^{page 211 note 1} He complains that I have already misunder stood and misrepresented his views, and I am anxious to express my regret for any misstate ments I may have made. Perhaps I may say that, while it would have been impossible for me to have passed over in silence recent articles which had deservedly attracted so much attention, yet I had no space to deal with them fully and could only select certain points where, as it seemed to me, the difficulties came to a head. I hoped that the contexts of the statements which I picked out for discussion would be supplied by the reader; but if I have myself misunderstood the meaning of those statements in their contexts, I can only hope that Professor Ferguson's present article has removed any false impression I may have given.

^{page 212 note 1} Cf., e.g., 485d for the psychological side of this doctrine.

^{page 212 note 2} It should not be assumed that I hold any of the views about ⋯παιδευς⋯α which Professor Ferguson criticizes, even if I cannot accept his. ‘Ingenuous levels of perception,’ so far as I know, either do not exist or, if they exist, are not normally to be found in children. Ingenuousness of apprehension I should take to be a high level of achievement.

^{page 213 note 1} See especially the natural and easy grouping of the terms in the recapitulation of the ‘Cave,’ 532b.

^{page 213 note 2} If I had space to deal with doctrinal issues, I should be more concerned to defend my view of ε⋯κασ⋯α as not being the indirect vision of a solid. It seems rash to argue much from Plato's physical treatment of reflections in Timaeus 46 (as cases of indirect visibility), considering that among the ε⋯κονες mentioned in the ‘ Line’ are expressly included shadows, to which this treatment can scarcely apply. But it would be impossible to explain ε⋯κασ⋯α without a much closer study of the logical theory involved in this passage than my allotted space permits.

^{page 213 note 3} It is not accurate to treat this stage as one of mere bewilderment; the released prisoner is dazzled by the sudden brightness, but we are told that he has in fact gained much (⋯ρθοτερονβλ⋯πει) by the change (515c and d). The same thing happens again when he is taken to the upper air (515e sq.).

^{page 213 note 4} Professor Ferguson tries to avoid this, if I understand him, by supposing that the ratios of the ‘Line’ apply only to shadows (etc.) made by sunlight; but I can find no support whatever in the text for his restriction.