Plato Republic 4.436

φιλοχρήματον is another name for ἐπιθυμητικόν, ὅτι διὰ χρημάτων μάλιστα ἀποτελοῦνται αἱ τοιαῦται ἐπιθυμίαι (IX 580 E).

τούτων ἕκαστα refers to the actions described in μανθάνομεν μὲν ἑτέρῳ etc. τούτῳ (see cr. n.) can only be defended by referring it (with Schneider) “to the subject of the triple predicate τὸ θυμοειδές, τὸ φιλομαθές, and τὸ φιλοχρήματον.” There is a certain obscurity in this construction, and τούτων ἕκαστα prepares us for μανθάνομεν μὲν ἑτέρῳ, θυμούμεθα δέ etc. better than ἕκαστα alone would do.

ταὐτὸν ‐‐ ἅμα is the earliest explicit statement in Greek literature of the maxim of Contradiction; cf. Theaet. 188 A , Phaed. 102 E , 103 B, Soph. 230 B and infra X 602 E. Plato may have been led to formulate it in opposition to Heracliteanism, which was supposed by some to be the negation of the principle (see Arist. Met. Γ 3. 1005^{b} 24 and Theaet. 152 D ff.), or against the Megarian puzzles (see RP.^{7} § 226), or as a counterblast to both. Many of the sophistries of the Euthydemus turn on the violation of this law. In Aristotle's formula ( Met. l.c. 1005^{b} 19) πρὸς ταὐτόν does not occur; and Hartman would cancel καὶ πρὸς ταὐτόν here and πρὸς τὸ αὐτό in 436 E, on the ground that it means the same as κατὰ ταὐτόν. But assuredly it does not. κατὰ ταὐτόν is ‘in the same part of it’ as the instances presently cited shew; while πρὸς ταὐτόν is ‘relatively to the same thing,’ viz. to something other than the subject of the proposition. πρὸς τὰ αὐτά and κατὰ ταὐτά are also both of them found in the parallel passage Soph. 230 B . πρὸς ταὐτόν covers such cases as are adduced in Theaet. 154 C —155 C: six dice are πλείους πρὸς τέτταρας, ἐλάττους πρὸς δώδεκα, but they are not ἐναντία πρὸς ταὐτόν. Cf. VII 524 A ff., and see also on ἢ καὶ εἴη in 437 A.

ἦν is not precisely ἐστὶν ὥσπερ ᾠόμεθα (Stallbaum); for the reference is actually to the past, and the past tense should be kept in translating it. See II 357 A note and cf. X 609 B. The so-called ‘philosophic imperfect’ gets credit for more than it deserves, because we are apt to suppose that the past excludes the present, which is not always true: cf. VI 497 C note

εἶεν by itself in replies is rare. It occurs (if the MSS are right) in Symp. 206 E , Crat. 410 C , Men. 75 C . In the last two passages, Heindorf (on Crat. l.c.) is inclined to rearrange the speakers; but it is safer, both there and here, to keep the traditional arrangement. See on I 332 D.

χαριεντίζοιτο ‐‐ κομψευόμενος may refer to some Megarian quibbles on this subject. Zeno's argument to shew that ἡ οἰστὸς φερομένη ἕστηκεν proceeded on a different principle: see Arist. Phys. VI 9. 239^{b} 30 ff.

ἢ καὶ ‐‐ δρᾷ . “Repetendum ὡς ex praegressis” (Stallbaum). Schneider connects δρᾷ with ὅταν: in that case we must understand after τοῦτο δρᾷ something like ὡς καὶ τοῦτο ὅλον ἕστηκέ τε ἅμα καὶ κινεῖται. Stallbaum's view is the simpler, and should, I think, be preferred. I have accordingly removed the comma usually printed after κινοῦνται .

ὡς οὐ ‐‐ φερομένων . This clause has proved a source of great perplexity. Schneider suggests that μενόντων is a partitive genitive, ἐστί being omitted; Stallbaum, that τὰ τοιαῦτα is adverbial, like τοιουτοτρόπως; while, according to J. and C., τὰ τοιαῦτα “is to be taken as cognate accusative with the participles.” Rather than accept any of these suggestions, it would, I think, be preferable to expunge τὰ τοιαῦτα altogether (with Ast), or to place it after ἀποδεχοίμεθα (as Gildersleeve suggests, A. J. Ph. VI p. 333 note 2), or even perhaps to read τῶν τοιούτων with Richards, although little short of a miracle could have corrupted τῶν τοιούτων to τὰ τοιαῦτα. The following interpretation, which appears to me right, has not, so far as I know, been hitherto suggested. ταὐτά goes closely with the partitive genitive ἑαυτῶν, and is a predicate to τὰ τοιαῦτα, which is also governed by κατά (cf. the familiar usage with ὥσπερ and a preposition in similes, e.g. Theaet. 170 A ὥσπερ πρὸς θεοὺς ἔχειν τοὺς ἐν ἑκάσταις ἄρχοντας etc.: see on VIII 553 B). μενόντων τε καὶ φερομένων is a genitive absolute. The sentence is in every respect an elegant and idiomatic piece of Greek, and means: ‘because such parts, in respect of which they both stand still and move on these occasions, are different parts of them.’ τὰ τοιαῦτα—the meaning of which is easy to catch after the examples given above —forms a welcome preparation for εὐθύ τε καὶ περιφερές in the following clause.

ἔστιν . I formerly rejected this word (with Galen de Hipp. et Plat. decr. IX Vol. V p. 799 ed. Kühn, Herwerden, and Flor. U). It is certainly more pointed to connect ἑστάναι with φαῖμεν ἄν, and Glauco's καὶ ὀρθῶς γε (sc. φαῖμεν ἄν) is easier without ἔστιν. But there is not sufficient ground for deserting the best MSS. For other examples of replies referring to the earlier part of the previous sentence see V 465 E note