it implies peril or risk; hence simply, a probability. Compare Apol. c. IX. note (c). • Εδοκεῖ τίς μοι γυνὴ] Δοκεῖν is often used of dreams and visions. Eurip. Iphig. Taur. v. 44. ědog' ¿v vπvų. Orest. v. 402. ἔδοξ ̓ ἰδεῖν τρεῖς νυκτὶ προςφερεῖς κόρας. Aristoph. Vesp. p. 31. ἐδοξέ μοι περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον ἐν τῇ πυκνὶ ἐκκλησιάζειν, κ. τ. λ. As persons appearing in dreams were believed to be divine, they are generally represented as taller and more beautiful and imposing than human beings. Hence the woman, who appeared to Socrates, is called kaλǹ kaì ɛvɛidns, beautiful and well formed, and she is described as λευκὰ ἱμάτια ἔχουσα, clothed in white; for ancient superstition agreed with modern in assigning white attire to visitors from the world of spirits. Still the idea conveyed by λɛvñà is not that of a ghostly pallor, but rather of a brilliant, dazzling hue. It is, in short, equivalent to candidus rather than to albus. On this matter the commentators on Pliny's Epist. VIII, 27. may be consulted with advantage. The verse, which the woman is said to have recited, is taken from Iliad. IX. 363. They are the words of Achilles, who, enraged by the insults of Agamemnon, declares that he will return to his home, which he hopes to reach on the third day. Plato alters the verb from the first to the second person, to suit the convenience of the speaker. In the original passage it is ikoiμnv. Cicero de Divinat. I. 25, where he mentions this passage, thus translates the verse: Tertia te Phthiæ tempestas læta locabit. The Phthia of the sage is the better life which he is anticipating. Life, he contemplates; as a mere sojourn at a distance from the country which best deserves to receive the name of home. f Ὡς ἄτοπον—] That is, how wonderful, ὡς θαυμαστόν καὶ Taρádožov, as the word is correctly interpreted by Thomas M., Phavorinus, and others. Phædo, p. 60. B. 5 άTOTTÓV TI—Ëoike εἶναι τοῦτο, ἤ καλοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἡδύ. — He calls this dream Evapyέç, so clear and unmistakeable, that there is no need of conjecturing in order to discover its import. The particles pèv ou have the force of increasing and correcting: nay, nay indeed, say rather. Thus, in the amusing scene in the knights of Aristophanes, where Cleon and the sausage-seller are vying with each other in obsequiousness to their master Demus, Cleon says (Eq. 910) .... ὦ Δῆμ ̓, ἐμοῦ πρὸς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποψῶ. Sausage-seller.-μov μèv ovv. Cleon.—ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν. Cleon.-"Demus, wipe your nose on my head. Cleon.--Nay, on mine!" Compare, too, Gorg. p. 466, A. E., where it is used to indicate a decided agreement with what has gone before. ΙΙΙ. * ἀλλ ̓, ὦ δαιμόνιε-] By the words ἔτι καὶ νῦν, even now, now at least, Plato indicates that Crito had before made vain attempts to persuade Socrates to consult his safety by flight. 5 οὐ μία ξυμφορά—ἀμελῆσαι] The sense is this: it will be no single calamity that will befall me in the case of your death; but apart from my being bereft of a friend the like of whom I shall never find again, I shall in addition to this incur the suspicion, on the part of many who do not well know either you or me, of having neglected you; on the ground that I had it in my power to save your life, if I had been willing to lay out money for that purpose. The full expression would be: οὐ μία ξυμφορά ἐστιν ἐμοί, ἀλλὰ πλείους· χωρὶς μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ἐστερῆσθαι, etc. The reading τοῦ OTEρñola is a correction of Wolf's, the MS. giving σou. The following examples are subjoined to indicate the general usage of Greek writers in similar cases. Sympos. p. 173. C. xwρis TOU οἴεσθαι ὠφελεῖσθαι ὑπερφυῶς ὡς χαίρω. Ibid. p. 184. Β. οὐδὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ τούτων οὔτε βέβαιον οὔτε μόνιμον εἶναι χωρὶς τοῦ μηδὲ πεφυκέναι ἀπ' αὐτῶν γενναίαν φιλίαν. Mark the manner in which the two negatives are employed in the expression ovdéva μή ποτε. The rationale of the construction is precisely the same as that by which we explain the simple où un with the subjunctive, viz : οὐ δέδοικα μὴ, and οὐδένα μήποτε is equivalent to οὐ μỶ TOTÉ TIVα. It is true, the verb is here in the future indicative and not in the aorist subjunctive; but the usage being once established, the combination of particles might henceforward be employed simply as an intensified negative. Buttmann and others connect the particle og with the infinitive åμeλñoai. But dóžw is áμeλñoal is not Greek, and hardly to be explained even with the supposition of an anacoluthia. The simpler way is to regard the clause wç ołóg te, k. t. λ., as parenthetical, as we have virtually done in the rendering of the sentence above given; the ἀμελῆσαι being clearly under the direct regimen of δόξω. Nor is there any necessity for reading ἂν ὤν. See Hermann on Hecuba, v. 1087. ε ταύτης δόξα ἢ δοκεῖν] When an infinitive is added by way of explaining the idea intended to be conveyed by a comparative genitive, it is generally introduced by . Compare Theages, p. 127. Α. οὐκ ἐσθ ̓ ὅ τι τούτου μεῖζον ἂν ἕρμαιον ἡγησαίμην, ἢ εἰ οὗτος ἀρέσκοιτο τῇ σῇ συνουσίᾳ. The ἢ is, however, sometimes omitted. Matth. § 450. 2. The redundancy in δόξης.... δοκεῖν is not without parallel. Herod. viii. 4. παρὰ δόξαν.... ἢ ὡς αὐτοὶ κατεδόκουν. Indeed, it would be perfectly easy to multiply examples. ὰ αὐτὰ δὲ δῆλα τὰ παρόντα] There appears to be something unusual in this use of the adjective δῆλος, nor do we do anything more than evade the difficulty by saying, as Fischer does, that δῆλον is used in the sense of δηλωτικόν. For the passages which he brings forward in support of this interpretation, from Antoninus and Theophrastus, are either corrupt or susceptible of a different explanation. Stephens adopts Cornarius's conjecture of δηλοῖ, but there is no necessity for doing this. For the writer passes, by a kind of anacoluthia, from a passive to an active construction. Crito was about to add: ὅτι ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἐξειργασμένα ἐστίν, but he suddenly changes the construction, and expresses his idea much more emphatically by saying: ὅτι οἷοί τέ εἰσιν οἱ πολλοί, κ. τ. λ. • ἵνα οἷοί τε ἦσαν] The final conjunction ἵνα, like the hypothetical av, is used with a past tense of the indicative, to indicate a contingency which has not come to pass, and which is therefore now contemplated as no longer possible. Comp. Cd. Tyr. 1386, ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τῆς ἀκουούσης ἔτ ̓ ἦν .... . that I might have been blind and deaf too, which, however, I am not. See Matth. § 519. It may, therefore, be with propriety used in the case of a supposition which both is, and always has been, impossible. We may translate: Would that they were able to do us the greatest evil, in order that they might also in turn do us the greatest good, and it were well: but as matters now are, they can do neither. ◊ τοῦτο, ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι] That is, they do not follow reason, but a kind of blind impulse. So further on, c. V. ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι, τοῦτο πράξουσι. Protagor. p. 353. Α. τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δόξαν ἀνθρώπων, οἳ ὅτι ἂν τύχωσι, τοῦτο λέγουσι. Sympos. p. 181. Β. ὅθεν δὴ ξυμβαίνει αὐτοῖς, ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι, τοῦτο πράττειν. a 6 IV. * ἆρά γε μὴ ἐμοῦ προμ.] ̓Αρά (γε) μὴ asks a question with a kind of suspicion of what we are unwilling should be the case: surely you are not concerned, etc. The yè has the effect of giving an additional emphasis to the interrogation: Surely you are not concerned for me, are you?' On the other hand, ap' ov is about equivalent to the Latin nonne. — πράγματα παρέχειν, το give trouble, or create annoyance to any one: often said of persons who annoy others by accusations. For the word πрáyμara is sometimes used simply in the sense of law-suits and quarrels. ὁ ἢ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οὐσίαν ἀποβαλεῖν, ἢ συχνὰ χρ.] That is, to lose either even the whole of our property, or at least a great part of our wealth. The xaì with πãoav has the force of emphasizing it; omnem adeo rem familiarem nostram, as Stallbaum renders it. It is used again with precisely the same force before ao Ti Tρòç TOUTоL, or even to suffer some additional penalty,' for example, imprisonment, exile, or death. It will be easy to see, therefore, why it is not repeated before συχνὰ χρήματα. e tatov avrò xaipɛ] That is, dismiss this fear, bid it farewell. Respecting the construction of the words μɛt̃s yáp πov dikaioi koμev—rivồvvɛúɛiv, see Matth. § 296. Buttmann, § 138. 5. We may render: It is but right, I ween, that to save your life, we should be ready to incur this risk, or one even greater than this.' ὰ καὶ μὴ ἄλλως ποίει] So c. V. at the end, πείθου μοι καὶ μηδαμῶς ἄλλως ποίει. • Μήτε τοίνυν ταῦτα φόβου] The thread of discourse, which is here broken, is resumed a little further on with the words: ὥςτεμήτε ταῦτα φοβούμενος, κ.τ.λ It was doubtless from not perceiving this that transcribers were led to write μǹ instead of unre, in the former case. 1 TOÚTOVS TOÙÇ TUкopávтaç] Said with contempt: 'these fellous, the informers: for τοὺς συκοφάντας is appended to τούτους by way of apposition. Compare chap. IX., at the end of the first sentence, τούτων τῶν πολλῶν. Apolog. c. I. ὁμολογοίην ἂν οὐ κατὰ τούτους εἶναι ῥήτωρ. Demosthen. Philipp. I. p. 41. παραδείγμασι χρώμενοι τῇ τε τότε ῥώμῃ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων—καὶ τῇ νῦν ὕβρει τούτου. E' avтoÚç] That is, to bribe them. ἡ ὑπάρχει μὲν τὰ ἐμὰ χρήματα] My wealth is ready for you, is at your disposal: for ikavá is added by apposition. · ξένοι οὗτοι ἐνθάδε] The pronoun οὗτος is here used δεικτιKoç, as the grammarians say. My friends here present. "Ode is often used in precisely the same way. See Matth. § 471. 12. -Simmias and Cebes, Thebans and intimate friends of Socrates, are introduced disputing with him in the Phædo. Some few particulars concerning them are given in their lives by Laertius and Suidas. Both are said to have written something, but the Tabula, which goes under the name of Cebes, appears to be incorrectly ascribed to him. k μýτε—ȧTOкáμys] That is, be not out of heart, do not despair of saving your life. For Crito, in his love towards his friend, forgets the principles of virtue, and imagines that Socrates himself was willing to consult his safety by flight. 1 d ëλeyes év tų duk.] See Apolog. c. XXVII. 8 ÖTI Xρo σανr] As we say: what to do with yourself. So Gorg. p. 486. A. Sympos. p. 216. C. Xenoph. Anab. III. 1, 41. Jacobs compares Lucian. Accusat. 27. ὅ τι χρήσαιτο ἑαυτῷ οὐκ εἰδώς. Necyom. § 3. οὐκ εἰδὼς ὅ τι χρησαίμην ἐμαυτῷ. Harmonid. ὅπως μοι χρηστέον κἀμαυτῷ καὶ τῇ τέχνῃ. So Æschin. adv. Ctesiphont. p. 76, ed. Bremi: ἀπορῶν δ ̓ ὅ τι χρήσαιτο αὑτῷμίαν ἐλπίδα λοιπὴν κατεῖδε. * καὶ ἄλλοσε ὅποι ἂν ἀφίκῃ] The ordinary construction would require aλaxou. But since oπо follows, attraction produces Mooɛ. On this subject see Matth. § 474. and Buttm. § 138. 1. 4. The comma is, therefore, removed from between aλλooɛ and ὅποι. V. a ¿òv owlñvai] When you have it in your power to escape. On nominatives, or as some will have it, accusatives absolute, like ¿¿òv, see Matth. § 264. The infinitive clause σavтòv πapadovνaι is applied to πρãуμа as an apposition; per epexegesin, as the grammarians say. So Menon p. 76. Α. ὑβριστὴς εἶ, ὦ Μένων, ἀνδρὶ πρεσβύτῃ πράγματα προστάττεις, ἀποκρίνεσθαι. 5 οἰχήσει καταλιπών] The word οἴχεσθαι seems to indicate the quickness of the action, and the eagerness of the agent. It might be rendered in Latin by confestim deseres. This peculiar force of the phrase is traceable to the perfect meaning of the present olxoμai. It is as if he had said, 'you will be off and leave them ere we are aware.' For it must be borne in mind that oixnoa is strictly, not, you will go, but, you will be gone. Other examples have been collected by Matthiæ, § 559. c. • τὸσὸν μέρος] As far as in you lies, as far as you are concerned, as c. XI and c. XVI. 4 ὅ τι ἄν—πράξουσι] That is, they will undergo thatlot which |