This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος: “the affliction itself” (D. and V.): “das Leiden selbst” (Schneider), objectively understood: not “perturbatio” (Ficinus) or “Leidenschaft” (Schleiermacher). See Krohn Pl. St. p. 256. δύο is of course neuter, but δύο τινέ (q Flor. U) hardly makes the gender clearer and ought not to be preferred. ἐν αὐτῷ. See cr. n. αὐτῷ, which Schneider and others retain, has a great preponderance of MS authority, but is not sufficiently precise: for the two principles do not merely belong to the man, but are in him: cf. 603 B. This kind of error is a common one in Paris A: see Introd. § 5. Morgenstern's conjecture αὐτώ, which Burnet adopts, would refer “ad proxime commemorata πάθος et λόγον:, quae diversa et duo esse Socrates iam supra posuit, non nunc demum colligit” (Schneider). φαμέν need not be parenthetical: for εἶναι can be omitted as well as ἐστί, and its presence would have been awkward here, on account of the εἶναι to which δύο is subject. See Schanz Nov. Comm. Pl. pp. 33 f. τῷ νόμῳ. Richards proposes τῷ λόγῳ in view of λόγος καὶ νόμος above and λογισμῷ 604 D. This conjecture would introduce a false and unpleasing contrast between τῷ λόγῳ and ὁ νόμος. The repetition of ὁ νόμος is for emphasis. δήλου ὄντος -- προβαῖνον. Cf. Euthyph. 4 D and other grammatical parallels in Kühner Gr. Gr. II p. 648. οὔτε τι κτλ. The sentiment is repeated and expanded in Laws 803 B ff.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.