Page images


Of the more important changes adopted in the text of this edition, or suggested in the notes. the following is a

list :

1. In p. 3 (448, B) Tí for tiva.

2. In p. 14 (454, D) for yap aủ I give apa with Olympiodorus, and with Dr Badham fotóv for ĉotiv.

3. In p. 16 (456, B) ÈXóvre, at Dobree's suggestion, for ελθόντα. .

4. p. 22 (460, C) for ουκούν ανάγκη τον ρητορικόν δίκαιον είναι, τον δε δίκαιον βούλεσθαι δίκαια πράττειν, I add del after Boulebai, and with Woolsey and Hirschig omit the words ρητορικόν το τον δέ inclusive. .

5. p. 53 (478, E) I ought to have received into the text the emendation of Dobree recommended in the notes, ο έχων κακίαν for ο έχων αδικίαν.

6. p. 56 (481) for the solecistic ávaliokntai in transitive sense, which, strange to say, has stood in all editions hitherto, I give avalioky.

7. p. 64 (487) for Tpía ápa, I venture to suggest the stereotyped Attic τρίάττα. .

8. In pp. 69, 70 (490, c, and 491, A) the prep. Trepí, bracketed by Hirschig, should be expelled from the text.

9. p. 73 (492, E) Dr Badham's excellent emendation wv for ws is adopted, and justified in the note.

10. p. 73 (493, c) I ought to have mentioned the same critic's ingenious conjecture ταύτ' απεικασμέν' έστιν υπό τι άτοπα for the received επιεικώς μέν έστιν υπό τι άτοπα. .

11. p. 79 (496, D) I omit with Badham kai éyo before μανθάνω. .

12. p. 88 (501, c) the words την αιτην δόξαν should cease to stand in the text.

13. p. 104 (512) for kai toûtov óvno elev, I now prefer oνήσει.

Of these changes some, it will be seen, rest on the authority of Olympiodorus, whose lemmata are perfectly distinguishable from his commentary. In no case have his readings been adopted without regard to their intrinsic merit, as compared with those of our surviving MSS., the oldest of which is more recent than that which he used by at least four centuries. The two emendations suggested by Dobree ("criticorum princeps," as Cobet calls him) seem to need no recommendation. Students of Plato can only regret that he did not bestow on their favourite author more of the time and pains spent on the minor orators. To the suggestions of the eminent Dutch scholar Cobet, and to those of his meritorious disciple M. Hirschig, I have always given careful attention, even when they have not commended themselves to my judgment. The latter scholar published in 1859' an elaborate examination of the arguments contained in this dialogue and in the Philebus, with a view to removing the “non sequiturs” introduced by unintelligent or officious copyists. This book reached my hands before I had finished my commentary. The following extract gives a fair idea of its scope and method :

“Non poenitet me investigationis et correctionis disputationum quas dixi, imprimis quod pro ineptiis

1 Exploratio argumentationum Socraticarum in quibus scribae labefactarunt medios Platonis dialogos, Gorgiam et Philebum. Trajecti ad Rhenum ap. Kemink et fil.

genuinam disserendi subtilitatem auctori reddere mihi contigit, sed etiam quod, cum omnes de hujus generis emendationibus judicare possint, eas omnibus me probaturum spero, tam philosophis et caeteris quam grammaticis. Atque illos his lectis cautiores fore in laudandis Platonis scriptis confido, simulque in his luculentissima exempla visuros, unde liquido discant, quid possit critica et quam late pateat ejus provincia. Verum erunt fortasse qui hujusmodi emendationes minus certas esse suspicentur. Sed certo scio omnes mihi assensuros nullas esse posse certiores. Habet enim Socratica disserendi ratio mathematicam fere subtilitatem, et tantam åváykov logicam sive dialecticam (sit venia verbis) ut corrigenti ipsa quaeque disputatio certissima praebeat argumenta, poetam emendans ne ex metro quidem evidentiora petere possit. Fieri enim potest ut metrum plures voces admittat, argumentationes autem illae partibus tam firmo et rationis et orationis vinculo connexis constant, ut una tantum vox quemque locum occupare possit, alia, vel idem significans, omnem áváyknu tollat.

Of German editions more recent than Stallbaum's latest, I know nothing but what may be learnt from Cron's “ Beiträge zur Erklärung des Platonischen Gorgias?,” which reached me a few weeks ago, and which I have cursorily inspected, long however after this book was in print. Of the older editions of the Gorgias I must not omit to speak with respect of that (published in his early manhood) of the late venerable President of Magdalen College, Oxford, Dr Routh. Ast and Heindorf have of course been consulted, and I can also speak with praise of a very useful edition by Mr Woolsey, formerly Professor of Greek in Yale College, U.S.A.

In the annotations, which in the main were written some ten years ago, I have endeavoured, as in those to the Phaedrus, to call the student's attention to the

1 Leipzig, Teubner, 1870.

substance as well as to the words of the dialogue. In doing this I have in many cases ventured to criticize my author's premisses. This, I trust, has been done with candour, and with due allowance for the circumstances of the time and his own personal antecedents. It is certainly true that many of the arguments in this Dialogue are more logical than convincing ; but it is also true that its purely ethical conclusions are as sound as they are noble and elevating. Of this, as of so many works of genius (if I may be allowed the quotation), it is the “spirit' that giveth life': nor is there one of the whole series of dialogues that may be more safely recommended to beginners in the study of Plato and his philosophy.

The Introduction prefixed to the Dialogue aims only at conveying a clear and connected notion, from the Editor's standing-point, of its general drift and purpose. A much more elaborate analysis was of course possible ; but in such compositions there is always a danger of the details obstructing the student's view, and making it difficult for him "to see the wood for the trees."

The fragments of Gorgias, printed in the Appendix, seemed necessary

in order to enable the student to form an independent judgment of the character of his writings, and of the fairness of the treatment which the great rhetorician receives in this dialogue. The collection will be found slightly more complete than those of previous editors.


December, 1870.

« PreviousContinue »