The translation follows Stephanus in deleting ev tu> at 105b9. This simplifies the Greek and brings it more closely into line with the examples in 105c3—6. Retaining ev tu>, the literal meaning is: 'What is it that, whatever thing it comes to be present in, in its body, that thing will be hot?' The interrogative ri is placed inside the subordinate clause, and deppov agrees with odopan, just as 7reptrroc at 105c5 agrees with the masculine apidpco. Thus the question asks for the specification of an x, such that (x, y) {(x is in body) D (Fy)}. If ■nepmov is read at 105c5 with the first hand in T, it would have to agree with ri at 105c3, and deppov would agree with ri at 105b9. This would invite the specification of an x, such that (x, y) {(x is in y) D (Fx)}. D. O'Brien (C.Q. 1967, 224) rightly rejects this: what is being sought here is a reason for something's being F, not a reason that is itself F. Moreover, the verb voor\oei (105c3) would be far less naturally predicated of a fever than of a body.
a8ia<p0opo<;, translated 'indestructible' at 106el, seems only a variant for avdbXedpoq, 'imperishable'. See note 55. But at 106e7 it seems preferable to translate it 'undestroyed'.
At 107b9 the exact referent of tovto auto is uncertain. Is the meaning 'if you make sure that you have followed up the argument as far as is humanly possible' (Burnet), or 'if you secure the hypotheses and the deductions from them' (Archer-Hind)? Perhaps Socrates means that an adequate analysis of the hypotheses would necessarily secure their truth. If so, the two alternatives would, in practice, come to the same thing.
Reading ookov (108a5), a more general word than dvotCov, which it includes in its meaning (Verdenius).
Or perhaps (108a7—bl) 'after its long period of passionate excitement concerning the body and the visible region' (Bluck). See 68c9 for this sense of enTTofiadcu, rrepL The allusion may, however, be to 81c9—dl, in which case the phrase should be taken as in the translation.
Or perhaps (108d2—3> 'but not these things of which he (sc. the theorist alluded to in 108c8) convinces you'. See J. S. Morrison,Phronesis 1959, 105, n.2.
The force of Kara (lllc5), and the relationship of the
237
hollows to the regions now to be described, are unclear. Hackforth translates: 'but all round about it there are many places where it is hollowed out'. Bluck: 'and in the earth, in the cavities all over its surface, are many regions'.
Retaining 8ia (112c3), and interpreting roi? kclt' eKelva ra peipara with Hackforth, despite the awkwardness of roZ? governed by eiapel. Verdenius suggests 'it flows into the regions which are reached along those streams'. Burnet's text could be translated: 'it flows into the regions of the land along those streams'. But tok remains difficult.
Omitting f\v at 113cl with BTW.
Retaining ajq itopevoopevoq orav r? eipappevr) Kakq at 115a2— 3.
Verdenius explains avrdq at 118a3 as simply marking the fact that the subject of ijirreTo and eineu is not the same as that of \pvxovro and -nrtyvmo in the previous sentence. There is thus no need to suppose, with Burnet, that others had touched Socrates by the executioner's direction, or, with Hackforth, to accept Forster's emendation. cwOk.
SELECT AND ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES
TRANSLATIONS
H. Tredennick, The Last Days of Socrates, Harmondsworth, 1954. W. D. Woodhead, Plato, SocraticDialogues, London, 1953.
EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES ETC.
R. D. Archer-Hind, The Phaedo of Plato, (2nd ed.), London, 1894,
New York, 1973. R. S. Bluck, Plato's Phaedo, London, 1955. J. Burnet, Plato's Phaedo, Oxford ,1911. W. D. Geddes, The Phaedo of Plato, London, 1863. R. Hackforth,Plato's Phaedo, Cambridge, 1955. R. Loriaux, Le Phedon dePlaton (57a-84b), Namur, 1969. L. Robin, Platon, Phedon, Paris, 1926.
W. J. Verdenius, Notes on Plato's Phaedo, in Mnemosyne 1958, 133-243.
Williamson, The Phaedo of Plato, London, 1915. OTHER BOOKS
M. Crombie, An Examination of Plato's Doctrines, London, 1963, i. 303-24, ii. 141-4, 156-71, 295-303, 310-19, 529-31, 539-48.
R. Robinson, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, Oxford, 1953, Chs. 7, 9. T. M. Robinson, Plato's Psychology, Toronto, 1970, Ch. 2. W. D. Ross, Plato's Theory of Ideas, Oxford, 1951, Ch. 3. A. E. Taylor, Plato, the Man and his Work, London, 1929, Ch. 8.
ARTICLES
J. L. Ackrill, 'Anamnesis in the Phaedo: Remarks on 73c—75c',
Exegesis and Argument, 177—95. R. S. Bluck, 'bmdeoeu; in the Phaedo and Platonic Dialectic', Phronesis 1957,21-31.
, 'Plato's Form of Equal', Phronesis 1959, 5-11.
E. L. Burge, 'The Ideas as Aitiai in the Phaedo', Phronesis 1971,
J. Gosling, 'Similarity in Phaedo 73 seq.', Phronesis 1965, 151—61.
H. B. Gottschalk, 'Soul as Harmonia', Phronesis \91\, 179-98.
R. P. Haynes, 'The form equality as a set of equals: Phaedo 74b-c', Phronesis 1964, 17-26.
W. F. Hicken, 'Phaedo 93all-94b3\ Classical Quarterly 1954, 16-22.
D. Keyt, 'The Fallacies in Phaedo 102a-107b', Phronesis 1963, 167-72.
K. W. Mills, 'Plato's Phaedo 74b7-c6', Phronesis 1957, 128-47, 1958,40-58.