Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
A7r
Z2S.A-
~P^13 S3
PREFACE
also the opinion of Schanz and of the Oxford editor. Prof. Burnet,
R. G. B.
October 4, 1909.
CONTENTS
Introduction : page
........
iii.
i
ix. The Text Ixviii
I X. Bibliography Ixxi
Index Greek
i
„ II.,
I.,
178
162348
— —
INTRODUCTION
viii INTRODUCTION
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
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
(2) At Athens the rd/xos is complex, (a) Eros is approved, and its
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. *
(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)
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.
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
:
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-
;
INTRODUCTION XI
(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.
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.
“ 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.”
(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
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.
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.
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-
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
;
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 :
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).
“ 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
the distorted account which Plato thus discredits, and who its author 1
^ 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
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 :
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).
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.
{/) 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-
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.
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
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)
and Aristides (or. 46, II. p. 287), dXM 6lp.aL Xv^ecv avrov eSei, iva els
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 ;
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.
INTRODUCTION XXV
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
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
:
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
KaKos).
* 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.
^
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,
;
INTRODUCTION XXVll
thinkers of the close of the fifth century. Is the moral standard fixed
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
II. 5. rj
y aSeiy rj SiaXeyea^ai,
Triveiv
1
dkk iy ry Trpd^et,
1
IV. - 12. OVTO) Kal TO ipdy Kal 6 Epois ov ttSs cctI Kakos ovSe d^ios
iyKUipiid^ea'Oai,
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.).
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).
INTRODUCTION XXIX
/leTprjo'eias &v |
Scnj ^^(pvKe sacf ocrov diipx^Tai. |
...8pa p.tv op^pov yal ,...ipa S o
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).
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
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
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) . . .
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
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
INTRODUCTION XXXV
^ 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. . .
(iovXofjiaL I
TrpwTOV gev elTrelv
|
(os 7(^77 ge etTreir
|
eTreira eiTrelv : 197 D
aXXoTplOTr]TO<S pXv Kivol, OlKiLOrriTO^ 81 TrkTJpOi.
tov (195 a) j
Travroiv 6ewv tvSaigovaov ovrwv (195 a).
el-n-elv (197 c). He has no clear idea of the limits of a prose style, as
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.
;
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.
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).
INTRODUCTION XXXIX
^ 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
(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
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
;
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 ” :
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
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,
1 See § vi. 3. I.
INTRODUCTION xliii
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
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 :
^ 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
elements body and soul, the philosopher is not entirely d^avaro? but still
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
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
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.
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
‘
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”
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
“ all high beauty has a moral element in it.” Emerson, too, supplies
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...
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.”
INTRODUCTION li
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.
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.
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
Second Act begin with Agathon’s but that this is a perverse arrangement is well
:
INTRODUCTION liii
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.
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
;
(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;
^ 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
(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).
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
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
‘
INTRODUCTION Ivii
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 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 ;
Agathon = Gorgias. Jowett (Plato p. 529) says of Pausanias: “his speech might
i.
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.
INTRODUCTION Ilx
^ 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
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).
{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.
(1) Courage.
178 E (Phaedrus) (TTparbweSov ipaarCiv 220 E &Ti....(pvyg dvexdipei rb arparbirebov,
...paxbpevol y’ &p viKtpev, kt\. ktX.
(2) Temperance.
196 c (Agathon) 6 'E/jojs 8ta(p€pbvT<)is av 216 D irbaqs oUade ybpei...(riiippoijvvqs;
croKppovol.
(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.
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-
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
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
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 vrro top Tpl^oiva KaTaxXipeh tSv 191 E £f. (Aristoph.) avyKaTaKei-
TOVTOvl, rrepipaXiop tu piepoi Kal o’vprrerrXeyp.Spoi toXs dpSpdai...
219 D oS6’.. .€Txop (Srrios) dirouToprjdolrjv ^eadai dXXgXoip oiSi ap.iKpov xp^‘'°^-
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
INTRODUCTION Ixv
Ixvi INTRODUCTION
(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.
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 :
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
1 See Diimmler, Akademica, p. 40; and the refutation by Vahlen, op. Acad. i.
482 fi.
Ixviii INTRODUCTION
the two works is obvious, but which of the two is prior in date is
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
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.
INTRODUCTION Ixxi
§ X. Bibliography.
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).
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, !
towns are often places of unsavoury repute cp. Phaedr. 243 c iv vavrais irov :
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
:
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
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
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
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?,
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. .
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
|
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
6 nAATQNOI [173 D
^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.
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
:
—
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 !
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
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],
jjLfjv KXrjde'ts (vcf)' fjfjiSiv) ^\6es, oia 8fj (jiiKos ; and Pint. Q. Conv. vii. 6. 1, p. 707 b
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
;
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
aev eXObvTa rbv M.epeXeo)v eTrl rrjv doLvrjv, xeipo) ovra eVt t^v tov
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
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
\ |
For exx. of how Plato “variis modis multis afiert aliena,” see Vahlen Op.
Acad. I. pp. 476 ff’.
(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
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<;
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 :
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 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|.
TTpocreaTT) T : Ttpoo’ea’TLv B
“ 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
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} ^.
^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.
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 :
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
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 :
, Teuffel, as against Jahn, rightly defends the words; and they serve to strike
one of the keynotes of the dialogue.
I
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. ;
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-
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
Kol jHe^aTTTiapevcp and the use of ^e^peypevo?, Eubul. Incert. 5; pe6p ^apovvTi
:
p»v-«vAfI»-Vt,sorvtY
n-A
^ / pj.et}UoiC^
^ u/tKt'
‘
I
176 E] lYMnOZION 17
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.
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.
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.
—
\
6u^yJcuX&X5
vrporep«i<>s ^ '"fr
yonrdp^iOM'i-..,SviYiV‘''‘i e^t^r
^ ^
' OlvXi)Tf<^~^^[v^-yA
:
18 nAATQNOI [176 E
177 A Kai ante /3ovX. seel. Hermann Sz. : Koi ^oiiXeadai del. Voeg.
lOi
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
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
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.
:
20 nAATQNOI [177 c
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 :
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.
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),
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.
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.
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 :
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
{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 ;
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.
\\
It
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. ;
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
:
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
f u)
- -^o fei 'Vfcyy
\p(£sxp/etiii~
Oxter'd I'V
— : — ::
26
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
^
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.
is thus answered by his father Pheres ov yap rraTpwov tovS’ ebe^dpijv vdpov:
[
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.
y. .. -rr
28 nAATQNOZ [179 D
,
^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 For the legend of Orpheus and bis wife Eurydice, see
’Op<)>ea.
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'.
tos diroGavotro. See Horn. II. XVIII. 96 avriKU yap rot erreira ped’ "Exropa
TTorpos irolpos ibid. IX. 410 ff.; Apol. 28 c, D.
:
180 B] lYMnOZION 29
V6WT€pos. See R.
786 yevep pev vwiprepos iariv ’A;(iXXevy Trpea-jSvTepos
XI. |
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
180 B 6avpd5o\)<ri. Cp. Rep. 551 a inaLvovaL t€ koI Oavpd^ovo'i Ka'i els
rds dpxds dyovai Xen. Symp. IV. 44.
:
30 nAATQNOZ [180 B
\}ravT€‘f.
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.
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
.
vvv ou -yap. We may assume the ellipse of ov KaXas ex^i after vvv de
06^1/) re
(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
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
€ i^repo; d j
Sw.ir P'e-rl-f
;
32 nAATQNOI [181 A
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
;
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
^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.
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
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. :
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
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 ;
•x'-s el.'jo>t'*<e
I
fr^c/or", free
I
SfKcX/p/rtrfi"
182 B] lYMnOIlON 35
/ ^ 1 At
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
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
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-
’
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
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
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
^rrXCjs~ ph/v/y
0? pyfX^ iJUac^ ' I
V^pyKeAev6>£-
- a ~ '
5
...
plu\Ur
^
/
— : ;
38 nAATQNOZ [183 A
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'
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
|
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.’^
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 \
I
183 d] ZYMnOZION 39
,
^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.
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.
234 B.
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, <;
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
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
:
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
\
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
. - -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
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
|
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- •
' ;
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
vofxy Ficinus :
jxia TraiSiKaiv Verm.: ^ta ipcofiivox Usener :
pLa vewv Hug; fjfuv
tarily”) in prose, cp. Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 6; Lys. xix. 6: in poetry the use is
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 ,
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
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.
—
—
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-
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
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” :
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 .
'
detiVC
h I
Hjorul,., dvAile
:
46 nAATQNOS [186 A
186 A
TravTotv tSiv Hirschig Sokm {yvovs} Herwerden rrjs larpiKrjs
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. '.
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
f r
: .
186 d] lYMnOIlON 47
fre pfcple
186 C ^oTi ^dp larpiKij ktX. Cp. (with Poschenrieder) Hippocr. de flat. I.
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 :
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
: :
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
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’..
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 :
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
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
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
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
;
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
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 :
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,
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
KiTTeua^
uss -to *ie t/fin
Kyp'f fure,S
Kfi<pndi^~ ^ fiernd-t
V :
52 nAATQNOZ [188 A
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
I 6o6Tot6<S-'* S-WI-’j
l^rj pes “ ^fccdecifiiiitieitd
dpajerepoe .
fccHt .Si Ais
(
i7ecU4&iS
Qc ppdx €ueTyp/«
188 d] lYMnOIlON 53
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.
^
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. ;
ns yoveas pp Beparrevp, rovno SiKpv re irriridpai (17 irdXis) Kr\. ih. IV. 4. 20;
Reyy. 615 c.
rovs 'Epcoras: the phrase used 4 11. above, irepl ’’EpcdTor cjyvXaKpv re Ka'i laaiv,
supports "Eptoraj here.
'
tSpx-e-y
t
ev9v‘i iiravaaro, eTretBrj avrw rov irrappov rrpoafpveyKa. Ka'i rov
Stob. E Ka'i del. Eiickert fjpav deals secl. J.-U. 189 A coot’
e/if Bekk.
'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
;
^
and of the use of the term Koc/noy in 187 d, 188 c. jsirilJuyteur- ^ A<i»v+cp«
: ,
189 c] lYMnOZION oo
(sed r)T extra versiim) B : rjbrj prjdrjaecrdaL Rettig : fort, ert p. C elVeror
Blass avdpuiiTOL Bekk. ; avBpoonoi BT ; ol avOpanroi W, vulg.
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
i(pf>rj"n'^~ ’Vnu'id^Vr'-fe^hi'
— :
56 nAATQNOI [189 c
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
'\
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
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 :
the use in Latin of semivir, Tirg. d.. iv. 215 ille Paris cum semiviro comitatu :
avTovs TTOipa-ai, Kal Crjirop oi^ pvTe yap 6 ttco<; dTrlqwretmf^ Hp^oj'
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.
:
dTi...p£Texei,. A^dgelin and others rightly defend this clause against athe-
tizers like Jahn it adds to the impression of “komische Gelehrsamkeit.”
:
-ft .
! ::
190 D] lYMnOIlON 59
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
€(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 .
u»\V.ifnte
WOK
To cvtiheuj,
: ;
60 nAATQNOI [190 D
/
— 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
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.
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
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. : :
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.
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
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
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
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
'
There no reason to tamper with the text: the present tense secures the
is
^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
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),
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
,
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.
avSpcs is predicative :
“ Such as these, and they alone, turn out me7i {i.e.
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. :
(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,
;
segments of the other dXa, viz. the androgynous and the “ Doppelweib ”
(191 D, e).
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
"fo
:
66 nAATQNOZ [192 D
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
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.
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
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, :
'
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
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
;
:
him as a chief speaker “ ware auch nicht richt passend gewesen ” (Zeller),
I
/ JJld Kiy 1 -
p 0^
^ Xoi-rro^^
194 a] ZYMnOIlON 69
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
.
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.
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. ;
70 nAATQNOI [194 A
^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.”
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<},
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 ;
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.
;
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;
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.
: ;
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.
^
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
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. ;
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
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
;
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^;
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
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
:
vetoTepcp TE Kat vyporipa ovri (opp. to aKXrjpco ovtc) TTpocnraXaleiv Bind. Pyth. :
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.
"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
196 B ert : on Stob. ovt' dSiKfl Om. Stob. ovre deSiv Stob.
dvdpaTTCov. ooSe Stob. C Trdvd’ Stob. av BT, Stob. : dv Tis vulg.
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.
:
lefi Iffhihd
’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]
196 C ttX eiTTOv Cobet Kpartt Stob., Naber : KparoiTj Bdhm. (raxjipovotr]
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-
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
197 a] ZYMnOIlON 79
fj
TO TTpLV,” ov av ''Epoj? a'^Ta i. w Stj Trpi-rrei rjpLd<; p,aprvpL(p
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
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
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
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
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.
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. -
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).
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
197 D ZYMnOZION 81
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
:
OlKGiC>Tr^^~
VXfjpoio - ''i
^oyolcc r 1
- :
82 nAATQNOZ ^97 D
iv •)(^opoi^, iv dvaiat<; yiyvo/Jbevo'i '^yefiwv' irpaorrjra ^ev^ TTopL^cov ,
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
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
yevopeva pvarayayos rov ^lov. For Socrates as crarrjp, see 220 D ff. the :
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.”
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
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,
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.
; ;
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.
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. :
'
^CUX". \ fx^i-
198 cj SYMnOIlON 85
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.,
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
, S.'2 p*f^
86 nAATQNOI [198 c
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.
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
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 :
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
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
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 :
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
€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^
1 . •
a..vT. ^
dlwu; -to
; ;
199 D] lYMnOllON 89
Tov ovv ^alSpov ecjir) koX rov<i dWov<: Ke\€vetv \iyeiv, ottt]
(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
200 ovv eaTLV. Tovto puev tolvvv, elrrelv tov ^coKpdTrj, cjrvXa^ov rrapd
aavTM piepLvTjpi.evo'; otov ToaovBe Be elwe, rroTepov o ’^Epw? eKeivov
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
1]
Sc. icTTiv vUor ye
pi^TT^p wo’avTws- OvynTpos prinjp. f)
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),
200 c] ZYMnOIlON 91
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
(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
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 :
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
'
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
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
;
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
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.
:
94 .
nAATQNOI [201 c
rov XoLpLOV BeKa err] dvafioX^v erroL'qae rr;? voaov, ^ B^ Kal i/ne rd
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 :
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
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
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.
96 nAATQNOI [201 E
o ''Eipa><; earl kuI KaK6<; ; Kal rj, Ovk ev(f>T}/j,rja€i<; ; ecpy rj oiet, o rt
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 :
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
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
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.
(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
:
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
"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,
:
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
;
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
7—2
; !;
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<;.
)(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
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
.
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
—
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. :
'AifrpoblTr]) (TV re koXos (Kapos Bgk.) Oepanorv "Epos'. Hes. Theog. 201 Tp b’ (sc.
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
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
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.
(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
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.”
T : (f)iXoa'6(j)a}v B yorjs koX : Kal om. O.-P. E avTrjs om. O.-P. Kal
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 •
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.
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.
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, &??
fcaXcov tI ipa; Kal eyed elirov on Teviadai avrw. ’A\X’ ext irodet,
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’
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
«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.
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.
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
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-
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.
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
:
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.: : :
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
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. :
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'.
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.
:
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.
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.
an Eur. und Anspielung auf Diotima’s Heimath und Beruf ” the latter :
xlrv^ai (f)v(Tei, dbivovai be e'dei, tIktowi be X6y<o ktX. Clem. Al. Strom. V. 552 B : :
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,
. :
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
Phaedo 85 E ff.
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-
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
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.
:
p-pv ; T?5? yewpaeo}'; kuI tov tokov ev tw koXw. ^iev ; pv S' eyoo.
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.
B P . . 8
;
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.
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.). ,
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
:
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
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
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]
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.”
rdv, ca<i i^covarj^ icrrl rrj'i eTTio-TTf/u.???’ XrjOrj yap eVicrTT^/AT;? e^oSo?,
For the Trrjy^ Arjdrjs {Mvtfpo(rvvr]s) in Hades, see Pind. fr. 130; Eohde, Psyche
II. 2093 390b
,
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
:
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
;
—
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.
: :
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)
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
:
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 :
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.
:
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-
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.
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
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,
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.).
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 '.
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
;
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
:;
]
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’
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
dyayeiv, iva IBp av iTnaTTjpuwv A:aAAo9, Kal /SXeTTCov tt/jo? ttoXv ijBr]
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-
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
with,” cp. Menex. 240 c. If we retain the MSS.’ ro nap' evi the construction is
;
tS)v XdycBi'. The phrase is alluded to in Clem. Al. protrept. 69 A Pint, quaest. ;
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 ”
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.
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,
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.
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
. ;
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. :
|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. .
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,
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.
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 :
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.
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.
<j)aiiXov p£ov. For the sense, cp. Soph./r. 753 N., Eur. fr. 965 D. oX/3tos octtis
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.
:
SKCLVCp ;
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.
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 ;
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
;
elfJbL rovTOv ovv rov \6jov, w ^aiSpe, el fjuev ^ovXei, &>? eyKoofiiov
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;
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.
: ; :
ovT. Usener : iav elaico ovT. Bergk : idv i'n olos r’ a>, ovr. temptabam xara-
•yeXdcracrdat W 213 A KeXevav T : fceXedet B
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
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
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
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.
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
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'
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.
;
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
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. '.
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.”
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
I
vel vri(j)ovTas cj. Stepll. Xdyouy (Xdyoi/) Bast
’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. :
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.
; ;:
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
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 ;
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
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
:
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
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)?
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.
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'.
;
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
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.
. .
I
Cp. Crito 54 D tovto. ..eyio 8 okS> okovciv, aanep ol KopvSovTicovTes t5)v ovXcov
B. P. 10
—:
eK’xelraL vtto twv Xoycov rwv tovtov • optZ Se Kal aX\ov<: 'rraix-
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,
.
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
\
|
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)
;
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
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,
VTTO Tcov TToWcdv. SpaiTeTevQ) ovv avTov Kal (pevyw, Kal OTav IScv,
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. ;
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
€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
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 \
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.)
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.
: :
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
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
:
Alai. 301 A, Phaedr. 235 E (piXTaros ft koI cos dXrjBcos xpvaovs Gorg. 486 D :
€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.
. ;
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
”
ev epT]|j.C<^ “ Tete-h-tete : cp. Rep. 604a, Phaedr. 236c eapev ...povco ev
epr)pia.
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.
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 ;
ev tt|...kX£vt|. epov is short for Trjs eprjs (or epov) KXivrjs". cjD. the similar
brachylogy in 214c: Horn. Od. vi. 308.
elpr)cr6a>.
Kal irpos OVTIVOVV Xe'yeiv. This reminds one of Diotima’s language in 209 E £F.
ol nlvovTes ov povov eavTovs epefravl^ovaiv olnves elaiv, dXXd Kal tS)v aXXcov
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
:
€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
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
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.
; :
218 A B O.-P. ; kcCi /j-fj T, Bt. B Sel koI vulg. toIs re B (?)
•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. . :
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
218 C ® O.-P. : TW
?)(aiv /(apicraa-dat O.-P. ei ti B O.-P. : ert
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.
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. :
(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
E Tvy^avei ovra a Xeyeit; Trepl efiov, Kai ti<; ear ev ijxol BvvafMi<;, Bi
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.
;
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'
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.
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
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 : :
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
: '.
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.
6vp6s i'xei Tvep'i aps (piXorrjros oilre yap ix^alpeiv ovre <j)i\eiv dvvapai, ktX.
\
(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
;
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
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
the incorruptibility of Socr., shown by his sending back Alcib.’s presents, see
Stob. Flor. XVII. 17, Ael. v. h. ix. 29.
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. :
5 years of war was reduced in 430 (see Bury’s Hist. Gr. pp. 392 3) Socr.’s — :
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?
220 A TTpbs TO TTpbs avTov els ro Sauppe Trpor avTov rto Bdhin.
: ev d’ ;
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 :
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
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
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
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,
:
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
; |
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.).
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.
11—2
164 nAATQNOZ [221 B
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.,
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-
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
:
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.
:
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.
: ;
^opiai avpbpL^a'i lipulv elrrov a pie v/Spiaev. Kal puevroi ovk e/xe
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).
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
:
;
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
222 D dia/SaXel Hirschig Cobet Sz. Bt. ; fiia/3aXet O.-P. : Sta/SaX^ BTW
(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
:
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 ).
;
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'
’
dSvvaTov dXXa. Kal vvv co? evTTopeof Kal Tridavov Xoyov rjvpev,
(hcTTe Trap eavTM tovtovI KaTaKelaOai.
ola av 7rao-x<a. “How I am fooled” (Jowett). This echoes 215 d ola Stj
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 :
Kal TTLveiv eK cj)idXr]<; peyaXp^ e^rl Se^td. tov ovv Sco/cparj; avToh
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 :
Ta flew aXXa kt\. This is artistic selection disguised under the cloke of
imperfect recollection, cp. 178 a, 180 c.
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,
—
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.
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
B. P. 12
INDEX II. English.
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
>:
1
Duke University Libraries
D00483858-