S viii. THE DATE.

We must begin by drawing a distinction between (a) the date of the actual Banquet, (b) that of Apollodorus' narrative, and (c) that of the composition of the dialogue by Plato.

(a) That the date of the Banquet is B.C. 416 (Ol. 90. 4) is asserted by Athenaeus (v. 217 Α): ὁ μὲν γὰρ (sc. Αγάθων) ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Εὐφήμου στεφανοῦται Ληναίοις. It is true, as Sauppe and others have pointed out, that the description in 175 E (èv μáρтvσi...трioμvpíois, cp. 223 в n.), would suit the Great Dionysia better than the Lenaea; but this discrepancy need not shake our confidence in the date assigned by Athenaeus. The year 416 agrees with the mention of Agathon as véos (175 B), and of Alcibiades as at the height of his influence (216 B) before the ill-fated Sicilian expedition.

(b) The date of the prefatory scene may be approximately fixed from the following indications: (1) It was a considerable number of years after the actual Banquet (οὐ νεωστί 172 c, παίδων ὄντων ἡμῶν ἔτι 173 A); (2) several years (πoλλà ěry 172 c) after Agathon's departure from Athens; (3) within three years of the commencement of Apollodorus' close association with Socrates (172 c); (4) before the death of Socrates (as shown by the pres. tense ovvdiarpíßw 172 c); (5) before the death of Agathon (as shown by the perf. éπidedýμŋkev 172 c). It seems probable that Agathon left Athens about 408, at the latest, and resided till 399 at the court of Archelaus of Macedon1. Hence any date before 399 will satisfy the two last data. And since the two first data demand a date as far removed as possible from the years 416 and 408, we can hardly go far wrong if we date the dramatic setting circ. 400 B.C.

(c) We come now to the more important question of the date of composition. The external evidence available is but slight. A posterior limit is afforded by two references in Aristotle (Pol. 11. 4. 1262b 12 : de An. II. 415a 26), a possible allusion by Aeschines (in Timarch. 345 B.C.), and a probable comic allusion by Alexis in his Phaedrus (ap. Athen. XIII. 562 A)—a work which probably cannot be dated before 370 at the earliest.

The internal evidence is more extensive but somewhat indefinite. It is commonly assumed that in 193 A (διῳκίσθημεν... Λακεδαιμονίων)

1 Fritzsche's view that Ar. Ran. 72 implies the previous death (i.e. ante 405) of A. is refuted by Rettig, Symp. pp. 59 ff.

2 See e.g. Zeller, Plato (E.T.) p. 139 n.; Teichmüller, Litt. Fehd. 11. 262.

we have a definite reference to the Siouxioμós of Mantinea in 385 B.C. But even if this be granted—as I think it must, in spite of the contradiction of Wilamowitz-it by no means follows that the dialogue must be dated 385-4. We find Isocrates (Panegyr. 126) mentioning the same event five years later. All that it affords us is a prior limit. Little weight can be given to Dümmler's view that the previous death of Gorgias (circ. 380) is implied by the allusion to him in 198 c (Topyίov kepaλny KTA.). Nor can we lay much stress on the conclusions drawn (by Rückert and others) from the absence of reference to the re-establishment of Mantinea in 370, or to the exploits of the Theban "Sacred Band" at Leuctra (371), which (as Hug thinks) might naturally have been alluded to in 178 E.

The evidence of date afforded by "stylometric" observations is not of a convincing character. M. Lutoslawski, it is true, dogmatically asserts that the Symposium stands between the Cratylus and Phaedo in the "First Platonic Group"; but his arguments, when examined, prove to be of the most flimsy character. Beyond affording a confirmation of the general impression that our dialogue stands somewhere in the "middle" period, the labours of the stylometrists give us little assistance. If we choose to date it in 390 they cannot refute us, nor yet if we date it 10 or 15 years later. The question as to whether the Symposium preceded the Phaedrus or followed it is one of special interest in view of the number of points at which the two writings touch each other. The evidence on the whole seems in favour of the priority of the Phaedrus2; but, even if this be granted, little light is shed on the date of composition of the Symp., since that of the Phaedrus eludes precise determination.

Equally difficult is it to draw any certain conclusions from the relation in which our dialogue stands to the Symposium of Xenophon. That there are many points of connexion, many close parallels, between

1 See Dümmler, Akademica, p. 40; and the refutation by Vahlen, op. Acad. 1. 482 ff.

2 So I hold with Schleierm., Zeller, I. Bruns, Hahn and others; against Lutosl., Gomperz and Raeder. It is monstrous to assert, as Lutosl. does, "that the date of the Phaedrus as written about 379 B.c. is now quite as well confirmed as the date of the Symp. about 385 B.C." I agree rather with the view which makes Phaedr. P.'s first publication after he opened his Academy, i.e. circ. 388-6 (a view recently supported in England by E. S. Thompson, Meno xliii ff., and Gifford, Euthyd. 20 ff.). The foll. are some of the parallels: Ph. 232 E=Symp. 181 E, 183 E; 234 A= = 183 E; 234 B=183 c; 250 c = 209 e ; 251 d (240 c)=215 E, 218a; 251a=215 b, 222 a; 252 a= 189 D; 266 A=180 E; 267a (273 ▲)=200a; 272A=198 D; 276A=222 A; 276 E=209 B ; 278 D=203 E; 279 B=216 D, 215 B.

the two works is obvious, but which of the two is prior in date is a problem which has called forth prolonged controversy1. This is not the place to investigate the problem: I can only state my firm opinion that the Xenophontic Sympos. (whether genuine or not) is the later work. But attempts to fix its date are little better than guess-work: Roquette puts it circ. 380-76; Schanz, after 371; K. Lincke (Neue Jahrb. 1897), after 350.

It will be seen that the available evidence is not sufficient to justify us in dogmatizing about the precise date of composition of our dialogue. The most we can say is that circ. 383-5 seems on the whole the most probable period.

§ ix. THE TEXT.

(1) Ancient authorities. The chief manuscripts which contain the text of the Symposium are :

B = codex Bodleianus (or Clarkianus or Oxoniensis); Bekker's A. T = codex Venetus append. class. 4, cod. 1: Bekker's t ("omnium librorum secundae familiae fons " Schanz).

1 Among those who claim priority for Xenophon are Böckh, Ast, Delbrück, Rettig, Teichmüller, Hug, Dümmler, Pfleiderer; on the other side are C. F. Hermann, I. Bruns, Schenkl, Gomperz. Beside the broader resemblances set forth by Hug, the foll. refs. to echoes may be of interest:—

The last three parallels are specially interesting, since Xen. ascribes to Pausan. some of the sentiments which Pl. gives to Phaedrus. Possibly (as Hug, Teichm. and others suppose) both writers are indebted to an actual apologia of the real Pausan., which Pl. is handling more freely, Xen. more exactly (cp. I. Bruns, Vorträge, p. 152).

W = codex Vindobonensis 54, Suppl. phil. Gr. 7: Stallbaum's
Vind. I.

To these we have now to add, as a new authority,

=

O.-P. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (no. 843 in Grenfell and Hunt's collection).

Since this last authority for the text was not forthcoming until after the publication of the latest critical text of the Symposium, I add the description of it given by the editors :

"The part covered is from 200 в [beginning with the word ẞovAo[TO] after which 40 lines are lost, the next words being av evdeta at the end of 200 E] to the end, comprised in 31 columns, of which four (xix–xxii) are missing entirely, while two others (i and xviii) are represented by small fragments; but the remainder is in a very fair state of preservation....The small and well-formed but somewhat heavy writing exemplifies a common type of book hand, and probably dates from about the year 200 A.D....The corrector's ink does not differ markedly in colour from that of the text, and in the case of minor insertions the two hands are at times difficult to distinguish. But as they are certainly not separated by any wide interval of time the question has no great practical importance....The text, as so often with papyri, is of an eclectic character, showing a decided affinity with no single Ms. Compared with the three principal witnesses for the Symposium it agrees now with B against TW, now with the two latter as against the former, rarely with T against BW' or with W against BT2. Similarly in a passage cited by Stobaeus some agreements with his readings against the consensus of BTW are counterbalanced by a number of variations from Stobaeus' text3. A few coincidences occur with variants peculiar to the inferior мss., the more noticeable being those with Vindob. 21 alone or in combination with Venet. 1841 and Parisin. 1642 alone or with Vat. 2295. Of the readings for which there is no other authority, including several variations in the order of the words, the majority, if unobjectionable, are unconvincing. The more valuable contributions, some of which are plainly superior to anything found in other mss., are: 1. 92 [201 D] eπ, l. 112 [202 a] the omission of κaí (so Stallbaum), 1. 239 [204 B] av ein, where BTW ειη, have a meaningless av, 1. 368 [206 c] κaλw as conjectured by Badham

1 See crit. notes on 202 a, 203 A, 205 в, 206 в, 207 D, 211 c.

2 See crit. notes on 203 B, 211 D, 213 B, 219 E, 220 c (bis).

3 See crit. notes on 202 c-203 A.

4 See crit. notes on 201▲ (ad fin.), 218 d, 220 a, 220 B, 223 c.

A,

5 See crit. notes on 206 в (ad init.), 208 a, 223 c.

for τῷ κ., 1. 471 [208 Β] μετεχει as restored by Stephanus (μετέχειν MSS.), 1. 517 [209 A] TEKELV confirming a conjecture of Hug (kveîv MSS.), 1. 529 [209 Β] επιθυμη as conjectured by Stephanus (ἐπιθυμεῖ Mss.), 1. 577 [210 ▲] kaι ov omitted by Mss., 1. 699 [212 a] féopiλei (-î BTW), 1. 770 [213 B] Katide[v (?) (kabíčeiv Mss), l. 898 [218 D] μo (probably) with Vind. 21 (μov BTW), 1. 1142 [222 D] diaßade as conjectured by Hirschig (Staßáλy BTW). On the other hand in many cases the papyrus once more proves the antiquity of readings which modern criticism rejects or suspects."

It may be added that the editors of the papyrus in citing W have made use of a new collation of that мs. by Prof. H. Schöne of Basel "which often supplements and sometimes corrects the report of Burnet." And in this edition I have followed the report of W in their apparatus, where available, while relying elsewhere upon that given by Burnet.

(2) Modern criticism. Much attention has been paid by Continental critics during the last century to the text of the Symposium, and for the most part they have proceeded on the assumption that the text is largely vitiated by interpolations1. Even Schanz and Hug, who may be regarded as moderate and cautious critics in comparison with such extremists as Jahn and Badham, have gone to unnecessary lengths in their use of the obelus. Hug, while admitting that we must take into account the freedom and variety of Plato's style and that it is folly to rob a writer of his individuality by pruning away any and every expression which is in strict logic superfluous, and while admitting also that regard must be paid to the characteristic differences of the various speeches in our dialogue, which forbid our taking any one speech as the norm with which others should be squared,—yet maintains that in the speeches, and especially in those of Pausanias and Socrates, he can detect a number of unquestionable glosses. No doubt there are some cases in these speeches in which it is not unreasonable to suspect interpolation, but even Hug and Schanz have, I believe, greatly exaggerated the number of such cases; and I agree with the editor of the Oxford text in regarding the certain instances of corruption or interpolation as extremely few. Consequently, in the text here printed I have diverged but seldom from the ancient tradition, and such changes as I have made have been more often in the

1 E.g. O. Jahn, Hirschig, Badham, Cobet, Naber, Hartmann. On the other hand, sensible protests have been made by Teuffel and Vahlen; and Rettig's text is, if anything, ultra-conservative.