118a7—8. The offering of a cock to Asclepius is sometimes supposed to be for healing Socrates of the sickness of human life. He might refer to himself in the plural—cf.l 16d4. But the idea that life is a sickness, although once attributed to Cebes as part of an objection (95dl-4), is nowhere espoused by Socrates, and is hardly compatible with 90e2—91al. It is simpler to take the words as referring to an actual debt, incurred in some connection unknown. They are in keeping with the tribute to Socrates in the closing lines.
NOTES ON THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION
The translation 'prison' at 62b4 fits the theme of the soul's imprisonment in the body, which runs all through the dialogue (cf., e.g., 67dl—2, 82e—83a), and which is symbolized in its dramatic setting. If the meaning is 'guard' or 'garrison', the incarnate soul will be thought of as engaged in a military 'watch'. For a thorough discussion see Loriaux's note, and J. C. G. Strachan, C.Q. 1970, 216-20.
At 62cl, and occasionally elsewhere, ovkovv has been translated as if accented oHkovv. Cf., e.g., 71e4, 81a4, 83dl, and see J. D. Denniston, G.P. 432.
Or, taking fiaXkop with 6epnalveo6cu (63d7—8), 'people get overheated through talking'.
At 64a6, and generally, reOvavat has been translated 'be dead', despite Burnet's view, endorsed by Loriaux (50), that it may properly be translated 'die'. Burnet says (note on 62a5) that anodvyoiceiv lays stress on the process of dying, of which redvavai is the completion. However, anoOvrioKew will later be used (71c-e) to stress the process of dying, by contrast, rather, with the state of being dead. 'Die' is, no doubt, required in some of the passages cited by Burnet. In the Phaedo, however, it seems needed only at 62c3 and 81al. 'Be dead' is preferable at 62a5, 64c5 (in view of elvai at 64c8), 67e2 and 67e5, as well as in the present passage. It is clearly required for the opposition between to Tedvavai and to fr)i> at 71cl—5 and in the ensuing argument. Cf.77d3, and see on 71d5—e3.
The translation italicizes 'just' at 65d4 (and 'beautiful' and 'good' at 65d7) instead of translating avro, whose function is to mark a Form-referring use of the adjective. It is not_clear whether Sixaiov avro should be taken as complement of eivcu, as in the translation, or as subject: 'do we say that fust is something, or (that it is) nothing?' (cf.64c2, 102b 1). See also on 74a9-bl and 100b 1- c8.
Loriaux (85, 204) interprets 65dl 1—12 as if it meant 'Did you lay hold of them by some perception other than those that come by way of the body?' Read thus, the question would be properly answered 'Yes', and apprehension of the Forms would be viewed as a kind of intellectual 'perception'. However, if, as Loriaux also says (note on rqv o\ptv, p.87), aXXy tu>1 aioOfioei is echoed by aKkqv aioOr)ow at 65e8—66a 1, this interpretation is impossible. Moreover, apa... Oecopeirat (65el—2) seems to be a reformulation of the question being asked here, which must be parallel to that already asked at 65d9 for the eyes, and expecting the answer 'No'. For the meaning of aioBfioei on this view, see on 65bl—7.
More literally (65dl3—el): 'that which each one happens to be', taking o as complement of &>, and the whole clause as object of Aeyco. Note that the meaning of 'be', since the use is 'incomplete', cannot be existential here. This supports the interpretation of similar phrases adopted at 78d4—5. See note 31. obaia is used here with reference to the 'being' of individual Forms—cf. 101 c3. Elsewhere (76d9, 77a2, 78dl, 92d9) it is used more broadly for the whole domain of Forms. See C. H. Kahn, V.B.A.G. 460.
What does ctbrCov to akr\Qe0TaT0v at 65el—2 mean? Hackforth translates 'the full truth of them', and Bluck 'the truth about them'. It is not easy to get these meanings from the Greek. But to take avTtov as a partitive genitive would give an unsuitable sense, since (i) there can be no intention to limit the question being asked to 'the most real of the Forms', and (ii) there is no suggestion in the Phaedo that any one Form is more real than the others.
The translation retains t-qv at 65e7 and Tim at 65e8. Burnet's proposal to read rtc' at 65e7, and delete Tiva at 65e8, seems neither necessary nor even likely, if 6\piv and aSKrjp aiad-qaiv echo totc b^daXpok (65d9) and aXkri tivI aio9f}oei (65dll) respectively. The meaning of o\piv will depend upon the reading: t-qv o\j/w would be more naturally taken as 'the sense of sight', whereas tu>' dipiv could only mean 'any visual experience'. akkr)p alodrjow could mean, whether or not nud is retained, 'another sense experience' or 'another sense': either of these might be said to be 'dragged in'.
The translation retains pern... onexjjei at 66b3—4, and takes eMpepew with J. E. Harry (C.R. 1909, 218-21) to mean 'lead astray', understanding the path in question to be the body. Philosophers will then be said to recognize that it side-tracks them in their quest for truth, and will thus be answering the question posed at 65a9—bl in the light of the intervening argument.
The translation at 67c5-6 follows J. V. Luce (C.R. 1951, 66—7), Hackforth, and Verdenius, in taking the reference to be simply to the earlier discussion, and not to any ancient religious doctrine. For the alternative view, see Burnet, Bluck, and Loriaux.
The text at 68a4 is not quite certain, and there is much to be said for bracketing nai iwauiCiv Kai veoju with Verdenius. The language suggests an antithesis between iraiSiKa and <ppovr)oi<;, to which wives and sons would be irrelevant. Cf. Gorgias 482a4.
For the text of 69a6—c3 see Bluck, 154—6, J. V. Luce, C.Q. 1944, 60—4, and notes by Verdenius and Loriaux. The translation retains Kai tovtov ixev navTa and cbvov/deva re Kai mnpaoKd- jieva, and Kai in 69b6. With Burnet's text the reference to 'buying and selling all things for this' will be omitted. Burnet gives the meaning of 69b 1—3 as 'when accompanied by this [i.e. wisdom] our goodness really is goodness', jierd <ppouf)oew? (b3) picking up ixera tovtov (bl).
Burnet and Loriaux hold that at 70b4 and 76c 12 fipourjotq is used in a popular sense, meaning 'intelligence' or 'wits'. But the word has been translated 'wisdom', here as elsewhere (see on 69a6— c3), for the sake of the coming argument. For if the (ppovrjoiq possessed by the soul in its previous existence were different from that which philosophers hope to attain in the afterlife (66e—67a, 68a—b), the Cyclical and Recollection Arguments would support that hope by mere equivocation.