صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

This is not the place for a full discussion of the passage, all possible and impossible interpretations of which will be found in Mr. Bury's Appendix B. I have to do only with Wilamowitz's contribution to the subject. In the first place, he brackets Tolavra, taking advantage of the fact that B has Xp Tolavra with Eusebius and T, Tolaûra xp with Stobaeus. Such transpositions, however, are too common to prove anything; and surely the meaning of πάντα ὁπόσα χρὴ τοιαῦτα νομίζειν is settled by b, 2 πάνθ' ὁπόσα τῆς γενεῖς αὖ ταύτης ἐστίν. In the next place, Wilamowitz defends the reading τὴν ἀίδιον ᾑρῆσθαι φύσιν, and advises us to examine the MSS. which have púσiv, however late and interpolated they may be. I should have no objection, if I could find evidence that púow is in any MS. at all. From the silence of Bekker we might infer that it is in ABEFw; but, as we might also infer from the same silence that it is in the Bodleian MS. (B), which it is not, we have to be careful.1 Moreover, the word is omitted by Stobaeus, as Hense tells us (iii. p. 307, 6), though his critical note is otherwise misleading, while one MS. of Eusebius omits the word with BW and another has páσuv (sic) with T and its family. In these circumstances no prudent editor can print púow in his text.

As to the construction, Wilamowitz rightly feels that the influence of pσeis extends over the whole sentence, and he mentally supplies evaɩ in two places. What he has not observed is that pýσeis . . . ws . . . is an impossible construction for Plato. The intervening clause introduced by us is accommodated to opáčov, but the main purport of the statement must be given by an infinitive, and that must surely be pola. Nor can I doubt that this is passive and means 'is caught.' We have been told already that the Good has 'taken cover' (64е, 5 катañéþevyev) and that we are to 'hunt' it (65a, 1 Oŋpevσai), and an announcement that we have run it down is most appropriate. Far the best commentary is Rep. 432b, 7 sqq., where we also find a parallel to φράζων and to πῃ (ὅτι ταύτῃ πῃ ἔστιν, ' that it is somewhere in this direction'). I cannot, therefore, believe for a moment that Wilamowitz is right in rendering the highest possession consists in everything of which we must assume that the eternal (dídios púσis periphrastic) has chosen it or reserved it for itself.'

SYMPOSIVM.

173d, 8 I adhere to paλakós 'gentle,' but not from any superstitious veneration for B, since it is also the original reading of TW. The conduct of Apollodorus in the Phaedo is surely μαλακία, not μανία, and Xenophon calls him εὐήθης, silly (Apol. § 28), which goes better with palakós than with pavikós. The obvious meaning is surely 'I don't know how you came to be called μaλakós. In your language at any rate you are just the opposite; you are savage with everyone but Socrates.' No doubt the regular opposite of ἄγριος is ἥμερος, but Rep. 41od, I ἀγριότητός τε καὶ σκληρότητος, καὶ αὖ μαλακίας τε καὶ ἡμερότητος) shows how close the two ideas lie to one another. I believe the variant μavikós is only due to paívopai in the answer of Apollodorus, and Schoene takes the same view. Hertz's identification of our Apollodorus with the sculptor whom Pliny calls insanus is much too speculative to build upon, especially as we are told that he got the name for an entirely different reason than that here assumed. It was because he destroyed his own works when he was not satisfied with them.

1746, 4 'Αγάθων ̓ ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν αὐτόματοι ἀγαθοί.

Wilamowitz objects to Lachmann's correction of the MS. dya@or because it assumes that the Athenians wrote accents and apostrophes. That is irrelevant. We have to write them in the conventional script, and we must do the best we can. As

1 Mr. Bury rightly corrects Bekker's critical apparatus on this point, though the lemma of

his explanatory note is misleading, since it implies that púow is in AII, which it is not.

I said before, it is interpretation, but so it is to write ayatov. He also objects to the dative 'Ayάowvi, which no one could detect, and says that the elision of the would be impossible. But why should it be taken for granted that 'Ayábov' is dative? In a case like this, the terminal accusative is not too great a licence, even with a proper name, especially as 'Αγάθωνα would stand for εἰς ̓Αγάθωνος. The διαφθορά is simply the altered accentuation, and it appears to me that Plato has secured this by a very ingenious device. All the evidence (for which see Hug-Schoene) goes to show that the proverb was αὐτόματοι ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν, but by putting 'Ayálwv' ènì daîτas at the beginning of the verse, Plato has made it inevitable for the reader, with Agathon in his mind, to accent accordingly. This may be a schlechter Witz, but it is the sort of thing people say, and the whimsical criticism of Homer which follows as its justification is quite in order. If Homer could take so great a liberty, Socrates may take a smaller one. There must be an allusion to Agathon's name. Finally it is inconceivable that there ever was such a proverb as airóμatoL ἀγαθοὶ δειλῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν. The evidence shows that to have been merely a joke in the Xpvoovv yévos of Eupolis, to which Socrates has no occasion to allude. It is very strange that Adam (C.R. X. 236) and Wilamowitz should have discovered such a mare's nest independently. Wilamowitz is too prudent to refer to the scholium on the passage, for he knows that it is merely a Byzantine extract from Lucilius Tarrhaeus, and that there are no Plato scholia in the proper sense of the term (p. 329). In Zenobius (ii. 19) the lemma has aya@@v correctly, though we must read Βακχυλίδης for 'Ηράκλειτος.

175b, 6 πάντως παρατίθετε ὅτι ἂν βούλησθε, ἐπειδάν τις ὑμῖν μὴ ἐφεστήκῃ κτλ.

'Anyhow you serve up anything you like, when you have no one to look after you.' Wilamowitz has discovered that maparíbete is indicative, not imperative, and that the sentence is quite in order. In this he was anticipated by Professor A. E. Taylor in his review of Bury's edition (Mind, N.S. XIX. p. 243), and in my second edition I deleted the obelus which I had followed previous editors in prefixing to the clause έπειδάν τις κτλ.

176b, 7 I still prefer Vahlen's 'Ayálwv <os> to Wilamowitz's mus exes. It is agreed that some change is necessary; but, if so, it is easier to adopt Vahlen's suggestion. There is always something rather abrupt in a vocative without &, and the abruptness would be increased by its postponement to the end of the sentence. I see no occasion for this, and it would hardly be courteous to the giver of the feast.

1948, 3 ἐπειδὰν καὶ ̓Αγάθων εἴπῃ εὖ, καὶ μάλ' ἂν φοβοῖο κτλ.

Wilamowitz objects to Vahlen's removal of the comma after cry and his insertion of a comma after ev. He prefers to delete e altogether on the ground that the thythm of the sentence demands a pause at ein, where everybody before Vahlen bad paused. That, however, was only because they supposed ev kai páλa to be a possible phrase, and did not feel κai μála to be practically one word, as a Greek would certainly feel it to be. Nor is there anything in the contention that the posation of e makes it too emphatic, and implies that Socrates would only be terrified Agathon spoke well. It is assumed that he will, and Vahlen has shown that ed can perfectly well follow its verb. The Greeks did not need commas in such , but we do. The matter is really settled, not only by a, 7 ùs eu épouvтos éμoû, fault still more by the reference to this passage at 198a, 6 ὅτι 'Αγάθων θαυμαστῶς ἐροῖ and 4, 9 ör. 'Ayáðæv ev épɛî.

[140, β εἰ δὲ ἄλλοις ἐντύχοις σοφοῖς, τάχ ̓ ἂν αἰσχύνοιο αὐτούς, εἴ τι ἴσως οἴοιο γραδι αν ποιεῖν.

Wilamowitz does not propose to disturb the text, though he rejects the defence and interpretation of it given by Vahlen (Opusc. Acad. I. 496 sq.). His own depends on the belief that rɩ . . . aioxpòv öv πouîv is possible Greek for 'to do something really aioxpóv,' etwas das wirklich häszlich wäre ! Comment is needless.

197c, 6 Wilamowitz's ȧvéμwv koítηv, üπvov vnênd is possibly right, but I do not in that case understand the persistence of Te or T' in so many branches of the tradition.

2016, 8 ὥσπερ σὺ διηγήσω.

This reading (BTW) is confirmed by the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, and I accordingly reverted to it in my second edition. Wilamowitz reads simply yýow, and supposes that the di- came from the next word, dieλ0eîv. It is quite true that dinyovuar usually means 'I narrate,' and we certainly expect vonynow. On the other hand, yow (or Syow, as I formerly read with Schanz) is not very appropriate either, and it is just possible that wσrep σù diŋynow means 'as you described.'

203e, 2 The transposition of őrav evropńσŋ, which Wilamowitz thinks 'evident,' seems to me quite uncalled for. A certain 'admired disorder' befits the prophetess Diotima.

204, 4 καὶ γὰρ ἔστι τὸ ἐρώμενον τὸ τῷ ὄντι καλὸν καὶ ἁβρὸν καὶ τέλεον καὶ μακαριστόν.

Wilamowitz brackets the second rò with Badham, but it is quite in place in a convertible proposition like this.

2080, 2 ἐπεί γε καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰ ἐθέλεις εἰς τὴν φιλοτιμίαν βλέψαι, θαυμάζοις ἂν τῆς ἀλογίας περὶ ἃ ἐγὼ εἴρηκα εἰ μὴ ἐννοεῖς, ἐνθυμηθεὶς ὡς κτλ.

In the first place, Wilamowitz writes θαυμάζοι < μί> σ' ἂν τῆς ἀλογίας on the ground that the traditional text would mean 'If you look at what I am just now adducing as a proof, you will wonder at what I have said for its absurdity, if you don't understand it' (!). But, in the first place, the meaning of ei un évvocês is settled by 207c, 5 above èàv raûra un évvons. It is simply 'if you don't reflect,' and ἐνθυμηθείς depends not on ἐννοεῖς, but on θαυμάζοις ἄν, ‘you will wonder, when you consider.' 'If you care to look at piλorquía as well (kκaí) you will find it as paradoxical as love, unless you reflect that both spring from the desire of immortality.' In the second place, Wilamowitz follows Ast in deleting Tepì, which is attested by the Oxyrhynchus papyrus. There is no sort of difficulty in understanding' avtoÙS from τῶν ἀνθρώπων as an object for θαυμάζοις ἂν, and τῆς ἀλογίας περὶ ἃ εἴρηκα means 'for their unaccountable conduct in the respects I have mentioned above,' viz. at 207b.

[ocr errors]

209c, 5 Wilamowitz deletes Tŷs Tŵv Taídwv on the ground that it cannot mean 'that of bodily children.' In this he has been anticipated by Mr. Bury. But if we remember that the reference is to 207e, 3 dià maidoyovías, which is unambiguous, we must surely render a closer communion than that of children after the flesh.' That is not affected by the metaphorical use of aídov in the next clause.

[ocr errors]

210a, 8 ἔπειτα δὲ αὐτὸν κατανοῆσαι κτλ.

[ocr errors]

Wilamowitz's av for avròv was also anticipated by Mr. Bury. But avròv means 'for himself,' of his own accord,' as contrasted with éàv opus Яynτaι & youμevos. 210d, 1 (ἵνα) μηκέτι τὸ παρ' ἑνί, ὥσπερ οἰκέτης, ἀγαπῶν παιδαρίου κάλλος ἢ ἀνθρώπου τινὸς ἢ ἐπιτηδεύματος ἑνός, δουλεύων φαῦλος ἢ καὶ σμικρολόγος.

I am inclined to regret that I lacked courage to retain Schleiermacher's r aρ' éví, as Bury does. It gives an excellent construction to dovλevwv, which Wilamowitz

brackets, as Bast had already done. In any case, I am sure that Wilamowitz's interpretation is wrong. He takes dyarov of bodily tendance, which seems to me out of the question here. As Mr. W. L. Lorimer points out to me, the point of oikétηs is that an oikérηs is always the slave of one master, whereas a doulos may be a δημόσιος.

212e, 8 ἐὰν εἴπω οὕτωσί.

Wilamowitz accepts Winckelmann's άveiπùv ovτwσí. That is, no doubt, plausible, and certainly better than the interpretations which have been proposed. On the other hand, it must be noted that W has κεφαλὴν ἐὰν εἴπω οὑτωσὶ κεφαλὴν, and this strongly suggests that the words eàv eiπw ourwoì have been misplaced at an early date. They are a little too short (thirteen letters) for a line of the archetype of our MSS., but as they are found already in their present place in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, the displacement, if there has been one, is older than that. If we read ἐὰν εἴπω οὕτωσί, ἆρα καταγελάσεσθέ μου ὡς μεθύοντος, everything is in order, and I have little doubt that is right.

223b, 4 I must plead guilty to having overlooked the elow avtikpus for eis td ǎνTIKρUs of the papyrus in my second edition. Schoene and Bury both note it, though they do not adopt it.

PHAEDRVS.

2421, 8 τὸ δαιμόνιόν τε καὶ τὸ εἰωθὸς σημειόν μοι γίγνεσθαι ἐγένετο.

My critical note makes it plain that the text is unsettled. Wilamowitz deletes τὸ δαιμόνιόν τε καὶ altogether. I should prefer τὸ δαιμόνιόν μοι (so V, not W) καὶ εἰωθὸς σημεῖον γίγνεσθαι ἐγένετο.

2440, 5 ἐπεὶ καὶ τήν γε τῶν ἐμφρόνων ζήτησιν τοῦ μέλλοντος διά τε ὀρνίθων ποιουμένων κτλ.

Wilamowitz regards the text as sound, and only differs from me in putting no comma after ἐμφρόνων. I meant to imply that τὴν does not belong to ζήτησιν, but that we must supply τέχνην from c, i τῇ καλλίστῃ τέχνῃ. That surely makes the construction of ζήτησιν . TOLOVμévшv much clearer and more natural.

246, 6 ἀθάνατον δὲ οὐδ ̓ ἐξ ἑνὸς λόγου λελογισμένου, ἀλλὰ πλάττομεν κτλ.

Wilamowitz is offended by the häszliche Härte of dλλà and writes aλo. Really the sentence is simplicity itself if we read it in the context. The question is (b, 5) πῇ δὴ οὖν θνητόν τε καὶ ἀθάνατον ζῷον ἐκλήθη. We have just been told on what ground the θνητὸν ζῷον got its name (c, 5 θνητόν τ ̓ ἔσχεν ἐπωνυμίαν), and we go on quite straightforwardly ἀθάνατον δὲ (sc. ζῷον ἐκλήθη) οὐδ ̓ ἐξ ἑνὸς λόγου λελογισμένου. The editors have missed this, but Hermias takes it quite correctly.

ἥ τε

248b, 5 οὗ δ ̓ ἕνεχ ̓ ἡ πολλὴ σπουδὴ τὸ ἀληθείας ἰδεῖν πεδίον οὗ ἐστιν, ἥ τε δή . .

...

In this case, I think, Wilamowitz has restored the text in a convincing manner. It has long been felt that of σTv is unsatisfactory, and Madvig deleted of. Wilamowitz has seen that it is or which is superfluous and also out of place, and brackets both words. The or was obviously inserted by some one unfamiliar with the idiom, for which see Forman, Selections from Plato, App. p. 316, 20. appears that, in such sentences, éσrív is never expressed. It should be noticed, however, that Proclus already has oû éσriv (in Parm. V. 300, Cousin), so we have not to do with a recent corruption.

249d, 5 ἣν (sc. μανίαν) ὅταν τὸ τῇδέ τις ὁρῶν κάλλος, τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἀναμιμνησκό μενος, πτερῶταί τε καὶ ἀναπτερούμενος προθυμούμενος ἀναπτέσθαι, ἀδυνατῶν δέ, ὄρνιθος δίκην βλέπων ἄνω, τῶν κάτω δε ἀμελῶν, αἰτίαν ἔχει ὡς μανικῶς διακείμενος,

The difficulty of this passage is well known, and it certainly seems to lie in the words Te Kai ávаπтeроúμevos, which are in all the MSS. and in Stobaeus. Without them the sentence would be quite straightforward. I cannot think that it is sufficient to write ἀναπτερούμενός τε καὶ with Spengel and Wilamowitz. It once occurred to me that τε καὶ ἀναπτερούμενος might represent an old variant γρ. καὶ ἀναπτέσθαι προθυμού In any case, I should like to delete the three words.

μενος.

250c, 5 I agree with Wilamowitz's defence of donμavro against the drμavto of H. Richards (which I did not adopt). The true explanation is clearly given by Thompson ad loc.

256e, 2 őтav yévwvra is defended against the quite unnecessary conjecture of H. Richards' orav yiyvovтal.

ST. ANDREWS.

JOHN BURNET.

CORRIGENDA ON THE PERVIGILIVM VENERIS.

I HAVE to apologize to my readers for two passages in which my corrections of the proof-sheets were misunderstood. In v. 21 for flauum' read florum'; in the note on vv. 72, 73 I suggested an alternative reconstruction of the text, viz. to take v. 72 ('peruium,' etc.) as the fourth line of stanza 16, the verb in the second clause of the stanza being still 'gubernat'; in that case the missing line was the first verse of stanza 17, and I suggest for it 'Ipsa corpus omne pollens nuptiali gaudio.' On the whole I now prefer this version.

[ocr errors]

May I add that it now seems to me very possible that the 'Fiam ut' of S in v. 95 is a correction of a damaged Pipiat chirps'? P and F are exceedingly alike in uncial writing, and, as Mr. Rackham points out to me, the first Pi- may well have disappeared by lipography; if that happened, Fiat' remained, and the addition of a line over the a and of an m produced the reading found in S.

[ocr errors]

In v. 17 a better line results if 'Praenitent' is substituted for Enitent' and 'Apertae' for 'Pulchrae'; and vv. 63, 64 are clearer as Tunc cruore de superno pontus undas turbidus Deque uiro defluente,' etc.

J. A. FORT.

« السابقةمتابعة »