Plato Republic 4.440

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.) — 4.440 focus

Notes on the current edition

Republic

1. Socrates has heard and trusts a, to us, obscure anecdote which shows how emotion may act as a distinct principle rebuking the lower appetites or curiosities. Leontius is unknown, except for Bergk’s guess identifying him with the Leotrophides of a corrupt fragment of Theopompus Comicus, fr. 1 Kock, p. 739.
2. He was following the outer side of the north wall up the city. Cf. Lysis 203 A, Frazer, Paus. ii. 40, Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, i. p. 190.
3. The corpses were by, near, or with the executioner ( ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀρύγματι) whether he had thrown them into the pit ( βάραθρον) or not.
4. Cf. Antiphon fr. 18 Kock
πληγείς, τέως μὲν ἐπεκράτει τῆς συμφορᾶς
, etc., and
Maids who shrieked to see the heads
Yet shrieking pressed more nigh.
5. He apostrophizes his eyes, in a different style from Romeo’s,
Eyes, look your last.
6. αὐτόν: we shift from the θυμός to the man and back again.
7. ἀντιπράττειν: that is, opposite the reason. It may be construed with δεῖν or as the verb of αὐτόν. There are no real difficulties in the passage, though many have been found. The order of the words and the anacoluthon are intentional and effective. Cf. on 434 C.
οὐκ ἂν . . . ποτέ
is to literal understanding an exaggeration. But Plato is speaking of the normal action of uncorrupted θυμός. Plato would not accept the psychology of Euripides’ Medea (1079-1080):
καὶ μανθάνω μὲν οἷα δρᾶν μέλλω κακά, θυμὸς δὲ κρείσσω τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων
. Cf. Dr. Loeb’s translation of Décharme, p. 340.
8. αἱροῦντος: cf. 604 C, and L. and S. s. v. A. II. 5.
9. So Aristotle Rhet. 1380 b 17
οὐ γίγνεται γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸ δίκαιον
, and Eth. Nic. 1135 b 28
ἐπὶ φαινομένῃ γὰρ ἀδικίᾳ ἡ ὀργή ἐστιν
. This is true only with Plato’s reservation γενναιότερος. The baser type is angry when in the wrong.
10. Cf. Demosthenes xv. 10 for the same general idea.
11. ὃ λέγω: idiomatic, as I was saying.
12. ἐν τούτῳ: possibly in such an one, preferably in such a case. θυμός is plainly the subject of ζεῖ. (Cf. the physiological definition in Aristotle De anima 403 a 31
ζέσιν τοῦ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν αἵματος
), and so, strictly speaking, of all the other verbs down to λήγει. καὶ διὰ τὸ πεινῆν . . . πάσχειν is best taken as a parenthesis giving an additional reason for the anger, besides the sense of injustice.
13. τῶν γενναίων: i.e. the θυμός of the noble, repeating ὅσῳ ἂν γενναιότερος ᾖ above. The interpretation does not desist from his noble (acts) destroys this symmetry and has no warrant in Plato’s use of γενναῖος. Cf. 375 E, 459 A. The only argument against the view here taken is that θυμός is not the subject of λήγει, which it plainly is. The shift from θυμός to the man in what follows is no difficulty and is required only by τελευτήσῃ, which may well be a gloss. Cf. A.J.P. xvi. p. 237.
14. καίτοι γε calls attention to the confirmation supplied by the image. Cf on 376 B, and my article in Class. Journ. vol. iii. p. 29.
15. Cf. 440 B and Phaedrus 237 E.

Commentary

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

ὦ κακοδαίμονες . ‘Confound you!’

τὴν ὀργήν . q reads τὸν θυμόν, which Ast and others have preferred. But, as Schneider observes, ὀργή is to θυμός, as ἐπιθυμίαι to ἐπιθυμητικόν. If anger fights with desire, the source of anger, θυμοειδές, must be different from that of desire, ἐπιθυμητικόν. This is the whole moral of the anecdote, which is intended to establish the difference between θυμοειδές and ἐπιθυμητικόν only, not also λογιστικόν.

ταῖς δ) ἐπιθυμίαις κτλ. αὐτόν is τὸν θυμόν. ἀντιπράττειν “ad singularem aliquam actionem referendum est, quam ratio suscipere eaque in re sibi repugnare prohibeat, quasi dictum sit: μὴ δεῖν τι πράττειν καὶ τοῦτο δρῶντα ἀντιπράττειν” (Schneider). The words γενομένου τοῦ τοιούτου refer to ταῖς— κοινωνήσαντα. The anacoluthon is an easy one. Plato means merely that θυμός does not unite with the desires against the reason. For αἱροῦντος λόγου cf. X 604 C note On other views on this passage consult App. IV.

ὅσῳ ‐‐ ᾐ . The restriction will be noted. It is not οἱ γενναῖοι who, as the saying is, hate those whom they have injured.

οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ κτλ. : ‘does not he then fume and chafe—and fight on the side of what he believes to be just—both at hunger and at cold and all such inflictions, and bide his ground and conquer, abating not his noble indignation, until he has either achieved his purpose, or perished, or has been called back and soothed by the reason within him, as a herdsman recalls his dog?’ The words καὶ διὰ τὸ πεινῆν—πάσχειν must be taken with ζεῖ τε καὶ χαλεπαίνει, but possibly καὶ ξυμμαχεῖ τῷ δοκοῦντι δικαίῳ has been displaced, and we should read ζεῖ τε καὶ χαλεπαίνει καὶ διὰ τὸ πεινῆν—πάσχειν, καὶ ξυμμαχεῖ τῷ δοκοῦντι δικαίῳ, καὶ ὑπομένων κτλ. νικᾷ is not merely ‘tries to conquer’ or ‘perseveres’ (Schneider), but ‘conquers,’ in spite of the pardonable inconsistency of this translation with τελευτήση— πραυνθῆ. τῶν γενναίων cannot mean “in the case of the noble’ (P. Shorey A. J. Ph. XVI p. 237), unless θυμός is the subject of λήγει, which is not, I think, the case. The meaning is caught the more readily by reason of οὐχ ὅσῳ ἂν γενναιότερος ᾖ in C, and we ought not to substitute ἀγανακτῶν or the like with Richards. See on the whole passage App. V.

καίτοι γε =‘and surely’ has no adversative force here. See Kugler de part. τοι etc. p. 18. Hartman emends, but see on I 331 E.

ἦ. See cr. n. εἰ in direct interrogation is unclassical, and ἐρωτῶ cannot be supplied. Nor can εἰ well be taken as conditional (with Stallbaum) and τὸ ποῖον as a sudden interruption. For the confusion of ει and η see Introd. § 5.

ἀρτίως . 439 E.

τίθεσθαι κτλ. : ‘defends the rational element.’ I have retained the accusative on the strength of CIA II 317. 9 λαβόντος τοῦ δήμου τὰ ὄπλα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθ <ερί> ας καὶ παρακαλοῦ <ν> τος καὶ τοὺς στρατιώτας τίθεσθαι πρὸς τὴν πόλιν. The inscription dates from about 280 B.C. Other editors read τοῦ λογιστικοῦ (with Ξ alone among the MSS), but do not cite any example of the phrase τίθεσθαι τὰ ὄπλα πρός τινος, although πρός with the genitive is common enough in similar expressions. Thucydides (II 2. 4) has παρά with the accusative like πρός here. The original meaning of the idiom was to take up a position in arms by the side of: see Schneider's Xen. Anabasis pp. 537—540 and the commentators on Thuc. l.c. For the metaphor cf. Arist. Pol. Ath. 8. 5. F. K. Hertlein (quoted in Hartman) also defends the accusative, citing Aen. Polior. 4. 3 ἐτίθεντο τὰ ὅπλα παρὰ τοὺς πολεμίους ὡς παρὰ φιλίους.