ἐρωτικῶς διάκειται κτλ. For Socrates as (professing to be) subject to intense erotic emotion, see the vivid description in Charm. 155 C ff. ἐγὼ ἤδη ἠπόρουν, καί μου ἡ πρόσθεν θρασύτης ἐξεκέκοπτο...καὶ ἐφλέγομην καὶ οὐκέτ᾽ ἐν ἐμαυτοῦ ἦν κτλ. καὶ αὖ...οἶδεν. Most of the later critics (including Voeg., Teuffel, Hug) agree in ejecting this clause. Rettig, who defends it, writes: “die Worte gehen auf den vermeintlichen Stumpfsinn des S., wie er so häufig mit roher Sinnlichkeit verbunden ist...Die Worte εἰρωνευόμενος...διατελεῖ den obigen καὶ αὖ...οἶδεν gegensätzlich gegenüberstanden...Da nicht blos die Silene ἐρωτικῶς διάκεινται κτλ., so würde ohne unsere Worte die folgende Frage ὡς τὸ σχῆμα...οὐ σιληνῶδες; kaum motivirt sein.” But (as generally interpreted) the clause seems hardly pertinent to the main argument, which is the contrast between the outward appearance of eroticism and the inner σωφροσύνη of Socr.: the clause εἰρωνευόμενος κτλ. does nothing to strengthen the case for the reference to γνῶσις here; while there is no reason to suppose that professions of ignorance were specially characteristic of Sileni (in spite of the story of Midas and Silenus in Plut. ad Ap. de consol. 115 C (Σειλ.) οὐδὲν ἔθελεν εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ σιωπᾶν ἀρρήτως). If retained as it stands the clause is best taken closely with the previous words, as expressing an erotic symptom. [Possibly, however, for πάντα we should read πάντας and for οὐδὲν, οὐδέν̓, taking the words as masc. (sc. τοὺς καλούς).] This implies of course that οἶδεν bears the sense “agnoscit” (and ἀγνοεῖ the opposite), for which cp. Eur. H. F. 1105 ff. ἔκ τοι πέπληγμαι...τίς...δύσγνοιαν ὅστις τὴν ἐμὴν ἰάσεται; σαφῶς γὰρ οὐδὲν οἶδα τῶν εἰωθότων: id. El. 767 ἔκ τοι δείματος δυσγνωσίαν | εἶχον προσώπου: νῦν δὲ γιγνώσκω σε δή. (Cp. for this sense, Vahlen op. Ac. II. 63 f.) ὡς τὸ σχῆμα αὐτοῦ. “Which is the rôle he affects.” For this use of σχῆμα of an acted part, cp. I. Alc. 135 D, Rep. 576 A: similarly σχηματίζω, simulo, Phaedr. 255 A οὐχ ὑπὸ σχηματιζομένου τοῦ ἐρῶντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς τοῦτο πεπονθότος. This is preferable to rendering by “forma et habitus,” as Stallb. The punctuation of the passage has been disputed: “vulgo enim legebatur καὶ οὐδὲν οἶδεν, ὡς τὸ σχῆμα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο οὐ σειληνῶδες σφόδρα γε, quod Stephanus ita corrigebat ut pro οὐ σειληνῶδες scriberet ὂν σειλ.” (Stallb.): Stallb., Rückert, Badham, Schanz and Hug follow Bekk. and Schleierm. in putting a comma after οἶδεν and a full stop after αὐτοῦ (so too Hommel, but proposing οὐδέ for οὐδέν): Rettig follows Bernhardy in putting the full stop after τοῦτο, with a comma at οἶδεν: Burnet puts a full stop at οἶδεν, and no further stop before σιληνῶδες;: Ast proposed πῶς for ὡς. Bast, reading πάντη for πάντα and ejecting καὶ οὐδὲν οἶδεν, construed ὡς...σφόδρα γέ as dependent on ἀγνοεῖ: and Stephens's οὐδέ involves a similar construction. περιβέβληται. “Has donned” as it were a “cloak” of dissimulation: cp. Xen. Oec. II. 5 εἰς δὲ τὸ σὸν σχῆμα ὃ σὺ περιβέβλησαι: Ps. cix. 18 “he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment.” ἔνδοθεν δὲ ἀνοιχθεὶς. Cp. 215 B: Soph. Antig. 709. The word ἔνδοθεν recals Socrates' prayer in Phaedrus 279 B ὦ...θεοί, δοίητέ μοι καλῷ γενέσθαι τἀνδόθεν. ἴστε ὅτι κτλ. For the general sense, cp. Charm. 154 B.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.