PLATONIC DIALOGUES. 481 



distinct arguments ; and that the premises of the one are inter- 

 mingled (though not in a confused manner) with those of the other ; 

 the conclusion not being expressed in connection with each of the 

 courses of reasoning separately, but being formally deduced, once 

 for all, only after the premises of both arguments have been fully 

 stated. The following scheme, in which the proportion marked q is 

 the conclusion, following in a strictly logical manner from the pre- 

 mises of either argument, and therefore legitimately deduced by 

 Plato from the premises of both combined, will make the matter 

 clear. 



Argument I. Akgument II. 



a. What is always moved is im- c. Every soul is self-moving. 



mortal. d. What is self-moving is a prin- 



5. What is self-moving is always ciple of motion. 



moved. e. A principle is unproduced. 



c. Every soul is self-moving. f. What is unproduced is inde- 



structible and immortal. 

 g. Therefore every soul is immortal. 



The order in which the propositions formiug the premises of these 

 arguments are brought forward by Plato is the following: — {a), to 

 yap deiKii/TjTOV oBa.vo.rov. — (6). /^ovov ^y\ to ctUTO kivow, aTe ov/c ctTToXetTroi' 

 cauro, ov ttotc A-^yei kivov/xevov. — (fi^). tqvto Tnpff] Kat Oip)(y) /cti^crews. — 

 (c). ap^r] be ayevrp-ov. — (j^). liriLbq 8e ayevriTov cctti, Kat aStacfiOopov dxrro 

 avayKT] etvat. — (t'V a^avaTOu 8e Tre^ao'/ievou rov v(ji' iavrov Kivov/xevov, 

 ^XV^ ovCTiav Te Kat Xoyov tovtov duTov Tts Xeyiov ovk dto^^^vvetTat. 



With regard to the expression in (<?), aOavarov 8e 7r€(f>ao-p.evov rov 

 v<f> mvTov KLvovfj.€vov, it may be remarked, that, though the position : 

 what is self-moving is immortal, has not been formally and in express 

 terms laid down in the previous part of the argumeut, propositions 

 have been laid down, viz. : (a) and (6), which logically involve it. 



I may add, as Ast, in a note quoted by Bekker, distinguishes be- 

 tween Trrjyr] and ap)(y] in (c/), making the former the principium reale 

 seu materiale, and the latter the principium ideale sea J'ormale, that 

 there is not the shadow of a foundation for the distinction in the 

 writings of Plato. That the alleged distinction was not in Plato's 

 mind when he wrote the passage under consideration, and that it 

 has nothing to do with the course of his argument, is obvious from 

 this, thai, while he employs both Trqyi] and apx"*?' ^^ ^^ '-^ sive fullness 



