PHILEBUS OF PLATO, ETC. 163 



is that the dialogue, if carried on by Socrates alone, would be a very 

 poor afiair, cp. Repub. 369. D. 



Ibid. 30. E. j/ou? iffz) Yevou(7T7j<; rod Tzdyzwv ahioo Xe^Bivro'Z ~w>' 

 rerrdpiuy wy tjv ^imv iv rodro. This is indeed a much vexed passage; 

 Stallbaum defends yevouc>r7j<;, which is evidently a play upon the 

 jingle voui; and yivooq, on the ground that Hesychius and Suidas 

 both mention it as a word used by Plato, as a synonym for yevTJrrjc 

 or auyyevy]'^, but gives up the latter 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 yivr] are enumerated : r^/jac xat 

 aneipov xaX xoivby xai to Tfjq ahiaz yivo<:, Iv dnaai ziraprov ivov ; and, 

 as far as I can see, the two statements are exactly parallel. 



Ibid. 40. E. ri di ; 7:ov7]pd^ du^aq xai ^pTjcrrdi; ciAAwij r] fsudelc; 

 yiyvoiJ-ivaiq e'/op-ev dizelv. For the omission of xai dXyjOelc;, in addition 

 to other parallels, one might compare the customary ellipse with kv 

 jiiacp, e.g., Aristophanes, Av. v. 187. iv p-iaip dijnoudev d-^p ian yr/q, 

 and Euripides, Fhoeniss. v. 583. 



Ibid. 44. D. duff^epafffiara. 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 doa^speiaq with the //.era of the following 

 sentence. The bastard dua^epdaiiara would, I think, be the natural 

 offspring of dua^epdaq fj-erd. The union of the two words being 

 brought about by the feeling that a neuter plural, agreeing with 

 -aXka, would suit the construction much better than the somewhat 

 awkward dua^epeiaq. 



Ibid. 46. E. Stallbaum reads d/irj^dvouq ijdovdi;, tots 8s TooyayTiov 

 Tolq evToq Tzpoq zdq TUJv e^u) luita': y^Sovdq ^uyxepaaQsiaaq x.t.X. ; but 

 says " TtpoffTaTTUJv Bodl. Ven. II. Dein libri omnes rjdovait;, quod de 

 coniectura Schutzii in ijdovdq mutavimus." 



I am inclined to think that TzpoffTdTzwy is really tt/jo? ra Toty, it 

 being a frequent practice in MSS. to represent double letters by a 

 letter of larger type. Hence recurrent lettei'S ai'e 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 — TovyavTiov zolq e'j'Tog tt/x)? rd tmv e^w, Xunaq ijdovalq 

 ^vyxspaadsiaaq x.t.X. I consider robyayTiov — i'^w as a parenthesis, 

 and would translate thus : " Sometimes inconceivable pleasures, 

 and at others {the contrast between the internal and the external 



