Πλάτωνος Πολιτεία
. On the name, characters, and date of action of the dialogue, see
Introd. §§ 1, 2, 3.
ἐν τῇ ἐδωδῇ ἢ πόσει
refers of course to the patient's diet. Plato carefully writes
πλεονεκτεῖν here in preference to
πλέον ἔχειν. The ‘overreaching’ in such a case might well consist in giving the patient less.
ἢ πράττειν ἢ λέγειν
. The idea of
πλεονεκτεῖν in speaking has not been introduced before, nor is it made use of in the sequel. We must regard the addition of
ἢ λέγειν as merely a rhetorical device to increase the emphasis: see on 333 D and 351 A.
τί δὲ ὁ ἀνεπιστήμων; κτλ.
Proclus' commentary on these words is interesting, though he probably reads more into them than Plato intended here:
καὶ ὅλως τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακὸν ἠναντίωται μόνον, τῷ δὲ κακῷ καὶ τὸ καλὸν (leg.
κακὸν)
καὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν· ἀναιρετικὸν οὖν ἐστι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸ ἐναντίου κακοῦ (
in Alc. I p. 323 ed. Creuzer). The identifications in
ὁ δὲ ἐπιστήμων σοφός and
ὁ δὲ σοφὸς ἀγαθός below have been allowed before in the special cases of the
μουσικός and the
ἰατρικός (349 E).
ἀναπέφανται
. Stallbaum naïvely reminds us that
ἀναπέφανται is often used of a conclusion which “praeter exspectationem emergit et elucet.” The pervading fallacy in the discussion is akin to the
a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Thus ‘like’ and ‘unlike’ are used absolutely, and each of them is equated with itself. The wise man is held to be good, because one is good in that in which one is wise (this might however be justified on the “stricter mode of reasoning”). Finally, the just man is inferred to be wise and good, on the principle that one is what one resembles: but whether the resemblance be in essence or in accident, we are not told. The argument should be regarded as a dialectical
tour de force,—
φιλόνικον μᾶλλον ἢ φιλάληθες. The reasoning in the next section of the argument strikes a deeper note.
ὁ δὲ Θρασύμαχος κτλ.
‘Now Thrasymachus’ etc.
δέ is not “flat” (Tucker), but at least as good as
δή, and much better supported by the MSS.
οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ νῦν ῥᾳδίως λέγω
. “Expectabam certe:
οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ νῦν λέγω ῥᾳδίως,” says Herwerden; but the antecedent in Greek is idiomatically attracted into the relative clause (Kühner
Gr. Gramm. II p. 922). Translate ‘not in the easy way in which I now repeat them.’
ἅτε καὶ θέρους ὄντος
. The action is probably laid in Hecatombaeon (roughly our July): see
Introd. § 3. Bekker (following the punctuation of A) takes
τότε with
ὄντος, but
πρότερον δὲ οὔπω shews that it belongs to
καὶ εἶδον.
τότε καὶ
is simply ‘then too’; I cannot see anything “mock-heroic” in the expression, as J. and C. do.
εἰ οὖν λέγοιμι κτλ.
εἰ δ) οὖν is read by Ast: “sed sufficit externum, ut ita dicam. vinculum
οὖν (Schneider).”
δημηγορεῖν and
εἰπεῖν ὅσα βούλομαι are the opposites of
διαλέγεσθαι and
βραχυλογία (
Prot. 336 B
, 335 A).
ὥσπερ ταῖς γραυσί
. Cf.
Gorg. 527 A
τάχα δ’ οὖν ταῦτα μῦθός σοι δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι, ὥσπερ γραός, καὶ καταφρονεῖς αὐτῶν:
Pol. 268 E
ἀλλὰ δὴ τῷ μύθῳ μου πάνυ πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν, καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες. παῖς for
ταῖς was read before Ast on the authority of one MS; but
ταῖς is quite satisfactory.
ὅπερ ἄρτι
. The words
ἔφαμεν δὲ δὴ καὶ ἰσχυρὸν εἶναι τὴν ἀδικίαν· ἢ οὐ μέμνησαι; (350 D), which are referred to in
ἄρτι, involve the general question of the relation between justice and injustice; whence we have
ὁποῖόν τι τυγχάνει ὂν δικαιοσύνη πρὸς ἀδικίαν. ὁποῖον depends on
ἐρωτῶ, not on
λόγον.