2.3.3 Symposium ( 97v – 108v)


the preference which Robin called attention to his editions now alas superseded by  Bude editing is confirmed here:

SUDA (10th cent.) — ai. ei, oi all as separate diphthongs

13.vii.20   this clip from Aristotle’s fragment 313 has some remaining fixes needed.  Please be patient while this fixing proceeds…   I judge that frag. 313 contains various significant pointers.  toward the idea of using ‘athroisma’ as metaphor for a foregathering of — or an anticipation of –universalisation as in the Posterior Analytics , work going on at Early Academy.  This exemplifies the  Early Academy’s ‘joint search dialectic’ on cases we may call ‘amia’ or ‘deprived of its loner status’:   work towards a new view, echoed in Timaeus repeatedly, of the meaning of ‘katholou’ This puts the new amia- or the athroisis-concept into an unfamiliar place from a logical point of view —- a non-singular, alongside others within items logically more generic, but in a way opposite to the ‘One’ and ‘Singular’.    But this in turn puts the Amia and universality forward as the ‘always or for the most part’ formula so common in Aristotle, thus a ‘flocking’ universal,  like so many  summer swallows.   Logically, then, it forms a part of the ‘ Dyad of greater-or-lesser’ and is a non-loner alongside its flock, the newly formed near-Universal.   Are the origins Pythagorean ?    Perhaps even Theban, relayed by Philip from Opus ?

amiai in Aristotle fragment 313. and EN ‘s loner Pythag swallow proverb r2


Use of a ‘chisel’ is connected — not very indirectly — with Plato’s ‘gold example’.    The man performing deceitfulness wants to take unfair advantage of gold’s foundational feature, its having no least part, but is rather a universal in every ‘shaving’ or ‘comma’, their foundational feature being ‘like every other shaving, and like the whole gold coin, it is pure gold.’   Anaxagorean form of ‘abstraction’  under surveillance here ?  Eudoxus wanting the least part, if any there be, of the Idea of Whiteness being fundamentally like all others, and like the Whole Idea, Whiteness Itself, mixed together with things such as are large enough to escape the ‘unperceivably small’ or obscure-to-sense.   Eudoxus’s theorems now in Euclid XII, 3 and 5 are explicitly ‘homoiomeric’ about solids, and their infinitely continued subdivisions.  Shavings we may call the below-notice levels of this continued ‘salva qualitate’ level of smallness inside the mix.

Plato refers at Timaeus 52b2 to a certain ‘logismos nothos’, combined with ‘anaesthesia’.  Interpreters often think him referring to aesthesis rather than to an-aesthesis.   But he may be pointing in this very direction and to the Eudoxan theory of forms, alluded to in Parmenides.   Again the evidences are written.

OED s v ‘chisel’, colloquial verb, relating to coins in Roman times, r2



17.vi.20    I am in hopes now that Debra Nails will want to meet ‘Younger Euthyphro,’ cameo appearance just one chapter before beginning of LAWS XIII :

Younger Euthyphro concept or conceit, DeMundo7 evidences

LAWS XII,14 & Younger Euthyphro de mundo 7, postscripts


This image below is of course not of any palaeological significance whatever.   But yet it achieves the status of a special sort of artefact, recognised in one of the more refined stages of division in Plato’s Sophist.  Plato calls this subdivision of making-of-images by the descriptive phrase:: ‘historical icon [i.e. undistorted] within the mimetic art’s division.   The scroll’s uncial characters echo Heiberg’s edition of the writing by Theaetetus.  It is a point of (artificial) fact that it is this very man’s right hand you see holding the scroll [recall Aristotle’s conceding that a statue might be homonymously called ‘a man’].  Here you have this man’s own right hand:


Tht’s scroll, annotated

Do try a search, O Reader, in this test file from Symposium, inside TLG0059,

It is a difficult old code, but the best now widely available: beta-code of the TLG’s text of SYMPOSIUM.

It is in the user-friendly form of a MS Word listing of textual lines.   Do click on it if you have ‘WORD’ in some recent version; then kindly follow these 6 steps :

  1. after seeing the numbered file, beginning from start of Euthyphro at line 1,    then–
  2. type (cntrl) + f, or the standard way of saying ‘I am trying to find all occurrences of this following word or phrase…’    then–
  3. try to get a good response by first look in upper left corner of your screen for an open rectangular box, which will be awaiting your reply, below word Navigation then–
  4. try as a first example typing into this box these 4 characters:        a)ei   This, as you know, is Plato’s favorite way of saying our ‘always’ or ‘forever’.   Presto change-o then–
  5. see if you don’t get a response, where all of this first page of results are highlighted for you, and finally then–
  6. See if you can scroll down through successive pages, until
  7. you have seen all 37 specimens in Symp. of [the OCT 1995- their variant of ‘always’, which is identical to this TLG variant of] Plato’s word for ‘always’, h.e.  A)EI.

In Greek this 3-letter variant looks like this, (after the final  grave-accent has been re-added):


Here is my own — much boosted and much TAL modified — rendition of their text, with my line numbering and the likely page numbers from OCT’ s forthcoming Tomus II, inserted by myself:


TLG0059, Sympall, r3

[30.x.19] Prof. Joseph Arel of No. Arizona State has published an insightful piece elaborating on recollection in Meno and bringing in connections between self-awareness and blindness averted or inverted.   He does this with much vigor and clarity and makes ample references to Derrida on the ‘aveugle’ Here, in this pair of links, you will see a set of curious signs of A. De Morgan’s achieving  deeply witty results with subjects in ancient physics, especially Thales.  He plays artfully on a word like ‘niemand‘ and/or Odysseus’s adopted proper name : ‘ou-tis‘   Odysseus is not often credited with a Sisyphus kind of  wit there in Polyphemus;s epic auditorium.   The giant’s infinite appetite (alas for us all, anthropophagous !) is heard to reach its end with this very mortal — with Outis.    Thales’s publications  are the front of the atomists’s physics, h.e.  the ou- part of their ou-den. A major point Slings was fond of in his interpreting of Rep. was his bringing out the elaborate wordplay on ‘ourano’ and soundalike words, related to seeing.  Here Slings can rely on the strength of the witty byplay, in that Plato’s text confesses to the peccadillo in point.   That is the little prank on the reader which is to shift about amongst the cognate sounds and near-cognate meanings.  Here in our Anglo-America it is customary to have speakers offering their ‘apologies’ for seeming to perpetrate a pun or play a trick of words.   And clearly in Plato’s Athens one could find those offended by exhibits of philological theatrics.    Plato locates this wicked word-play in the penultimate chapter of the key middle Book 5 of his masterwork, Republic.   Notice Plato’s signalling his own self-consciousness and conscientiousness over this  remark near this seeing-or-heaven passage: εἰπὼν σοι σοφίζεσθαι περὶ τὸ ὄνομα [509d3]  [=  ‘I seem to you to be speaking a sophism over the word.’ ] In the myth at the end of Phaedo, recall, the soul is meant to see with newfound power after being freed from its erstwhile body; it is calculated to be advantaged with a new heaven-specific clarity.   One will see well soon enough (I might put it into idiomatic French.) Plato’s own wit, especially when challenged by his two students Aristotle and Philip of Opus, gave rise to published writing.   To include the π. κοσμου.   I judge the little work to have been authored by Philp of Opus, a.k.a. Younger Socrates.   Some of my arguments are supplied elsewhere.  In any case this work makes efforts at witty etymologies, especially in its seventh and final chapter, analysing the names of gods.  I refer to Chapt.. 7 of the π. κοσμου (=De Mundo). One argument is as follows.   We are entitled to a good decipherment of the little anacoluthon of our best texts of Timaeus 28b, a little aside which  seems to be executing a play of wit:   call your book what you may, they both look to me to be about The All.   This little aside continues ‘. . . or whatever else we may opt to entitle it’.   The text uses the optative of urbanity here, a usage which earned the title optativus urbanitatis.  It is a common urbanity within Plato, often one he has issuing from an Athenian and addressing another speaker from that same city.    But it is just as fitting if a Londoner such as Jonathan Barnes is addressing a fellow Oxonian J. Annas.    Something we might imagine Plato to have added here might read this way :  ‘. . .my good and early editors might one day want to add the alternate title :  π. πύσεως ( p, Physews ) . This last title would match nicely our Timaeus phrase ‘or whatever else we may opt to name it’  Were Plato to emulate Philodemus and his tradition he might opt for the Latin version, De [rerum] Natura.    Each of you two, my early academic disciples may opt differently, Aristotle in certifiable fact opting for  Π. οὐρανοῦ  (De Caelo) and Philip on my authorship hypothesis Π. κόσμου   It now appears in Aristotle’s Bekker edition, the roughly 10 Bekker pages prior to and including the final theological chapter, on p. 401.  There continues to be lively scholarly debate, including by J. Barnes of France about its true authorship.  A moderate view mediating between those who have it written centluries after Aristotle, and the extreme view that it comes directly from Aristotle is the position here:  it comes direct from Aristotle’s early days at the Academy, near to the date of his DeCaelo, from the hand neither of Aristotle nor his famous teacher.  Rather from the teacher assigned him by the Vita Marciana, Socrates Alternate. An additional follower of Plato, Holger Thesleff, has for many decades now admired Plato’s wit.   There are many of us Plato-admirers, both “Quick and Dead”  as A.E. Taylor wrote.  He exercised a specialist wit in thus including himself as one amongst the dedicatees, even today.   Some of us are still quick today.  Plato, the man and his work.    One can reasonably say even that Holger is a major participant in the Ideal of Platonic Wit.   Thesleff’s admiration of Plato is very durable indeed, and he exhibits many of the virtues of Plato-lovers all.   A notable virtue, which Thesleff is witty in his own naming of it.    I feel sure he will plead guilty, before St. Peter, of the seeming vice, ‘The Over-Attentive Reader’.    Where do we find a more worthy subject for such extreme reading, than the writer Plato ?   A subject author of very distinctly lower value, the author of Epinomis and De Kosmou.  can be compared.  Each stands as by a  ‘pseudigraphos’ in their appendings, — one to Plato’s corpus and one to Aristotle’s.   I believe the author of both to be the same man, namely Philip of Opus, a.k.a. Younger Socrates. Denniston’s posthumous book on Greek Prose Style made various depreciatory remarks about Plato’s very latest writing, especially in LAWS.  One could hardly seek out in a more likely place for samples of what Denniston calls puerille writing by Plato near the end of his life.  Consider a case, here exhibited in our best ms. (75 years prior to Ephraim’s fine ms. T).   It manifests at the end of the end chapter (#14) of the end book (#12) of all Plato’s writings.  Philip of Opus can well be awaiting the two events, Plato’s writing his final lines and his personal death, so that he can both add on his own little piece ‘Epinomis’, and perhaps trim away mercifully any embarrassing childishnesses on the part of his teacher.   Denniston has it that puns and overelaborate wordplay, such as he had formerly mocked mocking when critically of Gorgias or Prodicus  are signs of the very old man indulging himself in juvenilities ?  Consider this example where so hyperrefined a wordplay as shortening a word’s initial vowel, then pleonastically letting it redound in the listener’s ear with near nothing added to the content:   ἤθεσιν καὶ ἔθεσιν·   It is only a minor addition to the cognitive vacuousness of this formula that its author, — perhaps a Plato very near his death — seems to want to locate it at the endpoint of this sentence, near the entire work’s ending chapter. Let me permit myself a small excursus here, by way of innoculating this website against an alas not uncommon error of judgment.   I mean the error which amounts to the overbold and even arrogant manner sometimes found here on the American side of the Anglo-American field of Plato scholarship,   Some brash youngster presuming that he or she can command respectful attention in the larger world just by levelling sharply critical remarks about a writer so masterful as Plato (or Homer).   This rashness is alas not restricted to us ‘overseas’ anglicans: witness the overbold and harsh deprecation of Plato words from KJ Dover in his recent edition of Symposium.   AJ Ayer was after all English. Please take it as an innoculant against any such rashness here on the worldwide web [such a grand claim — I am old enough to remember confidently asserting to many friends in the late 1950s,  HUMBUG, how can this little coterie of dreamers, writing in their multi-versioned Whole Earth Catalogue in San Francisco, how can they possibly delude themselves to think such a science-fiction world-wide network can sprint up in my lifetime ?   These self-deluders (so I used to continue my rant)  —  they will have it sprouting up and becoming so vast as to put Kiev and San Francisco into a kind of worldwide ‘neighborhood’, etc., etc.   Skeptical wisdom, as deeply wrong as I was then emphatic in offering it to my listeners.   Now today I experience a parallel skepticism — which I really want to be as deeply wrong as that other — the current skepticism is centered on what can be called ‘neighbourhoods’ by the school of Abraham Robinson.   These followers, R. Goldblatt among them, think with a wondrous coherence about making a kind of ‘neighbourly’ gathering, pairs that are all-but-continuous, only infinitesimally disjoined.   Hyperreally close neighbours, in other words.    We must look ahead to a descendant of one or another of today’s Socrates-Alternates to get a good grasp of all of this.   Meantime let me say here that an offprint I sent Robinson in 1972 provoked a short but non-dismissive reply from him — he mentioned Euclid’s Book 5. Well these words I used to utter some 60 years ago now went something like this.   How can they possibly be so bold, to write in their  Whole Earth Catalogue  this claim about anything  worldwide of such an unimaginable sort?    Surely the www people are bold, but also delirious.    But do look at the gracious words from Cornford’s student WKC Guthrie, so gracious and urbane even as he condemns a work by Plato as follows: Guthrie ltr abt Plato nodding, 31 Jan 72 I may cite this remark written in a letter of date nearly 58 years ago (January 31, 1972).   [a recently written podcast bears the provocative title “Back when I was older”.   Is its pronoun non-referring ?   Dover’s edition of Symposium came out some decade later, when Guthrie’s volumes on Plato and Aristotle had been finished.   Citing Guthrie’s letter now:  “I don’t see why Plato shouldn’t nod if Homer could”.a little to a youngish man by an elderly scholar, W.K.C. Guthrie of Cambridge.  I will insert here a facsimile of his letter, to give it some context.   Certainly the gracious manner of his disparagement is vastly less unfriendly to Plato than that in K.J. Dover’s 1980 edition of Symposium.  Dover’s deprecating preface leaves the reader  wondering why he even troubled to put out an edition of a writer whose cherished doctrine of Forms might be meaningless.   Dover writes as if he thought: “Plato is forever, maybe even eternally, nodding”.      It bears repeating, about Guthrie’s humble remarks.   They are respectful and even gracious as he expresses his disapproval. Guthrie ltr abt Plato nodding, 31 Jan 72 Here at the very end of Plato’s LAWS, where this same disciple was to fasten on his respectful but divergent appendage to the work (=Epinomis) may have been already doing some editing.   It is not one of the more common opinions in Plato scholarship, but still there are a few of this number who even suppose Philip to have been the primary author of the LAWS themselves. Here is our best ms. which I am so bold as to say, either Plato did not himself write them or Philip did, or Plato was nodding : final 2 cols. of LAWS XII, 14, near 968d2 In any case it can be reasonably proposed that it was this same Philip with such broad expertise in astronomy that his name is cited repeatedly in F. Lasserre’s collection of ‘Die Fragmente des Eudoxos’, this same Philip will have written appendages books of ‘Elements’ due to be assembled and edited into more finished form by Euclid in Alexandria two generations later.   There are strong evidences that someone attached to the ends of to Books IV and VI and XIIA of this later work, Elements.  In this last case — that of Euclid XIIA —  he published a tract which we could rightly give the title ‘stereometric Episkepseis, based on its repeated application of its specialist usage of the phrase ‘toioutes gignomenEs episkepsews’ [].  In bulk it contains more than Euclid’s standard Book XII, in that it supplies duplicates of the final theorems of stereometric Book XI, as well as the ‘episkepsis‘ version, which has no episkepsis arguments at all. He contrived to make it over-attentively Platonistic.   I spell out elsewhere more about this last case.   It may be that the Academic-sounding neologism ‘epidhmiourgein’, now found in scholia to Euclid, is also responsibly traced back to the writings of Philip.   If so, he will have earned our descriptive name ‘pseudo-Eudoxus’.   One very modernistic way to put a formula on his Episkepsis arguments is to say of them that they at once stand as falsely Eudoxus-like arguments, which contrive to claim a kind of hyper-platonic position in number theory where, in the words of Feynman ‘we find a way to sweep infinities under the rug.    Current day work in mathematics, cosmology and logic is continuing.   Some of this researclh today proudly claims to prosper, and even to have helpful theological results, ‘without any need to sweep infinities under the rug.’   But this 2019 speculation seems to me ‘over the top’, especially its efforts at ‘neutroscopic’ logic not limiting itself to 2 values, and best left at some distance from speculations offered here, neither under any rug nor off any wall, but grounded in solid texts from the early Academy. De Morgan, blind on right side since 1806, birth year De Morgan, blind on right side since infancy   [30.viii.19] Are there examples from antiquity of this curious Venetus (Ephraim) position-switching?  This occurs within a numeral (or other numeral sign) — the tens position reversed with the units position ?  A precise analogue within our present (Arabic) numeral system, if we were to write ’91’ when intending ’19’ or ’81’ when intending ’18’.  A serious dislocation, truly. Yes, in John the Syrian (=Lydus). numeral words written out in full [no inflection].   John does this switching frequently.   He is also known for his unreasonably high esteem for greater antiquity in his style and manner.  Please look: (bis9.9) John Lydus De Mensibus IV, our ’14’, one Ephraim, one un-reversed +++++++++++++ We can get a special insight into Plato’s writing efforts if we follow the good example of E.R. Dodds’s introduction to his text of Gorgias.    Dodds allow himself to start from the position of that singular editor, Plato himself, editing an earlier version of this text.   He puts this later Plato into his editor’s chair at roughly the time of his authoring Seventh Letter.  Diogenes of Halicarnassus gives the Dodds attitude a serious backing.  DH has Plato curiously still continuing his self-editing — perhaps just a few words, such as the opening words of Republic — when on his death bed.   Another example is that of an editor of Euclid, who may be identical to the man traditionally located in Alexandria after Aristotle’s time.   But do we know if this dating and placing are true?  Holger Thesleff once said to me he has the doubt:  the character in Phaedo, Euclides may be more nearly true to fact.   Be this as it may — Non liquet, to use another of Thesleff’s curiously Finnish locutions — editors  or self-editors have choice locations within the work at hand to execute their emendations or supplementings. These choice locations are ‘at the joints’, as Plato himself speaks of articulations inside a piece of literature.   This means at the very end of the work or at the end of an internal articulation, such as Book- or Chapter-ending.   This way there is less risk of spoiling the work’s organic integrity.   Three examples come to mind, two from Euclid’s Elements, one from Plato’s Laws.    In Euclid the editor or self-editor has added a final proposition at the end of Book VI (proportion as applied to plane rectilineal figures).    Here there is direct reporting from a copyist, who makes it a notable feature of this book that it had an earlier edition, lacking the proposition altogether.   Fortunately, we have excellent quality mss. both with the added [‘by Theon’] and the same work in its pre-edited form.  In the case of Laws there are ancient reports attributing the entire final book, Epinomis, to a different author.  The other notable example from Euclid is the final proposition of Bk IV (planimetric constructions aimed mainly toward Bk XIII, its ‘Five Platonic polyhedra’).  That final planimetric construction is of a regular ‘pentakaidekagon’, or 15-sided polygon, useful in astronomy as charting out the ecliptic, —  but it is entirely gratuitous here in the Elements of Geometry.   It only adds a further pair of oddities in this supplemental proposition that it twice mis-spells ‘pentakaidekagon’ πεντεκαιδεκάγωνον [noted by Heiberg] and that it draws on 3 non-Euclid expressions    (1)  δείξις , (2) οἷων. . . τοιούτων  (3)   τε. . . καὶ        (1) DEIXIS, (2) HOIWN …TOIOUTWN and (3) TE KAI (rare outside of verse, as being too pleonastic, according to Denniston.) The second of these three features is a close match to a line in Timaeus Chapt VII :  that which [A has relative to B, this [C has to D] ὅτιπερ τὸ πρῶτον πρὸς [δευτέρον], τοῦτο αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἔσχατον (=32a1,f). At the same time feature (2)  mismatches Euclid’s standardised phrasing, which reads as follows: ὥσπερ [=as] τὸ Α πρὸς Β, οὕτω [=so]  Ξ πρὸς Δ.   This difference in phrasing offered for the two halves of this relation of ‘analogia’, though slight, stands out when we are making a close comparison between this pair of tightly textured, highly technical works.  One is meant to express the 4-term relation fundamental to the ‘binding together’ of Plato’s cosmology; the other is meant to express the relation equally fundamental to planimetry or stereometry — Analogia.   In all three authors, Plato or Aristotle or Euclid,  this overall relation goes by the name Analogia.       and strongly mismatches Euclid’s standard wording for a proportion.    We might put Euclid’s phrase into colloquial English this way:   (2) as. . . so.Quite possibly it is a pure co-incidence, the point that Philip of Opus, alongside his known interests in ethics (his tract ‘De Ira’) and likely mineral sciences, this same Philip was an accomplished writer on astronomy (On Eclipses, a work listed in the SUDA). This editing had once been boldly thought to give us indicators as to earlier and later drafts, due to Plato’s student Philip of Opus.  Some German scholars of the late 19th Century were bold enough to think of our now restoring this last work of Plato’s to discriminate between Plato’s own writing and that of Philip.   This seems a heraclean task, not likely to be moved forward in this website.  On the other hand, various indicators outlined here point toward identifying ‘Younger Socrates’ both with Aristotle’s teacher and with Plato’s immediate student, namely the locrus-born Philip of Opus.   He may have arrogated to himself this exact academic/socratic identity there by the elderly Plato in Athens.  This will have put him into direct contact with the young Aristotle. This dating and identifying would also put Younger Socrates late enough to help Plato re-edit his final Laws, as we know Philip did.   Yet he will have been early enough to be a kind of ‘Socrates-the-Teacher’ to Aristotle.   Epistle II tends to corroborate these identifications when it outlines a claimed ‘Socrates Reborn’.    This gives the concept a footing in antiquity, perhaps as early as the Olympic Games of -364.    And it would or ‘the Second Socrates’ or ‘Alternate Socrates’ (this last is a name interchanged with ‘Younger Socrates’ in our Venetus T ms, at its folium 67r.   There seem to be touches of the Locrian or Heraclean dialect curiously strong amongst the various late-dialogues.   This idea becomes especially confirmed if we take as relics from antiquity, somewhat before the famous copper plates ‘tavole di Eraclea’, as preserving an assortment of Locrianisms.   Some of this backward-looking evidence points in just the right direction.   That is the direction of the epizephyrian Locrus, and its nearby towns Heraclea and Tarentum. I am offering a snapshot from the Paris A ms., [digital image courtesy of the Mitterand National Library] in support of these claims.  It has no parallel or rivalry with Venetus T when it comes to most of Tetralogy VIII plus all of Tetralogy IX.   In those parts our Venice ms. is lost. The dating of this fine ms. is regularly put to some two generations before our Ephraim, copyist of Venetus T.  This Paris ms. is perhaps our best Plato ms.  Please click on this excerpt from Paris A: Superscripted Iota in AIEI of Epin, final chapter, notes on Symp Phdr Euthyd and Minos   +++++++++++ biographer of Thucydides. remarking on his mannerism of preferring Early Attic diphthong   AIEI  to the later koinE form AEI  (So Plato, especially so in Venetus. Symp. Phdr, Euthyd.) Older Attic dialect preferred in Venetus ‘T’ of Plato — copying Thucydides Symposium

Chapt 1:  172a1
Chapt 2:  173d4
Chapt 3:  175a6
Chapt 4:  176a1
Chapt 5:  176e3
Chapt 6:  178a6
Chapt 7:  179b4
Chapt 8:  180c1
Chapt 9:  181a7
Chapt 10:  182d5 (sic)
Chapt 11:  184c4 (sic)
Chapt 12:  184e6
Chapt 13:  188a1
Chapt 14:  189c2
Chapt 15:  190c1
Chapt 16:  191d3
Chapt 17:  193e3
Chapt 18:  194e4
Chapt 19:  196b4
Chapt 20:  198a1
Chapt 21:  199c3 
Chapt 22:  201d1
Chapt 23:  202d8
Chapt 24:  204c7
Chapt 25:  206b1
Chapt 26:  207a5
Chapt 27:  208b7
Chapt 28:  209e5
Chapt 29:  210e2 (sic)

Consider RG Bury's good note on 209C, and fine ref to Tim. 26D
Perhaps both dialogues were written, or re-written, in Olymp 105.  
Plato doing the re-writing, alongside oral 'joint search diamphisbEtein':

   Bury's note on Symp 209C see Tim 26d with its euporoien logwn met emou

Chapt 30:  212c4
Chapt 31:  213e7
Chapt 32:  215a4
Chapt 33:  216c4
Chapt 34:  218b8
Chapt 35:  219d3
Chapt 36:  220c1
Chapt 37:  221d7
Chapt 38:  222c1
Chapt39:   223b1