1848.] Proof from other circumstances. 429 gy, L. 17, c. 10, § 6: καὶ τινος πλήθους συστάντος, i. e. not a great but a certain multitude or a certain band. It will be noticed that Josephus does not specify numerically in either instance how many men joined these leaders in their attempts at revolt; but since he does not hesitate to designate the followers of Athronges as very numerous, and also those of Judas as not few, while he omits the use of any such epithet in relation to Simon's party, the presumption is that Josephus regarded this last as much smaller than the others. If any one should doubt whether Simon with four or five hundred men could have executed the bold feats related of him, this doubt will entirely disappear when we consider the situation in which the country of the Jews was, just at that time. Immediately after the death of the first Herod, the flames of discord burst forth at once in all parts of the land. Of the royal troops whose business it was to restore order and peace, the greatest part passed over to the side of the different insurgents and made common cause with them. Sabinus under whose command was placed the only Roman legion at that time in Palestine, had taken a strong position at Jerusalem; but he himself was in so straitened a condition that he could with difficulty hold out much longer against the rebels, and did not venture even to leave Jerusalem. Finally, Quintilius Varus who was stationed with two other legions in Syria, could not appear immediately in Palestine with these and the auxiliary troops which he had raised from the allied kings, tetrarchs and cities. Under these circumstances which existed at the commencement of this very distracted period, it was possible certainly for so daring a man as Simon with four or five hundred followers of a similar spirit to cross over the Jordan from Perea, destroy the royal citadel in Jericho and other castles, spread fear and consternation in his track, and procure for himself a fame which extended to the Romans, and of which we have still an evidence in Tacitus. But finally; The circumstance that Simon was a slave speaks strongly for the conjecture that after he had caused himself to be proclaimed as king, he assumed another name instead of his original one. The name which he had borne as a slave, did not comport with his position after he had put on the crown. The proud spirit which he possessed, as Josephus has described him, would lead him to conceal as much as possible the low origin from which he had sprung, and hence to exchange a name which would have served only to perpetuate that remembrance, for some other in which he could appear to the world without any derogation from his new dignity as king. Hence it is in the highest degree probable, that Simon had two names, in conformity with the Jewish custom mentioned above, according to which individuals on changing their occupation, or passing from a lower to a higher sphere of life, called themselves by a new name. Theudas, therefore, may have been the name which he had borne as a slave while he stood in that relation to Herod, and Simon the one which he adopted when he set himself up as king. The circumstance that a Simon, as is well known, was the first of the Hasmonean family, who bore the princely title, may have had something to do with his choice of this name. Should this conjecture be correct, it becomes then easy to explain why Gamaliel and Josephus have referred to him under different appellations. Gamaliel ascribed to him the name which he had borne for so long a time as a slave at Jerusalem and under which he was known to the members of the Sanhedrim; he called him Theudas because there was no reason for mentioning him under the name Simon, which he had borne a short time in his assumed capacity as king. But Josephus who wrote his historical works for Romans and Greeks, introduced him under the name, under which he once set himself up as king, burnt palaces and castles, and made himself, as we see from Tacitus, extensively renowned. As in the time of the emperor Trajan we have a remarkable example of a seditionist who occurs under two different names, since, as was remarked above, he appears in Dio Cassius as Andreas and in Eusebius as king Lucuas, so we have perhaps a similar example in the time of the emperor Augustus. It is evident from all that has now been said, that in no case can any well founded objection be urged against the accuracy of Gamaliel's speech as reported to us by Luke. If we are not disposed to admit that Josephus committed an oversight in having ascribed incorrectly the name of Theudas to an impostor who appeared under Claudius and Fadus, but consider it more probable that he too has stated the truth in this matter, we have then two Thodases or Theudases,—the one a bold insurrectionist in the time of the emperor Augustus, the other a crafty impostor in the days of the emperor Claudius. We are at liberty, therefore, to adopt either of two conclusions; -we may consider the Theudas mentioned in the Acts as one of the political disturbers mentioned in Josephus under another name, in which case he would be most probably the same person as Simon, the slave of Herod, or as one of those factious men so numerous in that period, whom Josephus, who also passes over other important events, has not expressly mentioned in his works. At all events, we are entitled to hold fast here the consoling assurance that so far as relates to the passage on which we have been remarking, we have no ground whatever to reject the credibility of Luke; on the contrary, he who 1848.] Remarks on a Passage in Plato's Gorgias. 431 wrote the book of the Acts, and as the confidential friend and fellowtraveller of the apostle Paul enjoyed such means for collecting the necessary facts, stands before us with claims to our confidence which still remain, and must ever remain, unimpaired. ARTICLE III. REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN PLATO'S GORGIAS, By T. D. Woolsey, Yale College. Socrates. Οἶσθα, Callicles. Οὐκ οἶδ ̓ ἅττα σοφίζει, ὦ Σώκρατες. ἀλλὰ ἀκκίζει, ὦ Καλλίκλεις. καὶ προϊθί γε ἔτι εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν, ὅτι ἔχων ληρεῖς, ἵνα εἰδῇς ὡς σοφὸς ὤν με νουθετεῖς. οὐχ ἅμα διψῶν τε ἕκαστος πεπαυται καὶ ἅμα ἡδόμενος διὰ τοῦ πίνειν. τι THESE words are intelligible enough in themselves, and there is no uncertainty respecting the text, so far as it depends on manuscript authority. There is however a difficulty in the clause ori exor Angeis, which all the commentators seem to feel. Cornarius proposed to read or exov Angeis, probably on account of the harshness of the parenthesis with or in this place. Coray conjectured őri Exov Angeis. Heindorf's nice tact led him to go deeper into the difficulty, and he expresses himself as follows: "Verbis his out exor Angels quid faciam non video. Calliclem haec sane decerent: (conf. § 100.1) Socratem, leniter ubique et argumentorum vi, non verborum asperitate adversarii nugas convincentem meo quidem judicio parum decent. Tum prorsus pervertunt ironiam in verbis quae statim post inferuntur, iva εions as oogos or μe vovverɛis; atque, ut sunt h. 1. interposita sensu propemodum omni carent.-Nunc nulla mihi relinquitur dubitatio quin alieno loco a librario intrusa sint, in proximis fortasse Callicli sic tribuenda; οὐκ οἶδα ὅτι ἔχων ληρεῖς.” In the appendix to Heindorf's Select Dialogues of Plato (second ed. Berl. 1829), Buttmann acknowledges in part the force of Heindorf's objections, but endeavors to weaken it by the following considerations: "ut aliquo modo vulgatam lectionem tuear, per parenthesin quandam inserta haec accipio, quae sic quoque, et magis sane pro more suo ef He refers to p. 490, D. E. ferre potuerit Plato: Angeis yàp exov. Illa autem, quae est in verbis as cogòs av μe vovvereis ironia, mihi quidem non ita lenis videtur, ut eam graviore hac reprehendendi formula perverti putem." Of Heindorf's argument, drawn from the inconsistency of these words with the character of the Platonic Socrates, he says nothing,-perhaps because he felt that it could not be controverted. Stallbaum in his first Gotha edition (1828) and Ast (Vol. XI. of his Plato, p. 331), adopt the views of Heindorf and include the words in question between brackets. On Buttmann's words, which were just now cited, the former justly observes: Buttmanno tamen omnia sana videntur; nam öri ëxov Angɛis per parenthesin esse insertum, ita ut more usitatiore dici etiam potuerit: ληρεῖς γὰρ ἔχων. Quae ratio haud scio an cuiquam satisfaciat: mihi quidem displicet mirifice." Probably Buttmann meant no more than to make the best defence of words, which he felt to be doubtful. In his second Gotha edition (1840) Stallbaum has deserted his original ground to adopt a remedy for the difficulty suggested by Winckelmann in a note on Euthydemus, 295, C. (Leipzig, 1832). This is a passage where the sophist expresses himself concerning Socrates in language like that which we are considering: οὐκ ἀποκρίνει, ἔφη, πρὸς ἃ ἂν ἀεὶ ὑπολαμβάνῃς, ὅτι ἔχων φλυαρεῖς καὶ ἀρχαιότερος el toù déorros. Winckelmann-after remarking that in Gorgias, 490, τοῦ δέοντος. E. we should point ποῖα υποδήματα; φλυαρεῖς ἔχων, instead of making of the four words one interrogative sentence,-goes on to suggest, that the difficulties in the present passage may be removed by assigning the words καὶ προϊθί γε . . . νουθετείς to Callicles and making Socrates resume his discourse at our dua. Of the sentence beginning at xai he says: "xai in adhortando dici hodie satis constat. V. Matth. p. 1258." Stallbaum in embracing this conjecture says: "quo uno errore" (the error of assigning all the words from Olova to níve to Socrates) dici non potest quam multi alii quamque graves errores prognati sint. De quibus quidem nunc, vero reperto, narrare non attinet. Debetur autem laus omnis hujus inventi Winckelmanno,” etc. Now we think it may be shown that Stallbaum has been led by his guide into an error which he would have avoided by trusting himself to his own soundness of judgment, and familiarity with Plato. For, in the first place, the words as oopòs av μe rovderɛis have no meaning in the mouth of Callicles. Socrates had nowhere been performing this office, but rather sought to lead Callicles by a series of questioning after his usual manner to do it for himself. And,-what is perfectly decisive in the matter,-Socrates had already used the same word in speaking of the discourse of Callicles, p. 488, A: où 1848.] Passage in Plato's Gorgias. 433 οὖν, ὥσπερ ἤρξω νουθετεῖν με, μὴ ἀποστῇς ἀλλ ̓ ἱκανῶς μοι ἔνδειξαι τί ἐστι τοῦτο ὃ ἐπιτηδευτέον μοι. The speech of Callicles containing this vovvéznois extends from 482, C. to 486, D, and contains the germ of the remainder of the dialogue. The latter part of it especially, from 484, C. onwards, contains advice given in a lofty and even contemptuous tone; and is several times referred to by Socrates. 2. xai ngóidí ye, containing an exhortation to advance in the argument is unsuited to Callicles, who wishes all the while, and especially here, to close it. It will not do to say that Callicles utters these words maliciously, hoping to involve Socrates in absurdities; for two lines before he sees the conclusion coming down on himself and tries to escape from it by the words οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι σοφίρει ; and his next words, ovx oida ő zi kéɣes, so far from helping Socrates forward are a positive refusal to answer. 3. By the division of the words between the speakers, which Winckelmann proposes, an abruptness of transition is introduced which appears to us wholly unauthorized. Give xai ngói to Socrates, and it naturally leads on to what he had just said. The use of xai then will resemble that in many other places where the sentence is earnest, and either of the interrogative or imperative kind. But give these words to Callicles-a new speaker, and we think that it will be hard to defend xai by parallel places or by a logical explanation. And so aua xai comes in without giving the slightest notice that a new speaker begins. This might be allowed, if the preceding words of themselves indicated such altering. But they tell so little about it, that Socrates if he begins at oux aux pays not the least respect to the words which had been just spoken by his antagonist. We conclude then that the new way of marking the dialogue here is altogether inadmissible. And on the other hand we are far from thinking that we can remove the difficulty in ὅτι ἔχων ληρείς, which has troubled so many persons. They look wholly unlike a gloss, containing, as they do, a very choice and idiomatic expression. They are not entirely suited to the person of Socrates. Heindorf's conjecture that they were thrust out of their place in the text by ő vɩ kéyɛis in the sentence οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι λέγεις, and that then they crept back from the margin into a wrong place may be entitled to some favor. And yet it supposes two processes, for neither of which there is diplomatic evidence. Since then they form a part of the text and are spoken of by Socrates, we must look around to find some apology for his uttering words so little in accordance with his character. That apology can be found only in the fact that he is merely hurling back the words of a provoking adversary. Callicles had used similar expressions VOL. V. No. 19. 37 |