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.