv TO TCOV SKV^COV ITTTTCWV 7rept Xeyeis. 
 
 TO and 7rcpL do not go well together in this case. Read 
 
 Kttt CTV TOt. 
 
 192 c There seems something wrong in the two clauses 
 both ending with (aiWai. The word is almost certainly a 
 mistake in one or other of the two. 
 
 ibid. E 1 TIS KapTCptl . ., TOUTOV (IvSpeiOV KttAoiS OLV ', 
 
 Kaprpol or -oi-rj, as a few lines below 1 ? So in 199D I 
 
 SpeCt 7TpO(TY)KfL Should be irpOCnfJKOL. 
 
 199 D OVTCOS av fjiira.ri6(.cr6a.i rj TTOJS Xeycts ; 
 /x,TaTi'0co-ai would be much neater. 
 
LYSIS 
 
 205 A TOVTWV Se TI, <>7> (TTaO/JLa, u> Sw^paTes, aw oSe Xeyet ; 
 
 This sense and construction of o-Ta0/xao-$ai, to&e wo 
 account, value, are apparently unparalleled. Should we 
 not fall back on the usual dative and read nvi, go by, 
 judge by, or, keeping , read o> in the same sense for <Sv 1 
 
 207 B TrpocTTJXOov 8r) /cat ot dXXot. 
 Probably dXXot without ot. 
 
 208 A rjv cTTt^v/XTycrr;? CTTI TIVOS raJ^ roO Trar/oos dp/xarcov 
 6^tcr^at Xa^Swv ras i^via? orav d/xiXXarat, oi/c av cweV <re dXXa 
 StaKooXvotcv ; Ma At' ou /xei/rot av, ^;, eaJev. 'AAAa TtVa 
 /X7yv ; "Ecrriv rts T]VLO\O<; irapa rov Trar/oos /u(r$6i> ^>epwv. 
 
 Schanz seems right in altering rtva /x>jv to TI /xrjv. But, 
 unless I mistake his meaning, he intends dAAa TI /ATJV to be 
 said by Socrates. It is really said by Lysis in continuation 
 of the words preceding and means ' of course they 
 wouldn't ' : ' how could you expect it ? ' In the following 
 twelve lines Lysis twice says dAAa TI /ATJV in a similar sense. 
 
 ibid, c Should TratSaywyos be omitted 1 
 
 209 A OVK avafjifvovcriv ews av r)\iKiav 
 
 attaint But ^175 may be right. See note on 
 Phaedo 74 c. 
 
 210 A ap ovv Kat TaXXa Trdi'Ta YI^AV eTrtTpCTrot dV . . ., Trcpl 
 ocrcov dv So^o>/xv auT<3 cro^coTtpot CKCtVwv etvat ; 
 
 In this purely hypothetical case oo-wv dv Sd^w/xci/ does not 
 seem right. We want the optative So^at/otci/ or So/cot/xev. 
 Perhaps, therefore, Trept oo-o>v 8^ So^aifjitv may be suggested. 
 Cf. on Charm. 163o. 
 
 21 
 
22 LYSIS 
 
 ibid. C OVTC (T 6 Trarrjp ovre a\A.o? aXXov, not ov8< . . . 
 Of. three lines below. 
 
 ibid. D ovo apa yu,eyaAd<poov et . . . Ma At ', 
 ov /xoi 8o/cet. Rather ov /not SOKU). In Gorg. 509 A I 
 suggest So'av for Sd^ctev. 
 
 211 E 6 /xev yap TIS TTTTTOVS e7ri0v/xet jcrcurdai, 6 Se *was, 6 
 Se ^pvcrtov, 6 Se Ti/xa?- eya> 8e Trpos /AV ravra Trpaws 
 oe T^V TOJV <^tA.a>i/ KT^CTIV TTOLW 
 
 For the unusual sense of Trpaoos, which I formerly doubted, 
 cf. Plut. So/CW 12 Trepi TO. TrivOy Trpaorepous and Demosth. 
 22 : MOT. 77 C /xerptos . . . Kat -Trpaos ev TW Trapetvai Kat crvfJicftL- 
 : perhaps ^TTIODS et^e TimoL 7. 
 
 212 B Read ^uovov (not /AOVOS /AOVOI/) for 
 
 214 B For raCra avra Schanz follows Heindorf in reading 
 ravra ravrd, but the invariable order is ravra ravra. 
 
 Just below I would add a /aeV after the second ura>s (ura>s 
 
 6^c?. E 8vcr^paiVa> TI y should be Svcr^epaivco ye TI. 
 
 OfJiOLOV OTWOVV /XOto) Tt OKJitXiaV X IJ/ Tt ' Va 
 
 av TTOLrjcrcu SVVOLITO o p.r\ /cat avro aura) ; 
 The neuter o seems indefensible and ty necessary. 
 
 216 D Trpos a 8e Xeycoi/ /xavrevo/xai a/<ov(rov. 
 
 In spite of Heindorf /SAeVoov should probably be read for 
 Xeywv. 
 
 Such phrases as Trpos ri Brj TOVTO Aeyeis ; are quite different. 
 They mean * what is the bearing of that 1 ' ' how do you 
 apply that ] ' Here the sense is rather ' the things that 
 make me surmise that ' ' the observations my surmise is 
 based on.' Cf. Lack. 195 A vrpo? ri TOVT etTre? ySXe^as; 
 197 E atos e7ricrK^ea)s OTTOI TTOTC ySXeTrwi/ TOVVOfia TOVTO 
 <ri0r)<ri : Meno 89 D and 96 E : Hipp. Ma. 299 E : etc. 
 
 218 B <f>ai*v yap auro. Perhaps OVTW. 
 
LYSIS 23 
 
 221 A r) TrciVjy fj,fv COTCU, savvtp avOptotroL TC KCU rdAAa 
 
 40) a ry. 
 
 edvTrep should, I think, be Iwo-Tre/o av. In Hellenics 
 1. 7. 35 the MSS. give US eyyinyras KaTaa-nycrai, cav Kpt^ojcrti', 
 but the emendation of Stephanus, ecus av K/ai^wcrtv, is 
 universally adopted. Of. on Phaedo 71-c. 
 
 . C Read ov rav for the first OVK av. Also dSvvarov 
 seems to lack an oV. 
 
HIPPIAS MAIOR 
 
 281 A *Imrcas 6 KaAds T Kat crowds, ws Sta ^poVov -TJ/MV 
 Karypas eis ras 'AOrjvas. 
 
 The first words are, I imagine, taken to be a nominative 
 doing duty as vocative, like Symp. 218s ot ot/ceVai . . . 
 TrvAas TOIS warlv eTrt$eo-#e : Ar. Ach. 242 TrpoW ts TO Trpdo-$ev 
 dAt'yov, 17 Kav>7<dpos. But, though the grammars fail to tell 
 us so, this nominative with the article (quite distinct from 
 a) <t'Aos, w KaKiaT aTroAov/xtvos, etc. and also distinct from 
 e.g. Ar. ^.v. 30 wvSpes ot TrapdvTes ei/ Aoya), Plato Prot. 337 c 
 o> avSpcs 01 TrapovTcs) is only used with an imperative, 
 expressed or understood, or with something equivalent to 
 an imperative, or now and then with a question. Examples 
 with the imperative expressed are given above. The 
 imperative is understood in Ar. Ach. 54 (ot To^drat), 
 61, 94 (something like eA*T avToV in 54 and TrpdtVe in 
 61, 94). In Ach. 824 ayopavd/Aot, TOVS crvKO<t>dvTa<s ov $vpa' 
 ectpeT ; and 864 ot O*^KS, OVK a7ro Ttov Ovpwv ; Theocr. 
 5. 102 OVK aTro ras Spvds, OVTOS 6 KoWpos a re. Ktvat^a ; the 
 equivalence of ov with the second person of the future to 
 an imperative is familiar. The second passage therefore 
 should not be written ot o*<^>^Ks OVK aTro TWV Ovp&v \ as 
 though the verb understood was in the third person. 
 Theocr. 1. 151 at St ^t/xatpat, ov prj o-KtpTacretTe and Ar. 
 Eccl. 128 6 Trepto-Ttapxos, TTcpi^epftv ^p^ rrjv yaA^v are 
 imperatival. So is Theocr. 4. 45 <jir6\ 6 AeVapyos, etc. 
 Finally, just as Trpos 6iuv goes with an imperative, but goes 
 also with a question, where we may if we like supply 
 mentally something like tell me, so we may occasionally 
 find such a phrase as Ar. Av. 1628 6 Tpt/?aAAo's, ot/xwtv 
 8oKct o~oi ; Ran. 40 6 Trat?, . . . OVK eve$v/x77$?79 ; where 6 Trats 
 
 24 
 
HIPPIAS MAIOR 25 
 
 may go with the question or may be taken as a sort of hail. 
 What is common to all these varieties of phrase is that 
 some one is addressed suddenly. In the passage before us, 
 which is neither imperatival nor interrogatory nor a mere 
 hail, the presence of the nominative 'IirTrtas, and that 
 coming first, certainly makes a difference. At the same 
 time the words are by no means equivalent to an ordinary 
 vocative (o> 'l-mrta everywhere else in the dialogue). They 
 seem rather to be a wondering question (familiar in 
 comedy, e.g. Ter. Andr. 4. 5. 6), Is this Hippias ? and 
 should perhaps be punctuated off from what follows. At 
 the beginning of the Symposium the words of the friend 
 are probably 6 (not w with the best MSS.) cfcaA^pcvs OVTOS 
 'ATToAAoSwpos, ov TTtp Bevels ; like Ach. 824 and 864 quoted 
 above, or Theocr. 5. 147 OVTO? 6 Aev/aVa? 6 KopuTrriAos, ct TLV 
 o;(eixrcts rwv aiyaiv, <Aa<r<rw rv (though this last almost = a 
 prohibition). But the presence of ouros makes a difference. 
 
 ibid. Elis chooses Hippias as envoy, ^yov^vrj St/oxo-r^v 
 /cat oiyyeAov iKavtorarov elvai raiv Aoywi/ 01 av Trapa TWV TrdAecov 
 e/<a<rT(i>v Aeyoovrai. 
 
 SiKcum}i> is obviously wrong, and neither Surges' 
 Siarny-njr nor Naber's SoKi/xacrTTJv is a satisfactory correction. 
 I venture to suggest d/cpoaTTJv, though it is further from 
 the MSS., and though I cannot account for the corruption, 
 unless SiKao-njv was the conjectural emendation of a half- 
 erased word. Hippias seems to be alluding to his 
 retentive memory (285 E). The word ayyAoi> shows that 
 his functions are mainly those of a reporter. In the 
 argument of the Acharnians SiKao-ras (Trpo? TOV? Si/cao-Ta? 
 SiaAe'yerai, i.e. 6 ^opos) is a mistake for d/cpoaras or $caras. 
 
 283 A The old conjecture, dvov^ra for avorjTa, well 
 deserves consideration. 
 
 290 B ctTTtp xpv<roi)v ye Brj ov K.r.A. Stallbaum explains 
 the neuter, referring to TT^S 'A^va?, by saying it is as 
 though TO r>}s 'A^vas preceded. The simple explanation is 
 that Athena is a statue, ayaA/xa, like avrrj f) Otos 
 Thuc. 2. 13. 5. Cf. ibid. 5. 23. 5. In speaking .of statues 
 Pausanias constantly violates strict concord the other way, 
 e.g. 4. 31. 7 Atoo-Koupwv dydA/xara, <^povTs K.r.A. 
 
26 HIP PI AS MAIOR 
 
 295 D a7ro/?A.e7rorrs Trpos eKaorrov avr&v 17 7re<vKv TJ 
 CLpyao-Tcu r) KIT<U. Should it not be <J>iaKtTai 1 cf. 286 A. 
 
 298 C KlI/SuVCVO/XCV yap TOl, CV ry aVTTJ e/ATTCTTTW/COTeS CLTTOpta 
 7Tpl TOV KCtAou V ^TTCp VW S^, OtCT^ai V aAAiy TiVt 
 
 civat. 
 
 The supposed reference to 297 E ot/xat aprt 
 really makes no sense of this, for at the present moment 
 they feel a difficulty and not ev-nropLa at all. wiropia should 
 be dTropta, the point being that the difficulty is not new 
 but the same as before. After some intervening talk and 
 the digression, or incidental argument, of 300 B-302 E this 
 is said again plainly in 303 E is TOV Trporepov A.oyov ^Kt 
 vfj.lv 6 Adyos. The confusion of cv- and d- is familiar. 
 
 299 A ei <cu//,v pr) fj$v eivat <f>ayeiv (that a thing was not 
 pleasant to eat) dAAa KaXdv, Kat otf.iv rjftv ^ rjSv a\\a /caAdv 
 
 (that a thing has not a pleasa?it smell). Dele the ^Sv 
 after ociv. 
 
 301 E <f>o(3ovfj.aL yap <re <ra<^6js Xeyetf, on /xot 
 7Tt8av TI So^rjs craurw Xeyeiv. 
 
 Heindorf bracketed <re, reading also o-u a^rds for <ravTo5 : 
 Stallbaum suggested trot. There seems to me to be no 
 sense in saying that Hippias is angry whenever he thinks 
 he has said something good and true (Xcyeii/ TI), and I 
 would suggest the possibility of Sdo> e/u,ai>TO) for Sd^rys 
 o-avrw. Whenever Socrates thinks he has made a real 
 contribution to the discussion, he finds Hippias irritated. 
 
 HIPPIAS MINOR. 
 
 363 D See note on Apology 37 B. 
 
 (pvyoifj.1 here and <vyoi in 373 B ought, I think, to be 
 <evyoi/u and 
 
ION 
 
 530 B Iv T aXXois TTOiT^Tats Siarpifttiv rroXXots /cat u,^u.i/uiv 
 Sr) /cat /xaXto~Ta v O/XT/po), TO) dpiVra) /cat ^ctoraTO) raiv 
 
 Should iroirjrw be Travrwv 1 Cf. on Charm. 161 E. 
 
 ifod. c Should not us OVTC be aW ourc ? a>s can hardly 
 have the sense of wo-re here, and <us smce takes the thing 
 too quietly for granted. 
 
 532 A rov /xev ev ye, TOVS Se xeifibv. 
 
 ye is quite out of place and should be omitted as in the 
 
 Marcianus. 
 
 ibid. D <ro<ot /u,eV TTOV ecrre v/xcts . . ., eyw Se ovSev aXXo 17 
 TaXr;^?} Xeyw, otov IKOS t8i(OT7;v avOpwirov. eTret' . . . $eacrai 
 <us <a9Aov Kai tStcoTiKov e<7Tt /cat Travros dvSpos yvaivat o lAeyov. 
 
 raX-rjOri cannot be right. Hipp. Mai. 288 D is not 
 parallel, though we might be tempted to argue from it. 
 The meaning obviously required here is commonplace, 
 trivial, corresponding to the c/>a55Aov etc. following. 
 Schanz reads evrj&y, but that means foolish and goes much 
 too far. Madvig's TO. -n-X-rjOr}, though at first sight tempting, 
 is not really quite what we want, especially with otov et/cos 
 iStojT^v avOpwirov. I would propose what is farther from 
 the MSS. but more in place here, evrtXf) or TO, cvrcXfj. In 
 Xen. Cyneget. 12. 7 I have suggested that cv aXrjOfia 
 (7ratSei;'ecr0ai) should be ev cvreXeta. Cf. Antony's 'I only 
 speak right on : I tell you that which you yourselves do 
 know ' (Julius Caesar 3. 2. 227). 
 
28 ION 
 
 536 B cTreiSav /xev TI'S <TI> aAAou TOV TTOLrjrov aSr;. 
 
 Schanz is probably right in inserting TI, but Wasps 269 
 may be quoted in support of the ellipse : ^ycir' av aSwv 
 
 539 B TroXXa^oi) 8e Acat ev 'IXiaSt otov /cat CTTI 
 Notice TCI following. 
 
MENEXENUS 
 234 A Omit KCU before OLTTO, and 237 A insert rrjv before 
 
 237 c In this very carefully composed oration it is 
 difficult to accept such an anacoluthon as the infinitive 
 KtlaOaL. It seems much more probable that a participle 
 parallel to aTro^va/xeVry and governing Keicr&u has been 
 omitted, e.g. Trap^ova-a or ewora. Or we might insert ware 
 before KOL vvv. 
 
 238 c Omit the first dpicrroKpaTia (after KCU vvv). The 
 force of the passage will be greatly enhanced by the name 
 being kept to the end. 
 
 239 A rj tcroyovia T7/x,a9 17 Kara (^vViv tcrovo/xtar d 
 iv Kara. VO/AOV. 
 
 Plato can hardly have fallen into such tautology as 
 to-ovo/uav Kara VO/AOV. He wrote some other compound 
 (to-ort/xtav ? Icrrjyopiav 1), which has been altered under the 
 influence of vd/xov. 
 
 ibid. C TOVTWV Trepi jtxot So/cet ^p^vat eTri/AVTyo^vai 7raivovvTa 
 re Kat Trpo/xvco/xevov aXA.oi? ? aJSas re Kai TT^V aXXryv Trofycriv 
 avTa ^etvat TrptTrdvTWS TWV Trpa^avrwv. 
 
 Should not aXXot? be aA.Xov?'? Jebb a^ Soph. O.C. 1075 
 explains these words to mean ' commending them and 
 wooing them for others (i.e. for the poets), with a view to 
 their putting them into verse.' But does Plato (if it is 
 Plato) mean that the poet woos the subject or that the 
 subject woos the poet ? He has just said that the subject 
 
 29 
 
30 MENEXENUS 
 
 en ecrriv ev [jLvrjo-Tcia (if we are not to read d/Av^crrt'o,), which 
 I suppose in point of Greek might mean either. If the 
 poet woos the subject, then the speaker ought to mean that 
 a certain number of poets are actually addressing them- 
 selves to it, which it is plain was not the case. Also the 
 orator's ' wooing for others ' would consist (I suppose) in 
 his giving a sort of rhetorical treatment by way of antici- 
 pation of the more elevated poetical treatment to come. 
 But how forced, obscure, and false all this is ! and how 
 awkward the infinitive $ewu ! Surely it is the subject 
 that woos or invites poets to treat it. It has been courting 
 poetical treatment for a long time past and is courting it 
 still (?TI co-rlv fv fjLvr)crTia ; the Persae seems strangely 
 forgotten or undervalued). The orator will add his efforts 
 and on its behalf woo the poets to put it into verse. This 
 certainly seems the sense and the accusative aAAous would 
 then appear to be necessary, as there is no reason why the 
 person wooed or invited should be mentioned in the dative. 
 In Xen. An. 7. 3. 18 roiavra Trpov^varo e/courTO) TrpocrLwv the 
 dative may very well go with Trpoo-twv. 
 
 The apparent imitation of our passage in Aristides 
 de Rhet. 142. 3 KCU rot? aAAois Trpo^ei/etv (770-1 /cat TrpopvacrBai 
 ets wSag TC KCLL rrjv aXXrjv Trooyo-iv Otivai Suggests another 
 possibility, namely that KCU Trpogevovvra has been lost 
 between Tro/xvw/xevov and <x/\Aois. 
 
 ibid. E r<3 aura) (not avrov) ^povT^aTi. avrov gives poor 
 sense and is due to TOVS avrov 
 
 241 C rpirov Se Aeyw TO ev IIAaTatats tpyov KCU. 
 
 It does not seem possible that the genitive a-wrypLas can 
 depend either on rpirov or epyoi/. Did Plato write T^S 
 'EAAiyviKr}? <eve/<a> o-wr^pt'as and similarity of letters lead 
 to loss ? We might think of amov, but it will not quite fit 
 into the sentence. 
 
 244 C Siavoov/xei/77 Se rj TroAts /mrj av tn d/xi!i/ai 
 "EXXrjcri K.T.A. 
 
 On av Schanz remarks addubito. There is probably no 
 example forthcoming of av with a tense after Siavooi^cu 
 resolve, be minded, for we must distinguish this from the 
 
MENEXENUS 31 
 
 sense think, suppose. If then oV is wrong, we might 
 perhaps substitute the emphatic S?/. Cf. Iliad 10. 447 /xr) 
 817 JU.CH <f>vw ye, AoXeov, e/x/^aXXeo Ovfjup '. Dem. 18. 11 ou 077 
 Troo/cra) TOVTO : Thuc. 7. 71. 7 ^v re ... ovSe/xias 817 ... 
 eXacro-wv IWXr^is. The confusion of AN and AH is 
 familiar. 
 
 245 A Mapa$aivi Kat SaXa/zivt, KOL nXaraiais. 
 Perhaps KO.V ^aXa/xTvi. 2aXa/uvi and nXaraiats are 
 probably never used as locatives like Mapa0uivi. The 
 itive of IIXaTaiat is IlXaTcuacrt. 
 
 ibid. B TL^icrafJifvrj Se /cat vav7rr)yr)(ra/j.vir], e 
 TroXe/xov, 7Ti8^ r]vayKa.(rOr) TroXe/xelv, VTrep Ilapaov 
 
 Ilapi'wv is a great difficulty, as Athens certainly did 
 not wage war at the time referred to on behalf of Paros. 
 The only states that could very well be mentioned here 
 are Thebes and Corinth, and it is not apparent how r7/?cuW 
 or Kopu'#i(Di/ could have been so corrupted. But it is not 
 really very natural to say that Athens waged war on 
 behalf of anybody, if she was forced into it (fjvayKaa-Or)). 
 The two things are not exactly incompatible, but they do 
 not go very readily together. I should therefore look 
 rather for something descriptive of the war or its conduct, 
 and vTrtp IlapiW might disguise an adverb in -w?. It has 
 however occurred to me whether the words are not a 
 corruption of ^Trepopiov. If the TT had been repeated by 
 error, vTrcpTropiov might easily change into vTrep IlaptW. 
 But this is a mere possibility. Cf. Dem. 2.21 and 18. 241 
 o/xopo?. 
 
 248 C ra fikv yap ry/xe'repa reXevTTyv f)&r) !. 
 There is no reason for the future. Read e^i. 
 
 249 A B The anacoluthon of the infinitive ap^co-^at is 
 quite as awkward as that of Kt<r0ai in 237 c and, like that, 
 calls for the addition of a participle, e.g. /SovXo/xeV?;. In 
 any case the sentence is a cumbrous one, the participles 
 being already in excess. 
 
 The last letters of cTriT^Sev/uaTa seem to have absorbed a 
 TO" which is necessary to opyai/a. Cf. p. 32. 
 
ALCIBIADES I. 
 
 110 B (TV 8' ci TV^OIS ayvo&v err' dStKoio tr /X.T) TOT Acycts 
 TI <re \prj TTOLCLV ; 
 
 This refers to past time. * Do you mean, what were you 
 to do if (i.e. whenever) you did not know ] ' Read there- 
 fore XPV V f r XPV- T T oes w ith it. 
 
 112 B Tcurra <ra> 
 
 So in 117 D probably TO. d/xapr^ara <ra> iv rfj 
 
 1 1 7 A For 8ta ravra read 8ia TOVTO. 
 So TOVT' atriov just above. 
 
 119 E Socrates says ironically iravv <TOI apa. a^tov dyaTrav, 
 
 TO)V O"TpaTt(OT(UV j3cX.TL(J)V *, dAA.' OV TTpOS TOVS TWV 
 
 eiv, OTTOTC KiVwv fteXriuv yeyovas 
 TT/DOS e/cetVous. 
 
 The last clause is obviously wrong, and Schanz cites two 
 or three essays at emendation, e.g. Heindorf's oTrrj re eKetVoov 
 /3eAriW ycVoto, which would need an dv. I think the error 
 is in cKiVtoi/ or CKCIVOUS, one being an accidental repetition 
 of the other. We should read either OTTO'TC TOVTUV or TT/DOS 
 TOVTOUS. The meaning is ' since you are now better than 
 the former, thinking of and training yourself for the latter.' 
 Alcibiades' rejoinder is Aeyeis 8e TiVas TOVTOVS ; which is, I 
 think, consistent with either change, though it may seem 
 to favour the second. 
 
 122 c Bead iXonxtav for (iXonxias. The inconruous 
 
 plural is an error due to rds following. 
 
 
ALCIBIADES I 33 
 
 123B TTpOS TOUS lUpO-lKOUS (TrXoVTOVs) Kttt <TOV> TOV 
 
 124 B OVTOI cicru/ <ot> dvTiVaXoi dXX' ov ov<s (TV otei. 
 
 drap vd> ye /cat TTO.VV 
 
 /xaXXov ftev is devoid of meaning, and I conjecture 
 to be a mistake for TroXXi}?. ' We need care, a good deal 
 all of us, but you and I very much indeed.' Cf. Symp. 
 178 A #av/Aa<7Tos TroXXa^ /xcv /cat aXXr/, ov\ rjKKrra 8c 
 K.r.X. : ThedCt. 172c TroXXd/ct? /xev ye Si) Kat dXXorc . . . drap 
 Kat vvv '. Thuc. 3. 37. 1 TroXXaKts ftev r)8rj eytoyc . . . ^taXioTa 
 8' v rjj vvv K.r.X. The same sense would be given by /xdXa 
 for /MaXXov, and perhaps that would be preferable as involv- 
 ing less change. So for instance in Hippocrates (Kueh- 
 lewein) 2 p. 1 9 one MS. has /xoXXov wrongly for //,dXa. 
 
 126 D apa rjTrtp (6/AOK>ia) TroXet, avrrj KOL t8iwT7y ; Probably 
 
 127 B 8oKct Kat Kara TOUT' <auV'> avTot? (f>L\ia 
 ^6^. D ct /xei' yap avTo ya~6ov 
 
 134 C OVK apa ^ov(rtav (rot ovS' dp^r/v 
 cravra) Troietv OTI av (3ov\rj. 
 
 lov<TLa can take an infinitive after it (power to do) as iDi 
 E below and 135 A twice, not so dp^rjv. The two words. 
 should therefore change places, OVK apa dp^rjv o-ot ovS 51 
 e^ovtrtav. Cf. on Gor(/. 496 E. The meaning of dp^rjv seems; 
 fixed by ape/ preceding. 
 
ALCIBIADES II 
 
 138 B OVK Otet TOVS OtOVS, O. TVy^dvOfJiV ev^O/JLCVOL Kttt l8lO. 
 
 Kat 8r?/xocria, eWore TOVTWV ra /xev 8i8oVai, TO, 8' ou, Kat cortv ots 
 /xev av>Twv, O"Ttv 8 ots ov ; 
 
 avToii/ is incompatible with the first person TvyxaVoyaev. 
 Should we read avl We might think of av TOW <eu;(o- 
 /xeVoov>, but this seems unlikely. 
 
 A few lines below avrot also seems wrong, because quite 
 pointless. Perhaps aura!. So in 146B av /xev Trparr^ a rts 
 o78ei/ the subject of IT parry anticipates rts. 
 
 143 E fXOovra eiii ras Ovpas etTretv et ev8oi/ 
 
 Nothing is wrong here, but dirtlv is used in the late 
 sense of ask, and this is one of the indications of date. 1 
 That sense is for instance found several times in Diogenes 
 Laertius. Ar. Bhet. 2. 23. 1398 b 26 and Pol. 8. 11. 
 1313 a 31 are doubtful instances of it. 
 
 144 D et flovXci . . . 7ricrKO7rerv, aroirov av ttrcos <rot Soeiev 
 
 U. 
 
 Read /Jov'Aoio. Cf. on Charm. 173 c. 
 
 145 B ovS' ct rts Ttva aTroKTctvwai ot8v ov8c (read ovS' et) 
 
 146 BC OVKOVV /cat, av ftev TrpoLTrrj a Tts oTSev 17 8o/cet et8eVai, 
 TrapeTTTyrat 8e TO w^eXt/xws, Kat Avo-treAowTcos i^/xas e^etv Kai ry 
 TrdXet /cat avrov avraJ. VapeTTTyrat B, TrapeTrerat T ' Schanz, 
 whose punctuation I have reproduced. 
 
 1 Others are the words (TKcmofjifvcf 140 A : KfKvprjK^ra 141 B : 
 for tf 141 D, 142 c, 149 A : <pa.fj.fvoi 142 D and (pavrfs 146 B : KTT^O for 
 
 ,/cTTJo-is 144 D and 146 E : airoicpidni>ai 149 A: perhaps rvxov = 1<r<as 
 140 A and 150 C, and rJ> irapriKov the present 148 C : also I>ir6ra.v 
 146 A, if the author wrote this and not 
 
 34 
 
ALCIBIADES II 35 
 
 This gives very indifferent sense, and I should con- 
 jecture 7rap7TTai (or TrapcVco-flai governed by what pre- 
 cedes) Sc TO ox^eXi/Aws Kal Xvo-LTtXovvTO)? K.T.X., only that 
 ^tas is impossible. Possibly rjplv as a dativus ethicus. 
 
 147 A B ap' ov^t TO> OVTL 3tfu'u>9 TroXXa) 
 arc oTynat avcv KvftfpvijTov SiareXwv ev TreXayei, ^povov ov 
 fjLdKpov /Stov ^ewv (so Stephanus : ySiov ^ewv B : /?iov ^ewt/ T). 
 
 Schanz reads TrAeW for ^cwi/, mentioning Trpos fiiav Ocw 
 and /8ioTvo)i/ as other conjectures. I would suggest that 
 0eW is quite right but should change places with StarcXcov. 
 For Otiv of persons at sea cf. Xen. Hell. 6. 2. 29 fleWes a/xa 
 df7ravovTo, and Xenophon several times has StaTcXetv as a 
 transitive verb with /3tW, 
 
 148 A fjidpyov re /x-ot SOKCI ctrat /cat 009 d 
 
 /xapyov is absurdly out of place. I conjecture dpyaXeov 
 difficult, a word rare in prose, but we may go again to 
 Xenophon and to Aristophanes, nor in this dialogue does 
 it much matter. (Dobree thought cpyov or //,e'ya cpyoi/ 
 might do.) 
 
 ibid, c Write &j for av after 
 
 150c iva /XT/8' should, I think, be Iva, 
 
 D 2 
 
HIPPARCHUS 
 
 226 A yiyvo/Ai/ov should be yeyo/xefov. 
 
 ibid. E The construction of yAixeo-0cu with an accusative 
 is so questionable that perhaps an infinitive, e.g. K-njo-ao-flcu, 
 has been omitted, governing the accusatives and itself 
 governed by 
 
 229 c The death of Hipparchus did not come about 
 (Socrates says) Sia rrjv rfjs dSeA^s drt/xtav TT}S Kav^^opt'a?. 
 Whose sister 1 Grammar would point to Hipparchus, and 
 Harmodius has not even been mentioned so far. Has not 
 been omitted 1 ? 
 
 230 A Socrates offers to withdraw various propositions. 
 Of the last of them, that gain is good, his friend says OVTL 
 irav ye TOVTL /not avdOov. I cannot find that any editor has 
 had scruples about either the sense or the grammar of this. 
 Yet OVTL is impossible with an imperative, nor in the 
 context does such a sentence make proper sense, since 
 what the man wants to say is not that some gain is good, 
 but that some is not. Can anything be clearer than that 
 we should point it OVTL irav yc* TOVTL JJLOL avdOov 1 
 
 ibid. B Read ravrov (for ravra) OVTO. just as TO.VTO stands 
 two lines below. 
 
EEASTAE 
 
 133 B rj 8o/cci croi otov TC <av> eTvat eiSeVcu . . . o /XT) 
 K.T.A. 
 
 eiSetr; points very clearly to the common loss of av. 
 
 ibid. E If the words ^yofyuu yap op0ws are to be kept in 
 the text at all, yap should, I think, be changed to Sc. 
 
 134 A 01 fJLZTplOl TToVoi V TTOLOVCTIV ^tl/ TO. (Tto/XaTa, TToQtV Brj 
 
 avSpa aypvTrvov re /cat acnrov . . . KOU ACTTTOV VTTO 
 
 The meaning seems to be that moderate exercise is good 
 for the body, and most certainly so (iroOev o^ >) in ^ ne 
 case of an attenuated student with poor appetite (ao-tros) 
 and given to lying awake. But the Greek seems hardly 
 clear, unless we read something like (say) cv TTOIOVCTIV ex etl/ 
 <7ravras> TO. o-w/xara. It is good for everyone : how then 
 can it fail to be good for the man who is leading an 
 unhealthy life ? 
 
 ibid. E Read KCU TOVTOV <7repi> rov yeoopyov dy 
 or possibly TOVTOV rov. 
 
 135 A Read neither arra with T nor avrd with B, but 
 ravra. 
 
 ibid. B t7TV on /caXXtcTTa ravr' irj TWI/ fJLa6tjiJ.a.r(av /cat 
 
 . C apa /x^ TOIOUTO^ Aeyets ; 
 
 apa /u,rj seems to give just the wrong meaning, ap' ou is 
 what Attic requires. 
 
 137 c rj avrr) Sc should probably be ^ avrr) 8>/. 
 
 37 
 
THE AGES 
 
 1 22 D rt KaXov ovo/xa T(3 veavic 
 
 Schanz with Baiter omits KaXoV. Is it not more probable 
 that we should read KCU ? Kat was confused with KoA and a 
 symbol for or, or ov may be a dittography. So in Symp. 
 197 E Schanz after Madvig reads /cat ipBfjs for KaXr/s (or 
 KaXus) (0877?. Here KaXoV ye just below would make the 
 mistake still easier. 
 
 Who are the we in Trpoo-ayopevw/xcv ? There seems no 
 one present besides Socrates, Theages, and Theages' father 
 (observe eSeo/x^v arra (rot t8toXoy77o-a<r0at at the beginning), 
 and Socrates would not ask the father * what are you and 
 I to call your son 1 ' Should we read Trpoo-ayopcvw ? It 
 may however mean 'I and other people,' now that he is 
 growing up and mixing with men. 
 
 126 D TI ow av, w fi\Ti(TT avSpcoi', ^p^crato a^rai, et (rot 
 yevoiro vios TotaOra Trpay/xara Trape^ot Kat <j>airj /xev av 
 dya^os yevecrOai ^wypac^os Kat yue^K^oiTO crot TW Trarpt 
 on OVK e^eActs . . ., TOVS 8e Sr^/xtovpyovs . . . dri/xa^ot. 
 
 It is I think clear that Kat <an; K.T.X. is not an inde- 
 pendent clause but follows upon et. That being so, av 
 cannot be right and should probably be changed to 8rj, ^afy 
 /xev 877 being very suitable here, rota^ra should probably 
 be Tocravra and c^e'Xcts perhaps e^cXots. 
 
 128 B opas, a) Trarep, ort ScuKpdrr;? ou Travu /xot 8oKt TI 
 
 Cobet would write opas; and omit ort. Leave the 
 punctuation as it stands and omit JJLOL. 
 
 ibid. D See note on Apol. 31 D. 
 
PEOTAGOEAS 
 
 311 A The third ZvSov (after ei/co's) might be better 
 omitted. So perhaps <ro<oV after o-e in 310 D : cf. Euthyd. 
 271 D. 
 
 312 D Perhaps on av ti-n-oLfjifv, echoing the question. Cf. 
 Euthyphro 2 c : Laws 662 A. Or ri, av ctTrw/xev ; as in 
 Eep. 337 D etc. 
 
 327 C OCTTIS (rot dSiKwraros <atVTat dV$pa>7ros rtuv ev vo/xots 
 /cat dv$/ou)7rois T0/oa/x/AeV(oi/ . . ., et Scot avrov KpivfaOat ?rpos 
 avOpwirovs ots ytxr^Te Treuoeia eo"Ttv fJL^re OLKacrTrjpia /AT^TC 
 
 VOfJiOL K.T.X. 
 
 Besides the awkwardness of ai/0/3o>7ros (which Plato could 
 quite well have omitted) with dvfyxoTrois, it will be seen 
 that vo/xois Kat avOpwTTois is a curious combination, which 
 could only be justified by a contrast with animals or other 
 infra-human creatures, whereas Plato goes on to give as 
 the antithesis men of a lower kind without laws, etc. You 
 cannot contrast vo/xot Kat avOpwoi with avOpwiroi ols fj.r] tlcrl 
 vo/xot. Bchanz cites the suggestions lv eVi/o/xo 
 ev VO/AOIS /cat e^vo/tots a.v6po)7roL<s, cv vo/Aot9 KCU ev 
 himself adopting the first. 
 
 It would seem to me most likely that avGpdmois has been 
 substituted for some other word by the accident common 
 in all writing of putting one word for another, the word 
 actually used being in the writer's mind for some other 
 reason. 1 Thus here dv^pwTrots is due to avOpuTros preceding 
 
 1 See my Notes on Xenophon and Others, p. 307, and the index 
 to this volume s.v. Repetition. 
 
40 PROTAGORAS 
 
 and perhaps also to di/0pw7rovs which is coming. In such a 
 case the two words confused need not resemble one 
 another, though no doubt some resemblance facilitates the 
 error. It is therefore harder and often impossible to 
 restore the right word with any confidence. Here we may 
 perhaps conjecture eV VO/AOIS /cat TratSeta (or possibly <Wa- 
 T@pafjL/jiv<ov. Cf. the words 019 /x^re TratSeta eariv 
 
 /A^T VO/J.OL. 
 
 328 A ov paSiov <ay> ol/xai e 
 
 ibid. E There is no point in avrwv roirrtov, 
 question. Read rwv avrwv TOUTCOV, meaning that, if he 
 raised the same question, he would be told the same 
 things. Cf. on Rep. 586 c. 
 
 333 B aro(f>ia <r'> eVacrta KOU (raxfrpocrvvr) av ^aiVerat, Or 
 
 <Jj T> (TO^l'tt. 
 
 ibid. C orvfjiflaLva . . . Kal e/x,e rov epwTwvra Kat <(re> TOV 
 
 334 A TToAAa ot8' a avOpMTTots fjt,e.v avoxfatXf) ecrrt, Kat crtTtia 
 /cat TTOTO. /cat ^apyita/ca, /cat aAXa ///upta, ra 8e ye ax^eAt/xa* TO, 
 
 O dv^pWTTOl? /U.CV OVOTpa, tTTTTOtS 8e* Ttt /?OVO"tV /XOVOV, TO, 
 
 8c KVCTIV. 
 
 Read dv^pwTrots <rot5> /xev di/toc/)eA^ . . ., rot? 8e ye 
 w^eXt/xa, the rots having dropped out through its likeness 
 to the syllable preceding, and rots Se' having then been 
 assimilated to the TO, Se' thrice following. The successive 
 distinctions of Protagoras are (1) some men, (2) some 
 animals, (3) some plants 1 namely trees, (4) some parts of 
 a tree. 
 
 337 A eyo> fj.tv <ovi/> ? 
 
 341 D I do not myself feel much difficulty in the super- 
 fluous ooKfiv after ot/xat (ot/x.ai . . . 7raietv /cat trov 8o/cctv 
 a7ro7ret/>a<r#ai). If any exists, we might get over it by 
 reading 7ratet Kat a-oO SOKCI Tret/oao-^at. But cf. for instance 
 the SoKet in Dem. 15. 11. 
 
PROTAGORAS 41 
 
 349 B Trorepoi/ ravra, TreWe oWa oVo/xara, CTTI ivl Trpay/xari 
 0riv . . . ; (j>rjcrOa vvv (TV OVK oVo/xara CTTI evt eivcu aAX' 
 Kao-roi> iSiw Trpay/xart rwy oVoixarwv TOVTCOV 7TiKeur$ai. 
 
 Is it not clear that with OVK oVd/xctTa we want some word 
 to express plurality, ' a number of names for one thing ' ? 
 I suggest that before the of CTU or emu an c' = TTC'VTC has 
 dropped out. 
 
 352 C ap' ow Kat <roi roiovrov TL Trept avr^s So/cct, rj 
 re eTvai 17 cTTKTTrjfJiir) KOL otov ap^etv ro9 avOpwirov KOLL . . . /x/j) ai/ 
 KparrjOrjvai VTTO /arySevos . . . dAA.' iKav^v ctfcu TT/V <j>p6vr)cnv 
 ( = 7rio"r;/x77i>) (3or)6ttv TO) dv^pwTra) ; 
 
 There is little force here in KaA.oV. The point is the 
 strength, not the beauty or fineness of knowledge : whether it 
 can control action, whether it can be defeated in the control 
 by something else. Here as elsewhere (cf. on EiUhyd. 276 E) 
 /caXos and J/cavos seem to have been confused. The latter is 
 the word we want, as both the sense of the passage and 
 LK.avr)v following indicate. 
 
 353 D T^ K.OV t rt TOVTWV ts TO vcrTpov /xr/Scv 7rapao-/cva^i, 
 Se /xovov Troiet, o/xws 8' av KctKa ty, o TL /xa^oVra ^aipciv 
 
 TTOltt Kttl OTT^OW ; 
 
 In the apodosis o/xws 8' av KaKa ty most recent editors 
 read 177 for fy against all the MSS. Adam defends ^ 
 saying ' the imperfect is used because the answer "no " is 
 expected and desired . . . See Goodwin M.T. p. 190, 
 503 ' : but there is no such principle known to Greek 
 grammar and Goodwin affords, I think, no parallel to this 
 passage. Surely o/xws 8 Kand eVriv; would equally have 
 invited the answer ' no.' I do not however think we 
 should read efy. I would retain vjv but' read 7rapo-Kevae 
 and eirotet. The imperfects, a very slight change, give a 
 good, if not a better, sense, because excess in pleasures 
 constantly does entail subsequent evil and therefore a 
 supposition to the contrary goes naturally into the 
 imperfect. In 350 B e/Veyes has been rightly restored for 
 
 In view of other passages where o n /xa#wj/ occurs, o TL 
 seems sound here, but I should make it accusative 
 
42 PROTAGORAS 
 
 singular, not with Adam nominative plural. That would 
 personify food and drink too much. 
 
 355 A 77 dpKet, as a question, may be right, if a full stop 
 is put before it. An alternative, which seems to me not 
 improbable, is 17 </xr/> dp*et governed by the ei preceding, 
 like i 8e dp/<t KCU /AT) e^ere following. 
 
 ibid. C ^TTOO/ACVOS VTTO TiVos ; <f>rjarL' Tov dyatfov, 
 vrj Ata. 
 
 So punctuate all the books I have looked at. But I 
 would join VT) Ata with TOT) ayaOov. 
 
 357 A TI av (ra>ei> TJ/UI/ rov /3tov ; ap' av OVK 
 Kat ap' av ov /xerpTiriKT; TLS, tTretSryTrep vTrepftoXfjs re KO.\ 
 etrrtv 77 Texyr) ; CTrctSr) 8e TT/OITTOV re Kat dprtov, apa aAA?; rts 77 
 
 The use of 7mS?7 here seems to deserve notice. It is 
 never used, I think, with the indicative, like ore, to mean 
 tvhen, lohenever. It cannot therefore here mean simply 
 that, whenever it is a matter of more and less, it is 
 /ACTpriTtK?;, and, whenever of odd and even, apLOfjLrjTLK-tj. Nor 
 on the other hand does since make sense here, because only 
 one of the two propositions (that it deals with more 
 and less, and that it deals with odd and even) can be true. 
 It seems rather, if I understand it, to mean ivhen once, 
 after we have once settled that, or something similar. But 
 I do not know any exact parallel. Perhaps postquam 
 might be so used. 
 
 ciTrep ST) vTTpj3o\f)<; . . ., ct Sc 8?) TrepiTxov K.r.A. may 
 naturally occur to one as possibilities, but they are hardly 
 probable. 
 
 ibid. E Agreeing that in oirre avrot OVTC TOUS 
 TratSas Trapa TOVS TOVTWV SiSao"/<aA.oi;s . . . 7re/x7TT a verb IS 
 missing after avroi, I should conjecture it to be something 
 like fjLavOdvtTc rather than the tre, <OITOT, etc., that have 
 been suggested. I take it that as a rule the pupils of the 
 sophists were young men, not fathers of families. 
 
 358 B at 7Tt rovrov 7rpaeis aVao-ai, CTTI TOV dAvTrw? rjv KOI 
 eu)?, ap' ov KaXat; 
 
PROTAGORAS 43 
 
 It does not appear that CTTI with a genitive is used to 
 express end and object, except in the case of actual 
 movement, iVat itri etc. Can it be applied to action 
 aiming at a particular end 1 If it cannot, then either 
 some word expressive of metaphorical movement (such as 
 Adam's ayovo-at) has been lost, or we might suggest that a 
 dative or accusative case should be written in both places, 
 TOVTU) and TU> or TOVTO and TO. 
 
 360 D OVKC'TI cvravOa OVT eVu/v<rcu rjOeXrjo-cv co-i'ya re. 
 
 Read ovS' eirivtv(ra.i r)@\r)arv, eo-iya Sc. ' He would not 
 now even nod assent but remained silent.' I cannot think 
 OVTC . . . re is good Greek after oiWrt, which would certainly 
 negative the TC clause. In the context too ov8e not even is 
 much more pointed. 
 
 ibid. E ^aptov/xat ovv croi KCU Acyw on K.T.\. 
 
 Xeyw may be right enough, but in view of the frequent 
 corruption of futures A.e'&o is worth suggesting. Cf. on 
 Gorg. 506 A. 
 
 361 C ftovXoiiJLrjv av ravra Stc^eX^ovras i7/xas e 
 rrjv aperrjv o TL C.CTTLV. 
 
 eeA0eu/ seems an erroneous repetition of 
 Read tXOtiv or 
 
MENO 
 
 71 A w evc, /ai>Swvo.> trot ooKtiv /^aKapios eivat, aperr/i/ 
 yovv etre SiSa/crov ei$' orw TrapayiyvcTat etSe'vat. 
 
 I entirely agree with Naber and Thompson in thinking 
 the yovv clause to be wrong. But I would not follow them 
 in bracketing dperrji/ . . . ctSeVai. The omission of words is 
 seldom safe, unless we can see pretty clearly how they 
 came to be inserted by a later hand, yovv is the difficulty 
 here, and it seems likely to be the corruption of a participle 
 in the nominative, agreeing with the subject of /avSweuw 
 and governing etSeVat. Some word in the sense of being 
 able or thinking would be natural enough in the context. 
 The letters preceding or following a corrupt word some- 
 times help one to restore it by suggesting something that 
 may have been lost through similarity to them. When we 
 look again at the passage with these two ideas in our 
 minds, we think without much difficulty of aptrrjv ^yov/xi/os 
 . . . tlSevai. The loss of the first letter is due to the T/V of 
 dperTJv (H and N are very similar), and that of evos to the 
 frequent omission or abbreviation of terminations. /xaKaptos 
 ironically used, and justified by ^yor/uei/os . . clbevai, makes 
 excellent sense. 
 
 72 A KaO' (KOfrrrfV yap rcov 7rpaeeoi> . . '. f) apery O~TLV' 
 axravrcos 8e . . . KCU ^ /ca/aa. In both cases ^ should be 
 omitted as giving a wrong sense. There is a goodness or 
 badness in each action or kind of action. 
 
 76 D CCTTI yap Xpoa. airoppor) cr^^/xarwv oif/L cri;/>i/x expos KOLL 
 aicr^ro?. For crfflfutTtw we find the variant 
 approved by Diels. But is not the right word 
 
 44 
 
MENO 45 
 
 which occurs in the parallel passage Timaeus 67 c <j>X6ya 
 
 TOJV (TW/ACtTO)!/ /Ca(TTO>V aTTOppeOVCTaV, Ol^Cl gV/JifJifTpOL fJLOpia 
 
 ? croi/Aa and (r^/Aa are quite apt to get confused. 
 
 78 C 2fi- dyafla 8e KaAeTs ovp(t diov 
 MEN. Kat xpv&Lov Aeya> /cat apyvpLOV KTacrOai /cat "rt/x,as i> 
 Kai dp^ds ; /A?) dAA' arra Xeycis rdya^a rj TO, rotavra ; 
 
 Such appears to me the best way of giving these words. 
 I do not think it at all plausible to assign Kat x/ovcri'ov . . . 
 dp^as to Meno. One sufficient reason against that is that 
 it makes him ignore health very pointedly. Kat . . . KracrOai 
 seems indeed rather superfluous in the mouth of Socrates 
 as an explanation of TT\OVTOI>, but it would be not less so 
 in that of Meno. 
 
 79 C Setrai, like 8e to-flat and Ser/creo-0at following, is no 
 doubt right, as against Set, but Setrai and Setcr&u are not 
 to be taken as impersonal. The subject understood is 
 either the case, the matter, or more probably your answer, 
 though that word has not been actually used. Cf. Prot. 
 312 D ep<oTr7<rws yap ITL f) a7roKpi<rts fjfuv Sctrat : Synip. 204 D 
 en iroOel rj a7roKpt(rts epwrr/crtv rotavSc. Setrat thus loosely 
 used (Eep. 340 A 1 : Alcib. ii. 149 c ?) is quite different from 
 
 ibid. E TOtrra) TO) aura) T/JOTTW Aeyo>/. 
 The proper order is TU> avru> TOVTW. 
 
 80 c In the second Trotw aTropeii/, it would be a gain to 
 drop the 
 
 ibid. E 6/oas TOVTOV ws epurriKov Xoyov 
 
 Perhaps Kardyci? may be compared with 
 in Rep. 587 E d/x^ai'oi/, e<f>r), Xoyt(r/xov 
 Sta^opdr^Tos rotv dvSpotv. We may add to the references 
 sometimes given there the cr<jf>o8poi/ Kat Kara^optKov Xdyov of 
 Hermogenes (Walz 3. 199. 3), 6vs o>i/ ev rj Ka.Ta<f>opa of a 
 river Diodorus 19. 18. 3, and perhaps 
 TrpoTrdropa Kara^epwi/ Heliodorus Aethiop. 2. 34. 
 
46 ME NO 
 
 81 C are ow v dflaVaros o*cra K.r.X. 
 
 17 \lrv\ri must be either omitted or put elsewhere in the 
 sentence. The words are at present as impossible as it 
 would be in English to say ' as being the soul immortal ' 
 for 'the soul, as being immortal.' Cf. the order of words 
 just below, where are is again used. Here the subject is 
 easily supplied from what preceded the quotation, and rj 
 is a natural adscript to point it out. 
 
 87 D Tyv apTyv appears to be an adscript explanatory of 
 avro, unless avro itself is somehow wrong. The strong 
 sense of avro would not be in place here. 
 
 ibid. E It is difficult to believe in the abrupt interroga- 
 tive ov^i ; Whether there is any MS. evidence for ^ ofyi ; 
 or not, that seems better. Or we might read TrdVra yap 
 Taya0a 
 
 90 A 'Av0e/AtWos an adscript ? 
 
 ibid, c 7T/x7ro/xev should perhaps be Tre/xTroi/xev. Observe 
 TTC/ATTOI/ACV and /3ouA.oi/A0a before, <j(o</oovoi/>tei/ and 
 afterwards. Cf. p. 3. 
 
 ibid. E TOVS vTTHTxyoviJLwovs StSot^civ Trjv 
 
 Perhaps 8i8aerKiv. Cf. 91 B TOWS V7rr^vov/x,ei/ovs 
 cTvat and the use of vTrKr^vov/xei/os in 95 c. 
 
 91 D See end of note on Phaedo 108 A. 
 
 92 B ]O. a7Tipos ap* L TravTOLTrafTL TWI/ avSpwv. AN. /cat 
 ye. 
 
 Schanz after Heindorf Kal <deb> LYJV y, but dei is hardly 
 more needed than a TTOTC in Ar. Ran. 1045 (EYP. /xa At", 
 ovSe yap rjv T^S 'A^poSiVijs ouSeV (rot. AI^. fti^Se y' cTret?;) or 
 Theocr. 10. 11. 
 
 93 A l/x,oty Kat etj/at SoKovcrtv ci'^aSe dya^ot Ta TroXtTiKa Kat 
 ycyovei/at Irt ou^ ^TTOV -^ civai. 
 
 Should en be rive? ? Kat CTI is not, I think, an Attic 
 phrase. 
 
ME NO 47 
 
 95 B /cat certainly seems necessary for rj before 
 "H is not equally necessary for KCU before CTTIO-TIJ//.^ in 98 B, 
 though we might expect it on comparison of aXXoiov f) in 
 87 B. Symp. 186 B illustrates the statement here that two 
 things are dAXoto'v n. 
 
 ibid. E Read el 8' rjv TTOLTJTOV <re>, as metre and the text 
 of Theognis indicate. 
 
 97 E TtoV eKelvOV <Tl ?> TTOt^/XaTWV \e\VjJieVOV fJLV 
 
 ou 7roAAr7<? TII/OS aioV tori Ti/xiys . . . , SeSefievov Se TroAAov 
 
 The similarity of n to ?r is well known, and something 
 seems rather wanted here. Cf. Shilleto's note on Thuc. 
 1. 72. 5. 
 
 98 E 6/xoXoyov/xev should probably be w/xoXoyoO/xcv. It is 
 preceded by w/xoA-oyr^/ca/xev (twice), eSo^ev, eo-KOTrov/xev. Cf. 
 the change from o>//,oAoy>JKa/x,ev in w/i,oA.oyov/xv in 97 A. 
 
 99 A a) Sc av^pwTros i^ye/xwi/ eorrtv CTTI TO op^oi/ Svo ravra, 
 
 Certainly Stobaeus' wv and not w is right, the singular 
 <S being inconsistent not only grammatically with 8vo ravra 
 (which would need ots) but argumentatively with the 
 emphasis laid on the distinction between the two things. 
 wv is the natural genitive after fjyefjuav, and Svo ravra is the 
 subject of yytlrai understood. Throughout the argument 
 sometimes a man, sometimes one of his faculties is said 
 fjyfl<T0ai. Here the two expressions are brought together : 
 one or other of the two faculties is a ^ye/xwv to him and 
 he to other men. 
 
 ibid. C opOws ap av Ka\olfJiv OCLOVS rt ovs vvv By eXeyo/Aev 
 Kat /xai/reis /cat TOVS Trot^ri/covs aTravras* KOL rovs 
 u^ rjKifrra rovrtav <ou/x,i/ av ^e/ovs T ct^at Kat 
 
 The first ^et'ovs re is not the occasional hyperbaton of re 
 (as though re would naturally have followed ^pr^cr/xwSovs), 
 because it does not come in the proper clause. Had Plato 
 written eXeyo/xeV re /c.r.X., that would have been the 
 
48 MENO 
 
 legitimate hyperbaton in question. More plausible, 
 I think, is the view that the later 0tovs re emu KOL 
 shows him to have had KCU ei/0ov<riae> or 
 in his mind here. But I would suggest that 
 , ovs re is possibly what he wrote, re joining ovs . . . 
 to /cat TOI>S TroirjTLKovs or the whole of this to /cat 
 
 TCR'S TToAmKOVS K.T.X. 
 
EUTHYDEMUS 
 
 271 c The <Ls lywye of T is to be adopted, except that 
 probably we should write oW for d>s. The use of us = <5o-Te, 
 though so common in Xenophon, is very rare in Plato. 
 Sometimes one MS. gives us warning, e.g. F in Meno 71 A, 
 by writing WO-TC against a common d>s. 
 
 The words a little below TOUTCD Sc Trpwrov /txcv TU> 
 
 SctVOTaTU) 6OTO1/ Kat f^O-Xfl V 7r( *VTO)l> (TTl (ttOt in B) KpOLTf.Iv 
 
 a difficulty. Their sense' is unsatisfactory, because (1) 
 K.T.A. is not a clear description of a physical contest as 
 distinguished from the intellectual one next mentioned; 
 (2) it is really absurd to say that by fighting ev OTTAOIS a 
 man can beat everyone, when other people may fight lv 
 oTrAois too. Also the datives o-w/xart and f^o-xO are 
 questionable, as the words stand, for the context makes it 
 fairly certain that Seivorarw means skilful. Did not Plato 
 write TW oxo/xart SeivoTarw eorov Kara /za^v TTCIVTOJV Kparetv ? 
 ??i/ takes the place of y and Kara of /cat', both familiar changes. 
 
 273 C TO. Trcpt rov TroXe/xov TrdvTa tirLa-racrOov ocra Set TOV 
 fji\\ovra (TTparrj-yov ecrecr^ai, ras re raas Kat ra? 
 rail' (TTpaTOTTc'San/, /cat o<ra i/ oTrXot? /xcx^ca^at 
 
 Schanz and Burnet bracket the latter o<m and 
 I would rather write Kat oar a <TOV> ei/ oTrAots 
 (i.e. yaeAXovTa) StSaKTeop. Perhaps it should be 
 like eo-OT0at. 8t8aKTeov might be dispensed with, but not 
 otra. 
 
 274 B e/xot SoKetv is perhaps not quite in its proper place. 
 
 49 E 
 
50 EUTHYDEMUS 
 
 275 E There is no reason for changing ox^cXct to a 
 future. Cf. the present tense 295 A ^Siora ravra e^cAeyxo/xat, 
 referring to the very same thing. The cross-questioning 
 itself is the 
 
 276 E Zcv, c^v ey<o, r) /x-r/v Kat TO nportpov ye KO.\OV 
 
 icaAoV should, I think, be i/cavoV, a word often confused 
 with it (probably in 275 c, as Badham conjectured, and cf. 
 on Prot. 352 c). The point is that one such dialectical 
 display and victory was quite enough : they are described 
 just above as K7r7rAi7y/xevoi. Cf. 278 D ravra /xev ovv . . . 
 7re7rcu'(r$w TC V/MV KOL ttrws t/cavws X t> 
 
 277 C 7TOTpOV OVV ClCTtV Ot Aa/Z/JdVoj/TCS OTtOVV OL 
 
 8r T OL av X7 ; OL av /. 
 
 Schanz writes ' e^wo-iv delevi, post >} ot av /xij transposuit 
 Badham.' Another alternative would be to leave 
 alone, but in the preceding sentence to write 17 ot 
 omitting oV. 
 
 279 A rj ov ^a\7rov ovof. o~fj,vov dv8pos Trdvv TI ovot TOVTO 
 
 IVCLL 
 
 B has cvTropetv, T tvpeiv. Considering that cupciv and 
 are apt to get interchanged (See my Aristophanes 
 and Others, Index), is it not probable that evTropeu/ is a 
 mixture of the two and that we ought to read tiVetV, the 
 most proper word of the three *? After evTro/oeu' the accus- 
 ative is questionable. 
 
 280 E For KaXws oe read rather icaXws 8?j than KaXws yc. 
 290 D 8e is given by B, 8r} rightly by T. 
 
 282 E For wo-Trep Hermann writes o>g yap, Schanz ws 
 I would suggest das oTrep. Cf. 305 A. 
 
 283 D KOLLTOl TTOAAOV O.V tt^tOt K.T.A.. 
 
 The irony of iro\\ov av a^ioi euv is not compatible with 
 It might quite well stand as an ironical comment, 
 but it would have to be introduced in some quite different 
 
EUTHYDEMUS 51 
 
 way, e.g. by rj, the adversative KCU'TOI being entirely out of 
 keeping. Hence I infer that Katrot <ov> TTO\\OV should 
 be read. 
 
 286 C 0av/u,ao"ros TIS SOKCI etvat (6 Aoyos) Kat TOVS re dAAovs 
 Kat avros avToV. 
 
 Heindorf. Possibly Kat before TOV? should be 
 <!>?, the confusion being well known. But the words may 
 be right as they stand. 
 
 In the parallel phrase 288 A COIKCV ... 6 Ao'yos eV ravru) 
 fjifvfiv Kat ert tooTrep TO TraAatov Kara/^aAwv TrtTrreiv should we 
 read the present participle Kara/SaAAeov, like dyaTpeVtov ^ 
 It seems more descriptive and graphic than the aorist. 
 
 289 B ev y (ru/XTrcTTTWKev a/xa TO T irotet^ Kat TO 
 \prja~0ai TOVTW. 
 
 As cH-tVi-ao-flai should govern both the other infinitives, 
 it ought probably to follow, not precede, 
 
 ibid, c BijjprjvTaL seems probable. 
 
 290 B ovSc^ua, t<f>r), rfjs OrjpfwrLKijs avrJJs CTTI TrAeov eo"Tiv r} 
 ocrov Orjpeixrcu Kat ^etpwo-acr^at. 
 
 auT^s has been changed, not very plausibly, to Swa/xis, 
 ao-K^crts, etc., or some such word as xP t ' a nas been added to 
 it. But I think the construction is defensible. If we find 
 Synip. 209 A TTO\V f^eyLcrrrj Kat KaAAtVny rrjs ^povrjaews 17 Trept 
 K.T.A., CTdt. 391 B opOordrr) rrj<s o*Kej^o>s, ^e^9. 394 C T^S 
 Trotijo-ea)? 17 /xeV . . . , rj Se . . . , Ar. Eth. 3. 1. 1110 b 22 
 TOV 8r^ 8t' ayi/otav (Trpa^ai/Tos) 6 /xev . . ., 6 Se . . ., we can 
 hardly be sure that along with such partitive genitives 
 ov8c/xta 1-779 OrjpcvriKrjs is not legitimate. 
 
 294 A cos 6a.vfj.a(TTov Acyets Kat dya^ov fteya 
 
 Waiving any other objection, * we ought to feel that 
 Aeycts dya#6v /xcya Tre^dv^at is inappropriate. Dionysodorus 
 has not said so. He may have shown it, but he has 
 certainly not said that it has been shown or that it has 
 appeared. I had thought of 7re'</>avTat before I found that 
 Heindorf proposed it long ago, omitting 009. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 EUTHYDEMUS 
 
 296 D <6> avTos act cTricmjo-et ? so e.g. Soph. Phil. 119 
 <ro<os T' ai/ avros Kaya0os Ke/cX^' a/xa : Thuc. 3. 21. 4 KCU ol 
 avrot Kal s TO ca>. 
 
 299 E ei e^oi xpvcrt'ou f-^v Tpta TuXavTa ei> rrj yaorpi, rdXavrov 
 8* ey T<3 Kpavtu). 
 
 Surely /xcV cannot follow xpvo-i'ov in this sentence. It 
 would stand naturally after rpia. 
 
 300 B OVKOVV (<rtyo)/Ta Xcyw), ct yc . . . Tra/ocp^o/xai ci/ rot? 
 ^aXKCtois, dXXa ^>^eyyo/tet/a Kal ySooivTa /xeywrroi/ ra (rt8i;pia 
 Xeyerat, cav Tts a^^rai. 
 
 In this context Xcycrat is unmeaning. It cannot be 
 considered as corresponding to Xe'yw in triywi/ra Xeyw, but is 
 quite unnatural. Ast's Xeyei is not satisfactory, and as 
 Xe'yo/xcu is often confused with yiy/o/Aat (see p. 239) I 
 suggest the very suitable ytyj/erat here. Participles are 
 sometimes combined with ytyi/o/xat, as they are quite 
 commonly with ci/xt. 
 
 301 C ovS 3 av TratSa <^^r)v TOVTO aTroprjcrai. 
 
 The av may go with cbroprjo-ai. Otherwise we need 
 either TOVT' <av> a,7rop^o-at or TOVTO d7rop^o"etv. 
 
 ibid. 7Tl TO. ttXXa fJLOL SoKtT, WO~7Tp Ot 
 
 Kao-TOts 7rpoo"qKi aTrepya^cr^af, Kat v/xcts TO 
 
 Heindorf was inclined to omit the first 
 Rather alter it to a-n-epyd^ovraL, which has been accidentally 
 assimilated to the other. To say nothing of any other 
 objection, the cacophony is intolerable. 
 
 302 D OVKOVV Kttt OVTOt (TOt 0Ot ttV ClV ', 
 
 Add ot before Ocoi, which is no part' of the predicate. 
 So just below KCU <3a cto-tv OVTOI ot ^eot. Perhaps there 
 should be a y after -rrpoyovoi. 
 
 303 D TOVTOVS Tovg Xdyovs Travv /xev a.v oXtyot dyaTTwcv ot 
 
 CM v \ \ i (VOOIHTLV B^ 5 v v \ 
 
 S aXXot OVTW \ , rp } avTOvs ware K.T.X. 
 ^ayi/oovo-tv TJ 
 
EUTHYDEMUS 53 
 
 Neither voovo-tv nor dyvoovo-iv makes any sense and 
 various substitutes have been proposed. (8v<rxep)ai'vov<rii> 
 would be very suitable. 
 
 304 E rt ovv <j6atVovro (rot (ot avSpcs) ; TL Se aAAo, rj 8' 05, 
 77 olaTrep act ai> ri? TWV roiourwv d/covcrai XiypowTwv ; 
 
 There is not in the answer, I think, any such confusion 
 as the editors suppose of men and things said. I take the 
 full sense to be ri 8' aXXo e^aawro 77 rotavra 
 ael av TIS TWV TOIOVTCOV aKOvcrat 
 
 305 C OVTOL yap etortv //ev, w Kptrtuv, ovs 
 
 jjif66pia <f)i\o(r6<J>ov re dv8pos /cai TroXiriicov, otovrat 8' clvat 
 TTCIVTOOV o"O^>(jOTarot av^paJTToov. 
 
 ovs should probably be w?. That will give the point 
 better, and with ovs Z<f>r) we should certainly look for elvcu. 
 ovs e^/ can hardly stand for * whom he called.' 
 
 306 E OTTCOS o>s TrAowiwraTOi suggests OTTW? <a>5> e/c 
 
 ecrovrat 
 
GOEGIAS 
 
 448 A TOP. 7TapOTl TOVTOV 7TlpaV, 0> XatpC<u>V, 
 
 IIQA. V7) At'* av 8e yc fiovXrj, w Xatpe<wv, c/xov. 
 
 There should be no stop after vr) Ata. It does not assent 
 to what precedes, but goes with what follows, just as e.g. 
 in 463 D, [AOL TOV Atia, w Sw/cpares, dXX' cyo> ouSe avTos crvvnyju.! 
 o Tt Xeyet?, the /u,a TOV Ata must go with ov8e CXVTOS <Twir)fu t 
 because there is nothing preceding for it to refer to. Cf. 
 458 D. So often in Aristophanes vrj or /xa At'a etc. goes 
 with what follows, in spite of some word (dXXd etc.) inter- 
 vening : see Blaydes on Phit. 202, Lys. 594 : and Gilbert 
 on Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 4. 
 
 ibid. C TToXXttt T^Vat V aV$p<07TOlS tO*tV K TO)] 
 
 Not only is the adverb e/xTretpws somewhat oddly used, 
 but it adds nothing to e/c TWV t/xirttptoiv. The Schol. on 
 Hermogenes ( Walz 4. 44, cited by Thompson) gives <K roiv 
 e/A7Tipia>i> e/A7rftpia9, which increases our doubts. Should we 
 read e/c T^S rtov c/xTretpcov e/xTreiptas ? , (Cf. Thompson's 
 Gorgias Appendix p. 181, n. 1, and compare Gorgias (?) 
 SieZ. 18 TroXXa TroXXots TroXXoiv with aXXot aXXcav aXXw? 
 here.) 
 
 450 B Trcpl Xoyovs eo-Tt TovTovs ot rvyxoLVov(TLv /c.T.X. Read 
 
 TOIOUTOV5 
 
GORG1AS 55 
 
 453 c Can the unintelligible KOL TTOV ; stand for 5 v, 
 to be joined with TTO.VV ye as Gorgias' answer ? rj TTOV occurs 
 in 448 A, 469 B. But I do not recall it in an answer with 
 Travv. 
 
 456 A Adopting Madvig's insertion of TI, I should like 
 to add Se and read ri 8' cL 
 
 ibid. B Read K&V (for KOI) eis iroXiv. Cf. Schanz, Novae 
 Commentationes p. 102. Cf. on 482 B. 
 
 457 C OI/ACU, to Fopyta, KCU o~e fytTreipov emu TroAAwi' Adyoov 
 Kat Ka0topaK<Vcu ev avrots TO roioVSe, on ov paSuos Svvavrai 
 7Tpt wv av firi)(ipy<T(D(TL SiaXzyfcrOa 
 
 Aovs . OVTO> StaXvecr^ai ras (rvrou(rtaf. 
 
 To provide a subject for Svi/avrcu, Aoywv has been altered 
 to AoyiW (Madvig), dv^/owTrwv (Cobet), <iAoAoyo>v (Schanz). 
 But /x7rctpos with a genitive of persons is very unusual., 
 whereas Adycov e/x,7mpos is a combination that Plato uses. 
 more than once elsewhere. I should rather suggest that 
 rive's, TroAAo/', ot TroAAot, or something similar, has been lost 
 in the clause beginning with on. 
 
 458 E prjropLKov <>)s Trotetv olos T ctvai, av Tts 
 Trapd crov fj.av6a.vtw ; Nat'. OVKOVV irept TTCIVTCUI/ waV tv 
 TnOavov flvai ; 
 
 For <5o-T, which has no propriety here and is distinctly 
 awkward, read ws ye, <Ss y' eV o^Aw having a limiting sense. 
 ev ye o^Ao) (Trt^avwrepos) occurs immediately after. In 
 Prot. 348 c the Bodleian codex has oWe />iot eSoev for 
 
 y' e^ot eSo^ev, and so ^?e^. 352 D, 602 D : Stobaeus' text has 
 <So-Te in Symp. 202 D. Cf. note below on Eep. 350 E. 
 
 464 D In the fancy of a physician and a cook contending 
 before a jury of children Trdrepos eTraiet Trept TWV xpryo-Taiv 
 o-mW Kat Trovrjp&v I should have thought that some word 
 like fitXriov was necessary with eVaiei. 
 
 465 D OLKpLTWV OVTCOV TWV T laTplKWV Kttt VyttVWV Kttt 
 OJ//O7TOUKWV. 
 
56 GORGIAS 
 
 If TWV tarpiKu>v has vytetvwv added to ifc, the balance of 
 the sentence seems to require that <KCU ^8etav> be inserted 
 after O^OTTOUKWV. Dobree wished to omit uytetvwv KCU. 
 
 467 B HO A. OUK OW TTOtOUOrtV tt (3ov\OVTO.l. ^O. OV <j>rjfJLl. 
 
 IlfiA. TroiowTes 8e a 
 
 There is some authority for omitting 8e' and some for 
 reading TTOLOVO-L 8e'. But possibly TTOIOWTC'S ye is what Plato 
 wrote. Of. 496 E SO. OVKOVV Kara TO TTIVCIV ^atpeiv Xe'yeis; 
 KAA. yudXtora. SO. Sn/fwvrd ye ; KAA. 
 
 C i /xev t^ets e/>ie epwra^, e7uSeiov ort ^CvSo/xat* t Se 
 ^, auros aTroKpLVOV. IIOA. dXA,' e0eAw aTTOKpiVecr^ai, iVa /cat 
 8w o rt 
 
 Should not e^eis be e^e'Aeis ? Written eflets or eXets by 
 accident, it might be corrected to 
 
 469 A ovre roi;s d^A-toTov? ^Xovv ovrc TOVS 
 > ? cf. 473 C. 
 
 470 A It seems clear that we must either omit the first 
 TO fjieya ovvaa-OaL with Thompson or substitute for it some- 
 
 thing like TO TTOlCtl/ tt 8oKt ttVTW. 
 
 472 A C In C lo*Tiv /xev ovv euros Ti? Tpo7ros eXey^ov . . . 
 (TTLV 8e Kai aXXos Cobet thought we should read el? for 
 TIS, and certainly either els or cts TIS seems preferable to 
 simple TIS. It occurs to me whether in A en'orc yap av Kal 
 
 KO.T(UJ/V$OfJLa.pTVpY)6l7J TtS V7TO TToXXwV K(Xt 8o/COWTO>V tTl/at Tt 
 
 we ought not also to read et?. Cf. the Iva TWO. just before 
 and the els wi/ in B. 
 
 ibid. B eyw 8' av /mrj ore avrov tva ovra /xaprvpa Trapao-^co/xat 
 6/x.oXoyowTa Trept wi/ Xeyco, ovSev o7/xat a^tov Xoyov /xot 
 7T7repaV#at Trepi a>v av i^/>ttv 6 Xoyos ^' oi/xai 8' ov8e o-ot', eav ^ 
 yw o^ot /xaprvpw els wv /x,ovos. 
 
 There seem to be here two noticeable things : (1) the 
 apodosis ov8ev ot/x,at K.T.X. ought to contain some sort of 
 future (Hirschig proposed ov8ei/ <av> ot/x,at) : (2) in oT/x,ai 8' 
 ov8e o-ot we should like to find the sense you will not be 
 .satisfied either, whereas it can only mean / think you will 
 not have succeeded either, and the repetition of oT/xat is 
 
GORGIAS 57 
 
 quite pointless and weak, when ovS' av CTOL would have been 
 enough. From these two considerations may we not infer 
 that Plato wrote a 8oet or 8o'etv with TmrtpdvOai and that 
 the same is understood with ov8e crot"? He wrote, that is, 
 something like ov8o> oT/xat atov Xoyov //.ot <Soetv> 
 
 473E-474A Omit the second ri^iv. So in 523 c 
 the second Kpivovrai is pretty clearly an adscript. 
 
 476 D 2fi. TOVTWV 8r/ o/xoAoyov/>uV(uv, TO BLKTTJV 8t8oVat 
 7rd<T\LV TL 1<TTW f) Troieti/ ; IIOA. dvay/c^, ai 
 
 This may stand, though awkwardly, for dvay/o; (avro) 
 Trao-xctv (eTvat). But we shall perhaps do better to write 
 avd.yK.rj. Cf. PTOt. 357 B ore! 8e /xerpryTt/cr; (etrnv), avdyKrj 
 rexyr] /ecu fTTLcrr^fJir) ; [Xen.] ^?.-4. 3. 7 dvdyKr) TOLVVV . . . 
 ev exao-TO) eorovrat TW SiKaarTrjpiw. Cf. on ^e^- 410 B. 
 
 478 C Should u8cu/u,ov(rraT05 be evScu/u.oi'eo'Tfpos "? The 
 d^Xiwrcpos following strongly suggests it, and MS. evidence 
 on this point is worth very little. Cf. the variations in 
 473 c and 490 E. The evScu/xoveWaTos in D, followed as it 
 is by Scvrepos K.r.X., proves nothing. 
 
 480 A <us t/cavov /caKov <Foi/Ta. 
 
 tKavos here and in 485 E eXtvQcpov KOL /w,eya /fat i/cavov 
 c <f>0ya.<rOai has been called in question as weak 
 and inadequate in meaning, but cf. on Philebus 52 D. 
 
 ibid. B AVt for 
 
 i&ic?. C Trape^ctv fj,v(ravTa. ev /cat avSpet'tos Sxnrep TffAVCiv KCU 
 Kaciv tarpw. 
 
 In view of Bergk's <^rj> /xvcravra cf. Aristides 43. 34 
 aTraAyrjcrai/Tas eav Kai', TOWTO 8^ TO XfyofAtvov, [AvcravTas <^pctv. 
 
 481 C et . . . TIS (iras Tts Cobet) T7/x<ov t8toi/ Tt 
 ot aAAot. 
 
 Cf. on Eep. 335 A. 
 
58 GORGIAS 
 
 482 B C OI/ACU . . . Kai rr)v Xvpav juot Kpetrrov Ivat dvap- 
 /AOO-TCII/ T Kat Sta^xovcu/ Kai %opov a> xoprjyoirjv Kai TrXaVrovs 
 di/0poo7rovs /x,r) o/AoXoycu/ yuoi K.r.X. 
 
 Thompson notices the irregularity of the optative. It is 
 strange that he did nob see what must have happened, 
 namely that an dV has been lost, probably after K/JUTTOV or 
 the first KCU (read KCU/). Cf. on 456 B. 
 
 483 A <uo"t /xev yap TTO.V aur^io!/ ccmv oVep Kai KOLKIOV, ro 
 
 For Trav, which gives no sense here, when TO dSi/ceio-flat is 
 attached to it, TTOLO-LV and Travri have been suggested. Does 
 it not stand for TTOV, a word which is plausibly restored for 
 v in 488 E? 
 
 484 A KaTa7raT>7<ras TO, ^/xeVcpa ypd/x/xara Kai /xayyavev/xara 
 /cat cTTwoa? Kat vo/xou? TOVS Trapa (f)V(rw aTravras. 
 
 For ypd/xyxara Yalckenaer conjectured Trcptdja/xara, Cobet 
 TrXdcr/xara. Observing just above KareTraSovrcs T Kai 
 yo^TcvovTes, I think yo^rcv/xara may be the word, if any 
 change is really needed. Cf. Hesychius (quoted in 
 Thompson's note) /xdyyava* <j!>dp//,aKa, SiKrua, yoTyrev/xara. 
 Plato is fond of yorjs and its derivatives. 
 
 485 B eycoyc o/xotoTarov Trdcr^a) Trpos TOV? <ptAocro<ovvTas 
 oi(r7rep Trpos TOV$ j^eXXt^o/xevovs Kat Trat^ovras. orav />tV yap 
 TraiStW t8w, (S Irt 7rpO(r^Kt 8iaXeyecr0ai OVTW, i/AeXXt^o/xevov Kai 
 Trat^ov, ^aipo) TC Kat -^apUv JJ.OL cpatWrat Kat eXev^epiov Kat 
 7rp7TOV TrJ TOV TTtttSiov T^XtKta. oral/ Sc cra^cos StaXcyo/xevov 
 TratSaptov OKOVCTW, TrtKpov rt /x,ot SOKCI ^p^/xa ct^at Kat dvta /xov 
 TO. cora Kat yaot ooKtt oovXoTrpeTres TI elvat* ora^ 8e .dvSpo? 
 aKOVcrrj rt? if/tXXifcofJLfVOV r] irai^ovra opa, KarayeXatrTov </>atvTat 
 Kat ai/av8pov Kat TrXryywv d^tov ravrov ovv cya>y TOVTO Trdir^o 
 Kat Trpos TOVS ^tXocro^ovvTas. 
 
 In this Morstadt proposed to bracket Kat Trat^ovra?, Kat 
 7ratov, and 17 Trat^ovra opa. Schanz brackets Kai Trat^ovra? 
 and (after Cobet) i^XXio/xvov Kai 7ratov. 
 
 It is plain, I think, that 7rat^iv in this passage cannot 
 be taken in the general sense of playing games. The two 
 clauses, o> CTI Trpoo-^KCi 8taXfyo-^at OVTW and orav o-a^xi)? 
 8taXeyo/x,cvov TraiSaptov aKovo*a), without a word being said 
 
GORGIAS 59 
 
 about games, make it clear that iro.itf.iv cannot refer to 
 games generally, but must be taken in the very closest 
 connexion with \\itk\itf. <r0ai, referring to the same thing. 
 Moreover Plato would surely not have condemned all 
 games in this wholesale manner, nor have laid it down that 
 any grown man who played a game deserved a beating. 
 IlaiSia is not limited in its sense to children's games, and 
 both Plato and Aristotle distinctly recognise the legitimacy 
 of the thing for men. 
 
 Understanding iro.itf.iv then to refer to the same thing as 
 i//eAAie<r#cu, I presume Morstadt's reason for his omissions 
 was the inappropriateness of the word. When a child 
 lisps and stammers, it is not doing so in play. Yet iro.itf.iv 
 is actually used here twice over to describe the child's trick 
 of speech, as well as a third time in reference to the grown 
 man, where it is hardly suitable either, for in him it is 
 affectation, folly, or a natural defect, not TrcuSta. I 
 think it probable that in the three passages we have to 
 read irraiovra^ TTTCUOV, and irraLovra.. In the Aristotelian 
 Problems 3. 31 the question is Sia ri ran/ jjuQvovrw f) yXCtrra 
 Kraut ; and the word occurs there several times over. It 
 may be said that the use of 17 yXwrra, as the subject, makes 
 all the difference, and that to speak of a child as TTTCUOV 
 would suggest quite another meaning. By itself it would ; 
 but TTTCUO) coming after ^eAAi'o/xai is fairly clear. We 
 should certainly not say simply ' a child trips ' in this 
 sense, but we could quite well say ' a child stammers and 
 trips,' leaving 'in speech' to be understood, just as we say 
 that a man ' wanders ' or ' rambles,' that is, in speech or in 
 mind, or that he is ' absent.' With the corruption of 
 TTTCUW to 7rcu<o perhaps I may compare the corruption 
 which I have conjectured in Xen. Cynegeticus 9. 5 of 
 
 TTTT/^aS tO 7Tt(7a9 (TTlfCTaS O>S 7Tt y}v). In Rep. 604 C 
 
 TTpoo-Traio-avra? is a V.I. for Trpoo-TrrauravTa?, in the Pro- 
 metheus 885 the MSS. vary between TTTCUOVO-' and TTCUOVO-', 
 and in the Rhetorica ad Alex. 1425 a 38 irraura><riv has 
 been restored with great probability for Trec-wo-iv : cf. D. 
 Hal. Ant. Rom. 8. 26. 6, where MSS. have both. In 
 Bacchae 1141 7mjao-a is recognised as a blunder for 
 
 If it be said that rj irra.(.ovra opa. can hardly be right, 
 
60 GORGIAS 
 
 because we do not see an imperfection of speech, the 
 answer seems to be that, though the expression is certainly 
 odd, it occurs above also in orav . . . TratSiov ?8a> . . . i//eA.- 
 \i6fjivov KOLL TTTCUOV, where t8a> j/'cAAi^o/x.cvov at least is 
 unquestioned. d/cou'to, which is also used, seems a much 
 more suitable word, but tSw and bpa confirm one another. 
 We might however have expected 1877 in the latter case, 
 matching aKovay, and /cat (as before) rather than rj. The 
 strange use of 6pa and i8o> seems to have escaped the 
 notice of editors, nor does it help us in dealing with the 
 other question. 
 
 ibid. E y<0 8e, W 2toKpO,TS, TTpOS (T 
 
 * Fairly friendly' is a little lacking in warmth. 
 <KCU> <biA.iKws ] Isocr. 15. 4 e7riet/ca>s 
 
 486 B Perhaps ^ n avrov O.VT& K.T.\. 
 
 ibid. C iravcrai 8' eXe'y^wv, Trpay/xarwv 8' cv/xovcrtai/ 
 
 a<TKl KOL 
 
 The second ao-Ket may be right, but it looks to me like 
 one of those unintentional repetitions of a word, by which 
 we all sometimes go astray in writing, and perhaps 
 especially in copying. Cf. on 509 B. Now in 526 D all 
 the MSS. give O-KOTTW OTTWS a7ro<avov/xcu, which is certainly 
 right, but T has yp. da-Kw ; and for O-KOTTWI/, which follows 
 two lines later, the text of Eusebius has ao-K&v, which 
 Burnet adopts. Cf. Cobet N.L. p. 629 on Xen. Symp. 
 4. 42 and Marchant's note ad loc. Should we read OVCOTTCI 
 here 1 O-KOTTCL oir66f.v would closely resemble CTKOTTW OTTWS. 
 
 490 c After IKTCOV it would be better to put merely a 
 comma to show that subsequently TU> pcXria-Tio depends 
 directly upon it, and that it is not to be supplied over 
 again. 
 
 491 C vvv 8' av erepov TI ^/ceis l^wv dvSpciorepot rives VTTO 
 <rov Aeyovrcu ot /cpeiVrovs. 
 
 For exw ^ad Xe'ywv, comparing 51 8 A ^KCIS 8e 6Atyi/ 
 v(TTpov Xeycov K.T.A.. 
 
GORGIAS 61 
 
 In Phaedrus 232 A Badham's ex tv ^ or ^*y iv * s adopted 
 by Schanz, and the latter himself changes ^ot/x,' av ib. 
 27 2 c to Xcyot/x' av. So in Menex. 243 A Xeyovo-t has been 
 plausibly conjectured for c^owi, and in Menander Fragm. 
 482 (Kock) 7rauo-ao-$e vow XeyovTcs for Travcraa-Oe vovv 
 Cf. p. 65. 
 
 492 C Yf TTWS OVK av a#Xtot yeyovoYes eo/aav VTTO TOV KaXov 
 TOV T^S 8iKaioo~uv?7S /cat T^S (r<i)<f>po<TvvY)<s ; 
 
 TO KaXov TO -n}s SiKaiotrw^s seems to me not very Platonic. 
 I would suggest TOV KaAoO TOVTOV with T^S StKaiocrwrys /cat 
 T^S o-o)0poo-uv-iys in apposition. The confusion is a well- 
 known one. Notice the use of T a T a ra KaXA.o>7rto-/xara 
 just below. 
 
 493 A This passage will be greatly improved if we insert 
 ort or something similar before rry^aj/et and put a comma 
 instead of a full stop after /carco. T?}S Sc i/^v^s TOWTO is then 
 resumed in /cat TOVTO and becomes the object of a>vo//,a(re. 
 The words -n}? 8 /^v^s . . . Karw, as they stand, are very 
 pointless as something that Socrates learnt from a wise 
 man along with the doctrine of o-w/xa 01)^0.. What he 
 learnt is contained in Sta TO . . ."irtflov, a play upon words 
 parallel to the other. 
 
 495 B The TroXAa coupled with ato-^pa is an erroneous 
 anticipation of TroAAa at the end of the sentence and has 
 thus taken the place of some other word. 
 
 496 c eAeyes should perhaps be Ae'yeis, just as c^s in 
 496 E should probably be ^s. Cf. on Prot. 353 D. 
 
 ibid. E XvTTOvfJLtvov ^atpetv Xeycts ayw,a, orai/ Sti^wvTa TrtVetv 
 Xey^s . . . rj ov^ a/xa TOTO yiyveTat KaTa TOV avTov TOTTOV Kat 
 \povov etT i/'V^s etre o~o!)/xaTOS ^SouXet ; 
 
 If we read xpovoi/ /cat TOTTOV, the genitives will have 
 something to depend upon. Cf. on Rep. 579 D. 
 
 499 A OVKOVV 6/x,oto)s ytyi/eTat KOKOS Kat dya$os TO) dya^aJ rj 
 /cat /uaXXov dya^os 6 /caKos ; 
 
 Ka/co? Kat dya^os seems to make no sense. Omit KOKOS Kat 
 and read dya0os only, to which the preceding questions 
 
62 GORGIAS 
 
 lead up. KaKos Kai dya0os may be due to TOJ> ayaOov KO.L 
 just before. 
 
 506 A Xeyo> [AtvTOi ravra, ei SOKCI ^pi/vai SiaTrepavtfr/vat TOV 
 Xoyov ci 8e //.r) /?ovXecr$, ew/xcv 877 ^aiptiv. 
 
 Both the context and the form of this sentence call 
 imperatively for Xea>, like 8ui/u five lines above. Or it 
 might be cpw, which is also confused with Xc'yw. 
 
 509 A 8oav 1 
 
 ibid. B TroXXr) drayKr; ravTrjv ?vai TT)V ai(r\ia"rqv /So^ciav, 
 /x) Svi/acr^at fiorjOttv p,r)T( avr<a pyre rot? aiuov <>cAois T< Kai. 
 
 It is not difficult to see what has happened here, and the 
 extensive omissions proposed are not at all necessary. 
 The copyist has been misled by the coming ftorjOciv into 
 writing /3orj0iai> for another word, which word can hardly 
 be anything but d8vi/a/xiav. See 492 A aTroKpvTrrofjitvoi rr)V 
 avrwv dSvva/vu'av : 522 D ct JAW ovv e/xe rt? f^eXcy^oi Tavrrjv 
 rrjv ftoyOftav aSvvarov ovra c/xavr<3 Kai dAXw ftorj 
 i, t Sia ravrrjv rrjv d8vva/x-tav 
 . Cf. on 486 C and Pro. 327 C. 
 
 510 B ^>iXos . . . ovirtp ol iraXanoi re Kai <ro^>oi Xeyov(riv, 6 
 
 O/AOIOS TO) 6/XOlO). 
 
 Kead oTrep for ovirtp. Hirschig Sxrirtp. 
 
 513 B TOVTOIS ofioioTaroi/. The words in A and E, <us 
 6/AoioTaTOj' and w? ySeXn'o-Tov?, suggest strongly that after 
 019 here o>s has been lost. 
 
 C T<5 avTtov yap ^i XeyojueVooi/ raiv Xoywi/ KacrTOi 
 L, TW 8e aXXorpiw a^Oovrai. 
 
 The dative rj0ei seems a little questionable, unless indeed 
 a word is lost. But perhaps we should read (6/x,o)Xoyov/xVwv. 
 In Lysias 12. 71 6 w/xoXoy^cvos VTT eKiva)i> Katpos seems 
 fairly certain for 6 Xeyo/xevo?, where the tense is wrong. 
 
 ibid. D 8vo Z<pa.fJLv flvai ra? TrapaaKeva? CTTI TO (KOLCTTOV 
 B(paTTVt.v K 
 
GORGIAS 63 
 
 has been suggested. We might also think of 
 reading Kara for the first KCU. 
 
 514 A Perhaps 8>y/w,ocria <TI> Trpd^ovras TWV TTOAITIKWV 
 Trpay/xartov. Without something to depend on the genitive 
 is unusual, though not impossible. 
 
 517 D The etvcu after Tropia-rucov is really ungrammatical, 
 for Tro/oio-TiKoV goes in construction with the subsequent ovra. 
 Should we read rivd for cTi 
 
 518 A eSo/ceis and w/xoAoya? would seem more proper 
 than 5oKts and 6/AoAoyeis. 
 
 519 B Insert et, either, as Heindorf suggested, after 
 7ra<r;(ov<riv or before apa. 
 
 521 C edvTTfp CMTM) cts SiKaa-rrjpLOv Trepl TOVTWI/ rtvos 
 
 522 E et 8c fiovXfi, aot ya> w? TOVTO OVTCDS c^et e^cAw Xoyov 
 Ac^ai. 0-06 seems to receive undue emphasis from its position. 
 Should we read eyo> trot or et 8e /2ov'Aei o-v *? Or has a word 
 been lost before it 1 
 
 525 B 01 fJ.V OK^cAov'/ACVOl' T Kttt SlKrjV SlSoVxe? V7TO 
 
 /cat a,v0/3O)7ru)v. 
 
 The stress being on a<fAov'/xcvot, the fact that punish- 
 ment is for their own good, it would seem that we ought 
 to omit T KCU and make SiKrjv 8iSoi>Ts subordinate to 
 <i<eAou'//,croi, 'benefited by receiving punishment' (cf. 
 Phaedo 61 B, where /ecu in a like case is marked in T for 
 omission), or read something like o 
 
 . E Is not something lost after i&jv 
 
CRATYLUS 
 
 384 B i /xev ow r/&7 rjKvjKor) Trapo. UpoftiKov rrjv 7Tfvrr)Kovrd- 
 eTTi'Set^tv . . ., ouSei/ av tKwXve K.T.X.* vvv 8e OVK aKr^Koa, 
 dXXa rr)V Spax/uatav. 
 
 Probably according to a common idiom OVK d/oyKoa dXX' 
 
 *6^c?. D ov yap <f>v(Ti eKacTTo) 7T<vKvai ovo/xa 
 dXXa VO/AO) Kat e^et TWV 
 
 c^t^tv cannot mean establishing a usage, and its regular 
 sense of accustoming is here out of place. There is a v.l. 
 with slight authority, /xefltcrravToov, which Schanz adopts ; 
 but in this sentence changing is quite unsuitable. Probably 
 Plato wrote something like fleWwv or ovoftatravTcoi/, and it 
 has been altered under the influence of 20ei. 
 
 395 B o TC yap rov XpvcriVTrov avrw <ovos Kat a Trpos TOV 
 a)5 w/x.a StCTrparTcro K.T.X. 
 
 I doubt whether this could mean anything but ' what 
 he did as being cruel,' implying that its cruelty was its 
 attraction, rd for a would be an improvement, but even 
 then ws (how) hardly harmonises with the rest of the 
 sentence, and perhaps we should read 5<r' in its place : a 
 might then be omitted. 
 
 ibid. C SoKet Se /xoi Kat TO> IleAoTri TO ovo/Jia e 
 
 Rather e/x/AcXws, or possibly 
 
 64 
 
CRATYLUS 65 
 
 398 D A. word crfJUKpov Trapr/y/xevov ecrriv ovo/xaros ^apiv. 
 Burnet cites Peiper's suggestion of o-To/xaros for oi/o^aro9. 
 
 I had myself thought of voro/u'a? (cf. evo-To/Ai'as eVcKa 412 E, 
 414 c), taking oVo/xaTos to be not a corruption of evoTo/uas 
 but due to ofo/xa coming in the previous line. 
 
 399 B aXXwv Se Tovvavriov e/A/?aXXo/x,V ypa/x/xara, TO, Se 
 (3a.pvTpa 6vTfpa ($yyoyu,e$a. 
 
 I do not see how the genitive aXXwv (other words) can be 
 justified. We should expect aAXore, aXXots, or perhaps 
 <CTT'> aAXwv, w other cases. aXXa> has been conjectured, 
 but is unlikely. 
 
 Write ogvTepa, not in addition to /Japvrepa, but in 
 its place. The mistake is due to /fopctav preceding. 
 
 405 E TO St TToXv K.T.X. 
 
 Editors now usually bracket TTO\V (TTOV Hermann, TTO\V n 
 ov Heindorf) without showing whether they see how the 
 insertion, if it is an insertion, came to be made. Stallbaum 
 at any rate did not see it. TroAv surely represents the 
 syllable TroX, or something like it, supposed to be common to 
 the designations and characteristics of Apollo given in the 
 context. I do not know therefore why Plato himself may 
 not have written the letters in some form from which TroXv 
 has arisen. But they may also have been an adscript to 
 TO Se. 
 
 408 E "eoiKe roiVw Ka.T(i8r]\ov ytvofj-tvov u.v MaXXov i TW 
 AwpiKai TIS OVO/JLOLTI XP<? T - The use of a nominative parti- 
 ciple with loiKtt is so doubtful and discredited that we 
 ought rather to read KaTaSr/Xw yevoyueVa>. Cf. COIKC 
 
 a few lines below (MSS. 8^Xo9v Tt). In 41 9 c K 
 
 is now written for KC/cXry/AeVry. So SyXovvr) Trpoo-eotKev 420 C. 
 
 Both dative participle and infinitive occur often in the 
 
 dialogue. 
 
 409 A Read TOITTO Srj for TOVTO Se'. 
 
 420 B Tl Tl O~V (OV MSS.) XeylS OTt O-KO7TW/XV ; 
 
 Is not Xe'yw here, as elsewhere, confused with c^w 1 Read 
 Tt . . . ex ls Tl cr/co7Tcu/Mi' ; as in 425 D ov yap tyop-w Tt 
 /3eXTiov is OTI eTravevey/coo/xcv K.T.X., and so get much more 
 ordinary Greek. Cf. p. 60. 
 
 F 
 
66 CRATYLUS 
 
 420 D EPM. Tatrra 77817 /not SOKCI?, a> ScoKpaTs, Tru/ci/oVepa 
 cTrayctv. SO. TeA.09 yap 77877 $ca> (0eaj T : #ea> B : $ea> vulg. : 
 0e'<o Adam. Burnet). 
 
 0eco, imperative of few/xat, seems to yield no proper sense. 
 Schanz reads 0e<5, but it is hard to see what that can mean. 
 Adopting the old reading or conjecture crvv 0<j5, I think a 
 verb must be added, e.g. reA-os yap 77877 <6pai vvv> 0a>. 
 They are as a matter of fact just at the end of the 
 derivation of particular words. Cf. Diog. L. 6. 38 /xa/cpa 
 dVayiyvwcTKOFTO? . . . ^appetre, e<f>f), aV8p9' yrjv opto. 
 
 423 D Should not ovo/xacreti/ be 6vofj,div 1 Notice 6Vo/xa- 
 O-TIACT) elvat, not eo-e<r#ai, just below. 
 
 425 D wcTTrep 01 TpaywSoTroiot eTretSav rt aTroptocriv e?rt ra? 
 
 Cicero's words in ^/".D. 1. 53 w tragici poetae, cum expli- 
 care argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis ad deum, 
 suggest the question whether ras fj.r)xa-vd<s and ^eov? should 
 not change places. The conjecture is perhaps supported 
 by three things : (1) in the familiar line of Antiphanes' 
 Ilotiycrts we have aupovcrw wcnrep Sa/crvAov rr)V fjirj^av^v '. 
 (2) Plutarch in several places, e.g. Them. 10 and 32, uses 
 the phrase ^-rj^av^v atpeti/ : (3) greater emphasis is thus given 
 to 0ov5, as is suitable to the context. But Aristides in 
 45. 2 has #eoi>9 O.TTO /j^avr}? atpetv. 
 
 426 C ci ow TIS TO 7ra.Xa.iov avrfjs cvpot 6Vo/x,a et? rr]V 
 77/xerepav (frwvrjv o~v/ji/3atvov, tcrts av op^co5 /caAotro. 
 
 tiTTot would be much more suitable here than eupot, and 
 the two words are exchanged elsewhere. Cf. pp. 50 and 71. 
 
 428 E OVKOVV </>W/Al> Kttt TCLVTr)V T)(yrjV CtVttl Kttl 
 
 The two parts are not parallel, and the expression is 
 awkward until we write rairrTjs. There is an art of teaching 
 (SiSao-KaAia?) and men who practise it. 
 
 429 C /XT) yap ovSe TOUT' av 77. 
 au should, I think, be ai/ro'. 
 
 430 E <T<3> aUTU) TOVTO)- 
 
CSATTLUS 67 
 
 432 D OVK av e^ois avrtov clireiv ovSercpov, OTroVepoV ecrrt TO 
 jtxev avTo, TO 8e ovo/xa. 
 
 Rather etTretv ovSercpov OTrorepoV CQ-TI, TO /xei/ avTo <oV>, 
 TO 8e ovo/xa, or something similar. 
 
 440 E (last words) TO.VT IO-TCU, w 5wKpaT?, dXXa Kai o~v 
 Trcipoj Tt cwoer^ TauTa ^Sry. 
 
 Badham seems right in demurring to fj&rj, which has 
 little meaning in itself and is also incompatible with !TI. 
 He suggested y 8>) e^ei. Possibly ^Srj is only out of its 
 place and should go either with TO,VT' eo-Tat or in Socrates' 
 words preceding. 
 
 F 2 
 
SYMPOSIUM 
 
 178 A a oe /xaAicrra KCU wv e8oe [AOL d^to/x-v^/xovcvTOv (elvat 
 ?. T and W), TOVTCDV v/xti/ e/ou> e/cacrrou roi> Xoyov. 
 
 In the Bodleian MS. a later hand gives d^io/^/xovtirran', 
 and perhaps this deserves more favour than editors have 
 for some time shown it. It is not easy to see how Plato 
 could get at the neuter singular. There is nothing for it to 
 agree with, nor would the phrase d^to/xi^/xoVevroV ecrri with a 
 genitive seem admissible. The meaning probably is ' when 
 the things said or the persons seemed to me worth remem- 
 bering or recording/ and this would be fairly given by 
 d^to/xvr//xovei;Twv, out of which d^to/xvi^ovevra is of course 
 supplied as a predicate to a : ' notable things and notable 
 persons who spoke/ literally 'notable persons to whom 
 utterances belonged.' 
 
 183 A (/xAoo-cx/uas TO. /xe'y terra /capTrotr' av cWi'S^. 
 
 Many conjectures have been offered in place of <iA.o<ro- 
 ^>tas, and it is often altogether omitted. The latter 
 resource is unsatisfactory, for who would have inserted 
 out of his own head so unsuitable a word'? Possibly 
 <iAori/xias, in a general bad sense of too strong desire, too 
 great anxiety to get something. 
 
 184 A dTro (for VTTO) TOLVTYJS T^S cxmas, as in Soph. 265 E. 
 
 ibid E Sed/xevos ets TratSevo-iv Kat TT/V a\\r)v cro^>iav 
 
 Schariz tcrra<r0cu. Perhaps ovivao-Qat, a favourite word 
 with Plato, ov was lost after av. 
 
SYMPOSIUM 69 
 
 185 B TroV av TravTi 
 
 For the dative, if the words are complete, cf . Ar. Wasps 
 
 291 @\tj(Tfi<> TL fJiOL OW, O) TTttTCp, r)V (TOV Tt 
 
 188 B It seems possible that yt'yverai, which comes 
 so strangely as the verb to Tra^mi /cat xdAaat /cat epvo-t/itai, 
 should be yiyvtcr6a.ii governed like yiyvecrOai. in the preceding 
 sentence by (f>i\ovcri. The terminations rat, <r#at sometimes 
 get confused. We might also think of epvcri/Srj. Cf. p. 266. 
 
 191 A TroOovv e/cacrrov TO rjfjiicrv T<3 O.VTOV 
 
 192B and 205 DE (cf. 191 D) show pretty clearly that 
 something like r<3 avrov <i7/xto-t> should be read. TW 
 avrov alone is hardly possible. 
 
 194 B di/a/2dVTOS for ava/3a,iVovTOS ? 
 
 195 B yaera Se ^e'oai/ det vvcrri re KCU eo-nv. 
 
 Sauppe's ecrni/ <veos> is not to me very satisfactory. 
 
 I have thought of uvc<rri re KCU <^8o>9> eo-rtV. Cf. 
 
 372 B ^Sews ^woVrcs dAA^Aois, and on the simple Icrriv 
 
 see Schanz Novae Comm. p. 103. 
 
 ibidc TO. 8e TraAcua 7rpay/x,ara <ra> 
 
 i&i^ E aTrro/xevov ovi/ del KCU TTOO-IV' /cat Travrrj ev //.aAa/cooTdVois 
 TWV /xaAaKcurdrwi/ a.7raA(OTaToi^ dvay/cry etVai. 
 
 There are two difficulties here : O/TTTO/ACVOJ/ lacks an object, 
 and ey /x. r. /u,. is a phrase, especially without rot?, to which 
 it would be hard to find a parallel. Perhaps we should 
 omit ei/, regarding it as due to the similarity of H and N, 
 and then we can govern TWV /x,. by aTrro/xt^a. /xaAa/cwTarots 
 will be half an adjective and so joined with TrocrtV (cf. 
 ciTraAoi Tro'Ses in D), half a substantive. Trdvry is almost = 
 Tracri 
 
 197 B ovros "Epwros o.v eirj /jiaOrjTrjS /cat Movtrat 
 /cat "Hc^atcrros ^aAKet'as /cat A.0r)va icrrovpyta? Kai Ze^s 
 
 The sense is that the Muses learned /xoucrt/o/ and so on 
 from Eros, the other genitives going with /xa0/?Trjs in a 
 somewhat different way from "Epcoros : that is, /xaffyrrj? 
 
70 SYMPOSIUM 
 
 takes a double genitive. There is a difficulty in 
 i/oV standing as a genitive without TOV, and inferior MSS. 
 have Kvptpvtjo-ews. It may be worth while therefore to 
 quote Apol. 37 C dAAa ^p^/utarcov KCU ScSeo^cu (rija^crco/xai) ; 
 Ar. Ach. 19 i auVai yuei> oouo~' d/A/3poo~tas Kat, vexrapos KCU /x^ 
 CTriTYjpeiv criri ^/xepwv rptoav : Aesch. ^4^. 788 TO SoKeu/ etvai 
 7rpoTLOV(TL, cf. 602-4 : Eur. ^.^c. 879 rt yap d^Spt KCLKOV /xci^ov 
 d/xapreti/ TJ-IOTT^S dAo^ou ; and three passages of Herod. 
 (1. 210 : 6. 32 : 7. 170) in which <W is followed by a 
 simple infinitive. But the anomaly of Kvfitpvav taking a 
 genitive, like apxew, ^yeurflai, etc., still remains. 
 
 199 B I do not see how dvo/xoXoy^cra/xcvos Trap' O.VTOV can 
 be right. Perhaps Trpos 
 
 200 A <TO> OTOV, explaining TOVTO ? Cf. p. 18. 
 
 OVKOVV TOVTO y eorti/ KiVov epav o O^TTW eroi/xov 
 
 (ra)^o/xera Kal TrapoVra. 
 
 Schanz follows Badham in omitting TO ... iropopro. Hug 
 regards it in a way which I do not understand as explan- 
 atory of o OVTTCO eToifjiov. What it ought to explain is TOVTO, 
 and it will do that properly if we insert a ^ovXeo-^at 
 somewhere in the clause, say immediately after TO. See 
 the /Sov'A.o/xat K.T.A.. just before. 
 
 204 A avTO yap TOVTO eo~Ti ^aXfTrov ajjiaOia, TO pr] OVTCL 
 KaXov Ka.ya.0ov [ArjSf. (ftpovipov SOKCII/ avTa) elvat IKO.VOV. 
 
 Various attempts have been made to get rid of the 
 difficulty of d/Aa^ia. I would suggest ei/ d/xa0i'a. The ev 
 fell out after the ov of 
 
 206 D oTav /u,ev /caX(3 Trpoo-TTcXdty TO Kvovv<, ?A.(ov T 
 Kat evc^paivo/xcvov Sia^f trai . . , 6Yav aicr^a), o-KvOpiDirov TC KOL 
 
 T <ytyi/Tai> Usener. Certainly some change 
 is needed, for the adjective cannot stand side by side 
 with the participle as though it were O-K. ytyvo/xcvov. But 
 perhaps o-KvOpw-rrdfrv may be suggested. 
 
SYMPOSIUM 71 
 
 209 C wore TroAu /u,ia> Koivooviav TT}? TWI> 7rcu'Sa>v Trpos 
 aAA?;A.ovg ot TOIOUTOI l(r\ovcriv KOL <iAiav /2/3cuoTepav, are 
 KaAAtovwv KCU d#avaTWTepa>v TrouSoov Ke/coii>a)K7KOT9. 
 
 Rohde's r>}s TWV TroAAwv (for TratSwv) is likely enough to be 
 right, but T^S TO>V aAAtov would be equally natural. Hug's 
 <dAAwv> TraiSwv seems to me much inferior to Rohde's 
 suggestion. This is one of the many passages in which by 
 error a word soon coming (here Trcu'Scoi/) is anticipated or a 
 word that has been used repeated. 
 
 21 2 A vTTctpxti should perhaps be vTrap^ei, following the 
 tense of yei/TJorerat just before. There is however also 
 before that. 
 
 ibid D 
 
 We should certainly expect an 07 in the indirect 
 question. Should we read a direct TTOV 'Aya#<ov ; in which 
 the verb is less needed ? 
 
 ibid E ^Kw.-.iva OLTTO T^? e/zrys K^>aX^<? TT)V roO or 
 Kat /caAAiVrov K(f>a\.r)V eav CITTW ourcoo-t avaSrycrw. 
 
 eav ?7T(o is meaningless, and many unsatisfactory conjec- 
 tures have been put forward. Remembering that cnreu/ 
 and evpetv are apt to get confused, I have little doubt that 
 eav evpa> if I find him is to be read here. For the confusion 
 see my Aristophanes and Others, p. 186. Cf. also p. 66 
 above. 
 
 215 E TTO\V fiov (for /JLOL) ju.aAA.ov 77 TWV KopvjSai/rton'roov 17 
 Tn/Sa. Cf. /on 535 C. 
 
 217 D ev 
 
 21 8 D KtvSweu'eis TO) ovrt ou (^>a'Aos cTvai, 
 rvy^avet ovra a Aeyis Trcpt e/xoi), Kat TL<S (.<TT iv e/xot 8wa/x.ts 
 Bi rj<s av (TV yeVoio d/x,ctVwv. d/x^avov rot KaAAos opaJ^s av ei/ 
 
 C/XOt K.T.A- 
 
 How all this shows that Alcibiades is ov <a>Aos I do not 
 know. Read 
 
 2 1 9 E Insert ydp or yovi/ after OTTOTC. 
 
72 SYMPOSIUM 
 
 220 E TCOV (TTparryyaJv . . . ^8ovAo/xev<ov e/xoi SiSovat TapicrTeia, 
 avros 7rpo$u/xorepos eyevov Ttov (rrpaT^yajv e/xe A.a/3eiv 77 
 cravroV. 
 
 Is it possible for Trpoflv/xorepos to have dependent upon it 
 first TOW o-TpaT^yuJv and then ^ <ravrov 1 We might either 
 omit 17 <rauToV, as put in by some one who blundered over 
 the meaning, or possibly change r/ to ov. If the text is 
 really right, we should probably not connect ^ o-avrdv with 
 Tr/oo^/xorepos, but cqmpare such passages as Herod. 9. 26 
 ly/zas &IKO.IOV *X eLV T crepov /cepas r/?rep 'AOyvaiovs : Andoc. 
 i. 125 rt$vavai vo/JLia-aa-a Xvo-treXeii/ ^ rjv : Menand. Monost. 
 680 KaXov TO vr)(f>ew rf TO TroXXa KpatTraXav with Pseudo- 
 Phocylidea 81 : Soph. Aj. 1357 VLKO. yap aper^ /xe T^? e^^pas 
 TroAi; : Anthol. Pal. 9, 284, 408, etc. In other words we 
 have to supply a /xaAAov from our own minds = e/xe Xafitiv 
 /xaAXov ^ o-avroV. But with another comparative in the 
 sentence this is very awkward. 
 
 222 A For ytyi'o/xcvos read yevo/xevos to match iSwi/. 
 
PHAEDO 
 
 In several passages which are still obscure I am inclined 
 to think that the solution of the difficulty is the supposition 
 of a word, or sometimes more than one word, lost. Indeed 
 in Greek books generally this loss has probably happened 
 more often than is commonly supposed. We all know how 
 easy it is to leave out a word in writing or copying. In 
 the Phaedo Heindorf pointed out long ago that ovSev ptvrav 
 TITTOV O.KOVOI/XI (73 B) ought to have a ^Se'ws added (cf. 57 A, 
 70 B), but he pointed it out in vain. 
 
 For instance, in 66 B we read TrapiVrao-tfat 8oav roiavSe 
 to genuine philosophers, that they say to one another : 
 /avSwevei TOL wfnrep aTpairos ns K<epeiv ly/xas /xera rov Aoyou 
 eV ry <TK\f/eij cm, ea>5 av TO cra>/xa e^w/xev K.T.A., ov /XT; TTOTC 
 KT77crw/xe$a i/cai/uk ou 7ri$iyxovjtxi>. Here drpaTros TI?, a meta- 
 phorical expression, hardly admits of being explained by 
 on K.T.A. ; as it were a path, that, as long as etc.' : yet 
 ort K.T.A. cannot itself be the subject of Kii/Svi/cJci lK<j>epeiv. 
 What again is the combination of drpaTro^ TIS and /xeTa TOV 
 Aoyov 1 They do not cohere, and this has led to /tTa . . . 
 o-Ke//t being placed after ^u)/xev : cf. however Clem. Al. 
 Strom. 518. What really guides us as a sort of track in 
 our enquiry along with reason is an idea, inkling, con- 
 jecture, surmise, to the effect that we shall never get what 
 we want while we are cumbered with the body. In other 
 words something like So'a, eiKacria, OToxaoyAos, TriVris has 
 been lost, e.g. after eK^epciv ^/xa?, Observe the Trapia-Taa-Qcu 
 Soav TotavSe just before and in 67 B Totairra ot/xat . . . Trpos 
 s Aeyetv KCU Soae/ Tra^Tas TOU? op^ois ^>tA o/xa^c 15. 
 
 So again in 82 B eis St ye ^toii/ yeVo? /XT) (^tAocro^rjcravTt Acai 
 KaOapu OLTTLOVTL ov ^t/xi? a^iKvelcrOaL dAA' 17 (aAAa) 
 
74 PHAEDO 
 
 77 T) TW <tXo/xa#ei the only possible meaning is the absurd 
 one that none but lovers of knowledge are admitted in an 
 impure and unphilosophical condition. Possibly dAA' y TU> 
 <iAo/>ta#r should, as someone has suggested, be omitted 
 altogether, but how did the words get in ? To me it seems 
 more likely that something, perhaps a whole line, has been 
 lost before them. 
 
 83 D (i/w^r)) ota yu/^SeVoTe eis "AtSou /ca^apws d<iKecr$a(.. 
 
 The adverb Ka&xpws is quite impossible as qualifying the 
 action of the verb, and Heindorf made the obvious correc- 
 tion KaOapd, which is likely enough to be right (cf. Ka#ap<5 
 a-movTi in 82 B above quoted, etc.). But, when we compare 
 the phrase at /AT) Ka#apu>s a.7roAu$eurat (81 D), we see that it 
 is perhaps just as likely that Plato wrote something like ei? 
 "AiSov Ka$apcos aTroXvOflcra (or a.Trrj\\ay/JLvr)} d<(Keo-#cu. The 
 two compounds with O.TTO- might lead to the mistake. 
 
 In 91 D Ke/Sr/s Se //,ot eSo^e TOVTO /xcv c/xot cruyx(i>peu>, 
 7roAuxpovi<orepoi> ye eTpou if/v^rjv (rw^aros, dA.Xa roSc aSrjA.ov 
 TravTt, pr) K.r.X. it may be that we are to understand an 
 uJero or an $77 tu/cu with rd8e afyXov, but is it not more 
 likely that we ought to add it 1 
 
 In 108 A ov yap TTOV TIS av Sia/xaproi owSa^ocre /xtas 68ov 
 ova-rjs, until I come across a parallel to Sta/xaproi ovSa/xoo-e I 
 shall think that we ought perhaps to read ouSa/zoVe <twv>. 
 Putting 6So{) earlier than ov8a/x,oo-e would also make the 
 sentence intelligible, 6Sou being then governed by Sia/xaproi, 
 and ou8a/xd<T by 6Sov. 
 
 There are two or three places where I think av has to be 
 inserted. One is 86 B a\\a <cur; di/ay/oy (if avdyKr) for 
 dvay/cr; is right) CTI TTOU eu/ai avryv ryv ap/JLOi'tav. Certainly 
 av cannot be supplied to ^>atry from ou8e/xta /Jirj^avr] av etr; 
 above, for the two sentences are not coordinate, oSe/xia 
 K.T.X. being part of what the man would say. Neither, I 
 think, can ^airj be joined on to Sucr^vpi'^otro (et TIS StKr^vpt- 
 ^otro . . . dAAa <f>a.irf). To this there are two objections : 
 (1) the illogical substitution of dXXd for /cat, hardly to be 
 justified by what intervenes : (2) the great awkwardness of 
 resuming the construction with ci at such a distance and 
 
PHAEDO 75 
 
 with the distinct sentence ouSe/xta yap 
 coming between to cut the connexion and make the reader 
 forget. It was probably this difficulty that made Cobet 
 wish to omit <ai'r/. I think an av has fallen out either 
 before the av of di/dy/cr? (so in 62 c where Heindorf restored 
 it, as he did also before dvay/cdo-Tjs in Theaet. 169B) or 
 after dXAd. Cf. 87 A and D. In 87 E eTriSei/ci/v'oi seems also 
 to need a new av. 
 
 Again in 95 D the optatives o7 and aTroXXu'oiTo cannot 
 be regarded as oratio obliqua after a past tense. There is 
 no past tense. The argument is being quoted in the 
 present tense (ouSev K^Xveiv <f>rj<s Trdvra ravra. n-rfvvt.iv 
 dOavaariav uev ay, on Se iroXv^poviov re ecrrtv $VXTJ /c.T.X. and 
 again (fays, Xeycts, Xc'yoo in D and E) and these optatives 
 refer as clearly to the future as rjv and iJSet etc. do to the 
 past. Consequently we have either to read av for Srj before 
 TOVTOV or to insert av somewhere in the sentence, e.g. after 
 TOVTOV (av after ov). 
 
 Finally, there seems to me a great want of clearness in 
 the antithesis as to pleasure and pain (60 B), unless we add 
 a word in the way here indicated : TO dua /AV 
 e^eXeiv 7rapaytyvo-0ai TO) dv^pwTrw, ear 8e TI? Sut)Krj TO 
 KOL \a/JL/3dvr), o-^e8oi/ Tt di/ay/ca^eo-^at det 
 
 Is not a vo-Tpov needed to bring out the contrast with 
 ap.a ? After rrepov it would fall out very easily. Cf. the 
 va-repov and ctraKoXovOovv a few lines further on. 
 
 I have sometimes thought that the description of the 
 weaver in 87 c needed a similar supplement, TroXXa KaTa- 
 Tpfyas roiavra ladna Kat {x^fd/xevos <eTpa>, since, taken as 
 a vcrrcpov rrporepov for v^-^i/d/xcvos icai Kararpiif/as, the words 
 are very harsh. We might indeed reverse the order. But 
 a sentence further on (ib. D) suggests another remedy. 
 Keeping to the image of the weaver, Plato writes et yap 
 peot TO o~co/jia /cat aTroXXvotTo CTI WVTOS TOU avBpunrov dXX' rt 
 i/^v^r) act TO KaTaTpt./36fJi.cvov dw^aiKOt, dvayKalov (JLCVTOL av fir) 
 K.T.X. Had he not used the very apposite compound 
 aw<f>aiviv in the earlier sentence too, writing TroXXa /caTa- 
 ToiavTa t/xaTta /cat avuc/^vd/xevos, perhaps Ka.W(j>-rjvd- 
 
76 PHAEDO 
 
 cf. Herwerden's very plausible correction of 
 7re7TT(o/coTi /cat ot/coSo/zov/xei/u) (Thuc. 4. 112. 2) to KO.VOLKO- 
 Sojuov/xevw. It may be said that there is a series of new 
 and distinct garments, whereas TO Ka.Ta.Tpi/36fjievov dw<j!>atWiv 
 means the repair of an old body, not the taking of a new 
 one, and that therefore TroAAa i^dna . . . dvuc^i/a/xevos would 
 not be a correct expression. But TO /caTaTpt/Jd/xcvov 
 avv<f>aivew is immediately preceded by the phrase TroAAa 
 crw/jLaTa KaTaTpififiv, relating to the same case. Plato 
 therefore was not careful to describe it with absolute 
 exactitude and, if dvuc^aiVot could be used in E for the 
 taking of a new body, aw^vdptvos would be equally 
 admissible in c. 
 
 In Meno 91 D I have sometimes thought we should read 
 oi ftcv TO. v7roO>7/x,aTa <dv> epyad/Aevoi TO. TraAata /cat TCI i/xdVta 
 ea/cov/xevot, though di/epydo/xat is not known to have been 
 in use. Neither is d</>aiV<o found elsewhere. 
 
 57 A oirre TIS evo9 d<t/cTat ^povov crv^vov e/cet^ev OO-TIS av 
 craves Tt dyyetAai olos T' ^v Trept TOTJTOU, TrXr^v ye Sr) OTt 
 a)v 8e dAXwv ov8ev ct^ev (Baumann 
 
 di/ here must mean would have been able, whereas we 
 want was able. Would have makes no sense, and ^Ixev or 
 ct^ov also shows what is required. Hence dV must be 
 either altered or omitted. 
 
 62 A io-(os /xei/Tot Oav/jLaarov o~oi <j6avtrai (I should prefer 
 ^atvcTat both here and in the next sentence : Schanz writes 
 <ai/tTcu in both) ei TOVTO povov TWV dXAwv aTrdi/TWj/ dirX.ovv 
 
 CCTTW KOL OvSeTTOTC TVy^dvtt TW dj/^pWTTO) UXTTTCp Kttt TttAAtt, 
 
 IO-TIV ore /cat ots j3e\Tiov TtOvdvau rj ^f)v. 
 
 All serious difficulty seems to me to disappear, if we only 
 recur to an old punctuation, wo-Trep /cat TaAAa CCTTIV OTC /cat 
 ots, * just as all other things on some occasions and to some 
 people (are better away).' The ellipse, which must indeed 
 be supposed even with the current punctuation, is easily 
 supplied. 
 
 69 C vap@r)KO(f>6pOL fJLV TroAAot, /^dV^oi oV T Travpoi. Need 
 we perpetuate the probably accidental disturbance of order 
 for TroAAot /xev vap 
 
PHAEDO 77 
 
 74 C Sia<epei Se ye, ^ 8' os, ouSeV eoos av (ecus yap av T) 
 aAAo iSwv aTro ravrrjs rrj<s oi/'ecos aAXo evvorjo-Tjs, etre o/xotov etre 
 dvo/xoiov, aKayKatov, (77, auro dvdjuvr/o-iv yeyove'vai. 
 
 It is strange that editors can go on printing eo>s av . . 
 evvorJo-Tis here. They must understand it to mean ' as long 
 as you conceive,' but it is really incapable of meaning 
 anything but until you have conceived/ The rule for the 
 use and meaning of ews is a very simple one, though it has 
 not as far as I know found its way into Greek grammars. 
 "Ecu? (ews av) with aorist indicative or subjunctive in variably 
 means until and never while. "Ews (eo>s oV) with present 
 or imperfect indicative or present subjunctive almost 
 invariably (when applied to single occasions) means while, 
 not until. The very idea of while precludes the use of the 
 aorist. On the other hand until almost always means 
 until something has happened (aorist) e.g. eo>s av vv 
 ytvrjrai, but occasionally we need to say until so and so is 
 happening, e.g. ews av vu yiyvrirat. Hence etos until does 
 now and then take the present or imperfect tense, for 
 instance in Thuc. 1. 90. 3 eo,s av TO ret^os i/cavov atpwo-iv, if 
 aipwcriv, and not apwcriv is right : Xen. Cyrop. 3. 3. 18 OVK 
 dva/xeVo/xev ecus av f) rjatrepa X^P a K aKa>rai : Plat. Charm. 
 176 B ews av <f>-fj<s (TV i/cavws e^eiv, Lys. 209 A ecu? av ^Xactar 
 ^XT? ? ( see n t e a bove ad loc.) and 211 B ews av otKaSe a>pa 
 77 aTTte'vat : Ar. Vesp. 1441 ea>s av rryv StVr^v ap^oov /caX^ : 
 Dem. 8. 59 ews ev aurr; TT^ X^P a T ^ o-rparev/xa Traprjv e^cov. 
 For the same reason Trptv (Vpiv av) usually takes the aorist, 
 but not quite invariably : see e.g. Thuc. 1. 118. 2 Trplv 8r) rj 
 Svva/Ats . . "flptTo KOI . . ^TTTOVTO : Soph. Phil. 1410 /LirJTra) ye, 
 Trplv av TWV TyyaeTepwv dfi^s /xv^wv : Plat. Phaedr. 271 C Trpiv 
 av . . A.eyw(rt re Kal ypd^xocri. The rule for ew? therefore is 
 roughly this : e<os ivhile with present or imperfect, ews 
 until (of single occasions) with aorist ; and with the aorist 
 it always means until a thing has or had happened, not is 
 or was happening. But, when such conjunctions as ews, 
 /xe'xpi av, Trptv, though meaning until, are applied to a 
 number of cases occurring in future time or time treated as 
 present and indefinite, the present seems to be sometimes 
 used, e.g. Laws 953 A ^pr; . . eVt/xeAetor^at . . ea>s av TOV 
 yaerpiov eTTt/xetvavres \povov . . aTraAXaTTwvrai. 
 
 It is possible that in some cases the use of the present is 
 
78 PHAEDO 
 
 due to the fact that the verb has no aorist in ordinary use, 
 e.g. rj and dfys above. Cf. the present occasionally used for 
 this reason with ov /xrj. 
 
 Phoenicides (Kock C.A.F. 3. 334) has the odd combina- 
 tion /xe'xpi av StSw ris r) XdOy Stappayct's, in which, if the 
 words are right, p.i\pi dv means while with StSw and until 
 with XdOy. 
 
 Shall we then in the Phaedo read ecus dv . . ei/i/o^s 1 I 
 think not. To my feeling it would come too near giving 
 ews av the semiconditional sense that so long as, etc. bear in 
 other languages, a sense probably never present in the 
 Greek (see however the notes of Stallbaum and Cron). 
 This was, I suppose, the ground on which Heindorf 
 suggested <bs, cav aAAo, or, what he preferred, 6Yav yap 
 (or yow) aAAo. The former would seem preferable, unless 
 indeed eoos av is only a mistake for edV, as in Xen. Hell. 
 1. 7. 35 edV stands unmistakably for ews oV (Stephanus). 
 Cf. on Lysis 221 A. orav evvo^ary occurs however a few 
 lines below. [Shilleto on Thuc. 1. 90. 3 takes very much 
 the same view and reads evvofjs here. When I first pub- 
 lished this note, I had overlooked his remarks.] 
 
 76 C OVK apa Sonroikrt crot eTrurracr^ai' ye, e<f>rj, 
 7rai/Ts aura; OuSa/x,cos. 'Avapi/jLvijcrKOVTai apa a TTOTC e 
 'AvdyKrj. Hore \a/3ovcrai at \f/v%al vjfuadi rrjv eTna-r-tjfJi-rjv avrwv ; 
 
 Can the last words be right, seeing that the subject of 
 dvafj.LiJ.vy a- Kovrai must, as the sentence stands, be Travrcs or 
 men in general understood from it? Contrast 74 B ^ KOI 
 e7ricrTa/Ae$a avro o ecrriv ; Haw ye, ^ 8' os. Ilo^ev \af36vrcs 
 aurov TT/V tTTL(TTr}fJir)v ; where TTO^CV Aa/JcWe? agrees quite 
 properly with the subject of the preceding verb. Perhaps 
 we should put at ^tn^at i7/x.coi> into the sentence before, say 
 after 
 
 ibid. E V7rep<vw9, w ^w/cpares, ^>r; 6 Si/>t/xta5, <d)S> So/ctt 
 ;u.oi 17 avr^ dvdyKrj flvai. 
 
 Cf. 66 A, 95 A, 99 D, 102 A. Or <& s may have been lost 
 immediately after vTrep^uw?, just as T omits it in 
 Theaet. 155c. 
 
 77 A Kat eyitot 8oKt t/cavois aTToSe'Set/cTat. Read 
 as a few lines below. 
 
PHAEDO 79 
 
 80 B Perhaps the order either of KOL vorjru KOU /xovoetSet or 
 Kat TroAuciSei /cat drorjra) should be inverted to make the two 
 agree. All the other points are put in like order in the 
 two cases. 
 
 82 C aTLfJiiav re KOL dSot'av (j.o\Or]pLa<; SeSiore?. 
 
 Is this a possible expression? We might read So'av 
 f*>oxOr]pia<s ( c ^* Euthyphro, 1 2 C Se'SoiKev a/xa Soai/ 
 or before /uu>x0qptas insert CK. 
 
 ibid. D e/celvot, ots TI ^txeAct TT}S eavrwi/ ^^X^ dAXa yu,^ 
 crwyuart (or o-w/xara) TrXaTTOvre? ^wort. 
 
 Heindorf's o-w^ari AaT^e^'ovre? is at present the only 
 plausible emendation of this passage, but it would appear 
 from Ast's Lexicon that Aarpevw does not occur in Plato 
 and that AaTyma is only used by him in its proper religious 
 sense (Apol. 23 c: Phaedr. 244 E ). Perhaps vTnyperowTes 
 is the word that he used here. Aelian V.H. 3. 11 ot 
 7Tpi7ra.Tr)TLKOi <f>acri //,e$' ^/utepav &7]Tvov(rav rrjv {f/v)(T)v rco 
 a-wfJLan TreptTrAe/cecr^at suggests the possibility of Oyrtvovrts, 
 which is however not very likely, and in any case favours 
 the general sense conveyed by Aarpevw or 
 
 84 A HrjvtXoirr) for H.rjveXoTrys I evavTi'ws seems to want 
 a case. 
 
 87 B wcrTrep av <t> Tt5, as in 98 c, 109 c, etc. ct is easily 
 lost before TI. 
 
 ibid. C Ae'yoi for Aeyet ? 
 
 ^6lf/. D rrjv avrrjv 8c, oT/xat, et/cova Se^air' av i/'i'X^) ^pos cra5/xa. 
 
 T^V aurrjv may possibly not be right, for it is clearly 
 illogical. Plato means this illustration or comparison, not 
 the same, as though he had already applied the comparison 
 to something else. But more probably he is half thinking 
 
 Of TttVTO <$ 
 
 88 D Tivi ovv en TTLCTTfva-o/JLfv Aoyw ; ws yap (r<J>68pa 
 6 ^wKpa.TY)<s eAcye Aoyov, vvv ets 
 
 ov 
 
 ws as an exclamation is unsatisfactory. Cobet follows 
 Heindorf in accepting instead 6 (which seems to have no 
 
80 PHAEDO 
 
 MS. authority) and omitting Ao'yoj/. As ws and KOLL are 
 sometimes confused, might we read /cat yap . . . on/, /or, 
 though very plausible 1 
 
 89 A TO /xei/ ovv ^etv on Aeyot e/ceti/os ura>s ovSev OLTOTTOV. 
 
 The nominative e/ceu/os is surely impossible when the 
 same person is the subject of x LV - Would anyone defend 
 TO ex LV TL Aeyu> *y<*> f r T0 *X iV W* Vi Ae'yeo 1 ^\ LV TL 
 Ae'yot is so much of a set phrase, making one idea, that 
 Heindorf's objection to *tvov following Aeyot, not e^etv, 
 seems unfounded, especially as tKtivov may well be 
 emphatic. 
 
 92 E eyw Se TavT^i/ . . . t/cav<3<j T KCU op^cos aTroSeSey/xat. 
 
 Is tKavw? an adverb appropriate to d7ro8e8ey/xai, or should 
 we read (what is sometimes confused with it) 
 ais and op^ws go well together. 
 
 94 B Read eA.Ki for eAKetv. Cf. opto/xev following. 
 
 97 D ao"//,vo<> rjvpvjKevai ipjjirjv 8t8ao"Ka\oi/ T^S aiTt'as Trept TWV 
 TWV /caTa vovv tyaavTO), TOV 'Ava^ayopav. 
 
 Perhaps TOV 'A. should be omitted. If not, it might be 
 better to make it the immediate object of r/vp^/cevat, taking 
 predicatively. 
 
 ibid. E Socrates thought Anaxagoras cTreKSi-qy^o-ecrtfou TT)V 
 t T^V dvay/cryv, Aeyoi/Ta TO a/xtvoi' Kat OTC avTryv 
 (^.6. T/^V y>}v) OLfjitivov rjv Toiavrrjv elvai. 
 
 TO afjLewov and OTI a/Aetvov T/V are surely very flat together. 
 I conjecture Plato to have written KAIAIOTI, Kat <6\> 
 OTI, why it was better. So 100 c /caAoV TI and the question 
 oY OTI KaAov eo-nv. In Phaedr. 235 A by a contrary error 
 A I has been inserted after A I and the MSS. give 
 SLKO.IOVV for etVai Kat ovv. 
 
 98 B <TOV> aVSpa (in spite of Ast Lex. Plat. 1. 175). 
 
 100 B efyu 7raA.ii/ CTT' e/cetva Ta Tr 
 Read apo/xai. 
 
PHAEDO 81 
 
 101 D ct Se TIS avr>}s TT)S VTro^ecrecos e^otro. 
 
 IXOITO in the sense of fastening on, attacking, is certainly 
 wrong ; and Madvig's !<OITO, which seems to have found 
 some favour, is open to the objection that tyietrOai does not 
 carry the required meaning either. As we have e^d^cvos 
 two lines before in its proper sense of keeping fast hold of, 
 I should conjecture that this is another instance of the 
 accidental repetition of a word to the displacement of the 
 word really intended. I should suppose Plato to have 
 written Xdfioiro or eTriXaySotro and this to have been altered 
 to ex 011 " through the copyist having the previous exd/xevos 
 in his mind. Cf. Laws 637 C ra^v yap a-ov Aa/?otr' dv TIS. 
 
 This is independent of the question whether the whole 
 sentence is genuine. See Archer-Hind's note, in which 
 he does not point out that OVK aTro/cpivaio ews dv . . . 
 o-/cei//ato is bad Greek. "Av is however easily omitted, or 
 altered to By, e<os 877 being proper enough. 
 
 102 B For TOVTO) TO) 2i/A/uav tvat read avT<3 T<3 
 elrai. 
 
 104 D rdSe en; av a OTI av Karacr^ /x^ /xdvov dvayKa^t TT)V 
 
 e^.c./ jvv \\v v> ' f at/ B) 
 
 aurov tdeav avro tcr^etv aAAa Kat evavrtou aurw i fp J" TIVOS. 
 
 Set is meaningless, det leaves avrw without construction, 
 as it certainly does not depend on evavrtov. Perhaps the 
 verb c7ri<j>pL, which is used subsequently in this connexion, 
 should be added here at or before the end of the sentence. 
 So in E TO yap evavrtov act avra> 7ri<epei. Cf. 105 A. 
 
 105 B t7Tep 7T6t T Kttt CTVV$OKL (TOL OUTCOS. IIdvi CT^dSpa 
 Kttt O"w8oKt, l^!)>/, Kttt 7TO/Xat. 
 
 Both on grounds of logic (for following, i.e. understand- 
 ing, must precede concurring) and to harmonise with the 
 clause that goes before I should like to read /cat 7ro/xat, 
 !<>, /cat 
 
 . D rjKCL (twice) should certainly be r)ti and ?;( 
 perhaps cei. Observe two or three futures preceding and 
 ov /A?; TTore 8e^7/Tat following. 
 
 i6l^. Perhaps TOVTO (TaOra B) a>vo/x,d^o/xev. 
 
 G 
 
82 PHAEDO 
 
 109 B wo-TTCp Trepi reX/xa /xvp/x^/cas r) ^arpa^ovg, Trcpi ry 
 
 As it is not clear what ants have to do with a marsh, we 
 ought perhaps to change the order here too. Trepi reA./xa 
 might be put before or after ^arpa^ov?, or it might be Trepi 
 Te'A/xa fiaTpdxovs 17 /xvp/x^/ca?. The first would suit the 
 following words (TT. r. 0. oi/cowras) best. 
 
 ibid. D TO Se eti/ai ravrov seems to me unobjectionable, 
 though it has been altered or partly omitted. It means 
 ' whereas the case is the same (as in the illustration just 
 given).' 
 
 1 1 6 C oT8' on OVK ffjiol xaA.7raiveig. 
 
 Archer-Hind says * some read ^aXcTravets, but the present 
 is found in the best MSS. and gives the best sense.' 
 I venture to question the last statement, though I presume 
 that Schanz and Burnet concur in it, as they both read the 
 present and do not even mention the future as an alterna- 
 tive. The gaoler has just said * other men are angry with 
 me when I tell them they must now drink the poison. 
 But,' he goes on, 'I am sure you will not be angry with 
 me,' i.e. when I tell you, as he proceeds virtually to do in 
 the words vvv ow, olcrOa, yap a rjXQov ayyeXwv, ^cup T K.T.A.. 
 These last words are the intimation that the time has come, 
 and xaAcTrau/a?, if right, would therefore refer to the time 
 before the intimation was made, and would fail to corre- 
 spond to the case of other men. In 117 A the MSS. have 
 just in the same way ot/xai KcpSaiVeiv for olpai /cepSavetv (av 
 xepSaiWv is Burnet's slightly less probable correction) ; 
 and so perhaps (Schanz) a line or two previously. 
 
EEPUBLIC 
 
 328 E TTOTepov ^aXeTrov rev j3iov r/ TTU>S (TV avTo 
 
 XaAcTj-ov TOW /3ibu is an obscure and difficult expression. 
 It is very unlikely to be partitive. In such phrases as 
 Xen. Mem. 1. 6. 4 (compared by Adain) e7rio-Kei//(o//,e0a ri 
 XaAtTTov rjaOya-ai. TOVJJ.OV fiiov the genitive depends on ri. 
 The alternative is to make it ' difficult in respect of living.' 
 But that construction, mostly poetical, is all but confined 
 to adjectives such as cu&u'/xwv, d#Aios, /xe'Aeos, expressing 
 good or bad fortune, so that ^aXc-rrov would be an unusual 
 extension of it. Only two passages at all parallel to the 
 present are known to me : the curious Xen. Mem. 
 3. 8. 3 ti TI olSa TTvpcrov ayaOov, good for fever, where it 
 seems just possible that ayaOov is substantivalised, and 
 Ar. de Part. An. 2. 10. 656 a 1 ov TroAveiSijs eo-n TWJ> 
 dvo/noio/xepwi/, in which we might say that TroAiKiS^s easily 
 suggests the substantive ciSry. Plato Laws 648 c yv^vaa-ia 
 6avjjia<TTr] /aacrrwvT/s av clrj seems due to the construction 
 with Oavpoi^tD. In Eur. Hipp. 785 TO TroAAa 7r/oao-o-tv OVK 
 ev dtr^aAet fltov the expression ev d<r</>aAer = V dcr^aActa, 
 and Phoen. 968 eV <opcu'a> yap eo-rayaei/ fiiov is really partitive, 
 like ev TO) d^pct'o) T^S ^AiKta? Thuc. 2. 44. 4. The occurrence 
 of /3iov in these places is only a coincidence. In our 
 passage the suggested ^aAcTrov <TO> TOV j3iov (Doederlein) 
 is very plausible, for TO would easily fall out before TOV and 
 Plato is fond of the periphrasis with TO. (Cf. Ast Lex. ii. 
 p. 407.) TO TOV fiiov would be of course life then, life at 
 that age. But I think the matter must be left doubtful. 
 
 330 A OUT' av 6 7Tia/tt7S TTOLVV TI paSi'ws y^pas /xeTa 7rVtas 
 i ov&' 6 /xr) eTTieiic^s TrAovT^o-as evKoAo? TTOT' av 
 83 G 2 
 
84 REPUBLIC 
 
 yivoiro. Tlorepov Se, yv 8' eyto, o> Ke^aXe, tti> Ke/crryo-at ra 
 TrXei'co TrapeXa^es ) 7reKTr;o-w ; Hot' 7rKTT7O-a/x.r;v, (77, ai 
 /xeVos Tts yeyoi/a 
 
 In the first sentence for evKoAos . . . eavrw (a very 
 doubtful expression) read CVKOAOS . . . ev O.VTCO. Some 
 mention of old age seems required in the clause : otherwise 
 the statement is too general. In 331 A and 574 D the 
 MSS. vary between eV avrw and eavrtp, in Phaedrus 266 A 
 between ev avrot? and ccurrots, in Timaeus 81 c between 
 eavTT}?, auxTys, and ev auTots : in Dio Chrys. 36. 9 between 
 ccurrots and tV avrots : in Ar. Tlfe^. 984 a 29 between 
 
 fV eavro?, ev 
 
 For Trot' (A has TTOI) I formerly conjectured Trorepov, 4 do 
 you ask whether 1 ' I am now inclined to think that TTOO-' 
 or OTTOO-' is what Plato wrote, * do you ask how much 1 ' 
 Socrates did not ask that directly, but his question involved 
 the assumption that Cephalus had made something. The 
 direct Troo-a is quite as legitimate as the direct TI'S or TTW? 
 which we sometimes find (instead of oo-rts or OTTCOS) echoing 
 a question in Aristophanes, e.g. Frogs 1424. Cf. Aesch. 
 Cho. 766. Moreover here Troo-a does not occur in the 
 original question. Trota, which Adam defends, would 
 mean either what sort of, or ivhich out of some definite 
 number, and is quite unsuitable. We often find otos and 
 Totovros standing by mistake for oo-os and TOO-OVTOS. 
 
 ibid. C crvyyiyvtcrOai for o-uyyve'cr0cu 1 Cf. 488 A below. 
 The confusion is very common. 
 
 ibid. E roVe ST) OTpe'^ouo-u/ avrov rr/v 
 
 t9 too-tv, Kal avTO<s T^TOI VTTO TT}S TOU yr^ptos a<T@evLa<s rj KOL 
 r) eyyvrepw wv rwv e/<t /xaAXov KaBopa avrd' VTroi^tas 
 S' ow /cat Sfffiaroc /xeo-ros ytyverai K.T.X. 
 
 The weakness of age could hardly enable a man to 
 descry more correctly what is to follow after death (ra 
 Kt). We must suppose a word or two to have been lost, 
 in which the real effect of failing powers was expressed. 
 
 [Since the above was written, various views have been 
 taken of the text. Adam considers that ' the verb is to be 
 
REPUBLIC 85 
 
 supplied by a sort of zeugma ... or rather the predicate is 
 accommodated to the second alternative.' Jowett and 
 Campbell, followed by Burnet, make r/rot . . . avrd paren- 
 thetic, so that it refers to vTroi/aas K.r.A. Tucker would 
 read wo-Trep <el> fjor), but deals with the general meaning 
 and structure of the sentence in the same way. Is wo-Trep 
 ei with the present indicative really possible 1 An opta- 
 tive, a past indicative tense, or a participle would seem 
 required. It seems to me a considerable objection to 
 J. and C.'s view, over and above the awkwardness of the 
 finite verb KaOopa, which should properly be KaOopuv, that 
 it probably involves a confusion of uxnrfp with ws. wa-n-cp 
 is used always of something which is not actually the case, 
 OJ5 (in prose) of something which is, or is supposed to be. 
 Since therefore, at any rate in the obvious and natural 
 sense, an old man is undoubtedly eyyurepw TWV e/cct (if there 
 is anything IKCI), wo-n-fp seems wrong or at least very 
 awkward. Cf. Goodwin's remark in M.T. 874, which does 
 not get over the difficulty in any satisfactory way. But 
 the same objection lies to other views, including my own 
 above given ; and, if it is sound, I do not see how it can be 
 surmounted except by bringing wo-rep into relation not 
 with wv but with KaOopa., ( as though he saw.' This would 
 be the effect of Tucker's change, which on another ground 
 we have to reject. Perhaps then the real error is in 
 KaOopa and that word has been inadvertently substituted 
 for KaOopwv, to which wi/ would be subordinate. With that 
 change we could easily accept the general view of the 
 sentence, a very natural and satisfactory one, which takes 
 the weakness of old age as a suggested reason for 
 vTroi/aas K.T.A.. 
 
 For the fanciful idea that an old man or one otherwise 
 near death sees further into things cf. Cic. de Sen. 21. 77 
 of death, eo melius mihi cernere videor quo ab ea propius 
 absum, and such passages of modern poetry as Waller's 
 well-known lines, 
 
 The soul's dark cottage, battered and decayed, 
 Lets in new light through chinks that time has made 
 Stronger by weakness, wiser men become, 
 As they draw near to their eternal home, 
 
86 REPUBLIC 
 
 and Arnold's (A Wish) 
 
 that undiscovered mystery 
 
 Which one who feels death's winnowing wings 
 Must needs read clearer, sure, than he. 
 
 332 A OU TO. 6(f>L\6fJLVa aTToSlStUCTlV OS O.V TO) 
 aTToSa) K.T.X. 
 
 Should not this be d7roSi8<3 ? 
 
 333 B dXX' is riva. Srj Koivayviav 6 OLKCLIOS d/xaVwv 
 
 TOV KlOaplCTTLKOV, a>O~7Tep 6 /a#apl(TTlKOS T0l5 St/CCUOU 19 
 
 TWV ; Ei9 apyvptov, e/x-oiye 8o/ct. 
 
 19 Kpov/iaTtov and ek dpyvpcov forcibly suggest that we 
 should read cis rtVo?. Cf. Euthyphro 13 D E. 
 
 y t(ro)9 7rpo9 TO \prja~OaL apyvpita orav Sei; 
 apyvpiov Kowfi Trptao-^at 17 a7ro8oo-^ai LTTTTOV. 
 
 As this is only one instance of the use of money and 
 another is given immediately afterwards, is it not probable 
 that before orav we should insert otov, a very similar word 1 
 
 335 A KA.uei9 Sr; fjfJLas Trpocr^etrai TW SIKCUO) 17 W9 TO 
 
 I proposed formerly to insert TrXeW before r}, feeling as 
 others have done great difficulty about Trpoo-Qwai rj. But 
 so many rather curious uses of rj may be quoted that I 
 now think the text right. Perhaps the most noticeable is 
 to be found in Plato himself, Gorg. 481 c D tSioV n eVacrxei' 
 n-a#o9 y 01 dXXot. But consider also the following : <0avw 
 -T? (H. 23. 445: Od. 11. 58: Herod. 6. 108): o>oio9 
 '(Pausan. 7. 16. 4, if right : Liban. 16. 8 ov% o/xoiov 17, and I 
 think elsewhere) : dvo/xoto9 ^ (Plat. Cra^. 435 A) : ^uio-vs ^ 
 (Xen. TeZ/. 5. 3. 21: Strabo 15. 1. 23): SnrXo^ (330 c) 
 and oWXtto-io9 ^, 7roXXa7rXdo't09 77, etc. often : irapo. Soav rj 
 (Herod. 1. 79. 3 Trapa So^av O-^ Ta Trprjy^ara. r) a)9 avTO9 
 KaTe8o/c and 8. 4. 1) : Sia<epeiv, TrapaXXctTTeiv Trapa^epetv, 
 ^ S T/ (Herod.), Trape^ 17, c/x-TraXtv 17 : Parthen. 3. 4. ov 
 
REPUBLIC 87 
 
 336 B (TvcrTpeif/as eavrov w&Trcp Oypiov 
 
 Adam's idea that ij/cev is here an intransitive aorist from 
 is most improbable. fjKew CTTI of hostile movement, 
 attack, was a familiar phrase (e.g. Dem. Phil. 3. 9 and 27) 
 and ^K/ 7rt could suggest nothing else to the Greek ear. 
 Hartman's JTTCV (would not rjgev be better ?) is quite 
 unnecessary. If any change were made, I would rather 
 read ^XOtv (as in 352 c, Phil 3. 34 and 72, and very often). 
 The words do get interchanged. 
 
 337 A ei TI'S rt <r cpwra. The mood of the verb is incon- 
 sistent with the context. We need an optative, probably 
 epotro. 
 
 ibid. E See below, p. 90. 
 
 341 C vvv yow, c<>7, ^re^cip^o-a?, ovSci/ &v KOL ravra. 
 
 There is no reason for taking /cat ravra in any but its 
 usual sense of * and that.' Though KOL ravra and similar 
 phrases (/cat OUTOS, etc.) usually come first in the clause, 
 another place is sometimes given them, and in later Greek 
 this is quite frequent. Cf. not only Ar. Ran. 704 and 
 Plut. 546 (perhaps Vesp. 1184), Diodor. Com. 3. 5, 
 and perhaps Lysias 31. 13 (u. v. Thalheim), but also many 
 passages in Lucian, e.g. 44. 15 : 51. 24 : 54. 1 : 66. 25 : 
 73. 47 and 50 : Strabo 6. 3. 10, 15. 1. 53, 15. 2. 5, 16. 4. 
 23 : Aristides not seldom : and above all Heliodorus, who 
 revels in it (1. 3, 8, 16, 22, 30, etc.). 
 
 347 D wore Tras av 6 ytyi/wor/cwi/ TO a 
 eAoiro VTT' a\Xov r) aAAov ax^eXoii/ ir/my/iara 
 
 To is seldom or never added to the infinitive after 
 atpoi)/>iat, and is especially awkward when added to one 
 infinitive and not to the other. Omit it here. 
 
 349 A Trdvra 7rpo(r@r)(Ti<; a ^/xet? TW St/catw 7rpoo-Ti#e/Aj>. 
 
 As there is nothing to which the past tense can be 
 made to refer, should we read 
 
 ibid. B Perhaps it should be ovSe T^S Tr/oa^ews (not ov8c 
 s Si/cams), the wrong word having been repeated. 
 
88 REPUBLIC 
 
 350 C D 6 or] pa.crvfj.a^o<s co/zoAdy^o'e pJkv TrdVra raura, ovy a>s 
 eyw v\iv paStws Aeyw, dAA' eA/cd/xevos KCU /xdyts, /xera tSptoros 
 OavfJiacrTOv otrov. 
 
 As the words stand, /xeV has nothing answering to it, for 
 dAAa must be taken in close connexion with oi>x ws . . . 
 Aeyoo, and the sentence is therefore very imperfect. I 
 suggest a slight change of order, wjnoAoy^o-e //.ei/ Travra 
 TaCra, dAA' eA/cd/xevos /cat /udyts, ov^ a>s /c.r.A. 
 
 lOld. E ' elev ' epw Kat /caravevcro/jiat /cat dvavevtro/xat. 
 M-^Sa/xtos, ^v 8' eyw, Trapa ye T-^V crauToO Sd^av. "Oare (rot, 
 
 6^)77, d/3<TKtV. 
 
 For wo-re ' Greek idiom requires rather (I think) <5s ye. 
 Of. on 394 E below. The confusion occurs elsewhere : 
 e.g. 352 D where A has ware for u>s ye. Cf. on Gorg. 458 E. 
 
 TOVTO TOLVVV epo)T(o oTrep aprt. 
 Probably ravrd. 
 
 353 D ecr$' OTO) aXXa) ^ '/'^xi? ^ tKat/w 5 a ^ avr 
 (j>alfiV tSia eKetvrys eTi/at ; 
 
 exeats is certainly indefensible, as Adam admits. Some 
 read e/cetVov : Madvig would omit it altogether. I suggest 
 that Kat should be rj and <at/x,ev <a/x,eV (as two or three 
 lines below), reading rj ^>a/xev tSta e/cetV^9 eTvat ; ^>a^tev is 
 actually given here by F and by Stobaeus, and the 
 confusion of the two forms is quite frequent (352 E, 357 c, 
 490 c), as is that of rj and /cat. 
 
 359 D In the vexed passage about Gyges nothing but 
 Fvy>7 TO) VLpotcrov TOV Av8o9 Trpoydvo), with or without a TO) 
 before Tvyrj (or put Tvyy before Trpoyovw), seems satisfactory. 
 With so many articles and proper names the accidental 
 omission of T<3 Kpoto-ov is in no way improbable. The 
 hypothesis of a second and distinct Gyges, mentioned 
 nowhere else, is surely desperate. 
 
 360 B ovSets av yeVoiro ws Sdeiev OVTCOS dSa^u-avrtvos os av 
 /xetVetei/ /c.r.X. 
 
 No plausible defence of the simple optative So'etev has 
 been made, and probably none is possible. To treat it as 
 
REPUBLIC 89 
 
 a sort of oratio obliqua (Schneider, Adam : cf. the latter's 
 note on 361 E) is not only quite unjustifiable, but ignores 
 the fact that even in oratio obliqua an optative must 
 depend on a past tense, expressed or understood, whereas 
 here there is no hint or even possibility of any such thing. 
 Nor again can we understand av, as Riddell thought, 
 from the preceding words ; but av might easily fall out, as 
 notoriously in very many places, and all the more easily 
 perhaps between / and ov. Read therefore with Ast ws 
 Sd|eiev <av>, comparing for instance Gorg. 509 A 005 yow 
 av Soeiev OVTCOCTI : in both places Sdeiv av may be roughly 
 said to refer to present time. o>s Sd^tiev <oV TIS> (423 D) 
 would give the same sense, but the loss of av TIS is much 
 less likely. So is the corruption of SOKCI to Sociev, though 
 the other optatives might possibly cause it. 
 
 It is curious that 361 c has another very difficult optative : 
 aS^Aov ovv tire rov St/caiou etrc ra>v Swpeaiv re KCU Tt/u.wf tvcKa 
 TotovTos CLY). The oratio obliqua theory, the idea that 
 Glaucon is expressing an opinion not as his own but only 
 as held by others, breaks down for the same two reasons 
 as before, that there is no trace of any such oratio obliqua, 
 and still more that there is no past tense to account for 
 the optative mood : as a matter of fact the main predica- 
 tion, represented by aS^Aov, is future, ' it will be uncertain.' 
 It may be right to omit efy, but it does not seem likely 
 that so erroneous a form simply got in by accident, nor that 
 both aSr)X.ov and TOLOVTOS should lack a verb. A verb is 
 the more necessary to afyXov just because the sense is 
 future, not present. I incline therefore to add av here too, 
 reading av efy or cl-rj av, joining that with aS^Aov, and with 
 TOIOVTOS understanding ICTTIV or etry. The separation of av 
 177 from a$Y)\ov may seem awkward, but, if the words are 
 read with a pause after TOIOVTO?, it becomes much less so. 
 
 It is again very difficult to believe that the text can be 
 sound in 490 A, where the future tense ou //.erpuos aTroAoyry- 
 o-6fj.c6a OTL is followed by a series of dependent optatives. 
 When the editors say that the construction goes on as 
 though the words were aTroX.oyrja-6/j^Oa o eAeyo/xcv ev rots 
 e/A7rpoo-0ev OTL K.T.\., they may possibly be right (cf. note on 
 Charm. 156s above), but there is absolutely nothing in 
 the context to suggest such words, and little, if anything, 
 
90 REPUBLIC 
 
 of what follows has actually been said before, one line at 
 most out of seven. It is at any rate admitted that such 
 optatives can only be justified as depending on a past 
 tense either expressed or in the mind. We might think of 
 ov /xerpi'ws <av> aTroXoyr/trat/xe^a, but it is doubtful in the 
 extreme whether this would admit of optatives following 
 by assimilation. 
 
 There is yet another troublesome 117 in 337 E TTWS yap dV 
 
 TtS aTTOKptVaiTO TTpUTOV /XV fJLTJ lS<DS tl^Se (f>d(TKU)V etSeWl, 
 7TlTa, t TL KOL OtCTttl, TTpl TOVTIDV aTTfLp^fJifVOV ttVTO) 17? OTTWS 
 
 /xr/Sei/ epet wv rjyfiTai vir dvSpos ov <auXou. cirj after aTreipv}- 
 /xevov has no construction whatever. To the proposals for 
 dealing with it I would add the suggestion that it may be 
 a corruption of ^v, since et and r?, ^ and v are often 
 confused. There would then be a slight change in the 
 sentence from the general and hypothethical aTTOK-ptVairo /XT/ 
 eiSws to the statement of particular past fact in 
 rjv. 
 
 362 C <f>a<riv . . . T<3 dS/Kw Trapecr/ccvacr&xi rov j3iov d/x,civov 
 77 TO) oiAcata). 
 
 Read perhaps d^etVov' or d/xetVova. 443 A some MSS. 
 have ouSeV for ouSeV or ouSeVa. 
 
 364 B ws apa Kai ^eot TroXXots /xev dya^oi? SuoTv^i'tt? T Kat 
 jSiov KO.KQV evei/xav, rots 8' evcumois zvavriav /jLoipav. I formerly 
 demurred to this, writing 7roA\d/as rois for TroXXots, on the 
 ground that rots ej/avrtois was too general. But in Solon 15. 1 
 (Theogn. 315) TroXXot /txei/ TrXou-roCJov KO.KOI, ayaOol 8 TrcVovrat 
 the force of TroXXoi lasts into the second clause. 
 
 365 B TO. /xcv yap Xeyo/xci/a StKaiw /xei/ ovrt /xoi, eav /xr/ Kat 
 SOKOJ, o^eXos ovSev ^>a<riv eu/ai, TTOVOVS 8e Kat ^/xta? <avepdV 
 
 Xeyerat. 
 
 (1) There is no satisfactory construction for ra Xeyo/xeva : 
 (2) /xeV emphasises it too much, for no doubt of what is 
 said being true is really suggested by the supposed speaker. 
 As Xcyo/xevos and ytyi/(yv)o/xevos are certainly sometimes 
 confused (see p. 239), it may be worth considering whether 
 TO, /xi> yap yiyi/o'/xeva should not be read. Observe the uses 
 
REPUBLIC 91 
 
 of TO. ytyj/Ojuem or some part of ytyvo/xat in 366 E Soas TC 
 Kai ri/xas Kai Swpeas (XTT' aurwv ytyyo/xevas : 361 C rwv aTr' 
 au-njs ytyvo/xeVcov : 358 B TOVS /u(r$ovs Kat ra ytyvo/xeva otTT* 
 avrwv : 357 B-D : etc. On the other hand we have <a<riV 
 and Aeycrcu (ytyverat ?) in this sentence, and rotavra Kat 
 Tocraura A.cyo/Ai/a a little above, as well as 6 ... A.eyo/xevos 
 Aoyos in 366 B. But these might facilitate a mistake. 
 My suggestion requires the second ytxeV to be taken as only 
 repeating the first ; this, as being uncommon, is perhaps 
 rather against it. Cf. p. 226. 
 
 366 A StKatot /xei/ yap oi>T9 d?7/xtoi VTTO $ea>v e(ro//,$a, . . . 
 aSt/cot 8e KepSavov/xei/ re Kat Xto"cro/xevot VTrep^atVovrcs Kai 
 
 Plato is fond of accumulating participles, but the 
 accumulation here is very confused. Perhaps Plato wrote 
 xcpSavov/utev re vTrep/JaiVovrcs Kat d/xapravovTeg Kat Atcro-o/xevot 
 7Tt'$ovTs aurovs d^/xtot aTTaAXa^o/xcv. No doubt he is 
 thinking of the verse he quoted in 364 E Ato-tro/xevot ore KeV 
 TIS vTTfp^y Kat afj-dpry, but that does not justify the present 
 order of words. It contains aorists, vircpprjr) and 
 and Plato would naturally have written vTrep/^a 
 
 had he wished the order to remain the same. 
 
 ibid. oAAo, ydp tv f/ AtSov SiKrjv 8w(ro/xei/ wv av 
 <ra>/xev, r) avrot 17 TraTSe? T 
 
 Should not the double r} be a double Kai"? Though 
 punishment in this world was thought to fall sometimes 
 not on the sinner but on his posterity, in the other world 
 he would not escape. Why too, as the words stand, 
 should his own immediate children be so pointedly omitted *Z 
 With Kat the omission is much easier : * both himself and 
 his children's children,' i.e. himself and descendants to the 
 second generation. Cf. //. 20. 308. 
 
 It may be thought that 372 c e^Aa/So^/xevot Trcvtav rj 
 TToAe/xov also calls for Kat, not T;, as both were to be guarded 
 against. Logically it does, but probably the illogical 
 expression arises from the idea that either war or poverty 
 (or both) might ensue. 
 
92 REPUBLIC 
 
 . B (I)? O <CV7TO> TCOV TToXXcOV T Kttt 
 
 Xo'yos ? Otherwise Xeyo/xevos drags very much. 
 
 ibid. E ovSets 7T<o7roT 
 dXXws ?} Soas re KCU ri/xa? KCU S(upas ras d?r' 
 
 Insert Sid before 8o'ag, like Sta Soai> 358 A, or add some 
 participle, such as V/ 
 
 368 A ov /cd/cois eis {yxas, w TratSes CKCLVOV rov dvSpos, 
 
 eXcyetcov erroi^o-ev 6 FXaiJACWJ/os e/aacrr^s, 
 (ravras ?repi T^V Meyapot /xa^v, etTrwv 
 
 TratSes 'ApicrTwvo? /cXeivou ^eto/ yeVos dvSpog. 
 
 This passage has to be taken along with Philebus 36 D, 
 where Socrates, preparing to enter on a large question, 
 says to Protarchus, his interlocutor, dXX' et Trpos ra 
 w Trat KetVov TOI) clv8pos, TrpocrrjKOvra., TOVTO 
 
 Adam gives in his adhesion to Stallbaum's theory that 
 in both these places the phrase Trat (TratSes) K.r.X. has no 
 reference to the real father, but means metaphorically in 
 the Republic that Glaucon and Adeimantus are stating in 
 a way the views of Thrasymachus, and in the Philebus 
 that Protarchus has taken over from Philebus the advocacy 
 of pleasure. Thrasymachus and Philebus therefore are 
 cKtivos 6 avrjp in the two dialogues respectively, and the 
 speakers are styled their TrcuSes as being what in modern 
 language we might term their ' spiritual children.' It 
 seems very dubious whether this theory is tenable. At 
 any rate a few considerations may be urged against it. 
 
 Supposing it to be true, it is still pretty clear that w iro.1 
 fKtivov rov dvSpos cannot be used to express directly and 
 quite properly the intellectual relation of Protarchus to 
 Philebus, but would have to be taken as the adoption and 
 application to their special case of some set phrase. First, 
 as Philebus is present all the time, he cannot properly be 
 indicated by the pronoun e/cttvos. ovros or 6'Se should be 
 used, as in the parallel phrase (Bury) used by Soph. 
 Track. 1017 w TTOL TOV& di/Spos. Secondly, Philebus is 
 apparently not dvrjp, a man : he is only a boy or stripling. 
 In 1 6 A B stress is laid upon the youthf ulness (ve'oi and 
 
REPUBLIC 93 
 
 TratScs) of the company generally, Socrates of course 
 excepted, and there is no reason to think 3>/A.r7/3o9 6 KctAo? 
 older than the rest. We may think of him as like the 
 young Theaetetus, who is a TraiSiW (Theaet. 166 A : 168cD, 
 where contrast TU> dvSpi just preceding) and compare w 
 TrcuSes Phil. 16 B I with 5 Traces Tfoae*. 148 B. If not 
 strictly a TTCU?, he is certainly in agonistic phrase dyeVtios 
 rather than dvr/p. I think we may add thirdly that, as he 
 and Protarchus are apparently of about the same age and 
 he would seem, if anything, to be the younger, it would 
 be eminently out of place to call Protarchus his child. 
 
 It may be concluded then that, even if the general 
 meaning be what Stallbaum and Adam say, Plato was not 
 using a new phrase of his own, but only employing a more 
 or less current expression, of which we seem to have 
 another variety in the passage of the Trachiniae. But, if 
 we once take it to be, what it probably is, an established 
 phrase, it follows, I think, that it was commonly used in 
 its obvious and literal reference to a real father, and this 
 makes it more than ever unlikely that it should be used 
 metaphorically in the way suggested, at any rate without 
 some clearer indication of the metaphorical meaning. In 
 the Philebus there is nothing at all to indicate such a use. 
 At first sight the words et Trpos TO. Trap\r)\v06ra . . . 
 Trpoa-^Kovra may seem to do so, as referring to Philebus' 
 supposed conduct of the argument before our dialogue 
 began. But there is no reason to think that they do, for 
 TO. 7rap\rj\v06Ta means quite naturally the preceding parts 
 of the conversation, as we have it, between Socrates and 
 Protarchus. In the Republic we have indeed mention in 
 the immediate context of the way in which Glaucon and 
 Adeimantus are for the time representing Thrasymachus ; 
 but it is extremely difficult to suppose that o> TratScs K.T.A.. 
 refers to that. For the reason stated above it would be 
 improbable in any case, and the rest of the sentence makes 
 it almost incredible. When in the very same sentence the 
 fame of their real father is emphasised, called as they are 
 by the poet K\LVOV Otlov yeVos di/8pos, can we conceive that 
 the hearers would understand o> TrcuSes eKeiVov TOV di/Spos in 
 an entirely different sense, so that one dvSpos would refer 
 to Thrasymachus and the other to Ariston, and that when 
 
94 REPUBLIC 
 
 it was probably a current phrase in its literal meaning ? 
 and what of a writer's skill and felicity of expression, who 
 in one equivocal sentence confounded real and figurative 
 parentage 1 
 
 Even then on Stallbaum's hypothesis the phrase must be 
 a current one, adopted by Plato for the occasion, much for 
 instance like the cry of ' man overboard ' raised on the 
 falling of a boy into the sea ; and the metaphorical use of 
 it, while obscure in the Philebus, would be awkward in 
 the extreme in the Republic. But, if it is to be taken in 
 its straightforward sense, why is it used just at these 
 points in the two dialogues 1 The occasion and the reason 
 seem to be the same in both cases. Glaucon and Adei- 
 mantus are showing in the field of argument the same 
 spirit and resolution which they have shown in the field of 
 battle and are again proving themselves sons worthy of 
 their sire. In like manner Protarchus is reminded in the 
 name of his father that he must not shrink from the effort 
 required for the adequate discussion of an important 
 matter. We know nothing of his father, but there is no 
 need to suppose any greater distinction than in the case of 
 that ' famous man/ Ariston. A creditable performance of 
 duty is all that need be ascribed to either. 
 
 Without denying therefore that the metaphorical 
 meaning is in itself possible, and without forgetting * my 
 father Parmenides ' (Soph. 241 D) and other such uses of 
 Tra.Tr)p (Trarrjp TOV Aoyov, rfjs <ro<ias) in Plato, we may still 
 ask why the obvious meaning in these two passages should 
 not be the right one. 
 
 372 E et 8' av ftovXtcrOf. KOL <A.ey/xaiVovcrav troXw 
 
 Though (3ov\tL or fiovXca-Oc in a directly interrogative sense 
 is often followed by a verb in the subjunctive (/tovAei, 
 j3ov\o-06 tw/xev ; etc.) there would appear to be -no other 
 example of such a construction as we have here, where 
 fiovXeo-Oe is not interrogative. In /?ov'Aei to>//,ev ; the tco/xj/ 
 is really itself deliberative and interrogative ; the fiovXci is 
 only added to it by a sort of brevity of expression, and in 
 no way governs it or causes it to be in the subjunctive. 
 Ei /3ov\eo-0 6eo)py(r<jDfjLcv would be an entirely different 
 
REPUBLIC 95 
 
 construction, very strange in itself, probably unparalleled 
 in Greek, and needing much more support than this 
 passage can give it. In Goodwin M.T. 287-8, where I 
 think a wrong view is taken, it will be noticed that all the 
 instances are interrogative, for which on the theory that 
 /3ov\ofjLai governs the subjunctive there seems to be no 
 reason. In Crat. 425 D t p.rj apa /SovAet . . . cbraXAayw/Aev 
 the /JovAei is only conjectural and cannot be right. To 
 Goodwin's instances add Epinomis 980 B TJ 8o/ceT TOVS flcovs 
 V/AI/OWTCS <r<oSpa ri/xw/xev ; The Append. Planud. to the 
 Anthology gives us (4. 174) an indicative, 0eAets oimos e? 
 KpLa-Lv epxo/z#a ; and so perhaps we should write in Anthol. 
 11. 134. 
 
 It is quite as easy here to read t 8' av /2ovA.e<r0e, /cat 
 <A.y/xatVov(rai/ iroXw ^ecop^oxo/xei/' ov8ev a7roKto/Vvct. No yap 
 is needed after ovSeV, because ov&tv /cwAv'a or dTro/cwAvet is a 
 stereotyped expression. Cf. esp. Ar. Eq. 972. 
 
 373 B OVKOW /m'oi/a re av TYJV TroXtv Set Trotetv. 
 
 Unless something (e.g. /cat Trot/ctXwrepav) has been lost, TC 
 must be regarded with great suspicion, yc would do fairly 
 well. 
 
 376 A ovfev Srj KaKoV ] A and other MSS. have ovSei/ 8e, 
 not ovSev. 
 
 ife^cZ. D tva /x^ eo>/xv tKavov Aoyoi/ ^ (rv^vov Ste^tw/xtv. 
 
 After some doubt I think these disputed words yield a 
 satisfactory sense and need no alteration. But that sense 
 is not exactly what is given by Jowett and Campbell 
 with Adam's approval, * leave unsaid what is required for 
 completeness.' Rather 'leave out what is sufficient,' what 
 will as a matter of fact answer the purpose, brief as it is. 
 The account is to be sufficient without being lengthy. 
 
 377 A OVKOVV OicrG 1 on ap^r; Trai/ros epyou /xeyttrrov, aAAws 
 re /cat vea) /cat aTraXaJ OTWOW ; fjidXicna yap 877 Tore TrXaTTerat 
 /cat fv8vTa.L TVTTOS ov av Tts /3ov\r)Tai V<Tr)fj.r)va.o-6ai /cacrTa). 
 
 Head ev8uTat TVTTOV. The subject of TrXarrcrat and 
 evSvcrcu is evidently TO veov. L. and S. give no instance 
 of a real passive eVSiWftu ' to be put on,' while the middle 
 eV8v'eo-0at is common. 
 
96 REPUBLIC 
 
 378 B ot>Se Xe/oreov K.T.X. 
 
 Perhaps 8c should be yap (ov yap Xc/cTeov) or 817, as these 
 words only expand what precedes. 
 
 383 A cos yuiyVe avTovs yd^Tas 6Was . . . /u^re 
 
 Terminations (often abbreviated) were so easily corrupted 
 that we ought surely to read TrapdyovTas, unless indeed we 
 prefer to add efo'XovTas or /tfovXo/xeVous. Kiihner-Gerth 
 488. 1 compare Laws 626 B and Charm. 164 D E, but the 
 former is not really parallel and in the latter Setv = Se'ov. 
 
 387 D 6 TOIOUTOS /xdXicrra auros at>Tu> auTap/c^s Trpos TO ev 
 tfiv /cat 8iac/>ep6Wcos TCOV aXX<ov ^Kicrra erepou TrpoorSetTat. 
 
 8ta^>epovTws T. a. and ^/cto-ra ought not to go together in 
 one clause. Perhaps &v should be inserted, say after avro) 
 or TO 
 
 ibid. E rjKto-r' apa Kal 6&vp<rOaL. There is no proper or 
 easily to be supplied construction for the infinitive. 
 o8u'peo-0ou <<HK> is possible. 
 
 390 B } Alia ... a)? /xovos eyp^yopws a e/JovXeucraro 
 Trai'Tcov pa8iu)5 eTTiXav^avo/xcvov. 
 
 To suppose with Stallbaum that this stands for a 
 cftovXevcraTO cos /x,oVos eyp^yopcos is to attribute to Plato a 
 very awkward order and very indifferent sense. I con- 
 jecture ocra /uovos eyp^yoptos e^ovXevcraro and suppose a to 
 have been inserted after ws was written for otra. TOUTCOV 
 Traj/Twv rather points to ocra. Schafer a^ Gre^. Cor. p. 184 
 remarks on the frequent confusion of ws and ocra. Cf. p. 64 
 above. In Democritus Fr. 199 (Diels) drory/xoves TO rjv 
 cos cTTuyeovTCS ffiv e^eAoucri Sci/xaTt di8ea) we might read ocrot 
 for cos. 
 
 393 B TTCpt T T(OV V 'iXtCp Kttt 7Tpt TCOV ^ 'Wdky Kttl oXr/ 
 
 'O8vcro-ia Tra^ry/xaTcoi/. 
 
 Is there not a difficulty in carrying on /, which with 
 'WaKy has a strict local meaning, to go with 'OoWcma in a 
 semi-figurative sense? It would be a sort of zeugma. 
 Perhaps KOV (or /cat ev) 0X77 ' O., or KCU 0X77$ ' 
 
REPUBLIC 97 
 
 394 E TravTwv aTTOTuyxdVot aV, <5crr' ti>at TTOU eAAoyt/xos. 
 Read uis y', as I have suggested also above in 350 E. 
 
 397 A 6 /ur) TOIOUTOS . . . TrdWa re /xaAAov 8t>;yry(rerat Kat 
 ov8ev eavTOu di/atoi/ o/r/crerat eTvat, ware TraWa irL\ciprj<ri 
 
 (TirovSy re Kat evavrtov 7roAAon>. 
 
 which has almost all the MS. evidence, does 
 not bring out the sense. /u^o-crat on the other hand has 
 very little evidence, and Plato could never have written 
 TrdvTOL . . . /At/x-T/o-erat . . . ware TraVra eTri^ctp^crci nLfJLCL&Oai. 
 Madvig's /xoAAov /xt/ArJcreTat ^ Stryy^o-eTat . . . ware /c.r.X. is 
 open to the same objection. Probably Plato wrote neither 
 $Lr)yr)<TTai nor //.i/i^o-erai, but some such word as aTroSe^erai 
 approve of, which will fit Kat ouSev K.T.\. very well and was 
 perhaps accidentally altered through Sujyrjo-is playing so 
 large a part in the context. 
 
 ibid. C Sia TO TrarroSaTras yuo/x^as <K> T<3i> 
 Or possibly Trav-roSaTras ju,eraj8oXas TWV 
 
 398 A Trpoovcwot/xev av avrov . . , t7roiju,ei> 8e K.T.\. 
 Perhaps TrpocrKwot/xev </xci/> av. 
 
 399 D Xupa 8>; (rot . . . Kat KiOdpa XctVcrat Kat Kara 7roA.iv 
 
 legit Demetrius says Burnet who brackets it. 
 Should we read w?, which is often confused with it 1 I 
 have sometimes thought that in 400 E o>s cvi/0ctav (bracketed 
 by Burnet after Herwerden) might be Kai cvi^etav, but Kat 
 a/so would not be very natural there. 
 
 402 A OVT' ev oyxiKpoJ OVT' cv yacyaAo) ^Tt/ta^o/xcv avra, ws ov 
 Scot alrrOdv(rOa.L. 
 
 Read <us ou 8cov. The verb lacks construction, and <u? 
 8eov, waTrep 8eov, are very common. 
 
 403 B TCI 8' aAAa OVTCO? 6/xtAeti/ (vo/xo^Tr;o'(5) Trpos ov TIS 
 
 TOv8a^Ol, OTTtOS K.T.A. 
 
 The optative o-7rovSaoi is quite ungramrnatical. Read 
 a^ei with a few MSS. Just below, if v<e'ovTa instead 
 of vTT\Lv is right, it seems added as though in place of 
 
 H 
 
98 REPUBLIC 
 
 OTTWS . . . (rvyyiyvco-Oai we had something like <us 
 
 crvyyiyvecr6a.i. 
 
 405 B ^ OVK atcrxpoV ... TO eTraKTw Trap' aAAwv . . . T<p 8iKat(p 
 dvayKaecr$ai Xpfja-Bai KCU aTropia OIKCLWV ; 
 
 Adam mentions many proposals for dealing with the last 
 words, but, rejecting them all, holds that xprjo-Oat. a-rropta. = 
 flvai aTropoi. I think he is right in rejecting them. The 
 Greek is however indefensible ; Plato wrote not KCU 
 but KO.T d-rroptav. Cf. Plut. Mor. 51 D 
 
 407 A 6 8e Sr) TrAouo-io?, ws <^>a/xcv, ovSev ^6t TOIOVTOV epyov 
 7rpo/<t)u,vov, ov avayKa^o/xe^o) aTre^ecr^at djSt'torov. OUKOVI/ S>) 
 Xeyerat ye. ^>WKvA.i8ov yap, ^v 8' eyw, ou/< O-KOWCIS TTWS <^)^(rt 
 8iv, orav TO) ^Sr; /3tos ^, aptrrjv dcrKtv. Ol/xat Se ye ; c<^>7, Kat 
 Trporcpov. 
 
 I think both the main sentences here should be taken as 
 interrogative, that is not as couched in a directly inter- 
 rogative form, but as statements made in an interrogative 
 tone of voice. * The wealthy man has no special business 1 ' 
 and * You have never heard then of the saying of Phocy- 
 lides 1 ' (aKoveis certainly = our perfect, as d/<ovw, 7rw$dVo/x,ai, 
 K\V<J) often do). There are probably many such questions 
 in the Republic and elsewhere, though the editors as a rule 
 do not recognise them. For instance 435 B Kat Sucaios 
 K.T.A. and again /cat TOV Zva K.T.\. may very well be so 
 understood. 
 
 ibid. E TToXtrtKov, <?7, Aeyets 'Ao-KA^Triov. AryAoy, rjv 8' 
 eyw' Kat ot TratScs avrou, on TOIOVTOS rjv, ov^ opas ws Kat iv 
 Tpota dya^ot Trpo? TOV TroAe/xov ^a.v^o'a.v ; 
 
 By translating 6V( 'because' it is just possible to make 
 poor sense of this. Some inferior MSS. add SeiKvuotev dV 
 before 6Vi. Madvig proposed 8^Aov . . . Kat ot 7rat8e? avTov 
 OTI rotovTof rj ofy opas K.T.\. I would rather suggest that 
 the words have got slightly disarranged, as elsewhere, and 
 read 8r)Aov, rjv 8' eyo>, OTI TOIOVTOS rjv KCU. ot TratSes avTov ov^ 
 opas a>s K.T.A. For the position of ov\ opas w? cf. 421 A. 
 [Schneider had already suggested this.] 
 
REPUBLIC 99 
 
 409 D dperr) Se 
 
 Perhaps TratScvo/xeVi; agreeing with 
 
 410 A ttUTOl aTTOKTeVOVO-l. 
 
 Although avTot is found in all MSS. and in Stobaeus, 
 who quotes this passage, it is probable that we should read 
 avrat, referring to at which is the subject of the various 
 future tenses. Plato would not change the subject so 
 awkwardly. 
 
 ibid. B wore /x/^Sev tarpi/d}? Scur&u, oVt /u, 
 Perhaps avdyKy, and also in 441 A. See pp. 57. 
 
 411 A OVKOVV orav /xev Tts /Aowri/q) Trape^ KaTauActv Kat 
 TT}S '/'^X'? 5 (KaravrXetv [/cat /cara^cti'] r^s i/'v^? Cobet) 
 8ia TCOV OJTCDV wcrTrcp Slot x ^^ 5 ^ s v ^ v ^^ ^^'S Aeyo/>ii/ ras 
 yXv/ceias T Kat /xaAaKa? Kat ^pryvwSeis dp/xovtas, Kai /xtvvpt'^wi/ 
 re Kat yeyavco/xeVos VTTO T^S a>8^s StarcA^ TOV /Stov oAov, ovro? 
 TO /AV Trpwrov, L Tt ^v^oetSe? erxK, w(T7rep (rtSrypov c/xaAa^e Kat 
 axprj(TTOv Kal <TK\r)pov fTrofycrw orav 8' eTre^wv /-tr/ 
 dAAa K^ArJ, TO /XCTO, TOVTO ^8>; TrJKCt Kat Aet'/^i, cws av 
 
 TOV OvJLOV Kttl 
 
 The difficulty of this passage lies in the words oVaf 8' 
 ewv /x,^ dvnj dAAa K^A^. I very much doubt whether 
 and KryAi] are right. There is no sufficient evidence 
 for cTre'^av meaning either ' to attend 'or 'to continue,' and 
 the latter sense would be very feeble just before /x^ avirj. 
 Theaet. 165 D TJAcyv^v av eTre^wv Kat OVK dvti"s looks like a 
 close parallel, but it is far from certain that eW^wv there 
 means 'continuing': it may very well be 'attacking,' 
 ' pressing on,' instans. As for KT/AT}, it wants an object 
 and is joined very awkwardly to the neuter verb dvt^. 
 What is worse, it introduces between e/xdAale and T^KCI Kat 
 Aci/?et a quite incongruous metaphor. I doubt still whether 
 7Tx w *' should not be Trape^wv, repeated from orav . . . 
 Trape'xfl above. For KrjX.rj Warren's K^A^rat seems to me 
 now better than StareA^, which I formerly suggested, but it 
 is not altogether convincing. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 REPUBLIC 
 
 ibid. D E jSt'a 8e Kat aypioTijTi worTrcp Bfjpiov Trpos Travra 
 
 If Adam, who suggested Orjpiov Trpos <6rjpLov>' TroWa, 
 was right in conjecturing the loss of a repeated word, 
 <7ravTa> Trpos Travra may be thought of. 
 
 412 C OVKOVV OTI fj.cv 7rpe<r/?VTe'povs TOUS ap^ovTas 8et 
 VWTpovs Se rov<s ctp^o/xevous, S^Xoi/ ; ArJXov. Kat art yc 
 dptcrrovs avrwi' ; Kat TOVTO. Ot Sc yewpywv apicrrot ap' ov 
 yewpytKwrarot yiyvoi/rat ; Nat'. N!i/ 8', omS^ <^vAaKcov aurov? 
 dpt'crrov? Set ti>ai, ap' ov ^vXaKt/cwTarous TrdAews ; Nat. 
 
 In the first place is there any proper construction or 
 sense for TOUS dptorovs avrwv, unless we add something like 
 apxetv after on 1 The rulers are to be older men ; but not 
 all the older men, only the best of them, are actually to 
 rule. Secondly, has it ever been noticed that ot Se yewpywi/ 
 K.T.A.. gives just the inverse of the sense required 1 The 
 point is not that the best husbandmen become most 
 capable, but that the most capable make the best husband- 
 men : the other would be nonsense. In other words 
 yecopyucwTarot has somehow to be subject and ycwpyaJv 
 apiaroi predicate. What should be read is not quite clear ; 
 perhaps simply ot Se ycwpytKWTarot ap' ov ycwpywi/ aprTOt 
 ytyvovrat. In the next sentence we understand of course 
 Set cu/at over again with ^vXaKiKtoTarovs : as they have to 
 become the best possible guardians, they must be by 
 nature the best fitted for this. The <vAa/aK(uTaroi become 
 the (f>v\aK<j)V apiOTOi. 
 
 413 B KXaTreVras /xi> yap TOI>S jaeraTreKr^ei/Tas Xeyoo Kat TOVS 
 art TWI> /xv ^pdi/o?, TCOV 8c Xoyos 
 
 No doubt the words are as Plato wrote them, but how 
 can \av6dvei. be properly affirmed of Xoyos? When my 
 opinions are altered by reasoning, I cannot be unaware 
 of it. 
 
 414 A XayxoYoi/Ta seems impossible. Read 
 
 ibid. D Xey', $77, KOC /ATf <f>oj3ov. Aeyco 877- Katrot OVK oT8a 
 
REPUBLIC} l*"0!^Nwi 
 
 oiroia ToXfJLy r) TTOIOIS Aoyots 
 TrpwTOv /Aev K.T.A. 
 
 Read epw Kat cTrt^ciprjcrw with no stop after pw. 
 
 421 A ct /AV ovi> i^iets /xcv <uAaKa9 w? dA>7$(o 
 7/Ktcrra KaKOvpyovs TT}S TrdAccos, 6 8' CK?VO Acywv yewpyovs Ttvas 
 /cat wcnrep ev Travrjyvpei, dAA' OUK ev TroXct ecrTiaropas evSat/xo- 
 va?, aAAo aV Tt 17 TroAiv Aeyoi. 
 
 In Madvig's cvSai/xov aAAo ai/ TI ^ 7roA.iv Xeyot, adopted by 
 Baiter, I see no advantage, and the evScu/xovcs eoriao^ts of 
 612 A supports the MS. reading. There seems however to 
 be a corruption in the word yewpyovs. The critic cannot 
 be said to be making the guardians yewpyoi 7 . Socrates has 
 indeed just pointed out that ovO' 6 yewpyos yewpyos etrrat 
 OVTC K.T.A. If even the husbandmen will not be real 
 husbandmen, why should the guardians be so 1 The critic 
 does not want to give them any work to do at all. The 
 truth is, yewpyov? is quite out of place and unmeaning 
 here. Possibly Plato wrote dpyovs nms. Notice how 
 often dpyo's and dpyta occur : 421 D, 422 A, 426 A. In Plut. 
 Mor. 795 F ycwpyeiv is corrected to ye apyeu/. Ae'ywv 
 immediately preceding might cause or help the mistake. 
 aAAo av rt rj iroXiv Aeyot is ' he must be speaking of some- 
 thing else ' : cf. Dem. 23. 30, etc. 
 
 423 B TI'S, <>7, opos; Ot/xat /AC^, rjv 8' cyw, ToVSe* /^e'xpi ou 
 av eOeXrj av^ofj,evrj etvat /x,ta, fte^pt TOVTOV au^etv, Trepa 8e /Ary. 
 Kat KaAws y', <^y. 
 
 Is KaAws used thus by itself, like 6p0<os to express 
 assent, or should we read /caAos y', agreeing with opos? 
 Perhaps also Tts, $77, <6> opos ; 
 
 ibid. E rrjv T TWV yvvai/coiv KT^CTIV Kat ydjjuav KOL TraiSo- 
 Troiias. 
 
 Read ya/xovs. So in Plut. Philopoemen 17 Schafer wrote 
 7Tpt ya/xovs (for ya/xcov) Kat 7rap#vwi> 
 
 424 A TToAtTcta edvTTfp a7ra opjArja-rj ev cp^cTat <5(T7rp 
 
 Editors have not been at all successful in explaining 
 this. Adam points out well enough that KVKAos cannot 
 
: REPUBLIC 
 
 mean either a wheel or a circle in water made by some- 
 thing thrown in, and himself understands ' grows like a 
 circle ' to refer to a circle in process of being drawn on 
 paper or otherwise : the circle seems to expand and grow 
 under the hand of the person describing it. He seems to 
 forget that, if this can fairly be said of a circle when being 
 described, it can equally well be said of any other figure, 
 e.g. a square, so that there was no reason why Plato should 
 say 'circle' and not 'figure' in general. But I doubt 
 whether it could naturally be said at all, that is, whether 
 avdVeTat is a fit word to express this meaning. Would it 
 not properly signify the extension, the growing greater, of 
 an already complete circle 1 I do not think wanrcp /cv/cAu> 
 has been suggested. Plato proceeds to explain, though not 
 very clearly nor perhaps logically, in what way the growth 
 may be called circular, namely that good rearing and 
 education secure goodness of nature and then improved 
 nature reacts on rearing and education, making them more 
 efficacious arid productive of still better natures ; and this 
 goes on constantly and progressively. Action and reaction 
 which I think he means make up the circle. So we 
 have not a circle which grows, but things growing in a 
 circular way. 
 
 425 B criyas re TWV vewrepwi/ 7rapa 7rp(r/3irre'/3Ois, as TrpeTrci. 
 
 "As is not good grammar, and o>s, which Stallbaum reads 
 after a few inferior MSS., is rather doubtful grammar. 
 Probably Plato wrote ots (i.e. Trap' ots) irpeVei, just as Dem. 
 57. 24 wrote VTTO TWV arvyyevwv /cat c/>paTepo>i' /cat Siy/xoroov /cat 
 ycvv^Twv, an> TrpocrrjKfi : Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 32 Trap' dv^ptoTrois 
 ots Trpoa-^KfL '. Thuc. 1. 28. 2 vrapa 7roA.e<riv ats ai/ tt/x<oTepoi 
 vfJL/3u)(riv. Cf. 402 A ev aTracriJ/ ots (i.e. Iv ots) co-n Trept- 
 <epo/xeva : 520 D ev TrdXet 77, etc, Ots TrpeTret is put in, 
 because it is only r to elders of their own classr that it 
 becomes the young aristocrats to show this respect. Cf. 
 Xen. Anab. 1. 9. 5 rots re Trpeo-^vrepots KCU Toh> cavrov 
 /x.aAAov ireiQtaOat. In the Ethics 9. 2. 1 1 65 a 27 
 l T<3 7rpeo-/3vTep(i) we must not press iravrL. 
 
 426 A tarpevo/xevot yap ouSev TrepatVovo-ti/, -x\r)V ye Trot/ctXco- 
 
REPUBLIC 103 
 
 /cat //,ei'a) TTOIOUCTI TO. vocrrjuara, /cat del tXiTL^ovTes, eav Tts 
 <f>dpuaKOV crvufiovXevcrfl, VTTO TOUTOU eo-ecr$at vytets. 
 
 The confusion of this passage seems to admit of remedy 
 by transposition. Put /cat det . . . vytets after taTpevo'/zevot 
 yap. If the words were in the right order, we might expect 
 Kat <rai)Ta> act eX7rt'ovTes. 
 
 ibid. C Trpoayopeuovo-t . . . rrjv /xei> Kara.crra.crLV TI)S 
 fJLr] KLVflv . . . os & av or</>as . . . ^epaTrevrj . . . OVTOS dpa dya#os 
 T Icrrat dvr)p /cat /c.r.X. 
 
 Read ovros <ws> apa, comparing for the order 377 E o re 
 av Kpoi'os (Jos frLfJLOiprjcraro avrov : Xen. Andb. 2. 2. 20 Trpo- 
 ayopevovcrw . . . os av K.T.\. ort X^crat aiaOov : 7. 1. 11 
 os av K.r.X. ort atros avrov atTido-erat and ^6itZ. 36 
 os at/ K.r.X. ort 
 
 i^. D E Should we write otov T' <av> etvat (or otov T' 
 tti/at <av>) dvSpt, and OVK av in the answer 1 
 
 428 A The words OUK aXXo ert rjv T) TO v7ro\L(j>Ocv seem also 
 to need the addition of av. They refer to what would have 
 been in an imaginary case. 
 
 ibid. TrpurroV ye /x,ot So/cet ei/ avru Kard$r)Xov etvai 17 o*o^>ta. 
 
 There is nothing whatever preceding for eV avT<3 to refer 
 to. Perhaps we may read eV avruv, just as we have a few 
 lines above et o> n efyrovutv avruv and 429 A TOVTO /xev ST; 
 ei/ T<3i/ reTTapwi/. Laws 882 A eV TOVTO is now read for eV 
 TorVo), and below in 436 A TOU'TW is certainly a mistake for 
 TOVTWV, TOVTO) being meaningless. 
 
 [The schol. on Ar. Wasps 120 runs ets TO Kaivov 
 e/x7reo-o)v : TOTTOS ev TW StKao-Tr/pto) OVTW Xeyo/xevos* <t(ri 6e &', 
 napd^8uo-Toi/, Kati/ov, Tptywvoi', Mecrov. Should we not read 
 TOTTOS (?) tv TWV $iKacrTr)pi<t)v ouTw Xeyo/xevov ? The singular 
 T<3 St/cao-TT/ptw can hardly be right, and etVt with the neuters 
 following must refer to St/cao-T^pia, not to 
 
 ibid. D For avTr? fj <f>vX.aKiKrj read avrrj. It has not been 
 mentioned before. 
 
104 REPUBLIC 
 
 430 B jiOcfjicu, ei /xry TL &v aXXo Xeyas. 'AXX' ov8ev, T; 8' 
 os, Xeyco. 
 
 dXX' may be right (cf. c) but should we not read d'XAo 
 
 ibid. D Socrates proposing to omit the discussion of 
 temperance and go on at once to justice, cyco /xei/ TOI'VW, 
 says Grlaucon, ovre oI8a OVT' av fiovXoifJirjv avro TrpoTcpoi/ 
 
 As the question is not of taking justice first, but of 
 omitting temperance altogether, TrpoVepoi/ is illogical and 
 should perhaps be omitted. 
 
 ibid. E Kooyxos TTOV TIS, rfv 8' cyoj, 17 (ra)<j>pO(Tvvr) farrl KOLL 
 i^Sovtuv Tivoiv Kat tTTiGvfJiii&v eyKpareto, cos <f>a.(TL, /cpetTTO) 8?y 
 avrot) <f>a.LvovTa.L OVK oT8' oVriva rpoTrov, KCU aX\a arra Tota^Ta 
 wcrTrcp ?X V7 7 a ^T>5s Aeyerai. 
 
 Paris A has <^atVovrat with yp. Xeyovres in the margin. 
 Some edd. have written KpciTrw 8r/ avrov Xeyovre? on the 
 strength of this and of a few MSS. which actually have 
 that reading. Madvig's proposed ^>atVovra, though of 
 course grammatically possible, is most awkward in sense. 
 It is clear that we need a participle, not a verb, and 
 probable, I think, that aTro^aiVovrcs is the word wanted. 
 Aeyovres does not account for the appearance of <f>aivovTai. 
 The use of dTro^aiVctv in the sense of ' making out,' 'repre- 
 senting,' needs no illustration. 
 
 432 C aXXa /xaXXov, eav /xot eTro/xevu) xpf) KOL TO. 
 8Dva/xeVa> Ka^opav, TTOLVV /x,oi /xerpiws ^p^(Tt. "ETTOV, rjv 8' eyw, 
 v^ayu,vos /ACT' Cyuo9. not^cra) ravra, aXXa JJ.QVOV, rj 8' os, fjyov. 
 Kat /XT^V, ctTTOV yw, 8t'o*/?aTos ye TIS 6 TOTTOS ^>aiVerai Kai 
 7rr/os' to"Tt yow O-/COTCIVOS Kat Svo-Sifpew^Tos* aXXa yap 
 o/xa>s ireov. 
 
 Travv /xoi //.erpiajs ^p^" t (f 101 i s found only in A and one 
 or two other MSS.) would naturally mean * You will treat 
 me very fairly,' as in Ep. 3. 314 D, while the sense needed 
 is ' You will find me a very fair companion, as companions 
 go.' Cf. 474 A to- cos av aXXov TOV e/x/xeXto-repov o~oi (XTro/cpivoi- 
 ftrjv. That sense would be given more clearly and perhaps 
 more correctly, if we were to read vow /otoi 
 

 REPUBLIC 105 
 
 like the eav poi cTro/xeVw XPTI- Cf. Plut. Alcib. 14 (198 A) 
 et /3ov\(r@ xpriara(r6ai ju,Tpiois 'A^rat'ots. The verb CTTOU 
 seems to call for an ow to follow it, and the repetition of 
 ov accounts for the omission. 
 
 The words rrt . . . Svo-StepevVr/Tos are so entirely a 
 repetition of those preceding that I formerly proposed to 
 omit them. I would suggest now that they be given to 
 Glaucon as a remark in assent. Then Socrates goes on 
 with a\\a /c.T.A. 
 
 433 A /cat fMrjv 6Vt ye TO TO, avrov Trpdrrtw KOL fjirj TTO\V- 
 Trpay/x-ovctv Si/caiooaV?7 eo-Tt, /cat TOVTO aAAwv re TroAXcui/ 
 d/cr7/coa/x,v /cat avVot 7roAAa/as ctpT7/ca/xei>. 
 
 As the text stands, it would certainly seem that the 
 inference announced in TOVTO roivvv K.T.A. is already stated 
 in KO.I fji^v OTL K.T.A. , which from its form (*at /ATJV) is yet 
 evidently only a step in the reasoning. What in the later 
 sentence is said to be fj SiKaioo-vvrj is already said to be 
 SiKaLoarvvr) in the earlier. Now it is quite true that the 
 use of the article expresses a more close correspondence 
 and identity of things than the predication of a substantive 
 without the article ; but it seems hardly likely that Plato 
 meant to lay so much stress on the article here. The 
 meaning certainly is that, whereas doing your own work 
 has often been described as just (i.e. one just thing among 
 many), we may now take it to be absolutely coextensive 
 and identical with justice. It is justice, and justice 
 consists in it. Doubting whether Plato would have 
 trusted to the absence and presence of an article to make 
 this distinction plain (cf. Ar. Anal. Priora 1. 40) I 
 suggest that we should read Si'/ccuoV ecm for BiKaioo-vvrj IvrL 
 [Adam's o-u<j>po<Tvvr) for Si/ccuoo-uV>7 seems less likely.] 
 
 ibid. D evov Kat ei> TratSt Kat fV yvvaiKL KOL SovAu) KCLI 
 eAei^e'po) KCU Srjfuovpyu KOL ap^ovri /cat dp^o/xei/a). 
 
 Here we have three pairs and (fy/uoupyo) standing alone. 
 Obviously /cat yctopyw is to be inserted and the omission 
 put down to homoeoteleuton. For the antithesis of 
 ycwpyot and (fy/xiovpyot see 415 A and c (where very 
 curiously one MS. omits r) ts yctopyovs and Stallbaum 
 omits it too without comment) : 466 B, etc. In Plut. Mor. 
 
106 REPUBLIC 
 
 853 E OUTC TIS tfj-driov tt/xa ravrov dvSpl KCU ywat/d /cat, 
 Kat yepoFTt Kat OLKorpLJSi Trpeirov liroLrjcrev is not a pair for KCU 
 oiKorpipi, e.g. KOL eA.eu$epa> or Kat Seo-TroVfl, missing 1 See 
 my Aristophanes and Others, p. 321. 
 
 434 A Codex q seems to me right in reading rj before 
 Trai/To, raXXa and therefore probably also in rd ye roiavra 
 after raXXa. 
 
 ibid. D [Afjclev TTW TTO.VV TToyicos avro Aeyoo/xer, dAA' eat> jtxev 
 fjjJLiv KCU ei? ra eKacrrov rail/ av^pcoTrwv ior TO etoos TOVTO 
 6/AoA.oyjyrai Kat e/cer SiKaiocrvvr] etvat, ^vy^wprjcrofJi^Oa TJOI'). 
 
 It is not the etSos which goes or turns to individual men. 
 It is they, the inquirers, who turn to individuals to see 
 whether the same eT3o9 constitutes justice there. For I6v 
 read lova-iv. So we have in E 7nxva<e'p<o//,ej/ ets rot/ eVa 
 (again et?, because literal going to a man is not meant) and 
 cTravtovres eVt TT?V TroXiv. Add Phaedo 65 E. Cf. to some 
 extent Badham's correction of etSos . . . I6v in Phaednis 
 249 B and my own suggestion that in Dem. 23. 143 we 
 should read cv Trototio-tv for cv TTOIOW. 
 
 436 D ws ov Kara Tavra eavrtov ra rotavra Tore ^.ei/oi^rwv re 
 KCU </>epOjueVa>v. 
 
 I formerly proposed to read TWV TOLOVTW, but should, I 
 think, now be content to explain TO. roiavra as in such 
 cases. Cf. ra TroXXd in most cases, ra Trporepa in former 
 times (Thuc. 1. 2. 1), etc. Against Adam's explanation is 
 the fact that the precise parts or aspects, TO evOv and TO 
 e's, have not yet been mentioned. 
 
 437-38 On this section of the dialogue the comment- 
 ators are very unsatisfactory, and I do not find one who 
 treats two essential points in what seems to me the right 
 way. Nettleship probably meant it, but his meaning is 
 not made clear. 
 
 First why does Plato go into the difference between 
 simple and qualified desires at all 1 The question is not 
 as Adam supposes why desire, thirst in the instance taken, 
 should be or ought to be restrained. The only thing con- 
 sidered is the analysis of what takes place in the mind, 
 
REPUBLIC 107 
 
 when desire is restrained. But what is the point of the 
 analysis, and why does Plato lay so much stress upon it ? 
 I should have thought this fairly clear, if it were not so 
 often missed. He has to insist on taking the desire to 
 drink simpliciter and not a desire for some particular kind 
 of drink, that he may get a clear issue. If the desire were 
 for some particular drink, it might be said that the cause 
 of the man's not drinking was that he could not get the 
 exact drink he wanted, e.g. that he could only get water, 
 when he wanted wine. But if it is simply for drink, that 
 is, if he is simply thirsty, and yet does not drink, it is no 
 accidental hindrance of this kind, no external circumstance, 
 but the action of his own reason, which (according to 
 Plato, or rather, in the dialogue, to Socrates) stops him 
 from indulging his desire. The object then of drawing 
 the distinction between simple and qualified desires is to 
 get an instance in which accidental external hindrances do 
 not exist. It is not a case of a man being at once thirsty 
 and hot, so that he wants something cold, or thirsty and 
 cold, so that he wants something hot : he is simply thirsty 
 and only wants drink. 
 
 The second point is the ayaOov (439 A) or xPW r v VOTOV 
 (438 A), which seems generally understood of drink that 
 is really good for us. It is not that, but merely drink 
 good of its kind, whatever its kind may be, or drink good 
 as drink. The reason why Plato will not allow us to say 
 that thirst is a desire for good drink is the same as before. 
 The epithet good confuses the issue. It might be said that 
 the real cause of the man's not drinking was that the 
 drink available was not good of its kind. But, if a man is 
 really thirsty, he does not much care whether it is good of 
 its kind or not. Cf. 475 c. Thirst pure and simple is for 
 drink pure and simple, not for good drink any more than 
 for this or that special kind of drink. The whole argu- 
 ment leads up to the intervention of reason as distinct 
 from any other check or obstacle. 
 
 438 A /xrp-ot, (/AT) roiwv V) Tis, rjv 8' ey<u, dcrK7rroi>s 17/Aas 
 ovras Gopv/3r)(rr], ws OL'Sets TTOTOV fTTiOvfMfi aAAa ^prjcrrov TTOTOV, 
 Kai ov (TLTOv aAAa xprjcrTOv CTLTOV. TrdVres yap apa TCOV dya0a>v 
 
 7TL@VfJLOVCrLV. 
 
108 REPUBLIC 
 
 Probably Adyos should be added to TIS in the first part of 
 this. Cf. 465 E OVK oZ8a OTOV Adyos ly^uv ctreirXy^fv : PhdedT. 
 245 B /x^Se' TIS fjjjLas Aoyos OopvfitLTw ws K.T.A. : Pltil. 13 A 
 Adyos o8eis a/x<ur/2r7TT5 : Dem. 21. 141 ra^a roiVvv Kat 
 TOIOVTOS TIS ??ei Trpos 17/xas Adyos. Without Aoyos the <us is 
 wanting in construction. 6 ravra Aeyooi/ below is fairly 
 implied in Aoyos. The last words would give a much 
 clearer sense, if we might read TTCIJ/TCS yap apa Trdvrwv 
 dyaOwv eViflv/xovo-ii/ : ' anyone desiring anything desires it 
 good.' Unless ayaO&v can be made a predicate, the point 
 is lost. In Herod. 3. 89 dyaOd o-<t TrdWa 
 some good MSS. have rd for 
 
 439 A TO 8e 8^ St'i/^os, ^v 8' eyw, ov TOVTCOV ^o-is TOJV rivos 
 Tvat TOI)TO oTrep eo-riV; eo-rt Se 8^?rov 8ti^os. eywye, '*/ 8' os> 
 Trw/xaros ye. 
 
 One or two plausible conjectures have been offered on 
 the first part of this ; it is with the later part I am now 
 concerned, eo-rt 8e ST^TTOV 8u//os is very flat as a statement 
 and entirely superfluous. Burnet prints it after Jowett 
 and Campbell as an incomplete statement, interrupted by 
 Glaucon, but Adam asks reasonably why Glaucon should 
 be in such a hurry. I conjecture that something is lost 
 after these words, e.g. eVitftyxia TIS, giving in part the oVcp 
 eo-TiV of thirst. tTrt^u/xia and cTrt^v/xw have been used from 
 437 B onwards. Cf. Philebus 34 E ap' ow TO 8u//os e'oriv 
 fTTLOvfjiia ; i/at', 7T<o/>taTos ye, the resemblance of which to our 
 passage is very marked. In 437 D ap' ow K.T.A. it is 
 possible that One 8ii//a should be iiriOvfLia. 
 
 Especially in view of the Philebus passage, I should not 
 be surprised to find that Plato really put these sentences 
 in a different order : TO 8e 8r) Su^os ov TOUTCDV Orja-tis . . . oVep 
 co-TtV ; ''Eywye, rj 8* os. "Eo-T6 8e S^TTOV 8tt/^o 
 (cf . on 407 A above) LIoj/xaTos ye. 
 
 ibid. E dAA', ^v 8' eyw, TroTe a,KOUo-as Tt Trto-Tevto TOVTO), ws 
 apa K.T.A. 
 
 1 TOVTO) A F D : TOVTO M Galenus Stobaeus ' Burnet. 
 Perhaps TOVTO is nearer the truth and we should read 
 TOIOVTOV, referring (as it sometimes does) to what is coming. 
 Toirru> seems against Greek idiom, which usually governs a 
 
REPUBLIC 109 
 
 word by the participle and leaves the verb without any 
 direct object expressed. 
 
 440 C Tt Se oral/ aSiKtlcrOai Tt? fjyfJTai ; OVK tv TOvYa> ct re 
 Kat ^aX^TratVet Kat o-v/x/xa^et TO> SOKOVVTI StKatu>, Kat 8ta TO 
 Kat 8ta TO ptywv Kat TravTa TO. TOtavTa vraa'^etv, 
 vtKa Kat ou Xryyct Tail/ yei/yatwv, irpiv av rj 
 
 77 ucnrep KU'<OV VTTO vo/xea>s VTTO TOV Xoyou TOV ?rap' 
 
 In this there are at least two considerable difficulties, 
 (1) the meaning of Kat 8ia TO Travel/ K.T.A., (2) the reading 
 and the sense in Kat vTro/xeVwv vtKa K.T.X. As to (2), what 
 does vTro/xeVwv refer to 1 and how can it be said generally of 
 such a case that the man conquers (viKa), when it is 
 immediately added that he sometimes loses his life in the 
 struggle and sometimes is appeased? Difficulty (1) is well 
 got over by Adam's proposal to transpose Kat 8ta . . . n-ao-xeti', 
 so that those words shall follow ^aXen-atVet. They are 
 obviously inappropriate to o-v/x/xa^et TO> SOKOWTI StKatw, but 
 suit the earlier words, just as in the preceding sentence a 
 man conscious of being in the wrong was said not to resent 
 cold and hunger as punishments. Here no doubt hunger 
 and cold constitute the dSi'^/xa done to himself which 
 makes him indignant. Should not difficulty (2) be removed 
 by another transposition of words 1 vTro/xeVwv Kat vtKa 
 should, I think, follow StaTrpa^Tat (i.e. TTOIV av 17 Sia7Tpa/7rai 
 {jTTo/xeycov Kat viKa rj TeXevT^o-^), vTro/xei/wv meaning that he 
 maintains the struggle. It may be thought that vtKrJo-^ 
 would be more proper than VIKO, if this were the order of 
 words, but we may remember that the present tense of this 
 verb is often used in preference to a past tense in the sense 
 of being the victor. 
 
 If these transpositions are approved, they will perhaps 
 make a third less improbable. I conjecture that TWV 
 yevvaiW (for which, as being very feeble, I formerly 
 suggested ayavaKTuV) should be put in the first clause of the 
 sentence after ^y^rai. It will then be masculine depending 
 on TIS, and will correspond pretty closely to oo-u> av yevvatd- 
 
 pos y (i.e. Tts) in the sentence preceding. 
 
 The whole passage will then run : TI 8' oTav dSiKeur0ai TIS 
 TUV yevvatwv ; OVK ev TOV'TW et T Kat xaXtTraiWi Kat Sta 
 
110 REPUBLIC 
 
 TO TTtivrjv Kat Sta TO ptywv Kat irdvTa TO. TOtavTa Trao-^tv, Kat ov 
 Ar^yet rrpiv av 77 StaTrpa^riTai uTro/xej/wv Kat vtKa 77 TeAevTr^crTj 77 
 KUOOV . . 
 
 442 B e7ro'/xei/ov 877 (for 8c) ? Possibly the ovoe in 328 c 
 should be ov 877, but I am not convinced that ovSe is 
 wrong. 
 
 443 A TToAewv may be right, but TroAews would seem more 
 natural, as he is speaking of one man (OUTOS). The plural 
 may be due to eTatpwv preceding. 
 
 445 B oo-ov otoV Te K.T.A. Should oo-ov be ws? Of. on 
 390 B above. 
 
 449 B Tt tiaAto-Ta, e^Tiv, vticls OUK d<^>iTe ; !e, rj 8' 05. 
 "ETI eyw clTrov, Tt ttaAto"Ta ; 
 
 The first Tt /xdAiora should surely be Ttva /xaAio-Ta, va 
 having fallen out perhaps through /xa following ; just as in 
 Laws 682 c, where Tt /xaKpov xpwoi/ stands for Ttva /xaKpov 
 XpoVov. Gory. 448 B Tt and TtVa both have authority and 
 ibid. 489 D TL must be corrected with Routh to TtWg. Tt 
 /xaAto-Ta is the common phrase, but other parts of the 
 pronoun are found: Soph. 0. C. 652 TOV /xaAtoV OKI/OS o-' 
 l^et ; Antiphanes 202. 3 ev TtVt ToVcu /xaAto-Ta; Lucian 41. 2 
 'Opeo-TT/f . . . TtVo? /xaAio-Ta ^av/xao-avTes K.T.A. ; Ar. -Mie. 
 996 b 3 TtVa /xaAio-Ta TOV Trpay/xaros 7rto-Tr;t<,ova (but perhaps 
 itciAio-Ta goes rather with e7rio-T7;/xoi/a). 
 
 *&i^. D /xeya yap Ti oto/xc^a <epetv Kat oAov cts 7roAtTtav 
 op$<os 77 /XT^ op^tus ytyvottevoj'. 
 
 Read yiyvo/xe'vT/v, agreeing with Koti/wv't'ai/. 
 
 450 B /xeVpov 8e y', $77, w ^wKpaTcs, 6 TAavKoov, TOIOVTWV 
 Ao'ycuv aKOUti/ oAos 6 /3i'os vow e^ovo-tv. 
 
 Read <TOV> TOIOUTWV Ao'ywv aKoueiv, or possibly <o>s> 
 T. A. d. The cause of either omission is obvious. 
 
 D f.v yap <povt/xots T Kat <^iAot? Trcpt TWV /x 
 Kat ^tAwv TaX-rjOyj et8oTa Aeyctv do-<^aA9 Kat OappaXeov. 
 
 Perhaps <j>i\Ta.TO)v, though ^>tAcov may be defended as 
 corresponding to </>Aots. 
 
REPUBLIC 111 
 
 452 A jJLOV(TlKr) /X 
 
 Both /xeV and re are here misused. Either 
 
 KlVoiS y Or e/CClVotS /XCV <OVV> //OVCri/Cry T WOuld g!V6 
 
 good sense. As dTroStSw/xi, and not the simple verb, is used 
 over and over again in the context, and seems moreover 
 the verb required, we should probably read 
 
 ibid. C eSoKei alarxpa eti/at KCU yeAota . . . yv/j.vov<s avSpas 
 KOU, ore v)p\ovro TCUV yvftvacrtiav Trptorot ;uei/ Kp^rcs, 
 Aa/ceSat/xovtot, ej)v /c.r.A. 
 
 Herwerden has pointed out that TWV yv/xvao-tW is not 
 enough to express the idea intended, and has suggested 
 rtuv <TOIOVTO>I'> yvfjivao-Luv. It occurs to me as possible that 
 Plato wrote TWI/ <yv/x.vwi/> yv/xvacriwv. Just above (A B) 
 we have yv/xj/as . . . yv/xva^o^ieVa?. Cf. Ar. Problem. 38. 3 
 ot yvfjivol Spojjioi : Pind. P. 11. 49 yvfjivbv CTTI (rraStov : Mart. 
 7. 72. 9 de trigone nudo : and Xtuapas TraXat'crrpas Theocr., 
 nitida and wrccto palaestra Ovid. But most of these are 
 from poets. 
 
 454 D Socrates propounds the paradox that men and 
 women ought to have the same occupations, and that 
 difference of sex should not entail any difference of work. 
 He then proposes to see what can be said on the other 
 side. Surely (some one may say) such a system would be 
 inconsistent with the great pervading and fundamental 
 principle laid down by ourselves for our state, that 
 different natures should have different kinds of work to do. 
 Men and women evidently differ in nature : how then can 
 it be right to set them both to the same work without 
 making allowance for sex 1 This is apparently a forcible 
 argument ; but it may be met (he continues) as follows. 
 When we said that difference of nature should entail 
 difference of work, of course we did not mean every 
 conceivable natural difference, however trifling or however 
 immaterial under the circumstances it might be. In a 
 sense there is a difference of nature between a bald man 
 and a man with a good head of hair. But no one would 
 contend that, if bald men are engaged in the work of 
 making shoes, men with plenty of hair are unfit for shoe- 
 making and must have some other work found for them. 
 
112 REPUBLIC 
 
 The difference in the person which requires a difference in 
 the employment is some really material difference bearing 
 upon the employment in question, not a difference in some 
 irrelevant respect. In his own words, rore ov TravTws rrjv 
 avrrjv /cat rrjv crepav <f>vcrw eTt$e')U0a, aAA.' e/ceiVo TO cTSo? rfjs 
 aAA.otu)O"a>s TC /cat oju-otwcreco? p.6vov e<j!>uA.aTTO/xev TO Trpos avTa 
 Ttvov TO. cTTtTr/Scv/xaTa. After some words apparently 
 intended to illustrate what sameness and difference of 
 nature really are, he goes on to say : If men and women 
 really differ as regards employments, of course we must 
 find different employments for them ; but, if the difference 
 is purely one of sex, it does not follow that the same 
 employments are not suitable for both. Now, as a matter 
 of fact, there are no employments in which women are 
 preeminent. Certain women may do certain things better 
 than certain men ; but, speaking generally, men excel 
 women at everything, even at occupations deemed especially 
 feminine. In a word, men are more ev<f>vel<s (455 B) for 
 everything than women. Women therefore should have 
 no especial work of their own, but do just the same things 
 as men, only leaving to men those things or parts of things 
 that require great bodily strength. 
 
 In all this argument, though perhaps not sound logically, 
 there is no difficulty. The difficulty is in the words 
 containing what seems meant as an illustration of sameness 
 and difference in nature, and following immediately on the 
 Greek words quoted above : olov la.rpLK.ov /xev /ecu larpLKrjv 
 Tr/v (f/vxyv ovra rrjv avrrjv <f>va"iv %X LV eXeyo/xev f) ov/c out ; 
 "Eywye. 'laTpj/cov 8e /cat TCKTOVt/cov aAXiyv ; IlavTws TTOV. 
 For larpLKov /xev the first hand in A has larpiKuv /xeV. On 
 taTpi/cr/v rrjv \l/v\r)v ovra Baiter's note is ' la.rpiKov ryv tyvxyv 
 ovra. codices aliquot interpolati : larpiKrjv rr]v i/^u^^v ovTa 
 accommodationis errore A : larpiK^v rrjv I//V^T)V e^oi/ra alii : 
 larpLKrjv (mulierem) rrjv \f/vxrjv 6Was H' (i.e. K. F. Hermann). 
 
 Hermann's reading cannot be right, because it , assumes 
 the very point that Socrates is concerned to prove the 
 identity of the male and female natures as regards a given 
 occupation. The words almost immediately following, /cat 
 TO TWI> avSpttiv /cat TO TCOV yvrai/cwv yevos, seem in themselves 
 to show that women have not yet been mentioned, for the 
 first Kat is also. So too 455 E dAA' CO-TI yap, oT/xat, w? 
 
REPUBLIC 113 
 
 /cat yvvrj tarpiKr/. Bekker's larpov for the first 
 (adopted by Stallbaum) must be wrong, because 
 there is no plausibility in identifying the larpos and the 
 tarpiKo?, the medical man and the man with a turn or taste 
 for medicine. An larpos is not necessarily larptKos nor 
 vice versa. There may seem more plausibility in larpi/cryv 
 rrjv tyvxr]v e^ovra, for the tarpiKos and the larpLKrjv TYJV ij/v^rjv 
 tXw ar e indeed the same. But they are so completely and 
 so obviously the same that their idenlity need not be 
 stated, throws no light on the subject, and suggests no 
 inference. Just the same may be said of iarpiKov ^kv KOI 
 iarpiKov rrjv ij/v^rjv ovra. Schneider found a difference 
 between the two men thus described, and Baiter, who gave 
 this reading, presumably saw some difference also. But 
 the two expressions mean just the same thing. We might 
 of course say that mrpi/cos referred to body as well as 
 mind ; but then the two men would be different, and 
 Socrates could not say they were the same. 
 
 Let us try to see what Plato might naturally give as an 
 instance to the point. An tarpiKos (he says) and a 
 Te/cToviKos, a man with a turn for medicine and one with a 
 turn for carpentering, are different in nature ; but an 
 carpi/cos and x are in nature the same. What is x likely 
 to be 1 An tarpuco?, I think, who has some characteristic 
 which does not alter his larpt/o) <vVis into something else, 
 or some characteristic which has no bearing upon it of any 
 kind. Socrates might, for instance, keeping his former 
 illustration, have said that an tarpiKos and a TCKTOVIKOS were 
 different, but an tarpiKos and an tarpi/cos with a bald head 
 the same, the same that is for the purposes of tarpiK^, the 
 same when you were considering to what employment to 
 put them. This is only one illustration among many that 
 might be imagined ; but it seems probable that Plato here 
 mentioned some species of tarptko's, saying that an [arpiKos 
 and an larptKos of such and such a kind were for our 
 purpose the same, while men with different bents were for 
 our purpose different. 
 
 I believe however that we can go further than this and 
 fix with some probability on the precise word that is 
 missing. Plato probably wrote tarpiKov /xev KCU larpiKov 
 
 rrjv if/v^rjv ovra. evc^viys, which the hearers of 
 
 I 
 
114 REPUBLIC 
 
 Socrates would think he used casually and without ulterior 
 object, is exactly the right word to lead up to the subse- 
 quent argument founded on the ev^v'ta of men as against 
 women. If v<vi'a, added to a natural bent or fitness, does 
 not alter the nature of it, then men and women, who only 
 differ in ev<f>vta (455 B-D), have not that difference of 
 nature which calls for a difference of employment. But, 
 while there is this intrinsic fitness about the word etx^v^s 
 if inserted here, it also seems distinctly implied in 455 B 
 that the word evfarjs has already been used in the course 
 of this particular argument. The passage runs thus : 
 ovv 8ta)//.0a, TOV ra TOIOLVTO. avriAeyovros d/coAov^rycrcu 
 eav TTWS ^/xets c/cetVa) evSct^w/Ae^a on ouSev ecrriv eTrtT/y- 
 loiov yvvaiKL Trpo? OLOIK-TJO-IV TroAews ; lidvv ye. "Wi 817, 
 
 TTpOS aUToV, O.TTOKpLVOV apct OUTCOS tAeyCS TOV fMV V<f>VOi 
 
 Trpos Tt elrai, TOV oc. a<va, iv w 6 /xei/ paSuos rt (JiO.v9a.voL, 6 Se 
 XaAcTrtus K.T.A. ; The imperfect eAeyes and wpt^ov six lines 
 later must refer to something said, implied, or meant in a 
 former passage. Now the imaginary objector (6 dvnAeycav) 
 has not actually been supposed to speak before, but 
 Socrates has done it for him (453 A), and the reference in 
 lAeyes can only be to something that has been said between 
 453 A and 455 B. Within these limits the word tvcftvrjs is 
 not used nor hinted at, as the text stands ; but, if inserted 
 before rr?v if/vxyv oWa, it would make lAeyc? perfectly 
 intelligible. There is another imperfect in the very 
 sentence I am proposing to emend (otov iarpiKov /xei/ KOL 
 larpiKOV <.tv(f>va> rr/v \j/v^v ovra rrjv avrrjv <f>vcriv cx etv 
 eAeyo/xev) which at first sight tells against the proposal. 
 It too refers to something preceding, and seems at first 
 sight to say that the proposition (whatever it may be) has 
 already been laid down. But eAeyo/xev does not really 
 mean as much as this. It only means ' when we talked of 
 natures different and the same, we meant for instance that 
 an tarpiKo? and x were the same in nature, while an larpiKos 
 and a TCKTOVLKOS were different.' It would of course be 
 easy to read A-eyo/xcv for e'Aeyo/xcv, but eAeyo/xev will bear 
 this meaning and there is no occasion for change. 
 
 Perhaps it may be thought that the mrpiKos and the 
 larpi/cos v<f>vr)s rrjv i/^xr/v wv are not clearly distinct persons 
 any more than, as I have argued above, the larptKos and 
 
REPUBLIC 115 
 
 the larpLKos rrjv ^vxyv. I am not sure whether evcpva, if 
 right, refers to general or special ability and fitness, but in 
 either case there is a clear difference between the two men. 
 In the first case a man may have some turn and taste for 
 medicine without being an able man. This is a matter of 
 common experience. In the second case the lorpiKos and 
 the evfays Trpos rrjv larpiKrjv differ as the positive and 
 superlative differ, as the politician from the statesman 
 and the poetaster from the poet. 
 
 For v(j>vrjs rr]v \}/v^r]v wv compare 409 E TOVS /xci/ curvets 
 TO. crco/xara /cat TOIS i//u;\as ' 491 E ra i^i^as . . . Tas cv<f>v(TT<i- 
 ras : and other passages. 
 
 Finally some slight confirmation of the proposal to insert 
 fvcfrva may perhaps be found in Aristotle, who writes in 
 Met. 3. 1. 1003 b 1, distinguishing various senses of 
 ittTpt/cos, as follows : TO /xey yap TU> e^eiv rr/v larpi/c^v Aeycrat 
 tarpiKov, TO Se TO) ev<ves etvat Trpos avT-tjr, TO 8e T<O epyov elyai 
 TT;S larpLK^<s. The distinction between TO ex etl/ T ^ v taTptKr^v 
 and TO curves elrai Trpos iWpiKrJv is apparently not the same 
 as that I suppose to be drawn by Plato, but Aristotle is so 
 often indebted to Plato, even for his illustrations, that he 
 might very well be thinking of the passage before us. On 
 the other hand, his use of the words may be pure accident, 
 as he is always fond of illustrations drawn from medicine. 
 
 ibid, eav fJLV Trpos TC^V^V TWO. rj aAAo TriT^8evyu,a Sta^epov 
 
 Read Sia^e'peiv, as in the next sentence, or Sia<f>fpovTa. 
 Sia<epov cannot be used of two subjects. 
 
 455 D aXyOrj, (77, Ae'yeis, on iro\v KparelraL fv a-rracrLV) 
 ITTOS eiTretv, TO yeVos TOV ye'vovs- 
 
 Unless some other example can be given of /c 
 with a genitive, Kpard for Kparflrai would seem probable. 
 It also keeps the two sexes in the order in which they 
 were previously mentioned. In Isocr. 18. 17 all the MSS. 
 have iKpartLTO for e 
 
 457 B TtfleVTcs 1 But the accusative is sometimes irregu- 
 larly used. See for instance 547 B c, if right. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 REPUBLIC 
 
 ibid, c Xeyc 87), tSo). 
 
 I formerly suggested aye (Cobet <e'pe) for Ae'ye, but now 
 would read A eye S?j, <lv> iSco, supposing similarity to have 
 caused omission. 
 
 458 B <Ti<li{/ofA.ai . . . TTWS OLa.Ta.ovo~LV . . . KCU OTL K.T.\. 
 
 Should OTL be ei 1 It is whether the fact is so that he is 
 going to consider. But there may be a confusion of con- 
 sidering with maintaining. 
 
 459 C ur//,ei/ OTL avSpeiorepov Set TOV laTpov. 
 
 How dvSpeios can be used of wholly intellectual qualities 
 (a difficulty which the editors do not explain and which 
 formerly led me to think alteration necessary) may be seen 
 perhaps from Soph. 306 E, where it is explained that all 
 the more active and vigorous faculties fall generically 
 under the head of dvSpeia. 
 
 ibid. E foil. Plato gives us the arrangements which are 
 to take the place of marriage in his state. On certain 
 festival days men and women covertly chosen by the 
 guardians, though seemingly selected by lot, are to be 
 joined in a union not lasting longer than the festivals 
 themselves. There will not be more unions than are 
 sufficient, taking one thing with another, to maintain the 
 number of the male population ; but nothing is said at 
 first about prohibiting unions between near relations. 
 The children are to be taken from their mothers and so 
 brought up by the state that relationship to particular 
 parents shall remain unknown. No child will know its 
 parents, no parents their children. Men are to be eligible 
 for these regular and legal unions between the ages of 25 
 and 55, women between 20 and 40. When they have 
 passed these ages and ceased 'bearing children to the 
 state ' (TLKTCLV Trj TroAei or ytvvav Trj TroAet), they are to be at 
 liberty to form irregular unions, any possible offspring of 
 which is to be suppressed. 
 
 It is at this point that restrictions on the ground of 
 relationship are first mentioned. A man, it is said, may 
 form one of these irregular unions with any woman he 
 pleases except daughter, granddaughter, mother, and 
 
REPUBLIC 117 
 
 grandmother ; and a woman with any man she pleases, not 
 being son, grandson, father, or grandfather. 1 Brothers and 
 sisters are not mentioned in this particular sentence, where 
 the forbidden degrees are first given. 
 
 Hereupon Glaucon naturally asks how, considering the 
 arrangements made, father and daughter, mother and son 
 are to be known. Socrates answers that all the children 
 born in the tenth or seventh month after one of the 
 festivals are to count as children of all the men and women 
 who took part in the regular unions on that occasion, and 
 that relationship in the second generation will follow 
 accordingly. He then proceeds to define brother and 
 sister, who have not hitherto been mentioned, as TO. lv 
 eKCtVu) T(3 xpoyco ycyovoYa (e/cyova) i> a) at ///^repcs /cat ot 
 Trare'pes aurwv eyeWwv. It seems to me that these words 
 are usually mistranslated, and in any case they give rise 
 to great difficulty. 
 
 They are commonly taken to mean that a man's sister 
 will be any woman born about the same time as himself, 
 that is, within a certain time of a certain festival. But a 
 pupil of mine has pointed out to me, what is certainly 
 true, that under the arrangements above stated children 
 born about the same time are exactly those who, except in 
 the case of twins, could not be brothers or sisters. At the 
 festival one man was united to one woman and the 
 children born must be children of different fathers and 
 different mothers. If therefore it was with a view to the 
 prevention of real incest that Plato defined relationships 
 and prohibited unions, he was not likely to prohibit them 
 to persons who could not be relations and permit them to 
 persons who could. He would be granting full liberty of 
 incest while hindering an innocent union. 
 
 If however we look again at the Greek, we shall see 
 that this was not Plato's meaning. The use of the imper- 
 fect tense eyeyi/aw and the absence of avrovs after it suggest 
 rather that the words mean not ' the time at which their 
 
 1 Plato says daughter, daughter's daughter, mother and mother's 
 mother, and then again son, son's son, father and father's father. 
 But these make up among them all grandchildren and grandparents : 
 e.g. if a woman cannot marry her father's father, a man cannot 
 marry his son's daughter. 
 
118 REPUBLIC 
 
 parents brought them into the world,' but ' the time within 
 which their parents were having children,' ywvav being 
 used in the same sense in which it has been. used two or 
 three times before in this and the previous page. It refers 
 therefore to the whole time of life during which father and 
 mother were allowed, if the lot fell upon them, to take 
 part in the regular unions ; and brothers and sisters will 
 be all persons born, roughly speaking, within thirty years 
 of one another, that being the period of time during which 
 a man might be having children as the issue of regular 
 unions, so that a man and a woman born within that 
 period might possibly both have him for father. This 
 meaning is also clearly conveyed by a passage in the 
 Timaeus (18 D), in which the arrangements of the Republic 
 are mentioned : vo/uovcrt Se Travres TraWas avrovs ojuoyevcts, 
 j.v /cat aSeA^ovs oVotTrep av 7-775 TrpeTrovfrrjs evros 
 yiyvitivraL, rov<s S' e/x7r/DO(r#ev /c.r.A.., where rjXiKia 
 naturally refers to a considerable period of life, not to a 
 few weeks. 
 
 But, if it was Plato's intention under ordinary circum- 
 stances to forbid all unions between brothers and sisters 
 thus denned, he would thus have rendered all unions 
 whatever practically impossible. Under the various con- 
 ditions of age now stated a man could not be united with 
 any woman who had been older or younger than himself 
 by less than thirty years, because she might be his sister, 
 nor with one thirty years younger than himself, because 
 she might be his daughter ; while a woman thirty years 
 older than himself might be his mother and would also be 
 beyond the legal age for a regular union. 
 
 This then cannot have been Plato's meaning. After the 
 definitions of relationship, he adds in 461 E wore, o vvv SYJ 
 eXeyo/>ti/, dAA^Awv pr) airreo-Oai' dSeA(oi>s Se /cat dSeX^as 
 vo/x,os <rvvoiKeLV eav 6 K\fjpo<s ravrr) cru/XTrtTrrr/ /cat rj 
 Trpoa-avoupy. I understand the words OKTTC . . . 
 i to refer to the irregular unions which were the 
 last mentioned. Although in 461 c brothers and sisters 
 are curiously omitted from the list of persons forbidden 
 to form irregular unions, we seem obliged by these words 
 to include them ; and Plato would seem absolutely to 
 forbid irregular unions between persons who may possibly 
 
REPUBLIC 119 
 
 be near relations. With regular unions the case is 
 different. 'Brothers and sisters,' he says, 'the law will 
 allow to be united, if the lot so fall, and if the Pythian 
 priestess also sanction it by oracle.' In these words 
 brothers and sisters seem to be distinguished from parents 
 and children (whose union would indeed also be prevented 
 by the limits of age laid down), and the reference to the 
 law and the lot shows that the regular unions only are here 
 intended. It is strange that Plato should say * if the lot 
 so fall,' because it could not fall otherwise, possible 
 brothers and sisters being the only persons eligible for 
 these unions, as all other adults would be possible parents 
 and children. As to the sanction of the oracle, we can 
 hardly suppose that it was to be obtained separately for 
 each particular couple after the lots had been cast, although 
 the order of the clauses and the Trpo's in Trpoo-avcupf) would 
 render this the natural meaning. The oracle would have 
 to sanction these unions once for all. But perhaps Plato 
 had riot fully seen in detail all the consequences of his own 
 legislation, and meant the eai/ K.T.\. in its natural sense. 
 We may notice that, if the oracle refused to sanction such 
 unions, no unions at all could take place. 
 
 No doubt there are some difficulties in this interpreta- 
 tion of Plato's arrangements, but there can be no doubt as 
 to the real meaning of the words in which brothers and 
 sisters are denned, and Plato would seem not to have 
 thought out all the consequences that would or might 
 ensue. 
 
 462 A ZxOJJLtV O\1V Tt jU,CloV KO.KOV TToXet 17 CKIVO O O.V K.T.A. ; 
 
 l^o/xev seems to need the addition of cum?, as a few lines 
 above ri TTOTC TO fAsyurrw ayaOov e^o/xei/ 
 
 ibid. C 'Ev yTivi 877 TroXct TrXetcrTOi CTTI TO O.VTO Kara ravra. 
 TOVTO Aeyouo-i TO e/xov KCU TO OVK e/u.ov, avnrj apucrra SioiKetTat ; 
 
 Read CTTI TO) airrw, for the accusative is not Greek. Cf . 
 470s: 493 c": 559 A. 
 
 463 D avTat o~oi r) aAAat (f>f)fjia.i . . . vfJLvrja'Ova'LV evtfvs Trept 
 
 TO. TOJV 7TCuS(01> WTtt ; 
 
 Can this intransitive use of v/xvw be right, or should we 
 
120 REPUBLIC 
 
 read the usual j3ofji/3r)(rov<n,v 1 Cf. 564 D Trepi, TO. 
 /So/A/Jet, 573 A Trept avrov /So/x^Sovcrat at aXXat Im0tyuai, 
 54 D tv e/xoi av-n; 17 ^77 . . . /So/A/Jct. 
 
 464 D Sta TO </xi;Seva> /J.r)&V tStov e 
 Cf. 416 D twice, 458 c, 543 B twice. 
 
 466 E aov(ri . . . tva . . . $uWai ravra, 
 Soycret S-rj/Atovpyciv rrpos Se T$ $ea StaKovcu/ Kat vTrrypcTcu/ Trdvra 
 
 TO. TTfpl TOV TToAe/AOl'. 
 
 I do not think the infinitives can be accounted for by 
 anything understood, though they may possibly depend on 
 <xovo-i. Perhaps we should insert something like SiSa- 
 cr/cwvrat before SiaKOVti>. 
 
 469 A 8ta7ru^o/>tvoi apa TOV Oeov, TTWS %pr) TOVS SO.LIJIOVIOVS 
 TC /cat ^etovs TiOevai KCU TLVL Sta^dpw, OUT<O Kat ravTr) Orja'OfJLev 
 fi av cfyyfJTai ; 
 
 Read <&j/o?> TtVt 8ta<jf>dpa), comparing Z/aws 947 B 
 T\VT^cracri 8e 7rpo$eo-as TC Kat eK<^opas Kat OiJKa<s Stat^dpovs 
 cTvat TOJV aXXoov TroXtToov. 
 
 470 B <^>atj/eTat /Aot, wo-7rep Kat 6Vo/xaeTat Svo TavTa oi/dynaTa, 
 TrdXe/xds TC Kat o"Tao-t?, OVTW Kat tVai 8vo, ovTa CTTI Svotv Ttvotv 
 8ta</>opatv. Aeyw 8e TO, 8vo, TO /xti/ otKctov Kat vyycvcf, TO 8c 
 aXXoTptov Kat o^veiov. 
 
 It is clear, I think, that the words have got slightly out 
 of their proper order and should run thus : wo-7rep Kat 
 dvo/AaeTai ouo TavVa 6i/d/xaTa, TrdXe/xds re Kat o-Tao-i?, ovTa ?rt 
 Svotv Ttvotv Sta^opatv, OVTOJ Kat etvai Svo. [Or ovTa . . . 
 8ia<opati/ may follow 6Vo/x,aTa.] ovTa evrt can only refer to 
 names, not to things. Cf. Phil. 60 A B. 
 
 ibid. C cfrrjfu yap TO /x,ev 'EXX^vtKov yet'os avTO avTaJ OIKCIOV 
 etvat Kat arvyyV<s, TU> 8e j8ap^aptK(3 d^vetdv Te Kat aAXoVptov. 
 
 TO 8e ptapfiapLKov 1 /xeV and 8e point to this. 
 
 471 c D In the very awkward sentence beginning with 
 eVet OTI ye I cannot but think 6/xoXoyw, or some similar 
 word should be inserted after fi yeVoiTo. Its omission 
 might be due to the Xeyw occurring almost immediately 
 after. 
 
REPUBLIC 121 
 
 472 D out av ovv rJTTov n ayaOov <oypa<oi> etvat /c.T.A. 
 Read out 817 ovv. 
 
 473 C CTT' auro 877, yv 8' eyw, ct/u o TU> /xeytVra) 7rpoo-i/ca- 
 ,ofJLv Kv/xari. eip^crcrat 8* ow, ct /cat yw,eAAet yeAum re are^ais 
 woTTrep Kvyaa e/cycAwv /cat dSota /caTa/cAvo-civ. 
 
 But Socrates does not go to the wave : it is the wave 
 which approaches and threatens to deluge him. Cf. 472 A 
 TO fjL-yL(TTov /cat ^aXeTrwrarov T?}S rpt/cv/xt'as eVayets and Theaet. 
 163c 6'pa 877 /cat rdSe aAAo Trpoo-toj/, /cat o-/c6Vet Try 
 
 Read ?r' avr<3 87} ... et/xt o /c.r.X. For the error cf. note 
 on 462 c above : for the construction cf. 490 D Vt TOVTW 
 vvv ytyovoifjLfv, TL TTO&' ot TroAXot /ca/cot : 506 D ^rj . . . wo~7Tp 
 7rt reAet wv a7roo"T^s I 532 B 7r' avrw ytyverat TW TOU VO^TOV 
 rcAct : Polit. 274 B ov 877 eve/ca 6 Aoyos wp/x^/ce Tra?, e?r' aurw 
 vvv ecr/xev 77877 : Soph. 0.7 7 . 1169 ot/>toi, Trpo? avraJ y' et/xt ral 
 Setvo) Aeyeti/ : and many other passages. Cf. Stallbaum on 
 Crat. 422 A. (Burnet now reads avro) with his codex F.) . 
 
 KyeAwv also may fairly be regarded with great suspicion. 
 The only parallel cited for such a use of the word is in 
 reality no parallel at all. In Eur. Tro. 1176, when the 
 remains of the young Astyanax are brought to Hecuba, 
 she speaks of his curly head, fvdev e/cycAa oo-Tecov payeVrwi/ 
 <oVos, lv ato-^pa /xr) Aeyw. But it is quite clear that e/cyeAa 
 there refers to the appearance of what Shakspere calls 
 'bright hair dabbled in blood,' and not to any violent rush 
 of blood now taking place. The time for any such rush of 
 blood is supposed to have gone by. 'E/cyeAav there gives 
 therefore no support to e/cyeAaV here, and it remains to be 
 shown that 4/cyeAav could be used of a bursting wave. 
 Observe further the great infelicity of combining in the 
 same phrase yeAws in a literal and e/cycAoV in a figurative 
 sense : cf. p. 94 above. 
 
 In Soph. Phil. 1149-50 Jebb emended <vya p ov/ceY cbr ; 
 avAtW TreAare by reading ^/ceVt . . . 7n;8aT, and it seems 
 possible that we should in like manner read C/CTT^SWV here 
 (EKPHAHN for EKrEAnN). Compare such expres- 
 sions as Virg. Aen. xi. 624 ' alterno procurrens gurgite 
 pontus : Ov. Fast. iii. 591 ' assiliunt fluctus ' : Tennyson's 
 
122 REPUBLIC 
 
 Coming of Arthur ' the fringe of that great breaker, 
 sweeping up the strand, | lastid at the wizard, as he spake 
 the 'word.' For the corruption cf. also Schol. Ar. Peace 
 241, where R has aTroTn/SuWcov for the right reading 
 preserved in Y dTroTtXaWo)!/. 
 
 cKTTYjSav occurs 495 D : Tim. 68 A CKTT^SWVTOS Trvpo? : 
 \Ep. 7] 341 C Tn/S^oravTos with V.I. 7rr]\r)cravTo<s. 
 
 iMd. D /Cat TOVTO CIS TO.VTOV vfJL7TCrr], SvVafJLLS T TToXlTlK?) 
 
 /cat <tXo<Toc/>ta. Surely TOVTO should be ravra. 
 
 474 E /xeXixXwpous Se /cat rowo/xa otet rtvos aXXou Trot^/xa 
 cTvai 07 epaarov /c.T.X. Obviously /xeXi^Xwpov. Cf. Plut. 
 
 .Mbr. 45 A, 56 D. 
 
 476 D OUKOW TOVTOU //,!> T>)V Stavotai/ ws ytyvojcT/covTos 
 yvwfJLijv av op^ois <^at/xi/ etvai. 
 
 Since yvw/x^i/ does not appear to be used elsewhere in 
 this way, and in 477 A, 478 c, and 480 A we find yvwo-is, is 
 it too much to think that yvwonv must have been the 
 original word here 1 
 
 478 D e^>a/xi/ . . , L TL <avei?7 K.T.X., TO TOIOVTOV 
 KLO"Oai . . . KO.L . . . (re<T$at. 
 
 The future eo-eo-^ai strongly suggests (cf. 490 D below), 
 what we might suspect even without it, that oV should be 
 inserted somewhere to go with Keur0at : probably TO 
 TOLOVTOV <oV>. <a/xev refers definitely to 477 A where av 
 appears (av KeoiTo). 
 
 479 A T0)l/ TToXXtOV KttXwV XWJ/ Tt CCTTtV 6 OVK 
 
 o ov K<at> al(T)(pov cfravrjcrtTa.!. *? Kat is almost necessary 
 to the sense, which is that both impressions will exist 
 together. Without KO.L the ato-^pov aspect alone would be 
 given, for a thing might be KaXoV without appearing so. 
 Kat, if once used, would not need to be repeated in the 
 other cases following. 
 
 486 C ^ TrpoaSoKas TTOTC Til/a Tt tKavws av <rrepai o 
 dXycov Te TrpaTTOt /cat /xoyts (r/xt/cpov dvvTwv ; 
 
 Is not the oV before dXywv a mistake, perhaps arising 
 
REPUBLIC 123 
 
 from aX 1 ? The meaning is probably not that he would 
 suffer, if he were to do it, but that he habitually suffered 
 when he did it. 
 
 488 A vorjcrov yap roiovrovl yevofjicvov etre TroXXwi/ vewv 
 
 IT /Ala?. 
 
 Read ytyvo/xevov. The participles following in apposition 
 to this are all in the present tense, and the situation is 
 summed up in 488 E by the words TOLOVTMV Se Trept ras vavs 
 yuyvofjievaiv. Cf. 572 D Ti'0ei . . . yiyvo/Aei/a. MSS. constantly 
 vary between the two. The same correction should 
 probably be made in 548 D and 574 E, and in 330 c I should 
 prefer a-vyytyvearOaL. 
 
 ibid. C Trpos Se TOUTOIS eVaivoiWas VCLVTLKOV /xei/ KaXoiWas 
 Kat KvfiepvrjTLKOv . . . 05 av ^vXXa/x/^ai/eiv Setvos $ . . , TOV Se 
 /AT) TOIO^TOV if/eyovras a>s axprj&Tov. 
 
 Cobet wished to omit cTraivowras, but ^eyovras supports 
 it, and we might read fjikv vavrixov instead of VO.-VTIKOV JJLZV. 
 But jaeV is sometimes put in somewhat irregular places : 
 
 Cf. 490 C TTtt? fJitV K.T.X. 
 
 ibid. D TOV Se dX^^tvov Kv/3fpvrjTOV irf.pi ///tyS' eTratovra?, ort 
 aura) TT/V tTTi/xeXeiai/ Troif.'icrda.L eviavrov KCU wpaV K.T.X. 
 et jiteXXct T(3 OVTI vews dp^iKos <recr^at, OTTWS Se Kv(3pvrj(TL eav 
 Te Tives /3ouXa>VTai eav Te /x>y, /XT/TC Te^vryv TOVTOU /x^Te /xeXeTryv 
 oio/xevovs SwaTov etvat Xa/3etv a/xa Kat TT/V KV/3pvr)TiKrjv. 
 
 Almost all MSS. (including A) have the nominatives 
 eVat'ovTes and oto'/>tevot in spite of i^eyovras in the previous 
 line, but the accusatives must be accepted. H. Sidgwick 
 pointed out (Journal of Philology, v. p. 274) that the 
 sense of the latter part of this passage is extremely faulty. 
 It attributes to the crew in general the true opinion, not 
 at all natural to them, that a man can never learn the art 
 of inducing or forcing other people to accept him as steers- 
 man at the same time that he learns the art of steering. 
 [Of course the KuySepKjJTTjs was more than a mere steersman : 
 cf. 341 c.] This is a truth which they, who know nothing 
 about the true steersman, would certainly not understand. 
 Aristotle also (Politics 4. 2. 1324 b 30) states it, or some- 
 thing like it, probably with a recollection of this passage : 
 
124 REPUBLIC 
 
 OVTC yap TOV larpov OVTC TOV KvftfpvrJTOV epyov eo"rt TO r) Tmcrai 
 r) fiidcraa'6ai TOV /Ati> TOVS ^paTrcvo/Aeyovs, TOV oe TOV? TrAwT^pas. 
 But the ignorant and self-confident sailors are the last 
 people in the world to admit the principle, and 488 D (os 
 av v\\afji/3dviv /c.T.A.) has in point of fact almost ascribed 
 to them the opposite belief. It is however impossible to 
 accede to Sidgwick's proposal to read oto/xeVw for olopevovs. 
 The sentence would be most clumsy in form, nor is it to 
 the point what the true steersman thinks. Plato is 
 describing the state of mind of the crew (eTrcuvoiWas, 
 i//yovTas, eTraioi/Tas, oto/xeVovs). The simple remedy for the 
 corruption of the text is, I think, to read aovvaTov for 
 OVVO.TOV. The crew deem it by no means as impossible as 
 it really is that, while a man acquires Kv/^cpv^TiKrj, he 
 should at the same time acquire this other art, whether it 
 is an art proper or only a knack got by practice. [Or do 
 re^vr; and /xeAeVr? mean the theoretical and practical parts 
 of the art ?] Grote's usual strong sense showed him (Plato 
 3. 80) that this was the meaning required, but he seems 
 not to have seen that it could not be extracted from the 
 Greek. 
 
 [I have left this note standing, because I should still 
 maintain most of it. But I incline now to find a different 
 remedy and to read 7rotov/x,evu> for oio'/xevoi (thus getting rid 
 of the ungrammatical nominative), that, if a man makes 
 an art or practice of this, he cannot at the same time 
 acquire also the art of controlling the vessel. TT is the 
 more easily added, because the word before ends with v, a 
 letter apt to be confused with it. In Oxyrhynchus Papyri 
 9. 146. The Charito papyrus lines 48, 49 has TTOIOI^CVOS 
 for oto/xevo?. In Phaedrus 234 A the Bodleian MS. 
 has the nominative yej/o/xei/oi for the dative yci/o/xeVcu. 
 It is however very doubtful whether the infinitive SVVOLTOV 
 elvat can depend on eTrcuovTas and I should suppose it to 
 follow on avdyK-r) or rather perhaps on some general idea 
 suggested by it, such as o-v/x,/?aiVei.] 
 
 490 C T^yov/xev^s Sr) aA^detas OVK av TTOTC, ol/uai, <cu/u,cv 
 avrJ7 xopov KCIKOJV a.KoXovOfjo'ci.i. 
 
 Goodwin (Moods and Tenses, 159) cites this as an 
 example of a * gnomic aorist ' in the infinitive and so Jebb 
 
REPUBLIC 125 
 
 on Ajax 1082. I think that we should read 
 
 like the future tense /ACTeorat just preceding, and in the 
 
 Ajax TTOT' av. In 443 A Spao-at should probably be 
 
 ibid. If dvayKa^ovra is wrong, avaKaXovvra would be a 
 plausible substitute. But probably no change is called for. 
 
 loid. D on Tras fjikv avayKacrOrjcrcTai ojAoXoyGLV ols Aeyo/xev, 
 eacras 8e TOUS Aoyov?, is avrov<s a.7ro(3\(j/a<s rrepl wv 6 Aoyos, 
 <ao; opaV K.r.A. 
 
 It is strange that editors have acquiesced so long in <au; 
 after avayKaorOycrtTat. The future tense would be enough 
 in itself (cf. 478 D above) to show that Plato wrote <j>air) 
 <oV> : but, as a matter of fact, he is repeating the words 
 of 487 C vvv yap <f>aiir) av ns . . . opav K.T.A.. 
 
 491 A rdSe /xev oui/, oT/>tat, Tra? i^/xtv 6/>toXoy77<rt, TOiavrrjv 
 
 6/\tya/<t5 ev dv^pwTrots <J>vecr&at KOL oAtyas, 17 OVK 
 ye. TOVTWV 8r) TWV oAtywv OVCOTTCI <us TroXXot 
 6\@poL Kai /xeyaAot. 
 
 For the ungrammatical oAt'ya? read oAtyoi?, comparing 
 note on 425 B for the corruption of ot to a. oAtyois is 
 implied in TOUTWV TWV oAtycov following. Cf. Ar. ^/i. vii. 
 9. 1151 b 30 Sta TO TT/V erepav ev oAiyoi? /cat oAtya/as Tvat 
 ^avepav. Stephanus proposed ev oAtyois here ; if lv is 
 necessary, as perhaps it is, we might read KO.V oAtyot?. KO.L 
 and KaV or KO.V are several times confused in the Republic. 
 
 492 C 77 Troiav af avTo) TraiSei'av iSiwrtKr/v avOz&w (oti) ; 
 
 If av is not a mere dittography, it may not improbably 
 be a corruption of 8>} : see note on 472 D. 
 
 ibid. E OVT yap yiyvcTaL ovre yeyovcv ovSe ovv fJLr] yev^rat 
 dAAotov ^05 Trpos dpCT^v Trapa T^V TOUTWI/ TrauoWav 7T7rai8ev- 
 , avOpwTrtiov, w eTcupe* ^rov /xevTot Kara r^f Trapoi/xtai/ 
 Aoyov. 
 
 T^V TOVTCOV TraiSctav must be understood to limit the 
 statement to present conditions, while OVTOI and their 
 education exist. Otherwise Socrates would be pronouncing 
 his own scheme of a better education to produce a better 
 character incapable of success. 
 
126 REPUBLIC 
 
 Stallbaum translates irapa. by * juxta ' (Davies and 
 Vaughan ' in close contact with '), but irapd obviously 
 would mean not this but 'besides,' or rather 'in contrariety 
 to,' as in 529 c, etc. The sense ' because of ' is inadmissible, 
 as Trapa rrjv TOVTCOJ/ rcuScta? must go with TreTratScv/xevov. 
 For dAAotoi' suggestions of reAeoy and dtoAoyov have been 
 made. Neither however is sufficient to make good sense 
 of the passage. I strongly suspect that Plato wrote ouSe 
 ovv pr) ytvyraL aXyGivov rjOos irpos dper^v Trapa rrjv rovrwy 
 rraiSetav TreTratSev/xeVoj/. For aXrjOwov, which occurs often in 
 this part of the Republic, e.g. 499 c, cf. Critias 121 B 
 dXrjOtvov -rrpos ev&aiuovtav /3iov : Meno 100 A dAr^es 7rpay/Aa 
 Trpos dperrji/ : Phaedo 69 A 6pOrj irpos ap^rrjv : and for the 
 general sense Laws 696 A ov yap /x^Trore yev^rat Trais KCU 
 a.vr)p Kal yepwv IK Tavrrjs TYJS Tpo<f>r)<s 8ia^>e/Dwv Trpos ape-nyv. 
 
 493 D ort /xcv yap ... 17 Aio/x,?)Saa Xcyoaevrj avayKr) TTOLLV 
 aura) ravra a av OVTOL liraLvwcrLV, 
 
 There is nothing to explain on. Unless something has 
 been accidentally omitted, we might read ecrrt /txev yap, for 
 eo-rt and ort are sometimes confused. 
 
 494 D dp' cvTrere? otet cTvat cicraKoucrat Sta TOCTOVTWV 
 IIoAAoi5 y Set, rj 8' 05. 'Eav 8' ovv, r)v 8' eyw, 8ta TO ev Trtffrv- 
 Kevai Kal TO ^uyyeves TWV Xoyoov cts aio~@dvr)Ta(, (cio~aLO-6dvr)Tai 
 F) re 7T]7 /cat Ka/xTmyrat K.r.A. 
 
 els can hardly be right. Madvig eto-w. Is it too rash to 
 suggest elcraKovtov or to-a/covo~a,5 ? ns again would be- 
 more natural than cts, and these two words are sometimes 
 confused. 
 
 ibid. E ov Trav /xev epyov, Trav 8' ITTOS Xeyovras T Kat 
 
 There is no possible construction for the participles. 
 Insert SiareXeTi/ before or after Aeyovras re Kat Trpdrrovras. 
 
 495 D Perhaps we should insert ctVtV after (f>vo~i<s (i.e. 
 TroAAot etVtV there are many\ where from similarity of 
 letters it would easily be lost. 
 
 496 D otov lv xei/xojyt KovLoprov KOL d\r)s VTTO 
 
 V7TO 
 
REPUBLIC 127 
 
 Read lv xci/xom KCU Kovioprov ,d\r) or 01X17 Kovioprov. I 
 doubt whether ^et/xwv Kovioprov is Greek, for Sopos ev ^ei/zon/i 
 (Soph. ^71^. 670) is both poetical and different, and so too 
 Callim. Ep. 47 ^ci/xwvas /AcyaAtov ce<vyev Saveioy. The 
 writers of the imitative passages given in Stallbaum's 
 note evidently found the genitive governed by ^d\y in 
 their texts. 
 
 498 A vvv fjiev, r)v 8' ey<o, ot /cat aTrrouevoL (<tAo<ro<tas) 
 yu,etpa/aa oi/ra aprt e/c TratSwv TO /xera^u cu/covo/xta? Kat XpryjuaTi- 
 crfjiov 7rA.>ycriao r ai / TS aurou rw ^aXeTrwrcxrw aTrttA/XarrovTai. 
 
 This can hardly mean 'in the intervals of business/ 
 because that sense is certainly inappropriate here. ./xerav 
 is however sometimes used in a peculiar way. Instead of 
 a thing being between A and B, it is sometimes said to be 
 between B, so that /xerau' practically means ' on this side 
 of,' * short of,' ' before reaching.' See Shilleto's note on 
 Dem. F.L. 181, where several illustrative passages are 
 quoted. So too with cv /xeo-u). Plato therefore seems to- 
 mean that youths just dabble in philosophy after emerging 
 from boyhood and before they begin to manage property or 
 conduct business, when in Malvolio's phrase 'it is with 
 them in standing water between boy and man.' 
 
 ibid. B Trpo'iov&r)*; ol rrj<s rjXiKias, tv T) f) ifsv)(f] 
 
 ei/ y is probably a blunder for eV o>, corresponding to- 
 the ev o> /3A.a(rTavei re Kat avSpovrai (ra o-oj/xara, just preced- 
 ing. C H f)\iKia is here ' their years,' not any particular time 
 of life. In 486 A rj and o> are variants. 
 
 501 A a\\' ovv olarO' on TOVTIO av tvOvs TOIV aA\wv OLVy- 
 KOtet', TO) /xryre IOLWTOV /W-^T TroAecos e6e\r}(ra.i av a.if/aa6a.i jjLrjoe 
 ypa<etv VOJJLOV^ Trplv rj TrapaAa^SeTv Ka.0o.pav (TrtVaKa) rj avrot 
 
 Baiter /x^S' eyypa<^eu/ vo/xovs after Cobet. It would 
 perhaps be better to omit p/Se' . . . VO/AOVS altogether, or at 
 any rate vo/xou<?, for the words involve a most awkward and 
 inartistic confusion of the figure (painting) with the thing 
 figured (legislation). 'Eyypa^ctv, as far as I can see, only 
 makes the matter worse by actually supposing laws to be 
 put into the picture. 
 
128 REPUBLIC 
 
 ibid. C ews on /xdAicrra, dv0pw7ria fjOr) eis ocrov evSe 
 
 Instead of OeofaXfj we certainly expect some word 
 meaning 'of divine kind' parallel to dv#pw7reia and like 
 0eoeiSrJ5, 0eoeu<eAos above. dvflpwTma r}0?7 may themselves be 
 Oeo<J>i.\y) and therefore there is no antithesis in the word. 
 Badham conjectured tfeoeiSr) here. I would suggest 0o<f>vfj. 
 The word is apparently not found, but dvflpwTro^vrjs occurs. 
 Of. 6/,o<us in 439 E. 
 
 ibid. E ert ovi/ dypiavovcri . . . ; "Icrcos, e^ry, I^TTOV. BovXct 
 , T?V 8' eyw, ^ f)Trov ^>w/xei/ avrous dXA.a 
 
 I formerly proposed dyptovs for atrovs, but I think now 
 that a slighter change will restore the proper form of the 
 sentence. Read 7x778' rjrrov. 
 
 502 B After the clear distinction just drawn between 
 yeveVflai and crw^vai the words ets i/cai/os yei/o/xevos seem 
 hardly enough. I suggested formerly ycvo/xcvo? <re KCU o-wg 
 yev6fjivos>. That or something like it, e.g. Adam's Trcpiyevo- 
 /^evos (which he does not recommend), seems almost 
 necessary. 
 
 ibid. C D \KTOV TLVa T/3O7TOV rjfJLLV KCU CK TlV(OV fJ.a 
 
 Kol eTrtTr/Sev/xarcov ot (rwr^pes evecrovrat T?}S TroXtreias. 
 
 Read eyyev^trovTat or simply yev^o-ovTcu for 
 The question is not how they will live, but how they are 
 to be obtained. In 521 c we have the parallel question, 
 TiVa TpoTrov ot TOLOVTOL lyyevrja-ovrai. Cf. 552 E, 557 C, etc. 
 In Thuc. 7. 21. 4 Vat. has Tre/oiyei^o-o/xeVovs against the 
 Trepiecro/xei/ovs of other MSB. 
 
 503 B OKVOS yap, (f>ijv, w <J>L\., eyw, tlirtLV ra vvv 
 
 The verb can hardly be omitted, when the time is pas^t. 
 Read v, <v> or <v>, cv. 
 
 504 E o fjievTOL fJityLo-Tov fJiaOrj/jia Kal Trept o rt avro Xeyets, 
 otei rtv' dv (je, 6(^7;, d^eu/cu /xr) epwTT/travTa Ti larriv ; Ov TTO.VV, 
 r)V 8' eyw, dAXa Kai o'v cpwra. Trdvrws avro OVK 
 
REPUBLIC 129 
 
 Trept o rt avTo A-cytis cannot be harmonized either with 
 the o preceding or with the ri tcrriv which follows. I 
 conjecture that OTLOLVTO is a corruption of rotavra : ' which 
 you speak of as the greatest and as concerned with the 
 greatest questions. 3 For rotavra = /xe'ytcrra after /xeywrroi/ 
 fjidOrjfjLa see the instances cited by Riddell in Platonic 
 Idioms 54 b, e.g. Phaedo SO C eav /x,ev TIS ^apieVrtu? e^wv 
 TO o-to/xa TcAcvr^o-ry Kat ei/ TotavYr; wpa ' where ToiavY^ simply 
 means xapteWr? ', or Bep. 424 E. Ttov /xeyto-Twi/ occurs in our 
 passage two lines above, and cf. 377 E TO fj-eyio-Tov KCU Trept 
 rojv /xeytVrojv. For the corruption cf. 516 E, where A has 
 OTI OUTOS wrongly for 6 TOIOVTOS, and the note below on 
 592 B. 
 
 I conjecture further that for Kat av cparra we should read 
 KCU a-v epwTois; Socrates feels or affects surprise that the 
 question should come from Adeimantus, who has often 
 heard about the ^u.eyio r Tov 
 
 507 D evovcrrjs TTOV ev o/ji/macrLv ot/'ews Kat eT 
 
 avrrj, Trapoucr^s Sc ^poa? ei/ auTot?, eai' JJLTJ 
 yeVo? rpirov tSt'a CTT' avTO TOUTO 7re<^>vKos, oTcr^a 
 
 I 77 T Ol/'lS Ol'SfV Ol[/6TCU TO. T ^pCO/XttTtt f.fTTO.1 dopttTtt. 
 
 Commentators have been considerably puzzled by ei/ 
 ts, but it ought to be abundantly clear that it cannot 
 refer to the eyes. It can only refer to the SeuTepoi/ yeVos, 
 external objects. Read eV av TOIS <6parots> or <alarBrjTol<s>- 
 The omission is due to homoeoteleuton. For the running 
 of av TOIS into avTols cf. 550 A, where Paris A has auTovs for 
 au TOVS, Politicus 287 D, etc. The confusion is indeed 
 very frequent. For the position of av after the preposition 
 compare 371 D Tots Se aj/ri av apyvpiov SiaAAaTTetv : 577 B 
 Kat fv av TOIS 8>;/xoo-tois Ki)/3woi5, etc. 
 
 509 D In support of avtcra T/xr^/xaTa it may be added that 
 TTfJLr)fJievTf]v O.V Iva. TfJuqfJiaTa involves a doubtful use of dva, 
 whereas the simple accusative after TC/XVW is idiomatic. 
 
 510 B TO 8' av eTepoi/ TO e?r' dp^v K.T.A.. The second TO, 
 sometimes bracketed, may stand for TI. The two words 
 get interchanged sometimes. For the article and TIS 
 together cf . Phileb. 1 3 C T<XS /xev etvat Ttva? dya^ds, T a s 8 
 
 K 
 
130 REPUBLIC 
 
 Tiva? e rep as avrfov KOIKCIS : Soph. O.C. 288 6Vav 8' 6 
 Kvpios 7rap# TI<S and 0.2 7 . 107 rows avroevTcts . . . Ti/xwpeiv 
 Ttvas- 
 
 511 A etKocrt 8e ^piafjLevrjv avTois rots VTTO ran/ Kara> 
 a7riKa(r6elcrL KOL KtVots Trpos eKti/a o>s vapyt(TL 8cSoaoyx.eVo<s 
 
 T Kttl TTt/X>7/U.ei/Ol9. 
 
 There is so much difficulty in eiVois that I venture to 
 suggest the possibility of its having accidentally changed 
 places with auroi?. 
 
 515 B ei ovv SiaA.ye<T$cu ototV eiev Trpos dA.A.7yXots, OUK avra 
 ^yci av ra Trapiovra aurous vo/xt^etv [ovoyaa^eiv] airep opiaev ; 
 
 So Baiter, adopting Madvig's OVK avra and Ast's Trapiovra 
 for the ou ravra and Trapovra of MSS., and bracketing 
 6vo/zaetv with Cobet. Perhaps it would be better to read 
 vo/zietv <Kai>" ovo/xa^civ. Cf. 443 E ev TTOLCTL TOVTOIS r/you- 
 JACVOV Kai ovofJidi^ovTa SiKcuav p,ev /cat KaX^v vrpa^-tv 77 av K.r.A. 
 The use of aTrep seems to me much in favour of ra^ra, to 
 which it is so often correlative. 
 
 ?. D t TI<J avro) Xeyot ort rorc /xev ecopa 
 i' rt eyyvrepo) rov OVTOS KCU Trpos juaXXov ovra rerpa/x- 
 opOorepa ySXeTroi, Kat 8^ Kai e/cao-rov TOJV Trapiovroov 
 avru) dvayKa^ot fpwTwv aTTOKptVeo-^ai o TI ecrnv. 
 
 Read eyyvrepw <wv>, as in 330 E wcrTrep -^87; eyyurepoo wv 
 TW/ Kt /xaXAdv TI KaOopa avrd. Baiter prints /JAeTroi, but 
 ySXeVct is almost certainty right. Schneider, when he 
 defends /SAeVoi by the a-rroOdvoL in Phaedo 57 B, fails to 
 notice that the optative there refers to past time. The 
 right mood here is preserved in o TI IOTIV. 
 
 516 D For OTIOW av TTtTTovOevai read ortow 877 
 
 unless something like Se'ao-0ai (as in the rejoinder) should 
 be added. It depends on /3ov\.t(rOai and is not the same as 
 the av TrcTrov^cVat preceding. 
 
 517 C Read <f)> avrrj Kvpia. 
 
 518 E The other excellences of the soul are adventitious : 
 77 8e TOV </>pov7}crat Travro? /xaXXov Otiortpov TIVOS <us 
 
REPUBLIC 131 
 
 ovcra, o TT)V /xev Suva/xtv ovSeVoTe aTroAXixriv, vrro 8e 
 TT}< TTCptaywy^s xpr^crt/xov /cat a></>eAt/xov /cat a^prjo-Tov av KOI 
 J3\a.j3fpov yiyvf.ra.1. 
 
 In a clause containing a comparative adjective or 
 adverb (here Oeiorepov) TravTos /xaAAov can hardly have a 
 place. (In 595 A it goes with ov TrapaSeKTea, while 
 evapyeWcpov belongs to ^aiVerat.) Its proper use is 
 illustrated by such passages as 520 E TravTos /xr)v /xaAAov 
 d>S eV dvayKau)V avrwv e/cacrros eTcrt TO ap^etv, or 595 A, 
 where it occurs twice. Itself a comparative expression, 
 it cannot be combined with another comparative without 
 great awkwardness. In 595 A the words are much more 
 distinct. Madvig, raising other objections, proposed 
 TrAaoyxaTo? or v^xxcr/xaTos //.aAAoi/ ^eiorepov. I would rather 
 suggest that Travros is a corruption of opydvov ("RANTos of 
 opfANov). Not many lines above (518 c) we have rr)i/ 
 fvova-av fKaarov Swa/xtv ev rfj ^v\fj KOL TO opyavov w /cara- 
 fjia.v6a.viL Ka(TTOS . . . TrepiaKTe'ov elvat : cf. the Trepiaytoyry 
 here. So (527 D) in the mathematical sciences eicacrrov 
 opyavov Tt if/vx*}** e/cKa$aiptTai' re Kai d^a^wTrvpetTat . . . KpeTrrov 
 ov o*u)^vat jjivpi'iw o/x/xarcov. Cf . further 508 B TO>V Trcpt ras 
 aio-^o-i5 opyavwv : 582 D dAAa /x^v Kal 8t' ou ye Set opydi ou 
 icpiv(rOaij ov TOV <^>iAoKp8oii5 TOVTO opyavov ov8e TOV ^>tAoTt)txou 
 dAAa ro9 <f>L\o(Torf>ov : Theaet. 184 D and following pages : 
 Phaedrus 250 B. I read therefore ^ Sf TOV ^pov^o-at opyavov 
 /xaAAov BtioTtpov K.r.A. For yuaAAov added to a comparative 
 see Ast's Lexicon or Riddell's Digest 166 c. 
 
 520 D T^V 8' evavrtou? ap^ovras o-^oi)o-av (TroAtv) evavrtw?. 
 
 Probably e^ovo-av, altered under the influence of o- pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 522 A fjiovo-LKr] ocrrjv TO Trporepov 
 
 rjs ? Cf. 595 A TO /xrySa/x^ 7rapa8e^o-^at avT^? oo~r; 
 
 524 C /xeya /x^v /cat oi/'t? at o-/xtfcpov ewpa. 
 
 Should we not transpose and read /xeya /xr)v *ai o-/xtKpov 
 t oi/'ts eoipa 1 
 
 K 2 
 
132 REPUBLIC 
 
 527 D E As to the latter part of the argument Adam 
 remarks that * the logical sequence is somewhat difficult.' 
 As the text stands, it seems to be not merely difficult, but 
 desperate. Everything however will come right, if we 
 may assume that two sentences have got transposed. 
 a\\rjv yap . . . ox^eAtav should follow immediately upon ots 
 fjitv ovv . . . Sotis Aeyeiv and precede o<roi 8e . . . ouSev. 
 The meaning of aXXrjv then becomes clear. Certainly 
 Soas Aeyciv must be connected with /U.T) 80/07? K-T.\., i.e. 
 with the requirement of astronomy, not with the very 
 beginning of D, in which this requirement is rested upon 
 wrong grounds. The grounds would not be known and 
 Sonets Aeyeiv cannot properly apply to them. 
 
 528 C 7Tt Kdl VVV VTTO TWV 7ToXX(UV O,Tl/>iao/X,ra Kttl KQ- 
 
 , VTTO Se TO>I> ZflTOvvrw Aoyov OUK e^ovrwv KaO' on 
 
 It is impossible for VTTO Se TOJV ^rjrovvrwv to depend on 
 the participles as the words stand, and they have therefore 
 been altered in various ways, for which see Adam's 
 -appendix. I may suggest that KCU KoXovo/xe^a should 
 perhaps be placed after ^p>Jo-i/xa or after ^rovvrtav. 
 
 The stress laid in the context on the action of a TroXts in 
 the matter suggests TWV TroXcwi/ for TWV TroAAtov, but of 
 course rwi/ TroXXwv may be right. 
 
 ibid. E Should not vTrapxovcrr)? be vTrapgovo-rjs 1 It refers 
 to the future. Cf. 541 A below. 
 
 529 C KO.V e VTTTta? i/ewi/ ev yf) rj Iv OaXdrry fj,av6dvy. 
 
 Most MSS. seem to have ve'wv (with mtW and vecov as 
 variants), but A and one or two others have ^icV, while 
 /ZTJV and ^ are also found (Schneider). Pollux vii. 138 
 has velv 8' e vTrrt'as /xcx^r^/xa KoXvfJL/^TjT^v eZprjKev 'Apurro^avi^? 
 Kal IIXaTwv, which seems at first sight to show that he 
 found veoiv in his text, but perhaps this is not certain/ 
 e vTTTtas and i/ OaXdrrr) would justify his citation. 
 Madvig proposes to read ^ (K&V e^ vTrrtas 17 ev yrj) and 
 Baiter follows him. The conflicting readings of the MSS. 
 might be to some extent reconciled, if we were to read <f 
 0w/x,evos, a word which would be very much to the 
 
REPUBLIC 133 
 
 purpose here, as the long sentence began with 
 yap et TIS Iv 6po(f>f) TrotKiA/xara #a>//,evos K.T.X. and e vTrrtas is 
 certainly the better for going with a participle. I have 
 also thought of KCJ/ACVOS, and Ficinis actually has iacens. 1 
 In D. Hal. AM. 9. 3. 1 /xevov is all that remains in one MS. 
 of Kxapio-/>ie'voi>, and so /xcV may be the remains of a 
 participle here. 
 
 ibid. (8et) ravra /xei/ ra ev T<O ovpavaJ TrotKt'X/xaTa, 
 oparu) TreTroiKtXrai, KaXXto-Ta /x,J/ ^yeto^cu Kat aKpt/JearaTa Ton/ 
 
 TOlOVra>l> ^tV, TW1> O dXr^tVWl/ TToXl) Cl/SetV, a? TO OV Ta^OS Kttt 
 
 17 ovcra j3paSvrr]<; iv TO) dX^^iva) dpi^a) Kat Traat rots a\r)@fcri 
 (T\ri^.a.(TL <{>opd<s re Trpos aAX^Xa ^eperat Kat TO, evovra <^>epf a 
 8^ Xdyu) /u,V /cat Stavota X^TTTCI, oi/^ct 8' ou. 
 
 With TWV dXr;^iva>i' we must of course understand TrotKiX- 
 These Troi/ctX/xaTa are contrasted with the visible 
 of the sky, and to the former a 8-^ Xoyw K.T.X. 
 refers. There is however no construction left in the 
 sentence for as ... <J>opd<s . . . ^eperat /c.r.X. Moreover, as 
 Ast pointed out, it is strange to speak of swiftness and 
 slowness as themselves moving or being carried along 
 (<e'peTai) and still more so to speak of them as carrying 
 their contents (ra evoVra) with them. What contents has 
 swiftness ? The subject of the verbs ^epcrat and $epi, as 
 of XrjTTTa. (eortv), should be TO, dX^iva Troi/aX/zara. To 
 obtain this sense Ast proposed to read wv TO ov TCL^OS Kat ^ 
 ovo-a ^paSirrrys, Kai ev TW dX^^tval dpt^/xw . . . <epeTat Kat . . . 
 c^e'pei, thus changing as to wi/ and inserting Kat before ev TW, 
 * of which absolute swiftness and slowness are the properties, 
 and which move etc.' I believe this to be in essence right, 
 and have only to suggest that instead of wv we might read 
 ots, which is nearer to the as of the MSS. (cf. 425 A, 
 where I have suggested ots TrpeVet for as irpen-ct, and 491 A 
 where oXiyots is necessary for oXtyas), and perhaps lv TC TU>, 
 
 not Kttt V TO).) 
 
 1 Mr. Marindin, pointing out that Pollux may also be thinking 
 of Phaedrus 264 A e'| v-irrias a.va.iraXiv Stove?!/ firixetpei rbv \6yov, 
 suggested to me that Plato wrote here K&V fvirTiao-/j.vos ev 777, and 
 perhaps his suggestion is better than my own. Cf. Lucian's use of 
 
134 REPUBLIC 
 
 ibid. E Yjy-rja-airo yap oV . . . KaXXterra yacv ex lv 
 yeXoiov fj.j]v eTrio-KOTreiv ravra (nrovSrj /c.r.X. 
 
 It looks as though an dvai were omitted before or after 
 
 530 B OVK O.TOTTOV f)yr}(TTai rov vofj.i^ovra yiyveo-Qai re ravra 
 del (oo-airroo? /cat, ovoa/Jirj ovoev TrapaXXaTreii', <ru>//,a re c^ovra 
 
 Kttl 6pCJ/X)'a, Kai fyjreiV TTttt/Tt TpOTTU) TT/V dA.^$iav ttUTWV 
 
 Xafitlv ; 
 
 For ^retv, which can hardly be right, Madvig suggests 
 ^r/TTJo-et (which seems to me to give a wrong sense, for 
 avroiv must refer to rai)ra) or ^retv 8ctv (which gives an 
 awkward number of infinitives). Read rather ^roiWa. 
 Of. note on 383 A. 
 
 532 E avTfs for av before 6801"? A common confusion. 
 
 533 C ov/cow, rjv 8' eyw, 17 SiaXeKTiKT) /xe^oSo? /xovry 
 TTOpcvcrai ras V7ro^eo-is d^atpo9(7a CTT' avrrjv rrf 
 /?e/?atu><7?7Tcu, Kai K.T.X. 
 
 For di/aipovo-a read dWyouo-a, which had occurred to me 
 before I found that Canter proposed it long ago, and that 
 it has some authority from Stobaeus. 'Avcupovcra could 
 only mean 'doing away with/ and 'doing away with 
 (provisionally) in order to establish (again ultimately),' is 
 a very unlikely meaning. 'Avaipouo-a of course suggests 
 itself, but dj/atpetv is unknown to Plato and extremely rare. 
 Read therefore ras V7ro$e'o-ets avdyova-a CTT' avrrjv rrjv d 
 We have dvayeiv again a couple of lines further on 
 Kal dvdyei ai/w), and for its use in connexion with apxn c ^ 
 Laws 626 D rov Xoyov CTT' dp^v 6p$cos drayaywi/ and many 
 uses of the word in Aristotle. Not quite the same, but 
 similar, seems its sense above in 529 A o>s ^tv vvv avryv /xcra- 
 ^cipt'^OFTat ot tq <f>i\.o<ro(f>Lav dvayovres, where it certainly 
 does not mean ' those who embark upon philosophy,' but 
 makes an antithesis with the Karw /SAeVav following. 
 
 ibid. E An ordinary eTriorrij/x^ (says Socrates) may 
 perhaps be better called Sidvoia. v Eo-rt 8', ws c/xot So/cet, ou 
 t ovo/xaTos d/x^io-^TJTryo-ts, ots Too-ovrwv Trept O-KCI^IS ocroov 
 Trpo/ceirai. Ov yap ouv, ^>r/' dXX' o ai^ /xovov 8>yXot Trpos 
 
REPUBLIC 135 
 
 TT)V eiv (ratfrrjvcLa Xeyet cv if/v^f}. (A has Xeycts written 
 above Xeyci as an old correction.) 'ApeV/cei yow, rjv 8' 
 K.T.X. 
 
 Baiter after Madvig writes Xey', d tv if/vxfi and translates 
 sed quod modo declaret ad rem tenendam perspicuitate, 
 die, si intra animum tibi versatur. See his Adnotatio 
 Critica for some other suggested readings, only one of 
 which I will quote here, because it is the only one which 
 gives anything like a satisfactory sense. Bywater proposes 
 dXX' o av fJiovov 877X01 TT)V eiv, TTWS e^et <ra<f>r}VLas a Xeyeis ev 
 ij/vxfj, in which TT)V eiv and a Xe'yeis do not seem to go very 
 well together. I should rather suggest o av /xovov fy\oi 
 TTWS avrrjv %X eLV o-a<j>r)vLa<; Aeycts ev if/v^f}, ' whatever will 
 just show what degree of clearness in the mind you think 
 it (the 7rio-T?j/r>7 or 8iai/ota, already referred to in the text 
 three lines above as avr^r) possesses.' I also concur in the 
 view that apeWet should probably be dpKeVei and be read 
 twice over, for I cannot see how properly to construct o av 
 K.T.X. with ov TTfpl ovo/xaros d/^icr/^Tr/cris. The passage 
 will then run thus : d.AA' b av uovov SrjXoi Trois avrrjv tvctv 
 rra<f>r)vias Xeyct? tv ^v\V P^o-ei. 'ApKecrct (or perhaps we 
 might here keep 'ApeWet) yow, ^v 8' eyw, K.T.X. A possible 
 alternative for TTWS avryv ^etv is TTOJ? *x LV T *) v * LV > thus 
 keeping the rrjv e^iv of the MSS. For the question with 
 Xeyets, as I suppose it to be put, cf. 562 B "Ap' ovv Kai, o 
 8r)/j.OKpaTia bpi^ra-i ayaOov, rj TOVTOV aTrX^orta Kai ravrrjv 
 Kara\vL ; Aeyets 8' avrrjv ri opil^tcrOai ; Tyv eXev^epi'av, CLTTOV. 
 
 535 A Ta uV aXXa TOLVVV, r)V 8' eyw, tKCtVa? rag 
 8etv eKXcKTea*; elvat. 
 
 It is surprising that 8etv has been so long allowed to 
 stand side by side with e/cXeKTe'as etvai. Unless it is a 
 corruption of something else, e.g. det or 8rJ, it must be 
 removed altogether. 
 
 536 A /ecu TT/OOS (TWfppoa-vvrjv <ovi/>, rjv 8' eyw K.T.X. 1 
 
 av 
 
 538 A et TIS rpa^f.if] K.T.X., TOVTOV ^t? fJiavTtvcracrOai, 
 
 r) . . . ev e/cetvo) TC TO ^pova), ( OL>K T^tt Ta Trept 
 Kat ev w av 
 
136 REPUBLIC 
 
 Can the pluperfect indicative i^Set stand in such a 
 sentence 1 I think it should be ciScn?, and we have that 
 form in the parallel clause of the sentence following, lv 
 o> xpovo) T O a\rjOe<; n/rf tlBeirj. Cf. note on 515 D. 
 
 541 A a Kat ot yoi>ts e^ovo-i. 
 
 The verb here, like the participle in 528 E above, refers 
 to the future. It should therefore be 
 
 543 B ouSei/ ouSe^a wo/xe^a <$ti/ KKTr)(r6a.i wv vui/ ot dXXot. 
 With 01 dXXot cf. 41 9 A otoj/ dXXot (ot aXXot COnj.) 
 
 dypOVS TC KfKTTfJfJLtVOL K.T.X. and 420 A OvSe fJLL<r@OV TTpOS 
 
 rots o-tTtots Xa/jiftdvovTf<s wcnrep ot aAAoi. In all three 
 passages the meaning is (I think) the same : not other men 
 in general, nor other men in the Platonic state, but others 
 like themselves, that is rulers and guardians in their 
 respective communities. TWI> aAAwi/ in c here is different. 
 
 544 C Sevrepa <if> KOLL Seirrepws e7rat^ov/xr^ ? 
 
 All parallel words in the passage have an article. 
 Hermann substituted r for KCU. 
 
 546 A ov p.6vov (favToi'S eyyetots aAXa /cat ev eTTiyei'ots 
 <j>opa. /cat a<opta if/v^r) 1 * T Kat o"(OjU,aTOJV yiyvovrat, . . .* 
 8e v[JLTpov eiyovias re Kat d<^>opta5, /catVep ovre? arofyoi, ovs 
 TroXecos eTraiScvo-ao-^e ovSev /aaXXov Xoyio-/ao) /ACT' 
 reu^ovrai, aAXa -7rapto"tv awrovs /cat yevv^o-ovo-t 
 
 TTtttSaS 7TOT6 OU SfiOV. 
 
 In spite of the <opa /cat acfyopia preceding I am inclined 
 to think that we should read cv^optas for d^opta?, the 
 occurrence of d<opta before accounting for the error. 
 TVOVTCLL naturally, though perhaps not necessarily, refers 
 to the right time only, and Trdpeto-tv can only have the 
 right time, not the wrong, for its subject. So in Arist. 
 Eth. Nicom. vi. 10. 1142 b 34 e^o-wco-ta seems right for 
 do-weo-ta. Indeed the confusion of a and ev is a recognised 
 cause of error in MSS., e.g. cvTraiSevo-iW and obrato'evo-tW in 
 560 E. For re Kat coupling synonyms cf. 571 c XeXv/xeVov 
 re Kat aTr^XXay/xevov : 575 B tv clpyvr] re Kat rfcrv^ia '. etc. 
 Perhaps lv should be added before farols or omitted before 
 
REPUBLIC 137 
 
 ibid. C apiOfJibs yew/xeTpiKos TOLOVTOV 
 Would not TOO-OVTOV be more appropriate ? 
 
 547 B It is odd that Plato should use the historical 
 tenses ciXKeryv, fjytTrjv, dyxoXoyqo-av among so many futures 
 preceding and following. No doubt the reason is that for 
 a moment his thoughts revert to the Homeric prayer 
 which they put up to the Muses (545 D E) to tell them 
 OTTTTWS 8r) TTpwrov oToVis tfj.TT6<T. But there is some 
 awkwardness in it. 
 
 ibid. E TO) 8e ye <o/?eur#di TOVS cro<j>ov<s eVt ras dp^as dyetv, 
 are ov/ceri KCKTrj/j-evrj aTrXous T /cat aTevets TOVS TOIOVTOUS 
 dVSpas aAAa /XIKTOV?, errt Sc ^v/x,Ot8ets re KCU dirXovcrTC/oovs 
 
 , TOVS 7T/DOS TToXc/XOV /XttAXoV ^7T^)VKOTaS 17 
 
 K.r.X. 
 
 is manifestly wrong, and no doubt due to 
 Cs preceding, but none of the suggested words is 
 satisfactory. Stallbaum's TroXXaTrXovo-re'/aovs, though prima 
 facie plausible from its antithesis to the cbrXovs preceding, 
 is not really suitable. Madvig's dvovo-Ttpovs does not strike 
 me as good. I had at first thought of dyptwrepovs, as 
 ayptos is a word which Plato uses in this connexion 
 (cf. 410D: 411 E: 486s) and we have rifiaWes dyptw? virb 
 a-KOTov xpveroV re Kat apyvpov a few lines below. I believe 
 however that Plato really wrote d/Aovo-orepovs. In 548 E 
 the individual character corresponding to the timocratic 
 state is called vTroa/xovcrorepov. Cf . Xoyou /xovo-i/qj /ce/cpa/xcVov 
 in 549 B and -nys dXr/^iK^s Movo-rjs (or /XOVOTIK^S) in 548 B. 
 Add 546 D d/xovcrorepot yevrjo-ovrai vfj.lv ol veot : 411 D 
 Xoyos . . KCU 
 
 ibid. TO, not TU>, 8e ye 1 The case should be the same as 
 that of TOO TToXXd/ TW has been repeated here from D. 
 
 548 D Read probably TTWS Te ytyvo/xevos for TTWS TC 
 
 549 C OTOLV TTpWTOV /AI/ TT^S /X^TpO? O./COWJ 
 
 T<2v dp^ovTwv avTiJ 6 dvr;p eo~Tt, /cat eXarTOu/zeV^s 8ta 
 Tats dXXats ywat^tV, 7retTa 6pa)o->ys /^ O"<^>o8pa ?rept 
 O"7roi;8d^ovTa /zrySe /xa^o/xevov Kat XotSopov/xevov tSta T ev 
 
138 REPUBLIC 
 
 al 877/xoo-ia, dAAa pa$u/xtos iravra ra rotavra 
 <j>povTa, Kal eauTu) /xev TOV vovv Trpocre^ovra act aur^dv^rai, 
 cavriyi' 8e u^re TTOLVV Ti/xoovra f^r/re dn^a^ovra, e aTravrajv 
 TOimoi/ d^o/xevr/s T Kal A-eyoucrvys MS K.T.A.. 
 
 One is unwilling to believe that such a sentence pro- 
 ceeded from the careful pen of Plato. AiV^av^Tat ought in 
 grammar to be aio-#avo/xeV?7s. But I feel little doubt that 
 we should read KOLV, or KCU edv, eavra), either being an easy 
 change. Cf. E. Observe that the construction is not 
 aKovy . . . eav : but first on . . , then eXarrov/xeV^s and 
 6pw<r7<?, and lastly av or eav . . . are attached to dx^o/xeV^s 
 {presently repeated with e avravrcoi/ rovrwv) to give the 
 reasons for her annoyance. I think however that K.O.L 
 before eXarrov/xei/T/s should be ws (cf. Index), for this 
 explains how she is affected by her husband's not being a 
 public man. 
 
 550 E Ot>X OUTO) 7T\OVTOV O.pT7] $L(TTYJKV, OJCTTTep Iv TrA-ttCTTtyyt 
 
 ^vyov Kei/xeVov e/carepou, act TOVVOMTIOV peVovre ; 
 
 IVIadvig Kt/x,evov eKarepo^. Read rather Kft/jLtvio eKarepw 
 (547 B etA,KT^v eKarepw), constructed as though the words 
 before were TrAoirros /cat dper^ Stearacrt or 
 
 551 C Trovrjpdv, YI 8' 05, TT)V vavriXtW avToi)? vavTi\.\a@au. 
 
 For ^ 8' os Ast suggests eucoV, which I had thought of 
 independently. It might be either substituted or added. 
 ), ^ 8' os is also possible. 
 
 ibid. D dXAa fjirjv ou8e roSe KaXov, TO aSwdVovs eti/at 
 
 TLva 7ToA.e/xeu/. to-cos (given by A and some other 
 MSS., but not found in all) is feeble. Baiter after 
 Badham o-ws : but we need an adverb. A very suitable 
 word would be iV(xvp)ais. Cf. Thuc. i. 69, 6 lo-x^pw? 
 eyKetVovrai, and /xd^ to-x^pa ibid. 7. 72. 1 : Herod. 5. 119. 1 : 
 9. 62 : Thuc. i. 49. 2 fy f] i/av/xax/a /caprepd. Plutarch has 
 once or twice the opposite expression dpyws d/xweo-flai. 
 iKavws is also likely enough : in Euthyphro 14 c JWs is 
 given for i/cavois by T, and so by Theo in Epinomis 977 E. 
 
 552 E ovs fTTifJi\La fito. Kare^ov(TLV at ap^ai. 
 Cf. 359 C vd/xo) 8c /3t'a Trapdyerat. 
 
REPUBLIC 139 
 
 554 B cv, rjv 8' eyor roSe Sc (TKOTTCI. 
 
 u is not at all appropriate ; also we should expect ev ye. 
 Read ctev, which is quite in place and often followed by Se. 
 rjv may be responsible for the loss of ev. 
 
 ibid. E ofj.ovor)Tii<f)<; Se /cat ^/j/xocr/xei/^s TT^S 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 TTJS is hardly possible with the adjective preceding (the 
 participle of course would not matter). Should it not be 
 omitted ? 
 
 556 C ouro) S>) Trapeo-Keuacr/xevoi orav Trapa/JaXXaxrii/ 
 Aots 01 re apxaires /cat ot dp^o/xevoi 17 ev oSwi/ Tropei'ais r) 
 aAXats rtcrt Koirwvtat?, 17 Kara ^ewpt'as -^ Kara (rrpaTCtas 
 ytyvo/x-cvot 17 ^vcrrpaTiwTat, ^ Kat ev avrois rot? /avS 
 ? ^(o/x,evoi firjBa/JLrj KarafypovuvTai ol Trevryrcs VTTO 
 K.r.X. 
 
 We notice two curious things in this passage. There is 
 the anacoluthoii by which dXXr/Xovs #eu>/x,evoi, referring to 
 both parties, is immediately followed by a verb which has 
 only one of them for its subject, and there is the very 
 faulty balance of meaning in the clauses ' when they meet 
 one another on various occasions or in actual battle the 
 poor are not condemned by the rich, then .' We should 
 expect Yj 0co/x,i/oi like the other participles to go with 
 7rapa/?aXX<oo-ii/, and /x^Sa/xrJ Kara^povwvrat to be attached in 
 some other way. Both difficulties may be removed at a 
 stroke by adding (say) xai before /x^8a/xr), ' when they see 
 one another this way or that way or in actual battle, and 
 when the poor etc., then .' 
 
 A long time ago I suggested the change of tfew/xevoi to 
 $to/xeVwv, which might have been accommodated to the 
 other participles ; but, while removing the first difficulty, 
 this would leave the second. The words may possibly be 
 right as they stand, but their extreme awkwardness, more 
 than their want of regular construction, is much against 
 them. 
 
 557 C KivSvyevei KaXXurrry avr?) TOW TroXtrcicui/ u/ar wcnrcp 
 
140 REPUBLIC 
 
 lfj.a.riov TTOtKt'Aov Tracrtv av#(rt TreTrotKiA/xevov, OVTW Kat avr/; 
 Tracnv r}6Ti TTCTrotKiX/xevT; KaAAtcrn; av <atVotTO. 
 
 ' TToiKt'Aov = many-coloured is cancelled by Herwerden 
 and J. J. Hartman.' Adam defends it as 'thoroughly 
 harmonizing with Plato's characteristic fullness of style ' 
 and as found in every MS. Is it not a corruption of TTOV 
 
 wcTTrep IUOLTLOV TTOV KaAov . . , OVTOJ Kat avrrj . . . 
 
 av <atvoiTO. 
 
 ibid. E TO Se xrScuai/ dvdKri' cli/at ap^ctv . . , yu^S' av 
 
 ayf.iv . . , jJLrj av, cav TI? ap^iv vo/xos (re 
 , ju/^Sev T^TTOV Kat ap^etv Kat StKa^ctv, cav aur<3 o'ot c' 
 ap' ov 6fanTCTLa . . . rj TOiavrrj Siaywyry ; 
 
 It is plain that the latter part of this from //.^S' av eav 
 onwards is really made unmeaning by dependence upon 
 /xrySejutav dvayK^v. What we want negatived is not 
 compulsion to rule, but exclusion. It seems impossible to 
 supply this idea as the sentence stands, and therefore I 
 cannot but think something lost, probably between av and 
 edV. If we were to insert there something like dSwa/xiav, 
 parallel and antithetic to dvayK^i', we should get a clear 
 sense. It may be noticed that av and edV have some 
 considerable resemblance in letters to dSvi/a/uW, and it is 
 used in 359 B and 532 B, but I do not wish to insist on the 
 particular word. 
 
 558 A rt Se; rj TrpaoTrjs evt'wv TWV ?)LKacr@VT(DV ov KO/XI//I;; rj 
 OVTTU) eTSes Iv TOtavrrj TroAtTeta dv^pwTrwi/ Karai^ry<^)to"^evT(ov 
 davarov rj <f>vyfj<s ovSev rjrrov avrwv /xevoi/rcoi/ r Kat dvacrrpe^o- 
 
 yU,V(OV V /iO"O), Kttt d)5 OVT (f>pOVTloVTO<S OVT OpWVTOS OVOCl/OS 
 
 Trepivotrret wcrTrep ^pcos ; Kat -roAAovs y', c^ry. 
 
 (1) It is inconceivable that Plato can here be attributing 
 to the men condemned : it must certainl be 
 
 to)0vta TOV 8^/xov Trpaor^s ([Ar.] 'A^. II oA. 22. 4 with many 
 passages of Demosthenes, e.g. 19. 104 : cf. Euthyd. 303 D, 
 Menex. 244 E), which suits here admirably and is confirmed, 
 if confirmation were needed, by crvyyvw/xi; avTrjs (i.e. -njs 
 TToAtTcta?) immediately following. How then are we to 
 take evtW TWV SiKao-^eVrov 1 It is improbable that the 
 
REPUBLIC 141 
 
 genitive means ' towards some condemned men,' and there- 
 fore we seem obliged either to read SiKa<rai>Twv (as by a 
 rather smaller correction aTroAeVai has long been read for 
 a/TToAccrtfai in Lysias 19. 54) or to add (say) Trcpt to govern 
 the genitive case. It is not certain that a personal passive 
 of SiKao> is legitimate, but Lysias 21. 18 ovS' cucrxpas Socas 
 SeScVaovxai certainly looks like it. The passive of a judg- 
 ment given occurs in 614 c and D. 
 
 (2) There is a similar question about Karaif/rj^ia-OevTiav, 
 whether the participle can be a personal passive. No 
 precise parallel is cited, but Eur. Heracl. 141 e^^tcr/xeVovs 
 Oaveiv supports it. Cf. ot Kar^yopov/xcvot Andoc. 1. 7. The 
 genitives Oavdrov rj <^>vy^s would be a further difficulty, and 
 Adam suggests accusatives. An alternative would be to 
 take 6a.va.rov 17 (f>vyfj<s as the subjects of KaTouf/rjcftLa-OevTwv, a 
 plural verb being sometimes used of two or more singular 
 subjects with the disjunctive r} or ovSe between them. Of 
 this there are many instances (e.g. Laws 796 A and 838 A), 
 but I know only one, and that in the dubious decree 
 Dem. 18. 74, where the plural verb precedes its subjects. 
 This may however be an accident. Madvig read Kara- 
 {j/r)<f>HT@evTo<s, and it is possible that the termination was 
 assimilated by mistake to that of avOpw-n-iDv. But I think 
 it means condemned to death, the genitive being like that 
 in Kpivf.iv or SiwKeiv davdrov. 
 
 (3) There remains the great difficulty of the sentence as 
 a whole. It can perhaps just be understood : ' have you 
 never seen (i.e. the case), when men have been sentenced 
 to death and exile, when they remain in the city and show 
 themselves, and a man goes about as though no one minded 
 or saw him 1 ' On this view eTSe? would be constructed 
 loosely with the genitive absolute avrwv ptvovTwv much as 
 //,e/Av?7/Acu, oTSa, OLKOVW (opw *?) are sometimes followed not 
 by a case but by a clause with ore (' I remember when he 
 said so and so '). But this is unlikely in itself, especially 
 after another genitive absolute, and the addition here of 
 an independent clause with xai makes the whole sentence 
 very unusually irregular. The KCU is bracketed by Weil and 
 Burnet, so that ws becomes (I suppose) how, i.e. have you 
 never seen in these cases how ? This gets rid of the 
 difficulty of aurwv /xevovrwv and its relation to etSes, but 
 
142 HE PUBLIC 
 
 can hardly be right. It is true that nobody minds ; it is 
 not true that nobody sees, and therefore we want o>s with 
 opwfTos ouSevos to mean as though or assuming that nobody 
 sees, unless opwvros ovftwos is to be taken as a rhetorical 
 expression. If the sentence as a whole is wrong, which 
 seems most likely, some words may have been lost after eV 
 /xe<ru>, e.g. ' have you never seen, when all this happens, 
 how nobody troubles about acting on the judgment and the 
 man goes about unconcerned ? ' In any case there is no 
 difficulty about the change of number from avrwv to 
 Trepivoo-ret (joo-Trep r}pws, for the variation is common enough, 
 e.g. rots TvpdVi/ots and ZKCIVOV in 578 D. 
 
 559 B f) i*V ye TTOV rov crirov (e7rt$u/xta) KO,T' d//,<oTepa 
 dyayKata, 77 re ax^eAt/Aos 77 re Travcrat a>i/Ta BVVO.TT/J (codex 
 Moil. /U,T) Traucrai eovra 8war^, q and Flor. U Traixrai /AT) 
 SwarYJ (Adam), Hermann Travcrai ov 8warrJ). 
 
 Adam thinks ju,rj impossible here, but it may be defended 
 on whatever principle we defend Laws 733 B Trdvra. e<rrt 
 . . . SicK^e'povra re KOL jU/^Sfi/ Sia^epovra, Thuc. 1. 118. 2 ot 
 AaKeSat/xoi^toi . . . o^res /xev Kat Trpo rov fj,r) ra^ets tevat es rovs 
 TToAe/aov?, probably as generic, such as cannot. Although 
 the theory of the words (without the negative), capable of 
 causing death, is quite tenable, the usual one (with the 
 negative), not possible for a man to stop while he lives, 
 seems more probable in the context, Travcrat corresponding 
 closely to a-rroTpeif/ai and 8 v v a r 77 a7raAAaTTeo-0ai. But the 
 accusative >vTa can hardly be defended in this construction 
 and, if we adhere to it, <oi/ri should almost certainly be 
 read. Cf. Xen. An. 4. 1. 24 avros 8' <r; r/yrjo-co-flat 
 Kat vTro^uytots 7ropeue<r$eu o 
 
 561 E TravTaTracriv, rj 8' os, SuA^Au^as fiiov I(TOVO/JU.KOV rivo? 
 Ot/xat 8e ye, r;i/ 8' eyw, Kat TravroSairov re Kat TrAet- 
 
 (TTWV Y)@li)V //,a"TOr, Kttt TOV KttAoV T Ktti TTOtKtAoV WCTTTCp KLVr]V 
 
 rryv TroAiv TOVTOV rov av8pa etVai. 
 
 Thompson proposed raiv KaAwv re Kat TroiKtAwv : a more 
 certain correction in my eyes is 7rai/To8a7ro re Kat TrAetcrrajv 
 r;0aii/ /HCO-TOU. Surely the words are parallel to IO-OJ/O/UKOV. 
 Cf. 398 A ai/8pa 8vm/xcvo^ VTTO (ro^t 
 
REPUBLIC 143 
 
 562 A <epe Sry, Tts TpoVos Tupavrt'Sos, w <t'Xe eratpe, 
 ytyvTat ; on /xei/ yap e/< Sry/xo/cpaTtas /xera^aXXet cr^cSov SrJXov. 
 A^Xov. *Ap' ow rpoTrov TWO. rov avrov CK re oXtyapxtas 
 8>7/xoKpaTt'a ytyvcTai /cat e/< Brj/JLOKparias Tvpavvi<5 ; 
 
 TI'S TpoVos TupawtSos yiy^eTat cannot give that meaning of 
 * how does tyranny come into being ? ' which the words 
 following show to be required. Cf. 563 E avrr) per roivvv 
 . . . r; PX r / * o@ t/ ""7 i"upavi/is ^>verai : 565 D TIS dp^ ovi/ 
 fjLcrafioXfjs /c.T.X. Probably Plato wrote here dpx>j or some 
 equivalent word and a copyist substituted rpoTros under the 
 influence of rpoirov nvd following. Or there may have 
 been a double genitive, TI'S rpoTros rvpavn8os <KaTa(rrcx(ra)s>. 
 Cf. 557 A. 
 
 567 E Perhaps all in one sentence TL 8e; avroOtv ap OVK 
 av i6c.\r)<Jtitv TTWS TOVS SovXovs d^eXo/xevos K.r.X. ', 
 
 569 A yi/tocrcTai ye TOT' r/S-ty 6 S^/xos otos otov ^pe/x/xa 
 
 Can otos stand alone without u>v 1 It is quite unusual, 
 but here and in Symp. 195 A Xoyw 8te\^ttv otos o<W atTtos 
 wj/ Tvy^avet Trept ov av o Xoyos y I think Plato omitted &v 
 because of the awkwardness of using it along with a 
 second participle, that participle being in the Symp. 
 another wv. 
 
 572 E Should not 7rapaj3or)6ovvTa<; be dj>Tt7rapa/?o?7$oiWas, 
 like dvTiKaTao-TrJo-co/xei/ in 591 A] Trapa cannot very well 
 suggest the opposition, and irapa/?or;^to is habitually used 
 in the sense of bringing aid simply. 
 
 573 B C7ri$u/Atas Aa/3>7 TrotoiyxeVas xprjara.^ Kat eTt eTrato-^i'^o- 
 /uci/as. 
 
 The difficulty about TTOIOU/XCVOS thought, reputed, in this 
 and three other passages (498 A, 538 c, 574 D) of the 
 Republic is at least threefold : (1) the use of TroioO/xcu for 
 I deem, etc. is decidedly restricted and we should be rather 
 surprised to find Troto^/xat TI xpyo-Tov in such a sense, 
 though quite prepared to accept it : (2) -n-otov/xat passive 
 does not appear to be found in this sense anywhere but in 
 these four places of one book, neither Plato himself nor 
 
144 REPUBLIC 
 
 other writers being cited for it : (3) the sense thought, 
 reputed, though it fits 498 A and 538 c very well, is surely 
 pointless here, and in 574 D even suggestive of a wrong 
 meaning, for in that context at any rate to speak of 
 opinions as reputed just seems to throw doubts on their 
 real justice, just as the reputed relations (-Troiov/xevcov 
 ot/cetW) of 538 c are meant not to be real relations. On 
 the other hand it is most unlikely that four passages 
 should be wrong, and Xen. Symp. 4. 23 dAA' eyw, w 
 2S<oKpa,T9, ouSc Trpos crov TTOIW TO TrepuSetv K.T.A.. seems to give 
 us one instance of the active verb from which the passive 
 use would come. Theages 128 B TTOIOU/XCU Seu/os dvat, if 
 right, seems unique in meaning or construction, I account 
 myself clever (oto/xcu, etc. suggested). 
 
 574 E vTrap TOIOUTOS del ycvo/xevos. 
 
 Read yiyi/o/^e^o?, as dei requires. Cf. 488 A above. 
 
 575 A TvpavvtKOJS ev avra) 6 "Epos . . . aiv, are CIVTOS a>v 
 Vapxos, TOV e^ovTa T avrbv a>(T7rep TroAtv aa lirl Tracrav 
 
 , O@V aVTOV T KOLL TOV 7Tpt ttVTOV 06pV/3oV 6plf/L, TOV 
 
 jj&v Z^wOev elcr\r]\v66Ta aTro KOLKYJ^ oyatAtas, TOI^ o' i/8o^ev VTTO 
 TWV auToiv TpOTTcov Kat fdVTOv avf.9f.vTd Kat cAev^epw^ei/Ta. 
 
 Stallbaum explained that the Oopvftos of thoughts and 
 desires is set free by its (their) own character and by itself 
 (themselves), supposing (1) TWV avTwv TpoTrwi/ = TO>I/ TpoVoov 
 avT&v (in which case write airrwi/), and (2) ai;Tto!> = avToi), 
 since 0opv/?os is a noun of multitude, or avTwi/ might be an 
 actual error for cdrrov, for which there seems to be some 
 slight MS. evidence. What would be the practical 
 difference here supposed between the character of the 
 0opv/3os and the Oopvfios itself he did not explain. Inter- 
 preters are now divided between two views : (A) by the 
 same character and by the passion itself, (B) by the same 
 character in the man himself too (Jowett in his translation, 
 Adam). But in (A) the Oopvfios would really be described 
 as set free by its own agency (coupled with that of the 
 great passion) and this is hardly sense. Also it is plain 
 that the passion itself too needed to be set free. Like 
 the other desires, it had previously been kept under 
 restraint. (B) rests on a clearly wrong notion of the 
 
REPUBLIC 145 
 
 meaning of eairrov, which does not refer to the man but to 
 the passion, the lpu>s, in him. The pronouns preceding, 
 avros, avTov, avToV, Trepl CLVTOV all refer to the epws, and 
 eavrov or avrov must do the same. Nor would there seem 
 to be much point in carefully distinguishing between what 
 comes from outside and what arises within, if after all it is 
 the same, ol avrol rpoiroi. But both these explanations thus 
 failing us, as KOL eavrov appears to have no meaning, I 
 would suggest that Plato really wrote VTTO TWV avrw TpoVwv 
 KOL eavTov, i.e. liberated by the same character as himself. 
 This means that the same general character in such a man 
 as Socrates is describing allows free scope both to the 
 master passion and to the tribe of minor desires that exist 
 side by side with it. For the phrase cf. 412 D <5 trv/x^e/oeii/ 
 fjyoiro TO. avra KCU eavro). 
 
 re after TOV l^ovra seems also indefensible. I suggested 
 once TOV l\ovrd TC Oat rpe(f>ovra>. Perhaps it should be 
 ye, but that rather lacks force. 
 
 576 D JJir] KTT\r)TTWIJi6a TTpOS TOV TVpOLVVOV J/tt OVTtt 
 
 /SAeTTOvres [JirjB' et rtvcs oAtyot TT/H CKCIVOV, a\\* 005 %pr) o\.f)v 
 rrjv TroXw L(reX06vTa<s OfdoraaOaL KaraSvi'res ts a-rrao-av KOL 
 iSdvTC? o{rra> So^av aTro^aivoj/xe^a. 
 
 Adam discusses in an appendix the difficulty of the o>s 
 clause. His view that <us is since fails to satisfy, because 
 the assumption contained in since is not explained and 
 justified. No doubt 420 A B and 421 c bear upon it and 
 still mo re >545 C eis rvpavvt/c^v ir6X.iv eA^ovres Kal iSovres, but 
 these distant passages do not really make <Ls natural, as 
 though the thing had been recently said or implied. I 
 would suggest that a participle has been lost, on which the 
 cJs clause depended, e.g. /Ae/xv^/xei/oi, ytyvwo-KovTes, ^yov/xevot, 
 bethinking ourselves, considering, that. 
 
 577 A ei/ re rat? KOLT' oiKtav Trpa^ecriv, <Js Trpos eKctcrTovs 
 
 * v ' s AaAwrTa vAvos av 
 
 Iv atsl As er/, referring to things, occurs three times 
 in the three or four lines, Plato would probably have 
 written Trap' ots for variety's sake, if he had wanted to refer 
 to persons. 
 
 L 
 
H6 REPUBLIC 
 
 ibid. B jSovXei . . . 7rpo<r7roi>7<ra>/A0a T^/xeis elvai TWV Swaroiv 
 av Kplvai /cat r/or) evrv^oVrwv TOIOVTOIS. 
 
 I do not think TWV SwaTwv av can be defended by the 
 parallel of Eur. ^Uc. 182 ere 8' aXXr] rts yvvrj Kt/cT^o-eTat, 
 o-a)<pa>i> /xev ou/c av fjiaXXov, evTi^s 8' toro>s and the parody 
 in Ar. .Zg. 1252. In prose it is surely impossible to 
 attach av to an adjective. We have rov Swarov /xev Kplvai 
 a few lines above, which tells against the genuineness of 
 av here. It is probably, as often (see my Xenophon and 
 Others, pp. 282 foil.), a mistake for 8rJ, here not so much 
 emphatic as indicating the assumption of something in 
 itself doubtful. Cf. on Laws 816 E. 
 
 578 E Write TTOCTO) for OTTOO-O). In an indirect question 
 either may stand, in a direct only TTOCTOS. 
 
 579 A drayKaoiTO av rtvas r/Sry Ounrevew avruv TWV SovAwv 
 . . . KCU 
 
 The correction 8o/xeVous should certainly be received. 
 It would not mean, as Adam thinks, that they have no 
 need of it, but, as often, that they do not wish, or as we 
 say want, it at all. Such is the sense of o^Sev Seo'/xevov in 
 581 E. I have noticed the phrase ovSei/ Sco'/uo/os in this 
 sense as a favourite expression in Plutarch's Lives. 
 
 ibid. D SovAos Tas /xeyitrras $u>7rias KCLL 8otAeias. 
 
 Surely we ought with two MSS. (Schneider) to read 
 SovAeias /cat tfwTmas. The only thing that could make 
 8ovAo? 0<D7reias tolerable would be that SovAos 
 should lead up to it. Cf. on Gorg. 496 E. 
 
 585 A woTTre/o 8e Trpos /xeAav <aiov a/TrocrKOTrowTes 
 \tVKOv, KOL Trpos TO aAvTroj/ OUTW XvTrrjv d<^>opa)VTS 
 
 Thompson was undoubtedly right in principle when he 
 proposed /cat Trpos AVTT^V OVTW TO aAi7rov : but I should rather 
 incline to write /cat TO aAvTrov OVTW Trpos AvVryv. One or the 
 other is absolutely necessary. 
 
 ibid. C 77 ovv ciei ofJLOLov ovcria. ovcria.s Tt fj.aX.Xov tj 
 
REPUBLIC 147 
 
 Is ova-La a mistake for <uVts, perhaps an inadvertent 
 anticipation of ova-las 1 Logically ova-La cannot be said 
 /u.Textv ova-Las, and </>vW is often employed by Plato in a 
 semi-periphrastic way, as Ast's Lexicon will show. Of. 
 588 c and 589 B. In D. Hal. A.R. 4. 34. 3 ova-Lav is an 
 almost certain restoration for the MS. </>vo-iv, and in 
 Heraclitus Alleg. Homer. 22 <vVu/ is a v.l. for ova-Lav. On 
 the other hand ovo-ia ova-Las may be a deliberate antithesis. 
 
 ifoc?. D i apa TO TT\r]povo~OaL r<av 
 
 O"Tl, TO TO) oVn Kat TOJV OVTOJV 7T\rjpOV/JLVOV yU.aA.Aoi/ fJ.aXX.OV 
 
 OVTCUS re Kat aA.?7#eo-Tep<jOS ^aipCLV av TrotoT rjooi'y aXrjOel. 
 
 For Troiot I think we should read So/coT. There is no 
 question of a particular part of the soul causing the man 
 to feel pleasure : the pleasure belongs to the part itself. 
 So in the second half of the sentence : TO TWI/ ^TTO^ OVTOOV 
 /zeTaA.a/x/?avov . . . ^TTOV (av 1780^9) aXyOovs 
 
 586 C os ai' avTO TOVTO 
 
 The sense seems to require something like TauTo TOUTO or 
 av roLovrov, referring to a 7rAr;o-/xoi^ avcv Xoyio*/xou Kal vov. 
 So in 590 B we should probably read rfj <rov> avrov TOVTOV 
 ^aXao-ei, just as we have TO a^To TOUTO immediately 
 following. 
 
 587 E See on Meno 80 E. 
 
 592 B ej/ ovpavut urws TrapaSciy/xa avaKeirai TW 
 opav Kal opwvri tavrov KaTOLKLfav. 
 
 I formerly proposed to add something like CLVTOVC. to 
 KaroLKL&Lv, but Adam's objection is well founded, that this 
 does not tally with the idea of the celestial state as a 
 TrapaSety/xa, not a residence, and the context clearly refers 
 to earthly states. On the other hand I cannot agree with 
 him in treating cavrov KaroLKi^iv as = TroAiTct'av ei/ eaimo 
 KaroiKL^iv. The phrase would be unplatonic and also 
 would not even express the sense he wants of ' founding 
 himself accordingly.' The meaning really needed seems to 
 be that of founding a similar state, not that of a man 
 moulding himself and himself alone upon the model. This 
 is what the previous sentences lead up to, and this we 
 
 L 2 
 
148 REPUBLIC 
 
 get without much difficulty by observing that eavrov is 
 preceded by the termination rt and turning it into 
 TOiavTYjv. I had thought of this for some time before 
 noticing what I think almost proves it to be right, that 
 Totau-nyv actually occurs in the parallel passage Laws 739 E 
 7rapaSay//,a ye TroXireias OVK a\\r) ^pr) or/co7retv aA/Va e^o/x,evoi)s 
 ravTrjs TI/V o TL /xaAicrra TOiavr^v Zrjrelv Kara Swayouv. 
 With this reading too we should have a very close parallel 
 in 557 D 05 a.v O.VTOV dpecrKy rpoVos, TOVTOV KXeao~@ai a)o~7rep 
 eis TravTOTTaiXtov d^tKO/xeVo) TroXtreiaiv Kat c/cXe^a/xevco OUTOJ 
 KOLTOLKL&IV. In Xen. Cyrop. 7. 5. 15 one MS. has eopr^v 
 TOLdvTrjv against eo/rn} (s^c) eavrwv of others. Still more 
 similar would be my correction, if right, of Xen. R.L. 6. 2 
 
 OTl OVTOL TTttTCpeS to OTl TOCTOVTOl TTttTepCS. Cf. alsO 504 E 
 
 above, where I have suggested Trepi roiavra for Trcpt on avro. 
 597 E TOV TOU rpLTOv apa yei/v^aros (XTTO T^S ^>u 
 
 It would be very awkward to understand 
 from the previous sentence, in which the S^tonpyo? and 
 the /xi/arjrrjs are expressly distinguished. But rov TOV rpn-ov 
 yevi/TJ/xaros can hardly be an expression complete in itself, 
 and I therefore suggest that Troi-qrrjv has fallen out before 
 fj.Lfji,r]T-tjv owing to the similarity of the terminations. Cf. 
 just before S^/uoupyov Kat TTOI^TT/I/ TOV TOLOVTOV and 601 B 
 
 6 TOV 
 
 598 E TTorepov /xt/xT/rais TOUTOI? ovrot 
 
 It would suit strict logic better, if for rovrois we read 
 TOIOU'TOIS, since it has not yet been shown or said that all 
 imitators are ignorant about the things they imitate. 
 599 A still puts it as an open question. Strictly therefore 
 it is not enough that these men (rovrots) should be 
 imitators : they need to be such imitators as are ignorant 
 of things. But Plato does not always adhere to strict 
 logic, and, as he subsequently adopts the view that all 
 imitators are ignorant, he may have anticipated it here. 
 
 601 D TroXA.^ apa avayKt] TOV ^pw/xevov e/cao-rw e/x,7retpoTaTov 
 TC eu/ai Kat ayyeAoi/ ytyvo~0at T<3 TTOI^TT; ota ayaOa 77 
 
REPUBLIC 149 
 
 Trout ev rrj XP t V ^ XP^ Tar * ol/ avXrjTrjs TTOV e^ayyeAet (here 
 and below the 1V1SS. have e^ayyeAAet) Trept TUJV avAaiv ot av 
 vTrr/peToocriv ev TU> avAetv Kat eTrtra^et otaus 8et Trotetv, 6 8* 
 VTnjptTrjcrfi. IlaJs 8 ov ; OVKOW 6 ^uev et8ws e^ayyeAet Trept 
 
 XP?7O"T(OV Kttt TTOD^puJv auAwV, 6 8e 7TtCTTUO)V TTOt^CTCl ; Nat. 
 
 Though A and some other MSS. have ot oV, the majority 
 have ola oV, and this was the common reading of editors 
 before Bekker (Schneider). It is to be observed that ot av 
 vTr^perujcriv ev TU> avXelv for ots ^prjrai is feebly verbose, and 
 that we seem to want something here after eayyeAet 
 closely corresponding to the ota K.T.A.. after ayyeAov ytyvetr^at 
 in the preceding sentence. This would lead us to write 
 ota vTTrjpTov(riv or of av vTrrypeTwcriv. I cannot however 
 believe that Plato used vTryptrovarLv here, and then 
 vTrrjptTijcreL differently applied in the next line of the same 
 sentence. The occurrence of 6 Se TTIO-TCVW Troirjo-ei imme- 
 diately afterwards might suggest Trot^o-ei in the place 
 of vTnjpeTTJo-ei. On the other hand ota TTOLOVO-LV would be 
 closely parallel to ota dyaBa rj Kafca TTOICI, and ota vTnyperovo-tv 
 would seem a less natural construction than TTWS vTr^pcTouo-tv. 
 Believing therefore that one use of vTnjpeTeti/ grew by a 
 copyist's error, an inadvertent repetition, out of the other, 
 I should prefer to read ota TTOLOVVLV (or aTrorcXovorii/, or 
 some such word) and to keep vTr^pcrrJo-ei j but ota VTT^PCTOV- 
 o-iv and 7ronjo-ei would be much better than the received 
 text. 
 
 
 602 A OVTZ apa to-Tat ovre opOa 8o^ao~i 6 /xtynr;T^s Trept 
 
 av /xi/x^rat 7rpo5 KaAAos 17 Trovryptav. QVK ZoiKfv. Xapicts av 
 
 CIT; 6 ev ry 7rotr;o"t /XI/X^TIKOS Trpos ao^t'av Trept a>v av 
 Ou 
 
 K.r.X. needs a particle of connexion, and ov 
 is not quite in harmony with it. Both these faults may 
 be removed by reading <OUKOW> ^aptct?. OVKOW fell out 
 from its likeness to totKv, and its restoration will give us 
 a pair of negative sentences just like the pair preceding. 
 
 ibid. C /cat ravra Kayu,7rvAa re Kat ev0ea ev ^Sart re 
 Kat ea>, Kat KotAa re 8^ Kat e^e'^ovra Sta T^V Trcpt ra 
 av TrXdvrjv rfjs o^cws Kat 7rao*a rt? rapa^-rj SryAr; 7}/>itv e 
 ev 
 
150 REPUBLIC 
 
 Perhaps we should read Trao-t for Trao-a, which hardly 
 harmonizes with TIS. In Aristotle's Poetics 6, 1449 b 37 
 Trao-iv is a very probable correction for Trao-av, and in 
 Aristoph. Eccl. 172 I suggest KaTop#wo-ao-t for -o-acra. 
 
 ibid, rj yap has no business after a question, and that a 
 negative one. Put it a line or two earlier after /xaXto-Ta, 
 where TTO.VV /xa> ovv answers it. 
 
 ibid. E TOVTO) Se (i.e. T<3 XoytcrTtKaJ) 7roXXa/as /xeTpryo-ai/Tt /cat 
 o-Ti/xatVovTi /Ata) arra eli/at 17 eAarra) ercpa erepoDi/ 77 tcra TaVav- 
 Tta <at'vTat a/xa Trept ravra. Nat'. OVKOW <at(,ev T<3 avr<3 
 a/xa TTcpt Tttvra evavrta Soaav dSwarov etvat ; Kat op^ais y' 
 
 I see no way out of the difficulty of this passage except 
 by reading the genitive rovrov Se TT. /uurprjo-ai/Tos Kat 0-77- 
 ^uaiVovTos and supposing that the dative was due to a 
 misapprehension. The words as they stand compel us to 
 take the dative with ^aiVerai, and give a sense which is 
 not'' only false but flatly contradicted by the immediately 
 following sentences. It is not to the rational part that 
 the contrary impression is conveyed, but to another. 
 
 603 C wSe 877 7rpo@wfJL@a' Trparrovra?, ^>a/x,ei/, 
 ^u/x,eiTai f) [JLifJirjTLKr) K.T.\. [JLrj TL aAAo Trapa ravra ; Ov8ei>. 
 Ap' ovv ev aTracr/ TOUTOIS K.r.X. 
 
 For TrpoOupcOa I suggest v-rroO^Oa as more suitable. 
 
 604 B OVKOVV TO /xev ercpov T<3 vo'/xo) eroi/xov Trei'^ecr^ai, 17 6 
 vo/xos c^yetTai. 
 
 In view of the words preceding (Xoyos Kat vo/xos) I 
 suggest TW Xoya) for ra> vo/x,a). Cf. D OVKOI)I/, <^a/>ti/, TO />ti/ 
 
 (3e\.TLCTTOV TOUTCU TO) XoytO'/X.U) $A.l 7TCT@ai '. 607 A dl/Tl VO/XOV 
 
 TC Kat TOU KotvTj del So^avTos etvat j3e\TL(rTov Xoyou : and the 
 use of Xoyos in 606 A and c, 442 c, etc. with 6 Xoyos atpct in 
 604 c, 607 B. In 365 E vo>coi/ is a v.l for Xdywv. Cf. p. 337. 
 
 606 A ov /xa TOI> At', e^7, OVK evXoya) eotKev. Nat, ty 8' 
 eyo>, ct eKeti/ry ye auTO "KOTTOIT^S. 
 
 I think Jackson and Adam are wrong when they take 
 vat as assenting to OVK evXoyw It refers to cvXoyco only. 
 
REPUBLIC 151 
 
 The proceeding is reasonable, if you look at it in the way 
 Socrates goes on to state. It is not really right, he means, 
 but it is reasonable and plausible enough, if you do not 
 look far into the thing ; Xoytecr$ai yap, oi/xat, oXtyots ricrlv 
 /ouVeo-Tt K.T.X. With vat referring to the thing negatived, 
 not to the negation, in the sentence preceding cf. 608 c D 
 out d&avaTij) TT pay pan vTrep TOCTOVTOV Sf.lv xpovov eo-7rou6WeVai 
 dXX' ofy VTrep TOV Trai/ros ; Ol/xat eywye, <^rj, where oT/zat 
 refers to the negatived virep TOV Travrds ; 336 E otov y en;, 
 where otov refers to the just negatived a-rrovSd&u/ . and 
 some of the uses of oieo-tfat ye ^prj, e -g- Phaedo 68 B : 
 Phileb. 39 D Trept pkv TOV yeyovoYa /cat TOV irapovTa \povov 
 O~TIV, Trcpt oe TOV /zeAAovTa ovK f.o~Tiv ; 50dSpa ye, where 
 or^dSpa affirms the negatived Trcpl TOV /xcAXovrct eo-rtv : Crito 
 47 C ap' ovokv K.O.KOV Trtio-tTai ; II a>s yap ou ; Euthyd. 293 E 
 ovSev apa CTrto-rao-^ov ; Kat /xaXa. In Phaedo 79 B, Gorg. 
 453 D |~.Demo<i. 386 A] will be found some other answers 
 notable in respect of negatives, but they are different. 
 
 ibid. For TOT' eo-Tt TOWTO Madvig would read O.VT <TTI 
 TOUTO. ToVe is clearly wrong after the previous TOTC in the 
 same sentence, and avTo seems clearly right. But I think 
 the order should be inverted and we should read TOVT' COTTIV 
 avTo, which has the advantage of putting both words in 
 the right place. 
 
 ibid. B KaTa<t>povrio-a.s should perhaps be KaTa<f>povf]o~av. 
 It is of course possible that Plato has forgotten or passed 
 away from the original subject of the sentence, TO </>u'o-t 
 fte\Tio-Tov fjiJiuv, but a copyist's carelessness is more 
 probable. 
 
 ibid. C dp ovv ov% o avTO? Xdyos Kat ?rept TOV ycXocbti / cm, 
 av avTos alcr^vvoLo ycXwTOTrotdjv, tv /it/x^cret 8e KWfjuaoLKy r) KOL 
 tSt'a aKOvwv cr<^d8pa X a P^ Ka ^ W / Atcr ^ s ^ novypd, TOLVTOV 
 TTOtcts OTrep ev Tots tXeots ; 
 
 I have written this as it stands in the texts of Adam 
 and Burnet, the MSS. having not av but av. It is surely 
 impossible for av to do what Adam styles ' double duty ' in 
 this way, first with the optative and then with the 
 subjunctive. Something like Hermann's remedy of insert- 
 ing edV before o-<d8pa and also (with Madvig and Baiter) 
 
152 REPUBLIC 
 
 reading Srj for Se seems to me much the best way of dealing 
 with the passage, if you enjoy hearing from others what 
 you would be ashamed to say yourself. The lav or oV may 
 have dropped out between wv (Ka>/x,a>8o7rot6n>) and ev. Cf. 
 604 A a t TIS avrov OLKOVOL aicr^vvotr' oV. The on is confirmed 
 by on in D on roiavra K.r.X. x a PT? s ^ s P en to much doubt, 
 for there is (I think) only one other passage in good prose 
 where this aorist occurs, Xen. Cyneg. 1. 2 (sometimes 
 thought not Xenophontean), and the tense is neither in 
 harmony with /ucnjs nor in itself appropriate. Read 
 
 607 C Kai 6 TWV Stao-o<a>v o^A- 
 
 The quotation from an author unknown is given in this 
 form by Baiter after Schmidt. Most MSS. have Sta o-o$wv : 
 A apparently St'a cro</>wv, from which many scholars have 
 written Ata o-o<wv, some (Schleiermacher, Stallbaum) 
 thinking Ata could depend on ero<wi/, others (Schneider, 
 Bywater) governing it by /cparoji/. No one seems to have 
 seen that the Sta of A is nothing but an easy corruption of 
 Xtav (AIA for A I A). Cf. Eur. El. 296, yvayx^i/ evivat rots 
 (robots Xiav <ro(f>r)v ' Med. 295, TrcuSas Trepiaa-cos c/cStSao-KCo-^at 
 (ro^ovs, 305 t/xl 8' OVK ayav cro<f>r}, and 583 Ian 8' OVK ayav 
 o-o^os : fltpp. 518 : LA. 924 : Plato Gorg. 487 D and 
 Phaedr. 229 D. [When I wrote the above note, a few of 
 the references excepted, I did not know that Herwerden 
 had already proposed Xiav. Burnet writes Siao-o^wi/, I do 
 not know in what sense, some MSS. having Stacro^tov.] As 
 we are dealing with a mere fragment, it would probably be 
 unwise to alter Kpartav, but K/HTWV is an obvious conjecture. 
 
 608 B o"vfJL<f)irjiJLL <JOL e utv OL\r)\v8a./AfV oT/xat Se KCU aXXov 
 
 OVTLVOVV. 
 
 Should not Kat be K&V ? I think any one else would 
 is the natural phrase. 
 
 In 614s again, Xeyois av, c^j ws ou TroXXa aXXa ^8iov 
 I would read TroXX' av or rftiov av. 
 
 ibid. E Does not the sense require that with Ka/cov l/cacrra) 
 TI Kat dyatfov Xeycts we should read some such word as tStoi/ 
 (610 B) or ot/cctov (609 c: 610 E)? Perhaps it preceded 
 otov and fell out through likeness to it. 
 
REPUBLIC 153 
 
 609 B Ol> otoV T aVTO \VIV 
 
 The verb and participle seem to stand in the wrong 
 relation. Dissolution is the cause or manner of destruction, 
 not vice Versa. Cf. A SteAvcrcv KCU ctTrcoXecrev and C SuxAvet TC 
 /cat aTToAAvo-t, the order being significant. Perhaps there- 
 fore we ought to read Avov aTroAAvvcu (a.7ro\\veiv ?). 
 
 VK ?(rru> o Trotet avr^v Ka.Krjv. 
 
 Perhaps o TI, for (OVK) eo-riv o<rris is the regular phrase. 
 rt is known to fall out easily before w, which it much 
 resembles. 
 
 Plato's curious argument here may be thus illustrated. 
 The badness of a picture consists in its being somehow bad 
 as a work of art. But badness as a work of art does not 
 tend to destroy the material picture. It therefore lasts for 
 ever. The fallacy, conscious or unconscious, is much the 
 same as in 335 c. 
 
 ibid, c dAA' wSc TTOUI. 
 
 It is difficult to accept Adam's view that TTOICI means 
 represent or picture. No Greek could have understood the 
 words to mean anything but 'do thus.' Ast's cr/coTm is 
 strongly supported by KCU \^V\T]V Kara rov avrov rpoirov 
 just below and by the similar error (-rroitiv for 
 which I have pointed out in Dem. 5. 24, where however 
 Setv Trotetv may be due to Set TTOLZLV a few lines before. 
 
 611 E irepLKpova-OtLcra Trer/oas re KCU oarpea a vvv avry . . . 
 yerjpa KCLL TrerptoSr; TroAAa KCU aypta 
 
 I think we should get rid of the tautology by omitting 
 re Kat ocTTpea, as having got in from oo-r/aea TC *cat 
 KOL Trerpas in 611 D, or should at least read <KOU> 
 
 614 C Trjs T yf)<s Sv' etva.i ^acr/xara e^o/xevw aAAryAotv 
 TOV ovpavov ttv ev T(3 avco aAAa 
 
 The latter part of the sentence would naturally specify 
 'two others.' Should we change av to 8v' (AT to AT), 
 or add Sv' to avl 
 
154 REPUBLIC 
 
 615 c tvOvs ycvo/xevcov is indefensible and Cobet's cbroytvo- 
 /txcVwv extremely plausible. 
 
 ibid. D ovx -tyKet, </>avat, ov8' av 7?et. Read ou8c ST) ^i or 
 simply ouS' ijj&i, 8r/ and av being confused in either case. 
 Cf. Index. 
 
 616 A TOIS del Traptoucri cr>7/x,atvovTS wv eve/cot re Kat eis o Tt 
 TOV TapTapov e/ATrecrov/Aevot ayotVTO. 
 
 The MSS. and old testimonia vary between eis o TI, eis 
 cm, cm t's. Some editors bracket TOV TapTapov as a gloss. 
 But is it certain that Plato could have written of a place eis 
 o rt, instead of ol or OTTOL 1 cm et? seems best. Cf. 497 A 
 wv ei/e/ca Sia^SoX^v etXry^ev Kat cm ou 8t/catcos, . . . SoKCt /xerptcos 
 ipf)cr6aL : Thuc. 1. 69. 5 cTricrra/xe^a ofa 68ai ot 'AOrjvaiOL Kat 
 cm /car' oXtyov ^cupovcrtv CTTI rovs TreAas- There is some 
 awkwardness in the latter passage, as here ; but does 
 Cobet avoid all awkwardness by bracketing Kat cm 1 ? If 
 we want to do that, we must bracket Kat cm Kar' oXiyov. 
 Cf. ibid. 70. 1 : Dem. 43. 2 and 47,41. 
 
 618 D cucrre e aTrdvTOJV avrtov Swa-rcV etvat 
 
 alpCL(T0CILL TTjOOS T^V TT^S ^ V X^ C/>VCTtV aTTO/JXeTTOVTa TOV T 
 
 Kat TOV a/ACiVco jStov. 
 
 For atpeto-^at, which gives wrong sense here (it is rightly 
 used both above and below), read Siatpetcrtfai. Cf. Statpov/xeva 
 in C and /?t'ov Kat xprja-rov Kat Trovr/pov SiaytyvcocrKOVTa. Ar. 
 . 24. 6. 1460 a 5 has Staipeto-tfai by error for at 
 
 61 9 c Probably Sat^ovas should be 8at/xova, as in 61 7 E 
 (where Proclus has Sat/xovas, wrongly, as Sat/xcov shows), 
 620 D, etc. One man, one Sat/xtov is the rule. 
 
 fl&lti. D Sto 87) Kat /ATa/?oXr)v TWV KaKwv Kat TCOV dya^tov Tats 
 TroXXats TWV i^v^wv ytyvecrc^at Kat 8ta T^/V TOU K\r}pov 
 e7Tt ct TIS act . . . vytais ^)tXocroc/)Ot Kat 6 KXiypos avTco 
 atpe'crecos /x^/ V TcXcuTatots TTLTTTOL, KtvSuveuet . . . v 
 av K.T.X. 
 
 Though the quotation in the text of Proclus (Kroll ii. 
 p. 302) agrees with this, not only is Sto 8rJ . . . Kai 8ta K.T.X. 
 awkward in expression, but it really makes no sense with 
 what follows. cTrct is the key to the meaning and to the 
 
REPUBLIC 155 
 
 true reading, which is certainl JKOL <ov> 810. TVJV rov K\rjpov 
 rvxnv. To say that the change of good and evil is due 
 or partly due to the chances of the lot, because a man 
 who goes the right way to work may always, except in a 
 few extreme cases, do fairly well, is almost a contradiction 
 in terms. His being sure to do fairly well is a proof that 
 it does not depend on the chances of the lot, but on himself. 
 Given a sensible choice at starting and proper use of the 
 reason afterwards, a man may in most cases laugh at the lot. 
 Indeed in 619 B the very last soul to choose is said to be 
 able to find a good enough sort of life, and in 620 c the 
 soul of Odysseus, though coming last, actually does so. 
 
 621 B eTret&r) Se KOLJJL rjOyvai, Kat /xeVas vv/cras yveV$at, 
 PpovTiqv re Kat trctoy>ioy yei/e<r#at. 
 
 Is Plato really responsible for the clumsy and ill-sound- 
 ing repetition of yei/eV&u? As Kat and Kara are often 
 confused, perhaps we should write eTmSr) Se KOI/AT^VCU, Kara 
 /LteVas VVKTOLS ycveV&xt Ppovr-qv re /cat (rr/xov. /cat /x,eVa? vv/cras 
 tvat is also possible, yei/eV&u being due to anticipation of 
 the yeveV0ai following. 
 
 ibid. faL<f>vr]<; dva/?Xei^as tSttv ewflcv avrov /cet/Aci/ov CTTI rrj 
 Trvpa. 
 
 A's marginal oVu>0ev for ecotfev commends itself to me, 
 'though no editor seems to have favoured it. The marginal 
 correction or alternative in 576 D seems certain and that in 
 607 D very plausible. 
 
 ibid. C /cat -fj/Jia.? av cr(o<retev, av TrciOwjjLtOa avrw, /cat . . . 
 
 Kat fjfJLas Srj crtotrei (for av o-oKreti/) would fit the futures 
 better and give us a more positive assurance than the 
 weaker optative. Cf. p. 146 above. 
 
 ibid. Tiys oVto 680 v act eoyu,#a /cat Si/catocrw^v /xera 
 ^pov^acws Travrt rpoirio eTrtTTySevo-o/Aev, Tj/a /cat fjfuv avrots 
 c/>tA.ot aj/xcv /cat rots ^eots, avrov TC /xevovres kvOdSc /cat 7ret8av 
 ra a^Xa avrrj^ /co//i^co/x^a, wtTTTtp ot viKytfropoi Trepiayeipo^ievot, 
 Kat cv^aSc Kat ci/ TT; ^tAteret Tropei'a, ^i/ 8tA^A.v'^a/>tv, ev 
 
 7TpaTTO)/XV. 
 
156 REPUBLIC 
 
 Schneider, who objects on grounds of logic to joining 
 Iva. . . . <f>i\oi &fj.v . . . rots Otois . . . cTreiSav TO, aOXa aurr/s 
 KO/x,ic6/x,e$a, connects avroO re . . . 7repiayeipo//,evoi with v irpdr- 
 T(o/xv. But his logical objection, though not unfounded, 
 seems to tell with equal strength against saying Ira . . . 
 eTrciSai/ TO. aOXa avrfjs KO/xit6^u,#a . . . ev TrparTw/xcv, and in 
 his construction the repetition in KCU cvtfaSe is very weak. 
 I conclude therefore that avrov re ... Trepiayctpo/ouvoi goes 
 with <^tAot w/xci/, and indeed the re and KO.L almost necessarily 
 form a pair. But the meaning would be much more clearly 
 and symmetrically expressed, if we might suppose a TC to 
 have been lost, reading /cat cv0aSe <re> KCU ei/ ry ^lAie'ret 
 TropeLa . . . cv TrparTw/xev. Plato does not avoid such a 
 combination of short syllables : cf. 602 c eV vSart re. For 
 the omission of TC cf. note on 614 B, and here it is made 
 easier by Be preceding. 
 
CLITOPHON 
 
 406 A 2$Q. KXetTOc^cuvTa rov J Api<TTa>vt;/AOv TIS fjfjuv 
 Ivay^o?, on Avcria SiaXcyo/xevos ras /xcv /xcra 
 8ia,Tpi/?as if/eyoi, Tr)v pacrv/xa^ov 8e crwovcriav VTrepeTraivot. 
 
 KAEI. oo-Tts, w SwKpares, ov/c op0cos aTrc/xv^oi/evo-e o~ot 
 TOUS e/xot Trept orov yevo/xevovs Xoyov? ?rpos Avcriav ra /xev yap 
 eyoayc ou/c eTT^Vovv o-e, TO, 8e /ecu eTrr^vov^. 
 
 On oo-Ti5, which cannot be right, Burnet's note is ' oo-rts 
 fy Hermann : oo-rts * * Schanz.' Of the two I prefer 
 Hermann's conjecture, but I would suggest a smaller 
 change instead, namely to read the exclamation ws ns . . . 
 OVK 6p0ws a7r/Avr7/xot/W, hoiu wrongly he stated ! For ws 
 how with a negative cf. Menander 555 K w y^pas (3apv, a>s 
 ouSei/ dya^ov, 8v(r\prj 8e Tro'XX' ex l? ' an( ^ other comic 
 fragments : II 21.273. 
 
 av 
 
 408 B Read SiKacrrtKr; TC Kat 
 
 There is no possible construction for the accusative. 
 
 408 C Should we read TrpoTpeTrriKtoTaTOvs 8c 1 
 
 ibid. D For OTTW? 8ct we should expect OTTWS 8^ 8et or OTTCDS 
 
 157 
 
PHAEDBUS 
 
 227 D 77 yap av <a/x'> dcrretot Kat S?7/x(o<eAeis eTcv ot Adyot ? 
 
 230 B TOV T ayvov TO vil/os /cat TO <rv(TKiov TrayKaAov, Kat ws 
 aK/xr/v c^et Tr)s av@r]s, a>s ai/ cvcoSeo-rarov Trape^ci TOV TOTTOV. 
 
 /cat ws has always been found a difficulty, for the exclam- 
 atory o>s is very awkward here and no other sense seems 
 possible. Is it possible that under the disguise of Kat a>s 
 lurks KaAais (KaXws T' aKju^v e^ei or even Kat 
 
 D too-7Tp yap ot TOL TrctvwvTa pe/x/xaTa aAAov 77 Ttva 
 7rpoo-tovTCS ayovcrti/, crv e/xot Adyovs OVTCO 7rpoTiV(ov . . . 
 
 There is evidently something wrong with the first clause. 
 Does not Clement's reproduction of the words (Strom. 
 2. 20. 176), ot aTreAawovTes TO. Ope/Jifiara OaXXov 7rpoo*tovTes, 
 suggest that we should read ayovTes 1 Plato does not 
 dislike subordinating one participle to another. 
 
 ibid. On Lysias' speech, see p. 288. 
 
 234 A Trawra/xei'u) would be a trifle nearer to the Travo-a- 
 /xevot of MSS. than Travo-a/xeVov, which is often adopted. 
 A line or two before one of the two best MSS. has 
 and the other yei/o/xeVw, the latter being right. 
 
 ibid. E otei av TWO. ^X LV ^AA-ov Tajy 'EAAryvwv eTepa TOVTCOV 
 /xet^oo Kat TrActw Trept TOT) a^ToC ?rpay/xaTos ; 
 
 yoiei^w is quite the wrong word to use with regard to the 
 plain everyday style of Lysias and of the epomKos Adyos 
 here ascribed to him. It would be much more in keeping 
 with the style of such a Adyos as begins with p. 244, a style 
 which is indeed elevated and great. It would not be 
 
 158 
 
PHAEDRUS 159 
 
 difficult in any case to see what word Plato must have 
 used, but the parallel passages within a page or two 
 indicate it very clearly. 235 B prjSev' av TTOTC Svvao-0ai 
 etTretV aXXa TrXctoo /cat TrXetWos ata : ibid. C TTOV crv /3eXTt'a> 
 TOVTWV aKr;Koas; and Trapa ravr av %X LV ' Lir ^ v Tcpa /XT) 
 Xeipw ; ibid. D /XT) eXaTTO) erepa eVtxetpei etTretv : 236 B crcpa 
 TrXet'w /cat TrXet'ovos ata eiTrouv TUJV Avcrt'ov. Plato wrote 
 d/xetVw. [Dr. Postgate points out to me that, though the 
 Bodleian MS. (B) has erepa TOUTWV /xci^w, the Venetian (T) 
 has ercpa juet^o) rovrtov. If this was the order of words, the 
 error would be still easier.] See my Aristophanes and 
 Others p. 233 for other instances of this interchange. In 
 Theocr. 27. 59 Cobet's d/xctvova seems preferable to pcova. 
 
 on i- / J N w /i ./ 
 
 23^ B Kttl 7TOT ttUTOV -j , ^ h TTLVV TOVT ttVTO, (09 
 
 Trpo TOV epcovTO? Se'oi ^api^dOo.^ IXcycV T ai8e. 
 Neither atVwv nor eptov seems quite the right word, nor 
 does either of them exactly account for the other. AEFON" 
 may perhaps account for both and is very suitable. 
 
 238 B ya<TTpLfJLOLpyia T <OTCU> Or 
 
 239 A TOCTOVTWV <Cow> 
 
 241 D KttlTOt WfJLfJV y JJL((TOVV O.VTOV (i.6. TOV \6yov) KO.I f 
 
 TO. L&a vrept TOV /XT; epojvros, ws 8et cKiVo) xapi^taOaL /xaAXov, 
 Xeycov o<ra au ^et ayaOd. 
 
 Besides the great difficulty of the nominative Ae'ycov 
 (which Thompson does not even notice) there is the minor 
 one that a <re is wanted as subject to cpttV. It cannot be 
 understood. Hermann ere (for ye) /xco-ow avrov, but ye is. 
 very proper after KCUTOI and with W/XT;V. As an alternative 
 to Xeyovra (Schanz after Stephanus), should we read /cat 
 <ws> epets . . . Xcywv 1 The frequent confusion of Kat and 
 d>s in MS. writing would facilitate the error. Cf. on 267 B- 
 below. 
 
 242 A B otjtxat . . . /xryoeva TrXctovs (Xoyoi's) ry ere 
 
 ryrot O.VTOV Xeyovra ^ aXXovs . . 
 /cat vw av So/cct? atrtos /xot yeyevf}cr^at Xoyw rtvl 
 
160 PHAEDRUS 
 
 Badham has altered the second yeyev^o-flat to 
 I think with reason, as the Aoyos is still in the future. 
 But the first yeyer^cr&u seems to me more clearly wrong. 
 Surely after TreTroir/KeVat we could not have another perfect, 
 but only the aorist yeveVflat. Not unfrequently, e.g. Thuc. 
 8. 17, Isocr. 2. 49, MSS. vary between the two forms. 
 
 ibid. C Kat Ttva (fxDvrjv e8oa avroOfV a/coucrai, rj /xe OVK ea 
 dwieVai. 
 
 I think ea should be eta. So a little below (243 A) in 
 eyvo) rrjv amav Kat Troiet tvOvs, OVK <TT' K.r.X. the imperfect 
 seems called for. 
 
 244 C rr/v ye roov e/x,<pdv<oi/ ^rjrrjariv rov /xe'XAovros Sta re 
 Troiov/xevoov Kat Ttuv aXA.cov (riy/xei'wv. 
 
 Schanz brackets TroioiyxeVwv, which is certainly a very 
 awkward word. The expedient of separating ^rJT-rjcriv from 
 Trjv ye TWJ/ tp^povuv and supplying re^^/v with the latter 
 words seems forced and difficult. The old conjecture 
 TTotov/xeVryi/ would be attractive, if it were not tolerably 
 certain that Plato would have written not Troiou/xeV^v but 
 yiyi/o/AeV^i/, yi'yvo/xai being the usual passive of TTOICO. I am 
 inclined to suggest Sia re opviOuv Trero/xeVwv. Cf. Liban. 
 
 15. 29 8t' OVlOtDV 7TTOXeV(OV . . . JL7VV(Tai TL T(5 
 
 247 D ar' ovv Ocov Sidvoia vai re Kat 
 T/D^>o/xeV^ Kat aTracrr/s ^v^s OCTT; av K.T.A. 
 
 are cut off thus from vw re . . . Tpe</>o/x,e'vr7 being impossible, 
 there is much to be said in favour of the conjecture rj re. 
 But, as the corruption is not a very probable one, and as 
 oV ovv begins another sentence in 255 A, some other error 
 may have been made. Words sometimes get by accident 
 out of their order, and, if we put Oeov SidVota after rpe^o/xeVr/, 
 everything would be proper. Cf. on Phaedo 81 c. 
 
 249 D Should ^i/ be changed to TT}S and e^et to ^77 1 For 
 rij<s orav cf. 239 B rfjs oOev av ^povijawraTo? etiy and 259 B 
 rtoi> Trpiv Movcra^ yeyoveVat. In 255 A the MSS. have coronet 
 for 
 
 250 C Ka.6a.poi ot'Tes Kai, do"^uai / Toi rofrov, b vvv crcu/xa 
 o^o/x,a^o/>tv, ocTTpeov rpoTTov 
 
PHAEDRUS 161 
 
 is explained with reference to the o-w/xa cry/ma 
 of Crat. 400 c, Gorg. 493 A. 'It means,' says Thompson, 
 '(1) unmarked, i.e. unpolluted, and (2) unentombed, unim- 
 prisoned, according to the two senses of o-^/za.' But is this 
 quite satisfactory 1 ? There is nothing in the context to 
 indicate that Plato has o-w/xa o-^/xa in his mind, and how is 
 the reader to find it out? Also 'without mark of the 
 body ' is perhaps not quite the happiest way of expressing 
 the supposed effect of body on soul. Although therefore 
 the common view may be right, it seems just worth while 
 to suggest aTrrj/jiavToi as an alternative reading. Parallel to 
 these words we have two or three lines above oAoKA^poi /xci/ 
 avrol OVTZS Kal an aO els KOL K&V. The words of 248 C 
 must also be taken into account ; 0eoyxos 8' 'ASao-retas oSe- 
 rjris av I/'V^T) $eu> wo7ra8os yevo/xeV?? KariBrj TL roof a.\rj6Ctv, 
 /xe'xpt re TT}S eWpas 7reptd8ov eu/ai a TT 77 /x o v a, KO.V act TOVTO 
 SvvrjraL TTOUIV, del a.(3Xa(3fj etmt. As we read on, we find 
 that the Trrj^a and /3Acx/?r; which these souls escape is 
 entrance into a human body. Those words strongly 
 suggest chnj/xavToi here. Add the TraXatov 7reV0os of Pindar, 
 quoted Meno 81 c. But I do not make the suggestion 
 very confidently. 
 
 252 D Something like TOV re ovv "Epwro, <a-e/:W eva ye 
 Ttva> TOJJ/ KaXwv TT/DOS rpoirov 
 
 254 D eTreiSr) eyyus fjKovcriv or 77877 eio-tV (Buttmann eio-tV). 
 
 256 E /cat bfJLOTTTtpovs epwros \u.pw, orav yeVwvrat, yevecrOat. 
 
 Read yt(y)vwvTai, for 6'rav yeVtovrat can only mean ' when 
 they have become,' not ' when they become.' This is a 
 principle in the use of aorists after 6Vav, eTreiSdY, edV, etc. 
 which scholars still fail to recognise. Cf. on Apol. 31 D. 
 Read also yi'yvecr$ai, comparing with 6'rav ytyi/currat ytyvf&Qfu. 
 the regular combination of the two forms, e.g. Hep. 373 E 
 yiyvf.ra.1 orav yiyvrjrtu, 537 E KOLKOV ytyvo/xevov o<rov yiyvcrat : 
 Euthyph. 7 D : Theaet. 186 c : Prot. 323 c : Phil. 31 B : 
 Laios 780 c, 791 c, 821 A : and elsewhere. 
 
 257 D TOV Xot8opov/xevov avrio otct 
 
 Xeyeiv a eAeyci/. No/xt^ovra by itself will not do for 
 
 M 
 
162 PHAEDRUS 
 
 'thinking i true,' 'believing it.' Read 6VetoYeiv vo/xtovTa, 
 ' thinking it was a reproach.' Cf. 258 c otei nva ow . . . 
 oveiSt'^av O.VTO TOVTO on o-vyypa<et ; <J>AI. OVKOVV et/<os ye 
 e wv (Ti? Aeyets* Kat yap av T# eavTov 7rt0v/xia, a>s eotxev, 
 6vei8iot, where for avro we should read either aura) or avT<3 
 avTo, and perhaps for 777 eWrov eVi#v/xm the accusative. 
 [Dr. Postgate suggests to me, I think rightly, that 25^c 
 (<ovei'8te) and 258 c are in favour of reading simply 
 6VeiStovTa.] 
 
 261 A TOUTWV 8et TWV Aoywv gives quite a wrong sense. 
 Add dKpoao-0at, unless B's 87} for Set indicates that some 
 further change is needed. 
 
 263 A ov Travrt 8>}A,ov TO ye rotovSe, ws ?rept juev evta TWV 
 
 v o,> v 
 
 ret o evia 
 
 v 
 
 TIS o v o /x,' etTrry o-t8r/pov 17 apyi;pov, ap' ov TO avTO 
 
 should no doubt be Too-oV8e. Of the readings 
 and OVTWV the latter (preferred by Thompson) 
 seems certainly better in itself, though its authority is very 
 inferior. ToiovVcoi/ is meaningless, and oWoov may be 
 thought to be confirmed by 263 D E ^i/ay/cao-ev ^/xas viroXa- 
 jStiv TOV v EpwTa (.v TL TWV o v T co v, o avTO? J3ov\r]@r]. Is it 
 possible that ovo/xarwv was the real word ? 
 
 ibid. C KaXbv yow av, w SwKpaTe?, eTSos etr; 
 TOVTO Xa^Swv. 
 
 Is not elSos an erroneous repetition of etSovs above, just 
 as in B it stands also by error for TTA^OS, which comes 
 between 1 It is hardly suitable and after etSovs in another 
 sense seems out of the question. The right word need not 
 bear much, if any, resemblance to etSos- Something like 
 fiorjOrjiJia would give the meaning. 
 
 Possibly in 268 B C d^tw TOV ravTa Trap' e/xov /xa$ovTa avTov 
 oTov T' etvat TroieTv a epwTas the account of Trotetv may be the 
 same, that it is due to Troietv occurring twice a little before. 
 It is certainly wrong, and if the error arose in this way it 
 is almost useless to attempt to restore the actual word. If 
 we take it only as a partial corruption, Schleiermacher's 
 
PHAEDRVS 163 
 
 seems not perfectly adapted to otov T ciwu, though 
 it might pass. Tropi&iv may perhaps be suggested, though 
 we should rather look for 7ropieo-0cu, as in 269 c and D. 
 
 266 C fj.a06vTa. 
 
 267 A and B Is it certain that ayo/xev and Aeyop,v ought 
 not to be ao/xei> and Aeo/Aev, corresponding to eao-o/xcv in A 1 
 The present tenses seem to me doubtful, and the confusion 
 is a very common one. 
 
 In B I do not feel sure that the unmeaning ws before 
 SiTrAao-ioAoyiav should not be /cai. Cf. on 241 D. 
 
 ibid. B To Kcuva re dpxatws TO. r evavTia /catvw? add the 
 \eyovo-L which Heindorf saw to be wanted, or something 
 equivalent. 
 
 I do not know why Ast's o</>$aA/u'av in 255 D and his TO 
 eu/ai in Hep. 395 c have not been universally adopted. So 
 with Stallbaum's eayyeAw in 279 B, the same correction 
 which I have made in Ep. 13. 362 c. In 236 E B and T 
 agree in giving eayyeA\eiv, though the second hand in the 
 latter gives the necessary 
 
 ibid. C rwv ye /xr/v ot/crpoyowv eVi yrjpas /cat trcviav eA/co- 
 (j.V(DV Xoywv KKparrjKvai Te^yr) /JLOL (^atVerat TO TOV XaX.Kr)8oviov 
 <rOcvos (TO T. X. <rO. being Thrasymachus). 
 
 eA-Ko/xeVtov 7ri with accusative ought to mean, like ciAicvo-ev 
 CTTI in 270 A, that they are drawn from some other source or 
 quarter, which would here have to be some other subject, 
 and then applied to age and poverty. But this gives no 
 proper sense. From what other subject did Thrasymachus 
 transfer to these topics the use of lamentation 1 ? What 
 else had speakers been in the habit of choosing as subjects 
 for lamentation 1 Perhaps we might read ITTL yrj/oa /cat 
 ircvt'a, understanding eAKo/xcVoov in the sense of drawn out, 
 protracted, the orator dwelling on his topic in sentence 
 after sentence. Cf. the use of cAxco for the evolutions of a 
 dance : Theaet. 57 D <Wos Trept Aoywi/ O\K^V : Eubulus 107. 3 
 vd/xov K vofJLOv tfAKwv : the phrase 7rpo<^>ucr65 eA/ceiv, etc. I 
 have sometimes thought oiKTpoyocov ought rather to be 
 , or that the article should be repeated after it. 
 
 M 2 
 
164 PHAEDRUS 
 
 275 A TOVTO yap TCJOV fJiaOovrutv A^Tyv ev if/v^ais 
 
 a./xeA.e'nycrt'a, are Sia TTICTTLV ypa^^s e^oj^ev VTT' aAAorptoov 
 
 TV7TWV, OVK 2v8o0V CtVTOL'S (/>' O/UTCOV dvajU,t/X,V77CTKOjU,VOVS. 
 
 Anacolutha in Plato are by no means to be condemned 
 wholesale. His characters are only talking, and the Greeks 
 were no more likely to talk with unerring grammatical 
 accuracy than ourselves. But an anacoluthon ought to be 
 such as a man talking might easily slip into, and the 
 accusatives avrovs dva/xt/xv^crKo/xevov? hardly satisfy this 
 condition. Masculine datives would be the least change, 
 the men and their souls being treated as identical (so in 
 poetry, Od. 11, 91 : Bacchyl. 5. 78: Eur. Ak. 902). Of. 
 on c D below. 
 
 ibid. C KaraXiTretv should surely be KaraXeiVetv, ' thinks 
 he is leaving.' I do not see how the aorist can be right : 
 it would be applicable properly only to a dead man, who 
 cannot think anything. [/caraAeiTreiv Stobaeus BurnetJ\ 
 
 ibid. C D irXeov rt oto/x,evos etvat Aoyovs yeypa/x/xeVovs rov 
 rov ciSora viro/JLvrja-ai irepl wv av ry TO, yeypa/x/u.ei'a. 
 
 Thompson's defence of etvai will not hold water. Perhaps 
 i/u/ai (Heindorf etvai lv) Xoyois yeypa/x/xeVois j or did Plato 
 write Xdyov yrypo/i/utcvov, ' something more, some greater 
 advantage, in writing '? Cf. the genitive in 271 E 
 i TTco TrXeov a^rcu wv TOTC T^KOVCV A.oya>v 
 
 276 D ots A-eytov Trat^wv MSS. ei/ ois Xeyw Trai^wv Hein- 
 dorf. 
 
 Alii alia. Perhaps ot? Xeyo> e/ATrat^wi/. This might 
 account for Aeyoiv, if that is not due only to the termination 
 of 7rcua>v. 
 
 i&^. E All the editors I have -looked at, including 
 Badham, seem satisfied with the accusative /KvtfoAoyowro, 
 but it ought grammatically to be the genitive and I very 
 much doubt whether the accusative admits of defence or 
 has good parallels. 
 
 277 B KCXT' avTo should perhaps be KOL OLVTO. 
 
 ADDENDUM 
 
 On the authorship of the Ao'yos ascribed to Lysias, see 
 t>. 288. 
 
THEAETETUS 
 
 143 A ocrdKis 'A^r^va^e &<JHKOifjajv } e7rai^pa)T<ov rbv 
 
 o /xr/ /xe/xvfl/xryv seems much more likely and these perfect 
 optatives are very liable to corruption. 
 
 144 A TO yap K.T.A.. eya> /xev OVT' av wo/x^i/ yevecr0ai ovre opai 
 yiyvo/Jitvov. 
 
 Other questions arise about this sentence, but I am only 
 concerned now with OVT av wo/x-^v yevco-Oai. When we find 
 one av with such a word as wo/x^v and an infinitive, scholars 
 seem sometimes to think that they may translate it twice 
 over, as though it went both with the finite and with the 
 infinitive verb. So Campbell here : ' I should not have 
 thought there could have been an instance.' But, if av 
 goes with wo/xr/v, its force is then exhausted and yeveVflat 
 must not be taken to mean could occur or could have 
 occurred. For those senses the infinitive must either be in 
 the future tense or have a second and separate av, though 
 I think the latter case is rare. In such phrases as 
 Thuc. 8. 66 ovs OVK av Trore TIS WTO c? oXtyap^iW Tpa7reo-$ai, 
 of which there are many, av goes solely with the infinitive 
 and not at all with the other verb, which is categorical. 
 See many instances of various kinds in Blaydes' notes to 
 Ar. Thesm. 526 : Lys. 257. It follows that in our passage 
 either av has nothing to do with WO/XT^ or we must 
 read yfyrccrtfou, and so in some other cases. Burnet's critical 
 notes on 143 D and 148 A show how easy the confusion of 
 yiyv and ycv is, but there seems no sufficient reason for 
 assuming it here. 
 
 165 
 
166 THEAETETUS 
 
 148 C ct ere Trpos opofJiov tTratvoiv /x^Scvt ourco Spo/xtKO) 
 T<ov veW VTTv^/cevai, ctra 
 K.T.A. 
 
 TOV <zKju,aovTos Kat Ta^to-Tov seems an impossible expres- 
 sion. ' The swiftest runner ' is right enough, because in 
 any given set of people one will probably be the swiftest. 
 But ' the grown man ' is not right, because any number of 
 them may be grown men. We cannot take the words as 
 generic, * a grown man and very fast runner ' : Plato could 
 never use the article so in such an expression, and it must 
 not be defended by av TOV 'A^vatov KTCIVTI (Dern. 23. 41, 
 etc.), av Tts TOV eAeuflcpov KaKios Ae'yv? ('A0. IIoA. 59. 5), and 
 similar technical forms. Adopt then Burger's TOV and read 
 iTcn Sta$e<ov TOU a.Kyu,aovTos, Kat <CTOVTOU> Ta^to"TOV, r)TTr)0r)<s, 
 for Ta^to-Tov is an awkward addition without something 
 like Toirrov. 
 
 ibid. E ov /xev orj av ou8' aTraAAayr^vat (8vva/xat) TOV ^ueAetv. 
 For TOU the Vienna MS. has TOVTOV : Burnet writes TOV 
 
 TOVTOV. 
 
 In this sentence jue'Aciv could not represent /xeAct /xot, but 
 only /xeAo). Such a use of /xeAw however is not found, as 
 far as I know, in prose, which always employs the other 
 form. A unique use of jae'Aco on Plato's part is surely less 
 likely than that some copyist wrote /xe'Aetv by error for 
 
 /XeAeTUV. Cf. 174C OUK l8oJS KttKOV OVOtV OuSeVOS K TOV fJ.r) 
 
 /xc/xeAeT^Kcvat. In Xen. Hippctrch. 4. 7 ^^Xr]K.f.vai is 
 admitted to be a mistake for 
 
 149 D Kat TLKTfiv TC or] (TTOLCIV Svvavrat) TO.S ouo"TOKOvo*aS) 
 Kat eav viov ov 80^17 d;u/3Aio-Kav d/x/5Ato-Kotcriv. 
 
 veov ov, used of an embryo, is recognized by the scholiast 
 in the Berlin papyrus, but seems open to great doubt. It 
 has given rise to many conjectures, none quite satisfactory 
 (8eov Heindorf, dvayKatov Stallbaum, a/xetvov Madvig, 
 i/o/u/xov Schanz, and others). But I think that by combin- 
 ing two of them we may not improbably arrive at the right 
 reading. Naber has proposed Kat vavov av 80^17, which 
 though infelicitous as to vavov has the merit of suggesting 
 av for ov. If with this we unite Madvig's a/xetvov, which is 
 
THEAETETUS 167 
 
 a most suitable word, we get /cat', a/xeii/ov av 80^77 d//,/3At'orKtv, 
 the position of aV (edV) being quite unobjectionable. When 
 we put side by side KAMEINONAN and KANNEONON, 
 we see that one would have no difficulty in passing into 
 the other. 
 
 150 D TToXAo, /ecu KoAo, eupoVres re Kat Kare^ovre?. 
 
 /cat and Kar are perhaps duplicates and we might read 
 eKoVres has in fact slight MS. authority, and 
 better. 
 
 152 E /cat Trept TOUTOU TrdVres e^s ol <ro<ot ?rA.r/v 
 <rvfJi<f>ep(r@ov, IIp<jOTayopa<> re /cat 'Hpa/c/VetTos Kat ' 
 Kat TWV TTOiTiraiv ot aKpot TT^S TrotTycrecos Karepas, Ka>//,u>8tas )U,ei/ 
 , rpaywStas 8e "Oyn^pos, <os> CITTWI/ K.rA. 
 
 B (?i videtur} : crvfji^epeaOov TW : (rv/x.<^e- 
 poi/rat Stobaeus' Burnet, who with Campbell adopts the 
 imperative, oru/a^e'pecr^ov is now found also in the Berlin 
 papyrus, which comments on the passage, though not on the 
 difficulty of this word. Surely in such a context the 
 imperative, let us say, let us assume, that they all agree, is 
 singularly out of place. Why should it be assumed, if it 
 is not the fact 1 The very point of the whole is the weight 
 of actual authority on that side : hence the names of 
 philosophers and poets that follow. Heindorf was content 
 to adopt <rv/x<e'poi/Tat ; but this leaves the other form or 
 forms quite unexplained, while it is itself easily explained 
 as- an obvious correction or inadvertence. I quite agree 
 that the philosophers cannot be here spoken of in the dual : 
 that is impossible, especially as the actual subject of the 
 verb is not Ilpamxyopas K.r.X. but Trai/res. Nor, I think, 
 can the dual come from the dual idea of philosophers and 
 poets side by side. But in the next clause we have the 
 dual division of poetry into comedy and tragedy with two 
 poets mentioned. Surely this suggests that the verb 
 belongs there and has only got out of its proper place. As 
 ot aKpot means two men, cru/>ic/>epe(r$oi' would be admissible, 
 I think, after eKarepas, even if eKare'pas itself did not give a 
 dual notion. After "O/xrypos it would be awkward, if we 
 were sure that 05, there added by Heindorf, was right. 
 No doubt the last letters of "O/x/j/pos would account for the 
 
168 THEAETETUS 
 
 omission of os, but, if it were thought probable that 
 crvfji<f>p(r6ov stood there, we could find some other word or 
 words of connexion to insert instead of os. The fact that 
 something is certainly lost after "O/x^pos may be thought in 
 favour of this. (For misplacement of word cf. the notes on 
 155 B and 201 c and many others in different parts of this 
 book.) 
 
 153 A So/cow can hardly be right. Should we omit it and 
 read IKOLVO. <8oKowra> just before 1 
 
 155 A Perhaps wv <7rept> TrpwTOV eVtcTKOTrowTes. wv is 
 certainly odd in construction, and rrept might easily be lost 
 before TrptoTov. 
 
 Probably ^r)r <av> av^dveaOai (av lost before av) as in 
 the preceding sentence : the optatives point to this. 
 
 ibid. B 5Q. ap' ovv ov Kat rptrov, o /my Trporepov rjv, varrcpov 
 dAAa TOUTO eu/at aVeu TOV yeveV0at Kat ytyvecr$ai aSvvarov ; 
 0EAI. 8oKet ye Srj. 
 
 No sense can be made of dAAa where it stands. I 
 incline to think that, like a-v^epca-Oov in 152 E, it has got 
 into the wrong line. Read Theaetetus 3 answer as dAXa 
 SOKCI ye 877, which is perfectly good. See Ast's Lex. Plat. 
 1. 101 dAAa ... ye, and in 153 D, 157 D, etc. see answers 
 beginning with dAAa in a very similar way. Badham has 
 shown us, I think, how yeveV&xt Kat yiyveo-^at should be 
 treated (eu>ai Kat yevecr$ai ai/ev rov ytyvecr$ai dSwarov). It 
 cannot very well be parallel to Laws 849 A TWI/ 8' eV ao-rei 
 Kara TO. avra 7rifA\r)6f)vai KOLL eTrt/xeAeto'^at TTJV rwv dcrrwoynwv 
 apx'tjv, where no doubt the aorist refers to the first regula- 
 tion of details and the present to the subsequent continuous 
 control. 
 
 ibid. D -^apiv ovv fJLOL et'crr; eoV crot avSpos, /uaAAov 8e 
 6vofj.a.crTO)v rrjs 8tavot'as TTJV dA^etav aTro/ceKpry/^aeV^i' crvve^epev- 
 vrjo-ufjLai avT&v (aurrjv has slight authority). 
 
 These words have given the critics some trouble. The 
 remedy is not really far to seek, and the appearance of 
 O.VTTJV in a Vienna MS. might have suggested it. We have 
 here the not very uncommon occurrence of two words 
 having exchanged their terminations. Instead of 
 
THEAETETUS 169 
 
 Kpv/x/x,eV>?i> . . . avrCtv read dTro/ceKpiyx/xeVoov . . . avryv. Cf. 
 
 180c Trapa fJLV Tooy apxaiiw /^era Tronjdcws 
 
 TOVS 
 
 156 A Should we read ev /xaX' a/xovo-oi for /xaX' ev a/xovo-oil 
 The inversion of /xaX' tu for cv /xaXa is hardly made out. 
 In 1 69 B /xaX' cu iry/ceKo'<ao-iv there is no need to take it so, 
 and in Herod. 3. 150 Kctpra ev Trapeo-Kevao-jueVoi the ev 
 certainly goes with the participle, not as Heindorf says 
 
 With 
 
 157 A Trdvra yiyveo-$ai KOL Travrola O.TTO (read VTTO) rrj<s 
 /r/<re<os. 
 
 ibid. TO T TIV6 (TVVfXOoV KOI TTOLOVV ttXXo) ttV TTpOCrTTCCTOV 
 
 t should be omitted, as o-weA0ov is subordinate like 
 * what acts when it meets one thing is acted 
 upon when it comes across another.' Cf. 160 A OVT cKetvo 
 TO TTOLOVV //. /x^TTOT* aXXo) crweX^ov TavTov y^vvrj(Tav roiovrov 
 yev^rat. This insertion of Kat with a participle, the relation 
 of which has been misunderstood, is found in other places. 
 
 ibid. B TO 8' ov Set, (us 6 TWV o"0<^wv Xoyo?, O^TC TI o-v 
 
 TOI) OVT' e/xoi) orTe ToSe OI;T' CKCIVO OVT' aXXo ovSei/ ovo/xa 
 OTI av IO~T^. 
 
 We must not allow (he says) any word that imports any 
 sort of fixity and permanence as contrasted with constant 
 flux and change. The difficulty in the words quoted is in 
 OVT TOU OVT' e/xov, for which OVTC crov OVT e/xoi), oirre TOVTO, 
 OVTC TOVT flvai have been proposed by good critics. TOV 
 adds nothing to TI, just as the proposed TOVTO would add 
 nothing to To'Se. The genitives do not seem suitable (I 
 suppose in or belonging to) nor the mention of persons 
 (e/xoi) or o-ov and e/xo) at all called for or even in keeping 
 with the general course of the argument, in which you and 
 I play another part. We want then probably two words 
 suggestive of fixity in things, external things. Though 
 TOVTO, meaning the same as ToSe, will not do, TavTo'(^) is 
 appropriate, distinct, and likely enough. Cf. 202 A. 
 What to do with e/xoi) I hardly know, but perhaps lv may 
 
170 THEAETETUS 
 
 serve and the ov be taken to come from the ovre following. 
 Iv is clearly suggested by the words just before, ovSev eti/at 
 cv avTo Ko.6' avTo (cf. 152 D), which also suggest the possi- 
 bility of avro (not ravro) for TOV. Without much confidence 
 therefore I suggest that we might read ovre n ovre TO.VTO 
 ovO' ei> OVT roSe ovV fKclvo \ ' we must not admit such 
 expressions as some thing, same thing, one thing, this 
 thing, that thing.' 
 
 ibid. E XctTTerat 8e evvrrvtwv re Trept . . . /cat /xavta?, ocra re 
 TrapaKoveti/ 77 Trapopav rj TL aAAo 7rapatcr$aVeo-#at Xcycrat. 
 
 The re after oVa is awkward : so is it to find /xavta as the 
 subject of these verbs. Should we read ocra rts 7 
 
 A little further on in 158 B there is another odd re : w? 
 ot fJLaivofjifVOL rj oi/eipwrrovres ov i^cvSry Bo^d^ovcnv, orav ot /xev 
 avrwv ouovrai elvat, 01 8e irrt]voi re K<X! ws Trero/x-cvot ei/ TO) 
 Starowvrat. Here it is explained that after TTT^VOI re 
 we supply OIWVTCU eti/ai. Did Plato write ot 8e wq TTT^VOI re 
 Kat Trerd/xei/oi . . . Stavocovrat s 
 
 161 E ras dXX^Xcoj/ ^)avrao-i'as TC Kat Soas, opOas e/cacrrov 
 
 eKacrro) ? 
 
 16 2 A ct aX-rjOrjs fj 'AX^Cia ITpoorayopov d/\.Xa 
 
 rov 
 
 Is T^S ptfiXov an adscript 7 
 
 . B TwSe Se for rw Se 8rJ 7 ovrt rather points to this. 
 
 ibid. E rw etKo'rt xpYJcrOe, w i e^eA-ot eoSwpos 17 aA,Xos ns rwv 
 pooyueyos yeco/xerpeti/ a^tos ovSei/os /xdvov av eir;. 
 
 /xovov, though supported (as ovS' evos JJLOVOV) by 
 the scholiast, has been found a difficulty, since /xoVov seems 
 meaningless. Perhaps we should turn it into /x,wi/ ov and 
 read aios ov8eros /awv OVK av tit] ; For the postponement of 
 /xtov ov cf. Laws 896 D tyvfflV 8r/ SioiKovo-av K.r.A. jacov ov Kat 
 TOV ovpavov avdyKrj 8totKetv <ai/at ; Or fLVT<X ? 
 
 167 B C (^Ty/xt yap Kat TOVTOVS (TOVS yewpyovs) rots <j!)VTOts dvrt 
 
THEAETETUS 171 
 
 OTO.V n avrtov acrOevf], 
 
 It seems clear that (1) dA^eis is unmeaning in relation 
 to plants, and also hardly consistent with what precedes, 
 for it implies the possibility of false perceptions or 
 sensations : (2) ato-0^creis re KOLL points to another substan- 
 tive, for which reason dA??0eias has been suggested : (3) the 
 word should be parallel to cuo-d^cms in expressing some 
 affection or state : (4) again like cucr&jo-eis, the thing 
 should be in itself neutral, admitting of both good and 
 bad. 7ra0as, a Platonic word, satisfies these conditions, 
 and might I think pass by error into dA^ei?. 7ra#os and 
 TrA^os certainly get interchanged sometimes. In Philebus 
 31 B and 41 c for instance one of the two best MSS. has 
 7ra0os and the other TrA^tfos. A and A being much alike, it 
 would not be difficult for 7ra#as to become, say, TrA^as, and 
 that might be corrected to dA^cts. 
 
 168c The very imperfect sentence beginning 
 TTOV would recover a clear and satisfactory construction, if 
 we read u>s for KCU before xapievrtoy-idf. It is well known 
 that they are liable to confusion. 
 
 170 A crtor^pas a<wi/ TrpocrSoKwi/Tas <ecro-0ai> ^ Without 
 the infinitive, the words should mean ' expecting saviours,' 
 not * expecting them to prove saviours.' 
 
 172 B Kal OCTOL ye av yu,^ TravTaTracri rov Hpwrayopov Aoyov 
 Aeycocriv, wSe TTOJS TT)V cro<f>Lav ayovcri. 
 
 TT/I> (To^iav (this is the philosophy of many Jowett: 
 cf. Stallbaum and Campbell) does not mean philosophy, or 
 the philosophy of ocrot, K.T.A. The question has been in 
 what sense or in what applications one man can be called 
 <ro<ojrepos than another, what in fact real <ro<f>ia is ; and it 
 is quite clear here that the general meaning must be this is 
 ivhat they make, this is their view, of ero<ia. Whether 
 ayov&i can bear this sense or Badham's Aeyouo-t should be 
 substituted, may be uncertain, but the text seems to me 
 right. The use of aycu is exactly like Polyb. 2. 41. 9 
 cvavruos TO <rv[jL<}>pov ayeiv aAArjAats take contrary views of 
 expediency, if not just like Soph. O.T. 784 
 
172 THEAETETUS 
 
 roweiSos r/yov. This and kindred uses of dyto are very 
 common in late Greek, and the dictionaries fail to do them 
 justice. 
 
 173 C fjfji.eis OL V T(3 ToioJSe ^opevovrc?. 
 
 Both the use of ^opevovres and that of V rw roiwSe, which 
 wants a substantive, are very questionable. Badham 
 suggested eV ru>8e r<3 xP^ OVTCS (not mentioned by Burnet, 
 though he records very many of Badham's acute con- 
 jectures). I think xP$ ovres certainly right (cf. Protag. 
 315 B, 327 D : Plut. MOV. 78 E) ; but as to roiSe, what would 
 ( this chorus ' mean 1 The few people present cannot take 
 themselves as constituting the entire company of philoso- 
 phers. It would seem better to retain ev r<5 roiojSe. (I have 
 sometimes thought of eV ru> eVavn'a> Sr) xP^ ovres.) 
 
 ibid. D (TTrouScu 8e eraipiuv CTT' dp^^S Ka ' (ruvoSot KOL 
 Kai crvi/ avX^rptcrt Ktoyttoi, ouS' ovap Trparreiv 
 
 We could reconcile ourselves to the anacoluthon, if it 
 were somewhat differently worded, e.0. ra rotavra Trparreiv. 
 But Trparreti/ seems incapable of referring straight to the 
 substantives preceding. o-TrovSas Trparreiv, KOJ/XOVS Trparreiv, 
 etc. are not Greek expressions. I do not know whether 
 anyone has suggested that a whole line has got lost after 
 Kw/xot, e.g. <o{>8' et yi'yvovTou tcracri, TO. 8e rotai)Ta> ov8' 
 ovap K.r.X. 
 
 174 A Perhaps apKtl should be dp/cc'crei. I see no need 
 
 for TKl. 
 
 175 B TO. /xtv \}7repr]<l)dvia<s 4'^wv, ws SoKeT, TO. 8' ev 7roo"tv 
 dyvocov. 
 
 Badham was perhaps right in reading TO. /xci/ uzreprj^ava 
 cxwv. But I would urge it on a different ground from his, 
 namely that TO. ev TTOCTLV requires a corresponding expression, 
 as in Diog. L. 1. 34 TO. ev TTOCTLV ... TO. CTTI rov ovpavov : ra 
 /xeV and ra ev TTOO-IV are not a pair. We might possibly 
 keep V7rep77<avo>s c^wy, if something, e.g. ovpavia, were added 
 to TO. /xeV. Cf. Ar. ^//5/i. 6. 7. 1141 b 6 as to Thales etc., 
 TrcpiTTa /Atv Kat OavfJiaaTa Ko.1 
 avrovs <j>a(ri.v, dp^crTa 8e. 
 
THEAETETUS 173 
 
 ibid. C eK/3r/vai CK TOV Tt eyw ae dStKoi 17 (7i> e/txe ; eis CTKCIJ/IV 
 avrrjs SiKatocrwT?? re Kat dStKtas . . ., r) eK TOV ei /3acn\ev<s 
 vSat)u,a>v KKT77/Aevos T' av ^pucn'ov /?acrtA.etas Trept Kat dv^pwTrtV^s 
 oAws euSai/xovtas Kat a^AtoT^TO? eVt (TKei/'tv. 
 
 The et before /JacrtAevs is wanting in a few MSS. (though 
 found in B and T) and often omitted by editors. Burnet 
 after Campbell reads rj. I would myself retain et here and 
 also substitute it for Tt before e'yw. The two things are 
 naturally thrown into the same form. In the first question 
 et is distinctly more proper than ri (just as in Lysias 10. 4 
 OVT ei eoTtv oAtyapxta ^TrKTrajuyyv the suggested TI or ort is 
 more proper than ei). The issue in a court is likely to be 
 not ivhal wrong one party has done, but whether he has 
 done any. In the second case it is objected that only a 
 philosopher would ask with doubt et (3aa-L\vs vSat/x,wv, and 
 that popular ideas assume it. Strictly speaking, this is no 
 doubt true. But we may take et as conveying one of 
 those questions which hardly expect an answer or which 
 at any rate make sure of an answer in the affirmative, 
 i.e. as meaning * Is he not happy ? ' And we must bear in 
 mind that the bare affirmation ' He is happy,' especially if 
 supported by a reason, ' with all that money,' is itself 
 argumentative and consciously presents a theory which 
 might be combated. The omission of et therefore does not 
 altogether remove a difficulty, the existence of which I 
 quite admit : namely that the words in any form seem to 
 suggest, however faintly, the same question about human 
 life that is then put in contrast with them (/Jao-tAei'as Tre'pi 
 K.T.X.). One thing I feel, and that is that by analogy to 
 the previous question and indeed on general grounds we 
 should expect this question too (et /Sao-iAevs e^Sat/xcov) to be 
 of a more personal, individual kind. All the books I have 
 looked at take /foo-iAev's as a king, which does not merely 
 imply a general theory, but openly and at once propounds 
 it. I should have thought /Sao-tAeu's might well be the 
 Great King, introducing something of that personal 
 element which popular talk loves and philosophical discus- 
 sion excludes. Cf. Gorg. 470 E IIOA. S^Aoi/ Sry, o> 
 on OL>8e TOV /^e'yav /3ao-tA.e'a ytyvwcrKeiv <f>rjcri<; 
 2O. Kat aXfjOf) ye epar ov yap olSa TraiSet'as 6Va>s e^ei Kat 
 : Euthyd. 274 A : Apol. 40 D : with the curiously 
 
174 THEAETETUS 
 
 close parallel in Horace G. 2. 2. 17 redditum Cyri solio 
 Phraaten | dissidens plebi numero beatorum | eximit virtus 
 and ib. 3. 9. 4. Whatever difficulty remains seems due 
 not to any error in the text but to inadvertence on the 
 part of Plato. 
 
 As to the very uncertain KeK-ny/xeVos r av xpu<nW, in 
 which Madvig and Schanz read rav from a gloss in 
 Hesychius, rai5s' //-eyas, TroXvs : ra^o-as* /xeyaXwas, TrXeovacras,. 
 while Burnet has (with lamblichus) r av vroXv, I make 
 with very great hesitation the following suggestions. In 
 inscriptions T often stands for rdXavrov (TT two talents and 
 so on). Is it possible that T here stands for raXavra, the 
 letters av giving or rather concealing a number 1 What 
 number of gold talents popular imagination held the Great 
 King to be master of, I would not attempt to say. Cf. 
 Plut. Alex. 36. I need hardly remind anyone that ; a 
 stands for a thousand. With raXavra we should of course 
 need to read xpvo-iW But T' av and still more T' av 
 also suggest the possibility that Plato wrote 
 TO TavrdXov \pvcrLOV, for TO. TavraXov raXavra (see Menander 
 301 with Kock's references) was a proverbial expression ; 
 and perhaps this is more likely than the other. In spite 
 of the very strong case established by Hesychius' gloss I 
 feel the use of such an out-of-the-way word as rav to be 
 questionable. 
 
 177 B 6Vav iSia Xoyov Ser; SiSorai re KCU Se'a(r$ai Trcpl &v 
 if/eyovcn. 
 
 The last word may be right. Bad men have a sort of 
 theory of life and criticize the foolish virtue of the good. 
 But this is so far from obvious, i/^oyos not conveying very 
 well what precedes, and the occasional confusion of i//eyo> 
 with Xe'yw is so well known, that perhaps -rrep! wv Xeyovo-c 
 should be read. Those precise words occur three lines 
 below, which tells at once for and against my suggestion, 
 as the repetition would be a trifle weak. 
 
 182 B dXX' e d/x,(j5>orep(ov Trpo? aXXrjXa <ruyyiyvo/xei/wv ra? 
 rrOrja-eis KOL ra aicrQrjTa aTTOTiKTOvra TO. fjifv iroi arm 
 yvevOai, ra Se alcrOavofjLtva. 
 
 'The text is not grammatical, but neither is it really 
 
THEAETETUS 175 
 
 open to suspicion, and Madvig's conjecture, 
 makes nonsense ' Campbell. Plato probably wrote 
 KTOVTWV, as the sense requires. Otherwise there is a double 
 anacoluthon. The termination has got accommodated to 
 those near it. The other participle, o-vyytyvo/xeVwv, is sub- 
 ordinate to aTTOTiKTovTuv and therefore no /cat is needed : 
 cf. on 157 A above. 
 
 184 E /cat eets K.r.A. 
 
 As this is an alternative course and as rj and /cat are 
 often confused, we might read /} eets here, keeping roOSe at 
 the beginning of the sentence. This is better than omit- 
 ting /cat with Madvig and Schanz. o-<o/x,a answers to 
 in the sentence before, TU> aura) to /u'av tSe'av . . . 
 
 190 C aAAov Se rtva otet vyiaivovra 07 /w,aivo/xei/ov 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
 It is of course impossible that roA/^crat can 
 though the words seem to have been sometimes taken so 
 (perhaps even by Heindorf). But, if they refer to the 
 past, we want a TTOTC, as we can hardly carry on to this 
 sentence the TTOTC of the previous question, an answer to 
 which has intervened. I conclude therefore that oV is to 
 be inserted after TLVOL or elsewhere. 
 
 192 A Set w8c Aeyeo^at Trept avrwv e PX^ S StopioytxeVov?, 
 
 OTl K.T.A.. 
 
 It is hardly credible that with the passive Aeyeo-^at there 
 can be at once joined 8ioptoyu<eVous, as though the verb were 
 Aeyeiv. Badham's SieAeVtfcu is very likely to be right. But 
 we might also think of SiaAeyco-flai (not perhaps very 
 probable, but the Sia or Badham's St would be easily lost 
 after Se) or of 6/xoAoyeto-0ai, the middle, which is sometimes 
 used in the active sense. In Laws 901 E 6/xoAoyot!/xv and 
 Aeyo/xev are alternative readings, the former with most 
 authority. Cf. p. 62. 
 
 ibid. E Probably ^coKpar^? ci ytyv<6o-/ct is right, but 
 ct may have been lost after 77 in eViWr;, as it may in 197 B 
 before i in t/xartov. 
 
176 THEAETETUS 
 
 193 C TO, cv rots KaroTrTpots rrys oi/'ecos TrdOrj 3eta ets 
 apKrrepa /xerapp coverts. 
 
 The construction of Seta is highly questionable, and 
 Buttmann proposed /xcra^epoucrr;?. Possibly /Aeratpovo-^s, 
 though the word is rather poetical. atpo> does not always 
 imply raising. 
 
 196 B oluat yap ere Trept Travro? /xaAAov dpt$/AOu Aeyeiv. 
 
 /xaXAov, which is wanting in one MS., makes no good 
 sense and seems due to /xaAAov before cr^aA-Xerai. Perhaps 
 we should read o 
 
 199 B Perhaps Trap' avra> for drr' avTov. Notice the a 
 preceding. 
 
 201 B The /x,e'v in Tmo-at /xev is unmeaning. Read 
 for the two words are easily confused. 
 
 ibid. C OUK oV, w ^>tAe, t ye ravrov 17^ 8oa re 
 
 , op^a TTOT' av SiKaorr)? aKpos eSo 
 
 The transference of Kat 8(Ka<TTr/pta to follow 
 aKpos seems the best method of dealing with those words 
 that has been proposed. Cf. on 152 E above. But is 
 eSoaei/ right 1 ' If true opinion and knowledge were the 
 same thing, no judge could ever have held a right opinion 
 without knowledge.' This is insipid, being indeed an 
 identical proposition. Socrates had just said that dicasts 
 oVeu e7TtcrT^/x,r;s Kptvav, 6p$a Treto^eVres, etrrep ev e8t 
 Surely then he said here not eSoav but e'oYKaev (or 
 o-ev) : 'if they are identical, no judge ever gave right 
 judgment without knowledge.' This is much more pointed. 
 Of course on analysis it comes to the same thing as eSo'^a^cv, 
 but it by no means follows that e8oaev was as likely to be 
 used by a writer of discrimination. The imperfect eStKa^ev 
 seems admissible, but the aorist may be preferred. 
 
 ibid, o ye eycu . . . eVeA.eA.r;(r/x?7V, vvv 8' eVvow. 
 
 Read o yap ... vvv cvvoS. The other gives quite a wrong 
 turn to the words. 
 
THEAETETUS 177 
 
 202 A One would think <TO> TOVTO, if right, should come 
 close to TO e/c(Vo. Ought it to change places with TO avro 1 
 Cf. 157B. 
 
 205 E eiTrep TO> Aoyu) 7ret#o/xe#a. 
 
 Probably etTrep . . . 7reto-o'/>te0a, if we are to follow, as in 
 203 D etvrep afji<j>6rpd Tts yvojo"Tat. 
 
 207 B Trptv aV . . . e/cao-Tov Trepaivr) Tts should according 
 to the regular usage be TrepdVfl. In Laws 893 A 
 the tense has escaped corruption. 
 
 209 A a) TWV aXXwv Sta^epets, TOI;TOOI/ ovSevos fj 
 
 Not only is the grammar of w ... TOVTWV doubtful, but 
 the singular w is objectionable in itself, as the points of 
 diversity are clearly many. Read therefore o>v. But can 
 this stand by attraction for ots 1 Certainly it can. Cf. 
 144 A wv Sr) TTOOTTOTG eveTvxov . . . ovSeVa with Rep. 531 E, 
 Gorg. 509 A, etc. : Aeschines 2. 117 Trap' &v /xev /Sonets OVK 
 a7ToXr;i//et X^P LV ' Xen. Mem. 2. 2. 5 yueTaStSovo'a T^S Tpo^9 ^5 
 /cat atT7) Tpe<j!)Tat : perhaps Thuc. 1. 1. 3 e/c TeK/x^piW wv . . . 
 iot TTicrrevcrat 
 
PAEMENIDES. 
 
 128c Perhaps eTriKpvTrro/x-cvov is due to 
 following and should be 
 
 131 D should, I think, be printed with more notes of 
 interrogation. Besides that after tow rw ecrrat, I would 
 put others after ?ei, /xetov eo-rat, and TrptV. On the other 
 hand in 134 c the sentence beginning OVKOVV etTrep is not a 
 question. 
 
 133 D Read IKZIVOV SoGAo? <6 8ovAos> like SCO-TTOTT;? 6 
 in the next line. 
 
 135 B Sii>Kpiv>7(raju,vov ought to be 
 Waddell seems half to suggest this in his edition. 
 
 ibid. C rov TOLOVTOV fjiw o\iv /xot So/eels Kol jj.o.\Xov ^ 
 is meaningless by itself. Perhaps 
 
 ibid. E oi'/c cias ev rots opw^tevois Oi'Se Trept rawra 
 
 I think r^v irXdvyv <7roio^cvov> or something similar is 
 needed. 
 
 137 c cToiftos croi . . . TOVTO needs a <7ron}(rai> added. 
 140 E TI Se, Trpecr^urcpov ^ vewrepov 17 TT)V avrrjv f)\u<L(iv 
 
 As Trpco-yS^Vepov and vewrcpov are predicates with ctrat, 
 which is itself governed by Swarov, it is clear that ex^v 
 should be 4'^ov to correspond. So in 141 A OVK ap av eirj 
 ovSe 7rpO"^8i;T6pov ovSe r^v avTrjv r)\iKLav fyov TO Iv. 
 
 178 
 
PARMENIDES 179 
 
 There is nothing uncommon in a participle with eTrai, 
 especially if the participle is coordinate with adjectives. 
 
 141 B TO Trpc<T/3vTpov apoi ecurrou yiyvoyuevov /cat vewrepov 
 eavTOv a/xa yiyveTcu, etTrep jueAAei X tv O TOV irptcrfivrepov 
 
 The last yiyvercu should probably be yiyinqrai, the common 
 construction after 
 
 143 A i$i Sr) Kat TT^Sc ert <(TKO7ri>'? 
 
 156 D dp' ovv lo-rt TO aVoTTov TOVTO i/ w TOT' av etr; OTC 
 
 The first sentence seems devoid of meaning. Heindorf, 
 followed by Stallbaum, thought Parmenides was going to 
 put TO ecu<K7s at the end of his sentence, when he was 
 interrupted by the question TO TTOIOV Srj. I should be 
 inclined to read fjLtrafidXXcL <TO ToioVSe> ; and to suppose 
 that the loss was due to the great similarity between TO 
 Toioi'Se and TO TTOLOV $r). Just below should not fj e 
 avrrj Averts be rj <TOV> e^ai"^>vr/9 avrrj <f>vcn<s ? 
 
 163 c Read o (for <S) av ^^v with one Paris MS. 
 (Bekker) : and for TTWS ov/c eTvat read TTWS </xev> OVK 
 
 N 2 
 
SOPHIST. 
 
 216 C Kat TOIS /xev SoKova-LV cTvai rov p/^Sevos Tt/uoi, rots 8' 
 aiot TOV 
 
 Madvig omits ri/uoi ; Cobet, doing the same, transfers 
 aioi to its place. I should much prefer to read n/x^reoi. 
 Abbreviated terminations account for many mistakes. 
 
 ibid. D rov fjicvroi eVoi> rj/juv ^Sews av TrvvOcivoi^v K.T.X. 
 
 Surely vfjlv. He is their ^eVos ; or, if we connect the 
 dative closely with the verb, vp.lv is with your leave. Cf. 
 ThdCtet. 143 E Kat crol OLKOVCTCLL TTOLW CLLOV ot'a) v^aTv TWV 
 
 TToA-lTWV ytXetpaKtO) VTTV^TJKa. 
 
 The two pronouns are, I think, again confused in 21 7 B 
 Aoyoov eireXafiov 7rapa,7rA/>7<Ti(ov wv Kat Trptv i7/xas Sevp' cX^etv 
 Stepcorajvres avrov ervy^ai/o/xe^, where I would read Trptv /x,as 
 (Socrates and his party) 8evp' e\6civ. ^/xas is (1) unsuitably 
 emphatic, (2) in strict grammar wrong, for it should be the 
 nominative : but this licence is sometimes taken, e.g. Thuc. 
 8. 63. 4, Ar. Eth. 3. 5. 1114 a 4. It may be thought 
 that at the opening of the dialogue Socrates is already 
 on the scene and that Theodorus and his companions are 
 just arriving, but this does not seem quite certain. Cobet 
 
 TTplV Sevp' \0LV. 
 
 217 A Kd$' ei/ OVO/AO. yeVog eAcacrra) TrpoorfjTTTOV. 
 For fv read tKao-rov or ei/ e/catrrov. 
 
 :.. 21 8 A Theaetetus ought hardly to strike in with such 
 words (Spa TOLWV K.r.A.). He waits to be spoken to by the 
 stranger. Give them to Theodorus. 
 
 180 
 
SOPHIST 181 
 
 219 C T)(vr) rts KTrjTiKTj \\OeL(Ta av StaTrpei/^tieF. 0EAI. 
 vat, TrpeTroi. yap av. 
 
 SiaTrpeVu) is not used anywhere else by Plato ; nor is any 
 writer at all cited as using it in the sense of be becoming, 
 suitable : it means be conspicuous. Coupling this with the 
 fact that Stobaeus gives the words av SiaTrpe'^eiev in the 
 form dvTpei^aev, may we not read av Trpei^eiev ? 8ia, perhaps 
 corrupted from 8>j, may be a dittograph for av. In 223 E 
 7ra>Xo9v 8ia vo/ucr/zaTos aXXarTCTat it would not be surprising 
 if Bid were an error for 817. 
 
 ibid. D ev KTrjTLKr) TTOV 8>}Xov <OTI>. 
 8i}Xov cannot stand alone in this sense. 
 
 221 E TO. VV<TTLKa TUJV Vu8p(OV. 
 
 This has been written by a common blunder for TO, 
 
 CVvSpO. TCOV VCUCTTtKOJV Or TWV VCVCTTt/CWV TO, ewSptt. Cf. 220 B 
 
 vevortKov fjLyv TO /xev TTT^voV . . . TO 8e IvvSpov. Very similar 
 is the blunder in 228 A 8ta<opas 8ta(#opav for 
 8ia<opav and that pointed out above in Theaet. 155 D. 
 
 222 A I have sometimes thought that Aei/*wvas, which is 
 rather hard to harmonize with TroTa/^ov?, might stand for 
 Ai/xvas, a word associated with TroTa/xo^s a line or two above. 
 But on the whole I should not venture to propose the 
 change. 
 
 ibid. E TOIJTO flV TOLVVV epCOTtK^S TC^VT/S CQ-TW <TO> 
 
 The T\W) is the etSo?. Cf. 223 C TO 
 . eI8os. 
 
 223 B Perhaps ^ <8ta> 
 
 224 B OVKOVV Kttt TOV /X,a^7^/XttTa CTVVWVOV/IX6VOV TToXlV T K 
 
 TTo'Aews vo/xiV/xaTos d//,i/5oi/Ta ravrov Trpoorepets ovo/x,a; 
 
 There is no construction for vo/AiayxaTos. (Campbell 
 governs it by d/m/JovTa, leaving TroXiv without construction ; 
 for y^v ?rpo 7^5 eXavvo/xat is quite different. Besides, 
 compare ^i/?0/. 37 D aAA^v e| aAXr/? TroXeoos dyu,ty8o/xeva) : 
 Polit. 289 E TTO'XIV CK TrdXews dXXaTTovTc?.) I suspect a 
 subordinate participle has dropped out and we should read 
 
182 SOPHIST 
 
 vo/xtV/xaros <7ro)AowTa> d/xet/JovTa, which gives the sense 
 needed. Of. 228 c, where B has fle'/xeva, T with Galen and 
 Stobaeus Ofycva Tretpwyuera, which is no doubt right. 
 
 ibid, c Read TU> ye with the Vienna MS. for TO ye and 
 in the next line TU> oe. Compare e.g. 225 A and 262 D. 
 
 225 A The answer eo-rtv should, I think, be eWco. Cf. 
 e X eVa> 227 c. 
 
 226 C Trept raura, not ravra 1 
 
 ibid. Theaetetus, asked if he can see how to divide a 
 certain genus into two species, says ra^etav ws e/xot o-/ce'i/av 
 eTTiraTTets. It is unsatisfactory either to take this ironically 
 (Jowett) or to make it mean 'that is rather a rapid 
 enquiry for my small powers ' (Heindorf). I suspect the 
 loss of a negative, ov ra^etav, or possibly ov /Jpa^etav, ra^vs 
 and /Span's being liable to interchange. Cf. below 226 E 
 BE. OVKOVV TO ye KaOaprtKov eTSos o.v oWAow ov iras av tSoi. 
 EAI. vat, KaTa o-^oXryv ye urws' ov JJICVTOL eywye KaOopu) vvv, 
 which perhaps favours (ou) Ta^etav as against (ov) f^pa^iia.v. 
 But the use of TC^'S seems strange, especially as the 
 stranger has said nothing about time. 
 
 228 c For avra TTOLCTX^V read TOVTO, or possibly Tavra, 
 
 ibid. D .ecrTt ST) 8i;o TauTa, cos ^aiVeTai, KOLKWV ev avTy (the 
 soul) yeVr?. 
 
 Rather KCLKLWV. Cf. KO.KLCW and Svo eti/at yevrj KaKt'as eV 
 5 immediately following : also 227 E Svo fi 
 prjreov. Cf. p. 319. 
 
 229 D Should TO /xev aAXo be Ta /xei/ aAXa 1 That suits 
 better the plural 
 
 231 B It is difficult to get any meaning out of 
 tKavais (f>v\a.TT(aarw, nor does Heindorf's ^vXa^O^cnv or 
 Schanz' <jf>i>XaTTco/>iev satisfy one. Madvig probably gave 
 the meaning rightly in his ^copatfwo-iv (i.e. ot o-o<to-Tat), but 
 I would suggest that <ai/wo-tv is what Plato wrote. <aiVo/x.at 
 or some kindred word appears over and over again 
 
SOPHIST 183 
 
 throughout the dialogue in the sense that the nature of the 
 sophist is ascertained by the discussion : e.g. 224 D : 231 D 
 (oTTocra fjfjilv 6 O-O^KTT^S Tre^avrat), etc. <vAarTw<riv, which 
 is not very much like ^avwa-tv, may be due to the influence 
 of <vAa/<?i> two lines before and be a ' false echo ' of it not 
 quite in the sense Campbell intends. 
 
 232 E Read t'TroAeiVeu/ for vTroXurelv. Since Heindorf 
 editors always adopt AeiVeii/ for Xurtlv in 227 D, 
 
 234 A EAI. 7ra.LOLav Aeyeis nvd. HE. rt Se; rrjv TOV 
 AeyovTos OTL Trdvra oTSe K.r.A. /*u>v ov TratSiav vofJLio~TOV ; 
 
 I do not see how Campbell can be right in supplying 
 Te'xv^v with TTJV TOV Ae'yoi'Tos, as the word has not occurred 
 recently enough (233 D). We certainly must not supply 
 TTcuSiav from what precedes, but it is just possible that the 
 gender (rrji/ for TO : Schanz alters TTJV to TO) is due to the 
 predicate TrcuStav which is coming. This is probably what 
 Stallbaum meant, but he fails to make it clear. Such 
 an attraction however, though common in some uses of 
 pronouns, is not known to me in the article, and some 
 parallels would be welcome. Pending their discovery, we 
 might consider whether a substantive such as vTrovxtviv 
 has not been omitted. The verb virKT^yov^ai occurs just 
 below and twice in 232 D. It might be put in either after 
 Ae'yoi/Tos or after xpovu. 
 
 ibid. E TTapayvofJiV(i)v. Probably Trapayiyvo/xei/wi/. 
 
 235 A i/a>i/ r}s TratStas /X,T^OVTWI/ eo-Tt TIS /x,ep6n>. 
 
 /xepwv is bracketed by Schanz, marked as corrupt by 
 Burnet. Should we not read yei/wv ? Cf . a few lines below 
 TOV yei/ovs elvai TOV TWV $av//,aTO7roi(ov TIS et?. In Thuc. 
 2. 37. 2 Herwerden's OVK OLTTO yeVovs for OVK aTro /xe/sovs is 
 certainly attractive. 
 
 236 E t7Toi/Ta is hard to explain. Perhaps it should be 
 t7Ttv, ' say that it is really possible to speak or think what 
 is false.' CITTOV occasionally takes accusative and infinitive, 
 e.g. Gorg. 473 A. 
 
184 SOPHIST 
 
 237 A ov yap (j.r) TTOTC TOVTO Sa/xirJ, eirai fj.rj iovra. 
 
 So Simplicius gives the verse of Parmenides, though the 
 MSS. of Plato (here and in 258 D) and Aristotle (Met. 
 13. 2. 1089 a 4) agree in TOVT ouSa^J. 8a/xrJ is at first 
 sight strange and has provoked many doubts and sugges- 
 tions. But, when we recall the similar use of cupeiv for 
 prove, and compare Pindar's dywva Sa/xao-cra?, we may very 
 well acquiesce in it. Of course to Parmenides it meant 
 rather won, gained, than proved, or the point is spoken of 
 as a difficulty overcome. Cf. also Polit. 284 B KaOaTrep *v 
 TW <ro(f)io-Tf) 7rpo(r?7vayKao/zev etrai TO pr] ov, Theaet. 
 153c, 196 B?, Hep. 611 B. Perhaps we may compare 
 and Hor. S. 1. 3. 115 nee vincet ratio hoc. 
 
 239 C etos a.v TIVI Swa/xeyu) Spav TOVTO I 
 
 If right, this can only mean ' until we find ourselves 
 talking with.' If it were { until we meet,' the verb would 
 have to be in the aorist. 
 
 241 E avTwv. ovTwl av 1 
 
 242 C evKoA.a)s fJLOL So/cet Hap/jiVL8r)<s fjfjuv 
 
 . . . ^aiVerat Si^yeTcr^at Traicrtv ws OVO-LV fjijuv. 
 
 VKo\a>s, good-humour edly, is hardly the right word. 
 Badham ovx oXw?, did not even argue. Did not Plato write 
 Theaet. 154B Oavfjiaa-rd re Kal yeXoia, cv^epcos TTWS 
 a. Xrvctv : Dem. 18. 70 w Xeycov eu^epws on av 
 In Phaedo 117 c cv^cpws and evKoXws are joined 
 together, but that is far from snowing that the latter can 
 stand here. 
 
 243 A Some infinitive going with ^aXeTrov, e.g. eiSeWi or 
 , seems wanted. 
 
 244 A Lva fj.rj BodfofJLV fJLavOdvew /xev TO, Xeyo/xcva. 
 
 /xeV seems in a very questionable place. Perhaps 
 /xav$aVeiv fjikv 8o^a^co/x,ev or So^a^w^tev /x,ev /tav^avetv. There 
 is no objection to /xeV after -/xev. Cf. Polit. 281 D Xeyoi/x,ei/ 
 fteV : -Rep. 353 A ^rjo-oju-ev ^ueV : even Isocrates 6. 85 
 ev : 15. 311 eTratvov/xev /xet'. 
 
SOPHIST 185 
 
 247 E Aeyw 8r) TO Kat oiroiavovv KKT^/x,eVoj/ 8wa/xiv etr' cts 
 ro Trotetv eYepov oriow 7re<vKos eir' eis TO 7ra$eu/ KCU o-/xi/cpdVaTov 
 VTTO TOU (fravXoTOLTOV . . . Ti'$/tcu yap opov 6pieiv TO, OVTO, a>s 
 ecmv OUK aAAo Tt 7rA?)v Svva/us. 
 
 Tt seems needed either before or after Troielv. It would 
 fall out easily before TT, which is often almost indistinguish- 
 able from it. OTIOW seems to go with eVepov and corre- 
 
 spond tO <f>aV\OTO.TOV. 
 
 6pie/ and opt^eiv TOI ovTa have been bracketed. Boeckh 
 wrote 6pio)v. 
 
 It does not seem likely that Plato said TCX ovTa themselves 
 were 8wa/xi?, nor does 248 c support it. It is ovo-ta which 
 is Svvafjiis, and I cannot but think ova-ca (with ws IO-TIV) or 
 (with opov) has been lost. But what to do with 
 TOL ovra, unless it should be simply omitted, I do 
 not know. 
 
 251 A KCU, av av ^SeTepov ISeiv Sww/xe^a, TOV yo9v Xoyoi/ 
 O7rr;7rep av otot T w/xcv cuTrpeTrecrraTa 8t(ooro/xe^a O^TWS 
 afJi<f}OiV a/xa. 
 
 Campbell and Badham defend <$oo-o/x,e0a in different 
 ways. Others have proposed emendations, but nobody 
 what seems to me a certain correction, namely SiaSvo-o'/^a. 
 If they cannot satisfy themselves (says the stranger) about 
 either being or not-being, at any rate they will with the 
 utmost credit escape, make their way through, the diffi- 
 culties of both. The very same expression occurs in this 
 dialogue 231 C aTropeu/ 077-77 TTOTC CTI SiaSvo'eTai TOV Xoyov. 
 Sia8veo-0ai TOV A.oyov can be contrasted with what is called 
 in Phil. 43 A vTre/ccrn/vai TOV Aoyov 7ri<epOjU,evov. Cf. also 
 Polit. 284 B KttTot TOI)TO 8t^>vyev fjfJLcis 6 Aoyos. 
 
 253 E TO ye SiaAe/m/cov OVK aXXw 
 This use of the neuter does not seem like Plato. 
 Perhaps StaXe/mKov <tvat>. 
 
 255 E ev ots 7rpoatpov/x,e0a <o-K07Ttv>, as in 256 D. The 
 sense is otherwise incomplete. 
 
 259 C Tairra edVavTa w? 8waTa. 
 
 for SwaTa Badham, and that gives very good 
 
186 SOPHIST 
 
 sense. But we might also think of avovrjra, which seems 
 to me to suit the context better, as the stranger goes on to 
 say that these things are riot an eAey^os aX^Oivos and that 
 they argue a novice. 
 
 265 D Sia rrjv rjXiKiav 7roAA.a/as a^oTepa ^tTaSoaw. 
 
 The sense certainly requires So^ao-oVrwi/ for SoaoW(ov 
 immediately below, and, that being so, I would read 
 /xcTaSoacra> here too. It also agrees better with ura>s. 
 
 ibid. E The stranger will not argue a point, because he 
 sees that Theaetetus is sure shortly to adopt it : xpovos yap 
 
 K 7T6pLTTOV yfylfOtT O.V. 
 
 Heindorf seems inclined to read Ao'yos for ^poVo9, and 
 there should, I think, be no doubt that it is necessary to 
 do so. Nobody in such a case would say that time was 
 superfluous. Argument is superfluous, because time by 
 itself will produce the desired result. For the mistake see 
 my Aristophanes and Others. Index, s.v. 
 
 267 A orav oTyuat TO (TOV (r^y/m TIS TW cavTOV 
 crw/xart Trpoo-o/notov 17 qWvr/v (frwvf) <au'eo-$ai TTOI 
 rovro rrjs <f>avTacTTLKr)<; yaaAtcrra KK\rjTai, irov. 
 
 The difficulty of this has perhaps not been sufficiently 
 noticed. The sense required is ' makes his body or voice 
 like yours,' while the words actually mean 'makes your 
 figure or voice like his,' an impossible inversion. Who 
 ever wrote or deliberately spoke like this 1 Perhaps the 
 same accident has occurred that we seemed to find in 224 B 
 and another participle governing TO <rbv o-^/xa has been 
 lost. * Representing your figure,' ' having your figure in 
 his mind,' etc., would make good enough sense. To eavrov 
 o-uJ/xa would be the object of TronJ, put in the dative after 
 the participle according to the ordinary rule, though this 
 would certainly be harsh. I suggest then the insertion of 
 (say) a7ra/cawv, or even fjupovpevos itself, which would 
 perhaps be more likely to fall out near ^pw/xevos. Cf . B TO 
 o-oi> (rxfj/JLa . . . /ui/x>yo-aiTo arid Crat. 432 B et TIS ... TO o-ov 
 Xpw/xa Kat o-x^u-a aTreiKao-eur. We might also think of 
 </caTa> TO o-oi> o-^/xa, or perhaps of the considerable 
 inversion TO eatTov o-w/>ta and TO) o-u5 
 
POLITIC US. 
 
 258 D Some rtyyai have nothing to do with action and 
 give knowledge only : at 8e ye Trept TKTOVIKT)V av /cat crv/x- 
 Trao-av \*ipovpyua> wo-Trep ei/ rats Trpa^eo-iv cvovcrav <TV/X,<UTOV 
 TT)V iTTLarT^fJLrjv KCKT^vrat /cat erf va7TOTeXoi(rt TO, ytyvo/i-eva VTT' 
 avrojv (raj/xara irporcpov OVK 6Vra. 
 
 The last clause as it stands would seem to mean that 
 these arts help to produce the things which are produced 
 by them. Campbell makes better sense of it only by 
 straining the meaning of airorcXw ('perfect') and making 
 CLVTWV refer to 7rpaeo-t when it would naturally refer to the 
 subject of o-vvaTTOTcXovvi. Reflection will lead us, I think, 
 to substitute crvvaTroTcXova-av. This practical eTrKmy///^ is 
 described as ci/ rats Trpa^ecrtv evoraa and (rwaTroreAot'O'a ra 
 ytyvo/xeva (rw/xara, and avruv are the arts in question. 
 
 ibid. E TTorcpov . . . 6ij<rofJiv a)? ey TrdvTa TOAiTa Trpocrayopcv- 
 OVTCS ; 
 
 The words seem insufficient, unless we read something 
 like TavTa <rauro> TrpocrayopevovTcs, ' put them down as one, 
 giving them all the same name.' Cf. 259 D ets TCLVTOV ws tv 
 TroLvra ravra ^w^o-o/xev, where perhaps we should read 
 
 ( f\ V 
 
 <os ev ov. 
 
 264 E TO TroAmKov ov . . . ^T^Teov ; would give the best 
 sense if we might substitute ov Trept (not Heindorfs ^ Trept) 
 for wo-Trep (B and T), et Trept, and one or two other MS. 
 readings. In the next line perhaps oV should be added. 
 
 266 E TrapaSovrai ras rr}s TroXecos ^vtas d>s otKetas KOL avr<3 
 ravrrys ovo-^s r}s 
 
 It would seem as though we ought either to omit Kat 7 , as 
 
 187 
 
188 POLITICUS 
 
 Stephanus after one MS. did, or to insert after it some- 
 thing like i 
 
 268 E dXXa or) TO> fJivOtp p.ov Travv Trpocre^e TOV vow, 
 
 01 TraiSes' TraVrcos ov TroAXa eK^evyeis TraiSias (sic B T) en;. 
 
 Editors have usually been divided between TraiStas a 
 game, play and TraiStas childhood, either of which would 
 be a genitive following on CT^, for e/c^ev'yeiv requires an 
 accusative. Campbell rightly points out that, to make 
 sense with this, iroXXd would have to be TTOAV; and we 
 should expect TO. TT)S before the genitive. He himself reads 
 by his own slight alteration TraiSias games, and Burnet 
 follows him. But after TraiSes surely TraiSi'a, not TraiSia, is 
 the word we want, and therefore I should suggest TraiSiav : 
 it is only a few years since you emerged from childhood. 
 Cf. the correction of TroAe/x-i'as in 307 c to TroAe//,iav. 
 
 ibid, rjv TOLVVV KOL en ccrrai rwv TraAai Xf^Oevrojv TroXXd re 
 aAAa /cai K.T.X. 
 
 I think we should read ecrri for co-rai, and understand 
 the words somewhat differently. They are usually taken 
 to mean that various other things in ancient story and the 
 great portent of the sun's changing its course did occur 
 and will yet occur again. But at this point it does not 
 seem proper to bring in the statement that this and other 
 things will occur again. The speaker comes to that 
 presently. At starting he has only got to refer to this as 
 an old legend. Also In rrai means rather will still exist 
 than will occur or exist again. Reading m, I under- 
 stand him to say that among other things belonging to old 
 legend there used to be and still is the story of this 
 portent, and he goes on o,K^/coas yap TTOV K.T.A.. This 
 certainly seems the- sense in which his interlocutor under- 
 stands him. The confusion of eVri and lo-rat is not 
 uncommon, but it usually works the opposite way. 
 
 269 A avro should perhaps be aura. Badham avrov. 
 
 270 A Sia Sr) TO /xeyio-Tov ov Kai la-oppoTrcorarov CTTI fJUKpo- 
 TO.TOV /3alvov TroSos ievai. 
 
 For leVat read eTvai. palvov uVai is very pleonastic, while 
 the resolution of verbs into participles with elvai is a 
 
POLITICUS 189 
 
 marked feature of Plato's later style. Cf. in this dialogue 
 257 A dK^Koores etvat, 273 B rjv /xere'^ov, 289 A, 296 c, etc. 
 
 272 B ov Xoyos eVt Atos eTvat. 
 
 For ov B and T have o>s, other MISS, ov o>s. Perhaps 
 ov Kat. See Index, s.v. /cat a>?. 
 
 273 A 6 Se (KOCT/X,OS) /xeTacrrpe^o/xevos Kat crv//./?aXX<ov dpx^S 
 re Kat reXevr?}? evavrt'av 6p//,ryv 6p/A?7$et9 K.r.X. 
 
 Both o-v/x/3aXXa)v and the genitives are obscure. Read 
 o-v/x^aXXwv dpx>jv ^e fat reXevrrjv, bringing together beginning 
 and end. The end of one system is the beginning of 
 another. Cf. note on 268 E above, where TraiSmv is 
 proposed for TratoYas. [So Postgate.] 
 
 ibid. Oopvfiwv re Kat Tapa\r)s rj8r) Travo/xcvo? Kat r<ov o"tO"/xwv 
 
 It will be an improvement in every way to read KCXK TWV 
 o-cicr/xwv, just as in 292 B we have KCIK TT}S eVia-TartKi}?. In 
 Aristotle IftsZ. ^t?i. 5. 5. 541 a 27 at Se TrepStKts, av Kar' ave/xov 
 o-Two-tv at ^Xeiat TWI/ dppeVwv, eyKvot ytyvovrat* TroXXaVts Se 
 Kat r^5 <^a)V^5, av opyooo-at rv^wo-t, Kat vTrepTrero/xcvcov CK TOI) 
 KaraTTveuo-at TOV appeva it is plain that KOIK TT}? C/XOVT}? should 
 be read, and in Aesch. Eum. 280 I suspect Aeschylus wrote 
 
 ySpt'^et yap at/xa KaK/xapatvcrai X P ? J 
 
 for the genitive x e P's seems almost to require it. The 
 substitution of Kat for KCIK or Kav is fairly common. 
 
 274 D oXoS O KOCT/XO5, OJ (TV/JL/JUfJiOV^ifVOL Kttt O"UV7rO/XVOl . . . 
 
 (2 o'weTro/vtevot Kat o-u/x/xt/xov/xcvot 1 So in A 
 Kat waKoXov$oiWa TW . . . 
 
 277 A TrXeuo Kat /xct'^o) TOU Seovros <ets> eKacrra TWV Ipywv 
 
 . E ev <tev> rat? 
 
 278 D ^ '/'VX 7 / T OT /xev VTT' dXiy^etas Trcpt ev eKaorov ev 
 Tto-t arvvLO'Ta.Tai, TOT* Se . . . <eperat. 
 
 The compound o-wto-Tarat does not seem right. In 
 
190 POLITICKS 
 
 contrast with (freptrai we want tcrrarat. <rw is perhaps a 
 repetition of the last letters of Ttcrt (rio-tV). 
 
 He goes on /cat TO, fj^kv avrojv oL/J>rj ye TT^ TOOV cruy/cpacrea)!' 
 op#ws Soaet, where the genitive is odd. Should not TO. 
 /x,eV be TOLS /xeV, auTwv agreeing with TO>I> <rvy/cpacrea>i> and 
 contrasting them with the o-rotxeta'? Cf. however 290 E 
 ra cre/mvoTaTOi /cat yuaAtcrra TraY/ata raw dpvauoi/ OVCTLWV. 
 
 281 C So/ceiy xp?; . . . 7r/ooo-7roi>?(racr#ai. 
 
 The future Tr/ooa-Troi^o-eo-^at is necessary, like 
 a few lines before. 
 
 282 B TaA.acriovpyiK7}s Suo rfJi^/JLard ICTTOV, KOL rovroiv 
 Ka.Tpov a/xa 8uotv 7T<f>vKaTov re^vaiv (Atpy. 
 
 The expression will be much more exact, if we insert 
 Kara after /cat', i.e. /cat </cara> roirroiv e/carepor. The two 
 words are much alike and sometimes confused. 
 
 284 B Ka.0a.7rtp eV TO) tro^tcrr^ Trpoa-rjvayKa.a'a/Jifv eti/at TO /U.T; 
 01^, TTLorj Kara TOVTO Ste^vycv T^/xas 6 Aoyos. 
 
 Surely Ste^evyev. 6 Aoyos Ste'^uyev ai/, if they had failed 
 to vindicate not-being. Cf. 275 D and see p. 26. 
 
 287 B TWV TroAXwi/ and Trao-wv seem to call for the 
 insertion of rc^vwv, which can hardly be supplied from 
 anything in the context. 
 
 ibid. D TOTTTWV 8' av should, I think, be Toirrw 8' avrtoi/. 
 
 293 C For /cat e/covrcov read /cat et or /cav e/coVrwi/, as in A 
 eavrc . . . edVre . . . /cat edV . . . The awkward construction 
 of the whole passage might be mended by putting a 
 considerable stop at /xoVov and reading ecu/re 
 
 ibid. D eoV re . . . KaOaipwcriv . . . etre Kat . . . TTOLWCTW 
 
 } Edv can hardly carry on its force over the etrc, so as to 
 make subjunctives possible. Must we not read TTOLOVO-LV 
 and a 
 
 296 E TOVTOV Set Kat TTC/DI ravra TOV opov etvat TOV ye 
 a\r)OiVii)TaTOV opBrf^ TroAews Sioi/CTycreoos, ov 6 erodes /cat aya$6s 
 
POLITIC US 191 
 
 dvrjp BiOLKT^a-fL TO TCOV ap^Ojuevcov ; wo-Trcp 6 KtiySepv^Tr/s TO TTJS 
 V0)S Kat vavrwj/ dei crv/x^epov Trapa^uXaTTtov K.T.X. 
 
 So this passage is written in all the editions I have 
 consulted. Stallbaum translates TO TOJV dpxo/xeVwv res 
 civium, Campbell the condition of his subjects, Jowett the 
 affairs of his subjects. But in reality TO goes with the 
 (rvjjufrepov which is coming in the next clause governed by 
 7rapa<f>v\a.TT(DV. TO TWV dp^o/xeVoov o-v/xcepov is compared to 
 TO TT}? vws Kat va/uTwv <TV}jL(}>tpov. The mark of interrogation 
 should therefore be deferred and put after o-u>et TOU? 
 (rvvva.vTa<5 at the end of the wcnrcp clause, though the 
 sentence is really anomalous, Plato forgetting that he 
 began with a question and after the wo-n-cp clause rambling 
 into another which takes it up with a OU 
 
 297 B Transpose the words and read /cat ft-^v ovSe 
 e/cetra dvTipprjreov. 
 
 ibid, c Should not av be KO.V (cf. 293 c above) ? The 
 sense requires not if but even if. 
 
 298 C igtivai oe KO.L toicoTcov Kat Ttov aAAa>v $r)[Jiiovpy(i)V . . . 
 
 Insert OTWOVV or TW ^ovXo/xeVw or something similar. 
 The genitive cannot stand alone. 
 
 302 B The stranger proposes to consider a certain point, 
 
 Ka'i7Tp 7T/3OS ye TO VVV 7TpOT@V fjfJLLV TTOLptpyOV \y6fJiVOV. 
 
 For Xeyo/xevov read yiyvo/xevov or perhaps <av> y^vo^cvov. 
 Xcyo/xevov is not suitable and the two words are liable to 
 confusion. See. p. 239. 
 
 ibid. C TT)V avTrjv TOIVVV (i.e. ap^rjv) (f>d@i Tptw 
 ytyveaOai Kat paa-Trjv. 
 
 I take to be a mere blunder for 
 encouraged no doubt by the opposition of ^aAeTrrji/. See 
 further on in E /xovapx"* (which is what he means here) 
 
 /xei/ tv ypd^aanv dya^ots, ovs vo/xovs A.e'yo/xev,. 
 iracrwv Taiv e^- avo/xos 8e ^ a X c TT ^ Kat f^apvrdrr) 
 
 : and again 303 B ei/ T^ TrpwTr/ (^v) TrpwToV TC Kat. 
 a p t o- T o v. The question all through is about goodness 
 
192 POLITICUS 
 
 and badness : see especially 303 A. pacrrot is a very plausible 
 conjecture for apioroi in Thuc. 3. 38. 5. 
 
 303 c With etvat and yiyvea-Oai there must have gone 
 some word now lost like Ae/creW or 
 
 TOVTO fJikv dre^vois fjfjuv axnrcp 8pa/xa. - 
 
 Is there some such word lost as TrcTre/aavTat ? Cf. Hep. 
 451 c. It may be that the sentence only loses itself and 
 that lx.topur&q represents the proper verb. 
 
 306 c D As in 303 c, only more decidedly, a verb seems 
 needed in the sentence beginning with o^vV^ra /cat ra^os, to 
 go with etre ye'yovas K.r.A.. Perhaps /xv^/xoveveis or 
 
PHILEBUS 
 
 lie The difficulty of the singular number in 
 TO.TOV might be avoided by reading ax 
 
 13 B /ca/ca 8' OVTOL avruv TO, TroXXa. KOL dyaOa 8c, a>s 
 o/xws 7rai/Ta <ru Trpocrayopevet? ayaOa avra. 
 
 How are the words K<X! dya#a 8e to be understood ? Bury 
 has no comment on them, nor strange to say has 
 Badham. avrw refers to TO. fjSca, and, if the Greek were 
 capable of meaning that these were a mixed mass, some 
 good, some evil (as Stallbaum, Jowett, Jackson seem to 
 understand), the sense would be satisfactory. But it can 
 only mean that most of them are good as well as bad, 
 which is not only not Socrates' contention but inconsistent 
 with a protest against Protarchus' calling them good. 
 /cat 8e is a familiar phrase enough, though not frequent 
 in Plato, and means simply ' and so and so also.' What 
 we want therefore here is some further predicate of most 
 pleasant things, going along with or a little beyond 
 badness. If the book were Aristotle's, I should suggest 
 <evKTa. Some word more or less with that sense would be 
 suitable. ayaOa. seems due to the ayadd of the next line, 
 unintentionally anticipated. TO. TroXXa and rrdvTa avrd 
 are not logically quite right, but that is another matter. 
 
 In the sentence following we can either correct eVov to 
 tvopwv or i>i/owv or read something like evov evpcoi/ or opwv. 
 Cf. 16 D vpr)(TLV yap lvov(rav. 
 
 Badham would not have proposed the excision of 
 crvyxwpTjorecrOaL, if he had read the words, as they should 
 probably be read, with a pause after either 
 
 193 
 
194 PHILEBUS 
 
 or ra.ya.06v. It is also possible that dvt&o-Oai (or dve^eo-^at ?) 
 depends directly on o-vyxa>prjo-eo-0ai, like 
 or -eto-0at in Profc 333 D. 
 
 *6z^. c In view of the present tense <epd/x,e#a it seems 
 needless to alter TiTpwo-/cet with Jackson to a future. 
 
 14 B Tr)V TOLVVV ota(f>opoTr}Ta^ o> Ilpwrap^e. rov ayaOov TOV T* 
 e//.ou /cat TOV aou fJLrj aTTOKpvTTTo^voi, KaraTt^eVres 8e eis TO 
 fjL<rov ToX^tw^iev, aV 7n7 eAey^d/xevoi fJLrjvvo" uteri Trorepov K.T.A. 
 
 No doubt eAeyxo'/xefoi, if right, requires the omission 
 with Bury and Burnet of rov ayaQov, so that e/xov and <rov 
 may agree with Xo'yov as in the preceding sentence, but 
 this seems to me a little awkward. The alternative is 
 cAey^o/xeVw, the dual, for Stallbaum's eXcy^o/ievai, meant to 
 agree with a plural Sta^oporTyrcs, surely cannot stand. It 
 would be just possible to write Xoyov for ayaOov. It is 
 however TOA/AW/XCV I am concerned with. The word makes 
 no sort of sense here and has nothing in common with 
 ToAju,o> Aeyetv ws in 13 D. Badhain's TO) Adyw, opw/xev is 
 too great a change, and Madvig's ToX/x.(o/x,v </xTieVat> not 
 more than possible. o/xoXoyw/xev, a word used hereabouts 
 very often, seems to me more likely. If oy were lost, 
 as after two similar syllables it might well be, 6/xoXw/xev 
 would pass into ToX/xw/xev with no great difficulty. 
 
 ibid. C orav TIS e/xe (frfj IIpwTap^ov eVa yeyovoTa <f>v<rci 
 TToXAovs etvat 7raA.iv TOVS e/xe Kai evavTtous dXXrjAois. 
 
 Does not the antithesis require <TOV> e/x,e to match 
 TOUS ex,e1 
 
 ^cZ. E TTOta . . Aeyets a fjiiJTrat o"vyK^copry/xeva 
 
 One would expect SeS^/xcu/ueVa o-vy/<e^o)p>;Tat. They 
 become common and familiar first, and matters of general 
 agreement only in consequence of that. The exchange of 
 terminations is always possible. 
 
 1 5 A evTOLvOoi fjiev yap KCU TO TOLOVTOV zv . 
 l^r) oftv eAey^eii/' OTCLV 8e Tts eva avOputTrov 
 Ktil j3ovv eVa Kat TO KaAov ej/ /cat TO dya^ov eV, Trcpt Tovroov 
 
 /cat TWI/ TOIOVTWV 17 TroAAr/ o-TrovS^ /xeTa Statpecrecos 
 
PHILEBUS 195 
 
 Madvig suggests <nrov$y the dative. But, while that 
 would come in awkwardly and be indeed doubtful in point 
 of grammar, //.era SicupeVews is and would be quite out of 
 place, fj TroXXy d^^to-^ryyo-t? is all we need and all we 
 ought to have. I would therefore, adopting cnrov&fj, 
 propose to put o-TrovS^ //.era 8. with eXeyxeti/ three lines 
 above. The words would be as appropriate there as they 
 are disturbing and perplexing where they occur. 
 
 ibid. B Concurring in the view that Trpwrov ju,eV . . ctra . . 
 yu,Ta Se TOVTO convey three distinct points and that there 
 must be something wrong with o/xws in the statement of 
 the second, I find the suggested orr<o? (Susemihl, perhaps 
 Bury : oXcos one view of Badham's) not very satisfactory, 
 as being awkward by the side of /2e/?cuoTara. Might we 
 read /^Sa/Aw?, going with the words preceding? vrjv 
 before it would facilitate the loss of /x^8. 
 
 ibid. C aTracr^s diropias ama firj KaXais ouoXoyrjOevra KOL 
 av av KaA.u>5. 
 
 Probably av is eai/ and we are to understand 
 with it. 
 
 ibid. D TroOev ovv rts TCLVTYJS apr]Tai TroXX^s ov(rr/s Kat 
 Travrotas vrcpt ra d/x,</)i(r j3rjTov/j(.eva /^a^^s ; 
 
 Does not ravrrys need a -nys ? Either insert one or read 
 
 1 6 A Badham's oXtyou 8' ovSe for oXiyou 8e Kat is 
 unnecessary, I think, because Plato probably was not 
 thinking of <eiSo/*evos oure . . . OVTC K.T.\., which would 
 certainly call for ovSe, but going back in his mind to TOV 
 
 ibid. B ov fJiyv (TTt KaXXtwv 6805 ov8' av yivoiro rj<s eyw 
 
 Madvig wrote ^before ^?, but there is probably no 
 reason why the genitives should not do double duty, first as 
 dependent on the comparative, secondly as dependent on 
 Cf. Xen. R.L. 9. 1 eTTicrKOTrcov TIS av evpot 
 
 O 2 
 
196 PHILEBUS 
 
 a7roOvr)<TKOVTas TOVTWV TWV IK rov <f>o(3pov ctTro^wpetv atpov/xeVcuv, 
 where TWI/ . . alpov^vwv is at once governed by /xeiovs and 
 partitive. There too Heindorf proposed to insert 77 after 
 TOVTCOV, and of course after v it might easily fall out. 
 
 ibid. D TWV ev 
 
 There is no difficulty in regarding ev as indeclinable and 
 a potential plural. Cf. 15 C Trept ra roiavra ev Kai TroXXa 
 and 17 E aXXo T<JOJ/ e^ OTIOVV. 
 
 ibid. E Ot VW TOH> dl^ptoTTCOl/ (TO(j)ol V fJLV O7TCOS 
 
 Kat TroXXa Oarrov KOL (3pa$vTpov TTOIOVCTL TOV Seovros, jLtera 
 TO ev a7rei/oa eu^us- 
 
 Kat TroXXa is often bracketed as unintelligible, which 
 indeed it is. TO. TroXXa plerumque has also been substituted 
 for it. Might not TroXXaKts get corrupted 1 For Kat before 
 jSpaSvTtpov we might be tempted to read rj, but in this sort 
 of use Greek often has and where we say or. 
 
 17 B TOVT' eo*rt TO ypayu/xaTtKOi/ eKao-TOV TTOLOVV rj^v. Kat 
 fj.r)v Kat TO fJLOvcrLKov o Tvyxavei TTOLOVV TOVT' ZCTTL TO.VTOV. 
 
 Bury seems to agree with Paley that TO before /UOVO-IKO'V 
 is an inadvertent repetition from TO ypa/x/xaTtKov. ' Other- 
 wise,' he says, * we must take it as a demonstrative rather 
 than article.' But this is surely impossible. TO o could 
 stand like TWV oVa in 21 c, but not with /xovcrtKoV coming 
 between. We might think of 6V for o, i.e. ov Tvy\dvti, 
 any one. 
 
 Is TOVT' co-Tt TavTov right 1 The almost invariable order 
 is the reverse, ravro TOVTO, 6 avTos OUTOS, etc. In 38 E 
 I would make a similar change. 
 
 He goes on <f>wvr) //,/ TTOV Kat TO KaT* tKfivrjv r^v TC^V^V O*Tt 
 fjLt'a h avrrj, in which words Kai TO' is absent from the Bodleian, 
 though found in T, the Venetian codex, and some scholars 
 prefer to omit it or at any rate the TO. If we keep it, I 
 would take TO Kara closely together, as in TO Ka0' ^/x-as, TO 
 KaTa rovrov etvat, etc. It is curious how often the adverbial 
 phrase TO /xTa TOVTO occurs in this dialogue (29 D, etc.). 
 There is no reason, as Badham saw in his second edition, 
 why fKLvnv should not refer to 
 
PHILEBUS 197 
 
 18 A wo-Trep yap, ev onovv et Tt's TTOTC Aa/?ot, TOVTOV ws 
 
 OVK eV' d-TTet'pOV (f>V(TW 8et /JAeTTeiV vOll<S dAA' CTTt TlVtt apl@fJ.OV, 
 
 OUTW Kat TO eVavTtov, OTai> Tts TO aVetpov dvay/cacT^ 
 Aa/x/SdVeti', //,r) eTTt TO eV er>0i>s dAA' err' dpifytov av Ttva 
 
 TL KCtTCtVOetV TeXcVTttV T /C TTCtVTtOV CIS V. 
 
 Great difficulty has been found in eV d 
 voetv, so much so that Burnet follows Liebhold in expunging 
 TT' and Bury inclines to the same course. For other views 
 and proposals see Bury's note. I suggest dXA.' err' dpi^/xov 
 av nva 7T\7J6o<s Ka.(TT(DV ^ovTa, el KaravoL<s. Cf. 51 E dXX', et 
 /caTavoet?, Tai;Ta 1877 8uo and ibid. C et /xou /xav^aVeis : 26 G 
 TO. fjiev 8^ Tpt'a TauTa tp>y/ca, et (rvvvoets. TIPO. dAX ot/xat 
 KaTavoeti/ : 2^6j9. 510 A et /caravoets : Polit. 280 B et wvoets 
 rrjv otKetoT^ra. The change of eKao-Tov to eKdo~T(i)v would 
 also, I think, be an improvement, efcao-Twv referring to 
 the species contained in the genus. Cf . 1 7 E TO 8e aTretpoi/ 
 e/cacrrtoi/ /cat ei/ e/cao-TOis TrX^os and 19 A aTretpa auTwv eKao-Ta 
 yeyoveVat, though the use of eKao-Ta may not be quite 
 the same. 
 
 19 c Is fj.r) XavOdvtiv O.VTOV complete without something 
 like <<lyi>oowTa> added 1 
 
 ibid. CTV Tr^v8e TI^LIV TTJV crwovcrLav . . . 7re8(OKas TracTL /cat 
 o"eavTov Trpos TO 8/eAecr^at /c.T.A., but in E eSco/cas ets Tav^' 
 fifjLLv a-avrov. Badham brackets Kat o-eavTov here, but this 
 kind of pleonasm can at any rate be illustrated from Latin 
 poetry, e.g. Lucr. 1. 6 te, dea, . . adventumque tuum and 12 
 te, diva, tuumque significant initum: Virg. Aen. 8. 144 
 me, me ipse meumque obieci caput (where Conington 
 compares Soph. O.C. 750 det o-e /o^Sevoixra Kat TO o'oi' Kapa) : 
 Cf. ibid. 377 : 10. 672, etc. The expression below in 64 c 
 eVt Tots TOV ayaOov . . . TrpoOvpoL? Kat rfjs otK^o-ecos . . . rrjs rov 
 TOIOVTOV is very similar. Spenser F. Q. 5. 10. 12. 3 himself 
 and service to her offered. 
 
 20 C TWV 8e ye eis rrjv Stat'peo-tv et8a>i/ ^Soyr/s ovSev eVt 
 
 Ta ets TT/V 8iatpeo-iv are things contributing or relating to 
 the distinction of kinds. Cf. Xen. Oecon. 9. 6 KOO-/XOS 
 6 ets eopTas. 
 
198 PHILEBUS 
 
 ibid. D Sia<t>epov or Sia<e'pei for Sia<epeii> ? 
 
 In the same section, though the infinitive Ae'yeiv can be 
 explained by an anacoluthic construction with oT/xcu, it may 
 be only a mistake for Ae'yeis. 
 
 When Socrates says that a man aims at the good KOL TWV 
 aXXwi/ ouSei/ <porriei 7rAr/v TOJJ/ a,7roTeA.ou//,eVa>i/ a/xa (iya^ois, I 
 do not understand him to mean by the last words ' such 
 things as involve goods in the process of their development,' 
 (Bury : Badham would omit TrArji/), but ' such things as are 
 brought about along with things good,' or in other words 
 that we are indifferent to anything not compatible with 
 real good, e.g. to pleasure that does not go along with good. 
 
 21 A exeis should be e^ois, as the fc ner optatives show 
 and as grammar requires. 
 
 22 A KOLVOS yiyvo/xevos (not yei/o/xevos) 1 
 
 ibid. Tra? SYJTTOV TOVTOV ye (TOV j3tov} alprj<rTai Trporepov f) 
 
 CKCtVWV O7TOTpOVOVV, KOL 7T/3OS TOUTOIS ye OV% 6 /Xl/, 6 8' OU. 
 
 Some very unsatisfactory attempts to deal with /cat TT/OOS 
 TOUTOIS ye (ye is wanting in T) may be found recorded in 
 Bury's note, and I cannot regard his own ye(j/7Jo-Tcu) 
 or eo-rat as more plausible. The phrase etvat Trpos TLVL is 
 not really in place here, for it does not usually express 
 more than a temporary occupation or absorption ; and why 
 should it be TOVTOIS, not TOVTW 1 Surely KCU Trpos rourois ye 
 must be used in its ordinary sense, and further, just like 
 Trpos Se ye TOUTOIS in 37 c. I infer therefore the loss of 
 some word or words like those of 20 D ^pevet /cat e^ierat 
 ySovXo/xevov eAeu/ /cat Trept avro KTrj(raor6ai. iSot a man here 
 and there, but everyone will choose it, and not only choose 
 it but actively pursue it. The emphasis of Trpos rovrots yc 
 seems to point to the loss of more words than one. 
 
 ibid. B Traori . . . atperos otcrTrep Suvarov yv ourws . . . r)v. 
 
 oo-oto-Trep would match TTCJO-I better, and the last letters of 
 atpero's may account for the loss. Rep. 61 5 A MSS. vary 
 between ovs and oo-ows, the latter being necessary : ibid. 349 D 
 Totouros . . . oto-Trep eWei/ Madvig very plausibly suggests 
 oKKo-Trep. et^e just above (et^e rdyafloV) should probably 
 be eet. 
 
PHILEBUS 199 
 
 ibid. E e/xoiye SOKC? viiv /xev i^Sovr/ (rot TreTrrooKevai . . ., TOV 
 
 Sc VOW, 0)$ COl/ce, XeKTe'oV O)S K.T.X. 
 
 Is there any meaning in vw ptv 1 The antithesis seems 
 really to be between ^Sovrj and vov?. I conjecture the loss 
 of rj after the final v of vOv, a not uncommon thing, and 
 read So/cei vw fj /xev fjSovr) . . ., TOV 8e vow K.T.X. 
 
 '23 B Kat yap 817 <atVerai Seu> aXX?;s /xiy^av^s eVi ra 
 VTrep vou Tropeuo/xci'ov otov /JeX?; c^eiv Ircpa TWI/ 
 Xoycov. 
 
 Burnet, who puts a comma after /x^^av^?, agrees presum- 
 ably with Badham's first view, that Setv governs ^x av ^? 
 and then in an explanatory way e^eiv. In his later edition 
 Badham expunged not only Xdywv but aAAr;s /A^^av^s 
 altogether. Is not the true solution to be found in reading 
 a\Xrj /Ar;;(av7J ] Terminations such as 779, y (771), rjv are 
 constantly confounded. See for instance 48 E, where there 
 is evidence for apery, dpT^s, and dpcr^v. For the phrase 
 cf. Herod. 3. 83 Set eva ye rtva Ty/xewv /3a(TL\a yevearOai YJTOI 
 /cXr/pa) ye Xa^dvra YJ . . . r} a\\rj rivt /x^^avy. With Tropeveo-^at 
 there is a slight mixture of metaphors (31 B Tavry xPV 
 TTopeveo-^at gives the proper expression), but that need 
 hardly trouble us. 
 
 ibid. D et/xt 8' ws eoixev eyo> yeXoto'? Tts IKUVOS (Bodl., 
 
 lKttV(05 T) K.O.T lBr) SlKTTaS KO.I (TVVapiOfJi.OVfJ(,fVO^. 
 
 Though Bury and Burnet adopt his suggestion in their 
 text, I think Badham showed less than his usual insight in 
 supposing iKavds to be a corruption of TIS av#pa>7ros (TISOVOS), 
 for surely av0pa>7ros would be feeble here. A word even 
 more likely to be corrupted into tKavds or t/cavws and much 
 better in sense is Ka/cws, going with the participles. In 
 Lysias 13. 66 t/cavws VTTO v/xwv a.7rai'Ta>v /x,e/xapTupr/rat is now 
 read for /ca/cw?, and in Dio Chrys. 18. 4 wo-Trep TIS t<f>r) TOJV 
 TraXaiojv auT(3 KCIKOS eivat /xavTt?, Acdyw e^apKeti/ w/xryv e/xavTw 
 the conjecture iKavds for Ka*ds or Kaxois is clearly necessary 
 to the sense. Cf. Index, s.v. 
 
 24 A TO 8e Trepas e^ov 
 
 No doubt /xevet. Cf. 31 A /xe/xvw/xe^a 8^ K.T.X. and the 
 rejoinder 
 
200 PHILEBUS 
 
 ibid. D TO Se is only the ordinary Platonic TO Se but 
 really (e.g. Apol. 23 A), not very common out of Plato. 
 
 25 D E Without discussing this passage at length I 
 question the necessity of any transposition or even of 
 changing o"uvayoyu,eViov in any way. ou trw^yayo/xev means 
 that there was in 25 A B (TTPWTOV /xeV . . . /ueVpov) no good 
 summary of the things contained in the class, giving their 
 nature in a lucid intelligible way ; no such summary in 
 fact as Socrates goes on to give at the end of 25 D in the 
 words O7r6o-rj . . . aTrepyd^rai. This description of them 
 taken along with the parallel description of the other class 
 at the end of 24 E suggests in itself a combination and 
 communion (opOrj KoivwWa) of the two classes, and this 
 obvious suggestion along with TO rpirov TO /XCIKTOV e* TOVTOIV 
 OL^OIV in 25 B and o-v/x/x.ei'yi'v K.T.A. in 25 D fully accounts 
 for the (fratLvr) yap /xot K.T.A. in E. KaKcivr] in D refers to TO 
 Se rpirov TO JACLKTOV K.T.A., modified in gender by TJJV TOV 
 TrepaTos yeyvav and TT^V TOV aTretpov. 
 
 26 B v/3pw yap TTOV /cat avfjuracrav TraVrcov Trovrjptav avTifj 
 KaTioovcra fj ^eo's, w KaAe ^iA^c, Trepas OVTC rjoovuv ouSev OVTC 
 
 TT\Y)0-fAOvC)V 6VOV IV ttVTOtS, VO/XOV KO.I TO.w 7Tpa<5 f.)(OVT (SO T '. 
 e^OVTWV B) 0TO. 
 
 A good deal has been written about this difficult 
 sentence. I think Trepas . a^Tois is to be taken predica- 
 tively with KaTtSovo-a, as though an ovo-av or by attraction 
 ov had been added, and the reason why it was not is 
 perhaps to be found in eVoV, side by side with which it 
 would have been very awkward. The meaning is therefore 
 ' perceiving that v/3pts etc. consisted in the absence of any 
 limit.' I would then understand I^OVT' e'#eTo as 'caused 
 them to have ' law and order as a limit. This is a fairly 
 common use of Tt#eo-0ai in tragedy and other poetry 
 (riBf.vo.i being poetical for Troieu/, TiOea-OaL for 7roieto-0ai, quite 
 regularly), and, though in prose the middle voice is not 
 often so used, the active voice in this sense is well known. 
 
 avT-rj -f) 0eos which we are not to amend to avT>; 17 o-^ 
 #eos with Badham, but to understand rather as a deliberate 
 antithesis to the 0eos of Philebus is a personification and 
 apotheosis of the principle of the limit or of its practical 
 application (17 op0i) Koivwia 25 E). 
 
PHILEBUS 201 
 
 ibid. D dAAa TpiTov <f)d@i fjie Aeyetv, ev TOVTO Ti^eVra, TO rov 
 eKyovov aTrav, yevccriv ets ovo~ia.v ZK T<OV /xera TOV 
 
 Bury has contributed to the understanding of these- 
 words by his suggestion of dTreipyaoyAeV^i', which I would 
 accept, comparing Frogs 1282 a-rda-iv /xeXoiv | IK rwv KiOapu- 
 OLKUV VO/AOOV lpyao-fj.vr]v. He does not however point out,. 
 what must, I think, be the case, that the words yeVeo-iv ets 
 ova-cav are not here to be understood as going together. 
 Taken together, they make no sense in this context. 
 yeveo-is would be a process and Socrates is speaking, not of 
 a process (Badham's ytVeo-ii/ ovarav quite ignores this), but 
 of a class of things, yeVeo-is in another sense altogether,, 
 family, race, etc., just as the mainly poetical words yeWa 
 and yeved are used in this dialogue for the same purpose. 
 yeVeo-is is used in this sense a few lines above (TTJS TOV rptrov 
 yei/e'o-ews) and Ast's lexicon furnishes parallels, 
 then is dependent, not on yeVca-tv, but on a 
 brought into being, though Plato may have been half 
 playing on the contrast of ov<ria and yei/ecris. 
 
 Though /xeVpwv makes sense in a way, I cannot think 
 that TO. /xera TOV Treparos /x,eVpa is a very natural or probable 
 phrase for Plato to use. /xercx seems questionable. More- 
 over TO. (jiCTpa would be only one of the two indispensable 
 elements, Trepas and aTretpov. ex ought to introduce the two- 
 together, as in 32 A TO e* T}S (?) dUrccpou KOL TrcpaTos /caTa. 
 <f>v(nv fj.\f/v)(ov yeyovo? eTSo?. aTreipos is certainly his usual 
 word, but it seems possible that he here wrote d/AeVpwv. 
 
 Cf. 65 D OuSfV TtUV OVTWV 7T(f>VKO<S d/XTpCOTpOV and djJLTpia UL 
 
 52 C along with e/x/xerpia, ' 1/x/x.erpos, and a7re<pos : and /xeVpov 
 is eventually the paramount element in the good 
 (64 D: 66 A). 
 
 28 c ei> T(3 7rcu'eti/. What is meant by this and by tha 
 reference to TrcuSia in 30 E ? 
 
 ibid. E oLiSev TCOV avrcov can only mean that the two> 
 alternatives are very different in character ; one arguable, 
 the other not : one worthy to be entertained, the other 
 not, etc. The two hypotheses do not belong to the same 
 class and order. The following are to some extent 
 
202 PHILEBUS 
 
 parallel : Rep. 408 D ofy o/xotov 7rpay/xa TO> avrw Xoyu) r/pou : 
 Xen. Synip. 8. 34 ouSev TOVTO o-^/xetov XeyovTcs o/xotov : Ar. 
 " ' 
 
 .L?/S. 594 yua At" dXX' OUK clrres o/xotov 
 
 29 B Should crfjiiKpov re be oy/,t/cpoi/ TI, as in c ? 
 
 30 A B ou yap TTOV SoKOv/xeV y K.T.X. 
 
 I think the solution of the difficulty here is, not that 
 Plato fell into a very clumsy anacoluthon (Stallbaum) nor 
 that Trepas . . . Kou/dV has taken the place of some entirely 
 different words (Badham), but the much simpler hypothesis 
 that a participle agreeing with the subject of SOKOVJACV and 
 governing the accusatives has fallen out. It may have 
 been SteXo/Aei/ot, or any other of half a dozen words that 
 could easily be suggested. Cf. 27 B Siwpicr/xeVwi/ TWV Terrapwv. 
 
 The correctness of if/vxrjv re Trap^ov (see Badham and 
 Bury) is attested by /?a(7iA.i/c7/v /xci/ ipv^rjv . . . eyyi'yi/<T#ai Sia 
 TYJV rrj<s amas Swa/xii/ in D. 
 
 31 D Are the words TYJS dp/xovtas /x - 
 
 /xe'v and followed by TraAtv 8e dp/xorTo/xe 1/779) in the right 
 order ? 
 
 ibid. E Sti^os 8' av <f>6opa. KOL \VTrr) KOL Xvcris. 
 
 Instead of bracketing KCU X^o-i<> with Bury after Schleier- 
 macher we ought perhaps to write XvVts Kat <j>0opa KOI 
 Xvirrj, or possibly ^>^opa Kat XvTrr) ws Xuort? (<ws for Kat as 
 elsewhere). XvVts seems from the context an essential 
 word, and <0opa will not quite take its place. In the same 
 sentence rj should probably be inserted after Trapa 
 Cf. on 22 E. 
 
 32 A TO K rrys aTreipou Kat Treparos Kara <jf>vcriv 
 
 T^S is given by B and T and also in the text of Stobaeus, 
 but there is nothing to account for the feminine. TO 
 oVetpov is of course the regular expression. When we 
 compare 18 A ITT aTretpou (f>v(riv /SAeVciv and 24 E T^S TOV 
 aTretpov ^vVfw?, it seems possible that CK TYJ<S <TOV>? 
 dTretpov <^>i;o-o>s> should be read. KaTa ^>uViv in the same 
 sentence need not prevent this. 
 
PHILEBUS 203 
 
 ibid. B 8oKi yap fJLOL TUTTOV ye riva 
 
 Read 8o/co>. So jRej;. 491 C e^eis yap TOI/ TU'TTOV a>v Aeyoo 
 and in this dialogue 61 A TWO. TVTTOV avrov 
 
 ibid, c Whether we keep, omit, or alter AV'TTT;? TC KOL 
 T/s, it is difficult to make any sense of the description 
 of wholly mental pleasures and pains as tiXiKpivta-w . . . KOL 
 d/xeiKTots, since they are clearly shown by Socrates subse- 
 quently to admit in some cases of coexisting elements of 
 pain and pleasure respectively, just as the so-called bodily 
 pleasures and pains do. 
 
 As to the construction of TOTC fttv do-7rao-Te'oi> avra K.T.\. 
 I think we must accept in principle Badham's insertion of 
 ws (i.e. 8oTov ws) or Bury's on. Perhaps TO on was lost 
 before rdVe. Cf. Phaedo 102 c vTrep^o-Oai r<3 OTI K.T.A. Or 
 an cTvat may be missing, governed by Soreov : cf. 58 c. 
 
 ibid. D 6p9orara Xeycis ort ravrrj Try Set StaTropev^vai TO 
 
 Did Plato write Sia.Tropr)6rjvau r l The text can hardly be 
 right. 
 
 2 etTrep OVTWS eVrt TO Xeyo/xevov, 8ta<^>^etpOjU,evo>v /xei/ 
 dXy^Swv, dvacrw^o/xeVwv 8e -^^"^ 
 
 There is nothing in the context for avTwv to refer to and 
 Badham proposed to omit it. In my Aristophanes and 
 Others, p. 174 and elsewhere I have pointed out passages 
 in which it seems probable that avTot or its cases should 
 be corrected to Traces or the cases corresponding. So here 
 TTCLI/TWI/ would make excellent sense and is supported by the 
 TT a v a few lines below, by B above rrjv di/a^wp^o-iv 
 TT a v r (D v ^Sov^v, and by 42 C Trj<s <uo-eo>s e K a cr r to v 
 8ta^>^ipo/xeV>;5 piv K.T.\. 
 
 In the epigram ascribed to Lucian (Anthol. 10. 31), 
 
 OvrjTa TO. TOW OvrjT&v KCU Trdvra Trape'p^eTat 
 rjv 8e /XT/, dAA' ^ets avra 
 
 I suspect the author wrote not avTa but TrdvTa. avTa is 
 hardly strong enough for its place in the verse. 
 
204 PHILEBUS 
 
 33 A B T<3 TOV TOV <f>povtiv eXo/xevo) fttov olcr^' ws TOVTOf rov 
 ovScv aTTOKtoXvei fiv . . . epprjOrj yap . . . fjLVjotv Seu> 
 /xeya /xr/Te oyxtKpoi/ ^atpetv TO) rot' TOV voetv KO.I 
 
 Neither dative is possible as the words stand. It wants 
 more than a passage or two in the poets and one doubtful 
 sentence in Xenophon (Anab. 3. 4. 35, for the citation by 
 L. and S. of Oecon. 7. 20 is a mistake) to make us believe 
 that Plato could put a dative thus with Set. May we not 
 make it possible by reading /x^Sev Sen/ ^re <TOV> /xeya 
 /c.T.X. 1 One TOV will probably be enough. In the earlier 
 sentence I would read something like OLTTOK^XVOV <eo-ri> ^v, 
 or perhaps like <eXAet7rov> 
 
 34 B dvaTToX^crr; should, I think, be ava-rroX-fj, like ai'a- 
 \afj.(3a.vr) just before. Scribes (and, I am afraid, modern 
 editors) do not always know the difference in meaning 
 between an aorist and a present after orav, lav, etc. Cf. p. 161. 
 
 ibid, /xrj has been altered conjecturally in various ways. 
 Badham's <x/x,a would be attractive, did it not lay too much 
 stress on iviOvfjuav, for which the other a/x,a is quite enough. 
 Possibly Plato wrote ^/xets. 
 
 ibid. foil. It may be worth noting that throughout 
 this passage Kcvovrai, Kevov'/xei/os, etc. are mostly used not in 
 a really present but rather in a perfect sense. Kevov/xei/os 
 here is when empty, not when beginning to be empty. Cf. 
 the regular use of o-repd/uevos (e.g. 67 A) and a few similar 
 present tenses, e.g. AciWrai it remains, it is left (so 55 E 
 and XetTrotr' av). 
 
 36 D See p. 92. 
 
 38 C Badham demurs to tcrrdvai <ai>Tao / /x,ei/ov, and 
 certainly <. does not appear to govern an infinitive 
 anywhere else. But we may observe (1) that ^aivo^vov 
 would give a wrong sense, and (2) that occasional infinitives 
 after verbs and participles not usually taking them are 
 fairly numerous, even in prose. Cf. Plato's own practice 
 with ovo/xa^o), KaXw, and Trpocrayopevio, and the infinitives 
 that occur after Karacf>pov, o-KOTrou/xai, Tm^o/xat. The 
 construction in 38 D rd^ av ws eart K.r.X. TrpocraVoi has 
 
PHILEBUS 205 
 
 been questioned, but there TrpocmVoi perhaps takes a ws 
 clause as elsewhere it takes an infinitive. ayaA/xa however 
 is difficult in construction. 
 
 39 D E TroTfpov ovv TO, ypa/xyzara . . . TTC/H /x,i/ TOV ycyovoTa 
 Kat, TOV TrapoVra xpoVoi/ eortV, Trept Se rov yaeAAovra OVK eariy ; 
 
 IIPfi. o~(f>6opa yc. 
 
 At first sight <r<o8pa seems to assent to the whole of the 
 preceding question, but on looking into it we see that it 
 really means <r<oSpa ecrri Trept TOV /u.e'AAoi'Ta. See note on 
 I?ej0. 606 A. The general meaning therefore is like that of 
 the question with /xeV and 5e and the answer in 41 E-42 A. 
 
 40 E ri Be ; Troi/rypas Soas /cat xprycrras aAAcos 17 
 yiyvo/xevas e^o/xcv etrreri/ ; IIPO. OVK aXXws- 
 
 There are here two difficulties. One is that good 
 opinions ought not to be mentioned at all, just as good 
 pleasures are not in the next words (o8' ^Sovas yc . . irXyv 
 TW i^evSets etrai) ; and that, if they are, then we need KCU 
 aA.77#et9 in addition to i^evSets. Hence Kat xpr/o-ras is some- 
 times omitted. The other is that aAAws rj i^euSets ytyvo/xeVas 
 is an imperfect and impossible expression for aAAoos ytyi/o- 
 /uicVas rj TO) i/'evSet? etvat, as in the next sentence. Should we 
 not read Trov^pas . . . aAAa> rj i^cuSet ytyvojaevas and ov/c aXAu> ? 
 So indeed we actually have a few lines below, o^So^ yap 
 TW i^euSci /u.ev ov 7ravu TrovTypag aV rt? . . . Otir]. i/'euSoi? (which 
 we might think of) would not give the right meaning. 
 
 When Socrates says that pleasures too are only bad 
 through falsity, Protarchus rejoins iravv /xei/ ovv rovvavriov, 
 w ^wKpare?, eipr^Kas, where rovvavriov is oddly used to 
 express the opposite of the truth, and Bury seems to agree 
 with Paley that something like ^ (or ots) etp^/cas should be 
 read. In a fragment of Aritiphanes (233 Kock : 
 Meineke III. p. 149) there is a very similar use, unless the 
 context altered the case : 
 
 6 SiSovs rov opKov r(3 Trovrypo) fjLatvtro.f 
 TovvavTiov yap vvv TTOLOVO-LV ol Otoi. 
 iav fTTLOpK^arr) TIS avrovs, c^^ews 
 6 8t8ovs rov opKov eyeVcr' c/z/^povnyTOS, o>s 
 St/catw?, art TTCTriVrevKev TLVL, 
 
206 PHILEBUS 
 
 for rovvavTLov there appears to be the opposite, not of 
 anything specific preceding, but of what a man might 
 expect. We cannot however altogether trust a fragment. 
 For the brief and probably colloquial rejoinder in our 
 passage cf. the note above on 28 E. 
 
 41 B TOUTO Se TO Soy/xa ea>s av Ker^rat Trap' fj/j.'iv aSvvarov 
 dveAeyKTOV S^TTOV yiyi/tr0ai. 
 
 It cannot, I think, be right to say that ecus av K^TOH 
 means ' as long as it is proposed as a thesis for discussion/ 
 Can any such use of KflaOai be adduced from the Platonic 
 dialogues ? Over and over again it is used of a proposition 
 taken, not itself to be discussed, but as the foundation of 
 some argument to follow. The proposition in question is 
 not always necessarily true, though it will usually be so, 
 but its truth is at any rate assumed for the time being. 
 Kcia-Qai answers to Ti0eWi in the sense of laying down, 
 assuming, putting the case that, etc. So in this dialogue 
 Socrates repeatedly says #9, Wifci, etc., and Protarchus 
 replies Keio-0u> (32 B, 33 D, 43 E, 56 c). In this very page 
 we have at D a remarkably clear instance of its real 
 meaning, OVKOVV KCU roSc ctp^Tou /cat crwoo/xoAoy^/xevoi' fjfjuv 
 Kemxi ; The sense here is therefore certainly not ' while it 
 is before us ' merely, but, as Badham maintained, ' until it 
 is agreed, taken as true.' The sentence is not quite 
 straightforwardly expressed, for Socrates does not mean so 
 much that he will allow it to be di/eAey/<roi/, when Protarchus 
 has admitted it, as that, since Protarchus does not admit 
 it, he must insist on its being examined. But there ought 
 to be no doubt of its general sense. Cf. the note above on 
 Apol. 22 A LVO. </x>7> /xot KCU d^cAey/cros rj fjiavreia yevotro, 
 and on the sense and construction of ecu? av that on 
 Phaedo 74 c. 
 
 ibid. C TO Se TVJV aXyySova r\ Ttva 8ta 7ra$os ^Sovryi/ TO o~a>/x,a 
 jV TO 
 
 TO before -n-ap^xo^vov must certainly not be omitted. 
 That would make Trapexo/xevo^ go with the TO before 8e, 
 which from TO crw/*a vjv intervening is quite impossible. If 
 TO 8e is right, either Plato constructed his sentence a little 
 
PHILEBUS 207 
 
 loosely, repeating TO, or we must read something like TO 
 8e . . . fjSovrjv 7rap^6fj,vov TO o~(o/xa ^v, or TO 8e o'wyaa ^v TT)I> 
 dAyr/SoVa ... TO 
 
 ?. D, E 3Q. TIS ow /xr/^avr/ Tairr' op#ws KpivccrOai ; IIPO. 
 77-77 8?7 /cat TTCOS; ^Q. et TO j3ov\.r)/jLa r)fj.lv Tr)s KptVew? TOVTtof eV 
 TOIOUTOIS TIO^I Stayvwvat fSovXtrai e/caoroTe Tt's TOVTWI/ 
 Kat Tt's eA.aTro>v /cat Tts //-aAAov xat 
 T TTSOS iSovrv K.T.A.. 
 
 Accepting Badham's ei <To8e> TO /3ov\rj/jLa with a colon 
 at TOVTWV (unless we should write et TO fiovXyfia . . . TOVTWV 
 <TOL)TO>-), I would not omit Kat Tt's crcfroSpoTepa (a very 
 arbitrary method) or change paXXov to /xaXa/cwTepa 
 (Madvig) but rather hold that ^trv^os has been lost. 
 is the proper antithesis to o-<oSpos (24 c etc.) and 
 /xaAAov is quite admissible for ^o"v^atrpos. Trpo? 
 for Trpos aAAas is not logical but probably right. 
 The subject of /3ovX.erai with Badham's punctuation is not 
 necessarily rj KpiVis : it might be a man, the subject 
 vaguely implied in /?ovA^/xa T^S Kpio-ews. I have sometimes 
 thought that TKTL may be an error for TIS. 
 
 42 B Perhaps <at> AvTrat 8' av (at lost after o-^oSpoVcpat). 
 
 43 E or8' apa 6 /x,6o-os j8to? 178 us rj AvTr^pos Aeyd/xevos op^ws 
 av TTOTt OUT' ct So^a^ot Tt9 8oaoiTO OVT' ct Aeyot Ae^eoy. 
 
 The suggestion of yevo'/xeyos for Aeyo/xevos should be 
 accepted, except that I think ytyvo/xei/os would be better. 
 Aeyo/xevos is incongruous and awkward with Soaot and 
 8oaotTo. But Badham perhaps failed to see the real 
 construction of the participle. It should be taken with 
 Soaom> and AeyoiTo as almost = ytvevOai, ; thought or 
 spoken of as having happened.' Cf. 42 c OVT avro op$ws 
 ^uvoftevov epets, where ^au/o/xevoi/ nearly = the more 
 usual <atVeo-^ai. Cf. perhaps the reverse use of infinitive 
 instead of participle 38 c above. Acyw, dyye'AAw, etc. 
 sometimes take a participle ; 8oaon-o here is helped by 
 Aeyotro. (Aesch. Suppl. 60 8o^ao-t TIS O.KOVUV is easily 
 changed, and in any case is poetry, not prose.) 
 
 I do not feel sure that Aeyo/xeVas in 45 A should not be in 
 like manner ytyvo/xevas. 
 
208 PHILEBUS 
 
 45 A Neither atTrep nor the conjecture etTrcp makes good 
 sense. Perhaps we should omit it and read oirep for o in 
 the next line. 
 
 ibid. B The precise subject of aTroTrX^pov/xeVwv is not 
 quite easy to fix. It may be the same as that of the main 
 verb t(r^ov(rt (cf. Hep. 458 D opov Se dva/xe/xctyyaevajv . . . 
 aovTai : Thuc. 3. 13. 9 /3o7]6r)<rdvTit)v V/JLWV . . . TroXtv re 
 TTpoo-Xi^eo-fle K.T.X.) but its proximity makes this unlikely. 
 It may pluralise the o-w/xaros just preceding. But my 
 impression is that aTroTrX^pou/AeVwv here refers to the food, 
 drink, etc. themselves in another sense of TrXrjpovv and its 
 compounds. The accusative after these verbs is sometimes 
 not the thing filled, but the thing supplied, that with 
 which it is filled, e.g. Eur. LT. 954. Cf. Burns' 'fill it' 
 (the wine) ' in a silver tassie ' and Virgil's vina bonus 
 quae deinde cadis onerarat Acestes and onerantque cani- 
 stris dona, Aen. 1. 195 and 8. 180. 
 
 47 D avrrjv TYJV 
 
 So Burnet reads TO <eV> rot? 0v/xots a few lines below, and 
 after yv the loss would be still easier here. 
 
 ibid. E opyrjv KOL <f>6(3ov KCU iroOov KOL Opfjvov KOL epamx Kat 
 ^A.ov /cat (f>06vov KCU oo~a rotavra. 
 
 The editors do not seem to notice that here and twice in 
 50 B and c Opfjvos appears as a Xv-rrrj, in Aristotle's language 
 a 7ra0os, side by side with TTO'^O?, e/oa>s, etc. Nor do L. and 
 S. mention the use. Aesch. P. V. 388 may be an instance 
 of it. 
 
 48 C 2JQ. iSe TO yeXotov rjVTiva 0vo~tv ex 61 ' HPO. A.eye 
 
 lo"Tiv 8^ vowfpta fJiev Tts TO K<f>d\a.iov, e^ecos TIVOS 
 rrjs 8' av Trdo-rjs Trov^ptas ecrTt K.T.X. 
 
 The editors are very unsatisfactory on this passage. 
 Badham writes ' The genitive ee<os TWOS does not depend 
 on Trovrjpia,' as Stallbaum makes it do, * but upon e7rt/cXr;v. 
 There is a certain irovypLa in general, called after (the) 
 name of a particular habit : that is, called so from Trovrjpos, 
 which denotes a particular habit.' It is curious he failed 
 
PHILEBUS 209 
 
 to see, if I understand him, that Trovr/pid, itself, not Tron/po's, 
 is the habit and cannot possibly be said to be called 
 after it. 
 
 I take it in the first place that the subject of eo-riv S?j is 
 TO yeA-otov. Absurdity is ironjpia or a vwqpta. Plato gives 
 the genus first, and then proceeds to the species. Surely 
 the TIS with Trovrjpia must mean this. But the real 
 difficulty, which I do not know how to solve, is what 
 follows. In the regular sense of eVixX^v, called after, how 
 can TrovYjpia or TO yeAoiov be described as called after a eis ? 
 I say TO y 6X010?, for Plato uses it here evidently in the 
 abstract sense, absurdity, not in the concrete, anything 
 absurd, and Xeyo/te'vr; is feminine by attraction to 
 TrovrjpLa, its real subject being TO yeXotov ( = yeAoioVr/s, a 
 word probably not then in use). Unless there is some- 
 thing wrong with the Greek, I can only suppose that 
 7TiK\r)v means here, though not elsewhere, as a name. 
 (In Critias 114 B its use is very hard to follow, and there is 
 authority there for eiriK\-rj(riv. Are the words confounded 
 here ?) TO yeXotov then is used as the name of a certain 
 Its and connotes a particular badness or faultiness. So 
 Aristotle says rov alar^pov tvn TO yeXoioi/ /xdpiov TO yap 
 yeXoToV eo~Ttv d/xdpTT^d TI Kat alamos d?(oSin>o? K.T.X. \Poet. 
 5. 1449 a 33). 
 
 50 C D Either \aj36vra . . . afalvai goes on from 
 
 as though some part of the verb Tmfloo had been 
 used, or some such word as xp?j or eixe's is missing. 8etv 
 certainly follows, not precedes, d^eivat in construction. 
 
 51 A Tots <f>dorKovcrL XDTTOJV (Ivan. TravXav 7rao-as Tas 1780^015. 
 
 Perhaps TravXas. Cf. dvaTravo-eo-tf just below and AVTTWI/ 
 TO.VTO.S elva.L 7rcto"as a.7ro(i;yas in 44 C. In 59 A the 1VISS. 
 vary between 8dav and So'^a?. 
 
 In the previous line Bury and Burnet can hardly be 
 right in adopting rjfj.lv as against v/uv in the words 
 7Ttpdo"o/xat . . . crrjfjuiLVfLv TJ/JUV (v/xtv) avTas, though B and T 
 give it. It is no more good Greek than 'I will try to 
 show it to us' would be respectable English. Read v/x?i/, 
 which corresponds to Protarchus' oo-a AOITTOL fj/jilv Su'eA$e 
 just above, v/xeis are Protarchus and the other youths 
 
210 PHILEBUS 
 
 whose "presence is indicated at the beginning of the 
 dialogue 1 6 A B, where also Socrates uses v/xets, and at the 
 end (67 B) in <^a^.lv aVavres. 
 
 ibid. C ravra yap OVK etvai Trpos n KaAa Ae'yco, 
 aAAa, dAA' act KaAa KaO aura 7r<pvKva.i Kat rtvas 
 oiKetas *X LV ' ' ' Ka ^ XP ( * ) f JLaTa ^ TWTOV TOV TVTTOV c^ovra 
 
 For the last unintelligible words Bury proposes 
 K-a$apas ^Sovas, while Burnet brackets KaAa Kat i^Sovas as 
 spurious, herein following Stallbaum and Badham. Yet 
 the smallest of changes will put the sentence right and 
 retain the obnoxious words. Read Kat xpco/xara Brj TOVTOV 
 TOV TVTTOV KaAa Kat e^ovra 1780^015 or rySoras l^oi/ra, the very 
 
 phrase ^Sovas ^etv occurring in the previous line, as it does 
 D, Tim. 
 
 in Rep. 538 D, Tim. 64 E, and no doubt elsewhere. 
 TOV TVTTOV will be adverbial, though we do not find another 
 example of this, just as Herod. 9. 66. 3 has TOV O.VTOV 
 Koa-fjiov and several times ovoeva KOCT/JLOV, and Plato himself 
 Symp. 207 D TOV O.VTOV Aoyov, and as many other words are 
 now and then used (KaipoV, /xe/oos, ra^os, yj/co/x/^i/, etc.). 
 
 ibid. D Acyw Sr/ ra reov (f>96y~ywv ras Aetas Kat Aa/A7rpas, TO. 5 
 ev TI KaOapov tetcras /xeAos. 
 
 For the first ras Madvig suggested the rare and probably 
 quite poetical tas, Bury rjx^' which Burnet adopts into his 
 text. Is it quite certain that a sound could be said UVat 
 fj,\o<;1 A voice could, but the sound is itself the /xe'Aos 
 and the expression seems questionable. If my doubt is 
 justified, it may point to ^Wwv (which has been suggested) 
 or <0oyyooi/, though <j>Qoyyrj seems not to be found elsewhere 
 in prose, and then perhaps we might read rtvas for the first 
 ras, or even Kat, which seems almost wanted. But it need 
 not be the first ras that is wrong : perhaps we should 
 change or omit the second. 
 
 ibid. E ravra et'S>7 Suo Aeyo/xe'va>v ^Sovwy. 
 
 Both Bury and Burnet adopt Jackson's <Sv Acyo/xev for 
 Aeyo/xeVwv. I should have thought that <TWV> Aeyo/xeVwv 
 fjftovwv in the same sense was more simple and obvious. 
 
PHILEBUS 211 
 
 There is no difficulty about rah/ X. meaning ' the pleasures 
 that we are speaking of ' or ' that we spoke of.' Cf. 39 B 
 TCOV Xcyo/xevoov i/covas TOUTOJV : 41 C at Xeyo/xeyat 7ri$u/Atat : 
 and apparently 46 D ras T?)S i//wpas Xeyo/xeVas vw ST) 
 
 52 D TI TTOTC \pr) <f>dvai vrpos d\T70eiai/ etvat; TO KaOapov 
 
 T Kttt lXlKplVS rj TO O~(f>6opa T /Cttl TO TToXv Kttl TO /Xya K'll 
 TO LKCLVOV ; 
 
 For TTOTe read TrpoVepov, as Badham once suggested. TI 
 TTore ; (ivhat in the world ? luhat ever ?) is not appropriate 
 here, but much too strong, as we may see from the very 
 next words of Protarchus, TI TTOT' apa, w ^coxpaTe 
 /?ovAd/xevos; in which it is natural enough. With 
 7rpo5 aXrjOeLav cf. 44 E TO. Trpcora /xeye^et : Laches 183 B 
 TroXXous cr(f><j!)v TrpoTepovs eli/ai Trpos TO, TOU TroXe/xov. 
 
 Tt stands, as elsewhere, for Trorepov, which of the two. 
 
 KOL TO IKO.VOV has been much called in question, Badham 
 reading /cat Trpos TO xaXoV, Apelt suggesting ^OLVLKOV 
 for IKO.VOV and Burnet reading ITOL^OV from his own 
 conjecture. The truth seems to be that iKavo? is not 
 unfrequently used in a stronger sense than enough. It 
 often means (notably in the New Testament, where 
 IKO.VOL is also used for many, e.g. Acts 12. 12 : 18. 18) much, 
 considerable, large, etc. Notice for instance Antiphon 
 2. 1.6 i/oxvov /x,epo? Toiv OVTWV a.7ro/?/3/\.r7*ce : 2. 2. 2 t/cavas 
 XuTras . . . Trpoo-ftJ3\.r)K : Dem. 42. 21 t/cavov xpo'vov ov' 
 ouo-ta? KapTrou/xevos : Cforgias 480 A tKavof KOLKOV f^ovTa and 
 48o E eXeu^epov oe /<at /xeya /cat tKavov jaTySeTTOTe ^>^ey^ r ao"^at, 
 where KaAoV and veaviKoV have been conjectured : Lysis 
 204 A ou (/>a9Xo? y ai/7yp, dXX' tKavos o-o<^)to-Trys, - ^00(? G?ea-/ O/ 
 a sophist. There is therefore no sufficient reason for 
 doubting the word here. Cf. p. 57. But perhaps TO o-^o'Spa 
 should be TO o-^oopov as above in C TO ueya Kat TO o~<j>oopov. 
 37 c is no justification for the adverb, as it there qualifies 
 the adjective. 
 
 53 A TTOJS ovv av \CVKOV KCU TL<S KaOapoTys rjfjuv tirj ; Trorcpa 
 TO /xeyioroi/ Te /cat TrXeto-TOV y TO d/cpaTeo-TaTOV ; 
 
 After either TroVepa or TrXeto-Toy insert 
 Without that the sense is very halting and TO 
 
 p 2 
 
212 PHILEBUS 
 
 K.T.A. is given not as XCVKOTOLTOV but as KaOapor^. Observe 
 that a few lines below XcvKortpov KOI KciXXiov KOL aXrjOfarepov 
 stand together in a way which almost necessitates their 
 having occurred together before, just as we have ^SiW /cat 
 a\.r)0e(rTpa. KCU KaAAiW a little further on. 
 
 ibid. E After twice asking for explanation Protarchus is 
 made by the MSS. to say TO T/CHTOI/ ere'/ow Aeye cra^eo-Tepov, 
 which Badham emended excellently to TO rpirov er' epo> ; 
 Aeye o-a(ecrrepoi>, followed by Bury and Burnet. Very 
 probably that is right (or the same without interrogation). 
 Cf. 65 E o/xws 8' TI Aeye TO rpirov. But I venture to 
 suggest the possibility of 7repw, just as I have suggested 
 that for TOUTOIS avSw KavOis aTravSco KCU 8rj TO TpiYov /xaA' 
 aTravStu (Frogs 369) we should in both places, aTravSw being 
 palpably wrong, read eTravSw. I would not make eVepui a 
 question. 
 
 55 D Ka^apwrepa, matching aKaOaproTtpa ? 
 
 56 A OVKOW /x,eo"Tr) /xev TTOV [AOVCTIK'T] TrpojTOi/, TO O~U/X(^>DTOV 
 
 ov juteTpw o.A.Aa /xeXer^s a'TO^ao'/xa), Kat o*v/x,7rao"a 
 
 TO 
 
 Bury seems right in proposing to make avA^Ti/cr; and 
 (jLOva-iKYf change places. o-u/x7racra and the words that follow 
 point strongly to this. Probably, as he says, afn}? should 
 be transferred along with auA^Ti/oj, so as to read /xeo-Tr/ /xeV 
 TTOV aur^s av\r)TLKY), though this is perhaps not absolutely 
 necessary and there are in the Philebus some very involved 
 arrangements of words. But I do not think he or any 
 one has dealt satisfactorily with ^epo/xeV^s. Ought we not 
 to take it as one of the many instances in which a word 
 has been accommodated in case to a word or words close 
 by (67 B Adywf is perhaps a similar error for Aoyovs) and 
 read ^epo/xeVr; 1 The one participle would be, as often in 
 Plato, subordinate to the other (Oyptvovaa). For /xoiKri/cr; 
 ... TO) a-To^d^fa-OaL ^epo/xe^ cf. Phaedo 99 A Ta vevpa KOL 
 TO. 6o~Ta . . . VTTO 80^775 <j>cp6[jiva TOV ptXTLcrrov. In sense 
 <f>pofjLir) goes fairly along with Orjptvovva : I hardly see 
 how it can be applied to a chord. Badham 
 
PHILEBUS 213 
 
 ibid. D Should the ovv after Stoptcra/xei/os be av ? ow is a 
 little out of place. It and av sometimes get confused, e.g. 
 Frogs 488, where OVK av is necessary but MSS. give 
 
 OVKOVV. 
 
 ibid. E IIP!}. KCU /xaXa eu Ae'yei? ov o~p,iKpav oiacfyopav Ttov 
 Trepi apLO/JLov TevTaovra>v, werre Aoyov e^ctv Su' avras cli/ai. 
 
 SO. TI 8e; Aoyio-TtKr) Kal /zeTpr/TiKr) <^> (not in B or T : 
 added as correction in Yen. 189) Kara TC.KTOVLK^V KCU. Kar 
 
 <j)l\O(TO<f>LaV yWfJLTpia<S T Kttt Xoyt(TyU.WV 
 
 Trorepov ws /xta eKarepa XcKreov 17 8vo 
 
 TI} (B T : TT}S Coisl. : rots Bekker Burnet) 
 eyouy' ar Svo . . . TiQ(.vf\v. 
 
 What is the construction of the genitives TTJS K.r.X. t 
 Badham though not on the ground of this difficulty 
 reads rt Se XoytcrriK^ . . . rrj K. (f>. yew/x,erpia re Kat Aoyiayxa), 
 bracketing Kara/xeAercofiei/coi/, and understanding the words 
 to mean ' what is the relation of one to the other 1 ' But 
 it is hardly possible for the dative to be so used : we 
 should expect Trpds with the accusative. I suggest very 
 doubtfully T6 8e Aoyicrri/oj (or TL Se ; XoyicrrtKT;) Kat (j,eTpr)Tii<f) 
 TV) Kara reKTOViKrjv . . . r^s . . . yew/zerpias K.r.A. ; This might 
 be translated roughly ' and what about practical arithmetic 
 differing from scientific ? ' That is to say, the notion of 
 the Sia<opa in the previous words is carried on, as though 
 he asked Ion Sia^opo. rrj Aoyio-riKir) rrjs yeco/xerpias ; just as 
 we have a genitive after Sia^opoT'iys in Parmen. 141 c TO ye 
 Trpeo-fivTtpov Sta^oporr;? vecorepov eort /cat ovSci/os aAXov. For 
 the confusion of nominative and dative cf. e.g. Hep. 521 D 
 yv/jLvaarriKfj fjirjv Kal fj.ov<TLKrj, where some MSS. have 
 nominatives. 17 would then have to be -n}, if read at all. 
 
 58 A rrjv yap ?rept TO ov KOL TO OVTWS KOL TO KO.TO. TOVTOV det 
 
 The difficulty about TO oWtos might perhaps be removed 
 by reading TO <at> ov Kal TO OVTWS, in which case 
 would have ov to go with. 
 
 CD In this long and difficult sentence has it been 
 observed that even without Badham's changes 
 
214 PHILEBUS 
 
 and KpaTtv 8' #) we can construe the words very fairly and 
 have no need to introduce any idea of an anacoluthon 1 
 We must put a full stop or colon after TO> dA^eo-Taro) and 
 understand TOV'TW . . . dA^eo-Taro) to go with Kpareiv supplied 
 again in the second part of the antithesis. The Trpay/xarci'a 
 in question /cpa/rel TU> dA^eo-rarco just as the other Kparet 
 TT/OOS xpaav. r we might possibly even join 8ta<epcii/ with 
 aura) . . . dA^co-Tcrra), though this is much less likely. 
 vTrdpxew, to which Badham takes exception as superfluous, 
 seems not out of keeping with the clumsy style of the 
 whole dialogue. The general scheme of the sentence 
 resembles that of 32 D, which is certainly imperfect. At 
 the beginning there ought not to be much doubt that eu/cu 
 should be added to TO> /xeyiVn? K.T.A. Cf. Eep. 501 A and 
 Theaet. 170 B for TU> and infinitive with 
 
 59 A Ct T KO.I TTCpl </>VO-0>S ^yetTOU TIS r)TLV. 
 
 Badham ^'p^Tou, which is no doubt the sort of sense 
 required. But there are many places in Greek, where 
 fjyovfj.aL, ot/xai, etc. take an infinitive, in which we cannot 
 escape introducing the notion of ^yov/xat SetV, ot/xat SeV, and 
 it may be a moot point at present whether this notion of 
 Tightness can be conveyed by the two words or whether a 
 Setv should be inserted. Without discussing that here I 
 would only say that ^yemu TIS ^reiv is to be dealt with in 
 whatever way we deal with Lysias 12. 26 OVK out e/xoi KCU 
 rovTOLo-l SOVVOLL $LKr)v : Dem. 22. 5 oT/Acu . . . Trepl TOVTUV TO, 
 TTpo/BovXtv/AOLTa tK<f)pfiv yuoi/cov : Xen. Hell. 4. 7. 4 ol 8' d'AAoi 
 orpartwrai WOI/TO aTrie'i/ai and ibid. 5. 1. 15 : Thuc. 2- 42. 5 (?), 
 Aesch. in Ctes. 196, and very many other passages. 
 
 ibid. C >) rrepl cKtLva eo-9' rjfJLiv TO re fieftcuov Kai TO KaQapbv 
 K.T.A. 17 8et;Vepo5 (SevTepws corr. Yen. 189 BUmet) e/ceiVcoi/ OTI 
 torn o"vyyevS' TO, 8' d'AAa -rrdvTa 8evTepa Te Kai uorcpa 
 
 It is plain of course that SevVcpos has no construction, 
 and the occurrence of 8evTpa in the next sentence has led 
 to its being often bracketed for omission. It is however 
 difficult to see how it got in by error, and the correction 
 Sevrepws gives satisfactory sense. On the other hand we 
 cannot suppose that Plato wrote Seinrepws and then Scvrcpa : 
 
PHILEBUS 215 
 
 they are indeed inconsistent. Should we retain 
 and then write erepa re /cat vorepa ? Seurepos, Trporepos, 
 , erepos are all liable to get confounded in MSS. 
 
 D ravr' apa . . . eorti/ a7r??/cpi/?a>/AeVa 6p$ak /cet/xeva 
 KaA.eto-0ai appears to me to be right as it stands, if we take 
 ecrrti/ aTny/cpi/Jw/xeVa as the main predicate with op#a>s /c. /c. 
 thrown in epexegetically, 6p$ws going perhaps more with 
 than with /cet'/xei/a, as in 6p#ws retfeVr' ex etv 60 A - 
 
 60 E TO.VTO. Se Xeyerw /cat Trept </>pov^crew5, et TIS aVev TTCXCTT;? 
 /cat TT)? ^pa^vrar^s Searr' av ^>poVr/crti/ e^eti/ /x,aA.Xov ^ 
 /u,era TII/WV TySovoiv 7} Tracras ^Sovas ^copts ^poi/rycrew? /xaXAov -^ 
 /xera ^poviycrecos au TIVOS. 
 
 I am not sure that Bury here feels the real difficulty 
 which leads Badham to omit a number of words. Socrates 
 has no business to recur to 'pleasure without wisdom ' and 
 ask if any one would wish for it. That was disposed of in 
 the sentence before, and this sentence should take up only 
 ' wisdom without pleasure/ as ravra Se /c.r.A.. shows. Who 
 would write ' Let any one say whether a man would choose 
 A without any B ; and then in the same way about B let 
 him say if any one would choose B without any A or A 
 without any B ' 1 Surely it is clear that the last five words 
 would be illogical and confusing, as going back to what 
 had been already put in the first half of the sentence. I 
 do not however agree with Badham, who fails here, as he 
 often does, to ask himself, or at any rate to show, why 
 any one should have put in the words he proposes to leave 
 out (rj /xTa Ttvwv rjBoviov and ^copi? c^ponycreoj? /xaAAoi' 77). 
 Though in' my short sentence above it is wrong to say ' if 
 any one would choose B without A or A without any B,' 
 it would be quite logical, right, and natural to say ' if 
 any one would choose B without any A any more than A 
 without any B,' and, as the Greek r/ can mean both or and 
 than, I suspect this is what Plato really intended : that is, 
 the r} before Trao-as -^Soi/as means than. This is no doubt 
 awkward with /xaAXov ?J occurring twice besides in the 
 sentence, but it is the best account perhaps that can be 
 given : ' who would wish for wisdom without pleasure 
 rather than wisdom with some pleasures any more than he 
 
216 PHILEBUS 
 
 would wish for pleasure without wisdom rather than 
 pleasure with some wisdom ? ' But before we can give 
 this (the second) ^ the meaning of than we must find a 
 comparative word for it to depend upon, and this is the 
 difficulty. It would be intolerable to insert a third /xaAAov, 
 but it is possible that some other comparative adverb has 
 been lost. There is however a possible explanation which 
 I incline to think better. Se'^eo-^cu, like atpeio-tfat, /?ovAeo-#ai, 
 and one or two other verbs, admits of so much comparative 
 meaning in itself that without any other word it is some- 
 times followed by r/. We have an example of this only a 
 few pages further on at 63 B /xwv OVK av 8faurOc oiKeiv pera 
 <povr7<re<os Trao-r/s rj ^copt? TOV cfrpovflv ; almost the same 
 question as here, where Se'aio-0e = prefer. Cf. Lysias 10. 21 
 eya> yovv Se^ai/xiyv av 7rao-as ra? acr7ri8a<s eppic^evat r) roiavrrjv 
 yva>)U7?v e^etv Trepi TOV Trarepa : Diog. L. 2. 49 TV<Ao? Se TCOV 
 aAAwv Travrwv Seai/r>?v av r) KAeiviov evos OVTOS yeveV&xi. In 
 spite therefore of the awkwardness of style, characteristic 
 of the whole dialogue, I think that Plato in this sentence 
 combined a Se'^arr' av r/, would choose rather than, would 
 'prefer to, with the double /xaAAov rf. If any one will read 
 the words to himself as bearing that sense, he will see that 
 it is really possible. 
 
 Protarchus' reply is OVK COTIV, w Sw^pares, aAA.' ou8v 8et 
 ravra ye TroAAa/a? eTrepwrav, with which also Badham 
 quarrels. Probably he did not quite realize the force of 
 OK ecrriv, used sometimes to say that a thing is wrong, out 
 of the question, morally impossible, and so on. Thus 
 Soph. Aj. 470 OVK m ravra : Ant. 289 OVK eo-rt : Ar. Eth. 
 3. 1. 1110a26 evia 8' MTWS OVK ecrriv dvayKao-^vai : II. 13. 114 
 y' ov TTWS O~T6 /xe^ie/xcvat TroAe/xoio : 14. 212 OVK eo-r' 
 
 c eoiK TCOV 7ros apvrjcracrOai. So it means here ' such a 
 position is inconceivable,' 'no one could say that/ 
 
 61 B eA-Trls fJirjv TrAciwv ev TO) fj.ei^OfVTL KaAw? TO ^TOV/ACVOV 
 t(TO'@ai ^avepajrepov ^ ev TO) /x?y. 
 
 With this rather unusual form of the double comparative 
 cf. Xen. R.L. 2. 5 and 9. 2. 
 
 . D rjv 17/xtv i^Sovr; Te dA^^co?, ws oio/xe^a, yaaAAov eTe'/oas 
 A 1 ^ Kal K.T.A. 
 Surely 'tuoptOa. So ^o-a/xetfa a few lines below. 
 
PHILEBUS 217 
 
 62 A ap ovv OVTOS iKai/uJs CTricrT^/xT;? eet, KVK\OV /xcv Kai 
 (7<aipas au-n}s TT}S $etas TOV Xdyov ^wv, TT)V d 
 Tavrrjv o-<atpav KOL TOVS KUtfXous TOUTOUS dyvowi/, Kat 
 v oiKoSo/xta Kat rots aXXots o/xotco? Kavdcrt Kat rots 
 
 I will not dwell upon the difficulty of the last clause or 
 on the attempts that have been made to surmount it by 
 changes small or great. They all more or less connect 
 together xpwptvos and rots KUKXots, and, as long as this is 
 done, I doubt if any satisfactory sense can emerge. The 
 idealist described knows nothing of KVK\OI in the plural, 
 Katvol KUKXot (Wohlrab), or even tfetot KVK\OL (Heindorf). 
 He knows only the KVK\OS avros 6 0etos in the singular, the 
 avTOKVK\o<s of the mind or of real being. Plato would 
 therefore never describe him as making use of KVK\OI. 
 This strikes me as the key to the very obscure words we 
 have before us, and, if I am right, the solution may be 
 very simple, such as passages apparently desperate some- 
 times admit of. There is no simpler and on occasion no more 
 satisfactory solution than the insertion of a negative. Let 
 us try that here, and also make a slight change of 
 punctuation. Let us write TYJV Se . . . cr^atpav Kat TOVS 
 KVK\OVS TOVTOVS dyvoojj/ Kal <ov or JU,T)> ^pw/xevos ev otKoSo/xt'a 
 Kat rots aXA.oi? 6/xotws Kavd(rt Kai rot9 KVKA.OIS, taking rots 
 aAAois Kavdo-t to be dependent on ov xpw/^cvos and joining 
 together 6/xoiws Kat rots KVK\OLS, making no more use of 
 rules and measures in building than of circles^ just as 
 lie does not use the common everyday circles. For 
 6/xotws Kat cf. Theaet. 154 A aAAa> dv^pwTra) ap' ofJLOiov Kat 
 <rol ^atVcrat oriovv ; and perhaps Crito 48 B. It is common 
 enough in Greek generally. So TO.VTOV Kai in 65 D. 
 aAAots would be used according to the Greek idiom, KVKXot 
 Kal ot aXXot Kavdvc5, because Kavwv must, I think, be taken 
 definitely as the carpenter's rule (51 c, 56 B) or things very 
 closely akin to it : the KVKXos is not itself a Kavcov. It is 
 however possible that Kat rots aXXots should go with 
 otKoSo/xta and that the remaining words need some addition. 
 I do not therefore feel very confident of my suggestion, 
 but it seems worth making. Just below Kat TOV KVK\OV 
 reads oddly. Kat KVK\OV, Kat TOV <i^v8o;s> KUKXov, or some 
 other small change seems needed. 
 
218 PHILEBUS 
 
 64 A yu,a$eu> Tiva tSeav aurrjv eTvat TTOTC /xavrevreov. 
 
 Should we read avrov for OLVTYJV 1 It ought not to be 
 called itself an tSe'a and the gender is dubious. The 
 termination was corrupted by riVa iSe'av. 
 
 ibid, c Allowing for an involved order of words, such as 
 we frequently note in the Philebus, need we demur to what 
 Badham and Burnet would excise here, KO.L and T?)S TOV 
 TOLOVTOV 1 The 01/070-15 and its inhabitant are expressly 
 distinguished in 61 B, and who would have put the 
 suspected words in ? Cf. on 19 c. 
 
 66 A <pa(oi/ ws T^Sovr/ KTrj/ma OVK COTI Trpwrov ovS' av 
 Scvrepov, dAAa Trpwrov /xeV Try Trepl ptrpov KOU TO /xerpiov Kat 
 
 KOLL 7TOLVTO. OTTOCTa, TOtaVTOL 
 
 Stobaeus : rjpfjcrOai B: tlpfjo-Oau <j>dcriv T: 
 <J>V(TLV vulg. : yvprjo-Oat, <J>\XTLV Badham ' Burnet. 
 
 There can be little doubt that yvpfjarQai <j>v<riv is right, 
 though the last word has disappeared altogether from the 
 Bodleian MS. TT)V dt'Siov needs something to agree with, 
 (f>a(TL and <f)vcris are confused elsewhere, and the accent in 
 T points to some error. rjvprjcrOaL fits the context far 
 better than either ypya-Qai or tlpfja-Qai : they have found by 
 enquiry that measure, etc. possess the attribute or 
 attributes in question. But in dt'Stoi/ there remains a great 
 difficulty, which I cannot think that Bury in his elaborate 
 appendix has surmounted. No such defence can make 
 atBiov natural. What we want is some word directly or 
 indirectly meaning good. That is the subject of the whole 
 dialogue. From first to last they have been discussing in 
 what the good consists or consists most, and it is incon- 
 ceivable that in the final statement of the result of the 
 discussion Socrates should substitute the everlasting and 
 say * we have found then that the everlasting is ' primarily 
 so and so. He is bound to say either explicitly the good 
 or some equivalent, such for instance as ivhat we, have been 
 seeking. Nothing but this would bring the conclusion of 
 the dialogue clearly to the precise point required. To start 
 out in search of the good and arrive at the everlasting 
 
PHILEBUS 219 
 
 would be to miss the good altogether, or at any rate to 
 miss stating it with the necessary precision. 
 
 We must hold then that atoiov is out of the question, 
 but what it stands for is very difficult to see. Burnet's 
 jjLiav or TrpuTrjv tSeav is not satisfactory on close examination, 
 though ingenious. The only suggestion I can make after 
 much thought and with much hesitation is that it may be 
 a resultant of two words accidentally run into one, TT)V 
 ayaOov (or ra.ya.0ov) loiov (or tSictv) TjvprjcrOaL <pvarw, just as in 
 Theaet. 185D the MSS. have opyav&iov for opyavov iSiov. 
 See my Aristophanes and Others p. 221 for some other cases 
 of a like nature, where two words have been made into 
 one. But in none of them has the first word disappeared 
 to such an extent as would be the case here if my conjecture 
 were right. The similarity to each other of the two first 
 syllables of ayaOov might contribute to it. In support of 
 the conjecture, that is of the expression ioia Averts, may be 
 quoted Crat. 387 D avrwv TWO. loiav (>VO~LV e^ovcrat : Phaedo 
 101 C /x,Ta(rp(ov ri^s tSiias bvotaf eKacrrov : Protag. 349 B 
 
 KaO"TO) TO)l/ oVo/AttTCJl/ TOVTWV VTTOKeiTOLL TtS tOtO? OVO"LOL. In 
 
 the Philebus itself we have (though without tSios) 60 B 
 TO TC ayaOov KOL rj$v Sia$o/oov dAX^Awi/ <frv(Tiv ex tv ' an< ^ a g a i M 
 rrjv Ta.ya.6ov 8ta^>eptv (frvo-iv TaJSe TCOI/ aAA.oav (i.e. in something 
 which is t^tov), and 64 E vvv &YJ Ka.rcnri<^f.vy^v fj TOV ayaOov 
 t<s rrjv rov KO,\OV (frvorw, where Swa/us = 
 
 ibid. D 3>i\r)(3o<s rayaOov kTiQzro fjfJLiv lySovr/v eti/at 7rao"av KOL 
 
 cannot mean of all sorts, but only complete, and 
 ' pleasure of every kind and complete ' gives no good sense. 
 Badham TTOLVTYJ, but is not TravTeXws more likely 1 ? The 
 adjoining accusatives amply account for the change. 
 TravreXws is a common word in Plato : cf . for instance 21 A 
 and 46 A. 
 
 67 A Kat fjicra ravrd ye TTOLVTWV iKavwraTa, (T, LKav^rarov B) 
 
 TOVTOtV OvStTCpOV LKCLVOV CffiOLVIJ. 
 
 For tKavwTttTa I would read <f>avpwTaTa (though L. and S. 
 do not cite the adverb from good Greek) or an equivalent, 
 e.g. o-a^eo-TaTa. This will be one of the many places where 
 
220 PHILEBUS 
 
 a neighbouring word (t/cavov) has been in the copyist's 
 mind. This is more likely than that Plato is half playing 
 on the word, ' neither of them is IKO.VOV, but our argument 
 to show that is.' 
 
 It is remarkable that in four or five passages of the 
 Philebus there are references to things, as having been 
 previously stated, which we do not find anywhere in the 
 dialogue as we have it. 
 
 31 C fv W Kal vyt'eiav, ol//,ai Se KOLL apfjioviav, eri'$e(ro. No 
 previous mention of harmony. 
 
 34 D VVvSr) 7TLVr)V T KO.I Stl^OS Kttt TroAAa T/3a TOICUJTO, 
 
 cli/ai rivas cTrt^u/xtag. I cannot find any such 
 statement. 
 
 41 B t7ro/x,ei>, t7T/3 /xe/x,v>J/x,^a, oAtyov cv TOIS irpofrQev cos 
 K.T.X. Nothing has been said before about conflicting 
 feelings of a purely physical kind. 
 
 47 D rjv avrrjv rrjv IJ/VXYJV . . . TroAAaKis Xa^^avetv 
 Here Badham may be right in reading <a/xeV, but cf. 34 D 
 above where j/ui/S? attests 
 
 62 fJiovcrLKrjv r)V oXiyov c/XTrpocr^ev 0a/XV crro^acretos T Kat 
 /xt/x^crtos (M(TTr]V ovcrav Ka^apor^ros evSetv. In this dialogue 
 there has been no mention whatever of /u/^o-is in connex- 
 ion with music, though elsewhere, e.g. in Crat., music is 
 called mimetic. 
 
TIMAEUS. 
 
 20 E T]V /Al> OVV OIKCtOS Kttt CT^oSptt <l'AoS ^/Alf AptoTTl'SoV TOV 
 
 Perhaps rjfj.G)v, but the dative may be right. Should 
 u T. TT. be omitted 1 
 
 23 B TO KaAA.l(TTOI> KOL CtptCTTOl' yCVOS CTT* dv0p<O7TOVS !/ T7J 
 
 7 Trap' v/xtV OVK urTe yeyovo?. 
 
 I have no change to propose with regard to CTT' avflpwTrovs, 
 but we ought to notice the great peculiarity of its use. 
 This eTrt of extension over is elsewhere in passages akin to 
 ours attached to a word expressive or suggestive of some- 
 thing that extends, such as rumour, report, etc. Archer- 
 Hind for instance illustrates it in verse from //. x. 213, 
 /At'yo, KW KA.05 07 Travras CTT' avOpwtrovs, and in prose from 
 Plato's own Critias 112 E CTTI Tracrav EupwTnyv KCU 'Ao-tai/ . . . 
 ^AAo'yijuoi rja-av. But it is one thing to say /cAe'os CTTI, 
 eAXoyt/Aos eTrt, and quite another to say apioros r because 
 the latter phrase gives nothing that can be thought of as 
 extending. Cf. however II. '23. 742 /caXXct evi/ca Trao-av CTT' 
 and 24. 535 Travras yap CTT' dv^poJTrovs 
 
 25 D The island Atlantis was sunk in the sea by an 
 earthquake, Sio Kat vvv a-rropov Kat dSiepewryrov yeyove TO e/cet 
 TreXayos, TnyA-ov Kapra /3pa^eos 6/x,7ro8ojv OVTOS, ov 17 
 
 It has of course been noticed that the mud can only be 
 called ^pa^vs by a strange confusion of terms. It would 
 be the water above the mud that was really shallow. 
 Can Plato have used such an expression ? Codex A indeed 
 
 221 
 
222 TIMAEUS 
 
 has ftaOeos ', but this gives an unsatisfactory sense, because 
 the depth of the mud when reached is immaterial. <e/c> 
 /Spa^eos would yield the sense we really require, near the 
 surface, like e 6A.tyov, etc., and may be worth considering. 
 CK would of course fall out most easily between iryXov and 
 /cdpra, but an Attic writer might prefer Kapra IK (3paxeos to 
 K Kapra /Spa^ecs. 
 
 For the insertion of a preposition cf. on 80 E below. 
 
 29 B C TOUS Se (JVoyous) TOV Trpos /xev eKeivo 
 6Wos Se CIKOVO5, eiKoras d^a A.dyov re eKCiV 
 
 eiKoras and dva Adyov ovras are predicates, if the words 
 are right, to some such phrase, not quite clearly shaped in 
 Plato's sentence, as TOUS Adyous clVm Sel. But can ovras 
 stand as part of a predicate 1 I should have thought not, 
 and that ava \6yov, the real predicate, would repudiate an 
 oVras. If this is so, read ye for re. In the next words 
 should ydp be added after Trcp, where it would easily 
 fallout? 
 
 33 D ^etpoiv Se, . . /xdrryv OVK w'ero Btlv avru> 
 ovSe TToScov ovSe dAcos T^S Trept rrjv fidaw L'Trrypecrtias. 
 
 A difficulty has been felt about the genitive 
 Archer-Hind supposes an anacoluthoii : Stephanus suggested 
 T-ty . . virrjpta-iav to govern it : Stallbaum made it depend 
 on an understood . In reality it depends on Setv, the 
 infinitive Trpoa-aTrreu/ being thrown in idiomatically, as in c 
 of this very page o{S' av rtvos eTriSees rjv opydvov cr\lv : 
 Eep. 459 B Set aKpwv eti/at TWV dpxdi/rwi/ : Xen. Oecon. 21. 11 
 Seiv <jf)^yut . . cf>v(TU)<s ayaOfjs vTrap^at : Herod. 1. 73. 1 y^s 
 tju,epa) TrpoaKTrja-acrOaL: Thuc. 5. 15 e/Ai#u/jua TWV dvSpwv . . 
 KOfJLt(raar@ai : Eur. Med. 1399 XPi? w crrd/xaTos Trat'Swv . . 
 
 46 E ocrat 8e <TCOV> VTT* aAAwv /xev Ktvovyaevoov, K.r.A. 
 The partitive genitive seems to need the article. 
 
 48 B TrpocrfJKOV avrols ovS' ev trvAAa/3^9 etSecri /JLOVOV CIKOTCOS 
 
 The phrase is always ei/ etSct (see Ast's lexicon s.v.) 9 
 and the plural seems unsuitable. Cf. the common eV /xe 
 
TIMAEUS 223 
 
 ibid. D Tretpcujo/xat ^Sevos rjrrov etKora, fj.aX.Xov 8e, /cat 
 Z/jiTrpocrOev OLTT' dp^r}? Trept eKaaToov Kat ^V/XTTCXVTWV Aeyetv. 
 
 It is difficult to make any sense of Kat e//7rpocr0ei/. We 
 might perhaps read /xaAAov Se /cat <T<OI>> e/A7rpocr0ei>, more 
 probable even than what went before. Cf. on 46 E above. 
 
 49 E Nothing which becomes (yiyi/T<u) has permanence 
 enough to be spoken of as this or that : </>evyet yap ov\ 
 
 VTTO/JLVOV TrjV TOV TOOC Kal TOVTO Kttl TTjV TU)0 Kttl TTa.(TO.V OO"T) 
 
 fj.6vi[Jia ws OVTO. avra ei^SeiKwrai <^>ao"iS' 
 
 T(38e is very unintelligible here, and Burnet cites Cook 
 Wilson's conjecture, rr/v TOV o>Se. I had thought of rr^v 
 rfjSe, and that might perhaps stand. Of course the thing, 
 not the point of space, would be in question. 
 
 52 C ouS' avro TOVTO (/>' w yeyovev e 
 
 Archer-Hind is right, I think, in saying that the 
 genitive eavr^s depends on the whole phrase avro yeyovev, 
 but why did he not illustrate the construction from the 
 well-known Rep. 438 A foil. ocra. y ecrrt roiavra ola elvat TOV I' 
 The genitive there is our genitive here. 
 
 53 E TOVTOV yap TV^OVTCS (they have not done so yet) 
 
 though not absolutely necessary, is very probable. 
 
 66 B Burnet ignores Stallbaum's proposed introduction 
 of avdyK-r] to give accusative and infinitive some construc- 
 tion. Without binding myself to dvay/oy o-v/A/SaiWi for 
 instance is just as likely I think something is certainly 
 needed. 
 
 69 B TavTa dra/CTWs r^ovra 6 0eos v eKacrra) re avruJ ?rpo9 
 avro Kat Trpos aXXrjXa (rv/x/jterptas eveTrot^o-ev. 
 
 Stallbaum calls ravra ^ovTa ' absolute ' ; Archer- Hind 
 governs it ' by the compound phrase o-v/x/xerptas eveTroo/o-ev, 
 as though Plato had written ^uv^p/xocraTo' ; Kiihner-Gerth 
 ii. 2, p. 90 style it an anacoluthon. I should conjecture 
 that the participle irapaXaftuv is to be inserted, probably 
 before or after 6 fods. So a few lines below ot 8c /xt/xov- 
 TrapaXafiovTcs a-PX*] v K.T.X. : 30 A trav ocrov r]V oparov 
 
224 TIMAEUS 
 
 <7rapaA.a/3o>v : 68 E raGra TTOLVTO. ... 6 ... S>7jUiovpyos . . . 
 
 80 c Stephanus' change of TO Se . . . TO re to TO> Se . . . T<3 
 TC seems absolutely necessary to give construction and is a 
 most easy correction. Cf. for instance the readings in 
 Rep. 547 D T<*> n- 
 
 ibid. E -YJ 8' epvOpui TrXficrTTj Trept ctvTo XP a 8ta$eT, T>}S TOI) 
 
 Construction and meaning are very difficult until we 
 read <Sta> TT}?. Cf. on 25 D above. 
 
 86 D Kal cr^Sov S^ 7raj/Ta, oTrocra ^Sovtuv d/cpaTeta Kat o^ciSos 
 <os IKOVTCOV AeyeTat TWV Ka^wv, ou/c op$o3s oi/etSt'^eTat. 
 
 Archer-Hind comments on the odd juxtaposition of 
 d/cpctTcia and ovaSos, for which however he can see 'no 
 plausible correction/ Did not Plato write KO.T oVciSos 1 
 The confusion of Kat and Kara is familiar : cf. Index. I 
 have doubted whether dxpaTe ta might not be an improve- 
 ment, but probably the nominative is right. 
 
 87 D d^/x/xcTpof yap Tats /xcytarais u/x//,eTpt'ats. 
 
 We ought perhaps to substitute accusatives for datives 
 here. Cf. the phrase immediately following, rj Kat Ttva 
 aXX-rjv Wpe^ti/ a/xeTpoi/, which, to tell the truth, also gives 
 me an uneasy feeling that dv/u,/xTpov . . . d^v/x/xeTpias (or 
 dv//-/x,eTpt'ai<, for the dative would be better in this phrase 
 than in the other) was Plato's real expression. 
 
 88 A o-w/xa . . . /x-eya Kat V 
 
 vTrep^vxov has been noticed as a strange compound, 
 though there are parallels. Perhaps vTrep 1/^77 1/ 6V may be 
 worth considering. 
 
 Sufficient notice has perhaps not been taken of the 
 remarkable discrepancy between the exordium of the 
 Timaeus and the Eepublic of which (or part of which) it is 
 a summary. Socrates in the Timaeus gives the chief 
 points laid down in the Republic faithfully enough : it is 
 the implication involved in his references to it that 
 
TIMAEUS 225 
 
 presents the peculiarity. Not only is there 110 explicit 
 mention of the Republic having been a narrated dialogue, 
 that is, of Timaeus and the others now present having only 
 heard from Socrates the narration of a dialogue supposed 
 to have taken place the day before (that is two days before 
 the Timaeus) ; but his language would certainly imply 
 according to any ordinary method of interpretation that 
 they had been present and taken part in the dialogue 
 itself. This would seem to be the natural meaning of the 
 repeated first persons plural, StiA.o'//,e#a, ei7ro/x,ei>, eAeyo/xev. 
 It is not natural, though of course possible, to understand 
 the we contained in these words to be I and the people I 
 was talking with rather than you and I. Anyone who 
 read all this without knowing the Republic would 
 certainly think Timaeus, Critias, and Hermocrates were 
 then present. 
 
 The fiction of a fifth person who was to have been 
 present at the Timaeus dialogue is no doubt only intro- 
 duced as a little detail to give verisimilitude and reality to 
 the scene. Similar, I suppose for there does not seem to 
 be any other reason for it is the pretence in the Philebus, 
 another late dialogue, that Philebus has handed over to 
 Protarchus the defence of his position, so that the dialogue 
 is named after one who takes next to no share in it. We 
 naturally ask why Philebus has done this : that is, we fall 
 into Plato's trap and take the thing seriously. So here we 
 want to know who the absent man is. The disturbance of 
 the order of speeches in the Symposium by Aristophanes' 
 hiccup is another such device. 
 
CBITIAS. 
 
 107 E tK 8r) TOV Trapa^p^/xa vvv Aeyo/xeva, TO Trpevrov av /U.T) 
 8ww/xe$a Travrws aTroSiSoVai, <Tuyyiyi/<6(rKiv xpeoov. 
 
 The first words (e/< . . . Xeyo/xeva) are curiously devoid of 
 construction, much more so than the accusatives we 
 occasionally find at the beginning of sentences, which the 
 writer vaguely meant to provide with a construction as he 
 went on, but finally left without one. In such a case we 
 can usually see pretty clearly what he had in his mind. 
 But here the turn of the sentence is so harsh and clumsy, 
 that I cannot but suspect error. Did not Plato add to 
 Aeyo/x,va some participle governing it and standing as a sort 
 of subject to crvyytyvwcTKeiv, such as CLKOVOVTO.** or a-KOTrovvras ? 
 The omission of any rd with Aeyo/xeva (ra Srj e/c rov Trapa- 
 XP*7/*a vw Aeyo/xera) seems to make the case especially 
 doubtful. Contrast the otherwise more or less parallel 
 openings of sentences in 109 A and HOB. Cf. p. 90 above. 
 
 108 B et /xe'XXet? aura Svvaros yi/ecr$ai 7rapaA.a/3eti/. 
 
 I hardly know to what those who are satisfied with 
 avrd suppose it to refer. There is nothing definite in the 
 context with which it can be associated, nor does it seem 
 possible to make it mean vaguely the speaking, the turn to 
 speak (TrapaStSo/xej/ . . . rov ffj<s Aoyov 106 B). Probably we 
 should write avro and refer it to flc'arpov, the audience, 
 whom Critias is about to take over from Timaeus. 
 
 109 C aXXoi jtxev ovv KO.T aAXovs TOTTOVS 
 Ocwv e/cetva C 
 
 (1) Elsewhere /cA^po^o' is transitive : (2) e/cetva is 
 strange. We should get over both difficulties by reading 
 
 226 
 
CRITIAS 227 
 
 <ra> /car' aAAovs TOTTOVS. The dialogue contains many 
 examples of this periphrastic use of the article, e.g. 114u 
 TO TYJS x<apas : 1 1 4 E TO. Trept TO, <3a : 1 1 7 A TO rr]<s epyao-/as. 
 Plato is indeed always fond of it. For TO Kara so used 
 see Ast Lex. ii. p. 145. 
 
 110 A I think TOVTWV Trtpi needs a Se or TC added. 
 
 111 C xpoVos 8' ov 7ra/A7roAvs oVe SevSpojj/ avTo$V et? 01*080- 
 /miyo-ets Tas /xcy/crTas ipaffipuav T/A??$VTCOV crTeyacr/yar' eo-Ttv 
 ITI o-a. 
 
 Burnet marks this as wrong and gives in a note the 
 words which Cobet proposed to insert after 6Ve. It does 
 not seem to me, especially considering the involved order 
 of words often adopted in the Critias and other late 
 dialogues, that there is any real need for suspicion. In 
 sense oVe and T^Oevrajv should be taken closely together, 
 as though Plato had said xpdVos ov Tra/xTroXvs OTC (since) 
 
 ibid. KOL Sr) Kat TO KO.T evtavTov vooop cKapirovr' K 
 (17 ^oopa), ou^ a>s vvv a7roX\io-a (XTTO i^tArys TT^S y^s eis 
 dA-Xa TToAXiyf ^ovcra /cat eis avTr/v KaTa8e^o/xei/>y. 
 
 Stallbaum wished to read TroAu for TroXXrJv, and Jowett 
 in like manner understands it of abundance of water, 
 reading I suppose also avTrJv. But this is quite a mistake. 
 TroAArjf is much soil, into which the water is received. 
 But what exactly is d^o i/aAr}? r^s yrys 1 If yrj is soil, it 
 surely cannot be called \f/i\rj. The rock, the land, the 
 place can be called i/aAos, but not the soil itself. It would 
 be an odd epithet for yfj in almost any case ; but, if yr; is 
 removable soil, as TroAArji/ seems to show, it becomes almost 
 impossible. Perhaps then we may consider whether i/aA?}s 
 does not agree with eavnys or ^wpa? implied in the subject 
 of the sentence, so that rrjs y^s would depend on \f/i\fjs and 
 not have \j/i\f]<; agreeing with it. This is the construction 
 a little further on, 112 A y^? avrrjv (i.e. rrjv d/cpo7roAiv) 
 
 112 A o~io~/Awv ajtxa KCU Trpo T^S CTTI Aev/caAi'covos 
 
 i / <rC> f- t / 
 
 TptTOV 7TpOTpOV VOO.TOS gatO"iOV yTO//VOU. 
 
 Scholars have to some extent boggled over TpiVov, but I 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 CRITIAS 
 
 do not find that any one has suggested that we should read 
 Tpt's. Cf. on Laws 664 D. 
 
 Just below should aTro/^eftrjKvla be KaraflcfirjKvla.'l Cf. 
 110 E, etc. No such use of dTrofotVcu/ is cited. 
 
 ibid. D TO Svvarbv 7roXe/x,etv rjorj KCU TO eTt (i.e. Swarov 
 TroXe/x.eu') certainly seems right : those ivho were old enough 
 and those not too old. 
 
 113 A Should TO 8' In be To'8e 8' &i 1 
 
 1 1 6 B TOV 8' I/TOS should be TOV 8' CJ/TO'S like the TOV 8e 
 following. 
 
 117 A Tats 8e 8r) Kp^vais, rf} TOV \f/v^pov Kat rfj TOV Ocp/Jiov 
 TrX^os fJikv acfrOovov e^ovo-at?, fjSovfj 8e /cat apeTy TWV 
 Trpos e/caTepov T^V ^p^o-iv Oavfjiao-Tov 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
 Burnet indicates no doubt about this passage, but it is 
 difficult to see what he makes the subject of Tre^vKoVos. If 
 we put eKaTepov before or after ?rp6s TYJV xpij~ L v> we shall 
 provide it with a proper subject. tKCLTcpov might either 
 refer to va/xaTos or go with 8aT<oi', and it might either 
 govern vSoYwi/ or be added in an appositional way and 
 determine the number of the participle (like Hep. 346 D at 
 aXA,at 7rao*at TO avT^s eKao-T>/ epyov epya^eTat, and many other 
 passages in verse and prose). 
 
 I cannot make out whether Stallbaum wishes to take 
 in this way. His translation is against it. 
 
 1 1 8 B v\r)V oe. KCU TrX^ct Kat y eVco-t 7roi/a A^v o~i;/x,7rao'ti/ Te 
 TOIS epyots /cat Trpos e/cao-Ta a<f>6ovov. 
 
 As the words stand, 7rA?J0t must be constructed with 
 TroiKLXrjv, but what can 7r\r)6ti TrotKtAr; mean ] Another 
 slight transposition will help us. Read v\rjv 8e Kat yeVecrt 
 Kat TrX^et . . . ac/>$ovov. 
 
 . E SiaVAous eK TWV Stoopu^cov ets dAXryXas T TrXaytas Kat 
 TT)I> TroXtf T/x,oi/Ts. The editors ceremoniously record 
 a v.Z. TrXaTctas, but what sense TrXaytas makes they fail to 
 tell us. Read TrXaytovs. 
 
CBITIAS 229 
 
 1 20 C vo/x.ot Sc TroAAoi JJLCV a\\oi . . . rjarav iSioi, ra 8e 
 /xcyioTa /x^T Trore oTrAa CTT' dAA^Aovs ot(Tiv j3or)6TJcrew re 
 Trai/ras . . , Koivrj Se, . . ySovAevo/xevot ra So^avra Trepi TroXe/xov 
 /cat TWV aXAoov Trpa^eoov. 
 
 Trpa^eiv is not, I think, to be added after 7rpaea>v, as has 
 been suggested, but to be substituted for it. Trpa^ewv is 
 quite superfluous. /^ovXcvo/xcvot should of course be ftovXevo- 
 /xeVovs, unless Plato was confusing in his mind i/o/xot ^o-av 
 and w/xoo-av, as the futures otcmv and fioyOrjo-tw, which are 
 quite irregular after vo/x,oi, suggest. But the next sentence, 
 Oavarov Se /c.r.X., goes on properly from vopoi with 
 
MINOS. 
 
 317 D TIS 7rLarTY)/Jitt)v 8iavci)ucu CTTI yrj TO. 
 
 Read yrjv. Similar accusatives with l-nl and the idea of 
 distribution occur immediate!} below two or three times 
 and again twice in 321 CD, nor is the dative natural. 
 
 ibid. TIS Sc KpOV/XCtTtOV 7Tl TO, fJL\rj aya@O<S VOfJLV<S KOL TO. 
 
 It is hardly possible to govern j/et/xat by dyaflos. Boeckh 
 but probably Plato wrote something like <apto-ros> 
 Cf. SiaveT/xai apicrros in E and ve/xeiv Kpcxricrros twice 
 in 318 A. 
 
 318 A ouros rr)i/ dv^pcoTmav dyeA^i/ ro> o-w/xaros ve/x,tv 
 
 Something like TOV o-w/xaro? <7repi> or rov 
 seems wanted. Cf. 321 c 6 r<3 o-w/xan 
 re KCU 
 
LAWS. 
 
 625 C rrjv TT} xtopas Traces Kpryr^s <vcriv opare. Is not 
 a gloss on r)s x^P a<s ^ 
 
 628 B TTorepa Se dTroXo^aevcov av TOJV erepojv [eiprjv^v TT^S 
 (TTacrca)? yeve(T0cuJ, vtK^cravTwv Se Trorepwv oe^atT aV TIS /xaAXoi/ 
 r) K.T.A. ; 
 
 is bracketed by Schanz after Badham, 
 and I am not now concerned with it. What I would ask 
 is whether the use of TroTepwr in the second half of the 
 antithesis is a natural one, and whether it should not 
 change places with TOW eVe'pwv. It means of course one side, 
 arid this expression would naturally come in the first of the 
 two clauses. Also av seems to me hardly justified, and I 
 would suggest av. 
 
 629 E The words mainly taken from Tyrtaeus (10. 11-12) 
 ol you) ToXfJLrjcrwa'i //.tv opav (faovov at/xaroevTa | /cat Sr^t'cjv 
 opeyoivr' eyyvOev ia-Ta.fji.evoi can hardly be right as they stand. 
 As quoted by Stobaeus the lines had el /AT) rerXatr; /*./ 6pwv 
 and opeyoir'. Plato seems to adapt them a little in quoting, 
 but he would not have given them such a clumsy and 
 ungrammatical form. Subjunctive and optative cannot 
 very well go together, and for the optative as he quotes it 
 there is no construction. A second grave fault is that the 
 aorist roAjurjo-oKri who have dared does not harmonize with 
 the present opeyotvro. It is easy to read ot /^ roA.//,(3<ru' ^Iv 
 opav, but this does not get over the difficulty of the 
 moods. ToA./x.wo'iv and opeycovr', or roA/xoJev and opeyoivr' 
 might do. 
 
 231 
 
232 LAWS 
 
 630 D TOV vofJLoQerrjv rj/Jiuv aTro/SdAAo/xev eis TOI>S Troppw 
 
 Stallbaum says qui longius absunt a sapientiae laude : 
 Jowett to a rank ivhich is far beneath him. Did not 
 Plato write TOVS Troppw j/o/xo6Wtas, those far from under- 
 standing or being fit for legislation 1 So Theaet. 151 c 
 7ropp<o oVres TOU eiSeVat : Sopll. 234 C Troppoo rwv Trpayjuarcov 
 T^S dA>7$eias d<eo-Tcoras : Aesch. Eum. 414 Trpocra) SIKCUWV : 
 Aristot. jET.,4. 2. 12. 504 b 11 oure <rdp eomi/ ovre 7rdppo> 
 trap/cos. 
 
 . E Kar' etSr; ^rctv auroiv rovs vo/xous, o^Se a?rep ot TWI/ 
 vw ctSry vrpoTt^e/xevot ^TOVCTLV. 
 
 There is nothing for avrwi/ properly to refer to, and ot 
 TCOV vvv is unintelligible. We may conjecture something 
 like avrep avrtov 01 vvv tiSy, doing away with avrwv after 
 
 aA.A.oi Se aAXa arra fjivpta TOLO.VTO.. 
 
 Perhaps //.opux, a word which occurs just before and just 
 afterwards. 
 
 631 C TrXoVTOS OV TV<f)\O<S O.A.X' 6v j3\7Tli)l', d 
 
 cfrpovrjcrei. 
 
 The point should be that wealth sees well enough, not if 
 it accompanies wisdom, but if wisdom accompanies it. In 
 other words we seem to need <poV??(ns, not </>pov7J<rei. 
 
 633 A KCU ore Se for KCU o"e TC ? Cf. 637 C KCU Trap' vfMV 8e. 
 
 ibid. C KCU avev QepaTrovruv avrots eavrwv SiaKoi^<rei9. 
 This, which is the ordinary text, seems bad Greek. Ast's 
 
 avrots avTotv is much better, but I should prefer 
 eavroTs. The terminations, as sometimes happens, have got 
 interchanged. So for instance in Plutarch Morals 844 B 
 6V TIVCS . . . aura) has long been corrected to w rives . . . avroV, 
 and Lives 670 C avrot's 'A0ipatbiS to avrots '' 
 
 634 B TTOI) 8r/ TOVT' ecrriv ravrov K.T.\ ', 
 
 ravrov (or avr') eWiv TOVTO seems probable. See p. 196. 
 
 636 B Perhaps K<U Sr) Kai </cara> TraXaiov i/oyuov, /cat and 
 
LAWS 233 
 
 Kara much resembling one another and being often con- 
 fused. 
 
 640 D /xe$vovTtov yap /xe^utoi/ /cat Oe<ov> vcos 
 
 E ^ ov wvois roi'6 1 on peOvtav Kvpcfnrfrqs KCU 
 Travros apx<oi/ dvarpeVet Travra ...on TTOT' efy TO 
 VTT' avrov. 
 
 The optative cfy ought not perhaps to be considered 
 impossible along with the present indicative avaTpcirci* 
 Plato has a few examples of the indefinite generalizing 
 optative, taking the place of the usual subjunctive with 05 
 oV, orav, etc. (see 759 B, 778 A, 927 c, Lys. 207 E, Rep. 
 332 A), and so Xenophon a few times. But <av> ai/arpeVot 
 might easily be corrupted (or dvarpei/'et 1), and perhaps the 
 case is better put hypothetically, 'a drunken man in 
 command would be ruinous.' 
 
 642 E iraOovres Se', not re. A contrast with 
 ovSec is needed. 
 
 645 D KA. Trpos ri 8e o'KOTrov/xev'o? auro e 
 
 A. OvSfV 7TO) TTpOS OTl. 
 
 7TO) TTpOS OTl. 
 
 With ovoev TTCO TTpos OTL nothing is, as I once suggested, lost, 
 but certainly Stallbaum is wrong in understanding epwTco 
 to govern ovSeV. ouScv Trpos OTI is short for ovSei/ Trpos OTI 
 
 (o-KOTTOU/XeVOS TOUTO CpWTO)), and OV06V TTpOS OTt O-KOTTOV/ACVOS IS 
 
 like ovSeV ovTtv' ov KaTe/cAao-6 and other such phrases. 
 
 fccue<H. 
 
 Stephanus was, I think, right in principle in demanding 
 oo^ao-Otjcro-Oa.L like yev^o"O"$at just before. But So^a^co-^at 
 <aV> will do just as well. In 648 E editors now add oV to 
 
 Sodo-o-@aL would seem also possible. It is not found in 
 the passive sense, but the Thucydidean passive futures 
 KwAvo-ojuat, T^pryo-o/xai probably do not occur elsewhere. 
 In Aeschines 3. 6 I have suggested the possibility of 
 
234 LAWS 
 
 656 C l/O/AOl . . . <7Tpl> TY)V TTpl TOL 
 KOI TTatStdV. 
 
 So Schanz. But for more than one reason vd/xot . . . T^S 
 . . . 7rai8et'as TC /cat 7rai8tas would seem preferable. Cf. 
 684 A Kara vo/xovs ou? Wtvro TOV TC ap^etv /cat ap^co^at. The 
 dative would also be possible, going in a causal sense with 
 
 657 A TWV vw 8e8r7/xiovpy77//.eva)V oirre TI /caAAiova oirre 
 TT)V avTyv oe re^yfjv a,7Tipyao"/xeVa. 
 
 Read rry avr^ 8e 
 
 C rryv T^ fAOvcrLK-fl /cat TT^ TratSta 
 
 t"a is not verbal enough to take a direct dative. Read 
 TT/S /uouo-t/o}? /cat TT)? TratSta?. In 667 c Schanz has corrected 
 Tt 8e r>J epyacrm ... to T?)S epyacri'as. 
 
 658 A B In this very imperfect sentence it seems to me 
 that an infinitive, governed by Tr/ooetW and parallel to 
 rJKeiv, has been lost after yeyoveVai. I suggest the insertion 
 there of crrec^avw^i/at. 
 
 659 C Se'ov yap avrovs act /?eA.Ti'w TWV avroij/ ^o>v d/covovras 
 
 rryv rjbovrjv ia"^f.iv, vvv avrot? Spoocri ?rav TOVVCLVTIOV 
 
 Should Towavrtoj/ be repeated ? Spwo-t 7raV rovvavriov 
 
 661 C Probably ravra for ravra. Cf. 660 A. In 838 C 
 the same change is probable. 
 
 663 C rrjv 8' dX^etai/ TT}? /cpurews TroTe'pav KupicoTepav etvat 
 
 Is not the sense of these words as they stand somewhat 
 absurd? They imply that both the inconsistent judgments 
 are true, but that one truth is more authoritative than the 
 other. It is most likely that an exchange of terminations 
 has taken place, such as was spoken of above at 633 c, and 
 that we should read r/)v Sc /cpio-ti/ T^? oA^et'as ; but other 
 expressions are possible, e.g. TT}S 8' dA??0eias r>v 
 
LAWS 235 
 
 664 D Aeyets Se TtVa? TOVTOVS TOVS ^opou? rovs TptTOVs; 
 
 Three choruses being the meaning required, we may 
 presume that TptVovs is a mistake for rpets, arising from y', 
 which would stand for either. TOV rpirov xopoV is used 
 rightly in 665 B. Cf on Critias 112 A. 
 
 665 A 6 /XV TOLVVV TOU 'ATToAAtoVOS Kttl TWl/ MovO-(OV ^OpOS 
 
 Lpr)VTai, TOV B rpirov K.r.A. 
 
 Can we dispense with 6 before TOJV Movo-wv ? Cf. 634 A 
 6 AIOS ovv 8r) /cat 6 IIv$tKos vo/JioOeTrjs 
 KO.TOJ/. 
 
 666 B Atovvcrov Trapa/caXetv cis rr/v TWV 7rpcr/3vTfp(j)v 
 KCU TraiSiav, ^v rots di/^pwTrois ftTLKOvpov T^S TO 
 
 eScoprycraTO TOV oivov 
 
 I do not know if Schanz, printing the passage thus, 
 agrees with Stallbaum, who put commas before and after 
 TOI/ olvov, explaining that those words are in apposition to 
 yv. Such a view seems quite untenable. Read 179 and the 
 construction at once becomes easy. Cf. on 656 c and 
 736 A. 
 
 667 C yv 6c opOoTrjTa re KCU (o^cAtav (TrpooretVot/xcv av, CIS to 
 
 tvhat we should call Tightness and utility), o-n-fp vyicu/6v 
 TWV TTpoarfapofJLevwv Ae'yo/xfv e/cao-Torc, TOWT' auro cli/at ev avrots 
 
 KCU TO O 
 
 Schanz marks TO op^oTaTov as wrong, and Badham 
 actually conjectured something like TO Trape^d/xci/ov, govern- 
 ing opOoTqro. and a><eAcai/. TO opOorarov is indeed wrong, 
 but only in that it ought not 'to stand alone. It is 
 abundantly evident that Plato must have written TO 
 w(eAiju,<oTaTOV /cat TO opOorarov (or /cat TO o. /cat TO a>.). The 
 two things are coupled together throughout. 
 
 669 A Dele oV before 6177. It cannot stand, for the 
 construction is ct ytyvoxr/coi/xei/ /c.T.A., apa ye dvayKatov (i.e. 
 av irj) rj$r) . . . ytyvojQ-KCtv e?T KaAov etTe OTTT; TTOTC eAAtTres eif) 
 /caAAovs, to know whether it ivas, not whether it would be. 
 Cf. 700 E below. 
 
236 LAWS 
 
 ibid. D yeAwr' av TrapacrKCvd^oitv ro>v avOpwTrwv oo*ovs 
 'Op<evs Aa^etv fapav rrj<s reputes. 
 
 The meaning is * to those men who ' etc. Hence Badham 
 proposed <rois> T&V av6pu>Tru>v. The simple dative 00-015 
 (governed of course by Aa^etv, of which &pav would then 
 be the subject, as is quite possible) would have the same 
 effect. 
 
 671 C /cat eio-ioim ru5 urj /caAw $appci rov /caAAtcrrov 
 
 We need the future participle Sta/m^ot'/Ac^of to fight 
 against proud thoughts. 
 
 679 D Trpos re ra? a\Xa<s re^vas /cat Trpos ras 7roA.e/xiKas, 
 ocrat TC 7T^at /cat ocrai Kara OdXarrav yiyvovrai TO, vw, Kal 
 oaat 8^ Kara iro\iv /xovov aurov, St'/cai Kai crTaaeis Acyo/xcvai. 
 
 Stallbaum, putting the comma before avrov, takes it 
 apparently as there (in singulis tantum civitatibus ubi 
 lites et seditiones vocatae etc.), which with Aeyojuemi it 
 certainly could not mean. This is the mistake about avrov 
 which is only too common : see Xenophon and Others, 
 p. 298. 
 
 In the text as above Kara iroXiv avrov in the city itself is 
 contrasted with the idea of war outside, and this may be 
 right. But, as the antithesis is not made very clear, we 
 might consider whether avrov has not taken the place of av. 
 Hitter suggests 
 
 684 E eTraparat y^s avaSao-/xovs . 
 
 en7yov/>ieVa> 1 An accusative can hardly stand. 
 
 686 D TO Se vvv ye Tenets Ta^' av IO-ODS . . . ovr' 
 Siavoot/xe0a ovre Kara ^>vcriv, /cat 877 /cat Trept ra aAAa 
 Travra, Trept tov av ovra) BiavoTjOwcrLV. 
 
 The context makes it very probable that the optative is 
 wrong, the present indicative being what we want, and 
 this is, I think, confirmed by Trept wv av oWo^wo-tv, which 
 ought to be optative if the main verb is so. We ought 
 then probably to read 8tavoov'/xe0a and to add this to the 
 Platonic instances of rdx av used as a phrase = simple 
 
LAWS 237 
 
 (Goodwin, M.T. 244), cf. 629 A : Phaedr. 265 B and 
 probably 256 B c : Soph. 255 c : [Ep.] 2. 313 B. 
 
 688 A TO fJLv cr<f>it)V rjv TrapaKe'Aev/xa a)? xpewv ctr; K.T.A., TO 8e 
 /*ov eAeyov (IXcycr?) oVt K.T.A. Cf. 840 D ^/xt TO /xev 
 r)fJLTCpov vo/xt/xov 8eiv . . . TroptvtcrOat. Ae'yov ws ov Set K.T.A. 
 
 692 B /xeTptao-at should be /xcTptao-etv or have an av added. 
 The existing av goes with tpj 
 
 694 C o"Kei/av TOVTOU, not TOVTO. 
 
 695 C Aapcios . . . eA$ajj/ eis T^V a.px*l v Ka ^ L Aa^Swv avrrjv 
 
 StetXero 
 
 Do we not need /?3o//,o? <avTo's>^ Cf. 751 E KCLTOLKICLV 
 Se/caTos auros. The phrase does not necessarily imply a 
 premier position. e/?8o/x,os alone would naturally mean 
 seventh in succession. 
 
 700 E etT /SeXriwv /re ^etpoov av etr; Tts. 
 
 There is no place here for av. Read perhaps av or 877, 
 consulting Ast's Lexicon s.v. ctre, or omit altogether as in 
 669 E above. 
 
 701 E 7rio-/co7roiy/,ev vwi', TTOTepa TOUTCUV op^tos 
 
 The question is not which is right, but whether either is. 
 Read 7rio-K07roi;/xev vvv et Trorfpar. o. 
 
 702 A avTcov y' evcKa should be TOJV auraiv or TOVTWV y' 
 
 Ka. 
 
 705 B crvy\Mpov/jLv TOTC <TC> Aeyav ly 
 
 714D otet . . . Orja-to-OaL eKovTa Trpos aAAo TI TrpwTov TOVS 
 vo/x-ovs 77 K.T.A,. ; 
 
 For TrpwTov read trporepov. 
 
 719 D eyci> 8c, et /xev yvv>; /xot $ia<f>povcra etr? TrAovTO) Kat 
 avrrjv Sia/ceAevoiTO ev TW Trotry/xaTt, TOV V7rep/3aAAovra 
 av Ta^ov e7raivotr;v, 0et8wAos 8' av TI? Kat TTCVT;? dv^p TOV 
 KaTaSea, /xerpov 8e ovo-tas e/cr^ynevos Kat /xeTptos avTos a>v TOV 
 avrov av 7raiveo-at. 
 
238 LAWS 
 
 For the impossible B-OI^OTI, various unsatisfactory 
 proposals have been made. Something like TT/OOO-^KOVTI 
 or Seoi/Ti /xvr?/x,aTt seems meant. 
 
 The speaker passes somewhat awkwardly from what 
 Tie would approve in one case (eyw, et //,eV . . .) to what in 
 other cases the people themselves would approve, but 
 apparently the text is right in this respect. 
 
 rov avTov however seems wrong. By Greek usage it 
 would mean (I think) TOV KaraSca. Probably Plato wrote 
 TOIOVTOV or TOV TOLOVTOV = /xeYpiov, a use of TotouTos on which 
 see p. 129 above. 
 
 722 A TO Trept TroXXwv rj oXt'ywv ypa//.^(,aTU)i/ 
 TOV Xoyov Xuxv ewrjOcs' TO. yap ol/mai fit\TL<TTa dXX' ov TO. 
 ovoe TO. 
 
 Plato loves variety, but after two superlatives /xrj*^ jars 
 upon one. It is obvious to suggest /xij/acrra, but I should 
 rather prefer the unobvious TO.S fipaxvTrjTas. So Rep. 
 400 B /jLrjKr) Kal ppaxvrrjTas TrpooS^TTTe. Ast gives a dozen 
 instances of '/o in Plato. 
 
 723 D o ^p^crriov <ei/> aTravw. 
 
 728 B rr]v yap Xeyo/jteV^v oV/a/i/ T^9 Ka/coupyi'as TT/V 
 ovSets ws 7Tos etTTCtv Aoyt^eTai, eo*Tiv 8' f) fAyi(TTr) TO ofj.oiovo~6a.i 
 TOIS QVO~IV Ka/<ots dvopao'ti'. 
 
 This is rather a tenet of Plato's own than a commonplace 
 (Aeyo/Aev^v). Indeed in Theaet. 176 D it is almost explicitly 
 stated as such : dyvoowt y<*p fyfAiav dSi/cta?, o SeT ^/cicrTa 
 ayvotlv' ov yap io~Tiv rjv SOKOVQ-L K.T.A. May one suggest 
 that the confusion of two words has here taken place, 
 of which examples may be found elsewhere, and that for 
 XeyofjLevyv we ought to read yi(y)vofjitvr)v 1 The IQ-TIV which 
 follows takes up yiyvoptvyv better than Xcyo/xevTyv ; other- 
 wise we should expect Aeyerai 8e, as in 739 c. It is 
 also almost a contradiction in terms to call it T^V Xcyo/xeV^v 
 OLKYJV and yet say that no one takes it into account. 
 
 There are one or two other passages in the Laws, where 
 I rather suspect the same corruption. In 783 A after 
 speaking of three great and over-mastering pleasures the 
 Athenian goes on a Sr) Set rpia voo-^/j.aTa TpeVovTa (or 
 TpeVovTas) eis TO /5c\TUTTOr Trapa TO Xeyo/xerov ^8io~TOV Tpto~i 
 
LA WS 239 
 
 TOIS /xeyurTois 7retpao-$at Kare^eiv, <j>6fl<a /cat vo/x^> /cat TU> 
 Adya>, ' turning them away from that which is called 
 pleasantest to the best,' as Jowett rather loosely renders it. 
 Trapa means of course 'contrary to,' 'ignoring,' etc., but 
 how weak here is Aeyd/xevov, 'what is called pleasantest.' 
 Trapa TO ytyvd/xcvov r/Siarov would be much more forcible as 
 well as candid. Plato quite grants the pleasure : he does 
 not want to throw doubt on it. 
 
 Again in 717 A he speaks metaphorically of certain 
 weapons. O-KOTTOS /XV ovv rjfjuv OVTOS' j3e\rj Se av KCU otov 17 
 TOIS /3eAeo-iv ec^eo-ts TO. Trot' av Aeyd/xeva op06ra.ro. <f>epoir av ; 
 Here Aeyd/xeva makes no sense at all. Ast actually held 
 that Aeydjueva (ptpoLT av = <po-0ai Xeyotr' av : Stallbaum 
 weakly translates si quis de Us mentionem iniiciat, as 
 though mention of them were a condition of their hitting 
 the mark ; Jowett more wisely omits it in his translation 
 altogether. Schanz writes <epd/xeva. Let us rather have 
 recourse to a vera causa and write ytyvo/xeva or yevojacva. 
 Of course e^epotr' av is adapted to /Se'Xr; only, not to 
 ttptcris ; but, if the words KOL . . . </>eo-ts are right, it 
 may be some advantage that ytyvd/xcra suits e<eo-is too. 
 
 In 723 C TO /X,VTOI /xeyoEAwv Trept Xeyo/xevwv vd/xcuv Kat 
 crfJUKpojv et 6/xotws TrpooLfjudi^ecrBaL Trpoo-TaTTOt/xev I can see no 
 force in Aeyo/xeVoov and suggest ytyvo/xeVwv. So in 934 c TWI/ 
 K\oTrai(DV TC Kat /3iat(ov TravTcov Ta9 ^/xta? Acyo/xei/as ota? Set 
 yi'yveo-0ai we seem to want yiyvo/xeVas, for Aeyo/xeVas can 
 hardly be translated. Plato is fond of the repetition 
 ytyvo'/xevos . . . ytyverat : see Ast's Lex. 1. 395 and p. 161 
 above. 
 
 For the confusion of the two words cf. 671 B, where the 
 MSS. have ytyvo/xevoov, Eusebius Aeyo/xeVwv : Rep. 601 B : 
 Ar. De An. 1. 4. 407 b 29: Thuc. 8. 14. 2: Lys. 
 13. 20: D. Hal. de Comp. V. 20 (yeve'o-tfw one MS. for 
 A.eye'o-#<o) : and see Index to this book, s.v. Aeyd/xevos. 
 
 730 B oo-a <yap> oV "? Something must have been lost, 
 which joined oo-a . . . ravr eo-Tt . . . prjrfov to the words 
 preceding. Stobaeus oo-' ovv (Schanz). 
 
 736 A TOVTOIS (these meii) w? voo-rj/J-aTL Tro'Aews e 
 8t' v<jb?7/Ai'as a7raAAayr/v ovo/xa drrotKiav ' 
 j/^aTO (6 
 
240 LAWS 
 
 For aTraAAayrJv, which has no construction, read 
 depending on oVo//,a. Ast suggested the dative, but 
 with TOVTOIS that would be very awkward. Cf. on 666 B. 
 
 737 B a,veyK\r)TOV<s yap Set ras ouartas Trpos dAA^Aous /cara- 
 a.L d//.a>s ye TTWJ . . . ots hv r) ira.Xa.ia. eyKXr^yaara Trpos 
 KCU ocrots vo> Kat (r/xtKpov /x-er^' ots Se . . . 6 0eo<> 
 
 cStoKC K.T.A. 
 
 ots av 77 Schanz after Ast. But A has fj and no oV. 
 Perhaps ^ stands for rjv and />iT>y for fj.rrjv, as it may in 
 Frogs 11 63? The imperfect is perfectly in place, for the 
 passage means not simply that there should be no disputes 
 about property, but that, where there used to be such 
 disputes, they should now be terminated (ai/eyKA.?JTovs . 
 Karao-Keutt^o-^at). The imperfects are also supported 
 by eSwKe, for which with y and ^rfj we might rather 
 expect Se'SwKie. 
 
 751 B Write TO (for r<3) 7roA.iv ev Trapco-KCvao'/xeV^i/ K.r.A. 
 
 753 E OVK O~Tt <S7AoV> ? OVK O~TtV 
 
 754 D TO>I^ ypa/x/xarwi/ <8t > wv av Kao*TOS oLTroypouj/y , . . TO 
 T^S auToov ovo-tas, or w? ai/ ? 
 
 757 C ecTTtv yap ST^TTOV Kat TO TroAiTiKOV rj/Jiiv act TOVT' 
 TO StKatov. 
 
 Apparently TO StVatov is considered to be added here 
 in a sort of explanatory apposition to TO TroAiTiKoV. But 
 this is awkward and obscure. Perhaps the two adjectives 
 have exchanged places, and we should read CCTTIV ... TO 
 SIKCLIOV . . . TOVT' avTo TO iroAtTt/cov, this is political justice. 
 I do not remember the phrase TTO\LTLKOV UKOLLOV elsewhere in 
 Plato (Ep. 7. 326 A TOL TroArriKa Strata), but it is familiar 
 in the Ethics. The same sense might be got by omitting 
 TO before SLKCLIOV, as repeated from O.VTG. 
 
 757 D TOVTOIS Trapwvu/jtt'ots xpr)cr0ai. 
 
 The meaning is these TT., e.g. io-oVr;s in an unusual sense, 
 not these as TT. Add therefore TOIS. 
 
 ibid. E Read 
 
LAWS 241 
 
 760 A Kai TO. fjitv au Trept TO. Upa ravra ytyveV$<o. 
 
 There seems no propriety in av, and it is probably a 
 mistake for 8>j, like the much commoner confusion of Srj 
 and oV. 
 
 766 B OVTIV av Ka(TTOS rjyfJTai KaAAtoV av rwi/ uept TratSetav 
 apat yevo/xeVwv. 
 
 I do not see how yei/o/xeVoov is to be defended. If the 
 things have already been done, there is nothing now to 
 control. Hug proposes to omit the word. But, if only we 
 alter it to the present tense ytyvo/xeVwi', it makes good enough 
 sense. So in 784 A ei TIS TWO. 6pa Trpos aAA' arra /3\TTovra 
 . . . rj Trpos TO, TCTay/xera VTTO TWV iv rois ya/xot? ^vaiwv re Kat 
 tepwv yf.vop.ivmv read yiyvo/xeVwv, ordained by the celebrations 
 that take place, for VTTO does not mean to 2/&e accompaniment 
 o/, as Stallbaum and Jowett suppose, ycvo/xeviyv should 
 certainly be yiyro^vr]v in 844 D : probably also in 895 B. 
 
 777 A Ot fJitV 7TL(TTVOV(rL T OvSeV yVt OLKTO)V. 
 
 Perhaps ovScv <oi)Sevt> yei/ei, and 943 C /AT) Trcpt Trporipov 
 TTO\/JLOV </xr;8v6s> (JLrjSev Trape^o/xevov. 
 
 ^6ic?. B Sva-KoA-ov ecrrt TO Opeaua avOpiDtros. 
 For TO substitute the Tt so common with adjectives 
 in such cases. So just below in D 6 ... ytyvo/xevds TIS 
 
 778 C ot/ojo-as T d 
 
 Probably SiKao-Trjpia, corrupted into conformity with 
 
 ibid. E uaXOaKrjv eii/ Tats ^v^ats . . . etootfe Trotctv. 
 eto)(9ev euTroieiv would be more usual. 
 
 781 c Should ye be put after Ipyw instead of coming 
 before it? ovS' eet TTOTC ye TeAcvTrJv is less strange, for 
 ovSt ... ye is a regular phrase. 
 
 782 c Write TO ye /xrjv for TO 8e /^rji/. 8e x and ^rjv are not, 
 I think, found together. 
 
 783 A B After the last letters of 0eots it is possible that 
 
 R 
 
242 LAWS 
 
 ws has been lost. It would ease the construction of the 
 genitive, 
 
 784 C eKa T<i> vofj,o<>va.K(j>v e.o//,eyovs, os av 
 
 OlSe Kttt Ta^UKTt, TOVTOIS e/X/ACVaV. 
 
 So the vulgate, but A has no KCU and ra^coo-t is a correc- 
 tion of remove. Schanz follows Hermann in deleting it, 
 but I take it as meant (i.e. e7rmia>o-i) for a correc- 
 tion of eTrtrpe^cocri, and as such I think it should be 
 adopted. eTUTpeVo) is a less natural word than eTrtTaTTco in 
 regard to the authorities, especially in combination with 
 
 792 B Add av to aTrcpyd&a-Oai. This is in itself necessary, 
 and the av in the answer confirms it. Cf. 812 B, where av 
 has been inserted. 
 
 796 D 77 v <ow> CLTTOV yv/JLvaa-TLKrjvt 
 
 797 A Read 877, not 8e, after aKova-are. In 800 B I think 
 it should be 877 after KCIO-^W, in 802 D after aKovtav, in 
 824 B after rot? aAAois, and in 916 D after Kt/ft^Aetav. On 
 the other hand write 8e for 87} after TroAe/xi/cTJv at the end 
 of 814 E. 
 
 ibid. B After veW has ws = wcrre, or WOTC itself, been lost ? 
 The construction seems entirely to break down without 
 something of the kind 1 For ws so used see 798 B. 
 
 ibid. D ctKovfTtojuev re 77/x.wv avTwv Kat ?rpos d 
 
 As ^/xcuv avroov clearly = aAA^Atoi/, this is mere tautology. 
 For aXA>JXous read aAXoi;?, as in 820 c corrected below. 
 
 ibid. D jj.cTa/3o\r)v TrdvTwv TrXyv KCLKWV iro\v ort 
 
 o/xev . . . ev ws CTTO? eiTretv ov TOIS /xev rois 8' ov, TrXrjv, 
 L7rov vvv Sij, /caKots. Surely ws 7ros eiTTctv and 77X7)^ 
 require the presence of Trao-iv or a-rao-iv, dependent 
 on eV, to explain them, just as Travrw precedes TrXrjv KO.KUV. 
 They could not be appended to ou TOI? /xev rots 8' ov. 
 Insert it therefore before or after ws CTTOS 
 
LAWS 243 
 
 800 A Ka6' VTTVOV Se otoV TTOV Ti<s rj Kal v-n-ap 
 (oi/eipw^e /Aavrevouei/os avro. 
 
 Can oTov stand thus after KO.& virvov 1 and, even if it can, 
 does this give any good meaning 1 Perhaps olov should be 
 6pwv, for i and p are apt to be confused. Badham I6v. 
 
 801 A In yvoWas Set is Set a mistake for Srjl Set 8>j follows 
 immediately and 8>j bears repetition better than Set, especi- 
 ally as it would emphasize different words in the two cases. 
 
 802 B eVavcupov/xevov 1 
 
 803 A &pav . . . KaTa/?aAAecr0cu . . . o-KOTretv cannot be all 
 right together, and Badham wished to leave out Spai/. 
 Tt would be a gentler measure to read O-KOTTWV. 
 
 805 E ^ TO TOVTWV Sr/ Sta /xeVou <a>/Zi/, w McyiAAc, TO 
 
 should be #w/x.i', like ^ct/xev av in D. The con- 
 fusion is found elsewhere. 
 
 808 D 7TOV for 7T(0 ? 
 
 810 B TOL<S fJ,V /X6TO. |(XTpCOV, Tols C$ OLVCV f>vO[J.C)V (pV@fJ.LK(i)V I) 
 
 814 A <TOT)> TO^S ^vXa^ovTas TratSas . . . t/cavovs 
 Schneider substitutes TOV for TOV'S. As the text stands, 
 
 there is no construction for the infinitive, and TOV is used 
 
 thus in 816 E. 
 
 ibid. E Svo fJiev avTrjs (i.e. KIV^CTCWS) 1877 
 V /xei/ TWI/ /caXXtovwi/ o~w/>car<ov ;rt TO o~/>ivov /xi/tov/xev^v, 
 CTTI TO 
 
 If the text is right, there is a bold anacoluthon in 
 coming after Svo avT^s ctSr;, as though 8tTTr)i/ 
 eti/at had been used. Perhaps we should read rr^v 
 /u,v <T^V> TWV /caAXioVwv K.T.X. and understand another TYJV 
 with TWV aio-^toi/wv. /xi/x,ov/xej/>ys for /xt/xov/xeVryv is also 
 possible. 
 
 81 5 A The clause / TC Tat? . . . /u,i/mo-0a seems almost 
 desperate. Adopting Badham's eVt^ei/oovo-av, we might 
 
 R 2 
 
244 LAWS 
 
 read KivrJ/xara for /ujurj/xara. In Ar. Poet. 24. 1459 b. 40 
 A c has KLvrja-Ls by error for 
 
 816 E avfv yeXouof TO. (TTrovSaia . . . /xa$u/ jue> ou 
 i /neXXei rts <poviju,os ecr(r$ar TroieTv Se OUK ai/ Svvarov 
 
 It would be difficult to justify the omission of efy in the 
 last clause. Cf. what was said above on the similar 
 question as to Rep. 577 B. I do not however propose to 
 insert efy here, but for av to read av. In 804 E ws dvSpdcri 
 //,!> Trptirov av 07, yvi/at|t 8e ov/c av TrpeVov we should read 
 
 OV/C ttV 7Tp7TOt Or OVK ttV TTptTTOV. 
 
 818s TOJV ye avOpMTTLvuv <7rept> ? There is no con- 
 struction for the genitive. 
 
 820 C . >?. 
 
 dA.X7JA.ots cannot go with a singular participle. Read 
 aXXots. Cf. on 797 D. 
 
 822 E Xe'yorres should, I think, be Xeyovra? (like 
 and TreiOojifvov a few lines below 
 
 823 E Has not a verb been lost, on which the datives 
 eypryyopoVt and euSovo-t depended 1 The sentences following 
 suggest 7re'X#oi, but some other word, e.g. tjUTreVot, may 
 have been used. 
 
 824 A In 7; TWV SiaTrav/tara TTOVOJI/ e^oucra Stallbaum 
 thought something agreeing with TTOI/WV to be missing after 
 
 Perhaps the words are only out of their right order, 
 TWI/ TTOVWV or TOJV TTOI/COV 8ta7rav/xara. 
 
 829 A ravTov 8r) TOVT' eart Kat TroXei 
 
 The nominative ^tos is hard to justify, unless we should 
 read virdpxov. CCTTIV vTrap^ov, would be an instance of a 
 construction very common in Plato's later writings. 
 
 830 B fire rts fjfuv (Tuyyv/xvacrrcov o"we^8atVV aTropta 
 There is no meaning in TrXetW. TrXetovwv must be what 
 Plato wrote. 
 
LAWS 245 
 
 831 D 7rpatv 7rpaTTtv oViov re KOL dvoViov. 
 
 The editors and the dictionaries seem satisfied with 
 oo-iov, but better evidence is needed to persuade us that 
 6o-tav should not be substituted. dvoViov no doubt caused 
 the slip. 
 
 833 E O~VVVO/XO$TetV, TIS VLKO.V a/30, SucatOS . . . , Kttl TOV 
 "f)TT(*)fJiVOV O)O"aVT(US TIS OtaKplWl TttglS. 
 
 Evidently StaKpivci is o decide. So in 848 B ve/xo/xev 
 should be ve/xov/xev. 
 
 834 A Sia0e/Xvovs av ?rpi TOVTWV vo/xovs. 
 
 The case is like that of 831 D. Not to mention other 
 authors, Plato in many dialogues has over and over 
 again to speak of laying down laws, and the word is never 
 Startdco-dai, but always the simple riOccrOat. Which is the 
 more likely, that Siafc/xe'vovs is a mistake, or that he for 
 once used the word in a sense it never bears elsewhere 
 either in him or (apparently) in any one else 1 Should we 
 transfer Sux to the word immediately preceding and make 
 it, what Plato uses twice in the Laivs, 8ia/xiAAw/xeva>v ? 
 
 ibid. B wore TOVTOV />tv (the chariot-race) dycDvicrra? ov/c 
 
 CTTl^WplOV <7T(U Tt^CVTaS VOW /X^T ^CIV [AyTt SoKCtV KCKT^CrOai. 
 
 No one has made much of OVK cTri^wptov. I would 
 suggest OVK e-n-Lxupiov <OVTOS>, or more probably OVK 
 eTTixwpiov <ov>, as in Thuc. 4. 17. 2. Cf. 899 A below, 
 dyoiva for dycovto-ras might be thought of, but the corruption 
 is very unlikely. 
 
 842 D ov yap /xovov ^/xums av yiyvovrat vo/xot /xerptoi. 
 
 There seems no force in av. avra) ? av and the parts of 
 avros are apt to be confused. 
 
 843 A Kara^povrjo-as 8e ought in strictness to have 6 
 before it, but Plato may have been irregular here. 
 
 844 D Write ytyvo/xev^v for yevo/xev^v. 
 
 845 C Si/oyv S' etvat eXev^epw TWV TOIOVTUJV TrAryywv /x^Se/xiiav. 
 Certainly not, as Jowett puts it, ' No freeman shall have 
 
 any right of satisfaction for such blows,' as though a slave 
 
246 LAWS 
 
 might, though a freedraen might not. The words must 
 bear the unusual sense that no freedman is to be punished 
 or have an action brought against him for such blows. 
 Cf. SIKTJV yw Rep. 529 c I am punished. 
 
 846 B dotfo^iaTa i TO. KOIVO. SiKaoTi^pia eTravayctf TOV 
 
 The genitive has puzzled scholars, but it seems to be the 
 one common with SIWKCIV, <ev'yiv, and other legal words 
 relating to accusations and trials. Such a genitive is 
 found, for instance, with aTrayw. Cf. p. 141. 
 
 848 B TO) /XV TOtVW TOIOVTO) TO)!/ /XCpOJJ', 
 
 T<3 TOIOVTO) certainly cannot mean, as Stallbaum and 
 Jowett take" it, swc/i being the case. That would be ev r<3 
 TOIOVTW. Ast TOV TOIOVTOV with TrXeov, wore of such produce. 
 Possibly TWV . . . TOIOVTWV jjLcpwv, though I confess that 
 TOVTWV TWV /xepwi/ is rather what one would expect. Does 
 TW roiouTU) go with TrXeov and mean 'some advantage for 
 this sort of reason ' ? The sense is not very clear. 
 
 ve/>to/xcv just above ought, I think, to be ve/*oC/xev. Cf. 
 Phileb. 65 B. 
 
 849 c TptTr) 8' ctKaSt TOJV wwv laTto TTpao-is is probably 
 light, not in Jowett's sense of on the twenty-third day, 
 which the Greek could not mean, but in the sense of 
 thirdly on the twentieth, literally on the twentieth as third 
 day (of sale). But rpir-r] may be worth suggesting. 
 
 854 A TOV T(H> lepoo'vAwi'.Trepi VOJJLOV KCLL TO)I> aXXcov 
 TWV TOIOVTWV, oora SvcrtaTa. 
 
 The neuter oo-a shows that we should read t 
 Cf. 880 E below. 
 
 ibid. E TOVS 8e aXXovs 7rapa8ety/x,a ov^o~et yevo/xcvos 
 KO.I vTrep TOVS rJJs \wpas opovs d^avicr^cts. 
 
 Badham omits 7rapa8ety^,a. I would rather omit KCII, 
 taking the construction to be oi^o-ei 7rapaSeiyju,a ycvo/xevos, 
 d^avicr^cts aKXc^s vTrep . . . opov?, or suppose ws to have been 
 lost after 
 
LAWS 247 
 
 856 E Tptros eis (TTO> vd/xo? Trept StKao"rcov re ous Set 
 avrots Kat <TIS> 6 rpOTros TOOI/ 
 
 858 D ou xpr) TOV vofJLoOtTYjv /xoVov Twv ypa(j>6vTQ)V 
 
 Is it possible to use /xdvos in this way for 
 more /i<m others, etc., which is all it could mean here! 
 Cf. in E TrdvTiov ypa/x/xarojv . . . /caAAicrra re Kat aptcrTa, 
 referring to the same thing. When et? is so used, a 
 superlative is always added. There is reason to think that 
 fiovov is sometimes confused with jjiaXXov : has it here 
 taken the place of 
 
 860 D Should et KCU be Kat et, or et Se Kat 1 And if seems 
 the sense required. 
 
 861 D et fjirj TO) re aKOV(rtw Kat TW eKOwrta) Stat^e'perov 
 eKarepov, dXXa aXAco Ttvt Sr/Trore. 
 
 Is it legitimate to attach SvJTroTe to rts 1 ? Perhaps aAAa> 
 wrivt S^TTore. 
 
 ^cZ. E /XT) TOLVW rts . . otr^rat, being the present tense, 
 cannot mean 'let no one think,' 'I would have no one 
 think.' Nor is Goodwin's view (M.T. 264) that it means 
 ' I am afraid some one may think ' at all probable, any more 
 than his similar interpretation of two other Platonic 
 passages, Euthyd. 272 c and Symp. 193 B. Take ^ as 
 final = tW /xrj, a use that sometimes occurs in Plato and 
 Xenophon. The sentence is then a little broken by the 
 interposition of /3Aa/?at yap . . . eicowrtW and resumed with 
 o-K07Ttcr#e S>j (not Se' : cf. on 797 A above). 
 
 864 B Sd^s rrjs <OVK> a\r)0ovs 1 It seems impossible 
 that true belief, or even the pursuit of it, can be spoken of 
 as a kind or cause of error and wrong (etSos rwv 
 
 866 B rr/v TraOrjv should probably be rrjs Trades, depending 
 
 On 
 
 ibid. D E The /xeV after e^at</>vr;s seems entirely out of 
 place. Put it back a few words to follow Qvpu at the 
 
248 LAWS 
 
 beginning of the sentence, and we get the regular form 
 <3 //,eV, 0u/x< Se. The 00-01 after Ov^u Se needs an av. 
 
 868 E Assuming the unusual construction of ore/aw (as 
 in D) to be right, we seem to need wi> <Se> d8eX</>ous . . . 
 TOVTWV Brj (for 8e) uveoTtos /c.r.X. The words are not at all 
 an explanation of the preceding sentence, and therefore 
 some connecting particle is required. 
 
 869 E Read e7riov\r}i> for eTnftovXfc. Cf. on 866 B. 
 
 870 E Instead of roiavrr] I should prefer to read the 
 more precise rrj avry. 
 
 872 D Add TTcpt to </>6Vovs. 
 
 873 D If we are not with Badham to omit run/ before 
 oo-a, it would seem a mistake for rots, due to the genitive 
 cui/ before it. 
 
 877 A TOUTO) 
 
 Read TOVTOV. 
 
 ibid. B fJLrd(rraarLV ets TT/V yfirovo. 
 Why the neighbouring state ? Read 
 
 ibid. E orav Tts a^aa Svcrrv^r/^T] /<at a.(ref3r)@f) TWV 
 
 Such a passive use of Suo-rv^w seems to me impossible. 
 It is in no way supported by such uses as TO. 6W-, ev- 
 d-Tv^^evra, any more than TO. afjiaprirjOevTa, at ^apr^evat 
 TToXtTctat, etc. would justify a/xapravo/xat J a??i wronged. 
 ao-eprjOfi is different, for do-c^Sw is sometimes a transitive 
 verb (Aesch Eum. 271 ^ ^cov 17 ^eVov rtv' aa-^^v. Lys. (?) 
 2. 7 TOVS ^covs do-e/3eto-0ai) and the { house,' like the gods, 
 may be regarded as the object of an impious act, the person 
 or personified thing outraged by it. I would therefore 
 read SVO-TUX^OI? K0 ^ do-e/fyfli}. The one form has corrupted 
 the other. In Plut. Dion, et Brut. Comp. 4 Trio-re vVai/ras is 
 now corrected to Tna-revOevTas. In [Arist.] Physiogn. 
 805 b 21 TO. p.\v ovv KOLVO. TWV (rr)(jiL<av ovSei/ av Stao-a^^etr; TW 
 ^)vo-ioyva)/xovovvTt we should surely read <$iao-a<^o-eie, 
 answering to o-ry/xaiVeii/ just before, while Eth. End. 
 
LAWS 249 
 
 1248 b 31 oi'Sev av 6vr)<TL ^pw/xevos auTOis calls for 
 The case of Polybius 3. 109. 12 &v fyuis avrrjv py Sia//v- 
 (read Sia^evo-^re) is a little different. 
 
 880 E /XTJre TWV ayw SetVas #ea>v /x^viv /XTJre TWV VTTO y^s 
 Ti/zwpiwv A.yo/xeVa>i/. Ti//.<opwj/ will be much neater. Indeed 
 with /jupiv the abstract ripupiuv is hardly possible. Of. 
 854 A above. 
 
 881 A Trapavo/xet should, I think, be Trapavo/mi', parallel 
 to auf/aa-Oai. The tense prevents it from matching ToA./xrJcrt. 
 
 . E TrpocraTTT^rat should, judging by the other verbs, 
 be 
 
 885 C cTraKovaw/xev avrcov Trpoiroi/ a ... A-eyeiv 
 and av etTrotcv following point to 
 
 . D The nominative Xeyovrcs is quite unjustifiable. 
 Read Xeyovras, as in E. Cf. 822 E above. 
 
 ?. E ov/cow, w ^ei/c, 8ox? PO.SLOV eivat dX^^evoi/Tas A.eyeii> 
 ws io-t ^cot; The question is not whether it is easy to 
 affirm this with truth, but whether it is easy to adduce 
 evidence, re/c^pia Aeyetv is the phrase in D and in 886 D, 
 and it must surely have been used here. 
 
 In the next sentence some verb or equivalent has been 
 lost. The subjects lack a predicate. 
 
 886 D Trpo^epovres ought apparently to be 
 The intervention of Aewei/ will account for the mistake. 
 
 ibid. E If the OVTCS of some MSS. is right, read vvv 
 <yap> K.r.X. 
 
 887 c Should we read KO.T f.v^rjv for CV^TJV, which lacks 
 construction ? Badham's CTT' cv^rji/ seems to me less proper. 
 
 ibid. E Seeing that the gods themselves are the subject 
 of e^iSovTon/ (ovSafjLrj V7ro\f/Lav evSiSdrrwv o>s OVK eicrt ^eot), 
 Oeoi should presumably be omitted. 
 
 889 A Is eoiKe it seems used elsewhere with accusative and 
 infinitive ? If not, nominatives should be read. 
 
250 LAWS 
 
 ibid. D Perhaps TT/S 71-0X1x1/07? for rrjv TroXm/cTJt/ (see on 
 657 c above), but cf. Thuc. 6. 62. 2 rty 2iKeXxi/ TO /xc'po?. 
 If the accusative were right, KOIVWOVV ought by the rules 
 of grammar to be feminine. 
 
 891 E ot rrjv TWV dcre/?Gjv \j/v^r]V aTre/ayao-djuevoi Xoyoi. 
 
 \l/v^rj cannot be used for a state of mind, a if/vx^s eis. 
 It may be an erroneous anticipation of the i^v^i/ which 
 occurs a line or two further on ; in which case it has 
 displaced some such word as S6av or 
 
 892 D The use of the active <iAaTTo> in the sense proper 
 to the middle, beware of, is extremely doubtful, the 
 examples alleged by Liddell and Scott not being by any 
 means satisfactory. Probably therefore for <vXaTTa>//,ei/ we 
 should read (vAaTTwju,e#a, as in the contrary way Stallbaum 
 seems justified in reading TTOIOVVTWV for iroiovptvw 
 in 865 A. 
 
 ibid. D xprfvo.1 is perhaps only an error for ^py, due to 
 <j>avf)vaL following. 
 
 896 B Sevrepa TC KOI OTTOCTCOV apiO^v fiovXoiT av Ti$ 
 avTrjv Tro\\O(TTr]v TOCTOVTWV. 
 
 Probably 
 ibid, c ra 
 
 897 A otrat TOVTCOV ^vyyevets 77 Trpwrovpyoi 
 Would not Kat give better sense than rj 1 
 
 898 C etTrctv, ws erreiS^ ^X^ /*^ v ^" Ttv ""7 
 
 Travra, T^V Sc ovpavov Trept^opav e^ dvayK7ys Trepidyeiv 
 . . . r/roi T^V apicrryv \^v\y]v rj rr)V IvavTiav. 
 
 It is quite impossible that /x,eV should stand in the 
 TTpdrao-is or dependent clause and 8e in the apodosis or 
 main one. 8 may conceivably be right, though this is 
 unlikely and S?j naturally suggests itself : see on 797 A above. 
 /Ltev is not easily corrected, but it may stand for 
 
 899 A avrov 817 <x/xeti/ov <ov>, as a dozen lines above 
 Tov <oV> is conjectured? If avrov is doubted, we 
 
LAWS 251 
 
 might think of Travros. See Aristophanes and Others, 
 p. 203. 
 
 ibid. E I am not sure that there is any proper construction 
 for the adverbs tSt'a /cat SrjfjLoa-ia. 1 Why not tStat /cat 
 which is no real change 1 
 
 901 E SeiAt'as yap e/cyovos . . . dpyta, paOvfJLLa 8e dpytas /cat 
 
 Read rpv<j>Yj. So in 903 E jflTrep ai> e^ot paoraji'r/s cTrt/xcXetas 
 TOJI/ Travrwv, if this form of the first words is right, 
 we should probably read eTrt/xeAeta. In both cases the 
 genitive would be due to a genitive immediately preceding. 
 
 909 A ^SeV for /^SeV ? 
 
 91 3 A /i^r' OW TtS TO>V 6/XOJV ^pTy/XaTWV ttTTTOtTO I 
 
 TO 
 
 Read </x>j> TTCI^WV. That is undoubtedly the sense, and 
 it cannot be got out of the Greek as it stands, for /^Sa/xi} 
 must go with the verb, e/xe seems governed by 
 otherwise what is the difference between 
 and aiTTea-Oai emphasized by /xrJTe . . . /^S' av ? 
 
 915 D dvayeVco . . . ets gevLKrjv irapaBoa-iv irevrt /xr/vwv (ivithill 
 Jive months), rjs /xecro? 6 /x^v ev co K.T.X. 
 
 It is certain that ^s does not refer to TrapaSotrtv, as 
 Stallbaum would have it do, for that gives no sense, and it 
 cannot grammatically refer to fjirjvwv. dvaycoyrj supplied 
 out of dvayeTco would not make sense either. Was 
 in Plato's mind. Cf. 954 D. 
 
 920 A <' e/ccum/s aAtocreco? rovs Secr/xovs fji-rj 7ravecr0<o 
 
 cov rov l/ATrpocr^ev \povov. 
 To other suggestions I may add TOIS 
 
 924 D TOV eTTtT^Seiov may perhaps be taken as in 
 apposition to oVep governed by Stao-Ke^atTo. Otherwise we 
 might read TOV e7rtTr;8etov, but this would probably 
 necessitate vlov and w/x,c/>i'ov too. 
 
252 LAWS 
 
 925 B Tt TToXXo. TToXXwV KCU TrXeiWV CtTTOpia T(OV TOIOVTOOV 
 
 yiyvoir' av. 
 
 For TroXXwv read TroXXu) going with TrXetW : for TroXXd 
 perhaps TTOV 8rj (Madvig TTOV. 8ia, Ast TroXXij). 
 
 luld. D JUT) Xav^avero) . . . a>s ^aXcTrais . . . TrpooTarTci . . , yu,^ 
 8oKi Be crKoirtiv a /xvpta . . . ycyverai. 
 
 Has it escaped notice that f^rj SOKCI is impossible 
 grammar for ov SOKCI? Read ^ o-xoTreti/ 8e Soxet, unless 
 SoKet 8e /XT) o-KOTretv appears more probable, /xrj can hardly 
 be joined with o-K07Ttv, if 8oKt comes between. Cf. 
 ra^' av . . . 8o^te following, 
 
 928 C a>a 8' &v rjPfa Tts /c.T.X. 
 
 a/xa as a conjunction cannot be right, (1) because there 
 is no other evidence of the word being so used, like simul 
 in Latin, (2) because the sense as soon as is hardly 
 appropriate to the context. But one does not see how 
 OTOLV or eTretSdV can have been so corrupted. 
 
 929 B eotv /xcv irtiOri 6 Trar^p KCH <rvfjuj/r)<j>ovs \d/3ri. 
 
 The aorist Aa/fy points clearly to TTCIO-^ (cf. on 881 E), 
 and the mistake is common enough. Epinomis 989 B is 
 9, still clearer case, //.r/Seis T7/xas TTOTC 7rei%, where the present 
 tense is not even good grammar. In Ar. Eq. 712 Treto-erai 
 is required, and probably in Nub. 1422 7Tre. 
 
 930 c av after tfiv is not suitable. Read av, comparing 
 for a somewhat similar use 879 D Tva Troppco yiyv^rat TOV 
 TOV 7rt^(6ptov av ToXfJirjoraL TTore Trara^ai. 
 
 932 C ywat/c5 8e SeVa TrXeiocriv ereo-t KoXa^eo-^coorav rats 
 KoXcurecriv. 
 
 Though the dative is sometimes used in late Greek, like 
 the Latin ablative, to express duration of time, it is 
 very improbable here. Perhaps <ev> Se/ca, though that 
 would not be usual. 
 
 933 A VTTO TOVTCUV <TWV> Swa/x,ev(ov ? 
 
LAWS 253 
 
 941 A lav ws ?rpcr/3euT>js rts ^ /c?jpv Kara^evSo/xe^o? TT}S 
 7rapa7rpeo-/3ei>77Tai Trpds rtva TroAti^ 77 7re/x7rd/xevos /xr/ ras 
 
 Is it possible that Tre/xTro'/xevos has strayed from its 
 proper place ? It is superfluous where it stands, whereas 
 <os 7rpeo-/3evT>7s seems to want its support. 
 
 944 A B 67rooroi...tt7rtuA.ecrai/ 6VAa T) Kara OaXarrav rj 
 v TOTTOIS VTroSe^atce^s aurous iai<fcvr)<z 7roX.X.fj<s pucrews voaros. 
 
 Stallbaum KOTTOIS or TTOVOIS for TOTTOIS, Madvig ^ct/xappwv 
 for ^t/xwj^a)i/. I have suggested elsewhere that in D. Hal. 
 .4?. Rom. 4. 7. 3. i-oCro TO /XT}KOS TOJI/ yStwi^ ou (frepovcrw oi 
 KaO' T7/xas TOTrot we ought to read ^pdi/ot for TOTTOI. Should 
 the same correction be made here 'I 
 
 ibid. D Read O-KOTTWV for o-KOTreu/, and the genitive will 
 give no trouble. TrAry/AjueAeti/ for -oiv seems necessary in 
 941 B. 
 
 ibid, ov yap Svvarov uv^pojTrw Spav Tovvavrtov w? Trore ^eov 
 <^xao-t Spacrat. 
 
 This might pass for one of the supposed uses of ws = rj, 
 ^/ia7i, of which there are a few (very doubtful), after 
 comparatives. Some editors read wv, which is likely 
 enough. But I would rather read rovvavnov <r/> o>g, since 
 (1) 17 o!s is quite a common phrase, (2) the loss of r/ may 
 well be due to v preceding it. 
 
 949 c rj has been lost after the v of Ar/rovpyiwi/, N and 
 H being very similar. 
 
 952 B Read r}Kei, not I^KOI, which is hardly grammatical. 
 
 953 C d^twi/ TI KaAov tSetv rwv Iv rats aAAais 7rdAO"t 
 &ia(f>pov V KaAAovat? 17 /cat Set^ai TI K.T.A. 
 
 KaAov and 8ta^>epov ev KaAAovat? are awkwardly 
 tautological. Perhaps we should read merely at for 
 KaAoV. The confusion is found elsewhere. Cf. pp. 38, 158. 
 
 ibid. D 7Tto-Tua)i/ tKavais elvai ^ei/os TO) TOIOVTOJ ^eva). 
 
 Uavds for iKavo>5l In 879 B MSS. vary between the two. 
 In 951 c TeAews seems a mistake (Badham) for 
 
254 EPINOMIS 
 
 956 A aTroAcAoiTTOTOS ^v^r]V (Tto/xaros. 
 
 aTroXwXe/coTo? Badham. But compare Virg. Aen. 3. 140 
 linquebant dulces animas and, still more remarkable, 4. 385 
 cum frigida mors anima seduxerit artus. 
 
 958 D r)$iKYjKi should be ^SI/O/KC. 
 
 962 E is ev Sc <oi>>, ovSev <$ia(eovToos K.T.A.. 
 
 963 D avrotv must be written avrotv, if it is to mean 
 
 964 E Some word like Set or Seov seems lost, on which 
 the clauses TOUS /mev veovs . . . opav, rovs 8e /c.r.X. depended. 
 Also I think T^S Ke^aA-^s (say) is missing after <vAaK(oy : it 
 is needed to balance TOV KVTOVS. opav is used oddly with 
 Should it be <6povpetv? 
 
 968 D &TC for ous 
 
 969 C r) T^V TroAtv eareov T^S KOLTOLKLO coos ^ TOV ^ivov rovSe 
 
 OVK d^)TOV. 
 
 What is the construction of the genitive? Two 
 alterations suggest themselves : one to transfer T}S K<XTOI- 
 Ki'creojs to the next clause, so that it will be governed by 
 d^ereov, the other to read TT)V KO.TOIKIO-LV eareov rrj<s TroXews, 
 supposing an exchange of words or endings to have taken 
 place. 
 
 EPINOMIS. 
 
 973 c OVK eo-rat should be OVK lo-rt. The future is 
 not appropriate. Ibid. KaAA.rr' av should be KaAAicrra, 
 for av is impossible with r)v, and cannot be connected 
 with 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS. 
 I. 
 
 The Letters have not received very great attention from 
 scholars, and they therefore still contain many things to 
 be set right. I have been helped not only by the ordinary 
 editions, but by Hercher's Epistolographi Graeci, the 
 translation (by Miiller) and notes in vol. 8 of Steinhart's 
 Plato, a few notes by Badham in Mnemosyne, vol. 10, and 
 very greatly by H. T. Karsten's Commentatio Critica 
 (1864), a valuable study of both the language and the 
 contents. 
 
 1. 310 A In the verses quoted, ovS' dSd/xas ovS' dpyupov 
 KAtVai Trpos av^pwTTOi/ So/a/Aao/xej/' ao-rpaTTTCi Trpos ctyeis, the 
 Trpos avOpuirov c&n hardly be right, especially with Trpos 
 ctyeis following. Trpos avOpwTrov (or avOpuTruv) going with 
 SoKi/u.ao/Ava seems most probable : possibly we should read 
 Trpos dv0pw7ran/...Trpoo-oi/'ei5, and for Trpoo-oi//eis there actually 
 is some insignificant MS. authority. 
 
 2. 310 C vvv Se /xeyas eyw i/xt e/xairroj/ Trape^wv T(3 e/xa> Aoya> 
 
 TTO/XVOV. 
 
 /xeyas is almost unmeaning in the context and should 
 probably be /xoVos. e and o, y and v are liable to be 
 confused with each other. Perhaps /uoVos eyw ei/xt <6> 
 
 310 E The intercourse of Plato and Dionysius will 
 not be forgotten, TOLOVTOL ol TrapaSeSey/xei/ot flcrlv avrrjv. 
 Read TOO-OUTOI. It is not the quality, but the number, of 
 
 255 
 
256 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 the people who have heard of it that will make its memory 
 last. Of. 320 D. 
 
 So in 11.358 E KLvSwevtv...ola airavTa. we should alter 
 ota to ocra. 
 
 311 A The easiest supposition to make in this difficult 
 passage is that before ws o-o<ovs one or two names have 
 dropped out, names of wise men supposed to have been 
 friends and advisers of Cyrus. But I do not know that 
 there is any tradition or legend of such friends. In 4. 
 320 D Cyrus is taken along with Lycurgus as himself a man 
 in whose single person power and wisdom were united, and 
 this would seem the natural view. But what follows 
 here in 311 A certainly seems confused. 
 
 ibid. C ovK) eVetSav T^ets reXevr^crw/xcv, KOL ol Aoyot Trepi 
 ^//,a>v avruv (reoriy^awTat. 
 
 avrwv can hardly be right, but it is difficult to correct. 
 Possibly avroL or cvOvs. 
 
 312 A Plato, when he went to Syracuse, aimed at getting 
 philosophy honoured in his person among the people : TOVTO 
 ' OVK evayes JJLOL aTre^rj. In view of 8. 35.7 C fj.r) aTroo-rrjTe 
 irplv u.v ra vvv v(f> ^/xwv Xe^^ei/ra, otov ovcipara Otto. eTrtorrai/ra 
 yp>7yopocriv, ivapyr) re e^epyao-^o-^6 TeAecr^eVra Kat CTUTU^T), I 
 suggest erapye? for cvaycs* Compare also the obscure 
 passage in 3. 319 B as to the {'ySptcr/xa which vVap avr' 
 oveiparos yeyovev. The regular meaning of ewyrjs, pure> 
 holy, is quite inappropriate here, and I do not see how Ast 
 and others can twist it into meaning successful or favour- 
 able. Evdyijs or djavy?}? comes nearer to the sense we need, 
 but does not appear really to give it. It may be noticed 
 that evapy?js and eVapyws occur frequently in these letters. 
 
 313 B ov H.-YJV aAAa> ye TTOT' c^v evrerv^r/KeVat K.r.X. Ac- 
 cording to Attic usage TTOTC should be TrooTrore, as in C just 
 below and 314 c. See however L. and S. s.v. ouSen-ore. 
 
 314 A Transfer dei, which is out of place with a 
 
 to follOW 
 
 ibid. C BLOL ravra ovSev TTCOTTOT' eyw Trept TOVTWV yeypa^a ov8' 
 cruyypa/x/xa IlAarajvos ov8ei/ o{8' ccrrat, ra 8e vvv Aeyo/xeva 
 t<TTt KCL\OV KOL viov ycyovoros. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 257 
 
 The exact sense of the last clause is obscure. One thing 
 however is clear, and that is that we should distinguish 
 yeyovoros from oVros and not translate, for instance, with 
 Grote 'in his days of youthful vigour and glory.' In the 
 spurious Xenophonteau letter (1 in Sauppe), where the 
 expression is quoted, 6Vros is actually used, but the two 
 words have not the same meaning. I understand the 
 phrase as meant to suggest the assumption of Socrates' 
 person and character in the dialogues by one who was really 
 /caXos /cat ve'os, that is, Plato himself. Socrates, though 
 young or comparatively young in some of the Platonic 
 dialogues, can never have been imagined as /caXos, which 
 certainly refers to personal good looks and not, as Grote 
 takes it, to 'glory.' Plato then was a KaXos /cat ve'os 
 ^(DKpdrr)<; : Socrates became young and good-looking when 
 Plato identified himself with his old master by putting his 
 own ideas into his master's mouth. 
 
 There is perhaps a further point in the words. 
 Athenaeus 505 E tells a story about Plato and Gorgias. 
 Once when Gorgias visited Athens, eiTroVros TOV nXoVeoi/os 
 ore etSev avrov ' ^/cet rjfMV 6 /caXos re KOI ^pvcrovs Fopytas,' e<f>rj 
 6 Fopyi'as ' rj /caXov ye at 'AOrjvai /cat ve'ov TOVTOV ' Ap^tXo^oi/ 
 vrjv6)(acrtv.' Is it a mere coincidence that Plato should 
 apparently be both a /caXos /cat ve'os Sw/cpaTrjs and a /caXos 
 /cat veos 'Ap^tXo^os, or is the former an intentional adapta- 
 tion of the latter 1 On the other hand it is of course also 
 possible that the latter grew out of the former. Some 
 connexion between them there must be. 
 
 Athen. 702 C Kara TOV n/VaToova ov 2<*>/cpaYovs veou /cat 
 Tratyvta is a reference to our phrase. 
 
 314 E oV TIS dSi/cif) 17 TOVTOV r) e/cetVovs /cat orv aio~6r). 
 to match aXo-Or 1 
 
 3. 315 D <ws> /xeXXovros. 
 
 316 B OVK e/xr)v TavTyv tLprjKas o~vfJi/3ov\r)V ovot 8ta/cwXv- 
 
 o-tv. 'AX?7#ws seems to have dropped out after OVK or 
 
 elsewhere in the sentence. The necessary meaning can 
 hardly be got without it. 
 
258 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 316 D fjif.ro. Trovrjpiov KOL TroAAoov dv$po)7ru>i/, 
 
 TroAAoiv Kal irovr)pu>v in the more usual order 1 or is TroAAcov 
 a mistake for some other word, say <f>av\<j>v ? aAAcov would 
 not have much point. 
 
 316 E TOVT' avro %WTiv<av OVK O.VVJKO, TTWTTOTC. Perhaps a 
 preposition (eis, Trpos, CTTI) should be added before TOTO. 
 
 317 E Should not a o-e be added to ^tovi/...Karaytv? 
 The subject of Karayctv can hardly be Plato himself. So 
 in 7. 349 E /xe seems necessary with eKeAeve...croi 
 
 318 D Kat Taura /xev ravrr) Trepl ra TroAiTtKa KOivcovtas TT}S 
 e/XT}s Kat CTT}?. Perhaps Trcpt <rr}s eis> ra TroAtrtKcx. Or ravra 
 )UV raurr; <T^S> TT. r. TT. Kotvwvt'as might be defended on 
 the analogy of such genitives as Rid dell illustrates in his 
 Digest 27 E, e.g. Ar. Pol. 1. 4, 1253 b 27 oWep ev rats 
 wpioTxeyais re^vats...oi;Tco Kat rwv OLKOVOfJitKa)v. To his ex- 
 amples add Laws 804 E : Ar. Phys. 8. 8, 263 a 1, and 
 Met. 1. 993 b 17 : Eur. S#pZ. 465. Cf. Kuhner 417, 5 
 Anm. 11. The omission of T^S after ravV^ would be 
 easy. 
 
 ibid. KOL ei Ttva erepav dAXorptor^Ta ei/etSes ev e/>tot ?rp6s ere, 
 eiKorws otei ravry Travra ra^Ta yeyoveVat. Kat /xry Oo.vfJLa.^. 
 otet ought, I think, to be otov. The CIKO'TODS here answers 
 to the CIKOTWS of 316 B. He is showing that his own 
 conduct was natural, not saying what interpretation 
 Dionysius naturally put upon it. The imperative /XT) 
 #ai;/x,ae also points directly to olov. For otov cf. e.g. Hep. 
 339 E, if not 336 E. 
 
 319 B etTres Se Kat /xaA.' aTrXao-rcos ycXaiv, t /xe/x^/xat, oos 
 evra /xe cKeAevcs Trotetv TrdVra Tavra ^ /XT) Trotetv. The 
 sense clearly requires w? to precede, not follow, et . . ./x/xvr;/x.ai, 
 for ei . . .Troietv are the quoted words of Dionysius, as the 
 comment e^i/ eyo> KaAAtcrra /xi/^/xovevcrat ae shows. The 
 words should therefore be transposed, unless indeed ws is 
 an error for 77 (77 TratSe^^e'vra . . . Trotetv ... 7^ /XT) Trotctv). 
 Karsten, p 99, seems to fall into some confusion here. 
 
 Editors have disregarded the /xaAa TrAacrrais of one 
 Vatican MS. (Bekker's Q), and it may well have been an 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 259 
 
 accident there. Yet surely it is right. Dionysius answered 
 Plato /xe/xTpt/xeVws /cat v/?pt<m/caj9, and his laugh was much 
 more likely to be very forced than perfectly natural. 
 
 ' You laughed,' says Plato, /xe/x^j/i/xeVws /cat v/?ptcrTiKu>s ts 
 e/xe, a)? wow 810 TO Tore crot t^3pto~/xa vw virap avr' oVetpaTos 
 yeyover. The phrase is obscure here and seems unskilfully 
 used. I suppose the meaning is that D.'s sneer at TratSeta, 
 which he thought (<Zov) told against P., has in the end, 
 through his neglect of TraiSei'a and true philosophy, recoiled 
 on himself. It was orap as regards P., \nra.p as regards 
 himself. With v/fyio-Ti/cws . . . ws $ov compare 7. 335 B 
 /carayeXoiv, a>s oterat. 
 
 The writer goes on /cdya) TO /xTa ravra o eTrrfet /xot eiTretV 
 
 OV/C CtTTOV, <o/3oVitVOS /X^ (T^LKpOV p>^U,aTOS eVe/Ca TO!/ 1/CTrA.OW OV 
 
 Trpoo-eSo/cwv /xr; /xot Q-TCVOS ytyvoiTo CII/T' cupv^wpiias. The 
 conjectures O-TCVOS and O-TCVOV rest, I fancy, on the mistaken 
 idea that TOJ> e/cTrXovv is the accusative after <o^3ov/xevos, 
 which it cannot be unless we banish the first /xrj. Nor is 
 there any anacoluthon, as though he had meant to say TOV 
 tKTrXovv . . . (TTtvov e/xavT<3 TTot^craitu and then changed to a 
 /xr) o-Ti/6? ytyvoiTo. The proper antecedent 6 /c7rAovs is 
 attracted into the case of the relative, as often happens,' 
 e.g. Lys. 19. 47 rr)v ovo-tav ^v /caTeAnre . . . ov TrActovos d^ia 
 co"Ttv : Ar. Po^. 2. 9, 1271 a 9, TT/V atpco-tv r}v TroioCvrai . . . 
 eo~Ti TratSaptwSr;? : Plat. Po/. 271 C TOV /?i'ov 8v CTTI T^S 
 Kpoi/ov (frrjs ctrat Swa/xews TroTepov-ev e/cetvats rjv TaTs TpOTrats -^ 
 Taio-Se, and very many other passages, verse and prose. As 
 a rule, the attracted case comes more prominently at the 
 beginning of the sentence or clause, but it need not ; cf. 
 Plat. Meno 96 c: Xen. An. 3. 1. 6 : Hell 1. 4. 2: Dem. 
 01 2, 2, (?) : Ar. Plut. 200. This being so, there is no 
 difficulty about the repetition of /x>j : see Kiihner 514, 1 
 Anm. 2, who cites among other passages Anab. 3. 2. 25 
 8e'8otKa /x?;, av a7ra /c.T.A.., /x^ wcnrep ot AooTOc^ayot eTrtXa^oj/xe^a 
 T^? ot/ca8e 6Sov. But it is just possible that the first /x?J 
 should be 8>j. Finally O.VT' evpv^wptas is not 'instead of 
 ample sea-room,' as though e, like O-TCVO'S, was a possible 
 predicate of eKTrXovs, but 'instead of my enjoying ample 
 sea-room.' Words with dvrt are often to be expanded in 
 this sort of way, e.g. Wasps 1268 avrl toJAou /cat poas 
 /XCTO, Aecoyo'pov : Ar. Poet. 1449 a 4 dvrl TWV 
 
 s 2 
 
260 THE PLATONIC LETTERS. 
 
 ia/z/3cov K(o/Aa>So7roiot eyevovTO, ot Se dim TWV CTTWV rpaywSoSt- 
 
 4. 320 C u/x.<at?7 TIS av TOUS dvnTrotou/xeVous TO. 
 TL/JLOLV CIKOTCOS T<ov aXAwv Sta(epiv. The point should be, 
 not that they do excel in the qualities specified, but that 
 they may reasonably be expected to do so. In that case 
 av should be inserted after CUCOTWS. It is very likely that 
 it ought to be inserted also in 31 9 D in the words w? fy 
 ravr aptoTa TrpaxOevra, but in such a phrase Greek idiom 
 sometimes dispenses with it. In 7. 347 E Bonitz was 
 certainly right in adding it after ovSev yap. 
 
 ibid. If TOVS ola-Oa S^TTOV is right, it would be better to 
 write it TOVS ola-Oa ST/TTOV, showing that olcrOa SI^TTOV takes 
 the place of a participial phrase or other description. In 
 3. 318 A we have ou? oivOa crv, and so it might be here. 
 Why the persons in question should not be plainly 
 specified here, does not appear. 
 
 321 A Competitors (actors'?) in theatres are loudly en- 
 couraged by children, /x>yTi Brj VTTO ye TOJV <iAwi/, ovs aiv Tts 
 rai /J,TOL (TTTouSrys /car' ewotav TrapaKcXeuecr^ai. 
 ous av TIS otoiro would (I think) give a better sense. 
 
 5. 322 B With Stephanus, insert vrepi before rr)v 
 vfjL(3ov\yv (which means of course ' about giving advice to 
 me ' ; cf. fj Sia/3oAr? ^ e//,?j Apol. 24 A). Possibly Spaaat for 
 Spacrat. 
 
 6. - 322 D OVT ITTTTWl/ TrX^OS O#T OL/\Ar7S TToXe/Xt/Cr}? 
 
 uavt'as o^S' av ^pvcrov Trpocrycvo^tcvov yevotr' av /xct^wv ets ra 
 Travra 8wa/x,is. We seem to need either Miiller's TrXyOovs... 
 Trpocryevo^tevov or 7rAi}$os...7rpo(ryvo/>ii/ov. 
 
 323 D cTTo/Avvvras twice over indicates that something 
 is wrong. The first is perhaps to be simply omitted, or it 
 arose from the mistake, which we are apt to make in 
 writing, of putting too soon a word we are going to 
 use later, and the real word was, e.g. Aa/x/2avovTas. 
 
 7. 324 B Tts 8' ty 6 T/DOTTOS TT)S ycveo-ws avr?}?, ov/c a7raiov 
 
 vew /cat /x?) ve'a>. The precise meaning of this may 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 261 
 
 easily be missed, and has actually been missed by some 
 scholars. It is important for the structure of the letter. 
 Plato's correspondents have written to him that their views 
 are those of Dion. He answers (or is made to answer) 
 that he can himself say better than anyone what those 
 views were, and in the words above quoted he adds that it 
 is worth while to set forth how Dion came by them. 
 avrfjs here refers to f) eKeu/ov Siavoia KCU ftrt^vfua nine lines 
 above, and ycWo-ews has nothing to do with the ycvco-Oau, 
 just before it. The same is the force of the aorist in rjv 
 eo-^e Tore Soav : cf. 327 B ravrrjv rrjv Siavotav r)V aurog VTTO 
 TUV opOuv \6ywv ccrxev, 'the views that Dion then acquired.' 
 Plato's point is that he himself had indoctrinated Dion 
 with these views by sound teaching (opOol Aoyot), and that 
 they were exclusively his own to start with. So he says 
 (327 A) 'it would seem that I did not know I was 
 unconsciously in some sort contriving a future overthrow 
 of tyranny ' ; i.e. his first intercourse with Dion in 387 
 led to the eventual overthrow of the younger Dionysius 
 thirty years later. This is the reason and the justification, 
 such as it is, for the long letter that follows, purporting to 
 be an account of the way in which Dion came to think as 
 he did, but really forming (if genuine) a decidedly egotisti- 
 cal narrative of Plato's own part in the Syracusan story, 
 while Dion remains quite in the background. This nar- 
 rative is meant partly for the young Hipparinus, whom 
 Plato hopes to inspire as he inspired his father Dion : 
 hence vew KCU /*T) veV We must in justice to the writer, 
 whether Plato or not, take the letter as meant not to be 
 read only or chiefly by Dion's own friends and comrades, to 
 whom much of the story would be already known, but by 
 others, partly younger, partly less familiar with Dion and 
 the facts. Of course, too, Plato is justifying himself to his 
 own circle, perhaps to his own mind. 
 
 A German translator is actually driven by the want of 
 clearness in all this to argue that e/cctVo) (324 B) means 
 ' me,' because by e/ccu/ov in 334 B Plato means himself. 
 
 326 C <rw(f>p(av 8' ouS' av ^.eXArycrat TTOTC yevecr$ai. 
 need not have been suggested for yaeAXijcrcu if other passages 
 had been kept in mind: Aristot. Eth. 2. 4, 1105b 11 /c 
 
262 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 8e TOV {Jirj TrpaTTeiv ravra ouSeis av ovSe /xcXX^creie yeveo-$ai 
 dyatfos: Aristoph. P. 1961: P/. 551: Thuc. 5. 98. 1: 
 Dem. 54. 40. 
 
 326 D 8ia7rovou/xeVas (passive) is perfectly right. The 
 men are indolent at everything except a few things 
 which are elaborately attended to. 
 
 ibid. dvay/caiov 8' eu/cu K.T.\. There is no construction 
 for the infinitive etvai, and it may be conjectured that we 
 should read CLY) av or av efy, just as in 337 c (apiOpov 8' 
 elvai) cuv av has been conjectured and seems necessary. It 
 will be observed that there are four optatives with av, one 
 of them 177, preceding the clause we are now concerned 
 with. In Tim. 17 B codex A has eTvai for cfy av. 
 
 327 C wv Kat Aiovucriov r/y^craro eva yeveV^at T<i\ av iA- 
 Aa/x,/3avovTa>v ^(ov, ycvo/x,evou 8' av TOV TOLOVTOV K.T.A.. Read 
 
 for av TOV. Cf. the index in Adam's Republic 2. 523. 
 
 327 E KaraXeycov 8e. Read STJ. The participles look 
 back to <j>ij. 
 
 328 C atcr^wo/xevos p.\v /x,avroi/ TO /xeytcrrov /XT) oo^aifju K.T.X., 
 KtvSuvewretv 8e TrpoSouvai Trpwrov /xev TT)V Atwvo? ^cvtav K.T.X. 
 The infinitive /avSuvevcrav has no construction. Sense 
 forbids it to depend on oo^aL/ja : moreover the 8e clearly 
 answers to the /xev with ato-^uvo/xevos. Perhaps a participle 
 has dropped out, e.g. KivSweutreiv Se <vo/xt^(ov> TrpoSoCvai. 
 Nothing ever answers formally to Trpwrov ju,ev rr)v Ai'wvos 
 K.rA., but the antithesis in E shows what was in the 
 writer's mind when he wrote Trpwrov /xev. So, if in 331 D 
 jue'v is a correct alteration of ^VTOL, its force does not really 
 appear until we reach 332 D E. 
 
 329 B T>}S (f>i\oa-6(f>ov dvey/cXT/rov /xoipas is a curious phrase. 
 Compare however 332 D dvo/xiA?jra> /xei/ TratSetas, d^o/xiA^Ta) 
 8e (rwovcrtw^, and still more [Dem.] 61. 54 Ka/xe rrys o-^s 
 ^>tXtas a.v.7TLTip.f]Tov TToietv. T. <^>. /x. is only a somewhat 
 awkward periphrasis for TT/S ^t/Xoo-o^ta? : see Ast, s.v. /xotpa. 
 
 329 E Tre/ATrwv auros TOV KcXeuovTa. Attic idiom would be 
 in favour of KeAevVovTa, and no mistake is commoner than 
 the substitution of present for future, when the two forms 
 are very similar. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 263 
 
 330 B /cat 6 TT/Dcoro? Sr) xpovos rfjs ets ^iKfXtav e/x^s 
 <Tcos T /cat Starpi^Tys Sia Trai/ra ravra vvej3r 
 These words cannot mean either ' my first time of visiting, 
 my first visit, was due to these causes,' or * the earliest part 
 of my stay was spent in this way.' xpoi'os never means 
 time in the above sense (first time, second time, etc.), and 
 Sia ravra certainly does not mean ' in these occupations, 
 circumstances, etc.' Plato's stay with the younger Diony- 
 sius is looked at as one whole, though a return to Athens 
 broke it into two distinct parts. It seems to me that the 
 predicate to wc/3ri ycvo/xevos is missing, and that the words 
 were ' the earliest part of my stay in Sicily turned out for 
 all these reasons what I have described (<TOIOTOS>) or 
 useless or some such expression. 
 
 330 C Iva fjirj TO. Trdpepya ws tpya /xot vfJL/3awr) Aeyo/Ai/a. 
 Why Aeyottefa ? Clearly we should read the common 
 ^vfji^aivy yi(y)vo/oteva. or yei/o'/xeva, a phrase which occurs 
 many times in these letters, e.g. in the sentence last 
 quoted, as it does in the Laius. In 341 E Bonitz has, I 
 find, anticipated me in reading yevo^eViyv (yuroftcyrjvl) for 
 (cure dv^pcoTrois r/yov/xat rr]v eTri^etp^o-ij/ irepl avrwv 
 ayaOov) : Karsten suggests the change of yei/o- 
 in 352 A to Xcyo/AcVwi/ ; and the occasional confusion 
 of the two words is well known ; e.g. in Thuc. 8, 14, where 
 Vat. alone has yevo^uVon/ against the Acyo/xeVwi/ of other 
 MSS. Cf. p. 239 and the Index. 
 
 331 A TTCpi TtVOS TO)V ^AeyUTTODV TTCpt TOV O.VTOV fiiOV. 
 
 haps the double wepi would be less awkward if we might 
 suppose that a rwv had fallen out after the last letters of 
 
 331 B O.V fJLV fJLOL TO KdB' f)/JLfpaV f.V TLVL TpOTTO) 
 
 Unless there is any reason for thinking that eV (TIKI) T/OOTTO) 
 was used in a sense like that occasionally belonging to Kara 
 rpoTrov (rightly, regularly ; so in 330 D), an epithet to 
 T/D07TU) seems missing. The parallel expression ten lines 
 below, eai/ rtva /ca^eo-Tcora {wo-t /3iov t suggests Ka^eaTcori or 
 
 331 D fiiav 8e Trar/otSt TroXiret'a? /xera/JoX^s fj.r) 
 
264 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 may quite well be right, but perhaps (3ia...(jLTa/3o\riv is 
 worth suggesting. /j.frapoX'f) has also been proposed. 
 
 I rather suspect that before the first OTTOS in this section 
 a participle like /x^^avw/xei/ov or o-KOTrou/xevov has dropped 
 out. It would make the double oVws less disagreeable. 
 
 332 B KaroiKtVavres TroAAas TOJV EAA^vwv TroXeis VTTO 
 ftapfidpuv K/3e/3A?7/xeVas. Should it be eK/3e/3A.?7/AeVa)v 1 Men 
 can be ejected, not cities or states. 
 
 333 E fy (eTcupeiav) e.< TOV evieiv T Kai /xuciv Kai 
 7ro7rreuiv TTpay/xaTfiWrai. eviiv and /xvcu/ are transitive 
 verbs, but eTroTrreu'eiv is only known as neuter, and TO 
 
 is not in itself a basis for friendship, gwerro- 
 would make sense : or is it possible to give eTroTrrevciv 
 an active meaning parallel to that of /xueu/ ? I do not 
 think this probable. 
 
 334 A KCU TO JAW a'o-^pov Kai avocnov ovTC TTapie/xai eywye 
 OVTC Tt A.eyW ... TO 8' 'A-Byvauov Trept Xeyd/xcvov, ws aia^wr^v 
 OUTOI 7TpLr)\f/av rrf vroAet, Z^aipovfjiat' 0r;/xi yap K.T.X. OJO-TC OVK 
 d^ta) oi/i8o^s ycyoVaToi/ TT^ TroAct TW AtWa aTTOKTtivavTe. In 
 these ten lines there are, I think, three mistakes, which 
 seem to have escaped the notice of editors and critics. 
 In the first place Trapu/xai is not used in this way (Dem. 
 15. 15 is another thing), and the word is certainly a 
 mistake for vrpoo-i'e/xat So in this same letter (346 A) ovSeV 
 IJL TOV KaTct/x-eVeiv Trpoo-te/xevov. Xen. Mem. 2. 6. 18 has the 
 very words of this passage, TroAeis cu ... TO. aio-^pa rJKLo-ra 
 Trpoorie/xevcu : SO Cyr. 7. 1. 13 KO.KOV ovSev ouS' aicrxpov CKWV 
 elvcu Trpoo-rjo-o/xai. Secondly e^atpoi)/xat, very strangely used, 
 should be altered to e^apvoG/xcu, somewhat as reversely in 
 Plutarch's Lives 31 7 B dpveto-#cu is now corrected to 
 aiSeio-Oat. Finally for <xuo we should read amu>, which is 
 equivalent to the alcrxyvyv -n-cpL^av above. Cf. 339 E 
 amov yVo-^at...ovtSous. In the same way we have to 
 read amos for aios with Bentley in Ar. Ach. 633 (as 641 
 shows) and 1062 and with Blass in Andoc. 2. 12. Cf. 
 D. Chrys. 31, 12 and 34, 22. 
 
 The text of Pausanias 2. 28. 2 runs : es Se TO opos dnoi)o-i 
 
 TO Kopf^)OV 0~Tl KO.O' 686v (TTpCTTTrjS KaXoVfJLGVr)^ eAttttt? <f>VTOV, 
 
 aiTiov TOV TreptayayovTOs ry x* L P^ L 'HpaKAeovs es TOVTO TO o"^/xa. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 265 
 
 For amov (some MSS. amoi/), which is deficient in con- 
 struction and in point, should we not read aiov? As it 
 stands, amov TOV is wholly superfluous. 
 
 334 c Xc'ycDi/ should probably be 
 
 334 D Read Tritfo'/xcvos for 7ra#o'/xei/o? in both places. 
 The error is common. 
 
 335 A The sense and grammar are much obscured by the 
 usual punctuation. Put a colon or full stop after Spacrat, 
 and understand wv to refer to the u/oot Aoyot or their 
 contents. 
 
 335 D ev r/$(ri rpat^ei's re /cat, TraiSet^eis 
 Read ei/oY/cois. eV r/0eo-i is poor by itself. 
 
 335 E It may be worth considering whether instead of 
 bracketing eVi TO we should read CTTI roSe and take the 
 words that follow as explanatory. Cf. 351 A when 
 properly punctuated. With av Badham's Kocr/x^o-ai is 
 impossible. 
 
 336 B avrrj, for which Badham proposed avOis, should 
 perhaps be ravrg. Just below, where he would omit AiWa, 
 I suggest AiWos. 
 
 336 C TOV Se /Jir) Swa/xe^ov v/u.o>j/ AW/HCTT! {fiv K.T.\. We 
 must take vpuv as meaning not ' you friends of Dion ' but 
 in a wider way 'you Sicilians.' So apparently in 352 c 
 vfjLiv is used in the narrower, V/JLWV in the wider sense. 
 Otherwise we should expect here v/ 
 
 ibid. Something like <7rdvr> aWo-wcre seems wanted. 
 Cf. Travra . . . dver/aei^e below and TTO.VT ecrrat (rwrr/pta? . . . 
 juecrra in 337 D. 
 
 337 A cf>6/3w ftev 8ia TO KpeiTTOus avTwi/ eTvat SCIKVWTC? TT;V 
 /uav, aiSot 8e au 8ia TO KpeirTovs <f>a.LVcr6a.i TTf.pt T ra<s ^Sovas 
 K.T.X. To get rid of the rather questionable phrase 
 Sci/ci/vi/Tes T?)V /8tai/ and to secure parallelism with the next 
 clause, I am inclined to read not elmi SZLKVVVTCS but OVTC? 
 SeiKwVai or 8et/cvwat oWes, i.e. ' show that they are.' There 
 are several instances forthcoming of such accidental 
 
266 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 inversion. The nearest known to me is in Ar. Ach. 91, 
 where the Ravenna codex has ij/covrcs ayo/xev for ayovrcs 
 
 337 B trracrcts KOL e^Opat Kat fMi<rr) KOL d7ricrTtai...ytyveo-$ai 
 c/>iAet. The singular verb is supported by the parallel of 
 Sytnp. 188 B /cat yap Tra^vai Kat ^aA.a^at /cat pv<Tl(3ai . . . 
 ytyverat, but it is extremely unusual after even one plural 
 substantive, cnno-rax is made improbable by all the 
 other nouns being plural. Cf. p. 69. 
 
 ibid. For avrors read TOUTOUS or TOIOUTOUS. 
 
 337 C ve//,etv should be ve/x,eu/. It follows o/xotravras. 
 
 337 E Before ^v^ovXrj insert the article, which perhaps 
 fell out through the rj of rvxy. 
 
 338 A Omit e^ and make /x,eTa7rep:i//ecr$ai (so we should 
 read for /x.eraTre'/x-i^acr&xi : cf. 317 A) depend on ^ww/xoXoy^- 
 o-a/xev, which is otherwise incomplete in meaning. In the 
 second clause w/xoAoy^o-a is actually inserted. 
 
 338 D ot 8oKova-i JJLOL Atovvcrt'o) TreipacrOa.1 
 Trept TO. ToiavTa. Rather than adopt Hercher's 
 Trcpi TWV TOIOVTWV I would have recourse to the less heroic 
 measure of assuming an omission, e.g. Sia 
 Tes rt> TWV K.T.X. A simple Tt could hardly stand. Trepi 
 t T. T. is possible, though clumsy. Cf. 331 A above. 
 
 339 B rjv TrapecrKtvacriJLtvYj rr/v &PX*] V ^X ovcra 
 TT^Se TTT; cpaov(ra. Perhaps Trapea-Ktvacr/JLtvrjv or (with 
 Miiller) <j>pdova-av, or even both. 
 
 339 C oL>oei/ (rot rwv Trept Aiwva e^ct Trpay/xarcov . . . Kara 
 vow yiyvo/xevov. 
 
 <? cannot stand thus alone. We might have <v> 
 e^et, or oi>SeV <ru . . . e^et?, or other things that naturally occur 
 to one, e. g. rfti. Just before comes ra Trepi AtWa vTra 
 ytyvo/xeva oTrrjTrcp av avros 
 
 339 E If /cat 7raA.iv is right, Kat seems to emphasize 
 as it so often (e.</. 340 B) does /xaAa. But perhaps read /ca! 
 <yap> TraAti/. A few lines below, a comma should be 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 267 
 
 placed after aV0peo7rov, so as to get the three points needed 
 as a minimum in such an asyndeton : ve'ov avOponrov, 
 TrapaKovovra dio>v Adyou Trpay/AaVwv, tvfjLaQf) : unless there 
 is something wrong with the words, e.g. oVra lost. For 
 <XVTO just following should we read avrov 1 TOVTOV in 340 B 
 is however neuter. 
 
 340 A fJLO.VTtv6jJI.eVOS OV TTaVv KaA.(JOS, US OtKV. 
 
 Rather KaK<3?. The point, as ws eotKev makes clear, is that 
 his fear was well founded. 
 
 340 B SetKJ-aWt Sr/ Set ..on e<rn TTOV TO Trpayfj.a otov TC Kat 
 Si' oo~ooi/ TrajLOLTwv Kat oo~ov TTOVOV ct> 
 
 This is rather a jumble of words, Si' oo-wv 7rpay/u.aTo>v 
 especially being without construction. Perhaps something 
 like o n eo"rt Trai/ TO ?rpay/xa Kat St' ota>v Trpayyaaroov C? /JiaOr]- 
 /Aarajv) otdv re X etl/ ( or ^X tl/ a ^ T o) Trpay/Aa . . . Trpay/xctTwv is 
 'very awkward. Cf. in D oo-a /xa^^ara eo-n Kat 6 TTOVOS 
 jyXtKo?, and perhaps dSuVarov there with otov re here. 
 
 341 A ovSev en Seovrat nvwv Trpay/xarov. With nvcuv 
 an adjective (Kat^cov ? /xei^oi/wv ?) seems wanted. 
 
 ibid, rj fjitv S^ Treipa avrr; ytyrerat 17 cra<f)Y]s re Kat d 
 Read 1 
 
 341 C Insert on or ws after awrot, as in D. 
 
 i6i^. The parallel of 340 B suggests changing d?ro 
 >o)5 to VTTO. 
 
 342 A crn yap ns Adyos a\.rj6r]<; evavrto? Tt3 
 ypd^etv. Perhaps roA/x^o-ovn. It may refer to Dionysius 
 and others who had written (341 B), but with eVavnos 
 and much of the last page the future seems more suitable. 
 
 343 D dmyKdw/xev dvayKa(o/Ae$a 1 
 
 343 E The construction is (TO. /xev) TTC^VKC, TO. Se Stc^^aprat. 
 
 344 A Something like fj.a6f.lv seems lost after 7roir}o-ie. 
 Cf. idOua-iv below. 
 
 344 c Agreeing in principle with Karsten, I would write 
 
268 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 344 E Insert e* or Sia before rrjs 
 
 345 A Write 8e for re after TrXeovajas. 
 
 345 B 17 <f>av\a eu/cu ra XexfleWa. Something like oierai 
 seems to have fallen out. t/cavws olSei/ coming between 
 makes it impossible to carry on the force of otcrat above. 
 
 345 C TOV weos, OI/TOS fjiv dSeX<i8oi> avrov, Kara vo/xovs 
 Read 6Wos /x,v dSeX^iSov, avToO Se /c.T.X. 
 
 345 D T7)V 
 
 read r-rjv, as in 328 A. 
 
 346 A ouSev /AC TOV Karayuevctv 7rpocrLfj.vov opwv should have 
 TO, not roi). 
 
 346 B ws atT(3 /cai Sevpo eov a7ro8r;/>ietv. As the point is 
 not his leaving Greece, but his visiting Syracuse, 
 
 would seem more proper. [Dem.] 59. 37 has 
 . . . ets TO, Meyapa. 
 
 347 c Should a./3/cet be apeWei as in 346 cl 
 
 348 A o/x,cos 8e e^a/xcv eratpot ye elmi ?rpos Tratrav 
 Is there any meaning in ye so placed ? e<a/xeV ye 
 
 348 E There should be no stop after 
 
 350 B e8eiro Aio^vo-iov ?rept e/xo' Aeywi/ ort j3ov\oi[ji.r)v 
 aTTievai KCU A7Sax(5s aXXcos 
 
 As the subject of Troietv is evidently Dionysius, it is 
 entirely wanting in construction, if KCU is right. A verb 
 that governed it may be missing, or Trotei imperative seems 
 just possible, or eSetro Xeytov o n fiovXoifJiijv afatvai as 
 is used in 338 A and 347 A. 
 
 350 c Perhaps we should read /SovAotro for 
 and * e^ie Se ' el-jrov <ol(r9'> on /c.r.X ' 
 
 350 D ov 7rei$oyu,evot rats VTT* e/xou SiaXe^ecrt. Instead of 
 the very improbable StaXe^eo-i (with which too we should 
 expect e/xats, not VTT' c/xov) ought we not to read StaXXa^ecri, 
 * my attempts to reconcile them ' 1 Cf . Kar^XXayry two lines 
 below and Trpos aXX^Xovs Se^^eVres (/>iXias above. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 269 
 
 351 A is probably not quite sound in its text, but by 
 the most perverse punctuation the editors have made it 
 appear worse than it is. In the first sentence a colon 
 should be put after TroAew? Trjs avrov. In the second the 
 comma should follow not 71-01770-77, which leaves eratpous and 
 Tro'Aiv without construction, but TroAiv. The words TO. 
 /xeyto-ra v rats /xyi'(rrais can hardly be right as they stand : 
 TO. /xe'yioTa is too much cut off from eue/syeroJi/. Perhaps 
 TO. Se /xeyto-ra. If the long sentence beginning with eo-n 
 3e stands as it was written, it is anacoluthic, since Sia<oprj 
 and TrapaKfXcvrjTai ought to be participles. So in the words 
 ravrov St...///*) Kara $LKr)v, though the grammar is not faulty, 
 Stave/XT? ought in logic to be a participle, like the Siai/e'/xwv 
 just above it, and subordinate to rt/xarat. 
 
 351 C OVTW fJikv yap ovre AtW ovre aAAos TTOTC ouSeis CTTI 
 Svva/xtv e/cwv eio-iv aXiTypiwor) eavra) re KCU yeVet ei? TOV act 
 Xpovov, CTTI TroA-tretav 8e /cat vo/xwv KaracrKeur/v TOJV StKaiOTaToof re 
 KCU dpt'crrouj/, ov rt Si' oAiyuTTeov @ava.Twv Kal ^uycov ytyvo/xevryv. 
 
 If a word like //.eV/oios has not fallen out with ovSet's, we 
 must at any rate understand that the limiting force of 
 corns /xeVptos above in A is carried on to this sentence. 
 
 I do not see how ov rt St' oXtyto-Twv can be right. It 
 could only mean, if anything, * not by a very few deaths,' 
 i.e. by a good many, and this is the very reverse of the 
 sense wanted. The phrases oVcv o-^aywv KCU Oavarw (327 D) 
 and avev <f>vywv Kal cr<ayr}s dvSpaiv (331 D) indicate what 
 that sense is. No great change is needed to obtain it. 
 Instead of ov TL St' oAtyiVrajv read ort Si' oXiyto-rwv through 
 as few deaths and exiles as possible. Ep. 8. 352 E on 
 : Thuc. 3. 46 on ev j3pa^yTa.Tw and on CTT* 
 
 8. 353 E eai/Trep Ttuf i/coTo>v yiyvr/rai re Kai 
 So all editions I have consulted except Bekker, whose TL 
 for re is of course right. But neither he nor anyone else 
 says anything on the subject. 
 
 354 A b Se fj.oi (^afWrai . . , / 7Tipao~o/>tai Trdcry Trapp^o'ia KO.I 
 KOIVW nvt SiKcua) Xdya) xpw/xevos Sr/Aovv. Ayw yap 
 nva TpoTrov StaAcyo/xevo?, K.r.A. 
 
 Should not nva be nros and SiKaAi) probably 
 
270 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 354 D 01 yap Trpo Aiovucrioi; KCU 'iTnraplvov aparreg 
 SiKeAiaiTCti TOTC ws wovTO cvSai/xovtos ewv . . . ot KCU TOV<S 8eKo, 
 o-Tpar?7yous KareXcvo-av . . . Kara vopov ovBeva Kpiravres, IW ST) 
 SovAevoiev /x^Sevi /A^TC o~w 81/07 p^re vo/xa) 8eo~7roT^. It is 
 strange that, when common sense suggests and Paris A 
 actually gives (Bekker) dp^dvTwv for apjarres, editors have 
 all adopted the latter. It would be absurd to say that 
 01 apgavrts stoned the generals, and it is perfectly clear 
 that the whole sentence refers to the mass of the people, 
 to whom Plato is now tendering advice. With Trpo A. 
 Kai 'I. apavT(Oi> cf. II. 24. 575 juera Harpo/cXo'i/ ye Oavovra. : 
 Thuc. 6. 3. 3 fjLCTa ^vpaKovcras oiKio^eiVa? : Herod. 1. 9. 4 
 jutera 8' e/x,e ewrcA^ovra : Plat. Hep. 451 C /ACT' avSpeTov 8pa/xa 
 TravreXws 8ia7repav^ev : Laws 781 A 8ia TOVTOV /xe^ei/xei/ou : 
 Dem. 15. 22 Trpo ^Xiov SuVro?. This construction of the 
 participle, so familiar in Latin, is a good deal commoner in 
 Greek than grammars indicate. 
 
 The sense of /X^TC a-vv 81x17 /AT^TC vo//.o) 8eo~7ror^ is very 
 unsatisfactory, until we read /XTJTC <dv^pw7ru)> crvv 
 comparing 334 C /x-^ $ov\ovcr@aL 5iKeA.iav ^TT' 
 8eo-7roTais . . . dAA' VTTO vo/xois, and even then o~vv 8i'/o? seems 
 out of place. 
 
 355 A After ^>iAois I think ws has fallen out, as it easily 
 might. Four lines below lp.lv should be ^/xTv, if it is a 
 quotation of the words of TI<J. 
 
 355 c Sea/x,eWs for -01 would give us good grammar, but 
 the words may have been anacoluthic. 
 
 356 B eAecuv Se TrarpiSa /cat iepa>v aOfpairevo-iav KOL ra<^ovs. 
 
 I think ra^cov has been altered under the influence of 
 the accusative before it. 
 
 356 E oo-a <Trepl> 6a.va.Tov KOL 8eo-/xov 1 
 
 357 B ravra 8e o-xeSoV. Should not 8 be 8>j 1 cf. note on 
 327 E. Add aV to w8o/<e<V just below in c, and perhaps to 
 
 in 10. 358 c. 
 
 10. 358 C d/couto AiWos ei/ rots /xdAio-ra eraipov eivai' re ere 
 v Kai ytyovevat 8ia Travros, TO o-o/>wTarov ^os TOW 19 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 271 
 
 hardly seems the right word and TO looks 
 doubtful. I conjecture that TOS has been duplicated by 
 error and that the original was Sia Travros, 
 
 11. 358 E ota a-navra. : see on 310 E. 
 359 A Put a comma after 
 
 ibid. 
 
 359 c SiaTTpd^acrOaL should of course be &ia.Trpdfcr6ai : 
 cf. 338 A above. 
 
 13. 360 A nXaTwv Aiovucri'a) rupavva) 
 Trpa.TTf.iv. 'A.p\if) CTOL TT}? eTricrroA^s ecrra). All the editions 
 I have looked at punctuate in this curious way, but 
 it is perfectly clear that IlAaTcoi/ . . . TrparTctv is the subject of 
 apx*] eo-rco and that there must be no stop between them. 
 Compare the beginnings of letters 3 and 8. 
 
 362 C 01 TrpocrayyeAAovres e^aon-ore (rot, o TI av otWrat 
 dvaAw/xa eicrayyeAAeiv, OVK e^eXovcrt TrpoaayyeXXeiv. On 
 grounds of both sense and euphony read eiVayyeAetv for 
 
 14. The av after /xoAts seems wrong and should probably 
 be 877. i/^x^s Xafjiftdvtiv ought, one would think, to be 
 either ij/v^v Aa/z/?ai/eiv or \f/v^rj<; Aay^avetv. 
 
 II. 
 
 I DO not feel that I have much, if anything, which is 
 new to say about the authorship of the Letters. But, 
 since the question is difficult, since they are not much 
 read, and since I happen to have given some time to the 
 study and emendation of them, it may be desirable that I 
 should record my impression. The opinion which I hold 
 has not been formed without a good deal of hesitation, but 
 it is now clearly against genuineness. The difficulty may 
 be stated at once and in one sentence to be this. If we 
 went only by the purity of the Greek and by the largely 
 Platonic character of it, we should have no reason for 
 
272 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 disputing the traditional ascription ; whereas, when we 
 have regard to the contents, we are very unwilling, perhaps 
 unable, to acquiesce in it. 
 
 I will first make a few comments on the letters one by 
 one, then briefly discuss the question in general terms. 
 Many of the considerations now to be mentioned have of 
 course been put forward by others, e.g. Ast, Karsten, 
 Steinhart, Zeller, who are all against genuineness. Cobet, 
 who pronounced definitely in favour of letters 7 and 8, and 
 Blass, who appears to accept almost all of them, have not 
 argued the question. 1 I have been the more ready to 
 repeat what has been said before, because I do not know 
 where in English any statement of the case is to be found. 2 
 
 1. Plato (or Dion) to Dionysius. Most MSS. including 
 A say Plato, a few Dion. But the opening words do not 
 really suit either of them. The writer speaks of himself 
 as Siarpu/'as Trap' vfuv \povov TO&OVTOV KOL BLOLKWV rrjv 
 dp^ryv, and again as avroKparcop 7roAAa/as rrjv 
 7rdA.ii/ SiacuAaas. These expressions are evidently 
 inapplicable to Plato, nor was he sent away with the 
 contumely to which the writer goes on to refer. On the 
 other hand Siarptyas Trap' v^lv could hardly be said of Dion 
 living in his own home. The e<oStov (309 c) seems to suit 
 Dion after his dismissal best, but cf. 350 B. The whole 
 tone of the letter is of an artificial literary kind, not at all 
 like Plato. Dion, who was no doubt something of a 
 pedant (see the curiously priggish speech attributed to 
 him in the forty-seventh chapter of Plutarch's Life), might 
 have put such flowers of style into an angry letter, but 
 they more resemble the literary exercises of a later time. 
 
 1 Cobet held that no one but Plato himself could possibly have 
 written letter 7. He might have applied to it what an epigram in 
 the Anthology makes the Phaedo say, e? ^ue U\O.TUV ov ypdtye, Svw 
 tyevovro H\d.Tct)ves. 
 
 2 The chief books referred to in this article are Ast, Platons Leben 
 und Schriften and Lexicon Platoincum : Karsten, Commentatio 
 Critica: Grote, Plato: Miiller and Steinhart, Platons Sdmmtliche 
 Werke ; C. Ritter, Untersuchungen iiber Plato: Blass, Die Attische 
 JBeredsamkeit (2nd edition) 3. 2. 386 : Lutoslawski, Origin and 
 Growth of Plato's Logic See also Susemihl in Litt. Alexandr. 2. 
 579. Bentley in his Remarks, etc. (Works, III. 411) accepted the 
 letters, but the question had not then been raised. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 273 
 
 It is hard to make out who are the v^els of the letter. 
 We might suppose they would be Dionysius and his father, 
 but the words TTO.VTIS 01 o-ty/.7roAtTevo/x,ei'oi yu,e$' u/xo>v vTrdp^ovari 
 //,oi //.aprvpes seem to confine the reference to recent years. 
 In the Greek we notice that SioVi (309 D), that not because, 
 seems to be unplatonic (Ast), though it is found in 
 Isocrates. ' A7rav0pw7roTfpoi/ (ib. B) is too highly coloured 
 a word. o-wefleAw (ib. A) occurs in Antiphoii and Xenophon. 
 Hiatus is on the whole avoided in the letter, but in 310 A 
 we find (TTrava a,7roAAvyu.vor. 
 
 2. Plato to Dionysius. Beginning with a rather 
 querulous protest that he cannot control his friends, Plato 
 passes on to his own relations with Dionysius. Power and 
 wisdom (he says) have often come together thus in history 
 and men are fond of talking about such pairs as Hiero and 
 Simonides (cf. Xenophon's Hiero), Pericles and Anax- 
 agoras (cf. Phaedrus 270 A). This may pass for Plato's, 
 though in the Republic he rather dreams of the possibility 
 of power and wisdom being united in the same person 
 (502 A), and this passage seems founded on that with some 
 amount of difference or confusion. But could Plato have 
 gone on in this context to couple Creon and Tiresias : 
 Polyidus and Minos : Agamemnon and Nestor : Odysseus 
 and Palamedes : finally Zeus and Prometheus ] Then a 
 new argument for immortality is found in the fact that the 
 best men think a good deal of what future ages will say 
 about them. It behoves them therefore to be very 
 careful what they do, and Dionysius must honour 
 philosophy signally in the person of Plato, who here 
 displays a very petty and unplatonic desire for external 
 distinction. He declares indeed that it was his anxiety to 
 see philosophy properly esteemed that brought him to 
 Sicily, but there is at least as much personal vanity in the 
 matter as solicitude for philosophy, while the real Plato 
 never (we may be sure) thought that either philosophy or 
 he himself needed the recognition of a Dionysius.' The 
 epistolary Plato is most anxious for honour. He will 
 reciprocate it, but Dionysius must begin. 
 
 The tyrant had asked for further information about 
 f) rov TrpwTou <vVt5, on which he had not been sufficiently 
 informed (ov^ t/cavws aTroScSetx&u). Instead of the plain 
 
274 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 exposition that his perplexity (aTropov'^vos) required, Plato 
 answers Si' aivty/xwv (31 2 D) and treats him to a little 
 philosophical puzzle, which we should be sorry to think 
 Platonic and which would certainly convey no sort of 
 instruction to Dionysius. He then proceeds in a vein 
 of pomposity and mystery, concluding with the well-known 
 Sta TO.VT' ovotv TTWTTOT' cyw Trcpt TOVTCOI/ yeypa<a, ovS' Icrrt 
 trvyypa/x/xa ITXarcovos ouS' e<rrat' TO. Se vw Aeyo/xeva SwKpaVovs 
 cart KaAov /cat veov ycyovoros (314 C : cf. 7. 341 C and 
 Phaedr. 257 D). I cannot think that Blass explains this 
 adequately when he refers it to the Ne'os SwKpar^s of 
 Sophist and Politicus. Why should TO. v\iv Xeyo/^eva mean 
 only those two dialogues ? and why should they be 
 mentioned more than others 1 See p. 257 above. Here the 
 writer stops, but another disconnected paragraph has by 
 some accident been added. It does not appear to be a 
 postscript. 
 
 In this letter, tyranno digna, indignissima philosopho, 
 as Lobeck justly calls it (Aglaoph. p. 162), the Greek 
 contains nothing, as far as I see, that Plato might not 
 have written. 31 IE KO.L rot Trcpl TOVTOV ^/xets 7rtAuAovp.vot 
 ouSei/ av eva-/3f(rTpov TrparroL^v is a little curious. We 
 should rather expect ou8ei/ av cvo-efteo-Tfpov TrparToi/xei/ TOV 
 eTri/AeAeicr^ai, or cTri/^eAov/xtvoi evcre/Sta-Tar' av 7rpaTTOi/u,v, but 
 it is only a slight confusion of expression. Cf. Symp. 
 178 E (omitting 77) and Ar. Plut. 505-6. eTrijaeAeurflai 
 TTcpi TWOS is itself unusual, but cf. Laws 932 B, etc. 0eA.<o 
 (312 A) wish occurs a few times in Plato. c/xTropeucra/xei/os 
 (313 D) for e/ATTopev^ei? is a suspicious form : see Yeitch s.v. 
 TTopfvo). Exception need not be taken to tKTrta-clv (314 A) 
 transpire, leak out. For the impersonal construction <us 
 Set yiyvo-0at (311 E) cf. below on 7. 325 E. In this letter 
 no particular care seems taken to avoid hiatus. 
 
 3. Plato to Dionysius. This is a curiously self-contra- 
 dictory composition. No doubt Plato might contradict 
 himself like other people, if he had a bad case : but would 
 he have done it so very palpably ^ Dionysius (he says) 
 has alleged that Plato, after preventing him from settling 
 new Greek cities in Sicily and from converting his tyranny 
 into a kingdom, is now instigating Dion to do these very 
 things. In answer Plato declares first that he never took 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 275 
 
 part at all in Dionysius' political affairs, except to the 
 extent of writing preambles to some of his laws (here Blass 
 finds the germs of the work known as Laius), and in self- 
 defence he narrates the incidents of his intercourse with 
 Dionysius down to the time of the expulsion of Heraclides. 
 This is a brief version of what is set forth at length in 
 letter 7. So far so good. But secondly he proceeds to 
 tell a rather pointless story of an old conversation between 
 Dionysius and himself, which is quite inconsistent with 
 the first part of his answer. Dionysius had asked him 
 whether he remembered that on first coming to Sicily 
 he had urged Dionysius to found or refound these Greek 
 cities, and Plato had replied in the affirmative. It is a 
 calumny to say (/xrj /ze Sia/foAAe Ae'ywv 319 c) that he had 
 prevented it. The truth was eyu> /xev eWAevov, trv 8' OVK 
 rj0eA.es irpa.TTtiv avra. It appears therefore that Plato had 
 taken part in Dionysius' affairs and had not confined 
 himself to the writing of philosophical preambles. But 
 this is not all. Plato had also told Dionysius and he 
 claims to have reminded him of it in this same conver- 
 sation, witnesses of which can be brought - that he must 
 not try to carry out these schemes till he had been 
 educated (7raiSev$VTa...7roieu/ iravra, racvra rj fMrj TTOLCLV 319 C : 
 cf. Alcib. 1. 123 D, 124c). Therefore, as far as his advice 
 went, he had prevented Dionysius from taking the steps in 
 question. This is an obvious and double contradiction. 
 Are we to put down such a shuffling and halting plea to 
 Plato 1 It is as poor intellectually as it is morally. 
 
 But in this letter again the Greek hardly offers anything 
 to strike us. ex run/ AOITTWV (316 D) though unusual is used 
 in Laws 709 E. <bs r; e/xr) So'a /xavreuerai (31 7 E) is a little odd, 
 likeTr)ve^r)v3d^av...eTxe^osin7. 328 B. Cf. Eur. 2V. 788 : 
 Hor. Sat. 1. 2. 32. In 318 D 7reicr$ei's.. TOJ/ /uef Tra.Xa.Lov 
 ff>i\ov . . . fj.r]&fv crov x et/ P w > * va - OUTU>S ITTW. . , TrpoSowcu Steinhart 
 says the use of Iva OUTCOS etTrw for ws eVos eiTreu' is not 
 classical. But it is not the equivalent of u>? ITTOS cnrcty. 
 That would mean that one man was roughly or almost as 
 good as the other ; this means that he is at least as good, 
 to say nothing more. X.vKo<f>i\ia (318 E : cf. Phaedrus 
 241 c D w9 X.VKOL apv dyaTTwo-') is perhaps not found again 
 before M. Aurelius. If that were the case with many 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 words in the letter, it would be serious, but in the case 
 of just one word or two it is nothing. Consider the words 
 to be found in most books of Thucydides. /ac^r/vi/xeVw? 
 (31 9 B) is perhaps a aTrag etp^/xeVov, but there are plenty 
 of parallel adverbs. 7rAacrr(3s ibid., if I am right in reading 
 it, occurs in Sophist and Laws. The phrase 319s Sio TO 
 TOTC croi vftpicr^a vvv virap avr ovetparos yeyovev is strange, 
 but the fault is not in the Greek : cf. Politicus 278 E 
 (Ast) and p. 259 above, eppw (TroAeis eppovo-as ib. c) is rare 
 in prose. Cf. 8. 355 D. w rav ib. D is found in Apol. 25 c. 
 The writer avoids hiatus. 
 
 4. Plato to Dion, presumably at the time of Dion's 
 expedition, but it is not plain whether Dionysius is already 
 overthrown. The letter contains nothing noticeable either 
 way. Steinhart says that 6pw TOVS dyconrrTas VTTO TWJ/ TratSwv 
 Trapo^vvo/Atvovs, JJLY)TI 8rj VTTO ye rcoi/ <i/V(ov (321 A) is 
 unclassical, because no negative precedes /XTJTI. What 
 then of Dem. 8. 27 u>s /cat, rov /xeAA^o-ai Stocroi/Ti SIK^V, /A??TI 
 7roir)(ravTL y' T) KaraTrpa^a/xeva) 1 The accusative of space 
 traversed (320 D TrXavrjOfjvaL TroAw TOTTOV) is not common in 
 prose: see my Xenophon and Others, p. 113. Euripides 
 Helen 598 has 7r\avr)6ci<;...x06va, and Plut. Mor. 592 c the 
 same phrase as here. (Plutarch refers to the letters several 
 times.) I do not know that Plato has anything like it. 
 Hiatus occurs occasionally. 
 
 5. Plato to Perdiccas, recommending to him Euphraeus 
 (cf. Dem. 9. 59, etc.), who will be useful because he knows 
 the voices or utterances (c^wvcu) belonging to each form 
 of government, and therefore that of monarchy. If any 
 one says ' Plato professes to understand democracy, but 
 gave his own demos no counsel,' Perdiccas may answer 
 'that was because the demos of Athens was incurable. 
 Under like circumstances he would treat me in the like 
 way.' This seems very pointless, especially as it is 
 Euphraeus, not Plato, who is to help. The <f>wvai may 
 be compared with Rep. 493 A B, where the word is much 
 more natural. I notice nothing in the Greek. Hiatus is 
 mostly avoided. 
 
 6. Plato to three friends, urging them to .help and trust 
 one another and, if they have any dissensions, to refer to 
 him. The ending is mystical, rov rwv TTCII/TCOV &eov 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 277 
 
 TWl/ T OVTtDV KCU TO>V /XcAAoVTWV TOV TC ^ye/MOVO? KCU CtmOV 
 
 Trarepa. Kvpiov eTTO/xvuvras, 6v, av OVTWS <iA.oo-o<a>/xo', eto-o/xe^a 
 TravTcs (ra<ws eis SuVa/uv dv$paj7rwv v8at/xovwi/. Hiatus 
 seems avoided. 
 
 7. Plato to the friends and comrades of Dion. This, 
 much the most important and best known of the letters, 
 is of great length (about equal to the First Book of the 
 Republic], and carefully composed, but not always clear 
 in its drift, and very ill arranged. It starts with a 
 narrative, suddenly breaks off to give advice which is 
 itself interspersed with narrative in a rambling way, and 
 reverts to narrative again. The advice actually given 
 is of the most trifling amount, but it is true that the 
 letter does not exactly, like 8, profess to be one of advice. 
 Indeed it would be difficult to say what it was meant to 
 be. What it is is a vain, egotistic, ineffective bit of 
 autobiography, which, if genuine, would do little credit 
 to the character or practical sense of the philosopher. 
 We are however hardly entitled to make this an argument 
 against Platonic authorship, though we should be sorry to 
 see Plato making no better figure. His character may 
 have been much below his writings, like Pope's. Cf. 
 Athenaeus pp. 505-507, and on the other side Philostratus 
 Ep. 73. The literary defects and the total absence of 
 anything really good or striking are safer grounds to argue 
 from. 
 
 But here again we are met by the recollection tha 
 Plato's later work, notably the Laivs, is far inferior in 
 skill and force to that of his earlier years, and by the fact 
 that there really are considerable resemblances between 
 his later style and that of this prolix letter. They may be 
 traced in details of construction and vocabulary as well as 
 in the general effect. They are however equally compatible 
 with identity of authorship and with deliberate or even 
 unconscious imitation. 
 
 The digression at 334 E on the subject of immortality is 
 quite uncalled for and the passage is very clumsily worded 
 in comparison with the fine raptures of the dialogues. 
 But the great, the perhaps insuperable difficulty is the 
 extraordinary rigmarole about eTrio-TTJyur; in pp. 342, 343. 
 One cannot believe it possible for Plato to have written 
 
278 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 anything so ridiculous. However little many of the 
 arguments in his dialogues will bear examination, and 
 however fanciful we may pronounce many of his ideas to 
 be, they are never without the stamp of genius. But this 
 is as worthless as anything that anyone who could write 
 Greek ever put together, mere pretentious nonsense. The 
 author has been dwelling on the difficulty of understanding 
 such deep subjects, and on the absurdity of anyone writing 
 about them who knows so little as Dionysius. He then 
 straightway plunges into such skimble-skamble stuff as 
 Dionysius himself might have been ashamed to compose. 
 Well may C. Ritter, who believes in the rest of the letter, 
 try to excise this part of it on an improbable hypothesis 
 of subsequent interpolation. 
 
 In 324 c we have to note the extraordinary confusion 
 by which the Athenian board known as ' the Eleven ' are 
 assimilated to the board of ten men set up in Piraeus at 
 the time of the Thirty ('A0. HoX. 35. 1 : Plut. Lysand. 15), 
 and by which still further both boards are made to 
 discharge the functions of agoranomi and astynomi. 1 An 
 Athenian and one who had himself gone through the evil 
 days in question could hardly have written in such terms. 
 The odd description of Socrates' accusers as Swaareuovres 
 rives (325 B) has been remarked ; compare the statement 
 ascribed in Diog. L. 2. 106 to Hermodorus, that after the 
 death of Socrates Plato and the rest betook themselves 
 to Dionysius, fearing rrjv to/AOTTyra rail/ Tvpdvvwv. In 328 A 
 the younger brothers of Dionysius, who were children at 
 
 1 We are reminded of the verse of Alexis : epyov rvpdvvuv, OVK 
 ayopav6/j.a}v \4yeis. The words of the letter are virb TTO\\WV y&p TTJS 
 r6re iro\ireias A.OiSopou^eVrjs juerajSoA^ yiyverai teal rrjs ,uTa#oAf}s els 
 noil irevT-fiKOVTa rives &v8pes TTpovffTf](Tav &pxovrfs, eV8e/ca fj.ev ev #<TTet, 
 SeVa 8' fv Tlfipaie?, irfpi T' ayopoLV eKarepoi TOVTWV offa T' eV ro7s &(TT(ri 
 8jot/ciV eSct, TpiaKOvra 5e TT&VTWV &pxovrfs KOTe'crrTjirai' avroKparopes. 
 It should be noticed that (1) though we are familiar with 'the 
 Thirty,' no other writer speaks of Fifty-One : (2) the functions of 
 agoranomi and astynomi seem here regarded as not supplementary 
 to the other business of the two boards, but as constituting their 
 main employment : (3) although the city and Piraeus are first 
 distinguished, the writer then goes on to speak of them together as 
 ' the cities,' a description which is probably unique. The plural of 
 &<rrv is by no means common, but it occurs several times in the 
 Laws. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 279 
 
 the time, are apparently said to have been able to en- 
 courage him in philosophical pursuits. The curious lan- 
 guage about Darius and Persia (332 A B), when compared 
 with Laws 693-697, is significant too (Karsten), strongly 
 suggesting someone who had read the passage in the Laws 
 but had either misunderstood or forgotten its drift, for 
 Plato takes the contrary view to that in the letter. In 
 trifling things what could be more inept than the phrase 
 (344 A) * Lynceus himself could not make such men see,' 
 as though the possession and the communication of sharp 
 sight went together. Horcpov SI&O.KTOV rj oi/as ; 
 
 But the Greek is extremely good to be a later imitation 
 of Plato's style. When we have made allowance for some 
 corruptions of the text, taken into account Plato's time 
 of life, and realized that it is with the Philebus and the 
 Laws, not with the Republic and the Theaetetus, that the 
 letter must in fairness be compared, we shall probably find 
 nothing in the style properly so called or in the grammar 
 and vocabulary that is at all inconsistent with genuineness. 
 If Cobet was able to say (Variae Lectiones, 2nd edn. 
 1873, p. 235) that no one but Plato could have written it 
 in which I suppose he was thinking only of the Greek 
 and surely thinking too well even of that we shall need 
 some very searching investigations before we dismiss the 
 language as unplatonic. Such investigations are still 
 mainly in the future, for the observations of C. Ritter in 
 his U nter suchung en, p. 105, are confined to about a dozen 
 small things, though as far as they go they are quite 
 consistent with genuineness. In the various observations 
 carefully collected and instructively put together by 
 Lutoslawski in the first part of his valuable book on 
 the logic of Plato the letters do not (I think) appear at all. 
 Pending any fresh light that may be obtained from these 
 minute but most important inquiries, I am not aware of 
 anything really suspicious in the language of the seventh 
 letter, and in a composition of such length this is of course 
 on the hypothesis of spuriousness very remarkable. Over 
 and over again a reader may be struck by some little point 
 of language which he will think unusual. Looking it up, 
 he will find that it is indeed unusual, but that the later 
 dialogues of Plato, especially the Laws, do offer parallels 
 
280 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 for it. Probably we might make out a long list of such 
 coincidences, and also my impression, whatever it may be 
 worth, quite confirms Hitter's remark, * ilberhaupt klingt 
 die ganze S^)Tache des Briefes nicht anders als die 
 der Leges' 
 
 I will run very rapidly through the letter, noticing 
 expressions that seem remarkable in any way and adding 
 a comment here and there. It should be understood that 
 many of them have been noticed previously by other 
 scholars. But Karsten's objections are not always well 
 founded, e.g. his objection to avao-o/Srjo-oL (348 A), in which 
 avd has the quite legitimate sense of back. I shorten the 
 references, e.g. from 324 A to 24A. 
 
 24 A TIJV yXiKLav y]v . . . ye'yove is an unusual phrase. Cf . 
 Pausan. 10. 28. 3 yXiKiav e<^}/?ov yeyovws and Philostr. 
 Heroic. 291. B. t TIS $ewv KOL rovrov ets TTJV avrrjv 
 
 ooav Trepi, TToAtTeias e/ceiVo) yi'r0eu crv^pova iroo/treie '. eis 
 Sdav is harsh. For OVK OLTTOL^LOV cf. Laivs 645 C. ravvv or TO. 
 vw, which occurs repeatedly, is one of the marks of Plato's 
 later style. Ibid, et Oarrov ejnenrrov yevot/xryv Kvpios. See 
 
 Liddell and Scott for eVeiS?} etc. with Oarrov in the sense of 
 as soon as (Protag. 325 c) : eav Oarrov in the same sense 
 occurs Alcib. 1. 105 A and more than once in Xenophon : 
 ws Barrov often in Polybius : I do not know another 
 example of ei Oarrov. 24 E 5o>KpaT7; ov eyo> o-^eSov OVK av 
 
 ai(Txvvoi/Jir)v enr<W StKatdraTOi/ Ti/at TO>V TOTC. For at(r^vvot/xr;v 
 eiTTwv which seems practically = oKv^trai/xi eiTreti/ cf . Phaedr. 
 245 E \j/v^rj<s ova-Lav re KCU \6yov TOVTOV avrov rt? Aeya>v OVK 
 and Lycurg. in LeOGT. 50 OVK av cd<r\vv6tir]v 
 o~T(f>avov rfjs Trarpi'Sos cti/ai ra? KtVo>v i^v^as. 3. 317 B 
 has aio-^wo/xai eiTreTv in the same sense. 25 E Trfj TTOT* 
 
 ayaetvov ai/ yiyvoiro Trept T avra ravra KOL K.r.X. This imper- 
 sonal use of ytyj/erai occurs again 30 A and 31 A, also 2. 11 E 
 and (3\TLov av ICT-^C 3. 17 E. It is found in Herodotus 
 (1. 8 xp-}i/ Kai/Sav'Afl yeveo-^ai /ca/cais), but is certainly not 
 common in Attic (Dem. 19. 285) : does it occur in Plato 1 ? 
 26 D oiKaiov feminine. This use is quoted only from 
 Euripides. Plato however has similar feminines, t'Sios, 
 paStos, etc. E oi/c /*r)v Tore /x^avoo/xevu) nvl rav KpeiTTOvwv 
 
 apxty /3a\to-&aL K.r.X. Like ytyverat above, eoiKC is imper- 
 sonal, 'it looks like some god planning etc.' 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 281 
 
 27 B TTcpt TrXetovos 7roieur#cu, occasionally ^yeto-tfai, is 
 familiar : but does irtpl TrAetWos ayarrav or any such verb 
 occur elsewhere 1 c The author is very fond of the 
 
 somewhat pleonastic u/x/?aiVeiv yiyvo/xevov, gvpflrivai ycvo/xevov, 
 etc., here found. Ast's Lexicon, 3, p. 298 furnishes several 
 parallels from the later dialogues. D epyao/xai with 
 
 infinitive quite unusual. 28 B TT/V 8' e/xr)v Soav . . . el^e 
 <d/3os. So'av put for himself or his mind, as in 3. 317 E, 
 is odd. Cf. Hor. Sat. 1. 2. 32 inquit sententia dia 
 Catonis. In the same section the words TO Se AtWo? 
 i//v^9 Trepi ^ucret T' e/A/2pi#es ov r)\iKLas r yS-rj 
 carr y the use of TO with a genitive (Ast 2, 
 p. 407) rather far : TO TOV AtWos is Dion. There is some 
 MS. authority for rjOos inserted after AiWos, but with this 
 r/Ai/aas would not harmonize. E (m/xtos <epeo-0ai is 
 
 Herodotean, and TO o-ov /xepo?, not KaTa TO o-ov /xepo?, the 
 common expression. 30 B TrapaTroSt^w is a rare word, 
 
 but it occurs Laws 652 B. E rots l^co TO vrapotTrav 
 
 ^atVouo-i TT)S op^s TroXtTctas. Ast gives several instances of 
 *TOS /?aiVetv with gen. from Laws and one from Protagoras. 
 31 B d<oo-taxraju.vo5 Laws 752 D. 32 C TTCVI;? 
 
 with gen. unusual (Eur. El. 38). 33 A For ITOL^OV and 
 
 infinitive cf. Rep. 567 A. 35 B dvoo-iovpyia, and the 
 
 adj. 8. 52 c : the vb. Laws 905 B. w? OUTCU oddly used : 
 cf. 3. 319 B 35 c VOO-TCLV apparently not found in 
 
 Plato. 36 B aAiTT/pios of a supernatural power : Anti- 
 
 phon several times. ibid. dtfeoTr?? : Polit. 308 E : Laws 
 
 967 C. C opvi0$ omens. 38 A etc. Ka&rrrep = wo-7rep, 
 
 often in Plato's later work. So 5. 22 B : 8. 57 A etc. 
 D TrapaKova-fjia (to which L. and S. are wrong in giving the 
 notion of falsity) : so 40 B : Trapa/co^ 41 B : TrapaKovw 39 E. 
 Not in Plato in this sense. ibid. e/x/xeo-Tos elsewhere ? 
 
 E <f>t\oTLiJir)6f)von /XT) K.T.A.. : construction with final 
 conjunction unusual. 39 C avtv /ccupov. 40 C TroSr?- 
 
 yetv : Laws 899 A. D OI/TCOS, one of Plato's later words, 
 
 frequent here. 41 A o>s ( = wo-Te) with infinitive 
 
 unusual in any Attic prose but Xenophon's : cf. however 
 Prot. 330 E, Hep. 365 D, and a few other places in Plato. I 
 do not know whether /SaAAai/ Ttva ev am a occurs elsewhere 
 in prose. Cf. Soph. O.T. 656. B aAAovs /txeV Tims olSa 
 
 Trept TCUV avroiv TOUTWV, on"ivs Se ouo' avTot 
 
282 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 I presume avroi avrovs means one another, but even so there 
 seems not much point. 43 A /cu/cAos e/caoros TWI/ eV rats 
 
 7rpaecri ypa<o//.eVa>v 17 Kat TOpvtvOevruiv. For this use of eV 
 rats 7rpdeo-t, which contrasts them with purely ideal circles, 
 cf. Phaedr. 271 D: Soph. 234 E. 44 A gen. with 
 
 Trpoo-<t>ets, but perhaps due rather to ^vyyevetg. 44 c 
 
 TroXXoi; Set /uuj. . ./cara/JaXr; or-et, a very unusual construction, 
 but cf. GoTQ. 51 7 A TroXXou ye Set . . . /JLTJ TTOTE rts . . . enydur/rnu : 
 2iep. 378 C TroXXoi) Set ytyavTOyna^tas re /JLvOoXoyyTcov CLVTOIS Kat 
 TroiKiXre'ov : Dem. 23. 34 6 Se . . . TroXXoi) ye Set Stwpto-ev. 
 45 E o rt ra^os. Ast gives no other example from Plato, nor 
 does it seem to occur in Xenophon. But Herodotus has 
 it at least once. 46 A dTroo-roXa TrXota. 47 B TO. vvv 
 
 V7ro0atvovra : SO Soph. 245 E. E ^e/Joy/^/Aevov eyeyovet 
 
 (impersonal) is an awkward periphrasis. Cf. Laws 857 c 
 ye'yovev 6pOw<s SiaTreTrov^/xeVa, and see Ast 1. 395. 48 A 
 
 oXiyo/jtio-^ore'povs Troteiv Trapa TO. TOV Trarpos eOrj. Ast gives 
 no Platonic example of this use of Trapa with comparatives, 
 but it is added to a superlative in Clit. 407 A. B ov 
 
 used of time must be very rare. It occurs several times 
 in Thucydides. D AtovuVtov 8' <xo Kat Se'ojuai. . .//^Sev 
 
 aXXo aurw <^>Xavpo^ ytyveo-$ai. The accusative of the person 
 (Aiovvo-iov) and then the /u/^Sei/ yfyyccr&u make a quite 
 unusual construction with d^tw and olcyuu. E T^ jaera. 
 
 rauT^v rr/v ^/xe'pav, expression unusual, but cf. -4pO/. 37 D 
 aXX^v e^ aXX-^s TroXeoos d/x,et/8o/xeVcu : Laws 785 B etKOo-i fJ>*XP L 
 TWV e^KOvra erwv : Soph. O.T. 75 aTreo-rt TrXetco roG KaOrj- 
 KOVTOS XP^OV: Eur. IZVp^?. 19? 2Vo. 679. 49 c 
 
 = Kw^yereTv, and eVtKpaTeia, a Xenophontean word. 
 50 A vTnypeo-tat LaiVS 956 E. C ^evaTrarta else- 
 
 where ? 51 D e^ato-tos in Laws, Timaeus, Critias. 
 
 Throughout the letter hiatus is infrequent. 
 
 8. Plato to the same : a letter definitely and entirely of 
 advice. There has been constant strife of parties and 
 Sicily is in danger of becoming Phoenician or Oscan. 
 Plato's advice is (1) to the royal family, to turn tyranny 
 into constitutional monarchy (cf. letter 3)^ following Lycur- 
 gus in restricting royal power : (2) to the people, not to 
 push liberty too far. Dion's advice would have been and 
 Plato conveys it in an imaginary speech first to pass good 
 laws, then to compromise things and accept as kings, 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 283 
 
 subject to various laws and special conditions, (a) Dion's 
 son Hipparinus, (b) the other Hipparinus, son of the elder 
 Dionysius, (c) the younger Dionysius. (Thus there would 
 be three kings, as Sparta had two.) 
 
 Letters 7 and 8 have almost the air of being two prize 
 exercises on the same theme, Plato to the friends of Dion. 
 Letter 8 is much the shorter, simpler, and more straight- 
 forward ; 7 longer, more literary, and more ambitious. 
 Cobet thought oddly that they were two parts of one letter : 
 but each is complete in itself, and 8 could not possibly be 
 tacked on to 7, as he seems to have wished, without some 
 change in both. Letter 8 is all advice ; the advice of 7 is 
 awkwardly packed into the middle. As a matter of fact, 
 the assumption or t>7ro'0eo-is of the two is slightly different, 
 for 7 seems to presuppose a more decided advantage gained 
 by Dion's friends, i.e. a later date (Karsten, p. 104). The 
 idea of letting Dionysius remain in power, checked by two 
 other kings and various laws, is singularly unpractical, but 
 perhaps we have no right to call it unplatonic. A serious 
 difficulty is the fact which seems almost, if not quite, proved, 
 that Dion had only one son, who died before him. Plato 
 could not therefore have now suggested raising this son to 
 one of the three thrones. See Karsten p. 152, and on the 
 other side a note in answer to Ast in the eighty-first 
 chapter of Grote's History. If this is so, it is one of the 
 things most damaging to the letters, though it is not 
 immediately fatal to any but 8. Very unlikely, too, is the 
 statement (353 B) that the elder Dionysius and Hipparinus, 
 when first raised to power, were expressly styled av 
 
 rvpavvoL. 
 
 The Greek of the letter is good enough. 352 D the 
 pleonastic Sen/ is quite Platonic. /^reVcira in 353 c (which 
 according to L. and S. occurs in Attic only here and Ar. 
 Eth. 10. 4. 1175 a 9) and ev8at/xoi/to-/xa (354 c, and Appian) 
 may be noted : also pvOoXoytiv (352 E) in the sense of 
 narrating facts, not fables, 0eo-/x,o9 = vo/xos 355 c, dp/xoTret 
 with accusative and infinitive 356 D (see Stallbaum on 
 Minos 314 E). riveiv SiW (353 c) is Platonic : cf. Laws 
 especially. With rov tpyov (354 D) cf. Timaeus 63 B. In 
 357 A eTTt vw yiyveo-$at appears = Kara vovv yiyvtcrOai and is 
 unusual. But o Se /AOI <aiVerai Try ravvv (354 A), where 
 
284 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 ai apparently as in later Greek = So/cet as an expression 
 of opinion on a practical question, is certainly noticeable. 
 Hiatus is, I think, less rare than in 7. 
 
 Of the remaining 5 letters the 13th, written to Dionysius 
 in a quite friendly tone, is of some length : 9, 10, and 12 
 are very short, 11 of some thirty lines. They do not 
 call for special notice. Neither in language nor in contents 
 is there anything remarkable, except one passage in 11. 
 358 D E. There it is stated that at a date when Socrates 
 is still alive Plato is prevented by age from travelling (ouSe 
 T(3 (rw/xart Sia TT]V ^AiKiav tKavws e^co TrXai a<r#cu), which 
 betrays gross ignorance on the part of the writer. Per- 
 haps ei/i/u epivves (9. 357 A), ^/Jcurcis chances (11. 359 B), 
 ra e/xa avayKala (13. 361 E), iroXidvo^lv (13. 363 c) are just 
 worth noting. 
 
 The oldest indubitable evidence of ancient opinion about 
 the letters is the fact that Cicero quotes or refers to three 
 (5, 7, 9) out of the thirteen as Plato's and that he gives no 
 hint of their authenticity being called in question. Diony- 
 sius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 23. 1027 also mentions 
 ' the letters, ' hinting that they are rather of the nature of 
 Srj/jLrjyopLat, which might very well be said of 7 and 8. But 
 it is probable that we may go back to a much earlier and 
 no doubt better critic than either, namely Aristophanes of 
 Byzantium. Diogenes Laertius writes in 3. 61 li/tot Be, &v 
 fcm KOL 'ApL(TTO(f>dvr)<s 6 ypa/x/xari/co's, ets rpi/Voyias \KOV<TL TOV<S 
 SiaAoyovs. /cat TrpwTTp //,!> TiOcacrw, rjs ^yetrai IIoAiTeta, TI/ACUO?, 
 Sevrepav So^io-nys, HoA-m/cos, Kparu/Vos' Tpiryv No/xoi, 
 'ETTivo/xiV rerapr^v catr^ro?, Eij$v(pajv, 'ATroAoyta' 
 KptVwv, $atSa>v, 'ETrio-roXai'' TO. S' aAAa Ka$' ev Kat 
 (He does not specify how many letters.) This 
 ought to mean that Aristophanes concurred not only in the 
 trilogy arrangement of the dialogues, but in making one 
 trilogy consist of the somewhat ill assorted Crito, Phaedo, 
 Letters. Perhaps he thought that, as three tragedies with 
 no internal bond of union were sometimes thrown together, 
 so might three Platonic works be, though it was going 
 rather far to regard the letters as one work. In any 
 case they received similar treatment from Thrasylus (or 
 Thrasyllus) in the time of Tiberius this is the only other 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 285 
 
 recognition of them that it is worth while to quote who 
 gave them a place as one work in his division of Platonic 
 writings into tetralogies. This is explicitly stated by 
 Diogenes ib. 60, 61, who gives the number of letters 
 recognized by Thrasylus as what we have, thirteen. But 
 with regard to Aristophanes it is possible Diogenes did not 
 mean to say, or was mistaken in saying, that the letters 
 came into his scheme. If any of Plato's works were left 
 out of it, as if we have a full statement the majority were, 
 we should certainly have expected the letters to be so, 
 especially if no better company could be found for them 
 than Crito and Phaedo. But the other trilogies are not 
 always happy either, e.g. the fourth. We had better there- 
 fore assume Diogenes to mean that Aristophanes recognized 
 the (thirteen ?) letters, and it is likely enough that he even 
 regarded him as the real author of the classification. This, 
 if a fact, takes us back to about 220 B.C., which is still 
 considerably more than 100 years after Plato's death and 
 leaves plenty of time for mistakes. 
 
 There seems to be no evidence of any doubt felt in 
 ancient times, unless it be a i/otfeu'erai said 1 to be written 
 in some MSS. against letter 13 and an avTiXeycrat ws ov 
 nXarovo? sometimes attached to 12 (thought by Ast to be 
 meant for 13). If we find Aelius Aristides referring to 
 the letter of Plato, meaning the 7th, we are not to infer 
 that he rejected the others. The 7th is preeminently the 
 letter. 
 
 No account is here taken of the letters sometimes printed 
 as 14, 15, 16, which come from the ' Socratic,' not the 
 ordinary ' Platonic ' collection, and which no one supposes 
 to be genuine. But they are not altogether without 
 significance as a parallel. 
 
 Grote has argued in his solid and forcible way in favour 
 of the Thrasylean canon. He contends that it was founded 
 on that of Aristophanes, which in turn rested upon trust- 
 worthy information obtained from the Platonic school at 
 Athens, where not only the tradition but the actual MSS. 
 of the master would remain. Each of these propositions is 
 open to some doubt, and no one of them, I think, can be 
 
 1 By Karsten. I do not find it explicitly stated in critical 
 editions. 
 
286 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 called more than a presumption. Aristophanes and Thrasy- 
 lus are divided by a couple of hundred years. We know 
 very little as to the working either of the Platonic school 
 or of the Alexandrian library. The guarantee too is worth 
 less for the letters than for the dialogues. The latter were 
 published works of a quite different character, being those 
 on which Plato's fame as a writer rested. About these 
 the school and the library would no doubt be well informed : 
 not necessarily quite secure against error, if fresh writings 
 were produced as Platonic, but still in possession of the 
 best available means of knowing and judging. As to the 
 letters, or most of them, the case was different. They were 
 private communications, of which no copy need have been 
 kept, so that there was no reason why the school should 
 have them. In our own day a man's family and friends, 
 may have his MSS. and are likely to know a great deal 
 about his published works, but they are not equally good 
 authorities as to his correspondence. If some one produces, 
 an alleged letter from him, they, certainly in a generation 
 or two, know little or nothing more than anyone else. 
 This, I admit, will not quite apply to so considerable and 
 semi-public a letter as 7 and perhaps 8 in the Platonic 
 collection, but it applies to all the others. 
 
 The letters, if spurious, may have originated either in 
 the Platonic school or outside it. (I speak of most of them 
 and the most important : obviously they may not all be of 
 the same age and source.) There is no need for them to 
 have been deliberate forgeries. It was half suggested above 
 that 7 and 8 are specimens of a sort of prize exercise on a 
 given theme. Members of the school or other students of 
 Plato, interested in his relations with Dionysius and the 
 party of Dion, set themselves to the task of composing 
 letters which should at once explain his ideas, as they 
 understood them, and demonstrate their own command of 
 Platonic Greek. They are just such compositions as 
 university prizes call forth, a*id, like them, not free from 
 mistakes. We need not even exclude the possibility that 
 they contain things suggested by unpublished memoranda 
 of Plato himself or by hearsay of what he had actually 
 written to this or that person, just as they contain things 
 undoubtedly connected with passages in his published 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 287 
 
 writings. In such a case we might perhaps compare them 
 to some extent with the Fourth Philippic. The authors 
 perhaps never meant to impose upon anyone and might be 
 both amused and annoyed, if we could tell them of the 
 unexpected success of their literary exercises. 
 
 The letters may on the other hand have been composed 
 with the object of making money. Galen tells us that 
 many forgeries were offered to the competing libraries of 
 Alexandria and Pergamum. These may have been things 
 composed in the way just described, or quite bona fide 
 works though not written by the authors to whom their 
 vendors ascribed them, or again things written to be sold. 
 No doubt many were rejected by sagacious librarians, but 
 equally without doubt some mistakes would be made. The 
 dialogues included in the Platonic canon are certainly not 
 all above suspicion, and we have six or seven others that 
 could not find their way in, though with many people they 
 passed for Plato's. 
 
 Although then the letters must be earlier than the great 
 mass of spurious things in the Epistolographi, they may 
 very well not be Platonic. They must be early work, not 
 only because it seems likely that they were recognized at 
 Alexandria, but because the Greek in which they are 
 written is so good. But at or even before the date which 
 we should give them we know fabrications of one kind or 
 another to have been produced. Pausanias 6. 18. 5 tells 
 how Anaximenes composed and published the Tpi/capavos 
 in the name of Theopompus, imitating Theopompus' style 
 so skilfully as to bring great odium on him. Diogenes 5. 
 92 quotes Aristoxenus as relating that Heraclides Ponticus 
 composed tragedies and ascribed them to Thespis : he adds 
 that Heraclides was himself deceived by another man who 
 wrote a Parthenopaeus and said it was the work of Sophocles. 
 According to the same authority (10. 3) Diotimus the Stoic 
 passed off fifty licentious letters as written by Epicurus. 
 
 There is probably no evidence that will enable us to fix 
 the time when composition of false or imaginary letters 
 began in Greece. We may distinguish letters composed for 
 real from those composed for imaginary persons. The first 
 would probably be the earlier, and they may be divided 
 again into letters entirely imaginary and letters having or 
 
288 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 thought to have some foundation in fact. In the latter 
 case the only fact known or supposed might be the sending 
 of a letter, its contents being matter of more or less 
 probable conjecture or inference, and its very existence 
 sometimes having no greater certainty. In this class we 
 may probably rank the letters which according to Thucy- 
 dides were addressed to the Persian king by Themistocles 
 and Pausanias and by the king to Pausanias in answer. 
 It is hardly conceivable that the real terms of these letters, 
 if indeed such letters were actually written at all, could be 
 known to Thucydides, though for the letter of Pausanias 
 he does refer in vague terms to some authority. He 
 believed the letters had been sent. He believed he knew 
 their import - or could tell it roughly. He therefore did 
 not hesitate to compose something appropriate and give it 
 as the precise words used, just as he composed speeches 
 partly from information, partly from his own sense of what 
 would have been proper and striking to say. 
 
 Most opposed to the half real or quasi-real letters of real 
 people are the imaginary letters of imaginary people. The 
 epam/cos Aoyos ascribed to Lysias the orator in the Phaedrus 
 and there given at length has sometimes been taken for a 
 letter. It is however never called a letter, always a Aoyos, 
 and so with the answers to it, the second of which there is 
 a sort of pretence that the boy actually hears (243 E : cf. 
 with regard to the original Adyos the a/c^/coccs of 230 E and 
 the epdjra of 234 c. See Stallbaum's preface, p. lix : Spengel 
 Art. Script. 126). Suidas ascribes erotic letters to Lysias, 
 while Plutarch (?) Mor. 836 B speaks both of letters and of 
 'EpomKoi (Adyot). Read also with Sylburg epam/con/ for 
 eVaiptKwv in I). Hal. 459. It is not therefore quite clear 
 that we are justified in attributing to Lysias the use of the 
 epistolary form in these works of imagination, but it seems 
 very probable and has generally been assumed. Whatever 
 may have been the case with the lost letters or Adyoi, the 
 speech in the Phaedrus does not purport to be Lysias him- 
 self speaking or writing. Both parties are apparently 
 understood to be imaginary : 227 C yeypa<ev yap ST) 6 
 Aixrias Trcipa'tyxevdv TWO. Twv KaA.oii', ot>x VTTO epacrroi) oe, aAA 
 avro ST) TOUTO /cat KtKo/A^eirrat K.r.A. They are feigned just 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 289 
 
 as all the parties are feigned in the tetralogies of Antiphon 
 (the authorship of which I do not think there is any 
 sufficient reason for doubting), and as they were no doubt 
 habitually in similar legal and rhetorical exercitations. 
 
 If Plato has unintentionally misled later times as to the 
 authorship, and if his own reputation has suffered from a 
 similar mistake about the Platonic letters, the coincidence 
 is curious. But it is probably the fact, though certainly 
 some ancient writers took the other view. To take a real 
 published work of Lysias and insert it entire in the dialogue 
 would have been both unnecessary and inartistic. The 
 manner must be that of Lysias, but no doubt the words 
 are those of Plato. We should perhaps not compare it 
 with such speeches, put by Plato into the mouths of 
 Agathon, Gorgias, and others, as do not purport to be 
 reproductions of written or elaborately prepared works, 
 though they do show the skill and the zest with which the 
 severe critic of imitation sets about the task of imitating. 
 It may be compared doubtfully with Protagoras' myth in 
 Pro tag. 320 D-322 D, but better with the reproduction in 
 the Memorabilia of the o-uyypa/x/xa of Prodicus on the 
 Choice of Heracles. We can see there that the language is 
 Xenophontean ; yet it is a version of a real composition by 
 another man, a composition which might perhaps be read 
 by anyone who wished in the original author's own words. 
 On this point cf. Philostratus Vit. Soph. 496 and Ep. 73. 
 So we may fairly assume in the Phaedrus. Lysias had 
 written on these themes, perhaps on the very one there 
 taken. Plato however writes his theme for him over 
 again, puts into it the very essence of Lysias, makes it 
 more like Lysias than Lysias himself ; then he proceeds to 
 criticize and contrast. 
 
 Intermediate between quasi-real letters of real people 
 and imaginary letters of imaginary people come imaginary 
 letters of real people, and these form the bulk of the large 
 Greek collection gathered from all sorts of sources and 
 best to be studied now in Hercher's Epistolographi. Of 
 course all the letters in it do not stand on the same 
 footing. Critics have, for instance, usually passed the 
 letters of Isocrates and condemned without hesitation 
 
290 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 those of Aeschines. 1 But most of them are admittedly 
 fabrications, whether we think that the fabricators had 
 now and then some materials to go on or that they simply 
 forged them out of their own heads. The composition 
 of such letters became a common thing, and we do not 
 approach the Platonic question in a proper frame of mind, 
 unless we remember this and are on our guard from the 
 beginning. The presumption is against the genuineness of 
 any Greek letters ascribed to good times. 
 
 From the external evidence therefore and from what we 
 know of the century that elapsed after Plato's death it 
 would certainly not appear that we need hesitate much 
 about condemning the letters, if good positive grounds 
 are shown. Do such good grounds exist 1 
 
 The writer of letter 1 describes himself as having 
 administered with absolute authority the government of 
 Dionysius. We know this cannot be true of Plato. 
 The letter is therefore demon strably not his. But Dion 
 too would hardly have spoken of himself in these terms, 
 and the description of the writer as ' having stayed so 
 long a time ' (Starpi'^as) is only applicable to a visitor. 
 Therefore the letter was not written by Dion either. 
 Even supposing it to be Dion's, we see that almost all 
 the MSS. give it to Plato, and that it is apparently one of 
 the 13 Platonic letters which figure in the canon. It 
 is not even as though it were part of Plato's correspondence 
 in the sense of being a letter written to him in connexion 
 perhaps with some letter of his own. If it is not by him, 
 it has no connexion with him at all. Here then is one 
 letter with just as good external evidence as the rest, 
 yet not his. 
 
 Letter 11 represents Plato at some date during the 
 lifetime of Socrates as prevented by age from travelling. 
 Now Socrates was put to death when Plato was about 
 thirty years old. Letter 7 falls into egregious blunders 
 about the internal arrangements of Athens and Piraeus 
 at the time of the Thirty. Letter 8 assumes Dion's son 
 Hipparinus to have outlived him. We know a son of 
 
 1 In one of these Aeschines is made to refer to the pleasantries of 
 Demosthenes, ' at which no one ever smiled but Ctesiphon.' We 
 should like this jeer at any rate to be genuine, and possibly it is. 
 
THE PLATONIC LETTERS 291 
 
 Dion's to have died before him and there is strong reason 
 for thinking that he had no other. 
 
 May it not be said that these mistakes as to matters 
 of fact condemn 1 and 11 absolutely, 7 and 8 almost 
 certainly 1 ? Looking to another sort of internal evidence, 
 we find in 7 a passage of great importance on which 
 the writer himself lays much stress : a passage which 
 purports to be profound philosophy and turns out to 
 be nonsense. It is not a question here of a disputed 
 philosophical point, of a difficult statement that we may 
 perhaps not understand, or of a possibly corrupt text. 
 The passage is simply foolish. Can we believe that this 
 rubbish was written by the author of the Theaetetus 
 and the central books of the Republic, where the same 
 problem is handled with such power ] Letter 2 again 
 contains a most dubious philosophical passage. In several 
 of the letters we have to believe that Plato assumed a 
 tone of mysticism and made a profession of occult 
 knowledge to which there is no parallel in his writings. 
 In 3 he contradicts himself like a child and does not 
 see the contradiction. Finally most readers of Plato 
 would deem him too high-minded to be capable of the 
 vain and petty spirit displayed in many passages of the 
 letters. But this we cannot prove and therefore must 
 not press. 
 
 On the other hand there is the language, whose value 
 as evidence I should be among the last to impugn. There 
 can be no doubt that in general character it is remarkably 
 Platonic. Even when it will strike some readers as 
 wanting in Platonic grace and skill, that is rather because 
 we sometimes form our idea of Plato entirely from his best 
 writings, the Phaedo, the Gorgias, the Republic, and leave 
 out of sight the later dialogues, especially the Laws. The 
 avoidance of hiatus in most of the letters, though they are 
 not uniform in this respect, also falls in with what seems 
 to be Plato's later practice. Bearing this in mind, I 
 still cannot feel that the Greek is enough to outweigh 
 the other considerations or even that the chief letters 
 are well enough written for Plato. Tedious as the Laws 
 is, there are plenty of striking and well-written things 
 in it, things that reveal not only the philosopher but 
 
 u 2 
 
292 THE PLATONIC LETTERS 
 
 the great writer. In the letters there is nothing of the 
 kind : only a sort of shell without fruit, semblance without 
 reality, the style or some of it without the man. There is 
 probably nothing there that a fairly skilful writer steeped 
 in Plato's later writings could not have composed. 
 
 It is true then that if we judged by the Greek alone 
 we should have no reason for doubting. But, if we take 
 into account the tone arid spirit of the letters, we hesitate. 
 When we weigh the extraordinary things they contain, 
 we give judgment against them. The spuriousness of 
 some does not of course necessarily entail the spuriousness 
 of all. But, if the important letters are false, the trifles 
 are probably false too, and in any case it matters little 
 whether they are or are not. 
 
TA N00EYOMENA. 
 
 "OPOI. 
 
 412 B eyxpaTeta SvVa/us vTro/xev^TtK^ Xwnys, 
 
 TO> opa oytor/Ato' vra/x,ts avv7repr)TOS TOV VTr 
 AoytcTjuu). 
 
 aKoXovOrjo-is, which has most MS. authority, may very well 
 be right, though it expresses an action or course of conduct 
 rather than a condition of mind. But dKoAou0ov<ra would 
 seem possible. Is not some word lost parallel 
 and governing the genitive TOV vTroA^tfeWos, e.g. 
 o-Ti/crj, which occurs a few lines below (<iA.o7rovia is d?ro- 
 reXeo-TiKr) ov ai/ TrpoeXr/rat) 1 The genitive has at present no 
 construction. 
 
 ibid. D eAcufepiorrys eis Trpos TO xpyj/AaTL^ecrOai o>s Set* irpoar- 
 s Set. 
 
 Were 7rpdo-^eo-ts right, only one part of liberality would 
 be given, and that the less obvious part. Read Trpoeo-is, 
 comparing Ar. Eth. 2. 7. 1107 b 12, 13, where Trpoeo-ts and 
 Xf){f/L<s are contrasted. 
 
 ibid. E /xeyaAoTrpeTreta d^toooris Kara Aoyurftov opOov TOV 
 
 O-C/AVdVaTOV. 
 
 The latter words can hardly mean anything. Read TOV 
 O-C/AVOTCITOV, depending on d<Wi9. 
 
 A little below (under dy^tVota) prefix ev to e/cdo-Ta). 
 Cf. for instance Ar. Eth. 2. 9. 1109 a 24, where o-To;(currt/oJ 
 occurs just before. 
 
 293 
 
294 TA NO0EYOMENA 
 
 413 A ayaOov TO avrov CVCKCV <atpeToV> ? 
 
 ibid. B atpeo-ts SoKi/xao-ta opOrj <^ fjt.r)>1 <.rj i^evS^s>'? A 
 aipecm is not bound to be right, and the word came, as we 
 know, to imply error. On the other hand, in c (oArjtfeia 
 eis ei/ /cara^acret Kat aTro^acret* cTrio-n^ny dA^wi/) we seem to 
 need the addition of oOy to eis. 
 
 ibid. OfJLOVOLO, KOlVOWa TWV OVTIOl/ OLTTOLVTIDV (TU/X,<awa VOTJ/JLO,- 
 TUH> Kttt 
 
 TWI> OJ/TWI/, which would mean property, is palpably wrong. 
 T(3v ev v(5 OVTCOV would make sense ; or TWV OVTCOV may be a 
 mistake for rwv voaarwv. Cf. on Phaedrus 263 A. 
 
 414 C cucr6r)(ri<; i^u^s <opcr vov KIV^OTIS* ifsvxrjs Sia crw/xaros 
 io"ayyeXcrts eis wpas dv^pwTrtuv, a<' 775 yi'yvcrat if/v^rj^ dAoyos 
 r 8ta 
 
 eis <Spa? is not very intelligible, and there is good evidence 
 against cis. Perhaps we should read eio-dyyeAo-is <opas and 
 perhaps too di/^pwTro). 
 
 IlEPI AlKAIOY. 
 
 372 A TO 8i/catov would hardly be denned as ra 
 Should not the last word be omitted ? 
 
 373 A Greater and less are distinguished by measure 
 (jue'rpov) and /xcra TOV /xeV/ao-u by the measuring art : light 
 and heavy by weight (<rrafyx.os) and //.era roi) a-raO/j-ov by the 
 weighing art : TL 8e 8>y ; TO. StKaia Kat TO, aStKa TLVL 
 8tayiyv(6crKO/xV opyava) ; Kat /Aera TOV opydvov Ttvt 
 
 I hardly know what the editors suppose TrpoVflev to mean, 
 but it is tolerably clear that the real word was Trpoo-^c?, add, 
 tell me also. 
 
 374 B OUTOS dotSds is not possible, though dotSds at the 
 end of the dialogue is. We should add 6 (perhaps in both 
 places) or write doiSd?. At the end of the Trept dper^s read 
 <rots> KTwyueVoi?, the loss of rots being possibly due to the 
 rat of the verb. 
 
TA NO0EYOMENA 295 
 
 DEMODOCUS. 
 
 382 C TWV avOpwTrwv Se TWO. (not Tt'va) will suit TOVTO 
 tv best. 
 
 ibid. D vTrapxet should be v7rapet, as /x-erayneX^o-ct shows. 
 So in 383 E the repeated e/A<avtovcri proves that we need 
 Xcovcri. It is remarkable how blind editors are to this 
 common error of MSS., the putting of presents for futures. 
 
 384 D E Three times Trpoo-^Ket might with advantage, I 
 think, be turned into TrpooSyKev ; but none of the three cases 
 absolutely requires it. 
 
 386 B eav ovv TOIS //,o> otKctot wo-t, TOIS 8' ayvo)Ts, Trais ov 
 8yeri TOVS avYovs juaAAov avrwv (so Schneider for aura)) 
 TTicrroL's FO/u^ctv ; 01; yap 6/xotcos TTICTTOV? a^rovs Set vo/xt^eiv TOVS 
 ot/cet'ois KCU TOVS ayi/wrag. 
 
 I can make no sense of the central clause in this, TTOJS ov 
 SeTycrei K.T.X. Words such as TTWS ov 8c^o-et TOU? avrovg TOVS 
 /acv rjTTOV, TOVS Se /j.a\\ov avrcuv TrtTrrov? vo/xt'^eiv ; would be 
 intelligible, though I am not sure about TOVS avTov's and 
 avTcuv ; or such as TTWS ov 8e?yo-i avTOvs /AV /xaXXov, TOVS Se 
 
 7TIO-TOVS 
 
 SISYPHUS. 
 387 C (jjanrep Kat o~v Sc8o^ao"at ev^ovXos elvat els TOJI/ 
 
 Perhaps TIS for ets. It is not meant that he is the only 
 or the most sagacious citizen. 
 
 ibid. E o-xeSiaovTa Xeyttv OTI av Tv^ry, ei/ca^ovTa Kat 
 avT<3, a>o-7rep Kat ot dpTiaovTes K.T./X. 
 
 Kat KaTa TavTa avTw seems to need some addition to give 
 it a sense. KaTa TavTa <xpw/xevov> avTw wcnrep 1 
 
 388 B The av in uxnrep yap av is out of place. Read yap 
 817, a common combination. 
 
 bid. D ovSe TO'VT' e?fret, OTTOV ^v e^evpctv avTOv, et ^'Set, dAX' 
 av ev^ews. 
 
296 TA NOEYOMENA 
 
 Here on the other hand we need oV with e^ijrei, as with 
 ffyvpev, and it must be inserted. 
 
 So again in 389 C apd ye vo/ueis otoV re n elvai dv0pa>7ra> 
 Trepi fjLovcriKrjs j3ovXV<T@a.L . . . OTTOOS 17 KL@api(TTOV eir; avT<3 17 
 aAAo TI . . . TTot^reov, the optative ciry shows that oV must 
 have stood somewhere in the first clause (unless indeed 
 we add it to fir] itself) ; and in Eryxias 393 E e^otr' 
 av etTreiv fJiOi TI icrriv dv$poo7ra> TrAetVrov aiov /crjy/za ; apa yc 
 TOVTO o KT?;o-a/xevos av^pcoTro? apicrra fiovXevoLTO Trept TOUTOV 
 OTTWS av /Se'A.Tio-Ta StaTrparroiTo K.rA. it is required with apiara 
 (probably apurr av) ySovAevoiro. Perhaps it should also 
 follow evTropiW, ^6^. 392 D, but there it is not indispensable. 
 
 388 E (TKOTrei Sr^, not Se. 
 
 390 B e8o/ctT . . . KaOrja-Oai should be SoKeu-e, it seems to 
 me you sat. 
 
 ibid, ravra e/xot re eTvat TreTraiy/xeva ?rpos <re' . . . crot' re ov/c 
 
 the rare passive use. Otherwise there 
 is no new point in the clause, such as the antithesis of the 
 two persons with re and KO.I requires. 
 
 ibid. C o^Sev e^evptcrKcrat dAAoTov (TO 8ovXcvcracr6a.L) r] 
 
 / \>/\ 
 
 T Kttt eiKttCTta Kttt 
 
 gives exactly the wrong sense, as 387 E tells us 
 totidem verbis, oTrcp TO /x?) C7rio"Ta/x,i/ov Tiva . . . Sia/xavTevo/xevov 
 Kat o-xcSta^ovTa /c.T.X. (quoted above) and 388 A ^Sev 
 67rio"Tap:vov. As et/<ao~t / a and cr^c^iaa'/ji6^ are repeated from 
 387 E, so possibly this should be /xavTcta answering to 
 
 D Omit T between auToi and avTtov. The repetition 
 of wo-7Tp shows that ot TC aAAoi 8^/xiovpyot aTravTCs is the 
 subject of Sia<epovo-iv, and that there should be no comma 
 after 
 
TA NO0EYOMENA 297 
 
 ERYXIAS. 
 
 393 A /cat So/cet /cat ecTTt TrXeov TTCXVTWI/ Trov^poraTOS 17 o(ra> 
 TrAoutrtwTaTOs, OVTCOS wcrr' ci /c.T.A. 
 
 TrAe'ov should certainly be TrAe'oi/i (corresponding to oo-u>), 
 and OVTCOS, I think, TOO-OVTU>, TOS- having been absorbed in 
 the ending of TrAovo-iorra-Tos. 
 
 394 E r] TOVTOV /xev /cara<povtv <otet> TOVS dv0p<o7roi>s ^ 
 397 E Omit dya$6V after TWJ> avOpwrw. 
 
 400 E OUK or 77 OVK (TTti/ o Tt ^p^jjLcOa seems needed. 
 402 A (init.) et rt Seoyae^a, not Scocficda, and D 
 
 ^. c As the text stands, Eryxias is made to say c I am 
 quite persuaded that what is useless cannot be money (ouSc 
 Xp'tjfj.o.rd eo-nv) and that useful money is one of the most 
 useful things for this purpose (/cat on TWV XPW L I J ' (1}T( * T<J * V 
 eorrt Trpos TOT)TO ^p-tjfjLara TO. ^p^ort/xa) \ but not that money is 
 useless for practical purposes (TOV /?tov), as by its means we 
 provide ourselves with things we want (TO. eTn/njScia) .' The 
 words in italics seem mere nonsense. What is useful 
 money 1 what is this purpose 1 If too the sentence meant 
 anything, it would simply anticipate ' but not that money 
 is useless;' to which it is formally opposed. I can only 
 infer that we must omit it, and am unable to suggest how 
 it got in. It has no appearance of being a corruption of 
 something else, nor can it be put later in the sentence 
 without considerable chanes. 
 
 403 E The imperfect /carc^aWo is as inappropriate as 
 eSo/cetre in Sisyphus 390 B above. What we want is the 
 optative /cara^pwvTo, like epyaoivTo two lines below. 
 
 avrwv cannot be right either, as there is nothing for it to 
 refer to. Perhaps aurot?, as we have just below avrots ots 
 (an inversion of order for ots avrots) /caraxpco/xefla and 402 B 
 ots X. 
 
 404 A Trpos TT)V ai!rS)v cpyacriav is neither grammar nor 
 sense. Read r^v avr?ji/, as in B and several other places. 
 
298 TA N00EYOMENA 
 
 TT?V TOVTCOV would not, I think, make sense. There is 
 nothing TOVTWV could refer to. 
 
 ibid. E 7ri(rT^fJir)v 77 Swairo d/covctv CK rov ^ otov re. 
 otov r <eTvai> 1 
 
 ^atvoiTO yap av eviorc /j,o\0rjpa TT pay par a TT/DOS dya^ov 
 Tt ^p^(ri/xov etvaf ert 8e /xaA,Aov Kat CTTI TOVTOV av <jj>avepa 
 yevotro. 
 
 Apparently the two adjectives have exchanged termin- 
 ations. We want ^prjo-t/xa and </>ai/epov. 
 
 405 B After a remark made by Socrates we find instead 
 of an answer or comment from Eryxias the strange words 
 </7 yap ovrws, ws e/aot SOKCI (quite unmeaning in the context), 
 and then Socrates continues his argument. Does not this 
 stand for the assenting OVTW yap, (77, /cat e/xot SoKet 1 ? <J>s 
 and Kat are liable to interchange. I doubt whether ovrw 
 ytxp, o>s eyixot 8oKt would be idiomatic. oVcov aveu /x^ otov re 
 yiyveo-0ai needs a rt after re, as in 402 B. rovro refers 
 to it. 
 
 AXIOCHUS. 
 
 366 D ^>pacratju,i av o~oi 
 Probably av for a. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 MARCUS AURELIUS 
 
 The following notes were published (1905) before the 
 appearance of Leopold's Oxford text. 
 
 1. 6 TO ypctyai SiaAoyovs ev TrcuoY (while a boy). 
 
 Considering that Marcus congratulates himself more 
 than once in this first book (7 and 17) on having given 
 little time to O-O^LCTTLK^ and p^Topi/oj, it is somewhat sur- 
 prising that he should count having written dialogues an 
 advantage. Should we read TO </*??> ypai/fcu ? He mentions 
 a good many negative advantages he has to be thankful 
 for, e.g. 4 TO /-try ei? Srj/xoo-i'as Siarpi/^as ^otT^crat, 7 TO prj 
 eis fl\ov (TO^LCTTLKOV /xrySe TO crvyypdfaw Trcpi TO>V 
 rj TrpoTptiTTiKa Aoydpta StaXeyea^at. 
 
 8 8ta TavTa should perhaps be 6V avTas or Sta Ta 
 
 TOiaVTtt. 
 
 15 TO TravTas avr<3 7rto~Teveiv Trept wv Xeyoi OTI otiTws <f>povi, 
 
 Kat TTCpt WV TTpOLTTOl OTt Oil KttKOJS 7T/3aTTl. 
 
 ou KaKws has been questioned and is certainly unsatis- 
 factory. Perhaps OVK a/ov may be proposed. Maximus 
 never said what he did not mean, nor acted reluctantly 
 against his own judgment or feeling. So 3. 5 /X/JJTC XKOVO-IOS 
 vcpyei . . . /x,r;T di/^eXKo/xevos : Epict. Ench. 1. 3 a/con/ 
 7rpas ovSc ev : Zeno (quoted in Philo Qwod omn. prob. 
 14. p. 460 M) Oarrov av <Tts ?> O.CTKOV /Savrunu TrXrjpr) 
 -^ /?ittoraiTO TOI/ (?) o-Tro^Satov OVTIVOVV aKOVTa 8pao-at 
 (perhaps ^8. TOV O-TT. OTIOVV d. 8. T. d.). 
 
 301 
 
302 APPENDIX 
 
 In Isocr. 5. 25 ov KOIKOOS is a v. I. for OVK dXoyeos, and that 
 too might perhaps stand here. 
 
 16 Trape^a should probably be Trape'^oi, referring to hi* 
 father's lifetime. 
 
 ibid. (f>apfjLa.K(j)v KCU eTTt^e/xaVwi/ <TCOV> /CTOS'? 
 
 ibid. TO /x<poi' KCU fjLfj^TprjfJLi'ov ev re 0e(optah> 
 (eTTtTeA.eo'eo't ?) KCU epyoov /carao-KevaT? Kal Stavo/xats /cat rois 
 TOIOVTOIS dv$pto7rois 7rpo9 aura [Se] TO Scoi/ 7rpa)(@fjvai SeSop/coYos, 
 ov Trpos T-^V eTrt TOIS Trpa^OfifTLv evSo^tav (Se wanting in the 
 two best MSS). dvflpooTrot,? is obviously wrong. I con- 
 jecture that the original was <ws> avOpwTrov, and that 
 das having fallen out after ois in TOIOVTOIS, avOpwirov was 
 then accommodated to the datives before it. A converse 
 case is perhaps to be found at the beginning of the , 
 where TO aTrapaTpeTTTcos ets TO KO.T' atav CLTTOV^^TLKOV eKacrTO) 
 looks meant (Reiske) for TO aTrapaTpeVTws TOV KO.T a^tav 
 
 17 V7roaa should I think be the dative. Cf. on 5. 35 
 below. 
 
 ibid. XPV LV / xr ? r ecr$^Ttuv crr;/xeiojT(ov /XT^TC A.a/x.TraScoi' Kat 
 wv TOicovSe Ttvwv /cat TOU OJJLQLOV KO/XTTOV. 
 
 If ToiwvSe is not to be expelled altogether, it would seem 
 necessary to write <KCU> ToiwvSe' TIVWV. Or is that too much 
 like KCU TOV 6/xotov KO/JLTTOV ? 
 
 ibid, (end) OTTCOS TC cTre^v/x^o-a ^lA-ocro^t'tts, /XT/ efJLTrecreLV cts 
 
 Ttva 
 
 So Stich, but there is good authority for O^TOJS instead 
 of OTTCOS. Perhaps we might read OVTWS TC eTre^v/xr/o-a 
 ^)iAoo-o^)tas <a>9> /xr) e/XTreo-civ. Cf. above On 16. 
 
 2. 3 ravTci croi dpKCtVco, ct Soy/xaTa eo"Tt. 
 
 There is authority for dei Soy/xaTa IO-TW instead of ci 
 8oy/xaTa eo-Tt. Perhaps Kat SoyttaTa 
 
 2. 6 v/3pte, vfipi^c. avTrjv, w if/v^. TOV oe. Tt/xr}o*at 
 ov/ccTt Katpov e'^eis' (3pa)(v<S yap 6 /?t'os e/cd 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 303 
 
 Surely Gataker was right in wishing to read v/?ptis, 
 v/2pt'is for the imperative, which is intrinsically absurd. 
 Cf. 16 v/3picL tavTrjv f) TOV dv#pto7rov $v)(r), p.aXi(Tra p\v orav 
 /c.T.A. Moreover the ov/ceVi Kaipov eeis with a Be points 
 distinctly by antithesis to a statement of something being 
 done, not to an imperative. 
 
 14 KO.V Tpi<r;(tAia IT?; /?iwcre<r#ai /xe'AA^s KCU Too-cumx/ag /xvpta, 
 o/xwg jue/xvrycro K.T.A. 
 
 In the first place write another KO.V (or rj) for K<U'. In 
 the second can Tooravra/as pvpia be right, 3000 years or as 
 many times ten thousand ? Who ever used such an 
 expression instead of ten thousand times as many, /xvpia/as 
 roo-avra "? Plato Hep. 546 C c/carov Toa-avraKts is not clear 
 and Adam understands it quite differently. 
 
 3. 1 TO Se eauro) xprjcrOai Kal rous TOV 7rpoo"^KOVTos 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
 I do not think ecurru> xPwOai by itself means any- 
 thing. Some adverb or adverbial expression = xaAw? is 
 needed in addition. 
 
 4 r/TO6 yap aAAou epyov arep^, Tovreo-rt ^>avra^o/>ievos TI 6 
 Trpacro-a, K.T.A. 
 
 rjroi is quite meaningless and aAAov can hardly be said 
 to have any meaning. I have thought doubtfully of 
 ovro) yap TroAAov Ipyov (rrcpy, which gives good sense itself 
 and improves the meaning of TovreVri, as explaining in 
 part OVTU). 
 
 ibid. 6 yap roc a.vr]p 6 TOIOVTOS, ou/ccVt vTrepri^e/xcvos TO ws 
 ev dptcrrois ^Sr; cTvai, K.T.A. 
 
 ws ev dpiWoi? is I think a phrase of an unknown kind as 
 an equivalent for do? dpicrros. Perhaps ws evt apto-Tos (as e.g'. 
 Xen. Mem. 4. 5. 9 w? >6 ^8rTa), or d>s av apwrTos, if the av 
 is admissible, of which I am not sure. 
 
 6 T<3 AoyiKw KCU TTOt^rt/co) dya^w. 
 
 Read a-ya6ov, as in 3. 11 pieyaAo^poo-w^s TTOI^TIKOV : 6. 
 52 : 8. 14 : 9. 1 twice. Cf. on 1. 16 above. 
 
304 APPENDIX 
 
 8 In the purified man there is nothing 8o9Xov ovSe KO/XI//OV 
 ouSe 7rpoo*SeSe/>tevoi/ ou d,7T(T^to-/>ieVov ouSe VTTCV^WOV ov8e 
 ju.<u)Aei;ov. Would not dvuTrevtfwov give a better sense ? 
 There seem three pairs of opposed terms. 
 
 12 rrj wv Aeyets /cat <f>@yyy fjpwiKrj aXyOtLa. dpKOV/xei/os. 
 
 ^pauKfl is quite out of place, and Dr. Kendall's eupotK^ 
 (which he translates ei;^ truth) does not recommend 
 itself very much. The first letter may be a dittograph of 
 the last in (f>0yyy. Can we make anything of pwLKfj r ! 
 'Pw/xatKfl occurs to me as just a possibility. Cf. 5 6 Zv crot 
 $eos eo-TW Trpocrrartys wou appcvos Kat Trpecr^vrov Kal 7roAmKo 
 /cat 'Pw/xatov Kat ap^ovros : 2. 5 <^p6vri^ crrt^apcos ws 'Pw/xatos 
 Kat app^v : Martial xi. 20. 10 #zu scis Eomana simplicitate 
 loqui : etc. 
 
 15 OVK tcracrt 7ro<ra <r>7/zatvei TO /cXeTrreti/, TO o"7Ttptv, TO 
 TO 
 
 It is not easy to correct /cXe'^-Tcii/, but surely a>veto-0ai 
 must be /aveto-0ai. 
 
 4. 3 TravTa Ta^Ta ocra opa? oo~o^ ovSeTrw /ATa/2aAAei Kat 
 
 OVKCTt 0-Tttt. 
 
 co-Tat and the parallel passage in 7. 25 prove that we 
 should read yu,Ta/?aAet. Cf. oo~ov ouScTrw with future in 
 10. 11, with/xe'XXa) in 7. 70. 
 
 12 He speaks of a readiness to change, eai/ apa Tts 7rap>j 
 Kat /xeTaycov OTTO TIVO? ot^o"(05. 
 
 ^ does not seem very suitable. Would Trapt^, comes 
 forward, presents himself, be better? Cf. Plat. Eep. 
 494 D TO> ST) ovTd) StaTt^e/xevcu edV TIS -^pe 
 ort vovs O^K evecrTtv 
 
 16 CI/TOS SeKa ^/xepaiv $eo<> avrols Sonets ots vw Orjpiov 
 Kat TTI^KOS, eav dvaKa/xi//^? CTTI TO. Soy/xaTa Kat TOV o~e/?aoyAOi> 
 TOV Xoyov. 
 
 This is of course a reference to the saying ascribed in 
 Hippias Maior 289 B to Heraclitus, dv#pw7r<ov 6 o-o<wTaTos 
 TTpos ^eoi/ (in comparison with God or a god) TU^KOS 
 <avetrai. Kendall has in consequence conjectured that 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 305 
 
 we should read here 0eos <0eois> avrots So'et9. But why 
 should they admire him so much as to account him one of 
 themselves? Surely merely reverting to principles and 
 revering reason would not move them to such enthusiasm. 
 Let us rather read 0eo!s for 0eo's and for auroTs probably 
 aV0po)7ro?, to which (1) the antithesis of OrjpLov, (2) the use 
 of the word by Heraclitus agree in pointing. aV#p<o7ros, 
 written in its shorter form aVo?, is certainly corrupted 
 sometimes, e.g. into aXXos (cf. on 10. 10), but I cannot 
 quote a case of confusion with 
 
 17 fJLrj 0)5 /AVpta /A / AAa>V T>7 ?}v. 
 
 ' Do not live as though you had a thousand years before 
 you,' Kendall. ' Do not act,' Long. Probably some such 
 word as Siavoov is lost. Cf. 2. 11 o>s 77817 Svvarov OVTOS 
 eteVat TOV /3iou, oirra>s eKacrra Troteu/ Kat Aeyciv Kat 8tai/oeto-$at. 
 
 19 6 TTCpl TrjV V(TTpO<f>r)/JLiaV 7TTOr7jUCVO5 OV ^>ai/Ta^Tat OTt 
 
 KOL Tratra 17 i^vr)^ airocrflfj SL tTTTorj/jiti'wv Kat 
 Trpotovtra. 
 
 is quite unmeaning as well as wrong in tense, 
 and is evidently nothing but an accidental repetition of 
 7TT077//,eVos above. I conjecture the true word to have 
 been e^aTrro/xeVwv, which matches o-/3ei/vu/u,eVa>i/, as in 7. 24 
 a7reo-/3e'cr$r7, wore oAco? ^a</)^vat /u--^ Swa(r$ai (cf. Republic 
 498 A B). Cf. also 21 and 9. 9 : D. Hal. Ars Rhet. 236. 
 Nauck's /^ejnvr/jueVwv is not happy. 
 
 20 rt TOUTOOV 8ta TO eTTaivetcr^at /caXov eo-rtv ^ 
 
 (T/xapaySiov yap eavrov ^tpov yiyverat, eav 
 ; rt 8e ^pvcro? ; /c .r.A. 
 
 and still more ^etpov ytyvcrat point to reading 
 for /caAw, and a few lines above we have OVTC yow 
 \eipov rj (]) KpeiTTOv yiyvtrai TO eTraivov/xevov. Read also 
 <$e' for yap after cr/x.apay8iov, and four lines above TO 8e ye 
 for TO ye 817. 
 
 50 oXov jjiiKpov eo-Ti TO 8iao-T>7/xa (the difference in length 
 of life), Kal TOVTO 8t' ocrwv /cat /xe^' otwv eavTAo^/xevov KCU ev 
 oiw cra)/x,aTta). 
 
306 APPENDIX 
 
 Read Si' olw which is much more natural in itself and 
 confirmed by the double use of otos in the words following. 
 Cf. also 6. 59. 
 
 5. 4 TroptvofJLai Sia TWI/ Kara <f>v(rw 
 
 Is the future indicative found after ews until or //.e^pi ? 
 Should we not read dvaTrauo-wjuat ? I suspect on the other 
 hand that Tropevo/xai should be Tropeucro/x-at. 
 
 6 One man makes a merit of any service he may do. 
 Another is at any rate conscious of having done it. A 
 third seems all unconscious : oV^pcoTros 8' ev Troi^o-as OVK 
 eTri/JoaYai aAAa /xera/JatVei e<' erepov. aV0pa>7ros here is much 
 too general. It is not a man, that is, the ordinary man, 
 who is thus described, but the man of rare character. 
 Read therefore avOpwTrov, governed by ev Troojo-as. Cf. 9. 
 42 (near end) TL yap TrAeoi' $eAeis ev Trouycras aivOpwTrov ; 
 
 There is something wrong in the description of the 
 second character too. The sentences run : 6 /xeV TIS ecrnv, 
 orav rt Seiov Trepi' rtva 7rpdy, Trpo^cipos Kat 
 (itnputare) avrw ryv ^a.piv. o Se Trpos TOVTO /xej/ ov 
 aAAoos /xevroi Trap' eavrw cos Trept ^pewcrrou Stavoetrat Kat otSev o 
 TreTTotvyKev. There is no plausible suggestion for aAAws K.r.X. 
 I have thought of oAw? for aAXws (a confusion found I 
 think elsewhere) ; also of <OVK> aAXws . . <^> ws irepi, or 
 <ov/c> aAA(Ds Trept aurov 17 Trepi'. The first seems the best. 
 
 9. /xr) <us Trpos TraiSaycoyoi/ rrjv <f>i\o(ro<f>Lav eTravteVat, dAX' a>5 
 ot ocfrOaXfJLiMVTes Trpo? TO cnroyya.piov KOL TO a>ov, a>s aXAos Trpo? 
 KaTa7rAao-)U,a, cos Trpos KaTaiovrivw. OUTCOS yap o^Sei/ eTriSec^r; TO 
 7rei0apxeu/ TO) Adyw, ctAAa TrpO(rava7rav(rr) a^Tw (find rest and 
 refreshment in it). 
 
 Rendall translates the last words ' not a question of out- 
 ward show but of inward refreshment ' : Long (reading I 
 can hardly tell what) * thou wilt not fail to obey reason and 
 thou wilt repose in it.' Coray conjectured ITI S?Jei for 
 eTTtSet^. I would suggest oSev eTrtSe^cra, or ovStv CTI Sojo-ei, 
 TOV Trei^ap^eiv, ' there will be no need then to obey reason, 
 i.e. with more or less constraint and reluctance : conformity 
 to it will be natural and pleasant. Cf. Wordsworth's well 
 known lines in the Ode to Duty. 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 307 
 
 Perhaps we should read o>s <aAXos> Trpos Karaiov^o-ti/, or 
 fj for cos without adding aXAos. avro a line or two below 
 should be aura, as TOVTWV following and a preceding combine 
 to show. . 
 
 12 e^a/coucrcTai should probably be eTraKotVerai, both as 
 the fitter word and to harmonize with tTraKoro-at just 
 before. 
 
 23 7ro>s ouv ou /zojpos 6 ev roirrois <i><ro)/xj/os 17 
 
 O"^TXlCt^O>V O)S V TlVl ^pOVO) Kttt CTTt 
 
 7Tt [JLiKpov. Reiske ei/o^X^cracrt.) 
 
 It is surely clear that the last word should be future, not 
 aorist. But we might think either of o>s ev T. x- K0 " ^ 
 fjLLKpov eVoxX^crovTt as in some space of time which will 
 trouble him even for a little, or, better perhaps, of ws Iv T. 
 X- KCU eVt /xa/cpov evo^XTJcrovra, as though they would trouble 
 him in (a certain period of time) and for long. For the 
 latter interpretation the dative ( eVo^ATJo-ovo-i) is not 
 necessary ; <os with the accusative is quite admissible. 
 
 26 Certain affections (TraWi?) of ours should be confined 
 to the parts immediately affected : OTO.V Sc dvaSiSoWcu Kara 
 rrjv ertpav orv/JLTrdOeLav eis TT)!' Stavotav, ws ev (rwyLtart ^vw/xevo), 
 TOT K.r.X. The translators make no sense of ere'pav. Did 
 not Marcus write ^/Aerepav ? The first two letters might be 
 lost after the rjv of rrjv. So in Alciphron 1. 4 Dobree saw 
 that TT]v O.KTTJV stands for rr/v rf 
 
 28 ^cpaTrcvo-eis should perhaps be 0epa7revo-. ^e U'ill 
 attend to it. We should remember that 0epa7rev<o, like euro, 
 does not mean to cure. 
 
 29 ws e^6\0wv Zfiv Siavofj, ouTwg 
 8c yu,^ eTrtrpeV too-i, Tore KCU TOI) ^?}v l^i^i. 
 
 Read eeA.$o)v <roO> ^v : ' as you think to exist after 
 quitting life, even so you can live here.' Even when 
 eieVai is repeated in the second sentence, rov jfiv is added 
 to it. egtXOw might perhaps stand alone (like cdyciv, 
 eayo>y>j), but tfiv could hardly be used thus of a state after 
 death. Out of j}p e^eo-nv it is easy to supply another 
 vaguer infinitive. 
 
 x 2 
 
308 APPENDIX 
 
 31 The first sentence with its TTWS is no more a direct 
 question than the second with its el. In both cases we 
 supply something like 'ask yourself.' Observe dvatu/xi/TJo-Kov 
 8e following. 
 
 35 t /x^re KttKta eoTt TOVTO /xr/ /X^TC evepyeta Kara KO.KLOV 
 
 Read KOLKLO. . . . evepyet'a . . . C/XTJ (e/xr^v). 
 
 6. 10 Why care to live ? rt Se /xot Kai /xe'Aet aAAov TIT/OS 17 
 TOU OTTOJS Trore ata ytVeo-$at ; 
 
 ata seems quite impossible. Menage's yata yeveo-0ai is 
 better (cf. 3. 3, where the body is called yr} /cat \vOpo<s, and 
 77. 24. 54 KW<>)V yatav det/ct^et), but the poetical form is 
 much against it. I have sometimes thought that we might 
 repeat the last two letters of TTOTC and for rcaia read rc^pa 
 or Ttypav. p and i are very often confused. Cf. 4. 3 TTOO-OI 
 r/S?; . . . eKreravrat KCU rere^pwvTat : ib. 48 KartSetv del ra 
 avOpwTrwa. cos e^Ty/xepa feat eureX-J}' Kat e^^es yaev /xv^apioi/, avpuov 
 8e raptxos ^ rec^pa, and crTroSo's in 5. 33 : 12. 27. Also 
 Herodas 1. 38 and 10. 2. Theocr. Ep. 6. 6. The con- 
 struction of OTTWS . . . ytWo-00.1 is of course faulty. 
 
 12 ei [ArjTpvidv re a/x,a et^es /cat /^repa, e/ceii/T/v T av 
 e^epctTreves /cat o/x,ws 17 CTravoSds <rot ?rpos r^v /x/^Tepa 
 eytyvero. TOI;TO (roi vvv ea-riv 17 a^Xi) Kat 17 ^>iA.ocro^)ta. 
 TroXXaKts cTravt^t Kat TrpocravaTravov ravry. 
 
 The general sense seems to indicate that ecrru/ should be 
 eo-rt, and the imperatives following confirm this. Possibly 
 
 TttVTO for TOVTO. 
 
 13 OTTOV Xtav d^tOTrto-ra TO, Trpdy/xaTa <avTaerai, 
 avra Kat TT)V eureAaav aurcov KaOopav Kat r^v taropi'av 
 
 Treptatpetv. Aetvos yap 6 Ti5^>os TrapaXoytcrT^? Kat 
 
 For to-Toptav, which is manifestly wrong, Reiske con- 
 jectured and Nauck approved repflpetai/. Kendall would 
 read vif/rjyopiav. I would rather think of p^ropetav, which 
 is nearer to tcrroptav than either and harmonizes well 
 enough with TrapaXoyto-TTJs and Karayo^Tevet. The word 
 occurs in 10. 38. For p and t cf. above on 10. 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 309 
 
 14 TO, VTTO c^w5 77 <f>vo~(j)<s o~vv\6fjLva are contrasted first 
 with TO. VTTO i/'vx*?? and then with TO, VTTO Xoyi/djs i^u^s (cf. 
 10. 2) in such a way that it is clear they are inanimate 
 things and plants (XiOovs . . . eXai'as). But, to give this 
 meaning, eis, if not <v'o-is, must have some qualifying 
 word such as o-wjuaTi/c?? or Xi/oj added to it. Standing 
 alone, it might just as well be mental (11. 18 under reraprov 
 and 12. 16) as material. 
 
 16 ri TL should perhaps be errt TOVTO. TO, which is 
 at times confused with both, might be the tertium quid. 
 
 27 TTWS uyXoV CTTl fJLr) 7n,Tpe7reO> K.T.X. 
 
 We should expect d>s, as in 5. 2 ws CVKO\OV K.T.X. and 
 elsewhere in exclamations. But a similar mistake, if it is 
 one, occurs in several places, e.g. 8. 3: 10. 19 and 36: 
 11.7. 
 
 30 d)S oXiyOtS apKOV[JiVO<S, CHOV OtKrjCTfl, (TTpWfJLvf), <r6f)Tl, 
 
 These things fairly exhaust the requirements of the 
 most luxurious and exacting among us; cf. 12. 2. The 
 question should rather be of the kind of food, clothing, etc. 
 Ought we for otov to read ofa, harmonizing very well with 
 ws 1 
 
 38 Speaking of the bond that holds all things together, 
 he says TOVTO Se Sta Trjv TOVLK-^V (or TOTTI/O)V) Kwrjcnv KOL 
 o-vfJLirvoiav /cat TT)V evuxnv Trjs ovo~La<s. 
 
 TOVLKYJV hardly makes sense : perhaps yevi/crjv. For 
 there are such conjectures as o-tWr/orv and 
 
 44 The obscure sentence et 8' apa -n-cpl /x 
 will come out right, if we see that the parenthesis is not 
 TTLO-TCVCLV fj.v o^ ocrtoF, as Stich gives it, where /x.ev would be 
 unmeaning, but Tno-Ttvew . . . (3ov\cvovTa.L. The second et 
 . . . ftovXevovTau resumes the first, and the 8e in it answers 
 to the pv after TrioTctW. We must take >j, not ?j, the 
 meaning being ' or, if we do believe, let us not offer 
 sacrifice,' etc., and (I think) read /xrJTc for prjoc throughout. 
 In the Didot text the Greek is improperly punctuated, but 
 the Latin translation gives the right sense. Kendall seems 
 to miss it. 
 
310 APPENDIX 
 
 46 Trdo-xeiv should apparently be 
 
 47 aurJys T^S firiKypov /cat e</7//,epov TCOV avOpwTrw 0)775 
 ^Xevacrrat. 
 
 It looks as though avTrjs should beravrr/s. The adjectives 
 do not suit avrrjs : ' mockers even at our brief and 
 calamitous life ' is hardly sense. 
 
 50 Tretpu) juev irs.iQf.iv O.VTOVS' Trparre Se /cat d/coi/Twv, 6Vav rrjs 
 SiKaioo-w>7S 6 Aoyos OVTCOS ay?i. 
 
 Perhaps aiprj, for the confusion is found elsewhere. Cf. 
 2. 5 TOU atpowTOS Aoyov : 10. 32 ovSe yap atpet Aoyos (?}v) /xr/ 
 TOIOI)TOV o]/ra. But ayi; may not be wrong. 
 
 55 ct KV^8epvco?Ta ot vavrai rj tarpevovra ot Ka/x.vovTes 
 eA-cyov, aA.A(i) Ttvt av Trpofrct^oi/ 7^ TTOJ? a^ros evcpyoLvj TO rots 
 efjiTrXeovcrL (TWT^ptov T) TO Tot^ ^epaTrevo/xevots vyuivdv ; 
 
 Kendall translates this : ' If the sailors abused the pilot, 
 or the sick the physician, would they have any other 
 object than to make him save the crew or heal the 
 patients ] ' Long, adopting the other punctuation, ' would 
 they listen to anybody else 1 or how could the helmsman 
 secure the safety of those in the ship 1 ' etc. I do not see 
 the point of the passage on either of these interpretations, 
 nor why with oV past tenses of the indicative should be 
 used rather than optatives. One would expect too rov 
 Kv/SepvCivra and TOV larpevovra. The article is omitted 
 because the participles refer to the subject of Trpoo-et^ov, 
 which is in reality first person singular, not third plural. 
 ' If the crew had spoken ill of me when I commanded 
 a vessel, or my patients when I was doctoring them, should 
 I have given my mind to any thing but ' what 1 ' how 
 I was myself to do what their preservation required 1 ' 
 Read evcpyot^v. Marcus means that he does not .any more 
 than the doctor or the navigating officer allow himself to 
 be distracted by complaints and discontent. 
 
 7. 3 KvnSiois 6o~Taptov eppi/x/xevov. 
 
 Perhaps a verse. Why else should K. come first 1 
 
 30 crv{jL7rapKTiVLv rr)v vorja-LV TOIS XeyopicVoi?. cl(rSvcarOai 
 TOV vovv ets TO, yiyvo/xcra /cat TrotovWa. 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 311 
 
 Read probably rots yevo/xeVots or ytyvo/xeVots. yei/o/Aei/os 
 and Aeyo/xcvos are well known to be sometimes confused. 
 rots yiyvo/zeVot? makes excellent sense and is confirmed by 
 the next sentence, whereas most of TO, Aeyo/x-eva call for no 
 mental strain and rots Acyo^eVots would be too complimentary 
 to other people. 
 
 34 tSe TO.? Stay ota? aura>y otat KOLI oia JJL^V <evyouo~at, ota Se 
 may be right, but I suspect we should read 
 and StwKovo-t, as in 4. 38 : 10. 13. The confusion 
 may be found in other places. 
 
 55 TOVTWV ovv e;(o/xeyoi> TO 7/ye/x.ovtKOV ev$ea Trepatverco Kat 
 
 After an imperative Greek idiom needs the future eet. 
 In 11. 16 we should certainly read co-rat for corco with 
 Gataker ^alp avrots Kat paSta Icrrat <rot). 
 
 58. fo'Ac (reavro) /caAos eti/at ?rt Travros 01! 
 Coray conjectured KaAws eT^ai. I would rather suggest 
 tvai, the confusion of KaAos and t/cai/o's being quite 
 familiar. See Index. 
 
 64 Aav$dVei goes with TTOVW ravra ovra, not with 
 , as the last words of the show. 
 
 8. 3 'AAe^avSpos Se Kal Fatos Kat IIoftTr^tos Tt Trpos AtoyeViy 
 Kat HpaKAaroi' Kat ^wKparryv ; ot /xev yap eT8ov TO, Trpayjuara 
 Kat ras atrtas Kat ras vAas, Kat ra r/ye/xovtKa i^v avrwv ravra' 
 Kt Se oVcov (or ocrry) Trpovota Kat SovAeta TTOCTOOI/ ; 
 
 TTpovoLCL is a good quality and the word could hardly be 
 used in this disparaging sort of way. M. Causaubon 
 TrapdVoia. TrcptVota (cf. 1.7: 8. 36 : Ar. Frogs 958) might 
 be more suitable. One would think TTOO-OOV ought to be 
 , but cf. on 6. 27. 
 
 8. 'Avaytyvojo-Keiv OVK e^ecrrtv dAA' vftpw di/etpyetv 
 
 O.AA' T^SoVCUV Kttt 7TOVWV Ka@V7TpTp.lv ^CTTIV K.T.A. 
 
 Rendall suggests Travra ytyvwo-Kctv. But a comparison of 
 Epictetus 4. 4 fully confirms dvaytyvwo-Keiv. The whole of 
 that fourth chapter is devoted to answering the complaints 
 of a man who finds that he has not leisure for reading 
 
312 APPENDIX 
 
 fJLOL (TTIV' ovK evcT^oXw dvayvaWt. The Stoic points out 
 that he is perhaps just as well occupied otherwise. Renan 
 therefore also misconceives the meaning of the words before 
 us, when (Marc-Aurele, p. 464) he supposes the emperor 
 to have written them un jour qu'il dut deposer par fatigue 
 le lime qu'il tenait a la main. 
 
 Cf. the references to books in 2. 2, though obscure : 2. 3 
 rrjv Se TCOV /?i/3AtW &i\f/av ptyov : 4. 30 (in which passage 
 I have sometimes thought the two last clauses should 
 be written as questions). 
 
 16 /xe/zvr/o-o oYt KOL TO //,eraTi0ccr$ai KCU crrcarQai TU> Stop#ovvTi 
 6/AOi'a>s eXtvOepov eari. 
 
 I should prefer eAeu0e'pou. Cf. on 11. 9. 
 
 22 Si/caiws ravra Tracr^cis* /xaAAov Se &\fi<s ayaObs avpLOV 
 yVcr6(ii rj cr^epov etvat. 
 
 Write yap for 8e. 
 
 30 XaA.etv /cai cv crvyKA-^Tw /cat Trpos 
 Aoyco xpf)(r6a.i. 
 
 ojs has been doubted, and I was myself disposed 
 to alter it, until I read in Longinus (Bhetores Graeci, 
 Teubner I. ii. p. 216) %pr] TOV Trapa/xv^ov/xcvov /xrj /xera 
 dAAa ytxera ervyu.7T7rov^vtas Aeyctv 
 
 32 (TvvriOfvai Set TOJ/ ySi'ov Kara /xiav Trpa^iv Kat et fKacrTr] TO 
 
 Trape^et ws otov re apKetcr^ar tva Se TO e'airnys 
 t? o~e KO)A.{)o"at SwaTat. 
 
 (1) I am inclined to suggest /caTo, /xtav <eKao-T^v> 
 
 /xtW Trpa^tv cannot mean that, and, if it meant Zi&e (so 
 as to form) a single action, the e/cdo-Tr? following would be 
 intolerable. (2) Should /xrj be inserted in the last words 
 after tva Se or TO cavrfjs, or is it a case of the abuse of Iva. '? 
 
 35 oJOTTrep TOIS dAAtt? Svvd/x-ets e/cao-TOV (eKao~Tos, 
 Aoyt/cwv o-^eSoi/ ocrov 17 TWV Aoyt/<o>v (f)V<ri<s, OVTWS Kat 
 Trap' avT?}? etAr/^a/xev. 
 
 I suggest something like e/<do-Ta>...o-xSoi/ S t S w cr t v 17 TWV 
 oAwv Averts, believing AoytKwv to be a mere inadvertent 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 313 
 
 repetition of the AoytKwv preceding. For 17 TWV oAojv < 
 cf. 6 17 rwv oXcov (frv(ri<s TOVTO cpyov c^ei ' 1^- ^ Tov 
 8 1 8 w o~ t v 17 <vo~t9 ... 17 roiv oXwv, etc. 
 
 45 Should o-vvSvofjLtvr), which means nothing, be 
 matching opeyo/xevr; ? 
 
 48 ovSev OYVporrepov t^ei aV$poj7ros e</> b Karac^vycbv dvaXwros 
 AOITTOV av etr/' 6 /xev ovv /XT) ewpaKw? TOVTO d/xa^r;?, 6 Se cwpaKcu? 
 Kat /xr) KaTa^vywi/ aT^x^?. Should d/xa^rj? and d-rv^rj? change 
 places'? The second at any rate seems odd where it 
 stands. 
 
 52 TIS OW (^CuVcTCU O"Ot 6 TOV TOJV KpOTOVVTWV (.TTOLiVOV 
 
 ^8iov, ot ov0' OTTOV tQ-tv ov^' orrives eto^i ytyi/wo"/covo"t ; 
 
 There is no sense to be got out of this, nor is Gataker's 
 bold conjecture (TOV TWV /cpoTowTwv 17 if/oyov ^>evyo)v [as 
 though ot KpoTovrre? could blame] 77 cvratvov SIOJKWV ot), or 
 Diibner's modification of that (TOI/ T. K. erraivov SttoKtov ot), 
 satisfactory. Perhaps ov should be read for 6 (as in 10. 25 : 
 cf. on 12. 8 below) and av added so as give the meaning 
 ivho would not prefer to avoid ? 
 
 Cf . the change proposed in 1 2. 8 below. 
 
 I have also thought of Tt o~ot <ouvTai TOV Toy T. K. 7rati/ov 
 
 55 OTTOTttV 7Tpa>TOl/ OVTOS &\r)(TY). ttVTOS ? 
 
 58 6 TOI/ Odvarov ^>o/3ov/>tevos r/rot araia-Orjcrcav ^>o^etTa 77 
 aiO-Orja-iv cTepomv. dA.A. J ?T' OVKCTI afo-^o-ty, ovSe KaKOv TIVOS 
 ai(r6r)(Tr)' CIT' dAAoiOTepav cuo-Orj&iv KTTJcrr), K.T.A.. 
 
 For ov/<Tt aLcrOfjcrLV read OVKCTI aicrOrjcrrj or aio-Orjcrw <e^ts>. 
 We can hardly understand <(ets out of the coming /err/Vet. 
 
 9. 9 wtfTe XPV& LV v StcipyovTWK Kat jStas. 
 
 Rather Stetp^oi/Twv by Greek idiom, and possibly /3m. 
 
 21 evepyetas a7roXr;^t5, 6p/x,r}s </cai> vTroX^eco? TravAa Kat 
 otov Odvaros, ovSey KaKoV. 
 
 Kat is due to Gataker. Perhaps a substantive has been 
 lost, parallel to aTroXr/^ts and 
 
314 APPENDIX 
 
 41 Epicurus used to ask himself TTWS ^ SidVoia 
 \afjLJ3dvov<ra TCOV eV T<3 crap/a8iu> TOioirrooi/ 
 TO iSiov dyaOov Trjpoixra. 
 
 Rather <ov> o-v/x/AeTaXa/A/JdVov<ra. The very point is 
 that it did not share in the /ai/rjo-ets. ov would easily fall 
 out before av. TOIOVTWV may be right, but seems rather 
 pointless. Qy. rovrwl 
 
 At the end of the Trpao-crei wants a subject and should 
 probably be 
 
 10. 6 /xepos ei/xt TOV 6'Xov, VTTO <ucrews 
 
 Perhaps SLOLKOVJJLWOV or even -os. Cf. 2 TI o-ov 17 
 
 , 0)S V7TO <f>VCT(D<S [JLOVOV 
 
 7 ei 8e ffrvarcL KOLKOV re Kat dvayKatov ecrrt TOVTO O.VTOLS (i.e. 
 for the parts to perish), OVK av TO o\ov /caXws Ste^ayotTo, TWV 
 el? dXXoTpc'wo-tv IOVTWV /cat Trpos TO t^ 
 
 I am puzzled by the combination of KaKoV and 
 nor can I, if the text is right, make any coherent sense of 
 the whole , especially of the TroVepov yap eTre^etp^aev f) 
 <$>\><JLS avT^ TOL eariT^s /xep>7 KO.KOVV, which immediately follows 
 the words quoted. But other readers do not seem to have 
 felt any difficulty. At present my impression is that 
 KaKov and KaA.ws should be changed to /caAoV and Kaws 
 respectively. What is good and necessary for the parts 
 cannot be bad for the whole, for nature never set about 
 injuring her own parts. 
 
 9 /xt/xos, TrdXc/xos, TTTOta, vdpKY), SovAeia /<a$' ly/xepav aTra- 
 \L\f/Tai (Tov TO, iepa e/ceiva 8dy/x,aTa, O7roo"a 6 
 (o7roo-a dc^vo-toXoy^Toos Gataker, oTrocra ov 
 Kendall) 
 
 and TroXejuos, TTTota and vap/oy appear to be con- 
 trasted respectively, but 8ovXeta stands alone without a 
 contrast. Is it possible that its proper antithesis apx r i nas 
 fallen out after the very similar letters of 
 
 10 apdxyiov fAvlav Qrjpacrav /xeya ^>poi/i, aXXos 8e Xayi'Siov, 
 
 aXXos 8c vTroxf) a<f>vr)v, aXXos 8e K.T.X. 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 315 
 
 Should the first aXXos be aVos, i.e. aV0pa>7ros? Cf. on 4. 
 16 above. 
 
 19 otot eio-tv eVfltovTes, /caflevSoi/res, o 
 raXXa- eTra otot dvSpoi/ojaou/zevot Kat yavpou/xevot r) xaX 
 Kat e vTrepox^s eVtTrX^TTOVTes. Trpo oXtyov Se eSouXevov TroVots 
 Kat Si' ota, Kat yaer' oXiyov ev TOIOUTOIS eo-ovrai. 
 
 For di/Spovo//W/xevoi, which is meaningless, there are 
 conjectures such as a/fywo/xevot, Reiske ; di/Spto/xevot, Coray ; 
 av8poywov/>ivot, Rendall. Of these the first is the best, 
 both as being nearest and because some word seems wanted 
 that may be coupled with yavpov/xevoi as the other two 
 expressions are coupled together in sense. I would suggest 
 as alternatives, and coming perhaps even nearer, either 
 <aiSpwo/Aevoi or Xa/xTrpwo'/xevot. It is hard to see the 
 meaning of ev TOIOVTOLS. Perhaps ev rots avrot?, i.e. ev 
 SovXeia. For ev TroVots Kat Si' ota (cf. 9. 34) see above 
 on 8. 3. 
 
 23 ci/apyes IQ-TW del TO on TOIOVTO e/cetvo 6 dypos eo^Tt, Kat 
 TTWS TravTO. eo-rt ravra ev^aSc roTs ev a/cpw rai opet r; tTrt TOV 
 atytaXov r) OTTOV ^eXets. 
 
 Rendall's translation ' take for your axiom the old truth 
 the field is where you make it ' is difficult to connect 
 with the Greek, and his idea that the field ' signifies the 
 place of seclusion and retirement, as in iv. 3 ' seems 
 fanciful. Long's ' that this piece of land is like any other ' 
 gives a better sense, though hardly the right one and not 
 quite to be got out of the Greek either. I do not feel at 
 all sure what Marcus is saying, but I should like to suggest 
 TOIOI)TO (or ravro) cKetvo) 6 dypos eori, his field is to another 
 man much as your court, your empire, is to you ; things 
 here and on the mountain-top or seashore are all in reality 
 the same. tKetvos would also give a similar sense. Cf. 27, 
 including the words quoted from it below ; also 15. TTWS 
 should perhaps be TTCOS. 
 
 25 6 TOV Kvptov ^>vycuv SpaTreYtys* Kvptos Se 6 vo/xos* Kat 6 
 7rapavo/>tcui/ SpaTren;?. 
 
 The last words want a connecting particle, ovv (lost after 
 <DV) or apa (lost before Spa). 
 
316 APPENDIX 
 
 27 7raj/Ta yap e/ceiva TOtaCra, rjv, [AOVOV 81' i 
 
 Probably ravra rji/, for /xoVov 81' erepwv wants something 
 stronger than rotavra, with which it does not contrast 
 sufficiently. 
 
 31 ofav should surely be TTOLOV. 
 
 33 ov Trporcpov Travay orevcov Trpiv rj TOVTO TrdOys, on, otoV 
 
 <TTL TOtS ^SvTTa^OVO-lV 17 TpV(f>Y}, TOLOVTO CTOl K.T.A. 
 
 Read fj,dOrj<; for TrdQys. 
 
 34 T<p SeS^y/xevo) IITTO TOJV a\rjOo)v 8oy/xarwv dpKet /<at ra 
 
 /cat cv /xecra) Ket/xevov ets V7r6/jivr)(riv dAvTrt'a? /cat 
 otov <$vAAa ra /x,ei/ T' aveyaos X -^^ X ' et ^5" 
 
 'When once true principles have bitten in,' 'to him who 
 is penetrated by true principles' say the translators. 
 Gataker, who cannot stomach (concoquere) either SeSey^ero) 
 or 8e8eiy//,eVa>, which he found in some editions, suggests 
 8eSeu//cVa> (not 8e8iSay/x,eVa) which Stich ascribes to him), 
 quoting Plato's 8oa 8ewo7roios : such a use is however 
 improbable. According to Stich's critical note one MS. 
 has TW 8e8oy/x,eVo> and one has rwv SeS^y/xeVwv. The genitive 
 in the latter may very well be a mere accident, but it falls 
 in with what I think the true reading. A and A being so 
 often confused, it is probable that we should read r<ov 
 AeAey/xeVwv O.TTO TWV a. 8., the genitive depending on and 
 giving an improved meaning to TO /Spa^vrarov KO.L . . . 
 
 36 pr) corai cannot mean 'will there not be?' as the 
 translators take it. It looks like a non- Attic construction, 
 equivalent to the Homeric and occasional Attic use of /xr} 
 and fj,r] ov with subjunctive in independent sentences 
 (Goodwin M.T. 261-264) : ' I fear there will be.' But ^ 
 is wanting altogether in Stich's codex A. 
 
 ibid. TO tStov e$os 8iaa*<p(ov, ^>tAos Kai evvovs KOL tAew?. 
 Read 
 
 11.9 Kat yap TOVTO do"^ev5, TO ^aAeTraivctv avTois K.T.A. 
 Perhaps do"$vos, as in 18 wa-ircp fj Xvirr) aarOcvovs, OVTWS 
 t f) opyrj. Cf. on 8. 16 above. 
 
MARCUS AURELIUS 317 
 
 11 et /AeV should apparently be omitted. Does it arise 
 from W/ACV concluding the before ? 
 
 16 Perhaps KoXXia-ra 8r/, or /caXXtVny Srj, tfiv 8vva/Ats 
 
 18 (under Ivvarov) eav StareX^s cv/xevr/s avra) Kat . . . 
 rr/oaws Trapaivrj? *at /x,Ta8t8ao-/c^s cuo-xoXwv. 
 
 For cvo-xoXaiv, which is quite inappropriate, read 
 
 zVZ. yo> /xev ov /AT) j8Xa/?ur o~v 8e 
 The sense and the ov /xrj point clearly to fiXdif/y for 
 fiXd-Try. Cf. on 9. 9, etc. 
 
 ibid. Set Se /Arjre eipwvtKws avro TTOICII/ /x>}r 6veiSto-Tt/cws 
 dXXa <j{>iA.ocrTo/oya)5 /cat dSr/KTWs T^ J/ruxS- 
 
 T ?5 ^ V x5 c 011 ^ hardly be added in this way. Read 
 /cat 
 
 12. 1 jii) TO 7ra.v<r<rOai Trore TOU ^v <j>oj3Y)6y<;. dXXa TO ye 
 apa<T9ai Kara (frvcrw fjv. 
 
 should of course be aorist, like a 
 
 2 6 $eos TravTa Ta ^ye/xovtfca yv/xva TWV vXiKwv dyyetwv KCU 
 <f>\OL(i)V Kat Ka@apfJia.T(DV opa. 
 
 Ka@dpfj.aTa are strange things indeed to be * bare ' of. 
 Is it not clear that we should read Ka0a//,/xoYa>v ? 
 
 5 OVK av 8' OVTCO SteXeyo'/xe^a Tots ^eots, ct /AT) apio-TOt Kat 
 
 ^IKaiOTttTOt IOTIV. 
 
 Is eto-tV a mistake for ^o-av 1 It may be right, but I do 
 not recall a parallel in Greek, or in Latin either, for such 
 constructions as carmina ni sint, ex umero Pelopis non 
 nituisset ebur take the subjunctive. 
 
 8 Otda-acrOai . . . ri Odvaros, TL So^a, T/S 6 eavra) 
 atTtog, 7ra)5 oijSets VTT' aXXov e/XTro8t^Tat. 
 
 The third point here suggested, ' who is the man that 
 involves himself in disquiet and trouble/ seems hardly 
 natural or in keeping with the others. I would suggest 
 that for 6 we should read ov or rather ovx> meaning that a 
 
318 APPENDIX 
 
 man is always responsible for his own dc^oXm. It goes 
 along with the next words TTOJS . . . t/xTroSi^erai. eavTw and 
 VTT' dAAov, rtg ov and ovSei's match one another. For the 
 correction of 6 to ov cf. on 8. 52 above. 
 
 12 The use of /XTJTC and not ovre shows something 
 to be wrong or missing. Should the first /X^TTTC'OV be 
 
 16 e?rt TOV <f)avTa<riav TrapaaxovTos ort ^/xapre* ri Sat 
 oTSa ei TOVTO d/xaprry/xa ; et Se /cat ^/xa/orev, ort KartK 
 avTos eavToV, /cat ovmos o/xotov TOVTO T<3 KaTaSpwrreiv 
 
 Kendall and Long follow Coray, rightly I think, in 
 adding an ov before KareKpwev : ' how do I know that he 
 did not condemn himself 1 ' But what is the point of the 
 comparison that follows 1 ' How do I know that he did 
 not condemn himself ? ' is a suggestion in the man's favour, 
 whereas the comparison to scratching your own face would 
 tell against him. I do not feel very sure of the drift, but 
 am inclined to suggest ov KartKpwov. ' Even if he did do 
 wrong, in condemning him for it was I not condemning 
 myself (since I do the same or similar things) and 
 scratching my own face 1 ' eavToV may of course = e/ 
 
 27 VTTO a.TV$ia. CTTL for VTTO 1 
 
 31 Tt 7ri/7Tets; TO SiaytVeo-$ai ; aAAa TO 
 TO 6p/xav ; TO aveo-0ai, K.T.X. Tt TOVTWV TTO^OV o-ot aiov 8o/cet ; 
 
 Kendall removes the note of interrogation after e^i^reis 
 and so gets a better general sense, ' why hanker for con- 
 tinuous (continued 1) existence?' though then TO ato-0d- 
 veo-^at, etc. seem to have no proper construction and dAAd 
 no meaning. For dAAd we should, I think, read apa, 
 which is sometimes confused with it : for the rest one 
 would expect something like <v> TO> SiaytVeo-#ai, or TO) 8. 
 without ev : ri eTrt^Tets TW Staytyvecr^at ; apa TO 
 TO op/Aav, TO a 
 
EPICTETUS. 
 
 1. 2. 36 'ETTIKT^TOS Kpet'crcrajy 2o>KpaTOv? OVK Icrrtv ei 8e /AT) ov 
 /, TOVTO /xot iKttvov IcTTLV ovSe yap MtXcov ecTO/xat Kat o/xws 
 OVK dyueXw TOV orw^aros. 
 
 et 8e /xr/ ov xetpwv is supposed to mean ' if I am no worse/ 
 But (1) this takes no account of the ov : (2) Epictetus 
 would never have claimed to be ' no worse ' than Socrates, 
 and this is apparent even from the parallels he goes on to 
 give, 'I shall never be a Milo, a Croesus, etc/ Perhaps we 
 should read ^ TOV ^eipwv l not worse than my neighbour/ 
 as in Apol. 29 B e? TO> o-o<orrepos rov ^an?v elvai, Midias 66 
 Kav a/xeivov ayiDViarwfJiai rtvo?, and often. 
 
 1. 1. 27 pao-a? ctw^ci Aeyetv l (rrjfMtpov dvaipe^vat 
 
 T) avptoi/ ^>vya8ev^i/at.' Tt ovv avrw 'Pov^>os ctTrev ; 
 /xev a>s /3apvTpov e/cXey^, TI'S 17 /xwpt'a T^S tKXoy^s ; et 8' 
 Kov^orepov, TIS o~ot 8eSa>Kev ; ' 
 
 TI'S 17 /xwpia cannot I think = the exclamation oo->; 17 
 nor yet do I see how else to explain it. Has a word 
 dropped out, e.g. </x,eyaXr;> TIS (i.e. eo-riV) 1 ^yr? and yucyaAry 
 resemble each other. 
 
 1. 4. 10 rt 8' (XTrayets avrov TT)S o~wato*^^crws TWV avrov 
 Ka/ccov ; 
 
 The context points plainly to /axKiwv. Cf. p. 182. 
 
 1. 4. 16 6 ovv e^r/yov/xevos avro (TO /?t/3Xtov) 8oKt oVt 
 TrXet'ovos a^tos eo-Ttv ^ irtvre. S^vapt'cov ; 
 
 Read So/cets. So in 25 SOKCITC OTI K.T.X. and often. 
 619 
 
320 APPENDIX 
 
 1. 5. 5 av fjiev 77 <TIS> OUTW 
 
 1. 7. 26 TIS en aXXos ecrTi Xoya> 
 
 <ev> or <eV> epwnjcrei 1 So yap seems omitted a few lines 
 below after aVoTra. 
 
 1. 9. 11 ov TOVTO [JirjxavwfJLCvov OTTCOS /XT) K.r.X., dXXa /x,7y 
 
 fJL7rt7rT(D(TLV TOLOVTOL VCOl, Ot . . . OLTTOpptyai ^eXwCTl. 
 
 Grammar requires OeXovo-i. The subjunctive seems an 
 error due to the influence of e/xTrtTTTwo-tv, not a latinism. 
 
 ^6ic?. 26 on (twice) should be ore. 
 
 ibid. 27 eSoKt Tot? TToXXots f]TV)(r]K<i)<t KOL 
 
 7rt<^>avr/s (wv Kat TrAovcrtos, "ucrrepov 8' e/cTreTrTWKcos aTra 
 
 Should not the first Kai be ws, a word with which it 
 sometimes gets confused 1 The words from Kai to aTravrcov 
 go poorly with eSo'/cei. 
 
 1. 10. 10 ojjioiov ovv ecrnv . . . drayiyvoxTKeo/ ' TrapaKaXw crc 
 x.r.X.' 77 ' TrapaKaXw ere K.T.X. ; raOra e/cciVois o/xoia ICTTW ; 
 
 This is not the only place where o/xoto? ^ occurs, but is it 
 right ^ ?} like o>s gets confused in MSS. with Kat and 
 perhaps this is the real origin of the strange phrase, 
 Kat is of course familiar. Cf. the next note but one. 
 
 1. 11. 19 a7ro<aivo/x<e$a should be a7ro<aivoyt$a or a7ro- 
 Observe the answer 
 
 ibid. 23 eSei . . . ajBor]Of]rov d.7ro\ei<t>6r)va.L TO TratStov . . . rj 
 
 A clear case of r/ for Kat. 
 
 1. 13. 3 OVK avt^r) TOV dSeX^oG rov o-avrov, os e^et TOV Aia 
 -Trpoyovov, wcnrep vlos CK TIOV avrcov o-Trep/xarcov yeyovev. 
 
 Remedy the asyndeton by reading <os> 
 
 1. 16. 3 opa otoi/ <av> yv and ^6^. 20 ci yow di^Swv 
 <av> TO. r^s d 
 
 1. 17. 17 Troia ow ev^cxS' 6cf>pv<; TOV e^yov/x,e/ov ; ('why 
 should the interpreter be conceited 1 ?') o8' auroi) 
 
EPICTETUS 321 
 
 TTOU SiKCUws, ct fiovov e^yetTat TO {3ov\r)/JLa TTJS 
 S' ov/c aKoXot'^ei. TroVa) TrXeW TO> 
 
 should logically be ^rrov. Yet it would be unsafe 
 to alter the text, for writers do fall into these mistakes. 
 In the Fairy Queen 5. 6. 26 Spenser writes ne lesse for ne 
 more, and I have noticed the same slip twice in J. A. 
 Symonds (Greek Poets 1. p. 257 'nor are the enemies of 
 Aristophanes less insensible ' : Revival of Learning p. 449 
 (ch. 8 ad init.) 'the phrases of Petrarch are not less 
 obsolete '). 
 
 1. 18. 11 Read xaXeTravets twice for xaAcTreuVeis : 19. 27 
 Xe^eis for Xeyeis : 23. 6 7ro\LTevorecr6ai for .TroXireuecr^ai : ibid. 
 7 probably owo\ei\j/ci for aTroXenm. But in 25. 18 ltpyopa.i 
 shows that /xvoi should be /xeVcu, though this mistake is 
 much less common. 
 
 1. 20. 11 otmos OTTOV Buuf>cpW oio/xe$a TO 7rAavao-$ai TOU ^ 
 vrXavacrQcu (e.g. in money matters), cvravOa iroXXrjv 
 
 Travav <f>avTa.(rLav 7rapa7rpoo-8e^o/>t^a m 17 yap 
 
 OV 
 
 I think we ought to restore here a Thucydidean word 
 and read araXai-n-wpov. Our indolence and indifference in 
 the one case are contrasted with our keenness in the other. 
 Schenkl's index shows that ctTaAaiVwpos occurs half a dozen 
 times in these Discourses. 
 
 1. 22. 16 There seems something lost after dyaA/xaTa. 
 
 1. 25. 17 /AOVOV py^Sef /?apov/u,i/os TTOICI, /x,r) $A.t/3o/xevos 
 ev KttKOis eti/at. 
 
 /x>j should apparently be /x^Se' or /Ar;8eV. 
 
 1. 29. 62 Aet 8' av ov Tiva dvov aTro TOVTCDV 
 
 The sense is ' until I get some relief ' : we must therefore 
 read 
 
 2. 1. 32 eTrct /AT) eSwaTO e^eti/ del TOV eXey^ovTa avTOv Ta 
 oy;u,aTa rj eXey^^o-o/xevoi/ ev TO) /xepei, avTos eavTov ^Xey^e. 
 
 The future eXey^^o-o'/xevov makes quite plain what might 
 otherwise have been denied, that eXey^ovTa should be 
 
 Y 
 
322 APPENDIX 
 
 So 12. 2 805 . . . iSicor^v TWO. rov 7rpoo-8iaXeyo//,ei'ov 
 the participle should be future, and 14. 21 evOvs aTraXXao-cn? 
 the verb; 17. 20 aTTOKreiVw /xev ra re/cva, dXXa /cat e/xavr^v 
 Tt//.<op>jo-o/x,ai the parallel clause again proves the present 
 tense wrong. 18. 25 ol^rai may be right, but oixrjo-eTai 
 would be much more natural. It is not at all clear that 
 w in 5. 29 should not be 
 
 2. 2. 7 TOVTO <TOL TTpOOL/JiLOV, TOVTO 8l^y^(Tl5, TOVTO TTICTTI?, 
 
 TOVTO vtK?7, TOVTO eTTi'Xoyos, TOVTO evSo/a/x/tyo-is. Transfer TOVTO 
 eTTt'Xoyos to precede TOVTO VLKYJ. eTrt'Xoyos must not be cut off 
 from Trpooi/uov, 8t??y?7o-is, TTIO-TIS, nor VIKVJ from 
 
 2. 3. 3 Just as the judge of coins says 'give me any 
 drachma you like and I'll tell you if it's a good one,' so 
 with syllogisms we ought to be able to say ' ^>epe ov ^eAeis 
 Kat, Sia/cpivco o~oi TO> avaXvTLKov TC Kat /x.^. But araA.vTtKOv is 
 not at all the word we want : it is clearly a mere mistake 
 for (XTroSeiKTtKoV (Xoyov aTroSeiKTi/cov 2. 25. 2). What is the 
 origin of the mistake 1 The words immediately following 
 show US : 8ia TI ; oioa yap dvaXveiv o"vAAoyio-/xovs. The 
 coming dvaAveiv is reflected in the erroneous 
 
 2. 5 17 In the game of ball 6 /xev epei 'ySaAc,' <6 8e> '/x,^ 
 /3aA^5,' 6 8e * ^ dve'XajSes ' or, as a correction in codex S has 
 it, fiCav eXa^es. Possibly we should read / 
 
 2. 6. 2 /X,?JT' must be /x.^8', if the preceding ^ is right. 
 
 ibid. 7 /XT) yap crov TOVTO TO epyov rjv a\\' 
 Read /x^ yap <ou> o~ov. 
 
 2. 8. 7 aXXws yap <av> TrepiTraTetv QVK 
 
 2. 13. 13 Nothing else changes a man's colour ovSe 
 t ov8e \j/6<f>ov TOJV 68ovTwv ov8e 
 
 /xeTOKXa^ei Kat or' d/x^oTepovs 7rd8a? t^ei. 
 The verbs in the quotation should be infinitives after 
 Troiet. 
 
 2. 14. 22 <at> cTTtjSoXat. The four other substantives 
 have an article apiece. 
 
EPICTETUS 323 
 
 2. 16. 30 Speaking of men complaining about this, that, 
 and the other, he goes on aAAos eA#wv 6Vt OVKZTI TO r^s 
 Atp/oys vSwp TTiVetv /u,cAAct' TO yap Map/aov ^eipov eo-Tt TO> Tr)s 
 
 eA0wi/ gives no particular sense. Is it perhaps a corruption 
 of IvQfv eXwvl Cf. my note on the De Sublim. 34 in 
 Aristophanes and Others p. 256. 
 
 2. 16. 31 tflTtl (TTt^OV O/XOIOV TO) EuptTTtSoV TTOt^OXH 
 
 OepfjLas re Tas Nepeovos Map/aoV $' vSwp. 
 
 The unmetrical MapKiov seems due to TO MapKtov a few 
 lines above. It may therefore stand for anything. But 
 Pliny's words (N.H. 31.3. 24) Marcia . . . vocabatur quondam 
 Aufeia . . . rursus restituit Marcics Agrippa suggest the 
 possibility of Av^etov or 'AyptVTrov. Map/ciov might indeed 
 be a gloss on it. 
 
 2. 17. 26 Omit the /cat' before TI In. 
 
 2. 22. 24 /xr) avroOfv airo(f>aivr) is ungrammatical. Read 
 o,7ro<aiVou or a.7ro<f>r)vr). In 3. 24. 5 /xr; . . . ^Secos avTO ap^iy 
 Troietv /cat AOITTOV a)? Ka/cos aOXrjTys Trcptep^ we should surely 
 read 
 
 2. 23. 8 Kav 7rv$r7 . . . , TIVOS 
 
 I do not see how irvOy, if you have enquired, can be right. 
 We seem to need TrvvOdvy in both places. So in 3. 10. 12 
 av KaXws Trves, ets T ^ TO ^ ^^eo-o-ovTos read 
 
 3. 1. 6 Tt OW 7TOlt aV^pWTTOf KttXoV ^ OTTCp TO) yVt Kttt KVVCL 
 KOL ITT7TOV ; TOVTO, <^7. 
 
 Divide the question into two, the first ending at 
 and write rj. 
 
 ibid. 1 1 Write KOLV for av. 
 
 3. 5. 9 pr] ov Trpoa-rjXOov voi TTOTC ^>ai8pw TW 
 ?Tot/xos et TI 7riTao-o-ts, ct TI 
 
 Should not the two last verbs be optatives or future 
 indicatives 1 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 APPENDIX 
 
 ibid. 17 et \d%avd rts ^TOJV eXr/Xvflev, Trpos TOV Kyirovpbv av 
 avrov 
 
 Is it possible that the /cat yap which introduces this 
 illustration is a mistake for KatfdVep or wo-n-ep (cf. on 1. 9. 
 27 above) ? 
 
 3. 9. 8 ore Trats ^9, e^ra^e? TO, o-avrov Soy/x-ara; ofy(t 8' ws 
 Travra Trotets a eTroiets; ore Se /xctpd/aov r/S?; . . ., Tt crot XctVcu/ 
 l^avrd^ov ; K.r.X. 
 
 o)5 Travra Troteis makes no sense, the general drift being 
 that at every stage of his life he was quite well pleased with 
 himself and thought nothing wanting. It seems to me 
 that Trout? is merely due to the thorns which is about to 
 come twice (cf. on 2. 3. 3 and 2. 16. 31) and that we should 
 read something like d>s Travra etSws. 
 
 3. 14. 14 07 should be 779, and 21.12 avro should be avrd. 
 
 3. 21. 7 eyw vfMV e&jYqa'OfJLa.L ra XpucrtTTTreia a>s ouSet's, TYJV 
 Xe^tv SiaXvcrco Ka^apwrara, 7rpoo-$^cra) av TTOV Kat ) Avrnrdrpov 
 /cat 'Apx^^ov (fropdv. 
 
 Once or twice elsewhere in these Discourses av appears 
 with the future. Here however it is suspicious as not 
 being added to the other verbs, and TTOV increases the 
 suspicion. Is dv TTOV the remains of another proper name 
 or possibly a dittograph of 'AvrtTrarpov ? 
 
 3. 22. 14 If Xeye were right, we should have ei/u and 
 Bead therefore Xeyet. 
 
 ibid. 59 rt for ort would seem better than Upton's rt rtVt. 
 
 3. 23. 10 Trpurqv tyvxporepov o~ov rwv aKpoaruv (rvveXOovTwv. 
 The adverb is hardly suited to the verb. Read 
 
 4. 3. 10 et yap r^eXev, dya^a 
 
 av can hardly be in its proper place. dya0' dv ? 
 
 4. 4. 14 dXX avrov KaraX^yo/xei/ uaOelv TL Aeyerat <i/ 
 
EPICTETUS 325 
 
 ibid. 38 KOLKCLVOV 0epa7reueiv a>s Ka/co8ai/x,ova. 
 
 Should we write Ka/cov Sai/xova *? Neither KaKoSat/xwi/ nor 
 dyafloScu/Awv is cited in the use here required. Ar. Eq. 112 
 is certainly not an instance of the former. 
 
 Fragm. 1 (end) Put mark of interrogation after 17 /xrj. 
 
 6 rfj . . . cf)avTa.(ria for TYJ<S . . . <f>avrao~ia<s 1 
 
 EncheiT, 12 (end) orav 8e /caX^s TOV TratSa, ev^u/xov ori 
 8warai /x,r/ vTraKovcrai Kat vTraKovcra? /x^Sev Trotfjcrai wv ^e'Xet?, 
 dXX' ov^ ot/rcos ecrriv a^ra) KaAcos Tva CTT' e/ceiVa) ^ TO o"e ^,r) 
 
 The last part of this is quite unmeaning, but it seems to 
 suggest something like dAA' ou^ oirroos eoriv O.VTOV /caXeiv iVa 
 TT' e/civa) 17 TO o~e rapaxOrjvaL 17 /XT) Tapa^6r)vai. The /cat' before 
 v7raKovo-as should possibly be r/ (1. 10. 10 above). 
 
LAERTIANA. 
 
 IT does not appear when we are to have a trustworthy 
 text of Diogenes Laertius (who according to some 
 authorities now should be called Laertius Diogenes). 
 Cobet's edition with all its improvements was an early, 
 not very congenial, and quite imperfect piece of work ; 
 yet none has been published since. A new text founded 
 on real knowledge and sound judgment of the MSS. and 
 in other ways brought abreast of present-day scholarship 
 is in every way a desideratum. The man was foolish 
 enough, but the book is of extreme value for the history, 
 especially the literary history, of Greek philosophy. It is 
 also, though little read, full of good things in the way of 
 anecdotes, epigrams, and pregnant sayings not the 
 author's own, be it well understood. Montaigne wished 
 there were a dozen of him. Finally there can be now but 
 few Greek books, whose text is in a more neglected and 
 faulty condition and about the MSS. of which we have 
 less reliable material to go upon. In such a state of 
 things textual criticism is very insecure. I have therefore 
 in the following paper confined myself mainly to minutiae 
 with which it seems comparatively safe to deal. No doubt 
 some of the suggestions have been anticipated. 
 
 Omissions of a word, 
 
 Diogenes introduces the story of the tripod which the 
 Delphic oracle ordered to be sent to the wisest living man 
 with the words TO, Se Trept rov rptVoSa <av/oa rov evpeOevra 
 K.T.X. (1. 27). It is hardly possible to make </>ave/oa mean 
 
 320 
 
LAERTIANA 327 
 
 generally knoiun, but, if not that, what does it mean 1 It 
 may be noticed that the details of the story varied very 
 greatly according to D., who gives a number of different 
 forms. Perhaps therefore this is one of the many places 
 where a negative has been lost and we should read ov 
 <avepa, meaning that the true story is hard to get at. 
 
 It is well known how often av is lost, especially before or 
 after letters identical with it or resembling it. There is 110 
 need therefore to do more than indicate the following 
 cases : 2. 35 1-775 yw<uos etTroucrr;? (to Socrates) 'A&'KWS 
 
 aTToOvrjO-KtCS, 2t> Se', (17, SlKOUWS <ttV> fj3oV\OV (or (TV o' 
 
 <av>'[In Xen. Apol. 28 there is evidence both for and 
 against the av.] : 2. 74 Trpos TOV atrtw/xevov on eVatpa ervvoiKi, 
 T Apa ye, clue, /XT; TL Stevey/cat <av> (or <av otet>) oiKtav 
 \aj3fiv ev TI ToAAoi Travu wK^crav 17 (jirjoeis ; 3. 45 (Anthol. 
 Pal. 7. 108) in one of D.'s own wretched epigrams, 
 
 /cat TTtos, et .r ^>ot5o av' 'EA.A.a8a <{5<re 
 
 ^/cecraro ; 
 
 add av at the end. In 1. 48 TOV or) XOLTTOV Trpoo-^i\ov avrip 6 
 S^/xos /cai i^Sews Kat TvpCLVVCio~6ai fjOtXov Trap' avrov the second 
 Kat should be KOLV, and so in 2. 24 Kat, et vTroSrjfjidrfDV I8et, 
 /3vp(rav (JLOi OL$ov<s Iv e/xavra) U7ro8^/x.ara TroLf]o-a.L^rjv : possibly 
 in 5. 31 KO.V (for /cat) o-u/x^twvat, but see below. On the 
 other hand omit av in 2. 76 dAA' opa /x>y, ws ovSev TWV aAAwv 
 ^a>(ov Trapa TO!TO rt eXarTovrat, o^rtos ov8' av av^pa)7ros (though 
 we C<m supply eAarrotro) and 6. 50 epwrr^ets . . . TTOIO? av 
 etT/ d/xeivcov (aptcrros ?) ^aX/cos ets avSptaVra e<^; 'A^>' ov 'Ap/xd8to? 
 Kat 'ApttrroyetToov ep(aA.Kei;^7;(rav. In such a passage and 
 there are several as 5. 21 epoorrytfets TTOJ? av rots ^>t'A.ots 
 Trpo&fapoLutOa <^rj 'Qs av ev^at/xe^a aurovs T7/xtv Trpoo^e'peor&u 
 it is plain on a moment's reflection that av has no place. 
 The question was TTWS 7rpoo-$ep<o/xe#a, which in the oblique 
 becomes 7rpoo-<epot)x,e#a. Of course it might have been 
 couched in such terms as TTWS av KaAAicrra Trpocr^epot/xe^a, 
 and then it would have remained in the oblique unchanged, 
 but this could not be without an adverb like KaAAio-ra. 
 Such a question as 9. 113 <acrt oe . . ., TrvOto-Qai TTWS rrjv 
 'Ofjirjpov TTOLYJO-LV aa^aA.^? KTrJcratro is possible both with and 
 without an av, but the account of the optative is not the 
 
328 APPENDIX 
 
 same without as with it. 4. 48 epw-n^ets et y^/xai, where 
 yrj//ai has no subject, should perhaps be ei <8eT> yrj/xat. 
 
 The answer of Pittacus to some one who said 8etv Ztfrtiv 
 OLV^PCOTTOV o"7Tou8atov, namely av Atav ^TT^S, ov^ evp7yo"ts (1. / 7), 
 needs a KCU (KCXV Atav ??T7?s) to give it effect. So in the 
 well known story of Aristippus (2. 68 : Hor. Ep. 1. 17. 13) 
 Traptovra TTOTC avrov Ad^ava TrAwwv AtoyeV^s ecrKa>i// Kat <fir](rLv 
 Ei ravra e//,a$es 7rpo<T<epe(7$ai (eat), OVK av rupdvvtov avAas e$e- 
 pdVeves* 6 8e', Kat cru, etTrev, enrep T^Set^dv^ptoTrots o/xtAeTv, OVK av 
 Aa^ava 7rA^ves we should read eo-Kwi^e Kat <2i>> (f>v)<riv et ravra 
 l/xa^eg TTpocr^epeo-^ai. This is shown (1) by Kat (ru, which 
 without a crv preceding would be o-v 8e : (2) by ^o-tv, which 
 without a crv before it would be a past tense like eo-Ktoi/^. 
 The statement about Aristippus a little before (2. 66) ^v 8e 
 tKavo? ap/jioa-ao-Oai /cat TOTTO) Kat XP vt P Ka ^ ^poo-toTra) is I think 
 hardly Greek without a Trairt added. 'O? seems lost in 
 2. 95 avrjpovv TO.S atcr^^<Tis <d)s> OUK a.Kpi/3ovora.<; TYJV liri- 
 yvwcrtv : 3. 95 OTO.V 8eo/xeva) Trapa.l3or)@ija"fl TIS <Ca)?> els 
 \pr]fjia.Ta)v Aoyov evTroprjcrai : zv in 5. 1 Aristotle's father 
 cruve/3i'a) 'Ajawra ra> MaKeSovwv ySacrtAet <ev> iarpov Kat <^>tAov 
 ^pet'a and 9. 62 aKoAou#os 8' ^v Kat (read KOIV) TW ySt'o). In 
 the words of 4. 62 about Carneades, ovros TO. TWV STWIKCUV 
 /3t/3Ata dvayvov?, eTri/xeAoj? TO, Xpvo-tTTTrov, eVietKws avrots 
 dvreAeye there seems a gap before or after eVt/xeAais, which 
 I should suggest filling up by reading <ev ots> eTrt/xeAws. 
 I think too the words of the introduction 6 aTro^aiveo-^at re 
 Trcpt T oucrtas ^eciov Kat yevtcrews ov5 Kat Trvp etvat Kat y^v Kai 
 vSwp might run <cv> ots Kat Trvp eti/at, for ovs cannot well 
 be right. (Cf. 2. Ill etcrt 8e Kat aAAot StaK^Koor 
 iv ots Kat 'ATroAAcovtos and ib. 133 TrAetw crwaycov 
 ev ots Kat TTOI^TWV Kat /XOV(TIKWV,) We should add wv to 7. 3 
 roi) Kparryros, aAAws /xev eirrovos <wv> Trpos ^>iAocro^)tav, 
 8e K.r.A. : 8ttv perhaps to 6. 38 l^afr/ce 8e <8etv> 
 dvTtTt^evat TV^ /xev ^apcros : JJLOVOL to 9. 6 eTrtT^Sevfras 
 (Heraclitus) do-a^eVrepov ypd^at, OTTWS ot Swd/xevot </xovot> 
 Trpocrt'oiev a^rw (i.e. TW /?t/?Ata>), where the loss of /xovot after 
 8wa/xevoi would be especially easy. There is neither sense 
 nor grammar in 8. 66 OTTOI; 8e dAaova Kat <^tAai;Tov ev T]7 
 Troi^crei t8oi av rt?, until we see that <eo-rtv> OTTOV is what 
 the author wrote. Plato's reputed saying (5. 2) 'Apt- 
 as aTreAcxKTKTe, Ka^aTrepet TO, vrwAapta yevvT^evra rr/v 
 
LAERTIANA 329 
 
 /u.r?repa can hardly be in its right form. We want some- 
 thing like </u,eydXa> or] <a7roydXaKra> *? yevr^e'vra. Cf. 
 Aelian V.H. 4. 9. 7. 19 ^pwr^crev ei SOKCI avra> dp/xorrovra 
 etvai ctyei TOiavrr) ^rrj/xara needs a roiairra after rotavrfl. 
 1. 101 ovros eTTotr/crev TOJV re Trapa rots S/cv$ats vofufjuav KOL 
 rwv Trapa rots "EXX^criv, eis evre'Xeiav /Siov Kai TO, Kara rov 
 TrdXe/xov, 7777 oKraKoVia has in the same way no construction 
 until we insert Trept after eTroi^orer, and 6. 23 f3a.KTYjpia Se 
 e7r?;peio-aro do-^ev>;(ras' eVaTa yaeVrot Kat Sia Travros e$opet 
 seems to call for a TTOTC or Trpcorov with eTTTypeuraro, if the 
 force of the aorist is not to be very much strained (Trpwrov 
 may have been represented by a' and that lost before the 
 first letter of dcr^ei^a-as). 
 
 The article is probably lost in 2. 30 Se^as avrw <TOV?> 
 TOV Kovpews Mt'8ou dXe/crpvo^as : *6. 33 lAeye OavfJid^LV ran/ ra? 
 Ai^iVov? ei/cdi/as Karao-Keva^o^eVwv <TO> TOU fiev XiOov Trpovoetv 
 . . , avrcuv 8' a/xeXeiv : ?7?. 137 ws Sr}A.ov e/c T^S Trpos ' A.(rKXr)7rid8r)i' 
 (rv/XTrvoias ouSev rt Sta^epovo-^s <TT}S> IlvXdSov ^iXocrropyias : 
 4. 47 ra^r' eart <ra> Kar' e/xe : 6. 14 TOVTOV /u,ovov ex 
 Trdvrwv <TOJV> 2w/cpariK<3v eoTro/XTros 7ratvi. In 3. 103 on 
 the other hand TWV should be omitted from cav 
 TWV vo/xwv Kar' e^>y /cat eVtr^Sev/xaTa ^p^frra 
 
 3. 61 Kat OVT09 jaei/ OUTW Statpei Kat rives calls out for 
 <aXXot> rive's, unless indeed something else has been lost : 
 SO 2. 43 Kat rovs /xev <aXXovs> e^>vya8ei>crav, MeX^rou 8e 
 Odvarov Kareyvoxrav. 3. 51 should perhaps be Kat Trept /xev 
 SiaXoyov, rt Tror' eo-rt Kai rives aurov Sia<opai', 
 <roo-avra> Xeyeiv. 
 
 Less obvious additions are 1. 74 Kai Trepi ri}s 
 ^wpas /za^o/xe'vcov 'A^vat'wv Kat MvrtXryvatwv ecrrparr/yet 
 <MvrtX77vata)v> p.ev avros, 'A^vaiwv 8e $pwo>v : 2. 34 Trpos rov 
 (for ro) OVK a^toXoyov TrX^os <at8oi;/xvov> e</>ao-Kev o/xoiov e? 
 ris rerpa8pa^/xov ev aTroSoKt/xa^cov rov e/< raiv- roioi;ra)v acopov 009 
 SOKI/XOV aTToSexoiro (cf. Xen. 3fe??i. 3. 7. 5 foll. f who uses 
 atSeTcr^ai, <^>o/?eto-^ai, atcr^wea^ai) : and 4. 60 oi/'e 8' avru> 
 yew/x,erpo'vri Xe'yet rts Etra vi)v Katpos; <Kat os> Etra yur/Se 
 vw; where a reason for the loss of Kai os is obvious. 8. 34 
 perhaps 6'rt oXtyap^tKov <ro d7re'xeo-^at>, for these words can 
 hardly be understood from the context as it at present 
 stands: perhaps simply <OVK> oXiyap^iKov. 5. 31 Aristotle's 
 tenets are stated in a very puzzling way : Kai e 
 
330 APPENDIX 
 
 Be rov (ro<f>ov Kat TroXiTCva-ecrOai, ya/xTycretv re fiyv Kat /?ao*tAet 
 o-u/x/?ta>vat. There is no such phrase possible as re /XT/I/, and, 
 if it is meant that the philosopher will according to 
 Aristotle marry and frequent a court, we must omit /XT?V 
 and write K<xV for KCU, though the change from future to 
 aorist with oV is very harsh. Were it not for the facts of 
 Aristotle's life, we might be inclined to read something 
 like ya/xryo-at ye /XT)V KOL (3a.a-iX.ei crv/x/Stwi/ai <OVK e^eArycretv>, 
 and this would account for the order of the four things 
 mentioned, which is now very strange. Why is ya/xrjo-etv 
 divided off from epaa-Orja-ea-OaL 1 Two pairs of things 
 contrasted we could understand. 
 
 Terminations corrupted. 
 
 1. 48 Iva. Se /XT; 80*007 fiia /xoVov aXXa KOL &LKY) ryv 2jaAa/xu/a 
 KKTT7o-#at, K.T.A. But it was not Solon who owned Salamis : 
 it was the Athenian people. Read therefore BoKolev. So 
 in 4. 8 (Aeyerat TOV orec^avov) e^tovra $etveu Trpos TOV iSpv/xevov 
 'Ep/x^v, evOcnrep riOfvai Kat TO^S avOwovs e?co$ev the last 
 word has been corrected to ciwfoi, but should it not be 
 On the other hand in 3. 56 eo-7rts eVa viroKpiTr}v 
 . . . Kat Seurcpoi/ Ato-^vXo?, rov 8e rptrov ^offroKXfjs, Kat 
 rr/v TpaywStW it is obvious that the last verb 
 should be singular, o-weTrArj/owo-ev, referring to Sophocles 
 only, just as he goes on to say rpirov 8e IlXarwi/ TOV 
 StaAtKTiKov (Xoyov TTpoa-tOrjKe) Kat ereAeo-tovpy^o-e T^V (^tAoo-o- 
 <^)iav. In 6. 52 again, tSwi/ Trore yvvcuKas OLTT eAata? 
 a7r>;yxovio-/xVas, the last plural is due to the other two : why 
 should more than one woman be hanging there? Read 
 yvrauc' . . . aTr^yxoncr/xeVr/v. 
 
 1. 62 -7K/xae Trepl TTJV Teo-crepa.KOO'Trjv eKTrjv 'OAv/XTTtaSa, rjs 
 
 TO) TptTO) Tt rjp&V A&tfVOMOV KOiOa. <f>Y]CTL ^W(TLKpa.T7]<S' OT Kttt 
 
 TtOrjo-L TOUS vo/xous, ereAe^r^o-e 8e K.r.A. For the incongruous 
 present rt^o-t I would read nOevan. Often in Diogenes, as 
 in Herodotus, side by side with finite verbs we find 
 infinitives depending on a Aeyerat, or something similar, 
 understood. In the same way wa.KoXov6iov in 9. 61 should 
 be waKoAov$erv. 4. 3 dAA' et /XT) ^TrevcrnrTrov efJidvOavov wSc 
 6avel<rOaL. The future infinitive is absurd, nor does /xai/0dVo> 
 properly take an infinitive at all. Read Oavovra. 7. 17 
 
LAERTIANA 331 
 
 tJS Se KWIKOS TIS ov (^cras eXatov t^etv ev T 
 TrpocrTjTrjcrev avrov, OVK 2(}>r] Swcretv' a7reX$cWa /zeVrot c/ce'Xcue 
 <TK(j/ao~6a.i oTTorepos t>7 dvatStcrTepos. Read aTreX^ovros. The 
 bystanders, not the now absent Cynic, were bidden to 
 consider the question. In the well-known story about the 
 disappearance of Empedocles (8. 68) /cara/3as 6 Ilavo-avias 
 ore/x^e rtvas t^rrjcrovra^' u<rrepov 8' e/ca)Xv$r/ TroXuTrpay/xovetv, 
 <dcr/can> evxfjs ata arvfJifleprjKevai /cat $uetv aura) Sea/ the 
 passive eKwXvOy makes no sense and ought surely to be 
 /cc6Xwre. In 6. 96 ovSe yap ecrecr^at KOIVWVOS, et yar) Kat rwv avrwv 
 v yei/r/^etry?, it looks as though we should read 
 and /coivcovov. 10. 119 aAAa /cai TrTypw^ets ras oi/'etg 
 avrov (rbv <rocf>ov) TOV )8tov read /cav TrrjpwOf) and ^6. 
 126 So^a^et for 8o|a^erai, which may be due to </>o/3eu-ai and 
 Trpoo-t'o-rarat preceding it ; but 6.99 <^epet seems a mistake 
 for (^eperat (as for instance t6. 98). In 2. 114 ^pao-ufy/xov 
 . . . TTptxnjyayc the middle Trpoo-^yayero is probably required, 
 and $&. 11 jrpwTog 8 ; 'Ava^ayopas /cat fiijSXiov e^e8w/c 
 )^ for the unintelligible crvyypac/^s I suggest 
 
 The corruption of future tenses to present is abundantly 
 illustrated in the text of Diogenes. To cases already 
 corrected add 2. 103 where exiv should be ee/ : 6. 10 
 d/xvvt(7$ai : 7. 14 Xe^ctv /cat ypai/'cu' : 7. 189 et^cw (compare 
 ccrrat following) : and <rrai for ecrrt in 7. 7. In 2. 97 the 
 present infinitives dTroSe'xecr&H, etc. may be right, but I do 
 not feel very sure. EvSat/xovTJcrei in 2. 96 and So'^t in 6. 35 
 should be infinitives. 
 
 A very common mistake in Greek texts and one to 
 which editors and grammar-writers have a wonderful way 
 of blinding themselves is the confusion of comparative and 
 superlative forms. Several cases have been detected in 
 Diogenes (e.g. 6. 5 and the instructive case of Trporrov for 
 7rpoTpov in 2. 43), and the following are equally certain : 
 1. 104 epa>T?7$e!s TtVa TOJV TrXotcov elcrlv do-^aXeo-repa e<f>r) ra 
 vevctoX/c^/xeva (read dcr^aXecrrara) : 5. 64 8tarpti^as ev Travrt 
 Xoycuv etoet /cat /x,aXio"Ta ye ev TO) KaXovytxeva) <^>vo"t/ca), oTrep cTSo? 
 ap^atorepov TC Kat (r7roi)8aioTepoi/ (-orarov in both) : 7. 22 
 TrdWtov cXeyev aTrpeTreo-repov etvat rov rvfyov /cat /xaXifrra e?rt 
 TWV veW (dTrpeTrco-Tarov). I have mentioned above (p. 327) 
 the much more curious case of 6. 50, where d/xctVwv seems 
 
332 APPENDIX 
 
 to Stand for ap LOTTOS (TTOIOS 07 djuetVcov \aX.KO<s et? 
 In 4. 48 epcoTry^ets TTOT Tts yaaXXov dy(oi>ta e<^>?7 6 TO. /xeytcrra 
 /JouAo/x-ei/os evrjfjLepeiv we should certainly read /xaXto-ra : the 
 two words are often interchanged. 
 
 I take a number of substantival, adjectival, pronominal 
 cases as they come. 2. 66 aTre'Aave /xei/ yap -fjoovrjs (read 
 ^Sovr/v) roil/ TrapovTtoi/. *6. 134 TWV 8e 8tSao-KaA.(ov Twv Trepi 
 IlXarwva Kat HevoKpcmyv, en re TlapaLJ3a.Tr)v TOV Kvp^vatov 
 KaTe<poVet. Here the second TWV is no doubt due to the 
 first and should be TOVS : the accusative following is enough 
 to show this. In 3. 18 opyio-$ets yap ot Aoyot crov (frrjari 
 yepovTtwov /cat 05 2ov 8e ye rfpavviwcri the second croS cannot 
 be right. We might think of o-ot, but I hardly think O-OL 
 could stand here unless we read it for the previous <rov too. 
 Perhaps 01 o-ot 8e r ye is more likely, ib. 107 /xepta-ra 8' 6Va 
 e/c rtvos o-vyKLTai : obviously e/c TIVWV. 4. 52 ty 8e ^earptKOS 
 eV T<3 yeXota) 8ta^>op>}(rat : read yeXotws. 5. 20 
 rt eo-rt </>tAos e^; Mta i/'v^T/ 8vo (rto/xaortv evoiKO^cra. 
 This is a definition however not of a friend but of friend- 
 ship, which indeed Aristotle was much more likely to 
 be asked to define (but cf. 7. 23) ; and therefore we should 
 read <iA.ta. ib. 54 OTTCOS Se (rwetp^rai . . . <ra> Trept TO tepov 
 K.T.A.., o-vve7ri/x,eXeto-$ai Kat Ylo/JLTrvXav rovrov evrotKOvvra avrov : 
 read TovVwv for the quite inappropriate TOVTOV. ib. 58 OTTO 
 TOV 7rt r^v ^ecoptav Tavrrjv Starerpt^evai. Cobet Trept for CTTI, 
 but why not eVt 77^ Oewpia rairn? ^ 6. 66 Trpos TOV Arrrapowra 
 rfj eTatpa : usage points to rrjv eTatpav. i6. 68 ep(DT77#ets et 
 Ka/cos 6 0dVaTos, IIoj?, etTre, KaKO?, ov Trapoi/Tos ov/c alcrOavo^Oa. ; 
 usage points as distinctly to /caKoV. 6. 70 o-we^et for 
 
 1 In the well-known oracle (schol. ad Theocr. 14. 48) : 
 
 Foirjs /j.ff TrdcrrjS rd He\a(ryiKbv''Apyos aju.et.vov, 
 "ITTTTOJ prfiKiai, Aa/ceSatyUovmi Se yvvaiKes, 
 'AvSpes 8' ot Trivovffiv vSwp /caA^s 'Apedoixrris- 
 'AAA' <tri KO.I ra>v8' elfflv a/JLelvoves, o'tre K.T.\. 
 
 &/j.etvov would seem to be a mistake for &PHTTOV, but this may be due 
 to the a/j.flvovs of line 4. In Philemon (Kock 203: Meineke 
 Incert. cix.) Qavelv &piffr6v <TTIV ^ rjv a0Ato>s the opposite error has 
 been made. 
 
 [I find now that Plut. Mor. 833 B actually has &PHTTOS in the same 
 story as is told in Diog. 6. 50. In [Demosth.] Ep. 4. 9 rwv i^v 
 avTiffTavruv apicrra irpdrreiv. . ,T&V 5e (rvvrjyeavia/j.6vcav tv8ooTpav elvai 
 should not &piara be &/j.eivov ?] 
 
LAERTIANA 333 
 
 7. 14 Iviovs Se Kat -^a\Kov etaeVpaTTe rovs 
 TO SiSoVat /jij] evo^Xetv. Cobet reads (I do not 
 know how far on conjecture) TWV Treptto-ra/xeVcov aWe SeStoVas 
 TO StSoVat /XT) evo^Xeii/. I suggest in any case evt'ore for 
 cvt'ovs, just as Tore and TOVS get confused. i&. 85 avrw after 
 olKLou<rr}<s should probably be avro. ib. 169 eKe'Xcvev 6j3o\ov 
 <f>pw d7ro<opag. The genitive is impossible in Greek : read 
 dTTo^opdV, as fj.Lcr6ov has been corrected to /x,to-06V in 7. 25. 
 So again in 8. 13 roSrov yap (<ao-t) /cat TO <ovevetv 
 aTrayopeuav, /AT; 6Vt yeuecr$at (so Cobet for /AT) OTL ye aTTTCcrOaL) 
 TWV a)an/, KOIVOV SiKatov ^tv ^OVTCOV T^S if/v^r)? the last words 
 should surely be T-^V j^^x^- The ^vx>7 of plants ^'as to 
 Pythagoras their SLKOUOV : their right and claim consisted in 
 it. 9. 13 wo*T . . . SiaTTopcio-^ai TV}S opOrjs SoKOV&rjs yeypa^^at 
 Trapd a 01 St^yT/o-ews. It may be questioned whether the 
 genitive without Trcpt is right after StaTro/x-ur&u, but there 
 can hardly be a doubt that we should read 6p#<3s. ib. 18 
 ye'ypa<e Se KOU ei/ eTretrt Kat eXeyet'as Kat ta//,/3ous /ca^' c Ho"io8ou 
 >cat 'Oyarjpov : put datives for the accusatives. i&. 51 TrpwTos 
 0r; 6Yo Xoyovs eTi^at Trept TravTos Trpay/xaTO? . . . ots Kat 
 o-wr/pwTa. In the special sense a man is said e'poxrav Xoyov, 
 etc. ; read therefore ofo. 
 
 Confusion of prepositions, particles, pronouns, etc. 
 
 1. 73 /cat TT}VOI/ Tvpdvvtov vSatyU,ovt^w oo~Tts /cat ot/cot 
 O.VTOV KarOavr) should, I presume, be eV auTos auTov according 
 to the familiar idiom, e.g. Ar. Lys. 1070 ets eavruv, Plat. 
 Theaet. 206 A eV KtOapLo-rov ; and 1. 116 dvtoi/Ta ct? 'OXv/xTrtW 
 4s Meo-on}^v must of course be CK Mecro-^vT/s. 5. 66 Kat eVt 
 /xev TOV K T^5 dyopas a-T<f>avov TroXXou? aTTtevat. There 
 seems no meaning in air-. Read dv-, Trap-, or Trpos-. So 
 again ib. 83 TOVS <t'Xoi>g CTTI /x,ev Taya^o. 7rapaKaXov/>tevov? 
 aTTieVai, CTT! Se TOIS av[ji<j)Opa.<; avTO/AaYov?. I do not see how 
 the avn- can be justified in 7. 34 os Kat cKTprjOyvai <j>r)o-iv CK 
 TWV /3i/3Xt'an> TO, KaKws Xeyo/xeva . . . etr' dvTiT^i/at avrd. 
 avaTtOfjvai were put back seems likely, though I do not find 
 that meaning given to avariOrjfjiL in Liddell and Scott, ib. 181 
 f} TrapeSpevorcra 7rpe<r(3vTL<s avria is an obvious blunder for 
 evovo-u, the old woman ivho waited on him. 
 
 I should like to write dXXa for apa in 2. 13. In 8. 75 
 
334 APPENDIX 
 
 vat /A77V can hardly have escaped correction by some one to 
 Kai fjir)v. 7. 2 yovv is found by a very common error for 8' 
 ovv. In 2. 41 or ovv KareSt/cao-^, editors seem to suppose 
 that OT is more or less the same as rore. I would read 
 6 8' ovv, which the context makes quite suitable. It is 
 surprising how often 8' ovv was corrupted, usually to yovv 
 or ovv. 
 
 An epigram of Diogenes' own (3. 45) on Plato has 
 already been quoted, but it is necessary here to give the 
 whole of it : 
 
 KCU 7TW5, ct /XT) $ot/3os av 'EAAaSa <i)cre IIA.aTcoi'a, 
 
 i/'v^as avOpwTraiv ypdu/jiao-LV ^KtVar' <aV> ; 
 Kat yap 6 TOVO yeyobs 'AcrKA^TTtos CO~TLV Irjrrjp 
 
 It may strike the reader, and it is certainly true, that in 
 the last couplet things are put in the wrong order and 
 relation. Asclepius should not be compared to Plato, but 
 Plato to Asclepius : not body to mind, but mind to body. 
 Even Diogenes knew this. What has happened is 
 probably the following. It is well known that KO.I 
 and ws often get interchanged, as do KO.L and 77, 
 from similarity in the abbreviations by which they were 
 written. Here then /cat yap is for ws yap, and we have 
 only to read o>s yap . . . ws ^X^ S a@oLva.Toio nXarwv. *H 
 seems to have got substituted for Kai in 6. 32 TOVTO 8e 8ia TO 
 CTTiKparetv 7/877 TOUS Ma/ceSovas 77 e/< ra-rmvaiv vif/rjXovs yiyvf.o'Ba.i. 
 In 3. 78 av should be avrov (another common mistake) and 
 in 10. 126 ovre yap should be ov8e yap. The occasional 
 error of a double ouSe for a double ovre I need not point 
 out. 1. 122 CTTI fj.aX.Xov is en [AaXXov. 
 
 At the end of the Anaxagoras we read (2. 15) ye.yova.a-i 
 8e Kat aAXot rpets 'Avaayopai, wv tv ovoevl Trdvra' aXX' o utv 
 rjv pT^Ttop K.r.X. For TraVra, which is unintelligible, we may 
 perhaps read ravra, the same characteristics, i.e. devotion 
 to philosophy, etc., though even that seems rather an odd 
 expression. Tavro should also be read for TOVTO in the 
 verse quoted in 1. 29 and perhaps in 2. 73 TavTo Kat 
 fjfjiiovos, though there TOVTO may stand. In the Antisthenes 
 6. 10 8t8aKT7)v a7reSei/ci>Tje Trjv dper^v Kat TOVS avTOvs evycvets 
 TOV<S Kat cVapcrovs we shall be safe in changing TOVS to ovs. 
 
LAERTIANA 335 
 
 Diogenes (6. 54) epom^ets TTOLW KatpuJ 8et ya/xetv e^r; TOVS yaev 
 veous fjLrj&cTTOTe, rous Se 7rpeo-/3vTe'povs /x^SeTrwTrore. It is plain 
 that the temporal particles have here got into some 
 confusion. Without good MS. evidence the right reading 
 can hardly be restored with certainty, but TOV? /x,cv i/e'ovs 
 /x^SeVoi (?), TOUS 8e Trpco-pvrepovs /xrySeVore (?) or /A^iceu would 
 give the right sense. Cf. Lys. 2. 53 ot /u/ OVKCTL rots 
 croj/xacriv, ot 8' OUTTCO Swot^tevoi. o"ou in 7. 17 rov {ITTOKCXTOO crov 
 should be /xov. Prooem. 13 /cat ot /aer o-o<ot wants perhaps 
 ot'Se either added after o-o<ot' or put instead of ot. 
 
 Antisthenes' remark to Plato (6. 7) eSo/ccis /xot /cat o-r 
 TTTTTOS av etvat Aa/x,7rpwT^s is in the wrong tense and requires 
 SoKets. On the other hand Zeno's self-congratulation (7. 5) 
 ev ye Troiet YJ rvyr) wpocrcXawowcro i^/xa? <tAocro<ta refers to 
 the past and needs eTrotet, and in 8. 85 and 9. 43 So/cet 
 should no doubt be iSoKci (cf. 8. 76 : 9. 7, 45, 57, etc.). 
 SovAomu in 1. 113 stands for 
 
 Words out of order. 
 
 A clear and simple instance occurs in 3. 69, where it is 
 said that Plato Svo TWV Trai/rwv aTre^Tpev ctp^a?, Oeov /cat v\r]v, 
 ov Kal vovv Trpcxrayopevei KO! atrtov. Oeov and v\f]v have of 
 course changed places. So in 2. 50 c^^pojs 8e Ste/cetro Trpos 
 TOV ^>apo-cxAtov Trept TOV ^povov T^S dva/Jao-ew?, TOI/ 
 we may presume that TOV ^evaydv was first acci- 
 dentally omitted and then inserted in the wrong place. 
 In the summary of Aristotle (5. 32, 33) we read KCU rrjv 
 il/vvyv Se o,o"uJ^iaTOV, evrcXe^etav oi>o~av T^V TrpwTrjv' o'to/xaTos y^p 
 (f>v<TiKOv (? r^v TrpwTfjv o"co/>taTos (fiva'LKov) KCU opyavtKov Swa/xet 
 
 . OLTTr] 8' OLVTTfJ CO"7t KO.T ttVTOl/. Aeyet 8' 
 
 eo*rtv t8os Tt do"o>/xaTOV' i^ ^uev Kara 8wa/xtv . . ., 
 /ca0' e^tv 8e Aeycrat evreAe'xeta /c.r.A. This exposition is 
 enough to puzzle anyone, until we see that 8trrrJ . . . K<XT J 
 avroV should follow etSos TI aa-w/xaTov and refers to ev 
 ZeilO 7. 24 ev av/XTrocrta) KaraKCt/xcvos o~ty^ TT)V atrtav 
 (frr) ovv TW eyKaAecravrt aTrayyetXat Trpos TOI/ y8ao~tXea on 
 TI? o"to)7rav 7Tio~Tayu,T'OS. rj<jav 8e ot epa)T(3vre? Trapa 
 7rpeo-/3ets d<^)iKO/xvot Kat /3ovA.o/xei/ot /xa^etv TI etTTOte^ Trept 
 Trpo? TW (3a.cri\a. The third sentence 
 
336 APPENDIX 
 
 should of course precede the second Z<j>r) . . . cT 
 
 Cf. Plut. Mor. 504 A. In 2. 95 the words /cat 
 
 /uaAAov Se /AeraStSa^etj/ must be put a little earlier or a little 
 
 later. 
 
 Miscellaneous. 
 
 The difference between di/etTrov, di/etTmv, used of heralds, 
 etc., and dvciAov, aveXeiv, used of gods and oracles, is often 
 lost in MSS. It is quite certain that Hipponax said 
 of Myson (1. 107), not oV 'ATroAAwv dvetTrei/ avSpouf a-ux^pove- 
 crraToi/ Trdi/rajv, but di/etAei/, and the same change must be 
 made in 1. 30 twice, and in 5. 91. [Make it also twice in 
 Dio Chrys. 31. 97 (M. 340) and once in Musonius (Hense, 
 
 p. 59. 15).] In 2. 37 the right form di/eAouo-^s has 
 survived, On the other hand the aorist of aipeti/ has itself 
 perhaps taken the place of another word in 1. 26 TrdjaTrAeicrra 
 <rwetAe xp^/xara where crvvfj-ye (or trvv^yaye) seems probable. 
 In 1. 64 again KO.V rf) TroAet x^P LV KaraOoiro eevpwv, where 
 the context is conspiracy against a tyrant, eevpwi/ seems 
 to stand for e&upwv or eeA<oj/, removing, killing. The 
 aorist eiTre is foolishly repeated, as though it was emphatic, 
 in Diogenes' verse 1. 85 etTre ydp, etTre Suoyi/ erdpov TIVOS. 
 It seems a mistake for evre yap ctTre, the evre. being 
 answered by the eira following as often by eV#a, rote, etc. 
 1. 104 gives us a saying ascribed to Anacharsis : /cat rovro 
 <i<f>7] Oav/JLacTMrarov ewpa/cet'at Trapa rots "EXXr/o-tv, ort TOV /u,ev 
 
 KO.TTVOV f.V TOLS OpCCTt KaTa\L7TOV(TL, TOL 8e ^vAtt tS T>)v TToAlV 
 
 I can make no sense of KO.TTVQV and conjecture 
 There was a regular Greek expression vAivo5 
 tree-fruit (see Liddell and Scott, and add Diod. 3. 
 63. 2 : Artem. 0;ie^r. 2. 37, p. 133), which we may 
 remember in relation to uAa. In 4. 16 peOvuv ets TTJV 
 Eevo/cpaVous ^^e cr^oA^v, 6 8' o^Sev 8tarpa7Tt5 ^pe TOV Aoyov 
 o/xoiw? the sense required, that Xenocrates went on with 
 his lecture, is plain enough, but ^pe cannot convey it. ctpe 
 has been suggested. I rather incline to ^ye, though I 
 cannot adduce an example of Aoyov ayetv. In a saying 
 of Bion the Borysthenite (4. 48 TO yiypas e'Aeyev op/xov etvat 
 TOJV /ca/cwv . . ., rrjv 8oav ercov /x^repa etvat, TO /cdAAos dAAo'- 
 Tptoi/ dya^ov /c.T.A.) it is difficult indeed to see in what sense 
 oa could be called a mother of years I think a slight 
 
LAERTIANA 337 
 
 addition will give us Bion's real phrase, ap has dropped 
 out after av : what we should read is T?)V 8oai/ dperaiv /zr/repa 
 cTvat. The sentiment is too familiar 'to need illustration, 
 x but it is put briefly and appositely in a fragment of 
 Plutarch (Bernardakis 7. lQ2,fragm. 106) o8ets <povTto>v 
 Sofrj* ayaOfjs ytvoiT av avrjp <ai)Xo?. Since thinking of this 
 emendation I have come across the phrase fJ-rjTrjp dpe-n;? in 
 Philostr. Heroic, p. 667 ^j] rt/xalv dXr^etai', ^v e/ceu/os /x^repa 
 <ipr>5s 6vo/zdav tw$ev. 8. 46 TeXeuraiot yap eyeVovro TWV 
 riv$ayopetW ovs Kat 'Apto-ro^ei/os ctSe Ecroc^tXos re ... Kat 
 4>aj/T(oi/ K.r.X. should I suppose be ous Kat 'A. oTSe or iJSet (a 
 very common mistake). 5. 65 Lycon is called <pao-TtKos 
 avrjp KOL 7re.pl Trai'Swv dywy^s a/cp(os o"WTTay^tevos, but of 
 course Diogenes wrote o-wreTa/xeVos. 
 
 The familiar confusion of Xoyos and vp/xos (see for instance 
 Ar. Eth. 5. 6. 1134 a 35) has, I think, taken place in 1. 102, 
 where the dying Anacharsis says 8ta /xci/ TOV \6-yov ex T^S 
 'EXXaoos criaOrjvaL, oia 8e TOV <fa@6vov iv ry OLKia a.7ro\cr6oLi. 
 There is no sense in Xoyov. He means that he had returned 
 home (crtu^vat) Sta TOV vo/xov, though he was said (see just 
 before) TOL i/o/xi/xa TrapaXvetv Trjs Trarpi'Sos- 3. 29 Aristippus 
 <frr)o-lv avTov (Plato) 'AoWpos /xetpaKtou rtvo? . . . epacrOfjvaL, dXXa 
 KOL Atwvos TOV 7rpoeipr//xeVov. "Evtoi Kat 3>ai8pov ^acrt'. Remove 
 the stop after Trpoeip^/xeyou. 4. 4 Trpos TOJ/ epoWa TrXovatov 
 a/JLopcfrov <f)rj Tt 8e (rot 8ct ro9rou ; eyw yap trot 8e/<a raXai/rajv 
 v/Aop<oTpay vp>/cra). There is absolutely no point in this ; 
 but there will be some humour in it, if we read d/xop^ore/oav, 
 or rather, as TOUTOV shows, d^op^orepov. The joke is 
 partly the same as in the Oxford story of the tutor, who, 
 hearing another express his surprise at So-and-So's giving 
 such bad lectures for so high a stipend, rejoined that he 
 was himself ready to give much worse lectures for 
 half the money. 5. 1 TreptTrarowrt 'AXe^dVSpa) <ru//,7rapajv 
 8te/\ eyero arra. TreptTraroiv is suggested; perhaps avfjiTrepiiwv 
 (sometimes written with only one t) would be better. 
 5. 36 Theophrastus was crweramiTos and ^iXoTroi/wTaTog, 
 Menander's teacher, and dAXws re KGU (omit 1) cvepyertKos Kai 
 <iXdXoyos. euepyertKo? seems, if not poor in sense, at any 
 rate rather out of place among the other adjectives ; did 
 Diogenes write eVcpy^rtKos 1 (In M. Aurel 1. 7 ^avrao-to- 
 
 Yj TOV VpytTlKOV 0.1'Opa 7Tt8etKVV(7^ai 
 
338 APPENDIX 
 
 the same suggestion is an old one.) 6. 11 Antisthenes 
 held rrjv dperr)v TCOV epycov cu/cu, yu^re Xoyon' TrAet'oTOJV Seo/xevryv 
 pyre /xa#>7/xaTWT/. No doubt we should read Xo'ywv 7rXao-Tcoi> : 
 SO Herod. 1. 68 CK Xo'yov irXaa-rov. 7. 20 Xe'yovTos Se TIVO? 
 avraJ Trepi. IloXe/xwi/os tos dXXa 7rpo0e/x,i/og aXXa Xeyci, 
 (TKV^/owTracras e<?7 Ilocrou yap ^ya?ras ra Si8o/xera; this is 
 nonsense and TTOO-OV seems a mistake for TTOJS ov, 'why 
 weren't you content*? 5 9. 73 Kat 'iTnroKpdrrjv evreiTa 
 ei/8oiao-Ta>s Kat dv$p<j07ru/a>s aTrcKJxiLvecrOai. There is no 
 meaning in eTretra. I have thought of IO-TIV a or Ivta or 
 VLOT. There is an equally impossible eTreira in 8. 58, 
 where he is speaking of tragedies attributed to Empedocles : 
 ' Iepwvv//.os 8e ^crtv avrov (avros conjectured : avrcov ?) rpicrl 
 i<al TerrapaKOi/ra erTcrv^Kei/at (probably read). Neav^s 6e 
 i^eov ovra yeypa^eVat ras rpaywStas Kai avrov (?) eTreira aurat? 
 ei/reru^KeVat. Here 7Tira might be ei/tore, but the context 
 suggests the mention of some specific number of plays. 
 9. 104 ov yap TO opaV di/atpetv (^/16?/ rfo 7ZO^ ^0 at^a?/ W^/Z. 
 Sight} dAAa TO TTWS opav ayvoeu/. TTWS opa 1 TTWS opoov 
 opa i TO TTOJS dyvoetv ? 7. 86 TOV Se Xoyov TO^S Xoyt/cots 
 KttTa TeAeioWpav TrpocrraaLav 8e8o/xeVou, TO KaTa Xoyof 
 ^v op^aJ5 ytVea^ac TOIS Kara ffrvo-w. He is speaking of 
 the various forms of animation (plants, animals, rational 
 creatures) and the life KOTO. ^>vcrtv for them on the Stoic 
 theory. The point of this sentence seems to be exactly 
 inverted, like that of 3. 45 above noticed. It should not 
 be that rational creatures living KaTa <f>vo-w will live KaTa. 
 Ao'yov ; but that, if they live KaTa Xoyov, then, being 
 rational creatures, they will be living KaTa <vo-iv. In 
 other words Xoyov and (f>vcriv should change places. An 
 understanding of this suggests the correction of the 
 preceding . sentence too. Speaking of animals, which as 
 distinguished from plants have 6p/A7J impulse, he says TOV'TOIS 
 /xev TO) (or TO) KaTa <f>vcriv TO KaTa TT/V op/Jirjv o\oiKeio-#ai, where 
 similarly the sense should be that for them Zfiv Kara, ryv 
 opjArjv is tfiv Kara <uo"iv '. read therefore TO KaTa 0vcrtv TO> 
 Kara Tryv op/xryv SioiKetcr^af. 
 
 I will mention finally three or four passages, where the 
 mistake seems to be of one type, and that a type fairly well 
 recognized now. The type I mean is the substitution of 
 one word for another because the former or something 
 
LAERTIANA 339 
 
 akin to it occurs in the context and is in the writer's mind. 
 In 1. 59 j^tWc r 'A^vatovs ras ffpepas Kara a-cXrjvrjv ayeiv, 
 KCU eo-7rtv Kt6A.u(re rpayuSuxs ayeiv re KCU 8tSaav<eu> this 
 surely accounts for the second ayetv. There is no such 
 phrase as rpaywSias aye> (we must not be misled by agere) 
 and, if there were, it would be the same with regard to 
 Thespis as SiSao-Kiv. Probably the real word was TTOUIV. 
 Again in the lines to Dion ascribed to Plato (3. 30 : Anth. 
 Pal. 7. 99) 
 
 crot 8e, AiW, pe^avri KaAcoi/ ITTWIKLOV epyoov 
 Sai'/xoves evpci'as cXirtSas e^e^eav, 
 8' cvpt/^opa) ev irarptSt K.r.X. 
 
 eupeias is a strange epithet for eA.irt'&i? and no skilful 
 writer would have used it just before evpv^opco. The lost 
 word need not of course have resembled it. Then in 5. 57 
 he says ai Statical Ken/rat avrtypatJM (<Kar'> avrtypa^a ?) 
 T(3 o<fapd(TTOV SaKTvXt'w orccr^|(xao'//,evat, yut'a /xcv Trap' HyTycria 
 . . , r^v 8' erepav X et OA.v/x7rto8o>pos . . , T^V 8' Tepav cAa/?V 
 'A8ei)uavTos, where it is difficult not to think that the 
 second erepav should be rpir-qv. Lastly in 1. 102 Anacharsis 
 is said Trapayevo/xcvos eis TT)V 2/cv^t'av Kat FO/U^pV ra 
 vo/xi/xa TrapaXuetv T^? Trarpt^os to have been killed by his 
 brother. SOKWV has been suggested for vopifov. It seems 
 likely enough, rofuo>v being probably due to vofju^a. But 
 is also possible. 
 
 z 2 
 
ARSEKEI YIOLETUM. 
 
 THIS medley of proverbs, stories, and sayings, put 
 together by a fifteenth century archbishop, was edited by 
 Walz, then engaged on the Bhetores Graeci, in 1832. It 
 has not appeared again since and, as far as I know, little at- 
 tention has been paid to it, though in addition to much that is 
 contained also in other books, the Paroemiographi, Stobaeus, 
 Diogenes, etc., it has a good deal not to be found elsewhere. 
 The text of these latter parts has been but little corrected, 
 and that is why I write about it now. From the point of 
 view of textual criticism the following notes, which I have 
 made very brief, may present some interest, because they 
 will show over again the working of certain almost uniform 
 tendencies to error which beset Greek books. The cases in 
 Arsenius are often unusually clear, and for that reason are 
 worth pointing out. When a critic of Demosthenes or 
 Plato assumes and proceeds upon one of these tendencies, 
 the general reader doubts its existence. 
 
 There are eight or ten cases of the comparative adjective 
 for the superlative, and one or two the other way. In the 
 eight or ten I ascribe the fault to careless copying rather 
 than change of idiom My references are to the pages of 
 Walz. 7rp(r/3vrpov 100, /xaKapttorepov 107, j3apvrpov 208, 
 ^aA,7T(OTepa 209, eTrtcny/AoVepOs 254, ^aXcTTturepos 507, TrXovcrna- 
 TC/OOS 510. 189 should probably be ^avAorepav TYJV inroKpia-w 
 7rape;(o/x,voi>, not ^avXorar^v. 502 the imperfect verse ew 
 opyfjs Tras avrjp cro<orraTos would be better with <ro<orre/)os, 
 and 148 read %pr) Trporepov (not TrpwTov) avrov e/x/3A.i^avra 
 (after looking at yourself) irpdrrtiv <KOL> ei K.T.X. 497 ov&v 
 
 rwy ev T(3 /?t'a> ra^KTra yrjpdcrKei w? X^P ts rea( ^ rd\iov. ws = r/, 
 as elsewhere, if not a mistake for it. 149 TTOIOS TUV Oa.va.rwv 
 stands for Ka/acrros. 
 
 340 
 
ARSENII VIOLETUM 341 
 
 Present tenses put wrongly for futures : 97 and 503 
 KaraXctVw . . . Tc'icva (Alexander is not dying), 127 ov&v 
 dvSpet'as XP7?A tV > eav TTUVTC? w/xci/ 8iKcuot, 265 eyto /x,ot 8oKa> 
 
 . . . ypd<f)LV TTpOTpeTTTlKoV, 360 eyw O~ Tpe<a> fJia^OVfJieVOV dXX 
 
 ov Xoi8opou/>ii'oi> (XoL$opr)<r6fjivov, unless we are to read 
 
 /u,a^o/xvov) 'AXedVSpa>, 420 TrapayueVoyTas, probably 481 ei 
 
 yu,ei> TrovTfjpa. TroXiTtvrjTaL (-eTai ?), rots $eoTs aTrdpeo-Kct (d^-apetrct?). 
 
 Small errors in case endings : 101 TWV 0e<3i/ . . . TI/UWTCITO?-, 
 
 nOt Tl/AltoTttTOV. 127 TOO-OVTOVS . . . aTToXtoXcKCl' OCTOVS dpKl 
 
 (read ocrois dp/cci or r/p/cet) TOVS J3apj3dpov<; VLKO.V aTravras- 148 
 avros should be avroi' (KaraSiKa^wv). 346 av e/cXoytcr^ TWV 
 SpafJLOLTtav cKatrrov ocroi' Karecrrr; : read 00*0 v, what it COSt. 
 401 Oivo7ri'S?7s etTTC TOV vow TrapatTiov Satftwa,' rots ficv 
 TreTrcuSev/x evoi9 dya^dv, rots 8c aTraiScTrrois KO.KOV eTvat : read 
 TrapaiTiov 8at)w,cva TOI? /xev . . . aya$<3v, rots 8c Ka/cwi> cli/ai. 
 460 read o-vvrpofov appwcrriav. 479 Tretpa? Sevrepas should 
 be Tretpav, ^rm^ o/ a second ivife. 499 ^8ov^v ov Traa-av a\\a 
 Tyv CTTI TO KaXov a.lp^ia'Oa.L 8ei : read CTTI TO> KaXo), but *6*67. 
 
 OO-O) />tV 7Tt TlJ <J3VOTl 7TaVTS Q-/XV TrXoVO'tOl, OO"O) 8e K.T.X. 
 
 should on the other hand be 6Voi/. 501 TW (TOV) Xa/x/3aveti/ 
 <yap> 1 Trdvres ^TTaWai fiporot. 503 cav . . . d/xop^t'av (-ta) 
 vocrrj. 505 Sia TOV dvSpo? TOVTOV (TW avSpa TOVTOV T) aTroX- 
 Xv/xe$a. 506 oTav o^avTov dcr^evcVTepov OeXr)? yiyveaOai : read 
 o-avTOv do-$eveo-Tepos. 508 KaTyj/o> yap TWV TroXXon/ d<^(Xtas 
 (-iav). 511 <^)tXa)v (<i'Xov) (f>i\dpyvpov iSwv. Adjective 
 stands for adverb in 124 Trpaos (Trpaws) Kat /AeiStwv etTre. 108 
 8t8aKTiK^v aTreSet'Kwe T^V aptrrjv : read 8t8aKTr;v. 
 
 Mistakes in forms of verbs : 1 1 2 ws \nrepiro\v ^ny/xtu : 
 rather rfT^crai you have asked. 194 <e'peo-0ai 8e . . . 8ivov- 
 /xevas Kai OVTW TravTa Ta crvyKpwovra yevvav, 7ri)p, v8wp K.T.X. : 
 read o-vy/cpivo/ucra. 294 <x7roXoi/>i#' dv should be 
 dv, as in Plutarch. 307 SCTTOVS ^T^o^e /xio-^ovs' TOV 8e 
 alriav TrvOofJievov, eva /x-e^, <?7, tVa XaXetv fj^dOr)^ TOV 
 <8e> iVa o-iyas : read ouyav. 454 eXeycv ow 6 Ti/xd0eos, 6 
 TiyXi/cavTas TrdXei? Xa//./3dV(ov Ka^v8<ov, Tt' /xe OLfcrOe Troirj&eLV 
 fyprjyopora ; read et (for 6) and Xaju.y8dv<o. 
 
 Confusions of similar words : 108 cbrcSei'Kvvc TOV? CIVTOVS 
 evyet'er? TOVS Kai ei/apeVovs : TOV? should be ov's. 110 
 
 TO KaXtOS dTTO^^O-ACeiV, OT 6^O~Tl, /AT? Kara (JiLKpOV TO 
 
 d7ro@vrj<TKw croi Trapfj, TO oe /caXws fJLfjKtTi cfj : read 
 soow. 118 etTrdvTos (having asked) rj ov 
 
342 APPENDIX 
 
 K.T.X., f) is ei. So in 203 TI yap, el-rev, rj ayaOov 17 Ka/coi/ 
 we should read TI yap, elirev, ei ; ayaOov rj KO.KOV ; 265 eXeye 
 ju,?) Seti> JjjTeiv . . . omves CK fj.eydX.ys 7roXeu>s eio-tv, dXX' ei 
 jjieydXrj^ TroXeoos atot : for oirtves read et Ttve?, like et 
 following. On p. 505 el actually appears in the same saying. 
 
 267 8etv Se eXeye rovg veovs Trda-y KooyuoV^Tt ^pijcrOat Kat Tropeia 
 Kttt o-x^art Kai TrepifioXrj : the first KCU at least should be KO.V 
 or Kat ev. 296 17 cnjy/cetrat should be ^, and 299 read Set/rat 
 yap ouSei/os (6 ^eos) ovSe Trapa TWI/ Kpetrrovwi/ ^Trep (not 7?7rep) 
 T^/xets. 374 HevoKpar^s epo/xcvos TOI/ (read rtva) Trap' avra) 
 ^iXocro^eiv veW /3ovX6/Jt.evov K.r.X. 438 TO e/xoj/ t/Aartov 
 /x,/?twvat (/xev not eKjStwrat) eTrtrrySeiov. 455 Xap^ra rrpocr- 
 ayovToov Kat TOIJTOV (not roioCrov) d^towrcov eli/at TOV 'A^vaiW 
 arpar^yov. 500 eTrevS^eo-^at (ITT- ^) Set ra5 /xei/ ^wpaKt ^moi/a, 
 TTj 8e XUTTT^ vow. 502 17 8e (not yap) /ca/<r/ /BovXrj K.r.X. (verse). 
 503 /x^rpos cv SaKpvov TroXXa? 8ia/?oXa>v eVto-ToXas aVaXei<^et 
 only needs a change of accent to 8ta/3dXcov. 507 6 TWV 
 'A^r;vcov crrpaT^yos probably 'A^ratW. 508 avr^ (not avrrj) 
 rots epyots dvayKa^et. 
 
 Confusions of a more noticeable kind : 98 Alexander 
 Trpoo-eYao-o'e rots o-Tpartcorats ^vpetv ra rwv MaKeSovwi/ yeV c ia. 
 As the soldiers were themselves Macedonians, read 
 <TTpa.Tr}yoi<s. 99 TOV TTOI^T^V oww o-e/xvwat ra <3a Kat Trovfjarai 
 avra r<3 Ait TT)V d/x/3poo-tai/ KO/xt^etv : 7ror}crai should be 
 7rotr}o-ai. 122 rovs TO, evepyrj Trpay/xara Tretpco/xevovs SeiKVwat 
 (lighting a candle to show the sun) should of course be 
 evapyrj. 176 SaTravw/xevos e<' a JU.T) Set, oXtyos ecn? e^>' a Set: 
 oXtyos should be XITOS, as in 511 Sta rt Xtros et e^tov ^p^/xara 
 TroXXa; and in the lines of Moschion 363. 191 ot dTra/Sevrot 
 KaOd-n-ep ot dXteuo/xevot t^^^'es eXKO/xei/ot o-tyaio-tv shows the 
 common confusion of d- and ev- (ot evTrai'Sevrot), and the same 
 reversed occurs in 306 TTWS oV rts eurv^tiav (read arvx^v) 
 apicrTa f^epoi. 193o-rdo-ts e/x^)vXtos ets eKarepa KaXov Kat yap 
 viKeovo-L Kat T^o-o-co/xevots O/XOIT; (f>@opd : read KOKOV : and again 
 497 di/or/ron/ TO atpeto-^at KttKais ap^ecrOaL /xaAAov 
 dpxctv clearly from the context should be KaXws 
 
 268 Zeno said that TO KaOfJKOv was evepyrj pa Tats KaTa 
 Trapao-Kevats toKetat? : I suppose wKetat? stands for otKetov. 
 295 an argument is introduced by the words TO aKo'Xoutfov 
 OVTWS etupa, where ewpa represents a word for arguing 
 common in post-classical Greek, ^pwra It occurs again 
 
ARSENII VIOLETUM 343 
 
 in 296 and 298. 298 a-v /xovos is evidently ov /xo'vov, and 
 329 /cat orv ye probably /xr/ o-uye. The well-known con- 
 fusion of Aeyu> and e^w appears in 369 Nt/co/cAr}s /ca/coi) TIVOS 
 larpov Ae'yovTOS 6Vt /xeydA^v e^et Swa/xtv (77 Vois yap ou 
 /xe'AAets Ae'yetv (l^etv), os TOCTOUTOVS avT/p^/cws dvev$wos 
 ye'yovas ; ' : and in 422 elTre Trevt'av fjyrjreov elvat /x,r) TO Tryv 
 ouo~tav eAaTTw Troietv dAAa TO TT]V aTrXfjcTTLav 7rAeta> probably 
 TTotctv is a corruption of etvui, TTOI being TOJ repeated. 
 346 ovrco yap should be avros yap. 426 petTat yap Kat 
 Trape^CTai (Trapep^eTat) ws ^opro? 7rao"a ^>uo"ts. ife*<i. ayvos 8t 
 prjTwp eu/cparos dp/xovta, though it may be right, looks like a 
 pentameter (eu/cpoTos dp/xoi/ia). In 498 are two rather 
 puzzling sentences : wr' ouSevos SoKTJo-et ^tAetcr^at Tts /x-^SeVa 
 <^)tAtov, where for So/ojo-et the sense suggests 8iKato? (eo-Ti ?), 
 and larpov /cat cfuAov ou TOV tStwT^v dAAa TOI/ w^eAi/xooTtpov Set 
 cKAeyea-^at, in which it seems probable that i&iuTrjv is a 
 perversion of 17810). 500 et, 6Ve ouSeVo) ^v, ov/c eAi;7roi), /x-^Se 
 i/ov (only a misprint for vw 1), ore ou/c (OVKCTI ^) CO-TI, 
 XvinrjOfjs. 507 MeVavSpo? TOV (f>66vov TTpovoiav TTJS 
 etTrev (Kock 935) Nauck proposed the insipid 
 Kock Trapdvoioiv, which is not very pointed either, 
 and Tvx?7 being constantly confused, I think Menander may 
 have said that envy was oVm/oia (or -yi/ota) rrjs rvxys, 
 despair of good luck, i.e. arose from a man's despair of 
 equalling what he envied. 506 Theocritus, being asked ri 
 Oelov, answered TO /X-^TC opyr/v /x^T TeAevT^v t\ov : opyrjv 
 must be dp^v. 511 $tAt7T7ros TOV TrAowriov /cat aTrat'StuTOv 
 ([(frrjore TrAouTOS 7reptr;pyrpa)/>tevo?. The last two words should 
 of course be accusatives, but TrAo^Tos TT. is nonsense. 
 Should we not read TT^AOV Trept^pyvpw/xevov, understanding 
 
 o's of the clay from which Prometheus made man 1 
 Words omitted, sometimes from recurrence or partial 
 recurrence of letters. 94 enroWos <d>s>. 109 e/c Trdvrwv 
 
 <TO>V> ^<0/CpaTt/CoV. HI TTCol TToAtTlKO. 2taTpt)8oVTt ' Ct^ ' 
 
 H(f>7] f) yvvrj ' TO, /xei/ tSta KOtva evopiicra?, Ta Se /cotva. tSta.' This 
 is puzzling until we see that /xrj has been lost, probably 
 after vrj in ywi}. 112 Hunger and thirst are able /xeyaAoos 
 <Vo^Atv> rots o-co^pocrwiyv 8tcoKOvo-t. 148 ovre yap fyypd'pov 
 <TOV ?> euxoyu.ei'ov etvat. 196 o avTO? eAeye Trovrypiav /xev 
 /cwAi)o-at Ta^' av TIS /coAacov $vvr)6eir), e 
 8e /cat yeyev77/w,V(ov (or -r^v) TWV 
 
344 APPENDIX 
 
 dSuvaTOv eum [eAeyev]. Read /cat < 
 
 294 /xrfr' eVea/ov <av> yei/ecr$ai K.T.A. 375 6 
 aiTOS StatpaJv </xepos> eKacrrov TT}? i^/xepa? is 7rpatV Ttva Kat 
 TTJ (TUtiTrr) //.epos a/TreVei/xev. 420 TOUTOVS (77 <<8eu/> Ka$to"Tavat 
 ap^ovras and Kat <yvi/auca> Kat aVSpa (probably only a 
 printer's omission). 422 e^ TrtoVra TOI/ avOpwirov tAeo 
 <^u,aAAov> Tore Trpo'repov yeveV^at (yt'yyeo-$at?), and SO too 
 508 TOIS Tratcrl o-w/?ouAevev ai8oi KaraXiTretj/ </xaAXov> ^ 
 ov, where 7rat(ri depends on KaraXiTreti'. 436 Trpos TOV 
 
 et /x>j o-e ^>t'Aov TTOI^O-W ' : the version of this on 500 shows 
 conclusively that to each a/xwoiyxat we must prefix OVK. 
 438 $av/x.aeiv eA.eye rwv ras At^tVo^s etKoVas KaTacrKeuao/xeVa)v 
 <TO> TOU /xev XiOov Trpovoetv K.r.X. 496 ev /xev TW 7roXe'/x,a) 
 Trpos avfyaXtiav \pv(ro$ <Xoyitryw,ov> Kpetrrwv, e^ 8e TO) ^v 
 Xoytcr/xos TrXovrov. 499 Trai^ra aAAa should be Travra raAAa. 
 504 a> <i/eavtVK>, (TTTovSacrov, and above 6 avros epwr^^ei? 
 TI aV (^) etry apirrrov Iv T<3 /3ta) et:re o-wt8^(ris <dpT7}s or 
 dya^ ?>. 505 ov8e (oirre 1) TO. <TOV> M^Sov oirre ra KpoiVov 
 511 tS(W veavtav <7rat8eiav or ypa/x/xara> ^tAovvra 
 
 /^oi/ ra> yiypart dpruetg.' 
 118 e^cov TOIS T<3v ^>evydvTa>v neptrwi/ represents rov<s 
 ^evyovras TWV Ilepcrtov or possibly T. T. II. ^>. 124 cnrcy ort 
 TrAuJ eotKe TO) Trapa y^v 6 TWV Trev^Twv ^St'os, 6 8e rtov TrAovcrtwv 
 T<3 8ta TreAayoDS' rots /xei/ yap paStov ecrrt Kat 7retoyx,a ^SaAetv 
 Kat Trpoo")(t'iv (read Trpofrcr^erv) Kat vea>AK^(rai, rots o 0$. 
 TrevTJrtov and TrAouo-twv have clearly exchanged places. 
 95 6 /xev yap (his father Philip) roi) yeyeV&xi, 6 8e (his 
 teacher Aristotle) TOV KaAws yei/eV^at atrtos. The second 
 yeve'o-0ai is certainly a mere blunder, due to the first, for 
 r}i/. Cf. 511 ot p\v yovets TOU ^j/ /uoVov, ot 8e StScio-KaAoi TOV 
 KaAws ^v afrtot yeyovao-tv and the same in Plut. Alex. 8. 
 297 apa ye, eo8wpe, $eos eti/at ^'s, TOI)TO Kat el; eTrtveucrai TO? 
 Se', (^TJ? 8' eii/ai ^eo's ; . . . ^eo? et apa, ec^ry. The same story is 
 in Diog. L., and there the second 0eds has been duly 
 corrected in modern times to 0edV. I quote the passage 
 here, because the first 0eo's is a mere anticipation in writing 
 of the second and third. The real word was o or ort (eTi/at 
 <>js), as the text of Diogenes shows. 466 ov /XT' ou TroAv is 
 a jumble of /X,T' ov TroAu (just below) and ov /XCTO. TroAv. 
 500 o"o<os ovSets ?rAv ov av TiJi<rr 0eds is an unmistakable 
 
ARSENII VIOLETUM 345 
 
 av 
 
 inversion of <ro<f>os <yap *?> ouSeis irXyv os 
 
 Transposition will turn 497 ouoYis eXev'tfepos 6 eavrov 
 
 KpoLTtav into another iambic, ovSets COLVTOV /AT) Kparuv e 
 
 and 502 read OVK Z<TTLV ouScv Kpeto-o-ov oiKet'ou (friXov for 
 
 OIKCI'OV. Transposition is also needed 506 6 airros 
 
 rt o-Ti <i'Xos ' aXXos otos eyw,' which should of course be 0105 
 
 aAXos cyw. 
 
 I add one or two miscellaneous difficulties : 1 1 1 (Aristides) 
 eyaol jj.v rj TTCVIO, ovoev t(Trop7yo"6 KUKOV, croi 8e 6 TrXovros: 
 rapa^as OVK oXtyas. Should tcrrop^o-a be <rvvL(TTop(.l t 
 211 Diogenes said on, av /xev KVVCS O.VTOV cnrapd^wa-w, 'YpKavia 
 lo-rat rj Toufrr)' av 8e y^Tres, aTrreov av 8e /x^Scts 7rpo(T\6r], o 
 ^povos KaXXt'cov T^ To.<f>f) Sia TWV TroX^reXeo-Tartov, fj\iov KOI 
 ofA-fSpov. There are many puzzles in this : I would 
 suggest TWV TroXv VTeXo-TttT(ov and perhaps ^wpos for 
 296 Theodorus the Cyrenaic held K\^LV TC Kat 
 
 al<rxpov eti/at rfjs CTT' avr^s So^s aipov/xevovs : this 
 seems to conceal something like /x,^8v rovrwv <i;o-ei 
 
 ' 
 
 371 NeoTTToXc/xov rov T^S TpaywSi'aq viroKpiTrjv rjpero TI? TI' 
 OavfJid^oL Ttuv TUTT' Aicr^uXou Xe^^e^TO)!/ -^ ^o^OKXeous i) EuptTrt'Sov 
 ouSev /xev TOVTCOV, etTTcv. This is of course pointless and 
 incomplete or wrong. In these Greek anecdotes a question 
 like ' what is most so and so 1 ' occurs so constantly, as. 
 though people devoted themselves to giving an eminent 
 man the opportunity of saying something quotable, that 
 we ought probably to read ri 0av/xaoi </x,aXto-ra>, and to 
 take it that the great actor answered in effect : ' I don't 
 admire anything most : there are too many fine things in 
 them all for that.' But I do not know what we are to da 
 
 With OlJSeV fJiV TOVTCDV. 
 
 Owing to the nature of the compilation, I fear I may in 
 places have been correcting what appears elsewhere and 
 has been corrected already or in a better form needs no- 
 correction. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 Accusative 102 142 157 164 
 236 282: adverbial 106 210: 
 beginning sentence 226 : cog- 
 nate 146 : for nominative 
 115 180: with yeyova 280: 
 with substantive 2 
 
 Ad jective = participle 70 : two 
 terminations 245 280 
 
 Adscript 46 57 65 80 170 221 
 231 323 
 
 Aeschines, letters 290 
 
 Affinity, table of 116 
 
 Agoranomi 278 
 
 Alcibiades, hiccup 225 
 
 Anacolutha 164 
 
 Anaxagoras 7 
 
 Anticipations : see Repetitions 
 
 Aorist 164 168 190 231 323 : 
 
 with orav etc 10 161 177 
 
 204 : with eo>s 77 : aorist and 
 
 ' future confused 125 190 237 
 
 266 267 271 317 
 
 Aristophanes of Byzantium 
 284 
 
 Article 13 105 139 166 194 
 227 235 294 
 
 Assimilation of forms 32 52 
 101 120 175 178 212 218 219 
 241 248 (two) 250 251 270 302 
 320 
 
 Attraction 12 177 183 259 
 
 Comparative double 216 : un- 
 derstood 72. See Super- 
 lative 
 
 Cyrus 256 
 
 Darius 279 
 
 Dative 19 21 69 150 204 213 
 Dion 261 290 
 Dual 138 167 
 
 Eleven, the 278 
 Emendations of non-Platonic 
 passages : 
 
 Aesch. Eum. 280 189 
 Anthol. 7 378 19: 10. 31 
 
 203: 11. 134 95 
 Aristot. Eth. End. 1248 b 31 
 248 
 
 Hist. An. 541 a 27 
 189 
 
 Physiogn. 805 b 21 
 248 
 
 Democr. 199 96 
 DioChrys. 31. 97 336 
 Musonius p. 59 (Hense) 336 
 Pausan. 2. 28. 2. 264 
 Plut. Mor. 853 E 105 
 Polyb. 3. 109. 12 249 
 Schol. Ar. Wasp* 120 103 
 
 Theocr. 14 48 332 
 Enumeration : see Words omit- 
 ted 
 
 Forgeries, literary 287 
 
 Future 229 311 : after jtu'XP 1 
 306 : for present 31 46 66 
 321 : passive 233 : with &v 
 324. See Aorist and Present 
 
 Genitive 13 28 30 43 51 65 
 70 83 115 141 (three) 190 
 191 222 (two) 244 266 268 269 
 271 
 
 Good drink 107 
 
 347 
 
348 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 Grote, G. 285 
 Gyges 88 
 
 Hiatus 291 
 Hipparinus 290 
 
 Imperfect 114 128 137: and 
 present confused 20 32 41 
 47 61 63 87 160 216 296 335 : 
 and optative 297 341 
 
 Indicative after fle'Aeis 95 
 
 Infinitive 13 19 29 31 70 87 
 96 204 222 243 281 (two): 
 infin. and participle confused 
 96 134 178 183 243 244 253 
 330 
 
 Inversion of sense 100 
 
 Lawcourts at Athens 103 
 Less for more 321 
 Letters, spurious 287 
 
 ,, in Thucydides 288 
 Lysias in Phaedrus 288 
 
 Montaigne 326 
 
 Negative clauses 151 
 
 Negative lost 42 51 155 182 
 217 247 251 254 267 301 312 
 314 318 322 327 329 343 
 
 Negative a- lost 304 321 
 
 Negative repeated 259 : super- 
 fluous 13 
 
 Nominative 12 24 65 80 244 
 249 
 
 Number 38 69 110 138 141 142 
 154 167 266 330 
 
 Numeral lost 41 174 
 
 Old Age 84 : respect for age 
 102 
 
 Optative 18 21 34 58 74 75 
 88-90 97 125 130 165 198 
 231 233 236 253 296 327: 
 following present 16 : opt. 
 and past indicative confused 
 3 46 90 
 
 Orchestra 8 
 
 Order of words wrong passim 
 
 Participle 91 97 143 158 109 s 
 175 179 181 186 188 207 270 
 282 : see Infinitive 
 
 Passives 17 
 
 Perfect 160 : and pluperf . con- 
 fused 19 254 324: optative 
 165 
 
 Philebus, the name 225 
 
 Pictures, duration of 153 
 
 Pleonasm 15 40 197 
 
 Positive from negative 11 151 
 
 Preposition lost passim 
 
 Present 10 77 98 101 109 204 
 247 317 : historic 16 : see Im- 
 perfect 
 
 Present for future 13 43 49 57 
 62 63 71 80 81 82 132 136 
 163 (two) 172 186 194 199 
 223 236 245 246 249 262 266 
 271 295 304 313 321 322 331 
 341 
 
 Punctuation 36 38 42 60 61 76 
 98 101 143 178 190 191 265 
 266 268 269 271 309 323 325- 
 337 
 
 Questions 98 
 
 Reason and Desire 106 
 Relationship in Republic 116 
 Repetitions and Anticipations 
 of Words 11 20 32 39 43 56- 
 60 61 62 (two) 64 65 71 81 
 97 143 149 155 162 176 193 
 220 250 260 296 305 312 323- 
 324 336 339 344 
 
 Simonides 10 
 
 Simple and Qualified 106 
 
 Socrates /mAbs Kal vtos yeyov&s 
 
 256 274 
 
 Speaker to be changed 105 108. 
 Spenser 321 
 Statues 25 
 
 Subjunctive with fiov\ei 94 
 Superlative and Comparative 
 
 confused 57 212 331 340: 
 
 positive 110 267 
 Symonds J. A. 321 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 349 
 
 Tantalus 174 
 Tautology 29 153 
 Terminations exchanged 97 
 
 153 168 181 194 232 234 254 
 
 265 298 303 314 
 Theatre 8 
 Thrasylus 284 
 Thucydides, letters 288 
 Timaeus and Republic 224 
 Tyrtaeus 231 
 
 Verse unnoticed 310 343 345 
 
 Words omitted passim : lost in 
 
 enumerations 105 314 
 Words (two) to exchange places 
 
 66 130 146 231 240 254 313 
 
 335 338 344 345 
 Words two in one and v.r. 219 
 
 345 
 
 Xenophon, choice of Heracles 
 289 
 
GREEK INDEX 
 
 Spaced type indicates emendations suggested, usually of the first word 
 
 to the second. Emendation of terminations only is not indexed, nor 
 
 suggestion of words missing or misplaced. 
 
 d- negative lost 304 321 
 o- eu- 136 
 ayaOa Ttavra 108 
 &ya 171 339 
 
 ,, alpw atpw 16 134 310 
 aSofi'o 5c*|a 79 
 'A. 8 rival ' A0rj v at o t 342 
 a'iSios 218 
 atpov/mai 87 
 
 ,, a pv ov p.a i 264 
 ,, T] y o v ,u a i 345 
 afyco fj.r)xwf}v 66 
 aiffxvvofj.ai elircav 280 
 a t T w A 67 co 159 
 O.KOVCO 98 
 
 dA^flets iraflas 171 
 a\-rj6'fjs evrcA^s 27 
 a\\c( . . 7* 168 
 a A A' ^ 64 
 
 ,, ciAAo 104 
 
 'dp a 318 333 
 
 aAA^jAous ctAAous 242244 
 SAAo<, ot 136 
 aAAotos aATjeti/^s 126 
 ^AAos ciJ/apcoTros 315. Cf. 
 
 305 
 
 6. \\us 6'Aws 306 
 'd[M 252 
 
 ov & p i (T r o s 327 331 
 11 
 
 2 19 30 101 146 165 235 254 
 324 (two) 327 
 
 5-f) 18 21 31 38 75 81 121 
 125 130 146 154 155 181 237 
 271 (two) 295 
 
 &vd 129 
 
 ^ci) a v a. K a A co 125 
 , ra e/xa 284 
 
 avdyKy 577499 
 116 
 
 Xa JJ.TT pvv-, (f> a i S p vv- 315 
 avetTTOi' aveTAov 336 
 av\eyKT05 5 206 
 76 
 
 auros 305 
 vAvriTos 25 
 70 259 
 iv(i} 75 
 ct|to5 o^frtos 264 
 air dv Op (air os 273 
 aTTCKpie-nv 34 
 a?r Xovffrepo s a fj.ov<r 6repos 
 
 137 
 
 & TT o' ^ IT f 268 
 ,, Trapa 176 
 ,, uTrJ 237 
 65 
 
 w 187 
 
 104 
 37 
 dpe'(r/ci 268 
 
 ap/J.OTTl 283 
 
 a <r "h /u.av T o s a TTTJJUCXVTOS 161 
 
 d(r/CW (T/COTTCO 60 
 
 cto-TT? 278 
 are 46 160 
 drei/Tjs 1 
 drex^cos 1 
 drpaTio's 73 
 
 350 
 
GREEK 
 
 INDEX 351 
 
 &rr a r avr a 37 
 
 S6S7 ? 7 / U6 / ' S A6A67 / U6> OS 316 
 
 a v av 231237244252 
 
 8e?, TToAAoC 282 
 
 ,, avrts 34 66 134 184 190 
 
 ,, with dative 204 
 
 236 245 334 
 ,, 84 35241 
 
 ,, pleonastic 15 283 
 ae/ 135 
 
 ,, ruv avrwv etc. 129 262 
 
 ,,84 1*5 243 
 
 avdveffdai Sxnrep /cu/cAos 101 
 
 Selrai 45 
 
 avrol irdvres etc. 203 251 
 
 SeOjUOi, ouSe'v 146 
 
 334 
 
 Seurepos erepos 215 
 
 avroKpdrwp 283 
 
 Se'xoyUcu ^ 216 
 
 avr6s with numeral 237 
 
 ST^AOI' 181 
 
 ,, 6 avr 6 s, ovros often 
 
 847TOT6 247 
 
 avr 6s, 6 avr 6 s, roiovros 
 
 8 i a 8 17 181 
 
 18 148 315 316 
 
 ,, \iav 152 
 
 avrov 236 
 
 8<aAe|is 8toAAa/s 268 
 
 avriov o v r on v 184 
 
 8 I O7T p 6 y /J. ttl 8 t O7T p V fJLO. I 
 
 
 203 
 
 ftaivb), euro's 281 
 
 SidTTpClTTOWCti 100 
 
 /SaAAo? eV alria 281 
 
 StareAw 35 
 
 0a<ri\evs 173 
 
 8tOTt06yUOt VOfJLOV 245 
 
 ouA6i -60-06 with subjunctive 94 
 
 $ia<popa 213 
 
 Bpaxvs 221 
 
 8lKO{> IJl 
 
 
 St/catoo-urrj Siitaiov 105 
 
 7 a p TT a p (d) 11 
 
 SiKaffr'fipia 103 
 
 7 e 20 22 27 176 
 
 8iKaffr-}]s a.Kpoar'fjs 25 
 
 7676^770-004 y e v 4 <r 6 a i 160 
 
 St'/cT? 3 246 
 
 7eAo?oj', r6 209 
 
 StJri 80 273 
 
 76'j/eo-ts 201 
 
 8 i CD o~ d /* T) v $ ie8 v a~ d jur) v 185 
 
 ywalos 109 
 
 8<$/c7jo-is Si'/caios 343 
 
 yevvw 117 
 
 SOKW })leonastic 40 
 
 *y(t)p*yLKo$ 100 
 
 So'lu 275 281 
 
 7 e w p 7 o" s apy 6 s 101 
 
 8o|o^co 8t/coC w 176 
 
 717^6x04 impersonal 280 
 
 8o|ao-0juot 233. Cf. 186 
 
 7 t 7 ^. 7J ,. 10 36 72 84 161 
 
 8v' ou 153 
 
 183 198241 245344 (two) 
 
 5uj / tt^"TUCl? 2/8 
 
 yiyv- 76V- A e 7- see A67^- 
 
 Svvar6s 142 
 
 /J.CVOS 
 
 ,, aSuj/oTos 124 
 
 7AixM at 36 
 
 ,, av 6 v T\T o s 186 
 
 7j/w/*7j yvSxris 122 
 
 Svffrvxovfjiai 248 
 
 yovv V ovv 334 
 
 
 ,, T] y ov fj. v o s 44 
 
 ect 6?a 160 
 
 7pa/uyua 7 oi]r e v /x a 58 
 
 lavr^f T o * o w T 77 / 148 
 
 7u / u'ds 111 
 
 eavrty ev avrip 84 
 
 
 677WTOTOS 20 
 
 Sa^ufj 184 
 
 6'0e'Aa> 274 
 
 8e'7ap 10379(5305312342 
 
 600$ ^005- 316 
 
 ,, 76 56 
 
 el O6t Kai 302 
 
 ,, 84 9596170262270296 
 
 eZSe oTSe 337 
 
 ,, T e often 
 
 ef8e<, eV 222 
 
 Se /j.-f)v 241 
 
 et-n jv 90 
 
 8e8etx0ot SeSe'x^ot 296 
 
 ei/fos 246 
 
352 
 
 GREEK INDEX 
 
 fAe ^76 336 
 *lvai efrj & v 262 
 
 ,, nvd 63 
 iV- eup- 50 66 71 
 f7re eSre 336 
 ?7roy with infin. 183 
 
 ,, asked 34 
 cts 197 
 fts TIS 126 
 
 ff av 317 
 198 
 
 121 
 
 274 
 
 e5 a- 26 337 342 
 169 
 tvapyhs 256 
 
 fep7- 337 
 p&s 184 
 
 6 U 7T p ?V 6 I 7T e ? P 50 
 
 v p (a v at p u> v k \ <a v 336 
 VK6\us 317 
 113 
 
 nt epxopai 343 
 e 06 Aw 56 
 ,, Ae'7&> 60 65 343 
 o-xw 21 321 
 
 155 
 
 tXQuv vQev e A co v 323 
 
 ea>s 77 184 206 306 
 
 Au> 163 
 
 e'cos cij/ e'ai> 23 78 
 
 e/ue, roV 194 
 
 
 /* ^ e'rpco s, e'jUyiieAcos, /u e- 
 
 H N 44 190 199 202 253 
 
 r p I <a s 64 
 
 $ aft-r unusual words 86 320 
 
 *U.TTOpeV(T(i/J.VOS 274 
 
 ^ ?> 240 
 
 <V 96 
 
 ., e? 342 
 
 ej/ 103 
 
 ,, ov 72 
 
 ,,e/ t 303 
 
 ,, els 253 
 
 fi'avTios 205 
 
 Tiyovfj.ai = 'riy. 5eZV 214 
 
 *v5vo/j.ai 95 
 
 ^Set etSei'r? 136 
 
 ^vepy-fjs fvapyhs 342 
 
 ^5' os et/tos 138 
 
 f'JcuVtos 282 
 
 7J CO t 7T f 87 
 
 <<yai pleonastic 15 
 
 ^jueTs v /j.f"i s 180 
 
 3i/ca 65 249 
 
 ri/j.iovos 10 
 
 <'7r<5a> 17 
 
 7)p e1f77 20 41 90 
 
 jrai'a7cc with gen. 246 
 
 $7rep 34 
 
 ^irei.S'f} 42 
 
 ij p e ^ 7 e 336 
 
 '/re'xa. 99 
 
 
 cVf 43 221 230 
 
 0STTOI/ 280 
 
 ., ert 334 
 
 dfXeis e'px^eOa 95 
 
 7ri5e/|et e'TTtSe^o-et 306 
 
 0ebs OTTO ^.rjx ai/ '7 s 66 
 
 fTTlVATJI/ 209 
 
 e o $ t A -^ s 6 e o d> v -f) s 128 
 
 ( TUTT-flM 277 
 
 fleo-yuo's 283 
 
 TT.l T p e' 7T CO e'TTiTClTTCO 242 
 
 0e'co 35 
 
 7ro*7rTyco 264 
 
 06pvBos 144 
 
 f >pco 276 
 
 ^ros 208 
 
 ^COTCO 342 
 
 
 fffopai y c v -/i ff o /j. a L 128 
 
 mrpi/co's 112 
 
 erTTiv, OUK 216 
 
 rSjos ^ 57 
 
 ,, ecrTai 188 254 
 
 i 5 t w T 77 > ?] 5 i co 343 
 
 ecrrco 182 308 
 
 1 4 v a. i f~l v a. i 188 
 
 T e p o s -^jue'repos 307 
 
 J/cai/Js 57 95 211 
 
 ere'pco e'Trepco 212 
 
 /fa /cos 199 
 
 Tt TtS 46 
 
 Iva 312 
 
 * T <a V a p e T > v 336 
 
 laovofjiia 29 
 
 <S elej/ 139 
 
 1 ff T o p i a prjTopeia 308 
 
GREEK INDEX 
 
 353 
 
 t <r w s i 
 
 IK ay us 138 
 
 281 
 
 317 
 
 KaQaputs 74 
 
 KadopSi 1 
 
 KCU 169 187 217 
 
 ,, with 6 avros 145 
 
 ,, ravra etc. 87 
 
 ,, ^ 8 20 47 55 88 91 175 
 196 250 320 (two) 325 
 
 ,, KO.K, K0.t>, Kl 96 189 
 
 190 
 K&V 19 55 138 152 303 
 
 330 331 342 
 Kara 49 63 98 155 164 
 
 167 190 224 232 
 us 51 97 138 159 163 189 
 
 202 320 334 
 
 /col ydp KaQdirep 324 
 KaKoSaifjLcav 325 
 
 KCIKWV KttKLUV 182 319 
 
 (o u) K O. K (0 S OVK & K Ca V 301 
 
 Ka\6s IKO.VOS 41 50 80 311 
 xal 38 158 253 
 KO.KOS 267 314 342 
 ,, Ka\Xi<av 305 
 
 KU\U>S 101 
 
 aw 6 s KO. pir 6 s 336 
 
 Hard 196 227. See K ai 
 
 341 
 
 45 
 141 
 206 
 
 ?ia/cero-0ot 26 
 > 99 
 /cArjpouxw 226 
 K par os K por o s 343 
 Kpa.rnvp.ai 115 
 Krrj/j.a 34 
 
 101 
 
 6 v I v a /j.a i 68 
 101 217 
 34 
 
 236 
 
 XavQdvw 100 
 Ae7oVe'os 211 
 
 A e 7- yiyv- ytv- 5290191 
 207 238 263 311 
 
 u 6/j.o\oy<3 62175 
 
 A e y <a y8 A 4 IT <a 22 
 \ei/j.cavas \i/j.vas 181 
 
 A647T- AtTT- 164 183 
 
 a 275 
 
 Aia 54 
 Aiffra, TI, rts 110 
 
 \ ov a \\o s 12 
 ,, fj.d\a 33 
 
 ,, TTO A Af? s 33 
 
 ,, understood 72 
 
 (TTOI'TOS) fJ.K\\OV 131 
 
 fj.dpy o s apya\ e'o s 35 
 Hfyas ij.6vos 255 
 Aiei^wi/ a^flvtav 159 
 (ouSe) /xe'AAw 261 
 yueAw personal 166 
 
 ,, /zeAerw 166 
 /tei' IJLT\ v 111 
 
 ,, IJ.OVQS 176 250 
 /j-fpos 76 i/os 183 
 uerav, fltffOS 127 
 per a p p 4 10 ju e T at p a> 176 
 yuereTreiTa 283 
 [AC T p <o v a fj.e r p (i) v 201 
 /*e'XP 77 177 306 
 ^ 37 142 247 252 316 
 ,, /iijSe' 128 321 
 ,, rivets 204 
 
 .UT/Tt 276 
 
 ca 66 
 
 K i vr) /*a 244 
 220 
 
 eia 30 
 /j.6vof /uaAt(TTo 247 
 fi6vov /jLotv ov fj.4vroi 170 
 IJLvQoXoyS) 283 
 Hv pla no p i a 232 
 57 
 
 y a i /c a i 334 
 
 166 
 
 132 
 
 (or /AO) A/a 42 54 
 109 
 
 130 
 
 vo/j.odfcr(as 232 
 eyypd<f>fii> 127 
 
 A o" 7 o s 150 337 
 281 
 
 A A 
 
354 
 
 GREEK INDEX 
 
 v o a or o.yvoS) 
 53 
 
 V f V I V V V I 237 
 
 v$, yiyveo-eat M 283 
 vvov 19 
 
 600 313 317 
 
 015' on 12 
 
 otojj.a.1 rdtoO/iai 124 
 
 o t o P 6 p >v 243 
 
 olos So- os 84 256 306 
 
 TTOiOS 316 
 
 o A i 7 o s A tr o s 342 
 
 Stoics ^ 320 
 
 o yit a> s /j. r) fi a /j. ) s 195 
 
 OPTWf I'OTJjU.aTWI' 294 
 
 ,, or Toiovrtav 6vofj.d- 
 
 TCOJ/ 162 
 oVrcos 281 
 os 146 
 131 
 
 px 1 *? 343 
 ope? <f> p ov p <2 254 
 
 , , e p u>r 342 
 os lost after -o* 2 
 ,, g<ros 198 
 feminine 245 
 
 14 
 '6<rns 39 
 
 &s rts 157 
 cire 227 
 gri 103 
 ,, IJLO.QUV 41 
 
 ,, auro TOiouro 129 148 
 ct 116 
 
 ,, e'o-rf 126 
 gry rb c^ 18 
 ou of time 2&2 
 ov (p-fi) lost : see Negative 
 ,, rov 319 
 oi/'Scc/xoVe 74 
 oi/8e' o^T 6 22 43 
 ovSev trpbs on 233 
 o5v bv 213 
 o y s 2 T 6 254 
 ds 53 
 ovfla 185 
 
 ,, (ftvffis 147 
 o ^ T t o' T i 269 
 OUTOS a v r 6 s etc. : see ayros 
 
 OI/TCOS 
 oi>xi 46 
 
 297 
 
 TT rt 47 6$ 185 
 irafl- /*a0-' 316 
 TrcuSia 188 
 iraifa) TTTO/CO 59 
 irals 92 
 
 7T 5 V It OV 58 
 
 Trelj'To rayra 234 
 iravrbs /u.a\\ov 131 
 Trapci 126 282 
 
 irpo's 70 
 Trapa/3o-r)6<2 143 
 
 281 
 
 Trap/?? 304 
 , r6 34 
 iraple/j.ai Trpoffie/LLai 264 
 Flapicov, uirep vir p 6 p i o v 
 81 
 
 TTCtpUV TT G p I I U> V 337 
 
 IT e ifl- Treto-- 16 177 252 
 weVijs 281 
 wept 281 
 
 228 
 
 ciTTco v TT ri per a 79 
 TrAet(TTos TrAoo-r^s 338 
 irXeov for ^TTO/ 321 
 7rA7?pw 208 
 
 TrAoCros irijAo's 343 
 TT o t rj T a> i/ Trai'Twi' 27. Of. 17 
 iroiKi\os TTOV Ka\6s 140 
 irotos iroffos 84 
 Troiovp.a.i 143 
 
 ,, TT6TO/UOJ 160 
 
 irotw 8 o K<a 147 
 
 ,, iropiw 163 
 
 ,, (T K OTT a, 153 
 TToAiaj/o^uco 284 
 
 1TO\lTlltbv S'lKaiOV 240 
 
 TT o A A a TT o A A ct i s 196 
 
 Troy ST/ 252 
 iroAAot 90 
 
 TToAAcov TroAewv 132 
 it ov (2 TT o i cc 342 
 Trdppco 232 
 
 7TOO"OU 7TCOS Ol) 338 
 
 TTOTC irporepos 211 
 
 ,, 7TC07TOT6 256 
 
 irp5|is 282 
 Traos 22 
 
GREEK INDEX 
 
 355 
 
 Trpaorrjs 140 
 irpaTTw 172 
 trp'iv 77 177 
 Trpo air 6 343 
 irepi 311 
 
 ,, ^TTO' 1 150 
 
 Trpo/j.vufJ.at 29 
 
 irpo's 198 
 
 irpoffQev IT p 6 a 6 e s 294 
 
 jrpoff 06 a i s IT p 6 f <r i s 293 
 
 Trvvddvofjiat 98 
 
 7TWS WS 309 
 
 pqffT OS & p IffT S 191 
 
 tTft 31 
 <r a u T $ e 5 ju a u T $ 26 
 
 34 
 21 
 
 er T p a T i CCTTJ s a r p O.T i]y 6 s 
 342 
 
 u o u 343 
 281 
 (rvn&d\\w 189 
 
 167 
 
 afci 313 
 auat 189 
 
 cr a fj.a 44 
 
 T for rdXavrov 174 
 
 TCI lost after -ra 31 32 69 
 
 Tav, S 276 
 
 TOI/DI/ 280 
 
 T<X' &" 236 
 
 TCIXOS, or: 282 
 
 Tax^s )3 p a x v s 182 
 
 T6 Tt TiS 170202 
 
 re ala re'cppo 308 
 
 ,, 76 95 111 145 222 
 
 ,, S e often 
 
 T6T07/ixat T era/tai 337 
 T ^ i/ T i f a 248 
 W e'a^ 39 
 
 ^ 55 173 197 
 
 ^v 21 
 
 ,, riva 110 
 Tide/tat 200 
 
 TLfjLLOS Tl/J.1)TOS 180 
 
 T/j'w 5i'/cas 283 
 Tty 319 
 els 56295 
 T-6 with gen. 281 
 
 Se 200 
 
 ,, T< 129241309 
 
 ,, T< rot 11 20 
 
 TOIOVTOS 129 
 
 ,, rocrovTos 38 84 137 
 
 162 255 
 
 ro\fiw 6fj.o\oy6a 194 
 T j v riva 342 
 roj/tfcJs 76yt/c({s 309 
 T 6 n o s XP ^ v o s 253 
 
 TOTOUTOS 3 
 
 roG with infin. 243 
 ,, TOVTOV, etc. 13 61 166 
 TO us ovs 334341 
 rpavt)S 312 
 TPITTJ etas 246 
 TP/TOS rpis rpels 228235 
 TVITOI> 210 
 Ti/x<iv 34 
 TO? <r o i 15 
 
 jSe 223 
 
 Sirop 259 276 
 
 172 
 
 68169 
 , e| 132 
 
 (paT/uej/ (p a /u. e v 88 
 
 (paiVojuat 182 284 
 
 (paivovrai O.TT o <p ai v OVT f s 
 
 104 
 
 (pavT<io/j.ai 204 
 (pas, 0a^iei/os 34 
 (p aff i <p v <r iv 218 
 (pe'po/icu 281 
 
 - <pu7- 26 
 53 
 
 t 16 
 
 210 
 
 s <j>i\6Ti[j.os 68 
 
 O 250 
 
 QS>fJifv 243 
 
 C /8iou 83 
 152 
 
 127 
 172 
 fa 234 
 
 ^ 17 32 
 
 v TTOTOV 107 
 
 X p ({ v o s Ao7os 186 
 
 A A 2 
 
356 
 
 GREEK INDEX 
 
 s % ia po s 345 
 104 
 
 ^ e 7 co A 7 w 174 
 tj>iA.ds 227 
 250 
 
 uj K e i a i s oiKeTov 342 
 
 U)VOV/J.O,l KlVOV/LLttl 304 
 
 & p a s <p o pa s 294 
 
 85 103 
 
 = ff 253340 
 Kai 80. See xa/ 
 oo-' etc. 6496110 
 cWre 2749 
 = #(rre 242 281 
 
 and o>s 85 
 ,, e t IT e p t, o v ire p i 
 ,, us oirep 50 
 'a a T 6 c& s 7 e 558897 
 
 187 
 
 R1CHAKD CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BRUNSWICK ST., S.E., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 
rrtxra r>f\f\v TCS TVTTT 
 
 IPTTT T A am T\ATT? 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 
 (415)642-6233 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to NRLF 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 
 
 prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 MflR 1 8 1993 
 
 UNIV. OF 
 
 BERK. 
 
? - "-"" ' ! " ,' 
 
 
 / 
 256596 
 
 YC13i>485 
 
 LIBRARY