This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, 1977), pp. 486-496 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20126957 . Accessed: 01/02/2013 19:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and it is one of the sophist's delusions which he seeks to impose upon others that the problem of speech coincides with the Aristotle's problem of being. a distinction that plainly did not cover either "being". When Euripides' Eteocles replies to his brother's appeal to the simplicity of truth." of speech only noun Plato was content (as actor whose and verb and action respectively). of the and root *es?as Indo-European Parmenides and his veridical?gave inherited copulative. (Sophist 261e4-8).CRITICAL STUDY THE GRAMMAROF BEING SETH BENARDETE vaharles H. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . To the Greek philosophers themselves. have come as a surprise to most of them that grammar and philosophy could be thought to overlap. kahn's The Verb "Be" in Ancient Greek (Reidel: 1973) is the sixth part of a series edited by J. and whereas for them Greek or Persian exemplified the conventional. W. seems link this to have been of no importance. and existence were handled in Greek by three wholly distinct verbal roots. we speak of language. between philosophy proper and ancient Greek philosophy. tion (266a5-6). which is still sensed as indissoluble. theme Eleatic tion. successors an easier access to the problem of being than would have been the case if truth. and he did so in a dialogue with same. he be lieves in theWhorfian hypothesis only to the extent that the threefold function existential. They spoke of logos. pejorative use of logikos (Met. 1030a25) is fully in accord with Plato's understanding of the "weakness of speeches. Verhaar with the overall title. This privilege is due to the link. Indeed. "to be" or the noun is the problem makes of being clear. as the other. while logos being belongs with belongs opinion." Kahn is more than sympathetic with the ancients' view. M. mo and imagina stranger and rest. thought. but it differs from the others by its being devoted to a single language. 1029b13. The Verb "Be" and its Synonyms: Philosophi cal and Grammatical Studies. and itwould however. he asserts that only in words is there equality among mortals. to distinguish the verb they among are for us "natural the parts languages. "but the deed is not this" This content downloaded on Fri. predication.
. designate "copula. 528-529: The sentence ?o-tl Toj/jlt) "Rome exists" and its expanded form eari and T?/jar) 7t?Xic "The city Rome exists" are. Neither his results. a grammar is obliged to be. of which he says he found no extra-philosophical examples fr. of truth." In order to see how different modern linguistics is from traditional philology. could exclude from being is as a characterization those beings about which falsehood is impossible Kahn's procedure is inseparable from (Met. (p. Aristophon among the one should cite Oeconomicus XIX. non-philosophers. should we say 'p?/xr) 7ro\i? ixrr?v "Rome is a city. and we usually as or kcrriv sentence-binder. fr. Kahn. of being that must let alone Plato. "Zeus is not" what is sub specie graecitatis and "Socrates is mortal. that it led Plato to ignore the difference between. There is a unity in the diversity the relations But one may among of eivaL that however truly reflects. is. 978. neutral to the evidence as.1 but one can just as easily express the thought existentially. agree with It is hard to see how Aristotle. Schmidt's Synonomik der griechischen Sprache (1878).5. adequate complete predicate. Kahn readily acknowledges this kind of three-in-one. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . we assume. complete a a substantive with But statements." Kahn calls veridical. 1 K. vol. the concepts whether question Kahn. 366). more literally. 2." it no longer appears to us that ?o-t?v is the actual but 7r?Xic alone statement. to certain fashions does not have accommodations source He does not cite any ancient thought. in opposi tion to a widespread view. by is replaced existential. H. Antiphanes fr. pp." With what If we stress justification? 7roXi?. perhaps This content downloaded on Fri. 4. & 10). kcrTiv looks sec 1 I am not sure whether Kahn would count this as a variant of ovk ?cTTLTaOra. "as men say. Whether eartv in a sentence or veridical the sentence 487 like to 8' epyov ovk is an idle question. 9. Kahn himself often refers to his syntactical structuring of eivaL as a "myth. H. Ion 341. and there is nothing in the structure of the sentence as such that distinguishes it from the copulative construction. it isworthwhile to begin with a quotation from J. has the form which is copulative. itmight be thought. and existence. to be meant of the ancient meaning of elvac "For the Greeks. Since Kahn seems to put Xenophon 56. but cf. terization a to be orto be a predicate for rational discourse and true state subject of contempo for his own charac ment" (p. but he denies." is sub For specie a matter of fact rationis a necessity. 17.GRAMMAR OF BEING (Phoenissae ?dTLv T?Se If T?8e 502). imprecisely. predication. for example. Euripides AIcestis 1126. "Equality does not exist" (or. "Equality is not the case"). to make rary in his eagerness too many to vindicate Greek philosophy. 404).
it means (Vorhandensein). But if the sentence were Tw/xr] i)v." as merely a formal part of the sentence. admits of is neither the use by of Transformational to a large Kahn's extent Harris). the main stress would still be on the predi a different cated noun. This quotation is all the more revealing with Kahn's. . eivaL is able posited notion of "kernel sentence" all the Greek sentences occurs. Is this a new use of If that were the case. participles since existence is the totality of all actions and conditions. or in the version Kahn an example First. Grammar to generate plan was of intuition. Kake?TaL 7roXi?. Kahn. Whether this is a failure inherent in Trans formational moment of the be failure Grammar left aside. only the additions make . supplements with a great number of other verbs. which. in in different ways. Tedafi/xevoL eLcriv laetus advenio. original "to correlate every in which intuitive difference of meaning in the use of elpi with a formal description of the corresponding sentence-type" (p. But or adjectives. but he admits that he cannot always do so. one of which has a finite form of eivaL and the other a finite form of the participle. unless logical constraints required emphasis. we should have a wholly other use in a elvaCl sentence like ovro? ? kt)7to? tov ?ao-iXcc?c ?ctt'lv. of Kahn are comprehended by Schmidt in the Whatever but one may think of Schmidt's and variety articulated the syntactic nor unified. Kahn formulates the rule for the recognition of periphrasis somewhat as follows: eivaL is used periphrastically with the participle if and only if it is impossible to obtain two kernel sentences. it is still nothing structures which eivaL on the other hand. German Schmidt almost assigns coincides to eivaL. are in order. and con one most the at nearest and the sequently concept. its use seems to us the most and we speak therefore of a copula or an "auxiliary verb. t)v. and 7r?Xic is only a closer determination of the predi . the essence of k^7to?.488 SETH BENARDETE of the ondary. which designate either an action or a condition that can be expressed that can be expanded differently. because the primitive "stative" and mean ing which etymology. The concept of action or condition is not distinct as sub the cited examples. oblique cases. . as Kahn technique. but This content downloaded on Fri. however. being present or adverbial and this verb shares nominal existence. of the itself. eorcu or even yiyveTaL. (paiveTaL. 251). them different. . but kvT?v. on the basis The of a specious "loca tive-existential" wohnen. is. yiyveTaL. hand. cate. general lying self-evident and least important. and another one in turn in &ttl /xot In all these cases. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . KaXevraL etc. of the practices can for the uses. . 7roXi? is not the statement. stantives adverbs. it is not at all. success and another it. Accordingly. as laetus in the sentence "They are buried" is the same as Ionic TeB?<paTaL. the verb is not distinct. however. the of Zellig version (in a in from a regular way intuition. we can omit it without obscuring^ our understanding sentence.
fr.") is not uncommon. tion between more the presence an apparent to designate or the absence such nominal as sentences a secondary of ?or? no distinc Grammar can be allowed. to begin by treating eivaL as if it were any other verb. Kahn asserts that. . without clause. the usage The 489 is not periphras how tic. spoken ways"?ecrri "in its being" only because of X?yovTaL8e. When 8e kol 77 av8pe?a says. then. 1278. the beingness of ?crri vanishes. though he looked hard for examples. He is mistaken. context-free then syntactic the goal structure could be found of machine-translation In accordance with could for every mean be achieved: Kahn had translatability. that can and it might be no mean a verb..). and the fact that it occurs far more often with ovk than without seems to be. k?yovTaL KaTa Tr?vTe rp?7rovc is of this (EN 1116a15?17)?"Courage ?TepaL are means in of other five but kinds here sort. (Hecuba Zevs Euripides cf. linguistically. Can a verb which is almost always eliminable be the word for reality and truth? Or is it because "being" is the only word that cannot be just aword that it can so easily be suppressed in speech? If a distinct ing of eivaL. 150N). . and ?or' tovtcov ?Xevoepo? o tl ?jlj) several (Trachiniae cf. than ing is said the verb is always present. but since he admits his failure. who . that the degree of negativity in the context of eivaCs occurrence This content downloaded on Fri. etc. of Greek grammar. 299. .. Now. 61). Antigone there are examples in just one passage of Plato's Charmides (167elff. n. a standard part it will no doubt become enchantment. has ovk earn dvr)T&v oori? kol oi)8?v and Sophocles 737). in time ever. One might the contrasted suspect. 864. whose primitive in its absence make its presence equally felt. of the verb For deep structure. The Sophoclean example is important since it illustrates a double "zeroing" for traditional grammar ofeLvaL. and whereas are treated as primary. paradox presence. This rule is both simple and elegant.. and he offers a proof as to why this should be the case (p. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . (ovk) ?cttlv .GRAMMAR OF BEING if two kernel sentences can be so obtained. ("There tential operator of modern logic. it is proper to ask whether he was bound to do so precisely because it is not like any other verb. which mathematical case [not] of another someone clarity can cast is best illustrated ?cttls It looks like the in the is exis construction. irrelevant. . this goal. he could only find one (inPlato) inwhich the second clause has the copula. Is not the colorless ness of the copula no less a sign ?xev ovv of the wholly context-bound character of being than is the fact that existence Aristotle eart is not a predicate? tolovt?v tl. with the insertion use of Transformational in Kahn's development.
to you as the greatest says to Clytaemnestra (IA 973-4). about Achilles is suddenly forced to acknowledge what we would have Homer's heroes believed implicitly. which ends with the burial of Hector's corpse. become /xadcov human priority you of motion over rest. but nevertheless and some therefore of the other men do not I shall become so"). oeo? kyo) ("I appear Euripides' Achilles Tr?(piqv? crot/^?yicrro?. it qualifies If one reads. that the soul truly exists thought in Hades. but (only) (Met. is the case that it has just only Being for philosophers eivaL could are through non-being. Achilles says. it usually so-and-so is dead. forms do not alter re because on the grounds it occurs negation that the cannot gardless of whether to be alive they are affirmed or denied. remarks that "motion is especially categories" (energeia)." this passage. The conceptual and ("Learn priority for which what of he Kahn upon which yiyvecrdaL. Kahn cites Achilles' words at Iliad XXIII. is not. o/acoc yevrjoropiaL H)v. but Propertius' the lectio difficilior. to light not when been it does mean asked over have and whether to be alive. The significance of Achilles' speech for the Iliad is confirmed by the fact that only on the occasion of Patroclus' and Hector's deaths does Homer himself say that the soul rt? in line 103. for the poem. and Aristotle thought assign to be motion being-at-work to non-beings. This is in a sense the culmination of the Iliad. Soul. When far more negatively comes eivaL by itself as "to be dead". means its meaning. that seem to guarantee considerations 2 This content downloaded on Fri. Achilles is speak o> ttottol. is so. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . ifwxy. 103-4 as "perhaps the most 'philosophical' use of eipi inHomer" (p. with Kahn. just a manner of speaking.2 the house that soul and wraith something By finding Kahn fails here to of the example just another stress what is truly astonishing "locative-existential. ?XX' not being so. any more than Hades is. of Patroclus' rj p? t? ghost: ing out loud on the departure ' ecTTL KOLL kv Ki8ao ("So it is true after all ?o/xoicri ipvxv Kai e?8(okov even are in of Hades"). cited Pindar's ?crai olos yevoC it"). had begun with Homer's assertion that Achilles' wrath had cast forth into Hades many stout souls of heroes and left themselves (avrov?) to be the prey for dogs and birds. 274).". does not affect ovk god. the insists. "some sunt aliquid manes is just one of several sort of soul is etc.490 determines necessarily Kahn does. 1047a32-4). and Being the is context-bound of eivaL syntactic often SETH BENARDETE non-being as be dismissed.
or life apart obscures what is involved in the denial or the assertion of the existence of the gods. Laws the plainest proof that life and gods can constitute one problem. of Aphrodite Second. The bear to which this out. on Kahn's part. 304). he thus implies that if it turn out the cannot be precluded. but rampant Eros like [a child] sports"). with only Aristotle says thinking. the questioning of the being of the gods cannot be far behind. I think it would be helpful to give a fuller account. the he claims. the existence of other X is." should It have no less than the modern physicists' "half-life" more warrant makes speaking of the "life" of elementary particles substances). is a monster. denial of becoming the question soul been is life and implausible." "to share (de gen. of course. 58. start that and its significance for us would be that it establishes eivaL primarily means "to be something. Whether Alem?n means to distinguish between the sudden lust of Eros and the serious passion anes'. first occurs at the end of the fifth century." in touch or taste is thought to be as itwere nothing. this.GRAMMAR OF BEING went at the 491 to Hades. 731a35-b4). 89 "Epco? ota ecTTL. "to be alive" from the strictly meaning Kahn. animal. (and of radioactive caution to enough life that only the pre-Socratic In Plato's Phaedrus. seems to deny however. The absence of life is often just what is meant "In comparison by "non-being. two centuries fi?v ovk there Aristophanes. for it would then be thought desirable to obtain even this kind of knowledge and not lie dead and [as] a non-being (KeladaL TeOvebs the Kai /xi} bv). First. and in Sophocles' Electra the Chorus say (245-250): This content downloaded on Fri. but the syntax is the same as Aristoph and more to keep the gods and soul importantly. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Socrates' tion which ov8' ecrT?v Zevs same for he wishes existential to separate meaning which. it is and since Kahn might further mislead the reader into believing that the issue of the gods' being is only to be found in the few passages he cites. Boreas. (Clouds at the time represents is semantically novel: evidence does not 367) Aristophanes' a syntactic innova "eon as existential operator has been isolated from the operand sentences normally bound" (p. should monsters Socrates puts that when asked whether aside he believes the myth of of centaurs of the existence and the like until he has come to know himself. ix?pyo? before is Alem?n [77a??] fr." If Greek literature begins with a question about the being of soul." The slogan. is not clear. 7ra?a8eL 9A(ppo8?Ta is ("Aphrodite 1 P: not. but in comparison with the plant or stone it is wonderful. "God is dead.
cort.492 ei yap ? pkv Baviov y? Te Kai ov8ev Ke?aeTaL r?Xac. which I think. and they [Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus] will not pay back with blood for blood.. the reverence and piety of all mortals are gone.11. The belief in the existence of the gods and the belief in the existence of the soul apart from body thus stand or fall together.") ("If the hapless dead [Agamemnon] will lie [as] earth and non-being. view that In his discussion former of Socrates' denial that Zeus is. to the poets'. sacrificed only where grounds and gave "these truly not-false gods These he had been convicted.23). VIII. Kahn wavers there. fictive being.92." 3A is ?kr}6?(ov. Socrates' words at line 365). he way. "for I do not know of any river Ocean that is" (ov yap TLva eyorye oi8a irora/xov 'ClKeavbv e?vra. for in explaining teaching to his son. he tells the story of Amasis.." acquitted than convicted. Strepsiades cf. on the v)3 give (tovt?ov Herodotean the impression that existential eari always has a theological dimen sion. that since Zeus is a It is not.. in the same book (174). says that Zeus is not since Dinos is lang. who before he became king was a thief. SvaTwv. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . is near the truth (cf. And later.2). this does not admit of refutation. eivaL by itself now means "to be by nature. Oe v eovr might on becoming king. instances early in discussing of the existential source eivaL Kahn mentions has missed. 319). he was that no less often were oracles. variant reading 4 it in this Even though Socrates might be imagined as understanding Socrates' does not. ?>? akiqd?cu? examples so Amasis. but Thucydides shows that it is not restricted to that: "And the four-hundred because of this were not willing 1. that he is a possible that could anything deny subject for any reliable elementary statements: the stories of priests and poets are all a pack of lies" (p. eivaL. has its source in the for the five-thousand either to be or to make /xi) bvTa? between ?tj?ov? his it plain that they were not" (oihe eivaL ovre cf. Some Herodotus. and when his victims brought him before various oracles.3. having driven Zeus out (1470-1. he says. and the possibility that Socrates "intends to "locative-existential" be truly said of Zeus. 11. whereby Socrates' He thus assimilates 380-1). This second formulation. but.4 conceals something which is most remarkable. teaching This content downloaded on Fri. SETH BENARDETE iov ?l 8? /xi) ttcxXlv 8o)crovo"' eppoL aTt?vTi?v otvrupovov? r' av at?w? r' evak?eLa ?t/ca?. the sug of the Nile. gestion of some that it is Ocean.
there is no need of gods. generalization little the Clouds. Cyclops 354-5). If Justice U. explicitly or implicitly. and mortal and "Or the gods are nowhere unless he be great things will a in the gods' being and the fragment. but the packing into what is apparently the emptiest and most general of words a distinc tion. for one does what one is. What is first for us. and that in turn are that and life identified. but if the gods have strength.S. To be means to be at work. In Euripides' Heracles Oeo? /x?v ov8a/xov). Just Speech and Unjust Speech have this exchange (902-6): I deny that Justice is at all (ov8? y?p eivaL ir?w U. You know nothing For if chance is. 1017a35-bl). 7 N. says: gods' strength are identified (fr.: Well.. ei jx?v y?p et ?' ot 0eot 17tvxV crdevovaLv (ttlv ovSev 8e? Oeaxv. 1029b9-10).: is (At/oj? oiiarj?) how come Zeus did not perish when he bound his father? This last exchange brings out that the denial or the assertion existence of gods is never a statement of bare existence. J.GRAMMAR OF BEING 493 then.: You say she is not? U. though it is one of the four main meanings Aristotle gives to being (Met. Euripides fr. (r? is punished". "has or no being" Met. 292. a Kahn's earlier that existential eivaL arises from proposal of the in "locative-existential" for cannot. where is she then? J. chance is nothing. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . in a passage which Kahn rather surprisingly does not mention. the syntactic form which is innovative.S. ?o/cetr? tl. The Chorus inAeschylus' implies being virtually in the same way: ov?? Xe^erat irplv Hjv (170) speak of Uranus Agamemnon ("He will not even be counted. Kahn nowhere discusses this meaning of being.S. p?Tiqv.: Among the gods.S.: <pr)pi Alkt}v). ^XX' ov Oedv?. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated: being must now be qualified. (Heracles) Iris (841-2). oi)8ev tj tvxV ("Oh the delirium of men! They say that chance is and not the gods.S. Aristotle says. even if you think you are talking sense. 154 Austin): o) 6vr)TOL7rapa(ppovi)ixaTy o? ipao-LV eivaL tt)v tv\Vv co? ov?ev ierre Ke? keyeiv avOp?m??v.be dismissed. whenever it is extended outside its strict boundaries. being before"). Hecuba 799-801.") no more is not" means than "Zeus is no longer". (?xLKpbv r) ovdev e'xet T?v wro?. but of the rather that the being of a god involves the effective power of the god to maintain morality (cf. "Zeus This content downloaded on Fri.
and when Meletus says it is the laws. Socrates says. of Eros the parents that Plato where are reply (p. The indeterminacy cated by the constant use of the phrase oort? to be a person of 0eoc is indi about eort*> in speeches the gods. for at the end of This content downloaded on Fri. however. account. about Euripides ignorance stances: Ze?? ocrrt? ? Zeu?. the distinction between and to be personified is obscure. of personal sub-class and within nouns. 480 oi8a the gods. and though it no doubt began as a sacral formula in order to avoid giving offense to a god if one happened to address him with the wrong name.. its use was soon extended fr.. one wonder 560). 125). and he might the right asks Socrates young she has explained after what power Eros has (203a9). He notes that and rightly "Who so. 160. t? ecrT?. n. person. ov y?p to express is just one one's of many total in Trkr?v k?yq) (cf. and it lends some plausibility to the view that grammar might have something to do with philosophy. how ever. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . In the Apology of Socrates. 91. Kahn wants question. is not necessarily more profound than his first. Now the question of the person would not be very important if it did not impinge on the Socratic between to distinguish. Kahn distinguishes between first and second order group. one in the same way as men and their names? Perhaps ought to leave is no vocative aside the fact that there of the singular 0eoc. On this basis Kahn classifies gods as persons. But a line like "0 gods! For Helen's. He asks Meletus who (t?c) makes the Athenians better. The nomin?is there (e. 93). 8). makes "Mythopoetic speech" even friends to recognize one understands whether a verb can be is a god" (Eur. Socrates seems to instruct 199c5). who knows this very thing. it and the question. Eur. 1137.Hel. Meletus in that difference.Hipp. 359). at least.. one can say In light. Meletus' second answer (the jury). is?" questions have Diotima cited often prompt a genealogical Plato's who Symposium. rt? eo-T?v (el). but what human being. "I'm not asking this." When it if even comes to the gods. Hel. however. defined the first by the possibility of co-occurrence with first and second person forms" (p.g. presents Socrates of Diotima's whole as having learnt from Diotima the difference between "Who is" and "What is" (cf. 92). man a is "nuclear as opposed to mortal). a god is for what a "person.494 SETH BENARDETE The problem of the gods intrudes in another way. "is an extra-linguistic subject that can speak or be spoken to" (p. the laws?" (24dl0-e2). he says. HF 1263. and per haps it is unimportant that for "mythopoetic thought and speech all nouns are (at least potentially) personal" (p. Aeschylus Ag. in Greek of the gods function the gods and the names Do.
"for subjective Kahn is puzzled by the fact truthfulness later and personal became the general term for truth" (p. moreover. but inasmuch as truthful ness and justice are commonly believed to belong together (cf.. the semantic development Chorus of "truth" seems strange warn only if one looks at veridical eivaL by itself and apart from its legal and political in Aeschylus' Agamemnon Agamemnon setting. but he does not notice that the latter phrase replaces /cora to bpdbv (96. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .97. 353-354). dialogue that Who and What remain for should begin with Socrates' telling Theodorus who the stranger really in disguise perhaps?shows Plato problematically distinct to the end. their Calchas knows the hidden interpretation Heidegger's aki)deLa is therefore not as arbitrary as Kahn believes For the difference between see Plato Sophist 234c2-e2. Herodotus ra r' ebvTa ra that observed r' ecrcrbfxeva to know for a soothsayer truth. where the people learn that Deioces' judgments (r?? ?t/ca?) turn out Kara to k?v.3). as Kahn seems to believe (pp.. pp. 5 the beings (p. and the truth This content downloaded on Fri. Kahn's influenced discussion by modern a word of veridical logic. cites from Herodotus (1. that otkr)deLa. 365). II. would That for the the spokesman say. it then When takes Homer over says the of (e. on Plato's being. It is not for want of reflec that Plato lacks a tion. moreover. eivaL function Calchas usually sometimes of 8vvaadaL that not he knew means "to signify".2).1).138.59. means the present of that he can read the future in the present. eivaL seems over to me certain to be features for he passes unduly of its ancient use that are of some interest.GRAMMAR OF BEING the Crito Socrates "personified. and Hesiod explicitly connects the truthfulness of Nereus with his justice (Theogony 233-6. Meletus. on his return The of the insincerity of his subjects 7ToXXot ?? ?poTwv irpoT?ova? (788-9): to 8oKe?v eivaL 8?kt]v irapa?avTec once they transgress a passage justice. of the beings.") Kahn himself. indeed.5 it is rrpb t' ebvTa. what is. is?Zeus as we revenge.. 364).g. meaning of r? ebvTa. The ambiguity of "right" is likewise revealing. cf. 495 hears himself rebuked by the laws themselves. philosophy of the person. 231-2). Herodotus 1. 415-419). honor what seems before ("Many mortals." has his poets.
and then gone on to the ordinary would term for real estate.37. This content downloaded on Fri. in suggestiveness have more than made up but the loss for any New York University. and in the last to Xerxes' inability to understand that the Spartans' combing their hair at Thermopylae meant that they were preparing to kill and be killed (VII. of using non-philo sophical literature (especially Homer). Would it not have been more illuminating. (Cratylus 401c-d)? where Hestia only It would have led him to the Phaedrus. Such a procedure would have been no doubt less systematic.1). god who stays at home and never contem plates the ideas. 1 Feb 2013 19:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .2)." Socrates' derivation is the of Hestia. from eoTti. (pavep? ovcr?a. The policy that Kahn adheres to throughout. for example.3).202. has its drawbacks. gain in precision. in the second SETH BENARDETE from Herodotus. in the first of which to utterance of an enigmatic interpretation once name that is at to a proper it refers given an ominous significance (VI. From there he could have discussed x^Pa or "place" in the Timaeus (with a back reference to Cratylus 412d3). Although it does give an air of neutrality to his results.50. if in Kahn had discussed his analysis of the "locative-existential. the goddess of one's own place.496 Kahn cites three passages e?v refers to the correct (VI. it prevents him from discussing those authors who reflected most deeply on what they were saying.