éva theiw Kat moo’ drra. Met. xi. 8, 1083 a 25,
arorov yap 7 év pev elval Te mpOrov Tay Evav Gomep
éxeivol daot.... Such a remark gives a force to
Tov anavtwv, and marks his line of argt.:—If this one
is but a sample of the entire number, and the whole
is not in it, how after that will it be in all the ones
together? He seems to be back for the moment
at the old argt. on the particip. of «Sy. Has he
made out his contention? It would have been
more to the point to have urged that a whole when
reached is a new creature, and that to speak of it
as in all its parts is to disintegrate and destroy it.
d yap ... 8 gery a8ivarov: The ‘which is imposs.’
would have justified jv for ef. The lang. recalls
Euclid, e.g. 1. 39, 76 ABT’ dpa tpiywvov 7@ EBT ivov
éoriv, To petfov TO eAdooon, drep éoriv ddbvarov,

») bv 8 etc. One would almost expect another
step in the argt. Thus pa dv 8... rd dAov [ove ev
éauTp eoriv: ob ydp: pi dv & év Eau] odk dvdyxn
év érépw etc.
pySapod piv etc. Thus the év dv as dAov exists
under conditions of space and (as we shall see
151 E) time, and is not an e/dos. See also 151A.
év &AAw is repeated twice and is preceded and
followed by év érépw with no diff. of meaning.
7a wavta...(sc. To év) Tuyxdvet, One would look
for 6v:; but ‘cave corrigas ov. Sic solent Graeci
et verba et participia praegresso proxime nomini
accommodare. Menon. p. 91 C, otroi ye havepd errs
Ad By te Kat SiapOopa Tov cvyytyvopevwv.’ Heind.
