Plato Republic 2.374

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.) — 2.374 focus

Notes on the current edition

Republic

1. Cf. 567 E τί δέ; αὐτόθεν. In the fourth century
it was found that amateur soldiers could not compete with professionals, and war became a trade
(Butcher, Demosthenes p. 17). Plato arrives at the same result by his principle one man one task (370 A-B). He is not here making citizens synonymous with soldiers nor laconizing as Adam says.
2. For the thought of this a fortiori or ex contrario argument cf. 421 A.
3. ἵνα δή ironical.
4. Cf. 370 B-C.
5. The ironical argument ex contrario is continued with fresh illustrations to the end of the chapter.
6. Cf. on 467 A.
7. For the three requisites, science, practice, and natural ability Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, note 596, and my paper on Φύσις, Μελέτη, Ἐπιστήμη, Tr. A. Ph. A. vol. xl., 1910.
8. Cf. Thucydides ii. 40.
9. First mention. Cf. 428 D note, 414 B.

Commentary

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

αὐτοὶ οὐχ ἱκανοί ; Glauco speaks as an Athenian citizen-soldier. In making war a profession, and citizens synonymous with soldiers, Plato is laconizing. The language which Isocrates ( Archid. 81) applies to Sparta might in point of fact be used of Plato's State: τῶν Ἑλλήνων διενηνόχαμεν οὐ τῷ μεγέθε<*> τῆς πόλεως, οὐδὲ τῷ πλήθει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ) ὅτι τὴν πολιτείαν ὁμοίαν κατεστησάμεθα στρατοπέδῳ καλῶς διοικουμένῳ καὶ πειθαρχεῖν <*>θέλοντι τοῖς ἄρχουσιν. Cf. Grote Plato III pp. 176, 209.

ὡμολογοῦμεν : without εἶναι as in X 610 C ἀθανάτους τὰς ψυχὰς ὁμολογεῖν, and Soph. 246 E . The analogy of these cases shews that ἀδύνατον here is not neuter but masculine, agreeing with ἕνα. The reference is to 370 B.

ἀλλ’ ἄρα . As διεκωλύομεν is certainly interrogative, Ast conjectured ἆρα for ἄρα, but ἄρα ( nimirum) is regularly present in a fortiori arguments of this kind, either in the δέ clause ( Ap. 34 C , 37 C, D, Crito 46 D) or in both ( Crito 50 E, Prot. 325 B , C). In place of the second ἄρα is here written δὴ ( τὰ δὲ δὴ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον κτλ.). For the combination ἀλλ’ ἄρα cf. Soph. 243 E ἀλλ) ἄρα τὰ ἄμφω βούλεσθε καλεῖν ὄν; Ἴσως.

ἀλλὰ σκυτοτόμον . See cr. n. and Introd. § 5. The homoioteleuton as well as the presence of the clause ἵνα—γίγνοιτο is in favour of the genuineness of these words: and the construction itself, which requires ἐκελεύομεν or the like to be supplied out of διεκωλύομεν (see Heindorf on Gorg. 457 C and Kühner Gr. Gr. II p. 1072), is too idiomatic to have been readily invented by a scribe.

ἐφ’ ᾧ : with σχολὴν ἄγων (Schneider): cf. Ap. 36 D . The phraseology here recalls 370 B and C.

ἢ οὕτω ῥᾴδιον : singular in spite of the plural τὰ περί. Cf. (with Schneider) Hipp. Maior 299 A, Laws 708 D.

τε καὶ ὀργάνων is ejected by Herwerden, who is also inclined to denounce τὰ ὄργανα below. But it is just these words which “point the analogy: the weapons of the warrior are his tools.” (J. and C.) On similarly inadequate grounds τῶν νέων has been condemned in Euthyph. 3 A τοὺς τῶν νέων τὰς βλάστας διαφθείροντας: see my note ad loc. τινος ἄλλης μάχης below refers for example to ψιλοί or πελτασταί; the ἀσπίς (it should be remembered) was worn by the ὁπλίτης (whence ἀσπίδα μὲν λαβὼν—ὁπλιτικῆς). The necessity of special knowledge and training for success in war is insisted on by the historical Socrates in Xen. Mem. III 1.

φυλάκων . This is the first occurrence of φύλακες in the technical sense which it bears throughout the Republic. It is important to remember that the name includes not only the soldiers, but also—after they have been introduced— the rulers; when it becomes necessary to distinguish between the two classes, the former are called ἐπίκουροι (first named in III 414 B), the latter φύλακες παντελεῖς (III 414 B), τέλεοι φύλακες (IV 428 D) or the like, or more commonly ἄρχοντες (first alluded to in III 389 B, but not expressly separated off until 412 B ff., and finally and fully described only in Books VI and VII).

ὅσον γ’ ἂν δύναμις παρείκῃ . The phrase is not found elsewhere in Plato, although παρείκει is found with a personal subject ( ὁ θεός, θεοί) again in Theaet. 150 D , Laws 934 C. Herwerden would eject δύναμις (cf. Symp. 187 E καθ’ ὅσον παρείκει), but such a word is very unlikely to have been interpolated. δύναμις is simply ‘our powers’: the article is omitted as in the idiomatic κατὰ δύναμιν, εἰς δύναμιν.

σκύλακος . A play on σκύλαξ and φύλαξ is intended. Analogies from the animal kingdom were freely employed by the historical Socrates: for the dog in particular cf. Xen. Mem. IV 1. 3 καὶ τῶν κυνῶν τῶν εὐφυεστάτων, φιλοπόνων τε οὐσῶν καὶ ἐπιθετικῶν τοῖς θηρίοις, τὰς μὲν καλῶς ἀχθείσας ἀρίστας γίγνεσθαι—, ἀναγώγους δὲ γιγνομένας μᾳταίους τε καὶ μανιώδεις καὶ δυσπειθεστάτας. Cf. note on φύεται 370 A.

αἰσθανόμενον : ‘the moment he perceives.’ The present (where one might expect the aorist) emphasizes the rapidity with which pursuit follows upon sight.

ἀνδρεῖος . For ἀνδρεῖος applied to beasts cf. Isocr. 15. 211 εἰ περὶ τοὺς ἵππους καὶ τοὺς κύνας καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ζῴων ὁρῶντες τέχνας ἔχοντάς τινας, αἷς τὰ μὲν ἀνδρειότερα, τὰ δὲ πραότερα, τὰ δὲ φρονιμώτερα ποιοῦσι, περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν μηδεμίαν οἴονται τοιαύτην ηὑρῆσθαι παιδείαν κτλ. See also Lach. 196 D — 197 B and Arist. Eth. Nic. III 11. 1116^{b} 33 ff.

θυμοειδής . The technical term θυμοειδής is here for the first time used in the Republic. Plato probably inherited the word from Socrates (see Xen. Mem. IV 1. 3 τῶν τε ἵππων τοὺς εὐφυεστάτους, θυμοειδεῖς τε καὶ σφοδροὺς ὄντας κτλ.): in practice he employs it as the adjective corresponding to θυμός (see e.g. III 411 A, B), as ἐπιθυμητικός corresponds to ἐπιθυμία. The usual translation ‘spirited’ probably expresses the meaning as nearly as can be done by a single word. For a full discussion of the word reference may be made to P. Meyer ὁ θυμὸς ap. Arist. Platonemque (1876), whose conclusion (p. 65) is “ τὸν θυμὸν esse eam naturalem vim, qua ductus suam quisque propriam naturam explere studeat, quaque incitatus, quaecunque hanc naturam ipsi propriam tollere vel laedere conentur, fugiat, quae contra perfectiorem reddere possint, adpetat.” See also on IV 439 E.

ἄμαχόν ‐‐ ἀνίκητον . Ast may be right in supposing that Plato has in view the words of Heraclitus, often referred to in antiquity, θυμῷ μάχεσθαι χαλεπόν· ὅ τι γὰρ ἂν χρηίζῃ γίνεσθαι, ψυχῆς ὠνέεται ( Fr. 105 B ywater).

οὗ παρόντος ‐‐ ἀήττητος . Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. III 11. 1116^{b} 26 ἰτητικὠτατον γὰρ ὁ θυμὸς πρὸς τοὺς κινδύνους.

ἐναντία γὰρ ‐‐ φύσις . Plato regarded this opposition as the fundamental antithesis of human character, and thought it a statesman's foremost duty to blend the θυμοειδές and πρᾶον harmoniously together: see Pol. 306 C — 311 C, infra III 410 B ff., VI 503 C, Theaet. 144 A , B.

ταῦτα ‐‐ ἔοικεν . Van Heusde ( Initia Phil. Plat. p. 471 note 1) somewhat hastily declares these words to be corrupt, and supplies ἀμφότερα ἔχειν after ταῦτα δέ. ταῦτα refers like τούτων simply to the two qualities πρᾶον and μεγαλόθυμον: ‘these’—meaning the combination of these as opposed to one of them—‘are apparently unattainable’: cf. VI 499 D οὐ γὰρ ἀδύνατος γενέσθαι, οὐδ’ ἡμεῖς ἀδύνατα λέγομεν.

ἐνοήσαμεν ‐‐ φύσεις . ἐνενοήσαμεν (with q) is read by most of the editors, quite unnecessarily, as Schneider shews. νοεῖν is not ‘putare,’ nor— I think—‘perpendere,’ but simply ‘animadvertere,’ ‘notice,’ as often. Such a meaning is peculiarly appropriate with ἴδοι following. Presently ἄρα is not ‘then’ (J. and C.), but ‘after all.’

τῷ φύλακι : not τῷ σκύλακι, as Groen van Prinsterer conjectured ( Plat. Prosop. p. 209). τῷ φύλακι of course depends on παρεβάλλομεν, and ἐν ᾧ is for ἐν τούτῳ ὃ.

αὐτῶν τὸ ἦθος . With αὐτῶν (unnecessary, but welcome, after τῶν γενναίων κυνῶν) cf. IV 428 A note

πρὸς μὲν ‐‐ τοὐναντίον . In Od. XVI 4—10 the dogs of Eumaeus do not bark at Telemachus, and Odysseus remarks (8, 9) Εὔμαἰ, ἦ μάλα τίς τοι ἐλεύσεται ἐνθάδ’ ἑταῖρος | ἢ καὶ γνώριμος ἄλλος, ἐπεὶ κύνες οὐχ ὑλάουσιν | ἀλλὰ περισσαίνουσι. See also Od. XIV 30, where they bark at the stranger Odysseus, and cf. Heracl. 115 (Bywater) κύνες καὶ βαύζουσι ὃν ἂν μὴ γινώσκωσι. In Aristotle similar characteristics are attributed to the lion: see Physiogn. 5. 809^{b} 34—36 μεγαλόψυχον καὶ φιλόνικον, καὶ πραΰ καὶ δίκαιον καὶ φιλόστοργον πρὸς ἃ ἂν ὁμιλήσῃ, and Hist. An. IX 44. 629^{b} 10—12.

πρὸς τῷ θυμοειδεῖ κτλ. There seems to be no other example in good Greek of προσγενέσθαι meaning ‘to become in addition’: but we may compare προσέσονται II 373 A, προσέχειν VII 521 D, προσείπωμεν X 607 B, and similar instances with other verbs. I formerly wrote φιλόσοφον for φιλόσοφος (‘that to the element of spirit nature should have added’— προσγενέσθαι, i.q. accessisse, cf. I 346 D —‘a philosophical temperament’). The accusative with infinitive has however a harsh effect. Herwerden cuts the knot by deleting the προς‐ of προσγενέσθαι.

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 .