ON SOME PASSAGES OF PLATO. Phaedr. 235 D. ἀλλ ̓, ὦ γενναιότατε, κάλλιστα εἴρηκας. σὺ γὰρ ἐμοὶ ὧν τινῶν μὲν καὶ ὅπως ἤκουσας, μηδ' ἂν κελεύω εἴπῃς, τοῦτο δὲ αὐτὸ ὃ λέγεις ποίησον· τῶν ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ βελτίω τε καὶ μὴ ἐλάττω ἕτερα ὑπόσχες [εἰπεῖν,] τούτων ἀπεχόμενος. καί σοι ἐγώ, ὥσπερ οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες ὑπισχνοῦμαι χρυσὴν εἰκόνα ἰσομέτρητον εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀναθήσειν, οὐ μόνον ἐμαυτοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ σήν. (Dr Thompson's edition.) In the sentence τῶν ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ, κ.τ.λ. the Bodl. gives ἑτέρᾳ ὑποσχέσει εἰπεῖν, where the vulg. has ἕτερα ὑποσχέθητι εἰπεῖν. Dr Badham reads ἕτερα ὑπόσχες (submit to me, produce), regarding eiπeiv as an interpolation; and his correction is accepted by the Master of Trinity. Professor Madvig on the other hand omits ὑποσχέσει and reads εἶπον or εἰπέ in place of εἰπεῖν. I conjecture that the reading of the Bodleian is a corruption of ἕτερα ὑπέσχησαι εἰπεῖν. The text will then run: τοῦτο δὲ αὐτὸ ὃ λέγεις ποίησον. τῶν ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ βελτίω τε καὶ μὴ ἐλάττω ἕτερα ὑπέσχησαι εἰπεῖν τούτων ἀπεχόμενος, καί σοι ἐγὼ ὥσπερ οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες ὑπισχνοῦμαι, κ.τ.λ. The sentence τῶν ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ, K.T.. is thus a formal statement of the bargain into which Phaedrus proposes to enter with Socrates. It is true that Socrates has not made a distinct promise: he has however implied his intention of delivering a rival ῥῆσις: πλῆρές πως, ὦ δαιμόνιε, τὸ στῆθος ἔχων αἰσθάνομαι παρὰ ταῦτ ̓ ἂν ἔχειν εἰπεῖν ἕτερα μὴ χείρω. Indeed Phaedrus can hardly be said to misrepresent Socrates's declaration, when he calls it a promise in order to bind him down to the delivery of a speech. So in the Philebus, 20 A, Protarchus says ἀλλ ̓ εἰ δρῶν τοῦθ ̓ ἡμεῖς ἀδυνατοῦμεν, σοὶ δραστέον· ὑπέσχου γάρ. . Republic, 360 B. εἰ οὖν δύο τοιούτω δακτυλίω γενοίσθην, καὶ τὸν μὲν ὁ δίκαιος περιθεῖτο, τὸν δὲ ὁ ἄδικος, οὐδεὶς ἂν γένοιτο, ὡς δόξειεν, οὕτως ἀδαμάντινος, ὃς ἂν μείνειεν ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ τολμήσειεν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλλοτρίων καὶ μὴ ἅπτεσθαι, ἐξὸν αὐτῷ, κ.τ.λ. ὡς δόξειεν.] Astius in tertia ed. ἄν addendum coniicit, quod ne aptum quidem esset. Optativus eandem vim habet, quam solet in oratione obliqua habere, efficitque ut verba οὐδεὶς ἂν γένοιτο οὕτως etc. ex aliorum ore missa videantur. Aliter hoc intellexit Matthiæ gramm. p. 982, proximum är hunc quoque optativum afficere statuens." Schneider. I am not satisfied with either of these explanations of the omission of av with δόξειεν. Schneider's justification is the more plausible of the two, but the introduction of a quasi oblique oration does not appear very appropriate. The omission of av with dógelev however is not the only peculiarity of the sentence, its insertion with μeivelev being at least as remarkable. See Goodwin's Greek Moods and Tenses, p. 139, where Aristoph. Ran. 96, 97, γόνιμον δὲ ποιητὴν ἂν οὐχ εὕροις ἔτι ζητῶν ἂν ὅστις ῥῆμα γενναῖον λάκοι, and, Dem. Phil. II. 67, 20, τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πόλει-οὐδὲν ἂν ἐνδείξαιτο τοσοῦτον οὐδὲ ποιήσειεν, ὑφ' οὗ πεισθέντες ὑμεῖς τῶν ἄλ λων τινας Ελλήνων ἐκείνῳ προεῖσθε, are cited as examples of the correct construction. I conclude therefore that the particle av has been transferred by the scribe from its proper place after δόξειεν to its present position before μείνειεν. 390 Β, C. ή Δία, καθευδόντων τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν τε καὶ ἀν θρώπων ὡς μόνος ἐγρηγορὼς ἃ ἐβουλεύσατο, τούτων πάντων ῥᾳδίως ἐπιλανθανόμενον διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀφροδισίων ἐπιθυμίαν, κ.τ.λ. ὡς μόνος ἐγρηγορώς (ut solus vigil, Stallb.) seems a very strange phrase. On the other hand it is clear that it cannot be construed with ἐπιλανθανόμενον. The relative clause appears to mean- -"the plans which he formed when all other gods and men were sleeping and he alone awake." Here" alone" is emphatic, more emphatic, I think, than the μóvos of the text. I therefore conjecture for ὡς μόνος ἐγρηγορώς, εἷς μόνος ἐγρηγορώς. For the phrase εἷς μόνος, cf. Gorg. 475 Ε, ἀλλὰ σοὶ μὲν οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες ὁμολογοῦσι πλὴν ἐμοῦ, ἐμοὶ δὲ σὺ ἐξαρ κεῖς εἷς ὢν μόνος καὶ ὁμολογῶν καὶ μαρτυρῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ σὲ μόνον ἐπιψηφίζων τοὺς ἄλλους ἐῶ χαίρειν. Alc. I. 131 Ε, οὔτ ̓ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἔοικεν, ̓Αλκιβιάδῃ τῷ Κλεινίου ἐραστὴς οὔτ ̓ ἔστιν ἀλλ ̓ ἢ εἷς μόνος. Hipp. Min. 372 Β, κινδυνεύω ἓν μόνον ἔχειν τοῦτο ἀγαθόν, τἄλλα ἔχων πάνυ φαύλα. Soph. Ο. Τ. 63, τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὑμῶν ἄλγος εἰς ἕν ̓ ἔρχεται μόνον καθ ̓ αὑτὸν κοὐδέν ̓ ἄλλον. 429 c. διὰ παντὸς δὲ ἔλεγον αὐτὴν σωτηρίαν τὸ ἔν τε λύπαις ὄντα διασώζεσθαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἐν ἡδοναῖς καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἐν φόβοις καὶ μὴεκβάλλειν. Socrates is explaining the phrase δύναμιν τοιαύτην ἢ διὰ παντὸς σώσει τὴν περὶ τῶν δεινῶν δόξαν. He has in the preceding sentence explained the word σώσει, and now proceeds to volunteer an explanation of the phrase διὰ παντός. It has been thought that the words αὐτὴν σωτηρίαν should be expunged. Would it not be better to read διὰ παντὸς δὲ ἔλεγον αὖ τὴν σωτηρίαν, the meaning being “ and when I added the epithet perpetual I meant," &c.? The meaning of the word σωτηρία having been already explained, it is natural that Socrates should say "and I meant by calling the safety perpetual,” &c., not, “and I called it perpetual safety.” The αὖ marks a new point in the explanation, and would not have been required had Glaucon interposed the question, “And what do you mean by the epithet perpetual?" 465 C. τά γε μὴν σμικρότατα τῶν κακῶν δι ̓ ἀπρέπειαν ὀκνῶ καὶ λέγειν, ὧν ἀπηλλαγμένοι ἂν εἶεν, κολακείας τε πλουσίων πένητες, ἀπορίας τε καὶ ἀλγηδόνας ὅσας ἐν παιδοτροφίᾳ καὶ χρηματισμοῖς διὰ τροφὴν οἰκετῶν ἀναγκαίαν ἴσχουσι, κ.τ.λ. Ast thinks that TévηTes should be expunged or placed after εἶεν. Schneider supplies with it aἷς ἔνοχοι ἂν εἶεν from ὧν ἀπηλλαγμένοι ἂν εἶεν. Stallbaum remarks" omnia forent perspicua, si legeretur πενίας, i.e. πενήτων.” Is it possible that Plato wrote πένητος, using the singular in consequence of the close proximity of the objective genitive plural πλουσίων? For an example of objective and subjective genitives dependent on the same word, cf. p. 329 Β, ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ τὰς τῶν οἰκείων προπηλακίσεις τοῦ γήρως ὀδύρονται. 615 D. ἔφη οὖν τὸν ἐρωτώμενον εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ἥκει, φάναι, οὐδ ̓ ἂν ἥξει δεύρο. Why should we not read ανήξει ? Cf. ἀνιέναι, ἀναβήσεσθαι in the sequel. The verb ἀνήκω occurs in a kindred sense in the Theaetetus, p. 196 B, οὐκοῦν εἰς τοὺς πρώτους πάλιν ἀνήκει λόγους; Madvig conjectures οὐδ ̓ αὖ ἥξει δεῦρο : but how does he understand αὖ ? Phileb. 48 c. τέραν ἕξιν. κακὸν μὴν ἄγνοια καὶ ἣν δὴ λέγομεν ἀβελ Why should we not read ἀβελτερίαν ? ἣν δή, κ.τ.λ. will then mean "the habit which we call fatuity." It seems strange that ἀβέλτερος should have three terminations, and that ἀβελτέρα ἕξις should be used as a mere circumlocution for ἀβελτερία, which word occurs Theaet. 174 c, Symp. 198 D. HENRY JACKSON. Ar. Eth. v. 5. 12. Εἰς σχῆμα δ ̓ ἀναλογίας οὐ δεῖ ἄγειν ὅταν ἀλλάξωνται· εἰ δὲ μὴ, ἀμφοτέρας ἕξει τὰς ὑπεροχὰς τὸ ἕτερον ἄκρον. ANYONE unfamiliar with the difficulty of these words might estimate it by the desperate proposal to omit où, which some have taken to be the only means of making sense. But if the passage be no true Gordian knot, we may forego this use of the sword, and I think it may be shown to admit a gentler mode of treatment. Aristotle, if the author of this Book be really he, is stating the theory of barter and sale, and showing how the institution of some proportion between commodities is necessary to their exchange. 'But,' he says, 'they must not be brought into proportion when once the parties have exchanged: otherwise one extreme will have both the excesses.' The difficulty is to understand what bringing into proportion after the exchange he had in his mind, and what he meant by one extreme having both the excesses. Let me state first why the current explanation, given by Sir Alexander Grant, seems unsatisfactory. Without going the length of Lambinus (quoted by Michelet) who treats the past as convertible with the future and stoutly translates orav áλλážovтai 'cum permutaturi sunt,' he seems to think that this was what the author meant to say, and of the words as they stand he has no account to give. Again, he supposes |