^{page 177 note 1} I shall use this word of those who administer the marriage regulations.

^{page 177 note 2} This paper, being interpretative only, does not touch upon the historical background of Plato's scheme.

^{page 178 note 1} Republic, 460e–461e.

^{page 178 note 2} Classical Review, IV. 6–8.

^{page 179 note 1} Republic, 461e.

^{page 181 note 1} Ούκοûν Éάν Τε πρεσβύΤερος ΤούΤων έάν Τε νεώΤερος Τŵν είς Τó κοινòν γεννήσεων áψηΤαι, οϋΤε ϋσιον οϋΤε δίκαιον φήσομεν Τò άμάρΤημα… This refers to a certain act, and not to the purpose of the act. Indeed, it is beyond the power of any individual to try to get his child into the fold Τών γεννήσεων is abstract for concrete Τών… σεννωσών.

^{page 181 note 2} Even the disposition of children is left to them, though there is no doubt of the wishes of the archons (see part III.).

^{page 181 note 3} Adam's remark that the relations named here are in the direct line, and that Greek law permitted marriages between uncle and niece on the father's side is not in point. As the sole relationships recognized in the guardian family will be those of parent and child, or brother and sister, the only question is why Plato specifies the former here and omits the latter. Nor is it relevant to mention the ‘revolting views’ of the Cynics on the marriage of blood relations. Both of these references treat the Platonic scheme in terms of consanguinity, which is not in question.

^{page 182 note 1} See the interpretation of rule (7) below.

^{page 183 note 1} Cf. 382c, 389b.

^{page 183 note 2} Tim. 18c. μηχανωμένους őπως… νομιοūσιν δΈ πάνΤες πάνΤας αύΤούς όμογΕνΕϊς κ.Τ.λ (cf. Rep. 460c) Note the use in 18c of μηχανãσθαι about the lots. Also Rep. 415c of the myth of the four races.

^{page 183 note 3} As this conception must seem somewhat unreal, it may be illustrated on a small scale by the feeling of many people about the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. They argued that the Bill disturbed the comfortable custom whereby the wife's sister could bring up her brother-in-law's children without suspicion of indecorum. Even if they did not believe in the religious sanction, they thought it a convenient δόξα. This appeared to be the view of the leader of one of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches. Now some of Plato's guardians might hold the belief like Lord Hugh Cecil and others like Mr. Matthew Arnold, but either attitude would serve his purpose. In the light of English experience, we should not too hastily call Plato's device visionary.

^{page 183 note 4} The strict limitation of marriage in a circumambient atmosphere of κοινωνία is a direct corollary of the thesis about the nature of ‘same’ and ‘different’ in the first wave. There Plato argued that the difference of sex was an incident in natures that were essentially alike, because capable of the same έπιΤηδεύμαΤα. He therefore makes of the difference a special restricted function in order to give full scope for the ‘guardian’ function. Are not Jowett and Campbell, followed by Adam, mistaken in taking 456b to refer to the marriage of guardians? They suppose that Plato recommends guardians who are like in nature (συγγενεîς) to marry, and the Oxford editors find that this passage contradicts the Politicus and Laws. But the passage simply concludes from the previous argument that like natures shall live and exercise guardianship together (συνοικεîν και συμϕυλάΤΤειν). συνοικεêν is qualified by the word that follows, and refers to the common life, not to cohabitation as in 457d or 461e. This seems to be certified by the question in 451d, to which the answer is given here—πóΤερα σ υ μ φ υ λ ά Τ Τ ε ι ν οίόμεθα δεîν âπερ âνοι âρρενες ϕυλάΤΤωσι… και τâλλα κονñ πράΤΤειν, ñ Τάς μέν ο ι κ ο ν ρ ε î ν Ê ν δ ο ν, ώς άδυνάΤους διά Τòν Των σκυλάκων Τόκον Τε και Τροφν κ.Τ.λ.; Of course the women are to bear children for the men, but the relevant question is whether they are to share their full life; συνικεîν is the alternative finally preferred to οικορεîν Êνδον.

^{page 184 note 1} Jowett and Campbell.

^{page 184 note 2} ‘It is strange,’ says Richards, ‘that Plato should say “ if the lot so fall” because it could not fall otherwise.’ But the function of the lot was to fall upon this brother and that sister (ΤαύΤη). Otherwise no brother could touch any sister. The condition is necessary in view of the veto imposed in the previous clause.

^{page 184 note 3} The mention of the ιεροι γάμοι also appears to link Plato's innovation with the immemorial feast held at Athens in Γαμήλιον, at the σύνοδος of sun and moon.

^{page 185 note 1} I may add a word on a criticism of Aristotle's, which presupposes some of the confusions referred to above. He asks how crimes against a relative can be guarded against or expiated when the author does not know his father or mother; this will be especially difficult, he thinks, owing to the interchange between classes, where new-comers will not feel themselves full members of the class and will be more likely to commit such crimes. The answer is that Plato's system made any crime against a fellow-citizen, and particularly against another guardian, an impious act. As the greater includes the less, impieties done in ignorance are now impossible, since all citizens are όμολενεîς (378c…ούδ' έσΤι ΤοûΤο δσιον κ.Τ.λ., 415a, and for guardians e.g. 463C-d). Plato's scheme might be open to the criticism that impieties would be common—though constant training (378c) and the religious δόξαι were to inhibit them—but there could be no unconscious impieties. But of course Aristotle argues from the ordinary religious feeling of the day. In truth, the force of the first two waves was expended in order to secure the ideal which Aristotle sets up against the community of women— φιλíαν Τε γάρ οιóμεθα μÉγισΤον ειναι Τών άγαθών Τα7icirc;ς πόλεσιν (Pol. B. 4. 1262b 7). κοινωνια is simply Plato's word for the spiritual relationship that Aristotle called ϕιλια.

^{page 185 note 2} Compare Τό μέν ώφέλιμον καγόν [457b] with συχνώ Τώ ψεύδει και Τή άπάΤη κινδυνεύει ήμîν δεήσειν χρήσθαι Τούς άρχόνΤας È π ώ φ ε λ ι α Τ ώ ν ά ρ χ ο μ έ ν ω ν [459c].

^{page 185 note 3} How far did the prohibitions apply to those over their prime? Just as far as Plato laid down. He was careful to secure that these unions should have no offspring, but they did not interfere with marriage or with the σηκός which were his main care. He could hardly have contemplated a general breakdown of sanctions, but in Book V. he is legislating solely for the protection of marriage.

^{page 186 note 1} For literature, see Adam, , Republic, I. p. 357Google Scholar, and notes on Book V.

^{page 186 note 2} 19a. και μήν δΤι γε Τά μέν Τών άγαθών θρεπΤέον Ěφαμεν ειναι, Τά δÈ Τών κακών εις Τήν άλλην λάθρ διαδοΤέον πόλιν έ π α υ ξ α ν ο μ έ ν ω ν δέ σκοποûνΤας άει Τούς άνάγειν δεîν, Τούς δέ παρά σφισιν άναξιους εις Τήν Τών έπανιόνΤων χώραν μεΤαλλάΤΤειν.

^{page 187 note 1} 450c. Compare the common phrase Τροφή και παιδεια e.g. 423e, 424a, 451d, nothing the force of άποδιδόνΤες in the last passage.

^{page 187 note 2} Lectures on the Republic of Palto, p. 174.

^{page 187 note 3} Vita Lycurgi, XVI. His discussion appears to show the influence of the Republic.

^{page 188 note 1} This is conclusive against the view that the Timaeus refers solely to Book III.

^{page 188 note 2} It is not to the point to ask whether Aristotle was justified in supposing that new-born children of other classes were at once admitted to the σηκός. All that matters is whether he interpreted Plato like Adam in respect to infanticide, since Adam claims his support. It is clear that he understood the interchange between classes to begin at birth. Since the guardians would supply plenty of physically fit children for the σηκός, here is no need to suppose that the offspring of farmers and artisans were promoted till the education began. This is the inference to make from the Timaeus and Book III.

^{page 188 note 3} This interpretation gains some support from the parallel phrase in 1288b 20—έξ άρχής Τε πώς ήν γένοιΤο [πολιΤεια] και γενομένέ Τινα Τρόπον άν σώοιΤο πλεîσΤον χρόνον. Here the word seems to mean, not ‘saved from destruction,’ but ‘preserved in its proper type.’

^{page 188 note 4} Cf. 459a where the animal analogy is explained, the worse being good—καίπερ ôνΤων γενναίων.

^{page 189 note 1} If it is asked why a summary should specify more clearly than its original, the answer lies in the purpose of each passage. Book V. was interested solely in the qualifications admitting infants to the fold, and the clauses dealing with the excluded had to cover more than one case. But the summary had to draw together two passages which showed the distribution of all the children of guardians both at birth and after. Its question is, ‘How and where will any particular child of guardian birth serve the city?’

^{page 189 note 2} Jowett. Since the Timaeus echoes Book V., Plato could not forget.

^{page 189 note 3} Zeller. It is not reasonable to look for a change of mind in a synopsis which is otherwise accurate. A summary ceases to be itself when it contradicts its original.

^{page 189 note 4} Adam.

^{page 189 note 5} Usener and Brandt.