Taylor, Plato and the Authorship of the Epinomis

8/13/2019 Taylor, Plato and the Authorship of the Epinomis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taylor-plato-and-the-authorship-of-the-epinomis 1/92

P L AT O A N DTHE AUTHORSHIP OF THE

E P I N O M I S

BY

A . E . TAY L O RFellow of the Academy

Price 7s. d. net

FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THEB R I T IS H A C A D E M Y. V O L U M E X VLOND ON : HUMPHREY MILFOR D

AMEN HOUSE, E.G.





P L AT O A N DTHE AUTHORSHIP OF THE

E P I N O M I S

B Y

A . E . T A Y L O RFellow of the Academy

F R O M T H E P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H EB R I T I S H A C A D E M Y. V O L U M E X VL O N D O N : H U M P H R E Y M I L F O R D .

A M E N H O U S E , E . C .



Printed in Great Britain



PLATO AND

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE' EPINOMIS'Y A . E . TA Y L O RFellow of the Academy

Communicated O cto be r 30, 1929I

H E real or allege d linguistic peculiarities o f the Epinomishave been recently marshalled very fully in a doctoral

thesis by F. Miiller of Liineburg,1 who holds that they com-pel us to assign the dialogue not to Plato but to an incom-petent disciple, presumably the Academic Phil ippus ofOpus , who was perhaps regarded as the author by certainunknown persons in later antiquity.2 I wish to urg e thatDr. Muller 's painstaking array of evidence is not so formid-able as it might appear at first sight, but leaves the questionof authorship still ope n. In the m ain I m ea n to con finemyself to a pretty close following of Dr. Muller 's part iculararguments, and to abstain from advancing independentcounter-arguments for the Platonic authorship in which Iperson ally believe . Bu t it is advisab le to pr efix to m y e xa m i-nation of Dr. Muller's thesis a few remarks on some con-siderations of general principle which, though importantin discussions of this kind are, perhaps, too often ignored

in practice.1 Stilistische Untersuchung der Epinomis des Philippus von Opus, F. Miiller,

1927. I cannot agre e with F. Solmsen (Quellen u. Beitrage zur Geschichteder Mathematik, i. 105) that Dr. Muller's conclusion steht endgiiltig festuntil the 'other side' has been heard.

2 Diog. Laert. iii. 37 e v i o i re φ α σ ιν O T L Φ . ο , Ο π. το υ ς ν ό μ ο υ ς α ύ το ΰ

μ € τ4 γ ρ α φ € ν , ο ν τά ς i v κ η ρ ω . το ύ το υ δε και τη ν Έ πιν ο μ ίδ α φ α σ Ιν e l v a i . W e

do not know who the 'some' who said these things are, but any attackon the Epinomis can hardly have come from an important quarter, since

Proclus, who wished to reject the dialogue, fell back on purely internalevidence. Olympiodorus (?), Prolegg. 25 οτι δε νό θο ν σ τί διά δ ύ ω δ ε ίκ ν υ α ιν

6 σ ο φ ώ τα το ς Π ρ ό κ λο ς. Possibly, then, the statement in D . L . me ans nomore than that Philippus 'transcribed' both Laws a nd Epinom is.





PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13Platonic dialogues, and treat these peculiari t ies as proof o fnon-P latonic authorship. Bu t i t m ay fa i r ly be d ou bt edw het her an y wri t ing of any a uth or, i f i t exte nd s to m oretha n a ver y few lines, m ay not be show n by m inu te scru t iny,to employ some words , or some combinat ions of words , notfound e lsewhere in the work of the same autho r. A n y w orkof any s ize commonly has i t s άπαξ λεγόμενα. T h e rea lquest ion is not whether the Epinomis conta ins some wo rdsand const ruct ions pecul iar to i t se l f , but whether there areso many of these , and whether any of them are so s ingular,

as to outweigh the presumption of Platonic authorshipcreated by the acceptance of the dia logue as Platonic whichseems to have been general from the f irst .1 I f the Epinomisha d com e dow n to us un der the nam e of Ph i l ippus, thepecul iar i t ies noted by Dr. Mii l ler might afford pret ty goodreason for declining to transfer the ascript ion of i t to Plato;i f w e kne w tha t the authorship ha d bee n dispute d in theear ly A ca de m y they wo uld have a lmos t equ a l w eigh t . I t isanothe r quest ion wh eth er they jus t i fy us in takin g i t a w a yfrom Plato and giving i t to Phi l ippus.

(2) T he re is a second considerat ion w h ic h sho uld no t beforgot ten. I t is , of course , adm it ted by D r. M ii l ler him selfthat the s tyle of the dia logue, both in vocabulary and insentence-construct ion, i s in gene ral rem ar ka bly l ike th at ofthe Laws. But , i t is urged , the pecul iar it ies w h ich m ar k the

Laws as a whole are found in the Epinomis in a m ore ex-aggerated form, and this exaggerat ion is proof of imi ta t ionby an inferior ha nd . I subm it tha t th ou gh this is a possibleinterpretat ion of the facts, i t is not the only interpretat ionpossible. If i t is ge nu ine , the Epinomis m ust be the la tes t

1 W e cannot, so far as I know, prove that the dialogue was recognizedas Plato's by any one earlier than Aristophanes of Byzantium, whoincluded it in one of his 'trilogies' (D . L. iii. 62). Bu t if the ear ly

Academy had felt any doubts, Proclus could hardly have been unin-formed on the point. I doubt myself wh ether linguistic eviden ce a lonewou ld justify the condem nation of any item included in the tetralogiesof Thrasylus, except the Alcibiades II, and the weight of the linguisticevidence even in that case is commonly over-estimated.



6 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Y

work of a very old man, a man of eighty years or nearly so,who has recently spent a long period in the exhaust ingtask of composing a large and comprehensive treat iseran gin g ove r the wh ole field o f ethics , jur isprud ence , edu ca-t ional the ory, na tur al theolo gy. A touch of exag gerat ionin its l inguistic peculiarit ies may easily be explained byregarding i t as the latest composit ion of a wri ter suffer ingfrom fat igue, advancing age, and possibly the actualap pro ach of death . T h er e wo uld be noth ing surpr is ing inthe fact that a ma n lo ng past seventy, wh o had jus t com -

pleted so vast a task, should show the signs of age and ofweariness in a ma rk ed fal l ing off in pow er and intensificat ionof pecu liar i t ies of m an ne r. I t w ould be more rem arka ble i fno such evidences of weariness and failing skill could bede tecte d. I f i t is true, as to a certain degree it m ay be tru e,that the Epinomis is no t on a level, in l i terary q ua lity , w ithany extensive sect ion of the Laws, the explanation may betha t i t wa s wr i t ten af ter the Laws by a ver y old ma n, fat igued

by the labour of complet ing the twelve books of the Laws.1And there is one considerat ion, at least , which goes someway to conf i rm th is sugges ted explanat ion .

W e shall see th at on e m ark ed singu larity of the Epinomisis th at, short as i t is, i t con tains m ore than one failure toach ieve a tolera bly gra m m atica l sentence. O n the theoryof imitat ion we must suppose that the imitator is exaggerat-ing and caricaturing the not infrequent lesser grammaticalirregulari t ies of the Laws by del iberately wri t ing what iscom pletely ungr am m at ica l . T o m y own m ind, i t seemssimpler and more natural to explain both sets of i rregu-larit ies by the view that we have before us a text neverrevised by its author, and circulated after his death bydisciples whom reverence for the ipsissima verba of their

1 I would suggest that the true metho d of dealing with the problemis to compare the diction and vocabulary of the Epinomis not with thatof the Laws as a who le, bu t separately w ith Laws, xii (w hich must havebeen written last or nearly last), and with a book like Laws, iv, whichmust have been written considerably earlier.



PLA TO AND THE EPINOMIS 13master forbade to make even those smal l verba l correc t ionswh ich a l l wr i te rs need to in t rodu ce in to the i r fa i r cop iesof the ir ow n tex ts . In fac t , the presence of nu m ero us m in orirregulari t ies throughout the text of the Laws seems to meto adm it of no o ther explana t ion , in the abs enc e of an yreason fo r th ink ing tha t P la ton ic MSS. have su ffe red anyspecia l dep rav a t ion th roughou t the n in th te t r a lo gy. 1 I fthis is the true explanation of the facts , we should expectthe i r regular i t ies to be most num erous an d m ar ke d pre -c ise ly in the wo rk of the te t ra log y w hi ch was wri t te n las t ,

wh en the fa t igue o f the au thor was a t it s m ax im um , a nd w eshould f ind no diff icu lty in ho ldin g that the tra ns crib er ofthe Laws was also the transcriber, not the author, of theEpinomis.

(3) We must a lso not forget that i f a work is to be takenaway f rom i ts t rad i t ional au thor and ass igned to some o thercontemporary on in terna l ev idence drawn f rom s ty le , i t i srequis i te to the comple teness of the a rgument tha t there

should be ex tan t remains of both wri te rs ava i lab le for thepurpose of com par ison . In tern a l ev iden ce a lon e m igh t , forexa m ple , i f impress ive enou gh, jus t i fy us in do ub t in g theShakespear ian au thorsh ip of a p lay ascr ibed to Shakespeare ,bu t could never jus t i fy us in assigning it to a co nt em po ra rydram at is t o f who se wo rk no spec imen has surv ived . N o w o fPh i l ippus o f Opus a s a wr i te r we know no th ing wha teve r,unless we can first prove that the Epinomis is h is . W e ca nn otsay tha t i f wr i t ings of h is we re to be d iscov ered , the y w ou ldnot prove to be even less like the Epinomis t h a n th e Laws arem ain ta ined to be , s ince we know no th ing wha tev e r ab ou th is m anner. T h e vag ue repor t o f Diogenes tha t so m e —we do no t know wh o they were , o r wh en the y l iv ed — sa ythat the Epinomis is h is cann ot rea l ly sup ply the com ple t eabsence of the necessary te rm of the com par ison . S om e

1 W hy , for exam ple, should A show in the Laws signs of dep ravationfrom causes which do not affect its text of the Timaeus or the Republic?This is the insuperable objection to attempts to get rid of the puzzlesin the Laws by em endation .



8 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ypersons also ascribe Alcibiades II to Xenophon, and it reallylooks as though, i f Xenophon's works had not survived, weshould be in danger of being told that that ascription alsosteht endgultig fest.

I I

I now proceed to examine Dr. Muller 's argument morein detail. H e has be en car efu l to indica te (p. 8) tha t, to beat all conclusive, his inquiry must consider three things,(a ) v o cab u la ry ; (b ) phrasing, sentence-construction, para-graph-const ruct ion; (c) the form of the whole work as a

dialogue, and a supplement (Erganzung) to the Laws. A c -cordingly, I must say something on all three points, and,to begin with, on Dr. Muller 's strictures on vocabulary.

Dr. Miiller himself says very truly that too much weightmust not be attached to the mere presence in the dialogueof wo rds pe cu liar to itself, since the Laws, a w ork of un-questionable authenticity, furnishes some thousand such

απαξ λεγόμενα. Still there are certain specific words in theEpinomis to wh ich he raises objections, and we mu st con-sider the weight of these objections.

άλληλοφαγίa (Epin. 9 7 5 « 5). Elsewhere Plato says αλλή-λων εδωδή, and the only other example of a com poun d ofάλληλο- in h is wo rks is άλληλοφθορία at Protag. 32 10 3. 'Thisproves that Plato avoids compounds of άλληλο-.' Bu t theProtagoras instance p rove s that the avo idance is not absolute.To judge from the lexicons, al l such compounds are veryrare throughout the pre-Hellenistic period, but a writerwho has used such a compound once, and thus clearly hasno Conscientious objection' to them, may surely do so asecond tim e. T o ur ge furthe r that the same m ean ing isexpressed differently in the Politicus and Laws, by sayingαλλήλων εδωδη is abo ut as conv incing as i t wou ld be to

argue that an English writer who speaks of 'man-eaters ' inone book cannot possibly use the word 'cannibals ' inanother.

παρόλνγωρεϊσθαι (991 d 5) is objected to because elsewherePlato uses the uncompounded ολιγωρείν. Bu t w h at is the



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13force of the cr i t ic ism when we remember that though hefrequently uses the equivalent s imple άμελεΐν, once ortwice he has also the s imilar compound παραμεΧείν in

cer tainly authentic passages [Rep. 555 d 3, 620 c 7) ? S o,though Plato commonly says for 'accessory causes ' συναίτια(or once in the Laws μεταίτια), just once {Tim. φβ 6) h euses the cur ious double compound σνμμεταίτια. I n d eed ,I do not feel quite sure th at the παρ- is otiose in the ex-p r e s s i o n o f t h e Epinomis, μηΰέποτε λήθη μη$ε άμελεία τωνκρειττόνων ημάς παρωλιγωρησθαι. T h e s e ns e m a y w e l l b e' tha t w e have not been incidentally over looked ' b y our d iv inemasters , ' in the s tress of preo ccup ation w ith m or e im po rta ntmatters ' .

άπαραμύθψος [Epin. 980*/ 3) . D r. M iil ler 's ob ject ion is th atthe word is used here of the gods, of whom it is said thatt h e y a r e σ χ ε δ ό ν άπαραμνθητοι των περι τα δίκαια πράγματα.B ut w he n Plato uses the an ti thetic ενπαραμύθητον of thegods,he commonly combines i t wi th such words as θνσίαις καΐενχαϊς, ' to be w on o ver by sacr if ice and p ra ye r ' . Ergo, ifhe wished to say that they are not to be w on ov er, he w ou ldeither ha ve ad ded a c lause ment ion ing the me ans to w h ic hthey show themselves recalci trant , or ha ve used the w or dαπαραίτητοι, as he does in the Laws. T h e subs t i tu t ion ofάπαραμνθητοι is therefore a Widerspruch zu Platons Sprach-gebrauch (p . 11) , and an argument for the unauthent ic i ty of

the Epinomis. The facts are as Dr. Miil ler has s tated them,bu t to an y one w h o jud ge s of l i terature as l i teratu re, theinference that a man who once says απαραίτητος w h en h emeans inexorabilis must alwa ys express tha t ide a b y ju st th atword should appear cur iously precar ious.

θεραπεία in Pla to mean s ' tendan ce ' an d has to be ac co m -panied by a genit ive, (σώματος, καμνόντων^θεων, or the like),

to indica te the objects tended and the natu re of the ten da nc ebestow ed on them . Bu t, i t is al leged, the w or d is used i nthe Epinomis wi th out any geni t ive of fur ther specif ica t ion ,i n the sense οϊ θεραπεία θεων, cultus, a s w e sa y (p . 14 ) .

If the case really were as stated, there would be thexv Β



10 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ygravest difficulty in ascribing the Epinomis ; I do not say toPlato, but to Philippus, or any fourth-century writer; theuse of θεραπεία by itself to me an 'divin e service' , 'w orsh ip' ,w ou ld surely be qu ite unp aralleled . But let us look at theactual words of the dialogue, which are quoted perfectlyfair ly by Dr. Miil ler himself [Epin. 988 a 1 if.). πο λλ ή δ' ελπίςάμα καΐ καλη κάλλίον και ΰικαιότερον όντως της εκ των βαρ-βάρων ελθουσης φήμης τε αμα καΐ θεραπείας πάντων τούτωντων θεών επιμελήσεσθαι τους Ελληνας, παι,δείαις τε καΐ εκΔελφών μαντείαις γ^ρωμενους καΐ πάση τη κατά νόμους θεραπεία.

Dr. Muller 's objection is to the θεραπεία w ith w hich thissentence ends. T h e preced ing θεραπείας is virtu ally definedby the wo rds πάντων... θεων , though the clause actu ally goeswith the fol lowing έπιμελήσεσθαι, and Dr . M iiller adm its(p. 15) that the word would even be unobjectionable if theπάντων... θεών clause we re absent. T h a t is , he wo uld con-cede that θεραπείας m eans only ' tenda nce' ; 'we m ay fair ly

exp ect that they w ill be better tended by Gre eks' . Bu t thedefining genitive, he says, ' is necessary in the later place,unless one is prepared to assume that θεραπεία has alreadya religious sense', that is, I presume, to assume that it means'worship ' . Bu t w h y should not θεραπεία, like the prece dingθεραπείας, m ean jus t ' tend anc e'? T he na ture of the ten-dance meant is doubly defined, first by the context, whichshows that the recipients of it are the gods who have beenspecified on the first occasion of the occurrence of the word,again by the words τη κατά νόμους. The thought is thustha t w e m ay fair ly expec t that , und er the guidan ce of educa-tion, the Delphic oracle, and the legally established ten-dance, the gods in question will be honoured by Greeks witha tendance nobler than that of which traditions reach usfrom the Orien tals . Ne ither θεραπείας nor θεραπεία need be

taken in the impossible sense 'divine worship'; in both casesthe nature of the θεραπεία is sufficiently defined by neigh-bou r ing wo rds . T o adm it th is for θεραπείας but deny it forthe fol lowing θεραπεία should be possible only to a criticwho has made up his mind before investigation that the



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13Epinomis is not Pla to 's, an d ho lds tha t 'an y stick is go odeno ugh to beat a do g with ' . Since one is said θεραπεύεινθεούs, w he re is the difficu lty of sayin g, a li t t le m or e ve r-b o s e l y, θεων TTj κατά, νόμους θεραπεία επιμε\εΊσθαι?

αναπνοή is decla red un-P latonic in the expression (Epin.9 7 4 a 3 ) άναπνοην δο/cet ποιεΊν τίνα κατά μέσον πΎ) βίον τονανθρώπινον, 'makes a short breathing-space in mid-l ife ' , onthe ground that Plato always uses αναπνοή, 'either in itspr imary physiological sense, or in such a way that thephysiological side of a situation is presented directly andpicto r ial ly ' , wh ereas, in the wo rds jus t quo ted , alles bildhaftgesehene Physiologische fehlt (p . 15) . Is there real ly an y reco g-nizable dis t inction between the use of the word here and atPhaedrus 251 e 4 — q u o ted b y D r.M i i ll e r—Ι δο ΰσα δε και εποχε-τενσαμένη ΐμερον ελυσε μεν τα τότε σνμπεφραγμενα, άναπνοηνδε λαβονσα κέντρων τε καΐ ω&ίνων εληξεν? In b o t h c a s e s t h emetaphor is that of a 'breathing-space ' between two per iods

of tension an d stress. In th e Phaedrus , the lover in presentconverse with his beloved is said to have an interval of 'rest 'be tw een two paroxysm s of yearn ing and pass ion; in theEpinomis the m an w h o has com e to m id- li fe to hav e a t im eof quie t betwee n the more dis turbing per iods of g ro w th to hisακμή and decline f rom it . In both cases the me ta ph or o f theclimber who stops to take breath is equally pat , and if the'th in g seen' is less viv id ly seen in the seco nd case th an in thefirst, that is a difference in keeping with the difference inthe whole ethos of the two d ialogues, an d the int erv albetw een the per iods of l ife at wh ich , i f Pla to is the a uth or ofboth , they must ha ve been comp osed . C a n no m eta ph orcome from Plato , unless i t has the vividness character is t icof the one passage in Plato which s tands out conspicuouslyby i ts exceptional ' in tensi ty ' , and is marked as exceptionalby Pla to h imself? O n e migh t as wel l say tha t no m eta ph orcan be from the hand of Shakespeare unless i t has al l thepassionate intensi ty of Macbeth in his moments of extremestag i ta t ion . T h e actual wo rd αναπνοή occurs nowhere inPla to b ut in these tw o passages, ex cep t in the Timaeus,





PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13'as a lways in Pla to ' , wi th an implic i t (latent) contrast withλόγο? or αλήθεια. Bu t cf . an exact para l le l , Laws, 790 c 2 - 3

κατά τον α ντον τρόπον όνπερ ήργμεθα των περί τα σώματαμύθων λεχθέντων διαπεραίνειν. I n b o t h p l a c e s μύθος i s u s e d ,as in Ionic,1 as an equivalent for λόγος. A n d cf . a lso Ep. vii.3 4 4 ^ 3 τ°ντω δή τω μύθω τε και πλάνω ο συνεπισπόμενοςr igh t ly rendered by Η. Gomperz wer nun dieser weitausholendenDarstellung gefolgt ist; the μύθος here means the p reced ingepistemological excursus (342 a 7 - 3 4 4 d 2) ab ou t the d iff i-

cul ties w hich beset the com m un icat ion of ph i losop hica ltruth.

μορφή. A t Epin. 981 b 5, af ter being told that there are fivetypes of regular solid, we hear that το άλλο -γένος άπαν έχειμορφήν μίαν, that is , ' the incorporeal ' may al l be broughtu n d e r t h e o n e γένος, ψυχή. W h a t e v e r is άσώματον is a ψυχή.Th is is sa id to be un-Platonic lan gua ge, s ince ' the w or d

μορφή here no longer denotes "form" in anschaulichem Sinne,as alw ay s in P lat o ' (p. 17).

Alw ays ? In the a rgumen t o f Phaedo 104d odd (ή περιττή)a n d even {ή του αρτίου) a r e t h e t w o c o n t r a s t e d μορφαί o fnumber, and we have a lso the actual expression ή εναντίαιδέα εκείνη τή μορφΐ/ ή άν τούτο άπεργάζηται t o e s t a b l i s h t h eequivalence of the words μορφή an d Ιδέα. I do not think

Dr. Mii l ler wil l argue that ιδέα in Pla to is a w or d w h ichcan no t be used of the inco rpo real (or of ψυχή). So in Philebus34 d ι i t is said that we need to inquire περι γένεσιν ηδονήςκαι πάσαν [την] μορφήν αυτής, t h o u g h a μορφή o f ηδονή is n om o r e anschaulich than a μορφή of the άσώματον, or the ιδέαof ψυχή of which we actual ly hear in the Phaedrus (246 a 3).

βάρος. 'βάρος ist bei Platon die innere Schwere . . .

dagegen die aussere Last άχθος ode r ογκος' (p. 17 ). B u t thedist inction is neglected at Epin. 988 d 3 ούδ' ήμΐν άπιστεΐψυχή κατά λόγον ουδένα ώς βάρος ουδέν περιφέρειν δυναμένη,where the βάρος means the weigh t o f the body which thesoul is said to cause to rev olv e. I thin k, if I m a y say so

1 And in the diction of Attic tragedy, which the Laws sometimesrecalls.



14 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T IS H A C A D E M Yrespectfully, that the criticism rests on an actual mistrans-lat ion. T h e wo rds are being taken to m ean that there isno ground to doubt the soul 's ability to 'carry round' the'burden' laid on it; this is why the critic says that the wordβάρος should rather be όγκον or άχθος. I suggest, on thecontrary, that the writer means precisely weight , the 'innereSc hw ere ' of the associated bo dy . T h e though t is not 'howcan the soul ca rry ab ou t so he av y a load '? but 'ho w canit set such a massive thing revolv ing?' T h e difference is real ,if subtle. (N ot to say tha t I feel a little do ub tful w he the r thealleged distinction really is made so absolute by Plato, whenI remember that the Cratylus says (419 ^6 ) th at the wo rdάχθηΰών is ' o b v i o u s l y ' άπεικασμενον τω της φοράς βάρει,a statement which implies the equation άχθος = βάρος.)

λόγος. T h e wo rd is said (p. 17) to be used w ith a non-Platonic extension of meaning at Epin. 986 c 4, in th e phra seκόσμον ον εταζεν λόγος 6 πάντων θειότατος ορατόν. D r. M i i l l e rholds that Plato would have said λογισμός, or else νους. So,no do ub t he w ou ld, h ad he m eant wh at D r. M iiller supposes,' intelle ct ' . Bu t he is, in fact, speaking of the period ic m ove-ments of the heavenly bodies, and means ratio , and so saysexac t ly w ha t he m eans. M r. H arw ard renders the wordscorrec tly, ' the universa l order wh ich law... has m arsh alled'.C f . 7 im . 3 6 d 6 άνομοίως, iv λόγω δε φερομένους.

T hi s com pletes the list of individual words unfa vou rablycriticize d, bu t for two w hi ch I hav e reserved to the last place.A com plain t is m ad e against the use of σοφία througho ut thedialogue, on the ground that i t is made to have an ' indivi-dualistic and religious sense' out of keeping with the spiritof the Laws (pp. 11-14) , a charge which cannot be fu l lyconsidered while we are dealing with purely ' lexical ' peculi-

arities. M or e precisely, it is com plain ed that the Epinomisdirectly connects with the twelfth book of the Laws, wherethe main question under consideration is what course ofstudies will conduct a man to φρόνησις; hence the problemof the Epinomis itself is annou nced at 973 a as a con siderationo f φρόνησις a n d t h e m e a n s t o i t (ηκ ομ εν ... το της φρονησεως



PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13επισκεψόμενοι τίνι ποτε χρή λόγω διεζελθεΐν, δ την ανθρωπίνηνεξιν φαμεν, όταν διανοηθη, κάλλιστ εχειν ποιεΐν προς φρόνησαν

όσην δυνατόν άνθρωπω σχεΐν). B u t i n t h e v e r y n e x t s e n t e n c e ,φρόνησις is replaced by σοφία, when the quest ion is askedτί ποτε μαθών θνητός άνθρωπος σοφός αν ειη, a n d t h e s a m epro m inen ce is give n to σοφία throughout the sequel , thoughφρόνησις an d επιστήμη are also m ention ed. B ut in the LawsPlato 'abstains from' this 'pretent ious concept ' (σοφία),except when he uses the word ironical ly of an opponent'sfancied σοφία. (T he only exceptions to this rule are Laws696 c 8 and the earlier p assage there allu de d to 68 9 ^ 7.)Further, in the Epinomis there is no a bso lute insistence ona connexion between σοφία and the polit ical l ife of the'c ity ' ; e.g. at 992 c 1 the possibili ty is co n te m p la te d th ata man might pract ise σοφία without relat ion to poli t ics(κειτε δημοσία τις επιτηδεύσας ταύτα ειτε ιδία διαβιώ). ' T h eprob lem which the σοφία of the Epinomis has to so lve is n otthe education of a stratum of leaders for the city of theLaws, but the del ivery of the few individuals who are pre-dest inated by their endowments from the burden of earthlyexistence' (p. 14).

Much of this cri t icism seems to me to rest on misunder-standing . I t seems to be vi t iated by the co m m on ten de nc yto read back into Plato the Aris totel ian dis t inct ion, which,

as Professor Bu rne t has shown , is w ho lly foreign to h im ,be tween σοφία an d φρόνησις, words used by Pla to thro ugh -out his dialogues indiscriminately for the 'v ir tues ' of bo th'speculat ive ' an d 'prac t ical ' in tel ligence. A n d w e are surelymissing the meaning even of the Republic—'political' as it is— i f we do not unders tand that it is m ean t , bes ides p rea ch -ing 'phi losophy' , as the foundation of s tatesmanship for an

aris tocracy of philosopher-kings, to co m m en d i t also as aguide in l ife and a medicine for the soul of every one who iscapable of i t , whether he is actual ly cal led to administer astate or not . I t w ou ld be equ ally mistaken to supp ose t ha tthe passionate refutations of religious unbeliefs in Laws, x ,are intended to convince no one but the magistrates of the



16 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ycommunity for which the Athenian professes to be legis-lat ing . I f the Epinomis uses σοφία and φρόνηση as nam es for

the sam e thing , an d a ga in if i t conceives of tha t for w hic hthey are names as the r ightful guide of the personal morallife, no less than of the career of the 'public man', i t is, sofar, in str ict accordance with the whole teaching of Plato.Personal m ora l i ty an d p ersonal re lig ion we re no secondarymatters for the author of the Gorgias, the Phaedo, the Sym-posium, w ha te ve r the y m ay be for some of his expositors.The one serious point in the whole of this criticism is thus,I should say, the verbal one that the words σοφός, σοφία areavoided in the Laws, in striking contrast to their prominencein the Epinomis.

We have to ask whether the contrast is quite as striking asthe cr i t icism represents i t . N o w in the Epinomis itself, theuse of φρόνησις a s eq u iv a l e n t t o σοφία is no t co nf ine d to th eop en ing sentence. I t recurs at 974^ 3- 4, w here w e act ua llyh a v e t h e e x p r e s s i o n φενγει τότε όταν τις πρός τινα φρόνησινιη των λεγόμενων τεχνών ή φρονήσεων. S o a t 9 7 4 ^ 4 w e h a v eτων όσοι εν ήμΐν δυνατοί γίγνονται φρονίμως αύτους άλλους τεεξετάσαι. S o w e h a v e φρονήσεως ( 9 7 7α 2), φρόνησιν {lb. b 5 )with special reference to knowledge of number, and φρόνιμοιin the same context just below at 977 c 2. A t 982 b 2 ,4 , theregular i ty of the motions of a heavenly body are said toshow that it is φρόνιμον an d ζή φρονιμως; εμφρον occurs inthe sense of ' intel l igen t ' im m ediate ly below , 982 d 6, e 2, asw ell as late r (983 d 5) . A t 985 a 1 the assumed denizens ofe t h e r a n d a i r a r e μετεχοντα φρονήσεως θαυμαστής, a n d G o dhimself is declared to 'par take ' του φρονεΐν και του γιγνώ-σκειν (985 α 7). A t 98 6^ 2 the wise and vir tuous astronom eri s d e s c r i b e d a s μεταλαβω ν φρονήσεως εΐς ων μιας', a t 9 8 7 a 8

it is σαφώς ουκ εμφρόνων to think that the State 's Ca len da rcan afford to pass over any of τά θεία (whereas at ib. c 1 -2correct knowledge of the planetary periods is όντως ουσασοφία). T h e d i v i n i t y w o u l d b e ( 98 8 £ 4 ) πάντων άφρονε-στατον if he did not know that numeration is something hehim self teaches us. U n d e r our proposed regulations the m en







PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13Set καθιστάναι. Fo r o ther exam ples of the w ord s used with -o u t a n y t o u c h o f i r o n y c f. 6 7 7 c 4 - 6 ει τε τέχνης ήν εχόμενον

σπουδαίως ηύρημενον η πολιτικής ή και σοφίας τίνος ετερας;6 8 9 d 2 τους δε τουναντίον έχοντας τούτων ως σοφούς προσ-ρητεον I1 691 β 6 ουσα άμαθία μεγίστη δοκούσα δε σοφία ;b 3—4 μεν ουδέν σοφον γνώναι . . . ει δε προϊδεΐν ή ν τότε,σοφωτερος αν ήν ημών ό προϊδών (w i th i ts e c h o 6 9 2 C I νυνμεν γενόμενον ούδεν σοφόν) ; 732 α ^ TVV αμαθίαν την παρ'αύτω δοκεΐν σοφίαν είναι ; 1 7 4 7 c 2 την καλούμενην αν τιςπανουργίαν άντι σοφίας άπεργασάμενος λάθοι; 752 ^ 11 δήλονδε τό γε τοσούτον . . . καΐ τω μη πάνυ σοφω; j6l d $ ιατρούδέξιν μη πάνυ σοφού βελτίονα συχνω; jj6e6 ό σοφώτατοςτων ποιητών ; 1 9 2 e 7 τ°ρ ^ θεόν όντα σοφώτατον; 95 3 ^ 2

επι τάς των πλουσίων και σοφών θύρας.2

On the whole, then, the real facts about the words φρό-νησις, φρόνιμος, σοφία, σοφός s e e m t o m e t o s t a n d t h u s . I nbo th Laws and Epinomis the first tw o are fre ely used as in th ePlatonic dialogues general ly, to cover both what Ar is tot leregards as the speculative and the practical 'excellences ofinte llec t ' ; σοφία is used from tim e to time in th e Laws, thoughnot very freque nt ly, as an equivalent of φρόνησις in this widePlatonic sense; in the Epinomis i t is com m on, a l te rna t ingwi th φρόνησις, as a name for the 'studies' or 'sciences' onw h i c h Laws xii insisted as spec ially requisite as q u al ifi ca -t ions for m em bership of the 'nocturn al coun ci l ' . T h u s i t i son its way , but no more than on i ts way, to the special senseit has with Aristotle; in other words, σοφία i s acqui r ingspecial associat ions due to the existence of the PlatonicA ca d em y with its organized curr iculu m of s tudies . I c ansee nothing in these facts , impartial ly stated, inconsistentwith bel ieving that the Epinomis is the last ut te ran ce o f th eaged Plato himself .

7τιστεύειν. Object ion is taken to the words (Epin. 980 c 2)1 In neither of these passages can there fairly be said to be an y iro ny

in the words.2 The 'rich and wise' are the citizens of our state, who are 'rich' in

virtue and wisdom.



20 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yπιστεύσας τοις θεοΐς ενχον τε και λέγε τον επιόντα σοι λόγον.'T h e intel lectua l sense w hich πιστεύειν has in Plato—it isregularly related, or can be related, to a sachliches Objekt—has undergone a transformation ins Religiose (pp. 15-16).I am not sure precisely how Dr. Miiller construes the sen-tence, though I suspect that he means that τοις θεοΐς is to betaken wi th πιστεύσας alone, in the sense 'with trust in thegods', and that such a use of πιστεύειν is unusual in Plato.So I think it is, but the expression is made easier by thepossibili ty of taking the dative with ενχον, and the πιστεύσαςabsolutely, 'make your prayer and discourse with goodcourage' , or at least t reat ing the τοις θεοΐς as to be taken άποκοινού wi th both πιστεύσας and ενχον. As against whatseems to be meant by the remark about Plato's habitual useof the word—viz. that i t means, or can always be taken tomean, ' c redo quod\ cf. Cratylus , 399 a 1 τη τον Ενθύφρονοςεπιπνοία πιστεύεις, ' y o u trust t o ' i t , Laws, 742 C 3 (μηδε νόμισμα

παρακατατίθεσθαι) οτω μή τις πιστεύει, 'except with a manw h o m o n e trusts', 9 * 5 ^ 3 πιστεύων προς ov αν άλλάττηταιποιείτω ταύτα κτλ, ' let him act trusting in the other party tothe transa ction' . C lea rly w e canno t say — if that is w ha tDr. Mi i l l e r means—that πιστεύω in Plato always means tobelieve that som ething is so, to ' take a m an's w or d for i t tha t ' ,and the like, never to put confidence, or faith, in something

or some one, and the objection thus, I think, ceases to be ofany weight .

I l lIt is only fair to remark that Dr. Miiller himself does not

rest his case chiefly on these alleged peculiarities in the useof single wo rds. H e at taches m ore imp ortance to com bina-tions of words which he thinks out of keeping with Platonic

usag e. I pr oc eed to exa m ine his exam ples.9 7 5 c 7 · μαντική, w e a r e t o l d , το λεγόμενον οίδεν μόνον, ει

δ' αληθές, ονκ έμαθεν, 'only knows what the words of anora cula r ut tera nce are, but not wh ether they are true' . I tis complained that Plato, in two places where he makes thesame point (Apol. 22 c 2 , Meno, 9 9^ 5) , puts i t in the form tha t



PL AT O AND TH E 'EPINOM IS' 13μάντεις 'say ' a thing, but do not 'know' what they say.The fact is so , but Dr. Mii l ler has over looked the point that

in the Epinomis the subjec t of the sentence is no t ή μαντικήb u t ή μαντική και ή ερμηνευτική, and i t would not be t rue tosay of the ερμηνεύς wha t the Apology says of the θεόμαντις,that he says something but does not know what he says;the ερμηνεύς does not 'say ' the λεγόμενον, he interprets i t ,and he does know someth ing , he knows w ha t the λεγόμενον is.Hence the con t ras t be tween ' say ing ' and 'knowing ' would

not have been appropr ia te here ; we need the con trast be-tween knowing wha t the λεγόμενον is and kn ow ing w he th e rit is true.

977 c 5 . T h e phrase not to kn ow 'od d or ev en ' (μήδεπεριττό ν μηδε άρτιον) is said to be u n- Pla ton ic, be ca us e inthζ Laws, 818^4 , the same th oug ht is expressed ra the r d iffe -r e n t l y (μ ή τ ε εν μήτε δύο μήτε τρία μήθ' ολως άρτια και περιττά

δυνάμενος γιγνώσκειν, w h e r e o u r d i a l o g u e s a y s ζωον ότι μηγιγνώσκοι δύο και τρία μηδε περιττον μηδε άρτιον). T h a tκαί is replaced by μήδε proves ( ) ' tha t the writ er of th eEpinomis did no t see tha t the notions od d a n d ev en ar enecessari ly co m ple m en tar y ' (p. 18). Bu t at this ra te, 981 c 4εν περιτταΐς τε και άρτίαις άμα μεταβολαις should 'prove ' thathe did see the sam e point . R ea l ly nothing is pr ov ed a t a l l

by such a tr if l ing variat ion of phrase except the f l imsiness ofthe grounds which wil l sa t isfy a cr i t ic who comes to judge-ment wi th h is mind a l ready made up .

9 7 5 d 2 . παιδιά τις . . . ουδαμη σπουδαία. T h e p h r a s e s h o w sthe mindlessness of a writer w h o has not disco vere d th atπαιδιά an d σπουδή are m utu al ly exclusive. T o Pl ato i t w asimpossible to say such a thing because for him παιδιά gets

i ts 'conceptual character ' f rom the contrast with σπουδή, soth at to say tha t a παιδιά is not σπουδαία is sup erfluo us (p. 18 ).

S ince we have heard a t Tim. 59 d 1 o f μέτριος παιδιά καιφρόνιμος, a t Laws, 7 6 9 a I o f ή πρεσβυτών εμφρων παιδιά, a n da t Ep. vi. 323 d 1 of an oath to be taken σπουδή τε άμα μήάμούσω καί τη της σπουδής άδελφή παίδια, I d o n o t t h i n k w ecan say that Pla to would have shrunk f rom saying that





PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13ism ' ) . I t is ob jec ted tha t P lato wo uld prob ably ha ve avo idedthe 'p icture ' , because i t makes the 'beget ters ' components

of the 'begotten ' , and that if he had used the phrase at al l ,allenfalls he w ou ld ha ve said γεννήση. Bu t ho w d o w e k no wthis? άποτίκτειν is a w ord pecu l iar to P lato ' s la ter v oc ab u -lary. I t app aren t ly occurs , apa r t f rom the present passag e,only twice in the Theaetetus and once in the Timaeus. A t anear l ier t ime he presumably would have wri t ten γεννάν, bu tthe use of άποτίκτειν would be in keeping, in a work of hisold age, wi th the employment of the same word in thesetwo dialogues . As to the complaint brought against themetaphor, i t might be urged with equal force against thestatement of Tim. 54^ 2 about the 'generat ion ' of the equi-lateral tr iangle from six of the elementary tr iangles of thatd i a l o g u e , εν ισόπλεν pov τρίγωνον εξ εξ τον αριθμόν όντωνγεγονεν. H ere, too, an objector bent on cav i l l ing m igh t saythe 'generators ' are made components of the generated.A minor complaint is made that the phrase σννελθονσασνστασις is object iona ble ( I suppose becau se yo u ca nn otpicture the same thing at once as Ιόν and as εσ-τός?). Bu tthe phrase is a simple and legit imate equivalent of ψυχήκαί σωμα εις μίαν σνστασιν ( o r m o r e b r i e f l y εις εν) σννελ·θόντε and should offend no one of ju dg em en t . I t is an eve nmore captious complaint that at 990 b 8 the sp eak er ex pressesthe sense ' to avoid needless repetition' by saying Ινα μή πολ-λάκις τα ύ τα περι των αντων διαλεγώμεθα w h e n h e might h a v eused the uncompounded λέγω μεν (much as at Rep. 558 d 8Socrates says ινα μή σκοτεινως Βιαλεγωμεθα, where the samecr i t ic ism is equal ly appropr iate or inappropr iate) .1

άπεικάζειν. I n A i t ' s lexicon, s.v. άπεικάζειν, the sense sickvorstellen is accepted for three passages in the Epinomis andno others in the Platonic corpus. In two out of the threepassages 980 a 9, 980 c 8 , 9) I should m yself take the v e rbrather in the sense, common in Plato, ejjingere, describere , andI suppose Dr. Miil ler would agree, as he makes no reference

1 For the accus. cf. Theaetet. 158 c 5 a v v v l SteiAey/xe a; 142 c 8 τ ο υ ς

λ ό γ ο υ ς ο υ ς Β ιε λέ χ θ η .



24 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yto these passag es. H e does, ho w ev er, use the third passage,985 b 5, as pro of tha t Platonic w ords are verblasst in the

Epinomis. The actual phrase is το δε ύδατος πέμπτον ο νήμίθεον μεν άπεικάσεLev αν τις ορθώς άπεικάζων εζ αυτούγεγονέναι, wh ich m ay , no dou bt, be rendered th at 'we shoulddo well to imagine' a semi-divine being made of water, asthe denizen of that 'element ' (an Undine, to use G oeth e'sw ord ). Bu t exa ctly in the same w ay , we m ight renderού κακώς άπήκασας, Parm. 12804, 'your conjecture was nobad one ' , or even—though with some loss of meaning—Symp. 2 2 1 C 6 οίος γαρ 'Αχιλλεύς εγενετο, άπεικάσειεν αν τιςκα\ Έρασίδαν καΐ άλλους, ' one ca n ima g ine Bras idas andothers as l ike Ach il les ' . T h e Parmenides passage seems apretty exact parallel to our own; in both cases, I shouldsay, the precise meaning is verbis ejjingere , though the meta-ph or is ne arly oblitera ted in both places. Bu t if D r. M ulle rw ill let not hin g pass for Platon ic in w hich the m etaph ors ha venot the vividness of the 'iridescent' passages of the Phaedrus,he m ay safely ath etize at least all the later Platonic dialogue s.

O n e w ou ld h av e tho ug ht the phrase (973^3) «τον δή καισύνιδε αν σοι δοκώ κάγώ . . . καλώς τού τοιούτου πέρι λέγεινunsuspicious. But i ts unanschaulich character , by contrast w iththe l ively use of the metap hor s at Rep. 432 c, is m ad e evidenceo f s p u ri o u sn e s s. A n d w h a t o f Tim. 53 c 1 άλλα γαρ επεί

μετέχετε τών κατά παίδευσιν οδών δι ών ενδείκνυσθαι ταλεγόμενα άνάγκη, συνέψεσθε. T hi s is almost as un like thevividness of the passage in the Republic as the w ord s of theEpinomis. A man does not write at eighty with the samefreshness as at fo rty or ear lier. B ut D r. Mu ller is still un de rthirty, and perhaps cannot be expected to understand this .I enumerate a few other crit icisms of this kind, all turning

on the alleged impossibili ty that Plato could have writtenanyth ing want ing in Anschaulichkeit. It is unmoglich that hec o u l d s a y ( 9 7 7 ^ 3 ) άκολουθείτω όπη ποικίλλων αυτόν . . . ώραςτε και τροφήν πάσιν παρέχεται (sc . ό ουρανός); o r 9 9 ° ^ 5σελήνη μεν περίοδον την αύτης τάχιστα διέζεισιν', o r 9 92 ^ 3ότε θανάτω τις . . . την αύτου μοΐραν άναπλήσει', o r 97 7 ^ 9



PL AT O AND TH E 'EPINOM IS' 13σμικρόν έπανελθόντες πως τοις λ ό γο ι ?. I a m n o t c l e a r w h e r ethe geringere Anschaulichkeit (p. 20) is supposed to come in inthese phrases; the objection to περίοδον διεξιέναι seems to bethat a περίοδος is no t a transit, to ju d ge f ro m the re m ar kthat e lsewhere we h av e όδονδιεξιέναι bu t περίοδον πορεύεσθαι.But a period can surely be said to be 'completed ' or ' t ra-versed' intel l igibly enough, and if there is any confusion inthe me ntal picture, i t has a parallel in Laws, 7 1 6 α 1 -2 , wh erei t is s a i d o f G o d t h a t ευθεία περαίνει κατά φύσιν περιπορευ-όμενος, 'he keeps straight on r ight roun d the w ho le cir cu it ' ;

as for the assertions that Plato could no t say άναπλήθειν τήνα ντον μοΐραν o r επανιέναι τοις λ ό γ ο ι? , b e c a u s e h e h a p p e n selsewhere to have said μοΐραν έμπιμπλάναι an d έπανέρχεσθαιτους λόγους, any one can easily make any number of suchassert ions, but why should they be supposed to have anyprojat ive force? A n d w hy is i t gewiss that P la to cou ld no thave formed comparat ives f rom άμετάστροφος a n d θεοειδής

if he had wished?Exception is next taken to the expressions δόσιν δεξάμενος

( 9 7 7 ^ 7 ) a n d μιμούνται μιμήμασι ( 9 7 5 4 ) . T h e p o i n t s e e m sto be tha t δόσι? shou ld me an the act of bestow ing, no t thething bestowed, but μιμήματα the copies, not the processesof copying, so that our author confuses the signif ications ofverb al nouns in -σις an d -μα. Bu t w e ha ve at least one cle ar

ex am ple in a late P lato nic dia log ue o f δόσ-19 in the senseo f δώρον or δωρεά, Phileb. 16 c 5, w he re the science o fnumber is called θεών εις άνθρώπονς δόσιν, and it is saidthat i t έκ θεών έρρίφη. H ence I do not see w h y Pla to m igh tnot say that men have received τήν τών άριθμών αύτου δόσιν,As to the μιμήμασι o f 975 d 5, the objectio n tak en seemseven m ore fanciful . T h e comp lete phrase is that me n im i-tate part ly by the use of όργανα, par t ly αυτών τών σωμάτωνου πάντως εύσχήμοσι μιμήμασιν, i . e . b y n o t w h o l l y s e e m l ybo dily gestures an d poses. Sin ce in this seco nd c ase co n-tort ions and poses of the body are at once the machineryby which the ' imitat ing is done and the result achieved, Ido not see that the use o f the w o rd μιμήμασιν is ou t of pl ac e,

x v D





PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13fairly be do ub ted. N o r do I think an y one bu t a crit ic w h oimagines that there are no words or phrases anywhere in

the genu ine dialogues wh ich occur only on ce wil l base aconfident argument on the fact that έρως τον καταμαθείνhas not an exa ct para l lel e lsewhere in Plato . T h e secondarg um ent I regret not to be able to und ers tan d. I do no tsee that έρως τον καταμαθείν is, in any intelligible sense,more or less ' impersonal ' than έρως των σωφρόνων τε καιδικαίων επιτηδευμάτων, o r έρως τον βελτίστον βίον ΟΓ έρως

τούτου δ δεήσει γενόμενον άνδρ* αυτόν τέλειον είναι, t h e t h r e eexamp les of genuine P la tonic phraseology wi th w h ich D r.Miiller confronts the phrase of the Epinomis.

But the Epinomis also 'personifies' φύσις an d ψυχή inan 'un-Platonic ' way (p. 21) , for example in the phrases(99°^ 0 πασα φύσις ικανή γένοιτο θεωρήσαι, ( 9 7 9 ̂ 2 ) TVV

άνθρωπίνην αιτιάσθαι χρή φύσιν, ουκ εν δίκη διανέμουσαν τον

αυτών βίον, (982 b 7 ) όταν ψυχή το άριστον κατά τον άριστονβονλεύσηται νουν, (98 9 ^ 3) τα^ ς άρίσταις φύσεσιν, a n do t h e r s . C o m p a r e Rep. 3 5 9 c 5 δ πάσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυκενώς άγαθόν', 588^2 οΐαι μυθολογουνται παλαιαι γενέσθαι φύσε ις',5 7 5 έλευθερίας δε και φιλίας άληθους τυραννική φύσις άειάγευστος', Laws, 8 7 5 α 2 φύσις άνθρώπων ονδενος Ικανή φύεταιώστε γνώναι', Rep. 5 I 9 C ^ ήμέτερον δή έργον . . . των οικιστών

τάς τε βελτίστας φύσεις άναγκάσαι άφικέσθαι προς το μάθημακτλ.', 3 6 5 CL 6 τί οιόμεθα άκονούσας νέων ψνχάς ποιεΐν, a n d ahost of s imilar passages. D r. M iiller m ust be a v er y L yn ce u sif he can see any dis tinction be tween his incr im ina ted qu ot a-tions from the Epinomis and m y rand om se lec tion f rom theRepublic and Laws in respect of 'personification' of φύσιςa n d ψνχή.

T h e next gr ievan ce is that our auth or can speak of a nανθρωπινή έξις (973 a 4) and th at he uses the co m po un de de p i t h e t κάλος κάγαθός n o t o n l y o f m e n , b u t o f τροφή ( 9 7 5 b 2 ) .For parallels justifying the expression άνθρωπίνη έξις,1 if itneede d any jus t i f icat ion, cf . Laws, 7 1 3 ^ 6 ώ ς ανθρωπεία

1 The objection seems to be the use of the phrase as a periphrasisfor ά ν θ ρ ω πο ι, like our 'humanity'.





PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13The next assault is on the use of θεός,—as we might expec t

f rom Dr. Muller 's animus against what he is p leased to cal l

Religiositat. T h e words o f accusa tion a re tha t 'P la to , wh owrote the words {Laws, 7 1 6 ^ 4 ) ό δή θεος ήμΐν πάντων χρη-μάτων μέτρον άν ειη μάλιστα, cou ld never h a ve said ον Seθεον ηγούμαι, φράζειν χρή, καίπερ άτοπον όντα, καί πως ουκάτοπον αν (Epin. 976 e 4) . W h y not , is mo re th an w e are to ld ,except in the r iddl ing remark that es ist ein M angel an innererDistanz, der daraus spricht, a saying w hich is w ho l ly obs cure

to m e. B ut as far as the words of our sentence go, they arenot unlike something else I have read in Plato, τον μεν ον νποιητήν και πατέρα τούδε τον παντός ενρείν τε έργον καί ενρόνταεις πάντας αδύνατον λέγειν (Tim. 2 8c 3 ) , a n d a s fo r th e s ense ,the speaker is on the point of developing the theory thatΟνρανόςϊη par t icu la r is the 'god ' f rom w ho m w e ha ve learn ednu m ber, and th at it has been his conscious pu rpo se to tea ch

it . I am no t m yself surprised that he should thin k tha t , tom en l ike Clinias an d M egillus, this idea w ill seem 'stran ge,an d yet not so strange after al l ' . A n d I ce rta inly see no in -com pat ib i l i ty betw een saying that 'G od is the t rue m easu reof a l l th ings ' and saying that i t i s f rom watching the spec-tacle of the heavens that we have learned to count .

Dr. Muller 's point becomes c learer when he passes to h is

nex t com plaint . T h e wri ter, he says, m ay ech o P lato nicphrases, but he does not understand Plato 's thought aboutG od , m an , an d their relations. Pla to in the Laws of tenspeaks of human affairs as a παιδιά, but only speaks thuswhen he has the con t ras t o f God and man in mind . Hecould never have said διισχνρίζομαι παίζων και σπονδάζωνάμα (Epin. 992 b 2), or used su ch exp ressions as ει γάρ σοι

τοντο τέλος ειη τών νόμων, θεονς προσπαίσαντι τιμάν (980 b 3 ) ,o r οίον παιδιά καλή χρωμένω και τιμώντι θεούς (980 α 9) ·But I think Dr. Miil ler forgets that the προσπαίσαντι o fhis second example is glossed at once by the following clause( w h i c h h e o m i t s ) , νμνοις τε και ενδαιμονία γεραίροντι. A nνμνος may fair ly be called a παιδιά; i t belongs to χορεία,a n d a l l χορεία is έμφρων παιδιά. C f . Laws, 6 5 6 C 2 τήν περί



3o P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yτάς Μ ο ύ σ α ς παιδείαν τε και παιδιάν ', 6 5 7 C 3 την τη μουσικήκα ι τη π α ί δ ι α μετά -χορείας χρείαν όρθήν, a n d , f o r t h e w o r d s

objected to in Epin. 992 b 2, Ep. vi. 323 d 1 σπουδή τε άμαμη άμούσω και τή της σπουδής αδελφή παίδια. T h e w o r d sof 980 b 2 follow close up on , and are justified by those o f980 a 9, so here , ag ain , w e are dea ling with a mer e c avil.I should say the same of the attack on the phrase of 975 b 6οι) γαρ τέχνη άλλα φύσει κατά θεον πάντες φαινόμεθα γηνμετακεχειρίσθαι, i .e. 'we ha ve taken to cultiva tion at the

pro m pting of a divin ely implanted natural inst inct '. W h ythe phrase φύσει κατά θεόν mu st im ply a closer con nex ionb e t w e e n G o d a n d φύσις t h a n t h e κατά θεον και κατά φύσινof Laws, 682 a 2, an d therefore com e from anoth er ha nd(p. 23), is wholly dark to me.

We next learn that (p. 26) whereas Plato only uses theword θεογονία once (Laws, 886 c 3), and then of the theo-

gonies of the poets, which he refuses to discuss, our writer,at 980 C 7 p ro pos es to c ons t ruc t a θεογονία και ζωογονίa onsounder lines as a substitute for the faulty theogonies of thepast. Soit, but what inconsistency is there between sayingthat i t is irrelevant to the argument of Laws χ to digressinto a critique of the tales of Hesiod, and saying in theEpinomis tha t the p rinciples of natu ral theology laid do wnin the Laws would enable us to make a better theogonyth an H esio d's? It is strange that a critic should treat suchtrifles as proving a difference in outlook incompatible withcommon authorsh ip .

There would be a real difference of this kind if i t weretrue, as Dr. Miiller says it is, that the interest of the writerof the Epinomis is directed exclusively [italics mine] to theworld of beco m ing. Bu t the only proof offered of this state-m en t is th at at 977 a 2 the q uestion is asked, w h a t go d is itto whom we owe the gift of number, and the answer givenis ουρανός. T h is in no wa y proves w ha t D r. M iiller wishesit should, that the writer regards θεός and ουρανός as equiva-lent terms, a view which Dr. Miiller rightly treats as un-Pla ton ic. A ll tha t is pro ved is tha t the writer regards the



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13ουρανός as α θεός, a being wh ich m ay receive wo rship f r omthe ci ty. W h at he m eans by saying that w e are ind ebte dto this part icular θεός for nu m ber is exp lained b y himself ,when he adds that ar i thmet ic has been developed out ofat tempts to compute and compare the observed per iods ofthe heav enly bodies. T h e passage should real ly be qu ote das showing close parallel ism with Tim. 47 a-b, where thesame point is made at great length.

I V

It is not sufficient for Dr. Muller 's purposes to establishthe poin t— if he has es tabl ished i t— th at there are differen cesbetween the dict ion of the Epinomis and the dict io n o f P la toin his later years; it is further to be shown that the first is aconscious imitation of the second by an infer ior hand, whichcann ot imitate with ou t car icatur ing. O n the basis ofCo nsta ntin R it te r 's s tylom etr ical s tudies, D r . M iil le r lays

it down that what is most of al l character ist ic of the dict ionof the later Platonic dialogues, especial ly of the Laws, is acer tain Intensivierung des Ausdrucks (p. 29 ); it is to b e sh ow nthat the Epinomis exagge rates this pec ulia r i ty in a w a ywhich can only be accounted for as conscious and un-skilful im itat ion . Fo r m yself, I am no t sat isf ied tha t theexaggeration, if ful ly proved, would submit of only this one

exp lanat io n. I t m ight be explained by ad va nc ing age, andfailure of l i terary po w er, an d this ex pla na tion is no t ex -cluded by the consideration that there are one or twoallusions in the Laws themselves which prove that the textwas not completed unti l a very few years before the writer 'sde ath . Fa ilure of l i terary po we r is a process w h ic h m a y bevery much accelerated within the las t year or two, or even

within the last months, of a long l ife; i t need not proceed ata u niform rate . I t w ou ld be possible for a fa l l in g-o ff wh ic hhad been progress ing only gradual ly between the years ofseventy and eighty to be vis ib ly and markedly exaggeratedin the last months of life, especially if those months werecharacter ized, as they sometimes are in men who have



32 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ypreserved their vigo ur to a very ad van ced p eriod, by suddenand rap id ph ysical collapse at the extreme end . W e do notknow that there was any such collapse in Plato's case, butequally, in the absence of all definite information, we donot kn ow tha t there wa s not. T h e latest writings of Platoto w hi ch we ca n ascribe any precise date are Epp. vii andviii , of which viii seems to presuppose that Callippus is nolonger to be reckoned with as a factor in the Sicilian situa-tion, an d m a y th erefore be da ted, perhap s, as late as 352 B.C.(E p. vi m a y c on ce iva bly be later still , but we seem to ha ve no

means of dating it exactly, and in any case, it is too short tobe used as a basis for any confiden t calculations.) W e arenot in a position to say that the Epinomis , if wr itten b y Plato,may not have been composed in the six years or less betweenthe writ ing of Ep. viii and the philosopher 's death, nor yetthat his l i terary power may not have failed him moremarkedly within that interval than during the whole of the

pre ced ing fifteen years . H en ce I do not think that proofthat the Epinomis ex agg era tes the stylistic pe culiarities ofthe Laws would be enough to establish diversity of author-ship; there would always be the al ternative explanationthat there may have been some interval between the com-pletion of the Laws and the composition of the Epinomis,and that, within this interval, there had been an accelerated

falling-off in the author 's powers of expression.W e m ust, ho w eve r, consider the detailed evidence offeredus in proof of dependence which reveals exaggeration onlyto be ac co un ted fo r b y unskilful imitation. Som e of this,I ow n, seems to me ne gligible. I do not believe thatany one without strong antecedent bias would seriouslyar gu e (p. 30) tha t suc h expressions as όστις νούν κέκτηται

και τον βραχύτατον (985 £ 7)? or

άπάσης ανάγκης must b ea clum sy im itator 's exaggerations of the m ore familiar ω καιβραχύς νούς ενείη a n d εξ ανάγκης, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n w e r e -m e m b e r Laws, 689 d 4 πώς γαρ αν .. . γένοιτ αν φρονήσεωςκαι το σμικρότατον εΙΒος; Theaetet. 2 03 d 8 προγιγνώσκειν ταστοιχεία άπασα ανάγκη; Laws, 762 C 3 πάσης τίνος ανάγκης



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13επιπεσούσης', 9 2 0 b 5 , εκ πολλής ανάγκης. S o th e u s e o f t h ep l u r a l κτήσεις a t 9 7 5 d 4 πάς άνήρ αντάς φεύγει δια τάς κτήσεις

της φρονήσεώς τε και επιτηδεύσεως, s e e m s t o m e q u i t e i nkeeping with the marked taste of Plato 's latest dialogues forthe plurals of feminine abstracta, even in cases where thes ingular would be poss ib le , and would convey the meaningad eq ua tely. T h o u g h I should not l ike to be as sure asDr. Miil ler professes to be that the plural here does notrefer to 'a process which has to be repeated for each of

several persons', as it does e.g. at Politic. 271 e 8 . D r. Mii l lerthinks this impossible, because the grammatical subject ofthe sentence is πάς άνήρ, einjeder. B ut surely he has he ar dof constructio ad sensum in the course of his researches intothe style of the Laws.

T h e u s e o f 7τερ ( 9 7 5 c 4 ) i n t h e p h ra s e πολλή περ και τεχνικήγενοννΐα is a mu ch stranger thing in a piece of A tt ic pros e,yet I do not know why i t should be impossible in the authorof a w ork w hi ch a pp roxim ates to poet ic d ict ion as freelyas the Laws sometimes does. T h e co l lect ive use of thes i n g u l a r ζωον in t h e p h ra s e s το περι ημάς ζωον, ' t h e s p e c i e s o fanimals which include ourselves ' (982 b 1) , and ζωον το τωνάνθρώπων, ' the hu m an a nima ls ' (976 d 8), is ce rta in ly a l i t t lecurious, but I can see no reason to regard the expressionγήν μεταχειρίζεσθαι, 'to w or k the soil ' (975 b 7) , as a sort ofart i f icial heightening of γήν εργάζεσθαι, w h e n I r e m e m b e rhow common the word μεταχειρίζεσθαι, in th e sense to'handle ' mater ia l of any k ind i s , throughout the d ia logues .I am sti l l less impressed by such crit icisms as that our writeruses the compounds μεταβονλεύεσθαι (982 d I ) an d σνμ-πλήρης (985 b ι ) , w he n he migh t hav e convey ed h i s m ean ingby t he uncom pound ed βονλεύεσθαι an d πλήρης. T h is is no teven the fact with μεταβονλεύεσθαι, s ince the wo rds μετά-βονλενόμενον άνω και κάτω me an 'changing one's plans atrandom' , and the p leonasm of adding the άνω και κάτω, aswell as saying μετα-, is the k ind o f p leonasm w h ic h m eets useverywhere in an author of the facundia an d copia of Pla to.And I hardly think Dr. Mii l ler real ly s t rengthens his case

xv Ε





PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13the word in the whole Platonic corpus are a slender basisfor an induction that i t bedeutet bei Platon immer (p. 33) some-thing m ore special . T h e corresponding no un άποτελεντησις,in the phrase διανοίας άποτελεντησις, use d of th e δόξα, o r' judgement ' , in which the 'discourse of the soul with i tself 'comes to an end, does seem to me to mean einfach das Schluss-glied einer kontinuierlichen Reihe, thou gh D r. Mii l le r says excathedra tha t i t does no t . Fo r the m atter of tha t , i f D r. M iil le rwill have i t that P lato cannot have wri t ten άποτελεντάνwi thou t m eaning more than can be conveyed b y the un com -p o u n d e d τελεντάν, a series of ζωα wh ich beg ins w i th G o dand ends with men may not unfair ly be said to end in etwaswesentlich anderem ; there is always in Plato 's thought a veryreal d i fference betw een Go d and 'us m en ' . N o r, ag ain , doI see why the fact that Plato in the Laws (899 b 9) quo tes theapophthegm tradi t ional ly ascr ibed to Thales in the formπάντα θεών πλήρη, proves that a writer who gives i t (Epin.991 d 4) as θεών πάντα πλέα m u s t b e a n i m i t a t o r w h o s u b -st i tutes the more 'exquisi te ' word πλέα as more impressive.It is true that elsewhere πλέως is used by P lato on ly twic e, inthe Republic (391 c 4, 486 c 7) , bu t for m y ow n pa rt I c an seenothing in the context of ei ther passage which makes dergewahltere Ausdruck spec ially appo site there. B u t there is,to my own feel ing, a πάθος about the Epinomis pa r ag ra ph towhich the sl ightly poetical effect of the substi tut ion of πλέαfor the more usual πλήρη is dist inctly ap pro pria te.

Thus I do not see that any or al l of the examples adducedsuff iciently establish Dr. Muller 's conclusion (p. 34) thatthe Epinomis contains a 'qu an ti ty o f intensif icato ry expre s-sions w hi ch exceeds the Pla ton ic ' . H is ne xt sentence, Isuspect, betrays a real confusion of tho ugh t. W e nee d no t

ask, he says, how far the writer ' is dependent on the lan-gu ag e of his t im e' in this par t icular, or ho w far P lat o him -self ' is in advance of the language of his t ime, and how farhe al lows himself to be led by i t ' . T he re seems to b e som esuggestion here that there are two ' t imes ' in question, thatof P lato—that is , of the aged Plato who wrote the Laws—



36 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yand the t ime of Phil ippus, who, according to Dr. Muller,wrote the Epinomis. But Philippus was notoriously a per-

sonal disciple, possibly the a ctu al secretary, o f P lato in hislast years, the reputed transcriber of the Laws for circula-t ion; and the researches of Dr. Muller 's own teacher, Pro-fessor Ja eg er , seem to ha ve m ade i t reasonably certain thatthere is the closest connexion between the Laws, the Epino-mis, an d A ristot le 's no longer extant περί φιλοσοφίας. Evenon P rofessor Ja eg er 's assum ption that the Epinomis is a

rejoinder to the περί φιλοσοφίας, itself called out by Plato'sdeath, there can have been no interval of any serious lengthbetween the circulation of the earliest and the latest of thethree, and I need not say that t radit ion knows nothing ofany stage in the history of the Platonic text in which theLaws ci rculated without the Epinomis. H ad they ever doneso, i t is hard to believe that doubts would not have beenfelt of the genuineness of the Epinomis from the first , tho ugh ,as I have already remarked, i t is plain that so well-read aPlaton ic scholar as Proclus, with the l ibrary of the A ca d em yat his service, had never heard of such suspicions, since hisargu m ents aga inst the dialogue were, as we kn ow , foundedon very different grounds.1 A n y theory about the authorship ofthe Epinomis which requires us to make a serious distinctionbetween the 'age' of i ts writer and the 'age' of Plato's latestyears may fairly be said to put i tself out of court.

It is next complained that the dialogue betrays itself byfoolishly exaggerating the Platonic avoidance of terminitechnici. Thus i t speaks of στερεά σώματα to avoid using thetechn icali ty στοιχεία, thou gh Plato does not avo id that w ord .This is a part icularly unfortunate cri t icism. Of course the

Epinomis does not say στοιχεία when it means 'particles' , or1 H e urged tw o argum ents, both ba d: ( i) Plato wou ld not have gone

on to write the Epinomis with ou t giv ing a final revision to the Laws·,(2) there is a disagreement between Epin. 987 b 6 and 'other dialogues'ab ou t the sense of the revolutions of the planets. T hi s overlooks thepoint that the Epinomis agrees on this point with the convention laiddown at Laws, 760 d 2. T h at is why it disagrees with, e.g., the Timaeus.





38 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yπραότης regu larly m ention ed by Plato as a part of a virtuousc h a r a c t e r ? C f . Rep. 329^/4 αν μεν yap κόσμιοι και εύκολοι<*>σι } 3 3 ° α 5 ο μή επιεικής πλοντήσας εύκολος ποτ αν

εαντω γένοιτο, the m ea nin g of the w ord being, as A st says,comis, ex ac tly as in the phra se of our dialogu e.

9 7 5 a 5 ε σ τ ω δη πρώτον μεν ή τής άλληλοφαγίας των ζωωνήμάς τών μέν, ως ο μνθός εστίν, το παράπαν άποστήσασα, τώνδέ εις τήν νόμιμον έδωδήν καταστήσασα. ' T h e w h o l e s e n t e n c eproves [ i tal ics mine] the author 's incapacity to comprehend

the word άλληλοφαγία in its component elements' (p. 37).The 'proof ' is said to be the Fortfiihrung in den Doppelgliedern,τών μέν .. . τών δέ. B ut w ha t is amiss here? T h e first μέν isno t actu ally ans w ered in the sequel by a δε, bu t is μέν soli-tarium (not a n u nc om m on thing in the Laws). The othertw o clauses seem to m e to be quite natural ly opposed. T h ethought is that the rule of civilized life has broken us wholly

of feeding on the flesh of some creatures, and confined us toan orderly and refined consumption of the flesh of others.T h e one pe cu liar ity o f the sentence is that i t opens as tho ughw e w e r e t o h a v e ή τής άλληλοφαγίας ημάς άποστησάσα\ t hespeaker the n rem em be rs tha t the rules of civilized life do notabsolutely prohibit all flesh-eating. T h e y abso lutely pro hib itthe eating of some creatures; others they allow us to eat,

bu t w e must feed on the m like gentlemen, not de vou r them ,'bloo d an d bon es' , l ike wo lves. T hi s progressive break ingup of a notion into i ts component parts, as commonly inthe Laws, leads to a slight anacoluthon , but if that is proof ofnon-Platonic authorship, we shall have to surrender muchmore of the Platonic corpus than the few pages of the Epino-mis. The meaning is ' the rule which has broken us of feed-

ing on the flesh of our fellow-animals, absolutely in the caseof some, in the case of others confining us to a civilizedcon sum ption ' . I ad op t a rendering w hic h fairly reproducesin English whatever surface irregularity there is in theGreek words, but I submit that my sentence is perfectlyintel l igible, and would not be al leged by any reasonablecritic as proof of my inability to understand what is meant



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13b y άλληλοφαγία. T h e άλληλοφαγία meant is that a carni-vore w il l eat oth er creatures indiscr im inately. A m a n w ill

no t eat some at al l (and it is pr ob ab ly spec ial ly m ea n t th athe will , of course, in no case eat m an ); others he w il l ea tonly with due restraints .

T h e n follow s a fur th er assault on the clause εις τήν νόμιμονέδωδήν καταστήσασα. Y o u m a y s a y καθιστάναι εις άπορίαν,εις άθνμίαν, and the l ike, and Plato does say these things.But to say καθιστά ναι ets νόμιμον έδωδήν p r o v es l a ck o fAnschauungsvermogen. I t is the same w an t of Anschaulichkeitwhich leads the writer to speak (975 £ 8) o f ή των οικήσεωνσννυφή, though i t is suggested that he may be copying Critias116 £ 4 , wh ere νφαινον is the verb used to describe the archi-tects of Atla ntis be au tifyin g their building s b y u sing stonesof several colours. I find it ha rd to follow this a rg u m en t.T h e Unanschaulichkeit complained of seems to consist s implyin speaking of the constructors of dwell ings as 'weaving'them together. T h e Critias, I presum e, is excus ed on thegro un d t ha t i t m ention s the divers colou red stones as theconsti tuents w hi ch are interw ove n. B ut since the p assag eof the Epinomis is dea ling w ith a l l 'ar ts ' of ' int er l ac ing 'mater ials , and some οικήσεις are actual ly made by ' in ter-lacing' wattles, and the like, I do not feel that there is anamount of d i fference which can fai r ly be used as evidence

tha t Epinomis a n d Critias are the wo rk of differe nt a uth ors.And what does Dr. Mi i l le r make of Tim. 69 a 6 -8 or ' ουν δήτα νυν οία τέκτοσιν ήμΐν νλη παράκειται τα των αιτίων γένηδιυλισμένα, έξ ών τον έπίλοιπον λόγον δει σνννφανθήναι. H e r eare three processes, bu ildin g, filtering, w ea v in g, a ll w o rk edinto the sam e m eta ph or . Is this Anschaulichkeit? I shouldhave thought that the pr ima facie probabi l i ty is in favour

of al l three passages in which building and weaving areassociated in this fashion being from one writer, and furtherthat any lack of Anschaulichkeit shown b y a ny of the m ismost natural ly explained by the great age of the wr i ter.One does not look for Anschaulichkeit in the lang ua ge of am an of e igh ty. T h e geringere sprachliche K raft des Autors der



4θ P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M YEpinomis (p. 37) is qu ite com pa tible with the Autor's beingP la to — at that a ge. W ou ld any one deny that there is avisible failure of sprachliche Kraft in Wilhelm Meisters Wander-jahre, or would any one allow this as a sufficient groundfor ascribing the work to some inept obscure imitator ofGoe the?

I at tach no weight to Dr. Muller 's concluding f l ing at thec o m b i n a t i o n s λέγωμέν τε και φώμεν ( 9 8 6 b 8 ) a n d όντως τεκαι εικότως (gj6 d 2). T h e second arouses D r. M ulle r 's wrathagainst a writer who is assumed not to know that όντως andεικότως are in Plat o's lan gu ag e antithetical to one a noth er.N ot m ore so, are they, tha n γενεσις and ουσία, and yet , whow r o t e t h e w o r d s επειτ εκ τούτων τρίτον μεικτήν καϊ γεγενη-μενην ούσίαν (Phileb. 27 ^ 8) ? Plato has frequent occasion tocontrast plausibility with truth, but is it to be supposed thathe held that no s tatement whatever can be at once true andplausible?

VDr. Muller, as his language will have shown, regards the

unauthent ic i ty of the Epinomis as clearly p rov ed by thepec uliarities of diction w e ha ve been considering. But heoffers us further confirmation of this conclusion to be gotby turning from the verbal material of the dialogue to a

study of its form; the form also is to be proved unworthyof Plato, and the attack is to be made, in the first instance,on strictly ve rb al form . T h e sentence-construction is to beproved to reveal the hand of an incompetent imitator ofthat w hich he does not understand. T h e m ethod adoptedis to select from the Laws typical examples of complexsentences with a visibly correct and perspicuous construc-

tion-pattern, and to set them in sharp contrast with lesswell-constructed sentences from the Epinomis. There seemsto be something inevitably arbitrary and unfair about thew h ole of this pr oc ed ure . It is true that the Epinomis isplentiful in sentences which are not visibly well-constructed,sentences w ith a perp lexe d an d difficult patter n. It is also



PLA TO AND THE EPINOMIS 41true that in a work of the length of the Laws, it is not hardto f ind elaborate sentences in which the pattern is per-spicuous, and that i f one proceeds in this way, i t producesa s triking contras t-effect . Bu t i t is eq ua lly easy to m ak eour selection from the Laws on d ifferen t p r inc ip le s ; onecan easily f ind, if one looks for them, sentences which defy-al l at tempts at reduction to a properly symmetr ical pattern;if these are taken as the basis for comparison with theEpinomis, the con trast-e ffect is, to say the least, v er y m u c hdimin ished. M y feeling is that Dr . Miil ler s parti pris hasled him to select from the Laws, as the basis for his verdict,only such sentences as will tell decidedly in favour of hiscase. H e cites some exceed ingly well-ar ran ged sentences,bu t , quite uncon sciously of course, com plete ly passes ove rthe ill-constructed ones. T h e result is tha t w h a t he exh ibitsby way of contrast with the Epinomis cann ot rea l ly be ca l leda fair, aver age sam ple of the Laws. H enc e h is m eth od , asi t seems to me, gives us no basis for deciding whether suchinferiority as he finds in the Epinomis is due to un skilfu limita t ion by a we akl ing , or to fa t igue and rap id ly ap pr oa ch -ing dissolution on the part of the aged writer of the Lawshimself. A n d this is precisely the issue on w h ic h w e w a n tto m ake up our minds. A n d no acco un t is tak en of theposs ib i l i ty—in v iew of the character o f our M S S . tex t , i tmigh t perhaps be ca l led the overwhelming p robab i l i ty—that great al lowance has to be made in both works for thelikelihood that we are dealing with a text which has neverundergone a f inal revision, and perhaps, as Burnet con-tends,1 a text of which much has been dictated to anamanuensis by a th inker in extreme old age and bodilyfeebleness.

Since I regar d this m etho d of set ting up a selected m od elsen tence f rom the Laws as the type of what the sentencesof the Epinomis mu st be, i f they co m e from Pl ato , as im -pro per ly arb itrary , I feel just if ied in passing wi th ou t specialcom m ent over a nu m ber of phrases w hi ch are u nf av ou rab ly

1 Platonism (University of California Press, 1928), 81, 86.XV F




criticize d in this section of D r. M ulle r s dissertation. Bu tI invite any one who, like myself, has had occasion to workthrough several books of the Laws w ith students, callingtheir attention carefully to all that seems strange in itssentence-construction, whether, by dwell ing on the odd andab no rm al, i t w ou ld no t be easy to pile up as m uc h pr oo fof this kind against the Laws as D r. M iil ler accum ulatesagainst the Epinomis? T h e fact, I am sure, is that D r. M iillerhas started w ith the assumption that every one know s thatPlato composed the Laws, and has therefore not looked forarguments for assigning the work to any one else, but hasbegun his examination of the Epinomis w ith a presupposedconclusion the other w ay , and then, as w e say, gone throug hits pag es w ith a tooth -com b to discover evidence in sup-port of w h at he be ga n by assuming withou t evidence. H eshould ask himself whether he would f ind much diff icultyin d isposing of his ow n evid en ce , if he w ou ld set ou t fromthe opposite presumption, that it is bekannt that the Epinomisis Pla to s, or eve n w ith a perfec tly open min d on the ques-t ion. Of course if one begins with the assumption that thewriter is known not to be Plato, things which would otherwiseha ve giv en rise to no suspicion at once beco m e con firm a-tions strong as H o ly W rit , jus t as used to be the case w iththe now universal ly acknowledged Ep. vii , when scholarsrea d i t ha bitu ally w ith the preform ed conviction that al lthe w or ld kno w s tha t a letter purp ort ing to be by Platoor Isocrates must be a forg ery . D r. M iiller is a yo u n g scholarat the opening of his career, and I may therefore, withoutunseemliness, express my conviction that the history of hisdissertation is that he has begun by taking the non-Platonicauthorship of the Epinomis on trust fro m his teache rs, an dsimply set himself to argue the case in the spirit of an ablead vo ca te br ie fed for the prosecution . A s ad vo cac y, hisdissertation is industrious and efficient, but it must not bem istaken for the im pa rtial decision of a ju d ge w ho has dis-passionately listened to the defence as well as to the pro-secution. L ik e too m an y writers of such theses, D r. M iiller



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13has forgotten the advice Plato gives us in the Parmenides, toconsider the consequences of the denial of a 'postulate ' as

well as those of its affirmation.1

Th is subst itu tion of ad voc acy for ju d ge m en t seems to m every marked in the accumulat ion of examples a l leged toprove that the writer could not construct a correct anti-thesis ; he suffered f rom a habi t of mind which madeInkonzinnitat a lmost obl igatory on him (p . 42) . T h u s exc ep -tion is taken to so harmless a phrase as that of 974 d 3 oo-at

επιστήμαι μέν εισιν Χεγόμεναι, σοφον Bk ουκ άποτελούσι, w h e r ethere is noth ing to at ta ck b eyo nd a tr if l ing an d qu ite Pla ton ichyperbaton of the μεν, the phrase being equivalent to ocratεπιστήμαι λεγόμεναί μεν είσιν κτλ. 98 2 e 4 ~ 6 i s s i m i l a r l yattacked because the φύσις of the stars is there said to beίδεΐν μεν καλλίστην, πορείαν δε και χορειαν πάντων χορώνκαλλίστην . . . χορεύοντα πάσι τοις ζώσι το δέον άποτελεΐν,

where there is no false anti thesis whatever, and the onlyir regular i ty is just w h a t m ight be expected in an unre visedfirst draught by a writer in advanced old age, l ike thenumerous fa i lures of s t r ic t grammatical sequence presentedby the text of the Laws. A list is then given of ex am ple s ofμέν and δέ, where it is alleged there is no real antithesis inthought and where 'Pla to ' , a t least so Dr. Muller says,

'w ou ld o nly use a simp le co nn ectiv e Se" (p. 42 ). B u t th elist which follows should be at least subjected to a consider-able reduct ion. A t Epin. 983 d 1 ff. i t is un fa ir t o t ak e th eμέν oid 2 an d th e Se of d 5 as a case of false antithe sis. R es to rethe words Dr. Muller has omitted from his ci tat ion, or asm uc h of the m as is relevan t, an d the sen tence runs πότερονέχει λόγον ό λόγος . . . τ ο πρώτον μεν τά όντα είναι δύ ο, . . . κ α ι

τρίτον ά λ λ ο ούδεν κοινον ούδενί, διαφέρει ν δε φυχήν σώματος.I.e. we are to ask whether it is a ' true story that first of allτά όντα are of two kinds (viz. soul and body), and that thereis no tertium quid, an d that soul is superior to b o d y ' . T h e

1 Supp ose one chose to take such sentences as Laws, 887 c 7 φέρε δή-888 a 2 ώ ς ε ϊσ ίν , or the like, as one's samples of the man ne r of the 'au th orof the Laws ?



44 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T IS H A C A D E M Yδε' af te r διαφέρειν is not meant to mark an antithesis, the μένaf ter πρώτον i s demanded by the πρώτον itself. T h e o nly

peculiar i ty of the sentence, and i t is really no peculiar i ty,is that the construction changes slightly, so that there is noformal 'secondly' to answer to the 'in the first place', andthe μεν is thus left a μεν solitarium. Thus the effect is notso very unlike Phileb. 15 b Ι πρώτον μεν ει τινας δει τοιαύταςμονάδας ΰπολαμβάνειν αληθώς ούσας' έιτα πώς αν ταύτας κτλ.,where the absence of a δέ with the είτα leaves the μεν 'soli-

t a r y ' . S o Epin. 9 8 6 e J ώς μεν ονόματι φράζει ν ουκ έστιν δια τομή γιγνώσκεσθαι, τούτον δ' αίτιος 6 πρώτος τ α ύ τ α κατιδώνβάρβαρος ών is no false antithesis; Ί can no t give its nam e,for i t has no known name, and the reason o f this is that thefirs t observer wa s a ba rba r ian ' . T h e μεν is on ce m ore a per-fect ly harmless μεν solitarium , the unexpressed thought being,'but we know the p lanet meant , though we have not a name

fo r i t ' . Epin. 9 8 7 ^ 3 ων εις μεν βραδυτήτι διαφέρων αυτώνέστι, Κρόνου 1 δ ' αυτόν τίνες έπωννμίαν φθέγγονται· τον δέ μετάτοντον βραδυτήτι λέγειν χρή Δ ι ός . H e r e the μέν is c o r r e c t l yan sw ere d b y the se con d δε, the δε in the previou s clausemeans 'and ' , and the words, Κρόνον . . . φθέγγονται are in-serted parenthetically without influencing the construction.

99 0 a 2 σχεδόν μέν ovv έστιν άτοπον άκονσαντι, το δ ' όνομα

αυτοί) λέγομεν ήμείς γε κτλ., i . e . ' y o u w i l l be su rp r i sed a t t h ename I am going to use, st i l l my friends and I do give thissubject the name άστρονομία'. T h e na m e w ill surprise yo u(because its associations suggest Hesiod and his sailor 'sa lmanac) , but i t i s our n am e for the science of the celestialmo tions. T h e re is a real anti thesis in thou ght betwe en theassociations of the word and the use to which it is being

put, and the phrase therefore seems to me not seriouslyopen to cri t icism.9 7 9 a 2 δοκώ μεν μείζονος ένεκα, και τούτου δέ. Sc. Ί

thin k he ac te d for this purp ose am on g others, as we ll asfor a w ide r en d. ' T h e antithesis, 'he ha d a furth er purpose,but this was certainly part of his intention ' , is not false.

1 Bu t one should pretty certainly read η λίο υ for Κ ρ ό νο υ with A and Ο



PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 139 7 6 a I . ην δέ καλονσι μεν Ιατρικήν, βοήθεια δέ 7τον και

αύτη. T h a t is , m edic ine has a nam e wh ol ly u nco nn ec ted

w i th the ar t of wa r, wh ich has jus t been m en t ion ed , but,though the names are so unconnected, the arts are closelyal l ied, each being a βοήθεια, an ar t of defence . T h e a nt i -thesis intended between the dissimilari ty of the names andthe s imilari ty of the things na m ed is obvious . E xa ct ly s im ilaris 990 d I δ καλονσι μεν σφόδρα γελοΐον όνομα γεωμετρίαν,τών ονκ όντων δέ ομοίων άλλήλοις φύσει αριθμών όμοίωσις

προς τήν τών επίπεδων μοΐραν γεγοννϊά εστίν διαφανής. ' T h e ycall i t land -m eas urin g . . . but i t is a method o f dea l ing w i thi r ra t ional numbers . Here again the ant i thesis is sound andobvious; the science in quest ion is a branch of ari thmetic,though i t has a mis leading name.

O n ly o ne of D r. M uller 's ho rrid exa m ples is s ti ll lef tunaccounted fo r, Epin. 984 c 6 πάντων μεν μετόχων τον ζήν

γεγονότων' δεύτερα δέ και τρίτα και τέταρτα και πέμπτα, απόθεών τών φανερών άρξάμενα γενέσεως, εις ήμάς τους άνθρώπονςάποτελεντάv. H ere there w ou ld be an abso lu te ly in to ler-able false anti thesis, if an anti thesis were intended, since theδεύτερα και τρίτα κτλ. a r e , o f c o u r s e , i n c l u d e d i n t h e πάντα.But is any ant i thesis real ly intended ? I be l i eve no t . W h a tis w an ted to answ er to the πάντων μέν c lause i s something

to the effect ' (al l l iving, indeed), but not al l of the sameexce l lence or w or th ' , ' l iving beings, bu t of diffe ren t de gre es ' .Instead of complet ing the sentence neat ly, the author variesi ts form in the middle and says, 'and (the δέ af ter δεύτερα isand ra ther than but) the series of second, third . . . ordersends wi th mankind ' , the μέν be ing thus a ra ther awkwardμέν solitarium. Th is is not e legant w ri t ing , bu t the ine lega nc eseems to m e of a k ind w hic h w ou ld be m ore na tur al ina very old man, t rying with great diff icul ty to shape a f inalmessage to his fellows, than in any one else.

The author is al leged to show his curious preference fordas Inkonzinne further in a series of phrases where there isno question of ant ithesis . Se vera l of these are w h a t D r.M ii l ler regards as aw kw ard junc tures of w ord s by a s imp le



46 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yκαί or τε καί. A p a rt from two cases, for w hic h D r. Miillerhimself provides exact parallels from the Laws, the list is as

follows:9 7 5 £ 2 . ή μεν μεγίστη τε καί εις πλείστα πολεμική κληθεισα.(The complete sentence should have been quoted, or atl e a s t o f t h e w h o l e c l a u s e βοήθεια γίγνοιτ αν μνρία μυρίοις, ήμεν . . . κληθεΐσα, στρατηγική τέχνη. T h e sense, then , is tha tt h e μεγίστη και εις πλείστα κληθεΐσα βοήθεια i s ca l l ed πολε-μική and is the 'art of the general ' , though, as the speaker

goes on to observe, the arts of the physician, navigator, andothers are also entitled to the nam e βοήθεια. W h y D r. M iil lerthinks there is Inkonzinnitat in calling the art o f w ar theμεγίστη τε και εις πλείστα βοήθεια h e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n , a n dI do n ot ve nt ur e to guess. It is 'on the gra nd scale', andso may be called μεγίστη;1 it 'defends' the w ho le varied lifeof the πόλις against attacks from all quarters, and so is είς

πλείστα.)9 7 8 β 2. τά κατά μουσική ν πάσαν δ ια ριθμονμένων κινήσεως

τε καί φθόγγων δήλον ότι δει. (I am not sure w h a t is supposedto be amiss here, φθόγγοι are regularly spoken of not onlyas high and low, but as quicker and slower, as, for example,in Tim. 8o a, and I do not see why μουσική should not besaid to de pe nd o n 'num eration of m otion and tones ' . I t is

a numeration of tones because it states the λόγοι on whichthe melodic intervals of the scale depend; it is also a n um era-tion of 'motion' because the pitch of the tones depends onthe velocity of the motions set up when a 'stroke' is givento the air (Tim. 8 oa-b) . )

9 8 2 e I . επι τά καλλίω και βελτίω και φίλα τιθεμενω,'opting for the nobler, better and acceptable ' , where φίλα,as H ar w ar d rem arks in his translation, means 'acceptab leto heaven' , or perhaps (cf. 988^4), ' to right-minded men',' the nobler, better and welcome view '. (Th e use of φίλα is

1 T h e σ τρ α τη γ ό ς is a com bat ant in a 'pu blic' warfare of his πό λις; thephys ician w ho cu res m y d isorder or the navigator w ho transports meacross the waters is engaged in a 'private' war with a malady or withthe waters for m y ben efit. T h a t is the point o f μ ε γ ίσ τη .



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13perhaps a l i t t le strange, though it recalls the 6 τι καλόν φίλοναεί of Euripides, bu t I ca nn ot see w h y the Verbindung w i th

καί should give any offence.)989^/7» TW τοιαντην τε και άρίστην φνσ ιν, ' t h e n a t u r e

w hi ch I ha ve describ ed, w hi ch , in fact , is the best ' . (A nunusual com bina t ion of words , doubt less , bu t e xac t ly ex-pressive of the wri ter 's meaning: the s tudies in quest ion areprope r for the type o f m an w h o has jus t been descr ibed , a ndhe is , in the A ca de m ic es timate , the bes t typ e of m an ho od ,

and the poin t could not have been made in fewer words .)1

987 d 5. T h e m eri t of the top og rap hic al s i tuat ion ofH e l l a s is t h a t μέσος αν είη χειμώνων τε και τής θερινής φύσ εως,' it lies m idw ay betw een the winter an d sum m er ' , i.e . b etw ee nthe frozen and the t ropical regions. I t is no t alw ay s χείμων,as i t is farther north, nor always θέρος, as i t is nearer theequa tor. (Ag ain I cann ot conjecture w h at is the objec t ion

intend ed against the phrase. I can no t suppose i t is th at thewri ter uses the common Platonic periphrasis ή θερινή φνσιςfor το θέρος, and ye t I do not see w h at else ca n be m ea nt .To me the words seem both natural and appropr ia te . )

So far the al leged examples of Inkonzinnitat, t hen , ap pe arto m e ins igni f icant . T h e phrases w hic h are ne xt q uo tedmay be more reasonably objected to , on the ground that

in some of them there is, as D r. M ulle r puts i t , a c on jun ct io nof 'e le m en ts whic h belong to d i fferent p lane s ' (p . 43) .9 8 2 b I. το εν τάξει τε και ονρανω πόρον έχον, ' t h a t w h i c h

goes on i ts jou rn ey in an orderly wa y an d in the sky ' . S u cha brachylogy as ' in order and the sky ' , where the pre-posi t ion is used only once, though i t has to do duty twicein two different senses, strikes an English reader, as i ts tr ikes D r. M uller , as ludicrous. A n En glish m an think s atonce of M r. Pickw ick 's par tner, wh o re turn ed f ro m theAss em bly ' in a f loo d of tears an d a sed an -ch air ' . B ut is i tquite certain that our taste in this matter is a safe index oftha t of Pla to? Fo r the fact tha t in poe try i t w o ul d be pos-sible to use the simple dative ονρανω wi th ou t a prepo si t ion

1 T h e καί thus has virtually the 'explanatory sense', id est.







50 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ythe following instances: Protag. 345 £ 4 ονχ ος άν μή κακά7Totrj εκών, τούτων φησ ιν επαινετής είναι', Rep. 426^2 ωςάποθανονμένονς, ο? άν τοντο δρα', 5 5 4 α 1 1 θησανροποιός άνήρ,ονς δή και επαινεί το πλήθος', Symp . 187^2 προσφέρειν οΐς άνπροσφέρη, όπως άν τήν ήδονήν καρπώσηται', Phd. 6 2 β 3τυγχάνει τω άνθρώπω . . . έστιν ότε καί οΐς βέλτιον <ον) τεθνάναιή ζήν. It is true th at com m only the transition is from aplu ral in the m ain clause to a singular in the relative , bu t thepassage last quoted shows that the reverse is also possible.

9 7 4 a 1

χρόνος βραχύς άν τις ειη . . . οντος δε σχεδόν άνα-πνοήν δοκεΐ ποιειν', C 3 τοντο δε ταχν δρο', lb. άΐ,ή σοφίαμεν λέγοιτ άν. . ό δε λαβών ( sc . αντήν). I n a l l t h e s ecases we might have had a relative clause without a δε.No doubt we might, but what evidence of non-Platonicauthorship can be drawn from the use of parataxis insteadof sub ord inatio n in these cases? (In the first tw o instancesthere seems to be an obvious reason for adopting the para-tactical construction; it gives slightly more prominence tothe clauses, as the writer's purpose demands.)

In 97 9« 4 'there is a change of subject ' . B ut is there?The words f rom a 1 on run thus : το δε προς άλληλα πάνταάριθμον άει λογίζεσθαι, δοκώ μεν μείζονος ένεκα, καί τούτονδε σελήνην,1 καθάπερ ειπομεν, ανζανομένην και φθίνονσανέμποιήσας, μήνας προς τον ένιαντόν σννεστήσα το, και πάνταάριθμον προς άριθμον ήρζατο σννοράν. A s I u n d e r s t a n d t h ewo rds, the subjec t of the sentence dow n to σννεστήσατο a 4)is 6 θεός , after the following καί we have a new enunciation,with πάντα as subject to ήρξατο. T h e m eaning is, 'and asfor the fact that all creatures are all the while reckoningnumbers in their relations with one another, I think it wasto tha t en d, as w ell as to a greater, that the god brou ghtmonths together into the year,2 setting (in the sky) a moon

1 Th is is Bur net's pu nctu ation . But we should write κ α ί το ν το υ δε,σ ε λ ή ν η ν .

2 i.e. if there w ere not a m oo n as we ll as a sun, or if bo th ha d thesame period, we should not have, as we now have, the practical problemof com pu ting the Ca len da r and keeping mo on and sun together. It is



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13that waxes and wanes , and so al l creatures began to viewnum ber in re la tion to num ber ' . Th ere is no th ing unu sual

in the construct ion of the sentence, which only requirescorrect punctuat ion; I suspect Dr. Mul ler ' s comment ar isesfrom the mistake of taking one πάντα, i f not both, as accus.masc. wi th αριθμόν.

(See the note on the passage in the Epinomis of Platotranslated by J. Harw ard (O xfor d, 1928), w he re the co nst ruc-t ion and meaning are ful ly explained. )

978 c 4 . T h e q uest ion has jus t been raised, ho w did w efirst co m e to h a ve the notions of 1 an d 2, the sim plest o fari thm etical con cep ts? Before answ ering him self , thespeaker remarks parenthet ical ly that many creatures can-not get even so far as this, but in our case God first gaveus the capaci ty to unders tand what i s shown us , and thenshowed us something (viz. the spectacle of the heavens),

w hic h he stil l con tinues to show us. T h e re is a tou ch o funnecessary garrul i ty about these observat ions; they mighthave been suppressed and the answer to the quest ion howw e got our first no tion of nu m be r offere d us ou t of h an d .Bu t the garru l i ty is surely ju st that wh ich w e al l kn o w tobe character is t ic of adv anc ed old age. T o m y o w n m ind ,i t is rather evidence for the genuineness of our dialogue

than evidence against i t ; one may observe something of thesame k ind , for exam ple , in the V l l t h Epistle', a yo un german could have made the le t ter a good deal shorter, wi th-out sacrificing anything of i ts substance.

'A t 979 c 7 there is Spaltung einer intendierten An titheses I a mnot sure that I know just what the point of the censure is ;to m e the sentence in quest ion seems to be co nstr ucte d qu ite

natural ly, and the ' intended anti thesis ' to be made suffi-cient ly clear. T h e wo rds are [c 5 -8 ) καί ψυχή ν ότι μενάγαθήν Sei ( sc . κτάσθαι), συγχωρεί πάς παντί, το δ ' όντινατρόπον άγαθήν, ότι μεν αν Βικαίαν καί σώφρονα και άνΒρείαν,και ταύτα (sc. συγχωρεί πάς παντί), ότι 8ε σοφήν, φησι μεν

this practical need of a Calendar which has driven men into advancedarithmetical calculations.





PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13in t roduced by Schneider, on no very good MS. au thor i ty ;i t does not satisfy Stallbaum, who proposes a more con-

siderable al teration of his own, and records one or two otheral ternat ive conjectures . We cannot therefore assume thatthe singular construction really comes from the hand of thewriter of the Epinomis. There may be some fur ther cor rup-tion in transcription than the mere coalescence of re witha prece din g w or d, or, and this seems to me m or e l ikely ,αγνοείτε m ay be sound, i f we are deal ing, as w e m a y be, w ith

the unrevised f irst draft of a writer in extreme old age, whois possib ly d ic ta t ing1 to an am anuen sis. (E .g. if w e are tom en d the text , I should m yself prefer to do so b y inse rt ing oneletter, ή, before αγνοείτε, on the supposition that it has eitherfallen out in transcription, or that i ts absence is accountedfor by the unrevised condi t ion of the whole d ia logue.)

On the whole , then , I submit tha t Dr. Mul le r ' s a t tempt

to prove the Epinomis suspicious on the gr ou n d of a l leg edmisuse of antithesis leads to no result.The a t tack is now directed against the wri ter 's method

of construct ing com plex sentences of some length . D r.Muller 's procedure is to produce sample complex sentencesf rom the Laws, Philebus, Republic, in w h ich the fo rm alscheme of construct ion is c lear and coherent and then to

contrast these selected Platonic examples with less satis-factori ly constructed sentences from the Epinomis. As I havesaid, I regard this procedure as i l legit imate, for a doublereason. (1) T h e selection of Plato nic exa m ple s is i tself anarbi t rary one; there could be no diff icul ty in meet ing Dr.Mi i l le r by a counter-a rgument founded on the f requentcumbrous and inelegant sentences to be met in Philebus,

Timaeus, Laws. (2) Ev en i f there w ere no t a bu n d an tmaterial for such a counter-argument, there is , as I havesaid , no antecedent reason why Plato 's abi l i ty to constructcomplex sentences should not have fa i led markedly inextreme old age after the com pletion of the Laws, and hence ,though the sentence-construction of Epinomis shou ld be

1 Cf. Burnet, Platonism, p. 86.



54 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ymuch inferior to that of Laws, the fact would be no proofof differ en t auth orsh ip. A s to the sentences chosen by w a yof contrast from the Epinomis , 985 c ι-d 1 is und eniab ly cum -brous and involved in construction, so much so that I findit ha rd to believe th at w h at one reads there can be anyth ingbut the unrevised utterance of a very old man labouringvery hard for expression, but the particular faults censuredby Dr. Muller (p. 47) do not appear to me to be reallythere . H e objects tha t the clause in c 5 -6 όθεν Ιερά πολλάπολλών γέγονεν, τά δε γενήσεται is ' n o t a n e c e s s a r y m e m b e rof the w ho le ' . T o m e i t seems most necessary. T h e wh olepoint of the long sentence is that there are innocent ritualswhich have arisen as consequences of supposed visions orverbal communicat ions wi th δαίμονες, an d th at these a renot to be interfered with needlessly.1 It is on ly bec ause thepractices in question have acquired 'consecration' by ancientuse that they m ust be left undisturbed. T h e όθεν clause,which gives this explanation, is thus strictly indispensable.If i t were left out, the reason why a wise legislator willnot interfere with these revelations through vision or voicew ou ld rem ain une xp lained . Also i t is com plained that theresumptive τούτων πάντων of c 6 brea ks the con tinu ity of thesentence. It does, bu t the construction has alre ad y b ecom eso complicated by the succession of an 'accusative in apposi-tion to the sentence' (δόξας παραγενομένας, c 5), follow ing onan 'accusative absolute ' (λεχθέν, c 3), that a br eak an d afresh start has be co m e im pe rativ e. I certainly can not seethat there is anything here which may not be overmatchedby the marvellous sentence, Laws 887 c 8-888 « 2, ανάγκη γαρδή... περί θεών πρώτον ώς είσίν; ( w h e r e , b y t h e w a y , p r e c i s e l ythe same device o f 'bre ak ing the continuity ' b y a resum ptiveτούτων δή πάντων is em plo ye d, a nd none too soon, at 887 e 7).

O f the sentence w hi ch begins at 986 b 3 we a re to ld tha t'in spite of the antitheses, as a whole it is only a stringingtogeth er of sepa rate pa rts ' . T h e 'antitheses' surely deserveno sarcasm . T h e r e are on ly three; w e are not to say of the

1 O n the principle quieta non movere. (Cf. Laws 738 b, c.)



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13heavenly bodies that ol μεν θεοί είσιν αυτών, ol δ'οΰ, no r th atοί μεν γνήσιοι, οι Se τοιούτοι τίνες οίους ούδε θέμις ειπείν,a n d w e a r e n o t t o c o n s e c r a t e τω μεν ενιαυτόν, τω δε μήνα,τοΐς δε no season wh atev er. Th er e i s no affec ted s t ra in ingafter un real ant i thesis in these s imp le and n at ur al expre s-sions. The other cri t icism only means that the sentenceis of s imple construct ion and contains no internal com-plexi ty. W h y should i t, wh en the thou ght conta ins non e?The thought is , 'we are not to say that some of the heavenlybodies are gods and others not , or that some of them arelegi t imately born and some base-born , but to regard themas one family, and not to consecrate seasons to some, butleave others un rec ogn ized ' . I do not kn ow ho w this co uld b esaid wi thou t affecta t ion in a d i fferent w ay . Un less , ind eed ,the complaint reduces to this, that for και τιμάς άποδιδώμενat £ ι i t wo ul d h av e be en possible to say τιμάς άποδιδόντες.I do not dwell on 986^5-^ 1, on which the same str ictureis made, but I would ask any open-minded s tudent to readthat s t raightforward sentence and f ind out , i f he can, whatleast word or part icle there is in i t to discriminate i t fromthe Greek of the Laws. O r I wo uld sugges t tha t D r. M ii l lerhimself should reconstruct these two sentences in what heconsiders the genuine Platonic style.

9 7 4 ^ 2. ή δε φυγή φεύγει... έζευρίσκειν. T h i s , w e a r e t o l d ,

is a special ly ba d case of inab i l i ty to con struct a co m pl exsentence, for i t contains twenty-one genitives in succession.But how has the cri t ic made up the count? He takes atransparent genitive absolute clause l ike ώς άξίας τούτωνουδεμιάς ούσης επίκλησιν ρηθήναι τής περι ταύτα σοφ ίας τάν-θρώπινa, and counts this as s ix of his twenty-one; the im-mediate ly fo l lowing equal ly t ransparent geni t ive absolu te

clause τής δε ψυχής . . . ου πάνυ δυναμένης cou nts for sevenm o r e , a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g e x p r e s s io n , πρός τινα φρόνησιν τώνλεγομένων τεχνών ή φρονήσεων ή τίνων άλλων τοιούτων ώςοίόμεθα επιστημών, provides the rem aining e ight . (Su ch aphrase as τών καλών άνδρών is thus reck on ed as three, no tas one.) T h e result is tha t a sentence w h ic h is as cle ar as



56 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ydaylight to the reader can be made to figure, by the deviceof not quoting it , as proof of the imbecility and helplessnessof the w riter . If w e are to argu e in this fashion, I am con-tent to remark that in the sentence from Laws , 887 c 8 ανάγκηδή κτλ. to 888 a 2 ώς elaiv; already cited for a different pur-pose, P lat o 'has 33 genitives', an d just the sam e disregardof hypotaxis.

T h e list of dr ea df ul exam ples closes w ith yet a third fling atthe sentence abou t άστρονομία, 990 a 2 ff . T h e com plain t thist ime amounts to no more than what might be said aboutmany sentences in the Laws and other Platonic works, that(apart from brief relative clauses) the sentence has no com-ple x period ic structure. In fact the author 's ow n sum m ingup of his case, so far as it is based on this list of sentences,comes only to this, ' these examples present a complete con-trast ' with an elaborated period taken from the Laws(8 92 ^ 5 f .) , an d chosen, of course, rather tha n any othersentence, precisely for the sake of urging this point.

Finally, three complex periods from the Epinomis arewritten out in full, the sentences 988 b 7-c 8, 973 a 1 -5 ,986 c 5-d 4; against them are set Laws, 886 b 10-d 3, Sophist.216 a 1 - 4 , Ph ileb. 15 d 8 - 1 6 a 3, w ith the result t ha t (p. 50)'Plato's sentences' are found 'superior to those of the Epino-mis in ord er, ar t icula tion, com bined fullness and clari ty ' .

That is , the Epinomis is not o n a level in the qua lities ofexpression with Sophistes, Philebus, Laws. But since, ifgenuine, it must be the latest work of Plato, and may belongto the very end of a prolonged l ife, who would expect i t toexhibit no fall ing off when compared with, I wil l not saythe Sophist or Philebus, but even with the Laws? N ot tosay that the contrast would appear much less marked if one

chose as the standard of comparison the worst constructedand not the best constructed periods of Laws and Philebus.What has been shown so far is, at most, not that the 'authorof the Epinomis is infe rior to Pla to in Formkraft\ but that heis inferior to the Plato who wrote the Laws. This is, initself, far from being proof that he is not the same Plato at







PL AT O AND THE EPINOMIS 13T h u s we get as ou r f inal resul t a m ark ed con tras t be tw ee nthe Laws and the Epinomis. In the Laws P la to no longer

makes the pr inciples of s tyle which dominated the Republicthe basis of the whole composit ion (this is shown by thecontras t between the manner of the Republic an d tha t of theconv ersat ional par ts of the Laws , but he st i l l retains them

for individual sect ions of the work (i .e. he can write in thesame m ann er w h en i t suits his purpose, as in the p ro em toLaws, v) . T h e Epinomis can ech o the s tyle of the con vers a-

tional section of the Laws, bu t cannot ca tch the manner ofthose parts of i t which recal l the Republic. T h e ex p l an a t i o nmust be that the author of the Laws, be ing the man whohad once wri t ten the Republic, co uld stil l strike the ol dchords when he chose; the wri ter of the Epinomis ha d nosuch h i story of an ear l ie r m an ner behind h im , an d cou ldtherefore only imi tate and car icature the novel t ies and

oddit ies of the later Platonic style. Ergo, he wa s no t Pl ato(p. 56).

T h e a rgu m ent ref lects great credi t on the inge nu i ty o f i tsauth or. Bu t w i l l i t real ly hold w ate r? C a n w e rea l ly feelm uc h confidence in the truth of its fu nd am en tal prem issthat there real ly is a hard and fas t d i fference in mannerbetween two parts of the Laws, the dialogue and the Vor-trage ? (Of course we should expect to find some d i ffe rence ;no man could construct speeches of a few l ines in preciselythe same m ann er as w h at are , in fact , lectures or disquis i -t ions extend ing ove r m an y pages . Bu t the qu est ion isw heth er such di fferences as w e can detect are mo re th andifferences in degree; do they afford ground for bel ieving

that Plato of set purpose an d consciously ad op ted tw oradical ly di fferent manners in the Laws? It is this w h ic hmust be made out before we can argue that the al legedresemblance of the style of the Epinomis to tha t of a pe r iodtaken from Laws, xi i , and i ts al leged difference from them ann er of the pro em to Laws, v , is pro of tha t we are de al in gwith the wri t ing of an unintel l igent imi tator who has an

eye only for the od d and novel . ) D r. M ii l ler him self f ra n kl y



6o P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yadmits (p. 52) that proof of the all-important thesis that theopening period of Laws, v, may be taken as a standard

typical example of the manner of Plato in the Vortrage o fthe Laws is impossible, though, he says, 'any one may easilyco nv inc e him self of the fact' . N o w it seems to m e that theadmission suggests grave doubts about the value of thew hole arg um ent. O n ce more, D r. M uller is arguing fromdata unconsciously selected with a view to bringing out theconclusion he desires. W e should expect the ope ning period

of the great address on the ruling principles of a good lifewhich fills Laws, v, and in which the speaker has the wholebody of his prospective citizens present in imagination asauditors, would be written with exceptional care and atten-tion to every detail, just as we should, for very similarreasons, expect the sentences from Rep. χ in which Socratesconcludes the story of Er with an explicit statement of the

moral of the whole Republic to be written with equ al care,for the sam e reasons. Bo th passages must be m ad e exce p-tiona lly impressive if they are not to be failures. T h a t,with all the differences which discriminate the style of theRepublic fro m tha t o f the Laws, two such passages should bemore like one another in the carefulness with which bothha ve bee n wr itten th an either is l ike some third period taken

som ewh ere ou t of the Laws, is surely not enough to establishthe point that there is more difference between the mannerof the 'monologues' and that of the 'conversational passages'of the same work than such a difference in degree as nowriter can well avoid making between the manner of a longspeech and th at of a short one. If Laws, v, is to be ap pea ledto, and I hardly think the appeal fair in any case, to estab-lish Dr. Muller 's point, i t would have been a fairer pro-cedure to select any period from its pages rather than theproem as a sample of the average manner of the Vortrage inthe Laws. Laws, x, again, contains Vortrage of some lengthwhich deserve to be taken into account, and in xi-xii , from931 e 8 to 960 c i , we have a continuous Vortrag , only brokenby one interruption of five words at 951 c 5. A ve ry tho rough





62 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yphrases within those limits might easily be accounted foras a na tura l conse que nce of age and fail ing vigo ur. O n e

would not expect a wearied octogenarian to shine, as hemight have done even at seventy, as a coiner of terse andtelling phrases. T h e sam e considerations w ou ld, so far asI can see, completely account for a peculiarity of style ofwhich Dr. Miil ler produces a long l ist of examples—theundeniable tendency of the writer to repeat the same wordor small group of words, sometimes more than once, within

a few lines. Som e of the instances on the list, ind ee d, shouldin fairness be rem ov ed . T h e y could hardly have beenreckoned defects by a cri t ic who remembered that Plato,like the classical Greek authors in general, never shows theexaggerated objection of the modern essayist to repeatingthe same word in the same context, if it is the mot juste fortha t w h ich is be ing spoken of. Possibly D r. M iiller has

never attempted the translation of a Platonic dialogue intoa m od ern ve rn ac ul ar. I am sure that if he tries the task,he will discover that one of the great difficulties in the wayof a conscientious translator is that, rightly or wrongly, ourmodern taste absolutely demands much more variationthan Plato's did; one has perpetually to be obscuring thepoint that the same substantive, adjective, or verb is being

repeated in the Greek, because our ear finds the recurrenceun en du rab ly m ono tono us. (I speak with feeling, beingcomparatively fresh from the making of an English versionof the Timaeus in w hic h m y pious intention o f hav ing onestanding rendering for each habitually repeated verb of'making' was constantly being forced to submit to defeat .)Thus, I think it hypercritical to see evidence of a hand

other than Plato's in the fact that the first sentence of ourdialogue tells us (973 a 3) that w e h ave m et to consider τίνιποτε χρή λόγω διεξελθείν t h e q u e s t i o n w h a t φρόνησυς i s , a n dthe second says, three lines lower down, that τά μεν άλλαάπαντα διεξήλθομεν, and still more hypercritical to object tothe recurrence of σφόδρα at 974c 2, on the ground that thesame intensifying adverb has been used three lines before.



PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13As an i l lustrat ion of the emptiness of such complaints , Ial low myself at this moment to turn to the text of the Lawsat rand om . T h e f irs t words that m eet m y eye are (81 70 5)εστίν τρία μαθήματα, λογισμοί μεν και τα περί αριθμούς ένμάθημα—a w ho l ly unnecessary repet it ion w i thin the len gthof a l ine of Bu rnet 's text . Less than a pa ge f ur th er on , m yeye is caught by a similar example, 818 c 1, ουκ άν ποτέγένοιτο ά νθρώποις θεος ού8έ δαίμων ουδέ ήρως οίος δυνατόςάνθρωπω ν έπιμέλειαν συν σπουδή ποιεϊσθαι· πολλού δ ' άνδεήσειεν άνθρωπ ος γε θειος γενέσθαι κτλ.

These examples seem to me to be very much on a levelwith most of those given by Dr. Miil ler from the Epinomis(pp. 56-7) , and to show that the pecul iar i ty on which hecomments is already present visibly enough in the Laws.Indeed, the tendency to such repeti t ion of a phrase, onceused, in the immediate context is , I should have said, a notunfamiliar feature of the talk and the wri t ing of the veryold. I should acc ep t D r. M iil ler 's rem ark tha t cthe expres-sion is s ingularly hampered' and loses ' freedom' in conse-qu en ce of this pe cu liar ity (p. 57) as strictly true , a n d Ishould cal l i t an ' incompetence of the wri ter ' , wi thout anyreservat ion, only adding that , as the example of Goethe 'slatest prose shows, i t is the kind of inco m pet enc e w h ic h m a ybefal l the greatest masters of language in extreme old age,as phy sical ener gy decays. If w e should ha ve be fore us her e,as we may have, the last thoughts of an old and physical lyfeeble m an , to w h o m even the act of dictat io n is a severefat igue, the facts would be explained in a very natural way.T h e al ternative is to suppose a wr i ter w h o , be ing in thefull possession of his powers, must be pronounced almostimbeci le . But the weighty pronou ncem ent on m athem at ics(99° c 5 - 9 91 ^ 4) is n o t the w ork o f a feeble or eve n a se con d-rate m ind. I ow n I do not kno w how to ac co un t for thecombinat ion of the power of thought shown in that passagew ith the com par at ive lack of pow er of express ion w h ichmarks the dialogue as a whole, on any hypothesis so wellas by supposing that I am reading the unrevised ' last words '



64 PRO CEED INGS OF THE BRITISH ACAD EM Yof a powerful in tel l igence, sadly hampered by the fai lure inexpression which may attend the old age of the greatest .

The zest for depreciat ion becomes almost comical whenw e are inv ited to me asu re the helplessness of our au thor b ythe considerat ion that a λέγοις av in 980 a 6 is fol low edeighteen l ines lower down by a λέγοις άν τό μετά. τούτο. Ishould as soon think of athetizing Laws, iii , on the groundthat the same inter locutor replies to two successive remarks(683 c 7 , d 5) wi th the same conven t ional πάνυ μεν ούν, orthat another speaker, who has repl ied to an observat ionw i t h πόθεν; at 676 a 4, answers the ve ry next o bserva tion atib . 7 wi th λέγεις δε πόθεν; W h en i t is urged on m e that inthe Epinomis Cl inias says ταύτ έσται at 979 e 6 , an d ag ainthe Athenian says έσται ταύτα at 980 c 4 ( tw enty-tw o l inesof Burnet 's text intervening) , I feel sat isf ied to rejoin thatin Laws, iii , on p. 687, one and the same speaker, Megillus,makes the four consecutive responses, τί μην; πώς δ' ού; τί

μήν; πώς δ' ού; in the compass of ten l ines (c 8 -d 5).Dr. Muller himself , however, is not content to let his un-

for tun ate au tho r of f w i th a convict ion on the m inor counto f inability to avo id m on oto ny. H e adds that the wo rk alsoshows a weakness for unnecessary variat ion of phrase, theinference being, I suppose, that when the writer is mono-tonous, i t is f ro m del iberate pervers ity. T w o exam ples are

given of this needless and senseless fancy for variety, 978 c 7το τής ημέρας γένος f o l l o w e d b y τ ό τής νυκτός μέρος a n d988 c 2 ώς τε εγένοντο οΐοί τε εγίγνοντο. I a m a f ra id tha t i f w ehad found γένος a second time in the first passage, wherewe ac tua l ly have μέρος, the words would not have pleasedDr. Muller any bet ter ; they would have furnished one moreexample, a long with the res t , of the wr i ter ' s un-Platonic

un freed om of express ion. Bu t real ly, D r. M ulle r can notexp ect to h av e i t bo th wa ys. In the other passage it doesnot seem clear that the variat ion of the tenses may not bepro pe rly signif ican t . T h e question a theog ony proposes toanswer is a double one, quo modo orti sunt di et quales nasce-bantur ? T h e first h al f o f the question is answ ered b y a b are



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13statement of origin; to answer the second we have to be toldthe history of a process ; for precisely th e sam e rea son , the

third verb of the complete sentence is also imperfect ,μετεχειρίζοντο.1

I do not know why Dr. Miil ler should lay, as he says hedoes, 'special stress' on the six or seven passages he nowproceeds to quote, but I wil l examine them in order.

978 c 1—4. φνσιν ταντην έχονσιν εκ τον παντός προς τοΒννατονς έννοεΐν έΐναι. . . ώστε μαθείν δννατοΐς είναι παρά τον

πατρός άριθμεΐν. W h y should not Plato himself m ak e both1 But it should be remarked that, in any case, there is a difficulty

about the text of the passage, created by the και 6 μ έν wh ich the bestMSS. have between εγ ίγνο ντο and και ο ΐα ς μ ε τε χα ρ ίζο ν το πρ ά ξ εις . 6 μ ε ν

is not easy to em end, nor do the words look so m uch like interp olationas like an uncorrected first draft of a remark the expression of whichhas still to be adju sted . T h a t is, I take the sense to req uir e tha t ο μ ενin c 2 demands to be understood as meaning ό μ ε ν λ ό γ ο ς, so that the

thought is 'when men first began to think about the gods (ore πε ρ ι θ ε ώ ν

f j v ά ν θ ρ ώ πο ις δ ια ν ο ή μ α τ α πρ ώ τα ) , their origin and the process of theirbirth, and, in some accounts, the series of their actions'. T h e speakerseems to have a vague recollection in his mind that he has begun hissentence with the word λ ό γ ο ς . So he has: λ ό γ ο ν δ η κ α ΐ πο λ ύ ν κ α ΐ κ α λ ό ν

έχε ι κ τλ. ; but ό μ έν cannot, of course, be grammatically referred backto λ ό γ ο ν here. Th ere is exactly the same difficulty in the su cceed ingclause c 4) μ η δ * ώ ς o l δ ε ύ τε ρ ο ι, εν ο ΐς πρ ε σ β ύ τ α τ α μ ε ν τα πυ ρ ό ς ε λέ γ ετο

κ τ λ . , where o l δ ε ύ τε ρ ο ι must mean o l δ ε ύ τ ε ρ ο ι λ ό γ ο ι , though grammat i -cally the structure of the sentence should make this impo ssible. T h esense of the whole is 'it is a plausible view that when men first beganto think about the origin of the gods, the process of their birth, and,in one account, of their actions, the tales they told were not acceptableto the sober-minded, nor yet was the later account in which fire, &c.,were made the oldest of things', i.e. neither a theogony like Hesiod'snor a cosmogony like those of the 'Pre-Socratics' is satisfactory to soundthinkers. Bu t the expression of the though t defies all gr am m ar in a w aywhich, to my own mind, makes it inconceivable that the sentence canhav e ever been written for circulation as it stands. It m ust represen ta hastily-set-down, or more probably dictated, first sketch for some-thing yet to be wr itten. T h e presence of half-form ed sentences like thisseems alm ost to prove that the Epinomis is an unrevised draft of Plato'sthoughts, left unrevised from sheer pietas, not a composition deliberatelysent out to the public by Philippus or any man.

xv ι



66 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ythe statements that it is τό πάν from which we get a φύσιςcapable of conceiving number, and that i t is 'our Father '

w h o teach es us to co un t? T hi s is not vain repetition; thetho ug ht is the tw ofo ld on e tha t we are so constituted as tobe capable of learning the lesson, and that there is a divinebeing who takes kindly thought for us and intentionally pro-vides the opportunity of learning i t , a doctrine which be-longs as much to the Timaeus as to the Epinomis. If it is theassonance παντός—πατρός which is objected to, i t is enoughto remark that there are some three lines, and a completebreak in enunciat ion, indicated by a 'quest ion-mark' , be-tween the two words.

980 c 8 -9 . T h e speake r says that he finds it n ecessary,since antiquity has given us a bad theogony, κακώς άπεικα-σάντων τών έμπροσθεν, t o m a k e a n i m p r o v e d o n e , βελτίονάπεικάσαι, on the lines of the doctrines he has already laid

d o w n , κατά τον έμπροσθεν λόγον. I t is aw kw ar d , to be su re ,tha t έμπροσθεν in c 8 should m ean ' in the times before ourown ' , and in c 9 ' in the earlier pa rt of our con versa tion',especial ly as the am big uity could so easi ly have b een avoidedby wri t ing τών παλαιών in c 8. H ere aga in, I find it impo s-sible to believe in an incompetence of the author so great asto m ak e hi m r ep ea t himself in this quite unnecessary fashion,

but I can easily understand the inelegance in a mere firstdraft of something intended to receive proper l i terary formbefor e circ ula tion . It is precisely the kind of inelega nce an yman admits in to memoranda , but is careful to remove inpre pa rin g them for pub licat ion. Its presence in our dia-logue once more strongly suggests to me that the work is anunrevised recor d o f notes set dow n b y a great m an , or takendown from his dictat ion, which have been left unrevisedowing to his death, and circulated with al l their rough-nesses because excessive reverence for a master's ipsissimaverba has forbidden al l correction.

9 8 2 e 4 . πορείαν και χορέιαν πάντων χορών καλλίστηνκαι μεγαλοπρεπεστάτην χορεύοντα. Presumably the objec-tion here is to the jingle πορείαν—χορείαν, as D r. M iiller



PL AT O AN D THE 'EPINOM IS' 13quotes only so m uc h of the word s. I should h av e th ou gh tthis a tr ivial fault , m u ch less no ticeab le th an the rei te ratio n

yopeiav—χορών—χορεύοντα, or the sligh tly h ar sh zeugma o fπορείαν . . . χορενοντα. Bu t once m ore, does no t the wh olephrase read much more l ike one set down in a memo-randum in tended to rece ive subsequent e labora t ion andcorrect ion than a sentence del iberate ly 'passed for publ ica-t ion ' by any man?

9 8 1 a I . εΐ δ' έχει τούτο όντως, τό γε πρώτον ήμΐν τον πρώτον

της γενέσεως πιθανώτερον άν εΐη σ χ ε δ ό ν νπηργμένον' και θώμενδη την άρχήν της άρχής ενσχημονέστερον έχειν. H e r e t h e c o n -struction seems to m e as charac terist ic of Plato as the th o ug h t;the anti thesis between το πρώτον της γενέσεως acco rd ing to'us ' , and 'according to the o ld theogonies ' and the Ioniancosmologies is a perfectly correct one; again the words καίθώμεν... έχειν d o not s imply repeat w ha t has jus t been said ;

our πρώτον o r άρχή is both 'more credible ' and 'more seemly 'th an tha t of our r ivals. C f. Laws, 892 a 3 , δύναμιν ήν έχει,τών τε άλλων αντής πέρι κα ί δη κα ί γενέσεως, ώς εν πρώτοιςεστί, σωμάτω ν έμπροσθεν πάντων γενομένη, και μεταβολής τεαυτών κα ί μετακοσμήσεως άρχει.

988 c. 'Confus ion (Nebeneinander) o f ψνχή as cosmic pr in-c ip le and human ψνχή'; (at least I suppose the ac cu sa tion

is meant to be one of making a confusion : there could be noreason to be offended by th ζ juxtaposition as suc h). I do n otund erstand the gro un d for com plain t here . Sinc e P la tocertainly held that al l ψνχαί are of one kind, there is noreason why he should not speak of 'soul as a cosmic prin-cip le ' and the human soul nebeneinander. Bu t the w ho lepassage 988 c i-e 4 seems to me to speak of ψνχή as 'cosmic

pr inciple ' , exact ly as Pla to speaks οΐψνχή or ψνχαί in Laws, x .What is said is that the δεύτεροι λόγοι, those of the Ioniancosmologists, teach that body sets i tself moving by 'heatand cool ing ' (θερμότητι καιψύξεσι) and o ther such meth od s;it is not ψνχή w h ich sets bo th i tse lf an d bo d y go ing . B utour view (988 d) is that it is ψνχή which sets bodies moving,and the i r weigh t (βάρος) is no objection to this doctr ine.



68 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M YSince all effects are thus caused by ψυχαί, good or evil , andthe 'best soul ' m ov es tow ard s goo d (988 e), the victory of good

ove r evil is assured. T h is is exa ctly the lan gu ag e w hic h isused in Laws, x, ab ou t soul as the source of all cosmic m ove -m ents, an d the d istinction betw een a 'best soul ' , w hi ch causesonly 'orderly movements ' , and others which give rise to dis-orderly motions (Laws, 896 e) . T h e argum ent a ll throughrefers to 'souls' as 'cosmic principles' of orderly or disorderlymotions, is expressed without confusion, and agrees in everydetai l with the Laws. I f there is an error in it, it is an erro rfor which Plato is himself responsible.

990^7* T°v T M V οκτώ περιόδων τάς επτά π εριόδους (sc.εσκεμμένον). W e should certainly find the phrase moreplea sing if the last w or d were aw ay . But, onc e m ore, is i tnot clear that no man si t t ing down to compose an imitat ionof a Platonic dialogue, however slender his at tainments,

would deliberately write so intolerable a phrase as ' theseven περίοδοι out of the eight περίοδοι ? Have we not heresomething not far short of demonstrat ion that we are read-ing words which have been taken down as they weredictated, and have never been read over by the speaker orsu bje cte d to the revisio n of an edit or? I feel this so strong lymyself that I own I should think it necessary, if I were once

convinced that the Epinomis is an im itation , to d elete περι-όδους as a manifest 'gloss', and I am surprised to see theword retained here by those who believe in the authorshipof Phil ippus. If the wo rds were so taken dow n from Plato 'sl ips, I can understand that pietas might forbid any 'edit ing 'of them; I cannot understand how any author who hadread over what he had writ ten could let them remain.

Exactly the same problem recurs at 990 £ 1, w ithin thes a m e s e n t e n c e , ουκ άν ραδίως ποτε πάσα φύσις ικανή γένοιτοθεωρήσat, μή θαυμαστής μετέχουσα φύσεως. N o m a n couldw r i t e φύσις . . . μετέχουσα θαυμαστής φύσεως, t h o u g h i t i swhat might come from the l ips of a man dictat ing histhought as it formed itself in his mind, particularly if hewere an old and wearied man, no longer able to express



PL AT O AND THE EPINOMIS 13himse lf ver y read i ly. I cann ot , therefore , agre e w i th D r .M ii l ler that h is exa m inat io n of deta il s shows tha t P la t o

cannot be the au thor of the Epinomis\ I th ink c loser con-siderat ion of som e o f the detai ls suggests ve ry s tro ng ly,though i t does not absolu te ly prove, that the au thor i s morel ikely to have been the aged Pla to than to have been anyone else.

Dr. Mii l ler reserves to the last place in this divis ion of hisd isser ta t ion an argument , s ta ted in general terms and not

suppor ted by any de ta i l ed examina t ion o f the Epinomis,based on the bro ad pr incip les of sentence -const ruct ion . T h eord er of w ords an d clauses in Plato s later s tyle, as w e k n o wit f rom the Laws, is intr icate and diff icul t , but , i t is urged,examinat ion shows that i t i s based on cer ta in broad pr in-c ip les . T h e app are nt d is locat ion of na tur a l ord er in thesentences of the Laws has the del ibera te purpose of caus ing

at ten t ion to be specia l ly d i rected to the components of thesentence which are most important for the thought ; theseare ma de to s tand out in bo ld rel ief . T h is is sh ow n to b eso by the con siderat ion (p. 60) that on e o f the w ri te r sfavouri te devices i s to pos tpone important words to the endof a sentence, the inten t ion bein g to arouse a ten sion oran t ic ipa t ion Spannung) which receives i ts resolut ion as the

sentence c loses. W e m ay say, then , tha t the r he tor ica l -dialect ic form o f the senten ce , w hi ch w e find in th e earl ie rd ia logues , i s surrendered , but surrendered not for form-lessness , but for a form which is whol ly determined fromwithin, adapts i tself to the Wesen of the wo rds , an d br in gstheir sensuous va lu e direct ly before intu i t ion . B u t th e in -competent wri ter of the Epinomis was b l ind to these pr in-

ciples . H e saw no thin g in the s tyle of the Laws but i tsapparent f reedom from al l ex ternal ru les , and th is i s whathe set himse lf to im itate . H en ce the sentences of the Epino-mis re ally are, as those of the Laws are not , formless (p . 61).

With what Dr. Mii l ler says here about the s ty le of theLaws I should ve ry largely agree . I am no t , ind ee d , surethat the typical sentence-pat terns of the Laws a re no t more



ηο P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T IS H A C A D E M Yseriously determined than Dr. Miiller apparently allows bya consideration he does not mention, anxiety to avoid

hiatus.1

But there is at least much truth in what he saysabout Plato's anxiety to shape the sentence so that theemphasis falls on the constituents important for the thought,an d aga in, ab ou t the device of creating a Spannung whichis disch arge d b y the closing word s. T h e sentences of theLaws are very far from being really 'formless'; it must haverequired great care and artifice to create them, and this is,

to my mind, a reason for thinking it unlikely that much ofthe work was dictated, though the not infrequent smalleror greater ' tangles' of the grammar seem to show that ithas not receiv ed the writer 's last touches. Al so , I confessmyself to finding the Epinomis dec ided ly less c are fullywrought in this respect than the Laws. Bu t so far as it issafe to ju d g e fro m gen eral impressions— and a general im-

pression is really all we have to go upon in comparing theone work as a whole with the other—I do not see that theinferiority is greater than might be expected if the Epinomisis, as it must be if it is Plato's, the last production of anextremely old man and, for that very reason, is likely toha ve been w ho lly or m ainly dictated. M ay not the dif-ference between a page of the Laws at its best and a page

of the Epinomis be jus t th e d ifference betwee n Pla to still a bleto construct his own 'manuscript ' , and the same Plato, old,weary, and able only to dictate his thoughts to another?

V I

So far, as Dr. Miiller has said, the results of his discussionare pu rely n ega tive . It is taken as prov ed that Plato did

not compose the Epinomis , and inferred (perhaps too hastily)th at P hilipp us did . W e hav e still to discover, if we can ,

1 O n the reasons w hic h most pro bab ly led Isocrates to introduce therule of avoiding hiatus an d Plato to adop t it from him , see the sug-gestive remarks of Burnet, Platonism, pp. 54 -5 . Th ey are good reasons,but of a different kind from those used by Dr. Miiller to explain themanner of the Laws.



PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13why Phi l ippus made th is addi t ion to the Laws. W h a t is i tsreal purpose?

In the f i rs t place (62-63), the al l but complete absenceof genuine d ia logue f rom his work shows that , though hefel t bound to adopt the d ia logue form in order to connecthis disquisit ion with the Laws, i t was, for him, a merelydead external form, as i t had never been for Plato, at leastin his wri t ings. (D r. Mu ller seems to forg et the Timaeus,which i s an unbroken and whol ly undramat ic Vortrag i n t ro -

duced by a conversat ion real ly in tended s imply to poin tforward to the Critias.) H av ing adop ted th is form for h iswork, however, he overdoes i t , as only an unski lful imitatorwo uld . (Th is refers to the previous a t tem pt to dr aw a h ar dand fast l ine between the s tyle of the more conversat ionalparts of the Laws an d that of Book V , an d to show th at theEpinomis is m odel led o n the former. ) T h e o bje ct of the Epi-

nomis is to insis t on m athe m atics a nd astr on om y as th estudies which wil l lead to genuine σοφία. W e unde r s t and ,therefore , why the names of these sciences are careful ly keptback unt i l their exposi t ion has made their ful l s ignif icanceclear to us . Bu t w h en we do reac h the po in t a t w h ic h i tw ou ld be app ropr ia te to nam e them , we find a n unin te l -l igent re luctance to g ive the technical nam es , w hi ch w o ul dha ve been impossible to Plato. T h e w or d αριθμη τική is no tused,1 στερεομετρία i s in t roduced wi th unnec essary c i r cu m -l o c u t i o n (τα ύ τη ήν δή στερεομετρίαν εκάλεσαν οι προστυχεΐςαυτή γεγονότες ( 9 9 o d 8 ) , t h e n a m e γεωμετρία i s ac tual lyc e n s u r e d ( ο καΧούσι μεν σφόδρα γεΧοΐον όνομα γεωμετρίαν,ib. d 1) . As t ron om y i tse lf is spoken of in the fo l low ing w a y ,σχεδόν μεν ούν εστίν άτοπον άκούσαντι, το δ ' όνομα αυτούΧεγομεν ήμεϊς γε, ο τις ουκ άν ποτε δόξειεν δι άπειρίαν τούπράγματος, άστρονομίαν (990*2 2). A ll this strikes D r . M u ll e ras rather chi ldish and rather perplexing.

Before w e consider D r. M ul ler ' s exp lana t ion of the pu zz le ,I must point out that there are excel lent reasons for this

1 But it i s used once , as I hav e alre ady o bserved , 977« 2 πά ντα δ 'α πο λε ίπε τα ι το πα ρ ά πα ν , ό τα ν ά ρ ιθ μ η τικ ή ν τ ις ά νε λτ) .



72 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yunw illingne ss to use the familiar nam es. T h e reason for no tsimply saying that two of the studies meant are geometryand stereometry are actually given by the writer himself.He is urging from 990 c 5 to 990 e 1 that the real objectsstudied in 'plane and solid geometry' are certain classes ofnumbers. W h a t has been called γεωμετρία, in so far as it isa genuine science, is the 'assimilation of numbers which arenot naturally similar by reference to surfaces (επίπεδων,perhaps m eaning επιπέδων αριθμών, surface-numbers ). T h a tis, geometry, as an exact science, has nothing to do with'earth-measuring'; i t is the study of the 'quadratic surds',exactly as plane geometry has sometimes been said in laterdays to be the 'algebra of complex numbers ' , στερεό μετρία,as a science, again has nothing to do with 'gauging' cubiccapacity; it also is a method of 'assimilating' naturally dis-similar nu m be rs by con sidering their third pow ers. It is, infact, the study of 'cubic surds'.

The point is that, contrary to the current opinion, ' irra-tionals' are num bers , a nd that it is really a numerical problemwe are investigating when we deal with a problem of planeor solid geometry.1 W h a t is called the finding of a line thesquare on which shall be double of a given square, or thecu be on w h ich do ub le o f a given cu be, is really the findingo f V2 o r V2. T h e n a m e s γεωμετρία, στερεομετρία, obscure

this im po rtan t po int , tha t the problems are really num erical ,an d therefore w e m ay not use them without protest . T h esame consideration, I believe, explains wh y the m ost fun da -mental of the mathematical disciplines, the study of αριθμώναυτών α λ λ ' ου σώματα εχόντων ( 9 9 ° c 6)> th a t i s , o f the n a tu ra lintegers, is no t form ally called αριθμητική, αριθμητική, f romthe author 's point of view, includes not only the study of

integers but that of the quadratic and cubic surds shortlyto be mentioned; it is not, therefore, correctly used as thenomen proprium for its own most fundamental sub-species,the 'arith m etic of the na tura l integers'. As for αστρονομία,

1 O r to speak with Descartes, problems abou t loci, linear, plane, orsolid, are all reducible to the solution of equations.





74 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T IS H A C A D E M YBefore I examine his treatment of the problem, I should

like to ask the preliminary question whether there is any-

thing part icularly un-Platonic about the so-called rhetorisch-pathetische Redeweise o f the passages referred to? Is there a nyreco gn izab le differe nce of tone, for exam ple, betw een 972 b 2a n d Tim. 2 8 £ 2 ό δή πάς ουρανός—ή κόσμος ή καί άλλο ότιποτέ ονομαζόμενος μάλιστ άν δέχοιτο, τοϋθ' ήμΐν ώνομάσθω .Both are ways of saying that it is indifferent whether we usethe word ουρανός or κόσμος, or, the Epinomis adds, όλνμπος,so long as we understand the same thing by these variousnames, and how is there more rhetorical πάθος in one of theexpressions giv en to this thou ght than in the oth er? A n d ,again, as regards the use of anaphora. D r. M iil ler ca n hard lymean to suggest that there is anything un-Platonic in themere employment of the f igure, as he can hardly have for-g o t t e n Phd. 7 8 a 3 πολλή μεν ή 'Ελλάς . . . πολλά δε καί τα τωνβαρβάρων γένη, o r Phaedr. 2 4 7 d 5 καθορα μέν αυτήν δικαιο-σύνην, καθ ορά δέ σωφροσ ύνην, καθορα δέ έπιστήμην. M o r eprobably, his objection is that there is a πάθος in thesepassages which makes the employment of the f igure appro-pr iate , b ut t ha t the re is no such justification for it at Epin.981 d 7. Bu t w e mig ht say the same thing abo ut Tim. 87 a 5,where it is said of certain νοσήματα that they ποικίλλει μένείδη δυσκολίας καί δυσθυμίας παντοδαπά, ποικίλλει δέ θρα-

σύτητας τε και δειλίας, or, if we were bent on carping, eveno f Critias, 1 1 7 a 2 πρέποντα μέν τω τής άρ-χής μεγέθει, πρέπονταδέ τω περι τά ιερά κόσμω, since it might be argued that therepeti t ion of πρέποντα is needless and prom pted by a han ker-ing af ter a πάθος not appropriate to the context.

Why the simple and earnest words of Epin. 992 α \ ούτος6 τρόπος, αύτη ή τροφή, ταύτα τά μαθήματα s h o u l d b e ' s u f fi -

cient proof' of spuriousness is not absolutely clear, but sincethey are quoted as the supreme exhibition of the πάθος o fthe dialogue, I suppose it is meant that the feeling withwhich they are charged is not in keeping with the πάθος o fPlato, as shown, e.g., in the Laws. If that is the meaning,I can only reply that Dr. Miiller has strangely misread the



PL AT O AN D THE 'EPINOM IS' 13w ork Plato in tend ed as h is greatest lega cy to m an kin d . I tis manifest from the passionate pleadings of Laws, x, that

Pla to, at the end of his l ife, wa s con vin ced th at th e r ightordering of l ife is absolutely impossible except on the basisof such a theology as is expounded there; this is the reasonw h y he w ou ld , i f he cou ld , establish an Inqu isi t ion to d ea lwith the three forms of false rel igious belief which act asa mo ral poison in society . H o w intense his feeling s w ere inthe matter we see most readily, if we read the direct address

to the heret ic which is appended to the refuta t ion of eachof the three 'heresies ' , and observe how the tone changesfrom reasoned and pat ient apologet ics (addressed to thesimple a theis t ) , through remonstrance (with the denier ofprovidence) , to indignant denunciat ion ( in the case of thedevotee of im m ora l superst it ion) . T h e last possib le un -cer ta in ty whether th is theology represents ardent personal

convict ion or is advocated on grounds of ' socia l u t i l i ty 'should be removed when we f ind i ts main doctr ines urgedwi th equa l vehemence in Ep. vii . 335 A n d ag ai n i t isequal ly cer ta in f rom Laws, xii. 967 d 4 ff ., tha t P la t o rega rdsthe scient if ic ast ronom y o f w hic h he preache s the ne ed asone of the two indispensable foundat ions of h is theologyan d re lig ion. I t has bee n said that re l ig ion has tw o fo un da -

t ions, ontology an d e th ics. Pla to , for w h om o nto log y an dethics are inseparable , makes h is second foundat ion astro-nomy, because i t i s f rom astronomy that we learn that thecosmic motions really are str ict ly 'orderly ' , and that theαρίστη ψυχή is thus, in f ac t, the ψυχή wh ich ac tua l ly gove rnsthe wor ld . T h e πάθος of the passage in which the Epinomisdwells on the nat ive endowments , educat ional d isc ip l ine ,

and scient i f ic a t ta inments requisi te for the h ighest humanbeati tude is thus identical with that of the Laws, or atany ra te of Laws, χ an d xii . T h a t this fee ling sho uld findthe expression i t does in our dialogue is no proof that ourauthor was Pla to ; i t i s fa i r reason for holding that he maybe Plato , unt i l s t ronger reasons have been adduced on theother side.




We begin to understand what Dr. Muller means better ifw e follow his ar gu m en t a lit tle further. T h e Laws, he says,

is a true dialogue, though nearly everything in it comesfrom a single speaker, to whom the others have merely tosay Y e s an d N o at the prope r intervals. It is a true d ialoguebeca use it is neve r forgotten that the A the nia n is addressingcitizens of two remarkable political communities, whosecharacter as representatives of those communities affects thew ho le situation. In the Epinomis Megillus and Clinias are

retained, but they are 'dummies' , from the very outset at973 a i , wh ere they are introduced, in w ho lly un-Platonicfashion, and 'mechanically ' by the words of Clinias, προςμεν τ ό τής ομολογίας ήκομεν άπαντες κτλ. I n fh c t , i t i smeant, the two characters are for the writer merely theHerren Anwesende w h o form the audience at a lecture. If hewas not really thinking of an audience or a body of readers,if he had not lost complete sight of the dramatic situation,how could he speak of three persons and no more as πάντες ?Clearly, when he says 'we', he is not thinking of the threecharacters of the Laws but of a body of fellow-studentsmitten im Kolleg, and he betrays the fact when he makes theAthenian refer (980^4) to the memoranda (υπομνήματα)which the others had taken of his refutation of 'atheism'.These peculiarities would be intelligible if one may supposethat the Epinomis was composed by its author as the epilogueto a series of 'readings' in which Plato's Laws were recited,before circulation, to an audience of disciples (pp. 66-7).

A ga in I interrupt the course of D r. Mu ller 's argum ent tocomment on the conclusiveness of some of his criticisms.The reason why three persons may be called πάντες orάπαντες is simple, vi z. tha t they a re one too m an y to be c alledάμφω. C f . A r i s t o t l e , De Coelo A , 2 6 8 α ΙΟ , καθάπερ γάρ φασικαί ol Πυθαγόρειοι, το πάν και τά πάντα τοις τρισιν ώρισται.T h e άπαντες of the Epinomis need not therefore be taken tom ea n an y one bu t the characters of the dialog ue. N or doI agree w ith the com m ents D r. M ulle r, followin g Professor

Jaeger, makes on the allusion to υπομνήματα. It is not only



PLA TO AND THE 'EPINOMIS' 13universi ty s tudents who make memoranda. I t is t ru e th at noreference is made in the Laws i tself to the taking of 'notes ' .

But when we remember tha t the s i tua t ion in tha t d ia logueis that Cl inias and the rest are apparent ly walking out toinspect the si te of a proposed ci ty for which Clinias isofficia l ly a Com m issioner (702 b-d),1 i t is un like ly tha t th eywould no t be provided , be tween them, wi th the means ofrecording observat ions; Cl inias has probably his ' table ts 'w i th him . I t w ou ld therefore be per fect ly possible tha t

notes m ight hav e been m ad e of points of im po rta nc e in thediscourses of the Athenian, and we are not bound to supposethat the reference to such notes betrays a wri ter for whomthe Laws is a 'prele ct ion ' to a un iversi ty class. T h e b al dopening of our d ia logue seems to be an actual reminiscenceo f t h a t o f t h e Sophistes ( 2 1 6 a 1 ) κατά τήν χθες όμολογίαν, ωΣώκρατες, ήκομεν κτλ. Th is is equ al ly possible w he th er ou r

au th or is Pla to him self or not . I t is t rue th at in the Sophistesthe in terest is ke pt up b y the in t ro duc t ion of a ne w lea din gcharacter, but we should not in any case expect Pla to him-self at the age of eighty to be equal to himself some twelveor fifteen years earlier.

T o re turn to D r. Mii l ler. In effect , he says, the au tho rof the Epinomis is com plim ent ing his aud ien ce of fe l lowAcademics by dec lar ing them one and a l l to be competen tf o r m e m b e r s h i p o f t h e νυκτερινός σύλλογος o f t h e Laws.(For the educat ion he describes as that 'we ' are to acquireis formal ly the same which the Laws requ i red o f the m em -bers of that suprem e Co un ci l . ) Bu t th is ve ry co m pli m en tshows that our writer does not understand the spiri t of theLaws. His 'pol i t ical s i tuat ion ' is not that co nt em pla ted b yPlato . T o Pla to the νυκτερινός σύλλογος is a re al po li t ica linst i tut ion; for our auth or i t is a l i tera ry fict ion . T o'Phi l ippus ' the c i ty of the Laws and i ts inst i tut ions have no

1 It is not expressly said that Clinias's excursion is one o f inspectio nof the site of the city, but I think we may fairly infer from his regardingthe meeting with the Athenian as an οιωνός (702 c 2) that his business

is in some way connected with his function as Commissioner.



78 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yreal s ignificance; the 'ci ty ' to him means the exist ing' empi r i ca l ' πόλις of w hi ch he and his audience are m emb ers .Hence , whereas the Laws treats σοφία as something de-manded to fi t ' rulers ' in part icular for their work of govern-ing, the Epinomis speaks of i t as possible for private citizensa s w e l l a s f o r m a g i s t r a t e s ( 9 7 6 d 2 δ δέ λαβών . . . σοφός δέκαΐ αγαθός δ ι ' αυτήν πολίτης τε και άρχων και άργόμενος εν-Βίκως εσται). T h e v a l u e of σοφία fo r p o l i t i c s is t h o u g h t o f a ssecondary; i ts primary worth l ies in i ts contribution to theευδαιμονία of the ind iv id ual . V i r tu e , as unders tood b y 'Phi l ip-pus ' , is not , as for Plato, at once one and differentiated; i thas become a unum necessarium. T hi s am oun ts to a surrenderof the ' speci f ical ly pol i t ical an d com plex άρετή-concept ofPla to ' . W h a t Pla to looke d for in the πόλις 'Phil ippus ' looksf o r ' i n t h e p e r f e c t πόλις o f t h e κόσμος', o r ' i n a n ex i s te nc ethat wi l l fol low upon our present imperfect ear thly s tate '(p. 69). T h e au die nc e for w h o m he is w ri t ing is a circlewhose real interest is in the problems of religion (p. 70), andhis object is to defend the thesis that scientific and religiouseducat ion are one and the same against the 'c laim of therel igious man to go his own way' (p . 71); the pecul iar' rel igiosi ty ' of the Epinomis is the most im po rtan t p oint ofdi fference between i t and the Laws. The work, then, i s apiece of 'prot rept ic ' ,1 and this explains why it is so earnestin pr eac hin g the valu e of such 's imple and p resum ably(;vermeintlich) fam il iar th ings ' as ar i thmet ic , geom etry, s tereo-metry, and as t ronomy, especial ly the las t , and why heavoids technical terminology to the excess of actual ly doinghis best to escape using the technical names of these'famil iar ' sciences (ib.) .

Now i t seems to me that i t would be difficult to commita worse double mistake than that which reveals i tself inthese pa ra gr ap hs . In the first plac e D r. M iil ler, as w e ha veseen, com ple tely m isconceive s the poin t of w h at is said inthe Epinomis i tself ab o u t the sciences of m athem atics an dast ro no m y. T he se sciences, as conceived by our auth or, are

1 Are there many Platonic dialogues which are not 'protreptic' ?



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13not 's imple and familiar things ' , but the very reverse.As t ronomy—as wi th P la to , both in the Republic an d in the

Laws—is not what i t would be taken to be by all but a verysmall scientif ic circle, acquaintance with the observed factsof the heliacal r is ings and sett ings of various constellationswhich are important to the farmer, the vine-grower, andthe sailor, bu t the math em atical analysis of the high ly co m -plica ted paths of the planets , an d the precise de ter m ina tio nof their orbits . 'G eo m etry ' and 's tereom etry ' , pro pe rly

s tudied, are not independent and autonomous discipl ines ,deal ing with lengths , areas , volumes, and thus dependenton the experiences which give rise to the measurement offields an d the ga ug in g of receptacles. A s sciences the y fo rmtwo divisions within the theory of numbers, the studyrespectively of the qu ad ratic an d the cu bic irration als , an dthe ' theory of number ' i tself is thus not identical with that

par t of i t wh ich is com m only kno wn b y tha t na m e, thethe ory of the na tu ral integers. N or is this all that ou r w rite rm eans to say. H is reference to the w a y in w h ic h the ke yto all the secrets of 'nature ' is an understanding of thevarious 'means ' in the several progressions between the'double' and its half (9900 2 ως περί τό δ ιπλάσιοι αεί στρεφό-μενης της δυνάμεως και της εξ εναντίας ταύτη καθ' εκάστην

άναλογίαν είδος καί γένος άποτυπούται πάσα ή φύσις) m u s tcertainly be taken to include an allusion to the problemsof the 's ide and diagonal ' and the 'duplication of thecube ' . He means to indicate a convict ion that the samear i thmet ica l methods which have been found appl icable tothe dete rm inatio n of the 'd ia go n al '— th at is, to the findingof V2—can be applied equal ly in a general way for the

determinat ion of the whole ser ies of quadrat ic and cubic' i rrat ional roots ' . I t is evidently hop ed tha t the dete rm ina-tions thus obtained will , besides providing exact expressionsfor lengths, areas, and volumes, enable us to make precisecomputat ions of the per iod of any 'p lanet ' in terms of thatof any other. In fact , the words I have quoted presup-pose the same general conception of the physical world



8o P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Ywhich we know from the Timaeus. There the e lementaryconstituents of all bodies are said to be triangles of two types,each exhibiting a great variety of size, and in each of thesetypes of triangle one of the ratios between the sides is ' irra-t ional ' .1 T h is is w h y an y physical problem ma y involve atleast one problem in the study of numbers which are ' intheir own nature dissimilar ' , but are rendered 'similar ' byraising to the second or third pow er. T h e two problem sthe writer has in his mind in 990 c-d are, in fact, the inser-

tion of one and of two mean proportionals between anytwo given integers; the first requires the determination ofthe series of 'square roots' , the second the determinationof the series of 'cu b e roots' . T h e first adm its of a simplegeometrical solution (Eucl. vi . 13) w hich m ay be p resumedto have been known in the fif th century; the second isnotoriously insoluble geometrically without the use of

curves n ot ca pa ble o f construction by the methods of E uclid,and it was apparently with a view to i ts solution thatArchytas studied the curve of intersection of the cone andcylin de r, an d the A ca d e m y itself the 'conic sections '. W ha tour author is demanding is something sti l l more diffi-cult , the numerical solution of the problem to any desireddeg ree of ap pr ox im atio n. T his is something so far from

being elementary or familiar that, as we all know, Aristotlewa s mere ly intrig ued by the 'perversity ' of method s wh ichseemed to him to confuse the two radically distinct speciesof το ποσόν. A n d there is a similar reason, over an d ab ov ethe more obvious one, for the way in which our dialoguespeaks of αστρονομία. It is not only He siod whose astronom yis insu fficiently 'scient ific ' . Fro m one single hin t w e dis-

cover that the diurnal revolution of the απλανές is onlyapp aren t . H en ce the astronomical scheme of Eudo xus,which depends on treating this revolution as a componentof every planetary trajectory must be wrong in i ts founda-

1 In the isosceles triangle used by T im aeu s the ratio of either 'side'to the 'hypo ten use' is 1 : V2, in his scalene triangle the ratio o f thelesser side to the greater is 1: V3.



PL AT O AN D THE 'EPINOM IS' 13tions.1 A ll this is str ict ly in ac cor d with al l w e kn ow ofPlatonic mathematics, and I confess I f ind i t hard to under-

stand the br ief an d auth or i ta t ive w a y in w hi ch i t is la id d ow nif the wri ter is any one but the head of the Academy i tse lf .T h e m ore serious confusion, how ever, is th at w h ich seems

to be implied in what is sa id of Pla to h imself by way ofcont ras t wi th Th i l ip pu s ' . He re , aga in , w e a re dea l ing w i thwhat I should call a distorted exaggeration of the real facts.I t is the fact that Plato 's own l ifelong, deepest interests

were, as he tells us himself in Ep. vii , those of the statesmanand mora l re former, and a lso tha t the Academy, in Pla to ' sla ter years , was composed chief ly of Ionian s tudents whoknew nothing of ser ious f ree pol i t ical act iv i ty, and caredcom pa rat ive ly l it t le for i t . But i t w ou ld be a com plet e m is-take to suppose that Plato himself conceived of science andreligion as incapable of exist ing except as instruments of

socia l act iv i ty in an ideal ly managed πόλυς, or tha t hethought there was no f ield for them in the 'empirical πόλι? 'of his later years. Sin ce, as Bu rne t has rec en tly said ,2 it isc lear f rom Ep. vii , as well as from the dialogues themselves,that Plato regarded the real l ife of his own πόλις as endedby the events of 404-403, or a t any ra te by the condemna-t ion of Socrates, w h ich m ad e it impossible to ho pe an yt h in g

from the restored democracy, why did he th ink i t worthwhile to found the Academy at a l l , i f he held the v iewD r. M iil ler ascribes to h im ? I t is certain tha t he wa s n ev erunder the delusion that the great t ime before the Archi-damian war cou ld be rev ived by mirac le a t Athens o r any-w he re else. W h a t, then , was his purpo se in de vo tin g his l ife

1 987 b 6 ff. The implication made explicit by Burnet 's addition of<ou/c> before ά γ ω ν in b 8 is already there in the M S S . te xt. If theαπλανές does not carry the planets round, it follows, of course, that theappearance that it does so must be due to a real diurnal motion ofthe earth in the opposite sense. T h e diu rnal revo lution o f the α πλα νέςitself must therefore be only apparent: the movement from east to westassigned to it by the dialogue is presumably real, but its period, whichis not mentioned, cannot be the 'day'.

2 Platonism, p. 29.X V L



82 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yto the educat ion of young men in αρετή an d 'philosophy' ?T h e Republic itself w ill g ive us the an sw er, if w e rea d itatte ntiv ely. T h e true 'philosoph er' will not discharge hisfunction to the full unless he has the good fortune to be ' inhis own city ' , where he will have power and authority aswell as wisdom, but wherever he is, he will be able at leastto reform his own soul and order his own life on the rightlines, and his influence will make itself felt around him.We read the Republic very superficially, if w e d o no t discoverthat what Socrates there is most of all in earnest about isnot the realization of a polit ical Utopia, but the r ight con-duct of his own life and the lives of his auditors. T h e m oralof the myth with which the dialogue concludes 'will saveus' into 'eternal life' , if we follow it faithfully (621c 1),though Socrates has clearly no hopes for the political salva-tion of the 'dem ocr atic city ' . W hy , again, did Plato thinkit a du ty to go to Syracuse at Dion 's invitation? N ot, as hemakes plain enough in his own explanation, in the dreamof fo un din g a city of 'philosophers' , but because the con-version of Dionysius to a better way of life might make himcapable of doing something to prevent Greek civil ization inSicily from extinction. O r w hy , again, did Pla to devotelaborious years in his old age to writing the Laws, exceptfor the reason that he held strongly that something can bedone by the 'philosopher ' for personal and public morality,even with high ly unid eal conditions. In the least favo urab leconditions, when the philosopher, in the phrase of theRepublic, is dr ive n to w ra p him self in his ow n virtue an dtake shelter 'under a wall ' from the tempest round him, hislife is, at any rate, an example of fidelity to a right standardof the worth of different goods, and a r ight preparation forthe ' journ ey of a thousand years ' . I t is a pa rad ox , to m ymind, to maintain that the man who wrote the Gorgias andRepublic co uld see no va lue in the μαθήματα except in an'ideal state' in which they are the passport to a seat amongthe νομοφνλακες, and I therefore regard the antithesis be-tween the 'religiosity' of the Epinomis and the spirit of the





84 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E B R I T I S H A C A D E M Yis available, and yet a third the unintelligible ή ταύτη ώςπάντη ταύτη (so A L , πάντη Ο ) o f 9 8 4 b ι . I a m n o t su r e th a t

the πλανήτων, which Burnet brackets at 986 b 2, is not afour th . The απλανών w hic h As t substituted is w h at the sensedem and s, yet one cann ot believe in a 'corrup tion' of απλανώνto πλανητών by transcribers, and I myself find it almost asimpossible to believe that άστρων should h av e been 'glossed'w ro ng ly in a context wh ere the m eaning is obvious. I be-l ieve the diff icul t and ungram m atical ο μέν of 988 c 2

requ ires trea tm en t on the same lines. T h e slips in the placespreviously cited are exactly of the kind that might be madeby an old man dictating without himself reading over whathe had dictated afterwards, and I do not see any othereq ua lly satisfactory explan ation of their occurrence . Simi-larly the ο μεν of 988 c 2 reads to me like the language ofsome on e d ictatin g, a wa re th at he had just said in effect

'the first theogonists related the origin of the gods and thehistory of their births', and intending to add 'and one ofthem gave a narrative of the actions of these gods' , but notalive to the fact that the particular form of expression heh a d a d o p t e d , o re περί θεών ήν άνθρώποις διανοήματα πρώτα,makes the continuation with ό μέν impossible.1 T h is is justthe sort of oversight all men, especially men who are old

and feeble, make in dictating their thoughts, but I cannotconceive any man writing the words and letting them standun corre cted . T h er e are a nu m ber of other passages of thesame kind in the dialogue, but i t will be enough to havespecified the foregoing five or six; they suggest that aninvestigation of the Epinomis is inco m plete if it do es no tinclude a careful attempt to answer the question whetherit does not bear upon it evident marks of being a dictatedcom position. If i t is tha t, we m ay b e fairly sure tha t P latowas its author for the double reason that his great ageexplains the fact of the dictation and the reverence of hisdisciples for their master equally explains, as no other con-sideration will, why such obvious slips were not corrected.

1 See supra , p. 65 n.



PL AT O AND THE 'EPINOM IS' 13One f inal remark in which I hope I am doing no in just ice

to D r. M iil ler. H is thor oug h industry deserves the high est

praise, but he leaves one with the strong impression that hebega n the exam inat ion of our d ia logue w i th a m ind a l re ad ym ad e up. 'Tri f les l ight as a i r ' bec om e to h im 'proofs ' o fspuriousness because he is content to assume tha t every oneknow s the dia logue to be spurious. H as he ever tho ug h t o ftrying the control experiment of looking out for the pointswhich might be f ixed on by an advocate anxious to prove

a case on the other s ide? And, apart from considerat ion ofinternal evidence, has he asked himself whether i t is nots ignif icant that Proclus had apparent ly never heard of anyone before his own t ime who doubted the genuineness ofthe dialogue, since, anxious as he was to prove i t spurious,he made no appeal to test imony on the point?1

1 I am afraid the ascription of the Epinomis to Philippus is in somedanger of becoming a school-dogma with the pupils of Professor Jaeger.F. Solmsen calls on us to observe that 'Philippus' directly opposesτύχη to θ ε ο ς a t Epin. 976^ 3 θ ε ο ν δ' α το ν μ ά λ λο ν η τίν α τ ύ χ η ν ή γ ο ΰ μ α ί

δ ό ν τα ή μ ΐν σ ω ζε ιν η μ ά ς) . Such a contrast, says S. , wo uld ha ve beenimpossible to Plato (Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik, p .138, n. 1). W ho is it w ho traces back speculative atheism to the v iewthat not τέχνη but φ ύ σ ις κ α ΐ τύ χ η are the causes of 'fire and water and

earth and air' ? (Laws, 889 b 1). S. says Plato 'kno ws no α ιτία τ ώ ν α γ α θ ώ νbut θ ε ία τύ χ η . Plato's ow n words shall refute him : ό μ ο λ ο γ ε ΐν α ν α γ κ α ίο ν

τώ ν τε α γ α θ ώ ν α ίτία ν ε ίν α ι ψ ν χ ή ν κ α ι τώ ν κ α κ ώ ν (Laws, 8 9 6 d 5 ) .



P R I N T E D I N G R E AT B R I TA I N AT T H E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S O X F O R D

B Y J O H N J O H N S O N P R I N T E R TO T H E U N I V E R S I T Y









Documents

Taylor, Plato and the Authorship of the Epinomis