In 175, E, Socrates does not say, as Professor Jowett makes him, In comparison my own wisdom is of a very mean and questionable sort,' but, ironically, must surely be' (av εἴη).

A little lower, νῦν δὲ πρὸς τὸ δεῖπνον πρῶτα τρέπου is somewhat poorly rendered by Professor Jowett: But at present you are better occupied with the banquet,' which would be a curious term for a host to use. Shelley's translation is more natural: at present turn to your supper.'

In the next page, all agreed that drinking was not to be the order of the day' should rather have been hard drink• ing” (διὰ μέθης) as opposed to the ῥᾳστώνην τινα τῆς πόσεως or easy drinking' which the company agreed upon.

In 177, C, Ερωτα δὲ μηδένα πω ἀνθρώπων τετολμηκέναι εἰς ταυτηνὶ τὴν ἡμέραν ἀξίως ὑμνῆσαι is rightly rendered by Sydenham and yet that no man should ever to this day have undertaken to give Love his due praises.' Whereas, Professor Jowett puts it that to this day no one has ever 6 dared worthily to hymn Love's praises.'

In 187, Α, τὸ ἓν γάρ φησι διαφερόμενον κ.τ.λ., might for the sake of the English reader have been written: that the One is united by disunion,' instead of that one is united,' of which the meaning does not at once suggest itself.

In 196, B-E, the point of Agathon's verbal and punning arguments is more than once lost by slight alterations in the words used. Agathon argues that Love must be just because all serve him of their own free will, and wherever two parties agree willingly, the laws which rule the state declare that the contract is just.' Professor Jowett puts it 'where there is love as well as obedience, there, as the laws which are lords of the city say, is justice.' Again, Agathon argues that Love must be temperate, because temperance consists in being superior to pleasures and desires, and no pleasure is superior to love. Professor Jowett renders it: No pleasure ever masters love; by which rendering the pun is lost. Again, Love must be brave, for not even Ares can withstand him, being held (or possessed) by the love of Aphrodite. But he that holds is stronger than he that is held,'-which Professor Jowett generalizes into And the master is stronger than the

'servant.'

In 196, Ε, πρῶτον μὲν ποιητὴς ὁ θεὸς σοφὸς οὕτως, ὥστε καὶ аov Toñσai. Professor Jowett probably did not misunderstand this sentence, but he translates it as if he had done so. He writes: For in the first place he is a poet, and he is also the * source of poesy in others, which he could not be if he were

'not himself a poet.' This looks as if kaì äλλov were taken to answer to πрaтov μèv, whereas Agathon treats firstly' of Love's wisdom or skill in poetry, and afterwards of his wisdom or skill in the other arts. The whole rendering of the passage is unnecessarily loose.

Two lines below, that Love is a good poet and accomplished in all the musical arts' is an inadequate rendering οἱ ὅτι ποιητὴς ὁ Ἔρως ἀγαθὸς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ πᾶσαν ποίησιν τὴν Kaтà μоνσιKÝν. Sydenham's translation, though heavy, is better: to prove Love an excellent poet in all that kind of creative 'power which is the proper province of the Muses.'

6

In 197, E, we have a strong instance of Professor Jowett's method of analogous impressions. Agathon, in a florid peroration, says that Love is φιλόδωρος εὐμενείας, ἄδωρος δυσμενείας, which Professor Jowett renders: giving friendship, and forgiving enmity '-not, of course, misunderstanding the Greek, but treating this part of the speech as mere empty sound; and considering that the first point to be aimed at, was to furnish a verbal antithesis, no matter what. We do not much object to this, though he might have put it diffusing benignity, re'fusing malignity,' or anything else of the kind. Sydenham and Shelley, going more literally to work, did not see that it was their first duty under the circumstances to provide a pun. In 199, C, Professor Jowett improves on Plato by introducing an ironical touch of his own. He makes Socrates say: In the magnificent discourse which you have uttered, I think that you were right, my dear Agathon, in saying that you 'would begin,' &c. The Greek is simply, Kai unu, w pine μὴν, φίλε Αγάθων, καλώς μοι ἔδοξας καθηγήσασθαι τοῦ λόγου, λέγων, κ.τ.λ. 'Well, my dear Agathon, you seemed to me to make a good ' arrangement of your discourse, in saying.'

In 204, D, we fear that there is no resource but to attribute to Professor Jowett a construction of the Greek words which is quite untenable. The words are ἔστι δὲ τῶν καλῶν ὡς σὺ φής. dè où Εἰ δέ τις ἡμᾶς ἔροιτο, Τί τῶν καλῶν ἐστιν ὁ Ἔρως; ὧδε δὲ σαφέστερον ἐρῶ, Ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν καλῶν τί ἐρᾷ ; καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπον, ὅτι Γενέσθαι avr. Professor Jowett renders them: You acknowledge ' that love is of the beautiful. But some one will say: Of the 'beautiful in what?-or rather, let me put the question more 'clearly, and ask: When a man loves the beautiful, what does 'he love? I answered her, That the beautiful may be his.' Tí ¿pa cannot mean what does he love?' for pâv requires the genitive case. The whole passage must be taken: Love, you • say, is of the beautiful. But why is it of the beautiful? Or 'to put the question more clearly, when a man loves the

1

beautiful, why does he love it? I answered, That it may 'become his own.' Tí, as Stallbaum reminds us, is for katà tí or dià Tí, in what respect?' with what view?' for what 'reason?''why?'

In 205, D, Professor Jowett deals somewhat hazily with the Greek; he also appears to us to introduce a new reading not warranted by the MSS. : 'Αλλ' οἱ μὲν ἄλλῃ τρεπόμενοι πολλαχῇ ἐπ' αὐτόν, ἢ κατὰ χρηματισμὸν ἢ κατὰ φιλογυμναστίαν ἢ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, οὔτ ̓ ἐρᾶν καλοῦνται οὔτ ̓ ἐρασταί. But those who, having their affections set upon him, are yet diverted into 'the paths of money-making or gymnastic philosophy, are not 'called lovers.' The point is, that all pursuits are instigated by love, but that the terms loving and lovers' are, in common language, restricted to one particular pursuit out of the many that love instigates. It is then said, "Those who in many other ways are the votaries of love, whether in the 'pursuit of money-making, or of bodily exercise, or of philo'sophy, are not called "lovers" or said to "love." Professor Jowett drops out ἢ between κατὰ φιλογυμναστίαν and κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν ; apparently from an unwillingness that philosophy should be ranked with money-making and gymnastics. But it is certainly true that in common language, which is the point in question, philosophy is not, any more than money-making, identified with love; and Plato could never have written KATÁ φιλογυμναστίαν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, meaning gymnastic philo'sophy.'

6

6

In 206, B, a slightly different, but analogous, idea is introduced by Professor Jowett in rendering Μαντείας, ἦν δ ̓ ἐγώ. δεῖται ὅ τι ποτὲ λέγεις, • The oracle requires an explanation, I 'said,' instead of One need be a conjuror, I said, to tell what you mean.' The succeeding lines, which are meant by Plato to be particularly clear, are not so lucid as Professor Jowett generally makes the didactic pieces. He seems to have a particular aversion to using the words 'ugly' or 'ugliness, which are the natural opposites of beautiful' and beauty," and which would serve the purpose required better than deformity' and foulness,' by which Professor Jowett prefers to render τὸ αἰσχρόν.

In 208, B, Marvel not at the love which all men have of their offspring,' should be which every creature has of its offspring” (τὸ αὑτοῦ ἀποβλάστημα φύσει πᾶν τιμᾷ).

In 209, B, When he finds a fair and noble and wellnurtured soul' should be a fair and noble and gifted soul, Evpuns always meaning in Greek' well-endowed by nature,' as distinguished from the results of education.

In 212, B, an unnecessary improvement of Plato is introduced. The text is simply Ταῦτα δή, ὦ Φαῖδρέ τε καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι, ἔφη μὲν Διοτίμα; • Such, Phædrus and the rest, were the words of Diotima.' But Professor Jowett makes it: 'Such, Phædrus-and I speak not only to you but to all men'were the words of Diotima.'

In 212, C, the company applauded,' should be some - applauded (τοὺς μὲν ἐπαίνειν).

In 212, E, we know not why Professor Jowett should have written a massive garland of ivy and wallflowers,' instead of ' a massive garland of ivy and violets' ("wv).*

In 217, E, we rather miss that happy art of introducing a gloss into the text, which Professor Jowett elsewhere resorts

to.

The words are πρῶτον μέν, το λεγόμενον, οἶνος ἄνευ τε παίδων καὶ μετὰ παίδων ἦν ἀληθής. Professor Jowett's translation hardly gives a meaning which explains itself to the English reader- Yet as the proverb says, in vino veritas, whether 'there is in boys or not.' It would be clearer, at the expense of a few more words, to say: In the first place the proverb used to be (v) that "wine and children are candid:"-whether 'children are so or not, at all events wine is candid.' Olvos kaì παῖδες ἀληθεῖς is the proverb referred to.

In 220 C, Professor Jowett neglects to give in metrical

* It is true that the word tov (which, being written originally with the digamma, is identical with the Latin vio-la) appears to have been applied by the Greeks to several quite distinct flowers. In Homer, 'Od.' v. 72, it is described as growing in marshy meadowlands, and may probably there mean the crocus.' In Dioscorides, the λευκόϊον is described as a cruciform plant, answering to our wallflower' (cheiranthus cheire), while the peλávov corresponds to our 'violet' (viola sylvestris). In Pindar, Ol.' vi. 35, the babe Iamus is described as lying in a pathless thicket, 'his tender body flooded with the yellow and the all-purple rays of the ion-flowers' (iwv žavbaïoi kai παμπορφύροις ἀκτῖσι βεβρεγμένος ἁβρὸν σῶμα). And here either yellow crocuses' and 'purple crocuses' are meant, or else (less probably) the 'wallflower' and the 'violet.' Our own forefathers called the wallflower 'yellow violet; ' the Dutch still call it 'violier,' and the Spaniards 'violette amarella.' But why should Professor Jowett have determined that the ia worn by Alcibiades were of the yellow type, and therefore ⚫ wallflowers'? There is some little interest in the question, for on the answer to it depends the claim of Athens to be called 'the City of 'the Violet-crown.' The glorious epithet oorέpavot, invented for Athens by Pindar, was especially dear to the Athenians (see Aristoph. 'Acharn.' 636). Did he mean by it 'violet-crowned,' or 'wallflower'crowned'? We can hardly believe that when he called the Muses ionλóKaμoι (Pyth. i. 1) he meant to compare their tresses to wallflowers.'

form, which would have been easy enough, the line from the Odyssey with which Alcibiades introduces the story of the trance of Socrates-

Οἷον δ' αὖ τόδ' ἔρεξε καὶ ἔτλη καρτερὸς ἀνήρ.

He simply renders it: the doings and sufferings of this en6 during man.'

A little lower (and this is the last hole which we shall pick), he confuses the narration by an unnecessary addition of words. The Ionians had set a watch to see if Socrates would stand thinking all night. Ὁ δὲ εἰστήκει μέχρι ἕως ἐγένετο καὶ ἥλιος ἀνέσχεν, ἔπειτα ᾤχετ ̓ ἀπιὼν προσευξάμενος τῷ ἡλίῳ. But he 'stood till it was dawn and the sun rose, then he offered up a 'prayer to the sun, and went his way.' Professor Jowett renders it, There he stood all night as well as all day and the following morning; and with the return of light he offered up a prayer to the sun, and went his way.'

Anyone can see that the above criticisms of Professor Jowett's translation of Symposium' are often de minimis; and when their minute character is considered, it is certainly a testimony to the accuracy, as well as general excellence, of the translation, that we should not have more of the kind to adduce. We might have enlarged our list of grumblings by reference to the other Dialogues. But enough of this ungracious task. The blemishes which exist may well in so large a work, and especially in regard to Professor Jowett's method of translation-so free and bold in its scope-be treated as the misprints which every author overlooks in his writings; and it may certainly be expected that a second edition, after the refrigeratio 'styli' which will have intervened, will show us this great work clear of most of that at which even an exacting criticism might carp. Among the trifling corrections which the humour of the scholar' would desire, we would ask Mr. Jowett to make his titles of the Platonic Dialogues uniform. He was doubtless correct in writing Apology," Statesman,' Sophist," 'Laws,' without the article, as titles of some of the Dialogues. But why should he have written The Symposium,' The Republic,' as titles of others? Another more material improvement, which we would humbly suggest, is that the Introductions to some of the Dialogues should be lightened by cutting down the Analyses' which they contain. The introduction to Phædo' is a model for this kind of writing; the analysis of the dialogue restricts itself to an outline or indication of the most salient points of the argument, and on these Professor Jowett offers the most interesting remarks.

6

The