7 —- 2. we 
PHILEBUS OF PLATO, ETC. 163 
is that the dialogue, if carried on by Socrates alone, would be a very 
poor affair, cp. Repub. 369. D. 
Ibid. 30. E. vod éott yevobtotns tod ndytwy aitiou deyOévtos toy 
tettdpwy ay jy Hiv sy todto. This is indeed a much vexed passage; 
Stallbaum defends yevovotys, which is evidently a play upon the 
jingle vods and yévovs, on the ground that Hesychius and Suidas 
both mention it as a word used by Plato, as: a synonym for yevirys 
or ovyyev7ys, but gives up the Jatter part of this passage as a “locus 
manifesto corruptus.” For my own part, I cannot see the necessity 
for despair. In 30. B. the four yéyy are enumerated: zépas xa? 
ametpov xat xotvdy xat tO tHS aitiac yévos, vy dzact tétaptoy évdv; and, 
as far as I can see, the two statements are exactly parallel. 
Ibid. 40. E. té 0¢; zovnpas dd§ag xat ypyotas adhws 7 gevdsic 
yiyvorsvas eyousy eizety. For the omission of zat ddydcts, in addition 
to other parallels, one might compare the customary ellipse with év 
péow, e.g., Aristophanes, Av. v. 187. év péow dyzovbev ayo eott xis, 
and Euripides, Pheniss. v. 583. 
Ibid. 44. D. dveyepdopata. This word, which Pollux mentions 
with disapproval and Lobeck condemns, although manifestly a read- 
ing of the highest antiquity, is, I am tempted to believe, a corruption 
arising from the confusion of ducyepetas with the pera of the following 
sentence. The bastard dvoyepdopuata would, I think, be the natural 
offspring of dvoyepetas petd. The union of the two words being 
brought about by the feeling that a neuter plural, agreeing with 
zada, would suit the construction much better than the somewhat 
awkward ducyepetas. ; 
Ibid, 46. E. Stallbaum reads dynydvovs Adovds, tote J& todvayttoy 
tols évtos mpds tas tTwy Ew Adzaz HOovac EvyzxepacMetoas x.t.2.; but 
says ‘‘zpootétrwy Bodl. Ven. Il. Dein libri omnes Adovais, quod de 
contectura Schiitzit in Aovds mutavimus.” 
I am inclined to think that zpootdtrwy is really mads ta ty, it 
being a frequent practice in MSS. to represent double letters by a 
letter of larger type. Hence recurrent letters are often omitted, and 
vice versa, according as the eye of the copyist was attracted by a 
difference in the size of the letter. Here I believe that the original 
reading was—tobyaytioy tots évtos mpds ta toy &Fw, Abracs Aovaic 
Evyzspacbetcas x.t.A. I consider todvaytiov—é&w as a parenthesis, 
and would translate thus: ‘‘Sometimes inconceivable pleasures, 
and at others (the contrast between the internal and the external 
