^{page 152 note 1} Especially Robin, L. in his introduction to this dialogue in the Budé collection (Paris 1933)Google Scholar (vide particularly pp. clx–clxxv). Cf. , Raeder, Platons philosophische Entwickelung (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 265–279Google Scholar .

^{page 153 note 1} It is perhaps worth pointing out that Plato had already done something of the kind before (though the imitation is not there so obvious or specific) in the Symposium, where the interrogation of Agathon is in fact a criticism of his encomium of ”Epws and leads up to the discourse of Diotima, which is the ‘fair copy’.

^{page 154 note 1} Isocrates did not apparently always insist the on this condition, and he does not do so in the Busiris, so that perhaps the reference here to the Helen may be considered to be the more explicit.

^{page 155 note 1} About this discourse of Socrates there is one small point which is of interest if not of great significance. The comparison of the soul with a chariot had already been made by Isocrates. It may be a case of unconscious plagiarism and Plato has certainly made the simile his own, but the following passage does occur in the Ad Dmonicum (9 A3), where Isocrates is talking of the evil effects of wine: ὃτɑν γ⋯ρ ⋯ νο⋯ς ὺο⋯ς ⋯ο⋯ς ὺπ' οῳἴν διαɸθαρ⋯, ταὐτ⋯ <⋯σ?ɛι τθῖς τοὐς τοῖς ⋯νι⋯ονς ⋯<οβα⋯σιν. ⋯ψεῖν⋯ γ⋯ρ ⋯τ⋯ως ɸ⋯ρɛται ɸ⋯ρɛται διαμαρτ⋯νοντα τῷν ɛὐθν⋯ντων, ἤ τɛ ψν?⋯ <οο⋯ σɸ⋯οοɛται διιɸθαρɛ⋯σης τ⋯ς διανοδας.

^{page 155 note 2} Alternatively, the τ⋯ν <ολιτικ⋯ν who insulted Lysias by calling him a λογογρ⋯ɸος may represent Isocrates. The effect is the same, namely that Isocrates is not entitled to distinguish himself from λογογρ⋯ɸοι.

^{page 155 note 3} 276 E.

^{page 156 note 1} Cf. Evagoras 191 A-B.

^{page 157 note 1} The relevance of the discourse of Socrates, and of its myth, to the rest of the dialogue now becomes more evident. It is an outstanding example of Plato's thesis that knowledge of the subject and a strict regard for essential truth result in a fine discourse.

^{page 159 note 1} The Phaedrus is certainly not an early work. It must have been published after the Ad Nicoclem of Isocrates, to which it refers (v. supra), and the Ad Nicoclem cannot have been published before 374, the year in which Nicocles succeeded his father Evagoras, and probably appeared about 372. The Nicocles, published a few years later, opens with a long attack on those who decry oratory, and this may be Isocrates' attempt to reply to the Phaedrus. The date of the Phaedrus would then fall between the dates of these two works of Isocrates, that is approximately between 372 and 368.