^{page 232 note 2} The passage has been discussed by: StÖcklein, Paul, ‘Über die philosophische Bedeutung von Platons Mythen’, Philologin Suppl. xxx (1937), 31–2;Google ScholarSchuhl, P.-M.. ‘Line machine á peser les âmes’, La Fabulation Platonicienne (Paris, 1947), 105–8;Google Scholar id. Un cauchemar de Platon?', Revue Philo. sophique de la France et de l'ÉTranger, cxliii (1953), 420–2Google Scholar (also in id., Études Platoniciennes [Paris, 1960], 85–9)Google Scholar; P. Kucharski, ‘Observations sur le myth des Lois 903^b905d’, Bull. Ass. Butte, G., Lettres d'Humanite xiii (1954), 31–50Google Scholar (reprinted in id., Aspects de la Speculation Platonicienne [Paris, 1971], 73–96)Google Scholar; Rahe, Heribert, Giittliche Epimeleia (diss. Tubingen 1968), 124Google Scholar ff. The very brief remarks of Gerhard Müller, Studien zu den Platonischen Nomoi (2nd edition, Munchen, 1968), 96Google Scholar, seem to me on the right lines; so too those of Crombie, A. C., An Examination of Plato's Doctrines i (London, 1962), 384, who cautiously adds, ‘It seems to me that it is anybody's guess just what this passage means.’Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} Gorgias 523 a ff.; Phaedo 107 a ff. (cf. 80 d ff.); Phaedrus 246 a ff.; Republic 614 a ff.

^{page 234 note 1} e.g. 903 d 7 et saepe; 904 b 7; 904 c 9; 904 d 1–2; and esp. 905 a 5–7….

^{page 234 note 2} Cf. Müller 72–3.

^{page 234 note 3} Cf. Theaetetus 177 a,.

^{page 234 note 4} The notion of ‘supervision’ is pervasive: 900 C 8, d 2; 901 b 1, 3, C 3, 4, 6; 902 a 37, c 2, 10, d 3, e 9; 903 b 5, e 3; 904 a 4 905 d 2. (I take this list from É. des Places; ‘Deux témoins du texte des Lois de Platon’, W.S. lxx [1957], 256–7.) Personal inter vention, however, is carefully limited: 903 d 5–6….Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 5} (903 b 6), (903 b 8), (903 b 9–c 1), (904 b 2), (904 b 6), and (905 a 3) suggest that the system, whatever it is, was arranged once and for all.

^{page 234 note 6} (904 c 7), (904 c 9), (904. d I), (904d 8), (904 e 2), (905 a 8). If (904 b 7), (904 d 8), and (905 b I) imply an external agency, we need not suppose that it is personal rather than automatic and mechanical. For the most part, the movements seem simply to ‘happen’.

^{page 235 note 1} e.g. 854 d-e, 862 c, 933 e-934 b, 941 e 942 a.

^{page 235 note 2} e.g. 863 a-864 b, 908 a ff., 910 c-d, 934 a-b, 938 b-c.

^{page 235 note 3} 866 d ff., and the homicide law passim.

^{page 235 note 4} 863 d, cf. 910 c-d.

^{page 235 note 5} e.g. 909 a, 940 e.

^{page 235 note 6} e.g. 854 e, 879 e, 945 e-942 a.

^{page 235 note 7} 862 d (surely the most remarkable penology to be found in the ancient world).

^{page 235 note 8} e.g. 862 e.

^{page 235 note 9} 845 b, 909 a.

^{page 235 note 10} 10 876 e-877 a is a telling example.

^{page 236 note 1} I hope to examine the confusions systematically in due course, as part of a comprehensive account of Plato's penology in the context of the history of Greek ideas about the nature and purpose of punishment.

^{page 236 note 2} See the apparent dissatisfaction with myth at Gorgias 527 a.

^{page 236 note 3} Note that even Aeacus and Rhadamanthus can be in doubt (Gorgias 524 a).

^{page 237 note 1} StOcklein's ‘sc.’ is unnecessary and misleading (op. cit. 36).

^{page 239 note 1} Cf. note no. 98 in my Notes on the Laws of Plato (B.I.C.S. Suppl. 28, 1972).

^{page 239 note 2} e 5; 904 b 5, 6, 903 b 4–5, c 1–2, c 4, d 2; cf. 905 b 7.

^{page 239 note 3} Kucharski, P., Étude sur la doctrine pythagoricienne de la tétrade (Paris, 1952), Appendice II, 71–4, contains a useful discussion of the passage.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 1} See the list of discussions at the beginning of the article.

^{page 240 note 2} So too in essence Kerschensteiner, Jula, Platon and der Orient (Stuttgart, 1945), – I.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 1} See now Theophilus Beikos, ‘Heraclitus’ fr. 52', i (1971), 154–75, esp. 167–8 on our passage.

^{page 241 note 2} The precise nature of the game is obscure: see Austin, R. G., ‘Greek Board Games’, Antiquity xiv (1940), 257–71. (I owe this reference to Prof. E. R. Dodds.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} Whether one thinks something more is meant will depend on the interpretation of fr. 52.

^{page 241 note 4} See Kirk, G. S., ‘Heraclitus and Death in Battle’, A.J.Ph. lxx (1949), 384–93.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} Cf. Muller, op. cit. 96.

^{page 243 note 1} This line of criticism of Heraclitus (or Heracliteans) is obviously all of a piece with that which we find in the Cratylus and Theaetetus.

^{page 243 note 2} Mugler, Charles, La Physique de Platon (Paris, 1960), 54 R. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Note how the is temporarily ‘faded out’ by words which profess to introduce an explanation of (903 e 3), and then ‘faded in’ again, once the point has been made, on the same note (, 904 a 3).

^{page 244 note 2} One oddity I notice is the full use made of reincarnation in the esoteric Timaeus, by contrast with the way it is apparently played down in the relatively popular Laws 10. Perhaps by now Plato thought the doctrine too easily ridiculed (cf. 885 c and Gorgias 527 a).

^{page 244 note 3} ‘A new look at Heraclitus’, American Philosophical Quarterly i. 3 (1964), n. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 4} Cf. F. Solmsen, Plato's Theology, 156.