“Αγάθων ̓ ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν αὐτόματοι ἀγαθοί.” Όμηρος μὲν γὰρ κινδυνεύει οὐ μόνον διαφθεῖραι ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑβρίσαι εἰς ταύτην τὴν παροιμίαν· ποιήσας γὰρ τὸν ̓Αγαμέμνονα διαφερόντως ἀγαθὸν C ἄνδρα τὰ πολεμικά, τὸν δὲ Μενέλεων “μαλθακὸν αἰχμητήν,” θυσίαν ποιουμένου καὶ ἑστιῶντος τοῦ ̓Αγαμέμνονος ἄκλητον ἐποίησεν ἐλθόντα τὸν Μενέλεων ἐπὶ τὴν θοίνην, χείρω ὄντα ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ 174 Β 'Αγάθων Lachmann: ἀγαθῶν ΒΤ ἑστιῶντος om. Athen. διαφερόντως + ἄνδρα + καὶ double one (διαφθεῖραι καὶ ὑβρίσαι). The former objection, if it stood alone, might be obviated by the device of inserting μή before διαφθείρωμεν : but in view of the passage as a whole this device is inadmissible. We seem forced to conclude that, whatever the original form of the proverb may have been (and as to this Hug's view is probably right), the form which Plato had here in mind was the form (1) given by Eupolis: and if Plato knew this form to be only a parody of the original (2), we must suppose further that the serious way in which he deals with it, as if it really were a "wise saw," is only a piece of his fun-a playful display of Socratic irony. (Cp. Teuffel, Rhein. Mus. xxΙx. pp. 141—2.) ̓Αγάθων... ἀγαθοί. For the dative cp. Prot. 321 c ἀποροῦντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἔρχεται Προμηθεύς. Similar exx. of paronomasia occur in 185 c, 198 c, Gorg. 513 (δῆμος and Demus, son of Pyrilampes), Rep. 614 Β (ἄλκιμος, Alcinous): cp. Riddell Digest § 323. Teuffel (loc. cit.) prefers to retain ἀγαθῶν, partly because of the plur. δαῖταs, partly to avoid the elision of the iota; but neither of these objections is serious, and as to daîras, the feast in question lasted at least two days, which might in itself suffice to justify the plural. Jowett's transl. implies that he retains ȧyadav and supposes (1) to have been the original form of the proverb “demolished” by Socr. and Homer. Ομηρος μὲν γὰρ The antithesis-ἡμεῖς δὲ μόνον διαφθείρομεν, or the like is easily supplied from the context: for μὲν γὰρ, elliptical, cp. 176 c, and 173 D supra. The suggestion that Homer wilfully distorted a proverb which in his day was non-existent is, as Hug observes, obviously jocose. ὑβρίσαι. The word may retain a favour of its juridical sense-“liable to a criminal prosecution for assault and battery”: and if so, διαφθεῖρα too may hint at the crime of "seduction." Homer is chargeable not only with seducing but with committing a criminal assault upon the virgin soundness of the proverb. 174 C μαλθακὸν αἰχμητήν. "A craven spearman." Il. XVII. 587 olov dn Μενέλαον ὑπετρέσας, ὃς τὸ πάρος περ | μαλθακός αἰχμητής. μαλθακός, as a variant for μαλακός, is used by P. also in 195 D, Phaedr. 239 c. Both forms, Μενέλεως and Μενέλαος, are found in Attic prose; the latter, e.g., in Euthyd. 288 c. In Athenaeus v. 3, 188 в we have a criticism of this treatment of Menelaus. ἄκλητον ἐποίησεν ἐλθόντα. Μενέλαος : cp. Athen. v. 178 A. See Il. II. 408 αὐτόματος δέ οἱ ἦλθε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς ἀμείνονος. ταῦτ ̓ ἀκούσας εἰπεῖν ἔφη Ἴσως μέντοι κινδυνεύσω καὶ ἐγὼ οὐχ ὡς σὺ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀλλὰ καθ' Ομηρον φαῦλος ὢν ἐπὶ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἰέναι θοίνην ἄκλητος. ὅρα οὖν ἄγων με τί ἀποΟ λογήσῃ, ὡς ἐγὼ μὲν οὐχ ὁμολογήσω ἄκλητος ἥκειν, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὸ σοῦ κεκλημένος. “Σύν τε δύ',” ἔφη, “ ἐρχομένω πρὸ ὁ τοῦ” βουλευσόμεθα ὅ τι ἐροῦμεν. ἀλλὰ ἴωμεν. Τοιαῦτ ̓ ἄττα σφᾶς ἔφη διαλεχθέντας ἰέναι. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη ἑαυτῷ πως προσέχοντα τὸν νοῦν κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πορεύεσθαι ὑπολειπόμενον, καὶ περιμένοντος οὗ κελεύειν προϊέναι εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ̓Αγάθωνος, ἀνεῳγμένην καταΕ λαμβάνειν τὴν θύραν, καί τι ἔφη αὐτόθι γελοῖον παθεῖν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ εὐθὺς παῖδά τινα ἔνδοθεν ἀπαντήσαντα ἄγειν οὗ κατέκειντο οἱ ἄλλοι, καὶ καταλαμβάνειν ἤδη μέλλοντας δειπνεῖν· εὐθὺς δ ̓ οὖν 174 Ο όρα...τί Bdhm.: ἄρα...τι Β: ἆρα...τι Τ (τί W) δ' έ Baiter J.-U. Porson Sz. J.-U. Bt.: Tôv evdov Photius, Jn. ἀγαγὼν Creuzer ἀλλὰ ἴωμεν δὲ (έ) Cobet Sz. : (τῶν) ἔνδοθεν consists in making not an ἀγαθός but a μαλθακός (=δειλός) come ἄκλητος ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας. ἐπὶ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς. σοφός, “ accomplished,” was “a fashionable epithet of praise in Plato's time, especially applied to poets" (see Rep. 331 E, 489 B, with Adam's notes). ὅρα οὖν κτλ. This correction of the traditional ἆρα...τι is certain. Cp. 189 Α ὅρα τί ποιεῖς: Phaedo 86 D ὅρα οὖντί φήσομεν. For the dangers of violating etiquette on such occasions, see Ar. Αν. 983 f. αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν ἄκλητος ἰὼν ἄνθρωπος ἀλαζὼν | λυπῇ θύοντας καὶ σπλαγχνεύειν ἐπιθυμῇ, | δὴ τότε χρὴ τύπτειν αὐτὸν πλευρῶν τὸ μεταξύ. 174 D Σύν τε δύ' κτλ. See Il. x. 224 (Diomedes loq.) σύν τε δύ ̓ ἐρχομένω καί τε πρὸ ὁ τοῦ ἐνόησεν | ὅππως κέρδος ἔῃ. The same verses are quoted more exactly in Prot. 348 c: cp. also Arist. Pol. III. 1287 13; Cic. ad fam. IX. 7. For exx. of how Plato " variis modis multis affert aliena,” see Vahlen Op. Acad. I. pp. 476 1. ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι. The infn. in place of the indic. is due to assimilation : cp. Rep. 614 Β ἔφη δέ, ἐπειδὴ οὗ ἐκβῆναι τὴν ψυχήν, πορεύεσθαι: see Goodwin G. M. T. § 755. 174 Ε καί τι... ...γελοῖον παθεῖν. It was an awkward situation in smart society. Cp. Plut. Conv. 6 p. 628 ἔλαβε γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπολειφθεὶς ὁ Σωκράτης, ὁ δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἀτεχνῶς σκιὰ προβαδίζουσα σώματος ἐξόπισθε τὸ φῶς ἔχοντος. οἱ (sibi) goes with ἀπαντήσαντα. Porson's insertion (from Photius) of τῶν before ἔνδοθεν is no improvement: ἔνδοθεν is to be taken with ἀπαντήσαντα, and there is no indication that there were any ἔξωθεν παῖδες. ὡς ἰδεῖν τὸν ̓Αγάθωνα, 'Ω, φάναι, ̓Αριστόδημε, εἰς καλὸν ἥκεις ὅπως συνδειπνήσῃς· εἰ δ ̓ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκα ἦλθες, εἰς αὖθις ἀναβαλοῦ, ὡς καὶ χθὲς ζητῶν σε ἵνα καλέσαιμι οὐχ οἷός τ ̓ ἢ ἰδεῖν. ἀλλὰ Σωκράτη ἡμῖν πῶς οὐκ ἄγεις ; καὶ ἐγώ, ἔφη, μεταστρεφό μενος οὐδαμοῦ ὁρῶ Σωκράτη ἑπόμενον· εἶπον οὖν ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς μετὰ Σωκράτους ἥκοιμι, κληθεὶς ὑπ ̓ ἐκείνου δεῦρ ̓ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον. Καλῶς γ ̓, ἔφη, ποιῶν σύ· ἀλλὰ ποῦ ἔστιν οὗτος ; Ὄπισθεν ἐμοῦ 175 ἄρτι εἰσῄει· ἀλλὰ θαυμάζω καὶ αὐτὸς ποῦ ἂν εἴη. Οὐ σκέψῃ, ἔφη, παῖ, φάναι τὸν ̓Αγάθωνα, καὶ εἰσάξεις Σωκράτη ; σὺ δ ̓, ὦ δ' ὅς, ̓Αριστόδημε, παρ' Ερυξίμαχον κατακλίνου. ΙΙΙ. Καὶ ἃ μὲν ἔφη ἀπονίζειν τὸν παῖδα, ἵνα κατακέοιτο· ἄλλον δέ τινα τῶν παίδων ἥκειν ἀγγέλλοντα ὅτι Σωκράτης οὗτος ἀναχωρήσας ἐν τῷ τῶν γειτόνων προθύρῳ ἕστηκε καὶ οὗ καλοῦντος οὐκ ἐθέλει εἰσιέναι. Ατοπόν γ ̓, ἔφη, λέγεις· οὔκουν καλεῖς αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ ἀφήσεις; καὶ ὃς ἔφη εἰπεῖν Μηδαμῶς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐᾶτε εἰς καλὸν ἥκεις. § 317. ἀφήσῃς Τ 'Soyez le bienvenu!" For the construction see Goodwin, χθὲς ζητῶν σε κτλ. Hug regards this as a piece of polite mendacity on the part of Agathon. Are we, then, to construe Alcibiades' statement, χθὲς μὲν οὐχ οἷός τε κτλ. (212 Ε) as a similar exhibition of “ Salonweltlichkeit ” ? 175 Α παρ' Ε. κατακλίνου. Usually each κλίνη held two, but in 175 c it is said that Agathon had a couch to himself, while in 213 A we find three on the same couch. ἀπονίζειν τὸν παῖδα. The article indicates that a special slave was set apart for this duty. For the custom of foot-washing see Plut. Phoc. 20; Petron. Sat. 31; Evang. Luc. vii. 44; Joann. xiii. 5. For the hand-washing see Ar. frag. 427 φέρε, παῖ, ταχέως κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ, | παράπεμπε τὸ χειρό μακτρον. Σωκράτης οὗτος κτλ. The ipsissima verba of the παῖs are here repeated, hence the use of οὗτος and of the def. article with προθύρῳ: in the corrections proposed by Madvig and Herwerden this point is overlooked. For πρόθυρον, “ porch,” i.e. the space between the house-door (αὐλεία) and the street, see Smith D. A. I. 661. οὔκουν καλεῖς κτλ. καλεῖς is of course future, not pres. as Rückert wrongly supposed. For the constr. see Goodwin G. M. T. § 299. Β αὐτόν. ἔθος γάρ τι τοῦτ ̓ ἔχει· ἐνίοτε ἀποστὰς ὅποι ἂν τύχη ἕστηκεν. ἥξει δὲ αὐτίκα, ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι. μὴ οὖν κινεῖτε, ἀλλ ̓ ἐᾶτε. Αλλ' οὕτω χρὴ ποιεῖν, εἰ σοὶ δοκεῖ, ἔφη φάναι τὸν ̓Αγαθωνα. ἀλλ ̓ ἡμᾶς, ὦ παῖδες, τοὺς ἄλλους ἑστιᾶτε. πάντως παρατίθετε ὅ τι ἂν βούλησθε, ἐπειδάν τις ὑμῖν μὴ ἐφεστήκῃ—ὃ ἐγὼ οὐδεπώποτε ἐποίησα· νῦν οὖν, νομίζοντες καὶ ἐμὲ ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν κεκλήC σθαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον καὶ τούσδε τοὺς ἄλλους, θεραπεύετε, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἐπαινῶμεν. Μετὰ ταῦτα ἔφη σφᾶς μὲν δειπνεῖν, τὸν δὲ Σωκράτη οὐκ 175 Β τοῦτο Τ Priscian: τοιοῦτον W ἐνίοτε...ἕστηκεν del. Voeg. ἔφη Τ: om. Β ἐπειδάν τις...μὴ ΒΤ: ἐπεί τις...οὐ μὴ L. Schmidt: ἐπεὶ οὐ δή τις.....μὴ Hug: ἐπεὶ δή τις...οὐ μὴ Sz: ἐπεὶ καὶ τίσις...μὴ (ἐφεστήκοι) Verm.: εἴ γ ̓ ὁ ταμίας...μὴ Usener: ἐπειδὰν αὐτὸς.....μὴ cj. Bt.: εἴγε ἀνάγκη τις... μὴ coniciebam ἐφεστήκῃ Τ: ἐφεστήκη W : ἐφεστήκει Β: “ latet ἐφέστηκεν” Usener 175 Β πάντως παρατίθετε. For the use of πάντως with imper., cp. Xen. Cyrop. VIII. 3. 27 πάντως τοίνυν...δεῖξόν μοι: id. Oecon. XII. 11, III. 12. For παρατίθημι of “putting on the table,” cp. Rep. 372 ο τραγήματά που παραθήσομεν αὐτοῖς κτλ. Reynders adopts the reading πάντας, καὶ παρατίθετε. ἐπειδὰν μὴ ἐφεστήκῃ. These words are difficult. They should naturally mean (as Stallb. puts it) “si quando nemo vobis est propositus”; and so Stallb. proposes to construe them, taking the clause as dependent on and limiting ὅ τι ἂν βούλησθε. This, however, is, as Hug argues, almost certainly wrong. If we retain the text of the Mss. we can only explain the phrase by assuming an ellipse-"serve up what dishes you like (as you usually do) whenever no one is in command." So Zeller renders "tragt uns getrost auf, was ihr wollt, wie ihr es gewohnt seid, wenn man euch nicht unter Aufsicht nimmt,” etc. ; and Rieckher (Rhein. Mus. XXXIII. p. 307) “ Machet es wie ihr es immer macht, wenn man euch nicht beaufsichtigt (und das habe ich ja noch nie gethan), und setzt uns vor was ihr möget." Most of the emendations offered (see crit. n.) are based on the assumption that the clause in question qualifies the leading clause (πάντως παρατίθετε): none of them are convincing, and the construction οὐ μὴ ἐφεστήκῃ (the pres. perf.) assumed by Schanz and Hug lacks support. If compelled to resort to conjecture, the best device might be to read εἴ γε μή for ἐπειδάν, cut out the μή after ὑμῖν, and change the mood of the verb to ἐφέστηκεν—following in part the suggestions of Usener. The ordinary text does not admit of Jowett's rendering, serve up whatever you please, for there is no one to give you orders; hitherto I have never left you to yourselves.” As regards the force of ὃ...ἐποίησα, L. Schmidt explains the clause to mean nunquam autem rem ita ut nunc institui," implying that the concession to the slaves was unusual: Teuffel, on the contrary, sees in it a piece of ostentation on the part of Agathon, boasting of his humanity. The former is clearly wrong. 66 εἰσιέναι. τὸν οὖν ̓Αγάθωνα πολλάκις κελεύειν μεταπέμψασθαι τὸν Σωκράτη, ἃ δὲ οὐκ ἐᾷν. ἥκειν οὖν αὐτὸν οὐ πολὺν χρόνον, ὡς εἰώθει, διατρίψαντα, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα σφᾶς μεσοῦν δειπνοῦντας. τὸν οὖν ̓Αγάθωνα—τυγχάνειν γὰρ ἔσχατον κατακείμενον μόνον Δεῦρ ̓, ἔφη φάναι, Σώκρατες, παρ' ἐμὲ κατάκεισο, ἵνα καὶ τοῦ D σοφοῦ ἁπτόμενός σου ἀπολαύσω, ὅ σοι προσέστη ἐν τοῖς προθύ 175 C & δὲ BW: *** δὲ Τ (τὸν δὲ fuisse videtur): αὐτὸν δὲ vulg.: ἱ δὲ cj. Bekk. οὐκ ἐᾶν Β: οὐκαν Τ D ἁπτόμενός σου TW: om. B, J.-U. Sz. προσέστη Τ: πρόσεστιν Β 175 C πολλάκις κελεύειν. This is an ex. of the pres. infn. representing an impf. indic. : “ He said, έδειπνοῦμεν, ὁ δὲ Σ. οὐκ εἰσῄει· ὁ οὖν ̓Α. ἐκέλευεν· ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ εἴων ” (Goodwin G. Μ. Τ. § 119, where see parallels). The accus. ξ, of the speaker, is here used in preference to the more regular nomin. (αὐτός) in order to balance the accus. τὸν ̓Αγάθωνα: cp. Gorg. 474 Β ἐγὼ οἶμαι καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ ἡγεῖσθαι, and below 175 Ε. 66 ὡς εἰώθει. Το be taken closely with οὐ π. χρ.: we should rather say contrary to his usual custom," the sense being "he arrived unusually soon for him.” For a striking instance of Socrates' ἔθος see 220c, where πολὺν χρόνον διέτριψεν. μάλιστα...δειπνοῦντας. For μάλιστα of approximate measurement, cp. Parm. 127 Β περὶ ἔτη μάλιστα πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα: Tim. 21 B, Crito 43 Α. Nowhere else in Plato is μeσoûv joined with a participle, nor does L. and S. supply any parallel. ἔσχατον...μόνον. Agathon occupied the last κλίνη on the right: this was the "lowest seat" at the table, and commonly taken, in politeness, by the host. The seat of honour (προνομή) was the left-hand place on the κλίνη furthest to the left. Thus if four kλivaι are placed in a row, numbered A-D, and each seating two persons, the person who occupies A1 is termed πρῶτος, and the occupant of D2 ἔσχατος: as thus At this “Banquet” Phaedrus as occupying Al is described as πρῶτος in 177 D: see also the discussion between Socrates and Alcibiades in 222 E. Cp. Theophr. Char. 21 ὁ δὲ μικροφιλότιμος τοιοῦτός τις οἷος σπουδάσαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον κληθεὶς παρ ̓ αὐτὸν τὸν καλέσαντα δειπνῆσαι: Stob. Flor. XIII. 36 Διονύσιος...ἀτιμάζων αὐτὸν κατέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ χώρα. 175 D τοῦ σοφοῦ...ἀπολαύσω. τοῦ σοφοῦ is neut., being the antecedent of ὅ, not in agreement with σου: "that I may enjoy the piece of wisdom which occurred to you.” The omission of ἁπτόμενός σου by B is probably accidental: without the words (as Teuffel observes) Socr.'s remark (ἐὰν ἁπτ.) would be less natural. |