James Adam, The Republic of Plato

judges sit. BC, AC' represent the two ways by which the souls when they are judged depart to receive their rewards or punishments. DA and D'B are the two ways by which the souls return to the meadow to be reincarnated, after their period of reward or punishment is complete. (Ast makes a grave error when he writes “duo ostia, alterum, per quod animae descendunt in corpora, alterum, per quod e vita redeant.” None of the four χάσματα represent the way by which the souls arrive at the meadow immediately after they leave the body.) The τόπος or λειμών appears also in the Phaedo and the Gorgias: εἰς δή τινα τόπον, οἷ δεῖ τοὺς συλλεγέντας διαδικασαμένους εἰς Ἅιδου πορεύεσθαι (Phaed. 107 D): οὗτοι οὖν— δικάσουσιν ἐν τῷ λειμῶνι (Gorg. 524 A). Ettig l.c. p. 306 is inclined to derive the idea from Homer's ἀσφόδελος λειμών. We find traces of a λειμών also in Empedocles v. 23 Karsten ἄτης ἂν λειμῶνά (apparently of the Earth) τε καὶ σκότος ἠλάσκουσιν, and in Orphic fragments (e.g. Fr. 154 Abel): cf. also Plut. de fac. orb. Lunae 943 C ἐν τῷ πραοτάτῳ τοῦ ἀέρος, ὃν λειμῶνας Ἅιδου καλοῦσι and Plat. Phaedr. 248 B (the ‘meadow’ or ‘plain of Truth’). In none of these passages is the meadow a place of judgment for departed souls; but πεδίον ἀληθείας is used of the judgment-place in the Axiochus (371 B), a dialogue full of Orphic influence; and it is therefore probable that Plato borrowed the meadow from some Orphic or Pythagorean dogma. We ought, I think, to conceive the meadow as situated somewhere on what Plato in the Phaedo calls ἡ ὡς ἀληθῶς γῆ, meaning the real surface of the earth as opposed to the misty hollows in which we live: see below on 616 A and cf. Susemihl Gen. Entwick. II p. 270. Some of the speculations of the Neoplatonists on this subject are given by Proclus l.c. pp. 128—136: but they are altogether fantastic and useless.

χάσματα. Roeper (de dual. usu Plat. p. 29) would read χάσματε (“id est, ut me monuit Usenerus, χάσματ᾽ ἐχομένω, a librario male suppletum”). The dual is also found in q and Flor. U; but there is hardly sufficient ground for deserting the best MSS: cf. III 395 A ἢ οὐ μιμήματα ἄρτι τούτω ἐκάλεις; Lach. 187 A εἰ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ εὑρεταὶ γεγονότε (so B) τοῦ τοιούτου, and other passages in Roeper l.c. Proclus also has χάσματα ἐχομένω (l.c. p. 136. 17). With the two ways (BC, AC') by which the souls depart after judgment cf. Gorg. 524 A ἐν τῇ τριόδῳ ἐξ ἧς φέρετον τὼ ὁδώ, ἡ μὲν ἐς μακάρων νήσους, ἡ δὲ εἰς τάρταρον: also Phaedr. 249 A. The ‘two ways’ were a familiar feature in Orphic-Pythagorean pictures of the other world: for illustrations see Dieterich l.c. pp. 191 ff. and Rohde Psyche^{2} II p. 220 note 4.

εἰς δεξιάν. The way to the abode of the blest was generally figured as εἰς δεξιάν: see Rohde l.c. and Dieterich l.c. p. 85 note 2, where Dieterich quotes from an Inscription found in a grave in the district of Thurii χαῖρε χαῖρε δεξιὰν ὁδοιπορῶν Αειμῶνάς τε ἱεροὺς κατά τ ἄλσεα Φερσεφονείας. The whole of this Inscription, according to Dieterich, be trays Orphic and Pythagorean influences. Cf. 617 C note The other features (ἄνω, ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν, εἰς ἀριστεράν τε καὶ κάτω, ἐν τῷ ὄπισθεν) are also in keeping with Pythagorean notions: see Arist. Frag. 195 (1513^{a} 24 ff.) τὸ οὖν δεξιὸν καὶ ἄνω καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἀγαθὸν ἐκάλουν, τὸ δὲ ἀριστερὸν καὶ κάτω καὶ ὄπισθεν κακὸν ἔλεγον, ὡς αὐτὸς Ἀριστοτέλης ἱστόρησεν ἐν τῇ τῶν Πυθαγορείοις ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγῇ.

διὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Presumably they passed up through the heavens to the outer surface of the heavenly sphere, as described in Phaedr. 247 B ff. Cf. also Proclus l.c. p. 160. 19 ff. πολλὰ δὲ ἐπορεύθησαν αἳ μὲν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν συμπεριπολοῦσαι τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς κτλ.—clearly a reminiscence of Phaedr. 246 E ff.

, D σημεῖα κτλ. Cf. Gorg. 526 B. κάτω is fully explained in the myth of the Phaedo 111 C—114 C. Cf. infra 615 A.

πάντων ὧν ἔπραξαν from its correspondence with τῶν δεδικασμένων above suggests that our own actions are our doom.

καὶ διακελεύοιντο=‘and that they exhorted’ corresponds of course to καὶ διακελευόμεθα of the oratio recta. Stallbaum's explanation (“optativus ponitur loco accusativi cum infinitivo”) is untenable; nor is there any good reason for suspecting the text or writing διακελεύεσθαι with Eusebius (Praep. Ev. XI 35. 5) and others. The optative is much more dramatic and realistic. Cf. VIII 569 A note

ταύτῃ μέν is explained by καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον—γῆς i.e. (see the figure on p. 435) BC and AC'. Cornarius conjectured καθ᾽ ἕτερον μὲν τὸ χάσμα, but ἑκάτερον is much more elegant, and forms a better balance with κατὰ δὲ τὼ ἑτέρω (viz. D'B and DA).

ἐκ τῆς γῆς is not of course ‘from earth’ (D. and V.), but ‘out of the earth’ (‘aus der Erde’ Schneider). They have suffered punishment ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ γῆς πορείᾳ (615 A) ‘in their sojourn underground’ i.e. in the bowels of the Earth, as explained at length in Phaed. 113 E—114 B.