εἰς τὰ ἔργα
should be connected with
σοφοῦ. The omission of
εἰς in A^{1} (see cr. n.) is apparently accidental, for it occurs in all other MSS.
Θάλεώ τε ‐‐ καὶ Ἀναχάρσιος
. Plato retains the Ionic genitive in the Ionic name: cf. Arist.
Pol. A 11. 1259^{a} 6
Θάλεω τοῦ Μιλησίου. On Thales' useful discoveries see Zeller^{5} I p. 183 note 2. Anacharsis was credited by some authorities with the invention of the anchor and the potter's wheel (D. L. I 105).
ὁδόν τινα ‐‐ βίου Ὁμηρικήν
. Yet in another and wider sense Homer
was the founder of a ‘way of life,’ and the
ὁδὸς Ὁμηρική, which Plato so strongly condemns in Books II and III, was in fact the
ὁδὸς Ἑλληνική (Reber
Platon u. die Poesie p. 25). From this point of view Plato's antagonism to Homer is only a symptom of his profound dissent from much that we are accustomed to regard as essentially characteristic of the Greek view of life. See on V 470 E and Bohne
Wie gelangt P. zur Aufstellung s. Staatsideals, etc. p. 38.
Πυθαγόρειον τρόπον ‐‐ τοῦ βίου
. The aim of the
Πυθαγόρειος βίος was
ἕπεσθαι θεῷ, and the rules of abstinence etc. by which its votaries sought to ‘follow God’ made them conspicuous (
διαφανεῖς) and exceptional among the Greeks. See Rohde
Psyche^{2} II pp. 159 —171.
ὁ γὰρ Κρεώφυλος κτλ.
Κρεώφιλος was read before Ast on slight MS authority, and gives an excellent sense to
τοῦ ὀνόματος—φανείη: but
Κρεώφυ—λος is confirmed by all the best MSS, as well as by Callimachus (
Epigr. 6 ap. Strabo XIV 638
Κρεωφύλου πόνος εἰμὶ κτλ.) and others: see Pape-Benseler s.v. Plato speaks of him as Homer's friend or disciple (for
ἑταῖρος has this meaning here: cf.
ἑταίρους in C and
Soph. 216 A
ἑταῖρον —τῶν ἀμφὶ Παρμενίδην κτλ. with Bonitz
Ind. Arist. s.v.): others, including the Scholiast, say he was his son-in-law. The Epic poem
Οἰχαλίας ἅλωσις was ascribed to Creophylus by Callimachus (l.c.): but according to another tradition, Creophylus received the poem from Homer himself in return for hospitality (Suidas s.v.
Κρεώφυλος).
τοῦ ὀνόματος ‐‐ ἔζη
. Cf. Cic.
de repub. III
Frag. 38 Nobbe Sardanapalus ille vitio multo quam nomine ipso deformior (as if
Σαρδανό‐φαλλος).
Κρεώφυ—λος (from
κρέας and
φῦλον: ‘Carnigena’ ‘Fleischgeburt,’ suggests Schneider) is an
ὄνομα γέλοιον πρὸς παιδείαν: for Beef suggests anything but culture. “I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wits” (
Twelfth Night I 3. 90). The Greeks had the same feeling: cf. Plato's remarks on the effects of over-much feeding and athletics in III 411 C—E
μισόλογος δή, οἶμαι, ὁ τοιοῦτος γίγνεται καὶ ἄμουσος, and Euripides
Frag. 284 D
indorf, with the comic fragment
παχεῖα γαστὴρ λεπτὸν οὐ τίκτει νόον. Plato means that the proof of the pudding is in the eating: Homer must have been a poor teacher if his disciples (including Creophylus) learnt so little. Had he taught them successfully they would have proved their
παιδεία by treating their master more respectfully: cf.
Gorg. 519 C
, D, where we are told that if teachers of
δικαιοσύνη do not get paid by their pupils, it only shews that they have failed to teach their subject and therefore deserve no fees.
λέγεται— ἔζη means ‘for it is said that he was much neglected even in his own age, when he was
alive,’ whereas it is precisely during his lifetime that he would have been most respected if he had taught to any purpose: witness the enthusiasm aroused by Protagoras, Prodicus and other teachers! Thus understood,
ὅτε ἔζη has a strong rhetorical emphasis and ought not to be discarded (with Cobet, Baiter, and Herwerden). For
ἐκείνου after
αὐτοῦ referring to the same person cf. VII 538 B and Riddell
Digest of Platonic Idioms p. 143 § 49. If we adopt Ast's conjecture and read
ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου, the passage gains a little in point, because
αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου will then refer to Creophylus: but it is difficult to make the subject of
ἔζη different from the antecedent of
αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου, and on the whole I no longer think there is any good reason for deserting the MSS.
ἀλλ’ οἴει κτλ.
For
οἴει thus used cf.
Men. 93 C
with Heindorf on
Theaet. 147 B
.
Πρωταγόρας μὲν ἄρα κτλ.
With the structure of the sentence cf. (with Stallbaum)
Crit. 50 E
and
Prot. 325 B
, C, where
ἄρα occurs, as here, in both clauses. See also on I 336 E and App. IV to Book I. Prodicus survived to 399 at least, but Protagoras seems to have died about 411; so that if the date of action of the dialogue is 410, the reference to Protagoras as apparently still living may seem an anachronism. But the slip is a trifling one in any case; and Socrates might quite well have spoken as he does even if either or both of the persons had recently died. See
Introd. § 3.
οὔτε οἰκίαν ‐‐ παιδείας
. Cf.
Prot. 318 E
ff. and
Men. 91 A
ff.
ἐπὶ ταῖς κεφαλαῖς περιφέρουσιν
: ‘carry about shoulder-high’ (“auf den Händen tragen” Schneider). Ast quotes Dio Chrys.
Or. IX p. 141 A
ὑψηλὸν φερόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, and the imitation of this passage by Themistius
Or. XXI p. 254 A
ὃν ἡμεῖς διὰ ταύτην τὴν φαντασίαν μόνον οὐκ ἐπὶ ταῖς κεφαλαῖς περιφέρομεν. It is clear that the phrase has a honorific meaning, so that it cannot be, as Erasmus (quoted by Ast) imagined, “translatum—a matribus ac nutricibus, quae infantulos cunis impositos capite portant,” whether children were thus carried in antiquity or no.
ὀνινάναι
. See cr. n. I agree with Hermann, Baiter and the Oxford editors in preferring
ὀνινάναι to
ὀνῆναι (so Bekker and Schneider on slight MS authority) or
ὀνῆσαι (Stallbaum, after one MS of Aristides II p. 432).
ὀνῆναι is a very dubious formation, and the present gives a better meaning than the aorist. The error arose from lipography of
‐να‐: and
ὀνεῖναι, ὀνῆναι look like attempts to make the residue into an infinitive.
παρὰ σφίσιν οἴκοι εἶναι
: ‘to be with them in their homes.’
παρὰ σφίσιν οἰκεῖν, which Cobet (
V. L.^{2} p. 534) and Herwerden desire to read, would not necessarily mean more than ‘to dwell in their country.’ With the sentiment cf.
Men. 89 B
(quoted below).
αὐτοὶ ἂν ἐπαιδαγώγουν
: ‘they would have made themselves their tutors and escorted them’ etc.
παιδαγωγεῖν is used in the same playful way in
Alc. I 135 D
κινδυνεύσομεν μεταβαλεῖν τὸ σχῆμα, ὦ Σώκρατες, τὸ μὲν σὸν ἐγώ, σὺ δὲ τοὐμόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅπως οὐ παιδαγωγήσω σε ἀπὸ τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας, σὺ δ’ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ παιδαγωγήσει. The proverb
δὶς παῖδες οἱ γέροντες perhaps lends an additional point to
ἐπαιδαγώγουν, as in
Soph.
Fr. 623
Dindorf=
Eur.
Bacch. 193
γέρων γέροντα παιδαγωγήσω σ’ ἐγώ.
μεταλάβοιεν
. The regular sequence would be
μετέλαβον, but cf.
Men. 89 B
οὓς ἡμεῖς ἂν—ἐφυλάττομεν ἐν ἀκροπόλει, κατασημηνάμενοι πολὺ μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ χρυσίον, ἵνα μηδεὶς αὐτοὺς διέφθειρεν (
διαφθείρειεν conj. Madvig),
ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ ἀφίκοιντο εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν, χρήσιμοι γίγνοιντο ταῖς πόλεσιν. The difference is the difference between ‘should’ and ‘should have.’
πάντας τοὺς ποιητικούς
: see on 595 C.
μιμητὰς εἰδώλων
: ‘imitators of images.’ The words can scarcely mean ‘forgers of semblances,’ ‘imitative makers of shadows,’ as suggested by J. and C., in spite of 599 D
εἰδώλου δημιουργός and
τοῦ εἰδώλου ποιητής in 601 B. The images which the poet manufactures are in fact images of images, according to both 598 B and 596 B ff.: cf. 602 B note
νῦν δή
. 598 B, C.
ὁ ζῳγράφος κτλ.
: ‘the painter will make what seems to be a shoemaker, in the eyes of those who understand as little about shoemaking as he does himself, but judge by colour and form.’ The dative is the dative of person judging, and does not directly depend on
δοκοῦντα εἶναι, though doubtless affected by it. This explanation is better, I think, than to construe
τοῖς μὴ ἐπαΐουσιν either directly with
δοκεῖν (so Vermehren
Pl. St. p. 120, comparing
ὥστε ἑτέροις—δοκεῖν below), or with
ποιήσει (“und für diejenigen, die auch nichts verstehen” Schneider).
