DUKE

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY
ffo (^<p5'ci^J^
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
Duke University Libraries

https://archive.org/details/symposiumofplato01plat
 THE SYMPOSIUM
OF

PLATO
EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTION, CRITICAL NOTES

AND COMMENTARY

BY

R. O. BURY, M.A.
FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
LATE LECTURER IN CLASSICS, BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, U.S.A.
EDITOR OF “THE PHILEBUS*’ OF PLATO

CAMBRIDGE
W. HEFFER AND SONS
LONDON; SIMPKIN, MAESHALL AND CQ. Ltd.

1909
 :

CTambrilige

PRINTED BY JOHN Cl.AY, M.A.

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

 &/Z">f30

A7r

Z2S.A-
~P^13 S3
PREFACE

(LATO’S Symposium is undeniably one of the masterpieces

of classical literature. The subtlest and most brilliant of

Greek artists in prose has left us no finer, no more fascinating

specimen of his skill than this dialogue in which, with the
throbbing pulse of life for his theme, he matches that theme by
the dramatic verve and vigour of his style. The interest of the

book is not merely literary or philosophical : it appeals also to the

wider circle of the students of culture and of life and of the
“criticism of life ” by its richness of suggestion and by its vividness

of portraiture. To mention one point alone, —nowhere else, not

even in the Phaedo, does the personality of Socrates shine before
us so full and clear, “ in form and gesture so express and ad-
mirable,” as in the pages of the Symposium. To miss reading it is

to miss the enjoyment of a veritable eariafui \6ycov, blended and

seasoned with curious art.

In the preparation of this edition I have been indebted mainly

to the labours of continental scholars, for the sufficient, if sur-

prising, reason that no English commentary has existed hereto-

fore. It was, indeed, this singular fact, together with the recent
publication of an interesting Papyrus fragment of the text, which

chiefly moved me to attempt a commentary myself On many of

the interesting questions connected with the literary form and

philosophical substance of the dialogue much more might have
been said, but I have thought it best to keep both the Introduction
and the Notes within a moderate compass. In the framing of the
a 2
IV PREFACE
text, although I have ventured on several innovations of my own,
I have been more conservative than the majority of the foreign
critics, a considerable selection of whose “restorations” will be
found in the Critical Notes in addition to the evidence of the
leading MSS. and of the Papyrus : in all doubtful cases I have cited

also the opinion of Schanz and of the Oxford editor. Prof. Burnet,

whose admirable recension has been before me constantly and has

aided me much. For expository material I must acknowledge
in special my indebtedness to the useful and scholarly edition
of A. Hug.
To gild with comment the refined gold of Plato’s work is at the

best a temerarious task ;

but if my book helps a single reader
more justly to appraise the gold it will not have been wrought
wholly in vain.

R. G. B.

October 4, 1909.
 CONTENTS
Introduction : page

§ i. Summary of the Ai’gument vii

ii. The Framework of the Dialogue xv

The first five Speeches xxiv

........
iii.

iv. Socrates and Diotima xxxvi

V. Alcibiades and his Speech ....... li

vi. The Order and Connexion of the Speeches ... lii

vii. The Dialogue as a whole: its Scope and Design . . Ixiv

viii. The Date Ixvi

i
ix. The Text Ixviii

I X. Bibliography Ixxi

I Text, Critical Notes, and Commentary 1

Index Greek
i

„ II.,
I.,

Enghsh .......... 173

178

162348
 — —

INTRODUCTION

§ i. Summary of the Argument.

I. The Preface: 172 a 174a.

Apollodorus, in reply to the enquiry of some friends, explains

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

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

Aristodemus meeting Socrates smartly attired expresses his surprise

at so unusual a circumstance. Socrates explains that being invited to
dine with Agathon he feels bound to go “in finery to the fine”; and
he presses Aristodemus, although uninvited, to accompany him. On
the road Socrates, immersed in thought, lags behind, and Aristodemus
arrives at Agathon’s alone. Not till they are half-way through the
meal does Socrates appear ;
and Agathon
rallies him on his devotion to

(ro<f)La.The proposal of Pausanias to restrict the potations, in view of

yesterday’s banquet, and that of Eryximachus to dismiss the fiute-girl
and amuse themselves by Xoyoi, are unanimously agreed to. Then
Eryximachus propounds an idea of Phaedrus, that Eros is the best
theme for encomia, and suggests that each of the party in turn,
possible
commencing with Phaedrus, should now deliver an encomium on Eros.
This suggestionis applauded by Socrates. Of the encomia the most
noteworthy were the following ;
 ::
: : —

viii INTRODUCTION

III. The Discourse of Phaedrus : 178 a — 180 b.

Prologue Eros is a great and wondrous god.

r (a) He is wondrous in origin, being eldest of gods and unbegotten

\— witness what Homer and others say of him.
(b) He is the supreme benefactor of mankind, (1) as inspiring
a high sense of honour in private, civic and military life; (2) as in-
spiring self-sacrifice, which wins divine favour (e.g. Alcestis and
^chilles, contrasted with the cowardly Orpheus).

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

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

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

{a) The dual nature of Eros follows from the dual nature of
Aphrodite : as there is an Aphrodite Urania and an Aphrodite
Pandemos, so there is Eros Uranio s and Ei’os Pandemo s.
(6) From the principle that no action is in the abstract good
or bad but derives its moi’al quality solely from the manner of its

execution it follows that Eros is bad o r ^od according to the kin d

of love-making to which it pr ompts.

(c) The general characteristics (1) of Eros Pandemos are that it is

directed to women as well as boys, to the body ra.ther t,Via.n thp s oul, t o
unscrupulous satisfaction of_lustj (2) whereas Eros Uranios shuns
females and seeks only su ch males as are noble a,nd nearly matu~rp both
in mind and~^o dyT It is the followers o f Er-nc PanrlAipf^g whr» have
brought paederastia into disrepute.
(c7) The varying vogoi concerning Eros may be classified thus:

(1) In all Greek states except Athens the vd/xos is simple, either

(a) approving paederastia, as in Elis and Boeotia ;

or (^) condemning
it, as in Ionia and states subject to barbarian rule, where it is held to

foster a dangerous spirit of independence {e.g. Harmodius and Aris-

togiton).

(2) At Athens the rd/xos is complex, (a) Eros is approved, and its

excesses condoned, when directed towards superior youths approaching

manhood. (^) It appears to be condemned, in so far as parents forbid
their boys to hold converse with “erastae.” The explanation of this
ambiguous attitude must be sought in the principle laid down above.
 :

INTRODUCTION IX

that the moral quality of an act depends upon the conditions of its per-
formance. The Athenian vd/itos provides a test for distinguishing
between good and bad forms of Eros the test of time shows whether
:

or not the right motive (desire for dpenj) actuates both the lover and
his object. This motive alone justifies all erotic pursuits and sur-
renders, e ven mutual Reception : hence we conclude that KaXbv dpeTt]?
acKa ^apL^eaffai. *

Epilogue: This Eros Uranios, which inspires zeal for dperg,

possesses the highest valu e alike for the individual a nd for the

Y. The first Interlude: 18.5 c — E.

It was the turn of Aristophanes next ;

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

YI. The Discourse of Eryximachus: 185 e — 188 E.

Prologue Pausanias was right in asserting the dual nature of

Eros; but he failed to observe that the god’s s way extends over the
entire universe.

(a) The body, with its healthy and diseased appetites, exhibits
the duality of Eros ;
an d medicine is “ the science of bodily erotics in
regard to replenishment and depletion.” Art ” It is the object of “the
of Asclepios to produce the is harmony between the
Eros which
opposite elements —
the hot and the cold, the wet and the dry, etc.
Ero s is, likewise, the pat ron-god of gym nastics and husbandry.
Similarly wit h music. The “ discordant concord ” of Heraclitus
(h)

hints at the power of music to harmonize sounds previously in discord,

and divergent times. Thus music is “ the science of Erotics in regard
to harmony and rhythm.” It is less in the pure theory than in applied
music (metrical compositions and their educational use) that the dual
nature of Eros comes to light ;
when it does, the Eros Pandemos must
be carefully guarded against.
(c) Again, in the spheres of meteorology and astronomy we see the
effects of the orderly Eros in a wholesome temperate climate, of the dis-
orderly Eros in blights and pestilences for astronomy is “ the science
;

of Erotics in regard to stellar motions and the seasons of the year.”

(yd) Lastly, in religion, it is the disorderly Eros which produces the
B. P. T
 :::

X INTRODUCTION
impiety which it is the function of divination to cure ;
and religion may
be defined as “the science of human Erotics in regard to piety.”
Epilogue To Eros, as a whole, belongs great power ;
to the virtuous
Eros great influence in effecting human concord and happiness. If my —
eulogy is incomplete, it is for you, Aristophanes, to supplement it, if you
choose.
VII. The second Interlude: 189 A— c.

Aristophanes explains that he is now cured of his hiccough, as a

result of sneezing according to Eryximachus’ prescription. He makes
a jocular allusion to Eryximachus’ discourse, to which the latter retorts,
and after some further banter Aristophanes proceeds to deliver his

encomium.
VIII. The Discourse of Aristophanes: 189 c 193 D. —
Prologue Men have failed to pay due honour to Eros, the most
“ philanthropic ” of gods, who blesses us by his healing power, as I
shall show.

flaff Man’s oi'iginal nature was different from what it now is._ It
—
had three sexes male, female, androgynous all globular in shape and
:

wRETdouble limbs and organs derived respectively from sun, earth

;

and moon.
(h) Man’s woes were due to the pride of these primal men which
stirred them to attempt to carry Heaven by assault. In punishment
Zeus sliced them each in two, and then handed them to Apollo to
stitch up their wounds. But, because they then kept dying of hunger,
owing to the yearning of each for his other-half, Zeus devised for them
the present mode of reproduction, altering the position of the sex-
organs accordingly. Thus Eros aims at restoring the primal unity and
healing the cleft in man’s nature.
(c) Each of us is a split-half of an original male, female, or an-
drogynon and the other-halves we seek in love are determined ac-
;

cordingly. Courage is the mark of boy-loving men and of man-loving

boys, as both derived from the primal male. In the intense passion of
Eros it is not merely sexual intercourse that is sought but a permanent
fusing into on e (as by the brazing of an Hephaestus'); for Love is “</te
pursuit of wholeness.”
'

(3) As it waTiinpiety that caused^our “dioikismos” and bisection,

so in piety towards the god Eros lies the hope of meeting with our
proper halves and regaining our pristine wholeness.
Epilogue Let us, then, laud Eros as the giver both of present
blessings and of bright hopes of healing and restoration in the future.
 :: ;;

INTRODUCTION XI

IX. The third Interlude: 193 D — 194 E.

Some conversation ensues between Aristophanes, Eryximachus,

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

X. The Discourse of Agathon: 194 E — 197 E.

Prologue The method of previous speakers needs amendment.

The correct method, which I shall adopt, is to laud first the chai’acter
of Eros, and secondly his gifts to men.
(A) The attributes of Eros are (1 ) supreme felicity, Idue to) I'Sl

supreme b eauty and (3) goodness.

(2) Eros is most beautiful, since he is (a) the youngest of gods

(all tales to the contrary being false), witness his aversion to old-age

(6) most tender, witness his choosing soft souls for his abode
(c) supple, witness his power to steal unnoticed in and out of souls
(J) symmetrical, because comely as all allow ;
(e) fair-of-skin, for he
feeds on flowers amid sweet scents.

(3) Eros is is (a) most just, having no lot

supremely good, since he
in violence or injustice; (6) most temperate, for he is the master of -

pleasure since no pleasure is greater than love (c) most courageous, as ;

holding sway over Ares, the most courageous of the gods (d) most ;

wise, being expert (a) in both musical and creative poesy, and (/8) in
the practical arts, as instructor of Zeus, Apollo and Athene in their
respective crafts (he, too, inspired the gods with love of beauty and de-
throned Necessity).
(B) The blessings conferred by Eros are, like his attributes, beauty
and goodness. He produces peace and pleasantness in all spheres of
life : he is the object of universal admiration, the author of all delights,

best guide and captain for gods and men alike, whose praises it behoves
all to chant in unison.
Epilogue Such is my tribute of eulogy, not wholly serious nor
wholly playful.

XI. The fourth Interlude: 198 A — 199 c.

Agathon “brought down the house” with his peroration; and

Socrates remarked to Eryximachus that its eloquence left him in despair
— petrified by the Gorgon of Agathon’s brilliant Gorgianisms. “Now,”
6 2
xii INTRODUCTION
lie said, “I must retract my rash tongue-pledge to join in a eulogy of
Eros, since I perceive that Iwas quite astray in niy ideas about the
encomiastic art : came first, ornamental com-
for I supposed that truth
pliment second, whereas the contrary is evidently the fact. Such an
encomium is quite beyond my poor powers but if you care for an un- ;

varnished speech about Eros, that I am ready to make.” Phaedrus

and the rest bidding him proceed in his own fashion, Socrates began
by the following conversation with Agathon.

XII. Socrates' 'preliminary Discussion 'uoiih Agathon:

199 c— 201 D.

(1) “Your exordium on Method was admirable, Agathon. But

tell me further, is Eros a relative notion, like ‘father’ or ‘brother’?”
“ Certainly it is.”

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

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

XIII. The Discourse of Socrates {Diotima): 201 n — 212 c.

Prologue: I will now repeat the discourse on Eros which I once

heard from my Diotima the prophetess as-
instructress in Erotics, —
suming the conclusions formulated just now, and treating first of the
character and secondly of the effects of Eros, according to Agathon’s
own method.
A. [The nature of Eros, 201 E — 204 c.]

(1) Diotima showed me that Eros, although (as we have seen)

neither beautiful nor good, is not therefore ugly and bad but rather
a mean between these contraries.

(2) She argued also that Eros is not a god, since godhead involves
the possession of just those goods which Eros desires and lacks. But
neither is he a mortal, but stands midway between the two, being
a great daemon ;
and the function of the daemonian is to mediate
between gods and men.
 INTRODUCTION
(3) As to origin, Eros is son of Poros and Penia, and partakes of
the nature of both parents —the fertile vigour of the one, the wastrel
neediness of the other. As he is a mean between the mortal and the
immortal, so he is a mean between the wise and the unwise, i.e. a
wisdom-lover {philosopher). The notion that Eros is a beautiful god is

due to a confusion between subjective Eros and the object loved.

B. [The effects, or utility, 0/ Eros, 204 d — 212 a.]

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

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

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

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

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

(c) After this elementary prelude, we reach the highest stage

of the Mysteries of Love. The right method in Erotic procedure is to
pass in upward course from love of bo^ly beauty^tojove of soul beauty,-^
thence to the beauty of the sciences, until finally one science is reached
which corresponds to the Absolute, Ideal Beauty, in which all finite
things of beauty partake. To gain the vision of this is the goal of
Love’s endeavour, and to live in its presence were life indeed. There,
if anywhere, with truth for the issue of his soul, might the lover hope

to attain to immortality.
 ::

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

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

Applause followed. Then suddenly, when Aristophanes was on the

point of making an observation, a loud knocking was heard at the
door. Presently Alcibiades, leaning on a flute-girl, appeared. “I am
come to crown Agathon,” he cried, “if you will admit a drunken
reveller.” Being heartily welcomed, he took the seat next Agathon,
where Socrates had made room for him. And as soon as he perceived
Socrates, he began playfully to abuse him. Then, taking some of
the ribbands with which he had bedecked Agathon, he crowned “ the
marvellous head of Socrates, the invincible in words.”
Next Alcibiades insisted on all the company drinking along with
him. And, when Eryximachus protested against bare drinking without
song or speech and explained to him what the previous order of procedure
had been, Alcibiades replied, “In the presence of Socrates I dare not
eulogize anyone else, so that if I am to deliver an encomium like the
rest, Socrates must be my theme.”

XV. Alcibiades' eulogy of Socrates: 215 A — 222 c.

Prologue My eulogy will take the form of parables— aiming not

at mockery but at truth. Socrates resembles {a) Silenus-statuettes which
serve as caskets for sacred images ; (6) the Satyr Marsyas.

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

II. (/to character) he resembles (b) the Satyr, being (1) a mocker,
(2) a flute-player. As to (2) he excels Marsyas, since his words alone,
without an instrument, fascinate all, old and young. Me he charms
far more than even Pericles could, filling me with shame and self-

contempt, and driving me to my wit’s end.

III. He resembles (a) the Sileni in the contrast between his ex-
terior and interior, (a) Externally he adopts an erotic attitude towards
beautiful youths {S) but internally he despises beauty and wealth, as
;

I know from experience. For I tried to bribe him with my beauty,

but all my many attempts came to nothing. Private conversations,
gymnastics together, a supper-party d deux, even a night on the same
couch — all was of no use. Against my battery of charms he was
 : — !

INTRODUCTION XV

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

IV. His speeches too, I forgot to say, are like the Silenus-statuettes,
in outward seeming ridiculous, but in inner content supremely rational
and full of images of virtue and wisdom.
Epilogue Such is my eulogy, half praise, half blame. Let my
experience, and that of many another, be a warning to you, Agathon :

court Socrates less as an “erastes” than as an “anterastes”

XVI. Concluding Scene : 222 c end.

The company laughed at the erotic candour of Alcibiades. Then

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

§ ii. The Framework of the Dialogue.

(A) The Method of Narration and the Preface.

The Platonic dialogues, viewed from the point of view of literary

form, may be divided into two chief classes. To the first class belong
those in which the story of the discussion is by one of the
told directly
protagonists ;
to the second class belong those in which the story is
told indirectly or at second-hand, — a mode of narration which involves
the further characteristic that dialogues of this class are necessarily
prefaced (and concluded) by some explanatory paragraphs. This
second class, moreover, falls into two subdivisions, according as the
narrator is or is not represented as being himself present at the
XVI INTRODUCTION
discussion. It is to the latter of these subdivisions, in which the
narrator is not an eye-witness but reports the matter only at second-
hand, that the Symposium (together with the Theaetetus and Par-
menides) belongs.
It is noteworthy also that, with the exception of the Phaedo and
Parmenides, ours is the only dialogue in which the narrating witness
is not Socrates himself. The reason for this is obvious : eulogy of
Socrates being one of the main purposes of the dialogue, would be it

unfitting to put the story into his mouth, and make him the trumpeter
of his own praises. Instead of doing so, Plato selects as the sources
of the narrative persons of such a character as to produce the effect of
verisimilitude. The way in which Aristodemus, the primary source,
and Apollodorus, the secondary source, are described is evidently
intended to produce the impression that in them we have reliable
witnesses. Apollodorus^, “the fanatic,” is put before us not only as
a worshipper of Socrates, imbued with a passionate interest in philo-
sophical discourses such as are here to be related, but also as an
intimate disciple who had “
companied with ” Socrates for the space
of nearly three years past and during that time had made it his
peculiar task to study the every act and word of the Master (172 e).
Moreover, the story of the special occasion in question he had diligently
conned (ovk diJ.e\iTr]Tos, 172 A, 173 c).

Aristodemus^, the primary source and actual narrator, is spoken of

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

1 Apollodorus appears also in Phaedo 59 a b as one of those present with Socrates

,

“ on the day when he drank the poison in the prison ” as characteristically ex-
;

hibiting most marked symptoms of grief [this statement would support the
epithet /iaXa/c6s as well as /xuvikSs in Symp. 173 n] ;
and as a native of Athens (twv
^TTtxiopiojv). one of those present at the trial of Socrates; and
In Apol. 34 a he is
(in 38 b ) one of those who offered to go bail to the extent of 30 minae. Pfleiderer
takes Apollodorus to represent Plato himself, by a piece of ironical “ Selbstobjek-
tivierung,” a notion which had already occurred to me.
^ For Aristodemus, see also Xen. Mem. i. 4. 2 where Socrates converses irepl tov

S aiyouiov irp&s ApiaTbSyp-ov tov paKpbv eTnKa\ovp.evov, Karap-aduv airbv oOre dvovra Toh
’

6eoh oiire pavTiKy xpoip-evov, aXKd Kai tG)v ttolovvtuiv raura KarayeXwvTa.
 INTRODUCTION xvu

narrators is enhanced by the express statement that in regard to some

points at least (evia 173 b) the account of Aristodemus was confirmed
by Socrates. The points in question are probably (as
observes) Hug
those which specially concern the picture drawn of Socrates himself.
At any rate, it is in regard to these that we have the detailed
testimony of Alcibiades, emphasized by repeated asseverations (214 E,
215 a, etc.), and endorsed by the silence of Socrates.
In addition to the evidence it contains for the dates of the
narration and of the banquet \ and the vivid picture in miniature
which it presents of a certain group of Socratics in whom an ardent
admiration for the Master was blended with a limited capacity for
understanding the deeper side of his practice and doctrine —as if to
go barefoot and to rail at filthy lucre were the sum and substance
of Socraticism, —there are two further points in the Preface which
deserve attention.
Apollodorus, although asked only for the Xoyoi spoken at the
banquet (172 b, 173 e), proceeds to give a full account of the ac-
companying incidents as well dp-^';...Si7]y7]cracr6ai 174 a). This
may be taken to indicate that for estimating the eflfect of the dialogue
as a whole we are meant to pay regard not only to the series of
encomia but also to the framework of incident and conversation in
which they are set.

Glaucon, in asking Apollodorus for the desired information con-

cerning the “erotic discourses,” states (172 b) that he has already
heard an account of them from “another man” (dA.Xos ti?), which
account was unsatisfactory (ovSev trac^es), and that the authority
quoted by this unnamed informant was “Phoenix, son of Philippos.”
To this Apollodorus adds the fact (173 b) that this Phoenix was
indebted to the same source as himself, namely Aristodemus. What
precisely these statements signify it is not easy to determine, since
the identity of Phoenix, as well as that of the anonymous informant
(aA.Xos Tis), is unknown to us. But it seems reasonable to infer that
there was already in existence, when Plato wrote, at least one other
account of a banquet at which Socrates, Alcibiades and Agathon
figured, and that it is Plato’s intention to discredit it. That such
is the intention is shown not only by the phrase ov8lv <7a4>h Xeyeiv,
but also by the statement that the evidence of dXXos tl? was one
degree further off from the primary source (Aristodemus) than is that
of Apollodorus. Further, the assumption of some such controversial

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

xviii INTRODUCTION
intention throws light on the emphasis laid on the veracity of the
narrative —to which attention has been drawn above —and gives it

a more definite motive. It is as if the author means us to read into

his preface something to this effect: “Socrates has been misrepresented:
it is my task to clear his reputation by putting the facts in their true
light.”
If this, then, be a right reading of the hints thus given, what is

the distorted account which Plato thus discredits, and who its author 1

Unfortunately this must remain a matter of conjecture. The most

obvious suggestion to make is that the author in question is Xenophon,
and the account alluded to Symposium. But Xenophon’s Sym-
his
posium is work than Plato’s and it is a further
most probably a later ;

objection that the persons represented by Xenophon as present at

the banquet are not — with the exception of Socrates — the persons
mentioned by Glaucon.
We are obliged, therefore, to look further afield for the author
whose identity is thus shrouded. The best suggestion I can offer is

that Polycrates the rhetor is the writer intended. In favour of this

we may adduce the fact that Polycrates is o Karyyopos whose calumnies
Xenophon aims at refuting in his Memorabilia^. It is by no means
improbable d, priori that Polycrates in his attacks on Socrates de-
scribed,amongst other incidents, a banqueting-scene in which Socrates
and Alcibiades were pictured in an odious light. And if we take
the Banquet of Xenophon to be a genuine work, the very fact that
Xenophon thought it necessary to supplement his Memorabilia by such
a work might be construed as showing that the author of the slanders
he is at such pains to refute had already libelled Socrates in connexion
with a similar scene. But unless,by some happy chance, further light

^ See Cobet, Nov. Lect. pp. 662 ff. ; Gomperz, G. T. ii. pp. 63, 118. Gomperz
(ii. 343) supposes the Gonjias to be a counterblast to Polycrates’ indictment of
Socrates, and Alcibiades’ eulogy in Syvipos. to have the same motive: “Plato had a
definite —
motive for placing such praise in the mouth of Alcibiades we refer to the
pamphlet of Polycrates.... This writer had spoken of Socrates as the teacher of
—
Alcibiades in what tone and with what intention can easily be guessed Plato
himself had touched on the subject (of the liaison between the two men), harm-
lessly enough, in his youthful works, as, for example, in the introduction to the
‘
Protagoras. ’...But after the appearance of Polycrates’ libel, he may well have
thought it advisable to speak a word of enlightenment on the subject; which is
exactlywhat he does, with a plainness that could not be surpassed, in the present
encomium ’’
(op. cit. 394-5). Gomperz, however, does not bring this hypothesis
into connexion with the passage in the Preface of Syrnp. discussed above. There
may be an allusion to the same matter in Protag. 347 c (cp. Xen. Syrnp. vii. 1).
 —
:

INTRODUCTION XIX

should be shed upon the history of Polycrates’ literary activity, it is

hardly possible to get beyond the region of conjectural speculation, or

to hope for a definitive solution of this obscure literary problem.

(B) The Prologue of Aristodemus.

In the Prologue, with which Aristodemus’s narrative opens, special

attention may be drawn to the following points ;

{a) It is significant that the first person to appear on the scene is

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

of the dialogue.

(5) Socrates on the way becomes lost in thought and fails to put
in an appearance till the banquet is already far advanced (174 D, 175 c).
Aristodemus explains to Agathon (175 b) that this is no exceptional
occurrence (c^os rt tovt ex^i). That this incident is intended to be
specially emphasized as typical of Socrates’ habits becomes clear when
we notice how Alcibiades in his speech (220 c) describes a similar
incident as taking place in one of the campaigns in which he served.
The corroboration thus eilected is one of many examples of the literary
care and ingenuity with which Plato in this dialogue interweaves
incident with speech. Another example occurs a little further on
(176 c) where Eryximachus, discussing the question “to drink or not
to drink,” describes Socrates as Ikovos agthorepa this statement, too,
we find amplified and confirmed by Alcibiades (220 a). Both these
matters illustrate that entire subordination of flesh to spirit in which
Socrates was unique.
(c) Agathon (175 off.) expresses a desire to share in the “witty
invention ” which Socrates had discovered on his way Socrates with :

his usual mock-modesty disclaims for himself the possession of uo^ia,

except of a poor kind, but congratulates Agathon on the fine and
abundant <ro(f>la he has just been displaying so conspicuously : and the
conversational banter concludes with Agathon’s remark — “Presently,
with the Wine-god as umpire, you and I will fight out our wisdom-
match.” Here, at this early stage, we have struck for us one of the
key-notes of the dialogue. For one main motive of the dialogue as a
whole is to exhibit the croc^ta of Socrates, his intellectual as well as
XX INTRODUCTION
moral supremacy. And we find, in the sequel, that tnis is done largely
by pitting him against Agathon, over the wine-bowl. In this we have
the reason for the juxtaposition of the two speeches, matched, as it
were, one against the other. His speech is, in itself, one sufiicient
proof of the superiority of Socrates over his rival. But there are also
other proofs there is the masterly criticism and confutation to which
:

Socrates subjects the belauded poet ;

there is the express statement,
confirmed by expressive action, of Alcibiades, in which is asserted the
superiority of Socrates not merely to Agathon but to all others who
make claim to o-o^ia (213 E, 215 c AT.)] and finally the Wine-god himself
bestows on Socrates the palm when, in the concluding scene, we see
him alone pursuing discussion with unflagging zeal and with a clear-
ness of head undimmed by long and deep potations while his rival
drowses and succumbs to sleep. Thus the SiaSiKacrla vtp'i cro<^ias

runs through the book, and always, from beginning to end, vikS. 6
^WKpaTTJS.
To this we may add one minor point. Agathon, in this preliminary
play of wit, applies to Socrates the epithet v/Spia-Ttj^ “ a mocker.” And
this, too, is a trait upon which Alcibiades, in the sequel, lays much
stress. vySpts is one of the most striking characteristics of the Satyr-
Socrates (216 e, 219 c).

(d) Another example of the literary interweaving —

or the method
of “ responsions,” as we miglit term it,^— which is so marked a feature
of the dialogue, is to be found in the statement of Socrates concerning
the character of his own knowledge. His speciality in the way of
science is, he announces, “erotics,” and this is his only speciality
(177 d). Accordingly, when we find Socrates in the sequel delivering
a discourse on this subject we are evidently intended by Plato to feel

that his views are to be taken seriously as those of one who professed
to be an expert in this subject
if in nothing else. And this intention
is emphasized when we come to the later passage (the “ responsion ”)
in 198 D where Socrates again refers to his conviction that concerning
“erotics” he knew the truth (etSals rrjv dkrjdeiav). It is hardly necessary
to add that “erotics,” construed in the Socratic sense, constitutes by
no means an insignificant department of knowledge {<l)avXr] tl's (To^'ca
175 e), as Socrates modestly implies, inasmuch as it is practically
coextensive with a theory of education and involves an insight into
the origin, nature and destiny of the human soul.

(e) In 177 B we have an interesting parallel between Plato’s

language and that of Isocrates. In Hel. 210 b (tojv piv yap tov<;
 INTRODUCTION XXI

^o/Hy8vXtovs Kal Tous aXas Kal ra rotavra j8ov^.r)0£i/Twv eTraivtiy k.t.X.)

Isocrates scoffs at the eulogists of “ bees and salt and such-like

trumpery,” and his language is echoed in the allusion (put in the
mouth of Eryximachus quoting Phaedrus) to a /3i/3Xlov dvSpo'; ao(f>ov
ev <L iinjcrav aXes evaLvov davjj.do’Lov e^ouTes Trpos wcjieXeiav (177 b ). This
eulogist of salt is commonly supposed to be Polycrates, since encomia
on similar paltry subjects —mice, yiirpat, \p^<^ 0 L — are ascribed to him^.
Diimmler, however^, takes the reference to be to Antisthenes [Pro-
treptikos), on the strength of the statement in Pollux vi. 16. 98:
^op.jBv\LO<; §e TO o~rev6v eKirw/xa Kal ^op-fSovv ev ry Trocret, (u5 ’AvTKT^cVi/s
ev TTpoTpeirTiKip. And for aXcs as eulogized in the same work he quotes
also Pep. 372 Bff. (oxj/ov e^ovcriv aXas). Itmay be added that a further
allusion to the /Sop-^-uXio^, as crrevov cKTrcopLa, may be discovered in the

mention of e/cjrco/ia p-iya in Sympos. 213 E. Since Antisthenes seems

to have devoted a good deal of attention to the subject of p.e6r)^, one
is inclined to suppose that his views are alluded to in Sympos. (176,
213-14); and another allusion to him may be found in the mention
who eulogized Heracles (177 b ), since Heracles
of the xprjaTol (To<^L<TTai
was, notoriously, the patron-saint of the Cynics'*. However much they
might on other points, Plato and Isocrates were agreed in so far
differ

as both found the Cynic leader an objectionable person.

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

p.v7]p.6vevTov. But why Plato is at pains to emphasize this point is

1 So Hug [Sympos. ad loc.) following Sauppe and Blass: also Jebb, Att. Or. ii.

99. I may note here an inconsistency as to the date of Poly crates’ “Accusation ” in
Jebb, Att. Or. i. 150-51 compared with ib. xlv: in the latter place it is set in
393 B.c.
2 In this Diimmler [Akad. p. 66) follows Winckelmann [Antisth. fr. p. 21).
Polycrates, however, may be alluded to as well as Antisthenes, as the terms of the
reference are wide (dXXa TocaCra crvxrd )
moreover, a close relation
;
may have existed
between these two writers.
® See Diimmler, Antisthenica, pp. 17 fi.

* See Gomperz, G. T. ii.

p. 151; Diimmler, Akad. p. 66.
 —

xxii INTRODUCTION
not wholly clear. It may, of course, be merely a literary device
meant to enhance the verisimilitude of the account, since the speeches
actually related might be thought insufficient to occupy the length of
time supposed to elapse between the end of the Seiirvov and the hour
of Alcibiades’ arrival —which would probably not be early. It is

possible, however, that we should look for a deeper reason. If so,

may not the intention be to brush aside and discredit other speeches
stated by another author^ (aAAos ns, 172 b) to have been delivered on
this occasion?

(C) The Interludes.

The first Interlude, worthy of the name, occurs between the second
and third encomia (185 c e), and it is noticeable, first, for the
reference to the “ isology ” of the rhetorical sophists ;
secondly, for
the device by which the natural order of speakers is changed (Eryxi-
machus taking the place of Aristophanes) ;
and thirdly, for the alleged
cause which renders such a change necessary, namely the hiccough
(Xry^) of Aristophanes. As regards the significance of this last matter
considerable diversity of opinion exists among the commentators. Of
the ancients, Olympiodorus (vit. Plat. 3) supposed that Plato here
€K(j)fJid8r]cre Kpurro^avt} when he elcrayei avrov Xuyyi TrepLTrecrovra
Koi fxr] Svva[j.evov rrXrjpiZo'aL tov vp.vov : and similarly Athenaeus (187 c)

writes tov p.ev vtto tiJs Xvyyos 6)fi.ovpLevov...KwpLwheLv koi Siacrupeiv :

and Aristides (or. 46, II. p. 287), dXM 6lp.aL Xv^ecv avrov eSei, iva els

dirXrja-rlav (TKojcfiOfj. Of the moderns, some have followed the ancients

in supposing that the incident is meant to satirize Aristophanes and

his intemperate habits (so Stallbaum, Riickert, Steinhart) ;

while some
(Stephens, Sydenham, Wolf, Schwegler) take the object of the ridicule
to be not so much the habits of the poet as his speech with its

“indelicate ingredients.” On the other hand, Schleiermacher held the

view that Eryximachus with his “ physiological and medical notion of
love ”is here being satirized while Ast whose view is shared in the
;
—
main by Hommel, van Prinsterer and Rettig argued that the real —
object of the ridicule is Pausanias, by whose speech Aristophanes
”
implies that he has been “ fed up to the point of loathing. This
view Rettig thinks is supported by the phrase Tlava-avlov rrava-ap-evov,
which he takes to indicate Apollodorus’ ridicule, — by the allusion made
by Aristophanes to Pausanias’ speech in 189 c,— and by his mention
of Pausanias again in 193 b; and he construes the hint of another

1 See above, § ii. A, ad Jin.

 — ;

INTRODUCTION xxiii

possible cause {t} inro tivos aWov, 185 c) as “afiFording the key to the
hidden meaning of the word TrXijcr/xorr/.” This view, however, is open
to the objections (urged by Riickert against Ast) that, first, it makes
Aristophanes guilty of excessive rudeness in feigning a hiccough to
show his disgust (“aliud est in convivio iocari, aliud in scena,” e.g.
Kub. 906 Ach. 585 fl., the places cited by Rettig) and that, further,
fir.,
;

there is no plain sign that the hiccough was feigned, but on the
contrary the whole incident is stated by Aristodemus as matter-of-fact.
It seems safe, therefore, to conclude that the most obvious view-
—
that of the ancients is nearest to the truth. The incident shows up
Aristophanes in a ludicrous light, and at the same time it gives further
occasion to Eryximachus to air his medical lore so that we can read ;

in it the intention of satirizing gently both these personages. But to

construe it as aimed at Pausanias is far-fetched and improbable he is :

already disposed of in the satirical reference to sophistical “ isology ”

and to discover a fresh allusion to him in the “ other cause ” of the
hiccough is to discover a mare’s nest, for —as the Scholiast ad loc.

informs us — symptom were as a matter

other physical causes of this
of fact recognized by the medical profession, and it is only polite on
the part of Aristodemus to leave the matter open.
second Interlude (189 a — c) and the third (193 d — 194 e) call

for no special remark.

—
The fourth Interlude (198 A 199 c), wUich follows on the speech
of Agathon, is linked to the third both by a remark which Socrates
addresses to Eryximachus, and also, at the close, by his appeal to
Phaedrus (cp. 199 B with 194 d). Here, in even a greater degree than
in the previous Interludes, Socrates is the central figure of interest,
and this position he continues to hold throughout the rest of the
dialogue. This Interlude, indeed, may be regarded as one of the
cardinal points of the structure, in which the First Act, as we may
term it, passes on into the Second ;
and in the Second Act we reach
at length the theoretical climax, in the doctrine of Socrates-Diotima.
To this climax the present Interlude, wherein is laid before us Socrates’
confession of rhetorical faith, serves as prologue.
The fifth Interlude (212 c — 215 a) is by far the longest and, as
regards the action of the piece, the most important. For it introduces
a new and he a protagonist, in the person of Alcibiades. The
actor,
contrast is striking between the prophetess in her soaring flights to the
heavenly places of the spirit and the tipsy reveller with his lewd train
who takes her place in claiming the attention of the audience. The
XXIV INTRODUCTION
comic relief which, in the earlier scenes, had been supplied by Aristo-
phanes, as ycAeoTOTToios, is now supplied by Alcibiades. We should
how a
notice also link with the Second Act is furnished here, at the
commencement of the Third Act, by the mention of an attempt by
Aristophanes to reply to an observation made by Socrates in the
course of his speech. But apart from this, the rest of the speakers
and banqueters ai-e left out of account except only Agathon, Socrates
and Eryximachus. The action of the last of these here is parallel to
his action at the commencement of the First Act where he had taken
the lead in fixing the rules for the conduct of the symposium. As
regards Agathon and Socrates, the most important incident in this
Interlude is the decision concerning their contest in aro<^[a which is

pronounced by Alcibiades, when, acting the not inappropriate part

of Dionysus, he awards the crown to Socrates, an incident to the —
significance of which we have already (§ ii. B, C) drawn attention.

Of the Epilogue or concluding scene (222 c end) it is unnecessary —

to say much. The persons that figure most largely in it are the three
central characters, Alcibiades, Agathon and Socrates while towards ;

the close the rest of the characters receive, as it were, a farewell notice.
When the curtain finally falls, it falls significantly on the solitary figure
of Socrates, the incarnation of the Eros-daemon, behind whom in his
shadow stands the form of his erastes, the “shadow ’’-biographer Aristo-
demus.

§ iii. The First Five Speeches.

1. Phaedrus, son of Pythocles, belonged to the Attic deme

Myrrhinus. Lysias describes him as “impoverished” in circumstances,
but respectable. In the Protagoras he is represented as a disciple of
Hippias; while in the Phaedrus — named after him — his chief charac-
teristic is his ardent interest in erotic oratory (Adyot ipwriKol), a
specimen of which, by Lysias, he has learnt almost completely by
heart. It is, then, in accordance with this character that we find
Phaedrus, in the Symposium, made responsible for the theme of the
series of speeches {viz. tiraLvos ’'Epouros, 177 n), and entitled irarrjp rov
Adyov. We may gather also from certain indications contained both
in the Phaedrus and in the Symposium that Phaedrus was neither
physically strong nor mentally vigorous'. The ostensibly prominent
1 See Phaedr. 227 a, Symp. 176 c, 223 b, and, generally, his cultivation of
medical friends. Also the probable word-play in the deme-name M.vppivotiaios,
Symp. 176 d, Phaedr. 244 a.
 ; : -

INTRODUCTION XXV

position assigned to such a man in the Symjjosium is more natural if

we assume that it is due to the desire to make him a link between this
dialogue and the Phaedrus^.
Phaedrus’s speech, although not without merit in point of simplicity
of st 3de and arrangement, is poor in substance. The moral standpoint
is in no respect raised above the level of the average citizen ; the speaker
pays little regard to consistency, and the method of argument, with its

want of logical coherence, savours much of the sophists. As examples

of this self-contradiction we may point to the statement that Achilles,
as younger than Patroclus, must be TratSiKu not ipaa-r-rj^, whereas
Alcestis, though younger than Admetus, is treated as the ipiSa-a, not
the ipo}p.ivrj we may point also to the other inconsequence, that the
self-sacrifice of Achilles, the TraiSixa, is cited in support of the con-
tention that ol ipwTi'; p-ovoL are capable of such self-sacrifice. The
arbitrary handling of the Orpheus myth is another striking illustration
of the sophistic manner.
What is, however, most characteristic of the speech of Phaedrus is

its richness of mythological allusion. would seem, in native Lacking, it

force of intellect, Phaedrus relies upon authority and tradition. He

quotes Hesiod and Homer, Acusilaos and Parmenides he builds his :

argument, such as it is, on the sayings of “ them of old time,” and on

the legendary histories of the son of Oeagrus and the daughter of
Pelias and when he can confute Aeschylus on a point of mythology
;

his joy is great. As a lover of religious tradition, we may credit

Phaedrus with a capacity for genuine religious feeling; certainly, in
his role as high-priest of Ei’os, on the present occasion, he shows a
strict regard for ritual propriety when he rebukes Socrates for inter-
rupting the service of speech-offerings to the god (194 d)^.

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

(a) Rhetorical ornamentation chiasmus (178 d), paronomasia
(179 c), special compound verbs (dyao-^eVres 179 C, dTrepayacr^eVres
180 A; dirodaveLV 179 E, virepaTroOavuv, InaTroOavtiv 180 a) ;

1 Cf. P. Crain,
p. 7 Vera causa, cur Plato sermonis in Symposio Phaedrum
:

parentem praedicaverit, haec mihi videtur esse rediens ad eas cogitationes quas in
:

Pbaedro dialogo instituerat, eundem quoque auctorem colloquii reduxit.

- Hug sums up the position of Phaedrus thus (p. xlvi) “ Phadros stellt den :

gewohnlichen athenischen Burger dar, den eine rastlose Neugierde zu den rhetori-
schen und philosophischen Kreisen hindrangt, der da und dort etwas aufschnappt
und sich aneignet, jedoeh ohne tieferes Verstandnis, aber mit desto grosserem
Seibstbewusstsein.” Cp. Jowett (Plato i. p. 528): “The discourse of Phaedrus is
half-mythical, half-ethical; and he himself... is half-sophist, half-enthusiast.”

B. P. C
 : ;

XXVI INTRODUCTION
(b) Monotony of expression (ovTe...ovTe 178 c (4), 178 D (2);
OVTOJS. . .tos178 U (2), ovT<t)...t3crT€ 179 A, C, TO(rovTov...wcrTe 179 Cj
Kai fj.r]v...ye 179 A, BJ ovtio Kal 179 D, roiyapToi Slo. ravra 179 D, o6ev
8r] Ka'i 180 a) j

(c) Anacolutha 177 A (oi Scivov ktX.), 179 A (xal ixrjv...ovT 0}

KaKos).

2. Of Pausanias, of the deme Kepapy^, little is known beyond

what we are told in this dialogue^ and in Xenophon’s Symposium,
where also he appears as notorious for his love for the tragedian
Agathon. Xenophon represents Pausanias as a vigorous champion of
TratBepaaria-, and Plato here assigns to him a similar role, although
he paints the fashion of the man in less crude colours.
The speech of Pausanias is a composition of considerable ability.
Although, like Phaedrus, he starts by grounding his conception of
the dual Eros on mythological tradition, yet when this conception is
once stated the distinction is maintained and its consequences followed
out with no little power of exposition. The manner in which the laws
regarding TratSepaorta in the various states are distinguished, and in
special the treatment of the complex Athenian vdp,os, display the
cleverness of a first-rate pleader. The general impression, in fact,
given us by the speech is that it forms an exceedingly smart piece
of special pleading in favour of the proposition KaXbv epao-rats
S^iodai. The nakedness of this proposition is cloked by the device of
distinguishing between a noble and a base Eros, and by the addition
of the saving clause dper^s eveKa\ None the less, it would seem that
the speaker’s main interest is in the rather than in the
accruing dpery, and that he is fundamentally a sensualist, however

refined and specious may be the form in which he gives expression

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

* He
is also mentioned in Protag. 315 n.
Xen. Symp. viii. 32 a.7ro\oyoijfx.£vos virep rwv aKpatrig. (rvyKv\ii>8ovp,^u(i}u.
^

3 We must, of course, bear in mind that, as Jowett puts it {Plato, vol. i.

p. 529), “the value which he attributes to such loves as motives to virtue and
philosophy, (though) at variance with modern and Christian notions, is in accord-
ance with Hellenic sentiment.” Nor does the Platonic Socrates, in the sequel, fail
to take account of them. For some judicious observations on the general question
of the Gk. attitude to paederastia, see Jowett, op. cit. pp. 534 fl. Gomperz, Gk. ;

Thinkers (E. Tr.) ii. pp. 380 ff.; for Eros in Gk. religion, see Miss J. E. Harrison,
Prolegom. pp. 630 S. for Plato’s and Xenophon’s theories of Love, see I. Bruns,
;

Vortrage etc., pp. 118 11.; P. Crain, pp. 23 ff.

 : — :

INTRODUCTION XXVll

The term is noteworthy, since it inevitably suggests that antithesis

vo'/xos )( which was so widely debated among the sophists and
(/jiitris

thinkers of the close of the fifth century. Is the moral standard fixed

by nature (^rcret) or merely by convention (vofjuo) 1 This was one form

of the question and closely connected with this was the other form
;
:

Is knowledge absolute or relative? Pausanias poses as a conven-

tionalist, and a relativist, a champion of law as against nature {nacra
Trpa^ts avTT] icfj lavras ovre koXt] ovre alcr^pa) J
and this is of itself

sufl&cient to show that, in Plato’s eyes, he is a specimen of the results

of sophistic teaching.
Nor is it only in his adoption of this principle of moral indifference,
as we might call it, and in his capacity tov Xoyov Kpecrro) noLeiv,
that Pausanias stands before us as a downright sophist; his argumenta-
tion also is chargeable with the sophistical vices of inconsistency and
self-contradiction^. For example, with what right, we may ask, does
Pausanias condemn the rd/Aot of other states than Athens regarding
Trai8epa<rrta, while laying down to v6p.ip.ov as the standard of morality ?

For such a distinction necessarily involves reference to another, superior,

standard ; whereas, by his own hypothesis, no such standard exists.
Again, the section on the Ka\r] arraTr] (181 Ef.) stands out in curious
contradiction with the section immediately preceding, in which fidelity
and sincerity (to ^e^aiov) are put forward as the necessary conditions
of a love that is fair (koXos) and irreproachable (ovk i-rrovecSicrTog).

In literary style the speech of Pausanias displays, in a much higher

degree than that of Phaedrus, the tricks and ornaments proper to the
sophistical schools of rhetoric. Thus we find :

Paronomasia: tpya epya^o/xcVo) 182 e; SovXelas SovXeveiv 183 A;

TVpaTTi.IV TTjV TTpa^lV 181 A, Cp. 183 B.

Alliteration : effeXovreg SovXelas SovXeveiv oias ovS' av SovXos ovSels

(X, S, o, ov).

Rhythmic coi’respondence of clauses and periods {evpvOpila, ta-oKtvXa)

This an important feature of Greek rhetoric^, the invention of which

is

is ascribed to Thrasymachus ; and it is especially characteristic of the

style of Isocrates®. The following examples (as formulated by Hug)

1 So Jowett (Plato i. p. 529) writes: “(The speech of Pausanias) is at once

hyperlogical in form and also extremely confused and pedantic.”
Cp. Ar. Rhet. iii. 9, 1409“ 25 KaTeaTpafJkfievT) Kai b/jioia rah tZv apxa.i(iiv

TvoirjTZv avTUVTpb<f>ois.
® A good example occurs in Helena 17
toD p.ev iiriTvovov Kal tpiXoKivdvvov top ^lov KaTiarpae
Trjs Se TepipXeTVTOv Kal Trepip.dxvvov t^v cpvaiv iTrolr]<re.

c2
 —

xxviii INTRODUCTION
will serve to indicate the extent to which Pausanias makes use of these
artifices :
—
TTacra yap TrpS^is cuS’
1

2. avT7] i(j) eavTrjs,

1

1 3. ovT€ KaXr) ovT alax^pd.

oiov 0 vvy yp.di’; iroiavpav,

1

II. 5. rj
y aSeiy rj SiaXeyea^ai,
Triveiv
1

1 6. ovK ecTTi TovTwy avTO Kakoy orSer,

dkk iy ry Trpd^et,
1

III. 8. o5s dy irpa^Brj,

1
1 9. TOLOVToy aTre/Sy

,10. KaAoJs yaer yap wpaTToyeyoy Koi 6p6<2<; Kakov yiyyerai,

11. prj 6p6w<; Se atcrypor,

IV. - 12. OVTO) Kal TO ipdy Kal 6 Epois ov ttSs cctI Kakos ovSe d^ios
iyKUipiid^ea'Oai,

a3. akkd 6 KaAcos TrpoTpeVaiv ipdy. [180 E ad fin . 181 A.]

Here we have four -n-epioSot of which the first three are rpUmkoi, the
fourth TCT/oaKeoXos : in the three rpiKioXoi, the KuiXa of each are approxi-
mately equal ;
while in the TerpdKwXo^, long and short KwXa alternate.
Other instances of strophic correspondence are 184 d E, 185 A ff. —
(see Hug ad loc.).

3. Eryximachus, son of Akumenus, is like his father a physician

and a member of the Asclepiad guild (186 e); he is also a special friend
of Phaedrus (177 A). Alcibiades alludes to Akumenus as “the most
temperate sire” of Eryximachus, and he is mentioned also by Xenophon
as an authority on diet. The same “temperance” {a-wcfipoavvr]) is a
marked characteristic of Eryximachus in our dialogue he is the :

champion of moderation in drinking (176 b If., 214 b), and when, near
the close, the revellers enter and the fun waxes fast and furious,
Eryximachus, together with his comrade Phaedrus, is the first to
make his escape (223 b). Another characteristic of the man is his
pedantic manner. He is incapable of laying aside his professional
solemnity even for a moment, and he seizes every possible occasion to
air his medicinal lore, now with a lecture on p,edr] (176 d), presently
with another on Avy| (185 d, e).

Scientific pedantry is, similarly, the characteristic of Eryximachus’s

speech. He starts with a conception of Eros as a cosmic principle, from
 :

INTRODUCTION XXIX

the standpoint of natural philosophy^. This conception he applies and

developes with equal rigour in the spheres of medicine, music, astronomy
and religion, so that definitions of a precisely parallel kind for each of
these departments are evolved. The dogmatic manner appears also in
his treatment of the dictum of Heraclitus (187 a), which corresponds
to the treatment of Aeschylus by his friend Phaedrus. He resembles
Phaedrus also in his fondness for displaying erudition he knows his :

Empedocles and his Hippocrates', as well as the experts in musical

theory.
The theory of the duality of Eros Eryximachus takes over from
Pausanias, but he naturally finds a difiiculty in applying this concept
to other spheres, such as that of music, and in attempting to elude the
difiiculty he falls into the sophistical vices of ambiguity and incon-
sistency. E.g. in 187 D the reference of Set is obscure and, ;

in thesame context, the substitutions of y Ovpavia Movo-a for 'Kt^pohiT-q

Ovpavia and of IIoAvitivta for 'AfftpoSiTrj HaVSy/xos are arbitrary^
As regards literary style there is little to notice in the speech,
beyond its plainness and lack of ornament. The monotony of ex-
pression (seen, e.y., in the recurrence of such formulae as 'iari Sy 187 b,

icTTL yap 187 c, ecrrt Se 187 d) marks it as the product of a pedantic,

would-be scientific mind, in which literary taste is but slightly de-
veloped and the ruling interest is the schematization of physical
doctrines.

1. Aristophanes. The greatest of Greek comic poets, the author

of the Clouds, was a pronounced anti-Socratic. None the less, Plato
^ Cf. Eurip. fr. 839 Tr]v ’A<ppo8iTrjp ovx opas octt] deos; |
ov8' clv elVots, ov8e

/leTprjo'eias &v |
Scnj ^^(pvKe sacf ocrov diipx^Tai. |
...8pa p.tv op^pov yal ,...ipa S o

(Tepvbs ovpavbs kt\.

^ Pfleiderer (Sokr. u. Plato,
pp. 551 fi.) broaches the theory that Eryx.’s speech
isintended as a parody of (Pseudo-) Hippocr. irepl StatVr/s, and that the real author
of that work was Eryx. himself. There are, certainly, a number of similarities,
but hardly suflScient to prove the case. Obviously, it is a parody of the style of
some one or more medical writers, but more than that cannot safely be said some :

Hippocratean parallels in matters of detail will be found in the notes. See also my
remarks on the next speech (Aristophanes’). Teuffel drew attention to the etymo-
logical significance of the name (ipv^i-paxoi); this, however, cannot be an invention
of Plato’s, although it may partly account for the introduction of the \ijy^ incident.
^ The doctrine of Love as a harmony of opposites, which plays so large a part
in Eryx.’s discourse, be illustrated from Spenser (“ Hymn to Love”)
may
“Ayre hated earth and water hated fyre,
TiU Love relented their rebellious yre.
He then them tooke, and, tempering goodly well
Their contrary dislikes with loved meanes.
Did place them all in order,” etc.
XXX INTRODUCTION
paints him here in no dark colours, but does justice to his mastery of
language, his fertility of imagination, his surprising wit, his hearty
joviality. In contrast to the puritanism of the pragmatical doctor,
Aristophanes appears as a man of strength to mingle strong drink,
who jokes about his “baptism” by liquor (176 b), and turns the
scientific axioms of the “man of art” to ridicule (189 a). His role is,
in fact, throughout that of a yeAojTOTroto? (189 a), and he supplies the
comic business of the piece with admirable gusto h Yet the part he
plays is by no means that of a vulgar buffoon : he is poet as well as
jester, —a poet of the first magnitude, as is clearly indicated by the
speech which Plato here puts in his mouth.
That speech is a masterpiece of grotesque fantasy worthy of
Rabelais himself. The picture drawn of the globular four-legged
men is intensely comic, and the serious manner in which the king
of gods and men ponders the problem of their punishment shows a
very pretty wit. Their sexual troubles, too, are expounded with
characteristic frankness. And it is with the development of the sex-
problem that we arrive at the heart of this comedy in miniature,—
the definition of Eros as “ the craving for wholeness ” (to? 6kov
tTnOvfxia 192 e).

This thought, which is the final outcome of the speech, is not

without depth and beauty% It suggests that in Love there is some-
thing deeper and more ultimate than merely a passion for sensual
gratification ;
it implies that sexual intercourse is something less than
an end in itself. But Aristophanes, while suggesting these more
profound reflexions, can provide no solid ground for their support ]

he bases them on the most portentous of comic absurdities. Here,

as so often elsewhere in the genuine creations of the poet, we find
it difficult to determine where TratSia ends and o-ttouSj) begins ^ How
far, we ask an idealistic attitude
ourselves, are the suggestions of
towards the problems of meant? Does the cloke of
life seriously
cynicism and buffoonery hide a sincere moralist ? Or is it not rather
the case that the mockery is the man, and the rest but a momentary

1 Cp. Plut. Q. Conv. VII. 7. 710 C nXdrcj;/ 5^ rbv r’ ’ApLaTOcpAvovs \byov wepl toS
ipoiTos ihs KO)p.(jidiav ip.pi^X7]K€v els TO avp-irboLOV.
2 Cp. Zeller [n. on 192 c £f. dXV dXXo tl, kt\.) “ Diese Stelle, in welcher der
ernsthafte Grundgedanke unserer Stelle am Deutlichsten zu Tage kommt, gehort
wohl zu dem Tiefsten, was von alten Schriftstellern iiber die Liebe gesagt ist.”
3 See Jevons, Hist, of Gk. Lit. pp. 258 ff. for some judicious criticisms of the

view that “behind the grinning mask of comedy is the serious face of a great
political teacher.”
 INTRODUCTION XXXI

disguise? Certainly, the view maintained by Rettig that the chief

purpose of Aristophanes is to impugn and to preach up
TraiSepao-Tta,

legitimate matrimony as the only true form of love and the sole road
to happiness, is a view that is wholly untenable. And while we may
acknowledge with Horn {Platonstud. p. 261) that the speech of Aristo-
phanes marks a great advance upon the previous \6yoi, in so far as it

recognizes the difficulty of the problem presented by the phenomena

of Eros and looks below the surface for a solution, —yet how far we
are intended to ascribe this sagacity on the part of the speaker to
superior I’easoningpower rather than to a lucky inspiration (0eta

fjioipa) is by no means clear.

In connexion with this question as to the design of the speech
there is one point which seems to have been generally overlooked by
the expositors, —the topical character, as we might term it, of its main
substance. This appears, obviously enough, in the jesting reference
(193 b) to the love-affairs of Pausanias and Agathon; and obvious
enough too are the allusions to Eryximachus and his much-vaunted
“art” in the mention made, both at the beginning (189 d) and at
the end (193 d), of the healing power of Love, the good “physician.”
But in addition to these topical allusions which sautent aux yeux,
we are justified, I think, in regarding the great bulk of the discourse
as being neither more nor less than a caricature of the physiological
opinions held and taught by the medical profession of the day. The
Hippocratean tract Trcpl (^licrtog avOputvov is sufficient evidence that
there raged in medical circles a controversy concerning the unity or
multiplicity of man’s nature : the author of the tract was himself
an anti-unity man and assailed with equal vigour the views of all
opponents, whether the unity they stood for was ai/ia or or
cj>\eyp.a — ev yap tl elvai c^aaiv, ort e/cacrros avrecov /BovXeTai ovop.aaa<;,

Kal Tovro ev eov p.eTaXXd<T(Teiv rrjv ISirjv Kai rrjv Svvap.iv. To this con-
troversy Aristophanes, we may suppose, alludes when he speaks of
man’s dp^aCa (^unts, which was a unity until by the machinations of
Zeus it became a duality. But with this theory of primeval unity
of nature the poet combines a theory of sex-characteristics. And,
here again, even more definitely, we can discover traces of allusion
to current physiological doctrines. Aristophanes derives the different
varieties of sex-characters from the bisection of the three primitive
oXa, viz. <f>LXavSpoL women and (^AoyrratKcs men from the dvSpoyvvov,
<f>iXoyvvaiK€? women (eratpio-Tpiat) from the original OrjXv, and (piXavSpoL

men from the original dppev. Thus we see that Aristophanes analyses
XXXll INTRODUCTION
existing sex-characters, classifies them under two heads for each sex,
and explains them by reference to a three-fold original. If we turn
now to Hippocrates Trepi StaiVr;? (cc. 28 f.
)
we find there also a theory
of “the evolution of sex.” Premising that the female principle is akin
to water and the male to fire, the writer proceeds thus “ If the bodies ;

secreted by both parents are male (dpcrei/a) they become men (arSpes) . . .

brilliant in soul and strong in body, unless damaged by after regiment

(-i.e. by lack of irjpwv Kal OepfjLwv o-itwv, etc.). If, however, the body
secreted by the male parent is male and that by the female female, and
the male element proves the stronger... then men are produced, less
brilliant (A.ap,7rpot), indeed, than the preceding class, yet justly deserving
of the name manly (arSpeioi). And again, if the male parent
of ‘ ’

secretes a female body and the female a male body, and the latter
proves the stronger, the male element deteriorates and the men so
produced are ‘
effeminates ’ (di/Spdywot). Similarly with the generation
of women. When both parents alike secrete female elements, the most
feminine and comely women (OrjXvKOJTaTa Kal ede^veo-Tara) are produced.
If the woman secretes a female, the man a male body, and the former
proves the stronger, the women so produced are bolder (dpao-vVepat) but
modest (/cdcrpiat). While if, lastly, the female element prevails, when
the female element comes from the male parent and the male element
from the female, then the women
so produced are more audacious (toX-
p-ripoTepai) than the and are termed ‘masculine’ (drSpeiai).”
last class
Here we find the sex-characters arranged under three heads for
each sex, and explained by reference to four originals, two from each
parent. Obviously, this theory is more complicated than the one which
Aristophanes puts forward, but in its main lines it is very similar.
Accoi’ding to both the best class of men is derived from a dual male
element, and the best class of women from a dual female element
(although the poet is less complimentary than the physician in his
description of this class). The similarity between the two is less close
in regard to the intermediate classes ;
for while Aristophanes derives
from his dvSpoywov but one inferior class of men and one of women,
Hippocrates derives from various combinations of his mixed (ffyXv +
dpaev) secretions two inferior classes of both sexes. Yet here, too,
under the difference lies a consentience in principle, since both theorists
derive all their inferior sex-characters from a mixed type.
We may imagine, then, that Aristophanes, having before his mind
some such physiological theory as this, proceeded to adapt it to his
purpose somehow as follows. Suppose we take the male element latent.
 ;

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

as the Hippocrateaus tell us, in each sex, combine them, and magnify
them into a concrete personality, the result will be a Double-man.
A similar imaginative treatment of the female elements will yield us
a Double-wife. While, if — discarding the perplexing minutiae of the
assumed by the doctors we take a female
physiological combinations —
element from one parent and blend it with a male element from the
other, and magnify it according to our receipt, we shall thereby arrive
at the Man-wife as our third primeval personality. Such a treatment
of a serious scientific theory would have all the effect of a caricature
and it is natural to suppose that in choosing to treat the matter in this
way Aristophanes intended to satirize the theories of generation and
of sex-evolution which were argued so solemnly and so elaborately by
the confreres of Eryximachus.
If in this regard the topical character of the speech be granted,
one can discern an added point in the short preliminary conversation
between Aristophanes and Eryximachus by which it is prefaced. The
latter gives a warning (189 a —
b) that he will be on the watch for any
ludicrous statement that may be made to which the former replies;
:

“I am not afraid lest I should say what is ludicrous (yeXola) but i-ather
what is absurd (KaTa-yeXaa-Ta).” In view of what follows, we may con-
strue this to mean that Aristophanes regards as KarayeXacrTa theories
such as those of Eryximachus and his fellow-Asclepiads. Moreover,
this view which Aristophanes’ speech stands to the
of the relation in

treatises of the medical doctrinaires —

of whom Eryximachus is a
—
type helps to throw light on the relative position of the speeches,
and on the incident by which that position is secured and emphasized.
For unless we can discover some leading line of connexion between the
two which necessitates the priority of the medico’s exposition, the
motive for the alteration in the order of the speeches must remain
obscure.
It may be added that the allusions in 189 e (see notes ad loo.) to
the evolutionary theories of Empedocles confirm the supposition that
Aristophanes is directly aiming the shafts of his wit at current medical
doctrines ;
the more so as Empedocles shares with Hippoci’ates the
view that the male element is hot, the female cold, and that the
offspring is produced by a combination of elements derived from both
parents. Other references to Empedocles may be discerned in the
mention of Hephaestus (192 n) who, as personified Fire, is one of
Empedocles’ “four roots,” and in the mention of Zeus (190c), another
of the “roots”; and the fact that these two deities play opposite
 —

XXXIV INTRODUCTION
parts, the one as bisector, the other as unifier, is in accordance with
Enipecloclean doctrine. Also the statement that the moon “partakes
of both sun and earth” (190 b) is, in part at least, Empedoclean.
In point of style and diction, the speech of Aristophanes stands
out as an admirable piece of simple Attic prose, free at once from the
awkwardness and monotony which render the speeches of Phaedrus
and Eryximachus tedious and from the over-elaboration and artificial
ornamentation which mar the discourses of Pausanias and Agathon.
In spite of occasional poetic colouring as, e.g., in the finely-painted —
scene between Hephaestus and the lovers (192 cfF.) the speech as a —
whole remains on the level of pure, easy-flowing, rhythmical prose, in
which lucidity is combined with variety and vivacity of expression.
5. Agathon, the tragic poet, if born in 448 B.c., would be a little

over thirty at the date of the Symposium (416). He was the TratSiKot

of Pausanias (193 b), and a man of remarkable beauty as well as of

reputed effeminacy^ He appears in the dialogue as not only a person
of wealth, position and popularity, but a man of refinement, education
and social tact. The banquet itself is given by him to a select company
of his friends in honour of his recent victory in the tragic contest, and
throughout the dialogue he is, formally at least, the central figure
both as host and as victor, and, what is more, as the embodiment of
external KdkXos alike in his person (eiSos) and in his speech (Adyoi).
His graceful politeness to his guests never varies, even when Socrates
sharply criticises his oration, or when Alcibiades transfers the wreath
from his head to that of Socrates (213 e); he himself shares in the
admiration for Socrates, welcomes him most warmly and displays the

^ Ar. Thesm. 191-2 cu 5’ eiirp6<rioiros, Xevubs, e^vpri/ji.4vos,

yvvaiK6<piijvos, airaXbi, einrpeiTTjs ibebu.

ib. 200 ff. Kai p.T}v (Tb y ,

Co naTairvyov, evpbTrpoiKTOs el

ov Toh XbyoLffiv, CCXXo. toIs iradi^paaLV, ktX

And Mnesilochus’ comments on Agathon’s speech and womanish appearance
in 130 ff. its i)5b rb p.tXos, w irbTviat VeveTvXXiSes,

Kal 6t]Xvdpi,w8es Kal KaTeyXuoTTicx p,Cvov ,

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

INTRODUCTION XXXV

utmost jubilation when Socrates promises to eulogize him (223 a).

Finally, his consideration is shown in the social Kaprepia with

which he sticks to his post, drinking and talking, till all his
guests, except Socrates, have either left or succumbed to drowsiness
(223 d).

In Agathon claims that he will improve on the method of

his speech
his predecessors. In his attention to method he is probably taking
a leaf out of the book of Gorgias, his rhetorical master and model.
Besides the initial distinction between the nature and effects of Eros,
another mark of formal method is his practice of recapitulation at the :

close of each section of his discourse he summarises the results’. In

his portrait of the natui’e of Eros — youth, beauty,
his suppleness of
form and delicacy of complexion —Agathon does little more than
formulate the conventional traits of the god as depicted in poetry and
art. His attempts to deduce these attributes are mere TratStd (197 e),

pieces of sophistical word-play. Somewhat deeper goes his explanation

of the working of Eros upon the soul, as well as the body ;
but the
thought that Eros aims at the beautiful (197 b) is his most fruitful
deliverance and the only one which Socrates, later on, takes up and
developes-.
We may observe, further, how Agathon, like Phaedrus, indulges in
mythological references, and —
how like most of his predecessors (cp.
1 80 D, 1 85 e) he makes a point of criticising and correcting the views
of others (194 e, 195 b). Cp. Isocr. Busir. 222 b, 230 a.

In style and diction the speech of Agathon gives abundant evidence

of the influence of the school of Gorgias, especially in the preface
(194 E 195 a) and in the 2nd part (197 c — e). Thus we find repeated
instances of :

^ See 195 e, 196 c, d, 197 c; and cp. Gorg. Hel. (e.g.) 15 kcu 6tl p.kv...ovK •gSlKTiaev
dXV dptjraf rgv 5e T^T&priqv alriav rig Ttraprip \bytp
riTVxgo'ev, Cp. Blass,
att. Bered. p. 77.
- Jowett is somewhat flattering when he writes (Plato i. p. 531) :
“ The speech
of Agathon is than Aristophanes’), and receives the
conceived in a higher strain (sc.

real if half-ironical approval of Socrates. It is the speech of the tragic poet and a
sort of poem, like tragedy, moving among the gods of Olympus, and not among the
elder or Orphic deities. ...The speech may be compared with that speech of Socrates
in the Phaedrus (239 a, b) in which he describes himself as talking dithyrambs. . .

The rhetoric of Agathon elevates the soul to sunlit heights ‘

One suspects that
“ the approval of Socrates ” is more ironical than real. Agathon’s speech belongs
I
to the class condemned by Alcidamas, de Soph. 12 ol rots oubp-aatp aKpi^Qs b^eipyacr-
p-ivoL Kai paWov rroLrjpaa'iv 7) \6yois ioiKores cp. ib. 14 av&y Kg ...to. ptv viroKplaec Kal
f paipbibig irapairKgaia doKeiv eivai.
XXXVl INTRODUCTION
Short parallel Kola^ with homoeoteleuton : e.g. 194 E e|ycb 877 j

(iovXofjiaL I
TrpwTOV gev elTrelv
|
(os 7(^77 ge etTreir
|
eTreira eiTrelv : 197 D
aXXoTplOTr]TO<S pXv Kivol, OlKiLOrriTO^ 81 TrkTJpOi.

Homoeoteleuton and assonance : e.g. toji' ayaOiav tSv o ^€o? avrol'i

aiTtos (194 e); rpoTros opOo^ 7rai'TOS... 7r«pt 7ravTos...olos <(3v> oiW a’lVios

tov (195 a) j
Travroiv 6ewv tvSaigovaov ovrwv (195 a).

These rhetorical artifices are especially pronounced in the concluding

section, as is indicated by the sarcastic comment of Socrates (198 b to
8’ €7rt t€A«7;t77s, ktX.) j
in fact, the whole of this section is, as Hug puts
it, a “ formliche Monodie.” Another feature of A.’s style is his fondness
for quotation, especially from the poets (196 c, e, 196 A, 197 b), and his
tendency to break into verse himself — eTrepT^erai 8 e /rot rt Kat ’ipp-irpov

el-n-elv (197 c). He has no clear idea of the limits of a prose style, as

distinguished from verse and the verses he produces are marked by

;

the same Gorgianic features of assonance and alliteration. In fine, we

can hardly describe the general impression made on us by the style of
Agathon better than by adapting the Pauline phrase “ Though he —
speak with the tongues of men and of angels, he is become as sounding
brass or a tinkling cymbaP.”

§ iv. Socrates and Diotima.

To Socrates it falls to deliver the last of the encomia on Ero.s. This

is no mere accident, but artistically contrived in order to indicate
the relative importance of his encomium as the climax of the series.
In form and content, as well as in extent, it holds the highest place,
although to its speaker is assigned the ia-xo-Tr) KXlvrj.

(A) The substance and form of Socrates^ Aoyot.

{a) The encomium proper is preceded by a preliminary dialectical

discussion with Agathon, the object of which is to clear the ground of
some popular misconceptions of the nature of Eros. The notion of
Eros, it is shown, is equivalent to that of Desire (epwg = to eiriOvpovv)

1
Distinguish this from the more Isocratean style of the speech of Pausanias
with its more developed iVa and evpvOpia of periods. Cp. Aristoph. frag. 300 Kal
Kar ’Ayddwv’ dvrlderov t^vpgptvov, “ shaved Agathon’s shorn antithesis.”
2 Horn
summarises thus {Platonstud. p. 264); “Die ganze Eede mit ihrem
anspruchsvollen Eingang, ihrem nichtigen Inhalt, ihren wolklingenden Phrasen und
Sophismen und insbesondere mit dem grossen Schlussfeuerwerke von Antithesen
und Assonanzen ist demnach nichts anderes als ein mit grosser Gesehicklichkeit
entworfenes Musterstiiek der...gorgianisch-sophistischen Khetorik.” See also the
rhythmic analysis (of 195 n fi.) worked out by Blass, Rhythmen, pp. 76 ff.
 ;

INTRODUCTION XXX Vll

—a quality, not a person. And the object of this Desire is the

beautiful (to koXoV), as had been asserted by Agathon (201 A b). —
That Socrates refuses to embark on an eulogistic description of Eros
without this preliminary analysis of the meaning of the name serves, at
the start, to differentiate his treatment of the theme from that of all

the preceding speakers ; it is, in fact, an object-lesson in method, an

assertion of the Platonic principle that dialecticmust form the basis of
rhetoric, and that argument founded on untested assumptions is
valueless.

(6) The speech proper begins with a mythological derivation of

Eros, in which his conflicting attributes as a Satfimv — a being midway
between gods and men —are accounted for by his parentage. Eros is

at once poor, with the poverty of Desire which lacks its object, and
rich, with the vigour with which Desire strives after its object. And
in all its features the Eros of Socrates and Diotima stands in marked
contrast to the Eros of conventional poetry and art, the divine Eros of
Agathon.
Eros is defined as Desire and as Daemon ;
and, in the next place,
its potency^ is shown to lie in the striving after the everlasting
possession of happiness. But Eros implies also propagation in the
sphere of beauty. It is the impulse towards immortality — the impulse
displayed alike by animals and by men, the ground of parental love
towards both physical and mental (<^iXoTt/x,ia) offspring.

But when we arrive at this point, the question suggests itself as to

how, more precisely, these different determinations of Eros are related
to one another. What is the link between Eros defined as “ the desire
for the abiding possession of the good ” and Eros defined as “ the desire
for procreation in the beautiful ” 1 The former conception involves a
desire for abiding existence, in other words for immortality, inasmuch
as the existence of the possessor is a necessary condition of possession
while the latter also involves a similar desire, inasmuch as procreation is

the one means by which racial immortality can be secured. Thus the
link between the two conceptions of Eros is to be found in the implicit
notion common to both that Eros is the striving after immortality or
self-perpetuation. But there is another point to be borne in mind in
order to grasp clearly the connexion of the argument. The beautiful
includes the good {rdyada KaXd 201 c) ;
so that the desire for the good
is already, implicitly, a desire for the beautiful (and vice versa).

1 I.e. its generic notion [dvai, rb Ke(pa\aiov 205 n) as distinguished from the
specific limitation {KaXeia-dai 205 c, 206 b) to sex-love. See W. Gilbert in Philologus
Lxviii. 1, pp. 52 fi.
 :

xxxviii INTRODUCTION
Thus the main results of the argument so far are these : Eros is the
striving after the lasting possession of the Good, and thereby after
immortality ;
but immortality can be secured only through procreation
(tokos), and the act of procreation requires as its condition the presence
of Beauty. We are, therefore, led on to an examination of the nature
of Beauty, and it is shown that beauty is manifested in a variety of
forms, physical, moral and mental —beauty of body, of soul, of arts and
sciences, culminating in the arch-science and the Idea of absolute
Beauty. Accordingly the Erastes must proceed in upward course*
from grade to grade of these various forms of beauty till he finally
reaches the summit, the Idea. On the level of each grade, moreover,
he is moved by the erotic impulse not merely to apprehend the kuXov
presented and to appreciate it, but also to reproduce it in another
there are two moments in each such experience, that of “ conception ”
(ki^o-is) or inward apprehension, and that of “delivery” (tokos) or
outward reproduction.
The emphasis here laid on the notion of reproduction and delivery
(TtKTetv, yevi'ay), as applied to the intellectual sphere, deserves special
notice. The work of the intelligence, according to the Socratic method,
is not carried on in solitary silence but requires the presence of a
second mind, an interlocutor, an answerer of questions. For the
correct method of testing hypotheses and searching out truth is the
conversational method, “ dialectic,” in which mind cooperates with
mind. The practical illustration of this is to be seen in Socrates
himself, the pursuer of beautiful youths who delights in converse with
them and, warmed by the stimulus of their beauty, Adyovs toiovtovs
tIktsi oiTtves Trotrjaovai /3e\TLOvs tods veoDS (210 c).

(c) As the conception of Eros as a striving after the Ideal pursued

not in isolation but in spiritual fellowship (Koivtorta) constitutes the core
of the Socratic exposition, so the form q/’that exposition is so contrived
as to give appropriate expression to this central conception. It com-
mences with a piece of dialectic — the conversation between Socrates
and Agathon. Agathon is the embodiment of that KaAAos which here
stimulates the epauT^fs in his search for truth ; it is in Agathon’s soul
(er KttAw) that Socrates deposits the fruits of his pregnant mind. In
much, too, of the exposition of Diotima the semblance, at least, of
intellectual Kotvcovta is retained, illustrating the speaker’s principle of
philosophic co-operation. Thus the speech as a whole may be regarded

1 It is interesting to observe how Emerson makes use of this Platonic “anabasis”

when he writes: — “There is a climbing scale of culture. ..up to the ineffable
mysteries of the intellect.”
 :

INTRODUCTION XXXIX

simply as a Platonic dialogue in miniature, which differs from the

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

had formerly shared that ignorance, until instructed by Diotima'.

(B) Diotima and her philosophy.

(1) Diotima. Diotima is a fictitious personage. Plato, no doubt

purposely, avoids putting his exposition of Eros into the mouth of any
historical person : to do so would be to imply that the theory conveyed
isnot original but derived. It is only for purposes of literary art that
Diotima here supplants the Platonic Socrates she is presented, by :

a fiction, as his instructor, whereas in facts he merely gives utterance

to his own thoughts. These thoughts, however, and this theory are, by
means of this fiction, represented as partaking of the nature of divine
revelation ;
since in Diotima of Mantinea we find a combination of two
significant names. The description ywi] MavTivLK-q inevitably implies
the “ mantic ” art, which deals with the converse between men and
gods of which to Baiyoviov, and therefore the Eros-daemon, is the
mediating agent (202 e); while the name Aiorlpa, “She that has
honour from Zeus,” suggests the possession of highest wisdom and
authority. This is made clear by the role assigned to Zeus and his
servants in the Dhaedrus : 6 ylv Bij p,eyas yysywr ivovpavw Zevs...'!TpwTOi
TTopeveraL, ktX. (246 e) j
ot p.ev Brj ow Aids Biov riua eTvai ^yrovcrt rrjv

ij/v)(T]v Tov v<h avTwv ipdipevov' (TKOirovaLV ovv el <;ttAoo’o<^os re sal

r/ye/AovtKOs tyjv <j>v(Tiv Kal... Trav Troiovatv ottoos toiovtos earai, kt\. (252 E ff.).

The characteristics of Zeus, namely guiding power (yyepLovla) and

wisdom (o-o<^ta), attach also to his oiraBol consistently with this
Diotima is aoehy (201 n), and “hegemonic” as pointing out the opOrj
oSds to her pupil, and guiding him along it in a masterful manner
(210 a ff., 211 B ff.)2.

^ Cp. Jowett (Platoi. p. 527) “As at a banquet good manners would not allow
:

I
him win a victory either over his host or any of the guests, the superiority
(Socr.) to
which he gains over Agathon is ingeniously represented as having been already
!
gained over himself by her. The artifice has the further advantage of maintaining
I his accustomed profession of ignorance (cp. Menex. 236 fol.).”
^ Gomperz’s suggestion (G. T. ii. p. 396) that “ the chief object of this etherea-

;
lized affection ” which Plato had in mind when “ in the teaching (of Diotima) he
i

j
xl INTRODUCTION
In the person of Diotima, “ the wise woman,” Plato offers us in —
Mr Stewart’s phrase —
“a study in the prophetic temperament' she
represents, that is to say, the mystical element in Platonism, and her
discourse is a blend of allegory, philosophy, and myth. As a whole it

is philosophical ; the allegory we find in the imaginative account of the

parentage and nature of Eros, as son of Poros and Penia ;
the mythical
element appears in the concluding portion, in so far as it “ sets forth in

impassioned imaginative language tlie Transcendental Idea of the SouP.”

And as in the allegory the setting is derived from current religious
tradition, so in the myth the language is suggested by the enthusiastic
cult of the Orphics. It may be well to examine somewhat more
closely the doctrine of the prophetess on these various sides.

(2) Diotima’s allegory. The first point to notice is the artistic

motive for introducing an allegory. It is intended to balance at once
the traditional derivations of the God Eros in the earlier speeches, and
the grotesque myth of Aristophanes. Socrates can match his rivals in
imagination and inventive fancy. It also serves the purpose of putting
into a concrete picture those characteristic features of the love-impulse
which are subsequently developed in an abstract form. And, thirdly,
the concrete picture of Eros thus presented allows us to study more
clearly the features in which Socrates, as described by Alcibiades,
resembles Eros and embodies the ideal of the philosophic character.
In the allegory the qualities which characterise Eros are fancifully
deduced from an origin which is related in the authoritative manner of
an ancient theogony. The parents of Eros are Poros and Penia.
Poros is clearly intended to be regarded as a God (203 b ol deal, ot re
aXA.01 Kttl 6...ndpo5) : he attends the celestial banquet and drinks nectar
like the rest. The nature of Penia is less clearly stated : she cannot
be a divine being according to the description of the divine nature as
and possessing rdyaOd kuI KaXd given in the context preceding
evSalfjLOiv

(202 c and the list of the qualities which she hands down to her
ff.) ;

son Eros shows that she is in all respects the very antithesis of Poros.
We must conclude, therefore, that as Poros is the source of the divine
side of the nature of Eros, so Penia is the source of the anti-divine side ;

and from the description of Eros as Salgwr, combined with the definition
of TO Baiyoviov as fiera^ Oeov re Kai OvrjTov (202 e), we are justified

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

INTRODUCTION xli

in identifying this anti-divine side with mortality, and in regarding

1
]
Hivia as a personification of y Ovtitt] It is interesting here to
notice that Penia had already been personified by Aristophanes in his
Plutus, and personified as one member of an antithesis^.
In the description of Poros, the father of Eros, it is significant that
he is stated to be the son of Mrjrif. The idea of Plenty (ITopos) had
already been personified by Aleman, whether or not the Scholiast
ad loc. is correct in identifying that Poros with the Hesiodic Chaos.
And the idea of Wisdom (Myns) also had played a part, as a personified
being, in the speculations of the theogonists. For it seems, at least,
probable that the Orphic theologians had already in Plato’s time
evolved the equation Phanes = Ericapaeus = Metis and that here as
elsewhere in the language of Diotima there lie allusions to the doctrines
of that school of mystics.
Of the incidental details of the allegory, such as “ the garden of
Zeus ” where the intercourse between Penia and Poros took place

and the intoxication of Poros which led up to that intercourse, the

Neoplatonic commentators, as is their wont, have much to say. But
we may more and Stallbaum in regarding such
discreetly follow Zeller
details as merely put in for purposes of literary
effect, to fill up and

round off the story. Poros could never have fallen a victim to the
charms of Penia, since she had none nor could Penia ever have hoped
;

to win over Poros by persuasion or force, he being endowed with the

strength and wisdom of a god. Obviously, therefore, the god must be
tricked and his senses blinded —
as in the case of the sleeping Samson
or of the intoxicated Noah — that the woman might work her will upon
him. Nor need we look for any mystical significance in 6 tov Aids
Krj-7ro<;. The celestial banquet would naturally be held in the halls of
the King of the gods; that a king’s palace should have a park or
garden attached is not extraordinary ;
nor is it more strange that one
1 So Plotinus is not far astray when he equates irevla with tX?/, matter, potency
[Enn. III. p. 299 f).
^ Cp. Plato’s nSpos ){ Jlevia with Ar.’s nXoCros )( Ileyi'a: also the description of
iTToix^o. as intermediate between ttXoOtos and 652 with the description
irevia in Plut.

of Eros as intermediate between ir6po% and -rrevia in Symp. 203 e (otfre aTropet "Epuis
oCre TrXovTec). Cp. also Plut. 80 fi. {Il\ovTos...avxP'<^>’ jSaSlfets) with Symp. 203 c
('Epws avxp.rip6i). The date of the Plutus is probably 388 b.c.
Such pairs of opposites were common in earher speculation. Cp. Spenser,
“ Hymn in Honour of Love ” :

“ When thy great mother Venus first thee bare,

Begot of Plentie and of Penurie.”
® Plato’s mention of a single parent of Poros is in accordance with the Orphic

notion of Phanes-Metis as bisexed.

B. P. d
 — — —

xlii INTRODUCTION
of the banqueters, when overcome with the potent wine of the gods,
should seek retirement in a secluded corner of the garden to sleep off
the effects of his revels.
More important than these details is the statement that the celestial
banquet was held in celebration of the birth of Aphrodite, so that the
begetting of Eros synchronized with the birthday of that goddess. The
narrative itself explains the reason of this synchronism : it is intended
to account for the fact that Eros is the “attendant and minister” of

Aphrodite. Plotinus identifies Aphrodite with “ the soul,” or more

definitely with “ the soul of Zeus ” (Zeus himself being 6 roSs), but
it seems clear from Plato’s language that she is rather the personifica-
tion of beauty (’A^poSArys KaXrj'; ovari<; 203 c).

As regards the list of opposite qualities which Eros derives from his
parents, given in 203 c — e, there are two points which should be
especially observed. In the first place, all these qualities, as so derived,
are to be regarded not as merely accidental but inborn (<^i;cret) and
forming part of the essential nature of Eros. And secondly, each of
these characteristics of Eros, both on the side of his wealth and
on the side of his poverty, has its counterpart — as will be shown
presently^ —in the characteristics of Socrates, the historical embodiment
of Eros.
Lastly, we should notice the emphasis laid on the fluctuating
character of Eros, whose existence is a continual ebb and flow, from
plenitude to vacuity, from birth to death. By this is symbolised the
experience of the ^lAoKaXos and the <^tAdo-o^o9, who by a law of their
nature are incapable of remaining satisfied for long with the temporal
objects of their desire and are moved by a divine discontent to seek
continually for new sources of gratification. This law of love, by which
TO TTopL^ofxevov del vTreKpei, is parallel to the law of mortal existence by
which Toi p.iv {del) yiyverai, to. Se aTroAAoTai (207 D ff.) a law which
controls not merely the physical life but also the mental life (eTridv/xtat,

e-mcrrrjpiaL, etc.)^. Accordingly, the Eros-daemon is neither mortal nor

immortal in nature (vreefiVKev 203 e), neither wise nor foolish, but
a combination of these opposites aoefibs-dp.aOr]'; and di'rjTos-dOdi'aro ?

and it is in virtue of this combination that the most characteristic title

of Eros is <f>ik6cro(jio<: (which implies also ejuX-adavaaia).

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

1 See § vi. 3. I.

^ For an expansion in English of this thought see Spenser’s “ Two Cantos of

Mutabilitie ” (F. Q. vii.).
j
 :

INTRODUCTION xliii

remainder of Diotima’s discourse (from 204 a to its end) lies mainly

in the relations it between Eros and certain leading

affirms to exist
o
concepts, viz. the Good, Beauty and Immortality.

(a) The Problem of Immortality. Enough has been said already

as to determination of these various concepts as expounded in the
earlier part of the discourse (up to 209 e). But the concluding section,
in which “ the final mysteries" {to. reXea koI ino-n-TiKa) are set forth, calls
for further investigation. We
have already learnt that Eros is “the
desire for procreation in the sphere of the beautiful with a view to
achieving immortality ”
;
and we have found also that, so far, all the
efforts of Eros to achieve this end have been crowned with very
imperfect success. Neither by way of the body, nor by way of the
mind, can “the mortal nature” succeed, through procreation, in
attaining anything better than a posthumous permanence and an im-
mortality by proxy. We have to enquire, therefore, whether any
better result can be reached when Ei’os pursues the opOy oSds under the
guidance of the inspired TratSayojyds. The process that goes on during
this educational progress is similar in the main to what has been
already described. Beauty is discovered under various forms, and the
vision of beauty leads to procreation and procreation is followed by a
search for fresh beauty. But there are two new points to observe in
the description of the process. First, the systematic method and
regularity of procedure, by which it advances from the more material
to the less material objects in graduated ascent. And secondly, the
part played throughout this progress by the activity of the intellect
(vovs), which discerns the one in the many and performs acts of
identification (210 b) and generalisation (210 c). Thus, the whole
process is, in a word, a system of intellectual training in the art of
dialectic, in so far as it concerns to Ka\6v. And the end to which it leads
is the vision of and converse with Ideal Beauty, followed by the pro-
creation of veritable virtue. It is to be observed that this is expressly
stated to be not only the final stage in the progress of Eros but the
most perfect state attainable on earth by man (to riXos 211b, ivraWa
Tov /3lov yStojTOv dvdpujwo} 211 D, reKOVTi.. .VTrdpx^i- 6eo(f>L\eL yeveadai 212 a).
,

But the question remains, does the attainment of this state convey also
personal immortality 1 It must be granted that this question is
answered by Plato, as Horn points out, somewhat ambiguously, “ To
the man who beholds the Beautiful and thereby is delAered of true
apery it is given to become deo(fn\y<; and to become dOdvaros to him —
elrrep rm dAAo) dvOpwTrmv ’’
but in this last ^-clause there still lies

d2
xliv INTRODUCTION
a possible ground for doubtb We cannot gain full assurance on the
point from tliis sentence taken by itself ;
we must supplement it either
by other indications derived from other parts of Diotima’s argument, or
by statements made by Plato outside the Symposium. Now it may be
—
taken as certain from passages in the Phaedrus, Phaedo and Republic
— that personal immortality was a doctrine held and taught by Plato.
It is natural, therefore, to expect that this doctrine will be also taught in
the Symposuim ;
or, at least, that the teaching of the Symposium will not

contravene this doctrine. And this is, I believe, the case, in spite of
a certain oracular obscurity which veils the clearness of the teaching.
When we recal the statement that the generic Eros, as inherent in the
individual, aims at the “ everlasting possession ” of the good as its riXos,
and when we are told that the epcoTtKos-c^tXocro^os at the end of his
progress arrives at the “possession” {KTypa) of that specific form of
Good which is Beauty, and finds in it his reAos, and when emphasis is

laid on the everlastingness (del dv) of that possession, then it is reason-

able to suppose that the dbavaa-ia of the epwriKos who has reached this
goal and achieved to be noticed,
this possession is implied. It is

further, that the phrase here used no longer perixei tov ddavarov nor
is

dOavarwrepo^ ecrri but dOdvaTos iyS'ero. Nor does the language of the
clause eiTrep TO) dXXio necessarily convey any real doubt “ he, if any :

man ” may be simply an equivalent for “ he above all,” “ he most

certainly-.” The point of this saving clause may rather be this. The
complete philosopher achieves his vision of eternal Beauty by means of
VOV 5 (or avTTj y if/vxy), as the proper organ w oparov to koXov (212 a) :
it

is in virtue of the possession of that immortal object that he himself

is immortalised :and accordingly immortality accrues to him not qua
dv6pioTro<; SO much as qua voyriKos or XoyiKos. In other words, while in
so far as he is an ivOpwn-os, a a dXov compounded of two diverse

^ See F. Horn, Platonstud. pp. 276 £f. Horn also criticises the phrase ddavaros
y^viadai'. “die Unsterblichkeit im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes...kann nieht
erworben werden. Der Mensch kann nur unsterblich sein oder es nicht sein, er
kann aber nicht unsterblich icerden.” But what Plato means by aOdu. yevi<Tdai is

to regain the life of the soul in its divine purity. —the result of right education, as a
Kadapins or pe'KiTr} BavdTov. See J. Adam, R. T. G. pp. 383 ff.

seems quite certain that Plato — whether or not in earnest with his various
It i

—
attempts to prove it did believe in personal immortality, and would assent to the
dictum of Sir Thos. Browne, “ There is surely a piece of divinity in us, something
that was before the elements, and owes no homage unto the sun.”
2 See my note ad loc. It is to be noticed that similar expressions are used in

a similar context in Phaedr. 253 a [itpanTbpevoL {deov)...Kad' oa-ov hvvarhv deou

avdpdnrij} peracrxe^v ) : Tim. 90 B, c. Cp. deios wv 209 B, deiov Ka\6v 211 E, $eo(f>iXei
212 A. That the Idea (rdyaddf) is oUdov to the Soul seems implied by 205 e.
 INTRODUCTION xlv

elements body and soul, the philosopher is not entirely d^avaro? but still

subject to the sway of sad mortality, yet in so far as he is a philosopher,

a purely rational soul, grasping eternal objects, he is immortal. If we

choose to press the meaning of the clauses in question, such would seem
to be their most probable significance^
Another criticism of this passage suggested by Horn is this. If it

be true that the philosopher, or epcoriKos, does at this final stage attain
to immortality, this does not involve the truth of the doctrine of
immortality in general, but rather implies that men as such are not
immortal and that immortality is the exceptional endowment of a few.
Here again we must recal the distinction between dvOpwiros and pure
and vovs. The soul as immortal is concerned with the objects of
immortal life^ In so far as it has drunk of the waters of Lethe and
forgotten those objects, in so far as it is engrossed in the world of sense,
it has practically lost its hold on immortality, and no longer possesses
any guarantee of its own permanence. Although it may remain, in a
latent way, in age-long identity, it cannot be self-consciously immortal
when divorced from a perception of the eternally self-identical objects.
If we may assume that Plato looked at the question from this point of
%iew it becomes intelligible that he might refuse to predicate im-
”
mortality of a soul that seems so entirely “ of the earth, earthy that
the noetic element in it remains wholly in abeyance.
All that has been said, however, does not alter the fact that
individual and personal immortality, in our ordinary sense, is nowhere
directly proved nor even expressly stated in a clear and definite way in
the Symposium. is clearly shown is the fact of posthumous
All that
survival That Plato regarded this athanasia of personal
and influence.
”
Siivapts of personal ovcrCa, and identified “ Fortwirken
as an athanasia
with “ Fortleben,” has been suggested by Horn, as an explanation of
the “ganz neue Begriflf der Unsterblichkeit ” which, as he contends, is
propounded in this dialogue. But it is certainly a rash proceeding to

^ For this notion of immortality by “communion” or “participation” in the

divine life as Platonic, see the passages cited in the last note, also Theaet. 176 a.
Cp. also the Orphic idea of the mystic as ivdeo$, “God-possessed.” This idea of
supersession of personality by divinity (“not I but Christ that dwelleth in me ”) is

a regular feature of all mystic religion.

^ may be used not simply of quantity but of quality of
In other words, ddavacrla
existence. probably the case in 212 a: “immortality” is rather “eternal
This is

fife” than “everlastingness,” as connoting “ heavenliness ” or the kind of life that

is proper to divinities. So, as the “ spark divine” in man is the voDs, ddauacria is
practically equivalent to pure vorjins. On the other hand, in the earlier parts of the
discourse the word denotes only duration {ddavarov eTvaL = dei dvai).
 ;

xlvi INTRODUCTION
go thus to the Sophist — an evidently late dialogue —for an elucidation
of the problem. A sufficient elucidation, as has been suggested, lies

much nearer to hand, in the doctrine of the Phaedo and Phaedrus. It

is merely perverse to attempt to isolate the doctrine of the Symposium
from that of its natural fellows, or to assume that the teaching of
Diotima is intended to be a complete exposition of the subject of
immortality. “ Plato,” we do well to remember, “ is not bound to say

all he knows in every dialogue ” and if, in the Symposium, he treats

the subject from the point of view of the facts and possibilities of our
earthly life, this must not be taken to imply that he has forgotten or
surrendered the other point of view in which the soul is naturally
immortal and possesses pre-existence as well as after-existence.

(6) The Problem of Beauty. A further point of interest in the

latter section of this discourse is the different value attached to to
KaXov in the highest grade of love’s progress as compared with the lower
grades. In the latter it appeared as merely a means to tokos and
thereby to aOavaa-ia ;
whereas in the former it seems to constitute in
itself Horn, who notices this apparent reversal of the
the final end.
relations between these two concepts, explains it as due to the fact
that in the highest grade Eros is supplanted by Dialectic, or “the
philosophic impulse,” which alone gives cognition of the Idea. But
if this be so, how are we to account for the use of the term tckovti in
the concluding sentence, where the attainment of dOavacrla is described
as having for its pre-condition not merely to bpdv but to' reKeiv 1 This
is precisely parallel to the language elsewhere used of the action of
Eros in the lower grades, and precludes the supposition that Eros
ceases to be operant on the highest grade. The truth is rather that, in
this final stage, the Eros that is operant is the Eros of pure vovs —
enthusiastic and prolific intellection, “ the passion of the reason.” And
the fact that to KaXov in this stage is no longer subordinated to
dOavaa-ia as means to end of desire is to be explained by the fact that
this ultimate KaXXos being Ideal is ddavarov in itself, so that he who
gains it thereby gains dOavaaia.
That there are difficulties and obscurities of detail in this exposition
of the concepts we have been considering But may be freely admitted.
the line of doctrine, in its and quite in
general trend, is clear enough,
harmony with the main features of Platonic doctrine as expounded in
other dialogues of the same (middle) period. Nor must the interpreter
of the dialogue lose sight of the fact that he is dealing here not
with the precise phrases of a professor of formal logic but with the
 INTRODUCTION xlvii

inspired utterances of a prophetess, not with the dialectic of a

Parmenides but with the hierophantic dogmata of the Symposium.

(c) Eros as Philosophy. The fact that Socrates himself is evidently

presented in the dialogue as at once the exemplar of Philosophy and
the living embodiment of Eros might be sufficient to indicate that the
most essential result of the Soci’atic discussion of Eros is to show its
ultimate identity with “ the philosophic impulse.” Since, however,
this identification has been sometimes denied, it may be well to
indicate more particularly how far this leading idea as to the nature of
Eros influences the whole trend of the discussion. We notice, to begin
with, the stress laid on the midway condition of Eros, as son of Poros
and Penia, between wisdom and ignorance, in virtue of which he is

essentially a philosopher (<^povycr€tos eTriOvfxrjTrjq. . .rfnXocrochei 203Dff.). W^e

notice next how the children of the soul (A.dyot irepl dperijs) are pro-
nounced superior in beauty to the children of the body (209 c), and
(To^la, we know, is one form of apery. Then, in the concluding section
(210 A ff.) we find it expressly stated that KaXXos attaches to eTrio-r^/xat
(210 c), and that c^tAocrot^ta itself is the sphere in which the production
of KaXol Adyot is occasioned by the sight of to ttoXv TreAayos rov
KaXov. Thus it is clearly implied throughout the discussion that cro(f)la,

as the highest division of apery (being the specific apery of voDs), is the
highest and most essential form of to dyaOov for man ; whence it follows
that, if Eros be defined as “ the craving for the good,” this implies in
the first place the “ craving for o-o^ta,” which is but another way of
stating “the philosophic impulse,” or in a word efnXocroejiia.

must not be supposed, however, that in virtue of this identifica-

It
and devitalised. Eor (f>iXoa-o<j>La
tion the love-impulse (Eros) is narrowed
is not merely a matter of book-study, it is also a method of life and

a system of education. In reaching the ultimate goal, which is the

union of the finite with the infinite in the comprehension of the
Idea, the man who is driven by the spirit of Eros passes through all

the possible grades of experience in which Beauty plays a part ;

and
from social and intellectual intercourse and study of every kind he
enriches his soul. He does not begin and end with what is abstract
and spiritual —with pure intellection ;
nor does he begin and end with
the lust after sensual beauty : like the Eros-daemon who is his genius,
the true Erastes is ovre Oyplov ovre deos, and his life is an anabasis from
the concrete and the particular beauties of sense to the larger and more
spiritual beauties of the mind.
Thus in its actual manifestation in life the Eros-impulse is far-
xlviii INTRODUCTION
reaching. And, as already noticed, it is essentially propagative. The
philosopher is not only a student, he is also, by the necessity of his
nature, a teacher. This is a point of much importance in the eyes of
Plato, the Head of the Academy :
philosophy must be cultivated in a
school of philosophy.
The significance of Eros, as thus conceived, has been finely expressed
by Jowett {Plato i. p. 532): “(Diotima) has taught him (Socr.) that

love is another aspect of philosophy. The same want in the human

soul which is satisfied in the vulgar by the procreation of children, may

become the highest aspiration of intellectual desire. As the Christian

might speak of hungering and thirsting after righteousness or of ;

divine loves under the figui’e of human (cp. Eph. v. 32) as the ;

mediaeval saint might speak of the fruitio Dei as Dante saw all
‘ ’
j

things contained in his love of Beatrice, so Plato would have us absorb

all other loves and desires in the love of knowledge. Here is the
beginning of Neoplatonism, or rather, perhaps, a proof (of which there
are many) that the so-called mysticism of the East was not strange to
the Greek of the fifth century before Christ. The first tumult of the
affections was not wholly subdued there were longings of a creature
;

‘
moving about in worlds not realised,’ which no art could satisfy. To
most men reason and passion appear to be antagonistic both in idea
and fact. The union of the greatest comprehension of knowledge and
the burning intensity of love is a contradiction in nature, which may
have existed in a far-off primeval age in the mind of some Hebrew
prophet or other Eastern sage, but has now become an imagination
only. Yet this ‘ passion of the reason ’
is the theme of the Symposium
of Plato h”

{d) Eros as Religion. We thus see how to “ the prophetic tempera-

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

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

 INTRODUCTION xlix

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

passage of the Socratic Xdyoi, the doctrine necessary at once to

balance and to correct the passages in the previous Xdyoi which had
magnified Eros as an object of religious worship, a great and beneficent
deity.
This side of Diotima’s philosophising, which brings into full light
what we may call as we please either the erotic aspect of religion or the
religious aspect of Eros, might be illustrated abundantly both from the
writers of romantic love-poetry and from the religious mystics. To
a few such illustrations from obvious English sources I here confine
myself. Sir Thos. Browne is platonizing when he writes (liel. Med.)
“All that is truly amiable is of God, or as it were a divided piece of
him that retains a reflex or shadow of himself.” Very similar is the
thought expressed by Emerson in the words, “ Into every beautiful
object there enters something immeasurable and divine ” and again, ;

“ all high beauty has a moral element in it.” Emerson, too, supplies

us with a description that might fitly be applied to the Socratic Xdyoi

of the Symposium, and indeed to Plato generally in his prophetic
moods, when he defines “what is best in literature” to be “the
affirming, prophesying, spei’matic words of man-making poets.” To Sir
Thos. Browne we may turn again, if we desire an illustration of that
mental phase, so vividly portrayed by Diotima, in which enjoyment of
the things eternal is mingled with contempt of things temporal. “If
—
any have been so happy ” so runs the twice-repeated sentence as —
truly to understand Christian annihilation, ecstasies, exolution, lique-
faction, transformation, the kiss of the spouse, gustation of God, and
ingression into the divine shadow, they have already had an handsome
anticipation of heaven ;
the glory of the world is surely over, and the
earth in ashes with them ” {Hydriotaphia, ad fin.). A similar phase
of feeling is eloquently voiced by Spenser more than once in his
“ Hymns.” Read, for instance, the concluding stanzas of the “ Hymne
 ;

1 INTRODUCTION
ofHeavenly Love ” which tell of the fruits of devotion to the “ loving
Lord ”
“ Then shalt thou feele thy spirit so possest,
And ravisht with devouring great desire
Of his deare self...

That in no earthly thing thou shalt delight,

But in his sweet and amiable sight.
“ Thenceforth all worlds desire will in thee dye,
And all earthes glorie, on which men do gaze,
Seeme durt and drosse in thy pure-sighted eye.
Compar’d to that celestiall beauties blaze,...
“ Then shall thy ravisht soule inspired bee
With heavenly thoughts farre above humane skil.

And thy bright radiant eyes shall plainely see

Th’ Idee of his pure glorie present still
Before thy face, that all thy spirits shall fill

With sweete enragement of celestiall love.

Kindled through sight of those faire things above.”

From Plato, too, Spenser borrows the idea of the soul’s “ anabasis ”
through lower grades of beauty to “ the most faire, whereto they all do
strive,” which he celebrates in his “ Hymne of Heavenly Beau tie.” A
few lines of quotation must here suflSce
“ Beginning then below, with th’ easie vew
Of this base world, subject to fleshly eye.
From thence to mount aloft, by order dew.
To contemplation of th’ immortall sky....
“ Thence gathering plumes of perfect speculation.
To impe the wings of thy high flying mynd.
Mount up aloft through heavenly contemplation.
From this darke world, whose damps the soule do blynd.
And, like the native brood of Eagles kynd.
On that bright Sunne of Glorie fixe thine eyes.
Clear’d from grosse mists of fraile infirmities.”

These few “modern instances” may be sufficient to indicate in brief

how the doctrines of Plato, and of the Symposium in special, have
permeated the mind of Europe.
The doctrine of love in its highest grades is delivered, as we have
seen, by the prophetess in language savouring of “ the mysteries,”
language appropriate to express a mystical revelation.
On the mind of a sympathetic reader, sensitive to literary nuances,
Plato produces something of the effect of the mystic <f>iyyo<; by his
TO TToXv TreAayo? tov kuXov and his e^aifjivrjs KaToij/eTai ri Oacftacrrov ktX.
Such phrases stir and transport one as “ in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day” to heavenly places “which eye hath not seen nor ear heard”;
 ;

INTRODUCTION li

they awake in us emotions similar to those which the first reading of

Homer evoked in Keats ;

“ Then felt I like some watcher of the skies

When a new planet swims into his ken
Or like stout Cortes when with eagle eyes
He stared at the Pacific... Silent, upon a peak in Darien.”

§ V. Alcibiades and his Speech.

Alcihiades was about 34 years old at this time (416 B.c.), and at the
height of his reputation*. The most brilliant party-leader in Athens,
he was a man of great intellectual ability and of remarkable personal
beauty, of which he was not a little vain. It was, ostensibly at least,
because of his beauty that Socrates posed as his “erastes”; while
Alcibiades* on his side, attempted to inflame the supposed passion of
Socrates and displayed jealousy whenever his “ erastes ” showed a
tendency to woo the favour of rival beauties such as Agathon. Other
indications of Alcibiades’ characterand position which are given in the
dialogue show him to us as a man of wealth, an important and popular
figure in the smart society of his day, full of ambition for social and
pohtical distinction, and not a little influenced, even against his better

judgment, by the force of public opinion and the on dit of his set.

With extraordinary naivete and frankness he exposes his own moral

infirmity,and proves how applicable to his case is the confession of the
Latin poet, “ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.” He is guilt-
less, would ever have known the meaning
as he says, of pudency, nor
of the word “ shamehad it not been for Socrates.
” (alaxw-q)

Yet, totally lacking in virtue though he be, the Alcibiades of the

Symposium is a delightful, even an attractive and lovable person.
Although actually a very son of Belial, we feel that potentially he is
little short of a hero and a saint. And that because he possesses the
capacity for both understanding and loving Socrates and to love ;

Socrates is to love the Ideal. Nominally it is Socrates who is the

lover of Alcibiades, but as the story developes we see that the converse
is more near the truth ; Alcibiades is possessed with a consuming
passion, an intense and persistent infatuation for Socrates. And in

1 “ The character of Alcibiades, who is the same strange contrast of great

powers and great vices which meets us in history, is drawn to the life ” (Jowett,

Plato I. p. 526).
 : ;

Hi INTRODUCTION
the virtue of this “eros” we find something that more than outweighs
his many vices: it acts as the charity that “covers a multitude of sins.”
The speech of Alcibiades, in spite of its resemblance in tone to a
satyric drama composed under the infiuence of the Wine-god, fulfils a
serious purpose — the purpose of vindicating the memory of Socrates
from slanderous aspersions and setting in the right light his relations
with Alcibiadesb And as a means to this end, the general theme of
the dialogue, Eros, is cleverly taken up and employed, as will be shown
in a later section".
In regard to style and diction the following points may be noticed.
In the disposition and arrangement there is a certain amount of
confusion and incoherence. Alcibiades starts with a double parable,
— —
but fails as he confesses to work out his comparisons with full
precision and with logical exactitude. This failure is only in keeping
with his role as a devotee of Dionysus.
Frequency of similes: 216 a wcnrep aTro tojv Setpy/vcov." 217a to tov
Sr]\6evTO<:. ..7rd6o<;: 218 B Kt/cotviovi^KaTe. . .ySa/c^etas.

Elliptical expressions 215 a, c; 216 b, d,e; 220 c, d; 221 d; 222 b.

Anacolutha: 217e; 218a.

§ vi. The Order and Connexion op the Speeches.

Disregarding the introductory and concluding scenes and looking
at the rest of the dialogue as a whole, we see that it falls most
naturally into three main divisions, three Acts as we might call them.
In the First Act are comprised all the first five discourses; the Second,
and Act contains the whole of the deliverances of Socrates;
central.
the Third Act consists of Alcibiades’ encomium of Socrates®. We have
to consider, accordingly, how each of these Acts is related to the
others; and further, in regard to the first, we have to investigate the
relative significance of each of its five sub-divisions or scenes.

1. The first five speeches and their relative significance.

Plato’s own opinion of the earlier speeches appears clearly enough

in the criticism which he puts in the mouth of Socrates (198Dff.).

See Introd. § ii. (A) ad Jin. and Gomperz, G. T. ii. pp. 394 £f.
1

See Introd. § vi. 3, where some details of the way in which Alcih. echoes the
2

language of the earlier speakers will be found.

® Eettig and von Sybel make the First Act conclude with Arist.’s speech, and the

Second Act begin with Agathon’s but that this is a perverse arrangement is well
:

shown by F. Horn, Platonst. p. 254 (cp. Zeller, Sijmp.).

 —

INTRODUCTION liii

Although that criticism is aimed primarily at the discourse of Agathon,

it obviously applies, in the main, to the whole series of which his
discourse formed the climax. Instead of endeavouring to ascertain
and state the truth about the object of their encomia such is the gist —
of Socrates’ criticism —
the previous speakers had heaped up their
praises regardless of their applicability to that object (198 e ad init.).

What they considered was not facts but appearances (ottws iyKmfxid^eiv

Boiei); consequently they described both the nature of Eros and the
effects of his activity in such terms as to make him appear — in the
eyes of the unsophisticated —supremely good and beautiful, drawing
upon every possible source (1 98 e 199 a).

It thus seems clear that Plato intends us to regard all the first five
speeches as on the same level, in so far as all alike possess the common
defect of aiming at appearance only (8o|a), not at reality {dk-tjOeio), in
virtue of which no one of them can claim to rank as a scientific
contribution (eTrtcm^/xij) to the discussion.
The of the first five speeches. The question as to the
relative order
principle upon which the order and arrangement of these speeches
depends is an interesting one and has given rise to some controversy.

() It has been suggested {e.g. by Rotscher) that the speeches are

arranged in the order of ascending importance, beginning with that of
Phaedrus, which is generally admitted to be the slightest and most
superficial, and proceeding gradually upwards till the culminating
point is reached in the speech of Agathon^. This view, however, is

untenable in the face of the obvious fact that Agathon’s speech is in

no real sense the best or most important of the series; rather, from the
point of view of Socrates, it is the worst. The fact that each speaker
commences by a critique of his predecessor might seem, at
his oration
first sight, some colour to the view that each was actually
to lend
making some improvement, some advance but this preliminary ;

critique is plainly nothing more than a rhetorical trick of method^.

() Steinhart® would arrange the speeches in pairs, distinguishing

each pair from the others according to the special spheres of the activity
of Eros with which they deal. Phaedrus and Pausanias deal with the

1 Cp. Susemihl, Genet. Entwick. d. plat. Phil. p. 407 “ So bildet derm der :

Vortrag des Sokrates den eigentlichen theoretischen Mittelpunkt des Werkes, die
iibrigen aber mit dem Alkibiades eine aufsteigende Stufenreihe.”
2 Observe also hovr, in 193 e, Eryx. characterizes the first four speeches as
TToXXd Kal TravToBaTrd, “motley and heterogeneous.”
® Similarly Deinhardt, Uber Inhalt von PL Symp.
 ;

liv INTRODUCTION
ethicalsphere Eryximachus and Aristophanes with the physical
;

Agathon and Socrates with the higher spiritual sphere.

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

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

artistic effect depends largely upon the presence of variety and of

contrast is beyond dispute.

{d) Any satisfactory explanation of the order in which the

speeches are arranged must be based upon the internal indications
supplied by the dialogue itself.

The first inference to be drawn from such indications is this : the

speech of Socrates must be left to stand by itself, and cannot be
grouped with any one of the first five speeches^. This is made quite
evident by the tone of the whole interlude (198 a — 199 c) which
divides Agathon’s discourse from that of Socrates, and in special by
the definite expression ov yap In iyK<op.id^o} tovtov tov rpoirov . . .dXkd to.

^ Cp. Jowett (Plato i. p. 527): “The speeches have been said to follow each
other in pairs.... But these and similar distinctions are not found in Plato; they are
the points of view of his critics, and seem to impede rather than to assist us in
understanding him.” This is sensibly observed; still, Jowett is inclined to dismiss
the matter too lightly. I may add that, while from the artistic point of view it is
absurd to class together the speeches of Arist. and Eryx., there is a certain con-
nexion of thought between the two, in their common relation to physiological
theories, and so far we may allow that Steinhart points in the right direction
(see § iii. 4, above).
2 Cp. Jowett (Plato i. p. 256): “The successive speeches. ..contribute in various
degrees to the final result ;
they are all designed to prepare the way for Socrates,
who gathers up the threads anew, and skims the highest points of each of them.
But they are not to be regarded as the stages of an idea, rising above one another
to a climax. They are fanciful, partly facetious, performances. ...All of them are
rhetorical and poetical rather than dialectical, but glimpses of truth appear in
them.” This is well said.
 INTRODUCTION Iv

-ye d\T}0i]...We\u} eiTreiv Kar efiavrov, ov Trpo? rovg v/xerepovs Ao-yovs

(199 a — b): these last words should finally settle the matter.

We are thus left with five speeches, not six; and this of itself
might be enough to show that a division into pair-groups is not
feasible. And when we further examine the internal indications,
the arbitrarycharacter of any such grouping becomes yet more
obvious. For although the first two speeches possess a good deal in
common, and were, apparently, confounded together by Xenophon, the
method of grouping them in one pair tends to obscure the great
difference between them in point of substance, stj’le, and general
ability of statement, and to obscure also the fact that a number of
other discourses intervened between these two (/xera 8e ^aiSpov aAAovs
Ttvas elvai 180 c). The express mention of this last fact is a land-mark
not to be ignored.
Moreover, while this distinction is marked between the first speech
and the second, there are internal indications which point to a special
connexion between the third and the second. Eryximachus starts
from the same assumption (the duality of Eros) as Pausanias; and,
moreover, he expressly states that his speech is intended to supplement
that of Pausanias (186 A ad init). Furthermore, we find Aristophanes
classing together these two (189 c).

As regards the fourth discourse (Aristophanes’), we are forbidden

by similar internal indications to class it along with any of the pre-
ceding discourses. Although much of its point lies in its allusiveness
to Eryximachus’ theories, Aristophanes himself expressly emphasizes the
difference between his speech and the others (189 c, 193 d); and indeed
it is evident to the most cursory inspection. Nor is it possible, without
reducing the group-system to the level of an unmeaning artifice, to
pair the speech of Aristophanes with that of Agathon, which follows
next in order. The only ground for such a grouping would be the purely
fortuitous and external fact that both the speakers are professional
poets in style and substance the two speeches lie leagues apart, while
:

not even an incidental connexion of any kind is hinted at in the text.

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

position is already pointed to in the introductory incident, where

Agathon promises to engage in a match “ concerning wisdom ” with
 —

Ivi INTRODUCTION
Socrates (175 e); and we have another indication of it at the very
opening of the dialogue, where Glaucon in speaking of the banqueters
mentions these three names only — Agathon, Socrates, Alcibiades
(172 a). If then, for the purpose of the dialogue as a whole, Agathon
is the most important of the first five speakers, it is essential that his
discourse should form the climax of the series, and stand side by side
with that of Socrates his rival, to point the contrast.
This gives us one fixed point. Another fixed point is the first
speech : once Phaedrus has been designated iraT^qp tov Xoyov, the
primary inventor of the theme^ the task of initiating the series can
scarcely fall to other hands than his. Why the three intermediate
discourses are placed in their present order is not so clear. Considera-
tions of variety and contrast count for something, and it may be
noticed that the principle of alternating longer and shorter speeches is
observed ^ Similarity in method of treatment counts for something
too and from this point of view we can see that the order Phaedrus
;

—
Pausanias Eryximachus is more natural than the order Phaedrus—
—
Eryximachus Pausanias since the middle speech of Pausanias has
;

some points in common with both the others, whereas the speech of
Eryximachus has practically nothing in common with that of Phaedrus.
Granting, then, that on grounds at once of continuity and of variety of
extent these three speeches may most artistically be set in their present
order, and granting, further, that the proper place for Agathon’s speech
is the last of the series, the only vacant place left for the speech of
Aristophanes is the fourth. Although it is a speech sui generis^
possessing nothing in common with that of Agathon, yet the mere fact
of the juxtaposition of the two famous poets is aesthetically pleasing;,
while a delightful variation secured by the interposition of a splendid
is

grotesque which, alike in style and in substance, affords so signal a

contrast both to the following and to the preceding speeches®. More-

1 That he is so designated may be due, as Crain thinks, to the desire to connect

this dialogue with the Phaedrus.
The comparative lengths of the speeches, counted by pages of the Oxford text,
are roughly these: Phaedrus 3pp.; Paus. 6^; Eryx. 3|; Arist. 6; Agathon 4; Socr.
(a) 3, (6) 14|; Ale. 9|. Thus, in round numbers, the total of the first five speeches
comes to 23 pp., which very nearly balances the 24 pp. occupied by Socr. (6) and
Alcib.
Jowett explains (Plato i. p. 530) that the transposition of the speeches of
®

Arist.and Eryx. is made “ partly to avoid monotony, partly for the sake of making
Aristophanes the cause of wit in others,’ and also in order to bring the comic and
‘

tragic poet into juxtaposition, as if by accident.” No doubt these considerations

count for something, but, as I have already tried to show, there is another and a
deeper reason for the transposition (see§ iii. 4).
 ;

INTRODUCTION Ivii

over, as is elsewhere shown, Aristophanes handles his theme with

special reference to the medical theorists of whom Eryximachus is

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

tendencies and the tricks of style which belonged to certain sets and
schools of rhetors and writers. And here in the Symposium his
purpose seems to be to exhibit the general results of sophistic teaching
in various contemporary circles at Athens which purpose would be
obscured were we to identify any of the characters of the dialogue with
non- Attic personages.
The five intellectual types of which Plato here presents us with
studied portraits are distinct, yet all the five are merely species of one
and the same genus, inasmuch as all represent various phases of un-
grounded opinion (8d^a), and inasmuch as all alike, in conti'ast to the
philosopher Socrates, are men of unphilosophic mind^.

The relation of the speech of Socrates to the first five speeches.

2.

The speech
of Socrates, as we have seen, stands in contrast not
only to the speech of Agathon but also to the whole series of which
1 Euckert makes the following identifications: Phaedrus = Tisias Pausanias ;

= Protagoras or Xenophon Eryximachus = Hippias Aristophanes = Prodicus

; ; ;

Agathon = Gorgias. Jowett (Plato p. 529) says of Pausanias: “his speech might
i.

have been composed by a pupil of Lysias or of Prodicus, although there is no hint

given that Plato is specially referring to them.” Sydenham supposed that Phaedrus
stands for Lysias.
^ So Kesl, Verhaltnis, etc., p. 31: “AEe diese fiinf Eeden eine breite Basis, fast
auf demselben Niveau stehend, bhden sollen fiir die spater folgenden Eeden des
Sokrates und Alkibiades.”
B. P. e
 — :

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

(a) Socrates v. Phaedrus. Phaedrus had declared Eros to be

p-eyas 0€os Koi Oavfj-aaTos (178 a): Socrates, on the contrary, argues
that Eros is no deds but a Saifjnov (202 c ff.). Phaedrus had relied
for his proofs on ancient tradition {TeKfj.rjpiov 8e tovtov kt\., 178 b;
o/xoXoyeiTai, 178 c); Socrates bases his argument on dialectic, and on
the conclusions of pure reason (Diotima being Reason personified).
Phaedrus had ascribed tbe noble acts of Alcestis and Achilles to
the working of sensual Eros (179 Bff.): Socrates ascribes the same
acts to a more deeply seated desire that for everlasting fame (vTrep —
dpeTys dOavarov ktX., 208 d) '

(b) Socrates Pausanias had distinguished two

v. Pausanias.
kinds of Eros — Uranios
and Pandemos (180 d e): Socrates, on the —
other hand, treats Eros as a unity which comprises in its single
nature opposite qualities (202 b, 203 off.); further, he shows that an
apparent duality in the nature of Eros is to be explained as due to a
confusion between Eros as genus ( = Desire) and Eros in the specific
sense of sex-passion (205 B ff.).

Pausanias had argued that sensual Eros, of the higher kind, is a

thing of value in social and political life as a source of dper?; and
dvSpeia (182 b c, 184 D — E, 185 b)^: Socrates shows that the produc-
tion of dperij in the sphere of politics and law is due to an Eros which
aims at begetting offspring of the soul for the purpose of securing an
immortality of fame (209 a ff., 209 d)^ And Socrates shows further
that for the true Eros to iv tois eTrirr/Seu/racrt Kal tols vop-ois saXov
(210 c) is not the reXos. Lastly, the connexion between Eros (in the
form of 7rat8epao-Tta) with c^iAocro^ta which had been merely hinted at
by Pausanias in 182 c, and superficially treated in 182 D — e, is ex-
plained at length by Socrates.

‘ This is the point noticed hy Jowett {Plato i. p. 531): “From Phaedrus he

(Socr.) takes the thought that love is stronger than death.’’
2 Cp. Jowett (Plato i. p. 531): “From Pausanias (Socr. takes the thought) that
the true love is akin to intellect and political activity.”
3 Gomperz (G. T. ii. p. 396), a propos of his view that Plato is thinking of his
TraidiKo, Dion in Sijmp., writes :
“ they were busy with projects of political and social
regeneration, which the philosopher hoped he might one day realise by the aid of
the prince. On this view there is point and pertinence in that otherwise irrelevant
mention of achievement among the fruits of the love-bond.” The sugges-
legislative
tion is interesting, but the relevance does not depend upon its being true: Plato, in
any cause, taught politics.
 — — :

INTRODUCTION Ilx

(c) Socrates v. Eryximachus. Eryximachus, following Pausanias,

had adopted the assumption of the duality of Eros this Socrates :

denies (202 b).

Eryximachus had extended the sphere of influence of Eros so as to

include the whole of nature (the objects of medicine, music, astronomy,
religion) : Socrates shows that the Eros-instinct affects animals as well
as men (207 a) —as equally included under the head of Ovyrd (207 — d),

and he ascribes Eros-daemon the mediation between gods and

to the
men and the control of the whole sphere of religion but he confines ;

his treatment in the main to the narrower subject of Eros proper

as concerned with humanity'.

(d) Socrates v. Aristophanes. Aristophanes had defined Eros as

“ the desire and pursuit of wholeness ” (toS 6\ov ttj iTnOvyia Kal Sioilei

Ipojs ovoya 192 E: cp. 192 b 0 Tav...ivTv^rj tw avrov yyiaei) Socrates

corrects this by showing that wholeness, or one’s other half, is only
sought when good {ovre yyiaeos etvai rdr epwra ovre oXov ear yr]...
it is

dyaOov 6v 205 E^). Both, however, agree in maintaining the negative

position that Eros is not simply the desire for y rwv dippoSurimv
crwovaca (192 c).

(e) Socrates v. Agaihon. The strictly dialectical part of Socrates’

speech (199 c — 201 which takes the form of a cross-questioning of
c),

Agathon, consists, in the main, of a hostile critique and refutation of

his speech.But in some few particulars Socrates indicates his agree-
ment with statements made by Agathon. We may, therefore, sum-
marize thus :

(1) Points of Agreement-. Socrates approves (199 c) of the rule

of method laid down by Agathon (195 a) and of the distinction it

implies (201 D ad fin.). Agathon stated the object of Eros to be the

beautiful (197 b) : Socrates adopts and developes this statement
(201 a). Agathon ascribed dvSpeia to Eros (196 c d) : so does
Socrates (203 d^).

^ It is hardly correct to say with Jowett {Plato i. p. 531) that “ from Eryximachus
Socrates takes the thought that love is a universal phenomenon and the great

power of nature”: this statement requires limitation.

^ It may
be observed, however, that while the Platonic Socrates is here simply
in contradiction to Arist., the idea of a “ fall ” from a primeval state of perfection
which underlies the myth of Arist. is very similar to the view put forth by Plato in
the Phaedrus and elsewhere that the earthly life of the soul involves a “ fall ” from
its pristine state of purity in a super-terrestrial sphere. And in both Eros is the
impulse towards restoration : to achieve communion with the Idea is to regain
TO oIkuov, t6 oXov, t) d/ox^i'a (picrts (193 d).
® Another “glimpse of truth” which appears in A.’s speech is thus indicated by
e 2
 — — ;

lx INTRODUCTION
(2) Points of Difference Agathon’s Eros is KaWia-ros koX apL(rTo<;
:

(197 c) : Socrates makes out Eros to be ovtc Ka\o<; oure dyaOo? (201 e).
In particular Socrates denies that Eros is o-o^os (203 e f.), or aTraXos
(203 c), as Agathon (196 e 195 c, d) had affirmed. Agathon had
assumed Eros to be 0e6s (194 e, et passim) : this Socrates corrects
(202 B ffi, e).

Agathon, like the rest, in his lavish laudations had confused

Eros with the object of love (to ipiDfitvov, to epacrroV) ;
whereas Socrates
points out that Eros is to be identified rather with the subject (to epoJv,

TO e7rt0u/4oOr, 204 c).

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

(a) The speech of Alcibiades is related to that of Socrates “as

Praxis to Theory h” Its main purpose is to present to us a vivid
portrait of Socrates as the perfect exemplar of Eros (6 TcXecos ipcoriKos )
and thus to compel us to acknowledge that in the living Socrates
we have before us both a complete ^tXocro<^os even as Eros is <^tXoo-o- —
(jiwv Bia TravTos tou /3lov (203 d), and a Baip-ovios dvrjp even as Eros is —
a SatpLfDv. In addition to this main purpose, the speech serves the
secondary purpose of vindicating the master against the charge of
indulging in impure relations with his disciples (see § ii. A ad fin.).
But the language of Alcibiades echoes not onlj^ that of Socrates, in
part, but also, in part, that of the earlier encomiasts of Eros. And
this isdue to the fact that Socrates the Eros of Alcibiades plays — —
a double role he is both 6 lpdp.f.vos and 6 ipwv. This ambiguity of the
;

Socratic nature is already implied in the comparisons with satyrs and

Sileni made by Alcibiades, which point to a character that is epao-To?,

however ii'Seijs in outward appearance. We may therefore tabulate

the more detailed points of inter-relation as follows :

{a) The Eros of the ipaa-TTjs {as exhibit- Socrates as ipaaTrjs {his outward ap-
ing ivbcLa), Socrates’ encomium. pearance of IvSeia) in Alcibiades’ en-
comium.
203 d eiri^ovXbs cttl rois KaXois sal rots 213 C SLeprixavgaw Sttws Ttapa Tip Ka\-
d'ya6ois...ad Tivas TrXiKwv p.rjxa.vds. XlcTTip . . . KaraKdarj.
203 c (pdcreL dpacrTijs wv irepi to KaXbv. 216 D XitJKpdTrjs ipwTiKws BiaKeiTaL twv
K aXCov.

Jowett {Plato I. p. 526) :

“ When Agathon says that no man ‘
can be wronged of his
own free wiU,’ he is alluding playfully to a serious problem of Greek philosophy
(cp. Arist. Nic. Ethics, v. 9)”: see Symp. 190 c ad init. But, so far as I see, no
reference is made to this point by Socrates.
1 Hug, p. Ixvii.
 INTRODUCTION Ixi

203 D avvTrSSrjTos Kal aoiKos, 220b apVTr68qTOi...iirop€tjeTO.

ael tSv Kai a.(rTptiiTOS...iTaldpios Kotp-u- 220 D elarrjKeL pbxp‘- iybvero (with the
pevos. context),
203 D <ppovri(rew eTridvprjT-p^. 220 C ef ewdivov (ppovrl^aiv ri 'iarqKe (cp.
174 D £f.).
203 D 5eiv6s yb-qt Kai tpappaKevi Kai <xo- 215 c ff. KTjXet To{i% avOpiLirovs (Karix^^t
(pUTTTjS. . .wbpipof . . . Srav einrop’qtrri. eKTrXijrret), kt\. 223 A evirdpiii^ Kal
209 B evdbs eviropel Xbyciiv irepi aperijs. widavov \byov qvpev.

It will be noticed that in this list the passages which find

responsions in the language of Alcibiades are all drawn from the
discourse of Socrates. This is due to the fact that it is his discourse
alone, of the earlier encomia, which treats "Epajs on the side of its
h'Sfia. The previous speakers had, as we have seen, regarded 'Epcds as
altogether lovely, i.e. as to €pajp,evov. Accordingly, it is to the next list
of parallels that we must look for the passages where Alcibiades echoes
their sentiments.

((3) “Epojs-epwpevos as KaWiaros Kal Socrates as the embodiment of "Bpais-

&pL<TTos in the earlier encomia. ipibpevos in Alcibiades’ encomium.

(1) Courage.
178 E (Phaedrus) (TTparbweSov ipaarCiv 220 E &Ti....(pvyg dvexdipei rb arparbirebov,
...paxbpevol y’ &p viKtpev, kt\. ktX.

197 D (Agathon) iv rrovip iv (pb^ip,., 220 E <rvp8U<rwa'e...avTbv ipb.

Tvapaarai-qs re Kal auirrip apiaros. 221 b pdXa ippupbvus dpweirai.
203 d (Socrates) avSpeios Kal irqs Kal 219 E rots irbvoLS...ipov irepiijv, ktX.
abvTOVos.
220 E eKbXevov crot 8i8bvai rdpiarela.

(2) Temperance.
196 c (Agathon) 6 'E/jojs 8ta(p€pbvT<)is av 216 D irbaqs oUade ybpei...(riiippoijvvqs;
croKppovol.

(3) Complete virtue.

196 D TTepl pev odv StKaLoavvqs Kal ffiacppo- 219 D dydpevov.,.(r(jj<ppo(Tvvqv Kal dv8peiav
(Tvvris Kai avSpeias roO ffeoD eipqrai, ...els (ppbvqaiv Kai els Kaprepiav.
irepi 8b crorpias Xelirerai.

(4) Admirableness.
180b (Phaedrus) ol 6eol...paK\ov davpd- 219 D dydpevov rqv roirov rpxKXiv, ktX.
^ovaiv Kal ayavrai-.-drav b ipdipevos 221 c Socr., as obSevl Spoios, is superior
[e.g. Achilles) rbv ipaaryv ayairg, kt\. to Achilles.
197 D (Agathon) ^earos cropoTs, ayacrrbs 220 E a^tov qv dedcraadaL HwKpdrq.
deois.

210 E (Socrates) KaTbrperai tl davpaarov 216 E rd ivrhs dydXpaTa...el8ov...irdyKaXa

rrjv (pvcTLv KaXbv. Kal Bavpaard.

(5) Inspiration of a sense of honour.

178 D (Phaedrus) (6 ipois ipiroiei) rgv 216 b eybi 8e rovrov pbvov alcrx’^^op^-'-
iwl pev rots aiaxpoh aiaxbvqv.
 —

Ixii INTRODUCTION
(
6) Indifference to personal beauty.
210 B (Socrates) evhs Si {t6 /cdXXos) 219 c ip.ov...KaTeippbP7)aep Kal KareyiXaaep
KaTaippov-qaavra, kt\. (cp. 210 D, rijs ipiijs upas.
211 e).

(7) Fruitfulness.
210 c (Socrates) tIktsip \6yovs...oiTtpes 222 a (tovs Xbyovs abroD evpgaet) OetoTarovs
TTocTfja'ova'i ^eXrlovs tovs p4ovs (cp. Kal TeXeicTa dyaX/xara dpeTijs ep avTois
210 d). SxoPTas Kal...TetpoPTas...i'!rl wap Stop
212 A tIkt€iv ovk eiSoiKa apeTTjs...a\\' wpoaijKet (TKoweip rip /xiXXoPTi KaX(p k6-

6X7)69). yad<p iaeadai (cp. 218 D cis 8ti ^iXTiarop

209 B eviropei \6ywv wept yepiadai).

aperijs Kal olop

XPV (Ipai tSp &pSpa t6p ayaddp (cp.

185 b TToWpp e7re/t^Xeioi'...7rp6s ape-
TT)P).

210 D KoXovs \6yovs...TlKTr)...ep <pi\o<70- 218 a S7)x6els vwb tup Sp <pLXocro(plq. Xbyuv.
(plg. 6<pdbpip.

(
8) Range of Influence.
186 B (Eryximachus) iirl ttup 6 debs 222 a (toi)s Xbyovs avTov eipyaei) iwl
relpei. wXeiffTOP TelpoPTas, paXXop Se bwl wap,
210 D (Socrates) eiri rb ttoXi) wiXayos ktX.
...ToO KaXov.

The foregoing lists contain, I believe, most if not all of the passages
in which Alcibiades, describing Socrates, uses phrases which dehnitely
echo the language or repeat the thought of the earlier encomiasts.
When one considers the number of these “ responsions ” and the
natural way in which they are introduced, one is struck at once both
with the elaborate technique of Plato and, still more, with the higher
art which so skilfully conceals that technique. For all its appearance
of spontaneity, a careful analysis and comparison prove that the
encomium by Alcibiades is a A^ery carefully wrought piece of work in
which every phrase has its significance, every turn of expression its

bearing on the literary effect of the dialogue as a whole. Moreover,

as we are now to see, the list of parallels already given by no means
exhausts the “ responsions ” offered by Alcibiades.

(6) The speech of Alcibiades, although primarily concerned with

Socrates, is also, in a secondary degree, concerned with Alcibiades
himself. And Alcibiades, like Socrates, plays a double part : he is at
once the iraiSocd of Socrates the ipaa-rijs, and the ipaa-Trj? of Socrates the
ipmp,evo<;. In his r61e of epaar-gs Alcibiades exhibits a spirit very
similar to that described in the earlier speeches, in which every display
of efotic passion is regarded as excusable if not actually commendable.
We may call attention to the following echoes :
 INTRODUCTION Ixiii

218 a Trav iT6\/J.a 8pav re Kal Xiyetv. 182 E (Pausanias) 8avp.a(TTa Spya ipya-
^op.iptp...rroieXv oldrrep ol ipauTal rrpSs
TO. rraiSiKCL, ktX.

219 E TjirSpow St) /caTaSeSouXw/t^vos. 184 c (Paus.) idp ns idiX-g tipo, doparreSeip

218 D 6 /ioi pLev yap oidiv iart irpea^irepov ijyoS/j.epos Si’ iKoiPov dpieipoip ’itjeadai...

Tov us 6ti ^i\Ti<TTOv i/xe yevicrdai. tovtov aOTg aO g edeXoSovXeia o6k alaxpd.
8i oXfial p.01 (TvWriTrTopa oiSiva KvpLih- 184 E t6t€ Sr]...a'vpnriTrTei tS KaXSu elvai
repov elvai <roD. eyii Sr) ToioSrtp dvSpi... rraiSiKa epacTTrj

f^V aio'xtii’olp.rjv rods 185 B Trap rrdpTios ye KaXop dpeTrjs SpeKa

((>povip.ovs. Xo-pi^^ffdai.
218 D €i 7rep...ris S<tt' iv i/xoi SSvapis Si' 17 s 184 D 6 fxep Svpdpiepos els...dpeTr)P avp.-
Slv (tS yevoLO dp-dviav. pdXXeadai.

222 B oOs oCtos e^arraTwv us epaarps rrai- 184 E irri TodTip Kal i^airaTgdrjpai oiS^p
SiKd,.,p.r) e^arraTaa'dai vrrS tovtov. alaxpSp.
185 B KaXg g drrdTg.

217 C warrep epauT^^ rraiSiKois im^ovXoSoiv 203 D (Socrates) eTipovXSi iaTi (6 "Epus)
...D aS6i% 5’ impovXeSo'as. rots KaXoiS Kal dyadots.

219 B raOra,. .d0eis ioarrep p4\r]. 203 D (Socr.) dgpevTgs SeipSs.

219 B vrro top Tpl^oiva KaTaxXipeh tSv 191 E £f. (Aristoph.) avyKaTaKei-
TOVTOvl, rrepipaXiop tu piepoi Kal o’vprrerrXeyp.Spoi toXs dpSpdai...

p.r)v TTjp pvKTa oXrjP. ov yap vrr' dpaiaxvPTias toDto Spioaip

dXX’ vrro dappovs-.-diro^alpovaiP eli to,

rroXiTiKa dpSpes ol toiovtoi.

215 D iKTrerrXrjypepoi iapAp Kai KaTOxS- 192 B (Aristoph.) dav/xacTa iKirXgTTOPTai

p,e6a. <piXigi...Kai SpojTi, ovk ediXoPTes...xo)pi‘

219 D oS6’.. .€Txop (Srrios) dirouToprjdolrjv ^eadai dXXgXoip oiSi ap.iKpov xp^‘'°^-

Trjs toStov (Topovalai.

221 A irapaKeXevop.ai to avTOiv dappetp, Kai 179 A (Phaedrus) eyKaTaXirreXp ye tS.

fXcyop Sti ovk arroXelipoi avTiS. rraiSiKa ?) pig /Soi/d^o-at KipSvpeSoPTi,

ovSels ovToi KaKOs, ktX.

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

encomiasts who were not represented in the former lists (viz. Pausanias
and Aristophanes), it will be seen that the speech of Alcibiades con-
tains references, more or less frequent, to sentiments and sayings
expressed by every one of the previous speakers. It is chiefly in his
description of himself that Alcibiades echoes the language of the first

five speakers, and in his description of Socrates that he echoes the

language of Socrates. The general impression made on the mind of

the reader who attends to the significance of the facts might be
summed up briefly in the form of a proportion : as Alcibiades is to
Socrates in point of practical excellence and truth, so are the first five

speeches to the discourse of Socrates-Diotima in point of theoretical

truth and excellence. But while this is, broadly speaking, true of the
Ixiv INTRODUCTION
inner nature (<^ro-ts, ra evSov) of Socrates as contrasted with that of
Alcibiades, we must bear in mind that in his outward appearance
(
0^ 17 /ra) Socrates is “ conformed to this world ” and, posing as an erastes
of a similar type to Alcibiades himself, serves to illustrate the theories
and sentiments of the earlier speeches.
Lastly, attention may be drawn to one other parallel in Alcibiades’
discourse which appears to have passed unnoticed hitherto. It can
scarcely be a mere coincidence that Alcibiades’ progress in erotics —in
other words, “ the temptation of saint ” Socrates — is marked by a
series of stages (awovaia, avyyvfjLvacrLa, crvv8eL7rveiv, 217 A flf.) until it
reaches its climax in avyKuaOai, and that a similar avoSos by gradual
stages (210 a ff., 211 c ff.) up to the final communion with Ideal
Beauty had been described as the characteristic method of the true
erastes. It seems reasonable to suppose that the method of Jalse love is
designedly represented as thus in detail contrasting with, and as it were
caricaturing, the method of true love: for thereby an added emphasis
is laid upon the latter.

§ vii. The Dialogue as a whole : its Scope and Design.

No small degree of attention has been paid by the expositors of our

dialogue to the question regarding its main purport — “ de universi operis
consilio.” It is plausibly argued that there must be some one leading
thought, some fundamental idea, which serves to knit together its
”
various parts and to furnish it with that “ unity which should belong
to it as an artistic whole. But wherein this leading idea consists has
been matter of controversy. Some, like Stallbaum, are content to
adopt the simplest and most obvious view that Eros is the central idea,
and that the design of the whole is to establish a doctrine of Eros.
Others, again, have supposed that Plato was mainly concerned to
furnish his readers with another specimen of the right method of
handling philosophical problems. But although either of these views,
or both combined, might be thought to supply an adequate account of
the design and scope of the dialogue if it had ended with the speech of
Socrates, they are evidently inadequate when applied to the dialogue
as it stands, with the addition of the Alcibiades scenes. In fact, this
last part of the dialogue —the Third Act, as we have called —might
it

be construed as suggesting an entirely different motif, — namely, lauda-

tion of Socrates in general, or perhaps rather (as Wolf argued) a
defence of Socrates against the more specific charge of unchastity.
 ;

INTRODUCTION Ixv

That this is one purpose of the dialogue is beyond dispute : many

indications testify, as has been shown, that Plato intended here to
offer an apologiam p^'o vita Socratis. Yet it would be a mistake to
argue from this that the main design of the dialogue as a whole lies in

this apologetic. Rather it is necessary to combine the leading idea of

this last Act with those of the earlier Acts in such a way as to reduce
them, as it were, to a common denominator. And when we do this,

we find — as I agree with Riickert in believing —that the dominant

factor common to all three Acts is nothing else than the personality
of Socrates, — Socrates as the ideal both of philosophy and of love,
Socrates as at once the type of temperance and the master of magic.
Our study of the framework as well as of the speeches has shown us
how both the figure of Socrates and his theory dominate the dialogue,
and that to throw these into bolder relief constitutes the main value
of all the other theories and figures. This point has been rightly
emphasized by Riickert (p. 252): “utique ad Socratem animus ad-
vei'titur ;
quem omnes circummeant, cuius
quasi sol in medio positus,
luce omnia collustrantur, vimque accipiunt vitalem, Socrates pro-
ponitur, et Socrates quidem philosophus, sapiens, temperans. Quem
iuxta multi plane evanescunt, ceteri vix obscure comparent, ipse
Agatho, splendidissimum licet sidus ex omnibus, ut coram sole luna
pallescit.”

It seems clear, therefore, that the explanation of the “ Hauptzweck ”

of our dialogue which was given long ago by Schleiermacher is the
right one — “ propositum est Platoni in Convivio ut philosophum
qualem in vita se exhiberet, viva imagine depingeret”: it is in the
portrait of the ideal Socrates that the main object of the dialogue is to
be sought.
The theory of Teichmiiller and Wilamo^vitz as to the occasion on
which the dialogue was produced has no direct bearing on the question
of design. They suppose that it was written specially for recital at
a banquet in Plato’s Academy ;
and, further, that it was intended to
provide the friends and pupils of Plato with a model of what such
a banquet ought to be. But it would be absurd to estimate the design
of a work of literary art by the temporary purpose which it subserved
nor can we easily suppose that Plato’s main interest lay in either
imagining or recording gastronomic successes as such. Equally un-
proven, though more suggestive, is the idea of Gomperz that this

dialogue irepl epcoros was inspired by an affection for Dion.

 —

Ixvi INTRODUCTION

§ viii. The Date,

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

(a) That the date of the Banquet is B.c. 416 (01. 90. 4) is
asserted by Athenaeus (v. 217 a) ;
6 p,er yap (sc. ' KyaOtav) iirl dp^ovros
Ei</>i7 /jioii (TTe(f>avovTai Arjvaiois. It is true, as Sauppe and others have
pointed out, that the description in 175 E (iv p,dpTV(ji...Tpto-/xvptots, cp.

223 B n.), would suit the Great Dionysia better than the Lenaea ;
but
this discrepancy need not shake our confidence in the date assigned by
Athenaeus. The year 416 agrees with the mention of Agathon as
veos (175 b), and of Alcibiades as at the height of his influence (216 b)
before the ill-fated Sicilian expedition.

(b) The date of the prefatory scene may be approximately fixed

from the following indications: (1) It was a considerable number of
years after the actual Banquet (ov vecocTi 172 c, TratSuv dvTwr ijp.wv ert

173 a); (2) several years (ttoAXo. err] 172 c) after Agathon’s departure
from Athens ; (3) within three years of the commencement of Apollo-
dorus’ close association with Socrates (172 c); (4) before the death
of Socrates (as shown by the pres, tense o-urSiarpt/Jco 172 0 ); (5) before
the death of Agathon (as shown by the perf. iTriSeS-^firjKev 172 c).
It seems probable that Agathon left Athens about 408, at the
latest, and resided till 399 at the court of Archelaus of Macedonh

Hence any date before 399 will satisfy the two last data. And since
the two first data demand a date as far removed as possible from the
years 416 and 408, we can hardly go far wrong if we date the dramatic
setting circ. 400 b.c.

(c) We
come now to the more important question of the date of
composition. The external evidence available is but slight. A posterior
limit is afforded by two references in Aristotle (Pol. ii. 4. 1262’’ 12 :

de An. ii. 415“^ 26), a possible allusion by Aeschines (in Timarch.

345 B.C.), and a probable comic allusion by Alexis in his Phaedrus (ap.
Athen. xiii. 562 a) a work which probably cannot be dated before
370 at the earliest.

The internal evidence is more extensive but somewhat indefinite.

It is commonly assumed^ that in 193 A lfmKl<T&r]pev...KaKi^aLpovl<xiv)

1 Fritzsche’s view that Ar. Ran, 72 implies the previous death (i.e. ante 405) of
A. is refuted by Eettig, Symp. pp. 59 S.
2 See e.g. Zeller, Plato (E.T.) p. 139 n.; Teiehmuller, Litt. Fehd. ii. 262.
 INTRODUCTION Ixvii

we have a definite reference to the SioiKia-fios of Mantinea in 385 b.c.

But even if this be granted —as I think it must, in spite of the contra-
diction of Wilamowitz — it by no means follows that the dialogue must
be dated 385 — 4. We find Isocrates {Panegyr, 126) mentioning the
same event five years later. All that it affords us is a prior limit.
Little weight can be given to Diimmler’s view that the previous
death of Gorgias (circ. 380) is implied by the allusion to him in 198 c
(Topytov KetjiaXrjv ktA..)^. Nor can we
lay much stress on the conclusions
drawn (by Riickert and others) from the absence of reference to the
re-establishment of Mantinea in 370, or to the exploits of the Theban
“Sacred Band” at Leuctra (371), which (as Hug thinks) might
naturally have been alluded to in 178 e.
The evidence of date afforded by “ stylometric ” observations is not
of a convincing character. M. Lutoslawski, it is true, dogmatically
asserts that the Symposium, stands between the Cratylus and Phaedo
in the “First Platonic Group”; but his arguments, when examined,
prove to be of the most flimsy character. Beyond affording a con-
firmation of the general impression that our dialogue stands somewhere
in the “ middle ” period, the labours of the stylometrists give us little
assistance. If we choose to date it in 390 they cannot refute us, nor
yet if we date it 10 or 15 years later. The question as to whether the
Symposium preceded the Phaedrus or followed it is one of special
number of points at which the two writings
interest in view of the
touch each other. The evidence on the whole seems in favour of the
priority of the Phaedrus'^-, but, even if this be granted, little light

is shed on the date of composition of the Symp., since that of the

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

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

482 fi.

® So I hold with Schleierm., Zeller, I. Bruns, Hahn and others ;

against Lutosl.,
Gomperz and Eaeder. It is monstrous to assert, as Lutosl. does, “ that the date of
the Phaedrus as written about 379 b.c. is now quite as well confirmed as the date of
the Symp. about 385 b.c.” I agree rather with the view which makes Phaedr. P.’s
firstpublication after he opened his Academy, i.e. circ. 388-6 (a view recently
supported in England by E. S. Thompson, Meno xliii ff., and Gifford, Euthyd. 20 ff.).
The foil, are some of the parallels: Ph. 2S2 e = Symp. 181 e, 183 e; 234 a = 183 e;
234b = 183c; 250c = 209e; 251d (240c) = 215 e, 218a; 251a = 215b, 222a; 252a =
189d; 266a = 180e; 267a (273 a) = 200 a; 272a=198d; 276a = 222a; 276e = 209b;
278d=203e; 279b = 216d, 215b.
 — :

Ixviii INTRODUCTION
the two works is obvious, but which of the two is prior in date is

a problem which has called forth prolonged controversy^. This is not

the place to investigate the problem : I can only state my firm opinion
that the Xenophontic Sympos. (whether genuine or not) is the later
work. But attempts to fix its date are little better than guess-work ;

Roquette puts it circ. 380 — 76 ;

Schanz, after 371 ;
K. Lincke {Neue
Jahrh. 1897), after 350.
It will be seen that the available evidence is not suflficient to

justify us in dogmatizing about the precise date of composition of our

dialogue. The most we can say is that circ. 383 —5 seems on the
whole the most probable period.

§ ix. The Text.

(1) Ancient authonties. The chief manuscripts which contain the

text of the Symposium are :

B = codex Bodleianus (or Clarkianus or Oxoniensis) ;

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

1 Among those who claim

priority for Xenophon are Bockh, Ast, Delbriick,
Eettig, Teichmiiller, Hug, Diimmler, Pfleiderer ; on the other side are C. F. Hermann,
I. Bruns, Schenkl, Gomperz. Beside the broader resemblances set forth by Hug,
the foil. refs, to echoes may be of interest
Xen. Plat. Xen. Plat.

i. 1 = 178 A,
197 E iv. 53 =219 B
ii. 23 =213 E, 214 a V. 1,7 =218 E (175 E)
ii. 26 (iv. 24) = 185 c, 198 c viii. 1 = 218 b (187 D)
iv. 14 = 183 A, 184 b, 179 a ,, 8 =219d
„ 15 = 178 E, 179 b, 182 c „ 13 = 184 b
„ 16 = 178 E „ 21 = 214c
„ 17= 181 E, 183 E „ 23 = 183 A (203 b), 172 c
„ 19 (v. 7) =215 A (216 D, 221 n) „ 24 = 217e, 222c
„ 23 = 181 D „ 31 = 179e
„ 25 = 193 d „ 38 = 209 E
„ 28 = 217 E ,, 32 (iv. 16) = 178e
„ 47—8 = 188 D ,, 34 =182b
„ 48 = 188 D „ 35 =179 A,

„ 50 = 189 A, 197 E
The last three parallels are specially interesting, since Xen. ascribes to Pausan.
some of the sentiments which PI. gives to Phaedrus. Possibly (as Hug, Teichm.
and others suppose) both writers are indebted to an actual apologia of the real
Pausan., which PI. is handling more freely, Xen. more exactly (cp. I. Bruns,
Vortrdge, p. 152).
 INTRODUCTION Ixix

W = codex Vindobonensis 54, Suppl. phil. Gr. 7 : Stallbaum’s

Vind. I.

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

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

Since this last authority for the text was not forthcoming until
after the publication of the latest critical text of the Symposiu7)i, I add
the description of it given by the editors : —
“ The part covered is from 200 b [beginning with the word ^ov-
Xot[To] after which 40 lines are lost, thenext words being av erSeia at
the end of 200 e] to the end, comprised in 31 columns, of which four
(xix — xxii) are missing entirely, while two others (i and xviii) are
represented by small fragments ;
but the remainder is in a very fair
state of preservation The small and well-formed but somewhat heavy
writing exemplifies a common type of book hand, and probably dates
from about the year 200 a.d The corrector’s ink does not differ
markedly in colour from that of the text, and in the case of minor
insertions the two hands are at times difficult to distinguish. But as
they are certainly not separated by any wide interval of time the
question has no great practical importance The text, as so often with
papyri, is of an eclectic character, showing a decided affinity with
no single ms. Compared with the three principal witnesses for the
Symposium it agrees now with B against TW, now with the two latter
as against the former, rarely with T against BW' or with W against
BT^. Similarly in a passage cited by Stobaeus some agreements with
his readings against the consensus of BTW are counterbalanced by
a number of variations from Stobaeus’ text®. A few coincidences
occur with variants peculiar to the inferior mss., the more noticeable
being those with Vindob. 21 alone or in combination with Venet. 184^
and Parisin. 1642 alone or with Uat. 229^. Of the readings for which
there is no other authority, including several variations in the order of
the words, the majority, if unobjectionable, are unconvincing. The
more valuable contributions, some of which are plainly superior
to anything found in other mss., are : 1. 92 [201 d] ctt, 1. 112 [202 a]
the omission of Kai (so Stallbaum), 1. 239 [204 b] av €vq, where BTW
have a meaningless av, 1. 368 [206 c] KaXw as conjectured by Badham
1 See crit. notes on 202 a, 203 a, 205 b, 206 b, 207 d, 211c.
^ See crit. notes on 203 b, 211 d, 213 b, 219 e, 220 c (bis).
® See crit. notes on 202 c —203 a.
*
See crit. notes on 201 a {ad Jin.}, 218 n, 220 a, 220 b, 223 c.
® See crit. notes on 206 b {ad init.), 208 a, 223 c.
Ixx INTRODUCTION
for t(5 1. 471 [208 b]
k., as restored by Stephanas (/reTe^ttv
MSS.), 517 [209 a] Te/cetv confirming a conjecture of Hug (Kveiv mss.),
1.

1. 529 [209 b] eiridvfjLT] as conjectured by Stephanas (iiTLOvfxei mss.),

1. 577 [210 a] Kat (TV omitted by mss., 1. 699 [212 a] 6eo(f>iX€i (-rj BTW),
1.770 [213 b] Kari86[v (?) {KaOi^iLv MSs), 1. 898 [218 d] /jloi (probably)
with Vind. 21 (ju.ov BTW), 1. 1142 [222 d] Sia/SaXet as conjectured by
Hirschig (8ia/3dA.^ BTW). On the other hand in many cases the
papyrus once more proves the antiquity of readings which modern
criticism rejects or suspects.”
It may be added that the editors of the papyrus in citing have W
made use of a new collation of that ms. by Prof. H. Schbne of Basel
“ which often supplements and sometimes corrects the report of
Burnet.” And in this edition I have followed the report of W in
their apparatus, where available, while relying elsewhere upon that
given by Burnet.

(2) Modern criticism. Much attention has been paid by Conti-

nental critics during the last century to the text of the Symposium,
and for the most part they have proceeded on the assumption that the
text is by interpolations^. Even Schanz and Hug,
largely vitiated
who may be regarded and cautious critics in comparison
as moderate
with such extremists as Jahn and Badham, have gone to unnecessary
lengths in their use of the obelus. Hug, while admitting that we must
take into account the freedom and variety of Plato’s style and that it

is folly to rob a writer of his individuality by pruning away any and

every expression which is in strict logic superfluous, and while ad-
mitting also that regard must be paid to the characteristic differences
of the various speeches in our dialogue, which forbid our taking any
one speech as the norm with which others should be squared, —yet
maintains that in the speeches, and especially in those of Pausanias
and Socrates, he can detect a number of unquestionable glosses. No
doubt there are some cases in these speeches in which it is not un-
reasonable to suspect intei’polation, but even Hug and Schanz have,
I believe, greatly exaggerated the number of such cases ;
and I agree
with the editor of the Oxford text in regarding the certain instances
of corruption or interpolation as extremely few. Consequently, in the
text here printed I have diverged but seldom from the ancient tradi-
tion, and such changes as I have made have been more often in the

1 E.g. 0. Jahn, Hirschig, Badham, Cobet, Naber, Hartmann. On the other

hand, sensible protests have been made by TeuSel and Vahlen; and Kettig’s text
is, if anything, ultra-conservative.
 : : —

INTRODUCTION Ixxi

direction of verbal alteration than of omission. I have, however,

recorded in the textual notes a selection of the proposed alterations,
futile though I consider most of them to be.

§ X. Bibliography.

The main authorities which I have cited or consulted are^:

i. Texts Bekker (1826), the Zurich ed. (Baiter, Orelli and

Winckelmann, 1839), C. F. Hermann (1851), O. Jahn (1864), Jahn-
Usener (1875), C. Badham (1866), M. Schanz (1881), J. Burnet (1901).
Critical essays or notes by Bast (1794), Voegelin, Naber, Teuffel,
M. Vermehren (1870), J. J. Hartmann (1898).
ii. Annotated Editions: J. F. Fischer (1776), F. A. Wolf (1782),
P. A. Reynders (1825), L. I. Riickert (1829), A. Hommel (1834),
G. Stallbaum (2nd ed. 1836), G. F. Rettig (2 vols. 1875 — 6), A. Hug
(2nd ed. 1884).

iii. Treatises on the subject-matter M. H. L. Hartmann

{Chronol. Symp. PI. 1798), G. Schwanitz (Observ. in PI. Conv. 1842),
M. Lindemann {De Phaedri orat. 1853, De Agath. or. 1871), J. H.

Deinhardt (Ueber den Inhalt u. s. w. von PI. Symp. 1865), M. Koch

{Die Rede d. Sokr. u. das Problem der Erotik, 1886), W. Resl {Ver-
hdltnis der 5 erster in PI. Symp. Reden u.s.w. 1886), C. Boetticher
{Eros u. Erkenntnis bei PI. 1894), C. Schirlitz {Beitrdge z. Erkldrung d.

Rede d. Sokr. u.s.w. 1890), P. Crain {De ratione quae inter PI. Phaedr.
et Symp. intercedat, 1906).
Other more general works consulted are : Teichmiiller {Litt.
Fehden, 1881), F. Horn {Platonstudien, 1893), W. Lutoslawski {Plato's
Logic, 1897), T. Gomperz {Greek Thinkers, E.T. ii. 1905), H. Raeder
{Platons Philos. Entwickeluiig, 1905), J. Adam {Religious Teachers of
Greece, 1908).

iv. Translations: E. Zeller (1857), A. Jung (2nd ed. 1900), B.

Jowett, J. A. Stewart (selections, in The Myths of Plato, 1905).

1 Abbreviations used axe —

Bdhm. = Badham Bt. = Bumet; Jn. = Jahn; J.-U.=
;

Jahn-Usener; Sz. = Schanz; Verm. = Vermehren; Voeg. = Voegelin.

 2 nAATQNOI [172 a

Kol epay')(^6'i ae i^ijrovv /3ov\6fi€vo<; hiairvOeadat rrjv ' Kya-

B 6(ovo^ ^vvovaiav xal ^coKparov^ Kal 'AXKi^idSov kuI twv aWdv
rcov Tore iv rw o-vvhetTtvw Trapayevop^evcov, rrepl rwv ipwTiKcdv
Xoycov TiVe? 'paav. aAAo? yap tJs p-OL BirjyeiTO dKr}KOM<i ^olviko<;
Tov ^lXlttttov, €^7) Se Kal ere eihevai. aKXd yap ovSev et%e era^e?
Xiyeiv. av ovv pLOL SiTjyrjaai" BiKai6TaTO<; yap ei rov<; tov eraipov
X6yov<; dTrayyeXXdtv. TTporepov Be p,oi, if
8’ 09 ,
etVe, av auT09
C Trapeyevov ay avvova'ia ravrp q ov ; Kayo) eiirov on HavTairaaLV
eiv
172 B iv T(a (Tvvbe'nrvco secl. Baiter J.-U. (TvvbeiiTveiv T awbelnva
: W
official style of the address, in which the person designated by the name of
is

his deme, this being the regular practice in legal and formal proceedings (cp.
Gorg. 495 D KaXXtxX^j iepr] ’A;^apreiiy...2coKpdT?yj...6 'AXanre<rj6ev Ar. Nuh. :

134) but (as Stallb. objected) the order of the w'ords in that case should be
;

rather S> ovtos ’A. 6 ^aXrjpevs. Hug also finds iraibid in the hendecasyllabic
rhythm {S> <l>aX. ovtos ’Att.), and the poetic combination S> ovros (Soph. 0. C.
1627, Aj. 89).
(4) Kettig, reading 6 ^aXrjpevs, omits (withBadham) the proper name
’ATToXXoScopoy as an adscript.
This seems, on the whole, the best and simplest
solution. > Glaucon, at a distance behind, feigns ignorance of the identity of
“ the Phalerian,” and shouts after Apollodorus “ Ho there you Phalerian, !

halt,” in a “stop thief ” tone. It is plausible to suppose also that a certain

!

contempt is conveyed in the description ^aXrjpevs (“Wapping-ite”) port- :

towns are often places of unsavoury repute cp. Phaedr. 243 c iv vavrais irov :

reOpappivov Juv. Sat. VIII. 174 “permixtum nautis et furibus ac fugitivis.”

:

Por the summons to halt cp. Ar. Plut. 440 ovtos, tl bpas; S> beiXoTOTov av
Brjplov, ov TTepipeveis ; Thesni. 689 ttoi ttoI av <p(vyeis ; ovtos, ovtos, ov pevels;
I

also Eg. 240, 1354. These passages support the future TrepipevAs rather than
the present “ futurum est fortius imperantis praesens modeste cohortantis
:
;

aut lenius postulantis” (Stallb.). For the future as a lively imperative cp.
175 a, 212 d.
172 B ev Tu (TvvSciirvttf. Similarly in Aristoph. Gerytades {frag. 204 iv
Total avvbelnvois iaaivcov AiaxvXov) avvbenrvov is used for the more precise
avpnoaiov and a lost play of Sophocles bore the title ’Axaicbv avXXoyos rj
:

avvb^LTTvov rj avvbeiTTvoi (see fragg. 146 ffi, Hindf.).

tCv6s qo-av. For phrases of this kind, “ satis libere subjecta orationi,” see
Vahlen, Op. Acad. ii. 393.
4>oCvikos tov #iXCinrou. Nothing is known of this man. See Introd. § ii. a.
SiKaioraTOS "yap ktX. tov eTaipov is almost equivalent to iTalpov ye ovtos,
giving the reason why Apollodorus is biKoioraros.

irape-yevov rpCp. Horn. Od. XVII. 173 Km a(jnv Trapeyiyvero

o-vvovo-£a.

baiTL :and the exordium of the Phaedo (57 a) ovtos, Sr $., irapeyivov ’S.^Kparei
...rj aXXov tov rjKovaas;
“ It is quite evident that his narration was of
navTciirao-iv ?oiK€ coi ktX.
 —

173 A] ZYMnOZION 3

eoiKe (Toi ovSev Sirjyela-dai aa(f)6<; o Birjyov/x6VO<;, el vewarl rjyel Tr]v

(Tvvovcriav yeyovevai TavTrjv rjv ipwra^, ware kcll i/ne Trapaye-

veaOai. "Fjywye Bij, <€^r]>, JlodeVy -pv B' iya>, w VXavKwv ; ovk
olaff OTi TToXkcov irwv ’AydOtov ivddBe ovk iTriBeB'pfMTjKev, d(jj' ov
S’ iyoo ’S.coKpaTei awBiarpL^co Kal iTTifj,e\e<; TreiTolrjfjbai e/cacrr???
r]pLipa<^ elBevat 6 tl av \eyr] rj TrpdrTr], ovBeTrci) rpla ett] iarLv ;

Trpo Tov Be '7repiTpe')(a>v oirp TV')^qijj,t Kal ol6pcevo<; rl Troieiv d6\ico- 173
repo? p oTovovv, prrov •p av vvvl, olop-evo'i Beiv irdvra p,dWov
TrpdrTetv rj <^L\oao<^eiv. Kal o?, aKcoiTT , e(f)7], dXXl elrre pboi

TTore eyeveTO p avvovala avarj. Kayd) eirrov on TlalBcov ovreov

rjpLwv €TL, ore rrj TrptoTr] rpayaBla evLKrjaev "AyaOcov, rf} varepaia
fj
rd i'!rtvLKLa edvev avro'i re Kal ol ')(^opevTai. Ildvv, ^(prj, dpa
172 C Athenaeus, Sz.
Ko/ie eyw ye S17, ecprj Bt. e’y<» ye 8rj : BTW : e’yw
yap Athen. eycoye yap,
e(prj(v) : Voeg. eycoy', €(pr] BdhjH. : &5 Avkcov
Athen. eV^aSe om. Athen. 173 Tb: pv pr. B; p Wt A ?? vvv TW
‘4tl ovtcov T)pS>v Athen. irpaTp om. Athen. ro nparov Usener : 17 om.
Priscian p p T p Sz.
; TamvlKia Cobet
:

the vaguest kind.” here the infin. of Sipyeiro.

8ipyeta-6ai is The emphatic
repetition of ov8ev (ra(p4s a ground for suspecting that the reference is to a
is

published account in which the facts were distorted.

172 C nd0ev...t5 rXavKojv; “What makes you think so, Glaucon?” There
is an implicit negation in the question put thus: cp. Gorg. 471 D, Menex. 235c.

This Glaucon is perhaps the same as the father of Charmides [Charm. 154 a,
etc.), but probably not the same as the Glaucon of the Republic, though

Bockh and Munk would identify the two.

TToXXcov Itwv kt\. For the bearing of this passage on the dramatic date of
this prologue, see Introd. § viir.
liri|i€X6s •ir6iroiT]|xai...el8€vai. The nearest Platonic parallel for this con-
struction is Ep. vii. 334 a •Tr6K\dis...vpvfiv Taira eVi/xeXes.
173 A Tr6pi.Tpex«v o-n-T) tijxo'-II'’) with no fixed principle of conduct,
“like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed.” Cp. Twi. 43b
draKTcof o-n-p tvxoi Trpotevai : Seneca de vita beata i. 2 “ quamdiu quidem
passim vagamur non ducem secuti...conteretm’ vita inter errores brevis,” etc.
olopcvos tI iroveiv. For ti, magnum quid, cp. 219 c, Phaedr. 242 E, etc.
naiSwv ovTuv Tjpwv ?Ti. Sc. Apollodorus and Glaucon. Plato, too, bom
about 427 b.c., was a nais at the date of Agathon’s victory (416 b.c.).
vg irpuTT) rpaytoSia. “ Eespicit Plato ad tetralogias ” (Reynders).
TT) •u(rT6pa£a g. For this (compendious) construction cp. Thuc. i. 60
Teo’O’apaK.oa-Tp ppipq varepov ...p HorLbaia dirlarp (with Shilleto’s note);
Lys. XIX. 22.
rd liriviKia y0vev. “ Made a sacrificial feast in honour of his victory.” On
this occasion it was the author himself who provided the feast and offered the
sacrifice. Sometimes however it was the Choregus [e.g. Ar. Ach. 886), and
1—2
 ; ;

4 nAATQNOI [173 A
TrdXai, ft)? eocK€V. aXXa rt? aoi Bcrjiyelro ^ ayro? ^coKpdrrjf; ; Qv
B p-d Tov Ai'a, 17D S’ ijo), dXX’ ocr'irep ^olvlkl' ’AptaToBrjpo'; Ti?,

Ku8a0?/j/atey?, apiKp 6 <;, dvvTToBrjro^ deL- Trapeyeyovec B’ iv tt}

avvovala, ^(OKpdrov^ ipaarrj'f dov iv toI<; pdXiara tojv Tore, &>?

ipol BoKel. ov pivTOi dTCKa Kal ^coKpdTt] ye evia ^Brj dvTjpoprjv
(ov eKelvov 7]Kovaa, KaL poi wpoXoyei Kaddirep iKeivo<; BirjyeiTO. Tt
ovv, €(prj, ov Bir)yr](rci) poi TraDTft)? Be 97 0S09 77 et? darv eTriTTjBeia
'iropevopevoL’i Kal Xeyeiv Kal aKovetv.
C OvTco Br) iODTe? dpa rou? X6yov<i irepl avrSiv eiroLOvpeda, coare,
OTvep dp^6pevo<; elirov, ovk dpeXeTrjTW^ vplv
Bi'qyrjaaadai, ravra ')(pr) TTOtelv. Kal yap eycoye Kal dXX(0 <;, orav
pev Tiva<; irepl ^iXoao(j)ca<; Xoyovi ^ auro? Troicopat rj dXXcov

173 A TL TW B aWocTTrep BT dvvnobrjros T Ast

Trapayeyovei BT om. T
Kal bir^yr^ap W ; Siijyrj a-v vulg. fie

om. al.
:
ye J.-U. :
yap Susemihl C bet: 8oKel Hirschig

sometimes the friends of the successful competitor (e.g. Xen. Symp. i. 4).
Similarly at Rome it was customary for the dux gregis to entertain his troupe
after a victory (see Plaut. Rud. 1417 IF.).
173 B ’ApnrTd8T]n.os. See Introd. § 11 a. .

Kv8a0T|vaievs. Schol. Kvbad^vaiov • brjpos iv aarei Tr/s Ylavbiovlbos (jivXrjs.

KoXe'iTaL be Kal Kvbadov. The poet Aristophanes deme. also belonged to this
dvvirdSTjTos. In this peculiarity A. imitated Socrates, see 174 a, 220 b,
Ar. Nub. 103 tovs dwTrob^Tovs Xeyets- wv 6 KaKobaipwv ^(OKparijs Kal
|

Xatpe<})5)v, ibid. a peculiarity which would apjjeal to disciples

362. It is
with a penchant for the simple life, such as those of the Cynic persuasion.
epao-Tiis. “An admirer.” Cjj. the application of eralpos in 172 b supra.
«K«£vov...4K€ivos. Both pronouns refer to the same person, Aristodemus.
The statement here made is not without significance, see Introd. § II. A.
TC OVV...OII 8 it) 7 i^o-w. “Haec interrogatio alacritatem quandam animi et
aviditatem sciendi indicat” (StaUb.). Cp. Meno 92 D (with E. S. Thompson’s
note, where a full list of the Platonic exx. is given).
TrdvTws 8s ktX. “ For to be sure,” confirming the preceding clause with a

new argument. A good parallel is Laws i. 625 A vavTois b' fj ye eK Kvaxrov

obos eis TO TOV Aids dvTpov Kal lepov, toy aKovopev, iKavr].

173 C oirep See 172 A ad init.

dpxopsvos etirov.

el ovv 8et...xpii- Tte comma

is better placed before ravra, with Usener

and Burnet, than after it, with Hug and earlier editors. similar turn of A
expression is Soph. Track. 749 el )(^prj padeiv ere, ndvra brj (fxovelv ypeeiv.
avT^s iroiaipai. Here Apollodorus seems to claim to be no mere disciple,
but himself an exponent of philosophy. So far as it goes this might indicate
that Apollodorus represents the real author, Plato. For A.’s delight in
philosophic Xdyot, cp. what is said of Phaedrus in Phaedr. 228 B, where Socr.
too is called 6 voawv rrepl Xoycov.
173 d] lYMnOZION 5

axovu), '^copl<; rov oteaOai, w(^€\eiadai VTrepcfyvcb^ eo? 'xalpw orav

Se dWov<; TLvd^, dXkax; re Kal tou? vpLeripov^ tou? rSyv ifKavaLav
/cal ^p7]fiaTC(TTtK(av, avro'f re d')(6opiaL vp,d^ re rov<; eraipov^ eKew,
on oieaOe rl Troteiv ovSev rroLovvre'i. Kal i'aco^ av v/xet^ ip,e D
rj'yelade KUKoSaip-ova eivai, Kal oiopcat vp,d^ aX7}dr] oteaOai' ijM
puevroL vpcd<; ovk oto/xav dW ev olBa.
ETAI. ’Aet oytioio? el, w ’ATroWoBcope' del yap aavrov re
KaKrjyopel'i Kal rov<; dX\ov<i, Kal BoKei<; p. 0 L dre')^vd)<; rrdvra^
d6\i'ov<; rjyelaOaL rr'K^v ScoKpdrovi, drrb aavrov dp^dfievo^. Kal
173 C xprjfiaTiaTociv vulg. D rj-yeirde Coisl. : fjyelcrdai BT

tnrep<^v<3s ws This may be explained as a mixture of two con-

structions, viz. (1) iircpcfives imv
as )(aLpco, (2) {nrepcjyvas )(a[pco: it is found
also in Gorg. 496 c, Pkaedo 66 a, Theaet. 155 c (but in all these places some
codd. and edd. omit as).
XP'npaTi.oTiKfijv. For this word in the masc., “money-makers,” cp. Rep.
581 C o ye x^prjpaTKTTiKos npos to KepSaiveiv ttjv tov Tipaadai ^dovrjv rj ttjv tov
pavdaveiv ovdevos a^iav (j)^(Tei avrav apyvpiov Troiei
eivai, el prj also
eX ri :

Phaedr. 248 D. In Meno 78 c (dya6a...)(^pva'lov \eya koi dpyipiov KTaadai) we

have an expression of the sentiments of a ;^p7;/xart(rriKds. For ApoUodorus’
sentiment, cp. Isocr. C. Soph. 291 D Xeyovn pev as oidA Seovrai xpripdrav,
dpyvplSiov Kal xp'oriSiov rov ttXovtov dTTOKoXovvres (where the ref. is probably
to Antisthenes) cp. also what Alcib. says of Socr., 216 e, 219 e.
: The gloss-
hunting critics, strangely enough (as Vahlen remarks), have left the words
vpds Tovs eralpovs unscathed.
173 D dXT]0Tj ot€o-0ai.. oiea-Bai here is substituted for rjyeXa-Sai, and the
following OVK o’lopai is in antithesis, not to the o’Lopai preceding, but to
rjyeiaBe. ApoUodorus, conscious of his inferiority to Socrates, his ideal, is
wiUing to admit that he is not as yet wholly evBalpav.
dXX’ ev otSa. Sc. on KOKodatpoves eare. For this exposure of the true
condition of “the children of this world” who are evdalpoves in their own
conceit, and despise others, one may cite Apoc. iii. 17 “Thou sayest, I am
rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing; and knowest not
that thou art wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.”
’Ael o|ioios et. “Semper tibi hac in re constas” (Stallb.): “you are quite
incorrigible.” So below we have del toiovtos eZ Cp. Charm. 170 a dXX’ eya
KcvSvveva del opoios eivai.

drexvws irdvras. This seems to be the sole instance in Plato of this

combination “all without exception”; but cp. Rep. 432 a di ohijs dre^ras
rerarai.
d0X£ovs. Here a synonym for Ka<o8alpovas, the word used above. Cp.
Meno 78 a tovs Be ddXlovs ov Ka<o8atpovas ; Oipai eyaye...Tl yap dXXo eanv
dffXiov eivai rj eTTidvpelv re Tav KaKav Kal KTacrOai;
TrXiiv “Save Socrates only”; notice the emphasis on these
StoKparovs.
words, repeated twice. We may discern, perhaps, in this an allusion, by way
 — ; —

6 nAATQNOI [173 D

OTToOev TTore ravTrjv rr^v eTrcovvfiLav eXa^e^ to iJ,avLKo<; KaXeladai,

ovK olha eywye’ iv fiev yap toZ? X6yoi<; del TOioOro? ei' aavTM re
Kal Tot? dXXoit dypiaivei<; ttXtjv Xco/cpaTou?.
E AnOA. ^tXTare, Kal SfjXov ye Srj on ovtco 8iavoovpievo<;
Kal irepl epuavTov Kal nrepl vpLcov p,aLvop.at Kal irapairaLW
ETA I. OvK d^iov Trepl tovtcov, ’ ATroXXoBcope, vvv ipl^eiv
dXX' oirep eBe6p,edd crov, pu^ dXXco<; 'rroir]ar]<;, dXXd Bi')jyr]aao rivet;

^aav ol XoyoL.
AnOA. ’Ho-az/ TOLvvv eKelvoL roiolBe rive '; pidXXov S’

VL
173 D juaXoKos TW :
na^anos B, Naber. ovk : ev Bast /xev yap:
pev ye Bdhm. Sz. :
pivT apa Mdvg. E {S>) ’ATToXXdSajpe Method. Sz.

of antithesis, to the Karrjyopia ^(OKpdrovs of the sophist Polycrates (see

Introd. § II. a).
TO jiaviKos KaXei(r0ai. There can be doubt {pace Naber) that paviKos,
little

not pdXaKos, is the true reading: it is supported by the words paivopm kol
TrapaTralm in Apollodorus’s reply. Stallbaum supposes an ellipse of some
such phrase as SoKetr Se Xa^elv avroOev before iv pev yap kt\., and (with
Wolf) explains pavi<6s as referring to the vehemence and excess of Apol-
lodorus both in praise and blame cp. Polit. 307 b, and Apol. 21 a where
:

Chaerephon (termed paviKos in Charm. 153 b) is described as atpoSpos i(jy o n

opprjo-eiev. But the connexion of the sentence iv piv yap kt\. with the
preceding clause is better brought out by Hug ; he supplies (after ovk olba)
“ so ganz ohne Grund wirds wohl nicht sein,” so that the line of thought is
“ Though I do not know exactly why you got the nickname fanatic yet in ‘
’

—
your speeches at any rate you do something to justify the title.” For a
similar use of piv yap cp. Polit. 264 C iv piv yap rdts Kpijvais Td)( dv icras
f’lrjs yadrjpivos. For paviKos cp. also Meno 91 c where Anytus regards napa
aotpiards iXdf2v as a sign of pavla: and Acts xxvi. 24 Malv-p naCXe* rd TToXXd
ere ypdppara els pavlav rreperpeVet.
dypiatveis. “ Rage like a wild beast,” “ snarl and snap.” Cp. Rep. 493 b
{dpippa peya) r^pepovrai re koi aypiaiveL.
173 E ''O <l>CXTaT6 ktX. Ironical “ Why, — my very dear Sir, it is surely

quite obvious that in holding this view about myself and others I display
”
madness and eccentricity !

irapairaCaj. A dita^ elprjpivov in Plato. For the musical metaphor cp.

Ophelia’s “ I see that sovereign and most noble reason. Like sweet bells
jangled, out of tune and harsh.”
Ovk d|iov...ep£S€i.v. “We mustn’t quarrel.” iplCeiv, though here used
jocularly, is properly a strong term, cp. Prot. 337 b dp(j>ia-l3rjTe'Lv piv, ipl^eiv
di pi] : dXXd diaXeyeadat (see Adam ad loc.).
Rep. 454 A ovk ipl^eiv,

pidXXov 8’. Instead of beginning at once with the speech of Phaedrus,

Apollodorus proceeds to give an account of the preliminary incidents which
led up to the Xdyot. For the significance of this, see Intvod. § ii. a.
 .

174 b] lYMnOZlON 7

apyfjt; ifiiv o)? e’/ceti'o? SiTjyeiro Kal ijM TreLpdaopai Sirjy^- 174
(raadai.
II. ''E<f)7j yap ol %(OKpd.Tr] evTV)(^elv \e\ovp,kvov re Kal rd'i

/3\avTa<; vTToSeSepivov, a iKeivo<; 6\tydKi<; eTTolec' Kal ipeadai

avrov OTTOL loc ovtco KaXb<; yeyevrjpevo^;. Kal rov elirelv on ’EttI
beiTTVov 6t? 'Ayddcovo';. ^6e<; yap avrov Bcicjivyov rot? iTriviKLOi^,
(t}o/3rj6el^ rov d^Xov dpoXoyrjaa S' el'i njpepov Trapea-eadai. ravra
Bt] iKaW(i)7rLcrdp,T]v, iva /caXo? rrapd KaXbv tw. dWd av, y 8 09, ’

TTw? e;^ei9 Trpo? to ideXeiv av ievau aKXrjro^; eVt Belrrvov ; Kayoo, B

174 A a: 6 Hertlein (I) ipeadai Voeg. Sz. r^pepov: rrjv

(rrjpepovvulg. B f 6 iXeiv av secl. Cobet Jn. av le’vai Steph. : dvievat BT

e| apxTis...ir€ipd(ro[jiai. SiTjyijcrao-Oai. The same formula occurs in Phaedo

59 c, Euthyd. 272 d, Epist. vii. 324 b.

174 A
’'E<j>ii 7 dp. Sc. 6 ’ApiaroSrjpos. The whole narrative of the dialogue
from this point on is dependent upon this initial ecprj and therefore written in
or. obliqua. ol {sibi) = 'ApLa-To8ppa.
XcXovpe'vov.For the practice of bathing and anointing before meals see
—
Horn. Od. VI. 96 7, Xen. Symp. i. 7: Ai’. Plut. 614 evai^(ia'6ai...\ova'a.pevos,
XtTrapor A SdXaveiov. The comic poets were fond of gibing at Socrates
and philosophers in general as “unwashed,” e.g. Ar. Av. 1554 dXoaros oS
yjrvxaycoyei ’ScoKparijs id. Eub. 835 fF.
: Aristophon ap. Mein. iii. 360 ; fl’.

Aiistotle, however, was a champion of the bath, Athen. 178 r aTTperres yap
Tjv, (prja'tv 'ApLorordXrjS {fr. 165), fjKeLv els to avpiroaiov avv tbpcoTi TroXXdi
KOI KOVLOprO}.
Tos pXavras- Schol. S^avras' VTrob^para. ol be ^Xavrla, eravbdXia laxvd.
For Socrates’ habit of going barefoot, see 220 B infra, Phaedr. 229 a, Xen.
Mem. I. 6. 2, and the note on dwirob-qros, 173 B supra.
Taira Stj eKoXXoiirio-dpiiv. ravra is better taken (with Hug and Hommel)
as accus. of “internal object” than (with Stallb.) as accus. of “remoter
object,” equiv. to Sid ravra (cp. Prot. 310 e). Elsewhere in Plato KaXXarrL-
Ceadai means to “ plume oneself,” “ swagger,” e.g. Rep. 605 D. Observe the
word-play :
“ I have put on my finery, because he is such a fine man ”
(Jowett): cp. the proverb dpoios opolcp (195 b).
irapd KoXdv. Sc. 'AydPeova —
“to Agathon’s (house)”; equiv. to els ’Ayd-
daivos above. For “the handsome Agathon,” see Prot. 315 D E {rrjv Ibeav —
TTavv KoXos), Av. Tkesm. 191 ff.

7r“S irpds ktX. Cp. 176 B rrSts ex^i Trpos to eppaxrOai rriveiv ; Prot.
352 Parm. 131 E.
B, Cobet’s excision of edeXeiv ilv is wanton : cp. (with Ast)
Phaedo 62 C r'o rovs (piXoaocfiovs pableos av edeXeiv arrodvr^erKeiv
174 B aKXtiTos. The jester {yeXeoToiTOLos) who frequents feasts as an
uninvited guest seems to have been a stock character in Epicharmus and ;

in Xen. Symp. Philippus is a person of this type. Araros the comic poet
was, apparently, the fii-st to dub them Trapdairoc. Cp. also Archil. 78. 3 ov8e
 :

8 nAATQNOI [174 B

€(j)T], eiTTOV OTL OvTQ><i OTTO)? du (TV Ke\6Vr}<;. '^EtTOU ToLvVV, €(f)r],

Lva Kal T7]v irapoifjLiav Scacjideipw/Mev p,€Ta^dWdvT€<;, eo? dpa koX

174 B fjLeralBdWovTes B, Athen., Sz. :

/xerajSaXovref T, Bt.

jjLfjv KXrjde'ts (vcf)' fjfjiSiv) ^\6es, oia 8fj (jiiKos ; and Pint. Q. Conv. vii. 6. 1, p. 707 b

TO Be tS>v cttikX^tiov e6os, ovs vvv “ cKids ” KaXoveriv, ov KeKXr]fji.evovs avTovs,

dXX' VTTo Toov KeKXrjfjievav en'i to Belnvov dyo(j.evovs, e^rjTelro rrodev ea-^f T^v
dp)(rjv. eSoKet 8’ ApKTToBrjpov dvanelcravTos ov KCKXrjpevov eh
otto ScoKpdrovy
’ AydOwvos airS ko'i Tradovra “ rt yeXoiov” (see 174 C, with note). In
livai crvv
Lat. vocare is similarly used of “inviting” {aliquem ad cenam Ter. And. 2. 6.
22), and invocatus = cIkXijtos in Plant. Capt. 1. 1. 2 (“invocatus soleo esse in
convivio ”).

8ia<|)0elpa)(ji,6v perapaWovTcs. Biacjidelpa sometimes used of “ spoiling ” or

is
“ stultifying ” a statement or argument, Gorg. 495 a, Prot. 338 d. And
e.g.

pera^dXXeiv of linguistic alteration (transposition, etc.), as in Cratyl. 404 c

{^ep(re(j)6vri for ^eppe(j)aTTa).
ws apa ktX. The force of dpa is to indicate that the proverb, when
amended, “ still, after all ” holds good. Two forms of the proverb are extant,
viz. (1) avTopoToi 8’ dyado'i SciXwv eVt Balras ’Lain (see Schol. ad h. 1., Athen.
IV. 27) ;
and (2) avroparoi 8’ dyaOo'i dyaGiov en'i Balras laai. The latter form is
vouched for by the poeta anon, quoted by Athen. i. 8 a (Bergk P. L. G. p. 704),
dyados rrpos dyadovs dvBpas elanaadpevos Bacchyl. fr. 33 (22 Blass)
f/Kov
avToparoi 8’ dyaddov 8a'tTa^ ev6)(^dovi enep^ovTai BIkuloi (pwres [cp. Zenob. II. 19
avToparoi 8 dyado'i dyaddv <Te. • ovtios 6 BaK)(^vXLBr]S e’yp^traro Tp napoipia, cos
UpaKXeovs eVtf^otrj^o'ai'ror en'i r^u o'lKiav Ktjvkos tov Tpa)(ivwv ko'i ovtcos
elnovTos^: Cratinus fr. Ill (Mein.) oiB' avd’ fjpeis, wy o naXaios Xdyoy, avTO- I

pdrovs dyadovs levai Kop'^cov eVi Saira dearcov also a number of post-Platonic
|
:

passages cited by Hug, such as Pint. Q. Conv. vii. 6 ad fin. According to the
Scholiast (1) is the original form, which was altered (peraXXd^as) to (2) by
Cratinus and Eupolis and this is the view adopted by Stallbaum, Eettig and
;

others. But Hug’s elaborate investigation of the matter proves convincingly,

I think, that the Scholiast is wrong and that the form with dyado'i dyadS>v
was the original, of which the form with dyo^oi BeiXcdv is a parody by Eupolis
(or Cratinus). This view, first suggested by Schleiermacher, is also supported
by Bergk (ad Bacchyl. fir. 33) : “Schol. Plat. Symp. 174 b a vero aberrat cum
dicit a principio BeiXSiv eVl Batras fuisse, quamquam fidem habuerunt cum
alii turn Muller Bor. ii. 481 ; neque enim par fuit Herculem tarn gravi
opprobrio hospitem laedere. Eupolis primus, ut videtur, ludibundus BeiXdov
substituit. Locum difificilem Platonis, qui false criminatur Homerum cor-
rupisse proverbium quod ille omnino non respexit, nemodum probabiliter
expedivit. Alia varietas, quam nostri homines commenti sunt, BeiXo'i BeiXS>v,

Omni auctoritate destituta est.” The main difficulty in the way of accepting
this view lies in the words Biacpdelpcopev pera^dXXovres. For even if (with most
modern editors) we accept Lachmann’s brilliant conjecture 'Ayadoov'(i), the
change thus involved is so slight that it could hardly be called a Biacpdopd,
nor could the alteration involved in the Homeric account be spoken of as a
 — ; : —

174 c] ZYMnOIlON 9

“
'A<yd6(ov eVt Satra? ia<Tcv avrof^aroi djadoL.” "OiJ,r)po<^ puev •yap

KivBvvevei ov p,6vov Bia<j)6eipai, dXXd Kal v^piaau et? ravTrjv r^v

Trapoip,lav’ 7roiT]aa'i yap rbv ' Ayap.ip,vova 8ia^€p6vTQ)<; dyadbv
dvSpa TO. TToXepLiKd, rbv Be Alevekewv “ fmXOa/cbv al'XpbTjTpv”

QvaLav 'TToiovpuevov Kal ecrioiz^TO? tov ' Ayap,ep,vovQ<; aKXrjrov eTToir]-

aev eXObvTa rbv M.epeXeo)v eTrl rrjv doLvrjv, xeipo) ovra eVt t^v tov

174 B 'Ayd6a>v' Lachmann : dyaOcdv BT 8ia<f)ep6vTais + dvdpa + Ka'i

iariSivTos om. Athen.

double one {Bia(f)6e'ipat Ka'i v^plaai). The former objection, if it stood alone,
might be obviated by the device of inserting prj before dia(f)deip(opev but in
view of the passage as a whole this device is inadmissible. We seem forced
to conclude that, whatever the original form of the proverb may have been
(and as to this Hug’s view is probably right), the form which Plato had here
in mind was the form (1) given by Eupolis and if Plato knew this form to :

be only a parody of the original (2), we must suppose further that the serious
way in which he deals with it, as if it really were a “ wise saw,” is only a
piece of his fun —a playful display of Socratic irony. (Cp. Teuffel, Rhein.
Mus. XXIX. pp. 141 — 2.)

’A'yd0tav’...a‘Ya0oi. For the dative cp. Prot. 321 C diropovvTL Se avTW ep)(eTai
UpoprjOevs. Similar exx. of paronomasia occur in 185 c, 198 c, Gorp. 513 b
and Demus, sou of Pyrilampes), Rep. 614 B (okKipos, Alcinous) cp. :

Eiddell Digest § 323. Teuffel {loc. cit.) jirefers to retain aya6S>v, partly
because of the plur. dairas, partly to avoid the elision of the iota but neither
of these objections is serious, and as to Balras, the feast in question lasted at

least two days, which might in itself suffice to justify the plural. Jowett’s
transl. implies that he retains aya65>v and supposes (1) to have been the
original form of the jiroverb “demolished” by Socr. and Homer.
"0|iT]pos |iJv yap. The antithesis r}p€is Se povov BtacpdeLpopev, or the like
is easily supplied from the context : for piv yap, elliptical, cp. 176 c, and 173 d
supra. The suggestion that Homer wilfully distorted a proverb which in his
day was non-existent is, as Hug observes, obviously jocose.
vppCcrai. The word may retain a flavour of its juridical sense “liable to —
a criminal prosecution for assault and battery”: and if so, Sta(j)df Tpa too may
Homer is chargeable not only with seducing
hint at the crime of “seduction.”
but with committing a criminal assault upon the virgin soundness of the
proverb.
174 0 pa\0aK6v alxpTnjv. “ A craven
spearman.” II. xvii. 587 olov Brj
MeveXaov os to ndpos
vireTpecras, paXdaKos alxprjrrjs. pa\6a<6s, as a
Trep \

variant for paXaKos, is used by P. also in 195 d, Phaedr. 239 c. Both forms,
MereXccuy and MevAaof, are found in Attic prose; the latter, e.g., in Euthyd.
288 c. In Athenaeus v. 3, 188 b we have a criticism of this treatment of
Menelaus.
oCkXtitov liroCT)tr€v €X06vTa. See II. II. 408 avroparos hi oi pXdf ^or/i/ dyados
Mere'Xaos; cp. Athen. V. 178 A. Thus the v^pis with which Homer is charged
 , : :

10 nAATQNOI [174 c

a/j.eLvovo'i. ravr dKOvcra<; elirelv ecjir) ’^Icro)? fievToi KLvhvvevao) Kal

ijd) ov-)(^ ft)? av Xeyecf, u) SdoKpare^;, dWd Ka6’ "Ofirjpov c^aOXo? twD
eTTL ao<f)ov av8po<; levao dotvpv dK\7}T0<;. Spa ovv dyatv p,e tL diro-
D Xorypar}, ft)? eycb p,ev ov^ opLoXoyrjaco dK\7}To<; rjKetv, dW'
viro aov
KeKXrjp^evo^. “ Ivv re 8v,” e<^7}, “ ip')(op,evo} irpo 6 rov” ^ovXev-
aopueda o tl ipovpLev. dWd ctop^ev.

TotaOr’ arra a(f}a<f ecpp BiaXe')^devTa<; levac. rov ovv ’^coKpaTT]

eavTCp TTCt)? TTpoce^oDTa tov vovv Kara rpv oBov TropeveaOai vtto-
Xetiropbevov, Kal 7repip,evovTo<; ov KeXeveiv TrpolevaL et? to TrpoaOev.
eTreiBrj Be jeviadai eVt rfj oIklo, tj} ' KydOtovo^, dve(pyp.€i^v Kara-
E Xap^dveiv t^v 6vpav, Kal ti e^rj avroOi yeXolov rraOelv. ot p,€V
yap ev6v<; TralBa nva evBodev diravT'pcravTa dyetp ov KareKeivTO oi
dXXoi, Kal KaraXapb^dvecv ijSp p,€XXovTa<; Beiirvelv’ ev6u^ B' ovv

174 G Spa...Ti Bdhm. : apa...Ti B: apa...Ti T (rt W) dyayoiv Creuzer

D 6 TOV Gottleber (Horn. K 224) : 68ov BTW : om. Hermog. dXXa ia>p€v
T: d\r iiopev B TTopsvopfvov V7ro\fi7rea6ai Rohde Sz. Se (e) Cobet Sz.
S’ e Baiter J.-U. E oi Photius, b : ol BT : t6v W {rav} i'vSodev
Person Sz. J.-U. Bt. : tS>v evbov Photius, Jn.

consists in making not an dyaOos but a paXdaKos (=d€iX6s) come okXjjtoi

ayadSiv etrl Salray.

em croiftov dvSpos. aoipos, “ accomplished,” was “ a fashionable epithet of

praise in Plato’s time, especially applied to poets” (see Eep. 331 e, 489 b,
with Adam’s notes).
This correction of the traditional apa...Ti is certain. Cp.
opa oSv ktX.
189 a opa TlPkaedo 86 D Spa ovv...Ti (fiTjcropev. For the dangers of
iroicly :

violating etiquette on such occasions, see Ar. Av. 983 avrap inr^v aKXqros flf.

la>v avdpmTTOs dXa^wv \vTrrj ffvovras koX (rTrXayxvevfiv iTTiOvpfj, Sj) rove
\ |

TVTTTeiv avTov nXfvpmv to peva^v.

174 D Svv T€ 8u’ ktX. See II. x. 224 (Diomedes loq.) o-vj> re Sv' ipxopivat
Kai re npo 6 tov ivorjo'ei' |
oTTTras KepSos erj. The same ver.ses are quoted more
exactly in Prot. 348 c : cp. also Arist. Pol. ill. 1287'’ 13 ;
Cic. ad fam. ix. 7.

For exx. of how Plato “variis modis multis afiert aliena,” see Vahlen Op.
Acad. I. pp. 476 ff’.

iirciSf 81 ytyeVOai. The infin. in place of the indie, is due to assimilation

cp. Rep. 614 b i'cjjr] de, ineiSrj ov €K^rjvai Trjv fropevecrdai see Goodwin
G. M. T. § 755.
174 E Kai Ti...-yeXotov Trafieiv. It was an awkward situation in smart
society. Cp. Plut. Conv. 6 p. 628 eXa^e yap Kara TTjV 68ov vnoXei(f)dels o
^coKpdrrjS, 6 8e TrapfKT^XBev dTf;^i'5s TKid it po^aSi^ovaa adipaTos i^otria-Oe to

(f>a>s exovTos.
ot (sibi) goes with diravTi]o-avTa. Person’s insertion (from Photius) of tS>v
before SvboBev is no improvement is to be taken with : tvSod^v divavTr^aavTa,
and there is no indication that there were any e^aO^v nalSes.
 •

175 a] lYMnOZION 11

0)9 IBelv Tov ' Ayddcova, ’ H ,

<f)dvai, ’Api<TT6Sr}/j,€, et 9 kclKov 7jKei<;

OTTco^ a-vv8ec7rvi]ar]<{‘ el S’ dXXov tlvo<; ev€Ka p\de<;,.€l<: avdi<; ava-

^aXov, 0)9 Kal %^ e9 ^rjTwv ae Xva KaXeaaLjJbt ol6<i t rj ISeiv.

a\Xa ^coKpaTT) r)p2v 7ro)9 ovk dyei'i ; Kal eyco, e(f)r], pLeracrTpe^o-
p,evo<; ovSap,ov opoi —coKpaTT) eTr6p,evov‘ elirov ovv ort Kal airo'i
pLerd 'S.WKpaTOv^ ^Koiput, K\rjdel<; vir €Kelvov Bevp' eTrl Beiirvov.

KaXdi 9 y, ecprj, 'itolwv av- dWd ttov eariv o5to9 ; ''OiTLaOev epuov 175
dprt eiapei' dWd Oavp-d^w Kal avTO<; ttov dv eirj. Ov aKeyp-p,
'
ecpr], nral, ^dvai tov AydOatva, Kal elad^ei'i 'EoiKpdrr} ; aii S', ^ S
09 , 'ApiaroBrjpe, Trap’ 'Ejpv^lpa'^ov KaraKAlvov.
III. Kat 6 pev €(f)7]
aTTOvL^eiv tov TralSa, iva /cara/ceotTO
dWov Be TLva tS>v TraiBcov yKeiv dyyeWovTa otl '!£,(OKpdTT]<; ovto<;

dva-)((cpriaa<; ev tw twv yeiTovuiv irpodvpw eaTrjKe Kal ov koXovv-

T 09 OVK edeXei elatevaL. ’’Atottov y, e(f)r}, Xeyev;’ ovkovv Ka\el<;
avTov Kal prj d(f)7jaei<i ; Kal 09 ecprj elirelv Alr]Bap5)<i, aXX’ eare

174 E &) T ; (u B g-vvBenrvrjaeis Laur. XIV. 85, Bekk. Sz. r’ ^ T ;

re B i'(pTjv T ovSafirj TW 7jK0t/it Tb : rjnoi B 7

175 A elcr^eiv Cobet ottov Hirschig e n^v Bast: I Steph. : e’/ie BT
€<pr]v T Lva {ttov) Tulg. : ottov Tmg. €v rm Stepb. J.-U. : i'v tov Mdvg.
Kol ov BT : Kafiov W, Bt. ; xal aov t KaXoIf Tmg. W; KoXei rec. b
avTov : avdis Herwerden d(pr](TTjs T

els KaXov iiKeis. “ Soyez le bienvenu ” ! For the construction see Goodwin,
§ 317.
X0h tt]Tt3v o-e ktX. Hug regards this as a piece of polite mendacity on the
part of Agathon. Are we,
then, to construe Alcibiades’ statement, ^der fiev
”
ovx olos re KrX. (212 e) as a similar exhibition of “ Salonweltlichkeit 1
175 A Trap" "E. KaraKXCvou. Usually each kXivt) held two, but in 175 C
it is said that Agathon had a couch to himself, while in 213 a we find three
on the same couch.
diroviteiv tov iraiSa. The article indicates that a special slave was set
apart for this duty. For the custom of foot-washing see Plut. PAoc. 20;
Petron. Sat. 31; Evang. Luc. vii. 44; Joann, xiii. 5. For the hand-washing
see Ar. frag. 427 <^e'pe, Trai, raxftos Kara vdcop, |
TrapaTre/nre to
paKTpov.
E(dKpdTT]s ovTos KrX. The ipsissima verba of the Trais are here repeated,
hence the use of oItos and of the def. article with irpodvpa in the corrections :

proposed by Madvig and Herwerden this point is overlooked. For irpodvpov,

“porch,” i.e. the space between the house-door (avXda) and the street, see
Smith L. A. i. 661k
oijKow KoXeis KrX. KaXfiy is of course future, not pres, as Riickert wrongly
supposed. For the constr. see Goodwin G.M. T. § 299.
 12 nAATQNOZ [175 A

B avTov. € 00 ^ jdp Ti tout’ e^et" ivLore d'jroara<; oiroi av tu^^

earrjKev. Be avriKa, d><; i'yoi oi/xai. firj ovv Kivelre, aW'
idre. ’AAA’ ovTca ^PV "^oieiv, el crol So/cei, e^ij (})dvai rov ’A<ya-
6o)va. aAA’ rjfj:.d<i, cS TratSe?, tou? aAAou? earidre. TrauTO)? "rrapa-
rlOere 6 tl dv ^ov'krjaOe, iireiBav ri'i vplv pit) ecjiecrT'^Kp — o eycb
ouSeTTcoTTOTe i'TroLrja’a’ vvv ovv, vop,l^ovTe<i koI ipe u0’ vpS)v KeKXrj-

C adai cTTi SeiTTvov Kal ToucSe tou? d.'AAou 9 , Oepairevere, iva vpd<;

eiratvSypev.
MeTa ravTa e^r] acjidf pev BeiTTveiv , rov Be ^(OKpdrrj ovk

175 B TovTo T Priscian ; towvtov W evioTf...e(rTr]K€v del. Voeg.

e(j)rj T: om. B eVeiSdv Tis...pf] BT : eVet tis...ov fir] L. Schmidt: inel
ov br) Tis...p^ Hug: eVfi brj ris...ov prj Sz.: fVei Kai rlcns.-.ixr) (e^eoTTjKOi)
Verm.: t! y 6 Usener: eTTfibav
Tafj.ias...fj.r] avros.-.ixr) cj. Bt.: eiye ava.yK.ri tis...

firj coniciebam i^eiTTTjKr] T: e’c^eoTTj/cT; W : e(f)ea'TrjKfi B: “latet e^e'cm/Ker’

Usener

175 B TrdvTws irapaTC0€T€. For the use of TravTa>s with imper., cp. Xen.
Cyrop. VIII. 27 rravTus Tolvvv .bfi^ov poi'. id. Oecon. xii. 11, iii. 12. For
3. . .

rrapaTidrjyt of “ putting on the table,” cp. Eep. 372 C rpayripara nov rrapa-
6fj(Topev avTols kt\. Reynders adopts the reading rravras, Kal TraparlOere.
These words are difficult. They should naturally
€ir€i8dv...|XT] 6(}>etr'niKT|.

mean (as quando nemo vobis est propositus”; and so

Stallb. puts it) “si
StaUb. proposes to construe them, taking the clause as dependent on and
limiting o tc av BovK-qa-Oe. This, however, is, as Hug argues, almost certainly
wrong. If we we can only explain the phrase by
retain the text of the mss.
—
assuming an ellipse “serve up what dishes you like (as you usually do)
whenever no one is in command.” So Zeller renders “ tragt uns getrost auf,
was ihr wollt, wie ihr es gewohnt seid, wenn man euch nicht unter Aufsicht
nimmt,” etc.; and Rieckher {Rhein. Mus. xxxiii. p. 307) “Machet es wie ihr
es immer macht, wenn man euch nicht beaufsichtigt (und das habe ich ja
noch nie gethan), und setzt uns vor was ihr moget.” Most of the emendations
offered (see crit. n.) are based on the assumption that the clause in question
qualifies the leading clause {iravTas TraparldeTe) none of them are convincing,
and the construction ov ^^...e^ecrrijK.?/ (the pres.-perf.) assumed by Schanz
and Hug lacks support. If compelled to resort to conjecture, the best device
might be to read ci' ye pq for erreibdv, cut out the pq after vplv, and change
the mood of the verb to e(p4a-TqKev — following in part the suggestions of
Usener. The ordinary text does not admit of Jowett’s rendering, “serve up
whatever you please, for there is no one to give you orders hitherto I have ;

never left you to yourselves.” As regards the force of b...e-!rotqcra, L. Schmidt

explains the clause to mean “nunquam autem rem ita ut nunc institui,”
implying that the concession to the slaves was unusual Teufiel, on the :

contrary, sees in it a piece of ostentation on the part of Agathon, boasting

of his humanity. The former is clearly wrong.
 175 D] ZYMnOSION 13

elcievai. tov ovv 'Ayddcova iroWaKL'i KeXeveiv f ieTairefM'^aadai

Tov ^coKpdrTj, 6 Ss ovK eav. rjKeLV ovv avrov ov iro'Kvv ')^p6vov,

£u? eld)6€i , hiarpL'^ avTa, dWd p.uXiaTa acf)d<; p,€aouv Sec7rvovvTa<;.

TOV ovv 'Ayddcova —rvy^dvetv yap eaxarov Karc^Keipbevov p,6vov —
Aevp', (pdvai, "EcoKpaTef;, Trap' ip,e Kar^Kecao, Xva Kai tov D
ao(f)ov diTToaev o^ aov djrdXavaco, 6 aoc TrpoaiaTr] iv rot? irpodv -

175 C e Se BW : *** St T {t6v Se fuisse videtur) : avrov Be vulg. : t Be

cj. Bekk. OVK eav B : ovKav T D iTTropevos aov TW : om. B, J.-XJ. Sz.

TTpocreaTT) T : Ttpoo’ea’TLv B

175 C •n-oXXoLKis KeXeveiv. This is an ex. of the pi’es. infin. representing

an impf. indie.: “He said, eBenrvovpev, 6 Be 2. ovk elarjei- 6 ovv ’a. eKekevev
eya> Be ovk eicov” (Goodwin G. M.
where see parallels). The accus. e, T. § 119,
of the speaker, is here used in preference to the more regular nomin. {avros)
in order to balance the accus. rov 'Ayddava cp. Gorp. 474 b eyoj oipat koI epe
Kai ae. .^yeicrOai, and below 175 E.
.

ws e’uiSei. To be taken closely with ov tt. xp- should rather say •

“ contrary to his usual custom,” the sense being “ he arrived unusually soon
for him.” For a striking instance of Socrates’ edoi see 220 c, where ito\vv
Xpovov Bierpii^ev.
fi.dXi<rTa...8eiirvowTas. For paXia-ra of approximate measurement, cp.
Farm. 127 b nepl paXarra nevre koX e^^KOvra: Tim. 21 B, Crito 43 A.
erij

Nowhere else in Plato is pea-ovv joined with a participle, nor does L. and S.
supply any parallel.
?<rxaTov. Agathon occupied the last kX/vt; on the right: this was
..|j.ovov.

the “lowest seat” at the table, and commonly taken, in politeness, by the
host. The seat of honour {npovopr]) was the left-hand place on the kXlvt]
furthest to the left. Thus if four KXlvai are placed in a row, numbered
—
A D, and each seating two persons, the person who occupies A^ is termed
TTp5)Tos, and the occupant of ea-xaros: as thus

Ai A2 B2 Cl C2 Di D2
r~r-i I '~r ' I

At “Banquet” Phaedrus as occupying Ai is described as wparos in 177d:

this
see also the discussion between Socrates and Alcibiades in 222 e. Cp. Theophr.
Char. 21 6 Be piKpoCpikorLpos roiovros ns oios o’TrovSdo'ot errl Beirrvov KXrjde'is Trap"
avrov rov Kokiaavra Benrvrjaai : Stob. Flor. XIII. 36 Aiovvaios ..anpa^oov avrov....

KareKkivev avrov ev r^ eaxarp ;^a)pg.

175 D Toij <ro<|>oi)...dTroXavo-u. toC aocfiov is neut., being the antecedent of

o,not in agreement with a-ov “ that I may enjoy the piece of wisdom which :

occurred to you.” The omission of Arrropevos aov by B is probably accidental

without the words (as Teuflfel observes) Socr.’s remark {eav airr.) would be less
natural.
OW To
(STreAo<oui=‘*'®

TT/sifii/^OOv^
*0<-,px'cU
,»€reXTri^UTui = ‘’^Sarx) fcc;

' S To te /•/cyi* .
'
t
 : :

14 nAATQNOI [175 D
-to {'fi;.'-? ^ef Of C
pot?. BrjXov yap on evpe'i avTO Kal e^et?' ov yap av nT poairearT} ^.

Kal rov XcoKpaTT] Kadi^eadai Kal ecTreiv on Ey av e'^oi, (f)dvai, cS

Ay ddcov, el roiovrov clt] ^ ao(f)ca war Ik tov TrXvpearepov ei? to

KevcoTepov pelv '^p,d>v, idv dirTcopeda dWijXwv, waTrep to iv rat?
KvXt^tv vBwp TO Bad TOV iplov peov e/c Tr/? et? t^v

E KevcoTepav. el yap ovtq)<; eyet Kal r) aocbla, ttoXXov Tiawaai tvv

Trapa aoi KaTaKXiaiv' oipai yap p,e irapa aov ttoA-a.^? Kai KaXr)^
ao<f)i'a'; TrXypcodvaeaOai . rj pev yap ep^ <^ayA?7 Tt? av elt) Kal
dp(}>ia^r]Tyaipo'i wairep ovap ovaa, ^ Se ,
Xapirpa Te Kal iroXk^v
ejrLBoajj) eyoucrti, rj ye 'irapd aov veov ovto<; ovto) a^^pa e^leXap-yfre

Kal iK/(f)av^‘; eyeveTO irptpr]v ev pdpTvat twv '^XXiqvwv TrXeov rj

^ffiO
t TpicrpypLoa €cf>rj,
. 'T/3pcaTr)<; el, w 'l<coKpaTe^, o ’Ayddcov. Kal
TavTa pev Kal oXlyov vaTepov Bia^BiKaaopeda eyd> Te Kal av
I

,
Sf»<"
175 D TO BT : tov corr. Coisl., J.-UV Sz. *
ipiov : opyavov Cornarius
vXio-Tijplov vel TjdrjvLov Fischer e< T^s...K.eva>Tepav del. Voeg. Naber
£ Tipcopat T: Tipwp^v B: Tipw pcv Stallb. pe del. Usener xal B;
rj Kol TW fj ye T : e’l ye B Kal : dXXa vulg.

ov yap av irpoaireo-Tiis. The protasis is suppressed : Stallbaum supplies

el prj evpes avTo while Hug explains the phrase as a conflate of two thoughts,
viz. (1) OVK dv drrearrjs el prj evpes, and (2) ov tt poarr eerTrjS TTplv evpelv.

els TO KevuTepov. Ficinus renders “ut in vacuum hominem ex pleniore

ipso contactu proflueret,” and many edd. adopt t6v in preference to rd (so
too Jowett’s transl.).
oio-irep To...v8(op ktX. Editors from Riickert down generally accept the
explanation of this passage offered by Geel. Two cups, one empty the other
full, are placed in contact a woollen thread, with one end inserted in the full
:

cup, the other hanging into the empty cup, serves by the law of capillarity to
convey the fluid from the one to the other.
175 E “Meagre” in quantity and “question-
able” in quality, in antithesis to ttoXXij in quantity and koX^ in quality.
TToXXfjv lirCSocriv ^xovcra. Hug
an astral allusion “like a quickly- siqsposes —
rising star.” This, however,
not necessarily conveyed by the term eirldoa-is,
is

for which cp. Theaet. 146 b 17 veorrjs els irdv eTrldoaiv and the intrans. use
of eViStSovat, Prot. 318 A, Theaet. 150 n, etc.
OVTO) (r(|)68pa ktX. Notice the ironical tone exaggeration coupled with —
a purple patch of poetic diction “ shone out with such dazzling splendour :

before the eyes of three myriads of Greek spectators.”

Yppio-Tiis el.
'
“ What a scoffer you are ” Observe that v^pis is one of the !

main charges laid against Socr. by Alcibiades also (219c, etc.); cp. Introd.
§ II. B.

Ta5Ta...8ia8iKao-op€0a. “We
will formally plead our claims in regard to
these heads.” “ Technically diadicasia denotes the proceedings in a contest
I for preference between two or more rival parties either as to the possession
rivs
fill, wjk# full 'ySi^o6po<'''
WsXci' Knj = IT-I^
trXyp>j<-. (M of
ypJipr\JS~uW/yjus.' w'iIhSIS

Voirt j,i
ciodatf"!
' ptKJ, rWiSTrta.... Ic
/dVflip » a- \

OtM'
 . :

> /f

176 a] ZYMnOIlON 15

Trept T^9 cro(f>ta<;, SiKaaTr} ypwti'evoL tm Aiovvaa’ vvv Be vrpo? to

BelTTvov TTpwTa Tpeirov.
IV. Merd ravra, e(f)7), KaTaK\cvevTO <; rod ^coKparov^ Kal
BeiTTvrjcravro^ Kal twv oKXwv, a7rovBd<i re cr(f)d<; Troc/jaacrdai Kal
^ a cravrd'i rov Oeov Kal rdWa rd vopiL^op-eva rpeirecrdaL Trpd? rov
TTOTOV TLV ovv Havcavlav ecj^rj Xoyov roiovrov rtvo^ Karfdp')(^eLV.

Etei^, dvSpe<;, (f)dvaL, riva rpoiro v paara mop^eOa ; ejo) p,ev ovv
Xeyo} vpuv on rw ovn Trdvv yaXeTrw'j eyco vtto rod 'y^es' rrorov Kal

175 E TTep\ Trjs (To(f>las del. Hirschig 176 A. (wr) koX tZv Rohde
(cat rdXXa (card Ast: Ka'i. ..vopi^opeva post :Troi^aacrdai transp. Steinhart
av8pes dvdpes Sauppe Sz.
: paarra BT (jSio-ra yp. t :

of property or as to exemption from personal or pecuniary liabilities The

essential difference between diadicasia and the ordinary St(cat is, that all
K claimants are similarly situated with respect to the subject of dispute, and
no longer classified as plaintiffs and defendants” (Smith, Z). A. i. 620'’).
TTcpi rfir a-o<pias, added loosely as an afterthought, serves to define raCra ;

, Teuffel, as against Jahn, rightly defends the words; and they serve to strike
one of the keynotes of the dialogue.
I

8iKa<rTT|...T(S Atoviicru. Dionysus is an appropriate choice since it was

'

under his auspices that Agathon {-rrpwjjv) had engaged in an dya>v and won
a prize for poetic a-ocfila. There may also lie in the words (as Wolf and Rettig
I suppose) a jocular allusion to the aocpta which is ars bibendi, wherein also
Agathon was dwaroiTaros (176 c). Compare also the pastoral pipe-contests
of Theocritus, and Theognis 993 ff. h. ddXov . . .
. \
trol t e’lrj (cai ipo\ aocpiijs nepi
OrjpKTdvroiv, \
yvoirjs x’ oaaov ovcov Kpiacroves r^plovoi. Cp. Introd. § II. B.
176 A
o-7rov8cis...vo[jii^d|j.eva. Plato spares us the details of the ritual
' proper to such occasions. From other sources we may gather that it included
(1) a libation of unmixed wine to dya^or balpcov (Ai*. Uq. 105, etc.) ; (2) the
clearing, or removal, of the tables (Xen. Symp. ii. 1); (3) the fetching, by

^ the TTaiSes, of a second supply of water for the hands (Ar. Vesp. 1217 etc.);
I

(4) the distribution of wreaths among the guests (Theogn. 1001, Ar. Acharn.
1145); (5) the pouring out of three libations, viz. (a) to Zeus Olympios and
the Olympian gods, (&) to the Heroes, and (c) to Zeus Soter (Schol. ad Phileb.
,
66 D; Aesch. Suppl. 27, etc.); (6) the singing of a Te Deum {abeiv tov 6e6v,
TraiavL^eiv Xen. Symp. ii. 1, Aleman fr. 24 B, etc.) see Hug’s exhaustive note. ;

Ruckert wrongly makes rdXXa rd vopi(6peva depend on acravras supply (as :

Reynders) Troirja-apivovs. For Kal rdXXa, cp. (with Vahlen) Euthyd. 294 c.
Rep. 400 D : for rd vopi^opeva, quae molds sunt, cp. II. Ale. 151 B.
Tiva xpoirov pderra. Schol. paara- rd rjbiaTa ivravda arjpaivei. Cp. Od. IV.
565 rfj nep {sc. in Elysium) pijtarrj ^lOTTj and the combination paara koI
rjbiara, Xen. Mem. II. 1. 9. (See also Vahlen Op. Acad. ii. 212 ff. ad
Phaedo 81 c).

irdvv xaXeirws ?x"- The notion is “ I was roughly handled in my bout with
the wine-god yesterday”: cp. Theaet. 142 b ^^aXeTraij vtto rpavpdrcov riva>v.
’
oncot^nj' rroVcif-

,./ToO<.X/vu(-+o WJt TTiop :-

~ '

- vx-v Ivi •*^«**,

'<c.-</rcc -
'X^^< ' yes-XirAiy
 :

16 nAATQNOI [176 A
"Xweci
heofxai tiv 6<;, olfiat, Se Kai vfiwv tou? ttoAAoi;? — TraprjaTe
B yap qjcoTretade ovv, rive rpoirw av co? paerra Trivoip,ev. tov
ovv ' ApLaTO(f)dvr) elireiv, Towto p,evroi ev Xeyei’;, tS Tlavcravia, to
Travrl Tpoirw ira paaKevdaaada t paarcovrjv rivd rrj<i Trotreto y Kal
yap auTO? elpbt rS)v %^e9 BeBair Tta ubivcov. aKovaavra ovv avrwv
e^T) '
Eipv^bp.a’^ov tov 'AKovp,evov Ka\d><;, ^dvai, Xeyere. Kai
eri 6vo<; BecypLat vfxwv aKovaai, ttw? 7rpo? to ippwaOa i iriveiv
A.y dOcov. OvBap,d)<;, (f)dvai, ovB' aoTo? eppcopai. "^ppuacov av ebrj

C '^pb'iv, rj S’ 09, 0)9 eoLKev, ifioL t€ Kai ’ ApiaToB'^p,a> Kai Kai

TOiaSe, el u/i.ei9 ot Syt'otTeojarot irlveiv vvv aTreipyKare • rjpLei'i p-^v

yap dei dhyvaroL . ^coKpdTt) S’ e^aipw Xoyov’ lKavo<i yap Kai

dlxijiOTepa , war i^apKeaei avTW OTrorep' av iroiwpev. eirebB^ ovv
pob BoKel ovBei<i rwv Trapovrwv ttpodvpw’i €')(^ebv 7rpb<: to ttoXvv
TTbvebv olvov, tawi av iyw irepi tov peOvaKeaOab olov iarb TaXrjdr]
rjTTOv av etrjv a7}or)<; . e/xoi yap orj tovto ye OLpuat Kara-
D S^fiov yeyovivab eK t^9 larpuc^, orb yaXeiro v TOb<; dvdpd)7rob<i rj

t- e’cTt' Kai ovre aoT09 eKwv elvab iroppw eOeX'qaabpb dv irbelv

176 A TraprjaTe BTW : iraprjTe in ing. rec. b B Trapaanevaaaadat TW

TrapaaKeva^eadaL B avrStv T : avrov B ’'Epv^LpaT(Ov T ; tov Epv^Lpa)(ov B
aKovpevov W : aKOvpevov BT Kal : Kapoi Rohde ippSiadai secl. Cobet
iriVeiv, ’Aya^tdi/oy Vahlen C e’^aipco Heindorf : e^ai'po) BT dp8psT: drjXrjs^

176 B pePa-irTio-iievwv ; “soaked,” “drenched.” Cp. Lucian Bacch. 7 Kaprj-

Kol jHe^aTTTiapevcp and the use of ^e^peypevo?, Eubul. Incert. 5; pe6p ^apovvTi
:

^pex&eis Eur. El. 326 Sen. Ep. 83 mersus vino et madens

: Hor. C. iv. 5. 39 ;

dicimus...sicci...dicimus uvidi. A similar “ baptism ” is described in Evenos

2. 5 — 6, ei de TToXvs Trvevaeiev (sC. 6 Ba/c^^os) direaTpaTeTai pev epcoTas, \
^arTTi^ei
8’ vTTvep yeiTovi tov an echo in Clem. Alex. Paed.
davaTov : of which we find
II. ii. 27^ (Stahlin) virb peBrjs (SarTTi^opevos els vttvov. There may be an
underlying allusion to Eupolis’ play BaTrrat (cp. Bergk P. L. G. ii. p. 268).
176 C c^aipco Xoyov: “I leave out of account”: cp. Phaedr. 242b, Rep.
394 b, 492 e. For Socrates as incon vincible “with wine and wassail,” see
Alcibiades’ description, 220 a.
I TTcpl TOV p€0vo-K6cr0ai. A favourite subject of discussion with moralists,
e.g. Theognis 473 ff., 500 ff. ;
Laws I. 677 cff., Xen. Symp. ii. ;
and the treatise
Trepl pedps of Antisthene.s.
“Less likely to bore you,” sc. than if you were in the mood
rTTov...aT|8ijs.
for wine-bibbing. Compare (with Wolf) Hor. Sat. ii. ii. 1 ff. quae virtus et
quanta, boni, sit vivere parvo. .discite non inter lances mensasque nitentes. .

176 D xaX€irov...r pe0Ti. Similarly in 180 B we have neut. adj. with

masc. subst. {6eL6Tepov,..epaaTrjs). For the sentiment cp. Ar. Vesp. 1253
^
KOKOV TO TTlVeLV Kt\. ThCOgn. 211 oivov TOl TTlVeiV TTOvXvV KOKOV. XCB.
'.

p»v-«vAfI»-Vt,sorvtY
n-A

'» mopprt-for 6-. off

^ / pj.et}UoiC^
^ u/tKt'
‘

I
 176 E] lYMnOZION 17

ovT€ dW(p avuBovXev(Taiu i, dWco<; re Kal KpacTraXwvTa eri sk t ?}?

TTpoTepaLaf . 'AWd p^'pv, e^rj (f)dvai uTroXa/Sovra ^alBpov tov
'Slvppt,vov(TLov, ejcoye aoi elwQa TrelOecrdaL aXXo)? re koX drr av
irepl larpiKpi; \e'yp<;‘ vvv S’, av ev BovXevcovrai, Kal ol 'KonroL
ravTa Srj aKovaavTat; avy)(^a)p6lv irdvra'i pup hid p,edr}<; Troirjo'aaOai E
Tr]v ev Tw TrapovTt avvovaiav, aXX’ ovt(o irLvovra'i 7rpo<; -^Sovijv.

V. ’ETreiS^ roivvv, (pdvac rov ’Epv^Lpa')(ov, tovto pev heSoK-

rai, TTiveiv oaov dv eKaaTO<; /8oiiX77T(Zi, eirdvayKe ^; he prjhev elvai,
TO peTa TOVTO elavyovgai ttjv pev dpTt elaekOovcrav avXvTplha
')(^alpeLV edv, avXovaa v eavTy rj dv BodSp^aL rat? yvvai^l rai?
evhov, rjpd^ he hid Xoycov dX\)]\oi<; avvelvai to Trjpepov' Kal

176 D KpanraXavTa T : KpanraXovvTa H : KpaiTraXifrt Hirschig (f)aldpov

T : (f>ai8pa)v B pvpivovcriov T Xe'yetj T av TW : av B ^ov^ev-
lovrai COrr. Coisl. Bast :
^ovkavTai BTW :
^ovKovrai vulg. : {av) ^ovkoivT av
Thiersch :
(av) ^ovXovrai Ast :
(av) av ^ovXcuvTai Kreyenbuhl E avXrj-
Tplha T : avXiTpida B ^ av : rjav B : eav T

Symp, II. 26 ^v pev dSponv TO TTOTov iy)(ea>pe6a, Ta\v ^p^v koI to. acopara Kal
al yvS>pai aefiaXovvTai ktX. For the pedantic reference to fj larpiKr), cp. 186 a.
KpaiiroXwvxa. Tim. Lex. Plat, explains by eVt otto pedtjs ^apwopevov.
For the accus., in place of dat. (in appos. to dXXcp), cp. 188 d Tiplv...8vva-
pevovs '.
Rep. 414 A, etc.

vvv 8’...ol Xoiiroi. With

Xonroi we must supply o'ol TTeiaovTai, as Stallb.
ot

and Winckelmann observed. Eettig alone, of later editors, retains the reading
vvv 8’ av ev ^ovXovrai, with Wolf’s rendering, “nunc bene est, quod item
reliquos id velle video ” ; but, as Hug remarks, that ev /SovXovrat can mean
“ bene est quod volunt ” lacks proof.

176 E ovTw...irp6s T^Sov-qv. ovTcoy is frequently used thus in combination

with adverbs (esp. padlios, e'lKrj, anXciis, and the like see Blaydes on Ar. Vesp. ;

461) where it has “a diminishing power” (L. and S.), e.g. 180c infra, Gorg.
503 d; cp. the force of sic in such phrases as “iacentes sic temere” (Hor.
C. II. xi. 14).
TOVTO pev ktX. The antithesis to the pe'v-clause lies, not in the clause

endvayKes Se p. eivai, but in ro perd tovto ktX. Cp. Arist. Pol. 1278'’ 6 eVel
8e TavTa Sioopiarai, to peTa ravva TKeiTTeov Trorepov ktX.
Cp. Theogn. 472 ndv yap dvayKoiov XPVP dvirjpov e(j)v too
eirdvayKes.
—
\

TTt'vetv 8’ where a similar relaxation of com-

e6iXovTi TrapacTTadov olvoxoelrco
pulsory rules is advocated,
eloT]Yovpai. “ I propose,” suadeo cp. Onto 48 a ; Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 10. :

TT|v...avX'qTp£8a. It was the fashion at convima to provide pipers, dancers,

jesters, jugglers et hoc genus omne to amuse the guests. Cp. Xen. Symp. ii. 1,
Rep. 373a neppaTa (with Adam’s note)', Ar. Ach.
sMival to. ..K al eTolpai Kal
1090 ff. ;
also Protag. 347 c, D (see next page).
Tats ^v8ov. Sc. ev tm yvvaiKeico. jocjXew”"''® f ty +i< flufe

6u^yJcuX&X5

vrporep«i<>s ^ '"fr
yonrdp^iOM'i-..,SviYiV‘''‘i e^t^r
^ ^
' OlvXi)Tf<^~^^[v^-yA
 :

18 nAATQNOI [176 E

177 8i o'lcov 'Koycov, el ^oiikeade, ideXco vfjblv eiavyya'aa'dai . ^dvat 8rj

TravTa’i Kal fiovXeadat Kal KeXevei v avrov elaTjyeiaOai. elirelv ovv

Tov ^Epv^lfxa')(^ov oTi 'H fiev fioi dp-^p rov Xoyov earl Kara t^v
^ vpiirihov yieXavliT'ir'pv' ov yap ep.o<i 6 p,v6o<;, dWa ^alBpov
ToOSe, ov p,iXX(o Xeyeov, *i>aiBpo<; yap eKadrore 7rp6<; p.e dyavatc-
Tcov Xeyei Ov Secvov, cfitjalv, a> ’Epu^tyiia^e, dXXoi<; p,ev riai decov
vpLvov<i Kal 7raccova<; eivai vrro rwv TroirjTcov 7re7roirip,evov‘;, too Be

177 A Kai ante /3ovX. seel. Hermann Sz. : Koi ^oiiXeadai del. Voeg.
lOi

Traiaray W : nalovas BT : naiavas bt

8i’ otwv X6 y*)v. For an appreciation of the a-wovala Sia 'Koycov, cp. Theogn.
493 flf. vfids 8’ ev fivdelcrde irapa Kprjrripi pevovres... |
es to picrov (fxov fvvTts

6pa>s ev'i KOI (TwaTratriv •

\
^ovreof avp-rroa-iov ylvoTai ovk a^^^api. Simplic. in
Epict. 33. 6, 266 /eaXois' e’Lprjrai otl
p. )(<i)p\s Xoycov rpaTre^a (parvrjs ovbev
fj

8ia(^e'pet which is probably a reminiscence of Protag. 347 c, D koI yap ovtol

{ sc. ol (f)av\oi Kai ayopaioi), 8ia to prj dvvaaOai dXXjjXoiy 8t’ eavTMV (Tweivai ev
T(U TToro) pr]8e Std rpr eavToiv (pcovfjs Kal tcov Xoycov tS>v eavTwv vtto aTraidevaias,
Tip'ias TTOiovai Cp. Phaedr. 276 D.
Tas avXrjTpidas kt\.
177 A 4>dvai tempting to excise (with Hermann, Teufi'el
Sii ktX. It is
and Hug) the first Kai and to construe epavai closely with jSovXeo-Oai, as
balancing KeXeveiv elar^yeladai, navTas being the subject of both the leading
infinn., <pdvai and KeXeveiv cp. 177 E ^vve(j>a(rdv Te Kal eKeXevov Euthyd. 274 C
: :

d re ovv Krijo'tTrn’oy a'vve(f>T]...Kal ol iiXXoi, Kal eKeXevov... eTTidei^aTOai ktX. If

the first KOI be retained, it seems most natural to take KeXeveiv as dependent
on (pdvai: Stallb., however, puts a comma after ^ovXeaOai, as if making
KeXeveiv parallel to cpdvai: and so too, apparently, Zeller.
Kara rrjv MeXavfiriniv. Euripides wrote two plays of this name, M. cro^rj rj

and M. dea-pSiTis. The reference here is to the former {Frag. 488 Nauck), ovk
epos 6 pvOos dXX’ epT)s prjTpds irdpa, ktX. Melanippe, a daughter of Aeolus,
bore two sons to Poseidon; they were suckled by a cow, and brought to
their grandfather Aeolus as ^ovyevfj TepaTa when h^proposed to burn them,
Melanippe appeared and tried to dissuade him, arguing on ov8ev Tepas ea-Tiv.
According to another account, M. was a daughter of Cheiron, seduced by
Aeolus, and finally metamorphosed into a mare. Cp. Apol. 20 E ov yap epbv
epS) TOV Xoyov, ktX. Hor. Sat. ii. ii. 2 nec mens hie sermo est sed quae
:

praecepit Ofellus.
Ov Seivov ktX. With this passage, cp. Isocr. ix. 5 — 8, and x. 12 with its

scornful reference to encomiasts of “humble-bees, salt-diets, and the like”

(see Introd, § ii. b (e)).
vjivovs Kal -iraiwvas. Properly speaking vpvoi are odes set for the lyre,
1 odes set for the flute and sung esp. in honour of Apollo. “The paean
TTaicbves
[

I
I is a hymn (1) of supplication or propitiation during the pain or danger; (2) a

j.. thanksgiving after it is past” (see Smith, Z>. A. ii. 307 s.v.).

Ke iceAeJto--*^
 :

177 c] ZYMnOIlON 19
Si vf^-

177 B fiijSev :
/LiTjSe Valckenaer Kal ante tovto del. Thiersch koi
TjTTov davfj.a(TT6v Wolf Thiersch ante davjxaoTov om. Steph. Bast.
koi
avbpos (ro(f)ov T om.
; B, Sz. wipeXiav T dx^eXfiar B.'
C {ttoWovs}
TToW^v Hirschig a^la>s T : d^iai B (dri) ovTcos Wyttenbach
rjpeXTjardai toctovtov 6e6v Steph. \eyeiv : yj/-eyetv cj. Bdhm.

niXiKoijTu. “A
god SO venerable”: Phaedrus holds Eros to be the most
ancient of deities, see 178 b. The complaint was not entirely well-grounded,
since before this date (416 b.c.) hymns to Eros of a eulogistic character had
already been published by Sophocles {Antig. 781 ff.), and Euripides {Hippol.
525 ff.), and.possibly others.
177 B €l 81 povXei. This phrase serves to introduce a fresh point, marking
the transition from poets to “sophists”; cp. 209 D, 220 D {el Se ^ovXea-de),
Lack. 188 c, etc. but to add an infin., as here (crKe\fea<rSai), is imusual.
:

Tois xP’l‘^°^s (ro<))i(rTds. “The worthy sophists”; considering that

Phaedrus is the speaker, we must suppose that the adj. is seriously meant,
not ironical.
KaTaXo-ydSiiv ^iryYpdcjieiv. “Writing in prose,” oratione soluta. Cp. Isocr.
n. 7 Kot tS)V aera uerpov noiniiaTOiv Ka\ Ta>v (caroXo'ydSni/ crvyypauadTcov : ZiVSlS
204d, Zaws 811 975d. E,
woTrep...np68iKos. This alludes to Prodicus’s celebrated parable “The
Choice of Heracles,” for which see Xen. 3/em. ii. i. 21 ff. For Prodicus of
Ceos, see Zeller Presocr. Phil. vol. ii. pp. 416 ff., 473 (E. T.); Gomperz
Gr. Thinkers (E. T.) I. pp. 425 ff.
r,TTov Kal. For the unusual position of xal after the comparative, cp. Xen.
Cyr. I. vi. 38 ravra yap paXXov Ka'i e^aTrarav Siivarai.
tv-fjo-av dXes- Logically, of course, the subject ought to be eiraivos, not
dXer. The same ^i^Xlov is alluded to in Isocr. x. 12 Ta>v...Tovs ^op^vXwvs
Kcu Toils dXas Koi to Toiavra ^ovXrjdevroov erraivelti its authorship is nOW
generally ascribed (as by Sauppe, Blass, Hug) to the rhetor Polycrates : see
further Introd. § ii. b (e).
177 C TO ovv...vpvT)<rat. The infin. may be explained (with Ast) as an ex.
of the infin. “indignantis,” cp. Ar. Nub. 819 t 6 Ala vopl^eiv Svra ttjXikovtovL
^

€vK<^(C5-«.-r W" to>vuoL = +o

^ ^
4 SartV
 e

20 nAATQNOI [177 c

a/xa fMev tovtw epavov elaeveyKelv Kal yapiaaaOa t,, ap-a 8’ ev tm

irapovTt TTpiirov pot Soicei eivat rjplv rot? nrapovat Koaptriaa i tov
D Oeov. el ovv ^vvBok€i Kal vplv, yevotr av pplv ev X6yot<: tKavh
BiaTpi^7]‘ Bok €1 yap pot '^prjvat eKaarov ppwv Xoyov elirelv eiratvov

’'Epa>TO<;\e7rl Be^ia^oK; av BvvrjTat KaXXtarov, dp')(^6iv Be ^atBpov

TrpwTOv, eiretB^ Kal tt^wto? Kara/cetTai Kal eartv dpa irarrjp tov
Xoyov. OvBet'f aoi, co ’Epf^t/xa^e, cfxlvat tov 1.a)Kpa.Ti), evavTta
yfrycbieiTai . ovTe yap dv irov eyw dTrothyaatpi, o? ovBev (fiTjpt dXXo
E eTtaTaaOat ^ ra epcoTiKa, ovTe ttov 'Ayddcov Kal Tlavaavta<;, ovBe
ppv ’ApiaTO(f)dvr)<;, w nrepl Aiovvaov Kal A^poBtTrjv ^ irctaa rj Bta-

177 C TovTodl Bdlim. KOI ^^aplaacrdai del. Hartmann D {nepiy

"Epcoros Hirschig KaWiara W ap)(^eiv : Xtyeii/ Hirschig 8e nparov
^a28pov vulg. E atjipodiTT] T fj om. T

Epavov elo-eveYKeiv. Syrnholum dare: cp. Laws 915 E, 927c uj epavov ela-
(jiepovTa eavra — the Only other instances of epavos in Plato. For a defence of
the text against Hartmann, who excises xal xapio-aadai, see Vahlen Op. Acad.
II. 296. This passage
echoed in Aristid. Or. t. i. p. 18.
is

177 D 8oK€t -ydp poi. “ My sentence is,” an official formula cf. Dem. i. 2, :

IV. 17. Hence the point of Socrates’ phrase ivavrla yferj(l)ieLTai, four lines below.
Xo'yov...?Troivov. Cp. 214 B, Phaedr. 260 B awTidels Xoyov eiratvov Kara
TOV bvov.
eirX 8e|id. “From left to right”: cp. Rep. 420 (with Adam’s note);
Theaet. 175 E. Critias 2. 7 Ka\ irpOTroaets opeyeiv enibe^ia.
KdXXwTTov.Notice that, in Eryximachus’ view, the first requisite is
KaXXos, in 198 d ffi
and contrast the view of Socrates
iraTqp tou Xdyou. I.e. elcrrjyrjrrjs tov X., as Plutarch explains (Plat. Q.

1000 r): the same phrase recurs in Phaedr. 257 b, cp. Theaet. 164 e 6 Trarf^p
TOV pv6ov Lys. 214 a narepes rrjs aoejiias koI r/yepoves.
:

TO, epwTiKd. The objects or principles with which ri eproTisr; rex^q (Phaedr.
257 a) is concerned cp. 186 c, 212 b. Lysis 204 b. This passage is alluded to
;

by Themist. Or. xiii. p. 161, Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. p. 288 for its significance :

here, see Lntrod. § ii. b.

fcal is used rather than oiVe because Pausanias and Agathon
ovxe TTOV. ..Kal.
formed “ ein Liebespaar ” (Hug).
177 E irepl Aiovvo-ov Kal ’A<j)po8i'Tt)v. There are many points of mutual
connexion between Eros, Dionysus and Aphrodite. Thus, Dionysus is the
patron-god of the theatre, as shown by the phrases ol irepl rbv A. Texvirai,
“actors” (Arist. Probl. xxx. 10), and Aiowa-oKoXaKes, “stage-lackeys” (Arist.
Rhet. III. 1205=^ 23) and on the comic stage erotic scenes were frequent.
;

Moreover, Dionysus was sometimes represented (as by Praxilla of Sicyon,

c.’ 450 B.c.) to be a son of Aphrodite and in Aristoph. fr. incert. 490 (Df.)
;

oivos is termed ’AtfipoSAqs yaXa. For the traditional inter-connexion of

ry. “Wein, Weib und Gesang,” we may also compare Solon 26 epya 8e KvTrpo-
i
feti'y*.! jdirotftj^i" To out,

K€ -to f»v»r ]

. Kodn/u - /
 :

178 a] lYMnoilON 21

TpL^rj, ov8 e aWo^ ovBel'i toutcovI Sv eyoi opw. Ka'iroi ovk laov
•yiyveTat pfMtv roi? vcTraroi’; KaraK^ip^kvoi'i' aXh! iav ol Trpoadev
CKavcpf; KoX KoKw'i ei’irwo’iv, i^apKiae i riputv. aWa ayadfj
KaTap')(eTW $atSpo9 koX iyKtofMiat^ero} tov ’'Epwra. ravra Bp Kal
ol aWot Traj/re? apa ^vv€<ba(yav re /cal eKeXevov airep 6 ScB/cpaxT??.
'rrdvTcov p,ev ovv d e/cacrro? elirev, ovre Trdvv o ^ KpiaroBppo'i ipe- 178
pvpTO ovT av iyo) d e/celvo'i 'i\eye iravTa' d Be pdXiaTa Kal wv
eBo^e poL a^LopvppovevTov tovtwv vplv ipco eKdarov tov , \ 6 yov.
VI. Juparov pev yap, uicnrep \eyco, e^p ^alBpov dp^dpevov
ivdevBe TToOev Xeyeiv, ort piya<; 6eo<i eip o “Epo)? Kal davpaard‘; iv

177 E Ka'i KoXws del. Naber : ifuv J.-U. ravra : ravra Usener
apa: apa Wyttenbach 178 A d BT; o(Ta mg. t a^iofxvrjixoveuTOv
(eiVat) TW: a^iopvrjpoveirrcov b: d^iopvrjpovevra elvai Yulg. : a^ca pvrjpoveveiv
cj. Liebbold eicaara Bdbm. rbv \6yov secl. Bdhm.

yevovs vvv poi (piXa ical Aiovvaov \

Kai Movtreajp, d rldijo' dvbpacrtv evc^pocrvvas.
Echoes of this phrase are to be found in Aristaen. i. ep. 3, p. 11; Pint. amat.
750 a; Lucian Symp. p. 444.
Tl(itv Tois voTciTois. vararos here is equivalent to fa”)(aro9 as used in 175 c
(where see note), i.e. placed on the extreme right.
€|apK6<r€i i^piv. “ We shall be content,” i.e. we shall not be called upon to

speak: for the impers. e^apnel c. dat. cp. 176c, 192 b, 210c.
TiixT) dyaG^Q. “In Gottes Xamen” (Wolf); cp. Phileb. 57 E, Tim. 26 E.
irdvT€s dpa. For the position of dpa cp. Prot. 319 a r) koXov, rjv 6’ eyol),
apa KeKrr/crai Rep. 358 C ttoXv yap apeivcov dpa xrX.
r€)^v7]pa :

178 A
d|topvTip6veuTov. We should expect rather the pliu’al. We must
suppose that the sentence is slightly confused, the original idea being to put
d Se pdXia~ra eSo^e poi d^iopv'rjpovevra (ravra which was altered Owing to ep(b),

the insertion, as an afterthought, of koI av tSv then, instead of proceeding

pot d^tov rb pepvrja'dai (oi* pepvrjirdai rov \6yov), the word originally in
mind was put down, but in the sing. but it is tempting to restore either :

d^iopvrjpovevr dlvat (supposing elvai to be corrupted from a compendium), or

d^iov pvrjpoveveiv. Prot. 343 A (prjpara ^pa-yia d^iopvrjpovevra) is the only
other instance of the word in Plato there may be an echo of the present
:

passage in Xen. Symp. I. 1 epo'i doKe? rav KoXav Kdyadav dvbpav epya...d^io-
pvrjpovevra elvai. For the significance of the statement here made by ApoUod.,
see Introd. § ii. b (g).
npcoTov pev -Yoip ktX. For the discourse of Phaedrus (178 a 180 b) see —
Introd. § I. (analysis), § ill. (1).

uo-irep Xe'-yii). “As has been stated”: the present tense (186 E, 193 a, etc.)
iscommoner than the past tense (el-n-ov 173 c, 182 d, etc;) in this formula.

The reference is to 177 D.

evGevSe iroGev. “ Eoughly at this point,” kinc fere : the combination recurs
199c, Phaedr. 229b, Euthyd. 275 e; so evrevBev rrodev Pha.edr. 270a, Rep. 524c.

evsujW >'or

fr»\:

si t/t-eeiion.
 :

22 nAATQNOI [178 a
5 / ^ \ V « > r/ \
dvOpcoTroif T€ Kal 6eoi<;, TroWa^jJ /iei’ Kal dWr), ov')(^ ijKLara Se
Kara rr)v yevecnv. to yap ev rot? rrpeaBvraTOV elvai rov Oeov
B TLpLiov, 17 S’ 0 ?’ reKavpiov 8e rovrov yovri<i yap ’'E/sojto? ovt elalv
0 VT 6 Xeyovrat vtt ovSevof ovre ISicorov ovre Tronjrov, dXX' 'HcrtoSo?
rrpwTov pueu Xao? (prjai yeveaOai,
avrdp eireira
Fat’ evpvaT€pvo<i , rravrcov eho<; dacpaXe^ aleL,
r]h' ”E/309.

178 A aXXoi Stobaeus npea^vTaTOv BXV, Stob. 7r/3€cr/3uraroty T :

Tov 6e6v W : tS}v 6eS)v BT B ^

8' os del. Bast: ovetSos Creuzer reKprj-
piov 8e‘ TovTov FEpcoTos delete) Naber yova\ Stob., vulg. "'Epwros'.
Xaovy cj. Bdhm. 'Ho-toSos {os) Heindorf yaV..’.''Epos seel. Herm.

Kora niv y«v€<riv. “ In respect of his origin.”

ev Tots irpeo-pvTaTov. For the doctrine of the antiquity of Eros, cp. Xen.
Synip. VIII. 1 Tw pev xp8v<p 1<tt]\lkos toTs deiyeveai 6eo7s.."Ep<oTos Ar. Av. 700 :

irpoTepov 8' ovK rjv yevos ddavarctiv, Trplv ’

Epcas awepi^ev dnavTa.
Agathon,
in 195 A, expressly contradicts Phaedrus on this point. Bast excised 8’ os rj

on the ground that “in fine periodi Platonicae non magis usurpatur quam
inquit Latinorum.”
178 B T€K|j.qpiov 81...'Yop. Cp. Critias 110 E, Apol. 40c: Xen. Symp. iv.
17 reKprjpiov 8e' daXKo(j)6povs ydp...eKXeyovTai.
yovTis...oi5Te Xeyovrai. a rash statement on the part of Phaedrus ;
This is

for Alcaeus {fr. 13 Bgk.) makes Eros son

of Zephyros and Iris Simonides ;

{fr. 43), son of Ares and Aphrodite; Euripides [Hippol. 534), son of Zeus;
Sappho {fr. 132), of G6 and Uranos; Ibycus {fr. 31), of Chaos see also the ;

statements in 199 d, 203 ff. infra. On the other hand ignorance or doubt as
to the parentage of Eros is expressed in Theocr. Id. xiii. 1, 2 olx dpiv t6v
"E poiTa povois tovto de5>v noKa reKVOV i'yevro; Anth. Pal. V. 176.
7 —8 TTarpbs 8' ovkct e-^(o (ppd^eiv rivos' ovre yap Aldrjp, ov 'S.ddtv (prjcn reKeiv \

TOV dpaavv, ov IleXayos. For the usual Greek assumption that the poets are
religious teachers, cp. Ar. Rail. 1054 toUs pev yap TTai8apLoL<Tiv eo-rt 8i8d- |

(TKaXos ooTir (j)pd^ei, rols fj^Sxriv 8e TroirjTaL and see Adam, R. T. G. pp. 9 ff. :

ISiwTov. For this distinction between the prose-writer and the poet, cp.
Phaedr. 258 D Laws 890 a Rep. 366 E. The term 18id)Tris may be taken as
; ;

a survival of the time when the poet alone had his work “ published ” at —
religious festivals, theatrical shows, Ka>poi, etc.
’HerCoSos xrX. The reference is to Theog. 116 rjroi pev npatTiara Xdos fif.

ye'ver’, avrdp ktX. Cp. Ar. Av. 693 fif. Xdos t)v koI ktX. The order of the
text I have adopted, in the passage following, is that proposed by Schanz,
except that he reads opoXoyel {os) (t)r]ai, while Burnet, accepting the trans-
position, prints avp(j)r}(ri instead of opoXoyel (jurja-i. Hug and others eject the
clause cj)r](Ti..i'Ep(OTa as a marginal prose paraphrase of the words of Hesiod ;

since, as it stands in the traditional order, the clause is obviously tautologous

but tautology is in itself no objection, but rather characteristic of Ph.’s style
Trpeq/SuV(KTt>i = ft Se<*
_ ^

Kon<M'e<i )

i
 178 c] lYMnoilON 23
)
’HcTioSw Se teal 'AKOVcriXect)'; 6fj,o\oyel [<f>r]al fiera to Xao? Svo
TOVTQ} yevkadai, F?}!^ re kcu ’'EpwraJ. Ilap/xewS?;? Se t^v Veveciv
Xeyei
r
TTpcoricTTOv fiev ’'Eptara 6ewv ubriricraTO Travroov.

ovTco TToWa'^odev 6/j,o\oyetTai 6 “Epo)? iv rot? Trpea/3vTaTO<; elvai. C

i

178 B ’'R<ri68(o...6fio\oyei (quae in BT post ttovtuz/ extant) transposui,

auctorr. TFolf Sz. Bt. 6fio\oyei BT : Stob. : (rvfi(f>rj(TLv Bt.
0j;crt../'Ep<BTa secl. Hommel Jn. Hug: (j)r](T'L...TTdvTa)v seel.Ast Turr. J.-U.
n (j)7](T\ om. Stob.: (6s) (prjo-l Schanz Ilapfi€vl8r]s...TTdvTa>v om. Stob.,
Heyne Wunder ttjv Tevea-iv \eyei secl. Jn. : rrjv yeveaiv secl. Eettig
C TTpeT^VTClTOlS Stob.
i

\\
It

(see Teuffel in Rhein. Mus. xxix. p. 133) ;

and there is force in Hermann’s
remark “aegre intelligo quomodo aliquis clarissimis poetae verbis (para-
phrasin) addendam existimaverit, multoque verisimilius videtur Hesiodi
locum... postmodo adscriptum...irrepsisse.” I bracket the clause as a gloss
on opoXoyei. The clause nappevl8T]s...TrdvTa)v is rightly defended by Hug,
against Yoegelin and others, on the grounds that (1) o6r&) TToWaxddev in the
I

following sentence is more appropriate after three than after two instances,
and (2) Agathon in 195 c, when alluding to Phaedrus’s speech, expressly
mentions 'Hcr/oSos xai nappevidps. The authority of Hesiod is similarly cited
by Plut. amat. 756 e.
’AKouo-CXews. Acusilaus of Argos, the “logographer,” about b.c. 475 (1),
wrote in the Ionic dialect several books of Genealogies, largely based
on Hesiod (see the fragg. in A. Kordt, De Acusilao, 1903). But the re-
puted work of A., extant in the time of Hadrian, was probably a forgery:
a collector of myths is not, properly speaking, a ‘‘logographer” at all (see
Jevons, Gk. Lit. p. 299). Cp. Clem. Alex. vi. ii. 26. 7 rd de 'Haiddov perTjX-
Xa^av els Tre^dv Xoyov kol a>s idia e^eveyKov ^vprjXos re Kal AKOveriXaos oi
icrropLoypdcfioi.Hug, retaining the order of the mss., would explain the fact
that A. is put last as due to his being an Idiarrjs, the others iroirirai
napiieviSiis. See Parmen. frag. 132 (Karsten), R. and P. 101 a Arist. ;

Met. I. 4. 984^ 25 Plut. amat. 756 F.

;
It is to be presumed that the famou.s
Eleate relegated this theogony to his “Way of Opinion.” Cp. Spenser’s
lines {H. to Love)., “ Or who alive can perfectly declare The wondrous cradle
of thine infancie... For ere this worlds still moving mightie masse Out of
great Chaos ugly prison crept... Love... Gan reare his head, by Clotho being
waked.”
T-qv r€ve(riv...|iqTt<raTo. Hermann and Hug follow Stallbaum in supplying
Fci'eo'tr as the subject of prirlaaTo Phaedo 94 D ov Xeyei t6v 'Odvaaea
: cp.
(TTqdor de TTXrj^as Kpadirjv rjvnTaiTe pvdeo. For the personification of yevecris,
cp. Horn. II. XIV. 201 ’QKeavdv re 6eS)V yeveaiv kqi pprepa Trjdiv (cited by
Plato in Theaet. 180 d, Crat. 402 b). Plutarch {loc. cit.) differs by making
’Ac^poSirq the subject of pprlaaro. It is, of course, possible that another
(suppressed) subject is intended ;
since we do not know what the context was
in the original.
yjrpriojja I
\v^r “ Ct'-

tT:*
 : :!

178 C
n pecrjSvTaTOs de S)V npos Se tovtco tS)V Bast
: {piyivTos re Ka'i)
Bdhm.
peyia-TMv airws Stob. {rj) rratStKa Hommel Jn. eiyivfia
Wyttenbach koXZs (ovtc koXKos) vulg. ovtods ovre icdWos Reynd. Jacobs
:

178 C TTpeo-puTaxos div ktX. The partic. gives the impression of a

causal connexion —as if beneficence must be in direct proportion to antiquity
(i6'yi(rTiov...atTios. Cp. 197 C infra", Ax. Pint. 469 dyadatv dirdvrov airtav.
tiOvs viu> ovTi. “From his earliest youth”: this proj^erly applies only to
the naidiKd. With TratSiKo Supply xpW^^- ^ similar estimate of the
value of ^iXo£, see Lys. 211 e, Xen. Hem. ii. 4. 1 fif.

dv0pwirois...p£ov. For fjyela-dat c. dat. of person and gen. of thing, cp.

Horn. Od. XXIII. 134 opx^^polo Xen. Cyr. viii. 7. 1 roO x^pov
rjpiv i^yf/crdo)

TjyrjcraTo Uepcrais. It would be easy, however, by inserting 8td after the

termin. -at, to restore a favourite Platonic phrase Std n-avTos rov fiLov (cp.
203 D, Phil. 39 e).

tnryyeveia. “ Kindred,” implying nobility of kin for the concrete use cp. :

Gorg. 472 b, Laws 730 b, 874 a, etc., and esp. Rep. 491c sdWos koI TrXoiros

KOt laxhs (rdypaTos Kal ^vyyeveia eppcopevT] (v rroXei. Taking (Tvyyiveca here in a
similar sense, we can dispense with Wyttenbach’s plausible conj., evylveia
(for which C2). Euthyd. 279 b, Ar. Rhet. ii. 15, Soph. Antig. 38), which
Eeynders adopts.
178 D al(r\vvt]v...<|)iXoTip£av. Cp. Lys. xiv. 2, and 42 {in Aldh.) errl pev
Tois KaXdis alaxireadai, itr'i de rots KaKols (j>iXorLpeladaL, “taking glory for
shame and shame for glory.” Remembering that Phaedrus was a professed
admirer of Lysias, we may, perhaps, recognize here a verbal echo. For a
discussion of ala-xhvr) (not distinguished from atSmy) see Arist. Eth. Nic. iv.
ix. 1128'> 10, and Rhet. ii. vi. 1383'> 12.

ovT€ TToXiv ovre ISiwTqv. Notice that in the subsequent treatment of these
two heads the order is reversed (to secure rhetorical “Chiasmus”).
Ti altrxpov ktX.
el' Cp. Xen. Cyneg. XII. 20 orav piv ydp tis opdrai vtto rov
ipa>pivov anas iavrov ecrri ^eXTiiov teat ovre Xeyei ovre noiei aicrxpd ovde KaKd,
tva prj d<j)dfi iin' CKeivcov. Also 194 C infra,
ij irdtrxwv terX. Cp. “It hath been said by them of old time. An eye for an
eve. and a tooth for a tooth.” Ordinary Greek ethics approved of retaliation

i
 ;

179 A] lYMnOIlON 25

178 E Tov epao-rfjv Hirachig Tj arparoTreSov secl. J.-U. (e|) epacraiv

Hirschig iavrSiv (ttoXlv) Hirschig rj seclusi, auctorr. Eiickert Jn.
Bdhm. Sz. Naber; xal J.-U. koX (eTrl rnls koXoIs) (p. Ast 179 A. y' av
BT :
y' aS Term. J.-U. S’ y'
: lY

cp.Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 7 see Dobbs, Philos, and Popular Morals,

;
etc. p. 39.
For another incentive to courage, see Rep. 467 b.
178 E xavTov Be xovxo. “ In exactly similar fashion,” adverbial accus.
so ravTO. ravra Meno 90 E.
Tovs cpcurxds. The plural
due to the fact that it was usual for a number
is
of epaarat to pay court to the same Traidixa (cp. Charm. 154 a).
€l ovv ''s ktX. Here Ph. passes on to his second head, the benefits —
derived from Eros in civic and national life {irdkiv, 178 d supra). For the
phrase cp. Laws 640 B el S’ r)v ns pr])(^avr] ktX. Pa.rm. 132 d, Phileh. 16 A.
:

noteworthy that Xen. {Symp. VIII. 32) puts a

crxparoTreSov epaorcav. It is
similar statement in the mouth of Pausanias Ilai/cravias ye,,.eipr]Kev ws xal—
(TTparevpa dKKipararov av yivoiTO ex TraiSixmi' re koI epaarihv (cp. Introd.
§ VIII. ad fin.). Cp. also Xen. Cyrop. vii. 1. 30 ovk i'crriv la-^^vporipa cpaXay^
T]orav €K (piXcov crvppaxcov rjdpoicrpevrj r;. This principle was exemplified in the
famous lepos Xd^or of the Thebans, organized by Gorgidas (or Epaminondas),
which fought first at Leuctra, 371 B.C., see Athen. xiii. 561 f, 602 a. A
Roman analogy is afforded by Scipio’s (pikuiv IX-q. The parallel in Xenophon
isof itself sufficient to refute Jahn’s athetesis of ^ o-rpaTorredov.
OVK 'icmv oTTOJs clv xxX. Hug, retaining rj before anexopevoi, would supply,
with the participles, from the context “ welche Gefiihle allein durch den Eros
in wirksamer XYeise erregt werden.” This, however, is exceedingly awkward;
and his further remark that ovk apeivov olKrjcreiav av rj atrexopevoi is ecjuivalent
to apia-r av oIk. arrex- does nothing to lessen the difficulty. By ejecting r), as
a very natural interpolation after the comparative by a copyist careless of
the sense, we obtain the meaning required “it would be impossible for —
them to secure a better constitution of their city, since thus they would
abstain” etc.
179 A paxopcvoi ktX. Cp. Rep. 471 D apiaP av pdxoivro rS rjKLaTa
aTToXeiTreiv dXXrjXovs...apaxoi, av elev : Xen. Symp. VIII. 32 ff.

f u)
- -^o fei 'Vfcyy

\p(£sxp/etiii~
Oxter'd I'V
 — : — ::

26

179 A B: fifj T hiatum ante oiiSfls notav. J.-U. B {naa-i)

•jTapi')(fL Orelli ov fiovovon: ov povov oc Steph. Sz. ov^ on Fischer J.-U. :

at B: om. T tovtov: SoKel Verm.

Xiirwv rd^iv t) oirXa diroPoXwv. “ The principal military ofifences at Athens

were dealt with by one law. A citizen was liable to indictment, and, if con-
victed, to disfranchisement for (1) Failure to join the army da-rpaTeias:

(2) Cowardice in battle SeiXias (3) Desertion of his post XnroTa^iov

(4) Desertion from the army — \nro<TTpanov. Of these terms, Xmora^iov was
that used in the widest sense, and might include any of the others ” (Smith,
D. A. I. 212*'). Cp. Rep. 468 a, Laivs 943 d fif., and the compounds pt\lracr7ns
{Laws 944 Ar. Vesp. 19), daTndavo^X^s ( Vesp. 592). The conduct of the
B, C ;

ideal epaar^s on such an occasion is shown in 220 E infra.

KivSweviovTL For the sing. dat. referring to rraidiKols, cp. Pkaedr. 239 a,
and 184 d infra. After Kivdwevovn we should expect the sentence to conclude
with oiSe'is ToXptprj dv or the like the fact that a new ending is substituted
;

may be regarded (with Ast) as due to the agitation (real or pretended) of the
speaker “ vom furor eroticus ergriffen.”
^v6eov irpos dpenjv. For eVdeoj, “ god-inhabited,” “ inspired,” cp. Ion 533 e
tv6fOL oi/rej Ka'i 534 B and below, 180b. (pvaei, denoting
Kanyftptvoi: ibid.
“natural” temper, is here opposed to this supervenient grace. For the
thought cp. Spenser {S. to Love), “(The lover) dreads no danger, nor mis-
fortune feares...Thou cariest him to that which he hath eyde Through seas,
through flames, through thousand swords and speares.”
179 B "Opttjpos. See 11. X. 482 ru S’ epTryevae pevos yXavKWTnt 'hBtjvq :

lb. XV. 262, Od. ix. 381. Cp. the (Lacedaemonian) term eianvriXas for ipaarris
also Xen. Symp. iv. 15.

virepairoGvijo'Keiv. Cp. Isocr. Hel. 217 C eviKa ttoXXoi twv rjptOiav dnoBvij-
(TK€IV T]6fkr)(TaV.
ov povov oTi. This expression may be defended by Thuc. iv. 85. 3 Ka\ yap
ov povov on avTol dvdlaraade, dXXa (cat ots dv eirtta, jjo’aov ns dpol npoaeunv :

Arist. Pol. VII. 11. 133U 11 ov^ on rei^rj povov TrepijSXrjTeov (with Newman’s
• Ypn Mftm TT ft R -Tahn’s ovx on would give, as Teuffel argues, the
 179 D] ZYMnOIlON 27

'
IleXiOL/ dvyaTrjp ''A\kt](7ti<; 'iKavr^v pbaprvplav ’jrape')(eTaL virep
TovSe Tov \6jov ei? roii? "^XX,r)va<;, i6e\paaaa pLovr) virep tov
^ avTrji; dvBpb'i dirodavelv, ovrtov avrm irarpo^ re koX /iT/rpo?* 01)9 C
eKeLvrj roaovTov virep^^aXero rp (jjLXia Bid tov epcora, Scrre otto-

^
Bet^a t avToiii; dXXorpiov^; ovTa<; tm vlei ical ovoyiaT t piovov irpoap-
KovTa<i’ Kal TovT ipyacrap,evr] to epyov ovtco icaXbv eBo^ev epyd-
I

\ aacrdai ov piovov dv6 pct)iroi<; dXXd Kal deoi<;, (dare iroXXcbv iroXXd
Kal KaXd ipyaaapievcov evapLOuTjTOL'i Brj naiv eBdcrav tovto yepa<i
^
ol 6eoL, 6^ "AiBov dveivai irdXiv rrjv '^v^^pv, dXXd ttjv eKeLvrjf;

dvelaav cvyaadevre^ T<p dpyai • ovtcd koI deal rpv irepl tov epwTa D
'>
179 B jrapij^eadai Verm. virep...'’EX\Tivas secl. Bdhm. : VTrip...
Xoyou secl. Wolf Sz., post ’EXAt^vos posuit Bast: xinep rovSe del. et tov Adyou
^

post TovTov Se posuit Steph. : virep rovSe del. Wyttenbach XVinckelmann

^ C Korepyacrapevcov Methodius 8fj tovto TW to yipas vulg. aviivai
Hommel dXX’ avTrjv i<elvT]v Earle r<5 epyw secl. Baiter: Ta...6eol
secl. Bdhm.

wrong sense “I do not say men do so, cela va sa7is dire.” We may explain
ov povov on as elliptical for ov povov (Xe'^yaj) oTi.

K av8pes...at -ywaiKes. The addition of the article serves to signalize the

second case as the more striking: cp. /. Alcib. 105 b cV '’EWtja-iv .ev roir . .

^ap^dpois: Phileb. 45 E, ib. 64 c; Vahlen on Arist. Poet. iv. 1449*^ 1.

"AAktio-tis. Besides Euripides, Phrynichus (438 b.c.) and later Antiphanes
(354 B.c.) made Alcestis the theme of a tragedy : see also the Skolion by
Praxilla in Bergk P. L. O. iii. § 1293.
virlp TovSe TOV Xd-yov. “ In support of my argument.”
€ls Tovs "EXX'qvas. Cp. Protag. 312 a fir tovs "EWijvas cravrov aocpKrTrjv
7Tapi\a>v : Gorg. 526 B : Thuc. I. 33. 2.
40€Xij(ra<ra povT) ktX. Cp. Eur. Ale. 15 ff. irdvras 3’ i\iy^as...Ov\ evpe irAiji/

yvvaiicos ijns rjBike wpb Keivov.

\
daveiv
179 C ovs Ikcivti ktX. See Eur. Ale. 683 where the appeal of Admetus flf.

is thus answered by his father Pheres ov yap rraTpwov tovS’ ebe^dpijv vdpov:
[

Traidwv TTpodvriaKfiv rraTepas ovS’ ‘EAXiyviKOv.

dXXoTpCovs. Admetus might have described his dXXdrpiot TrpoarjKovres as
“ a little more than kin and less than kind.”
cvapi6pi]Tois. A grandiose synonym for oXtyois.
JSoo-av TOVTO yepas. .dyao-OeyTes. . Cp. Phaedr. 259 B d yipas irapd 6e5>v
ex^ovTiv dvdpdjTTOLS StSdvai, rdy’ dv dolev dyaerdeVres. dyapai can take either
the genitive {Rep. 426 d, etc.) or the accus. {Symp. 219 d, etc.). This passage
is alluded to by Plut. ainat. 762 a Xiyovres adov tois ipoiTiKols dvobov els <p5>s

vndp^eiv.
ovTa>,..Tipuo'i.v. Cp. Xen. Symp. VIII. 28 dXXd ko! deol koI fjpeoes Trjv Trjs
I
yjrv^^s (piXiav irep'i TrXelovos...TTOiovvTai.

\d(T’i. c < - “^/ ’^'“e

icvCyCwf -

a«y b<r c: . te)

y. .. -rr

fyapAat = +0 uWa- tf^Jin'ire

 ;

28 nAATQNOZ [179 D

(T’lrovh'qv T€ Ka\ dperrjv fidXiara rifiwcnv. 'Op(f)ea Se rov Oldypou

dlreXy direirepL'y^av "AcSou, (j)dcrp,a B€L^avTe<; yvvaLKO<; 60’

,
^Kev, avTTjv Be ov B6vTe <;, otl naXdaKlKea'da L eSoxei, are wv
Ktdap(f)B6<;, Kal ov rdXpav h^ejca rov epwro^ dirodv^aK^Lv warrep
''A\Kr)aTi<;, dXXd Bialp,r))^avd<T6ao elaievat, ei? "AlBov. rot-
jdproi Bid ravra Blktiv avrS irreOeagy Kal . erroir^aav rov Odvarov
E avTov VTTo jvvaiKMV yeveaOai, out^ wairep 'A'y^iXXea rov ©exi-
So? viov erLpu-qaav Kal et? aoKapwv i^aov^ dr^rreix-'^av, otl rrerrv-
aj£evo^ rrapd p,r)Tpb<; w? drrdOavoLTO d'n’okreiva’i '^^E/cropa, pu^
a7roKreiva<; Be rovrov otKaB' eXdwv y'ppaio^ reXevTtjaoL, iroXavaeu

179 D paXivTa TipSxTiv secl. Bdlim. (f)avTa(Tp.a TW To^ixwv Naber

dLaprj^av^aao'Oai W, Vulg. ^rjv livai T iTToirfO'av epyov yeveadai yvvaiKcov
Naber E Kni...d7rf7re/i0ar daninat Naber arrodavoiTo'Y : aTVodavoiB
arroKTelvas Se rovrov B : noLr]cras Se rovro T oiKaS’ T : oiKaSe S’ B

179 D For the legend of Orpheus and bis wife Eurydice, see
’Op<)>ea.

Paus. IS. 454 £F., Ovid Met. x. 1 ff. Phaedrus modifies

30, Virg. Georg, iv.
the usual story (1) by making Eurydice a cparga, and Orpheus consequently
dreXTjy (cp. Stesichorus’ treatment of the Helen-legend, followed also by
Euripides in his HeleTia, and Phaedr. 243 b) (2) by making O.’s descent :

an act of pdkoKla rather than of r6\pa (as Hermesianax 2. 7, Ov. Met. x. 13

ad Styga Taenaria est ausus descendere porta) (3) by representing O.’s death :

to be a penalty for this cowardice rather than for his irreverence to Dionysus
(as Aeschylus Bassarai, etc.). For Orpheus and Orphism in general, see
Miss J. Harrison Proleg. pp. 455 IF.
are wv KiGapuSos. As if the “soft Lydian airs” of the cithara conduced to
eSeminacy. For the cithara, as distinguished from the Xvpa, see Rep.
—
399 D E (with Adam’s note). It is worth noticing that Spenser {H. to
Love) cites Orpheus as an instance of i'vfffos rdXpa “Orpheus daring to —
provoke the yre Of damned fiends, to get his love retyre.”
ToiydpToi 8id ravra. Cp. Isocr. VII. 52, Andoc. I. 108, Dem. xxiii. 203
an example of the rhetorical trick of amplitude. Phaedrus, as Hug observes,
is blind to the obvious corollary that Eros sometimes fails to implant roXga.

179 E ovx locrirep. “Whereas, on the contrary”: cp. Gorg. 522 a, 189 c
infra.
els paKapwv vrjo-ovs. Cp. Pind. 01. II. 78fF, Skolion ap. Bgk. P. L. G. ill. 1290.
by Homer {Od. xi. 467 ff.) in Hades,
Achilles, after death, is variously located,
by Ibycus {fr. 37) in Elysium, by Arctinus and others in Leuke (“white-
island”), for which see Pind. Nem. iv. 49, and Rohde Psyche ii. 369 For fi'.

the situation of the p. v^o-ot, see Strabo i. 3 cp. Adam R. T. G. 135 f. :

tos diroGavotro. See Horn. II. XVIII. 96 avriKU yap rot erreira ped’ "Exropa
TTorpos irolpos ibid. IX. 410 ff.; Apol. 28 c, D.
:

otKa8’,..r€Xevn]<roi. This clause is echoed, as Wolf observed, by Aeschines

I. 145 erraveXOwy otKoSe yrjpaios .airodaveirai.
. .

C^reklij QVITl6t]^l~ TO yxrt/loy Of','

ptaKotp' Iv-yyy

K.(S«pA6/doi ' rruvSd^O/VXI r »il«, i

To/^ur) - /yypodol oU^agcel

 :

180 B] lYMnOZION 29

179 £ ^orjOrjaai W UarpoKXa del. Naber 180 A. Ai(j')(vkos...

"Oprjpos del. Valckenaer dXX’ apa W : dXXa apa T ; dXXa B dXX’ apa Bt.
:

Ka)....ayeveLos post ttoXv transp. Petersen • B epaaTTjs...€(7Ti seel. Bdhm.

Panegyr. 53) lauds the Athenians for a similar nobility of conduct.

180 A
€-n-a-iro0aveiv. This and 208 D are the only classical instances cited
of this compound ; nor does there seem to be another class, instance of vTrepa-

Alcrx'uXos reference is to Aesch. Myrmidons {fr. 135,

136 N.). Sophocles, too, wrote an ’AytXXetoy ’Epaaral: cp. also Xen. Symp.
VIII. 31. Achilles, like Asclepius and others, was worshipped in some places
{e.g. Epirus) as a god, in others {e.g. Elis) as a hero.
dXX’ dpa Kttl. “’'Apa h. 1. stare potest, valet: nimirum” (Wyttenbach)
for apa affirmative in a universal statement, cp. 177 e, Rep. 595 a. To alter
to apa, as Burnet, is unnecessary.
KaXXiuv. For the beauty of Achilles, see 11. ii. 673. Ov. Trist. ii. 411
refers to Sophocles’ play
—
“nec nocet auctori mollem qui fecit Achillem”:
cp. Lucian dial. mart. 18. 1.
dyeveios. The hero is so represented in art; and the Schol. ad R. i. 131
applies to him the epithet ywaiKonpoa-aTros. Similarly Apollo, in Callim. R.
II. 36 f. ovTTore ^ol/Sov j
diyXeiTyor’ ovd’ o<raov eTTt r]X6e Trapeiais.

V6WT€pos. See R.
786 yevep pev vwiprepos iariv ’A;(iXXevy Trpea-jSvTepos
XI. |

de (TV {sc. ndrpoKXos)

ea-ac and Schol. ad R. XXIII. 94. For the relative ages
:

of TTotStKa and epaa-rrjs, see 181 B ffi infra-, Xen. Anah. ii. 6. 28 avrds Se {sc.
Meno) TvaihiKa elx^ Oapinrav dyiveios <ov yeveiavra (mentioned as an enormity);
Ov. Met. X. 83 ffi

poXurra p€v...pdXXov pwroi. This savours of a Hibernicism: cp. Gorg.

509 B piyiarov tS)V KaKwv .Ka\ ert rovrov pel^ov.
. .

180 B 6avpd5o\)<ri. Cp. Rep. 551 a inaLvovaL t€ koI Oavpd^ovo'i Ka'i els
rds dpxds dyovai Xen. Symp. IV. 44.
:

0ei6Tepov...lv0€os. Cp. 179 A, 209 B ad init.-, Schol. ad Eur. Hippol. 144

 ::

30 nAATQNOZ [180 B

'A\K')]<7TiBo'i fidWov iTV/MT/aav, et? fiaKapoov vpaovi aTroTrep,-

\}ravT€‘f.

OvTco Bt) eycoye (pr/pi ’’Epcora Oecov Kal TTpeo'^vTarov koX

rtpLcorarov koX KvpioDTarov elvai et? aperrjf; Kal evBaipovLa<; kttxtiv
dv0pco7rot<; Kal ^oicri Kal TeKevTrjaaa lv.
C VIII. ^alSpov(p€P, roiourov nva \6yov €<f)r] elivelv, perd
^alBpov dWov<; rcva<; elvai, wv ov irdw Btepvrjpovevev ov? •

Trapet? rov Tlavaaviov \6yov ^iTjyelro. elirelv B' avrov on Ov

KaXco'i poL BoKei, w ^aiBpe, TTpo ^e^Xpa-Qai rjpiv 6 A070?, to

oC/TO)? ’iraj>r}yyeK.6ai iyKcopid^eiv '’Epcora. el 'pkv yap el? pv 6

D opOorepov ean irporepov TrpooprjOfjvai ottolov Bel eTraivelv. eyoo

ovv ireipdcropai tovto iirayopOcoaaa-dat, Trpwrov pev “Epcora <^pd-

crat ov Bel iirauvelv, eireLTa eiraiviaai d^La)<; tov deov. 7rdvTe<; yap

180 B Trjs ’AXKTjoTtSoj del. Schiitz Bdhm. koi post 6eS)v om. T
Koi TifiLa>TaTOv om. T (add. in mg. t) KvpLoirepov T C elvai del.
Hirschig : elirelv postea idem cj. D ottoIov : onorepov Herm.

evOeoL \eyovTai 01 vtto (pdaparos Ttvos dpaipedevres rov vovv, Ka'i inr’ Aelvov
rOv deov TOV pao-paroiroiov Kore^opevoi Kal rd doKOvvra Aeivio rroiovvTes. See
Eohde Psyche ii. 19 ff.

OiiTM 8ii ktX. np. summarize the first part

In this epilogue Kal wpea-IS. Kal
of the speech ;
second part. Cp. Isocr. ITel. 218 d
Kal Kvpiojrarov ktX., the
KdXkovs...peTea')(ev o o’epvorarov Kal TipidiraTov Kal deiorarov tS>v Swicv earlv.
180 C aXXovs Tivds civai. The construction here has been misunderstood
Hirschig proposed to write elrrelv for elvai, while Hug bids us supply Xeyovras.
Evidently both suppose that SXXoi nvk mean persons, but it seems better to
take them to be Xdyoi and to construe perd <yal 8pov as a compendium for perd
TOV ^aldpov Xoyov. By this means we secui’e the word required, Xdyovt, as
the antecedent to Siv for biapvrjpoveveiv would be less naturally used of a
:

person than of a speech (cp. 178 a iravTiov ...epepvrjTo). For the brachylogy,
cp. Thuc. I. 71. 2 dpxoioTpoTra vpS>v rd emTrjdevpaTa npdi avTovs euTiv (with
Shilleto’s n.).
TO. .e-yKU(j.id?€iv "Epwra. This clause is best taken, with Stallb. and Hug, as
.

nomin. in epexegetic apposition to Trpo^e^Xrjcrdai 6 Xoyos. Equally improbable

are Eiickert’s view that the clause is accus. (“quatenus sic simpliciter” etc.),
and Hommel’s that it is exclamatory.
tt-rXcos o’vTOJS. Cp. 176 E.

vvv ou -yap. We may assume the ellipse of ov KaXas ex^i after vvv de

cp. Theaet. 143 E, Apol. 38 B, etc.

Trpoppqeiivai. Hommel renders by “prius i^raefari,” Hug by “edicere.”

In favour of Hommel’s view cp. Trpovpprjdrj 198 e, tovtwv TrpopprjdevTiov Laws
^
823 D Rep. 504 A. onrXusf
;
I

-i'o \7fo<pei<y'y£’\XiJ” 1i) rfUv

06^1/) re

foil VpOpt U' /

(TTC-pdu.-
Trpo^x>-0,-+0
^oivopdo'v^ ^
 181 a] lYMnOZION 31

iCTfiev on ovK eanv avev ’'Eptaro? 'A(f>po8iTr]. /j,Ld<i p-ev ovv ovarji;

€t? dv 7JV ’'Epci)?" eVet Svo iarov, Bvo dvdyKT] Kal "Epctfre
elvoL. 7rw9 S’ ov Svo ro) ded ; 76 irov TTpecr^vrepa Kal
ppbrjTcop Ovpavov dv'ydrrjp, fjv Sr] Kai Ovpaviav injovopba^opbev •
rj

Se vecorepa Aio? Kal Aicovp<;, rjv Srj UdvSrjpbov Ka\ovp,ev. avay- E

Kalov Sr] Kal ’^Epwra ^tov fiev rfj erepq avi/epyov IldvSr]pLOV opdcd^
KaXeicrOai, tov Se Ovpdviov. erraLvelv ovv Sel irdvra^ 6eov<;,

a -ST* ovv ejcdrepo^ ei\r]^e Treipareov elrrecv. Traca yap TTpa^v; coS’

€^ei' avT^ i<f>’ kavrr]<; \TrparTopbivp^ ovre Ka\^ ovre alcr')(pd. olov 11

180 D av€v “'Epcos ’AippodiTqs. 'A(f>pob[T~r]s 8e pias Graser {rjs) pias

Eiickert ovv om. Stob. Bekk. de Stj BW : Se T, Stob. epcoras Stob.
Ta ^ea Stob. ; ro) ^ecb Cobet bicovTji T : Biovrjs B E inaLveiv ...
Beovs del. Orelli J.-U. Set Trdvras Beovs '.
ov Set jrdvra •
Bast : ov Set Trdvra

y opoias Vermehren hiatum ante a notavit Sz.: S’ ovv ovv Orelli S’ : :

Ast (Trparreiv) TreipaTeov Kreyenbtibl ojSt Stob. TTpaTTopevri BT,

Stob. Gell. om. Proclus Steph. Sz. rarropevTi Bernays e^era^opevi] Liebhold.
: ; :

180 D OVK ?oTtv. ..’AtJjpoSiTt]. Cp. Hes. Theog. 201 rf/

8^
"'Epos w^dpTriae
Koi "ipepos ecTTrero koXos |
yeivopevp rd tv para Beav r els (pvXov lovarj : Orph.
H. 55. 1 Ovpaviq TVoXvvpve, (piKoppeidvjS A(f)po8lTr]... (8) prjrep iparav.
pias ovoT]s. Cp. Xen. Symp. VIII. 9 el pev ovv pla ear'iv ’A(f)p. rj dirral ktX.
Tti Ged. Plato uses both Beds (181 c, Itep. 327 A, etc.) and Bed {Rep. 388 a,
391 c, etc.) for “goddess,” and Bed here serves to preclude confusion with
’'Epcoy. For the notion of a dual Aphrodite cp. Xen. 1. c., Apuleius apol. 12,
Plotin. Enn. iii. 5. 293 B. For Aphrodite Urania, with a temple in Athens,
see Hdt. 1 105, 131, etc.; Pans. i. 14. 6. See also Cie. N. D. iii. 23; Pind./r. 87.
.

ndvSTiixov. For the temple in honour of A. Pandemos, see Pans. i. 22. 3.

It is doubtful whether the title originally attached to her as the common
deity of the deme, or as the patroness of the iralpai. But whatever its origin,
the recognized use of the title at the close of the 5th century was to indicate
Ventis meretnx.
180 E Kal "Epwra ktX. The notion of a duality, or plurality, in Eros is
also hinted at in Eurip. fr. 550 evbs S’ ’^Eptaros dvros ov pi’ fjdovrj-
|
oi pev
KaKav epSxriv, ol Se rav KaXwv : fr. adesp. 151 dio’ad rwevpara irvels "Epas.
Cp. Phaedr. 266 a.
4Traiv€iv...0eovs. This merely a formal saving clause, to avert possible
is

Nemesis, and although involves the speaker in something like self-

it

contradiction, there is no good reason to suspect corruption in the text (if

correction be required, the easiest would be ev(f)r]pe7v, cp. Epm. 992 D evvprjpelv
Tvdvras Beovs ktX.). The laudation of base gods would sound less strange in
ancient than in modern ears; and Eryximachus uses very similar language
in 188 D (cp. 195 a).
181 A
avn; lt|)’ lavn^s k-tX. Gellius XVII. 20 ignores nparropevr] in his
rendering (“ Omne,” inquit, “ omniuo factum sic sese habet neque turpe est, ;

SrrrOVbJUDe^vS^ 3>V« -tO =^o obf«iV, ty l«+y/U' -

/
^

€ i^repo; d j
Sw.ir P'e-rl-f
 ;

32 nAATQNOI [181 A

C Kai...€pa>s seel. Schiitz Teuffel Hug Sz. Bdhm. J.-U.

quantum in eo est, neque honestum, uelut est quas nunc facimus ipsi res,
bibere cantare disserere. nihil namque horum ipsum ex se honestum est;
quali cum fieret modo factum est, tale extitit,” etc.) Proclus also (in Alcih. I.
:

p. 215) omits it. It must certainly, I think, be ejected, since it only serves to
confuse the argument none of the alternatives proposed are at all probable
;

while Rettig’s attempt to justify itsretention by the device of setting a

comma before it is merely absurd. For the language cp. Meno 88 c iravra ra
Kara rrjv \j/v)(riv avra pev KaO’ avra ovre w<j)e\ipa oiVe /SXa^epd eariv Phaedr.
258 c, D. See also Er^x. 397 e ;
Arist. Pol. 1333*^ 9, for the moral indifference
of TT panels Kad’ avras.
o Ti civ TvxTi. “ At random ” ;
so o n av Tvx<oa-i 181 B infra : Prot. 353 a
ot d Tt av tovto Xeyovai.
181 B wv Kttl epwcri. “ In the actual objects of their passion ” : the full

statement would be epSiai r&v aoipdrcov eKflvav (sc. Traificov r) yvvaiKoiv) wv

ipwai pdWov r) t5>v \p-.

TO 8ia-n-pd|ao-0at. A polite euphemism for the sexual act: cp. 182 c,

Phaedr. 256 c ;
Lysias i. 33.
?o-Ti •ydp...app€vos. Observe that the reasons are put in chiastic order.
181 C Kttl 2crTiv...’'Ep<i)s. This clause is obviously open to suspicion as
(1) anticipating the sense of d6iv drj xrX.,and (2) standing in partial con-
tradiction to the later statement (181 D ad init.) ov yap ipwai iraLbwv.
 : ’ :

181 E] ZYMnOZION 33

TraiBav e/jci)?’] eTretra 'Trpea-^vT€pa<;, uySpeo)? apLoipov odev Brj

eVt TO appev TpeirovTat oi e/c tovtov tov epeoro? ^eTmrvoT) to

( fivaet ippap^evearepov Kal vovv pdWov e^ov dya7r(SvT€<;. kuL
Ti? dv yvoiT) Ka\ iv avrfj tt} iratB'epaaTia too? (§xXiKpiv<io<; vtto
TOVTOV TOV epcoTO^ w p p7] pivov; • ov yap epwat, TraLBcov, aSX D
€7ret,Bdv i]B7] dp'X^covTat, vovv 'id'yeiv, tovto Be 7r\7)aid^et tm
yeveidai^iy. irapea KevaapevoL ydp, oipai, elalv oi ivTevO ev
dp-)(^6pevoL ipdv cJ? tov ffiov aTravTa ^vvecropevoL koX KOLvfj avp-
^Koaopevoi, dW' ovk i^a7raT^aavTe<;, iv dcj^poavvy Xa^ovTe^ fu? -

veov, KaTaye'KaaavTe<i oy^^rjayo’daL iir dWov dTroTp eYovT€<;. XPV^

Be Kal vopov eivat pr) ipdv TraiBcov, iva prj et? aBrjXov ttoW^
aTTovBr) dvTjXiaKeTO' to ydp twv jraiBwv reXo? dBrfXov ol TeXevTo, E

181 C TraiScBV in TraiSepaaT&p mutato post ayanavres trs. Verm. TTpecr-

^vTepas (ovoTjs xai) Christ apoipov libri : dpoipos Ficinus Bast Bdhm.
v^peas apoipov addub. Sz. D dXX’ {fj) Steph. Hug oi)(fa-6ai Herwerden
TTolSas Markland E re'Xo? seel. Bdhm.

vppews dpolpov. For v^pis as especially associated with juvenile “ lustihead,”

cp. Eutkyd. 273 b v^piaTTfs 8ia t 6 vios eivai: Lysias xxiv. 16 v^pi^eiv (Ikos...

Toils ‘4
ti viovs Kal veais rats Siavoiais )(p<tip€vovs Soph. 705 v^pis de Toi...iv

viois av6ei re Kal (jidivei naXiv.

^iriTTvoi. “ Driven by the spirit ” : the only other exx. of the word in Plato
are Gvatyl. 428 C and Meno 99 D epaipev av Oeiovs re eivai Kal evdovTid^eiv,
eTTiTTVovs dvras Kal Kare^opivovs eK tov deov (cp. 179 A n., 180 B n.).

181 D TouTo Sb Sc. TO VOVV ivx^eLv. This is in contradiction to the

statements of Phaedrus, 178 C {evdiis veco ovti), 180 A (ert dyeveios ffv). For
yeveiaaKeiv (^puhescere), cp. Solon 27. 5 6 — TpiTonp he yeveiov de^opevwv eTi

yviaiv \
Xa^vovTai, xpciijs dv6os dpeiSopevTjs. Cp. Spenser E. Q. II. xii. 79 “And
on his tender lips the downy heare Did now but freshly spring, and silken
blossoms beare”: Hor. C. iv. 10. 2 {pluma).
Trapeo-Kevao-pevoi ktX. For the change of construction from q)j with fut.
partic. to (fut.) infin., cp. Charm. 164 d, Mep. 383 a iroieiv iis pr]Te...ovTas...
prjTe. ..Trapdyeiv. The clause ev d(j)poa'vvri...veov is best taken closely with the
preceding participle, and KaTaye\da-avTes.-..dTTOTpexovTes clo.sely together. For
e^aTraTrjiravTes cp. 184 E, 185 A Theogn. 254 dXX’ axnrep piKpov naiha Xdyois
:

p diraTas. This dudn] and KOTayeXdv are forms of the v/3pir mentioned above,
181 c: cp. 219 c, 222 a.
€pdv iralStov.
(1.1) reals, as here used, is Theognis’ piKpos nais, the rraihdpiov

of 210 B infra.
181 E d8T)Xov ol TeXeuTa. Cp. Phaedr. 232 E t5)V pev epwvTdiv ttoXXoi
vpoTepov TOV aapaTos erredvprjO'av fj tov Tporrov eyvwaav kt\. Theogn. 1075 ff. :

npriypaTOS dnpfjKTOv xdXeTrdiTaTov eari TeXevTrjv yvS)vai...op<pvrj ydp TeTaTai'. \

Alcid. OdySS. 5 irdad re dreopia rjv Trot noTe irpoSfjO'oiTO fj...TeXevTfj. A similar
yeveS :u a gjvre
B. P. 2
V. -
’
r , /
ircepsidK^oet^w- " 7
' ' '

O.-naTpexp- oU-Ut^y
C. 'N ,,
C iXl Kpll/ui ^ '

-^oose
Ca:.pl>': •
,
- c 'l’cxirotTe'' . r-To d<s.f,StJiXe. 'a^X'6l<vv
I f
,T,6l o((jtp!o6i/vn
 ;

34 nAATQNOZ [181 E

KaKia<; kuI dp€Trj<; re Trepi /cal acop,aro^. ol ovv

dyadol TOP vopov rovrov avrol aurot? eK6vfe<i rlOevrai,
Kal TovTOv<i roi/t 7ravBi]pov<; ipaaTd<; rrpo^aj^ay/cdl^e/^v to tolovtov,
axxTrep twv e\ev6ep^ ywatKO/v irpoafavayKa^opev avrov^
Kal
182 KaO' ocrov BvvdpeOa prj ipdv. ovroi yap eiaiv ol Kal to ovel^of
TreirocriKOTe^;, ware roXpdv Xeyeiv w? aiaxpov j^pL^eaOat
epaaTal<;‘ Xiyovai Se et? toutou? dwoj^XeTrovTes, opcSvre'i avTwv
TTjv dkaiplav Kal dlStKiav, eVet ov B/] ttov Koapla)<; ye Kal mpip,Q)'i.
OTLOVV irpaTTopevov \jr6yop dp BvKaico'i ^epoL.
Kat Bt] Kal 6 Trepi top epcara p6po<; ip rat? dX\at<; iroXeaL

181 E KUKias rj edd. Stobaei, Hommel Xp!jv W : XP'?" B : XP'7 T

tS)V tolovtov W 182 A Tiva vulg. aKaiplav : uKoapiav Liebhold
ye : re vulg. otlovv {Trpayfia) mg. t, Bt.

sentiment occurs in the Clown’s song in Twelfth-Night :

“ What’s to come is

still unsure... Youth’s a stuff will not endure.”

KUK^as Kal dperfis. Possibly these genitives are to be construed (with

Rtickert) as dependent on the preceding adverb oi: cp. Soph. 0. T. 413 oh
ei kokov (Madv. Gr. Sgnt. § 50 b).
/SXeVety Iv Hug, however, takes them to
be governed by nepi, comparing for the separation of prepos. fi’om case ApoL
19 c. Soph. AJ. 793.
TovTovs...€pa<rTds- contemptuous cp. Apol. 17 B, Rep. 492 D ovtol
PYr ovtos
ol TraiSevTai re Kal croc^iarai is the contemptuous isti” Adam).
(“ovtol
TO ToiovTov. Sc. p,r) ipav TralBcov (d ad Jin.). For the db. accus. with
avayKii^io, CJJ. Rep. 473 A roCro jaj) dvdyKa^e pe Phaedf. 242 B. Hoinmel, :

perversely, construes rd tolovtov as an adverbial accus., “ganz in der Weise

wie ” etc.

TWV eXevGepwv ywaiKw. For the legal penalties (by a ypa(j>r) poLxAas or
v^peas or a dLKTj /Stai'wv) for rape and adultery, see Lysias i. 26, 30, 49. One
of the lesser penalties was that alluded to by Catullus xv. 18 f., Quern.. .Per-
current raphanique mugilesque.
182 A «pao-Tais. obsequi, “ to grant favours ” —the
converse of SiaTrpd^acr^at —
a vox propria in this connexion cp. Schol. ad
is ;

Phaedr. 227 C rd x^purreov i(rT\v...TO npos d/ppobiaLov eavTov avvovalav eTTtSi-

Sdvai TLvl. For the sentiment here disputed, see Xen. Symp. viii. 19 ff.
Mem. I. 2. 29; and the paradox in Phaedr. 233 E I'o-ws irpoa-rjKeL oh toIs acfyodpa
beopivoLs x^^piC^rdaL. Aeschines i. 136 agrees with Pausanias.
Ti^v aKaipiav. “Impropriety” or “tactlessness”: for exx. of such d<aLpla,
see 181 D, Phaedr. 231 off.
d...v6pos. vdpos here includes both “law” proper and “laublic sentiment”
or “ custom ” (“ die Anschauungen des Volkes,” Hug) which are distinguished
in Dem. de Cor. 114: cp. Thuc. vi. 18. 7: but in Thuc. vi. 16. 2 vopos is
!*<*->
^
“custom.”

•x'-s el.'jo>t'*<e
I
fr^c/or", free
I

SfKcX/p/rtrfi"
 182 B] lYMnOIlON 35
/ ^ 1 At

182 A (6) eV Hirschig koi iv AaKebaifiovi secl. Winckeltnann Hug

Sz. J.-U. : fort, post yap transpon. (cf. Teuffel) 6 supra eV AaKeBaipovi
add. T B ov T : ov B TO BT : del. t rolr Se 'Iwvtas Ast:
Tjj 'Icovia Thiersch noWaxov KOI aWodi cj. Steph. (kq'i) o(roi

Eiickert •ye (post roCrd): re Herm. Sz.

182 A Kal ev AttKeSaiiiovi. I follow Winckelmann and others (see cnt. n.)
in bracketing these words :
possibly they should be transposed to a place in
the next clause, either after yap or after Boicoroly (in suggesting this I find

myself anticipated by an anonymous critic, ap. Teufiel, Rhein. Mus. xxix.

p. 145). That Laconia was a hot-bed of paederasty might be inferred a priori
from its military-oligarchical constitution, and is betokened by the verb Xa/cco-
i/ifeii/ used as a synonyun for TraiBiKols xpw^^'- 322), and the adj.
KvaoXaKoDv for 7raiSepacrri)y. It is certainly unlikely that a ttoikiXos vopos
would be ascribed to the Laconians, and unlikely too that they would be
classed apart from the pij a-o(j)oi Xiyeiv. Moreover, in 182 d it is d ivddSe fif.

(rjperepos) vopos which is treated as ttoikIXos, and no mention is made there

of a similar Laconian vopos. For Laconian mores, Stallb. cites Xen. Rep.
Lac. II. 13; Plut. Lac. Inst. p. 237 b; Aelian V. H. iii. 10. 12. In Xen. Symp.
VIII. 35 the Lacedaemonians are lauded —
6eav yap ov Trjv 'AvaiSeiav dXXd rrjv
AiSco vopi^ovcn (which ought, perhaps, to be construed as implying that they
are slighted here).
182 B Iv "HXiSi. kt\. Cp. Xen. Symp. viii. 34, Rep. Lac. l.c., Athen. xiii. 2.
The Cretan apnaypos Tvaibav (Laws viii. 836) points to a similar state of things.
T’iis SI TtovCas. The genitive is taken by Hug as dependent on iro'KKaxpv,
by StaUb. as dependent on oaoi, “ vel potius ex demonstrative ante dcrot
intelligendo.” Hug quotes Xen. Hell. iv. 4. 16 TroXXap^do-e Kal rijs ’ApKabias
ep^aXovres.
-
00 01 ... oIkovo-i. The grammar is loose— “per synesin additur Saoi perinde
ac si praecessi.sset ‘apud lonas autem et multos alios’” (Stallb.). The
language is most appropriate to a time after the Peace of Antalcidas (387 B.C.),
when the Greeks of Asia Minor were again reduced to subjection to the
Great King (see Bury, Hist. Gr. p. 552) cp. Cratyl. 409 E ol vtto tois /3ap- ;

Sdpois oIkovvt€s Laws 693 a. :

TOVTO -ye Kal kt\. Strictly we should supply, with roCro, rd xapi^eaOai
ipaarals, but the notion latent is probably the more general one rd ipdv
(Trai'dmv). The palaestrae (gymnasia) were recognized as the chief seats of
= ft-"
VoyUoBsTeu-*^ ^ o. Uio-giveT, g 2
OpiJu)““*' 'h'f’tieje VMolte UuJS

0(7rXui~il-yfly,pl^[„J. cl-leyi.
 :

36 nAATQNOI [182 B

C^t\oyvfj.va(TTLa' ov yap, olpbat, crvpffiepei rot? dp-^^^ovai (^povqpara

p-eyaXa iyfyLyveadai tmv dp^op,ev(Ov, ovSe ia-^vpd<; kuI
Koivcovia<;, o 8^ puaXiara cfioXet rd re dWa irdvra koX 6 ep(o<i

ip,7roieiv. epyw Se tovto ep,adov koX oi ivOdSe Tvpavvoi' 6 yap

’ ApicrToy€LTOVo<; epoyf Kal r) ' AppiohLov <piXla ^e^ato'i yevop,€vrj
KareXvaev avrwv rrjv dp')(^v. outo)? ov fMev aia')^pbv ereOrf %a/3t-

182 C ylyvfo-dai Jn. toIs dp^opevois ex emend. Vindob. 21 : rc5

dpxop€v(a Rohde ; tZv dp^opevoov (rats yj^vxats) Bdlim. paXtorra post koi
trs. Ast dXXa: /caXd J.-U. TtdvTa'. ravra Schleierm. Koto: K at seel.
Bdhm. Sz. OV Tb : ov B

(f>iXo(ro(j)ia and rraiBepacrTia as well as of (piXoyvpvaaria. Cp. (for TraiSepaoria)

Ar. Nub. 973 ff., 980 avros eavrov Trpoaycayevcov toIs d(f)daXpo7s : Laws 636 B :

Xen. Cyrop. ii. 3. 21 : Cic. Tusc. iv. 33. 70 in Graecorum gymnasiis..,isti

liberi et concessi sunt amores. Bene ergo Ennius: flagiti principium est
nudare inter cives corpora Pint. amat. 751 f ff. The gymnasia also served,
:

at Athens, as headquarters of political clubs, cp. Athen. xiii. 602.

182 0 <}>povijnaTa. ..^YY^Yve<^0al. For (f>pov. peyaXa cp. 190 B. For iyyly-
veadai cp. Xen. Rep. Lac. V. 6 oxtt skci ^Kicrra pev v^piv...iyy'iyv€a-daf. and
184 A infra. The genitive tS>v dp^opevcov, in place of the more natural dative,
may be explained, with Stallb., as due to “a confusion of two constructions,”
the gen. being dependent on (ppov. pey. and the dat. after the verb omitted.
For the thought, cp. (with Jowett) Arist. Pol. v. 11. 15.
8 8ii...€|iiroi€iv. The neut. sing., which is acc. after ipTroifiv, serves to grasp
under one general head the preceding plurals. I'or this common use of (piXel,
solet, cp. 188 B infra, Phileb. 37 B. Hug, excising the ko'i after ndvra, con-
strues ra dXXa irdvra as a second object, parallel to o. But no change is
needed the phrase means “ prae ceteris omnibus maxime amor,” as Stallb.
:

renders, cp. the usage of dXXos re Kai, rd re dXXa KQL in 220 a, Apol. 36 a, etc.
6 -ydp ’ApwTTo-yeiTovos ktX. For the exploits of these tyrannicides, who
slew the Pisistratids in 514B.C., see Bury H. G. p. 205. Aristogeiton was the
ipaa-TTjs of Harmodius, and popular sentiment invested the pair, in later days,

with a halo of glory as the patron-saints and martyrs of Love and Liberty.
Cp. Skolia 9 (Bgk. P. L. G. III. p. 646) iv pvprov KXabl t 6 ^i(pos (fiopricro), I

coUTTep AppoSios KOI 'Apicrroyelrcov, ore rbv rvpavvov Kraverrjv larovopovs r'
' I

'Adrjvas irroiriadTTjv Ar. Ack. 980, Lys. 632. The exploit was also com-
memorated by Antenor’s bronzes and a group by Critias and Nesiotes (repro-
duced in Bury H. G. p. 209).
eTe'0T|. As aor. pass, of ridfadai, this is equiv. to ivopia-Qq (cp. two
11. below). It is plain that depivwv must here be taken to include both rulers
and For TrXeove^ia, “arrogant greed,” as opposed to q rov ’laov npq,
subjects.
see Rep. 359 For the theory implied in the following passage, that epeus-
c.

and dVSpeta go together (as Phaedrus also had contended, 178 off'.), cp.
Bacon, Essay x. {Of Love): “I know not how, but Martiall men are given to
Love I think it is but as they are given to Wine for perils commonly aske
:
;

^
to be paid in pleasures.”
4>pi>vrjfol= l-Kc

f'ro’pie^y, Sift'd/kst^
fiefiii>i\0^

i’n&i'y,Svrt,s*fe
 183 a] lYMnOIlON 37
-ri^yjjur-

^ecrdat epacrrai?, KaKLO, Ta>v defievcov Ketrai, tS)V fjuev ap-)(pvTa>v

ifkeove^ia, he ap^ofievcov dvavS piq- ov he koXov d'ir\S)<; (^iw- D
liiaS^ hid rqv to)v 6ep,eva>v dpy iav. evOdhe he ttoXv
TOVTCov KaXkiov vevopboderrjTai, Kal oirep elTrov, ov pqhiov Kara -
vorjaai .

’
X. ^vdvp,r)9evri yap on Xeyerai icdXXiov to (^avep(d<; epdv
Tov Xddpa, KoX p,dXiaTa ro)v yevvaiordnov real dpLanov, kuv
ala-^lovi dXXcov (hen, Kal on av t] 7rapaKe Xevai<; reh epehvn irapd
'TrdvTcov Oavpiaanj, oy^ 0^9 ti ala')(pov iroiovvn, Kal eXovTi re -

KaXov hoKel elvai Kal pr] eXovn alen^pov, Kal 7rpo9 to eTTi'yei pelv E
eXetv i^ovaiav 6 v6po<; hehoJKe tm epaarp davpaerrd epya epya-
^opiva eiraiveladaL, d et Ti9 roXpehr] rroielv dXX’ onovv hicoKOiv
Kal /3ovX6p€vo<; hia/irpd^aaOai ttXtjv tovto \^^iXocro(^La<;\ rd pe- 183
yicrra jeapiroiT dv oveihrj • el ydp tj ')(^pripaTa ^ovX6pevo<; irapd

182 D oi §6 T ; ov Se B fie B : OUl. TW Karavorjcrai iv6. y' on

Bdhm. iv(6vpr)6riv in mg. W re T : om. B E Tcphs rw Ast
a et TW : atei B ; yp. Kal atet W 183 A <^iko(To(f)Las secl. Schleierm. Bekk.
Hug Sz. Bdhm. Bt.: (f>i\las, tovto delete, Herm.: (jilXois Sepdeis cj. Bdhm.:
alii alia et BT :
p W
D ’Ev0vn.Ti0e'vTt yap ktX. The constraction is grammatically incom-
182
plete one would expect bo^eav av, or the like, to govern the dative. It is
:

not till we get to 183 c (ravri; pev ovv ktX.) that we find the sense resumed.
irapa irdvruv. Jowett’s “all the world” is misleading: the treatment is
here confined to Athenian vopos.
182 E irpos TO €irix6i-peiv ktX. “Quod attinet ad amasii capiendi conatum”
(Stallb.).
e|ov(r£av...lTraivei(r0ai. Here, as often, the main idea is put in the
participle. Again Jowett misleads, in rendering 6 vopos “the custom of
mankind.”
0avpaa'Td ^pya. “ OavpaerTa vel davpaaia noielv vel ipya^ecrOai est sich
Wunderlich geherden...<y\\o6. dicitur de qui vel propter dolorem et indigna- iis

tionem vel oh ingentem laetitiam vel etiam prae vehement! aliqua cupiditate
insolito more se gerunt ” (Stallb.). Cp. 213 D, Apol. 35 A, Theaet. 151 a.
183 A irX'pv TOVTO [<j)iXoo‘o<)>ias]. (f)i\o(ro(j)Las is most probably corrupt : if

retained, it would be better to construe it as genit. of object (“the reproaches

levelled against philosophy”) than as genit. of subject or origin (as Ast,
Stallb., we should expect rather ^tXoo-ot^tov. The
Kreyenbiihl), for which
simplest and best remedy with Schleiermacher, to eject <piXocro<plas as a
is,

gloss on the misreading tovtov. For oveibos, cp. Rep. 347 B to (jiiXonpov re
Kal (fxXapyvpov eivai ovetdos XiyeTai. For Kapirovcrdai, in malarn partem, cp.
Rep. 579 c; Eur. Hipp. 1427 k. irivOr). In their translations, Jowett follows
Ast, but Zeller adopts Schl.’s excision. 6myeipeu>~
J
|tt
T/\eoyc^lai‘^ '«'<vr\l<C<7<Xv'0€w jetrf O r

stvre. W'<-° Two -A.

CtVavSpic hyesf, CourrePcf

^rrXCjs~ ph/v/y
0? pyfX^ iJUac^ ' I
V^pyKeAev6>£-
- a ~ '
5
...
plu\Ur
^
/
 — : ;

38 nAATQNOZ [183 A

Tov \a/3etv fj ap')(^v dp^ai, t] tlv’ dWrjv 8vvap,tv , ideXot TTOielv

oldirep ol ipaaral 7rpo? ra irathLKa, ucer^wi re kuI dvTL^o\'q<jei<^
ev rat? Berjcreat TroLovpLevoi,, Kal 6pKov<; 6pLvvvTe <:, kcli Koip,7]a€L<; evrl
6vpaL<;, Kal idiXovTe<; SouAeta? SovXeveiv oia<f ouS’ dv BovXo'i ov8el<i,

ipLiroSi^oiTO dv pbrj TTpaTreLV ovt(o rrjv TTpd^iv Kal vtto (plXcov Kal
B VTTO i')(^$pS)v, Twv pbkv oveihi^ovrcdv KoX aKeLa<; Kal dveXevOepLa'i,
rwv Be vovderovvToyv Kal ala')(yvop,ev(ov virep avTcov' tw S’ ip&VTL
irdvra ravra ttoiovvti %apt9 eVecrTt, Kal SeBoTac vtto tov v6p,ov
dvev 6 v€lBov<: TTparrecv, co? TrayKaXov tl irpd'ypia BiaTrpaTTop,ivov'

o Be BeLVorarov, c«? 76 Xiyovaiv ol ttoXXoI, on Kal ^vvvn p,6v(p

avyryvcop^T] irapd dewv iK/3dvn tcov opfccov — d<ppoBi,aiov yap opKov

183 A ap^ai seel. Verm. Hug Sz. rj nv’ S17 nv’ Bdhm. aXXrjv
bvvapiv seel. Bdhm. iBeKei T Kcu..,6pvvvTis del. Voeg. J.-U. : dpvvvTfs
seel. Hertz Hug Sz. koI Koip....dvpais seel. Wolf Jn.; post noiovpevoi
transp. Riiekert t’^eXorras vulg. : e^eXoi/Tai (S. SovXevovxfs) Ast B avrav:
avTov Orelli Sz. ravra rravra T eTreari T : erreraL B : errerai J.-U. Sz.

diawparropevo) vulg. povov Stob. ra>v opKa>v T : r5>v opKOv B: rov opKOv
al., J.-U. opKov {Kvptov) seripsi : op<ov {opKov) Hertz Hug

Koi.|jii1(rei,s eivl Gvpais. Cp. 203 D; Ov. A. A. II. 238 frigidus et nuda saepe
iacebis humo : Hor. C. iii. 10. 2 asperas porrectum ante fores, etc. For the
|

other love-symptoms cp. also Xen. Cyrop. v. 1. 12.

B
a’urxwopevwv virep avrwv. For this construction cp. Euthyd. 30.5 a,
183
Charm. 175 D. With the whole of this passage cp. Xen. Symp. iv. 15, a^ii.
12 £f. : Isocr. Hel. 219 B povovs avrovs {sc. rovs KaXovs) Sxnrep rovs dfovs ovk
arrayopevopev Beparrevovres, aXX’ r^biov dovXevopev rois rowvrois rj ra>v dXXwp
dp^opev...Kai rovs pev vrr' dXXp riv'i dvvapei yiyvopivovs Xoibopovpev Ka'i koXokos
arroKaXovpev, rovs Se rta KoXXei Xarpevovres (pikoKoXovs Kal (jiiXoTrovovs elvai
vopi^opev (with which cp. also 184 c infra).
Tw 8’ epi5vTi...8i.aTrpaTTop€vov. For the gen. absolute after a dative, cp.
Laws 839 b rjpTv ns napaaras avrjp...Xoibopr]a'€iev av cos av6T)ra...ridivrcov '.

Phileb. 44 c is a less certain case. For the sense of the passage, cp. Bacon,
Essay x. {Of Love) “It is a strange thing to note the exces.se of this passion
:

and how it braves the nature and value of things ; by this, that the speaking
in a perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing hut in Love.’^

ws ye Xeyovcriv These words qualify the following, not the preceding,

(cxX.

clause: Pausanias himself censures perjury in 183 e. For cSs ye, cp. Pep.
352 D, 432 B.
d<j>po8to-iov -ydp opKov ktX. This proverbial expression is found in two
forms, dcfrpohia-ios dpKos ov baKvec (Hesych.) and aepp. dpKos OVK epnoLvepos

(Suid.). The Scholiast quotes Hesiod {fr. 5 G.) Ik rovh' dpKov edrjKev dpelvova
{dirrjpova G. Hermann) dvBpcdrroicn I
vocrcpidicov epycov rrepi Kvrrpihos. Cp.
Soph. fr. 694 opKovs he poixcdv els recppav eyd) ypdcfco Callim. Epigr. 27 {Anth. :

Pal. V. 5. 3) dXXd Xeyovenv dXrjBea, rovs ev epcon opKovs prj hvveiv ovar is \

prey tr tl So oyeiii"*' ’to «Vut * W+k

oi/TiySoXew *^1 b./
' i<6Xfl(Ker«<=

I
 183 d] ZYMnOZION 39

<Kvpiov> ov ^aaiv elvai — ovt(o kuI ol deal koX ol dvOpcoiroi Trdaav

i^ovatav TreTroiijKaai rtp ipdyvri, co? o vo/xo? (jitjalv 6 ivOdSe" C
ravrp p-ev ovv olrjBe tr} dv Ti? irdr^KoXov vopi^eaOat ev rpSe Trj

TToXei Kal TO ipdv Kal to <f)i\ov<; ytyveadai roi? epacrrai?. ineihdv

Se TraiSaywyov^ iiTL(TTrjaavT€<; ol TraTepe^ tol<; ip(opevoL<; pr) idxri

Siokeyeadac toI<; ipaaTal<i, Kal tm TratSaycoyS TavTa TrpoaTeTay-

peva p, rj\iKid)Ta i 8 e Kal eTatpoi oveiBi ilwatv, idv ti opcocrL toiovto
ycyvopevov, Kal tov<; 6 vetB l^ovTa<: av ol Trpea/dvTepoi pr) BiaKW- D
XvcoaL prjBe XotBop coaiv &)? ovk op0w? XeyovTa<;, et? 8 e TavTa ti<;

av /3A.e-v|ra9 rjyqaaLT dv iraXiv alay^Larov to tolovtov ivddBe vopL-

'

,
^eaOai. to 8 e, olpat, d) 8 e%ef aTiXovv gcttIv, oirep dp'^rj^;

183 B elvai BT Stob. Cyril.: dd<veiv Teuffel : elvac ifiTrolvifxov Osann Jn.
Sz. KOI 6(ol Kal avdpcoTTOi W. Cyril, vulg. C TreTroirjKaaL Tro-aav Cyril.

6taX. rnvs epaards Orelli Kal...^ secl. Jn.; Kal. ..npoTTeTaypiva secl. Hug Sz.

^ TW : 04 B : rj ol al. eraipoi Heindorf : erepoi BT D ov^ anXovv :

anXovv Bast : ov^ ottXSis Ast

ddavarcov : Aristaen. ir. 20

Ov. A. A. i. 633 luppiter ex alto periuria ridet
:

amantum: Tibull. i. nec iurare time: Veneris periuria venti irrita...

4. 21 ff.
|

feruut, etc. As to the text, the parallels quoted lead us to expect a fuller
expression. Hertz’s opKov {opKov), adopted by Hug, is ingenious but rather
weak in sense. I prefer to insert Kvpcov (abbreviated kov) after dpKov. For
KvpLos, “ valid,” cp. Laws 926 D : Ep. vi. 323 C, and see L. and S. s.v. ii. 2 : ov
Kvpioi is equiv. to aKvpos, irritus. To Jahn’s insertion (epnoivipov) Teuffel
rightly objects that it smacks but little of the proverbial manner.

Kal ot 0601 Kal 01 av0pwiroi. This seems to balance the statement made by
Phaedrus, 179 C — D.

183 C Tois ep(«|xe'vots. From this dative (governed by eiria-T^a-apTes), we

must supply an acc. {roiis epcopevovs) to act as subject to 8LaX€y€a-6ai. For
the general sense of the passage, cp. Phaedr. 255 a idv...vTTo ^vpcpoirrjTaiv rj
TLvav dWcov Bia^ejSXrjpevos fj, Xeyovraiv as ala^^pov ipavTi wXrjaid^eiv ibid. :

234 B.

Kal.-.-irpocTTeTa-ypeVa g. Hug, after Jahn and others, condemns this clause

on the grounds that (1) p is wanting in B (2) the change of number, from
;

TTaibayayovs to Traibayaya, is awkward ; (3) the clause contains nothing new.

But there is point in the change from plur. to sing, as serving to individualize
the parents’ action and the clause does add to the statement in the context
;

the further idea that the paedagogi are appointed not only as a general safe-
guard, but with special instructions to ward off this particular danger, ravra,
the subject of irpoa-r. f),
represents (as Stallb. notes) pi) e’mcrt biaXiyeaBai rots
ipaarais.
183 D TO 8e'...^x^'" this formula, introducing the solution of a
problem, cp. 198 D; Theaet. 166 a.
s/
ovx dirXovv IcttIv. Stallbaum, ejecting oix with Bast, renders anXovv by
f
^TxXoC^- 4>*£

TTlptidTciiAw-'ro tied:
- fel/ow,C5»^rAt/£

dveiSl'^u-'^o
SuoiuXJa- +a^>W«OCksck.,
• >,b.Ao£c'.is'''o r»il«+ re^,\e.
 ;

40 nAATQNOZ [183 D

i\.e')(6'r] ovre koXov eivat avro KaO avro ovre aia")(p6v, aAXa KaXS)<i
fjukv TrpaTTOfjuevov KaXov, he ala"^p6v. ala')(^pS}<; puev ovv
earl TrovrjpM re koX 'irovripw<; •^(^apl^eadai, /caXw? he '^prjarep re Ka\
E KaXSi<;. ^^ovrjpbi; h' earlv eKelvo'i 6 epaar^'i o 7rduhr}p,o<;, 6 tov
a(op,aTo<; p,dXXov p ipcov’ Kal yap ovhe fJ.6vifi6 ecrrcv, <;

are ov pLovipov epcov 'irpdypbaTO’t. dpua yap rm rod aeaparos

dvde i XrjyovT L, ovTrep ppa, “ oX'^erai drrqrTrdpevo<;',' vroXXoii? Xoyov'i
Kol uTf'oo'^ecrei? •
o he rod rjdov<; ^(^prjarod oVto?
epaarrj^; hid ^Lov p,evei, are p,ovLpi(p g-wraKe^^ tovtov<; h^ jSov-

183 D elvai del. Steph. Ast (ovSei') ouVe Bdhm. alcr^pas p€v : ala')(p6v
pev Steph. KoXws 5e "Par. 1810 : kqXov Si BT KOI KaXSis : KOI ^prjaTais
Sauppe Sz. E ip5>v rj rfjs T are ov B : are ovSi T

“verum simpliciter,” citing Phaedo 62 a, Phaedr. 244 a, Protag. 331 B. Ee-

taining we cannot take the foil, accus. and infin. as the subject (with
Wolf), but must supply to xapiCeadat (with Hug) from the context.
al(r)^p(3s pev. ..KaXois 8 b With each adverb, sc. xapiC^rdai: cp. Pep. 339 C
TO Si 6p6cbs...Tb Si pj] opBcos {sc. Tidivai).
183 E ri TOV o-topaTos av0ei X. Youth “is like the flower of the field, so
soon passeth it away, and it is gone.” Cp. Mimn. 2 7 plvwda Si ylyverai ^I3rjs .

KapTTOs: Theogn. 1305 rraiSeias TToXvrjpdrov avdos diKVTepov araSlov: S5gur’s \

refrain “Ah! le Temps fait passer I’Amour”: Spenser {II. to Beautie) “For
that same goodly hew of white and red. With which the cheeks are sprinckled,
shal decay. And those sweete rosy leaves, so fairely spred Upon the lips, shall

fade and fall away” etc.: Rep. 601 B oIkovv eoi<ev roly tS>v cvpaicov TrpocrcoTroty...
OTav avrd to avdos npoXinTj Xen. Byinp. VIII. 14 ro piv rrjs copas avdos raxv
:

Srjirov TrapaKpd^ei, 10. 28 o(j)p epar^s p/Spy dyXaov avdos exp.

ktX. ’.
Tyrt.
Mimnerrn. 1 4. So Emerson {On Beauty) “The radiance of the human
.

form... is only a burst of beauty for a few years or a few months, at the
perfection of youth, and in most rapidly declines. But we remain lovers
of it, only transferring our interest to interior excellence.”
ol'x.€Tai airoTrTdp.evos. A reminiscence of 11. II. 71. For the thought, cp.
181 D supra Xen. Symp. l.C. dnoXeLnovTos 8 e tovtov {sc. tov rrjs a)pas dvdovs),
:

dvdyKTi Kal rrjv (piXtav crvvaTropapatveadai. Cp. also Phaedr. 232 E, 234 A.
o-wraKets. “Fused into one” by the flame of love. Cp. 192 d, Eur.
fr. 964 Trdaa yap dyadr] yvvr) tjtls dvSpi crvvTeTrjKe aaxjjpoveiv eVio-rarat
\

id. Supp. 1029.

TovTovs 81^. With the text as it stands in the mss., tovtovs refers to the
epaarai only, who are divided into two classes, the good (roly piv) and the bad
{tovs Si). But in the next clause roiy piv refers to the ipaa-Tai en bloc, and
roty Si to the ipwpevoi. This is extremely awkward ;
and it a further
is

objection to the clause that the statement it contains is premature, and

would fit in better below (184 D — e). I therefore follow Voegelin and Hug
in obelizing. For the language, cp. Theogn. 1299 ff. Si na'i, pexpi rivos pe
npocjiev^eai; Sis ere SidiKoiv |
Si^ijp’ ...dXX’ inipeivov, epol Si SlSov X^P'-^-
!

•XiOytjpo^- Cft**Sl’^(yiv',kvircWtI|Jj fi/ct

. - -ro 1
 :

184 c] ZYMnOIlON 41

Xerat o Tj/ierepo? v 6 /j,o<; ev Kal Ka\o)<; ^aaavL Keiv [, koX rot? fjuev 184
Xapocraadat, tou? Se SLa(f)evyeiv]. Sia ravra ovv toI<; fj,ev 8 lmk€ii/
TrapaKeXeverat, rot? Se cj^evyeiv, aycovoderco v Kal fiaaavL^cov Trore-
pcov TTore iariv 6 ipwv Kal iroTepcov 6 ipcopevo<;. ovtco Sp viro
TavT7j<; T >/9 aiTia irpSiTov 'i p,€v to aXlaKeadai ray^v ala')(^pbv vevo-

p-iarai, iva ')(^p 6 vo<; iyyevrjTac, o? So/cei to, iroWa Ka\S)<; /Sacra-
vL^eiv, eireiTa to viro '^(^pppdTwv Kal vtto ttoXitikcov Svvdpeav
dXS)vai ala^pov, idv T€ KaKco'i 7rdo-)(^cov TTTtj^p Kal p,r) KapTep-pap, B
dv T 6 vepyeTo vp,€ vo<; ci? -^pppaTa p et? hLaTrpd^eL<; TroXiTt/ca? pup

^'KaTal<f)povpap ' ovSev yap SoKel tovtcov ovt€ 0 e 0 a iov ovt€ p^ompov
elvai, )(^copl<; tov ppSe irec^vKevaL dir avTcov yevvalav cj>i\Lai>. pia
8 p XetTrerat tm ppeTepco v6 p<p oSo?, el peWei /caXw? ')(^apiel(T 6 aL

ipaaTp TvaiSi Kd. eaTt yap ppiv vbpo'^, cbairep eirl rot? epacrrai? pv
|
BovXeveiv ideXovTa,'pyTLVOv 0 BovXeiav 7raiStKOi<; pp KoXaKelav elvao C
184 A Ka'i...8ia(f)evyeLV secl. Bdhlll. Sz. 8La<pvye'iv Hirschig dta...

epa/jLfvos del. Schiitz Ast Kal rroT^pccv del. Bast; Ka)...epddp€vos secl. J.-U.

8f] BT ; 8fj Ka'i W vtto... air las del. Baiter to (ij) Hirscliig koI vtto:
rj VTTO Hirschig B ala^pov del. Hirschig dvTevfpyerovpevos T fls

^p TToXtTiKas- secl. Hirschig J.-U. Hug Sz. povipov: v6pipovWo\f eori:

0)9 J.-U.: axTirep Bdhiu.: i'a'Ti...v6p,os oru. Verm. Sz. Hug Sunrep T: otmep
B Stob. Jn. : Sxnrep -yap Verm. Sz. : yap Hug: del. Bdhm.
0)9 idfKovra BT:
idfKovTas vel edeXovrds Stob. Sz. : idiXovrfjv Bast: eOikovTi Bdhm.

184 A I'va Xpovos kt\. For the touchstone of time, cp. Simon, fr. 175
OVK pel^av ^daavos xpovov ov8ev6s €pyov 69 Kat vtto (TrepvoLS dv8p6s
ecTTiv
|

eSet^e voov Soph. 0. T. 614 xpdvos diKatov dv8pa d^cKwaiv p.6vos

: Fur.
Hippol. 1051 prjvvTTjv xpdvov. On the signif. of ^dcravo^, see Vahlen Op. Acad.
II. 7 fif. :
Cl). Gorg. 486 d, Rep. 413 E ;
Clem. Al. Strom, i. 291 D.
TO Viro xP'nH'’0’'ro)v...dX(3vai. Cp. 185a ttXovtov €V€Ka ;^aptcrapei/09 : 216 D
peXft avra oo8er...ti rts TrXovaios : Ar. Plut. 153 ff. (cat roiir yf Traidas...dpdv...
rdpyvplov x<^P<-^- against the deletion of the second alaxpov by Hirschig,
see the parallels collected by Vahlen Op. Acad. ii. 359. For ttoXit. Bwdpeav,
cp. Xen. 3/em. iv. 2. 35 this may be a hit at Alcibiades, cp. 216 b.;

184 B els xp’lpO’TO’-'-'n’oXiTiKcis. The reasons for which Hug, after Hirschig
and others, rejects these words as (1) superfluous for the sense, and (2) —
spoiling the responsion of the clauses ear re KapTfprjO-rj and dv Te...KaTa<ppo-
vrjo-rj —
are not convincing. This is the only ex. of Sianpa^is, actio, cited by
L. and S.
-ydp ktX.
(ia-Ti Hug, objecting to the “ ganz unertragliche Anakoluthie,”
follows Vermehren in excising the clause i'(TTi...v6pos, as a gloss on the
following vev6p.iaTai, and writing &)9 ydp for tdenrep. This is too rash. For
the sense, cp. 183 b and the passage from Isoci-. Jlel. 219 b there quoted.
^v...elvai. For simple rjv {i'a-Ti) with accus. and infin. cp. Fhaedo 72 D
dXX ecTTi TM dvTi...Tds Tcov redretuTcor \frvxds eivai. For e’de'Xtor as adj. (“volun-
+« ;4)(pT£0€u>'=^'*)> te M- •

' ;

"esl ,n*l« friot ;t ! ,

•
.* A. ..-it. K,6Xo(>t •la' 'J-f
“
o<yiurc6''.<^.j--+o Lf ‘TO

xX'bKQptti- '
‘

•^TrOJ fa *
r
' Vrr- '

\C(nu~ e'-
 —

42 nAATQNOI [184 c
of n^f
"
/xr]8e ^oveiStaTOv ; ovto) 8^ Koi
^
ctW-T] fita fjLovov 8ovXe[a e^ycio?
XeLTreTat ou/^-^oi'e/SicrTO?’ avTrj 8i iariv »7 Trepl r^v aper'pv.
XI. yap 8r] ppulv, iav Ti? ideXp riva depaTreveiv
Nei/o/iicTTat
'pyovp,evo<; 8i eKslvov apeiva v eaeaOai p Kara ao(f)iav rtva p Kara

dXXo ortovv p.epo<; dperp^;, avrp av p ideX^BovXeLa ovk alaj^^pd

eivac ov8€ KoXaKeia. 8el 8p red vop-o) tovtco ^vpj^aXelv eh ravro,
D Tov T€ Trepl rpv Trat^paarlav Kal rov Trepl rpv (ficXoao^lav re Kal
rpv dXXpv dperpv, el p,eXXei ^vfj^pvat koXov yeveadat epaarfj
Trai8iKd yaplaa<Tda lr\ orav yap eh to avro eXBcoaiv ipaarp^; re
Kol Trai8LKd, v6p,ov e^wv e/carepo?, pbev yapLaap.evoL<; Trai8iKoh
VTrpp ercdv ortovv 8tKaiw<; dv vTrpperetv, 6 8e tm TrotovvTt avTov
ao(f)6v re Kal dyaOov 8tKatw<i av ortovv dv vrrovpycov <VTrovpyetv>,

184 C fiia fiovov T : fiia ^S)v B :

jxovT) fila Stob. :
fxla fiovij vulg., Bt. :
/xia

vofxy Ficinus :
jxia TraiSiKaiv Verm.: ^ta ipcofiivox Usener :
pLa vewv Hug; fjfuv

vofjLcp Kreyenbuhl pia {twv ipa>piva>v tu> TjpeTepo) v6)pa> Sz pla

; :
rco ipapiva
Steinhart pav SovXe/a seel. Bdhm. patv ...iKovnos iovt. delenda
: :
tIs nva
de'X^ Stob. (Kelvov T, Stob. ; eKelvo B nva del. Hirschig eivai: eanv
stob. Ttt) vopco TovTd) apographa : rw v6pa rovra BT D rrjv arotjiiav

Hirschig to T tw : BW p^apicapeVots seel. J.-U. :

(ro7r) Hirschig :

X^P- {rots} Baiter av T : ovv B vir’qpeTaiv Ba.st avTov Sauppe

{vTTOvpyav} SiKatcos Rettig diKaiays {virovpywv) Sz. av T: av
: B virovpywv
(oTTOop-yfir) Baiter Vahlen : VTrovpycov BTW: VTrovpyeiv vulg., J.-U.; {vtrovpyeiv')
VTTOVpy&V Bt.

tarily”) in prose, cp. Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 6; Lys. xix. 6: in poetry the use is

common, e.g. Soph. 0. T. 649.

184 C ovTw Si] ktX. In this clause the method of action permissible to
n-aihiKo. is presented as parallel to that permissible to epaa-rai That there is
some corruption in the text is indicated by the divergence of the mss. in regard
to the words after aXXp but of the many emendations suggested (see crit. n.)
:

none is convincing. Perhaps the safest plan is to bracket pav...eKovcrios, as

an adscript meant to suggest a subject for Xun^Tai, and to supply 68dy as
subject from the preceding context.
<ro<|)£av. .(j.€pos dperijs.
. Cp. Protag. 329 E, Rep. 427 E (with Adam’s n.)\
“the nearest approach to the doctrine before Plato is in Xen. Alem. iii.
9. 1 —5.” How many peprj dper^s are assumed here by Pausanias is, of course,

left indefinite. (See also 196 b n.)

184 D orav ydp ktX. Notice the balance and rhythm of the clauses in
this sentence (a^) orav ...eKanpos, (JA) 6 pev...VTrrjpeTS>v, (b^) 6 SL . .VTTOvpyZv,
(gA) 6 pev . . .^vp^dWeadai, (c^) 6 bP..KTdadap (a^) Tore 8fj...cvTavda, (a^) ^vp-
j

I
TriTmi...ov8apov.
{nrt]peTeiv...viroDpYetv. Both words are used in an erotic sense. So vnovpy'ia
is used in re venerea.^ Amphis
TaX. That vnovpySiv {vnovpyeiv) is the best
restoration is shown by Vahlen Op. Acad. i. 499 cp. 193 c. fif. :

C. .^<)V£!'^t6Tbc' t’
cti'j-t'rttf"'
^

U- /
 ,

185 a] lYMnOllON 43

Kal 6 fikv 8vvd/j,evo<; ei? <f}p6vr)ai,v xal rrjv dXkrjv dperrjv ^vp,^dX-
\ea9ai, 6 Be Se6p,ei>o<; ei<; iralBevatv Kal rrjv dWrjv cro(f)Lav Kraadai, E
Tore Bt} TOVTcav ^vvcovtcov et? Tavrov twv vop-cov pLovay ov ivravda
^v/XTriirrec to KaXov eivat TracBtKa epaarp yapiaaaOaL, dXkoOi Se ,

ovBap,ov. eVt rovra Kal ^^aTraT ijOrjvai ovBev al(T')(^pov' iirl Be

TOi? dWoi<; Trdai Kal^^airaTcopevc^ alayyvrjv (}>epei, Kal pbiq. el

ydp Tt? ipacTTrj ft)9 TrXovalq) TrXovToy^^veKa yapcadp-evoti^^e^aTra- 185

T^rfdeli} Kal pr) XdfioL ')(^prjpaTa, dva^avevTO<; tov epaarov Trev rjros,
ovBev T^TTOV ala')(^p6v BoKel <ydp 6 Totooro? to ye avrov eiriBet^aL,
OTt eveKa )(pr]pdTci3v otiovv dv orcaovv inrrjpeTol, tovto Se oo KaXov.
Kara tov avrov B^ Xoyov Kav e'i Ti? to? dyaQw ^(apiadpevo^ Kal
aoTO? o)? (^elvcov iaopevoi Bed t^v (piXlav epaarov e^aTrarrjdelrj^

184 D ^vfj.pdXXea6aiT: ^vpl3a\eiT6aili £ fey del. Schiitz J.-U. KrdaOai:

IdTacrdai Sz. ; KTacrOai tl cj. Hug rare Se Wolf raji/ v6fia>v del. Bast
185 ojy A ttXovo-iq) seel. Cobet Ka\...)(pTjfj.aTa del. Cobet kgv : Kal
Hirschig ^apiropevos cj. Steph. 8id... epaarov secl. Hug TOV epaarov
apogr. Coisl. 155

184 E fls iraC8£vo-iv...KTdcr0ai. If the text is right vve must suppose that
KTaadai is here equiv. to ware Krdadai, appended to the main verb ^vp^aX-
Xeadai which is to be supplied with eh nalSevaiv ktX. (so Vahlen). Of the
corrections suggested (see crit. n.) Schanz’s is the neatest, but spoils the
sense-balance with ^vp^dXXeadai. The corruption is, perhaps, to be sought
elsewhere the expression r^v dXXrjv aoefilav is open to suspicion, since aoefiiav
:

as here used after aXXrjv stands as a generic subst. whereas aoepla has ju
been termed (184 c) pepos aperrjs'. moreover, we should expect that aotf.
should itself constitute the Krrjpa of the recipient, just as cppovrjais is itsell
the contribution of 6 ^vpfiaXXopevos. On these grounds, I venture to suggest
that another fern, subst., may have fallen out after aXXrjv
such as didayfiv,
{eKTraldevaiv for eh tt. is just possible).
Iirl TOTJTO). “ In this case,” i.e. in the quest for dperr), in contrast to “ the
other cases” where lucre or position is coveted (184 a ).
fl ydp Tis ktX. Observe the effort after rhythm, with strophe and anti-
strophe. For the thought, see 184 a and cp. Isocr. Hel. 219 c rav exovreov to
KaXXos rovs pev piadapv^aavTas...dTipd^opev.
185 A
Kal pq Xdpoi xpqpaTa. In defence of the text here, against the
excisions of Cobet anc Hug, see Vahlen, Op. Acad. ii. 366: cp. Hipp. Min.
372 E av ovv ydpto'at koi pr) cpdovriaps Idaaadai rrjv \p'vx^^ pov: Thuc. II. 13. 1

pri rovs aypovs avrov TrapaXhrrj Kal pTj 8i]d>a7].

8td Tqv 4)i,Xlav fpaa-Tov. This phrase also is rejected by Hug (followed by
Hirzel) on the grounds that (1) “an der correspondierenden Stelle nichts
steht,” (2) we should expect rather Sid rov epcora rov epaarov (cp. 182 c).
The latter objection falls if, with Rlickert, we take epaarov as object, gen.
(“suam caritatem erga amatorem”). ejnXla epaarov here is, I take it, equiv.
to the compound epiXepaarla (213 d, cp. 192 b).
«5 eepLat. I s
uTTijper^”'*'®
6UyUTr(%'Tw:TiC«<l
 ”

44 nAATQNOI [185 A

B ava<f> ave vTo <; eKelvov kukov kuI ov KeKTrjfievov dpeTt^v, o/zo)? koK,^
r] d'Ka.T'q '
Sokcl yap av Kal ovto? to kuB' avTov BeBl^X coKevai, on
dperrjf y eveKa Kal rod /SeXrlwv yeveaOai nrav dv rravrl TrpodvpLr)-
Belr}, TOVTO Be av rrdvnov Ka'kXiarov ovro) Travrox; ye Ka\ov
dperrjf; eveKa '^api^eaOaL.
OuTO? eanv 6 ovpavia<; 9eov epox; Kal ovpdvio<; Kal
rroWov u^io‘; Kal TroXei Kal ISicoraL'i, ttoW^v eiripbeXeLav dvay-
C Ka^cdv TTOLeladat 7rpo9 dperrjv rov re epwvra avrov avrov Kal rov
ipcdpuevov’ ol B' erepot Trai^Ve? erepa?, t^9 iravBppuov. ravrd
aoL, €(pr], d)<; e/c rov 7rapa;)(prip.a, w ^aiBpe, rrepl ’'Ep&)T 09 avp,-

^dXXop,ai.
Havaaviov Be Travaapuevov, BiBaa-KOvat yap p,e 'la a Xeyeiv
ovrcoal ol aocjiol, ecfir] 6 'ApiaroBrjpo'i Beiv pev 'Apiarocjydvr] Xeyeiv,
rv)(^elv Be avrw rivd rj vvo TrXrjapovri'i rj viro rivo<; dXXov Xvyya
185 B KOI ov,..dpeTr]v seel. Hug rj om. pr. T {irdv} rravreos Stob., Bt.
dperrjs y eveKa T eveKa : dperrjs Stob. C epcora Stob. avrov {re) Ast
roC e'peopevov Bast Ast avpISaWop-ai T, Method. : avpj3dX\opev B ovTioai
om. Hermog.

185 B Ka\i] dirdri]. Sc, rto e^aTrarcopevep.

SoKct ydp av Kal ovtos. This corresponds to doKel yap 6 towvtos fcrX. in
185 A.
185 C eK Tov irapaxpii|xa. For the sense subito s. ex tempore, cp. Crat.
399 D, Critias 107 E. On extempore, as opposed to premeditated orations,
see Alcidamas de Soph. 3 elire^v eK tov rrapavTiKa ktX
o-vppdXXopai. “ This is my contribution,” with allusion to the literary
e'pavos mentioned in 177 c.
I’o-a Xe-yciv. This alludes to the tVa arxrjpara (including sound-echoes etc.,
as well as “isokolia”) of the rhetorical rexvlrai (see Spengel, rhet. Gr. ii.

pp. 436 7). — We

may render (after Jowett) “When Pausanlas had come ;

—
—
to a pause a pretty piece of ‘isology’ I have been taught by the professors
etc. The title ol aoefroi is variously applied in Plato to the Orphics {Rep.
583 b), to poets {Rep. 489 b), and, as here, to linguistic craftsmen. For o-ocpia
as applied to etymological “ j)uns,” cp. Grat. 396 c, D, and the use of croefri-
(eadai (in connexion with the etymology of ovpavos) in Rep. 509 I) (see
Adam’s n. ad loo.). For a rhetorical repetition of the same word (ttovo)),

see Gorg. Ilel. 2 r^v pev kukois dKovoverav Travtrat rrjs alrias, tovs Se pep(j)o-

pevovs...TravcraL rrjs dpadtas.

Xv-yya. The Scholiast has a long note here: t 6 rov \vypov a-vpTrrapa
eiriyiveTai ra (rropaxor bid TrXrjpamv fj Kevuxriv r] ^|/v^lv, eviore be koI bid brj^iv

bpipecov vypcdv Kai (jrappaKorbeov Ta'is Troi6Trj(Tiv ...drav be vtto TrXrjpduTeors Xvypds
yevrjTai, eperos tovtois ’iapa Kal t&v aKpav Tpirfrif Kai Trvevparos KaToxrj. The
hiccough of Aristophanes part of the comic relief in the piece (see Introd,
is

§ II. c). For nXrja-povrj, as a cause of disorder, cp. 186 c n., Hippoer. de diaet.
,
III. 72 S. &riJU.€ tk =
b'jtif
a/oi.4w'ivio-to trfMj

,1

ZaxiavS
 186 A] lYMnOIlON 45

iTriTreirrcoKVLav koX ov')(^ olov re etvai Xeyeiv, dW' —

elTrelv avrov
ev rf] Kara) yap avrov rov larpov ^^pv^ipuaj^^ov
—
KaraKeladai ’H D
SiKato<: el -q rravaaL pue t^9 Xvyy6<; q Xeyetv vrrep ep-ov,

ecof av eyu> Travacopai. Kal rov Eipv^ipa')(^ov eirrelv 'AXXd rroiqaw)

dpi^orepa ravra' eyw pev yap epw ev rw crw pepei, av 8' eTreiSdv
'Travaq, iv rco epd). ev m 8 dv eyd> Xeyco, edv pev aoi edeXq
aTryeva rl e^^ovrt ttoXvv ^povov rraveaQai q Xvy^’ el 8e pq, v8aTi
dvaKoyyyXiaaov. el 8' dpa rrdvv laj(vpd: iariv, dvaXa/Scov rt E
TOLOVTOV oi<p Kvqaai<; av rqv plva, irrape' Kal edv rovro rroiqaqf;
drra^ q 8lf, Kal el rrdvv la')(ypd eari, rravaerai. Qvk dv (j)ddvoi,<;

Xeycov, (fidvai rov 'Apiarocpdvq' eyo) 8eravra 7roiq a<i).\

^XII. eirrelv 8q rov '^pv^Lpa-^^ov, AoKel roLvvv pot dvayKaiov
elAit, i7rei8q Havaavla^; opp^aas errl rov Xoyov KaXd)<; oyp^ iKavS}<i 186

drrereXeae, 8e'tv epe rretpaaQat reXo<i emdeivat rw Xoycp. ro pev

yap 8i7rXovv elvat rov ’’Epcora 8oKei pot KaXd)<; 8L eXead ai’ ort 8e

185 C Xeyetf om. W D eV rrj Kara) ; eyyvTara) Steph. rov larpov T:

tS>v larpav B (ov) ttoXvv Sauppe TravaacrdaL Stob. E dvaXa^d>v :

XajS&ji/ Stob. oto) ; or« Cobet xi'i^trais XVyttenbach: Kv^aaio Luzac :

KiVT^aais BT, Stob. Athen. nrapdiv Stob. (pdvai B : elneiv TW

dvayKaiov eivai del. Sz. ov\ CKavcos : ov^'i KaXd>t olim Sz. 186 A Selv
om. Xlethod. Sz. ; delv dpe del. Hirschig

ev KciTw avTov. Sc. kXlvp —referring to what might jocosely be termed

the clinical position of the worthy doctor. Cp. n. on eaxarov KaraKelpevov,
175 c.

185 D ev Cp. Meno 92 E dXXa av drj ev rw pepei avrov eijre.

Tu <ri jxe'pei.

edv pe'v XVe have here a case of “ aposiopesis ” or suppressed

croi ktX.
apodosis; cp. Protap. 311 D; Horn. II. i. 135 ff. see Goodwin G. M. T. § 482. :

dvaKO'y\vXia(rov. Schol. dvaKoyxyXidaai' ro KXvaai rrjv (pdpvyya, o Xeyopev

dvayapyapLuai. With Eryximachus’s treatment of Xuy^, cp. Hippocr. de diaet.
III. 75 ff. ylverai de Kal roidSe TrXrjapovri es rrjv varepai'qv rov alrov epvy- •

ydverai ktX.
185 E irrape. Cp. Hippocr. Aphor. VI. 13 vno Xvypov exopeva rrrappol
eiriyevopevoi Xvovai rov Xvypov : Arist. Prohl. 33.
OvK dv Xe'ywv. A familiar idiom “the sooner you speak the better” :

(see Goodwin G. M. T: § 894) more rarely of 1st person, 214 e infra.

:

oix iKavus. Schanz’s koXSis is ingenious but needless : for a similar

variety in antithesis X^ahlen cites Theaet. 187 E Kpelrrov ydp ttov crpiKpov
ev T) TToXv prj For deiv redundant cp. Ale. II. 144 D, 146 b,
LKavSis nepavai.
Rep. 535 A, Laws 731 D, e Schanz in nov. comm. p. 83 regards both dvayKaiov
:

elvai and deiv epe as interpolations by copyists who failed to see the force of
doKei=aptum videtur-, but in his text he excises only deiv against this, see .

Teuffel, Rh. Mus. xxix. p. 140.

'
detiVC

h I
Hjorul,., dvAile
 :

46 nAATQNOS [186 A

ov fjiovov earlv eVt rai? rcov avdpcoTrwv tt/do? toii? Ka\ov<i

aWa Kal 7rpb<; dWa vroWd Kal ev rol<; dWoi<i, toi? re acopaai
TOiv TrdvTcov ^cbcov Kal rot? ev rfj >yfj
^ppAvoL<) Kal o)? eVo? elrreLV

iv Trdat toi<; ov(tl, (Kode^paKeva^ pot Sokw €K tt)? iaT£Ucf^, rrjf;

B pperepat; &>? peya^ Kal davpaaro'i Kal SttI ttuv 6 6eo<i

re'xvp’i,

Telv ec Kal KaT dvOpcoTriva Kal Kara deia irpaypara. ^^qpac Be

diro T?}? laTpiKrj<; Xeywv, iva Kal rrpea ^evwpey rpv re'^vpv. rj yap

(^vcrL<i Twv acopdrayv rov Bj,7r\ovv ''Epcora rovrov to yap

vyie<; rov acbparo^; koI to voaovv opo\oyovpev(o<; erepov re Kal
dvopoiov earl, to Be dvopoiov dvopolwv iiridupei Kal epd. dXXo<:
pev ovv 6 eirl rd> vyieivd) epco'i, aAXo? Be 6 eVt rd voacbBe i. ean g

coaTrep dprt Ilaocrawa? eXeye toZ? pev dyaOot^ KaXov X^PJ'

Brj,

C ^eadat, rcov dvOpcbircov, TOi? Be dKoXcLaroLS alaxpov, ovrw Kal ev

186 A
TravTotv tSiv Hirschig Sokm {yvovs} Herwerden rrjs larpiKrjs

seel. Hirschig its (koi) Ficinus Steph. B Kara rdvOpaTriva Stob.

Kara rd dfia Stob. Ka'i Om. Stob. Trpeo'^eua) pov Bdhm. fj yap :

rj T6 yap Sauppe yap J.-U.

: KOI ex€i T i'xj] B : opoXoyovpev ms TW,
Stob. T€ Tt Stob., Thiersch
; vyieiva i'peos T : vyieivoepos B eort
8)7 : (TL 8e Bdhm. rmv dvOpanreov del. Thiersch

186 A
TTjs laxpiKiis. Eryx. speaks, as a member of the Asclepiad guild,
of “our art”: for his glorification of “the art,” see also 176 D, 196 a, and
Agathon’s allusion in 196 D. Cp. Theaet. 161 E to 8e hr) tpov re Kal rrjs dpijs
rexvTjs rqs pauvriKris kt\., where also Naber excises r^s p. (cp. Vahlen Op.
Ac. II. 273).
(OS peyas ktX This ms-clause serves to repeat in another form the initial
oT(-clause, thus making two object-clauses to one main clause irt the sentence,
for whichcp. 211 E infra, Apol. 20 c.
186 B eirl Trav...T€(vei.. Cp. 222 B eVi nX^iarov reivovres (Xoyovs) we might
render “ of universal scope.”
•7rpecrp€v'm|j.ev. For the sense, “venerate,” cp. 188 c, and npea^vrepov 218 d:
C'rito 46 C rods aiirovs Trpecr/Seom Kal ripw Hep. 591 C. '.

TO Si dvopoiov ktX. “ Things dissimilar in themselves crave dissimilar

objects”: e.g. the apjietites of the sound body differ from those of the sick
body. Cp. Hippocr; de nat. horn. 9 OKOcra rrXrjcrpovr) tiktei vovarjpara, Kevcoais
Irjrai, oKoaa he drrd Kevaraios yeverai vovcrr)para, nXrjapovr] lr)rai...rd he ^vprrav

yvoivai, hel rov lijrpdv evavrlov laraaSai rolai KadeareSxri Kal vovcrqpaai Kal
elheai KrX.
6 ETTi T<p v-yiEivm ipms. “ The craving felt by the sound body” : cp. e’rrl rads
yj/vxals, 186 a. In the doctor’s parable, to vyieivov corresjionds to the good,
TO voaoShes to the bad eparrrjs.
io-Ti Sij. This is, as Hug observes, a favourite opening with Eryx. : cp,
s
^
ean ydp, 186 C; ean he, 186 D, 187 A. U'/i €1/05 itilvieune, ..isv*, liEd-fiy

op,CgrVE 'into bf- b; oU(r,et(te£t /b6w 5 - Si'tUiyi A 1; d

iaTpiKO^ - of/Af iWeri cf I = %optii. I - +0 C»vtor, nrs b
3
0Mc/v(5ttf«(?4
C\KoV«4-r^-
<ir I vo'<sos S’ s.'tUwiis, cffitf

f r
 : .

186 d] lYMnOIlON 47

fre pfcple

186 C ^oTi ^dp larpiKij ktX. Cp. (with Poschenrieder) Hippocr. de flat. I.

TohTo TToiiavapKTTos Irjrpos. Also Phileb. 32 A, 35 A for “ repletion ” and

“depletion” in connexion with bodily (pvcris: and Tim. 82 a yrjs irvpbs vSaroy

6 Siayi-yvwcrKuv ktX. In this passage there is a distinction implied between

pure and apphed larpiKT], between medicine as a science (eVtcTT^/iJj) and as an
art {re-xy-q). diayiyvaa-Kco is here used almost in the technical sense of
making a medical diagnosis (cp.Hippocr. de nat. horn. 9 rqv biayvacrw . .

TToieecrdai) possibly earlier “ Asclepiads ” than Hippocrates may have ear-

marked didyvaais as a medical term. Cf. the distinction between Kara
yvdipqv and Kara in Hippocr. de morbis I. 6.

186 D 6 pcTttPdXXsiv iroi.wv ktX. Cp. Hippocr. de morbo sacra, p. 396 L.

for a medical “practitioner,” as bqpoa-uveLv for “to practise”: similarly

Texvqs, Hippocr. jrepi rradaiv 1.

u(rTe...KTa.(r0ai.Supply as subject rd crapara.

Kal evdvra e^eXeiv. Schanz would excise these words but though they ;

present a rather awkward case of brachylogy, they are otherwise unobjection-

able. Herwerden’s proposal (see crit. n.), though supplying the right sense,
is needless while Lehrs is obviously blvmdering when he construes ivovra as
;

neut. plural, “und wieder auch das Vorhandene fortzubringeu.” Hommel

gives the meaning rightly, “imd die einwohnende (Neigung), die nicht ein-
wohnen darf, heraus zu treiben.”
Set -ydp 8ij. “For he must, ”
as a matter of fact”- — an appeal to recognized
 :

48 nAATQNOZ [186 D

186 D (piKia Hirschig niKpov yXvKfl del. Thiersch Hug (xai) Travra
Wolf E Tov 6eov seel. Bdhm. 187 A nal yeoopyla del. Sauppe Jn.

axioms of “the Art.” Hippocrates based his medical theory on the as-
sumption of two pairs of opposite and primary qualities, \jfvxp6v){depp6v, and
^rjp6v){vyp6v. By the permutations and combinations of these he sought to
account for all varieties of physical health and disease see e.g. Hippocr. de :

morb. I. 2; de affect. 1. Cp, Lys. 215 e: Theo. Smyrn. Math. p. 15 Bull.

KOI TOVTO TO peyicTTOv i'pyov Oeov Kara povaiK^v re koI larpiKrjv, to. e’ydpa ffiKa
“ cold ” in health
TToifiv also Tim. 82 a for the “ hot ” and
; and disease.
Ast’s excision of these words (approved by Stallb., Hug,
TTiKpov yXvKet.
and others) is, at first sight, plausible, inasmuch as these opposites of taste
seem hardly on a par with the other two pairs of primary opposites. But in
Lysis 215 E the same three pairs are mentioned, with o^v)(dp/3Xv as a fourth,
as exx. of the law of i-mGvpia twv ivavrlav. Moreover, it is obvious that the
question of savours is of special importance in medical science cp. Theaet. :

166 E Tw...ao'6(vovvTi TTiKpa (j)alv(Tai a itrdlft Koi eari: Hippocr. Trep'i bialTrjs II.
56 rd yXvK(a...Ka). ra TTLKpa,,.deppa'iveiv Tr€(j)VK€, nal ocra ^rjpd icrri Koi Saa
vypd id. de nat. horn. 2, 6 and the connexion between TriKpdrrjs and yoXp
: :

brought out in Tim. 83 a ff. Further, as Hommel observed, ndvra rd rotavra

after only two exx. is unusual.
186 E 6 qixETcpos irpoyovos ’A. Asclepius in Homer is not more than
hjTrip dpvpwv in Pindar {Pyth. iii.) and later poets he is the son of Apollo
and Coronis. The earliest seats of his worship seem to have been Thessaly
and Boeotia, and his cult, as a “ chthonic ” and “ mantic ” deity, may have
its roots in a primitive ophiolatry (see Rohde, Psyche i. 141 ff'.). Cp. Orph.
Fr. 272 Std koi ol deoXdyoi Tiyv pev els Ao’KXrjTriov dvacpepovaiv vyieiav rrjv

laTpiKTjv wdaav t5>v irapd (pvaiv ktX. Also Orph. H. 67, addressed to A. as
’irjTrjp TrdvTfcv, ’AcricXpTrte, bea-rroTa Traidv ktX. The Asclepiadae were a
recognized medical guild, with hereditary traditions their most famous ;

schools were at Cos and Cnidus, for which see the account in Gomperz G. T.
(E. tr.) vol. I. pp. 275 ff. : cp. Phaedr. 270 c (with Thompson’s note).
otSc oL iroitiTal. The “deictic” oibe points to the presence of Aristophanes
and Agathon.
187 A -yv|j.va<rTiKii. The curative value of physical training is said to
have been emphasized especially by Iccos of Tarentum and Herodicus of
Selymbria, both 5th century experts in dieting. For the latter as an ad-
vocate of walkinsr exercise see Phaedr. 227 D fwith Schol. ad loo.): cn. Rev.

yCupyie?-
 — ;

187 b] SYMnOIlON 49

Travri KaTd8r]Xq<; rS Kal afiixpov TT/aoce^oi/rt rbv vovv otl Kara

TavTCL e;^et tovtoi<;, coairep tcrw? Kal 'Hpd/cXeiTO? /SovXeTat Xiyeiv,
iirel Tot? to ei> yap (ppai “ Bia(f)ep6-
76 pppLaai v ov /caXw? Xiyei.
pevov avTO avrw ^vj^ipecr^i, coaTrep appovlav to^ov re Kal
\vpa^.” ean 8e ttoW^ d\oyi,a appoviav cj)dvai Bta^e peaOaL ^ e/c
Bi,a<pepopevaii’-jTC eivai. dXX tcrco? roBe e/SovXero Xeyeiv, ort e/c
Bcacpepopevcoi’ rrpoTepov rov o^eo? Kal j3apeo<i, eTreura vcrrepov B
187 A i'^ovTi vovv Hil'Schig ravra T : ravTa B ev : ov vel
TravAst To^ov.-.Xvpas: rov o^eoy rt <a't (Sapeoy Bast Gladisch \vpas :

vevpas Bergk

406 A : for the former, as an example of abstinence, see Laws 839 E. That
Plato himself recognizes the connexion between larpiKT] and yvpvaa-riKr] is
shown by such passages as Gorg. 452 a ff., 464 B Soph. 228 E, Polit. 295 c. fi’..

Kal -yeup-yi'a. The app)ositeness of yewpyLa is not so evident as that of

yvpvaaTi<b, but the Use of the word here is defended by 186 a {to7s iv rp ytj
(f)vop€voLs) and by other exx. of a similar collocation, such as Lack. 198 d, Laivs

889 D (cp. also Protag. 334 a f.). The art which deals with c^vrd is regarded
as analogous to that which deals with {wa, involving a similar command of
the permutations and combinations, the attractions and repulsions (rd epco-
TCKo), of the fundamental qualities.
TO Sv ydp <})tio-i ktX. The words of Heraclitus (Pr. 45) are given in Hippol.
refut. liaer. IX. 9 thus : ov ^vviaaiv okcos ^La<f>fp6pevov ecueTco opoXoyiei ttoXIv-
rpoTTOS appovirj oKuxnrep to^ov koi Xvprjs : cp. Plut. de Is. 45 naXtvTovos yap
appovlrj Koapov OKWcnrep Xvprjs Kal ro^ov Kad 'UpaKXeiTov : Soph. 242 E. Pro-
bably, as Burnet holds, the original word used by H. was naXivTovos, not
TraXivTpoTTos, and appovlr] combines the original sense of “structure” with
the musical sense “ octave,” the point of the simile being (see Campbell,
Theaet. p. 244) “as the arrow leaves the string the hands are pulling opposite
ways to each other, and to the different parts of the bow (cf. Plato, Rep.
4. 439) and the sweet note of the
;
due to a similar tension and retention.
lyre is
The secret of the universe is the same.” That is to say, the world, both as a
whole and in its parts, is maintained by the equilibrium resultant from
opposite tensions. For more detailed discussion of the theory see Burnet,
Early GI. Phil. pp. 158 ff., Zeller, Pre-Socr. (E. T.) vol. ii. pp. 33 ff. The
To^ov H. had in mind is probably, as Bernays suggested, the Scythian bow
the (f)6ppiy^ dxopSos of Arist. Rhet. iii. 1412'^ 35 (see the woodcut in Smith,
Z>. A. s.v. “arcus”).
d\X’ Eryximachus argues that H.’s dictum is defensible only if
I'crtos ktX.
we understand the opposites to be not co-existent the discordant cannot he :

simultaneously concordant, though it may be capable of becoming so in

lapse of time {Trpor^pov ..vcrrepov). For TO o^v Kal /3apu as matter for appovla
.

cp. Heraclit. Fr. 43 (R. and P. § 27) ov yap av eivai appoviav prj ovros o^eos
h Sopeos, ovde rd ^cod avev BrfXeos Kal appevos, evavricov ovroav : Soph. 253 A
Phileh. 17 c, 26 a; Laws 665 B. k<vrt. po'ivfact
,

-fehlc 4

!<Ocvd JdyyVj I
 — :

50 nAATQNOI [187 B

ofj.oXoyrjadvTcov yeyove v vtto t?}? fj bovaLKri<; Te')(yr]<;. ov yap Bjj irov

Sk Siacpepo/xivoiv ye en tov o^eo? kuI l3apeo<; dpp,ovla av etr]' p

yap dppLOvia avfi<p(ov[a iari, avpLcfxovia Se op,o\oyia Ti?. opbo\o-

yLav 8e etc hia^epop.ev(jc>v, eco? dv SiacfiepcovTai, dBvvarov elvao. 8ia-

(j)ep6p.€vov Be av Kal fip 6p,o\oyelv dBvvaTovv <BvvaTov> ( ^(loa-at, ,

C wairep ye Kal 6 pvOjxo^ e’/c tov ra^^eo? Kal /SpaBeo^ eK Bievyi'ey /xeycoiA
Trporepov, varepov Be opLoXoyrjadvrcov yeyove. Tr]v Be opio\oyiav

irdai rovTOi<;, axnrep eKel ^ iarjiiKp, evravOa pbovaiKp evTidTjaiv,

epwra Kal opbovoiav dXX'pXcov epbTTOLrjaaaa’ Kal eaTLv dv ptovaoKp
Trepl dppiovLav Kal pv6pbov epcortKcov iTTiarypiT]. Kal ev p,ev ye
avTrj rfj avardaeo dpp,ovia<; re Kal pv9p,ov ovBev ')^aXe7roy rd

187 B Tfxvrjs {rj ap/xovia) vulg. fie av : fie fii) Sz. : fii) ovv Rollde 6po\oye7v
scrips! : SpoXoyovv codd., edd. dSwarovv (Swarov) scrips! ddvvarov :

codd. : dvvaTov Susem. C eV post /SpaSe'os om. edd. recc. cum Vindob. 21
opovoiav : appoviav Wolf dXXrjXois T {tcov) Trepl Ast

187 B 6|io\o'yT](rdvTa)v ktX. Cp. Theo. Smyru. math, p. 15 ko! oc Uvffa-

yopKol fie', ois rroXXa^p eirerai flXarcoi', Trjv powLKTjv (fracrLV evat'Tioiv crwap-
poyr)v Kal tStv ttoXXotv evaxjiv Kal t5>v 8lx<i cfipovoivTcnv aapcppovijatv, ov yap
pv6p5>v povov Kal peXovs avvraKTiKrjv, dXX’ aTrXSts navros avar^paros •
reXos
yap avTT^s to evovv Kal avvappo^eiv.
re For the Pythagorean dppovla see
Philolaus, fr. 4. 3 (R. and P. § 56) rd fie dv6poia...dvdyKa Ta Toiavra dppovia
o-vyKeKXeladaL ktX. The same notion of a cosmic dppovia or SpoXoyia appears
in Orph. fr. 139 rrjv ’ A<f)po8lTriv . . .rd^iv Kal dppovlav Kal Koivovviav Traai toIs
eyKOcrpiois...{6 drjpLovpyos) (piXtas earlv alrios to7s drjpiovpyrjpaaiv Kal opoXoylas.
(rup.()>uv(a. Cp. Crat. 405 D Trepl rrjv e’v rrj cp8fj dppovlav, ij 8rj avpefxovla
KaXelraL 398 D, E with Adam’s notes “in its musical application
: Rep. 430 E, :

a-vp<p(ovta is used both of consonance in the octave or double octave and also
of other musical intervals” “dppovia ‘reconciles’ d^v and ^apv by a proper
:

arrangement of notes of higher and lower pitch. In the wider sense, there-
fore, any SpoXoyia of d|u and jSapv is a dppovia, but in practice the word was
used specifically of certain scales or modes.”
8ia4>ep6|jievov av ktX. With the MS. text the sequence of thought is dis-
jointed and obscure av seems out of place, and the next clause {aairep ye
;

seems to imply that the possibility rather than the impossibility of

Kal ktX.)
harmonizing opposites is stated in the present clause (cp. Susemihl, Philol.
Am. VII. 412). Hence, rather than alter av with Schanz, I prefer to read
8ia(j)ep6pevov fie av Kal prj SpoXoyeiv ddvvaTovv (or ddvvarov) {Swarov) appSaai :

this gives a jiroper antithesis to the clause preceding.

* 187 C opovoiav. word may contain an allusion
It is possible that this
to Antiphon’s work which see Dlimmler, Ahad. p. 79.
rrepl Spovolas, for
avTT) Trj o-vo-Tdcrei dp|xovCas. “ In the constitution of harmony per se ”

ev avTfj Tfj dppovia might have sufficed, but the addition of (rvardaei serves
to emphasize the fact that dppovia is a synthesis SpoXoyia of a plurality of —
yf yovbi= "to Cill /iy UWut A ii
( pjS^d'^Z'itietaofni tvAiKpirr-e
to be
^
I
/Ue:o6u<jj ‘ of iV HvitiytTi
^ - A*'
'

-,
y
C»'f'yuo^"'to
vv, »"/
fit toyffitfrytff i

eV;
 :

187 E] lYMnOIlON 51

epcoriKa StaJyiyvcocrKeiv, ovSe o SL7f\ov <; l/aco? evravOd irco eariv

dW iireiSdv Serj tov<; dv9p(aTTOv<; Kara^ppcrdaL pv9p,S re D
Kal dppLovia i) Troiovvra, o Sp p,e\oiroLiav KaXovatv, fj y^pdapuevov
6 pdca<i TOi? 776770 Lpp,evot<; pbeXeaL re teal fperpojs, o 77 ai 8 ela

eK ivravda Srj Kal '^a\e770v Kal dyadov 8pp.to vpyov Set.

77d\tv yap rjKeL 6 auTo? \6yo^, OTt, Tol<; pjAi> KO(Tp,ioi,<; rwv. dvdped-
77(ov, Kal (i? dv Koa-pLtedrepot yeyvoevro ol p,7]77Q) 6vTe<;, Set %a/3t-
8ea0ac Kal (f)v\drT€i v rov tovtcov epcora, Kal ovt 6<; icrriv 6 Ka\6<;,
6 ovpdvLO'i, 6 Tr]<; OvpavLa<; /tower?;? ’'E/oct)?* 6(8^Ylo\vp.vLa<; 6 77 dv- E
8pp,o^, ov Set ey\a^ovp,evov 77poa(j)ip6tv oh dv 77poa(f)ep7}, ottw? dv
TT]v\^^ 'p8ovpv avTOv Kap77 coajiTaL, dKoXa aiav \8J p,p8ep,iav ip,-
770ir]a-7j, 6ua77ep iv Ty ypberepa Te')(yy pueya epyov rat? 776pl ryv
0'^0770itKyv re')(y7]v i77idvpi,Lai<; /eaXco? ')(^pya0ai, wct dvev voaov
ryv y8ovyv Kap77caaaa6aL. Kal iv povacKy 8y Kal iv larpiKy Kal
ev rot? tzXXot? 77daL Kal rot? dvdpco77eLOL^ Kal rot? ^etot?, KaO'
berov 77apebK€ i, cpvXaKreov eKarepov row ’’Epcora' ev/sarov ydp.

187 C oi'Bi. ..i'oTiv del. Schiitz ttco Bdhm. Mdvg.: Traiy BT D pirpois
BT :
pvdpols W TOVTCOV BT ; toiovtcov W povcrrjs del. Sauppe E i'pyov
Tacs Tb : epya)VT€s B napeiKeL W rec. t: TTaprjK€L BT ev ecTTOv W
elements : cj). Lav:s 812 c ras
tcov appoviav crvcTTacreis Epin. 991 E appovLas :

For pv6p6s, see Adam’s note on Rep. 398 d: “The elements

(TvcTTacriv airacTav.

of music are pvdpos and appovia. The former reconciles Taxi and ^padv by ‘ ’

aiTanging a proper sequence of short and long notes and syllables ” also
RaiBS 665 a Si Trjs KCVi^crecos Ta^et pvdpos ovopa ely, Tp Se av Trjs <()covrjs,.,
appovia, ktX., Pkileb. 17 D (with my note).
Eryximachus analyses Music into Theory {avTrj rj crva-TaaLs) and Practice
{naTaxpyaOai p.), the latter being further subdivided into peXoTroua and Tracdeia.
187 D irai.8€ia lK\t{0Ti. For “education” as “the right use of melody
and verse,” compare what Plato has to say about the psychological effects
of music and its place in education in Rep. ii., iii., Raws ii., viii. Of course
TTaideia in the Ordinary sense includes' also gymnastic; cp. Rep.
ii. 376 E,

Laivs 659 D : music (opxya-nKrj Laws 816 a) we have a com-

in dancing to
bination of both. It is worth noticing that in the Pythagoi'ean quadnvinm
poverLKT) had a place beside apidpyTLKC], yecoperpia and crcpaipiKT] or acTTpovopia '.

see Adam’s Republic vol. ii. pp. 163 ff.

TrdXiv...6 avTos Xo-yos. Pausanias was the author of the Xoyos, cp. 186 b
supra..
187 E IloXvuvtas. “ The Muse of the sublime hymn ” here replaces
Aphrodite, being selected out of the Nine probably, as Ast supposes, because
the first part of her name congruous with the character of Aphr. Trdvbrjpos.
is
Trpocr 4)epr]...Kapir«>5 oT]Tai...l|J.Tronj<rT]. Supply as subject the indef. Ttf.
Ka0’ ocrov TrapeuKei. “ So far as possible.” Cp. Rep. 374 e. Laics 734 b.
8i7rA<%STia5-foy,cl<xU€, jUfiTpoya A
5eqpsu- °
I
4—2
ninths U.
SypiOUpdpr.lCcr^cAij (cir4i'f S c^/fer deUarte Cevkf
iKo'c

tWp^iKwa'-te y!?y are

KiTTeua^
uss -to *ie t/fin

Kyp'f fure,S
Kfi<pndi^~ ^ fiernd-t
 V :

52 nAATQNOZ [188 A

188 XIII. ’E77e't KoX 7] rS)v wpcov rov ivoavTov avcTTaai^

icTiv afj,(l)OT6pwv rovTcov, Kal eTreiSav pev 7rpo<i dW'pXa rov
Koaplov "^vxV ^p(^'!'0‘i « vvv iyo} eXejov, rd re Oepjxd Kal rd
yjrvxpd Kal ^ripa Kal vypd, Kal dppovlav Kal Kpda iv XdjBp crd>-

(j>pova, 77/cet ^epovTa eveTTjpiav re Kal vyieiav dvdpcoTroi'^ Kal T 06 ?

aXAoi? ^&)0£9 T6 Kal ^urot?, Kal ovBev 'pSlKrjcrev’ orav (^J 6 p-erd

T^9 vffpeco<; ’'Epca'i iyKpaTiaT6po<; irepl Ta9 roii eviavrov ^a?

B yevrjraL, BieipB eipev re iroXXd Kal rjBiKrjaev. oL re yap Xot/£Ot

(piXovai yiyveaOaL Bk rcdv roiovTWv Kal dXX’ dvopoia TroXXa vo(T7i-

para Kal TOi9 dr^oi'i Kal TO 69 (pvToi<;' Kal yap ird^vaL Kal
XdXa ^ai Kal^^ ipya l^a^ 7rXeove^ia<; Kal (iKoapia^; Trepl dXXrjXa
e’/c

Tcov TObovTwv ylyvcTai epcoTiKMV, ,

<Sv eTnarrjpr) ^irepl daTpcov re
W.l
itAso 6 ^ loi.' ^rt)!y)188 A KOCTfiiov Bt, Stob.: Koo'fj.ov T eyoi> eXtyov BT ; Xeyo) Stob.; i'Xcyov
Wolf Ta ^rjpa Stob. (koi) Trepl Stob. B Si(<p6eipev T : Biecjidapf Stob.
fita(^ 5 eipet B dvdpoia BT : di'dpoia koI Stob. : dpoia Schtitz Bdhm. : av
opoia Orelli Hermann: : opoia Sauppe:
av opoia fi;) dVr’ dpoia Ast Jn. : livopa
Sommer: dXXoKora Eohde Trarrola Winckelmann : : Stallb. yiyvirai
del. Sauppe: ylyvovrai Canter: fort, yiyverai. ipioTLKWv ovv eTriaT^pp ktX,
Siv...KaXelTai del. Scliiitz re: ye Christ

188 A 11 Twv wp(3v...(n5orTacris. For the influence of the seasons on health

see Hippocr. de nat. horn. 7 cos- yap 6 eviavros peri^ei per Tray Travraiv Kal twv
6(ppS>v Kal Ta>v \l7vxp(o>^ Kal tSiv ^rjpav Kal rSiv vypS>p ktX. : Cp. Phileh. 26 B.

a vDv 8f)...^\e'yov. See above, 186 D.

ouSiv liSlKTitrev ktX. For these aorists, following presents, see Goodwin
G. M. T. § 155.
188 B dv6poia...vo(riipaTa. “ Divei’s diseases”: the adj. is similarly used
in Arist. Poet. 24. 1459'^ 30 eVetaoSioilr dvopolois eVeicroSioty, “relieving the
story with varying eiflsodes” (Butcher): cp. id. H. A 71 . iv. 1. 523'’ 12:
Hippocr. de flat. 3 SoKe'et per ovv Ta vovappaTa ovBev aXXrjXoiaiv ioiKivai bid
TTjv dXXoiorrjTa Kal dvopowrpra rwv tottcov.

Trdxvai...Kal epvcripai. Timaeus defines thus: ipva'i^p piXrdibrjs bpocros-

rrdxvp be bpoaos xi-ovd>bps. Eoman religion had a goddess Rohigo. Euhnken
{ad Tim. p. 122) cites Orph. de lap. 15, V. 91 Kal aWeplrjv e’pvaljBriv, \
pre Karov-
pavoOev TTTapevrj ttotI Kapirdv epvdprj, |
dp(j)l Trepl eTTaxaerrm Trepiapvxovo'a
KaOprai.
t(3 v ToiovTcov -yi'-yveTai ktX. There are two difficulties in this passage :

(1) the singular verb after the plural subjects is harsh ;

to explain it we
must assume a mental unification of the subjects, of which similar but easier
instances occur in Rep. 363 a, 618 D, Laivs 925 E. We might evade this
difficultyby removing the colon at (j)vTo7s, marking Kal ydp...epva-i^ai as
parenthetic, and thus construing d'XXa...rocr?7para as the direct subject of
yiyverai. (2) We should naturally expect ToiovTav to have the same reference
mpit liV.tcP
ijjuxpds- CoW,c)iil( ^sjtepQiTip^
youtVi

I 6o6Tot6<S-'* S-WI-’j
l^rj pes “ ^fccdecifiiiitieitd

• /Jte6rds~ full, filled

dpajerepoe .
fccHt .Si Ais
(

i7ecU4&iS
Qc ppdx €ueTyp/«
 188 d] lYMnOIlON 53

<popa<; Kal iviavrwv wpa <;

^
aarpovofjbia KoXetTai. eri tolvvv teal
ai Ovaiai Tracrai Kal oi<; fiavriKr) eTriaTarei — ravra 8 ia-rlv p irepl

deov<; re Kal avdpu)Trov<; tt/jc? dWij\ov<; KOLVWvLa — ov vepl dXko C

Tt iariv fj TTepl ’'Epwro? (j)jjXaKrjv re Kal laaiv. Trdaa yap [ 77 ]

dae/Seia ylyveaOai, idv p,p rt? tw Koap,L(p ’^Epwri ')(^apl^T]Tai

jxpSe Tip,a re avTOV Kal irpea^evp iv iravrl epy(p, dWd [vrepl] tov
erepoi’, Kal irepl yovia^ Kal ^covTa<; Kal TeTeXevTpKora^i Kai irepL
6eov^‘ d 8h yTTPOoreTa ^ra^ rp p,avTtKfj eTnajcoirelv tou? ’'EjpcoTa<;
Kal laTpeveiv Kal ea-iv av ,
fj p,avTLKp (j3L\[a<; Oecov Kal dvd pwircov
( 8p/j.LOupyb <; tco iiTio-Tacrdai to, Kara dvdp(07rov<; ipcoriKa, ocra D
retVei Trpo? 6ep.Lv Kal evae^ebav.

188 B (f)opas Stob. : efyopas B: bjyopas T Kal.-.atpas del. Bast. q.-'/r

&pas: opovs Cl’euzer al T, Stob.: om. B Tracrai B Stob.: airacrai T
( 17 ) pavriKT) Fischer cTria-TaTfl {rex^’l) Stob. ravra. ..Koivcovla del. Schlitz
C acrc^cla Stob. : 17 dcredela BT prj ns: pfjre iv Stob. {p^v) iv Pflugk
rov Stob.: Trep'i rdv BT : Trepirrcos rov Ivoch : df/3 (i 7r 6 ii )7 Wiuckeltu. : TTcpirrorepov
rov Pflugk : fort. Tr-p rov Verm.
(Trepl) a TTporiraKrai Stob. epcoras
BT : ipSivras Stob., Bt. : ipcormvras cj. Verm. : rovs epcoras secl. Herm. Hug Sz.
D evcri^eiav Stob. : dcri^eiav BT

^
here as roiv roiovrcov has above {viz. to the combinations of elements in which
the bad Eros predominates), whereas it seemingly stands in agreement with
rocoriKcov: this being so, what does ipcoriKwv precisely meanl For it cannot
'veil retain, in this connexion, its proper meaning as genitive of ra ipcoriKo.
“the laws of affinity'’ (186c, 187 c). Ought we, then, to put a stop after
I yiyverai and begin a new sentence with ipcoriKcov ovv imcrrrjpp KrX.l
do-Tpovo|iia. The term as here used includes what we should rather call
“meteorology”: cp. Rep. 527 D rpirov Ocopev acrrpovopiav ;...ro yap Trep'i copas
evaiaOprorepcos e^eiv Ka'i ppvcov Ka'i iviavrcov ...vavnXLq TrpocrrjKei. For “ as-
V tronomy” as a regular part of the school curriculum see n. on iraideia 187 D,
I and cp. Theaet. 145 c, D I’rotag. 318 E. ;

irepl 0eovs...KO(.vuvia. Simpler would have been Oecov ..Koivcovla, but, as 77 .

Hug remarks, “ Eryximachus liebt das unbestimmte irepi c. accus.”

188 C dcre'peia. “ Undutifulness,” ip ipiet as. Reverence to parents and
country was a matter of religious obligation; cp. Xen. J/em. ii. 2 13 idv Be .

ns yoveas pp Beparrevp, rovno SiKpv re irriridpai (17 irdXis) Kr\. ih. IV. 4. 20;
Reyy. 615 c.

[irepl] Perhaps an original iry was mistaken for a compendium

TOV ^repov.
of Trepi: combination dXXd iry, cp. Theaet. 191 B dXXd irp Bvvarov.
for the
a Sii...laTpeveiv. The infinitives may be taken as epexegetic of d (so Stallb.,
Zeller), or d may be construed separately as accus. of respect (“qua in caussa”
Ast “in welcher Beziehung” Hommel). There is no need to eject or emend
;

rovs 'Epcoras: the phrase used 4 11. above, irepl ’’EpcdTor cjyvXaKpv re Ka'i laaiv,
supports "Eptoraj here.

'
tSpx-e-y

£7ri6K#7rf w-ts Wt wpt" /rt*

 54 nAATQNOI [ISS D
OvTco TToWrjv Kal fx.eydX.Tjv, /xSWov Se Traaav hvvafiiv e^et
^vWrj/SSrjv (/J,ev 6 ira'i ’'Epco?, o 6e irep'i rayada /xera acocfipoavvT)^
Kal 8iKaLoavvrj(; ajroTeXovpievo'i Kal Trap' 7)p,lp Kal irapa Oeol^,
ouTO? rpv pbeyLaT7}v hvvapnv e;\;ei Kal Trdcrav yp.lv €v8aip.ovLav
TrapaaKevdl^e i Kal dWrjXoL^ Svvapievov<; oputXelv Kal (j)lXov<; elvai
E KaL Tot? KpeLTTOCTiv ypLcdv 6eol<;. tcrw? p,ei> ovv Kal iyut rov ’’Eptwra
eTTaivoiv TroKxd TrapaX eLirw, ov puevTOi eKwv ye. dXlC el tl e^e-
XiTTov, aov epyov, co ' KpLar6<^ave<;, dvaiT-Xvp waai •
rj el ttw? dXXax;
ev vw e;^ei? i^Kcop-id^epy top 6e6v, eyKcopla^e, eVetS^ Kal
Xvyyo<; Treiravaai.
189
>
EfoSe^apevop ovv
/ . /
eiravaaro, ov pevrob rrpiv ye rov TTraptiov
ecf)?}
/X eiirelv rov 'Apio-rocfidvr) otl Kat pdX'
\ cco- j I'/rr.
'jrpoaeve')(^o'qvai avrp,
„

ware pe Oavpd^eiv el to Koapiov rov acoparo<; ijTcOvpei roiovrcov

)
Kai yapyaXbapwv, oiov Kal o TTrappo<; ecrri
\lro(f)oo v rrdvv yap •

t
ev9v‘i iiravaaro, eTretBrj avrw rov irrappov rrpoafpveyKa. Ka'i rov

188 D Ka'i Trap’ T]plv...6eo7s secl. Hug 8vvapivois Stob. (^I'Xoif

Stob. E Ka'i del. Eiickert fjpav deals secl. J.-U. 189 A coot’
e/if Bekk.

188 D OuTio The German translators mostly take ovtot as

iroW'qv.
qualifying the “so vielfach und gross” (Zeller, Schleiei-m.), but Hommel
adjj.,

is probably right in taking ovrco by itself (“hoc modo,” “itaque”) comparing

'aTco TToWaxodev 178 C. Cp. Hippocr. de flat. 3 ovtos {sc. 6 dljp) Se peytaros iv
.oicn. Traci twv Travrarv SvvdaTrjs eariv a^iov Se avTov dei/cacdai ri/r dvvapiu.
Ka'i... irapa Geois. Hug condemns these words, as implying a slur on the
righteousness of the gods. But the phrase is merely a stock formula, like
our “heaven and earth,” not intended to bear rigid analysis; cp. 186 b, 187 E
KOI Tols dvdpcoireiois koi toIs deiois.
For the accus. Bwapivovs after ^plv cp. 176 d. The
Kal dX\i]Xois...0eois.
Kal after elvai isrendered “auch” by Hug, as if opiXelv governed dXXrjXois and
(piXovs fivai the other datives, but Zeller’s rendering, which makes both the
infinitives govern both sets of datives, seems more natural.
188 E Kal tyu), i.e. “ I as well as Pausanias” see 185 E ad fin.
—
:

firtiSq Kal. Kal implies a suppressed reason “since (it is your turn) and
you are cured of your cough.”
189 A
Tov irrapiiov. This was one of the remedies prescribed by Eryx.
in 185 E, hence the def. article. Trpoa-<pepeiv is a vox propria for medical
“ applications,” cp. 187 e, Phaedr. 268 A Hipj)ocr. de flat. 1 oios t av
;

TTpoarpipeiv rd ^vprpepovra rd rrwpaTi : id. de affect. 1 oca 6e rovs y^eiporeyvas

fiKor errlaTao'dai Kal TTpoaCpepeiv Kal biaypipl^eiv ktX.
TO Kocpiov. This is in ridicule of the theory of medicine stated in 186 c fl'

^
and of the use of the term Koc/noy in 187 d, 188 c. jsirilJuyteur- ^ A<i»v+cp«
 : ,

189 c] lYMnOZION oo

'Epu^L/xaxov, ’0.ja9e, (f>dvai, [' Api(rT6(j)ave<;,] opa tI 7T0iel<;. veXco -

'

TOTTOfet? pieWcov Xeyetv, kuI ^vkaKa p,e tov, \pyop dvayKaC,eL<i

yLyvecrOat tov aeavTov, edv tl yeXolov i^ov aoi ev elpppy B
Xeyeiv. /cal tov ' XpiaTo^dvp yeXdaavTa elirelv E5 \eyet<;, co

KOL p.01 ecTTCo dp prjTa to, elpppueva. dWd pup pue v ^

(pvXaTTe, ft)9 iy^ ^o^ovpbab irepl twv pbeWovTcov prjOija-ead ac^v
yeXola elirw, — tovto puev yap dv Kep8o<i etr) Kal t?}? ppLeTepa<i -)a

pLOvap<i iiriyooptov — dWd ,

pbrj KaTa//e\aaTa. EaXcov ye, (fydvai, c6
'

’ApiaT6(f)ave<;, otec inji^ev^eaQai, ; dWd 7rp6a/e')(e tov vovv Kal ovtco

X eye w? Scoacov \6yov‘ laco<; puevToi, dv pbot, dcfipcra) ae. C ••

XIV. Kat p-pv, CO 'Epv^Lp,a^€, elirecv tov ApcaTo^dvp, dWp

'

ye irp ev vw e^co Xeyeiv, fj rj av Te Kal TiavaavLa'i eiTTeTrjv. epol

yap SoKovcTiv dvOpcoiroL TravTdTraaL ttjv tov epcoTO<; Svvapcv ovk
fjcrOrjaBai, eirel alaOavopevoi ye peyiaT dv avTOV iepd KaTa-

189 A U)ya6e (pavai T : wyadi (pavai Sjyade B 'ApcaTocpaves del. Sauppe

Hug B S> om. vulg. ye Bdhm. pr^dr^crecrdai T : T)TTr)6r](TecrdaL

(sed r)T extra versiim) B : rjbrj prjdrjaecrdaL Rettig : fort, ert p. C elVeror
Blass avdpuiiTOL Bekk. ; avBpoonoi BT ; ol avOpanroi W, vulg.

[’Ap'.o-T6<f)ov6s]. I follow Sauppe and Hug in regarding the proper name

as a gloss on wya6e as a rule, iiyaBe stands alone.
189 B ov Ti...€i.'-irio. In yeXoIa Arist. applies the term used by Eryx. in
a different sense, distinguishing between yeXoIo, ndicula, and Karaye'Xatrra,
deridenda , whereas Eryx. had meant by yeXotor what A. calls Karayekaa-Tov
cp. 199 D, 221 E.
TPS ij|j.eT6pas povo-iis. This may allude (as Rettig thinks) to Eryximachus’s
Ovpavla povcra and IloXii/xpia, and to his phrase eV ^peTfpa Texyj] (187 D, E).

BoXtov ye ktX. So you think you are going to get off scot-free ” Suidas
“ !

S.V. /SaXup explains by Trpos rovs kokov tl dpacravras Kal olopevovs eKcfxvystv.

Cp. Rep. 344 D oiov e/x/3aXa)P Xdyor iv va eyety djrierat Pkaedo 91 C Plut. :
;

de S. n. V. 548 b dXX’ ovh' el ^dkcov, eiirev, aTrrjWdyrj, koKcos etye irepLopdv to ^e'Xoy
eyKfLpevov.
189 C Kal piiv ktX. This clause has reference to what Eryx. had said,
not in 189 but in 188 E (et ttcos dXXcos ev vS eyety ktX.) “Y ea verily, it A
b,
—
my intention to act as you suggested.”
7ravTdTra<ri...ovK. “To have completely failed to discern.” For dvvapis
()( (pva-Ls) as a rhetorical category, cp. Isocr. Hel. 218 D pddiov de yvavai tt^v

dvvapiv avTov kt\.

eirel al(r0. ye ktX. For eVel...ye cp. Rep. 352 c. The following infinitives
(with dv) are governed by boKovaiv, repeated in thought from the main clause.
For the sense, cp. Isocr. Hel. 221 a d>s...dvvapevT]v, dvadrjpacri koI OvcTlais koI
Tols dXXats TTpoLTodois IXacTKecrdai Kal Tipdv avTrjv xpr].
ycXwroTO/o} j^rriy^idfiojT ol/leltyvA

i(pf>rj"n'^~ ’Vnu'id^Vr'-fe^hi'
 — :

56 nAATQNOI [189 c

(jKevaaai Kal /Scofiov^, Kal 6vaLa<; av Troielv ^ae^ytcrTa?, ov-)^ wairep

/ > C' v / \ > /

vvv Tovrcov ovoev yLyverat irept avrov, oeov Travroyv iiaXtara

D yLjveadai.
]
ecrri yap dewv (^tXavOputiroTaTO^, i7rbKovp6<; re (ov twv
avdpcoTTCciv kal laTpo<; tovtcov, wv laOevrwv /ueylarr] evBaipovla av
T<p av6 pwireLtp yevet elr). iyoi ovv Tretpaaopac vplv elcrrjy'paacrOav
TTjv Svvapiv avTov, vpel'i Se twv aW(ov BkSdcrKaXoL eaecrde. Set

Be TrpcoTov upd<; padelv r^v dvOpcoTTLvrjv (pvaiv Kal rd iraOripaTa

avTr}<s. rj yap iraXai 'ppwv <j)vcn'; ov')^ avT^ pv rjirep vvv, ciXX'

dXXola. TTpcoTov pev yap rpLa pv rd yivT] rd twv civOpcoTrcov,

E uiaTrep vvv Bvo, dppev Kal OijXv, dXXd Kal rplrov Trpoarjv kolvov ov
dp4>OTipa)V TOVTCOV, ov vvv ovopa Xoittov, avTo Be -pc^dviaTaL’
'

dvBpoyvvov ydp ev Tore pev fjv Kal eiBo<; Kal ovopa dpcpoTepcov
'\

189 C Ka'i l3<t>povs del. Blass Troielcrdai Hil’schig D evSatjuoyia av

BTW : av evdaipovia vulg. elarjy^aaa'dai post aiiTOv trs. Blass ecrecrdat T
del dr] Blass TraXaici Blass avTrj B : avrr] T, Stob. : f] avrr] Euseb., Blass
dXXa aWrj Euseb. TTpcoTa rd tS>v BT Ta>v XV, Euseb. stob. WE dvo :

om. stob. dXXd KOI dXXd Stob. Eusebii codd. aliquot

; ov om. Stob.
Euseb. ev B om. T, Euseb. Stob., Sz.
:

oux “o"n’«p- “Whereas”:

cp. 179 e.
189 D This term recalls the doctor’s speech, esp. 186 b ff.,
larpds.
188 cfF.; cp. Phaedr. 252 a.
iya oiiv ireipdo-opai. “ Parodie des Pausanias (180 d) uiid Eryximachos
(186 a)” (Rettig).
el<n]Yiiora£r0ai. The force of this word is lost if we render it “narrate,”
“relate” with L. and S. it means “to initiate into”: cp. 176 E, Xen. Mem.
:

II. 7. 10. For the next clause cp. Menex. 240 D ^yepoves Kal didda-KaXm rots
aXXoir yevopevoL.
<j>v<riv...ira0'ijpaTa. This
the order of A.’s exposition rrepl ej^vaeas
is —
189 D 190 c, 190 c 193 A. For various views of physio-
Trepl TradrjpaToiv —
logists as to the <pv<Tis dvBpunrov, see Hippocrates’ tract with this title,
where the theory that man ev n eivai (aipa, yoX^, (pXeypa, etc.) is combated.
Aristotle’s exposition is intended, no doubt, as a caricature of the medicos
of his age (see Introd. § iii. 4).
189 E dySpoywov ktX. Suidas dvdpuyvvos" d rd dvdpus rvoiSiv Kal rd
ywaiKorv Trdaxiov. Riickert wrongly renders etdos by “genus”: it means
“forma” (as Stallb.). taken by Riickert and Hug as
eldos koI ovopa are
nomin., by Stallb. as accus. of respect, the construction being ev ydp {sc. redv
yevSiv) rjv ToTe dvdpoyvvov the latter way seems the better. Rettig proposes
to insert rd before ev, which would give the same sense. If eldos Kal ovopa
are construed as accus., it is better to take them closely with dvdpdywov
] 90 a] lYMnOIlON 57

KOLVov Tov re appevo<i /cal 07]\eo<;, vvv Se ov/c eartv aX)C r) iv

oi’eiSet 6vop.a Keipuevov. eTreira oKov pv k/ca<jTOv tov ayOpcoTrov to

elSo^ aTpoyyvXov, vcaTOV /cal 7r\evpa<; /cvkXco y^elpa^; 8e
TtTTapa? eL)(^e, /cal a/ciXp to, t'cra rai? 'X^epaL, /cal irpoawira 8v eV’
avxei’i Kv/cXoTepel, op,ota irdvTp" Ke^aXyv B’ eV’ dp,(j)OTepoK TOi9 190
TrpoacoTTOi^ ivavTioi/; K€cp,evoi<i p,iav, Kal coxa reVrapa, Kal alBola
Bvo, Kal TaXXa ircivTa o)? cnro tovtcov dv ti^ elKclaetev. iiropeveTo
Be Kal opdov wairep vvv, oTOTepcoae /BovXrjOeLrj • Kal OTrore Ta^v
oppipaeie Oelv, wairep ol KvjSiaTWVTe/; Kal el<; opdov to, aKeXr) irepi-

189 E (roi)) 6r)kcos Eliseb., Blass iv oj'eiSei T : ev ov e'iSei B vcoTov re

Ka'i Stob., Blass rd a/ciXrj Lcra Hirschig : (jKiXr] (fie) Blass 190 A KCi-

fiivoisom. stob. &)j : ocrn Stob. oTrore'ptoy Stob. delv B, Stob. ; iXOelv T
koL^tjT, Stob. om. ; al. opdov rd : 6p6d dvra Stob. : opdd Blass
S'

than with dp<poT. kt\. (as Stallb.). For dvdpoywos, see also Hippocr.
de diaet. 28.
For the description cp. Fmped. 257 ft’. (St.) ttoWci pkv dpcpiTTpoaonra koI
dp<f)Larfpva (jiveadai j
...pepiypeva rp piv drr’ dvdpaiv \
rp fie yvvatKOCpvij, ardpois
TjfTKrjpiva yviois: Lucr. A'. 837 flf. portenta...androgynum, interutrasque nec
utrum, Aitrimque remotura 378 nec femiua dici nec puer ut
: Ov. diet. iv. |

Ijossint ;
neutrumque et utrumque videntur
Livy xxvii. 11. 4. Theophrastus :

{Char. 16) mentions Hermaphroditus-statues; and the Orphic conception of

Fros-Phanes may also be compared.
vw Se ktX. “ But now the name exists solely as a term of reproach ” cp. :

the use in Latin of semivir, Tirg. d.. iv. 215 ille Paris cum semiviro comitatu :

Livy XXXIII. 28. 7.

oXov i^v kt\. Cp. Fmped. 265 (St.) ovXocpvds per -n-pwra tvttoi p^dordf
i^aviriXkov. dXov is predicate and not merely (as Ast, Schleierm.) a quali-
fying adj. with TO eifios. Certainly, as Eettig notes, Zeller's “ ganz rund ” is

impossible. Eabelais has a reference to this passage “ ung corps

(i. 8)
—
humain ayant deux testes, Tune viree vers I'autre, quatre bras, quatre pieds,
et deux culs; tel que diet Platon, in Sy'niposio, avoir este I’humaine nature
—
a sou commencement mysticq” in his description of Oargantua’s equipment.
190 A
Ke(})a\iiv 5’ Ilf ktX. “Quis non lani meminerit?” (Hommel). The
notion of a similar double-fronted, androgynous being is found in the Talmud,
and Fuseb. pr. Evang. xii. 12 quotes our passage as a plagiarism from Moses.
oL K-ujjLO'TwvTes. Schol. KViSiarrjp 6 6p)(rjaTrjS, Kai KyjS/ardv rd op^do'dai. Cp.
II. XVI. 750, and the evolutions of the ‘dumbler” Hippoclides described in
Hdt. VI. 129: also Xen. Syrup, eh opdov reads
ii. 11, vii. 3. The koI before
awkwardly; if retained, we must render it “actually” {adeo, XVolf), but
possibly to-a or IVa koI may have been the original. Eettig quotes Cic.
de Fin. v. 35 si aut manibus ingrediatur quis aut non ante sed retro fugere,
plane se ipse et hominem exuens ex homine naturam odisse (videtur).
 58 nAATQNOI [190 A

(^epofjbevoL Kv^iarwaL kvkXw, oktm rare ovaL roi? fieXeaop airepei-

8op,epoi Ta')(v i(pepovTO kvkKw. pv Se 8ia ravra rpia ra jev7j Kal
B Toiavra, on to pev appev pv rod ifKiov rpv ap')(^v okjopov, to Be
OrfKv T ^9 7^s', TO Be ap.(f)OTepoiv p-eTe-^ov Tp^'\ae'\7]vp'i, otl Kal p
aeXpvp apbcfioTepcov /tierep^^ef iTepicl}epp Be Bp pv\Kal avTa Kal p
iropeia avTcou Bta to Tot9 yovevaiv opoua eipai. pv pvp Tpp la')(yp
BeLva Kal Tpp poopbpp, Kal Ta ^-^rpoVTppbara puejaXa eWop, eTrep^e/-

ppaap Be roi? deol^, Kal o Ae'vei "Op,ppo<; mpl ’E^mAVou re Kal

’TItov, irepl iKeippov XeyeTaL, to eh top ovpapoT>\ai’dl3aalp em-^eL-
C pelv iroielv, co? eiri6paopbepo)v Tot? 6eoh.
XV. 'O ovp Zeu9 Kal ol \dXXoL Oeol iQovXefOoPT^i 5 ly .
')(^pp

avTovs TTOipa-ai, Kal Crjirop oi^ pvTe yap 6 ttco<; dTrlqwretmf^ Hp^oj'

190 A Kvj3i(TT5>ai kvk\u> del. Sauijppe Bdhm Sz.

A OKTd T,\ ‘(Ob.

aTrepetdopevoi T: aTrep eldopevM B; eTnpeidopevoL GJ. eph. \ B d/i^drepbvfiir

or6. ../ifrep^et del. Jn. /xfrei;(ei( Stob., B|ass (^at) ept(^^pp\J31ass \8r] omi ,

Stob. avToiv del. Blass r^xa'i BT ; 'xal W C pOSt'-rnrOD s

transp. Steinhart 6 yovv Stobaei A

190 B oTi TO
|j[.£v dppcv ktX. Aristop)hanes tool can-.pose [as an erudit^\
physicist. His astronomical lore map' come. partlpAfrom Parmenides, partly
from the Pythagoreans. Cp. Arist. de gen. an. i. 2 cippev yap Xiyopev (wov
TO els aWo yevvav, dtjXv 8e to els avro- dco Ka'i ev tco oXco rrjv rr/s yrjs (pvaiv ws
6f)\v Kai prjTepa vopi^ovaiv, ovpavov 8e koi rjXiov ...ais yevvwvTas kcll narepas
Trpocrayopevova-Lv. For the moon as bisexed, cp. Orph. Hymn. ix. 4 {Brfkis re
Kal apa-rjv) ;
Macrob. III. 8 Philochorus af&rmat Venerem esse lunam et ei

sacrificium facere viros cum veste muliebri, mulieres cuni virili, quod eadem
et mas aestimetur Prod. in. Tim. p. 326 c (o5r&) 817 koI aeXijviaKrjv
et femina.
^v)(r)v els av8p6s KUTLevai Ka6a rrjv Movaalov (jjaal, kgI arroWcoviaKrjv
(jivaiv,

{rjXiaKriv Jahn) els yvvaiKos, Kaddnep icrropovaL rrjv 2i/3uXXai') shows that

opinion on the matter was not uniform see also Plutarch, Is. et Os. ii.
:

368 c, 371 F fif.

dTi...p£Texei,. A^dgelin and others rightly defend this clause against athe-
tizers like Jahn it adds to the impression of “komische Gelehrsamkeit.”
:

irepu^epfi. than “circular” (“ kreisformig,” Ast,

“Globular” rather
Schleieim.). Tim. 45 a, PoUt. 266 B.
For Tropela, indess 2 is, cp.
TO. 4>povT|paTa peydXa €l)(^ov. Thej’ were “high minded” and had “proud
looks”; they did not “refrain their soul and keep it low” “pcydXa (jypovrjpara :

dicuntur habere qui contra dominos conspirant, cp. 182 c ” (Hommel).

o Xe'-yet "Opqpos. See Od. XL 305 ff., II. v. 385 ff. We may com|)are also
Ps. ii. 2, “The kings of the earth set themselves... against the Lord”; and
the Babel tradition {Gen. xi. 4if. cp. Grig. c. Cels. iv. p. 515 aIF.).
;

190 C oure •ydp...elx°’'' This obviously implies, as Hug remarks, moral

rather than physical impossibilitp’ — the inexpedience of killing the goose that
lays the golden egg. Supply rjepdvia-av with Kepawwaavres.
-tilo? Qi*i!el|C»vs;der
ySouXe

-ft .
 ! ::

190 D] lYMnOIlON 59

Ka'i &airep tov<; ycyavTa^ KepavvwaavT e'i to yevo<i q^ayt^fuej) — ai

Tipbul yap avTol<; Ka\ lepa rci irapa tmv avOpaTVcov -pcfiavL^eTo —
ov6' OTTfo? €(pev aae\ya[p€iv . pboyt^ 6 Zeu? i vvoyaa'i \eyei
OTt Aokw poi, e<^p, €')(^eiv piyya vpv, &)? av eiev re avOpcoTTOi Kal
iravcraivro Trj<; aKoXaaia^ <ia6eveaTepo C' yevopevoi. vvv yap D
avTov^, €<j)p, Stare/jiCt) SL')(^a eKaarov, Kal ap,a ^puev daOevearepoL
eaovrai, dp,aCE^ yp yaLficorepo i, ppCiv Std to 7T\eLov<i rov dpiOpov
yeyovevau’ Kal BaSiovprat opOol eVi Svolv aKeXolv . edv S' eri

SoKCoaiv daeXyaivetv Kal puy '6e\u>cnv yavyiav dyeiv, TrdXiv jiv,

€(f>y,
rep-d) Si^a, war e0’ kvo<; Tvopevcrovra t qKeXov<; dajccpXL^oirr^.
ravra elrroDV erepve too? dv6pcd7rov<i Si'x^a, warrep oi rd da rep-
idx-i

190 C yap {av) Ast {to} iepa Stob., J.-U. p6\is Stob. (Uv re:
ISiVTat Stob. av6pa>Tvoi Voeg. : avdpayjroi BT dadevearepoi yevopevoi secl.
Kreyenbiihl Sz. D S’ i'rc Stob., vulg. : Se ti BT 'SeXoinv Baiter Bt.
6i\<ocrLv B, Stob. : iOfKoKTiv T d(T)(aXl^ovT€s Stob. da Timaeus Pollux
and. BT, Suidas : dta Stob. Photius : ara Euseb.

T|<f>avit6To. For the impf. without dv, cp. (with Stallb.) Rep. 450 d, Euthyd.
304d; Ar. Am6. 1212.
(xo^is. .wvo'qo-as.
. Xotice the comic touch : the omniscient Zeus has to
cudgel his brains over the business
tos CIV clcv. For this construction after a present, cp. Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 5
(Goodwin G. 21. T.
§ 349, cp. § 351).
do-Seve'oTcpoi ^cvopcvoi. Although these
words are superfluous, a little legal
verbosity may
be excused in a comedian’s Zeus.
190 D xP’lTipcaTcpoi. “Llore lucrative.” Zeus, with a sharp eye to “the
loaves and fishes,” contrives to kill two birds with one stone. The propagation
of piety by making fissures in men is an idea that tickles, and the discovery
—
of the benefits from the Olympian pioint of view which result from schisms —
of this sort is vdr^pa yeXoiorarov. This passage is alluded to by Musonius ap.
Stob. yfor. lxvii. 20; Julian, Ep. lx. p. 448 c.
'

Idv 8’ ^Ti ktX. The ingenious Deity has still “a rod in pickle”: the
process of bisection may be repeated ad lib. until the wicked are left literally
with not a leg to stand on.
acTKcoXl^ovTCS. Schol. daKcoXid^dv KvpLcos pev to ctti tovs da-<ovs aXXea-dai
aXrjXLppivovs, e(f}’ ovs iirrjbmv yeXolov evf<a- Tives be <ai eTri tS>v avpTreefivKoa'i
roLS aKeXeatv dXXopevaiv. rjbr) be Tideaeri <a'i en'i tov SXXecrdaL to vevpov (rov
eTepov cj. Bekk.) tSiv TTobdiv dve)( 0 VTa, rj a)? vCv err'i (XKeXovs evds /3aivovra.
ecTTL Hesych. acr/ccoXi^ovrcy ecp’ evds ttoSov e(j)aXX6pevoi.
be Kai to )^coXaLveiv.
Cp. Schol. ad Ar. Fhit. 1130 Virg. Georg, ii. 383 inter pocula laeti mollibus
:
|

in pratis unctos saluere per utres. See also Smith D. A. s.v. “ ascoliasmus.”
wo-irep oL rd oa ktX. For da (see crit. n.) cp. Pollux vi. 79 tJv be TpoiydXia
Kapva pvpTibes pecnriXa, a Kal da KoXeiTai: Tim. (Phot., Suid.) da- dKpobpvav
^OCiio\oi6ii = 'M-reiiip>n!><Cf,eKCeii
|6i<£/So5 = ^
.V J. .*j \^^L. /» /? ' ^ .f
/ttopg JA
I •
-
' .. ^'i .

/t<oy)^=lu‘<tk •'^il tA i:roji>>j\KaHy,<£af<elY s:

i.
Ku«fce'' f<rr'^

fl'iV'k. fauic/*-, (4»J<>r

//SotSllfVJ =
//Sj^iS^/Zo - To
+0 ai‘
^1- ^ (xuft)
I

u»\V.ifnte
WOK
To cvtiheuj,
 : ;

60 nAATQNOI [190 D

E vovre'i Kai fieWovre^; rapiyeveiv [,

r) wairep oi ra u>a raZ? dpc^lv ^ •

ovTiva 8e T6/X01, tov ’AttoAXco eKeXeue to re irpoacoTrov pbeTaar pe-

(f)eiv Kai TO TOV avyivo <; p/xicrv tt/oo? rpv Topb-gv , iva Oecofievo'i rhv i

/
— avTov Tfigaiv Koa-p,b(oTepo<; eig 6 avOpwiro^, xal rdWa laaQai,
eKeXeuev. o 8e to t€ irpocroTrov pueTearpe^e, ical avveXKw v iravTa-
yo6ev TO Zeppia inrl Tgv jacrTepa vvv /caXovp-evgv, axTTrep tcl

avairaaT a /SaWdvTca, ev aTopua ttoicov ciTreSet kuto, pbicrgv Tgv

jaaTepa, o Zg tov 6p(f)a\ov KaXovaL. Kai Ta<?(^^aAXa? pvT[Za<;

190 D ripvovTbs Kai secl. Kreyenbiihl Bt. : xai seel. Bdhm. Hug Sz.
E TapLx^va-av Photiiis Suidas fj...dpi^[v secl. Sydenham Sz. Bt. ol T,
Stob. : om. B dpi^l {Biaipovvres) Toup Ka'i. ..rjpiav del. Sauppe
KOI to; Kara to Verm. avTov T : avTov B, Stob. TprjtTLV TT poTp’qaiv

Naber ^aWdvria T :
^dWovra B aTTfSeire Stob. tov del. Hommel
Tas om. stob.

eiSoy prjXoLs piKpols epipepes. It is the “ sorb- applj ” or “service-berry,” Lat.

sorhum\ for the mode of preserving these cp. Varro cle re rust. I. 59 (putant
manere) sorba quidam dissecta et in sole macerata, ut pira, et sorba per se
ubicumque sint posita, in arido facile manere : and for Tupix^veiv in this sense
of “drying,” cp. Phot. (Suid.) Tapix^veiv '...agiJiULveiv kqI to ^rjpatveiv.
The
clause ^ wo-Trfp...Tals dpi^iv is condemned by most edd. It is an
objection to the phrase that, as Rettig notes, we ought naturally to supply
with not only the appropriate re/xrorrf? but also the inappropriate peWovres
it

TapLxevfiv this objection however is not insuperable, and if necessary Tep-

vovTes might be tran.sposed. It is argued on the other hand by Hommel and
Vogelin that a second simile is really required, the sorb-slicing describing
only the mode of oi^eration, whereas the egg-slicing adds the idea of ease
and facility. That «a
6pi^\ 8iaipeiv was a proverbial saying is shown by
Pint. amat. 24, 770 b oiaOa Tovs jraiBiKOvs i'peoTas {els} djSejSaiOTrjTa ttoWci
ja.

X eyovai Ka'i CTKCoTrTOucrt XeyovTes coairep wov avTcov Tpix'i Siaipfladai Trjv (piXlav.
Riickert supposes “ovorum per crines dissectionem ludi genus fuisse
fortasse ex ovorum dissectione per crines facta convivae futura praedicere
solebant” Zeller writes “ vielleicht ein Gesellschafts- oder Liebesspiel, das
:

darin bestanden habeii konnte, dass zwei Tischgenossen sich in die zwei
Halften eines hartgesottenen Eies theilten, nachdem es mit einem dem
Einen von ihnen ausgezogenen Haare zerschnitten war, also ein griechisches
Vielliebchen.” It is, perhaps, possible that ithad some connexion with
(Orphic) magic and divination by (poaKoiria. For the process of bisection,
cp. Phaedr. 265 E.
190 E Tijv avTol TiiTjcriv. Here Tprjcris denotes, of course, the result rather
than the process NabeFs TrpoTprjo-iv, umbilicum, is ingenious but needless.
;

rdXXa lacrBai. Apollo, as aKeaios and tjyrijp, very properly plays the part
of surgeon’s assistant.
rd (Tvenrao-Ta paWdvTia. “ Round pouches with strings to draw ” ; see
Smith D. A. i. 565. I
, ,
I
^ ^
"^iytiKr/tu « piiirtl
"Tdpi/fiXO ipeitMe taly by <vT. 6L>/f/\ K<0

' '
t ^ / . _ 1- /6u67Ta/w-
 191 c] lYMnOIlON 61

ra? TToWa? e^eXiatv e koX rd an^dr] Sinpdpov , e%a)z/ tc tolovtov 191

opyavov olov oi aKVTotrofJLOi irepl rov Ka\(j/TroSa XeaivovT^ ra?
Tcov aKVTW V pvTiSa^ • 6XLja<; Se KareXiire , ra? irepl avT^v rrjv

yaarepa Kal tov 6pb<^a\6v, fxvrjjMeloy elva^ tov TraXaLOv TrdOov;,

/
eTreLSr) ovv i) <^vcn^ Stva erpbp 6p,~T^k§^v SKaarov to pp.iav to
avTOv ^vvpei, Kal 7Tep(/^dXXovT€<; ra? ')(^eLpa<; Kal avfjL'irXeKotievo c
direOvpaKov vtto Xcgov Kal t?}?
dXXrjXoi<i, i'TTLdvpovvTe'^ crvpj<^vvaL,
dXX7j(; dpy[a<; Bid to pirjSeu ideXeiv ')(^copl^ dXXyjXtov Troielv. Kal B
OTTore Ti aTTCpavoi tcov ppLiaecov, to Be Xeicj^deiTj, to XeicfiOev dXXo
e^pTei Kal crvveTrXeKeTOy etVe yuvaiKo^ t?}? oX7]<; ivTv^oi ripiLcrei,

0 Br) vvv yvvaiKa KaXovpiev, etVe dvBp6<; •

Kal ovtco‘; dTrcoXXvvTO .

iXepcra^ Be 6 Zev<; dXXrjv ppxav^v iropi^eTai ,

Kal pceTaTiOrjaiv
avTwv Ta ctiBoia et? to rrpoadev Teco<; yap Kal TavTa e/cro? el^ov,

Kal eyevvcov Kal ctiktov ovk ei? dXXpXovf; aXX et? y^jv, coairep oi C
So
191 A opyavov del. Creuzer KaXdiroSa T, Pollux Stob. : KoXoTroda B
iTreidrj : fVfi Stob. j5 Verm. J.-U.
c^vTis (avrav) vel (jjpmv') Ast errodovv
EKaa-Toi r<B f^piaei Verm. to libri re Stob. Priscian ra Verm. J.-U. : :

avTov om. Priscian T, Stob. Priscian ^welvai B, Verm. J.-U. del. : ;

Eettig dpTcXcKopevoL Stob. Xipnv B: tov Xipov T, Stob.: Trjs Xipov XV,
Tulg. B TO Se T : rdSe B ^vvcTriirXeKTO Stob. ripareias Stob.
aTToiXXovTO T ; aToXXvi’TO B : aTrcoXXvTo Stob.

191 A StilpGpov. “ Sliaped_ out,” “moulded”; cp. Phaedr. 253 d. Cp.

Aelian, iZ. A. ii. 19, a'. 39, a'i. 3.

TOV KaXdiroSa. “ Tli^ (cob bier’s) last”: Lat. (Hor. A^ai. ii. 3. 106),
or ientipelliuni. Suidas (s.v. K.dXa) koXov yap to ^iXov ov ko.] KaXoTcovs, 6
^vXlVOS TTOVS.
pvT|peiov...ird0ovs. The residue of the wrinkles was intended to serve as a
memorial “of man’s first disobedience... and all our woe.” This repeats the
idea already expre.ssed in 190 e supra {Iva Q^wpevos ktX.).
T] cj)vo-is. Creuzer renders this by “nos homines,” disapproving of Ficiuus’
“natura” and Schleierm.’s “forma”: but is no mere periphrasis but

connotes original nature or form.

ttoGovv eKacTTov ktX. To attemjAt to restore the Bodleian reading ^welvai,
as several of the later critics do, involves too much alteration; thus Hug
writes tc5 uvtov ^vveivai, Usener inoBow ...rdi avTov ^vveivai. Notice the
“constructio ad sensum,” Trodovv...Trepi3dXXoi>Tes...dTrddvTjcrKov. There is an
echo of this passage in Philo de op. mund. 53 p. 36 ]\I.
Tiis dXXTjs dpyias. “ General inactivity,” implying that the Xipds itself was

due to dpyia. Cp. Rep. 554 a, c (with Adam ad loc.).

191 B 6iT€ dvSpos. Abbreviated for elVe dv8p6s tov oXov ivrv^oi r^plaei.

Notice that the third possibility (elV’ dvbpoyvvov) is omitted.

191 0 ucrirep o'l TCTTiyes. This is not merely a piece of natm’al history;
6rri^U)y-s. li^rrjpi- \ lATivUe \ Ci/

SiaipCi^zTo *'0
\te«16<ACjTrw- Wpy»;
opy*v«5 svocfkA'j^ p To -lAjlc
\p'^JUeTo</- r A
/Agodv'w'S I ,
Hrr<y ‘-'pevi
-tuj.ve/4^^
6>Kvr0‘ • /duyuT^e'icui"
I
f -*-0.1
I TTOfit Juj • feircVv
 62 nAATQNOI [191 c

TeTTcy€<; ‘ /j.eredrjKe re ovv ovtco <TavT> avTWv et? to irpoaOev

Kal Std TovTcov rpv yeveauv iv dWvX.oi'i eiroiriae, Btd rod dppevo<i
iv TM dpXei, Tcovhe eveKa, iva iv rp avpuirXoKf] ippia pbiv el dvrjp

ywauKL ivkv-)(^OL, yevvwev Kal ylyvoiro to ykvo^, dp.a S’ el Kal apppv

appevi, TrXvamovr) yovv yiyvotro tt}? avijovaia^ Kal hLojnavoLVTO
Kal eirlrd epya rpeiroiVTO Kal rov dWov /3lov e7rip,e\oivTO . earc
D hij ovv eK Toaoy 6 epco^ ep.tpvTO'i dWpXcov TOi? dvOpcoTTOt^; Kal tt}?

dp')(^a'ia‘i (jivaeco^ avvaycoyev'i Kal eTnjyeipdiv nroLrjaaL ev eK dvolv

Kal Idaaadai rpv (j^vatv rpv dvOpcoirlvpv.

191 C re ; Se Ast oi^rco avToiv : afj.ov ndvraiv cj. Usener (raCr’) avrd>v
scrips! : avrSiv B: airSiv T : av Schauz : avrd vulg. : del. Riickert avraiv..,

TTpoaOev del. Jn. Hug ('pirpoadev Stub. fort, (ra alBola) Kal dia tovto
Stob. yevvrjCTLv Verm. Sz. eV : viav Stob. 8id...d^\ei del. Jn. Sz.

, {aS)V ) (vel ert) ylyvoLTo Riickert: yeVotro Stob. : CTM^OLTO Susemihl to yevos
BT, stob.: yeVoy J.-U. : tokos Verm.: 6 yovos Hommel dppev apogr. Coisl.
155 stob. D avvayayds Stob. eva Stobaei A

it contains also an allusion to the cicada as the symbol of Athenian auto-

chthony : Cp. Polit. 271 a r6 pev e’^ aXkpX(0 v ovk pv ev Trj Tore (pvaei yevveopevov,
TO 8e Sj) yrjyeves eival Trore yevos Xe)(6ev ktX.: Thuc. I. 6, Ar. Eq. 1331. For
the mode of propagation of cicadae, cp. Ael. H. A. ii. 22 raR dcpvaLs 6 nrjXds
yivealsicTTL- 8i dXXpXa>v 8i nv tIktovctiv ov8e eiriyivovTaL ktX. the female lays :

her eggs in the .sand, where the young are hatched out by the sun’s heat.
Cp. also Pint. amat. 767 c.
Hommel explains ovtco by /lac ratione, qua dixi\ Riickert
oi)T<tf...irp6cr0ev.

by nunc posita sunt, which seems preferable. avTS>v {sc. ra al8ola) by itself
uti
reads rather awkwardly; but, as Vogelin points out, a glossator would cer-
tainly have added the missing words. It is, perhaps, just possible that
ra alSola fell out before Kal did, owing to similarity of letters; but the
'

insertion of raCr’ is a simpler change.

i.e. to dvdpdnrivov yivos, cp. 190 D ro yivos
yiyvocTO to yevos, .av6 pcoiroi. , .

There no reason to tamper with the text: the present tense secures the
is

notion of continuance without need of supplements such as Riickert’s acdv

or eri. (A neater change would be TelvocTo.)
tirl rd ^pya. In contrast to their former dpy'ia (191 b). Cp. Hesiod’s title
epya kcli fjpepai. /3ios is here practically equiv. to roC l3iov xarao’/cevij {Laws
842 c) and the phrase means “ husbandry and other means of .subsistence.”
;

^o-Ti 8iq oiiv. Here at last we come to the point of the whole tale the —
function and value of Eros.
‘

eK Tocrov. “ From such early times,” tom lonqo e.v tempore the only other :

ex. in Plato is Laws 642 e, but the phrase is common in Hdt., e.g. v. 88, vi. 84.
191 D eruvaywyevs. “A unifier,” in the sense of “restorer.” This subst.
is unique in Plato, and rare elsewhere cp. the use of crwaycoyds, Prot. 322 c, ;

(
V 6u^-rrAoK>y^Q-
I I

-r , / CL

( C
'
iro6oj=wi<4 ,
 : ;

191 e] ZYMnOIlON 63

XVI. 'E/cctcTTO? ovv tjfiwv eaTLv avOpodiTov ^vfj,0oXov , are

T€T/j.r]/j.ivo<i waTTep ai yjrprrat ,, €u6<; 8vo. ^prel 8p del to avrov
eVacrro? ^vp,i3o\ov. /oaot ovv twv dv8pwv tov kolvov ^pipp,d '

eiaiv, o 8rj rare dv8p6'yvvov eKoXelro, <j)L\o^/vvaiK€^ r elal Kal oi

TToXkol rwv p.OL'xwv €k tovtov tov yevov^; yeydvaai, Kal ocrat av E
yvvaiKe<; (j)i'Xjd,v8poL re Kal p.OL'y^evTpcai [e’/c tovtov tov yivov<i
ylyvovTai^. oaat 8e tcov yvvaiKoov yvvaiKO'i Tpir}p,d elaiv, ov irdvv
avTao Toi<; dv8pdcri tov vovv irpo(^e')(^ovcnv, dWd pudWov irpo<; rd?
yvvauKa^ TeTpapupbivat elal, Kal al eTatpLCTTpiat ck tovtov tov
191 D ovv: yovv cj. Usener eKuaros TW: eKaurov B, Stob. Tprjparos
Stob. E (piXopoix^vTpiai Stob. €K...yiyvovTai del. Bdhm. Sz.
yvvaiKav W xat al...ylyvovTai del. Voeg. al bm. Stob.

dvGpwTTov ^ilppoXov. “But the indenture of a man” (Jowett) : avpjSoXov

here is the tessera hospitalis ;
the host presents his departing guest with one
half of a broken die {da-rpdydXos), retaining the other half himself (see Smith
£>. ^4. s.v. “hospitium”). Cp. the use of the word by Empedocles, in his theory
of reproduction stated in Ari.st. de gen. an. i. 18. 772*> 10 'EpTre8oK\rjs,..(j)y](T\

iv Tto dppevL Kal iv rco drjXei oiov crvp^oXov eivai, oXov 5 an’ ovderepov andvai —
“ad quod decretum philosophi respexit fortasse Aristophanes” (Stallb.).
al \|/T]TTai. Lat. rkombi, a kind of flat-fish (perhaps plaice or turbot)
Schol. 1
)(
6 v 8 l 6 v Ti TCOV TrXarelcov 17 ^j/prTa, €k 8vo Beppcircov avyKelcrdai rpv I8eav
80KOVV, o Tives aavdaXwv KaXovcriv ktX. : “ genus piscium, quod oculos et nares
in altera tan turn parte capitis habet” (Stallb.). Cp. Ar. Lgs. 115 (where the
Schol. Cirriously defines \|/'. as dpveov T€Tp-qp 4 vov Kara to peaov, as 01 crcPrjKes),

Athen. viii. p. 329.

4>LXo-Y{ivaiK6s. Cp. Cic. Ticsc. iv. 11. 25 similiterque ceteri morbi...ut

mulierositas, ut ita appellem earn, quae Graece (f)iXoyvvia dicitur, etc. The
.sing, is (fiiXoyvvTjs (see and S.).
L.
191 E (}>i\av8poi. The word here has the bad sense noted in Hermog.
de id. III. p. 324 W. t^v yap aKoXacrlav jSovXcTai vvv 8r)nov (rripalveiv Kal to
poix^veadai. Somewhat different is theforce in Soph. fr. 1006 N. (Hermog.
Rhet. III. p. 324) koI 6 ^ocpoKXr/s 8i cpCXavbpov TTOv t^v ATaXdvTtjv eine did to ’

acnrd^eaOai crvv dvbpdcriv elvai: and Eur. Androm. 229; while in Ep. Titus ii. 4
(piXavbpia is a virtue.
Ik TovTov...-Yi-yvovTai. Badham and Hug in rejecting these words
I follow
as an adscript derived from the context (a view already suggested by
Hommel). Badham wi’ites, “ si altero praedicato opus esse credidisset Plato,
quod aegre adducar ut credam, aliquanto pulcrius orationem variasset quam
yeyovacTi in ylyvovTai mutando.” The three-fold repetition sounds clumsy.
•ywaiKos Tp.%a, i.e. a section of the ywri oXrj (“ Doppelweib”) of 191 b.
Similarly below dppevos Tprjpa refers to the ivrip dXos (“Doppelmann”). With
the theory of sex-characters here expounded, cp. Hippocr. de diaet. i. 28 ff.
al IraipliTTpiai. Timaeus fTaipicTTpiai' al KoXovpevai rpt/SdScy. Cp. Clem.
Alex. Paed. III. 21, p. 264 P. ywaiKes dvbpl^oVTOi napd (pvaiv yapovpeval re
Kal yapovcTCU yvvaiKes and Ep. Rom. i. 26.
w-Wl',
6upy?oAv
ThwTTK® fc. ^
 P&w TGjUVlO

64 nAATQNOI A [191 E

yei'ov^ yLjvovTaL. o^oi,

^ dppevo<; rpippud elac, to. dppeva Scoj -

,
Kovat Kal ,
Tewi(p^ dv iralhe^ waiv, ate Te/<.a%ta ovra rov dpp€vo<;,
192 (f>i,\ovcri Toi)? uvBpa<i Kal ')(^aLpovc7L avylcaTctJKelpi.evoL Kal avpire -
TrXeyp^ivot, roi'i duBpciai, Kal elacv ovroi ^eXTicTToc twv TralScov Kal
fieipaKbcov are dvSpeijoTaToi oVre? cj^vaei.
, cf)aal(^ Btj Tive<; avTov^
dvaLa')(yvTOV'^ eivac, '^evBopievob' ov yap vtt dvaia-^wria'i tovto
Bpcoabv dXX’ 1)770 Odppovi Kal dvBpeia<i Kal dppei’Q)7r(a<; , to dpbOLov
auTOt? dajra^ojxevoL. peya 8e reKprjpiov Kal yap TeXecoOevre'^
povoi aTrol^alvovaLv et? ra iroXiTiKa dvBpe<i ol roiovroi. eTreiBdp
B Be dvBpcodwcri; iraL^'epaarovaL Kal irpcx; ydpov<; Kal TTaLBcjiroilat; ov
77poae')(^ovaL rov vovv (pvaei, dXXd viro rov vdpov dvayKa^ovraf

191 E (appei'e?) appevos Bast T€(ijs : fcos Ast Sz. repd^La Oin. Stob.
192 A ovToi {ol) Hoiuniel Sz. rav peipaiclaiv Stob. Se 817 : 8tj Stob.
ovTf yap Stob. avTols vulg. B (f>va'€i. ..dvayKa^ovrai del. Hug dXKd...
dvaynd^ovTai del. Jn. Sz.

Tews av. “I.q. ecor dv, (Ast). As this use is unique in Plato,
quamdiu"
Ast proposed to write ews av. In 191 b Teas has its usual force, adhuc.
Tejiaxia. “Slices”; this recalls the comparison with -^^TTai, ripaxos being
used esp. of fish.

(rvYKaTaK€f|i6voi.. An example of this is Alcibiades : see his own account

in 217 D ff.

192 A dvSpeioTarot. An allusion, as Hommel remarks, to the ambiguity

of the word av8pe7os. Cp. Hippocr. de diaet. I. 28 qv pev ovv es dpreva rd aapara
anoKpidevTa dp(f)OTepa>v Tvxp.-.yivovrai ovroi dvBpes Xaprepoi rds xj/vxds Kal to
aapa IcrxvpoL
(jjacrl. . .TLves. Cp. what Pausanuis says in 182 a (wore nvas roXpdv
Xeyeiv ktX.),
appevwTrias. Etym. M. S.V. dppevcoTros' 6 appevos TTpotranrov e;(a)V, Kara
o-vveKdoxTjv. rjyovv 6 dvdpelos Kal laxvpds Kal Bvvdpevos
npos ex^pdv dvTi-
raxdrjvai. The subst. is air. Xey., but the adj. occurs in Lavjs 802 B t 6 Si)
peyaXoTT penes ovv Kal to rqv npos avhpeiav penov dppevanov (fiareov eivai,
Eettig regards all these apparently encomiastic terms as ironical.
TeXew0e'vTes. “ When grown up,” cp. Rep. 377 B, 466 E.

avSpcs is predicative :
“ Such as these, and they alone, turn out me7i {i.e.

manly, capable) in public affairs” Ficinus wrongly renders “cum adoleverint,

:

soli ad civilem administrationem conversi, viri praestantes evadunt”; and

Schleierm. also goes wrong. For the connexion between the paederastic
temper and. politics, cp. 182 c, Ar. Nub. 1093, Eq. 333 etc. fif.,

dv8pw0(3o-i. This verb is not found elsewhere in Plato cp. Hdt. i. 123, ;

Eur. H. F. 42.
192 B 4>v<rei....dva-yKdtovTai. Hug, on quite insufficient grounds, expunges
these words. It is true that there was, so far as is known, no law at Athens to
enforce matrimony, though there was such a law at Sparta, according to Stob.
192 d] ZYMnOIlON 65

192 B dydfiois ova-f Stob. fxev ovv (post orav): jxivToi Sauppe jxev Sz. :

KOI om. stob. BayfiaerroraT' Bdhm. C iKTr\r]TTovTaL T eKTrXijTTOi/ra B :

(eVi) (TfjLiKpov Stob. ov8fvi Stob., Bt. : ovB^v BTW ; ov8e recc., J.-U.
erepcp: iicaTepcp Stob. \aipeL T :
)^aipeiv B ^ V (Karepov Stob.

ypa(pfj dyapLov (or 6\jMyaplov}. But, as Hommel notes, v6pos covers not only
law but custom; and appears that “certain disabilities attached, at Athens,
it

to the state of celibacy those who entered public life, as p^ropes or crrparrjyol,
;

were required Trai^oTroL^iadaL Kara Toiis vopovs (Deinarch. c. Demosth. p. 99

§ 72)”: see Smith D. A. i. 4.3 a. And it is to be noticed that it is precisely
public men who are spoken of in the text. The antithesis (pva-ei )( vopa
derives from the Sophists (Hippias v. Protagoras), see my Philebus p. xxviii n.,
Adam R. T. G. pp. 279 fi'., Gomperz G. T. i. pp. 401 ff.
(fjiXepao-rqs- This applies to the ipapevos ; cp. the use of (^tXepaoria in
213 D. Those who are TraiSepaa-raL in manhood were (ftikepaaraL in boyhood
{({)i\ovcri Tovs dvbpas 191 e), SO that the words here are put in chiastic order,
as Stallb. observes. Hommel absurdly suggests that n. re kuI (piXepaa-T^s may
denote “ virum qui neq^ie alios vituperet amatores puerorum, et ipse pueros
amet.” The point is also missed by Ruckert’s “amicorum amator,” and
Wolf’s “sodalium amator.”
This refers to 191 D, ^rjrei Bp del TO avTov ^vp^oXov.
avTip...ij|ii<rei.

dXXos This is a short way of referring comprehensively to the

iras.

segments of the other dXa, viz. the androgynous and the “ Doppelweib ”
(191 D, e).

0av|ia<rTd eKirXqTTOVTai. ktX. Cp. 211 D.

192 0 ws This qualifies the negatives in the clause, like
^iros eliretv.

paene dixerim “ Barely consenting to be sundered for even a moment.”

:

Kal ol SiareXovvTes ktX. “ It is these who continue in fellowship their

life long, although they could not so much as say what gain they expect

from one another.” Schleierm. misses the force of ovtoi by making it direct
antecedent to ot (“diese sind es welche” etc.). For the thought of this
passage, cp. 181 D, 183 e, Phaedr, 254 a if., 255 E ff.
TOUTOv ^v€Ka, l.e. TTji Tav d(f>p. (Twovaias ere/ca.
^lK€lOTr){
5

'''^1
«5l«T€Xe'u:
r I j! f 1 1\ I

^TTou^ q - 1.1*1 tf, I

SpX iopico - '

"fo
 :

66 nAATQNOZ [192 D

elnrelv, dWd xavrevera L b ^ovXerai koI alvlTTCT^j,.

/ koX el avTo2<; -

iv T(Z avrw KaTolKeLfievoi^; eTricrra? o'^H^atcrTo?, e')(uiv rd opyava ,

epocro’ Ti ecrd’ b /3ovXea0e, co dvOptoiroi, wap dXXrjXcov

vpZv
^eviaOai ; Kal el awopovvTa 'i aJroi)? wdXiv epooro' ^Apd ye rovSe
ewiOvfieiTe, ev tm avrS yeveaOai o rt p,dXi(Tra dXX'!]Xoi<;, ware Kal
vvKTa Kal r]p,epav pi,-q dw^elweadat, dXXpXtov ; el yap tovtov
E iwidvpelre, ideXco vp,d<; avvTri^at Kal avfx4)variaa L et? to avTO,
wcrre So’ ovTa<; eva yeyovevai Kal ew? r’ dv ^rjTe, co? eva bvra,
KOLvfj dpcf)OTepov<; ^rjv, Kal iweiSdv dw^6dv7}re, eKel av ev "AiSov
dvrl Svolv £va eivat KOivy redvecore' dXX" opdre el tovtov ipaTe
' f « ,\ / / « » / 5/
Kai e^japKet vfitv av tovtov tv')(^T6 TavTa aKovaa^ tcrfiev otl
ooS’ dv ec? i^apvr]6elrt ovS' dXXo tl dv (pavely ^ovX6p,evo^, aXX’
^dlre')(^vd)<i oioLT dv dKpKoevai tovto b wdXac dpa ewedvp,ei, avv^Xd^v^
Kal avvTaKel<i T(p eptopbivo} eK Bvolv ec? yeveaOac. tovto yap iaTi
TO aiTiov ,
OTL 7] dp'yala ^ocrt? ypbwv yv avTy Kal yp,ev bXoi '
tov
193 bXov ovv Ty ewiOvpLLa Kal Sico^eL ep(i)<; ovop,a. Kal wpb tov, aawep
Xeyo), ev ypLev, vvvl Be Bid Tyv dBiKiav BiaKLadyfLev vwb tov deov,

192 D di\<o B E (rvp<pvariaai BTW : avp(pva'ai b t, vulg. Cv^e oos

T :
^riryaeats B aXKo on TW tovto b : roC ov Bdhui. tovtov yap
Ficinus Bast: tovtov ap' Wolf 193 A 8i(pK.[a0r]pev biea~)(l(T6r}pev

Cornarius viro : otto Hommel

192 D Kal €l...?poiTO. The apodosis to this duplicated protasis is to be

found in tapev otl ktX (192 e). For Hephaestus and his tools, see Od. viii.
266 ff., esp. 274 ev S’ Wct aKpodeTa peyav OKpova, koitts ts 8ea-povs apppKTOvs \

akvTOvs b(f)p’ epiredov avdi pevocev. He would also have his bellows ((pvcrai),
tongs {iTvpaypa), and hammer {acpvpa, paiaTrjp) see II. zviii. 372 ff., 474 : fif.

192 E crvVTi]|ai. Cp. 183 E, Tim. 43 a TrvKvdis yopipois ^vvTTjKovTes Eur.

f}\ 964 TTaera yap ayaOp yvvr], rj tis dvdpl (TVVTeTrjKe, acoeppovelv eTTiTTarai.
\
For
TTjKeiv of the effects of love, cp. Theocr. id. i. 66; Xen. Symp. vin. 3.

(rupicf)vo-fio-ai. Stallb., Hommel and Jowett retain the vulgate, avpfjyverai,

but the other lection gives a better sense “to weld together,” conflare: —
cp. II. XVIII. 470. There is a ref. to this passage in Arist. Pol. ii. 4.
1262'' 11 KaOdirep ev toTls epeoTiKois \6yois tcrpev Xeyovra tov Apio-ToLpdvrjv as
Tav epavTav bid to a<p68pa (pikeiv eTTiOvpovvTav avp<pvvai Kal yeveaSai eK bvo
dvTav dp(j)OTepovs Aa (Newman here reads avpe^vrjvai), but the word avp<j}vvai
isprobably due to a reminiscence of 191 A. For the sense, cp. Orph. Fr. 139
wapriyayev ...TOV "EpaTa, evonoidv dvTa t5>v oXav,
TOV oXov...’6vop.a. This definition sums up the description of Eros given in
191 D ad init.

193 A
SiwKlcretjpev ktX. This is apparently a reference in spite of the —
audacious anachronism (cp. Introd. § Tin.), to the dioiKia-pos of Mantinea in

- ‘to

K
* ^ I j - r 4s wr.
/duv'rc]K.u3
 193 c] ZYMnOZION 67

Kaddirep \\pKdBe<i vtto AaKsSaip^ovLcov. ^o^o<i ovv eanv, idv pu^

KoapuLOL dopev 7rpd<; rov<; 6eov<;, ottco? Kai avda SiaayicrOTia o-
peOa Kal dreouueu^
,
e^ovre'^ wcnrep ol iv rat? <7Tr]\a c<i Karcjufjpa^pv
^KreTVTTwpkvd^ SiaireTrpLcrpevo L Kara ra? plva<;, jeyovore'; cocirep

\LaTraL . dWd tovtcov eve/ca irdvr dvZpa ')(^prj diravTa irapaKe -

\evea6a L evcre^elv Trepl 6eov<;, iva rd pev ii^<^v'ya)pev, twv
TV')( a)pev, &)? o ’^Eptu? rjplv rjyepcov Kal o-Tparrjyo^. <p prjBel'i

ivavTia TTparreTco — Trpdrrei S’ evavria, ocrTt? 6eol<; dir ey 6 aver a l —

0tA.oi yap yevopevoL Kal BiaX\.ayePT€<; rw Bew i^eypyaouiv re Kal
e vrev^opeda roL<; 7raiBiK0i<i toi<; pperepoL'^ avrcov, o rcov vvv oXiyoL
TToiovai. vir^d^p 'Kpv^lpa')(^o^, KcopwBwv rov \6yov,
Kal prj poL
ca? UavaavLav Kal’Ayddwva Xeyo)’ ia(o<;{pevj yap Kal ovroi tovtcov
T vy^dvovaiv ovTe<; Kal elalv dpc^orepoL rrjv (f)va-cv dppeve<;' Xeyco C

193 A dLaa)(t(T6ri(T6fieda T : Biao'x^O'drja'afJi.eOa B KaraypaCpfj Schneider ;

Kara ypa(j)rjv Ruhnken Sz. diaTreTrpicrpfvoi T : diaTrcTrpTjo'pdvoi B : Si;^a

TTcn-picrpivoL Ruhnken anavn Hirschig Sz. B a>s BT ; hv recc. vulg.,

Herm. J.-XJ. : fort, oaov rjpLTopois avTwv Bast pot B : pov T yap
Kai: ya/j Wolf C upper os Bast : apperos eros Orelli

385 B.C., for which see Xen. Hell. v. 2. 1 ff. Ik. de tovtov Ka6ppi6r) pev to reixos,
SicoKLaSr] Se rj Mavrtveia rerpax^ KadaTrep ro apxoiov oukovv {l.e. Kara Kwpas):
Isocr. Fan. 67 a : Arist. Fol. ii. 2,
§ 3.
KaTa-ypacfcqv. Many editors divide the word Kara ypacppv. Probably
whichever reading we adopt the meaning is the same, “in profile,” the figures
being bas-reliefs {crusta). Cp. Plin. xxxv. 34 hie catagrapha invenit, hoe est
obliquas imagines.
(iicnrep Xicnrai. These are SiaTTCTTpia-pevoi darpayaXoi (Schol. ad loC., Suidas),
,
like the avp^oXov of 191 D Ran. 826, Schol. ad Eur. Med. 610.
: cp. Ar.
'
193 B ws 6 "Epws- The Bodleian’s ms, though doubtful, is possible.
I
Perhaps the variants arose from an original oa-cov or iv m.
; 7rpdTTei...dir€x0aveTai.. This may contain an allusion, as Usener suggests,
to some familiar verse such as, e.g., npaTrei 8’ ivavrC os dtots dnrjx^cTo.
p-ij poi viroXdpT). This is one of three cases in Plato of “plj with the
(independent) subjunctive implying apprehension coupled with the desme to
—
avert the object of fear,” the other cases being Euthyd. 272 c. Laws 861 E
(see Goodwin G. M. T. § 264).
KtopmSuv Tov Xo-yov. “ Ridiculing my discourse,” cp. 189 B so i7riK<op<pB5>v, :

Apol. 31 D. As Hug observes, A. is really KmpmSmr himself when, in comic

contrast to the picture dravra of Agathon in Thesm. 31 flf, he here suggests
that he is lyv cfivcriv dppijv.
193 C dp<j)6T6poi...dpp6V€s. “ H. e. dppevos ivos” Stallb. As Wolf (like
Stallb.) says, appeves TTjv (pvaiv means “mares origins, Tprjpara seu repaxia.
TOV dppevos," and implies further, as Rettig notes, “mares natura, geborene
Paderasten.” L.„ =-fo b«. UW, .v^^^
6hi6vticS!^'^ Vw+reX P- n
, , , ^ ^
..Ji. ,

'
iu.XXoi* •
-.i-vf er+KU<> )'
'
it

Srfcolk fo \ii
eulnort,
^1
'.\60&ua<!
 :

68 nAATQNOZ [193 c

Be ovv eyaiye KaO' airavToov Kal avBpwv kuI yvvaiKwv, on, oyro)?
av '^/JLoov TO yevo<; evBai/xov yivooro, el eKjre\earaifiev tov epeora Kal
Tcov 7raiBiK0t)v twv avrov e/cao-ro? et? t^v ap-^aiav aTrjeXOoov

(pvcnv. el Be tovto dpiarov, dvayKalov Kal to)v vvv irappvTcov to

T ovTov eyyvrarrw dpicTTOv eivai" tovto B' iaTl TraiBiKwv TV')(^elv

KaTCb vovv avTM 7recf)VKOTcov ov B^ tov aiTiov $eov vp,vovvTe<;

D BcKalco'i av vp,volp,ev “Epwra, 09 iv re tm TvapovTi rjpbd'i irXelaTa
ovlvTjaiv et9 to olKeiov dycov, Kal el<; to eVetra eA7rtS(Z9 p,eyLaTa<;

Trapex^Tai, -pfiwv 7rape')(op,ivct}v 7rpo9 deov<; evae^eiav, KaTaaT-^aa<;

r]p,d<; et 9 TTjv dp')(aLav (pvaiv Kal laa dp,evo<f p,aKaplov<i Kal evBal-
p.ova<; TTOLrjaaL^

OuT 09 , €(f)r], do 'Eipv^LpLa')(e, 0 ep,o<; \ 6 yo<i eVrt irepl ’^Ep&)T09,

aX\oi09 17 o cro9. dairep ovv eBeijdrjv aov, p,^ Ka)p,(i)Bij(xr)<; avTov,
E 'iva Kal Tcdv Xoittcov aKOvcrcopev tI eKaaTO'^ epel, p,dXXov Be tl
e/caTe/309‘ ' Kyddcov yap Kal ^o)KpdT'r)<; XocttoL

193 C djTfXdoov : iiraveKdav Mehlei’ Naber tovto d’ T : tovtov S’ B

D ’’EpojTo del. Voeg. re T: om. B ^pS>v...fv(T€^eiav del. Voeg.
TTotpcreti' Hirschig E Xonrol {povoi) Naber

direXGwv. “ Returning,” “ being restored to ” : so, perhaps, anripev npos to

dcTTv Rep. 327 B ;
cp. ttoXiv dirUvai Phaedr. 227 E, etc. Hence Mehler’s
inaveXOdov is superfluous.
vfivoSvres. .v|jivoi|j.ev. Cp. 184 D virr^pcTiov OTiovv tiKaicos av vnrjpeTelv ktX.:
.

and Agathon’s echo of the woi-d {etpvpvovvTo.) in 197 E.

193 D els TO oiKeiov. Cp. Charm. 163 D on rd oiKela re ko'l to. avrov dyada
<aXolr]s Rep. 586 E.
: Possibly there is an intentional echo in the word of
8i(pKla'6rjpfv, as used in 193 a.
irapexerai.
eXirCSas Cp. 179 B paprvplav 7rap€)(erai Xen. Symp. IV. 25.
fi.

For the aor. infin. (without av) after a verb of “hoping,” cp. Phaedo 67 B
(Goodwin G. M. T. § 136). Notice the rhetorical care with which this
peroration echoes {laa-dp€vos...evdaipovas) the exordium {iarpbs...ev8aipovia,
189 d) also, in Rjo-d^eiav we have an echo of evaefi^iv, 193 a ad fin. and the
;
:

emphasis on laadpevos (with 'Bpv^lpax^ in the next line) should not be

missed.
dWoios T] o o-os. This serves to emphasize, by repetition, the statement
made by A. in 189 C {dXKrj yd Trr],..\iyeiv ktX.).
litrirep o6v eSerGtjv (too. See 189 B, 193 B.

193 E tC eKdrepos. A. corrects himself with a precision worthy of

Prodicus, the comparative form being more proper than the superlative
(eKaa-Tos) in speaking of two only. Observe that Aristodemus (the narrator)
should have spoken next after Eryx., but is here ignored to have represented ;

him as a chief speaker “ ware auch nicht richt passend gewesen ” (Zeller),
I

/ JJld Kiy 1 -
p 0^
^ Xoi-rro^^
194 a] ZYMnOIlON 69

XYir. 'AWa 'ireLaoixai croi, ecf)Tj <pdvat rov 'Kpv^L^a')(^ov koX

•yap p.0L 6 A,0709 T^Seo)? epp-pOr]. Kal el p,r] ^vypSr] ’S.coKpdrei re Kal
WyddcovL Seii^ot? ovai Trepl rd ipcoTiKd, irdvv av €(f>o^ovp-r]v pir]

dTToprjcraa-L \6ycov Sid to TfoXXd Kal TravToSaird elprjaOai’ vvv 8e

o/AO)? dapped , rov ovv 'S.WKpdrr] elirelv KaA-co? ydp avrb'i •pyedvia aL, 194
d> '^pv^Lp-a'^e' ei Be yevoio ov vvv eyed elpt, paXXov 8e laca<; ov
ecropac, eVetSav Kal 'Ayddeov e'iirp ev, Kal pdX' dv (f)o^o2o kol iv

193 E ^vrjhr) Cobet :

^vvij^eLV libri dnopriaaicn T : dTroprjrro) B
194 A ov vvv B I'crcoy on B : ov 'Itcos Sz. : ov Jn. ev, Ka'i pdX’ distinxi
auctore Yahlen : ev kgI paX’ BT, Bt. : ev pd\’ Hirschig Sz. : koI paX' Verm.

Kal -ydp. .Ipp^Sr]. “ Indeed I was quite pleased with your discomse ” hence,
. ;

Eryximachus could “let off” Aristophanes (cp. 189 c ’la-cos... d(priee<^ tre). What-
ever the esoteric meaning of A.’s discourse may have been, Eryx. apparently
regards it simply as a piece of pleasantry “ er hat sich also offenbar nicht —
verstanden, sondern hat sich bios an die lustige Aussenseite derselben
gehalten ” (Rettig).
el pf| For this construction with ^vvoi8a, cj). Prot. 348 B tva
|wij8T| ktX.
TovTcp pev ravTa crvveiScopev (with Adam’s note)', Phaedo 92 D, Apol. 34 B.
irdvv dv e<j>oPovp-qv. For the imperf. here (in an unfulfilled condition) as a
primary tense, cp. Theaet. 143 E (Goodwin G. M. T. § 172).
194 A
KaXus. .liyuvio-ai. This implies that the various encomiasts are
.

engaged in a rhetorical contest (dydiv) “ your display in the competition was :

a fine one.”
el 8^ -ye'voio ktX. Cp. Ter. Andr. ii. 1. 9 tu si hie sis, aliter censeas. For
pdXXov de ’la-cos (rashly altered by critics) cp. Pep. 589 D, Ar. Vesp. 1486, and
see Yahlen Op. Acad.i. 494 f.

Notice the elaborate courtesy, not devoid of irony, with

6irei8dv ktX.
which S. treats Agathon, who evidently is a man with a taste for flattery.
Since the combination ev koI pdXa is open to suspicion, the regular forms
being either ev pdXa {Gory. 496 c, etc.) or Kal pdXa {Phaedr. 265 a, etc.), I
adopt the punctuation suggested by Yahlen. Other critics have proposed to
eject either the ko! or the ev it would be equally easy to alter ev to erv, or
;

transpose to kcu ev. The text, punctuated after elVi;, has been construed
(1) as “plenius dictum pro ev pdXa” (Stallb.), the Kal connecting pdXa with
ev (Hommel), or pdXa with koi, corresponding to the following ko'i,
(2) as ev
interjected (so Ast) but neither of these explanations is tenable. In favour
;

of construing ev with e’cTrp may be cited ev epovvros three 11. below and ev epel
198 A for the order, cp. Pep. 613 B oa-oc dv Becoa-iv ev Laws 805 b, 913 B (see
: :

Yahlen Op. Acad. i. 494 ff.); add Thuc. I. 71. 7 lepos rdSe ^ovXevecrde ev,
Ka'i ktX.
Iv iravrl eiqs- “ You would be at your wits’ end,” in summa consilii inopia
(Ast). Cp. Euthyd. 301a e’v navT'i eyevoprjv v-rro dnoplas: Pep. 579 B Xen. ;

Hell. V. 4. 29. Cp. the use of navToios eivai {y’lyvecrdai).

 :

70 nAATQNOI [194 A

TravTL eLTj<; wairep iyo) vvv. ^a£^p,aTT€Ly /SovXei fj,e, co Sto/cpaTe?,

elirelv tov ’Ayddcova, iva Oopv^rjddo Btd to otecrOai to OeaTpov
'
'^po&SoKiav fieydXrjv e%eiz/ co? ev epovvTot ipuov. ^TTiXpapicov
p-evTav eL7]v, co 'Kyadwv, elirelv tov ^co/cpaTy, el IBcov ttjv arjv

B dvBpeiav Kai pueyaXo^poavvpv dva/3cuvovTO‘; iirl tov oKpi^avTa

/i6Ta Toov yTTO KpiTwy, Kal ^Xe^jravTOf evavTua ToaovTM deaTpo),
p,eXXovTO<; eTri'Bel^eaOai aavTOv X6yov<;, Kal ovB' ottokjtlovv eK-
7rXayevT0<;, vvv olrjOelrjv ae dopv ^pdpcreaOat eveKa -ppudov oXlyeov
dvdpeoTTCOv. Tt Be, co Sco/f/sare?; tov 'AyuOcova cfxivai, ov Bp irov

194 B aKplISavTa B eTreSfi^afr^at T dopo^rja-eadat TW erii S 17

TTov cj. Steph.

^ap|iaTT€iv |ie. “To cast a spell upon me.” Extravagant praise was
p.
liable to cause nemesis and the evil eye cp. Phaedo 95 b pf} piya Xeye, pi) tu
:

r)plv (Sao'fcat'ta nepiTpi'^p tov Xoyov tov peWovTa XiyearBu (with Stallb. ad loc.)

Virg. Eel. VII. 27, and the Latin terms fascimivi, mala lingua. For cfyappaTTciv,
cp. Meno 80 a yorjTeveis pe Kal (jiappaTTeis. Both here and in Meno 1. c. the
phrase may be reminiscent of Gorg. Eel. 15 ol Se t5>v Xoyav rretdol tivi kokt]
Trjv \j/vxr]v etpappuKevaav Kal f^eyorjTevaav.
TO Gearpov. “ The house,” — rather absurdly applied to the small gathering
of banqueters, but A. is still full of his recent triumph in the OeaTpov proper
and readily takes up the idea that he is again engaged in a literary ayiov (cp.
rjyonvLa-ai, 194 A n.).

’EiriXqo’pcov. Cp. Ar. Nuh. 129 yipcov &>v KaTTi\ri(rpu>v Kal ^padvs. As
Hommel notes, the word is “ senum decrepitorum constans epitheton.”

Socrates applies it to himself also in Frot. 334 c, d.

For the construction, cp. Ar. Ach. 93 (eKKotfeeie...)

Tiiv o-iiv...dvaPaCvovTos.
TOV ye (TOV {6(p6a\p6v) too npecT^eeos. See Madv. Gr. Syntax § 67.
194 B eiri TOV oKpipavTa. It seems to have been usual for the poet, as well
as the players and choreutae, to appear before the audience, wearing crowns
but not in costume, at the -rrpoaywv of the great Dionysia held in the Odeum
of Pericles on the 8th of Elaphebolion see Aesch. ill. 67 (SchoL), Ar. Vesp.
:

1109 (SchoL). The oKpl^as was apparently a platform {Snpo, cp. Ion 535 e )
in the Odeum, and not, as formerly supposed, the Xoyelov or stage in the
theatre itself (cp. Smith D. A. ii. 813 b, 818 b): SchoL oKpijSavTa- to Xoyelov,
e(f>’ ov ol TpaycoBol rjywvl^ovTO. Tives de KiXXi/3avTa Tpio’KeXi) (fiaaiv, e(f) ov
'iCTTavTaL ol VTTOKpLTal Kal Ta eK peTempov Xeyovaiv. Another meaning of oKpi^as
is a painter’s “easel.”
lieXXovTos €Tri8€lie<r0ai. The force of peXXovTos is seen when we remember
that the dvdSaais of the poets took place at the npoayav, before the actual
performance of the play. For eTibeUwa-OaL of theatrical displays, cp. Ar.
Ran. 771 ore Si) KaTrjXO’ EvpmlSrjs, eTrebe'iKVVTO Tols XanrobvTais ktX. With
Agathon’s self-assurance cp. Isocr. Paneg. 43 c piKpov inrep epavTov Opaavva-
pevos...7roirja'opai tovs Xoyovs.
194 D] lYMnOIlON 71

fie ovTco Oedrpov fieaTov •pyel, ware Kal dyvoelv otl vovv €')(ovti
6\Lyoi TToWoov d^povcov (po^epoorepoi ; Ov p,evTav Kd\,oj<; C
TTOLoLrjv, <f)dvai tov ScoKpaTTj, (o ’Ayddcov, irepl aov tu eyw dypoiKov
So^d^cov aXX,’ ev otSa, ore el ricnv evh'v'x^oi^ ov<; yfyoio (Jo^ov<i,
pdWov dv avTwv (f)pov Tl^oi<; rj twv ttoWcSv dWd pr) ov^
ovTOi ?7yti6t? wpev — r]pel<; pev yap Kal eKei Trafnjpev Kal rjpev tcov
TT oWwv— el 8e dWoi<; evrv')(oi<; cro(l)ol<;, ra^’ dv aia')(vvoLo avTov<;,
el ri lo-as' oloio ala^pov ov iroielv rj TreiJ? \e7 et 9 ; ’A\r)6rj Xeyei<},

^dvau. Toi/9 8e ttoWou? ovk dv ala")(yvoio, el ri oloio ala'j(pov D

TToielv ; KOI TOV ^ai8pov eej^r) viroXa ^ovra eiTreiv ^12 (fylXe'Ayddcov,
edv diroKpLvp ScoKpdrei, ov8ev eri dio'iaei avrw oanyovv r d>v evdd8e

OTiovv yLyveaQai, edv povov ej(ri otw diaXeyprai, dXk(0<; re Kal

KoXw. eyd) 8e T^Se o)? pev dKovco XoyKpdrovi 8ia\eyopevov, dvay-
Kalov 8e poL eiripeXyOrivai tov ey Kcop lov tm ''KpooTi Kal dirode^aadai

194 C (f)dvcu TOV ’S.coK.paTT) vulg. aWols: dXX’ Bdhm. icrojs seel. Sz.
Bt.: TTcos cj. Usener: fort, transp. post rd;^’ av ov seel. Wolf: av cj. Bt.
D otoiTO B. .
yiyverai Mdvg.

“ theatri ”
ovT« Gearpou (jlco-tov. This means applausu inflatum esse
(StaUb.) ;
rather than “ stage-striiek,” ep. Themist. 26. 311 b Synes. de ;

provid. 105 B dfdrpov Koi dyopds drrXqaTOS.

194 C iroXXwv d4)p6vuv. As XVolf observes, “ein feines Compliment fiir das
Parterre in Athen.” But sueh a lofty eontempt for the bourgeois of the pit
and gallery is quite in keeping with A.’s position as the artistie aristoerat.
If Aristophanes flatters his publie on their o-oc^i'a (as in Ran. 1109 ff.), it is

obvious that he does so with his tongue in his eheek. Cp. Laws 659 A,
ovTe yap napd dedrpov SeT tov ye dXrjBri KpiTpv Kpiveiv pavddvovTa.
irepi crov ti eyio. “Nota vim pronominum... : de te, viro tanto tamque
insigni, ego, homo vilis” (Hommel). For nypoiKos, ep. 218 b, Laivs 880 a
Theaet. 174 D aypomov 8e Kal dTTal8evTov...ylyvea'6ai.
pq For Platonie exx. of prj or
ovx...<3p€v. ov in “eautions assertions or
negations,” see Goodwin G. M. T. § 265.
dXXoLs...o-o4)ots. Not “other wise men” but “others who are wise”
{sc. unlike us).
This word is probably genuine. Possibly, however, it should be
I'orcos.

transferred to a plaee before, or after, rd^’ dv (for the eombination ’ia-oas rd^’
dv, ep. Tim. 38 e. Laws 676 C, ete.; Sehanz nov. comm. p. 14). The dv after
alcrxpov is sufficiently confirmed by Rep. 425 c, Pkaedo 77 a (see Vahlen,
Op. Acad. I. 496 f. on the whole passage).
194 D ovS^v ^Ti Sioia"€i...'Ytyv€<r0ai. For Socrates as (^iXdXoyoj, see Apol.
38 A,Phaedo 61 E and for his “ cramp-fish ” style of dialectic. Laches 187.
;

dXXws T€ Kai KoXcp. For Socrates as (piXoKaXos, cp. 213 c, 216 d it is a :

mark of the e’pmriKor.

 -

72 nAATQNOZ [194 D

Trap' evb<; eKaarov vp-mv tov \6yov' aTToSoix; ovv eKarepof rw dea
E ovTco<; "pBrj StaXeyeadci). 'AWd /caAcS? Xejei<;, w <t>atSpe, ^civai tov
'Ajddcova, Kal ovSev /txe Kco\vei Xeyeiv" ^coKpdrei yap Kal av6i^
earaL TroWaKi^ BiaXeyeadaL.
XVIII. ’E 7 W be St] 0ovXop,ai irpSiTov p,ev elirelv &)? XPV
elirelv, eVetra eiTreiv. SoKOvai yap p,OL Trdvre^ 01 TrpoaOev elp-yjKoret;

ov TOV deov iyKco pid^eov, dXXd tou? dvOpodirovi eubat,p,ovL^€i,v twv

dyaQwv wv 6 06b<; avTol^ atrto?* ottoio? be Ti? a^ro? d)v TavTa
195 ebeoprjaaTO, ovbel<; etprjKev. el? be rpoTTO? op0o<; TravTOt; eTraivov
irepl iravTO'i, Xoyca bieXdelv olo<; (bv <olcov> aiTLO'i wv Tvy^^^dvet

Trepl ov dv 6 A 6709 fj.

ovtco brj tov ’’FipcoTa Kal rjp.d'i btKaiov
iiraLvecraL irpwTOV avTov olo'i ecrTtv, eireiTa ra? boa^^.
^Tjpbl ovv eybj irdvTwv deoyv evbatpiovcov ovtcov ’'Epwra, el ^e/lt?

Kal dyejMearjTov elTrelv, evbaipbov^aTarov eivai avTcov, KdXXoaTov

194 E 0)? BTW: 77 vulg. eVaii/fii/, ETretr’ eVati/eii' Hirschig 195 A opdos
oru. T navTos om. Bdlim. oios mv {olav) scripsi : oios olatv Sz. Bt. :

oLi olu)v ex emend. T : oios tov BT : oios cov vulg., J.-U.: oios oacov Baiter: oios
(OV (ocrcov) Aoeg. : otor Bdhm. a’inos aurof Bdhm.

diroSots ovv. Cp. Polit. 267 A KCiktos kcli KaPanep^X xptojs aTredaiKds poi tov
X oyov Pep. 612 B, c 220 D infra.
: ;

194 E irpMTov plv...^ir€iTa elirttv. Stallbaum, though reading ur, punctuate.s

like Hommel (who keeps the vulgate fj) after the first as well as after the
second elTrelv, as if the meaning were “ to speak in the way in which I ought
to speak,” which is nonsense. The first elirelv {
= 8r]\ovv) is different in force
from the other two ( = Xdyov iriuela-dai), the sen.se being “first to state the
proper method I am to adopt in my oration, and secondly to deliver it.”
Agathon has imbibed a “ worship of machinery ” the machinery of method — —
from the fashionable schools of rhetoric.
SoKoilcri yap poi. Agathon, like the rest (cp. 180 D, 185 e), adopts the
favourite rhetorical device of criticizing the manner or thought of previous
sjjeakers : cp. Isocr. Busir. 222 b, 230 a ;
Hel. 210 b efipai pev yap e’yKapiov...
Tvyxavei S' diro^oylav elprjKcos ktX.: Panegyr. 41 B £f., 44 c.

195 A oios civ (olcov). This doubling of relatives is a favourite trick of poets
and rhetors ;
Soph. Aj. 923 oios 5>v oloos e'xeis (“ mighty and mightily
cp.
fallen”), ib. 557, Trach. 995, 1045; Eur. Ale. 144; "Gorg. Palam. 22 oios d>v
01(0 \oi8opel: id. Hel. 11 oVoi Se oa-ovs irep'i ocrcov Kal eireLcrav koi rrelaovcri.

eI Ocpis For excess in laudation as liable to provoke

Kal dv€p€ 0"T]Tov.
vepeo-is, see n. on eftappaTTeiv, 194 A. For the thought (here and at the end of
A.’s speech) cp. Spenser, H. to Love, “ Then would I sing of thine immortall
praise... And thy triumphant name then would I raise Bove all the gods, thee

^
onely honoring. My guide, my God, my victor, and my king.”
ZyV.(^p(<p7^(S^* '
f>n\Se,Uoi
« coost.

Siopew'+o ^;vc,p«eKr ^
 :

195 b] SYMnOIlON 73

ovra Kal dpiarov. ecrri 8e /caWicrro? (hv ToioaSe. irpwTov p,ev

vecoraTO'i decov, w ^alSpe. pueya r^ppjpipv tm Xoyw avTO<; B

'7rapi')(€Tai, (pevycov (f>vy7] to yrjpa'i, Ta")(h ov SrjXov 6tl‘ darrov
yovv Tov Seoi^T 09 ppulv 7rpo(Tep)(^eTai. o 8rj 7re(^VKev ’'Epco? piaelv
Kal ov8’ evTo? TToWov TrXrjaid^eiv. pera 8e vecov del ^vyearL re
Kal ear IV 6 yap iraXaLo^;A 0709 ev e^ec, co? “ opoLov opoLw del
TreXd^ei.” iycb Be ^alBpw TroWd dXXa opoXoycav rovro ov^
opoXoyoi, ft)9 ”Ep(U 9 K/oovoy Kal '\airerov dp'y^at.orepo'i eariv, dXXd

195 B tS)V \6y(OV Stob. (eV) <pvy§ Stob. Ta;^v...7rpocre/3;^erai

del. Heusde ov B; ovv T epcoros B old’ eVroj Stob.; ov 86vtos B:

oi'd’ ovTos T -rrXrjaia^eiv T, Stob. : 7rXrja'id^€L B co-ri {v(os) Sauppe J.-U.
Sz.: eTrerat 'VTinckelmann SeT TrfXdfeti/ Stob. AXa ttoXXo Hirschig

195 B a $ai 8 pe. Phaedi’us is specially addressed because it is his thesis

(ev Tols TT pea-^vToTos which is here challenged.
6 "Ep<Bs 178 A, c)

peya Se reKpiipiov. This serves to echo, and I’eply to, Phaedrus’s rsKp^piov
Se TovTov 178 B (cp. 192 a). For the attributes youth and beauty, cp. Callim.
H. II. -36 Kal pev del koXos kui del ve'os (of Phoebus).
<J>evYtov <j)uYn- A poetical mode of giving emphasis. “<^vyp (pivyeiv nun-
quam ut simplex ^edyetv de victis militibus, sed per transla-
sic legitur
tionem, fugientium modo, h. e. omui contentione aliquid defugere atque
abhorrere” (Lobeck Parall. ii. p. 524). Prose exx. are Epin. 974 b, Epist.
viii. 354 c ; Lucian adv. indoct. 16.
Taxi ov...-trpo<re'px€Tai. Bast, “motus aTonla sententiae,” condemned these
words but the presence of sophistical word-play is no reason for suspicion
;

in A.’s speech. A. argues that Age, in spite of its “lean shrunk shanks,” is
nimble, only too nimble indeed in its pursuit of men therefore, a fortiori, :

the god who can elude its swift pursuit must be still more nimble. For the
agility of Eros, cp. Orph. H. 58. 1, 2 (KtKXijVfco)) "Ep(i)Ta...ei'Spop.ov dppfj.
€Vt6s ttoXXov. Cp. Thuc. II. 77 ivros yap ttoXXoO )(o}plov Trjs TroXecur ovk i]V
TreXda-ai. For the sense (abhorrence of age), cp. Anacr. 14. 5 17 §€ (v^vts')...r?)v
p,€v eprjv Koprjv, \
XevKi) ydp, KaTapep(p€Tai ktX.

del ^ivecTTi re Kal ^cmv. Hug adopts Sauppe’s addition (veoy), but this
spoils the ring of the clause and it is best to leave it to be mentally supplied
for the ellipse, cp. 213 C yeXoloj eVrt re KOI ^ovXerai. For p(Td...avv€rTTL, cp.
Laws 639 C ;
Plut. de Is. et Os. 352 a Trap avrij xal per avrijs ovra Kal avvovra.
dpoiov 6 |j.o£<{». The original of this is Horn. Od. xvii. 218 ws del rov opolov
ayei Beds Cp. 186 B supra, Lysis 214 A, Rep. 329 a Aristaen.
a>s rdv opo'tov. ;

Ep. I. 10 a Latin equivalent, Cic. de Senect. 3. 7 pares cum paribus,

: and for
Tetere proverbio, facillime congregantur so Anglic^, “ birds of a feather :

flock together.” Similar in sense is ^Xi^ fjXiKa repirer (Arist. Rhet. i. 11. 25).
^aiSpo). The reference is to 178Spenser {H. to Love) combines these
b.

opposite views, — “ And yet a chyld, renewing still thy yeares, And yet the
eldest of the heavenly Peares.”
Kpovov Kal ’laireroi) dpxonoTepos. A proverbial expression to denote the
renpr^fiOV-^ t'Ser

yeas '

rrcuXetK^ - e‘c),<a^ecljCuiLc^t
 74 nAATQNOI [195 B

C veduTarov avrov elvai Oewv koX del veov, rd Se 'rra\aid Trpdry-

fiara Trepl 6eov‘;, d 'Ho’toSo? Kal Tlapp,€VLB7]<; Xejovcriv, ^AvdjKp
Kal ovK ’'EpcoTi yeyovevai, el eKetvot dXrjdrj eXeyov ov yap dv
eKTogal ovSe Beoj^l dXX'pXcov iylyvovro Kal dXXa vroXXd Kal
fiiaia, el “Epo)? iv aurot? -pv, dXXd (piXca Kal elprjvr], waTrep vvv,
e^ ov ”EpM9 r&v Qed>v jBaatXeveL. veo<; p,€v ovv earl, Trpo?
D v€(p ajraXos’ Troirjrov S’ eariv eV3e^ 9 oio? 'pv "Op.rjpo'i irpo^ to
eTTiSel^at deov drraXor'pra. "Op,7)po‘i yap '’Arrjv 6e6v re (j)7]atv

elvat Kal aTraXijv — too? yovv ToSa? avTrj<; aTraXoo? eivai —Xeycov
195 0 veodrarov re Stob. TT payp.aTa T, Stob. ;
ypapjxara B jrap-
peviBrjs T; Trapp€vel8rjs B: ’EmpevL^ps Ast el eKeivoi ODa. Stob. \eyov(Tiv
Stob. iyevovTO Stob. D oios trep 'qv o^Opqpos Stob. rovs. ..eivai
seel. Jn. Sz.; rovs.-.^aivei seel. Orelli. {cj)qa-iv) eivai Stob.

“ ne plus ultra” of antiquity Moeris p. 200 ’laTreroj- di/rl rov yepa>v. Kal
: cp.
Tldcovos Ka'i Lucian dial. deor. 2. 1 Ar. Nuh. 398,
Kpovos' eni rZv yepovrodv '.

Pint. 581. Cronus and lapetus were both Titans, sons of Uranus and Ge
(Hes. Th. 507), and imprisoned together in Tartarus {II. yiii. 479). lapetus
was father of Prometheus, and grandfather of Deucalion, the Greek “ Adam
”
hence “ older than lapetus might be rendered “ ante-preadamite.”
195 C a 'HirCoSos Kttl n. Xiyovmv. These were the authorities adduced by
Phaedrus (178 b). Hesiod relates such TraXaia Trpaypara in Theog. 176 if.,
746 ff. but no such accounts by Parmenides are extant. Accordingly, it has
;

been supposed {e.g. by Schleierm.) that A. is mistaken, and Ast proposed to

read ’Empevldqs but cp. Macrob. somn. Scip. i. 2 Parmenides quoque et
:

Heraclitus de diis fabulati sunt. If P. did relate such matters in the poem of
which portions remain, clearly (as Stallb. observed) it could only have been
in Pt. II. (“ The Way of Opinion”). Cp. Ritter and Pr. § 101 D, “Generati
sunt deinceps {i.e. post Araorem) ceteri dei, de quibus more antiquiorum
poetarum rr aXaia TT paypara narravit, V. Plat. Symp. 195 C, Cic. Z>. Nat. 1. 11 ” ;

Zeller, Presocr. p. 596 (E. Tr.) Krische Forsch. p. Ill f. For ’AvdyKq in
;

the cosmogonists, cp. Parmen. 84 K., Kparepr/ yap ’AvdyKq neipaTos ev Secr- |

poiaiv eyei, to piv dpip'is eepyei'. id. 138 ais piv dyover eTrebqaev 'AvdyKq'.
Emped. 369 eanv 'AvdyKqs ypqpa ktX
el...’i\eyov. Rettig and Stallb. rightly explain the imperf. as due to the
reference to Phaedrus’s mention of H. and P. (178 b).
iKTOfial oiSI 8€o-p.ol. Cp. Euthyphro 5 E ff.. Rep. 377 E where such tales of
divine immorality are criticized.
195 D diroXos. Cp. Theogn. 1341 aidi, waiSds epS> aTraXoxpoos Archil. 100 :

ddXXeis arraKov ypoa: P/iaedr. 245 A Xn/3o5cra arraXrjv Kal d^arov yf^vyrjv.
"Otitipos yap. —
See 11. XIV. 92 3. Schol. niXyarai- irpocnreXd^ei, irpoaey-
y'i(ei.

Tovs •yow...6tvai. As Hug observes, the occurrence of koI ttoctI kqI TrdvTjj

^ ^
below is sufficient to establish the soundness of these words.
ci/ft)Vi^ a tpa-tdri' ^

W:U(',vi'ole‘<4'

SartuM-
 : : :

196 a] lYMnOIlON 75

'
tt}? /xevO' aTTaXol TToSe?" ov yap iir' ovBeo^;

TTLXvarai, dW' dpa p ye Kar dvBpwv Kpdara /SaiVet.

Ka\(u ovv SoKet poL TeKpppua rrjv aTraXoTrjTa diro^aLve LV, on ouk
evrl (TKXvpo v ^aCvei, dXX" eVt /xc^SaKov. avrw 8r} kuI 'ppeK
')(^p7)crcope6a reKprjpLw irepl "E/Dwra on aTraXo?. ov yap eirl yp<; j]

jSaiveL ovK erfi /cpavLcov, d eanv ov iravv aaXajca, dW’ iv to6?

aa\aKlj>TdTOi<; rS)v ovtcov koX ^aivei, koX oiKel. iv ydp^'^eai Kal
-\jrv^aVi Oewv Kal dvOpooTTCov r^v ocktjo'Iv iSpvT ai, Kal ovk av e^r}?

iv 7rdaaL<; rat? ylrv^ac^, aXX’ pnvL dv aKXrjp bv .'^Oo 'i i')(ov(Tp ivrv')(^p,

d'n\ep')(eTaL, fj
S' dv paXaKov, olKi^erai. diTTopevov ovv del Kal ttoctI

Kal Trdvrp iv paXaKcordroKi tmv paXaKcordTcov, aTraXcoTaTov

dvdyKT] elvai, vecoTaTo<; Sp ian Kal dTraXcbraro^, Trpo? (§6,;196

TOUTOi? ^PP^ TO elSps. (j}v ydp dv ol6<; t pv irdvrp TreptTrTvaaeada i

195 D rrjs BT, Stob. ; Trj Aristarchus, Homeri (T 92) codd. ovbeos BT,
Stob. : ov5« W, vulg., Hom. codd. TrlXvarai ex TrLSvarai T : TTTjdvaTai B
TTiTvarai Stob. pot Soke! Stob. r<3 avr(o TW, Stob. : to avTO B E xpn-
a-dpeOa Stob., vulg. Ka\ (ante ^atvei) om. stob. T • B eVot-
KL^erai Naber iv paXaKOtj r. p. Naber OTraXcoraTov om. Stob.

195 E TjOeo-i Kal \|/uxais. “In the tempers and souls”: here ^doj seems
to be co-ordinate with ylrvx% but below (^doy ixova-^, sc. 'jcvxn) subordinate,
i.e.A. uses the word loosely with more attention to sound than sense: cp.
Xj/S. 222 A Kara rrjv \ffvxil'' ^ Kara rt Trjs xj^vx^s rjOos Tpoirovs eiSos 183 E rj fj :

supra, 207 E infra. Notice also the material way in which ijdp and yjrvxai are
here conceived cp. Moschus i. 17 i-n-l aTvXaxvois 8i Kadrjrai: and the figure in
:

such a phrase as “ the iron entered into his soul.”

Kal TToo-l Kal irdvTT]. “With feet and with form entire,” “nicht wie Ate
bios mit Fiissen” (Wolf): Travrp, like ad, is A.’s own extension of the Homeric
statement.
€v paXaK(dTdToi.s t<uv p. The genitive is governed by anropevov, and iv
paXaKWTdrots is parallel to iv TOLs {TTpetr^vTaTov) 178 A: “the most soft of
softest things.”
196 A ve<i5TaTOS...diraXuTaTOS. Cp. Rep. 377 A viw koI diraXa orcoovv.
v-ypos TO eISos- hypos, here opposed to a-KXrjpos, is often used “ de rebus
lubricis, lentis, flexibilibus, mollibus ” (Stallb.) : cp. Theaet. 162 b ra de dfj

vetoTepcp TE Kat vyporipa ovri (opp. to aKXrjpco ovtc) TTpocnraXaleiv Bind. Pyth. :

I. 17 (11) d de {aleros) KvixTaeov vypov va>rov alcope? Callistr. descript. 3 (of a

bronze of Eros) hypos pev ^v dpoipiov paXaKorrjTos. Another sense of hypos, in
erotic “melting,” “languishing,” e.g. Anth. Plan. 306 eV’
terminology, is
dppaa-iv hypo. dedopKihsAnacr. xxviii. 21 and in hymn. Hom. xviir. 33 hypos :

is an epithet of noBos. “ Supple of form ” is the best rendering here. Arist.

G. A. I. 7. 3 applies hypoTXjS (roh aaparos} to serpents. TrepiirTheraeadaL is —
^
OTT. Xey. in Plato, and mainly used in poetry.
j6K\yjpds~
7r/Xvcgus\'=’-tocX!v.o coi'ieccoMlrr iof f
= uk*, woIst,
rei</A^pi0y- A gfWV/Sv'xofyr.

r
^KXrjpo^ ^ twxi ai^ piace /

V<SpUyU«<l = To be stbieipA* /
76 nAATQNOZ [196 A

196 A Kal (ante elaioiv) om. W koI vypas secl. Jn. Sz. : koi Tpvcpepas
Verm.: Kal ajSpag Sehrwald I8ias'. oualas Stob. p /car’: ^ Kal TO. Stob.
dlaiTa : S17 ra Stob. B evdoBrjs re Kal evavdrjs Stob. evravda (Se) Stob., Bt.

o-u|ji(i€'Tpov. ..ISsas. “Acute vidit Astius a-iipperpov referendum esse ad

TTepiTTTvcra-ea-dai. Amor enim, quia potest Travr-p TrepLTTTvaa-ea-OaL, recte
avpperpos vocatur. Itaque ne hie quidem audiendus est Orellius qui ervp-
perpos legendum putabat” (Stallb., so too Elickert and Hommel). Rettig
takes avppeTpos to be merely a synonym for vypos, supposing that the proof
of the statement vypos t 6 (i8os, which was first stated negatively, is here
—
being stated positively “nun hangt a-vppeTpla mit der (vaxppocrvvp zusammen
und ebenso vyporps mit avppeTpla. Vgl. Legg. vi. 773 a, Phileb. 66 b.” On
the other hand Hug, supposing that avpperpla is introduced as a new attribute
distinct from vyporps, follows Jahn in ejecting the words koI vypas. Rettig’s
view, adopted also by Teufiel, seems the most reasonable A., with sophistical :

looseness, smuggles in the extra term aipperpos beside vypos in order to

secure the applicability of fvaxppoo-vvp. By avppeTpia, properly used, is
meant the perfect proportion of the parts in relation to one another which
results in a harmonious whole: see my Phileb. p. 176. For evcrxppoavvp, cp.
Rep. 400 c If.

EK irdvTciJV. Cp. Theaet. 171b e’^ aTvavTcov apa...dp(j)ia'l3prricr€Tai, “on all

hands, then,... we find it disputed” (so Campbell ad loc., who observes that
“this use of has been needle.ssly disputed by Heindorf and others”). Ficinus
seems to connect tt. with 6ta^., which is possible but less probable.
e’/c

Xpoas 8^ KdWos ktX. Possibly we have here a reminiscence of some

passage in poetry: admits, as Hug observes, of being scanned
as a “ catalectic pentapody ” (like Ear. Pkoen. 294). In the repeated mention
in these lines of dvdos and its compounds, we may discern an allusion to
Agathon’s tragedy ’Avdds. Cp. Plato 32 {P. L. O. ii. 311) oItos S’ (sc. 6 "Epcos)
iv KaXvKeao'Lv p68(ov neiTebppivos virvat |
ev8ev pddtocov : Aleman 38 pdpyos S’

"Epoos oca Tvais 7raiVSEt...a/cp’ e’tt’ dv6p Ka^aluucv ...ra KviraipicTKa)'. Simon, yh. 47
opekPe S’ avdecTcv, (wte) piXiaaa ^av66v pike ppbopiva : Eros, like Titania, loves
“a bank where the wild thyme blows” and might echo the
(evd>8ps tottos),
song “where the bee sucks, there suck For the negative thought
I,” etc.
dvav6ei...ovK ivL^ei, cp. Philo de meretr. 'mere. ii. 264 e^copocs yevopivais (“when
past the flower of their age,” sc. rals eTalpacs) ovSels en TTpoafia-iv, dnopcopav-
delarjs Syanep tlvcov dvOcov rrjs dKpps. For evoidps tottos, cp. Phaedr. 230 B.
 :

196 c] lYMnOZION 77

XIX. Tiepi p,€V ovv KaWov^ rov deov Kal ravd' iKava Kal eri
TToWa XeLTrerai , irepl Se dperp^ ’'Epwro? p,erd raOra \eicreov, to
p^eytaTov oti ''Kp(o<; out dBtKet ovr dScfcelTai ovO' vtto deov
ovre deov, ovd' vtt dvdpcoTTOv ovre dvdpcoTTOv. ovre yap aoro? /3ta
'TidcryeL, el ti irda-^et' ^la yap “Epcoro? oo^ d'TTTera i • ovre ttolcov

TTOL el' Tra? yap eKcdv ’'Epcurt irdv yTryperei ,

d 8’ dv eicoov eKovn C
opoXoyrjo-p, (fiaalv “ oi TroXew? fia<jL\rj<; vopoi ” Slxaia eivai. irpof

196 B ert : on Stob. ovt' dSiKfl Om. Stob. ovre deSiv Stob.
dvdpaTTCov. ooSe Stob. C Trdvd’ Stob. av BT, Stob. : dv Tis vulg.

Toiv TTokeav Stob. {tSiv om. Stobaei A).

("Epcoj) or iv paXaKois napeiais \

veaviBos €vvv)(€v(is cp. Hor. C. IV. 13. 6 ff.
:

(Amor) virentis.-.pulcris excubat in genis. Also the echo of our passage in

Aristaen. Bp. ii. 1.

196 B IlEpl pev ovv. .iT€pl 81 ktX. . Cp. Isocr. Pan. 47 C Trepl pev ovv ToO
peyl(TTOV...TavT eiTrelv e^op^v. Tr€pt Se tovs avTovs xP°''Ovs kt\.: Phaedr. 246 A.
Trepl 81 dp€Tt|s. In drawing out this part of his theme Agathon follows the
customary foiu’-fold division of dpenj into BiKaLoavvq, (To)(j)po(rvvT], dvBpeia,
(To(f)ia. Adam (on Rep. 427 e) writes “ There is no evidence to shew that
these four virtues and no others were regarded as the essential elements of
a perfect character before Plato.” Yet it certainly seems probable that these
four were commonly recognized as leading dperal at an earlier date (see the
rest of the evidence citedby Adam), and a peculiarly Platonic tenet would
hardly be put into the mouth of Agathon. Cp. Protag. 329 c ff. and for a ;

similar use made of this classification in encomiastic oratory, see Isocr. Hel.
31 ff., Nicocl. 31 fif, 36 fif. (cp. n. on 184 c).

OVT d8iK€t OVT d8i.KeiTai. The maxims “love your enemies, do good to
them which despitefully treat you ” formed no part of current Greek ethics
cp. Meno 71 E avrr] earlv dvBpos dpeTp,...TOvs piv (f)l\ovs €v ttoluv, tovs 8’
i^dpovs KaKas Crito 49 b Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 14; and other passages cited by
: ;

Adam on Rep. 331 e. See also Dobbs, Philos, etc. pp. 39, 127, 243. Notice
the chiasmus dSiKel. .dBiKeirai.. .{nro deov. ..deov.
. .

pia irdcrxei. These words form one notion and are put as a substitute for
dScKeirac, just as Trotei (sc. 0ia) below is a substitute for dBiseZ Cp. Polit. 280 d
Tus ^la TTpd^eis. There may be a ref. here to the e'pwros dvdjKai of Gorgias
Hel. 19.
irds yap ktX. With hut slight modification this would form an iambic
trimeter. Cp. Gorgias ap. Phileb. 58 a rov rreldeiv noXv BiacpepeL nacrSiv i)

rexvdiv ndvra yap v(j)' avrrj BovXa Bi esovTcov dXX’ ov Bid fiias, of which OUr
passage may be a reminiscence.
196 C d 8’ av ktX. The argument is that where mutual consent obtains,
since ^la is absent, there can be no dBuda. For a different view of Bi<aiocrvvrj
see Arist. Eth. N. V. 9. 1136’’ 32 ff. erepov yap t 6 vopiKov Blkoiov /cal TO TTpwTov
ktX. : Crito 52 E Xen. Symp. viii. 20.
:

01 -ir6X€ojs...v6poi. Apparently a quotation from Alcidamas, a rhetor of the

LKoiv'Dj-

lefi Iffhihd

Xitirear ef- Xfyw

"
O^TTTO/faCi

V-(rf)peT€u^^ re«qi#/W sMp

 78 nAATQNOI [196 c

Be Trj BiKaLc^vvr) cra)<f)poo'vvT]<; vrXetg'TT? ? /jieT€‘)(^ei. elvai, yap 6p,o-

\oyeLTaL a-co^pocrvvr] to Kparelv -qBovwv koX eiviQvpuiwv, ’^Epeoro? 8e

pbr]B^p,Lav 'pBov^v KpelrTco elvai' el Be ^ttov^, KparolvT av viro
’^EpojTO?, 0 Be Kparot, KpaTwv Be rjBovcov Kal eiriOvpniiov 6 ’'Epo)?
BiacpepovToj'i av ao)(f)povoi. Kal ftrjv el'? ye avBpeLdv ’'Epcort “ ooS’

^'’Apr]^ ajjOjlaTaTai.” ov yap e^et ’'Epwra ''Apr]<;, dW' ’'Epco? ''Apr],

’AijrpoBiTrj'i, to? Ao^o?* KpeiTTorv Be o e%toi/ rov e'X,opevov' rov B'

dvBpe/oraTov tcov dWoov Kparcov TravTorv av ai^SpeJoraro? elr].

’irepl pev ovv BiKaioavvrjt; Kal ao)(f)poavvr]<; Kal dvBpeLa<; rov deov
eipyrai, rrepl Be ao(pLa<; AetTreraf oaov ovv Bvvarov, Treipareo v p,r]

eWeiTTeiv. Kal irpSiTOV pev, tV av Kal eyo) rrjv ^perepav re^^^vrjv

196 C ttX eiTTOv Cobet Kpartt Stob., Naber : KparoiTj Bdhm. (raxjipovotr]

Stob. dv8plav BT D dprjv Stob. 'A(f)po8iTr]s del. Naber av om. B

iv’ ail T : au B : Lv' ovv Stob.

school of Gorgias: see Arist. Rhet. iii. 1406^ 18 fF. St6 rd ’AXKiddpavros ^vxpd
(paiv€Tai‘ oi) yap rjdvapaTi xp^rai dXX <ar edetrpaTi rots iiriOiTois, ovtq) ttvkvoIs
KOI pfi^odi Kai e-iri8r]\oLS, olov...ovx't vopovs aWd tovs t5>v TroXfoov [SaaiXfls vopovs
(see Cope ad loc.). Two extant works are ascribed to Alcidamas, viz. an
Odysseus and a de Sophistis: the latter is probably genuine and “seems to
justify Aristotle’s strictures on his want of taste in the use of epithets” (Cope
loc. cit.). See further Vahlen, Alkidamas etc. pp. 508 fi‘.; Blass, Att. Bereds.
II. 328.
clvai 7 dp...<r(o<j)po(rvvii. This definition of “temperance” is common to
both scientific and popular morals. Cp. Rep. 389 D a-co(f)poa-vvr]s...avTovs
(eivat) dpxovTas tS>v nepi ttotovs Kal dcfipodlaia /cat rrepl edioBds ridovwv (“tem-

perance, soberness and chastity ”) ib. 430 E, Fkaedo 68 C Antiphon fr. 6

: :

aaxfypoavvrjv 8' dvpov rds Trapaxpljpa rj8ovds ep(j)pda'a'(Ov

dv8p6s...oaTis rov
Kparelv re Kal vikclv r]8vvr]6r] avrds eavrov. See Dobbs op. Clt. pp. 149 if.;
Nagelsbach, Nachhom. Theol. pp. 227 ff.
"EpwTos /ctX. The argument is vitiated both by the ambiguity in the
use of Eros (as affection and as person) and by the ambiguity in Kparel
rj8ovS)v, which in the minor premiss is equivalent to ea-rlv Kparlarq fj8ovr]. i)

For similar fallacies, see Euthyd. 276 n ff.; Arist. soph. el. 165'' 32 ff. For epa>s
as a master-passion, cp. Rep. 572 e ff. Agathon here again echoes Gorgias
(Eel. 6 Tre(f>VKe yap ov rd Kpeiaaov vtto rov rjeraovos KcoXveadai, dXXd rd fj^raov
VTTO rov Kpetaaovos ap^fcrdai /cat ayeerOai Kr\.).
ov8’ ’'Apqs dveto-Tarai. This comes from Soph. {Thyestes) fr. 235 N. rrphs
rrjv dvdyKTjv ov8’ 'Aprjs dvdiararai. Cp. Anacreontea 27 A, 13 'eka^ev fSeXepvov
(sc. "Epcoros) ’'Apr]s.

196 D ws Xdyos. See Horn. Od. viii. 266 ff., already alluded to in 192 d.
n-dvTtov dv...€lT). Another illegitimate conclusion. By means of a tacit
substitution of the notion dv8peta for Kpdros, it is assumed that 6 KparSiv
rov dv8pelov must be dv8pei6repos.
tt'Xefdrt 0 S

rre/ps'ieov's WrWd of irtifWtf

 — :

197 a] ZYMnOIlON 79

rifiiqcru3 (oairep t^v avrov, iroLrjr^'i o 6eb<; ao(f>b<i outw? E

ware Kal aXkov iroiiia-ai,’ Tra? yovu TTOtT/r^? yiyverai, “ kcLv aiiovao^

fj
TO TTpLV,” ov av ''Epoj? a'^Ta i. w Stj Trpi-rrei rjpLd<; p,aprvpL(p

ypriaacTdaL, otl 770177 x ^9 o’^Ep<«9 dyaOb^ iv KeipaXau^ Tvdaav ivoL'pcnv

TTjv Kara pLOVcriKrjV' d yap ri^ rj p,rj

V M olSep, ovt dv erepw
’

VT 80LV OVT dv dWov BiSd^eie. Kal p.ev Brj rpv ye rcav ^(pcov TroiTjaiv 197
TravTiov Tt9 ivavTicbaeTa c p.r} ov')(l ”Ep&)T 09 elvat ao<f)lav, f)
ylyveral
ir •

'

c <
re Kal (f>veTa i Travra rd ^<pa ; dWd rpv tcov re-)(yS)v BTjpblpvpylav

ovK lap-ev, OTL ov pev dv 6 deQ<i 0 UT 09 SiBdcrKaXo'i yevrjTaL, iWoyipo<;

Kal (f>avo<; dire^r], ov S’ dv pp ejuiy}niTai, crKOTeiv 6 ; to^lkt^v
’'Epo)9 <;

Kal pavTiKpv AttoWlov dvevpev i7rLdvpLa<; Kal

^ prjv Kal laTpLK 7]v ’

196 E Kav T: Kal B ^pTjcracrdai Stob., Blass: ^pijadai BT, cet. Tpv...
pov(TiKr]v del. Sauppe Jn. €)(t] T. 197 A pev BT : prjv S 17 W :
prjv

Stob. TTolpaiv del. Blass navrcos Stob. re om. Stob. ra ^<3a TTavra
Blass OVK del. Blass

196 E wcnrep ’EpD|C|ia\os. See 186 B.

irds yovv kt\. An N. Troirjrrjv S’

allusion to Eurip. (Stkeneboea) fr. 663
apa j
“Epcay diSdaKfi, Kav dpovTos p to npLv. had a vogue
This last phrase
cp. At. Vesp. 1074 Menander Com. 4, p. 146 Plut. amat. 17. 762 B, Symp. i.
; ;

622 c; Longin. de subl. 39. 2 (quoted with other passages by Nauck). For
the ditties of a love-sick swain, cp. Lysis 204 d. See also Aristid. t. i. Or. iv.
p. 30.
•ird(rav...pov(riKi;v. With A.’s bisection of tvoIt)(tls cp. the analysis of the
notion by Socrates, 205 b infra.
197 A
Kal pJv 8 q...-ye. Porro etiam., quin etiam. (See Madv. Gr. Synt.
§ 236.)
”EpwTos...<ro4)iav. a-o(piav is here predicate (against Eiickert) and stands
for a-o(pias epyov. For Eros as “poetic” in this sense,
cp. Spenser {S. to Love),
“ But thou be indeede, as men thee call. The worlds great Parent.”
if

TTiv...8T)pi.oupy£av. This branch of ttoItjctis is reaUy a distinct kind from

the other two, as not involving invention or creation. For “demiurgic arts,”
see Phileb. 55Dfif., and for larptKTj as an example Phileb. 56 a; cp. 186 c, D
supra. Cp. Isocr. Hel. 219 b (where H. is eulogized as the cause rexvatv Kal
(pLKoaoLfnwv Kal tS)v dXXcov oycjieXeiZv).
(|)avos. Plustris: Hesych. (f)av6v (pcoreivov Kal Xapjrpov : cp. Phaedr. 256 D.
For gods as bibda-KaXoi and rjyepoves (197 e), cp. Isocr. Busir. 229 B c roiy
6eovs...r]yovpai...avTovs re Trdaas exovTas rds operas (pvvai Kal rots aXXois tS>v
KaXXio’TO)!' eTTiTTjbevpdrcov pyepovas Kal dibaaKdXovs yeyevrjaOaL.
'AiroXXwv dvevpev. For ApoUo as the inventor of to^ikt), see Horn. II. ii.

827 ;
of pavriKT), 72; of laTpiKp, 190 e ff. supra. See also h. Rom. Apoll.
11. I.

131 ff.; and for pavTiKp in connexion with the cult of A., Eohde Psyche ii.
pp. 56
'

fi.
(jjUcyAXi -"to jfO'’. Lip

eX>dyi/t0i~ A/
cirrropiet'
e<^WTrTco=+o K>

use^expeoeru.
dKore vdi =d
£v«/ri0(5iW>ii -ft) xtft ar\eur
1
Ifl
 '

80 nAATQNOI [197 A

B epcDTo? ^yeiioveva avTO'},

'
ware Kal outo? ’'EpwrJ av '
etr] fjbadrjTrj^,

Kai yiovaai fiova-iK7]<; Kal"}i(f)ai(TTO<; )^a\K eLa^ K'al 'Adrjva

'
i aTOvp -
7/(29 Kal Zevf “ Kv^epv av Oewv re Kal av0 pooircuv." \j}06V St] /COL

Karea K eva a0'n twv 0eS>v ra TTpayiJ-ara ’'Ep(WT 09 iyjyevop.evov, BijXov

OTt, KaXkov<i' a.tcr^et yap ovk eiri ”Ep(W9^7r/oo rov Be, wairep ev
^PXV TToWci Kal Beovd 0eol<; eylyvero, 009 'keyeTot, Bid t^v
T/79 'AvdyK7]<; /Saatkeiav eireiB^ B’ 6 ^609 ovtos e(f>v, eV tov ipdv
TOiV KoXwv irdvT dya0d yeyove Kal deol^i Kal dv0pd)7rot<;.‘
C OvTa><; ipbol BoKel, (S <t>aiBpe, ''Ep &)9 7rpct>T09 avrb'i mv KaWiaTOf
Kal dpiaTo<} fierd tqvtq Tot9 dX\,oo<; dWav toiovtcov alrio^ etvai.

197 B Kal ovTos del. Blass (rf) ^aXseiay BlaSS Kal Zevs...av6p(OTr(av orn.
Stobaei ed. princ. Kv^epvav BTW, Stob. : Kv^epp-pafan Vindob. 21, vulg.:
KvjSfpvav ra cj. Voeg. iyyiyvopivov Stob. alaxovs Ast tVi Blass Bt.
(eirt vel i'TL B): cTTecTTiv T, Stob. : €VL cofr. b, Person J.-U. : evecrrcv in mg.
rec. b ; i'anv D, Ast npaiTOV Se stob. C TrpSiTOv Stob.

197 B ?p<.)Tos...”EpcaTos. Here, as elsewhere in these \6yoi, there is a play-

on the double sense of the word as (1) a mental affection (i.q. eTridvp.la), and
(2) a personal agent.
Kal Moierai povcriK-iis. Supply (as Stallb. and Hug) ''Epwros av elev

padrjTaL Less probable is the explanation of Ast and Riickert who, regarding
(^(TTe...pa6rjTr)s as parenthetic, supply dvevpov with Mova-ai (and the other
nominatives) and take povatKris (and the other genitives) as dependent on
i77idvplas...rjyepoveva-avTos mentally repeated. For the double genitive of
person and thing, cp. Rep. 599 C rivas padrjras laTpiKrjs KareXlTrero. -

XaXKe^as...^oToupy^as. For Hephaestus, cp. 192 dm.; and for Athene as

patroness of weavers II. xiv. 178, v. 735; He-s. Op. D. 63.
Zevs KvPepvav. The sudden change of construction from genitive to bare
infin., together with the unusual genit. after Kv^epvdv, are best explained by

assuming (with Usener) that we have here another of Agathon’s poetical tags.
For Zeus as world-pilot, see II. ii. 205, ix. 98; cp. Parmen. fr. 128 M. daipcov,
fjTTovra Kv^spva: and below, 197 e ad init., Kv^epvr^rrjs is applied to Eros
(cp. 186 b).

KaTe(rK€vd«r0T) kt\. This sentence is quoted later on (201 a) by Socrates,

rd TT pdypara echoes the naXaid rtpaypara of 195 C. koXKovs is object, gen.
after "EpcoTos-.
al'(rx€i. -ydp kt\. This repeats the assertion of 196 a b. Rettig reads —
ai(7-xft-..€(rT(i/, arguing that eVriv, not evi, is required by the ref. in 201 a:
but ?(rTiv as an equiv. for atay^ovs €<ttiv would be a strange use. The
restoration eiri is as certain as such things can be.
Iv dpxn See 195 c. Notice that here as there A. refuses to make
elirov.

himself responsible for the ascription of violence to the gods, as shown by the
saving clause as Xeyerat.
197 C aWtov TOIOVTCOV. Sc. ola KaXkos Kal dperi) : cp. Rep. 372 D.
^
Vf ou> * +0 JO iletl UK/ Cii\t

^ocXKei 05 ' hoLSS, liOLSitn

' l£0-«-
S-To lOorU-e
l6ToupYjeio
 ; : “ ;
:

197 D ZYMnOZION 81

eVj^p^erai o<. ri koX efjifieTpov eiirelv, on ovt6<; ianv 6 iroiwv

elp-qvrjv p-ev ev avdpwiTOi^, TreXdyei Se ycOvQvrjy

vvvepoav , dvepcov ko'lttiv vttvov t ivl KySet .

oyro? Be aXXoTp i6Tr)To<t pev Kevo i, ot Kei6TVTo Bp TrXrjpoi, ra? D

r]pd<; <f

ToidaBe ^vvoBo vi per dXXyXeou Trdaaf n^el? ^vvcevai, ev eopTai<s.

197 C ipperpas Herniog. Method. avepcov BT : r’ dvepav Stob. vulg.

S’ dvipoLs Eerniog. koLtt^v BT : koittjv t’ Stob. ; koLtt)Hermog. cod. Monac. :

koLtt! 6' Dicdorf Jn. : koItt] 8’ Herm. r’ evl K^8ei Stob. Hermog. re vLKrjdei :

B: re VTjKTjbrj T: re I'tKijSei (ill mg. yp. Kai vr)Kr] 8 ei): r’ e’ri yrj 6 (L Bast:
vrjKTjSr] Dindf. Herm. Jn. : XadiKrjdij Winckelmann : r’ evl Kprei Hommel Christ
{vttvov t evl KOiTTj OKrjSij Bdhm.) D ovtos yap Stob. dWoTpicoTarot Stob.

eire'pxerai 8^ pot ncrX. Here Agathon breaks out into verse of his own,
whereas hitherto he had contented himself with quoting from others (196 c, e).
Observe the aUiterative efiect, dear to the school of Gorgias, of the play with
and V, y and X, i% the former, and of v and p in the latter of the two verses.
vqvepiov...KTj8€i. Both the punctuation and reading of this verse are
doubtful. Eiiekert, Stallb., and the Zurich edd. print commas after yaX^vrjv
and dvepoov, Hug and Burnet only after dvepaiv, Hommel after yaX^vqv and
koItt]v. It would appear, however, from the Homeric passage {Od. v. 391 =
XII. 168, avepos pev iiravcraro rjSe yaX'fjvp eTrXero vr^vepirj), of which this is \

obviously an echo, that no stop should be placed after yaXrjvrjv, but rather
after vrjvepiav or dvepcov while the compound word dvepoKolrai, applied to a
sect {yevos) in Corinth who claimed to be able tovs dvipovs Koipi^eiv (see
Hesych. and Suid. s.v. also Welcker Kl. Schr. 3. 63 Rohde Psyche li. p. 88 ;

and 202 E n.), makes it probable that dvepcov Kolr-qv are meant to go closely
together. Further, although as Zeller argues it is appropriate enough in
general to describe Love as “ is qui non aequoris solum sed etiam human!
pectoris turbas sedat” (cp. II. xxiv. 128 ff., Catull. 68. 1 — 8), still the reversion
to human k^So? after mentioning waves and winds is a little curious, and it is
tempting to adopt Hommel’s conjecture ev'i k^tcl which, if KrjTos can bear the
sense of “sea-depths” (see L. and S. s.vv. KrjTos, peyaK^rrjs) would furnish a
more satisfactory disposition of ideas peace on land and on sea, repose in —
heaven above and in the depths below.” Or, if we assumed that an original
V€l
evl veUp {
= velK.ei) was corrupted by haplography to evl Kp, a fair sense would
be obtained. If the ordinary text be kept, we may notice (with Vogelin) how
the force of the prepos. in ev dvBp....evl updei varies “in the style of the
Sophists.” In Theaet. 153 c we have a similar combination, vpvepias re koI
ydkpvas, the only other Platonic ex. of vpvepia being Phaedo 77 e. yaXpvos
as an adj. occurs in Ax. 370 D.
197 D dX\oTpioTT|Tos ktX. For Eros as the peace-maker, cp. Isocr. Hel.
221 B evppcjopev tovs EXkpvas St avrpv opovoijcravTas <0.1 KOivrjv cTTpareiav...
TTOipcrapevovs.
Tas ToidtrSe |vvd8ovs. “ Haec detKTLKQis dicta sunt quale est hoc convivium
:

nostrum” (Stallb.). UopT*;'

Kyj^oi' O).rt^coocsft\
>/
B. P. 6
oC^iOTplOTpi
KSV'Ou - p’l
' -
-'.c/

OlKGiC>Tr^^~
VXfjpoio - ''i

^oyolcc r 1
 - :

82 nAATQNOZ ^97 D
iv •)(^opoi^, iv dvaiat<; yiyvo/Jbevo'i '^yefiwv' irpaorrjra ^ev^ TTopL^cov ,

ayptoTTjTa S' i^opl^MV' (fiiXoScopo'i evp.ev€ca^, ao^o? Svap,€veia<f'

i\e(o<; ayav6<i’ ^earo? ao^ol';, ayacTOi; 6eol<;' ^r)\coT O<: dp,oLpoi<;,

KTryTyt; ev^oipoii;' Tpv(f>ij<;, d^p oTrjTO'i, p^aptTwi/, lp,epov,

ttoBov iraTijp’ eVi/ieX^? dyadwv, dp.eXrj'i xaKwv' iv ttovo), iv (po/Sw,

-^oi\ (Lg^
197 D dvalais BT : dvcrlatai W : evdvfilois Stob., Jn. ; fort, didcrois

dyavos Usener Bt. dyados BT dyado'is Stob., Jn. Sz.

: iXecos dyadols seel.
: :

Rettig I'/x^prof dyadols Schulthess

: Tpv<^Tjs seel. J.-U. Sz. ;(XtSiys T

X^rjdrjs B )(Xr]Biis ;
r/pepov B W ttoSov om. Stob., seel. Voeg. Sz.
dveXrjS Ti

€v Gucrtais. For 6. Stob. has eidvplais, which looks like a gloss on some
word other than dvaiais. I am inclined to suspect that didcrois should be
restored the word would fit in well between xop"‘-^
: Tjyepav, “ in festive
bands.” The corruption might be due to the loss of the termination, after
which 6ids was mistaken for dvaids. Cp. Xen. Symp. viii. 1 Tvdvres eapev too
deov TOVTOV dcaaoirai.
dyavos. The dyados of the MSS. cannot stand, and Stobaeus’s dyadols
(adopted by most edd. since Wolf) is open to objection both as spoiling the
symmetry and because of the occuiTence of dyadS>v just below. We want a
more exquisite word, and UseneFs dyavos is more appropriate in sense than
such possible alternatives as dyavos or dyXady. For Agathon’s antitheses, cp.
Clem. Al. Strom, v. 614 D; Athen. v. 11.
Tpv())fjs...x^'’8'ns. Moeris ’A.ttikoI, rpvcjiri "EWrjves.
; Hence Hug
omits Tpv(l)rjs as a gloss on (to preserve symmetry) omits wodov
also.
«v TTovu ktX. These words have given rise to much discussion and many
emendations (see cri't. n.). Two main lines of interpretation are possible:
either (1) we may suppose that maritime allusions are to be sought in these
words to match those in KvS^pvrji-rjs kt'K.', or (2) we may suppose the latter
set of words to be used in a merely metaphorical sense. Badham adopts
line (1); so too Schiitz regards the whole figure as borrowed “e re nautica.
Nautis enim saepe timor naufragii, desiderium terrae, labor in difficultate
navigandi, aerumna nauseantibus,..accidere solet” ;
and he takes the following
four substt. (Ku/Sepv. ktX.) as referring in order to these four conditions. And,
adopting this myself formerly proposed to read (for ev r-oda, iv Xdyw)
line, I

iv TTopep, iv podep. The 2ud

line of explanation is adopted (a) by those who
attempt to defend the vulgate, and (b) by some who have recourse to emen-
dation. Thus (a) Stallb. commends Ast’s view that Xoyoy can stand here
because Agathon’s speech is full of “merus verborum lusus” while Hommel ;

takes the words iv ttovw etc. as “e re amatoria depromta,” expressing the

affections of the lover while seeking the society of his beloved, and connects
(inthe reverse order) Xoyep with KvS^pv., nodep with iirijS., (polBcp with Trapaar.,
and TTovep with crcoTrjp. On the other hand, (6) Rettig while altering the —
—
second pair to iv p6d(p, iv X6x(p also disregards the maritime metaphor and
•rf^S{04v]( “S- .. ''if’f’SS

TTopi^oJ hi
Ij'ili!-.?-,:
‘
.
'' es’-
XypioViji"
;

40 0“
C'^opi?u~
I^OCv-pO^
o,r,p;
del if--'

I
 i 2

197 e] lYMnOIlON 83

ev iroTW, iv \6<yw K V0epv7jT7]<;, i'irc ^ ar7]<;, Trapao-raTT?? re Kal crajrrjp E

aptcrro<;, ^vfjnrdvTcov re dewv Ka'v dvdpcoTrcov K6cr/u,o<;, rfjefiwv koX-
XiCTO? Kal aptcTTO?, w eireo'da t Trdvra di/Spa € c^up,vo vvTa

197 D eV TTCJVco eV (jyo^co ev ttotoj ev Xoyeo scripsi : ev ttovo) ev <f)6^a) ev

tioBco ev Xoyu Codd. : ev <p6^a ev Tr66(p ev novca ev judyo) Schlitz : ev ttovco ev
<f)6^a> ev fiodo) ev /idyo) Jn. ; ev tt. ev (p. ev fxodco ev Xdp^w Rettig : ev tt. ev (p. ev
TTodco ev vocrcp Winckelmann : ev tt. ev (p. ev TTodo) ev (TaX(o Usener ev : jrX<5 ev

TTovtp ev (p6^(o Bdhm. E eTTi^aTTjs del. Bdhm. : eTrtSurTjs Usener re Kal

del. Bdhm. ,

understands the passage “ iiberhaupt von Kriegsgefahren und dem in solcheri

geleisteten Beistand,” comparing the allusions to such matters by Phaedrus
(179a) and Alcibiades (220 off.). Here Rettig is, I believe, partly on the
right track; since the clue to the sense (and reading) here is to be looked
for in Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates. We find nova echoed there (219 e tois
novois.-.nepirjv), and <p6^a also (220 E (pvyrj dve)(d)pei, 221 A ev (pojSo)) and
ev XdycB may be defended by the allusions to Socrates’ Xdyot (215 c flf., 221 D fi'.).
Thus the only doubtful phrase is ev n66a, which has no parallel in Alcib.’s
speech, and is also objectionable here because of the proximity of noOov.
In place of it I propose ev nova (cp. Phileh. 48 a), of which we find
an echo (in sense if not in sound) in 220 a ev t’ av rats evcoxiais...Kal nlveiv...
navras eKparei. For maritime terms in connexion with Xdyoy, cp. Lack. 194 c
dvSpdcTL (piXois ev Xdyoj /cal dnopovcri ^orjOrjcrov Parm. 137 A :

neXayos Xoycov Phaedr. 264 A Phileb. 29 B. So both Xdyor

8iaveva-ai. .ToaovTOv
. :
;

and Trdroy in Dionys. Chalc. 4. 1 ff. Zpvovs olvo^oelv ...Tovde-.-elpealp yXdxrcr/yff

dnonepypopev . ..tov 8’ enl ervpnocriov be^iorijs re Xdyov |
4>aia/coy Movo-cor eperas
enl (TeXpara nepnei : id. 5. 1 ff. /cat rives olvnv ayovres ev elpeairj Aiovverov, \

crvpnoaiov vavrai Kal kvXlkcov eperai \

{pdpvavrai) nepl rovSe. Cp. also Cic. Tusc.
IV. 5. 9quaerebam utrum panderem vela orationis statim, an eam...dialecti-
corum remis propellerem. For napaa-rarr^s, of Eros, cp. d nap' e/cdcrrm balpav
in later Stoic literature (Rohde Psyche ii. 316): Epict. diss. i. 14. 12;
Menander (op. Mein. Com. IV. 238) dnavn balpav dv8pl cmpnapiaraTai evdvs I

yevopeva pvarayayos rov ^lov. For Socrates as crarrjp, see 220 D ff. the :

term is regularly applied to a rjpas, e.g. Soph. 0. C. 460 (Oedipus) Thuc. ;

V. 11. 2 (Brasidas) ;
Eur. Ueracl. 1032 (Eurystheus) : Find. fr. 132 has the
same combination, a-coi-qp dpiaros: cp. Spenser, “(Love) the most kind
preserver Of living wights.” ev nova might be a reminiscence of Find.
jVem. X. 78 navpoi...ev nova nia-roi: or used, Homerically, of “the toil of
war” ( = eV paxals, cp. 220 d). For KvtSepvrjrrjs used metonymously, cp. 197 b
{n. on Kv^epvdv); so Emerson, “Beauty is the pilot of the young soul.”

eni^drrjs, in the present context, must mean “a marine,” classiarius miles,

and hence, by metonymy, “ a comrade ” in general. The general sense of the —
passage is this “ in the contests both of war and peace the best guide and
:

warden, comrade and rescuer is Eros.” Cp. also Frocl. in I Ale. p. 40.
197 E |v|nrQVTcov...K6(r|j.os. Cp. Gorg. Hel. 1 Koerpos noXet pev evavbpla,
(Tapari be koXXos.
ijy€|j.d>v...l<j)V|j.vo{/vTa. The image is that of Eros as coryphaeus leading a

Ku/kfvr^r/j 6 —
 : ; ,
:

84 nAATQNOZ [197 E

KaXco'i, /xeri'^ovTa fjv ^aBet 9e\y<ov Travrwv Oewv re kuI av-

dpoiTTCov v6r}fj,a .

OuTO?, e(f)r], 6 Trap' ip,ov \6yo<;, w ^alBpe, rtp Oew ^aKeiaOcs, ra

fiev TratSta?, to. cttouS?}? p,eTpia<;, xaO' 6<7ov e^oj Bvvap.ai, peTi')(^oi)v.

198 XX. EtTTOi/TO? Be Tov 'AyddcDvo^ Trdvra<; €<f)7]

6 KpujToBrjp^o'i

dvadop y^rja-at Toil's Trapovr'cK;, &)? TrpeirovTws rov veavlaKov eipr)-

KOTO's teal avTM Kal tw Oew. tov ovv XeoKpdTr} elirelv jSXe^jravTa
'

et? TOV ’Epv^t/ia^oi/, ^Apd aoi Bokco, <pdvai, co iral Akov pievoi)
«8e6? TToXai Beo<; BeBtevai, dW' ov p.^Ti/cco'i d vvv Brj eXejov elirelv,

OTt 'AydOcov 9avp,aaT<b<i ipoi, iyoj B' dirop'daotpi i To piev eTcpov,

(pdvai TOV 'Epv^ipLa')(^ov, piavTiKoy<; puot BoKel<; elprjKevai, oti 'AydOwv

ev epel’ to Be ae aTrop-g aeLV ovk , olpi,ai. ^

197 E Kokuts BT : koX^s Stob. : KaXS>s KaX^s vulg. : KaXSis rrjs Ast : koXcos
< ai Trjs Orelli Teuffel : Ka't Mdvg. Sz. de {<ai) Method. 198 A Trpen-ovrmy
b t : n’piTTovTos BTW apa B epolrj Cobet Jn. SoKEir pot T

procession of singers, and singing (“a song of my beloved”) himself (uSijr Ijv

dSei). Notice how Agathon repeats the phrase 6f&v re koi avOpanroiv (cp.
197 b). For fiyepav, cp. Spenser {R. to Love) “Thou art his god, thou art his
mighty guide.” KaXrjs is omitted in Ficinus’ transl.
vdT||jLa. Here used, poetically, as equivalent to vovs cp. Find. Pgtk. vi.
29 Theogn. 435 Emped. 329 St., alpa yap dvdpdnrois TtepiKapbiov iari vorjpa.
; ;

Tw 0ei dvaKeCtrOo). “Let it be presented as a votive- offering {dvddrjpa) to

the God {sc. Eros).”
•Trai8ids...o''n’ov8fs. Possibly an echo of Gorg. Hel. ad Jin. ’'E.Xiviqs per
e’-yKtoptov, e’pdr fie jraLyviov. For the antithesis, cp. 216 E; Laws 647 d; Phileb.
30 E ;
Ar. Ran. 389.
perpCas. “H.e. Kocrplas” (Stallb.), with, perhaps, a latent play on the other
sense of pirpov, in allusion to the rhythmical style of A.’s oration ;
cp. 187 D,
205 C, Phaedr. 267 a e’r pirpa Xdyeiv.
198 A dva0opvpTj(rai. Cp. Protag. 334 C cIttovtos ovv ravTa ai/roQ oi

rrapovTfS dvedopv^r^aav cos eii Xeyoi: Pluthyd. 276 B; Cic. Sen. 18. 64 a cuncto
consessu plausus multiplex datus.
7rpeirdvT<i)S...T<3 0e<p. Cp. Laws 699 D e’lprjKas cravra re Kal rp Trarpcdi jrpe-
TTOVTCOS.

CO -irai ’AKovpevov. Observe the mock-solemnity of this mode of address

cp. 172 A, 214 B. Socrates addresses Eryx. with allusion to his language in
193 E (ei pi) ^vvijbri ktX.).

d8eis...8eos 8€8i€vai. Schol. dSeey Seoy eVl rav rd prj cl^ia (fioSov fieStdrear.
opoLov TovTcp KOL TO Observe how Socr.
\j/-ocpo8eTjs avOpcoTTos {Phaedr. d).

here, in caricature of Agathon’s style {e.g. 197 d), combines in one phrase the
Jigura etymologica and the figure oxymoron-. cp._Eur. I. T. 216 rdp(^ai/ bverwp-
(f)ov ib. 566: oxapiv id. Hel. 690 ydpov dyapov. :

d vvv 8r ^Xeyov. The reference is to 194 A.

 ; :

'
^CUX". \ fx^i-

198 cj SYMnOIlON 85

TTO)?, (o fMaKapu e, eiTrelu tov XtOKpaTt), ov jiieW w cnropelv B

Ka\ ijM /cal dWoj^^Ticrovv '.r^eWwi) Xe^eiv pu'erd KaXov^pina^ Kai
iravTo haTrhv XSydv^ prjdevTa ; Kol rd ^ev dXka ovx ojiOLWi /xev
Oavpiaard' ro Se iirl reXeurl)? tov /cdWovi tS)v ovofj^drcov /cal

pru^oTcov TL'i ov/c av i^€7r\dyr] d/covcov eVet eycoye evdvp,o vp,evo<i

OTL avTO'i ov^ olo^ T ecTopai ovB' iyyv<; tovtcov ovSiv KaXov elTrelv,

vir ala'^vvTj'i oXlyov aTTO^Spa? cpy^opupv, et irp 6t%ov. Kal yap p,e C
Vopyiov 6 Xoyo'i dvepipcvpa/cev, ware dTey vw<i ro tov 'Opuppov
198 B Kal TTavToBanov ovtco TW fiev ODl. Vind. 21, vulg. Sz. : (fiev,

davfia/rra de •
Bdhm.) aKOvaiv om. W
198 B ov |j.eWw ktX. Notice the change of tense in dTropeLv..,X€^fiv Plato
uses pres., and aor. infinitives after piXX/o, of which the last is the rarest
fut.,

construction. For the sense, cp. Soph. 231 B.

iravToSairov Xo-yov. There is irony in the epithet. Socr. implies that he
regards it as a motley Xdyoy, “a thing of shreds and patches.” Cp. 193 e,
and 198 E {irdvra Xoyov kivovvtcs ktX.).
ovx ofiotus (ilv 0av|jia(rTa. The antithesis must be mentally supplied “the :

earlier parts were not equally marvellous (although they were marvellous).”
Stallb. explains differently, “rd pev aXXa accipi potest absolute pro et quod
cetera qiddem quo facto non inepte pergitur sic: ov;y 6poia>s pev
attinet\
davpaard, particula iterata.” ph denuo
But the former explanation (adopted
by Rettig and Hug, after Zeller) is the simpler and better.
TO 81 eirl TsXevTTjs ktX. to is accus. of respect, going closely with eVl
TcXcvTrjs, not with rod koXXovs (as Ruckert) : “quod autem exitum orationis
tuae attinet” (StaUb., and so Hommel). tov koXXovs is governed by
trXdyr), as gen. of causative object (cp. Madv. Gr. Synt. § 61 b). dKovwv, “ as
he heard.”
T(5v dvo^Jidruv Kal pT)|j[.dT<ijv. Cp. 199 B ovopdai be Kal 6earei prjpdTiov.
Properly, dvopa and prjpa are distinguished as, in logic, the subject and predi-
cate and, in grammar, the noun and verb respectively. But commonly dvopa
is used of any single word, and pqpa of a clause, or proposition {e.g. Protag.
341 e); cp. Apol. 17 b; Cratyl. 399 a, 431b. Both here and below, as
Athenaeus observes (v. 187 c), IlXaro)!/ yXevd^ei re rd ca-OKOjXa TO ’A-yddojj/oy
Kal rd avTiBeTa. Cp. the criticism of the Sophistic style in Alcid. de Soph. 12
01 Tols dvdpacTLv aKpiSo/s i^eipyaapevoi Kal pdXXov Troirjpao'iv rj Xdyoij ioiKOTes

Kal TO pev avTopaTOV Kal TrXecov dXrjdelas djTo/SeBXTjKorey Isocr. C. Soph. 294 D :

roir evdvprjpao'i npenovTcos dXov tov Xoyov KOraTrotKiXat Kai roly dvopaai evpvd-
pa>s Kai povaiKo/s enreiv.
ovS’ eyyvis tovtcov. Cp. 221 D infra'. Rep. 378 D rovy TrotT/rdy iyyhs tovtcov
avayKacTTeov XoyoTTOieiv.
dXiyov. J.e. oXiyov beiv. Cp. Theaet. 180 D; Euthyd. 279 D.
198 0 rop-yCov...dveptp.vTnrKev. For Agathon as a “Gorgiast,” see Introd.
§ III. 5. Cp. Philostr. de vit. Soph. I. koi ’Ayddcov...TroXXa)(ov tcov lapSelcuv
yopyid^ei Xen. Symp. ii. 26, iv. 24.
:

TO TOV 'Opnjpov. See Od. XI. 632 epe be fXcopdv beos ppec |
ptj poi yopyelrjv
«dkc»e».<r of, ^'rcxuipVn&'M T-o'hJfr.eof
QV.TrXn6ALO~'*°
/U£XXu> =^'0 ^ +0 do

XTTopeO) s-t"* be ad a loiS CvGu/UfO/Uetl ? "To Uy /s CKTi^y'i^ arf or nUUlpode

^ I
» t

l^’7Ator=- dbcd Kivck «ltn5l5pOt6KCO=--<= f'-*' dd-ltM»y\

ujtrd, eKP^Sicf. .. rTr., .. I
 ^ :

, S.'2 p*f^

86 nAATQNOI [198 c

^ iireTToy dri • i<j)o^ovfj,7]v fii] /xoi reXevTtov 6 '

Ay aOcov TopyCov Ke<^a\r]v
Seivov Xeyeiv iv tm tov ipuov \6yov Trep/^a<; avTOv
\ 'a
\LUo v rp aipcovLa
«»,/*' \6y(p
Troiijaeie.
irrl
V >

kul eyevoy aa rare

/ / W 'I
apa KarayeXaaro'i
-,o
p,e
c-olooi.

(oy, yyiKa vpuy wp.o\6yovy iy tw fiepet p.e6' vpuSjy i’^KcaybidaeaQaL

D Toy ’'Epto ra Ka \ ecfiyy elyai Beiy6<; rd ipcoTiKa, ovSey elSot)<; dpa tov
I 7rpdyp,aT0^, wt eSet eyKco/j.idj^eiy OTiovy ^ .
7“P dBe\ -
T€pLa<; Mpuyy Sely TaXyBr) Xeyeiv irepl e^acrTou tov eyKcopna^opievov,
Kal tovto fiev, virapyei v, e^ avTcov S^tovtcov to. KaXXicrTa e/cXe-
yoiJieyo v<i\fi)<; evTrpeTre aTaTci) Tidevat •
Kal iravv By pieya eippovovv o)?
oW^p^kr
198 C A rep Xoyep seel. J.-U. : TriXapov Bdhm. rfi d(po3vla del. Hartmann
D d^eXTTjptas T TOV (post efcdoTou) del. Hommel tovto TrptoTOv pev Bast

K((f)aXT]v deivOLO TreXapov ’A/Seo) Trepyj/eiev dyavrj Ilfp(Te(p 6 vfLa.

|
Miss
Harrison {Proleg. p. 191) renders yopyelrjv by “grizzly,” with the note
“ Homer does not commit himself to a definite Gorgon ” his Gorgoneion
is “an underworld bogey, an dnoTpoTraiov.” That “the Gorgon was regarded
as a sort of incarnate evil eye” {ibid. p. 196) appears from Athen. v. 64. 221
KTfivd TOV VTT avTTjs dewprjdfvTU, ov Tw TTvevpaTL dXXd Ty yiyvopdvrj otto Trjs
T(ov dppaTmv (fyvaecos (f>opa /cat vtKpov Troiet. Rohde {Psyche 407) points out
II.

that “ Hekate selbst wird angerufen als ropya> /cal Moppib Kal M171/77 /cat woXv-
pop(pe: hymn bei Hippol. ref. haer. 4. 35 p. 73 Mill”; and that ropyeb appears
to be a shorter form for Topyvpa {'Axepovros yvvrj, Apollod.). For the pun
on Gorgias-Gorgon, cp. that on dyaOwv (174 b n.). As against Diimmler’s
inference that Gorgias’ previous death is here implied, see Vahlen op. Acad.
I. 482 flf.

Cp. 201 A, Gorg. 457 D, Theaet. 169 b. To eject these words

€v Tip Xoytp.
with Hug, or to substitute ireXdipov with Badham, would (as Voegelin and
Rettig contend) destroy the antithesis ev ra> X. )( eVi t6v ipov X., and spoil
the “ Gorgianische Wortspiel.” Further, the phrase serves as a parallel to
the Homeric ’Ai'Seo). Observe, as a feature of the parody, the different
sense in which Socr. uses bw6s: also, how the sentence as a whole forms a
playful retort to Agathon’s remark in 194 a {(jiappaTreiv ^oiiXei pe ktX.). For
the adverbial use of reXeurmi/, cp. Phaedr. 228 B, c ;
Gorg. 457 n. (See also
Vahlen, l.c. for a discussion and defence of the text.)
T6T€...i]vtKa. The Tore goes with av which is imperf. partic.: the ref. is to
177 D.
198 D €YcJ [iJv ktX. The piv here is answered by the be in rb be Spa
below. For d^eXrepla, cp. Theaet. 174 c, ad loc.).
Phil. 48 c (see my note
TOVTO |j.^v virdpxeiv. “That this (viz. the statement of the facts) should be
the ground-work” : there is no need to insert, with Bast, nparov or peyiaTov
after tovto. For this sense of Menex. 237 b. For the thought,
virdp^eiv, cp.
cp. Emerson “Veracity first of and
Rien de beau que le vrai.”
all forever.
avT/av 8t TouTtt/v. Rettig’s comment on this is “ mit Beziehung auf das
collective in tovto gedachte TdXrjdq.” This is misleading, since roCro means
TrC^TT'UJ -+a 5ft,d,cles(»+cK cs£l( Cemfliq
^yicw^loC^w-'R' eultptTi[s'^

5(/ieXr£pioc^i^-P'“»‘n
3 / -.(vj -ttMVU- or.coiid/c,
/« ./-to iJ/)>wf,tX/hlc/
OfC/UXl .

'
&Tro(/3X‘*»

U£po^-
 198 E] lYMnOIlON 87

ev ipcou, 0)9 6t8o)9 T^v dXrjdeiav [toO iTraivelv oriovv]. to 8 e dpa,

tB9 eoixev, ov tovto rjv to /caXo)9 iiraLvelv OTiovu, dXXd to 0)9 p^eyiaTa E
dvafridevai T(p TrpdjpbaTt xal 0)9 /cdXXKTTa, edv re p ovTco'i 'dyovTa
idv re yu.??' el Se ^fr€v 8ri, ovSev dp’ pv irpaypua. 'Tr£oy£p^67] ydp, £09
eoLKev, 07ro)9 eKa<TT0<; rjpLwv tov ’'EyOO)Ta d^^jaojud^etv 86 ^ei, ov^
07ro)9 eyKcop-Laa-eTac. Sta Tavra 8 ij, olpuai, TrdvTa Xoyov kivovvt€<;

198 D tov...6tiovv seel. Bdhm. Sz. tovtois Bast E do^ti

Steph.; So^Tj BT

TO TdXrjdii \eyeiv, a singular notion, and aira Tavra here represents simply
TdXrjdtj. In the Socratic theory of rhetoric here stated we have the following
order of treatment proposed (1) t 6 TaXrjdrj Xdyew, (2) 7 tSiv koXXIo-tcov eKXoyrj,
:

(3) Tj fvTrpeTTTjs dfViy. But it is implied that the 2nd and 3rd of these artistic —
selection and arrangement — are valueless,
except in so far as they are based
on the 1st requisite : in other words, matter is more important than form.
Cp. Prod, in Tim. p. 27 al yap dwo rijy oiKTtas ev(f)r]p[ai TraaStv TTpoi^^ovo'ev, ws
KOI 6 ev Tco 2v/x7rocri&) 'S,a>Kpdrqs TTapaSidoiaiv.
cos elScos Ti]v dXiiGeiav. Badham and Hug in bracketing the next
I follow
words an erroneous gloss on dXrjdeiav, with which we
(too ewaivelv oriovv) as
must supply Trepl TOV epcoTos, as required by deivos rd epioTiKo. above and the
passage there alluded to (175 d). Cp. PKaedr. 259 E dp ovv ov)( vTrdp)(eiv Sel tois
ev ye koI KoXios pijOriaopevois rrjv tov Xeyovros dcdvoiav eldviav to dXrjdes edv dv
epeiv Tvepi peXXp. Eettig defends the traditional text, asking “ist denn p
dXr/ffeia tov erraiveiv otlovv hier nicht identisch mit fj dXr)6eLa Trep'i "KpaiTOsV’
To this the answer is “no !”: for if the tradition be kept we must take rrjv

dXTjdeiav as equivalent to rrjv dXrjOri (or rather dpdrjv) pedobov, which is a very
unhkely equation, especially so soon after TaXrjdfj in another sense Stallb.’s :

rendering may serve to indicate the difficulty involved, —

“utpote veram
tenens laudationis cujuslibet naturam et rationem"'. Jowett’s “thinking I
knew the nature of true praise ” shirks the difficulty.
ri 8^ dpou For TO be, “but in reality,” cp. Meno 97c (with Thompson’s
note), Apol. 23 A (with StaUb.’s note).
198 E oil TOUTO, i.e. oil TO TaXijOrj Xeyeiv.
To...dvaTi0€vai. Perhaps an allusion to the term used by Agathon, dva-
KeLo-Qo)197 E. For Socrates’ criticism, cp. Phaedr. 272 a, Menex. 234 c ot
ovT<o KoXas eTraivovaiv, werre Kai rd irpoadvra Ka\ rd prj Trepl eKauTov Xeyovres,
KaXXiaTa ttcos toIs ovopaai TroiKiXXovTes yorjTevovaiv rjpSiv rds \fev;(ds Isocr. :

Pusir. 222 B bei tovs pev eiiXoyecv Tivas ^ovXopevois TrXeico tS)V vTrapy^dvTOiV
dyaOSiv TrpocrovT drroipalveLv (which sentiment is, perhaps, referred to here).
irpovppi]0T). Cp. 180 D. The reference is to 177 n.
lyKcopidteiv 86|ei. The emphasis is on bo^ei, implying the regular Platonic
antithesis bo^a )( dXrjdeia. Cp. Simon. 76 to boneiv koi rdv dXddeiav /StoTai
(cited in Pep. 365 c).
irdvra Xoyov Kivovvrts. “ Raking up every tale.” Cp. Phileb. 15 E Theaet.
;

163 A ;
Rep. 450 A.
^

rT<v«,5et-/n.
 T--P'

88 nAATQNOI [198 E

dvaJriOeTe rw “Epcori, Kal (f>aTe avrov tolovtov re eivat Kal roaov-

199 Todv alrLov otto)? dv (fiaLvrjraL
, o)? KdWt,CTO<; Kal dpiaTO^j, SyXov on
TOt? /ji^ yiyvcoaKovcnv — ov yap Stj ttov roi? ye elSocn — Kal /caAw? 7
,
’

ex^i Kal (rep,vd)<; 6 e'7raivo<;. dWa yap iyM ovk pht) dpa rov •rpdTroif'
Tov iiraivov, ov S' elBrn'i vpuu Mp,o\6yr]aa teal aOro? eV too puepei

€7raLveaeada c. “ yXcoaaa” ovv v'n\ea^TO, “ p Be ^ppv” ov'

rj

XaipeTO) Bp, ov yap en iyKcoiu^ id^co tovtov tov toottov: ov yap

dv Bvvaipbpv. ov p,evToi dX\d rd ye aXpOrj, el jSovXeade, eOeXco I

B elireiv Kar ep.avT6v, ov Trpo? tov? u/^erepov? X6yov<;, 'Lva pip yeXtoTa
oefiXci) . opa ovv, co ^alBpe, e’l tl Kal tolovtov Xoyov Be^f^Trepl
EpcoTO? TnXpdrj Xeyopieva UKoveiv, ovopiaac Be Kal deaei p ppidTcov
TOLavTp OTTO la Bdv TO? TV')(r] eTreXOova a.
198 E TotovTOJV re eivai Steph. 199 A brjirov Cobet Bt. : av ttov T :

TTOV B, Sz. ^dp dpa T : pSp B ov S’ Sauppe : oSS BT yXaxrcra W ;

yXiurra BT cyKcoptdcrM Wolf Jn. B Se'fi Bekk. Sz. TT€p\...\ey6pfva

del. Hirschig ovopdaei W Vind. suppl. 7 SaV J.-U. Sz. Bt. : dp dv
Stallb. ; S’ dv B : S’ dv T ; dv apogi'. Vat. 1030

199 A oTTojs olv <j)aivT)Tai. (jiaivpTai here, as Sd^et above, is emphatic. A com-
parison with 195 A shows that Socr. is alluding especially to Agathon’s oration.
ov -ydp Cp. Gorg. 459 a ov yap dp ttov ev ye toTs eldoai tov larpov
Sij irov kt\.
TTidavwrepos ecrrai: and
for ov yap ttov... 200 B, Euthyph. 13 A.
Kai KaXus v’ KrX. Earlier editors generally print a full stop after eldoai.
Socr. here sarcastically endorses the approval with which Agathon’s eiraivos
had been received (ay TTpeirovTcos elppKoros ktX., 198 a).

V yXatrera oiiv ktX. Euripides’ line (17 yXdao'' opdipox P de (f)p'pv dvdypoTos )

Hippol. 612) soon became a familiar quotation see Ar. Thesm. ^lb,Ran. 101, :

1471 ;
Theaet. 154 D ;
Cic. de offic. III. 29. 108 iuravi lingua, mentem iniuratam
gero.
Xaipera
Sij. “I say good-bye to it”: cp. Laws 636 d ro...rov pvdov xaipeTeo
id.886 D. Eettig suggests that here the formula may be intended as another
echo of Euripides: cp. Med. 1044 ovk dv dvvatppv xaiperos ^ovXevpara rd I

TTpoaOeV. Hippol. 113.

ov ydp ?Ti ktX. “ I withdraw my offer to eulogize.” eyKapid^o} must here
be a “present for future” (see Madv. Gr. Synt. § 110. 3), since Socr. has not
yet begun the eulogy.
199 B KAT tpavTov, OV irpos kt\. “ In my own fashion, not entering into
competition with your orations.” For Kara c. acc. in this sense, cp. Apol. 17 B
ov Kara tovtovs elvai ppreop (“ not after their pattern ”) Gorg. 505 D. :

yeXara d(j>Xa. This resumes the notion in KarayeXoaTos av, 198 c.

a 4>alSpe. Socrates, like Agathon (197 e), politely appeals to Ph. as the
irarpp Xoyov cp. 194 D. :

€t Tl ktX. For e’i TL, numguid, cp. Rep. 526 E aKOTreLcrSai del ei tl irpds
eKeivo Telvei ktX.

^1
dvopaci 8^ ktX. See 198 Bw. Of oirola dp Ast cites no instance; the
OClTlOy- TpoTTos^

V 1 V G...^.+q oLot o- dfioT

oiXiiiockw- . ,
.

1 . •
a..vT. ^

dlwu; -to
 ; ;

199 D] lYMnOllON 89

Tov ovv ^alSpov ecjir) koX rov<i dWov<: Ke\€vetv \iyeiv, ottt]

avT6<; otoLTO Selv elirelv, ravTr]. ’'Ext roivvv, <pdvai, co ^aiSpe,

yrdpe'i p,oi '
’AydOcova crp,LKp’ arra ipeadat, Xva di/op,dk oy'p<Tdp,evo^
Trap" avTov ovto)<; 7]8p Xeyco. ’AWd TrapippLi ,
^dvai rbv ^al8pov, C
aW’ ipcbra. p,6rd ravra 8p rbv ’S.oy/cpdrr] e(f)7] evdevhe iroOev
dp^acrOai. t
XXL Kal pLpv, do (f)L\e Wyddcov, AcaXoi? p,oi eSo^a? KaOt]-
ypaaaQai rov Xbyov, Xeycov on Trpdbrov puev 8eoi avrbv iTTiSel^ai
OTTOto^ Tt 9 iartv 6 ''Ep(o<;,. varepov Se ra epya avrov. ravrrjv r^v
dp')^r)v irdvv dyap.at. Wt ovv ptoi irepl ’'Ep&)T 09 erreiBr} Kal rdXXa ,

KaX(v<i Kal pbeyaXoTTperrmt; Bi7]Xde<; ocof ecrri, Kal roBe elire' D

TTorepov ecrrt toiovto<; oto? elvaL rtvo<; 6 “Epco? epco'i, t) ovBevd'i
ipcoTcb B' ovK et pLr)Tp6<; tivo<; Tvarpo? icrrc —yeXocov yap av eXp to

199 C dX\’ epaiTa Agathoni tribuit B, Naber D aids t

'
TW tpcos
epats B : epoas T

force of br) is to heighten the notion of indefiniteness which lies in onola

(so Hug).
?Ti to£vvv ktX. ert goes with epeadai. Socrates appeals thus to Ph.
because Ph. had previously (194 D, e) debarred him from catechizing A.
dvoiioXcyiio-aiievos ktX. Of. 200 E, Gorg. 489 A. For ovtcos b'b'lt cp. 194 D.
For ivdivbe Trodiv, 178 A.
199 0 Ka0ipyiicra(r0ai. The rcf. isto A.’s exordium, 195 a.
l'0i o5v. agedum; cp. Gorg. 452 D, Rep. 376 D.
199 D These are objective genitives to be construed with
TIVOS...T1 ovSevds.
the second “Is Love love for some object or for none ? ” For the use
epios:
of the indef. in such phrases, cp. Phileh. 35 b o -y’ diridvpav tivos inLOnpd..
OVK el iiTiTpos TIVOS ktX. These words have been variously interpreted :

(1) Lehrs and Prantl construe the genitives as subjective (“love felt by a
mother”); (2) Ast as objective (“love /ora mother”): (3) Ruckert, followed
by Hommel and Hug, takes them to be genn. of origin so too Zeller renders ;

“ ich meine damit aber nicht, ob er eine Mutter oder einen Vater hat.” Of
these, (1) seems the least probable in point of sense, and with subjective
genitives tlvos would be superfluous. It is a serious objection (as Hug
admits) to (3) that it compels us to regard the “ absurdity ” (yeXoTov) of the
question as lying in its form rather than its substance. That the “absurdity ”
lies in the substance of the statement is shown, e.g., by Lys. 221 a p yikdiov to
iparrrjpa, o ri ttot ecrai Tore p pp ecrrai; tIs yap olbev (cp. Phaedr. 274 C).
But if SO, recourse must be had to textual alteration we must strike out :

either the second epojf, with Sommer, or the whole block of words eZ^'Eptof...
Trarpos, as Hug (followed by Jowett) suggests. This, however, is a hazardous
alternative. On the whole, then, the explanation (2) put forward by Ast
seems the most probable. Construing, “ I do not ask whether Eros has for
its object a father or a mother, since to ask whether Eros is eros for a parent

OTlx|” S' \ 5^p)^o^^ ' ’

••"la’ a

drop i>ei\6e, It*"

 90 nAATQNOZ [199 D

ipcoTrjfia, el ’'Epo)? iarlv ep(0 <; p.'prpo'i ^ 'irarpo’i — aX.V (oairep av ei

avTO TOVTO irarepa ‘ppcorcov, apa o Trar'pp iart 'irarpp rivo^ t] ov ;

eiTre? av Bt] ttov pLov, el efiouXov Ka\(o<i a7roKplva<j6ai, ort eartv

vieo<i ye rj Ovyarpo^ o irar^p Trar-pp' 'p ov ; Hdvv ye, (fmvat tov
'Kyddcova. Ovkovv Kal rf p^rjT'pp MaavTovi ; 'OpboXoyeladat Kal
E TOVTO. “Ert toLvvv, elnrelv tov XcoKpdTrj, diroKpivaL oXlyw irXelo),

Lva p,dWov KaTap.d6p<; o ^ov\op.ai. el yap epoipu'qv, tL Se ; aSeXcjbo?,

aiiTo TovO' oirep eaTiv, ecTi tivo<; d8e\(j)6<i rj ov ; ^dvai elvat,.

Ovkovv dSeXcjiov rj dBeX^r]'i ; ’Op,oXoyeiv. Tleipo) Br), (jidvai, Kal

TOV epcoTa elirelv. o “Epo)? epw? eaTiv ovBevb<; rj Tii/o? ; Udvv p,ev

200 ovv eaTLV. Tovto puev tolvvv, elrrelv tov ^coKpdTrj, cjrvXa^ov rrapd
aavTM piepLvTjpi.evo'; otov ToaovBe Be elwe, rroTepov o ’^Epw? eKeivov

199 D er'Epcos...TraTp6s secl. Hug et 6 Hirschig epas del. Sommer

6pokoye'L(T6ai BTW : opoXoyrjcrat. vulg. : opoXoyelv Stallb. Sz. E dSeX^dy
Cobet Sz. : dSeX^dy libri, Bt. d8e\(f>6s del. Bdhm. 200 A pepvrjpevos
del. Bdhm. ottov Mdvg.

were an absurd question,” the point will be taken to lie in the fact that epas,
as properly denoting sexual passion, cannot naturally have for its object a
parent. The same interpretation might be kept if we struck out as perhaps —
—
we ought the words prjrpos iraTpos, and construed “ the question would be
rj

absurd if {or granting that) Eros is (really) ipa>s {i.e. sex-love).”

avTo TOVTO iraTtpa ijpuTuv. Rettig approves Stallbaum’s explanation,
“A. e. narepa, avTo tovto direp eiTTiv ut mox loquitur. Vult autem cogitari de
patris notione, qualem mente informatum habemus.” But the use of the
neuter in apposition to the masc. is sufficient to indicate that “cogitari de
patris notione ” and it is most natural to regard avrd tovto as implying a
;

reference to the previous use of “ this very word, -iraTrip.”

el-ires olv. “You would at once reply.” (See Goodwin G. M. T. § 414,

Thompson on Meno 72 B.)

1]
Sc. icTTiv vUor ye
pi^TT^p wo’avTws- OvynTpos prinjp. f)

199 El ydp epoCpqv. For apodosis we may supply tL av (jialrjs; or

E
the like cp. 204 D, Frot. 311 E.
:

avTo TOV0’ oirep ^cttiv. “ Notionally,” “in its abstract significance.”

200 A
Tovto pJv...oTov. Rettig, Ruckert and Lehrs put a comma before
pepvppevos, rendering “hoc igitur apud animum serva {sc. alicujus esse) atque
cujus sit, memento.” Hommel and Hug, on the other hand, follow Ast and
Schleierm. in removing the comma, explaining otov {sc. 6 "Epojy epos eVriV) as
epexegetic of tovto, and construing (pvXa^ov pepvrjpevos closely together thus :

Schleierm. renders “ Dieses nun, habe Socrates gesagt, halte noch bei dir fast
in Gedankeu, wovon sie (er) Liebe ist.” On this latter view —which is
certainly preferable— we must suppose Socrates to be alluding to the definition
of the object of love {viz. KoXXor) previously given by Agathon (in 197 b),

while debarring him from restating it at this point in the discussion.

 —

200 c] ZYMnOIlON 91

ov €<TTCv epco'i, eTrtdvfMel avTov ov ; Hdvv ye, (pdi^ai. JIoTepov

ej(^cov avTo ov eiTLdvp,el re xal epa, elra e7ridvp,el re kuI epa, ^ ovk
e')((av ; Ovk e')((av, co? rh' elKO<; ye, <f)dvai. ^Koiret 8 tj, elirelv rov
^coKpdrrj, dvri rov et/coTO? el dvdyKt] ovtq)<;, to eiTLdvpiOvv eiri-

dvp.elv ov eVSee? eariv, ^ p-rj eiriOvpelv, edv prj ivBeef y ; epol pev
yap 6avpaaTc!><; BoKet, (o 'AydOwv, co? dvdyKt] elvai' exol Be ttw?; B
Kdpol, (f)dvai, BoKei. KaXto? Xeyei^. dp' ovv /SovXoir dv Tc<f

peya<; dv peya<; eivat, y la-)(ypo<i wv Icr^^vpo^ ; 'ABvvarov Sk twv

OD poXoyypevQJV. Ov ydp rovrwv 6 ye dv.
itov ivBer]<i dv e’lr)

'AXyOy Xeyets. dv /SovXoiro la'xypo'i elvai,

Ei ydp Kal ier'xypo'i

(f)dvai rov '^wKpdry, Kal Ta-)(y<; dv rap^u?, Kal vyir}<; dv vyiy <;

tew? ydp dv Ti? ravra olydely Kal irdvra rd roiavra, tou? ovTa<;
re ToiovTovt Kal ’e^ovTa<i ravra rovrwv direp '€')(^ovcn Kal eiridv- C

py el^airaryOwpev, rovrov eveKa Xeyw rovroi<; ydp, co

pelv. Tv ovv
AydOwv, el evvoel<;, 'e^eiv pev eKaara rovrwv iv rw Trapovri
'

dvdyKy d ^^(^ovaiv, edv re jSovKwvrai edv re py, Kal rovrov ye By

200 B OftoXoyrjfievcov W : 6fio\oyovfi^v(ov vulg. ft S apa Stallb. yap
Kal BT :
yap W TavTi T C tKaarav vulg.

f^iSv^ifi ovToi). For avTov resuming eKelvov, cp. 195 a, Soph. 0. T. 248.
Observe that the entire argument here is based on the identification of epas
with eTTidvpla (see 205 d) cp. the use of epav in Theogn. 256 TTpr^ypa Se
:

TtpiTvoraTov, tov tis ipa, to Tv^^dv. Cp., for the question here discussed,
Lys. 221 D f.

dvrl TOV f’lKOTos. Cp. Phaedr. 267 A, 269 D ; see Blass, Alt. Bereds. I. 78.
firi6v|Xfiv Cp. Lysis 221 D rd y€ imdvpovv, ov av eVSeff p,
ov fvSffs lo-Tiv.

rovrov fTTidvpei: Eryx. 405 E at S’ emOvplai Traaai oiidev erepov ^ evSetai rivatv :

Gorg. 496 D. A similar theory is implied in Phileh. 35 a d Kfvovpevos...

€Tri6vpeL rS)V Aavrltov tj naerx^L' Kevovpevos yap epa TrXrjpovadai (which also
illustrates the use of epav and
synonyms). Cp. also Isocr. Hel.
eiridvpeiv as
219 A (quoted below, on 200 c).
200 B 0av(jiao-Tws...ws. For a>f thus separated from its adverb, cp.
Phaedo 95 A, 99 D, Theaet. 157 D. Thus Bast’s suspicions as to the soundness
of the text were unfounded.
El -yap Kal ktX. In this sentence we have an ex. of anacoluthon after the :

protasis the sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis l^i(ro>i...\eyo)), then the

protasis is resumed in an altered form (dXX’ orav ns kt\.), which leads up
finally to theapodosis in the form einoipev av avrw ktX. The main purpose
of the whole paragraph is to guard against a possible misunderstanding as to
the nature of ^ovk-qa-is and imdvpLa which might arise from carelessness in
analyzing the sense of popular phraseology.
ravra oIt|06Ct). ravra and rravra ra roiavra are accusatives of “remoter
object” with olrjdelrj, “with regard to these and all similar cases.”
 ; ;:

92 nAATQNOI [200 c

TTOu Tt9 av iTTidufM'ijaeLev aX.A,’ orav Tt? '^eyr] otl iym vyiaLvcov
jSovXojxai Kal vyiaLveiv, Kal ttXovtwv /SovXofiai Kal TrXovrelv, Kal
iiridv/j-co avTwv tovtcov a ep^^o), eiTrotfiev av avTw OTi^av, w dvdpcaire,
D 'rrXovrov K€KTr)/u,€vo? Kal vyleiav Kal la')(yv ^ovXei Kal et? rov
eVetra •y^povov ravra KSKT^crOai, eVet iv rw ye vvv irapovTi,
el're ^ovXet. elre p-ip, eyed' (JKOTrei ovv, orav tovto Xeyr]<;, ort eirt-
dvpLw Twv TrapovTwv, el dXXo tl Xeyed rj rohe, otl ^ovXop-aL tcl vvv
irapovra Kal ei<; tov eiretra ypovov Trapelva^ dXXo tl opboXoyol av
'

^vpL(f)dvaL e(j>T] tov KydOcava. elirelv Brj tov ^coKpaTt}, Ovkovv

TOVTO y ccttIv eKeivov epdv, o ovttlo eTOLp-ov avTw icTTlv ovBe eyeL, to
€d TOV eireLTa ypovov TavTa elvaL avTM aw^opeva Kal < del >
E irapovTa; Ylavv ye, (pdvac. Kal o5to? dpa Kal dXXo<; vra? o eVi-
dvpdiv TOV p^ eTolpov iiTLOopeL Kal TOV prj irapovTO'^, Kal o pr] eyeL

200 C Kal 7r\ovTeiv B : TrXovTflv T D ^ •

^'XV^ ® o/noXoyoTy b ;

o/ioXoyoi’ Steph. OVKOVV drj pr. T rb...Trap6vTa secl. Bdhm. Sz. TO T :

rd B TO TOV
: Usener cj. tovto: toioCto Liebhold (rw^opevo secl. Liebhold
Ka'i TW, Bt. poi B: rd vvv Vindob. 21 rd pi) Sauppe: pr^ Rettig: ol Voeg.:
:

TjToi cj. Usener: del Schirlitz: ko'l del scrips! poi iropovTo secl. Herm. J.-U.
Hug E d aWos T

200 0 povXo|iai....Kal 6in6v|j.u. The point here emphasized is that jBovXija-is

and fTTiOvpio, when their sense is investigated, are found to apply only to the
future (eiy rdv eTretra xpovov\ not to the present (eV T(p TTopovTi). For investi-
gation shows that “ I wish for what I have ” is really an abbreviated phrase
”
for “ I wish to continue having in the future what I now at present have
{^ovXopoL TO vvv nopovTo TTopelvai). For the force of l3ovXr](Tis, cp. Isocr. Hel.
219 a rciiv p€v yap aXXa>v, cov tiv iv yevwpeda, Tvxelv povov ^ovXopeda...
Ttbv Se KoXibv e pens i)piv iyyiyveToi, ToaovTon pei^on tov ^ovX((rdai pa>pr]v exenv,
oaconep ko'i to icTTLV (with which cp. also 205 D infra).
npaypa KpeiTTOv
200 D aXXo Tl o^oXo'yot av For the interrogative dXXo n, dXXo n ij, see
;

Meno 82 C (with Thompson’s note) Prot. 353 c (with Adam’s note). ;

Ovkovv tovto y €o-tIv ktX. The main construction is rightly explained by

StaUb. “ rd els tov 'iveiTo xp- i^tX. relative pronomini per epexegesin ad-
:

duntur, nec assentior Riickerto interpun ctionem post avTa icrriv inferenti”:
rd is in the nominative, where we should rather expect rod in apposition to
eKeivov, owing to assimilation to d. For the reading of the last words in the
sentence, see cHt. n. Rettig reads pr) irapovTo “in hypothetisch-causalem
Sinne.” More attractive is UseneFs excision of the words poi rrapovTo,
adopted by Hug. The objection to koI, printed by Burnet, is that it fails to
supply an explanation of B’s pot hence I prefer to read ko'i del, supposing
:

that an abbreviated koI blending with del might account for both variants.
200 E Kal ovTos ktX. ovtos represents the typical tis and dvdpimros of
200 c ;
and dXXos nds serves to generalise, cp. 192 B.
 ; :;

201 b] lYMnOZION 93

Kal o fJL^ eartv avro<; koI ov ivBeij'i icrri, roiavr arra iarlv wv
^ iTTiOv/XLa T€ Kal 6 epco<; eariv ; Tldvv y, eoTreiv. ''10t 8i], <j)dvat
Tov ^coKpdr?}, dvopLoX.oyrjO'wpbeOa rd elpr)p,iva. dWo Ti eanv o
’'Epco^ TTpwTov p,ev Ttv&v, eirecra tovtcov wv av evSeia Trapfj avrw
Nat, (f)di’ai. ’Etti Srj TOVTOt<i dvapbvpaOpTL tlv(ov €cf)7}(Tda iv rw 201
\6ycp elvai tov ''Epcora’ el 8e ^ov\ei, iyco ere dvapVTjcrco. olp,aL

ydp ere ovrcocrl 7r<u? elireiv, on rot? deol<; KareerKevdadr] rd Trpdy-

liara Si epeora KaXcov ala'y^pcov ydp ovk e'ir) epax;. ovreoai
7r&)? eXeye<; ; TSIttov ydp, (f}dvai tov 'Ayddwva. Kat e7rieiKd)<; y
eXeye'^, (o eTaipe, ^dvai tov ’ZeoKpaTt]' Kal el tovto out«9
dXXo Ti 0 ’'EyOta? KaXXovf dv etr] epta?, atcr^of? S’ ov ; ^£lpioX6yeL.
OvKovv Q)p,oX6yr]TaL, ov iv8ep<; ecTTi Kal pit) e;j^;et, tovtov ipdv ; Nat, B
elrrelv. ’Ez^Se^? dp' ecrrl Kal ovk e^et o ’'Epto? KdXXo^. 'AvdyKt),
(pdvai. Tt Se ; to e’vSee? KdXXovi Kal pirjSapifj KeKTT]p,evov KdXXo<;
dpa Xeyev; av KaXov eivai ; Ov SrjTa. ’'Ert ovv 6pioXoyeL<; ’'Epwra
KaXov elvai, el TavTa ovtco^ '
AydOcova elwelv Ktv-
SvvevQ}, CO 'S.coKpaTe'i, ovSev elSevat wv TOTe eiTTOV. Kat p,^v KaXwt
200 E re /cat BT Kal W
dvofjLoXoyrja’oiJ.eda
: W av ci/Seta kt\. (usque
ad 213 E ort) esstat in Oxyr. Pap. 843 Traprjv O.-P. 201 A di tpeoros
O.-P. dt (pwra O.-P. corr.
: eptos BT O.-P.: 6 epas W y e\ey€s scripsi
•yf XiycLs libri, edd.: ye X£y6[t]s' O.-P. aXXo Tt O.-P. T] corr., Ven. 184 Vind 21
B e;(et W : BT Too[r]ou O.-P. COrr. : TOV O.-P. 0) ^coKpares Ktvbv-
vevo} O.-P.

?v8€ia irap^. This sounds like a jocular contradiction in terms ; in Eros

there is a plentiful lack.
201 A ^ '*’$ \6y<a. See 197 b : cp. Isocr. ITel. 219 a Ta>v Se koX&v
epcDS rjpiv eyylyverai.
eTTieiKtSs y ^eyes. For iwieLKas, probe, recte, cp. Rep. 431 E, Laws 635 A.
I have ventured to read eXeyer for the traditional Xe'yeif. In the present
context Xeyetr seems objectionable because of its ambiguity, since “You say
weU” would more naturally be taken to refer to A.’s reply {elrrov ydp) than
to his previous statement. This objection is not touched by Rettig’s defence
of the tense “ auch das Prasens ist ganz an seinem Platze.
: Da Agathon
bestatigt, dass er sich so geaussert babe, wie Sokrates angebe, so gilt seine
obige Aeusserung auch jetzt.”
201 B ov...Kal |ii^ “Sic dictum est ut S apud ex^i repetendum est”
(StaUb.).
TO evSeb KdXXovs. With reference to this Proclus {in Tim. p. 128) com-
ments : eVSeey KaXXovs ev crupirotrico TTpoaeine to prj Trparcos koXov aXXa perixov

KoXXovs: cp. ib. p. 110. For the tautologous form of expression, cp. 185 a n.
Eur. Lon 680 avrp S’ dnais p Kal Xe^eippdvTj reKvwv id. Heracl. 530, etc.
:

(see Vahlen op. Acad. ii. 366).

Kiv8w6vw...elirov. elbevai, is past, not present, in sense.
Kal |iiiv...€lir€s. Not “recte dixisti” (Ficinus), but “praeclare dixisti”
 T :

94 .
nAATQNOI [201 c

C je elTre<;, <j)avat, S 'Ayddcov. dWa arficKpov ert elire' rd'yaOd ov

Kal KcCkd BoKel aoL etvac; ’’Eifioiye. Et dpa 6 ''Ep(o<; tmv Ka\<av
ivherj^ can, rd Be dyadd Ka\d, Kav rcov dyadwv evBer]<; etrj. '^yd>,
(f)nvai, CO "^coKpares, col ovk dv Bvvalp,r]u dvnXeyeiv, dW' ovtco<;

e’^ertB o)? av \ey€i<;. Ov fiev ovv rfj dXrjdeia, ^dvai, t» <f)iXovpceve

'Ayddcov, Bvvaaat dvnXeyeiv, eVe't ^coKpdrei ye ovBev '^aXcTrov.

D XXII. Kat ere p,ev rov Be Xoyov rov Trepl rod
ye ^Brj e’eterw

”Ey3 a>T 09 ov iror ,

^Kovaa yvvaiKot; AlavnviKrj'; AiOTip,a<;, rj ravra
re ao<p^ rjv Kal dXXa TroXXd, Kal A6r}vaioi<; ttotc 9vaap,evoi<i "TTpo
'

rov XoLpLOV BeKa err] dvafioX^v erroL'qae rr;? voaov, ^ B^ Kal i/ne rd

201 C fiTras O.-P. Vat. 227 (^iXov^eve: O.-P. (ov) dvvaaai

Sauppe D ]t.avTLViKrjS BT O.-P.: fiavriKpis W vulg. V-

Awrivas O.-P.
njs
ijv : fivai O.-P.^ dvcrafiivij Steph. SeK£r?j BdhlQ. Sz. [fjTTOtJyo'aro

voaov O.-P.

(Wolf). What Socr. alludes to is not A.’s foregoing reply, but his oration
(cp. 199 c); and the point of his remark is to suggest that formal
198 b,
beauty of diction does not necessarily involve the more essential beauty
of aXrjdcia.
201 C For the coincidence of these two concepts, cp.
TO. 81 d-ya0d KaXd.
Prot. 360 B, Hipp. Maj. 297 B, Phileh. 64 E ff. It might be near the truth
C,

to say that rd koXov is neither less nor more than rd ayaObv in its external
aspect, “goodness” as apprehended by the aesthetic faculty, or goodness qua
attractive and soul-stirring. See also Plotin. de pulcr. p. 46 Prod, in I A Ic. ;

p. 329.
’E 7 M...<ro\....o-u. The personal pronouns are, by position and repetition,
emphatic. Agathon means to imply that he yields not so much to the force
of argument as to the wordplay of Socrates’ invincible dialectic cp. 216 b :

infra : Xen. Symp. v. 8.

201 D Kal <rb..€do-«. “You I will now release”: this is said with
reference to the phrase used in 199 b €ti... rapes poi 'Ayddoova xrX.
MavTiviKris AioT(|ias. Probably both these names are meant to be ety-
mologically significant : the resemblance of the adj. to pavTCKrj
is patent (in

fact some mss. give pavTiKrjs,and Ficin. /a^ic^fca muliere), while as illustrating
the omen of Aioripa one might cite Soph. fr. 226 N. aoejibs yap ovSeis nXfiv ov
dv Tipq Oeos. See further Introd. § iv. c. Hug quotes an imitative passage
from Dio. Chrys. I. p. 59 R. pv6ov ...dv eyi>nore rjKovaa yvvaiKOS HXelas rj

'ApKadias virep 'HpaKXeovs dirjyovpevTjs. See also Max. Tyr. diss. XXIV. 4,
p. 588 ;
Clem. Al. Strom, vi. p. 631 B.

irpd Tov For the Great Plague at Athens in 430 b.c. see
Xoifiou ktX.
Thuc. II. 47, Bury H. G. p. 407. That the league had been rife elsewhere for
some time previously is implied by Thuc. 1. c. For similar instances of the
averting or postponing of impending evils by divine or prophetic agency,
see Hdt. I. 91 rpLa yap erea eiraveSoXero {sc. 6 Ao^irjs) rrjv SapSiojv aXocriv
 a
;

201 e] lYMnOZION 95

ipcoTLKa iSbSa^ev, — ov ovv iKeCvr} eXeye Xoyov, irecpdao/xai vpfiv

hueXOelv sk twv wp,oXoy7]p,eva>v ip,ol koX 'Ayddcovi, auro? eV’ ip,av-

rov, oTTCd? dv SvvcopLai, Sel Sij, co 'Ayddwv, wairep (tv SiTjyija-co,

SieXdeiv avTov irpwTov, rl'i iarcv 6 ’^Epo)? Kal 7roi 09 t4?, erreiTa rd E
epya avTov. BokcI ovv p.ot paarov elvac ovtoj SteXOetv, (w? Trore pbs

7j ^evT] dvaKpivovaa Bipet,. a")(^eBov ydp tl koX iyoo 7rpd<i avr^v

€T€pa TocavTa eXeyov oldirep vvv Trpo^ ip.€ ' Ay dOav, eo? etrj o “Epta?
p,eya<; ^eo?, ecr] Be rdov kclXmv' ijXeyy^e Bi] p,e rovroc^ rot? Xoyot^

j
olaTrep eyw tovtov, o)? ovre KaXof e'irj Kara rov ep,6v Xoyov ovre
dya06<;. Kal eyco, IIo5? Xeyei^, e(f)r}v, oo AiOTLp,a; alay^pb'i dpa
201 D Xoyov fKfLvrj eXeyiv O.-P. itr’ Coisl. corr. Paris 1642 O.-P., Bast;
ott’ BTW Set 5)7 TW O.-P. : beCXt) B dirjybao) BT O.-P. : 8fi ^yr)(Ta Sz.
Bt. ; Kadrjyrjcra) Hirschig : vcjirjyrio'co Sauppe : bijip-qa’oi Usener : riy^aco olim
Herm. E tto'los : OTTOios O.-P. ttot’ epi vulg. ydp : Se O.-P. 6<f)>]v
s
Xeyeis O.-P. ai(TXpo[v] O.-P.

Athen. xiii. 602 b Euseb. praep. evang. v. 35, p. 233^, C ep. Virg. Aen.
: :

Tii. 313 fF., Till. 398 ff. (where “ decern annos ” is the interval named). A
specially interesting parallel, as mentioning the same 10 years’ interval, is
Laws 642 D ok^koos i)S ’EiTipfviSrjs yiyovev dvfjp 6flos...iX6div 6e rrpo tS>v
U epaiKav SeKa eTfO'i Trporepov nap' vpds...6v(Tias re cdvcraTO Tivas...Ka\ 8rj Kal
(j)o^ovpeva)v rov XlepcrDcoj/ 'XBr^valccv (ttoXov einsv on ddKa piv irav ovx
Tj^ovaiv ktX.
ovTos eir €p.a\)To5. Eiickert alone retains the lection dn' ipavrov. Cp.
I Ale. 114 b ei piv ^ovXei, epcorSiv pe, eSarrep eyd> ere, et 6e (cat avros eVt traurou
Xdyo) Ste'^eXde : Soph. 217 C.

wtnrep think the traditional text, supported also by the

tru Sitiyiio-a). I
Papyrus, may dirjyria-co to imply
stand, taking with veiled contempt — —
lengthy or meticulous disquisition. Schanz’s S?) rjyrjao} is open to a double
objection, (1) the repeated St) is unpleasing, and (2) rjyrja-a} is a feeble word to
apply to Agathon’s dogmatic exposition (in 195 a) of the rules of method.
Sauppe’s v(f)r]yTi(ra> is appropriate enough (cp. Gorg. 455 D, Crat. 392 d), but
does not explain the corruption.
201 E SiiXfleiv avTov ktX. Here Socrates cites almost verbatim the
language used by Agathon in 195 a Xdyffl SteXdetr Sderetr. Observe however . . .

the significant addition by Socr. of the words ns iarw : he requires a state-

ment of the essential notion {tLs ian) as well as of the attributes (nolos ns).
etr) 8^ Tcav KaXiSv. The genitive is not masc. nor one of origin (=€/c rav
KaX&v) as Wolf thought, but as Stallb. rightly notes “ koX&v pendet ex ''Epas,
quod etiam hie positum est ut p. 196 D” ; cp. 201 A, 204 D, for similar genn.
of the object.
alo-xpds apa ktX. Socrates represents himself (ironically) as unversed in
the rules of logic, and habitually confusing contradictory with contrary
notions {ov-koXos with alcrxpds) for the distinction, cp. Soph. 257 B, 257 D
: fif.

Euthyd. 283 B, 285 A ff., Cratyl. 429 B IF.

 ; :;

96 nAATQNOI [201 E

o ''Eipa><; earl kuI KaK6<; ; Kal rj, Ovk ev(f>T}/j,rja€i<; ; ecpy rj oiet, o rt

202 av /j,^ KoXbv fj,

dvajKatov avro elvac ala^^^pov MaXto-ra ye. ’H
Kal dv pr) cro(f)6v, dpa6e<; ; fj ovk paOrjaat, otl eari rt pera^v
Kal dpaOia'i ; Tt tovto ; To 6p9d Bo^d^eiv [/cai.] avev rov
cro<p[a<;

\6yov Bovvai ovk 6lad\ e(f)rj, otl ovre eiriaTaadaL eartv

e')(eiv

dXoyov yap irpaypa ttcS? dv eir} eiriaTppT] ; ovre dpaOia' to yap

Tov ovTO<; Tvy')(^dvov Trco? dv elr) apaOLa ; eari Be Bp ttov tolovtov
p opdp Bo^a, pera^v (ppovpaeox; Kal dpadia^;. 'A\p6p, pv B' eyd,
B Aeyet?. roivvv dvayKal^e o pp KaXov eariv ala'^pbv elvat,
ppBe b pp dyaOov, KaKov. ovrco Be Kal rov '’Eipcora eTreiBp aoro?
opo\oyei<; pp elvat. dyaObv ppBe koXov, ppBev rt, pdWov otov Belv
avrbv ala'xp'ov Kal KaKov elvai, dWd rt, pera^v, e(f)p, rovroiv.
Kat ppv, pv B' eycb, opoXoyelrai ye rrapd rrdvrcov peya<^ 0eo9 elvat.

Toil/ pp elBorcov, e^p, rrdvrtov Xeyet^, p Kal rwv elBoroov ; Svp-

irdvroiv pev ovv. Kal p yeXatracra, Kat ttco? dv, e(f)p, a> %u)Kpare'i,

201 E b ' O.-PA 202 A ai^ (post (cal): (6) ai/ Ast Mdvg. Sz.
o TL av Steph. Hirschig : on av, delete koI, Eeynders ; av owio Hommel rb
bp6a Bo^a^eiv T O.-P. ; to ra opda d. W: to opdoSo^a^eiv B ku'l om. O.-P.,
del. Stallb. Bdhra. Sz. towvto O.-P.: towvtov tl Hirschig ij 6p6^ 56^a del.
Bdhm. B tovtoiv €(j)rj O.-P. ye BT O.-P. :
pot W
202 A Kal av iiT] KrX. “H. e. av tl pr/ aotpov. Nara rt e superiore o rt
facile intelligas” (Stallb.).
To 6p0d So|d^£iv kt\. This distinction between 8d^a and eTrtcrrrjprj is much
insisted on by Plato see esp. Rep. 477 ff. Meno 99 a cp. Isocr. Hel. 209 a.
; ;
:

For rd e'xetv Xdyov dobvac as the distinctive mark of eTrtcmj/iiJj, cp. Meno 98 A
but this definition is criticised unfavourably in Theaet. 201 c ff. (see Zeller,
Plato, pp. 171 bracket ko! before avev\ if retained, we must render
fif.). I
with Ruckert (and Hug) auch ohne Rechenschaft geben zu konnen.” For
this “intensive” use of Kal, see Thompson on Meno 71 b. Rettig defends the
Bodleian dpdoSo^dfetv thus “ 6p6a So^dCeiv ginge auf Einzelnes und Thatsach-
liches, nichtauf den Begriflf als solchen und die geistige Eigenschaft ” but :

this distinction is imaginary, and there is no other evidence, in Plato or

elsewhere, for the existence of this compound, Aristotle’s word {E. N. vii.
8. 4) being 6p6o8o^eco. Possibly we should write koI (dWa) a., cp. Rep. 413 a.
|j.€Ta|{) <})povrcrcws KrX. Cp. Rep. 477 A peva^v Ti...dyvolas rt Ka'i eTriarTtjprjs:
ib.478 D.
202 B Mi^ Tofvvv dvdyKate. “ I. q. pr) dvayKaiov vopi^e, v. Heindorf ad
Euthyd. (sic) p. 432 c” (Stallb.). For this use to denote logical compulsion, cp.
also Cratyl. 432 E pr) dvdyKa{e TzavT e\eiv rd ypdppaTa...dXK’ ea KrX.: Parmen.
133 c.

Twv pi] clSoTwv. Sc. Trapa : cp. Gvat. 408 D, Soph. 243 0, etc. A similar
distinction had been drawn twice by Socr. himself, see 194 B ff., 199 a.
 ; ; ; ”
:

202 b] ZYMnOIlON 97

ofioXoyoiTo fieya'i ^eo? eivai irapa tovtcov, ol (f)aaiv avTOv ovSe C

deov elrat TtVe? ovTot ; rjv S’ iyco. Ei? fjuev, ecjir], cry, fjbLa S’ iyo).

Kayw eLirov, ITw? tovto, e(f)r)v, 'Keyet'i ; Kai 'PaStci)?, e^rj. \iye
yap fioi, ov irdvra'^ 9eov<; 0^? evBabfiova<; elvai koX Ka\ov<; ; rj

To\p,i]crac<: dv riva fir) (frdvai- koXov re Kal evSai/iova 6eS>v elvai;

j\la Ai’ ovK eycoy, eifrrjv. EySat/coya? Se Sr) Xeyea ov roy? rdyaQd
Kal rd KaXd K€KT'r]fievov<; ; TJdvv ye. ’AWd fi^v ''Kpwrd ye d>fLO-
\6yr)Ka<; Si evSeiav twv dyadwv Kal KoXorv eiriQvfie'iv avT&v
TovTcov dv ivSei)'; eariv. 'D,fio\6yr]Ka ydp. Ilaj? 8dv ovv ^eo?
e’lr) o ye rcov KdXwv Kal dyadoiv dp.oipo<; ; OvSafid)<;, w? y eoiKev.
'Opa? ovv, ecjrr), on Kal cry ’'Epwro. ov Oeov vofii^ei'i
XXIII. Tl ovv dv, ecjrrjv, e’lrj o ’'Epw?; dv7)j6‘; "^H/ctcrra ye.

202 C ecjrrjv om. O.-P. Kai KaXoiiy secl. Bdhm. Sz. koXov re Kai seel.
Bdhm. Sz. deS>v BT O.-P. : deov pr. W tovs rdyada BT Stob. O.-P.:
Tovs dyadovs W rd KoXd B O.-P., J.-U. : KaXa TW Stob., Sz. Bt. D t5>v
KoXav Kai dyadwv Stob.
t5>v ivws 8d.v scrips! : TTws dv B Stob. O.-P., J.-U.
TTWS S’ dv TW, Bt. Twv TW Stob. O.-P. :
y' d>v B w<tt eoiKev Stob.
TL ovv; eLprjv etr] dv 6 "Epcos dvrjTos; cj. Steph. 6 i’pws firi Stob. elfrrjv B
stob., J.-U. Sz. Bt.: eejir, TW O.-P., Jn.
202 0 Ka-yw €lirov...?<Jjtiv. We might avoid this tautology (for which cp.
177 a) by reading Koyw, Ein-or ttws kt\., construing elrrov as 1st aor. imper.,
as in Meno 71 D. Cp. Rep. 338 D dXXa aaLfrearepov elne TL \eyeLS.

'Pa8£(os. Sc. TOVTO Xe'ycd. Xc'yo) and the like,

For the use of paSims with
often with a bad meaning, of ill-timed lightness, cp. 3Ieno 94 e (with
Thompson’s note), Rep. 377 b, 378 a. Here, however, the meaning is probably
paSidv eoTLv d Xe'yeo (so Eettig), or as Stallb. “ sic ut res facilem habet expli-
cationem”: cp. Rep. 475 E dXXa ndis avTO Xdycir ; Ovdapws, i)v s’ e’ycl), paSico?
rrpos ye aXXoi/ ’
ere would also be possible to suppose that
Se olpaL ktX. It
Diotima is, form rather than the sense of
playfully, adapting her reply to the
Socr.’s question “ In what way do you speak thus 1 ” “I speak it lightly
:

(without compunction): i.e. the Xeyto to be supplied with pLidlws may mean
“ I say, utter the word,” whereas the Xe'yetr of Socr. meant “ do you mean.”

euSa^fjLovas elvai ktX. Badham’s excision of both ko'l koXovs and koXov
re KOL is plausible if the words are sound, we must assume the stress in each
:

clause to be laid on the terms here in question, evdaipovas. .evdaipova. .

£u 8 al|iovas 8 ^ 81^ ktX. Cp. the phrases used by Agathon in 195 a.

202 D 'fiiioXcyT^Ka -yap. Socr. represents himself as having already con-
ceded to Diotima exactly as much as Agathon had conceded to him (cp.
201 E o-x^ddv ydp tl kt\.) for A.’s concession of the point here in question,
:

see 200 a, e.
apoipos. This word had already been employed by Agathon, 197 d (cp.
181 c) it is a poetical word rarely used by Plato elsewhere, except in Laws
;

(693 E, etc.).

B. P. 7
 :

98 nAATQNOI [202 D
AWa tI ; "Harrep ra 'irporepa e^rjv, piera^v dvrjrov Kal
aOavaTov. Tt ovv, co AcoTLp,a; AaLpcav p,eya<;, c6 IStw/cpare?* ical

E yap irav to 8aip,6viov pueTa^v eari 6eov re /cat Ovtjtov. Tiva, rjv

B' ijco, BvvapbLV exov ; ’Epp,r)vevov Kal Bia7rop6p,evov Oeoi'i ra 'rap'

avOpwTTcav Kal av6pa>iTOL<i ra irapa 9ewv, twv p,ev Ta<i Ber^crei'; Kal
0vaLa<;, twv Be ra? eTTcra^et? re Kal ap,oi/3a'i {twv dvaimv], ev peacp
Be ov dpL(f)orepcov (rvpbTrXrjpoc, ware to Trdv avTO avTM ^vvBeBeadao.
202 E T€ Kol BT O.-P. I Kol Stob. rlva S* i^v Stob. btaTt po0~
[j,(vov O.-P. deals T€ ra Stob.om. Pollux, seel. Sz.
tS>v BvaiSiv
(to) ev
peaea biov Vermehren ep petron O.-P.: ippecrep Lobeck be bv. brj bv Peipers
obevov cj. anon. bv (to) Bergk (ra oXa) avpTr'Krjpol Reynders: (dpepore-
povs) or. Bdhm. TO Trav werre avTO Orelli auro Om. Stob.

"flo-Trep Tcl irpoTipci. Viz. the exx. of a mean between extremes given in
202 A, B.
AaCptov pt'yas. The epithet serves to point the correction of Socrates’
definition, peyas 6e6s (202 b). Cp. Olympiod. in Alcib.
I. p. 22 “balpova” be

os pecrov avTov TTpoirayopevei- peaos yap eariv 6 Epos ovatas (cat ivepyeias Ka\
epcopivov Ka\ ipaaTov' “peyav” be, eTreibrj vTrep aladrjO'Lv koi voepms evepyei.
Prod, in Alcib. I. p. 64 Or., p. 66. For ro baipoviov as pera^v, cp. Eur. Troad.
—
55 6 iled. 1391: Hel. 1137 o tl debs rj pp debs p rb peaov ktX. (see Rohde,
:

Psyche ii. 249 n. 1).

202 E 'Epprivivov kt\. For the term epptjveiieiv to describe the mediating
Epin. 985 B epprjvevecrdai (balpovas) rrpbs dWrjXovs re koi
office of baipoves, cp.
TOvs,..deovs wdvTas re koI rravra. Hommel bids US take epprjvevov with dvdp.
ra irapa deav (as “eiusdem atque 'Epp^s radicis”) and btairopdpevov with deals
ra Trap’ dvdpinratv (the office of the jropdpevs, Charon, being “ animas e terra
ad sedes deorum transvehere ”). This is probably right but in any case it is ;

a mistake to regard the two words as synonymous, as do L. and S. (s. v.

biaTTopdpevcd, '''to translate from one tongue into another, to interpret”).
apoipds [twv 0wiwv]. dpoi^rj as a “return-present” (in transactions
between gods and men) is used in Horn. Od. i. 318 aol b’ d^iov ecrrai dpoi^rjs

(sc. rb brbpov) '.

ib. III. 58 dWoiai bibov x’^pleacrav dpoi^r^v ...dyaKXeirrjS eKa-
rop^rjs: cp. Eur. Or. 467 ois...d7reb(0K’ dpoifias ov KaXds. Pollux (VI. 187)
when quoting our passage ignores rwv dvaiSiv. Cp. also Prod, in Alcib. I.

p. 46, 63: Plut. de Is. et Os. 26, p. 361 B o re nXdrcov epprjvevriKbv rb toiovtov
dvopd^ei yevos Kal biaKOViKbv iv pecrco demv Kal dvdpmirwv, ev)(as pev eKel Kal
dyadmv (pepovras
ber]<Teis...dvairepTrovTas, eKeidev be pavrela bevpo Kal bocreis '.

Apuleius de deo Socr. 6 hos Graeci nomine balpovas nuncupant, inter homines
caelicolasque vectores hinc precum inde doiiorum, qui ultro citro portant hinc
petitiones inde suppetias, ceu quidam utrisque interpretes et salutigeri. per
hos eosdem, ut Plato in symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata et magorum
varia niiracula omnesque praesagiorum species reguntur see also Plut. de or. :

def. 415 aPhilo Jud. de somn, p. 586 D {baipoves) ras rov Trarpbs eTriKeXevrreis
;

rols eKyovoLS, Kal ras rSnv eKyovav xpelas ra irarpl biayyeWovai.

Iv peVo) 81 bv. This calls for no alteration (such as is suggested by
203 A] lYMnOIlON 99

Sia TovTOv Kal jjLavTiKr] Traaa ')(a)pel Kal r) rcSv lepeojv Te^i/Tj rwv
T6 Trepl ra? dvcrla'i Kal ra? reAera? Kal ra? eVtoSw? Kal t7]v 203
p.a'yyaveiav iraaav Kal yorjreLav. ^eo? Se avOpooTTW ov p.iyvvTai,'^
aXAa Sid tovtov irdad eariv rj ofiiXia Kal -q SidXeKTO'i $eoi'i TTpoi;
dvdpco7rov<; < Kal Trpo? 6eov<; dvdpa3'rroi<; >, Kal ijpqyopoai Kal

202 E Upatv Stob. 203 A ray reXeray B Stob. O.-P., J.-U. : reXeray
TW, Bt. Kai Tas fTTa8as..,'yoi]TeLav secl. Hug Kai rrjv . . .yorjTelav secl. Voeg.
payyavflav Geel J.-U. Sz. :
p-avnlav BT Stob. O.-P.: payeLav Bdhni. Bt.
avdpcaTTOvs (kox irpos deovy dvdpdnrois) XVolf Usener Sz. : d. (koI dvdpwjrois irpos
6eovs} Heiisde : dvdpdnrois Stobaei P eyX?;yopoa'[o']t O.-P.

X ermehren) : with o-vpirXrjpol sc. dpcfyorepovs. The picrov serves as the deapos
by which the extremes (here dvrjToi and ddavaroi) are united into an organic
whole (oXor). Cp. Prod, in Ale. I. pp. 69, 72, 77.
203 A
rds TcXcrds. “Ritual”: cp. Rep. 365 a Xvtrety re Kal Kadappol ddiKTj-
pdTav...ds 8 reXerdy KoXovenv
t] Phaedr. 244 E (with Thompson’s note) Laws
: :

738 C Ovaias TeXerais avppiKTOvs. That Kadappol (and reXerat) included Treptdeio)-
o-eiy, Xovrpd, Trepippavaeis appears from Cratyl. 405 A. Rohde {Psyche ii. 70 n. 3)
points out that “diese pdrrety entsprechen in allem XYesentlichen den Zaubern
und Medicinmannern der Naturvolker. XVahrsager, Arzt, Zauberer, sind hier
noch eine Person.” E.g. Apis in Aesch. Suppl. 260 ff. cp. Eur. Heracl. 401, ;

Phoen. 1255 ff., and the part played by Empedocles. In Hippocr. de morb.
sacr. p. 591 the pavreis and Kadapral are witch-doctors, claiming control of
the elements, as rain-makers, etc. {Kadappovs TrpoacfjepovTcs koX eVaoiSay...
77fpiKadalpa>v Kal payfva>v...Te Kal dv<ov creXrjVTjv re Kadaipljafi Kal rjXiov dfpaviei
Kal ^€ip5>va Kal eiblrjv noiijaei ktX.) : cp. 197 C n.
n^v paYyciveCav irdo-av. Geel’s correction payyavelav is perhaps slightly
preferable, on the ground of Platonic usage, to Badham’s payPiav. Cp.
Laws 908 D e’|- u>v pdvreis re KaracTKevd^ovTai rroXXol Kal Trepl irdaav rrjv

payyavelav KCKivijpevoi : id. 933 A dXXr) fie {(pappaKela) f/ payyavelais re' Tiai Kal
eVopfiaiy Kal Karafietrecrt Xeyopevais ireldei ktX. (cp. 933 c) : Gorg. 484 A rd
Tjperepa ypdppara Kal payyavevpara Kal eVfflSdy : also [Dem.] XXV. 79 Xa^av rd
(ftdppaKa Kal Tas eVi»fiay...payyareue£ Kal (pevaKL^ei. Hug objects to yorjTelav,
as elsewhere used by Plato in a bad
however, no need to sense. There is,

suppose that any of these terms are intended here to convey more than a
neutral sense ;
and to represent MavriviKr] as a disbeliever in any of the
rj

arts of divination or wizardry would be less artistic than pedantic. Moreover,

the language used here is supported by the echo it finds in the description of
Eros below (203 D ad Jin.) as beivds ydrjs Kal (pappaKeiis Kal aocjiLaTrjs. Rep.
364 B, c shows Plato’s own low opinion of current pavriKrj, but Socrates was
probably more credulous, see Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, 4. 15.
Since the participles can neither be construed
0£ols irpds dvGpw-n-ovs ktX.
with because of the sense, nor with dvdparrovs, because of the case, it is
deois,
necessary to supply some such supplement as that adopted in the text.
Rettig accepts Stallbaum’s explanation of the traditional text “ Quum enim :

7—2
 ; !;

100 nAATQNOI [203 A

KadevZovcTL' Kal 6 fiev irepl to, rocavra (ro<f)o<; 8 ai/j, 6 vio<; dvTjp, 6 Be
dWo Ti ao(f) 6 <; wv 'q irepl re^z/a? q Trepl ')(^eipovpyLa<; Ttvd<; ^dvavcro<;.

ovToi Bq oi Baipove<; ttoWol re Kal TravroBa'iroL elaiv, el? Be tovtwv

earl Kal 6 “Epto?.
Tlarpo? Be, 7)v B' eyco, rtVo? earl Kal p,qTp6<; ; ^laKporepov puev,

B e(j>q, Btqyqa-aadai' ore yap eyevero q 'K^poBLrq,

op,(o<; Be aot epw.
elarLWVTO oi 9eol, ot re aXXoi Kal 6 Mz^TiSo? vl6<i Ilopo?.
eTreiBrj Be eBelirvqcrav, ’irpoaaLrqa-ovaa olov Bq eveo^la^ ovaq<;
d(f)LKeTO q riewa, Kal qv Trepl ra? Ovpa'i. 6 ovv ITopo? pedva6el<;
<r

203 A (ro(p6s : o<pos O.-P. : (T(po8pos Stob. av om. Stob. nepl

/3

)(eipovpylas Stob. O.-P.: ^fipovpy'ias BTW, J.-U. Bt. avavcrovs O.-P. ttoXXoi
re Stob. O.-P.: TToXXot BTW tovtcov O.-P. eoTi om. Stob. TLVOS
e’crri Ka'i prjTpos BW : Kai prjTpos tIvos eaTL O.-P. (eariv) B elariavTO
XV b t, Hercaog., Sz. : 'iaTKOvro O.-P. : r)aTia>vTO T, Bt. : rjaTLavro B 01 re

aXXot Ofoi Kal Hermog. tt poaaiT^a-ovcra T O.-P.: TrpoaaiTrjs oSaa B: TrpocraiTis

ova-a Euseb. Origen

dicatur opiXeiv tlvl et SiaXe'yeo'dai Tivi, etiam opiXla Kal StdXeKrof Tivi recte dici
potuit. Et quum antea. .perspicuitatis caussa usus esset praepositione Trpos
.

addito casu accusativo, nunc ad legitimam constructionem revertens, neglecta

grammatica diligentia, dativum post accusativum recte inferri potuit.” But
at this rate one might justify anything in the way of distorted grammar
Hug marks a lacuna after dvdpanrovs. For the ref. to divine communications
in sleep (“the visions of the head upon the bed”), cp. Pind. fr. 131. 3 ff.
Rep. 571 D (with Adam’s notes)
flf. Rohde, Psyche i. 6 fif.

Saipovios dvqp. Compare the etymological definition {8aipa>v = da^pcov) in

Cratyl. 398 c. For Socrates as an example of the baipovios dv^p, see 219 b.
ircpl Texvas...pdvav(ros. Cp. Theaet. 176 C, Laws 644 A Arist. Rhet. i. 9. ;

1367^ 31 {iXfvdepov appuov) to prjdeplav epyd(ea-6ai ^dvavaov Te)(vr]v. The

question as to why manual labour is held in contempt is asked in Rep. 590 C,
and answered in Rep. 495 D (see Adam’s notes ad loc.).
ol SaCpoves. passages mentioning these intermediary
Other Platonic
beings are Rep. 392 A, 427 617 D (with Adam’s note), Laws 713 D, 717 b.
B,

For later developments see esp. Plutarch {de defect, orac., de Is. et Os., de
daeni. Socr., etc.). Cp. Rohde, Psyche i. 153.
IlaTpos 8€...t£vos kt\. These are genitives of origin. Here we have it
tacitly assumed that Phaedrus’s statement (178 b), that Eros is unbegotten,
is untrue.
203 B IIopos. We find in Aleman fr. 16 (with the Schol. oti tov ndpov
eiprjKetov aiiTov tco vtto tov 'HcridSou pepvdevpivco Xdec) a precedent for this
personification of ndpov. Ilevla is personified by Aristophanes in the Plutus,
passim. For M^ny, see Hes. Theog. 886 Zevy Sedewv jSaa-iXfvs irpdiTtjv aXo^ov
de'ro M^rtv, [
TrXelcrra dediv rc Idviav I8e ^vrjTcov dvOpainov {prjTts is, in Epic,
:

the especial attribute of Zeus, as pj^nero) : M^rty was also an Orphic alias of
 —

208 c] lYMnOSION 101

Tov vexTapo^ — otvo? yap ovttq) pv — et? tov tov Aio? Krjirov elcreXdcbv
/3ej3apr]pivo<; rjvSev.p ovv Tlevia eTri/SovXevovcra Sid rtjv avrr]^
diropiav iraiSLov ’iroipcraaOai ex tov Yiopov, xaraxXiverai re Trap'
avTM xal ixvTjae tov ’’Epwra. Sid Sr) xal tt}? 'A(f)poSiTr]<; dxo- C
\ov6o<i xal depaTTCDv yeyovev 6 “Epo)?, yevvrjOel'i iv toi<; exeivrj<i

^ yeveOXioii;, xal dp,a <f)V(r€i epao-rp? wv irepl to xaXdv xal t?}? 'A(ppo-

StT^? xaXr)<; ov(Tr)<i. are ovv Yiopov xal i/io? cbv o ”Ep &)9 iv
ToiavTT) Tv^p xadearpxe. TrpooTOv p,ev 7revp<: dei iari, xal ttoXXov
203 B e^eX6a>v O.-P. rjvSev BTW : eiidev O.-P., al. TratSoTrotijcrao'^at

Xaber J.-U. C Sij xal BT O.-P.: Sij W Ka'i d^panav : Ka\ om. Orig.
eKeivatv Orig. epacTTrjs del. Bdhm. koXov Ka'i BT O.-P.: xal om. W:
fort. KoXov, Q}S Ka'i Trjs...ov(Tris del. Bdhm. Ttevrjs TW O.-P.: Trevirjs B
Eros. For nectar as the primeval substitute for wine, cp. Horn. 11. v. 341,
etc., also Pkaedr. 247 E tovs iTnTovi...v€KTap eVortcre. The celestial delnvov
was, it appears, followed by a avpTroa-iov. Spenser, H. to Love, speaks of the
god as “ Begot of Ple ntic and of Penury.” See further Introd. § iv. C 2.
els TOV TOV Aios Krirov. Cp. Soph. fr. {Ion) 297 N. iv Aios k^ttois dpovo'dai
povov evdaipovas oXjSovf. It is interesting to notice that Origen (Contra Cels.
IV. 39) identifies the “garden of Zeus” with Paradise, Poros with Adam,

Penia with the Serpent. With the intoxication and its results we might
compare the 0. T. stories of Noah and his sons and of Lot and his daughters.
For the neo-Platonic interpretation of the myth, see Plotinus Enn. in. 5. 2,
292 F ff., 298 F cp. also Introd. § iv. c 2.
: A similar Orphic legend is
mentioned by Porphyry de antr. nymph. 16 (Orphica p. 180) napa be tS
Op(f)€~L 6 Kpdvos peXiri vtto Aios ivebpeverai- 7r\r]crde'is yap peXiros pedvei Ka'i

aKOToirai ws vtto o’Lvov Ka'i vttvoi, coy jrapa IlXaTcovt 6 Ildpoy tov veKTapos
TrXrjaSels, ovnco yap olvos pv. Another classical example is the trick played
by Lady Macbeth on Duncan’s “spongy officers” (“his two chamberlains
Will I with wine and wassail so convince” etc.).
Pe^apTHicvos. A later form for the Epic ^e^aprjws (Od. in. 139) cp. :

Theocr. xvn. 61 ^e^apijpiva oibiveaTiv.

So Andoc. IV. 22 viov i^ avTijs TreTrolrjrai and
iraiSiov TTOi'qtrao'Gai Ik ktX. :

Tra'ibas Troielcrdai in Laws 674 B, 783 D, as equiv. to the cpd.

Crito 45 D,
naiboTToieiaQai (Rep. 449 D, Laws 784 a, b, e). These parallels are sufficient
to defend the text (see crit. n.), without resorting to Rettig’s absurd notion
that Traibiov tt. is “ verecundior ” than the cpd.
203 C nis A<jjpo8£Tt)S. ..Sepdirwv. Cp. Orph. fr. 139 r^v yap ’AcppobLrrjv
’

naprjyayev 6 br]piovpy6s...Ka'i tov ’'Epara OTvabov avTrjS Sappho fr. 74 (Xe'y^t : rj

'AifrpoblTr]) (TV re koXos (Kapos Bgk.) Oepanorv "Epos'. Hes. Theog. 201 Tp b’ (sc.

’ AcfipobiTp) Epos atpdpTTjcre Ka'i "ipepos ernrero koXos |

yeivopevp ranpaiTa ktX. :

Max. Tyr. xxiv. p. 297.

diss.

Ipacrnis wv Trepl to koXov. Cp. 204 B, 206 E. For the thought, cp. Sir
T. Browne (Rel. lied.) “ I am naturally amorous of all that is beautiful.”
irpwTov p.€v ktX. Here follows a list of the properties which attach to
Eros in vh-tue of his descent from Penia. Observe that the order is chiastic
here Penia-Poros, above Poros-Penia.
102 nAATQNOZ [203 C

Bet aTraXo? re Kal /caXo9, olov oi ttoWol oiovrai, aWa aicX'rjpo'i

Kal av')(^fir]p6<; Kal avv’ir6Br)TO<; Kal aotKo<;, p^^ayLtaiTrex^? ael wv Kal

darpcoTO^, eVt dvpai<; Kal ev oBol<; vTfatOpio’i KOip,a)p,evo^, Trjv x^?
ptr]Tp6<; (pvcriv €')(^cov, del evBe'ta ^vvoiko<;. Kara Be av rov irarepa
eTTiySouXo^ eart roL<; Ka\ot<; koI xot? dyadoi<;, dvBpeto'i wv Kal I'xTy?

Kal a-vvTOvo<i, drjpevTp^ Betv6<i, det rtya'i TrXeKcov p,r]-)^avd<;, Kal

203 D Ka'i oIkos Themistius viraidpios BW O.-P., Orig. : vnai-

6piois T (ecri pkv ovv) rpv cj. Sommer rolr ayaOois libri : ayaOois O.-P.
beivos om. apogr. Paris. 1810, del. Kreyenbiihl del -n-poa-TrXiKOiv Orig.
.

prj)(avas: [aji/ay ^as O.-P. {l.e. apoijSas O.-P.^)

olov ol TToWol oi'ovrai. This popular opinion had been esp. voiced by
Agathon, 195 c fF. and he had used the term a/cXiypoy in 195 E, 196 A. The
;

properties of Eros are, as observed by Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. 4. p. 461, drey^vdir
Ota (Is avTov 'S.aiKpaTrfv (CTKanrTov eV Aiovvaiois oi Kcopadol: cp. Themist. Of. 13.

p. 161 D fll

203 D avxp-Tipos. This is evidently intended as the contrary of Agathon’s

epithet vypos, 196 a. Cp. Ar. Plut. 80 ff. (nXoCroy) ddXia>s 8iaK(tp(vos...av)(pS>v
/SaSt'feis-; and the echoes in Plut. de fort. p. 98 D, in amat. 759 a.
dvvTrd8T|Tos...do-TptoTos. These, too, are characteristics of the Socratic (and
Cynic) way of life. For dwTrdSjyror, see 173 b, 220 b for ^(apaLTrcrps koI aarpai- ;

Tos the account given by Alcibiades in 220 B, c. Compare also the description
of the SeXXot (“ fakirs ”) in II. xvi. 234 ffi SfXXot, dviTTVoTroSey, xopoavvat ktX.
(see Welcker A7. tScA?'. 3. 90 f. Rohde, Psyche i. 122). ;

€irl 6upais KxX. For the dvpavXiai of (pacTTai, see 183 A, Anthol. v. 5 and ;

for this phrase as applicable to Socrates, 175 a, 220 c, Ar. JVub. 169 ff. So too
Penia was described in 203 B as (ovo-a) Trepl ras 6vpas. vnaWpws and avvoiKos
are words of a poetical flavour cp. Xen. Symp. : viii. 24 d del crvvoiKos

(poi i'pais.

IVi^s- “Energetic” (“go-ahead”): Schol. tVTys- icrrcop, eVioxi^pcov, ols

(vravda. Xap/Sdverat 8e xat eVt too Irapov kol 6pao'(OS. The Scholiast’s as
(vravda is clearly wrong, and that Plato connected the word with Uvai is

shown by Protag. 349 E it6t(pov tovs dvdpdovs dappaXiovs Xe'yets rj dXXo Ti ;

Kal iras y', e<^';, icf d oi ttoXXoI (f)o^ovvrai Uvai. Cp. Prot. 359 C : Callinus
I. 9 — 10 dXXd Tis Wi/s ira \
ey^os dvaa)(6p(vos kvX. Here, however, the special
sense of intellectual progress (pe'doSor, dVoSof) may be implied, cp. 210 .a

(/xeTt'i;, lovra, l(vai), and my note on dvdpdav 212 B (also 205 d).
6T)pevTi\s Seivos. “A mighty hunter,” a very Nimrod. For the notion of
the chase in erotics, cprffEe use~bf e'Xetv and Siaxav in 182 E, etc., and of 6r)pa
in Soph. 222 D rj) rav ipdvTav 6rjpg (cp. BrjpapaL in Isocr. Ilel. 219 d) for the :

same notion applied to philosophical enquiry, cp. Phaedo 66 C xiyv roC ovtos
6rjpav\ Gorg. 500 D, Theaet. 198 a ff. So Emerson {^On Beauty), “The sharpest-
sighted hunter in the world is Love, for finding what he seeks and only that.”

•irX€K«v “Weaving plote,” “intriguing”: cp. Eur. Androm. 66 iro'ias

prjx'^vcis nXenovcTiv av; Orph. H. 55. 3 (’A^poSiViy) hoXoiiXoKC. Aelian H. A.
III. 30 aotpdiTaTos 6 kokkv^, Kal TrXeKetv diTTopovs (^ duopav prj^avds deivoraros.
 : :

204 a] ZYMnOIlON 103

(^povrjaeco'i e7rL6vjj,7]Trj<; Kal Tropifio'i, (^iXoao^^v 8ia TravTO'i tov

fiiov, 8eiv6<; jorjt; Kal (j)appLaKev<; Kal aocpiarq^' Kal ovt€ o)?
dddvarot; 7ri(f)VKev ovre &)? dvrjro^, aWd Tore p,kv rfj<; avTi]<; ^p,epa<; E
OdWei Kal ^rj, orap evTrop'qap, Tore Se airodvyaKeL, TrdXcv Se dva-
/SioocTKeTaL Sid rrjp tov 7raTpo<i (pvatv, to 8e Tropt^opLevop del
vireKpec •
wcrre ovTe diropel “Ep&)? Trore ovTe TvXovTel, ao(f)La<; re au
Kal dp.adLa<; iv p-ecrw iaTLv. jdp cbSe. Oecop ov8el<; cj)ckoao<p6l
ov8' eTTidvpLel ao<ji6<; yepeadai — ecrrt yap — ouS’ ei rt? aXXo? a-o(p6<;, 204
ov <pi\oao(f)ei. ov8' av oi dpLadet<; (l)c\oa' 0 (f)ovaiP ov8' eTrtOvp.ovo’i

203 D TTopifJLOs T O.-P. COlT. : TTopicrp.os B: (ppovipos O.-P.^ (f)i\o(ro(j)aiv

T : (f)iXoa'6(j)a}v B yorjs koX : Kal om. O.-P. E avTrjs om. O.-P. Kal

CvB O.-P . ; re KOI ^fj

TW, Orig. orav €inTopr]<Tip secl. Jn. Hug: OTav aTTOp^ap
Hommel ttoKiv: ttoXiv ttoXiv O.-P. corr., Orig. ava/3too'Ke[£]rat O.-P.
TTor’ "EpcDs vulg. Hirschig re aii T, Bt. : re B, Herni. : S’ aS Orig.: av O.-P.:
Se Sommer Sz.

•n-6pi|ios. As son of Ilopoy. Agathou, too, had described Eros as (npaorpTa)

TTOpi^COV, 197 D.

Seivos 70 T)s ktX. For yaps, see 203 aw.; and for Socrates as wizard or
charmer, 215 c ff., Jleno SOAff., Xen. Mem. ill. 11. 17 18. For a-o(f)ia-Trjs, —
cp. 177 b, 208 C; Rep. 596 d; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1. 41 vvv tovto Trf(pLXoa-6(j)pKa
p(Ta TOV ddiKov aocpiarov tov "EpcoTos Maxim. Tyr. XXIV. 9 ( = Sappho ft'.
125) TOV “'EpcoTa ScoKpaTps (TO(f}iaTpv X^yei, SaTTC^o) pvOoirXoKOv. The esoteric
meaning of these epithets is thus explained by Hermias in Plat. Phaedr.
p. 97 :
(etTre tov ’'Epcora) (piXoaoCpov pev cbr ro XoyiKov ppwv tieyelpovra etrl Ta
KoXa- yopTa Se ws tov dvpov KoracrreXXovra (pappaKda (Se) is ro iiridvppTiKov •

KpXovvTa- TocpKrTpv Se is Tpv cjtvaiv dtraTavTa Kal deXed^ovTa this however —

must be taken “ with a grain of salt.” Cp. also Prod, in Cratyl. p. 94, 158
on otSer o IlXaTcov to ovopa tov (TO(f>iaTpv errl aepvd rdrretv npaypaTf tov yap
Trpos eavTov Ta dXXa bvvdpevov imaTpicpeiv ovtcos KaXei, olov tov Ala {Min.
319 c), TOV ’’AiSpv {Crat. 403 e), TOV "EputTa.
£ 9aXXei. Cp. Cratyl. 414 a goto ye ro OdXXeiv Tpv all^pv pot Soxet
203
dneiKa^uv Tpv twv viav. For the alternation of life and death in Eros, compare
the case of Polydeuces in Piud. Mem. x. 87 ff.
orav These words are condemned, on no sufficient grounds, by
evTrop7jo-T|.

Hug and others as “ sehr prosaische und abschwachend.”

del ijireKpei. “ Die geistigeu Giiter werden uns zu Theil nur insofern wir
sie erwerben” (Rettig). The cpd. In-eKpelv is atr. Xey. in Plato, but cp. Euthyd.
291 B at S’ (e’-TTterrijpat) det VTre^etpvyov.

ot;t€ d'7ropeI...ovT6 TrXovTei. dtropla is a quality of the mother of Eros (Sta

Tpv avTps dwoplav 203 b), as ttXovtos of the father. On the other hand nevla
is described as a mean between ttXovtos and TTTa>xela in Ar. Plut. 552.
204 A ^o'Tt ydp. Sc. aocftos cp. Simon. 5. 10 deos dv povos tovt e^oi
yepas (sc. ia-dXdv eppevai). For the midway position of the (jnXoa-ocpos, cp.
Phaedr. 278 D, Lysis 218 a; Plotin. Etin. vi. 7. 35 ff‘.
 :

104 TTAATQNOI [204 A

cro(f)OL yeveadaf avro 'yap tovto ecrxi ’^aXeirov dp^aOLa, to ovra

KaXov KayaOov firjSe (j^povipov BoKelu avrw elvai iKavov ovkovv
iinOvpLel 6 pb'q ol6fievo<: ivB€iq<; elvau ov dv otT^rat iirt^elaQai.

T/z/e? ovv, €(f)7jv i'yd), co Aiorlpa, oi (f>c\oao(f)ovvTe<;, el p'qre

B 01 cro(f>ol ppre oi npaOel^ ; ArfKov hr), 6(f)r), tovto 'ye ^hr) kuI TraiSl,
OTi 01 pera^i) tovtcov dpcfroTepwv, wv av real 6 "Epo)?. ecxTi 'yap hr)

Toov KaWlarcov r) cro<pba, ’’Epco? S’ iaTlv epax; Trepl to KaXov, ware

ava<yKalov ’’Epeura (piXoaocj^ov eivai, (j^bXoaobpov he oi'Ta peTa^v
eivai ao(f)ov ical dpa6ov<i. auTia S’ avTw Kal tovtcov >) yeveai'i'
TraTpo<i pev yap aocjiov ecTi Kal evTropov, p7]Tp6<; he ov cro^^? Kal
airopov. r) pev ovv (f)va-i<; tov halpovo^, (o <^lXe Soi/epare?, avTt) •

C 01 he ' av (pr^dr)^; OavpaaTov ovhev eiTaOes. (prjdr)<; he,

’'Epcora eivai,
ft)? epol hoKel TeKpaipopevr) e^ <ov av Xeyea, to epcopevov "EpcoTa

eivai, ov TO epcov. hid TavTa aoi, oipai, irdyKaXo<; i(f)aiveTO 6 ’^Epco?.

Kal yap eaTi to epaaTov to tm ovti KaXov Kal d/3p6v Kal TeXeov
Kal paKapiaTov to he ye epwv dXX7)v iheav TOiavTrjv e^oz), oiav
eycb hiTjXOov.

204 A aocpol yeveadai : aocfrois y. O.-P. avra yap tovtio Vindob. 21,
Sydenham ^aX€Tr6v del. Homniel Bdhm.: )^a\eTrri O.-P. dpadlas cj. Ast
avTcp W b: avTw T ; avTco O.-P.: avTo B iKavbv del. Hirschig B brjXov
8rj TW O.-P., vulg. Sz. Bt. : S/^Xoi/ort B: dijkov Herm. J.-U. ; dfjXov iern Rettig
SrjXov TOVTO y’, ^ 5’ rj, Ka'i Bdhm. av Ven. 184 Vind. 21, vulg. Bt. ; av eir)

O.-P.: av BTW : brj Usener Sz. : del. Ruckert: fort, els ptTo^v O.-P.
C q)^t;s O.-P. TCKpatpopevr) & Xe'-yezy : eXeyty O.-P. eirat Epcora O.-P.
OLopai O.-P. TO TM : T (0 Bdhm. a^pov O.-P. COrr. : ayadov O.-P.^
TeXeiov O.-P.

avTo ydp tovto ktX. “ Precisely herein is ignorance a grievous thing, (viz.)
that ” etc. If, with Stallb., we take avTo tovto as adverbial accus. of respect,
with TO pr)... IKavov as an epexegetic supplement, no emendation is required.

For the neuter x^Xenov in appos. to dpadla, cp. 176 n, Phileb. 12 c.

204 B AqXov 8 Tj...Kal iraiBb Cp. Euihyd. 279 d TOVTO Se Kav ttoxs yvoir )

ib. 301 B, Lys. 205 c (Schanz nov. comm. p. 72). Observe hovv sharply Diotima
snubs Socrates, <Scnrep ot TeXeoi a-o(j)L<TTai (208 c). For my cj. av (IS, c^). 203 a.
<))iX 6 o' 0 (j)ov eivai. Cp. Prod, in Tim. 52 Svo tovtovs deoiis 6 nXdrcov (jnXo-
aoefrovs eKa.X( 0-e, tov T(”'EpcoTa koI ttjv 'A.6r)vdv {Tim. 24D),...pv yap 6 brjpwvpybs
“/cal MrjTis TTpaTos yeveTcop /cal ^^Epcor TroXvrepTrpy ” {Ovph. Theog.fr. 8. 11), /cal

d)j pev MrjTis TLKTei ttjv 'Adrjvav, Se ’'Epwy enroyewq TTjv epcoTiKTjv ereipav.

204 C dppov. Agathon (here alluded to) had used the subst. a^poTtjs
(197 d), besides the epithets a-rraXos and vypos (195 c fif.).

paKapio-Tov. The only other Platonic exx. are Rep. 465 D, Pkaedr. 256 C.

Cp. the use of paKap'fa in 216 e infra.

 ; —

204 e] lYMnOIlON 105

XXIV. Kal ijM el-TTOv, Elei' St;, co fev?;* «a.\£w? yap \eyei<f’
TOiouTo? cou 6 "Epo)? Tiva ')(^peLav e^ei Tot? dvdpoo7roi<; ; Tovro Sp
puera ravr, €<pr), co Soj/cpare?, TretpdaopuaL ere StSd^ai. eerri p.ev D
yap Sr} xoiouro? Kal ovtco yeyovdr'i 6 ’'Epco?, ecrri 8e tmv koXwv, &??

ari) el Se xi? 'pp,d<; epoiro' xt xcoir koXwv iarlv 6 ’'Epw?, co

'S.toKpare'i xe /cat ^Loripia coSe Se aacjrearepov epw' o ipcov rcov

fcaXcov tI ipa; Kal eyed elirov on Teviadai avrw. ’A\X’ ext irodet,

e(f)p, Tj uTTOKpiaK; ipcorrjcnv roiavSe’ xt earai eKelvco w dv y6vr]Tai

rd KaXd; Ov irdw e(f)7]v eVt e^etz/ iyco 7rpo<f TavT7]v ttjv ipd)Ti]aiv
^ TTpo^etpeo? diroKplvacrOaL. AW’, e^/;, werTrep az/ et xt? puera^aXcov E’

dvrl Tov KaXov tm dyaBcp ')(pcdpevo'i irvvOdvoLTO' (j>epe, co Sco/epaxe?,

opa’ 6 ipcov Tcoi> dyadedv xt ipa ; TeviarBai, rji/ S’ iyco, avrS. Kat xt

204 C (Se) cj. Steph. §17 (xa) /xcra Bdhm. D koz otjrco siiperscr.
O.-P. (TV (TVfjLcprjs Jn. re B O.-P.: om. TW ipS> Aldin., edd.:

epa b: epa BT\V : epa O.-P. : fort, opa (cf. E infra) cTt TTodel TW O.P.,
Bt. : eViTTodei B, Sz. : ert e’/rtTrodel Eiickert roiai'Sei O.-P. E TrvvdavoiTO
seel. Usener Spa scrips! ipa BTW O.-P. ipS> Aldin. : : vulg. Bt. : i'poiro

Herm. J.-U. om. Ven. 184, Bast Sz.: el' y’ ipa Rohde
: rcor dyadSiv ri

distinxit Winckelmann twv dyadav tl; olim Voeg. : avra BT

Tiva xpeiav ktX. Here begins the second section of Socrates-Diotima’s

exposition. For “ utility,” — equiv. here to the Sdxets of 195 A, the
epya of 199 c — cp. Go7'g. 480 a, etc.
Tovro Sq [icrd ravr’ ktX. “Ebenso 180 D, 186 A, 189 D, 194 E. Also wohl
parodisch und spottisch ” (Rettig).
204 D ?o-Ti 8^ Ttov KaXwv- This is object, genitive : cp. 201 b, 206 B. As
Rettig notes, Diotima herself affects Trepl to koXov in preference to tov koXov
(after epms, etc.) ;
and this may be used as an argument against Jahn-Usener’s
(Tvpffrps.

«l For the omission of the apodosis, cp. 199 e el yap ipolppv ktX.
8« Tis ktX.
The preceding query had been ambiguously worded, since
o-a<J>€(rT6pov Ipw.

tS>v Ka\S>v might be taken either as a partitive gen. dependent on tl, or as an

object, gen. with "Epay (ri being adverbial accus.) that the latter was the :

construction intended is now shown by the revised statement of the query

d ipS3v..,TL ipa; I am inclined to suspect that we should read opa (see 204 e n.)
for ipat (ipg MSS.).
in TToBci. If we read eVtTrodel we must asci’ibe to the proposition its full
force, “ craves further ” ;
the other exx. of the cpd. in Plato are Prot. 329 D
TovT iaTLv 6 €Ti iTTiTrodS) : Laws 855 E. The former of these supports Riickert’s
en iiTLTTodel.

Ov irdvv...in. For ov rravv, cp. Meno 71 c (with Thompson’s note).

204 E pexapoXwv. Here the participle “ adverbii partes agit,” cp. Gorg.
480 E, Phileh. 51 a. For the ellipse, cp. 204 n, 199 e.
4)6pe, M S., opa. Most editors bracket the mss.’ ipa Stallb., after :
 : ;

106 nAATQNOS [204 E

earai eKeivcp w av 'yevrjTai Ta'yaOd; ToOt’ eviropdirepov, fjv S' ijco,

205 dTTOKpLvaadai, on evhaipbcov ^crraL. K-T-ijaet jdp, e(j)rj, d'yadwv

ol €vhaLpbove<i evSaLp,ov€<;, koX ovkItl irpoaSel epeadai, iva tL 8e
^ovXeraL ev8a[p,a)v elvai 6 j3ov\6p,evo<;, dWa reAo? ZoKel e^eiv
p d'TroKptaL';. 'AXrjdrj XeyeL^;, eiirov i'yu). ’Yavrrjv 8e t^v '^ovXrjaiv
fcal Tov epwTfL tovtoi Trotepa kolvov o’tet eivai irdvrwv dvOpoa-
Tvwv, Kal TrdvTa'i t yadd fSovXeaOcU auroi? elvac del rf vroi?

\ey€i<; ; Ovrcof, S eyd>' koivov elvai Travrcov. Tt Srj ovv,

B ecf>r), d) Sco/c^are?, ov Trai/ra? epdv (papuev, eiVep ye 7rdvr€<; rwv

avToyv epcoaL ku'i deL, dXXd rtvci? (papuev epdv, tou? S' ov ; ®avpbd^w,
y)v S eyed, koX avTO^. 'AXXd put] davfia^', e(p7j' depeXovre^ yap dpa
TOV eptwTO? Tt elSo? ovopid^opLev, to tov oXov e7riTt6evT€<; 6vop.a,

epcoTa, TO, Se dXXa dXXoi^ KaTa')(^pd)p,e6a ovopaaiv. "D-airep rL\ •p-

8' iyo), "flaTrep T68e. olaO' on TToirjai<; earL n ttoXv' ynp rot eic

205 A dyaOmv B Se T^v B O.-P., J.-U. Sz. : 8rj rqv TW, Bt. eiVat
Diet W B avTOiv: dya6S)v cj. Naber yap apa T O.-P., Bt. yap BW, J.-U. :

epSiVTOi T (ei/) ri etSor Hirschig Toi Vind. 21, vulg. Sz. Bt.: rt BTW
TO) O.-P., <0 O.-P. mg.

Winckelmann, retains it with the punctuation ipd 6 €pS>v tS>v dyadmv ri

ipq; —a mode of expression which “vehementius qiiam ut aptum videri
is

possit huic loco” (Rettig). Riickert defends the Aldine reading ip5> as a
permissible superfluity “in familiari sermone.” I suspect that here,j;,>' ive,
we should read Spa : cp. opa ri yroals 189 a; Rep. 596 c ;
Crat. 385 d (pepe..,el7re.

205 A Iva. ri. Sc. yivrjrai : for this colloquial use see Goodwin G. M. T.
ij3i.
T^os...^X*''’'- Because it is recognized that evdaipovia constitutes in itself
the ethical reXos or “summum bonum”; cp. Clit. 410 E ipiroBiov rod rrpos
TeXos dp€T^s iX66vra el/datpova yevicrdai '. Arist. E. N. I. 7. 1097^ 33 airX&s drj

reXeiov to Kad’ avro alperov du...TotovTov 8 rj €v8aipi,ovia paXurr elvai doKei. Cp.
also 210 E Trpos reXos rj8rj lav ktX.
‘iravTas...di£. Here del goes with S^vXea-dat, not with avTOLs elvai (as in
206 A infra).
Ti 8ii ovv KrX. Diotima here points out an apparent contradiction between
the previous conclusion {koivov irdvriov) and common opinion, due to the
ambiguity of the term epcos {epdv) which is used both in a generic and in a
specific sense.
205 B For example
"florircp tC; ?” “ —
iroCtio-is. The term as an ex. of varying connotation is
selection of this
partly, no doubt, due to the fact that it was one of the matters specially
emphasized by Agathon, 197 a. For noXv, multiplex, cp. Polit. 282 a.
•q yap Toi ktX. For the definition, cp. Soph. 219 b, 265 B TToir^riKrjv ...irda-av
efpapev elvai Siivapiv, rj ns av alria yiyvrjrai rots prj nporepov oiaiv varepov

yiyveadai also Phileb. 26 D ;

Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 3 ;
Prod. inst. theol. p. 74.
 :

205 d] lYMnOIlON 107

rov 6vto<; ei? to 6v Iovtl otwovv airia Trdad iari 7roLr]aL<;, ware
Kal at vrrb Tracrai? rat? Te')(yaL‘; ip'yaaiai^7roii]crei<; eiaX Kal oi C
TovTCOv SrifMiovpyol irdvre'? TTonjTaL WXpdrj \iy€i<;. ’AXV O/uw^,

17
8’ y, olad' OTL ov KaXovvTai TrotrjTal dW' ctWa ’i'^ovatv ovopbara,

dirb Be tt' ar)<i tj}? TTOLrjaeo}’; ev pubpcoy d^opiaOev to irepl rrjv p,ov-

aiKrjv Kal rd pierpa tS tov oXov bvopari TTpoCrayopeveTai. 'iroLyaif;

yap TOV T pbvov KoXelrat, Kal ol 6)(^ouTe<; '^ovro to p^opiou t^9

7roiyaeQ}<; TroirjTaL ’AXydy \ey€t<;, €<f)r}v. Ouro) tolvvv Kal irepl
TOV epcoTa' to p,ev Kecj)d\ai6v iaTi Trdaa y tcov dyaObbv e'lrtOvpbia D
205 C S’ 17 Bekker : y 8 y O.-P. : rjdrj BTW oi om. W i'^oviriv
TW O.-R, Sz.: e^ov(Tiv B, Bt.: lo'xovo'iv Sauppe popiov BT O.-P.; p,6vov
pr. W yap Toiro y. ravra O.-P. e(j)rj[v^ \eyeis O.-P. D Traora...ei8ai-
yveiv del. Bdhm.

205 0 ai...€p 7 acriai. Cp. Gorg. 450 C Ta>v pev (rexvav) epyaaia to wo\i eWt.
The word denotes manufacturing processes cp. n. on Tvepl re'xi’os kt\., 203 A. :

For vno c. dat., a construction rare in Attic prose, cp. Phileh. 58 a: Hipp.
2Iaj. 295 D rd re vno Trj povniKp koI to vno rais aXXais (opyava) Rep. :

511a. Cp. Aristotle’s u.se of vno c. acc. to denote the subordination of arts,
E. iV. I. 1. 1094^ 10 ocrai 8 fieri tS)V toiovtoov vno ptav tlvo. bvvapLV ktX.
fif.
’

piopiov. Equivalent to ev eldos (205 b) for this logical use of the term ;

cp. Gorg. 464 b, Laws 696 b. For d<j)opi^(o, cp. Soph. 257 c, 268 D Tys noiTjaecos
a(j)copi(rpevov ev X6yois...p6ptov.

‘f.'....Td perpa. Cp. 187 D, 196 E.

205 D TO p^v Ke(|)dXai6v ktX. Opinions are divided as to the construction
of rd Ke(f)dXaLov it may be construed (1) as nominative and subject, “the
generic concept {sc. tov epeoTos) is — so Hommel, Vermehren, Hug, Prantl,
comparing Gorg. 463a. koXS) Se avTov (sc. Trjs prjTopiKys) rd KeepdXaiov KoXaKelav :

or (2) as adverbial accus. (of respect), “in its generic aspect,” cp. Phileb. 48c
eoTi hr] novyp'ia pev ns rd KecpdXaiov Euthyphr. 8 E. The latter is certainly :

the more natural mode of constming here, since no genitive (adroD) is added.
But other difficulties remain what is the subject of eVri, if rd Ke<pdXaiov is
:

adverbial ? Should we (a) construe with Ficinus (followed by Stallb.^, Lehrs,

Zeller, J owett and others) “ nam summatim quidem omnis bonorum felicita-
tisque appetitio maximus et insidiator amor est cuique ” ? Or (6) should we
rather, with Stallb.^ and Prantl, supply d epas as the subject of eo-ri and
construe nda-a Tj...eihaipovelv as the predicate? To my mind the latter is
the more natural method. Next arises the question, how are we to deal
with the last part of the sentence, d peyicrrds...7rarri ? If with most edd.
(except Eiickert, Stallb.^ and Eettig) we regard hoXepos as corrupt, the best
plan is to excise the whole clause with Hug (and Stallb.i), since none of the
corrections of hoXepos hitherto proposed (see crit. n.) are at all convincing.
The chief objection to hoXepos is, not so much the meaning of the word
itself (which may be defended by 203 d), as rather (to quote Stallb.^) “ con-
jimctio superlativi peyianos cum hoXepos positive.” But even this objection
 :

108 nAATQNOI [205 D

c"
Ka\ Tov evhaifjiovelv, 6 “ /tie^tcrTO? re zeal SoXepo'i ” epco'i Travri' dW'
01 p.ev dWp rpeiropbevoL TroWa'^^fj iir avrov, rj Kara ')(^p7}p,aTiap,ov

rj Kara <^CKo'yv p-vaariav rj Kara (j)i\oao(f)Lav, our' epdv KaXovvrai

our epaaraL, ol 8e Kara ev ri elSo<; iovre^ re Kal ecnrovZaKore^; to
rov d\ov ovopba ta'^^^ovaiv, epcord re Kal epdv Kal epaaraL Kiv-
Buveveu; dXrjdfj, ecf)rjv eyco, Xeyetv. Kal Xeyerai p,ev ye rt?, e<f)7],

E A 0709 ,
&)? Ol dv TO ppiiav eaurcov ^rjrcoaiv, ovroi epwaiv' 6 8 ’
e’/AO?

A 070 ? OV0' ppilaeo^ (fjpaiv elvai rov epcora ov0' dXov, eav
ruy-^dvp ye ttov, co eraipe, dyadov ov eirel aurcov ye Kal TroSa?
Kai '^eipa<; ideXovaiv drrorepveadai ol dvdpcoTroi, eav avTol<; BoKjj

205 D 6...8o\epos seel. Usener; 6...‘7ravTi seel. Stallb. (1827) Hug p€-
yicTTos : opprjTiKos Creuzer BoKeparaTos Stallb. (1852) Beivoraros
SoXtpoy : :

Ast; Koivos Hommel; oXoKXrjpos Pflugk Mdvg. oXor Bdhm. dBpaos Verm.: : :

n-po)Tos cj. Sz. : ToXpj/poy Creuzer : aeftodporaTos Sydenham : a-(j)o8p6s Cobet :

pdvos Sehirlitz : (cfpSaXe'oy Naber Trarr?; Pflugk avrov: aiiTo Voeg. Sz. :

dyaOov Orelli )(pr]paTicrpa) O.-P.^ er^ov O.-P. i'peord. ..epaarai seek Sz.
i'peos T€ Hertlein eparral fort, ipaards KivBvvevovcri O.-P.^ E to
eavTcdv rjpKjv Sz. : to ^pirv to eavrav Sauppe Jn.: iavrwv secl. Usener inel
T O.-P. : (WL B

is not, I think, insuperable ; for if we eonstrue rravri closely with SoXepos as

“all-ensnaring,” we get a superlative idea which balances peyia-ros, while in
sense it is supported by 203 b, d and Sappho’s SoXoTrXdxe ’A^poSiVa. If,

adopting this ex|)lanation, we retain the traditional text, it seems best to

regard the clause d p(yiaT6s...TravTL as an appositional quotation and to
construe, with Prantl, “namlich jene grosste und fiir jeden verfangliche
Liebe.” Hommel is singular in taking too (vBaipovdv {sc. rj eTridvpia), as well
as TO KscjzdXaiov, as subject (“und das Streben nach dem hochsten Gute, d. i.
nach Gliickseligkeit, ist die grosste Liebe ”).

^p<oTa...cpa<rTak This sequence is irregular. Usually with dvopa ex^iv the

name is in the nominative, in apposition with the subject, e.g. Laws 956 C
Biairrjra'i dvopa...i'xovTes (so here iparrai): but the accus. is also possible (in

appos. with dvopa), as in Plut. Arist. 2. But the combination of the two
constructions is certainly awkward, and the words may well be, as Schanz
supposes, a gloss.
Kal Xeyerai ktX. An allusion to Aristophanes’ speech, esp. 192 b, e ff. :

cp. 212 c. For odd' dXov, below, cp. 192 E.

205 E €Trel avTtov ye kt\. Cp. Xen. Mem. I. 2. 54 eXeye S’ oVt koi ^a>v eKaerros
eavTov, d Trdvraiv paXirra (piXel, rov orcoparos d ri av dxpeiov fj
Ka'i dvaxpeXes
avTos re a(patpe7 Kal dXXa> Trapex^i. avroL re ye avrSjv dvvxas re koi Tpix^s Kai
TvXovs depaipovrL ktX. : Ev. Matth. 5. 30 xai el rj 8e^id rov X^’-P rKavdaXl^ei ere,

eKKO\j/ov avTTjv ktX.

 ; : ; :

206 B] ZYMnOIlON 109

TO, kavTOiv TTOvrjpa elvai. ov yap to iavTcov, olf^ai, eKaarot aa-rra-

^ovrai, et p,r] ei to fj.ev ayaOov OLKelov KaXet koX eavrov, to 8e
KaKov aWorpiov’ to? ovSei^ ye dWo iaTiv ov epwcriv civOpwiroi 206

^ ToO dyaOov. rj crol SoKovcriv Ma At ovk ep-oiye, -^v S’ iyco.

^Ap’ ovv, ^ S’ rj, ovTco<i difkovv ia-TL Xeyeiv, oti ot dvOpwiroi too
dyadov ipcoaiv Nat, ecf)7]V. Tt Se ; ov irpoaOereov, e<j37}, on Kal
eivat TO dyadov avrol'i epwaiv ; Tipoadereov. ’Ap’ ovv, e^tj, Kal ov
fjiovov ejvai, aA.\a /cat del eivai ; Kat tovto irpoadereov. ’'EcrTto

dpa e<^77, o epw? too to dyadov avTw eivat del. ’AXrj-

dearara, ecj^rjv iyco, Xeyetc;.

XXV. "Ore S^ TOOTOO o epto? ecrrlv del, rj S’ i], rcov rtva B

rpoTTOv StcoKovrcov avro Kal ev Ttvt irpd^et rj cttooS^ Kal rj crooTacrt?

epco? dv KaXoiTO ; rl tovto Tvy)(^dvei ov to epyov ; e'X^ei<; etTretv ; Ov

205 E KoXel XV Ka\^ BT 206 : avdpunroi Bekk. Sz. Bt. avOpcoiroi A ;

BT avdpwnoi O.-P. oi avdpoiiroi

: del. Baiter
: W
^ rdyadov Hirschig :

fjcrol, ..dyadov om. O.-P.'^ V S rj Bekker O.-P. corr.: fjSri BT on :

avdparTTOi Sauppe Jn. Tov dyadov O.-P. COIT. rdyadoC T, Bt. BW

npoade- :

Taiov O.-P.^ (bis) ovv BT O.-P. om. tov to T O.-P. tovto B : W :

avT^ TW O.-P.: avTo B B 8i) : §6 O.-P. Paris 1642 tovtov Bast Sz.
Bt.: TOVTO libri, O.-P. del om. Vat., Bekk. Sz.: dye Usener n n Bekk.:
rj^r) BT : rj 8 rj O.-P. tS>v Tb O.-P. : TOV B avTov T (rivTaais B O.-P.:
(Tvaraais TW
€1 (IT See Goodwin G. M. T. § 476b
«l'.

TO (tiv Cp. Rep. 586 E elnep to ^(Xtkttov iKdaror, tovto koI

dyaGov oiKetov.
oLKeidraTov (with Adam’s note)'. Charm. 163c, d epdvdavov t6v \6yov, oti to.
oiKfId Te Kal TO. avTov dyadd KaXoctjs Arist. R. N. X. 7.
206 A
ii TOV dyaGov. For the assumption that Tdyadov is the final end
of desire, cp. Phileh. 20 B ffi, Gorg. 467 d ffi, etc. The statement here is
referred to by Proclus in Alcib. I. p. 129.
dirXovv. Equivalent to dvev rtpoadecrecos dXrjdes: cp. 183 D; Pkaedr. 244 a
el pev yap rjv drrXovv to pavlav kokov eivai ktX. (“true without qualification,”

Thompson) ; Prot. 331 C.

206 B d ?pws toTiv dch Most edd. follow Bekker in ejecting del Rettig,
however, rightly keeps it with the note “det = die gegebene Definition gilt
iiberall und fiir alle Faille”; cp. 205 a, b.
avTo. Sc. to Tdyadov avTOis eivai del.
ij o-vvTao-is. Cp. 203 D
(’’Epcoj eort) avvTovos Phileh. 46 D avvTamv dyplav :

TToiei (with my note)

Euthyd. 288 D. For the limitation of the notion of Eros
:

here lav koXoIto), cp. that in 205 a (^KaXovvTai, c, d). fif.

Tuyxdvei ov. Not “what does it happen to be,” but “what in reality is it”:
see Verrall on Eur. Med. 608: cp. Phaedo 65 D E. —
Ov pevTav ktX. For the suppressed protasis {sc. el tovto e?yov elnelv), cp.
175 D.
 :

110 nAATQNOI [206 B

fievTav are, e(j)r]v eyco, co AiorlfMa, idavfMa^ov e^rl ao(f>La Kal e^oiTCOv
•jrapa ere avra ravra fiadriao/u.evot;. ’AAA’ eyco croL, eepr], epS). eart
yap TOVTO TO/CO? iv koXm Kal Kara to a&fj-a Kal Kara rrjv '^jrv’^^'pv.

Alaj/reta?, pv S’ eyco, Selrac o rl Trore \eyei<;, Kal ov pbavOdveo.

C ’AAA eyed, d S' rj, aa(f>eaTepov epS). . Kvovert yelp, (d 'ZooKpare'i,
TTcivre'i dvdpeoTTOt Kal Kara to creopa Kal Kara r^v '^v)(rjv, Kal
eTrechav ev tt} rfKiKLCi yevcovraL, TiKTecv eiTLOvpe't rjpedv rj (f>vav<;.

TLKTeov Se ev pev ala')(p(p ov BvvaTac, ev Be [tw] KaXed. yap

206 B i'cprjv, iyw distinxit Ast tcai ov fiavddvco del. Naber C jj

8’
17

Bekk. : 778/7 BT ; 8/7 O.-P. dvOpoinoi Sauppe Ju. koX Kara TO TW O.-P.,
Bt. : Kara to B ttjv om. T eV ttj Bdhm. J.-U. Sz. : ev TLVL libri, Bt.
ev Naber TiKTeiv 8A..e(rriV del. Rettig KaX <5 Bdhm.: KaXa> O.-P.: tw
KaX <5 libri rj yap. ..e’oriV del. Ast Sz. Bt.

I^oCtwv irapd erb (poiTav is the regular word for “attending” lectures or
a school, see Prot. 326 c eis 8i8a(TKd\a>v...(l>oLTdv : Rep. 328 D 8evpo Trap’ rjpds

(poiTa : Phaedo 59 B.

TOKOS Iv KaXw. The act of procreation appears to be called almost in-

differenth' (1) tokos, as here, (2) yewqais (206 c, E, 209 d), (3) yevvrja-is koI
TOKOS (206 e), (4) in passive aspect yeveais (206 D, 207 d). Similarly with, the
verbs: we find tIktciv (206 c, 210c, etc.), yewdv (206 d, 207 a, etc.), tiktciv koI

yevvdv (206 D, 209 B, C).

MavT€£as...H.av0dv«. Notice the play on the stem-sound. Rettig, citing

Eur. Hippol. 237 (rdSe pavrelas d^ia rroWrjs), writes “ Witzspiel mit Anklang
^

an Eur. und Anspielung auf Diotima’s Heimath und Beruf ” the latter :

allusion is likely enough, but the “Anklang an Eur.” is very problematical;

had it been specially intended we should have had d|ta or ttoXX^s echoed
as well.
206 C Kvovo-i. Kvr^ais, “pregnancy,” is properly the condition intermediate
between conception {o-vXXT]-\p-Ls) and delivery (tokos). Op. Achill. Tat. i. 10
KOI veavla-KOS epwTos TrpcoTOKvpcov ov SeiTai diSaaKaXias Trpos tov tokctov. Eor
the language and thought of this whole passage, cp. Theaet. 150 £f., Phaedr.
251 A ff., Tim. 91 A also Max. Tyr. diss. xvi. 4, p. 179 kvoxktl be rrda-ai pev
:

xlrv^ai (f)v(Tei, dbivovai be e'dei, tIktowi be X6y<o ktX. Clem. Al. Strom. V. 552 B : :

Themist. or. xxxii. p. 355 D.

Iv ttJ tiXiKCa
-y. I adopt Badham’s correction Ttp for nvi since the change
involved very slight and ev tivi tjXiKla is unexampled in Plato: cp. Gorg.
is

484c ev Tfj rikiKia: Rep. 461 B; Phaedr. 209b m/m; 255 a; Meno 89b.
Plato also uses ev ffKiKiq, e.g. Rep. 461 b Charm. 154 A Laws 924 E. : :

t£kt€lv 8I...KctXw. There is much to be said for Rettig^s view that this
sentence (as well as the next) is a gloss. As he argues, the words “ gehoren
also ihrem Inhalte nach nicht an die Stelle, an welcher sie stehen, sondern sie
miissten nach dem Satze eWt be tovto ktX. folgen. An dieser Stelle collidiren
sie aber mit den gleichbedeutenden Worten rd be ev tS dvapp6aTcp...app6TTov,
 . :

206 d] lYMnOllON 111

dvSp6<; Kal ywatKoii avvovala rd/to? ecrTtV.] eVri Be tovto Oelov to

irpayfia, Kal tovto ev dvrjTm ovtc tm ^coa dddvaTov evecTTiv, 57

KV7}ac<; Kal 77 yewpav;. Ta B' ev tm dvappboa-Ta dBvvaTOV yeveadai.

dvdpfioaTov S iaTl to ’
alcr')(^pov iravTl tm 6eL(p, to Be koXov dppbOTTOv. D
Motpa ovv Kal Et\ei^uia 77 l^aWovrj eaTi tt) yevecrei.. Bed TavTa
206 C Se :
yap Rohde eveanv B O.-P. : icrriv TW ra B O.-P.
Tavra D Beta) TW : dew B O.-P. rp yeveaei dia ravra- orav
kt\. distinxit Schirlitz

fiir deren Glosse ich sie ansehe. Worauf sollten auch die Worte ean 8e...

TTpaypa gehen, wenn ihnen die Worte rUreLv 8L..KaXw unmittelbar vor-
angingen?” It is just possible, however, to retain the clause as a kind
of parenthetic addendum to the preceding sentence, which forestalls, some-
what confusingly, the sentences ra 8' ...appoTTov. The omission of the article
before /eaXu, confirmed by the Papyrus, is certainly an improvement. For
the thought, cp. Plotin. Enn. iii. v. p. 157 b.
[li -yap. ..TOKOS ecTTiv.] Most edd. (except Hommel and Stallb.) agree in
excising this clause as a meaningless intrusion. Hommel and Stallb. explain
the words as intended to introduce the first part of the exposition of tokos,
viz. TOKOS KOTO. aS>pa: and StaUb. renders “nam (•yap = nemlich) viri et

mulieris coitus, est ille Susemihl’s comment is “die

nihil aliud nisi tokos.”
Zeugung werde wahrhafte Aufhebung der Geschlechtsdifferenz be-
als die
zeichuet.” But, as Rettig shows, none of these attempts to justify the clause
are satisfactory. Perhaps it is a gloss on pXiKia.
^o'Ti 8 ^ TOVTO ktX. Cp. Laws 773 E, 721c yapeiv 8L..8iavor]6evTa o>s eaTiv
fj
TO avBpwTTLvov yivos (pvaei tiv'l pereikrjepev aBavaej'ias' ov Kal TreepvKev eniBu-
plav 1.a-)(eLv iras iracrav kt\. I. 35 quid procreatio liberorum, quid
: Cicero Tusc.
propagatio nominis... significant, nisi nos futura etiam cogitare?: Clem. Al.
Strom. II. p. 421 C eVto-KCvacray Tpv adavaaiav too yevovs rjpwv (sC. 8ia tov
yapov), Kal olovel 8iapovr)v Tiva iraial ttoiScov peTaXaprr a8evopevijv
tv Tu dvapp.oo'Tw. For the connexion of Eros with appovia, see 187 A ff.;
for harmony of the body, cp. Rep. 591 d and of the soul. Rep. 430 e
;
fif.,

Phaedo 85 E ff.

206 D Motpa...EiX€i6via. Cp. Find. 01 . vi. 41 Ta ptv 6 'K.pvaoKopas

TTpavpTjTLV T ’EXfidvtav TrapioTaaiv re Mo/par ; id. Nem. VII. 1 ’EXeidvta
TrdpcSpe Mojpav Moipa (“the Dispenser”) is a birth-goddess
SaBveppovwv.
also in Horn. E. XXIV. 209 tcoS’ ws ttoBl Molpa xparaip yiyvopivw eTrevrjO'e I

XiVo). For Eileithyia, see also iZ. xii. 270, Hes. Theog. 922; and it is note-
worthy that Glen made out Eros to be the son of Eileithyia (see Pans. ix. 27).
Libanius (or. v. t. i. p. 231 R.) identifies Eil. with Artemis.
q KoXXovij. Usener was no doubt right in taking koXXovi) here as a
proper name, in spite of Rettig’s objection that “deren Existenz nachzuweisen
ihm aber nicht gelungen ist”; for such a personification, in this context,
requires no precedent. “ Beauty acts the part of our Lady of Travail at the
birth.” Possibly we ought to insert eVi after eaTi{v) or read eVt in place
of e’oTt.
112 nAATQNOI [206 D
oTav fiev koXm Trpoa’TreXd^Tj to kvovv, iXecov re ’ylyverai koX ev-

(f)paiv6fievov Sia’^^elrat kuI tiktsl re Kal yevva' orav Be ala")(^pM,

(TKvdpcoirov re Kal Xvirovpi^evov avaireipdrat Kal dTrorpeireraL Kal

dveLWerai Kal ov yevva, dWd ia"^ov to KVTjaa ^aXeTrco? (j^epei.

odev 8r) TM Kvovvri re Kal i]Br} airapycovri ttoW^ rj 7rroir]ai<: yeyove

206 D (TKvdpuiTTov re {ylyverai) cj. Usener avcnreipaTai TIV :

^v\y~\(nreL-
parai O.-P. : avva-TrelpeTai B Kot aTrorpeVerat Secl. Usener Sz. di/iXXerat
O.-P. ; dvetXXeratB; di/eiXXerat W : aveiXXetrai T (nrapyoxjvTi ^ irrolrjcris

TW O.-P., Abresch ; Troirjcris B: TTroTjcriy Bekk. Sz. : Trdvijo-if Sydenham

irpoo-ireXdt^. For this poetical word, cp. Horn. Od. ix. 285, and (of sexual
COnvei’Se) Soph. 0. T. 1101 nai/dr TTpoaireXacrdeia-a.
tXewv. Cj). 197 D.
Siaxelrai. This word may signify both physical and emotional effects:
for the former cp. Laws 775 c rav acopdrcov diaKe)(upev(i)v (nro pedrjs for the
Suidas (Hesych.) Stayetmt-
latter, Biaxeerai, and the Psalmist’s “I am
poured out like water.”
(TuenreipaTai. ktX. Schol. avaneipcLTaL- (ruorpe'^erai. Suid. Kvptcos fie

dviXXecrdat to dira^Lovv. They are realistic terms to express aversion, derived

perhaps from the action of a snail in drawing in its horns and rolling itself
into a ball. Cp. Plotin. Enn. I. vi. 2. 51 \f/vxV‘-‘'Kpds to alaxpdv 7rpo(r/3a-

Xovaa di'tXXerat koI dpveiTai kcli avavfvei in' avTov oii <rvp<pa)vov(Ta Ka't aWoTpiov-
pivTj. Usener and Hug may be right in bracketing koi dnoTpineTai, on which
Hug comments “Zwischen dem der Gleichnissprache angehbrenden a-va-nfipdrai
und dviXkeTai ist das matte, prosaische dnorpincTai unpassend”; but the
extra word helps to add emphasis, if nothing more, and Plotinus too uses
three verbs. In dyetXXerai Rettig sees an “Anspielung auf dveiXeldvia” (cp.
Eur. Ion 453). Cp. Plut. de s. n. v. p. 562 a.
crirapywvTi. For anapydv, lacte turgere, cp. Rep. 460 c: m Phaedr. 256 a
(anapySiV fie Kai dnopd>v nepijSdXkfi tov ipaarrjp /ca'i (piXet) anapycov = Venere
tumens. The Scholiast here has crnapyaivTi- 6ppS>vTi, opycovTi, TopaTTopiva,
Tj dvdovvTi. Xap/Sdverot fie koi eV't tuiv paaTcov nenXrjpo^pivcov ydXoKTOS. Here
the realism of the language and the juxtaposition of kvovvti compels us to
construe “great mth child” (as L. and S.) or “with swelling bosom” not —
merely “bursting with desire” or excitement. Cp. acfypLyS) as used in
Ar. Lysistr. 80.
ij TTToiiio-is. “Sic feliciter emendavit Abresch” his conj. turning out —
to have some ms. support. The subst. occurs also in Prot. 310 D yiyvaxmaiv
avTov Tr)v dvhpeiav Ka't Trjv nToir)criv Crat. 404 A Tr]v tov aoopaTos nToiTjaiv KOt
:

paviav and the verb {inTorja-Qai) in Rep. 439 D, Phaedo 68 c, 108 A. Cp.
:

Mimnermus 5. 2 nToiwpai S’ iaopav avBos oprjXiKiTjs. It seems a vox propria

for the condition of the lover “ sighing like a furnace ” cp. Plotin. de pulcr. :

p. 26 (with CreuzePs note).

 —

207 A] ZYMnOZION 113

•Trepl TO KaXoi^ Sid to fiejdXr]^ wSivo^ diroXveLV tov 6')(ovTa. ecrri E

yap, CO Zco/cpare?, e^r], ov tov /caXov 6 epco<;, C09 arv otei. ^AXXd tL

p-pv ; T?5? yewpaeo}'; kuI tov tokov ev tw koXw. ^iev ; pv S' eyoo.

Tiavv pev ovv, tL Srj ovv yewpaeox; ; otl deiyeve'i iaTi

Kal dOdvaTOv OvpTw p yevvrjai'^. aOavaaia'i Se dvayKalov eVt- 207
co ?

dvpeiv peTa dyadov e/c twv wpoXoyppevmv, etirep tov dyadov

eavTcS eivai del epco? evTiv. avayKalov Sp eK tovtov tov Xoyov
Kal Trjt; ddavaalat; tov epcoTa eivai.
XXVI. TaOrci re ovv irdvTa iSlSacrKe pe, oTTore Trepl toiv

206 E aTToXiieiv TW O.-P. : aTToXaveiv B: aTTonav^iv cj. Naber i^ovra'.

e’pmi'ra Voeg. rivos jxrjv Stepll. Travv . . .((fir] del. Bdhm. TL...yevv^(Tecos
vulgo Socrati tribimnt, Diotimae Herm. (Voeg.) reddidit Srj BT O.-P.:
8el W ysvvrjaeas : yerecrecoj O.-P. aeiyevis aei yev€ais O.-P. 207 A dya-
dov scripsi : dyadov BT O.-P. : rdyadov W Vind. Suppl. 7, vulg. Bast (6) epos
Bekk. Sz.

206 E (iSivos diroXvieiv. This is the of6.ce of KaXXori) as EtXetdota : cp.

Theaet. 151 a ravrpv . . .rpv didlva iy^lpeiv re kol arroTraveiv rj ep-q ri-^^vq {sc. q
paavTLKq) dvvaraL: Rep. 490 B (X TrXqa-idaas ko'l piye'is rtS ovtcds ovti, yevvqcrai
vovv Kal dXqdeiav . ..Ka'i ovtcv \qyoi d>dlvos: Mas. Tyr. dlSS. XVI. 4, p. 179 Xdyo?
paieverai yj/vx^v nvovaav koI d)Slv(ov peurqv.
TOV l')(^ovTa. “Sc. TavTqv rqv aBiva" (XVolf) : but HorQuiel and Stallb.
supply avTO, i.e. rd koXov. Cp. Phaedr. 252 A tov to koWos cxovtu laTpov
evpqKc povov tS>v peylcrTcov novcov , which Settles the C[uestion.
Ti. .-ye-vviio-ews
.
;
tl, answered by drt, means “why” or “wherein” rather
than “what” (as in 204 d), and the genitive, like those preceding, is objective.
Supply iaTiv 6 i'pcvi.

deiyevs's. This is practically a re-assertion of the statement in 206 C (deSv

TO TTpdypa htX.). Cp. Laws 773 E my xph rqs deiyevovs (pvaccos avTix^crdai too
ratSay Traidcov KaTaXcLTrovTa ktX.
T

207 A
elVep Tou d-ya0dv ktX. Against Bekker, Dindorf, Ast, Stallb.^ who
adopted roil TayaObv Eiickert wrote: “etiam vulg. proba est. Construe elVep :

TOV dyadov epais eariv, (juibus e^qyqTiKcos addita SUnt verba eavT<S eivai del. In
quibus supplendum est subj. 6 epois.” To this Stallb.^ and Rettig assent,
comparing Bind. 01. ill. 33 tS>v yXvKvs ipepos eaxev...(pvTeva-ai: Thuc. V.
vlv
15. 1 inidvpia tS)V dv8pS>v tS)v ck Tqs vqaov Koplcraadai (where Poppo Cites for
the epexegetic in6n. Crito 52 c, Xen. Cyr. v. 231). None the less, the mss.’
—
text seems if not “sine ullo sensu” as Wolf put it at least very awkward —
Greek. The obvious allusion to the former de6nition, d epa>s eaPi tov to
dyadov ovtS eivai del (206 A ad fin.), supports Bekker’s reading here as the
right one : but if we read tov Tdyadov here consistency requires that "we also
read peTa Tdyadov in the preceding line, an easy change but supported by no
authority. Hence I content myself with the minimum of alteration, viz.

dyadov for dyadov.

B P . . 8
 ;

114 nAATQNOI [207 a

sA'

epwTiKiSv \o'yov<: ’ttoioito, Kat Trore rjpero Tt o'Ul, w ^coKpare^, alrtov

€ivai, Tovrov tov epcoTO<; /cal i'iri6vpLa<; ; rj ov/c aladdvei &)?

Beiv(o<; BiaTcderat irdvra t(i Orjpia, iireiBav yevvdv iiriOvp'qcyr), Kal

B ra Tre^d Kal to. TTTjjvd, voaovvrd re •rrdvTa Kal ipwriKO)^ Biari-
6ep.eva, irpwTov p,ev Trepl to ^vpcpLiypvai dWTj\oi<;, eireira Trepl rpv
Tpo(p7]v TOV yevop-evov, Kal eroipd eariv virep tovtohv Kal Siapd-
^eadat ra acrOevearara toi^ la'^vpardroi’i Kal vTrepa’rroOvrjaKeLv,
Kal avrd rw XipM jrapareivopeva war eKelva eKTpecpeiv, Kal dWo
TTCLv TTOLOvvTa ; TOv<; pev yap dvOpcoirovi, e<p7j, oIolt dv Ti? e/c

Xoytcrpou ravra Troteiv rd Se Oppca tl<; air la oiiro)? epwri/cco?

C SiaTlOeadaL ; e'y^ei'i Xeyeiv ; Kal eydo av eXeyov otl ovk elBelyjv/
T] S' etTre, Aiavoei ovv Setj/o? Trore yevpaeaBac ra ipcoTiKd, idv
TavTa pr) evvofj<; ; 'AXXd Sid Tavrd roi, co Aiorlpa, OTrep vvv Sp
eiirov, irapd ere pKco, yvov<; on SiSaaKdXcov Seopai. dXXd poi Xeye

207 A alaOdvi] Bt. ejridviiaxTL O.-P.^ B icrriv del. BdlllU. TovToyv

KOI BT O.-P. : TovTcov W avTa : avTQ} O.-P. r<5 del. Bdhm. Trapara-
vopeva O.-P.^ ipodTLKaiS del. Isabel’ C av eXeyov b, vulg. Sz. Bt. :

dveXeyov B : av eXeyov TAV : eXeyov O.-P.

cos Seivcos SiaTiBerai. “ In welchem gewaltsamen Zustande sicli die Thiei’e

befinden” (Scblei.). The phrase is echoed by Alcibiades in 215 E, cp. 207 b,
208 c. For diddcais see Phileb. lie, with my note.
207 B vocro5vTa...'ir€pl. Cp. Phaedr. 228 b voctovvtl rrep'i Xdyaiv aKorjv :

Soph. f)’. 162 (Dindf.) vda-qp.' eparos tovt e(f>ip€pov KaKov (but Xauck 153
reads the verse otherwise).
Kal Sia|idx6<r0ai. ktX. This is a correction of Phaedrus’s statement
(179 bIF.): cp. 220 off. For the fact, cp. Aelian H. A. i. 18, ii. 40: Laws
814 b pr]b' maiTcp opvidas Trepl reKveov pa^op4vas...e6eXeLV diroBv^TKeiv ktX.
Kal atiTo. “Schleiermacher um sie nur z]Li ernahren. Eecte. Fallitur
KrX. ;

enim Hommel, ware sic usurpari negans ideoque voculam ejectam cupieus.
Conf. De Rep. viii. p. 549 c al.” (Stallb.). As Stallb. explains, avra ktX.
depend on aladdvei, the construction being changed, and avTd = sponte. For
TTaparelveadai, “racked,” cp. Lys. 204 c Av.fr. 421. :

tCs alria ktX. For alrla with the (anarthrous) infin., cp. Phaedo 97 A
alTLa...yevea6ai. For the foregoing description of the phenomena connected
with reproduction in the animal-world, cp. (with Rettig) Od. xvi. 216 S'.
Laics 814 B ;
Arist. Hist. An. viir. 1 ;
Cic. de fin. iii. 19. 62.

207 C Aiavoet. “Do you fancy — cp. Laics 755b prjKeTL...Tr)v rrjXi-

KavTTjv dpxiiv ojf dp^av biavorjdrjToi). Notice the tone of indignant scorn in
which Diotima speaks, cp. 204 b.

Seivos Tcx epcoTiKci. Cp. 193 E, 198 D.

oTTcp vCv 8i] eiirov. See 206 b.

 :

-207 d] ZYMnOIlON 115

Kal TOVTcav Tr]v alrlav Kal ro)v dWcov rcov trepl rd ipwruKa.
Et Tolvvv, ecf)7), 7riaTev6L<f eKelvoy elvat (f)va6i rov epcora, ou ttoX-
A.a/ct? wpuoXo'yrjKapiev, p.r] Oavya^e. evravOa jdp rov avrov iKeivw D
Xoyov y dvrjTT) cf)vai<; ^Tjrel Kara to hvvarov del to elvai dOdva-
To?. Bvvarat Be ravrr} yovov, ry yevecrei, on del KaraXecTret erepov
veov dvrl rod ’rraXaiov, eirel Kal ev <p ev eKaarov rcov ^(po)v ^yv

207 D (xara) top avTov Hirtschig aie'i to €cpac dSapoTO^ B : del t€ elvai Kal
dddvoTos T O.-P., Jn. Bt. : to ael elvai Sz. : to eipai del J.-U. Trj yeviaei
libri, O.-P.: ttj yevpr](T€L Wolf Bdhm. J.-U.: seel. Verm. Sz. Bt. oti : otov
Usener KaTaXelnTj Usener €v...^(da>v del. Ast

oil TToWaKis w|j.. oi means ddavao'las : TToWaKis refei's not only to 206 Ef.
but also to other conversations such as are implied in 207 A (fSiSao-xe
OTTOTe ktX.). ,

207 D evTaUGa. “Here,” i.e. in the case of to Srjpla, as distinguished from

that of humans.
Adv. accus. cp. 178 E.
Tov avTov... Xoyov. tr
;

KaTd TO SvvaTov. This implies (cp. 208 a ad fin., b) that only partial
immortality, at the best, can attach to dvrjTr] (pdaLs.

del TO elvai dGdvaTos. I retain the 1-eading of B rejected by recent edd. (see

crit. n .) : del goes with the preceding words, cp. Rep. 618 c top /SeXTico eK tSip
dvpaToip del TrapTa^ov atpeicrdac and 206 A, B supra. If, with Burnet, we
adopt the reading of T, we must suppose elpai to be doing double duty,
“both to exist (etpai) always and to be (elpai) immortal.” For the desire
of this mortal “to put on immortality,” cp. Eur. fr. 808 S epikoCiooi ^poTol...
ovTcos epcos /SpoTotcTiv eyKeLTat ^lov Browne Hydriot, c. 5 “Restless inquietude
:

for the diuturnity of our memories unto present considerations seems a

vanity almost out of date, and superamiuated piece of folly.”
SvvaTai ktX. This introduces the explanation of the saving phrase Kovd
TO SvpaTOP. TavTp is adverbial (equiv. to TavTj] Trj prjy^dprj in 208 b ad init.),

and Trj yepea-ei, if genuine, is an epexegetic supplement. Possibly we should

excise Trj with Yermehren or else alter to t^ yepprjaei.
yepeaei, ;
But the use
of Trj above (206 d) in the sense of “ the process of generation,” com-
yepecrei
bined with the emphasis, by repetition of its moods and tenses, laid on
—
ylypeadaL in the sequel (207 D 208 a), may make us hesitate to adopt any
change cp. also the passage quoted in the next note.
;

del KaroXeiirei ktX. Cp. Laws 721 C yepos ovp dv6 pane arp . . .tovt(o tco Tporrar
adapoTOP bp, tot Traldas Tralboip KaToXenropepop tovtop koI ep bp del yepeaei Trjs

ddapaalas peTeikypepai: ib. 773 E (cited above). On this “conceit” of “a

fruitful issue wherein, as in the truest chronicle, they seem to outlive them-
selves,” Sir T. Browne {Rel. Med. § 41) observes “This counterfeit subsisting
in our progenies seems to me a mere fallacy ” etc.
eirel Kal ktX. XVe should expect this first clause to be followed by some-
thing like ovK eaTi to avTO dXXd peop del ylypeToi, to be diroWyai or ovSeVoTe
Ta avTa e'x^i ep eavTa, but, affected by the parenthetic clause oiop,..yepr]TaL, the
8—2
 — : — :

116 nAATQNOI [207 D

KaXelrai xal elvai to avro, olov ck TraiSaplov o avrof Xeyerat eo)?

av Trpea^vrrji; yev7]TaL' ovro? p.evToi ovSeirore ra avra e)(wv ev

auT(p opbo)^ 6 auTo? KoXelrai, aX\a veo<; del yiyvop.evo';, rd Be
E aTToW.v'i, Kai Kara ra? T/ot^a? Kal adpKa Kal hard Kal alp.a Kal
^vpLTrav TO awpia. Kal p,r] ort Kara to awp-a, d'hJKa Kal Kara t^v
p'V)^r]v OL rpoTTOi,
•\
rd ^Orj, Bo^ai, iiridvpiiai, rjBovai, Xvirai, (f)6ffoi,

TovTcov eKaara ovBerroTe rd avrd Trapeartv eKciara, dAXa rd pbev

yiyveraL, rd Be diroXXvTat. ttoXv Be tovtcov droTTooTepov en, otl

208 Kal at eirtcrTripat ptrj ort at ptev ytyvovrat, ai Se diroXXovrat rjptlv,

Kal ovBeiTOTe ot avrot eaptev ovBe Kara rd? e’rrtaT'ppta'^, dXXd Kal
ptta eKaaTT] twv iTtarTjptcov ravrou Trda-^ei. o yap KaXetrat pteXe-

207 D ra aiiTa : ravra O.-P. : raOr’ Bdhm. dXXa veos : oXXoioy Stepb. :

dXXa vios TCI piv Sommer: fort, (rd pcv) apa vios (rd pev rrpocrXap^avav) ra
de AVolf : rd 8e (rraXaid) Bast E rpoTToi T O.-P. : tottol B i'dij Fischer
i'ri B O.-P. : eariv TW

sentence follows a different course. Op. the cases of auacoluthon in 177 b,

182 D.
v«os...Td 8e d-iroXXvs. For the omission of rd pev, cp. Theaet. 181 D, Protag.
.330 A, Rep. 451 not unlikely that for dXXd we should I’ead apa
D. I think it :

the processes of growth and decay are sjmchronous. For the substance of
this passage cp. Heraclitus fr. 41 Sir er tov gvtov norapov ovk av ep^atijs
(Heraclitus ap.) Pint, de El Delph. c. 18 d {avdpwnos) els tov a-qpepov
TedvrjKCV, 6 8e <Tr)pepov els tov avpiov aTToOvpcTKet. pevei 8 odSeif, odS e'aTiv eis,

dXXd yiyvopeda ttoXXoi Trepl ev (jiavTaapa Max. Tyr. dlSS. XLI. 4 peTa^oXrjv
opas (TcopaTCOv koi yevecrecos aXXayrjv, 686v avco kw. kotco Kara tov iipa<XeiTov
KrX.: Pint. cons, ad Apoll. 10: Cratyl. 439 off.: see also Eohde Psyche ii. 148.
The influence of “the flowing philosophers” is noticeable also in Epicharm.
fr. 40. 12 fif. (Lorenz)
lithe vvv opr]

Ka'i Tos avdpotTTOvS’ 6 pev yap av^eB', 6 he ya pav (jtOlvei.

ev peTaXXaya he TrdvTes evTi ttovto tov xpcvov.

6 he peTaXXdcrcTeL Kard (ftvcriv rcatynoK ev rcodrto pevei,
drepov eir] Ka rdS rjhr] tov irape^eaTaKOTOs.
Kal TV hr] Kayd) ;^der dXXoi Kal vvv aXXoi TeXeBopes,
KavBis eiXXoi KCOVTTOX (ovto'i kottov avTov av Xoyov.
Cp. Spenser E. Q. vii. 7. 19 And men themselves do change continually, j

From youth to eld from wealth to poverty... Ne doe their bodies only flit and
fly, I
But eeke their minds (which they immortall call) |
Still change and vary
thoughts, as new occasions fall.”

208 A at «iri<n-fj|j.ai. The word is used here in the popular sense

“ notitiae rerum in sensus cadentium ” (Riickert) ;
cp. Rep. 476 d fif.

liiXerdv. See note on dpeXeTtjTos 172 A supra.

 :;
:

208 b] SYMnOIlON 117

rdv, ca<i i^covarj^ icrrl rrj'i eTTio-TTf/u.???’ XrjOrj yap eVicrTT^/AT;? e^oSo?,

p^eXerr] Se vrdXiv KaLvrjv ipTroiovaa dvrl aTTiovap'i [pvijprjv]

aw^et rpv eTria-rpppv, ware rpv avT^v BoKeiv elvai. rovTca yap rw
rpoTTw Tvdv TO dvpTov aM^erai, ov tc5 TravTairaaL to avro del eivai
dxTTrep TO delov, dXXd tw to diriov koX TraXaiovpevov eTepov veov
eyKaTaXeLTrecv olov avTO r)v. TavTp Trj p7])^avrj, w ^(OKpaT€<;, e(j>p,

6 u7]tov ddavaaia'i peTe’^ei, Kal awpa Kal TaXXa iravTa' dhvvaTOv

Se dXXp. pp ovv Oavpa^e el to avTOV dirojBXdcTTppa (pvaet ttolv
TL pa' dOavaala^; yap 'X^dpi.v iravTl avTrj rj aTTovSr} Kal 6 epa)<;
eireTaL.

208 A fj.vTjfj.rjv seel. Baiter Sz. Bt. :

fivrjfirj O.-P. ;
fivrjfj.rj Sanppe Jn.
dvrjTOV T O.-P. ; OVTJTOV B ov tS T O.-P. : OVTQ) B TO aVTOV B O.-P.
TaVTOV Bdhm. J.-U. B Tw to: t(S Liebhold ; t(3 to del Usener koi
TraXaiov/aei'Oi' om. Stob., J.-tJ. eyKaTa\fL7reiv: evKaToXiireiv O.-P.: KaTaXelrreiv
stob.: del KaTaXdneiv Hirschig Jn. TavTr].,.aXXr] om. Stob. fieTexei
Steph., O.-P.: /iere;^etz/ libri, Voeg. ddvvaTov Creuzer Sz. Bt. : Swotov,
dSvvaTov Voeg.- dddvoTov libl’i, O.-P. arrav Stob.

X-qQ-tl -yap ktX. Cp. Phaedo 75 D ov tovto Xrjdrjv X4yofxev...eTriaTrjfirjs diro-

^oXtjv ;
Phileb. 33 E i'aTi yap \rj6rf pvrjprjs 81 C
e^obos Laws 732 c.
: Meno ;

For the Trrjy^ Arjdrjs {Mvtfpo(rvvr]s) in Hades, see Pind. fr. 130; Eohde, Psyche
II. 2093 390b
,

[pvTipi^v]. This word is either interpolated or corrupted {pace Rettig who

attempts to defend it by citing Phileb. 34 b) : dmovo-rfs must refer to the same
subst. as e^iovcrrjs above, viz. eVtoTTj/x?;?, while Kaivrjv must qualify the
same subst. as dmovatfs. For later reff. to this doctrine, see Philo Jud.
de nom. mut. p. 1060; Nemes. de nat. horn. 13, p. 166.
208 B dXXd T40...01OV auTo t^v. This view is reproduced by Aristotle,
de an. II. 4. 415^ 26 ff. (pvaiKaTOTOV yap tSjv epyoav Tols ^(oenv ...to irodjcrai
eTepov olov avT6...iva tov del koI tov 6eiov peTex^oenv ...iirel ovv KOLveoveiv
abvvaTei tov del Kal tov Be'iov Trj crvvexeia...KOLva)ve2 TavTrf...Kal diapevei ovk
ai'To dXX’ OLOV avTO, dpiOpaj pev ovx er, etSet 6’ ev : cp. id. Pol. I. 1252^ 26 ft.

de gen. an. Ii. 735=“^ 17 If.

TavT^ p.. Cp. TavTp, 207 D ad init.

dSuvarov Se dXXT|. Stallb.^, retaining the traditional dddvaTov, comments

“haec addita videntur et oppositionis gratia et propter verba extrema koI
rdXXa rrdvTa: quae ne false iutelligerentur, sane cavendum fuit” which, as —
Homrnel points out, is unsatisfactory. Against dbvvaTov Riickert absurdly
objects that Plato would have written aXXrj be dbvvaTov.
iravTl...eTreTai. Since e-Keerdai is more naturally used of attendance on a
divinity (cp. 197 e, Phaedr. 248 a etc.) perhaps eVeo-rtr ought to be read
(cp. 183 B crit. n.). rj a-rrovbrj serves to recall 206 b.
 118 nAATQNOI [208 B

XXVII. Kat ijM LiKovaa^ tov Xoyov idavfxaad re /cat elirov

Etei/, 571/ h' iyu), tu aacj^MTari] ^lorl^ia, Tavra ci)? d\r] 6 o)<; oi/to)?

C wairep ol reXeoi aocfnarac, E5 laOi, ecji't], (w Sco'cpare?'

eVet /cat tcou dvdpcoTrcov el iOeXei'i et? rrjv <f>iXorip,lav ^Xi'yp'at,

6 aup,d^0 L^ dv rr/? dXoyLa<; [vrept] a eyo> etpTjKa el p,r} eVz/oet?, evdv-

p,pdei<: o)? Seti/w? BidKecvTai epcori tov 6 vop,acrTol- yeveaSai “ /cat

/cXeo? e? TOV del 'X^povov dddvarov KaraOeadat,” Kal virep rovrov

KivSvvov<; re Ktvhvvevetv eroipLol elcri irdvra'^ eVt p.dXXov 'p virep twv
D iralScov, Kal ')(^pppiaT dvaXlaKeiv Kal ir 6 vov<; irovelv ovarivacrovv

208 C e<prj BT O.-P. : oni. W eVei B O.-P., Sz. : eVei ye TAV, Bt.
e^f'Xots' Steph. TrepiBT: Tre'pt Vind. 21, Bast Herm. Trfpt O.-P.: seel. Ast
:

Sz. es B, Sz. Bt. : els TW O.-P. aOdvarov del. Wolf irdvres W

ndWov om. T

Efev. “Keally!”: “In irrisione verti potest so.?” (Ast). This is a some-
what rare use cp. Rep. 350 E eym Se aoi, oxmep rats ypavoriv tols tovs pvBovs
;

'Keyovaais, “ eiev ” ep5> ib. 424 E :Eivthyd. 290 C. For the doubled “ verbum
;

dicendi” {el-nov ...pv), cp. 177 a, 202c.

208 C u>o-irep ol TeXcot o-o<j>io-Ta£. XVe might render “ in true professorial
style.” The reference may be partly (as Wolf and Hommel suggest) to the
fact that the sophistic, as contrasted with the Socratic, method was that of
didactic monologue (SoXt^oi^ KaTarelvovo-L tov Xdyov Prot. 329 a) —the lecture
rather than the conversation. Thus in the sequel (208 c — 212 a) Diotima
developes her own doctrine without the aid of further question-and-answer.
Stallb., however, explains the phrase as intended to ridicule the pretended
omniscience of the sophists Rettig sees in it an indication that what follows
;

is meant, in part, as a parody of the earlier speeches and by Ast and ;

Schleierm. it is taken to refer only to the dogmatic tone of ev lctOi. For

TeXeos (ro<f)i(TTrjs, cp. Crat. 403 E (applied to Hades) o-o^tem)? applied to Eros, ;

203 d; ol ypT^crroi aoefuTTal, 177 B; ol cro(f)ol, 185 c. It is possible also that in

reXeos there may be a hint at the mystery-element in D.’s speech (cp. 210 a
and TTpbs reXos 210 e).
«l e0«Xeis ktX. For (piXoTipla, cp. 178 D. The thought here recalls Milton’s
“ Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise ” etc.

Oavpa^ois av ktX. Stallb., defending Tvepl, says “ad iwoels facillime e

superioribus intelligitur aird.” But we may justly complain here, as Badham
does at Phileh. 49 A, of “ the dunce who inserted Trepl.”
Kttl KXeos...KaTa0e<r6ai. “Ex
poeta aliquo petita esse ipse verborum
numerus declarat” but it is just as probable that Diotima herself
(Stallb.):
is the authoress —
rivalling Agathon. Cp. Tyrtaeus 12. 31 2 ovbe irore KXeos —
ecrBXov dTToXXvTai ovd’ dvop avrov dXX’ vtto yijs Trep eav ylyverai dBavaros
|
:

—
Theogn. 245 6 ovhe tot ovde BavaLV diroXels kXcos, dXXd peXpa-eis d(j)diTOV \

dvBpdnrois alev e^oiv ovopa: Simon. 99. 1 der^ecTTOv KXeos... OevTes. For the
thought, see also Cic. Tusc. i. p, 303 ;
Cat. Mai. 22. 3.
 : :

208 D] lYMnOZION 119

Kal vTrepaTToOvrjCTKeLV. iirel oiei a-v, e(f)rj,”A\Kr}aTiv virkp ' Ahpby]Tov

avoBavelv av, ^ ’A^tWea IlaT/jo/cXw iirairodavelv, r) irpoaTTodavelv
Tov vp-erepov K.68pov virep rrj<; /3acri\eia? twv TraiBcov, pp olopevovi
“ addvaroi’ pvpprjv dpeTrjs TrepL” eavTwv eaeadau, rjv vvv 'ppel<i

ky^opev ; TToWov ye Bel, e<p7], dW, ,

oipai, virep dpeTrj<; ddavdrov
Kal TOcavrr]<; Bo^rjf; eu^Xeou? Trdvre^ iravra ttolovctlv, ocrw dv dpei-

208 D av...iTpoaTTodaveiv oni. W /SaXetay O.-P. nipi Ast Sz. Bt.

TTepX BT

208 D xnrEpaTToSvgo-Keiv. An obvious allusion to ISOAffl: Diotima corrects

Phaedrus by showing the motive for self-sacrifice to be not so much personal
€pa>s as epcos for immortal fame. The use of the cognate accus. {<Lvbvvovs,
TTovovs) is another poetical featm-e in this passage reminiscent of Agathon’s —
style.
KoSpov. Schol. : TToXepov rots Acopifvaiv ovtos npos ’Adrjvaiovs, ey^prjcrfv

o deos Tols Aaipievaiv alprjcreiv ras Kodpov tov ^aaikea pf] (fiovev-
'AOpvas, el

crov(nv. yvovs 8e tovto 6 KdSpor, oreiXay eavrov evreXel anevp ws ^vXiarrjv Kal
bpenavov Xa/Scir, eVi rdr '^apaKa tS)V Tro\epiu>v npopei. bio be avreo aTravTr)-
aavTav iroXeplenv tov pev eva TraTa^as KOTefiaXev, vno be tov eTepov ayvorjde'is
ocTTis Tjv, TrXpyeiy aneQave. This “popular story” is late: “according to the
older tradition Codrus fell in battle ” (see Bury Hist. Gr. p. 169) the :

traditional date of the event is about 1068 b.c.Notice the rare TTpoairo-
daveiv (once each in Hdt., Antiphon, Xen.), and the “sophistic” jingle in
Trpo-, e-TT-, anodaveiv. For later allusions to Codrus, see Cic. Tusc. i. 48;
Hor. C. III. 19. 2.
d0dvaTOV pvtipTlv ktX. Cp. Simon. 123 pvijpa b arrocfydipevoiai TraTrjp
yieyapiaTos eSrjKev addvoTOv BvrjTois iraLal ^(apL^opevos
\
id. 4. 8 (.\e(ovibas)

dpeTas XeXoitrais Koerpov devaov KXeos re

\
id. 96. Observe how near dddvaTov :

...eaea-dai goes to forming a complete hexameter.

dpeTris dGavdrov. Cp. Soph. Philoct. 1419 ocrovs Trovijcras Kal bte^eXdiov
TTOVOVS I
dddvaTov dpeTrjv ea^ov : Pind. 01. VII. 163 dvbpa re ttv^ apeTav ev-
povTa : id. Nem. X. 2 efrXeyeTai b' aperaiy pvpiais epyoov Opacreaiv eveKev
(“countless Bury, see Append. A in his ed.) id. Isthin.
monuments” J. B. :

IV. 17 (with Bury, App. F): Thuc. i. 33. 2: Rep. 618 b eirl yeveai Kal Trpoyovav

dpeTais Xen. Cyrop. viii. 1. 29 Anth. Pal. vii. 252. These passages show:

that dpeTTj can denote not only “excellence” but its result, reward or token,
“renown,” “distinction,” whether or not embodied in a concrete “monument.”
For the thought cp. Spenser F. Q. iii. iii. 1 “Most sacred fyre, that burnest
mightily In living brests... which men call Love... Whence spring all noble
deedes and never dying fame.”
cvKXeovs. Cp. Simon. 95 evKXeas ala KeKevde, Aeeovlba, oi peTO. aelo Trjb' |

edavov Menex. 247 D. With the thought of this passage, cp. Sir T. Browne
:

Hydriot, c. 5 “There is no antidote against the opium of time... .But the

iniquity of oblivion blindly scattereth her poppy, and deals with the memory
of men without distinction to merit of perpetuity.... In vain do individuals
 —
120 nAATQNOI [208 D

E vov<i (Sat, Toaoirtp fjtaXXov rov yap aOavaTOv epwatv. ol p,€v ovv
ijKvpov6<;, €(j)r], Kara to, acoptara ovTe<; tt/jo? ta? yvvalKa<; pdXXov
rpeTTovTat Kal ravrp eptoTi/cot elat, 8td 7rai8ojovta<; adavaatav Ka\
ptvtjptTjv Kal evSaipovtav, co? oiovrat, avTOt<; “ eh rov eiretra ')^p6vov
209 TTcivra Tropt^optevot” • ol 8e Kara Trjv ^v')(r]v — elal ydp ovv, €(j>r], ot
ev rah Kvovatv eri ptdXXov rj ev Toh acSptaaiv, a ’'p'vxp
TTpoaTjKet Kal Kvrjaai Kal reKeiv tl ovv irpoai^Ket ; (jipovrjatv re
Kal Tr]v dXXrjv dpertjv wv 8^ elat Kal ol Trotriral Trayxe? yevvt]-

208 E Kara ra O.-P., Paris 1812, viilg. Sz. : Kara BTW, Bt. oiov Tf Vind. 21
209 A ^ (at) eV Naber KvrjafTai O.-Pd : Kvrjaaire O.-P. COrr. : Kvtiadat
Bdhm. TtKelv Hug Sz., O.-P.: Kveiv libri: tIktclv Jn. :
yewav cj. Teufiel

hope for inamortality, or any patent from oblivion, in preservations below the
moone.” Also Soph. Philoct. 1422 in tS)v ttovcov rcovd’ tvKXta ditrdai ^lov.
208 E ol [jiev ouv eyKviioves. Here first the two kinds of pregnancy, bodily
—
and mental, mentioned together in 206 b, c are definitely separated. —
irpos Tois y- p. Tpeirovrai. Cp. 181 C, 191 E.

dSavatrlav ktX. Hug points out that by a few slight alterations this can
be turned into an elegiac couplet :

adavoTOV pvr]prjv Ktvdaipovlav crcfxcriv avTois

els TOP eireiTa ypovov irdvra rropL^opevoi.
Hommel had already printed els-.-xpovov as a half-verse.
209 A ol 8€ Kara ti^v \|/vx^fiv. Sc. iyKvpoves oVrey. In this anacoluthic
period Rettig sees a parody of Phaedrus’s style with its “ langathmigen,

anakoluthischen und regellosen Perioden.”

Kai KOTjcai Kal T€Keiv. Hug’s conjecture, reKeiv for Kveiv, is fortunate
in finding confirmation in the Papyrus. If Kveiv be read, what is the
point of the distinction of tenses? Schleierm. renders by “erzeugeu und
erzeugen zu wollen”; Schulthess, “zeugen und empfangen”; Rettig explains
that “ Kveiv geht auf den dauernden, Kvijaai auf den vollendeten Process”;
Stallb. “et concepisse (quae est actio semel.-.perfecta) et conceptum tenere.”
But there is certainly not much point here in making any s>ich fine-spun

distinction, unless it be to imply that Diotima is playing the part of a

(To(f)ia-Tr}s !

<l)p6vtio-iv...dp€Tijv.“Moral wisdom and virtue in general”: the phrase is

an echo of that For (ppovija-is, cp. Rep. 427 E (with Adam’s tioie)
in ]84 d. ;

3fe7io 88 B (with Thompson’s note).

ol iroirjTal. That the poets were ethical teachers and the stage a pulpit-
—
just as Homer was the Greek Bible was an axiom in the Hellenic world.
See the appeal to the authority of poets in the Protagoras (and Adam’s note
on 338 e) ; Ar. Ran. 1009 (Eurip. loquitur) /SeXrtovr re noiovpev rovs dvdpon-
TTOvs ev rais noXecriv Lysis 214 A ovroi yap (sc. ol TTOttjral) rjpiv wanep irarepes
:

rrjs ao(j)las elcr'i Kal rjyepoves. The fact that most kinds of poetry were pro-
duced in connexion with, and under the sanction of, religion, had no doubt
something to do with this estimate of it. See further Adam R. T. G. pp. 9 ff.
 :

209 b] ZYMnOZION 121

rope? Kal twv Zrjfjbiovpywv ocroi Xeyovrai evperiKol elvaL' irokv Be

/xeyiaTr), e(f)r), Kal KaWicTTr] ^povpaeco^; rj irepl ra? to)v iroXeMv
re Kal oiKpaecov y By ovop,d eari aco(f)poavvy re Kal
BiaKoap,7']a-ei<t,

BiKaioavvT) •
TovTcov av orav Tt? Bk veov eyKvpboyv fj ryv '^v')(^yv B
6elo<; (uj-' Kal yKOvay^ T/y? y\iKLa<i TLKreLv re Kal yevvdv yBy Bitl-

6vp.fl, Ifyrel By, olpai, Kal o5to? Trepitoov to koXov Bv at av yevvy-

aeiev' Bv rw yap alaj^pw ovBeTrore yevvyaet. rci re ovv acopara rd
Ka\d pdWov y rd ala'^^pd daird^eraL are kvwv, Kal av BvTV')(^y
‘^v^y Ka\y Kal yevvala Kal ev<j)vei, irdvv By daTra^erai to ^vvap-
209 A
ray libri, O.-P. ra Sommer Bt. : 8la<o(r^l^aels Yincl. 21, vulg.
Bast Heindorf J.-U. Sz.: SiaKoafiya-Ls libri, O.-P., Sommer Bt. B aS B
O.-P., J.-U. Sz. : S’ av TW, Bt. yj/v^yv, {ryv (pvcnv) Heusde delos libri,
O.-P., Sz. : fdeos Parmentier Bt. : 6elos wv del. Jn. iiriOv^j.!] Steph. J.-U.
Sz. : eTTiOvpr) O.-P. : enidvfjLel libri, Bt. 8r] BT O.-P. : Se lY TTepuwv T
O.-P. : TTfpi cov B fv (o 8ri yevvrjo-ri Bdhm. rj ra ala^pa del. Bdbm.
are : o ye Usener

8't]|iiovp'Y<3v. ..eCperiKoi. All allusion to 197 A bypiaypyiav ...avevpev.

peYioTT]. .Tris . (f’por'ijtrews. 391 B opOorarr) Tiis o’Ke'yj/ecos Rep. 416 B
Cp. C)'at. ;

Thuc. I. 2 riyy yrjs p dpiarri see Madv. Gi'. S. § 50 a, R. 3.

<rtij(j>pooTjvTi T€ Kal SiKaiocrivT]. Cp. Phaedo 82 A ol rrjv drjporiKTjV re Kal ttoXl-
TiKrjv ciperrjv emrerTjdevKOTes, pr Sp KoXovai troxppoavvrjv re Kal diKacoo'vvrjv, e^
Wovs re Kal peXerrjs yeyovvlav dvev (piXo(TO(l)las re Kal vov :Meno 73 A. For
these virtues in the Republic, see Adam on 432 A, 434 c. Here they combine
to form a description of “ oi’dinary civil virtue.”
209 B TovTiov av ktX. Here the main statement is resumed. lYith
Stephens (followed by Ast, Rlickert and Hug) I read eTndvprj, whereas
Biu’uet prints eiridapeZ fpret Si) KrX., with commas after xl/v^yv and pXtKiay.
Stallb. takes Kal as intensive rather than connective, and renders deToy wv
“ quijipe divinus.” Burnet adopts ParmentiePs f6eos, but there seems little
point in emphasizing the celibacy of the youth. If alteration be required,
the best would be evdeos, for which cp. 179 a, 180 b. But in JJeno 99cff.
6elos, in much the same sense as evBeos, is applied to the veiy classes here

mentioned — opdSts dv KaXdipev deiovs re, ovy vvv 8r] iXeyopev xPV^H-^bovs Kal
pdvreis Kal rovs TTonyrtKOvy diravTas' Kal tovs 7ToXiTiKovs...(l)alpev dv Belovs re
elvat Kal e’vBovo-idCeiv KrX. (see Thompson ad loc.): hence the word may well
be sound here also. For rpy rjXiKias (and Belos) cp. 206 c.

tTjTel. . .Trepiuiv. Cp. Prot. 348 D rrepudiv eTTide'i^r)Tai\ Rep. 620 C :

Apol. 23 B. nepuevai occurs also in 193 a, 219 e.

ev T<S yap alo-xp<p- A repetition

402 D, Pkaedr. 253 a ff. of 206 c ; cp. Rep.
Kal av...€vi|>vel. Notice the iambic rhythm.
For the sense of yewalos,
“well-bred” (of a dog. Rep. 375a), cp. (Eurip. ap.) Gorg. 485 e. For evcfivljs
also cp. (Eurip. ap.) Gorg. 484 c ff. Rep. 409 E. Cp. for the sense Plotin. de ;

pulcr. 309 (Cr.); Rep. 620 b; Cic. Lael. 14; and esyx Phaedr. 276 E.
TO Ivvap^orepov. Cp. I. Ale. 130 a ilrv^r/v y aapa ^vvap(f>6repov. fj
 122 nAATQNOI [209 B

(f)OT€pov, fcal TTjOo? TovTov Tov dvdpcoTTov evdv^ evTTopel Xoycov irepl

C dp€Ti]<; Kal [
Trept ] olov )(pr} elvai rov dvSpa tov dyaOov Kal d^Triri]-
Seveiv, Kal iirL')(^eipeL TraiSeveiv. d'JTTopLevo'i yap, o2p,at, tov koXov
Kal opiXcov avT<p, d irdXab eKvet TiKTei Kal yevvd, Kal Tvaptov Kal
airoov pL€pbvr}pb€vo<;, Kal to yevvpdev auveKTpebfyei KOLvfj p,eT CKeivov,
diaT6 TToXv p.ei^o) KOLvwviav [t^s toov TratSwi’] vpcK; dXXrjXov; ol
TOLOVTOL XayovcTL Kal (j^bXlav ^e^atoTepav, (Its KaXXtovcov -Kal
adavaTCOTepwv iraihwv KeKoivoSvr]K6T€<;. Kal 7ra? av Se^aiTo eavTw
D TocouTOVi TratSa? p,dXXov yeyovivat rj tov? dv6p(07n,vov<;, Kal el<i

"Opbppov d7ro/3X6-\fra‘; Kal <et9> 'HaloSov Kal tov? aXAov? 7roi??Ta?

TOV? dya6ov<; ^pXcov ola eKyova eavTcov KaTaXelirovaiv, a iKelvoi'i

209 C Trep'i seel. Steph. Mdvg. Sz. Bt. : n^p'i tov Coisl.: Trepl olov Sommer
arroov kox rrapav T koi (ante to) om. Vind. 21, Bast Trjs...TTaiBcov
seclusi Toiv TraiBav : (iXXcou Tralbojv Hug^ : dvrjTaiv ttoiSo)!' Schirlitz : tS>v
7ToX\a)v Rohde ; tS)V naiBoyoviov Bast : fort, twv {yrflvwv) TTaiBcov koKKIuiv
wv B TraiBcov secl. Creuzer J.-U. D etr Ha'ioSor O.-P. : 'HcioSor libri,

edd. fpTMr oca Proclus :

^rjXolp ola Ast KaTaXeXoiTracir Method. Bdhm.

Ewopei Xo'ywv. Cp. 223 A ;

Tim. 26 D Iva evnopolev Xdycoi' pfr’ ipov.
209 C Kal [irepl] olov ktX. Trepi is retained by Hommel and Stallb. who
renders “ quale quo tractando versari debeat is qui boni viri nomen et
sit in

dignitatem obtinere velit,” taking olov as 'neut., and by Rettig who regards
the “redundance and tautology” of the words as due to the “sophistical
character” of the j^assage.
TOV KaXov . This is masc., not neuter, as the context shows.
Kal Trapiiv Kal d-iriov. A cp. Soph. Antig. 1109 ol t
rhetorical formula;
ovTfs ol T aTTovTes : id. 305
El. Crat. 420 a. Laws 635 a.
: As Hommel
observes, p-^pvrjpevos {sc. ovtov) can in strictness apjdy only to cittcov.
TO -yevvTjGev ktX. Cj). 207 B, Phaedr. 276 E.

Tijs TwviraCSwv. Hugprintsroov XXX Trai'Stov with the note (after Vermehren)
“es scheint ein Epitheton wie ipva-ei o. ahnl. ausgefallen zu sein.” Stallb.
explains rj Koivcovla toiv TtalBoov to mean “conjunctio ex liberorum procreatione
oriunda.” The simplest remedy is to bracket the words Ttjs twv nalBav (see
crit. n.).

dSavaTcoTcpuv. For this Hibernian comparison cp. Phaedo 99 c.

209 D ^qXuv ola ktX. I.C. ^p\5>v avToiig otl ToiavTa ktX., “ With envy for
the noble offspring they leave.” For oIos = otl towvtos, cp. Xen. Cp\ vii. 3. 13
(liladv. Gr. S. § 198 R. 3). Rlickert punctuates after ‘HcioSov, Hommel after
aTTo^Xeylras, and it is evident from Rettig’s note, “ Homer kann man nur —
bewundern, mit andern Dichtern ist es eher moglich zu wetteifern,” that —
he too mistakes the construction: we must supply ovtovs (as Stallb.) with
(rjXwv and construe all the accusatives as depending on ely; cp. I. Ale. 120 A,
122 B, c. This passage is quoted by Proclus ad PI. Rep. p. 393.
 ;

209 E] lYMnOIlON 123

aOdvarov K\io<; Kal ^viqfir^v 7rape')(^€Tat avrd roiavra ovra’ el Se ••

/3ov\ei, e(f)7], oiov<i i\.vKoupyo<; TratSa? KareXiireTO iv AaKeBalpLovt

au>Tripa<i t?}? AaKe8alp-ovo<; Kal &)? eVo? eLTrelv t^ 9 'EA,X,aSo9.
TLpLLO^ Be "Trap' vpblv Kal ^6\o)v Bid ttjv twv vopiwv jevvrjaiv, Kal
ctXXoi dWoOi 7roWa')(^ov dvBpe<;, Kal ev"^Wpai Kal iv ^ap/3apoL<;, E
iroWd Kal KaXd diro^rivapievoi epya, yevurjaavre'; iravToiav dpeTpv
wv Kal lepd TToAXa jjBr] yeyove Bid tou9 toiovtov<; iTaiBa<i, Bid Be
Toi'9 avdpcoTTivov; ovBevo'i ttq).

XXVIII. TaOro. fiev ovv rd ipcoTiKd laox;, cb '^caKpare’;, Kav

209 D KaTekiireTO b O.-P, J.-U. Sz. Bt. : KaTekiTTCV ...TO B: KaTeXelneTO
T : xare'XtTre rotf vulg. : KareXnrev avTov Rettig vfuv TW vulg. : rjf^iv B O.-P.
(probab.) (o) 20 X 0) 1/ O.-P. E eV "EXXi^O't ; EXXi^crt O.-P. eV fiap^dpois :

/3ap/3dpo(r Clemeut 7roXXd...epya seel. Hartmann xaXd : uXXa O.-P. (koi)

yevvTjcravTes O.-P. (ovSev) ovBevos ttco Hirschig

dGavarov kXe'os Kal |jlvi^|xt|v. Cp. 208 D (note).

avrd ToidliTa. Rettig says “sc. dddvara” but the words imply kX^oj as well
as ddavacria.
€1 8e povXei. See on 177 D. This is a brachylogy for el fie /SouXet, ^>7X^1/
\vKovpyov olovs TTolSas ktX.
iraiSas KareXCireTo. Laws 721 c, Rep. 594 c.
For the middle, cp.
crwTiipas rijs A. “ Dadurch, dass sie
den revolutionaren Bewegungen ein
Ende machten” (Rettig). Agathon had already applied ejcarpp to Eros (197 e).
For Plato’s philo-Laconism, .see Zeller’s Plato (E. T.) p. 484. For the
mythical lawgiver “Lycm’gus” (vulgarly dated at 885 b.c.), see Bury H. Gr.
p. 1.35. The statement that his laws were the salvation “practically” of
Hellas may be taken to refer to the part played by the Spiartans during
the Persian invasions, cp. Pind. Pyth. i. 77 ff. See also the parallel passage
in Xen. Symp. viii. 38 — 9.

TLjiLos Se ktX. For this emphatic position of the adj., cp. Laivs 730 d rlpios
pev 8 ti Kai 6 pTjBev ddiKwv.
209 E dXXoi dX\o9i TToXXaxor. An echo of 182 b : cp. Prot. 326 D. This
passage is alluded to by Clem. Al. Strom, i. p. 130. 38 eV T€ rw (TVfnroo'lco
eiraLvav llkdrcov tovs SopS^povs kt\.
iroXXd. Another rhetorical “tag,” as is shown by the parallel
. .^p-ya.

in Jlene.V. 239 a 7roXXd...Kai KoXd i'pya aTreiprjvavro els ndvras dvdpdmovs '.

cp. Phaedrus’s expressions in 179 B, c.

iravToiav dpenjv. C2). Critias 112 E Kara rrjv tS>v navTolav dpeTrjv :

Eur. Med. 845 ( epcoTas) navTolas dperds ^vvepyovs.

lepd -iroXXd. For the shrine of Lycurgus, see Hdt. i. 66, Plut. Lyc. 31. The
language echoes Aristophanes’ peyiar dv avrov lepa KaraaKevdcrai (189c); and
it is cited by Clem. Al. Strom, i. p. 300 P.
Taira... Kav Here Diotima passes on to the final section of
erv pvT)0e{T)s.

her discourse on erotics (see 210 D n.). Hug and P. Crain (following
C. F. Hermann and Schwegler) sujipose that kclv av p. indicates that what
follows is something beyond the ken of the historical Socrates, whose view
 ;

124 nAATQNOI [209 E

cri) /jLV7)6eLr}<;‘ ra 8e riXea Kal iiroTniKa, wv eveKa Ka\ ravra eariv,

eav Ti? opda)<; /xertr), ovk oih' el ol6<i r av ei'pf;. ipw p,ev ovv, ecpp,

e'yo) Kat, 7rpo6vpLLa<; ovSev a.TrdXei'^u)' Treipo) 8e <Kal av> eireaOai,

210 A av post oiS’ transp. Naber €(f)r]v O.-P. kqi av CTreadai O.-P.
en^adai libri, edd.

they regard as correctly represented in Xen. Symp. vin. 97 flP. But although
we may admit (with Thompson, Meno p. 158) that “we often find Plato
making his ideal Socrates criticise the views the real Socrates held,” we are
not hereby justified in assuming, such criticism on every possible occasion.
And, in the case before us, another and more probable explanation of the
words lies to hand. Socrates throughout with his usual irony depicts — —
himself as a mere tiro in the hands of the Mantinean mistress; but he is
still, in spite of his mock-modesty, the ideal philosopher of Alcibiades’
encomium. As
was a part of his irony that he had already (201 e) put
it -

himself on the level of Agathon and the rest of the unphilosophic, so the
contemptuous Kav <rv here serves to keep up the same ironical fiction, i.e. —
it applies neither to the ideal nor to the real (historical) Socrates,, but to
—
the hypothetical Socrates the disguise assumed by the ideal Socrates when
he played the part of pupil (cjj. Rettig’s note, and P. Horn Platonstud. p. 248).
The attitu.de of Socr. may be illustrated by the words of S. Paul (1 Cor. iv. 6)
ravra di, ade\<po[, fiereo'xrjfj.driaa eiy i/xavrov <a\ AttoAXo) fit v/xds, Iva iv vyiv
fxdOrjre ktX. For y.vr)dflrji, see next note.
210 A Ta 8h .lirOTTTiKd. Cp. Phciedr. 250 C
. efifiat/toi'a (pdafxara jxvovjxevoL
re Kai iiroTTrevovres'. ib. 249 C reXiovs del reXeras reXovfxevos. On the former
passage Thompson comments, fjLvovfxevoL and inonrevovres are not to be

distinguished here, except in so far as the latter word defines the sense .of
the former. Properly speaking jxv-qaLs is the generic term for the entire
jn’ocess, including the i-rToirreia, or state of the epopt or adept, who after
due previous lustrations and the like is admitted into the adytum to behold
the avroirriKa dydXjxara (Iambi. Myst. “the distinction between
II. 10. 53)”:
the two words (^vrjais and they implied, the one an earlier,
eTroTrrela), as if

the other a more advanced stage of imitation, was a later refinement.” Ac-
cording to Theo Smyrnaeus {Math. p. 18) there were five grades of initiation,
viz. KaOapfios, Tj rf/s^ reXerrjs rrapaSocris, iwoTTreia, dvaBeais Ka\ areppdrodv
eTTideoris, rj deoCpiXrjS kol deals avvbtairos evSaipovla. For the language and
ritesused in the mysteries, see also Pint, de Is. c. 78 id. Demetr. 26 Clem. ; ;

Al. Strom, v. jx 689; Rohde Psyche ii. 284; and the designs from a cinerary
ura reproduced in Harrison, Proley. p. 547.
(ov '^vEKa. “The final cause”: cp. 210 E, Charm. 165 a.
TaUxa. Repeating ravra... rd epwriKu: see the recapitulation in 211 c.
oIos T* av
eiijs- Sc. pvrjdhvai this, as Thompson observes, shows that
'.

pvrjoris includes iironrela. Notice the emphasis laid, here at the start and
throughout, on educational method, rd opdas perdvai.
'n-po6v|iCas...diroXei\|/a). Cp. Pep. 533 A to y epdv ovbev av npodvpias
diroXeLiToi.
iTEipu 8e (Kal <rv) ?ire(r0ai. I have added Kat av from the Papyrus ;
it serves
 :;

2iaB] lYMnOIlON 125

I

]
av-oi6<i T6 Set yap, €(f)r], tov 6p6S}<; lovra eVt touto to TTpaypLa
apj^eadat p^eu viov ovra levai iirl ra Ka\a awpara, Kal irpoirov
per, idv opOw'i rjypraL 6 rjyovpevo^;, ev6<; avTov crwparo'i epdv Kal
evravOa yevvdv \6yov<; KaXoix;, eireiTa Se avrov KaTavo^aai, oti to
! KaWo^ TO ivl oTwovv crcdpaTi rS eVt erepw acopart dSe\(f)6v iari, B
Kal el Bel Bimkciv to eV’ etSet KaXov. TroXXr) dvoia prj ov'y^ ev re
Kal Taurov pyeia6ai to eVt irdao Tot? acopaai /caXXo?' tovto S’

evvorjaavTa KaTaaTrjvaL irdvrwv twv KaXcbv acopdrwv ipaarr^v,

evo? Se TO a'(f}oBpa tovto '^aXaaai KaTa<^povrjaavTa Kal apoKpov
210 A av fav O.-P. avrov TW O.-P. : avrSiv B, Sz. Bt. ; ai tov Venn.
acofjiaTos seel. (Riickert) Voeg. J.-U. Hug evreira 8i libri, O.-P.: eircLTa Kal
Themist. : enevra Usener avrov : fort, av B kuWos to eVl BT O.-P.
K. T(o fTTi W ra
aaifiari TW O.-P. : o". ro B eVi eVe'/jo) B O.-P. : tVepu T
61 (S17) Sel cj. Jn. TOVTO s’BW O.-P. : tovtco S’ T

to lay an appro^oriate stress on the personal effort required on the part

of the disciple, the incapacity of whose “ natural man ” is so persistently
emphasized.
Set -yap ktX. The sentence runs on without a full stop till we reach the
close of 210 D Rettig sees in this straggling style a parody of the style of
:

Pausanias. The passage following was a favourite with the neo-Platonists

see the reff. in Alcinous isag. 5; Pint, quaest. Plat. 3. 2. 1002 e Themist. or. ;

13, p. 168c; Plotin. Enn. i. 6. 1, p. 50; Prod, in Alcib. I. p. 330.

o ijyovipevos. The educational “conductor” is represented as a gvo-raycoyos.
So we have dyayelv 210 c, TraiSaycoyrjdri 210 E, dyeadai 211 C.
evos avTov Tiopaxos. If we retain nioparoy and emphasis requires its —
retention, —
it is difficult to justify the Bodleian avreov and avrov, which :

1 has the support of the Papyrus, although rather otiose, is preferable to

such substitutes as Hommel’s ao rav {acdixdrcov) or Vermehren’s av tov, since
av is hardly in place here. Voegelin’s objection to avrov, endorsed by Rettig,
that it should involve the repetition of Set, does not strike one as fatal and ;

I follow Riickert and Stallb. in adopting it.

210 B TO eirl...trwp.aTi. Cp. 186 A.
TO eir’ eiSei koXov. This has been interpreted in three ways: (1) “das in
der Idee Schone” (Schleierm.), “das Schone der Gesammtgattung” (Schulthess);
so too Zeller and F. Horn (2) “ quod in specie (opp. to
;
summo genere ’) ‘

pulchrum est” (Stallb., after Wyttenbach), so too Hommel; (3) “das in der
Gestalt Schone” (Ruge), “pulcritudo quae in forma est atque sensibus per-
cipitur” (Riickert). The last of these is undoubtedly right, and has the
support also of Vermehren, Rettig and Hug; for eiSoy of physical “form”
or “outward appearance,” cp. 196 a, 215b.
|xij ovx...ij-y€io-0ai. See Goodwin G. M. T. § 817.
eworo-avra KOTao-Ttjvai. Sc. avrov Set, resuming the oblique construction.
TO <r<J)68pa toIto. “Idem est quod tovto t 6 o-(f}6dpa ipdv vel t6v arcjiobpov
ToiiTov i'peora" (StaUb.). We have had a description of this crcfiodpoTrji already,
in 183 A fif.
 D

126 nAATQNOZ [210 B

'^yrjad/j.evov' fierd Be ravTa to ev rat? yjrv^ai^ /caAAo? rifiLtoTepov

^yija-aadai tov ev tm awfiarc, ware kuI edv eVtet/c^? wv r^v
C '^v')(riv Tt? Kav afiLKpov dv6o<; i^apKeiv avTw Kal epdv Kal
K'pBeaOaL Kal TLKreiv Xojovi toiovtov<; [ical ^Tjreiv^ OLTtve<; iroi'p-

aovab ^e\Tiov<; rov<; veov‘i, "va dva'yKaaOp av Bedaaa&ai to ev

Tol^ eTrLT7]Bevp.a(7L Kal rot? v6p,ob^ koXov Kal tout’ IBeiv otl irdv
avTo avTcp ^vyyeve'; iaTiv, "va to Trepl to aSipia KaXov crpiKpov Ti
'P'yi^arjTaL eivaf pbeTa Be to. eTTLTrjBevpaTa enl Ta? i7riaT)']p,a<;

dyayeiv, iva IBp av iTnaTTjpuwv A:aAAo9, Kal /SXeTTCov tt/jo? ttoXv ijBr]

D TO KaXov p,r]KeTt tw Trap' evi, wairep ot/ceTT/?, dyaTvoiV TraiBaplov

210 C Kw Herm. Bdhni. Bt. : koi eav BT O.-P. : Kal av W ; Kal Ast Sz.
Kal (rjTeiv secl. Ast (fort, transp. post avrw) : Kal seel. Bdlim. Mdvg. Sz. Bt.
ft rtres W civayKacrdds A.st iva. .elvoL secl.
. Hug: ira del. Ast 7va
’IBjji T : iva (i8rj O.-P. : Iv’ aiSrji B : fort. Iva 8ii8)j av {to tS)v) Hirscliig
D Tw Schleierm. Sz. Bt. : t6 libri, O.-P. olKerrjs: 6 tKerrjs Hommel
naibapiov del. Ast

wo-re Kal edv kt\. The uucontracted form koI edv is very rare iu Plato, see
Schanz nov. comm. p. 95. For dvdos, cp. 183 E.
210 C [Kal t’HTelv]. Ast rightly condemned these words as “ ineptum
glossema.” To excise Kal only (as Badham) is unsatisfactory, since as Hug
justly observes tLkt(lv (rjTeiv \6yovs “ist unertraglich matt.” Stallb. attempts
to justify the words thus: “Diotima hoc dicit, talem amatorem non modo
ipsum parere quasi et ex se procreare, sed etiam aliunde quaerere et iii-

vestigare eiusmodi sermones, qui iuvenes I’eddant meliores ” ;

so too Eettig.
But this is futile.

ev Tois eirLn]Sevp.a(n.. “ In Morals ” (Stewart) : cp. Laws 793 D oa-a vopovs

i) fOr] Tis ij eTTiTTjdeviJLaTa KoXel: Lep. 444 E : Gorg. 474 E.
I'va To.-.etvai. This clause is subordinate to, rather than coordinate with,
the preceding Iva clause (like the ecoy dv clause in d infra),— a, juxtaposition
which sounds awkward. Hence it is tempting either to excise this clause
with Hug, or with Ast to read dvayKaadels for dvayKaadp, and delete the
second Iva. Against Hug’s method it may be urged that the words are
wanted to correspond to €vos...(TpLKpov rjyrjadpevov in 210b above, and to
emphasize the “littleness” of corporeal beauty even when taken in the mass.
For this belittling of things of the earth, cp. Theaet. 173 E fie fitdvota, ravra i)

ndvTa Tjyriaapcvri apiKpd Kal ovSeV, dTLpda'a(Ta...(pepeTaL kt\. Observe how rrdv
...^vyy^ves here balances (ttSv) KdWos,,,d8eX(f>6v iu 210 b.

- dyayeiv. The construction is still dependent upon fieT, but the subject to
be supplied {viz. tov rjyovpevov) is changed.
210 D (itiKeVi Tw Trap’ evt ktX. rw, SC. KaXa, is governed by fiouXeiicov, and
the phrase contains a clear reference to the language of Pausanias in 183 a ff.
(ScTTrep olK€Tr)s, “like a lackey,” is of course contemptuous, as in Theaet. 172

Ktvdvvevovcriv .ws oiKeTai irpos iXevdepovs Tedpdcjodai. For dyarrav, “contented

. .

with,” cp. Menex. 240 c. If we retain the MSS.’ ro nap' evi the construction is
 ;

•210 E] lYMnOIlON - 127

/caWo? 77 avOpcoTTov Tiz'o? ^ eTriTTjBevp.aTO'i kvos, hovXevav (f)av\o<;

77 /cat apLLKpoXoyo'i, dA,V eVt to ttoA-o 7re\ayo<; Terpa/i/tei/o? Toy
KoXov Kal 9ecopS)v ttoWoo? /cat Ka\ov<; \ 070 y 9 /cat pLeyaXoTrpe7rel<;

TLKTp /cat 8iav07]p,aTa iv (piXoaocjiia d(f)66v(p, eco? dy ivravda pm--

a^et? /cat av^ijOei^ KariSp nva eiriarppirjv p.Lav rocavrpv, p eari
/caXov ToiovSe. iTeipw Se p, 0 L, ecf)p, rbv vovv Trpocrei^eti/ to? olov re E
fiaXiaTa.

210 D (caXXos del. Bdhm. ^ avOpavov del. Schirlitz: fort, avov

ci'ds : TLvos O.-P.^ SovXedcor del. Bast tIktu Coisl. corr. : tiktci BT
Kal Ihavoripara del. Bdhm. : ante UKTTj transp. Hommel a(pdova Ast
pcodeii XI

awkward, as Stallb.'^ admits

—
“ quod olim accusativum defendendum susce-
pimus, videtiu’ nunc interpretatio loci quam proposuimus, quamvis Riickerto
et Hommelio probata, nimis contorta nec satis simplex esse.” I am inclined

to .suspect the phrase p dvdpdoTrov nvos. Schirlitz proposed to excise p dvOpat-

TTov I suggest naLdapLov KaWos [^] dvov tlvos, “ of some witless urchin,” and
:

suppose a reference to what Pausanias said in 181 b epdiai...d)s dv dvvavrai

dvorjTordriov 181 D oil yap fpSiai Traldcov, dXX’ infiSav rjBrj dp^ccvrai vovv la^eiv
:

(cp. next ?!.).

<}>avXos...o-|j.iKpoX6-yos. Cp. 181 B, where those who follow Aphrodite Pan-
demos (loving women and boys) are described as ol (jyavXoi twv dvOpdnronv.
€7ri TO iroXv TreXayos. rrdXayos of itself connotes vastness; cp. Sep. 453 d
CIS TO peyioTov TreXayos pdcrov {dv tls ipTreap) Prot. 338 A cjyevyeiv els to TeeXayos
:

tS)v XdycBi'. The phrase is alluded to in Clem. Al. protrept. 69 A Pint, quaest. ;

Plat. 1001 E; Themist. or. xin. p. 177 c.

Gcaipuv. This should be taken closely (supplying aord) with what precedes,
not with TroXXovs...X6yovs (as Ast’s Diet. s.v. implies). The parable suggests
that the spectator, having reached the hill-top, turns himself about and
gazes, wonder-struck, at the mighty ocean of beauty which lies spread before
him, till the spectacle quickens his soul and moves it to deliver itself of many
a deep-lying thought.
KaXoiis...p€‘yaXo7rp€Tr6ls. Cp. Menex. 247 B; ib. 234 c: Rep. 503 c veaviKol re
Kal p. rds SiavoLas'. lb. 486 A, 496 A yevvav diavoripard re Kal 86^as. Cp. for the
sense Plotin. de pv.lcr. 8c (Cr.).
d<j)06va). df^Oovos is used alike of fruits {Polit. 272 a) and of soils {Soph.
222a), thus meaning both “abundant” and “bountiful” — “unstinted” and
“ unstinting.”
pwo-Gcls. Cp. Phaedr. 238 c
176 B supra. ;

This unitary science

eTTKTT-qpqv p.(av. —
in the strict Platonic
sense, called also (211c) pddrjpa —
is dialectic, cp. Phaedr. 247 b rpv ev rd) 5

icTTiv bv dvTcos iTTL(jTrjpr)v overav. See parallels in Plotin. de pv.lcr. 2 a (Cr.)

Prod, in I. Ale. p. 246.
210 E 7r€Lpw 8e poL ktX. Here again, as at 210 a (Tretpw eTrccrOai ktX.),
a climax in the exposition is marked.
 :

128 nAATQNOI [210 E

XXIX. "'O? yap av P'^XP'' ^vravda tt/oo? ra epcortKa iratha-

y(oy7}6fi, 6ecopevo<; t€ koX 6p6oi<; ra KoXd, 7rpo? reAo? ijBr)

Iq)v tcop ipwTiKcov i^ai<^vr)^ KaroyjreTaL tl Oavpaarov rrjv (f)vcriv

KaXov, TOVTO eKelvo, co liWKpaTe’i, ov Bp eveKev /cal ol epirpoadev

211 Trai'Te? irovot paav, TrpwTOv pev del ov /cal ovre yiyvopevov ovre
cLTToWvpevov, ovre av^avopevov ovre cf)6lvov, eTreira ov Tp pcev
KoXov, Tjj Be aiaxpov, ovBe Tore pev, rore Be ov, ovBe Trpo? pev to
KoXov, 7rpo9 Be to alaxpov, ovB' evBa pev /caXov, evda Be aiaxpov
211 A roSf fie O.-P.

e(j>e|^s Te Kai op0ws- “In correct and orderly succession ” see 211 B ad Jin. ;

TOVTO yap fiij e’oTt to 6p6Sis...livai kt\., and 210 A where the right order of
procedure {7rpSiTov...e7reLTa, etc.) is specially emphasized.
TTpos TeXos 1)811 Itov.
“ wpos T(\os Uvai dicebantur ii, qui superatis gradihus
tandem ad spectanda arcana admittehantur ” (Hommel). Cp. the use of re'Xea
in 210 A, reXeoi/ 204 C, rAoy 20.5 A.
6|al4)VTis. “ On a sudden ” : this suggests the final stage in the mystery-
rites, when out of darkness there blazed forth suddenly the mystical cpeyyos,
and eV avyrj Kadapa the (ftdapaTa {I'haed?'. 250 C) or i'epa pvaTLKO. consisting —
probably of images of Demeter, lacchus and Persephone, and other sacred
—
emblems were displayed to the awe-struck worshipjier {paKopLa oyjfis Te xal
de'a). Cp. Plotin. Enn. 43. 17 oTav yj/vx// e^al/pvrjs <J(os XdjSrj ktX.
rj Plato Ep. ;

vii. 341 C i^ai(pvr]s, oiov utto irvpbs nrjbriaavTos i^a<J6tv (pas, €v Trj yevo-
pevov {sc. the highest pddrjpa). See further Rohde, Psyche ii. 284.
KaToxj/eTai. Cp. 210 D supra, and Phaedr. 247 D {KaOopa piv avTrjv diKaio-
(rvvrjv kt\.), which suggest that KaOopdv was a vox propria for viewing ritual

displays.
0avpa(rTov...KaX6v. Similarly Phaedr. 250 b koKKos fie tot’ r\v Ifieir Xapirpor.
For davpacTTov cp. 219 B: it often connotes the supernatural, e.g. Rep. 398 a
n po(T Kvv oipev av avTov as Upov xa'i 6. Ka\ r/bw.
ov Si) EveKev ktX. “ The goal to which all our efibrts have been directed ”

cp. 210 A Phaedr. 248 B ov

;
cvex' h iroXXi) uTrovfii) ktX.
fi’ See the parallel in
Plotin. de pulcr. 42 C, D (Cr.).

211 A irpuTov pev...?ireiTa...ov8’ av ktX. The Ideal object is distinguished

by three leading characteristics, viz. (1) eternity and immutability; (2) abso-
luteness, or freedom from relativity (3) self-existence. Compare the accounts
;

of Ideal being given in Phaedo 78 C ff., Phaedr. 247 c ff., Cratyl. 386 D, 439 C fiP.,
Rep. 476 a, 479 a ff.. Soph. 249 B ff., Phileb. 15 b, 58 a, Tim. 51 D The fif.

description has, necessarily, to be conveyed by means of negative propositions,

i.e. by way of contrast with phenomenal objects. See also the parallels in
Plotin. Enn. v. viii. 546 c, vi. vii. 727 c.
rij pev...Tg 8h “In part. ..in part”: so Theaet. 158 E, Polit. 274 E, Laws
635 D.
irpos to... TO. This denotes varying “relation,” as in the Aristotelian
TO TTpos Tl.
211 b] lYMnOIlON 129

[cB? Toai fjbev ov KaXov, real 8e ala')(^p6v'\‘ ov8' av <f}avraad7]creTai

avTM TO KaXov olov 7rp6cr<07r6v ri ov8e ^elpe<y ovSe dXXo ovSev (Sv

crwpa yLtere^^i, ov8i Ti? X0709 ov8e Ti<? iiria-TppLr], ov8i irov ov iv
iripep TLvi, olov iv ^cow ovpavw t) 'iv ra dXXw, dXXa B
p iv yfj y) iv
rd 8e dXXa rravra KaXd^
'
avTO Kad' avTo p,e9' avrov p-ovoec8e<; del ov,

iKeivov p,eTi')(ovTa rpoirov rivd toiovtov, olov jvyvop^evcov re tmv

211 A a)s...alcr)(p6v secl. Voeg. J.-U. Hug Sz. Bt. ov oro. W av BT
O.-P. ; avTo W avTw BT O.-P. : avro W ov8ev a>v libri, edd. : ovBe ev O.-P.
B per avTOv O.-P.; del. Naber rponov Tiva B O.-P.: Tiva rpoTTOv TW
«s Ticrl...alcrxp6v. Eettig defends this clause, quoting Wolf’s note, “rio-t
(geht) auf alle vier (vorher genannten) Ideen, Theile, Zeit, Verhiiltniss, Ort.”
Teuffel argues that “ausser Platon selbst hatte nicht leicht demand einen
Anlass gehalt einen Beisatz zu machen.” None the less, I believe we have
here another “ ineptum glossema.”
(jjavTacOrjo-eTai aixcp. Sc. rw deaipivcp. (^avra^eo'dai often connotes illusive
semblance; cp. Phaedo IIOd, Rep. 572b.
ouSe Tis Xo-yos. It is difficult to be sure of the sense in which \6yos is
used here. (1) It is most natural to refer it, and eVio-xT^^r; following, to the
Xdyot and 210 c, and to render by “ discoiu’se,” “argument” (with
iivKTTripaL of
Gomperz, Stewart and Zeller). This rendering has in its favour the fact that
this is the usual sense of Xd-yor (Xd-yoi) throughout this dialogue. (2) Or
Xdyor may mean “concept”; so Eettig, who comments: “Die Ideen sind
nicht blosse Begrifle, sie sind vielmehr Existenzen, ^copiaruL, wie Aristoteles
sich ausdriickt, und Bedingungen des Seins und Werdens der Dinge der
Sinnenwelt.” Cp. Phaedr. 245 e. Laws 895 E, Phaedo 78 c, in which places
(to quote Thompson) “ Xdyos is equivalent to dpos or opia-pos, of which ola-la
is the objective counterpart.” This more technical sense is, perhaps, less
probable in the present context; but, after all, the difference between the
two renderings is not of vital importance. The essence of the statement,
in either case, is that the Idea is not dependent upon either corporeal or
mental reahzation, i.e. that it is not subjective, as a quality or product of
body or mind, but an objective, self-conditioned entity. A* third possible
sense of \6yos is “ratio,” or mathematical relation. Perhaps “formula” would
best render the word here.
oiSe irov ov. ttov is probably used in a local sense cp. Arist. Phps. iii. 4. :

203^ 7 nXaxojv fie i'^co pev ovdev elvai aSipa, oufie xas tSe'ar, fiia xo prj84 ttov
elvai airds. But though the Ideas are extra-spatial, it is Platonic (as Aristotle
implies, de An. iii. 4. 429^ 27) to say rfjv yj/vxrjv eivai tottov eifimv.

211 B fjLovoeiSU. Cp. PAaeffo 78 D p. ov avTO Ka6’ avTO

ih. 80 B povoetSet ;

Kai ddiaXvT(o : Theaet. 205 D

Tim. 59 B Rep. 612 A eixe TroXvetfipr etxe povoei-
; :

Sijff (17 dXijdrjs (pvaLs). Stewart renders “of one Porm,” but the full force may
be rather “specifically unique,” implying that it is the sole member of its class.
[lex^ovxa. For the doctrine of “participation,” see esp. Phaedo 100c ff.,
Parmen. 130 B ff.
xoiovxov, olov. Equiv. to toiovtov merxe (see Madv. Gr. S. § 166 c).
B. P. 9
 . ;

130 nAATQNOI [211 B

dXXcov Kal aTToXXvfievcov firjBev eKelvo fjb'qre rt TrXeov fii^Te eXarrov

’yL'yveaOai /xrjBe 'Trda')(^£iv /xrjBev. orav Bi] ti<; utto twvBe Bid to
6p$co<; TraiBepaaTelv enavidiv eKelvo to kuXov dp'^rjrai Kadopdv,
(T-^eBov dv Ti aTTroiTO tov reXovi. rovro yap Brj eari to 6p6cb<; iirl

rd epcoTiKd levai rj vtt' dXXov dyeadai, dp')(^opLevov arro rcbvBe twv

KaXwv eKeivov eveKa tov KaXov del eiravievai, wairep eTrava^aO piol'^
y^piapievov, airo evo<; eTTi Bvo Kal diro Bvolv eirl iravTa to. KaXd
crd>p.aTa, Kal diro tcov KaXwv acopiaTcov eVt Ta KaXd eiriTr^Bevpiara,
Kal aTTo TCOV e7riT7]Bevp,dTcov eTrl t<x KaXd piaO'^ixaTa, Kal otto
TCOV pia6r]p,dTcov eV eKelvo to piddppia TeXevTrjaai, 6 eaTiv ovk

211 B i<eivo B O.-P. : eKiiva TW ti BTW : Vind. 31 Paris

1642 O.-P. orav 8rj B O.-P.: orav de 677 TW C eirava^adiiois W : eV
ava^a6)iois B ; (tt av a^aa jxol.s T O.-P. (ra)fjia.T(ov {err'i ras KaXas Kal otto
TCOV KaXoov \ffV)(S)v)jTrl Sydenham otto tS>v {koXcov} cttit. vulg. fia6r]fiaTa,

Kal libri O.-P., Bdhm. Usener Hug: fxad., ws Sz. Bt. vulg. Vt
:
fxad., ear ai/ :

ecos av Stallb. :
fjL. ecos Herm.: Iva Sauppe: p., Iva Kal Winckelmann to
fiddrjfia reXivT^ar] del. Bdhm. TeXevTrjcraL Usener Hug TeXeoTi^crp libri, Sz. :

Bt. : ante rcXfvT^a-r] lacunam statuit Voeg.

EKcivo. Sc. (avTo) TO KaXov. So frequently ^‘eKelvo et fKfii/a das Ueber-

sinnliche significat, Tabe vero vel ravTa das Sinnliche ” (Ast) : cp. Phaedr.
250 A, Phaedo 74 B, etc.

|xt) 8^ irdo-xeiv |iT)8ev. As to the dirddeia of the Idea, see Soph. 248 a ff.,
251 c ff., and my article on “ The Later Platonism ” in Journal of Philol.
XXIII. pp. 189 ff.

Iiraviwv. Cp. Rep. 521 C too ovtos ovcrav indvobov, rjv brj (piXoaDcjoiav dXrj67j

iprjO’Ofj.ev 532 B, C.
eivai : ib.

ToC TcXovs. This combines the senses “ goal ” and “ sacred symbol ” cf. :

210 a; Soph. yi". 753 N. OJS Tpls dx^ioi kPivol jSpoTcdv, 01 Taira bepx&lvres tcXt] | |

poXcocr' ef "Albov.
TovTo yap 8r} ktX. Here commences a recapitulation of “the Ascent of
Love” as described in 210 —
a 211 b; cp. Rep. vi., vii. for both language and
thought.
211 C vir’ dXXov ayta-Qai. This refers to the Traibaycoyds or pvarayioyds
of 210 E, not (as Wolf thought) to the operation of a balpcov.
liravaPaGpois. Por the notion of a ladder of ascent cp. Rep. 510 b ffi, 511 b
rds vnodccreis Troiovpevos ovk ap^ds aXXd...olov eVt(3dcrEts re Kal oppas iva pe’xP^
TOV dvvTTodeTov (ttI ttjv tov TravTos dpxhv io)v .ovtoos ini reXevrrjv Karafiaivp ktX. .

Cp. Tennyson’s “ the great world’s altar-stairs ” the dream-ladder at Bethel ;

and the Titanic heaven-scaling of 190 b. Possibly a contrast is intended

between the futile attempt of the Earth-born els t6v ovpavbv dvd^aaiv noieiv,
and the successful efforts of the Heaven-born lover ini to koXov inaviivai.
For later parallels, see Plotin. de pulcr. 60 b (Cr.); Clem. Al. Strom, v.
p. 611 D.
Kol diro T«v paGiipdTwv ktX. The reading and construction of this passage
 .

211 e] lYMnOIlON 131

dWov 57 avTov eKelvov rov koXov fxdOrjiJba, <iva> kuI jvw avTO
reXevTwv o eari koXov. evravOa rov /3 lov, (S cpiXe Sw/cpare?, e(f)T} D
^ ^lavTiviK^ ^ev7), €L7rep ttov dXXodc, /Sicorov avOpwirw, 6ewp,iv(p
avTO TO KaXov. 0 idv irore 1S779, ov Kara '^pvaiov re Kal eaOrjTa
Kal roil? KaXoii<; TratSa? re Kal veavicTKOVi Bo^ei aoi eivat, ov<; vvv
opcov iKTriTrXrj^at, Kal eroi/io? ei Kal av Kal dXXoc ttoXXol, 6pdovTe<;
TO, TraiBtKa Kal ^vvovre<; del avrol<;, e'i ttco? olov r rjv, p^pre eaOLeiv
pbT]Te dXXd OedadaL pbovov Kal ^vveivai. tL Brjra, e^rj,
Triveiv,

olopLeda, e’l rw jevoiTo avTO to KaXov IBeiv elXiKpcve^;, KaOapov, E

dpiKTOV, dXXd piT) dvdirXewv aapKwv re dvdpcoTrlvcov Kal ')(pQ)pbdTQ)v

2110 (tva) Ka'i scripsi : koI libri ; iva XJsener: k&v Bdhni.: Kal yva. .koXov
seel. Hug aiiTo ; ovtco O.-P. D pavriK^ Themistius nore idijs

O.-P. : TTor’ eiSps B: ttot’ elSrjs T : TTor’ 'Idrjs apographa, Sz. ^pvalov'. xpvaov
O.-P. del post povov KOI transp. Ast BeacrOai povov TW ; Oeacraadai
povov _B :
povov dfoa-aadai O.-P. E apiKTov post dvprrjs, dXX' transp.
Liebhold dXXd del. Ast Liebhold avanXea O.-P.

are uncertain. I follow Usener in changing TeXfvrrjcrp to the infinitive and in

yva which he need-
inserting Iva after pdOrjpa (retaining, however, Kal before
lessly deletes). The and t&iv p. is that wy
objection to Schanz’s djy (for Kal) ,

in the final use, occurs but once elsewhere in Plato, according to Weber’s
statistics (see Goodwin, G. M. T. p. 398), being very rare in all good prose-
writers except Xenophon. Another possible expedient would be to read
yvaivai in place of yveo. eor’ dv is a non-Platonic form.
T€X€VTij(rai...TeX€VT<3v. The repetition serves to emphasize the finality of
the Idea.
avT6...o formula to express ideality, cp. Phaedo 74 b,
^o-Ti. For this
To B oly eTTiaclypayL^opeda Theaet. 146 E.
tovto o eari :

211 D evTav0a...€l'Trep irov dXXoGi. “There above all places”; so Phaedo

67 b eKeI...elVfp ttov dXXodt cp. 212 A elVep to> dXXo). .eK€ir«. For ivTovda
: .

c. gen. cp. Theaet. 177 c, Rep. 328 e. For /3ioy /Sicordy, cp. Apol. 38 a, Eur.
Ale. 802.
ov Kara xpvo-iov ktX. Similar is Proverbs viii. 11 “Wisdom is better than
rubies ;
and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.”

That Socr. held this view is shown in 216 D, E. For koto c. acc., of comparison,
cp. Gorg. 512 b, Rep. 466 b.

IvvovTis-.-piiTe irivciv. Cp. 191 A ff.

;
also Sappho 2, Archil. 103, Soph. fr.
161 N. (oppoTfios TTodoy): Rel. Med. “There are wonders in true afiection —
when I am from him I am dead be with him,” etc.
till I
tL 8T)Ta...ol6p€0a. Sc. yeveadai avT(o, or the like.
211 E elXiKpives ktX. Cp. Phileh. 52 D to Kodapov re ko'l flkiKpives : Phaedo
66 a, Rep. 478 E.
pr dvdirXewv. Tim. dvdjrXetoy avo'ireTrXrja'plvos' xprjrai be eVl rov pepo-
Xverpevov : cp. Phaedo 83 d and the use of the verb in Phaedo 67 a pt]he
9—2
 132 nAATQNOZ [211 E

Kal dX\r)^ 7roXX.i]<; (f)\vapLa<i dv7]rfj<i, aXV avTo to delov koXov

SvvaiTO /u,ovo6iS69 /cariSeiv ; dp’ o’iet, €(j)r}, ^avXov ^lov ylyveadai
212 e’/cetcre ySXeTrovro ? dvOpcoTrov Kal eKeivo ^
w Set . 'deco p,evov Kal
^vvovTO'i avTM; rj ovk ivOvpufj, e(f>7], on evravda avnp p,ova^ov
yevpaerai, dpatvn w oparov to koXov, tLkt^iv ovk e’lScoXa dpe-
Tr)<;, are ovk elBwXov €(f>a7rT0fjievq>, dXX.' dXrjdri, cvre tov d\r)6ov<;
i<pa7rTop,ev(p *
tskovtu Se dpeTrjv dXrjOfj leal Ope'^apbevep virdp'^ee

211 E OvrjTTjs del. Bdhm. ...Kanhelv del. Bdhrn. eeprj om. T

212 A. a del Ast : & Set B : otSt b : o Set T : 8^ Schleierm. : del Rohde Sz.
ie^anTOfjLiva del. Voeg.

ava7Tif]Ln\a>ixeda T^s tovtov {sc, tov awfiaTos) ^vaetoj, dXXd Kadapevwfxev dir’
avTov. Also Hep. 516 E, Theaet. 196 e. This passage is cited by Plotin. Enn.
I. vi. 7, p. 56.
XptoiidTuv. For the Idea as dy^pw^aros ovcia, see Phaedr. 247 C.

4>Xt)ap£as GvTjTijs. “Lumber of mortality”: cp. Phaedo 66c epoDrav Se koI

fTTidvpiStv Koi (j)6^a>v Ka'i el8d>\a>v 7ravro8a7ra>v Ka'i (jiXvapias eprrlTrXrjo'iv rjpds
TToXXrjs {sc. TO cra>pa ) Gorg. 490 c Rep. 581 D.
; ;

<j)aiiXov p£ov. For the sense, cp. Soph./r. 753 N., Eur. fr. 965 D. oX/3tos octtis

... ddavoTov KoBopdiv (jivaecos |

Koapov dyrjpu) ktX.

212 A eKeivo w 8el. “With the proper organ,” se. tm v<S: cp. Phaedr.
247 C fj ydp...dvacj)rjs overla, ovTas ovaa, ^vy(rjs KV^epvrjTrj povco BeoTry vw ktX. :

Phaedo 65 E ;
Rep. 490 B avTov o ecrTiv e<daTov Trjs cf)vae<os d\jracrBai
y TrpotrtjKet

\j/vy(ps ((jydTTTeaBai tov toiovtov : ib. 532 A irp'iv av avTo o ecTtv dyaBov avTrj
vor^aeL Xd^rj. For the organ of intellectual vision (to dpyavov w KOTopavBdvei
eKaaTos...oiov ei dppa), see Rep. 518 c : cp. S. Matth. vi. 22 ff. So Browne
Hydriot. “ Let intellectual tubes give thee a glance of things which visive
'
organs reach not”: cp. Plotin. de pulcr. 60 B (Cr.).
OVK ei8(oXa...dXX’ dXT)0-p. Rettig writes,' “ etScoXov ist hier nicht Trugbild,
sondern A eidviXa dperijs sind...Tugenden zweiten Grades. "Fgh Pol. vii.
516 a, 534c,596 a, 598 h..,Commentar zu unserer Stelle ist Symp. 206 D.”
X.
On the other hand, cp. Theaet. 150 a eidaXa tIkt^iv, with 150 c norepov eidcoXov

Ka'i yjrevdos oTroTiKTei tov viov rj bidvoia yovipov re koi dXijBes. Evidently here t]

the point of tl'ScoXa lies in the inferiority rather than the similarity of the
objects when compared with ovtcos ovto. But it is scarcely probable that an
allusion is intended, as Zeller .suggests, to the myth of Ixion “der seine
frevelnden Wiinsche zu Here erhob, aber statt ihrer ein Wolkenbild umarmte
und mit ihm Centauren erzeugte.”
die
e<j)airTop6vip. Of mental action, cp. ifey?. 490 b (quoted above). Voegelin
proposed to omit the second depa-n-Topiva, but Plato never omits the participle
with are. For parallels, see Phaedo 67 b, Rep. 534 C; Plotin. de pulcr.
46 E (Cr.).
6pe\}>apev(j). Cp. 209 C.
 :

212 b] lYMnOIlON 133

deocjiiXel yevea-dat, Kal elirep ra> dWw dvOpaiircov dOavarw koCl

SKCLVCp ;

TaOra St], co ^aiSpe re Kal ol dWoi, e^r] puev ^wrlpba, 'ireireicrfLaL B

S’ eycc)' ireiteLcrpLevo'i Se Treipdop-ai Kal tou? dXXov<f TreLOeLV on rov-
rov Tov KTrjparoi; Trj dvOpcoirela (pvaei avvepyov dpueLva ’'Epcoro?
ovK dv Tt? paSico'i Xd/3oi. Sio Bp eycoye (ppp,t 'y^prjvat ’iravra dvBpa
TOV ’'Epojra TLfjidv Kal ayro? ri/j-co, <Kal> rd epcoTiKo. Kal Bia-
(j)ep6vTa><; dcrKa Kal rot? dXXoi<; TrapaKeXevopuai,, Kau vvv re Kal ael
iyKoypLLa^a) rpv Bvva/aiv Kal dvBpelav tov ’^Epwro? Kad' oaov ol6<; t

212 A 6eo<f>LXel rec. t O.-P., vulg.: deocfnXfj BTW B o) oiit. O.-P.

e’yo) ^ptjvai (prjfii Method. ra epaiTiKa ku'l Sz. : Ka't ra ipojTLKa TJsener
ra S’ (pcoTiKa Ka't Bdhni. aaKoiv Vahleil tov eptora post eyKtopta^co add.
O.-P.^ Ka't dvbpeiav secl. Hug; re Ka't ^petav Bdhm.

6EO(}>iXei. Cp. Rep. 612 E, Phil. 39 E.

elVep TU) aXXu). Cp. Phaedo 58 E, 66 A ;

and 211 D supra {ad init.).

Cp. Soph. fr. 864 N. ovk i'an yrjpas Ta>v aotpwv., iv ois 6 vovs
aBavarw. \

6ela ^vveoTiv r^pipa redpappivos. A passage such as this might have evoked
the remark in Isocr. c. Soph. 291 E povov ovk ddavarovs vTricTx^vovvTaL rovt
avvovras noiTjcreLV.

212 B •jre'irei.o-ii.ai ktX “ Beachte man das Spiel mit TreVeio-pat, Tretreia--
” (Rettig).
peVos, TreipSipai, nflSeiv Cp. 189 D e’yd) oiv Treipdaopat kt\.
KT-ppaTOS. I.e. avTov tov koXov. Cp. Phil. 19 C t'i t5)v dvdpanrivoov KTqpaTcov

dpiaTov : 66 A.
lb.

OTivepyov. Cp. 180 E ;

and 218 D tovtov Se olpal pov O'vXKpirTopa ovdiva
KvpLcoTepov eivai crov.

Sio 8'q...Tipav. This echoes both Phaedrus’s ovtco S17 eyatye (j)TjpL "EpcoTa
(180 b) and Agathon’s a xpfj eTTeadat ndvT avBpa (197 e).
6ea>v ...TipidtTaTov
Probably Ttpdv here implies practical veneration cp. the Homeric use of ;

Ttp^ (P 251, X 304,' CO 30, etc.), and Hes. Theog. 142.

rd epwTiKa...d(rKA For Socrates’ devotion to “erotics,” see 177 D oSSeV
(t)r]pLaXXo e TT icTTacrdai Tj Ta epcoTtKa, 198 D ad init. Probably dcTKO} (like Ttpw)
has a religious connotation here, “I am a devotee of”; cp. Hesych. dV/ceia-
6pT)cTKcia, €vcriS(ia: Pind. JVem. ix. 9 (with J. B. Bury’s note). In spite of
Rettig’s objection that Usener’s conj. (see crit. n.) “bewirkt eine Tautologie
mit dem Folgenden koI vvv...’'EpcoTos” it seems to me as to Hug an im- — —
provement, and (as modified by Schanz) I adopt it: a certain amount of
tautology is inevitable, unless we resort to excision. For koI (intensive)
8ia(f)€p6vT(os cp. Phaedo 59 a, Rep. 528 d. Vahlen, reading da-Kav, construes
/cat avTos T. and KOI T. a. irapaK. as parallel but in this case I should expect :

avTos (re). Most edd. (Bekk., Bt., etc.) put commas after Tipdv and do-Km.
Tqv Swapiv Kal dvSpEiav. For the bvvapts of Eros cp. 188 D (Eryx.) Trdcrav
bvvapiv i'xeL...6 nets "Epcos and for his dvbpda, 179 A (Phaedr.), 196 cff.
:

(Agathon) eiy ye dvbpeiav kt\., 203 D (Socr.) dvbpelos oov (cp. 219 D ff.). The
intention here may be (as I find suggested also by Schirlitz) that the long
 ;

134 nAATQNOI [212 B

elfJbL rovTOv ovv rov \6jov, w ^aiSpe, el fjuev ^ovXei, &>? eyKoofiiov

et? -'EpaJTa vopuiaov elprjadai, el Se, o ri koI oirp ‘)(alpei<; ovop^d^av,

TOVTO ovopa^e.
XXX. EtTTOi'TO? Be Tavra rod ^(oicpdrov^ toi/? pev erraivelv,

rov Be' Apiarocpdvr) Xeyeiv ri eiTL-^eLpelv, on epvt^aOrj avrov Xeycov

6 ^coKpdrrjt; irepl rov Xoyov kuI i^alcfivrj^i rrjv avXeiov Ovpav
Kpavopevrjv ttoXvv yjrocjiov rrapaayelv o)? Kcopaarwv, Kat avXi]rplBo<;
<j)(ov^v aKovetv. rov ovv ' Ayddcova, IlaiSe?, <f>dvat, ov crKey^eaOe
Kat edv pev Tt? rwv eTnrrjBelcov y, KaXetre" el Be pp, Xeyere ort ov

212 C (TTi^eipfiv \eyfLV ri O.-P. axjXeiov rec. t O.-P., Vulg. : avXwv BT

KpoTovpevTjv T (<ai) My Bdhm. : My (uTTo) Naber : xai Ast D
O.-P. iav : av O.-P.

course of Traidaycoyla described above requires avbpda in the learner who

IS to attain npos to re'Xoy cp. Meno 81 D iav ns avSpecos fj Kat
: arroKapp
(r)Ta>v. Neither Badham’s xpeiav (cp. 204 c) nor Hug’s athetesis of dvdpsiav is
probable.
212 C el |jilv povXei...el 8^. Cp. Euthyd. 285 c (with Gifford’s n.); Goodwin
G. M. T. § 478.
o Ti...x^a£peis ovolidjwv. Cp. Prot. 358 A; Phaedr. 273 C ;
Eur.yr. 967 D. (rot...

Zfvy eir Al8r]S (

ovopa^opevos (Tripyeis.
Tovs filv eTraiveiv. Observe that Socr. is not so enthusiastically applauded
as Agathon {ndvras 198 a); Socrates appealed rather r<u ‘ix^vTi
dvadopv^rja-ai,
MTO aKoveiv.
Xe‘yMV...'irepi tov \oyov. See 205 D fif. koi Xe'-yerat. . .Xdyoy icrX.

rvv avXeiov 0vpav. which generally opened in-

For this “street-door,”
wards and gave admittance to a narrow passage {Oopapilov), see Smith D. A.
I. 661 h.

Kpovope'vqv. As the Porter in Macbeth would say, “there was old knocking
at the door.” For Kpovfiv cp. Prot. 310 a, 314 d but the usual Attic word is;

KOTTTeiv (Moeris Konrei ttjv Ovpav e^a>6ev...’ATnKS)S, Kporil bi 'EXXtjWKMy : Schol.

ad Ar. Ntlb. 132 iir'i piv rtov e^Mdei' Kpovovrcav icdTrreit' Xeyovaiv, eVt bi rcov
ecrtoOev i^o^eti/), or Trartitro'eti' Ar. Ran. 38. Cp. Smith D. A. I. 990 6.

(is KMpa<rT(iv. “Ut comissatorum, h. e. quasi comissatores eum (sc. strepi-

tum) excitarent” (Stallb.). Stallb. rightly removed the comma placed after
irapaa-xeiv in BekkeFs text. KtopaaTal, “flown with insolence and wine,”
would naturally be in a noisy mood. For Alcib. as a reveller, see Pint.
Alcib. 193 D.
auXqTpiSos <j)Mvfiv. Not “tibicinae vocera,” as Wolf, but rather “sonum
tibiae, quam ilia inflavit,” as Stallb. For ^mv?; thus (poetically) applied to
instrumental music, cp. Rep. 397 a iravTOiv dpydvav <})(ovds: similarly Xen.
Synip. VI. 3 orav 6 avXbs (jiOiyyrjTai. For the avXrjrpis as a regular accessory
of Kwpoi, cp. 176 E, Theaet. 173 D : similar are the halpai of Rep. 373 a, 573 d :

cp. Catullus’s “ cenam non sine Candida puella.”

212 D KoiXciTe. “Invite him in”; cp. 174 D,E, 175 b.
 ;

212 e] ZYMnOIlON 135

TTLVo/xev dXXd dvairavo/jbeda ijSr}. Kal ov ttoXv varepov 'AX/ci-

^idSov Ttjv (fxavrjv aKoveiv iu rp avXj} a(f)6Spa p,e6vovTO<; Kal pi^i'ya

^owvTO'i, ipcoTcovTO‘; OTTOV 'Ayadcov Kal KeXevovro'i dyeiv Trap'

' Ayddcova. dyeiv ovv avrov rrapd crcf)d<; Trjv re auXTjTpiSa vtto-
XajSovaav Kal dXXov^ Tivd<; tcov aKoXovdwv, Kal eTriaTrjvai eirl ra?
6vpa<; iaTe(f)avcop,evov avrov klttov re rivi areipdvcp Sacrel Kal icov, E
Kal raivia'i e')(ovTa eirl rrj'i K€(f)aX7]<; rravu iroXXd^, Kal elireiv'
''AvSpe'i, ')(aLpeTe’ p,edvovra dvSpa irdvv aipoBpa Ze^eaOe avpnroTTjv,

212 D aWa rravofieda O.-P. crcpoSpa p. koX del. Hartmann

ipoiTcovTos vulg. Hirschig : del. Hommel Hartmann Ke\evovTos (I) Hirschig
Sz. E Tati/i'as T O.-P. : rei/t'ay B (et mox) SrSpeySz. :
2) ’rSpes Usener
B O.-P. corr. : be^atrde T : fit^ecrdat O.-P.^

dvaira\)6p.€0a tiSt]. “ We are retiring already,” rather than “ the drinking

is over” (Jowett): cp. Prot. 310 c €Trei8Tj...8e8(nrvT)K6Tes KOI epdXXopev
cLvatvaxieirdaL ktX. The statement here would be a social fiction (see 174 D n.).
(r4>68pa peGiiovros ktX. Hommel and Hartman may be right in regarding
epoijTmvTos as a gloss : for /Soar followed directly by a question the former
quotes Asclep. Epigr. XIX. 5 rp Se too-ovP e^otjaa /Se^SpeypeVoy • d;^pt rivos,
Zev
ayeiv ovv. Evidently the subject of this infin. is not Agathon’s TratSey, as
implied in Schleierm.’s transl., hut Alcib.’s own attendants.
vTToXaPovo-av. For vTroXa^flv in this physical sense, “casurum sustentare,”
cp. Rep.453 d (the only other ex. in Plato), and Hdt. i. 24 of the dolphin
“supporting” by “getting under” Arion (L. and S.’s “take by the hand” is
probably wrong).
eir'i rds 0vpas.
“ Intellige fores ipsius domus, in qua convivae erant, sive
Tgv p€TavXov dvpav ” (Stallb.).
212 E avTdv...tuv. “More Graecorum abundat avrov propter oppositio-
nem taeniarum quas gestabat in capite” (Wolfi Violets were specially in
fashion at Athens, as implied in the epithet toorec^Jovot (Pind. fr. 46). Other
favourite materials for wreaths were myrtle and roses cp. Stesich. 29 noXXa :

Se pvpCTiva (pvXXa \
kol poSivovy crre^dvovy 'iwv re KopojviSay ovXas.
raivias. Cp. Thuc. IV. 121 drjpoo'ia p€v )(pva'C0 crre^dvo) ave8r]a'av...ldia Se
iraivlovv ktX.: Pind. Pyth. iv. 240; Hor. Carm. iv. 11. 2. See Holden on
Plut. Tirnol. p. 266 : “raivla, taenia., lemniscus, a sort of fillet or riband, given
as a reward of honour, either by itself, or more commonly as a decoration to

be fastened upon other prizes, such as crowns, wreaths, which were considered
more honourable when accompanied with a lemniscus than when they were
simply given by themselves. Originally it was made of linden-bark or of wool,
but afterwards of gold and silver tinsel (Plin. N. H. 21. 4).”
p€0vovTa...-7rdvv o-ejxjSpa. The peculiar order — “a drunken fellow right
royally (drunk) ” —seems intended to indicate that the speaker is, or feigns
to be, considerably mixed.
 : ; :

136 nAATQNOZ [212 E

7} diriwfjLev dvah^aavTe<i jjbovov ' A.'ydOcdva, e^’ wirep TjXdo/xev ; ejM

jap roL, (feavac, p,ev ov')(^ ol6<; t ijevofirjv d(j)kK6(T0ai, vvv Se
^KO) 6774 Tp KecfyaXfj ra? ratvla^, iva diro Tfj<; ip.rj'i K€<pa\r}<;
rpv Tov aocbwTdrou koX KaWlcnov Ke^aXrjv ^edv elVwf* ovrcoal
dvaBpaco. dpa Karaje\daea-de p,ov co? p.eduovTO'i ; eyo) Be, kclv
213 vp,ei<; yeXare, op.(o<: ev olB' on dXpdrj Xejw. dWd p,OL Ae^ere
avToOev, eirh pproc'i elaiw rj p,p ; avpbirLeaOe rj ov
TldvTa<; ovv^dva6opv^i](Tai Kal KeXeveiv elatevai Kal Kara-^
K\ivecrdai, Kal tov 'Ayddcova Ka\elv avrov. Ka'^ov levat dy6p,evo^
VTTO Tcov dvOpdyrrcov, Kal irepLaLpovpievov dp.a ra? raivla<i co? dvaBrj-
crovra, eTmrpocrOe twv o^daXpucov e-)(OVTa ov KarcBeiv tov ^coKpaTp,
dWd KaOi^eaOai irapd tov 'Ayddwva ev pLeaca XcoKpaTOVi re Kal
212 E (MTTfp B : oTTfp TW O.-P. rjXdopev TW O.-P. : B
O.-P. oidf r’ T O.-P.; ols r B iir'i...Taivlas del. Naber iav eiTTOj

ovTcocr'i BT: K€(j)aXTjv add. W :

post dvad^aco transp. cj. Steph., post dpa Ast:
seel. Wolf J.-U. Bt. : dveLirojv (vel edv dreiTrco) ovtcdti Winckelmann : (dv eidov

ovT. Usener : iav elaico ovT. Bergk : idv i'n olos r’ a>, ovr. temptabam xara-
•yeXdcracrdat W 213 A KeXevav T : fceXedet B

X0h. l.e. at the main celebration of Agathon’s victory, cp. 174 a.

eav tl'irw Wolf most edd. agree in obelizing these words as
ovtwo-1. Since
a (misplaced) on the following clause. Hommel’s conj. is ingenious,
gloss
—
though far-fetched idv sIttov (addressed to his attendants) “dixi iam saepius,
mitti me velle liberum a vestris manibus.” I have proposed idv 'in olds r d>,
ovtoxt'i dvadrjoro), “ if I am still capable of doing so,” in jesting allusion to his
own incapable condition: or perhaps the original had veavlaKov. The scenic
effectiveness of ovraxrl, used deiKnKois, I should be loth to use. Jowett’s “as
I may be allowed to call him ”
cannot be got out of the Greek.
213 A avToGev. Statim, Thuc. vi. 21. 2.
illico (Stallb.); cp.

Iirl pT)ToIs. “On the terms stated” (cp. LmosQbOA), i.e. as a avpTrdrijy.
This is made clear by the following clause, avpirUade p ov; which repeats the
condition already stated in 212 E (peddorra...8€'^€a'de a-vp-TroTrjv) Riickert, as
Stallb. observes, is wrong in saying “at nullam (conditionem) dixit adhuc.”
That Alcibiades meant his “ conditions ” to be taken seriously is shown by
the sequel, 213 E ff.
dvaGopvpijcrai. Cp. 198 A. For KaXav, See 212 D atf fm'h
VITO Twv dv0pcoirwv. Including, we may suppose, the avXrjrpis, see 212 d.
€irCirpo<r0e...2ojKpdTT). “ Und da er sie sich vor die Augen hielt, bemerkte
er Sokrates nicht” (Zeller). Wolf and Schleierm., wrongly
Ficinus, followed by
renders “ Socratem, licet e conspectu adstantem, non vidit ” so too Hommel ;

writes “ante oculos habuit et vidit Socratem, sed eum non agnovit.” For
iirinpoa-Bev cp. Critias 108 C.

irapd TOV ’A-yd0a>va. I.e. on the icrxdrr] KXivrj for the disposition of the
company see 175 c.
213 c] lYMnOZION 137

eKeluov Tra^a^mpricrai yap rbv 'ZcoKpary ew? eKelvov Karelbev. B

7rapaKa96^6p,evov Se avrov da-Trd^eadai re rov ' Xyddwva Kal
dvaSetv. elTretv ovv top ’Aydd(ova^T7ro\ver€, TraiSe?, 'A\KL/3id8r)v,
Lva i/c TpLTCov KaTaKerjTai. ITai^u ye, elirelv rov ' A\Ki^id8r]v‘
dXkd T«? fjpA,v oBe rplro'i avpbir6Tr}<; ; Kal dpua p,6TaaTpe(j)op,€vov
avTov opdv Tov ^coKpdTt), ISovra 8e dvaTrrjSrjaaL Kal elirelv ’fi

'Hpa/cXei?, TOUTt Ti ; Sw/cpaxp? ovto?; iWo')(^(bv av p-e ivravOa

KareKecao, wairep elcbdei<; e^al(f)vr]<; dva^alveadat dirov eycb wprjv C
^KLcrrd ae eaeadai. Kal vvv tL IjKer^ ; Kal tl av ivravOa Kare-
k\Lv7i<;, Kal 01) irapd 'AptcrTO(f)dvei ovSe el' xi? aXXo? ye\olo<; eari

213 B KareTSev scripsi : KartSe[i'] O.-P. : Kadi^etv libri : as...Ka6i^eLV secl.

Bdhm. Sz. Bt. oSt rp/roy W O.-P., Sz. Bt. : wSe rplros B, J.-U. : Tp'iTos o8e T
opav T O.-P.: opa B TOVtX tl T}V TW O.-P. : ToCr* eiVeti' B Wmg. ’ScDKpa.Trjs

del. Naber iv\oxS>v B C elaO-qs vulg. Ka\ ov Herm. Sz. Bt. : ms ov B:

ttS>s ov Hug aide B : ovre T

213 B irapaxmpTjo-ai. “ Locum dedisse ” : cp. Prot. 336 b.

ms €K€ivov KaretSev. The adoption of this reading from the Papyrus obviates
the necessity of bracketing the words (see mt. n.). Adam on Rep. 365 d
writes “ms for mo-re... is a curious archaism, tolerably frequent in Xenophon...
but almost unexampled in Plato,” citing as instances Prot. 330 E, Phaedo
108 E, II. Ale. 141b, and our passage; Goodwin, however [G.M. T. § 609),
recognizes only one instance of ms = more c. injin. in Plato (viz. Rep. l.c.).
Certainly this is no fit context for the introduction of a “ curious archaism.”
'YiroXvere. “ Calceos solvite ” : see Smith D. A. i. 393 b. The opposite
process vnobeiv (174 a).
is

Ik rpiTmv. Cp. Gorg. 500 a, Tim. 54 a; Eur. Or. 1178.

TovTi tL -qv “ Mirandi formula, qua utuntur, quibus aliquid subito et
;

praeter exspectationem accidit” (Stallb.). The idiom is common in Aristo-

phanes, e.g. Vesp. 183, 1509, Ran. 39, etc. The words 2. ovtos are, as
Eettig observes, “nicht Ausruf, sondern an sich selbst gerichtete Frage des
Alcibiades.”
IXXoxmv. Cp. Prot. 309 a otto Kvvqyealov rov 'Trep't rqv 'AXKi^iddov apav
I. Ale. 104 c. See also the description of Eros in 203 d (eVi^ovXos kt \.).
213 C l?al<j>vT)s dva<|>a{v€(r6ai. Cp. 210 E; Theaet. 162 c et €^al<()vqs ovrms
ava(f)avr}0-eL ktX.
Kal ov irapd adopt Hermann’s koI for the ms of the mss. Stallb.
ttrX. I
explains ms by nam, ut mox in verbis ms epo'i...yeyov(v” Hommel,
^'•quippe, :

putting a question-mark after ^ovXerai, renders “warum setzest du dich grade

dahin, als zum Beispiel nicht neben A.” etc. but, if ms be kept, it would be :

best to mark a question after KareKXtVi^s.

y€Xoios...povXeTai. With ^ovXerai, supply yeXotos elvai. For Aristoph. as
yeXoIos, cp. 189 B. The sense is, as Rettig puts it, “ Was hast du yeXotos und
 :

138 nAATQNOI _ _ __ [213 c

T6 ftai ^ovXerat,, aAXa SiefMij'^av'qcrco OTrco^ irapa tm /caXAtcrra) tS)i>

evBov KaraKeLcrj) ; kuI rhv 'S.coKpdrTj, 'ArydOcov, <pdvai, opd ei p,oi

eTrap.vvei'i’ &)? e/tot o tovtov epco^; tov dvdpcolrov ov <f)avXov

TTpaypia yeyovev. dir eKeivov yap tov •^povou, d(f>' ov tovtov
Ti'^pdadrjv, ovKeTt e^eaTV yxot ovTe Trpoa^Xe-yjrat ovts BiaXe-yydrjvaL
Ka\(p ovB' evL, Tj ovToal ^rjXoTV7rd>v p,e ical (j>dova)v OavpacTTo,
epya^ETai Kai XoiSopeiTai re kuI to) %et|Cie p,6yi<; dTre')(eTai. opa
ovv prj TL Kal vvv ipydat]Tai, dWd BidWa^ov ^pd<;, t) idv
eTTf^^eipfi /Sid^eadai, e'irdp,vve, co? eyw t^v tovtov p,avLav re Ka\
'
(j>iXepaaTLav Trdvv oppaiBco, ’AXX’ ovk ecrTt, (f)dvaL tov AXKi^idBrjv,
ep,ol Kal aol BiaWayij. dWd tovtcov p,ev elaavO'vi ere Tipmiprj-

213 C ^ovXfTm {elvai) Bdhm. bL^jxr)-^avf}(ra> : ri f nr]^avrj(ra) O.-P. {S))

AydOcov vulg. Jn. iTra/xvveis libri, Bt. : eVajuwets Steph. J.-U. Sz. ov T:
ov B D ovToa'i j j j T : ovToal ttojj Coisl. Bavjiaa’rd B O.-P. ; Oavjxdcna
TW errdfjLvue T : eTrdfjLVvai B
A vV

v^pia-TTjs bei dem liebenswiirdigen Tragiker zu thun, du gehorst zu dem Spott-

vogel Aristophanes ” “ birds of a feather should flock together.” Riickert
:

suggests that the antithesis yeXoTor )( /eaXAto-roy may imply a reflection on

“ Aristophanis forma.”

8i€[j.t)xavi)tr(«). For erotic scheming, cp. 203 D ff.

eirajiijvsis. “ In animated language the present often refers to the future,

”
to express likelihood^ intention^ or danger (Goodwin, G. M. T. § 32).
213 D This may have been the vox propria for a lover’s
irpoo-pX€\j/ai.

glance, cp. Ar. Pint. 1014 (quoted below).

i) otiToo-l. This (elliptical) use of alioquin, “ but that,” is “ regular with
?)',

bei, irpoo-rjKfi, and the like, in the preceding clau.se” (Adam on Prot. 323 a).

Jt]XoTuir<3v. This is a dn. elp. in Plato cp. Ar. Pint. 1014 on Trpoo'ifike'^iv
: fif.

pi ns, I
irvrrToprjv bid tov6’ oXrjV rrjv rjpipav. \
ourca erf^dbpa ^rfkoTVTTOs d
veavla-KOS rjv.

6av|iaerTd Ipya^exai. Cp. Imws 686 C 6. ipyaadpevov, Theaet. 151 A 6.

bpSivres", 182 E SUpra 0. epya ipya^opivo) similarly 218 a TTOiovai bpdv re ical

Xiyeiv OTLOvv,
TM x*‘P*- This and 214 D infra are the only exx. in Plato of arrixfo-Oai in
the sense continere {manum) elsewhere it occurs mainly in poetry {Od. xxii.
316, etc.).

pavCav. Cp. Laws 839 a XvTTr)s...ipatTiKrjs Kal pavlas'. Soph. fr. 162 voo'rjp

i'payros TOvr‘ iiplpepov and 173 D supra.

kokov :

(}>iXepao-T{av. “ Amor quo quis amatorem amplectitur ” (Ast) ;

equivalent
to dvripios (JPhaedr. 255 d) : cp. 192 b.
6pp«8w. word for “ quaking with fear.”
Horresco, a strong
8iaXXaYii. up Socrates’ word bidXXa^ov and negatives it
Alcib. catches
with a “ What hast thou to do with peace? ” “ But,” he proceeds, “ I’ll have
 213 E] lYMnOIlON 139

aofxaL' vvv 8e fioL, 'AydOav, (f)dvai, /jberdSo^; tmv ratvidov, 'iva

dva^’qaoa koX ttjv tovtov TavrrjvX Trjv Oavfiaarrjv Ke<^aKrjv, koX E

fioi ^LefJbd>riTai, otl ere /xev dveSrjaa, avrov Se viKwvra iv Adyot?
7rdvTa<; dvdpeoTTOv^, ov fiovov irp^v axrirep erv, ctXX' dec, eTreira

ovK di/eSpcra. Kal dp,' avrov Xa^ovra rcov raivicov dvahelv rdv
%(OKpdT7} Kal KaraKXivecrOaL.
XXXI. "EjireiSr) Se KareKXivp, elrrelv' EZei/ Srj, dvSpe<i‘

SoKeire ’yap pot ppefieiv’ ovk eiriTpeiTreov ovv vplv, aXXd rroreov'

I thpoXojTjraL yap ravO' pplv. dp^ovra ovv alpovpat Troo-ew?,

eco'i dv vpel'i iKavdd<; Trlpre, epavrov dXXd (peperco, Ayddcov, e'i ri

.
'

eerrtv eKircopa peya. pdXXov Be ovSev Bel, dXXd (f)epe, rral, (f>dvai,

213 D {Sj) 'Ayddeov Sauppe Jn. Sz. : & 'ydda>v J.-U. E dvad^cro} Ka'i
TW O.-P., Sz. Bt. ; dvabrja’afieda B ; dvabr)aai)xev Kal Herm. J.rlJ. tt]v tovtov
seel. Jn. avbpes: djvSpes Sz. J.-XJ. oiiv vplv T, Winckelmann Bt. ; vplv B,
J.-U. Sz. (j)ep€TO), ’Ayddav Bt. : epepeTco ’Ay. libri : (piped, & ’Ay. Cobet
J.-U.: pepeTco, S> ’Ay. Naber :'AydOav seel. Sz. eKircopa T: eKTTopa B

that out with you by-and-bye !” (see 214 c ad fin. ff.). Then, with a sudden
ehange of tone from bullying and banter to affeetionate earnestness, he begins
vvv be poi ktK.
213 £ Tpv TOVTOV... Ke^xxX-qv. “ Iiicipit Ale. dieere tIiv tovtov KepaXrjv,
quod priusquam eloeutus est, sentit nimis languidum esse inde revertitur ;

quasi ae denuo progreditur, positis verbis TavTrjvl ttjv 6. k.” (Riiekert). Per-
haps as Ale. says these words (notice the deictic TavTrjvl) he playfully strokes
the head of Socr. tovtov is expanded by Jowett into “of this universal
I
despot.”
viKwvTtt. The present symposium was part of Agathon’s epinikian celebra-
tion (see 174 a), and his victory also was gained by Xdyot (cp. 194 b).
^ireiTo. Tamen, “yet after all,” i.e. in spite of the fact of his perpetual
victoriousness. Cp. Prot. 319 D, 343 d.
KaTaKXCve(r0ai. Ever since he first discovered Socrates, Alcibiades had
been standing (see 213 B ad fin. dvairrjbria-ai).
Eltv Si^. “Come now”: “die Worte enthalten hier eine Aufibrderung”
(Rettig). Cp. 204 c, Phaedo 95 a. The question to drink or not to drink is
now resumed from 213 a ad init.
OVK eiriTpeirre'ov. “This can’t be allowed”: cp. Rep. 379a and 219c infra.
(opoXcyriTat ktX. See 212 E f.
apxovTa...Tiis iroo-etos. “As symposiarch” cp. the Latin arbiter (pnagister) :

hibendi Hor. C. i. 4. 17, ii. 7. 25. For the qualifications proper in such
“archons,” see Laws 640 c If. and for other details. Smith D. A. ii. 740 6 ff.
;

The emphatic position of epavrov is to be noticed.

<{>€p€Tw, ’A-ya0wv. Sc. 6 irals I adopt Burnet’s improved punctuation,
:

which renders further change needless.

 : :::

140 nAATQNOZ [213 E

214 rov -^VKTripa eKeivov, IBovra avrov TrXeov oktq) Kory\a<s x^^povyra.
TOVTOv e/j,7r\T]crn/j,eyov Trpwrov ixev avrov eKirielv, erreira rw So)-
Kparet KeXeveiv elrreiv IIpo? p,ev ’S.aKpaT'r}, w
aySpei?, to ao(f)i(Tp,(t p.oi ouSev orrocrov yap av KeXevp Ti?, toctovtov
€K7ricov ovSev p.aWov pup Troxe pueOvcrOp. tov p,ev ovv ^coKpaTp
TTatSo? TrLveiv rov S’ ’Epv^Lp,axov IIoS? ovv, (^avau,
(V AXKi^idSp, TToiovpLev; ovTco'^'ovre rc \eyop,€v irrl rr) kvXlkl
B ovre tl aSopbev, aW are^i'cS? wairep ol Si'i^cSi'Te? mopbeda ; rov ovv

214 A TrXeov : TrXelv J.-U. TOVTOV (ovv) Athenaeus K^Xevrj B

KeXevarj T TroLWjx^v apogr. Laur. IX. 85, Hirschig Naber {nobS>ix(v —Xtyto/zev—
adoijxev Sommer) B ovre TL ado/xev T, Bt. ; ovr’ eVaSo^ev B, J.-U. Sz.

214 A TOV <|/vK'rr]pa. “ Yonder wine-cooler.” Suid. \|rvKrijpa" koSSov ^ Trorij- •

piov pe'-ya, otto rov Boxtov \j/v)(e(rBai iv avT^ t^v Kpaaiv ; Poll. VI. 99 6 Se yp-VKTpp
rroXvdpvXpTOS, ov Ka'i 8lvov ckoXovv, ev lo fjv 6 aKparos' ol ttoXXo! 5e aKparo^opov
avrov KoXovaiv. ov pfjv e;^et Trvdpeva dXX’ dcrpayaXiV/covr. Other names for
it were and koXoBos (Hesych. s.v.):
irpoxvpa. (Moeris, Schol. Ar. Yesp. 617)
for details see Smith Psycter; cp. Xen. 3/em. ii. i. 30 iva Se pbicos
I). A. s.v.

Trips,. ..TOV Bepovs x^ova irepiBbovaa ^prels Xen. Symp. II. 23 ff. '.

oKTw KOTvXas. The KorvXp or ppLva ( = 6 kvoBol) was '48 of a pint, so

that 8 KOTvXai are nearly equal to 2 quarts. For a i^rvKrpp this seems to
have been a small size, since Athenaeus (v. 199) mentions \jrvKTrjpes holding
18 to 54 gallons. Alcib. was not alone in his taste for an eK-n-apa p4ya\
cp.Anacr. 32 rpiKvaBov KeXe^pv e;^ovcra AlcaeuS 41. 2 KoS’ s’ (itipe KvXlxvois
:

peydXais Xen. Symp. l.e. 6 rrals iyx^dra) pot Trjv peyaXpv (pidXpv Gouffe (Ae :

T’erre) “ Nous devons aux petites gens Laisser les petits verres.”

e(j.irXT)crd(j.evov. “ Ast implevisse. Immo implendum curasse ” (Riickert).

:

Cp. Soph. fr. 149 D (popart, paaaera) ns, e’yyetro) /3advv Kpprrjpa
lyxeiv.
Alcaeus 31. 4 iyx^^ Klpvais eva koI Svo ktX. Theogn. 487 av S’ eyx^^ rovro :

pdraiov \
KcoriXXfis del- rovvf/cd rot peBveis. Notice that Alcib. adopts the
order eal Be^id, see 175 e.

TO o-64>i.o-p,d jjioi ovSev. “My trick avails nothing.” For adcjnapa, “a witty
invention,” cp. Lack. 183 d, Rep. 496 a; Aesch. P. F. 470. Alcib., with his
aoLpLapa, recals Eros the aobpiaTrjs (203 d).
See Goodwin G.M.T. § 295.
ov8lv...p.«6vo-0]^. For Socrates’ invincible head
for wine, see also 176 c, 220 b, 223 c.
IIws ovv...'iroiov|j.€v. indie, differs from the subjunctive, “quod
The present
dicitur de eo quod revera iam neque adhuc suscipiendum est” (Stallb.)
fit,

contrast dXXd tl TroLwpev (deliberative) just below. For the indignant ovreo
cp. Horn. 11. II. 158 ovTco 8 rj 0 LK 6 v 8 e...(pev^ 0 VTaL.
214 B ovT€ Tl dSopiv. This lection is preferable to B.’s ovr’ iaabop^v
which is accepted by most later editors. Eryx. would not propose to “ chant
spells,” the only sense in which the compound word is used by Plato. For
the idea of trolling a catch over one’s cups, cp. Gouffe {Couplets) “ On boit
 214 c] SYMnOZION 141

'AXxi^idSrjv elireiv ’Epu^t/Lta;Y^> /SiXriaTe jBeXrLarov 7raTpo<;

Kai aox^poveardrov, ^alpe. Kat jap av, (pdvai rdv 'Ejpv^ip.a)(^ov'
dWd tL 7rotwp,ev ; "O ri 8dv cry KeXevp'i. Bel yap aoi ireidecydaL’

LrjTpof yap dvrjp TroWav dvTd^to<; dXXoyv'

^eViraTTe ovv o ti /SovXei. ’'AKOvaov Btj, elrrelv rdv ’Epy^t/ca^oy.
rjp^lv TTplv ere eLaeXdelv eBo^e '^^^prjvat, eVc Be^id enaarov iv p,ipet
Xoyov Trepl ’'Epwro? elirelv a)? Bvvauio tedWearov, Kal eyKCdpbLaaai. C
ol p.ev ovu dWoc Trayre? p/J^el^ eiprjKapbev'av B’ eTreiBr] ovk €iprjKa<;
Kal eKTreTTCOKa'i, BiKaio'i el elirelv, eliroov B’ imra^au Xo^Kpdret, 6 ti
dv ^ovXp, Kal Tovrov tm eirl Be^id Kal ovtco tov? aWoy?. ’AWd,
(pdvat, cd ’Epy^t/ia^e, tov ’AXKi^idBrjv, KaXcd<; puev \eyeL<i, pueOvovTa
Be dvBpa irapd vpepovreov \6yov^' irapa^dXXecv p,^ ovk e^ laov f).

214 B ’Epy^ifiaxe del. Naber dav Bt. : S’ ai/ T: av B, J.-U. Kidio'dai

Bdhm. IrjTpos T, Sz. Bt. : larpos B C cos {dv) Sauppe {tovs) vijcfiovrcov

I
vel vri(j)ovTas cj. Stepll. Xdyouy (Xdyoi/) Bast

chez eux, on bolt beaucoup Et de bourgogne et de champagne Mais rien ne ;

vaut un petit coup Qu’un petit couplet accompagne.”

For Xd-yoi eVtKvXiKfioi, cp. Athen. 2 A Lucian Timon, c. 55. ;

’Epu?i|iax€ ktX. —
Alcibiades as if to show how ready he is adeiv n —
replies with an iambic trimeter
—
“ A noble sire’s most noble, sober son ” !

The superlatives are not without irony, cp. 177 b, Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 2.
Xaipe. “ All hail !
” Alcibiades pretends not to have noticed the doctor
before.
lT)Tp6s ydp...aX\wv. From II. XL 514: “Surely one learnM leech is a
match for an army of laymen.” Pope’s rendering “ the wise physician skilled —
—
our wounds to heal” hardly deserves the name, although Jowett paid it the
i
compliment of borrowing it.
;
liriTaTTc. “Prescribe”: the techn. term for a medical prescription, cp.
i
Hep. 347 A Kara tt^v T4\vr]v emTaTToiv Polit. 294 D, haws 722 E. :

?8o|€ ktX. See 177 d.

214 C us SvvaiTO KaXXio-TOV. Cp. Thuc. VII. 21 vavs uv dvvavrac TrXfioras
TrXrjpova-iv (Madv. Gr. S. § 96): there is no need to insert dv, as Sauppe
suggested.
Kal cKTreiruKas. “
But have finished your draught.”
I

' pe0vovTa...irapapdXX€iv.“p-f^dovra negligentius dictum est pro Xd-yov

! dvdpos pedvovTos” (Wolf). For the brachylogy cp. 180c perd 84 ^alBpov
! ktX. (see note ad loci) 217 D 4v rfi ixop^vp ipov K\lvp. With Trapa/SdXXetv
;

we must supply as subject Tiva (with Rettig) rather than ae, i.e. ’Epv|ipayoi/
(with Wolf). Of conjectures Bast’s is the most plausible. Cp. Theogn. 627
I
alcTXpdv roi peBvovra nap' dvbpdcn vpcpoo'i peivai.
For a stricture on eVatrot pe^dovroj, see PAaeefr. 240 E.
 ; ;:

142 nAATfiNOI [214 c

D Ka\ afxa, cS ^aKapie, ireLOeL tL ere 'l^coKpdrrf^; cov dpri elirev ; rj

olcrda OTi Toi/vavTLOv earl irdv rj o eXeyev ; outo? yap, idv riva iyM
irraLveaw rovrov irapovTO'i rj Oeov rj dvOpcoirov dXXov rj tovtov, ovk
d(f)6^6Tai pbov Tw %eipe. Ovk evcjrrjp^rjcrei^ ; cjrdvai tov ^(OKpdTrj,
Ma TOV nocretSw, elrreiv tov 'A.XKi^idBr)v, pirjSev Xeye Trpo? TavTa,
&)? iyo) ovB' dv eva dXXov eTraiviaaip-i aov 7rap6vTo<;. ’AA,X.’ ovt(o
iroLet,, (jrdvaL tov '^pv^lpia'xpv, el /BovXef %(t}KpdTr) eTraiveaov.
E IIw? Xeyei<i ; elrreiv tov ’AXKt^idSrjv" BoKel ')(^prjvai, co ’Epy^t/ia^^e
e7rt6cop,at tw dvSpl Kul TipcopijacopaL vpcov evavTLOv OSto?, (frdvai

TOV ^oJKpdTr], tL ev vS e^^ei? j'teVt tcl yeXoLOTepd fie erraLveaet, ; rj tI

7roirjaei<f ; TdXrjdrj ipw. dXX opa el 7raplr)<;. ’AXXd puevTOL, cfrdvai,

Td ye dXrfdrj Traplrffii Kal KeXevco Xeyeiv, Ovk dv (jrOdvoipi, elirelv

TOV 'AXKt^tdBrjv. Kcu fievTOi ovTcoal iroLrfaov. edv tl firf dXrjde'i

Xeyco, p.eTa^v irriXa^qy, dv ^ovXp, Kal elrre otl tovto \{revBofiai‘

X7
214 D ^ oLcrd' J.-U. E Ttfiatpr^aojiai W (TraLvecrei Bekk. Sz.
inaLvicreis BTW : eVatreVat Bt. napiels Schanz

214 D <0 |j.aKdpie. “ Gutmuthig-ironisch ” (Rettig) ; cp. 219 a.

ireCGei. . .elirev “ H. e. Trei'^et ere re tovt(ov a 2. apri eeVei/ e. noli
;

quidquam eorum credere quae modo dixit S.” (Stallb.). A. is alluding to

213 c —D (fiTr’ CKfivov yap tov xP^vov ktX.).
OVK d<|)e'|£Tai ktX. “ Satis lepide iisdem fere verbis hie utitur Alcib. quae
Socr. 1. 1. exhibuit” (Hommel)
A. is turning the tables on S. ;

Md TOV This form of oath is rare in Plato, see Schanz nov. comm.
Iloo-eiSw.

Plat. p. 23. The main reason why A. chooses Poseidon to swear by is, no
doubt, because P. was the special deity of the ancient aristocracy of Athens
(see R. A. Neile’s ed. of Ar. Knights, p. 83) but A. may also be punning on ;

TToertr, as if noo-eeSevv meant

“ drink-giver,” and invoking a “ deus madidus ”

as appropriate to his own “madid” condition. Cp. Euthyd. 301 E, 303 A.

214 E Ti(ji<op'ii<r<i)(i.ai. This echoes the Tipwprjaopat of 213 d.
OvTos. “ Ho, there ” ! Cp. 172 a.
e-irl rd •yeXoiOTepa. “ To m ake fun of me ” : cp. Phileh. 40 C {rjdovai) pepi-

prfpivai ras aXTidels eV'i rd yeXotorepa (“caricatures”) : SO eVt rd aicrxlova Polit.

293 E, 297 c.

Iiraiv^o-ei. Plato always uses the middle form of the future, with the
doubtful exception of Laws 719 E (where Burnet, after Bekker, corrects eVat-
vecTOL to irraivicraij, see Veitch Gk. Verhs s.v.

Ovk dv <|j0dvoi(j.i. Sc. Tokrjdti Xeycov : lamiam dicam. Cp. 185 E, Phaedo
100 c, Euthyd. 272 n (in all which places the participle is expressed).
Kal. .ttoCtio-ov.
. Hommel rashly proposes to read TToirjacov for TToltfo-ov and
remove the stop after the word. For Kal pevroi, see Madv. Gr. S. § 254.
eiriXapov. “ Pull me up,” “ call me to order.” Cp. Gorg. 469 c, 506 b
inCkapfiavov iav ri aoL boKW prj KaXo>s Xeyeiv.
 :

215 a] lYMnOZION 143

I

eKcbv 'yap elvau ovSev yp-ev(rop,ai. eav pbivTOi avap,ip,vpaK6pbevo<i 215

dWo dWodev Xiyo), p,r]Bev 6avp,dari<;’ ov yap tl paSiov t^v ar]v
aTOTTiav SS' e^ovTi ev7r6p(o<; koX KarapidphTjaaL.
XXXII. ^coKparr) 8' iyo) iiraivelv, «w dv8pe<;, oi/tco? e’m')(€Lp'qaa>,

8C el/covcou. ovTO<; p,€V ovv tcr&)? oitqaeraL eVt rd yeXotorepa, ecrraL

8' rj elKOiV Tov d\r)6ov<; evsKa, ou tov ye^oiov. yap 8p op,oi6-
rarov avTOV elvai rot? ai\rjvol<; Tourot? rot? iv rot? epp,oy\v(j)eLOi<;
215 A Tl Toi vulg. Hirschig epfioyXviplois T
I

215 A
aX\o aXXoOev. “ 111 a 'wrong order,” or “ in promiscuous fashion ” :

cp. II. Aesch. Ag. 92, etc. Alcib. forestalls criticism by this apology for
II. 75,
the “ mixed ” style of his reminiscences, on the ground of what he calls his
“present condition” (oiS’ e_;^oi'rt = /i6diioi'rt, crapula lahoranti).
ov -ydp Tl pdSiov. For oi'ri, hatidquaquam, cp. 189 b.
aTOTTiav. Cp. Gorg. 494 D 221 c infra. That Socrates is an “out-of-the-
;

way” character, a walking conundrum, is, in fact, the main theme of Alc.’s
speech it is a mistake to limit this aroTrla to the contradiction between his
:

outer and inner man, as Susemihl does.

ovTMs...Si’ e’lKovuv. For ovtcos with an epexegetic phrase, cp. 193 c, Latvs
633 d, Rep. 551c ovTco...d7r6 Tipqfidrcov. For fiKovef, “ similes.” see Ar. Rhet.
III. 4, where they are described as a kind of /lera^opat (“A simile is a metaphor
lerit large,with the details tilled in,” Cope ad loc.). eiKaalai (“conundrums”)
were also “a fashionable amusement at Greek social gatherings” (Thompson
on Jleno 80 c), see for exx. Ar. Vesp. 1308 ff., Av. 804 ff. cp. Rep. 487 E, Phaedo :

87 B Xen. Symp. vi. 8 ff.

;

Irri Ta •yeXoiOTcpa. Sc. ovras Troi^creiy, Or the like cp. 214 E. :

Tois o-At^voIs ktX. These were statuettes representing a Silenus playing a

flute or pipe the interiors were hollow and served as caskets to hold little
;

figures of gods wrought in gold or other precious materials. But the precise
I
fashion of their construction and how they opened (8ixd8e bioix^^vres) is by no
I
means clear. (1) Hug thinks they were made with a double door (SocXiSfr)
similarly Stallb. and Hommel (“ in contrariis Silenorum lateribus duobus duo
I

i
foramina erant, quae epistomio quodam claudi poterant ”). (2) Schulthess
i
supposes that one section telescoped into the other (“Schiebt man sie aus-
'
einander, so erblickt man inwendig Gotterbilder ”). (3) Panofka, with
Schleiei-macher, supposes that the top came off like a lid. (4) Lastly,
I

Rettig “denkt an ein Auseinandernehmen in zwei Halfte,” though exactly

—
I

how this difi’ers from (3) he does not clearly explain. But as Rettig himself
,

—
observes “ mag es verschiedene Arten solche Gehause gegeben haben,” and
in the absence of further evidence it would be rash to decide which of the
possible patterns is here intended: the language {Sixdbe Sioix^lvres) rather
favours the idea that the figures split into two, either horizontally or
1
vertically —possibly, also, with a hinge. Cp. Synes. Pp. 153, p. 292 B Sanrep
Ka'i roiavra KaWr/ 6eS>v
errolovv ’a6t]vt)(tiv ol 8r)p.iovpydi Acj^podiTTjv 'kol 'K.apiras
dydkpaai (TiKrjvwv kol crarvpav dpTrlaxovres Maximus comm. in Dion. Areop.
'.

de div. noun. c. ix. t. ii. p. 201 f. (ed. Cord.) fKelvoi ydp old nvas dvSpiduras
 ;:

-
144 nAATQNOZ [215 A
B KaOrjfxevotc;, ov<; Tiz/a? ipya^ovraL ol STjfMiovpyol (xvpiyya<; ^ aiJAoi)?

e')(ovra'i, oc Bf^uSe BiOi')(6evTe<; (^alvovraL evBodev ayaXpiara e^ovre?

6ewv. Kul <^T]pX av ioiKei’ai avTov tw aarvpca rw Mapcrua. OTt
pev ovv TO ye elBo'i 6poio<; el TOVTOL<;,a> Zcw/cpare?, ovS' <av> avr6<;
Brj TTOv a/A0i(j/3?7Tr;crat? •
&)? Be Kal rdXXa eoiKa<;, pera tovto
uKove. v^pLaTrj<; ei’ ^ ov ; edv yap prj 6poXoyfi<;, pdpTupa<;
'irape^opai. aXX' ovk avX'r]T7j<; ; ttoXv ye Oavpaatcorepo^ eKeivov.
C 0 pev ye Bl opydvcov iKt]Xei tou<; dvOpoiirov'; rij diro rov a-Toparo^;
Bvvdpet, Kal eri vvvl o? dv rci eKeivov avXf}’ d yap ’’OXapiro^ rjuXei,

215 B St^dde : Siya Steph. Ast ,

ouS’ (dv) airoj Stallb. drjTTOv BT,
vulg.; dv d^TTov Sauppe : dv ttov Baiter Sz. Bt. : om. Stallb. dpcjyKr^rjT^creis
vulg.

eTTOiovv ptjTe ^elpas nodas i\ovTas, ovs eppds eKciXovv' iiroLovv de airovs
diaKevovi, 6vpas ep^orray, Kadarrep TOi,yoiTvpyLaKOvs' eaa6€v ovv avrSiv dridecrav
dyaXpara cov i'af^ov deSiv ktX. (cp. Etym. Magll. S.V. dppa.pt.ov ) : Xen. Symp.
IV. 19 ;
Julian Or. vi. p. 187 a.
Tots ep|j.oY\u<j)elois. “ The statuaries’ shops,” apparently a d-rra^ dp.
cp- Luc. Sonin. 2. 7.

215 B Cp. 222 A, Phaedr. 251a.

ayd\[j.aTa...06<3v.
4)7]|jlI This second comparison arises out of the first, since the
av ktX.
Satyr is himself akin to the Sileni on the connexion between the two (as ;

both originally horse-demons) see Harrison, Proleg. p. 388. Schol. Mapcrvas :

de avXrjrrjs, 'OXopnov vlds, ds...^'picrev ’AttoXXcovi nept pov(Ti<r]S Ka'i TjTTrjdr], Kal
noLvrjv dedoiKC to deppa dapds, ktX.
TO ye elSos. For the Satyr-like ugliness of Socr., cp. Schol. ad Ar. JVub. 223
eXeyero de 6 ^coKpdrrjs rrjv oyfeiv SetXijvco Trapeptpalveiv ' crtpoi re yap Kal (j)aXaKp6s
Tjv : Theaet. 143 E irpoaeotKe de aol rrjv re aipoTTjTa Kal to e^ca tq>v oppaTtov : lb.

209 B, Meno 80 a f. ;
Xen. Symp. iv. 19, v. 7. — drjnov (dv) dptpiaS- (cp.
Meno 72 c) is another possible order of words.
•iPpicTTiis el. “You are a_mocker” or “a bully” (Jowett)
so too Agathon :

had said, in For the present Alcib. forbears to enlarge on this Satyr-like
175 E.

quality, but he resumes the subject in 216 cff., see esp. 219 c, 222 a. Observe
also that Alcib. is here turning the tables on Socr., who had brought practically
the same charge against A. in 213 c, D, Schleierm.’s rendering, “ Bist du fiber-
miithig, oder nicht I ”, is based on a wrong punctuation.
OVK
avXTjTTjs- 1-6. (as Schol. B puts it) iv fjdei. eKeivov, SC. Mapavov.
215 C ’’OXvp-TTos. Fov " OXv pn OS 6 4>pv^ as ra TratdiKa of Marsyas, cp. Minos
318 B; Paus. X. 30; also Laws 677 D, 790 D Arist. Pol. v. 5. 1340^ 8 fi. fi'.
;

Clem. Al. Strom, i. p. 307 c.

For KaTex^adat of “possession” (by supernal or infernal powers), cp. Meno
99 D, Phaedr. 244 e; Ion 533 e (Rohde Psyche ii. pp. 11, 18 fi'., 48^, 88).
fif.

The orgiastic flute-music (having a cathartic efiect parallel to that of tragedy)

provided, as Aristotle explains, a kind of homoeopathic remedy for the fit of
evdovaiaapos.
 — ;

215 e] lYMnOIlON 145

Mapcruou \iy(o ttov, tov BiSd^avro'i’ rd ovv eKelvov idv re dya66<;

av\'r)T^<; avkr] idv re ^avXrj av\r)TpL‘i, fidva Kariyeadai Trotel Kal
BtjXol tou? twv decov re Kal reXercov Beofjuevovs Bid to 9eia eivai.
ai) S’ eKeivov roaovrov fiovov Bia(f}epei<;, on dvev opydvwv yfriXoif
XoyoK; ravTov tovto 7rotet9. ^p-et<; yovv orav p,iv tov dXXov aKov- D
wp,ev XiyovTO<; Kal irdw dyadov pTjTopo<; dXXov<i X6yov<;, ouBev
p,eXei CO? eVo? elireiv ovBevL' iireiBav Be aov rt? dKOvr] 7) toov crdov
Xoycov dXXov XiyovTo<;, Kav 'irdvv (fiaoXoii fj
d Xeywv, idv re yw-rj
aKOvrj iav re dvrjp iav re pieipdKiov, iK'rre'irX'pypiivoL icrpev Kal
Korexopieda. iyco yovv, co aVSpe?, el pir] epieXXov Bo^eiv
fieOveiv, eiTTov 6p.6aa<; dv vpdv, ola Brj TreTrovda aoro? vtto nSv
TovTov Xoycov Kal ttczct^^co en Kal vvvL. orav yap dKovco, ttoXv pioi E
p,dXXov rj Tcov Kopo^avncovnov r) re KapB'ia TrrjBa Kal BdKpva

215 C TTOV, TOV scrips! : tovtov BT, Bt. : tov tovtov Voeg. : roC Bdhm. Sz.
TOVTOV Sommer ; avTov Liebhold fiovovs olim Orelli :
fiavia Winckelmann
Si;Xot Tovs'. 8. dvTjTovs Hommel KjyXel tovs Orelli
; D tis okovt) del. Hirschig
ey<t)y’ ovv T ko/xiSt) B e-TTOfiovas cj. Naber E vvv T

M. \tyo> irov, TOV 8. I venture on this slight innovation otherwise it :

were best, with Badham, to cut down the tovtov to tov.

8T)XoL...8eo(jievovs. Cp. the imitative passage in Minos 318 b koI )x.6va kivcI
Ka'i eK(f)aLV(i Toiis twv BeSiv iv deS>v deofievoi is virtually equiv. to
XP^‘9 ovTas.
1
Kopu/3avrtoii/rer (215 e) cp. Kohde Psyche II. 48h
:
“ uoc'a = vorzugsweise. Vgl.

Symp.222A»(W).
\|/iXois Xoyois. T.e. “in prose,” devoid of metrical form as well as of
musical accompaniment (avev 6pydvu>v). Cp. Laws 669 d Xoyovs i/x. els peTpa
TidivTfs: Mene.v. 239 c.
215 D orav |i.€v ktX. Observe the antitheses aov )( tov oXXov tS>v aav
Xelyo)!/ )( aXXovs \6yovs — ndw (f>av\os .Xeya>v )( ttovv dyadov prjTopos.
. .

T|...aXXov Xe-yovTos. A case in point is the Symposium itself, where Socrates’

i Xdyot are reported at second-hand.
Idv Te yv'’’! “No sex or age is impervious to the impression” — in
antithesis to the preceding universal negative ov8evL For eKvXrj^LS as a
love-symptom, cp. Charm. 154 C.

KO|Xi8'g. . .|jl€6v€iv. Schol. l<To8vvape7...Tip (T<p68pa KalreXems. Cp. 212 e.

elirov would have stated on my oath,” i.e. I would not
d|i6(ras ov. “ I
merely have described the facts, as I am about to do, bilt would have called
I
Heaven to witness by a op<os (cp. 183 a). Hommel supposes that Alcib.
“rem silentio praeterire apud se constituit”; but this is confuted by the
context. For a ref. to this passage, see Prod, in I. Ale. p. 89.
215 E TMv KOpvPavTiwvTwv. Tim. KopvjSavTidv TrapeppaiveadaL na'i evdov- '

(naaTLK&s Kiveiadai: Schol. ad Ar. Vesp. 9 KopvSovTidv TO KopvSaai KaTeyeadai. '

I
Cp. Crito 54 D tovto. ..eyio 8 okS> okovciv, aanep ol KopvSovTicovTes t5)v ovXcov

B. P. 10
 —:

146 nAATnNOZ [215 E

eK’xelraL vtto twv Xoycov rwv tovtov • optZ Se Kal aX\ov<: 'rraix-

7r6Wov<; rd avrd 'KdaypvTa^;. Ile/at/cXeoi;? Be aKovcov Kal dWcov

dyadcov prjTopcov ev puev -qyovpbrjv \eyeiv, toiovtov S’ ovBev eiraa^ov,
ovB' ireOopv^rjTO pLov ^ '^I'XV ovB' rjyavaKrei o)? dvBpa’jroBwBw^
BiaKeipLevov dW vtto tovtovi tov Mapavov TroXXa/ct? Br) ovro)
216 SieTedrjv, cocTe puot Bo^ai pi,r] /Scarov elvai exovri tS?

ravra, ZeS/^pare?, ovk ipei'i oo? ovk dXrjOr). koI €Tc ye vvv ^vvolB'
epiavTM OTO el edeXoipuL 7rapex,etv rd cora, ovk dv Kaprepyjaaipbi
dXXd ravra dv rrdaxoipii. dvayKd^ei yap pie oaoXoyelv on
^
rroWov €vBer}<; cov avr6<; en epiavrov puev dpieXco, rd S’ 'AOrjvaiiov
215 E vno. ..TOVTOV seel. Voeg. Hug rS>v tovtov TW ; tovtov B; tovtov
seel. J.-U. ravra (ravra) it. Naber 216 A 2a)KpaTes B, J.-U.: S> 2 T,
.

Jll. Bt. (ef. 217 b) ravrd : ravra BT €Ti T : rt B

doKovaiv oKovav: Ion 533 E, 536 C. Among the symptoms of Kopv^avTiaa-pos
were the hearing of faery flute-notes, visions, hypnotie dreams, danee-motions
ete. (see Rohde Psyche ii. 47 ff.) ep. also Plut. adv. Golot. 1123 D.
;

T T€ KapSla in]8a. Cp. Ion 535 c, Phaedr. 251 c; Sappho 2. 5 rd poi pav |

KapSlav ev CTTrjdecriv eTrToacrev Ar. Nub. 1393 oipai ye tSuv vewTepiov rdy Kopdias
\
|

Trrjbav oti Xe^ei.

VTTO TtSv X. T. TOVTOV. Rettlg sooms right in arguing that a Glossator would
be unlikely to write thus ;
and repetitions of this kind are eharacteristie of
Ale.’s speech (cp. 221 d).
IlepiKXedvs 81 dKovuv. For the oratorical powers of Pericles, cp. Phaedr.
269 E, Meno 94 a, Menex. 235 E Thuc. ii. 65 Ar. Ach. 530 ;
Cic. Brut. xi. ;
fiP.
;

44, de or. ill. 34 and esp. Eupolis A^pot {,fr. 6. 34) KpanerTos ovtos {sc. IIepiK\rjs)
;

eyeveP dvdpdnrtov \eyeiv \

...nei6d> tis eireKaOi^ev eir'i toIs yeiXeeriv \
ovTas eKrfkei,

Kal povos tS>v pTjTopeov to KevTpov eyKOTeXenre Tots aKpocopevois. Comparing this
—
with our passage, taken in conjunction with 213 D {viKwvTa ev Xoyois navTas
dv^pcoTTOvs), 215 B {eKTjXei Tovs dvdpdnrovs), 218 A {irXrjyels Te Kal 8r))(dels vtto
T d>v...X6ya>v), 221 c (otoy av DepiKX^ff ktX.), it seems probable that Plato has —
this passage of Eupolis in mind, and represents Alcib. as confuting Eupolis
as a return for the raillery he had suffered at the hands of E. in his BaTrrat
cp. the story told in Cic. Att. vi. 1 that Alcib. got Eupolis drowned.
pov 1 »|/vx’p. For this position of the genitive of the pronoun, which gives
]

it nearly the force of an ethic dat., cp. Rep. 518 c, Phaedo 117 b (cp. Vahlen

op. Acad. I. 440 ff'.).

tig dvSpaiToSwSus 8. Cp. Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 39: 210 d dairep olKeTrjs...

bovXevoiv.
216 A piurdv. This echoes, by way of contrast, 211 d e’vTavOa...

^lu>t6v.
l)(^OVTl (is ^P" e^OVTL, 215 A.
ovK...dXTi0Ti. Notice these repeated protestations of I'eracity: cp. 214 b,

215 B (and see Introd. § ii. a).

OVK dv Kaprepr'o-aipi. Contrast with this the KapTepla of Socr., 219 D, 220 A.
 :

216 c] lYMnOIlON 147

TTpuTTO). jSia ovv waTrep o-tto twv 'l.eipiqvwv eVtcr^o/x^o? ra coxa

oi-^^op-ai (f)ev'yQ)v, iva p,^ aurov Kadrjpevo'i irapd rovrto Karaji^pda-w)^
’ireirovOa Se. 7rp6<; tovtov povov avdpwircov, o ovk dv rt? otoiTO iv B
ipol evelvai,, to ala')(yvea6ai ovtlvovv i')w Se tovtov povov aia")(v-

vopai. ^vvoiZa yap ipavTM dvTiXeyetv pev ov Zvvapevw, o)? ov hel

TTOielv u ouTO? KeXevet, iirecSav Se aTreXOa), rjTTrj pevca Tif^rj'i t?}?

VTTO Tcov TToWcdv. SpaiTeTevQ) ovv avTov Kal (pevyw, Kal OTav IScv,

ala')^vvopaL to, (hpoXoyrjpeva. Kal TroXXa/ct? pev ^Seco^ dv iSoLpi

avTov pr} ovTa ev dv6p(i)7roi<i‘ el S’ av tovto yevoLTO, ev oiSa oti C
TToXv pei^ov dv d')(^doipr]v, dxjTe ovk e^co 6 tl ')(^py]aQ)pao tovtw tm
dvOpcoircp.

216 A jSia : fivwv Abresch J.-U. iiTi<j)^6^(vos seel. J.-LT. C av

fiel^ov Sauppe coiT. Ven.
xpTjCTQjfjLai 185, Bekk. ;
^priaafiai BT

“Invitus mihique ijjsi vim infereus aufugio" (Riickert).

Pia...(|>Ev 7 uv.

Hommel wrongly takes /3ia with e-n-ia-xopevos. ^vcov, the conjecture of

Abresch, based on Hesych. (^va>v ra Jra’ iiTi(j)paTTo>v) makes the order
awkward and produces tautology, emaxop^vos ra wra is the opposite of
the foregoing irapix^i-v to. tJra cp. Pint. Pomp. 55 Hor. Ep. ii. 2. 105
:
;

obturem patulas impune legentibus aures; Acts vii. 57 awiaxov rd Jra

avToiv Ps. Iviii. 4, 5 (A.V.) “ they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her
:

ear which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so
;

wisely.” For the ^eiprjves, cp. Horn. Od. xii. 39 flF., and see Harrison Proleg.
pp. 197 ff.

avTov... irapd tovto). avTov is not really “redundant” (as Ast) “sitting —
still here beside him,” i.e.“ miissig imd entfernt von Staatsgeschaften ” etc.
(Rettig) Ran. 1490 ff. Apol. 31 C ff
;
cp. Ar. ;

Perhaps a double entendre A. implying that S.’s moralizings

KaTa-yTjpdo-w. —
(“rumores senum severiorum ”) would soon make an old man of him.
216 B o ovK...ev€lvai. This is a specimen of the naiv^e candour which
characterizes Alcib. throughout. For Alcib.’s self-assurance, cp. Xen. Alem.
I. 2. 47.
ilTTT|(iev(p...iroX\MV. “Me honori, quo me ornet populi multitude, suc-
cumbere” (Stallb.). Cp. Rep. 359 a: Xen. Gyrop. ill. 3. 2 rjbeaOat rp vtto
TrdvTcov TLpij Thuc. I. 130. 1. For the thought, cp. Rep. 491 c ff
SpaireTevo). “I take to my heels,” like a runaway .slave {dpaneTrjs, Meno
97 e).

TO. cop.oXoYr)p€'va. I.e. the conclusions as to his own evbeia forced upon him
by S. ;
cp. 216 a a.vayKd^ei...6po\oyeiv.
216 C iroXii So piya Krjderai R. II. 26.
OVK ° Tl xp’io’wpai. Since Alcib. is here generalizing, the (dubitative)
subj. seems preferable to the more definite fut., as Hommel argues against
Stallb.
Alcib. is in the position of a “ Dipsychus,” “ halting between two opinions ”
10—2
 148 nAATQNOZ [216 c

XXXIII. Kat VTTO fiev Br) tmv aij\r)fjbdTU>v koX i'yib Kal dWoL
TToWol Toiavra TreTTovOacriv vtto rovSe too aarvpov dWa Be i/xov
d-Kovaare &>? 6/j,oi6<; t icrlv ol<; iyo) 'pKacra avTov Kal Trjv Bvvafiiv

&)? davfLaaiav ev yap tcrre otl ovBel<; vpiwv tovtov yiyvcoaKei’

D dWd eycb Br)\d)a-o), eVeiVep ’pp^dpLrjv. opdre yap otl ’S.coKpd.Tr]';

€p(t)TiK(0‘; BiaKeiTai tmv koX-wv Kal del irepl toutou? earl Kal
eKTTeTT\r]KTaL, Kal av dyvoel Traura Kal ovBev olBev, co? to (T-)(fip,a

216 0 fjKacra Fischer: eiKacra libri D Kal av...oidev secl. Jll. Bdhm.
Sz. ai; B : om. TW d-yroet Trdi/rr; (Kal... oi’Sev deletis) Bast oidev. i>s

distinsit Bt. us : ttus Ast : ^ Usener

or rather two instincts. Cp. Soph. fr. 162. 8 oaro) ye tovs epavras aurds Ipepos I

8pav Kal TO pfj dpav iroWaKis Trpoierai: Axi&CT.fr. 89 epeo re brjiire kovk epS> Kal \

palvopai Kov paivopai.

ols iy<t> tjKacra ourdv. Sc. rots aiXfivois. pKaaa recals the St’ elKovenv of 215 A.

o'vS€ls...‘yfyvwo-K€i. Plato may mean by this, as Hug suggests, that the

majority of the admirers and followers of Socr. possessed a very dim insight
into the sources of his real greatness — dXX’ iya (Plato, behind the mask of
Alcib.) ^rikai(T(i>.

216 D cpuTiKws SidKeirai ktX. For Socrates as (professing to be) subject

to intense erotic emotion, see the vivid description in Charm. 155 c ff. eyu>
rjdr) rjiropovv, koi pov rj npoaBep BpaavTTjs e^eK€KOTrTO...Kal e(f)\eyopr]v Kal ovkIt
iv epavTOV fjv ktX.
Kal a6...oI8ev. Most of the later critics (including Voeg., Teufifel, Hug)
agree in ejecting this clause. Rettig, who defends it, “die Worte
writes:
gehen auf den vermeintlichen Stumpfsinn des S., wie er so haufig mit roher
Sinnlichkeit verbunden ist...Die Worte elp(iivev6pevos...8LaTe\ei den obigen
KOI av...ol8ev gegensatzlich gegenuberstanden...Da nicht bios die Silene epai-
tlk5>s diaKeivToi kt\., SO wiirde ohne unsere Worte die folgende Frage cos to

(Txvpa...ov a-iXr]v5)8es; kaum motivirt sein.” But (as generally interpreted)

the clause seems hardly pertinent to the main argument, which is the contrast
between the outward appearance of eroticism and the inner crcocppocrwr] of
Socr. the clause elpcovevopevos kt\. does nothing to strengthen the case for
:

the reference to yvaais here; while there is no reason to suppose that

professions of ignorance were specially characteristic of Sileni (in spite of
the story of Midas and Silenus in Pint, ad Ap. de consol. 115 c {2eiX.) ovSev
fdfXev eiTrelv dWa aicoirdv dpprjTcos). If retained as it stands the clause is

best taken closely with the previous words, as expressing an erotic symptom.
[Possibly, however, for ndvTa we should read TrdvTas and for ovSev, oiSev’,
taking the words as masc. (sc. tovs KoXovy).] This implies of course that oidev
bears the sense “ agnoscit ” (and dyvoel the opposite), for which cp. Eur. B. F.
1105 ff. eK Toi TTen\r)ypai...Tis...^v(Tyvoiav octtls rrjv ep^v IdaeTai; aacjodis yap
ovdev oiSa tS>v etcodoTcov : id. El. 767 eK Toi delpaTos Sva-yvcoaiav |
eixov TTpoacb-
TTov' vvv de yiyvcoa-Kco ae drj. (Cp. for this sense, Vahlen op. Ac. II. 63 f.)

ws TO avTov. “Which is the role he afifects.” For this use of crxrjpa

 : ;:

216 e] lYMnOIlON 149

avTov. TOVTO oil a-i\'r]va)8e‘; ; cr^ohpa ye. tovto yap ovto<;

e^codev irepi^effXrjTai, waTrep 6 yeyXvfip,evo<; cn\r]v6<;’ evBoOev 8e
dvoi'x^dei<; TTocrr;? oteaOe yep,ei, w dv8pe<; avp-irorai, (T(0 (f)pocrvvr]<;

Xare on ovt ei rt? Ka\6<; ean p,eX€i avrw ov8ev, dXXa KaTatjipovet
ToaovTov oaov ov8' dv ei? olrjOeir], ovt ei rt? TrXovaio'i, ovt' el E
aXXrjv Tivd Ti/xrjv ey^cov rcov vtto TrXpOovi piaKapt^op-evcov 'pyeiTai
8e TrdvTa TavTa to. KTrjp,aTa ov8evot d^ia teal rjp.d<f ov8ev elvai —
216 D avTov. TOVTO disting, vulg. Schleierm. Sz. tovto- ov distinsit
Bernhai’dy eyKvnfievos J.-U. (fi?) tare cj. Bdhm. E ^fias : Tifxas
Heusde

of an acted part, cp. 1. Ale. 135 d, Rep. 576 a; similarly or^rifiaTL^ai, simido,

Phaedr. 255 a oii;^ vto axr]ixaTi.^ofx4vov tov epavTos, dXX’ d^rjdSis tovto ireTrov.
doTos. This is preferable to rendering by “forma et habitus,” as Stallb.
The punctuation of the passage has been disputed :
“ vulgo enim legebatur
KOI ovdev oi8ev, as to o)(rjpa avTov tovto ov aeiXTjvaSis erc^oSpa ye, q^uod
Stephanus ita corrigebat ut pro ov aeiXtjvSiBes scriberet ov aeiX.” (Stallb.)
Stallb., Euckert, Badham, Schanz and Hug follow Bekk. and Schleierm. in
putting a comma after ol8ev and a full stop after ovtov (so too Hommel, but
proposing ovde for ovdev) Kettig follows Bernhardy in putting the full stop
:

after roCro, with a comma at oi8ev Burnet puts a full stop at ol8ev, and no
:

further stop before at\r]va>8es; Ast proposed ttSis for as. Bast, reading ndvTr)
:

for TT-dvTa and ejecting ko'l ovbev oibev, construed d>s...a-({)68pa ye as dependent
on dyvoei and Stephens’s ov8e involves a similar construction.
irepiPe'pXTiTai. “Has donned” as it were a “cloak” of dissimulation: cp.
Xen. Oec. II. 5 els 8e t6 aov (r)(Tjpa 6 aii Trepi^e^Xrjcrai: Ps. cix. 18 “he clothed
himself with cursing like as with his garment.”
Iv8o0ev dvoixSels. Cp. 215 B Soph. Antig. 709. : The word ev8odev
recals Socrates’ prayer in Phaedr. 279b d...6eoi, 8oiTjTe poi KaXa yevea-dai
TcivBodev.
to-re oTi ktX. For the general sense, cp. Charm. 154 b.
216 E oirov ov8’ dv els. Cp. 214 D.
•irXovcn,os...Tu|if|v Stallb. renders “aut praeterea honore aliquo
omatus,” distinguishing npi) frotn koXXos and ttXovtos whereas Euckert ;

states that ‘^Tiprj dicta est h. 1. de re, quae honorem habet efficitque Tipla,
ita ut kqXXos et ttXovtos etiam Ttpal esse possiut.” Eettig supports Stallb.,
but probably the other two dya6d are also classed in A.’s mind as Tipia. Cp.
178 c, 216 b: Bind. /r. inc. 25.
Twv...p.aKapito|Jiev(i)V. Sc. Tipiov.
Kal ijpiis ov8€v elvai. “h. e. atque nos, qui talia magni faciamus nullo in
numero habendos censet” (Stallb.). This, —
or Eiickert’s “nos ipsos qui pulcri,
qui divites sumus,” —seems
to bring out rightly the point of the personal
reference ;
in spite of Eettig, who writes “ vollig fremd ist der Platonischen
Stelle der Zusatz,welchen Stallb. bier macht.” For this use of ovdev { = ov8ev6s
d^lovs) cp. 220 A. The attitude here ascribed to Socr. is very like that
219 A,
ascribed to his admirer Apollodorus in 173 c, D.
 : :

150 nAATQNOI [216 E

Xeyw vfilv, — elpcopevofMevof 8e Kai 'iraii^cav Trdvra rov ^iov 7rp6<;

Tov? dv6pMirov<; SiareXel. aTTOvSdcravTo^: Se avTov Kal dvoi')(^devTOt

ovK olSa et Ti<; edpuKe rd ez^xo? dydXp^aTa" dX\' iyM iror
217 elBov, Kal puoL eBo^ev ovtco dela Kal ')^pvcrd etvai Kal irdyKoXa Kal
OavpLaard, ware rrotrjTeov elvai epbj3paj(y o rt KsXevoi ScoKpaxzj?.
rjyovp.evo<; Be avrov ea-TrovBaKevai iirl rp ipu^ &pa eppidiou pyp-
adpbpv elvai Kal evTv-^^rjpia ep,ov davpaarov, &)? virdp-^^ov pot
'^(^apicrapevcp ^(OKparet Trdvr aKovaai oaaTrep ovto<; pBet' e^povovv
yap Bp eirl Tp u>pa davpdaiov oaov. Tavra ovv Biavopdel<:, irpo rov

216 E Xiyu> vfiiv BT ; Xdya>v jxev ov Herm. : Tjyovfj.€vos Bdhm. ; iva Xfyio
vfuv Sz. : dXX’ epS) vpiv Usener: del. Voeg. : fort, transp. post dXXa infra
re Km Usener 217 A koi poi T, J.-U. Bt. ; nal epol B: Kapol Hirschig Sz.
ep^pa)(V Cobet Sz. Bt. : eV ^pa)(f2 BT o rt {av} Sauppe Jn. ovtos : mros
Bdhm. 8i) B : rjdri TW ; ert cj. Wolf

Xe-yw ii(j.Iv. There is no objection, at least in A.’s speech, to this kind of

parenthetic intez-Jection (cp. oUaBe, D supra)-, cp. Apol. 30a, Thuc. vi. 37. 2,
Eur. Med. 226. Similarly in Gorg. 464 c, 526 c “ asseverandi causa orator ad
ea quae maxime
attendi vult addit ilia 4>r]pl, Xe'ym” (see Vahleu op. Acad. i.
479). am, however, inclined to suspect that the words are misplaced, and
I

originally stood after dXXd, three lines lower down if so, we should read dXXd ;
—
Xf'yo) vpiv —
eyo) ktX., or perhaps dXXd d Xeyw vpiv fya> this would serve to echo
the dXX’ eyo) 8r]X6ya(o of D ad init. Cp. also 222 B d Si) kq! trot Xeya.
Elpb>V€v6|XCVos. Schol. elpoiv. VTTOKpivopevos, )(Xevd^a>v. : Cp. 218 D; Hep.
337 A avTTj (KflvT) i) elcvBvia elpcovela ScoKpdrovs.

rd Ivrds dyaXiiara. See 215 An. dyaXpa, as e(p’ a ns dydXXerai, can fitly:

be applied to spiritual as well as material treasures cp. the use of iepov in Eur. :

Hel. 1002. This passage is cited in Prod, in Ale. I. p. 89; Clem. Alex. Strom.
VII. 5, p. 846 P. cp. Cic. de Legg. i. 22 “ ingeniumque in se suum sicut
:

simulacrum aliquod dedicatum iiutabit.”

217 A “Nur ein poetischer mit koXos synonymer Ausdruck”
(Rettig); no doubt the material dydXpara referred to were of gold or gilt,
cp. Critias 116 D xpoad. .dyd^para iviem^aav. For the metaph. use, cp. Hipp.
.

Alai. 301 A, Phaedr. 235 E (piXTaros ft koI cos dXrjBcos xpvaovs Gorg. 486 D :

Xpvarjv i'x(ov...Triv -^vxnv: aud Shakspere’s “Golden lads and lasses.”

^p^paxv. “ In short,” used to qualify a universal statement expressed
by a relative such as Sans: cp. Gorg. 457a (with Heindorf ad loc.), Hipp.
i/fn. 365 D; Ar. Fesyi. 1120.

€o-irov8aK^vai «irl ktX. Observe how this contrasts with the tra'i^nv of 216 E
A., we are to infer, had not as yet (at the date of the incident following) learnt the
“ irony ” of Socr. With the attitude of Alcib. here cp. what Pausanias says in
184 B ff.

tipa. wpa as flos aetatis is nearly equiv. to avBos (183 E, 210 c) : cp. 219 C,

Phaedr. 234 a, 7. Ale. 131 E rd...crd Xi)yei wpas, ail 8' dpxn dvBeiv.
«<})p6vovv ktX. For Alc.’s vanity, cp. I. Ale. 104 A.
 . ;

217 c] lYMnOIlON 151

ovK el(o6w<; avev aKo\ovdov fiovo^ fier avrov ’yLyveadat,, roTe airo-
'wkyLTTWv Tov aKoXovdov fiovoii <T vvey ty u 6 /j.r)V’ Bel yap 7rpo? vp,a^ B
iravra TdXijdrj elTrelv dWd TTpocre^ere rbv vovv, Kal el '\jrevSop,ai,
Xd>Kpare<;, e^e\ey)^e‘ avveyiyvbpi'pv yap, cu dvBpe<;, p.6vo<; puovw, Kai
Sprjv avrlKa BiaXe^eadai avrov p,oL drrep dv epaaT^<; 7raiBtKol<; ev
eprjpla StaXe^delr], xal e')^aipov. tovtcov S’ ov p,dXa iylyvero ovSev,
dXX’ (oairep elcbdet BiaXe^delff dv p,oL Kai avv'ppLepevaa<; m'^ero
diTidiV. pierd ravra ^uyyvp,vd^€a6ai rrpovKaXovppv avrov Kal
avveyvp.va^op-rjv, &)? tl evravOa rrepavSiv. avveyvpbvd^ero ovv poL C
KoX rrpoaeTrdXate TroXXaKVi ov8evo<; Trapovro^' Kal tl Sel Xeyeiv;
ovSev ydp poi rrXeov pv. eTretSr] Be ovBapfj ravrr} yvvrov, eBo^e
poL imOereov elvai rS dvBpl Kara to Koprepov Kal ovk dvereov,
irreLB-pTrep iveKe^ecpi^Kt], dXXd lareov ^Br] tl e<XTL to irpdypa.
TrpoKaXovpai Brj avrov tt/oo? to awBeLirvelv, dTe')(^vcb‘i Sarrep
217 A povos seel. Hirschig J.-U. Hug B (2)) Sco/eparer Sz. 8’ ol:
dr) O.-P. av BT: ail Wolf: dr) Sauppe Sz.: arra Ast: aWa Rettig: del.
Hommel Hirschig : fort, dei Kal a-vveyvpva^6pr)v seel. Sauppe Sz. Hug
C evTavdd {ye) Naber dvereov : averaiov O.-P.^ Ireov ^dr) errl to rrp.

Wyttenbach

217 B TaXTiGi]. .>j/e\)8o|iai.

. Cp. 216a, 214 E for similar protestations. Observe
the effectiveness of this pause in the narration, and of the challenge to contradic-
tion, as marking an approaching chmax cp. Phaedo 85 D.
:

”
ev epT]|j.C<^ “ Tete-h-tete : cp. Rep. 604a, Phaedr. 236c eapev ...povco ev
epr)pia.

a.v...u>xeTo. If dv is right we must take it to denote repeated action,

“solebat identidem diseedere” (Stallb.): cp. Apol. 22 b (Madv. Gr. S.
§ 117 6, R. 3; L. and S. s.v. dvc).
<ruvT]|i£pev<ras. The only other ex. in Plato is Phaedr. 240 c rraidiKols...

epaarr)i...els to (Tvvr)pepeveLV irdvTwv dipdeararov

Ivy-yvpvdleo-Gai. For c, Menex. 236 d. Rep. 452 a ff.
this practice, cp. 182
and Xen. Symp. where Socr. treats of public and private gymnastics.
ii. 16 ff.,

217 0 ovSev... irKeov rv. “ Nihil enim proficiebam” (Stallb.) cp. 222 D. :

eireiSi] 81 ktX. Rettig supposes an allusion to Eur. Hipp. 390 ff. eneidf)
Toiald' OVK e^pvvTov Kvirptv KpaTr)(rai, Kardaveiv edo^e poi.
j
For Other reff. to
Eurip., see 177 a, 189 c, 196 e.

’urTe'ov...irpd7 po. Reynders is alone in approving of Wyttenbach’s “restora-

tion,” Ireov to Tvpdypa
7)dr) e’rr'i : for, as Riickert argues, this must imply either
that A. had as yet made no “ conamen alliciendi S.,” which is untrue, or that
he had not as yet begun his narration, which i.s equally untrue. The sense of
the text is “ I must get to the bottom of the matter without more ado,”
i.e. discover the real ground of Socrates’ indifference. Cp. Apol. 20 c to a-dv
Tl eoTi Trpdypa;
n-poKoXovpai Si) ktX. Here comes the third and most desperate expedient,
 :

152 nAATQNOI [217 G

D epaar^<i 7ratSt«ot? iTTi^ovXevcov. kuL fjuoi ovBe tovto ra^v VTrrj-

Kovaev, 6fj,o)<; S’ ovv -y^povw iireLaOr}. evretS^ Se d(f)LKeTO to irpwTov,

henrvrjaa<i dirievaL i^ovXero. koX Tore p-ev ala')(yv6pevo<; dc^rjKa
avTov av6i<; Se eTTi^ovXevaa'i, irrethri eheheLirvipKepev, SieXeyoprjv
aei rroppw rwv vvktmv, kuI eireiSr) e/SovXero dvrievai, crKr)7rr6pevo<;
OTL o'yjre eirj, TrpoarjvdyKaaa avTov pevetv. dverravero ovv ev
'

i^^opevp epov kXLvt], ev f)Trep eBeiirvei, Kal oOSet? iv tm olKrjpan

E dWo<; KaOrjvhev rj ^peif. p^XPi' ovv hr] Sevpo rov Xoyov
KaXd)<; av e^oi Kal tt/oo? ovtivovv Xeyeiv to S’ evrevdev ovk dv pov
'pKOvaare XeyovTO<;, el pr] irpwrov pev, to Xeyopevov, olvo<; — dvev
217 D e8e8enrvriKepev Bt. : ’BeSenrvrjKeLfiiv Usener: dfdenrvrjKapev Bekk.
anecd. : e8eS(nrvr]K€L BT O.-P. dfl add. Bekk. anecd. om. BT O.-P.
: eneidrj •

(ye) O.-P. avTov : avTov Sauppe peveiv :

povov O.-P.^ E ovv
dfj B O.-P. Tmg. : ovv TW koX npos cj. Liebhold

in which Alcib. reverses their respective roles and acts towards Socr. no longer
as TTaiStfcd but as e’paori)? (cp. 21.3 c, 222 B, and see Introd. § vi. 3). For three as a

climacteric number cp. Phil. 66 D, Euthyd. 277 c, Rep. 472 a. For eVt/SovXevcor,
cp. 203 B, 203 D.
217 D d€l...vvKTwv. “Usque ad multam noctem” (Stallb.). For this force
of de/, cp. del hia rov ^lov Phaedo 75 B, etc. so with Troppco, Gorg. 486 a tovs ;

TToppo) del cjyLXoo'ocjiLas eXavvovras, For the plural vvkt€Sj “night-watches/^

cp. 223 C, Prot. 310 C Troppco rav vvKrdyv Phil. 50 D. :

ev tt|...kX£vt|. epov is short for Trjs eprjs (or epov) KXivrjs". cjD. the similar
brachylogy in 214c: Horn. Od. vi. 308.

o’lKiijiaTi. “Boom”: 315 D, Phaedo 116 a.

cp. Prot.
217 E lie'xpi. . .Sevpo. So Laws 814 D Ttis...8vvap€(i>i to pe^pt Sevpo Tjptv

elpr)cr6a>.

Kal irpos OVTIVOVV Xe'yeiv. This reminds one of Diotima’s language in 209 E £F.

(ravTa pev ovv kt\.).

'
TO Xeyopevov ktX. Photius explains thus : olvos llvev iralboav Svo rrapoipiai
T] pev olvos Ka't dKi)6eLa, rj For the first of these, cp.
Se olvos Kal rraides dXr/deir.
Alcaeus fr. 57 b, Theocr. Id. xxix. 1. We might render “ In wine and wean
is candour seen.” Cp. Schol. ad h. 1 Athen. ii. 37 E 4>iXdxopoy Se' (jrija-iv on
. ;

ol nlvovTes ov povov eavTovs epefravl^ovaiv olnves elaiv, dXXd Kal tS)v aXXcov

eKaarov dvaKoXvrrTovai, rrapprjalav ayovres. odev olvos Kal dXrjdeia” Xe'yerat

Alcaeus fr. 53 olvos yap dvOpcorrois SioTTTpov Hor. Sat. i. 4. 89 condita cum :

verax aperit praecordia Liber. Similar sayings about the effects of wine are
Ar. Plut. 1048 pedvcov o^vrepov /SXeTret Theogn. 479 ff. olvos... KOvepov e'drjKe
:

voov. The explanations of H. Muller (“Trunkene sagten die Wahrheit, mochten

Diener zugegen sein oder nicht”) and of Hommel (“si proverbio illo vinum,
quod neque praesentiam neque absentiam servorum curat (alluding to the
aKoXovdos of 217 a), non esset veridicum”) are clearly wrong. Cp. Xen.
Symp. VIII. "24.
 :

218 A] lYMnOIlON 153

re ’ira'i^fov ku'i fiera nalhav—^v 0X77^77?, eVetra d<^avLcrai "^toKpa-

Toii? epyov vTrepT^^avov et? eiraivov ikdovra dhiKov p,oi (paLverai.

€Ti Se TO Tov hr]'y^devTO<i viro rov 6;^ea)? Tra^o? Kaiie e^ei. (paal
yap TTOv TLva tovto iradovTa ovk ideXeiv Xeyeiv olov pv irXr^v roi?
^ . ip

Be8r)jpLivoL<;, (w? fi6voL<i yv(i}aop,ivoi<f re Kal avyyvcoaop,evot<;, el Trav 218/

iroXpLa Bpdv re koX Xeyetv viro oBuvtj^. iyd) ovv S6Briyp,ivo‘i re r
VTTO dXyetvorepov Kal to dXyeivorarov d)v dv rt? Bp~)(6eLr} —r^v
KapBLav rj [7<ip] ^ o ri Bel avro 6vop,dcrai 7rXr]yei<; re Kal

218 A re Km vtto W aXyeivordrov Steph. T O.-P. : B

f/ yp'vxrjv yap B yap rj:
\j/-. TW O.-P. ^
:
^|e. non legit Schol. B, seel. Usener Sz.
Bt. :
17 yjf. yap secL Christ yap seclusi : fort. ^ yfr. rdpa
:

d({>avicrai. “To keep dark”: notice the play a(pai>La-ai...(f>alvfTai, which

Lehrs represents by “eine helle That des S. ins Dunkle zu s6tzen.” (paiveraL
after the impf. is one of Alc.’s anacolutha.

vTrepii<)>avov. The adj. here, though prfwia/acfe eulogistic, evidently contains

(as Eiickert notes) “ grata quaedam ambiguitas,” as alluding to the v^pts of

Socr., cp. the use of vTreprj<pavla to denote “superbia cum contemtione
coniuncta” (Ast) in 219 c. For the good sense of the word, cp. Phaedo
96 a, Gorg. 611 d.
TO TOV SqxOevTos kt\. For this proverbial case, cp. Aristides or. 15, i.

p. 234 dairep tov vtto rps (pari TrXr^yivra pfj ddiXeiv iripco Xeyeiv dXX’ rj

darts TrendpaTai : id. or. 49, II. p. 395 : Xen. Symp. IV. 28 (dairfp vno dTjpiov

Tivos 8edr]yp€Vos...(v Trj Kapdla iSanep Kvijapd tl edoKovv : id. Mem. I. 3.

12 flp. (paXdyyia Kara ro dTjypa...(SaTe paiveadai ttokIv.

evLijai ydp tl to. This
last passage refers to the “ bite of love,” for which cp. Soph. fr. 721 epcoTos
drjypa Socrates (Bergk P. L. G. ii. p. 288) rrodu dtjxdds. Eiickert is no doubt
right in holding that there is allusion here “ ad certam fabellam, nobis licet
ignotam.” Cp. also Aesch. Cho. 996.
218 A
•irdv...Xe-yeiv. “Alii de remediis totoque curationis genere (haec)
verba intelligunt, alii de motibus, gestibus furibundis, dictisque quae doloris
magnitude elicuerit, sanis hominibus nil nisi risum moturis ” (Eiickert). The
former of these views is adopted by Stallb. and Eettig (who takes the phrase
to refer to the superstitious use of charms, amulets, etc.), the latter by Hommel.
The phrase recals 182 e davpaaTo. i'pya...ToXpd>T] ttokiv 208 D irdvTa TToiovaiv : :

cp. Pep. 576 A. It seems best here to interpret it broadly of the results of the
driypa, whether or not directly aiming at a cure: i.e. as covering both the
senses indicated above.
TO dX-ycivoTaTov. “ In my m ost sensitive part.”
Ti^v KapSiav. Schol. B, ort ttjv Kapbiav (Kopbiav Herm.) (pvxpv KoXel.
ttjv

This implies —as Usener inferred — that the words rj ^vxpv were absent from
the Scholiast’s textnone the less, in view of the context, I think
: it rash to
expunge the words, and content myself with obelizing ydp. For i) on ktX.,
cp. 212 c.
 ; :

154 nAATQNOI [218 A

VITO rS)V ev (pLXoao(f>la Xoyeov, ot e^ovrai i’^LSvrji; djpico-

repov, veov p,r] d<f)vov<; orav Xd/Scovrai, Kal Troiovai Bpdv re
Kal Xeyeiv ortovv — koX 6pS)v av ^aCBpov;, ’Ayd6o)va<i, ’E/au^t-
'

B yxa^OLi?, UavcravLat;, A.pLaToBripbov<; re Kal'AptaTo^dva<;' ^fOKpaTij

Be avTov ri Bei Xeyetv, Kal oaot dXXoi araVre? yap KeKOivcov^-
Kare ra}? (f)iXo(r6(f)ov p.avLa<; re Kal Bio Travre ? dKovaeade'
avyyvcoaeaBe yap rot ? re Tore '7rpa')(delai Kal toi<; vvv Xeyop,€voi<:'
ol Be oiKerai, Kal el rif dXXo<; earl ^ej3rfx6^ re Kal dypoiKO<;, TrvXa<i

7rap,p.€yaXa<f rot ? dxrlv eTrlOeaOe.

XXXIV. ’E-TretS^ yap ovv, (h dvBpe<;, 6 re aTrecr^ijKei
C Kal Ol TratSe? e^co rjaav, eBo^e pioi ')(^pi]vai p,7)Bev rroiKiXXeiv Trpd?
avrov, dXX' iXeudepoyi elveiv a p,oi eBoKei’ Kal eirrov Kivrj<xa<;

218 A B O.-P. ; kcCi /j-fj T, Bt. B Sel koI vulg. toIs re B (?)

Tols T (?) ft Tis T O.-P.: ft Ti B Trafi/J-eyaXas Naber J.-U. : ttow fieyaXas

libri, Sz. Bt. C (K“t) Kivria-as O.-P.

•u'jro tc5v...Xo'ywv. Cp. 210 D X6yovs...(v (piXocrotpia d(f)66vco. For TrXrjyiLS, cp.

Euthyd. 303 a Sxnrfp nXriyf'is VITO Tov Xoyov d(f)(ovos iKeipyv : Epist. vii. 347 D.
vf'ov 'I'DX'HS. Rost, removing the comma before vf'ou, connected v.
with i'xovTciL, wrongly for i'xfa-Oai without a genitive, cp.
: Gorg. 494 E.
Observe the word-play f;^-orrat ex-iSvrjs.
fft] d<|>vous. Cp. 209 b i/fu;^7;...fv(^vfi.
4>al8pous ktX. For a similar (generalizing) use of the plural of proper
names, cp. Menex. 245 D, Ar. Ran. 1040 ff., Av. 558 f.
218 B This echoes the irvyyvijiaofiivoLs of 21 8 A supra.
trvyyvwtreo’Ge.
ot This echoes Diotima’s wautp oiKiTTji, 210 D ad init cp. Ar.
oiKerai. . :

Ach. 242, Ran. 41 for the nomin. of address.

PfPrjXds. Cp. Schol. Aristid. ill. p. 471 ftrrt be Krjpvypa pvariKov to Ovpas...
l3e^r]Xoi,” cos TTou Koi 'Opcpevs brjXol <j)dey^opai ois depis ecTTc' Bvpas b fVt'dftrdf
fie^rjXoi”: Tim. /3f'^t;Xof dpvTjrot. Alcib.’s language, like Diotima’s, is Sugges-
tive of mystery-lore: cp. Theaet. 155 E; Eur. Bacch. 70 ff., 472; Horace’s “odi
profanum volgus et arceo.”
iruXas...Tois Mtrlv. Cp. Theogn. 421 noXXols dv6pd>Tr(ov yXdxrcrrj Bvpai ovk
enuceivTai \
appobiai.
o Tf Xv)(^vos dirfcrPijKfi. Cp. Ar. Pint. 668 &)y be tovs Xvxvovs dTTocr^ecras...
eyicaBevbeiV. Juv. IX. 104, Hor. C. III. 6. 28.
218 C iroiKtXXfiv. “Artificiose, h. e. obscure vel ambigue loqui” (Ast);
“to beat about the bush.” Cp. the use of ttoikIXos in 182 b: Laws 863 e to
Tf biKoiov Kol TO dbiKOV...(Ta(pS>s dv bwpieraip-qv ovbev ttoiklXXcov : Soph. Track.
421, 1121.
IXfvBfpus flirfiv. Cp. Pind. Nem. IX. 49 OapcraXea be rrapd KpaTrjpi (fxovd
ylveTai. Notice the word-play ebo^e...eb6Kei. For Kivfjcras, cp. Rep. 329 D
l3ovX6pevos frt Xeyeiv aiiTov eKivovv koI einov ktX.
 :

218 d] lYMnOZION 155

avTOv, S&j/c/jare?, KaOevSei^ ; Ov SfjTa, 77 8 0?. OiaOa ovv a fiOL

SeSoKTai; Tt fidXiara; €<j>r), Su e/j,ol Bok€l<;, 8’ €70), eytioO

ipacrTr)<; d^io<: yeyoPevai p.ovo'i, Kai [xot, (fyaivr) oicvetv fMvrjcrdrjvai

TTpo? /Me. eyo) Se ovracrl irdw dvor/Tov r/yov/iaL eivat aol /ir/

ov Kal TOVTO ')(apLi^eadaL Kal e'i tl dWo f/ t?}? ova-ia<; Tr}<; i/irj'i 8 eoco

p Tcov (f)iX(ov Twv i/io)V. i/Mol fiev yap ov 8 ev eari Trpea^vTepov D

Tov &)9 o Ti ^iXrKTTOv i/ie yeveadai, tovtov 8 e ol/iaL /moi crvX-
XpiTTopa ov 8 eva Kvpidyrepov eivat aov. eyw 8 r) toiovtm dv 8pX
TToXi) /moXXov dv /ir/ -^api^o/ievoii al<T')(vvoi/ir/v TOv<i (f)povL/iov<;,

rj ')(^api^6 fMevo<; roil? re ttoXXov'? Kal d<j>pova<;. Kal ovto<; dKovaa<;

/idXa elpcoviKoo^ Kal cr(j) 68pa eavrov re Kal eltoOorco'i eXe^ev ’O <^lX€
WXKi^id 8 ij, Kiv8 iivev 6 t'i T(p ovTi ov cf>avXo<i elvai, elrrep dXr/dr/

218 C ® O.-P. : TW
?)(aiv /(apicraa-dat O.-P. ei ti B O.-P. : ert

TW D o)s o Tl TW O.-P.: o(TM Tl B poi Vind. 21 O.-P. (prob.), vulg.

fiov BTW (Trap’) iavTov Stallb. :
(irpoy) eavrov Herwerden eavTw eliodoTcos
vulg. (p[\e om. O.-P.^ KivSvvevei. ..<f)av\' eivai Bdhm.

e|jLov... olios. Whether epoC goes closely with e'paa-rfjs or with d^ios is open
to doubt: Jowett renders “the only one who is worthy of me,” whereas Eettig
writes “a|ior absolut = wiirdig, beachtenswerth.”
oKveiv (crX. “To be shy of mentioning (your love) to me”: cp. I. Ale.
103 a oipai ere Oavpa^eiv on TipoiTos epaa-rris aov yev6pevos...ToeTOVT(iiv eraiv
ov8e TTpocreiTTOv.
tt)s ov(r£as...Tav Cp. 183 A fj )(prjpaTa...vTT6 (piXiov. For p tcov ipikcov
<j>iXii)V.

= rj TTis tS>v (plXcov,brachylogy in 217 D (epoii).

cp. the
218 D irpeo-piTTepov. Poll. II. 12 ica'i npea^eveiv to npav Trapa IlXareoi't Kal
TO “ ov8ev eern npea^vrepov ” avrl tov “ ovSev Tipiairepov ” 186 B, 188 C supra. :

owXXTjuTopa. For the epaarrjs as an aid to dperr], see 185 a; cp. Socrates’
description of Eros as awepyos, 212 b. poi was taken by Stallb. with o-aXXTjTr-
Topa, by Riickert with eivai, but it is better to say with Hommel that, as an
ethic dat., “ ad totum verborum complexum refertur.”
“ More com peteiE ” cp. Theaet. 161 D.
loipitiTepov. :

Tous 4>povipovs...a<j)povas. Compare the similar aristocratic sentiment of

Agathon, 194 B. It is worth noticing that whereas Pausanias had spoken of
those who disapprove of xapiC^adai as nver, here they are termed oi ttoXXoi.
Cp. Xen. Mem. i. 6. 13. Similarly Browne, Eel. Med. “This noble affection
falls not on vulgar and common constitutions.”

(r({)6Spa lavTov. “ Very characteristically ” : cp. “suum illud est” Cic. Tusc.
I. 42. 99.
ov 4>avXos. “Kein Dummkopf” (Hug); cp. 174c, 175 e. Socr. means
that if Alcib. proposes to make such a profitable bargain, bartering his own
cheap KoXXos for the rare kuXKos of Socr., he evidently is a “cute” man of
 ”6

156 nAATQNOS; [218 D

E Tvy^avei ovra a Xeyeit; Trepl efiov, Kai ti<; ear ev ijxol BvvafMi<;, Bi

^9 av (TV yevoto d/xeivcov' (ipb-qj^avov rot K(iWo<; optorj^; av ev ep-ol

Kal rrj'i irapd aol evp,op(pia<; irapbiroXv Bia(j)epov. KaOopwv el Brj

avTO KOLvdoaaaOai re p,OL e7ri^eipet9 teal (xkXd^aadat, KdWo<i dvrl

KaWov<;, ovK 0 X 170) p,ov TTkeoveKrelv Biavof}, aXX’ dvrl B6^r]<;

219 a\r]$eiav KaXdlv Kraadai eTTL'^^eipei'i Kal tw ovtl “p^^pocrea ^^aX/ceio)!/

BiapueliSeadac voet 9 . aXX’, w p,aKdpLe, dp,eivov crKOTret, p.-q ae \av-

Oavo) ovBev wv. rf tol Tri<; BiavoLa<; o-yfrit; dp')(^eraL o^v ^Xeireiv
oral’ Tj rwv oppdreov rrjii dKpri<; \yjyetv e'irL')(^eipfi’ av Be tovtuw eri
TTOppo}, Kclyo) dKovaa<i, Ta pev Trap' epov, e(})r)v, ravr eanv, dbv

ovBev «XXo)9 e'cprjTav 17 0)9 Biavoovpat' av Be avTO<i ovreo /SovXevov

6 TL aol re dpiarov Kal epol rjyel. ’AXX’, e(f)r], tovto ye ev \eyei<;’
B Iv ydp TM eiTLovTt )(^p6v(p ^ovXevopevoc irpd^opev o av (pal-

VTjTai v(pv Trepl re tovtcov Kal Trepl rciov dWcov dpiarov.

218 E TOL BTW O.-P. : tl al., Bekk. : re vulg. re' not BT O.-P. :
poi W
219 A KaXiov del. Bdhm. voels seel. Voeg., J.-U. rj tol W, Steph.: 7'rot
j

BT oijMs apteral om. Stob. e’/xov TW O.-P.; ipoL B [(rot re] ort O.-P.

business. Cp. Diog. L. III. 63 6 yovv (jjaiiXos Xeyerai Trap' avTw (sc. Platoni)
KOI eV'i rou atrXov, a>s Ka't Trap' ’EvpiTridj] eV AiKvpvlco ktX. (see Eurip. 476 N,
(paiXov, aKopyjrov, to. piyicrr aya66v ktX.).

218 E a(ii]xav 6 v ktX. Supply from the context, with Stallb., “ nam hoc
ita si sit.” Riickert, after Schleierm., wrongly connects this clause with the
preceding, “qua fiat, ut tu melior evadas, atque exinde immensam in me
pulcritudinem cernas ” ;
while Hommel makes it depend upon elVep. Cp. Hep.
509 B, 608 D ;
Charm. 1 55 D.
evfxop4>£as. For the notion of a beauty-competition here suggested, cp. Xen.
Symp. V. 1. Cp. also the o-o(^ia-match of 175 E.

dvrl 8 o|t)s d\i]0eiav k. “Real for sham beauties”: dXrjdeiav KaX5)v = d\^6iva
KcXd. Cp. Phil. 36 C fiF.
;
and for the antithesis, cp. 198 E, 212 a supra.
219 A A “familiar quotation” from II. vi. 235 —
(rXavKoy) os Trpos TvdeiSrjv Atoprjdta Tev^d apet^ev \
xpl(Tea ^aXKfLrov, eKarop-
^ol evvea^oLcov. Later reflp. to the proverb are frequent, e.g. Pint. adv. Stoic.
1063 E; Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gent. 71 C. Cp. Winter’s Tale i. 2 “take eggs
for money.” In xplfrea there is an obvious allusion to the dyaXpara xpvrrd of
216 E.
t] Toi...ovl/is. For this idea of the inverse development of vision, cp. Laws
715 D, II. Ale. 150 D. Rettig thinks that in this passage there may lie a ref.
to Phaedr. 253 D tfi, and an indication that the views there put forward are
crude and the book itself “eine jugendliche Schrift.”
219 B «v ydp TW ktX. Thus Socr. practically defers the consideration of
the matter to “ the Greek Kalends.” Rettig calls attention to the catalectic
hexameter in iv ydp...SovXev6pevoi, which gives a touch of jocular liveliness.
 ;

219 C] ZYMnOZION 157

’£70} ixev ravra aKOvaaf re Kal elTrcov, Kal d^el<; aicnrep

^iXrj, rerpcSadai avrdv (ppr)V’ /cal dvaard^; ye, ovBe IrnTpe’^a^;
rovTcp ecTrelv ovBev ert, dp.(f)i€aa<; to Ipcdrcov to epcavrov rovrov —
Kal yap rjv •)^eip,cov — virb rov rpi^cova KaTaK\tvel<; rov rovrovi,
'Trepi^a\d>v reb rovro) rw Baipcovia &>? d,\r]dd)<; Kal davpbaarw, C
KareKeip.T]v rpv vvKra oXrjv. Kal ovBe ravra av, cb Sd>Kpare<;, epel<t
on yjrevBopai. TroiTjaavro^ Be ravra ep,ov ovto<; roaovrov irepie-
Bt)

yevero re Kal Karecppovrjcre Kal KareyeXaae Trj<; ep,rj<; wpa'i Kal

v^pcae Kal Trepl eKelvo <o> ye wp,r]v rl elvai, (W duBpe<; BiKaaraL —
219 B /SeXet TXV O.-P. TovTto T, Thiersch; rovro B: rovrov W
rovrovi TW O.-P. (prob.), Bt. : rovrov B, J.-U. Sz. C auB om. TW
:

Kai TTcp'i CKtlvo (o) 76 SCripsi :

[koi] TTfpt eKeivo ye O.-P.: Kainep eKelvo ye TW :

Kairrep Kelvo ye B : koi ’/ceil'd ye Sz. : Kairoi ’/ceil'd ye Bt. : KaiTrep...etvai Secl. Hug

dif/els eiinrep P^i]. Sc. rovs Xdyour. For this image applied to “winged
words,” cp. the use of 189 b; Phileb. 23 b /3e'Xp e;(eii' erepa ro>v ep-
/SaXcoi'

TTpoadev Xdyoji' Theaet. 180 A; Pind. 01. i. 112.

:

T€Tpio(r0ai. “ I thought I had winged him.” Cp. Theogn. 1287 dXXd

a eya> rpmaai (pevyovrd Trep and the description of Eros as 6rjpevrr]S beivos,
:

203 D.
Tpipiava. Cp. Prot. 335 D Ar. Ack. 184, etc. The vogue of the “ philosophers
;

cloak” {pallium) seems to date from Socrates cp. Pint, de disc. ad. 56 c. For :

the incident, see also Lysias in Alcib. xiv. 25 (Teichmiiller Litt. F. ii. 267 ff.);
Theocr. Id. xviii. 19 cp. Theogn. 1063 fi. eV 8’
;
irdpa pev ^vv bprfkiKi /caX
Xid’ evdeiv |
Notice the stylistic effect produced
Ipeprav epyeov e^ epov lepevov.
both by the row of successive participles, mostly asyndetic (“ der Sturmlauf
ist vergeblich ” Eettig) ;
and by the repetition of the pronoun {rovreo, -rov,
“ Forsan haec illustrat Soph. Track. 944.
-rovi, -rep, ovros). Respexit
Alciphi’on i. 38” (Wyttenb.).
219 C Saipoviu. Cp. 202 D.
Kal ov8^ rai/Ta /crX. Alcib.’s fourth appeal to Socr. for confirmation, cp.
217 B.

ToirovTov. “Dictum est beiKriKois et per quandam exclamationem utsigni-

ficet : mirum quantum me vicit^’ (Stallb.) Riickert and Hommel, on the other :

hand, suppose that “sequi debebat dare” so as to give the sense “ut non aliter
ab eo surrexerim,” etc. (Riickert), or dare kol Karaef/povrjaai xrX. (Hommel).
Ruckert’s view, which explains the change of construction as due to the
intervening parenthesis, seems the most probable.
Trepi€'y€'v€Td /crX. Alcib. is fond of piling up synonyms by way of emphasis
cp. 207 A, 219 D, 221 E.

vPpio-€. v^pis is a vox propria in erotic literature for the “ spretae iniuria
formae”; cp. Anthol. Pal. V. 213 ovk o’iaeo rdv aTrdXaiarpov vjSpiv,
Anacreon fr. 129 v^pearal Kal drcladaXoi {’AvaKpeeov dweiXei rois’'Ep(i>aiv...
eTreibrjTTep edpa rov ecprj^ov oKlyov avrov (f)povri^ovra...el prj avrd rirpdaKoiev
 158 nAATQNOZ [219 c

hiKaaraX yap eare ^coKpdrov^; v7repr)^avLa<;. eu yap tare p,a

6eov<;, p,a ded'i, ovSev irepiTTorepov KaTaBeBapdrjKMt; dvecrTTjv p,eTd
D
j

^coKpdrov^;, ^ el pberd 'iraTpo<i KaOrjvSov rj dS€\(f)ov irpea^vrepou. i

XXXV. To St) pierd tovto rlva oteade p-e hldvoiav 97700- j

pevov pev rjTLpdaOaL, dydpevov Se t^v tovtov (pvaiv re ical awcfipo- !

avv7]v Kal dvhpeiav, evreTV)(r]K6Ta dvQpd>rr(p roLOvrco o'lw eyed ovk \

219 D ^ el B O.-P. ; ^ TW

airUa tov eeprj^ov ktX.). Cp. Spenser’s, “Thou hast enfrosen her disdainefull
brest,” and “Whilst thou tyrant Love doest laugh and scorne At their com-
plaints, making their paine thy play, Whylest they lie languishing like thrals
forlorne” (cp. KaraSebovXwfievos 219 E infra).
Kai Trepl Ikcivo (o) yi ktX. So I have ventured to write on the strength of the
evidence of the Papyrus.
Rettig keeps the Bodleian Kflro, as tolerable “in hac Alcibiadis oratione
singularia amantis,”and refers to Poppo ad Thuc. viii. 86, Lob. ad Phryn. p. 7,
and other authorities: but to bolster up the double anomaly “vain is the
strength of man ” if xeli/o be retained we must assume prodelision (’(cttvo).
:

tI elvai. “ Magni quid esse” (Riickert) cp. Gorg. 472 a it is the opposite : :

of ovBev etvai, 216219 A.E,

8iKa<rTal. Alcib. appeals to the audience to try the case, the notion of a
lawsuit (ypaepT) v^peas) having been suggested by the word Z^piaev. We have
already had, in this speech, terms suggestive of legal proceedings, viz. 214 D
TLpa)pr]eTOdpai vpS>v ivavTiov 215 B pdprvpas Trapi^opai and dcKaa-rrjs itself was
: '.

already used by Agathon in 175 E.

pd 0COVS, pd 0eds. Such an invocation of the whole pantheon is unusual,
but cp. Tim. 27 C.

ov8lv -n-spiTToTepov. Havd aliter, cp. Isocr. III. 43.

KaTa8e8ap0T|K«s. Cp. 223 c, Apol. 40 D. For the incident cp. Petron. 128
non tarn intactus Alcibiades in praeceptoris sui lecto iacuit : Lucian vit. auct.

15; Corn. Nep. Alcih. c. ii.

219 D A.’s feelings were a blend of chagrin and venera-

T£vtt...8idvoiav.

tion : the perplexity described in 216 C

cp. Theogn. 1091 ff. dpyakews poi ;

6vp6s i'xei Tvep'i aps (piXorrjros oilre yap ix^alpeiv ovre <j)i\eiv dvvapai, ktX.
\

TjTipdcr0ai. Cp. Theogn. 1313 iprjv de pedr/Kas dTipprov (piXorrjTa.

dydpevov. This is an echo, both of Phaedrus’s language in 179 c, 180 a,
and of dyacTTos applied to Eros (197 d). Observe the assonance rjyovpevov...
dydpevov. Cp. Xen. Sgmp. viii. 8.

TT-v TOVTOV <^vtriv Hommcl renders “des Mannes ganzem Wesen

ktX.
besonders seiner Besonnenheit und Charakterfestigkeit ” etc. Rettig explains ;

(pva-Ls as “ die geistige Naturanlage des S., seine theoretische und spekulative

Begabung, ingenium, a-oepla (vgl. Theaet. 144 a).” The former seems the more
natural interpretation efivais may be intended also as an echo of Aristophanes
;

use of the word (189 d etc.).

 :
::

219 e] lYMnOIlON 159

av mi^rjv TTore ivTV')(^elv et? (j^povrjcriv Kal et? Kaprepiav ; ware ovd'
OTTO)? ovv opjL^oLpLTjv elxov Kal airoaTeprjde'i'qv tovtov avvov-
aLa<;, ovd' oirp Trpocraya'yoipbTjv avrov 'qv'iropovv. €v yap pSrj ore

‘^^ppp.aaL ye ttoXv p.dWov aTpwTO? 'pv Trai/ra^^ ^ aihT^ptp 6 Alfa?,

(o re (pp.7]v avTov puovw oKoocreadai, 8ieTre(pevye(, p,e. 'piropovv Sp,
KaraSeSovXoipLevof; re vtto tov dvOpwTTOv &>? ouSel? vtt' ovSevb<;
dWov Trepifja. ravra re yap p,oi diravra Trpouyeyovei, Kal puerd
ravra arpareLa 'ppdv ei? JloTihaiav eyevero Koivrj Kal avveaurovpev
eKel. irpSiTov p,ev ovv rot? ttovoi^ ov pLovov ip^ov TrepirjV, dWd Kal
rcov dWcov aTravreov' ottot dvayKaaOeippuev dTro\r}<^6evre<; ttov,

219 D (ooprjv O.-P. corr. KapT^plaV. eyKpareiav O.-P. ov6’ : ovS

O.-P. corr. ei KOI O.-P. a-wtjdeias O.-P.^ E OTrot vulg. rjBrj B
O.-P. ye TW O.-P., Jn.: re B, J.-U. Sz. Bt. BT O.-P.
re W ravra r apa Bdhm. Koivfj vulg. J.-U. Naber Koivrj BT O.-P.,
;

Sz. Bt. ovv libri, Bt. : ovv (e’v) Winckelmanu J.-U. Sz. ottoU W, Herm.:
OTTorav BT O.-P.: OTTorav yovv vulg.: oirdre S’ Sauppe Jn. : ottot’ av Robdo
oiov ottot’ cj. Useuer ano\r)(pdivres Cornarius, Sz. Bt. : aTroXeKfidevres libri,
O.-P. : aiTokeKpdivres alrov, ola Heusde

(ppovTjo'is verbunden mit Kaprepla ist doch iiichts

<|)pdvT|(riv...KapTepiav.

Anderes Auflosung des Begriffs der aaxppoavvr] in seine beiden Bestand-

als die
theile. Vgl. Pol. iv. 430 e, Phadr. 237 E, Krat. 411 e” (Rettig).
ov0’...€lxov. Of moral impossibility, as in 190 c, P/iaedr. 241 a.
219 E arpwTos. “Invulnerable on all sides” cp. T€Tpmo-dat 219 B. For :

the incorruptibility of Socr., shown by his sending back Alcib.’s presents, see
Stob. Flor. XVII. 17, Ael. v. h. ix. 29.

(TiSiipcp For the impregnable seven-fold shield of Ajax, see Find.

o Atas.
Isthm. V. 45; Soph. Aj. 576; Welcker Kl. Sc/ir. ii. p. 267.
(p T€ ipp-iiv. Sc. rfi <opa (cp. 219 C) the antecedent, Kara rovro (dcaneej).), has
:

to be supplied.
KaTaS€8ov\up€vos. Cp. Euthyd. 303 c. Above, 215 e, we had dvSpaTroBeaBas
BiaKeipevos,
“ I wandered about,” suggestive of aimless despair cp. Proi.
irepifia. :

348 D, Pep. 620 C: so irepirpext^v 173 A.

<rTpaTela...KoivTi. Potidaea revolted from Athens in 435 b.C. and after

5 years of war was reduced in 430 (see Bury’s Hist. Gr. pp. 392 3) Socr.’s — :

part in the campaign is alluded to also in Apol. 28 e. Charm. 153 A, c cp. :

Plut. adv. Colot. p. 1117 E.

a-uvecriTovpcv. “We were mess-mates” (crifo-o-tTot). This implies personal
friendship rather than proximity of origin ;
for Socr. and Alcib. belonged to
diflerent c^uXat and to different rd^eis.
Tols TTovoLs. Cp. 197 E (’’Epcoy) ev TT6vcp...dpia'ros.

diroXn(^0evT€s. “J2.ut.o£^” “a commeatu intercept! et prohibit!” (Stallb.)

cp. Hdt. II. 115. 2; Thuc. vi. 22; Gorg. 522 a.
 160 nAATQNOI [219 E

220 ola h'q iirl crTpareta?, aatTelv, ovBev rjaav ol dWot, irpo^ ro Kap-
repelv. ev t av rat? ev(o^Lai<; p.6vo<; diroXaveiv ol6<; r rjv to. t
dWa Kal TTiveLV ovk kdeKwv, oTrore dva'yKaadeir], irdvrat iKpdrei,
Kal o TrdvTcov davpbaaroTaTov, 'l.wKpdrr} pbeOvovra ovSel^ TrcoTrore
ecopaKev dvOpcoTTOiv. tovtov puev ovv p,oi SoKei Kal avriKa o eXey^o?
eaeadai. 7rpo? Se av ra? rod ')(ei.pbS)vo<; Kaprep-paeK; — Beivol yap
avrodt )(^€ip,d)ve'i — dav/j.daia elpya^ero rd re dWa, Kai Trore 6vto<;
B Trdyov o'lov heivordrov, Kal Trdvrwv t) ovk e^iovrcov evhodev rj ei rt?

i^loi •ppucfyiecrp.evcov re Oavp.ao’rd Sp oaa Kal VTroSeSepLevcov Kal

iveiXLypievcov tou? TroSa^ et? iriXovi Kal dpvaKlha<;, ovro<; S’ iv

220 A TTpbs TO TTpbs avTov els ro Sauppe Trpor avTov rto Bdhin.
: ev d’ ;

av Wolf aTToXkveLV O.-PA oios r’ ijv del. Bdhm. re raXka Bdhm.

TTLvedv Usener navras: TTavruiv Hirschig 6 TTavTwv TW O.-P. OTTOTav B :

davpaaiairaTov O.-P. Vind. 21 eapaKev TW O.-P.: icopaKei B )(^etpS>ves

del. Naber B Trdyoo B O.-P.: tov ndyov TW ^ ovk B O.-P.: ovk TW

8fj TW O.-P.: ^ B ovTos 6’ BTW : ovtos O.-P. Vind. 21

220 A ola 8 ti ktX. Sc. (jjiXel ylyvecrdai, or the like ;

cp. Rep. 467 b ola
dr/ ev TroXepo) (j&tXel {sc. ylyveadai) ;
Euthyd. 272 A.
ovSIv iicrav...irpos kt\. Cp. 195 D olos jJv...Trp6s ktX., and 216 E ovdev
elvai.

£vo)\Cais. Cp. Laws 666 B ev toIs avaaiTLOis eva>)(ij6evTa 203 B supra. :

rd. t’ aXXa ktX. The construction is loose we may either explain it (with ;

Stallb.) as a brachylogy for rd r’ dXXa Kal 8^ Kal tovto 0 Ti...e’KpdTet, or say (with
Wolf) that eKpdrei is carelessly put for Kparav. Hug construes niveiv closely
with dvayKaaOelp, marking OVK i6e\a>v as a parenthesis but it is simpler to ;

regard nlveiv as a kind of accus. of respect (“at drinking”) with eKpdrei. For
the dvdyKT] of the “ symposiarch’s ” ruling cp. 176 a, 223 b.
€aipaK€v. The plpf. eiopdKei (in spite of Eettig, etc.) is inconsistent with
TTcoTTore. For Socr.’s invincibility in carousals, see 176 c, 214 a, 223 C; and
cp. Theogn. 491 dviK-qros 8e rot ovros [
or TroXXdr ttlvuiv pr] ri pdraiov epel.
airlKa. . .^(r£o-0ai. I.e. we shall have proof, before the night is over, of Socr.’s
Koprepla in this regard.
8£ivol...X£ip(3v£S. Cp. Thud II. 70 opwvres pev rrjs arparias rijv raXanriopiav
ev x^coplcp Aesch. Rers. 495 ff.
^eipepivip :

Oavpdcria elpyatero. An echo of 182 E and 213 D.

220 B olov 8€ivoTdTOu. I.e. roiovrov oios Seivdrards e’ariv : cp. Apol. 23 A
(Madv. Gr. S. § 96. 1).
irlXovs. Schol. TTikos- ipdriov e^ epLov TrtXijo-ftor yivdpevov, els verSiv Kal
Xeipdvcov dpvvav. Cp. Laios 942 D ;
Hes. Op. 541 ff. “Had their feet swathed
in felt and fleeces” (Jowett).
dpvaKl8as. Schol. dpvoKibes de dpv5>v KOjSia: Suid. dpvaKis' ro rov apvos
KcbSiov, to perd rcov epiiov deppa. Cp. Themist. or. IV. 50 B.
220 c] lYMnOIlON 161

TOVTOL<; e^(ov Ifidriov fiev tocovtov olovirep Kai Trporepov

elcodei (})opelv, dvvTrohrjTO’; Se 8td rov KpvaTaWov paov i'Tropevero

^ ol dWoi vTToSeSep^evoi. oi 8e a-TparicoTai vire^Xeirov avrov co?

KUTacbpovovvTa crcfxjbV. ''

XXXVI. Kal ravTa p.ev 8>) ravra' C

olov S' av ToS' ej}e^e Kal eT\r) KapTepo<; dvrjp
eKel TTore eVt a-Tpartd'i, d^iov aKovaai. ^vvvoi^(ja<; yap avToOi
eadev rt elarrjKeL (tkottoov, Kal eVefS?) ov irpovyaipet, avrS, ovk
aviei dWd elarTjKei Kal i]S7) rjv p-eaTj/jL^pia, Kal dvOpcoirot
ijaddvovTO, Kal $avp,d^ovT€<; dX\o<; dXXw eXeyov on 'S,(OKpdTr}<;

kwOtvov cfypovTL^cov n earrjKe. TeXevrdovre'i Se Tii/e? tojv 'Icovcov,

220 B oiovrrep B O.-P. : olov TW C av rod’ W O.-P., Cornarius :

avTO BT €pp€^e B (TTparias O.-P., Cobet Sz. Bt. ; arparcLas libri, J.-U.
eioTTjKei Tulg. O.-P. : etrri^Ket libri Trpo)^apeili dvlei: aveirj O.-F. avdpcoiroi
Mebler Cobet Sz. Bt.; avOpanoi libri eXeyor Mehler Cobet Sz. : e\ey€v
libri, O.-P., Bt. e’^: as O.-P. koi ante reXeyrcorrey add. 'W ’lavav
libri, O.-P.; viav Mehler Hug Sz. ; Idovrav Schmidt; Ilaiovav Rettig

Cp. 220 a ?i. j Xen. Mem. I. 2. 1,6. 2 kcli Ipdriov ^p<f)Uaai

i(j,d.Tiov...4>opeIv.

ov povov (pavXov dXXa ro avTo Bipovs t€ ko-'i ^^eipavos, dvviTodTjTos de Kal d\LTa>v
StareXels. For dvvTroSrjTos, see also 174 a, 203 d.
{nre'pXEirov. “ Looked askance (suspiciously) at him,” i.e. “quippe queni

ipsos despicere opinarentur” (Stallb.). Cp. Eryx. 395 a vTro^\4^as...acnT(p

TL dScKOvpevos : Crito 53 b vno^Xi’^ovTal ere 8ia(j)dop€a Tjyovp^voi t5>v v6pa>v.
220 C Kal Taira... ravra. For this formula of transition, dismissing the
subject, cp. Laws 676 a.
olov 8’ av...dvf|p. From
rv. 242, with the slight alteration olov
Horn. Od.
S’ av for dXX’ olov : spoken by Helen in describing Odysseus.
there it is

ivwoiio-as. Rettig holds that the following section is an illustration of the

“spekrdative Begabung” {(pva-is 219 d) of Socr. but it describes, primarily, ;

another phase of his Kap-repla. For S.’s habit of thought-immersion, cp.

174 E £f., Gell. iV A. Ii. 1 similarly, in Indian gymnosophists, Plin. H. N.
;

VII. 2. 22. The similar incident in 174 E ff. is there construed by Agathon
as a symptom of o-o^ia (see 175 C — D).
’Iwvwv. Riickert comments “ Tones illo
tempore sub Atheniensium ditione
erant, unaque militabant ” but most recent editors suspect corruption after
;

Mehler {ad Xen. Symp. p. 75) “Neque fuere eorum in ordinibus, neque
Platonis haec sunt verba.” To Mehler’s restoration, tmv veav, Rettig
objects that “den Athenern gleichviel ob jung oder alt diese Weise des
Sokrates kaum auffallend war, da man ihn genugsam kannte”; while in
favour of his own conj. Ilatdvtov, he cites Thuc. i. 59, 61, etc. But I agree
with Usener {Rhein. Mus. Liii. p. 372) that ’lavcov may well be genuine.
B. P. 11
 162 nAATQNOZ [220 c

D eVeiS?) eairepa rjv, ZeiirvrjaavTe^ — Ka\ yap 6epo<; Tore y —^a-

puevvia i^eveyKapLevoi ap,a p,kv iv tm KadrjvZov, apua Be
eipvXaTTOv avrov el Kal ttjv vvKra eaTp^oi. 6 Be eloTpKei, p^^XP''

eo)? eyevero koX dveo-x^v eireoTa «%eT’ dircwv irpoaev^dpbevo'i

Tw rf\.i(p,

Et Be ^ovkeaOe ev rat? rovro yap Bp BiKatov ye avTM

d-TToBovvac’ ore yap p pidxv pv, p'i ipiol Kal rdpLarela eBoaav oi
CTTparpyoL, ovBel<; dWo^ epi,e eacaaev dvdpcoTTCov •p ovto'^, Terpto-

E p^evov ovK edeXcov diroXiTreLV, aXXd avvBieaoiae Kal ra oTrXa Kal

avTov epbL Kal eyca pbev, co ZctS/cpare?, Kal rare eKeXevov aol
BiBovao rdpiarela rov<; arparpyov^, Kal tovto ye p. 0 L ovre p,epi,yfr7]

220 D Trpocrev^opevos b ev rals : Kai ev rats O.-P. ovk eOeXcov

TeTpwpevov T E ’Saxparpv O.-P.

220 D )(a|j.€vvia. raireiva K\ivi8ia (Schol.); ra enl rps yps crrpuivvvpeva

(Tim.): cp. (Eros) x^apameTfjs, 203 d: Hipponax67 ev aradpia re KOI x<^pevvla
yvpvov.
7rpo(r€v|a|i€vos Hesiod {Op. 339) prescribes prayer at sunrise and
tu iiX£o>.

sunset; cp. Laws 887 966 D; Soph. 0. C. 477 Ar. Pint. 771 Kal TTpoaKVvS)
E, ;

ye TTpcoTa pev tov rj\iov. The suggestion here may be that the Sun-god
{Phoebus, the revealer, “the light of the world”) brings mental illumination,
and that Socr.’s evxp was in jpart a thanksgiving therefor. As a parallel to
Socr., we may refer to “the devotion -of Orpheus to Helios” as pointed out in
Harrison Proleg. p. 462. Moreover, Socr. regarded Apollo as his special
patron-god, see Apol. 39 d ff., Phaedo 85 b, Tim. 40 a (Adam, R. T. G.
pp. 325, 434 ff.) and the sim is the symbol of ideal Good, see Rep. 530 a,
:

Phileh. 28 D. For the content of a Socratic jjrayer, see Phaedr. 279 B c — ;

Xen. Mem. I. 3. 2 Tjvx^ro Se npos roits 6eovs airkais TayaOa bebovai. Of prayers
to Helios we have exx. in Soj)h. Aj. 845 id.fr. 772 ’HcXior oiKTeipeie pe
fi'. 6v
; |

ao(poi Xeyovai yevvpTrjv 6eS>v Kal narepa navToiv. \

El 8e povXecrSe. Sc. aKovaai oios pv, or the like; cp. 177 B. Alcib. here
passes on to treat of the dvbpeia of Socr.
aTToSovvai. “Tanquam debitum 2
^ersolvere” (Stallb.).

q |xdxq- “Ilia pugna (omnibus nota)” (Ruckert) ;

i.e. the fight (in
432 B.c.) which preceded the blockade of Potidaea, cp. 219 B n., Thuc. i.
62 &, II. 2.
^orwtrev. With this, and awbieaeoaev below, CJ). Eros as acoTrjp dpia-Tos,
197 E.

220 E OVK l0€X(ov diroXiiretv. This passage echoes the language of

Phaedrus in 179 a: eyKoraXiTrelv ye TO. TratSocd ktX., and onXa aTrolBaXmv. To
rescue a man’s arms was to save him from the disgrace attaching to o-rrXeov
diroSoXr].
ovT€ pe|x»|/T). Here for the fifth time Alcib. challenges Socr. to contradict
him (cf 219 c) : for pepepopai, cp. 213 E.
221 b] ZYMnOZION 163

ovTe epeL<: ort ylrevSofMac' aWa yap roov crrparrjywv 7rpo<; to epLov
d^[(i)p.a aTTO^XeTTovTcov Kal /3ovXop,ei'(ov ip.ol BiSovai rdpiarela,
auTO? 'irpo6vpb6repo<; eyivov twv arparipyaiv ep.6 Xa/Selv fj aavTOv.
€Ti toLvvv, CO ai'Spe?, d^iov rjv dedaacrOai XcoKparr}, ore diro ApXlov 221
^vyfj dv6‘)(^cop€t TO aTparoTreSov ervy^ov yap irapayevopLevo'i Ittivov
e^cov, GOTO? Se OTrXa. dvey^^oopei ovv eaKeBaapuevcov ^Brj twv dv-
dpcoTTCov ovTO? T6 dp.a Kal Ady^7]<i' Kal eyed TrfpLTvyy^^dvoo, Kal IBcov
evOyii irapaKeXevopiaL re avrolv dappelv, Kal eXeyov on ovk diro-
XcLyjrco avTw. evravda Bp Kal KaXXiov eOeaerdpupv '^coKpdrp p ev
IIoTiSata — aoTO? yap prTov ev cf)6^Q) p Bed to ecf) ltfitov elvai —
TTpeorov peev oaov Trepvpv Ady^pro<i T<p epecjopcov eivae' eTreira epeotye B
eBoKet, CO ’AptcrTo0(ive?, to aov Bp tovto, Kal eKel BeairopeveadaL
uKTTrep Kal evddBe, “ /3p6vdu6peevo<; Kal TcoipdaXpLco Trapa/SdXXcov,”
221 A croKpai-pv T 7j B : ^ TW : p O.-P. :
pv Vlllg. B werTrep Kai
eV^dSe seel. Jn. J.-U. TO) 6(j)6a\pw T O.-P.: tS> (p6a\pw B: r’ ocpdaXpw W
d|iup.a. “Social standing”: “erat genere Alcmaeonida...ipse Periclis in
tutela erat” (Eiickert). Op. I. Ale. 104 b; Thuc. ii. 37, v. 43, etc.
•i] (ravTov. We should expect pdWov p avros, but the accus. is put in order
to balance ipe, “propter oppositionis gravitatem” (Stallb.). For the omission
of paXXov after words “ denoting a wish or choice,” see Madv. Gr. S. § 93 c.
221 Adird AtiKio-u. For this famous battle in Boeotia (424 b.c.), when
the Athenians under Hippocrates were routed by the Thebans under Pagondas,
see Thuc. it. 76 ff, Bury’s Sist. Gr. pp. 442 3. —
KOI AdxT|s. Op. Lack. 181 B. Athenaeus (v. 329 ff.) perversely contends
that Socr. took part in no battle.
TrepiTVYxdvoj. Cp. Hermann on Ar. Nuh. 196, “ eTTLrvyxdreiv dicitur qui
quaerit, Trepirvy^, qui non quaerens in aliquid incidit.”
KoXXiov €0ea<rdixT)v. “I got a toer view of”: cp. Rep. 467 e iepl Imrav...
KoWiard re d€daovTai...Ka.\ aaepaXearaTa ktX.
€V 4)oP(p. Cp. 197 D.
?|i<f>pcijv. “^ool,” “ collected ”
;
cp. Ion 535 B -rrorepov epeppoov ei, p €^a>
cravTov yiyvei; Laws 791 B dvr'i paviK&v ...i^eis epcppovas i'^eiv.

221 B TO edv 8i^ Todro. An accus. absoL, like to Xeyopevov “ ut tuo illo :

utar” (Stallb.). Cp. Soph. 233 B, Euthyd. 284 c (with Schanz, nov. comm.
pp. 76 f.). The ref. is to Ar. Auh. 362 on t ev rdiaiv 68 ols koI
rd}<p6dXpa> TrapaSdXXeis. The Clouds was not produced until the year after
the battle of Helium, viz. 423 B.C.

Pp€v0vdpevos. “Stalking like a pelican” (Jowett): Schol. ad Nuh. 362

^pevBvei- dnoaepvvveLS aeavTov iv ra crxppa.n Kal ravpphov opas’ Kopna^eis ica'i

vTrepoTTTiKas ^adi^eLs: cp. Schol. ad Pax 25, ad Lysist. 887. “Mmirum

ductum est verbum a ^pev6os, quod significat avem aquaticam, frequenter ad
paludes commorantem altisque pedibus incedentem” (Stallb.).
Tw(})0aXpco TrapapdXXwv. “ H. e. torvo vultu oculos in obliquum vertens ”

11—2
 164 nAATQNOZ [221 B

i^pifia TrapaaKOTTwv Kal tov? Kai tow? 7ro\6p,Lov<;, av

TravTL Kal irdvv TroppcoOev, on el n<i d'\^eraL rovrov tou dvSp6<;,
p,d\a ippo)pevco<; dp,vvelTai. Bio Kal da(^aXo)<; dirpei Kal ovto<;
Kal 0 eraZpo?' ayeBov ydp n rwv ovto) BiaKeip,eva>v ev tw
C TToXepia ovBe cncTovrai, ahXd roii? TrporpoTrdBrjv (^evyovra^; Bico-

Kovai.
IToXA,a p,ev ovv dv Ti<; Kal dWa e'xpi ^coKpdrrj iiraiveaai Kal
Oavpidaia' dXkd tcou piev dWcov i'lrirrjBevpidTOiv Tap^’ dv Ti? Kal
irepl dWov roiavra etiroi, to Be p,r]B€vl dvOpcoiroiv opioiov elvai, pii^Te

tS)v TTaXaiwv pirjTe roov vvv ovnov, rovro d^iov iravTO'^ 6avp,aTo<;.
olo'i yap ’A;!^tWeu 9 eyevero, direiKdaeiev dv ti<; Kal UpaaiBav Kal

221 B TvepicrKoiroiv Ast Bekk. Sz. (f)i\Lovs BTW : (})iKovs al., O.-P.,

Steph. a^j/'aiTo O.-P. apvvrjTai P fiio. . AitoKoucrti' secl. Hartmann

8i6 Kal Arist. orror: avros O.-P. eralpos Arist., Sz. Bt. : erepos libri,
O.-P., J.-U. ev Tw TToXf'/io) ante dXXo ponit Arist. C paWov j)ost (f)ev-
yovras addit Arist. Oavpacrai Hirschig Tbiv pev : Ta>v O.-P. (ut videtur)
be', be brj O.-P. eivai p^re TXV O.-P.: elval pe B

(Stallb.). Rettig objects that this rendering is inconsistent with ^pepa

and explains by “ oculis prope admotis intueri, also scharf ansehen,”
(piXlovs,

cp. Phaedo 103 A, Rep. 531 A. Ast gives “oculos in aliquid.immotos habere
intentos”: Reynders, to jbXeppa avw koI Karo) Kivelv. Jowett, “rolling his
eyes.”
ijpepa irapao-Koirwv. This verb is an. elp. in Plato, and perhaps conveys a
literary allusion ; Rlickert explains mean
it to “ oculis quasi comitari, ob-

servare, ut omnes motus lento oculorum motu notare videaris.”

8tiXos...ir6pp<o6ev. “Similiter Ajiollodorus, qui Socratis incessum imitatus
est, Ttov ovv...n6pp(i>6ev iKoXecrev kt\.” (Hommel).
d eraipos. So Jahn, 72 the more definite term is
after Aristides t. ir. p. :

preferable, as Rettig argues against Teuffel. For confusion of the two words
in the codd., cp. 183 c {crit. n.), and see Schanz, nov. comm. p. 59.
221 C TrpoTpoirdSqv. “ In headlong rout ” an Epic {^R. xvi. 304) word, —
an. elp. in Plato. For the sense, cp. Tyrt. 11. 11 13 ot pev yap roXpwai... —
navporepoi BvijaKovcTi ktX. Seneca, Rp. 94 audentes fortuna iuvat (see Bergk,
:

ad Simon, fr. 227) R. V. 531 f. albopevav S’ dvbps>v nXeoves crdot rje ne(()av-
:

Tai' (pevyovTcov S’ ovp ap K\eos opvvrai otlre ns oXktj lb. XV. 561 AT.
I
:

noXXd...Kal dXXa ktX. Cp. 195 B, 201 D. Hirschig’s davpavai gives us

(as Rettig argues) “einen matten Gedanken.”
Oavparos. “Of wonder” (the subjective feeling), cp. Pkil. 36 d. Laws
967 a: elsewhere in Plato 6avpa means “quod mirum est.”
oIos ydp ktX. For Achilles, see Od. iv. 267 and cp. 179 E f. flf.
;

Bpa<rt8av. For this famous Spartan leader, who fell fighting at Amphi-
polis in 422 b.c., see Thuc. ii. 25, 85 ff., v. 6 Bury, Hist. Gr. pp. 445 ;
fir.
 221 e] ZYMnOZION 165

i
dWov<;, Kal oto^ au Kal Necrropa Kal AvT'pvopa, ' elcrl Se

j
xal erepoi' xal tou? aWou? Kara ravT dv Ti? direiKa^oi' olo<; D
Se ovToal yeyove rrjv droTTLav dudp(t)7J-o<;, xal avro'i xal ol Xoyoc
avTov, ovS' dv evpoi Ti? ^prSyv, ovre rcov vvv ovre tS)v
TToXaicov, el purj dpa el oI? eyco Xeyo) direixa^oi Ti? avTov, dv-
^
dpooTTcov p,ev p.rjSevl, Toi<; Se o’lXrjvol'i xal aaTvpoi<;, avrov xal tov<;
I

) Xoyov^.
;
XXXVII. Kat yap ovv xal tovto ev TOi? TrptwTOt? nrapeXiirov,

I
OTL xal ol XoyoL avrov op-otorarol elai TOi? a'tXpvol<; TOi? Sioiyo-

I
/u,evoL<;. el yap edeXoL Ti? rSyv ^coxpdrovi dxoveov Xoycov, (fiavelev E
j
dv 'jrayyeXoLOL to rrpwrov roiavra xal ovopiara xal prjpbara e^coOev
Trepiap,7re)(^ovTai, aarvpov [azi] rivd v/Spicrrov Sopdv. ovov^ ydp
j

221 C fieri. ..erfpoi seel. Jn. J.-U. fieri', oioi Bdhm. D Tovs del.
Bdhm.: rouj (yxev) Hirschig ravr : raCr’ B : roCr’ W Sauppe
di/dpojTroy
Sz. Bt.: avdpecTTos BT ovTf rejav vvv ...iraXaeav del. (Hommel) Hirschig Jn.
apa fl B : apa TW O.-P. Xfyeo TW O.-P. Xfyeov B avrov Tf Kal vulg.
:

E fdfXoL B: fdfXfi T t5>v . . .Xoyeav TW O.-P.: Tov...X6yov B TTayyfXoioi

scrips!: rraw yfXoloi TW O.-P., vulg. Bt. yfXoloi B, J.-U. Sz. nva B :
O.-P.,
J.-U. Sz. : av Tiva TW nva Baiter Cobet Bt. av nva Riickert
: :

IlepiKXiis. See 215 E n., Gorg. 515 c £f., 519 A.

Neo-ropa Kai ’ Avri^vopa. Comparable to Pericles on the ground of eloquence

(cp. 215 E, Pericles as dyados prjreop). For Nestor, see Horn. II. i. 247 for fif.
;

Antenor, U. vii. 347 ff. ;

Hor. Ep. i. 2. 9.

221 D niv droirtav. “ Originalitat ” (Wolf ) see 215 a ?i. :

dvOpuiruv p.Jv See 215 a, b, 216 e.

ktX.
221 E TToyyeXoioi. Cp. 189 B, 215 A; the context shows that -ye'Xotoy here
is nearly equiv. to KarayfXaa-ros. Of Socr., as of S. Paul, it was said that “ his
speech was contemptible.” _
ovopara Kal pqpara. See 198 B n.
^|a>0€v ir€piapir€X0VTai. Cp. 216 jff^eoOfv TTfpi^fjBXriTae. 7
craTijpov [dv] Tivd. Stallb. vainly argues in a long note “ dv tenendum et
per eilipsin verbi explicandum esse.”
{i.e. overav)
vPpio-Tov. E. In bopav, the satyr’s “hide,” there is an
Cp. 215 B, 175
allusion, no doubt, to the flaying of Marsyas by Apollo.
ovovs ydp ktX. “ His talk is of pack-asses and smiths and cobblers and
curriers” (Jowett). Schol. KavdrjXlovs- rovs ^padfls vorjaai p depvfis. dirb kAv-
deovos, os iernv ovns, flpr^pfvoi, ktX. cp.Ar. Vesp. 170fif., 177 ff. For dvolin Plato,
:

cp. Gorg. 516 a. Rep. 563 c ;

for yaXKeiy, Prot. 319 D, Crat. 388 D, 389 E. Cp.
Gorg. 490 C ff, where Callicles objects arf^vSys yf del crKVTfas re Kal Kvae^ias
Kal pxiyflpovs Xfyeov Kal larpovs ovdfv Travfi ktX. : Xen. Mem. I. 2. 37 d 8e

Kptrlas, ’AXXd redvdi rol erf arr e';^eo-dat, f'eprj, dfTjcrfi, eX ScoKparer, t5>v erKVTfenv Kal
rSiv TfKToveov Kal reov p^aXKe'cov : ib. IV. 4. 5 —6 : Max. Tyr. diss. ix. 1.
 : ;

166 nAATQNOI [221 E

Kav6r]\LOv<; Xeyet Kal ^aXxea'^ rti/a? Kal aKVTOTOfjboVi kuI /3vp-

ao8€yfra<;, Kal del 8id toov avrSiv to, avrd (f)alveTai \eyeiv, ware
dtreipo’; Kal dvorjTOf; dvdpcoTro^ Tra? dv twv Xoycov KaTajeXdaeiev.
222 Bioi'yop,evov<; Be IBcbv av rt? Kal ivTO<; avrwv ytyvopbevo'i irpwrov puev
vovv exovTa<; evBov fx6vov<; evprjaei rwv Xoycov, eTreira 6eLOTdTOv<;
Kal 'TrXela-r dyaXpuar dperri<f ev avTol<; e')(OVTa<; Kal eVt reXelaxov
relvovTa'i, pidXXov Be eirl irdv oaov irpoa-pKei crKoirelv tm pbeXXovn
KaXS KayaOcd eaeaBat.
TaOx’ eaxlv, w dvBpe<;, a eyci) 'S.coKpdrr] eTratvcS' Kal av a puepu-

^opiai avpbpL^a'i lipulv elrrov a pie v/Spiaev. Kal puevroi ovk e/xe

B piovov ravra TreiroirjKev, dXXd Kal 'KappiLBrjv rov VXavKcovo<; Kal

KvBvBppiov rov Ato/cXeou? Kal dXXov<; irdw ttoXXou?, ou? owto?
e^aTraTMV o)? epaary^ TraiBiKa p,dXXov avTO<; KaOiararai dvr
^

221 E Kav6rj\ivovs O.-P. 222 A bioiyovpevovs B av Bekk. Hug Bt.

av libri, O.-P. ; drj Sz. eyyvs avrav ye Homrael evprjO'fLf U.sener rav
\6ya>v TW O.-P.: Tov \6yov B: del. Wagner Voeg. Teivovras TW : rivovras
O.-P.: TeivavTas B eVt TW O.-P.: i'ri B B ndvv Om. O.-P.

222 A “aV cum participio cohaeret hoc sensu, edv ns Wr)...

ISiiv av Tis.

si Stallb., too, defends dv, citing Rep. 589 E,

quis forte viderit’' (Riickert) ;

Phaedo 61 C, Euthyd. 287 D the objection of Riickert and Rettig, that av

;

ought to stand after Stoiyojuevovj rather than after Iddv, is not fatal.
Hovovs. .TiSv Xoywv.
. For the contrast implied, cp. Homer’s olos TrcTTwrai,
ra'i de a-KiaX dtaraovo-iv {3/eno 100 a ). A similar ascription of life to Xdyot is to
be found in Pkaedr. 276 A.
—
Cp. 216 D E. The whole of this account of Socrates’
0€ioTdTovs ktX.
Xdyot is an encomium of his a-ocpia.
virtually
T€£vovTas...lTrl Trdv. Cp. 1-8$:=® en'i ndv 6 Beds reive f. Rep. 581 B. For
echoes of phrases in the previous speeches here, and throughout Alcib.’s
speech, see Introd. § vi (.3).

d |X£p(|>o|iai ktX. “Verba

connectenda sunt: kcu avppl^as av d pep-
ita
cjyopai eiTTov vptv Stephens erroneously put a comma.
a pe v^picre ” (Stallb.).
Wolf a full stop, after pepcftopai. Riickert, agreeing with Stallb., put a comma
after o-vppl^as, and Hommel added another after av. Jowett’s transl., “I —
have added my blame of him for his ill-treatment of me ” seems to imply —
a different view of the construction. The points alluded to are those men-
tioned in 217 B ff., 219 c.
222 B Xap|j.£8Tiv. For Charmides, Plato’s avunculus, see Charm. 154, 157
Xen. Mem. ill. 7, Symp. iii. 9 etc.
Ev0v8t)|j.ov. This Euthydemus, son of Diodes (see Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 40), is
not to be confounded with his namesake the sophist, who appears in the
dialogue Euthyd.
'7rai8iKd...dvT epaarov. “The object rather than the subject of love.”
This may fairly be construed, with Rettig, as an indication that Socr., the
 : :

222 c] lYMnOIlON 167

epaarov. a hr) Kal aol Xeyoo, co KydOcoVy p,r) i^aTrardaQai vtto

T ovTov, dXk! aTTO Tcov ’pp.erepwv 7ra97))u,dTcov yvovra eiXa^rj-
OrjvaL, Kal pur) Kara rrjv rrapoLpulav (Lairep vijttlov rradovra
yvwvaL.
XXXVIII. EtVoi'TO? hr) ravra roO 'AXKi/Sidhov yeXcora C
yeveadai, eVl rf} ira^pi^aLa avrov, on ihoKet en epcoriKW'i e'^eiv rov
^coKpdrovi. rov ouv ^coKpdrr), ^pcpeiv p,oi So/cei?, <j)dvac, (w 'AXkl-
fiidhr). ov yap dv rvoQ' ovrco KOfjb'^u)'^ KVKXrp TrepLjBaXXopbevo’i
ac^aviaai, ivex^^pei^ ov eveKa ravra iravra etppKa^, Kal cw? iv
TTapipytp hr) Xeycov irrl reXevrp'i avro edpKa'i, ct)9 ov irdvra rovrov

222 B e^aTraracrde B aXX’ vtto O.-P.^ yvcovra B C TraprjtrLa O.-P.

eSoKe T[t] O.-PP op,yp-S)S pr. B ov eve<a TW : ov8' ?ve<a B; ovve<a O.-P.
{v e 8 corr.); ov 8rj eveKa Usener

embodiment Eros (cp. 201 a) contrast

of the ideal KdXXor, is exalted above :

180 B deiorepov For the reversal of the roles of Ale. and

epaerTrjs TraiSiKcov.
Socr., cp. I. Ale. 135 D KivSwevaopev pera^aXelv to (r)(jjpa, d ^coKpares, ru pev
<t6v e’ycb, erv 8e rovpov. ov yap eariv ottchs ov TraLbayory^aoi) ere kt\. Cp. also
Xen. Symp. viii. 5 and see Introd. § vi. 3.
;

a 8fi...e|aTraTdcrflai. Hommel and Rettig, after Stallb., take the infin. clause
to be epexegetic of d Riickert construes e^arr. as a second accus. depending
:

on Xeyco Hug makes the infin. depend on d \eya> (equiv. to “ I give you this
warning”) as on a “verbum voluntatis.” It may be simply an oblique
imperative.
Kara Cp. Horn. U. XVII. 33 pe)(6ev Se re vf^moi eyveo: %b.
t7)v irapoi.p.fav.

XX. 198 Hes. Op. 218 rraOdv Se re vrjivLos eyvoj Hdt. I. 207 iraOrjpaTa padrj-
; :

para: Aesch. Ap. 177, Cho. 313: Soph. 0. C. 143; and oiu’ English proverb
“a burnt child dreads the fire.” Schol. pex6ev... eyveo- e’lrl tS>v pera rd rradeiv
crvvLevTcov to apapr-qpa. eir'i to avTO eTepa napoipia- 6 aXievs TrXrjyeis vow
(fovfrei •
ktX.
222 C irappiio-ia. “Naivetat” (XYolf) see A.’s excuses for it in 217 e.
;

N-q(|)6iv poi SoKels. Echoing the phrase previously used by Alcib. (doKetre
yap pot vtirpetv 213 e), Socr. jocosely derides his repeated plea of intoxication
212 E, 214 c, etc.), saying in effect “ It’s sober you are, not drunk otherwise
:
;

you could never have excogitated so deep a scheme.”

Kop\|/us. Of a “pretty” trick; cp. Theaet. 202 d. Soph. 236 D.
kvkXo) irepipaXXdpevos.See Ast ad Phaedr. 272 D “imago desumta est
ab amictu, quern rhetores, priusquam perorarent, componere solebant
V. Quintil. xi. 3. 116”: Cic. de or. iii. 39. 138 se circumvestit dictis. For
kvkXco cp. Ar. Rket. i. 9. 33 (with Cope’s note), ill. 14. 10, and Virgil’s “per
ambages” {G. ii. 45).
Itti t€X€vttJs. Le. as if it were an after-thought only : cp. 198 B, Phaedr.
267 D.
 — ”

168 nAATQNOI [222 c

D eveKa elprjKox;, rov ifxe Kal 'AydOcova Bia^nWeiv, ol6fJ,evo<; Beiv i/J,e

p,ev aov ipdv Kal p,r}B6vd<f dWov, 'AydOcova Be vtto aov epdaOat
Kal P'TjB' v(f> ev6<; dWov. dXX' ovk eXa9e<;, dXXd to aarvpLKOv
aov Bpdpca tovto Kal aiXrjViKov KardBujXov eyevero. dX\! ,
co (f>LXe

'AydOcov, pcrjBev irXeov avrw yevr/rai,dXXd TrapaaKeud^ov ottm?

'
e/xe Kal ae p,'r}Bel<; BiafiaXel. tov ovv AydOcova elirelv, Kat p-pv,
E CO '%coKpaTe<^, KcvBvveveL<; dXrjOrj Xeyecv. reKpcaipopcat Be Kal o)?
KareKXivJ] ev pceaco epcov re Kal aov,^ cva ')(^copl<; r)pd<; BiaXd/3p.
ovBev ovv TrXeov avrw earai, dXX' eyco Trapd ae eXOcov KaraKXivi]-
aopbai. Udvv ye, cf)dvat rov ^coKpdrr], Bevpo VTroKdrco epcov Kara-

222 D dia/SaXel Hirschig Cobet Sz. Bt. ; fiia/3aXet O.-P. : Sta/SaX^ BTW

222 D “ To set us 222 498

4|ji.P..SiapdXX€i.v. at variance : cp. d, c.

o16|X€vos 8elv ktX. you musFil once monopolise Socr. as

Le. thinking that
your epacTTTjs and Agathon as your 7raibi<d. For belv, cp. 222 E.
dXX’ OVK ^a9€s ktX. For the conversational carelessness of the repeated
dXXd, cp. 175 B (four times).
TO o-a-rupiKov <rov Spdjxa ktX. A playful allusion to the cIkSvcs employed
by Alcib. in his encomium (see 215 b). For “satyric drama” see Smith,
D. A. II. 860 b “ : The satyr-drama was so-called because the Chorus consisted
of satyrs attendant on Dionysus... it was aptly described as Traifovcro rpa-
yabla” Jevons, Hist. Gk. Lit. p. 186.
:

pT|8^v irXeov ktX. An echo of the language of Alcib. in 217 c.

222 E X“P''’S SiaXdpT]. “ Dictum hoc eleganter cum amphibolia quadam,
ut et de spatio possit cogitari et de animorum disiunctione ” (Stallb.): cp.
Phil. 55 D.
The original order of the places on this (eVxdrjy) kX'ivt] was
uTTOKaTO) Ipov.

(1) Agathon, Socrates (see 175 c d) then Alcibiades on his entrance had
:

seated himself in the middle (213 b ad init.), thus making the order
(2) Agathon, Alcib., Socr. now Socrates invites Agathon to shift his position
:

so as to change the order to (3) Alcib., Socr., Agathon: presently, in the

sentence following, Alcibiades suggests that, instead of this, Agathon should
take the middle place (eV pirco rjpoov), which would result in the order
(4) Alcib., But the adoption of this last order is, as
Agathon, Socrates.
Socr. hastens to point out, impossible, inasmuch as it would cause serious
dislocation in the series of Xdyot which are bound to proceed in order from left
to right (see 214 c), each speaker taking for his theme his next neighbour on
the right. If the order (4) were adopted, it would be the duty of the next
speaker, Agathon, to eulogize Socrates, a task already performed by Alcib.
himself whereas by adopting the order (3), the next speech would fall to
;

Socr., and he would have for his theme Agathon, an arrangement unobjection-
able in itself and well-pleasing to Socr. (crdw iiridopw avrov iyKoipidcrai, 223 a )
as well as to Agathon {lov lov ktX., 223 a ).
 ;

223 A] lYMnOZION 169

Kklvov. ’n Zev, elireiv tov ' A.\KLj3tdZrjv, ola av Trdayoii viro rov
avdpcoTTOv. ol'eral puov helv rravTa-)^ 'rrepuelvaL. aX,A,’ el p.'q rt
aWo, CO $avp,d(7Le, ev p^eaco ^p.wv ea 'AydOcava KaraKelcrOat. ’AA,X’
aSvvarov, <pdvat tov ^(OKpdrT}. crv pev yap epe eiryvecra'^. Sec S’

epe av tov eirl Se^i’ eTraivelv. edv ovv vtto aol KaTUKXbvp ' Ayd-
dwv — ov drj irov epe TrdXiv eiraiveaeTai, Trplv vir epov pdWov
eiTaLvedrjvaL ; dW eaaov, a> Saipovie, Kal prj (j39ovr]ap<; tm
peipaKLW VTT epov eTraLvedrjvaL' Kal yap irdvv eiriOvpw avTOv
eyKcopidcrai. ’lou lov, <f)dvaL tov ' Ayddwva, AXKi^idBr], ovk ead'
’

OTTco? dv evddBe pelvaipi, dWd. iravTO^; pdWov peTUvaaTTjcropat,

iva VTTO Sco/cparou? eTrauveOw. TaOra eKelva, (fidvab tov ’AXkc-
Ta elaOoTa' %o}KpdTov<; irapovTO^ tcov KaXdiv peTaXa/3etv
/SidBrjv,

dSvvaTov dXXa. Kal vvv co? evTTopeof Kal Tridavov Xoyov rjvpev,
(hcTTe Trap eavTM tovtovI KaTaKelaOai.

222 E irepielvai Trepiievai O.-P. yap epe : B O.-P. :

yap pe TIV av tov
Bekk. av tov B O.-P.: avTov T av t6vS' Ast
: : KaTaKXidrj O.-P. ov S 77
7700 : ovTQ) ^TjTTOv Bdhm. I fort, ov del 7700 eTratveaerai : fort. eiTaiveaai
vel inaLvela-Bai np'iv : delv Usener Hug: TTapov (vel TT ape'is . . .aWov)
Bdhrn. 223 A paXKov B O.-P.: pdXkov T : om. Vind. 21 : aAXooMdvg.
e
eir aiv edrjv ai distinxit Ast lov lov T navTos'. 77 ao 700'[a] O.-P. evrropa)
O.-P.

ola av 7rao-x<a. “How I am fooled” (Jowett). This echoes 215 d ola Stj

TreTTOvda ktX. : cp. 184 B Ka<S)S Traa-)(a)v {sc. 6 epcopevos).

0770 O'ol. 6 0770 TLVL {OV VITOKaTO} TlVOs) iS equiv. tO 6 £771 Se^td (Cp. 175 C 71 .).

ov St] T70V ktX. If we retain the ms. reading, this clause is best printed
as interrogative (so Bt. and Lehrs) — taking the place of a regular apodosis,
such as defiaei avTov epe 770 X 10 enaLvelv. Against Badh., —who wrote “ mon-
stri vero simile est, Trplv 077’ epov pdWov
Rettig attempts eiraiveSrivai” —
to defend the text thus: “Statt der Worte: ‘er wird eher wollen von mir
gelobt werden, als mich loben,’ setze man: es wird nicht verlangt werden
konnen, dass er mich lobe, bevor ich vielmehr ihn gelobt habe”; i.e. ov 81)7700
eTTOLveueTaL is equiv. to 00 brj-rrov eiraivelv edeX^crei. This, however, is awkward ;

and some corruption must, I believe, be assumed if so, the changes I have :

proposed seem the most plausible.

223 A
’lov lov. For a distinction between lov, as a cry of joy, and lov, of
pain, see Schol. on Ar. Am 6. 1170. Here it denotes jubilation, not commisera-
tion as Hommel suggests (“Wehe, wehe, armer Alkibiades ” etc.).
Tavra €K€tva. Cp. 210 E, Charm. 166 B (Schanz nov. comm. p. 16).
evTTppus. This echoes phrases in the description of Eros, sou of ndpoy, see
203 D {-rropipos), 203 E (einropjjo'Tj), 204 B (TTaTp6s...evTr6pov). Similarly Tridavov
suggests the plausible tongue of the ydiyr and a-oepia-T^s of 203 D.
mGavdv Xd-yov Tivpev. For this “ inventiveness of plausible argument” as
belonging to the art of the sophistical rhetor, cp. Gorp. 457 a IF., Phaedr. 269 D.
 170 nAATQNOI [223 B

B XXXIX. Toi/ fiev ovv

'
^'yaOmva &>? KaraKeLaofJievov Trapa rc5
Sto/cparei dvlaraadaL’ e^a((j)V7]<; Se KcopLaardi; rjKetv 7rap,7r6Wov<;
eTTi ra? 6vpa<;, Kai €7riTV)(^6vTa<i dve(pyp>€vac<; e^iovro^ Tivd<; eh to
dvTLKpv<i TTopeveadac irapd a(f)d<; koX KaraK\iveadat, kol dopv^ov
fiearu irdvra elvat, Kal ovKeri ev Koapbw ovBevl dvayKa^eadai
iTiveiv TrdpiroXvv olvov. tov p-ev ovv '^pv^Lpa')(ov koX tov ^alhpov
Kal dWov<; Tivd<; ecfjr) 6 ' Apio-roSrjpof; o'L'^eaQai diTLovra'^, e Se
C vTTvov Xa/Selv, Kal KaraSapdeiv TTavv ttoXv, are paKpwv tcov vvktwv
ovaduv, e^eypeaOat 8e Trpo? -ppepav 7]Sr) dXeKTpvovcov aSovTcov,
e^eypopevo^ Se iSeiv tov<; pev «X\ou? Ka6ev8ovTa<; Kal ol')(opevov<;,

'AydOcova Se Kal Apiarocfjdvrj Kal ^coKpdrrj eri povovf iyprjyopevai

'

Kal TTLveiv eK cj)idXr]<; peyaXp^ e^rl Se^td. tov ovv Sco/cparj; avToh

223 B ai'afoo'y^et'oty O.-P.^ eh to : etcrto O.-P. (row) aXXovj O.-P.

€ Se BW ; eaSe T: eavTov Se O.-P. C Korabapdeiv Rettig Trdvv'. are
O.-P.' ’ScoKpaTTj KOI Apio-TO(j)avr] O.-P. VeD. 184 Vind. 21 peyaXijs
^([XjaXTjf O.-P. Paris 1642 Vat. 229

223 B e|aC<{)viis Si KrX. Cp. the “ sudden ” tumultuous entrance of

Alcibiades (212 c kol e^aicjovrjs ktX.). The incursion here is devised in order
to save the situation. For the sake of artistic efi'ect, the series of Xdyoi must
now stop : the climax having been reached in the encomium of Socr. by
Alcib., to add a eulogy of any lesser personage would be bathos.
*|i6vtos Tivos ktX. Hommel comments “imaginem proponit comissatorum
:

contra nitente eo, qui iam exiturus erat, aditum vi expugnantium.” But, as
Rettig remarks, there no hint in the text of vis or of nisus. The words
is

e^LovTos Tivos are merely put in to explain how it was that they found the
doors open, eh to avTiKpvs is connected by Hommel and Stallb.^ with e^iovTos,
but by Ruckert, Ast and Stallb.' with iropevecrOai-. the former view is
preferable.
’Epv|lp.axov. Eryx. and Phaedrus are represented throughout as “hunting
in couples ” ;
and
it is characteristic of the former, as an authority on health,

and of the latter, as a valetudinarian, that they should be the first to escape
from the scene of dopv^os and napTroXvs oTvos cp. 176 B ff., 214 a ff. :

223 C paKpoiv Twv vvKTwv. This indication of date would suit either the
Lenaea in January or the Great Dionysia in March, though rather favouring
the former (cp. Introd. § viii a).
dXtKTpuovwv aSovTtov. Cp. Theaet. 164 C dXeKTpvovos dyevvovs b'lKrjv ...abeiv.
The hour of cock-crow was, theoretically, the 3rd watch (12 3 a.m.) cp. Ev. — :

Me. xiii. 35. Jowett’s “he was awakened by a crowing of cocks” misses
which goes with qbovTUiv.
Kttl olxopevovs. We
rj rather than Kat but (as Ruckert
should expect :

observes) ol two subdivisions, those absent in spirit

pev JXXot fall into —
{<a6evb.), and those absent in body (olxop.).
e-YpTjyopevai ktX. Cp. Athen. V. 192 A '2a>K.pdTr]s...eypr]yope...Kcu rrlvei e^
dpyvpov cj)peaTos- /caXmr yap tis to. peyaXa noTrjpia ovtcos lovopaere kt\.
223 D] lYMnOIlON 171

SiaXiyeadai’ Kal to, fxev dWa 6 'ApiaroSrjfj^o'i ovk e<jj7] /xe/J.vriadai

TOiv Xoycov — ovre yap dp)(^<; TrapayevecrOat. virovvardl^etv re- to D

pbivTot Ke(f)d\aiov, e(f)T], TrpoaavayKa^etv tov ’ZcoKparri opuoXoyelv
avTOv<; rov avrov dvBp6<; elvai KcopLaBlav Kal rpaywBiav kirldTaaBai
TTOLelv, Kal rov re')(vp rpaycpBoirobov ovra <Kal> KcopiwBoiTOLOv
elvai. ravra Sp dvayKa^op,ivov^ aorou? Kal ov crcfioBpa eTTopb6vov<;

vvard^eiv, Kal irpwTov puev KaraBapdeiv rov 'AptaTocf)dvr), ^Brj Be

'pp,epa<; yLyvopuev'p'^ rov AydOcova.
' rov ovv 2,(OKpdrr], KaraKoipbL-
aavr eKeLvov^i, dvaardvra dvrievai, Kal <e> axrirep elcodet eireadai,
Kal ekdovra et? Avk€lov, aTrovi-ylrdpLevov, (ixxrrep dWore rpv dWpv

223 D KcopcoSoTTOiov Vinci. 21, vulg. Sz. Bt.

Ka'i KcopudoTroiov O.-P.: BTW
VV
np5>Tov B : TTporepov TW
O.-P. Apicrro(^ai'[ovy] O.-P. yevopevrjs vulg.
Hirschig KaraKoipicravT BW O.-P.: KaraKOipr^cravT T Kal I Herm. Sz.
Bt.: KOI libri, O.-P. : k al J Bekker aXKr^v. oX^i' Picinus

Ta flew aXXa kt\. This is artistic selection disguised under the cloke of
imperfect recollection, cp. 178 a, 180 c.

223 D TO [levToi Ke4)d\aiov. “Th e

205 D ad init.gist of it.wa.s...”; cp.
TOO avTOv dvSp&s ktX. Here both T€X’'V
Cp. Ion 534 B ri^vp Troiovyres.
and eirlaraa-dai are emphatic, with no distinction between them implied.
The point of Socrates’ argument is that the scientific poet must be master of
the art of poetry in its universal, generic aspect, and therefore of both its
included species, tragedy and comedy. This thought, if developed, might be
shown to mean that full knowledge both of Xdyot and of -^oxal, and of the
effects of the one on the other, is requisite to form a master-poet. Which is-

equivalent to saying that, just as the ideal State requires the philosopher-
king, so ideal Art is impossible without the (piXoa-o’pos-TroirjTTjs. The thesis
here maintained by Socrates finds in the suj)reme instance of Shakspere
both illustration and confirmation :
“ The Merry XVives ” came from the
same hand as “ Othello ”
and “ Lear.”
The statement in Schol. ad Ar. Han. 214 and Philostr. (vit. soph. i. 9,

p. 439) that Agathon wrote comedies as well as tragedies is probably due to a

blunder : see Bentley, opusc. phil. p. 613.
ov o-<|>6Spa lirope'vovs. “Erant enim vino languidi. Ad itropivovs in-
telligi potest roly \eyopivois Euthyphr. p. 12 a ov;^ STTopai roly Xeyopivois ”
(Stallb.).
KaTaKoipleravra. An allusion, perhaps, to Agathon’s kolttjv vnvov r’ iv\
KijSft, 197 C. Cp. laws 790 D KaTa<otpl^(iv Ta SvavTTvovvTa tSiv naibiuiv.
<?>. I.e. Ai’istodemus, the narrator : for his practice (dadei) of dogging
the footsteps of the Master, cp. 173 b, 174 B (en-ov).

Avk€iov. This was a gymnasium, sacred to ApoUo Lyceus, situated in the

eastern suburbs of Athens, though the exact site —whether s.e. or n. of the
172 nAATQNOI lYAAnOIlON [223 D

‘^fjLepav Biarpl^eiv, Kal ovrco Siarpl^Jravra et? kcrirepav q'lkol dva-

Traveadai,
223 D K.ai K[a]t ovT(o O.-P.

—
Cynosarges is uncertain. The Lyceum is mentioned also in the beginning
of the L^sis and of the Eutliyphro\ cp. Xen. Mem. i. 1. 10, Pans. i. 19. 4.
“Ibi Socr. versabatur propterea quod sophistae in eo scholas habebant,
quorum inscitiam solebat convincere, et quod plurimos illic adolescentes
nanciscebatur, quibus cum sermones instituere posset” (Stallb.).
 INDEX I. Greek.

’Ay a66v, to 109 appovia 50, 111

ayaXfia 150 dpvaKis 160
ayaaBai 27, 158 appeveoTrla 64
dyavos 82 ap)(a)V TTjS nocreas 139
dyarrav 126 dae^eia 53
ayevews 29 acTKelv 133
aypLOLveiv 6 ao’KcoXl^eiv 59
abuv, “to crow” 170 aaTpovopia 53
del TToppoi c. gen. 152 aO'TpCOTOS 102
deiyevTjs 113 aTOTTia 143, 165
dOavoTcorepos 122 drpcoroy 159
airi'a c. injin. 114 avXeios 6vpa 134
ancupla 34 d(ppo8la-ios opKos 38
okXtjtos 7 d(pvT]s 154
dX-yeivdy, “sensitive” 153
dXer, encomia on xxi BaXXdvTiov 60
dXrjdeia )( Sd^a liii, 156 ^dvavaos 100
aXXo dXXodfv 143- ^aaavL^eiv 41
dpeXeTTjTos 1 jSe/SaTTTKrpeVos 16
apoL^r] 98 /3e(3?jXoj 154
apoipos 33, 97 /3eXos 157
dv, of repeated action 151 ^llOTOS 131, 146
avaKoyxvXidaai 45 /SXavrat 7
di/aTrXeoJS' 131 ^ovXopai, sense of 92
dvdpoyvvos xxxii, 56 ^pev6vea-6ai 163
dvSpovadaL 64
avepicrqros 72 reXoIoff xxxiii, 55, 137
dvdos 40, 76, 126 yeXoiOTepa, eni to. 142, 143
dviXAeadai 112 yeveidaKeiv 33
avopoLos 46, 52 yeveais 22, 23, 115
avTiKpvs, els to 170 yevvaios 121
atruTTodrjTos 4, 102 yecopyia 49
d^LOpvrjpovevTov 21 yorjs 103
d^leopa 163 yoTjTela 99
AttoXos 74 yvpvaaTLKTi 48
djrXovv, verum 39
dTTO^dXXeiv onXa 26 Aatpovios lx, 100, 157
dTroXr)j>6TjvaL 159 dalpwv xxxvii, 98, 100
airovi^eiv 11 5elv, redundant 45
dpeTrj, “renown” 119 8i]XoV KOI TTOlSt 104
„ divisions of 77 dijpwvpyla 79
 3

174 INDEX
Bia^aWfiv 168 enieiKSis 93
diayiyvdxTKeiv 47 i-rTiXa^ecrdai 142
diahiKd^ecrdai 14 (cp. xx) eTTiXria'pwv 70
diaXa^eiv 168 €7TipeXes noieia-dai 3
98
diaTTOpdfjLeveiv eTTLviKia 3
biaTTpa^acrOaL 32 eniTTVovs 33
diapOpovv 61 iirnroBeiv 105
hiarlOecrOai 114 fTTicTT^prj (Platonic) 127
dia<j)epea'6ai 49, 50 „ (popular) xlii, 116
dia(f>6elpetv {tTapoiplav) 8 eTricrx(<Tdai 147
dia^eiadai 112 eiriTdTTeiv 141
bir^yeidOai 95 €TTiTr]8evpa 126
diKaiocrvvr} 77 eVoTm/cd, rd, xlill, 124
dioiKi^eadai 66 i'pavos 20
do^a )(^
dX^deia liii, 87 ipy atria 107
„ )( eTTia-T^pr} 96 ipi^eiv 6
dpaTTereveiu 147 epprjveveiv 98
dvvapis 55, 133 eppoyXvtpeiov 144
epvtri^r] 52
'EavToij, “characteristically” 155 €pcos = eTri6vpia xxxvii, 91
(yKvpoiv 120 (ptOTLKd, rd 20, 133
t’-yyeiv 140 etry aror 1
fl de /SoiiXft 19, 162 (cp. 134) tTaipiaTpia XXXI, 63
et Ti, numquid 88 evavOrjS 76
etSoy 56, 125 (vapidprjTOS 27
(lBmXov 132 fVKXerjS 119
eUv 118, 139 evTTOpeiv 122
elKovfs 143 tvTTopcos 169
(1k6s, to 91 fVptTlKOS 121
'ElXeidvia 111 fv(f)vr]s 121
elXlKplvrj^ 131 eixodrjs 76
elirelv, senses of 73 eCpdiTTeadai 132
elpaiveveadai 150 etpe^ijs 128
el(rriyei(r6aL 17, 56 i'x^iv, intrans. 146
CK Toaov 62 „ “be able” 159
€K TpLTCOV 137
€<€lvos, “ supersensual ” 130 ZTjXoTVTTflV 138
eKiTe7j-Xr]yp€vos 145
eXXoyelv 137 "H, alioquin 138
ep^pa)(y 150 rj=pdXXov rj 163
ev, TO 49 rjyticrdat c. dat. et gen. 24
ev eprjpia 151 ^6os){'^vx^ 75
ev TTavTi eivai 69 TjXiKLq, tv [tj]) 110
iv toIj c. superl. 22 ^v c. accus. et injin. 41
ei/Seta 93
i'vdeos,xlv n., 26, 29 QdXXtiv 103
eVTOS TToXXov 73 Bavpa, subjective sense of 164
e^aLCj)v7]s 128 6avpd(TLa {-aaTo) ipyd^ttrdai 138, 160 ,
inava^a6p6s 130 (37)
iTranodaveiv 119 6td, 6t6s 31
eVeira, tanien 139 BtaTpov 70, 71
€tt\ de^id 20 Otios xliv w., 121, 166
eni prjTOis 136 SfotjnXrjs xliii, 133
eTTilSdTrjs 83 GrjptvTrjS 102
inibeLKwaBaL 70
ETriSoo'tJ' 'd\eLV 14 'laTpiKT] 46, 47
 ;

GREEK 175

lBid>Tr]s ) (
voLTjrqs 22 pa TOP UoaetbS) 142
iva Ti 106 payyaveia 99
icra \iyfiv 44 paKapl^eaBai 149, (-terror) 104
loTovpyia 80 paKdpeov vrjaoi 28
’Icrais 69, 71 paXBaKos 9
iTijs 102 pdXiara, circiter 13
paviKos xvi n., 6
Kadopav 128 pdvreLS 99
(cai, position of 19 MaPTiPCK^, yvvrj XXXviii
peyaXorrpeTTTfs 127
”, ,T^
Kai eai' 126 peBrj xxi, xxviii, 16
KOI paXa 69 pel^ov, magis 147
KaXarrovs 61 peXerdv 116
KoXeii', “to invite” 134, 136 peXXoi, constr. of 85
KoAXoi/tJ 111 pepos aperiis 42
KaXXwTTL^fadm 7 peaovv c. partic. 13
KaXov, TO 94 perajBdXXeiv, “ to transpose ” 8
KapTTOvadai 37 perex^eiv 129
Kaprepca 159 perpios 84
Kara C. acctlS. 131 pr] c. suhj. 67
KarayeXav 33 pi) ov 71, 125
KarayeXacrros xsxiii, 56 Mijrtr xli, 100
KarayTjpav 147 Motpa 111
Karaypacjip 67 povoeibr)S 129
Karadapdelv 158 pdpiov 107
KaraKOLpL^fiv 171 povaiKTj 80
KaraXiireadai 123 pve'iaBai 124
KaraXoydSrjv 19
KariyefrOai 144 Neicrap 101
Kevfoais 47 vrj(f)eiv167
Ke(pdXaiov, to 107, 171 vorjpa 84
Karros, 6 TOO Albs xli, 101 vdpoi concerning Eros viii
Ki6ap(p86s 28 vdpos, sense of 34
KLvfiv 87, 154 voaelv Trepi C. OCCUS. 114
kX4os 118 voerwbes, rb 46
KoipTjaeLS eVi 6vpas 38 VVKTeS 152
Kopvj3avTidv 145
KpanraXdv 17 Svyyvpvd^eaBaL 151
Kpovfiv 134 ^vpjioXov 63
Kv^epvdv gen, 80 c. ^vvapepdrepos 121
KvPepvTjTTJS 83 ^vvoiba 29
Kvfiiarav 57
Kvbadrjuaievs 4 'O e'a-Ti, of Ideas 131

Kveiv 110 (cp. xxxviii) ba 59

kvkXco 167 ot c. gen. 34
KvpicoTepos 155 Ota 8i), with ellipse, 160
Kcopao'T^s 134 olKelov, rb xliv n., 68
Kapabelv 67 olKerrjs 126, 154
olos c. superl. 160
Arjdr], defin. of 117 ,, =OTl TOIOVTOS 122
Xnrora^Lov ypa<pr] 26 bpoXoyelv 50
Xlarrai 67 bpdvota 50
Xdyor 129 oveibos 37
XvyI xxii, xxviii, 44 ovopa 85, 88, 165
„ constr. of 108
Ma Beovs, pd Beds 158 ovos KavBr)Xios 165
176 INDEX
*6pdo8n^d^eiv 96 'PoStoiy Xeyo) 97
6ppa>8elv 138 pa(TTa = rjbi(TTa 15
oi povov oTi 26 pfjpa 85, 88
ov8ev eivai 149 paxrOeis 127
„ (prjSev) Tr\{ov ijv 151, 168

,, irpos c. accus. 160 ^aTvpiKov bpdpa 168

ovTws 17, 30, 54, 62, 89 (rdTvpos 165
ovx coanep 28, 56 (TLkrjvo'i 143
o'^LS TTjs Siavoias 156 crocjila, of Socrates xx, xxi
(ToejiLcrpa 140
riatSeia 51 cro(pi(TTTjs 103, 118
naidiov ’TTOLfiuBai 101 aocjids 44 10,
naidives 18 anapyav 112
nappeyas 154 (Tirovbai 15
TrdvSripos 31 (TTpaTOTrebov epaaTwv 25
TTavTobaTTOs 85 (Tvyyeveia 24
TTavToios 123 (TvXXrjirTcop 155
TravTics imper. 12, n. be 4
c. (TvppeTpos 76
Trapa^aXkeiv 141, tt. Tu><^da\pu> 163 crvpcpvadv 66
TrapaTraieiv 6 (rvpfpaivla 50
napaaKorreiv 164 (Tvvaycoyevs 62
TTapaaTaTTjs 83 (TvvbefJTVov 2
wapaTelveo'dai 114 avvepyos 133
TTapa)(^pTjpa, e< tov 44 crvvppepeveiv 151
napeiKeLV 51 (Twovcria bid X6ya>v 18
TTapCbV Ka'l 122
0770)1/ (TVVTaO'lS 109
ndax^i-v, of Ideas 130 <jvvTr)Keiv 40, 66
naTTjp TOV kdyov XXIV, 20 (TvcriT acTTos 60
TTeXayos tov koXov 1, 127 crvcnreLpdcrdai 112
IlevLa xli, 100 (TvaaiTelv 159
nepiapne^eerOai, 165 (TvaTacns 50, 52
nepi^dWecr6ai 149, 167 (T)(T)pa, “role” 148
irepiTTOTepov, aliter 158 craT^p 83, 123
irepiTvyxb-veLV 163 (Tco(j)pocrvvTj 78
TTepKpep^s 58
TTidavos Xoyoy 169 Taivia 135
TTlKpOV )( yXuKV 48 TavTO eKeiva 169
TTiXoy 160 ,,
Tavra 161
TrXrjapovr) xxiii, 47 Teiveiv €7r\ c. accus. 46, 166
TTOllJOlS 79, 106 reXeor 118
TToiKtXXetv 154 TeXeTai 99
noWaxov c. gen. 35 TeXevTav 131
TTovos Ixi, 159 TeXos xliii, 106, 128, 130
TTOplpOS 103 Tepd)(iov 64
ndpor xl, xli, 100 TeTpSiadai 157
npeiTOVTUis 84 TeTTl^ 61
TTpeer^eveiv 46 Te^vp 171
Trpecr/SuTfpos 155 760)5 (iv 64
irpoairoBavelv 119 Trj pev...TTj be 128
irpopprjdpvaL 30, 87 TTjXlKOVTOS 19
TTpocravayKd^eiv C. db. accUH, 34 71 , magnum quid 158
TrpoenreXd^eiv 112 TL...OV; 4
7rpoa(j)epeiv 54 Tipdv 133
TrpoTpOTrdbrjv 164 Tiprj 149

TTTapelv {TTTappds) 45, 54 Tpejaas 60

TTro/ijcty 112 70 be (exet), “but in reality ”^39, 87
 GREEK 177

TOKOS xxxviii cpiXia ipacTTov 43

Toa-ovrov, (?) niirum quantum 157 (piXoyvvrjs xxxi, 63
tovt'l tL rjv; 137 i^iXoTipia xxxvii, 118
Tpi^cov 157 (f)Xvapia 132
(poiTav 110
9, 157 (j)opeLV ipaxLOv 161
v^pis XV, XX, 33 (f>p6vijcris 120, 159
v^picrrqs XX, 14, 144, 165 (fivyp (pevyeiv 73
vyieivov, to 46 (f>vais {-(ret) xlii, Ixiv, 26, 56, 61, 158
vypos 75 (j)Q}vq, of instruments 134
vpvot 18
VTTap\eiv 86 XaipeTco 88
viTfKpc~iv xxxii, 103 Xapevviov 162
VTTfpaTro6v^aK€iv 26, 119 )(ap'i^€(T6ai 34
vTreprjCpavos 153 xXidrj 82
vTrep(f)vS)s o)s 5 105
VTTTjpeTew 42 XP^^paTLa^TlKoi 5
vTTo c. dat. 169 XP^aipos 59
VTTo/SXeTreii/ 161 Xpqo'Tos 19
viroKOTO} c. gen, 168 Xpvaovs, metaph. 150
vTToXa/Seii'135
VTToXveiv 137 'i'ijTTa 63
VTTOvpyelv 42 xj/iXol Xoyol 145
vcrraTOS 21 yp'VKTTjp l40

^aXrjpevs, play on 1 ’jja,diaipdv dpi^'i 60

(fiavos 79 wdis 113
(paura^fcrdai 129 (dv ?v(Ka 124, 128
(})appaTT€iv 70 apa, Jlos aetatis 150
^avXos 14, 155 ojf, constr. with 33
(f)ddvois {-oipi), ovK dv 45, 142 „ separated from adv. 91
(pidXrj 170 ,, =<o(TTe {Tj 137
(}>[Xav8pos xxxi, 63 (ay dv C. opt. 59
(piXepaarrjs65 (OS ye 38
(piXepaaTLa 138 (ay fTTOy elnelv 65

B. P. 12
 INDEX II. English.

Accusative, absolute 163 Charm ides 166

,,
adverbial 104, 115 Chiasmus xxv
„ after dative 54 Compendious constr. 3
„ of remoter object 91 Constructions, irregular 26, 36, 37
Achilles viii, xxv, Iviii, 28, 29, 104 Contradictory ) ( contrary 95
Acusilaus xxv, 23 Cronus 74
Adjective, neut. with fern, subst. 16
Aeschylus 29 Daemons, functions of xii, 98
Agathon xxxiv Delium, battle of 163
Ajax 159 Dialogues, classification of xiii

Akumenus xxviii Dionysus 15, 20

Alcestis viii, Iviii, 27 Diotima xxxix, 94
Allegory, Diotima’s xl Dramatic setting, date of the Ixvi
Alliteration xxvii
Elis, morals of 35
Amplitude, rhetorical 28 Ellipse Hi, 30, 85
Anacolutha xxvi. Hi, 41, 91, 115, of apodosis 45, 90
„
120
„ of predicate 17
Antenor 165 of protasis 14
„
Antisthenes xxi Empedocles xxxiii
Aorist infin., after iXirU 68
Eros, antiquity of viii, 22
Aphrodite viii, xlii, 20, 31 defined, x, xiii
„
Apodosis, ellipse of 105 dual
„ viii, ix, Iviii, 31
Apollo X, xi, 79 Pandemos viii, ix
„
Apollodorus xvi parentage of
„ viii, xl, 22
Aristodemus xvi properties of xi, xii, xl, 102
„
Aristogiton 36
„ Uranios viii, ix
Aristophanes xxix Eryximachus xxviii
„ quoted 163 Euripides, alluded to 18, 79, 88
Article, added with second subst. 27 Euthydemus 166
Asclepiadae 48
Asclepius ix, 48 Fallacies 78
Assimilation, of infin. 10
Astronomy, defined ix Genitive, absol. after dat. 38
Athene xi, 80 ,,
of cause 85
„ of object 89, 95
Banquet, date of Agathon’s Ixvi „ of origin 100
Bathing, before meals 7 Glaucon vii, 3

Beauty xxxvii, xlvi Gorgias xxxv, 85

Brachylogy 30, 32, 123 Gorgon xi, 86
Brasidas 164 Gymnasia 35
 ENGLISH 179

Harmodius 36 Parmenides 23, 74

Helios, prayer to 162 Paronomasia xxv, xxvii, 9, 86
Hephaestus x, xxxiii, 66 Pausanias xxvi
Heraclitus ix, 49, 116 Penia xl
Herodicus 48 Pericles 165
Hesiod, quoted or alluded to 22, Phaedrus xxiv
74, 167 Phaedrus, connexion of with Symp.
Hippocrates xxix, xxxii, 48 Ixvii
Homer, quoted or alluded to viii Phalerum 1

9, 10, 26, 40, 58, 74, 78, 81, 85, Philosophy, Eros as xlvii
161 Phoenix xvii, 2
Homoeoteleuton xxxvi Plague, at Athens 94
Poets, as teachers 120
lapetus 74 Polycrates xviii, xxi, 19
Iccos 48 Polymnia 51
Ideas, characteristics of the 128 Poros xl
Immortality xxxvii, xliii Potidaea 159, 162
Imperfect, without av 59 Present, =fut. 88
Infinitive, =accus. of respect 160 Procreation, intellectual xxxviii
„ epexegetic 30, 53 Prodicus 19
“ indignantis ” 19 Protasis, ellipse of 109
„
lonians 161 „ double 66
Isocrates xx Proverbs, cited 8, 55, 73, 167
Isokola xxvii, xxxvi
Isology xxii, xxiii Relative, doubled 72
Religion, defined x
Laches 163 „ Eros as xlviii
Laconia, morals of 35 Responsions, or echoes xx, Ixi, Ixii
Lyceum, the 171 Retaliation 24, 77
Lycurgus 123 Rhetoric, Socrates’ theory of 87
Rhythm, clausal xxvii, 42, 43
Mantinea xxxix, 66 Ritual, at symposia 15
Marsyas xiv
Matrimony, laws concerning 64 Sex-characteristics, theory of xxxi
Medicine ix Sileni xiv
Melanippe 18 Similes lii

Method, rhetorical xi, xii Socrates, qualities of xiv, lx fif.

„ erotic xiii, xliii Solon 123

Metis xli Sophists, rhetorical style of xxii,
Moon, bisexed 58 xxv, xxvii, XXXV, Ivii
Music ix Sophocles, cited 78

Nestor 165 Tautology 93, 97

Neuter, in appos. with masc. 90
Xenophon, the Symposium of Ixvii
Orpheus viii, 28
Oxymoron 84 Zeus X, xxxiii, xxxix

CAMBRmGE : PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

r

>:

1
Duke University Libraries

D00483858-