Plato Republic 2.369

τὴν τοῦ μείζονος ὁμοιότητα . Justice in the State is in fact to be used as a means of explaining Justice in the Individual, which is after all the real Justice: cf. IV 443 B ff. notes The relation between the two is that of a παράδειγμα and that which the παράδειγμα is intended to explain: see Pol. 278 C οὐκοῦν τοῦτο μὲν ἱκανῶς συνειλήφαμεν, ὅτι παραδείγματός γ) ἐστὶ τότε γένεσις, ὁπόταν ὂν ταὐτὸν ἐν ἑτέρῳ διεσπασμένῳ, δοξαζόμενον ὀρθῶς καὶ συναχθὲν περὶ ἑκάτερον ὡς συνάμφω μίαν ἀληθῆ δόξαν ἀποτελῇ; Φαίνεται. Plato has been severely blamed (as e.g. by Grote Plato III pp. 123 ff.) for representing the Commonwealth as the Individual “writ large.” Plato, however, laid stress upon this view, as tending to cement the union between the citizen and the State, which was rapidly dissolving in his day. This is well brought out by Krohn Plat. Frag. p. 5. Cf. also Pöhlmann Gesch. d. antik. Kommunismus etc. pp. 146 ff.

εἰ γιγνομένην ‐‐ ἀδικίαν . This would lead us to expect that we are to discover Justice and Injustice in the same State. In the sequel we find Justice only in the Ideal City: it is the degenerate Cities of VIII and IX that furnish the picture of Injustice. Plato does not expressly announce his change of plan till IV 420 B, C: ᾠήθημεν γὰρ ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ μάλιστα ἂν εὑρεῖν δικαιοσύνην καὶ αὖ ἐν τῇ κάκιστα οἰκουμένῃ ἀδικίαν—νῦν μὲν οὖν—τὴν εὐδαίμονα πλάττομεν—αὐτίκα δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν σκεψόμεθα. The discrepancy must, I think, be admitted (see Krohn Pl. St. p. 32, and Kunert die doppelte Recens. d. Pl. St. pp. 10 ff.), but such corrections and developments of plan are characteristic of the dialogue as a form of literature, and do not establish the theory of a double recension of the Republic. Cf. Grimmelt de reip. Pl. comp. et unit. p. 19, and Westerwick de Rep. Pl. pp. 43—45.

γίγνεται ‐‐ πόλις κτλ. The present episode is ostensibly an historical account of the genesis of society, and from this point of view should be compared with Laws III 676 A ff. Some of the features are derived from an analysis of the industrial basis of society as it exists in civilised times: others (see 372 B—D), are semi-mythical and idyllic, recalling pictures of the golden age such as we find in Pol. 269 C ff., and in the caricatures of the comedians (e.g. ap. Athen. VI 267 E ff.). But the prevailing atmosphere is not historical or legendary, but idealistic (note δεῖ in 369 E and elsewhere), and Plato's πρώτη πόλις (Arist. Pol. Δ 4. 1291^{a} 17) should primarily be regarded as—in its essential features—a preliminary and provisional description of the industrial foundation on which the higher parts of his own ideal city are to rest. Cf. also on 372 B, D, Rettig Proleg. in Plat. remp. p. 42 and Steinhart Einleitung p. 156.

τυγχάνει as a mere copula is very rare in Attic prose, and it would be easy here to insert ὤν after πολλῶν: see Porson on Eur. Hec. 782 . In the Platonic dialogues this usage recurs in Phaedr. 263 C , Gorg. 502 B , Alc. I 129 A, 133 A, Hipp. Mai. 300 A, Laws 918 C, Tim. 61 C , nor is it possible in the last three examples to account for its omission by lipography. The idiom occurs in Sophocles and Euripides, once in Aristophanes ( Eccl. 1141), and (though condemned by Phrynichus) must also be admitted (though rarely) in prose: see the instances cited by Blaydes on Ar. (l.c.) and cf. Rutherford's New Phrynichus p. 342.

πολλῶν ἐνδεής . In the account of the genesis of society given in the Laws (676 A—680 E), more stress is laid on the social instinct of man: in Prot. 322 B ff the operating cause is man's defencelessness against wild beasts. Grote ( Plato III p. 139 note) censures Plato for not mentioning the “reciprocal liability of injury” among the generative causes of civic life; but this (as well as assistance against external aggression) is hinted at in βοηθούς.

ἄλλος ‐‐ χρείᾳ . The words are short for ἄλλος ἄλλον, τὸν μὲν ἐπ’ ἄλλου, τὸν δ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλου χρείᾳ (for the omission of τὸν μέν cf. Prot. 330 A , Theaet. 181 D al.): ‘one taking to himself one man, another another—the one man for one, the other for another purpose.’ Essentially the same meaning would no doubt be conveyed without τὸν δ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλου, which Herwerden following two inferior MSS would omit; but the fuller form of expression is chosen in order, I think, to prepare us for the principle of ‘One man, one work’ to be presently enunciated.

ταύτῃ τῇ ξυνοικίᾳ . Stallbaum rightly regards the sentence as an anaco luthon, the antecedent to ταύτῃ being the words from παραλαμβάνων to βοηθούς. If the subject to ἐθέμεθα (a gnomic aorist) were ἄλλος—δεόμενοι—ἀγείραντες, we should probably have had παραλαμβάνοντες for παραλαμβάνων: and besides, Plato is not yet describing the particular city which we are ποιεῖν λόγῳ (infra line 19), but laying down the law as to the γένεσις of cities in general. For the anacoluthon see Engelhardt Anac. Pl. Spec. III p. 40.

τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα : neuter, not masculine; otherwise Plato would have written θεραπευτῶν (as in q and some other MSS).

ἀναγκαιοτάτη πόλις . Referring to this passage, Aristotle ( Pol. Δ 4. 1291^{a} 10—19) attacks Plato for making the end of his city not τὸ καλόν, but τὰ ἀναγκαῖα. No doubt, the end of this ‘first city’— so Aristotle calls it—is primarily τὰ ἀναγκαῖα; but Plato would reply that the cities of the farmers, the auxiliaries, and the rulers, are in reality one city, γινομένη μὲν τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν, οὐσα δὲ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν (Arist. Pol. A 2. 1252^{b} 29. Cf. Laws 828 D δεῖ δὲ αὐτὴν καθάπερ ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ζῆν εὖ).

ἕνα ἕκαστον κτλ. Cf. Charm. 161 E δοκεῖ ἄν σοι πόλις εὖ οἰκεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τούτου τοῦ· νόμου τοῦ κελεύοντος τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἱμάτιον ἕκαστον ὑφαίνειν καὶ πλύνειν, καὶ ὑποδήματα σκυτοτομεῖν, καὶ λήκυθον καὶ στλεγγίδα καὶ τἄλλα πάντα κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον κτλ.;

πλούτου δὲ οὐδέν and Liebhold ( Fl. Jahrb. 1888, p. 107)

κόσμου δὲ ἄλλο μὲν <ἔχοντ)> οὐδέν for τοῦτον δὲ ἄλλο μὲν οὐδέν. Neither of these proposals has any plausibility, and it is best to regard this as one of the places where we owe the right reading to Π .