[Footnote 68: Plato, Republ. iii. p. 389 B; compare ii. p. 382 C.

Dähne (Darstellung der Jüdisch-Alexandrin. Religions-Philosophie, i. pp. 48-56) sets forth the motives which determined the new interpretations of the Pentateuch by the Alexandrine Jews, from the translators of the Septuagint down to Philo. In the view of Philo there was a double meaning: the literal meaning, for the vulgar: but also besides this, there was an allegorical, the real and true meaning, discoverable only by sagacious judges. Moses (he said) gave the literal meaning, though not true, [Greek: pro\s tê\n tô=n pollô=n didaskali/an. Manthane/tôsan ou)=n pa/ntes oi( toiou=toi ta= pseudê=, di' ô(=n ô)phelêthê/sontai, ei) mê\ du/nantai di' a)lêthei/as sôphroni/zesthai] (Philo, Quæst. in Genesin, ap. Dähne, p. 50). Compare also Philo, on the [Greek: kano/nes kai\ no/moi tê=s a)llêgori/as], Dähne, pp. 60-68.

Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, 3rd ed. Volume IV (of 4) — Part 167

Herakleitus (Allegoriæ Homericæ ed. Mehler, 1851) defends Homer warmly against the censorial condemnation of Plato. Herakleitus contends for an allegorical interpretation, and admits that it is necessary to find one. He inveighs against Plato in violent terms. [Greek: E)r)r(i/phthô de\ kai\ Pla/tôn o( ko/lax], &c.

Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, 3rd ed. Volume IV (of 4) — Part 167

Isokrates (Orat. Panathen. s. 22-28) complains much of the obloquy which he incurred, because some opponents alleged that he depreciated the poets, especially Homer and Hesiod.]

Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, 3rd ed. Volume IV (of 4) — Part 167

[Footnote 69: Plato, Repub. iii. pp. 389 B, 414 C.]

[Footnote 70: Plato, Repub. iii. p. 414 B-C. [Greek: Ti/s a)\n ou)=n ê(mi=n mêchanê\ ge/noito tô=n pseudô=n tô=n e)n de/onti gignome/nôn, ô(=n nu=n dê\ e)le/gomen, gennai=o/n ti e(\n pseudome/nous pei=sai, ma/lista me\n kai\ au)tou\s tou\s a)/rchontas, ei) de\ mê/, tê\n a)/llên po/lin? Poi=on ti? Mêde\n kaino/n, a)lla\ Phoinikiko/n ti, _pro/teron me\n ê)/dê pollachou= gegono/s_, ô(s phasin oi( poiêtai\ kai\ pepei/kasin, e)ph' ê(mô=n de\ ou) gegono\s ou)d' oi)=da ei) geno/menon a)/n, pei=sai de\ suchnê=s peithou=s.] Compare De Legg. pp. 663-664.]

[Side-note: Difficulty of procuring first admission for fictions. Ease with which they perpetuate themselves after having been once admitted.]

Plato fully admits the extreme difficulty of procuring a first introduction and establishment for this new article of faith, which nevertheless is indispensable to set his commonwealth afloat. But if it can be once established, there will be no difficulty at all in continuing and perpetuating it.[71] Even as to the first commencement, difficulty is not to be confounded with impossibility: for the attempt has already been made with success in many different places, though there happens to be no recent instance.