plato, "cratylus" 417 c

Plato, "Cratylus" 417 CAuthor(s): S. R. SlingsReviewed work(s):Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 29, Fasc. 1 (1976), pp. 42-51Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4430560 .Accessed: 06/10/2012 14:33

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 [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4430560?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXIX, Fase, ?

PLATO, CRATYLUS 417 C

BY

S. R. SLINGS

"?f??????" d? ?e????? t?????a, f ?a? '?????? p???a??? ?????ta?, t? "?f???e??"

? ?st? d? t??t? t?? a??e?? ?a? f p??e?? ep?????a.

Burnet was certainly right in marking p??e?? with the sign of

despair: it is inconceivable that Plato could have used it as a syno-

nym or paraphrasis of ?f???e??, which simply does not mean 'to

make'. No doubt some meanings of p??e?? can be distantly related to

?f???e?? 1), but Plato, though perhaps not a great linguist, was not

such an incompetent one as to describe the meaning of a non-

Attic word 2) by means of an Attic one which only in very specific contexts can refer to only related, not identical, actions.

Of the corrections hitherto proposed, I need mention only Orelli's

<p????> p??e??. This is moderately acceptable, but the implied haplo-

graphy becomes less appealing if it is realized that one would rather

expect <?e????a> p??e??, because one can also say ?e????a a??e?? 3), but not p?e???a a??e??. The solution to be proposed presently is the

exact opposite of Orelli's, in that it supposes that the transmitted

text gives not too little but too much.

At another occasion, I had reason to quote our text and then

tentatively proposed a??es?a? p??e?? 4). I have not for a moment

seriously entertained the thought that Plato wrote anything like

that: the palaeographical probability of a corruption from EC0AI

?) E.g. 'to work' (of remedies), cf. Phd. 117 b 2, LSJ s.v. p???? ? II i b; 'to grow* (transitive), cf. Ar. Pax 1322 and Van Leeuwen ad loc, LSJ ibid. A I 3 a.

2) Cf. ?e?????; I have argued for Aeolic extraction in Mnem. IV 28 ?1975), of.

3) E. IA 572 ;fr. 626, 4; cf. A. Supp. 338; E. fr. 1029, 5; Pl. Lg. 681 a 7; Ti. 72 d 1-2; D. 2, 5. Cf. further X. Cyr. V 5, 26, where ?e??? p??e?? is opposed to a??a??????? (similarly Democr. fr. 211).

4) Mnem. I.e., 10 n. 35.

PLATO, CRATYLUS 417 C 43

to EINKAI is very small indeed, a??es?a? does not seem to occur in

Plato (a????es?a? only), and besides, if Plato could just have written

a??e??, why would he have gone out of his way to use a cumbrous

periphrastic construction ? The sole aim I had was to indicate that

in my opinion p??e?? as it stands in our MSS. was meant as the

causative auxiliary.

Auxiliary causative constructions in Greek have never been sys-

tematically studied. ???e?? c. (acc. c.) inf. is mentioned in passing

by some of our handbooks d) and there is a curious remark on it in

the treatment of causative constructions by J. Carri?re ?). According to this scholar, p??e?? is not quite equivalent to the French causative

auxiliary faire, because it has a stronger sense. For example, Iso-

crates 15, 230 ? pe?? t??? ?????? de???t?? p??e? t??? ????t????? ?p????- ?e?e?? is said to correspond to Fr. "le talent de la parole entra?ne ?

convoiter le bien d'autrui" rather than to "fait convoiter, etc/'.

This statement is contradictory to an elementary principle of general

semantics, viz. that "having meaning implies choice'' : as there is no

other way in Greek to express "fait convoiter' '

than by p??e? ep????- ?e?e?? 7), the distinction made by Carri?re is meaningless for Greek.

In fact, the periphrastic construction p??e? ep?????e?e?? has precisely the same relation to ?p?????e?e? as is expressed in other verbs by

morphological differentiation (st?sa?: st??a?, f??a?: fa???a?) or lexi-

cal differentiation (?p??te??e?? : ?p????s?e??, ?????e??: ?a??e??, d??-

????: d???e?e??) 8).

5) K.-G. II, 9 ff.; 28; Schw.-D., 363; 367. Not in Gildersleeve, Brugmann- Thumb, Humbert; LSJ s.v. p????, A II i b.

6) Stylistique grecque (Nouv. ?d., Paris 1967), 75 ?. ?. 7) ???e? dp?? ?p?????e?se? t?? and p??e? ?? ?? ?p?????e??? t?? are marginal,

and probably no Attic; besides, if they were good alternatives, they would be likelier to correspond to Fr. entra?ne ? than does p??e? ep?????e?e?? ; the same holds for nominalizations, such as a?t?a est? t?? ep?????e?e??.

8) The distinction may be said to have 'zero expression' in instances such as ? ????? e*d?se? a?t???, for which cf. Schw.-D., 220; 232; 241. It deserves notice that this zero expression is only possible in Greek with transitive verbs. With K.-G. (I, 108 f.), Gildersleeve (I, 67), against Humbert (103), I insist that the so-called 'causative middle' (as against non-causative actives) is chimerical: in cases where e.g. Te??st????? t?? ???? ?d?d??at? is to be interpreted as "Th. had his son instructed", the middle voice is used to stress the subject-object relation ("his own son"), whereas the causative component has zero expression.

44 PLATO, CRATYLUS 417 C

As regards the grammatically of a??es?a? p??e??, it should be

noted that the object of a causative construction (i.e. the subject of

the infinitive governed by p??e??) can be zero in Greek 9). Under this

head falls p??e?? c. inf.10) as well as the 'absolute' use of synthetic causatives u).

From the fourth century B.C. onward, a??e?? and a????e??, which

hitherto had been causatives exclusively, gradually acquired an in-

transitive meaning. This phenomenon must be explained not by the

assumption of an ellipse of the object ('pseudo-intransitive'), but by

analogy: verbs which are antonyms tend to have the same diathesis.

An illustrative example is Horn. ? 149 ?? a?d??? ?e?e? ? ??? f?e? ? d' ap????e?. The intransitive use of f?e?, very rare in classical Greek,

is made possible by the juxtaposition of its antonym ap????e?. In the same way, Plato can occasionally use a??e?? intransitively

when opposing it to f???e?? 12), but not elsewhere, or Aristotle when

using it in a stock phrase like a????e? ? se???? 13), but again not

elsewhere. These contexts are so specific that the opposition causa-

tive: intransitive carries no functional load at all, which fact facili-

tates the analogical use of the active for the passive. Only later on,

9) It is necessarily zero when the causative element itself is zero, as in the

examples quoted in the preceding note.

io) Not mentioned in LSJ; for examples cf. Isoc. quoted above; Pl. R.

407 c 4; Phdr. 268 b 2. A participle in apposition to the zero object Phdr.

233 b 2-3. 11) Cf. (e.g.) LSJ s.v. fa??? A I 4; pe?sa? ('by persuasion, by leave');

pa?e?? with genitive only (? 191 ; d 35); d?af?e??e?? ('miscarry', cf. LSJ s.v. I

4) ; ???pe? ('you left') (E. Hipp. 848) ;?the 'pseudo-intransitive* use of e.g. ??a??e?? ('march; ride') and other causatives may belong here.

12) R. 546 b 7 ?a? a????t?? ?a? f?????t??; surprisingly absent from LSJ, s.v. a????? III. Despite the problems which beset the interpretation of this

very difficult passage, it is beyond doubt that a????t?? is intransitive; cf.

J. Adam, The Republic of Plato, II2 (Cambridge 1963), 272 n. 2 (I do not think, as Adam does, that the active voice is poetical). Elsewhere, a????es?a? is used, even in juxtaposition with f???e??, e.g. Phd. 71 b 3; Smp. 211 a 1; Prm. 156 b 8; 157 b 2; Tht. 155 a 8; Ti. 81 b 5; also Epin. 979 a 3; Emp. fr. 26, 2; E. fr. 415, 4.

13) APo. 78 b 6. Elsewhere, the passive is used in this phrase, cf. A Po. 90 a

3; Cael. 291 b 19 (se???? a??a?????? ?a? f?????sa).?HA 629 a 21 ?pa? ?????? ?a? a???s? is suspect, ?????? even more than a???s? ; see D'Arcy W. Thomp- son, The Works of Aristotle, IV (Oxford 1910), ad loc. (his explanation that both are corruptions of a????? is simple and attractive).


when this use of a??e?? had acquired a firmer footing, the active

could be used intransitively in less neutralizing contexts; in the

New Testament this has become normal u).

Returning now from linguistics to textual criticism, I explain our

text as follows. Paraphrasing ?f???e??, Plato could safely write (as I

claim he did) t?? a??e?? ep?????a, since the intransitive use of ad?e?? had not developed so far as to make these words ambiguous. How-

ever, by the time a??e?? could be used for the intransitive notion of

'to grow' regardless of context, it had become unserviceable to gloss

?f???e??, and a helpful hand inserted the causative auxiliary to make

sure that everybody would understand exactly what Plato meant.

The text now ran t?? a??e?? p??e?? ep?????a.

Next, a second interpolator, not understanding anything at all, tried to make sense of the text by adding ?a?1d). As the Cratylus is

perhaps the most heavily interpolated of Plato's dialogues (even a

critic so conservative in this respect as Wilamowitz has to admit the

existence of "etliche Zus?tze" 1?)), a case of two-phase interpolation need not surprise us.

Any actor who plays the title-part in Pirandello's Henry IV must

feel a sensation similar to the one which seizes a linguist when

studying and interpreting the Cratylus. As the former has to fulfill

the role of an actor, but one very different from oneself, so the latter

cannot content himself with the usual tasks of examination and?

where necessary?emendation, but one has to follow linguistic meth-

ods and arguments which are quite alien to one's own practice.

Therefore, the deletion proposed has to be checked against Plato's

(or rather Socrates') methods 17). These consist, roughly speaking, in deriving the words under dis-

cussion from 'primary' words, which cannot themselves be analyzed

14) I have counted three examples of causative a????e??, seven of a??a?e- s?a?, fourteen of intransitive a????e?? /a??e??; cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, 50 and the literature quoted here.

15) A roughly parallel case is Clit. 410 b 4, where someone, not seeing that ??pa??? is the complement of ?pe????a, coordinated it with the adverbial ?p? ?e ??a?. Another interpolation of ?a? in Cra. 398 d 6.

16) Platon IIs, 344. 17) On the relation of Platonic and modern linguistics, cf. especially M.

Leroy, Etymologie et linguistique chez Platon, BAB 54 (1968), 121-152.


unless as ?????ata. There are a few exceptions, when Plato (Socrates) allows himself an easier way, namely to declare a word ?a??a????? or ?e?????. In the first case, the word is a loan from another language, and there is an end to it18) ; in the second, the primary word or an

intermediate is Greek but not Attic. Nine words are labeled ?e????? in the Cratylus ; of these, one case is enigmatic 19), in two cases the

dialectal form is chosen as a starting-point for an etymology 20), in

the remaining six examples the primary word arrived at by the

etymological method turns out to be a dialectal form itself 21). In

the last case, Plato takes care that the semantic relation of deriva-

tive and (dialectal) primary word is laid bare completely. Thus,

s?f?a is first said to mean f???? ef?ptes?a?, then the primary forms

?s??? and s??? are mentioned along with their meanings (ta??

p?????a?; t?? ta?e?a? ?????) and finally Plato repeats that s?f?a denotes ta?t?? t?? f???? epaf?? 22). Any emendation of Cra. 417 c

i8) Cf. 409 c 10-410 b ? (p??, ?d??, ???e?); 416 a 1-6 (?a???). Plato calls this expedient ???a?? (409 d 3 ; 416 a 4), as clearly referring to the theatrical machina (cf. e?s??? at the former, ep??? at the latter place) as at 425 d 5-6. The comment ??d?se?? .... ?a? ???a ????a? (426 a 2) rather criticizes a hypo- thetical non-Greek origin of all primary words (contra, e.g., R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 62).

19) 419 c 4-5 ? d? "????d??" ?e????? t? fa??eta? ??? ?p? t?? a??e???? ????as??????on the analogy of our passage this would mean that ????d?? is Attic, derived from non-Attic a??e????. As a matter of fact, both words are well attested in Attic, and occur many times in Plato. They are, however, derived from ?????, which could certainly be termed ?e????? in Plato's time. I suspect that Plato realized this, but did not care for dialectographicai accuracy, since at any rate the relation of ????? and a??e???? was obvious. This explanation should, I think, be preferred to tampering with the text,

e.g. ?p? t?? < ??????, ?f' ?? ?a?> ???e???? ????as?????, which is a little too

easy. 20) 401 d 4-7 ?s?a; 406 a 7-b ? ????; cf. 405 c 2-5''?p???? (ot Tetta???);

4?8 e 8-409 a 5 ????? (ol ??????) ; 409 a 6-c 2 se?a?a?a (p?????).?I do not think that the derivation of ???sa? from ??s?a? (406 a 3-5) was inspired by the Doric form ??sa?, because if it was, Plato would have mentioned how ol

????? called them, as he does immediately afterwards with ??t?. 2i) 40ic2-d3 ?ss?a; 407 b 3-8 ? ?e???a; 412 b ?-8 ?s???, s??? ; our passage ;

426 c 3-9 ??e???which should perhaps be written ??e??. In the last two cases one gets the impression that the ?e???? ????ata are dragged in over the heads of perfectly acceptable Attic alternatives (?fe???, ???e??) just in order to

dodge the regulations which Plato had set himself.

22) 412 b 1-8. Apparently, the primary form is "s??af?a".


7~9 should therefore yield a specification of ?f???e?? which fits in

with ?f??????. At first sight, the restoration proposed here seems to be lacking

in this respect. Of?????? is derived from an Aeolic word which is

glossed a??e??; of course, the adjective may be said to denote some

kind of augmentation, but only 'qualitative augmentation', i.e. im-

provement. This is stated very clearly by Plato himself: t? ?e ?f???-

??? t? p????? a?a??? ?st?? 23). Consequently, the deletion of ?a? p??e??

?which in itself improves the text?will harmonize with Plato's

method only if it can be shown that a??e?? can refer to 'qualitative

augmentation', in other words, that a??e?? can be synonymous with

?fe?e??. It goes without saying that we cannot set out to prove this unless

we have made our concepts of 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' a

great deal more explicit. It will not be a matter of great dispute that a??e?? is equivalent to p??e?? ?e??? or p?e?? ????es?a? 24). Surely, inasmuch as ???a? and p???? themselves denote spatial and numer-

ical extension respectively, a??e?? undeniably refers to quantitative

augmentation. But, confining ourselves to ???a?, we can easily see

that this adjective is often used in contexts where not quantity but

some quality is referred to, as with Eng. great. Thus, ????? ???a? est??

will often convey something about Cyrus' qualities (even such extrin-

sic ones as being rich or honoured), and when we find in X?nophon the phrase a??e?? ????? we can confidently retain the equivalence a??e?? = p??e?? ?e??? ????es?a?, but it will be at least doubtful to say that here a??e?? is still quantitative, the more so as in the same

context we find t????te? as a pretty close synonym 2d). It may be

23) Hi.ma. 296 e 7; cf. Ap. 24 e 5 ?e?t???? p????s?? ~e 10 t?? ?fe????t??; Clit. 407 a 1-4. This may be used as an additional argument against < p???? > or <?e????a> p??e??. Of course, those who wish may read <?e?t???a> p??e?? at the present place, and explain the corruption as a casual omission.

24) In modern semantic terms, one could state that "? a????e? ?" contains the components: "A causes (B changes to [? ?st? ???a??????./p?????????.])"; cf. E. H. Bendix, Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary (The Hague 1966), esp. 62 ff. ; M. Bierwisch in J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (Harmondsworth 1970), 167-184.

25) Cyr. VIII 4, 1 ot ????st* a?t?? a??e?? te ??????e??? fa?e??? ?sa? ?a? t????te? e??????tata; cf. Oec. 4, 7 t??t??? . . . ?a? ta?? t??a?? a??e? ?a? d????? ?e?????? ?atap???t??e?, to which Horn. A 510 ?f????s?? t? ? t??? is a neat


useful to remember that ?e?a???e?? can have the same sense.

So far so good. But we are still a long way from the 'qualitative

augmentation' as expressed by ?fe?e??. We get closer when we

examine a fairly large group of occurrences of a??e?? with as its

object words denoting a city, a realm, a political party, or an indivi-

dual playing a political role (especially a tyrant). Of course, a??e?? p???? can occasionally mean 'to enlarge a city' 2e), fairly frequently it will best be interpreted as 'to exalt a city; increase its prestige' 27), but usually it is neither. Let us take, for example, the closing sen-

tence of Creon's political programme: t????sd' ??? ?????s? t??d* a??? p???? 28). Is this "On these lines I intend to make Thebes a greater

city" ? If so, 'greater' in what respect? Hardly 'more renowned' 29),

probably 'more prosperous' (Jebb), or 'stronger', or 'better ruled',

more probably still the three combined (Wolf-Bellermann adequate-

ly translate 'heben, f?rdern'). In this context, a??e?? and ?fe?e?? are

not of course complete synonyms (?fe?? would, to my feeling, carry an association of helping, which is out of place here and probably never present in a??e??), but they certainly are equivalent (in the

sense of implying each other cognitively) : Creon wishes to make

Thebes meet the standards of a city's a?et?. The translation 'to

strengthen', usually given in the very numerous similar contexts 30),

parallel (t??? is dative of instrument [Leaf; Schw.-D., i66], not of respect [Ameis-Hentze-Cauer] ; the latter use of the dative seems to be confined to

adjuncts of comparatives in Homer, cf. Chantraine, Gr.hom., II 75; 77. For this use of a??e??, cf. LSJ s.v. a?????, I 2?add Pl. Lg. 727 a 5, Isoc. 5, 120; compare ?pa???sa?, Th. VII 70, 7: not 'increase, enlarge' (LSJ) nor 'strengthen', but 'exalt, extol' (cf. ?a??? e??a?).

26) Pl. R. 423 b 10; cf. 5-6 ds?? de? t? ???e??? t?? p???? p??e?s?a?.

27) E.g. Pi. O. 5, 4; cf- p- 8, 38; 10, 71; X. Smp. 8, 38. 28) S. Ant. 191. 29) Cf. ????? in 1. 190. 30) To attempt enumeration would be futile, but a selection of words from

this semantic field which can be objects of a??e?? (or subjects of a??es?a?) may prove useful. Words denoting states: p????, pat??? (E. Supp. 507), a??? (Pi. P. io, io; cf. Th. VI 18, 4 and II 36, 3 ta d? p?e?? a?t?? [se. t?? a????] .... ?p????sa?e? and Gomme's note?Classen-Steup's intransitive interpretation clashes with what has been observed about the restricted use of this idiom in classical Greek), names of particular states ('????a??? Hdt. 5, 78; ? ??d?? ?, 163); words denoting groups within states: ? d???? (Hdt. 5, 91), ? d?????at?a ([X.] Ath. ?, 4), t? p????? (Hdt. 3, 80), o? e????? (?. Oec. ?, 6), ?? p?????? (?. fr. 362, 28); words denoting individuals within states: t??a????

PLATO, CRATYLUS 4I7 C 49

is probably too one-sided, but what really matters is that with this group of objects aOcu'eL is moving from the sphere of influence of

tyac into that of &ymO6q. This is apparent when we meet juxta- positions such as au iarq n)6X?o ouwvoF&q6 xoi xMX?q OLxLO-

gv 31).

When we direct our attention to another group of objects, viz. words denoting a house, household, estate etc.32), this association of aC5LV with the qualitative use of teyocc and with &ymO6g appears stil more clearly. I even doubt if ocuQELV tMv otxov could ever have sug- gested to a Greek the enlargement of one's estate-in the definition of oExovo,u'x with which Xenophon starts his Oeconomicus in the best Socratic tradition, it clearly means 'to enrich one's household' 33).

Another Xenophontean passage is sufficient proof that in these contexts oc5Setv and C9q?XeZv are interchangeable and therefore synonymous: 7rs ou gvcx TO6v ToU Od0ou [sc. olxov] 7p@Tov npa&O-Ig

'MV OCaL; 8d=tXL 86. XOCV }4V TOtTOV 8tV-n, XaL 7CXE[OaLV C7tLXCLP'UeLq- 9vaC 8i 8UVMFCOq&PXa=vc 7<C&qa WG V 7Co)ouc; Ye 8UVJneE-J;; 34)

(Theogn. 823, E.fr. 420; cf. Sol. fr. II, 3 W.), &hvp (E. fr. 626, 4), names of particular individuals (ML)TI&87C Hdt. 6, I32).-It deserves notice that Thu- cydides twice uses quantitative a5iev (I 2, 6; 99, 3) against six certain occurrences of qualitative use (I 12, I; I6; I7; VI i8, 4; 33, 6; 40, I) and two ambiguous instances (I 89, I; VI 12, I).

3I) P1. R. 42I C 3-4. KaE is not necessarily explanatory, but when of two coordinated phrases the first is vague and the second precise, it is a good guess that it is. The notion of prosperity precedes immediately: eEq Arv 7r6XLv UX7iv PXiovraq Oeariov et &xEhv- kyytyveat (sc. eUL8apLovEU) b 6-7.-Another clear passage where OdScLtv is associated with the semantic field of &yaO66C is R. 424 a 4-5 OtTo)vrcEot &&Vrep &dtbcc 6pp?c? 6Ip, IpXc &airep xOuxxoq OxUvoJdv- ("it works its way up as in a spiral" comes, I think, closest to what Plato meant; certainly Adam's opinion that the drawing of a circle is the tertium comparationis should be rejected).

32) lpyov Hom. 0 372, cf. E 65; olxo5 Th. I I7 and often in X., cf. the next two notes; not, as far as I know, otxEa; ROoxOpov, E. I.A. ii6o.

33) "The oLxovoLLx6q would be able to manage well (c5 olxeiv) another man's household even if he had none of his own, for a salary.-He would earn a big salary if he were able e),etv Tr 8aoa 8cL [not "to do what's necessary", C. Lord in L. Strauss, Xenophon's Socratic Discourse, Ithaca-London 1970, but "to pay off what is due"] xal 7rcpLoua(mv noitZv a5Xew '6v OIXOV (I, 3-4). Apparently, c)eteiv 6a 8eW and a5be:v '6v olxov together constitute the art of c5 otxeEv; a5ZeLv recurs three times in this discussion (6; i6; 2, I-in the last instance associated with 70ourelv).

34) Mem. III 6, 14. qc)dpeXa= is object-infinitive of 8vxa6atL, a6isao of

4


In Plato's own works, there occur two new types of context, in

which the original association of a??e?? with ???a? has completely vanished. First, a??e?? is used to refer to mental development of

persons in a good, not a neutral, sense. Thus, for instance : ?? t?????

??e?e? t?? f???s?f?? f?s??, a? ??? ???a? ?a??se?? p??s????s?? t???,

e?? pasa? ??et?? a????? a??a??????? ?f???e?s?a? 35). In the second

place, it can take as an object a substantivated neuter adjective,

denoting a part of the soul, e.g. t? ????st???? se). Here, a??e?? is

definitely not p??e?? ?e??? ????es?a? but, if anything, p??e?? ?s????te-

pov ????es?a? 87). Consequently, to Plato 'qualitative augmentation' was a distinct meaning of a??e??, independent of the various qualitative usages of ???a?.

This can further be proved by several instances of a??e?? meaning 'to strengthen', outside of the semantic fields of p???? and ?????.

Among its objects are justice38), stereometry89), desires40); even

the human body 41). In Plato's opinion, therefore, there could be no objection to a??e??

as a paraphrasis of ?f???e?? and (by methodical implication) of

?fe?e??. It had been used before him to denote 'qualitative augmentation' under certain contextual conditions ; even within these

restrictions, a??e?? could sometimes be felt as a synonym of ?fe?e??.

Besides, he had himself done a considerable step towards an un-

conditional qualitative use of a??e??.

pe???s?a?, but I do not see that they are the less interchangeable for that? one could point out, if necessary, that t??t?? d??? requires a supplied a???sa?.

35) R. 492 a 1-3; cf R. 425 a 5; Tht. 163 c 5 ??a ?a? a??????"ut etiam animo augearis, h.e. ut animus tibi crescat et augeatur" (Stallbaum).

36) R. 550 b 2; t? ?e??t?d?? te ?a? ?fe?de? R. 59o b ? ; the mortal part of the soul Ti. 90 b 6. A possible forerunner is Emp. fr. 17, 14 ???? ??? t??

f???a? a??e?. 37) t? ?e??t?de? . .. a???ta??cf. preceding note?is the intransitive form

of what was earlier called p??e?? ?s????? ?a? t?? ????ta ?t?. (R. 588 e 6). 38) R. 540 e 3. 39) R- 528 c 7. 40) R. 328 d 3, opp. ?p??a?a??es?a?. 4i) Ti. 88 b 3 : t? sf?te??? = t? ??e?tt?? = t? s??a; Prt. 320 e 4 ? d? ?d?e

?e???e? may mean "those which he had made strong by their bulk" or (an Ionicism very acceptable in the myth) "... big in size" (cf. ?e???e? ?e??????, Hdt. I 51).

PLATO, CRATYLUS 417 C 5I

Additional Note. The addition of p??e?? in order to indicate causative use of a??e?? has for a parallel Pollux Onomast. IV 208 ?????s???s? d? t? ?????s?e?? p????s? f?s?? ? ???t?? [G?/. 149 d 3]? For the insertion of ?a? between an authentic word and an explanatory interpolation, cf. PI. ??. 26 a 2 t?? t????t?? [?a? a???s???] a?a?t???t?? (see Burnet ad loc.)\ to my feeling, this is best explained as a two-phase interpolation similar to the one I have assumed above.

Amsterdam, Free University

plato, "cratylus" 417 c

Documents