phaedrus notes

Notes on Plato's "Phaedrus"Author(s): W. J. VerdeniusSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 8, Fasc. 4 (1955), pp. 265-289Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427742 .

Accessed: 04/11/2013 19:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427742?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOTES ON PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

BY

W. J. VERDENIUS

The Phaedrus seems to be one of the stepchilds of classical

philology. The most recent commentary is that of W. H. Thompson,

published in 1868. This is an excellent work, but it cannot be

regarded as definitive : textual criticism as well as our understanding of Plato's idiom and thought have made some progress since that

time. Burnet's text (1910) and Robin's edition (1933) are important

steps in the right direction, but much is still to be done. So it is

greatly to be welcomed that Professor Hackforth has made a

translation of the dialogue accompanied by extensive comments *). The following observations are intended as a review of this book.

They give a one-sided impression of it, because I have confined

myself to a number of criticisms, passing over almost everything I agree with in silence. Therefore let me premise that I have found

Professor Hackforth's work a most important contribution to a

full understanding of this difficult text.

I have added a discussion of the principal points on which

Burnet's and Robin's opinions differ, and of some problems which

have a certain general interest.

227 b 5: '????p???. Not ????p?e??? (Lidd.-Sc), for there is an

ellipse of t?? ?e???. Cf. 229 c 2 t? t?? "???a?, Isae. 5> 41 ?? ??????,

Arist. Pol. 1313 b 23 t?? '????p??? ? ????d???s??, and Newman

ad loe.

227 bio: p???ses?a?. Not p???sas?a? (Burnet, Robin). The fut.

with a? has been rightly defended by A. C. Moorhouse, C.Q. 40

(1946), 1-10, H. M. ten Berge, Antiphon*s zesde rede (Nijmegen,

1948), 96-98, H. Raeder, Danske Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser

33: 5 (1953). Even Schwyzer (II, 351) admits: "auch aus der at-

tischen Prosa nicht restlos leicht entfernbar".

i) Plato*s Phaedrus, Translated with Introduction and Commentary by R. Hackforth. Cambridge University Press, 1952.

Mnemosyne Vili 19



266 notes on plato's ''phaedrus''

227 b 10: s??. Not te?? (Burnet), for Plato does not give a literal

quotation but even alters the construction of p????a.

227 d?: aste???. Stallbaum rightly remarked : "Elegans est am-

biguitas in vocabulo aste???, quod et de elegantia atque urbanitate

et de communi utilitate capiendum". The same ambiguity occurs

in Arist. Nub. 204 ?ste??? ???e??.

227 d 2: ???. Not "aussi" (Robin), but "marking a new stage in the sequence of events" (Denn., 425).

228 a 6 : ed ??da. Thompson puts a comma after t??t?? and refers

to Eur. Phoen. 1308-9 ???a ?a? ?????ta ?e?ss? t??de de??? s???ef? /

p??? d????? ste????ta, pa?s? t??? pa?est?ta? ????? (for more ex-

amples, cf. Denn., 98-99, 104). But it seems more natural to assume

an explicative asyndeton. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 941-3 ???' e?s??? ?a? t??de t?? ???? t?????, / t?? t?? t??????? t?? ???? d??????? / p??t?? t? ?????? a?????? e?????e?, K?hner-Gerth II, 344?

228 b 5 '- t??. This is better {lectio difficilior) than t? (Burnet,

Robin). ??? strengthens ?a????, cf. Rep. 432c d?s?at?? ?? t?? o

t?p?? fa??eta?, Laws 6g8d e? t??? ??a?e? ?????, K?hner-Gerth ?,

663, Schwyzer II, 215. The position of t?? is entirely free, cf. ? 391

? ???a t?? t?? ????? ??? st??ess?? ?p?st??, Rep. 35^a ??? t??, ??

?'???e, d?s?a???, Dem. 18, 18 ???a t?? ?? ????t?? e???. 228 b 7 : ?d?? ???. The second ?d?? (kept by Thompson and Bur-

net) produces a pathetic effect (cf. Schwyzer II, 700) which is

quite out of place here. Denn., 365 wrongly denies that ??? is ans-

wered by d? after de??????. 228 e ?: ?a? ??s???. This cannot mean "L. himself" (Hackforth).

Robin translates "avec L. ainsi pr?sent lui aussi", but it is more

natural to take ?a? in the sense of "actually", "indeed" (Dutch

"wel"). Cf. Clit. 406 a ta ?e? ?a? ?'???e ??? ?p????? se, t? de ?a?

?p?????, Phd. 62a ??d?p?te t?????e? t? ?????p?, ?spe? ?a? t???a

("as other things ??"), Rep. 340c t??? ?????ta? ??????e?? ??? ??a-

?a?t?t??? e??a? ???a t? ?a? e?a?a?t??e??, Hdt. Ili IO, 3 ?? ??? d? ?eta? t? ??? t?? ????pt?? t? pa??pa? ???a ?a? t?te ?s??sa? a?

07)?at (?a? does not emphasize t?te, as is suggested by Denn., 319), Thuc. I 15, 2 ?at? ??? d? p??e??? . . . ??de?? ????st?? p??te? d?

?sa?, ds?? ?a? ??????t?, p??? ???????, and Steup ad loe, Denn., 321-3. The negation to which ?a? is opposed is not always fully expressed,



NOTES ON PLATO'S "

PHAEDRUS* '

267

e.g. Apol. 38e ?? ????e?? ???e?? p??? ???? t??a?ta ?G a? ???? ??? ?d?sta

?? ????e??????????t?? te ??? ?a? ?d???????? ?a? ???a p?????t?? ?a?

?????t?? p???? ?a? a????a ????, ?? ??? f???, ??a d? ?a? e???s?e ??e?? t?? ????? ????e?? (the first part of the sentence implies "you do

not hear such things from me"), Rep. 5g8e-9a de? d? ep?s???as?a?

p?te??? ????ta?? t??t??? ??t?? ??t????te? ???p?t??ta? ... ? t? ?a?

?????s?? (???p?t??ta? implies ??de? ?????s??), Horn, a 39? ?a^ ?e?

t??t' ???????? ???? ?e d?d??t?? ???s?a? (386-7 imply "you do not

want me to receive this"), Hdt. VIII ioo, 3 e? ??? ??? d???e?, a?t??a

pe????e?a t?? ?e??p????s??? e? d? ?a? d???e? ?p?s?e??, pa???e? p???e??

ta?ta (a?t??a pe????e?a implies ?? d???e? ?p?s?e??), Thuc. II 49> t

t? ?e? ??? ?t??, ?? ??????e?t?, ?? p??t?? ????sta d? e?e??? a??s??

?? t?? ???a? as?e?e?a? ?t???a?e? d? ? e? d? t?? ?a? p????a??? t?, ?? t??t?

p??ta ?pe????? (a??s?? implies ??t?? p????a???), Arist. ?.?. Ii6y b

21 ?p? t?? da?e??? ?? ??? ?fe????te? ??????ta? ?? e??a? ??? ?fe????s??, ?? d? da?e?sa?te? ?a? ?p??e????ta? t?? t?? ?fe????t?? s?t???a?

(??????ta? ?? e??a? implies ??? ?p??e????ta?). Similarly in the present

passage "Lysias is present" is opposed to Phaedrus* pretending that L. is not present, which is implied in the preceding words.

228 e 5: ?a?????e???. Not ?a?e???e??? (Stallbaum, Vollgraff). Cf. Phd. 59e e?s???te? ??? ?ate?a??????e? t?? S????t?, Arist. Nub.

1212 ???' e?s???? se ??????a? p??t?? ?st??sa?, K?hner-Gerth ?, 200.

229 a 4: d?. ?. Von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 59, wrongly takes this to be an interpolation. For ??? d?, cf. Denn., 243.

229 b 2*. ?ata??????a?. Not ?ata??????a? (Burnet). Cf. PhdT 117e

?ate?????, Arist. Lys. 904, Xen. Cyrop. VIII 7, 4, K?hner-Blass II,

462.

229 b 5: ?p? t?? ???ss??. Wrongly deleted by Vollgraff. Many

seeming interpolations in Plato are to be explained as cases of

epexegesis, e.g. Meno 70b ?? t?? s?? eta???? p???ta? ?a??sa???, Phd.

57a t?? p???t?? F?e?as???, Phdr. 247e ????? ???e???t? ???? ?eat?

?f, Prot. 342b p??ta? t??t? ?s??se??, t?? s?f?a?, Tim. 22d o? ??? ?? t??? ??es?? d?as????ta?, ???????? ????? te, Riddell, Digest of Idioms,

? 214.

229 c 2 : d?a?a????e?. Thompson suggests d?e?a????e? ; this is un-

necessary, for ?e????a may refer to ????? ??????.

229 c 2: t?? '???a?. Not ?? "???a? (Burnet). The gen. means



268 NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS"

"lying in", cf. Thuc. Ill 93 p??? t? ???a??? t?? ?????a?, K?hner-

Gerth I, 338, Schwyzer II, 114.

229 c 6 : o? s?f??. Why does Socrates criticize the allegorists?

Hackforth, p. 26: "in order to preclude any questions that might arise later on about the local divinities who inspire Socrates:

Phaedrus, and the reader too, are not to attempt to rationalise

what Plato makes Socrates say about them any more than they should rationalise the rape of Oreithuia". But this was not a real

danger. We should rather think of the subsequent myths on the

soul and on love. These will have to be interpreted allegorically, but Socrates already warns us that allegorical interpretation should

always be directed by self-examination (cf. 22ge-23oa, and Robin,

Notice, XXVIII). This point of view also connects the present

passage with the general theme of the dialogue, the true art of

rhetoric.

229 c 7 : e?ta. Thompson is right in putting a colon after e???. The meaning of e?ta seems to be "in that case", cf. T 23-26 ???'

dte d? ?a? ??? p??f??? e??????? e??ssa?, / a?t? ?e? ?a?? ???sa??' a?t? te ?a?ass?? / se???? ??? ?e? ?'pe?ta pe?? ???? ?????p??? / d?sa????. It is not necessary to alter e?ta into e?, as is suggested by P. Von

der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58-59, nor to add a? after fa???

(Schanz). Cf. Andoc. 4, 10 ??? a? ??a???se?e? ? pa??? ??????, ??a de p?????? ?pe??????? t?? p???t??, K?hner-Gerth ?, 249?

229 di.: ? . . . ??p?s??. Robin puts these words after b 5 ??p?- sa?, but they are absurd in the mouth of Phaedrus. Socrates adds

them in order to emphasize the uncertainty and unreliability of

mythological traditions.

229 d 6: ?a? ?p???e? d?. Not d? (Vollgraff). Cf. Gorg. 475a ?a? dta?

de d?, Denn., 202.

229 e 3? ?te ??????? t??? s?f?a ????e???. Not "with his somewhat

crude science" (Hackforth), "et cela en usant de je ne sais quelle

grossi?re sagesse" (Robin). The clause ?te . . . ????e??? explains the next words, p????? a?t? s????? de?se?. The art of allegorical

interpretation is still in its infancy, so that it works slowly and

laboriously.

229 e 6: d?. Not d? (Schanz, Vollgraff). For conclusive d?, cf.

Euthyd. 275b ?st? d? ????? f?????e?a d? pe?? a?t?, Denn., 238.



NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" 269

230 a 3: ?????? t??????. Not ?????? d? (Burnet). Cf. Laws 918c t? t? d?a?e?????? t?????e?, ?d??e?, K?hner- Gerth II, 67. Similarly

263 cu ????st?? t?? a?a??? t?????e? (Burnet ?e??st?? ov).

230 a 4? ?p?te????????. Not "puffed up with pride" (Hackforth), for this cannot be the contrary of ??e???, but "fierce", "passionate". Cf. Arist. Lys. 221 dp?? a? ???? ?p?t?f? ????sta ???. For the com-

parison of the passions with smoke, cf. the Homeric conception of

????? (Onians, Origins of European Thought, 44 ff.), and especially S HO (?????) a?d??? ?? st??ess?? ???eta? ??te ?ap??? (Onians, 52). For ??e??? as a characteristic of the philosopher, Rep. 410e t?

??e??? ??? ? f???s?f?? a? ?'??? f?s??; . . . ?'st? ta?ta. In this context

?p????, too, must be typical of the philosopher. So it cannot mean

"simple" as contrary to "complex" (Hackforth, Robin), but in the

sense of "straightforward". Cf. Rep. 361b t?? d??a??? . . . ??d?a ?p????, 382e ?p???? ?a? a?????, Crat. 4?5C t? a????? te ?a? t? ?p????

(ta?t?? ??? ?st??). For p???p????? = "crafty", "tortuous", cf.

Thgn. 67 d????? ?p?ta? te p???p????a? te, Arist. Thesm. 433"4 ??p? ta?t?? ????sa / p???p????t??a? ???a????.

230 a 5? ?e?a?. Not "whom heaven has blessed with a quiet,

un-Typhonic nature" (Hackforth). The word is meant to contrast

with the monstrosity of Typhon and probably alludes to the divine

nature of the philosopher. Cf. Rep. 5oocd ?e?? d? ?a? ??s??? d ?e

f???s?f?? ?????? ??s???? te ?a? ?e??? e?? t? d??at?? ?????p? ????eta?.

230 b ?: ?? ?e. The evidence for ?ste (Burnet) is too slight (Hdt. II 10, 1, Soph. Trach. 1220) to carry conviction.

230 c 2 : ?p??e? t? t?? tett???? ????. It is very improbable that

the place (t?p??) should "answer" the cicada-choir, for no other

sounds are mentioned. So ???? seems to be an instrumental dat. :

the place with its cicada-choir produces the music which accom-

panies the scenery mentioned before. The words ??????? and ?p??e?

clearly refer to the cicadas, cf. Hes. Op. 582-3 ???ta t?tt?? / de?-

d??? ?fe???e??? ??????? ?ata?e?et* ???d??, Ale. ? 23, 3> Theoer. 16,

96, Callim. frag, ?, 29-3??

230 c 3: ??a??. Usually translated by "thick enough", but p?a

may also mean "grassy place". In that case ??a?? means "sufficiently inclined" and the words ?? ??e?a p??s??te? are to be taken in a

causal sense; ?? properly denotes the circumstances in which the



270 notes on plato's "phaedrus

place is. Cf. Phd. 95a ?? t? ?a??????? ?a??t? ?p??????t?, Symp. i8ia

?? t? p???e?, ?? a? p?a???, t????t?? ap???, K?hner-Gerth ?, 4^5-

230 d ?: ?ste??. Not ?ste?? (Burnet). Cf. Meisterhans -Seh wyzer,

138.

230 d 6: o?. Not ?? p?????e? (Vollgraff). We should supply ????te? from a???s?. Cf. Thuc. II 86, 4 ????sa?t? ?a? a?t?? . . . epe?d? ?a?

t??? '????a???? e?d??, K?hner-Gerth ?, 5^5> Riddell, Digest of

Idioms, ? 246.

230 e 7: t??t?? ?e???????. Not ?e??????? t??t?? (Burnet), cf.

the literal repetition 262e, 263e. Burnet never got rid of his over-

estimation of the Bodl.

231 a 4: p??s??e?. It should be noted that p??s??e? here means

"there is reason", "it is to be expected" (properly "it belongs to"). The same meaning is to be assumed in 233 a 5 (not "it ought to be

for your betterment", Hackforth). Cf. Phd. 88b e? d? t??t? ??t??

??e?, ??de?? p??s??e? ???at?? ?a?????t? ?? ??? ????t?? ?a??e??,

Gorg. 479e t??t? p??s??e?? ????? e??a?.

231 C4* e? . . . dt?. Not "whether" . . . "because" (Robin), but

"if" . . . "that".

231 c 7: t????t??. Hackforth proposes t?s??t??, in view of 232 c 1. But t????t?? can have the meaning of "so glorious", "so

precious", cf. H 242 ???' ?? ??? s' ????? ?a??e?? t????t?? ???ta, Aesch. Eum. 867 t??a??' ???s?a? s?? p??est?? ?? ????, Hipp. mai.

281b t????t?? ???t??, ? * ?pp?a, ?'st? t? t? a???e?a s?f?? te ?a? t??e???

??d?a e??a?.

232 a 2: ?pa????a? t? ???e??. Not "will be proud to talk about it" (Hackforth), for in that case epa????a? would be followed by the

infin. alone. The meaning is "they will feel flattered by the fact that people speak about it" (cf. 231 e 4 p???????? t?? a????p??). ?a? before f???t?????????? has consecutive force. Cf. Prot. 342b

???pat??as?? t??? ?? ta?? p??es? ?a???????ta?, ?a? ?? ??? ?t? te

?at?????ta?, Symp. 208a a? ?p?st??a? ?? dt? a? ??? ??????ta? a? de ?p?????ta? ????, ?a? ??d?p?te ?? a?t?? ?s?e?, Hdt. VI 69, 4 ? ?*? ?? t?? ????? t??t?? ?????a?, ?a? t?? pat?? ?st? ?st???a??? ? ????, ? ???st??, Thuc. VI 36, ? ??t? ?a??? f????sa? ?a? ?p??e?????? ???? ?e??s?a?, Aen. Tact. 15, 5 ??> ?? ?? p?e?st?? p??e?d?s?? ?? ?p??ta? t? t?? p??e???? ?a? ??d?? e?a?f??? a?t??? p??sp?s?, S. Trenkner,



NOTES ON PLATO S "PHAEDRUS" 27I

Le style KAI dans le r?cit attigue oral (Brussels, 1948), 73-75.

232 b 7: ??????. The addition of a? (Burnet, Robin) is not cor-

rect, for ?????? ?atast??a? t?? s??f???? is not a possibility, but an

established fact.

233 a 2 : ta?ta ????e?a ?ata?e?f???a? t?? ?e????t?? ?ses?a?. The

combination ????e?a t?? ?e????t?? seems to be a contradiction,

but it is correctly explained by Thompson: "the memory of past

happiness is supposed to operate as an assurance of enjoyment to

come". The expression shows how much the Greeks were "in the grip of the past". Cf. ?. A. van Groningen, In theGrip of the Past (Leiden,

1953), who refers i.a. to the practice of recollecting the praise-

worthy examples of former generations (p. 7) and to the fact that

"to remember" sometimes becomes almost identical with "to take

care of" (p. 65).

233 b 6 : ?? t?? pa???sa? ?d???? ?e?ape??? s???s??a? s??, ???a

?a? t?? ??????sa? ?fe??a? ?ses?a?. Not seil, ?????, but a paradox: "The first clause is very ascetic and high-minded (no pleasure), while the second offers long-term benefits, plus a hint of present

pleasure after all" (G. E. Dimock, A.J.P. 73, 1952, 392, who refers

to Lys. 25, 13 ?? t??t?? ?????? p?ste?e??, ???a ?a? ?? t?? ?????

s??pe??, Soph. Ai. 1313* El. ?453> Thuc. IV 92, 4)?

233 d 4: ep?t?de???t??. Not "conduct" (Hackforth), "ways of

living" (Lidd.-Sc), "convenances", "pratiques" (Robin), but

"aspirations". Cf. 253a ta ?*?? ?a? t? ep?t?de??ata, Rep. 424^ t?

??? te ?a? t? ep?t?de??ata, Laws Jjod ?? t???? ep?t?de??at?? ? t????

?????.

233 d 6: ?a? t??? ??????. Not ??? t??? ?????? (Hackforth), for

t??? ?????? is a dat. limitationis: "in other respects". Cf. 23407

?pe?f??? t? te ???a ?a? t??? ????as?? e???s?a?, Lys. 215c ??? ?e d??

t??? ??apat??e?a; Rep. 43oa ?pa?de???e? ???s??? ?a? ????ast???, s 234 ?ty] f??te???, Hdt. ? 29 a??????sa? p???t?, Thuc. IV 73? 4 t? ?e?t?st? t?? ?p??t???? ??af???a?, K?hner-Gerth ?, 437"^,

Schwyzer ?, 167-8.

233e7: ???s?. Not p??sa?t??s? (Burnet, Hackforth), which is

pleonastic after sf?d?a de???????. The reading of ? p??se??s?

probably arose from parablepsis (p??s??e?).

234 ci: t? ?a??????t?. The reading of BW t? ???? ?a??????t?



272 NOTES ON PLATO S PHAEDRUS

adopted by Robin is impossible in this context. It is difficult to

decide whether the addition of ???? was accidental (dittography?) or intentional. In such cases we should bear in mind Jachmann's words: "Sinngebung des Sinnlosen ist eine unbillige und eitle Forde-

rung, aber Erkenntnis des Sinnlosen als unsinnig ist eine sehr

wichtige Aufgabe der Philologie, dazu eine h?chst unbeliebte"

{Der Piatontext, Nachr. Gott. 1941, 276-7).

234 e 3: ?e???. Not ??e??? (Hackforth), for ???a? often means

"important", cf. p 291 p??? d' ?'t? ?a? t?de ?e???? ??? f?es? ???e

???????, Rep. 347e p??? d? ??? d??e? ?e???? e??a? d ??? ???e? T?as?-

?a???, Symp. 195b t? ?e? ????st?? dt?, Lidd.-Sc, ? II, 4?

235 a 3: ?a? d? ?d?. Thompson rightly remarks that this is better

than ?a? ?d? (Burnet, Robin), because it explains the readings of the

MSS. d??a????, d??a??? ?d?. For d? ?d?, cf. Denn., 470.

235 e 2: ???s???. Not "as simple as a man of the Golden Age"

(Hackforth, referring to Arist. Nub. 398 ??????? d???), for (1)

???s??? never means "belonging to the Golden Age", (2) a reference

to the Golden Age would not be appropriate, for that age was not

a symbol of simplicity, but of antiquity and old-fashionedness

(cf. van Leeuwen's note on Nub. 398). So we should translate "a

fine fellow". Cf. Pind. Py. 3, 73 ???e?a? ???s?a?, Arist. Ran. 483 ? ???s?? ?e??, Antiphan. 212, 5 ???s??? ????, Luc?an. Laps, ? ??? d? ? ???s???.

236 b ? : t?? d? ???p??. The gen. depends on e?p??, cf. Rep. 439b t?? t???t?? ?? ?a??? ??e? ???e??, 459^ t'1 d? t?? Spp?? ??e?, K?hner-

Gerth ?, 363, Schwyzer ?, 132, ?. Nachmanson, ???G?? (Fest- schr. Nilsson, Lund, 1939), 310 ff. So it is unnecessary to delete t??de

(b 2), as is suggested by P. Von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 59.

236 c 2: ??a d? ??. This reading (?) is convincingly defended by Robin, Notice, XXXI, n. 1. Hackforth puts a full stop before

e??a????t?, but this involves an awkward asyndeton.

238 a 3 : p????e??? ?a? ?a? p???e?d??. Robin rightly adopts this

reading, for (1) it is supported by 265e ?at' e?d? d??as?a? d?a-

t???e?? ?at' ????a ? p?f??e? (cf. Phil. 14e e??st?? t? ???? te ?a?

??a ???? d?e??? t? ????, Polit. 287c, Tim. 76e, Laws 795e) ; (2) t??t?? t?? ?de?? refers to p???e?d??; (3) p????e??? does not occur in Plato and seems to be a creation of Aristotle.



NOTES ON PLATO S PHAEDRUS 273

238 b 4: t??t??. Not mase. (Hackforth) but neut.; ?a? before

ade?f?? is explicative ; ep??????? is a partitive gen. depending on t?? which is a possessive gen. depending on ????ata. The plural ????ata is not incorrect, for t?? is a collective sing.; ?e? is distributive, "in each case", wrongly translated by Robin as "sans rel?che", "constamment au pouvoir".

238 d 6 : ?s?? ?a? ?a? ?p?t??p??t? t? ?p???. The meaning of ?a?

is similar to that in 228 e 1: "Possibly it may still turn away"

(Dutch "nog wel"). The negation to which ?a? is opposed is implied in d 1-2 p??????? ???f???pt?? ?????a?. Cf. Phd. 62a (??d?? ?????a) ???a p?????e?s?a? ???, ef?? t??a ??? a? ?a? ????sa?? ("nog wel

eens").

239 a 6 t?? ??? ?des?a?. Burnet wrongly deletes t??. The gen. is partitive, cf. Soph. Phil. 715 p??at?? ?s??, ? 780 a?t?? ?pe?

t??p??e? ?d?t??? ?d? p?t?t??, K?hner-Gerth ?, 335?

239 b 8: e??. The addition of a? (Burnet, Robin) is not necessary, cf. Lys. 2I4d d d? a?t? a?t? ???????? e?? ?a? d??f????, s???? ?? t?

???? d????? ? f???? ?????t?, Rep. 437 b p??ta t? t??a?ta t?? e?a?t???

???????? ?e???, Phd. J2b p??ta ????? t?? ??d?????a ?p?de??e?e?,

Antiph. ?, 25 ?a? ??? d??a??te??? ?a? ?s??te??? ?a? p??? ?e?? ?a?

p??? a????p?? ??????t? ????, Hyper. Epit. 20 t? a? s?????a? ???????-

?e?, Xen. Anab. IV 6, 13 ?????e? ??? a?t?? ?????? a????? ?? p???????, Mem. ? 2, 34 d???? dt? ?fe?t??? e?? t?? ????? ???e??, Tucker on Ran.

97, K?hner-Gerth I, 230, Schwyzer ?, 325, ?. Hess, Textkrit. u.

erkl. Beitr. ?. Epitaphios des Hyp. (Leipzig, 1938), 65, Humbert,

Synt. grecque2, 120.

239 c 4: ?d. The antecedent is ??t?? (? e???????), not s??at??

(Robin).

239 c 4 : ?d?. For the omission of the article, cf. Mnemos. IV 8

(1955), 206.

239 c 5: ?f??seta? d?. Not d? (Burnet, Hackforth: "of course"), cf. Denn., 170: "d? sometimes marks the transition from the intro-

duction to a speech to the opening of the speech proper".

239 c 7: ?p? s?????e? s??^. Hackforth: "one who has had a

cosy, sheltered upbringing instead of being exposed to the open air". But s?????e? s???, too, refers to the open air; "indoors" is ??

s??$ (Xen. Symp. 2, 18, Cyneg. 3, 3).




239 e 3: ????sta d? t? e?ast?. This seems to be an interpolation

by someone who did not understand the ??? solitarium after pa?t?.

Cf. ??? solit. after ???a?, d???, e???e (Denn., 382).

239^6: d??a?t?. Not "want" (Hackforth), but "enjoy seeing". Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1653 de???????? ???e?? ?a?e?? s?, Hdt. IX 91, 2 d?-

???a? t?? ??????.

240 c ?: ?????. Not ???e? ????? (Vollgraff), cf. Aesch. Suppl. 230

?? ?????, Eur. ? er ad. 34-35 ped?a ??? t?sde ?????? / d?ss??? ?at??-

?e?? T?s??? pa?da? ?????, Plato Phil. 65c ?? d? ?????.

240 d 3' ?e?' ?d????. Not ?d???? (pap., Robin), which seems to

be an assimilation to d ? ?d????.

241 a 2: ?eta?a??? ????? ?????ta. Not ?eta?a??? (Coisl., Thomp-

son), for ????? is proleptic. Cf. Rep. 424c e?d?? ?a???? ???s????

?eta????e??, Eur. I.A. 343 ?eta????e?? ?????? t??p???, K?hner-

Gerth II, 563. Robin wrongly puts a semicolon before ?eta?a???, but in his second translation {Piaton. Oeuvres compl?tes) he seems

to have withdrawn this view. The words ???? ?a? s?f??s???? do not

mean "wisdom and temperance" (Hackforth) but "sense and

sanity". Cf. J. Tate, CR. 69 (1955), 158, who rightly remarks that

these terms are here to be taken in a popular, non-philosophical sense.

241 b 3 : ?peste?????. For the absolute use of ?p?ste???, cf.

Arist. Nub. 487 ???e?? ??? ??? ?'?est', ?p?ste?e?? d' ???. ?. Von der

M?hll, Phil. 93 (1938), 490, wrongly suggests ?fest????.

241 d 4: se ?es??? a?t??. Not ?e ?es??? a?t?? (Burnet), for ????? can hardly be the subject of ??e?? (Stallbaum's parallels are not

convincing). For the gen., cf. Rep. 618b t? d? ?a? ?es??? t??t??, Hdt. I 181, 4 ?es???t? d? ??? t?? ??a??s???.

242 a 4 '

? d? ?a????e?? sta?e??. This is doubtless a gloss on

?stata?. Grammatically it could be an epexegesis (cf. 229 b 5 ?p?

t?? ???ss??), but it sounds too pedantic.

242 a 6: t??a ?pe?d?? ?p????? ??e?. Not "perhaps" (Hackforth) but "presently" (Stallbaum, who refers to Gorg. 450c t??a d?

e?s??a? saf?ste???). Cf. 228 c 4 dpe? t??a p??t?? p???se?. Thompson, Lidd.-Sc, Robin take t??a ?pe?d?? to be equivalent to ?pe? t???sta, but there is no parallel for this.

242 b 8 : t? da??????? te ?a? t? e????? s??e???. Wilamowitz {Platon




II* 363) deletes t? . . . ?a?: "Platon konnte hier unm?glich das

Daimonion von dem gewohnten Zeichen unterscheiden". But te

?a? has explanatory force, cf. 251 a 7 ?eta???? te ?a? ?d??? ?a?

?e???t??, Ale. I iioa ???te?? te ?a? ??? f?? e?d??a?, Gor g. 460? e?? ? p??t?? t? p??t??? ???ta? te ?a? ?d???, ? 121 p?????? ???

?e??e? te ?a? ??? ????e? p???es?a?, Soph. El. 873"4 f??? ??? ?d???? te ????pa??a? ?? / p?????e? e??e? ?a? ?at?ste?e? ?a???, Thuc. II

2, 3 ?t? ?? e????? te ?a? t?? p?????? ??p? fa?e??? ?a?est?t??.

242 c 2: ?a. Not e?a (Hackforth), for ? ?e ??? ?a is equivalent to

? e?pe? dt? ?e ??? ?a, and the pr?s, has been taken over from direct

speech (cf. K?hner-Gerth II, 360-1).

242 c 3: ??. Burnet unnecessarily adds d?.

243 a 7: ???? t?? a?t?a? ?a? p??e? e????. Not ?p??e? (Richards,

Vollgraff), cf. Eur. Ale. 176 ??ta??a d? 'd????se ?a? ???e? t?de, K?hner-Gerth ?, ?33~4?

243 d6: ?? t?? ??????. Fraenkel (on Ag. 1423) rightly argues that this does not mean " other things being equal" (Hackforth) but "corresponding to the action of the other side".

244 c 5 : ?pe? ?a?. Not "la preuve en est aussi", "a preuve encore"

(Robin), for there is only one proof. ?a? emphasizes ?pe? (Dutch: "dan ook"), cf. Euthyd. 287a pe???? ?a? ?p???????, epe?d? ?a?

??????e?? ?e s?f?? e??a?, Denn., 297? Similarly d?? ?a?, e.g. 258 e 4?

244 c 5: ??f?????. Wilamowitz {Platon II, 363) is right in omit-

ting the comma after ??f????? (p?????e??? seil, ??t?s??).

244 e 8: ???*?. Not "rationalit?", "sagacit?" (Robin), for ???? is

"to realize that something {i.e. the s??e?a) is something definite".

244 d 6: ??. Not ?? ??, ???? (Hackforth) or e?? (Robin), but an

ellipse of ??. This ellipse is also found in relative clauses, cf. Thuc.

II 97> 5 t?? ?^? ?? t? ????p? {seil, ?as??e???) dsa? ?eta?? t?? ??????

???p?? ?a? t?? ???e???? p??t?? ?e??st? ????et?, K?hner-Gerth I, 41?

244e 2 : t?? ea?t?? ????ta. Burnet wrongly brackets ea?t??, which is a partitive gen. Cf. Soph. O.R. 708-9 est? s?? / ???te??? ??d?? ?a?t???? ???? t?????, K?hner-Gerth ?, 345> Schwyzer, II, 104.

245 a 4 ? t?? pa?a??? ???a ??s???sa, Hackforth wrongly takes

this to refer to the e?????a t??? ??a???? admitted by Plato in his

ideal state {Rep. 607a). The political point of view is here entirely absent. Plato speaks of poetry in general and merely states its edi-




tying influence without passing judgment on it. So he should not be

supposed to regard the inspired poet as "the instrument of a divine

pa?de?a" (Hackforth), an idea which seems to me to be un-Platonic.

245 a 5: ?p? p???t???? ???a?. Not "to the gates of poetry" (Hack-

forth), but "to gates of poetry", i.e., to some kind of poetry.

245 a 7: ate???. It appears from this sentence that Plato re-

cognises the existence of good poetry. This seems to be contradicted

by his critical attitude towards poetry adopted in the Republic. Hackforth contents himself with the assumption that "Plato him-

self is a compound of rationalist and poet, and that ... in the Phae-

drus the poet definitely gets the upper hand". I have criticized

this explanation and attempted another solution of the paradox in my article "Platon et la po?sie", Mnemos. Ill 12 (1944), 118-150.

24505: ?e?????t??. Not a?t?????t?? (Robin). Hackforth rightly defends ?e?????t??. Cf. also C. Diano, Par. Pass. 2 (1947), 189-92, who adds some important arguments (see infra). The demonstration

proceeds through the following stages: (1) What is immortal must

be ever in motion. (2) What is ever in motion must move itself.

(3) What moves itself must be animate. It follows that d? in c 6

cannot be adversative (Hackforth: "but"), but must be progressive

(Diano), cf. d ? a??? d?, d 7 t??t? d?. Stress should be laid on ?a?

?p ????? ??????e???: "and that (Dutch: "en wel") being moved by

something else", i.e. "because it is moved by something else".

Cf. Rep. 426a ?at?e???e??? ??? ??d?? pe?a????s??, p??? ?e p??????te?a ?a? ?e??? p????s? t? ??s??ata, ?a? ?e? ??p????te?, ?a? t?? f???a???

s??????e?s?, ?p? t??t?? ?'ses?a? ???e??, Thuc. ? ?, ? T????d?d?? ???-

?a??? ??????a?e t?? p??e??? . . . ?????e??? e???? ?a??sta????? ?a?

??p?sa? ???a? ?'ses?a?, IV 66, 3 ??????e??? ??d???a? t?? p???? ?a? ????-

???te? ???ss? sf?s? t?? ???d???? ? t??? ??pes??ta? ?p? sf?? ?ate??e??,

J. Ros, Die ???????? {Variatio) als Stilprinzip des Thuk.

(Nijmegen, 1938), 89 ff. ?? in c 7 is not consecutive but emphatic

(Diano). We should put a full stop after ??????e??? in c8: with

???a begins a new argument which is meant to show that the self-

mover not only never perishes through itself (because it cannot

abandon its own nature) but also never perishes through something else (because as the first principle of movement it is imperishable)

(Diano).




245 d 3 : ?? a???? ??????t?. Not et? a??? ??????t? (Burnet, Hack-

forth). The subject of ??????t? is p?? t? ??????e???, and a??? is not a

principle, but the first principle of all things. It is very improbable that ?t? ??????t? = ?t? e??, for ??????a? in this context means "to

come to be".

245 e ?: ???es??. Not ??? e?? ?? (Burnet), for ???es?? here (and Tim. 29e) =t? ??????e?a, and ???a??? = universe (Lidd.-Sc, I 4,

Robin, Notice, LXXXI n. i):

246 a 3 : ?d?a?. In 245 c 2 Socr. announces his exposition as

????? f?se?? p???. It is not correct to interpret f?s?? as "quality" and ?d?a as "essence", as is suggested by A. de Marignac, Imagina- tion et dialectique (Paris, 1951), 141 -4. The ?d?a is the form in which

the nature (f?s??) of the soul manifests itself; so the words are

practically synonymous.

246 a 6: ????? t? d?. This is better than ?????t? (Burnet, Hack-

forth). Denn., 213 gives examples of d? t?? ?quidam, and notes

that "there is a meaning air of mystery about most of these".

This shade is especially appropriate to the present passage. For d?

following t??, cf. Laws 803 e pa????ta ?st?? d?a???t??? t???? d? pa?d???.

246 a 8: ?? ??????. Not "compos?s de bons ?l?ments" (Robin), for "the phrase became stereotyped, and often meant no more than

'wholly good' "

(Hackforth, who refers to Arist. Ran. 731 p?????? ??? p??????).

246 b ? : ?a? p??t??. For the explanatory force of ?a?, cf. Io 538 b

t? d? d? dta? '?????? ???? ?? tet?????? t? ?a????? ??a??d? ?

??st???? pa??a?? ???e??a p??e?? d?d?s?; ?a? ???e? p?? ??t??, Lach.

191b t?? ???e?a? ?at? t??t' ??e????ase, ?at? t?? t?? f???? ?p?st????, ?a? e?pe? a?t?? e??a? ??st??a f?????, Prot. 317b ^?? ?^? t??t?? t?? ??a?t?a? ?pasa? ??????a, ?a? ??????? te s?f?st?? e??a?, 338 a ?? ?d?

p???sete ?a? pe??es?? ???, Phd. 6lb ??? p???e????? e???? ??????, ?a?

?p?st???? t??? ??s?p??, 84a ??t? ????sa?t' a? ???? a?d??? f???s?-

f??, ?a? ??? a? ????e?? t?? ??? f???s?f?a? ????a? a?t?? ??e??, Horn.

? ??4"5 ?^? d? ?a??? ?p?t?? ????e?sat?, ?a? ?e ?e?e?e? / d?s???a

"????? ???s?a?, Archil. 58, 4~5 p???? ????eta? ?a??, / ?a? ???? ?????

p?a??ta?, Aesch. Prom. 782-4 t??t?? s? t?? ??? t?de, t?? d* ????

????? / ??s?a? ????s??, ??d' ?t???s?? ?????? / ?a? t?de ??? ?????e

t?? ???p?? p?????, Thuc. VI 76, 2 ????s? . . . d?????a, ?? p??te? ?p?-



278 notes on Plato's "phaedrus"

?????e?, ?a? ??? d????s?? ?? ?e??t????? ????es?a? ?at????sa?, Xen. An.

I 4, 18 ?d??e? d? ?e??? e??a?, ?a? saf?? ?p?????sa? t?? p?ta??? ????

?? ?as??e?s??t?, S. Trenkner, Le style ???, 64-66.

246 e 3' ?a? t??? ??a?t????. For ?a? = "and generally", cf. 253 b 3

?p??????? te ?a? e??st?? t?? ?e??, 278c S????? ?a? dst?? ?? p???t?????

??????, Phd. 74^ ?? t??? ?????? te ?a? ??? ??? d? ??????e? t??? ?s???,

The 145a ?a? ast????????? ?a? ????st???? te ?a? ???s???? ?a? dsa pa?-

de?a? ??eta?, Mnemos. IV 7 (?954?)> 38.

247 a 8 : p??? da?ta ?a? ?p? ??????. This is not pleonastic (Hack- forth: "they go to their feasting and banquet"), for ?p? expresses an end in view: "in order to feast". Cf. ? 439 ?p? d??p?? a??st?,

Symp. 174e ????e?? ?p? de?p???.

247 b 2: ?s????p??. Not to be connected with p??e?eta? (Lidd.-

Sc), but with e????a d?ta. Robin takes it in a causal sense ("faciles ? mener en raison de l'?quilibre de l'attelage"), for which there

seem to be no parallels. We should rather take it proleptically, cf.

K?hner-Gerth ?, 115: "Nicht selten werden die Folgen einer

Handlung mit energischer K?rze als ein Merkmal (Attributiv) der

Handlung durch ein Adverb statt eines konsekutiven Nebensatzes

ausgedr?ckt". Cf. Thuc. I 21, ? t? p???? ?p? ?????? ?p?st?? ?p? t?

????de? ???e??????ta, Laws 752^> e?????? ?a? ?f???? ?pe????? ??d??s?.

?????et???e?.

247 b4* f?? Not ?? (Burnet), for the conj. without ?? is ad-

missible in poetical prose. Cf. Laws 737b ??? ? pa?a?? e?????ata,

629e ?? ?? t????s?s??.

247c5: pe?<? a???e?a?. Not "truth" (Hackforth), but "the true na-

ture of things". Cf. d 4 ?e????sa t?????, 248 b 6 t? a???e?a? ped???.

248 a 2: ?e??? ep?????. Not ?e? ep????? ?a? e??as???? (Burnet,.

Hackforth). Wilamowitz {Platon ?, 363) rightly remarks: "Hier

kommt es auf die ?hnlichkeit der Seele mit der Gottheit, der sie be-

sonders folgt, gar nicht an . . . und an der ?hnlichkeit liegt es auch

gar nicht, wenn die Seele folgen kann". His explanation ("Diese

?nderung und dieser Zusatz werden doch wohl christlich sein") has been superseded by Jachmann {Der Piatontext, 310), who

points out that ?e? and e??as???? are anticipations of 248 c and

252 d added by an ancient reviser in order to make the text more

interesting.




248 b 4: p???? ????sa? p????. Not "accabl?es de fatigue" (Robin), but "for all their toiling" (Hackforth). The partie, is of the imperi., cf. t 253-4 ??^ ^? d? ?101* ?e^?e> p???? pe? ??? e?ee????, / ?? ?e?????s??

????s? f???? t ?s?, Hes. Op. 292 ???d?? d? ?pe?ta p??e? ?a?ep? pe? ???sa (not "hard though it may still be", Sinclair, or "pour difficile

qu'il soit", Mazon, but "though before that she was hard", Evelyn-

White), Hdt. VII 237, 2 t??s? ?e???????s? p??te???, K?hner-Gerth I,

200, Schwyzer II, 297.

24806: ?a? t???. P. von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58,

suggests ?, because in 250 a 2-4 the souls which had the vision but

for a short time are distinguished from those which are affected

by forgetfulness. The two passages, however, are not strictly pa-

rallel, for in 248c oblivion takes place before they are on earth, whereas in 250a it is caused by falling into bad company. So the

latter oblivion seems to be a secondary and additional one.

248 c 7: ?a??a?. Not "wrongdoing" (Hackforth), "perversion", "m?chancet?" (Robin), but "weakness'. Cf. b 4 ?a??a ??????? which is rightly explained by Hackforth as "imperfect functioning". Plato does not know a Fall in the moral or biblical sense, cf. R.

Schaerer, Dieu, G homme et la vie d'apr?s Platon (Neuch?tel, 1944),

180-3, Id., La repr?sentation mythique de la chute et du mal, Diogene

n, July 1955, 1-31, esp. 16 ff.

248 d 6: f???p???? ????ast????. Burnet wrongly inserts ? after

f???p????. It appears from Rep. 536 d that ????ast???? is a ne-

cessary specification of f???p????. Cf. also Gorg. 464b t?? t??

s??at?? ?e?ape?a? d?? ????a ????, t?? ??? ????ast????, t?? d? ?at?????, Prot. 313d, Soph. 228e, Polit. 295c.

249 a 2 : ? pa?de?ast?sa?t??. Hackforth rightly remarks that this

person is identical with t?? f???s?f?sa?t?? ?d????. For ? = "or

in other words", cf. Prot. 313a ??s?a e?? ???? t??a ???d???? ?'??? ?p?-

??s?? t?? ?????; ? e? ?e? ?t?., Rep. 335a ?e?e?e?? d? ???? p??s?e??a?

tf d??a?? ?, ?? t? p??t?? ??????e?, ?t?., 349e p?e??e?te?? ? ??????

p???? ??e??, Phd. 85a ?p? ?e?a??te??? ????at?? ? ????? ?e??? t????

d?ap??e????a?.

249^4* ap???eta?. Not "speeds away" (Hackforth), "s'?loig- nent" (Robin), but "goes back". Cf. 248 e 5 e?? ??? ??? t? a?t?

d?e? ??e?.



28o notes on Plato's "phaedrus"

249 b 7: ?at' e?d?? ?e???e???. Not "selon ce qu'on appelle Id?e"

(Robin), but "something that is expressed according to Form",

i.e., "things expressed in general terms". The partie, is used sub-

stanti vely, cf. Lys. 221 a ?st?? pe????ta ???ptes?a?, 213c dta? ? ??

f????? t?? f??? ? ?a? f????? ??s?, Soph. O.R. 5*6-7 pep?????a? /

?????s?? e?t' ?????s?? ?? ?????? f????, K?hner-Gerth ?, 36, 608-9,

Schwyzer II, 408-9. The sing, ?e???e??? is used in a generic sense,

as is often the case with t??, e.g. Rep. 344b ?pe?d?? d? t?? . . . d????-

s?ta?, . . . e?da????e? ?a? ?a?????? ??????ta?, K?hner-Gerth ?, 54? So it is unnecessary to insert t? before ?at' e?d?? (Hackforth).

249 b 7: ???. Hackforth accepts Badham's ???ta, because "it is

the man, not the e?d??, who proceeds from a plurality to a unity". But the subject of ??? is not e?d?? but a ?e???e???, which is much the

same as a ?????, and it is this ????? which proceeds from a number

of perceptions to a concept.

249 d 6 : pte??ta? te ?a?. Robin puts te ?a? after ??apte????e???, L. Reinhard, Die Anakoluthe bei Piaton (Berlin, 1920), 179, inserts

p??????ta? ??apt?s?a? after ??apte????e???, and P. von der M?hll, Phil. 93 (1938), 490-1, inserts ? after a?e???, but we had better

admit the anacoluthon. The participles ??apte????e??? p???????-

?e??? do not form an asyndeton, for p???. explains ??apt. Cf. Apol.

31a ??e?? d' ?s?? t??' a? ?????e??? . . . ????sa?te? ?? ?e pe????e??? ???t? ?ad??? ?? ?p??te??a?te, K?hner-Gerth II, 104.

250 a 7 ? ?????' a?t?? ??????ta?. Burnet ?? a?t??, cf. Charm.

I55d ????t' ?? ??a?t?? ??. But cf. Soph. O.C. 659-60 ? ???? dta?

a?t?? ????ta?.

250 e 4^ ?a??e??. "Mount", and not "go after the fashion of"

(Hackforth), or is this an euphemism?

251 a 2: ? t??. ?. Alline, Rev. Philol. 34 (1910), 284 defends the

reading of the pap. ? by referring to 250 e ? ?? ?e?te??? ? d?ef?a?-

?????. He is followed by P. Friedl?nder, Platon I (Berlin, 1928), 226 n. 2, and P. von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58. But in 250e

? expresses a dilemma, for d?ef?a?????? does not refer to a "cor-

ruption originelle qui n'a pas permis de contempler les id?es", as is assumed by Alline, but to corruption ?p? t???? ??????? (250 a 3). The present passage, on the other hand, cannot involve such a

dilemma. So ? seems to be an attempt to assimilate the two passages.




251 a 6: ???? ??. For the opt. instead of the impf., cf. Prot. 343c

?a????? ?? fa?e??, e? . . . ????a?e, K?hner-Gerth II, 471"2? wno

wrongly suspect this construction in Attic prose, Stahl, Syntax d. gr. Verb., 408.

251 b6: ?p? p?? t? t?? ????? e?d??. Not "over the whole sub-

stance of the soul" (Hackforth) or "dans tout l'int?rieur de la

nature de l'?me" (Robin), but "under the surface of the soul",

e?d?? being the outward appearance. Cf. 249b ?? ?????p?? e?de?,

246b ????te ?? ?????? e?des? ?????????.

251 c 3? pe?? t? ???a. Wrongly deleted by Robin.

252 a 5: ???ta. Not ???ta (Burnet), not "l'amour des beaux

gar?ons" (Robin), for ???? here means "beloved" (cf. Pind. ? em. 11,

48, Luc?an. Tim. 14, and supra 252 a 7 p????), so that t?? ?a???

is a partitive gen.

252 e 7 : ??e???s?e??. Depends on ???e???te? (Thompson, Hack-

forth), and not on e?p????s? (Robin), as appears from the position of e?p????s?.

253 a 6: ?*?? Not ??? (Hackforth), for the passage 252 e 5-

253 a 6, although it starts from a special case, the followers of

Zeus, develops into a general consideration, so that Socrates now

takes up his thread. Accordingly we should put a full stop or a

semicolon after ??ap?s?. This interpretation also disposes of Ro-

bin's objection (in a note to his second translation): "pourquoi revenir, une fois de plus sur l'influence de ce Dieu?" (he proposes to read ?????s??). His second objection, "pourquoi la pens?e de

Zeus appellerait-elle l'image des Bacchantes ?", has been sufficiently refuted by Hackforth: "The point is that in both sorts of divine

madness the immediate subject of possession 'infects' another or

others" (Burnet's comma after ????a? should be removed).

253 b 4: ???te?. Hackforth suggests p??te?, because "a com-

parison with A 1 and ? ? makes it highly probable that ?at? t??

?e?? t?? sf?te??? go together". But pa?da cannot be left undefined.

253 e ?: p????. Not "massif" (Robin), but to be taken predi-

catively with s??pef???????? (Hackforth). Cf. p???? ??e??, p????

p??e??, etc. (Lidd.-Sc, I 2c).

253 e 3: ?fa????. Not "hot-blooded" (Lidd.-Sc, Hackforth), but

"with bloodshot eyes" (Thompson).

Mnemosyne VIII 20




253 e 4: ??f??. This is almost certainly a gloss on pe?? ?ta

??s???.

253 e 4: ??st??? ?et? ???t???. Not "le fouet garni de pointes"

(Robin), but = ?a? ???t???? (so Robin in his second translation,

Hackforth). Cf. 255 b 7 ?et? t?? ?ptes?a?, 27608 ?et? ?????, Tim. 60a t? t?? ????? ?et? t?? s??at?? ?e??a?t??? ?, Phd. 66 b

?et? t?? ????? (Mnemos. IV 6, 1953? 92)?

253 e 5: ? ???t???? d??a. Not "love-inspiring spectacle" (Thomp-

son), "l'amoureuse apparition" (Robin), but "the person of the

beloved" (Hackforth). For ???a = "dear person", cf. Aesch. Cho.

238 ? te?p??? ???a, Soph. Ai. 977 ???a???? d??a, Arist. Ach. 1184 ? ??e???? ???a.

253 e 6: a?s??se?. Hackforth rightly remarks that this cannot

mean "at (or by) the perception", which would require the definite

article, and that a?s??se? d?a?e??a??e?? is equivalent to a?s??s??

?e???t?t?? ??p??e??. Yet this is not "a bold phrase", for a????se?. is a modal dat., cf. Aesch. Prom. 384 t?de t? ??s? ??se??, Soph. O.C. 659 ???? ?at?pe???sa?, El. 650 ??sa? ???a?e? ???, Thuc. V 13, ?

t?? te '????a??? ?ss? ?pe??????t??.

254 a4: p??ta. "All possible", cf. E 60 da?da?a p??ta, ? 292 ??

p??tess? d????s?, Rep. 474e p?sa? p??f?se??, Arist. Poet. 1447 ^

22 ?? ap??t?? t?? ??t???.

254?>4: ????? Not "sPectacle" (Hackforth, Robin), but "face", as appears from ??t??pt??sa?. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 356 ?? ????t?? d' ?st?apte ?????p?? s??a?, Xen. Cyneg. VI 15 ?st??pt??sa? t???

???as??, Mosch. 2, 86.

255 c 7: a?apt???sa?. Not a?ap????sa? (Robin), ??G??apte??? =

"excite erotically". Cf. Hdt. II 115, 4 ??apte??sa? a?t?? ???ea? ????.

256 c 4 : a??es?? e???t?? ?a? d?ep???a?t?. Thompson rightly adopts the reading of the MSS.: a??es?? = "thing chosen", "course of ac-

tion", cf. Aeschin. 2, 11 ? a??es?? t?? p?es?e?a? (Lidd.-Sc, II i); that a??es?? has this concrete sense also appears from c 5 ????ta?.

a?t?. For the coupling of dual and plural, cf. Prot. 317e ????te t??

???d????, ??ast?sa?te? ?? t?? ??????, K?hner-Gerth ?, 73?

256dl: ????????. Cannot be connected with d?a???s? (Robin),, for "to live for some one" = p??. So a comma should be put after

e?e????.




257 b ? : ap????. Not ?p???? (Burnet, Hackforth) : ap???? here

has the meaning of "shocking" (properly: "giving rise to an

ungentle reaction"). Cf. Arist. Nub. 974 dp?? t??? ????e? ??d??

de??e?a? ap???? (v. Leeuwen ??e????).

257 c 3: e?? ??a ?a? ??e??s?. "If he still wants": b 2 ??s?a? . . .

pa?e t?? t????t?? ????? implies ??? ??e??se?. Cf. supra, on 228 e ?.

257 c 8: ?a?- Not "and" (Hackforth), but "for" (t? d???a is

Lysias' possible resolution to desist from further composition). We should put a comma after ???e??. See supra, on 246 b 1.

258 a 9: ????? s???e??a??????. Not "composing a speech" (Hack-

forth), but "un discours couch? par ?crit" (Robin). 260 b 7: ????? ?pa????. Robin puts a comma after ?????, but

?pa???? seems to be used attributively. Cf. Symp. 177a d??e? ???

??? ????a? ??ast?? ???? ????? e?pe?? ?pa???? ???t?? ep? de??? ??

?? d???ta? ?????st?? (where Robin does not put a comma), Thuc. I

122, 3 t??a???? p????, K?hner-Gerth I, 272-3. 260 b 8: ?p? st?at???. Not st?ate?a? (Robin). Cf. Arist. Lys. 100

?p? st?at??? ?p??ta?, ?. Leeuwen on Vesp. 354? Andoc. 2, 14 o?

?p? st?at??? ??te?.

26? c 6 : a?a??? ?a? ?a???. For the omission of the article, see

supra, on 239 c 4. 260 d 6: e? t?? ??? s???????. Not t? (Burnet, Robin), for in that

case Plato would have written ? ???. The meaning is: "if there is

(given) some advice on my part".

263 a 3 : t?? t????t??. Richards' ?????t?? adopted by Hackforth

is unnecessary, for t????t?? = "such as I am thinking of". Cf.

Phd. 73c ??' ??? ?a? t?de ?????????e?, dta? ep?st??? pa?a?????ta?

t??p? t????t?, ??????s?? e??a?; ???? d? t??a t??p??; t??de, Rep.

488a ???s?? ??? t????t??? ?e???e??? . . . ?a??????? ?t?., K?hner-

Gerth ?, 646.

263 c ? : e?d??. Seems to be an interpolation, for ?a??? e?d??

cannot be "practically equivalent to ?a??? t? (p????a)" (Hack-

forth). For ?a??? used substantively, cf. 238 e 5 ??e?tt?? (Vollgraff t? ??e?tt??), 241 c 6 t????te??? (Vollgraff inserts ??d??), Symp. 175a ?t?p?? ?', ?f?, ???e??, Tim. 43c ste?e? ??? (Proclus adds p??? which

has been adopted by Burnet and Wilam. II, 344), Aesch. Prom. 871

sp???? ?e ??? ?? t?sde f?seta? ??as?? (Groeneboom sp????), Hdt.




I 84, 3 ?p??a??? t?? ????p????? (Kr?ger's deletion of t? ?????? has been accepted by Hude and Legrand), K?hner-Gerth I, 268.

263 c 4: ?a????e??. For the meaning "fail to see" (properly a re-

flexive), cf. The. 164 d ?a??????e? ta?ta ??e????? t??? de????? ??d??s??

p?????te?, Hdt. ? 44> 2 f???a t?^ p??d?? ?????a?e ??s???, Lidd.-Sc,

A 2 b.

263 C9? s??????sa?. Not ??????sa? (Burnet, Robin), for s???. = "to be possible". Cf. Thuc. V 40, 3 dp? ?? ???????, Xen. De re

eq. 9, il e? s????????.

265 d 5: t? ???d?. Hackforth adopts Schanz's t? for t?, but the

text can be translated as it stands: "the things said about love, what it is if defined". We might expect ???s?e??, but this has been

assimilated to the gender of the predicate d, because the definition

consists in the predicate. 266 b 6: pef????. Not pef????' (Burnet, Hackforth), for this

could hardly mean "existing objectively" (Hackforth) or "as they exist in nature" (Thompson). Robin rightly defends pef???? by

referring to Phil. 15e, i6e {Notice, CLIV n.) and translates "une

unit? et qui soit l'unit? naturelle d'une multiplicit?". This is called

by Hackforth "very difficult Greek". But ?a? has explanatory force

(Dutch "en wel"), cf. Phd. 58d pa??s?? t??e?, ?a? p????? ?e, 63c

e?e?p?? e??? e??a? t? t??? tete?e?t???s?, ?a? . . . p??? a?e???? t???

??a???? ? t??? ?a????, Hdt. ? 52 ?e??e?a ?? T???s?, ?a? T????? ?? t?

??? t?? ?s?????? '?p???????, ? 102, 2 ???? d?? ta?ta ???ea, ?a?

a?f?te?a ?s????, Thuc. V 26, 5 ?e?????? pa?' ??f?t????? t??? p???-

?as?, ?a? ??? ?ss?? t??? ?e??p????s???, VI 20, 3 e?s?? ept?, ?a?

pa?es?e?as???a?, Arist. Metaph. 1046 a 23 p?s?e? t? p?s??? ?a?

???? ?p' ????? (for more examples, Verdenius-Waszink, Aristotle

On Coming-to-be and Passing-away, 30-31), Dem. 32, ? ?? ????? ?e?e???s?? . . . t?? d??a? e??a? . . . t?? ????a?e ?a? t?? ??????e?

s?????a???, ?a? pe?? ?? ?? ?s? s????afa?, Aen. Tact. 15, 4 p?????

??p??pe?? ?a? ?? t??e?. See also supra, on 245 c 5. 266 c 6 : ?a???ta?. Hackforth rightly argues (against Robin and

others) that this is the subject of ?a?e??.

266 d 7: ?a? ?a???. Burnet brackets ?a?, but cf. Rep. 394d

ta?t? ?t???. ?a? ?a??? ?', ?f?, ???e??. Denniston (158) classes the

present passage under the meaning "actually", but it seems more




natural to take ?a? . . . ?e in the sense of "yes, and". Cf. Arist.

Ran. 49 ??a?????sa?; ?a? ?ated?sa??? ?e ?a??, and ?. Leeuwen ad

loe.

267 bio: ??. This can hardly mean "par exemple" (Robin). Hackforth prefers to excise it, but we may assume an ellipse of

e??e? (cf. a 4, b 3). 268 a 2: t??a ?a? p?t?. Not ?a? p?te (Burnet, Robin), for "id

Phaedri responsioni non bene convenit, quae ita haec potius esse

debuit: ????????? ?a? ?? p?????? s???d???" (Stallbaum). Cf. Eur.

Tro. 1188-9 t? ?a? p?t? / ????e?e? ?? se; Arist. Lys. 836 t?? ?a?

est?? p?t?; Pax 1289 t?? ?a? p?t' e?;

268 a 2 : t?? t?? t?????. Robin puts a comma before t?? and after

t?????, and translates "du point de vue de l'art", "j'entends la

vertu qui est celle que poss?de l'art", but this is a strange kind of

prolepsis. Hackforth suggests t?. Yet Stallbaum's explanation,

t?? ?a? p?t' ?st?? ? t?? t????? d??a???, ?? ??e?; seems to be quite

satisfactory. Cf. Gorg. 52Ia ep? p?t??a? ??? ?e pa?a?a?e?? t?? ?e?a- pe?a? t?? p??e??, d????s?? ???, Horn. ? 44? p???? t?? ????? ?e?pe?; K?hner-Gerth ?, 37> 626.

268 ci: p??e??. Bracketed by Burnet, but correctly interpreted

by Stallbaum: "remedia adhibere, quibus, quando et quod con-

veniate

26802: e?p??e?. This is nearer to the MSS. reading e?p?? than

e?pe?? (Burnet). Thompson rightly remarks that "the following ?? or preceding e?p?? would account for the error in transcription".

268 e 1 : ??????. Hackforth reads ???????? and refers to Cornford

on Soph. 217e: "Read ????????, 'rude', for ??????, 'wild, savage,

fierce', which is too strong a word". But ?????? also means "coarse",

"harsh", e.g. Cr. 52a p??t????t?? ???? ?a? ??? ?????? ?p?tatt??t??, p??e?? ? a? ?e?e???e?, Laws 950aD t? d' ad ??te ?????? d??es?a? ??te

a?t??? ????se ?p?d??e?? ??a ??? ??? ?????e? t? ?e pa??pa?, ?t? d?

?????? ?a? ap???? fa????t' ?? t??? ?????? ?????p???, 953e ?? ????as? ?a? ???as? t?? ?e???as?a? p?????e???? . . . ??d? ??????as?? ???????.

Similarly, in Arist. ?.?. ??28 a 9, b 2 ?????? should not be altered

into ????????.

269 c 8 : ?a? e????e d??e??. For the conclusive force of ?a?, cf.

Io 535a ?pte? ??? p?? ??? t??? ?????? t?? ?????, ? S???ate?, ?a? ???




d????s? ?e?a ????a ???? pa?? t?? ?e?? ta?ta ?? a?a??? p???ta? ????-

?e?e??, Phd. 63a ?a? ??? d??e? (Apelt wrongly "denn", Robin "en

outre"), Hdt. IV 134, 2 ??t?? ??d?e? ????? p????? ?ataf??????s?, ?a? ??? ??? fa??eta? G?????? e?pa? pe?? t?? S??????? d???? ?????, Arist. ??. 1674-5 d??a?' ?????e ?a? p???? d??e?? ???e?? / pe?? t?? ?????, ?a? ????e pa?ad?d??? s??, Trenkner, Le style ???, 67-69.

270 a 5' ????a?. Not d?a???a? (Burnet). The meaning is not "folly"

(Hackforth), for I cannot believe that "Socrates (Plato) is merely

suggesting that Anaxagoras in his converse with Pericles would

naturally have passed from speculation on the general nature of

???? to its manifestations, varying in degree down to vanishing

point, in human beings" (Hackforth), or that "si Y intelligence a

fait leur m?rite, c'est bien Y inintelligence qui a motiv? les haines

dont ils ont ?t? l'objet" (Robin). If the term is taken as an ab-

stractum pro concreto, it may be assumed to denote that part of

reality which does not consist of ????.

270 c 2 : t?? ????. Hackforth rightly argues that this does not

refer to the universe but to the whole of the soul and the whole

of the body. The question t? p?t? ???e? '?pp????t?? (c 9) is answered

by stating the problem ?p???? ? p???e?d?? ?st?? ?? p??? ?????s??e?a e??a? a?t?? te?????? ?a? ????? d??at?? p??e?? (di). This is clearly meant as an explanation of the preceding allusion to t? d???. It

is obvious that the question ap???? ? p???e?d?? can only be decided

by keeping the whole of these objects, and not the whole of the

universe, in view. This interpretation has also been proposed by L. Edelstein, ?e?? a???? und die Sammlung der hippokratischen

Schriften (Berlin, 1931), 130 ft., A. Rey, La maturit? de la pens?e

scientifique en Gr?ce (Paris, 1939), 435-8, F. Steckerl, Cl. Phil. 40

(1945), 168-70.

271 e 2 : e??a? p? p???? a?t?. This is better than Robin's e?d??a?

p? p???? a?t??. Cf. Rep. 34la ??d?? ?? s?? p???? esta?, Symp. 217c, Crat. 387a, Laws 697a, Isoer. 15, 28 ?? ??d?? ??? p???? ?????e.

272 b 3 '

? ?????. Hackforth rightly rejects Burnet's ??. Cf.

Prot. 333b ? ???, ? ???ta???a, ?f?? ???, ? ????? p??;

272 c 2: ?p??. Hackforth: "possibly d???, 'traverse', should be

read". I should prefer Stallbaum's ????. Cf. d3 ????e?? ???

?a???? pe???a????e????, Rep. 445e e?ta??a ??a?e???a?e? t?? ?????,




53IC ??? e?? p??????ata ???as??, 5?56 Sta t?a?e?a? t?? a?a??se??.

272 e 2: a? t? p?a????ta. Not a?t? t? p?a????ta (Burnet). Cf.

Rep. 610 b ??d' a? ?p' ????? ??s??, The. l6ob ??d' a? ???? a?t???.

274 a 3: ??? ?? s? d??e??. Heindorf's ?? adopted by Hackforth is

unnecessary. The construction is zeugmatic, for we have to sup-

ply p???t??? from pe???t???.

274 d 4 : ?e??. Hackforth rightly accepts Postgate's Ta????. We must know this identification in order to understand 275 c 8

"???????. Still better seems the suggestion proposed by F. Scheid-

weiler, Herrn. 83 (1955), 120: <Ta????> ?e?? "?????a,?? which the last

words are to be regarded as an etymological explanation of Ta????. Cf. the etymologies of ?a?t???, ?????st??? (244c), and ??e??? (251c).

275 c 3 : ?a? ??? d??e?. For the causal force of ?a?, cf. Phd. yyd t??t?? d?ap?a??ate?sas?a? t?? ????? ?t? ??????, ?a? ded???a? t?

t?? pa?d??, Thuc. Ill 15, 2 o? d? ????? ????a??? ??ad??? te ???e??-

???t?, ?a? ?? ?a?p?? ???????d? ?sa?, Xen. An. II 6, 17 ???e? e??

ta?ta? t?? s?? ???? p???e??, ?a? ?et? ?t?ses?a? ?? t??t?? ????a

???a, Trenkner, Le style ???, 66-67.

275 c 5: t?????. Hackforth takes ?? t? . . . ?s??e??? to belong to

? t????? . . . ?ata??pe?? as much as to ? pa?ade???e???: "for to speak of one who 'thinks he has left a written manual' is, by itself, non-

sense". This objection disappears, if t???? is taken in the pregnant sense in which it is used, e.g., in 270e.

275 c 8 : p???? t? ?'???e??? e??a?. Hackforth accepts Bury's sug-

gestion p???? p??e?? ????e???, but Thompson rightly remarks that

e??a? is equivalent to d??as?a?, and refers to Arist. Av. 19 t?

d'??? ??' ?st?? ??d?? ???? p??? d???e?? (usually altered into $st??). Cf. supra 243 a ? se????es?a? ?? t? d?te, e? ??a ?????p?s???? t????

??apat?sa?te e?d?????set?? ?? a?t???, Rep. 562a e?e??d?????? te ?a?

??d?? ??t??.

275 d 4: de????. Not "strange" (Hackforth) or "terrible" (Robin), but "awful", "imposing".

275 d 4: ?a? ?? a?????. Not "en effet" (Robin), "which makes

it truly analogous" (Hackforth), but "namely": t??t? refers to

c 6 ?? t? saf?? ?a? ???a??? ?? ??a???t?? ?s??e???, de???? is used

predicatively, and ?a? ?? a????? d????? explains why it is so im-

posingly deceptive. See supra, on 246 b 1.




27608: ?et? ?????. Not "discours" (Robin) but "words"

(Hackforth). For ?et?, see supra, on 253 e 4.

276 d 2 : dta? d? ???f?. Burnet, followed by Hackforth, brackets

d?. I prefer to put a semicolon after ????e? and to delete te after

?s??seta?. This seems also to be Robin's view in his second trans-

lation. In the Bud?-edition he puts a full stop after ?et???t?, which

I do not understand.

276 d 8 : ??? ???? pa???? d???e?. There is no necessity to insert

?? before ??? (Heindorf, Hackforth), for ??? depends on pa????. The meaning of pa???? d???e? is not "il cherchera le divertissement

de sa vie" (Robin), but "he will continue playing" (so probably Hackforth: "indulge in the recreation"). Cf. Apol. 41b t??? ??e?

e?et????ta ?a? ??e????ta ?spe? t??? e?ta??a d???e??, Hdt. ? 94> 3

d???e?? ??pa????ta?, Xen. Cyrop. VII 5> 85 e? ?p??e???e??? ?? de?

d????.

277 d 7: p???t????. F. Scheidweiler, Herrn. 83 (?955)> ?2?>

wrongly suspects p???t????, because it cannot refer to ?d?a, "wie

notwendig w?re". The words ?????? t??e?? are subordinate to

s????a??a p???t???? ???f?? (cf. supra, on 249 a 6), which is an

explanation of ????e? d???s?a, and a?t? refers to s????a??a implied in ???a?e?.

277 d I0: ^pa? te ?a? d?a?. Hackforth takes these terms as real

nouns, but in that case Plato would have added the article. That

the phrase is meant adverbially, appears from Rep. 382e ???' ?pa? ??d' d?a?, Phil. 36e, 65e, The. 158e d?a? te ?a? ?pa?, Polit. 2Jj? ???d??e?e? ??? ???? ??ast?? ???? ??a? e?d?? ?pa?ta p??t' a? p????

?spe? ?pa? ????e??.

277 e 8: ?? ?? ?a??d???e???. F. Scheidweiler, Herrn. 83 (?955)> 121-2, points out that ?a??d?? in Plato always refers to poetry, and proposes to read <ds??> ?? ??. But pe????? ??e?a is an appropriate

qualification of poetry viewed as d???????a (cf. Gor g. 502cd).

278 a 4: ??????. Robin rightly omits ?????e???, which seems to

be a pedantic repetition of 277 e 6.

279 a 8: ?p? ?e??? d?. E. Bickel, Rh. Mus. 92 (1943), 153-7

suggests ?p? ?e????a? (seil, ??????), because the older MSS. have

?e???? or ?e????. It seems simpler to adopt the reading ?e????: "a greater thing". See supra, on 263 c 1. Hackforth's interpretation




of the eulogy of Isocrates as an amende honorable for Rep. 500 b has

been rightly criticized by G. J. de Vries, Mnemos. IV 6 (1953),

39-45-

279 c 2 : ???s?? p?????. W. Kranz, Phil. 94 (1941), 332-3 wrongly

interprets this as the gold of the soul {Rep. 416e). The passage has

been satisfactorily explained by Thompson.

Zeist, Homeruslaan 53

AD TACITI DIALOGUM, C. XXIII 6

In fine orationis quam pro eloquentia nova habuit (e. XXIII 6), Aper adversarios suos Messallam, Maternum, Secundum appellat eorumque eloquentiam callide laudat quod minime quam laudibus efferre soient anti- quitatem redoleat. Praecipue nitori et cultui, inventioni et dispositioni, brevitati, compositioni, sententiis multum tribuit, quae singula in veteribus oratoribus misere desiderari ante affirmaverat. Postremo addit ?sic ex- primais affectus, sto libertatem temperatis, ut'* etc. Prima verba comparetis velim cum e. XXII 3, ubi de Cicerone asseverati ?tarde commovetur, raro incalescit". Eodem modo ex laudatione libertatis temperatae Apri quidem opinione libertatem antiquorum nimiam fuisse colliges ; quorum vero hac in oratione nihil invenies. Obiecit sane Materno poetae nimiam libertatem priore in oratione (e. X 6-8), et ipse Maternus in fine e. XXVII Messallam monet ut de antiquis loquens antiqua utatur lib?rtate, ?qua vel magis degeneravimus quam ab eloquentia'*. Verum eo loco, ut ipse affirm?t, non de eloquentia sed de lib?rtate animi loquitur, nostro loco nil nisi de eloquentia agitur. Et novum dicendi genus tantum a temperatione afuisse ut ei licentia audaciaque nimia saepe obiceretur quis nescit? Quod fecerunt et Seneca in Epist. CXIV, et Quintilianus plurimis locis Institut- ionis suae (tantum afiero 1. XII io, 73 ?corruptum dicendi genus quod aut verborum licentia exult?t aut puerilibus sententiolis lascivit, aut ... turgescit aut ... bacchatur, aut ... nitet ... aut specie libertatis insanii; comp. VIII 5, 35 et alia multa), et ipsius Dialogi auctor in e. XXVI, ubi Messalla Apro respondens novis rhetoribus lasciviam verborum et licentiam compositionis obicit.

Ergo Aper nostro loco perorans Messallam aliosque laudat non quia temp?rent, sed quod temptent libertatem illam novi dicendi generis imprimis propriam. In ipso Cicerone paulo ante laudavit, quod nonnunquam ?locos quoque laetiores attemptaverit". Et apud Senecam, novae eloquentiae vel maximum auctorem, in Epist. CXIV legimus ?aliquid grande temptant?* necesse esse usque ad vitia accedere. Eadem verba ?libertatem temptare" apud Livium quoque in 1. VI 18, 11 invenimus. Ut coniecturam ex palaeo- graphica quoque ratione probem, lectorem admoneo in scripturis q.v. nationalibus -er- et -/- litteras saepius similitudinem quandam praebere. Amstelodami, Gerrit van der Veenstraat 171 ?. A. D. Leeman



phaedrus notes

Documents