Sunteți pe pagina 1din 26

Notes on Plato's "Phaedrus" Author(s): W. J. Verdenius Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 8, Fasc. 4 (1955), pp.

265-289 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: . Accessed: 04/11/2013 19:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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

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

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





W. The philology. published regarded of Plato's time. Phaedrus seems to

J. VERDENIUS be one of the

of classical stepchilds of W. H. is that Thompson, commentary be in 1868. This is an excellent work, but it cannot as definitive : textual criticism as well as our understanding The most recent idiom text

since that and thought have made some progress and Robin's edition are important (1933) (1910) but much is still to be done. So it is steps in the right direction, a has made Hackforth that Professor to be welcomed greatly comments of the dialogue translation *). accompanied by extensive Burnet's as a review of this book. are intended The following observations I have confined because a of one-sided it, impression They give almost of over a number to criticisms, everything passing myself I agree with in silence. Hackforth's Professor full understanding I have added Burnet's have and a certain Therefore work let me premise a most important text. the on principal points and of some problems which which of that I have found to a contribution

of this


a discussion opinions interest.

Robin's general


for there is an Not ????p?e??? (Lidd.-Sc), 227 b 5: '????p???. ellipse of t?? ?e???. Cf. 229 c 2 t? t?? "???a?, Isae. 5> 41 ?? ??????, and Newman Arist. Pol. 1313 b 23 t?? '????p??? ? ????d???s??, ad loe. The fut. Not p???sas?a? Robin). (Burnet, p???ses?a?. 227 bio: with (1946), a? has 1-10, been H. H. Berge, Antiphon*s Danske Raeder, Historisk-filologiske "auch Even Schwyzer (II, 351) admits: 33: 5 (1953). leicht entfernbar". Prosa nicht restlos tischen 1948), 96-98, i) Plato*s Phaedrus, Translated with Introduction R. Hackforth. Cambridge University Press, 1952. Mnemosyne Vili rightly M. ten defended by A. C. Moorhouse, C.Q. 40 zesde rede (Nijmegen, Meddelelser aus der at-

and Commentary

by 19

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

266 227 b 10: quotation 227 d?:




''phaedrus'' does not give a literal of p????a.

for Plato s??. Not te?? (Burnet), but even alters the construction aste???. Stallbaum

biguitas et de communi in Arist.

in vocabulo

est amrightly remarked : "Elegans et de urbanitate aste???, quod elegantia atque The same ambiguity utilitate occurs capiendum". but "marking after t??t?? a new stage

Nub. 204 ?ste??? ???e??. d 2: ???. Not "aussi" 227 (Robin), of events" in the sequence (Denn.,

?e?ss? t??de de??? s???ef? / pa?s? t??? pa?est?ta? d????? ste????ta, ????? (for more excf. But it seems more natural to assume Denn., amples, 98-99, 104). an explicative Cf. Aesch. Prom. asyndeton. 941-3 ???' e?s??? ?a? t??de t?? ???? t?????, / t?? t?? t??????? t?? ???? d??????? / p??t?? p??? t? ?????? a?????? e?????e?, K?hner-Gerth II, 344? 228 b 5 '- t??. This is better than t? (Burnet, {lectio difficilior) cf. ??? Robin). strengthens ?a????, Rep. 432c d?s?at?? ?? t?? o t??? Laws e? K?hner-Gerth t?p?? fa??eta?, ?, 6g8d ??a?e? ?????, of t?? is entirely II, 215. The position free, cf. ? 391 663, Schwyzer ?p?st??, Rep. 35^a ??? t??, ?? ? ???a t?? t?? ????? ??? st??ess?? Dem. 18, 18 ???a t?? ?? ????t?? e???. ?'???e, d?s?a???, 228 b 7 : ?d?? ???. The second ?d?? (kept by Thompson and Bura pathetic effect is II, 700) which produces (cf. Schwyzer out of here. denies that ??? is ansDenn., 365 wrongly quite place wered by d? after de??????. 228 e ?: ?a? ??s???. This cannot mean "L. himself" (Hackforth). net) pr?sent lui aussi", but it is more of "actually", "indeed" (Dutch Cf. a Clit. ta ??? 406 "wel"). ?e? ?a? ?'???e ?p????? se, t? de ?a? ?a? t???a ?p?????, Phd. 62a ??d?p?te t?????e? t? ?????p?, ?spe? ("as other things ??"), Rep. 340c t??? ?????ta? ??????e?? ??? ??anatural to take ?a? in the sense Ili IO, 3 ?? ??? d? ?a? t?te ?s??sa? a? t?? does not as is t?te, 07)?at (?a? emphasize suggested by Denn., 319), Thuc. I 15, 2 ?at? ??? d? p??e??? . . . ??de?? ????st?? d? p??te? ds?? ?a? ?sa?, ??????t?, p??? ???????, and Steup ad loe, Denn., 321-3. The negation to which ?a? is opposed is not always fully expressed, ?a?t?t??? ?eta? t? Hdt. ??? ???a e??a? ???a t? ?a? e?a?a?t??e??, t? pa??pa? ????pt?? Robin translates "avec L. ainsi

228 a 6 : ed ??da. Thompson puts to Eur. Phoen. 1308-9 ???a ?a? ?????ta

425). a comma

and refers

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

NOTES ON PLATO'S 38e ?? ????e?? ???e?? p??? te ??? ?a? ?? ????e??????????t?? p???? ?a? a????a ?????t?? ????, ?? t?? ????? ????e?? (the first part not hear such



' 267

e.g. Apol.

???? t??a?ta ?d????????

?a? ???a

?G a? ???? ??? ?d?sta p?????t?? ?a?

things from me"), ... p?te??? ????ta?? t??t??? ??t?? ??t????te? ???p?t??ta? ? t? ?a? ??de? ?????s??), Horn, a 39? ?a^ ?e? ?????s?? (???p?t??ta? implies t??t' ???????? ???? ?e d?d??t?? ???s?a? (386-7 imply "you do not want me to receive this"), Hdt. VIII ioo, 3 e? ??? ??? d???e?, a?t??a e? d? ?a? d???e? ?p?s?e??, pa???e? p???e?? pe????e?a t?? ?e??p????s??? ta?ta ?? d???e? ?p?s?e??), Thuc. II 49> t (a?t??a pe????e?a implies t? ?e? ??? ?t??, ?? ??????e?t?, ?? p??t?? ????sta d? e?e??? a??s?? ? ?? t?? ???a? as?e?e?a? ?t???a?e? d? e? d? t?? ?a? p????a??? t?, ?? t??t? p??ta ?pe????? (a??s?? implies ??t?? p????a???), Arist. ?.?. Ii6y b 21 ?p? t?? da?e??? ?? ??? ?fe????te? ??????ta? ?? e??a? ??? ?fe????s??, ?a? ?p??e????ta? ?? d? da?e?sa?te? t?? t?? ?fe????t?? s?t???a? in the present ?? e??a? implies ??? ?p??e????ta?). Similarly is is to Phaedrus* present" opposed passage "Lysias pretending in the preceding that L. is not present, which is implied words. (??????ta? Not 228 e 5: ?a?????e???. ?a?e???e??? Cf. Phd. 59e e?s???te? ??? ?ate?a??????e? 1212 ???' e?s???? se ??????a? p??t?? 229 a 4: d?. ?. Von der M?hll, Mus. this (Stallbaum, Vollgraff). t?? S????t?, Arist. Nub. ?st??sa?, K?hner-Gerth ?, 200.

??? f???, ??a d? ?a? e???s?e ??e?? of the sentence implies "you do de? Rep. 5g8e-9a d? ep?s???as?a?

Helv. 9 (1952), 59, wrongly to be an interpolation. For ??? d?, cf. Denn., 243. Not ?ata??????a? Cf. PhdT 117e 229 b 2*. ?ata??????a?. (Burnet). Arist. Lys. 904, Xen. Cyrop. VIII 7, 4, K?hner-Blass II, ?ate?????, takes 462. by Vollgraff. Many be explained as cases of interpolations epexegesis, e.g. Meno 70b ?? t?? s?? eta???? p???ta? ?a??sa???, Phd. Phdr. 247e ????? ???e???t? 57a t?? p???t?? F?e?as???, ???? ?eat? ?f, Prot. 342b p??ta? t??t? ?s??se??, t?? s?f?a?, Tim. 22d o? ??? seeming to ?? t??? ??es?? d?as????ta?, ? 214. 229 c 2 : d?a?a????e?. Thompson suggests d?e?a????e? ; this is unfor refer to ?e????a may ????? ??????. necessary, Not ?? "???a? The gen. means 229 c 2: t?? '???a?. (Burnet). ???????? ????? te, Riddell, Digest of Idioms, 229 b 5: ?p? t?? ???ss??. Wrongly in Plato are deleted

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



"lying Gerth

K?hnerin", cf. Thuc. Ill 93 p??? t? ???a??? t?? ?????a?, II, 114. I, 338, Schwyzer criticize the allegorists? does Socrates 229 c 6 : o? s?f??. Why "in to that might order 26: Hackforth, preclude any questions p. who the local divinities Socrates: arise later on about inspire

to rationalise and the reader too, are not to attempt Phaedrus, what Plato makes Socrates say about them any more than they But this was not a real the rape of Oreithuia". should rationalise allegorically, should interpretation already warns us that allegorical and Robin, (cf. 22ge-23oa, always be directed by self-examination This point of view also connects the present Notice, XXVIII). theme of the the with the true art of dialogue, general passage rhetoric. but Socrates is right in putting a colon after e???. 229 c 7 : e?ta. Thompson The meaning of e?ta seems to be "in that case", cf. T 23-26 ???' dte d? ?a? ??? p??f??? e??????? e??ssa?, / a?t? ?e? ?a?? ???sa??' a?t? te ?a?ass?? / se???? ??? ?e? ?'pe?ta pe?? ???? ?????p??? / d?sa????. It is not necessary to alter e?ta into e?, as is suggested by P. Von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58-59, nor to add a? after fa??? Cf. Andoc. 4, 10 ??? a? ??a???se?e? ? pa??? ??????, ??a (Schanz). de p?????? ?pe??????? t?? p???t??, K?hner-Gerth ?, 249? Robin puts these words 229 di.: ? . . . ??p?s??. in are but absurd the mouth of Phaedrus. sa?, they in them order to emphasize the uncertainty and traditions. mythological 229 d 6: ?a? ?p???e? d?. Not de d?, Denn., 202. d? (Vollgraff). after b 5 ??p?Socrates adds of We should rather think of the subsequent danger. soul and on love. These will have to be interpreted myths on the


Cf. Gorg. 475a

?a? dta?

Not "with his somewhat 229 e 3? ?te ??????? t??? s?f?a ????e???. crude science" "et cela en usant de je ne sais quelle (Hackforth), The clause ?te . . . ????e??? grossi?re sagesse" (Robin). explains the next words, p????? a?t? s????? de?se?. The art of allegorical is still in its infancy, so that it works slowly and interpretation laboriously. 229 e 6: Euthyd. d?. Not ?st? d? (Schanz, For conclusive Vollgraff). d?, cf. d? ????? f?????e?a Denn., d? pe?? a?t?, 238.


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



Not ?????? d? (Burnet). Cf. Laws 918c 230 a 3: ?????? t??????. t? t? d?a?e?????? t?????e?, ?d??e?, K?hnerGerth II, 67. Similarly 263 cu ????st?? t?? a?a??? t?????e? (Burnet ?e??st?? ov). Not "puffed up with pride" (Hackforth), 230 a 4? ?p?te????????. for this cannot Cf. Arist. be the contrary of ??e???, but "fierce", "passionate". Lys. 221 dp?? a? ???? ?p?t?f? ????sta ???. For the comwith smoke, cf. the Homeric of parison of the passions conception and ????? (Onians, Origins of European Thought, 44 ff.), especially S HO (?????) a?d??? ?? st??ess?? ???eta? ??te ?ap??? (Onians, 52). For ??e??? as a characteristic

of the philosopher, Rep. 410e t? a? . In . . ta?ta. this context ?'st? ?'??? f?s??; ??e??? ??? ? f???s?f?? must be of the So it cannot mean too, ?p????, typical philosopher. as to but in the "simple" contrary Robin), "complex" (Hackforth, sense ?p????, of 382e Cf. Rep. 361b t?? d??a??? . . . ??d?a "straightforward". ?p???? ?a? a?????, Crat. 4?5C t? a????? te ?a? t? ?p???? = "crafty", For p???p????? cf. "tortuous", ??? ?st??).

(ta?t?? Thesm. te p???p????a? te, Arist. Thgn. 67 d????? ?p?ta? 433"4 ??p? ta?t?? ????sa / p???p????t??a? ???a????. has blessed heaven with a quiet, 230 a 5? ?e?a?. Not "whom nature" The word is meant to contrast (Hackforth). un-Typhonic with nature

the monstrosity alludes to the divine of Typhon and probably of the philosopher. Cf. Rep. 5oocd ?e?? d? ?a? ??s??? d ?e ?a? t? d??at?? te ?e??? e?? ?????? ??s???? f???s?f?? ?????p? ????eta?. for ?ste (Burnet) is too slight (Hdt. 230 b ?: ?? ?e. The evidence 10,

1, Soph. Trach. 1220) to carry conviction. c that 2 : ?p??e? t? t?? tett???? 230 ????. It is very improbable for the place no should "answer" the other cicada-choir, (t?p??) sounds the are mentioned. place with its the scenery mentioned clearly refer to the cicadas, panies So ???? cicada-choir seems to be an instrumental dat. : the music which accomproduces before. The words ??????? and ?p??e? cf. Hes. Op. 582-3 ???ta t?tt?? / de?-


16, d??? ?fe???e??? ??????? ?ata?e?et* ???d??, Ale. ? 23, 3> Theoer. Callim. 96, frag, ?, 29-3?? translated but p?a 230 c 3: ??a??. Usually enough", by "thick may also mean "grassy place". In that case ??a?? means "sufficiently inclined" causal and sense; the words ?? properly ?? ??e?a p??s??te? are to be taken in a in which the denotes the circumstances

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






place is. Cf. Phd. 95a ?? t? ?a??????? ?a??t? ?p??????t?, Symp. i8ia ?? t? p???e?, ?? a? p?a???, t????t?? ap???, K?hner-Gerth ?, 4^5?: d Not Cf. Meisterhans -Seh ?ste??. ?ste?? 230 wyzer, (Burnet). 138. We should supply ????te? 230 d 6: o?. Not ?? p?????e? (Vollgraff). from a???s?. Cf. Thuc. II 86, 4 ????sa?t? ?a? a?t?? . . . epe?d? ?a? ?, e?d??, K?hner-Gerth t??? '????a???? 5^5> Riddell, of Digest Idioms, ? 246. t??t?? Not ?e??????? cf. 230 e 7: t??t?? ?e???????. (Burnet), the literal repetition 262e, 263e. Burnet never got rid of his overestimation of the Bodl. It should be noted that p??s??e? here means 231 a 4: p??s??e?. "there is reason", "it is to be expected" "it belongs to"). (properly The same meaning is to be assumed in 233 a 5 (not "it ought to be for your betterment", ??e?, ??de?? p??s??e? Gorg. 479e t??t? Cf. Phd. Hackforth). ???at?? ?a?????t? ?? ????? e??a?. p??s??e?? "whether" 88b ??? e? d? t??t? ????t?? ??t?? ?a??e??, but

231 C4* e? . . . dt?. Not "if" . . . "that".

. . . "because"


in view of 232 Hackforth t?s??t??, 231 c 7: t????t??. proposes c 1. But t????t?? can have the meaning of "so glorious", "so cf. H 242 ???' ?? ??? s' ????? ?a??e?? t????t?? ???ta, precious", Aesch. Eum. 867 t??a??' ???s?a? s?? p??est?? ?? ????, Hipp. mai. * 281b t????t?? ???t??, ? ?pp?a, ?'st? t? t? a???e?a s?f?? te ?a? t??e??? ??d?a e??a?. 232 a 2: ?pa????a? t? ???e??. Not "will be proud to talk about it" (Hackforth), for in that case epa????a? would be followed by the infin. alone. The meaning is "they will feel flattered the fact by that ?a? people before speak about it" f???t?????????? t??? ?? ta?? (cf. 231 e 4 p???????? has consecutive force. a????p??). Cf. Prot. 342b ?a? ?? ??? ?t? te t??

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

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



oral (Brussels, dans le r?cit attigue style KAI 1948), 73-75. b is not coraddition of a? The 232 7: ??????. (Burnet, Robin) is not a but an for rect, ?????? ?atast??a? t?? s??f???? possibility, fact. established t?? 233 a 2 : ta?ta ????e?a ?ata?e?f???a? t?? seems combination ?e????t?? ????e?a but it is correctly explained by Thompson: is supposed happiness come". The expression ?ses?a?. The ?e????t?? to be a contradiction, of past "the memory of enjoyment to "in the grip were of the Past (Leiden,

as an assurance to operate shows how much the Greeks

In theGrip of the past". Cf. ?. A. van Groningen, the praiserefers the of recollecting who i.a. to practice 1953), to fact that the of and former examples generations (p. 7) worthy "to remember" care of" sometimes becomes almost identical with

"to take

(p. 65). s??, ???a 233 b 6 : ?? t?? pa???sa? s???s??a? ?d???? ?e?ape??? a seil, but Not ?ses?a?. ?a? t?? ??????sa? paradox: ?????, ?fe??a? "The first clause is very ascetic and high-minded (no pleasure), while the second offers long-term benefits, plus a hint of present after all" (G. E. Dimock, A.J.P. 73, 1952, 392, who refers pleasure to Lys. 25, 13 ?? t??t?? ?????? p?ste?e??, ???a ?a? ?? t?? ????? Soph. Ai. 1313* El. ?453> Thuc. IV 92, 4)? of Not "conduct" d 233 4: ep?t?de???t??. "ways (Hackforth), but "convenances", (Robin), living" "pratiques" (Lidd.-Sc), Cf. 253a ta ?*?? ?a? t? ep?t?de??ata, Rep. 424^ t? "aspirations". s??pe??, ??? te ?a? t? ep?t?de??ata, ?????. 233 d 6: ?a? t??? ??????. Not t??? ?????? is a dat. limitationis: ??? "in for t??? ?????? (Hackforth), Cf. 23407 other respects". Laws Jjod ?? t???? ep?t?de??at?? ? t????

t? te ???a ?a? t??? ????as?? e???s?a?, Lys. 215c ??? ?e d?? ?pe?f??? ?a? ????ast???, t??? ??apat??e?a; ???s??? Rep. 43oa ?pa?de???e? Thuc. IV 73? 4 Hdt. ? 29 a??????sa? s 234 ?ty] f??te???, p???t?, K?hner-Gerth t?? ?p??t???? t? ?, 437"^, ?e?t?st? ??af???a?, Schwyzer 233e7: pleonastic probably 234 ci: ?, ???s?. after arose t? 167-8. Not p??sa?t??s? Hackforth), (Burnet, of ? The reading t? ???? which p??se??s? ?a??????t? is

de???????. sf?d?a from parablepsis (p??s??e?). of BW The reading ?a??????t?.

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



PHAEDRUS It is difficult to

in this context. adopted by Robin is impossible the addition of ???? was accidental decide whether or intentional. words: rung, In such cases des we should bear "Sinngebung aber Erkenntnis des Sinnlosen

(dittography?) in mind Jachmann's

ist eine unbillige und eitle FordeSinnlosen als unsinnig ist eine sehr

dazu eine h?chst unbeliebte" wichtige Philologie, Aufgabe Nachr. Gott. 1941, 276-7). {Der Piatontext, for ???a? often means 234 e 3: ?e???. Not ??e??? (Hackforth), d' ?a? cf. p ?'t? t?de "important", 291 p??? ?e???? ??? f?es? ???e p??? d? ??? d??e? ?e???? e??a? t? ?a???, Symp. 195b ?e? ????st?? dt?, Lidd.-Sc, 235 a 3: ?a? d? ?d?. Thompson rightly remarks than ?a? ?d? (Burnet, Robin), because it explains ???????, Rep. 347e MSS. d ??? ???e? T?as?? II, 4? that this is better


the readings of the d??a????, d??a??? ?d?. For d? ?d?, cf. Denn., 470. 235 e 2: ???s???. Not "as simple as a man of the Golden Age" to Arist. Nub. 398 ??????? (Hackforth, referring d???), for (1) to the Golden Age", (2) a reference ???s??? never means "belonging to the Golden Age would not be appropriate, for that age was not a symbol of simplicity, but of antiquity and old-fashionedness note on Nub. 398). So we should translate "a (cf. van Leeuwen's fine fellow". Cf. Pind. Py. 3, 73 ???e?a? ???s?a?, Arist. Ran. 483 ? ???s?? ?e??, Antiphan. 212, 5 ???s??? ????, Luc?an. Laps, ? ??? d? ? ???s???. 236 b ? : t?? d? ???p??. The gen. depends on e?p??, cf. Rep. 439b t?? t???t?? ?? ?a??? ??e? ???e??, 459^ t'1 d? t?? Spp?? ??e?, K?hnerGerth ?, 363, Schwyzer ???G?? ?, 132, ?. Nachmanson, (Festschr. to delete t??de Nilsson, Lund, 1939), 310 ff. So it is unnecessary (b 2), as is suggested by P. Von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 59. defended 236 c 2: ??a d? ??. This reading (?) is convincingly by n. 1. Hackforth a full Robin, XXXI, Notice, puts stop before

but this involves an awkward e??a????t?, asyndeton. a : ?a? this p???e?d??. Robin rightly 238 3 p????e??? ?a? adopts for it is reading, (1) by 265e ?at' e?d? d??as?a? d?asupported t? ???? te ?a? t???e?? ?at' ????a ? p?f??e? (cf. Phil. 14e e??st?? ??a ???? d?e??? t? ????, Polit. 287c, Tim. 76e, Laws 795e) ; (2) t??t?? t?? ?de?? refers to p???e?d??; (3) p????e??? does not occur in Plato and seems to be a creation of Aristotle.

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




but neut.; Not mase. ?a? before 238 b 4: t??t??. (Hackforth) is a is on t?? ; ep??????? partitive gen. depending ade?f?? explicative which is a possessive on The gen. depending ????ata. plural ????ata is not incorrect, for t?? is a collective ?e? is distributive, sing.; "in each case", wrongly as "sans rel?che", translated by Robin au pouvoir". d 6 : t? ?p???. The meaning of ?a? ?s?? 238 ?a? ?a? ?p?t??p??t? it may still turn away" is similar to that in 228 e 1: "Possibly to which ?a? is opposed is implied (Dutch "nog wel"). The negation in d 1-2 p??????? ???f???pt?? Cf. Phd. 62a (??d?? ?????a) ?????a?. ???a eens"). 239 a 6 t?? ??? ?des?a?. is partitive, cf. Soph. Phil. Burnet wrongly deletes ? t??. The gen. 715 p??at?? 780 a?t?? ?pe? ?s??, K?hner-Gerth ?, 335? t??p??e? ?d?t??? ?d? p?t?t??, of a? (Burnet, 239 b 8: e??. The addition Robin) is not necessary, cf. Lys. 2I4d d d? a?t? a?t? ???????? e?? ?a? d??f????, s???? ?? t? d????? ? f???? ?????t?, Rep. 437 b p??ta t? t??a?ta t?? e?a?t??? ?p?de??e?e?, ???????? ?e???, Phd. J2b p??ta ????? t?? ??d?????a ?a? p??? ?e?? ?a? ?, 25 ?a? ??? d??a??te??? ?a? ?s??te??? Antiph. p??? a????p?? ??????t? ????, Hyper. Epit. 20 t? a? s?????a? ??????????? ?e?, Xen. Anab. IV 6, 13 ?????e? ??? a?t?? ?????? a????? ?? p???????, Mem. ? 2, 34 d???? dt? ?fe?t??? e?? t?? ????? ???e??, Tucker on Ran. u. I, 230, Schwyzer ?, 325, ?. Hess, Textkrit. 97, K?hner-Gerth erkl. Beitr. ?. Epitaphios des Hyp. 1938), 65, Humbert, (Leipzig, Synt. 120. grecque2, The c antecedent ?d. 4: 239 For the omission is ??t?? of the (? e???????), article, not s??at?? IV 8 p?????e?s?a? ???, ef?? t??a ??? a? ?a? ????sa?? ("nog wel "constamment

(Robin). 239 c 4 : ?d?. 206. (1955),

cf. Mnemos.

d?. Not d? (Burnet, "of course"), Hackforth: 239 c 5: ?f??seta? cf. Denn., "d? sometimes the marks transition the introfrom 170: to a speech duction to the opening of the speech proper". "one who has had a 239 c 7: ?p? s?????e? s??^. Hackforth: cosy, air". sheltered But s?????e? Symp. instead upbringing s???, too, refers 2, 18, Cyneg. of being exposed to the to the open air; "indoors" open is ??

s??$ (Xen.

3, 3).

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



This seems to be an interpolation 239 e 3: ????sta d? t? e?ast?. who did not understand the ??? solitarium after pa?t?. by someone Cf. ??? solit. after ???a?, d???, e???e (Denn., 382). but "enjoy d??a?t?. Not "want" 239^6: (Hackforth), seeing". Cf. Aesch. ???a? t?? Ag. 1653 ??????. de???????? ???e?? ?a?e?? s?, Hdt. IX 91, 2 d?-

cf. Aesch. Suppl. 240 c ?: ?????. Not ???e? ????? (Vollgraff), 230 ?? ?????, Eur. ? er ad. 34-35 ped?a ??? t?sde ?????? / d?ss??? ?at???e?? T?s??? pa?da? ?????, Plato Phil. 65c ?? d? ?????. d which seems to 240 3' ?e?' ?d????. Not ?d???? (pap., Robin), be an assimilation 241 a 2: for ????? to d ? ?d????. ????? ?????ta. ?eta?a??? is proleptic. Eur. I.A. 343 Not ?eta?a??? (Coisl., 424c e?d?? ?a???? Thomp-

???s???? K?hner?????? t??p???, ?eta????e??, ?eta????e?? Gerth II, 563. Robin wrongly before ?eta?a???, puts a semicolon but in his second translation {Piaton. Oeuvres compl?tes) he seems to have withdrawn this view. The words ???? ?a? s?f??s???? do not and temperance" but "sense and (Hackforth) Cf. CR. who remarks that Tate, sanity". J. 69 (1955), 158, rightly these terms are here to be taken in a popular, non-philosophical sense. For the absolute use of ?p?ste???, cf. 241 b 3 : ?peste?????. Arist. Nub. 487 ???e?? ??? ??? ?'?est', ?p?ste?e?? d' ???. ?. Von der M?hll, Phil. 93 (1938), 490, wrongly suggests ?fest????. for ????? 241 d 4: se ?es??? a?t??. Not ?e ?es??? a?t?? (Burnet), can of ??e?? (Stallbaum's are not subject parallels For the gen., cf. Rep. 618b t? d? ?a? ?es??? t??t??, convincing). Hdt. I 181, 4 ?es???t? d? ??? t?? ??a??s???. ' This is doubtless a gloss on 242 a 4 ? d? ?a????e?? sta?e??. ?stata?. it could be an Grammatically (cf. 229 b 5 ?p? epexegesis hardly be the mean "wisdom


Cf. Rep.

"perhaps" (Hackforth) to Gorg. 450c t??a d? Cf. 228 c 4 dpe? t??a p??t?? p???se?. Thompson, e?s??a? saf?ste???). Robin take t??a ?pe?d?? to be equivalent to ?pe? t???sta, Lidd.-Sc, but there is no parallel for this. 242 b 8 : t? da??????? te ?a? t? e????? s??e???. Wilamowitz {Platon

t?? ???ss??), but it sounds too pedantic. 242 a 6: t??a ?pe?d?? ?p????? ??e?. Not but "presently" who refers (Stallbaum,

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

NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" II* 363) deletes Daimonion von t? dem . . . ?a?: "Platon konnte


?a? has

gewohnten te ?a? ?d??? ?a? force, cf. 251 a 7 ?eta???? explanatory Ale. I iioa ???te?? te ?a? ??? f?? e?d??a?, Gor g. 460? ?e???t??, e?? ? p??t?? t? p??t??? ???ta? te ?a? ?d???, ? 121 p?????? ??? ?e??e? te ?a? ??? ????e? p???es?a?, Soph. El. 873"4 f??? ??? ?d???? ?? / p?????e? e??e? ?a? ?at?ste?e? II te ????pa??a? Thuc. ?a???, 2, 3 ?t? ?? e????? te ?a? t?? p?????? ??p? fa?e??? ?a?est?t??. for ? ?e ??? ?a is equivalent to 242 c 2: ?a. Not e?a (Hackforth),


hier unm?glich das unterscheiden". But te

? e?pe? dt? ?e ??? ?a, and the pr?s, has been taken over from direct II, 360-1). speech (cf. K?hner-Gerth c Burnet adds d?. 3: ??. 242 unnecessarily 243 a 7: ???? t?? a?t?a? ?a? p??e? e????. Not ?p??e? (Richards, ?a? ???e? t?de, cf. Eur. Ale. 176 ??ta??a d? 'd????se Vollgraff), K?hner-Gerth ?, ?33~4? ?? t?? ??????. Fraenkel 243 d6: argues (on Ag. 1423) rightly that this does not mean " other things being equal" (Hackforth) to the action but "corresponding of the other side". 244 c 5 : ?pe? ?a?. Not "la preuve en est aussi", "a preuve encore" for there is only one proof. ?a? emphasizes ?pe? (Dutch: (Robin), "dan ook"), cf. Euthyd. pe???? ?a? 287a ?p???????, epe?d? ?a? d?? ?a?, e.g. 258 e 4? ??????e?? ?e s?f?? e??a?, Denn., 297? Similarly c Wilamowitz 5: ??f?????. 244 {Platon II, 363) is right in omitting the comma after ??f????? (p?????e??? seil, ??t?s??). for ???? is 244 e 8: ???*?. Not "rationalit?", "sagacit?" (Robin), definite". "to realize that something is the s??e?a) something {i.e. d Not or e?? but an 6: ??. 244 ?? ??, ???? (Hackforth) (Robin), in of This is also relative cf. Thuc. found clauses, ellipse ??. ellipse

II 97> 5 t?? ?^? ?? t? ????p? {seil, ?as??e???) dsa? ?eta?? t?? ?????? ???p?? ?a? t?? ???e???? p??t?? ?e??st? ????et?, K?hner-Gerth I, 41? brackets Burnet 244e 2 : t?? ea?t?? ????ta. ea?t??, wrongly which is a partitive gen. Cf. Soph. O.R. 708-9 est? s?? / ???te??? ??d?? ?a?t???? ???? t?????, K?hner-Gerth 245 a 4 ? t?? pa?a??? ???a ??s???sa, this ideal absent. to refer state to the e?????a {Rep. 607a). The Plato speaks of poetry II, 104. ?, 345> Schwyzer, takes Hackforth wrongly t??? ??a???? admitted by Plato in his political point of view is here entirely in general and merely states its edi-

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

276 tying influence


on it. So he should not be passing judgment of a divine "the instrument as the inspired poet supposed an idea which seems to me to be un-Platonic. pa?de?a" (Hackforth), (Hack245 a 5: ?p? p???t???? ???a?. Not "to the gates of poetry" but "to gates of poetry", i.e., to some kind of poetry. forth), to regard rethat Plato from this sentence It appears 245 a 7: ate???. to be contradicted This seems of the existence good poetry. cognises in the Republic. towards attitude adopted poetry by his critical that "Plato himhimself with the assumption Hackforth contents and poet, of rationalist self is a compound drus the poet definitely gets the upper another and attempted this explanation "Platon and that hand". solution ... in the Phaecriticized I have of the

paradox et la po?sie", Mnemos. Ill 12 (1944), 118-150. Hackforth rightly 24505: (Robin). ?e?????t??. Not a?t?????t?? Par. 2 (1947), Cf. also C. Pass. defends Diano, 189-92, ?e?????t??. who adds some important (see infra). The demonstration arguments in my article must the following through stages: (1) What is immortal must move itself. in motion. in motion What is ever (2) It follows that d? in c 6 (3) What moves itself must be animate. must be but cannot be adversative progressive (Hackforth: "but"), proceeds be ever cf. d ? a??? d?, d 7 t??t? d?. Stress should be laid on ?a? (Diano), "en wel") being moved by ?p ????? ??????e???: "and that (Dutch: is else". i.e. "because it moved else", something by something Cf. Rep. 426a ?at?e???e??? ??? ??d?? pe?a????s??, p??? ?e p??????te?a p????s? t? ??s??ata, ?a? ?e? ??p????te?, ?a? t?? f???a??? ?p? t??t?? ?'ses?a? ???e??, Thuc. ? ?, ? T????d?d?? ???s??????e?s?, t?? p??e??? . . . ?????e??? ?a? ?a??? ??????a?e e???? ?a??sta????? ??p?sa? ???a? ?'ses?a?, IV 66, 3 ??????e??? ??d???a? t?? p???? ?a? ?????p? sf?? ?ate??e??, sf?s? t?? ???d???? ? t??? ??pes??ta? ???????? als des Thuk. {Variatio) Stilprinzip ff. in c is not consecutive but (Nijmegen, 7 1938), 89 ?? emphatic We should (Diano). put a full stop after ??????e??? in c8: with ???a begins a new argument which is meant to show that the selfmover else abandon itself only never perishes through its own nature) but also never perishes as the first principle of movement (because not (because it cannot through something it is imperishable) ???te? ???ss? Die J. Ros, ?a? ?e???


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





Hack245 d 3 : ?? a???? ??????t?. Not et? a??? ??????t? (Burnet, of ??????t? is p?? t? ??????e???, and a??? is not a The subject but the first principle of all things. It is very improbable principle, means that ?t? ??????t? = ?t? e??, for ??????a? in this context "to come to be". for ???es?? here 245 e ?: ???es??. Not ??? e?? ?? (Burnet), = universe Tim. 29e) =t? ??????e?a, and ???a??? (Lidd.-Sc, LXXXI n. i): Robin, Notice, announces his exposition 246 a 3 : ?d?a?. In 245 c 2 Socr. (and I 4, as

f?s?? as "quality" p???. It is not correct to interpret ????? f?se?? as is suggested and ?d?a as "essence", by A. de Marignac, Imagination et dialectique (Paris, 1951), 141 -4. The ?d?a is the form in which the nature (f?s??) of the soul manifests itself; so the words are synonymous. practically Hack246 a 6: ????? t? d?. This is better than ?????t? (Burnet, of d? t?? ?quidam, and notes Denn., 213 gives examples forth). that "there is a meaning air of mystery about most of these". This is especially to the present passage. For d? appropriate Laws e cf. ?st?? t??, pa????ta 803 d?a???t??? t???? d? pa?d???. following Not "compos?s de bons ?l?ments" 246 a 8: ?? ??????. (Robin), for "the phrase became stereotyped, and often meant no more than " who refers to Arist. Ran. 731 p?????? (Hackforth, 'wholly good' ??? p??????). shade force of ?a?, cf. Io 538 b 246 b ? : ?a? p??t??. For the explanatory t? d? d? dta? '?????? t? ???? ?? tet?????? ?a????? ? ??a??d? pa??a?? ???e??a p??e?? d?d?s?; ?a? ???e? p?? ??t??, Lach. ??st???? ?at? t?? t?? f???? ?p?st????, 191b t?? ???e?a? ?at? t??t' ??e????ase, Prot. ?a? e?pe? a?t?? e??a? ??st??a f?????, 317b ^?? ?^? t??t?? t?? ??a?t?a? ?pasa? ??????a, ?a? ??????? te s?f?st?? e??a?, 338 a ?? ?d? p???sete ?a? pe??es?? ???, Phd. 6lb ??? p???e????? e???? ??????, ?a? t??? ??s?p??, 84a ??t? ????sa?t' a? ???? a?d??? f???s??p?st???? f??, ?a? ??? a? ????e?? t?? ??? f???s?f?a? ????a? a?t?? ??e??, Horn. ? ??4"5 ?^? d? ?a??? ?p?t?? ?a? ?e ?e?e?e? / d?s???a ????e?sat?, Archil. p???? 58, 4~5 "????? ???s?a?, ????eta? ?a??, / ?a? ???? ????? Prom. t??t?? Aesch. s? t?? ??? t?de, t?? d* ???? p?a??ta?, 782-4 ??d' ?t???s?? ?????? / ?a? t?de ??? ?????e ????? / ??s?a? ????s??, t?? ???p?? p?????, Thuc. VI 76, 2 ????s? . . . d?????a, ?? p??te? ?p?-

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






?????e?, ?a? ??? d????s?? ?? ?e??t????? ????es?a? ?at????sa?, Xen. An. t?? p?ta??? I 4, 18 ?d??e? d? ?e??? e??a?, ?a? saf?? ?p?????sa? ???? Le style ???, S. Trenkner, ?? ?as??e?s??t?, 64-66. cf. 253 b 3 246 e 3' ?a? t??? ??a?t????. For ?a? = "and generally", te ?a? e??st?? t?? ?e??, 278c S????? ?a? dst?? ?? p???t????? ?p??????? Phd. 74^ ?? t??? ?????? te ?a? ??? ??? d? ??????e? t??? ?s???, ??????, ?a? ????st???? te ?a? ???s???? ?a? dsa pa?The 145a ?a? ast????????? IV 7 (?954?)> 38. de?a? ??eta?, Mnemos. (Hack247 a 8 : p??? da?ta ?a? ?p? ??????. This is not pleonastic and banquet"), for ?p? expresses forth: "they go to their feasting Cf. ? 439 ?p? d??p?? a??st?, an end in view: "in order to feast". de?p???. ?p? Symp. 174e ????e?? with p??e?eta? Not to be connected (Lidd.247 b 2: ?s????p??. Sc), but with e????a d?ta. Robin takes it in a causal sense ("faciles de l'attelage"), for which ? mener en raison de l'?quilibre there We should rather take it proleptically, seem to be no parallels. cf. K?hner-Gerth Handlung Handlung ausgedr?ckt". ????de? ?????et???e?. for the conj. without 247 b4* f?? Not ?? (Burnet), in poetical Cf. missible Laws 737b ??? ? pa?a?? prose. ?? 629e ?? t????s?s??. ?? is ade?????ata, einer Folgen K?rze als ein Merkmal der energischer (Attributiv) durch ein Adverb statt eines konsekutiven Nebensatzes ?, 115: mit Cf. Thuc. I 21, ? t? p???? 752^> e?????? Laws ?p? ?????? ?p?st?? ?p? t? ?a? ?f???? ?pe????? ??d??s?. "Nicht selten werden die


but "the true na247c5: pe?<?a???e?a?. Not "truth" (Hackforth), ture of things". Cf. d 4 ?e????sa t?????, 248 b 6 t? a???e?a? ped???. Not ?e? ep????? ?a? e??as???? 248 a 2: ?e??? ep?????. (Burnet,. Wilamowitz remarks: "Hier ?, Hackforth). 363) {Platon rightly kommt es auf die ?hnlichkeit der Seele mit der Gottheit, der sie befolgt, gar nicht an . . . und an der ?hnlichkeit liegt His explanation gar nicht, wenn die Seele folgen kann". und dieser Zusatz werden doch wohl christlich ?nderung has been points 252 d added interesting. superseded out that ?e? sonders es auch ("Diese

sein") who by Jachmann {Der Piatontext, 310), and e??as???? are anticipations of 248 c and by an ancient reviser in order to make the text more

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




de fatigue" 248 b 4: p???? ????sa? p????. Not "accabl?es (Robin), The but "for all their toiling" partie, is of the imperi., (Hackforth). cf. t 253-4 ??^ ^? d? ?101*?e^?e> p???? pe? ??? e?ee????, / ?? ?e?????s?? ????s? f???? t ?s?, Hes. Op. 292 ???d?? d? ?pe?ta p??e? ?a?ep? pe? ???sa (not "hard though it may still be", Sinclair, or "pour difficile qu'il soit", Mazon, but "though before that she was hard", EvelynHdt. VII 237, 2 t??s? ?e???????s? p??te???, K?hner-Gerth I, White), 200, Mus. Helv. von der M?hll, 58, 9 (1952), suggests ?, because in 250 a 2-4 the souls which had the vision but from those which are affected for a short time are distinguished are not strictly The two however, paby forgetfulness. passages, takes before for in oblivion rallel, 248c they are on earth, place 24806: whereas latter in 250a it is caused by falling into bad company. So the and additional one. oblivion seems to be a secondary II, 297. Schwyzer ?a? t???. P.

"wrongdoing" (Hackforth), "perversion", but "weakness'. Cf. b 4 ?a??a ??????? as "imperfect which is rightly explained functioning". by Hackforth Plato does not know a Fall in the moral or biblical sense, cf. R. Schaerer, Dieu, Ghomme et la vie d'apr?s Platon 1944), (Neuch?tel, 180-3, n, Id., La repr?sentation July 1955, 1-31, esp. 248 d 6: f???p???? ????ast????. It appears from Rep. f???p????. cessary s??at?? Prot. 313d, Soph. 228e, Polit. 249 a 2 : ? pa?de?ast?sa?t??. is identical with t?? person mythique 16 ff. de la chute et du mal, Diogene

248 c 7: ?a??a?. Not "m?chancet?" (Robin),

inserts wrongly ? after is a ned that 536 ????ast???? of f???p????. Cf. also Gorg. 464b t?? t?? specification t?? d? ?at?????, ?e?ape?a? d?? ????a ????, t?? ??? ????ast????, Burnet 295c. Hackforth

rightly remarks that this For ? = "or ?d????. f???s?f?sa?t?? in other words", cf. Prot. 313a ??s?a e?? ???? t??a ???d???? ?'??? ?p???s?? t?? ?????; ? e? ?e? ?t?., Rep. 335a ?e?e?e?? d? ???? p??s?e??a? ??????e?, ?t?., 349e p?e??e?te?? ? ?????? tf d??a?? ?, ?? t? p??t?? p???? ??e??, Phd. 85a ?p? ?e?a??te??? ????at?? ? ????? ?e??? t???? d?ap??e????a?. 249^4* ap???eta?. nent" but (Robin), d?e? ??e?. Not "goes "speeds back". "s'?loigaway" (Hackforth), Cf. 248 e 5 e?? ??? ??? t? a?t?

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






Not "selon ce qu'on appelle Id?e" is expressed to Form", according in general terms". The partie, is used subi.e., "things expressed stanti vely, cf. Lys. 221 a ?st?? pe????ta ???ptes?a?, 213c dta? ? ?? O.R. ?a? t?? f????? ??s?, Soph. 5*6-7 pep?????a? / f??? ? f????? e?t' ?????s?? ?? ?????? f????, K?hner-Gerth ?, 36, II, 408-9. The sing, ?e???e??? is used in a generic Schwyzer as is often the case with t??, e.g. Rep. 344b ?pe?d?? d? t?? . . . . . . e?da????e? ?a? ?a?????? ??????ta?, K?hner-Gerth s?ta?, ?????s?? 608-9, sense, d????-

249 b 7: ?at' e?d?? ?e???e???. but "something that (Robin),

?, 54? to insert t? before ?at' e?d?? (Hackforth). So it is unnecessary Badham's "it is ???ta, because accepts 249 b 7: ???. Hackforth from a plurality to a unity". the man, not the e?d??, who proceeds But the subject of ??? is not e?d?? but a ?e???e???, which is much the same as a ?????, and it is this ????? which proceeds to a concept. of perceptions 6 : te ?a?. Robin puts te ?a? after d pte??ta? 249 L. Reinhard, Die Anakoluthe bei Piaton from a number

??apte????e???, (Berlin, 1920), 179, inserts after ??apte????e???, and P. von der M?hll, ??apt?s?a? p??????ta? but we had better Phil. 93 (1938), 490-1, inserts ? after a?e???, The participles admit the anacoluthon. p?????????apte????e??? for p???. explains ??apt. Cf. Apol. ?e??? do not form an asyndeton, d' a? . ?? ?e pe????e??? . . ?s?? t??' 31a ??e?? ?????e??? ????sa?te? ???t? K?hner-Gerth II, 104. ?ad??? ?? ?p??te??a?te, Burnet cf. Charm. ?? a?t??, 250 a 7 ? ?????' a?t?? ??????ta?. I55d a?t?? ????t' ?? ??a?t?? ??. But cf. Soph. "go O.C. 659-60 the ? ???? dta? fashion of" ????ta?. and not 250 e 4^ ?a??e??. "Mount", or is this an euphemism? (Hackforth),



251 a 2: ? t??. ?. Alline, Rev. Philol. 34 (1910), 284 defends the of the pap. ? by referring to 250 e ? ?? ?e?te??? ? d?ef?a?He is followed Platon I (Berlin, ?????. 1928), by P. Friedl?nder,

226 n. 2, and P. von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58. But in 250e for d?ef?a?????? a dilemma, does not refer to a "cor? expresses n'a de les id?es", originelle ruption qui pas permis contempler as is assumed by Alline, but to corruption ?p? t???? ??????? (250 a 3). The on the other present passage, dilemma. So ? seems to be an attempt involve such a hand, cannot to assimilate the two passages.

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



of the impf., cf. Prot. 343c 251 a 6: ???? ??. For the opt. instead ?? fa?e??, e? . . . ????a?e, K?hner-Gerth II, 471"2? wno this construction in Attic Stahl, wrongly suspect prose, Syntax ?a????? d. gr. Verb., 408. ?p? p?? t? t?? ????? 251 b6: stance of the soul" (Hackforth) nature de l'?me" e?d?? being 246b ????te e?d??. Not or "dans "over tout the whole subde la soul", e?de?,


but "under the surface of the (Robin), the outward Cf. ?? appearance. 249b ?????p?? ?? ?????? e?des? ?????????.

deleted 251 c 3? pe?? t? ???a. Wrongly by Robin. a Not not "l'amour des beaux 252 5: ???ta. ???ta (Burnet), for ???? here means "beloved" gar?ons" (Robin), (cf. Pind. ? em. 11, 48, Luc?an. Tim. 14, and supra 252 a 7 p????), so that t?? ?a??? is a partitive gen. on ???e???te? (Thompson, 252 e 7 : ??e???s?e??. Depends and not on as appears from forth), e?p????s? (Robin), sition of e?p????s?. Hackthe po-

for the passage 253 a 6: ?*?? Not ??? (Hackforth), 252 e 5it starts from a special of case, the followers 253 a 6, although into a so that Socrates now Zeus, develops general consideration, takes up his thread. we should put a full stop or a Accordingly semicolon after ??ap?s?. This interpretation also disposes of Robin's objection (in a note to his second translation): "pourquoi revenir, to read de plus sur l'influence de ce Dieu?" (he proposes His second la pens?e de ?????s??). objection, "pourquoi Zeus appellerait-elle des Bacchantes has been ?", l'image sufficiently refuted "The point is that in both sorts of divine by Hackforth: une fois

the immediate of possession 'infects' another or subject comma after ????a? should be removed). (Burnet's because "a comp??te?, 253 b 4: ???te?. Hackforth suggests A 1 and ? with ? makes it that ?at? t?? parison highly probable ?e?? t?? sf?te??? But pa?da be cannot left undefined. go together". others" but to be taken predi253 e ?: p????. Not "massif" (Robin), with s??pef???????? Cf. p???? ??e??, p???? catively (Hackforth). I 2c). p??e??, etc. (Lidd.-Sc, but 253 e 3: ?fa????. Not "hot-blooded" (Lidd.-Sc, Hackforth), "with bloodshot eyes" (Thompson). 20 Mnemosyne VIII


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

282 253 e 4: ??f??. ??s???. 253 e 4:

NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" This is almost a gloss on ?ta



Not "le fouet garni de pointes" ??st??? ?et? ???t???. = Robin in his second but ?a? translation, ???t???? (so (Robin), b t?? Cf. ?ptes?a?, 255 7 ?et? 27608 Hackforth). ?et? ?????, Tim. 60a t? t?? ????? ?et? t?? s??at?? ?e??a?t??? ?, Phd. 66 b IV 6, 1953? 92)? ?et? t?? ????? (Mnemos. 253 e 5: ? ???t???? d??a. Not "love-inspiring spectacle" (Thompbut "the "l'amoureuse of the apparition" (Robin), person son), = For "dear cf. beloved" Aesch. Cho. ???a person", (Hackforth). 238 ? te?p??? ???a, ? ??e???? ???a. Soph. Ai. 977 ???a???? d??a, Arist. Ach. 1184

Hackforth remarks that this cannot 253 e 6: a?s??se?. rightly which would require the definite mean "at (or by) the perception", and that a?s??se? d?a?e??a??e?? is equivalent to a?s??s?? article, Yet this is not "a bold for ??p??e??. ?e???t?t?? phrase", a????se?. is a modal dat., cf. Aesch. Prom. 384 t?de t? ??s? ??se??, Soph. El. 650 ??sa? ???a?e? ???, Thuc. V 13, ? O.C. 659 ???? ?at?pe???sa?, te '????a??? ?ss? ?pe??????t??. "All possible", p??ta. cf. E 60 da?da?a p??ta, ? 292 254 a4: p??tess? Arist. Poet. 1447 d????s?, Rep. 474e p?sa? p??f?se??, t?? ??t???. 22 ?? ap??t?? 254?>4: as appears d' ?st?apte t?? ?? ^

but "face", ????? Not "sPectacle" (Hackforth, Robin), from ??t??pt??sa?. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 356 ?? ????t?? s??a?, Xen. Cyneg. VI 15 ?st??pt??sa? t??? ?????p??

???as??, Mosch. 2, 86. = Not a?ap????sa? 255 c 7: a?apt???sa?. (Robin), ??G??apte??? "excite erotically". Cf. Hdt. II 115, 4 ??apte??sa? a?t?? ???ea? ????. 256 c 4 : a??es?? e???t?? ?a? d?ep???a?t?. Thompson rightly adopts the reading of the MSS.: a??es?? = "thing chosen", "course of acII i); tion", cf. Aeschin. 2, 11 ? a??es?? t?? p?es?e?a? (Lidd.-Sc, that a??es?? has this concrete sense also appears from c 5 ????ta?. of dual and plural, cf. Prot. 317e ????te t?? a?t?. For the coupling ?? t?? ??????, K?hner-Gerth ?, 73? with d?a???s? (Robin),, 256dl: ????????. Cannot be connected for "to live for some one" = p??. So a comma should be put after ???d????, ??ast?sa?te? e?e????.

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

NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" 257 b ? : ap????. has the meaning Not


: ap???? here Hackforth) ?p???? (Burnet, rise to an (properly: "giving "shocking" Nub. Cf. Arist. t??? dp?? ????e? reaction"). 974 ??d?? ungentle de??e?a? ap???? (v. Leeuwen ??e????). b 2 ??s?a? . . . 257 c 3: e?? ??a ?a? ??e??s?. "If he still wants": pa?e t?? t????t?? ????? implies ??? ??e??se?. Cf. supra, on 228 e ?. of 257 c 8: ?a?Not "and" Lysias' possible We should put resolution a comma but "for" (t? d???a (Hackforth), to desist from further composition). after ???e??. See supra, on 246 b 1. Not is

258 a 9: ????? s???e??a??????. forth), but "un discours couch? 260 b 7: ????? ?pa????. ?pa???? seems to be used ??ast??

a speech" (Hack"composing par ?crit" (Robin). after ?????, but Robin puts a comma

Cf. Symp. 177a d??e? ??? attributively. e?pe?? ep? de??? ?? ?pa???? ???t?? ???? ????? ??? ????a? a Thuc. I ?? d???ta? ?????st?? comma), (where Robin does not put I, 272-3. 122, 3 t??a???? p????, K?hner-Gerth Cf. Arist. Lys. 100 Not st?ate?a? 260 b 8: ?p? st?at???. (Robin). on the Vesp. 354? Andoc. of the 2, 14 o? article, see

?. Leeuwen ?p? st?at??? ?p??ta?, ?p? st?at??? ??te?. For 26? c 6 : a?a??? ?a? ?a???. on 239 c 4. supra, case 260 d 6: e? t?? ??? s???????. would have written Plato some advice Not


for in that t? (Burnet, Robin), "if The is: there is meaning ? ???.

on my part". Richards' adopted 263 a 3 : t?? t????t??. ?????t?? by Hackforth of". Cf. for t????t?? = "such as I am thinking is unnecessary, dta? ep?st??? Phd. 73c ??' ??? ?a? t?de ?????????e?, pa?a?????ta? (given) t??p? t????t?, 488a ???s?? Gerth ?, 646. 263 c ? : e?d??. cannot be t??de, Rep. e??a?; ???? d? t??a t??p??; ??????s?? . K?hner. . t????t??? ?t?., ?a??????? ?e???e??? ??? Seems to be an for ?a??? e?d?? interpolation, to ?a??? t? (p????a)" (Hackcf. 238 e 5 ??e?tt?? (Vollgraff

equivalent "practically forth). For ?a??? used substantively, inserts ??d??), Symp. 175a t? ??e?tt??), 241 c 6 t????te??? (Vollgraff ?t?p?? ?', ?f?, ???e??, Tim. 43c ste?e? ??? (Proclus adds p??? which has been adopted by Burnet and Wilam. II, 344), Aesch. Prom. 871 Hdt. sp????), (Groeneboom ??as?? sp???? ?e ??? ?? t?sde f?seta?

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


NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" deletion of t?

?????? I, 268. to see" (properly a reThe. d cf. ta?ta ??e????? t??? de????? ??d??s?? 164 ?a??????e? flexive), Lidd.-Sc, p?????te?, Hdt. ? 44> 2 f???a t?^ p??d?? ?????a?e ??s???, A 2 b. K?hner-Gerth Not ??????sa? for s???. Robin), 263 C9? s??????sa?. (Burnet, = "to be possible". Xen. De re Cf. Thuc. V 40, 3 dp? ?? ???????, eq. 9, il e? s????????. t? for t?, but the 265 d 5: t? ???d?. Hackforth adopts Schanz's "the things said about as it stands: text can be translated love, We might expect ???s?e??, but this has been what it is if defined". assimilated consists could to the gender in the predicate. Not 266 b 6: pef????. of the predicate d, because the definition

I 84, 3 ?p??a??? t?? ????p????? (Kr?ger's and Hude has been accepted Legrand), by "fail 263 c 4: ?a????e??. For the meaning

for this Hackforth), (Burnet, pef????' or "as they objectively" (Hackforth) hardly mean "existing defends Robin rightly exist in nature" pef???? (Thompson). by and to Phil. i6e CLIV translates "une 15e, n.) {Notice, referring This is called d'une multiplicit?". et qui soit l'unit? naturelle Greek". But ?a? has explanatory force "very difficult by Hackforth "en wel"), cf. Phd. 58d pa??s?? t??e?, ?a? p????? ?e, 63c (Dutch unit? ?a? . . . p??? a?e???? t??? e??? e??a? t? t??? tete?e?t???s?, ? Hdt. ?? 52 ?e??e?a ??a???? ? t??? ?a????, T???s?, ?a? T????? ?? t? ? t?? 2 102, ???ea, ?a? '?p???????, ???? d?? ta?ta ?s?????? ??? t??? p????s????, Thuc. V 26, 5 ?e?????? pa?' ??f?t????? a?f?te?a VI 20, 3 e?s?? ept?, ?a? ?as?, ?a? ??? ?ss?? t??? ?e??p????s???, e?e?p?? ?a? 1046 a 23 p?s?e? t? p?s??? Aristotle Verdenius-Waszink, (for examples, and Passing-away, Dem. On Coming-to-be 32, ? ?? ????? 30-31), ?e?e???s?? . . . t?? d??a? e??a? . . . t?? ????a?e ?a? t?? ??????e? pa?es?e?as???a?, ???? ?p' ????? Metaph. more ?a? pe?? ?? ?? ?s? s????afa?, Aen. Tact. 15, 4 p????? ?? on c 5. ?a? See also t??e?. 245 ??p??pe?? supra, Hackforth 266 c 6 : ?a???ta?. Robin and rightly argues (against is the that this of ?a?e??. others) subject s?????a???, 266 d 7: ?a? ?a???. ?t???. ?a? ?a??? ta?t? under present passage ?a?, but cf. Rep. 394d Denniston ?', ?f?, ???e??. (158) classes the the meaning but it seems more "actually", Burnet brackets Arist.

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

NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" natural Ran. loe. 267 bio: Hackforth ??. This can to excise to take


?a? . . . ?e in the sense of "yes, and". Cf. Arist. ?a? ?ated?sa??? ad ?e ?a??, and ?. Leeuwen 49 ??a?????sa?; mean hardly "par exemple" (Robin). an ellipse of it, but we may assume ?a? p?te

for "id (Burnet, Robin), quae ita haec potius esse debuit: ?a? ?? p?????? s???d???" (Stallbaum). Cf. Eur. ????????? Tro. 1188-9 t? ?a? p?t? / ????e?e? ?? se; Arist. Lys. 836 t?? ?a? est?? p?t?; Pax 1289 t?? ?a? p?t' e?; 268 a 2 : t?? t?? t?????. Robin puts a comma before t?? and after Phaedri responsioni non bene convenit, "du point de vue de l'art", la t?????, and translates "j'entends vertu qui est celle que poss?de l'art", but this is a strange kind of Hackforth t?. Yet Stallbaum's prolepsis. suggests explanation, ?a? p?t' ?st?? t?? ? t?? t????? d??a???, ?? ??e?; seems to be quite Cf. Gorg. 52Ia ep? p?t??a? ??? ?e pa?a?a?e?? t?? ?e?asatisfactory. pe?a? t?? p??e??, d????s?? ???, Horn. ? 44? p???? t?? ????? ?e?pe?; K?hner-Gerth ?, 37> 626. 268 ci: p??e??. Bracketed but correctly by Burnet, interpreted Stallbaum: "remedia et quod conadhibere, by quando quibus, veniate 26802: e?pe?? e?p??e?. This is nearer rightly account to the e?p?? than reading that "the following for the error in transcription". remarks MSS.

prefers e??e? (cf. a 4, b 3). 268 a 2: t??a ?a? p?t?.



Hackforth reads ???????? and refers to Cornford on Soph. 217e: "Read ????????, 'rude', for ??????, 'wild, savage, is which too fierce', strong a word". But ?????? also means "coarse", "harsh", e.g. Cr. 52a p??t????t?? ???? ?a? ??? ?????? ?p?tatt??t??, p??e?? ? a? ?e?e???e?, Laws 950aD t? d' ad ??te ?????? d??es?a? ??te ?t? d? a?t??? ????se ?p?d??e?? ??a ??? ??? ?????e? t? ?e pa??pa?, ?????? ?a? ap???? fa????t' ?? t??? ?????? ?????p???, 953e ?? ????as? ?a? ???as? t?? ?e???as?a? p?????e???? . . . ??d? ??????as?? ???????. in Arist. ?.?. ??28 a 9, b 2 ?????? should not be altered Similarly, ????????. force of ?a?, cf. 269 c 8 : ?a? e????e d??e??. For the conclusive Io 535a ?pte? ??? p?? ??? t??? ?????? t?? ?????, ? S???ate?, ?a? ??? into

?? or preceding 268 e 1 : ??????.

Thompson e?p?? would

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

286 d????s?


?e?a ????a ???? pa?? t?? ?e?? ta?ta ?? a?a??? p???ta? ????"en Robin Phd. "denn", ?e?e??, 63a ?a? ??? d??e? (Apelt wrongly Hdt. IV 134, 2 ??t?? ??d?e? ????? p????? ?ataf??????s?, outre"), ?a? ??? ??? fa??eta? G?????? e?pa? pe?? t?? S??????? d???? ?????, Arist. ??. 1674-5 d??a?' ?????e ?a? p???? d??e?? ???e?? / pe?? t?? ?????, Le style ???, ?a? ????e pa?ad?d??? s??, Trenkner, 67-69. 270 a 5' ????a?. Not d?a???a? (Burnet). for I cannot believe that (Hackforth), suggesting that have naturally ???? to its manifestations, in human point, beings" fait leur Anaxagoras passed from in his The meaning is not "folly" "Socrates (Plato) is merely converse with Pericles would

on the general nature of speculation down to in degree varying vanishing or that "si Yintelligence a (Hackforth), qui a motiv? term is taken to denote that soul les haines as an abpart does the of not

m?rite, c'est bien Yinintelligence If the dont ils ont ?t? l'objet" (Robin). stractum pro concreto, it may be assumed reality which does not consist Hackforth but to the of ????. rightly whole 270 c 2 : t?? ????. refer to the universe

that this and

argues of the


of the body. The question t? p?t? ???e? '?pp????t?? (c 9) is answered by stating the problem ?p???? ? p???e?d?? ?st?? ?? p??? ?????s??e?a e??a? a?t?? te?????? ?a? ????? d??at?? p??e?? (di). This is clearly meant as an explanation of the preceding allusion to t? d???. It is obvious that the question ap???? ? p???e?d?? can only be decided the whole of these objects, and not the whole of the by keeping in view. This interpretation has also been proposed universe, by L. Edelstein, die der und Sammlung ?e?? a???? hippokratischen Schriften (Berlin, 1931), 130 ft., A. Rey, La maturit? de la pens?e en Gr?ce (Paris, 1939), 435-8, F. Steckerl, Cl. Phil. 40 scientifique 168-70. e?d??a? 271 e 2 : e??a? p? p???? a?t?. This is better than Robin's p? p???? a?t??. Cf. Rep. 34la ??d?? ?? s?? p???? esta?, Symp. 217c, Crat. 387a, Laws 697a, Isoer. 15, 28 ?? ??d?? ??? p???? ?????e. ' Hackforth Burnet's 272 b 3 ? ?????. rejects ??. Cf. rightly Prot. 333b ? ???, ? ???ta???a, ?f?? ???, ? ????? p??; (1945), be should 272 c 2: ?p??. Hackforth: "possibly d???, 'traverse', read". I should Stallbaum's prefer ????. Cf. d3 ????e?? ??? t?? ?????, ?a???? pe???a????e????, Rep. 445e e?ta??a ??a?e???a?e?

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



??? e?? p??????ata ???as??, 5?56 Sta t?a?e?a? t?? a?a??se??. e 2: a? t? Not a?t? t? p?a????ta Cf. 272 p?a????ta. (Burnet). 610 b ?p' a? The. a? l6ob ??d' Rep. ??d' ????? ??s??, ???? a?t???. ?? adopted is 274 a 3: ??? ?? s? d??e??. Heindorf's by Hackforth 53IC unnecessary. ply The construction is zeugmatic, for we have to supTa????. 275 c 8 p???t??? from pe???t???. 274 d 4 : ?e??. Hackforth must know this


rightly Postgate's accepts in order to understand identification

Still better seems the suggestion "???????. proposed by F. Scheidwhich the last weiler, Herrn. 83 (1955), 120: <Ta????> ?e?? "?????a,?? words are to be regarded as an etymological of Ta????. explanation Cf. the etymologies of ?a?t???, ?????st??? (244c), and ??e??? (251c). 275 c 3 : ?a? ??? d??e?. For the causal force of ?a?, cf. Phd. yyd t??t?? t?? ????? ?t? ??????, ?a? ded???a? t? d?ap?a??ate?sas?a? t?? ???t?, ta?ta? pa?d??, Thuc. Ill 15, 2 o? d? ????? ????a??? ??ad??? te ???e???a? ?? ?a?p?? ???????d? ?sa?, Xen. An. II 6, 17 ???e? e?? ?? t??t?? t?? s?? ???? p???e??, ?a? ?et? ?t?ses?a? ????a Le ???a, Trenkner, style ???, 66-67. takes ?? t? . . . ?s??e??? to belong to 275 c 5: t?????. Hackforth

? t????? . . . ?ata??pe?? as much as to ? pa?ade???e???: "for to speak of one who 'thinks he has left a written manual' is, by itself, nonsense". This objection if t???? is taken in the pregnant disappears, sense it is used, e.g., in 270e. 275 c 8 : p???? t? ?'???e??? e??a?. Hackforth p???? p??e?? ????e???, but Thompson gestion in which accepts Bury's sug-

remarks that rightly e??a? is equivalent to d??as?a?, and refers to Arist. Av. 19 t? d'??? ??' ?st?? ??d?? ???? p??? d???e?? (usually altered into $st??). Cf. supra 243 a ? se????es?a? ?? t? d?te, e? ??a ?????p?s???? t???? ?? a?t???, Rep. 562a e?e??d?????? te ?a? ??apat?sa?te e?d?????set?? ??d?? ??t??. 275 d 4: de????. Not "strange" but "awful", "imposing". Not 275 d 4: ?a? ?? a?????. (Hackforth) "en effet" or "terrible" "which (Robin), makes


it truly analogous" but "namely": t??t? refers to (Hackforth), c 6 ?? t? saf?? ?a? ???a??? ?? ??a???t?? de???? is used ?s??e???, and ?a? ?? predicatively, a????? d????? explains why it is so imposingly deceptive. See supra, on 246 b 1.

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



but Not "discours" "words" ?et? ?????. (Robin) e see on For 253 4. ?et?, (Hackforth). supra, followed brackets 276 d 2 : dta? d? ???f?. Burnet, by Hackforth, after ????e? and to delete te after d?. I prefer to put a semicolon 27608: This seems also to be Robin's view in his second ?s??seta?. lation. In the Bud?-edition he puts a full stop after ?et???t?, I do not understand. transwhich

to insert 276 d 8 : ??? ???? pa???? d???e?. There is no necessity ?? before for on ??? (Heindorf, ??? depends pa????. Hackforth), of pa???? d???e? is not "il cherchera The meaning le divertissement de sa vie" Hackforth: e?et????ta d????. F. Scheidweiler, Herrn. ?2?> 277 d 7: p???t????. 83 (?955)> it because cannot refer to "wie p???t????, ?d?a, suspects wrongly The words w?re". to notwendig ?????? t??e?? are subordinate p???t???? on a is an which s????a??a ???f?? (cf. supra, 249 6), explanation in ???a?e?. of ????e? d???s?a, and a?t? refers to s????a??a implied (Robin), but "indulge ?a? ??e????ta Xen. d???e?? ??pa????ta?, in the playing" (so probably Cf. recreation"). Apol. 41b t??? ??e? e?ta??a t??? ?spe? d???e??, Hdt. ? 94> 3 VII e? ?? de? 5> 85 Cyrop. ?p??e???e??? "he will continue

takes these terms as real 277 d I0: ^pa? te ?a? d?a?. Hackforth nouns, but in that case Plato would have added the article. That the phrase is meant adverbially, appears from Rep. 382e ???' ?pa? ??d' d?a?, Phil. 36e, 65e, The. 158e d?a? te ?a? ?pa?, Polit. 2Jj? ???d??e?e? ??? ?spe? ???? ??ast?? ???? ??a? e?d?? ?pa?ta p??t' a? p???? ?pa? ????e??. F. Scheidweiler, Herrn. 83 (?955)> 277 e 8: ?? ?? ?a??d???e???. out in that Plato refers to poetry, 121-2, points ?a??d?? always and proposes to read <ds??> ?? ??. But pe????? ??e?a is an appropriate of poetry viewed as d???????a qualification (cf. Gor g. 502cd). omits ?????e???, which seems to 278 a 4: ??????. Robin rightly be a pedantic of 6. e repetition 277 Rh. Mus. 92 (1943), 279 a 8: ?p? ?e??? d?. E. Bickel, 153-7 ?p? because the older MSS. have suggests ?e????a? (seil, ??????), to adopt the reading ?e???? or ?e????. It seems simpler ?e????: "a greater thing". See supra, on 263 c 1. Hackforth's interpretation

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

NOTES ON PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS" of the eulogy been 39-45rightly of Isocrates criticized by as an amende honorable

289 for Rep. 500 b has IV 6 (1953),

G. J. de Vries,


279 c 2 : ???s?? p?????. W. Kranz, Phil. 94 (1941), 332-3 wrongly this as the gold of the soul {Rep. 416e). The passage has interprets been satisfactorily explained by Thompson. Zeist, Homeruslaan 53




In fine orationis quam pro eloquentia nova habuit (e. XXIII 6), Aper adversarios suos Messallam, Secundum Maternum, appellat eorumque callide laudat quod minime quam laudibus efferre soient antieloquentiam quitatem redoleat. Praecipue nitori et cultui, inventioni et dispositioni, brevitati, compositioni, sententiis multum tribuit, quae singula in veteribus oratoribus misere desiderari ante affirmaverat. Postremo addit ?sic exprimais affectus, sto libertatem temperatis, ut'* etc. Prima verba comparetis velim cum e. XXII 3, ubi de Cicerone asseverati ?tarde commovetur, raro incalescit". Eodem modo ex laudatione libertatis temperatae Apri quidem opinione libertatem antiquorum nimiam fuisse colliges ; quorum vero hac in oratione nihil invenies. Obiecit sane Materno poetae nimiam libertatem priore in oratione (e. X 6-8), et ipse Maternus in fine e. XXVII Messallam monet ut de antiquis loquens antiqua utatur lib?rtate, ?qua vel magis degeneravimus quam ab eloquentia'*. Verum eo loco, ut ipse affirm?t, non de eloquentia sed de lib?rtate animi loquitur, nostro loco nil nisi de afuisse eloquentia agitur. Et novum dicendi genus tantum a temperatione ut ei licentia nimia saepe obiceretur audaciaque quis nescit? Quod fecerunt et Seneca in Epist. CXIV, et Quintilianus plurimis locis Institutionis suae (tantum afiero 1. XII io, 73 ?corruptum dicendi genus quod aut verborum licentia exult?t aut puerilibus sententiolis lascivit, aut ... turgescit aut ... bacchatur, aut ... nitet ... aut specie libertatis insanii; comp. VIII 5, 35 et alia multa), et ipsius Dialogi auctor in e. XXVI, ubi Messalla Apro respondens novis rhetoribus lasciviam verborum et licentiam compositionis obicit. Ergo Aper nostro loco perorans Messallam aliosque laudat non quia libertatem illam novi dicendi generis temp?rent, sed quod temptent imprimis propriam. In ipso Cicerone paulo ante laudavit, quod nonnunquam ?locos quoque laetiores attemptaverit". Et apud Senecam, novae eloquentiae vel maximum auctorem, in Epist. CXIV legimus ?aliquid grande temptant?* necesse esse usque ad vitia accedere. Eadem verba ?libertatem temptare" apud Livium quoque in 1. VI 18, 11 invenimus. Ut coniecturam ex palaeographica quoque ratione probem, lectorem admoneo in scripturis q.v. nationalibus -er- et -/- litteras saepius similitudinem quandam praebere. Gerrit van der Veenstraat 171 ?. A. D. Leeman Amstelodami,

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