Plato Republic 1.341

Πλάτωνος Πολιτεία . On the name, characters, and date of action of the dialogue, see Introd. §§ 1, 2, 3.

κατέβην κτλ. Dionys. Hal. de comp. verb. p. 208 (Reiske) ὁ δὲ Πλάτων, τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ διαλόγους κτενίζων καὶ βοστρυχίζων, καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἀναπλέκων, οὐ διέλιπεν ὀγδοήκοντα γεγονὼς ἔτη. πᾶσι γὰρ δή που τοῖς φιλολόγοις γνώριμα τὰ περὶ τῆς φιλοπονίας τἀνδρὸς ἱστορούμενα, τά τ’ ἄλλα, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν δέλτον ἣν τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ λέγουσιν εὑρεθῆναι ποικίλως μετακειμένην τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς πολιτείας ἔχουσαν τήνδε “κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾶ μετὰ Γλαύκωνος τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος.” See also Quint. VIII 6. 64, and Diog. Laert. III 37. The latter gives as his authorities Euphorion and Panaetius. As Cicero was tolerably familiar with the writings of Panaetius, it is possible that he too has the same story in view in de Sen. V 13, where he says of Plato

The anecdote may well be true, but does not of course justify any inference as to the date of composition of the Republic. See Introd. § 4.

τῇ θεῷ . What goddess? Bendis or Athena? The festival is the Bendideia (354 A) and it is perhaps safest to acquiesce in the usual view that Bendis is here meant. “Alii Minervam intelligunt, quae vulgo ἡ θεὸς appellabatur; neque mihi videtur Socrates in ista Panathenaeorum propinquitate de Minerva veneranda cogitare non potuisse: sed quod simpliciter τὴν ἑορτὴν dicit, numina diversa statuere non sinit” (Schneider). We hear of a temple of Bendis in the Piraeus in 403 B.C. ( τὴν ὁδὸν ἡ φέρει πρός τε τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Μουνυχίας Ἀρτεμίδος καὶ τὸ Βενδίδειον Xen. Hell. II 4. 11 ). See also Introd. § 3 and App. I.

νῦν πρῶτον . Perhaps 410 B.C. Introd. § 3.

οἱ Θρᾷκες . Probably resident aliens (as opposed to the ἐπιχώριοι or natives), living for commercial purposes in the Piraeus, which at all times contained a large admixture of foreign population. It was part of Athenian policy to encourage commercial settlers by allowing them to exercise their own cults (Foucart des assoc. relig. chez les Grecs p. 131). Foucart holds that the worship of the Thracian goddess Bendis was brought to the Piraeus by Thracian merchants (p. 84). Others have supposed that οἱ Θρᾷκες refers to envoys from Thrace, or Thracian mercenaries, the survivors of those who came to Athens in 414 B.C. (Thuc. VII 27); but the other view is more probable.

τὸ ἄστυ or

ἄστυ 327 C is regular for Athens itself as opposed to the Piraeus. Hartman would omit the article (cf. Lys. 13. 88

): but it occurs infra 328 C, Phaedr. 230 C , Arist. Pol. Ath. 38. 1 and elsewhere.

αὐτός : ‘ ipse’ ‘ erus’ ‘ the master’ as often: cf. e.g. Prot. 314 D οὐ σχολὴ αὐτῷ and the Pythagorean αὐτὸς ἔφα. With the deictic

οὗτος cf. Symp. 175 A Σωκράτης οὗτος—ἕστηκεν, ‘there goes Socrates—standing.’

ἓν λείπεται . See cr. n. ἐλλείπεται (which Hermann and others retain) is less pointed, in view of the two alternatives ἢ—κρείττους γένεσθε ἢ μένετ’ αὐτοῦ. For λείπεται said of the μεταξύ τι ( Symp. 202 A ) or third alternative, cf. Theaet. 188 A ἄλλο γ’ οὐδὲν λείπεται περὶ ἕκαστον πλὴν εἰδέναι ἢ μὴ εἰδέναι.

ὡς ‐‐ διανοεῖσθε : ‘well, you may make up your mind that we shall refuse to listen.’ Cf. (with Stallbaum) Crat. 439 C διανοηθέντες—ὡς ἰόντων ἁπάντων ἀεὶ καὶ ῥεόντων.

μὴ is owing to the imperative: cf. Soph. O. C. 1154 and Jebb's note.

λαμπὰς κτλ . λαμπάς was the official name for a torch-race: see Mommsen Heortologie pp. 170 note, 282.

τῇ θεῷ : see on 327 A and App. I.

λαμπάδια : Harpocratio remarks ἣν νῦν ἡμεῖς λαμπάδα καλοῦμεν, οὕτως ὠνόμαζον. But λαμπάς was used for ‘torch’ even in classical Greek. Plato chooses λαμπάδιον because he has just used λαμπάς in a different sense.

διαδωσουσιν κτλ. shews that—except for the novel substitution of mounted competitors for runners—the torch-race in question was of the kind alluded to in Hdt. VIII 98 and elsewhere as held in honour of Hephaestus. The competition was not between one individual and another, but between different lines of competitors, the torch being passed on from man to man. Victory fell to the chain whose torch, still burning, first reached the goal. The well-known figure in Laws 776 B καθάπερ λαμπάδα τὸν βίον παραδιδόντας ἄλλοις ἐξ ἄλλων refers to the same form of race. Plato nowhere mentions the simpler form described by Pausanias (1 30. 2), in which individuals contended against each other: see Baumeister Denkmäler d. kl. Altert. p. 522.

ἄξιον θεάσασθαι . Songs and dances were the leading features in a παννυχίς. See Soph. Ant. 1146 —1152 and Eur. Heracl. 781 —783 ἀνεμόεντι δὲ γᾶς ἐπ’ ὄχθῳ | (the Acropolis) ὀλολύγματα παννυχίοις ὑπὸ παρθένων ἰακχεῖ ποδῶν κρότοισιν (in honour of Athena at the Panathenaea).

ἐξαναστήσομεθα κτλ. The promise is nowhere fulfilled.

μὴ ἄλλως ποιεῖτε . Schanz ( Novae Comm. Plat. p. 25) shews that this phrase, which is tolerably frequent in Plato, always occurs in combination with a positive command (here μένετε) except in II 369 B.

εἰς τοῦ Πολεμάρχου . Polemarchus was older than Lysias (infra 331 D), and we are to infer that at this time Cephalus lived with him. There is no reason why we should (with Blass Att. Ber. p. 338) reject Plato's statement that Polemarchus had a house in the Piraeus: the words of Lysias (12. 16), which Blass relies upon as shewing that Polemarchus lived not in the Piraeus, but in Athens, refer to 404 B.C. and do not prove it even for that year. Lysias probably lived at this time in a house of his own in the Piraeus, as in 404 B.C. ( Lys. 12. 8 ): it is to be noted that he is mentioned along with the visitors, in contrast with Cephalus ( ἦν δ’ ἔνδον κτλ. —τεθυκὼς γὰρ ἐτύγχανεν ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ infra C). Cf. Boeckh Kl. Schr. IV p. 475 note 1 and Shuckburgh Lys. Orat. ed. 2 p. xii.

διὰ χρόνου ‐‐ αὐτόν . καί ‘indeed’ goes with the whole clause: cf. Soph. Ant. 1253 ἀλλ’ εἰσόμεσθα μή τι καὶ κατάσχετον | κρυφῇ καλύπτει καρδίᾳ θυμουμένη with Jebb's note. Tucker translates ‘for it was some time since I had so much as seen him’—throwing, I think, too much emphasis on καί.

προσκεφαλαίου τε καὶ δίφρου : virtually a hendiadys, as Hartman remarks, comparing Homer Il. IX 200 εἷσεν δ’ ἐν κλισμοῖσι τάπησί τε πορφυρέοισιν. It is somewhat fanciful to suppose (with Hartman) that Plato throughout this picture was thinking of the aged Nestor seated among his sons ( Od. III 32 ff.). τινος adds a touch of vagueness: ‘a sort of combination of cushion and chair’ (Tucker).

τεθυκὼς γάρ explains ἐστεφανωμένος: “coronati sacrificabant, ut satis constat” Stallbaum. The God to whom Cephalus had been sacrificing was doubtless Ζεὺς ἑρκεῖος, whose altar stood in the αὐλή.

οὐδὲ ‐‐ Πειραιᾶ . A negative must be supplied, “ut amice expostulabundus cum Socrate senex hoc dicere videatur: tu neque alia facis, quae debebas, neque nostram domum frequentas. Simili ellipsi nostrates: Du kommst auch nicht oft zu uns” (Schneider). οὐδέ is ‘also not’: for exx. see Riddell Digest of Platonic Idioms § 141 and Jebb on Soph. O. C. 590 f. οὐδέ in οὐδὲ πάνυ ῥᾴδιον IX 587 C is another instance, in which, as here, the idiom has a kind of colloquial effect. Stallbaum takes οὐδέ with θαμίζεις “ne ventitas quidem ad nos, h. e. raro sane domum nostram frequentas”; but his equation hardly holds good, and is not justified by Xen. Symp. 4. 23. where οὐδέ coheres closely with the emphatic σοῦ. Others have suspected corruption, proposing οὔ τι (Ast, cf. Od. V 88 πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζεις), οὐ δέ (Nitzsch), or οὐ δή (Hartman). οὔ τι is very unlikely; for θαμίζω is not exclusively a poetic word (cf. Laws 843 B), and we need not suppose that Plato is thinking of Homer. I agree with Hartman that οὐ δέ is improbable: δέ is not sufficiently explained by saying that it is “adversative to the idea contained in ἠσπάζετο” (J. and C., with Schneider Additamenta p. 2). None of the cases quoted by Sauppe Ep. Crit. ad G. Hermannum p. 77 ( Ar. Knights 1302 , Hdt. IX 108, Theogn. 659, 887, 1070 and Callinus I 2) seem to me to justify the change of οὐδέ to οὐ δέ. Hartman's correction is better: but I believe the text is sound.

μὴ οὖν κτλ. To this sentence Lach. 181 B C furnishes a near parallel. νεανίαις refers to Socrates' companions who had come from Athens, as opposed to Cephalus, Polemarchus and the others; the emphasis, as often, being on the καί clause: ‘associate with these young men, but come and visit us also.’ So also Boeckh Kl. Schr. IV p. 475. There is no sufficient reason for reading νεανίσκοις (with II and other MSS): see Introd. § 3.

καὶ μὴν κτλ. : ‘Indeed, Cephalus,’ etc. γε need not be added (with II and other MSS) after χαίρω: cf. Phaed. 84 D καὶ μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τἀληθῆ σοι ἐρῶ, Euthyd. 275 E 304 C al., with Jebb on Soph. O. T. 749 , 1005.

τραχεῖα καὶ χαλεπή κτλ. The language (as Ast observes) is perhaps suggested by Hesiod OD. 290 ff. μακρὸς δὲ καὶ ὄρθιος οἶμος ἐς αὐτὴν | καὶ τρηχὺς τὸ πρῶτον· ἐπὴν δ’ εἰς ἄκρον ἵκηται, | ῥηιδίη δὴ ἔπειτα πέλει, χαλεπή περ ἐοῦσα. Cf. II 364 D note

ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ . The phrase occurs first in the Iliad (XXII 60, XXIV 487) to denote the natural limit of the life of man. Cephalus is μάλα πρεσβύτης 328 B. The same meaning suits also in Od. XV 246 ( οὐδ’ ἵκετο γήραος οὐδόν) 348 and XXIII 212, Hymn. Aphr. 106, Hes. OD. 331, Hdt. III 14 and elsewhere. Leaf can hardly (I think) be right in explaining οὐδῷ as= ὁδῷ in Il. XXII 60. γήραος is a descriptive genitive (like τέλος γήραος ἀργαλέου Mimn. Fr. 2. 6, τοῦ λογου in δόλιχον—not δολιχὸν—τοῦ λόγου Prot. 329 A ), old age being itself the threshold by which we leave the House of Life. We enter as it were by one door and pass out by another. The idea underlying the phrase may be compared with Democritus' ὁ κόσμος σκηνή, ὁ βίος πάροδος· ἠλθες, εἶδες, ἀπῆλθες (Mullach Fr. Phil. Gr. I p. 356).

χαλεπὸν κτλ . χαλεπόν is neuter on account of τοῦτο in ὅ τί σοι φαίνεται τοῦτο, and τοῦ βίου is a simple partitive genitive: cf. Xen. Mem. I 6. 4 ἐπισκεψώμεθα τί χαλεπὸν ᾔσθησαι τοὐμοῦ βίου. I cannot agree with Tucker in rendering ‘disagreeable in respect of the sort of life.’ Ast takes χαλεπόν as masc. (comparing cases like III 416 B τὴν μεγίστην τῆς εὐλαβείας), but αὐτό shews that he is wrong. Translate simply ‘whether it is a painful period of life.’ It is needless to insert (with Hartman) τι after χαλεπόν: still worse is Liebhold's addition of τέλος.

ἐξαγγέλλεις : like the ἐξάγγελος in tragedy, Cephalus is the bearer of news from behind the scenes.

παροιμίαν . ἥλιξ ἥλικα τέρπει ( Phaedr. 240 C ).

ξυνιόντες : i.q. ὅταν ξυνίωσιν ‘whenever they come together.’ Such a use of the participle is admissible when the main verb is in the present of habitual action. ξυνόντες is a needless conjecture.

οὐδὲ ζῶντες . Soph. Ant. 1165 —1167 τὰς γὰρ ἡδονὰς | ὅταν προδῶσιν ἄνδρες, οὐ τίθημ’ ἐγὼ | ζῆν τοῦτον, ἀλλ’ ἔμψυχον ἡγοῦμαι νεκρόν. Cf. also Mimn. Fr. I. 1 ff.: Sim. Fr. 71 τίς γὰρ ἁδονᾶς ἄτερ<*> θνατῶν βίος ποθεινός: Eur. Fr. 1065 . Similar sentiments are very common throughout Greek literature, especially in poetry.

ἔτι ‐‐ συγγίγνεσθαι . These words are rejected by Hirschig, Cobet, and Hartman, but their genuineness is supported by the singular αὐτό in αὐτὸ ἀπέφυγον and by Plut. περὶ φιλοπλουτίας 5. 525 A ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἐρωτηθεὶς εἰ δύναται γυναικὶ πλησιάζειν, Εὐφήμει, ἄνθρωπε, εἶπεν κτλ. In such matters Greek realism called a spade a spade. In spite of the anecdote here told, few writers have painted sadder pictures of old age than Sophocles: see for example O. C. 1235— 1238 and Fr. 684. More in keeping with the present passage is Fr. 688 οὐκ ἔστι γῆρας τῶν σοφῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ νοῦς | θείᾳ ξύνεστιν ἡμέρᾳ τεθραμμένος.

ἀπέφυγον ‐‐ ἀποφυγών . The repetition adds a certain impressiveness to the sentence. Herwerden is in error when he ejects ἀποφυγών, which seems to have been read also by Plutarch (referred to in last note).

κατατείνουσαι is intransitive. If the meaning were (as Ast holds) transitive —man being conceived as the puppet of the desires cf. Laws 644 E—we should expect ἐπι‐ or συν‐ rather than κατατείνουσαι: see Phaed. 94 C and 98 D.

παντάπασιν κτλ. The impressive iteration is in keeping with the age and earnestness of the speaker: cf. 331 A, B.

ἐστι . Stallbaum and others eject this word, but it is not easy to see why a scribe should have inserted it, particularly in such an idiomatic position. The asyndeton before δεσποτων is regular in explanatory clauses. I read ἐστι (with A) in preference to ἔστι: the meaning ‘is possible’ does not suit, and would require ἀπαλλαγῆναι rather than ἀπηλλάχθαι. Translate ‘it is the deliverance once and for all from tyrants full many and furious.’ The grammatical subject, as in English, remains vague; it is involved in ἐπειδὰν —χαλάσωσιν. For the use of ἐστι cf. Euthyphr. 2 D φαίνεταί μοι—ἄρχεσθαι ὀρθῶς· ὀρθῶς γάρ ἐστι τῶν νέων πρότερον ἐπιμεληθῆναι. The sentence-accent falls on πολλῶν and μαινομένων and not on ἐστι. The view of old age presented here recalls the μελέτη θανάτου of the Phaedo.

εὔκολοι . Like Sophocles himself: ὁ δ’ εὔκολος μὲν ἐνθάδ’ , εὔκολος δ’ ἐκεῖ ( Ar. Frogs 82 ).

ἐκίνουν . κινεῖν ‘rouse’ is technical in the Socratic dialect for the stimulating of the intellect by interrogation: cf. (with Stallbaum) Lys. 223 A , Xen. Mem. IV 2. 2. See also Ar. Clouds 745 .

οὐ μέντοι γε . The collocation μέντοι γε, which rarely occurs in good Greek, is condemned by Porson (on Eur. Med. 675 ) and others. In Plato it is found only here and in Crat. 424 C , [ Sisyph.] 388 A. Here some inferior MSS omit γε. It would be easy (with Hoefer de particulis Plat. p. 38, Cobet, and Blaydes) to write οὐ μέντοι ὅσον γε, but “notanda talia potius quam mutanda.” The idiom, though exceptional, is (in my judgment) sufficiently supported (see the instances cited by Blaydes on Ar. Thesm. 709 ). It should also perhaps be remembered that the speaker, Cephalus, was not a native Athenian. Cf. 331 B E notes

τὸ τοῦ Θεμιστοκλέους . The story as told by Herodotus VIII 125 is probably more true, if less pointed: ὡς δὲ ἐκ τῆς Λακεδαίμονος ἀπίκετο (sc. Θεμιστοκλῆς) ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας, ἐνθαῦτα Τιμόδημος Ἀφι<*>ναῖος—φθόνῳ καταμαργέων ἐνείκεε τὸν Θεμιστοκλέα—ὡς διὰ τὰς Ἀθήνας ἔχοι τὰ γέρεα τὰ παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίων, ἀλλ) οὐ δἰ ἑωυτόν. ὁ δὲ—εἶπε· οὕτω ἔχει τοι· οὔτ) ἂν ἐγὼ ἐὼν Βελβινίτης (Belbina was a small island about 2 miles south of Sunium) ἐτιμήθην οὕτω πρὸς Σπαρτιητέων, οὔτ’ ἂν σὺ ὤνθρωπε ἐὼν Ἀθηναῖος. The changes are not due to Plato: for τῷ in τῷ Σεριφίῳ—for which Heindorf on Charm. 155 D wrongly suggests τῳ, like Cicero's Seriphio cuidam ( Cato Mai. 8)—shews that Plato's form of the story was also familiar. The Platonic version, in which Belbina has become Seriphus, and Themistocles' detractor a Seriphian, afterwards held the field.

καὶ τοῖς δή . καί is ‘also’ and δή illative.

εὔκολος ‐‐ ἑαυτῷ . The dative is used as with εὐμενής: cf. Ar. Frogs 359 μηδ’ εὔκολός ἐστι πολίταις (v.l. πολίτης). To suit the application precisely to the story we should require (1) neither would the ἐπιεικής easily endure old age with poverty, (2) nor the μὴ ἐπιεικής easily endure old age with riches. For (2) Plato substitutes ‘nor would the bad man ever attain to peace with himself by becoming rich’; thereby conveying the further idea that the bad man is not εὔκολος ἑαυτῷ under any circumstances or at any time. Richards' suggestion ἐν αὐτῷ (i.e. γήρᾳ) for ἑαυτῷ is neat, but loses sight of this additional point. The allusion to old age in the second clause, so far as it is necessary to allude to it, is contained in ποτε.

ποἶ ἐπεκτησάμην κτλ. : ‘do you want to know what I acquired, Socrates?’ ποῖα is simply ‘what’ as in Men. 87 E σκεψώμεθα δὴ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἀναλαμβάνοντες, π οῖά ἐστιν ἃ ἡμᾶς ὠφελεῖ. ὑγίειά φαμεν καὶ ἰσχὺς καὶ κάλλος καὶ πλοῦτος δή· ταῦτα λέγομεν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὠφέλιμα, and in the usual τὰ ποῖα ταῦτα; There is no derision implied, as in ποῖος Κτήσιππος ( Euthyd. 291 A ) and the like: had Cephalus desired to pour scorn on the suggestion, he would have said πόθεν ἐπεκτησάμην; (cf. Crat. 398 E ): and it would be absurd to deride a charge to which you at once plead guilty ( γέγονα χρηματιστής κτλ.). If Socrates' question had been not πότερον—τὰ πλείω παρέλαβες ἢ ἐπεκτήσω, but ποῖα ἐπεκτήσω, Cephalus would have said ὁποῖα ἐπεκτησάμην: but this idiom is inadmissible, except where the same interrogative occurs in its direct form in the original question. In view of the answer ( μέσος τις κτλ.) which Cephalus gives, πόσα for ποῖα would be too precise. Of the various emendations which have been suggested, the only plausible one (in point of sense) is Richards' πότερον for ποἶ or ποῖ: this would assimilate the original and the repeated question, but is less well adapted to Cephalus' reply. Cephalus in point of fact uses an old man's privilege and accommodates his interrogator's question to his own reply. See also V 465 E note

Λυσανίας δέ . Groen van Prinsterer's suggestion ( Platon. Prosopogr. p. 111) Λυσίας for Λυσανίας is at first sight plausible, since it is in harmony with the well-known Greek custom of calling grandsons after their grandfathers: but the fashion was by no means invariable: see Blümner, Gr. Privatalterth. p. 284. [Plut.] vit. Lys. 835 C also calls Cephalus son of Lysanias.

τούτοισιν . Bekker and others read τουτοισί, but there is no reason for deserting the MSS. The archaic dative in ‐οισι is tolerably often used by Plato. In the Republic alone it recurs in 345 E, 388 D, 389 B, 468 D (Homer), 560 E, 564 C, 607 B ( ‐αισι) (poetic): see also Schneider on III 389 B, and for the usage of inscriptions Meisterhans^{3} p. 126. In this particular passage the archaic ending suits the age of the speaker; but it should be remembered that Plato's style (at least in his more mature dialogues) is not a mere reproduction of the vernacular Attic, but also in no small measure a literary language or ‘Kunstsprache,’ in which Ionisms and poetic and archaic forms are occasionally employed: see especially Hirzel Der Dialog I pp. 246—250 notes Hirzel (ib. p. 34 note 1) gives reasons for holding that a sort of κοινὴ διάλεκτος, resembling the dialect of Herodotus, was actually spoken in certain cultivated circles at Athens in the Periclean age, e.g. by Anaxagoras and his group, by the Ionian sophists and their followers etc., and some of Plato's Ionisms may be inherited from this source. Cf. VII 533 B note

οὗ τοι ἕνεκα ‐‐ ὅτι . The reading τούτου for οὗ, though supported by Stobaeus ( Flor. 94. 22), is a correction made by some one unacquainted with the idiom, which is common enough in conversational style: cf. infra 491 B ὃ μὲν πάντων θαυμαστότατον ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι κτλ. and Ar. Frogs 108 . Hartman's τοῦ τοι (interrogative) is ingenious, but unnecessary.

διπλῇ ἢ οἱ ἄλλοι . The meaning is simply ‘twice as much as the others’: cf. e.g. Laws 868 A διπλῇ τὸ βλάβος ἐκτεισάτω and 928 B ζημιούτω— διπλῇ. The ἤ is like ἤ after διπλάσιος, πολλαπλάσιος etc. If διπλῇ meant simply ‘on two grounds,’ it could not be followed by ἤ, and we should have to regard ἢ οἱ ἄλλοι as an interpolation. Cephalus expresses himself somewhat loosely, as if loving a thing on two grounds, or in two ways, were equivalent to loving it twice as much. ταύτῃ below is defined by the ὥσπερ clause, and is preferred to ὥσπερ, partly in order to correspond to διπλῇ but stiil more to suit κατὰ τὴν χρείαν. The present passage is through Aristotle ( Eth. Nic. IV 2. 1120^{b} 14, cf. ib. IX 7. 1168^{a} 1—3) the source of the proverb about ‘parents and poets.’

ξυγγενέσθαι : ‘to meet’ in social intercourse, as in Ap. 41 A . ξυγγίγνεσθαι (suggested by Richards) would express habitual intercourse, which is not what Plato means to say. With the sentiment cf. Symp. 173 C ὅταν μέν τινας περὶ φιλοσοφίας λόγους ἢ αὐτὸς ποιῶμαι ἢ ἄλλων ἀκούω—ὑπερφυῶς ὡς χαίρω· ὅταν δὲ ἀλλους τινάς, ἄλλως τε καὶ τοὺς ὑμετέρους τοὺς τῶν πλουσίων καὶ χρηματιστικῶν, αὐτός τε ἄχθομαι ὑμᾶς τε τοὺς ἑταίρους ἐλεῶ, ὅτι οἴεσθε τὶ ποιεῖν οὐδὲν ποιοῦντες.

ἐπειδὰν ‐‐ τελευτήσειν : ‘when a man faces the thought that he must die,’ not (with Jowett) ‘when a man thinks himself to be near death,’ which would be ἐπειδάν τις ἐγγὺς εἶναι οἴηται τοῦ τελευτῆσαι, as Herwerden proposes to read (cf. Laws 922 C ὅταν ἤδη μέλλειν ἡγώμεθα τελευτᾶν). “Senum, non iuvenum τὸ οἴεσθαι τελευτήσειν est” (Hartman): the weakness of old age convinces us at last that we too must die. Cf. Simon. 85. 7—10 θνητῶν δ’ ὄφρα τις ἄνθος ἔχῃ πολυήρατον ἥβης | κοῦφον ἔχων θυμόν, πόλλ’ ἀτέλεστα νοεῖ· | οὔτε γὰρ ἐλπίδ’ ἔχει γηρασέμεν οὔτε θανεῖσθαι, | οὐδ’ ὑγιὴς ὅταν ᾖ, φροντίδ’ ἔχει καμάτου .

ἀδικήσαντα ‐‐ διδόναι δίκην . Plato is fond of this verbal play: cf Euthyph. 8 B and 8 E τῷ γε ἀδικοῦντι δοτέον δίκην. He who does not render justice in deeds must render justice in punishment: for the tale of justice must be made up. Note that we have here in ἀδικία and δίκη the first casual allusion to the subject of the Republic.

αὐτὸς κτλ . αὐτός= ipse s. ultro as opposed to οἱ λεγόμενοι μῦθοι. The verb is to be supplied by a kind of zeugma from μᾶλλόν τι καθορᾷ αὐτά (i.e. τὰ ἐκεῖ; or rather the predicate is accommodated to the second alternative. Cf. 344 B infra and VIII 553 C. To regard the bodily weakness of old age as in itself the cause of clearer vision of the world beyond may be in harmony with the doctrine of the Phaedo, but Cephalus is not represented as a Platonist. Tucker needlessly doubts the text.

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὕπνων κτλ . καί is ‘both,’ not ‘and,’ and balances καὶ ζῇ: ‘many a time, like children, awakes out of sleep in terror and lives in the expectation of ill.’ For ὥσπερ οἱ παῖδες compare Phaed. 77 D , E, and for the general sentiment Arist. Eth. Nic. I 13. 1102^{b} 8—11 ἀργία γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ὕπνος τῆς φυχῆς ᾗ λέγεται σπουδαία καὶ φαύλη, πλὴν ε<*> πῃ κατὰ μικρὸν διικνοῦνταί τινες τῶν κινήσεων, καὶ ταύτῃ βελτίω γίνεται τὰ φαντάσματα τῶν ἐπιεικῶν ἢ τῶν τυχόντων.

ἡδεῖα ‐‐ γηροτρόφος . ἡδεῖα is suggested by Pindar's γλυκεῖα, and καὶ ἀγαθή, as presently appears, is not part of the quotation, but goes with ἐλπίς and is added by Plato in contrast to μετὰ κακῆς ἐλπίδος.

γηροτρόφος κτλ. : ‘to nurse him in old age, as Pindar also says.’ γηροτρόφος is best taken by itself and not with ἀγαθή .

ἀτάλλοισα κτλ . ἀτάλλω is used of rearing children, and helps out the idea of γηροτρόφος: δὶς παῖδες οἱ γέροντες. It is not clear how the fragment is to be arranged, nor to what class of Pindar's poems it belongs. See Bergk Poet. Lyr. Gr.^{4} I p. 452.

εὖ οὖν ‐‐ σφόδρα . The emphasis is quite in keeping with Cephalus' age and character; and Hartman is certainly wrong in condemning the clause: cf. 329 C, 331 B.

ὀφείλοντα ‐‐ θεῷ θυσίας τινάς . Phaed. 118 A εἶπεν, ὃ δὴ τελευταῖον ἐφθέγξατο, ὦ Κρίτων, ἔφη, τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ ὀφείλομεν ἀλεκτρυόνα· ἀλλὰ ἀπόδοτε καὶ μὴ ἀμελήσητε. Wealth is in Cephalus' view the indispensable χορηγία ἀρετῆς.

ἀλλά γε ἓν ἀνθ) ἑνός . ἀλλά γε is extremely rare in Attic prose: in the Platonic corpus it occurs—according to the best manuscript authority—here and in Rep. VIII 543 C, Phaed. 86 E , Hipp. Maior 287 B, Phaedr. 262 A ( ἀλλά γε δή), Phaed. 116 D (id.). In some of these passages ἀλλ’ ἄγε has been conjectured — wrongly, as I think (with Schneider), at all events in the passage from the Republic:—but ἀλλ’ ἄγε cannot be read in the Phaedrus and Hippias Maior. There is no a priori objection to the collocation, which is also implied in ἀλλὰ γάρ ( γ’ ἄρα); and in later Greek ἀλλά γε aroused no objection. The meaning is ‘but still,’ originally ‘yes, but’: as Schneider says, “ γε in his dictionibus concedit aliquatenus praecedentia, sed magis urget sequentia.” There is perhaps also a dramatic motive for putting ἀλλά γε into the mouth of Cephalus: see on οὐ μέντοι γε in 329 E. Against the reading of Stobaeus ( Flor. 94. 22) ἀλλὰ ἕν γε ἀνθ’ ἑνός, we may urge the further objection that the idiomatic phrase ἓν ἀνθ’ ἑνός (‘setting one thing against another,’ as Jowett correctly translates it) seems to depend for its peculiar force (like μόνος μόνῳ and the like) on the juxtaposition of its two parts: cf. Phil. 63 B ( ἓν ἀνθ’ ἑνός) and Laws 705 B ( ἀνθ’ ἑνὸς ἕν). The passage quoted by Stallbaum from Euripides Orest. 651 ἓν μὲν τόδ’ ἡμῖν ἀνθ’ ἑνὸς δοῦναί σε χρή is quite different and does not mean ‘hoc praecipue,’ but ‘one thing in return for one thing,’ as is clear from lines 646 f.

οὐκ ἐλάχιστον is not adverbial (as Hartman and others suppose), but belongs to τοῦτο: ‘setting one thing against another, I should regard this as not the least important object for which wealth is most useful to a man of sense.’ The emphasis is characteristic: cf. 329 C, 331 A.

τὴν ἀλήθειαν κτλ. This theory of justice or righteousness is deduced from the words of Cephalus: τὸ γὰρ μηδὲ ἄκοντά τινα ἐξαπατῆσαι ἢ ψεύσασθαι being generalised into ἀλήθειαν (truthfulness, cf. τἀληθῆ λέγειν below), and μηδ’ αὖ ὀφείλοντα ἢ θεῷ θυσίας τινὰς ἢ ἀνθρώπῳ χρήματα into ἀποδιδόναι ἄν τίς τι παρά του λάβῃ. Cf. (with Wohlrab) Mimn. Fr. 8 ἀληθείη δὲ παρέστω | σοὶ καὶ ἐμοί, πάντων χρῆμα δικαιότατον. It is simply Truth and Honesty, the two chief ingredients in the popular conception of morality.

ἁπλῶς οὕτως : ‘quite without qualification.’ For this idiomatic οὕτως cf. ῥᾳδιως οὕτω II 377 B note

οἷον τοιόνδε λέγω . Similar points of casuistry are raised in Socrates' conversation with Euthydemus ap. Xen. Mem. IV 2 12 ff.

οὐδ’ αὖ κτλ. I have removed the comma before οὐδέ, because the ὁ in ὁ ἀποδιδούς covers both participles, the person in both cases being the same.

ἔφη . There is not sufficient reason for changing the best supported reading ἔφη, ἐγω to ἔφην ἐγώ. Polemarchus is throughout the introduction represented as a vivacious person: e.g. in ὁρᾷς οὖν ἡμᾶς—ὅσοι ἐσμέν (327 C), and in the lively emphasis with which he breaks in just above: πάνυ μὲν οὖν—εἴπερ γέ τι χρὴ Σιμωνίδῃ πείθεσθαι. True to his name, he is first to mingle in the fray. It is this φιλολογία on the part of his son which draws a smile from Cephalus: over-much προθυμία always struck the Greeks as laughable: cf. e.g. Eur. Ion 1172 ff. The words in which Socrates addresses Polemarchus σὺ ὁ τοῦ λόγου κληρονόμος are also somewhat more appropriate if the title was self-chosen. Cephalus leaves the argument to be carried on by the assembled company (for ὑμῖν does not mean Polemarchus and Socrates alone): whereupon Polemarchus, seizing hold on the word παραδίδωμι in its sense of ‘transmit,’ ‘bequeath,’ playfully claims the right to inherit his λόγος as Cephalus' eldest son and heir. It may be added that ἔφη ἐγώ was much more likely to be changed to ἔφην ἐγώ than vice versa. With the Greek compare Phaed. 89 C ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ, ἔφη, τὸν Ἰόλεων παρακάλει.

ἅμα ᾔει πρὸς τὰ ἱερά . Soph. Fr. 206 γήρᾳ πρεπόντως σῷζε την εὐφημίαν. The editors quote Cicero Epp. ad Att. IV 16. 3 “credo Platonem vix putasse satis consonum fore, si hominem id aetatis in tam longo sermone diutius retinuisset.” Cf. the words of Theodorus in Theaet. 162 B οἶμαι ὑμᾶς πείσειν ἐμὲ μὲν <*>ᾶν θεᾶσθαι καὶ μὴ ἕλκειν πρὸς τὸ γυμνάσιον, σκληρὸν ἤδη ὄντα, τῷ δὲ δὴ νεωτέρῳ τε<*>καὶ ὑγροτέρῳ ὄντι προσπαλαίειν. It is worthy of note that the entrance and exit of Cephalus are alike associated with the services of religion: see 328 C and Introd. § 2.

ὁ τοῦ λόγου κληρονόμος . See on παῖδες ἐκείνου τοῦ ἀνδρός II 368 A.

τὰ ὀφειλόμενα ‐‐ ἐστι . Probably some current saying attributed to Simonides: there is nothing like it in his fragments. The words do not profess to be a definition of justice: if they did, τό would appear before δίκαιον. It is not likely that Simonides himself explained this particular saying as Polemarchus does, although he would not have disapproved of the explanation. In Xen. Hier. II 2 he is represented as saying that tyrants are ἱκανώτατοι—κακῶσαι μὲν ἐχθρούς, ὀνῆσαι δὲ φίλους. The words of Socrates σὺ μέν, ὦ Πολέμαρχε, ἴσως γιγνώσκεις, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀγνοῶ tend to fix the responsibility of the explanation on Polemarchus alone. Probably Simonides (if the saying is his) meant no more than that we should ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.’ Plato virtually confesses in 332 B that his interpretation is forced.

ἔμοιγε : said with confidence, as Σιμωνίδῃ γε with emphasis and some mockery: with you one might disagree, but not with Simonides.

σοφὸς ‐‐ θεῖος . Cf. Prot. 315 E . σοφός and θεῖος were fashionable words of praise: in the mouth of Socrates they are generally ironical. Plato's own connotation of the word θεῖος is given in Men. 99 C οὐκοῦν, ὦ Μένων, ἄξιον τούτους θείους καλεῖν τοὺς ἄνδρας, οἵτινες νοῦν μὴ ἔχοντες πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα κατορθοῦσιν ὧν πράττουσι καὶ λέγουσιν; Ὀρθῶς ἂν καλοῖμεν θείους τε, οὓς νῦν δὴ ἐλέγομεν χρησμῳδοὺς καὶ μάντεις καὶ τοὺς ποιητικοὺς ἅπαντας· καὶ τοὺς πολιτικοὺς οὐχ ἥκιστα τούτων φαῖμεν ἂν θείους τε εἶναι καὶ ἐνθουσιάζειν, ἐπίπνους ὄντας καὶ κατεχομένους ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅταν κατορθῶσι λέγοντες πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα πράγματα, μηδὲν εἰδότες ὦν λέγουσι.

ἀνήρ . I formerly read ἁνήρ, but ἀνὴρ (in the predicate) is satisfactory enough: cf. Men. 99 D θεῖος ἀνήρ, φασίν, οὗτος.

παρακαταθεμένου κτλ. Xen. Cyr. I 6. 31 ff. καὶ ἔτι προβὰς (sc. ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων γενόμενός ποτε ἀνὴρ διδάσκαλος τῶν παίδων ) ταῦτα ἐδίδασκεν ὡς καὶ τοὺς φίλους δίκαιον εἴη ἐξαπατᾶν, ἐπί γε ἀγαθῷ, καὶ κλέπτειν τὰ τῶν φίλων, ἐπί γε ἀγαθῷ: Mem. IV 2. 17 ff.

ὁτῳοῦν is to be taken with παρακαταθεμένου and not with ἀπαιτοῦντι.

καίτοι γε ὀφειλόμενον . There is the same dispute about καίτοι γε as about μέντοι γε and ἀλλά γε (see on 329 E, 331 B). καίτοι γε has the best MS authority in its favour here and in IV 440D: elsewhere in Plato it is not well-attested except in the νοθευόμενοι, where it occurs Min. 318 E , Axioch. 364 B , 368 E. καίτοι γε is also found occasionally in Aristophanes, Xenophon, Aristotle, and the orators: see Blaydes on Ar. Ach. 611 , and the Lex. Arist. Many distinguished critics would emend the idiom everywhere; but the instances are far too numerous for such a drastic policy. The difference between καίτοι ὀφειλόμενόν γε που (which Hoefer de part. Plat. p. 38 would read) and καίτοι γε ὀφειλόμενον would seem to be that in the former more stress is thrown on the word ὀφειλόμενον, in the latter on τοι. καίτοι γε is ‘and surely’ rather than ‘quamquam’ (as Kugler holds de part. τοι eiusque comp. ap. Pl. usu p. 20), cf. IV 440 D note The periphrasis ὀφειλόμενον—ἐστι is used of course to correspond to τὰ ὀφειλόμενα in E above: such periphrases (the principle of which is explained in Euthyph. 9 E ff.) are extremely common in Plato. See W. J. Alexander in A. J. Ph. IV pp. 299 ff.

ἀποδοτέον ‐‐ ἀπαιτοῖ : ‘well, but we were not on any account to make restoration at the time when the claimant is’—according to the Greek idiom ‘was’ —‘mad.’ Socrates, as in ὅπερ ἄρτι ἐλέγομεν, is appealing to the admissions made by the πατὴρ τοῦ λόγου (in 331 C), as he is justified in doing when addressing his heir. ὁπότε is not—as τότε shews —the particle of ‘indefinite frequency,’ but stands for ὅτε of the direct: the whole clause τότε ὁπότε τις μὴ σωφρόνως ἀπαιτοῖ is thus in the oratio obliqua of self-quotation and exactly corresponds to εἰ μανεὶς ἀπαιτοῖ in 331 C. Madvig's ἀπαιτεῖ for ἀπαιτοῖ is therefore unnecessary. Goodwin MT. p. 213 explains the optative otherwise, but not (I think) rightly.

ἀγαθὸν μέν τι δρᾶν sc. αὐτούς, for τοῖς φίλοις depends on ὀφείλειν, to which τοὺς φίλους is the subject.

μανθάνω ‐‐ ὅτι . ὅτι is ‘because,’ not ‘that,’ as always (I believe) in Plato's use of this phrase: cf. Euthyph. 3 B , 9 B and infra III 402 E, VIII 568 E. For the sentiment cf. (with J. and C.) Xen. Mem. IV 2 17 ff.

ὀφείλεται δέ . See cr. n. In explanatory clauses of this kind δέ and not δέ γε is the correct usage: cf. infra 337 D, 344 A. I therefore follow Bekker in reading δέ.

προσήκει . ὀφειλόμενον has thus been equated with προσῆκον by means of the special cases τὸ τοῖς φίλοις ὀφειλόμενον and τὸ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ὀφειλόμενον. τὸ προσῆκον is a more general term and is the regular word in classical Greek for ‘proper conduct’ or ‘duty’ (as the Greeks conceived it), the Stoic καθῆκον being very rarely used in this sense by good authors.

ᾐνίξατο ‐‐ ποιητικῶς . Theaet. 194 C τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς κέαρ, ὃ ἔφη Ὅμηρος αἰνιττόμενος τὴν τοῦ κηροῦ ὁμοιότητα. The present passage is no more serious than that in the Theaetetus: Plato knew that Simonides merely meant to say ‘it is just to render what you owe.’

ἀλλὰ τί ὄει ; is a rhetorical question, which needs and receives no answer, like τί μήν; and τί μὴν δοκεῖς; ( Theaet. 162 B ). It is equivalent to ‘of course.’ For the use of τί Stallbaum compares Gorg. 480 B τί γὰρ δὴ φῶμεν; to which there is also no reply. This explanation is preferable to that of Madvig, who gives ἀλλὰ τί οἴει to Socrates, and takes ἔφη as equivalent to συνέφη— a harsh usage in a narrated dialogue, and not likely to have been intended by Plato, because sure to be misunderstood. Liebhold's ἄλλο τι οἴει; <οὐκ> ἔφη has everything against it.

ὦ πρὸς Διὸς κτλ. ‘In the name of heaven, said I, if any one then had asked him’ etc. ‘what reply do you think he would have made to us?’ ὦ before πρὸς Διός is (as Schanz holds) an interjection, and does not require a vocative to follow it: cf. Euthyd. 287 A , 290 E. It is tempting (with Tucker) to take ὦ πρὸς Διός as part of the address to Simonides (cf. Euthyd. 294 B ὦ πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὦ Διονυσόδωρε—αὐτὼ τῷ ὄντι πάντα ἐπίστασθον). But on this view the presence of εἰ οὖν—ἤρετο forms a difficulty, and ὦ πρὸς Διός may very well go with τί ἂν οἴει— ἀποκρίνασθαι.

ὀφειλόμενον καὶ προσῆκον . It is characteristic of Plato to combine the thing explained and the explanation itself in this way: see my note on Prot. 314 A . Here ὀφειλόμενον is necessary to enable Simonides to recognise his own saying.

ἰατρικὴ ‐‐ μαγειρική . In Gorg. 463 A ff. Plato refuses the name of ‘art’ to ὀψοποιική: it is but an ἐμπειρία or τριβή, a sort of bastard adjunct to ἰατρική, as κομμωτική is to γυμναστική. Here, where less precision is required, both are regarded as τέχναι.

εἶεν according to Timaeus ( Lexicon s. v.) expresses συγκατάθεσις μὲν τῶν εἰρημένων, συναφὴ δὲ πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα. It rarely expresses συγκατάθεσις (‘assent’) and no more: see on IV 436 C. The word was pronounced εἶἑν with intervocalic aspiration (Uhlig in Fl. Jahrb. 1880 pp. 790 ff.) and may possibly be a compound of εἷα and ἕν (used as in ἓν μὲν τόδ’ ἤδη τῶν τριῶν παλαισμάτων Aesch. Eum. 589 ). εἶἑν is the usual orthography in Paris A, and has left some traces also in the Bodleian MS e.g. Gorg. 466 C .

τέχνη δικαιοσύνη . The Socratic view that Justice is an art—a view that dominates the whole of the conversation w<*> Polemarchus—is thus introduced quite incidentally.

τὸ ‐‐ λέγει . Cf. Xen. Hiero II 2 (cited above on 331 E).

τί δέ; ὁ δίκαιος κτλ. This punctuation throws more emphasis on ὁ δίκαιος than τί δὲ ὁ δίκαιος; which appears in some editions. It is therefore to be preferred in introducing the application of the two illustrations. So also below in 333 A τί δὲ δή; τὴν δικαιοσύνην κτλ.

προσπολεμεῖν explains ἐχθροὺς βλάπτειν as ξυμμαχεῖν explains φίλους ὠφελεῖν. Ast's προπολεμεῖν (a conjecture of Stephanus) would leave ἐχθ<*>οὺς βλάπτειν unrepresented. Stephanus' conjecture was natural enough with the wrong reading καὶ ξυμμαχεῖν, which Ast also followed. For

ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ Hartman demands ἔμοιγε δοκεῖν; but cf. 333 B, Crito 43 D, Phaed. 108 D , Menex. 236 B . These cases shew that δοκεῖ can be used without ὡς: and ἐμοὶ ( ἔμοιγε) δοκεῖν does not occur in the Republic (Grünenwald in Schanz's Beitr. <*>ur hist. Synt. d. gr. Spr. II 3 p. 12).

ξυμβολαια are contracts where money is involved. Polemarchus (as in εἰς ἀργυρίου in B below), in harmony with the natural meaning of Simonides' saying, thinks first of pecuniary dealings as the sphere in which δικαιοσύνη acts. Socrates substitutes for ξυμβόλαια the more general term κοινωνήματα, in order once more to introduce the analogy of the arts.

εἰς τίνα δὴ κοινωνίαν is idiomatic for εἰς τίνος δὴ κοινωνίαν. Compare VIII 556 C ἢ ἐν ὁδῶν πορείαις ἢ ἐν ἄλλαις τισὶ κοινωνίαις and τὴν τιμὴν ταύτην (where the English idiom would expect τὴν τιμὴν ταύτης) in II 371 E. In spite of εἰς κρουμάτων and εἰς ἀργυρίου, it is not necessary to read (with Richards) τίνος.

παρακαταθέσθαι καὶ σῶν εἶναι . The double expression is necessary to explain κοινῇ χρῆσθαι: the κοινωνία arises because one deposits the money and by the other it is kept safe.

ἄχρηστον ‐‐ χρήσιμος . ἄχρηστος fluctuates between ‘unused’ and ‘useless’: the latter sense is predominant here and gives an epigrammatic tone to the sentence (cf. ἐν μὲν χρήσει ἄχρηστος, ἐν δὲ ἀχρηστίᾳ χρήσιμος in D). It is noticeable that Plato does not take into account the possibility of money being deposited at interest: in this case the money could not be said to be useless.

καὶ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίᾳ : not ‘to the individual and to the state,’ but ‘both in dealings with others, and in personal concerns.’ The words καὶ ἰδίᾳ are, strictly speaking, irrelevant, for it is with κοινωνήματα (in the widest sense) that we are concerned. They are to be regarded merely as a rhetorical amplification for the sake of emphasis: cf. infra 350 A, 351 A notes

οὐκ ἂν οὖν κτλ. See cr. n. Some may think that we should read οὐκοῦν (with the majority of MSS) and cancel εἴη after σπουδαῖον (so also Vind. D), understanding ἐστι. The accidental omission of ἄν is however not uncommon in Plato's MSS: see on IV 437 B.

οὗτος καὶ φυλάξασθαι . Because knowledge of anything implies knowledge also of its opposite, according to the usual Socratic view. See Phaed. 97 D οὐδὲν ἄλλο σκοπεῖν προσήκειν ἄνθρωπον—ἀλλ’ ἢ τὸ ἄριστον καὶ τὸ βέλτιστον· ἀναγκαῖον δὲ εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον καὶ τὸ χεῖρον εἰδέναι, Charm. 166 E , Hipp. Min. 367 A ff. See also Stewart's Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics Vol. I p. 378.

φυλάξασθαι κτλ. See cr. n. With the emendation in the text, the argument is as follows: (1) he who can πατάξαι, can φυλάξασθαι: (2) he who can φυλάξασθαι ( νόσον), can λαθεῖν ἐμποιήσας ( νόσον): (3) he who can κλέψαι ( τὰ τῶν πολεμίων), is a good φύλαξ of an army. Thus the predicate of each step in the argument corresponds to the subject of the step next following: for λαθεῖν ἐμποιήσας ( νόσον) is to be taken as parallel to κλέψαι ( τὰ τῶν πολεμίων). The argument is unsound, and not intended to be serious: it is enough that it suffices to bewilder Polemarchus. For a further discussion on this passage see App. II.

στρατοπέδου γε κτλ. The στρατηγός must be both φυλακτικος τε καὶ κλέπτης according to Socrates in Xen. Mem. III 1. 6.

κλέπτειν and

κλέμμα were used (especially by Spartans) with reference to military operations involving surprise and stealth (Classen on Thuc. v 9. 5).

κλέπτης ‐‐ ἀναπέφανται . Cf. Hipp. Min. 365 C ff., where this view is worked out at length, ib. 369 B ἀναπέφανται ὁ αὐτὸς ὢν ψευδής τε καὶ ἀληθής and Xen. Mem. IV 2. 20 ff. ἀναπέφανται, as J. and C. remark, expresses an unexpected result—here a paradox. Like ὁ ἑκὼν ἁμαρτάνων ἀμείνων, the conclusion is a logical inference from the Socratic identification of virtue and knowledge, made without regard to experience.

ἀγαπᾷ , ‘esteems,’ is said with reference to ἐσθλόν in Hom. Od. XIX 395 f. μητρὸς ἑῆς πατέρ’ ἐσθλόν, ὃς ἀνθρώπους ἐκέκαστο | κλεπτοσύνῃ θ’ ὅρκῳ τε. The suggested ἄγαται for ἀγαπᾷ τε would be too strong: see Symp. 180 B μᾶλλον— θαυμάζουσιν καὶ ἄγανται—ὅταν ὁ ἑρώμενος τὸν ἐραστὴν ἀγαπᾷ, where the meaning of ἀγαπᾷ is shewn by οὕτω περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο in 180 A.

τοῦτο ‐‐ ἔτι . So Euthyphro (15 B) harks back to his first definition of piety (6 E) after he has been refuted by Socrates. Cf. also VII 515 E note

δοκεῖ does double duty, first with τοῦτο and then with δικαιοσύνη: cf. VI 493 A, VII 517 B, 525 B, 530 B and (with Stallbaum) Ap. 25 B . Hartman needlessly doubts the text.

φίλους δὲ λέγεις κτλ. The same mode of argument recurs in 339 B ff. Cf. also Hipp. Maior 284 D.

φίλοι κτλ. Schneider rightly observes that κατὰ δὴ τὸν σὸν λόγον below tends to shew that ἀλλ’ ὅμως —βλάπτειν is interrogative. The argument is in the form of a dilemma: either a it is just to injure those who do us no injustice (and benefit those who do), or b it is just to injure friends and benefit foes. The first alternative is immoral ( πονηρός), and the second directly opposed to Simonides' view. Socrates suppresses the words which I have put in brackets, because they lessen rather than increase the immorality of the conclusion: the second alternative is expressed in full as the αὐτὸ τοὐναντίον ἢ τὸν Σιμωνίδην ἔφαμεν λέγειν .

ὅσοι κτλ. : not ‘those of mankind who are in error’ (J. and C.) but ‘those who have mistaken their men’: cf. Phaedr. 257 D τοῦ ἑταίρου συχνὸν διαμαρτάνεις. So also Schneider, and Davies and Vaughan.

πονηροὶ γὰρ κτλ. Stallbaum (followed by D. and V.) wrongly takes αὐτοῖς as ‘in their eyes.’ The reasoning is difficult only from its brevity. If it is δίκαιον βλάπτειν ἀδίκους, and men sometimes suppose that a man is good when he is bad ( πονηροὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς εἰσὶν ‘for they have bad friends’), then since friend has been defined as one whom we suppose to be good (334 C), it is sometimes δίκαιον βλάπτειν φίλους. Stallbaum's view is quite inconsistent with the definition of friends in 334 C as οὓς ἄν τις ἡγῆται χρηστούς.

τὸν φίλον καὶ ἐχθρόν . Hartman (with some inferior MSS) wishes to insert τόν before ἐχθρόν; but cf. infra III 400 D and many other examples cited by himself. To pronounce them all corrupt is to destroy the basis on which our knowledge of Platonic idiom rests.

τὸν δοκοῦντά τε ‐‐ καὶ τὸν ὄντα . The meaning required—‘he who both seems and is good’—would be more correctly expressed by τὸν δοκοῦντά τε—καὶ ὄντα (so Ast and others), but “aliquid tribuendum interpositis ἧ δ’ ὅς, quae negligentiam repetendi, si est negligentia, saltem excusant” (Schneider, who compares also infra 341 B ποτέρως λεγεις τὸν ἄρχοντά τε καὶ τὸν κρείττονα). In τὸν δὲ δοκοῦντα μέν, ὄντα δὲ μή Polemarchus expresses himself more accurately.

ὁ ἀγαθός ‐‐ ὁ πονηρός . Socrates unfairly neglects the δοκῶν, although according to Polemarchus' amended definition the ἀγαθός who seemed πονηρός would not be a friend, nor the πονηρός who seemed ἀγαθός an enemy. Polemarchus' theory indeed points to a division of men into three classes: friends, enemies, and those who are neither (viz. those who seem good and are bad, and those who seem bad and are good). The somewhat ideal view that the ἀγαθός is φίλος and the πονηρὸς ἐχθρός is genuinely Socratic (cf. Mem. II 6. 14 ff.): it is part of the wider view that all men desire the good ( Symp. 206 A , Gorg. 467 C ff.).

προσθεῖναι ‐‐ βλάπτειν . ἤ after τῷ δικαίῳ must mean ‘or in other words’: cf. infra 349 E πλεονεκτεῖν ἢ ἀξιοῦν πλέον ἔχειν and Phaed. 85 D ἐπὶ βεβαιοτέρου ὀχήματος, ἢ λόγου θείου τινός (so the Bodleian, but ἤ is cancelled by many editors). The late expression Φαίδων ἢ περὶ ψυχῆς involves essentially the same use of ἤ. .The clause ὡς—κακῶς is summed up in τούτῳ, and the whole sentence means: ‘do you wish us to make an addition to our account of justice, or in other words to say now—in addition to our original definition where we said it was just to do good to friends and harm to enemies—that it is just to do good to friends if they are good etc.’ This explanation is (I think) the least vulnerable one, if the text is to be retained. With προσθεῖναι used absolutely cf. 339 B. For other views see App. III.

ἔστιν ἄρα κτλ. Cf. Crito 49 A ff., Corg. 469 B , [ περὶ ἀρετῆς] 376 E. This chapter contains the only element of permanent ethical interest and value in the discussion with Polemarchus—the only element, moreover, which reappears in a later book of the Republic (11 379 B). The underlying principle—that κακῶς ποιεῖν = κακὸν ποιεῖν—is in accordance with the traditional Greek view of life. For illustrations we may cite Od. XVIII 136 f. τοῖος γὰρ νόος ἐστὶν ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων | οἷον ἐπ’ ἦμαρ ἄγῃσι πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε, Arch. Fr. 70 (Bergk), and Simon. Fr. 5. 10—14 ἄνδρα δ’ οὐκ ἔστι μὴ οὐ κακὸν ἔμμεναι | ὃν ἀμάχανος συμφορὰ καθέλοι· | πράξας μὲν εὖ πᾶς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, | κακὸς δ’ εἰ κακῶς <τις>, | κἀπὶ πλεῖστον ἄριστοι, τούς κε θεοὶ φιλῶσιν. The same point of view is manifest in the transition of meaning in μοχθηρός and πονηρός from ‘laborious,’ ‘afflicted’ (e.g. Hesiod Fr. 95. 1 Göttling) to ‘depraved.’ Conversely, prosperity makes one morally better, as in Solon 13. 69 f. τῷ δὲ κακῶς ἔρδοντι θεὸς περὶ πάντα τίθησιν | συντυχίην ἀγαθήν, ἔκλυσιν ἀφροσύνης, and in the frequent identification of εὐπραγία or εὐδαιμονία with εὖ πράττειν e.g. Charm. 172 A , 173 D, Alc. I 116 B, Arist. Eth. Nic. I 8. 1098^{b} 20. It is by the analogy of the arts that Socrates in this chapter seeks to prove, first the identification κακῶς ποιεῖν = κακὸν ποιεῖν, and second that the good man cannot harm others: the Socratic conception of right conduct as an art is still predominant. It is important to observe that it was by means of this Socratic weapon that Plato achieved this noble anticipation of Christian ethical theory (St Matth. 5. 44 al.). Cf. also Gorg. 472 D ff.

ἀνθρώπους δὲ κτλ. Cf. 352 E— 353 E.

οὐκ ἦν σοφὸς ‐‐ εἰπών . Teichmüller ( Lit. Fehd. I p. 22 note) finds in this an allusion to Xenophon, who puts into the mouth of Socrates (addressing Critobulus in Mem. II 6. 35) the words ἔγνωκας ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν εἶναι, νικᾶν τοὺς μὲν φίλους εὖ ποιοῦντα, τοὺς δὲ ἐχθροὺς κακῶς: but the reference is only to 331 E σοφὸς γὰρ καὶ θεῖος ἀνήρ. The presents φησίν and νοεῖ are used in a general way, because such a theory and such an interpretation of it might be held by any one at any time: in οὐκ ἦν σοφὸς ὁ ταῦτα εἰπών the time is changed to the past to suggest οὐκ ἦν Σιμωνίδης ὁ ταῦτα εἰπών (Simonides being σοφός 331 E). But for ὁ ταῦτα εἰπών, ἦν would be ἐστι. It is a mistake to take ἦν as ‘is after all’: ἦν is hardly so used in Plato without ἄρα, nor is Phaedr. 230 A (cited by Goodwin MT. p. 13) an example of that idiom.

ἐάν τις αὐτὸ φῇ ‐‐ Σιμωνίδην : as Xenophon virtually does in Hier. II 2: see 331 E note

τῶν σοφῶν τε καὶ μακαρίων ἀνδρῶν . μακάριος is somewhat stronger than θεῖος, which it suggests, μάκαρες being a usual epithet of gods. The whole phrase is intended to carry us back to 331 E σοφὸς γὰρ καὶ θεῖος ἀνήρ. Ast's view that μακαρίων means “qui ante nostram aetatem floruerunt,” as if ‘sainted,’ misses the allusion to 331 E, and is a little far-fetched: it is enough that μακάριος conveys the same ironical commendation as θεῖος: cf. (with Stallbaum) Men. 71 A .

ἐγὼ γοῦν . See cr. n. With Hartman, I adopt Bekker's restoration: cf. VII 527 D. For γοῦν A everywhere writes γοὖν .

Περιάνδρου κτλ. Periander, Xerxes and Perdiccas are taken as types of tyrants, and no tyrant is σοφός ( Rep. IX 587 D). It is noticeable that Periander does not appear in the list of the seven wise men in Prot. 343 A . The expedition of Xerxes against Greece is cited by Callicles in Gorg. 483 D in connexion with the doctrine that might is right. In Περδίκκου the allusion is to Perdiccas II, father of Archelaus ( Gorg. 471 B ): he died late in 414 or early in 413, three years before the probable date of action of the Republic ( Introd. § 3), after proving himself a fickle friend and foe to the Athenians during the Peloponnesian war. Ismenias is mentioned again in Men. 90 A as having become rich δόντος τινός—<*> νῦν νεωστὶ εἰληφὼς τὰ Πολυκράτους χρήματα. There can be no doubt that he is to be identified with the Ismenias who (see Xen. Hell. III 5. 1 ) in 395 took money from Timocrates the Rhodian, envoy of the Persian King, in order to stir up war against Sparta, and who in 382, when the Spartans had seized the Cadmea, was condemned on this charge among others ( Xen. Hell. V 2. 35 ; Plut. Pelop. 5. 2). Plato implies that Ismenias kept enough Persian gold to enrich himself. he was no true Greek if he did not. But what is meant by saying that he had received the money of Polycrates? This question has been much discussed. Possibly ‘the money of Polycrates’ (with allusion, of course, to the riches of the Samian tyrant) was a sarcastic expression current in Athens for ‘the money of Timocrates’: this is perhaps the more likely as we are informed that the Athenians got no share of it themselves ( Hell. III 5. 2). Plato would naturally avail himself of such a political gibe to express his dislike of a man who took gold from the natural enemy of Greece ( Rep. V 470 C) to stir up not war, but sedition (ib. 470 B), and withdraw Agesilaus from fighting with the barbarian: for his political ideal in foreign policy was that of Cimon. See also on V 471 B. It is not however likely, I think, that the present passage was written after Ismenias' death, for Plato is not given to reviling his contemporaries after their death. That the other three persons cited by Plato were already dead would only make his reproof of the living more marked and scathing. The present passage—so far as it goes—is on the whole in favour of Teichmüller's view ( Lit. Fehd. I p. 25) that the first book of the Republic was written soon after 395, when the disgraceful affair was still fresh in men's minds. See Introd. § 4.

οἰομένου is to be pressed (as in III 395 D, 409 C: cf. IV 431 C): their power is fancied, not real: they cannot even do the thing they want: cf. Gorg. 467 A ff. πῶς ἂν οὖν οἱ ῥήτορες μέγα δύναιντο ἢ οἱ τύραννοι ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἐὰν μὴ Σωκράτης ἐξελεγχθῇ—ὅτι ποιοῦσιν ἃ βούλονται;— οὔ φημι ποιεῖν αὐτοὺς ἃ βούλονται. He alone (says Plato) is truly powerful who wills what is good and has the power to obtain it.

ὡς δὲ διεπαυσάμεθα . Cobet's suggestion ὡς δὲ δὴ ἐπαυσάμεθα misses the point. No doubt διαπαύομαι is (as he says) “intermitto orationem post aliquam moram denuo dicturus” (cf. Tim. 78 E , Symp. 191 C ), but this is precisely the sense required, for the question with which Socrates concludes ( τί ἂν ἄλλο κτλ.) shews that he desires to resume the discussion.

ταῦτ’ εἶπον refers to εἶεν—φαίη εἶναι.

συστρέψας ‐‐ διαρπασόμενος : ‘gathering himself up he sprang at us like a wild beast as though he would seize and carry us off.’ Thrasymachus comes down like a wolf on the fold. ἧκεν is not from <*>κω, but from ἵημι: this is also Ast's view (in his Lex. Plat.). The expression ἥκειν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς would be too weak after συστρέψας ἑαυτὸν ὥσπερ θηρίον. The object to ἧκεν is ἑαυτόν, easily supplied from συστρέψας ἑαυτόν: lit. ‘he let himself go at us.’ Cf. Ar. Frogs 133 . It should be noted also that compounds of ἵημι occasionally drop ἑαυτόν altogether and become intransitive (e.g. VIII 563 A, Prot. 336 A ). Hartman's ᾖττεν for ἧκεν is not likely to find favour. For διαρπασόμενος Cobet would read διασπασόμενος. Plato however does not use διασπᾶν of harrying by wild beasts, but in the sense of disiungere, seiungere (VI 503 B, Laws 669 D): and even Cobet does not propose to change Pol. 274 B διηρπάζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτῶν (i.e. θηρίων). J. and C.'s citation of Il. XVI 355 αἶψα διαρπάζουσιν (i.e. οἱ λύκοι τὰς ἄρνας) seems to me (in spite of Hartman's wonder) strictly relevant, if only we take διαρπάζειν as ‘harry,’ and not (with J. and C.) as ‘tear in pieces.’

τίεὐηθίζεσθε κτλ. εὐηθίζεσθε refers to the readiness of the interlocutors to assent to one another's questions: cf. Charm. 175 C οὕτως ἡμῶν εὐηθικῶν τυχοῦσα ἡ σκέψις καὶ οὐ σκληρῶν.

ὑποκατακλινόμενοι : a metaphor, not from the wrestling schools, but from taking a lower or inferior seat at table or the like: cf. Symp. 222 E ἐὰν οὖν ὑπὸ σοὶ κατακλινῇ Ἀγαθών and Plut. quomodo adul. ab amico internoscatur 58 D τὰς τοιαύτας ὑποκατακλίσεις (alluding to men who take the front seats at theatres etc., in order to flatter the rich by giving up their seats to them). Thrasymachus' brutal frankness is not intended by Plato to be altogether wide of the mark: see App. II and 335 A note

μὴ ‐‐ φιλοτιμοῦ ἐλέγχων . A common reproach against Socrates: cf. Theae<*>. 150 C.

ὅπως μοι κτλ. This idiom is colloquial and abrupt, almost rude: cf. 337 B and the examples cited in Goodwin MT. p. 94. Thrasymachus will not tolerate the stale and barren platitudes— note ὕθλους below—of ordinary disputation: cf. [ Clitoph.] 409 C οὗτος μὲν—τὸ συμφέρον ἀπεκρίνατο, ἄλλος δὲ τὸ δέον, ἕτερος δὲ τὸ ὠφέλιμον, ὁ δὲ τὸ λυσιτελοῦν and Stewart's Nicomachean Ethics Vol. I p. 16, with the references there quoted.

εἰ μὴ πρότερος ‐‐ γενέσθαι . The θηρίον of 336 B has become a wolf. This is the earliest allusion in Greek literature to the belief that if a wolf sees you first you become dumb. Like Virgil Ecl. IX 53 the present passage favours Schaefer's emendation Αύκος εἶδέ ς); for Αύκον εἶδες in Theocr. XIV 22.

μὴ χαλεπὸς ἡμῖν ἴσθι : ἀεὶ θρασύμαχος εἶ, said Herodicus on one occasion to the sophist (Arist. Rhet. II 23. 1400^{b} 20).

ἐξαμαρτάνομεν ‐‐ ἁμαρτάνομεν : the preposition is often dropped in repeating a compound verb: cf. V 452 A, VII 533 A, X 608 A and my note on Prot. 311 A . I can see no sufficient reason for inserting τι before ἐξαμαρτάνομεν (with Π and some other MSS), although Stallbaum and others approve of the addition.

μὴ γὰρ δὴ οἴου κτλ. Cf. Laws 931 C, where there is a similar a fortiori sentence couched in the imperatival form.

ἑκόντας εἶναι . This phrase is used sixteen times by Plato, always in negative clauses, and generally in the nominative or accusative (Grünenwald in Schanz's Beiträge zur hist. Synt. d. gr. Spr. II 3. 1 ff.).

οἴου γε σύ, ὦ φίλε : i.e. ἡμᾶς σπουδάζειν ὅ τι μάλιστα φανῆναι αὐτό. For the justification of this view see App. IV.

εἰκός ἐστιν . There is no reason for omitting ἐστίν (with Hartman and apparently also Usener Unser Platotext p. 40).

χαλεπαίνεσθαι . This strained use of the passive of χαλεπαίνω in order to make the antithesis to ἐλεεῖσθαι formal as well as real is not found elsewhere in Plato. For parallels see Cope's Rhetoric of Aristotle Vol. 1 p. 299.

σαρδάνιον . Plato uses this expression as Homer does, of a sinister smile which bodes pain to others: Od. XX 301 f. μείδησε δὲ θυμῷ | σαρδάνιον μάλα τοῖον (of Odysseus among the suitors). Among later authors it more frequently denotes the forced smile which disguises the sufferer's own pain; and so apparently Simonides used the phrase ( Fr. 202 A Bergk). The explanations volunteered by the ancients apply only to the non-Homeric usage: the Scholiast, however, at the end of his note on this passage correctly remarks, μήποτε οὖν τὸ Ὁμηρικόν, ὅθεν καὶ ἡ παροιμία ἴσως ἐρρύη, “ μείδησε δὲ κτλ.,” τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν χειλῶν γέλωτα καὶ μέχρι τοῦ σεσηρέναι γιγνόμενον σημαίνει. The spelling σαρδόνιον came into vogue through the popular etymology from the bitter Sardinian herb, ἧς οἱ γευσάμενοι δοκοῦσι μὲν γελῶντες, σπασμῷ δὲ ἀποθνῄσκουσιν (Schol.). The Scholiast's suggested derivation from σαίρειν ( ringi, as of an angry dog) suits the meaning which the phrase bears in Homer and Plato, and is probably right. Photius' σαρδάζων· μετὰ πικρίας γελῶν preserves the δ .

ποιήσοις is rejected by Cobet and Herwerden. “Post οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἤ, τί ἄλλο ἤ, πάντα μᾶλλον ἤ verbum omittunt” (says Cobet, quoting Theophr. Char. c. 25). ποιήσοις is not however otiose, but suggests the phrase πάντα ποιεῖν, ‘leave nothing undone,’ as in Euthyph. 8 C πάντα ποιοῦσι καὶ λέγουσι φεύγοντες τὴν δίκην: cf. Ap. 39 A .

ἐρωτᾷ . I formerly read ἐρωτῷ (with Goodwin MT. p. 277). A few inferior MSS have ἔροιτο. The optative is certainly the regular periodic construction in clauses of this kind: but the indicative may perhaps be allowed in loose conversational style.

τυγχάνει ὄν . Stallbaum explains ὄν as ‘being true,’ and τι as the subject to τυγχάνει. This view is perhaps less natural than to make ὄν the copula and τι the predicate: for the pronoun ‘it’ i.e. τὸ ἐρωτώμενον (Schneider) can be quite easily understood. For the use of τυγχάνει ὄν (‘really is’) cf. II 379 A, VII 518 E, Euthyph. 4 E with my note ad loc.

ὡς δή . The force of ὡς in this common ironical expression ( quasi vero, cf. Gorg. 468 E , 499 B) is referred by Jebb ( Soph. O. C. 809 ) to an ellipse: ‘(do you mean) forsooth that.’ An objection to this theory is that it will not explain ὡς δή τοι in cases like II 366 C, Phaedr. 242 C , Tim. 26 B . It seems better to explain these usages on the same principle. The view that ὡς is exclamatory will not account for II 366 C, and is not specially appropriate in the other places. Neither is it easy to make ὡς= ἐπεί (‘your illustration is excellent, seeing that the cases are so very similar!’ Tucker). Schneider (on II 366 C) regards ὡς as nearly equivalent to ὥστε (cf. note on II 365 D). Probably ὡς is in reality consequential (like the English ‘so’), the relative retaining its original demonstrative sense. This explanation will, I believe, suit all the passages in question.

περὶ δικαιοσύνης κτλ. περὶ δικαιοσύνης and τούτων are rejected by Herwerden, but the fulness of expression suits the arrogant tone of Thrasymachus.

τί ἀξιοῖς παθεῖν ; Here and in what follows there is a play on the judicial formula παθεῖν ἢ ἀποτεῖσαι, where παθεῖν refers to δεσμός φυγή θάνατος ἀτιμία, and ἀποτεῖσαι to fines. In a δίκη τιμητός, the defendant if found guilty would be asked in the words τί ἀξιοῖς παθεῖν καὶ ἀποτεῖσαι to propose an alternative penalty to that demanded by the accuser; after which it was the duty of the judges finally to assess ( τιμᾶν) the penalty: cf. Ap. 36 B and Laws 933 D. It is partly the paronomasia in the words παθεῖν μαθεῖν (cf. the ancient text πάθος μάθος Aesch. Ag. 176 ) which draws from Thrasymachus the mock compliment ἡδὺς γὰρ εἶ (‘you are vastly entertaining’) although (cf. ἆ <*>διστε 348 C) Thrasymachus is also jeering at the simplicity of Socrates.

πρὸς τῷ μαθεῖν καὶ ἀπότεισον . Hertz and Herwerden conjecture παθεῖν for μαθεῖν: but this would make Thrasymachus ignore Socrates' identification of παθεῖν with μαθεῖν. In ἀπότεισον ἀργύριον Plato no doubt satirizes (somewhat crudely, it must be allowed) the avarice of Thrasymachus and his class, in contrast with whom Socrates has no money, because his conversations are gratis.

εἰσοίσομεν . The metaphor is from a banquet to which each contributes his share: cf. Symp. 177 C ἐγὼ οὖν ἐπιθυμῶ ἅμα μὲν τούτῳ ἔρανὀν εἰσενεγκεῖν κτλ.

ἀπειρημένον αὐτῷ . See cr. n. The retention of εἴη after αὐτ ῷ can only be defended by regarding μὴ εἰδὼς μηδὲ φάσκων as equivalent to εἰ μὴ εἰδείη μηδὲ φάσκοι and carrying on the εἰ; but this is excessively harsh and no parallel has yet been adduced. Of the two alternatives, to insert an εἰ before ἀπειρημένον or εἴη, and to drop εἴη (with Bremius), I prefer the latter as simpler in itself and accounting more easily for the corruption. The accusative absolute may have been misunderstood and εἴη inserted by a negligent reader owing to εἰ in the previous line. Richter (in Fl. Jahrb. 1867 p. 137) inserts δ) before αὐτῷ and retains εἴη, regarding εἴ τι καὶ οἴεται and ἀπειρημένον δ’ αὐτῷ εἴη as coordinate clauses under the rule of the same εἰ; but to this there are many objections. Tucker's suggestion εἰ, ὅ τι καὶ οἴεται περὶ τούτων, ἀπειρημένον αὐτῷ εἴη κτλ. (‘if, in regard to whatever he thinks about them, it were forbidden’ etc.) strikes me as heavy and cumbrous.

μὴ οὖν ἄλλως ποίει : 328 B note

ἄκουε δή calls for attention, ostentatiously, like a herald: cf. X 595 C, Ap. 20 D , Prot. 353 C .

Πουλυδάμας ‐‐ ὁ παγκρατιαστής . οὗτος ὁ Πουλυδάμας ἀπὸ Σκοτούσσης ἦν, πόλεως θεσσαλίας, διασημότατος παγκρατιαστής, ὑπερμεγέθης, says the Scholiast. He was victor in the ninety-third Olympian games 408 B.C. Stallbaum refers to Pausanias (VI 5) and others for the wonderful stories of his prowess. His statue at Olympia by Lysippus was very famous. Cf. Boeckh Kl. Schr. IV p. 446.

τοῦτο τὸ σιτίον κτλ. Teichmüller ( Lit. Fehd. II p. 196) finds in this a confirmation of his belief that Plato was a vegetarian: but it is implied merely that a beef diet was not considered wholesome for persons out of training. Aristotle may have had this passage in view in Eth. Nic. II 5. 1106^{a} 36 ff., though his illustration is there taken from quantity, and not from quality, of food. Cf. also Gorg. 490 C .

ξυμφέρον ἅμα καὶ δίκαιον . The sophistry is undisguised. If βόεια κρέα is Polydamas' συμφέρον and δίκαιον, and δίκαιον is assumed to be everywhere identical with itself, it follows that βόεια κρέα is our δίκαιον, but not our ξυμφέρον, otherwise we are also κρείττονες. To avoid this, Wohlrab ingeniously takes ἐκείνου not with ἥττοσιν but with ξυμφέρον ἅμα καὶ δίκαιον, as if the meaning were ‘Polydamas' συμφέρον καὶ δίκαιον is also δίκαιον for us.’ This explanation is however linguistically harsh and comparatively pointless. On βδελυρὸς γὰρ εἶ Tucker aptly reminds us that the prevailing feature in Theophrastus' description of the βδελυρός ( Char. c. 11) is παιδιὰ ἐπιφανὴς καὶ ἐπονείδιστος (‘obtrusive and objectionable pleasantry’ Jebb).

κακουργήσαις . Cope observes that the word is used “of the knavish tricks and fallacies which may be employed in rhetorical and dialectical reasoning” ( Aristotle's Rhetoric Vol. 1 p. 17). Cf. Gorg. 483 A (cited by Tucker).

εἶτ’ οὐκ οἶσθα κτλ. ‘Do you mean to say you don't know’ etc. The division of constitutions into Monarchy, Oligarchy (for which Aristocracy is here substituted) and Democracy was familiar to everybody: see Aeschin. Ctes. 6, Tim. 4 ὁμολογοῦνται γὰρ τρεῖς εἶναι πολιτεῖαι παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, τυραννὶς καὶ ὀλιγαρχία καὶ δημοκρατία. Cf. Whibley Greek Oligarchies pp. 17, 24. Thrasymachus proceeds to define κρείττων as ὁ κρατῶν (not ὁ ἰσχυρότερος, as Socrates had insinuated): ‐κρατοῦνται in δημοκρατοῦνται and ἀριστοκ ρατοῦνται well brings out his meaning. Cf. Laws 714 B νόμων εἴδη τινές φασιν εἶναι τοσαῦτα ὅσαπερ πολιτειῶν, and C οὔτε γὰρ πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον οὔτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὅλην βλέπειν δεῖν φασι τοὺς νόμους, ἀλλ) ἥτις ἂν καθεστηκυῖα ᾖ πολιτεία, ταύτῃ δεῖν τὸ ξυμφέρον ὅπως ἄρξει τε ἀεὶ καὶ μὴ καταλυθήσεται, καὶ τὸν φύσει ὅρον τοῦ δικαίου λέγεσθαι κάλλισθ) οὕτως. Πῶς; Ὅτι τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ξυμφέρον ἐστί .

τίθεται δέ γε : Laws l. c. τίθεται δήπου, φασί, τοὺς νόμους ἐν τῇ πόλει ἑκάστοτε τὸ κρατοῦν. ἦ γάρ; Ἀληθῆ λέγεις. Ἆῤ οὖν οἴει, φασί, ποτὲ δῆμον νικήσαντα ἤ τινα πολιτείαν ἄλλην ἢ καὶ τύραννον θήσεσθαι ἑκόντα πρὸς ἄλλο τι πρῶτον νόμους <*> τὸ συμφέρον ἑαυτῷ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ μένειν; Πῶς γὰρ ἄν; Aristotle makes it the distinguishing mark of his three perverted forms ( παρεκβάσεις) of constitution ( τυραννίς, ὀλιγαρχία, δημοκρατία) that they seek their own and not τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον: Pol. Γ 7. 1279^{b} 4 ff.

τὸν τούτου ἐκβαίνοντα κτλ. Laws 714 D οὐκοῦν καὶ ὄς ἂν ταῦτα τὰ τεθέντα παραβαίνῃ, κολάσει ὁ θέμενος ὡς ἀδικοῦντα, δίκαια ταῦτ) εἶναι ἐπονομάζων; Ἔοικε γοῦν. Ταῦτ) ἄῤ ἀεὶ καὶ οὕτω καὶ ταύτῃ τὸ δίκαιον ἂν ἔχοι. Φησὶ γοῦν οὗτος ὁ λόγος. νόμος and δίκαιον are identified by this theory.

ταὐτὸν εἶναι δίκαιον . Herwerden would expunge ταὐτόν, but ταὐτὸν is not more otiose here than τὸ αὐτὸ below.

ξυμφέρον γέ τι . There is here a hint of the main purpose of the Republic, which is to prove that δίκαιον is ξυμφέρον in the truest sense for the individual and the state.

οὐ ‐‐ μέντοι . “In interrogationibus haec particula” ( μέντοι) “ita cum οὐ negatione coniungitur, ut gravissima sententiae vox intercedat, quo modo aliquis eis quae ex altero quaerit summam veritatis ingerit speciem” (Hoefer de part. Plat. p. 34). μέντοι is simply ‘of course,’ ‘surely’: ‘surely you regard it as just to obey the rulers, do you not?’ The idiom is frequent in Plato. The other examples of it (cited by Stallbaum) in the Republic are infra 346 A, VII 521 D, IX 581 A, 584 A, X 596 E.

πότερον δὲ ἀναμάρτητοι κτλ. The reasoning echoes that of 334 C above.

τιθέναι ‐‐ τίθεσθαι : we should expect τιθέναι in both cases, as the ἄρχοντες according to the theory we are discussing are κρείττονες and supreme as legislators: but the middle of personal interest is naturally used in combination with τὰ ξυμφέροντα ἑαυτοῖς: cf. infra 341 A.

τί λέγεις σύ ; a favourite eristic formula: see Ar. Clouds 1174 τοῦτο τοὐπιχώριον | ἀτεχνῶς ἐπανθεῖ, τὸ τί λέγεις σύ;

τοίνυν : not ‘therefore,’ but ‘also,’ a frequent use in Plato. In the Republic it occurs 29 times, according to Kugler de particulae τοι eiusque comp. ap. Pl. usu p. 34.

ὅταν οἱ μὲν ‐‐ τοῖς δέ (i.e. τοῖς ἀρχομένοις). These two clauses depend, not on ὡμολογῆσθαι, but on ποιεῖν: it is just to do τὰ ἀξύμφορα τοῖς ἄρχουσιν as often as the rulers unwillingly prescribe what is evil for themselves and so long as Thrasymachus says it is just for subjects to do what the rulers have prescribed. Desire for brevity and balance leads Plato to put both clauses under the government of ὅταν, although ‘since’ rather than ‘whenever’ is the more appropriate conjunction for introducing the second: for Thrasymachus does not sometimes but always assert that it is just to obey the rulers. The suggested reading φῄς for φῇς would require us to take τοῖς δέ κτλ. as an independent sentence, and leave μὲν in οἱ μέν without a corresponding δέ.

αὐτό is ‘the matter,’ ‘the case before us’: cf. IV 428 A ( αὐτῷ), VII 518 B ( αὐτῶν), 524 E ( αὐτῷ ), Theaet. 172 E al. The text has been needlessly suspected by Madvig and other critics.

οὑτωσί : not ‘in that case’ (Campbell), but (with Jowett) simply ‘thus,’ as explained in δίκαιον—λέγεις: cf. Ap. 26 E οὑτωσί σοι δοκῶ; οὐδένα νομίζω θεὸν εἶναι;

ναὶ μὰ Δία κτλ. The interlude is intended to mark that the first stage has been reached in the refutation of Thrasymachus.

ἐὰν σύ γε is of course ironical. The disciples of the rival disputants now enter the fray.

τὸ γὰρ τὰ κελευόμενα κτλ. If this, and no more, had been Thrasymachus' definition, it would remain unrefuted; commands would be commands, whether expedient for the rulers or not.

δ ἡγοῖτο ‐‐ ξυμφέρειν . This explanation is involved in Clitophon's earlier statement τὸ τὰ κελευόμενα ποιεῖν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων: that which the rulers κελεύουσι is what they believe to be in their interests. Clitophon's defence finds no justification in the terms of Thrasymachus' definition; but it was the most obvious way of attempting to reconcile that definition with the admission that rulers are capable of erring.

τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ξυμφέρον κτλ. Bonitz ( Zeitschr. f. öst. Gymn. 1865 p. 648), followed by Wohlrab, proposes to add the words τὸ ξυμφέρον after ξυμφέρον, “parum venuste,” as Hartman thinks. Neither is it well (with Hartman) to omit τοῦ κρείττονος. The apparent harshness of the construction (‘that which seems to be the stronger's interest to the stronger’) is justified by its brevity and precision, and by the desire to introduce the exact words of the original definition into its amended form.

συκοφάντης . Cf. (with Tucker) Arist. Soph. El. 15. 174^{b} 9 σοφιστικὸν συκοφάντημα τῶν ἐρωτώντων and Rhet. II 24. 1402^{a} 14 ἐπὶ τῶν ἐριστικῶν τὸ κατὰ τί καὶ πρὸς τί καὶ πῇ οὐ προστιθέμενα ποιεῖ τὴν συκοφαντίαν.

λέγομεν τῷ ῥήματι οὕτως . Bekker (with whom Shilleto on Dem. F. L. § 91 agrees) would insert μέν after λέγομεν: but (as Schneider remarks) the emphasis on τῷ ῥήματι does duty instead of the particle, and even otherwise, μέν is not essential: cf. III 398 A (where Shilleto would also add μέν), infra 343 C, II 363 E, X 605 C al.

τὸ δέ =‘whereas in point of fact’ is a favourite Platonic idiom: cf. IV 443 C, VII 527 A, 527 D al.

ἐπιλιπούσης . See cr. n. The present, which Stallbaum and others adopt, may be right, but the older reading is at least as good. The failure in knowledge must precede the actual error. For the mistake see Introd. § 5.

ἀποκρίνεσθαι . The imperfect infinitive, as Schneider remarks ( Addit. p. 6).

συκοφαντεῖν is explained in ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς—κακουργοῦντά σε, where κακουργοῦντα (as Schneider observes) is not used as in 338 D of putting an evil or sophistical interpretation on a theory, but of damaging a man's personal reputation and credit: “scilicet existimationis et pecuniae detrimentum facturus sibi videbatur sophista ideoque Socratem se, quamquam frustra, impugnare in sequentibus quoque criminatur.”

μὴ λαθών : “si non latueris” (Schneider). Stephanus conjectured μήν and Ast με for μή: but either change would destroy the antithesis between λανθάνειν and βιάζεσθαι—secret guile and open fraud: cf. II 365 D ἀλλὰ δὴ θεοὺς οὔτε λανθάνειν, οὔτε βιάσασθαι δυνατόν. Hirschig's excision of μὴ λαθών greatly impairs the emphasis.

τὸν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν . The only exact parallel to this use of ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν in Plato is Laws 656 E σκοπῶν δ’ εὑρήσεις αὐτόθι τὰ μυριοστὸν ἔτος γεγραμμένα ἢ τετυπωμένα οὐχ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν μυριοστὸν ἀλλ’ ὄντως. This idiomatic phrase is rare before Plato, who uses it 77 times with the meaning ‘to put the matter in a word,’ implying that other and possibly more exact means of describing the thing in question might be found. In 52 of these cases the phrase is combined with πᾶς or οὐδείς and their family of words, in the sense of fere, propemodum: its use in other connexions is in part a return to old poetic usage; cf. Aesch. Pers. 714 , Eur. Hipp. 1162 , Heracl. 167. See Grünenwald in Schanz's Beiträge zur hist. Synt. d. gr. Spr. II 3, pp. 21 ff. The other examples in the Republic are V 464 D, VIII 551 B, IX 577 C.

ὃ νῦν δὴ ἔλεγες : viz. in 340 E κατὰ τὸν ἀκριβῆ λόγον. The antecedent is the phrase ἀκριβεῖ λόγῳ. The conjecture of Benedictus, ὅν for ὅ, though adopted by several editors, would (as Schneider remarks) leave it uncertain whether λόγῳ or τόν was referred to by the relative. There is no MS authority for ὅν.

ξυρεῖν ‐‐ λέοντα . παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν καθ) ἑαυτῶν τι ἢ ἀδύνατα ποιεῖν ἐπιχειρούντων λεγομένη (Schol.). The proverb is very rare, and does not seem to occur elsewhere in classical Greek.

οὐδὲν ὢν καὶ ταῦτα : ‘though you were a nonentity at that too’: i.e. at bluffing me, as well as in other respects. So (I think) Schneider, rightly (“aber auch darin ist's nichts mit dir”). Others (e.g. Shorey in A. J. Ph. XVI p. 234) explain ‘and that too though you are a thing of naught.’ But in that case καὶ ταῦτα would surely precede οὐδὲν ὤν. Tucker can hardly be right in making καὶ ταῦτα simply ‘moreover’ ‘too,’ ‘and proved a failure, too.’ Nor (in spite of J. B. Mayor in Cl. Rev. X p. 110) is it quite enough to translate (with Campbell) ‘though here again you are nobody,’ i.e. ‘with as little effect as ever.’

καὶ λέγε ‐‐ ὄντα is expunged by Herwerden, but the emphatic reiteration is in keeping with the whole tone of the passage. For the sense we may recall the words of the so-called oath of Hippocrates εἰς οἰκίας δὲ ὁκόσας ἂν ἐσίω, ἐσελεύσομαι ἐπ’ ὠφελείῃ τῶν καμνόντων (Vol. 1. p. 2 ed. Kühn).

ἑκάστῳ τούτων : viz. τοῖς κάμνουσι, τοῖς ναύταις, and in general the sub jects upon whom the art is exercised. The expression is a little vague (cf. VIII 543 C note) but it is rash and unnecessary to insert εἴδει or write ἑκάστῳ <τῶν εἰδῶν> τούτων, as Tucker recommends.

ἆῤ οὖν ‐‐ τελέαν εἶναι . I have retained this reading, in deference to the MSS, but it is open to grave objection. As the sentence stands, the meaning is that every art (as well as every object of an art—this is implied by καί) has one συμφέρον, viz. to be as perfect as it can, but no other. In the sequel this is interpreted to mean that no art needs any additional ἀρετή; since it is ( qua art) perfect already: οὔτε γὰρ πονηρία οὔτε ἁμαρτία οὐδεμία οὐδεμιᾷ τέχνῃ πάρεστιν κτλ. (342 B). But the words of the sentence ἆρ’ οὖν—τελέαν εἶναι have to be taken very loosely in order to admit of this interpretation. We must suppose them equivalent to ‘No art has a συμφέρον of its own, unless you are to call the fact that it is perfect its συμφέρον.’ If Plato had written the passage as it stands in q and in the margin of Flor. U (both MSS probably of the fifteenth century), it would be open to no objection: ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἑκάστῃ τῶν τεχνῶν ἔστι τι ξυμφέρον ἄλλο <οὗ προσδεῖται>, ἢ <ἐξαρκεῖ ἑκάστη αὐτὴ αὑτῇ, ὥστε> ὅ τι μάλιστα τελέαν εἶναι; This reading was adopted by Bekker, and by Stallbaum in his first edition; and a careful study of the whole passage confirms the judgment of Schneider, “Platonem non solum potuisse, sed etiam debuisse vel haec ipsa vel consimilia scribere.” The same sense, expressed more briefly, may be obtained by the insertion of δεῖ before εἶναι: ‘has every art also a ξυμφέρον besides (i.e. besides the ξυμφέρον of its object), or must it be as perfect as possible?’ <*>κάστην does not require to be repeated any more than in 346 A below. The alteration is very slight; for δεῖ εἶναι, δεῖναι may have been written by mistake and δ afterwards ejected.

νῦν κτλ. : ‘has now been invented.’ The art of medicine is not coeval with body. I can see no reason for thinking (with Campbell) that νῦν is corrupt for ἡμῖν.

σῶμά ἐστι πονηρὸν κτλ. Lys. 217 B ἀναγκάζεται δέ γε σῶμα διὰ νόσον ἰατρικὴν ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ φιλεῖν.

ὅπως ἐκπορίζῃ . This is said by Weber (Schanz's Beiträge II 2, p. 67) to be the only example in Plato of ὅπως with the subjunctive after a preterite tense.