Plato, Philebvs, 31 c [Plato, Philebus, 31 c]Author(s): J. Cook WilsonSource: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1909), pp. 125-126Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/635740 .

Accessed: 23/02/2014 19:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:56:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PLATO, PHILEB VS, 31 c.

THE excellent article in the January number of the Classical Quarterly upon a mistaken interpretation of Philebus 3I c contains the somewhat in- correct statement that this interpretation is the general one: and the article itself is anticipated by a short note in a paper which I published in the Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society for 1881-2. I have nothing to complain of, for (as will appear) it may partly serve me right. Besides, my paper, though duly registered in the Revue de Philologie, is omitted from the index of that periodical; the aforesaid Transactions are out of print, and by some mischance my correction of the wrong rendering did not appear in the last edition of Jowett's Plato, though Jowett intended it should.

My note was as follows:

Jowett, Introduction to Philebus, page 3, second edition, ' Many points require further explanation; e.g. the reference of pleasures to the indefinite class (31 A) compared with the assertion which almost immediately follows, that pleasure and pain naturally have their seat in the third or mixed class: these two statements are unreconciled.'

After classifying pleasure under areLpov-the other classes being r•/aS, /uKTr• v,

al•ra $s: vUAPWa-es-Plato next (3I A) inquires 'in what subject pleasure and knowledge reside

and how they arise in that subject' (v v yi 9- -rv

KTE?'pov a ro'v Kat •L

T 7rT' 00

ylyvwcrOov). The new question is not about the classification of pleasure. The answer to it is that pleasure is iv

T, KOLv YEveL: which means not that pleasure is to be classified in the KowLv y'vos (i.e. in the ULKrbv 7 yvos), but that the subject of which pleasure is an attribute is the pAr~Tv Y vos, that is a member of the class

tALKT•V. This

subject is further on (32 A) explained to be rb ~i 70K od rePOv Kal rEpaTros iIAvXoVo y•yovb

deSos, the animal nature (SCov). Pleasure then, according to Plato, belongs to the class atrepov, and resides in subjects which belong to the class

UiLKT• v. The only ambiguity

is one of expression; in &v 7~ owV y yVe the preposition does not refer to classification, and

KOL•bv yevos is put loosely for certain members of the KOWVov or

•LLKTbV Yvos.

In justice to Stallbaum I should have added that, though possibly he did not express himself with sufficient clearness to be understood by some

subsequent commentators, he certainly took the passage rightly: but owing to some preoccupation, which I do not seek to excuse, it did not even occur to me to look at Stallbaum at the time.

The writer of the article in the January Classical Quarterly, when repre- senting the misinterpretation as 'general,' could not have been aware that it does not occur in some of the most important commentators, and that one of them specially warns against it in more than one edition. Stallbaum in his first edition points out the possibility of a mistake, and gives the right explan- ation in the Prolegomena, p. lxx: under the text there is a short note only.

In Stallbaum's last edition, 1842, the matter is referred to, as before, in the Prolegomena (p. 47), and a longer note, almost identical with the passage in the Prolegomcna of the first edition, is given under the text. This is as follows:

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:56:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

126 PLATO, PHILEBVS, 31 c.

Sedem voluptatis atque doloris in mixto genere quaerendam esse censet. Id quod fortasse alicui primo certe aspectu mirum videatur. Nam voluptas antea ad T', &a-rpov referebatur. Enimvero probe discernenda est quaestio antea instituta, de genere volup- tatis in se spectatae, ab ea quae nunc suscipitur de sede et origine doloris ac voluptatis. Dicitur igitur nunc voluptas ac dolor in TY KOLV sive $vIy)uLryojev inesse, propterea, nisi fallor, quod omnia animalia ipsique homines, in quos voluptatis ac doloris sensus cadit, ad

-n'v yeyevYc•-hqvv o;ro-av referri debent; quidquod vero aut infinitum tantum est aut finitum, id voluptatis aut doloris capax esse non potest; neque enim in eo harmoniae vel dissolutio vel restitutio locum habet, in qua una voluptatis et doloris caussam atque originem positam esse docetur.

Bekker's edition (1826) of the works of Plato, with explanatory notes derived from a number of commentators, repeats the short note under the text of Stallbaum's first edition.

In the German edition with translation and notes by Dr. F. W. Wagner (Leip- zig, 1857), the translation is such as accords with a right understanding of the

passage, and this is confirmed by the short analysis in the Introduction, p. xx.

Coming to the English commentators, the mistake is not found in Poste

(edition with commentary 186o, translation 1860). There is no note in his

commentary, and from this, considering his accuracy and conscientiousness, one

may be sure, even if there were no other evidence, that he took the passage rightly. For if he had not he would have felt the obvious difficulty about the classification which the mistake involves, felt by all who have made the

mistake, and he would certainly have mentioned it. Further, editing the Philebus after Stallbaum, he was certain to have studied him carefully-he quotes Stallbaum in a near context-and if he had disagreed with him on such a point would have said so. Doubtless he agreed with Stallbaum that there was no difficulty at all if the words were only read attentively (at vero nullas

prorsus hic inveniemus difficultates modo verba diligenter et attente legerimus), and then it was in keeping with Poste's self-restraint to say nothing about it. Poste's translation quite confirms this, for he follows Stallbaum's use of 'sedes,' the word by which Stallbaum marked the true nature of the question asked in

3I B (it is italicised in his first edition 1). Poste translates 3 IB ' We must next inquire where each is seated'; and 31 c ' I think both pleasure and pain have their seat in the mixed class.' Again, in Poste's analysis of the argument the text is treated as assigning Pleasure to the class of the

ai'respov only.

The wrong rendering is found in Badham, Paley, and Bury. Paley may have got it from Jowett or Badham, for he studied both carefully; but he adds

some singular mistakes of his own. Bury's note seems to combine those of Badham and Paley. The able writer of the article in the January number of the Classical Quarterly appears to have been thinking of Bury and Badham.

J. COOK WILSON.

ICf. also Proktmena of last edition, p. 47, 'Itaque facile apparet sapientissime philosophum voluptatis atque doloris sedem [not pleasure itself] ad tertium genus retulisse, neque hoc in re ipsum secum pugnare

dicendum esse.' It is true Jowett has 'seat' in his own translation, but one suspects he followed Poste's translation without seeing the special point of it.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:56:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions