Plato Republic 10.604

Paul Shorey (Translator)

Republic. Plato. Paul Shorey (Translator). Cambridge, MA. 1935-37.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

Republic (English) (Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 5-6. Shorey, Paul, translator. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1935-37 (printing).)

Editions (1)
Πολιτεία Perseus (Platonis Opera Tomus IV: Tetralogia VIII. Burnet, John, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.) — 10.604 focus

Notes on the current edition

Republic

1. Cf. Laws 645 A, Phaedr. 238 C, and for the conflict in the soul also Rep. 439 B ff.
2. The conflict proves that for practical purposes the soul has parts. Cf. 436 B ff.
3. Cf. Apology, in fine.
4. Cf. Laws 803 B and Class. Phil. ix. p. 353, n. 3, Friedländer, Platon, i. p. 143.
5. Höffding, Outlines of Psychology, p. 99, refers to Saxo’s tale of the different effect which the news of the murder of Regner Lodbrog produced on his sons: he in whom the emotion was the weakest had the greatest energy for action.
6. Cf. Herod. i. 20
πρὸς τὸ παρεὸν βουλεύηται
.
7. Cf. Eurip. Electra 639 and fr. 175
πρὸς τὸ πῖπτον
, Iph. Aul. 1343 and Hippol. 718
πρὸς τὰ νῦν πεπτωκότα
, Epictet. ii. 5. 3. See also Stallbaum ad loc.
8. Cf. 440 B, 607 B, Herod. i. 132.
9. Cf. Demosthenes’ description of how barbarians box iv. 40 (51),
ἀεὶ τῆς πληγῆς ἔχεται
.
10. Cf. Soph. Ajax 582
θρηνεῖν ἐπῳδὰς πρὸς τομῶντι πήματι
with Ovid, Met. i. 190:
sed immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est.
11. Cf. on 603 B, p. 450, note a.
12. ἔχει in the sense of involves, admits of, as frequently in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

Commentary

Commentary on Plato, Republic (Plato. The Republic, Vol 1-2. Adam, James, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902-1903.) focus

τόδε . See cr. n. τὸ δέ, though supported by most MSS and retained by Bekker and others, cannot, I think, be right. “Nescias τὸ cum νῦν construendum, an per se pro τοῦτο accipiendum sit. Hoc communi, illud Platonicae loquendi consuetudini repugnat. Contra τόδε offensione caret, et quoniam nexus inter haec et superiora intercedens paullo ante particula δέ post νῦν significatus est, δή—abesse posse videtur” (Schneider).

ἀντιτενεῖν . See cr. n. Schneider and the more conservative editors keep the present; but it is much more difficult to defend such a difference in tense with τε—καί than for example in 601 D. Cf. I 342 A note Stobaeus ( Flor. 124. 43) has μάχεσθαί τε καὶ ἀντιτείνειν, which may be right.

μόνος is bracketed by Cobet ( V. L.^{2} p. 361) and others. Cf. however Polit. 307 E αὐτοὶ καθ’ αὑτοὺς μόνοι and other examples in Ast Lex. Plat. s.v. μόνος.

ποιήσει κτλ. Richards would write ποιῆσαι, but ποιήσει is much more forcible. The words ἃ—δρῶντα mean ‘which he would not like any one to see him do’: not “which he would not choose to see another doing” (J. and C.). Cf. ἃ εἴ τις αὐτοῦ ἀκούοι αἰσχύνοιτ’ ἄν. It should be remembered throughout this passage that violent demonstrations of grief did not offend the Greek sense of propriety so much as they offend ours: cf. Bosanquet Companion p. 396.

αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος : “the affliction itself” (D. and V.): “das Leiden selbst” (Schneider), objectively understood: not “perturbatio” (Ficinus) or “Leidenschaft” (Schleiermacher). See Krohn Pl. St. p. 256.

δύο is of course neuter, but δύο τινέ ( q Flor. U) hardly makes the gender clearer and ought not to be preferred.

ἐν αὐτῷ . See cr. n. αὐτῷ, which Schneider and others retain, has a great preponderance of MS authority, but is not sufficiently precise: for the two principles do not merely belong to the man, but are in him: cf. 603 B. This kind of error is a common one in Paris A: see Introd. § 5. Morgenstern's conjecture αὐτώ, which Burnet adopts, would refer “ad proxime commemorata πάθος et λόγον·, quae diversa et duo esse Socrates iam supra posuit, non nunc demum colligit” (Schneider). φαμέν need not be parenthetical: for εἶναι can be omitted as well as ἐστί, and its presence would have been awkward here, on account of the εἶναι to which δύο is subject. See Schanz Nov. Comm. Pl. pp. 33 f.

τῷ νόμῳ . Richards proposes τῷ λόγῳ in view of λόγος καὶ νόμος above and λογισμῷ 604 D. This conjecture would introduce a false and unpleasing contrast between τῷ λόγῳ and ὁ νόμος. The repetition of ὁ νόμος is for emphasis.

δήλου ὄντος ‐‐ προβαῖνον . Cf. Euthyph. 4 D and other grammatical parallels in Kühner Gr. Gr. II p. 648.

οὔτε τι κτλ. The sentiment is repeated and expanded in Laws 803 B ff.

ὁ λόγος αἱρεῖ . Cf. IV 440 B and infra 607 B. The origin of this frequent phrase is, I think, to be sought in the legal rather than, as Schneider supposes, in the military meaning of αἱρεῖν. Cf. “voluptatem—convictam superiore libro” in Cic. de Fin. III 1. Badham (on Phil. 35 D ) strangely conjectures that the figure is “borrowed from the draught-board.”

ἀλλὰ μὴ προσπταίσαντας κτλ. Cf. (with Stallbaum) Dem. Phil. I 40. The curious error πλήττοντος for πληγέντος, found in several MSS besides A, is perhaps due to a reminiscence of V 469 E.

πρὸς τῷ ἰᾶσθαι κτλ. See cr. n. In Stephanus-Hase Thes. s. v. πρός it is said that γίγνεσθαι πρός τι= “occupatum esse circa aliquid vel in aliquo vel in aliqua re,” but no certain examples are given. I agree with the Oxford editors in thinking the dative right as against the accusative, which the German editors retain. Cf. VIII 567 A note

πεσόν . The conjecture πταῖσαν (Herwerden Mn. XIX p. 340) is worse than unnecessary. ἀφανίζοντα agrees of course with the subject of ἐθίζειν, which is singular, in spite of προσπταίσαντας. We need not (with Apelt Obs. Cr. p. 12) write ἀφανίζοντας or ἀφανίζουσαν: see on I 347 A.

ἰατρικῇ κτλ. Stallbaum reads τὴν θρηνῳδίαν with q (see cr. n.). “In dictione poetica articulum etiam minus desidero” (Schneider). The article would be comparatively tame.

τούτῳ τῷ λογισμῷ means the λογισμός expressed in λέγει που ὁ νόμος (B) — ἀφανίζοντα (D). Stallbaum was the first to restore λογισμῷ (from ΑΠ etc.) for the λογιστικῷ of inferior MSS.

ἔχει κτλ. ἔχει= ἐνδέχεται, as often. The Euripidean drama forcibly illustrates what Plato here says. τὸ ἀγανακτητικόν may be regarded as a degenerate variety of the θυμοειδές: cf. III 411 A—C and supra 602 C note

μιμουμένου . See cr. n. μιμούμενον, if it could be taken as passive, would be better and more pointed; but there is apparently no other example of the present participle of this verb used passively, and we are hardly justified in reasoning from the perfect ( μεμιμημένα Crat. 425 D ) etc. to the present. Schneider thinks μιμούμενον may be active, ‘the imitator’ being said instead of ‘the imitation’ (“nor is it easy to understand one who tries to imitate him” J. and C.). But we cannot help feeling that εὐπετές as well as ῥᾴδιον ought to agree with ἦθος. I therefore follow Stallbaum in preferring the genitive absolute μιμουμένου, which has the authority of q and several other MSS in addition to Π.

ἄλλως τε ‐‐ ξυλλεγομένοις . Cf. VI 492 B.

πέφυκε τε ‐‐ πέπηγεν . It is easy to carry on the negative if we read τε and not γε, which is in all MSS except A^{1}. πέφυκε πρός, like πεποίηται πρός in 598 B, is here said of the relation of Art to that which it imitates, as appears from ἀλλὰ πρὸς—εὐμίμητον εἶναι. The word πέπηγεν means ‘is framed’ or ‘constructed,’ i.q. πεποίηται (598 B): cf. VII 530 D. The infinitive is the old datival infinitive of purpose ‘constructed for pleasing’ ‘to please’: see Goodwin MT. pp. 297, 310 f. Various unnecessary and unpleasing conjectures have been proposed: the addition of οὐ before τούτῳ (Stephanus), ἡ σοφία αὐτῷ τούτῳ ἀρέσκειν πέφυκεν (Cornarius Ecl. p. 102): the transposition of πέφυκε and πέπηγεν (Valckenaer on Eur. Phoen. 923 ): and οὐ τοῦ τούτῳ ἀρέσκειν πεπείνηκεν (Richter in Fleck. Jb. 1867 p. 147).

εἰ μέλλει ‐‐ τοῖς πολλοῖς . See on VI 493 D and cf. Reber Pl. u. die Poesie pp. 54—59.

οὐκοῦν δικαίως ‐‐ ζῳγράφῳ . See on 603 B.

μοχθηροὺς ‐‐ πόλιν κτλ. τούς is not required before μοχθηρούς any more than τούτοις after πόλιν (Herwerden's conjectures in Mn. XIX p. 340). With πολιτείαν—ψυχῇ cf. IX 590 E and X 608 B.

εἴδωλα εἰδωλοποιοῦντα κτλ. See cr. n. εἰδωλοποιοῦντα seems also to have been the reading of the first hand in Vind. F. The dative εἰδωλοποιοῦντι is retained by Schneider, who makes it agree with τῷ ἀνοήτῳ and regards ἀφεστῶτα as neuter plural. This interpretation, though grammatically tenable, is otherwise unsatisfactory. Plato (in 605 A) has just correlated Poetry with Painting because Poetry also a produces φαῦλα πρὸς ἀλήθειαν and b consorts with φαῦλόν τι τῆς ψυχῆς. On both grounds, he concludes, Poetry must be proscribed: for b τοῦτο ἐγείρει—τοτὲ δὲ σμικρά, and a εἴδωλα εἰδωλοποιεῖ. The chiastic sequence is usual in Plato. If we read εἰδωλοποιοῦντι, Plato assigns only one of his two main reasons for the exclusion of Poetry, viz. b, and the correspondence between this and the preceding sentence disappears. On this account Stallbaum and others are, I believe, right in restoring the accusative, and making ἀφεστῶτα, as well as εἰδωλοποιοῦντα, agree with τὸν μιμητικὸν ποιητήν. The error—an easy one after διαγιγνώσκοντι and ἡγουμένῳ — affected ἀφεστῶτα also in at least one MS, for Ξ has ἀφεστῶτι .

αὐτῆς . That is, τῆς ποιήσεως. Cf. VI 503 E note

τὸ γὰρ καὶ τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς . See on 595 B.

τινὰ τῶν ἡρώων κτλ. Cf. III 387 D. In ῥῆσιν—κοπτομένους the contrast is between a ῥῆσις or set speech, spoken and not sung, “quales multae in tragoediis, Euripidis praesertim” (Casaubon apud Stallbaum), and κομμοί, which are sung. Hence ἢ καὶ—κοπτομένους, ‘or if you like singing and beating the breast,’ is perfectly accurate, and we ought not to change καὶ ᾄδοντας into κλάοντας or κλαίοντας (with Ast, Cobet, Baiter) or ᾄδοντας into ἀλύοντας (with Winckelmann). For ἢ καί cf. 599 A note The readings τινὰς—ὄντας—ἀποτείνοντας in q and some other MSS are only attempts to obliterate the common irregularity of a singular ( τινά etc.) passing into a plural: see on I 347 A. Richards ‘suspects’ that Plato wrote μιμουμένου—ἀποτείνοντος—κλαίοντος—κοπτομένου. The conjecture is as unnecessary as it is bold.

χαίρομεν κτλ. Pity, according to Aristotle, as well as Plato, is aroused by Tragedy: see Poet. 6. 1449^{b} 27. With συμπάσχοντες κτλ. cf. Arist. Pol. Θ 5. 1340^{a} 12 ἔτι δὲ ἀκροώμενοι τῶν μιμήσεων γίνονται πάντες συμπαθεῖς, and with ἐπαινοῦμεν — διαθῇ Laws 800 D ὃς ἂν δακρῦσαι μάλιστα τὴν θύσασαν παραχρῆμα ποιήσῃ πόλιν, οὗτος τὰ νικητήρια φέρει , Phil. 48 A τάς γε τραγικὰς θεωρήσεις, ὅταν ἅμα χαίροντες κλάωσι and Ion 535 E. See also on 606 B and III 395 D.