μὲν δὴ νομοθέτην ὁ θεὸς οὐ μέμψεται. κείσθω γὰρ ὁ νόμος οὗτος, μὴ κεκτῆσθαι θεῶν ἐν ἰδίαις οἰκίαις ἱερά· τὸν δὲ φανέντα κεκτημένον ἕτερα καὶ ὀργιάζοντα πλὴν τὰ δημό σια, ἐὰν μὲν ἄδικον μηδὲν τῶν μεγάλων καὶ ἀνοσίων εἰρ γασμένος ἀνὴρ ἢ καὶ γυνὴ κεκτῆταί τις, ὁ μὲν αἰσθόμενος καὶ εἰσαγγελλέτω τοῖς νομοφύλαξιν, οἱ δὲ προσταττόντων εἰς τὰ δημόσια ἀποφέρειν ἱερὰ τὰ ἴδια, μὴ πείθοντες δὲ ζημιούντων, ἕως ἂν ἀπενεχθῇ. ἐὰν δέ τις ἀσεβήσας μὴ παιδίων ἀλλ' ἀνδρῶν ἀσέβημα ἀνοσίων γένηται φανερός, εἴτε ἐν ἰδίοις ίδρυσάμενος, εἴτε ἐν δημοσίοις θύσας ἱερὰ θεοἷς οἷστισινοῦν, ὡς οὐ καθαρὸς ὢν θύων, θανάτῳ ζημιούσα θω· τὸ δὲ, παιδίων ἢ μή, κρίναντες νομοφύλακες, εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον οὕτως εἰσαγαγόντες, τὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας δίκην τούτοις ἐπιτελούντων.

folly in Israel. The same sentiment may often be found in the Greek poets. Compare, especially, Hesiod, Works and Days, 223:

Πολλάκι καὶ ξύμπασα πόλις κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀπηύρα,

ὅστις ἀλιτραίνει καὶ ἀτάσθαλα μηχανάαται.
τοῖσιν δ ̓ οὐρανόθεν μέγ' ἐπήλασε πῆμα Κρονίων,
λιμὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ λοιμόν· ἀποφθινύθουσι δὲ λαοί.
οὐδὲ γυναῖκες τίκτουσιν· μινύθουσι δὲ οἶκοι,
Ζηνὸς φραδμοσύνησιν Ὀλυμπίου· ἄλλοτε δ' αὖτε
ἢ τῶν γε στρατὸν εὐρὺν ἀπώλεσεν, ἢ ὄγε τεῖχος,
ἢ νέας ἐν πόντῳ Κρονίδης ἀποτίνυται αὐτῶν.

EXTENDED NOTES

AND

DISSERTATIONS,

SUGGESTED BY PASSAGES IN THE TEXT, ON SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL
POINTS OF THE

PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY,

ESPECIALLY AS COMPARED WITH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES;

TOGETHER WITH

SOME EXPLANATIONS OF DIFFICULT PASSAGES AT GREATER LENGTH THAN WOULD BE CONVENIENT IN MARGINAL OBSERVATIONS.

:

EXTENDED NOTES

AND

DISSERTATIONS.

I.

The Platonic View of the Parental and Filial Relations, and the Ancient Doctrine generally on this Subject.

PAGE 2, LINE 8. 'Eis dè yovéas. A misconception of the end and scope of the Republic, or, as it should be more properly styled, The Dialogue on the Nature of Right or Righteousness (TEрì dikaίov), has subjected the name of Plato to great reproach. He has been charged with maintaining, in the fifth book of that dialogue, sentiments which, if carried out, would result in the utter overthrow of all the domestic relations. A defence, had we space for it here, might be derived from the peculiar parabolical or allegorical nature of that work, and from the evident absence of any design that it should serve as the model of any actual existing polity. Whether, however, this be regarded as a right view of the Republic or not, and whatever we may think of the justice of the charge to which he may there be thought to have exposed himself, there can be no doubt that in this treatise (πɛρì vóμwv), in which he means to appear in the character of a serious legislator for a really practicable, if not existing state, he takes special pains to remove the reproach to which, even in his own day, he had been subjected on account of the passages referred to. This long dialogue on legislation was the work of his old age, and in it he strives to set in the highest light the sanctity of the domestic, and especially the filial and pa