iy!

a8) i
fee 7
ny

ae
uy CNet
Nia
Bits
a
ae

fee
ree)
Duquesne University:
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/symposiumofplatoO000rgbu
 \\
;

a.
:
oe

i
 PLATO
THE SYMPOSIUM
OF

PLATO
EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTION, CRITICAL NOTES

AND COMMENTARY

BY

R. G. BURY, Litt.D.
FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
LATE LECTURER IN CLASSICS, BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, U.S.A.
EDITOR OF ‘‘THE PHILEBUS” OF PLATO

Second Edition

CAMBRIDGE:
W. HEFFER AND SONS Ltd
1969
 BS avg ¢ S You.
a f

© J.P. T. Bury 1969

SBN 85270 039 3

First edition 1909

Second edition 1932
Reprinted three tumes
New impression 1969

Printed in Great Britain by W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, Cambridge

 PREFACE

LATO’S Symposium is utideniably one of the masterpieces

of classical literature. The subtlest and most brilliant of
Greek artists in prose has left us no finer, no more fascinating
specimen of his skill than this dialogue in which, with the
throbbing pulse of life for his theme, he matches that theme by
the dramatic verve and vigour of his style. The interest of the
book is not merely literary or philosophical: it appeals also to the
wider circle of the students of culture and of life and of the
“criticism of life” by its richness of suggestion and by its vividness
of portraiture. To mention one point alone,—nowhere else, not
even in the Phaedo, does the personality of Socrates shine before
us so full and clear, “in form and moving so express and ad-
mirable,” as in the pages of the Symposium. To miss reading it is
to miss the enjoyment of a veritable éotiaya Xoywv, blended and
seasoned with curious art.
In the preparation of this edition I have been indebted mainly
to the labours of continental scholars, for the sufficient, if sur-
prising, reason that no English commentary has existed hereto-
fore. It was, indeed, this singular fact, together with the recent
publication of an interesting Papyrus fragment of the text, which
chiefly moved me to attempt a commentary myself. On many of
the interesting questions connected with the literary form and
philosophical substance of the dialogue much more might have
been said, but I have thought it best to keep both the Introduction
and the Notes within a moderate compass. In the framing of the
a 2
iv PREFACE

text, although I have ventured on several innovations of my own,

I have been more conservative than the majority of the foreign
critics, a considerable selection of whose “restorations” will be
found in the Critical Notes in addition to the evidence of the
leading Mss. and of the Papyrus: in all doubtful cases I have cited
also the opinion of Schanz and of the Oxford editor, Prof. Burnet,
whose admirable recension has been before me constantly and has
aided me much. For expository material I must acknowledge
in special my indebtedness to the useful and scholarly edition
of A. Hug.
To gild with comment the refined gold of Plato’s work is at the
best a temerarious task; but if my book helps a single reader
more justly to appraise the gold it will not have been wrought
wholly in vain.

R. G. B.

October 4, 1909.

In this second edition I have made a number of minor correc-

tions throughout the book. Further, to bring the work up to date,
I have added a few new pages (Ixxii ff.) at the end of the Jntro-
duction in which account is taken of some of the more important
work done on this Dialogue since 1909.
R. G. B.
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION : ‘
§ i. Summary of the Argument
ii. The Framework of the Dialogue
iii. The first five Speeches
iv. Socrates and Diotima .
y. Atcibiades and his Speech . :
vi. The Order and Connexion of the Speeches hi
vii. The Dialogue as a whole: its Scope and Design lxiv
viii. The Date lxvi
ix. The Text Ixviii
x. Bibliography : 3 lxxi
xi. Supplementary (and edition) Notes lxxii
x.
Text, Criticat Notes, AND COMMENTARY 1

InpEx I., Greek . 173

» IL, English 178
 INTRODUCTION

§ i. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

I. The Preface: 172 a—174 a.

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

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

Aristodemus meeting Socrates smartly attired expresses his surprise

at so unusual a circumstance. Socrates explains that being invited to
dine with Agathon he feels bound to go “in finery to the fine”; and
he presses Aristodemus, although uninvited, to accompany him. On
the road Socrates, immersed in thought, lags behind, and Aristodemus
arrives at Agathon’s alone. Not till they are half-way through the
meal does Socrates appear ; and Agathon rallies him on his devotion to
codia. The proposal of Pausanias to restrict the potations, in view of
yesterday’s banquet, and that of Eryximachus to dismiss the flute-girl
and amuse themselves by Adyo., are unanimously agreed to. Then
Eryximachus propounds an idea of Phaedrus, that Eros is the best
possible theme for encomia, and suggests that each of the party in turn,
commencing with Phaedrus, should now deliver an encomium on Eros.
This suggestion is applauded by Socrates. Of the encomia the most
noteworthy were the following :—
viii INTRODUCTION

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

Prologue; Eros is a great and wondrous god.

(a) He is wondrous in origin, being eldest of gods and unbegotten
—witness what Homer and others say of him.
(b) He is the supreme benefactor of mankind, (1) as inspiring
a high sense of honour in private, civic and military life; (2) as in-
spiring self-sacrifice, which wins divine favour (eg. Alcestis and
Achilles, contrasted with the cowardly Orpheus).
Epilogue: Thus Eros is most ancient, venerable, and beneficent.

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

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 Uranios and Eros Pandemos.
(6) From the principle that no action is in the abstract good
or bad but derives its moral quality solely from the manner of its
execution it follows that Eros is bad or good according to the kind
of lovemaking to which it prompts.
(c) The general characteristics (1) of Eros Pandemos are that it is
directed to women as well as boys, to the body rather than the soul, to
unscrupulous satisfaction of lust; (2) whereas Eros Uranios shuns
females and seeks only such males as are noble and nearly mature both
in mind and body. It is the followers of Eros Pandemos who have
brought paederastia into disrepute.
(d) The varying vopor concerning Hros may be classified thus:—
(1) In all Greek states except Athens the vémos is simple, either
(a) approving paederastia, as in Elis and Boeotia; or (8) condemning
it, as in Ionia and states subject to barbarian rule, where it is held to
foster a dangerous spirit of independence (e.g. Harmodius and Aris-
togiton).
(2) At Athens the vouos is complex, (a) Eros is approved, and its
excesses condoned, when directed towards superior youths approaching
manhood. (8) It appears to be condemned, in so far as parents forbid
their boys to hold converse with “erastae.” The explanation of this
ambiguous attitude must be sought in the principle laid down above,
 INTRODUCTION ix

that the moral quality of an act depends upon the conditions of its per-
formance. The Athenian voyos 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 dperyj) actuates both the lover and
his object. This motive alone justifies all erotic pursuits and sur-
renders, even mutual deception: hence we conclude that xaddov dperis
évexa xapiler Oa.
Epilogue: This Eros Uranios, which inspires zeal for apern,
possesses the highest value alike for the individual and for the
State.

V. The first Interlude: 185 c—x.

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

VI. The Discourse of Eryximachus: 185 E—188 &.

Prologue: Pausanias was right in asserting the dual nature of
Eros; but he failed to observe that the god’s sway extends over the
entire universe.
(a) The body, with its healthy and diseased appetites, exhibits
the duality of Eros; and medicine is “the science of bodily erotics in
regard to replenishment and depletion.” It is the object of “the Art”
of Asclepios to produce the Eros which is harmony between the
opposite elements—the hot and the cold, the wet and the dry, etc.
Eros is, likewise, the patron-god of gymnastics and husbandry.
(6) Similarly with music. The “discordant concord” of Heraclitus
hints at the power of music to harmonize sounds previously in discord,
and divergent times. Thus music is “ the science of Erotics in regard
to harmony and rhythm.” It is less in the.pure theory than in applied
music (metrical compositions and their educational use) that the dual
nature of Eros comes to light; when it does, the Eros Pandemos must
be carefully guarded against.
(c) Again, in the spheres of meteorology and astronomy we see the
effects of the orderly Eros in a wholesome temperate climate, of the dis-
orderly Eros in blights and pestilences ; for astronomy is “‘ the science
of Erotics in regard to stellar motions and the seasons of the year.”
(d) Lastly, in religion, it is the disorderly Eros which produces the

b2
x INTRODUCTION
impiety which it is the function of divination to cure ; and religion may
be defined as “the science of human Erotics in regard to piety.”
Epilogue : To Eros, as a whole, belongs great power ; to the virtuous
Eros great influence in effecting human concord and happiness.—If my
eulogy is incomplete, it is for you, Aristophanes, to supplement it, if you
choose.
VII. The second Interlude: 189 a—c.
Aristophanes explains that he is now cured of his hiccough, as a
result of sneezing according to Eryximachus’ prescription. He makes
a jocular allusion to Eryximachus’ discourse, to which the latter retorts,
and after some further banter Aristophanes proceeds to deliver his
encomium.
VIII. The Discourse of Aristophanes: 189 c—193 p.
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.
(a) Man’s original nature was different from what it now is. It
had three sexes—male, female, androgynous ; all globular in shape and
with double limbs and organs; derived respectively from sun, earth
and moon.
(6) Man’s woes were due to the pride of these primal men which
stirred them to attempt to carry Heaven by assault. In punishment
Zeus sliced them each in two, and then handed them to Apollo to
stitch up their wounds. But, because they then kept dying of hunger,
owing to the yearning of each for his other-half, Zeus devised for them
the present mode of reproduction, altering the position of the sex-
organs accordingly. Thus Eros aims at restoring the primal unity and
healing the cleft in man’s nature.
(c) Each of us is a split-half of an original-male, female, or an-
drogynon ; and the other-halves we seek in love are determined ac-
cordingly. Courage is the mark of boy-loving men and of man-loving
boys, as both derived from the primal male. In the intense passion of
Eros it is not merely sexual intercourse that is sought but a permanent
fusing into one (as by the brazing of an Hephaestus); for Love is “‘the
pursuit of wholeness.”
(dq) Asit was impiety that caused our “dioikismos” and bisection,
so in piety towards the god Eros lies the hope of meeting with our
proper halves and regaining our pristine wholeness.
Epilogue: Let us, then, laud Eros as the giver both of present
blessings and of bright hopes of healing and restoration in the future.
 INTRODUCTION xi

IX. The third Interlude: 193 p—194 kz.

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

X. The Discourse of Agathon: 194 r—197 &.

Prologue: The method of previous speakers needs amendment.
The correct method, which I shall adopt, is to laud first the character
of Eros, and secondly his gifts to men.
(A) The attributes of Eros are (1) supreme felicity, (due to) (2)
supreme beauty and (3) goodness.
(2) Eros is most beautiful, since he is (a) the youngest of gods
(all tales to the contrary being false), witness his aversion to old-age ;
(6) most tender, witness his choosing soft souls for his abode;
(c) supple, witness his power to steal unnoticed in and out of souls;
(d) symmetrical, because comely as all allow; (e) fair-of-skin, for he
feeds on flowers amid sweet scents.
(3) Eros is supremely good, since he is (a) most just, having no lot
in violence or injustice; (6) most temperate, for he is the master of
pleasure since no pleasure is greater than love; (c) most courageous, as
holding sway over Ares, the most courageous of the gods; (d) most
wise, being expert (a) in both: musical and creative poesy, and (@) 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 dlessings conferred by Eros are, like his attributes, beauty
and goodness. He produces peace and pleasantness in all spheres of
life: he is the object of universal admiration, the author of all delights,
best guide and captain for gods and men alike, whose praises it behoves
all to chant in unison.
Epilogue: Such is my tribute of eulogy, not wholly serious nor
wholly playful.

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

Agathon “brought down the house” with his peroration; and
Socrates remarked to Eryximachus that its eloquence left him in despair
—petrified by the Gorgon of Agathon’s brillian Gorgianisms. “Now,”
xii INTRODUCTION

he said, ‘I must retract my rash tongue-pledge to join in a eulogy of

Eros, since I perceive that I was quite astray in my ideas about the
encomiastic art: for I supposed that truth came first, ornamental com-
pliment second, whereas the contrary is evidently the fact. Such an
encomium is quite beyond my poor powers ; but if you care for an un-
varnished speech about Eros, that I am ready to make.” Phaedrus
and the rest bidding him proceed in his own fashion, Socrates began
by the following conversation with Agathon.

XII. Socrates’ preliminary Discussion with Agathon:

199 c—201 pb.

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

tell me further, is Eros a relative notion, like ‘father’ or ‘ brother’?”
“ Certainly it is.”
(2) “Next, you agree that if Eros desires its object it must lack
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.”
coTrue.’
(3) ‘Again, if Eros is (as you said) love for beauty, Eros must
lack beauty, and therefore goodness too, and be neither beautiful nor
good.” “I cannot gainsay you.”

XIII. The Discourse of Socrates (Diotima): 201 p—212 oc.

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

heard from my instructress in Erotics, Diotima the prophetess—as-
suming the conclusions formulated just now, and treating first of the
character and secondly of the effects of Eros, according to Agathon’s
own method.
A. [The nature of Eros, 201 r—204 c.]
(1) Diotima showed me that Eros, although (as we have seen)
neither beautiful nor good, is not therefore ugly and bad but rather
a mean between these contraries.
(2) She argued also that Eros is not a god, since godhead involves
the possession of just those goods which Eros desires and lacks. But
neither is he a mortal, but stands midway between the two, being
a great daemon; and the function of the daemonian is to mediate
between gods and men.
 INTRODUCTION xiii

(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, 7.¢. a
wisdom-lover (philosopher). The notion that Eros is a beautiful god is
due to a confusion between subjective Eros and the object loved.
B. [The effects, or utility, of Eros, 204 p—212 a.]
(1) [The object or end of Eros.]
What does Eros as “love of the beautiful” precisely imply? In the
case of the good, its acquisition is a means to happiness as end. But
Eros is not used in this generic sense of “desire for happiness,” so much
as in a narrower specific sense. And if we say that Eros is ‘‘the desire
for the good,” we must expand this definition into “the desire for the
everlasting possession of the good.”
(2) [The method or mode of action of Eros.]
Eros works by means of generation, both physical and psychical, in
the beautiful.
(a) Generation, being an immortal thing, requires harmony with
the divine, z.e. beauty ; without which the process is hindered. And
generation is sought because it is, for mortals, the nearest approach to
immortality. It is in the desire for immortality that we must find
the explanation of all the sexual passion and love of offspring which we
see in the animal world, since it is only by the way of leaving a suc-
cessor to take its place that the mortal creature, in this world of flux,
can secure a kind of perpetuity.
(6) 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 offspring which shall live
for ever; and the bonds of such soul-marriages are stronger than any
carnal ties.
(c) After this elementary prelude, we reach the highest stage
of the Mysteries of Love. The right method in Erotic procedure is to
pass in upward course from love of bodily beauty to love of soul beauty,
thence to the beauty of the sciences, until finally one science is reached
which corresponds to the Absolute, Ideal Beauty, in which all finite
things of beauty partake. To gain the vision of this is the goal of
Love’s endeavour, and to live in its presence were life indeed. There,
if anywhere, with truth for the issue of his soul, might the lover hope
to attain to immortality.
XY, 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,
if you choose to call it so.

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

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

XV. Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates: 215 a—222 c.

Prologue: My eulogy will take the form of parables—aiming not
at mockery but at truth. Socrates resembles (a) Silenus-statuettes which
serve as caskets for sacred images ; (b) the Satyr Marsyas.
I. In form he resembles both (a) the Sileni, and (5) the Satyr.
lI. (dn character) he resembles (6) the Satyr, being (1) a mocker,
(2) a flute-player. As to (2) he excels Marsyas, since his words alone,
without an instrument, fascinate all, old and young. Me he charms
far more than even Pericles could, filling me with shame and self-
contempt, and driving me to my wit’s end.
III. He resembles (a) the Silent in the contrast between his ex-
terior and interior, (a) Hxternally he adopts an erotic attitude towards
beautiful youths: (8) but internally he despises beauty and wealth, as
I know from experience. For I tried to bribe him with my beauty,
but all my many attempts came to nothing. Private conversations,
gymnastics together, a supper-party @ deux, even a night on the same
couch—all was of no use. Against my battery of charms he was
 INTRODUCTION XV

armed (by his temperance) in “complete steel”; and I charge him now
before you with the crime of dBpis. His hardihood was shown in the
Potidaea campaign, where none could stand the cold like him. His
valour was displayed in the battle where he saved my life, and in
the retreat from Delium. Especially amazing is his unique originality,
which makes it impossible to find anyone else like him—except Satyrs
and Sileni.
IV. His speeches too, I forgot to say, are like the Silenus-statuettes,
in outward seeming ridiculous, but in inner content supremely rational
and full of images of virtue and wisdom.
Epilogue: Such is my eulogy, half praise, half blame. Let my
experience, and that of many another, be a warning to you, Agathon:
court Socrates less as an “erastes” than as an “anterastes”!

XVI. Concluding Scene: 222 c—end.

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

§ ii. Tue FRAMEWORK OF THE DIALOGUE.

(A) The Method of Narration and the Preface. _

The Platonic dialogues, viewed from the point of view of literary
form, may be divided into two chief classes. To the first class belong
those in which the story of the discussion is told directly by one of the
protagonists; to the second class belong those in which the story is
told indirectly or at second-hand,—a mode of narration which involves
the further characteristic that dialogues of this class are necessarily
prefaced (and concluded) by some explanatory paragraphs. This
second class, moreover, falls into two subdivisions, according as the
narrator is or is not represented as being himself present at the
B. P. b
xvi INTRODUCTION

discussion. It is to the latter of these subdivisions, in which the

narrator is not an eye-witness but reports the matter only at second-
hand, that the Symposiwm (together with the Theaetetus and Par-
menides) belongs.
It is noteworthy also that, with the exception of the Phaedo and
Parmenides, ours is the only dialogue in which’ the narrating witness
is not Socrates himself. The reason for this is obvious: eulogy of
Socrates being one of the main purposes of the dialogue, it would be
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 5).
Moreover, the story of the special occasion in question he had diligently
conned (ovx apedéryntos, 172 a, 173 Cc).
Aristodemus’, the primary source and actual narrator, is spoken of
by Apollodorus as ‘‘an old disciple” and one of the most intimate with
the Master in earlier years, and in his own narrative he represents
himself as following Socrates with dog-like fidelity, and showing the
closest familiarity with his ways and habits—a man so single-hearted,
so engrossed in matters of fact, as to be constitutionally incapable of
tampering with the truth. As the ‘minute biographer,” Aristodemus
is the prototype of all later Boswells.
Further, the impression of veracity made by the character of the

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

‘on the day when he drank the poison in the prison”; as characteristically ex-
hibiting most marked symptoms of grief [this statement would support the
epithet wadakds as well as uavixds in Symp. 173 pd]; and as a native of Athens (rév
émtxwplwv). In Apol. 344 he is one of those present at the trial of Socrates; and
(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.
2 For Aristodemus, see also Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 2 where Socrates converses rept Tod
Satwoviov mpds ’Apiorddnuov Tov puxpdv émixaovmevov, KaTauabdy a’rdov otre Ovovra Tots
Geots ob're parTiky Xpwmevov, ad kal Tay ToovvTwY TadTa KaTayeNOvTa.
 INTRODUCTION Xvi

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

points at least (éa 173 B) the account of Aristodemus was confirmed
by Socrates. The points in question are probably (as Hug observes)
those which specially concern the picture drawn of Socrates himself.
At any rate, it is in regard to these that we have the detailed
testimony of Alcibiades, emphasized by repeated asseverations (214 £,
215 a, etc.), and endorsed by the silence of Socrates.
In addition to the evidence it contains for the dates of the
narration and of the banquet’, and the vivid picture in miniature
which it presents of a certain group of Socratics in whom an ardent
admiration for the Master was.blended with a limited capacity for
understanding the deeper side of his practice and doctrine—as if to
go barefoot and to rail at filthy lucre were the sum and substance
of Socraticism,—there are two further points in the Preface which
deserve attention.
Apollodorus, although asked only for the Adyo. spoken at the
banquet (172 B, 173 £), proceeds to give a full account of the ac-
companying incidents as well (é apyys...di7yjoac8a 174 a). This
may be taken to indicate that for estimating the effect of the dialogue
as a whole we are meant to pay regard not only to the series of
encomia but also to the framework of incident and conversation in
which they are set.
Glaucon, in asking Apollodorus for the desired information con-
cerning the “erotic discourses,” states (172 B) that he has already
heard an account of them from “another man” (aAAos tis), which
account was unsatisfactory (ovdéy ca¢és), and that the authority
quoted by this unnamed informant was “ Phoenix, son of Philippos.”
To this Apollodorus adds the fact (173 8) that this Phoenix was
indebted to the same source as himself, namely Aristodemus. What
precisely these statements signify it is not easy to determine, since
the identity of Phoenix, as well as that of the anonymous informant
(adXos ts), is unknown to us. But it seems reasonable to infer that
there was already in existence, when Plato wrote, at least one other
account of a banquet at which Socrates, Alcibiades and Agathon
figured, and that it is Plato’s intention to discredit it. That such
is the intention is shown not only by the phrase ovdev elye cages A€yewv,
but also by the statement that the evidence of addos tis was one
degree further off from the primary source (Aristodemus) than is that
of Apollodorus. Further, the assumption of some such controversial

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

XVlll INTRODUCTION

intention throws light on the emphasis laid on the veracity of the

narrative—to which attention has been drawn above—and gives it
a more definite motive. It is as if the author means us to read into
his preface something to this effect: “Socrates has been misrepresented :
it is my task to clear his reputation by putting the facts in their true
light.”
If this, then, be a right reading of the hints thus given, what is
the distorted account which Plato thus discredits, and who its author?
Unfortunately this must remain a matter of conjecture. The most
obvious suggestion to make is that the author in question is Xenophon,
and the account alluded to his Symposium. But Xenophon’s Sym-
posium is most probably a later work than Plato’s; and it is a further
objection that the persons represented by Xenophon as present at
the banquet are not—with the exception of Socrates—the persons
mentioned by Glaucon.
We are obliged, therefore, to look further afield for the author
whose identity is thus shrouded. The best suggestion I can offer is
that Polycrates the rhetor is the writer intended. In favour of this
we may adduce the fact that Polycrates is 6 xaryyopos whose calumnies
Xenophon aims at refuting in his Memorabilia’. It is by no means
improbable @ priori that Polycrates in his attacks on Socrates de-
scribed, amongst other incidents, a banqueting-scene in which Socrates
and Alcibiades were pictured in an odious light. And if we take
the Banquet of Xenophon to be a genuine work, the very fact that
Xenophon thought it necessary to supplement his Memorabilia by such
a work might be construed as showing that the author of the slanders
he is at such pains to refute had already libelled Socrates in connexion
with a similar scene. But unless, by some happy chance, further light

1 See Cobet, Nov. Lect. pp. 662 ff.; Gomperz, G. T. 1. pp. 63, 118. Gomperz
(11. 343) supposes the Gorgias to be a counterblast to Polycrates’ indictment of
Socrates, and Alcibiades’ eulogy in Sympos. 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 6n the subject; which is
exactly what 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 Symp. discussed above. There
may be an allusion to the same matter in Protag, 347 ¢ (ep. Xen. Symp. vr. 1).
 INTRODUCTION xix

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

hardly possible to get beyond the region of conjectural speculation, or
to hope for a definitive solution of this obscure literary problem.

(B) The Prologue of Aristodemus.

In the Prologue, with which Aristodemus’s narrative opens, special
attention may be drawn to the following points :—
(a) It is significant that the first person to appear on the scene is
Socrates. We are led at once to admire his good humour and ready
wit as shown in the playful tone of his conversation (1) with Aristo-
demus (174 a, B), in which he makes jesting quotations from Homer
and indulges in a pun on the name of Agathon (cp. the pun he makes
on Gorgias, 198 c); and (2) with Agathon (175 c—z). These amiable
traits in the character of Socrates are further illustrated in other parts
of the dialogue.
(6) Socrates on the way becomes lost in thought and fails to put
in an appearance till the banquet is already far advanced (174 D, 175c).
Aristodemus explains to Agathon (175 8) that this is no exceptional
occurrence (os te rovr’ éye), 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 effected is one of nany 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 ixavos audorepa: this statement, too,
we find amplified and confirmed by Alcibiades (220.4). Both these
matters illustrate that entire subordination of flesh to spirit in which
Socrates was unique.
(c) Agathon (175 cff.) expresses a desire to share in the “ witty
invention” which Socrates had discovered on his way: Socrates with
his usual mock-modesty disclaims for himself the possession of vo¢ia,
except of a poor kind, but congratulates Agathon on the fine and
abundant co¢ia he has just been displaying so conspicuously : and the
conversational banter concludes with Agathon’s remark—‘ Presently,
with the Wine-god as umpire, you and I will fight out our wisdom-
match.” Here, at this early stage, we have struck for us one of the
key-notes of the dialogue. For one main motive of the dialogue as a
whole is to exhibit the cod/a of Socrates, his intellectual as well as
xx INTRODUCTION

moral supremacy. And we find, in the sequel, that this is done largely
by pitting him against Agathon, over the wine-bowl. In this we have
the reason for the juxtaposition of the two speeches, matched, as it
were, one against the other. His speech is, in itself, one sufficient
proof of the superiority of Socrates over his rival. But there are also
other proofs: there is the masterly criticism and confutation to which
Socrates subjects the belauded poet; there is the express statement,
confirmed by expressive action, of Alcibiades, in which is asserted the
superiority of Socrates not merely to Agathon but to all others who
make claim to codia (213 8, 215 cff.); and finally the Wine-god himself
bestows on Socrates the palm when, in the concluding scene, we see
him alone pursuing discussion with unflagging zeal and with a clear-
ness of head undimmed by long and deep potations while his rival
drowses and succumbs to sleep. Thus the dradccacia repi ris codias
runs through the book, and always, from beginning to end, wxa 6
Swxparys.
To this we may add one minor point. Agathon, in this preliminary
play of wit, applies to Socrates the epithet tBpiorys, “a mocker.” And
this, too, is a trait upon which Alcibiades, in the sequel, lays much
stress. Ups is one of the most striking characteristics of the Satyr-
Socrates (216 £, 219 c).
(d) Another example of the literary interweaving——or the method
of ‘“‘responsions,” as we might term it,—which is so marked a feature
of the dialogue, is to be found in the statement of Socrates concerning
the character of his own knowledge. His speciality in the way of
science is, he announces, “erotics,” and this is his only speciality
(177 p). Accordingly, when we find Socrates in the sequel delivering
a discourse on this subject we are evidently intended by Plato to feel
that his views are to be taken seriously as those of one who professed
to be an expert in this subject if in nothing else. -And this intention
is emphasized when we come to the later passage (the “ responsion ”)
in 198 p where Socrates agaiu refers to his conviction that concerning
“erotics” he knew the truth (eidws rv dAyOeav). It is hardly necessary
to add that ‘“ erotics,” construed in the Socratic sense, constitutes by
no means an insignificant department of knowledge (favAn Tis copia
175 £), 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.
(ce) In 1778 we have an interesting parallel between Plato’s
language and that of Isocrates. In Hel, 210 B (rav pév yap tovds
 INTRODUCTION Sx

BopBvdlovs Kat rovs dAas xal ra Toadta Bovdnbévtwv érawvetv x.t.d.)

Isocrates scoffs at the eulogists of “bees and salt and such-like
trumpery,” and his language is echoed in the allusion (put in the
mouth of Eryximachus quoting Phaedrus) to a BiBdtov avdpds codod
év & évjrav ades Exawvov Oavpdowov exovres mpds wpéAcav (177 B). This
eulogist of salt is commonly supposed to be Polycrates, since encomia
on similar paltry subjects—mice, yvrpat, Wjdo.—are ascribed to him’.
Diimmler, however’, takes the reference to be to Antisthenes (Pro-
treptikos), on the strength of the statement in Poliux vi. 16. 98:
BowBvros 8 16 orevdv Exrwpa Kal BouBorv év rH moce, ws "Avticbévns
év mpotperrixo, And for ads as eulogized in the same work he quotes
also Rep. 372 B ff. (dWov eLovow adas). It may be added that a further
allusion to the BouBvrLos, as orevov Exrwpua, may be discovered in the
mention of ékrwua péya in Sympos. 2138. Since Antisthenes seems
to have devoted a good deal of attention to the subject of ué6y*, one
is inclined to suppose that his views are alluded to in Sympos. (176,
213-14); and another allusion to him may be found in the mention
of the xpnorot cogictai who eulogized Heracles (177 B), since Heracles
was, notoriously, the patron-saint of the Cynics*. However much they
might differ on other points, Plato and Isocrates were agreed in so far
as both found the Cynic leader an objectionable person,
(f) 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 views 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 ag.o-
pynpovevtov. But why Plato is at pains to emphasize this point is
1 So Hug (Sympos. ad loc.) following Sauppe and Blass: also Jebb, Att. Or. 11.
99. I may note here an inconsistency as to the date of Polycrates’ ‘‘ Accusation” in
Jebb, Att. Or. 1. 150-51 compared with ib. xxv: 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 (d\\a ro.aira cvxvd); moreover, a close relation may have existed
between these two writers,
3 See Diimmler, Antisthenica, pp. 17 ff.
4 See Gomperz, G. 7. 11. p. 151; Diimmler, Akad. p. 66.
xxil 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 deirvov and the hour
of Alcibiades’ arrival—which would probably not be early. It is
possible, however, that we should look for a deeper reason. If so,
may not the intention be to brush aside and discredit other speeches
stated by another author! (aAXos tus, 172 B) to have been delivered on
this occasion?

(C) The Interludes.

The first Interlude, worthy of the name, occurs between the second
and third encomia (185 c—s), 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
(Avyé) of Aristophanes. As regards the significance of this last matter
considerable diversity of opinion exists among the commentators. Of
the ancients, Olympiodorus (vt. Plat. 3) supposed that Plato here
éxwpwdnoe “Aptotodavy when he cicayer atrov peraéd Avyyl Tepitecovta
Kal py dvvapyevov wAnpwoar Tov vuvoy: and similarly Athenaeus (187 c)
writes Tov pev td THs Avyyos dxAovpeEvov...Kwuwdely AOerE Kai dSiacvpen:
and Aristides (or. 46, 11. p. 287), add’ olwar Avlev atrov eet, va eis
dmAnotiav cxwhOy. Of the moderns, some have followed the ancients
in supposing that the incident is meant to satirize Aristophanes and
his intemperate habits (so Stallbaum, Riickert, Steinhart) ;while some
(Stephens, Sydenham, Wolf, Schwegler) take the object of the ridicule
to be not so much the habits of the poet as his speech with its
‘“‘indelicate ingredients.” On the other hand, Schleiermacher held the
view that Eryximachus with his “ physiological and medical notion of
love” is here being satirized ; while Ast—whose view is shared in the
main by Hommel, van Prinsterer and Rettig—argued that the real
object of the ridicule is Pausanias, by whose speech Aristophanes
implies that he has been “fed up” to the point of loathing. This
view Rettig thinks is supported by the phrase Ilavoaviov ravoapevov,
which he takes to indicate Apollodorus’ ridicule,—by the allusion made
by Aristophanes to Pausanias’ speech in 189 c,—and by his mention
of Pausanias again in 193 8; and he construes the hint of another
1 See above, § ii. A, ad fin.
 INTRODUCTION Xxlil

possible cause (7 tro twos addov, 185 cc) as “affording the key to the
hidden meaning of the word wAnopovy.” 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.
Nub. 906 ff., Ach. 585 ff, the places cited by Rettig); and that, further,
there is no plain sign that the hiccough was feigned, but on the
contrary the whole incident is stated by Aristodemus as matter-of-fact.
It seems safe, therefore, to conclude that the most obvious view—
that of the ancients—is nearest to the truth. The incident shows up
Aristophanes in a ludicrous light,.and at the same time it gives further
occasion to Eryximachus to air his medical lore; so that we can read
in it the intention of satirizing gently both these personages. But to
construe it as aimed at Pausanias is far-fetched and improbable: he is
already disposed of in the satirical reference to sophistical “isology ” ;
and to discover a fresh allusion to him in the “other cause” of the
hiccough is to discover a mare’s nest, for—as the Scholiast ad loc.
informs us—other physical causes of this symptom were as a matter
of fact recognized by the medical profession, and it is only polite on
the part of Aristodemus to leave the matter open.
The second Interlude (189 a—c) and the third (193 p—194 £) call
for no special remark.
The fourth Interlude (198 a—199 cc), which follows on the speech
of Agathon, is linked to the third both by a remark which Socrates
addresses to Eryximachus, and also, at the close, by his appeal to
Phaedrus (cp. 199 B with 194 p). Here, in even a greater degree than
in the previous Interludes, Socrates is the central figure of interest,
and this position he continues to hotd throughout the rest of the
dialogue. This Interlude, indeed, may be regarded as one of the
cardinal points of the structure, in which the First Act, as we may
term it, passes on into the Second; and in the Second Act we reach
at length the theoretical climax, in the doctrine of Socrates-Diotima.
To this climax the present Interlude, wherein is laid before us Socrates’
confession of rhetorical faith, serves as prologue.
The fifth Interlude (212 c—215 a) is by far the longest and, as
regards the action of the piece, the most important. For it introduces
a new actor, and he a protagonist, in the person of Alcibiades. The
contrast is striking between the prophetess in her soaring flights to the
heavenly places of the spirit and the tipsy reveller with his lewd train
who takes her place in claiming the attention of the audience. The
XX1V INTRODUCTION

comic relief which, in the earlier scenes, had been supplied by Aristo-
phanes, as yeAwrorouws, is now supplied by Alcibiades. We should
notice also how a link with the Second Act is furnished here, at the
commencement of the Third Act, by the mention of an attempt by
Aristophanes to reply to an observation made by Socrates in the
course of his speech. But apart from this, the rest of the speakers
and banqueters are left out of account except only Agathon, Socrates
and Eryximachus. The action of the last of these here is parallel to
his action at the commencement of the First Act where he had taken
the lead in fixing the rules for the conduct of the symposium. As
regards Agathon and Socrates, the most important incident in this
Interlude is the decision concerning their contest in sofia which is
pronounced by Alcibiades, when, acting the not inappropriate part
of Dionysus, he awards the crown to Socrates,—an incident to the
significance of which we have already (§ ii, B, c) drawn attention.
Of the Epilogue or concluding scene (222 c—end) it is unnecessary
to say much. The persons that figure most largely in it are the three
central characters, Alcibiades, Agathon and Socrates; while towards
the close the rest of the characters receive, as it were, a farewell notice.
When the curtain finally falls, it falls significantly on the solitary figure
of Socrates, the incarnation of the Eros-daemon, behind whom in his
shadow stands the form of his erastes, the ‘“‘shadow”-biographer Aristo-
demus.

§ ii, Tue First Five SpPrecHeEs.

1. Phaedrus, son of Pythocles, belonged to the Attic deme
Myrrhinus. Lysias describes him as “impoverished” in circumstances,
but respectable. In the Protagoras he is represented as a disciple of
Hippias; while in the Phaedrus—named after him—his chief charac-
teristic is his ardent interest in erotic oratory (Adyot épwrtxol), a
specimen of which, by Lysias, he has learnt almost completely by
heart. It is, then, in accordance with this character that we find
Phaedrus, in the Symposiwm, made responsible for the theme of the
series of speeches (viz. ératvos “Epwros, 177 D), and entitled zaryp tod
Aoyov. We may gather also from certain indications contained both
in the Phaedrus and in the Symposium that Phaedrus was neither
physically strong nor mentally vigorous’. The ostensibly prominent
1 See Phaedr, 2274, Symp. 176 c, 223 8, and, generally, his cultivation of
medical friends, Also the probable word-play in the deme-name Muppwwovcr.os,
Symp. 176 v, Phaedr, 244 a,
 INTRODUCTION XXV

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

we assume that it is due to the desire to make him a link between this
dialogue and the Phaedrus’.
Phaedrus’s speech, although not without merit in point of simplicity
of style and arrangement, is poor in substance. The moral standpoint
is in no respect raised above the level of the average citizen; the speaker
pays little regard to consistency, and the method of argument, with its
want of logical coherence, savours much of the sophists. As examples
of this self-contradiction we may point to the statement that Achilles,
as younger than Patroclus, must be maidika not épacrys, whereas
Alcestis, though younger than Admetus, is treated as the épdca, not
the épwuevn; we may point also to the other inconsequence, that the
self-sacrifice of Achilles, the zaiduxd, is cited in support of the con-
tention that oi épwrtes povor are capable of such self-sacrifice. The
arbitrary handling of the Orpheus myth is another striking illustration
of the sophistic manner.
What is, however, most characteristic of the speech of Phaedrus is
its richness of mythological allusion. Lacking, it would seem, in native
force of intellect, Phaedrus relies upon authority and tradition. He
quotes Hesiod and Homer, Acusilaos and Parmenides: he builds his
argument, such as it is, on the sayings of “them of old time,” and on
the legendary histories of the son of Oeagrus and the daughter of
Pelias ; and when he can confute Aeschylus on a point of mythology
his joy is great. As a'‘lover of religious tradition, we may credit
Phaedrus with a capacity for genuine religious feeling; certainly, in
his role as high-priest of Eros, on the present occasion, he shows a
strict regard for ritual propriety when he rebukes Socrates for inter-
rupting the service of speech-offerings to the god (194 pb)”.
In point of literary style we may notice the following features :—
(a) Rhetorical ornamentation: chiasmus (178), paronomasia
(179 c), special compound verbs (dyacOévres 179 ©, vrepayacbevtes
180 A; dmroOaveiy 179 B, Ureparobaveivy, érarofaveiv 180 A);

1 Of. P. Crain, p. 7; Vera causa, cur Plato sermonis in Symposio Phaedrum

parentem praedicaverit, haec mihi videtur esse: rediens ad eas cogitationes quas in
Phaedro dialogo instituerat, eundem quoque auctorem colloquii reduxit.
2 Hug sums up the position of Phaedrus thus (p. xlvi): ‘‘ Phadros stellt den
gewohnlichen athenischen Biirger dar, den eine rastlose Neugierde zu den rhetori-
schén und philosophischen Kreisen hindrangt, der da und dort etwas aufschnappt
und sich aneignet, jedoch ohne tieferes Verstandnis, aber mit desto grésserem
Selbstbewusstsein.” Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 528): ‘‘The discourse of Phaedrus is
half-mythical, half-ethical; and he himself...is half-sophist, half-enthusiast.”
c2
XXxVl INTRODUCTION

(6) Monotony of expression (ovre...ovre 178 c (4), 178D (2);

otrus...0s 178 p (2), ottw...dote 179 A, C, Toaodrov...dore 179 Cc;
kat pyv...ye 179 a, B; ovtw Kat 179 D, tovyépro. dia radra 179 D, obev
57) cai 180 a);
(c) Anacolutha: 177 a (od Sewvov xrr.), 179 A (Kal pry...ovTw
KaKOS).
2. Of Pausanias, of the deme Kepapjys, little is known beyond
what we are told in this dialogue? and in Xenophon’s Symposium,
where also he appears as notorious for his love for the tragedian
Agathon. Xenophon represents Pausanias as a vigorous champion of
mavdepactia®, and Plato here assigns to him a similar réle, although
he paints the fashion of the man in less crude colours.
The speech of Pausanias is a composition of considerable ability.
Although, like Phaedrus, he starts by grounding his conception of
the dual Eros on mythological tradition, yet when this conception is
once stated the distinction is maintained and its consequences followed
out with no little power of exposition. The manner in which the laws
regarding matsepacria in the various states are distinguished, and in
special the treatment of the complex Athenian vopos, display the
cleverness of a first-rate pleader. The general impression, in fact,
given us by the speech is that it forms an exceedingly smart piece
of special pleading in favour of the proposition xaddv épacrais yapt-
GecOur. The nakedness of this proposition is cloked by the device of
distinguishing between a noble and a base Eros, and by the addition
of the saving clause dperjs evexa*, None the less, it would seem that
the speaker’s main interest is in the yapi{eoOa:, rather than in the
accruing apery, and that he is fundamentally a sensualist, however
refined and specious may be the form in which he gives expression
to his sensualism.
Pausanias is a lawyer-like person in his style of argumentation;
and, appropriately enough, much of his speech is concerned with vopo.
1 He is also mentioned in Protag. 315 p.
* Xen. Symp. vil. 32 dmodoyovmevos vrép trav axpacia cvyxuvdwdoupéver.
%’ We must, of course, bear in mind that, as Jowett puts it (Plato, vol. 1.
. 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 ff.; Gomperz, Gk.
Thinkers (i. Tr.) 11, pp. 380 ff.; for Eros in Gk. religion, see Miss J. E. Harrison,
Prolegom. pp. 680 ff.; for Plato’s and Xenophon’s theories of Love, see I. Bruns,
Vortriige ete., pp. 118 ff.; P. Crain, pp. 23 ff.
 INTRODUCTION XXVil

The term is noteworthy, since it inevitably suggests that antithesis

vopos )( dvio.s which was so widely debated among the sophists and
thinkers of the close of the fifth century. Is the moral standard fixed
by nature (fvcev) or merely by convention (vow)? This was one form
of the question ; and closely connected with this was the other form:
Is knowledge absolute or relative? Pausanias poses as a conven-
tionalist, and a relativist, a champion of law as against nature (raca
mpagis airy ép éavrys ovte Kadi ovre aicypd); and this is of itself
sufficient to show that, in Plato’s eyes, he is a specimen of the results
of sophistic teaching.
Nor is it only in his adoption of this principle of moral indifference,
as we might call it, and in his capacity rov yrrw Adyov Kpeitrw Torey,
that Pausanias stands before us as a downright sophist; his argumenta-
tion also is chargeable with the sophistical vices of inconsistency and
self-contradiction’. For example, with what right, we may ask, does
Pausanias condemn the vouo. of other states than Athens regarding
madepactia, while laying down 76 voutporv as the standard of morality?
For such a distinction necessarily involves reference to another, superior,
standard ; whereas, by his own hypothesis, no such standard exists,
Again, the section on the cad} azary (181 Ef.) stands out in curious
contradiction with the section immediately preceding, in which fidelity
and sincerity (ré BéBaov) are put forward as the necessary conditions
of a love that is fair (kaos) and irreproachable (ov éroveidicros).
In literary style the speech of Pausanias displays, in a much higher
degree than that of Phaedgus, the tricks and ornaments proper. to the
sophistical schools of rhetoric. Thus we find :—
Paronomasia :, épya épyafopevp 182 £; Sovdrcias Sovrevew 183 4;
mpattew tHv mpagw 181 A, cp. 183 B.
Alliteration: éG€édovres SovAcias SovAevew otas ovd av SovdAos ovdeis
(A, 6, 0, ov).
Rhythmic correspondence of clauses and penode (evpvOpia, iodxwda):
The invention of this important feature of Greek rhetoric is commonly
ascribed to Thrasymachus; ana it is especially characteristic of the
style of Isocrates’. The following examples (as formulated by Hug)

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

hyperlogical in form and also extremely confused and pedantic.”
2 Cp. Ar. Ithet. 111. 9, 1409% 25 Aééts Kareotpampévn Kal ouola rats Tay apralwy
moinTav avTiTpopacs.
3 A good example occurs in Helena 17:
Tov pev émlrovoy kal pidoklyduvov tov Blov Karéatnoe
THs O€ meplBXerrov Kal wrepindxnrov Tiy piow érolyce.
XXvViil JNTRODUCTION

will serve to indicate the extent to which Pausanias makes use of these
artifices :—

Taoa yap mpagis wd exe:

~ . ~~ tO? ¥

auTyn é€p EavTys,

a ‘ > ee a

wy ‘ Ae > 4
ovTe KaAn ovT aicxpa.
e AoA ea =
Olov 0 vuv Hels TroLOUpEY,
) mive 7 ade 7 diaréyer bau,
“a vA» a
lonLars!

OUK €oTL TOUTWY avTO KaAOV OvdEY,

> wn , > \ \ 2 tA

ard’ év tH mpage,
> ~ yp

ws av mpaxOn,
e vA a

go
Re
ete
Ge
aes
ei ToLouTov ameBn:
ra > ip

an
rer
——wao"

10. Kadds pev yap mpartopevov kat dpOds Kaddv ylyverat,

(ia. pn dpOus 8é aicypov,
IV. 412. ovrw xat 7d épav Kal 6"Epws ov mas éati adds ovde agtos
eyxwpraler
Gan,
13. GAAa 6 kadds tpotperwv épav. [180 £ ad fin.—181 a.]

Here we have four zepiodo: of which the first three are tpixwAo., the
fourth rerpaxwAos: in the three tpixwAo., the xdAa of each are approxi-
mately equal; while in the rerpaxwAos, long and short «dda alternate.
Other instances of strophic correspondence are 184 p—z, 185 aff.
(see Hug ad loc.).

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

and a member of the Asclepiad guild (186 £); he is also a special friend
of Phaedrus (177 4). Alcibiades alludes to Akumenus as “the most
temperate sire” of Eryximachus, and he is mentioned also by Xenophon
as an authority on diet. The same ‘‘temperance” (cwdpocvvy) is a
marked characteristic of Eryximachus in our dialogue: he is the
champion of moderation in drinking (176 Bff., 214), 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 (2238). 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 «é6y (176 D), presently
with another on Avyé (185 D, BE).
Scientific pedantry is, similarly, the characteristic of Eryximachus’s
speech, He starts with a conception of Eros as a cosmic principle, from
 INTRODUCTION Xxix

the standpoint of natural philosophy. This conception he applies and

developes with equal rigour in the spheres of medicine, music, astronomy
and religion, so that definitions of a precisely parallel kind for each of
these departments are evolved. The dogmatic manner appears also in
his treatment of the dictum of Heraclitus (187 a), which corresponds
to the treatment of Aeschylus by his friend Phaedrus. He resembles
Phaedrus also in his fondness for displaying erudition: he knows his
Empedocles and his Hippocrates”, as well'as the experts in musical
theory.
The theory of the duality of Eros Eryximachus takes over from
Pausanias, but he naturally finds a difficulty in applying this concept
to other spheres, such as that of music, and in attempting to elude the
difficulty he falls into the sophistical vices of ambiguity and incon-
sistency. £.g. in 187 p the reference of de? yapifeo Oar is obscure ; and,
in the same context, the substitutions of 7 Ovpavia Motca for Adpodiry
Ovpavia and of Wodvpvia for ’Adpodirn Mdvdypos are arbitrary’.
As regards literary style there is little to notice in the speech,
beyond its plainness and lack of ornament. The monotony of ex-
pression (seen, ¢.g., in the recurrence of such formulae as éoru 577 187 B,
€or. yap 1870, éor 8¢ 187 D) marks it as the product of a pedantic,
would-be scientific mind, in which literary taste is but slightly de-
veloped and the ruling interest is the schematization of physical
doctrines,
4. Aristophanes. The greatest of Greek comic poets, the author
of the Clouds, was a pronoyngced anti-Socratic. None the less, Plato
1 Cf. Eurip. fr. 839 rhv ’Adpodlrnv obx dpas bon Oedbs; | qv ov’ ay elrors, ovde
petphoeras dv | ban wépuxe Kad’ dcov diépxerat. | ...€pd pev OuBpov yai’,...€pa d oO
geuvds ovpavos KT.
2 Pfleiderer (Sokr. u. Plato, pp. 551 ff.) broaches the theory that Eryx.’s speech
is intended as a parody of (Pseudo-) Hippoer. wep) diairns, and that the real author
of that work was Eryx. himself. There are, certainly, a number of similarities,
but hardly sufficient to prove the case. Obviously, it igs a parody of the style of
some one or more medical writers, but more than that cannot safely be said: some
Hippocratean parallels in matters of detail will be found in the notes. See also my
remarks on the next speech (Aristophanes’). Teuffel drew attention to the etymo-
logical significance of the name (épvéi-uaxos); this, however, cannot be an invention
of Plato’s, although it may partly account for the introduction of the Avyé incident.
3 The doctrine of Love as a harmony of opposites, which plays so large a part
in Eryx.’s discourse, may be illustrated from Spenser (‘‘ Hymn to Love”):
‘Ayre hated earth and water hated fyre,
Till 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 8B), and turns the
scientific axioms of the ‘man of art” to ridicule (189). His réle is,
in fact, throughout that of a yeAwrorows (189 4), and he supplies the
comic business of the piece with admirable gusto’. 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” (rod dAov
érOupia 192 &).
This thought, which is the final outcome of the speech, is not
without depth and beauty*. It suggests that in Love there is some-
thing deeper and more ultimate than merely a passion for sensual
gratification ; it implies that sexual intercourse is something less than
an end in itself. But Aristophanes, while suggesting these more
profound reflexions, can provide no solid ground for their support;
he bases them on the most portentous of comic absurdities. Here,
as so often elsewhere in the genuine creations of the poet, we find
it difficult to determine where waidva ends and orovdy begins®. How
far, we ask ourselves, are the suggestions of an idealistic attitude
towards the problems of life seriously meant? Does the cloke of
cynicism and buffoonery hide a sincere moralist? Or is it not rather
the case that the mockery is the man, and the rest but a momentary

1 Op. Plut. Q. Conv. vir. 7. 710.0 TAdrwy dé rdv 7’ ’Apcoroddvous Nbyor mepl rod
Epwros ws kwupdlay €uBéBrnKev els TO TUpmdc.ov.
2 Cp. Zeller (n. on 192 ¢ ff. dAX AAO 71, xT.) ‘Diese Stelle, in welcher der
erhsthafte Grundgedanke unserer Stelle am Deutlichsten zu Tage kommt, gehért
wohl zu dem Tiefsten, was von alten Schriftstellern tiber die Liebe gesagt ist.”
3 See Jevons, Hist. of Gk. Lit. pp. 258 ff. for some judicious criticisms of the
view that ‘‘ behind the grinning mask of comedy is the serious face of a great
political teacher.”
 INTRODUCTION XXxi

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

purpose of Aristophanes is to impugn radepacria, and to preach up
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 Aoyou, in so far as it
recognizes the difficulty of the problem presented by the phenomena
of Eros and looks below the surface for a solution,—yet how far we
are intended to ascribe this sagacity on the part of the speaker to
superior reasoning power rather than to a lucky inspiration (6e/a
poipa) is by no means clear.
In connexion with this question as to the design of the speech
there is one point which seems to have been generally overlooked by
the expositors,—the topical character, as we might term it, of its main
substance. This appears, obviously enough, in the jesting reference
(193 B) to the love-affairs of Pausanias and Agathon; and obvious
enough too are the allusions to Eryximachus and his much-vaunted
“art” in the mention made, both at the beginning (189 p) and at
the end (193 p). of the healing power of Love, the good “ physician.”
But in addition to these topical allusions which sautent aux yeux,
we are justified, I think, in regarding the great bulk of the discourse
as being neither more nor less than a caricature of the physiological
opinions held and taught by the medical profession of the day. The
Hippocratean tract epi pvcvos avOpwrov is sutlicient evidence that
there raged in medical circles,a controversy concerning the unity or
multiplicity of man’s nature: the author of the tract was himself
an anti-unity man and assailed with equal vigour the views of all
opponents, whether the unity they stood for was afya or xoAy or
préypa—ev yap tu elvai pacwv, ote exacros avtéwy BovActrar dvopacas,
Kal tovto év éov petaddacoev tHV idenv Kal tHv dvvauyw. To this con-
troversy Aristophanes, we may suppose, alludes when he speaks of
man’s apyaia dvows, 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
6Aa, viz. pidavdpo. women and diroyvvaixes men from the avdpdyuvor,
piroyvvaixes women (érarpiorpiar) from the original O7Av, and Piravdpor
men from the original appev. Thus we see that Aristophanes analyses
B. P. Cc
XXXli 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 zepi diairys (cc. 28.) 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 (dpceva)...they become men (avdpes)
brilliant in soul and strong in body, unless damaged by after regiment
(i.e. by lack of Enpadv cai Oeppadv citwy, etc.). If, however, the body
secreted by the male parent is male and that by the female female, and
the male element proves the stronger...then men are produced, less
brilliant (Aappo/), indeed, than the preceding class, yet justly deserving
of the name of ‘manly’ (avépeto.). And again, if the male parent
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’ (avdpoyvvor). Similarly with the generation
of women. When both parents alike secrete female elements, the most
feminine and comely women (6yAvKitata Kal evpvécrara) 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 (@pacvrepar) but
modest (xécpia). 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 (roA-
}ypotepar) than the last class and are termed ‘ masculine’ (avdpeiar).”
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.
According 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 avdpoyvvov but one inferior class of men and one of women,
Hippocrates derives from various combinations of his mixed (67Av +
dpoev) 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 Hippocrateans 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
physiological combinations assumed by the doctors—we take a female
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 confréres 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—s) that he will be on the watch for any
ludicrous statement that may be made; to which the former replies:
“T am not afraid lest I should say what is ludicrous (yeAota) but rather
what is absurd (xatayéAacra).” In view of what follows, we may con-
strue this to mean that Aristophanes regards as xatayéA\acra theories
such as those of Eryximachus and his fellow-Asclepiads. Moreover,
this view of the relation in which Aristophanes’ speech stands to the
treatises of the medical ‘doctrinaires—of whom Eryximachus is a
type—helps to throw light,on the relative position of the speeches,
and on the incident by which that position is secured and emphasized.
For unless we can discover some leading line of connexion between the
two which necessitates the priority of the medico’s exposition, the
motive for the alteration in the order of the speeches must remain
obscure.
It may be added that the allusions in 189 £ (see notes ad loc.) to
the evolutionary theories of Empedocles confirm the supposition that
Aristophanes is directly aiming the shafts of his wit at current medical
doctrines; the more so as Empedocles shares with Hippocrates the
view that the male element is hot, the female cold, and that the
offspring is produced by a combination of elements derived from both
parents. Other references to Empedocles may be discerned in the
mention of Hephaestus (192 p) who, as personified Fire, is one of
Empedocles’ “four roots,” and in the mention of Zeus (190 c), another
of the “roots”; and the fact that these two deities play opposite
XXXIV INTRODUCTION

parts, the one as bisector, the other as unifier, is in accordance with

Empedoclean doctrine. Also the statement that the moon “ partakes
of both sun and earth” (1908) 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, ¢.g., in the finely-painted
scene between Hephaestus and the lovers (192 c ff.)—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 zaidixa
of Pausanias (193 B), and a man of remarkable beauty as well as of
reputed effeminacy’. He appears in the dialogue as not only a person
of wealth, position and popularity, but a man of refinement, education
and social tact. The banquet itself is given by him to a select company
of his friends in honour of his recent victoryin the tragic contest, and
throughout the dialogue he is, formally at least, the central figure—
both as host and as victor, and, what is more, as the embodiment of
external xadAos alike in his person (eidos) and in his speech (Acyor).
His graceful politeness to his guests never varies, even when Socrates
sharply criticises his oration, or when Alcibiades transfers the wreath
from his head to that of Socrates (213 £); he himself shares in the
admiration for Socrates, welcomes him most warmly and displays the

1 Ar. Thesm, 191-2 ob 8 evarpdowrmos, Nevxds, eEupyuevos,

yuvakdpwvos, amados, evmpemis (oEty.
iv. 200 ff. kal pny ov y, © Kararvyov, evpimpwxros et
ov rots Adyourww, ANAA Tols Tabruaciw, KT
And Mnesilochus’ comments on Agathon’s speech and womanish appearance
in 180 ff. ws dv 7d wédos, W méorviae L'everuANides,
Kal @mAvdpiwdes Kal kKaTeyAwTTiomévoy, KTA.
In estimating the value of Aristophanes’ abuse of his contemporary—in the
case of Agathon as in the case of Kuripides—we must make due allowance for Ar.’s
comic style, As Jevons well observes (Hist. of Gk. Lit. p. 274): ‘‘In polemics, as
in other things, the standard of decency is a shifting one. Terms which one age
would hesitate to apply to the most abandoned villain are in another century of
such frequent use as practically to be meaningless....The charges of immorality
which Ar, brings against Hur, and his plays are simply Ar.’s way of saying that on
various points he totally disagrees with Eur.” Probably the same holds good of his
treatment of Agathon.
 INTRODUCTION XXXV

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

Finally, his consideration is shown in the social xaprepia with
which he sticks to his post, drinking and talking, till all his
guests, except Socrates, have either left or succumbed to drowsiness
(223 pb).
In his speech Agathon claims that he will improve on the method of
his predecessors. In his attention to method he is probably taking
a leaf out of the book of Gorgias, his rhetorical master and model.
Besides the initial distinction between the nature and effects of Eros,
another mark of formal method is his practice of recapitulation: at the
close of each section of his discourse he summarises the results’. In
his portrait of the nature of Eros—his youth, beauty, suppleness of
form and delicacy of complexion—Agathon does little more_than
formulate the conventional traits_of the god-as depicted _in-_poetry-and-
art. His attempts to deduce these attributes are mere maida (197 &),
pieces of sophistical word-play. Somewhat deeper goes his explanation
of the working of Eros upon the soul, as well as the body; but the
thought that Eros aims at the beautiful (197 B) is his most fruitful
deliverance and the only one which Socrates, later on, takes up and
developes’.
We may observe, further, how Agathon, like Phaedrus, indulges in
mythological references, and how—like most of his predecessors (cp.
180 p, 185 z)—he makes a point of criticising and correcting the views
of others (194 5, 195 B). Cp. Isocr. Busir. 222 8B, 230 a.
In style and diction the speech of Agathon gives abundant evidence
of the influence of the schéol of Gorgias, especially in the preface
(194 E—195 a) and in the 2nd part (197 c—r). Thus we find repeated
instances of :—

1 See 195 5, 196 c, D, 1970; and cp. Gorg. Hel. (e.9.) 15 Kal dre pév...ovK HdlKknoev
GAN jrixnoev, elpnra Thy dé rerdprny alriay rw TeTdprw Ady w diéEerut. Cp. Blass,
att. Bered. p. 77.
2 Jowett is somewhat flattering when he writes (Plato 1. p. 531): ‘‘ The speech
of Agathon is conceived in a higher strain (sc. than Aristophanes’), and receives the
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 4, B) in which he describes himself as talking dithyrambs....
The rhetoric of Agathon elevates the soul to ‘sunlit heights’.” One suspects that
“the approval of Socrates” is more ironical than real. Agathon’s speech belongs
to the class condemned by Alcidamas, de Soph. 12 ol rots dvéuacw axpiBds eFecpyac-
pévo. Kal “aGdrov trohuaow A r}dSyous eorxdres: cp. 1b. 14 dvdyKn...ra pev Umoxploe kal
paywdig mapamrdjowa doxety elvar,
XXXVi INTRODUCTION

Short parallel Kola’ with homoeoteleuton: ¢.g. 1945 é|yw Se &)|

BovrAopat | mpatov pev eireiv | bs ypn pe eiretv | erecta eimeiv: 197 D
adXoTpioTyTOS pév KEvol, OlKevoTnTOs dé mAnpot.
Homoeoteleuton and assonance: eg. tav ayabav dv 6 Beds abrois
airtos (1945); tpomos dpbds mavrds...mept TavTds...olos <@y> olwy aitios
wv (195 a); mavrwy Oedy evdapovwy ovtwv (195 A).
These rhetorical artifices are especially pronounced in the concluding
section, as is indicated by the sarcastic comment of Socrates (198 B 70
& éri redevrijs, xtA.) ; in fact, the whole of this section is, as Hug puts
it, a “‘formliche Monodie.” Another feature of A.’s style is his fondness
for quotation, especially from the poets (196 c, £, 196 a, 197 B), and his
tendency to break into verse himself—ézépyerar 8€ ot te Kal éupetpov
eizeiv (197 c). He has no clear idea of the limits of a prose style, as
distinguished from verse; and the verses he produces are marked by
the same Gorgianic features of assonance and alliteration. In fine, we
can hardly describe the general impression made on us by the style of
Agathon better than by adapting the Pauline phrase—‘‘ Though he
speak with the tongues of men and of angels, he is become as sounding
brass or a tinkling cymbal?.”

§ iv. Socrates anD Diotima.

To Socrates it falls to deliver the last of the encomia on Eros. This
is no mere accident, but artistically contrived in order to indicate
the relative importance of his encomium as the climax of the series.
In form and content, as well as in extent, it holds the highest place,
although to its speaker is assigned the éoyary xAivy.

(A) The substance and form of Socrates’ doyor.

(a) The encomium proper is preceded by a preliminary dialectical
discussion with Agathon, the object of which is to clear the ground of
some popular misconceptions of the nature of Eros. The notion of
Eros, it is shown, is equivalent to that of Desire (€pws = 76 émi@upodr)
1 Distinguish this from the more Isocratean style of the speech of Pausanias
with its more developed toa and evpvOula of periods. Cp. Aristoph. frag. 300 xat
kar’ ’AydOwy’ dvrlderov ééupnuévoy, ‘‘ shaved Agathon’s shorn antithesis.”
2 Horn summarises thus (Platonstud, p. 264): ‘‘Die ganze Rede mit ihrem
anspruchsvollen Kingang, 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 Geschicklichkeit
entworfenes Mustersttick der...gorgianisch-sophistischen Rhetorik.* See also the
rhythmic analysis (of 195 p ff.) worked out by Blass, Rhythmen, pp. 76 ff.
 INTRODUCTION XXXVli

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

beautiful (7d xaddv), as had been asserted by Agathon (201 a—s).
That Socrates refuses to embark on an eulogistic description of Eros
without this preliminary analysis of the meaning of the name serves, at
the start, to differentiate his treatment of the theme from that of all
the preceding speakers: it is, in-fact, an object-lesson in method, an
assertion of the Platonic principle that dialectic must form the basis of
rhetoric, and that argument founded on untested assumptions is
valueless. a
(0) The speech proper begins with a mythological derivation of
Eros, in which his conflicting attributes as a da(uwr—a being midway
between gods and men—are accounted for by his parentage. Eros is
at once poor, with the poverty of Desire which lacks its object, and
rich, with the vigour with which Desire strives after its object. And
in all its features the Eros of Socrates and Diotima stands in marked
contrast to the Eros of conventional poetry and art, the divine Eros of
Agathon.
Eros is defined as Desire and as Daemon; and, in the next place,
its potency! is shown to lie in the striving after the everlasting
possession of happiness. But Eros implies also propagation in the
sphere of beauty. It is the impulse towards immortality—the impulse
displayed alike by animals and by men, the ground of parental love
towards both physical and mental (@iAotuia) offspring.
But when we arrive at this point, the question suggests itself as to
how, more precisely, these different determinations of Eros are related
to one another. What is the link between Eros defined as “the desire
for the abiding possession of the good” and Eros defined as “the desire
for procreation in the beautiful”? The former conception involves a
desire for abiding existence, in other words for immortality, inasmuch
as the existence of the possessor is a necessary condition of possession;
while the latter also involves a similar desire, inasmuch as procreation is
the one means by which racial immortality can be secured. Thus the
link between the two conceptions of Eros is to be found in the implicit
notion common to both that Eros is the striving after immortality or
self-perpetuation. But there is another point to be borne in mind in
order to grasp clearly the connexion of the argument. The beautiful
includes the good (raya6a cada 201 c); so that the desire for the good
is already, implicitly, a desire for the beautiful (and vice versa).

1 Te. its generic notion (elva:, 7d kepddatov 205 D) as distinguished from the
specific limitation (kahetoOa: 205 c, 206 B) to sex-love. See W. Gilbert in Philologus
uxvut. 1, pp. 52 ff.
XXXVili 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
(r6xos), 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 xadov
presented and to appreciate it, but also to reproduce it in another:
there are two moments in each such experience, that of ‘‘ conception”
(xvnots) or inward apprehension, and that of “delivery” (roxos) or
outward reproduction.
The emphasis here laid on the notion of reproduction and delivery
(tixrew, yevvav), 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, Adyous toovrous
rikres olrwes Tomnoovar BeArious Tovs veovs (210 c).
(c) As the conception of Eros as a striving after the Ideal pursued
not in isolation but in spiritual fellowship (ko.wwv/a) constitutes the core
of the Socratic exposition, so the form of that exposition is so contrived
as to give appropriate expression to this central conception. It com-
mences with a piece of dialectic—the conversation between Socrates
and Agathon. Agathon is the embodiment of that xaAAos which here
stimulates the épacrys in his search for truth: it is in Agathon’s soul
(év xad@) that Socrates deposits the fruits of his pregnant mind. In
much, too, of the exposition of Diotima the semblance, at least, of
intellectual xowwvéa is retained, illustrating the speaker’s principle of
philosophic co-operation. Thus the speech as a whole may be regarded

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

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

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

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

(B) Diotima and her philosophy.

(1) Diotima. Diotima is a fictitious personage. Plato, no doubt
purposely, avoids putting his exposition of Eros into the mouth of any
historical person: to do so would be to imply that the theory conveyed
is not original but derived. It is only for purposes of literary art that
Diotima here supplants the Platonic Socrates: she is presented, by
a fiction, as his instructor, whereas in fact she merely gives utterance
to his own thoughts. These thoughts, however, and this theory are, by
means of this fiction, represented as partaking of the nature of divine
revelation ; since in Diotima of Mantinea we find a combination of two
significant names. The description yvv7) Mavruiky inevitably implies
the “mantic” art, which deals with the converse between men and
gods of which 76 daudvov, and therefore the Eros-daemon, is the
mediating agent (202 ©); while the name Avoriua, “She that has
honour from Zeus,” suggests the possession of highest wisdom and
authority. This is made élear by the réle assigned to Zeus and his
servants in the Phaedrus: 6 pev 8% péyas nyeuov ev ovpave Zevs...7patos
mopeverat, Ktr. (246 E); of pev d2 ody Ards Stoy twa elvar Lytotou tiv
Woxnv tov id’ attrav épwyevov' oxorotow ovv ei pidocodpos te Kal
Hyepovixos Thy plow Kal...7av Towovat Orws TOLOUTOS éoTat, KTA. (252 E ff).
The characteristics of Zeus, namely guiding power (yyeuovia) and
wisdom (co¢ia), attach also to his émadocé: consistently with this
Diotima is cody (201 p), and ‘‘ hegemonic” as pointing- out the 6p67
660s to her pupil, and guiding him along it in a masterful manner
(210 a ff, 211 B ff)”.
1 Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 527): ‘‘As at a banquet good manners would not allow
him (Socr.) to win a victory either over his host or any of the guests, the superiority
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
his accustomed profession of ignorance (cp. Menex. 236 fol.).”
2 Gomperz’s suggestion (G. 7’. 11. p. 396) that ‘‘the chief object of this etherea-
lized affection” which Plato had in mind wher ‘in the teaching (of Diotima) he
xl INTRODUCTION

In the person of Diotima, “the wise woman,” Plato offers us—in

Mr Stewart's phrase—“a study in the prophetic temperament'”; she
represents, that is to say, the mystical element in Platonism, and her
discourse is a blend of allegory, philosophy, and myth. As a whole it
is philosophical: the allegory we find in the imaginative account of the
parentage and nature of Eros, as son of Poros and Penia; the mythical
element appears in the concluding portion, in so far as it “sets forth in
impassioned imaginative language the Transcendental Idea of the Soul’.”
And as in the allegory the setting is derived from current religious
tradition, so in the myth the language is suggested by the enthusiastic
cult of the Orphics. It may be well to examine somewhat more
closely the doctrine of the prophetess on these various sides.
(2) Dtotima’s allegory. The first point to notice is the artistic
motive for introducing an allegory. It is intended to balance at once
the traditional derivations of the God Eros in the earlier speeches, and
the grotesque myth of Aristophanes. Socrates can match his rivals in
imagination and inventive fancy. It also serves the purpose of putting
into a concrete picture those characteristic features of the love-impulse
which are subsequently developed in an abstract form. And, thirdly,
the concrete picture of Eros thus presented allows us to study more
clearly the features in which Socrates, as described by Alcibiades,
resémbles Eros and embodies the ideal of the philosophic character.
In the allegory the qualities which characterise Eros are fancifully
deduced from an origin which is related in the authoritative manner of
an ancient theogony. The parents of Eros are Poros and Penia.
Poros is clearly intended to be regarded as a God (203 B ot @eoi, of Te
dAdo cal 6...[dpos): he attends the celestial banquet and drinks nectar
like the rest. The nature of Penia is less clearly stated : she cannot
be a divine being according to the description of the divine nature as
edainwv and possessing tayaGa xai kaka given in the context preceding
(202c ff.); and the list of the qualities which she hands down to her
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 da(uwy, combined with the definition
of ro daysovor as peragd Oeod re Kai Ovynrod (202 E), we are justified

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

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

9 Ilevia as a personification of 7 6vnT) pvois'. It is interesting here to
notice that Penia had already been personified by Aristophanes in his
Plutus, and personified as one member of an antithesis’.
In the description of Poros, the father of Eros, it is significant that
he is stated to be the son of Myris. The idea of Plenty (Iopos) had
already been personified by Aleman, whether or not the Scholiast
ad loc. is correct in identifying that Poros with the Hesiodic Chaos,
And the idea of Wisdom (M7r1s) also had played a part, as a personified
being, in the speculations of the theogonists. For it seems, at least,
probable that the Orphic theologians had already in Plato’s time
evolved the equation Phanes = Ericapaeus = Metis*, and that here as
elsewhere in the language of Diotima there lie allusions to the doctrines
of that school of mystics.
Of the incidental details of the allegory, such as “the garden of
Zeus” where the intercourse between Penia and Poros took place
and the intoxication of Poros which led up to that intercourse, the
Neoplatonic commentators, as is their wont, have much to say. But
we may more discreetly follow Zeller and Stallbaum in regarding such
details as merely put in for purposes of literary effect, to fill up and
round off the story. Poros could never have fallen a victim to the
charms of Penia, since she had none; nor could Penia ever have hoped
to win over Poros by persuasion or force, he being endowed with the
strength and wisdom of a god. Obviously, therefore, the god must be
tricked and his senses blinded—as in the case of the sleeping Samson
or of the intoxicated Lot+-that the woman might work ker will upon
him. Nor need we look for any mystical significance in 6 tov Avs
Kyros. The celestial banquet would naturally be held in the halls of
the King of the gods; that a king’s palace should have a park or
garden attached is not extraordinary ; nor is it more strange that one
1 So Plotinus is not far astray when he equates revla with in, matter, potency
(Enn. 111. p. 299 F).
2 Cp. Plato’s Iépos )( Mevla with Ar.’s Il\obros )( Ilevla: also the description of
mevia as intermediate between m)ofros and mrwyxela in Plut, 552 with the description
of Eros as intermediate between mépos and wevia in Symp. 203 E (obre daropet “Epws
ore mAoure?). Cp. also Plut. 80 ff. (I1Aobros...abxpadv Badltes) with Symp. 203 c
(‘Epws av’xunpbs). The date of the Plutus is probably 388 B.c.
Such pairs of opposites were common in earlier speculation, Cp, Spenser,
‘‘ Hymn in Honour of Love” :—
“When thy great mother Venus first thee bare,
Begot of Plentie and of Penurie.”’
3 Plato’s mention of a single parent of Poros is in accordance with the Orphic
notion of Phanes-Metis as bisexed.
xlii INTRODUCTION

of the banqueters, when overcome with the potent wine of the gods,
should seek retirement in a secluded corner of the garden to sleep off
the effects of his revels.
More important than these details is the statement that the celestial
banquet was held in celebration of the birth of Aphrodite, so that the
begetting of Eros synchronized with the birthday of that goddess. The
narrative itself explains the reason of this synchronism: it is intended
to account for the fact that Eros is the “attendant and minister” of
Aphrodite. Plotinus identifies Aphrodite with “the soul,” or more
definitely with “the soul of Zeus” (Zeus himself being 6 voids), but
it seems clear from Plato’s language that she is rather the personifica-
tion of beauty (Adpodirys xadys ovons 203 c).
As regards the list of opposite qualities which Eros derives from his
parents, given in 203 c—z, 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 (¢vcer) 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 '—1in 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 PiAdKxados and the giddcodos, 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 TopiCopevov ai Urexpel, is parallel to the law of mortal existence by
which ra pev (det) yiyveror, Ta SE ardddvtar (207 D ff.)—a law which
controls not merely the physical life but also the mental life (émvucar,
emiatnuat, etc.)*, Accordingly, the Eros-daemon is neither mortal nor
immortal in nature (répuxev 203 &), neither wise nor foolish, but
a combination of these opposites—oodds-auabys and Ovyrds-a0dvatros—
and it is in virtue of this combination that the most characteristic title
of Eros is guAccogos (which implies also ¢.A-abavacia),
(3) Diotima’s Philosophy. The philosophic interest of the

1 See § vi. 3.
2 For an expansion in English of this thought see Spenser’s ‘‘ Two Cantos of
Mutabilitie”’ (F. Q. vm.).
 INTRODUCTION xliii

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

in the relations it affirms to exist between Eros and certain leading
concepts, viz. the Good, Beauty and Immortality.
(a) The Problem of Immortality. Enough has been said already
as to the determination of these various concepts as expounded in the
earlier part of the discourse (up to 209 £), But the concluding section,
in which “the final mysteries” (ra TéXea Kal éromrixa) are set forth, calls
for further investigation. We have already learnt that Eros is “the
desire for procreation in the sphere of the beautiful with a view to
achieving immortality”; and we have found also that, so far, all the
efforts of Eros to achieve this end have been crowned with very
imperfect success. Neither by way of the body, nor by way of the
mind, can ‘“‘the mortal nature” succeed, through procreation, in
attaining anything better than a posthumous permanence and an im-
mortality by proxy. We have to enquire, therefore, whether any
better result can be reached when Eros pursues the 6p67) 640s under the
guidance of the inspired wa:daywyds. The process that goes on during
this educational progress is similar in the main to what has been
already described. Beauty is discovered under various forms, and the
vision of beauty leads to procreation ; and procreation is followed by a
search for fresh beauty. But there are two new points to observe in
the description of the process. First, the systematic method and
regularity of procedure, by which it advances from the more material
to the less material objects in graduated ascent. And secondly, the
part played throughout this yprogress by the activity of the intedlect
(vots), which discerns the one in the many and performs acts of
identification (210 B) and generalisation (210 c). Thus, the whole
process is, in a word, a system of intellectual training in the art of
dialectic, in so far as it concerns 70 xaAdv. And the end to which it leads
is the vision of and converse with Ideal Beauty, followed by the pro-
creation of veritable virtue. It is to be observed that this is expressly
stated to be not only the final stage in the progress of Eros but the
most perfect state attainable on earth by man (ro réAos 211 B, évratda
Tov Biov Biwrdv avOpurw 211 dD, rexovte...brapyer Oeopidret yeverOar 212 A),
But the question remains, does the attainment of this state convey also
personal immortality? 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 delivered of true
dpery it is given to become GeopiAyns and to become afavaros—to him
citep Tw GAAw avOpwrwv”: but in this last y-clause there still hes
xliv INTRODUCTION

a possible ground for doubt. We cannot gain full assurance on the

point from this 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 Symposium ; or, at least, that the teaching of the Symposiwm 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 réAos,
and when we are told that the épwrixds-pirocodos at the end of his
progress arrives at the “possession”’ (xrjya) of that specific form of
Good which is Beauty, and finds in it his réAos, and when emphasis is
laid on the everlastingness (dei ov) of that possession, then it is reason-
able to suppose that the afavacia of the épwrixes who has reached this
goal and achieved this possession is implied. It is to be noticed,
further, that the phrase here used is no longer peréye: tov-aavarov nor
abavarurepds éott but afavaros éyévero, Nor does the language of the
clause cimep tw adAdw necessarily convey any real doubt: “he, if any
man” may be simply an equivalent for “he above all,” “he most
certainly’.” The point of this saving clause may rather be this. The
complete philosopher achieves his vision of eternal Beauty by means of
vovs (or air) 7 Wux7), as the proper organ @ dpardv 7d xadov (212 a): it
is in virtue of the possession of that immortal object that he himself
is immortalised: and accordingly immortality accrues to him not qua
avOpwiros so much as qua voyrixds Or Aoyixos. In other words, while in
so far as he is an avOpwros, a fdov, a cAov compounded of two diverse
1 See F, Horn, Platonstud. pp. 276 ff. Horn also criticises the phrase d0dvaros
yevécOar; ‘die Unsterblichkeit im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes...kann nicht
erworben werden. Der Mensch kann nur unsterblich sein oder es nicht sein, er
kann aber nicht unsterblich werden.” But what Plato means by dé@dv. yevéoOat is
to regain the life of the soul in its divine purity—the result of right education, as a
kdOapots or pedérn Oavdrov. See J. Adam, R. T. G. pp. 383 ff.
It seems quite certain that Plato—whether or not in earnest with his various
attempts to prove it—did believe in personal immortality, and would assent to the
dictum of Sir Thos. Browne, ‘‘ There is surely a piece of divinity in us, something
that was before the elements, and owes no homage unto the sun.”
2 See my note ad loc, It is to be noticed that similar expressions are used in
a similar context in Phaedr. 2534 (épamrrébpuevor (Beod)...xa’ Scov Svvardy Beod
avOpwrm pweracxeiv): Tim. 90 B, c. Cp. Betos dv 209 B, Oetoy Kaddv 211 4B, Peopide?
2124, That the Idea (rdya6dv) is olxeov to tne Soul seems implied by 205 x,
 INTRODUCTION xlv

elements body and soul, the philosopher is not entirely c@avaros but still
subject to the sway of sad mortality, yet in so far as he is a philosopher,
a purely rational soul, grasping eternal objects, he is immortal. If we
choose to press the meaning of the clauses in question, such would seem
to be their most probable significance’.
Another criticism of this passage suggested by Horn is this. If it
be true that the philosopher, or épwruxds, 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 av@pwmos and pure
Yvyy and vods. 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
view 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. All that’ is ‘clearly shown is the fact of posthumous
survival and influence. That Plato regarded this athanasia of personal
Svvapis as an athanasia of personal ovo/a, and identified ‘“‘ Fortwirken ”
with “ Fortleben,” has been suggested by Horn, as an explanation of
the “‘ganz neue Begriff der Unsterblichkeit” which, as he contends, is
propounded in this dialogue. But it is certainly a rash proceeding to
1 For this notion of immortality by ‘communion ” or ‘‘ participation” in the
divine life as Platonic, see the passages cited in the last note, also Theaet. 176 a.
Cp. also the Orphiec idea of the mystic as év@eos, ‘‘God-possessed.”’ This idea of
supersession of personality by divinity (‘‘not I but Christ that dwelleth in me”) is
a regular feature of all mystic religion.
2 In other words, d0avacta may be used not simply of quantity but of quality of
existence. This is probably the case in 212: ‘‘immortality” is rather ‘eternal
life” than ‘‘ everlastingness,” as connoting ‘‘ heavenliness ” or the kind of life that
is proper to divinities. So, as the ‘‘spark divine” in man is the voids, a@avacta is
practically equivalent to pure véno1s. On the other hand, in the earlier parts of the
discourse the word denotes only duration (40dvarov elvarc=del elvar).
xlvi INTRODUCTION

go thus to the Sophist—an evidently late dialogue—for an elucidation

of the problem. A sufficient elucidation, as has been suggested, lies
much nearer to hand, in the doctrine of the Phaedo and Phaedrus. It
is merely perverse to attempt to isolate the doctrine of the Symposium
from that of its natural fellows, or to assume that the teaching of
Diotima is intended to be a complete exposition of the subject of
immortality. ‘‘ Plato,” we do well to remember, “‘is not bound to say
all he knows in every dialogue”; and if, in the Symposium, he treats
the subject from the point of view of the facts and possibilities of our
earthly life, this must not be taken to imply that he has forgotten or
surrendered the other point of view in which the soul is naturally
immortal and possesses pre-existence as well as after-existence.
(b) The Problem of Beauty. A further point of interest in the
latter section of this discourse is the different value attached to 706
xadov in the hignest grade of love’s progress as compared with the lower
grades. In the latter it appeared as merely a means to toxos and
thereby to aGavacia ; whereas in the former it seems to constitute in
itself the final end. Horn, who notices this apparent reversal of the
relations between these two concepts, explains it as due to the fact
that in the highest grade Eros is supplanted by Dialectic, or “the
philosophic impulse,” which alone gives cognition of the Idea. But
if this be so, how are we to account for the use of the term texovte in
the concluding sentence, where the attainment of a@avacia is described
as having for its pre-condition not merely ro épav but to texetv? This
is precisely parallel to the language elsewhere used of the action of
Eros in the lower grades, and precludes the supposition that Eros
ceases to be operant on the highest grade. The truth is rather that, in
this final stage, the Eros that is operant is the Eros of pure vots—
enthusiastic and prolific intellection, “the passion of the reason.” And
the fact that ro xaAdv in this stage is no Jonger subordinated to
ddavacia as means to end of desire is to be explained by the fact that
this ultimate «adXos being Ideal is adavaroy in itself, so that he who
gains it thereby gains a@avacia.
That there are difficulties and obscurities of detail in this exposition
of the concepts we have been considering may be freely admitted. But
the line of doctrine, in its general trend, is clear enough, and quite in
harmony with the main features of Platonic doctrine as expounded in
other dialogues of the same (middle) period. Nor must the interpreter
of the dialogue lose sight of the fact that he is dealing here not
with the precise phrases of a professor of formal logic but with the
 INTRODUCTION xl vii
inspired utterances of a prophetess, not with the dialectic of a
Parmenides but with the hierophantic dogmata of the Symposium.
(c) ros as Philosophy. The fact that Socrates himself is evidently
presented in the dialogue as at once the exemplar of Philosophy and
the living embodiment of Eros might be sufficient to indicate that the
most essential result of the Socratic discussion of Eros is to show its
ultimate identity with ‘the philosophic impulse.” Since, however,
this identification has been sometimes denied, it may be well to
indicate more particularly how far this leading idea as to the nature of
Eros influences the whole trend of the discussion. We notice, to begin
with, the stress laid on the midway condition of Eros, as son of Poros
and Penia, between wisdom and ignorance, in virtue of which he is
essentially a philosopher (fpovjcews érOupnrys...prrocope 203 vff.). We
notice next how the children of the soul (Adyou wept dperjs) are pro-
nounced superior in beauty to the children of the body (209c), and
codia, we know, is one form of apery. Then, in the concluding section
(210 a ff.) we find it expressly stated that xaAdos attaches to émorjpat
(210 c), and that Pirocodia itself is the sphere in which the production
of xadoi Adyor is occasioned by the sight of ro moAd wéAayos Tod
xadov. Thus it is clearly implied throughout the discussion that co¢d/a,
as the highest division of dperq (being the specific dpery of vods), is the
highest and most essential form of 76 aya@év 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 co¢ia,” which is but another way of
stating ‘‘the philosophic impulse,” or in a word ¢uAogodia.
It must not be supposed, however, that in virtueof this identifica-
tion the love-impulse (Eros) is narrowed and devitalised. For ¢iAocodia
is not merely a matter of book-study, it is also a method of life and
a system of education. In reaching the ultimate goal, which is the
union of the finite with the infinite in the comprehension of the
Idea, the man who is driven by the spirit of Eros passes through all
the possible grades of experience in which Beauty plays a part ; and
from social and intellectual intercourse and study of every kind he
enriches his soul. He does not begin and end with what is abstract
and spiritual—with pure intellection ; nor does he begin and end with
the lust after sensual beauty: like the Eros-daemon who is his genius,
the true Erastes is ovre Onpiov ovre Meds, and his life is an anabasis from
the concrete and the particular beauties of sense to the larger and more
spiritual beauties of the mind.
Thus in its actual manifestation in life the Eros-impulse is far-
B. P, d
xlvili INTRODUCTION

reaching. And, as already noticed, it is essentially propagative. The

philosopher is not only a student, he is also, by the necessity of his
nature, a teacher. This is a point of much importance in the eyes of
Plato, the Head of the Academy: philosophy must be cultivated in a
school of philosophy.
The significance of Eros, as thus conceived, has been finely expressed
by Jowett (Plato 1. p. 532): ‘‘(Diotima) has taught him (Socr.) that
love is another aspect of philosophy. The same want in the human
soul which is satisfied in the vulgar by the procreation of children, may
become the highest aspiration of intellectual desire. As the Christian
might speak of hungering and thirsting after righteousness; or of
divine loves under the figure of human (cp. Eph. v. 32); as the
mediaeval saint might speak of the ‘fruitio Dei’; as Dante saw all
things contained in his love of Beatrice, so Plato would have us absorb
all other loves and desires in the love of knowledge. Here is the
beginning of Neoplatonism, or rather, perhaps, a proof (of which there
are many) that the so-called mysticism of the East was not strange to
the Greek of the fifth century before Christ. The first tumult of the
affections was not wholly subdued; there were longings of a creature
‘moving about in worlds not realised,’ which no art could satisfy. To
most men reason and passion appear to be antagonistic both in idea
and fact. The union of the greatest comprehension of knowledge and
the burning intensity of love is a contradiction in nature, which may
have existed in a far-off primeval age in the mind of some Hebrew
prophet or other Eastern sage, but has now become an imagination
only. Yet this ‘passion of the reason’ is the theme of the Symposium
of Plato}.”
(d) Eros as Religion. We thus see how to “ the prophetic tempera-
ment” passion becomes blended with reason, and cognition with
emotion. We have seen also how this passion of the intellect is
regarded as essentially expansive and propagative. We have next to
notice more particularly the point already suggested in the words
quoted from Jowett—how, namely, this blend of passion and reason is
accompanied by the further quality of religious emotion and awe. We
are already prepared for finding our theme pass definitely into the
atmosphere of religion not only by the fact that the instructress is
herself a religious person bearing a significant name, but also by the
semi-divine origin and by the mediatorial réle ascribed to Eros. When
we come, then, to “the greater mysteries” we find the passion of the

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

 INTRODUCTION xlix

intellect passing into a still higher feeling of the kind described by the
Psalmist as “ thirst for God.” This change of atmosphere results from
the new vision of the goal of Eros, no longer identified with any earthly
object but with the celestial and divine Idea (avroxaddv). Thus the
pursuit of beauty becomes in the truest sense a religious exercise, the
efforts spent on beauty become genuine devotions, and the honours paid
to beauty veritable oblations By thus carrying up with her to the
highest region of spiritual emotion both erotic passion and intellectual
aspiration, Diotima justifies her character as a prophetess of the
most high Zeus; while at the same time we find, in this theological
passage of the Socratic Adyo. .the doctrine necessary at once to
balance and to correct the passages in the previous Adyo. which had
magnified Eros as an object of religious worship, a great and beneficent
deity.
This side of Diotima’s philosophising, which brings into full light
what we may call as we please either the erotic aspect of religion or the
religious aspect of Eros, might be illustrated abundantly both from the
writers of romantic love-poetry and from the religious mystics. To
a few such illustrations from obvious English sources I here confine
myself. Sir Thos. Browne is platonizing when he writes (Rel. Med.)
‘‘ All that is truly amiable is of God, or as it were a divided piece of
him that retains a reflex or shadow of himself.” Very similar is the
thought expressed by Emerson in the words, “Into every beautiful
object there enters something immeasurable and divine”; and again,
‘all high beauty has a moral element in it.” Emerson, too, supplies
us with a description that might fitly be applied to the Socratic Adyou
of the Symposium, and indeed to Plato generally in his prophetic
moods, when he defines “what is best in literature” to be ‘the
affirming, prophesying, spermatic words of man-making poets.” To Sir
Thos. Browne we may turn again, if we desire an illustration of that
mental phase, so vividly portrayed by Diotima, in which enjoyment of
the things eternal is mingled with contempt. for things temporal. “If
any have been so happy ’—so runs the twice-repeated sentence—“as
truly to understand Christian annihilation, ecstasies, exolution, lique-
faction, transformation, the kiss of the spouse, gustation of God, and
ingression into the divine shadow, they have already had an handsome
anticipation of heaven; the glory of the world is surely over, and the
earth in ashes with them” (Hydriotaphia, ad fin.), A similar phase
of feeling is eloquently voiced by Spenser more than once in his
“Hymns.” Read, for instance, the concluding stanzas of the “ Hymne
1 INTRODUCTION

of Heavenly Love” which tell of the fruits of devotion to the “loving

Lord ” :—
‘‘Then shalt thou feele thy spirit so possest,
And ravisht with devouring great desire
Of his deare self...
That in no earthly thing thou shalt delight,
But in his sweet and amiable sight.
‘“‘Thenceforth all worlds desire will in thee dye,
And all earthes glorie, on which men do gaze,
Seeme,durt and drosse in thy pure-sighted eye,
Compar’d to that celestiall beauties blaze,...
“Then shall thy ravisht soule inspired bee
With heavenly thoughts farre above humane skil,
And thy bright radiant eyes shall plainely see
Th’ Idee of his pure glorie present still
Before thy face, that all thy spirits shall fill
With sweete enragement of celestiall love,
Kindled through sight of those faire things above.”

From Plato, too, Spenser borrows the idea of the soul’s “ anabasis ”
through lower grades of beauty to “the most faire, whereto they all do
strive,” which he celebrates in his ‘‘ Hymne of Heavenly Beautie.” A
few lines of quotation must here suffice:
‘Beginning then below, with th’ easie vew
Of this base world, subject to fleshly eye,
From thence to mount aloft, by order dew,
To contemplation of th’ immortall sky....
“Thence gathering plumes of perfect speculation,
To impe the wings of thy high flying mynd,
Mount up aloft through heavenly contemplation,
From this darke world, whose damps the soule do blynd,
And, like the native brood of Eagles kynd,
On that bright Sunne of Glorie fixe thine eyes,
Clear’d from grosse mists of fraile infirmities.”
These few “modern instances” may be sufficient to indicate in brief
how the doctrines of Plato, and of the Symposium in special, have
permeated the mind of Europe.
The doctrine of love in its highest grades is delivered, as we have
seen, by the prophetess in language savouring of “the mysteries,”
language appropriate to express a mystical revelation.
On the mind of a sympathetic reader, sensitive to literary nuances,
Plato produces something of the effect of the mystic péyyos by his
TO Todd méAayos Tov Kahov and his efaidvys xardWerai te Oavpacrov Krr,
Such phrases stir and transport one as “in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day” to heavenly places “which eye hath not seen nor ear heard” ;
 INTRODUCTION h

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

Homer evoked in Keats :
“Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortes when with eagle eyes
He stared at the Pacific...Silent, upon a peak in Darien.”

§ v. ALCIBIADES AND HIS SPEECH.

Alcibiades 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 riva: beauties such as Agathon. Other
indications of Alcibiades’ character and 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
political distinction, and not a little influenced, even against his better
judgment, by the force of public opinion and the on dit of his set.
With extraordinary naiveté and frankness he exposes his own moral
infirmity, and proves how applicable to his case is the confession of the
Latin poet, “video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.” He is guilt-
less, as he says, of pudency, nor would ever have known the meaning
of the word “shame” (aicxvvy) had it not been for Socrates.
Yet, totally lacking in virtue though he be, the Alcibiades of the
Symposium is a delightful, even an attractive and lovable person.
Although actually a very son of Belial, we feel that potentially he is
little short of a hero and a saint. And that because he possesses the
capacity for both understanding and loving Socrates; and to love
Socrates is to love the Ideal. Nominally it is Socrates who is the
lover of Alcibiades, but as the story developes we see that the converse
is more near the truth: Alcibiades is possessed with a consuming
passion, an intense and persistent infatuation for Socrates. And in

i «The character of Alcibiades, who is the same strange contrast of great

powers and great vices which meets us in history, is drawn to the life” (Jowett,
Plato 1. p. 526).
lii 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 influence 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 Alcibiades. 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 rdle as a devotee of Dionysus.
Frequency of similes: 2164 worep ar6 tév Lepyvwv: 217A 7o Tod
8nxGevros...7dbos: 218 B Kexowwvyxate...Baxxeias.
Elliptical expressions: 215.a,c; 2168, D,E; 220c,D; 221pD; 222.8.
Anacolutha: 2178; 218 a.

§ vi. THE ORDER AND CONNEXION OF THE SPEECHES.

Disregarding the introductory and concluding scenes and looking

at the rest of the dialogue as a whole, we see that it falls most
naturally into three main divisions, three Acts as we might call them.
In the First Act are comprised all the first five discourses; the Second,
and central, Act contains the whole of the deliverances of Socrates;
the Third Act consists of Alcibiades’ encomium of Socrates*. We have
to consider, accordingly, how each of these Acts is related to the
others; and further, in regard to the first, we have to investigate the
relative significance of each of its five sub-divisions or scenes.
l. The first five speeches and their relative significance.
Plato’s own opinion of the earlier speeches appears clearly enough
in the criticism which he puts in the mouth of Socrates (198p ff.).
1 See Introd. § ii. (A) ad fin.; and Gomperz, G. 7. mu. pp. 394 ff.
2 See Introd. § vi. 3, where some details of the way in which Alcib. echoes the
language of the earlier speakers will be found.
3 Rettig and yon Sybel make the First Act conclude with Arist.’s speech, and the
Second Act begin with Agathon’s: but that this is a perverse arrangement is well
shown by F. Horn, Platonst. p. 254 (ep. Zeller, Symp.).
 INTRODUCTION liii

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

it obviously applies, in the main, to the whole series of which his
discourse formed the climax. Instead of endeavouring to ascertain
and state the truth about the object of their encomia—such is the gist
of Socrates’ criticism—the previous speakers had heaped up their
praises regardless of their applicability to that object (198 & ad init.).
What they considered was not facts but appearances (o7ws éyxwpidleww
ddfer); 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 (]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 (d0ga), not at reality (4AyGea), in
virtue of which no one of them can claim to rank as a scientific
contribution (éraryun) to the discussion. ‘
The relative order of the first five speeches. The question as to the
principle upon which the order and arrangement of these speeches
depends is an interesting one and has given rise to some controversy.
(a) It has been suggested (e.g. by Rétscher) that the speeches are
arranged in the order of ascending importance, beginning with that of
Phaedrus, which is generally admitted to be the slightest and most
superficial, and proceeding gradually upwards till the culminating
point is reached in the speech of Agathon!. This view, however, is
untenable in the face of the obvious fact that Agathon’s speech is in
no real sense the best or most important of the series; rather, from the
point of view of Socrates, it is the worst. The fact that each speaker
commences his oration by a critique of his predecessor might seem, at
first sight, to lend some colour to the view that each was actually
making some improvement, some advance; but this preliminary
critique is plainly nothing more than a rhetorical trick of method’,
(b) Steinhart® would arrange the speeches in pairs, distinguishing
each pair from the others according to the special spheres of the activity
of Eros with which they deal. Phaedrus and Pausanias deal with the

1 Cp. Susemihl, Genet. Entwick. d. plat. Phil. p. 407: ‘‘So bildet denn der
Vortrag des Sokrates den eigentlichen theoretischen Mittelpunkt des Werkes, die
tibrigen aber mit dem Alkibiades eine aufsteigende Stufenreihe.”’
2 Observe also how, in 193s, Eryx. characterizes the first four speeches as
moda kal mavrodamd, ‘*motley and heterogeneous.”
3 Similarly Deinhardt, Uber Inhalt von Pl. Symp.
 liv INTRODUCTION

ethical sphere; Eryximachus and Aristophanes with the physical;

Agathon and Socrates with the higher spiritual sphere.
This scheme, however, is no less artificial, although it contains
some elements of truth; and a sufficient ground for rejecting it lies in
the fact that the speech of Socrates cannot be classed along with the
other five’.
(c) Hug’s view is that the speeches are arranged from the aesthetic,
rather than the logical, point of view, in groups of two each. The
second speech in each of the groups is, he holds, richer in content than
the first; and the groups themselves are arranged with a view to
contrast and variety. But here again, little seems gained by the
device of pair-grouping; and the development within the groups is
obscure. Hug, however, is no doubt correct in recognizing that the
arrangement of the speeches is governed mainly, if not entirely, by
artistic considerations, and with a view to literary effect; and that an
artistic effect depends largely upon the presence of variety and of
contrast is beyond dispute.
(d) <Any satisfactory explanation of the order in which the
speeches are arranged must be based upon the internal indications
supplied by the dialogue itself.
The first inference to be drawn from such indications is this: the
speech of Socrates must be left to stand by itself, and cannot be
grouped with any one of the first five speeches?. This is made quite
evident by the tone of the whole interlude (198 a—199c) which
divides Agathon’s discourse from that of Socrates, and in special by
the definite expression od yap éru éykwuialw tovrov Tov TpOTov...aAAa Ta

* Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. 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 § ili, 4, above).
2 Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 256): ‘The successive speeches...contribute in various
degrees to the final result; they are all designed to prepare the way for Socrates,
who yvathers 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 lv

ye adyOy...e0éXw cirely Kat’ éuavtdv, od mpds Tovs vperépovs oyous

(199 a—s): 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 arbitrary character 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, style, and general
ability of statement, and to obscure also the fact that a number of
other discourses intervened between these two (wera 8% PatSpov &AXous
twas elvac 180). The express mention of this Iast 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 4 ad init.). Furthermore, we find Aristophanes
classing together these two (189 c).
As regards the fourth discourse (Aristophanes’), we are forbidden
by- similar internal indications to class it along with any of the pre-
ceding discourses. Although much of its point lies in its allusiveness
to Eryximachus’ theories, Aristophanes himself expressly emphasizes the
difference between his speéch’and the others (189 c, 193 p); and indeed
it is evident to the most cursory inspection. Nor is it possible, without
reducing the group-system to the level of an unmeaning artifice, to
pair the speech of Aristophanes with that of Agathon, which follows
next in order. The only ground for such a grouping would be the purely
fortuitous and external fact that both the speakers are professional
poets: in style and substance the two speeches lie leagues apart, while
not even an incidental connexion of any kind is hited at in the text.
The reason for the position of the fifth discourse (Agathon’s) is not
hard to discover. Once the general plan of the dialogue, as consisting
of three Acts, with the discourse of Socrates for the central Act, was
fixed in the author’s mind, it was inevitable, on artistic grounds, that
Agathon’s oration should be set in the closest juxtaposition with that
of Socrates,—in other words, at the close of the first Act. This dis-
position is already pointed to in the introductory incident, where
Agathon promises to engage in a match “concerning wisdom” with
lvi INTRODUCTION

Socrates (175 £); 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). 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 zarjp rod Adyov, 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 chis 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 swi 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 is secured by the interposition of a splendid
grotesque which, alike in style and in substance, affords so signal a
contrast both to the following and to the preceding speeches*. More-
1 That he is so designated may be due, as Crain thinks, to the desire to connect
this dialogue with the Phaedrus.
2 The comparative lengths of the speeches, counted by pages of the Oxford text,
are roughly these: Phaedrus 3 pp.; Paus. 64; Eryx. 8}; Arist. 6; Agathon 4; Soer.
(a) 3, (b) 144; Ale. 94. Thus, in round numbers, the total of the first five speeches
comes to 23 pp., which very nearly balances the 24 pp. occupied by Socr. (b) and
Alcib.
3 Jowett explains (Pluto 1. p. 530) that the transposition of the speeches of
Arist. and Eryx. is made ‘ partly to avoid monotony, partly for the sake of making
Aristophanes ‘ the cause of wit in others,’ and also in order to bring the comie and
tragic poet into juxtaposition, as if by accident.’’ No doubt these considerations
count for something, but, as I have already tried to show, there is another and a
deeper reason for the transposition (see§ ii, 4).
 INTRODUCTION lvii

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

special reference to the medical theorists of whom Eryximachus is
a type.
The first five speakers are all actual historical personages, not mere
lay figures. None the less, we must recognize the probability that
Plato is not literally true, in all details, to historical facts but, choosing
his characters with a view to scenic effect, adapts their personalities to
suit the requirements of his literary purpose. That is to say, we
probably ought to regard these persons less as individuals than as
types, and their speeches less as characteristic utterances of the
individual speakers than as the expressions of well-marked tendencies
in current opinion. The view proposed by Sydenham, approved by
Schleiermacher, and developed by Riickert', that under the disguise of
the personages named other and more important persons were aimed
at by Plato probably goes too far. It is true that some of the traits
of Gorgias are reproduced in Agathon, and some of those of Isocrates
in Pausanias ;but where is the alter ego of Aristophanes to be found?
Nor, in fact, was Plato at any time much concerned to attack
individuals as such: the objects of his satire were rather the false
tendencies and the tricks of style which belonged to certain sets and
schools of rhetors and writers. And here in the Symposiwm 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. ox
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 (d0ga), and inasmuch as all alike, in contrast to the
philosopher Socrates, are men of wnphilosophic mind’.
2. The relation of the speech of Soerates to the first five speeches.
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 Riickert makes the following identifications: Phaedrus=Tisias; Pausanias
= Protagoras or Xenophon; Eryximachus = Hippias; Aristophanes = Prodicus ;
Agathon=Gorgias. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 529) says of Pausanias: ‘‘ his speech might
have been composed by a pupil of Lysias or of Prodicus, although there is no hint
given that Plato is specially referring to them.” Sydenham supposed that Phaedrus
stands for Lysias.
2 So Resl, Verhédltnis, etc., p. 31: ‘Alle diese fiinf Reden eine breite Basis, fast
auf demselben Niveau stehend, bilden sollen fiir die spiiter folgenden Reden des
Sokrates und Alkibiades.”
lviii INTRODUCTION

Agathon’s speech forms the climax and conclusion; since all of them
alike are tainted with the same vice of sophistry. We have now to
examine this contrast in detail.
(a) Socrates v. Phaedrus. Phaedrus had declared Eros to be
peéyas Geds kai Pavpaords (178 A): Socrates, on the contrary, argues
that Eros is no eds but a dainwv (202c ff.). Phaedrus had relied
for his proofs on ancient tradition (rexpnpiov d€ rovrov xrA., 178 B;
dpodroyeirat, 1780): Socrates bases his argument on dialectic, and on
the conclusions of pure reason (Diotima being Reason personified).
Phaedrus had ascribed the noble acts of Alcestis and Achilles to
the working of sensual Eros (1798 ff.): Socrates ascribes the same
acts to a more deeply seated desire—that for everlasting fame (tép
dpetys aBavarov xtA., 208 D)':
(0) Socrates v. Pausanias. Pausanias had distinguished two
kinds of Eros—Uranios and Pandemos (180 p—sz): Socrates, on the
other hand, treats Eros as a unity which comprises in its single
nature opposite qualities (2028, 203c ff.); further, he shows that an
apparent duality in the nature of Eros is to be explained as due to a
confusion between Eros as genus (= Desire) and Eros in the specific
sense of sex-passion (205B ff.).
Pausanias had argued that sensual Eros, of the higher kind, is a
thing of value in social and political life as a source of aperj and
avépe(a (182 B—c, 184D—n, 185 B)*: Socrates shows that the produc-
tion of apery in the sphere of politics and law is due to an Eros which
aims at begetting offspring of the soul for the purpose of securing an
imwortality of fame (2094 ff, 209p)*. And Socrates shows further
that for the true Eros 16 év rots ériryndevpaor wal trois vomors Kadov
(210c) is not the rédos. Lastly, the connexion between Eros (in the
form of raidepactia) with giAocofia which had been merely hinted at
by Pausanias in 182c, and superficially treated in 182 p—z, is ex-
plained at length by Socrates.

' This is the point noticed by Jowett (Plato 1. p. 531): ‘‘From Phaedrus he
(Socr.) takes the thought that love is stronger than death.”
2 Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 531): ‘‘From Pausanias (Soer. takes the thought) that
the true love is akin to intellect and political activity.”
3 Gomperz (G. 7, 11. p. 396), & propos of his view that Plato is thinking of his
madixd Dion in Symp., writes: ‘they were busy with projects of political and social
regeneration, which the philosopher hoped he might one day realise by the aid of
the prince. On this view there is point and pertinence in that otherwise irrelevant
mention of legislative achievement among the fruits of the love-bond.’”’ The sugges-
tion is interesting, but the relevance does not depend upon its being true: Plato, in
any cause, taught politics.
 INTRODUCTION lix

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

had adopted the assumption of the duality of Eros: this Socrates
denies (202 B).
Eryximachus had extended the sphere of influence of Eros so as to
include the whole of nature (the objects of medicine, music, astronomy,
religion) : Socrates shows that the Eros-instinct affects animals as well
as men (207 A)—as equally included under the head of @vnra (207 v),—
and he ascribes to the Eros-daemon the mediation between gods and
men and the control of the whole sphere of religion; but he confines
his treatment in the main to the narrower subject of Eros proper
as concerned with humanity’.
(d) Socrates v. Aristophanes. Aristophanes had defined Eros as
“the desire and pursuit of wholeness” (rod 6Aov rH émiBupia Kal dwee
gpws dvoua 192 E: cp. 192 B orav...évTiyy To atrod nuice): Socrates
corrects this by showing that wholeness, or one’s other half, is only
sought when it is good (ore ypiceos evar Tov épwra ovre OAov éav py...
ayabov ov 205 5”). Both, however, agree in maintaining the negative
position that Eros is not simply the desire for 97 tav adpodiciwy
avvovaia (192 c).
(e) Socrates v. Agathon. The strictly dialectical part of Socrates’
speech (199 c—201 c), which takes the form of a cross-questioning of
Agathon, consists, in the main, of a hostile critique and refutation of
his speech. But in some few particulars Socrates indicates his agree-
ment with statements made by Agathon. We may, therefore, sum-
marize thus :— eae
(1) Points of Agreement: Socrates approves (199 c) of the rule
of method laid down by Agathon (195 a) and of the distinction it
implies (201 p ad fin.). Agathon stated the object of Eros to be the
beautiful (197 B): Socrates adopts and developes this statement
(201 a). Agathon ascribed aydpeia to Eros (196 c—pD): so does
Socrates (203 p*)
1 Tt is hardly correct to say with Jowett (Plato 1. p. 531) that “ from Eryximachus
Socrates takes the thought that love is a universal phenomenon and the great
power of nature”’: this statement requires limitation.
2 It may be observed, however, that while the Platonic Socrates is here simply
in contradiction to Arist., the idea of a ‘‘ fall” from a primeval state of perfection
which underlies the myth of Arist. is very similar to the view put forth by Plato in
the Phaedrus and elsewhere that the earthly life of the soul involves a “fall” from
its pristine state of purity in a super-terrestrial sphere. And in both Eros is the
impulse towards restoration: to achieve communion with the Idea is to regain
70 olxeiov, 7d Sdov, 7 dpxala piots (193 D).
3 Another ‘glimpse of truth’? which appears in A.’s speech is thus indicated by
lx INTRODUCTION

(2) Points of Difference: Agathon’s Eros is xaAdoros Kal adpiotos

(197 c): Socrates makes out Eros to be ovre adds ovre ayabos (201 z).
In particular Socrates denies that Eros is cogos (203 & f.), or daados
(203 c), as Agathon (196 Ef., 195 c, p) had affirmed. Agathon had
assumed Eros to be eds (194 E, et passim): this Socrates corrects
(202 B ff, B).
Agathon, like the rest, in his lavish laudations had confused
Eros with the object of love (ro épwpevov, 76 éparrov) ; whereas Socrates
points out that Eros is to be identified rather with the subject (ro épwv,
TO émefupovy, 204 C),

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

(a) The speech of Alcibiades is related to that of Socrates “as
Praxis to Theory'.” Its main purpose is to present to us a vivid
portrait of Socrates as the perfect exemplar of Eros (6 reAéws épwrxos) ;
and thus to compel us to acknowledge that in the living Socrates
we have before us both a complete diAdcodos—even as Eros is giAogo-
Pav dia mavtds tod Biov (203 D),—and a daipovios dvyp—even as Eros is
a dainwv. In addition to this main purpose, the speech serves the
secondary purpose of vindicating the master against the charge of
indulging in impure relations with his disciples (see § il. A ad fin.),
But the language of Alcibiades echoes not only that of Socrates, in
part, but also, in part, that of the earlier encomiasts of Eros. And
this is due to the fact that Socrates—the Eros of Alcibiades—plays
a double réle ; he is both 6 épwyevos and 6 épdv. This ambiguity of the
Socratic nature is already implied in the comparisons with satyrs and
Sileni made by Alcibiades, which point to a character that is épagrds,
however evédens in outward appearance. We may therefore tabulate
the more detailed points of inter-relation as follows :—
(a) The Eros of the éparris (as exhibit- Socrates as épaorys (his outward ap-
ing évdea) in Socrates’ encomium. pearance of &dea) in Alcibiades’ en-
comium,
203D émlBourds- éort Tots Kadois kal rots 2130 dteunxarvijow Srws mapa TY Kad-
ayadors.,.ael Twas mréxwy unxavds. Aorw...Kataxelon.
203 © pice éparrys Wy mepl Td Kadév. 216D Lwxpdrys epwrik@s SidKecrac Trav
Kad@y,

Jowett (Plato 1. p. 526): ‘* When Agathon says that no man ‘can be wronged of his
own free will,’ he is alluding playfully to a serious problem of Greek philosophy
(ep, Arist. Nic, Ethics, v, 9)”: see Symp. 190c ad init, But, so far as I see, no
reference is made to this point by Socrates.
1 Hug, p. Ixvii.
 INTRODUCTION Ixi
203 D dvumddnros Kal dovxos, xamacreriys 220 B dvumdbdnros...émopevero.
del dy kal dorpwros...bmralOpios Koimi- 220 v elorhxer wéxpe Ews eyévero (with the
HEVOS. context).
203 D ppovicews éxcOuunrhs. 220 c é éwOwod ppovrifwy re Errnke (cp.
1740 ff.).
203 D dSewds ybns cal Papwaxeds Kal oo- 215co ff. xndet rods dvOpwrous (Karéxet,
giorhs...wdpimos...drav evrophop. éxm\7jTre), KTA. 223 A evrbpws kal
209 B evOds evropel N6ywr ep dpeThs. mibavov éyov nupev.

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

responsions in the larfguage of Alcibiades are all drawn from the
discourse of Socrates. This is due to the fact that it is his discourse
alone, of the earlier encomia, which treats "Epws on the side of its
moe ta. The previous speakers had, as we have seen, regarded “Epws as
altogether lovely, 7.e. as rd épwuevov. Accordingly, it is to the next list
of parallels that we must look for the passages where Alcibiades echoes
their sentiments.
(8) “Epws-épduevos as xdddoros Kal Socrates as the embodiment of “Epws-
d&picros in the earlier encomia. épdpuevos in Alcibiades’ encomium.
(1) Courage.
178 (Phaedrus) crparéredov épacrév 2208 8rt...puyy dvexuper 7d oTparéredor,
.. max dpuevol y’ av vixmer, KTD. KT).
197p (Agathon) év révy ev PdBy... 220E cuvdiécwoe...avrov éué.
mapactarns Te Kal gwrhp dpioros. 2218 udra éppwuévws dpuuvetrat.
203 p (Socrates) avdpetos wy kal trys kal 219 B rots mévols,..€uov mepinv, KTV.
cUvrovos. 220 B éxéXevoy cor diddvar Taproreta.
(2) Temperance. |
196 c (Agathon) 6 “Epws diagepdyrws ay 216 D réons olecGe yéuer...cwppoovvns ;
awppovot.

(3) Complete virtue.

196 D rept pév obv dixacocivns kal cwhpo- 219 dD dyduevov.,.cwppootvnv kal avdpelar
atvns kal dvdpelas Tov Oeot etpnrat, .-.els Ppdynow Kal els kapreplay.
mepl dé coplas Nelmerat.

(4) Admirableness.
1808 (Phaedrus) ol Geol... ~adAov Gaupyd-
fovocw Kal dyavTa...6rav 6 épwpevos
(e.g. Achilles) rdv épacrny d-yara, kTh.
197 p (Agathon) Oearos cogois, dyacros
Geots,
210 & (Socrates) caréweral re Oavpacrov
Thy piow Kaddv.
(5) Inspiration of a sense of honour.
178pD (Phaedrus) (6 &pws éumoet) rhv
éml pev Tots alaxpots aloxvuny.
219 D aydpevov Thy TovTou pict, KT.
221c Socr., as ovdev? 8u010s, is superior
to Achilles,
220 & dévov nv Oedoacbat Dwxpdrn.
216 ra évrds dyd\para...eldov...mayKaha,
kal Oavwacrd.
216 B éyw dé rodrov wdbvov alaxvvoua.
 Ixii INTRODUCTION
(6) Indifference to personal beauty.
210 B (Socrates) évds dé (7d xKddos) 219 c éuod...xareppdynoev kal xareyé\acev
Karagpovncavra, KTr. (ep. 210 pd, Tis us wpas.
211 x).
(7) Fruitfulness.
210c (Socrates) rixrew Ad-yous.,.olriwes 222 a (rods Abyous adrod edpicet) Gecordrous
moinoovas. Bedrlous rovs véovs (cp. kal whetora ayddhuara dpetis év atirots
210 p). éxovras kal...relvovras...éml mav dcov
2124 rlxrew ov eldwra dperijs...ddn’ mpoonke: okometv T@ wéNOVTL KAA@ Ka-
adnO7- ya0@ écecOa (cp. 218D ws br BéATLoTOv
209 B evrropet Méywv wept dperijs Kal olov yevéo Ban).
xp elvar tov Avdpa tov dyaddv (ep.
185 B modAnv éreuédecav...mpds ape-
THY).
— 210 D xadovs Adyous...TlkTy...€v pidoco- 218 a dnxGels brd TOv ev girocodgla Abywr.
gla apbbvy.

(8) Range of Influence.

1868 (Eryximachus) é¢ml wav 6 Geos 2224 (rods Aébyous avtod evphoer) emt
Telvel. wretotov Telvovras, uaddov dé él wav,
210 p (Socrates) él 7d modvd médayos KTA.
...T0U Kado.

The foregoing lists contain, I believe, most if not all of the passages
in which Alcibiades, describing Socrates, uses phrases which definitely
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 very carefully wrought piece of work in
which every phrase has its significance, every turn of expression its
bearing on the literary effect: of the dialogue as a whole. Moreover,
as we are now to see, the list of parallels already given by no means
exhausts the ‘“responsions” offered by Alcibiades.
(6) The speech of Alcibiades, although primarily concerned with
Socrates, is also, in a secondary degree, concerned with Alcibiades
himself. And Alcibiades, like Socrates, plays a double part: he is at
once the ratduxd of Socrates the épacrys, and the éparrys of Socrates the
EpwLevos.
,
In his réle of épacrys Alcibiades exhibits a spirit very
similar to that described in the earlier speeches, in which every display
of erotic passion is regarded as excusable if not actually commendable.
We may call attention to the following echoes :—
 INTRODUCTION Ixiii

2184 may éréddua Spav re xal Aé-vyeuw. 182 © (Pausanias) davuacra epya épya-
fouévyy...movety oldmep ol épactral mpos
TH TadiKa, KT.
219 © Hrdpovy 5} KaTadedovlwuevos. 184 (Paus.) édy ris CA Tivd Oeparreview
218 D éuol uev yap ovdév éore mperBUrepov ayyotmevos du’ éxeivoy duelvwv UrecOat...
Tov ws bre BéATioTOV ene yevéoPa. ToUTOU aiirn ad 7 €GeXodovdela otk aloypa.
6 olual pot ovddAHwTopa ovdéva KupLd- 1848 rére 5}...cupmlrre 7d Kaddv elvac
Tepov elvac gov. yw dh To.ovTw avdpl... mada épacty xaploacba.
av uh xapitduevos alcxuvoluny rods 1858 wav mdvrws ye Kadov dperis evexa
Ppovitous. xapliverdar
218 p elrrep...tis €or’ ev ewol, SUvapes du’ rs 184p 6 pev Suvdmuevos els...dperhny ocup-
av od yévo.o dmelvwr. Badreo Oat.

222 B ods obros éfamraray ws épacrhs mai- 184 éml rovTw Kal eEararnOAvar ovdev
Ocxd...un eEarardc@a brd rovrov. alaxpdv.
185 B Kadh 7) adr.

217 c womep épacrns mardixots ériBouhevwv 203 p (Socrates) émiBoudbs éore (6 “Epws)
1D adds & ériBoudevoas. Tots Kadols Kal ayadors.
219 B radra...adels womep Bédn. 203 p (Socr.) Onpeurhs devéds.
2198 trd Tov TplBwra Kataxduwels Tov 191 ff. (Aristoph.) yalpovor cuvyxaraxel-
rouroul, mepiBarwy Tw XeElpe...KaTeKel- pevor kal cummemdeyuévor Tots dvdpdct...
nv thy viKra odypv. ov yap Um dvacyuvtias TolTo Spacw
aX’ Uwd Odppous...dmoBalvovow els Ta
WONLTLKA avdpes ol ToLwodTot,
215d éxmemAnypévor éopev Kal Katexd- 1928 (Aristoph.) @avuacra éxmdjrrovrac
mea, Pirla...xkal Epwrt, ox €0édovTes...xwple
219d o86’...elxov (brws) dmocrepnbelnv ferPat addrrjrAwv ode cuixpov xpdvov.
THs TovToOU suvovalas.

221 4 rapaxedevoual Te avo Oappetv, Kai 179.4 (Phaedrus) éyxara\ireiv ye ra

Breyou dre ovKk atodelw avTu. mada i phn BonOjoac xuwduvevorri,
ovdels oUTw KaKos, KTV.

Since in this list echoes are found of the only two earlier
encomiasts who were not represented in the former lists (viz. Pausanias
and Aristophanes), it will be seen that the speech of Alcibiades con-
tains references, more or less frequent, to sentiments and _sayings
expressed by every one of the previous speakers. It is chiefly in his
description of himself that Alcibiades echoes the language of the first
five speakers, and in his description of Socrates that he echoes the
language of Socrates. The general impression made on the mind of
the reader who attends to the significance of the facts might be
summed up briefly in the form of a proportion: as Alcibiades is to
Socrates in point of practical excellence and truth, so are the first five
speeches to the discourse of Socrates-Diotima in point of theoretical
truth and excellence. But while this is, broadly speaking, true cf the
BP. é€
Ixiv INTRODUCTION

inner nature (¢vos, 7a &vdov) of Socrates as contrasted with that of

Alcibiades, we must bear in mind that in his outward appearance
(cxjpa) Socrates is “conformed to this world” and, posing as an erastes
of a similar type to Alcibiades himself, serves to illustrate the theories
and sentiments of the earlier speeches.
Lastly, attention may be drawn to one other parallel in Alejbiades’
discourse which appears to have passed unnoticed hitherto. It can
scarcely be a mere coincidence that Alcibiades’ progress in erotics—in
other words, “the temptation ot saint” Socrates—is marked by a
series of stages (cvvovola, avyyvpvacia, cuvderrvetv, 217 a ff.) until it
reaches its climax in ovyxeio@a, and that a similar dvodos by gradual
stages (210 a ff, 211 c ff.) up to the final communion with Ideal
Beauty had been described as the characteristic method of the true
erastes. It seems reasonable to suppose that the method offalse love is
designedly represented as thus in detail contrasting with, and as it were
caricaturing, the method of true love: for thereby an added emphasis
is laid upon the latter.

§ vii. THe DIALOGUE AS A WHOLE: ITS SCOPE AND JESIGN.

No small degree of attention has been paid by the expositors of our
dialogue to the question regarding its main purport—‘ de universi operis
consilio.” It is plausibly argued that there must be some one leading
thought, some fundamental idea, which serves to knit together its
various parts and to furnish it with that “unity” which should belong
’

to it as an artistic whole. But wherein this leading idea consists has

been matter of controversy. Some, like Stallbaum, are content to
adopt the simplest and most obvious view that Eros is the central idea,
and that the design of the whole is to establish a doctrine of Eros.
Others, again, have supposed that Plato was mainly concerned to
furnish his readers with another specimen of the right method of
handling philosophical problems. But although either of these views,
or both combined, might be thought to supply an adequate account of
the design and scope of the dialogue if it had ended with the speech of
Socrates, they are evidently inadequate when applied to the dialogue
as it stands, with the addition of the Alcibiades scenes. In fact, this
last part of the dialogue—the Third Act, as we have called it—might
be construed as suggesting an entirely different motif,—namely, lauda-
tion of Socrates in general, or perhaps rather (as Wolf argued) a
defence of Socrates against the more specific charge of unchastity.
 INTRODUCTION Ixv

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

indications testify, as has been shown, that Plato intended here to
offer an apologiam pro vita Socratis. Yet it would be a mistake to
argue from this that the main design of the dialogue as a whole lies in
this apologetic. Rather it is necessary to combine the leading idea of
this last Act with those of the earlier Acts in such a way as to reduce
them, as it were, to a common denominator. And when we do this,
we find—as I agree with Rickert in believing—that the dominant
factor common to all three Acts is nothing else than the personality
of Socrates,—Socrates as the ideal both of philosophy and of love,
Socrates as at once the type of temperance and the master of magic.
Our study of the framework as well as of the speeches has shown us
how both the figure of Socrates and his theory dominate the dialogue,
and that to throw these into bolder relief constitutes the main value
of all the other theories and figures. This point has been rightly
emphasized by Rickert (p. 252): ‘utique ad Socratem animus ad-
vertitur ; quasi sol in medio positus, quem omnes circummeant, cuius
luce omnia collustrantur, vimque accipiunt vitalem, Socrates pro-
ponitur, et Socrates quidem philosophus, sapiens, temperans. Quem
iuxta multi plane evanescunt, ceteri vix obscure comparent, ipse
Agatho, splendidissimum licet sidus ex omnibus, ut coram sole luna
pallescit.”
It seems clear, therefore, that the explanation of the ‘“‘ Hauptzweck ”
of our dialogue which was given long ago by Schleiermacher is the
right one—‘‘propositum est Platoni in Convivio ut philosophum
qualem in vita se exhiberet, ‘viva imagine depingeret”: it is in the
portrait of the ideal Socrates that the main object of the dialogue is to
be sought.
The theory of Teichmiiller and Wilamowitz as to the occasion on
which the dialogue was produced has no direct bearing on the question
of design. They suppose that it was written specially for recital at
a banquet in Plato’s Academy ; and, further, that it was intended to
provide the friends and pupils of Plato with a model of what such
a banquet ought to be. But it would be absurd to estimate the design
of a work of literary art by the temporary purpose which it subserved ;
nor can we easily suppose that Plato’s main interest lay in either
imagining or recording gastronomic successes as such. Equally un-
proven, though more suggestive, is the idea of Gomperz that this
dialogue zepi épwros was inspired by an affection for Dion.
Ixvi INTRODUCTION

§ viii. THe Date.

We must begin by drawing a distinction between (a) the date of
the actual Banquet, (5) that of Apollodorus’ narrative, and (c) that of
the composition of the dialogue by Plato.
(a) That the date of the Banquet is Bc. 416 (Ol. 90. 4) is
asserted by Athenaeus (v. 217 a): 6 pev yap (sc. "AyaOwv) éri dpxovros
Eidypov orepavotrat Anvaios. It is true, as Sauppe and others have
pointed out, that the description in 175 & (év paprvot...tpirprpiors, cp.
223 B m.), 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
véos (175 B), and of Alcibiades as at the height of his influence (216 B)
before the ill-fated Sicilian expedition.
(b) The date of the prefatory scene may be approximately fixed
from the following indications: (1) It was a considerable number of
years after the actual Banquet (0d veword 172 c, raidwv dvtwv nuay Ere
173 a); (2) several years (roAAG éry 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 ovvdcatpiBw 172 c); (5) before
the death of Agathon (as shown by the perf. éridedypnxeyv 172 c).
It seems probable that Agathon left Athens about 408, at the
latest, and resided till 399 at the court of Archelaus of Macedon’,
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. 11. 4. 1262°12:
de An. ul. 415° 26), a possible allusion by Aeschines (in Timarch.
345 B.c.), and a probable comic allusion by Alexis in his Phaedrus (ap.
Athen, x1. 562 a)—a work which probably cannot be dated before
370 at the earliest.
The internal evidence is more extensive but somewhat indefinite.
It is commonly assumed? that in 193 a (dwxioOype...Aaxedamoviwv)
1 Fritzsche’s view that Ar. Ran, 72 implies the previous death (i.e. ante 405) of
A. is refuted by Rettig, Symp. pp. 59 ff.
2 See e.g. Zeller, Plato (E.T.) p. 139 n.; Teichmiiller, Litt. Fehd. 11. 262.
 INTRODUCTION Ixvii

we have a definite reference to the dourpos of Mantinea in 385 B.,c.

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

1 See Diimmler, Akademica, p. 40; and the refutation by Vahlen, op. Acad. t.
482 ff.
2 So I hold with Schleierm., Zeller, I. Bruns, Hahn and others; against Lutosl.,
Gomperz and Raeder. It is monstrous to assert, as Lutosl. does, ‘‘ that the date of
the Phaedrus as written about 379 B.c. is now quite as well confirmed as the date of
the Symp. about 385 B.c.” I agree rather with the view which makes Phaedr. P.’s
first publication after he opened his Academy, 1.e. circ. 388-6 (a view recently
supported in England by EK. 8. Thompson, Meno xliii ff., and Gifford, Euthyd. 20 ff.).
The foll. are some of the parallels: Ph. 232 r=Symp, 1818, 1835; 234a4=1838;
234 B=183c; 250c=2095; 251pv(240c)=2158, 2184; 251A=215 8B, 2224; 252a=
189p; 2664=1808; 267a (273 4) =200a; 272a=198D; 2764=2224; 2765=2098;
278 p=203 5; 279B=216p, 2158.
Ixvill INTRODUCTION

the two works is obvious, but which of the two is prior in date is
a problem which has called forth prolonged controversy’. This is not
the place to investigate the problem: I can only state my firm opinion
that the Xenophontic Sympos. (whether genuine or not) is the later
work. But attempts to fix its date are little better than guess-work :
Roquette puts it corc. 3830—76 ; Schanz, after 371; K. Lincke (Neue
Jahrb. 1897), after 350.
It will be seen that the available evidence is not sufficient to
justify us in dogmatizing about the precise date of composition of our
dialogue. The most we can say is that circ. 383—5 seems on the
whole the most probable period.

§ ix. THe Text.

(1) Ancient authorities. The chief manuscripts which contain the
text of the Symposiwm are :—
B = codex Bodleianus (or Clarkianus or Oxoniensis); Bekker’s 4.
T = codex Venetus append. class. 4, cod. 1: Bekker’s t (“omnium
librorum secundae familiae fons ” Schanz).

1 Among those who claim priority for Xenophon are Béckh, Ast, Delbriick,
Rettig, Teichmiiller, Hug, Diimmler, Pfleiderer ;on the other side are C. F. Hermann,
I. Bruns, Schenkl, Gomperz. Beside the broader resemblances set forth by Hug,
the foll. refs. to echoes may be of interest :—
Xen. Plat. Xen. Plat.
ee) = 7 SAO Te iv. 538 =2198
li. 23 =213'H, 214 a v.1,7 =218 5 (175 £)
ii. 26 (iv. 24) =185 0, 198 ¢ viii. 1 =218 B (187 p)
iv. 14=1834, 1848, 1794 6) 2190p
; 15=178 5, 1798, 182.¢ 4) J8=184e
LO Sie », el=214¢
Mel = 18m ek SSE », 23=188a (2038), 172.¢
» 19 (v. 7)=215a (216 pd, 221 p) >,» 24=217m, 2220
yy EH leg) ecole
», 25=193p ,, 38=2095
» 28=2178 ,, 82 (iv. 16) =1785
» 47—8=188 p a4 =182 |
», 48=188 p y 85 =179A
77 DO=1894, 197 E
The last three parallels are specially interesting, since Xen. ascribes to Pausan.
some of the sentiments which Pl. gives to Phaedrus. Possibly (as Hug, Teichm.
and others suppose) both writers are indebted to an actual apologia of the real
Pausan., which Pl. is handling more freely, Xen. more exactly (cp. I. Bruns,
Vortriige, p. 152).
 INTRODUCTION ]xix

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

Vind. I.
To these we have now to add, as a new authority,
O.-P. = Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (no. 843 in Grenfell and Hunt's
collection).
Since this last authority for the text was not forthcoming until
after the publication of the latest critical text of the Symposium, I add
the description of it given by the editors :—
“The part covered is from 200 B [beginning with the word Bov-
Ao[to] after which 40 lines are lost, the next words being av evdeia at
the end of 200 &] to the end, comprised in 31 columns, of which four
(xix—xxli) 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.p....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 ina 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 ss., the more noticeable
being those with Vindob. 21 alone or in combination with Venet. 1844
and Parisin. 1642 alone or with Vat. 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: ]. 92 (201 p] ex 1. 112 [202 a]
the omission of xai (so Stallbaum), 1. 239 [204 B] av en, where BTW
have a meaningless dv, 1. 368 [206 c] cadw as conjectured by Badham
1 See crit. notes on 2024, 203 4, 2058, 206B, 207D, 2ilc.
2 See crit. notes on 203 B, 211 p, 2138, 219%, 220c (bis).
3 See erit. notes on 202 c—203 a.
4 See crit. notes on 2014 (ad fin.), 218 p, 2204, 220 B, 223c.
> See crit. notes on 2068 (ad init.), 208 a, 223 c.
Ixx INTRODUCTION

for 7 x. 1, 471 [208 B] perexes as restored by Stephanus (peréxewv

Mss.), 1. 517 [209 a] rexewy confirming a conjecture of Hug (xvety Mss.),
1. 529 [209 B] exOupy as conjectured by Stephanus (ériJupet Mss.),
1. 577 [210 a] xac ov omitted by mss., 1. 699 [212 a] Geopire (-7 BTW),
1. 770 [213 B] Karide[v (2) (xabiCew Mss), 1. 898 [218 pD] po (probably)
with Vind. 21 (#ov BTW), 1. 1142 [222 p] daBadre as conjectured by
Hirschig (diaBaky BTW). On the other hand in many cases the
papyrus once more proves the antiquity of readings which modern
criticism rejects or suspects.”
It may be added that the editors of the papyrus in citing W have
made use of a new collation of that ms. by Prof. H. Schone of Basel
“which often supplements and sometimes corrects the report of
Burnet.” And in this edition I have followed the report of W in
their apparatus, where available, while relying elsewhere upon that
given by Burnet.
(2) Modern criticism. Much attention has been paid by Conti-
nental critics during the last century to the text of the Symposium,
and for the most part they have proceeded on the assumption that the
text is largely vitiated by interpolations’. Even Schanz and Hug,
who may be regarded as moderate and cautious critics in comparison
with such extremists as Jahn and Badham, have gone to unnecessary
lengths in their use of the obelus. Hug, while admitting that we must
take into account the freedom and variety of Plato’s style and that it
is folly to rob a writer of his individuality by pruning away any and
every expression which is in strict logic superfluous, and while ad-
mitting also that regard must be paid to the characteristic differences
of the various speeches in our dialogue, which forbid our taking any
one speech as the norm with which others should be squared,—yet
maintains that in the speeches, and especially in those of Pausanias
and Socrates, he can detect a number of unquestionable glosses. No
doubt there are some cases in these speeches in which it is not un-
reasonable to suspect interpolation, but even Hug and Schanz have,
I believe, greatly exaggerated the number of such cases; and I agree
with the editor of the Oxford text in regarding the certain instances
of corruption or interpolation as extremely few. Cousequently, in the
text here printed I have diverged but seldom from the ancient tradi-
tion, and such changes as I have made have been more often in the

1 L.g. O. Jahn, Hirsehig, Badham, Cobet, Naber, Hartmann. On the other

hand, sensible protests have been made by Teuffel and Vahlen; and Rettig’s text
is, if anything, ultra-conservative.
 INTRODUCTION Ixxi

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

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

§ x. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The main authorities which I have cited or consulted are!:—

i. Texts: Bekker (1826), the Zurich ed. (Baiter, Orelli and
Winckelmann, 1839), C. F. Hermann (1851), O. Jahn (1864), Jahn-
Usener (1875), C. Badham (1866), M. Schanz (1881), J. Burnet (1901).
Critical essays or notes by Bast (1794), Voegelin, Naber, Teuffel,
M. Vermehren (1870), J. J. Hartmann (1898).
ii. Anmnot ‘ed Editions: J. F. Fischer (1776), F. A. Wolf (1782),
P. A. Reynders (1825), L. I. Riickert (1829), A. Hommel (1834),
G. Stallbaum (2nd ed. 1836), G. F. Rettig (2 vols. 1875—6), A. Hug
(2nd ed. 1884).
iii, Treatises on the subject-matter: M. H. L. Hartmann
(Chronol. Symp. Pl. 1798), G. Schwanitz (Observ. in Pl. Conv. 1842),
M. Lindemann (De Phaedri orat. 1853, De Agath. or. 1871), J. H.
Deinhardt (Ueber den Inhalt u. s. w. von Pl. Symp. 1865), M. Koch
(Die Rede ad. Sokr. u. das Problem der Erotik, 1886), W. Resl (Ver-
haltnis der 5 erster in Pl. Symp. Reden u.s,w. 1886), C. Boetticher
(Eros u. Erkenntnis ber Pl. 1894), ©. Schirlitz (Beitrage z. Erklérwng d.
Rede d. Sokr. u.s.w. 1890) Py Crain (De ratione quae inter Pl. Phaedr.
et Symp. intercedat, 1906).
Other more general works consulted are: Teichmiiller (Lite.
Fehden, 1881), F. Horn (Platonstudien, 1893), W. Lutoslawski (Plato’s
Logic, 1897), T. Gomperz (Greek Thinkers, E.T. 1. 1905), H. Raeder
(Platons Philos. Entwickelung, 1905), J. Adam (Religious Teachers of
Greece, 1908).
iv. Translations: E. Zeller (1857), A. Jung (2nd ed. 1900), B.
Jowett, J. A. Stewart (selections, in The Myths of Plato, 1905).

1 Abbreviations used are— Bdhm.=Badham; Bt.=Burnet; Jn.=Jahn; J.-U.=

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

§ xi. Supprementary Norss.

The following Notvs are mainly intended to summarise briefly some
of the more important views propounded either by critics of my First
Edition or in subsequent publications.
(1) Libliography. Later editions of the Symposiwm are by Burnet
(text only, 2nd ed. 1910); A. Hug (3rd ed. revised by H. Schone, 1909);
W. R. M. Lamb (text and translation in Loeb Plato, vol. v), 1925;
L. Robin (introduction, text and translation, in Budé Platon, Tome tv,
Pt. 2), 1929. There are also separate Translations by F. Birrell and
S. Leslie (Nonesuch Press); K. Hildebrandt (1912); C. Ritter (in his
“Platonische Liebe,” 1931). The larger works on “Plato” by A. E,
Taylor, C. Ritter (2 vols.), Wilamowitz-Méllendorf (2 vols.), P. Fried-
lander, contain chapters on the Symposium; and it is also dealt with
to some extent in such other studies of Platonism as A. Dies, 4 utour
de Platon (pp. 400 ff.) R. Lagerborg, ‘Die platonische Liebe,” K.
Reinhardt, ‘“Platons Mythen,” P. Frutiger, “Les Mythes de Platon,”
L. Robin, “Théorie platonicienne de L’ Amour” (1908). (For Wilamowitz
I use the abbreviation ‘“‘W.-M.”), Schone’s text (as contrasted with
Hug’s) is, like Robin’s, very conservative and takes due account of
O.-P. Robin’s elaborate “ Notice” (or Introd.) gives the best and fullest
analysis and discussion of the contents.

(2) Textual Notes.

172 a. I now prefer to let "AvoAAddwpos stand, accepting (with Robin)
the view of Schiitz and Hug.
172 c. Burnet’s (ép7) is adopted by Lamb, not by Robin.
173 p. pavixds is read by Lamb, W.-M., Ritter, Hildebrandt: padakds
by Robin,
174 8. I, should now restore déyafév (for Lachmann’s *“Ayaéwv’) and
follow Stallbaum, in deference to the arguments of R. Adam
and W.-M.; so too Robin.
174 ©. dpa...ré. Robin (who ascribes it to Ficinus) and Lamb adopt
this: Schéne keeps dpa...t.
175 vp. «is Tov Kevwrepov seems likelier than eis 75 «., Which Robin
retains, placing the comma before, instead of after, 7uav (hardly
proluble).
176 B. axotom... Ayadwv. W.-M.’s reading dxotoa: mas Exets...7ivew,
“Ayabwv ; is adopted by Robin: Burnet and Schone follow
Vahlen,
1784. Robin punctuates ravra, a@ dé padvoras Kat dy (not attractive).
 INTRODUCTION Ixxiii

178 B, W.-M. prefers yovai to yovfjs. Lamb and Ritter adopt the
transposition of ‘Howddw...duoroyei, but without bracketing
¢not...Epwra; Robin retains the mss.’ order and inserts 87
after dyot.
LSE: The 7} before dexduevor is retained by Lamb and Robin, and
well defended by R. Adam,
180 &, mpatrouevy is retained by Lamb, Schone, Robin, but left out by
Ritter. H. Richards proposed (7) mp.
181 c. kal...€pws bracketed by Lamb, doubted by Robin.
182 a. kal év Aak, is transposed so as to follow yap by Robin (without
ref. to my Note!): Lamb brackets.
183 a. PiAocodias is (vainly) defended by Robin, but rejected by Lamb
and Ritter. Richards conj. ¢:Aortipias.
183 B. dpkov...etvar. The ms, text is left unchanged by Lamb and
Robin, who, like Ritter, translate as though dpxov were
repeated.
184 a. xal...duapevyew is retained by Lamb, Robin, Ritter.
184 p. troupyav (iroupyeiv) Lamb ; “troupyeiy trovpyév scripsi” Robin
(as if his own conj. !).
187 B. kal 17)...dpuoca My correction here is adopted by Lamb, but
not by Robin.
189 E. Robin punctuates «los, orpdyyvAov varov KrA.
190-5 }...6péiv is kept by Lamb, Robin and Ritter, but not by W.-M.
191 ¢. My reading (ratr’) airéy is adopted by Lamb: Robin has avrév.
191 &£. éx...ylyvovrat is kept by Lamb, Robin and Ritter.
194 a. Vahlen’s punctuation «v, kai pad’ av is adopted by Robin, but
not by Lamb, nor by W.-M., who would excise ev.
195 a. Robin reads otos dv: Lamb ofos ciwy: my reading is approved
by J. I. Beare and others.
195 B. For éorw Diels and Schone would write éorau.
197 c. eipnvnv...xndoe. Lamb reads as J, Robin only puts a comma
after yaAnvnv. W.-M. puts commas after vyveyiav and xoiryy,
and reads vzvov vnxnd7n (so too Schone), which may be right.
197 pb. Lamb reads dyavés: Robin keeps dya6os: Ritter seems to read
dyabots.
ibid. My reading 7dérw is adopted by Lamb, but Robin and Ritter
keep 700w.
198 p. Tov ér. driodv is bracketed by Lamb, but not by Robin.
199 a. Lamb and Robin read od ydp rov: Schéne od yap ay tov.
200 p. kal (del) mapovta Lamb: xai rapdvra Schone, Robin.
201 v. Sinyjow: yyjow W.-M.: éényjow Richards.
 INTRODUCTION

Robin keeps rv 6vo.dv, but Lamb brackets.

Schone, Lamb and Robin read pavteiav, which may be right
(echoing the pavrixy of 188 B).
Lamb adopts the insertion (kal...avOpw7ros).
Schone reads éeAOav, after O.-P.; and W.-M. xexapwpevos (cp.
Galen xvi. 645) for BeBapnp.
W.-M. would transpose érav etropyon so as to follow dvaBidéox. :
so too Robin.
For dv at, kept by Lamb, Schine and Robin adopt O.-P.’s dv
av etn.
Schéne and Robin print épa, not épa.
Schéne and Robin keep épd: Lamb has épa: I still prefer dpa.
Lamb brackets épwra re.
Bast’s rovrov is printed by Lamb, but Robin keeps rodro,
Robin and Lamb read & ri, not év 77, and also retain the
words bracketed by me. 7 yap...éorw Ritter trs. after yévvyois.
éyovra: éAdvra W.-M.
Lamb adopts my rot ayafév: Robin has rod réyabov.
del TO elvar 4Oavaros: so too Lamb, but Robin follows O.-P.
Robin keeps pyvjpnv: Lamb brackets it: Ritter accepts pvjun.
Lamb adopts Creuzer’s dévvarov, as does Ritter: Schone,
Friedl. and Robin keep a@avarov.
W.-M. proposes Oavyafoui o av: he and Lamb bracket the
mept, Which Robin keeps.
Taylor, like Bt., accepts 700s, which Robin expressly rejects.
mepi olov xp): R. Adam cites Rep. 352 D in defence of the zepi,
which Lamb and Robin retain.
W.-M. also rejects ris rév raidwv: Richards conj. tév dAAwv:
M. Koffka trav yapov.
. Schone adopts dda and (xal) from O,-P.
Both Schone and Lamb accept O.-P.’s (kat od).
éreita S€ ai’rov: here too W.-M. (without ref. to me) adopts my
conj. ad for airév, which Robin wrongly records “atrdv ad conj,
Bury.”
TO map évi...dovAevwv :so Lamb: Schone and Robin keep 74, as
does W.-M., who rejects dovAciwr.
pabyuara, kat xtA.: so Lamb, who also adopts Usener’s redev-
moa and iva: Robin prints paé., gor’ av...reXeuryon : Schéne
pab., va; W.-M. approves paé., as.
Robin reads wep rov Adyou (“a certain theory”).
cay eirw: dveerov Hermann, W.-M., Robin: éav evpw Richards.
 INTRODUCTION Ixxv

213 B. Kareioey : karidely (cp. 1745) Bt., W.-M., Schone, Lamb: xa6i-
fev Robin.
215 B. Lamb and Robin print Baiter’s dv rov.
215 c. mov, Tov: Tovtov Robin: rod Lamb.
218 a. Lamb and Robin read r7v xapdiav yap 7) W.
219 c. trept éxeivo (0) ye: Lamb adopts this ; Robin prints repli éxeivd ye.
220 c. ‘Idévev is retained by Lamb and Ritter: Robin adopts iddvrwr.
221 B. éraipos Lamb: érepos Robin.
221 &. Robin has wdvv yeAoto., Lamb yeAoto.: both adopt Baiter’s 84
Tiva,

222 v. Robin wrongly ascribes duaBddAy to me.

223 B. W.-M. approves O.-P.’s efaw dvrixpus.
223 D. Lamb and Robin accept, Schone rejects, the additions (xa!)
and (é).

(3) Introduction,
p. xvii (ad fin.). My inference from 1728 ff. of a “controversial inten-
tion” is contested by Taylor, Friedlander and others, but
Robin is inclined to accept it.
p. Xviil. “ Xenophon’s Symposium...later than Plato’s” (cp. pp.
Ixvii f.) : this view seems now to be generally endorsed.
Deak: (B) (a). The emphasis on xadds in 1748 should also be
noticed, as striking the key-note of the Dialogue (so Friedl.),
(b) “Socrates...lost in thought” (174 pff, 220 c). Taylor
makes much of these passages as proving the “historical
Socrates” a Mystic—but was he?
p- XxXil. (C). There are no “hidden allusions” here, says Taylor:
Robin agrees with Stallbaum.
1D: &XYs Friedl. points out that several features of Phaedrus’s
“ Erastes” are reproduced in Socrates (as évOeos, dying for
Love’s sake, etc.).
p. xxvif. Taylor regards my estimate of Pausanias as unduly “dis-
paraging.”
p. xxviii, As Taylor points out, Eryximachus and his father were
accused of “profaning the mysteries” (Andoc. i. 35), T.
maintains that Eryx.’s “pedantry” is “intentional,” and
that there is ‘no serious satire” of his science: Robin is
less favourable to this ‘‘man of rules, protocols and cata-
logues,” more interested in “technicity” than cosmology.
Hicks (De Anima, p. 231) notes that “the speech of Eryx.
seems to owe not a little to Alcmaeon.”
Ixxvi INTRODUCTION

Diexx xii, “The allusions to...Empedocles”: so too Taylor describes

A.’s speech as a “humorous parody of E.,” and he compares
also the “burlesque of an Orphic cosmogony in Birds 693 ff.”
For the style, compare the Myth in Protag. 320 cff. (with
Norden).
[b FOSAG A higher opinion of Agathon’s speech is held by Hildebrandt
and Friedl.: Robin and Taylor agree pretty nearly with my
estimate.
p. XXxX1x. “Diotima is a fictitious personage” : Schone and Taylor deny
this, T. maintaining the “historicity” of the whole account
of the relations between D. and Socr. As against this see
Robin’s Wotice, pp. xxii ff. Even if such a person as D. did
exist, the D. of the Symp. is a creation of Plato’s.
p. xlvui. “The philosopher is...a teacher ” etc. Cp. Robin, pp. xc ff., on
the relation of Plato’s ‘ Erotic” to his work in the Academy.
p. liii. (a) Rotscher’s view is to some extent supported by Taylor
and others, as the “ Eros” of Phaedrus is enlarged by later
encomiasts, till it becomes a civic and cosmic power.
3. (a) ‘“ Ambiguity of the Socratic nature”: this point
also is taken up and developed by Robin, p, evii.
p. Ixvii. Schéne alone seems to adopt Wilamowitz’s view of the
Svockio 20s.
As to “the priority of the Phaedrus,” I now retract my
statement and accept the conclusions of Raeder, Ritter etc.
For Xenophon’s Symp., cp. Robin, Notice, pp. cix ff.

(4) Commentary.
Dio 172 c. Robin and Hildebr. regard this ‘Glaucon” as distinct
from the two mentioned.
p. 5. 173 p. Robin construes dreyvas with aOdAtovs, Ritter with
TavrTas.
ibid. Robin and Taccone prefer padaxds: pavixds is adopted
by Ritter and Friedl. and defended at length by

174d. For the Homeric quotation cp. also Hth, Nic. viii.
1155° 15.
175 8, The right explanation of ravrws maparibere was first
given, I think, by J. I. Beare (in Hermathena, xvi.)—
“In any case (7.e. whether there be guests or not) you
serve up whatever you please, whenever no one is set
over you to direct you—a thing which I myself never
 INTRODUCTION Ixxvil

did,” etc. J.e. wapar. is pres. indic. So too Taylor,

W.-M., Richards and Robin: but Lamb still treats 7.
as imperative.
el OT els “hymns of a eulogistic character”: this is rightly
queried by Taylor and Robin.
OUND An Athenaeum critic objects— Plato inverts the
actual positions in Greek cult of the Uranian Aphrodite
and Aphr. Pandemos, the latter never having had
anything to do with ératpa, while the former, at
Corinth, certainly had.”
37 1834 Schone explains ¢iAocodias as acc. pl.: Friedl. (like
Robin) as gen. sing. after roto.
44, 185 c toa A€yew : Robin suggests a ref. here to Lsocrates.
51 187 IloAvpvias. Why this Muse? See the discussion in
Robin, p. lv, 7. 1.
Zevs kvBepvav. Cp. also Apol. 37.0, Ar. Ach. 197, Eur.
Alc, 879.
vavepniav KTA.: cp. (with W.-M.) Aesch. dg. 565, and
(with Robin) Ar. Thesm. 43 ff.
ov yap én: ‘I cannot go on to eulogize” (Beare).
otk el pytpds xtA.: Ritter has the Mote—“‘ich meine
keine Possessiv- oder Subjektsbeziehung, wie sie z. B.
in Verwandtschaftsbegriffen steckt, sondern eine
Objektsbeziehung.” Robin (p. lxxiii) makes the point
lie in the distinction between a particular (uy7pds) and
an indeterminate (ros) correlative object.
.93. 201A. y éAeyes: Robin prefers the “ambiguous” A€yes as
‘‘appropriate to Socr.’s tone.”
. 102. 203 p. avypnpos ktA.: cp. also Ar. Wub, 442, 445.
. 106. 205 a. rdvras.. def: Robin and Ritter connect de with elvat,
Lamb construes as I do.
107. 205 p. TO paev Kedadaoyv KtrX.: here Robin follows Ficinus ;
Lamb and Ritter agree with Prantl.
116. 207 p. véos xtX. Cp. also Vahlen on Arist. Poet. 1447” 14;
Phaedo 878, Tim. 43.4.
117. 208 8. GANA 74 KTA, Cf. also Laws 721 B, Cc.
Pal eed: édvvarov: Robin and Friedl. still argue for a@avarov :
Ritter and Lamb rightly prefer advv.
. 120.209 a. dv 8 xrA.: Robin (alone) construes dv as masc., “ De
ces hommes sont...les poétes qui donnent le jour a des
ceuvres,”’
Ixxvili INTRODUCTION

kal mept xtA. R. Adam quotes /tep. 352 pD for zepi, and
Friedl. Laws 772 p in defence of rs rév raldwv.
Stenzel follows Hug as to xav ov p., but Taylor con-
demns H.’s view as “unfortunate nonsense,” and
Friedl. also rejects it.
PAULNe Adyos: Robin and J. Adam render by ‘discourse ” ;
Lamb, ‘description ” ; Ritter, ‘‘Wortgestalt” ; Beare,
“intellectual conception.”
p. 130. 211 c¢ kal amo xth.: W.-M., reading ws for kal, cites Rep.
349 0c, Tim. 92a. Fraccaroli approves my (iva) xal.
p. 136. 21/2 5, éav eirw «xtA.: Ritter keeps the ms. text, in the sense
‘if I say so (7.e. call him wisest and fairest), so it is, or
who dare contradict me.” Lamb, putting a dash after
eirw, renders ‘if I may speak the—see, like this!,”
with the note “His drunken gesture interrupts what
he means to say and resumes later,—‘If I may speak
the truth.’” W.-M. is strong for dverav, “the formula
of honorific decrees,” which Robin also adopts, render-
ing ‘‘tels sont les titres que je lui confere.” None of
these views seems wholly satisfactory. I now rather
incline to Bergk’s éay ciciw, construed as parenthetic:
it is an easy correction and leaves ottwot with avadjow.
abid. Q1USVA. érimpoobe xtA.: Robin’s note overlooks the explanation
given by me (after Zeller) that “the garlands,” not
“Socrates,” is the object of €xovra, and ascribes it to
M. Bourguet.
p. 137. 213 B. ws...kareidev: I now prefer xaridetv, with Schone, W.-M.,
and Lamb, Robin prefers xa@iew, “ pour qu’ Agathon
fit asseoir Alcibiade,” saying that xaridetv would mean
“pour quil pit apercevoir celui-la” (i.e. as for dere);
but Lamb, citing 174, rightly renders ‘when he
caught sight of Alc.” Ritter and Hildebr. seem to
keep xa6ileuw.
p. 159, 219 &. adnpw 6 Aias: Taccone suggests that the ref. may be,
not to A.’s shield (as Robin), but to another legend,
cp. Schol, on Aj. 833, Lycophron 455 ff.
p. 161. 220 ¢. If “Idvwv be rejected, either vyowrav or veavav would
be an easy correction.
 TIAATQNOS ZSYMITTOSION
[H TIEPI ATA@OY- HOIKOX]
St. IIT.
p.
I. Aone poe rept dv ruvOdverbe ove ayerétyntos eivat. Kai 172
yap €TUyYavoy tpwny eis aotu oixoVev aviwy Padrnpdbev: Tav odv
yvopipwv tis dmicOev catidaov pe Troppwbev exarece, Kal Traifwy
apa tH KAnoeL, "OL Darnpevs, py, odtos [’ArrodAAcSwpos], ov mept-
Heveis; Kay@ émiotas meprémeva, Kai bs, AmroAdrOd@pe, edn, Kal
172 A (viv) ovx Methodius vulg. adnpobev del. Naber 3: 6 vulg.
*AmoAAdbapos secl. Bdhm. J.-U. ov (ov) Sauppe mepeveis Vulg. Sz.:
mepimevers B: repipévees TW, Bt. (3) ’AmodAddape Sz. *AmroAdobwpe...
é(nrouy om. Coisl.

172 A Aoxsd po. xrA. The speaker, Apollodorus (see Introd. § 1. A), is
replying to certain unnamed éruipo. who had been questioning him concerning
the incidents and speeches which took place at Agathon’s banquet. The plural
muvOaveode (and wpiv, tpeis 173 0, Denfra) indicates that there were several
€raipot present: the traditional heading of the dialogue, ETAIPO3, is due to
the fact that all but one are kwpa mpdcwra.
ovk dpedérnros. peAérn and .meAerav are regular terms for the “conning
over” of a speech or “part”: cp. Phaedr. 228 b.
kal ydp ériyxavov. These words explain the preceding statement dox@...
ovK dpeA€rntos eva, and serve to introduce not only the sentence immediately
following but the whole of the succeeding passage down to 173 B where the
initial statement is resumed by the words dore...ovx apeerytwos exo.
Padnpdbev. Phalerum, the old port of Athens, was about 20 stadia
(24 miles) distant from the city on the S.E.
kal wralLov...eptpevets; Where does the joke come in?
(1) Ast, Hommel, Stallbaum and Jowett look for it in the word badnpevs,
which they take to be a play on qadapds (“bald-headed,” so Jowett) or
gadapis (“bald-coot”) in allusion to the bald crown or the peculiar gait of
Apollodorus. But what evidence is there to show that A. either was bald or
walked like a coot ?
(2) Another suggestion of Hommel’s is to write (with the vulgate) 6
’ArroAAddw@pos and assume an etymological allusion to the opportuneness of
the meeting (as “ Apollo-given”). This also is far-fetched.
(3) Schiitz, followed by Wolf and Hug, finds the maida in the playfully
B. P. ]
 2 TAATQNOS [1724
pny Kat évayxos ce efnrovy Bovropevos SiatrvOécOar tHv ’Aya-
B Owvos Evvovciav nal Lwxpdrous Kal ’ArKiBiddov Kal Tov dddrwV
TOV TOTE €V TO oUVdEiTYM Trapayevo“évwY, TEPL TOV EpwTLKOY
Aoywv tives Noav. GAAos yap Tis poe Sunyeito axnxows PoiviKos
tov Dirimmov, pn Sé nal oé eidévar. adda yap oddev elye capes
eye. avd odv pot Sinynoat: SixavotaTos yap el Tovs TOD ETalpou
Novyous amayyéArew. Mpotepov dé por, 7 S Gs, elmé, TU avdToOS
C rapeyévov TH cuvovcia TavTn 7 ov; Kay@ eitroyv btu Ilavtadnacw
e.v

172 Bev r@ ovvdeirvy secl. Baiter J.-U. owderveiy T: cvvdeirvm W

official style of the address, in which the person is designated by the name of
his deme, this being the regular practice in legal and formal proceedings (ep.
Gorg. 495 D Kadduxrjs én “Ayapvevs...2@xpdtns...6 “Ahomexqbev: Ar. Nub.
134); but (as Stallb. objected) the order of the words in that case should be
rather & ovdros ’A. 6 Badnpevs. Hug also finds maidia in the hendecasyllabic
rhythm (4 @ad. otros ’Am.), and the poetic combination & odros (Soph. 0. C.
1627, Aj. 89).
(4) Rettig, reading 6 Sadnpevs, omits (with Badham) the proper name
*ArroAAdowpos as an adscript. This seems, on the whole, the best and simplest
solution. Glaucon, at a distance behind, feigns ignorance of the identity of
“the Phalerian,” and shouts after Apollodorus “Ho there! you Phalerian,
halt,” in a “‘stop thief!” tone. It is plausible to suppose also that a certain
contempt is conveyed in the description ®adnpevs (“ Wapping-ite”): port-
towns are often places of unsavoury repute: cp. Phaedr. 2430 év vavtais mov
teOpappévov: Juy. Sat, vit. 174 “ permixtum nautis et furibus ac fugitivis.”
For the summons to halt cp. Ar. Put. 440 otros, ri Spas; & dSetAdrarov av
Onpiov, | ov repimeveis; Thesm. 689 rot mot od Hevyeis; obros, obros, od peveis;
also Hq. 240, 1354. These passages support the future mepmeveis 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, 212d.
172B & 1 ovy8elrvp. Similarly in Aristoph. Gerytades (frag. 204 ev
root ovvdecimvos émavav AloxvAov) civdSerrvoy is used for the more precise
oupmodcov: and a lost play of Sophocles bore the title “Ayadav av AXoyos 7
ovvdervov } auvdemvoe (see fragg. 146 ff., Dindf.).
tives yoav. For phrases of this kind, “satis libere subjecta orationi,” see
Vahlen, Op. Acad. 1. 393.
Polvixos TOV Plarmov. Nothing is known of this man. See Jntrod. § 11. a.
Sixaréraros ydp xrA. Tov éraipov is almost equivalent to éraipov ye dvros,
giving the reason why Apollodorus is d:caidéraros,
mapeyévov ti ocvvovela. Cp. Hom. Od. xvit. 173 xai odw mapeyiyvero
Sari: and the exordium of the Phaedo (57 A) airos, & ®., mapeyévov Twxpdrer
...) GAov Tou nKovaeas;
172 © Tavrdwacw tout oor xrdA. “It is quite evident that his narration
173 4] ZYMMOZION 3
Gouxé cor ovdev SinyeioOar cadés 0 Sinyovpevos, ef vewotl rryel Thy
cuvovciay yeyovévat tavTny iv épwrds, Bore Kai ewe Tapaye-
vésOar. “Eyoye 8n, <épn>. oder, tv & eyo, d Travcov; ovx
ola’ Stu Todrav érav ’AydOwv évOdde ovn éridedjunxev, ad’ od
& éya Lwxpare cvvdvatpiBw Kal emipedes metoinuar éxdorns
nuépas eidévar 5 te av Abyn 4 wpdtty, ovdérw tpla érn éotiv;
™po Tod dé mepitpéyav San TUyoLpe Kad olopevos Tl moleiv ADALw- 173
TEpos } OTOVOdY, OvY HTTOV Hh ov Vuvi, Oldmevos Seiv TavTAa wadAXov
mpdtrew % pirocodeiv. xal bs, My ona’, pn, adr’ eimé wor
mote éyéveto 1) cuvovela airy. Kayo elrrov bru Haidwov dvtav
Hpov Eri, Ste TH Tpw@Tyn tpaypdta evicnoev Ayalwv, TH baTepaia
% Ta emwvixia Ovey avtos te Kal of yopevtai. Ldvu, én, apa
172 C xayé Athenaeus, Sz. éya ye 8n, pn Bt.: eyo ye 87 BTW: eyo
yap &pn(v) Athen.: éywye yap, pn Voeg.: éywy’, épn Bdhm. 3 AvKov
Athen. év6ade om. Athen. 173 A Tb: Fv pr. B: 4 Wt vov TW
érs dvrwv nuov Athen. mpoty om. Athen.: rd rporov Usener 7} om.
Priscian: 4 #7T: 4 Sz. ramwvixia Cobet

was of the vaguest kind.” 8:nyeicOa is here the infin. of dijyeiro. The em-
phatic repetition of oddév cadés is a ground for suspecting that the reference
is to a published account in which the facts were distorted.
T1é@ev...6 TAavxov; “What makes you think so, Glaucon?” There is an
implicit negation in the question put thus: cp. Gorg. 471 D, Menex. 235 c.
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
Béckh and Munk would identify the two.
moda trav «rd. For the bearing of this passage on the dramatic date of
this prologue, see Introd. § vitt.
drupedts rerolnpat...el8évar. The nearest Platonic parallel for this con-
struction is Zp. vii. 334 A moddois...ipveiv radra émipenés.
173 A wepurpéxov Sry Toxoupt, 2.e. with no fixed principle of conduct,—
“like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed.” Cp. Tim. 438
Grdxrws On trixor mpoevac: Seneca de vita beata 1. 2 “quamdiu quidem
passim vagamur non ducem secuti...conteretur vita inter errores breyis,” etc.
olopevos TL rovetv. For 11, magnum quid, cp. 219, Phaedr. 242 &, etc.
TlalSev Svtev pov tm. Sc. Apollodorus and Glaucon. Plato, too, born
about 427 B.c., was a mais at the date of Agathon’s victory (416 B.c.).
Ti ™pory tpaywblq. “‘ Respicit Plato ad tetralogias ”” (Reynders).
7] torepala fj. For this (compendious) construction cp. Thuc. 1. 60
Tegoapaxoory nyépa votepov...7 TWoridaa améorn (with Shilleto’s note);
Lys. x1x. 22.
va émivixia tvev. “ Made a sacrificial feast in honour of his victory.” On
this occasion it was the author himself who provided the feast and offered the
sacrifice. Sometimes however it was the Choregus (eg. Ar. Ach. 886), and
1—2
 4 TAATQNOS [173 a
Taal, WS EoiKeV. GAARA Tis GoL SinyEeito; H avTOs XLwKpatns ; Ov
+ » \ / i a

, * > sys , oo , >

B pa tov Ala, Av & eyo, aAX borrep Dotvixes ’Apirtodnpos iv Tus,
Kuda0nvacevs, opixpos, avumedntos dei- trapeyeyover 8 ev TH
/ / ’ / / a

guvovala, LwKpatous épaotHns @v ev Tols pwddioTAa TOV TOTE, WS

Uf \ wn lal a

€“ol OoKel. Ov pmévTOL GAA Kal ZwKPAaTH ye Evia HOn avnpouny

’ y) 5 lal > / > nl \ > / ” BA ? i

Ov €KElvVOU HKOVTA, Kal wor Wpodoyer KAOdTEp exeivos Sunyeito. Td

/ / lal lal

ody, pn, ov Sinynow por; tmavtws dé 7 0605 1 els adotu émuiTNdela

= A > / / \ id € \ € ? ” > /

TOpEVvopevols Kal NEYELY Kal aKovELD.

C Odtw 6% lovTes Gua Tovs AOyous TeEpl adTaY érroLovpeba, HaTe,
aA Nay, t/ \ / .Y > fal ’ 7 e/

drrep apxopmevos Eltrov, OUK apedETHTwS Exw. et odv bel Kal Lui
e s ” a a

dinyncacOar, Tavta pn Tovey. Kai yap éywye Kal dd2rws, Stay

fa) \ lal \

mév tivas wept dirocodpias Aoyous 7 avTos Toldpmat 7) AAXRwv

173 A ri TW B_ addoorep BT avuroontos tT Ast
mapayeyover BT kai om. T dinynon W: dunyn ov vulg. be
om. al.: ye J.-U.: yap Susemihl C det: Soxet 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 ff.).
173 B *Apword8ypos. See Introd. § 1. a.
Kv8a0nvarets. Schol. KudaOnvaiov: Snuos ev adore ths Mavdiovidos puaAjs.
kadeira. be kat Kidabov. The poet Aristophanes also belonged to this deme.
avuTdé8yros. In this peculiarity A. imitated Socrates, see 174 a, 220 B,
Ar. Nub. 103 rots avumodnrovs déyers: | dv 6 KaxodSaipwv Twxparns Kai
Xapepoy, ibid. 362. It is a peculiarity which would appeal to disciples
with a penchant for the simple life, such as those of the Cynic persuasion.
épaorys. “An admirer.” Cp. the application of éraipos in 172 B supra.
éxe(vov...éxetvos. Both pronouns refer to the same person, Aristodemus.
The statement here made is not without significance, see Zntrod. § I. A.
Ti ovv...ov Siynyjow. “ Haec interrogatio alacritatem quandam animi et
aviditatem sciendi indicat” (Stallb.). Cp. Meno 92D (with E. S. Thompson’s
note, where a full list of the Platonic exx. is given).
mavrws 8 «TA. ‘For to be sure,” confirming the preceding clause with a
new argument. A good parallel is Laws I. 625 A mavtws S Ff ye ex Kvywoov
600s eis TO Tov Atos dy Tpov Kal lepov, os axovopmev, ikavn.
173 C omep apxdpevos elroy. Sce 172A ad init.
el ovv Set...xpq. The comma is better placed before radra, with Usener
and Burnet, than after it, with Hug and earlier editors. A similar turn of
expression is Soph. 7rach. 749 «i xpr paéety oe, mavta $7) hoveiv ypeor.
avtés tompat. 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 Adyo, cp. what is said of Phaedrus in Phaedr, 228 B, where Socr.
too is called 6 voy mept Noyav.
173 D] ZYMTMTOZION 5
akovw, Xwpls Tod olecOar wpereicOal breppuds ws yaipw: Stav
- lol ‘ al aA

€ GANovs Tivds, GdAwWS TE Kal TOUS LweTepoUS TOs TOV TAOVGiWY

de TAD la TAX \ \ € \ an ; /

Kal XPNMATLOTLKAY, AUTOS TE AXOopmar Huds Te TOds Etaipous erEa,

\ fal / a la)

dte oleoOe tl moveivy oddév Tovodvtes. Kal tows ad dpets

iryeio Ge Kacodaiwova elvat, kal olouat buas adnOH olec Oar: eyo
MEéVTOL Umas OVK Olouwat GAN ed olda.
ETAI. "Ael dpotos €?, & “ArrodrAodwpe* del yap cauTov Te
Kaknyopets Kal Tovs GdXous, Kal Soxels por aTeyvas Tavtas
ca - a a

> , ¢€ ° \ > 4 aN nm s \
aOrLous ayyetoPar ANY Ywxpdtous, ad cavTovd apEdmevos. Kal
173 C xpnparioray vulg. D ‘nyciode Coisl.: nyeicOac BT

treppvds ws xalpw. This may be explained as a mixture of two con-

structions, viz. (1) breppués ear ws xaipa, (2) ireppuas yxaipw: it is found
also in Gorg. 496 c, Phaedo 66 a, Theaet. 155 c (but in all these places some
codd. and edd. omit os). '
xpnpatiorixdv. For this word in the masc., “money-makers,” cp. Rep.
581 6 ye xpnpatiotixds mpos Td Kepdaivery Thy Tod Tipaoba HOovnY h THY TOD
pavOave ovdevds akiav gnoe eivat, ef pret Te avTov dpyipioy move: also
Phaedr. 248D. In Meno 78 c (aya0a...ypuciov éyw kai apyupiov kragOa) we
have an expression of the sentiments of a ypnyariorixos. For Apollodorus’
sentiment, cp. Isocr. c. Soph. 291 D déyouar péev ds ovdev Séovrae ypnudror,
dpyvpidiov Kai ypuaidiov tov movrov dmoxadoovres (where the ref. is probably
to Antisthenes): cp. also what Alcib. says of Socr., 216 £, 2198. . The gloss-
hunting critics, strangely enough (as Vahlen remarks), have left the words
tpas tovs €raipovs unscathed.
173 D ddn 0} oterPar. oterda here is substituted for jyeicAa, and the
following ov« otopa is in antithesis, not to ‘the otopa preceding, but to
nyeio be. Apollodorus, conscious of his’ inferiority to Socrates, his ideal, is
willing to admit that he is not as yet wholly evdaipev.
add’ ed olBa. Sc. dri kaxodaipovés eore. For this exposure of the true
condition of “the children of this world” who are evdaipoves in their own
conceit, and despise others, one may cite Apoc. iii. 17 “‘Thou sayest, I am
rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing; and knowest not
that thou art wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.”
"Adi oporos ef. “Semper tibi hac in re constas” (Stallb.): “you are quite
incorrigible.” So below we have dei rowodros ef. Cp, Charm. 1704 dAWX eyo
xwduvev@ det Spotos evar.
Grexves mavtas. This seems to be the. sole instance in Plato of this
combination “all without exception”; but cp. Rep. 432 a 8’ ddns areyvas
Téraral.
dOd\lovs. Here a synonym for xaxodaipovas, the word used above. Cp.
Meno 78 A rovs S€ GOAiovs ov Kaxodaipovas; Otya eywye...ri yap dAdo éeoriv
GOdvov etvar 4} emiOvpeiv re Tov Kak@v kal xracOa;
mdiv Loxpdrovs. “Save Socrates only”: notice the emphasis on these
words, repeated twice. We may discern, perhaps, in this an allusion, by way
 6 TAATQNOS [173 D
ordbev Tore tadtny Thy ere@vuplay ~aBes TO waviKds KaretaOat,
ovk olSa éywye’ ev pev yap Tols Aoyous Gel ToLoDTOS El* TAaUT@ TE
Kal Tots Grows ceyplaivers TAY LwKpaTous.
E AIIOA. 70 ofrrarte, cal 84rSv ye 8) Ste ot Tw Stavoovpevos
Kal Tepl €wavTov Kai mepl buav paivouar Kal TapaTralo;
ETAI. Ovd« G&vov aepi tovtwv, "ArodAcdwpe, viv pier:
arr’ brrep ededpueOd cov, uy GAXwS Toijons, GAAA Sinynoar TLVES
Hoa ol rOYOL.
ATIOA. "Hoav tolvuv éxetvor rtovoide tivés—padrov 8

173 D padaxos TW: padakos B, Naber. ovk: ev Bast plev yap:

pev ye Bdhm. Sz.: pévr’ dpa Mdvg. E (4) ’AoAAddwpe Method. Sz.

of antithesis, to the kxatnyopia Zwxparovs of the sophist Polycrates (see

Introd. § 1. A).
7d pavixds KadetoOar. There can be little doubt (pace Naber) that pavikos,
not padaxds, is the true reading: it is supported by the words paivoua kal
maparaiw in Apollodorus’s reply. Stallbaum supposes an ellipse of some
such phrase as doxeis dé AaBeivy avrodev before ev pev yap xrd., and (with
Wolf) explains pavixds as referring to the vehemence and excess of Apol-
lodorus both in praise and blame: ep. Polzt. 307 B, and Apol. 21 a where
Chaerephon (termed pavixos in Charm. 153 B) is described as aqodpos ef’ 6 re
épunoeev. But the conmexion of the sentence év pev yap xrA. with the
preceding clause is better brought out by Hug; he supplies (after ovx oiSa)
‘so ganz ohne Grund wirds wohl nicht sein,” so that the line of thought is—
“Though I do not know exactly why you got the nickname ‘fanatic’—yet in
your speeches at any rate you do something to justify the title’ For a
similar use of pey yap cp. Polit. 264 C ev pev yap rais xpynvas tay’ dy tows
eins roOnpevos. For pavixds cp. also Meno 91c where Anytus regards rapa
cogurras eAGeiv as a sign of pavia: and Acts xxvi. 24 Maivy Tate: ra oda
oe ypdppata eis paviay mepiTpéren.
aypiaivers. ‘Rage like a wild beast,” “snarl and snap.” Cp. Rep. 493 B
(O@péupa péya) nwepovral Te Kal aypiaives.
173 EB °Q ptrrare «rAd. Tronical—“ Why, my very dear Sir, it is surely
quite obvious that in holding this view about myself and others I display
madness and eccentricity!”
mapatatw. A dma€ eipnuévoy in Plato. For the musical metaphor ep.
Ophelia’s “I see that sovereign and most noble reason, Like sweet bells
jangled, out of tune and harsh.”
Ovx &£vov...ép(tev. “We mustn’t quarrel.” epitev, though here used
jocularly, is properly a strong term, cp. Prot. 337 B augurBnreiv pév, epitew
be pn: Rep. 454 A ovk epicery, adda Staréyer
Oar (see Adam ad loc.).
poddov 8’. Instead of beginning at once with the speech of Phaedrus,
Apollodorus proceeds to give an account of the preliminary incidents which
led up to the Adyo.. For the significance of this, see Zntrod. § 1. A.
174 B] ZY MIMOZION 7
€E dpyis tuiv os éexetvos Sinyeito Kal ey meipdoouar Simyn- 174
cacbau.
II. “Edn ydp of Lwxparn evtuyeiv AeXoupevov Te Kal Tas
Brattas vrodedSepévov, & éxeivos dduyaKis érole* Kal épécOar
avrov Sot los obTw Kadds yeyevnwévos. Kai Tov eitreiy STL Karl
Setrvov eis "Aydbavos. yOes yap avtov Svépvyov Tois émivexioss,
HoByGels tov dyrAov Bporgynoa 8 eis THuEpov wapécecOar. TadTa
89 éxadrXAomicduny, iva Kadds Tapa Kadov tw. adda av, 7 8 Js,
m@s Evers Tpds TO eOéXELW Av lévar AkrnTOS emt Seimvov; Kayo, B
174A 4: & Hertlein (€) €péoOar Voeg. Sz. THMEpov: THY
onjpepoy vulg. B ¢6édew dy secl. Cobet Jn. adv iévat Steph.: avievac BT

€ apyns...retpdcopat Sinynoacba. The same formula occurs in Phaedo

59 o, Huthyd. 272 p, Epvst. vii. 324 B.
174 A “Eon ydp. Sc. 6 Apsorcdnpos. The whole narrative of the dialogue
from this point on is dependent upon this initial épy and therefore written in
or. obliqua. oi (sib’)=’Apiorodypuo.
AeAovpévov. For the practice of bathing and anointing before meals see
Hom. Od. vi. 96—7, Xen. Symp. 1.7: Ar. Plut. 614 evoyeicbar...dovedpevos,
Aurrapos ywpav éx Badaveiov. The comic poets were fond of gibing at Socrates
and philosophers in general as “unwashed,” e.g. Ar. Av. 1554 ddovros od
Wuxayoyet Swxparns: id. Nub. 835 ff: Aristophon ap. Mein. 1m. 360 ff.
Aristotle, however, was a champion of the bath, Athen. 178 F dmpemés yap
nv, pynotv ’AprotoréAns (fr. 165), xew eis rd cupmooiov atv idpotre moAA@
Kal Kov.opT@.
tas BXavtas. Schol. Bravras: trodnpara. of b€ Bravria, cavdaria loxvd.
For Socrates’ habit of going ‘barefoot, see 220 B infra, Phaedr. 229 a, Xen.
Mem. 1. 6. 2, and the note on ayvrodnros, 173 B supra.
ravra 81 tkadkdkomodpny. raira is better taken (with Hug and Hommel)
as accus. of “internal object” than (with Stallb.) as accus. of “remoter
object,” equiv. to 8:4 raira (cp. Prot. 3108). Elsewhere in Plato xahdwmi-
(ecOa means to “plume oneself,” “swagger,” e.g. Rep. 605D. Observe the
word-play: “I have put on my finery, because he is such a fine man”
(Jowett): cp. the proverb dpoos dpoim (195 B).
mapa xaddv. Sc. Ayadwva—‘to Agathon’s (house)”; equiv. to eis ’Ayd-
Owvos above. For “the handsome Agathon,” see Prot. 315 D—E (rnv idéay
mavu Kxaddos), Ar. Thesm. 191 ff.
mos Exes mpds xTA. Cp. 176 B mas Exes mpods rd éppdcba mivew; Prot.
352 B, Parm. 1318. Cobet’s excision of ¢6édew dy is wanton: cp. (with Ast)
Phaedo 62 ¢ ré rovs piroaddous padios dv ébéheww amoOvncxev.
174B &«dnros. The jester (yekwromouws) 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 first to dub them mapdoiror. Cp. also Archil. 78. 3 ovde
8 TAATQNOS (174 B
én, elroy 6tt Obtas Orrws av ob Kedevys. “Esrov toivuv, epn,
el 2 1 \ if 7 / ”

iva Kav THY Tapoimiay dSiapVeipwmpev pweTaBadrovTEs, WS Apa Kal

6, Z ‘ ’ r , ha ” \

174B> peraBdddovres B, Athen., Sz.: peraBaddvres T, Bt.

py Krnbeis od’ fav) ArOes, ota 87 didos; and Plut. Q. Conv. vir. 6.1, p. 707B
To O€ Trav emixrAntav €Oos, os viv“ aKtas” Kadovow, ov KekAnpévouvs avrous,
GAN trod TeV ENN émt TO Oetmvoyv dyopévous, e(nteito mobev exxe sl
apxny. eduKec & amd Swxparovs *Aptorodnpov avameigavtos ov KexAnpevoy els
"AydOwvos iiévae ody a’r@ Kat madovra “re yedoioy ” (see 1740, with note). In
Lat. vocare is similarly used of “inviting” (aliguem ad cenam Ter. And. 2. 6.
22), and Znrvocatus=axAnros in'Plaut. Capt. 1. 1. 2 (“invocatus soleo esse in
convivio”).
Siadbe(pwpev petaBdddovres. ScaPpGeipw is sometimes used of “spoiling” or
“ stultifying” a statement or argument, e.g. Gorg. 495a, Prot. 3388p. And
peraBadrgev of. linguistic alteration (transposition, etc.), as in Cratyl. 404 ¢
CGA) for Peppéparra). +
@s dpa «TA. The force of, dpa is to iidieata that the proverb, when
amended, “still,'after all” holds good. Two forms of the proverb are extant,
viz. (1) abréparoe 8 dyaboi 8edav eri dairas tace (see Schol. ad h. l., Athen.
Iv. 27); and (2) avr oparot 8 dyaOoi ayabdv eri dairas iaor. The latter form is
vouched for by the poeta anon. quoted by Athen. 1. 8 (Bergk P. L. G. p. 704),
dyabos: mpos ayabodts vivdpas Se erincanezes nov: Bacchyl. fr. 33 (22 Blass)
airopata 8 ayabav Sairas edd Oous erépxovra Sika Pores [cp. Zenob. 11. 19
avroparo. 8 dyaboi ayabey Kré.- oUTws 6 Baxxvdridns expnoato TH Tapoipia, ws
“Hpaxdéovs emibournoavtos emt thy oixiay Knuxos tov Tpaytviov Kal ovtTas
einovtos]: Cratinus fr. 111 (Mein.) ofS’ adé mets, os 6 madatds | NOyos, avTo-
pdrovs dyabods iévat | kopav eri Saira Oearoy : also a number of post-Platonic
passages cited by Hug, such as Plut. Q. Conv. vit. 6 ad fin. According to the
Scholiast (1) is the original form, which was altered (weraddagéas) to (2) by
Cratinus And Eupolis; and this is the view adopted by Stallbaum, Rettig and
others. But Hug’s elaborate investigation of the matter proves convincingly,
I think, that the Scholiast is wrong and that the form with dya@oi dyaéév
was the original, of which the form with dyaoi Seay is a parody by Eupolis
(or Cratinus). This view, first suggested by Schleiermacher, is also supported
by Berek (ad Bacchyl. Jr. 33): “Sehol. Plat. Symp. 174 B a vero aberrat cum
dicit a principio deA@y emi dairas fuisse, quamquam fidem habuerunt cum
alii tum Miler Dor. 11. 481: neque enim par fuit Herculem tam gravi
opprobrio hospitem laedere. Eupolis primus, ut videtur, ludibundus deaAav
substituit. Locum difficilem Platonis, qui falso criminatur Homerum cor-
rupisse proverbium quod ille oinnino non respexit, nemodum probabiliter
expedivit. Ala varietas, quam nostri homines commenti sunt, decd0ol Sedov,
omni auctoritate destituta est.” The main difficulty in the way of accepting
this view hes in the words Siad@e(papevy pera8addrovres. For even if (with most
modern editors) we accept Lachmann’s brilliant conjecture “Aya@wv’(c), the
change thus involved is so slight that it could hardly be called a Scap dopa,
nor could the alteration involved in the Homeric account be spoken of as a
174 c] ZYMTMOZION 9
Aydbov’ ert Saitas faci adtopatot dyabot.” “Opnpos pév yap
’ a /

, A \ ,
Kuvduvever ov ovoy diapbeipar adda Kal UBplioae eis TavTHY THY
, \ ’
Tapoiwiav' mouoas yap tov ‘Ayauéuvova dSiadepovtws ayabov
avépa Ta moreutxd, Tov dé Mevédewy “pwadOaxdv aiypntny,”
\ f ‘

Ovolay Totoupevou Kal ExTi@VTOS TOD’ Ayapéu“vovos aKANTOV érroin-

0 a n / VU

cev €XMovta Tov Mevérewy eri THY Ooivny, yelpw ovTa ert THY TOD
, \ / > N \ rf / ” > \ sb rn

174 B *Ayabor’ ‘Lachmann : ayaday BT Sahepovtws + av dpa+ Kal

éati@vtos om. Athen.

double one (diapOetpar cai tBpioa). The former objection, if it stood alone,
might be obviated by the device of inserting py before diaPGeipopev: 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. XX1X. pp. 141—2.)
*Ayd0wyv’...dya0ol. For the dative cp. Prot. 321 dmopotvts 8€ aire épxerat
IIpopndevs. Similar exx. of paronomasia occur in 1850, 198 6c, Gorg. 5138
(Ojos and Demus, son of Pyrilampes), Rep. 614 B (cAKios, Alcinous): ep.
Riddell Digest § 323. Teuftel (loc. czt.) prefers to retain dyaéév, partly
because of the plur. dairas, partly to avoid the elision of the dota; but neither
of these objections is serious, and as to dairas, the feast in question lasted at
least two days, which might in itself suffice to justify the plural. Jowett’s
trans]. implies that he retains aya@@v and supposes (1) to have been the
original form of the proverb. “‘demolished” by Socr. and Homer.
“Opnpos pev yap. The antithesis—npeis de povoy dvapOeipoper, or the like—
is easily supplied from the context: for pev 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.
tBploa. The word may retain a flavour of its juridical sense—“ liable to
a criminal prosecution for assault and battery”: and if so, dvapOeipa too may
hint at the crime of ‘‘seduction.” Homer is chargeable not only with seducing
but with committing a criminal assault upon the virgin soundness of the
proverb.
1740 padOakdy alxpntyiv. “A craven spearman.” J. XvII. 587 ofov 7)
MevéAaov brerpécas, Os TO mapos mep| parOaKxos aixpynrns. padOakds, as a
variant for padakds, is used by P. also in 195 p, Phaedr. 239c. Both forms,
Mevédews and MevéAaos, are found in Attic prose; the latter, e.g., in Huthyd.
288 c. In Athenaeus v. 3, 188B we have a criticism of this treatment of
Menelaus.
dxdnrov érolnoev ehOovra. See L/. 11. 408 airdparos dé of HABE Bony ayads
Mevédaos: cp. Athen. v. 1784. Thus the vfpis with which Homer is charged
 10 TAATQNOS [174-¢
Gpeivovos. Tair’ axovaas eimeiv én “lows pévtot xivduvetiow Kal
ya ody &s od A€yets, @ LwOKpates, adda Kal’"Opnpov dairos wv
émt copod avdpos iévar Bolvnv akdyT0s. Gpa odv aywv we TL atro-
D Aoynon, ds eyo pev oY Oporoynow aAKANTOS Kew, GAN IO cod
KexrAnpévos. “Luby te Sv’,” edn, “épxouévw mpd o Tov” Bovdev-
aoueba 6 TL épotpev. aAAA lwper.
Tovadr’ arta odds edn SiareyOevtas iévar. Tov ody Lwxpatn
éavT@ Tas Tposéxovta Tov vody Kata THY Oddy TopeverBas bTr0-
NewTropevov, Kal TepiuévovTos ov KedEVELW Tpolévas Eis TO TPdaOeD.
érretd7 5é yevécOar emi TH oikia TH Ayad@wvos, avewyyevny KaTa-
E \apBavew tHv Ovpav, cai te épn avToOs yedoiov traGeiv. of pev
yap evOvs maida twa évdobev atravtncavta ayew ov KaTéKELVTO Ob
G@AXot, Kal katarapBavew dn pédXovTas Sevtrveiv: evdrs & odv
1740 épa...ri Bdhm.: dpa...re B: dpa...re T (ri W) adyayov Creuzer
D 6 row Gottleber (Hom. K 224): 6800 BTW: om. Hermog. GAG twpev
T: ad edpev B mopevopevov vmroAeimerOa Rohde Sz. de (é) Cobet Sz.:
& é Baiter J.-U. E of Photius, b: of BT: rov W (rev) évdobev
Porson Sz. J.-U. Bt.: raév évdov Photius, Jn.

consists in making not an dyaOds but a padOaxds (=Seidds) come axAnros

ayadav émt dairas.
éml copot dvBpés. codes, “accomplished,” was “a fashionable epithet of
praise in Plato’s time, especially applied to poets” (see Rep, 331 5, 489 B,
with Adam’s notes).
Spa otv xrA. This correction of the traditional &pa...r: is certain. Cp.
189A dpa ri roveis: Phaedo 86D dpa ovv...ri pnoopev. For the dangers of
violating etiquette on such occasions, see Ar. Av. 983 ff. airap émjnv axAnros
idv dvOpwmos adafov | AvTH Ovovras Kai omrayxveve emiOupp, | 4 Tore xp?
TUmTEW avTov mAEevpav TO pera€v.
174 D uv re 80 «rr. See J7. x. 224 (Diomedes ]oq.) avy re bv’ epxopéva
cal Te mpd 6 Tov €vdnoev | Ormws Képdos éy. The same verses are quoted more
exactly in Prot. 348c: cp. also Arist. Pol. 111. 128713; Cic. ad fam. 1x. 7.
For exx. of how Plato “variis modis multis affert aliena,” see Vahlen Op.
Acad. 1. pp. 476 ff.
drev8* 8% yevéo@ar, The infin. in place of the indic. is due to assimilation:
cp. Rep. 614 B egy dé, émeid) od exBnvar thy uynv, mopeverOar: see Goodwin
G. M. T. § 755.
174 E al m...yehotov wadetv. It was an awkward situation in smart
society. Cp. Plut. Conv. 6 p. 628 frabe yap xard tiv dddv brorabeis 6
Zeoxparns, 6 S€ mapeondrOev, arexvds oxida mpoBaditovea cwparos eEdmicbe 1d
as €xovros.
ol (sibz) goes with dmravricavra. Porson’s insertion (from Photius) of rav
before évdodev is no improvement: évdodev is to be taken with dmavrynaavra,
and there is no indication that there were any éfwOew aides.
175 a] ZYMTOSION 11
@s ideiv tov “Ayabwva, °O, davar, Apiotodnpe, eis Kadov Hees
dtrws cuvdertrvnons: ef & adrdXov Tivds Evexa HOES, Els adOis ava-
Badod, as kal yOés Entav ce iva Karécaye oy olos 7 7 idetv.
QA Lwxpatn Hiv Tas ovK ayes; Kal eyo, én, peTaaTpEdo-
fevos ovdamov op® Lwxpatn Eropevoy' elroy odv OTL Kal avTos
peta Lwxpatovs Hrowme, xrANGels Ur’ exeivov Sedp’ emi Seimvov.
Karas y’, én, roidv ot+ adda TOD Eotiv obTOS ; "Omicbev ewod 175
adpte eloner' adda Oavpatw Kali adtos Tod ay ein. Ov oxévn,
én, Tal, pavar Tov AydOwva, cai eicakers Lwxpatyn ; ov §, 74 S
6s, "Apiotodnme, map ’EpvEiwayov katakXivov.
II. Kat é pev &pn arovifev tov maida, va xataxéotto:
addov S€é tia TOY Taldwv HKeW ayyéAXovTa STL LwKpaTns ovTOS
avaywpnoas €v TO THY yEeLTOVwY TPCOVPw EaTNKE Kal OU KaXOdV-
Tos ovK €OéXex elorévar. “Atotrov x’, pn, NEyeEIS' OUKOUY KaNeis
avtoyv Kal pr adnoes; Kal ds &pn eimeiv Mnydapas, adr’ €aTe

1744E ST: 4B ovydervnoes Laur. xiv. 85, Bekk. Sz. Tan Le

re B égny T ovdaun TW Heoeue Th: xoe py B y T: om. B
175 A eioneww Cobet émov Hirschig é pev Bast: € Steph.: eve BT
épnv T iva (mov) vulg.: dmov Tmg. év tr Steph. J.-U.: & rov Mdvg.
cat ob BT: xayou W, Bt.: kai cod t cadois Tmg. W: xdAe rec. b
airov: avéis Herwerden apnons T

els kadov Hels. “Soyez le bienvenu!” For the construction see Goodwin,
§ 317.
xOts {nrav ce xrA. Hug regards this as a piece of polite mendacity on the
part of Agathon. Are we, then, to construe Alcibiades’ statement, y@es pev
ovx olds Te KTA. (212 £) as a similar exhibition of “Salonweltlichkeit”?
175 A wap’ ’E. xaraxAXlvov. Usually each xAivn 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.
amovitay tov matSa. The article, indicates that a special slave was set
apart for this duty. For the custom of foot-washing see Plut. Phoc. 20;
Petron. Sat. 31; Evang. Lue. vii. 44; Joann. xiii. 5. For the hand-washing
see Ar. frag. 427 dé€pe, mai, rayéws cara xeupds Vdwp, | mapdmeume TO xeELpo-
pakTpov.
Loxpdrys otros xtA. The cpsissima verba of the mais are here repeated,
hence the use of odros and of the def. article with mpodvpw: in the corrections
proposed by Madvig and Herwerden this point is overlooked. For mpo@upov,
“porch,” 7.e. the space between the house-door (avAeia) and the strect, see
Smith D. A. 1. 661°.
ovKouv Kadeis KTA. Kadeis is of course future, not pres. as Riickert wrongly
supposed. For the constr. see Goodwin @. M. T. § 299.
 12 TAATQNOE [175 a
Bavrov. 00s ydp te TobT’ eyes: eviote amootas Srov dv TUXD
gotnev. HEeo Se adtixa, ds eyo olwat. py odv KuveiTe, aX
cate. "AX obtw yp} Toceiv, ef col Soxel, pn pavas Tov ’Aya-
Owva. adr twas, d qaides, Tovs dAXous EgTLaTE. TavTws Tapa-
riOere & Tt dv Bovrnabe, éreiddv Tis byiv pn epeotixy—b eyw
ovderrwmore erroinaa: viv ody, voulfovtes Kal ewe UP Uuav KEKrH-
C cbat em) Seirvov Kai tovade tovs addous, Oepatrevere, iva vpas
€TALV@LEV.
Mera taita én ohdas. ev Sevtrvetv, tov 8€ Lwxpatn ove

175 B otro T: Priscian: rowtroy W eviore...coTnxev del. Voeg.

épn T: om. B émeddv tis...uy BT: émeé ris...008 py L. Schmidt: émei
ov 67 Tis...u) Hug: émei dy tes...00 py Sz: émel kat riows...uy (epeorjxor)
Verm.: ef y' 6 rapias...y Usencr: érecdar atros...pn cj. Bt.: etye dvayxn TUS...
py coniciebam ehearnkn T: epearnky W: edeornxer B: “latet epéornxev’
Usener

175 B wavrws wapar(Oere. For the use of ravrws with imper., cp. Xen.
Cyrop. Vitl. 3. 27 mavtos roivuv...deEdv por: td. Oecon. xu. 11, m1. 12. For
maparidnu of “putting on the table,” cp. Rep. 372 © tpaynpard mov mapa-
Onoopev avrois «rd. Reynders adopts the reading mavras, cal mapariOere.
+ éwaSdv...pr) &peorixyg. These words are difficult. They should naturally
mean (as Stallb. puts it) “si quando nemo vobis est propositus”; and so
Stallb. proposes to construe them, taking the clause as dependent on and
limiting 6 rc dy BovAnode. This, however, is, as Hug argues, almost certainly
wrong. If we retain the text of the mss. we can only explain the phrase by
assuming an ellipse—‘‘serve up what dishes you like (as you usually do)
whenever no one is in command,” So Zeller renders “tragt uns getrost auf,
was ihr wollt, wie ihr es gewohnt seid, wenn man euch nicht unter Aufsicht
nimmt,” etc.; and Rieckher (Rhein. Mus. xxx111. p. 307) “ Machet es wie ihr
es immer macht, wenn man euch nicht beaufsichtigt (und das habe ich ja
noch nie gethan), und setzt uns vor was ihr méget.” Most of the emendations
offered (see crit. n.) are based on the assumption that the clause-in question
qualifies the leading clause (ravrws maparifere): none of them are convincing,
and the construction od pi...€heornxy (the pres.-perf.) assumed by Schanz
and Hug lacks support, If compelled to resort to conjecture, the best device
might be to read ef ye pn for eredav, cut out the py after duiv, and change
the mood of the verb to eféornxev—following in part the suggestions of
Usener. The ordinary text does not admit of Jowett’s rendering, “serve up
whatever you please, for there is no one to give you orders; hitherto I have
never left you to yourselves.” As regards the force of 6...émoinaa, L. Schmidt
explains the clause to mean “nunquam autem rem ita ut nunc institui,”
implying that the concession to the slaves was unusual: Teuffel, on the
contrary, sees in it a piece of ostentation on the part of Agathon, boasting
of his humanity. The former is clearly wrong.
175 D] ZYMTTIOZION 13
elovévar, Tov odv AyaBwva ToddadKis Kerevew peTaméuwac bat
Tov Lwpatn, € de ovK édv. Hee odv adtov ov worvy Ypovon,
ws ewer, Siatpiyarta, ard padiota ods pecoby Seurvobvtas.
tov ody ’Ayabwva—tuyyavew yap éxyatov KaTaKelwevoy ovov—
Acip’, bn avar, Lexpates, Tap’ ewe Kataxerco, (va Ka Tod
maakt fi ; : : | x
copov amTomevos cou amroXavaw, 6 cot TpoceaTn €v TOS mpoOv-

175C é Sé BW: xxx dé T (rov d€ fuisse videtur): airdv dé vulg.: 7 Se

cj. Bekk. ovx eav B: ovxay T D dmropevds cov TW: om. B, J.-U. Sz.
pooéorn T:
mpocéaotn p
rpdceatw B

175 C modddkts KeXeveav. This is an ex. of the pres. infin. representing

an impf. indic.: “He said, eSecrvotpev, 6 d€ 3. ov cloner: 6 ody 7A. exéAevev*
eyo d€ ovk etwy” (Goodwin G. Mf. 7. § 119, where see parallels). The accus. é,
of the speaker, is here used in preference to the more regular nomin. (a’ros)
in order to balance the accus. rov "Aya@wva: cp. Gorg. 474.B eye oipar kai eye
cat oé...yyetoOar, and below 175 5.
as w0e. To be taken closely with ov m. yp.: we should rather say
“contrary to his usual custom,” the sense being “he arrived unusually soon
>”
for him.” For a striking instance of Socrates’ ¢Jos see 220c, where modvvy
xpovov d.erpiper.
pddtora...Semvovyras. For padiora of approximate measurement, cp.
Parm. 1278 mepi €rn padsora wévte kai €Ejnxovra: Tim. 218, Crito 43 a.
Nowhere else in Plato is pecoty joined with a participle, nor does L. and S.
supply any parallel.
%oxartov...povov. Agathon occupied the last «Aivy on the right: this was
the “lowest seat” at the table, and commonly taken, in politeness, by the
host. The seat of honour (zpovoun) was the left-hand place on the xdivn
furthest to the left. Thus if four «Atva are placed in a row, numbered
A—D, and each seating two persons, the person who occupies A! is termed
mporos, and the occupant of D* éoxaros: as thus

Al A2 Bl B2 Cl (ex {pp D2
SRE 4 BESa ph csIE a
At this “Banquet” Phaedrus as occupying A! is described as mporos in 177 D:
see also the discussion between Socrates and Alcibiades in 2228. Cp. Theophr.
Char. 21 6 S€ pixpoptrddripos rowdros Tus oios orouvddcat ml Seimvov KryOeis rap’
avrov Tov Kadéoavta demvnga: Stob. for. XL. 36 Awyvawos...atiysaceov adrov...
KaTékAwev avutov €v TH €axXaTN Xwpa.
175 D rev.coot...amodatcw. Tov codot is neut., being the antecedent of
6, not in agreement with cov: “that I may enjoy the piece of wisdom which
occurred to you.” The omission of dmrdpevds cov by B is probably accidental :
without the words (as Teuftel observes) Socr.’s remark (eav amr.) would be less
natural.
 14 TAATQNOZ [175 D
pos. Shrov yap Ste edpes avTo Kal éxers* ov yap Av mpoarréatys.
kal tov Ywxpdtn KabitecOar Kai eizreiv bru Ed dy eyor, pavas, 3
9
Ayd0or, ei rovotrov eln 4 copia aot’ éx TOU mANpETTEpou ELS TO
/ » fal v € / A 973. fo] / > \

Kevortepov pelv huav, day dmrTwpela GAX,AwY, Gomep TO év Tais

Kure dwp 7d 8a Tod éplov péov ex Tis wAnpertépas els THY
, of \ a > Ces bd a fd > \

E xevwrépav. ei yap ovtws exer Kal 7) copia, Toddod Tim@pas THY

mapa col Katakdcw: oluar yap pe Tapa god ToAAHS Kal Karis
codlas mrAnpwOjcecAar, 1 wev yap eu pavrn Tis av ein Kal
appicByntHopos, dorep dvap ovea, 7 5é a7) AapTpa TE Kal TONAHY
ney, ¢ \ at ” ¢ , IE}.
érridoaw éyovca, i} ye mapa cov véou dvtos OTH ohodpa éEédaprpe
Nae? \ 2 7 , sree e a ¢ , L ry
Kal éxparns eyeveTo Tp~NY ev wapTUaL TwWY EAAnvwv mréov 7
tpicpuptos. “TBpotys el, épy, & Lowxpates, 6 “Ayabov. Kal
TadTa pev Kai dduyov Dotepov Siadicacoueba éya Te Kai ov
175 D 1d BT: roy corr. Coisl., J.-U. Sz. épiov: opyavov Cornarius :
trurrmpiov vel nOnviov Fischer éx ris...cevorépay del. Voeg. Naber
E ropa T: ripdpev B: repo per Stallb. pe del, Usener cal B:
4 xai TW aye T: dye B kat: adda vulg.

ov ydp &v mpoaréerns. The protasis is suppressed: Stallbaum supplies

ei pt) ebpes airéd: while Hug explains the phrase as a conflate of two thoughts,
viz. (1) ovx dv dwéorns ef pr edpes, and (2) o% rpoamréarns mpiv evpeiv.
lg TO xevorepov. Ficinus renders “ut in vacuum hominem ex pleniore
ipso contactu proflueret,” and many edd. adopt ro» in preference to ré (so
too Jowett’s transi.).
Gewep 70...08ep xr. Editors from Riickert down generally accept the
explanation of this passage offered by Geel. Two cups, one empty the other
full, are placed in contact: a woollen thread, with one end inserted in the full
cup, the other hanging into the empty cup, serves by the law of capillarity to
convey the fluid from the one to the other.
175 E athy...nal duproPyrigios. “Meagre” in quantity and “question-
able” in quality, in antithesis to roy in quantity and xady in quality.
odd barlSoow txovra. Hug supposes an astral allusion—“like a quickly-
rising star.” This, however, is not necessarily conveyed by the term é¢midouis,
for which cp. Theaet. 146 Bn vedrns eis wav éridoow exe, and the intrans. use
of emidi8ova, Prot. 318 a, Theaet. 150 dD, etc.
ovTw odSpa «rd. Notice the ironical tone—exaggeration coupled with
a purple patch of poetic diction: “shone out with such dazzling splendour
before the eyes of three myriads of Greek spectators.”
“YPprorie el. “What a scoffer you are!” Observe that pis is one of the
main charges laid against Soor. by Alcibiades also (2196, etc.); cp. Introd.
§ IL B.
raira...Sa8iKacopnefa, “We will formally plead our claims in regard to
these heads.” ‘Technically diadicasia denotes the proceedings in a contest
for preference between two or more rival parties either as to the possession
176 a] ZYMIMMOSION 15
mept THS codpias, SicactH Xpwopevoe T@ Avovvaw: viv &€ mpos Td
\ A / a / a , a \ \ \

Seirrvov mpata Tpérov.

IV. Mera taita, éfn, Kataxduvévtos tod Lwxpatovs Kal 176
nN a a

euTvnoavTos Kal TOV AAXwY, orovdds Te GHAaS Troincacbat Kal

8 / \ lal ” / a fé \

adoavtas Tov Oeov Kal Tarra TA voploueva TpérecOas TPs TOV

v \ \ \ 3 nN / \ \

motov: tov ovv Ilavoaviay pn Aoyou TovovTov Tivos KaTdpKeLV.

,

Kiev, avdpes, paras, tiva tpdtov pacta miopeda ; eyo pev ody
> ” s a \

Neyo Uuiy STi TO OvTL Wavy YareTas Eyw VTrO Tod xOes TOTOU Kai
4 col a lal vv lal ‘

175 E repi rijs copias del. Hirschig 176 A (as) cal ray Rohde
kal rddAa: xara Ast: xal...vouitoueva post momoacda transp. Steinhart
avdpes: dvdpes Sauppe Sz. paora BT: qdvora yp. t

of property or as to exemption from personal or pecuniary liabilities....The

essential difference between dadicasia and the ordinary Sica is, that all
claimants are similarly situated with respect to the subject of dispute, and
no longer classified as plaintiffs and defendants” (Smith, D. A. 1. 620°),
mept tis codias, added loosely as an afterthought, serves to define raira:
Teuffel, as against Jahn, rightly defends the words; and they serve to strike
one of the keynotes of the dialogue.
Sikaory...7@ Atovicw. Dionysus is an appropriate choice since it was
under his auspices that Agathon (pny) had engaged in an dywv and won
a prize for poetic copia. There may also lie in the words (as Wolf and Rettig
suppose) a jocular allusion to the copia which is ars bibendi, wherein also
Agathon was duvaroraros (176 c). Compare also the pastoral pipe-contests
of Theocritus, and Theognis 993 ff. e...d0Aov... | ool r ein cat épot codins mépu
Onpicavrow, | yvoins*y’ docov dvev kpéoooves jpiovor. Op. Introd. § 11. B.
176 A orov8ds...vopifspeva. 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 ayaOds daipwv (Ar. Hg. 105, etc.) ; (2) the
clearing, or removal, of the tables (Xen. Symp. 11. 1); (3) the fetching, by
the zaides, of a second supply of water for the hands (Ar. Vesp. 1217 etc.);
(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, (b)to the Heroes, and (c) to Zeus Soter (Schol. ad Phileb.
66D; Aesch. Suppl. 27, etc.); (6) the singing of a Te Deum (ddew rov Oedv,
maavitev Xen. Symp. i. 1, Aleman fr, 24 B, etc.): see Hug’s exhaustive note.
Riickert wrongly makes rdA\a ra vouiCoueva depend on doavras: supply (as
Reynders) wowmoapévovs. For cai rddda, cp. (with Vahlen) Huthyd. 294 o,
Rep. 400 D: for ra vopiCcpeva, quae moris sunt, cp. II. Alc. 151 B.
tlva tpémov gota. Schol. pacra: 7d dvera €vravOa onpaive. Op. Od. Iv,
565 rm mep (sc. in Elysium) pniorn Born: and the combination paora cai
jiuora, Xen. Mem. u. 1. 9. (See also Vahlen Op. Acad. 11. 212 ff ad
Phaedo 81C). |
advv xaderds txw. The notion is “I was roughly handled in my bout with
the wine-god yesterday”: cp. Theaet. 142 B yaderas Exe Ud TpavpaTay Tway.
 16 TAATQNOE [176 a
Séopat avarpuyis Tivds, oluas b€ Kal Uuawv Tvs TOAAOVS—TrapHoTE
a lal \ es a“

a / a e tn , \
B yap x0és: oxorreiobe odv, Tivt TPOTH aY Ws paoTa TivoLmEV. TOV
obv ’Apiatopavy eitreiv, Todto pévtou ed réyers, @ Ilavoavia, To
lal lal / 3 / \

Tavtl TpoTw TapacKevdcacbar pactorvny Twa THS ToTews* Kal

, \ ol f \

yap autos eiue TOV xOés BeBarticpévwy. aKxovoavTa ody avTaY

lal / Ie > a

an ¢ n / , \
épn “Epv€ivayov tov ’Axovpevod °"H Karas, pavar, reyeTe. Kat
ére évds Séouar tua axodoa, TAS Eyer TPOS TO éppwaOaL Tivey
lal lel lal 4 \ ~ ’ la) ,

’Aydbwv. Ovdapds, Pavat, odd avTos éppwpat. “Eppacov av ein

rn \ 4 ie BN yj

C juiv, 7 & bs, ws Gouxev, euot Te Kal “Apiotodnum nat Daidpw Kat
toiabe, eb wpels of SuvaT@Tator Tivey viv aTreLpHKATE’ NMELS LEV
yap ael advvator. Lwxpatn 8 eEaip@ Aoyou' ikavos yap Kai
\ aN, > Us , ’ s lal / e \ \ \

’, ae , ’ a \ >.
appotepa, wat éEapKéces avT@ omroTep av Tromdpev. émretd7 od
a a ; > \ \ \
prot Soxel ovdels THY TrapovTwy mpoOvpws ExELY Tpos TO TOAUY
mivew olvov, iaws av éy@ Trepi TOU weOvaKer Oat olov eat. TarnOA
» \ a , a

Aéywov Arrov av elinv andns. euol yap 6n TovTO ye olwat KaTa-

= \ \ fal , -

D dnrov yeyovevar éx THS latpiKHs, GTL yadeTov Tois avOpwtrols 1

péOn
/
eoti>
2 /
Kai \ odTe
”
adTos
JiaeN
Exwv
€ \
elvat
*
TOppw
/
EOEAnTAaYWL
5 ie
aYa
TLELYa
176 A rapjore BTW: rapire in mg. rec. b B rapackevacacba TW:
mapacKkevateaba B avtav T: avrov B ’EpvEipaxov T: rov "Epugéinayov B
dkoupevod W: dxovpévov BT kal: kairo. Rohde éppacba secl. Cobet
mivew, AydOwvos Vahlen C ¢faipa Heindorf: egaipw BT andys T: andns B

176 B BeBarticpévov: “soaked,” “drenched.” Cp. Lucian Bacch. 7 xapn-

cai BeBarricpéevm: and the use of BeBpeypévos, Eubul. Jncert. 5; we6n Sapovvre
BpexGecis Eur. El. 326: Sen. Zp. 83 mersus vino et madens; Hor. C. tv. 5. 39
dicimus,..sicci...dicimus uvidi. A similar “baptism” is described in Evenos
2. 5—6, ef b€ odds mvevoesev (sc. 6 Baxyos) améotpamra pev pwrus, | Samricer
8 dmve yetrove rod Oaydrov: of which we find an echo in Clem. Alex. Paed.
Il, u. 27% (Stahlin) two pédns Bamrigopevos eis drvov. There may be an
underlying allusion to Eupolis’ play Bamrai (cp. Bergk P. L. G. 11. p. 268).
176C éaips Adyou: “TI leave out of account”: cp. Phaedr. 242 B, Rep.
3948, 4928. For Socrates as inconvincible “with wine and wassail,” see
Alcibiades’ description, 220 a.
mepl Tod peOioxerGar. A favourite subject of discussion with moralists,
e.g. Theognis 473 ff, 500 ff.; Laws 1. 677 Dff., Xen. Symp. 11.; and the treatise
mept peOns of Antisthenes.
frrov...dndys. “Less likely to bore you,” sc. than if you were in the mood
for wine-bibbing. Compare (with Wolf) Hor. Sat. 1. ii. 1 ff. quae virtus et
quanta, boni, sit vivere parvo.,.discite non inter lances mensasque nitentes.
176 D xaderdv...7) péOy. Similarly in 180 B we have neut. adj. with
masc. subst. (Oedrepov...€pagrys). For the sentiment cp, Ar. Vesp, 1253
kaxov TO mew: xtd.: Theogn. 211 oivdy roe mivew movddy Kaxov: Xen.
176 £] ZYMTIOZION 17
oUTE GAXW cupBovreVoayu, A\rws TE Kal KpaiTAaXOvTa ETL ex TIS
mpotepaias. ‘Ara pv, épn pdvae broraBdyvta Paidpov rov
Muppwoveror, &ywyé vou ciw0a TweiPecGat addrAwWS Te Kal arr’ dv
Tepl tatpixns rA€yns* vov 8, dv eb Bovrevwvrar, wal of Rovtrol.
tadta 81 axovoavtas ovyywpeiv mavtas pr bid wéOns Troujcacba EB
THY €v TO TapovTt cuvovaiay, GAN’ otTw Tivovtas Tpos HdSovyv.
V. ‘Ered? roivuv, pavar tov ’Epukipayov, rodro ev dé5ox-
Tat, tive Scov av Exaatos BovrAnTa, éravaryKes Sé wndev elvat,
TO peTa TOUTO eionyodmat Ty pév apts eiceAOodcav avAnTpida
xyaipew av, airodcay éavtn 4} av BovrAnTaL Tais yuvacki tails
évdov, nuds S€ Sia Adywv AAANAOLS uUvEtvaL TO THpEpov: Kal
176 D xparadaevra T: xparadoivra B: xparadavri Hirschig aidporv
T: dadpov B pupwovovov T reyes T av TW: ad B Bovdev-
wyra corr. Coisl. Bast: BovAwvrar BTW: Bovdovra vulg.: (av) BovAowr’ dv
Thiersch ; (av) BovAovra Ast: (av) dv BovAwvra: Kreyenbiihl E avaAn-
tpida T: avdAirpida B f) dv: nav B: éav T

Symp. Il. 26 jv pév adOpdov 1d rordv éeyyewpeOu, raxd piv cai Ta copara Kal
ai yuna ohadrodvra «rd. For the-pedantic reference to 7 iarpixy, cp. 186 A.
kpatradevtra. Tim. Lex. Plat. explains by éri dwé ris pébns Bapvvopevov.
For the accus., in place of dat. (in appos. to @Aq@), cp. 188D nyiv...duva-
pévous: Rep. 4144, ete.
viv 8...08 Nourol. With of Ao.woi we must supply gol meicovra, as Stallb.
and Winckelmann observed. Rettig alone, of later editors, retains the reading
viv & ad ed BovdAovra, with Wolf’s rendering, “nnc bene est, quod item
reliquos id velle video”; but, as Hug remarks, that ed BovAovra: can mean
“bene est quod volunt” lacks proof.
176E ovru...mpds jSovnv. ovras is frequently used thus in combination
with adverbs (esp. padiws, eix7, dad@s, and the like; see Blaydes on Ar. Vesp.
461) where it has ‘‘a diminishing power” (L. and S.), e.g: 180 c enfra, Gorg.
503D; cp. the force of sic in such phrases as “iacentes sic temere” (Hor.
Omit xa, 14):
rovro pty «TA. The antithesis to the pév-clause lies, not in the clause
émdvayxes 5€ p. etvat, but in rd pera rovro xrd. Cp. Arist. Pol. 1278> 6 émei
6€ ravra Sumpiorat, TO pera Ta’Ta OKEemTéov mWOTEpoV KTA,
érdvayxes. Cp. Theogn. 472 mav yap dvayxaiov xphy’ avinpov épu: | ro
mivew & €Oédovte mapacradoy oivoxoeirw—where a similar relaxation of com-
pulsory rules is advocated.
elonyoopar. “I propose,” suadeo: cp. Crito 484; Xen. Mem. 1. 7. 10.
riv...avdnrplSa. It was the fashion at conviiva to provide pipers, dancers,
jesters, jugglers et hoc genus omne to amuse the guests. Cp. Xen. Symp. 1. 1,
Rep. 373.4 xXivai te,..cai éraipa cal méupara (with Adam’s note); Ar. Ach.
1090 ff.; also Protag. 347 c, D (see next page).
tais tySov. Sc. €v TO yuvatkauvi.
B. P. 4
 18 TAATQNOS [176 £
a / i
177 80 olwy Aeywr, ei BovrA«aOe, Cw Kpiv eianynaacOa. PDdvar 1
\ ’ A > a 5
mavras Kai BovrecOat Kai Kedeverv avTOov ElanyeiaOal. eEctrety odv
tov "Epvéipayov éty ‘H pév pot apxn Tov Oyou eoTt KaTa THY
\ > / a € / 2 \ fa] / ? \ \ \

Evpiridou Medavirmnv: od yap éuos 0 pdOo0s, adda Paidpou

\ \ id fal \ /

Tovee, Ov péArXW Aéyerv. Paidpos yap éExdoToTe TPS ME ayavaK-

lal a We / al \ if / / b)

Tov réyer Ov Seuvov, dyciv, ’EpvEipaye, aAdows pév TraL Oedy

ipvous Kal Tat@vas elvat UTO THY ToLNTOY TreETTOLNMEVOUS, TO OE

177 A «ai ante Bova. secl. Hermann Sz.: xai BovderOa del. Voeg.
matavas W: maiovas BT: raavas bt

8 olwv Aéywv. For an appreciation of the cuvoveia dia Adywv, cp. Theogn.
493 ff. tpeis S ed prvdeicbe mapa xpntnpe pévortes... | és TO pécov PwvevyTes
Opa@s €vi kat cuvaragcw: | xyov’rws cupmociov yivera ovK axapr. Simplic. in
Epict. 33. 6, p. 266 xadas eipnrar ote n xwpis Aoywy Tpame{a Hatyns ovdev
diapépec which is probably a reminiscence of Pyotag. 3470, D kal yap otro
(se. of havdAot Kat ayopaior), dia TO py SvvacOa adAndas de €avt@v cuveivar ev
T@ TOTw pnde SiatHs EavTav havis kai Tov Adyar Tov €avTav Um aradevoias,
Tipias mowovor Tas avAnrpidas ktA. Cp. Phaedr. 276 D.
177A Sdvar $4 «rd. It is tempting to excise (with Hermann, Teuffel
and Hug) the first cai and to construe gdava closely with BovAerGa, as
balancing xedevew eionyeioOa, mavtas being the subject of both the leading
infinn., pavar and Kedeveww: cp. 177 E Evvéacay re cal exédevov: Luthyd. 274
6 te ovv Krnowrmos ovvedn...kal of dAdo, Kal exéAevov...emideiEacGar xtr. If
the first cai be retained, it seems most natural to take xceAevew as dependent
on dava: Stallb., however, puts a comma after BovAecOa, as if making
xedevery parallel to @avar: and so too, apparently, Zeller.
kata thy MeAavlrany. Euripides wrote two plays of this name, M. 7 con
and M. Secpaoris. The reference here is to the former (Frag. 488 Nauck), ovx
epos 6 pvOos addX euns pntpds mapa, xrA. Melanippe, a daughter of Aeolus,
bore two sons to Poseidon; they were suckled by a cow, and brought to
their grandfather Aeolus as Bovyev7 répara: when he proposed to burn them,
Melanippe appeared and tried to dissuade him, arguing éri oddev répas eoriv.
According to another account, M. was a daughter of Cheiron, seduced by
Aeolus, and finally metamorphosed into a mare. Cp, Apol. 205 od yap €udv
€p® tov doyov, krA.: Hor. Sat, 1. ii, 2 nec meus hic sermo est sed quae
praecepit Ofellus.
Ov Sevdv xrA. With this passage, cp. Isocr. 1x. 5—8, and x. 12 with its
scornful reference to encomiasts of “humble-bees, salt-diets, and the like”
(see Introd, § 11. B (e)).
vpvovs Kal madvas. Properly speaking duvo. are odes set for the lyre,
maaves odes set for the flute and sung esp. in honour of Apollo. _“The paean
is a hymn (1) of supplication or propitiation during the pain or danger; (2) a
thanksgiving after it is past” (see Smith, D, A. 11. 307 s.v.).
177 e} ZYMTIOZION 19
"Epott, THALKOUT@ VTL Kal ToOTOUTH Ded, UNdé Eva Tra@TOTE TOTOU- B
TOV YyeyovoTwr TroinTay TremoinKévat uNdev eyxa@msov; ef dé BovrAEL
ad oxéyacOat tovs ypnotov’s codictds, ‘Hpaxdéovs pev kal
ad\rov éraivovs xataroyddnv Evyypddew, dorep o BédXTLATOS
IIpodscxos: cat rodto wév irtov Kal Oavpactov, arr’ éywye dn
Tit évétuyov BiBri@ avdpos copod, ev & evicav ares Erratvoyv
Gavudovov éyovtes mpos @pédevav, Kai ddA ToLavTa cuyva ious
ay éyxexwplacpeva’ TO ovv TOLOUTwY peYy TépL TrOAARY oTroVdyy C
Tomoacba, "Epwra Sé pndéva rw avOpwrwv TetodunKkévar ets
TauTnvi THv nucpav aklws vuvRoaL’ aAN ovTwS NuéANTAL TOTODTOS
Geos. tadta dy pou Soxel ed A€yerv Daidpos. eyo ody émiOupo
177 Bsopndev: pnd Valckenaer kai ante rovro del. Thiersch kal
Atrov Gavpaorovy Wolf Thiersch kai ante davpacrév om. Steph. Bast.
avépos copod T: om. B, Sz. adediav T: adédccav B C (rodXovs)
modAnv Hirschig afios T; a&a B (ért) ovrws Wyttenbach
npedjoba rocovrov Gedy Steph. héyew: eye cj. Bdhm.

tnAtkottw. ‘A god so venerable”: Phaedrus holds Eros to be the most

ancient of deities, see 1788. 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 (Hzppol.
525 ff.), and possibly others.
177B 8 Botda. This phrase serves to introduce a fresh point, marking
the transition from poets to “sophists”; cp. 209D, 220D (ei S€ BovdAerde),
Lach. 188 c, etc.: but to add an infin., as here (oxéyac6az), is unusual.
Tots xpyotots copiords. “The worthy sophists”; considering that
Phaedrus is the speaker, we must suppose that the adj. is seriously meant,
not. ironical.
KaradoydSnv Evyypadev. ‘Writing in prose,” oratione soluta. Cp. Isocr.
IL. 7 kal rOv pera pétpov momparev Kal Trav Karadoyadny ovyypayparov,: Lysis
204 pd, Laws 811 B, 975 D.
womep...[Ipé8txes. This alludes to Prodicus’s celebrated parable ‘The
Choice of Heracles,” for which see Xen. Mem. 11. i, 21 ff. For Prodicus of
Ceos, see Zeller Presocr. Phil. vol. u. pp. 416 ff, 473 (KE. T.); Gomperz
Gr. Thinkers (E. T.) 1. pp. 425 ff
trov kal. For the unusual position of «ai after the comparative, cp. Xen.
Cyr. I. vi. 38 ratra yap paddov kal éEararav dvvara.
évnocav ares. Logically, of course, the subject ought to be ¢mawos, not
aves. The same BiBdiov is alluded to in Isocr. x. 12 rév...rots BouBudcods
kal, Tovs GAas Kal Ta Tovavta BovAnOévrav emaveiv: its authorship is now
generally ascribed (as by Sauppe, Blass, Hug) to the rhetor Polycrates: see
further Jntrod. § 11. B (e).
177C 76 obv...ipvqoo. The infin. may be explained (with Ast) as an ex.
of the infin, “indignantis,” cp. Ar. Vub. 819 rd Ala vopifew dura rpAtkovrovi.
2—2
 20 TAATQNOE [177 ¢
dua piv ToUT@ epavov eiceveyxeiv Kal yapicacOa, Gua 8 ev TO
mrapovts mpérov mor Soxel elvat tuiv Tois mapodar KoopHoas TOV
D Oedv. ei odv Evvdoxet cal tyiv, yévour’ dv jpiv ev Aoyous iKavi)
SiatpiBy* Soxel yap pou xphvas Exactov huav NOyou eLTety ETTaLvOV
*Epwros él Se€ia ws dv Svvntar KaddoTov, dpxew Se Daidpov
Tp@Tov, ered) Kal TP@Tos KaTaKevTat Kal éoTW aya TaTHp TOU
Noyou. OvSels cor, & "Epvkipaye, pavar Tov Twxpaty, évavtia
Wndueitar. ove yap av Trou éyw arropnaatut, ds ovdév Gyut aro
E érictacba 7) Ta épwrixa, ovTe Tov Ayadbwv cal Iavoavias, ode
pynv Apistodavns, © tept Avovucoy Kai ’Adpoditny maca 7 dia-
177 CC rovrwi Bdhm. kat xapioacOa del. Hartmann D (repi)
"Epwtos Hirschig ckaAdiora W dpyew : Aéyeev Hirschig b€ mpatov
aidpoy vulg. E adpodirn T 7 om. T

tpavoy eloeveyxetv. Symbolum dare: cp. Laws 915, 927C ws épavoy eic-
épovra éavr@—the only other instances of épavos in Plato. For a defence of
the text against Hartmann, who excises xai yapicacOa, see Vahlen Op. Acad.
11. 296. This passage is echoed in Aristid. ‘Or. t. 1. p. 18.
177 D 8oxet yap po. “ My sentence is,” an official formula: cf. Dem. 1. 2,
1v.17. Hence the point of Socrates’ phrase évavtia Wndreira, four lines below.
Adyov...érawov. Cp. 214 B, Phaedr. 260 B ovytiBeis Adyor Erawvov Kara
Tov Ovov.
érl Sef&id. ‘From left to right”: cp. Rep. 4208 (with Adam’s note);
Theaet. 1758. Critias 2. 7 cai mpomocers dpéyew éridéésa.
kdA\torov. Notice that, in Eryximachus’ view, the first requisite is
kaAAos, and contrast the view of Socrates in 198p ff.
matip tov Adyov. L.e. elonyntyis trod X., aS Plutarch explains (Plat. Q.
1000 F): the same phrase recurs in Phaed?. 257 B, ep. Theaet. 164 8 6 matnp
tov pvOov: Lys. 214.4 rarépes ris codias Kal nyepdves.
+a tpwrtkd. The objects or principles with which 7 épwri«y réxvn (Phaedr.
257 a) is concerned ; cp. 186c, 2128, Lysis 2048. This passage is alluded to
by Themist. Or. xim. p. 161, Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. p. 288: for its significance
here, see Jntrod. § I. B.
ovte mrov...kal. «ai is used rather than ovre because Pausanias and Agathon
formed “ein Liebespaar” (Hug).
177 Ewepl Atévucov kal ’AdpoSirny. There are many points of mutual
connexion between Eros, Dionysus and Aphrodite. Thus, Dionysus is the
patron-god of the theatre, as shown by the phrases of mepi rov A. reyvira,
“actors” (Arist. Probl. xxx. 10), and AvovvooxoAaxes, “stage-lackeys” (Arist.
Thet. Ut. 1205* 23); and on the comic stage erotic scenes were frequent.
Moreover, Dionysus was sometimes represented (as by Praxilla of Sicyon,
c. 450 B.c.) to be a son of Aphrodite; and in Aristoph. fr. incert. 490 (Df.)
oivos is termed ’Adpoditns yada. For the traditional inter-connexion of
“Wein, Weib und Gesang,” we may also compare Solon 26 épya 8€ Kumpo-
178 a] | SY MTMOSION 21
tpuBy, ovdé adros oddels TovT@vl dv éyd opd. Kairos ovx éF tao
ylyverar juiv Tois voTaTos KaTaKewevols’ AA’ edv ot pdabev
ixavas Kal Karas eltrwow, éEapKéoes nuiv. Grd TUyn ayabA
katapxéto Daidpos Kai éyxwpiatérw tov “Epwra. tadra 8) Kai
oi @dXot TravTes dpa Evvéhacay te Kai éxéXevov Emrep 6 Lwxparns.
Tavt@v méev ovv & Exacrtos elzrev, ovTe Tdvu 6 "Apiorodnuos éué- 178
unto ovt’ ad ey a éxeivos EXeye travta’ & 88 padtota Kal Ov
e50F€ pou a€touvnudvevtov, tovtwv tiv épw éxdartou Tov AOyov.
VI. Iparov pév ydp, domep ANéyw, En Daidpov apkapevov
évOévde mroBev Néyeuv, STL péyas Oeds ein o “Epws wal Oavpactos év
177 EB xai xadds del. Naber nev: byiv J.-U. Taira: tavra Usener
dpa: dua Wyttenbach 178 A a4 BT: dca mg. t agtopynpovevrov
{etvar) TW: dgtopvnpovevrov b: détopvnudvevra etva vulg.: d&a pynpovevew
cj. Liebhold éxaora Bdhm. tov Aoyor secl. Bdhm.

yevous viv pot ida kai Atovigor | kat Movoéwv, a ribno’ avdpacw evppocvvas.
Echoes of this phrase are to be found in Aristaen. 1 ep. 3, p. 11; Plut. amat.
7504; Lucian Symp. p. 444.
iptv Tots vorarois. vUoraros here is equivalent to écyaros as used in 175c
(where see note), z.e. placed on the extreme right.
apxéce ypiv. “We shall be content,” ze. we shall not be called upon to
speak: for the impers. é£apxei c. dat. cp. 176c, 192 8, 210.
Téxq ayaby. “In Gottes Namen” (Wolf); cp. Phileb. 57%, Tim, 26 5.
wavres Gpa. For the position of dpa cp. Prot. 3194 7 xaddv, mw 8 éya,
Téxvnpa dpa xéxtnom: Rep. 3580 modd yap apelvev dpa Kth.
178 A d&opvnpévevrov. We should expect rather the plural. We must
suppose that the sentence is slightly confused, the original idea being to put
& 3€ padsora edoké por acopvnpovevra (ratra ¢p@), which was altered owing to
the insertion, as an afterthought, of «ai dy: then, instead of proceeding dv
ZdokE por Gktov 7d pepvncOa (or peuvjoda Tov Adyou), the word originally in
mind was put down, but in the sing.: but it is tempting to restore either
G£copynpdveur’ eiva: (supposing efva to be corrupted from a compendium), or
détov pynpovevev. Prot. 3434 (pnyara Bpaxéa aftouynudvevra) is the only
other instance of the word in Plato: there may be an echo of the present
passage in Ken. Symp. 1. 1 epoi doxei rav xadv kayabdv avdpav épya...akso-
pvnudveura eva. For the significance of the statement here made by Apollod.,
see Introd. § 11. B (g).
TIpérov piv ydp xr. For the discourse of Phaedrus (178 a—180B) see
Introd. § 1. (analysis), § 11. (1).
&omep yw. “As has been stated”: the present tense (186 E, 193 a, etc.)
is commoner than the past tense (efrov 1730, 182D, etc.) in this formula.
The reference is to 177 D.
év0évSe wotv. ‘Roughly at this point,” Ainc fere: the combination recurs
1990, Phaedr. 2298, Huthyd. 2758; so évrevOév wobev Phaedr. 270, Rep. 524c.,
22 TAATQNOS [i7e:&
avOpemois TE Kal Oeois, ToMrayH pév Kal GAAy, OVX HKLoTAa OE
\ a lol \ \ v , dh \

KaTa Thy yéverw. TO yap év Tols TpecBUTaTov elvas Tov Beov

a b \ \

Titov, 7 5 s+ Texunptov de ToUTOU* youns yap “Epwtos ovT evoiv

¢ a \ Ua fs TaN

ote NéyouTau UT’ ovdSEvds OdTE LSLWTOU OUTE TroLNTOD, AX ‘Hatodos

» lal ? bas /

mperov wev Xaos pyat yeverOat,

A \ / \ ,

auTap éTe:ta
Tai’ evptotepvos, mavtwy éd0s aadhares alei,
7d “Epos.
DEINE 5y,

178 A adda Stobaeus mpeaButarov BW, Stob.: mpecBuraros T

tov beov W: trav beav BT B 78 és del. Bast: dvedos Creuzer TEK MLN]-
puov d€+ rovrou ("Epwros deleto) Naber yovai Stob., vulg. "Epwros:
Xdovs cj. Bdhm. “Hatodos (ds) Heindorf yai’...”Epos sec]. Herm.

kata thy yéveotv. “In respect of his origin.”

é&v rots mpecBirarov. For the doctrine of the antiquity of Eros, cp. Xen.
Symp. VII. 1 7 pév xpov@ iandtKos rots devyevéat Oeois..."Epwros: Ar. Av. 700
mporepov 8 ovx iv yévos aGavatwyv, mpiv "Epws ouvéuiEev Gmavta. Agathon,
in 195 a, expressly contradicts Phaedrus on this point. Bast excised 7 & és
on the ground that ‘‘in fine periodi Platonicae non magis usurpatur quam
inguit Latinorum.”
178 B rexpriprov 8%...yap. Cp. Critias 1108, Apol. 40c: Xen. Symp. Iv.
17 rexpnptov S€- GaddAoddpous yap...€xA€éyovTat.
yovys...ovre A€yovrar. This is a rash statement on the part of Phaedrus ;
for Alcaeus (fr. 13 Bgk.) makes Eros son of Zephyros and Iris; Simonides
(fr. 43), son of Ares and Aphrodite; Euripides (Hippol. 534), son of Zeus ;
Sappho (fr. 132), of G6 and Uranos; Ibycus (fr. 31), of Chaos ; see also the
statements in 199D, 203 ff. ixfra. On the other hand ignorance or doubt as
to the parentage of Eros is expressed in Theocr, Jd. x11. 1, 2 ody dyiv tov
"Epwta povos érey’...@Tiwt TovTo Oe@y moka Téxvov eyevro; Anth. Pal. v. 176.
7—8 marpos & ovkér’ exw ppatew rivos: ote yap AlOnp, | ob XOav dnor TeKeiv
tov Opacvy, ov TéAayos. For the usual Greek assumption that the poets are
religious teachers, cp. Ar. an. 1054 rots péev yap madapiouw | got dida-
axados dutis ppacet, Tots nBaow Se wourai: and see Adam, &. 7. G. pp. 9 ff.
iGidrov. For this distinction between the prose-writer and the poet, cp.
Phaedr. 258D; Laws 8904; ep. 366E. The term iSiarns may be taken as
a survival of the time when the poet alone had his work “ published ”—at
religious festivals, theatrical shows, c@po, ete.
*HeloSos xr. The reference is to Theog. 116 ff. HTL pey mpatiata Xaos
yever, adrap krvX. Cp. Ar. Av, 693 ff. Xaos jv Kal NdE «rd. The order of the
text I have adopted, in the passage following, is that proposed by Schanz,
except that he reads dpodoyet (és) @not, while Burnet, accepting the trans-
position, prints ovpudyou instead of duodroyei gyno. Hug and others eject the
clause dyou..."Epwra as a marginal prose paraphrase of the words of Hesiod ;
since, as it stands in the traditional order, the clause is obviously tautologous :
but tautology is in itself no objection, but rather characteristic of Ph.’s style
178 c] TYMIMOSION 23
"Hood S€ Kal “Axovoirews oporoyel [dna wera to Xaos S00
TovTw yevéoOa, Vv tre eal "Epwral. Tlappevidns dé tv Téveouv
Dever
mpwtictov pev "Kpwra Oedv unticato mavtwv.
, \ ” a ié /

oUTw Today ober Omoroyettat 0” Epws ev Tots mperBUTatos elvat.

ov , \y a cw > a , ».

178 B ‘Hovode...dporoyet (quae in BT post mavrwv extant) transposui,

auctorr, Wolf Sz. Bt. dporoyet BT: Evpdnow Stob.: cvpgpnow Bt.
gnot..."Epwra secl. Hommel Jn. Hug: ¢yot...rdvrwy secl. Ast Turr. J.-U.
gnoi om. Stob.: (6s) @yot Schanz Tlappevidns...ravtav om. Stob.,
Heyne Wunder thy Téveow eye secl. Jn.: ryv yéveow secl. Rettig
C mpecB8uraros Stob.

(see Teuffel in Rhein. Mus. xxix. p. 133); and there is force in Hermann’s
remark “aegre intelligo quomodo aliquis clarissimis poetae verbis (para-
phrasin) addendam existimaverit, multoque verisimilius videtur Hesiodi
locum...postmodo adscriptum...irrepsisse.” I bracket the clause as a gloss
On dpuodroyet. The clause Happevidns...rdvrey is rightly defended by Hug,
against Voegelin and others, on the grounds that (1) odrw moddayobev in the
following sentence is more appropriate after three than after two instances,
and (2) Agathon in 1950, when alluding to Phaedrus’s speech, expressly
mentions ‘Haiodos cai Tappevidns. The authority of Hesiod is similarly cited
by Plut. amat. 756 5.
*AxovelXews. Acusilaus of Argos, the “logographer,” about B.c. 475 (7),
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 speakiug, a “‘logographer” at all (see
Jevons, Gk. Int. p. 299). Cp. Clem. Alex. vi. ii. 26. 7 ra S€ ‘Howodou petnr-
hakav eis meCov Aoyov Kai ws’ WBia eLéveyxay Evpndds te kat “Axovaidaos ot
iotopioypapo. Hug, retaining the order of the mss., would explain the fact
that A. is put last as due to his being an idvarns, the others rourai.
TlappeviSns. See Parmen. frag. 132 (Karsten), R. and P. 1014; Arist.
Met. 1. 4. 984 25; Plut. amat. 756¥F. It is to be presumed that the famous
Eleate relegated this theogony to his “Way of Opinion.” Cp. Spenser’s
lines (H. to Love), ‘‘Or who alive can perfectly declare The wondrous cradle
of thine infancie... For ere this worlds still moving mightie masse Out of
great Chaos ugly prison crept... Love... Gan reare his head, by Clotho being
waked.”
ray Téveow...pqticaro. Hermann and Hug follow Stallbaum in supplying
Téveors aS the subject of pnricato: cp. Phaedo 94D ob éye rov ’Odvecéa
arnOos dé wAnkas xpadiny nvimame pvOm. For the personification of yéveots,
cp. Hom. Ji. xtv. 201 ’Qreavov re Oedv yéveotv Kai pytépa Thuy (cited by
Plato in Zheaet. 180D, Crat. 4028). Plutarch (doc. cet.) differs by making
’"Adpodirn the subject of pnricaro. It is, of course, possible that another
(suppressed) subject is intended; since we do not know what the context was
in the original.
24 TAATQNOS [178 ¢
mpecButatos 5é oy peyiatwv ayabdy nuiv aitios eat. ov yap
, \ a / > al CRA y” / > , \

éywr’ exw elrreiv 6 Te peifov eotiw ayabov evOus véw ovtTs 7

” , ” ’ a a Lal / > 7 A > \ tf ” a

€pactns ypnotos Kal épactn maidixa. 6 yap xpn avOpwrots

\ a / a \ A > ,

nyetaOat travtTos TOU Biov Tots péAXOVaL Kada@s BiwcecOat, TOUTO

€ a \ a / a s a , a

ovTe auyyévela ola Te eumroeiy oUTW KANXWS OUTE TLpal ovUTE

a \ ¢ / \ A \
TAoUTOS OUT AAO ovdEeV ws Epws. Aéyw SE b7 Ti TOTO; THY eI
\ a an r \ a “ a
Mev Tois aicypois aiayurnr, emi S€ Tots Kadois PidoTiuiav: ov
yap éotiv dvev TovTwy oTE TrOALY OUTE LOLWTNY pEyada Kai KaXa
\ a M ’ ” f ” id lid / \ \

épya éEepyalecOar. dynut toivuy éeyw avdpa oats é€pa, ei Te

” 2E / fa) \ , > mo wv Py ca4 > A yy

’ i a / Fy ’ , > 9
aiaypov Towwy KatTabyros yiyvolto 7 Tacywy ve Tou St avar-
178 © mpeaBuraros S¢€ bv: mpos d€ rovr@ rey Bast (péyloTos TE Kal)
peyiorwy Bdhm. airtos npiv Stob. (n) macduxa Hommel Jn. evyéevela
Wyttenbach Kad@s (ovre xaddos) Vulg.: ovrTws ore xaddos Reynd. Jacobs

178 C mperBéraros 8 dv xrA. The partic. gives the impression of a

causal connexion—as if beneficence must be in direct proportion to antiquity !
peylorwy...atrios. Cp. 197 ¢ infra; Ar. Plut. 469 ayaO@v amaytwy airiay.
600s véw ovr. “From his earliest youth”: this properly applies only to
the mada. With radia supply ypyord. For a similar estimate of the
value of didas, see Lys. 2118, Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 1 ff.
avOpdarois...Blov. For nyeioOa c. dat. of person and gen. of thing, ep.
Hom. Od. xxl. 134 npiv jyeicOw dpxynOpoio: Xen. Cyr. VIII. 7. 1 tod xopou
nynoato UWépoas. It would be easy, however, by inserting da after the
termin. -a, to restore a favourite Platonic phrase dia mavros rod Biov (ep.
203 p, Phil. 39 B).
ovyyévea. “ Kindred,” implying nobility of kin: for the concrete use ep.
Gorg. 472 8B, Laws 7308, 8744, etc., and esp. Hep. 4910 xadXos Kai mAotTos
kal loyvs cwparos kai Evyyévera eppwpévn ev mode. Taking ovyyevera here in a
similar sense, we can dispense with Wyttenbach’s plausible conj., edyéveca
(for which cp. Huthyd. 2798, Ar. Hhet. u. 15, Soph. Anti’g. 38), which
Reynders adopts.
178. D_ aloxivnv...prroruplav. Cp. Lys. xiv. 2, and 42 (in Alcib.) émi peév
Tois Kadois alaxiverOa, emi S€ Trois Kaxois pidrormeioOa, “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 aicxyvvy (not distinguished from aides) see Arist. Eth. Nic. tv.
ix. 1128 10, and Ahet. 11. vi. 1383> 12.
otre wédw ove LSdtHv. Notice that in the subsequent treatment of these
two heads the order is reversed (to secure rhetorical ‘Chiasinus”).
el rt aloxpdv Kr. Cp. Xen. Cyneg. XII. 20 Gray pev yap ris dparac bd Tod
épwpévov Gras €avtov ears BeATiwv Kai otre A€yer ote Moret aloypa ode Kaka,
iva py 6p67 tm’ exeivov. Also 194 ¢ infra.
4 mdoxwv xrk. Cp. “It hath been said by them of old time, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Ordinary Greek ethics approved of retaliation :
179 a] TYMMMOZION 25
Splay un) auvvomevos, ovt av 1rd tratpos OPOevTa oUTws adyhoat
U A? t ees | ¢ \ \ ’ , ef > a

ovTe Umd étaipwy ovTE Um ddAXoU ovdEVOS WS UTd TaLdiKOD.

” - \ € i LA Ld ,’ wv ’ \ « € \ lal

’ mS , el. tn / \
tavtov S€ ToUTO Kal Tov Ep@pevov opw@pmev, bt. SiahepovTws Tovs
épaotas alaxvvetat, otTav ofOy ev aicyp@ Tivi wy. El oY pNXaVy
\ / ’ > lel \ ’ = /

Tis yévolTo wate TOALW yevérOar 1 oTpaTOTEdoY epagTaY TE Kal

/ / A lal

TALOIKOV, OUK EoTLV OWS AV ApeELVoY OiKnTELaY THY éauTaY [7]

’ » Ape A

ATeXOMEVOL TaVTwWY TOV aloypoV Kal PiAoTiovpEVOL TPOS ANAI-

, , A a ; , Rd /

Aous* Kal payxopmevol y’ av peT AAAHWY Of TOLODTOL ViK@EV av 179

% \ / , ,’ A ,’ > 12 ¢ rn al bal

OAlyou OvTES WS Eros eltety TavTas avOpwTous. Epayv yap avnp

> , ” a f ta) \ na §

178 BE roy €pacrny Hirschig i, otpatormedor secl. J.-U. (e&) epacrav

Hirschig éautav (rodwv) Hirschig 7 seclusi, auctorr. Rtickert Jn.
Bdhm. Sz. Naber: xai J.-U. kai (emi rois xadois) . Ast 1I9A y dv
BT: y ad Verm. J.-U.: 8 y av W

cp. Xen. Cyrop, vil. 7.7; see Dobbs, Philos. and Popular Morals, etc. p. 39.
For another incentive to courage, see Rep. 467 B.
178 E rairév 8 rotro. “In exactly similar fashion,” adverbial accus.:
80 taira tavta Meno 90 k.
tovs épartds. The plural is due to the fact that it was usual for a number
of épacrai to pay court to the same maidixa (cp. Charm. 154 a).
el ovv pnxavr tis krA. Here Ph. passes on to his second head,—the benefits
derived from Eros in civic and national life (woAw, 178 D supra). For the
phrase cp. Laws 640 B ef 8 jv ris unyavy xtrd.: Parm. 132 D, Phileb. 16 a.
otpatémeSoy épactayv. It is noteworthy that Xen. (Symp. vu. 32) puts a
similar statement in the mouth of Pausanias—Iaveavias ye...eipnkev ws Kal
oTpatevpa adkipewrtatoy av yévoiro ex maidikav Te Kal epacrey (cp. Introd.
$ vu. ad fin.). Cp. also Xen. Cyrop. vil. 1. 30 ovx gor laxvporépa paday&
7) Grav ex hilov cuppaxov nOpocpevy 7. This principle was exemplified in the
famous iepos Aoxos of the Thebans, organized by Gorgidas (or Epaminondas),
which fought first. at Leuctra, 371 B.c., see Athen. xl. 561 F, 602 4. A
Roman analogy is afforded by Scipio’s piAwv tn. The parallel in Xenophon
is of itself sufficient to refute Jahn’s athetesis of 7) orpardmedov.
oik tot oTrws Ay xrA. Hug, retaining 4 before ameydpevor, would supply,
with the participles, from the context ‘“ welche Gefiihle allein durch den Eros
in wirksamner Weise erregt werden.” This, however, is exceedingly awkward ;
and his further remark that ov« dpewwov oiknoeay dy 7 amrexopevor is equivalent
to dipicr’ dv oik. amex. does nothing to lessen the difficulty. By ejecting 7, as
a very natural interpolation after the comparative by a copyist careless of
the sense, we obtain the meaning required—‘it would be impossible for
them to secure a better constitution of their city, since thus they would
abstain” ete.
179 A payopevor xrdA. Cp. Rep. 471 D tipior ay payowro Ta AWxiora
droXeire adAndous...apayor av elev: Xen. Symp. VIL 32 tt
26 TAATQNOS PETSeA

bro Tadixav ohOAvas i) ALT@Y Taki H CTA aTOBad@y 7TTOV av

i A a U A ’ \ g x

87 mov S€£atto 7) bd TavTwWY TOV GdwY, Kai TPO TOUVTOV TEAvavaL

/ / Xv e \ , lal 7 \ MN Uy 6 ‘

Gv TONAGKLS ENOLTO* KAL PNY EYKATANLTIELY YE TA TALOLKA 4 BLN

A / s- \ \ ’ lal a 8 \ A \

a , ¢ \ ’ vA \ ig
BonOjcas xivdvvevovts, ovdels ot TW KaKos bvTLVA OVK GY avTOS O
"Epws évbeov troijoete Tpos apeTHv, oO Gpouov eivar T@ apioTH
» ef > s lel ’ /

dice’ Kal atexyvas, 0 pn “Opnpos, “ wévos eumvedaa.” eviows TOV

lal lal , a“

npowy tov Oedv, TodTo 0 "Epws Tois epaar mapéexer yuyvopevov

a cy fal a t

Tap avrTov.
VII. Kai phy vreparodvncxewy ye povor eOérovatv of épav-
, ¥ a

> / ila Bi > bt \ e a tf be \ e

TES, OV LOVOV OTL avopes, ANNA Kal al yuvaltKes. TOUTOU OE Kal 7

179 A opi B: py T hiatum ante oddels notay. J.-U. B (aor)

mapéxee Orelli ov povoy Ore: ov pdvoy of Steph. Sz.: ovx dru Fischer J.-U.
GEARS (yar, Ah rovrov: dSoxet Verm.

Aumady rdw F Omha droBaddv. “The principal military offences at Athens

were dealt with by one law. A citizen was liable to indictment, and, if con-
victed, to disfranchisement for (1) Failure to join the army—dorpare‘as.:
(2) Cowardice in battle—8eXlas: (3) Desertion of his post—Xrroragiov:
(4) Desertion from the army—)rmoorpariov. Of these terms, \:roraéiou was
that used in the widest sense, and might include any of the others” (Smith,
D. A. 1. 212). Cp. Rep. 468 a, Laws 943 p ff., and the compounds pivaomis
(Laws 9448, 0; Ar. Vesp. 19), aomiSaroBdns (Vesp. 592) The conduct of the
ideal ¢pagrns on such an occasion is shown in 220 £ infra.
xwSuvevovr. For the sing. dat. referring to madcxois, cp. Phaedr. 239 a,
and 184D infra. After xwdvvevovre we should expect the sentence to conclude
with ovdeis rohwey av or the like: the fact that a new ending is substituted
may be regarded (with Ast) as due to the agitation (real or pretended) of the
speaker ‘vom furor eroticus ergriffen.”
tvOecov mpos apernv. For éydeos, “ god-inhabited,” “inspired,” cp. Jon 533 5
évOeor dvtes Kal Kateyopevar: ibid. 5348 and below, 180 B. dice, denoting
“natural” temper, is here opposed to this supervenient grace. For the
thought cp. Spenser (4. 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 “Opnpos. See Jl. x. 482 rd 8° Eumvevoe pévos yAavxdms *AOAIn:
2b. XV. 262, Od. 1x. 381. Cp. the (Lacedaemonian) term eiomvydas for épacrne :
also Xen. Symp. Iv. 15.
drreparrobvyjaKev. Cp. Isocr. Hel, 217 hs evexa modXol Trav Huibéav amrobvn-
oxew nOédAnoav.
ov pévov or. This expression may be defended by Thue. Iv. 85. 6 kat yap
ob pdvov dre avroi dvOicragde, GANG Kai ois dv eriw, jody tis euol mpdceow :
Arist. Pol, vit. 11, 1383111 ody dre reiyn pdvov mepiBdrnréov (with Newman’s
note): Xen. Mem. 11, 9. 8. Jahn’s ovx dre would give, as Teuffel argues, the
179 D] SZYMMOZION 27
Iledtov Ouyarnp “AXKnotis ixaviy paptupiay mapéxetar Urrep
Tovde TOU AOyou eis Tods “ENAnvas, EOEANTAaTA povn Umép Tov
auTns avdpos amo@aveiv, OvTwY a’T@® TaTpos TE Kal pNTPOS* ods
€xelvyn TooovToy UmepeBadeTo TH Piria bia Tov épwta, Bote aTro-
SeiEar adtods aAXoTplous dvTas T@ viel Kal dvopwaTe povov Tpoa7)-
kovtas* Kal ToT épyacamévn TO epyov ovtTw Karov ébokev épya-
cacbat ov povoy avOpwrois ada Kal Deols, WTTE TOAN@Y TOAAA
Kai Kana Epyacapevarv evaplOunto.s 67 ticw édocav todo yépas
oi Oeot, €E “Avdov avetvas Tadw THY uxyv, AAG THY éxelvys
aveicav ayaobevtes TO Epy@: otTw Kal Oeoil Thy Tepi Tov épwra

179B rapéyeoOa Verm. * Umeép..."EAAnvas secl. Bdhm.: vzep...

Adyou secl. Wolf Sz., post “EAAnvas posuit Bast: baeép rovde del. et tov Aoyou
post rovrov dé posuit Steph.: tmép rovde del. Wyttenbach Winckelmann
C xatepyacapévay Methodius 6) rovro TW TO yépas vulg. aviévat
Hommel aX aitny éexeivny Earle T@ épye secl. Baiter: 7o...6eoi
secl. Bdhm.

wrong sense “I do not say men do so, celu va sans dire.’ We may explain
ov povoy Ore as elliptical for ov pdvov (Aێyw) Ore.
avBpes...at yuvaixes. The addition of the article serves to signalize the
second case as the more striking: cp. J. Alctb. 105 B év "EdAnow...€v Tots
BapBdpas: Phileb. 45 8, 1b. 64; Vahlen on Arist. Poet. tv. 14497 1.
”“Adxnortis. Besides Euripides, Phrynichus (438 B.c.) and later Antiphanes
(354 B.c.) made Alcestis the theme of a tragedy: see also the Skolion by
Praxilla in Bergk P. LZ. G. 111. § 1293.
tmp Tov8e Tod Adyov. ‘‘In support of my argument.”
eis tovs “EXAnvas. Cp. Protag. 312A els rovs “EAAnvas cavtdyv coguotny
mapéxwov: Gorg. 526 B: Thue. I. 33. 2.
@eArjcaca povy xrA. Cp. Eur. Alc. 15 ff. mavras & edéyéas...0vx ebpe mAnv
yuvaixos ris HOede | Oaveiy mpo Keivov.
179 Cots éxelvn krA. See Eur. Alc. 683 ff. where the appeal of Admetus
is thus answered by his father Pheres: ot yap matpdov tév8 edeEdunv vopov |
maldoy mpobvnoKkew marépas ovd’ “EXAnviKov.
dddotplovs. Admetus might have described his dAAdrpioe mpoonkovtes as
‘a little more than kin and less than kind.”
evapiOunros. A grandiose synonym for 6Alyous.
Yooav totro yépas...dyarévres. Cp. Phaedr. 259B 6 yépas mapa Oeav
Zyovow dvOparos diddva, tay’ dv doiev dyacdévtes. yaya can take either
the genitive (/ep. 426 D, etc.) or the accus. (Symp. 219 D, etc.). This passage
is alluded to by Plut. amat. 762 A déyovres €& ddou Trois epwrixois dvodov eis Pas
UmUpXeELy.

ovTw,..tyaow. Cp. Xen. Symp. VUI. 28 dAAa Kai Oeoi Kal pwes Thy THS
Wuxjs prttav rept mAElovos,..movovvTat.
 28 TAATQNOS [179 p
amovdnpy Te Kal apeTHy pariota Tindow. "‘Opdéa Sé tov Oldypou
aren amémepav é& “Avdou, Pdcpa Sei~avtes THs yuvarkos é¢'
tv Hxev, adtav Sé od Sovtes, Ste parOaxilerOar edoxer, ate wv
xiOapwdos, Kal ov Tokay Evexa Tod épwros amobvicKkew waTeEp
"Adenatis, GAAd Siaunyavacbar Cav eiorévar eis “Avdov. Tot-
yapro. did Tadta Sixny ait@ érébecay, Kai eroinoay Tov Bavatov
E adrod vd yuvarkav yevérOat, ovy BaTrep "AxtrAdEa TOY THS Oere-
S05 uldv éripnoay Kal eis paxadpwv vycous atrémeuwpay, tu TeTv-
opuévos Tapa THS wNTpds ws amroBavoite atroKTeivas “Extopa, m1)
arroxteivas 5é TodTov oixad ehOw@y ynpaids TeXevTHTOL, ETOAUNTEV
179 D padtora ty secl. Bdhm. davracpa TW roApav Naber
Siapnxavncacba W, vulg. Gy iéva T éroinaay epyov yeverOa yuvatkav
Naber E «ai...dmérepwav damnat Naber droOdvoro T: amobava B
aroxreivas O€ rovrov B: mouncas 8€ rovro T owas’ T: ofxade & B

179D ’Opdéo. For the legend of Orpheus and his wife Eurydice, see
Paus. 1x. 30, Virg. Georg. tv. 454 ff., Ovid Met. x. 1 ff. Phaedrus modifies
the usual story (1) by making Eurydice a @dacya, and Orpheus consequently
dredns (cp. Stesichorus’ treatment of the Helen-legend, followed also by
Euripides in his Helena, and Phaedr. 243 B): (2) by making O.’s descent
an act of padaxia rather than of rdAya (as Hermesianax 2. 7, Ov. Met. x. 13
ad Styga Taenaria est ausus descendere porta): (3) by representing O.’s death
to be a penalty for this cowardice rather than for his irreverence to Dionysus
(as Aeschylus Bassarat, etc.). For Orpheus and Orphism in general, see
Miss J. Harrison Proleg. pp. 455 ff.
are dv xOapwSss. As if the “soft Lydian airs” of the cithara conduced to
effeminacy. For the cithara, as distinguished from the Avpa, see Rep.
399 p—x (with Adam’s note). It is worth noticing that Spenser (H. to
Love) cites Orpheus as an instance of évOeos roAwa—“‘Orpheus daring to
provoke the yre Of damned fiends, to get his love retyre.”
rovydpro. Sia ravra. Cp. Isocr. vir. 52, Andoc. 1. 108, Dem. xxi1r. 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 ToApa.
179 E ovx domep. “Whereas, on the contrary”: cp. Gorg. 522 a, 189 ¢
infra.
els paxdpwy vyoous. Cp. Pind. Ol. 11. 78 ff., Skolion ap. Bgk. P. L. @. m1. 1290.
Achilles, after death, is variously located, by Homer (Od. x1. 467 ff.) in Hades,
by Ibycus (fr. 37) in Elysium, by Arctinus and others in Leuke (“white-
island”), for which see Pind. Vem. Iv. 49, and Rohde Psyche 11. 369 ff. For
the situation of the pu. vjoo, see Strabo 1. 3: cp. Adam R. 7. G. 135 f.
és drobavoire. See Hom. 7. xviii. 96 airixa yap rot frera ped’ "Exropa
morpos éroipos: ibid. Ix. 410 ff.; Apol. 28 o, D.
otxa8’...rehevrjoot, This clause is echoed, as Wolf observed, by Aeschines
1. 145 émavedOov oixade ynpatos...dmoOavetrat.
180 B} ZYMTTOZION 29

€déobar BonOnoas TH Epacty LlatpoKrw Kal Tiuwpynoas ov povoy

ec , , lal ’ a / \ / /

e a \ ~ , «
Umepatobaveiy adda Kal érraTroBaveiy TeTENEUTNKOTL* SOev 87) Kal 180
umepayacbévtes ot Oeot Siadhepovtws avTov éripnoav, OTe Tov
€ , c \ / ’ SS > / ¢ \

€paotny ovtw Tepl TodXod Erroveito. Alaoyvros dé prvapet dac-

lol lal / a

cov “Ayir2dXéa Ilatpoxdov épav, ds jv KadXXLwy ov povov IlatpoxXou

> / / lal a 7 / /

aA’ apa Kal THY pewv atrdayTav, Kal ETL ayéveElos, ETELTA VEw-
> , ” lol

TEpos TONY, ws Pnow “Opunpos. arAAA yap TO OvTL pwadioTa pev

\ A

TavTny THY apeTny ot Oeol Ti@ot THY TEept TOY EpwTa, wadrdov B
e lal \ \ » n

pévtoe Oavpatovor Kal dyavTat Kal Ev TroLodaLy, dTay oO épwpevos

, fal €

Tov épactiy ayaTra, %) Stay o €Epactns Ta Travdixd. Oevorepov yap

\ a Ld \ NX / / \

épaotns Tadixav* évOeos yap €or. Sia tavtTa Kal Tov ’AxiAdEa
> % lal ” / ’ \ lel \ MY ’ a

179 E Bondjoa W TlarpoxA@ del. Naber 180 A Aicyvdros...

“Ounpos del. Valckenaer aX’ dpa W: adda dpa T: adda B: add’ aya Bt.
kal...ayévetos post mov transp. Petersen B épaorys...¢ore secl. Bdhm.

Bonoyoas. Cp. Arist. Ahet. 1. 3. 1359* 3 ofov "AxiWAdA€a emawvovow dre €Bon-
Onoe TO Eraipw Marpoxr cidas dre det aitov amoBaveiy efdv (nv. Isocrates (in
Panegyr. 53) lauds the Athenians for a similar nobility of conduct.
180 A érarofavetv. This and 208 p are the only classical instances cited
of this compound; nor does there seem to be another class. instance of tepa-
yao bjvat.
Aloxtdos 8 ddvapet. The reference is to Aesch. Myrmidons (fr. 135,
136 N.). Sophocles, too, wrote an “AyiAAé€ws ’Epaorai: cp. also Xen. Symp.
vul. 31. Achilles, hke Asclepius and others, was worshipped in some places
(e.g. Epirus) as a god, in others (e.g. Elis) as a hero.
GAN dpa wal. “”Apa h. 1. stare potest, valet: nimirum” (Wyttenbach):
for dpa affirmative in a universal statement, cp. 1778, Rep. 595 a. To alter
to dua, as Burnet, is unnecessary.
xadd\lwv. For the beauty of Achilles, see //. u. 673. Ov. Trist. 11. 411
refers to Sophocles’ play—“ nec nocet auctori mollem qui fecit Achillem”:
ep. Lucian dial. mort. 18. 1.
ayéveios. The hero is so represented in art; and the Schol. ad J. 1. 131
applies to him the epithet yuvacxkorpécwmos. Similarly Apollo, in Callim. H.
IL. 36 f. otore BoiBov | Andeino’ ovS dacov emt xvdos HAOe mapecais.
vestepos. See L/. x1. 786 yevén pev tréprepds eotw AxiAdevs | mpeaBurepos
d€ ov (8c. Hdrpokdos) eoor: and Schol. ad J. xxi. 94. For the relative ages
of wadixa and epaorns, see 181 B ff. infra; Xen. Anab. Il. 6. 28 airos Se (se.
Meno) rradixa efye Oapvrray ayéveros Sv yevesvra (mentioned as an enormity) ;
Ov. Met. x. 83 ff.
podtora pev...paddov pévror. This savours of a Hibernicism: ep. Gorg.
509 B péyiotov T@Y KaK@v...cal €rt ToUTOU peiCor.
180 B @avpdfovor. Cp. Hep. 551 A éemawotoi re xai Oavpdovor xai eis
ras apxas @yovor: Xen. Symp. iv. 44.
Oerdrepov...€vGeos. Cp. 179 a, 209 B ad init.; Schol. ad Eur. Hippol. 144
 30 TAATQNOZ [180 B
ths “Adknoridos madXov eTiwnoay, es MakapwYy vHGoVS atroTrép-
yavtes.
Oita 8) éywye dnut "Epwra Oeav Kai mpecBvtarov Kal
TLLLOTATOY Kal KUPLOTATOD ElvaL Els ApETHS Kai evVSaipovias KTHALY
avOparos Kai dou Kal TeAEUTHOACLY.
C VIII. Gaidpov péev tovodtov twa Aoyov &pny eirreiv, wera dé
Daidpov ddrdous Twas elvat, Ov ov mdvu Svewvnpovevev: ods
mapeis Tov Ilavoaviov Adyov Simyetro. eimeiv 8 adtov btu Od
Karas poe Soxel, © Daidpe, mpoBeBrAHcHat jyiv o ROYyos, TO ATADS
ots TapnyyerAOa eyxapiafe “Epwra. ei pev yap els Av o
"Epos, Karas av elye, viv S€ ov ydp éotw és: py dvtos S€é évds
D dpOdrepov eotu mporepov mpoppnOfvac oroiov Set eraiveiv. éey@
ody Teipdcopat TOUTO eTravopPwaacbal, TpaTov pev "Epwta ppa-
cat bv Set érra.veiv, érerta érratvéoas akiws Tod Geod. mavtes yap
180 B ris ’AAknortidos del. Schiitz Bdhm. kat post Oeay om. T
kal tyswrarov om. T (add. in mg. t) kupt@repov T C civa del.
Hirschig: eiweiv postea idem cj. D 6rotov: émorepov Herm.

ZvOeou A€yovrar of Ud hacpards tivos adaipeOévres Tov vodv, Kai bm’ éxeivou
Tov Oeod Tov hacparoroiod Karexopevor Kai Ta Soxodvta éxeiv@ moorvtes. See
Rohde Psyche 11. 19 ff.
Ovrw $1 «rd. In this epilogue cai mpeo, xai ry. summarize the first part
of the speech; xai xupimraroy xrd., the second part. Cp. Isocr. Hel. 218p
KOdAous...peTéesyev 6 Geuvdratroy Kal TiyswwTaTov Kai Oedrarov Tav dvTwy éeoTiv.
180 C dddovs twas efvar. The construction here has been misunderstood :
Hirschig proposed to write eieiy for efva:, while Hug bids us supply Aéyovras.
Evidently both suppose that dAAo. rwés mean persons, but it seems better to
take them to be Adyo: and to construe pera Saidpov as a compendium for perd
tov Paidpov Adyov. By this means we secure the word required, Adyous, as
the antecedent to dv: for diauynpovevery would be less naturally used. of a
person than of a speech (cp. 178 A mdavrwy,..€uéuvnro). For the brachylogy,
cp. Thue. 1. 71. 2 apxatdrpora tpav ra émirndevpara mpds atrovs éoriw (with
Shilleto’s 7.).
70...éykoptatey “Epwra. This clause is best taken, with Stallb. and Hug, as
nomin. in epexegetic apposition to mpoBeBrAjoa 6 Adyos. Equally improbable
are Riickert’s view that the clause is accus. (“ quatenus sic simpliciter” etc.),
and Hommel’s that it is exclamatory.
dws ovrws. Cp. 176.
vov 8& ov ydp. We may assume the ellipse of ov xadds tye after viv 8¢:
cp. Theaet. 143 £, Apol. 38 B, ete.
mpoppnoyvar. Hommel renders by “prius praefari,’” Hug by “edicere.”
In favour of Hommel’s view cp. mpovppybdn 198 8, rovr@v mpoppynOévtav Laws
823 D; Rep. 504 a.
181 A] ZYMITTOZION 31

‘omev OTL ove Eotw avev”Epwtos "Adpoditn. pias pev odv ovans
y a ’ y” Nv y | i an \ 5 v

els dv nv “Eps: érel dé 81 dv0 éordv, S00 avayKn Kai “Epwre

s , v

3 a ] ’ 4 \ U € s , / \
elvat. mas & ov So tw Gea; 1) wév yé Tov mpeaButépa Kat
auntwop Ovpavod Ouyatnp, jv 87 Kai Ovpaviay érovouafopev: 7
’ / > fr @ s " \ \ > U ,’ 7 e

Se vewrépa Aros kal Acwvns, jv 8% Tavdnpov cadodpev. avay-

Katov 8)) Kal "Epwta
p ov pevpév
tov THTH ETEpa
ETE cuvepyovov Ilavdnuov
avd dp0as
3pOG
A x , ) a \ Y A
kanreicbar, Tov Sé Ovpaviov. émaivetv wév odv Set mavtas Oeovs,
a ovy ExaTEpos ElANXE TrELpaTéon EiTrEly. Taca yap Tpakis Wd
«\ 8 * € U v / ’ fal lal \ an @o

éyer avy ép Eavtis [rpattopévn] ovte adr ovTE alaxpa. olor 181

180 D avev “Eps ’Adpoditns. ’Appodirns dé yuas Graser (is) puas

Riickert ovv om, Stob. Bekk. - Se dy BW: de T, Stob. épwras Stob.
Ta bea Stob.: ra dew Cobet Siavns T: dudvns B E emaweiv...
Geovs del. Orelli J.-U. det mavtas Geovs: ov Set mavra: Bast: ov det mavra
y 6poiws: Vermehren: hiatum ante a notavit Sz. & ofy: odv Orelli: &
Ast (mparrewv) meiparéov Kreyenbiihl adi Stob. mpatronevn BT,
Stob. Gell.: om. Proclus Steph. Sz.: rarrouévn Bernays: ééera¢opévy Liebhold.

180 D otk toriv..., Adpoditn. Cp. Hes. Theog. 201 ri & "Epos apaptnce
kal “Iuepos €oero xadds | yetvopévn ra mpata Gedy 7 eis Pidov iovon: Orph.
H. 55. 1 Otipavin rodvupve, Prropperdys Adpodiry... (8) pntep eporav.
pias ovons. Cp. Xen. Symp. Vill. 9 ef pev ody pia eoriv Adp. 7 Sirrai KTA.
To Oead. Plato uses both eds (1810, Rep. 327 A, etc.) and dea (Rep. 388 A,
391 c, etc.) for “goddess,” and Gea here serves to preclude confusion with
“Epes. For the notion of a dual Aphrodite cp. Xen. /. c., Apuleius apol. 12,
Plotin. En. m1. 5. 293 B. For Aphrodite Urania, with a temple in Athens,
see Hdt. 1. 105, 131, etc.; Paus:1. 14.6. See also Cic. WV. D, 111. 23; Pind. fr. 87.
TldvSnpov. For the temple.in honour of A. Pandemos, see Paus. I. 22. 3.
It is doubtful whether the title originally attached to her as the common
deity of the deme, or as the patroness of the ératpa. But whatever its origin,
the recognized use of the title at the close of the 5th century was to indicate
Venus meretriz.
180 E xai”Epwra xrA. The notion of a duality, or plurality, in Eros is
also hinted at in Eurip. fr. 550 évds 8 "Epwros évros ov pi’ ndovn: | of pev
kaxav epacw, of b€ Trav xadov: fr. adesp. 151 Siood mvevpara mveis “Epos.
Cp. Phaedr. 266 aA.
érawvety...0eovs. This is merely a formal saving clause, to avert possible
Nemesis, and although it involves the speaker in something like self-
contradiction, there is no good reason to suspect corruption in the text (if
correction be required, the easiest would be eddnpetv, cp. Epin. 992 D edpnpetv
mavras Oeovs xrd.). The laudation of base gods would sound less strange in
ancient than in modern ears; and Eryximachus uses very similar language
in 188 D (cp. 195 a).
181 A airy ép’ éavrys xrA. Gellius xviI. 20 ignores mpatropévn in his
rendering (“Omne,” inquit, ‘“‘omnino factum sic sese habet: neque turpe est,
 32 TAATQNOE [181 4
& viv npels rovodmev, ) Tmivew 7 ade 4H dvaréyerOat, ovK ote
TOUTwWY avTO Kadov ovdév, GAN ev TH paket, ws av mpayOn,
° ) lol / A a

TotovTov améBn' Kaas pev yap TpatTopevov Kal opOas Kadov

yiyverat, un opOas S€ aicypov. ovTw bn Kal TO épav Kai o “Epws
fe Ne? a \ > / ef 8p, \ NI ba) \ € "EB

ov Tas ¢oTl Kados ovde Akos éyxwpralerOar, adr’ 0 KAADS TpoO-

Tpétov épav.
IX. ‘O pév odv ths Tlavdnpou ’Adpoditns ws adnOas tavdn-
B pos éote nal éFepyaterar 6 Te av TYyN* Kal OdTds eoTW by OL
, > \ 2 / oe bay i \ 2 / 7 a (4

paddo. tov avOpwrav épacw. epwar dé of ToLlodToL mpa@ToOV peEV

ovY NTTOV yuvaikay 7 Taidwy, Ereita bv Kal éEpdor TAY THUaTwY
padXrov } TaV Wuyar, Ereita ws av SiVwYTAL avonToTAaTwY, TPOS
A EN Aa a wy € if > UG \

70 dvatrpakacbat povov Brérrovtes, awedobvvTes bE TOD KAS 7) [N.

’ ‘ fal 2 A a

oe \ ’ a o a 7 A t e ,
b0ev bn EvxpBaiver avtois, 6 Te dv TUYWoL, TOUTO TPaTTELY, OMolwWsS
pev ayabov, opoiws S€ Tovvaytiov. Eats yap Kal ard Tihs Oeod
’ ’ > fol a

C vewrépas Te ovans Todd 4 THS ETépas, Kal peTeyovans ev TH

yevéoes Kat Onreos Kal dppevos. o S€ THs Ovpavias mpweTov pev ov
petexovans Ondeos GAN appevos povov, [Kal Ect odTos oO TOV
fe / ’ uh Mv / \ v 2 id lel

181 A atré (xa atro) t 77 om. Stob. xados B: xados T

B_ dvonrotaras W amo tys: amo secl. Sz. Hug: roavrns J.-U.
C xat...ép@s secl. Schiitz Teuffel Hug Sz. Bdhm. J.-U.

quantum in eo est, neque honestum, uelut est quas nunc facimus ipsi res,
bibere cantare disserere. nihil namque horum ipsum ex se honestum est;
quali cum fieret modo factum est, tale extitit,” etc.): Proclus also (nm Alczb. I.
p. 215) omits it. It must certainly, I think, be ejected, since it only serves to
confuse the argument; none of the alternatives proposed are at all probable;
while Rettig’s attempt to justify its retention by the device of setting a
comma before it is merely absurd. For the language cp. Meno 88¢ mdvra ra
Kata THY Wuyxnv atta pev Kad’ avrd ovre apéAruma ovre BAaBepa eoriww: Phaedr.
258 oc, D. See also Hryx. 3978; Arist. Pol. 1333* 9, for the moral indifference
of mpage xa? atras.
om dv Tixy. “At random”; so 6 ru dy riyoor 181B infra: Prot. 3534
of 6 Tt dv TUxwoL TovTO héyovat.
181 B av cal tpaor. “In the actual objects of their passion”: the full
statement would be épdor rév cwpdteay éxeiver (sc, maidov yuvaikev) dy
ép@ou paddov fh Trav W.
7d Siampdgacba. A polite euphemism for the sexual act: cp. 182 ¢,
Phaedr, 256 ¢; Lysias 1. 33.
tort ydp...dppevos. Observe that the reasons are put in chiastic order.
181 C kal tomy...”Epws. This clause is obviously open to suspicion as
(1) anticipating the sense of d6@ev .d) xrA., and (2) standing in partial con-
tradiction to the later statement (181 D ad init.) ob yap épdar raidov.
181 E] ZYMMOZION 33

maiiwv /
épws'] émevta mpecButépas, UBpews apoipov: dbev 8
" ” / «

€ml TO appev TpémovTar of ek TovTOV Tod épwrTos EmuTvol, TO

B) \ / a

pice. éeppwuevéotepoy Kai vovv padrov Exov ayarraytes. Kat

Tus av yvoin Kal €v avTH TH TWaidepactia Tovs eidiKpLWas vad
ey , Som A a

TOUTOU TOU EpwTOS WpPuNpevoUs' ov yap eEp@at Traidwy, arn

/ fal ” € ’ ’ lol

ereidav dn apxywvtar vovv tayew, todto Sé€ mrnaidler TH

2 ‘ ” ” a ” a \ / a

yeverdoxey. Taperkevacmévor yap, oluat, eloiv of évTedOev

apyomevor Epav ws Tov Blov amavta Evveropevor Kal Kown cup-
? : eae € \ ’ a

Biwoopevot, AXX ove e€atratHoavtes, év appotvvn AaBovTes ws

t ’ ’ +) ’ / > > , ie ¢

véov, KaTayeNaoavTes oiynoedOal er’ AANOV arroTpeXOVTES. YpHV

dé Kat vowov elvar pn épdv traidwy, iva pr eis adndrov TOA
\ \ f ? al

Nees , \ mn a
omoven avndloKEeTo’ TO yap THY Taidwy TéXos AdnAov ol TEXeUTAa

181 C raider in radepacréy mutato post ayaravres trs. Verm. Tmpeo-

Burépas (ovons xai) Christ duoipou libri: duopos Ficinus Bast Bdhm. :
UBpews apoipov addub. Sz. D ad)’ (ij) Steph. Hug otxeoOa. Herwerden
maidas Markland E_ rédos secl. Bdhm.

UBpews apolpov. For dBpis as especially associated with juvenile “lustihead,”

ep. Euthyd. 273 B iBpiorns Sia 7d véos eivac: Lysiag XXIV. 16 UBpicew elds...
Tovs rt véous Kal véas rats diavoiats xpopévous: Soph. fr. 705 vBpus S€ ror...€v
véows avet Te kal POiver madw.
trumvot. “ Driven by the spirit”: the only other exx. of the word in Plato
are Cratyl. 428 c and Meno 99D qaipev tv Ocious re elvar cal evOovardcey,
émimvous 6vtas Kal Katexouévous ek Tov Oeod (cp. 179 Ax., 180 B x.).
181D otro 8% Se. rd votv icxew. This is in contradiction to the
statements of Phaedrus, 178,¢ (etOds véw dvre), 180 A (éru ayéveos Av). For
yevearkery (pubescere), cp. Solon 27. 5—6 tH rperarn Se yévetov deLopéver ere
yviev | Aaxvoira, xpos avOos dpweBopevns. Cp. Spenser F. Q. u. xii. 79 “And
on his tender lips the downy heare Did now but freshly spring, and silken
blossoms beare”: Hor. C. tv. 10. 2 (pluma).
maperkevaopévor ktA. For the change of construction from @s with fut.
partic. to (fut.) infin., cp. Charm. 164 D, Rep. 383 A moveiv Os pnre...dvras...
pnre...rapayew. The clause ev ddpoaivy...véov is best taken closely with the
preceding participle, and xarayeAdoavtes...dotpéxovres closely together. For
eEaratnoavtes cp. 184 B, 1854: Theogn. 254 dAX dSomep puxpdy maida Adyors
pe amaras. This amdrn and xarayeday are forms of the t8pes mentioned above,
181 c: ep. 219 c, 222 a.
pi) épdy malSwv. ais, as here used, is Thaognis’ pexpos mais, the maddprov
of 210 B infru.
181 E &&ndov ol tedevtgG. Cp. Phaedr. 232 B rav pev epwvrav sodXoi
mporepov Tov gapatos ereOvpnoar f TOV Tpdmov éyvwoav «KTr.: Theogn. 1075 ff.
mpnyparos ampnktov xadero@rardy €ate TedevTHY | yvdvat...dppyn yap rérarac:
Alcid. Odyss. 5 macd re dropia fy roi more mpoBnooro 7...rekevTy. A similar
Ba Ps 3
 34 TAATQNOS (181 E
Kaxias Kal apetis wuys Te mépe Kal a@patos. of péev odv
aya0ol tov vowov tovTov avTol avTois éExovTes TiOevTat, ypHv Se
Kal TovUTous Tovs TaVvdnpous épactas TpocavayKatery TO ToLovTOV,
iaotep Kal tav édrcvOépwv yuvaikev tpocavayKalopev avTous
182 xa? boov Suvapeba pi epav. odtor yap elaw ot Kai TO dverdos
TETOLNKOTES, WOTE TLVAS TOAMaY AéyeLY WS alaypov yapilecBar
épactais: Aéyouot 5€ eis TovTOUs aTroBdETOVTES, OPHOVTES AUTOV
Tv dKatpiav Kal adsxiav, éret ov bn Tov Kocpiws ye Kal vopipas
OTLobY TpaTTomEevov Woyov ay dixaiws pépor.
Kai 87 «al 0 mrepi tov épwra vowos ev péev Tais addaLs TrOdETL

181 EB xaxias 4 edd. Stobaei, Hommel xeny W: xpnv B: xpy T

Ta@v Towvtoy W 182 A teva: vulg. adxaplav : axoopiay Liebhold
ye: re vulg. 6rwvy (mpaypa) mg. t, Bt.

sentiment occurs in the Clown’s song in T'welfth-Night: “ What’s to come is

still unsure... Youth’s a stuff will not endure.”
kaxlas Kal aperys. Possibly these genitives are to be construed (with
Riickert) as dependent on the preceding adverb of: cp. Soph. O. 7. 413 ov
Br€éres iv” ef xaxod (Madv. Gr. Synt. § 50B). Hug, however, takes them to
be governed by mépi, comparing for the separation of prepos. from case A pol.
19 c, Soph. Aj. 793.
rovtous...épaords. For otros contemptuous cp. Apol. 17 B, Hep. 492 D otroe
ot madevrai re kal coduorai (“otro is the contemptuous zst7 ” Adam).
To toovTov. Sc. yy epay maidwyv (D ad fin.). For the db. accus. with
-avayxaw, cp. lrep. 473 A rovro pn avaykalé pe: Phaedi. 242 B. Hommel,
perversely, construes r0 rowottoy as an adverbial accus., “ganz in der Weise
wie” etc.
tav dhevOlpwv yuvatkeyv. For the legal penalties (by a ypadi) potyeias or
UBpews or a Oikn Biaiwy) for rape and adultery, see Lysias 1. 26, 30, 49. One
of the lesser penalties was that alluded to by Catullus xv. 18 f., Quem...Per-
current raphanique mugilesque,
182 A xapiterOar tpacrais. yapiterOa, obsegui, “to grant favours” —the
converse of diarpiEarOac—is a vow propria in this connexion: cp. Schol. ad
Phaedr. 227 C 16 yapioréov €otiv...7d mpos adpodicioy éavtdy cuvoveiay émid.-
dovac rwvi. For the sentiment here disputed, see Xen. Symp. vi. 19 ff;
Mem. 1, 2. 29; and the paradox in Phaedr. 233 B icws mpoojxe ob trois opdSpa
Seopévars yapiCer Oa. Aeschines 1. 136 agrees with Pausanias.
riv dxaipiav. “ Impropriety” or “tactlessness”: for exx. of such dxaipia,
sce 181 p, Phaedr. 231 v ff.
6...vopos. vopuos here includes both “law” proper and “ public sentiment”
or “custom” (“die Anschauungen des Volkes,” Hug) which are distinguished
in Dem. de Cor, 114: cp. Thue. vi. 18. 7: but in Thuc. vi. 16. 2 vdpos is
“custom.”
182 8] ZYMIMOZION 35
vonoat padzios, adds yap wpictar: 0 8 évOade [kal ev Aaxedai-
pow] mouxinos. év “HdAde pev yap cal év Bowwtois, cai od pr)B
codol Néyetv, ATAGS vevouoOérnrar Kadov TO yapifecOat épacrais,
\ i <) a , \ \ 4 ? a

Kal ovK ay Tis eltrot odTE Véos OUTE TaXaLOS Ws aiacxXpor, iva, oluat,
4 Tpdypar Exwor AOyw TeEip@mevoe TreiMeLy Tos véoUS, ATE
advvato. Néyew* THs Sé “lwvias Kal GdrA0O. TodrAayod alicypov
vevoutotat, door bro BapBdpots oixotor. toils yap BapBdpas
dua tas tupavvidas aicypov TovTo ye Kal 4H ye pidocodia Kal 7
182 A (6) ev Hirschig cat év Aaxedaipove secl. Winckelmann Hug
Sz. J.-U.: fort. post yap transpon. (cf. Teuffel) 6 supra ev Aaxedaipove
add. T B od T: wB _to BT: del. t trois d5€ “Iwvias Ast:
77 S€ “Iovia Thiersch moAAaxov Kai addob cj. Steph. {xai) dooe
Riickert ye (post rodrd): re Herm. Sz.

182A xal iv AaxeSalpon. I follow Winckelmann and others (see crit. n.)
in bracketing these words: possibly they should be transposed to a place in
the next clause, either after yap or after Bowrois (in suggesting this I find
myself anticipated by an anonymous critic, ap. Tevuftel, Rhein. Mus. xXx.
p. 145). That Laconia was a hot-bed of paederasty might be inferred @ priort
from its military-oligarchical constitution, and is betokened by the verb Aaxo-
viv used as a synonym for maidixois ypnoda (Ar. frag. 322), (and the adj.
kvaodakor for madepaorns. It is certainly unlikely that a zocxidos vopos
would be ascribed to the Laconians, and unlikely too that they would be
classed apart from the py codoi Aéyerv. Moreover, in 182) ff. it is 6 évOdade
(npérepos) vopos which is treated as motxiAos, and no mention is made there
of a similar Laconian vduos. For Laconian mores, Stullb. cites Xen. Rep.
Lac. uu. 13; Plut. Lac. Inst. p. 2378; Aelian V. H.111. 10.12. In Xen. Symp.
vill. 35 the Lacedaemonians are lauded—Oeav yap ov rv ’Avaideray adda THY
Aid6 vopitovart (which ought, perhaps, to be construed as implying that they
are slighted here).
182B &”HaAd& «rd. Cp. Xen. Symp. vii1..34, Rep. Lac. l.c., Athen. x11. 2.
The Cretan dpraypos radar (Laws VIII. 836) points to a similar state of things.
vas St ‘Iwvias. The genitive is taken by Hug as dependent on roddaxov,
by Stallb. as dependent on dco, “vel potius ex demonstrativo ante dca
intelligendo.” Hug quotes Xen. Hell. Iv. 4. 16 moAXaxéce kai tHe *Apxadias
éuBadovtes.
bco...olkover. The grammar is loose—“ per synesin additur dco. perinde
ac si praecessisset ‘apud Ionas autem et multos alios’” (Stallb.). The
language is most appropriate to a time after the Peace of Antalcidas (387 B.c.),
when the Greeks of Asia Minor were again reduced to subjection to the
Great King (see Bury, Hist. Gr. p. 552); cp. Cratyl. 409E oi bo rois Bap-
Bapos oixovvres: Laws 693 A.
Tours ye Kal xrA. Strictly we should supply, with rovro, rd xapiferOa
épaotais, but the notion latent is probably the more general one ré ¢pav
(maidwv). The palaestrae (gymnasia) were recognized as the chief seats of
3—2
 36 TAATQNOZ [182 B

C diroyupvactia: ov yap, oiwat, cupdpéper Tols dpyovor Ppovnpwata

/ fal

peyara eyyiyverOar TaY apyouévwv, ovde Pirdlas iayupas Kai

/ a \ / lal / ” / \ © ”
Kowwvias, 0 bn pddiota pidet Ta TE AAA TaVTAa Kal Oo Epws
éurrovetv. epyw 5€ TtodTo ewabov Kal ot évOdbde TUpavver: o yap
lal » fal e ‘

"Apictoyeitoves épws Kai 7 ‘Appodiov giria BéBaros yevouévy

KatTéAvoev avTaV THY apXnv. oUTwWS OU pEeV alaypov éTéOn yapi-
182 C yiyverOa Jn. Trois apxopéevas ex emend. Vindob. 21: ro
apxoueva Rohde: trav dpxopévwr (rais yuyxais) Bdhm. pdadcora post Kat
trs. Ast adda: cada J.-U. mavra: tavra Schleierm. kal 6: Kat secl.
Bdhm. Sz. ov Tb: ov B

irocopia and madepagria as well as of diroyupvacria. Cp. (for mad_epacria)

Ar. Nub. 973 ff., 980 airos éavrov mpoaywyevav trois opOadpois: Laws 6368:
Xen. Cyrop. 11. 3. 21: Cic. Tuse. Iv. 33. 70 in Graecorum gymnasiis...isti
liberi et concessi sunt amores. Bene ergo Ennius: flagiti principium est
nudare inter cives corpora: Plut. amat. 751 ¥Fff. The gymnasia also served,
at Athens, as headquarters of political clubs, cp. Athen. x11. 602.
182 C dpovrfpara...eyylyver@ar. For pov. peydda cp. 1908. For éyyiy-
vera cp. Xen. Rep. Lac. Vv. 6 dor’ éexet quota pev VBpw...eyyiyvecOar: and
1844 infru. The genitive rév apxopéver, in place of the more natural dative,
may be explained, with Stallb., as due to ‘‘a confusion of two constructions,”
the gen. being dependent on dpov. pey. and the dat. after the verb omitted.
For the thought, cp. (with Jowett) Arist. Pol. v. 11. 15.
& 8n...g4motetv. The neut. sing., which is acc. after éuzoveiv, serves to grasp
under one general head the preceding plurals. For this common use of @uXéi,
solet, cp. 1888 infra, Phileb. 378. Hug, excising the xai after wavra, con-
strues ta dAXa mdvra as a second object, parallel to 6. But no change is
needed: the phrase means “prae ceteris omnibus maxime amor,” as Stallb.
renders, cp. the usage of dAXos re kai, ra Te GAXa kai in 220 A, Apol. 36 A, etc.
6 yap “Apioroyelrovos krA. For the exploits of these tyrannicides, who
slew the Pisistratids in 514 B.c., see Bury #. G. p. 205. Aristogeiton was the
épaorns 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. ZL. G. m1. p. 646) &v puprov cradi rd Eipos Hopjce, |
oomep “Appddios kal *Apioroyeirwr, | dre Tov tUipavvov xravérny | trovdpous T°
"AOnvas é€momodtny: Ar. Ach. 980, Lys. 632. The exploit was also com-
memorated by Autenor’s bronzes and a group by Critias and Nesiotes (repro-
duced in Bury H. G. p. 209).
éré¥y. As aor. pass. of riMecOa, this is equiv. to evouic6n (cp. two
ll. below). It is plain that @exévwv must here be taken to include both rulers
and subjects. For wAeovegia, “ arrogant greed,” as opposed to 7 rod tao Tiyan,
see Lep. 359c. For the theory implied in the following passage, that épws
and dvdpea go together (as Phaedrus also had contended, 178 p ff), cp.
Baeon, Essay x. (Uf Love): “1 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.”
183 4] ZYMITOZION 37
fecOat épactais, xaxia tov Ocuévav Keira, TOV pev apydvTwD
> e / A / a a

mreovetia, THY 5é apyouévwy avavdpia: ob dé Kadov ards évo- D

x 3 fal be > / > 5 / a \ \ {2 a ’

pian, Sia THY TY Oepévany Ths ~uyis apyiav. évOdSe 8 ror

UG \ fal / A a ,

TovTwY KadALov vevowobérnTat, Kal Sarep elrrov, ov padioy KaTa-

/ / . / if

vonoat,
X. “EvOupnbévts yap dre Aéyerar Kaddov TO havepas épav
’ f A A

, A \ , a
Tov AdOpa, Kal pdrdLoTa ToVY yevvaloTaTwY Kal apictwv, Kav
> / A ~ Col a
aicxlous adAwy wot, Kal STL av 7) Tapakédevols TO EpOvTL Tapa
mavtwv Bavpacty, ovy Bs Te aloxpov Totodvts, Kal édovte Te
/ / > an

Kadov doxel elvas Kai pr) EXOVTL aiaypov, Kal mpds TO erruyerpElY 1
Xr 8 a =) \ x Edo >’ / \ Ni Ni > a

éreivy eEovotav o vowos dé5wxe TH épactn Oavpacra épya épya-

e rf ’ ie € La A a

fouévp émaiveicOa, ad el Tis TOAp@N TroLeity GAN oTLodY SioKwY

a ? a A A a a

Kat Bovrdopevos Siarpdtacbat mrAnv Taito [didocodias], TA pé- 183

\ / fol

ylota xaptroit av oveidn: ef yap 4) ypnwata Bovdopuevos Tapa

(oS >

182 D od dé T: od d¢ B dé B: om. TW Katavonoat €vO. y’ drt

Bdhm. evedupnény in mg, W re T: om. B E zpos ro Ast
& ei TW: aiei B: yp. cat aiei W 183 A ¢dirogodias secl. Schleierm. Bekk.
Hug Sz. Bdhm, Bt.: gidias, rovro deleto, Herm.: qidos épGeis cj. Bdhm.:
alii alia ei BT: 7 W

182D ’*Evévpndévre yap xrA. The construction is grammatically incom-

plete: one would expect ddfeey dv, or the like, to govern the dative. It is
not till we get to 183. (ravrn pev ody xrd.) that we find the sense resumed.
rapa mdvrwv. Jowett’s “all the world” is misleading: the treatment is
here confined to Athenian vdpos.
182 E -rpds rd émixetpetv wrr. “Quod attinet ad amasii capiendi conatum”
(Stallb.).
eovolay...éravetoOa. Here, as often, the main idea is put in the
participle. Again Jowett misleads, in rendering 6 vopos “the custom of
mankind.”
Savparrda "tpya. “Oavyaora vel Oavpdoia moveiv vel epyaterOa est sich
wunderlich geberden...quod dicitur de iis qui vel propter dolorem et indigna-
tionem vel ob ingentem laetitiam vel etiam prae vehementi aliqua cupiditate
insolito more se gerunt” (Stallb.). Cp. 213 D, Apol. 35 a, Theaet. 151 a.
183 A mdrjv rotro [procoplas]. gpidocodias is most probably corrupt: if
retained, it would be better to construe it as genit. of object (“the reproaches
levelled against philosophy”) than as genit. of subject or origin (as Ast,
Stallb., Kreyenbiihl), for which we should expect rather gutocdpov. The
simplest and best remedy is, with Schleiermacher, to eject pidocodias as a
gloss on the misreading rovrov. For éveidos, cp. Rep. 347 B ro piddripov Te
kai pudrdpyupov elvar dvedos Aéyerat. For xaprovada, in malam partem, cp.
Rep. 579c; Eur. Hipp. 1427 «. wév6y. In their translations, Jowett follows
Ast, but Zeller adopts Schl.’s excision.
38 TMAATQNOS [183 4
tou AaBeiv 4» apynv apEa } Tw’ adrAdXnv Svvayiw €Oédou Trovetv
a > ” s Qn? a

olatrep of €pactal mpos Ta TraldiKa, iKeTElas Te Kal avTtBordnoels

, e / a > /

év Tais Senaect ToLovpeEvol, Kal SPKOUS OMVUYTES, KAL KOLUNTELS ETL

r oe ’ th \ / > \

Ovpais, al €0érovTes Sovdreias SovrEvELv ofas os’ av Soros ovdels,

, 4 ¢/ > A aA ’ /

éurodifoto av un TpaTTEeL oUTw THY TpakLy Kal UTO Pirwv Kal

> a Ny \ fy cf \ fal Wie €: \ U \

bd évyOpav, TOV pev overdilovTwY KoraKELas Kai avedevdepias,

¢ x > an a \ ? 4 / \ > s

tov S€ vouOeTOUVTaY Kal aloyuvopévwy UTrép avUTaY* THO epa@vTe

tal a A b] nw

mavTa TavTa Troovrte yap ereatt, Kal SédoTat UO TOU vomou

lal lal lol if.

avev oveldous WpaTTe, ws TayKaOY, TL Tpayuwa

a
StaTrpaTTOMévoU
f ‘

0 O€ SewoTaTov, Ws ye A€youaLY Ot TOAXOL, OTL KA OMYYYTL Move

a \ , cd lA ¢ / ae ‘ > / f

7 M\ lal b f a ed 2 , ‘ 4
acuyyveun Tapa Oewv exBavte TaV épxav—agpodiorov yap opKov

183 A dpéa secl. Verm. Hug Sz. #7 tw: by Tw’ Bdhm. aAnv
dvvapey secl. Bdhm. Ore T xat...ouvuvtes del. Voeg. J.-U.: dpvivres
secl. Hertz Hug Sz. cat Koup....dvpas secl. Wolf Jn.: post movotpevor
transp. Riickert €@eAovras vulg.: €OeAovrai (5. dovAevovres) Ast B avrav:
avrov Orelli Sz. ravta mavta T émeott T: ererac B: émera J.-U. Sz.
Siar parropév@ vulg. povov Stob. tay dpxay T: trav dpxoy B: rdv épxov
al., J.-U. 6pkov (kvptor) scripsi: dpxov (épKor) Hertz Hug

Koupyjoets el Oipats. Cp. 203d; Ov. A. A. 1. 238 frigidus et nuda saepe

iacebis humo: Hor. C. 111. 10. 2 asperas | porrectum ante fores, etc. For the
other love-symptoms cp. also Xen. Cyrop. v. 1. 12.
183 B aicyvvopévov imp attay. For this construction ep. Huthyd. 305 a,
Charm. 175D. With the whole of this passage cp. Xen. Symp. Iv. 15, vut.
12 ff.: Isocr. Hel. 219B povous avrovs (sc. rovs Kkadovs) Samep Tors Geodrs ovK
dmayopevopev Oeparrevovtes, GAN Wdtov SovAevopev Tois ToLovtos 4) TOV GAwv
apxopev...kal Tovs ev Um AAAy Tivt Suvaper yeryvopevous AowWopotpey Kal KOAaKaS
dmokadovpev, Tovs d€ TH KaANEL NaTpevovTes Gidoxadous Kal Pidomovous eivat
vopicopev (with which cp. also 184 ¢ infra).
7 8’ épdvte...Btarpatropévov. For the gen. absolute after a dative, ep.
Laws 839 B npw tes mapaotas ayjp...doopyoeev dv @s avonra...tiévrov:
Phileb, 44 is a less certain case. For the sense of the passage, ep. Bacon,
Essay x.(Of Love): “It is a strange thing to note the excesse 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 but in Love.”
és ye Myovow xr. These words qualify the following, not the preceding,
clause: Pausanias himself censures perjury in 183 8. For és ye, ep. Rep.
352 D, 432 B.
appodlc.ov ydp opxov «7A. This proverbial expression is found in two
forms,—agpodiavws opxos ot Saxver (Hesych.) and adp. dpxos ovk €urolvimos
(Suid.). The Scholiast quotes Hesiod (fr. 5G.) ék Todd’ 6pxov @nxev aueivova
(amnpova G. Hermann) av@perow: | vorpdiov epyov mépe Kimpidos. Cp.
Soph. fr. 694 opxous b€ potxor eis répay ey ypapw: Callim. Epigr. 27 (Anth.
Pal. v. 5. 3) adda A€yovow adnOéa, Tors ev Epwre | dpxovs pr Svve ovar’ és
183 D] TYMMOZION 39
<xvpiov>
4
ov4 dao. eivat—ovtw
-
Kal oi Oeot Kai of dvOpwirot racay
a

éfovclay TeroujKace TH EpOvTL, WS O Vouos dynaly o évOdde:

/ / a A

TavTn meéev ovv oinBein av Tis TayKaXov vouiferOar ev THdE TH

ie \ La ’ 0 , ” / / > a a

mone Kal TO Epav Kal TO Pirous yiyveoOas Tols épactais. émevdav

/ \ Se ae \ \ , a > a ? \

S€ raidaywyovs eriatHnoavtes of TaTtépes Tols épwpévors pn edoe

\ \ / lal n

diaréyer Oat Tols epactais, cai TO Taidaywy@ Tavita mpooteTay-

Ps lal cal \ lal lal

péva 7, -HrALKL@TaL SE Kal ETaipos dvedilwouy, day TL OPa@aL ToOLODTO

? r \ \ a A fa)

yuyvomevov, Kal Tovs overdifovtas ad oi mpecBvtepor pn dSiaxw-

\ \ J ,

Avaot nde Aovdop@ow ws ovK OpOAs AéyovTas, eis S€ TadTAa TIS

/ fal fal La)

avd Breas Hynoat av Tadw alaxictov TO ToLovTov évOade vopt-

/ a é A

Seca. 10 S€, oipat, wd exer ovy amrdody éotiv, brrep éE apyys

6 XN bé is 50 ” a ’ € 5 >? , ic by ? A

183 B civax BT Stob. Cyril.: daxvew Teuffel: efvar éumotvpov Osann Jn.
Sz. kal Oeoi kai dvOpwma W. Cyril. vulg. C remouKaot racay Cyril.
dad. rovs €pagras Orelli kal...7 secl. Jn.: cal... mpooreraypéva secl. Hug Sz.
7 TW: of B: 7 of al. éraipo. Heindorf: érepo. BT D ovyx dmdodr:
dmdody Bast: ovy drAas Ast

adavarwv: Aristaen. II. 20: Ov. A. A. 1. 633 Iuppiter ex alto periuria ridet
amantum: Tibull. 1. 4. 21 ff. nec iurare time: Veneris periuria venti | irrita...
ferunt, etc. As to the text, the parallels quoted lead us to expect a fuller
expression. Hertz’s dpxov (épxov), adopted by Hug, is ingenious but rather
weak in sense. I prefer to insert xvpsov (abbreviated xov) after dpxov. For
xupuos, “valid,” cp. Laws 926D: Hp. vi. 323c, and see L. and §. s.v. 11. 2: ob
Kupwos i8 equiv. to axvpos, irritus. To Jahn’s insertion (éumoiviov) Teuffel
rightly objects that it smacks but little of the proverbial manner.
kal of Geol kal ot avOpwrot. This serves to balance the statement made by
Phaedrus, 179 c—p. es
183C rots tpwpévors. From this dative (governed by émiorncartes), we
must supply an acc. (rovs ¢pwpévous) to act as subject to duadéyeoOa. For
the general sense of the passage, cp. Phaedr. 255. éav...tmd Evpghoirnrav 7
twov Gddrav diaBeBAnpévos 7, AeyovTwy ws aicxpov épovTe mAnoiatey: ibid.
234 B.
kal...rpooreraypéva yj. Hug, after Jahn and others, condemns this clause
on the grounds that (1) 7 is wanting in B; (2) the change of number, from
madaywyovs to madaywy, is awkward ; (3) the clause contains nothing new.
But there is point in the change from plur. to sing. as serving to individualize
the parents’ action; and the clause does add to the statement in the context
the further idea that the paedagogi are appointed not only as a general safe-
guard, but with special instructions to ward off this particular danger. radra,
the subject of mpoor. 7, represents (as Stallb. notes) px ear diadéyeoOa Trois
€paotais.
183 D_ +d 8£..¥ye. For this formula, introducing the solution of a
problem, cp. 198D; Theaet. 166 a.
ovx drdovv éorlv. Stallbaum, ejecting ody with Bast, renders dmrdovy by
 40 TAATQNOZ [183 p
. 5 . \ y > / ) \ aA
er€xyOn ode Kadov eivat avTO Ka’ avTO OUTE ALTXpOV, AAA KABS
ss fa \ ? , 5) A \ >
bev TpaTTomevoy Kadov, alaypas b€ alaxpov. alaypas pev ov
A a / a ‘ a \
€otl Tovnp® TE Kal Trovnpas XapibecOat, Kadaws SE XpNTTe TE Kal
E xaos. ovnpos 8 éotiv éxelvos 0 épactns 6 mavdnpos, 0 Tob
A a e \ c , e lal

, a 3 A A a \ \ >O\ L as
TWLATOS MAAAOV 7 THS Wuyns €pOv* Kal yap ovdée LOVLLOS EoTLY,
c ra , 7 \ A an ,
aTe ov povimou €pov TMpayuatos. awa yap T@ TOD TwpaTos
” / e ov Cee ’ , ” \ /
aver AnyoUTL, OUTED Npa, “olyvEeTal UTTOTTTAaMEVOS, TOAAOUS oyous
Kal wrocxécers Kataicxyvvas' 0 S€ Tod HOovs ypnaTod svTOS
A P Ps ri, , , r \ /
Epaotns dua Bliov péver, ATE ovis guvVTaKEls. TovTOUS bn Bov-
183D «iva del. Steph, Ast (ovdev) ovre Bdhm. —aloxpas pev: aicxpov
pev Steph. cats dé Par. 1810: xaddv S€ BT Kal kad@s: Kal xpnoTas
Sauppe Sz. E ¢pav n ths Wuxns T Gre ov B: dre ovdé T

“verum simpliciter,” citing. Phaedo 62 4, Phaedr. 2444, Protag. 3318. Re-

taining ody, we cannot take the foll. accus. and infin. as the subject (with
Wolf), but must supply 76 yapi¢eo@a (with Hug) from the context.
alcxpdas pev...cadas 8. With each adverb, se. yapiferOa: cp. Rep. 339 ¢
To S€ dpOas...7o Se pn opOas (sc. TWWévat).
183 E +8 tot cdpartos dvb A. . Youth “is like the flower of the field, so
soon passeth it away, and it is gone.” Cp. Mim. 2. 7 pivuvOa de yiyverat 7Bns
xapmos: Theogn. 1805 madeias modunparou avOos | oxvtepov ocradiov: Ségur’s
refrain “Ah! le Temps fait passer |’Amour”: Spenser (4. 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 ovKcodty force Tois TY wpaiwy mpoTamos...
érav aita td dvOos mpodinn: Xen. Symp. VII 14 1d pev ths Spas avOos rayd
Onmov mapakpater, ctd.: Tyrt. 10. 28 odp’ eparns WBns aydady avOos exn:
Mimnerm. 1. 4. So Emerson (On Beauty) “The radiance of the human
form...is only a burst of beauty for a few years or a few months, at the
perfection of youth, and in most rapidly declines. But we remain lovers
of it, only transferring our interest to interior excellence.”
olxerat dmomrdpevos. A reminiscence of //. 1. 71. For the thought, ep.
181 D supra: Xen. Symp. lc. dmoXelmovtos S€ tovrou (sc. Tod Ts Spas avGous),
avaykn kal thy diAtay cvvaropapaiverOa. Cp. also Phaedr, 232 &, 234 a.
ovvtakels. ‘Fused into one” by the flame of love. Cp. 192p, Eur.
fr. 964 maoa yap ayaby yuri) | iris avSpt cuvtérnxe codpovei emicrarac:
id. Supp. 1029.
rovrous $7. With the text as it stands in the Mss., rovrous refers to the
€épaorai only, who are divided into two classes, the good (rots pév) and the bad
(rovs Se). But in the next clause rois peév refers to the ¢paorai en bloc, and
ros b€ to the epopevor. This is extremely awkward; and it is a further
objection to the clause that the statement it contains is premature, and
would fit in better below (184p—nr). I therefore follow Voegelin and Hug
in obelizing. For the language, cp. Theogn. 1299 ff. & mai, péype rivos pe
mpopevgear; ds we Siwxev | di¢np’...adr’ emipevov, euot dé didov xdpu.
184 c] ZYMTIOZION 41
ERE td / 2 \ fal , n
AETAL O NMETEPOS VOmoS EV Kal KaXwS Bacavitey [, Kal Tots meV 184
xapicacGar, Tous dé duahevyerv]. dia tadta odv Tois péev SiwKew
/ fe] \ ec Py “! \ c Oo lal \ /

TapaxeneveTat, Tois d€ hevryerv, aywvobeTay Kal Bacavitwy toré-

7 lal \ / ’ lal a v/ /

pv TOTé €oTLV O Epay Kal ToTépwy 6 épwpevos. ovTw bn 70

€ cal

TAUVTNS THS alTias TP@Tov pév TO ArioxedOat TAX aicypov vevo-

/ fol ’ , a \

o , t A \ a \ \ -~
fLoTat, va ypovos éyyévntat, ds 87 Soxel TA TOAAA KANO Baca-
vitew, Ererta TO UTO XpPNuUaTwY Kal UTO ToNTLKOY SuVapLewy
/ MM \ i? N , A ral ,

AX@vat aicypov, éay TE KAKaS TacywY TITHE Kal pw) KaPTEPHoN,

€ nw / n

av T evEepyeTovpmeEvos Els YPHmaTa 7) els StaTrpakets TorsTLKAS [1

” ’ 4 /

Katagdpovnon: ovdev yap doxet TovTwY ote BéBatov ovTE movimov

/ »>Q\ \ a“ I yA / ” if

elvat, ywpls ToD unde TepuKévas aT’ avTav yevvaiay giriav. pia
2} \ a ‘ ’ ’ an : ,

\ / a € , ‘ is / 3 / A lal
67 Neltrerat TO NMETEPW VOU@ Odds, Ef MEArEL KAADS yapteta bac
€pacth Taidica. éoTe yap nuly vomos, WoTrEp ETL TOs EpacTais HY
’ a ‘ vo a a / cg a lal

/ b / e la / lal \ / e:
SovrAevery €OéXovTa HuTivovy SovA€Eiay TraLdiKols pn KOAAaKELaV ElvaL

184 A xai...dvapevyev sécl. Bdhm. Sz. diadvyeivy Hirschig Oud...

‘ep@pevos del. Schiitz Ast kat wotépwy del. Bast: xal...ep@pevos secl. J.-U.
6) BT: 87 cai W vo...airias del. Baiter vo ()) Hirschig Kal um0:
7) vo Hirschig B_ aicypov del. Hirschig avrevepyetoupevos T eis
xp.-.-todurixas secl. Hirschig J.-U. Hug Sz. povipov : vouipov Wolf eo:
ws J.-U.: écmep Bdhm.: éore...vdpos om. Verm. Sz. Hug aonep T: damep
B Stob. Jn.: éomep yap Verm. 8z.: as yap Hug: del. Bdhm. edédovra BT:
€O€dovras vel €OeXovras Stob. Sz.: €OeXovtny Bast: ¢Oédovrs Bdhm.

184 A tva xpdvos xrA. For the touchstone of time, cp. Simon. fr. 175
ovk é€oTw peiCav Bacavos xpovou ovdevds epyov | bs Kai vrd orépvois avdpods
eee vdov: Soph. 0. 7. 614 ypovos Sixaov avdpa Seixvvcw povos: Eur.
Hippol. 1051 pnvurny ypdvov.’ On the signif. of Bacavos, see Vahlen Op. Acad.
u. 7 ff: ep. Gorg. 486 D, Rep. 413 8; Clem. Al. Strom. 1. 291 D.
7d UTd xpnpatev...dAévar. Op. 1854 mdovrouv evexa xapiodpevos: 216D
péder adt@ ovdev...el Tis mAovaows: Ar. Plut. 153 ff. cai rovs ye maidas...dpav...
Tapyvpiov xapwv. As against the deletion of the second aicypév by Hirschig,
see the parallels collected by Vahlen Op. Acad. 1. 359. For odir. duvapewy,
cp. Xen. Mem. tv. 2. 35; this may be a hit at Alcibiades, cp. 216 B.
184B eis xpripara...moditixds. 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 ¢dv te xaprepnon and Gy re...carappo-
vnon—are not convincing. This is the only ex. of duampakis, actio, cited by
L. and S.
tor. yap «rd. Hug, objecting to the “ganz unertragliche Anakoluthie,”
follows Vermehren in excising the clause éort...vduos, as a gloss on the
following vevduiora, and writing os yap for dcmep. This is too rash. For
the sense, cp. 183 B and the passage from Isocr. Hel. 219 B there quoted.
nv---elvat. For simple jv (gore) with accus. and infin. cp. Phaedo 72D
GXN’ Core TO bvtu...Tas TOV TeOvVeaTav Wuxas iva. For €Oédyv as adj. (“volun-
42 TAATQNOZ [184 ¢
pndé éroveidiatov, obtw 89 Kal GAN pia povov Sovrdcia éExovatos
Nelaretas ove erroveldiaTtos* avtn Sé éoTw 7 Tepl THY apeTHV.
XI. Nevopiotas yap 89 jpiv, av tis eOéAn Twa Oeparrevery
Hryovpevos 8. éxeivov apeivov éoecOar 7) Kata codiay Tia 7 KaTa
Go OTLodV pépos apeTHs, alTn ad % €OedodovrEia ovK alaypa
elvas ovdé Kodakela. Set 6% TH vopw ToUTw EvpBarelv eis TavTO,
TOV TE Tepl THY TaLdEepacTiay Kal TOV TEpl THY pirocodiay TE Kai
THY GAAnY apeTny, eb pwérret EvpBHvas Karov yevérOar TO épacth
madica yapicacOa, dtav yap eis TO AUTO EXOwaw epacTHs TE
Kal Tadixa, vopov éxwv éExaTepos, 0 mev yapioapévols travbsKois
vanpeTav oTLobv Sixaiws av wmnpeteiv, o Sé TH TovodvTe avTov
coor te Kat dyabov Sixaiws ad oTioby dv Wroupyav <tTroupyew>,
184 C pia povoy T: pia pov B: povn pia Stob.: pia porn vulg., Bt.: pia
vopo Ficinus: pla madicov Verm.: pia épopévm Usener: pia véov Hug: qpiv
vopw Kreyenbiihl: pia (rév épwpévav To qpetépm vd)um Sz: pia To epopévo
Steinhart: pay dovdcia secl. Bdhm.: pav...éxovows fort. delenda Tis Tuva
én Stob. exeivov T, Stob.: éxeivo B tiva del. Hirschig eivat: éoriv
Stob. T® vow TovTw apographa : r@ vdp@ rovrm BT D_ ry codiarv
Hirschig 76 T: ro BW xaptoapévors secl. J.-U.: (rots) yap. Hirschig:
xap. (rois) Baiter av T: otv B umnperav Bast avrov Sauppe
(irrovpyav) dSixaiws Rettig: Sccaiws (Wmoupyav) Sz. & T: ad B broupyev
(irroupyeiv) Baiter Vahlen: trovpyav BTW: trovpyeiv vulg., J.-U.: (moupyeiv)
Umoupyov Bt.

tarily”) in prose, cp. Xen. Anab. vi. 2.6; Lys. x1x. 6: in poetry the use is
common, e.g. Soph. 0. 7. 649.
184 C ovrtw 84 «7A. In this clause the method of action permissible to
mavdica is presented as parallel to that permissible to épacrai. That there is
some corruption in the text is indicated by the divergence of the mss. in regard
to the words after dAAn: but of the many emendations suggested (see crit. n.)
none is convincing. Perhaps the safest plan ‘is to bracket pév...€xovccos, as
an adscript meant to suggest a subject for Aeiwera, and to supply 6dds as
subject from the preceding context.
coplav...pépos dperys. Cp. Protag. 3298, Rep. 4278 (with Adam’s n.):
“the nearest approach to the doctrine before Plato is in Xen. Mem. m1.
9. 1—5.” How many pépn aperns are assumed here by Pausanias is, of course,
left indefinite. (See also 196 B 7.)
184 _D Grav ydp «rd. Notice the balance and rhythm of the clauses in
this sentence—(a!) drav,,.éxarepos, (b!) 6 pev...barnperav, (67) 6 d€...troupyav,
(cl) 6 pev...€uuBddrrerPa, (c”) 6 d€...nracda, (a) rore 8)...€vTavGa, (a) Evp-
WLITEL...0VSA/LOU.
drnperetv...vroupyetv. Both words are used in an erotic sense. So Umoupyia
is used im re venerea, Amphis “IaA. That droupyav (imoupyeiv) is the best
restoration is shown by Vahlen Op. Acad. 1. 499 ff.: cp. 193 c.
185 A] ZYMIMOZION 43
\ € \ rj > , ns U
Kal o pev dSuvapevos els Ppovnow Kal THY aXAnV apetnv EvpBar-
AeaOar, o SE Seopevos eis waiSevow Kal Tv adAnv codiav ktacbat,
€ \ ‘ ’ , \ lal

’ \ , , , a an a
Tote 61) ToUTwY EvyLovTwY els TAUTOY TOY VOLwY fovaxov evtav0a
Euprimte: TO Kadoy elvar Traidixa épacth yapicacba, adroOe Se
8 \ xX ly

ovdamov. émi TtovTm Kai eEarratnOjvar ovdév aicypov: émi dé

7) fol > \ / \ >] a ’ \ ’ / > \ AY

cal Ww lal \ 3 / ’ tA / \ vA >

TOls ANAOLS TAaGL Kal eEaTraTwpmevm atoxyuvny Peper KaL fLy. Eb
yap Tis €pacty @s Tovol@ TrOUTOU Evexa yapicapevos €£atra- 185
z ’ Lal ¢€

Tein Kal un NaBou xpHpata, avahavévtos TOD épactod TévyTOS,

/ \ \ U / ,’ / nr rn ,

ovdev ATTov alaypov: SoKel yap 0 ToLodTOS TO ye avTOD éridetEat,

OA e ’ / a \ ic a a n

OTL Evexa YPNMATwY OTLOdDY av OTwotY UITNpETOL, TOUTO dé OV KaAOV.

v oY / ¢ fal » © rn lal rn

Kata Tov avtov 8 oyov Kav.el Tis ws ayabG yapiaoduevos Kal

WN > > \ \ t * v 4 , an

aUTOS WS apmeivwv Ecomevos Sa THY Piriay épactod éEarratnOein,

, \ € ’ Vg ) , \ \S / > n > le

184D fvpBarrcoOa T: EvpBartéoba BE eis del. Schiitz J..U. «raaOac:

ioragOat Sz.: xraoOai re cj. Hug rore O¢ Wolf Tov vopeyv del. Bast
185 A as moval secl. Cobet kal...xpnpara del. Cobet Kav: Kat
Hirschig xapicopevos cj. Steph. dua...€parrov secl. Hug TOU €pacTov
apogr. Coisl. 155

184 E els walSevow...xrdoOar. If the text is right we must suppose that

xracOa is here equiv. to dare xracOa, appended to the main verb éupBdr-
heaGac Which is to be supplied with eis waidSevow «rd. (so Vahlen). Of the
corrections suggested (see eit. x.) Schanz’s is the neatest, but spoils the
sense-balance with éuvp8adrecOa. The corruption is, perhaps, to be sought
elsewhere: the expression tv aAAnv codiay 1s open to suspicion, since codiav
as here used after a\Anv stands as a generic subst. whereas codia has just
been termed (184) pépos aperjs: moreover, we should expect that codia
should itself constitute the ’xrjua of the’recipient, just as @pdvnars is itself
the contribution of 6 vpBaddcpevos. On these grounds, I venture to suggest
that another fem. subst., such as d:daynv, may have fallen out after a\Anv
(€xkraidevow for eis a. is Just possible).
éml totrw. ‘In this case,” ze. in the quest for dpern, in contrast to “the
other cases” where lucre or position is coveted (184 4).
el ydp tis xrA. Observe the effort after rhythm, with strophe and anti-
strophe. For the thought, see 184 a and ep. Isocr. Hel. 219 ray €ydvtwy rd
KdAAos Tovs pev proOapyyncayras...aridComer.
185 A «al pr AdBor xpripara. In defence of the text here, against the
excisions of Cobet and Hug, see Vahlen, Op. Acad. 11. 366: cp. Hipp. Min.
372 B ov obv xdpica Kai py POovnons iacacOa Thy Wuxnv pov: Thue. 11. 13. 1
pn TOUS aypovs a’Tov mapaXdimy Kat py Snooy.
Sid thy didlav épacrodv. 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 61a tov épwra rov €pacrov (cp. 182 Cc).
The latter objection falls if, with Riickert, we take epaorod as object. gen.
(“suam caritatem erga amatorem”). duAia epaorod here is, I take it, equiv.
to the compound guirepaoria (213 D, cp. 192 B).
 44, TAATQNOE [185 4
B dvapavévtos éxeivov Kaxod Kal ov Kextnuévou aperny, duos Kady
4) darn: Soxel yap ad kal obtos Td Kad’ avrov Sebnraxévas, drt
dpeths y° évexa Kai Tod Bedtiwv yevécOas wav dv rravti mpoOupn-
Gein, TodTo S& ad mdvtwy KaddoTOV’ ovTwW TavTwS YE KaXOV
apeths évera yapiver Oar.
Otros éotw 6 THs ovpavias Beod Epws Kal ovpavios Kal
modAov a£wos Kal moder Kal idswoTais, TOAAHY emipédetay avay-
C xabov roeicOar pos apeTny Tov Te Ep@vTAa avTOY avTOU Kal TOV
épdpevov: of § érepou mavtes THS érépas, THs Tavdnpov. Tavita
aot, én, ws ex Tod mapayphua, @ Paidpe, wept “Epwros cup-
Bardopat.
Ilavoaviov $€ travoapévov, Si8dcxover yap pe toa réyew
ovTwot of codoi, épn o Apictodnpos Seiv wéev “Aprotropavn réyey,
tuxeiy 8& avT@ Twa } Ud TAnTpOVAS H UO Tivos AAO AYyya
185 B xai ov...dperny secl. Hug 7 ome pr. T (wav) mavras Stob., Bt.
aperns y’ €vexa T: évexa aperns Stob. C para Stob. avrov (re) Ast
Tov ¢pepevov Bast Ast ovpBadropa T, Method.: cvpSddropev B ovTact
om. Hermog.

185 B kad tdadry. Se. ro cLarrarwpéera.

Boxe yap av kal otros. This corresponds to doxei yap 6 Tovwdros xrA. in
185 a.
185 C é& rod mapaxpypa. For the sense subito s. ex tempore, cp. Crat.
399 p, Critias 1078. On extempore, as opposed to premeditated orations,
see Alcidamas de Soph, 3 cimeiv éx rod mapavutixa KTX.
ocvpBadrAopat. “This is my contribution,” with allusion to the literary
€pavos mentioned in 177 c.
toa dAéyew. This alludes to the ica oynpara (including sound-echoes etc.,
as well as “isokolia”) of the rhetorical reyvira (see Spengel, rhet. Gr. II.
pp. 436—7). We may render (after Jowett): “When Patisintas had cOme
t6 & patise—a pretty piece of ‘isology’ I have been taught by the professors—”
etc. The title of cogoi is variously applied in Plato to the Orphics (Rep.
583 B), to poets (Rep. 489 B), and, as here, to linguistic craftsmen. For cvdia
as applied to etymological “puns,” cp. Crat. 3960, D, and the use of codi-
(eva (in connexion with the etymology of ovpavds) in Rep. 509 D (see
Adam’s n. ad loc.). For a rhetorical repetition of the same word (av),
see Gorg. Hel. 2 riv péev xax@s dxovoveay madcat tis airias, rovs dé peudo-
pévous...ravoa ths apadias.
Myya. The Scholiast has a long note here: rd rod Avypod ovprropa
émvyiverat TO oToMdXe dia wANpwoow fH Kéevoow i) Wik, eviore Se Kal did SHEw
Spipéwv vypav cai pappaxwddy rais modrnowy...drav b€ Urd tANPwTEws Avypds
yévntat, éneros rovrois iapa Kal Tay dxpey rpivis Kal mvevpatos Karoyn. The
hiccough of Aristophanes is part of the comic relief in the piece (see Introd.
§$ 11.c). For rAnopovn, as a cause of disorder, cp. 186 ¢ x., Hippoer. de diaet.
LM, (ot
186 A] TYMMOZION 45
emumemT@xuiay Kal ovy olov Te elvau Every, AAN eltrely avTOV—
> tal ~ ’ / = / ’ ’ a cal , /

€v TH KaTw yap a’Tov Tov latpoyv ’EpvEiuayov Kkataxelcbar—© D

> A U A ’ fal \ » \ > U a 7

> / aK A , a rs
Epv&ipaye, dixavos ef 7) Tavoai pe THs AVYyYOs 1) A€yerv UTrép Enod,
Ews dv éy@ Tavowpat. Kai Tov Epvkipayov eireivy AXA Tromjow
¢ BY SeeeN La \ \ ’ / ’ lal > \ U

auporepa TavTa’ ey@ wev yap pw ev TH OG péper, ov & errerdav

, , fol > \ x \ > an > ae lel / ss ’ > A

TAVTN, EV TO EMO. EV @ dv éy@ Ey, €av pév coe €OédXn

/ > a > a > e S x ? \ , / 2\ / 24 aN

amvevoTtt ExovTs ToAUY ypovoy TaverOat 7) AVYE: ef SE ur}, VdaTe

> Ni \ , / € / ’ \ Tie,

> , > 3) ss ST ae Los > /

avaxoyxvAiacov. ee & apa mavu loyvpd éotiv, avadaBev Tt
a \ A A
TOLODTOY olw KYnoaLs AV THY plva, TTApE’ Kal é€av TODTO TOLNoNS
ama& 7 dis, Kal ef mavu ioxyupa éott, Tavoetat. OvK av Pbdvors
/ x , \ > / > / > / ’ X /

Neyov, avast Tov "Apiotoparvn’ ey 5€ TavTa Toinow.

f / \ ’ , b) \ Ni a /

XII. Eisetv 8) rov EpvEipayov, Aone’ toivuy por avayKaiov

eivat, émrevdy Llavoavias oppnoas él Tov NOYoY KAAWS OY iKAYaS 186
23 > x / . He ahs x / al ’ € a

amretérece, Sety eue meipacOar Tédos eriOelvat TH OY. TO meV

yap Sutdodv elvar tov “Epwra Soxet por cara@s diehéoOar: Gre de
185 C déyeww om. W D ev ti xatw: eyyvtatw Steph. tov iarpov T:
Tay iarpav B (ov) moAvy Sauppe mavoacbGa Stob. E avadaBov :
AaBewv Stob. oi@: Stw Cobet xvnoa Wyttenbach: kynoao Luzac:
xunoas BT, Stob. Athen. mrapav Stob. dava B: cimew TW
avayxkaiov eivat del. Sz. ovx ikavas: ovx! Kad@s Olim Sz. 186 A Sey
om. Method. Sz.: Seiv eve del. Hirschig

év Ty Kdtw avrov. Sc. xAivy—referring to what might jocosely be termed

the clinical position of the worthy doctor. Cp. 7. on €oyaroy katakeipevov,
175 ©.
185 D &rG 0c pépa. Cpi Meno 92 © adda ov 47 ev TO péper avTou cir.
éav pév oo. xrA. We have here a case of “aposiopesis” or suppressed
apodosis; cp. Protag. 311D; Hom. Ji. I. 185 ff.: see Goodwin G. M. 7. § 482.
dvakoyxvAlarov. Schol. avaxoyxyvAudca: ro KkAvoat THY Pdpvyya, & Aێyouev
avayapyapioa. With Eryximachus’s treatment of Avy&, cp. Hippocr. de diaet.
1. 75 ff. yiverar 5€ cal rowade mAnopovn: és THY voTEpainy Tov GiTov Epvy-
yaverat TA.
185 E «rdpe. Cp. Hippocr. Aphor. vi. 13 td Avypod eyouév@ mrappot
emvyevopevot Avovat Tov Avypdv: Arist. Probl. 33.
Ovx dv POdvots Aéywv. A familiar idiom: “the sooner you speak the better”
(see Goodwin G. M. 7. § 894): more rarely of 1st person, 214 & fra.
ovx ixavas. Schanz’s ovxi cadas is ingenious but needless: for a similar
variety in antithesis Vahlen cites Theaet. 187 E xpeirroy yap mov opuxpov
ed mod pi tkav@s mepava. For deiv redundant cp. Ale. IJ. 144d, 1468,
Rep. 535 4, Laws 731 D, BE: Schanz in nov. comm. p. 83 regards both dvayxaioy
eiva and de evé as interpolations by copyists who failed to see the force of
Soxec=aptum videtur; but in his text he excises only deity: against this, see
Teuffel, 20h. Mus. xx1x. p. 140.
 46 TAATQNOZ [186 a
ov povov éativ émi tals Wuyais THY avOpwrwv pos TOUS KadoUS
? / ’ \ > \ a an lal ? 6 , Ni \ x %

Ga Kal mpos Gra TOAAA Kai ev TOis AdAoLS, TOIs TE T@pACL

ral oA a“ ,

Tov TavtTwrv Cow Kal Tols ev TH YH Pvopevols Kat ws Eros eEl7rety

A , , \ a > lel lal /, \ ¢ ” > a

év maou Tos ovat, KaOewpaxévar por Sox@ €x THs tatpiKHs, THS

a a / la] > a > A A

B jperépas téyvns, as péyas Kal Oavpactos Kai éml mav o Beos

a € \

relver Kal kat’ advOpwriva Kal Kata Oeia rpdypata. apEopar dé

\ tal : ” \

a0 THS laTpiKns Aéywv, iva Kal mpecBevwpev THY TEXYNY. 1 Yap

A A , \ 4 € MY

vais Tov cwpatwv tov Sidodv “Epwta TovTov exer. TO yap

: fal Lol lol 4 A \

bytes TOD GwpaTos Kal TO VoTOvY Opodoyoumevws ETEpoV TE Kal

\ fal lal Ay / 4 / N

avomotov €ott, TO Sé Gvopotoy Gvomoiwy emsOupel Kal Epa. ANXOS

pew A , > \ eS Dora d > / ? fa} a OF rae a AXX

Lev ody 6 él TH Uyreww@ Epws, Gros dé Oo él TH vOTwSEL. EOTE

‘ 2 « % \ a e ke ” ” be € > \ fed BY) v

87,1) Oomep Pp apt

ap Ilavaavias édeye Tois pev ayabois Kadov yapi-
© tecOar Tav avOpaTwy, Tois Sé axoXdeToLs aicypov, oUTW Kal ev
186 A ravrev rev Hirschig 80x (yvovs) Herwerden Ts larpixns
secl. Hirschig ws (xat) Ficinus Steph. B xara ravOpamuwwa Stob.
kata Ta beta Stob. cat om. Stob. mpecBevw pov Bdhm. yap:
7 7 yap Sauppe: xat yap J.-U. exe. T: €xyn B 6poroyovpev as TW,
Stob. re: tt Stob., Thiersch byierva Epos T: tyeivoepos B €ort
6n: ért b€ Bdhm, tov avOpamwyv del. Thiersch

186A tijs larpuxys. Eryx. speaks, as a member of the Asclepiad guild,

of “our art”: for his glorification of “the art,” see also 176D, 196 4, and
Agathon’s allusion in 196p. Cp. Theaet. 161 EB rd Sé 8) epov Te xai rhs Enns
Téxvns THs paevtixns xTA., Where also Naber excises rns p. (cp. Vahlen Op.
Ae. I. 273),
os péyas xr. This ws-clause serves to repeat in another form the initial
ért-clause, thus making two object-clauses to one main clause in the sentence,
for which cp. 2118 infra, Apol. 20 c.
186 B twi wav...re(va. Cp. 2224 emt mdeioroy reivovras (Adyous): we might
render “ of universal scope.”
awperBaopev. For the sense, “‘venerate,” cp. 188¢, and mpecBirepov 218D:
Crito 46 C rovs airovs mpeoBevo kai tryna: Rep. 591 ¢.
7d 8t dvdpovov «rd. “Things dissimilar in themselves crave dissimilar
objects”: e.g. the appetites of the sound body differ from those of the sick
body. Cp. Hippocr. de nat. hom. 9 éxdaa mAnopovy rixrec vovonpara, Kévwots
ijrat, dxooa d€ amd Kevadouos yéverat vovonpara, tAnopovy inra...7d dé Edpmav
yraova, dei tov inrpdv évavriov toracOa rotor Kabeotedot Kai vovonpact Kai
eideot KTA.
6 lm re dyed pws. “The craving felt by the sound body”: cp. émi rats
Wuxais, 186.4. In the doctor’s parable, rd tyvewwdv corresponds to the good,
70 vooddes to the bad éepaarns.
ton 54. This is, as Hug observes, a favourite opening with Eryx.: cp.
gore yap, 186C; €or dé, 186 D, 187 A.
186 D] TYMITMOSION 47
auTois Tols gwmact Tols pév ayabois ExadoTov TOU cwpLaTos Kal
’ lal lal / a tal lal

Uytecvois Kadov xapilerPar nal Sei, Kal TobTO eat @® dvoua TO

€ lal Xo 7 / 0 \ pS) a \ lol i ’ e ” \

tatpixov, Tois dé Kaxols Kal vorwdeaiy aicypoy Te Kal del ayapi-

’ Je a tal lal

ote, el méANEL TLS TEYVLKOS Elva. EaTL yap laTpLKH, ws ev KEpa-

a ,’ /

Aal@
,
elrely,
’ a
EmLoTHuN
’ /
TOY
a
TODa cwHmaTos
,
epwTLKaY
fa)
pos\ TANC-
povny Kal Kévwow, Kai 0 dSiayiyyv@aKwy €v TovVTOLS TOV KaXOV TE
\ re \

Kal aloxpov épwra, o0TOs EoTLY O laTpLKwWTATOS, Kal 0 weTAaBadreLy

\ ’ \ y” La / ? yo! , \ € /

TOLMY, WTTE aVTL TOU ETépov EpwTos TOV ETEepov KTaTOaL, Kal ols
un éevertiv Epws, det & eyyevécOat, emicTapevos Ewtroinoar Kal
évovta
cee.
é€eXeiv,
5) .
ayabos
> \
av
x
ein
”
Snucoupyos./ Seta yap
AN
51\ TaNeExOtoTa
186 C avrois: ad Rohde kal. det, kal: kali 67 xat Naber Tov ante
xadov delend. cj. Usener D xracda B: xrncacda T: fort. toracda
épws secl. J.-U. kal...e€ederv secl. Sz.. evovra (ois pn det) Herw.

186C Yori ydp tarpixy «7A. Cp. (with Poschenrieder) Hippocr. de flat. 1.
p. 570 K. wadw ad rdnopovny inra Kévwots: kévwow dé mAnopovn...ta évav-
tla Tay évavtiwv éotiv inuata. intpikn yap €ate mpdabeots Kat adaipects,
agdaipemis pev Tav UrepBarddvtav, mpotbecis d€ Tov €ANiTOVT@Y: 6 dé KaANLCTA
TovTo moiewv apictos intpos. Also Phileb. 324, 35a for “repletion” and
“depletion” in connexion with bodily @vois: and Tim. 82 4 yjs mupos vdaros
Te Kal aépos...7) mapa drow mrcoveEla kal évdera...cTdvers Kai vocous mapéexe.
6 Stayryvsokwy kTA. In this passage there is a distinction implied between
pure and applied /arpixy, between medicine as a science (€mornpy) and as an
art (réxvn). Stayryvyoorw is here used almost in the technical sense of
making a medical diagnosis (cp. Hippocr. de nat. hom. 9 thv Sidyvoow...
moteegOa): possibly earlier’ ‘“ Asclepiads” than Hippocrates may have ear-
marked dudyvwors as a medical term, Cf. the distinction between xara
yropny and xara xelpoupyinu ‘in Hippocr. de morbis I. 6.
186D 6 peraBdddrcw mowy xrdA. Cp. Hippocr. de morbo sacro, p. 396 L.
doris b€ ériatara ev avOpwrot.et Ty ToLavTnY peTaBorny Kai Svvara vypdy Kal
Enpov rotéey Kai Oeppov Kai uypov bad d.airns Tov dvOpwmov, otros Kai TavTnY
THY vovdoy i@ro dv: id, de nat. hom. 9 Thy Oepameinv xp movecOa...7H TOY
Starnudtwy peraBodry xtr. In later Greek Snpovpyds becomes the vor propria
for a medical “practitioner,” as Onwooreve for “to practise”: similarly yepo-
téxvns, Hippocr. epi mabey 1.
ore...ktac0a.. Supply as subject ra copara.
Kal évévta é€edctv. Schanz would excise these words; but though they
present a rather awkward case of brachylogy, they are otherwise unobjection-
able. Herwerden’s proposal (see crit. n.), though supplying the right sense,
is needless ; while Lehrs is obviously blundering when he construes éydvra as
neut. plural, “und wieder auch das Vorhandene fortzubringen.” Hommel
gives the meaning rightly, ‘und die einwohnende (Neigung), die nicht ein-
wohnen darf, heraus zu treiben.”
Set yap 89. ‘‘ For he must, as a matter of fact” —an appeal to recognized
 48 MAATQNOS [186 p
dvta év TO TopaTe ira olov 7 elvar Toveiv Kal épav addjrov.
gore b€ &yOiota Ta évavTiotata, Yuxpov Seppo, TWiKpov yduxel,
» \ \" ww“ \ lal

E Enpov vype, Tavta Ta ToLadTA* TovTALS emLaTHOEIS EpwTAa ELTOLT-

A la yf na

cat Kal NEGopovotay

4
6Ley nméTEpos
Kew
mpoyovos
4 "A
AaKAnrLos,
, é
Os pacw olde
18

oi mrountal Kal éyw melOopar, auvéotnce THY nweTéepav TéxVnD.

/

* Te ovv latpiKn, OoTep Aéyw, Taca Sia Tod Geod TovTOU KuBep-
187 vatat, acavTtas Sé Kal yupvactiKn Kal yewpyia’ povarkn S€ Kat
a Uf

186 D dica Hirschig mixpov yAukei del. Thiersch Hug (kal) mavta
Wolf E ov Geo0 secl. Bdhm. 187 A xai yewpyia del. Sauppe Jn.

axioms of “the Art.” Hippocrates based his medical theory on the as-
sumption of two pairs of opposite and primary qualities, yuxpov)(Gepydv, and
Enpdv\(iypév. By the permutations and combinations of these he sought to
account for all varieties of physical health and disease: see e.g. Hippocr. de
morb. 1.2; de affect.1. Cp, Lys. 2158: Theo. Smyrn. Math. p. 15 Bull.
kal TovTO TO péytoTov épyov Beov Kard povatkny Te kal larpixny, Ta €xOpa pira
moe : also Tim. 82 4 for the “hot” and “cold” in health and disease.
muxpov yAuxet. Ast’s excision of these words (approved by Stallb., Hug,
and others) is, at first sight, plausible, inasmuch as these opposites of taste
seem hardly on a par with the other two pairs of primary opposites. But in
Lysis 215 © the same three pairs are mentioned, with 6£v)(au@dv as a fourth,
as exx. of the law of éwidupia rav evavtiwv. Moreover, it is obvious that the
question of savours is of special importance in medical science: cp. Theaet.
166 E To...doGevodvte mixpa aivera & eo ie. kai €ore: Hippocr. rept diairns I.
56 td yAukéa...kal Ta mixpa,..deppaivery mépuxe, Kal doa Enpa éeott Kat doa
vypa: id. de nat. hom. 2, 6: and the connexion between mixporns and yoAy
brought out in 7vm. 83. ff. Further, as Hommel observed, ravra ra rovatra
after only two exx. is unusual.
186E 6 vpérepos mpdyovos *A. Asclepius in Homer is not more than
intnp a@pvpov: in Pindar (Pyth. 11.) and later poets he is the son of Apollo
and Coronis. The earliest seats of his worship seem to have been Thessaly
and Boeotia, and his cult, as a “chthonic” and “mantic” deity, may have
its roots in a primitive ophiolatry.(see Rohde, Psyche 1. 141 ft). Cp. Orph.
Fr. 272 80 kai oi Geodoyou Thy pev eis “AoxAnmidvy dvapépovew styleav Thy
larpikny macav Trav mapa dvow «rd. Also Orph. H. 67, addressed to A. as
Intnp mavrov, “AokAnmié, Séomora macdv xtA. 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 @. 7.
(E. tr.) vol. 1. pp. 275 ff: ep. Phaedr. 270 c (with Thompson’s note).
ol8e of wounral. The “deictic” oie points to the presence of Aristophanes
and Agathon.
187 A yvupvaorixn. 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 walking exercise see Phaedr, 227 D (with Schol. ad loc.); ep. Rep.
187 8] , ZYMITOSION 49
TavTl KaTadnhos TO Kal ouLkpov TpocéyovTs TOY vody OTL KaTAa
\ / a / fal

TavuTa €yvel TOUTOLS, WaTrEp laws Kai ‘Hpd«rertos BovrAeTaL A€yeELY,

> Nae , er v Niet ° “ / /

€mel Tols Ye pyywaciy ov Kaas éyet. TO Ev yap Hnyax “ Siahepo-

’ cad lal /

‘ ‘
Mevov avTo avT@ EvudépecOar, dorep apmoviav tokov te Kal
Avpas.” Eats Sé TOA) Aroyla appoviay davat diahépecOar t ex
7 Ni : r

Scapepopévwr Ete elvar. Ad tows Tode EBovrAETO Néyewv, OTL eK

, * ’ -

Suadepowevwv mpotepov tov o&éos Kat Bapéos, erecta vaTEpov

, lot

187 A éyovre voty Hirschig rauta T: raira B ev: ov vel

mav Ast To€ou...Avpas: Tov d&eos Te kai Bapéos Bast Gladisch dUpas:
vevpas Berek

406 a: for the former, as an example of abstinence, see Laws 8398, That
Plato himself recognizes the connexion between iarpixky and yvpvaorixy is
shown by such passages as Gong. 452 a ff., 464 B ff., Soph. 228 B, Polit. 295 c.
Kal yewpyla. The appositeness of yewpyia is not so evident as that of
yupvaorixy, but the use of the word here is defended by 186 a (rois ev ri yh
dvopevas) and by other exx. of a similar collocation, such as Lach. 198 p, Laws
889 D (cp. also Protag. 334af.). The art which deals with gurd is regarded
as analogous to that which deals with (da, involving a similar command of
the permutations and combinations, the attractions and repulsions (ra épo-
tka), of the fundamental qualities.
7d ty ydp now xrA. The words of Heraclitus (/%. 45) are given in Hippol.
refut. haev. 1X. 9 thus: ot Evviacw dxws dtahepopevoy EwuT@ dpodoyéer- madiv-
Tporos dppovin dxwomep ToEov Kai Avpns: cp. Plut. de Is. 45 madivrovos yap
dppovin kucpou bkwamep AUpns Kai Togo kad’ “Hpdkderrov: Soph. 2425. Pro-
bably, as Burnet holds, the original word used by H. was zadivrovos, not
maXivtporos, and dppovin 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 lyre is due to a similar tension and retention.
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 Gk. Phil. pp. 158 ff., Zeller, Pre-Socr, (E. T.) vol. 1. pp. 33 ff The
roéov H. had in mind is probably, as Bernays suggested, the Scythian bow—
the ddpuyé dyopdos of Arist. Rhet. 111. 1412 35 (see the woodcut in Smith,
ID. TN, Hoy CEERIOY
aN tows «tA. Eryximachus argues that H.’s dictum is defensible only if
we understand the opposites to be not co-existent : the discordant cannot be
simultaneously concordant, though it may be capable of becoming so in
lapse of time (mpérepov...vorepov). For rd 6€) cai Bapv as matter for dpyovia
cp. Heraclit. Fr. 43 (R. and P. § 27) od yap dv elvae dppoviay pH dvros d&€os
kai Bapéos, ovdé Ta (aa avev Ondéos Kal dppevos, evavtioy dvrwv: Soph. 253 a;
Phileb. 17 c, 264; Laws 665 B.
BP 4
50 MAATQNOS [187 B
ISmoo~NTdVTWY YyéeyovEV UTO THS movares Téexvys. ov yap by Tov
éx Siabepopévwry ye étt Tod dos Kal Bapéos dppovia av eins
yap dppovia cvppwvia cori, cuupavia S€ cporoyia Tis. opodo-
ylav Sé éx Siapepopévor, Ews av Svahépwvrar, addvaror elvar, Sia-
depdopevov Sé ad Kal wi oporoyety advyatobdy <dvvatov> appocat,
darrep ye Kal 6 puOwos éx Tod Tayéos Kal Bpadéos éx Sievnrveypevwv
mpotepov, batepov Sé oporoynodvtTwy yéyove. THY Sé oporoytav
mao. TovTos, BaoTep exel H LaTpiKN, evTadOa 4 povarky évTiOnary,
épwra Kal dpovoray addAjdov eutrouncaca: Kal éotwy ad povotKr
mepi appoviay Kat pvOuov épwrixav émictHun. Kal ev pév ye
avTh TH avaoTace. appovias te nal pvOwod ovdév yYarerov Ta
187 B réxvns (7 dppovia) vulg. 8¢€ ad: 8€87Sz.: dy ody Rohde dépodoyeiv
scripsi: dpodoyody codd., edd. dduvatrovy (duvarév) scripsi: advvaroyv
codd.: duvaréy Susem. C x post Bpadéos om. edd. rece. cum Vindob. 21
Opovotay: dppoviav Wolf ddAnros T (rav) mepi Ast

187 B épodoynrdvrev «rd. Cp. Theo. Smyrn. math. p. 15 «ai oi Mv6a-

yopixot O€. ois moAAayn emerae WAdrev, thy povoixny dacw evartioy cvvap-
poyny Kai Trav moAAGY évaow Kai Tov diya hpovoiytwy cupdpdrno, ov yap
pvOpav povov cai péAovs cuvraxrixny, GAN dawA@s tavTds cvotnpatos: TéAos
yap autns TO évodv te xat cuvappofev. For the Pythagorean dppovia see
Philolaus, fr. 4. 3 (R. and P. § 56) ra S€ avopoa...avayxa Ta ToravTa appovia
ovykexAeio Oa xrA. The same notion of a cosmic dppovia or dpodoyia appears
in Orph. fr. 139 rv “Adpodirny...ragwv Kal appoviay cal Kkowwviay maot Tots
éycoopiots...(6 Snpuovpyos) pidias eoriv airios rois Snpuovpynuacty Kal dpodoyias.
ovpdavia. Cp. Crat. 405 D mepi rv ev rp @dp appoviav, 7 8) cupghovia
xadeirat: Rep. 430 B, 398 D, E with Adam’s notes: “in its musical application
cuppevia is used both of consonance in the octave or double octave and also
of other musical intervals”: “dpyovia ‘reconciles’ d& and Bapv by a proper
arrangement of notes of higher and lower pitch. In the wider sense, there-
fore, any épodoyia of o€v and Bap is a dppovia, but in practice the word was
used spegifically of certain scales or modes.”
Siadepdpevov St av xrA. With the ms. text the sequence of thought is dis-
jointed and obscure; av seems out of place, and the next clause (domep ye
kai xrh.) seems to imply that the possibility rather than the impossibility of
harmonizing opposites is stated in the present clause (cp. Susemihl, Philol.
Anz. Vil, 412). Hence, rather than alter ad with Schanz, I prefer to read
Scahepopevoy S€ ad Kai un dpodoyeiv ddvvarovy (or ddvvarov) (Suvardv) appoca :
this gives a proper antithesis to the clause preceding.
1870 dépévoayv. It is possible that this word may contain an allusion
to Antiphon’s work epi dpovoias, for which see Diimmler, Akad. p, 79.
airy TH cverdca dppovias. “In the constitution of harmony per se”:
év avrp T7 dppovia might have sufficed, but the addition of cvordces serves
to emphasize the fact that dppovia is a synthesis—épodoyia—of a plurality of
187 5] TYMTMOSION 51
epwrixa Siayvyvwoxerv, ovdée 6 Sumdods Epws évtadOd mw éotiv:
GAN’ éredav Sn pds tods avOpw@rous xataxphabar pvOue Te
kal appovia i trovodyvta, 5 8) pwedoTroLiay Kadodaow, h ypwpevov
dpOds Tots merompévows pédeot Te Kal pértpous, 6 8) qadela
€xdHOn, evtadOa 5) Kal yarerov kab ayabod Snusoupyod Sei.
Tad yap HKEr 0 AUTOS AOYos, STL TOls ev KOTMioLs THY avOpw-
TOV, Kal @S Gv KOTMLOTEPOL YiyvOLVTO Of pnTw dVTES, Sei Yapi-
ferOar kal puratrew tov TovTwv épwra, Kal ovTOS éoTLV 6 KaNés,
6 odpavios, 0 THs Odpavias wovans “Epws: 6 5é Tlodvpvias 6 mdv-
Snuos, dv Set evNaBovpevoyv mpoodépey ols av rpocdhépn, draws dv
THY pev HdovAY avTOD kapTe@ontat, axodaciay b€ pnbdeuiayv ép-
Tonon, woTrEp ev TH HueTépa TéexVN péya Epyov Tais mepl THY
oporouxny Téxvnv émibupias Kaas yphobal, wot advev voocov
THY ndovny KapTacacbar. Kal év povorxn dn Kal ev latpiKA Kal
év Tots adXots TAGL Kal Tois avOpwreios Kal Tots Delos, Kal”
Gcov Tapeixer, hurXaKTéoy Exatepov TOV “"Epwra: eveotov yap.
187 C ovde...éorew del. Schiitz mow Bdhm. Mdvg.: rés BT D pérpos
BT: pv@uoisW = rovr@vy BT: rovovrav Ws provorns del. Sauppe E épyov
tais Tb: épyavres B mapeixer W rec. t: mapnxec BT év éorov W

elements: cp. Laws 812¢ ras rév dppoviay ovoraces: Epin. 991 E dppovias
ovotacw dracav. For puvduds, see Adam’s note on Rep. 398 D: “The elements
of music are puvOuds and dppovia. The former ‘reconciles’ raxi and Bpadv by
arranging a proper sequence of short and long notes and syllables”: also
Laws 6654 ry b€ ris Kwwnoews rafer pvOpos dvopa etn, tH S€ avd ths avis...
dppovia, xtd., Phileb. 17D (with my note).
Eryximachus analyses Music into Theory (airy 7 ovoraors) and Practice
(xarayp7jeba p.), the latter being further subdivided into peAoroda and maideia.
187 D raSela e&AriOn. 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. u1., 11., Laws 1., vil. Of course
matdeia in the ordinary sense includes also gymnastic; cp. Rep. 1. 376 8,
Laws 659D: in dancing to music (dpynor«n Laws 816 4) we have a com-
bination of both. It is worth noticing that in the Pythagorean quadriviwm
povoixn had a place beside dpwunrixn, yeoperpia and odaipixn Or dotpovopia:
see Adam’s Republic vol. 11. pp. 163 ff.
wdAwv...6 abros Abyos. Pausanias was the author of the Adyos, cp. 186B
supra.
187 E [lodvpvias. “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 is congruous with the character of Aphr. mavdnpos.
mporpépy...kapmdéonrat...guroijoy. Supply as subject the indef. ris.
nad’ dcov wapelke. “So far as possible.” Cp, Rep. 374 £, Laws 734 B.
4—2
 52 TIAATQNOS [188 a
188s XIII. "Eve nai 4 rdv wpav tod émavtod ciatacis peotH
€or apdhotépwv Tovtwy, Kal émeday wéev mpos AANA TOV
by > [2 Z \ > \ \ X BA aA

Koopiov TUXn épwTos a vov 81 éym Edeyov, TA TE Deppa Kai Ta

/ , y aA A \ ees ”. 4 \ \ \

Wuypa kal Enpa Kal bypd, Kal appoviav Kal xpacw raBy co-
dpova, hxew pépovta eveTnpiay te Kai wyievav avOpwrrois Kal Tots
arrows Cwous Te Kal huTois, Kal ovdev Hdienoev: Stav dé oO peta
Ths UBpews “Epws éyxpatéotepos mepi Tas Tov éyvavTov wpas
B yévytat, SuépOerpév te moddAa Kal Hdinnoev. of Te yap RoLpoi
la) / bd a Ly \ eS , ‘ /
prodar yiryverOat €x THY TOLOUTWY Kal GAN avo“ola TONKA VOTN-
pata Kal toils Onpiow Kal toils puTois: Kat yap maxvat Kab
yaratar kal épvotBar é« mreoveEias Kal axocpias Tepi GddAnda
TOY TOLOUTMY yiryveTaL épwTLKOV, OY eTLaTHUN TEPL AoTpwY TE
188 A xocpiou Bt, Stob.: ckdcpou T éyo fdeyov BT: Aéyw Stob.: Eeyor
Wolf = raénpaStob. (xai) repiStob. B duepOepev T: dv€POetpe Stob.:
diapbcipe: B dvopoca BT: avopora cat Stob.: duora Schiitz Bdhm.: av
dpora Orelli: av duora Hermann: 87) duora Sauppe: arr’ duaa Ast Jn.: dvopa
Sommer: dAAédxora Rohde: sravrota Winckelmann : dvjvura Stallb. ylyverat
del. Sauppe: yiyvovra: Canter: fort. yiyvera. épwrikav ovv émiotnun xKTA.
év...kareirat del. Schiitz re; ye Christ

188 A ij trav dpav...cdoracts. For the influence of the seasons on health

see Hippocr. de nat. hom. 7 as yap 6 éviavros peréyes ev mas mavTav Kal Tov
Oeppav Kai Tov Yvypav kal rav Enpdv Kai rav bypav Kcrd.: cp. Philedb. 26 B.
& viv 81...tAeyov. See above, 186 D.
ovBtv nSlknoev xrA. For these aorists, following presents, see Goodwin
G. M. T. § 155.
188 B dvopora...voonpara. “Divers diseases”: the adj. is similarly used
in Arist. Poet. 24. 1459 30 érewrodiody dvopoins éremodios, “relieving the
story with varying episodes” (Butcher): cp. id. H. An. Iv, 1. 523° 12:
Hippocr. de flat. 3 doxée: péev ody ra vovonpara ovdev ddAnAoiow gorxévac Sia
Tv adAogrnta Kai dvopoidrnta Tav Térev.
mdxvar...kal épvoiBar. Timaeus defines thus: épvoi8n pirrodns Spdcos-
maxvn 8€ dpocos xiovedys. Roman religion had a goddess Rodigo. Ruhnken
(ad Tim. p. 122) cites Orph. de lap. 15, v. 91 Kai aiepinv épvoiBny, | Fre carov-
pavobey mrayévn mori xapmov epvdpn, | audi mepi orayveror. mepiopixovea
naOnra.
tov tootrev ylyverat xrA. There are two difficulties in this passage:
(1) the singular verb after the plural subjects is harsh; to explain it we
must assume a mental unification of the subjects, of which similar but easier
instances occur in Rep. 3634, 618D, Laws 9255. We might evade this
difficulty by removing the colon at gurois, marking xal ydp...épvoiBa as
parenthetic, and thus construing dA\a...voojpara as the direct subject of
yiyvera.. (2) We should naturally expect rowvrwy to have the same reference
188 D] ZYMMOZION 53
Popas Kai eviavT@v wWpas aoTpovomia KaXeiTar. ETL TolvuY Kal
\ Ni > a“ / lal

ai Ovoiat macat Kai ols wavtixn émictatei—tavta § éotly 1) trepl

€ / lal , a lal

Jeovs Te Kal avOpwtovs mpds aA HAOVS KOLVWVia—ov TeEpL AAO

, \ > /

TL Fit €otiv
S
7)x Tept Nosh “Epwtos duraxny, te kal \ laow. »
maca
fa)
yap\ [7]
€

acéBera a pirel pirel yiyver

yi Pat,Oat, dav
éa un Tis TH, KoTuUIwio "E "Epwte yapilntat
i
unde TyLa TE aVTOV Kal Tpec BEN EV TravTL Epyw, adda [rept] TOV
be A AF \ / > Nie ‘97. tJ \ \ SS

€tepov, Kal mepl yovéas kal Cavtas Kal TeTeXEUTNKOTAS Kal TreEpl
iA \ lal \

Beovs: & 8) mpootétaxtat TH wavTiKH émicKoTeiy Tovs *Kpwtas

(4 a \ a iol a

«ai latpevery, Kal oti ad 1) wavTixy dirias Oedv Kai Na.avOpworTrwv

Wk) fe Ny ts we \ / a

Snucoupyos To étictacOar Ta Kata avOpwrovs épwTiKd, boa

\ a , ¢

Telvet Tpos Oéuiy Kai evoéBecay.

188 B gopas W, Stob.: dopas B: gopas T kal...dpas del. Bast.
Spas: dpovs Creuzer ai T, Stob.: om. B maca B Stob.: draca T
<7) pavtixn Fischer emeotaret (réxvn) Stob. ravra,..kowwvia del, Schiitz
C aceBeia Stob.: 7 aveBeia BT pn Tus: pyre ev Stob. (nev) ev Pflugk
tov Stob.: rept rov BT: mepurras rov Koch: Oepamevn Winckelm.: meperrérepov
tov Pflugk: fort. rn rov (rept) & Verm. mpotéraxtae Stob. épwtas
BT: épavras Stob., Bt.: épwradvras cj. Verm,: tovs épwras secl. Herm. Hug Sz.
D evcéBecav Stob.: acéBecav BT

here as ray rovotrwy has above (vzz. to the combinations of elements in which
the bad Eros predominates), whereas it seemingly stands in agreement with
Cowrixkav: this being so, what does epwrikay precisely mean? For it cannot
well retain, in this connexion, its proper meaning as genitive of ra épwrikd
“the laws of affinity” (186c, 187c). Ought we, then, to put a stop after
yiyverae and begin a new sentence with é€pwrixay oy émvotnun xth.!
dotpovop(a. The term as here used includes what we should rather call
“meteorology”: cp. Rep. 527D rpirov Oapev dorpovopiay;...rdo ‘yap mept Spas
evarcOnrotépws éxew Kal pnvdv kai €viavtov...vautTidia mpoonke. For ‘“as-
tronomy” as a regular part of the school curriculum see 2. on maideia 187 D,
and ep. Theaet. 145 c, D; L’rotag. 318 E.
7 Tepl Oeovs...kotwwvla. Simpler would have been 7 dedv...coivwvia, but, as
Hug remarks, “ Eryximachus liebt das unbestimmte zrepi c. accus.”
188 C dcoéBeo. ‘“ Undutifulness,” uinpietas. Revérence to parents and
country was a matter of religious obligation; cp. Xen. Jem. 11. 2. 13 dav b€
tis yovéas pn Oeparevyn, TovTw Siknyv te emuriOnar (7 modus) KTA.; 2d. IV. 4. 20;
Rep. 615 ¢.
[wept] tov érepov. Perhaps an original m7 was mistaken for a compendium
of wepi: for the combination adda ry, cp. Theaet. 191 B adda m7 Suvarov.
& 8y...larpevev. The infinitives may be taken as epexegetic of d (so Stallb.,
Zeller), or ad may be construed separately as accus. of respect (“qua in caussa”
Ast; ‘‘in welcher Beziehung” Hommel). There is no need to eject or emend
tovs “"Epwras: the phrase used 4 ll. above, wepi "Epwros hudakny Te xai taow,
supports "Epwras here.
 54 TAATQNOE [188 D
Ovtw ToAAnv Kal peyddrnv, wadAXov dé wacav Sivapmi ExEL
EvrAAnBSnv pwev Oo Tas "Epws, 0 b€ wept Tayaba peta cwppoavuns
Kat Suxaocvvns amroTteXovpevos Kal Tap piv Kal tmapa QOeois,
oUTos THY peylioTny Sivayww exer Kal Tacav nuiv evdatpmoviay
mapacKevate. Kal GAAndoLs Suvvapevous opireiv Kal pirous eivac
E kai Tots Kpeittoow nuov Oeois. iacws pév odv Kal éyw Tov "Epwra
éTalwa@v TONGA Trupanreitrw, OV péVvTOL ExwY ye. GAN El TL e&E-
Autrov, cov Epyov, © Apiotodaves, avaTTAnp@ca.’ 4 ei TwS adrAS
év v@ exes eyxwpialew tov Oedv, éyxwmpuiale, érevdn Kal THs
Auyyos TémTavaat..
189 "ExdeEdpevov obv Edn eitreiv tov “Apiotopavn btu Kai pan
€TavTaTO, ov MéVTOL TpLY ye TOY TTAappoY TpoceveXOHVaL avTH,
ote we Oavydlew ef TO KOgMLOY TOD GwpaTos éTLOUpEl TOLOUTwY
podpwrv kai yapyadiopav, olov Kai o mTappos éote: mavu yap
evOvs erravcaTo, eTrEld7) aUT@ TOV TTAPLOV TpoanveyKa. Kal TOV

188 D xai wap’ npiv...deois secl. Hug dvvapévors Stob. dros

Stob. E xai del. Riickert npav Oeots secl. J.-U. 189 A dor’
ewe Bekk.

188 D Oivrw mwoddjv. The German translators. mostly take ovrw as

qualifying the adjj., “‘so vielfach und gross” (Zeller, Schleierm.), but Hommel
is probably right in taking ovrw by itself (“hoc modo,” “itaque”) comparing
ovta moddaydbev 178 C. Cp. Hippocr. de flat. 3 otros (sc. 6 anp) S€ péy:otos ev
Toil Tag TOY TavTwy Suvactns eotiv: a&wov S€ a’tod BenoacOa THY Svvapey.
kal...apa Qeots. 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. 1868, 1875
Kal Tois avOpwreios Kal Tois Geios.
kal ddAnAors.. Qeois, For the accus. duvvapévous after nuiv cp. 176D. The
kai after eiva is rendered “auch” by Hug, as if ouitciv governed adAnAos and
idrous eivac the other datives, but Zeller’s rendering, which makes both the
infinitives govern both sets of datives, seems more natural.
188 EB xal éya, ze. “I as well as Pausanias”: see 185 E ad jin.
éveiSn kal. «ai implies a suppressed reason—“ since (it is your turn) and
you are cured of your cough.”
189 A ov wrappov. This was one of the remedies prescribed by Eryx.
in 1858, hence the def. article. mpoopépew is a vox propria for medical
“applications,” cp. 187 8, Phaedr. 268 4; Hippocr, de jlat. 1 olos 7 dv
mpoopépew ra Lvuhépovra ro cwpari: id. de affect. 1 daa d€ rods xeporéxvas
eixos €mioragOa Kai mporpépev Kat SiayerpiCew KTr.
76 koopioy. This is in ridicule of the theory of medicine stated in 186 ¢ ff
and of the use of the term xdcpuos in 187 D, 188 ¢.
189 c] ZYMTMTOZION 55

Epv&iwayor, ‘Oyabe, ddvar, ['Apiatopaves,| dpa Ti trovets. yeo-

sy oe ’ / ’ , « lal

ToTroveis pueArwv Eyer, Kal PUAaKd pe TOD AOyou avayKaters

lal / f lal

ylyver@ar Tod ceavTod, édv Ti yedoiov elmns, éEov cou ev elpjvn B

, tal a“ ie. cal /

Neyerv. Kat tov Apiotopavn yeddoavta eimeiy ED XAéyeus, oO

/ \ \ ’ lal 9

Epv&iwaye, Kai por Ectw appynta Ta ecipnucva. adda py [ME

, / , U , /

guraTte, ws €y@ hoBovpar Tepi TOV pedrrOvT@Y PNnOnceaOaL, Ov TL

7 i. CW OEAN lal a

\ a / an \ \ ; , A ,
Kn yedola €itrw,—TOUTO pev yap Ay KEpdos eln Kal THs NweTEepas
Movons emLyYwpLov,—arXa un KaTayéXaoTa. Badrwy ye, dPavat, w
/ ’ / >? x \ / , / 2

’ , ” ) , ’ \ , \ a \ ie
Apiotogaves, oles expevEecOar; ara Tpogeye Tov vodv Kal oUTw
Aeye ws d@cav Oyo: laws pévToL, dv SEN poL, adryjow ce. C
, € , t / »

oa r \
XIV. Kai pny, dae "Epvéipay e, eiretyoY tov “Aptatodavn, addy
, -

" > aA , a J 9 ’
ye 7H EV V@ exw eyerv, HH ov TE Kai Ilaveavias etrerny. epol
yap Soxovow avOpwro: Tavtdract THY Tod Epwros S¥vamiy ovK
\ lol / \ an u

noOncba, éret aicOavopevot ye péyiot av avtod iepa Kata-

9 A =) , , ‘ lal

189 A dyabe hava T: dyabe ava dyabe B "Aptoropaves del. Sauppe

Hug B om. vulg. pn ye Bdhm. pnOnoecOa T: nrrnOnoecba
(sed nr extra versum) B: dn pnOjcecOa Rettig: fort. ere /. C cimerov
Blass @Opeano Bekk.: avOpwroa BT: of avépara W, vulg.

[ Apioropaves]. I follow Sauppe and Hug in regarding the proper name

as a gloss on wyaéé: as a rule, wyadé stands alone.
189 B ot ti...eirw. In yedoia Arist. applies the term used by Eryx. in
a different sense, distinguishing between yeAota, r¢dicula, and xarayédaota,
deridendu ; whereas Eryx. had meant by yeAotov what A. calls xarayédacrov,
cp. 199 D, 221 E. ,
Ths jpetépas povons. This may allude (as Rettig thinks) to Eryximachus’s
Otpavia podca and Hodvpvia, and to his phrase év rp nuerepa réxvn (187 D, 5).
Badov ye xrA. “So you think you are going to get off scot-free!” Suidas
8.v. Badav explains by mpos rovs xaxdv te Spacayras Kai olop.-ous expevyev.
Cp. Rep. 344D oiov euBarav Adyov ev v@ Exes amévar: Phaedo 91c; Plut.
de s.n.v. 548B GAN ot8 ef Baroy, elev, amnAAdyn, Kadas cixe mepiopav Td Bédos
éykeipevov.

189 Kal pry «rd. This clause has reference to what Eryx. had said,
not in 189 B, but in 188 E (ei mws GAdos ev v@ Exers xt.) —“ Yea verily, it 7s
my intention to act as you suggested.”
mwavratact...ovK. ‘To have completely failed to discern.” For dvvayis
()( pious) as a rhetorical category, cp. Isocr. Hel. 218 D padiov d€ yrdvar rhv
Svvapiy abrov KTA.
bre alo®. ye xrA. For ezei...ye cp. Hep. 352. The following infinitives
(with dv) are governed by doxotary, repeated in thought from the main clause.
For the sense, cp. Isocr. Hel. 221 a as...dvvapévyv, dvaOnpact Kai bvoias Kai
s ; neuen Aan ;
rois dAAats mpogddos iAdoxecOar Kal Tisav adTHy xpnN.
56 TAATQNOS [189 ©
, “a A , ’ ”
oKkevacat Kal Bwpovs, Kat Ovolas ay TroLeiy peyloTas, OVY wWaTTEP
vov tovtwy ovdev yiyveras wept adtov, Séov TdvTwy pdadiota
la \ > U , s /

ylyvec@ar, eats yap Oedy piravOpwtroTatos, EmiKoupos TE WY THV

U fol / > / / a A

e ’ 1 ’ y fa aN
avOporav Kai latpos TovTwv, dv iaBévTwy weyloTn evdatmovia av
A = Cas > /
TO AvOpwreiw yéver ein. yw odY TELpdco“aL LpLV elonynoacbar
thy Svvauy avTtod, bweis b€ TOV GArXwv SidacKaros Ececbe. Sel
an lol lal of “~

5€ mpO@tov vuas pabety THY avOpwrivny diva Kal TA Tabnuata

iS A e an , / \ mi /

auThns. 1 yap Tddat nuov pvats ovxX avTN nV NITEp VvUY, ar

> an e Ms / ¢€ lal 4 3 id \ a: a lal > Xe

GAXOlLa, MpPATov ev yap Tpla Hv TA YyévN TA TOV avOpwrwv, ovx

wn , 3 \ / \ lol > , >

r A / ” \ A 5) \ \ / aA \ a
waTrep viv dv0, appev Kal OAAv, GANA Kal TPLTOY TMpoaHY KoLVvOV OV
b / A 7 a ty SN be > / <
augotépwy TovTwY, ov viv dvowa oLtrov, avTo de npaviaTat
avdpoyuvov yap &v ToTe pev Av Kal eldos Kai dvopa €& audoTEepwv
by , Ni a , \ ? \ e \: Sy, > ’ ,

189 C xai Bwpovs del. Blass moetc Oar Hirschig D_ evdaipovia dv

BTW: dy evdamovia vulg. cionynoagba post avrod trs, Blass éceoOa T
dei 67) Blass maXaia Blass att B: aitn T, Stob.: 7 adr7 Euseb., Blass
adda GAXn Euseb. mpata W ra tav BT: rav W, Euseb, Stob. E dvo
om. Stob. dAAd Kai: ddda Stob. Eusebii codd. aliquot ov om. Stob.
Euseb. ev B: om. T, Euseb. Stob., Sz.

ovx womep. ‘Whereas’: cp. 179 E.

189D iatpos. This term recalls the doctor’s speech, esp. 186 B ff,
188c ff.; cp. Phuedr. 252 a.
éya ovv mepacopat, ‘“ Parodie des Pausanias (180 D) und Eryximachos
(186 a)” (Rettig).
cionyyoac0a. The force of this word is lost if we render it “narrate,”
“relate” with L. and S.: it means “to initiate into”: ep. 1765, Xen. Mem.
1.7.10. For the next clause cp. Menexv. 240 D iyepoves cai diSacKador rois
ddAous yev opevot.
dvow...ra0ripara, This is the order of A.’s exposition—rept gicews
189 D—190 C, mepi ma@nparwv 190 c—193 a. For various views of physio-
logists as to the voi avOpwov, see Hippocrates’ tract with this title,
where the theory that man év mu elvac (alwa, yoAn, pr€ypa, etc.) is combated.
Aristophanes’ exposition is intended, no doubt, as a caricature of the medicos
of his age (see Jntrod. § iii. 4).
189 BE dv&pdsyuvov «rd. Suidas avdpdyuvos: 6 ra dvdpds mov xa ra
yuvaxk@v macxov. Riickert wrongly renders e«/Sos by “genus”: it means
“forma” (as Stallb.). efSos xai dvoua are taken by Riickert and Hug as
nomin., by Stallb, as accus. of respect, the construction being év yap (se. rav
yevav) hv Tore avdpoyuvoy: the latter way seems the better. Rettig proposes
to insert 7ré before év, which would give the same sense. If e/Sos cai dvoua
are construed as accus., it is better to take them closely with dvdpdyuvov
190 a] ZYMTMTOZION 57

Kolvov TOD TE appevos Kat Oreos, viv bE ovK Eat AA H EV

nf lol vv \ / lal \ ’ vv > > A :}

) , n ni A 9 , \
oveldoer 6voma Keiwevoyv. émrerta ONov HY ExdaToU TOU avOpwrrov TO
eldos atpoyyvAov, vaTov Kal mreupas KUKAW Eyov, yelpas Se
b 7 lal ‘ x 7 ” tal \

: GT Rt i BANS gad BS Pig ti

TEéTTapas Elye, Kal OKEAN TA loa Tals XEpal, Kai TpocwTa bv’ ér
avyeve KUKXOTEpEL, Guwota TravTyn: Keharnv 8 em’ audoTépous Tots 190
’ / nC , \ ’ eM } > Ie (a)

, , s , \ ’ a
TpocwTrolis évavtious KEeLmevors play, Kal WTa TéTTAapa, Kal aidoia
dvo, Kal TAAXA TaVTA WS ATO TOUTMY AV TIS ElKaTELEY. ETTOPEvETO
\ £

Se xal dpOdv domep vov, orotépwae BovdrAnOein: Kai omote Tayv

\ \ ’ \ e a ig , Qs / \ € / AY

opunoee Oetv, waTrEp of KUBLoT@VTES Kal eis OpOdV TA TKEAN TEPL-

e , nw ig4 € nw t

189 E (row) 6nAeos Euseb., Blass ev dveider T: év bv eidee B verdv Te

xai Stob., Blass Ta oxéAn toa Hirschig: oxéAn (de) Blass 190 A xe-
pevors orm. Stob. as: doa Stob, dmorépws Stob. Ge B, Stob.: éAdeiv T
cat BT, Stob.: om. al. opOov ra: dpGa dvra Stob.: dpa Blass

than with ¢£ dydor. «rd. (as Stallb.). For avdpdyuves, see also Hippocr.
de diaet. 28.
For the description ep. Emped. 257 ff. (St.) moAXa pev audirpooara xal
apdiorepvu precOar | ...peptypeva ty pev am’ avdpav | rn d€ yuvarxopun, atetpors
noxnpéva yviows: Lucr. Vv. 837 ff. portenta...androgynum, interutrasque nec
utrum, utrimque remotum: Ov. Met. Iv. 378 nec femina dici | nec puer ut
possint ; neutrumque et utrumque videntur: Livy xxvi.11.4. Theophrastus
(Char. 16) mentions Hermaphroditus-statues; and the Orphic conception of
Eros-Phanes may also be compared.
vov 8 xrdA. ‘But now the name exists solely as a term of reproach”: cp.
the use in Latin of semdvir, Virg. 1. 1v. 215 ille Paris cum semiviro comitatu :
Livy XXxIlIlI. 28, 7. k
odov Av kTA. Cp. Emped. 265 (St.) otAogueis pev mpata tumou xOovos
e€avérehdov. s6dov is predicate aud not merely (as Ast, Schleierm.) a quah-
fying adj. with ro eidos. Certainly, as Rettig notes, Zeller’s “ganz rund” is
impossible. Rabelais (1. 8) has a reference to this passage—‘‘ung corps
humain ayant deux testes, l'une virée vers l'autre, quatre bras, quatre pieds,
et deux culs; tel que dict Platon, 7m Symposio, avoir esté Phumaine nature
& son commencement mysticq”—in his description of Gargantua’s equipment.
190 A xebadry 8 ém «7A. “Quis non Iani memincrit?” (Hommel). The
notion of a similar double-fronted, androgynous being is found in the Talmud,
and Euseb. pr. Hvang. xt. 12 quotes our passage as a plagiarism from Moses.
of kuBirravres. Schol. xvBiornp 6 dpynotns, Kal xuBioray To dpyeioOa. Cp.
Zl. xvi. 750, and the evolutions of the “tumbler” Hippoclides described in
Hat. vi. 129: also Xen. Symp. 1, 11, vit. 3. The xai before eis dpOdv reads
awkwardly; if retained, we must render it “actually” (adeo, Wolf), but
possibly ica or ica xai may have been the original. Rettig quotes Cic.
de Fin, v. 35 si aut manibus ingrediatur quis aut non ante sed retro fugere,
plane se ipse et hominem exuens ex homine naturam odisse (videtur).
 58 TAATQNOS [190 a
/ aA , a a / >
Pepomevor KuBLoT@al KUKAW, OKTW TOTE OVTL TOLS MEAETLY ATEPEL-
Sopevor Taxvd efépovTo KiKro. Hv d€ Ova TadTA Tpla Ta yEvN Kal
Ld \ > / , 32 \ \ lal / \ / \

a ° > A \ / \ \
B tovadra, OTe TO ev Appev jv Tod HrLov THY apynv Exryovory, TO bE
Onrv THs yhs, TO 5€ Gupotépwy pEeTEXOV THS TEAHVNS, OTL KAaL 7
lol tel an ‘ / a / 4 X €

fd ? he , a \ \ > \ > \ \ e
ceAnvn appotépwy peTeyer* TeEepLpepnh dé 87 jv Kal avTa Kai 7
a n a ° = * \ 5) \
Topela avTa@v Sia TO Tois yovedawy Gpota eivar. nv ody THY LaXUD
dea Kal Thy popnv, Kal Ta Ppovypata peydda elyov, eTEXEL-
Gf ? s

pnaav d¢ Tots Geots, Kal 6 Aéyer “Ounpos Tepi “Ediadtou Te Kal

\ nw an ‘ ’ / \

Orov, wept éxelvwv N€yeTal, TO Els TOV OVpavoy avdBaow EemTLyXEL-

” \ ’ / fe \ t) \ > \ > 4 >

C pety trovety, os emtOnoopévar Tots Bevis.

2 « \
XV. ‘O ody Zeds Kai of adrot Beot éBovrAEevovTO 6 TL XPD
aUTOUS ToLnoal, Kal NTOpoUY' OVTE Yap OTwWS ATrOKTELVaLEY ELYoV
tol * ft

190 A xuSioraor xixkdw del. Sauppe Bdhm Sz. tore oxta T, Stob.
drepedopevor T: drep eidopevar B: erepecdopevor ¢}. Steph. B apdorepov T
ott...peréxer del. Jn. peretyev Stob., Blass (cat) mepupepy Blass 67) om.
Stob. avtéyv del, Blass te kat BT: cai W C as...deots post "Qrov
transp. Steinhart 6 yoov Stobaei A

190 B ore ro pév dppev xrA. Aristophanes too can pose as an erudite
physicist. His astronomical lore may come partly from Parmenides, partly
from the Pythagoreans. Cp. Arist. de gen. an. I. 2 dppev yap déyouev (Gov
TO eis AAXO yevvdr, Onrv dé 7d eis abrd- bid Kai ev TO GAM THY THS ys Prow os
Onrv Kai pnrépa vouitovow, ovpavov be Kal Hdtov...@s yevv@vtTas Kal marépas
mpocayopevovow. For the moon as bisexed, cp. Orph. Hymn. 1x. 4 (@ndvs re
kat aponv); Macrob, 111. 8 Philochorus afirmat Venerem esse lunam et ei
sacrificium facere viros cum veste muliebri, mulieres cum virili, quod eadem
et mas aestimetur et femina. Procl. in Tim. p. 326 (odtw 87 Kai ceAnviaxiy
Wuxnv eis avdpos katievae @vow, xaba tHv Movoaiov daci, kat amoA\@vaKkny
(jAcaxny Jahn) eis yuvatxos, kaOamep tatopovor tiv SiBvdAdav) shows that
opinion on the matter was not uniform: see also Plutarch, Zs. e¢ Os. 1.
368 0, 371 F ff.
ort...peréxer. WVogelin and others rightly defend this clause against athe-
tizers like Jahn: it adds to the impression of “‘komische Gelehrsamkeit.”
mepipepy. “Globular” rather than “circular” (‘“kreisformig,”’ Ast,
Schleierm.). For ropeia, incessus, cp. Tim. 45 a, Polit. 266 B.
Ta ppovrjpara peyddra elxov. They were “high minded” and had “proud
looks” ; they did not “refrain their soul and keep it low”: ‘“‘weyaXa Ppovnpara
dicuntur habere qui contra dominos conspirant, cp. 182 c” (Hommel).
5 A€yen “Opnpos. See Od. x1. 305 ff, 77. v. 385 ff We may compare also
Ps. ii, 2, “The kings of the earth set themselves...against the Lord”; and
the Babel tradition (en. xi. 4 ff; ep. Orig. c. Cels, Iv. p. 515 a ff.).
190 C otre ydp...elxov. This obviously implies, as Hug remarks, moral
rather than physical impossibility—the inexpedience of killing the goose that
lays the golden egg. Supply ndavivay with cepavvacartes.
190 D] TYMIMOZION 59
Kal WoTEp TOUS yiryavTas KEepauVYwaaYTES TO YyéVvOS apavicaLev—ai
\ U4 \ ' , t

Tial yap avTois Kai (epa Ta Tapa Tov avOpwrav npavifero—

2 a ra /

ou? em
ows éwev acedyaivev.
ia
pooyis 8) 6 Zeus evvonaas Reyer
,:A ’ / , \ Ad \ ? / /

OTe Aox® pou, Ep, Exerv pyyarrijy, ws av elev Te AVOpwro Kal

/ lal ” tA 4 € A a/ A \

, A , , A \ \
TavoawtTo THS akoraclas aabevérTepot yevouevor. vuUV pwev yap D
avtous, épn, Stated Sixa Exactov, kal twa pev acbevéeatepor
lal , ¢

€covtar, Gua Sé ypnouwwrtepor nyiv b1a TO TAElovS TOV apLOuov

” / , an \ A \

yeyovévar: kal Badiodvtar dpOoi emi Svoiv oKedotv. éav 8 étt

fal cal a \ ’ /

5 a b / \ \ bé € if ” / a
oKMol acedyalvety Kal pn CedXwoww novylav aye, TAY av,
» a / or 359 PS ee eN 7 li > /
edn, TEM@ diya, wot ep Eevos TOpEevooV’TaL TKEOUS acKwALGovTes.
a % \ I
TavTa eite@v éreuve Tos avOpwrrous Sixa, @aoTEp of TA da TEL-

190 C yap (av) Ast (ra) tepa Stob., J.-U. porss Se Stob. elev TE:
i@vrau Stob. avOpera Voeg.: avOpara BT doGevérrepor yevomevor secl.
Kreyenbiih! Sz. D & ér Stob., vulg.: d€ 7 BT *6e€Awow Baiter Bt. ;
GéXwow B, Stob.: edAoow T doxarivovres Stob. ga Timaeus Pollux :
aia BT, Suidas: da Stob, Photius: Sra Euseb.

jdavitero. For the impf. without dy, ep. (with Stallb.) Rep. 450 p, Euthyd.
304D; Ar. Vub. 1212.
poyts...evvorjoas. Notice the comic touch: the ornniscient Zeus has to
cudgel his brains over the business!
as dv elev. For this construction after a present, cp. Xen. Cyrop. I. 2. 5
(Goodwin @. M. T. § 349, cp. § 351).
acevéorrepor yevopevor. Although these words are superfluous, a little legal
verbosity may be excused in a comedian’s Zeus.
190 D xpnoipdrepo. “More 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 point of view—which result from schisms
of this sort is vénua yedodrarov. This passage is alluded to by Musonius ap.
Stob. flor. txvu. 20; Julian, Zp. ux. p. 448.
éav 8 ru xrA. The ingenious Deity has still “a rod in pickle”: the
process of bisection may be repeated ad Jib. until the wicked are left literally
with not a leg to stand on.
ackwrfovtes. Schol. doxwdAralew xupiws perv To él tovs doxovs GA\eoOar
dAnAtppévous, ep’ obs emndav yedoiov Evexa: tives S€ Kai emt rSv cupmeduxdcr
Tois oxédeowv ddAopéevarv. dn dé TiMéace Kal emt Tod GdAecOar TO vevpov (Tov
€repov cj. Bekk.) rév modav avéyovra, } ws viv éml oKédous évds Baivoyta.
gore O€ kai TO ywAatveww. Hesych. aoxwdAriCovres: ef’ évds odds éepadddpevor.
Cp. Schol. ad Ar. Plut. 1130: Virg. Georg. 11. 383 inter pocula laeti | mollibus
in pratis unctos saluere per utres. See also Smith D. A. s.v. “ascoliasmus.”
Gomep of ta 6a. KTA. For da (see cizt. n.) cp. Pollux vi. 79 fv d€ rpwydadta
kdpva puprides péomAa, & kai da xadeira: Tim. (Phot., Suid.) da: dxpodptor
 60 TAATQNOS [190 p
E vovtes Kai wéAXovTes Tapixevery [, 7) WaTrep of TA WA Tais OprEw]:
ovtiva b€ Téwor, Tov "ATrOANW ExéXEVE TO TE TPOTWTOY wEeTATTPE-
dew Kai TO TOD adyévos Hutouv Tpos THY TouND, lva Bewpevos THY
avTod Tunhow KoopLwTepos ein 0 avOpwros, Kal TarAXa iacOar
éxéXevev. 0 5€ TO TE TPOTwTrOY pEeTécTpEhE, Kal TUVENKWY TraVTA-
yobev 1 Sépua eri tv yaotépa viv Kadovupévny, BaoTrEp Ta
ovoTacta Badrddvtia, &v oTopa Tolmy améber KATA peony THY
yaotépa, 6 89 Tov duharov Kadovat. Kal Tas pév Aras puTidas
190D réuvovres xai secl. Kreyenbiihl Bt.: «ai secl. Bdhm. Hug Sz.
E rapiyevoev Photius Suidas j}...Opc&iv secl. Sydenham Sz. Bt. ot T,
Stob.: om. B Opti (Suarpotvres) Toup xal...qpeov del. Sauppe
kat TO: kata ro Verm. avutov T: atrov B, Stob, Tpnolw : mpoTpnow
Naber BaddAadvria T: Baddovra B amédece Stob. rov del. Hommel
tas om. Stob.

eidos pndows puxpois eudepés. It is the “sorb-apple” or “service-berry,” Lat.

sorbum; for the mode of preserving these cp. Varro de re rust. 1. 59 (putant
manere) sorba quidam dissecta et in sole macerata, ut pira, et sorba per se
ubicumque sint posita, in arido facile manere: and for raprxyevery in this sense
of “drying,” cp. Phot. (Suid.) rapiyeverv*...cnuaiver d€ kat To Enpaivew.
The clause 7 dozep...tais OpiEiv is condemned by most edd. It is an
objection to the phrase that, as Rettig notes, we ought naturally to supply
with it not only the appropriate réuvovres but also the inappropriate peAdovres
taptxevey: this objection however is not insuperable, and if necessary rép-
vovres night be transposed. It is argued on the other hand by Hommel and
Vogelin that a second simile is really required, the sorb-slicing describing
only the mode otf operation, whereas the egg-slicing adds the idea of ease
and facility. That @a @piéi duapetv was a proverbial saying is shown by
Plut. amat. 24, p. 770 B otcOa rovs matdixovs épwras (eis) dBeBatdrnra moda
Aéeyovot kal oxw@mrovat éyovTes BrTEP Gov a’r@v rptxt SraipeioOae rv Piriav.
Riickert supposes “ovorum per crines dissectionem ludi genus fuisse;
fortasse ex oyorum dissectione per crines facta convivae futura praedicere
solebant”: Zeller writes “‘vielleicht ein Gesellschafts- oder Liebesspiel, das
darin bestanden haben kénnte, 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 it had some connexion with
(Orphic) magic and divination by @ocxomia. For the process of bisection,
cp. Phaedr. 265 8.
190 E riyv atrot tpaoww. Here runos denotes, of course, the result rather
than the process: Naber’s mpérunow, wnbilicum, is ingenious but needless.
radda tdaoGar. Apollo, as dxéows and inrnp, very properly plays the part
of surgeon’s assistant.
ra, ovoracta Baddavria. ‘Round pouches with strings to draw”: see
Smith D. A. 1. 565.
191 o] ZYMTMIOZION 61

Tas Todas e€edéave kal Ta ornOy SinpOpov, éxwv TL TovodTov 191

épyavov olov of oxuToTomoe wepl TOV KaNaTroba NeaivovTes Tas
Tov oKuT@y puTidas: odrlyas 8€ KaTédTE, TAS Tepl avTHY THY
yaotépa Kal Tov dudarov, pvnueiov elvat tod Tadaiod mdOous.
éreidy ody % pvais Siva érunOn, wobodv Exactov TO huiocv TO
adtov Evvyer, cal mepiBadrovtes Tas yeipas Kal cuprdeKdmevor
GAXjrols, ErOupodvtes cuphdvar, améOvysKoy bd Aywod Kal THs
G@Ans apyias Sid 7d pndev eOérew Ywpls GAA|OV Toei. Kai B
omoTe Tt atroOavor THY Huicewv, TO Sé ecOein, TO reLPOEv ARO
A Kal ouveTrr€KETO, ELTE YUVALKOS TIS ohas EVTVXOL Nuicel,
& 8 viv yuvaixa Kadovper, ele app oss Kal o0Tws am@AXUYTO.
érenoas S€ o Zevs Dny enxaviy Eanes Kal HerariOnoty
avtav Ta aidoia eis TO TpdaOev: Téws yap Kal tadTa éexTos elyor,
kal éyévywy Kal érixtov ove eis GAAHAOVS GAN Els yy, Womep ot C
191 A dpyavoy del. Creuzer kaddmoda T, Pollux Stob.: «addroda B
érecdy: émet Stob. » pvots (adrav) vel (nav) Ast émdGour Verm. J.-U.
éxacrot T@ npioe. Verm. ro libri: re Stob. Priscian: 7@ Verm. J.-U.
airod om. Priscian éuvne. T, Stob. Priscian: fvveivac B, Verm. J.-U.: del.
Rettig dpmexopevor Stob. Auov B: rov Ayov T, Stob.: rhs Awoo W,
vulg. B 1o de T: 76d B fuverrémAexro Stob. npeceias Stob,
amadXovro T: amdAdvvto B: am@ddvro Stob.

191 A SirjpOpov. “Shaped out,” “moulded”; cp. Phaedr. 253 D. Op.

Aelian, H. A. 11. 19, v. 39, vi. 3.
nov kaddrosa. “The (cobbler’s) last”: Lat. forma eas Sat. 1. 3. 106),
or tentipellium. Suidas (8.v, xaXa) xadov yap TO EvAov- €€ of Kai xaddmous, 6
Evdwos rovs.
pvnpetov...d8ovs. 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 expressed in 190 E supra (iva Oegpevos xrA.).
t dts. Creuzer renders this by “nos homines,” disapproving of Ficinus’
“natura” and Schleierm.’s “forma”: but gvoiw is no mere periphrasis but
connotes original nature or form.
moQow ekacrov xrA. To attempt to restore the Bodleian reading fuveiva,
as several of the later critics do, involves too much alteration; thus Hug
writes r@ avrod éuveiva, Usener émddovv...r@ atrov Evveiva. Notice the
“constructio ad sensum,” rodoiv...mepi8adAovtes...améOvnoxov. There is an
echo of this passage in Philo de op. mund. 53 p. 36 M.
mys GAAns apylas. ‘General inactivity,” implying thatthe Aus itself was
due to dpyia. Cp. Rep. 554 a, c (with Adam ad loc:).
191 B tre dv8pos. Abbreviated for cire avdpds rod ddov evrixou npices.
Notice that the third possibility (eir’ dvdpoyivov) is omitted.
191 0 dorep of rérryes. This is not merely a piece of natural history;
 62 TAATQNOE [191 c
Te ody oTW <TaUT’> aUTaY Els TO m poo ev
¢ a > lel , A ‘

rértuyes’ peTeOnké
\ \ / \ ‘ ’ 2 / bY / A A yw
Kal OLA TOUTWY THY YEevEerLVY EV AAANADLS ETTOLNGE, dua Tov appevos
év TO Onde, TOvde Evexa, va ev TH TUmTAOKN aya pev EL avnp
A n > iol a vA \ >! > x

yuvaiki évTvxot, yevveev Kal yiyvorto TO ryévos, dua 8 et Kal appny

\ ’ lal \ / > ’ \ p24

dppeve, WANTMOVI) Yyodv yiyvouto THs aguvovaias Kai SvamravowTo

’ fal A , \ Uy

\ eee Near / \ A MM. / > lal ”

Kal éi Ta épya TpéTrowwTO Kal TOU GdAXouv Blov EemipedolvTO. EOTL
D 8) ody é« TOcov 0 épws euhuTos GAAnAwY Tois avOpwrrols Kai THS
dpyaias picews suvaywyeds Kal érixeipav Toujoat ev éx dvot
Kai lacacbar thy drow THY avOpwrivny.
1910 re: d¢ Ast ovrw aitav: dpod mavrwy cj. Usener — (radr’) a’rav
scripsi: avrav B: airév T: ad Schanz: aira vulg.: del. Riickert auTa@v...
mpdoabev del. Jn. Hug éumpoobev Stob. fort. (ra aidoia) cat dia TOUTO
Stob. yévynow Verm. Sz. ev: véav Stob. 8a...Onrec del. Jn. Sz.
(cav) (vel ért) yiyvorro Riickert: yévorro Stob.: ca@forro Susemihl TO yévos
BT, Stob.: yévos J.-U.: réxos Verm.: 6 yovos Hommel dppev apogr. Coisl.
155 Stob. D_ avvaywyds Stob. éva Stobaei A

it contains also an allusion to the cicada as the symbol of Athenian auto-

chthony: cp. Polit. 271 A 76 ev && addAndov ovK Hy ev TH TOTE Pree yevvapevor,
7d d€ 89 ynyeves elvai more yévos NexGev xrd.: Thue. 1. 6, Ar. £g. 1331. For
the mode of propagation of cicadae, cp. Ael. H. A. 11. 22 rais apvas 6 mndds
yéveois €ate Sv ddAndrov O€ ov Tiktovew ove emryivovra xrd.: the female lays
her eggs in the sand, where the young are hatched out by the sun’s heat.
Cp. also Plut. amat. 767 c.
otto... rpocbev. Hommel explains odtw by hac ratione, gua dixi; Riickert
by uti nune posita sunt, which seems preferable. aaré@v (sc. ra aidoia) by itself
reads rather awkwardly; but, as Végelin points out, a glossator would cer-
tainly have added the missing words. It is, perhaps, just possible that
ta aidoia fell out before cai dca, owing to similarity of letters; but the
insertion of rair’ is a simpler change.
ylyvoro 1d yévos, 2.€. rd dvOpmmivov yévos, cp. 190D 16 yévos...dvOpwmot.
There is no reason to tamper with the text: the present tense secures the
notion of continuance without need of supplements such as Riickert’s cay
or éru. (A neater change would be reivoiro.)
él ra. tpya. In contrast to their former dpyia (191 B). Cp. Hesiod’s title
épya xai nuépa. Bios is here practically equiv. to 4 rod Biov caracxevn (Laws
842 c); and the phrase means “husbandry and other means of subsistence.”
tor. &1 ovv. Here at last we come to the point of the whole tale—the
function and value of Eros,
& tocov. “From such early times,” tam longo ex tempore: the only other
ex. in Plato is Laws 642 8, but the phrase is common in Hadt., e.g. v. 88, vi. 84.
191 D ocvvaywyeds. ‘A unifier,” in the sense of “restorer.” This subst.
is unique in Plato, and rare elsewhere; cp. the use of auvaywyos, Prot, 322 o,
Tim. 31 ©.
191 5] ZTYMTMOSION 63
XVI. "“Exactos ody nudv éotlv avOpedrov EvpBorov, dre
TeTUNMEVOS WoTEP ai WhTTas, cE éEvds dV0. Lntet dy ael TO adTod
éxaotos EvpBorov. baou pev oiv Tav avdpav Tod Kowod Tuhwa
etary, 5 81) Tore avdpoyuvov éxanetTo, Piroyvaixés 7 eiol Kat of
TOAAOL THY poryov ex TOVTOY TOD yévous yeyovacl, Kal boat ad
yuvaixes piravdpoi re cal povye’tpiar [€x tovTov Tod yévous
yiyvovra:]. Saas 88 trav yuvaikav yuvatkos Tuna EloLY, OU TavuU
attat trois avdpdacu Tov vody mpocéxovaty, dAXa MaAXoOv pds TAs
yuvaixas TeTpappévar eiot, Kal ai éraipiorpuar €x TovTov tod
191 D ody: yodv cj. Usener éxacros TW: éxacrov B, Stob. runparos
Stob. E didoporyevrpiae Stob. éx...ylyvovra del. Bdhm. Sz.
yuvatkav W kal ai...yiyvovra del. Voeg. ai om. Stob.

avOpdrov EipBodov. “ But the indenture of a man” (Jowett): cvpBorov

here is the tessera. hospitalis; the host presents his departing guest with one
half of a broken die (darpdyaXos), retaining the other half ‘himself (see Smith
D. A, 8.v. “hospitium”). Cp. the use of the word by Empedocles, in his theory
of reproduction stated in Arist. de gen. an. 1. 18. 772 10 *Ewmedoxdjjs...pnot
év T@ appeve kal ev TO Ondet olov cvpBorov eva, Sdov 8 dn” odderépou amcévar—
“ad quod decretum philosophi respexit fortasse Aristophanes” (Stallb.).
ai parra. Lat. rhombi, a kind of flat-fish (perhaps plaice or turbot):
Schol. iy@vdiev re rOv mAarei@y 7 Wirra, ex bv0 Sepparav cvyxeioba thy idéav
Soxovv, 6 rwes cavdadiov kadovow eTAr.: “genus piscium, quod oculos et nares
in altera tantum parte capitis habet” (Stallb.). Cp. Ar. Lys. 115 (where the
Schol. curiously defines y. as Spveov rerunuévov card Tro péaov, ws of ohaxes),
Athen. VIII. p. 329,
dirt0ywvatés. Cp. Cic. Zuse. Iv. 11. 25 similiterque ceteri morbi...ut
mulierositas, ut ita appellem eam, quae Graece ¢idoyuvia dicitur, etc. The
sing. is diAoyuvns (see L. and S.).
191 BE ¢0avBpol. The word here has the bad sense noted in Hermog,
de id. 111. p. 324 W. ryv yap dxodaciav BovdAera viv Snmov onpaivew Kai rd
porxeverOa. Somewhat different is the force in Soph. fr. 1006 N. (Hermog.
Rhet. 111. p. 324) cai 6 Zopoxdrys 8€ Pirav8pev wou rHv ’Araddvrny ‘ele bia Td
doratecOa avy avdpaow eiva: and Eur. Androm. 229; while in Ep. Titus ii. 4
pAav8pia is a virtue.
ix tobrov...ylyvovrat. I follow Badham and Hug in rejecting these words
as an adacript derived from the context (a view already suggested by
Hommel). Badham writes, “si altero praedicato opus esse credidisset Plato,
quod aegre adducar ut credam, aliquanto pulcrius orationem variasset quam
yeyovacr in yiywovra, mutando.” The three-fold repetition sounds clumsy,
yovaixds tprpa, z.e. a section of the yuvy édy (“Doppelweib”) of 191 8,
Similarly below dppevos rujpa refers to the dvnp ddos (“Doppelmann”). With
the theory of sex-characters here expounded, cp. Hippocr. de diaet. 1. 28 ff.
at éraplorpun. Timaeus érapiorpia- ai xadovpevar rpiBddes. Cp, Clem.
Alex. Paed. 111. 21, p. 264.P. yuvaixes av8pi{ovrar mapa picw yapovpevai re
kal yapotoa yuvaixes: and Ep. Hom. i. 26.°
 64 TAATQNOS [191 5
yévous yiyvovtar. bao. S€ adppevos Tuma Ela, Ta Appeva bid-
a

Koval, Kal TEWS pev AV Taides WoW, ATE TEeWaXLa 6YTA TOD AppeEVos,
192 dirobor tovs dvopas Kal yalpovar cuyKaTtaxeipevor Kal ouprre-
Treypévot ToIs avdpact, Kal elo ovTOL BéEATLCTOL TOV Taldwv Kai
petpaxtwv, ate avdpedtatos dvtes puaet. act dé dy Twes avtovs
dvatayvvtous elvat, pevdouevor’ ov yap Um’ avavoxuvtias TovTO
Spacw arr’ bro Odppovs Kai avdpelas Kai appevwrias, TO GpuoLov
avtots domatouevor. péya dé Texunprov' Kat yap TerewUeEvTes
movor atoBaivovow eis Ta TONITLKA avdpEs Of TOLOUTOL. é7rELdar
B Sé avdpwOdar, Tarvdepactodcr Kai Tmpos yapous Kai matdorrotias ov
mposéyouat Tov vouv pvael, GXAA vio TOU vdmov avayKafovTat
191 E (dppeves) dppevos Bast réws: ews Ast Sz. Tepaxia om. Stob.
192 A otro (oi) Hommel Sz. Tav peipakioy Stob. de bn: 57 Stob.
ovte yap Stob. —_avrois yulg. B dvce...avayxafovra del. Hag aAXa...
avayxa¢ovra del. Jn. Sz.

teas av. “Ig. €ws av, gquamdiu” (Ast). As this use is unique in Plato,
Ast proposed to write éws av. In 191B réws has its usual force, adhue.
reudyia. “Slices”: this recalls the comparison with Wirrat, téuaxos being
used esp. of fish.
ovykaraxe(pevor. An example of this is Alcibiades: see his own account
in 217 p ff.
192 A dv8peoraro. An allusion, as Hommel remarks, to the ambiguity
of the word avdpeios. Cp. Hippocr. de diaet. 1. 28 iv pev ody és dpoeva Ta co@para
adroxpiévra audorépwv Tixy...yivovra: otro. avdpes Naprpol Tas Wuxas Kal TO
oGpa ioxupoi.
gacl...rives. Cp. what Pausanias says in 1824 (@ore tTiwas rodpav
Néyerv KTA.),
Gppevwrlas. Etym. M. s.v. appevwrds: 6 appevos mpocwmov éywyv, Kata
auvexdoxnv. your 6 avdpeios Kai ioyupos cai duvduevos mpos €xOpov ayti-
raxOnva. The subst. is dm. Aey., but the adj. occurs in Laws 8025 rd 5)
Heyadomperes ovv Kat TO THY mpos avdpelay pérov appevwrov garéov eivat.
Rettig regards all these apparently encomiastic terms as ironical.
tedewOéyres. “ When grown up,” cp. Rep. 377 B, 466 5.
avSpes 18 predicative: ‘Such as these, and they alone, turn out men (de.
manly, capable) in public affairs”; Ficinus wrongly renders “cum adoleverint,
soli ad civilem administrationem conversi, yiri praestantes evadunt”; and
Schleierm. also goes wrong. For the connexion between the paederastic
temper and politics, cp. 182c, Ar. Vub, 1093, £g. 333 ff, etc.
av8pw0dor.. This verb is not found elsewhere in Plato: cp. Hat. 1. 123,
Eur. A. Ff. 42,
192 B oioe...dvaykdfovrar. Hug, on quite insufficient grounds, expunges
these words. It is true that there was, so far as is known, no daw at Athens to
enforce matrimony, though there was such a law at Sparta, according to Stob,
(Serm. 65 p. 410) and Pollux (vir. 40), by which citizens were liable to a
192 p] ZYMITMTOZION 65

arr’ €Eapxel avtois pet adrAnAwY KaTalhy ayawous. TavTws wev

’ , > a ’ tal , ’ , lol ,

* © a
ovv 0 ToLodTOS TradEepacTys TE Kal PirepactHs yiyveTat, del TO
\ , ’ A a
Euyyeves aomalopevos. Otay pev ody Kal avT@ exelv@ evTVYN TO
avTov mice: Kal 0 Taivepactys Kal GAXOS Tas, TOTE Kal OavpacTa
re ve NGS \ Lal

’ ’ / \ 5h ld NY THD? ’ Qs €
EXTANTTOVTAL Pidla TE Kal OLKELOTHTL Kal EpwTL, OVK EOEXOVTES, WS C
mos evmety, ywpllecOar adrnd@v ovdSe GuLKpoV ypovov. Kal ot
Mv ’ a , 2 ‘ » \ \ 4 \ €

diateXodvTes pet GAAHAwY bia Biov ovTOL Eicuy, of ovd av Eyovev

a Sas. « >

etrety 0 TL Bovrovtar odio. Tap’ addnArAwv yiyverOat. ovdevi yap

> cal 4 , I , , / ,’ \ \

av dd£feve TovT’ eivas 1) TOV dppodiciwy Guvovata, ws apa ToUTOU

bal / a 9 ss A /

évexa ETEpos ETEpW Yaipes Evv@v ovTws eri peyaAns o7roVdhs'

iA ~ / lol

> ’ ¢ :
GN’ adXo TL Boudopevyn Exatépou 17) Yruyn dyAN €aTiv, d ov dvvaTat
192 B ayapous odor: Stob. pev ovy (post drav): pévro: Sauppe: pev Sz.
kal om. Stob. davpacrorar’ Bdhm. C exmAnrrovra T: éxmdnrrovra B
(émt) cpixpov Stob. ovdevi Stob., Bt.: ovdéy BTW: ovde rece., J.-U.
érép@: éxatép Stob. xaipe. T: yaipew B D_ 7 Yvyn éxarépov Stob.

ypapy ayapiov (or d:ryapiov). But, as Hommel notes, vdpuos covers not only
law but custom; and it appears that “certain disabilities attached, at Athens,
to the state of celibacy; those who entered public life, as pyropes or orparnyol,
were required madoroeiobar cata rovs vopous (Deinarch. c. Demosth. p. 99
§ 72)”: see Smith D. A.1.43a,. And it is to be noticed that it. is precisely
public men who are spoken of in the text. The antithesis dice: )( vopeo
derives from the Sophists (Hippias v. Protagoras), see my Philebus p. xxvill 7.,
Adam &. 7’. G. pp. 279 ff, Gomperz @. 7’. 1. pp. 401 ff.
irepaots. This applies to the epapevos; cp. the use of @iAepacria in
213D. Those who are maidepagrai in manhood were gidepacrai in boyhood
(dtAover ros avdpas 1918), so that the words here are put in chiastic order,
as Stallb. observes. Hommel absurdly suggests that m. re xai gidepaotns may
denote “virum qui neque alios vituperet amatores puerorum, et ipse pueros
amet.” The point is also missed by Riickert’s “amicorum amator,” and
Wolf’s “sodalium amator.”
avte...nploe. This refers to 191 D, (nrei 51 dei ro abrod EvpBorov.
G\Xos mds. This is a short way of referring comprehensively to the
segments of the other 6a, viz. the androgynous and the “ Doppelweib”
(191 D, E).
Savpacta ékrdyrrovrat krA. Cp. 211 D.
192 CG ds éos elareiv. This qualifies the negatives in the clause, like
paene dixerim: “Barely consenting to be sundered for even a moment.”
kal of SiareXobvres xrA. “It is these who continue in fellowship their
life long although they could not so much as say what gain they expect
from one another.” Schleierm. misses the force of otro. by making it direct
antecedent to ot (‘diese sind es welche” etc.). For the thought of this
passage, cp. 181D, 1838, Phaedr, 254a ff., 255 5 ff.
She ar are ie
rovrov tveka, 2.€. THs TaY app. gvvovolas Evexa.
B. P. 5
 66 TTAATQNOZ {192 D
y a \ , a , \ . 7 \= 23 ’ a
el7ety, GAAG pavrevetas 6 BovAETAaL Kal aVITTETAL. Kal El aVTOIS
€v TO aUT@ KaTaxeipévos éerictas 0” Hpasotos, éywv Ta opyava,
“ ce \ wv

/ 2 Y ©. os 5) by ,
éporto' Ti &c@ 6 Bovrecbe, & avOpwrot, viv rap addrAnrdwv
yevéoOat; L
Kai ei atropodyTas avTovs Tad Eporto
\ ry ge) a > \ / ” A aN
pa ye Tovbe
,
08

emOumeire, €v TO AUTO yevéed Oat 6 TL wadioTa aANoOLS, WATE Kal

> lal ’ A > tel fe cA / > / A ‘

, \ ¢ 4 A oJ ' ’ , > \ ,
VUKTAa Kal Nuépav pn arrodeiTecOar GAAnAWY; EL Yap TOUVTOU
E émiOupeite, €0éX\w vas cuvtAEar Kai cuppvojaat els TO avo,
lal la lal fol fol > \ ’ /

@ate
v4
dv’‘> dvtas eva
ce
yeyovévat
/
kal \ Ews
ra
T > avA
CATE,
lol
ws€ Eva oe
OrTa,
”

Kown aupotépous Civ, kat érrevdav atroOavnte, éxet av ev“ Adou

al b) / a ‘ by \ ? / > tal Lee es ef

avtt dvow éva elvar Kown TeOvedte’ GNX OpaTe EL TOUTOUV EpaTE
> \ al o C2 a a a > |a eee) > A a, A

kai e€apxed vuiv av TovTov TYynTe’ Ta’Ta aKovoas iopev 6TL

aA tal A > ,

ovd dv els eEapynOe’n ovS addro Tt dv havein Bovropevos, aAN

ATEXVS OloLT Av AKnKoévat TOUTO O Tada dpa eTEOU MEL, cVVEAO@Y
2 A ” 2K > / r a , ” 2 ' \

Kai ovvTaKels TO Epwpévw ex dvoiv els yeverOat TovTO yap éoTt

a / lal lal

TO aittov, OTL 7) apxXaia pvats nuav jv attn Kal nywev OAOL* TOD
/ a St 4 a

193 drov
/
ody THA emiOvpia, Kal \ dudEer Epws dvowa. Kal mpd \ Tod,A waTrEp
eyo, EvAY
nuev,
¥:
vuvi dé dia THY abixiav SipxicOnpev Uo \ Toda Beod,a
192D 6édo B E ovpdvojoa BTW: cupdhica b t, vulg. (nre ws
T: (ntnceas B GAXo ore TW rovto 6: tov ov Bdhmn. TouTou ‘yap
Ficinus Bast: rovrov dp’ Wolf 193 A SiaxicOnpev: StverxicOnpev
Cornarius vo: ard Hommel

192 D_ xal el...4poiro. The apodosis to this duplicated protasis is to be

found in iopey 6re xrA. (1928). For Hephaestus and his tools, see Od. vit.
266 ff, esp. 274 ev 8S Ber axpobérw péyav axpova, komte Te Seapovs | dppyxtous
advtous opp’ euredov avi pévovey. He would also have his bellows (@icaz),
tongs (rvpaypa), and hammer (odipa, paornp): see L/, xviii. 372 ff., 474 ff
192E cvvryta. Cp. 183 £, Zim. 43.4 wuxvois youpos EvytnKovres: Eur,
fr. 964 maca yap ayaby yurn, | f ris avdpi owvrérnxe, owppoveiv émiarara. For
tyxew of the effects of love, cp. Theocr. id. 1. 66; Xen. Symp. vu. 3.
cupdvoyjoa. Stallb., Hommel and Jowett retain the vulgate, cundicat,
but the other lection gives a better sense—‘‘to weld together,” conflare:
cp. J7. xvui. 470. There is a ref. to this passage in Arist. Pol. m1. 4.
1262” 11 xaOdrep év rots épwrixois Adyous trpev A€yovra Tov Apiaroparny ws
Trav epavtav Sia To opoddpa prety eriOvpovvt@y cuppdvat kai yevéaOa ex Svo
dvrwv apnporépous eva (Newman here reads oupdujva), but the word cvudiva
is probably due to a reminiscence of 191 a. For the sense, ep. Orph. Fr. 139
mapnyayev...TOV "Epora, évorroiy bvra Tov boy.
rov odov...dvopa. This definition sums up the description of Eros given in
191 D ad init.
193 A SipxloOnpev xrA. This is apparently a reference—in spite of the
audacious anachronism (cp. Jntrod. § virt.), to the diocxcopds of Mantinea in
193 c] ZYMTIOSION 67
, ? t € \ / , \ \
kabatrep ‘Apxades vd Aaxedaimoviwv. oBos obv éotw, éav pn
KOOMLOL
t
Wmev
32
pdsN) TOSNs Beovs,
,
dTrws
va
gy \ Kal \ adlis
x2
dScacyicOnao-Ue
weOa, Kai Tepliimev Exovtes BoTep oi ev Tais oTHaLs KaTaypadyy
/ o lal

exteTuT@pevol,
bd t
SiatremTplapevot KaTa \ Tas pivas,
a
yeyovotes Borep
7

/ bd A f ia , ’ Ld \ Wa
Momat. adda TovTwy évexa TavT dvdpa xpn imavta Trapake-
NevedOar evoceBety epi Oeovs, va Ta péev exdiywuev, Tav bE
Uy ’ tal \ , ts \ \ > / lal \

TUy@pmEV, wS 0 “Epws nyuiv nyeu@v Kal otpatnyos. © pmdels

‘ ¢ / fal

’ ' , , 4 -
evayvTia TpaTTéeTo—TpaTTet & evavtia, daTLs YEeois atrexOaverar—
hiroe yap yevopevoe kal dvadrrayévtes TO Dew eEevpyoopev Te Kai
f \ t \ / lal a b / / \

> , = a a / SR K a A
evtevEopea tois tmradixols Tots Hpetépous avtay, 6 TOV Viv dréyot
Tovar. Kal wn wot UToXNaBn 'Eputipayos, kouwdav Tov Aoyor,
a \ t © , Le / a \ ,

ws Ilavoaviay cal’ Ayabova XNéyw* tows pev yap Kai oUTOL TOUTwY
e ’ \? / / 2 vw \ \ \ a /

TuyxXavovol OvTEs Kal Eioly aupoTEpor THY pUaLY appeves* éyw

, ‘3! ‘

193 A LE se : Stacxynrdnowpeba B katraypapy Schneider :

Kata ypadjy Ruhnken Svarempiopevoar T: OES I Re B: 6dixa
mempiopnévor Ruhnken dmavre Hirschig Sz. B_ os BT: dy rece. vulg.,
Herm, J.-U.: fort. dco juTopors avtr@v Bast po. B: pou T yap
kal: yap Wolf © dppevos Bast: appevos évéds Orelli

385 B.c., for which see Xen. Hell. v. 2. 1 ff. éx S€ rovrov KaOnpéOn peév rd Teiyos,
di@xioOn S€ ) Mavtiveia rerpaxn xaOamep TO apxaiov @kovy (i.e. Kara K@pas):
Isocr. Pan. 674: Arist. Pol. 11. 2, § 3.
Katraypagyv. Many editors divide the word xara ypapny. Probably
whichever reading we adopt the meaning is the same, “in profile,” the figures
being bas-reliefs (erusta). Cp. Plin. xxxv. 34 hic catagrapha invenit, hoc est
obliquas imagines.
domep Moma. These are duarempiopévor dorpayador (Schol. ad loc., Suidas),
like the cvpBorov of 191 D: cp. Ar. Ran. 826, Schol. ad Eur. ded. 610.
193 B ds 6 “Epws. The Bodleian’s os, though doubtful, is possible.
Perhaps the variants arose from an original dow or év 6.
mparre...amex@averar. This may contain an allusion,as Usener suggests,
to some familiar verse such as, e¢.g., mparre: 8 evavri’ ds Oeois amnyGero.
py pot vroddBy. This is one of three cases in Plato of “yw with the
(independent) subjunctive implying apprehension coupled with the desire to
avert the object of fear,’—the other cases being Luthyd. 2720, Laws 8615
(see Goodwin G. M. T. § 264).
kopwdav tav Aoyov. “ Ridiculing my discourse,” cp. 189 B: so értxwpwddr,
Apol. 31p. As Hug observes, A. is really xopodev himself when, in comic
contrast to the picture drawn of Agathon-in 7esm. 31 ff., he here suggests
that he is tiv pvaw dppny.
193 C eporepon- -Gppeves. “H. e. appevos évos” Stallb. As Wolf (like
Stallb.) says, dppeves ryv piow means “mares origine, tunpara ‘seu Tepaxia
tov dppevos,” and implies further, as Rettig notes, “mares natura, geborene
Piiderasten.”
5—2
68 TAATQNOS [193 c
8é obv éyarye Kal’ arravtwyv Kal avdpav Kai yuvaiKay, OTL ovTwS
\ = ” ae , \ ? a . a a 4

av judy TO yévos eVOaspmov yevorTo, EL ExTEAETALWEV TOY EpwTa Kal

a , ? yv A

Tov Tadicay Tov abtod ExacTos TUYoL Eis THY apyaiay aTredOwv
a rn lal a / \ 2

dio. ei b€ ToUTO apioTov, avayKaioy Kal Tay viv TapoVYTwY TO

n n A a / ‘

TovToU éyyuTaTw apioTov elvar: TovTO 8 éotl madixov Tye

lal ? lal r

Kata voov avT@® tmepuxotwv: ob 87 Tov aitiov Oedv tpvodvTes

duxaiws dv buvotwev "Epwta, os év Te TH TapovtTs Nuas TrEloTA
r a ~ / nr lal

ovivnow eis TO olKxeloy aywv, Kal eis TO ETEerTa éATribas peyioTas

a \

TAPEXETAL, NUBY Trapexouevwy pos Geos evoéBerav, KaTacTHAAs

an : \

nas els THY apyalav dvaw Kal lacdpevos paxapious Kal evdai-
a /

povas Troinoat.
Odtos, éfn, & 'Epukipaxe, 0 éuos Aoyos €ati mepl “Epwros,
, ¢ Fs

b) a Ky / 1 Lf ? / \ / Cane
adrOloS H 0 GOS. WaTrEP oUY édenOnv cov, pn Kwp@Monons avTor,
iva Kal TOV AOLTa@Y akovowpeyv Ti ExacTos épel, waAXov Sé Ti
éxadtepos: “Ayd0wv yap Kai Lwxparns Rovtrol.
e s ’ id Ni \ , ,

193 © amedOav: éraveXMOav Mehler Naber routro & T: rovrovy 8 B

D *Epera del. Voeg. aC ihe Gra, 18} npav...evcéBecavy del. Voeg.
mouoev Hirschig E Aorot (udvor) Naber

dmedOov. “Returning,” “being restored to”: so, perhaps, amnpev mpos TO

Gotu Rep. 327 B; cp. madw ameéva Phaedr, 227 8, etc. Hence Mehler’s
eravedOov is superfluous.
dpvotvres...tpvotpev. Cp. 184D trnperay driody Sixaiws Gv tmnpereiv xrX.:
and Agathon’s eho of the word (épupvovyra) in 197 5.
193 D els 76 olketov. Cp. Charm. 163 D éti ra olkeia Te Kai Ta avTov ayaba
xadoins: ftep. 5868. Possibly there is an intentional echo in the word of
SiwxicOnpev, as used in 193 a.
édrr(Sas p. wapéxerar. Cp. 179 8B faptuplay mapéxerac: Xen. Symp. EVs (258
For the aor. infin. (without dy) after a verb of “hoping,” cp. Phaedo 678
(Goodwin G. M. T. § 136). Notice the rhetorical care with which this
peroration echoes (laédpevos...evdaipovas) the exordium (larpos...evdamovia,
189 D) ; also, in evoéBecay we have an echo of ev’oeBeiv, 193 4 ad fin.: and the
emphasis on lagduevos (with "Epv&imaye in the next line) should not be
missed.
GdAotos 7 6 cos. This serves to emphasize, by repetition. the statement
made by A. in 189 © (addy yé w7...Aéyeev KTA.).
aoep oty éerOnv cov. See 189 B, 193 B.
193 E ri éxdrepos. A. corrects himself with a precision worthy of
Prodicus, the comparative form being more proper than the superlative
(€xagros) in speaking of two only. Observe that Aristodemus (the narrator)
should have spoken next after Eryx., but is here ignored ; to have represented
him as a chief speaker “ ware auch nicht richt passend gewesen” (Zeller).
194 4] SZYMITOSION 69
XVII. °AdAA retcopai cor, pn Pdvar tov ‘EpvEimaxyov: Kai
yap pou 0 Adyos 7S€ws eppyjOn. Kal et py Evvydn S@xpares re Kal
’
Ayd0av
,
Sevvolsa obar
2
mepl \ TaNi Epwtixd,
b id
wavy
a
dv
vn
epoBovpnv
) he
py\
atopyjawar Aoyav bia TO TOAAG Kal TavTodaTa eiphabar: viv dé
duws Pappa. Tov ody Ywxparn elrreiy Karas yap avros Hyywvicat, 194
&
@ “Epvéivaye: ef 5é yévoro od viv éyw elt, wadrov dé lows ov
a) / > tN / a lel > , > cal Ni” 3 2

Ecomat, emecdav kal ’AydOwv elirn ed, Kal wad av hoBoio Kat év
193 BE fuvndn Cobet: fuvydSev libri aropnowot T: amopnow B
194 A ov viv B tows ov B: od tows Sz.: ot Jn. ed, kai pan’ distinxi
auctore Vahlen: 3 cai pad’ BT, Bt.: ed wad’ Hirschig Sz.: cai pad’ Verm.

kal yap...éppndn. ‘“ Indeed I was quite pleased with your discourse” : hence,
Eryximachus could “let off” Aristophanes (cp. 189 ¢ icws...d@now ae). 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 blos an die lustige Aussenseite derselben
gehalten ” (Rettig).
el py EvvySy «7A. For this construction with fvvoda, cp. Prot. 348 B iva
TOUTM pev TadTa guvedaper (with Adam’s note); Phaedo 92D, Apol. 34 B.
advv av époBotpnv. For the imperf. here (in an unfulfilled condition) as a
primary tense, cp. Theaet. 143 &(Goodwin G. M. T. § 172).
194 A Kadds...nydvicar. This implies that the various encomiasts are
engaged in a rhetorical contest (ayav): “ your display in the competition was
a fine one.”
el 8 yévoro xrA. Cp. Ter. Andr. 11. 1. 9 tu si hic sis, aliter censeas. For
padrov d€ icws (rashly altered by critics) cp. Rep. 589 p, Ar. Vesp. 1486, and
see Vahlen Op. Acad. I. 494 f.
éreSav xrA. Notice the élaborate courtesy, not devoid of irony, with
which S. treats Agathon, who evidently is a man with a taste for flattery.
Since the combination ed «ai pada is open to suspicion, the regular forms
being either ed pada (Gorg. 496 ©, etc.) or cai wada (Phaedr. 265 A, etc.), I
adopt the punctuation suggested by Vahlen. Other critics have proposed to
eject either the xai or the ed: it would be equally easy to alter ed to ov, or
transpose to cal ev. The text, punctuated after cin, has been construed
(1) as “plenius dictum pro ed pada” (Stallb.), the «ai connecting pada with
ed (Hommel), or (2) as ed pada with xai, corresponding to the following xa,
interjected (so Ast); but neither of these explanations is tenable. In favour
of construing ed with ein may be cited ed épotvros three ll. below and ed épet
198 a: for the order, cp. Rep. 613B daa dv Oéwow ed: Laws 805 8B, 913 B (see
Vahlen Op. Acad. 1. 494ff.): add Thuc. 1. 71. 7 mpos rade Bovdreterde et,
Kal KTA,
éy waytl elns. ‘ You would be at your wits’ end,” im summa consiliz inopia
(Ast). Cp. Zuthyd. 301 a év mavri éyevounv imo dropias: Rep. 5798; Xen.
Hell. v. 4.29. Cp. the use of ravtoios eivat (yiyverOat).
70 TAATQNOE [194 4
mavtl eins @omep éym viv. PDappatrew Bovr pe, @ Lwxpares,
a 4 ? ,

elrreiy Tov “AydOwva, Wa OopvBnOe dia TO olecPar TO OéaTpov

lal A \ \ \ /

/ , ”
mpocdoKkiay peyarnv exe wsc e0G53)€povvToS
n > a
épov. KR oe
TANT LOY
pevtav elnv, © “Ayadwy, eitreiv Tov LwKpaty, eb Lowy THY ONY
A ” ee) 4 2 a \ > , > a \ \

avépelav Kai peyaroppocvynv avaBaivovtos émt tov oxpiBavTa

x ’ Ui

peTa TwV vrroKpitav, Kai Br?yravtos évavtia TocovTw OGeaTpy,

a A ‘ / 4 ‘

pérrovtos érrideiEecOar cavTov AOyous, Kal OVS oTwWaTLODY €EK-

lal fa ‘\ 7 € lal >

TrayEevTos, vov oinBeinv ce OopuBnOncecOar Evexa Nu@v oduyov

a / / 4 e Cea ? ie

avOporwv. Ti &é, 6 Xwxpates; Tov Ayabava fhavat, ov by Tov

, / > / ,

194B axpiBavraB eredeiEacba T dopvBncec

bac TW av dn
mov Cc). Steph.

Pappdrrev B. pe “To cast a spell-upon me.” Extravagant praise was

liable to cause nemesis and the evil eye: cp. Phaedo 95 B pn péya Aéye, py Tes
nui Bacxavia repirpén Tov Aoyor Tov péAXAOvTa Eyer
Oa (with Stallb. ad loc.):
Virg. Eel. vit. 27, and the Latin terms fascinum, mala lingua. For dapparrev,
cp. Meno 80 A yonrevers pe kai papparrers. Both here and in Meno l. c. the
phrase may be reminiscent of Gorg. Hel. 15 of 8€ trav Adywv mecBot tive Kak7
Thy Wuxyny epappdxevoay kai eLeyonrevoay.
7d Oarpov. ‘The house,”—rather absurdly applied to the small gathering
of banqueters, but A. is still full of his recent triumph in the 6éarpov proper
and readily takes up the idea that he is again engaged in a literary ayy (cp.
nyevioa, 194A n.).
*EmAncpov. Cp. Ar. Vub. 129 yépwv dv xamincpev kat Bpadvs, AS
Hommel notes, the word is ‘“senum decrepitorum constans epitheton.”
Socrates applies it to himself also in Prot. 334 ©, D.
TH ojv...avaBalvoyros. For the construction, cp. Ar. Ach. 93 (éxxowete...)
tov ye cov (d6pOarpov) rov mpéaBews. See Mady. Gir. Syntax § 67.
194 B él rdv dxp(Bavta. It seems to have been usual for the poet, as well
as the players and choreutae, to appear before the audience, wearing crowns
but not in costume, at the rpoaywy of the great Dionysia held in the Odeum
of Pericles on the 8tl of Elaphebolion: see Aesch. 111. 67 (Schol.), Ar. Vesp.
1109 (Schol.). The dxpiSas was apparently a platform (Bjua, cp. Jon 535 k)
in the Odeum, and not, as formerly supposed, the Noyeiov or stage in the
theatre itself (cp. Smith D. A. 11. 813 b, 818 b): Schol. dxpiS8avra: rd doyeiov,
ep’ ob of tpaydol nywvitovro. ties dS€ KAN Barta tpioxedy Haciv, ed’ od
ioravrat oi Umoxpiral Kai Ta ex perewpov Aéyouow. Another meaning of dxpiBas
is a painter’s “easel.”
péddXovtos ériBelEeoOar.. The force of pédAovros is seen when we remember
that the dvaBaoi of the poets took place at the mpoayav, before the actual
performance of the play. For émideixvuoda of theatrical displays, ep. Ar.
Ran. 771 ore dn xarndO Evpiridys, eredSeixvuto trois RwmodSvtas «rr. With
Agathon’s self-assurance cp. Isocr. Paneg. 43.C pixpov tmép euavtod Apacvva-
pevos...Tomoopat Tovs Aoyous.
194 D] ZYMITMOZION 71
Me oT Oeadtpov peotov rye, Wate Kal ayvoeiv btu vobv eyovTe
Ortyor Eudpoves TorAdraY adpovov PoBepwrepor; Od pevtdv Karas C
Towinv, pavar,® 'AydOwv, wept cov te eyo aypoixov S0Fdfwv:
GX’ ed olda, Stu ef Tic evtTdyxous ods Hyoio coos, wadXov
dv avtav gpovritois 4 Ta&v ToANBV? GANA pm OY OTOL
nets @pev—npeis pev yap Kal éxel twaphwev Kal nuev Tov
ToAX@v—el dé aAXOLS EVTVY OLS copois, Tay’ av aioyvvoto auTouvs,
el Tt tows oloto aioypov dv Troveiv: 4} mas rNéyers; "AXNOH Aéyers,
gpavar. Tods S€ roddods ove av alaydvo.o, ef TL olovo aicypovD
move; Kat tov Paidpov &pn vrodaBovta eirreiv 0, pire’ Ayabor,
€av arroxpivn Lwxpares, oddev tv Sioicer adt@ omnodv Tav evade
oTLoby yiyverOar, édv povov éyn btw Svadéyntat, GrArAws Te Kal
Karo. eyo 5é ndéws péev dxkovw Ywxpatous Siadeyouevou, avary-
xatov dé por eripernOhvar Tod éyxwpiou TO” Epwre xai arodéEac
Oat
194 C ava rov Swxparn vulg. @Xos: add’ Bdhm. tows secl. Sz.
Bt.: mos cj. Usener: fort. transp. post ray’ dv bv secl. Wolf: dy cj. Bt.
D otcro B. ylyvera Mdvg.

ottw Ocatpov perrdv. This means “theatri applausu inflatum esse”

(Stallb.); rather than ‘“stage-struck,” cp. Themist. 26. 311 B; Synes. de
provid. 105 B earpov kai ayopas am\notos.
194C oddav ddpovwv. As Wolf observes, “ein feines Compliment fiir das
Parterre in Athen.” But such a lofty contempt for the bourgeois of the pit
and gallery is quite in keeping with A.’s position as the artistic aristocrat.
If Aristophanes flatters his public on their codia (as in Ran. 1109 ff.), it is
obvious that he does so with his tongue in his cheek. Cp. Laws 659 a,
otre yap mapa Oedrpou Set tov ye adnOn Kpirny Kpivew pavOavovta.
mepl cov tt éya. “Nota vim pronominum...: de te, viro tanto tamque
insigni, ego, homo vilis” (Hommel). For dypotxos, cp. 2188, Laws 8804
Theaet. 174D dypotxoy b€ cai araidevtov...yiyverOat.
py 0dx...dpev. For Platonic exx. of wy or py od in “cautious assertions or
negations,” see Goodwin G. M. 7. § 265.
Bddors...copots. Not “other wise men” but “others who are wise”
(se. unlike us).
tews. This word is probably genuine. Possibly, however, it should be
transferred to a place before, or after, ray’ dv (for the combination ices ray’
av, cp. Tim. 38», Laws 676 ©, ete.; Schanz nov. comm. p. 14). The dv after
alcypsv is sufficiently confirmed by Rep. 4250, Phaedo 774 (see Vahlen,
Op. Acad. 1. 496 f. on the whole passage).
194 D ov&ty eri Stolce...ylyveoOar. For Socrates as Gidddoyos, see Apol.
38 a, Phaedo 61#; and for his “ cramp-fish” style of dialectic, Laches 187.
BdrAws re kal kako. For Socrates as didoxados, cp. 213, 216 D: it is a
mark of the épwrikos.
 72 TAATQNOS [194 D
map évos éxdotov Uuav Tov AOyoY: aTrodous ody ExaTEpos TH Gew
ae \ € / € a \ (i ’ 6 \ = € , lel fal a

a , s a r \
E ovtws dn SiareyéoOw. ‘Adda Karas Aéyers, 6 Paidpe, Pavar Tov
"Ayadwva, cal ovdév pe K@AVEL Nye’ YwKpater yap Kal adOis
/ , \ x; a

éotat TodXakis dlaréyer Oat.

a

XVII. "Eyo d¢ 87) Bovropar rp@tov pev eirety ws KpN pE

\ / lal ’ ral e /

elmety, emeita elmeiv. SoKovar yap po. TavTEs of TpoTOev ELPNKOTES

a lal lol 4 € Vd >’ ,

ov tov Beov éyxwusaterv, AAA TOvs avOpadmrous evdatpovitery THY

ef \ \ ? ‘ > x \ b) J > ia rn

ayabav av 6 eds avtois aitios: omotos bé Tus avTOs wy TadTa

a a € nw , rot

195 éSwpnaato, ovdeis elpnxev.

3 tg
els d€ Tpomros oOpOos travtos émraivou
’ \ ” \ / >S % \ ? y

Tept TavTos, AOyw SiedOeiy oios @v <olwy> aitios wY TUYyavEL

c Xx vA fo a U

mepl ov av o AGyos 7. oUTw by Tov "Epwra Kai judas Sixacov

\ a A ¢ , ? A ‘ \ w \ € n ,

emawéca mp@Tov avTov olos éotw, éTELTa Tas doce.

lal } \ v \ /

Dyyul ovv eyo Travtwv Gedy evdatpovav dvtwv “Epwta, ei Oéuts

S a > \ / lal > / wv vp > /

Kal ave“éontoy eimety, evdatpovéotatoy elvat avT@Y, KaXALOTOV

Ve A / Sf > lal VA

194E os BTW: jvulg. emaweiv, éreir’ eraweiv Hirschig 195A dpéos

om. T mavros om, Bdhm. otos &v (otwy) scripsi: olos otwy Sz. Bt.:
ots olwy ex emend. T: oios dv BT: oios Sv vulg., J.-U.: ofos dcwy Baiter: ofos
dv (dawv) Voeg.: otos Bdhm. airwos: autos Bdhm.

drodots ovv. Cp. Polit. 267 A cadas Kal kadarepet xpéws amédwxas pot Tov
Adyov: Rep, 612 8B, C; 220 D infra.
194 E mparov pev...trrevra elrretv. Stallbaum, though reading os, punctuates
like Hommel (who keeps the vulgate 7) after the first as well as after the
second eimetv, as if the meaning were “to speak in the way in which I ought
to speak,” which is nonsense. The first eiretvy (=6yAovv) is different in force
from the other two (=Adyov moeicba), the sense being “first to state the
proper method I am to adopt in my oration, and secondly to deliver it.”
Agathon has imbibed a “‘ worship of machinery ”—the machinery of method—
from the fashionable schools of rhetoric.
Soxoto. yap po... Agathon, like the rest (cp. 180 D, 185 ©), adopts the
favourite rhetorical device of criticizing the manner or thought of previous
speakers: cp. Isocr. Busir. 222 B, 2304 ; Hel. 210 B nai pev yap eyxapuoy...
tuyxave. & amodoyiav eipnxas xtd.: Panegyr. 41 B ff, 44.
195A olos dv (otwv), This doubling of relatives is a favourite trick of poets
and rhetors; cp. Soph. Aj. 923 ofos dv olws exes (“mighty and mightily
fallen”), 2b. 557, Trach. 995, 1045; Eur. Alc. 144; Gorg. Palam. 22 ofos dv
ol@ AowWopet: id. Hel. 11 daot d€ doous wepi dowy Kai Ereoay Kal recover.
el Ouis Kal dvenéonrov. For excess in laudation as liable to provoke
vépeots, see n. ON happarrevv, 194.4, For the thought (here and at the end of
A.’s speech) cp. Spenser, H. to Love, ‘Then would I sing of thine immortall
praise... And thy triumphant name then would I raise Bove all the gods, thee
onely honoring, My guide, my God, my victor, and my king.”
195 8] ZTYMIMOSION 73
évta Kal dpiotov. ote 5é KaddXALATOS wy ToOLWWGSe. TpaTOV péV
vewtatos Oedv, & Paidpe. pueya SE Texpnprov TH AOyw adTosB
Tapéxetat, pevywr puyn TO yipas, tTayd dv SHrov btu: OatTov
yobv tod déovtos iuiv mpooépyetar. 6 59 méepuxev "Epws pucety
Kat ovd évtds moAXov TAnaiabew. peta b€ véwy ael Edvveoti TE
Kal‘oy€oTLv* 0¢ yap
\
Tadatos\ oyos
/
edhats
Ever, ws¢ ce“Ouoioy opoiw
¢ , > \
ael
Terabe.” éeya 5&€ Daidpw Tord arrAa oporoyav TodTO ovyY
o“oAoy@, ws “Epws Kpovou nai ‘larrerod apyaotepds éotiv, adda
195 B rév Adywv Stob. (ev) guyn Stob. TAXv...mpouépxetat
del. Heusde ov B: ody T épwros B ov’ évros Stob.: ov Sovros B:
ov8 dvtos T mAnovate T, Stob.: rAnoiater B éare (véos) Sauppe J.-U.
Sz.: émerac Winckelmann Set medatery Stob. dAXa rodAa Hirschig

195 B 6 SaiSpe. Phaedrus is specially addressed because it is his thesis

(€v trois mpeoBuraros 6”Epws 178 A, C) which is here challenged.
péya 8% texprptoy. This serves to echo, and reply to, Phaedrus’s rexpnprov
d€ rovrov 178 B (cp. 192 4). For the attributes youth and beauty, cp. Callim.
HH. It, 36 wai pév det xadds kai det véos (of Phoebus).
devyov pvyy. A poetical mode of giving emphasis. “guy7 pevyew nun-
quam sic legitur ut simplex qevyewv de victis militibus, sed per transla-
tionem, fugientium modo, h. e. omni contentione aliquid defugere atque
abhorrere” (Lobeck Parall. 11. p. 524). Prose exx. are Hpin. 974 B, Epist.
viii. 354 c; Lucian adv. indoct. 16.
Taxi bv...mpocépxerat. Bast, ‘motus dromia 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, @ fortort,
the god who can elude its swift pursuit must be still more nimble. For the
agility of Eros, cp. Orph. H. 58. 1, 2 (xixAyjoxw) "Epwra...eddpopov dppy.
éytés troddov. Cp. Thuc. I. 77 évrés yap moAXov yapiou tis méAews ovK FY
meAdoa. For the sense (abhorrence of age), cp. Anacr. 14. 5 7 d€ (vijvis)...79v
pev euny Kopunv, |AevKy yap, karapéperas TA.
de Evverrl te Kal Yor. Hug adopts Sauppe’s addition (véos), but this
spoils the ring of the clause and it is best to leave it to be mentally supplied:
for the ellipse, cp. 213 © yeAotos gars re kai BovAera. For perd...cvveots, cp.
Laws 639 c ; Plut. de Is. et Os. 352.4 map’ airy cal per avrijs bvta Kal cuvovra.
Sporov spotw. The original of this is Hom. Od. xvil. 218 as dei rov dpoiov
dye Oeds as Tov dpoiov. Cp. 186 B supra, Lysis 214 a, Rep. 3294; Aristaen.
Ep. 1.10: and for a Latin equivalent, Cic. de Senect. 3.7 pares cum paribus,
vetere proverbio, facillime congregantur: so Anglicé, “birds of a feather
flock together.” Similar in sense is 7Aué Pixa répwe (Arist. het. 1. 11. 25).
alSpw. The reference is to 1788. Spenser (H. to Love) combines these
opposite views,—“ And yet a chyld, renewing still thy yeares, And yet the
eldest of the heavenly Peares.”
Kpévov xal *Iamerot dpxatérepds. A proverbial expression to denote the
 74 3 TAATQNOS [195 B
C dnui vewtatov avbrov eivar Gedy Kali dei véov, Ta b€ Tadaa Tpay-
pata Tepi Geos, & ‘Haiodos cal Iappevidns réyouvow, ’Avdyen
x « / ’

kal ovx “Epwte yeryovévas, ef éxetvor adnO7y Edeyov’ ov yap av

\ > wv / > | PR) > lol ». > \ nw

éxtoual ovdé Secpoi adAnrwv éeyiyvovto Kal GdAa OANA Kal

Biaa, ¢¢ "Epws év avtois jv, GdrAa piria Kal eipnvn, waoTrEp VUV,
> a , \ 1 Wa A

€€ ob "Epws tav Gedy Bacirever. véos pév odv éaTi, Tpos 5é TO

D véw amaros: tountod & ati évdens olos nv “Opnpos mpos To
f € ti a 9) Lv: ? \ ie a \ \

émideiEar Oeovd amarotnta. “Opunpos yap “Arnv Oeov té dnow

iva Kal atradnv—tovs yoodv Todas aUTHsS atradovs elvat—éywv
195 © vewrardy re Stob. mpaypara T, Stob.: ypappara B map-
pevidns T: mappeveidns B: Emipevidns Ast el €xeivoe om. Stob. Aéyovow
Stob. eyévovto Stob. D olds rep Fv 6 “Opnpos Stob. Tovs...€ivat
secl. Jn. Sz.: rovs...Baivec secl. Orelli. (pnouv) eivar Stob.

“ne plus ultra” of antiquity : cp. Moeris p. 200 "Iameros: avri rov yépwrv. kal
TiOwvos kat Kpovos’ emi trav yepovtov: Lucian dial. deor. 2.1; Ar. Vub. 398,
Plut. 581. Cronus and Iapetus were both Titans, sons of Uranus and Gé
(Hes. TA. 507), and imprisoned together in Tartarus (//. vit. 479). Iapetus
was father of Prometheus, and grandfather of Deucalion, the Greek ‘“‘ Adam ”:
hence “older than Iapetus” might be rendered ‘“‘ante-preadatite.”
195 C &‘HoloSos xal II. Xéyovorv. These were the authorities adduced by
Phaedrus (178 B). Hesiod relates such wadatt mpaypara in Theog. 176 ff.,
746 ff. ; but no such accounts by Parmenides are extant. Accordingly, it has
been supposed (e.g. by Schleierm.) that A. is mistaken, and Ast proposed to
read "Emmevidns: but cp. Macrob. somn. Scip. 1. 2 Parmenides quoque et
Heraclitus de diis fabulati sunt. If P. did relate such matters in the poem of
which portions remain, clearly (as Stallb. observed) it could only have been
in Pt. II. (“The Way of Opinion”). Cp. Ritter and Pr. § 101 p, “ Generati
sunt deinceps (z.e. post Amorem) ceteri dei, de quibus more antiquiorum
poetarum madaia mpaypara narravit, v. Plat. Symp. 195 ©, Cic. D. Nat. 1.11”;
Zeller, Presocr. p. 596 (E. Tr.); Krische Forsch. p. 111 f. For ’Avayxy in
the cosmogonists, cp. Parmen. 84 K., xparepy yap ’Avaykn | meiparos év dec-
poiow exe, TO pov duis eépyer: td. 138 ds puv ayovo’ éerédnoev "AvayKn:
Emped. 369 gorw ’Avayxns ypnpa Krav.
el...Qheyov. Rettig and Stallb. rightly explain the imperf. as due to the
reference to Phaedrus’s mention of H. and P. (178 B).
Exropal ov& Secpol. Cp. Huthyphro 5 & ff., Rep. 3775 where such tales of
divine immorality are criticized.
195 D dwaddos. Cp. Theogn. 1341 aiat, raids épd dmadoxpoos: Archil. 100
Oadreus dradov xpda: Phaedr, 245 4 NaBotoa dary cat 4Barov Wuxny.
“Opnpos yap. See //. x1x. 92—3. Schol. ridvarat- mpoomedAdler, mpovey-
yicer.
tovs youv...elvar. As Hug observes, the occurrence of cai mooi cai mavrn
below is sufficient to establish the soundness of these words.
196 A] ZYMMOSION 75
THs wévO ararol odes: ov yap em’ ovdeos
a / jie ks t NY

Tidvatal, add’ apa H ye KaT avdpav Kpdata Baiver.

/ ’ > ” / . fal

@ ovv dSoxet mo TEKUNPL@ THY ATradOTHTA aTropatvey, OTL OVK

Kar a = § a T / \ € x / ’ 7 a ’

emt oxdnpod Baiver, arr’ ért parOaxod. Te a’t@ 87 Kal rpeis

> \ fal , ’ ’ cal a a a

Xencw@peba Texunpiw tept “Epwra bri atrados. ov yap éri yis E

/ , ay \ lol

Baiver ovS él Kpaviwy, a éotw ov tdavu padaKka, AXN ev Tots

U > ’ > \ U of ’ > 4 , > ’ ’ a

Hadakwtatos TOY OvTwY Kal Baiver Kal olkel. év yap HOEou Kal
4 al wv > wn

a a 9 i \
Woyais Beav kal avOperav thy olknow iputat, 5
Kal ov« ad éEfs
@

5) , - a ’ > e Ra /
ev Tacgats Tais Wuyxais, AAN’ HTwve dv oxAnpov HOos eyxovon EvTVYN,
ameépyetat, 7 O av waraxor, oixilerar. amrTouevoy ovv ael Kal Troal
? / be 8 Xn ts > ba © / a ALN, \ %

Kal TavTn €v paraKxwTdTols TOV padaKkwTdTwY, aTAaXwWTATOV

\ na

avayKn €ivat.
’ /
vewtatos péev bn éote Kal atadrwratos, mpos b€ 196
2

TOUTOLS UYpOs TO Eidos. ov yap av olos T HY TaVTH TepiTTVAcED Oat

i ¢ \ 3 , 2:

195 D rs BT, Stob.: +7 Aristarchus, Homeri (T 92) codd. ovdeos BT,

Stob.: otSe W, vulg., Hom. codd. midvara ex midvarae T: mydvara B:
meirvatar Stob, prot Soxer Stob. to aito TW, Stob.: 7d avrd B E xp»-
oopeba Stob., vulg. kai (ante Baiver) om. Stob. ééns T: cE ns B €vou-
ki¢erae Naber ev padaxois T. p. Naber admadorarov om. Stob.

195 E decor kal uxais. “In the tempers and souls”: here 740s seems
to be co-ordinate with Wuyn, but below (jG0s exovon, sc. puy7) subordinate,
i.e. A. uses the word loosely with more attention to sound than sense: cp.
Lys. 222.4 xara tiv Woxnv 4 cata re THs WuxAs 700s 4 Tpomous 7 <idos: 183 EB
supra, 2078 infra. Notice also the material way in which #@n and wWoyai are
here conceived: cp. Moschus I. 17 émi orAaxyvas d€ ka@nrac: and the figure in
such a phrase as “the iron entered into his soul.”
kal tool kal wavry. “With feet and with form entire,” “nicht wie Ate
blos mit Fiissen” (Wolf): mavry, like aei, is A.’s own extension of the Homeric
statement.
tv podakxwrdrots trav p. The genitive is governed by dmropevov, and ev
patakwrdros is parallel to év trois (mpecBirarov) 178A: “the most soft of
softest things.”
196 A yedraros...dmaddtatos. Cp. Rep. 377 A véw kal érad@ drwovr.
typos Td elS0s. wtypds, here opposed to oxAnpds, is often used “de rebus
lubricis, lentis, flexibilibus, mollibus” (Stallb.): cp. Theaet. 162B ro d€ 57
vewrépm Te kal Uyporép@ dvre (opp. to oxAnpe@ dvrt) mpoomadaiew: Pind. Pyth.
I. 17 (11) 6 8€ (aieros) kvaoowy vypov vorov aiwpei: Callistr. descript. 3 (of a
bronze of Eros) typos pév fv aporp@v padaxornros. Another sense of vypds, in
erotic terminology, is “melting,” “languishing,” eg. Anth. Plan. 306 én’
dppacw wvypa dedopxos: Anacr. XXVIII. 21: and in hymn. Hom. XVIII. 33 vypos
is an epithet of wd6os. “Supple of form” is the best rendering here. Arist.
G. A. 1. 7. 3 applies typorns (rod caparos) to serpents.—repitricced
Oa is
dm. dey. in Plato, and mainly used in poetry.
76 TAATQNOS [196 a
odbé b:a Taos uxfs Kal eicvmy TO Tp@Tov AavOdvew Kal éEvwv, ec
N a na ,

oKdnpos Hv. cuppetpou dé Kal bypas idéas péya TEKpNpLov 7 EvTXN-

Locurn, 5 dn dSuadepovtas éx TavTwY opororyoupévas “Epws Exet*
, : ”

acynuoauvn yap kal” Epwtt 1pos adXnXous Gel TrOAEMOS. ypoas OE

? , \ \w Ni > / p | / t be

KaAXos
‘
9€ Kat a] avOn
”
Siatta
,
Tova Deodfa} onpuaiver:
,
avavOet
>) tal
yap
\
Kal ~
amnvOnkote Kal copatt Kal Yuy7y Kai ddr OTwodbv ovK eviFer "Epws,
> tg \ , < a \ ow € nm > 92 of: v

ot2 & YOKdv evavOns

? /
te Kal \ evwdns
eye
TOTos
,
7H,
eae?
évTavOa
a
Kai Neyeu Kai \ péver.
,

196 A «ai (ante efaiav) om. W kal vypas secl. Jn. Sz.: cal rpupepas
Verm.: xai d8pas Sehrwald id€as: odcias Stob. Kar’: 4 Kai ta Stob.
Siarra: 87 ra Stob. B ciadns re cai evavOys Stob. évrava (8) Stob., Bt.

ovppérpov...t8as. “Acute vidit Astius cvpperpoy referendum esse ad

mepimtvocecOa. Aroor enim, quia potest madvrn mepirtiacecOa, recte
cuppetpos vocatur. Itaque ne hic quidem audiendus est Orellius qui cvp-
perpos legendum putabat” (Stallb., so too Riickert and Hommel). Rettig
takes ovpperpos to be merely a synonym for typos, supposing that the proof
of the statement typos rd eiSos, which was first stated negatively, is here
being stated positively—“nun hangt cupperpia mit der evoynpootvn zusammen
und ebenso typérns mit cupperpia. Vgl. Legg. vi. 773, Phileb. 663.” On
the other hand Hug, supposing that ovpperpia is introduced as a new attribute
distinct from typorys, follows Jahn in ejecting the words cai typas. Rettig’s
view, adopted also by Teuffel, seems the most reasonable: A., with sophistical
looseness, smuggles in the extra term cvpperpos beside typos in order to
secure the applicability of edocynuooivn. By oupperpia, properly used, is
meant the perfect proportion of the parts in relation to one another which
results in a harmonious whole: see my Phzleb. p. 176. For evoynpoovrn, cp.
Rep. 400c ff.
ék mdvtrey. Cp. Theaet. 171 B é& dmavrav apa...audioSnrncera, “on all
hands, then,...we find it disputed” (so Campbell ad loc., who observes that
“this use of ¢€ has been needlessly disputed by Heindorf and others”). Ficinus
seems to connect é« m. with diad., which is possible but less probable.
xpéas 8 KdAAos xrA. Possibly we have here a reminiscence of some
passage in poetry: ypoas...avn admits, as Hug observes, of being scanned
as a “‘catalectic pentapody ” (like Eur. Phoen. 294). In the repeated mention
in these lines of av@os and its compounds, we may discern an allusion to
Agathon’s tragedy ’AvOevs. Cp. Plato 32 (P. LZ. G. 11.311) atrds & (se. 6 "Epas)
ev Kkadvkecow pddav memednpéevos Umve | cider pedidav: Aleman 38 papyos S
“Epes oia mais maiode...dxp én’ avOn kaBaivwv...7@ xumatpioxw: Simon, fr. 47
Opuret & avOeow, (bre) pédiooa ~EavOov pédi pnSopéva: Eros, like Titania, loves
“a bank where the wild thyme blows” (evodns rémos), and might echo the
song “where the bee sucks, there suck I,” etc. For the negative thought
avavei...ovx evita, cp. Philo de meretr. mere. 11. 264 éLopois yevopévacs (“when
past the flower of their age,” sc. rats éraipais) oddeis Ere mpdoeiow, amouwpar-
Ocions orep tivdv avOav rhs axpuns. For ediodns romos, cp. Phaedr. 230 8.
The description of Eros lying soft in Soph. Antig. 781 ff. is somewhat similar,
196 c] ZYMIMOZION nd
XIX. Tepi pév ody xadXovs Tod Oeod wal tavdO’ ixava Kal ért
TOARA Aeltretat, Tept dé apeths “Epwtos peta tadta rexréov, TO
Mev péyrotov Ott “Epws odt adixet ot’ aSixeitas ob bard Oeod
obte Deov, ovP bm’ advOpdmov ote avOpwrov. ovTE yap avTos Bia
Tacxet, el Te Madaxer’ Bia yap “Epwros ody &mreras: ovtEe TOMY
Tovel’ Tas yap éx@v “Epwre wav vanpetel, & & dv éxwv éxovte
oporoynon, paaly “oi morews Bacidis vowor” Sixara elvat. mpos
196 B ér: dre Stob. ovr’ adicet om. Stob. ovre bev Stob.
avOpa@mrav. ovdé Stob. C rav@ Stob. av BT, Stob.: dv ris vulg.
tev médAewv Stob. (rav om. Stobaei A).

(“Epas) és év padaxais mapeiais | veavidos evyvyevers: cp. Hor. C. rv. 13. 6 ff.
(Amor) virentis...pulcris excubat in genis. Also the echo of our passage in
Aristaen. Ep. 11. 1.
196 B Ilept pev ovv...mept 88 «tA. Cp. Isocr. Pan. 470 mepi pév ody rod
peylorov...ravt eimeiv €xouev. epi d€ Tovs avrovs ypdvous xrAr.: Phaedr. 246 A.
wept 8¢ dperns. In drawing out this part of his theme Agathon follows the
customary four-fold division of dpern into dixaocivn, cwppocivn, avdpeia,
copia. Adam (on Rep. 4278) 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 aperai at an earlier date (see the
rest of the evidence cited by Adam), and a peculiarly Platonic tenet would
hardly be put into the mouth of Agathon. Cp. Protag. 329 ff.; and for a
similar use made of this classification in encomiastic oratory, see Isocr. Hel.
31 ff., Nicocl. 31 ff., 36 ff. (cp. n. on 184 c).
ovr adiket ovr aStketrat. The maxims “love your enemies, do good to
them which despitefully treat you” formed no part of current Greek ethics:
cp. Meno 718 avtn eaotiv dvdpos dpern,...rovs pev idrous ev moreiv, tors &
€xOpovs kaxas: Crito 49B: Xen. Mem. 11. 3. 14; and other passages cited by
Adam on Rep. 3318. See also Dobbs, Philos. etc. pp. 39, 127, 243. Notice
the chiasmus ad:ixet...adicetrat...umd Oeov...dedv.
Bla wdoxe. These words form one notion and are put as a substitute for
adtxeirat, just as mrovet (sc. Bia) below is a substitute for adccet. Cp. Polrt. 280 p
ras Bia mpdfeas. There may be a ref. here to the épwros dvdyxa of Gorgias
Hel, 19.
mwas yap xrA. With but slight modification this would form an iambic
trimeter. Cp. Gorgias ap. Phileb. 584 n rod meiOew odd Siapéper macdv
Texvav: mavta yap vd’ arn dovAa &’ éxdvtwy adW od dia Bias, of which our
passage may be a reminiscence.
196 C &8 dvxrd. The argument is that where mutual consent obtains,
since Bia is absent, there can be no adixia. For a different view of dicacoovvy
see Arist. Eth. NV. v. 9. 1136 32 ff. érepoy yap 76 vouikor Sixatov kat TO mp@rov
xtA.: Orito 528: Xen. Symp. viu. 20.
of 1éAews...vépor. Apparently a quotation from Alcidamas, a rhetor of the
 78 TAATQNOZ [196 c
dé tH Sixarecvyn cwppocvvns TrELaTHS PETEXEL. ElvaL Yap Opo-
fal , te nd \ €

tal / \ cal 58 a Se? fa) a "BR be

oyetTat cwppodvvn TO KpaTely NOovwY Kat ETLOUpLwWY, WLpwTOs o€
pndeuiav dovnv KpeitT@ Elva: ef S€ HTTOVS, KpaToWT av vTFO
\ , LJ > \ dA Sane > nv ig bs

"Epwros, 0 5€ Kpatot, Kpatav dé 7dovayv Kat éribvpiav o "Epws

nc lal a ‘ a Lee) 2

Siahepdvtws dv cwdpovol.iy Kal pv eis ye avdpetav , ”

"Epwrte “ovdPNG
D”Apns avOictatat.” ov yap éxes “Epwra "Apns, add’ "Epos "Apn,
w y | AE A ”

’
Agpobitns, ws oyos' KpEeitT@V de 0 EXwWY TOD EXoMevOoU' TOU
, (3 ¥: /, \ ec »” la) 9. if ‘ fal 8

av&pevotdtov tay aAhwy KpaT@v TwavtTwy av avdpeotatos «in.

lal lal , ee /

mepi pev odv Stxatoovvns Kal cwhpocvvys Kati avdpetas Tov Oeod
\ fi lal la

6 , s \
elpntat, Tepi dé copias Nelrretar: dcov ody dvvaTov, TELpaTéov
€AXeiT EW. Kal mpaTtov pév, iv ad Kal éym THY hueTépay TEXVHY
lal c £ ,

196 C mhreicrov Cobet xparet Stob., Naber: xparoin Bdhm. cawdpovoin

Stob. avdpiav BT D dpnv Stob. “Adpodirns del. Naber dy om. B
wv ad T: ad B: iv’ odv Stob.

school of Gorgias: see Arist. Rhet. 111. 1406" 18 ff. 810 ra "AAKiSdpavtos uxpa
aivera: ov yap ndvopate ypyra add’ ws edéopare Tois emiOéras, oUTw TuUKVOIS
Kat perCdar kal emlOnAots, olov...ovxt vdpous adda To’s TOV moAEwv Bactrels 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 ft; Blass, Att. Bereds.
II. 328,
elvat ydp...cwppootivn. This definition of “temperance” is common to
both scientific and popular morals. Cp. Rep. 389D cadpocivns...airods
(elvat) dpyovras Tv epi morous Kai appodiota Kai wept edwdas ndover (“tem-
perance, soberness and chastity”): 2b. 4305, Phaedo 68c: Antiphon fr. 6
caodpocvvny & advdpos...datis tov Ovyov ras mapaypnua noovas éeuppaccov
Kpareiy Te Kal vixay nOvyndn avros éavrov. See Dobbs op. cit. pp. 149 ff;
Nagelsbach, Vachhom. Theol. pp. 227 ff.
"Epwtos 8 xrA. The argument is vitiated both by the ambiguity in the
use of Eros (as affection and as person) and by the ambiguity in «pare?
7Soveayv, which in the minor premiss is equivalent to earivy 7 Kpatiorn Hdovn.
For similar fallacies, see Huthyd. 276 p ff.; Arist. soph. el. 165> 32 ff. For %pes
as a master-passion, cp. Rep. 572 Eff. Agathon here again echoes Gorgias
(Hel. 6 mépbuxe yap ob 76 Kpeicoov ims Tov Hogovos KaAvEeTOa, AAA TO ooo
bro Tov kpelacovos apxerOat Kal ayerOat KrX.).
ov8’ “Apns avOlorarar. This comes from Soph. (Zhyestes) fr. 235 N. mpds
Thy avaykny ovd "Apns avOicrara. Cp. Anacreontea 27 A, 13 édaBev BéXepvov
(sc. "Epwros) “Apns.
196 Dds Adyos. See Hom. Od. yi. 266 ff, already alluded to in 192.
mdvrov dy...en. Another illegitimate conclusion. By means of a tacit
substitution of the notion dvdpeia for xpdros, it is assumed that 6 xpardy
tov avdpeiov must be dvdpedrepos.
197 a] ZYMTIOZION 79
Timnow ca dé
Wotrep ey
Epv&imaxos tHv avTod, mointys 0
/ A 1% fa) \ £ 0
Jeds copos ot TwsS E
\ ‘ ef

WOTE Kal ANNOY TotRaaL* TAS youY TroUNTHS ylyverTat, “KAY Apmougos
vA \ 2 a A a /

7 TO Tptv, ov av “KEpws dapntat. @& 5 mpéter tas paptupio

S \ Peet) ha bay v vA e \ ‘ € a ie

xpnocacOat, Ste Troimtihs oO” Epws ayabos ev Keparaiw Tacav Troinow

/ fal ca \ tw ? \ > , fal 4

THY KATA povoltKnY’ & yap TLS % pr EXEL wn Oldev, OUT’ Av évéEpw
\ \ e s »

Soin ov’ av addov Sidakeve. Kal wey 87 THY ye TOY CoHwv Trolnow 197
/ ee »”- t \ \ \ / a , y

Tavtwy Tis evavTiM@ogeTat 1 OVY!”Epwros elvar codiav, 7 yiyveTat

, / * / Me

Te Kal dvetar Tavta Ta oa; ara THY TOY TeyVOY SnuLoupyiav

’ ' a n al ,

ovK lopev, OTL oF peév Av Oo Veds odTOS SidaaKaXros yéevnTat, EANOYLWLOS

> v isa 2 X x ¢ \ al , / > /

Kal pavos aréBn, 0b 8 av “Epws pr) epayntrar, oxotewvos ;ToEKHY

ye pap Kal latpixny Kal wavtixny AmrorAXwY avevpev erLOvpias Kal
a /

196 E xévy T: caiB ypnoacda Stob., Blass: ypjobac BT, cet. — rijv...
povorxny del. Sauppe Jn. éxn T. 197 A peév 8) BT: pay dn W: pny
Stob. moinow del. Blass mavres Stob. te om. Stob. ra (@a mayta
Blass ovx del. Blass

196 E dowep Epvé(paxos. See 186 B.

was youv xrA. An allusion to Eurip. (Stheneboea) fr. 663 N. moiunrny &
dpa |”Epws diddoxet, kav duovoos 7 To mpiv. This last phrase had a vogue:
cp. Ar. Vesp. 1074; Menander Com. 4, p. 146; Plut. amat. 17. 762, Symp. 1.
622c; Longin. de subl. 39. 2 (quoted with other passages by Nauck). For
the ditties of a love-sick swain, cp. Lysis 204p. See also Aristid. t. 1. Or. Iv.
p. 30.
Tracay...poveiry. With A.’s bisection of zoinow cp. the analysis of the
notion by Socrates, 205 B infra.
197 A kal pev 8y...ye. , Porro etiam, quin etiam. (See Madv. Gr. Synt.
§ 236.)
*Epwtos...coplav. codiay is here predicate (against Riickert) and stands
for codias épyov. For Eros as “poetic” in this sense, cp. Spenser (H. to Love),
‘“‘ But if thou be indeede, as men thee call, The worlds great Parent.”
try...Snprovpylav. This branch of zoinots is really a distinct kind from
the other two, as not involving invention or creation. For “demiurgic arts,”
see Phileb. 55pff., and for iarpixn as an example Phileb. 564; cp. 1860, D
supra. Op. Isocr. Hel. 2198 (where H. is eulogized as the cause reyvay xai
procopiay kai Tov dAov apedrerav).
daves. ILllustris: Hesych. pavdv: horewwdv kai Naympov: cp. Phaedr, 256 D.
For gods as diddoxadoe and jyepoves (197 E), cp. Isocr. Busir, 229 B—C rovs
Geods...fyyovpat...avtovs Te magas éxovtas Tas aperas Piva Kal rois addows THY
KaANlorwy emitndevpatev nyepovas Kal didacKadous yeyevno ba.
Aréddwv dveipev. For Apollo as the inventor of rofixn, see Hom. U7. 11.
827; of pavrixn, Ll. 1.72; of iarpixn, 190 Eff. supra. See also h. Hom. Apoll.
131 ff.; and for pavrixn in connexion with the cult of A., Rohde Psyche 11.
pp. 56 ff.
 80 MAATQNOE [197 a
B épwtos nyewovevcavtos, Wate Kat ovTos “Epwrtos av ein pabnrns,
/ / ne wv A f

kat Modcas povaorens nai” Hparoros yarxetas cai AOnvad ictoup-

ylas kai Leds “KxuBepvav Oeav te cai avOpwrev.” dfev bn Kal
, ‘\ \ “ a lol x > / ” 60 8h A

Kateckevacdn Tov Oey TA Tpaynata “Epwros éyyevopuévov, d7ov

6TL KadXoUS: alayer yap ovK emt “Epws: mpo Tod b€é, waTep év
¢ LU v \ > ” Mw \ a / ef 9

> ra oa \ 4 \ rn ’ a id f A A
apyn elrrov, Toda Kai Seva Oeois eyiyveto, ws EyeTat, Sia THY
tas , , ’ \ > ¢ \ * ” > Am Sr
ths Avaykns Bactrelav: ererdn & 0 Beds obtos pu, ex Tov épav
a rn ’ , a \
TOV KadoV TavT ayaba yéyove Kal Geois Kai avOpaTrots.
Cc Oitws éuol doxe?, 6 Daidpe, “Epws patos avtos Oy KaddoTOS
Kal ApLoOTOS feTA TOUTO TOis AdXoLS GAXWY ToOLOVTwWY ailTLOS elvaL.
ne td \ rn a ” M. 7 ” <

197B «ai otros del. Blass (re) yadxetas Blass «ai Zevs...avOpa@rev om.
Stobaei ed. princ. xuBepvav BTW, Stob.: xuBepynoews Vindob. 21, vulg.:
kuBepvav ra cj. Voeg. eyytyvopévov Stob, aicxous Ast éze Blass Bt.
(€me vel érc B): @xeorw T, Stob.: & corr. b, Porson J.-U.: fveorw in mg.
rec. b: éorw D, Ast mpatov d€ Stob. C mpérov Stob.

197 B_ tpwros...”Epwros. Here, as elsewhere in these Acyo, there is a play

on the double sense of the word as (1) a meutal affection (i.q. éw:Ovyia), and
(2) a personal agent.
Kal Motoat poveikys. Supply (as Stallb. and Hug) “Epwros av elev
paénrai. Less probable is the explanation of Ast and Riickert who, regarding
@ore...abnrns as parenthetic, supply avedpov with Movoa (and the other
nominatives) and take povoixjs (and the other genitives) as dependent on
ériOupilas...nyewovevoavros mentally repeated. For the double genitive of
person and thing, cp. Rep. 599 rivas pabnras larpixns xareXisero.
xadkelas...icroupylas. For Hephaestus, cp. 192p%.; and for Athene as
patroness of weavers J/. xIv. 178, v. 735; Hes. Op. D. 63.
Zebs xvBepvav. The sudden change of construction from genitive to bare
infin., together with the unusual genit. after xu8epvay, are best explained by
assuming (with Usener) that we have here another of Agathon’s poetical tags.
For Zeus as world-pilot, see //. 11. 205, 1x. 98: cp. Parmen. fr. 128 M. daipeav,
) wavra xvBepva: and below, 1978 ad init., xuBepynrns is applied to Eros
(cp. 186 £).
katerkevdcOy xrd. This sentence is quoted later on (201 4) by Socrates.
Ta mpaypata echoes the waXaia mpaypara Of 195¢c. xaddXovs is object. gen.
after “Epwros.
aloxe. ydp «rA. This repeats the assertion of 196 a—s. Rettig reads
aioye...€oTw, arguing that €or, not €v, is required by the ref. in 201a:
but aioyer €or as an equiv. for aicyous €or would be a strange use. The
restoration ém: is as certain as such things can be.
év dpxq elrov. See 195c. Notice that here as there A. refuses to make
himself responsible for the ascription of violence to the gods, as shown by the
saving clause ws éyerat.
197 © Gddwv Torotrwy. Sc. ofa xadXos kal dpern: cp. Rep. 372 D.
197 D] ZYMTMTOZION 81

emrépxerar Sé poi Te Kal Euperpov elrrety, StL obTOS eoTLY 0 TrOLaY

, cal A

awe \ > > , , \ ,

eipnunv mev év avOpwrois, twerayer Se yadHvnv
ynvewiav,
ee avé“wv
ere} Koitnv Uarvov T évi Kndet.
odTos SE Nuas AXXOTPLOTNTOS BEV KEVOL, OLKELOTNTOS 5é TWANpOL, Tas D
2 re an a .

tocaade Evvddous pet’ GXAHAWY Tracas Tels Evévas, ev éoprais,

‘ 2 Lal

197 C éupérpws Hermog. Method. dvépov BT: 1 avépov Stob. vulg.:

& dvéepors Hermog. — xoirny BT: xoirny 7 Stob.: xoirn Hermog. cod. Monac.:
xoitn @ Dindorf Jn.: xoiry & Herm. r évi kndec Stob. Hermog.: re vixnder
B: re vyxnd; T: re vexndec W (in mg. yp. cai vnxndei): 1° evi yoda Bast:
vnxnon Dindf. Herm. Jn.: Aadixndy Winckelmann: 7’ évi cytes Hommel Christ
(Urvov 7 evi Koirn axndy Bdhm.) D otros yap Stob. addorpiwraros Stob.

érépxerat 5 pol xrA. Here Agathon breaks out into verse of his own,
whereas hitherto he had contented himself with quoting from others (196 6, 5).
Observe the alliterative effect, dear to the school of Gorgias, of the play with
p and », y and X, in the former, and of » and p in the latter of the two verses.
vyveplayv...krSe. Both the punctuation and reading of this verse are
doubtful. Riickert, Stallb., and the Zurich edd. print commas after yadnvnv
and davéyov, Hug and Burnet only after avéuwy, Hommel after yadnvny and
xoitnv. It would appear, however, from the Homeric passage (Od. v. 391=
XII. 168, dvepos pev éemavaato nde yadnvn | émdero vnvepin), of which this is
obviously an echo, that no stop should be placed after yadnvyny, but rather
after vyveuiav or dvéuwv: while the compound word dvepoxoira, applied to a
sect (yévos) in Corinth who claimed to be able rods dvéwovs Korpitew (see
Hesych. and Suid. s.v.; also Welcker AU. Schr. 3. 63; Rohde Psyche 11. p. 88;
and 202 E n.), makes it probable that dvéywr xoirny are meant to go elosely
together. Further, although as Zeller argues it is appropriate enough in
general to describe Love as “is qui non aequoris solum sed etiam humani
pectoris turbas sedat” (cp. Jd, xxiv. 128 ff., Catull. 68. 1—8), still the reversion
to human x7dos after mentioning waves and winds is a little curious, and it is
tempting to adopt Hommel’s conjecture évi xnrec which, ir «jros can bear the
sense of “sea-depths” (see L. and S. s.vv. xnros, peyaxnrns) 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
vel

évi veixn (=veixec) was corrupted by haplography to évi xn, a fair sense would
be obtained. If the ordinary text be kept, we may notice (with Végelin) how
the force of the prepos. in ¢v av@p....évi xnde varies “in the style of the
Sophists.” In Theaet. 153 we have a similar combination, vyveuias re Kal
yaAnvas, the only other Platonic ex. of ynveyia being Phaedo 77 E. -yadnvos
as an adj. occurs in Aw. 370D.
197 D dddortpidtntos «rv. For Eros as the peace-maker, cp. Isocr, Hel.
221 B evpnaopev Trovs “EAAnvas de aityy dpovornaavras Kal Kowny orpdreay...
Tomoapevovs.
Tas to.dadSe fuvdB0us. “ Haec Seixrixas dicta sunt: quale est hoc convivium
nostrum” (Stallb.).
6
Br:
82 TAATQNOS (197 D
év yopois, év Avatars yeyvopevos jyenov' TpaoTnTa pev mopitwy,
dypiotnta 8 éFopifwv: pirddwpos evpevelas, adwpos duc pevelas*
trews ayaves: Oeatos codois, ayaoros Oeois: EnrAwTds apotpors,
KTNTOS evpmotpous: Tpudhs, aBpoTnTos, yALb&Hs, yapitwv, (epou,
m00ou matnp* émipedys ayabav, apedys Kax@v* év Tove, ev PoBe,
197 D 6voias BT: Ovolace. W: evOvpias Stob., Jn.: fort. @acos
dyavés Usener Bt.: dyafos BT: ayaois Stob., Jn. Sz.: iXews ayabois secl.
Rettig: twepros dyadois Schulthess tpudas secl. J.-U. Sz. xrldns T:
xAndns B: xAndns W npéepov B 7 00ov om. Stob., secl. Voeg. Sz.
aveAns B

éy @velats. For 6. Stob. has etv@vpias, which looks like a gloss on some
word other than 6voias. I am inclined to suspect that @:aco1s should be
restored: the word would fit in well between yopois and nyepav, “in festive
bands.” The corruption might be due to the loss of the termination, after
which @:ds was mistaken for Ovo.ds. Cp. Xen. Symp. VIII. 1 mavtes eopev rod
Geod rovrov Oiace@ra..
ayavos. The ayaOos of the mss. cannot stand, and Stobaeus’s aya6ois
(adopted by most edd. since Wolf) is open to objection both as spoiling the
symmetry and because of the occurrence of dyaéay just below. We want a
more exquisite word, and Usener’s ayavos is more appropriate in sense than
such possible alternatives as dyavés or dyads. For Agathon’s antitheses, cp.
Clem. Al. Strom. v. 614D; Athen. v. 11.
tpupys...xAvbys. Moeris: yAdy “Arrixol, tpudy "EAAnves. Hence Hug
omits rpuvdns as a gloss on yddyjs, and (to preserve symmetry) omits m0Gov
also.
év wévm xrA. These words have given rise to much discussion and many
emendations (see crit, 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 kuBepynrns xrA.; 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 naufragi, desiderium terrae, labor in difficultate
navigandi, aerumna nauseantibus,..accidere solet” ; and he takes the following
four substt. (kuBepy. xr.) as referring in order to these four conditions. And,
adopting this line, I myself formerly proposed to read (for ev 16@@, év Méyo)
ev rope, ev pod». The 2nd line of explanation is adopted (a) by those who
attempt to defend the vulgate, and (b) by some who have recourse to emen-
dation. Thus (a) Stallb. commends Ast’s view that Adyos can stand here
because Agathon’s speech is full of ““merus verborum lusits”; while Hommel
takes the words ev mov etc. as “e re amatoria depromta,” expressing the
affections of the lover while seeking the society of his beloved, and connects
(in the reverse order) Adyw with xuBepy., oO with emiB., PoSw with mapaor.,
and movm with carp. On the other hand, (b) Rettig—while altering the
second pair to ev pd@, ev A0x@—also disregards the maritime metaphor and
197 E] ZYMTTIOZION 83
év TOT@, €v Noy@ KUBEpyTns, emLBaTns, TapactaTns TE Kal TwTHP EB
dpiotos, Evptravtwy te Oedy Kai avOpeTraVv Koopmos, Hryewav Kad-
Nurros Kal dpiotos, ® xp EmecOar wavta avbdpa épupvodyTa
197 D é&v rove ev PdBo ev worm ev Ady scripsi: é€v move ev PdBw ev
mdO@ ev doy codd.: ev PbB@ ev wdOm ev mévm ev poy Schiitz: ev rove ev
PoB@ ev pod ev poy In.: ev a. ev h. €v poOw ev ox@ Rettig: ev mw. ev dp. év
m08w ev voow Winckelmann: ev m. ev p. ev 1rd8q év cddm Usener: ev rd@ ev
move ev Po8@ Bdhm. E émiBarns del. Bdhm.: émidorns Usener re nai
del. Bdhm.
understands the passage “‘iiberhaupt von Kriegsgefahren und dem in solchen
geleisteten Beistand,” comparing the allusions to such matters by Phaedrus
(179 4) and Alcibiades (220 p ff.). Here Rettig is, I believe, partly on the
right track; since the clue to the sense (and reading) here is to be looked
for in Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates. We find mdév@ echoed there (219 E rois
movos...mepinv), and PdBw also (220E guyn aveywpe, 2214 ev PoBw) and
ev A\oy@ may be defended by the allusions to Socrates’ Adyor (215 c ff., 221 D ff.).
Thus the only doubtful phrase is ¢v +é6@, which has no parallel in Alcib.’s
speech, and is also objectionable here because of the proximity of mddov.
In place of it I propose éy mérw@ (cp. Phileb. 48 a), of which we find
an echo (in sense if not in sound) in 220 a év 7’ ad rais evwyias...cai mivew...
mavras €xpatre. For maritime terms in connexion with Adyos, cp. Lach. 194¢
avdpaor pirows xetpaCopévors ev Neyw Kal amopovor BonOnoov: Parm. 137A
dtavedoa...rocodrov méAayos Adywov: Phaedr. 264.4; Phileb.29B. So both Noyos
and méros in Dionys. Chale. 4. 1 ff. duvous oivoyoety...rovde...cipecin yAooons
arroméuwopev...rovd’ mt ouprociou: dekiotns te Adyou | Saiaxos Movody épéras
émi oéApara méure: id. 5. 1ff. cai tives olvov ayovres év eipecin Avovicoy, |
ovprogiou vatrat kat KuAik@y épérat |(udpvavrat) repli rodde. Cp. also Cic. Tuse.
Iv. 5. 9 quaerebam utrum panderem vela orationis statim, an eam...dialecti-
corum remis propellerem. For %apaordrns, of Eros, cp. 6 map’ éxdor@ daipov
in later Stoic literature (Rohde Psyche 11. 316): Epict. diss. 1. 14. 12;
Menander (ap. Mein. Com. Iv. 238) dmravti daipwov avdpi cuvprapiorara | evOds
yevopéva praotaywyos tod Biov. For Socrates as awrnp, see 220D ff.: the
term is regularly applied to a jpws, e.g. Soph. O. C. 460 (Oedipus); Thuc.
v. 11. 2 (Brasidas); Eur. Heracl. 1032 (Eurystheus): Pind. fr. 132 has the
same combination, cwrnp dpicros: cp. Spenser, “‘(Love) the most kind
preserver Of living wights.” é¢v mdévm might be a reminiscence of Pind.
Nem. X. 78 maipo....€v mov@ mioroi: or used, Homerically, of “the toil of
war” (=€v payais, cp. 220D). For xuBepynrns used metonymously, cp. 1978
(n. on xvBepvav); 30 Emerson, “ Beauty is the pilot of the young soul.”
émuBdrns, in the present context, must mean “a marine,” classiarius miles,
and hence, by metonymy, “a comrade” in general.—The general sense of the
passage is this: “in the contests both of war and peace the best guide and
warden, comrade and rescuer is Eros.” Cp. also Procl. in I Alc. p. 40.
197 E Evprdvrev...xdopos. Cp. Gorg. Hel. 1 xdopos moder péev evavdpia,
ompatt d€ KadXos.
Hyepav...épvpvodvra. The image is that of Eros as coryphaeus leading a
6—2
 84 TAATQNOZ [197 &
KAS, @dHS peTéxovTa iy adder OéAXywr Tavtwv Oedy TE Kai av-
Op@rwv vonpa.
Odros, éfn, 6 ap’ €uod Adyos, & Paidpe,7S Oe@ avaxeiaOw, ta
pev mradlas, Ta Sé atrovdAs eTplas, Kal’ Soov éyw Svvapar, METEXOV.
198 XX. Elsovros 8€ tod "Ayabwvos ravtas épn o A piotodnmos
ava0opuBijcas Tovs TapévTas, Ms TMpeTOvTwS TOD veavicKoU Eipn-
KOTOS Kal avT@® Kal TO Gew. Tov odv LwxKpatn eiteiv BréEYavTa
eis TOV ’Epv&ipayov, "Apa cou d0xe, pavat, & mai ‘Axovupevod,
adees mradat S€é0s Seduévat, aAN ov pavTixas & viv d7 EXeyov etTrety,
éTe "Ayabwy Oavpactas époi, éyw 8 atropynaouws; To pev Erepor,
hava. tov EpvEipaxov, wavticas poe Soxets eipnnévar, OTe “Ayabowv
ev épet: To S€ oé atropycewy, ovK olpat.
197 E xada@s BT: xadjs Stob.: cxadés cad7s vulg.; cadta@s t7s Ast: Kaos
cat THs Orelli Teuffel: cai Mdvg. Sz. 8 (xai) Method. 198 A mperovros
bt: mpémovros BTW dpa B €poin Cobet Jn. Soxets por T

procession of singers, and singing (‘‘a song of my beloved”) himself (dys hv

dd«). Notice how Agathon repeats the phrase Oe@y re cai avépamev (cp.
1978). For jyeuov, cp. Spenser (H. to Love) “Thou art his god, thou art his
mighty guide.” xadjs is omitted in Ficinus’ transl.
vénpo. Here used, poetically, as equivalent to vous: ep. Pind. Pyth. v1.
29; Theogn. 435; Emped. 329 St., aia yap avOpamos mepixapdiov eote vonpa.
T® Oe dvaxeloOw. ‘Let it be presented as a votive-offering (dvd@nya) to
the God (sc. Eros).”
maSids...cmovdrs. Possibly an echo of Gorg. Hel. ad fin. “Edévns peév
eyKop.ov, epov Se matyviov. For the antithesis, cp. 216r; Laws 647 D; Philed.
308; Ar. Ran. 389.
petplas. “H.e, xoopias” (Stallb.), with, perhaps, a latent play on the other
sense of pérpov, in allusion to the rhythmical style of A.’s oration; cp. 187 D,
205 0, Phaedr. 267 A ev pérp@ déyerv.
198 A dvabopvByoa. Cp. Protag. 3340 cimrdvros ov ratta aitod oi
mapovtes aveOopuBnoav ws ev déyor: Huthyd. 2768; Cic. Sen. 18. 64 a cuncto
consessu plausus multiplex datus.
mperévtws...7d BG. Cp. Laws 699D eipnxas cavt@ re Kai 1 marpidi mpe-
TOVT@S.

@ mat ’Akovpevov. Observe the mock-solemnity of this mode of address:

cp. 172 A, 214B. Socrates addresses Eryx. with allusion to his language in
193 & (ei pn Evv7dy KTA.).
adets...S€05 SeStévar. Schol. aSees S€os+ emt trav ra py &&ia PoBov Sedidrov.
dpooy Trovr@ Kai TO Yoodens avOpwmros (Phaedr. 257 D). Observe how Socr,
here, in caricature of Agathon’s style (e.g. 197 D), combines in one phrase the
figura etymologica and the figure oxymoron: ep. Eur. I. 7.216 vipdav Svovup-
pov ; ib. 566 xapi dxapw: td. Hel. 690 yapov dyapov.
& vov 8 gdeyov. The reference is to 194.
198 c] ZYMTTOZION 85
Kai ras, @ paxapte, eirrety Tov Swxpdtn, ov wéAXdw arropeiv B
a - U a a

Kat €y® Kal adNos ooTicody, wéAXwV AEEEW pETa KaOV OTH Kai
\ ” c a ‘

Py \ Xo € Oé \ Ny \ ” ’ ¢ / \
TavTooaTrov Aoyov pylEvTa; Kal Ta pev AANA OVX oOMOlwWS MEV
Gavpaota: To de eri TeXeuTHS TOD KaAAOUS TOV dvVOMAaTwY Kal
\ Y \ fol fal lal ,

pnuatwyv Tis ovK ap éeEerrAayn axovov; eset Eywrye evOupovpeEvos

dTe avTos ody olds 7 Exomar odd’ eyyds ToUTwY ovdEeV KaNOV ElretD,
Um alayuvns odiyou drospas wYouny, et mn elyov. Kal yap pe C
, ’ ,

Topytov 6 RoOyos avewipvnoKev, Bote ateyvas TO TOD ‘Opnpou

, € ' / A an ,

198 B xai ravrodSarév otra TW Ifév om. Vind. 21, ’ vulg. Sz.: (pév
BEV,
Oavpaora Sé: Bdhm.) axovev om. W

198 B ov pé\dw cra. Notice the change of tense in, dmopeiv...Aé£ew: Plato
uses pres., fut., and aor. infinitives after wéAXw, of which the last is the rarest
construction. For the sense, cp. Soph. 231 B.
mwavrodardy Adyov. There is irony in the epithet. Socr. implies that he
regards it as a motley Adyos, “a thing of shreds and patches.” Cp. 193 5,
and 198 E (mdvra Adyov Kwodvvtes KTA.).
obx opolws pty Pavpacra. The antithesis must be mentally supplied: “the
earlier parts were not equally marvellous (although they were marvellous).”
Stallb. explains differently, “ra pév da accipi potest absolute pro et quod
cetera quidem attinet; quo facto non inepte pergitur sic: ovy spoiws per
Gavpaora, particula pev denuo iterata.” But the former explanation (adopted
by Rettig and Hug, after Zeller) is the simpler and better.
vo 8 él teXevTas xTA. 7d is accus. of respect, going closely with émi
reAevrys, not with rov cdAAovs (as Riickert): “quod autem exitum orationis
tuae attinet” (Stallb., and so Hommel). sod xdAdous is governed by e&e-
mAayn, as gen. of causative object (cp. Madv. Gr. Synt. § 616). dxovwr, “as
he heard.”
tev dvopdtev Kal pypdtev. Cp. 199B dvdpaor d€ Kat Oéoe pyydror.
Properly, dvoya and pjya are distinguished as, in logic, the.subject and predi-
cate and, in grammar, the noun and verb respectively. But commonly évoya
is used of any single word, and papa of a clause, or proposition (e.g. Protag.
3418); cp. Apol. 178; Cratyl. 3994, 43138. Both here and below, as
Athenaeus observes (v. 187), WAdrwy yAevdfer re Ta lodxkwda Ta “AydOwvos
kai ra avridera. Op. the criticism of the Sophistic style in Alcid. de Soph. 12
of Trois évaracw axpiBds ékepyacpévor Kat padAov moipaow f Adyous €ouKOres
kai TO pev avroparov Kai mA€wv aAnOeias admoBeBAnxores: Isocr. c. Soph. 294 Dd
rois €vOvpnpact mpemdvrws dAov Tov Adyov KaTamrotKiAaL Kal Tois dvdpact evpvd-
Haws Kal povatk@s eimreiv.
0v8’ éyyts Ttotrwv. Cp. 221d infra; Rep. 378 D rovs mouras éyyis rovTav
avaykaoréov \oyorrotetv.
édlyov. Le. ddtyou Seiv. Cp. Theaet. 180D; Huthyd. 279d.
198 C Topylov...dveplpvqonev. For Agathon as a “Gorgiast,” see Introd.
§ mr. 5. Cp. Philostr. de wt. Soph. 1. cai ’AydOov...moddaxov Tov lapBeimy
yopyater: Xen. Symp. i. 26, Iv. 24.
+d Tod ‘Opnpov. Seo Od. x1. 632 cue 5é yAwpdy dSéos Aper | pH poe yopyeiny
 86 TAATQNOS [198 ©
érretrovOn* ehoBovpnv uy por TeNeuTaV 0 Ayabwv Topyiou Keparny
a ©? / / Mi

Sevod Aéyery ev TO NOYH Eml TOV E“ov NOYoY Temas aUTOV pE

fol / > lal / >? \ \ 2 \ / / > 6

ALOov TH apwvia Toimoere. Kal evevonoa TOTE dpa KaTayehacToS

Ov, hvika bpiy wporoyouy ev TO péper wel” bwav eyxwpiacedBar
La) A lal /

D tov *Epwra nal épny eivat Sewds Ta épwrixa, ovdév eidas apa Tov
mpaypwatos, ws eder éynwpiale oTiody. eyo pev yap Ur aBer-
tl ¢€ Mv > ‘ hi cal > \ \ \ € , >

tepias @pny Seiv TarnOH réyew Trepl ExaoTou Tod éyxwptalouevon,

Kal TodTo pev vrdpyew, €€ a’tav 5€ TovUT@Y Ta KadAdOaTA ExNE-
\ a \ c i ? ’ lal \ B ‘\ f >

yopuévous ws evirperréstatra TiWévar: Kal Travu 87 péya Eppovour ws

198 C ev r@ doy secl. J.-U.: medopov Bdhm. 7 apwvig del. Hartmann
D GBedrnpias T row (post éxdorov) del. Hommel = rodro mparov pev Bast

ceparny Sewvoio medopov | €& "Aidew méperev ayavy Lepoepovera. Miss

Harrison (Proleg. p. 191) renders yopyeiny by “grizzly,” with the note
“Homer does not commit himself to a definite Gorgon”: his Gorgoneion
is “an underworld bogey, an dzorpdmauov.” That “the Gorgon was regarded
as a sort of incarnate evil eye” (bid. p. 196) appears froin Athen. v. 64. 221
kreives Tov Um’ ats Oewpnbévte, ov TH mvevpate ahAa TH yeyvouévyn amo THs
TY dpuatav hicews Popa cai vexpov moet, Rohde (Psyche 11. 407) points out
that “ Hekate selbst wird angerufen als Topy® xai Mopp® kai Mnvn kcal rodv-
poppe: hymn bei Hippol. ref. haer. 4. 35 p. 73 Mill”; and that Topyo appears
to be a shorter form for Topyupa (’Axépovros yuvn, Apollod.). For the pun
on Gorgias-Gorgon, cp. that on dyaéay (174B7.). As against Diimmler’s
inference that Gorgias’ previous death is here implied, see Vahlen op. Acad.
I. 482 ff.
& rd Ady. Cp. 201 a, Gorg. 457 D, Theaet. 1698. To eject these words
with Hug, or to substitute meAdpov with Badham, would (as Voegelin and
Rettig contend) destroy the antithesis ¢v r@ A. )( émi Tov enor X., and spoil
the “Gorgianische Wortspiel.” Further, the phrase serves as a parallel to
the Homeric e£ ’Aisew. Observe, as a feature of the parody, the different
sense in which Socr. uses dewds: also, how the sentence as a whole forms a
playful retort to Agathon’s remark in 194.4 (happydrrew Bovder pe xTr.). For
the adverbial use of redevrdv, cp. Phaedr. 2288, Cc; Gorg. 457D. (See also
Vahlen, /.c. for a discussion and defence of the text.)
rére...1vixa. The rére goes with dv which is imperf. partic.: the ref. is to
177 D.
198 D tyd piv xrd. The pév heré is answered by the d¢ in 7d dé dpa
below. For dBedrepia, cp. Theaet, 174 c, Phil. 480 (see my note ad loc.).
Touro piv tmrdpxev. ‘That this (viz. the statement of the facts) should be
the ground-work”: there is no need to insert, with Bast, mparov or péycorov
after rovro. For this sense of tmapyev, cp. Menex. 2378. For the thought,
cp. Emerson “ Veracity first of all and forever. Rien de beau que le vrai.”
&€ atrév St rotrev. Rettig’s comment on this is “mit Beziehung auf das
coilective in rotro gedachte raAn67.” This is misleading, since rodro means
198 E] ZYMIMTOSION 87
€U Epav, ws Eda THY adAnOeLav [TOD errawveiv OTLOdY]. TO dé apa,
e 3 ~ ig > Xi Ni ’ , a ’ a € a \ Noy:

@S EOLKEV, OU TOUTO NV TO KAAS ETraLVELY OTLODY, GAAXA TO WS wéeyLoTa B

¢ Mv ,’ fal a \ fal ’ lal x lal ’ \ \ ig if

avatilévat TO TpayuaTl Kal WS KAXALOTA, €ay TE 7 OUTWS EXoVTA

’ / fol ‘ i ?

€av Te pon et b€ Yrevdy, ovdev ap’ nv Taya.

> , , ‘\
tTpouppynOn yap, ws
n ’ \ a He lal , , €

€oixev, OTws Exactos nuav Tov "Epwra éeyxwputafery d0€e, ovx

vo a , ¢

OTwS eyKamiaceral. Sta Tavta 8y, olwat, TavTAa Oyo KLVOUYTES

a , col lel

198 D rov...drvotv secl. Bdhin. Sz. rovrou Av Bast E d0€e

Steph.: d0&n BT

TO TadNOA Aéyerv, a Singular notion, and a’ra ravra here represents simply
rad7nOn. In the Socratic theory of rhetoric here stated we have the following
order of treatment proposed: (1) ro radnOy Aéyew, (2) 7 T@v KadAiotwv ekdoyn,
(3) 7 edarpemns Geos. 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 Ist requisite: in other words, matter is more important than form.
Cp. Procl. in Tim. p. 27 ai yap amd ths ovcias evpnular macev mpo€exovaer, ws
Kal 6 €v T@ SvptTOogio Zwxpatns tmapadidwauy.
as elas THY GAyPeay. I follow Badham and Hug in bracketing the next
words (rov emacveiy 6riovy) as an erroneous gloss on aAnOevav, with which we
must supply epi tod épwros, as required by Sewvds ra épwrika above and the
passage there alluded to (175D). Cp. Phaedr. 259 E ap’ obv odx vrapyxeww Sei rois
ed ye Kai Kadds pnOnoopévors rHY Tov NéyovTos Siavoray eidviay TO aAnOes Sv av
epew mépe péAAyn. Rettig defends the traditional text, asking “ist denn 7
avnOeca Tov erawey étiovv hier nicht identisch mit 7 adnOeca wept "Epwros?”
To this the answer is “no!”: for if the tradition be kept we must take rv
aAnOeav as equivalent to rnv adnOn (or rather dp6jv) wéOodov, which is a very
unlikely equation, especially so soon after raAn7 in another sense: Stallb.’s
rendering may serve to indicate the difficulty involved,—“utpote veram
tenens laudationis cujuslibet naturam et rationem”: Jowett’s “thinking I
knew the nature of true praise” shirks the difficulty.
7d 8$.dpa. For ro de, “but in reality,” cp. Meno 97¢ (with Thompson’s
note), Apol. 23 a (with Stallb.’s note).
198 E ov rodrto, 2.2. ov Td TadnOn rEéyerv.
7d...dvaTi0évar. Perhaps an allusion to the term used by Agathon, ava-
keiaOw 197. For Socrates’ criticism, cp. Phaedr. 2724, Menex, 234¢ ot
OUTW KaA@S erravovaW, BoTE Kal TA MpogdvTa Kal Ta pH Tepi ExdaTov héyorTes,
KadAduota mas Tois dvopace moiKiddovTeEs YyonTevovaw nuav tas uxds: Isocr.
Busir. 222 B Set rovs pev evrAoyetv tivas BovAopévous mew +va@v VrapydvTav
ayabav mpocdvt dropaivew (which sentiment is, perhaps, referred to here).
tpouppyon. Cp. 180p. The reference is to 177 D.
tykwpidtery S6€. The emphasis is on dd£e:, implying the regular Platonic
antithesis d0fa )( adnOeva. Cp. Simon. 76 16 doxeiy cai ray aAdbeav Bara
(cited in Rep. 365 c).
mdvra Aoyov kwouvres. “ Raking up every tale.” Cp. Phileb. 15 8; T'heaet.
163.4; Rep. 450 a.
 88 TAATQNOS [198 &
avatidete TO "Epwtt, kai pate avtTov TovovToy TE Eival Kal TOTOU-
m ’ \ wn , a . /

199 Tov aitvov, orws av haivnta: @s KaddLOTOS Kal ApLaTos, SHArOV OTL
Yj a a

Tols oy yuyvwaKovatv—ou yap 87 Tov Tots rE ELddaL—, Kai Kaas Y

lal ’ / \ lal ,
Lo) 4

éyer kal ceuvas 6 Eraivos. ddAda yap éy@ ovK 75n apa TOV TpoTrOV
” \ fal cw. > \ a > \ ’ nO ” \ /

Tov é€raivov, ov & eida@s tuiv @pmorXCynoa Kal aUTOS Ev TO pEpeEt

tal lal / \ > > lal ,

érrawécecOar. “1 yAaooa” odv wrécyeto, “9 Se ppv”

“c
ov: ”

xaipéro Sy. ov yap éte éyxwpiafw TodTov Tov TpoToY* ov yap

dv Suvaiunv. ov pévtor GAXrXa Ta ye GANG}, Ef BovrEecHe, EHéerAwW
elrety KaT’ €uavTou, ov mpos TOUS UmeTépous Adyous, iva p7) YéAwTa
dprw. bpa ovv, & Paidpe, ef te Kal TovovTov Noyou Sén, TeEpt
Epwros tadnO7 Aeyoueva axovew, dvopace S€ Kal Oéoes pnuatwv
/ eS vy bay r > nr
TOLAVTN OTTOLA dav TL TUX) émreNGovaa.

198 E rowovrwv re eivac Steph. 199 A dyaov Cobet Bt.: dy rou T:

mov B, Sz. 78n dpa T: 75n B ov 5’ Sauppe: ovd BT yroooa W:
yAarra BT eyxoptaow Wolf Jn. B déec Bekk. Sz. mepl...Aeyopmeva
del. Hirschig évopace. W Vind. suppl. 7 dav J.-U. Sz. Bt.: 89 a
Stallb.: & av B: & dv T: av apogr. Vat. 1030
199 A orrws dv aivyrar. paivnra here, as dof above, isemphatic. A com-
parison with 195 4 shows that Socr. is alluding especially to Agathon’s oration.
ot ydp 84 movxrA. Cp. Gorg. 459A ov yap 69 mov Ev ye Tois eiddax Tov iarpou
miOavarepos éota: and for ov yap mov... 200B, Huthyph. 13 a.
kal kados y xrA. Earlier editors generally print a full stop after eidoor.
Socr. here sarcastically endorses the approval with which Agathon’s é¢mawos
had been received (as mpemdvras eipnxdros KTA., 198 A).
% yKaooa ovv xrA. Euripides’ line (7 yAéoo’ 6uapox’, 7 dé Pony avaporos
Hippol. 612) soon became a familiar quotation: see Ar. Thesm. 275, Ran. 101,
1471; Theaet. 154); Cic. de offic. 111. 29. 108 iuravi lingua, mentem iniuratam
gero.
xatpérw 4. “I say good-bye to it”: cp. Laws 636 D 10...rod pvOov yaipéra:
id. 886D. Rettig suggests that here the formula may be intended as another
echo of Euripides: cp. Med. 1044 ov« dv duvaiyny: yaipérw Bovdevpara | ra
mpoabev: Hippol. 113.
ov yap Ure xrA. “1 withdraw my offer to eulogize.” eéyxwpia¢w must here
be a “present for future” (see Mady. Gr. Synt. § 110. 3), since Socr, has not
yet begun the eulogy.
199 B kar’ duautdv, ob mpds xrA. “In my own fashion, not entering into
competition with your orations.” For xara c. acc. in this sense, ep. Apol, 17B
ov Kata Tovrous elvac pytwp (“not after their pattern”): Gorg. 505 D.
yAora dpdw. This resumes the notion in xarayéAagros &y, 198 c.
® PaiSpe. Socrates, like Agathon (197 8), politely appeals to Ph. as the
maryp Adyou; cp. 194 D.
ame xrd. For ef mu, numquid, ep. Rep. 5268 cxoreioOa Set ef te mpds
€KEivo TEiVEL KTA.
dvépaot Bt «rd. See 198Bx. Of droia dy Ast cites no instance; the
199 D] ZYMTMTOZION 89

Tov odv Paidspov épn Kal tods adAdous KErdevEey AEyeLV, bay
autos olovto Sety eitreitv, ta’tn. “Erte rotvur, pavar, & Paidpe,
’ \ » a an » a

mapes por Ayd@wva opixp atta épéoOat, iva avopworoynadpevos

/ ’ / / Sy, bey WA > LA

Tap avtov ovTws dn Aéyw. “AAA Trapinut, Pavai Tov Paidpor, C

’ ’ a lal

avr’ €pwta, peta tadta $7) Tov Swxpatn én évOévde trobev

> ’ , a ,

apEacGau.
yy

XXI. Kal pny, bd pire “Ayabwv, cards por ok~as Kabn-

yynoac0at Tod Aoyou, A€y@v OTL Tpw@Tov pév Séou avTov émudetEar
, a , / oe a Ni 1A i \ ’ lal

omroios Tis €aTw 0” Epaws, baotepov Sé ta Epya avtod. TavTny THY

¢ at , > lal

apyny tavu ayapuat. 0c ody wos Trept

’ \ Ud
“Epwros, émrevdn Kal Tada
” He) 5 \ edly rd on \ Ge

KaX@s Kal peyadotpeTras SiundOes olds éots, Kal tTode el7ré+ D

TOTEPOV €aTL TOLOUTOS olos elvat TiWos 0 “Epws Epws, 7) ovdevds;
EpwTe S ov el pnt pos TLVOS 1) TaTPds €aTL—YENoLOV yap AV Ein TO
199 C ad éepora Agathoni tribuit B, Naber D oles 7 TW épas
épws B: épws T

force of 57 is to heighten the notion of indefiniteness which lies in 6zoia

(so Hug).
tre tolvuy xrA. érz goes with éepécOa. Socrates appeals thus to Ph.
because Ph. had previously (194 D, B) debarred him from catechizing A.
Gvopokoynorapevos xTA. Cf. 200 E, Gorg. 489 4. For otras 75n, cp. 194 D.
For évéévde mobev, 178 A.
199 © xaOnyjocacGa. The ref. is to A.’s exordium, 195 a.
t@. ovv. agedum; cp. Gorg. 452D, Rep. 376 D.
199D rwos...% ovSevds. These are objective genitives to be construed with
the second ¢pas: “Is Love love for some object or for none?” For the use
of the indef. in such phrases, cp. Phileb. 35 B 6 y’ éexiOupav twos emiOupel.
ovx el pnrpés twos xrA. These words have been variously interpreted:
(1) Lehrs and Prantl construe the genitives as subjective (“love felt by a
mother”); (2) Ast as objective (“love for a mother”): (3) Riickert, 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 rivos would be superfluous. It is a serious objection (as Hug
admits) to (3) that it compels us to regard the “absurdity” (yeAotov) 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 7) yeAoiov rd
€potnpa, 6 ri mor ora rére f py éoTa; ris yap oidev; (cp. Phaedr. 274).
But if so, recourse must be had to textual alteration: we must strike out
either the second épws, with Sommer, or the whole block of words «i "Epas...
marpos, 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
 90 TAATQNOZ [199°D
> , aw > \ v \ a ‘ ’ t cf A >
épwtnua, eb" Epws €otiv Epws UNTPOS 7) TATPOS—AXrX WoTEP AV EL
la . £ / t a Yd
aUTO TOUTO TaTEpa NpwTwWY, apa Oo TAaTHP EoTL TATNHP TLVOS 7) OV;
* a / / ob , a ) / ¢ ”
eles av 5 Tov pot, €¢ €BovrAov KaXwS aTroKpivacBal, 6TL EoTLV
er a \ € \ / Xn ” , s \
viéos ye %) Ouvyatpos o tatnp matnp* 7H ov; Ilavu ye, davar tov
’"AydOwva. Ovdxodv Kal 7 untnp @cavtas; “Oporoyeicbar Kat
lol x ¢ he 4 n

A ” , , a \ ys , , / +A 7 ,
tobto. “Ere roivuv, etrety Tov LwKpatn, aTroKplvat OALyw TED,
iva wadXov KaTaudOns 6 Bovromat. Ev yap Epoiwny, Ti dé; adeddos,
na / A 7 ’ BY / / / fe

auto Tovd Omep Eat, ExT Tivds Adedkpos 7 0D; Pavas eivar.
> \ ey a ” ” \ ’ \ x ” / ib

Ovxodv aberpod 1) adedpys; ‘Oporoyetv. Teipo bn, pavar, cai

lal n nn » an Ls al fol ,

Tov épwta eiteiv. 0” Kpws épws €ativ ovdevos 7) Tivos; Ldavu pev
\ ” ’ a wr ” > \ ’ NS ey s s ‘

» an aw ee a eee
200 obv éativ. Todto perv rotvuy, evtrety tov Lwxpatn, pvrakov trapa
a , oe (e \ > / U € WT ’ /
TaAVTwW MELVYN LLEVOS OTOU* TOTOVOE dé ELITE, TWOTEPOV O Epas EKELVOU

199D_ <«i”*Epws...marpos secl. Hug ei 6 Hirschig épws del. Sommer

bporoyera
Oar BTW ; bpodroynoa vulg.: oporoyety Stallb. Sz. E adedgos
Cobet Sz.: adeddds libri, Bt. adeddos del. Bdhm. 200 A pepvnpévos
del. Bdhm. dmov Mdvg.

were an absurd question,” the point will be taken to lie in the fact that gpas,
as properly denoting sevual 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 pnrpds i) rarpds, and construed “the question would be
absurd if (or granting that) Eros is (really) épws (2.e. sex-loye).”
auto TovTo matépa npwrov. Rettig approves Stallbaum’s explanation,
“h. e. marépa, avto TovTo Grep €otw ut mox loquitur. Vult autem cogitari de
patris notione, qualem mente informatum habemus.” But the use of the
neuter in apposition to the masc. is sufficient to indicate that “cogitari de
patris notione” ; and it is most natural to regard atré rotro as implying a
reference to the previous use of “this very word, marnp.”
cles Gv. “You would at once reply.” (See Goodwin @. M. T. § 414,
Thompson on Meno 72 B.)
Wp UTHP Soavtws. Sec. €otiy vidos ye } Ouvyarpos unrnp.
199 E Et ydp époluny. For apodosis we may supply ri av gains; or
the like: cp. 204 D, Prot. 311 x.
atté tov’ omep toriv. “ Notionally,” “in its abstract significance.”
200 A Totro ptv...drov. Rettig, Riickert and Lehrs put a comma before
pepvnpevos, rendering “hoc igitur apud animum serva (sc. alicujus esse) atque
cujus sit, memento.” Hommel and Hug, on the other hand, follow Ast and
Schleierm. in removing the comma, explaining drov (sc. 6 "Epes Epws eariv) as
epexegetic of rovro, and construing dvAagkov peyvnuevos closely together: thus
Schleierm. renders “ Dieses nun, habe Socrates gesagt, halte noch bei dir fast
in Gedanken, 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. xadAXos) previously given by Agathon (in 197 B),
while debarring him from restating it at this point in the discussion.
200 c} ZYMMOZION oI
od gor Epws, ériOupet advtod 4 ob; Idvu ye, pavar. odrepov
éx@v avro od érOupei Te Kai épa, elra ériOuped te Kal épa, 4} ov
éyav; Ovw Eywv, ws TO elxds ye, Pavat. LTxodrew 81, elreiv tov
Loxpatn, avtl tod eixoTos ek avayxn obtws, TO eriOvpobv ére-
Oupety od evdeés ot, mw emuOvpely, dav pry evdeds 3 ewol pev
yap Gavpactas Soxel, 6 “Aydbwv, ws avayKn elvat aol dé Tas; B
Kapot, pdvat, doxei. Kanrdés déyers. ap’ obv Bovrdorr’ av tis
Méyas @v péyas Elvat, loxupos oy fayupds; “AddvaTov éx THU
@poroynuévov. Ov ydp mov évdens dv in tovtwv 6 ye dv.
"AXnOH reyes. El yap nat iaxupds wv BovrAorto loyupos elvat,
pavat Tov LwKpatn, Kal Tayvs wv Taxvs, Kal byins ov dyens—
iows yap av Tis TavTa olnOein Kal TavTa Ta ToLadTa, TOUS dYTAS
TE ToLOVTOUS Kal ExXovTAs TadTAa ToUTwY arrep ExovcL Kal érLOv-
heiv, i” odv un eEatratnOaduev, TovTov Evexa Aéyw* TOUTOLS yap, @
"AydOwv, ef évvoeis, exe péev Exacta tovTwy év TH Tapovtt
avayKxn &@ éxovaow, éav te BovrAwvTat éav TE pwn, Kal ToUTOU Ye OH
200 B sporoynpéevav W: dporoyoupévey vulg. ei 3 dpa Stallb. yap
xat BT: yap W ravti T C éxaorov vulg.

érvOupet avrov. For avrovd resuming éexeivov, cp. 195 A, Soph. O. 7. 248.
Observe that the entire argument here is based on the identification of épws
with émOvpia (see 205D): cp. the use of epay in Theogn. 256 mpnypa dé
Tepmvoratov, Tov Tis epa, TO Tvxeiv. Cp., for the question here discussed,
Lys. 221 vf.
dvtl Tov elkétos. Cp. Phaedr. 267 a, 269D; see Blass, Att. Bereds. I. 78.
triOupety ob evBels éoriv. "Cp. Lysis 221 D rd ye emibupodv, od dv evdees 7,
routou emiOupet: Eryx. 405 B ai § émiOupiae raca ovdév érepov f évderai tivwv :
Gorg. 496 p. A similar theory is implied in Phaleb. 35 A 6 Kevovpevos...
émiOupet Tov evavtinv macyer: Kevovpevos yap épa mAnpotaba (which also
illustrates the use of ¢pay and émibupeiv as synonyms). Cp. also Isocr. Hel.
219 a (quoted below, on 200 c).
200 B Savpacrds...ds. For os thus separated from its adverb, cp.
Phaedo 95 a, 99D, Theaet. 157 D. Thus Bast’s suspicions as to the soundness
of the text were unfounded.
Et ydp kal «rd. In this sentence we have an ex. of anacoluthon : after the
protasis the sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis (iows...Aéyw), then the
protasis is resumed in an altered form (dAX’ éray ris xrd.), which leads up
finally to the apodosis in the form eimopev av a’r@ «rd. The main purpose
of the whole paragraph is to guard against a possible misunderstanding as to
the nature of BovAnows and éOvuia which might arise from carelessness in
analyzing the sense of popular phraseology.
Tatra olndeln. rtaira and mavra ra roaira are accusatives of ‘“remoter
object” with oinGein, “with regard to these and all similar cases.”
92 TAATQNOZ [200 c

mov Tis av éemiOupnoeev; GAX OTay TLs NEYN OTL eyW VyLalvwV
4 / x > , > > ef / iA ’ a € /

4 Ni: € / \ lal Hf \ lal ‘

BovAopat Kai vytatvery, Kat TAOUTA@Y BovrAopat Kat TOUTE, Kal
er LOup® avT@y TovTwY & EX, EiTrOLpmeEV AV AUT@ OTL av, w avOpwrTe,
2 a > a / A ” bal > a” ef / Ld ph Q

TROVTOY KexTNMEVOS Kal Uyletay Kal toxdy BovrAE Kal Els TOV
a ‘ \ ask ? \

éretta ypovoy Tav’ta KexTHoOat, emer ev TO YE vUY TapovTt,

fal n a r /

elte BovArer elite wn, Exets* TKOTEL OV, OTAaY TOUTO AEYNS, OTL ETL-
” , y / ” / = a lal {4 ZA ’

a aA sf. ia / , \ A
Ouu® TaV TapovTaY, Ef AAO TL EELS H TOOE, OTL BoUAOMaL TA VOY
TapovTa Kal els TOV érrELTA KpPOVOY Trapéivat. AAO TL OMoNOYO! av;
lal € AS

Luphavar Epn tov "AydOwva. eizreiv 89 Tov Lwxpatn, OvKodv

TOUTO y €aTLY ExElVOU EpaYy, 0 OUTW ETOLMOV AUT@ eoTiv OSE EXEL, TO
a , / al a A \

els Tov émetTa Ypovoyv TadTa Elva a’T@® owlopeva Kai < del >
fal an \

mapovta; Ilavu ye, pavat. Kai ottos dpa Kal adXos Tas O ErrL-
/ fe , \ & ” \ 7 cal e 4

A a N a A , oN ‘See,
Oupav Tod m7 EtToipou emiOupet Kal TOU pH TapoVToOS, Kal d WH EXEL
200 C xai rAourety B: rdoureiv T D eyes T: exns B spodoyois b:
épodoyo Steph. ovcouv dy pr. T T0...mapovra secl. Bdhm. Sz. ro T:
ra B: rd rod cj. Usener = ravra: rovaira Liebhold — owfopeva secl. Liebhold
cai TW, Bt.: po B: ra vov Vindob. 21: ra py Sauppe: py) Rettig: ot Voeg.:
jrou cj. Usener: aet Schirlitz: «at dei scripsi po. mapovra secl. Herm. J.-U.
Hug E 6 dos T

200 C PovrAopar...cal ér@vpo. The point here emphasized is that BovAnats

and éOupia, when their sense is investigated, are found to apply only to the
future (els rov érecra xpovor), not to the present (év T@ mapévtt). 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”
(BovdAopa ra viv mapdvta mapewa). For the force of BovAnais, cp. Isocr. Hel.
219A ray pev yap Gddwv, dy ay ev ypeia yevopeba, Tvyeiv povov BovddpeOa...
Tay d€ Kakav pws piv eyylyverat, TocoiT@ pei(w Tov BovAeoOa pouny Exor,
do@mep Kal TO mpaypa Kpeitroy eotiv (with which cp. also 205 D infra).
200 D GAXo te dpodoyot dv; For the interrogative aAXo ri, dAdo Te 7H, See
Meno 82 c (with Thompson’s note) ; Prot. 353 c (with Adam’s note).
Ovxoty totrs y éorlv krA. The main construction is rightly explained by
Stallb.: “rd els rov érerra xp. xrd. relativo pronomini per epexegesin ad-
duntur, nec assentior Rtickerto interpunctionem post ait@ éorw inferenti”:
ro is in the nominative, where we should rather expect rov in apposition to
éxeivov, owing to assimilation to 6. For the reading of the last words in the
sentence, see crit. n, Rettig reads pa) mapdvra “in hypothetisch-causalem
Sinne.” More attractive is Usener’s excision of the words joc mapovra,
adopted by Hug. The objection to xai, printed by Burnet, is that it fails to
supply an explanation of B’s for: hence I prefer to read xai del, supposing
that an abbreviated xai blending with dei might account for both variants.
200 B Kal otros xr. otros represents the typical mus and dvépwmos of
200c ; and @dos mas serves to generalise, cp. 192 B.
201 B] ZYMTMOZION 93

Kal O mn EoTLY avTOS Kal ov évdens éoTl, TOLADT ATTA éoTly OV

Ne oe: \ ” DIN: \ 2 a

Cas. apes
cere ann , *
» €muOupia Te Kai o épws eotiv; Ilavu y’, eiwetv. “IOs 8%, davar
\ ’ > , \
Tov LwKpatn, avoworoynowpmeba Ta eipnuéva. GAO TL eoTLV 6
Epas mp@tov mév tiwav, erecta Tovtwv by av evdeva raph avTa@;
” rn \ a 4 A a

Nat, gavar. “Est 8% rovtois avapynoOnte tivav ébnaba év TO 201

/ t ’ \ \ / lal

Noy elvar Tov "Epwta: ef dé Bovrer, éyw oe avauvncw. oipat

, 3 \ wv ? \ Uy

Yap GE OVTwWOL THS ElTrEiV, OTL Tots DEeolts KaTETKEVATON TA TPAay-

£ ig / ’ a ¥. o tal

pata &u’ Epwra Kad@v: aicypdv yap ovK ein Epws. ovxK ovTwaL
> lal ? a

vv nbs t
mos €deyes; Kirov yap, davai tov ’Ayabwva. Kal émuecnosa y
”. a a r \ 1 A ©
EXeyes, © ETaipe, havar TOV Lwxpatn: Kal ei TovTO ovTAs éyeL,
ado Tt 0 “Epws KaddXous av ein Epws, aicyous 8 ob; ‘Oworoyer.
” cw . x by x by »

Ov
UKOVYa @LorOYNTAL,
e ,
ovPaevdens
} 4
éaTL
>
Kal N pr)\ EXEL, TOUTOU
,
Epav
XA
;Nai,/
elmrety. “Evdens dp’ éotl al ov« éyer 0”Epws Kaddos. *Avaryen,
’ cod > oD »

gavat. Ti d€; To évdeés KadAXQUS Kal pndayn KEKTNWEVOY KAKO

apa r€yers cv Karov elvar; Ov SHra. “Ete odv oporoyeis "Epwra
bl / \ >) na nr

KaXov elval, ef Tadta oUTws exer; Kal Tov ’AydOwva eirrety Kw-
x 9 > lal cA m” \ \ > Ul > tal

vvevw, © LWxKpares, ovdev eidévar Gv TOTE Eltrov. al pnv Karas

8 a > , WY: idé Ka , 9 K \ \ aA

200 EB re xai BT: cai W dvopodoynoopeda W dv €vdea xri. (usque

ad 213E 6rv) exstat in Oxyr. Pap. 843 mapnv O.-P. 201 A 8v épwros
O.-P.: 8 €pwra O.-P. corr. épws BT O.-P.: 6 épws W y éeyes Scripsi:
he€ Nevers
NSS libri, edd.: 1 ye Néye[e]s
4 O.-P. dAXo re 7)
7 O.-P. corr., ) Ven. 184 Vind 21
B exe W: éxn BT rou[t lov O.-P. corr.: rov O.-P. w@ Swxpartes xiv dv-
VEUW O-r:

%ySera apy. This sounds like a jocular contradiction in terms: in Eros

there is a plentiful lack.
201 A tbnoba év 7H Adyw.. See 197B: cp. Isocr. Hel. 2194 rav d€ Kadraov
épas nuw eyylyverat.
émuakas y Breyes. For eruecxas, probe, recte, cp. Rep. 431 8, Laws 635 a.
I have ventured to read @Aeyes for the traditional Aéyers. In the present
context Aéyers seems objectionable because of its ambiguity, since “ You say
well” would more naturally be taken to refer to A.’s reply (elroy yap) than
to his previous statement. This objection is not touched by Rettig’s defence
of the tense: “auch das Praésens ist ganz an seinem Platze. Da Agathon
bestatigt, dass er sich so geiussert habe, wie Sokrates angebe, so gilt seine
obige Aeusserung auch jetzt.”
201 B ov...xal pr exe. “Sic dictum est ut 6 apud éye: repetendum est”
(Stallb.).
7d évSets KdAAOvs. With reference to this Proclus (¢n Zim. p. 128) com-
ments : évdeés kddAous €v guprogia mpoceime TO wn MpoTas Kadov GAA peTEexoV
kdAdous: cp. 2b. p. 110. For the tautologous form of expression, cp. 185 a n. ;
Eur. Jon 680 airy 8 dmas # Kai Aedeypevyn téxvov: td. Heracl. 530, ete.
(see Vahlen op. Acad. 11. 366).
KuvSuvevo...elrrov. eidévai is past, not present, in sense.
Kal piv...ctres. Not “recte dixisti”: (Ficinus), but “praeclare dixisti”
 94 TIAATQNOZ [201 c
C ye elrres, hava, d AyaOwov. GAA opiKpov Ere eirré* Tayaba ov
IN AS 4 > / > \ >

cw lal A
Kal Kana Soxel cor eivar; "Kporye. Et apa o"Epws tev Kadov
(a) 3. CA

évdens
dy
éott, TA S¢ ayaba Kara, Kav
vn
Tov
fo
ayabav
2, a“
evdens
> \
ein.
yy
“Kyo,“
>

/ > , y ? of
davar, 6 Lwxpares, coi ovK av duvaiuny avTireyerv, add oUTAS
eXETW OS aU EYES. OU pév odv TH adnOeia, Paval, o Pidovpeve
ee nes A a enema Ti) \ a A ’ /, i? Lg ,

’Ayabov, Sivacat avtireyety, €met Dwxparer ye ovdév YanerTrov.

’ la

D XXII. Kai cé pév ye 78n eacw: Tov 5é Royov Tov Trept Tod
, \ \ lel

pwtos, bv mor HKovca yuvarkos Maytuinyns Avotipas, 7) Tavta

"BR e > » \ M aA A / OY fol ‘

Te copt Av Kal Ga TOA, Kal “AOnvaiois ToTé Gucapévors pO

va \

Tov NoLpov déxa Tn avaBorny erroinae THS vooou, H 67 Kat ewe TA

a a , BY 9 \ 2 7 ol t a 87 Lie Uo \

201 C eiras O.-P. Vat. 227 pirovpeve: pire O.-P. (ov) Svvacat
rs
Sauppe D pavtuixyns BT O.-P.: pavrixns W vulg. Avotwas O.-P.
™s
qv: eva O.-P.1 Ovoapnévn Steph. dexérn Bdhm. Sz. [¢]mounoaro
vocou O.-P.

(Wolf). What Socr. alludes to is not A.’s foregoing reply, but his oration
(cp. 1988, 199¢); and the point of his remark is to suggest that formal
beauty of diction does not necessarily involve the more essential beauty
of adnOe.a.
201 C rd 8 dya0d xadd. For the coincidence of these two concepts, cp.
Prot, 360 8, Hipp. Maj. 297 B, c, Phileb. 648 ff. It might be near the truth
to say that ro caddy is neither less nor more than 76 dyaGéy in its external
aspect, “goodness” as apprehended by the aesthetic faculty, or goodness gua
attractive and soul-stirring. See also Plotin. de puler. p. 46; Procl. in J Ale.
p. 329.
*Eyo...col...0v. 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. 2168
infra: Ken. Symp. Vv. 8.
201 D Kal ot...éé0. “You I will now release”: this is said with
reference to the phrase used in 199 B éri...mapes jor Ayabwva KX.
Mavrivixys Avor(pas. Probably both these names are meant to be ety-
mologically significant :the resemblance of the adj. to pavti« is patent (in
fact some M88. give pavtixns, and Ficin. fatidica muliere), while as illustrating
the omen of Atoriva one might cite Soph. fr. 226 N. coos yap oddeis mdhv bv
av ria Oeds. See further Introd. § v.c. Hug quotes an imitative passage
from Dio. Chrys. 1. p. 59 R. pidov...6v eyo more fxovoa yuvaixds "HAeias 4
"Apxadias tmep ‘Hpaxdéovs Suyyoupévns. See
Tyr. diss. xxiv. 4, also Max.
p- 588 ; Clem, Al. Strom. vi. p. 631 B.
po rov Aowwod xrA. For the Great Plague at Athens in 430 B.c. see
Thue. 11. 47, Bury H. G. p. 407. That the plague had been rife elsewhere for
some time previously is implied by Thue. 7. c. For similar instances of the
averting or postponing of impending evils by divine or prophetic agency,
gee Hdt. 1. 91 rpia yap rea emaveBdrero (sc. 6 Aokins) thy Zapdiov droow:
201 E} ZYMTTOZION 95
epwtixa edidatev,—dv odv éxeivn édeye AOyov, Teipacopar tpi
? \ 2Q7 a

Sued Oeiy ex THY @poroynpévwn euol Kai AyaOwri, avtos én’ éwav-
Tov, oTws av Sivwpat. Set dy, @ “Ayabwv, doTep ad Sinyrjow,
a “f a

SveA ely avtov mp@tov, Tis éotiv 6” Epaws Kal roids Tus, érerta Ta
tal ’ \ a , lal

” ’ a A a A
épya avtod. Soxel odv pos pactoy elvat otTw SiedOeiv, ds ToTé we
» vn avaxpivovoa dine. oyedov yap Te Kal ey@ mpos avTiy
€ / a ’ \ /

€Tepa ToLavTa EXeyou olatrep viv mpos eue Ayabar, ws ein o“Epws
vf lal “ , fol \ > ee} / € vv cw

Méyas
/
eos,
/
ein
”
SE\ TOYa KaAdV*
a
HrEyKXE
”
57/ ME TOUTOLS
,
Totsa AoYoLS
,

olomrep éya ToUTOY, WS OUTE KaXOS cln KATA TOV éwov NOyoY OUTE
ayados. Kai eyo, Ids Nevers, Epnv, & Atotiua; aliaxypos apa
’ / N ’ , lal / a > , ? \ ”

201 D = oyor exewvn eheyeyv O.-P. er’ Coisl. corr. Paris 1642 O.-P., Bast:
an’ BTW Set 67 TW O.-P.: deiAn B dunynow BT O.-P.: 8) nynow Sz.
Bt.: xa@nynow Hirschig: tpnynow Sauppe: dujpnoa Usener: yyjow olim
Herm. E_ roids: oroos O.-P. mor eve vulg. yap: d€O.-P. — edny
Aeyers O.-P. eley ele} O.-P.

Athen. xu. 602 B: Euseb. praep. evang. v. 35, p. 233 B, c: cp. Virg. Aen.
vil. 313 ff., vir. 398 ff. (where ““decem annos” is the interval named). A
specially ees parallel, as mentioning the same 10 years’ interval, is
Laws 642D axnkoas ws “Ermevidns yéyovey avnp Geios...ehOav Se mpd Tav
Tlepoixa@v déxa erect mporepov map vpas...dvcias te €Ovcaro rivas...cai dn Kai
hoBoupévav tov Teparxov "AOnvaiwy arddov elmev Sri Séka pev eT@v ovX
néovaow KTA.
aités én euavrov. Riickert alone retains the lection dm’ euavrov. Cp.
I Ale. 1148 ci pév Bovde, epwradv pe, dorep eyw oé, ei S€ kal avros emt cavrov
oy@ dueEeAOe: Soph. 217 c.
domep ov Sinyjow. I think the traditional text, supported also by the
Papyrus, may stand, taking:éijynow to imply—with veiled contempt—a
lengthy or meticulous disquisition. Schanz’s 67 7ynow is open to a double
objection, (1) the repeated 657) is unpleasing, and (2) nynow is a feeble word to
apply to Agathon’s dogmatic exposition (in 195 a) of the rules of method.
Sauppe’s vpnynow is appropriate enough (cp. Gorg. 455 D, Crat. 392 D), but
does not explain the corruption.
201 BE SeAGety airov «rd. Here Socrates cites almost verbatim the
language used by Agathon in 195 A Adyw duedOeiv...ddces. Observe however
the significant addition by Socr. of the words ris éorw: he requires a state-
ment of the essential notion (ris éorz) as well as of the attributes (zoids ris).
ely 8 tdv Kaddv. The genitive is not masc. nor one of orgin (=éx ray
xadov) as Wolf thought, but as Stallb. rightly notes “‘xakev pendet ex "Epas,
quod etiam hic positum est ut p. 196D”: cp. 201 A, 2040, for similar genn.
of the object.
aloyxpds dpa xrA. Socrates represents himself (ironically) as unversed in
the rules of logic, and habitually confusing contradictory with contrary
notions (ov-cadds with aicxpds): for the distinction, cp. Soph. 257 B, 257 D ff ;
Luthyd. 283 B, 285 a ff., Cratyl. 429 B ff
 96 TAATQNOS [201 &
, > > y ” Nee ee
0"Epws éotl nal xaxds; Kal 7, OvK edpnunoes; Epn: 4 oles, 8 Te
a
202 dv pr)\ Kadovve! 7,geavayxaiov
a ea
avTo ee
eivar > 1
aicypov; ,
Madora 1
ye. 9 *H
kal dv pn codov, apabés; h ovK joOnoar bru ote TL perakd\
\ Aa \ / > / A > w Uy, ”

aodias Kal awabias; Ti rodt0; To dp0a dokafew [Kai] avev rod

” t A 5) 2 a) o + jenni? Si
pa are
éxew Adyov Sobvas ovK olaG, Edn, OTL ovTE emictacBai EoTLW*
ankoyov yap Tpayuwa ms av ein émiatHun; ovTe auaia TO yap
Tov dvTos TUyxavov mas av ein awadia; éate 5é by Tov ToLvodToV
» 0p0n S0&a, wetakd Ppovncews Kai apabias. ’AdnOH, ny 8 eyo,
B révyers. M7 roivuy avayxate 5 ur) Karov éotw aioxpov elvat,
pndée 6 pn ayabov, Kaxov. otTw dé Kat tov “Epwta érevd) avtos
\ iA \ > , 4 oe \ \ \ v ? \ LY

opmororyels un evat ayabov undé Kadov, wndév Te waAXov olov Seiv

© lal \ ~ > \ \ / lA a yy cal

auTov aicypov Kal Kxaxov elvat, adda TL pwetaEv, Ep, TovTow.

> \ > *, \ \ 3 > hi / 4 rs

Kai pny, nv & eyo, oporoyetral ye Tapa tavtTwv péyas Oeds elvat.
Ov pn eldoTwv, pn, TavTwv Réyes, ) Kai TOV eddTwOYV; Bup-
TO SS 80 »” / Ne A \ lal 186 5 =|

TavTwv pev odv. Kal} yeracaca, Kal ras av, pn, 6 Lwxpates,
, Ni = ween , \ a Mv ” oa ,

201E edn: 4: edny O.-P1 202 A 4d» (post cai): (6) dv Ast Mdvg. Sz.:
6 tt dy Steph. Hirschig: 6rz dv, deleto cal, Reynders: &v oiooo Hommel TO
dpOa So€afew T O.-P.: rd 7a dpOa 8. W: 10 dpOodoEatew B cai om. O.-P.,
del. Stallb. Bdhm. Sz. totouto O.-P.: rowtrov re Hirschig 7) dp67 de€a del.
Bdhm. B_ rovrow edn O.-P. ye BT O.-P.: por W

202 A °H xal dy pi xrd. “He. dv re py copdv. Nam rt: e superiore 6 1

facile intelligas” (Stallb.).
To op0a S0fdtev crA. This distinction between doéa and émiorjuy is much
insisted on by Plato; see esp. Rep. 477 ff.; Meno 99 a: cp. Isocr. Hel. 209 a.
For ro éxeww Adyor Sovva: as the distinctive mark of é¢mriornun, cp. Meno 98 a;
but this definition is criticised unfavourably in Theaet. 201 c ff. (see Zeller,
Plato, pp. 171 ff.). I bracket «ai before dvev: if retained, we must render
with Riickert (and Hug) “auch ohne Rechenschaft geben zu kénnen.” For
this “intensive” use of cai, see Thompson on Meno 71 B. Rettig defends the
Bodleian dpOodo€dafey thus “ dpa do€dfew ginge auf Einzelnes und Thatsach-
liches, nicht auf den Begriff als solchen und die geistige Eigenschaft” : but
this distinction is imaginary, and there is no other evidence, in Plato or
elsewhere, for the existence of this compound, Aristotle’s word (ZH. NV. v1.
8. 4) being épO0d0géw. Possibly we should write xai (dvra) d., cp. Rep. 4134.
peragi ppovrcews xrd. Cp. Hep. 477 A perafd r...dyvoias Te kal émuornpns:
ub. 478 D.
202 B My rolvuw dvayxate. “I. q. ux) avayxaiov vouite, v. Heindorf ad
Euthyd, (sic) p. 432 c” (Stallb.), For this use to denote logical compulsion, cp.
also Cratyl. 432 B py avayxale mavr Eye ra ypappara...add’ ga xrd.: Parmen.
133 ¢.
Tov pr dbdrwv. Sc. mapa: cp. Crat. 408 D, Soph. 243 p, etc. A similar
distinction had been drawn twice by Socr. himself, see 194 B ff., 199 a.
202 D] ZYMITTOZION oF

omoroyoiro péyas Oeds elvat Tapa TovTwv, of dacw avTov ovdé C

Gedy evar; Tives odto1; jv 8 eyo. Els pév, én, ov, pia & eyo.
Kay eitov, lds todo, env, eyes; Kal 7, ‘Padiws, &pn. Réye
yap pot, ov mavtas Oeods pis evdaipovas elvat nal Kadovs; 4
Tohpnoas av Tiva yu) Pavat Karov TE Kal Eevdaipova Dedy eivac;
Ma AV ov« eywy’, Env. Evdaipovas S€ 8% Aéyers od TOds Tayaba
kal Ta Kada KexTnwévous ; Ilavu ye. “AANA pH “Epwrd ye @po-
Noynkas Ov Evderav TOV ayabdv Kal Karov ériOvpciv ad’Tav D
Tovtwy av évdens éotiv. “OQmoroynxa yap. ds dav odv Beds
ein 6 ye TOV KaX@Y Kal ayabdv auorpos; Ovdauds, Bs y Eouxer.
Opds ody, fn, Ott Kai od “Epwra ov Gedy vopifers ;
¢ lol = ” ae \ Neer > x /

XXIII. Ti ody av, épny, ein 0 "Epws; Ovntos; “Axuora ye.

202 C egy om. O.-P. cat kadovs secl. Bdhm. Sz. caddy Te Kat secl.
Bdhm. Sz. deaov BT O.-P.: deoy pr. W rovs rayaba BT Stob. O.-P.:
Tous ayabovs W ra xada B O.-P., J.-U.: waka TW Stob., Sz. Bt. D rav
Kaha Kal Tav ayadav Stob. mas Sav scripsi: was dv B Stob. O.-P., J.-U.:
ras & av TW, Bt. tav TW Stob. O.-P.: y dv B dat €orxev Stob,
Ti ovv; épnv: etn av 6 "Epaws Ovnrds; cj. Steph. 6 épws ein Stob. édnv B
Stob., J.-U. Sz. Bt.: én TW O.-P., Jn.

202 C xdyd elrrov...%pnv. We might avoid this tautology (for which cp.
177 A) by reading cay, Elmov més xrh., construing etov as 1st aor. imper.,
as in Meno 71v. Op. Rep. 338 D adda cadéotepov eime ri héyers.
‘PaSlws. Sc. rovtro Xéyw. For the use of padiws with Aéyw and the like,
often with a bad meaning, of ill-timed lightness, cp. Meno 94 (with
Thompson’s note), Rep. 377 B, 378 a. Here, however, the meaning is probably
padiv é€atw 6 déyo (so Rettig), or as Stallb. “sic ut res facilem habet expli-
cationem”: cp, Rep. 475 E adda més air héyers ; OVSapas, Fv S eyo, padios
mpos ye GAXov* oe S€ oa xtA. It would also be possible to suppose that
Diotima is, playfully, adapting her reply to the form rather than the sense of
Socr.’s question : “In what way do you speak thus?” “TI speak it lightly”
(without compunction): 7.e. the Aéyw to be supplied with padios may mean
“ T say, utter the word,” whereas the Aéyers of Socr. meant “do you mean.”
evSalpovas elvar xrA. Badham’s excision of both cai xadovs and kaddy
re xai is plausible: if the words are sound, we must assume the stress in each
clause to be laid on the terms here in question, eddaiuovas...<ddaipova.
EiSal(povas 8 84 «TA. Cp. the phrases used by Agathon in 195 a.
202 D ‘Qpodrsynxa yép. Socr. represents himself as having already con-
ceded to Diotima exactly as much as Agathon had conceded to him (cp.
201 E oyedov ydp te xTA.): for A.’s concession of the point here in question,
see 200 A, E.
Gpotpos. This word had already been employed by Agathon, 197 p (cp.
181 c); it is a poetical word rarely used by Plato elsewhere, except in Laws
(693 B, etc.).
B. P. 7
 98 TAATQNOS [202 p
"AAA Th pnv; “Qomep Ta mporepa Epnyv, petaEd OvnTod Kal
aBavatov. Ti odv, d Arotipa; Aaipoy péyas, 6 LwxKpates: Kal
E yap wav 70 Saipovoy petakd eats Oeod te Kai Ovntod. Tiva, nv
& eyo, Svvapiv exov; ‘Epynvevdov nal duatropOpedov Oeots ta Tap
avOparrav Kai avOpwrrois Ta Tapa Oedv, THY pev Tas SenoeErs Kal
Oucias, Tov b€ Tas éemitakes TE Kal apwotBas [Tov Ovotar], ev pécw
, a \ \ ? , ne \ a a ? /

dé dv dudhotépwv cupTAnpol, Hote TO TAY avTO auT@ EvvdedécOat.

Va ? / a iA \ lal > \ € a 5 yA

202 E re xai BT O.-P.: cai W Stob. tiva 8 yv Stob. Svar pod-

pevoy O,-P. Geois re ra Stob. trav Ovotov om. Pollux, secl. Sz. (ro) ev
péow Séov Vermehren ep peow O.-P.: eupéow Lobeck Se by: 87 dv Peipers:
ddevoy Cj. anon. ov (ra) Bergk (ra 6Aa) cupmAnpot Reynders: (apdore-
pous) o. Bdhm. To Tav wore arto Orelli avro om. Stob.

“Qo-mep td mpdtepa. Viz. the exx. of a mean between extremes given in

202 A, B.
Aalpwv péyas. The epithet serves to point the correction of Socrates’
definition, péyas Geds (202 B). Cp. Olyimpiod. in Alczd. I. p. 22 “ Saipova” Se
as pécov airoyv mpocayopever: pécos yap éotiv 6 “Epws ovoias kal évepyelas kal
épwpévov kal €pactov: “péeyav” dé, ered) trép aicOnow Kai voepas evepyei.
Procl. in Alcib. I. p. 64 Cr., p. 66. For 76 Saipdviov as pera&v, ep. Eur. Troad.
55—6: Med. 1391: Hel. 1137 6 re Oeds } pr Oeds 7 TO pécov Kr. (see Rohde,
Psyche it. 249 n. 1).
202 E ‘Eppnvedov xrA. For the term épunvever to describe the mediating
office of Saipoves, cp. Hpin. 985 B éppnveverOat (Saipovas) mpos adAnAovs TE Kal
tovs...deovs mavras Te kal mayta. Hommel bids us take épunvevov with avép.
7a mapa Gedy (as “eiusdem atque ‘Epis radicis”) and dcaropOpevov with Geois
ta map’ avOpamer (the office of the ropOyevs, Charon, being “ animas e terra
ad sedes deorum transvehere”). This is probably right ; but in any case it is
a mistake to regard the two words as synonymous, as do L. and S. (s. v.
SiatropOpeva, “to translate from one tongue into another, to interpret”).
dpoBas [Tov Ovora@v]. duoBy as a “return-present” (in transactions
between gods and men) is used in Hom. Od. 1. 318 col 8 déwov éorar dpoiBis
(sc. rd d@pov): tb. I. 58 AAXowor SiSov yxapiecoayv apoiBny...dyaxAeTHs éxa-
ropBns: cp. Eur. Or, 467 ois...amédwx’ ayoiBas od xadas. Pollux (vi. 187)
when quoting our passage ignores réy @voidy. Cp. also Procl. 7n Aleib. J.
p. 46, 63: Plut. de Js, et Os, 26, p. 361B 6 re WAdtav éppnvevtixdy rd rovodrov
ovopater yévos Kat Staxovikoy ev perm Oea@y Kai avOpamav, evyas pev éxet Kal
Senoes...avaméprovras, exeiOev Se pavreta Sevpo cal Sdoes ayaboyv dépovras :
Apuleius de deo Soer. 6 hos Graeci nomine daiuovas nuncupant, inter homines
caelicolasque vectores hine precum inde donorum, qui ultro citro portant hince
petitiones inde suppetias, ceu quidam utrisque interpretes et salutigeri. per
hos eosdem, ut Plato in symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata et magorum
varia miracula omnesque praesagiorum species reguntur: see also Plut. de or.
def. 415.4; Philo Jud. de somn. p. 586 D (Saimoves) Fas rod marpds éemixedevoecs
ToIs exyovols, Kal TAS TOY Exyovear XpEias TO marpl SayyéddAovor.
ty plow 8 Ov. This calls for no alteration (such as is suggested by
203 a] ZYMTTOZION 99

Sia TovTou Kal ) mavTLKn TATA YwpEl Kal 1) THY lepewy TéeXVN TOV
a ae a a e a

Te qepl Tas Ovalas Kal Tas TedeTAas Kal Tas éem@ddas Kal THY 203
payyavelay macav Kat yonteciav. Oeds S€ avOpwrw ov plyvuTat,
GANA Oia TOUTOU Taaa EoTLY 7 OpiNia Kal 7) SiadexTOS Deois mMpos
avOpamovs <Kal mpos Oeods avOpwrois>, Kal éypnyopoau Kal
202 E iepéyv Stob. 203 A ras reXeras B Stob. O.-P., J.-U.: rederas
TW, Bt. cal ras er@das...yonreiay secl. Hug — kai riyv..yonreiay secl. Voeg.
Hayyaveiay Geel J.-U. Sz.: pavreiay BT Stob. O.-P.: payeiay Bdhm. Bt.
avOpamous (cai mpds Beot's avOporoas) Wolf Usener Sz.: d. (cat dvOpamos mpos
Geovs) Heusde: avOpwmas Stobaei P eyAnyopoo[a]e O.-P.

Vermehren): with ovprdAnpot sc. dudorépovs. The pécov serves as the deopés
by which the extremes (here 6vnroi and a@avaroc) are united into an organic
whole (dAov). Cp. Procl. zn Ale. J. pp. 69, 72, 77.
203 A ras tederds. “Ritual”: cp. Hep. 365 A Avoes Te Kal KaPappol adcxn-
patwy...as 57 TedXeTas kadovow: Phaedr. 244 (with Thompson’s note): Laws
738 © Ovcias rederais ouppixtous. That xa@appoi (and rederai) included repibew-
oeis, NouTpa, Tepippavaers appears from Oratyl. 405 A. Rohde (Psyche u. 70 n. 3)
points out that “diese pavrecs entsprechen in allem Wesentlichen den Zaubern
und Medicinminnern der Naturvilker. Wahrsager, Arzt, Zauberer, sind hier
noch eine Person.” £.g. Apis in Aesch. Suppl. 260 ff. ; cp. Eur. Heracl. 401,
Phoen, 1255 ff., and the part played by Eupedocles. In Hippocr. de morb.
sacr. p. 591 the pavres and xa@aprai are witch-doctors, claiming control of
the elements, as rain-makers, etc. (xa@appovs mpood ‘oovres cai é€maoidas...
mepikabaipwy Kal payevor...te kal voy oeAnvny Te Kabaipnue Kal HAtov agaviet
Kal xe@va Kai evdinv moiuoe: kTr.): Cp. 197 C 2.
THY payyavelay macav. Geel’s correction payyayeiay is perhaps slightly
preferable, on the ground of Platonic usage, to Badham’s payeiav. Cp.
Laws 908 D ¢€& dv pavres te xatacxevafovra. modAol kal mept macay Tijv
payyaveiay Kexivnpévor: id. 933 A Gdn Se (happaxeia) 7 payyaveias ré tise Kal
éem@bais Kai xatadéoeot eyouévars meiPe Ktrd. (cp. 933.C): Gorg. 484A Ta
Npérepa ypdppara kai payyavevpara Kal émwdas: also [Dem.] xxv. 79 AaBav ra
pdppaxa kai tas ér@das...payyavever kai pevaxife. Hug objects to yonrelay,
as elsewhere used by Plato in a bad sense. There is, however, no need to
suppose that any of these terms are intended here to convey more than a
neutral sense; and to represent 7 Mavrivixn as a disbeliever in any of the
arts of divination or wizardry would be less artistic than pedantic. Moreover,
the language used here is supported by the echo it finds in the description of
Eros below (203 D ad fin.) as Sewvds yons cal pappakeds kai coduorns. Rep.
364 8B, c shows Plato’s own low opinion of current pavrixy, but Socrates was
probably more credulous, see Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 9, 4. 15.
Qcots pds avOpémovs xTA. Since the participles can neither be construed
with Oeots, because of the sense, nor with avOéparrous, because of the case, it is
necessary to supply some such supplement as that adopted in the text.
Rettig accepts Stallbaum’s explanation of the traditional text; “ Quum enim
"9
cae ied
100 TAATQNOS [203 a
xabevdovot' Kal o ev Tepi Ta ToLadTAa Gogpos Satpovios avyp, o Sé
We Les \ \ anh a \ Uh > , Cy \

adXo Te copes wv H TeEpl TéexVas 7 TEpl YELpoupyias TLvas Bavavoos.

” \ a A \ 4 a NK ‘ \ ,

odtot 81) of Saipoves ToAXOL Te Kal TavTOdaTroé cicty, els 5é TOVTWY

e \ € , / \ va > \ tf

éott kal 0 ”Epas.

Tlatpos &€, Hv & eye, Tivos éotl Kal pntpos; Maxportepor pér,
, ld Si /

ébn, Sunyncacbat: buws Sé cou épo. Ste yap éyéveto 7 Adpoditn,

elatu@vtTo of Oeol, of Te GAXOL Kal o THS Myredos vids Tlopos.
érretd) 5é eSeimvncav, mpocaitnoovea olov 87 evwyias ovans
adixeto 7 Llevia, cal jv mepl tds Ovpas. 0 odv Ildpos peOucels
gt

203 A coos: odos O.-P.: apodpds Stob. dv om. Stob. mept

xetpoupyias Stob. O.-P.: yetpovpyias BTW, J.-U. Bt. Ret S O.-P. odo
te Stob. O.-P.: moddoi BTW tovtev: O,-P. éori om. Stob. Tivos
€ott Kai pntpos BW: xat pytpos rivos éeatt T! O.-P. (eariv) B cicriavro
W bt, Hermog., 8z.: toriwvro O.-P.: norivro T, Bt.: noriavto B ol TE
adAor Geot kai Hermog. spocairnoovoa T O.-P.: mpocairis otaa B: rpocairis
ovca Euseb. Origen ,

dicatur épureiv rive et Staréyer

Gai rive, etiam opiria cat duadexTos tive recte dici
potuit. Et quum antea...perspicuitatis caussa usus esset praepositione mpos
addito casu accusativo, nune ad legitimam constructionem revertens, neglecta
grammatica diligentia, dativum post accusativum. recte inferri potuit.” But
at this rate one might justify anything in the way of distorted grammar !
Hug marks a lacuna after av@pamovs. For the ref. to divine communications
in sleep (“the visions of the head upon the bed”), cp. Pind. fr. 131. 3 ff.;
Rep. 571 p ff. (with Adam’s notes) ; Rohde, Psyche i. 6 ff.
Saipdvios aviip. Compare the etymological definition (Saiuev =Sanper) in
Cratyl. 398c. For Socrates as an example of the Saidvios avnp, see 219 B,
mepl téxvas...Bavavoos. Cp. Theaet. 176 0, Laws 644.4; Arist. Rhet. 1. 9.
1367 31 (eAevdépou onpetov) To pndepiay epyaterOar Bavavoov réxvnv. The
question as to why manual labour is held in contempt is asked in Rep. 590 ©,
and answered in Hep; 495 p (see Adam’s notes ad loc.).
ot Sa(poves. Other Platonic passages mentioning these intermediary
beings are Rep. 392 A, 427 B, 617 D (with Adam’s note), Laws 713 D, 717 B.
For later developments see esp. Plutarch (de defect. orac., de Is. et Os., de
daem. Soer., etc.), Cp. Rohde, Psyche 1. 153.
Ilarpds 8€...rlvos x7A. These are genitives of origin. Here we have it
tacitly assumed that Phaedrus’s statement (178 B), that Eros is unbegotten,
is untrue.
203B IIdpos. We find in Aleman fr. 16 (with the Schol, ére rév Wdpov
elpnke Tov avTov T@ Urd Tov ‘Howdov pepvOevpév@ Xdec) a precedent for this
personification of IIdpos. Tevia is personified by Aristophanes in the Plutus,
passim. For Myris, see Hes. Theog. 886 Zeds 8€ Oedv Barier’s mparny Groyov
Oéro Maru, | wreiota Oeay re idviay id€ Ovnrav avOp@rev: (Aris is, in Epic,
the especial attribute of Zeus, as pnriéra): Maris was also an Orphic alias of
208 c] | ZYMTIOZION 101
TOU VEKTApOS—oLVOS yap ovTw nv—els TOV TOD Atos KHTOV EtaEeXOwv
lal / 4 n A s ’ \ lal ‘ lol ’ \

BeBapnpévos nvdev. 1) odv Ilevia émiBovdrevouvca bia Tv auThs

atopiav Tradiov tomnaacBar éx Tod Ilopou, KatakXivetai Te Tap’
avT@ Kal exinoe TOV "Epwra. S10 8) Kal ths “Adpoditns axo-
ovdos nai Gepatrwy yéyovev 6 “Epaws, yevynOeis ev Tots exelvns
yeveOrLous, Kal Gua Pvcet Epactns @y TEpl TO KaXOY Kal THs “Adpo-
/ eye 7 ’ \ * Ly \ \ \ n ,

ditns Kadhs ovans. ate odv Iopou nai Uevias vids dv o”"Epas év
TOLAUTH TUX KABETTHKE. TMPOTOV meV TéVYS ael OTL, KaL TOANOD
203 B efeAdwr O.-P. nidev BTW: eddev O.-P., al. madorouncag
bat
Naber J.-U. C $8) «ai BT O.-P.: 8) W kat Oepdrrwy: kai om, Orig.
exeivay Orig. épaatns del. Bdhm. ckaddv cat BT O.-P.: caiom. W:
fort. ckaddv, ws cat tys...ovons del. Bdhm. mévns TW O.-P.: revins B

Eros. For nectar as the primeval substitute for wine, cp. Hom. J//. v. 341,
etc., also Phaedr. 247 © trols immous...véxrap érorice. The celestial deirvov
was, it appears, followed by a cupmociv. Spenser, H. to Love, speaks of the
god as “ Begot of Plentie and of Penury.” See further /ntrod. § Iv. c 2.
els tov tou Avos xrmov. Cp. Soph. fr. (Jon) 297 N. ev Avs knows apotaOa
pdvov evdaipovas OABovs. It is interesting to notice that Origen (Contra Cels.
Ivy. 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 O. T. stories of Noah and his sons and of Lot and his daughters.
For the neo-Platonic interpretation of the myth, see Plotinus Ayn. 111. 5. 2,
292 F ff., 298 Fr: cp. also Introd. § 1v.c 2. A similar Orphic legend is
mentioned by Porphyry de antr. nymph. 16 (Orphica p. 180) mapa d€ ro
*Oppet 6 Kpovos péAure vd Atos evedpeverar: mAnoGels yap péAtros pedver Kai
OKOTOUTaL wS Ud OlvoV Kai Umvol, ws mapa TAdtwye 6 Idpos tov véxrapos
mAnaGeis, otrw yap owos Av. 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” ete.).
BeBapnpévos. A later form for the Epic BeBapnas (Od. 111. 139): ep.
Theocr. xvil. 61 BeBapnpéva adivecow.
maSloy mojoacbar é& «rd. So Andoc. Iv. 22 vio e€ airns wemoinra: and
maidas moicba in Crito 45 p, Laws 674 B, 783 D, as equiv. to the epd.
madoroeaba (Rep. 449 D, Laws 784 A, B, E). These parallels are sufficient
to defend the text (see crit. n.), without resorting to Rettig’s absurd notion
that madiov 7. is “ verecundior” than the epd.
203 C ris “Adpodlrys...depdrwv. Cp. Orph. fr. 1389 trhv yap ’Adpodirny
mapnyayev 6 Snuwovpyos...xai Tov “Epwra dmaddv avrns: Sappho fr. 74 (A€éyer 7
*Adpoditn) av te Kadds (xapds Bgk.) Oeparwy "Epos: Hes. Theog. 201 rp 8 (se.
’"Adpobitn) “Epos @paprnce kai “Ipepos €omero xados | yevouevy Tamp@ta krd.:
Max. Tyr. diss. xxIv. p. 297.
tpacris dv wept ro Koddv. Cp. 204 8B, 2068. For the thought, cp. Sir
T. Browne (Rel. Med.) “I am naturally amorous of all that is beautiful.”
mpetov pev x7A. Here follows a list of the properties which attach to
Eros in virtue of his descent from Penia. Observe that the order is chiastic—
here Penia-Poros, above Poros-Penia.
 102 TAATQNOZ [203 ¢
ée0 dtrados Te Kal KaXdos, olov of ToAAOL olovTaL, AXXa KANPOS
lal , > \ \

kal avypnpos Kal avuTrodnTos Kai OLKOS, YaMaLTETNS GEL @Y Kal

. t "h \ + Lm * \

dotpwtos, emt Ovpais Kal év odois UrralOpios KoLtmapeEvos, THY THS

€ a / \ a

, , * \ /
Entpos pucw éxwv, ael évdeta Evvoikos. Kata € av Tov TaTépa
€riBouros €ott Tois Kaos Kal Tols ayaBois, avdpeios BY Kal itns
? / U 2 an cal \ a ? lal ’ a a \ w+

Kal ouvtovos, OnpeuTns Sevos, ael Tivas TAEKWY UNYAaVAS, Kal

, / . / re / x

203 D «ai ofkos Themistius vraiOpios BW O.-P., Orig.: tma-

Opias T (Core pev ovv) thy Cc]. Sommer trois ayabots libri: ayaois O.-P.
dewvos om. apogr. Paris. 1810, del. Kreyenbiihl det mpoomdéxov Orig.
Lnxavas: Gees Bas O.-P. (ze. apouBas O.-P.")

olov of moAdol olovrar. This popular opinion had been esp. voiced by
Agathon, 195 ff.; and he had used the term oxAnpos in 1955, 1964. The
properties of Eros are, as observed by Max. Tyr. diss. xxiv. 4. p. 461, areyvas
ola eis a’tov Swxpatny €oxwmroy ev Arovvatots of kwp@doi: cp. Themist. or. 13.
yom GIL ay Var,
203 D avxpnpos. This is evidently intended as the contrary of Agathon’s
epithet vypds, 196 a. Cp. Ar. Plut. 80 ff (ldodros) aOXiws Staxeipevos...avxpov
Badi¢ers; and the echoes in Plut. de fort. p. 98 D, in amat. 759 A.
avuTdSynros...actpwtos. These, too, are characteristics of the Socratic (and
Cynic) way of life. For avumodnros, see 173 B, 2208; for yapairerns kai dotpe-
tos the account given by Alcibiades in 220 B,c. Compare also the description
of the SeAdoi (“fakirs”) in (7. Xvi. 234 fh Seddol, avimrdrodes, yapatedvar xrA.
(see Welcker AU. Schr. 3. 90 f. ; Rohde, Psyche 1. 122).
él Oipais x7A. For the @upavdia of epacrai, see 183 A, Anthol. v. 5 ; and
for this phrase as applicable to Socrates, 175 a, 220c, Ar. Vub. 169 ff. So too
Penia was described in 203 B as (ovca) mepi tas Ovpas. tmaidpios and civorxos
are words of a poetical flavour: cp. Xen. Symp. VIII. 24 6 det civoxos
eo epas.
rns. “Energetic” (‘“go-aheal”): Schol. trys: torep, éemistnuorv, ws
evraivOa. RapBdavera S€ Kai emi rod irapovd cat Opacéos. The Scholiast’s as
evravda is clearly wrong, and that Plato connected the word with iéva is
shown by Protag. 349 E moérepov rovs avdpelovs Pappadéous €yers f) GAXO TL;
kat tras y’, en, ep & of moddol PoBodvra iéva. Cp. Prot. 359: Callinus
1. 9—10 adda tis (Avs irw | €yxos dvacxopevos xt. Here, however, the special
sense of intellectual progress (pé@0d0s, dvodos) may be implied, ep. 2104
(yeTin, lovra, tévac), and my note on avdpelay 212 B (also 205 D).
Onpevtys Sevds. “A mighty hunter,” a very Nimrod. For the notion of
the chase in erotics, cp. the use of éAetvy and dtaxey in 182 B, ete., and of Onpa
in Soph. 222 D rH rev epavray Onpa (cp. Onpepa in Isoecr. Hel. 219D): for the
same notion applied to philosophical enquiry, ep. Phaedo 66¢ thy rod éyvros
Onpav: Gorg. 500 p, 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.”
mrékwv pnxavds. “ Weaving plots,” “intriguing”: ep. Eur. Androm. 66 rotas
pnyavas mréxovow ad; Orph, H. 55. 3 CAdpodirn) SoAomAoxe: Aelian H. A,
: a ; ( ; ;
UL, 80 copararos 6 KOKKUE, Kal mAEKELY EVTOpOUsS eE ATOpwY Bnxavas Sewvdraros.
204 a] SZYMIMOZION 103
ppovncews ériOuyntys kal mopipos, Pirocopay dia tavTds Tov
Biov, Sewds yons Kat dhappaxeds kal cogpiatys: Kal ovTe ws
abavatos mépuxev ovTE s OvnTos, GANA TOTE MeV THS aVTHS Huépas E
Garrat Kal [7, Otav evtropnon, tote Sé avroOvnoKer, madw b€ ava-
Biooxetar 81a tTHv Tod matpos pvow, Td S€ mopibopevoy cel
Uirexpel* are ovTE atrope: “Epws Troe vdTE TOUTE, Topias TE ad
kai auabias év péow eoriv. exer yap Ode. Oedv ovdels dirocodpet
odd’ érOupet copes yevér Oar—éortt yap—ovd ef tis adAXos aodos, 204
ov pirocopel. od ad of apuabeis dirocopovow ovS éridvpotcr
203 D =mépipos T O.-P. corr.: mopurpos B: ppovipos O.-P.1 prrocopav
T: rtocdpav B yons kal: xai om. O.-P. E avrjs om, O.-P. Kal
(7 BO.-P.: re cai (7 TW, Orig. drav edmopnon secl. Jn. Hug: érav dropnon
Hommel mdAw: madw marty O.-P. corr., Orig. avaBiooke[t]rat O.-P.
mor “Epes vulg. Hirschig _re ad T, Bt.: re B, Herm.: 8 ad Orig.: av O.-P.:
d¢ Sommer Sz.

wéptpos. As son of IIdpos. Agathon, too, had described Eros as (padrnra)

mopi{wv, 197 D.
Sevds yéns «7A. For yons, see 2034 ”.; and for Socrates as wizard or
charmer, 2150c ff., Meno 80a ff., Xen. Mem. 111. 11. 17—18. For coguorns,
cp. 177B, 2080; Rep. 596D; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1. 41 viv rovro mehidocdpnka
pera Tov adixov codiorovd tov "Epwros: Maxim. Tyr. xxiv. 9 (=Sappho /*.
125) rov "Epwra Soxparns codhiothy €yer, Fargpw pvdorddxov. The esoteric
meaning of these epithets is thus explained by Hermias in Plat. Phaedr.
p. 97: (etre rov "Epwra) pirscohov pev ws TO Aoyixdv Nudy dieyepovra emi ra
KaAd* yonta 5€ as Tov Oupoy KaraoréAdovra: happakéa (de) os TO éemiOupntiKoy
Kndodvta: cogiorny S€ os thy pvow amaravta Kal dSeAedCovra—this however
must be taken “with a grain of salt.” Cp. also Procl. in Cratyl. p. 94, 158
Ort oldev 6 Wdarwv 70 dvopa Tov coduaThy emi cepy@ TaTTew mpdypatt: Tov yap
mpos éavrov ta dAda duvdpevoy éemiotpépew ovtws Kadei, oiov tov Ala (Min.
319), rov “Acdnv (Crat. 403 E), rov "Epera.
203 HE @adde. Cp. Cratyl. 4144 airo ye ro OddXew thy abgnv por Soxet
admecxatew tHv Tov véoy. For the alternation of life and death in Eros, compare
the case of Polydeuces in Pind. Vem. x. 87 ff.
otav evroprioy. These words are condemned, on no sufficient grounds, by
Hug and others as “sehr prosaische und abschwachend.”
ae umekpet. “Die geistigen Giiter werden uns zu Theil nur insofern wir
sie erwerben” (Rettig). The cpd. Umexpeiv is dm. Ney. in Plato, but ep, Huthyd.
291 8B ai 8 (emtornpar) dei vreE€pvyov.
obre dmopet...ctre mAovret. dzopia is a quality of the mother of Eros (da
Thy avtns dmopiav 203 B), a8 movros of the father. On the other hand mevia
is described as a mean between mdovros and mrwyxeia in Ar. Plut. 552.
204A tor ydp. Sc. oudds: cp. Simon. 5. 10 Oeds dv povos rovr’ Exou
yépas (8c. éoOddv eupevar). For the midway position of the ¢idrdcaorpos, cp.
Phaedr, 278d, Lysis 2184; Plotin. Hnn. vi. 7. 35 ff.
104 TMAATQNOZ [204 A

copol yevérOat: avo yap TovTO €ott YaXeTrOv apaia, TO un ovTA

\ , >’ A \ fol i. 3 \ ? /, \ \omM

Karov Kayabdy pndé Ppovimov Soxeiy avt@ eivat ikavov: ovKovY

TAN > \ \ , A e A 3 e i y

érrtOupet 0 pn olopevos evdens elvar ob av yn olntar érideia Oat.

Tives odv, Epnv éyw, & Atotiva, of pirocopodytes, eb pyTeE
lel ’ ,

of cool pyre of awabeis; Afrov Sn, Eby, TodTO ye H5y Kal mardi,
lal A , lol A /

Ste of petakd TovTwv audotépwr, Sv ad Kal o”Epws. Eats yap 6

\ \

Tov KadXictav 7 copia, "Epws 8 éativ épws mepl TO KaXOY, WaTE

avayxaiov "Epwra girocodov elvar, puiicopov dé dvta petagu
lal , Cad \

elvat codovd Kal apadods. aitia § avt@ Kal TovTwy 7 yéveous:

matpos wev yap copod éotl Kal evtropov, untpos dé ov copys Kai
fat \ ,’ A \

amropov.
A Ea
1¢ pev\ ovv
5
dvats
,
Tod“ dSaipovos,
/
o- dite
, S ,
Lwxpates, avTH
of -

dv 8€ od on Ons "Epwra elvar, Pavpactov ovdév érabes. wns 6é,

@s
€
éwot
? \
Soxeta Texpaipopévn
,
€&
>
dy
2
av\ AEyeELS,
,
TO Or Epwuevoyv
on) , “R
“Epwta
elvat, ov TO epwv. Sra TadTa col, ola, TayKaNos Epaiveto o”Epas.
Kal yap ot. TO épactov TO TO SvTL KANOV Kai ABpor Kai TEdEOV
\ ” Na? \ \ a \ \ € \ \ ft

Kal paxaptotov: TO dé ye épwv addAnv idéav ToLa’TnY ExoV, olay

\ / \ / b a ” 2O/ , La wv

éy@ buf rAOov.

204 A cool yevérOa: sodas y. O.-P. ait@ yap tovr» Vindob. 21,
Sydenham xaAerov del. Hommel Bdhm.: yadern O.-P. duabias cj. Ast
att@ W b: aire T: avtw O.-P.: airs B ixavoy del. Hirschig B dndov
én TW O.-P., vulg. Sz. Bt.: dyAovdrs B: S7A0v Herm. J.-U.: dSpAov ear Rettig
8nArov TovTd y’, 7 8 7H, Kai-Bdhm. av Ven. 184 Vind. 21, vulg. Bt.: ay ety
O.-P.: 4éy BTW: 68 Usener Sz.: del. Riickert: fort. «fs peroEv O.-P.
C wOns O0.-P. — rexpatpopévn BY = eyes: eXeyes O.-P. ecu Epwra O.-P.
ovopa O.-P. To te: to Bdhm. aBpov O.-P. corr.: ayafov O.-P2
tereov O.-P.

avrd yap rovré xr. “ Precisely herein is ignorance a grievous thing, (viz.)
that” etc. If, with Stallb., we take airé rodro as adverbial accus. of respect,
with 76 j7...ikavdv a8 an epexegetic supplement, no emendation is required.
For the neuter yaXerov in appos. to duadia, cp. 176 p, Phileb. 12 ¢.
204 B Afov $4...nal ma8l. Cp. Huthyd. 279 D roiro Sé Kav mais yvoin:
ab. 301 B, Lys. 205 ¢ (Schanz nov. comm. p. 72). Observe how sharply Diotima
snubs Socrates, damep of réAeor coduorai (208 Cc). For my cj. dv eis, cp. 203 A.
dribcopov elvar. Cp. Procl. in Tim. 52 8v0 rovrous Oeots 6 WAatwy didro-
adpous exddece, Tov Te "Epwra kai rv ’AOnvay (Tim. 24D),...4v yap 6 Snpoupyds
“kal Myris mp@ros yevérwp xal “Epws modureprys” (Orph. Theog. fr. 8. 11), cat
dos pev Myris rixres THY “AOnvay, ws d€"Epws droyerva Thy epwrixny ceipay.
204 0 dBpsv. Agathon (here alluded to) had used the subst. d8pérns
(197 D), besides the epithets dmadds and typds (195¢ ff).
paxapirroy. The only other Platonic exx. are Rep. 465 D, Phaedr. 256 c.
Cp. the use of paxapifw in 216 © infra.
204 £] SYMMOZION 105
XXIV. Kai éyw elrov, Elev 8n, & Eévn: nadas yap Aéyeus*
Totodtos wv 0 “Epws tiva xpeiav exer Tois avOpwerrois; Todo 87
peta tavt’, pn, © Lwxpates, wepdcopmai ae Sidakar. Eots pev D
\ a? oA 7 “alien v4 /, / vw A

yap 81) ToodTos Kal odTw yeyovws o”Epws, gots 5€ TOY Kadav, HS
ov dys. eb S€ Tis Huds Eporto: ti TaY Kara éaTiv 6 “Epos, @
\ ia > / € a Mv / lol lal b \ cw Ge

Lewxpatés te wal Arotia; dde 5¢ cadpéatepoy épa@: 6 épav TaV

Dyn / \ , Se \ / He a) Rise ar aN. a

KaX@Y Ti pad; Kat éy@ eltrov bre TevéoOai wit@. “AX Etx Tobei,
Epn, 7) aToKpiots epw@Tnow Tordvde: Ti Extras exeivm O av yévnTat
Ta Kada; Ov avy Edny Ere Exe ey@ pos TavTHY THY epweTnaLW
\ / > / ” ” v4 ’ \ ~~ / \ 9 ,

mpoyelpws amoxpivacba. “AXX’, épn, Worrep ay et TUS weTaBarwv E

avTi TOU Kadod TO AyaNG ypwmevos TuvOdvorTo: Pepe, © LwxKpares,
” Chay A ACES A Sf ef , 3 . 9 7 ¢_oan ey
dpa’ “€pav Tov ayabar Ti épad; TevécOat, nv 8 eyo, avT@. Kal ti
204 C (de) dv cj. Steph. 67 (ra) wera Bdhm. D_ xa: ovrw superscr.
O.-P. ov dys: cvpdns In. re BO.-P.: om. TW ép@ Aldin., edd.:
ép@ b: épa BTW: epa O.-P.: fort. dpa (cf. E infra) ére wobet TW O.P.,
Bt.: éurodei B, Sz.: Ere eximobei Rickert roravde O.-P. E_ rvvdvorro
secl. Usener épa scripsi: épa BTW O,-P.: ép6 Aldin. vuig. Bt.: éporro
Herm. J.-U.: om. Ven. 184, Bast Sz.: «i y épa Rohde Tav ayabar: Ti
distinxit Winckelmann: rév dyadav ri; olim Voeg. air@ BT

tlva xpelav xrA. Here begins the second section of Socrates-Diotima’s

exposition. For ypeia, “utility,’—equiv. here to the ddcas of 1954, the
épya of 199 c—cp. Gorg. 480 4, etc.
Totro 8} werd ratr’ «rd. “Ebenso 180, 1864, 189D, 194. Also wohl
parodisch und spéttisch” (Rettig).
204 D gor 8 trav Kaddv. This is object. genitive: cp. 2015, 206m. As
Rettig notes, Diotima herself affects wepi ro xaAdv in preference to rod Kadovd
(after pws, etc.) ; and this may be used as an argument against Jahn-Usener’s
oupdys.
el 8 71s xrA. For the omission of the apodosis, cp. 199E ef yap époiuny Krh.
cadécrepoy épo. The preceding query had been ambiguously worded, since
Tv cadov might be taken either as a partitive gen. dependent on ri, or as an
object. gen with “Epws (ri being adverbial accus.): that the latter was the
construction intended is now shown by the revised statement uf the query—
6 épav...ri €pa; Iam inclined to suspect that we should read dpa (see 204 E 7.)
for ép@ (€pa MS8.).
tr. wobet. If we read éemimodet we must ascribe to the proposition its full
force, “craves further”; the other exx. of the cpd. in Plato are Prot. 329 p
tour éotw 6 ért émim00@: Laws 8558. The former of these supports Riickert’s
ére €mirobe.
Od mdvv...tm. For ov ravv, cp. Meno 71¢ (with Thompson’s note).
204 E jeraBaddv. Here the participle “adverbii partes agit,” cp. Gorg.
480 8, Phileb. 514. For the ellipse, cp. 204, 199 z.
dépe, @ %., opa. Most editors bracket the mss.’ epa:.Stallb., after
 106 MAATQNOZ (204 &
gatas éxeivy @ dv yévntar Tayabd; Todt evropwrepov, nv & eyo,
a> > , a \de 4 /

205 éyw droxpivacbat, bri evdaipwv ~orar. Kryoesydp, épn, ayabav

/ / cA > al
/ yw

of evSatpoves eddaipoves, cal ovxérs mpocdei épécOar, wa ti dé

\ , a
Bovrerar evdaipwv elvat 6 Boudopevos, aGdAdad Tédros SoKeEl EXELY
4 amoxpiots. “AdXnOA Ayers, elroy eyo. Tavrny bé tHv BovdrAnow
fol ? \ /

Kal Tov épwra TovToOV ToTEpa Kowvov oleL elvar TdvTwv avOpe-
a ’ /

Twv, Kal
\
mavtas
fd
tayabda
> NI
BovrAecGat
4
avTois
e lal
elvar
-
ae,
> /
) TOS
A lal

Nevers; Odtws, nv & eyo: Kowvovy elvat mavtwv. Ti 87 odv,

, \ a

én, © Lwoxpates, ov Tdvtas épav papev, elrep ye TWavTes TOV

a i , ’ fd > lal , ” / lel

avTav épaat kai dei, dAra TiVAas papev épav, Tos 8 0}; Oavyalo,
lal nw ‘ n . Ri

iv & éyo, cat avtos. "AdAd py Oatvpal’, pn: adedovtes yap dpa
ToD Epwrods TL Eidos dvopafouev, TO TOU Srov EmiTiOévTEs Svoma,
épwra, Ta S€ ddA adroLS KaTaypwopeba dvopaci. “Qorep TL; HV
-

8 eyo. “Oomep 68. ola btt roinais éoti Te TOAD: 7 yap TOL EK
a 3 , a7 / 4 ad ‘ , > / / € , >’

205 A ayaéov B dé ryv B O.-P., J.-U. Sz.: 89 rav TW, Bt. eivat
ote. W B avrav: ayabav cj). Naber yap dpa T O.-P., Bt.: yap. BW, J.-U.
épavros T (év) re eidos Hirschig ro. Vind. 21, vulg. Sz. Bt.: r BTW:
re OP) SOP, ing.
Winckelmann, retains it with the punctuation épa 6 épav trav dyabay: Ti
é€pa;—a mode of expression which is “vehementius quam ut aptum videri
possit huic loco” (Rettig). Riickert defends the Aldine reading épé as a
permissible superfluity “in familiari sermone.” I suspect that here, as above,
we should read dpa: cp. dpa ri roveis 189 A; Rep. 5960; Crat. 385 D dépe...cireé.
205 A wa rl. Sc. yévnrat: for this colloquial use see Goodwin G. M. 7.
§ 331.
T&os...tyev. Because it is recognized that evdamovia constitutes in itself
the ethical rédXos or “summum bonum”: cp. Clit, 410 E éumddiov rov mpds
tédos apetns €NOdvra evdaipova yevéeoOa: Arist. H. NV. 1. 7. 10978 33 dards 87
TéAetov To Kad” avr aiperoy del...rovovrov 8 7 evdatpovia padtor’ eivar doxet. Cp.
also 210 & mpos rédos 7S lov KrTh.
mdvras...ae(. Here dei goes with BovrderOa, not with atrois efva (as in
206 a infra).
TC 8 ovv xrA. Diotima here points out an apparent contradiction between
the previous conclusion (kody mdvrwv) and common opinion, due to the
ambiguity of the term ¢pws (épav) which is used both in a generic and in a
specific sense.
205 B “Qo-wwep r(; “ For example— ?”
mo(nots. The selection of this term as an ex. of varying connotation is
partly, no doubt, due to the fact that it was one of the matters specially
emphasized by Agathon, 1974. For modu, multiplex, ep. Polit. 282 a.
® yap to. xrA. For the definition, ep. Soph. 219 B, 265 B roinrixiy... aca
ehapev etvar dvvapuv, Hf Tes dv airia yiyvnrat rois py mpdrepov ovow vorepoy
yiyreo Oar: also Phileb, 26D; Xen, Mem, 1, 2,3; Procl. inst. theol. p. 74.
205 Dj TYMTMOZION 107
TOU [47 OVTOS ELS TO OV LOVTL OTwOdY aiTia Tad eoTL TOlNaLS, WATE
A \ / > NON af € a »a A

Kal al UTO Wdoais Tals Téxyvats Epyaciat Toujoers elol Kal ot C

N € ~ a

TovT@Y Snutoupyol tavtes tountal. “ArnOA réyers. “AAN Gus,

78 4, oloW bre od KadodvTat Trointal GAN adra éxovow ovopata,
amo 8€ Tacns THs Tojctews ev popLoy adopiaOev TO Tepl THY jov-
OlKHY Kai TA LETPA TH TOD OrOU OVOuaTL TpoTayopEvETAaL. Tolnats
yap TovTO povoy KadeiTat, Kal oi EyovTes TOUTO TO poplov THs
Toioews Tontal. "AdAnOH réyeus, E>nv. Odtw Tolvuv Kal trepl
TOV €pwTa* TO ev Kehadaiov éott Taga H THY ayabav ériOvpia D
205 C 48 4 Bekker: n Sn O.-P.: Sn BTW ov om. W €xouoty
TW 0O.-P., Sz: e€ovow B, Bt.: icyovow Sauppe pdpiov BT O.-P.: povov
pr. W yap rotro: y. ravra O.-P. edpr[v] Aeyets O.-P. D = saoa...evda-
povetv del. Bdhm.

205 C0 ai...épyactar. Cp. Gorg. 450. c rév pev (rexvav) epyacia Td mond eott,
The word denotes manufacturing processes: cp. 2. on mepi réxvas xTAX., 203 A.
For t76 ce. dat., a construction rare in Attic prose, cp. Phileb. 584: Hipp.
Maj. 295 D ra te tO TH povoiky Kai Ta Ud Tais GAXas Téxvats (dpyava): Rep.
5114. Cp. Aristotle’s use of to c. acc. to denote the subordination of arts,
E. N.1. 1. 10948 10 ff. doa & eit rev rowtTev U6 plav Twa Svvawy Kr,
&v poptov. Equivalent to év efSos (2058): for this logical use of the term
cp. Gorg. 464B, Laws 696 8B. For adopitw, ep. Soph. 257 0, 268 D ris momoews
apwpiopevov ev Noyous...poptov.
76 wepl...td pérpa. Cp. 187d, 196 E.
205 D 16 pév Kehddatéy x7A. Opinions are divided as to the construction
of rd xepadavov: it may be construed (1) as nominative and subject, “the
generic concept (sc. tov épwros) is—”; so Hommel, Vermehren, Hug, Prantl,
comparing Gorg. 463 A cada@de udrov (sc. THs PnTopiKns) TO Keadatoy KoAakelay:
or (2) as adverbial accus. (of respect), “in its generic aspect,” cp. Phileb. 48c
éore 67 movnpia pév tis TO Kehadraov: Huthyphr. 8". The latter is certainly
the more natural mode of construing here, since no genitive (avrov) is added.
But other difficulties remain: what is the subject of ¢or, if rd Keadaoy 1s
adverbial? Should we (a) construe with Ficinus (followed by Stallb.?, Lehrs,
Zeller, Jowett and others) “nam summatim quidem omnis bonorum felicita-
tisque appetitio maximus et insidiator amor est cuique”? Or (b) should we
rather, with Stallb.1 and Prantl, supply 6 ¢pws as the subject of eorm and
construe maca 7...ev8aoveiv as the predicate? To my mind the latter is
the more’ natural method. Next arises the question, how are we to deal
with the last part of the sentence, 6 péyords...cavri? If with most edd.
(except Riickert, Stallb.2 and Rettig) we regard dodepds as corrupt, the best
plan is to excise the whole clause with Hug (and Stallb.!), since none of the
corrections of SoA¢epos hitherto proposed (see crit. n.) are at all convincing.
The chief objection to doA«pds is, vot so much the meaning of the word
itself (which may be defended by 203 p), as rather (to quote Stallb.*) “con-
junctio superlativi péyioros cum dodepds positivo.” But even this objection
108 TAATQNOS [205 p
Kat \ TODlat evdarmovely,
> a
o© “
6
wéylaTOs
/ ie
TE Kat \ SoAEpOS”Nope Epws
ea
TravTL*/ adr
’ >

ol “Levy AXAN TpEeTOMEVOL TOKAAYD ET AUTOV, 7) KATA YPNLATLO

MOV
e \ wv U n > ’ > / A \ \

) KaTaA piroyuuvactiav 7) KaTa Pirocodiay, oT Epav KadovYTAL

/ A \ / ‘tee cal r

> e \ 4 o7 \
ovT €pactai, of dé Kata Ev TL Eldos lovTEs TE Kal EaTrOVdaKOTES TO
Tov Grou dvoua iayouow, épwra TE Kal epav Kal epactat. Kuv-
r / ’ lal \ ] ,

duvevers arnOn, Ednv eyo, déyerv. Kai Aéeyerar pwev ye Tus, En,
‘4 lol » , Vp a \ ‘ 0 a

Aoyos, ws of dv TO Hutcuv éEavT@V CnTaoLv, ovToL Epwawv: oO Eemos

/ ' cf n an a PT lal e ’ ’ \

Royos oO ryiceds Pynow eElvar Tov Epwta ovVO OXov,. €av pH

t ” ’ Ce / / s \ ” ” ,’ ce da \ \

, 3 nA \ eee a
TuyYavn yé Tov, w étaipe, ayabov bv* érel avT@Y ye Kat Todas
Kal yelipas €Géhovow amrotéuverOat of dvOpwro, eav avtois do0K7
\ cal ’ / > / € BA bay > Lal aA

205 D 6...8oXepos secl. Usener: 6...mavri secl. Stallb. (1827) Hug pe-
yoros: déppnrexos Creuzer dorepds: SodAepw@raros Stallb. (1852): Seudraros
Ast: xowds Hommel: 6AdxAnpos Pilugk Mdvg.: odos Bdhm.: adpdos Verm.:
mpaetos GC}. Sz.: toAunpdos Creuzer: opodpdraros Sydenham: oodpds Cobet:
povos Schirlitz: xepdadréos Naber mavtn Pflugk avtov: aito Voeg. Sz.:
ayabov Orelli Xpnpaticpw O.-P.} ecyov O,-P. épwrd...epacrai secl. Sz.
épws te Hertlein epaorai: fort. épagras «ivduvevovoart O.-P.! E 10
€auTay jyrov Sz.: Td Hpecu TO €avtoyv Sauppe Jn.: éavrey secl. Usener €TreL
ORR F em b

is not, I think, insuperable; for if we construe mavri closely with doXepos as

‘“‘all-ensnaring,” we get a superlative idea which balances péyoros, while in
sense it 1s supported by 203 B, D and Sappho’s dodomAdxe ’Adpodira. If,
adopting this explanation, we retain the traditional text, it seems best to
regard the clause 6 péyiords...7avTi aS an appositional quotation and to
construe, with Prantl, ‘“‘naimlich jene grésste und fiir jeden verfangliche
Liebe.” Hommel is singular in taking rod evdamovety (sc. 7 émiOupia), as well
as TO kepddaroy, as Subject (“und das Streben nach dem héchsten Gute, d. i.
nach Gliickseligkeit, ist die grésste Liebe”).
tpwra...gpacra(. This sequence is irregular. Usually with dvopa ¢yew the
name is in the nominative, in apposition with the subject, eg. Laws 956¢
Siairnral dvopa...éxovtes (SO here épacrai): but the accus. is also possible (in
appos, with évoua), 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 Aéyerar x7rA. An allusion to Aristophanes’ speech, esp. 1928, & ff.:
cp. 212¢. For o8@ édov, below, ep. 192 BR.
205 EB érel atrov ye xrd. Cp. Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 54 EXeye & re Kat (Ov Exacros
éavrov, 6 mavr@v partora pirei, TOU Ta@paros 6 TL dv aypeiov H Kali avwperes
avrdés Te ddaipet Kai GAXKM mapéxer. adrol Té ye a’T@Y dvuyas Te Kal Tpliyas Kal
TuAovs adatpovar KrA.: Ey. AMatth. 5. 30 cat ef 4 Seka cov yelp cxavdarile oe,
;
éxkowov avrny KT.
206 B] ZYMITOZION 109
Ne \ 7 > \ Nae fa 7
TQ EAUT@Y TrovNnpa Eival. OV yap TO EaUTOY, Olual, ExaoTOL aoma-
Covrar, € pur) el TUS TO ev AyaOov oiKEtoy Karel Kal EauTOD, TO bé
> \ wv Ny \ > \ ’ a al \ c r \ \

KaKkov GAAOTpLOV: ws ovdéV ye GAO EoTlY ov epwawv avOpwrroL 206

” nr

) TOD ayabod. 1% coi Soxodaw; Ma Ai’ ov« Eworye, jv 8 eyo.

A fal > a A \ fal \ ’ 3 ’

Ap’ odv, 7 8 4, ottws arodv éotl Néyewv, OTL 06 AVOpwrrot Tod

So > * = ae ee ce «€ a ? \ if o coy. a

ayabod épaow; Nai, épnv. Ti d€; od mpocberéov, én, OTe Kai

fal fal by / la / e] if

elvat TO ayabov avTois épwaow; IIpooeréov. *Ap’ ody, Epy, Kat ov

s nee} \ ig a eee! / * a i y \ >

, = > \ \ cn s rN a i ”
fovoy elvat, @AXa Kal dei elvar; Kal rodto mwpocberéov. “Kote
apa EvAAnSnv, Edy, 0 Epws TOD TO dyabov avT@ elvar det. *AX7-
” € a a /

Géotata, Epny eyw, éyeLs.

/ ” 'g

. “Ore 8 tTovTov o épws éotiv ac, 7 & 7, Tov TiVaB

XX V. e/ \ is ¢ ” ’ x: yey. ba ? dA a /

Tpotroy SuwKovtwy avTo Kai év Tivt mpake } oTrovby Kal 4} cvVTACIS

épws dv Kadroito; ti TovTO Tuyyaver dy TO Epyov; Exess elrretv ;OV
M lal fol > ca

205 BE xadet W: xady BT 206 A dvOpwmo Bekk. Sz. Bt.: dvépaman

BT: avépwra O.-P.: of dvOpwro W : del. Baiter 7) rayabcv Hirschig
7) gol...ayadov om. O.-P.t 4 & 7 Bekker: 7[8]y O.-P. corr.: #5) BT ore
av@peroa Sauppe Jn. rov dyadou BW O.-P. corr.: rayabot T, Bt. mpoabe-
taov O.-P.! (bis) owv BT O.-P.: om. W tov tro T O.-P.: rovro B
aire TW O.-P.: airs B B oy: de O.-P. Paris 1642 rovrouv Bast Sz.
Bt.: rovro libri, O.-P. det om. Vat., Bekk. Sz.: aye Usener 7 8 7 Bekk.:
76n BT: 7 8 y O.-P. trav TbO.-P.: rov B atrov T ~— av raars B O.-P.:
cvatacis TW

el py et. See Goodwin G. M. T. § 4764.

7d pv dyaev olkeiov. Cp. Rep. 586 E eimep ro BéAtioToy éExdoT@, TOTO Kal
oixecoraroy (with Adath’s note): Charm. 1630, D éudvéavov rov déyor, dre Ta
oixeid Te Kal Ta avTOU ayaOa Kadeins: Arist. H. NV. x. 7.
206 A ov dyaov. For the assumption that raya@ov is the final end
of desire, cp. Phileb. 208 ff., Gorg. 467p ff, etc. The statement here is
referred to by Proclus in Alcib. I. p. 129.
dmotv. Equivalent to dvev mpocbécews ddnbés: cp. 183D; Phaedr. 2444
ei pev yap fv dmdovv TO paviav xakdy eiva «rd. (“true without qualification,”
Thompson); Prot. 331 c¢.
206 B 6 tpws éorlv acl. Most edd. follow Bekker in ejecting dei: Rettig,
however, rightly keeps it with the note “dei=die gegebene Definition gilt
iiberall und fiir alle Falle”; cp. 205 a, B.
avrd. Sc. rd rayabdv avrois elvat del.
4 oivracts. Cp. 203 D ("Epas €or) otvrovos: Phileb. 46 D civracw aypiav
movet (with my note): Huthyd.288p. For the limitation of the notion of Eros
here (4v xadoitro), cp. that in 205 a ff. (kadodvrat, C, D).
rvyxdver dv. Not “what does it happen to be,” but “what in reality is it”:
see Verrall on Eur. Med. 608: cp. Phaedo 65 D—k.
Ov pevtay x7A. For the suppressed protasis (sc. ef rovro efyoy eimeiv), cp.
175 D.
110 MAATQNOS [206 B
Hevtav o€, Env eyo, ® Arotipa, €Bavpalov eri copia Kat époitwy
x / ” b ve > / ’ 4 ? % , bee 2 /

Tapa aé avta TavTa pabynaopuevos. “AAX éyw oot, Epn, Epa. EaTL
\ \ ’ \ la ' > 3) Fa) , »” capo ”

yap TOUTO TOKOS év KAW Kal KATA TO THpa Kal KaTAa THY uyny.
x lal lol \ lat

Mavtedas, nv eyo, OetTas 0 TL Tote AévyeELs, Kal ov pavOarw.

M (eae Ss 8 ’ , by cal (Za % / \ > 0 ’

AXA éya, 7) 8 7), capéatepov epw. Kvovar yap, pn, & LwxKpartes,
’ > S) > a en, aA lal

mavtes avOpwror Kal KaTd TO Cua Kal KaTa THY uynY, Kal
emTeloay €V TH NALKLA YevwVTaL, TLKTELY ETLOUpEL NuwY 7 pvOLS.
>? 5 \ é A aN A / , ’ i] a € -~ <i /

Tiktew dé evev fev

pev AlaXP@
alayp® ov dvvata., , év&V S€ [Td]
ov dvv @] Kado. [7H yap
Karo. [7 ya
206 B edn, eyo distinxit Ast cal ov pavOave del. Naber C 78x
Bekk.: 45n BT: 8» O.-P. dvOpwero. Sauppe Jn. kal kara To TW O.-P.,
Bt.: cara ro B ty om. T ev t7 Bdhm. J.-U. Sz.: év rev libri, Bt.;
ev Naber rikrew Oe...ecTiv del. Rettig KaX@ Bdhm.: xcado O.-P.: TO
xad@ libri 1 yap...eory del, Ast Sz. Bt.

éholtwy mapa ot. doray is the regular word for “attending” lectures or
a school, see Prot. 3260 els d:dacxadov...poirav: Rep. 328 D Sevtpo rap’ nuas
goira: Phaedo 59 B.
tékos év kako. The act of procreation appears to be called almost in-
differently (1) roxos, as here, (2) yévynows (2060, B, 209D), (3) yévynows xai
toxkos (206 B), (4) in passive aspect yéveous (206 D, 207D). Similarly with the
verbs: we find rixrecy (206 C, 2106, etc.), yevvay (206 D, 207 a, etc.), rixrew Kai
yevvay (206 D, 209 B, C).
Mavrelas...pavOdvw. Notice the play on the stem-sound. Rettig, citing
Eur. Hippol. 237 (rade pavreias df:a moXdns), writes “ Witzspiel mit Anklang
an Eur. und Anspielung auf Diotima’s Heimath und Beruf”: the latter
allusion is likely enevgh, but the “Anklang an Eur.” is very problematical;
had it been specially intended we should have had dé&a or woAAns echoed
as well.
206 C xvotor. xunots, “pregnancy,” is properly the condition intermediate
between conception (avAAnWis) and delivery (roxos). Cp. Achill. Tat. 1. 10
Kal veavioxos €pwros mpwTokvpwv ov Seirar SidacxaXias mpos Tov. Toxerov. For
the language and thought of this whole passage, cp. Theaet. 150 ff., Phaedr.
Q51 a fh., Tim. 91.4 also Max. Tyr. diss. xvi. 4, p. 179 xvodor S€ maca peév
Wuyal pro, odivovor dé eBet, rixrovor dé Aoyw xrd.; Clem, Al. Strom. v. 552 B:
Themist. or, XXXIL. p. 355 D,
év rH WAtkla y. I adopt Badham’s correction ry for rue since the change
involved is very slight and éy rive nAckia is unexampled in Plato: ep. Gorg.
484 ev ry nrtxia: Nep. 461 B; Phaedr. 255 4; 209 B infra; Meno 89 B.
Plato also uses ev Ackia, e.g. Lep. 461 B: Charm, 154A: Laws 924 8.
rikrev 8%...Kadko. 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 “ gehéren
also ihrem Inhalte nach nicht an die Stelle, an welcher sie stehen, sondern sie
miissten nach dem Satze €ore dé rovro «rd. folgen. An dieser Stelle collidiren
sie aber mit den gleichbedeutenden Worten ra 8€ ev r@ dvappoot@...dppdrroy,
206 D] ZYMITMOSION 111
avdpos Kal yuvatkos suvovaia TOKOS éoTiv.] éat. Sé TOTO Oeiov Td
Tpaypa, Kal TovTo ev Ovnt@® dvTe. TO Caw aOavatov éveotwy, 1)
KUnots Kal 1 yévvnots. Ta 8 év TH dvappootw advvatov yevéo Bau.
avappootov 8 éatl 70 alaypov TavTi To Oeiw, Td Sé KaXOV ApuLOTToOD. D
Moipa ody cai EinteiOuia 1) Kaddovn éote TH yevéoes. Sia tadta
206 C 8€: yap Rohde éveotw B O.-P.: eorw TW ra B O.-P.:
raira TW D dcio TW: Oe6 B O.-P. TH yevéoes Sia Tadra: drav
kta, distinxit Schirlitz

fiir deren Glosse ich sie ansehe. Worauf sollten auch die Worte ¢or de...
mpayna gehen, wenn ihnen die Worte rikrev dé...cako 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 &’...dpporrov. The omission of the article
before xad@, confirmed by the Papyrus, is certainly an improvement. For
the thought, cp. Plotin. Hn. ur. v. p. 157 B.
[ yap...rdkos éoriv.] 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 réxos,
viz. Toxos kata oSpa: and Stallb. renders “nam (ydp=nemlich) viri et
mulieris coitus, est ille nihil aliud nisi roxos.” Susemihl’s comment is “die
Zeugung werde als die wahrhafte Aufhebung der Geschlechtsdifferenz be-
zeichnet.” But, as Rettig shows, none of these attempts to justify the clause
are satisfactory. Perhaps it is a gloss on 7Ackia.
tort 8& trotro xrA. Cp. Laws 7738, 7210 yapety Se...d:avonbévra ws éorw
7 70 avOpwanwov yévos pioe Twi pereiAnhev aOavacias: ob Kai wépuxev emiOv-
pilav toxev mas macav xrd.: Cicero Tusc. 1. 35 quid procreatio liberorum, quid
propagatio nominis...significant, nisi nos futura etiam cogitare?: Clem. Al.
Strom. Il. p. 4210 émioxevdcas mv dOavaciay rod yévous nuav (sc. dia Tov
ydpov), kat olovel Svapovny twa mao maidoy peradaumadevoperny.
év t@ dvappoorw. For the connexion of Eros with dppovia, see 187
a ff.;
for harmony of the body, cp. Rep. 591D; and of the soul, Rep. 430& ff,
Phaedo 85® ff.
206 D Moipa...Hidel@un. Cp. Pind. Ol. vi. 41 ra pév 6 Xpvooxdpas
mpavpnriy T ~EdeiOvuiav mapéotacév te Moipas: id. Nem. vit. 1 ?EXeiOwa
mapedpe Moipav Babvppovwr. Moipa (“the Dispenser”) is a birth-goddess
also in Hom. J. xx1v. 209 r@& Bsyr06t Moitpa xparain | yryvopév@ éemévynoe
Ao. For Eileithyia, see also 7. xu. 270, Hes. Theog. 922; and it is note-
worthy that Olen made out Eros to be the son of Hileithyia (see Paus. 1x. 27).
Libanius (07. v. t. I. p. 231 R.) identifies Eil. with Artemis.
4% Kaddovyn. Usener was no doubt right in taking xaddovn 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 émi after éori(v) or read ém in place
of éotu.
112 MAATQNO® [206 p
Otay péev KaXw TpooTrEedatn TO KUOdY, thewy TE yiyvETaL Kal Ev-
WA \ a“ / \ lal O , EE i. >

ppawvopevoy dtaxeitar Kal tixter TE Kal yevva: bray b€ aicype,

f a iy \ a té A

oxvOpwiov Te Kal AUTOUPEVOY DVOTELPATAaL Kal aTOTpETTETAL Kal

\ / a >

> t \ > a > tea; \ , a ,

avethNeTal Kal OU yevva, adda laxXoY TO KUn“Aa YaXreETTWS pepe.
00ev 51n THTG KVOdVTL Te KaL non
HON TTAapya@vTL
PY TOAAT1 7 TToinaLs
n yéyovEe
YEY

206 D coxvOpwrdy te (yiyvera) cj. Usener =ovoreparac TW: Evy ]omec-

para O.-P.: cuvoreipera B Kat amorpeémerat secl. Usener Sz. dvidderau
O.-P.; dvedXerac B: dvetXerar W: aveDAerrar T omapyouvTs Ws rrroinots
TW O.-P., Abresch: moinoiws B: mrénows Bekk. Sz.: movnois Sydenham

mpoomeddty. For this poetical word, cp. Hom. Od. 1x. 285, and (of sexual
converse) Soph. 0. 7. 1101 Mavos mpoomedaoGecica.
Yreov. Cp. 197d.
Staxeirat. This word may signify both physical and emotional effects:
for the former cp. Laws 7750 rav coparav dStaxeyupévoy trod wéOns: for the
latter, Suidas (Hesych.) Scayeirar: yaipe, duayéerar, and the Psalmist’s “I am
poured out like water.”
cvomepara. «tA. Schol. cuomepara: ovotpépera. Suid. xvuplias de
avidkecOa To amakwiv. They are realistic terms to express aversion, derived
perhaps from the action of a snail in drawing in its horns and rolling itself
into a ball. Cp. Plotin. Ln. I. vi. 2. 51 7 Wuyn...mpos ro alcxpov mpooBa-
Aovea avidXerat Kal dpyetrat kal dvavever em’ avTovU ov Gupwvotoa Kai adXoTpLov-
pévyn. Usener and Hug may be right in bracketing kai amorpémera, on which
Hug comments “Zwischen dem der Gleichnissprache angehérenden over erparat
und dviddera ist das matte, prosaische amorpémerac unpassend”; but the
extra word helps to add emphasis, if nothing more, and Plotinus too uses
three verbs. In aveiAXerar Rettig sees an ‘“Anspielung auf avee(dvia” (cp.
Eur. Jon 453). Cp. Plut. de s. n. v. p. 562 a.
orapyovTt. For omapyav, lacte turgere, cp. Rep. 460.c: in Phaedr. 256 a
(omapyav dé kal dropav mepiBadder TOV epaotny Kai didret) srapyav= Venere
tumens. The Scholiast here has orapyavri- dppadvri, dpyevrt, rapatropéve,
} dvOovvrt. AapBavera S€ Kai ert Tov paogtoyv meTANpw@pévwy yadraxtos. Here
the realism of the language and the juxtaposition of xvotdyre compels us to
construe “great with child” (as L. and S.) or “with swelling bosom ”—not
merely “bursting with desire” or excitement. Cp. odpryé as used in
Ar, Lysistr. 80.
mrolnos. “Sic feliciter emendavit Abresch”—his conj. turning out
to have some ms. support. The subst. occurs also in Prot. 310D yryvarxev
avrov thy avdpkiayv Kat Thy mroinow: Crat. 404A THY Tod G@paros mToinow Kal
paviav: and the verb (émronaAa) in ep. 4389p, Phaedo 68c, 108A. Op.
Mimnermus 5, 2 rrowpa 8 ecopav &vOos oundtxins. It seems a vox propria
for the condition of the lover “sighing like a furnace”: cp. Plotin, de puler.
p. 26 (with Creuzer’s note).
207 a] TYMITOZION 113
Tept TO Kadov Sid TO peyadys wdivos atrodvew Tov ExovTa. oTL EB
\ \ \ \ \ t a

yap, & Lwxpates, pn, ov Tod Kadod 0 épas, &s od ole. "AAG Th
bev; Tihs yevvnoews xal Tod ToKov év Tw KaX@. Elev; Av 8 eyo.
Ilavu peév ody, Edn. ti 81 odv THs yevynoews; bru devyevés ears
kal a@avatov ws Ovnt@ » yévynots. a@Bavacias Sé dvayKcaioy ére- 207
Oupetvy peta ayabod ex TéV Wpmoroynuévwyv, elzrep TOD ayabov
€avt@ elvat ael Epws €ativ. advaykaiov 8) é« tovTov Tod Adyou
Kal THs a@Bavacias Toy Epwra eEivat. ;
XXVI. Tatra te ody ravta édi8acKxé pe, orote mepl Tar
206 E arodvew TW O.-P.: drodavew B: dromavew cj. Naber €xovra:
epavra Voeg. Tivos pny Steph. mavu...epn del. Bdhm. TL... yevynoews
vulgo Socrati tribuunt, Diotimae Herm. (Voeg.) reddidit 67 BT O.-P.:
det W-yevvnoews: yeverews O.-P, decyevés: ace yeveotsO.-P. 207 A aya-
doy scripsi: dyaGod BT O.-P.: rayadov W Vind. Suppl. 7, vulg. Bast (6) €pws
Bekk. Sz.

206 E @8ivos amodtvev. This is the office of KadXovy as EideiOvia: cp.

Theaet. 151 A rattnv...tiv @diva eyeipew te Kal amomavew 1 epn Tréxvn (8c. 7
paeutixy) Stivara: Rep. 490B 6 mAnatdcus Kal peyels TO GvTas SvTL, yevynoas
vouv kal @dnOevav...kai oUrw Anyor @divos: Max. Tyr. diss. xvI. 4, p. 179 Aoyos
paceverar Wuyny Kvovcay Kal @divev peoTny.
tov txovta. ‘Se. ravtnv ryv adiva” (Wolf): but Hommel and Stallb.
supply atro, ve. ro kadov. Cp. Phaedr. 252A tov 16 xaddos éxovta iarpov
eUpnke povoy Tav peylotav mévwv,—which settles the question.
rl...yevvyjoews; i, answered by or, means “why” or “wherein” rather
than “what” (as in 204D), and the genitive, like those preceding, is objective.
Supply éoriy 6 épas. ;
devyevés. This is practically a re-assertion of the statement in 206 0 (Ociov
TO mpaypa xrA.). Cp, Laws 773E as xpy THs devyevots praews avréxecOa TS
maidas maidwy Katadeimovta KTA.
207 A etwrep rot dya0ov xrA. Against Bekker, Dindorf, Ast, Stallb.! who
adopted rot rdyaOov Riickert wrote: “etiam vulg. proba est. Construe: eirep
Tov ayabod épws éoriv, quibus éényntixds addita sunt verba €aur@ elva: dei. In
quibus supplendum est subj. 6 épws.” To this Stallb.? and Rettig assent,
comparing Pind, Ol. 111. 33 r@v viv yAukds ipepos Evxev...putetoar: Thue. v.
15. 1 émOupia Trav avdpav trav ek ths yncov KopicacOa (where Poppo cites for
the epexegetic infin. Crito 52c, Xen. Cyr. v. 231). None the less, the ss.”
text seems—if not “sine ullo sensu” as Wolf put it—at least very awkward
Greek. The obvious allusion to the former definition, 6 épws éati rod rd
dyabdv aire eivar dei (206A ad fin.), supports Bekker’s reading here as the
right one: but if we read rod rdéyaOdv here consistency requires that we also
read pera rdyaOov in the preceding line, an easy change but supported by no
authority. Hence I content myself with the minimum of alteration, viz.
ayaOov for aya8ov.
BP, 8
 114 TAATQNOS [207 a
EPWTLKOV NOYOUS ToLoiTo, Kai ToTE HpEeTO Ti oleL, © L&KpaTes, aiTLov
,’ a , lal / a VE ” - , ”

* , a mM” A a ? , ¢€
€lvat TovTov Tod épwtos Kal THs émiOupias; 7 ovK aicBaver ws
deuves Siatietar wavta Ta Onpia, émredav yevvav éeriOupnon, Kai
a 4 , \ ie \ nw ‘. ‘

Ta Tela Kal Ta TTNVA, vocodVTAa TE TaYTa Kal epwTiKws S.LaTi-

AY Xi x , fal ‘ A

Oéweva, mp@tov pév Tept TO Evppiynvas AAAnXOLs, Errecta TEpl THY

LP lal \ fol > \

tpopyy Tod yevouévov, Kal ETowa é€oti UTEp TOVTWY Kal Stapa-
\ lol ta Ag

xecOar Ta acbevéctata Tois iaxupoTtatols Kal UTrepaTrobvncKely,

\ , lal

KQl aUTA TO ALO Tapatervopeva WaT exeiva exTpéepery, Kal AXXO

\ ’ \ a tal U WA bt at A ? lA Xi 5 38:

a i é ;
Tav Towovvta ; Tovs mev yap avOpwrous, én, olotT av Tis Ex
Aoytopov Tavta Trovetv: Ta d€ Onpia Tis aitia odTws EpwTLKaS
lal lol Cal ‘ , “~

, ” , NEE aN a». tr > > ,

diatiPecOar; Exess r€yewv; Kal éyw ad edeyov OTe ove eEldeinv:
)A s& ele,
* A
AcavoetA ody
5 iS
dSewvds, tote yevnoecOar
,
TaAyesépwtikd,, €av
a\

Tavta pn evvons; “Adda bia TadTa Tor, @ Acotipa, dep viv bn

a \ b] a ? \ \ la) a \

elroy, Tapa TE KW, yvous OTL OidacKarwy Séopai. AAAG pot AEE
s \ NOES \ , i;

207 A aicdavn Bt. emiOupoor O.-P.} B éory del. Bdhm. = rortrav

cat BT O.-P.: tovrav W avta: avtw O.-P. r@ del. Bdhm. maparet-
vopevw O,-P.} épwtixas del. Naber Cav Xeyor b, vulg. Sz. Bt.:
avedeyov B: dy éheyov TW: edeyor O.-P.

as Seas Siar(Oerar. “In welchem gewaltsamen Zustande sich die Thiere

befinden” (Schlei.). The phrase is echoed by Alcibiades in 215 8, cp. 207 B,
208 ¢. For d:abeors see Phileb. 11 D, with my note.
207 B_ vocotvra...mept. Cp. Phaedr. 228B vooodvte wept Adywv axony:
Soph. fr. 162 (Dindf.) voonw épwros roir’ éepipepov xaxov (but Nauck fr. 153
reads the verse otherwise).
kal StapdxerOa. xkrA. This is a correction of Phaedrus’s statement
(179 B fk): cp. 220p ff For the fact, cp. Aelian H. A. 1. 18, 11. 40: Laws
814B pnd dorep bpviOas repi réxvwv paxopuévas...eb€dev amoOvycKev KTA.
kal aura krA. “Schleiermacher: um sie nur zu ernihren. Recte. Fallitur
enim Hommel, dore sic usurpari negans ideoque voeculam ejectam cupiens.
Conf. De Rep. vit, p. 549¢ al.” (Stallb.). As Stallb. explains, adra «rn.
depend on aic@dve, the construction being changed, and atra=sponte. For
mapareiverOa, “racked,” cp. Lys, 204c: Ar. fr. 421.
tls airla xrA. For airia with the (anarthrous) infin., cp. Phaedo 974
airia...yevéoOa. For the foregoing description of the phenomena connected
with reproduction in the animal-world, cp. (with Rettig) Od. xvi. 216 ff.;
Laws 8148; Arist. Hist. An. vit. 1; Cic. de fin. 11. 19. 62.
207 C Atavoet. “Do you fancy—?”: cp. Laws 755 B pyxére...ryy tye
KavTny apxnv ws dpEov SiavonOnrw. Notice the tone of indignant scorn in
which Diotima speaks, cp, 204 zB.
Setvds Ta épwrika. Cp. 193 8, 198 p.
omep vv 5x elrrov. See 206 B.
207 v] ZYMMOSION 115
Kal TovTwy THY aitiay Kal TOV ANAwWY TAY TEP TA EpwTLKd.
\ Ud \ tNE 4 \ lal ” lal Si \ ? /

Ei rotvuyv, pn, mictevers exeivou elvat dvoe Tov Epwra, ov ToA-

? / a 7 > / Ys ' \ ” e

AdKLS @pmoroyHKapev, u) Oavpake. evtavOa yap Tov avTov éxeiv@ D

4 ig / \ fe > a \ \ Js ON ? /

Noyov 7 Oyntn dvats Entet cata ro Suvatoy del TO elvar aOava-

, ¢ \ ¢ tal \ XY \ oN \ “ > ig

yp
tos. Svvata dé\ TavTn povoy, THa yevéoes, OTL
”
el KaTaNeiTrEL ETcpoVv
/ > \ “ aA ) Q a , a
véov avTl TOU Tadatod, erel Kal év @ év ExacTtov TaV Four Env
207 D (xara) rév atrév Hirschig aie rd elvat dOdvaros B: dei re etvar Kai
adavaros T O.-P., Jn. Bt.: rd dei etvar Sz.: 76 elvar aei J.-U. TH yeveoe
libri, O.-P.: 17 yevvnoe Wolf Bdhm. J.-U.: secl. Verm. Sz. Bt. ore: Oray
Usener karaeimry Usener év...(gov del. Ast

ov ToAAdKts Op. of means dOavacias: moddakis refers not only to 2068 f.

but alsa to other conversations such as are implied in 2074 (édidacké pe
Omote KTA.).
207 D ératéa. “Here,” ze. in the case of ra Onpia, as distinguished from
that of humans.
Tov atrdv...doyov. Adv. accus.; cp. 178 E.
kata to Suvardy. This implies (cp. 208 a ad jin. B) that only partial
immortality, at the best, can attach to 7 @vnrn pvocs.
del rd elvar d@dvaros. I retain the reading of R rejected by recent edd. (see
crit. n.): aei goes with the preceding words, cp. ep. 618 C rov BeATio ex Trav
duvatav dei mavraxod aipeicbar: and 2064, 8B supra. If, with Burnet, we
adopt the reading of T, we must suppose «iva: to be doing double duty,
“both to exist (efva) always and to be (eivac) immortal.” For the desire
of this mortal “to put on immortality,” cp. Eur. fr. 808 & dirs{wor Bporol...
ovtas épws Bpdracw éyxerra: Biov: Browne Hydriot. c. 5 “ Restless inquietude
for the diuturnity of our memories unto present considerations seems a
vanity almost out of date, and superannuated piece of folly.”
Sévarar xrA. This introduces the explana ‘on of the saving phrase xara
To Suvatrov. ravrn is adverbial (equiv. to ravTy rn pnyavn in 208B ad znit.),
and rn yevéoes, if genuine, is an epexegetic supplement. Possibly we should
excise Tn yevéoet, With Vermehren; or else alter to r7 yevynoe. But the use
of r7 yevéoes above (206 D) in the sense of “the process of generation,” com-
bined with the emphasis, by repetition of its moods and tenses, laid on
yiyvecba in the sequel (207 D—208 4), may make us hesitate to adopt any
change; cp. also the passage quoted in the next note.
del karadelre xrrdA. Cp. Laws 7210 yévos obv advOparev...rovte TO TpdT®
adavarov bv, r@ maidas Tmraidwy Katadermopevov TavTov Kai Ev dy del yevéoet Tis
aOavacias perecdnpévac: ib. 773E (cited above). On this “conceit” of “a
fruitful issue wherein, as in the truest chronicle, they seem to outlive them-
selves,” Sir T. Browne (fel. Med. § 41) observes “This counterfeit subsisting
in our progenies seems to me a mere fallacy ” ete.
éwel kal xrA. We should expect this first clause to be followed by some-
thing like ov« fart 76 adro adda véov adel yiyvera, Ta d€ amddAvore Or ovdéroTE
Ta avra éxe ev éavr@, but, affected by the parenthetic clause ofov...yévnra, the
8—2
 116 MAATQNOZ [207 p
= Nir X ¢ eee 3 ? , e Pea 13a ¢
Kadeirat Kal elvat TO avTo, olov éx Tmardapiov o avTos AEyeTaL Ews
dv mpeaButns yévntar ovtos mévtot ovdérroTe TA aUTa Eywy eV
ha / / A \ ca

aUT@ Suws O avTOS KadEiTaL, GANA VEosS adel ryuyvopEvos, TA SE

ig A a € AN la) ’ \ ul S55; / \ N

E amoAdvs, kal Kata Tas Tpiyas Kal cdpKa Kai daTG Kal alua Kal
/ ? a

Evpyrray 10 c@pa. Kal pn OTL KATA TO TOA, AAA Kal KATA THY
lal lal \ \

puyny of tpotrot, Ta HO, SdEar, errvOuplar, Hdovai, NITraL, foot,

, / lol ,

TovTwy ExagTa ovdéTOTE TA AUTA TapEcTW ExdoT@, GAG Ta [EV

, \ “."

ytyverat, Ta b€ aTrodAUTAL.
4 \
Tod b€ TOUTWY ATOTwWTEpOY ETL, OTL
Son. / \ \ la > , ” id

Huar mnpr) OTe

208 Kai al émiocTHmas 6 ai [ pevLev yiyrovtat,
ai i 6€dé amoAdvyTas
rytryr’ aTOAr Hpir,
ney
Kal ovd€érroTe 06 avTot éopev OVS KATA Tas ETLOTHMAS, GANG Kal
pla ExdoTn TOV ETLOTHLOY TAaUTOV TragyeEL. 5 yap KaXElTAL pEdeE-
/ / a lal a

207 D ra avra: ravra O.-P.: rat7’? Bdhm. adda véos: addotos Steph.:
adda véos ra pev Sommer : fort. (ra peév) dpa véos (ra pev mpooAapBarwv) Ta
de Wolf: ra dé (adaia) Bast E rpora T O.-P.: ror B €6n Fischer
ért B O.-P.: €orev TW

sentence follows a different course. Cp. the cases of anacoluthon in 1778,

182 D.
véos...td 88 arroddvs. For the omission of ra pév, cp. Theaet. 181 D, Protag.
330 a, Rep. 451p. I think it not unlikely that for aAAa we should read dpa:
the processes of growth and decay are synchronous. For the substance of
this passage cp. Heraclitus fr. 41 Sis és tov airov morapov ov Gy epBains:
(Heraclitus ap.) Plut. de HI Delph. c. 18 6 x6es (tivOpwros) eis Tov onpepov
réOvnxev, 6 S€ onpepov eis Tov adptov dmobvyaKce. péver 8 ovdeis, ovd’ Earw ets,
GAAG yeyvopueOa roAdol rept Ev havtracpa: Max. Tyr. diss. XLI. 4 peraSodny
Opas cwparwy Kal yevérews aAXdayny, oddov dvw Kal Kaq@ Kata Tov “HpaxXetrov
xtA.: Plut. cons. ad Apoll. 10: Cratyl. 439 p ff.: see also Rohde Psyche 11. 148.
The influence of ‘‘the flowing philosophers” is noticeable also in Epicharm.
fr. 40. 12 ff. (Lorenz)—
de viv pn
kat TOs avOp@mous: 6 pev yap av&ed’, 6 S€ ya pav POwe.
€v peraddaya de mavres evtl mdvta Tov ypovov.
6 d€ peraddAdooe Kara pvow xwotron’ ev T@LTO pEvEl,
Grepov ein ka rod’ HSn Tov mapekearaxoros,
kat Tv 7) Kaya yes GAdow Kal voy adAor TEACGopES,
kavOis GAXou K@vmox’ wbTot Karrov abrdy ad Aéyov.
Cp. Spenser /. Q. vit. 7. 19 And men themselves do change continually,
From youth to eld from wealth to poverty...Ne doe their bodies only flit and
fly, |But eeke their minds (which they immortall call) | Still change and vary
thoughts, as new occasions fall.”
208 A ai triorjpa. The word is used here in the popular sense—
“notitiae rerum in sensus cadentium” (Riickert); cp. Rep. 476 p ff.
pereray. See role on apedéryros 172 a supra.
208 B] ZYMTIOZION 117

Tay, ws éEvovons earl THs emiotHuns' ANON yap emvatHuns E€odos,

perétn dé mddrw Kawnv éurrowodtca avtl THs amtovans [wynunv]
cwler Thy erictHuny, OoTe THY avTHy Soxely elvat. TOUT@ yap TO
TpOT@ Tay TO Ory Tov o@beraL, Ov TO TavTadTacL TO avTO Gael elvat
@oTrep TO Oeiov, dAXa TS Td arriov Kal TadaLovpevov ETEpov véov B
eyxataneitrewy olov avo hv. tavTn TH pNyavy, © Lwxpates, én,
Ovntov aBavacias petéxet, Kal o@pa Kal Tada TavTA* advvaToOV
5€ GAAn. ur) ody Oavpate ei TO abTOd droeBAdoTna pvae TaV
Tia: aBavacias yap ydpw mavti abtn 7 amovdy Kal o épws
errerat.

208 A prnpnv secl. Baiter Sz. Bt.: prnyn O.-P.: ponuy Sauppe Jn.
6vnrov T O.-P.: dvnrdv B ov to T O.-P.: odrw B ro avrov B O.-P.:
tavrov Bdhm. J.-U. B_ r@ 10: ro Liebhold: r@ ré det Usener kal
maXaovpevov om. Stob., J.-U. éyxaradeirew: evearadirew O.-P.: xaradelmerv
Stob.: det xaraXeirew Hirschig Jn. Tavrn...dAAy om. Stob. peréxet
Steph., O.-P.: peréyew libri, Voeg. a8vvarov Creuzer Sz. Bt.: duvardv,
aduvarov Voeg.: a6avaroyr libri, O.-P. amav Stob.

Ajen yap xrA. Cp. Phaedo 75D ov roiro AnOnv Aéyouev...emiotnpns atro-
Bornv; Phileb. 33E ort yap AnOn prnjuns EEodos: Meno 81c; Laws 732.
For the rnyy AnOns (Mvnpootvns) in Hades, see Pind. fr. 130; Rohde, Psyche
I. 2093, 390}.
(pw4pnv]. This word is either interpolated or corrupted (pace Rettig who
attempts to defend it by citing Phileb. 348): dmiovons must refer to the same
subst. as é:ovans above, viz. rns émiotnpns, while xawny must qualify the
same subst. as dmiovons. For later reff. to this doctrine, see Philo Jud.
de nom. mut. p. 1060; Nemes. de nat. hom. 13, p. 166.
208 B addd ra...olov aird qv. This view is reproduced by Aristotle,
de an. 11. 4. 415% 26 ff. @vowxararov yap ray epywv rois (@oww...7Td moujoat
érepov olov avrd...va Tov dei Kai tov Oelov peréywour...€rel oby KoLwoveiv
advvarei Tov det kai Tov Oelov TH ouveyeia...nowwwver TavTn...kal Srapéver ovK
avté ad’ olov aird, dpiOp@ peév odx ev, cider 8 €v: cp. id. Pol. 1. 12528 26 ff ;
de gen. an. 11. 735° 17 ff.
ravTy Tp Cp. ravrn, 207 D ad init.
dSivarov & GdAy. Stallb.*, retaining the traditional dédvaroy, comments:
“haec addita videntur et oppositionis gratia et propter verba extrema xa
rdAAa mdavta: quae ne falso intelligerentur, sane cavendum fuit”—which, as
Hommel points out, is unsatisfactory. Against advvarov Riickert absurdly
objects that Plato would have written ddAy 8€ ddvvarov.
maytl...érerat. Since érecda is more naturally used of attendance on a
divinity (cp. 197 £, Phaedr. 248 a etc.) perhaps éreorw ought to be read
(cp. 183 B crit. n.). 1 oovby serves to recall 206 B.
118 TAATQNOZ [208 B
XXVII. Kai éyw axovoas tov Noyou Gavpacd TE Kal Eitrov
\ / pf / \ ed

Elev, jv & éyo, © copwrdtn Arotipa, TadTa ws adnOas ovTwS

lal ? lal -

, , * ” : ,
exer; Kal 7, BaTrep of TéeAEoL codictat, Ed iat, Epy, © Lwxpates:
€rrel Kal TOV avOpwrwyv ei EOérhets Els THY PtroTiumiay Pre Yat,
lal t > \ ty la

Oavpavois av THs adoylas [epi] a éyw eipynea e un Evvoeis, EvOv-

/ vn an b / \ \ b] \ ” >’ \ > lal 2

unbels ws Seas
an
SiaKewvtar Epwtt Tov dvowacTol
tal ? \
yeverBar
/
“Kal
\

KNéos €s TOV adel Xpovoy aBavatov KaTaBéabat,” Kal bTEP ToVTOV

if , x BN / td / A ” \ ig os ,

/ , / a a \ A
Kiwwouvous Te KivOuvEvELY ETOLMOL ELoL TAVTAS ETL ANNOY 1 UTEP TOV
Talowy, Kal YpHu“aT avadioKELy KaL TrOVOUS Trovety oVTTWacoOvY
/ a rf

208 C én BT O.-P.: om. W ere. B O.-P., Sz.: emet ye TW, Bt.

eOéhois Steph. mept BT: mépe Vind. 21, Bast Herm.: epi O.-P.: secl. Ast
Sz. eSB OZ bbsccis) NV Oss aOavarov del. Wolf mavres W
paddov om. T

Etev. “ Really!”: “In irrisione verti. potest so?” (Ast). This is a some-
what rare use; cp. Rep. 350 E eyo S€ co, damep tais ypadow rats rovs pvOous
Reyovoaus, “elev” dpa: tb. 4248; Euthyd. 2900. For the doubled “verbum
dicendi” (efmov...jv), cp. 177 4, 202 0.
208 C worep of tédeor copioral. We might render “in true professorial
style.” The reference may be partly (as Wolf and Hommel suggest) to the
fact that the sophistic, as contrasted with the Socratic, method was that of
didactic monologue (SdAtyov Karateivovot Tov oyou Prot. 329 a)—the lecture
rather than the conversation, Thus in the sequel (208c—2124) Diotima
developes her own doctrine without the aid of further question-and-answer.
Stallb., however, explains the phrase as intended to ridicule the pretended-
omniscience of the sophists; Rettig sees in it an indication that what follows
is meant, in part, as a parody of the earlier speeches; and by Ast and
Schleierm. it is taken to refer only to the dogmatic tone of ed io@. For
téXeos coduorns, cp. Orat. 403 & (applied to Hades); coduorns applied to Eros,
203 D; of ypnotol coduorai, 177 B; of copoi, 185 ¢. It is possible also that in
réheos there may be a hint at the mystery-element in D.’s speech (cp. 210 4
and mpos réXos 210 E)
el @éXas krA. For didoriia, cp. 1783p. The thought here recalls Milton’s
‘Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise” ete.
Bavpdtors av xrdA. Stallb., defending zwepi, says “ad evvoeis facillime e
superioribus intelligitur avra.” But we may justly complain here, as Badham
does at Phileb. 49 A, of “the dunce who inserted epi.”
kal Kdéos...kaTtabérbar, “Ex poeta aliquo petita esse ipse verborum
numerus declarat” (Stallb.): but it is just as probable that Diotima herself
is the authoress—rivalling Agathon. Cp. Tyrtaeus 12. 31—2 otSé more xdéos
€gOdov amoddvutat otd’ voy’ airod | GAN brd yHs mep edv yiyverac aOdvaros:
Theogn. 245—6 ovde ror’ otd€ Oavav arrodeis Kos, AMAA peAnoes | ApOirov
avOpwros aiey €xov dvoua: Simon. 99. 1 aoBecrov xdéos...devres. For the
thought, see also Cic. Tuse. 1. p, 303; Cat. Mai. 22. 3.
208 D] ZYMMTOZION 119
Kai vreparobvncKew. érei oles ov, Ep," Adknatw Urép Aduntov
\ /

avoOavetv av, 7) Axyurréa LlatpoxdX@ érarobavely, } mpoatrobaveiy

, a ” a? / , lal a

Tov bwétepov Kodpov brép tis Bacidrelas TY Taidwr, 17) olomévous

\ , E € lol n

e e Waele / ’ a A 5 a a
‘aOavatov pvniunv apetns mépr” éavta@v EcecOar, Hv viv mets
” a a ” > ’ °) © \ > a >’ /
Exowev; TOAAOD ye Sel, py, GAN’, olwar, Uwép apeThs aOavatov
kal rocautns d0&ns evxAcovds TavTes TavTa ToLodacL, dow av apel-
, ld Lal ‘ lal

208 D -iv...mpoarodaveiv om. W Badevas O.-P. mépt Ast Sz. Bt.:

rept BT

208 D imeparobvyckev. An obvious allusion to 180 ff: Diotima corrects

Phaedrus by showing the motive for self-sacrifice to be not so much personal
€pws as épws for immortal fame. The use of the cognate accus. (xi.vdvvous,
movous) 18 another poetical feature in this passage—reminiscent of Agathon’s
style.
Ké8pov. Schol.: mwodéuou rois Awpredow dvros mpos *’AOnvaious, éxpynoev
6 Beds Trois Awpretow aipnoey tas ’A@nvas, ei Kodpov rov Baoidéa py ovev-
govow. yvous S€ TovTo 6 Kddpos, oteidas éaurév erect axevn ws EvdtoTHY Kal
dpémavoyv aBwv, emi tov xdpaxa Tov modepiov mpone. Svo dé ait@ dmavtn-
cdvr@v rodepioy Tov pev éva mard£as xaréBadrev, vr b€ Tov Eérépou adyvondeis
doris Hv, wAnyels améGave. 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 mpoamo-
Gaveitv (once each in Hdt., Antiphon, Xen.), and the “sophistic” jingle in
mpo-, ém-, aroOavev. For later allusions to Codrus, see Cic. Twse. 1. 48;
Hor.) @) 111, 19) 2:
abdvarov pyipny «tA. Cp. Simon. 123 prjpa 8 drofOipévoror marnp
Meydpioros @6nxev | aOdvarov Ovnrois mao yapiCopevos: rd. 4. 8 (Aewvidas)
dperas AeAourras | kocpov aévaov Khéos re: 7d. 96. Observe how near dédvarov
...écecba goes to forming a complete hexameter.
dperys aBavdrov. Cp. Soph. Philoct. 1419 dcous movnoas Kai diefeAdaov
mévous | dOdvarov aperny éxxov: Pind. Ol. vil. 163 dvdpa re mv§ aperay ev-
povra: id. Nem. x. 2 gréyerar & aperais pupias épyov Opacéwy Evexev
(“countless monuments” J. B. Bury, see Append. A in his ed.): td. Isthm.
Iv. 17 (with Bury, App. F): Thue. I. 33.2: Rep. 618B emi yéveou kal mpoydvav
dperais: Xen. Cyrop. vil. 1. 29: Anth, Pal. vu. 252. These passages show
that dpern can denote not only “excellence” but its result, reward or token,
“renown,” “distinction,” whether or not embodied in a concret “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.”
evkXeods. Cp. Simon. 95 evxdéas aia KéxevOe, Acwvidr, of pera ceio | rid
ZOavov: Menex. 247p. With the thought of this passage, cp. Sir T. Browne
Hydriot. c. 5 “There is no antidote against the opium of time....But the
iniquity of oblivion blindly scattereth her poppy, and deals with the memory
of men without distinction to merit of perpetuity....In vain do individuals
 120 TIAATQNOZ [208 p
A a \ by , 5 eS € \ *
E vous dat,
z
Tooo' , Tw “adXov* TOD yap aBavaTou EpHatv. O01 ev OvY
\ V . a a
éyaupoves, bn, KaTA TA COmaTa BYTES TPOs TAS yUvaiKas “aOV
TpéTovTal Kal TAUTN EpwTLKOL ELoL, 81a tratdoryovias aBavaciay Kai
- 9 vA \

rt tps ee 2 ,
pvnpnv Kai evdatpoviay, ws olovtat, avTots €LS TOV ETTELTA “PovoVv

209 sravta rropitopevor”* of S€ Kata THY uynv—eicl yap ody, Edn, ob

év tais Wuxais xvodow ett paddrov 7 év Tois chpaow, & Wyn
Tpoonke Kal KUnTaL Kal TEeKEly* Ti OvY TrpoonKEL; Ppovnoiv TE
Kal Thy adAAnv dpetnv: Sv Sy Elot Kal ol ToLnTai TavTES yevvn-
208E «xara ra O.-P., Paris 1812, vulg. Sz.: cara BTW, Bt. ofov re Vind. 21
209 A # (at) év Naber xunoetat O.-P.1: xunoare O.-P. corr.: kveicOer
Bdhm. rexev Hug Sz., O.-P.: xveiv libri: rixrew Jn.: yevvar cj. Teuffel

hope for immortality, or any patent from oblivion, in preservations below the
moone.” Also Soph. Philoct. 1422 ex trav movav ravd eixrea Géc0a Biov.
208 E oi pev ovv eyxvpoves. Here first the two kinds of pregnancy, bodily
and mental,— mentioned together in 206 B, c—are definitely separated.
mpos Tasy. p. Tpéwovrat. Op. 181 c, 1915.
d0avaclay xrA. Hug points out that by a few slight alterations this can
be turned into an elegiac couplet :—
aOdvarov pynuny Kevdatpoviay opiow avtois
eis Tov Emeira ypovoy mavra mopiCouevot.
Hommel had already printed eis...ypdvov as a half-verse.
209 A of 8 Kara Thy Woxiv. Sc. eyxvpoves dvres: In this anacoluthic
period Rettig sees a parody of Phaedrus’s style with its “langathmigen,
anakoluthischen und regellosen Perioden.”
kal Kvyjoot Kal rexetv. Hug’s conjecture, rexeiv for xvetv, is fortunate
in finding confirmation in the Papyrus. If «veiy be read, what is the
point of the distinction of tenses? Schleierm. renders by “erzeugen und
erzeugen zu wollen”; Schulthess, ‘‘zeugen und empfangen”; Rettig explains
that “«xveiv geht auf den dauernden, xvjoa auf den vollendeten Process” ;
Stallb. “et concepisse (quae est actio semel...perfecta) et conceptum tenere.”
But there is certainly not much point here in making any such fine-spun
distinction, unless is be to imply that Diotima is playing the part of a
coguorns!
dpdvnowv...aperyv. “ Moral wisdom and virtue in general”: the phrase is
an echo of that in 184p. For dpovnois, cp. Rep. 4278 (with Adam’s note);
Meno 88 B (with Thompson’s note),
of roinral. 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 3388); Ar. Ran. 1009 (Eurip. loquitur) BeAtious re mowoipev rods avOpa-
mous ev rais modeow : Lysis 214 A obroe yap (8c. of rowmrat) Huiv Somep marépes
THs copias eioi Kai nyepoves. 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&. 7. G. pp. 9 ff.
209 B] ZYMITTOSION 121
Topes Kal Tov Snutoupyav Goou A€éyovTat ewpeTiKol elvar: Tord Sé
AN a A /

MeyioTn, €pn, Kal KadXriotTn THS Ppovricews 7) Tepl TAS TOY TOAEWY
fd y \ , aA , € \ ‘ nf / ’

Te Kal olxnoewy Siaxoounoess, 4 81 dvopa éoTt cwhpocivn Te Kai

\ % , te , ‘

Sixavocvyn: toitwv ad drav tis éx véov eyxvpwr 4 THY uyny B

/

Geios @y Kal HKovons THS HALKias TikTeEL Te Kal yevvav HSn éme-
Lal “a \ , lol ‘ lal

Oupn, Entei 5n, olwat, Kal obtos Tepuw@y TO Kadov ev & dv yevyn-
a a t 3 \ 2

oELlev* EV TW yap aiayp@.ovdéToTE yevvncel. Ta TE OY THmaTa TA

kaha \ paddAov
a
}a Ta\ aloypa
> V9 ,
aomaletar a
ate Kav, KalNAav evTvyn
’ ,

Wuy7 Kary Kai yevvaia cal evdpvei, mavu 8) doraletar 70 Evrp-

a lol \ , \ ’ a f a 3 ‘ sy

209 A ras libri, O.-P.: ra Sommer Bt. ' Stakoopnoes Vind. 21, vulg.
Bast Heindorf J.-U. Sz.: dcaxdopnors-libri, O.-P., Sommer Bt. B aB
O.-P., J.-U. Sz.: & at TW, Bt. Wuyxny, (rnv pvow) Heusde eins libri,
O.-P., Sz.: 74eos Parmentier Bt.: Geos dv del. Jn. érOupyn Steph. J.-U.
Sz.: emiOvpn O.-P.: émibupet libri, Bt. 67 BT O.-P.: 8€ W mepuoy T
O.-P.: mepi dv B év @ 87 yervnon Bdhm. 7) Ta alcxpa del. Bdhm.
Gre: 6 ye Usener

Syprovpyav...eipertxol. An allusion to 197 a dnmovpyiav...avetper.

peyloty...ris ppovyjcews. Cp. Crat. 391 B dpOorarn ris oxévews: Rep. 416 B;
Thue. I. 2 rjs yas 7 apiorn: see Madv. Gr. S. § 50a, R. 3.
cadppootyy te kal Sixatorivy. Cp. Phaedo 82 of rnv Snporixny te kal rod-
Tikny apetny éemcrerndevxores, Hv O17) Kadovot Gappoovyny TE Kal Sixaoovyny, €&
€Oous re Kai pedérns yeyovviay dvev didrocodias te xai vov: Meno 73a. For
these virtues in the Republic, see Adam on 4324, 4340. Here they combine
to form a description of “ordinary civil virtue.”
209 B rotrwy av xrd.. Here the main statement is resumed. With
Stephens (followed by Ast, Riickert and Hug) I read ém:évpyp, whereas
Burnet prints émOupet. nrei 3) xrA., with commas after yuyny and ndtkias.
Stallb. takes cai as intensive rather than connective, and renders Oeios dv
“quippe divinus.” Burnet adopts Parmentieér’s 74cos, but there seems little
point in emphasizing the celibacy of the youth. If alteration be required,
the best would be év@eos, for which cp. 179 4, 1808. But in Meno 99c ff.
eios, in much the same sense as évOeos, is applied to the very classes here
mentioned—épOas &v xadoipev Oeious re, ods viv On eAéyopev ypnop@bdods Kai
pdvrets kal Tovs TountiKous dmavtas: kal Tovs moXittkovs...paipev av Oeiovs re
elva Kat éevOovordte «rd. (see Thompson ad loc.): hence the word may well
be sound here also. For ris nAtcias (and Oeios) cp. 206 c.
tyret...repudv. Cp. Prot. 348D mepudy (nrei drm emideiEnra: Rep. 6200:
Apol. 238. mepuéva occurs also in 193 A, 219 E.
& 1d ydp aloxp. A repetition of 206c: cp. Rep. 402 D, Phaedr. 253 a ff.
kal dv...evovei. Notice the iambic rhythm. For the sense of yevvaios,
“‘well-bred” (of a dog, Rep. 375), cp. (Eurip. ap.) Gorg. 4858. For etpuns
also cp. (Eurip. ap.) Gorg. 484c ff.; Rep. 4098. Cp. for the sense Plotin. de
pulcr. 309 (Cr.); Rep. 620 B; Cic. Lael. 14; and esp. Phaedr. 276 x.
wo Euvanddrepov. Cp. J. Alc. 130.4 puxnv f copa h Evvapdhédrepor.
 122 TAATQNOZ [209 B
PoTEpov, Kal Tpos TOUTOY Tov avOpwroy EVOUS EVTTOpEL NOYwV TrEpL
C apetis Kal [7repl] olov yp7 elvas Tov dvdpa Tov ayabov Kal & éruty-
Sever, Kal émuyerpel madeverv. GaMTOMEVOS yap, Olual, TOV KAadOD
Kal omiA@v avTe, @ mara éxves TiKTEL Kal yevvad, Kal Trap@y Kal
aATOV MELVNLEevos, Kal TO yevynOev cuvEeRTpeper KOLA wet ExELVOU,
@oTe TOAY pelSw KoLwwviay [THS THY maidwy] Tpos aAANAOVS Of
TovovTor layovor Kal piriav BeBavorépav, ate Kaddiovwv Kai
abavatwtépwr Taidwy Kexowwwrnkxotes. Kal was dv S€Eaito éavT@
D TovovTous traidas paArov yeyovévar 7 Tors avOpwrivous, Kal eis
“Opnpov arroBréyas Kal <eis> ‘Hotodov cai tovs adXous Trountas
Tovs ayabovds Enr@v ola éxryova éavTa@v KaTanreltrovawy, & éxeivols

209 C epi secl. Steph. Mdvg. Sz. Bt.: wept rod Coisl.: mepi oiov Sommer
dmrav kal mapav T kat (ante ro) om. Vind. 21, Bast THs...Taidev
seclusi Tay maidov: dAdAov maidwv Hug!: 6ynréyv raidwv Schirlitz: ray
moddov Rohde: raév madoyovev Bast: fort. trav (ynivev) raidwv kaAXlov
av B maidwy secl. Creuzer J.-U. D es Hotodov O.-P.: ‘Hoiodoy libri,
edd, (nrav 6ca Proclus: (nroin ota Ast xatadeAotracw Method. Bdhm.

evtropet Aéyov. Cp. 223.4; Tim. 26 D iva evropoiev Adywv per’ €or.
209 C kal [wept] olov xrA. epi is retained by Hommel and Stallb. who
renders “quale sit in quo tractando versari debeat is qui boni viri nomen et
dignitatem obtinere velit,” taking ofov as neut., and by Rettig who regards
the ‘“‘redundance and tautology” of the words as due to the “sophistical
character” of the passage.
Tov kadov. This is masc., not neuter, as the context shows.
kal mapay kal doy. A rhetorical formula; cp. Soph. Antig. 1109 of r
évtes of t amovres: id. El. 305: Crat. 420A, Laws 6354. As Hommel
observes, peuynuévos (sc. a’rov) can in strictness apply only to azav.
7d yevynOtv xrA. Cp. 207 B, Phaedr. 276 E.
THs Tav wa(Swy. Hugprintsrav x x x maidwy with the note (after Vermehren)
“es scheint ein Epitheton wie vce: o. ahnl. ausgefallen zu sein.” Stallb.,
explains 7 kowwvia rév maidwy to mean “conjunctio-ex liberorum procreatione
oriunda.” The simplest remedy is to bracket the words ris rév maidwy (see
crit, N.).
dbavarerépwv. For this Hibernian comparative cp. Phaedo 99.
209 D {mdrdv olaxrr. Le. (nd@v abrovds dre rovatra xrd., “ With envy for
the noble offspring they leave.” For ofos= dri rovotros, cep. Xen. Cyr. vil. 3. 13
(Mady. Gr. S. § 198 R. 3). Riickert punctuates after ‘Hoiodov, Hommel after
aroBreas, and it is evident from Rettig’s note,—‘Homer kann man nur
bewundern, mit andern Dichtern ist es eher méglich zu wetteifern,’—that
he too mistakes the construction: we must supply avrovs (as Stallb.) with
(prev and construe all the accusatives as depending on eis: cp. J. Ale, 120 a,
122 8,0. This passage is quoted by Proclus ad Pl. Rep. p. 393.
209 B] TYMIMOZION 123
aBavatov Kréos Kal pynuny Tapéxetar avTa ToladTa dvTa: eb bé
Bovre, bn, otovs Avodpyos taiéas KateXitreto ev Aaxedaipove
A an , \ ¢ ” 5) a A € ,
cwthpas THs Aaxedaipovos Kal ws érros eimeiy THs “EXXdbos.
timios 6€ map viv Kal Loroy Sia THY TOY vowwv yévynow, Kal
Grou AA0Oe TorAAaKXOD avdpes, Kal ev"EAAno Kal év BapBapas, 5B
TONG Kal KaNA aTropHvdpevol Epya, yevynoavTEsS TavTOLay apeTHV*
wy Kal lepa ToArXa Hd yéyove Sia Tods ToLovToVs Traidas, dia O€
? \ ¢€ A \ v / \' \ , lal \ N

Tovs avOpwrivous ovdevos Tw.

XXVIII. Tatra pév ody ta épwrina tows, & Lwxpartes, Kav
209D = xaredirero b O.-P, J.-U. Sz. Bt.: KareAuTev...T0 B: xareXeirero
T: xaréXure trois vulg.: xarédurev atrod Rettig tyiv TW vulg.: qyiy BO.-P.
(probab.) (0) ZoAwy O,-P. E év"EdAnoe: EAXno O.-P. ev BapBapors:
BapBapas Clement odAda...épya secl. Hartmann cada: adda O,-P. {xar)
yevynoartes O.-P. (ovdev) oddevds mw Hirschig

dbdvarov KAéos kal pyipyv. Cp. 208 D (note).

atta toatra. Rettig says “sc. dddvara”; but the words imply xAéos as well
as a@avacia.

el 8 BovrXka. See on 17738. This is a brachylogy for ei d€ BovAe, (nrAdv

AvuKxovpyov olovs maidas KTA.
matSas kateAlrero. For the middle, cp. Laws 721 0, Rep. 599 c.
cwtypas ths A. “Dadurch, dass sie den revolutionéren Bewegungen ein
Ende machten” (Rettig). Agathon had already applied cwrnp to Eros (197 £).
For Plato’s philo-Laconism, sce Zeller’s Plato (E. T.) p. 484. For the
mythical lawgiver “Lycurgus” (vulgarly dated at 885 B.c.), see Bury H. Gr.
p. 135. The statement that his laws were the salvation “ practically” of
Hellas may be taken to refer to the part played by the Spartans during
the Persian invasions, cp. Pind. Pyth. 1. 77 ff. See also the parallel passage
in Xen. Symp. vi11. 38—9.
tltos 8 ktA. For this emphatic position of the adj., cp. Laws 730D ripuos
pev 57 Kal 6 pndev adixar.
209 E GAXou GAAObt ToAAayov. An echo of 1828: cp. Prot. 326D. This
passage is alluded to by Clem. Al. Strom. I. p. 130, 38 & re r@ oupmociw
€maw@v TAdtwy rovs BapSdpous ri.
moddd...épya. Another rhetorical “tag,” as is shown by the parallel
in Mener. 239A modda...cal cara €pya amepnvavto eis mavras avOparovs:
cp. Phaedrus’s expressions in 179 B, c.
mavrolay aperyv. Cp. Critias 112 E xara thy rév Wuxdyv mavtoiay aperny:
Eur. Med. 845 (€pwras) mavroias aperas Evvépyovs.
tepad woAda. For the shrine of Lycurgus, see Hdt. 1. 66, Plut. Zyc. 31. The
language echoes Aristophanes’ péyior’ dv adrod iepa xaraokevaoa (1890); and
it is cited by Clem. Al. Strom. 1. p. 300 P.
Tatra...xdv od pundelns. Here Diotima passes on to the final section of
her discourse on erotics (see 210p~7.). Hug and P. Crain (following
C. F. Hermann and Schwegler) suppose that xav ov p. indicates that what
follows is something beyond the ken of the historical Socrates, whose view
 124 TAATQNOS [209 &
210 ov punGeins: ta &¢ rédXea Kai eromTixa, Ov évexa Kal TavTAa EoTLY,
\ ip , a Mw

€av
a7
Tis OpOas
5] A
peTin,
/
ovK9 01d
an?
ei? olos/ 7 >AGv eins.
Ww
ép@
EJ Bofes’
pev\ ovy,
a
Edn,
54

éy@ Kal mpoOuptas ovdev atroreiw:* treipa 8€ <Kai cv> ErecBar,

\ , A \ ‘

210 A dy post ofS’ transp. Naber — egnv O.-P. cat ov exrecOa O.-P.:
érecOa libri, edd.

they regard as correctly represented in Xen. Symp. vu. 97 ff. 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 it was a part of his irony that he had already (2015) put
himself on the level of Agathon and the rest of the unphilosophic, so the
contemptuous kay ov here serves to keep up the same ironical fiction,—7.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 (cp. Rettig’s note, and F. Horn Platonstud. p. 248).
The attitude of Socr. may be illustrated by the words of S. Paul (1 Cor. iv. 6)
tavta dé, adeAdol, pererynuarioa eis uavrov kal "AmodAw 8° twas, a ev tyiv
pdOnre xtd. For punbeins, see next note.
210 A ra 88...érommkd. Cp. Phaedr. 2500 evdaipova pacpara puovpevoi
Te Kal emomtevovres: ib, 249 C redéous ae TeAeTds TeAOUVpevos. On the former
passage Thompson comments, “vovpevor and éromrevovres are not to be
distinguished here, except in so far as the latter word defines the sense of
the former. Properly speaking pinois is the generic term for the entire
process, including the éromreia, or state of the epopt or adept, who after
due previous lustrations and the like is admitted into the adytum to behold
the aitomtixa dydApara (Iambl. Myst. 11. 10. 53)”: “the distinction between
the two words (uinois and éromreia), as if they implied, the one an earlier,
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. xaOappos, THs TeAeTHs mapadoats, emomreia, avadeois Kai oTEeupatwv
émiBeots, 7 Ocopirns Kai Oeois cuvdiairos evdaysovia. For the language and
rites used in the mysteries, see also Plut. de Js. c. 78; w . Demetr. 26; Clem.
Al. Strom. v. p. 689; Rohde Psyche 11. 284; and the designs from a cinerary
urn reproduced in Harrison, Proleg. p. 547.
ov tvexa. “The final cause”: cp. 210 8, Charm. 165 A.
ravra. Repeating raira...ra épwrixa: seo the recapitulation in 211 0.
olos r’ Gy etns. Sc. punOqvac: this, as Thompson observes, shows that
ponots includes éromreia. Notice the emphasis laid, here at the start and
throughout, on educational method, rd dpOas periévat.
mrpobvplas...cmoreipo. Cp. Rep, 5334 1d y pov obdev dv mpodvpias
arronetrot.
metpa 8 (kal od) trecfar. I have added xai od from the Papyrus; it serves
210 B] TYMMOZION 125
av olos te ns. Set yap, Edn, Tov OpOa@s LovTa él TovTO TO Tpadypa
A lo id 5 Lal 2. v \ , 00 7 ’ \ lal \ lal

apyecOat wév véov dvta iévar éeml Ta KaXA TwpaTa, Kal TPBTOV
” fal

pév, €av opOas nyHnTaL O nHyovUmeEVvos, EvdS aUTOV GwpmaTos épav Kal
\ > a a c , \ , a

an a , . -”
évtav0a yevvav Noyous KaXous, Errerta 5€ avTOY KaTavoHaal, OTL TO
KANO TO ETL OTWODY TMpmaTL TO ETL ETEPH THpaTL adeAor EoTL,
/ \ > XA ¢ cal , tol > \ € / Yd > / >

Kal ef det Siwxery TO ém’ elder KaAOY, TOAAN AvoLa py OVX EY TE

\ ’ tal , \ Wes) yv / Neue, \ ’ oe

Kal tavTov nyetoOar TO etl Tact TOls Tw@magL KAadXOS* TodTO SB

evvondavTa KaTacTHval TaVT@Y TOV KAaOV TwUdTwY épacTHy,
évos 5€ TO chodpa TodTo yadaca Katappovncavta Kal oputKxpov
\ / lo / ‘

210 A dy: eav O.-P. avrov TW O.-P.: avrév B, Sz. Bt.: ad rov Verm.
ca@paros secl, (Riickert) Voeg. J.-U, Hug émecra O¢ libri, O.-P.: €meira kai
Themist. : émecra Usener avrov: fort. ad B_ xaddos 70 emi BT O.-P.:
Kk. T@ ert W geopare t@ TW O.-P.: o. ro B émi érépm B O.-P.: érépe T
ei (8) det cj. Jn. rovro 8 BW O.-P.: rovr@ & T

to lay an appropriate stress on the personal effort required on the part

of the disciple, the incapacity of whose “natural man” is so persistently
emphasized.
Sei ydp xrA. The sentence runs on without a full stop till we reach the
close of 210p: Rettig sees in this straggling style a parody of the style of
Pausanias. The passage following was a favourite with the neo-Platonists;
see the reff. in Alcinous zsag. 5; Plut. quaest. Plat. 3. 2. 1002E; Themist. or.
13, p. 168c; Plotin. Ann. 1. 6. 1, p. 50; Procl. zn Alezb. I. p. 330.
6 "youpevos. The educational “conductor” is represented as a pvotaywyds.
So we have dyayew 21006, madaywynb7 210 B, dyeoOa 211 ¢.
évds aitdv oadparos.- If we retain gwparos—and emphasis requires its
retention,—it is difficult to justify the Bodleian atray: and avrév, which
has the support of the Papyrus, although rather otiose, is preferable to
such substitutes as Hommel’s ad rév (cwpatwy) or Vermehren’s ad rov, since
at is hardly in place here. Voegelin’s objection to airoy, endorsed by Rettig,
that it should involve the repetition of de7, does not strike one as fatal; and
I follow Riickert and Stallb. in adopting it.
210B rd éml...cdpan. Cp. 186 a.
+o ém’ elSe. addy. This has been interpreted in three ways: (1) “das in
der Idee Schéne” (Schleierm.), “das Schéne der Gesammtgattung” (Schulthess) ;
so too Zeller and F. Horn; (2) “quod in specie (opp. to ‘summo genere’)
pulchrum est” (Stallb., after Wyttenbach), so too Hommel ; (3) “das in der
Gestalt Schéne” (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 eiSos of physical “form”
or “outward appearance,” cp. 196A, 215 B.
pi ovx...yetoOar. See Goodwin G. M. 7. § 817.
évvotcayra karagryvar. Sc, airdv dei, resuming the oblique construction.
7d o66pa rovro. “Idem est quod rovro ro odbddpa epay vel rov ododpiv
tovrov épwra” (Stallb.). We have had a description of this epodporns already,
in 183 a ff.
 126 TAATQNOS (210 B
nynoauevov’ peta dé TadTa TO év Tals Yruyais KadXOG TipLwTEpOV
€ / \ be fal \ > Lal lal f /

nyjcacGar Tov é€v THO THpaTL, WoTE Kai Eay ETLELKTS WY THY
rn _aA vA \ \ \ a My

Cyuyny tis Kav opixpov avOos éxyn, éEapKeiy avT@ Kai épay Kai
KndecOar Kal tixtewv-Odyous ToLovTous [Kal Entetv] oftives Trown-
cal ‘f if:

covat Bertlous Tovs véous, iva avayxacOn av Oedcacba To év

/ AY / iv > A = VA 0 \ >

Tois émuTndevpace Kal Tois vomous Kadov Kal Todt ideiv bTe TaV
r . rae J a lal

avTo aut@ Evyyevés €otiv, iva TO Tepl TO THma KaAOV TuLKpOY TL

S23N iy n / ? / \ \ \ al \ /

nynontar elvar' peta Sé Ta ériTndevuata eri Tas éTLaTHMAS

\

ayayeiv, iva idn ab émuatnudv KadXoOs, Kal Br€tr@V Tpds TrOAL 7d

lal lal \ A: Le

D0 Kaddv pnxéte TS Trap Evi, waTrEp OiKEeTNS, AyaTT@Vv Tatdapiou

e lal lal ,

210 C0 «xa&v Herm. Bdhm. Bt.: xai day BT O.-P.: cai dv W: cai Ast Sz.
cai (nrew secl. Ast (fort. transp. post air@): xai secl. Bdhm. Mdvg. Sz. Bt.
et trwes W avayxacGeis Ast iva...etvae secl. Hug: iva del. Ast wa
tone T: wa edn O.-P.: i acdne B: fort. va bid av (ro rev) Hirschig
D +o Schleierm. Sz. Bt.: 16 libri, O.-P. oixérns: 6 ixérns Hommel
matdapiov del. Ast

wore kal éav xtA. The uncontracted form kai éay is very rare in Plato, see
Schanz nov. comm. p. 95. For dvGos, cp. 183 E.
210 C [xal {nretv]. Ast rightly condemned these words as “ineptum
glossema.” To excise xai only (as Badham) is unsatisfactory, since as Hug
justly observes rixrew (nretv Adyous ‘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 in-
vestigare eilusmodi sermones, qui iuvenes reddant meliores”; so, too Rettig.
But this is futile.
év rots émitnSevpaor. “In Morals” (Stewart): cp. Zaws 793D dca vopuous
7) €On tis 7) emitndevpara Kade: Rep. 4448: Gorg. 474k.
tva 7d...elvat. This clause is subordinate to, rather than coordinate with,
the preceding iva clause (like the éws dv clause in D infra),—a juxtaposition
which sounds awkward. Hence it is tempting either to excise this clause
with Hug, or with Ast to read dvayxacOeis for avayxac6j, and delete the
second iva. Against Hug’s method it may be urged that the words are
wanted to correspond to évds...cpixpoy tyynodpevov in 2108 above, and to
emphasize the “littleness” of corporeal beauty even when taken in the mass.
For this belittling of things of the earth, cp. Theaet. 173 5 4 S€ Suavora, tadra
mavra nynoanevn opixpa Kal ovdev, ariudcaca...péperar ktA. Observe how rav
...€uyyevés here balances (wav) xddXos...ddedpov in 210 B.
ayayetv. The construction is still dependent upon Sei, but the subject to
be supplied (viz. Tov Nyoupevov) is changed.
210 D pnxére 1G wap’ evi KTA. TA, 8c. KaA@, is governed by dovAevwr, and
the phrase contains a clear reference to the language of Pausanias in 183 a ff.
éSorep oixérns, “like a lackey,” is of course contemptuous, as in Theaet. 172 D
xuvduvevovolv...ws olkérat mpos edevOepous reOpapba. For ayaréyv, “contented
with,” cp. Menez. 240c. IZf we retain the Mss.’ rd map’ évi the construction is
210 £] ZYMMOZION 127
KaXXOS 1) GvOpw@trov: TLVds 4 erriTNSevpmaTos Evds, SovAeVwWY Hadros
KL OpixpoAoyos, AAX ETL TO TWoAV TENAYOS TETPApMEVOS TOV
? \ / ? > > Ni \ \ / / a

Kadovd Kal Oewp@v wodXovds Kal Kaos AOyoUS Kal peyadompeTeEts

tixtn Kal Siavorpata év Pirocodia adOdve, ws dv évtaiOa pw-
obels Kal av&ybels xatidn Twa ErLoTHUNY play ToLAUTHY, ) éoTL
: ‘ ua

Kadov ToLodde. Treip@ Sé por, Ey, TOV VodY TpocéxeLY ws OloY TE

A tl a a /

MaXLoTa.
210 D xdddos del. Bdhm. i) avOpmmov del. Schirlitz: fort. dvov
évos: tuvos O,-P.t Sovrevov del. Bast tikrn Coisl. corr.: rikree BT
cal Scavonpara del. Bdhm.: ante tixry transp. Hommel apbova Ast
pwbes W .

awkward, as Stallb.2 admits—“ quod olim accusativum defendendum susce-

pimus, videtur nunc interpretatio loci quam proposuimus, quamvis Riickerto
et Hommelio probata, nimis contorta nec satis simplex esse.” I am inclined
to suspect the phrase 4 av@pwmov tiwvds. Schirlitz proposed to excise 7 avOpe-
mov: I suggest ma:dapiov KdAXos [i] dvov tivés, ‘of some witless urchin,” and
suppose a reference to what Pausanias said in 181B é¢pdot...as dv divevra
avonroratayv : 181 D ov yap €paor maidwy, ad éeredav Hdn dpywovra vody icxev
(cp. next 7.).
avros...cpixpodAdyos. Cp. 1818, where those who follow Aphrodite Pan-
demos (loving women and boys) are described as oi datAa trav avOporar.
éml To odd mé\ayos. méAayos of itself connotes vastness; cp. Rep. 453 D
eis TO péytatov méeAayos pécov (dy Tis €uméon): Prot. 338 4 pevyew eis TO réAayos
tav Aoywv. The phrase is alluded to in Clem. Al. protrept. 69.4; Plut. guaest.
Plat. 10018; Themist. or. x11L. p. 177.
Gewpav. This should be taken closely (supplying aid) with what precedes,
not with modAods...Adyous (as Ast’s Dict. s.v. implies). The parable suggests
that the spectator, having reached the hill-top, turns himself about and
gazes, wonder-struck, at the mighty ocean of beauty which lies spread before
him, till the spectacle quickens his soul and moves it to deliver itself of many
a deep-lying thought.
kadovs...peyadorpereis. Cp. Menex. 2478: 1b. 2340: Rep. 503.0 vearikol re
kat p. Tas Ovavoias: 1b. 486 A, 496A yevvay dSvavonpara te cal do€as. Cp. for the
sense Plotin. de puler. 8c (Cr.).
addovw. apOovos is used alike of fruits (Polit, 272 4) and of soils (Soph.
222 a), thus meaving both “abundant” and “bountiful”—“ unstinted” and
“unstinting.”
poovels. Cp. Phaedr. 238 c; 176 B supra.
émornpnvy play. This unitary science—émiornpy in the strict Platonic
sense, called also (211C) pa@ypa—is dialectic: cp. Phaedr. 247B rhv ev ro 6
éoTw ov dvtws emvatnpny ovaav. See parallels in Plotin. de puler. 2a (Cr.);
Procl. in J. Alc. p. 246.
210 E sretpa 8 pou xrA. Here again, as at 210A (meipad Se EmeaOa xrX.),
a climax in the exposition is marked.
 128 TAATQNOE [210 £
XXIX. “Os yap dv péyps evrabda mpos ta épwrixa traiéa-
« la) \

ywoynOn, Oeopmevos epeERs Te Kal 6pOas Ta Kara, Tpds TéAos 7d

a a * Lal \ »

IN a ? a 5 / / / \ \ /
lay Tov epwtixav ée€aipyns KaToetai TL Oavpacrov thy dvaow
KaXov, TOvTO exeivo, & Lwxpates, ov bn Evexev Kai ot éumpoabev
/ fol ’ a ? / La \ bid ‘ Cy:

211 TAVTES TOVOL OAV, TP@Tov péev ael Ov Kal OvTE yuyvoueEVoY OUTE
a al

aTroAAvpEvov, ovTE avEavouevov ovTE POivov, érerta ov TH meV

? rr , ” > fe ” OF bi > a ry

Karov, TH S€ alaxpov, ovde TOTE pév, ToTE SE ov, OSE TrPOS peVv TO
/ lal \ ’ / > \ \ / \ \ BA > \ \ \ x

Kadov, Tpos 5€ TO aiaxpov, od EvOa pev Karov, Eva b€ aicypov

, N \ \ > ¥ »>Q> »¥ \ I ” \ > /

211 A rode de O.-P.

ees Te kal dpOas. ‘In correct and orderly succession”; see 211 8B ad fin.
roiro yap 6 eote TO opOes...iévae xrd., and 2104 where the right order of
procedure (mpérov...émeira, etc.) is specially emphasized.
arpos TéAoS 7Sy lav. “‘ mpos réAos ievac dicebantur li, qui superatis gradibus
tandem ad spectanda arcana admittebantur” (Hommel). Cp. the use of réAea
in 2104, réAcov 2040, rédos 205 A.
éaldvns. “Ona sudden”: this suggests the final stage in the mystery-
rites, when out of. darkness there blazed forth suddenly the mystical péyyos,
and év avyn xaOapa the dacpara (P’haedr. 250) or tepa pvortxa—consisting
probably of images of Demeter, Iacchus and Persephone, and other sacred
emblems—were displayed to the awe-struck worshipper (paxapia dws Te cat
déa). Cp. Plotin. Hnn. 43.17 érav n Wuyn eEalpyyns pos AdBy xrr.; Plato Ep.
vii. 341 c e€aidyys, olov dwd mupds mndnoavros éEapbev pas, ev TH Wyn yevo-
pevoy (sc. the highest paOnua). See further Rohde, Psyche 11. 284.
KaroWerat. Cp. 210D supra, and Phaedr. 247D (kaOopa peév attyy Sc«ato-
avvnv xtX.), Which suggest that xafopay was a vox propria for viewing ritual
displays.
Gavpacrov...kadév. Similarly Phaedr, 250B xddXos b€ ror’ hy ideiv Aaurpov.
For davpaoroy cp. 2198; it often connotes the supernatural, e.g. Rep. 398 a
mporKuvoipev Gv avrov ws lepoy Kat 0. cat dvr.
ob 84 évexev xr. “The goal to which all our efforts have been directed ”:
cp. 2104; Phaedr. 248 B ob & évex’ 7 moddW orovd) xrrd. See the parallel in
Plotin. de puler. 42.c, D (Cr.).
211 A mparov piv...treta...ov8’ av xrA. The Ideal object is distinguished
by three leading characteristics, viz. (1) eternity and immutability ; (2) abso-
luteness, or freedom from relativity ; (3) self-existence. Compare the accounts
of Ideal being given in Phaedo 78 ¢ ff., Phaedr. 247 ¢ ff., Cratyl. 386 p, 439 c ff.,
Rep. 476 4, 479a ff., Soph. 249 B ff., Phileb. 158, 58a, Tim. 51p ff. The
description has, necessarily, to be conveyed by means of negative propositions,
i.e. by way of contrast with phenomenal objects. See also the parallels in
Plotin. Enn. v. viii. 546 0, VI. vii. 727 ¢.
Ty pay... 8%. / “In part...in part”: so Theaet. 1588, Polit. 274 5, Laws
635 D.
mpds pty To...7o. This denotes varying “relation,” as in the Aristotelian
TO TposeTe,
211 B] ZYMTOZION 129

[@s tial pév dv Karov, Trai S€ alcypov]: ovd ad pavtacOncerar

/ \ /

avT@ TO Kandy oloy Tpdacwmov TL oVdE YeEipes OVSE GAO ovdSEYV OV

? a X\ \ if / »>O\ a Ewha oh) > \ ba

THua peTexvel, OVSE TLS AdYos OVSE Tis EerrLOTHUN, OSE Trou OV EV
éTépw Tivi, olov év Sow 7H ev yn i) év ovpave } Ev T@ AAO, GAA
2 ‘ / > , * ) aN ’ ’ a A Ww ” BJ Ni

avTo Kal’ avTo we” avTod povoerdés del dv, TA SE GANG TaVTA KAA
» \ , € \ , © a \ 2 Ne \ Nueoy / 4

EXELVOU METEXOVTA TPOTOY TLVAa TOLODTOV, Olov yiyvopevwY TE TOV

211 A as...aicypdr secl. Voeg. J.-U. Hug Sz. Bt. dv om. W av BT
O.-P.: atro Ws atro BT O.-P.: atro W oddev oy libri, edd.: ovde ev O.-P.
B per avrov O.-P.: del. Naber tporov tia B O.-P.: twa tpomov TW

@s tiol...aloxpédv. Rettig defends this clause, quoting Wolf’s note, “roi

(geht) auf alle vier (vorher genannten) Ideen, Theile, Zeit, Verhiltniss, Ort.”
Teutfel argues that “ausser Platon selbst hatte nicht leicht Jemand einen
Anlass gehalt einen Beisatz zu machen.” None the less, I believe we have
here another “ineptum glossema.”
pavracbycerat aitd. Se. 7a Gewpévo. avtafera often connotes illusive
semblance; cp. Phaedo 110p, Rep. 572 B.
ov8€ Tis Aoyos. It is difficult to be sure of the sense in which Adyos is
used here. (1) It is most natural to refer it, and éwiornpn following, to the
Aoyor and ¢mvorjpar of 210c, and to render by “ discourse,” “argument” (with
Gomperz, Stewart and Zeller). This rendering has in its favour the fact that
this is the usual sense of Adyos (Adyor) throughout this dialogue. (2) Or
Aoyos May mean “concept”; so Rettig, who comments: “Die Ideen sind
nicht blosse Begriffe, sie sind vielmehr Existenzen, ywpiorai, wie Aristoteles
sich ausdriickt, und Bedingungen des Seins und Werdens der Dinge der
Sinnenwelt.” Cp. Phaedr. 245 8, Laws 8958, Phaedo 78c, in which places
(to quote Thompson) “Adyos is equivalent to dpos or dpicpds, of which ovcia
is the objective counterpart.” This more technical sense is, perhaps, less
probable in the present context; but, after all, the difference between the
two renderings is not of vital importance. The essence of the statement,
in either case, is that the Idea is not dependent upon either corporeal or
mental realization, ze. that it is not subjective, as a quality or product of
body or mind, but an objective, self-conditioned entity. A third possible
sense of Adyos is “ratio,” or mathematical relation. Perhaps “formula” would
best render the word here.
ov8é ov bv. ov is probably used in a local sense: cp. Arist. Phys. 111. 4.
2034 7 TlAdray dé em pev ovdeév elvar capa, ovde ras id€as, dia TO pnd€é mov
eiva av’tds. But though the Ideas are extra-spatial, it is Platonic (as Aristotle
implies, de An. 11. 4, 4294 27) to say ryv Wouxnv elvar Tromov eidav.
211B povoe&tis. Cp. Phaedo 78D p. by abrd xa’ aird: 1b. 80 B povoedet
kai ddwadita: Theaet. 205d:
Tim. 59B: Rep. 612A etre modvedns etre povoet-
dys (4 adnOjs hiots). Stewart renders “of one Form,” but the full force may
be rather “specifically unique,” implying that it is the sole member of its class.
peréxovta. For the doctrine of “participation,” see esp. Phaedo 100 ff,
Parmen. 130 B ff.
rovoitov, olov. Equiv. to rowirov dare (see Madv. Gr. S. § 166 c).
B. P. 9
130 TAATQNOE [2118
aAAwv Kal aTroArAupEevav pndev ExElvo pnTE TL WAEOY NTE EXaATTOV
w > / Ral

yiyverOar pnde macyew pndév. Strav by Tis amo Tavde Sia TO

/ 6 be , r) / iA Py / > \ fal 8 Py \ \

opOas maidepacteiy eTraviwy éxeivo TO Kadov apyntar Kaopay,

> lol lal A \ lol

oyedov av Tt AmToLTO Tov TédoUS. ToODTO yap by éaTL TO dpOAs Eri

8 \ yw vd la) / Lol \ 8 a?) site 1S3 lal 2 |

TA EpwTLKA Lévat 7) UT Adrov ayerOal, ApyYouevoy ato TOVSE THY

\ es \ as RI’ a 1: Mv > / > \ lol lal

Kada@v éxelvov évexa TOV KaXdod del erraviéval, BoTrEp erravaBab mots
Vpwmevov, amo évos emi dvo nal amo Svoiy érl mavTa Ta Kara
i ? x Sy td lal e \

cwpata, Kal aro TOY KAA@VY TwWUaTwY éTl TA KANGA eTLTNSEVLATA,

f2 al la) /

Kal aro Tov éemiTndevpatoyv éml Ta Karka pabhnuata, Kal amo

tav pabnudtwv em’ éxeivo TO paOnua TerevTHCAaL, 6 éeoTLWW OvK
211 B oéxeivo B O.-P.: exeivw TW pynre rs BTW: pyre Vind. 31 Paris
1642 O.-P. drav 6n B O.-P.: érav d€ 67 TW C éravaBabpois W: én’
dvaBaOpois B: émavaBacpois T O.-P. capdror (eri ras kadas uyas, Kal ad
TOY Kadoy Wuxoy) emt Sydenham amo Tav (Kadov) emir. Vulg. paénpara,
cai libri O.-P., Bdhm. Usener Hug: paJé., os Sz. Bt.: paé., gor dv vulg.: p.,
éws dv Stallb.: py. éos Herm.: p., iva Sauppe: p., iva cai Winckelmann TO
paOnpa reXevtnon del. Bdhm. terevrnoa Usener Hug: reAevtnon libri, Sz.
Bt.: ante reAevrnon lacunam statuit Voeg.

éxetvo. Sc. (adro) ro xadov. So frequently “eéxeivo et éexetva das Ueber-

sinnliche significat, rade vero vel ravra das Sinnliche” (Ast): cp. Phaedr.
250 a, Phaedo 748, etc.
pnt wdcxev pyddv. As to the dradea of the Idea, see Soph. 2484 ff,
2510 ff., and my article on “The Later Platonism” in Journal of Philol.
XXIII. pp. 189 ff
éravav. Cp. Rep. 5210 rod dvros ovcay éravodor, jy 5) pirocopiay adnO7n
pnoopey eivar: ib, 532 B,C,
rod té\ovs. This combines the senses “goal” and “sacred symbol”: cf.
2104; Soph. fr. 753. N. ws rpis ddABiot | Keivor Bporay, of ratra Sepxdevres TéAn |
podrwa’ és “Acdov.
Tovto yap 6m xrA. Here commences a recapitulation of “the Ascent of
Love” as described in 210 a—2118; cp. Rep. vi., vu. for both language and
thought.
211 C im’ dddov &yerOa. This refers to the radaywyds or pvotaywyds
of 210 8, not (as Wolf thought) to the operation of a Saiper.
bravaBa®pois. For the notion of a ladder of ascent ep. Rep. 5108 ff., 511 B
ras Umrobéces movovpevos ovK apyds GAAA,..olov emiBares Te Kal dppas iva péxpe
Tov dvumobérov emi THY TOU mavTos apyny lav...oUTws €ml TeXeUTHY KaTaBaivy KTA.
Cp. Tennyson’s “the great world’s altar-stairs”; the dream-ladder at Bethel;
and the Titanic heaven-scaling of 1908. Possibly a contrast is intended
between the futile attempt of the Earth-born eis rév otpavov avaBaow roseiv,
and the successful efforts of the Heaven-born lover emi ré xaddv éraveéva.
For later parallels, see Plotin. de puler. 60 B (Cr.); Clem. Al. Strom. v.
p. 611 D.
kal aro Trav padnpdrev crA. The reading and construction of this passage
211 5] ZY MTMOSION 131
” a > a? , in a A
a@dXov 7) avtTov Exeivov Tod Kadod paOnpa, <iva> Kal yuo adto
TedevT@Y 0 EoTL KadOV. EvTadOa Tod Biov, b pire LHxpates, bn D
a AM” , a) lal fal

7 Mavrivixn Eévn, eltrep mov addo0t, Biwtov avOpaTr@, Oewpévy

e \ / Yi ,’ ,

avtTo TO Kadov. 6 édv Tote idns, OV KaTA YpUciov TE Kal écOATa

\ \ ‘ a +7 ' nr

Kal Tovs KaXovs Traidds TE Kai veavioxous doket aot elvat, ods viv
\ \ \ lal is , e A

¢ lal ? / Nie > \ \ Noo: / € a

oper extremAnEa Kal EToLwos eb Kal TV Kal AANOL TOAKOL, OPOVTES
Ta Tatdixa Kal Evvovtes adel avTois, el ws olov T Hv, wnte éa Oley
Ni \ \ , tal ”

pnre ive, adda OeacOat povov Kat Evvetvar. ti Sita, édn,

, ’ lal , Cal lel

LA ” / > \ \ \ > a » 14 ,
olopeba, ef Tw yévoito avTO TO Kadov ideiv eidixpivés, Ka8apov,EB
v ’ , A ,
AuULKTOV, GANA pn avaTrrewy capKar Te GVOpwTivaY Kal YpwL_aTwV
211C (iva) cai scripsi: «ai libri: wa Usener: xév Bdhm.: cal yv@...cadov
secl. Hug avré: avtw O.-P. D pavrixy vulg., Themistius Tore Ons
O.-P.: mor’ eiSns B: mor’ et8ns T: mor’ idys apographa, Sz. ypvatov: Xpucov
O.-P. dei post povoy cai transp. Ast Gcacba povov TW: Oeacacba
povoyv B: povov Oeacacba O.-P. E dycxrov post Ovnrns, add’ transp.
Liebhold a\Aa del. Ast Liebhold avarrAew O.-P.

are uncertain. I follow Usener in changing reAeurnoy to the infinitive and in

inserting iva after pa@nua (retaining, however, cat before yvd which he need-
lessly deletes). The objection to Schanz’s ws (for cal) amd ray p. is that os,
in the final use, occurs but once elsewhere in Plato, according to Weber’s
statistics (see Goodwin, @. U. T. p. 398), being very rare in all good prose-
writers except Xenophon. Another possible expedient would be to read
yvva in place of yg. éor’ dv is a non-Platonic form.
redevTHcal...reNeuTav. The repetition serves to emphasize the finality of
the Idea. ‘
atrd...8 tor. For this formula to express ideality, cp. Phaedo 74 8,
75 B ols émeappayiCopeba TovTo 6 gore: Theaet. 146 &.
211D éraida...clrep mov dddoh. “There above all places”; so Phaedo
67B éxei...eirep mov GAAobi: cp. 2124 ecimep T@ addo...€xkeivo. For evradda
ce. gen. cp. Theaet. 1770, Rep. 328. For Bios Biwrds, cp. Apol. 38a, Eur.
Ale. 802.
ov Kara xpuvolov xrA. 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, 8. For xara c¢. ace., of comparison,
cp. Gorg. 512 B, Rep. 466 B.
tuvévres...pryre ave. Cp. 1914 ff.; also Sappho 2, Archil. 103, Soph. jr.
161 N. (dupadrecos 1080s): Rel. Med. “There are wonders in true affection—
when I am from him I am dead till I be with him,” etc.
rl Srta...oldpeda. Sc. yevéoOa aire, or the like.
2l1lE etdtxpuvés xr. Cp. Phileb. 52D ro xaOapov re Kai eiAtxpiwés: Phaedo
66 4, Rep. 478 E.
pr avdwdewv. Tim. avamdews: dvamemAnopévos: xpnra Se emt rov pepo-
Avopévov: cp. Phaedo 83D and the use of the verb in Phaedo 674A nde
9—2
 132 TAATQNOZ [211

Kal adAns TOAAHS Prvaplas Ovntis, adr avTo To Oelov Karov

lol , fol ? lal

dvvatTo povoedés KaTideiv; ap’ ole, pn, hadAov Biov yiyverOae

J lal >.> fal

212 éxeice
> tal
PETrovTOs avOpwrov Kal éxeivo ® Sei Oewpévov Kal
/ 9 , \ 5 an ha a 2 NI

’ > OA a a a a A
Evvovtos avT@; 7} ovK evOuun, Edn, Ste éevtavOa aiT@ povayov
YEVHTETAL, OPOVTL @ OpaToY TO KaXOV, TiKTELY OUK Eldwra peE-
a \

THS, ATE OUK EldHrOUV ehaTrTOMév@, GAN aGXNOH, ATE TOU adnOots
epartouevm téxovte b€ apetny ardnOn Kal Opepapuevm vrdapyer
bi / / \ > ; \ ’ a \ V4 ¢ /

211 E 6ynrns del. Bdhm. aAd’...xaTidetv del. Bdhm. épn om. T

212 A 6 dei Ast: & Sei B: wd b: 6 bet T: 89 Schleierm.: det Rohde Sz.
eharropev@ del. Voeg.

dvaripmwpeba THs TovTov (sc. TOU Gwpatos) dicews, dAda kabapevopev ar’
avrov. Also Rep. 5168, Theaet. 1965. This passage is cited by Plotin. Enn.
16 Wile Thy JOb Ghee
xXpopatev. For the Idea as-aypwparos oveia, see Phaedr. 247 c.
ddrvaplas Ovyntas. ‘Lumber of mortality”: ep. Phaedo 66C éparar b€ Kai
emOvpi@y kai PoBwv kai cid@Awv mavrodarav Kai pAvapias €umimAnow nas
moAAns (sc. TO capa); Gorg. 490c; Rep. 581 v.
gatdrov Biov. For the sense, cp. Soph. fr. 753 N., Eur. fr. 965 D. ddABios doris
...adavarov xabopav dicews | kdcpov aynpw kTX.
212 A éxeivo @ Set. “ With the proper organ,” sc. r@ v@: cp. Phaedr.
247 On yap...dvadis ovola, dvtas ovaa, Wuxns KvBepyntn pdv@ Beaty v@ KTA.:
Phaedo 658; Ltep. 490 B atrov 6 éorw Exdatou tis picews Gara @ mpoonKer
Wuxns eparreaOa tov rowvrov: ib. 532A mplv dv atrd 6 éorw ayabdy aith
vonoe AaBy. For the organ of intellectual vision (rd épyavoy 6 xarapavOaver
€xagros...otov ef dupa), see ftep. 5180: cp. S. Aatth. vi. 22 ff. So Browne
Hydriot. “ Let intellectual tubes give thee a glance of things which visive
organs reach not”: cp. Plotin. de puler. 60 B (Cr.).
ovk elSwda...ddd’ ddnOr. Rettig writes, ‘“eiSwAov ist hier nicht Trugbild,
sondern Abbild. cidwda aperys sind... Tugenden zweiten Grades. Vgl. Pol. vit.
516 a, 5340, x. 596 a, 598 B,..Commentar zu unserer Stelle ist Symp. 206 p.”
On the other hand, cp. Theaet. 150A eiSwda rixrey, with 150 ¢ mdrepov eiSwXov
kat YevSos dmorixre: Tov véou n Sidvota f) yovipoy Te Kai adnOés. Evidently here
the point of eiSwAa hes in the inferiority rather than the similarity of the
objects when compared with évrws évra. 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 die Centauren erzeugte.”
éharropévw. Of mental action, cp. Rep. 490B (quoted above). Voegelin
proposed to omit the second éedarropuévm, but Plato never omits the participle
with dre. For parallels, see Phaedo 678, Rep. 53840; Plotin. de puler.
46 ® (Cr.).
Opabapévy. Cp. 209.
212 B] ZYMTMOSION 133
Geopiret yevéoOat, Kal elmep TO GAM aVvOpeTav aOavaT@ Kal
” f ‘

EKELVO5
,

Tadra $7, 6 PaiSpé re kal of ArXot, é év Atotiwa, wémeto be pat B

ro > a

eyw* temevopévos S€ Teip@uat Kal TOUS AdrovSG TreiOeL TL TOU-

8 > Lar / be lel . \ ” (0 4 /

Tov Tod KTHpaTOs TH avOpwreia picer cuvepyov apyeivw "Epwros

oux av Tis padiws AaBot. 810 87 eywyé Hnus yphvar mavta avdpa
, Mv c , , A ȴ wv , an U ww

tov “Epwta Tiav Kat avTos Tid, <Kal> Ta épwtiKa Kal dia-
\ ae , A

, %. lal ~ a ” , \ A Nig SOP aN

PepovTws acK@ Kal Tots AdXOLS TapaKEnEVOpaL, Kal VU TE Kal aEl
,
eyxoptdto thy Sivauww Kal avdpetav tod
>? , \ 7 ~ > / aw
*Epwtos cal’ dcop olds +
> of /

212 A Geogr? rec. t O.-P., vulg.: deopiAn BTW B oom. O.-P.

eyo xpyval dnusc Method. (kal) Ta épwrika kal Sz.: Kal ra épwrexa Usener:
ra 8 épwrixa cai Bdhm. aoxeév Vahlen Tov epota post eyxapiatw add.
O.-P.t cal avdpeiav sec]. Hug: re cai xpetav Bdhm.

Geopidt. Cp. Rep. 6128, Phil. 39 x.

elrep Tw GAAw. Cp. Phaedo 588, 664; and 211 D supra (ad init.),
dBavdtw. Cp. Soph. fr. 864 N. ovx fare ynpas trav copay, ev ois 6 vois|
Ocia Evveoti nuépa TeOpaupévos. A passage such as this might have evoked
the remark in Isocr. c. Soph. 291E pévov od« dOavdrous imuryvoovra rovs
ovvovtas mouoey.
212 B mémecpar xrrA. ‘“ Beachte man das Spiel mit mémewopa, remeio-
pévos, mepopa, weer” (Rettig). Cp. 189 D eye ody metpdoopat KTH.
xtpatos. J.e. a’rov rov cadod. Cp. Phil. 190 ti rév avOpwrivev kmpdrov
apiotov: rb. 66 A.
cuvepydv. Cp. 1808; and 218 D rovrov dé olpai pou avdAdAnmropa ovdéva
KUPL@TEpoY Elva Gov.
$16 8...typav. This echoes both Phaedrus’s otra 87 éywyé nut “Epwra
Ocdv...Tyuetarov (180 B) and Agathon’s 6 yp €mecOar mavt’ avdpa (197 E).
Probably zyav here implies practical veneration; cp. the Homeric use of
rin (P 251, A 304, w 30, etc.), and Hes. Theog. 142.
ra épwrixa... dock. For Socrates’ devotion to “erotics,” see 177D ovdév
nut ado eriotacGa 7h Ta €pwrixa, 198D ad init, Probably doe (like ipo)
has a religious connotation here, “1 am a devotee of”; cp. Hesych. doxeta:
Opnoxeva, evoéBeca: Pind, Nem. 1x. 9 (with J. B. Bury’s note). In spite of
Rettig’s objection that Usener’s conj. (see crit. n.) “bewirkt eine Tautologie
mit dem Folgenden xai viv...”"Epwros,” it seems to me—as to Hug—an im-
provement, and (as modified by Schanz) I adopf it: a certain amount of
tautology is inevitable, unless we resort to excision. For «ai (intensive)
diahepsvrws cp. Phaedo 59, Rep. 528p. Vahlen, reading aoxdy, construes
kai avtos r. and «ai Tr. d. mapax. as parallel: but in this case I should expect
aités (re). Most edd. (Bekk., Bt., etc.) put commas after ripav and aca.
wiv Sivapiw Kal dvSpelay. For the duvays of Eros cp. 188 p (Eryx.) macav
Sivamy exe...6 mas “Epws: and for his dvdpeia, 179A (Phaedr.), 196c¢ ff.
(Agathon) eis ye dvdpeiay xrd., 203.D (Socr.) dvdpeios dv (cp. 219 ff.). The
intention here may be (as I find suggested also by Schirlitz) that the long
 134 TIAATQNOZ [212 B
Ceiui. tovTov ody Tov Aoxyov, o Paidpe, e¢ wev BovrEL, ws eyKoptov
fal a \ UA € > ,

eis "Epwta vopucov eipnaba, ei Sé, 6 Te Kat Orn xXalpers ovopalwr,

A \ , > ,

TovTO ovopate.
XXX. Elzovtos 8¢ tadta tod Lwepdtovs Tods péev errasveiv,
\ ’ , , 2 a o ’ , ’ a ,
tov S¢’Aptatodavn Neyetv Te emvyerpeiv, St EuvnaOn avTod réywv
0 LwKpatns wept Tod Adyou: Kal éEaipyns Thy addevov Oipay
¢ / \ a , \ ? / \ cA ,

Kpovowévny morvv Wopov Tapacyeiy Ws KwWpaTTaY, Kal avANTpidS0S

, n a \ >

D dwrnv dxovew. Tov odv ’AyaOwva, Haides, pdvat, ov oxépecOe ;

lal ’ /

Kal éay pév Tis TaV ériTndelwv 7, KadrEtTE* EC SE un, AéyeTE OTL OV
, lal cal \ , / ’

212 C emtxetperv eye re O.-P. avAcov rec. t O.-P., vulg.: atAcov BT

Kpotoupévny 'T (kal) os Bdhm.: ws (bd) Naber: «ai Ast D xeperde
O.-P. — éav: av O.-P.

course of mwaidaywyia described above requires dvdpeia in the learner who

is to attain mpos ro rédos: cp. Meno 81D éav tis avdpetos f Kal px amoxapy
(nrav. Neither Badham’s xpeiay (cp. 204 c) nor Hug’s athetesis of dv8peiay is
probable,
212C ei pew Botra...<b 82 Cp. Huthyd. 285 c (with Gifford’s n.); Goodwin
G. M. T. § 478.
6 T...xalpets dvopdtwv. Cp. Prot. 3584; Phaedr.273 0; Eur. fr. 967 D. col...
Zevs eir’ ’Aidns | dvopatopevos orépyets.
rods pty éraveiv. Observe that Socr. is not so enthusiastically applauded
as Agathon (mdvras dvafopvBjoa, 198 a): Socrates appealed rather r@ éxov7
Ora axovew.
A€yov...mepl rod Aoyou. See 205D ff. nai A€yeras:..Adyos KTH.
vhv abdaov Oipav. For this “street-door,” which generally opened in-
wards and gave admittance to a narrow passage (@vpwpetov), see Smith D. A.
I. 661 5.
kpovopéymv. As the Porter in Macbeth would say, “there was old knocking
at the door.” For xpovew cp. Prot. 310 a, 314D; but the usual Attic word is
xomrew (Moeris xdmrret thy Ovpav eEwbev... Artixas, xporet dé “EAAnuxds: Schol.
ad Ar. Nub. 132 emi pév trav tEwbev xpovdvrwy xdmrev A€éyovow, emi d€ Tov
écwbev Wodeiv), or mataccew Ar. Ran. 38, Cp. Smith D. A. 1. 9900.
os koparrov. “Ut comissatorum, h. e. quasi comissatores eum (sc. strepi-
tum) excitarent” (Stallb.). Stallb. rightly removed the comma placed after
mapacyxeiv in Bekker’s text. xwpacrai, “flown with insolence and wine,”
would naturally be in a noisy mood. For Alcib. as a reveller, see Plut.
Alcib. 193 v.
avrAntplSos dwviy. Not “tibicinae vocem,” as Wolf, but rather “sonum
tibiae, quam illa inflavit,” as Stallb. For g@evn thus (poetically) applied to
instrumental music, cp. Rep. 397 A mavtwv dpyavev dovas: similarly Xen.
Symp. VI. 3 drav 6 avAds POéyynra. For the avAnrpis as a regular accessory
of apo, cp. 1768, Theaet, 173 D: similar are the éraipa of Rep. 373 a, 573 D:
cp. Catullus’s “cenam non sine candida puella.”
212D odcire. “Invite him in”; cp. 174D,8, 1758.
212 E} ZYMITTOZION 135
mivowev GAXA avarravopeba Sn. Kal ov modo Vatepov *AXki-
Biddou thv povny axovew év TH avrAn ohdSpa peOvovTos Kal péya
Bodvros, epwtavtos drrov "Ayabwy Kal KedevovTos aye Tap’
"AydOwva. dyew ody airov Tapa spas tHv te avdrAntpida bro-
AaBodeay Kal Adrovs Tivds TOV akodoVOwy, Kai emLaTHVaL emt TAS
Ovpas eotepavwpévov avrov KitTOd ré Tue oTEpave@ dace Kal tor,
kal tawias éyovta émi ths Kepadrhs mdvu todas, Kal eleiv:
“Avdpes, yalpete: peOvovta avdpa travu odddpa déEeoe ouprdtny,
212 D = adda ravopeba O.-P. opddpa p. xai del. Hartmann (Kur)
éperavros vulg. Hirschig: del. Hommel Hartmann kedevovtos (ce) Hirschig
Sz. E ravias T O.-P.: reviasB (et mox) dvdpes Sz.: & ’vdpes Usener
de£erGe B O.-P. corr.: d€£acbe T: deferOa O.-P.}

dvarravépeba 78n. “ We are retiring already,” rather than “the drinking

is over” (Jowett): cp. Prot. 310 © éeidy...dedeemvnkdres Rpev Kat euéAdoperv
dvamaverOa xrd. The statement here would be a social fiction (see 174D 7.).
oé8pa peOvovros xrA. Hommel and Hartman may be right in regarding
épwravros as & gloss: for Boay followed directly by a question the former
quotes Asclep. Epigr. x1x. 5 ry 5€ rocoir’ ¢Bonoa BeBpeypévos: aype rivos,
Zev;
ayev ovv. Evidently the subject-of this infin. is not Agathon’s raides, as
implied in Schleierm.’s transl., but Alcib.’s own attendants.
trodaBotocav. For tzodaBeiv in this physical sense, “casurum sustentare,”
cp. Rep. 453D (the only other ex. in Plato), and Hdt. 1. 24 of the dolphin
“supporting” by “getting under” Arion (L. and S.’s “take by the hand” is
probably wrong). er
éml tas Cipas. “Intellige fores ipsius domus, in qua convivae erant, sive
THv péravdov bupav” (Stallb.).
212E airdyv...tov. “More Graecorum abundat airoy propter oppositio-
nem taeniarum quas gestabat in capite” (Wolf). Violets were specially in
fashion at Athens, as implied in the epithet toorépava (Pind. fr. 46). Other
favourite materials for wreaths were myrtle and roses: cp. Stesich. 29 moda
8é popowa pvrdra | cal podivous oreddvous twv re kopwvidas oddas.
rawlas. Cp. Thuc. tv. 121 dypooia pev ypvod otepave@ avédnoar...idia dé
érawiovv «rd.: Pind. Pyth. 1v. 240; Hor. Carm. tv. 11. 2. See Holden on
Plut. Timol. p. 266: “rata, 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. ¥. H. 21, 4).”
peObovra...rdvy opd8pa. The peculiar order—“a drunken fellow right
royally (drunk)”—seems intended to indicate that the speaker is, or feigns
to be, considerably mixed.
 136 TAATQNOZ (212 5
Aes, ’ a at
} attiwpev avabdnoavtes povoy “Ayabwva, éd Omrep HrAOopmEr; eyo
, , \ \ > ar > 9 , ’ / cr 52
yap Tor, pavar, yes ev ovy olos T eyevopny adixécOat, viv dé
NKw eTL TH KEpary Exwy Tas TaLivias, iva aro THs euns Keparns
4 > \ a aA ” i / iA > \ a ’ fol lol

TV Tov codwtatouv Kal KadrLoTou Keharny téav eitrwt oUTWaL

\ nr \

avabjow. dpa Katayedacerbé pov ws peOvovtos; éyw Sé, Kav

> , z , i e ¢ > \ la x

213 Upels yeAaTE, Ouws ED O15 OTL AXNOH RAEywW. GAAG pou Aé€rveETE
avrolev, emi pntois eiaiw 7) un; cvptrierbe 4 ov;
DS i ,’ an , ‘ , a ”

* A t
Ildvras ody avabopuBhoat Kai Kerevery elovévat Kai KaTa-
KAtvec Oat, Kai Tov Ayd0wva Kadety avToV. Kal TOV Léval ayopevoY
le \ \ ? , a SE \ \ Ȣ > /

U0 Tay avOpwTwY, Kai TEpLaLpOUMEVOY Ga TAS TaLVias WS avady-

\ - \ - \ / € > /

covta, éTimpoabe Tov opParpuav ExovTa ov KaTLEly TOY LwKpaTn,

2 tp lal ’ lol ” > 8 an 34 a 7

adra KabifecOar tapa tov "AydIwva év péow Lwxpatovs Te Kat

/ \

212E dep B: érep TW O.-P. 7AOopev TW O.-P.: FyOopev B

exOes O.-P. oids rT O.-P.: ois 7 B ert...rawias del. Naber éav €iT@
ottwot BT: xeharny add. W: post dvadjow transp. cj. Steph., post apa Ast:
secl. Wolf J.-U. Bt.: dveeray (vel éav aveirw) otrwot Winckelmann: dv eidov
ovr. Usener: eay eiciw ott. Bergk: éav ér oids r &, ot. temptabam KaTa-
yeAaoacba W 213 A xedevew T: xedever B

xs. J.e. at the main celebration of Agathon’s victory, cp. 174 a.

édv elrw ottwol. Since Wolf most edd. agree in obelizing these words as
a (misplaced) gloss on the following clause. Hommel’s conj. is ingenious,
though far-fetched—é¢ay efmoy (addressed to his attendants) “dixi iam saepius,
mitti me velle liberum a vestris manibus.” I have proposed ¢ay ére oids 7’ &,
ovraat avadnow, “if I am still capable of doing so,” in jesting allusion to his
own incapable condition: or perhaps the original had veavicxov. The scenic
effectiveness of otrwot, used Secxtixds, I should be loth to lose. Jowett’s “as
I may be allowed to call him” cannot be got out of the Greek.
213A airdbev. Statim, illico (Stallb.); cp. Thuc. vr. 21. 2.
éml pynrois. “On the terms stated” (ep. Laws 8504), ve. as a oupsrorns.
This is made clear by the following clause, cuumieoGe ij)of; which repeats the
condition already stated in 2128 (peOvovra...dé£eoOe cvurodrnv): 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 © ff.
dvadopuByoa. Cp. 1984. For xadeiv, see 212 D ad int.
tro Tov avOpérwv. Including, we may suppose, the avAnrpis, see 212 D.
énimpooGe...2wxpdty. ‘‘ Und da er sie sich vor die Augen hielt, bemerkte
er Sokrates nicht” (Zeller). Ficinus, followed by Wolf and Schleierm., wrongly
renders “Socratem, licet e conspectu adstantem, non vidit”; so too Hommel
writes “ante oculos habuit et vidit Socratem, sed eum non agnovit.” For
enimpoobey exe, cp. Critias 108 ©.
mapa tov Aydbwva. Jie. on the éeryarn xAivn: for the disposition of the
company see 175 c.
213 c] ZYMTTOZION 137

é€xeivou' Tapaywphoar yap Tov Lwxpdtn ws exeivoy Karteidev.B

mapaxabefopwevov S€ adtov domatecOai te Tov ’Ayd0wva Kai
avadeiv. eitretv odv Tov’ Ayabwva ‘Tronrverte, Taides, AXKuBuadny,
iva é€x tpitwy Kataxéntar. Ildvy ye, eireiv Tov “AdKiBiddny:
ara tis nuiv Od¢ Tpitos cupTOTHs; Kal dua petaatpepopevov
avuTov opay tov Lwxpatn, iSovra &€ avarndjoa kal eitrety "©
“Hpaxrets, rovti tiv; Swxpatns obtos; éAdoxyav ad pe evtad0a
Katéxetoo, WoTEp elwbers EEaidyns avadaiverOar OTov eyo Ounv C
HKioTa oe EcecOar. Kal viv Ti hKes; Kal Ti avd évtav0a KaTe-
KXvyns, Kal ov mapa Apiotopdver ovSé el Tus AANOS yeAolos EaTL

213 B xareiSev scripsi: xaride[v] O.-P.: xaditew libri: os...nabi¢ew secl.

Bdhm. Sz. Bt. 68 rpiros W O.-P., Sz. Bt.: ade tpiros B, J.-U.: rpiros d8¢ An
épav T O.-P.: 604 B- rouri ri jv TW O.-P.: rotr’ eireiv BWmg. Saxparns
del. Naber évAoydv B C ciwOns vulg. «ai ov Herm. Sz. Bt.: ws od B:
mas ov Hug ovde B: otre T

213B rapaxwpqoa. ‘ Locum dedisse”: cp. Prot. 336 B.

és éxeivov kateiSev. The adoption of this reading from the Papyrus obviates
the necessity of bracketing the words (see crt. .). Adain on Rep. 365D
writes “os for dare,..is a curious archaism, tolerably frequent in Xenophon...
but almost unexampled in Plato,” citing as instances Prot. 3305, Phaedo
1088, ZZ. Ale. 1418, and our passage: Goodwin, however (G. M. 7’. § 609),
recognizes only one instance of as=dare c. infin. in Plato (viz. Rep. l.c.).
Certainly this is no fit context for the introduction of a “curious archaism.”
*Yrodtere. “Calceos solyite”: see Smith D. A. i. 393 b. The opposite
process is tzodeiv (174 A).
é tplrwv. Cp. Gorg. 5004, Tim. 544; Eur. Or. 1178.
routl tt nv; “ Mirandi formula, qua utuntur, quibus aliquid subito et
praeter exspectationem accidit” (Stallb.). The idiom is common in Aristo-
phanes, eg. Vesp. 183, 1509, Ran. 39, etc. The words 3%. otros are, as
Rettig observes, ‘nicht Ausruf, sondern an sich selbst gerichtete Frage des
Alcibiades.”
Ddroxay. Cp. Prot. 309A amd cuvnyeriov rov rept thy “AdxiBiddov dpar;
I. Ale. 104. See also the description of Eros in 203 D (€miBovdos xrX.).
213C éaldvns dvadalverbar. Cp. 2108; Theaet. 162c ef eLarpyns otras
avapaynoet KTA.
Kal od mapa xrA. I adopt Hermann’s xai for the as of the mss. Stallb.
explains &s by “quippe, nam, ut mox in verbis os epol...yéyovev”: Hommel,
putting a question-mark after BovAera, renders “\warum setzest du dich grade
dahin, als zum Beispiel nicht neben A.” etc.: but, if as be kept, it would be
best to mark a question after ckarexXivns.
yedotos...Botderat. With BovrAerar, supply yeAoios efva. For Aristoph. as
yedoios, cp. 189B. The sense is, as Rettig puts it, “ Was hast du yedoios und
138 TIAATQNOZ [213 c
Te Kat BovreTat, dAXa Sveunxyarvnow OTws Tapa TO KaAXrOTH TOV
évdov Kataxeion; Kal Tov Lwxpatn, "Aydbwv, davat, Spa el por
emrapuvers* ws éuol o TovTov épws tod avOpwmov ov dpairov
mpaypna yéyovev. am’ éxelvou yap Tod ypovov, ad ov TovTOU
npacOny, ovxéts eEecti pot ovTe mpotBréWar ote SiarexOjvar
Kar@ ovd évi, } ovTocl EnroTtuTa@v pe kal POovav Pavpacta
épyaterar Kal rodopeirai te nal Tw YeEipe poyis améyeTar. Spa
obv pH TL Kal viv épyaontat, Gdrda SiddrArakov nuas, ) éav
émvuyetpy BralecOat, errapuve, os eyo Thy TovTOV paviav Te xal
irepactiay mdvu oppw5d. "AN ove éots, hava Tov ArdxiBiadyy,
éuol kai col Siadrayn. GAA TOUT@Y pév eloadbis ce TLLMPTN-
213 C BovdAera (efvac) Bdhm. dteunyarnow: rt eunxavnoe O.-P. ()
*AydOwv vulg. Jn. — érrapovers libri, Bt.: émapuveis Steph. J.-U. Sz. ov T:
od B D otroci,,, T: ovtoci mas Coisl. Oavpacra B O.-P.: Oavpaow
TW éemdapuve T: émrapuva B

tBpiorns bei dem liebenswiirdigen Tragiker zu thun, du gehérst zu dem Spott-

vogel Aristophanes”: “birds of a feather should flock together.” Riickert
suggests that the antithesis yeAotos )( kadAuoros may imply a reflection on
‘“ Aristophanis forma.”
Stepnxavyow. For erotic scheming, cp. 203 D ff.
brapives. “In animated language the present often refers to the future,
to express likelihood, intention, or danger” (Goodwin, G. ¥. T. § 32).
213D mpooPdépar. This may have been the vox propria for a lover's
glance, cp. Ar. Plut. 1014 (quoted below).
4 otrool. This (elliptical) use of 4, alioguin, “ but that,” is “regular with
dei, mpoonxe, and the like, in the preceding clause” (Adam on Prot. 323 a).
{nAorurayv. This is a dr. eip.in Plato: cp. Ar. Plut. 1014 ff. dr: rpooéBrepev
pé tis, | erumrouny bia rové’ oAnv thy npépav. | ovr@ oodpa (ndrotumos 6
veaviokos 7.
Oavpacra epydterar. Cp. Laws 6860 6. épyacduevov; Theaet. 1514 6,
Spevres; 182 E supra 0. épya éepyatouév@: similarly 218 A mutovor Spay re Kai
Aéyewv Oriovy.
+d xetpe. This and 214D infra are the only exx. in Plato of améyeo@a in
the sense continere (manum): elsewhere it occurs mainly in poetry (Od. XXII.
316, etc.).
paviay. Cp. Laws 839 4 Avrmms...€pwrixgs cai pavias: Soph. fr. 162 voonp’
épwros rovr’ epipepov xaxov: and 173 D supra.
irepacr(ay. “ Amor quo quis amatorem amplectitur” (Ast); equivalent
to dvrépws (Phaedr. 255): cp. 192 B.
éppwb6. Horresco, a strong word for “quaking with fear.”
SiaddAayy. Alcib. catches up Socrates’ word diaAAafov and negatives it
with a ‘“‘ What hast thou to do with peace?” ‘ But,” he proceeds, ‘I’ll have
213 E} ZYMIMOZION 139
a , ’ , , , a a ”
copa viv Sé por, "Aydbwv, pavat, petados TOV Taiwiav, iva
avabnow Kal Thy TovTOV TavTnVl THY BavpaoTHy KEeparny, Kai pn E
BJ , \ \ / \ A) \ / Ay i)

pot péudnras dtu oé pév avédnoa, avtov 5€ vixevta év Aoyors

nw ‘

Twavtas avOpwrrous, ov povoy mponv watTep aU, GAN aei, Ererta

’ ,

ovK avédnoa. xal au adrov AaBovTa TwY Tawi@v avadeiv Tov

> > / \ ied ’ > \ ig lal a ’ a ‘

Lwxpatn Kal xataxriver Oar.

XXXI. ’Erecdy 8 xatexdivn, eitreiv: Elev 87, dvdpes:
Lal 9 / A

Soxeire
a
yapt pou vnperv:
/
ovK’ émeTpertéov
) /
ovv* viv,
Ce La
aNdAa
’
TroTéov:
/

@poroyntar yap TadO juiv. apyovta ody aipodpat Ths Tocews,

€ws Av tpeis ixavas Trinte, EwavTov. adda hepéta, Ayabor, et To
ig A € a ec a la >’ ta A \ / > U ”

got éxtropa péya. padrov dé ovdév Se7, dAXrA Hépe, trai, davar,

213 D (6) ’Ayd6ov Sauppe Jn. Sz: & ’ydbor J.-U. E avadno kai
TW O.-P., Sz. Bt.: dvadyompeda B: dvadnowpev cai Herm. J.-U. rv rovrov
secl. Jn. dvdpes: dvdpes Sz. J.-U. — odv tpiv T, Winckelmann Bt. : ipiv B,
J.-U. Sz. hepéra, Ayabav Bt.: hepérw Ay. libri: péper’, & Ay. Cobet
J.-U.: pepéra, & Ay. Naber: ’AydOav secl. Sz. éxmopa T: &xkmopa B

that out with you by-and-bye !” (see 214c ad fin. ff.). Then, with a sudden
change of tone from bullying and banter to affectionate earnestness, he begins
vov b€ pot xrA.
213 E riv rotrov...xepadyyv. “Incipit Ale. dicere ryv rovrov xepadny,
quod priusquam elocutus est, sentit nimis languidum esse; inde revertitur
quasi ac denuo progreditur, positis verbis tavrnvi ryv 6. x.” (Riickert). Per-
haps as Alc. says these words (notice the deictic ravrnvi) he playfully strokes
the head of Socr. rovrov is expanded by Jowett into “of this universal
despot.” 5
vikavra. The present symposium was part of Agathon’s epinckian celebra-
tion (see 174 4), and his victory also was gained by Adyor (cp. 194 B).
trata. Tamen, “yet after all,” ze. in spite of the fact of his perpetual
victoriousness. Cp. Prot. 319D, 343 D.
xatakA(veoGar. Ever since he first discovered Socrates, Alcibiades had
been standing (see 2138 ad fin. avamndjoat).
Eley 8y. “Come now”: “die Worte enthalten hier eine Aufforderung”
(Rettig). Cp. 2040, Phaedo 95a. The question to drink or not to drink is
now resumed from 213 4 ad int.
ovk émtperréov. “This can’t be allowed”: cp. Rep. 379 a and 219 infra.
cpodoyntat krA. See 212 Ef.
ipxovra...ris mécews. “As symposiarch”: cp. the Latin arbiter (magister)
bibendi Hor. C. 1. 4. 17, 1. 7. 25. For the qualifications proper in such
“archons,” see Laws 640c ff.; and for other details, Smith D. A. 11. 7406 ff.
The emphatic position of éuavrév is to be noticed.
depéro, “Ayd@wy. Sc. 6 mais: I adopt Burnet’s improved punctuation,
which renders further change needless.
 140 TAATQNOS [213 &
214 Tov Wuxtipa éxeivor, iSdvta abtov TA€oV } OKT KoTUAAS YwpodVTa.
TOUTOV EuTANTAMEVOY TPHTOV wev avTov exTrLEV, EELTA TO Lo-
Kpater Kedevery eyxeiv Kal (ia etrreiv: Ipods péev Lwxpatn, @
avdpes, TO copiopd por ovdév: oTrocov yap dv KedXeUn TLS, TOTODTOV
exTri@y ovdév padAov pn mote weOucOy. Tov pwev odv Lwoxpatn
eyXEavTOS TOV TaLdos Tivetv: Tov 8 ’EpvEipayov las obv, pavat,
@® “AdxiBiadn, trovodpev; ows ovTE TL Aéyomev errl TH KUALKE
B ove Tt ddoper, aAX aTeyvas Hotrep of SupavrTes TLopeOa; Tov odY
214 A mdéov: mretv J.-U. rovrov (ovv) Athenaeus kerevn B:
keXevon T ro@ev apogr. Laur. 1x. 85, Hirschig Naber (ao:@pev—A€eyopev—
adwpev Sommer) B otre te ddopev T, Bt.: or’ eradopev B, J.-U. Sz.

214A rdv puxripa. “ Yonder wine-cooler.” Suid. wuxrnpa: xaddov fh rorn-

ptov péya, dro Tov Oarrov yYvyecOa €v ait@ thy Kpaow : Poll. vr. 99 6 d€ Wuxryp
modvOpvrnros, by Kai Sivoy éxadovy, év @ Hv 6 Akpatos: of moAXol Se axparopdpov
avrov KaAdovaw. ov pay exe mvOpéva add’ aarpayadioxous. Other names for
it were mpdoxuvpa (Moeris, Schol. Ar. Vesp. 617) and xadados (Hesych. s.v.):
for details see Smith D. A. s.v. Psycter; cp. Xen. Afem. 11. i. 30 iva S€ Hd€ws
mins,...Tov Bépous xtova mepiOéovca (nrets: Xen. Symp. i. 23 ff.
éxta Korédas. The xotvAn or npiva (=6 xvador) was 48 of a pint, so
that 8 xorvAa are nearly equal to 2 quarts. For a Wuxrnp this seems to
have been a small size, since Athenaeus (v. 199) mentions uxrapes holding
18 to 54 gallons. Alcib. was not alone in his taste for an €xmwpa péya:
cp. Anacr. 32 rpixvaboy KxereBnv éxovoa: Alcaeus 41.2 xa’ & deipe xvdixvas
peyaras: Xen. Symp. l.c. 6 mais eyxedtw por tiv peyadny diadny : Gouffé (Le
Verre) ‘‘ Nous devons aux petites gens Laisser les petits verres.”
eumrynodpevov. ‘Ast: implevisse. Immo implendum curasse” (Riickert).
éyxetv. Cp. Soph. fr. 149D gopeire, paocérw tis, eyyeirw Babiy xpyntnpa:
Alcaeus 31. 4 éyyee xipvais éva wai dvo xrd.: Theogn. 487 ot & éyxee rovro
paraoy | kwridders aei> Tovvexd ToL pedvecs. ‘Notice that Alcib. adapts the
order émi deéia, see 175 BE.
7d codiopa por ovdév. “ My trick avails nothing.” For ooducpa, “a witty
invention,” cp. Lach. 183p, Rep. 4964; Aesch. P.V. 470. Alcib., with his
copirpa, recals Eros the coduorns (203 D).
obStv...pebveOy. See Goodwin G.M.7. § 295. For Socrates’ invincible head
for wine, see also 176c, 220 B, 223.6.
Tlas ovv...rovodpev. The present indic. differs from the subjunctive, “quod
dicitur de eo quod revera iam fit, neque adhuc suscipiendum est” (Stallb.) :
contrast dAAa ri moc@pev (deliberative) just below. For the indignant otte
cp. Hom. JU. 11. 158 otrw 51 otkovde...pevéovrat.
214B otrve tt QSopev. This lection is preferable to B.’s ot’ éemadopev
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, cep. Gouffé (Cowplets) On boit
214 co] ZYMTTIOZION 141

"ArKiBiadny eitretv °"O "Epukiuaye, Bédrticte BedXtictov matpos

kal cwppovectatou, yaipe. Kai yap ov, davar tov ‘EpuvEiwayov:
GAA Ti Trovdwev; “O te Sdv od Kere’ys. Set ydp cou TeiBea Oar:
intpos yap avnp TordA@y avtakios adAwY*
emitatte odv 6 te BovrAe. “Axouoov 8n, elrety Tov ’EpvEimayov.
npiv mplv oé eicerOeiv édSoke ypivae emt SeEia Exactov ev péper
Aoyov epi "Epwros eimetvy ws Svvaito KdANOTOY, Kai eyKwpLdoaL. C
of mév ody GAXoL TavTES pets eiprjxapev’ od 8 érerdH od« ElpnKas
Kal éxtrétrwxas, Sixavos el elrreiv, etr@v © éemitaEar Swxparer 6 Te
av BovrAn, Kal TodTov TH eri SeEva Kal oTW Tovs arXous. *AXAG,
pavat, & 'Epv€iwaye, Tov "ArkiPiddnv, ards pev Aéyers, weOVOVTA
88 dvdpa mapa ynddvtwy AOyous TapaBadrrew pi ov« eE icou 4.

214 B ’Epvéipaye del. Naber dav Bt.: & dv T: av B, J.-U. mbécbat

Bdhm. = inrpos T, Sz. Bt.: larpos B C as (av) Sauppe — (rods) vnpovrwv
vel yngovras cj. Steph. Aoyous (Adyov) Bast

chez eux, on boit beaucoup Et de bourgogne et de champagne; Mais rien ne

vaut un petit coup Qu’un petit couplet accompagne.”
For Adyor émixudlxeror, cp. Athen. 2A; Lucian Timon, c. 55.
*Q ’Epvé(paxe «rd. Alcibiades—as if to show how ready he is ddew r1—
replies with an iambic trimeter—“A noble sire’s most noble, sober son !”
The superlatives are not without irony, cp. 177B, Xen. Afem., 111. 13. 2.
xatpe. “All hail!” Alcibiades pretends not to have noticed the doctor
before.
intpds ydp...dAdov. From Jl. x1. 514: “Surely one learned 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
compliment of borrowing it.
én(rarre. ‘‘Prescribe”: the techn. term for a medical prescription, cp.
Rep. 347A xara thy réxvny éemiratrov: Polit. 294d, Laws 7225.
Bote krA. See 177d.
214 C ds Bivatro KéAdcrov. Cp. Thuc. vil. 21 vais ws duvavra mheioras
mAnpovow (Madv. Gr. S. § 96): there is no need to insert dy, as Sauppe
suggested.
kal ékrémrwxas. ‘But have finished your draught.”
peOvovta...rapaBdaddrew. ‘‘pedvovra negligentius dictum est pro Adyoy
dvdpos pedvovros” (Wolf). For the brachylogy cp. 180c pera S€ Baidpor
kta. (see note ad loc.); 217D ev rH exopévy epod KAivy. With mapaBudrreuw
we must supply as subject rwa (with Rettig) rather than ce, 2.e. "Epvé(uayov
(with Wolf). Of conjectures Bast’s is the most plausible. Cp. Theogn. 627
aigxpov Tot peOvovta map’ avdpaor vndooe petvat.
For a stricture on émawwor pedvovtos, see Phaedr, 240 8.
 142 TAATQNOZ [214.¢

Dal dua, d paxdpte, weer Ti ce LwKpatns wv apt elev; 7

cf ba /

ola Oa Ott TovvavTioy éaTi TaY 7 O EXeyev; OUTOS yap, Edy TLVA Eyw
> ¢ ’ i: ? \ lal A A a 4 + ’ \

emawwéow TovToU TapovTos 1) Gedy 7 avOpwrrov ArXov 7 TOUTOY, OUK

24 / 7 / x \ A ” ” a lal >

agéfetat pov To yxeipe. Ovk evdnunoes; pavar tov Lwxparn.

? s / ns a 2d > / / Aw .* U

Ma Tov Ioce:dd, elrrety Tov "ArxKiBiddyv, unddev Aéye mpos TavTa,

\ a ? lal \ > ld

€ >) \ > + oN a »” > / lal la ’ 2 ¢

@s éy@ ovd ay éva addov Etrawéoaipt cov Trapovtos. *AXX ovTw
moter, pavar Tov ‘Epukipaxov, ef BovrAer: Lwxpatn éraivecor.
bt > /,

E Ids Aéyers ; ecrrety tov "AAXxiBradnv: doxet ypjvat, & EpvEipaye;

wn a x , “ iol

emTO@pat TO avopl Kal Timwmpnowpat Luar évavtiov; Odtos, pavat

/ a ‘ N ,
Tov LwKpaTn, TL ev vw Eyxets ; ETL TA yedoloTEpa pe ErraLvécer; H TL
momaoes; Tarn07 épa, add bpaci mapins. “Adda pévTou, havat,
Ta ye adnOH Tapinust Kal KeXevw Aye, Ove dv POavoipt, eitreiv
tov ArkiBiadnv. Kal wévtot ovTwal Toincov. éav TL wn adnOes
\ ’ U \ , cg \ , SUE \ > \

Aéyw, pweTakv émtraBod, dv BovrAn, Kat ele STL TodTO Wevdomar:

214D 7 oic@ J.-U. E riypwpncopac W érawvéoe Bekk. Sz.:
éravéoes BTW: eravéoca Bt. maptets Schanz

214D @ paxdpe. ‘ Gutmuthig-ironisch” (Rettig): ep. 219 a.

awelOe...etrev; “H, ec. meiOee oé te Tovrwy a 3. apts etmev;...h. e noli
quidquam eorum credere quae modo dixit S.” (Stallb.). A. is alluding to
213C—D (am éxeivov yap Tov xpdvov kTA.).
otk ddéferar xrd. “Satis lepide iisdem fere verbis hic utitur Alcib. quae
Soer. 1. 1. exhibuit” (Hommel) ; A. is turning the tables on S.
Ma rov Ilooada. This form of oath is rare in Plato,see Schanz nov. comm.
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. Neil’s ed. of Ar. Anights, p. 83); but A. may also be punning on
moos, a8 if Hooedov meant “drink-giver,” and invoking a “deus madidus”
as appropriate to his own ‘‘madid” condition. Cp. Huthyd. 301 B, 303 a.
214 EB riypwprcopa. This echoes the rypwpnoopa of 213 D.
Ovros. ‘Ho, there!” Cp. 172.
er ta yedoudrepa. ‘‘To make fun of me”: cp. Phileb. 40.0 (nSovat) pepe-
pnpévar ras GdnOeis emi rd. yeourepa (“caricatures”): So €mi ra aioxiova Polit,
293 B, 297 c.
érawéoe. Plato always uses the middle form of the future, with the
doubtful exception of Zaws 7198 (where Burnet, after Bekker, corrects éma-
véoo to €mawéoat), see Veitch Gk. Verbs s.v.
Od Av POdvopr Se. rarnOy A€ywv: tamiam dicam. Cp. 1858, Phaedo
1000, Huthyd. 272d (in all which places the participle is expressed).
kal...ro(noov. Hommel rashly proposes to read mouowy for roincov and
remove the stop after the word. For kai xévror, see Mady. Gr. S. § 254.
érvaBov. “Pull me up,” “call me to order.” Cp. Gorg. 469c, 506B
émidapBavov edv Ti vot Sox@ pu) Kadas Eyewv.
215 a] SZYMMOSION 143
éxav yap elvat ovdéy Wevoowar. éav pévtow dvapipynoKdpevos 215
\ eS ’ uA

Gro GdroGev Aéyw, udev Oavydons: ov yap te padiov THY OHV

w. /

atotriav OS éxovts evtropas xal epeEns KataptOunoau.

, ’ \ a
XXXII. Loxparny & eyo érauweiv, d Gudpes, obtws eriyerpjoo,
8? eixovwv. odtos pév ody tows oinoetas éml'Ta yedowoTEpa, EaTat
& 4 eix@v Tod adnOods veka, ov Tod yeroiov. dyyl yap 57 opo.o-
TaTov avTov elvat Tois TLANVOIs TOUTOLS TOIS év TOs EppmoyAUdetoLs
215 A’ mm: ro vulg. Hirschig EppoyAvios T
215 A do GAdobev. “In a wrong order,” or “in promiscuous fashion” :
ep. Jl. 11. 75, Aesch. Ag. 92, etc. Alcib. forestalls criticism by this apology for
the “mixed” style of his reminiscences, on the ground of what he calls his
“present condition” (68 €yovte=pedvovrs, crapula laboranti).
ov yap Te pabtov. For ovr, haudquaquam, cp. 189 zB.
dromlav. Cp. Gorg. 494D; 22lc infra. That Socrates is an “out-of-the-
way ” character, a walking conundrum, is, in fact, the main theme of Ale.’s
speech: it is a mistake to limit this dromia to the contradiction between his
outer and inner man, as Susemih! does.
ovtas...8.° eixovwv. For odrws with an epexegetic phrase, cp. 193.c, Laws
633 D, Rep. 551 ovre@...dmo tiunuarwyv. For eixdves, “similes,” see Ar. Rhet.
111. 4, where they are described as a kind of peragopai (“A simile is a metaphor
writ large, with the details filled in,” Cope ad loc.). eixaota (“conundrums ”)
were also “a fashionable amusement at Greek social gatherings” (Thompson
on Meno 80 c), see for exx. Ar. Vesp. 1308 ff, Av. 804 ff. : cp. Rep. 487 £, Phaedo
878; Xen. Symp. vi. 8 ff.
érl td yedoudtepa. Sc. ovrws moinoey, or the like: cp, 214 E.
tots oiAnvois xrA. These were statuéttes representing a Silenus playing a
flute or pipe; the interiors, were hollow and served as caskets to hold little
figures of gods wrought in gold or other precious materials. But the precise
fashion of their construction and how they opened (d:yade diocyPevres) is by no
means clear. (1) Hug thinks they were made with a double door (d:xAides) :
similarly Stallb. and Hommel (“in contrariis Silenorum lateribus duobus duo
foramina erant, quae epistomio quodam claudi poterant”). (2) Schulthess
supposes that one section telescoped into the other (“‘Schiebt man sie aus-
einander, so erblickt man inwendig Gétterbilder”). (3) Panofka, with
Schleiermacher, supposes that the top came off like a lid. (4) Lastly,
Rettig ““denkt an ein Auseinandernehmen in zwei Halfte,” though exactly
how this differs from (3) he does not clearly explain. But—as Rettig himself
observes—“ mag es verschiedene Arten solche Gehduse 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 (d.ydde dioryOévres) rather
favours the idea that the figures split into two, either horizontally or
vertically—possibly, also, with a hinge. Cp. Synes. Hp. 153, p. 2928Bdamep
érotovy "AOnvnoww of Snprovpyot Adpoditny Kat Xdpiras kai roadra KdAAn Gear
aydApagt o1Anvey Kai catupoy aumioxovres: Maximus comm. in Dion. Areop.
de div. nom. c. ix. t. 1. p. 201 f. (ed. Cord.) éxeivor yap ofa tivas avdpidvras
 144 TIAATQNOS [215 a
B caOnpévors, ots tivas épyalovrar of Snpsoupyot avpuyyas 7 avdovs
éyouTas, ob diyade dvoryOévtes haivovtar évdo0ev ayadpata EXOVTES
a” "\ , f , v by ¢ ”

Gedv. Kal dnl ad éorxévas avtov TS catipw T@ Mapava. ste

HEV\ ov* TO , Ye ELb0S
a oe
polos El7 TOVTOLS,@®
Y s s
LHKpaTes, OVS»» <dy>
a» Eos
avTos
5 mov audicBntncas: ws 5€ Kal TadXa EorKas, weTAa TOUTO
dxove. UBpiotns el: 7 ob; €dv yap pn oporoyns, wapTupas
mapéEouat. GAN oOvUK aVANTHS; ToAU ye GavyaciwTeEpos ExELVoV.
Me > ,’ ’ ’ ih , £ > ,

Co pévpév yeye 8c’

Sv opyavev
opy 7 Tos avOp@trous THi ato TOD oTOMaATOS
exnreu pe
duvapet, Kal Ere vuvi Os av Ta éxeivou avrAH a yap “OdXvpTros NUAEL,
215 B duyade: diya Steph. Ast ovd’ (av) avros Stallb. dnmov BT,
vulg.: ay dy2ov Sauppe: dv mov Baiter Sz. Bt.: om. Stallb. apqdia Byrnes
vulg.

érolouv pyre xeipas pnre modas Eyovtas, ods éppas exadovy’ émoiovy b€ avtovs
Scaxévous, Ovpas €xyovtas, kadarep TorxorupyioKous’ €rwGev otv avtav eriOecav
dydApata ov €oeBov Oeay «tr. (cp. Etym. Magn. s.v. dppapiov): Xen. Symp.
Iv. 19; Julian Or. vi. p. 187 A.
tots éppoyAudelors. ‘The statuaries’ shops,” apparently a dag eip.:
cp: Luc. Somn. 2. 7.
215 B dydApara...dedv. Op. 222, Phaedr. 251.
gnpl av xrA. This second comparison arises out of the first, since the
Satyr is himself akin to the Sileni: on the connexion between the two (as
both originally horse-demons) see Harrison, Proleg. p. 388. Schol.: Mapovas
d€ avAntns, "OAvprov vids, Os...jpirev "AmoAA@vE TeEpl povotKns Kal NTTHOY, Kat
mowny Sédwxe TO Séppa Sapeis, KTA.
76 ye elSos. For the Satyr-like ugliness of Socr., cp. Schol. ad Ar. Vub. 223
edéyero S€ 6 Swxparns THY dw Ternve wapeuhaivery’ ods re yap kal padaxpos
nv: Theaet. 143 © mpocéake b€ col THY Te oLmdrntra Kal TO &w Tay dupatey : tb,
209 B, Meno 80a f.; Xen. Symp. iv. 19, Vv. 7.—Synmov (iv) audio. (cp.
Meno 72.) is another possible order of words.
bBpioris et. ‘“ You are a mocker” or “a bully” (Jowett): so too Agathon
had said, in 175. For the present Alcib. forbears to enlarge on this Satyr-like
quality, but he resumes the subject in 216 c ft, see esp. 219, 2224. Observe
also that Alcib. is here turning the tables on Socr., who had brought practically
the same charge against A, in 2130, D. Schleierm.’s rendering, “ Bist du iiber-
miithig, oder nicht ?”, is based on a wrong punctuation.
ovk avdnris. J.e. (as Schol. B puts it) ev Fe. ekeivou, sc. Mapovou.
215 C "Odvpmos. For *OAvpros 6 bpvé as ra madixa of Marsyas, cp. Minos
318B; Paus. x. 30; also Laws 677 D, 790 pD ff.; Arist. Pol. v. 5. 1340? 8 ff;
Clem. Al. Strom. 1. p. 307 ¢.
For xaréxeoOai of “ possession ” (by supernal or infernal powers), cp. Jfeno
99p, Phaedr. 244u; Jon 5383 Eff. (Rohde Psyche 1. pp. 11, 18 ff, 481, 88),
The orgiastic flute-music (having a cathartic effect parallel to that of tragedy)
provided, as Aristotle explains, a kind of homoeopathic remedy for the fit of
évOovg.ag
os.
215 x] ZYMIMOZION 145
Mapovav Xéyw Tov, tov Si8aEavtos: ta odv éxeivou éav Te ayabds
, / lal U wy 7

aurAnTNS avAN €av Te havryH avrANTPLS, “ova Katéyeo Oat ToLel Kat
. \ % bos 2)? €' ’ / , , tal \

A \ a A A a %
dnrot Todvs Tov Oedv TE Kal TeXeTaV Seopuévous Sia TO Oeia elva,
av 8 éxeivov Tocovrov povov diadépers, OTL dvev dpyadvev Wirois
\ ’ > , ~ / r

AOYyoLs TAVTOY TOUTO TroLEls. ELS yoUY GTav wév Tov GrXOU akou- D
a ’ \ lol lal lal lal

@pev EyovTOS Kai Tavu ayafod prtopos aAdoUS ROyous, ovdSEev

/ U , Ee!

, ¢ ” ’ a ’ , \ an 1 a a
MENEL WS ETrOS ElTrEiy oVdEvis Errecday S€ God TLS AKON ) TOV Tov
Aoywv dAdov AeyouTtos, Kav Tavu Havros 7H O A€ywr, éav TE yuVT)
t wv. ‘ rn

aKOUN €av TE AVP Eav TE pELPAKLOV, ExTrETANYHEVOL TMEV Kal

’ ’ x,7 2) \ / ‘

f: fa] > \ o . v 8 ’ \ ” 87 86
Katexouela. €yw yovv, @ avdpes, eb pun Eweddrov Komidy Sokew
& +4 ’ la Xn a ca / e
peOvew, elroy opocas av vpiv, ola 8) wémov0a avtos vTd TaY
ToUTOU AoywY Kal TagYw ETL Kal VUVi. STav yap ako, TOAV poL E
= a S , 7] Ss} Se \ iS r
HGdXov %) Tov KopuvBavTiwovtay 1 Te Kapdia mda Kal Saxpva
215 © ov, rod scripsi: rovrov BT, Bt.: rod rotrov Voeg.: rov Bdhm. Sz.:
rovrey Sommer: avtov Liebhold povovs olim Orelli: pavia Winckelmann
dnXot rods: 5. @vnrovs Hommel: xndei rots Orelli D tis dxovn del. Hirschig
éywy ov T comedy B erropoaas Cc}. Naber E viv T

M. Aéyw mov, rod 8. I venture on this slight innovation: otherwise it

were best, with Badham, to cut down the rovrov to rov.
Sydor...Seopévous. Cp. the imitative passage in Minos 318 B cai pova xuvel
Kal éxatver Tovs Trav Oe@y ev xpeia dvtas. Oewy Sedpevor i8 virtually equiv. to
kopuBavtiavres (215 E); cp. Rohde Psyche 11. 481. “pova=vorzugsweise. Vegl.
Symp. 222 a” (Rettig).
Wirots Adyots. Lc. “in prose,” devoid of metrical form as well as of
musical accompaniment (dvev dpydvev). Cp. Laws 669D Adyous . eis pérpa
ridévtes: Dene. 239 0.
215 D orav pév xrA. Observe the antitheses cov )( rou tAXov—ray cay
Adyar )( dAAous Aoyous—mavu Hadvdros...éywv )( mavd ayaGovd pyropos.
7.--GAXov A€yovtos. A case in point is the Symposium itself, where Socrates’
Adyor are reported at second-hand.
tiv te yuvy, «vA. “No sex or age is impervious to the impression ”—in
antithesis to the preceding universal negative ovdevi. For éxmAnkis as a
love-symptom, cp. Charm. 154.
Kopidy...peOvev. Schol. coyidy* icoduvapet...ro cpodpa xaitedews. Cp. 2125,
eclrov épdcas av. “I would have stated on my oath,” ze. I would not
merely have described the facts, as I am about to do, but would have called
Heaven to witness by a édpxos (cp. 1834). Hommel supposes that Alcib.
“rem silentio praeterire apud se constituit”; but this is confuted by the
context. For a ref. to this passage, see Procl. i I. Ale. p. 89.
215 E trav xopvBaytiavrwy. Tim. kopuBavriav* rapeppaiverOa cai evOov-
ciagtixas kiveicGar: Schol. ad Ar. Vesp. 9 xopuBavtiay* 1d kopvBact caréyer Oat.
Cp. Crito 54D ratra...eym dox@ dkovey, domep ot kopuBavtia@vtes TY avlrov
Bae: 10
 146 TAATQNOS (215 &
EXXELTAL UTTO TWY AOYwY TWY TOVTOUV* Opw bé Kal AAXNOUS Trap-
bd lal e \ a i any Ud ¢ A \ \ wv

ToAAouS Ta avTa Tacyovtas.

, \ b) \
Tlepixr€ous 5é axovwy Kal adXrwv
ayaday pntopav ev pev iyyoupny éyeuv, TovovTov 8 ovdéev éracyxor,
’ lal < ‘ x \ € y / lal

ovd éreGopyBnTo pov 7 Yuyn oud’ nyavaxtes ws avdparrodwdas

oO ’ @ , / € \ 1 ’ / . cd 3 fal

/ ’ 9 \ A
Siaxepévou aGAX bro Tovtoul tod} Mapatou modrdakus 8) obtw
216 dueTéOnv, Bate poor Sofa wr Biwroy elvas éyovts ws exw. Kal
/ 7 i

TAUTA, LMKPATES, OVK EpEis WS OVK GANOH. Kal Err ye viv Evvord
lal Ss / ,’ > an id >) ’ lol \ ” lal r >

€uavT@ OTs eb €Geouwe Tapéyey TA Ta, ovK av KapTEpHnoaipmL

A ed 2) , / 9

aha Tata avy Tdoxo. avayxate. yap pe ouoroyety btu

’ / a

moAXov €vdens wy avTos Ett EuavTod pev aero, Ta 8 "AOnvaiwy

a Ni vn ? AY la) a

215 BE w7o...rovrov secl. Voeg. Hug tay rovrov TW: rovrou B: rovrov
secl. J.-U. ravra (ravra) m. Naber 216 A Sexpares B, J.-U.: 43. T,
Jn, Bt. (ef. 217 B) Tatra: tavta BT ay MWe cai 18

Soxovow dxovew: Jon 533, 536c. Among the symptoms of xopvBavriacpds

were the hearing of faery flute-notes, visions, hypnotic dreams, dance-motions
etc. (see Rohde Psyche 11. 47 ff.): cp. also Plut. adv. Colot. 1123 v.
* re kapdSia m8. Cp. Jon 535c, Phaedr. 2510; Sappho 2. 5 ré pou pay |
kapdiav ev ornGeouw érroacev: Ar. Vub. 1393 olpat Ye TOV VE@TEP@V ras xapdias |
amnoav ort eet.
taro tov A. t. TovTOv. Rettig seems right in arguing that a Glossator would
be unlikely to write thus; and repetitions of this kind are characteristic of
Ale.’s speech (cp. 221 D).
Tleptkdeous 8% dxovwy. For the oratorical powers of Pericles, cp. Phaedr.
269 8, Meno 94a, Menex. 2355; Thue. 11. 65; Ar. Ach. 530 ff.; Cic. Brut. xt.
44, de or. 111. 34; and esp. Eupolis Anpo: (fr. 6. 34) kpatioros otros (sc. TepexAgs)
éyéver’ avOpwrearv déyey | ... ela Tis EmexaOiCev eri Trois xetNeoww | oUT@S exNAEt,
Kal povos TOV pnTépwv TO KévTpov eyKaTéherTre ToIs dkpowpévors. Comparing this
with our passage,—taken in conjunction with 213 D (vix@vra ev Adyous mavras
avOpamovs), 215B (exndet tos avOpmmovs), 218A (wAnyels Te Kal SnxGeis id
Tav...Adyev), 2210 (olos ad TepixAns xrX.),—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 Bamrai:
cp. the story told in Cic. Att. vi. 1 that Alcib. got Eupolis drowned.
pov y ux. For this position of the genitive of the pronoun, which gives
it nearly the force of an ethic dat., cp. Rep. 518c, Phaedo 1178 (ep. Vahlen
op. Acad. 1. 440 ff.).
bs dv8pamo8w8Gs 8. Cp. Xen. Mem. Iv. 2. 39: 210D Somep olkérns...
SovAevav.

216 A py Prordv. This echoes, by way of contrast, 211 D évravéa...

Buwrov.
tyovtt ds yo. Cp. bd eyorvrs, 215 A,
ovk...d\704. Notice these repeated protestations of veracity: cp. 2145,
2158 (and see Introd. § 1. A).
ovk dv kapteproaun, Contrast with this the xaprepia of Socr., 219 D, 220 a,
216 c] ZYMTTOZION 147

mpattw. Bia ody @oTeEp amd THY Leipnvwv émicyouevos TA OTA

, “ ¢ ,

otxouar pevyar, iva pr) avtod KaOnmevos Tapa TOUT KaTaynpacw.

Uy rs \ ’ a ,

métrov0a S€ mpos ToUTOY povov avOpwrewy, 5 ovK av TLS olovTo év B

€mol éveivat, TO aicyvveaOar ovtivodv: éyw dé TodTOY pdvoy aiayu-
a ¢ fal fal

vouat. Evvoida yap €uavT@ avtTiréyewv ev ov duvapéeve, ws ov det

Toveiy & OUTOS KENEvEL, ETTELSAV SE ATEADW, NTTNUEVO THS TLLAS THS
-n nN z , b \ Ne: hs € / ol a A

UT0 TOY TOAA@Y. SpatreTEevw. ody avToV Kal hevyw, Kai GTav idea,
iy \ a fal , Lt > Ny \ 4 Ney, ”

aicxvvouar TA @podoynpéva. Kal ToAAGKS pev Ndéws Av (Soup

autov
+ Ma,
pr\ dvta év> avOpwrots:
> ,
ef> 8 99 ad5S TovTo
a
yévoiTo,
,
edis3 olda
i,
StL
4
C
TOAD peifov dv ayOoiuny, wate ovK exw 6 TL XpHTwWpuAL TOUTHY TOa
\ a A > / A > oY a / /

avOpere.
216 A Bia: Bvov Abresch J.-U. emvoyopevos secl. J.-U. C &
peifov Sauppe xpnoopa corr. Ven. 185, Bekk.: ypnoonar BT

Blq...pevywv. “Invitus mihique ipsi vim inferens aufugio” (Riickert).

Hommel wrongly takes Bia with émioydjevos. Bvwv, the conjecture of
Abresch, based on Hesych. (Biov ra dra emippdrrwy) makes the order
awkward and produces tautology. émioxdpevos ra dra is the opposite of
the foregoing mapéyew ra dra: cp. Plut. Pomp. 55; Hor. Ap. 11. 2. 105
obturem patulas impune legentibus aures; Acts vii. 57 ovvéoxov ra dra
a’tav: Ps. lviii. 4, 5 (A.V.) “they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her
ear; which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so
wisely.” For the Secpyves, cp. Hom. Od. x11. 39 ff, and see Harrison Proleg.
pp. 197 ff.
aitod...rapd rovrw. avtov is not really “redundant” (as Ast)—“‘sitting
still here beside him,” 2.e. “ miissig und entfernt von Staatsgeschaften” etc.
(Rettig); cp. Ar. Ran. 1490 ff.; Apol. 31 ¢ ff.
kataynpdow. Perhaps a double entendre—A. implying that S.’s moralizings
(“rumores senum severiorum”) would soon make an old man of him.
216 B 6 ovx...évetvar. This is a specimen of the naive candour which
characterizes Alcib. throughout. For Alcib.’s self-assurance, cp. Xen. Mem.
I, 2. 47.
qTmpevy...rodAGv. ‘Me honori, quo me ornet populi multitudo, suc-
cumbere” (Stallb.). Cp. Rep. 3594: Xen. Cyrop. 1. 3. 2 WSecOar tH bad
mavrov tysn: Thuc. I. 130.1. For the thought, cp. Rep. 491 co ff.
Spameredw. “I take to my heels,” like a runaway slave (Sparérns, Meno
97 E).
7d Gpohoynpéva. J.e. the conclusions as to his own éydeca forced upon him
by S.; cp. 2164 dvayxate...dporoyeiv.
216 C odd pettov. So péya xndera: Ll. 1. 26.
ovk tx o Tt xpyowpa. 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 TAATQNOS [216 c
XXXII. Kal bro pev 84 trav avAnudtov Kal eyo Kal adrov
Tool Toravta TeTOvOacw bd Tose TOU GaTUpou: adda Sé Ewov
axovaate ws duolos T éotiv ols eyo YRaca avTov Kal THY duvapw
©s Oavpaciav éyer. ed yap tote Ste ovdeis Uuav ToDTOY yuyvOoKel®
adrAa eyo SnrwWow, erreitrep npEdunv. opadte yap ott LwKpaTns
épwrixas Sidxertas TOY Kad@v Kal del tepl TovTOUS éaTi Kal
ExTréeTANKTAL, Kal av ayvoel TavTa Kai ovdéy oldev, WS TO OXHPA
216 C jKxaca Fischer: efxaca libri D «ai av...oidev secl. Jn. Bdhm.
Sz. av B: om. TW dyvoei wavy (kat...oidev deletis) Bast oldev. ws
distinxit Bt. os: mes Ast: 47 Usener

or rather two instincts. Cp. Soph. fr. 162. 8 ovrw ye rots épavras atros ipepos |
Spav Kat rd pn Spav roddakts mpoierar: Anacr. fr. 89 ép& re Snire kovx €pa | Kal
paivopat kov paivopat.
ols éyd fxaca aitdv. Sc. rois ciAnvois. jaca recals the &v eixovey of 2154.
ovSels...ytyvwoxet. Plato may mean by this, as Hug suggests, that the
majority of the admirers and followers of Socr. possessed a very dim insight
into the sources of his real greatness—aAX’ é¢ya (Plato, behind the mask of
Alcib.) dnroco.
216 D epwrikds Sidkerat xrA. For Socrates as (professing to be) subject
to intense erotic emotion, see the vivid description in Charm. 155c ff. éya
4n nmopovy, Kal pou 7 mpdabev Opacitns ékexéxomT0...cai eprA€younv Kai odKer”
év €uavrov nv KTA.
kal at...ol8v. Most of the later critics (including Voeg., Teuffel, Hug)
agree in ejecting this clause. Rettig, who defends it, writes: “die Worte
gehen auf den vermeintlichen Stumpfsinn des S., wie er so haufig mit roher
Sinnlichkeit verbunden ist...Die Worte cipwvevdpevos...SiareXet den obigen
kai av...oldev gegensatzlich gegeniiberstanden...Da nicht blos die Silene épe-
tux@s Sidkewtau kTA., So wiirde ohne unsere Worte die folgende Frage ws ro
oxijpa...o0 oAnvedes; kaum motivirt sein.” But (as generally interpreted)
the clause seems hardly pertinent to the main argument, which is the contrast
between the outward appearance of eroticism and the inner cadpoctvn of
Socr.: the clause eipevevdpevos xrA. does nothing to strengthen the case for
the reference to yv@o.s here; while there is no reason to suppose that
professions of ignorance were specially characteristic of Sileni (in spite of
the story of Midas and Silenus in Plut. ad Ap. de consol. 1150 (Zed.) ovdev
@ehev cireiv adda oiwmav appyras). If retained as it stands the clause is
best taken closely with the previous words, as expressing an erotic symptom.
[Possibly, however, for mavra we should read mayras and for ovdév, oddév’,
taking the words as mase. (sc. ro’s kaXovs).] This implies of course that ofSev
bears the sense “agnoscit” (and ayvoet the opposite), for which cp. Eur. H. F’.
1105 ff. &« roe mémAnypa...ris...dvacyvoray doris rHv €uny idoera; capes yap
ovdev oida trav elwOdrev: td. El. 767 &x rou Seiuaros Sveyveciay | elyov mpore-
mou’ viv Se yryvookw oe Oy. (Cp. for this sense, Vahlen op. Ac. II. 63 f.)
ds 7d oxtpa avrod, “ Which is the réle he affects.” For this use of oxjpa
216 E] ZYMMOZION 149

aUTOv. TovTO ov aiAnvades; opddpa ye. TodTO yap ovTOS

> col lal > col lol

éEwbev repiBéBrAnTar, Somep 6 yeyruupévos oirnvos evdobev Se

»” / iy, c

> \ , ” /
avotxdeis toons olecOe yéwer, © avdpes cUuTOTaL, cwdhpoatyns;
tote OTL OUT El TLS KANOS EoTL MEAEL AUTO OVSEV, AAG KaTadpovel
” ig eee} v / bl a a

tocovtoyv a
dcov
4
ovd av els oinOein, ovT el Tis TAOVOLOS, OUT’ E E
> x ” »

aXANY TLVA TLLNY EX@Y TOY UTO TANOoUS paKxapLComévwy* HyEtTaL

v \ \ ” lal € \ / / (2 a

d€ ravta Tadta Ta KTHpaTa Ovdevds dkia Kal Huds ovdév elvar—

ni 7 fol ‘ a \

216 D = atrod. rotro disting. vulg. Schleierm. Sz. covro: ov distinxit

Bernhardy eyAuppeévos J.-U. (ed) tore cj. Bdhm. EB onpas: riypas
Heusde

of an acted part, ep. J. Ale. 135), Rep. 5764: similarly cynparifw, simulo,
Phaedr. 255 ovy td cxnpatiCopévou tod epavtos, GAN ddnOs Tovro memov-
Ooros. This is preferable to rendering by*‘‘forma et habitus,” as Stallb.
The punctuation of the passage has been disputed: “ vulgo enim legebatur
cal ovdév oidev, &s TO axRpa aiTod ToiTO ov GeAnvaedes oPddpa ye, quod
Stephanus ita corrigebat ut pro ov cetAnvddes scriberet bv ced.” (Stallb.):
Stallb., Riickert, Badham, Schanz and Hug follow Bekk. and Schleierm. in
putting a comma after ofdev and a full stop after atrod (so too Hommel, but
proposing ovd¢ for ovdév): Rettig follows Bernhardy in putting the full stop
after rovro, with a comma at oidev: Burnet puts a full stop at oidev, and no
further stop before oAnvedes;: Ast proposed més for ws. Bast, reading mavrn
for mdavra and ejecting xai ovdév oidev, construed os...cdddpa yéas dependent
on dyvoet: and Stephens’s ovd€ involves a similar construction.
meptBéBAnrar. ‘Has donned” as it were a “cloak” of dissimulation: cp.
Xen. Cec. 11. 5 els 8€ 76 wov oynpa 6 od mepiBeBAnoa: Ps. cix. 18 “he clothed
himself with cursing like as with his garment.”
tvSo8ev 88 dvorxOels. Cp. 215B: Soph. Antig. 709. The word évdobev
recals Socrates’ prayer in Phaedr. 2798 3...0c0i, Soinré por xar@ yevérOa
tavdobev.
tore Ott xrA. For the general sense, cp. Charm. 1548,
216 E dcov ovd’ dy els. Cp. 214D.
motcwos...tipavy txwv. Stallb. renders “aut praeterea honore aliquo
ornatus,” distinguishing tun from xaddos and mdovdros; whereas Riickert
states that “rin dicta est h. 1. de re, quae honorem habet efficitque ripéa,
ita ut «aAdos et mAodros etiam tiai esse possint.” Rettig supports Stallb.,
but probably the other two ayaéd are also classed in A.’s mind as ryua. Cp.
178 c, 2168: Pind. fr. ine. 25.
Toy...paKkapilopévoy. Sc. repay.
kal mpas ovdtv elvat. “h. e. atque nos, qui talia magni faciamus nullo in
numero habendos censet” (Stallb.), This,—or Riickert’s “nos ipsos qui pulcri,
qui divites sumus,”—seems to bring out rightly the point of the personal
reference; in spite of Rettig, who writes “vollig fremd ist der Platonischen
Stelle der Zusatz, welchen Stallb. hier macht.” For this use of ovdév (=ovdevds
a€lovs) cp. 219 A, 2204. The attitude here ascribed to Socr. is very like that
ascribed to his admirer Apollodorus in 173, D.
 150 TAATQNOS [216 &
Aéywo vpiv—eipwvevopevos dé Kal tmaifwyv mavta Tov Blov mmpos
a \ / Ni

Tous avOpwrous SiaTedel. srrovddcavTos Sé avTov Kal dvorydévTos

ovx olda el Tis Ewpaxe Ta évTOS aydApata: GAN eyo 75 ToT
> Lf wv Sah, \ by \ 2 / > nye Aes A ’

217 eldov, xai por EdoEev ob Tw Ocia Kal ypvcd elvar Kal wdyKadra Kal
? , y eo a \ a go \ 4

Oavpacta, Bote wontéov elvat EuBpaxyyu 6 TL Kehevor Lwxparns.

nyoupevos 5€ avtov éotovdaxévas emi TH Eun dpa Epparov nyy-
¢ 3 \ > N > ‘ > \ a ? a ¢e/ a € r-

adpnv elvar Kai evtvynpa éeuov Gavyactov, ws vrdpxyov pos

ue , \ , e ¢

Yapicapéeve Lwxpate: wdvT aKxovaas dcatrep ovTOS HOEL* Eppovouy

a /

yap dn él 7H dpa Oavydotov bcov. tadta obv SiavonOeis, mpo Tod

216 E déyo tpiv BT: Aéyov pév of Herm.: nyovpevos Bdhm.: wa déyo
ipiv Sz.: ddd’ épo tpiv Usener: del. Voeg.: fort. transp. post adda infra
re xat Usener 217 A xai po T, J.-U. Bt.: cai éuoi B: xdyoi Hirschig Sz.
éuBpaxv Cobet Sz. Bt.: év BpayetBT 6 tt (av) Sauppe Jn. ovros: avrds
Bdhm. 6 B: #dn TW: ere cj. Wolf.

Aéyo iptv. There is no objection, at least in A.’s speech, to this kind of

parenthetic interjection (cp. olecOe, D supra); cp. Apol. 304, Thue. vi. 37. 2,
Eur. Med. 226. Similarly in Gorg. 4640, 526 c “asseverandi causa orator ad
ea quae maxime attendi vult addit illa pypi, Aéyo” (see Vahlen op. Acad. I.
479). I am, however, inclined to suspect that the words are misplaced, and
originally stood after ad)a, three lines lower down; if so, we should read aAAa—
A€éyw bpiv—eye xrh., or perhaps ada 4 Aéyw bpiv éyo: this would serve to echo
the ddd’ eya dndooe of D ad init. Cp. also 222B 4 87 kal coi Aéyo.
elpwvevopevos. Schol. cipwv.: troxpivdpevos, xAevatwv. Cp. 218D; Rep.
337 A airy éxeivn 7 elwOvia eipwveia Swxpdrovs.
ra évrds aydApata. See 2154 n.: ayadpa, as ef’ @ tis dydAXeras, 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 Procl. im Alc. I. p. 89; Clem. Alex. Strom.
vi. 5, p. 846 P.: cp. Cic. de, Legg. 1. 22 “ingeniumque in se suum sicut
simulacrum aliquod dedicatum putabit.”
217 A xpvod. “Nur ein poetischer mit cadéds synonymer Ausdruck”
(Rettig); no doubt the material dydAyara referred to were of gold or gilt,
cp. Critias 116 D xpvoa...dyd\para évéotnoav. For the metaph. use, cp. Hipp.
Mai. 301 a, Phaedr. 235 & didraros ef cai ws dAnOds xpvoots: Gorg. 486 D
xpvonv éxov...tv yuxnv: and Shakspere’s “ Golden lads and lasses,”
t&Bpaxv. “In short,” used to qualify a universal statement expressed
by a relative such as dors: cp. Gorg. 457.4 (with Heindorf ad loc.), Hipp.
Min. 365p; Ar. Vesp. 1120.
lorovSaxévar ert xrA. Observe how this contrasts with the raitew of 216 E:
A., weare 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. .
pq. dpa as flos aetatis is nearly equiv. to dvOos (183 8, 210): cp. 219 0,
Phaedr, 234 A, I. Alc. 1818 ra...04 Anyet dpas, od 8 dpye avGeiv,
&bpdvouv «rd. For Alc.’s vanity, cp. Z. Ale. 1044.
217 c] ZYMMOZION 151
ovK eLw0ws avev akodovOou povos pmeT avTOU yiyverOaL, TOTE aTO-
> ? 0a ” > rv ‘0 , ’ > a 2 te ?

Té“Tw@Vv TOV aKkONOVOOY povos cUVEyLyvounv: Set yap pos Kwas

/ \ ’ , a a

mavtTa TAadnOH eireiv' aAXNAA TpocexeTE TOV vodr, Kal et Wevdopat,

‘ be lol ’ a . lal t

Lawxpates, eEereyye* cuveyryvouny yap, @ avdpes, wovos move, Kat

, Fs / ' s »

@unv avtixa diaréEerOar avtov por arrep av épactys mardeKois év

” > , 8 réEE. fal > 4 vA na > \ P) a >

épnuia Siarex Gein, kal Evarpov. TovtTwy & ov para éyiyvero ovdéer,
? ‘ / AC 2 U ’ ’ , Peel 2 Qs

Qrr dotrep p ciwOer SiareyGels

x av ye npep
por Kal cuvnuepevoas OX,
wyeETO
amiov. peta tadta EvyyupvabecOar mpovxadovunv avTov Kal
’ / a 19 ’

ouveyupvalouny, ds Te évTad0a Tepavav. cuveyupvatero ovv poe

/ te, an lal

Kal TpoceTanare TroAAdKLS ovdEeVvdS TapovTos* Kal Ti Sel AéyeLV;

ovdev yap mou TA€ov nv. érrerda) S€ ovdauH Ta’Tn HvuTor, edokE
prot emBeréov elvar TH avdpl Kata TO KapTepov Kal ovK aveTéor,
erevontep evexexyerpnkn, GANA latéov Hdn TL éoTL TO TPaypa.
> ’ > a

mpokarotpat 8% av’Tov mpos TO ouvderrrveiv, atexvas doTrep

217 A povos secl. Hirschig J.-U. Hug B (6) Swxpares Sz. 8 ov:
by O.-P. av BT: at Wolf: 8) Sauppe Sz.: arra Ast: dda Rettig: del.
Hommel Hirschig: fort. dei kal cuveyupvatopny secl. Sauppe Sz. Hug
C évratéa (ye) Naber avetéov: avetaov O,-P.1 iréov On émt TO mp.
Wyttenbach

217B radnoy...pevSopar. Cp. 2164, 2148 for similar pr testations. Observe

the effectiveness of this pause in the narration, and of the challenge to contradic-
tion, as marking an approaching climax: cp. Phaedo 85 D.
& épnplg. “Téte-a-téte”: cp. Rep. 6044, Phaedr. 236c écpev...povw ev
€pnuia.
dv...dxero. If dv is right we must take it to denote repeated action,
“solebat identidem discedete” (Stallb.): cp. Apol. 22B (Madv. Gr. S.
§ 1176, R. 3; L. and S. sv. dc).
cvvypepevoas. The only other ex. in Plato is Phaedr. 2400 mardcxois...
épaotis...eis TO Tuvnpepevery mavt@y andéararoy. ;
tvyyupvdterbar. For this practice, cp. 182 c, Menex. 236 v, Rep. 452 a ff. ;
and Xen. Symp. 11. 16 ff., where Socr. treats of public and private gymnastics.
2170 ov8tv...rdéov fv. “ Nihil enim proficiebam” (Stallb.): cp. 222 p.
éraSy 8 «7A. Rettig supposes an allusion to Eur. Hipp. 390 ff. émesdy
roid’ ovx e€nvutov Kumpw | xpatnoat, katOaveiv ed0€€ pou. For other reff. to
Eurip., see 177 a, 189 c, 196 5.
loréov...mpaypa. Reynders is alone in approving of Wyttenbach’s “restora-
tion,” iréov #5n ext To mpaypa: for, as Riickert argues, this must imply either
that A. had as yet made no “conamen alliciendi S.,” which is untrue, or that
he had not as yet begun his narration, which is equally untrue. The sense of
the text is “I must get to the bottom of the matter without more ado,”
i.e. discover the real ground of Socrates’ indifference. Cp. Apol. 200 16 cov
ri €ote mpaypa;
mpokadovpas $7) xrA. Here comes the third and most desperate expedient,
 152 TAATQNOZ [217 c
D €pactns maidixois éTuBovrevwv. Kai por ovdé ToUTO Taxv U77-
> \ aA / % fol

xovoev, Guws & ovv xpovw érretcOn. émrerdy 5é adixeto TO TpPaToOY,

a , #. / > /, > \ \ > , A lol

Seumunaas amvévar €BoudeTo. Kal TOTE pev alaxyuvopmEevos adjKa

avtov' avOis dé émiBouvrevoas, érerdy ededevrrvyjxepev, Suereyounv
ey, s \ Mi t

del TOppw TAY vuKTar, Kal erred) EBovreTO aTrLéval, TKNTTOMEVOS

a lal \

OTL oe ein, MpoonvayKaca avTov pmévetv. aveTTavEeTo ovv év TH

> > ~

) , a , 2 , A
exXouevn €uod KrALvn, ev Hep edeLTrVEL, Ka OUdELS EV TO OlKNMATL
E a\Xos Kabnddev 7 Hpets. péxps pev ovv 87 Sdetpo Tod Aoyou
f fal . n Gs \ fal a 2

Karws av Exo Kal Tpos ovTivody A€yew* TOS évTedOev ovK av pou
lal a ” \ ‘ Cy fal va \ , > lal hd) BA

> 4 / A lal / \ f BA
NKOVTATE EYOVTOS, EL [L7) TPWTov pév, TO AEyomevov, olvos—avev

217 D edederrvnxepev Bt.: “Sedermvynxemev Usener: Sdedecrvnxayev Bekk.

anecd.: eSedermvnxec BT O.-P. det add. Bekk. anecd.: om. BT O.-P. — erecd)
(ye) O.-P. avrov: avrov Sauppe péverv: povoy O,-P.} E ovv
6) B O.-P. Tmg.: odv TW kai (e£ein) mpos cj. Liebhold

in which Alcib. reverses their respective roles and acts towards Socr. no longer
as maidixa but as epaaris (cp. 213 c, 222 B, and see Introd. § v1.3). For threeasa
climacteric number cp. Phil. 66D, Huthyd. 277 c, Rep. 472 a. For é€miBovdevor,
cp. 203 B, 203 D.
217 D de...vuxrav. “Usque ad multam noctem” (Stallb.). For this force
of dei, cp. aet dia rod Biov Phaedo 75 B, etc.; so with moppa, Gorg. 486 A rovs
moppw aei didocodpias éAavvovtas. For the plural vixres, “night-watches,”
cp. 223.0, Prot. 3100 méppw trav vucrav: Phil. 50D.
év tH...kAlvy. pod is short for ras eujs (or euov) KAivns: cp. the similar
brachylogy in 214c: Hom. Od. v1. 308.
olxypart. “Room”: cp. Prot. 315 Dp, Phaedo 116 a.
217 BE péxpr...8edpo. So Laws 814 D ris...duvdpews To péxpe Sedpo jpiv
eipna bu.
Kal mpos évtivovv Ayer. This reminds one of Diotima’s language in 209 & ff.
(radra pev ovv KrA.).
7d AeySpevov krA. Photius explains thus: olvos dvev maidwv dvo0 mapotpia’
7 pev olvos Kat dAnOeca, 4 5€ olvos Kai maides adnOeis. For the first of these, ep.
Alcaeus fr. 57 B, Theocr. 7d. xxx. 1. We might render “In wine and wean
is candour seen.” Cp. Schol. ad h. .; Athen. 11. 37 EB iddyopos b€ hnow dre
ot mivovtes ov povov éavtovs eudavicovaw oiriwés elow, adda kal Tay GddAwv
” > U ’ ” 0 ‘
€KaOTOV avaxaAvTrTovot, Tappyavav ayovTes. bev ‘olvos kat adnOea” déyera:
Alcaeus fr. 53 olvos yap avOpamos Siomrpov: Hor, Sut. 1. 4. 89 condita cum
verax aperit praecordia Liber. Similar sayings about the effects of wine are
Ar, Plut. 1048 peOvav dévrepov Brérec: Theogn. 479 ff. olvos...codgov €Onxe
voov. The explanations of H. Miiller (“Trunkene sagten die Wahrheit, mochten
Diener zugegen sein oder nicht”) and of Hommel (“si proverbio illo yinum,
quod neque praesentiam neque absentiam servorum curat (alluding to the
dxddovOos of 2174), non esset veridicum”) are clearly wrong. Cp. Xen.
Symp. VUl. 24.
218 a] ZYMIMOZION 153
Te Taidwv Kal peta Traidwv—yv adnOns, érecta adavioar Lwxpa-
/ ,’ r ‘

Tous épyov wirepndavoy eis Errawov €OovtTa aduov por paiverar.

Mv e la > Ba / ” ' /

ere 8€ TO Tod SnxGEvTos bd Tob Exews TaOos Kaye Exel. acl

” \ \ fol / ¢ \ ~ Ww / ’ \ 4 \

yap Tov Twa ToUTO TaGovTa ovK eOérewv AéyeLv olov HY TAY ToOIS
Sednypmevols, WS MOvoLs yvwoomevols TE Kal cvyyVwoopévots, Ei TAY 218
€TOApa Spay TE Kal A€éyEerv VITO THS OdvYNS.
> ‘ Py A
Eey@ ovv dSEdnypEevos TE
\ Id A X fol 58 , b Nu 9 Py 8 /

vmod andyewvotépov Kal TO adyewvotatov ov av Tis dnxXOein—THV

€ \ ’ / NW \ ’ 2 ? ” / \

Kapdiav 4 yuxnv [yap] 7 6 re det avTordvopacat TAnyEls TE Kab

/ A \ \ A a > NY bd Q / \

218 A re xal iad W adyeworarov Steph. dnx Gein T O.-P.: Sery97 B

i) Puxny yap B: yap jy. TW O.-P.:4 y. non legit Schol. B, secl. Usener Sz.
Bt.: » y. yap secl Christ: yap seclusi: fort. 4 Wy. rapa

adavica. “To keep dark”: notice the play apavioca...gaivera, which

Lehrs represents by “eine helle That des S. ins Dunkle zu setzen.” qaivera
after the impf. 7» is one of Alc.’s anacolutha.
trepypavoy. The adj. here, though prima facie eulogistic, evidently contains
(as Riickert notes) “grata quaedam ambiguitas,” as alluding to the vBpis of
Socr., cp. the use of tmepnpavia to denote “superbia cum contemtione
coniuncta” (Ast) in 219c¢. For the good sense of the word, cp. Phaedo
964, Gorg. 511D..
+d Tov SyxOévros x7rA. For this proverbial case, cp. Aristides or. 15, 1.
p- 234 Gomep rov bro ths exidvns pact mAnyévra py eOedew Erép@ Aéyetv GAN 7}
dotts mereipara: id. or. 49, I. p. 395: Xen. Symp. iv. 28 damep bd Onpiov
tivos dednypévos...ev TH Kapdia Somep kynopd te eddxovy exe: id. Mem. i. 3.
12 ff. évinot yap Tt ta Padayyia Kara Td cpa: .@ote paiverOar mae. This
last passage refers to the “bite of love,” for which ep. Soph. fr. 721 épwros
dnypa: Socrates (Bergk P. L. G. 11. p. 288) 760@ dnyGeis. Riickert is no doubt
right in holding that there is allusion here “ad certam fabellam, nobis licet
ignotam.” Cp. also Aesch. Cho. 996.
218 A mdyv...déyev. “Alii de remediis totoque curationis genere (haec)
verba intelligunt, alii de motibus, gestibus furibundis, dictisque quae doloris
magnitudo elicuerit, sanis hominibus nil nisi risum moturis” (Riickert). The
former of these views is adopted by Stallb. and Rettig (who takes the phrase
to refer to the superstitious use of charms, amulets, etc.), the latter by Hommel.
The phrase recals 182 £ Oavpacra épya...roApan movety ; 208D mavra moovaw :
cp. Rep. 576 4. It seems best here to interpret it broadly of the results of the
djypa, whether or not directly aiming at a cure: ze. as covering both the
senses indicated above.
7d ddyewdsrarov. “In my most sensitive part.”
wv KapdSlav. Schol. B, dre ryv xapdiav (xapdiav rnv Herm.) puxny Karel.
This implies—as Usener inferred—that the words 7 yvyxnv were absent from
the Scholiast’s text: none the less, in view of the context, I think it rash to
expunge the words, and content myself with obelizing yap. For 4 dre xrh.,
ep. 212 c.
 154 TAATQNOS [218 a
dnyGeis tro Tav év Pirocodpia doywr, of ExovTat éxyidvns aypio-
ral ¢ > tA

TEpov, véov WuyAs un apvods dtav AdBwvtat, Kal Tovodar Spay TE

f an \ > le] a / \ la) a

Kal Aé€yeww oTtodv—Kal opa@v av Paidpous, ‘Ayabwvas, "Epué:-

B paxous, Taveavias, ApuotoSipous te cat Aptotopavas: LwKpatn
, ,

dé avrov ti bet réyecv, Kal boot AAAOL; TavTEes yap KEKOLYwWYN-

\ eo) x , a /, \ iA ” , ‘ /

fol , Ve 4, / \ U ’ mr
Kate THS pirocodgou pavias Te Kal Baxyelas: 510 TavTes axovoed Oe
auyyvocere yap Tois Te TOTE TrpaxGeiat Kal Tois Viv reyouévots*
of 8€ ofxéras, xal ef Tis dXAOS etl BEBnAOS TE Kal AypoLKos, TUAAS
Tappeyaras Tois waly éribecbe.
XXXIV. *Exresd2) yap ovv, & avbpes, 6 Te AVXVOS atreaBHKEL
C rai of maides Ew joav, oF wor yphvar pndév Toxirrewv pos
auTov, GX é€revOépws eElmety a por edoKEeL Kal eEltrov KivHTasS
’ , > > > , + na ivf > la 4 La ,

218 A yy BO.-P.: «ai wy T, Bt. B 6et cai vulg. rots re B(?):

rots T (7) ei ris T O.-P.: ci re B mappeyadas Naber J.-U.: mdvvu peyadas
libri, Sz. Bt. C (xai) kwnaas O.-P.

tnd tav...Adyov. Cp. 210 D Adyous...e€v procodia apOove. For rAnyeis, cp.
Euthyd. 303 4 écmep mAnyets td Tov Adyou adavos exeiynv: Epist. vii, 347 D.
véov Pux7s. Rost, removing the comma before véov, connected v. Wuyns
with éyovra, wrongly: for éxyeo@a: without a genitive, cp. org. 494 E.
Observe the word-play ¢y-ovrau éx-idvns.
pH advots. Cp. 209 B Wuy7...erpvelt.
@alSpovs xrd. For a similar (generalizing) use of the plural of proper
names, cp. Mener. 245 D, Ar. Ran. 1040 ff., Av. 558 f.
218 B ocvyyvscecte. This echoes the gvyyvacopévos of 218 A supra.
ot 8 olkérar. This echoes Diotima’s womep oixérns, 210 D ad init.: cp. Ar.
Ach. 242, Ran. 41 for the nomin. of address.
BéByAds. Cp. Schol. Aristid. 11. p. 471 €ore S€ enpvypa pvoriKdy rd “Ovpas...
BéBnr0ou,” ds mov cat Opdevs Sydoi “ POéyEopat ois Oéuis eori* Bvpas 8 eriberGe
BéBnro.”: Tim. BéBnrou* apvnro. Alcib.’s language, like Diotima’s, is sugges-
tive of mystery-lore: cp. Theaet. 155E; Eur. Bacch. 70 &., 472; Horace’s “odi
profanum volgus et arceo.”
mvAas...tois doly. Cp. Theogn. 421 moddois dvOpmreav yooon Oipat ovK
érixewrae | dppddsat.
6 Te Avxvos amerPrke. Cp. Ar. Plut. 668 as dé rovs AVxvous aroaBécas...
eyxadevdew: Juv. 1x. 104, Hor. C. 111. 6. 28.
218 C moda. ‘Artificiose, h. e. obscure vel ambigue loqui” (Ast):
“to beat about the bush.” Cp. the use of mocxiAos in 182 B: Laws 863 8 rd
re Sixatov Kai Td ddtxov,.,capos dy diopicaipny ovdev mocxidrov : Soph. Trach.
421, 1121.
ev0dpas eleiv. Cp. Pind. Nem. 1x. 49 Oapoadéa 8€ mapa xpatipe pova
yiverat. Notice the word-play éo€e...€d0ce. For xiwnoas, cp. Rep. 329d
, ” , oe eet \ ,
BovAdpevos ere N€yery avTOv Exivovy Kat elroy KTA.
218 D] SYMIMOZION 155
avrov, Lwxpates, Kabevdeis; Ov Sita, 4 8 bs. OloOa ody & par
> ‘ v fol

déSoxrar; Ti pdrwora; edn. Xd epoi Soxeis, Av 8 éyw, ewod

8 / / ae a

€paatys\ aftos yeyovévar povos, Kai poe haivn dxveiva pvnaOjnvar

a

mpos me. eyw dé ovtwal Eyw: Tavu dvontov Hryodmas elvar col wy
ov Kal TovTo yapitecOat Kal el TL AAXO H THS OvaLas THs ews SéoL0
, fol a , A fol

H TOV diwv TOV eua@v. Epol péev yap opdév eat. mpecBuTepov D
A lol / a > cal > \ \ > / ’ /

Tod ws 6 Te BéATLCTOY eue yevéoOas, ToVTOU dé olwai por cUA-

n ¢ 4 t ee / U \ a ,

AnWTopa ovdéva KUpiw@TEpoV elvar cov. eyw 8) TovovTw avdpl

\ al A \ > ig \ ,
ToAV wAarANOv av wn yxapilouevos aicyvvoiuny Tors Ppovimous,
% XapcCouevos Tovs Te godXNov’s Kai ddpovas. Kal obtos dxovcas
A ,

Mana elpwrikas Kai chodpa éavtod te Kal eiwOoTws édeEev "OD, Hire
ArxiBiadn, xivduvevers TH dvte ov gadros elvat, elrep arnOy
’ a fol lol

218C éyo BO.-P.: éyov TW xapioacba O.-P. etre B O.-P.: ere

TW D osénTW O.-P.: dc9 1 B poe Vind. 21 O.-P. (prob.), vulg. :
pou BTW = (zrap’) €avrov Stallb.: (pds) €avrotd Herwerden =¢aur@ eiwdrws
vulg. pire om. O.-P.} kevduvevet...pavd’ etvat Bdhm.

tuov...aftos. Whether eyod goes closely with épaarys or with daéios is open
to doubt: Jowett renders “the only one who is worthy of me,” whereas Rettig
writes “d&os absolut = wiirdig, beachtenswerth.”
"éxvety xr. “To be shy of mentioning (your love) to me”: cp. I. Ale.
103 A olpai ce Oavyatew drt mparos epactns cov yevdpevos...trocovTwy éTav
ovde mpoceimoy.
wis ovelas...ravdirov. Cp. 1834 7 ypnuata...vr6 pikov. For 7 rav didov
= tis Tav hidror, cp. the brachylogy in 217 D (épov).
218 D -«pecBirepov. Poll. 11. 12 cai mpecBevew 16 tipav mapa WAdrove cai
ro “ovdév €or mpecButrepov” avi tov “ovdey Tyna@repov”: 186 B, 188C supra.
cvdAxrropa. For the ¢paorns as an aid to dpery, see 185 a; cp. Socrates’
description of Eros as ovvepyds, 212 B. poe was taken by Stallb. with ovAAnr-
ropa, by Riickert with efya, but it is better to say with Hommel that, as an
ethic dat., “ad totum verborum complexum refertur.”
Kupusrepov. “ More competent”: cp. Theaet. 161 D.
Tovs dpovipous...appovas. Compare the similar aristocratic sentiment of
Agathon, 1948. It is worth noticing that whereas Pausanias had spoken of
those who disapprove of yapi{erOa: as rivés, here they are termed of roAXoi.
Cp. Xen. Mem. 1. 6.13. Similarly Browne, Rel. Med. “This noble affection
falls not on vulgar and common constitutions.”
odoSpa éavrov. “ Very characteristically”: cp. “suum illud est” Cic. Tuse.
I. 42. 99.
od datdos. “Kein Dummkopf” (Hug); cp. 174c, 175r. Socr. means
that if Alcib. proposes to make such a profitable bargain, bartering his own
cheap xdddos for the rare xaddos of Socr., he evidently is a “cute” man of
 156 TAATQNOS [218 p
E Tuyyavet OvTa a NEYELS TEPL ELOV, KAL TLS EOT EV EOL OVVApLS, OL
fi ” \ / Nee fo) / ” AN > \ 5 Lt 8 ’

Hs av ov yévoto apeivwv’ aunyavoy Tor KAAS OpwNs av EV Enol

ww, BAY \ ‘ > f ? / / / f , » ? ? \

\ a ‘ \ > , U Te > \ a
Kal THs Tapa coi evwopdias maptoAv diapépov. ect 57 KaSopav
apn , , , > eS 8 / , > \
avTo Kolvwoacbai Té pou emreyerpets Kal arrdd~acbat Kaos avTi
KaXXOUS, OUK OALyYw@ fou TAEovexTeiy Savon, arr ati dons
U lad A > ? ? /

219 annGevav Karaov KTacOar emriyerpets Kal TO OvTL “YpVTEA YaNKElwv

See a A ’ a \ nw “ , / ”

dtapetBecOar voeis. aXrX’, O wakaple, Awewov oKOTEL, yn TE AaV-

/ lal ’ , = ‘ ” / 7

Gavw ovdev av. % Tor THS Stavoias Sis apyetar o€U Brérrew
xAN f fol /

OTav 1) TOV OppaTav THS aKuHS AnyeLW ETLyErpH* TV SE TOUTwWY ETL

n an an a v

jToppw. Kaye axovaas, Ta pév Tap euod, pny, TaVT EaTLV, WY

, , ‘ , > nm res , 2

ovdey drAAwWS elpnTat } ws Stavoodpar: ov b€ avTos oTw Bovdrevou

6 TL col TE AptaTov Kal é€mol nyet. "AXX’, En, TODTO re Ev EvyeELS*
oe ‘2 v Ae NP ce. a > 2, a s ms ,

éy yap T@ emLovTe. ypovm Povrevopevor mpakowev 6 av dat-

? \ a , / / t , a x /

VNTAL VOY Tepl TE TOUTWY Kal TEpl TOY GAXwWY ApLaToOV,

lel % a “

218 E ro. BTW O.-P.: zu al., Bekk.: re vulg. ré pot BT O.-P.: por W
219 A «addy del, Bdhm. voeis secl. Voeg., J.-U. 4 to W, Steph.: Frou
Bil bys dpyerac om. Stob, enood TW O.-P.: euoi B {cot re] ore O.-P.

business. Cp. Diog. L. 111. 63 6 your gaidos éyerar map’ atr@ (sc. Platoni)
kai €ml Tov Grou, ws kal map’ Evpiridy ev Atxupvi xtra. (see Eurip. fr. 476 N.
paddrov, dxopwov, ta péytot ayaboy xTX.).
218 E apyyavéy xrA. 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 cizep. Cp. Rep.
509 B, 608 D; Charm. 155 p.
evpopdlas. For the notion of a beauty-competition here suggested, cp. Xen.
Symp. Vv. 1. Cp. also the codia-match of 175 5.
avi Sofys ddyOeav k. “ Real for sham beauties”: adnOecav kakov =adnOwa
cada. Cp. Phil. 36 ¢ ff.; and for the antithesis, cp. 198 B, 212 4 supra.
219 A xptoea yadrxelov. A “familiar quotation” from J/. vi. 235—6
(LAavKos) Os mpos Tudeidnv Acopndea TEVXE. dpeBev | ypvoea xadkelov, €xarou-
Bov evveaBoiwv. Later reff. to the proverb are frequent, e.g. Plut. adv. Stoic.
1063 8; Clem. Alex. Cohort. ad Gent. 71c. Cp. Winters Tale 1. 2 “take eggs
for money.” In xpvoea there is an obvions allusion to the dyd\pata ypvoa of
216 E.
n Tor...drs. For this idea of the inverse development of vision, ep. Laws
715 p, IZ, Ale. 150 p. Rettig thinks that in this passage there may lie a ref.
to Phaedr, 253 p ff., and an indication that the views there put forward are
crude and the book itself “eine jugendliche Schrift.”
219 B ty yap tO xrA. Thus Socr. practically defers the consideration of
the matter to “the Greek Kalends.” Rettig calls attention to the catalectic
hexameter in €v yap...BovAevdpevor, which gives a touch of jocular liveliness.
219 c] ZY MIMOSION 157
y@ wéev 57 Tav’Ta axovaas Te Kal eirrwv, Kal adels warrep
EB \ ‘ \ fol ’ ‘ ’ / \ ’ \ a

Bern, TeTp@cGat avtov wunv: Kal avactds ye, ovdé émitpéwras

lA cal ’ \ wv \ ’ é ON > /

TOUT® ElTely ovdev ETL, Guhiécas TO iuaTLoY TO é“avTOD TodTOV—

Kal yap Hv yeywwv—vro Tov Tpi8ava KaTaKdLVEls TOV ToUTOUI,
\ So , , /

meptBarav T® xeipe TOUT@ TO Saipoviw ws arANOAds Kal OavpacTe,

\ an a“ , lal lel

KaTexeiuny THy vUKTa OdAnV. Kal ovdé TadTa ad, © LHKpates, épeis
ld a a

bre wpevdopuat. moincavtos dé 517 Tadta €uod obTOS TOTOUTOY TeEpLeE-

yéveTo Te Kal KaTeppovnoe Kal KatTeyéXace THS euns wpas Kal
/ , fal fal

ev \ No a 4 ” vat Ge ee /
bBpice Kai rept éxeivo <b> ye @unv Ti elvat,.d avdpes Sixactai—
219B Bada TW O.-P. rovro T, Thiersch: rodro B: rodrov W
rovroui TW O.-P. (prob.), Bt.: rovrov B, J.-U. Sz. C at B: om. TW
Kal trepi exeivo (6) ye Scripsi: [xac] mepe exewvo ye O.-P.: kaimep éxeivd ye TW:
kaimep xeivo ye B: Kai’xeivd ye Sz.: Kairos Keivd ye Bt.: xaimep...eiva secl. Hug

adels Srep BAy. Sc. tovs Aoyous. For this image applied to « “winged
words,” cp. the use of Badwv 189B; Phileb. 23B BéAn exew Erepa tov ep-
mpocbev Adywv: Theaet. 1804; Pind. Ol. 1. 112.
tetpoo0ar. “I thought I had winged him.” Cp. Theogn. 1287 adda
o €yo Tpacw devyovra wep: and the description of Eros as @npeurns Sewvds,
203 D.
tp(Bava. Cp. Prot. 335D; Ar. Ach. 184, etc. The vogue of the “philosopher’s
cloak” (palliwm) seems to date from Socrates: cp. Plut. de disc. ad. 56c. For
the incident, see also Lysias 7n Alcib. xiv. 25 (Teichmiiller Litt. #. 11. 267 ff);
Theocr. Jd. xv111. 19; cp. Theogn. 1063 ff. év 8 Bn mapa pev Evv bpndrxe Kad
NiO evdew | ineprav tpywv e& Epov i€uevov. Notice the stylistic effect produced
both by the row of successive participles, mostly asyndetic (“der Sturmlauf
ist vergeblich” Rettig); and by the repetition of the pronoun (rovre, -rov,
-rovi, -r@, ovros). ‘“Forsan haec illustrat Soph. Trach. 944. Respexit
Alciphron 1. 38” (Wyttenb.).
219 C Satpovlw. Cp. 202 D.
kal ov8 tattra xrA. Alcib.’s fourth appeal to Socr. for confirmation, cp.
217 B.
rocotrov. “ Dictum est dexrixads et pér quandam exclamationem ut signi-_
ficet: mirum quantum me vicit” (Stallb.): Rickert and Hommel, on the other
hand, suppose that “‘sequi debebat dare” 80 as to give the sense “ut non aliter
ab eo surrexerim,” etc. (Riickert), or Gore cal xatrappovnoa «rd. (Hommel).
Riickert’s view, which explains the change of construction as due to the
intervening parenthesis, seers the most -probable.
mepieyéverd xd. Alcib. is fond of piling up synonyms by way of emphasis;
cp. 207 A, 219 D, 221 &. y
‘Bpioe. TBpis is a vox propria in erotic literature for che “‘spretae iniuria
formae”; cp. Anthol. Pal. v. 213 ovx oto trav amddaorpor UBpw.
Anacreon fr. 129 iBpiorai ai draoOadou (’Avaxpéwy ameihei rois "Epwou...
erednmep Ewpa Tov epnBov GrALyov avTov ppovritovra...e wi) QUT®@ TiTpeTKoLEY
 158 TAATQNOS [219 c
Sixactal ydp éate THs Lwxpatous bmepnpavias. ed yap late pa
Geovs, wa Oeds, ovdév mepittotepov KatadedapOnKas avéotny peta
D Lwxparous, 7} et peta watpos KaOnddov } aderpod pec Butépou.
XXXV. To 8% wera TodTo Tiva olesOE we Sidvoray éxewv, Hryov-
Mevoy pev nTiuda bar, ayduevoy Sé THv TovTOU diaw TE Kal cwdpo-
cvvny Kai avdpeiay, évtetuynKita avOpaT@ ToLovT@ ol éya ovK

29D 4c@BO.-P.: 4 TW

attixa tov épnBov xrd.). 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. katadedovAwpévos 219 E infra).
kal mepl éxetvo (5) ye xrA. So I have ventured to write on the strength of the
evidence of the Papyrus.
Rettig keeps the Bodleian xetvo, as tolerable “in hac Alcibiadis oratione
singularia amantis,” and refers to Poppo ad Thuc. vu. 86, Lob. ad Phryn. p. 7,
and other authorities: but to bolster up the double anomaly ‘vain is the
strength of man”: if xeivo be retained we must assume prodelision (’xeivo).
m\ elvar. ‘‘Magm quid esse” (Riickert): cp. Gorg. 472 a: it is the opposite
of ovdev eivat, 216 E, 219 a.
Sixacral. Alcib. appeals to the audience to try the case, the notion of a
lawsuit (ypagy vBpews) having been suggested by the word v8pioev. We have
already had, in this speech, terms suggestive of legal proceedings, wz. 214 D
Tiywpno@pat buoy evavriov: 215 B wdprupas mapéfopar: and dcxaorns itself was
already used by Agathon in 175k.
pd. Qeovs, pa eds. Such an invocation of the whole pantheon is unusual,
but cp. Zim. 27 ¢.
odStv wepirrétepov. Haud aliter, cp. Isocr. 111. 43.
karadeSapOnkas. Cp. 2230, Apol. 40D. For the incident cp. Petron. 128
non tam intactus Alcibiades in praeceptoris sui lecto iacuit: Lucian vit. awct.
15; Corn. Nep. Alcid. c. ii.
219D = rlva...8idvorav. A.’s feelings were a blend of chagrin and venera-
tion: cp. the perplexity described in 2160; Theogn. 1091 ff. dpyadéws pox
Oupos exer wept ans pidrdryros: | odre yap exOaipew otre Pireiv Sivaua, KTA.
Arpdoba, Cp. Theogn. 1313 éyuny d€ peOnxas ativnrov diddryta.
dydpevov. This is an echo, both of Phaedrus’s language in 179c¢, 180 a,
and of ayaords applied to Eros (197D). Observe the assonance jyovpevor...
dydpevov. Cp. Xen. Symp, Vit. 8..
rivitotrov ptow xrA. Hommel renders “des Mannes ganzem Wesen
besonders seiner Besonnenheit und Charakterfestigkeit ” etc. ; Rettig explains
pias as “die geistige Naturanlage des S., seine theoretische und spekulative
Begabung, ingenium, codia (vgl. Theaet. 144 a).” The former seems the more
natural interpretation ; @vow may be intended also as an echo of Aristophanes’
use of the word (189 D ete.).
219 8] SYMITOZION 159
av @unv wore evtvxeiv eis Ppovnow Kal eis Kaptepiav; wate ovl
wv No tal ’ ,

drrws ody opyifoiuny elyov Kal amrootepnOeinv THs ToVTOU cUVOL-

* ’ / bd a

alas, ov@ orn Tpocayayoiuny avTov nvTopouy. ed yap 75n OTL E

a

XpHmacl ye TWOAV MANXOV ATpwTos Av Tavtayn } cLdynpw o Alas,

y, a Ni a ; »” 9 a ww / € ”

@ TE OuNv avTov pov~ addocecBat, SieTepedyer pe. Nrdpovy Oy,

® wv \ ‘ iy , n

KkatabdedovAwpevos TE UTO TOD avOpwrrov ws ovdels UT ovdevos

, © \ a > € > \ oe 23: > \

GdXov Tepina. TavTa Te ydp fot aTavTa Tpovyeyovet, Kal peTa

Tadta otpateia nuiv eis Llotidaray éyéveto Kowvn Kal cuvediTovmev
éxel. Mp@Tov ev ovy Tois Tovors OV movoy e“ov TeEpLAV, AANA Kal
a ” € f ¢ FE 29) 5 Sr / b /
TOY AadNwV aTrdYTwWY* OTOT avayKacbeElnwev atrorAnPberTeEs Tov,

219 D wopny O.-P. corr. Kapteplav: eyxparecay O.-P. ov6: ovd

O.-P. corr. et cat O.-P. ovvnbeas O.-P.1 E oro vulg. non B:
joev W O.-P. ye TW O.-P., Jn.: re B, J.-U. Sz. Bt. 64 BT O.-P.:
te W tavta T doa Bdhm. xown vulg. J.-U. Naber: xow7 BT O.-P.,
Sz. Bt. ovy libri, Bt.: ody (ev) Winckelmann J.-U. Sz. éomér W, Herm.:
omotav BT O.-P.: 6mdrav yotv vulg.: érdre S& Sauppe Jn.: 6dr ad Rohde:
otov dmor cj. Usener droknpOevres Cornarius, Sz. Bt.: amodecpOévres libri,
O.-P.: arodrepbevres cirov, oia Heusde

dpévaci...xapteplav. “ppdvnois verbunden mit xaprepia ist doch nichts

Anderes als die Auflédsung des Begriffs der cappocvrn in seine beiden Bestand-
theile. Vgl. Pol. Iv. 430 5, Phadr. 237 8, Krat. 411 &” (Rettig).
o%0’...elxov. Of moral impossibility, as in 190c, Phaedr. 241 a.
219E adrpwros. “ Invulnerable on all sides”: cp. rerpéc6a 219 B. For
the incorruptibility of Socr., shown by his sending back Alcib.’s presents, see
Stob. Flor. xvit. 17, Ael. v. A. 1x. 29.
oiSijpe 6 Alas. For the impregnable seven-fold shield of Ajax, see Pind.
Isthm. v. 45; Soph. Aj. 576; Welcker A@. Schr. 11. p. 267.
@ te Spnv. Sec. 77 dpa (cp. 219 c): the antecedent, xara rodro (d:areg.), has
to be supplied.
KaradeSovdwpévos. Cp. Huthyd. 303.c. Above, 215 5, we had avdpamodwddas
Otakeipevos.
aeptgya. “I wandered about,” suggestive of aimless despair: cp. Prot.
348 p, Rep. 620 0: so mepitpéxyoy 173 A.
otparela...kowy. Potidaea revolted from Athens in 435 B.c. and after
5 years of war was reduced in 430 (see Bury’s Hist. Gr. pp. 392—3) : Socr.’s
part in the campaign is alluded to also in Apol. 28, Charm. 153 a,c: cp.
Plut. adv. Colot. p. 1117 &.
cvveritoipev. “ We were mess-mates” (cvcovror). This implies personal
friendship rather than proximity of origin; for Socr. and Alcib. belonged to
different @uAai and to different ragers.
rots movots. Cp. 197 E ("Epas) év mév@...dpiotos.
arodnpbévres. “Cut off,” “a commeatu intercepti et prohibiti” (Stallb.):
cp. Hdt. u. 115. 2; Thuc. vi. 22; Gorg. 522 a.
 160 TAATQNOS [219 &
220 ola 8n ért otpateias, acuteiv, ovdev joav ol adXoL TPOS TO Kap-
\ ‘ /, » cal \ ea € cA \ \

in F > in i. ' ar > 4 punta

Tepelv. €v T av Tails evwyiats povos atrodavetv olos T HY TA T
” \ / > 22/ ¢ , ? / tp > /
adda Kal tive ovK €OéXwv, oroTe avayxacbein, TavTas ExpaTet,
Kali 0 tavtwv Gavpactotatov, LwKxpatn peOvovta ovdels TwTrOTE
\ ~~ / ,

s a , G
éEwpaxeyv avOpwrav. TovTou peév ovy por SoKel Kal aUTiKa oO EhEyXoS
écecOat. pos 5€ ad Tas TOD yELl“a@vos KapTEepHaerts—eLvoi yap
? r a fe > {A , ” us ”
avToOe yerwmves—Oavupadora eipyaleTo Ta TE AAG, KAL TTOTE OVYTOS
B rayov otov Se.votatou, Kai Tavtwy 7) ovK eEvovtwy évdobev % el Tis
ip 7 , \ s rn » > t ” a ”

eFiow nuhiecpevwy Te Oavpaota 6) boa Kal vrodedeévwy Kai

2s : t S \ ed \ ¢ , \

éverdkuyuevov Tous mddas els Tidous Kal apvaxidas, ovTos 8 év

b ‘ \ y! ? / \ > , a > >

220 A. mpos rd: mpos adrov eis ro Sauppe: mpds ad’rov to Bdhm. ev &
av Wolf amodAverv O.-P.1 olds + Av del. Bdhm. te raAAa Bdhm.
mivev Usener mavras: mavtwv Hirschig 6 mavrov TW O.-P.: émdrav B
Oavpacwwraroy O.-P. Vind. 21 éwpaxev TW O.-P.: éwpaxer B XE aves
del. Naber B_ rayou B O.-P.: rod mayou TW 7) ovw B O.-P.: ovm TW
67 TW O.-P.: 7 B otros S BTW: odros O.-P. Vind. 21

220 A ola 8 «rd. Se. hire ylyveoOa, or the like; cp. Rep. 467B ola
69 €v modéum dirct (sc. ylyverOa); Buthyd. 272 a.
ovSty yWoav...mpds xtA. Cp. 195D olos nv...mpos xtA., and 2168 ovdév
elvat.

evoxlats. Cp. Laws 666 B ev rois cvootrios evwyndévta: 203 B supra,

rar dda xTA. The construction is loose; we may either explain it (with
Stallb.) as a brachylogy for ra 7 dAXa cai 57 Kal Trovro Grt...ékparet, or Say (with
Wolf) that éxpare is carelessly put for xpar@v. Hug construes mivey closely
with avayxacOein, marking ovx €6éAwy as a parenthesis; but it is simpler to
regard mivey as a kind of accus. of
respect (“at drinking ”) with expare. For
the avaykn of the “symposiarch’s” ruling cp. 176 A, 223 B.
édpaxe. The plpf. éwpdxe (in
spite of Rettig, etc.) is inconsistent with
mamore. For Socr.’s invincibility in carousals, see 1760, 214.4, 223c; and
cp. Theogn. 491 avixnros d5€ ror otros | ds moAXds Tivev py Te para.oy epei.
attika...torerOar. J.e. we shall have proof, before the night is over, of Socr.’s
xaprepia in this regard.
Sewvol...xepaves. Cp. Thuc. 1. 70 opavres per ths otparias THY TadaiTwpiav
ev xwpio xemepivd :Aesch, Pers. 495 ff.
Oavpdora eipydtero. An echo of 1828 and 213d.
220 B otov Savotarov. Je. roovrov olos Sewdrards eat: cp. Apol, 23.4
(Madv. Gr. S. § 96. 1).
midous. Schol. midos: iwariov e& eplov marnoews yivopevov, eis VeT@v Kal
xewavev duvvav. Cp. Laws 942d; Hes, Op. 541 ff. “Had their feet swathed
in felt and fleeces” (Jowett).
dpvakiSas. Schol. dpvaxides d€ adpy@v xwdia; Suid. dpvaxis: rd rov apyvds
K@Odiov, TO pera T@Y epiwy Sépua. Cp. Themist. o7, Iv. 50 B.
220 c] ZY MIMOSION 161
rovtos éEner Exwv ipatiov péev Tovodtoy oldvirep Kal mporepov
7 a /

el@Oer popeiv, avuTrodntos S€ did Tod KpvoTdddov paov érropeveTo

+7 a ’ , \ AY fal / cnr > tf

H of Adroe brrodedepevor. of S€ otTpati@tar UTéBrETOV aTOV ws

Katappovovyta opav.
XXXVI. Kai tadta pév 8) taita:
\ >
olov § ad 10d épeEe Kal EtAn KapTEpos avrjp
éxel troré emt otpatias, akwov axodoa. Evvvoncas yap avTos
bd lal tal a /

Ewbév te eiotnKkes oxomav, Kal érreid) ov Tpovyw@per avT@, OUK

aviet
eee
AXA
’
ElornKker
Ni € s
CnTev.
, a
Kal \ Hdn
»
Hv
s
weonuBpia,/ Kal NeeavO@pwtroe
noBavovto, Kai Oavpafovtes dAXos AAW Ereyov StL Lwxparns €E
éwOivod dpovtivwy tu gotnKe. TereuTavTes 5é Tives THY "ldver,

220 B oldvrep B O.-P.: ofov TW C atroS W O.-P., Cornarius:

avro BT éppeEe B otparias O.-P:, Cobet Sz. Bt.: orpareias libri, J.-U.
eiornxer Vulg. O.-P.: éorqe: libri mpoxdope BB dvie: avenO.-P. dvOpwmor
Mehler Cobet Sz. Bt.: dv@pezo libri édeyov Mehler Cobet Sz.: €reyev
libri, O.-P., Bt. e&: ws €& O.-P. kat ante rehevr@vres add. W lovey
libri, O.-P.: véov Mehler Hug Sz.: iSdvrwy Schmidt: Mave Rettig

iparvov...popetv. Cp. 2204 n.; Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 1,6. 2 cat ipariov nudieoa
ov povov davdov dAXa 7d adTd Oépous TE Kal Xeavos, avumddnros S€ Kal ayitov
dvaredeis. For avumddnros, see also 174 a, 203 D.
tréBXerov. ‘Looked askance (suspiciously) at him,” 2.e. “quippe quem
ipsos despicere opinarentur” (Stallb.). Cp. Eryx, 395 a imoBhéwpas...damep
te ddixovpevos: Crito 53B troBdéovrai oe SiapOopéa nyovpevor TOY vopor.
220 C Kal rtaira...ratra. For this formula of transition, dismissing the
subject, cp. Laws 676 A.
oloy 8 a¥...dvip. From Hom. Od. rv. 242, with the slight alteration ofoy
8 ad for ddd’ olov : there it is spoken by Helen in describing Odysseus.
tvyvonoas. Rettig holds that the following section is an illustration of the
“spekulative Begabung” (pvors 219 D) of Socr.; but it describes, primarily,
another phase of his xaprepia. For S.’s habit of thought-immersion, cp.
1748 ff, Gell. V. A. 1. 1; similarly, in Indian gymnosophists, Plin. H. NV.
vil. 2. 22. The similar incident in 174 & ff. is there construed by Agathon
as a symptom of copia (see 175 C—D).
*Idvev. 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 Mebhler’s restoration, ray vedr, 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. Haver, he cites Thue. 1. 59, 61, etc. But I agree
with Usener (Rhein. Mus. Lut. p. 372) that Iavev may well be genuine.
B. P. itl
 162 TMAATQNOS [220 c
D érrecd7) Eorrépa nv, Sevmvijcavtes—xai yap Oépos ToTe y Hv—yxa-
> \ € / Ga f \ \ y, ‘ > zs

pevvia e€eveyxapmevot dua pev ev To Wye KaOniddov, awa dé

, ’ f ef \ > an / a e a

epvAaTTov avtToy ef Kal Thy viKTa éotnEor. Oo 5€ EloTNKEL méexpt

x i iA

Ews éyéveTo Kal nrALos avéaxev’ ErEetTa BYXET aTriMY TpoctevEAMEVOS

/ Coe \ UG

TO ALO.
ra c

Ei b€ BovrAecOe €v Tais waxyais’ TOUTO yap 67 Sixatoyv ye avT@

> \ / , a , 5 tol \ \ rZ f es wn

atobovvat: ote yap 7 waxn rv, €E Hs éwot Kal Taproteta Edocay ot

’ rn d \ € / nS ’ @ ? \ \ ? na bya e

atTpaTnyol, ovdels Gros Eue Ecwoev AvOpwTwy 7 ovTOS, TETPW-

, » a

, an % \ /
EB pévoy ovx OéXwv atrodiTety, GANA GuVdtegwoe Kal Ta OTAG Kal
aan , ty?
auTov éué. Kal eyo pév, wW Lwepates, Kal ToTe éxéXevoy col
dudovat TapioTeia TOUS TTpaTNYyOUS, Kal TOUTO YE mot OUTE peu
, , n fal / f

220 D mpocevéopevos b ev Tais: xa ev Tas O.-P. ovx €Oéhov

tetpw@pevov T E Sexparny O.-P.

220 D yapevwra. razed xdwwidia (Schol.); ra emi ths ys oTpevyipeva

(Tim.): cp. (Eros) yapaurerns, 203 D: Hipponax 67 év crabpig re Kai xapevvio
yupvov.
mpocevidpevos TO WAtw. Hesiod (Op. 339) prescribes prayer at sunrise and
sunset ; cp. Laws 887 E, 966 D; Soph. 0. C. 477; Ar. Plut. 771 wat mpooxvva
ye mpotra pev tov yrwov. The suggestion here may be that the Sun-god
(Phoebus, the revealer, “the light of the world”) brings mental illumination,
and that Socr.’s evyn was in part a thanksgiving therefor. As a parallel to
Socr., we may refer to “the devotion of Orpheus to Helios” as pointed out in
Harrisou Proleg. p. 462. Moreover, Socr. regarded Apollo as his special
patron-god, see Apol. 39 v ff, Phaedo 85 B, Tim. 40 a (Adam, 2. 7. G.
pp. 325, 434 ff): and the sun is the symbol of ideal Good, see Rep. 530 a,
Phileb. 28 p. For the content of a Socratic prayer, see Phaedr. 279 B—c;
Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2 nixero 8€ mpos rovs Geos dwras rayaba SiSdva. Of prayers
to Helios we have exx. in Soph, Aj. 845 ff.; td.fr. 772 "HéAwos oixreipecé pe | dv
ot coot A€éyouat yevyntny Oedv | kal marépa rdvTwv.
El 8 BovAecbe. Sc. axovoa oios jv, or the like; cp. 177B. Alcib. here
passes on to treat of the dydpeia of Socr.
dmodSoivar. “ Tanquam debitum persolvere” (Stallb.).
4 paxy “Illa pugna (omnibus nota)” (Riickert); a%e. the fight (in
432 3B.c.) which preceded the blockade of Potidaea, cp. 219 E x., Thue. 1.
G2efh eI;
towoev. With this, and ovvdécwoey below, cp. Eros as cwrnp apiotos,
197 &.
220 E ovx €&d\wv orodimeitv. This passage echoes the language of
Phaedrus in 179 A: eyxaradureiy ye ra maidixa xrX., and émAa aroBartov. To
rescue a man’s arms was to save him from the disgrace attaching to ém\ev
at oBoAn.
ovre pépy. Here for the fifth time Alcib. challenges Socr. to contradict
him (cf, 219 c); for péugopa, cp. 213 BE,
221 B) ZYMTMIOZION 163
oUTe épels OTL Wevdouar GAA yap TOY oTpaTHYa@V Tpds TO Emov
BA ’ lal wa Uy ’ N \ a a \ NEN

akiwpa amoBXtrovtwy Kail Bovropévwy épwot Siddvat Tapioreia,

’ , ? i / \ / ’ ‘ / > lal

L a a 5
autos mpoOumotepos eyévou TaY aTpaTHnywv Ewe AaPeEly 7) GauToOD.
éte Toivuv, 6 avdpes, aEvov nv OeacacBat Ywxparn, bte add Andriov 221
y , + ees died Ld ba t / ¢ > \ i}

puyn avexoper TO oTpaToTeEdov’ EtTUYOY yap Tapayevomevos larmov

éywv, ovtos Sé Ora. aveywper obv éecxedacpévwry On TOV av-
” ® Nee ’ ' . bd , 7 a 9

Opwrwv odTOs Te dua Kal Aayns: Kal éy@ TepitUyyave, Kal idov
evOds Tapaxerevoual Te avtotv Oappetv, Kal EXeyov OTL ovK arro-
Neto avto. évtadOa dy Kat KaddXLov Ccacapnv Ywpatn h ev
Ilotisata—avtos yap jrrov ev poBo 7 dia TO ed’ tov elvar—
mpaTtov ev bcov trepiny Aayntos TH Eudporv elvar erecta Emouye B
edoxet, @ ‘Apiotopaves, TO cov bn TodTO, Kal exer StaTropeverOas
> , Ces / ish nh \ lal \ > a /

woTrep Kai evOade, “ BpevOvopevos Kai TopOaryo TapaPardor,”

221 A cexparny T 7B: 4 TW: 7 O.-P.: Hy vulg. B damep kal
evOade secl. Jn. J.-U. Tw dpOarpe T O.-P.: ro Pbarye B: 7’ dfOarpa W

atiopa. “Social standing”: “erat genere Alcmaeonida...ipse Periclis in

tutela erat” (Riickert), Cp. J, Alc. 10438; Thuc. 11. 37, v. 43, ete.
4 cavrov. We should expect paddov 7 avros, but the accus. is put in order
to balance eye, “propter oppositionis gravitatem” (Stallb.). For the omission
of paddov after words ‘denoting a wish or choice,” see Madv. Gr. S. § 93 ¢.
221 A amd Andlov. For this famous battle in Boeotia (424 B.c.), when
the Athenians under Hippocrates were routed by the Thebans under Pagondas,
see Thuc. Iv. 76 ff., Bury’s Hist. Gr. pp. 442—3.
kal Adyns. Cp. Lach. 181 8B. Athenaeus (v. 329 ff.) perversely contends
that Socr. took part in no battle.
mepitvyxavw. Cp. Hermann on Ar. Vub. 196, “émirvyyavew dicitur qui
quaerit, wepirvyx. qui non quaerens in aliquid incidit.”
KaAAov @eardunv. “I got a finer view of”: cp. Rep. 467 E ef? inmav...
Kadota Te Oedcovra...ckal aopadéorata xth.
&y doBw. Cp. 197 pD,
tudpwy. “Cool,” “collected”; cp. Jon 535 B mérepov eudpwr ci, i eEw
cavtov yiyve; Laws 791 B avr pavicav...€bers eudpovas eyetv. ;
221 B 7d cov 8 rovro. An accus. absol., like rd Aeyopevov: “ut tuo illo
utar” tstallb.). Cp. Soph. 233 8, Huthyd. 284 co (with Schanz, nov, comm.
pp. 76 f.). The ref. is to Ar. Vub. 362 dru BpevOve 1 ev ratow ddois cai
Tapdarpo mapaBarres. The Clouds was not produced until the year after
the battle of Delium, viz. 423 B.c.
BpevOvdpevos. ‘Stalking like a pelican” (Jowett): Schol. ad Nub. 362
BpevOver: drocepvivers ceavTov év T@ aXNMaTe Kai Tavpnddy 6pas:* Koumad ces Kal
Umepomtixas Badites: cp. Schol. ad Pax 25, ad Lysist. 887. “ Nimirum
ductum est verbum a BpévOos, quod significat avem aquaticam, frequenter ad
paludes commorantem altisque pedibus incedentem” (Stallb.).
Top0adpa mapaBdddwv. “H. e. torvo vultu oculos in obliquum vertens ”
11—2
 164 TAATQNOE [221 B
Npé“a TapacKoTT@Y Kal TOUS PiAdtouvs Kal TOUS ToAE-LOUS, SHAOS OV
b] , F a \ \ / \ \ / A a

mavtTl Kal mavu moppwoev, btu el Tis Grperar ToOvTOV TOU avdpos,
pdra
/
éppwuévas
> fi
apuveita.
> lal
610\ nal N adopards
> a
amne.
> ld
Kal \ odtos
2

Kal 0 étaipos: axedov ydp Te ToY ovTw SdiaKeimevav ev TO

C roréum ov8€ Grrovtat, adAa Tos mpoTpoTradny hevyovtas Si0-
KoUat.
TloAAa peév ody ay Tis Kal adda eyot Lwxpatn érrawwéca Kal
ot

Oavydova* adda TOV pev Grwv erriTNSevpdtwv Tay’ av Tis Kal

Tepi \ ddXov
y
ToLadTa
la)
eltrot,
oY
TO\ 5é\ pndeviVe avOpwrav
5? /
Gpwovov
x4
elvat,
£
UnTE
,

TOV Tahatéw pnTe TOV vo dvTwY, TOUTO GELov TavTos OatparTos.

a Bat / rn fal ” a ” ~ te

olos yap “AyirrEds éeyéveto, dmetxaceev av Tis Kal Bpaciday kcal

221 B wepicxomav Ast Bekk. Sz. girious BTW: idrovs al., O.-P.,
Steph. aWaro O,-P. dpuvnra B 610... 8t@kovow secl. Hartmann
616 67) kat Arist. obtos: autos O.-P. éraipos Arist., Sz. Bt.: érepos libri,
O.-P., J.-U. ev rG wodéu@ ante adda ponit Arist. C paddov post pev-
yovras addit Arist. Oavpaca Hirschig roy pev: tov O.-P. (ut videtur)
dé: de dy O.-P. eivac pyre TW O.-P.: eivai pe B

(Stallb.). Rettig objects that this rendering is inconsistent with jpépa

geAiovs, and explains by “oculis prope admotis intueri, also scharf ansehen,”
cp. Phaedo 103 a, Rep. 531 a. Ast gives “oculos in aliquid immotos habere
intentos”: Reynders, ro BAéupa dvw cal caro xweiv: Jowett, “rolling his
eyes.”
npésa tapackoray. This verb is dz. eip. in Plato, and perhaps conveys a
literary allusion: Riickert explains it to mean “oculis quasi comitari, ob-
servare, wt emnes motus lento oculorum motu notare videaris.”
Bijdog.. Sppabev. ‘Similiter Apollodorus, qui Socratis incessum imitatus
est, ray ouv...mdppwbev exddeoev xrX,” (Hommel).
6 ératpos. So Jahn, after Aristides t. 11. p. 72: the more definite term is
preferable, as Rettig argues against Teuffel. For confusion of the two words
in the codd., cp. 183 c (erzt. n.), and see Schanz, nov. comm. p. 59.
221 C «mpotporadny. “In headlong rout”—an Epic (JJ. xvi. 304) word,
dr. eip. in Plato, For the sense, ep. Tyrt. 11. 11—13 of pév yap roApaot...
maupétepo. Ovnakover krA.; Seneca, Lp. 94 audentes fortuna iuvat (see Bergk,
ad Simon. fr. 227): Il. v. 531 f. aidopevav & avdpdv mréoves oda née méhav-
rau’ | pevysvrav 8 ovr’ dp Kdéos dpyurae ovre tis aAxn: 2b. XV. 561 ff
TIoAAd...Kal GAXa xrA. Op, 195 B, 201 pv. Hirschig’s @avpaca gives us
(as Rettig argues) “einen matten Gedanken.”
Oavparos. ‘Of wonder” (the subjective feeling), ep. Phzl. 36 D, Laws
967 A: elsewhere in Plato @atya means “quod mirum est.”
olos yap xr. For Achilles, see Od. rv. 267 ff.; and cp. 179 & f.
Bpac(Sav. For this famous Spartan leader, who fell fighting at Amphi-
nolis in 422 B.¢., see Thue. 11. 25, 85 ff, v.6; Bury, Hist. Gr. pp. 445 ff.
221 E] TYMMMOZION 165
addous, ai olos ab epixrijs, eal Néoropa xat- Avrivopa, ei) 5é
¥ \ > a

Kat €Tepo.’ Kal Tovs adXoUs KaTa TavT’ ay Tis atrexator: olosD
Wd \ \ wv

dé ob oat yéyove THY atoriay &vOpwros, Kai adds Kal of Adyou

\ e \ , \ ‘3 /

avtov, ovd éyyds av evpor tus Entav, ote TOV viv obte TaV
> fo) ~™ > \ a lal a lal

madar@v, eb pn apa ei ols eywm Aéyw atretkator Tis avTOV, av-

x fal > \ Ww ’ i > \ / > 1A a / td

, \ / cal a
Opwrev pev pndevi, Tois 5€ ctrAqvois Kal catUposs, avToY Kal ToOvs
oyous.
/

XXXVII. Kai \ yap

XX
ody
ha
Kal todt0
a
ev Troisa mpwrois mapércTrov,
OTL Kal Of NOYOL AVTOD OpoLdTaTol Eilat TOis aiANVOIs Tots SLoOLyO-
isa . e “ fol € lal a n

mévois. ef yap €0éXou Tis TOV LwKpaTous axovewy Aoyuwr, haveiev EB

/ > SD ’ / “ / ’ , / a

dy mayyéXotol TO TP@ToV* ToladTa Kal dvouata Kal pnyata éEwbev

x f \ a a

Teprauméxovtat, catupou [dv] twa UBpicrod Sopdv. dvovs yap

/ 4 A

221 C0 cict...érepor secl. Jn. J.-U. eiot: oto. Bdhm. D rods del.
Bdhm.: rovs (uév) Hirschig trait’: trait’ B: rovr’ W av@paros Sauppe
Sz. Bt.: dvé@pamros BT. ovre Tov viv...madaayv del. (Hommel) Hirschig Jn.
dpa ei B: dpa TW O.-P. éyo TW O.-P.: Aeyou B avrov Te kai vulg.
E ¢dé&kxn B: €6€\eeT = rev... Adyor TW O.-P.: rov...royov B mayyeAotot
scripsi: mdvu yeAoio. TW O.-P., vulg. Bt.: yedXotor B, J.-U. Sz. rea B O.-P.,
J.-U. Sz.: dv rwa TW: 87 twa Baiter Cobet Bt.: ad rwa Riickert

Tlepuxdys. See 215 Ex., Gorg. 515 c ff, 519 a.

Nécropa xal’Avryvopa. Comparable to Pericles on the ground of eloquence
(cp. 215 B, Pericles as dyaOés pnrwp). For Nestor, see Hom. J. 1. 247 ff. ; for
Antenor, J7. vit. 347 ff.; Hor. Zp. 1. 2. 9.
221D rivarorlav. “Originalitat” (Wolf): see 215 a n.
dvOpwrev pev xrA. See 215 a, B, 216 E.
221 E mayyéow. Cp. 189 B, 215 a; the context shows that -yéAouos here
is nearly equiv. to xarayédaoros. Of Socr., as of S. Paul, it was said that “his
speech was contemptible.”
évopara kal pypara. See 198-B n.
Howley reprapréyovrar. Cp. 216 B e£wbev mepiBéBrAnra.
carvpov [av] twa. Stallb. vainly argues in a long note “dy tenendum et
per ellipsin verbi (7.e. oJvav) explicandum esse.”
wBpirrod. Cp. 215 B, 175 £. In dopay, the satyr’s “hide,” there is an
allusion, no doubt, to the flaying of Marsyas by Apollo.
bvous ydp «tA. “His talk is of pack-asses and smiths and cobblers and
curriers” (Jowett). Schol. xavOnXiovs: rovs Bpadeis vonoa f advets. amd Kav-
Oavos, bs €or Bvos, eipnuévor, rr. : cp. Ar. Vesp. 170ff., 177 ff. For évo in Plato,
cp. Gorg. 516 a, Rep. 563. c; for yadxeis, Prot. 319 D, Crat. 388 D, 389 E, Cp.
Gorg. 490 c ff., where Callicles objects dreyvas ye det oxuréas Te Kai xvapéas
Kal payeipous Aéywv kal larpovs ovdéy maver xrr.: Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 37 6 de
Kpurias, ’A\Aa ravde Tol ce dnéxer Oat, égn, Senet, © Soxpares, TAY oKUTéwy Kal
Tay TexTovev Kal Tav xadkeov: 1b. IV. 4.5—6: Max. Tyr. diss. 1x. 1.
 166 TAATQNOZ [221 ©
KavOnrious déyer Kal yadKéas Tivas Kal oKuToTOpous Kat Bup- /

cobéwas, kal del Sia THY aiTav Ta ad’Ta haivetar NéyeLV, HoTE
amreipos Kai avontos avOpwros Tas av TOV NOywV KaTayEeXraceELED.
lal lal ‘

222 Siovyouevous b€ idwv ad Tis Kal évTds avTaV yuyvomEvos TP@TOV wév
/ NAN RA Nes \ > a , aA \

voov éxovtas évdoyv povous evpncer TOV AOYyor, ErretTa DevoTaTouS

fal fa) U

Kal WhEiaT ayadpat apeThs év avTois éyovtas Kal er mTAcioToV

TeivovTas, wadXov S€ él may dcov mpornKer oKoTrEly TO “EAAOVTL
Karo xayabe écecOar.
Tair éotiv, & dvdpes, & éym Lwxpatn érmrawa: Kat av & péu-
gopar cuppitas viv eltrov & pe UBpicev. Kal pévToe ovK eye
B povov tavta reroinxev, adda Kal Xappidnv tov Travewvos. cal
Evé@vdnuov tov Aroxr€ovs nal addXovs Tavu ToAXovs, ods oOUTOS
eEaTatav
> a
ws¢ epactns
> \
tmadicad \ paddXov
a
avTos
pty
KaGiotatat
,
avT
’ >

221 E xavOndwvovs O.-P. 222 A Sovyoupevovs B av Bekk. Hug Bt.:

av libri, O.-P.: 8 Sz. éyyus airav ye Hommel evpnoee Usener TOV
Adyov TW O.-P.: rov Aoyov B: del. Wagner Voeg. teivovtas 'CW: rwovtas
O.-P.: reivavras B ert TW O.-P.: ere B B_ ravv om. O.-P.

222 A l8dv at tis. “dv cum participio cohaeret hoc sensu, édv tis idp...
3st quis forte viderit” (Riickert) ; Stallb., too, defends dv, citing Rep. 589 5,
Phaedo 61c, Euthyd. 287 D; the objection of Riickert and Rettig, that av
ought to stand after Svovryouévous rather than after idev, is not fatal.
povous...rav Aoywv. For the contrast implied, cp. Homer's oios rémvurat,
tai b€ oxiai diacovow (Meno 1004). A similar ascription of life to Adyor is to
be found in Phaedr. 276 a.
Oevoratous xrA. Cp. 216 p—r. The whole of this account of Socrates’
Aoyot is virtually an encomium of his codia.
relvovtas...émi mav. Cp. 188 B éml mav 6 Oeds reiver: Rep. 581 B. For
echoes of phrases in the previous speeches here, and throughout Alcib.’s
speech, see Introd. § vi (3).
& péndopar xrrd. “Verba ita connectenda sunt: xal cuupitas ad d pép-
opar eirov tpiv & pe VBpice” (Stallb.). Stephens erroneously put a comma,
Wolf a full stop, after peppopa. Riickert, agreeing with Stallb., put a comma
after cuppi€as, and Hommel added another after av. Jowett’s transl.,—“I
have added my blame of him for his ill-treatment of me”—seems to imply
a different view of the construction. The points alluded to are those men-
tioned in 217 B ff., 219 o,
222 B XapplSnv. For Charmides, Plato’s avunculus, see Charm. 154, 157;
Xen. Mem, 111. 7, Symp. 111. 9 ete.
EvesSypov. This Euthydemus, son of Diocles (see Xen. Mem. Iv. 2. 40), is
not to be confounded with his namesake the sophist, who appears in the
dialogue Huthyd.
magixd...dvr éparrod. “The object rather than the subject of love.”
This may fairly be construed, with Rettig, as an indication that Socr., the
222 c] ZYMTTOZION 167

épactov. a& dy Kal col rAéyw, @ "Ayabov, wy éEaTratacbas bd

TOUTOV, GAN amo ToV rnueTépwy TaOnwatwy yvovtTa evrAaBn-
Ojva, Kal pry) Kata tiv Tapoiuiay womep vyTiov mabdvTa
yvavat.
XXXVIII. Edsrovros 8) tadta rod ’AXKiBiadou yéAwTa
yevéoOas eri TH Tappnoia avTod, btu eddxes ETL EpwTiKas Eyewv TOD
Lwxpatous. Tov ody Lwxparn, Nndeww poe Soxeis, pavat, 6 ’AXK-
Biabn. ov yap av oP ottw Kop Was KUKAwW TepLBadrropeEvos
abavica évexeipers ov Evexa TadTa mavta eipnKas, Kal ws év
Tapépym n Néywv él TereuTHS avTO EOnKas, @ OU TavTA TOUTOU

222B ¢famraracbe Badd’ v700.-P.1 -yavraB C sapnora O.-P.

edoxe t[c] O.-P.t op was pr. B od évera TW: ovd° eveca B: ovvexa O.-P.
(vy e 6 corr.): od 69 évexa Usener

embodiment of the ideal xcaAXos, is exalted above Eros (cp. 201 A): contrast
180 B evorepov epacris madixey. For the reversal of the rédles of Alc. and
Soer., ep. J. Alc. 135 D xwduvevcopuev peraBaretv To cynpa, db Pwxpares, TO pev
gov éyo, ov S€ rovpov. ov yap éoTwv dras ov maidaywynow oe kTrA. Cp. also
Xen. Symp. viii. 5; and see Introd. § vi. 3.
& 8n...é€arardo@ar. Hommel and Rettig, after Stallb., take the infin. clause
to be epexegetic of d: Riickert construes é€am. as a second accus. depending
on Aéyo: Hug makes the infin. depend on 4 Aéya (equiv. to “I give you this
warning”) as on a “verbum voluntatis.” It may be simply an oblique
imperative.
kara mv wapouslav. Op. Hom. I/. xvii. 33 pexdev d€ re vnmios %yva: rb.
xx. 198: Hes. Op. 218 maOav dé re vnmios- éyrw: Hdt. 1. 207 maOnpatra pabn-
para: Aesch. Ag. 177, Cho. 313: Soph. O. C. 143: and our English proverb
“a burnt child dreads the fire.” Schol. peyOev...2yvw* emt rév pera rd wadeiv
cuviévt@v TO daptnpa. €mt TO alto érépa mapouniay 6 adievs mAnyels vodv
dice: Kh.
222 C appyota. “ Naivetiit” (Wolf); see A.’s excuses for it in 217 5.
Nydev pot Soxets. Echoing the phrase previously used by Alcib. (doxeire
yap por vnpewv 213 £), Socr. jocosely derides his repeated plea of intoxication
212 b, 2146, etc.), saying in effect: “It’s sober you are, not drunk; otherwise
you could never have excogitated so deep a scheme.”
kopas. Of a “pretty” trick; cp. Theaet. 202 p, Soph. 236 D.
KoKA@ teptiBaddéopevos. See Ast ad Phaedr. 272 D “imago desumta est
ab amictu, quem rhetores, priusquam perorarent, componere solebant:
V. Quintil. xz, 3. 116”: Cic. de or. ur. 39. 1388 se circumvestit dictis. For
xuxd@ cp. Ar. het. 1. 9. 33 (with Cope’s note), 1. 14. 10, and Virgil’s “per
ambages” (G', 11. 45).
émi reXevtys. J.e. as if it were an after-thought only: cp. 198 B, Phaedr.
267 D.
 168 TAATQNOS [222 c
D évexa eipnkas, Tod ewe Kal “AyaOwva diaBarrew, oldpevos detv ewe
Lev cov €pav Kat pndevds adXov, Ayabwva 5€ Ud cod épacbat
\ toy sp De Ken v \ v oy U \ e \ inte eer)

Kal und vd’ évds GddXov. GA ovK éXabeEs, GAXA TO catTUpLKOY

cov dpdua TovTo Kal oidnvikoy KaTadnAov éyéveTo. AA, w pire
’ , A /
Ayabwv, undév mréov avt@@ YEVITAL,
yévntat, adXa tTrapacKkevalou b1rws
2 EN lal , tal f.
ewe kal oé pnbdeis diaBanrel. tov ov Ayabwva eitetv, Kal puny,
E@ Xwxpates, Kwduvevers adrnOyn rA€yew. Texpaipowar S€ Kal ws
- a e¢

KaTeKArivn évy péow éuod te Kal cod, va ywpis juds SaraB7n.

ovdev ovv réov aUT@ EaTal, GAN ey@ Tapa cé EAO@Y KaTAKLVN-
> \ % fA b] a 2 a 3: x \ \ ] \ Ig

gona. Lavy ye, davar tov Lwxpatn, Sedpo bTroKatw €“ov KaTa-
222 D SaBadei Hirschig Cobet Sz. Bt.: diaBare O.-P.: SiaBdry BTW

222 D &2...8aBadrgev. “To set us at variance”: cp. 222 D, Rep. 498 c.

oldpevos Setv xrA. J.e. thinking that you must at once monopolise Socr. as
your épaorns and Agathon as your maidica. For Seiv, cp. 222 E.
GAN ov« Babes «rd. For the conversational carelessness of the repeated
aha, cp. 175 B (four times).
7d catuptkov cov Spaya «rd. A playful allusion to the eixoves employed
by Alcib. in his encomium (see 215 8B). For “satyric drama” see Smith,
D. A. 11. 860b: “The satyr-drama was so-called because the Chorus consisted
of satyrs attendant on Dionysus...it was aptly described as rai{ovea rpa-
yodia”: Jevons, Hist. Gk. Lit. p. 186,
pdtv wAéov xrA. An echo of the language of Alcib. in 217 c.
222 E yxwpls SaddBy. ‘‘Dictum hoc eleganter cum ampbibolia quadam,
ut et de spatio possit cogitari et de animorum disiunctione” (Stallb.): ep.
Phil. 55 D.
Uroxdrw euov. The original order of the places on this (¢syarn) kA was
(1) Agathon, Socrates (see 175 c—p): then Alcibiades on his entrance had
seated himself in the middle (213 B ad init.), thus making the order
(2) Agathon, Alcib., Socr.: now Socrates invites Agathon to shift his position
so as to change the order to (8) Alcib., Socr., Agathon: presently, in the
sentence following, Alcibiades suggests that, instead of this, Agathon should
take the middle place (év péow judy), which would result in the order
(4) Alcib., Agathon, Socrates. But the adoption of this last order is, as
Socr. hastens to point out, impossible, inasmuch as it would cause serious
dislocation in the series of Xéyou. which are bound to proceed in order from left
to right (see 214 c), each speaker taking for his theme his next neighbour on
the right. If the order (4) were adopted, it would be the duty of the next
speaker, Agathon, to eulogize Socrates, a task already performed by Alcib.
himself; whereas by adopting the order (3), the next speech would fall to
Soer., and he would have for his theme Agathon, an arrangement unobjection-
able in itself and well-pleasing to Socr. (mavu é€miOup@ airov eyxwptdoa, 223 A)
as well as to Agathon (lov fod xrd., 223 A).
223 A] ZYMTTOZION 169

Krivov. / C2
*Q Zed, elreiv tov AdKiBiadny, ola ad twacyw ve Toda
> a

avOpwrov. oletai jou Seiv Twavtayh mepicivar. GAN el pon TH

’ / i iP. a lol tal

aXXo, © Bavpacie, év péow Hudv ta Ayabova cataneiabar, “ANN

wv Se ‘ eo] lal lal

advvatoyv, pavat Tov Lwxpatn. od pev yap eve éwnvecas, det &
, , u \ a

€ue avd Tov él deEl’ éraweiv. édv odv U6 col Kataxdw7H ’Aya-
t Tae 2 \ » sy ay op an a

@v—ov On Tov eMe WAAL ETTalvEecETAl, TPLY VI E“ovV Mardov

6 > én 3 ‘ U ’ ¥ \ € ’ > a lal

émraiveOnvat; arr éacov, @® Sapovie, Kal pn POovnons To 223

? a > ’ a

Helpakio vm éuod érraweOjvar: cal yap mavu emiOuu@ avTov

% fol a , lal ’

’ , ’ nf fal i ‘ >
éyxwptacat. “lod lod, pavar tov "Ayaddiva, AdKiBiadn, ov &o8
WA a 2 / ¢ ’ \ \ ny° U
omrws dv évOade pelvayu, aAXa TayTos MadAOY peTAVacTHoOLMAL,
iva bro LwKpatous érawveOd. Taira éxeiva, pavar tov ’AXkt-
ics € \ ‘ % a fal be a / \ >

Biadny, ta eiwOdTa* Lwxpatovs Tapovtos Tov KaX@Y peTadaBetv

advvatov arAw. Kal viv ws evropas Kal miPavoyv oyou ndper,
’ , fal

@oTe Tap éavT@ TouvTovi KataxeiaOat.

ZA ’ a - a

222 E repueivar: mepiievac O.-P. yap ue BO.-P.: yap we TW ad rv

Bekk.: av rov B O.-P.: atréy T: ad révd? Ast carakAOn O.-P. ov dn
mou: ovtw dymov Bdhm.: fort. ov dei ov érawvécera: fort. émawéoa
vel éraveioba mpi: Sev Usener Hug: sapév (vel mapets...dXov)
Bdhm. 223 A padrov B O.-P.: ,,, wadAov T: om. Vind. 21: dAdov Mdvg.
C
éraveOnva; distinxit Ast tov ioi T =ravros: mavroo[g] O.-P. evTrop@
O.-P.

ola at wacxe. “How I am fooled” (Jowett). This echoes 215 D ofa $n.
mémovOa xtA.: cp. 184 B xaxas macxav (sc. 6 épapevos).
tard col. 6 bd rive (Or UTroKaT@ Tivos) Is equiv. to 6 emt Sefia (cp. 175 n.).
ov §4 mov xrA. 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 dejoe: airov eve madw éexaveiv. Against Badh.,—who wrote “mon-
stri vero simile est, mpiv im’ euod padrAov érawveOjva,’—Rettig attempts
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
kénnen, dass er mich lobe, bevor ich vielmehr ihn gelobt habe”; te. ov dyrov
€rawvéoerat is equiv. to ov Snmov émaveiv eOednoe. This, however, is awkward ;
and some corruption must, I believe, be assumed: if so, the changes I have
proposed seem the most plausible.
223 A ’Iod tod. For a distinction between iovd, as a cry of joy, and iov, of
pain, see Schol.on Ar. Vub. 1170. Here it denotes jubilation, not commisera-
tion as Hommel suggests (““Wehe, wehe, armer Alkibiades” etc.).
Tatra éxetva. Cp. 210 5, Charm. 166 B (Schanz nov. comm. p. 16).
eirépws. This echoes phrases in the description of Eros, son of Idpos, see
203 D (mdpipos), 203 E (evrropyon), 204 B (marpds...evmopov). Similarly mOavov
suggests the plausible tongue of the yons and coguorns of 203 D.
mBavov Adyov nupev. For this “inventiveness of plausible argument” as
belonging to the art of the sophistical rhetor, cp. Gorg. 457 a ff., Phaedr. 269 p.
 170 MAATQNOS (223 B
B XXXIX. Tov pév otyv ’Ayd0wva os Kataketcopevoy Tapa TO
LwxpateU
dvictacOar:
Seay,
éEaidpuns
bl ,
5€\ Kwpactas\ HKELv
a
TapToANoVS
;

éml Tas Ovpas, Kal émitvyovTas avewypévars eEvovTos Tivds els TO

' Id

” ,
avrTikpus TropevecOat Tapa \ oddsa
Kal \ KatakdivecOat,
/
kai orOopvBov
,

peota tavtTa elvat, Kal ovKéTe ev Koop@ ovdevi avayxaler Bar

° U

ive TautoXvy olvoyv. Tov wev ovv Epugipayov kal tov Daidpov
, , 5 \ \ Ge ty \ ¥ 10

x ’ > a \
kal GdXous tivas pn o ’"Apiotodnpos olyecOat amdvtas, é b€
Q trvov NaBeiv, cal KatabapOeiv Tuvu ToXU, ATE WAKPOV TOV VUKTOY
WA ’ a \ a / Uy ed lal a A

‘Suen ’ , 8 \ Cues ” > ’ OF

wuoav, e&eypécOar S& mpds nucpav On arexTpvovwv addvTwr,
e£eypopuevos dé idetv Tovs wév adrous KaVevSovTas Kal olyouévous,
’ i \ ’ lal \ \ vw / ‘ > /

Ayadwva Sé at Apurtopavn cai Swxparn ett wovous eypyyopévat

° U \ Yt / \ / ” / 3 x

\ , ? , ’ 5 r \ 5 ’ ’ a
Kal Trivew ex plarns peyadns éml SeEva. Tov ovv Lwxpatn avtTois
223 B avaiwypevars O.-P. eis TO: ecow O.-P. (rous) addous O.-P.
é 6€ BW: éade T: cavrov de O.-P. C xaradapOev Rettig mavu: are
OFR2 Sewxpatn xat Aptctopayvn O.-P. Ven. 184 Vind. 21 peyadns
fA ]arns O.-P. Paris 1642 Vat. 229

223 B étalbvns St «rd. Cp. the “sudden” tumultuous entrance of

Alcibiades (212 © cai éaig@vns xrd.). The incursion here is devised in order
to save the situation. For the sake of artistic effect, the series of Acyor must
now stop: the climax having been reached in the encomium of Socr. by
Alcib., to add a eulogy of any lesser personage would be bathos.
eidvros twos xrA. Hommel comments: “imaginem proponit comissatorum
contra nitente eo, qui iam exiturus erat, aditum vi expugnantium.” But, as
Rettig remarks, there is no hint in the text of vis or of nisus. The words
e€udvtos Tivos are merely put in to explain how it was that they found the
doors open. eis rd dvtuxpus is connected by Hommel and Stallb.? with e&cdvros,
but by Riickert, Ast and Stallb.1 with mopevecOa:: the former view is
preferable.
’"Epvé(paxov. 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 OdpuBos and mdprodvs oivos: cp. 176 B ff., 214 4 ff.
223 C paxpdv trav vuktav. This indication of date would suit either the
Lenaea in January or the Great Dionysia in March, though rather favouring
the former (cp. Jntrod. § viIt a).
adextpvovev gSévtav. Cp. Theaet. 164 C ddexrpudvos ayevvois dixny...adev.
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 745n,
which goes with addvrar.
kal olxopévovs. We should expect 7 rather than xai: but (as Riickert
observes) ai pey dAdoe fall into two subdivisions,—those absent in spirit
(xadevd.), and those absent in body (olyop.).
éypnyopévar xrA. Cp, Athen. v. 192 A Swxparns...eypnyope...cai mive e&
dpyupov dpéaros: Kad@s yap Tis Ta éyada TorTHpia OUT@S @vduace KTA.
223 D] ZYMTIOZION 171
SiadeyerOat* Kal Ta wev ddr|a 0 “Apiorodnuos ovK epn peuvjac bas
THY hoywv—odTe yap éE apyts mapayevécOat Vrrovuatalew TE? TO
pévtor Keparaiov, pn, mpocavayKalery Tov Ywxpatn dponroyetv
avtovds Tod avTov avdpos elvar Kwopwdiav Kal Tpayodiav ériatacbat
moveiv, Kal Tov Téyvn Tpaywdorouy dvTa <Kal> KwpmdoTrocov
elvat. tadta 81 avayxafouévovs avtovs Kal ov ofodpa éropévous
vuotatev, kal mp@tov pev KatadapOelv tov “Apiotopavn, 7dn Sé
Huépas yiyvouévns tov Ayabwva. Tov ody Lwxpatn, KaTaKoumi-
cavt’ éxeivous, dvactavta amvévat, Kal <é> waoTrep eiwber Erec Oat,
kai €XOovra eis AvKevov, atrovirapevov, WaTrEp aANOTE THY GAXNV

223 D xai xopwdorody Vind. 21, vulg. Sz. Bt.: copedoroov BTW O.-P.
nv
mparov B: mporepov TW O.-P. Aptoropav[ous] O.-P. yevopevns vulg.
Hirschig cataxoiicavr’ BW O.-P.: caraxotunoavr’ T cat €éHerm. Sz.
Bt.: «ai libri, O.-P.: cai ¢ Bekker aAAnv: oAny Ficinus

va pty GAAa «rAd. This is artistic selection disguised under the cloke of
imperfect recollection, cp. 178 a, 180 c.
223 D 76 pévrow Kehtidarov. “The gist of it was...”: ep. 205 D ad init.
Tov avtod dv8pds xrA. Cp. Jon 534 B réxvn mowivres. Here both réyvy
and ériocragéa are emphatic, with no distinction between them implied.
The point of Socrates’ argument is that the scventific poet must be master of
the art of poetry in its universal, generic aspect, and therefore of both its
included species, tragedy and comedy. This thought, if developed, might be
shown to mean that full knowledge both of Adyo. and of Wuyai, and of the
effects of the one on the other; is requisite to form a master-poet. Which is
equivalent to saying that, just as the ideal State requires the philosopher-
king, so ideal Art is impossible without the qGirAscodos-mountns. The thesis
here maintained by Socrates finds in the supreme instance of Shakspere
both illustration and confirmation: “The Merry Wives” came from the
same hand as “Othello” and “ Lear.”
The statement in Schol. ad Ar. Ran. 214 and Philostr. (vit. soph. 1. 9,
p. 439) that Agathon wrote comedies as well as tragedies is probably due to a
blunder: see Bentley, opuse. phil. p. 613.
od ooSpa éropévovs. “Erant enim vino languidi. Ad ézopévous in-
telligi potest rois Aeyouevos Huthyphr. p. 12 A odx Emopat trois Aeyouévas”
(Stallb.).
Katakousloayra. An allusion, perhaps, to Agathon’s xoirny dmvov r’ evi
xndet, 197 c. Cp. Laws 790 D xaraxomifew ra dvcvmvoivta Tov madior.
<t>. Je. Aristodemus, the narrator: for his practice (eioe) of dogging
the footsteps of the Master, cp. 173 B, 174 B (ézrov).
Aivxeov. This was a gymnasium, sacred to Apollo Lyceus, situated in the
eastern suburbs of Athens, though the exact site—whether 8.5. or N. of the
172 TAATQNOZ ZYMITTOZION [223 D
nuépav S:atpiBew, Kal ottw Siatpiipavta eis éotrépay olkot ava-
e / / s A / > e tA v es

mavec Oat,
223 D xa x[a]i ovrw O.-P.

Cynosarges—is uncertain. The Lyceum is mentioned also in the beginning

of the Lysis and of the Euthyphro; cp. Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 10, Paus. 1. 19. 4.
“Tbi 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.

*Ayadov, ro 109 dppovia 50, 1t1

adya\pa 150 dpvaxis 160
a@yacOa 27, 158 appevoria 64
ayavés 82 adpxev ths mocews 139
ayarav 126 acoéBea 53
ayévetos 29 aokeiv 133
ayptaivew 6 doxorifew 59
ddav, “to crow” 170 dotpovopia 53
aet moppw c. gen. 152 dotpatos 102
aevyevns 113 arotia 143, 165
a@avatorepos 122 arpwros 159
airia ¢. infin. 114 avAevos Ovpa 134
dxapia 34 appodiovos dpxos 38
akAnros 7 duns 154
addyewds, “sensitive” 153
dAes, encomia on xxi BadAavriov 60
aAnOeva )( doéa liii, 156 Bavavoos 100
G@AXo GdAobev 143 Bacavifew 41
dpedérnros 1 BeBarricpévos 16
aporBn 98 BéBndos 154
Gpoipos 33, 97 Bédos 157
av, of repeated action 151 Biwrds 131, 146
dvakoyxvArdoa 45 Bradra 7
avam ews 131 BovAopat, sense of 92
avdpoyuvos xxxii, 56 BpevOvec Oa 163
avdpovcba 64
dveuéontos 72 TeAoios xxxill, 55, 137
dvOos 40, 76, 126 yedodrepa, emt ta 142, 143
avitkecOa 112 yeveracxe 33
dvopows 46, 52 yéveows 22, 23, 115
dvtixpus, eis ro 170 yevvatos 121
avuTodntos 4, 102 yewpyia 49
af.opvnpdovevroy 21 yons 103
agiwpa 163 yonteia 99
dmakos 74 yupvactixn 48
amdovv, verum 39
amoBadX\ev Orda 26 Aatpovios 1x, 100, 157
amoAnpOnva 159 Saiuwv xxxvii, 98, 100
dmovifew 11 deiv, redundant 45
apetn, “renown” 119 Ondov Kal madi 104
» divisions of 77 Oypsoupyia 79
 174 INDEX

dvaBadAeww 168 emueckas 93

Staytyvaokew 47 émiraBéoGa 142
StadixaterOa 14 (cp. xx) emidnopwv 70
StadaBew 168 emipmedes trovetaba 3
Star opOpeve 98 é€muvikia 3
Svar patacba 32 érimvous 33
SiapOpowv 61 émimoGew 105
OvatidecOar 114 ertatnpn (Platonic) 127
Siapéper
da 49, 50 ” (popular) xlii, 116
SiaPbeipew (mapoiav) 8 emiaxéoOa 147
divaxeioar_ 112 émiratrew 141
dunyeta bat emitnoevpa 126
Stxacoovuvn 77 €momtika, Ta, xlili, 124
OtorxiferOar 66 épavos 20
d0€a )( adnOeva lili, 87 epyacia 107
» )(emeornpn 96 epice 6
Spamerevery 147 Eppnvevery 98
Svvapes 55, 133 Eppoydugeiov 144
epuaiBn 52
“Eavrov, “characteristically” 155 épas=eriOvpia XXxvil, 91
éyxtpov 120 épetikda, Ta 20, 133
eyxyetv 140 écxatos 13
et d€ Bovder 19, 162 (cp. 134) éraiplotpia XXX1, 63
el Tt, numguid 88 evavOns 76
eidos 56, 125 evaplOunros 27
eld@dov 132 evkAens 119
elev 118, 139 evropety 122
eikoves 143 evropws 169
eixds, TO 91 evpetixos 121
Eike(Oua 111 evpuns 121
eiAtkpwns 131 evadns 76
cizeiv, senses of 73 éepantrecOar 132
eipwrvevecOa 150 epeéns 128
elanyetoba 17, 56 éxev, intrans. 146
€x tocov 62 » ‘be able” 159
éx tpirav 137
exeivos, “‘supersensual” 130 Zndoturetv 138
exmemAnypevos 145
ehAoxyew 137 "H, alioguin 138
euBpayv 150 7 =padrAov 7 163
év, to 49 nyetoOa c. dat. et gen. 24
ev epnpia 151
év mavti eva 69
bos )( yruxt 75
nAtkia, ev (rj) 110
ev rots ¢. superl. 22 yy c. accus. et infin. 41
évdera 93
éveos, xlv n., 26, 29 Garry 103
evros moAdAov 73 Gavpa, subjective sense of 164
eEaipyns 128 Oavpacia (-aora) enydteOa 138, 160,
émavaBabpos 130
éemamobavew 119
(37)
Gea, Oeos 31
émeira, tamen 139 Oéarpov 70, TL
emi Sera 20 Oetos xliv n., 121, 166
émt. pnrois 136 Geopidns xlili, 133
emtBarns 83 Onpevtns 102
emdeixvucba 70
emidoow exe 14 ‘Tarpixn 46, 47
 GREEK 175
idiorns )( mourns 22 pa rov Hooda 142
iva ri; 106 payyaveia 99
toa éyerv 44 paxapiferOa 149, (-cards) 104
iotovpyia 80 paxdapwy vngco 28
tows 69, 71 pad@axos 9
trns 102 padtora, circiter 13
pavixos XVi n, 6
Kadopay 128 pavres 99
kai, position of 19 Mavrivikn, yor?) XXXVili
70 peyadomperns 127
kal €av 126 péOn XX1, xxviii, 16
kal pada 69 petCov, magis 147
kadarovus 61 pederav 116
cadew, *‘to invite” 134, 136 pédd@, constr. of 85
Kaddov7n 111 pépos dperns 42
kadN@micerOa 7 pecouy c. partic. 13
xaAdov, To 94 peraBadAey, “to transpose” 8
Kkapmrovaba 37 peré xen 129
Kaptepia 159 ET puos 84
kata ¢. accus. 131 BN c. subj. 67
katayeAay 33 py ov 71, 125
karayéAaoros XXXiil, 56 Mnris xii, 100
xataynpav 147 Motpa 111
Kataypagn 67 povoetdys 129
katadapGev 158 poprov 107
Karaxoipicey 171 provartxn 80
kataXitecOa 123 pvetoOa 124
Katadoyabny 19
xatéxeoOar 144 Néxrap 101
kévwois 47 ynpev 167
xehadaoy, ro 107, 171 vonpa 84
Kjos, 6 tov Avs xi, 101 v pot concerning Eros viii
xiGapwddos 28 vopos, sense of 34
kuvety 87, 154 vooetv meph c. accus. 114
kdéos 118 vooabdes, TO 46
Kounoes él Gupas 38 vuktes 152
kopuBavriay 145
Kpatraday 17 Ruyyupvdtecda 151
kpovery 134 EvpBodrov 63
kuBepvay c. gen. 80 Evvaporepos 121
xuBepyntns 83 Evvoida 29
kuBiorav 57
Kudabnvacevs 4 “O gor, of Ideas 131
xvetvy 110 (cp. xxxviil) da 59
Kuxd@ 167 ot c. gen. 34
kupt@tepos 155 oia 6, with ellipse, 160
Kopaotns 134 oixeiov, Td xliv n., 68
kopmdeiv 67 oikérns 126, 154
otos c. superl. 160
An6n, defin. of 117 9» =Ort Towovros 122
Arrorakiou ypapn 26 opodoyew 50
Alama 67 épovora 50
Adyos 129 dvedcs 37
hvy& xxii, xxvili, 44 dvopa 85, 88, 165
» €xeev, constr. of 108
Ma Geous, pa Oeas 158 dvos KavOndwos 165
176 INDEX

*6pOod0Ealew 96 “Padios Aéyo 97

oppodeiv 138 pgora=idiora 15
ou povoy 67 26 pnua 85, 88
ovdev etvar 149 poobeis 127
0 (udev) mwAéov fv 151, 168
mpos c. accus. 160 Zarvpixov Spaya 168
ovras 17, 30, 54, 62, 89 aarupos 165
ovx Oomep 28, 56 aAnvoi 143
ous THs Dleveles 156 codia, of Socrates xx, xxi
cogicpa 140
Tlatdeia 51 cogiatns 103, 118
matdiov moveioba 101 copes 10, 44
trat@ves 18 omapyay 112
mappeyas 154 orovoai 15
mavdnpos 31 otparomedoy é€paotay 25
tmavtrodaros 85 ovyyéevera 24
mavrows 123 ovAAntrwp 155
mavtws c. umper. 12, m. dé 4 cvppetpos 76
mapaBadrew 141, 7. ropOarpo 163 oupdveav 66
maparaicy 6 ovppevia 50
mapackorreiy 164 guvaywyevs 62
mapaoratns 83 ovvdemvoyv 2
mapateiverOa 114 auvepyos 133
mapaxpnua, ex tov 44 ounpepevew 151
mapeixkew 51 ovvovaoia dia Aoyov 18
Tapov Kai amrov 122 avuvracts 109
macxew, of Ideas 130 cuytnxew 40, 66
matnp Tov Adyou Xxiv, 20 avomagros 60
méAayos Tov Kadovd |, 127 ovotrepacba 112
Tlevia xli, 100 ovoorey 159
meptapméexerOar 165 ovotacis 50, 52
mepiBardreo
Oa 149, 167 oxjpa, “rdle” 148
mepirrorepov, aliter 158 ceTnp 83, 123
mepitvyxavery 163 cadpoown 78
mepupepns 58
muBavos Aoyos 169 Tawvia 135
mikpov )( yAuku 48 ravta exewa 169
mtdos 160 », Tavra 161
mAnopovn XXill, 47 Teivey emi c. accus. 46, 166
moinots 79, 106 téXeos 118
moukthrew 154 Teveral 99
modAayov ¢. gen. 35 tedevtayv 131
movos |xi, 159 téXos xlili, 106, 128, 130
mopios 1038 Tepaytov 64
TIopos xl, xli, 100 tetpaobar 157
mperrovtas 84 rértie 61
mpeoBevew 46 réxvy 171
mpeoBurepos 155 téws av 64
mpoaroOaveiy 119 TH pev...7n dé 128
mpoppnOnvat 30, 87 maAxovtos 19
mpacavaysdcew ¢. db. accus. 34 ri, magnum quid 158
mpoomedagew 112 tl...0u; 4
mpoapepev 54 Tinav 133
m pot pom ddny 164 riun 149
mrapely (mrappos) 45, 54 Tpnoas 60
mroinow 112 rd de (fxex), “but in reality” 39, 87
 GREEK 177

TOKOS XXXViii puria epacrod 43

tocovroy, (2) mirum quantum 157 piroytvns xxxi, 63
rourt ri wv; 137 idoriia Xxxvii, 118
tpiBov 157 ddAvapia 132
gorav 110
‘YBpitew 9, 157 opeiy tuariov 161
UBpis XV, Xx, 33 dporvnos 120, 159
UBpiorns xx, 14, 144, 165 puyn pevyew 73
vyrevov,Td 46 gvots (-cer) xii, xiv, 26, 56, 61, 158
typos 75 gevn, of instruments 134
tuva 18
umapxew 86 Xaipérw 88
Umekpeiy XXxil, 103 xapevvioy 162
ureparobynoke 26, 119 xapiCerOa 34
tmepnpavos 153 xAudn 82
Umeppvas ws 5 : xpeia 105
Umnperew 42 xpnuariatixol 5
vmod ec. dat. 169 xpnouos 59
vmoBrérev 161 xpnotos 19
tmoxarw c. gen. 168 xpucovs, metaph. 150
vroAaBeiv 135
Umodvew 137 Vyrra 63
Umoupyety 42 Wirot Adyou 145
voratos 21 Yuxrnp 140

arnpevs, play on 1 Qa, Siapeitv Opi 60

gdavos 79 adis 113
pavraterOa 129 ov evexa 124, 128
dappatrey 70 apa, flos aetatis 150
gavdros 14, 155 as, constr. with 33
POavors (-o), ov av 45, 142 », separated from ady. 91
giddy 170 » = wore (?) 137
iravdpos Xxxi, 63 ws av c. opt, 59
irepaotns 65 as ye 38
pirepacria 138 cia os €mos eimetw 65
 INDEX II. ENGLISH.

Accusative, absolute 163 Charmides 166

. adverbial 104, 115 Chiasmus xxv
% after dative 54 Compendious constr. 3
of remoter object 91 Constructions, irregular 26, 36, 37
Achilles vill, xxv, lviii, 28, 29, 104 Contradictory )( contrary 95
Acusilaus xxv, 23 Cronus 74
Adjective, neut. with fem. subst. 16
Aeschylus 29 Daemons, functions of xii, 98
Agathon xxxiv Delium, battle of 163
Ajax 159 Dialogues, classification of xili
Akumenus xxviii Dionysus 15, 20
Alcestis vill, lviil, 27 Diotima xxxix, 94
Allegory, Diotima’s x] Dramatic setting, date of the lxvi
Alliteration xxvii Elis, morals of 35
Amplitude, rhetorical 28 Ellipse lui, 30, 85
Anacolutha xxvi, li, 41, 91, 115, 5 of apodosis 45, 90
120
S of predicate 17
Antenor 165 . of protasis 14
Antisthenes xxi Empedocles xxxiii
Aorist infin., after éAmis 68 Eros, antiquity of vili, 22
Aphrodite viil, xlii, 20, 31 » defined, x, xiii
Apodosis, ellipse of 105 », dual viii, ix, lviii, 31
Apollo x, xi, 79 », Pandemos viii, ix
Apollodorus xvi » parentage of viii, xl, 22
Aristodemus xvi 5» properties of xi, xii, xl, 102
Aristogiton 36 Uranios viii, ix
Aristophanes xxix Eryximachus XXVili
quoted 163 Euripides, alluded to 18, 79, 88
Article, added with second subst. 27 Euthydemus 166
Asclepiadae 48
Asclepius ix, 48 Fallacies 78
Assimilation, of infin. 10
Astronomy, defined ix Genitive, absol. after dat. 38
Athene xi, 80 ys of cause 85
. of object 89, 95
Banquet, date of Agathon’s Ixvi of origin 100
Bathing, before meals 7 Glaucon vii, 3
Beauty xxxvii, xlvi Gorgias xxxv, 85
Bracbylogy 30, 32, 123 Gorgon xi, 86
Brasidas (64 Gymnasia 35
 ENGLISH 179
Harmodius 36 Parmenides 23, 74
Helios, prayer to 162 Paronomasia xxv, xxvii, 9, 86
Hephaestus x, xxxili, 66 Pausanias xxvi
Heraclitus ix, 49, 116 Penia xl
Herodicus 48 Pericles 165
Hesiod, quoted or alluded to 22, Phaedrus xxiv
74, 167 Phaedrus, connexion of with Symp.
Hippocrates xxix, xxxii, 48 Ixvii
Homer, quoted or alluded to vil Phalerum 1
9, 10, 26, 40, 58, 74, 78, 81, §5, Philosophy, Eros as xlvii
161 Phoenix xvii, 2
Homoeoteleuton xxxvi Plague, at Athens 94
Poets, as teachers 120
Tapetus 74 Polyerates xviii, xxi, 19
Iccos 48 Polymnia 51
Ideas, characteristics of the 128 Poros xl
Immortality xxxvii, xlili Potidaea 159, 162
Imperfect, without dv 59 Present, =fut. 88
Infinitive, =accus. of respect 160 Procreation, intellectual xxxviii
% epexegetic 30, 53 Prodicus 19
a ‘““indignantis” 19 Protasis, ellipse of 109
Ionians 161 7 double 66
Isocrates xx Proverbs, cited 8, 55, 73, 167
Isokola xxvii, xxxvi
Isology xxii, xxiii Relative, doubled 72
Religion, defined x
Laches 163 3 Eros as xlviii
Laconia, morals of 35 Responsions, or echoes xx, lxi, [xii
Lyceum, the 171 Retaliation 24, 77
Lycurgus 123 Rhetoric, Socrates’ theory of 87
Rhythm, clausal xxvii, 42, 43
Mantinea xxxix, 66 Ritual, at symposia 15
Marsyas xiv
Matrimony, laws concerning 64 Sex-characteristics, theory of xxxi
Medicine ix Sileni xiv
Melanippe 18 Similes lii
Method, rhetorical xi, xii Socrates, qualities of xiv, lx ff.
a5 erotic xili, xliii Solon 123
Metis xli Sophists, rhetorical style of xxii.
Moon, bisexed 58 XXV, XXVll, xxxv, lvii
Music ix Sophocles, cited 78
Nestor 165 Tautology 93, 97
Neuter, in appos. with masc. 90
Xenophon, the Symposium of lxvii
Orpheus viii, 28
Oxymoron 84 Zeus x, XXxili, xxxix
 7 7 =

: ee ~ Be Cue «
: ge ae Jf
= » ars ) = Gee
e ie Ae As

7.
 : .
a al 2 @® Gur 2 =
af)
= EP sale. AMD
; = ' S @ Geely & ae
22 it 4 lad

A
S68
Se
=~)
ae - hal
=! ao © _

i
7 > & ve
Dtseed : Pe > —

vs =e a
. 7 =
=

—
=
a i

— ¢

>

—
 =)
—
DATE

DEMCO 13829810
fy wa a
51 2097